| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Disunion and Restoration in Tennessee - Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University
Author: Neal, John Randolph
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Disunion and Restoration in Tennessee - Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University" ***
This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.
TENNESSEE***
generously made available by Internet Archive (https://archive.org)
Note: Images of the original pages are available through
Internet Archive. See
https://archive.org/details/disunionrestorat00neal
Transcriber’s note:
Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
DISUNION AND RESTORATION IN TENNESSEE
by
JOHN RANDOLPH NEAL, M.A., LL.B.
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Faculty of Political Science
Columbia University
New York
The Knickerbocker Press
1899
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER PAGE
I. SEPARATION 1
II. RESPONSIBILITY FOR SEPARATION 12
III. LOYALTY OF EAST TENNESSEE 16
IV. RESTORATION OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT 24
V. RECOGNITION BY CONGRESS 32
VI. TENNESSEE AND THE NEW AMENDMENTS 39
VII. FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE RADICAL GOVERNMENT 44
VIII. RADICAL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION 52
IX. KU-KLUX OUTRAGES 57
X. CLOSE OF THE RADICAL DOMINATION 66
XI. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1870 74
DISUNION AND RESTORATION IN TENNESSEE
CHAPTER I
SEPARATION
The vote of Tennessee in the presidential election of 1860 shows
conclusively that at that time a majority of her citizens did not hold
disunion sentiments. Her electoral vote was cast for John Bell and
Edward Everett, who represented, as their platform expressed it, “no
political principle other than the Constitution of the country, the
Union of the States, and the enforcement of the laws.”
The first step toward secession was not the result of popular
initiative, but was mainly due to the efforts of the Governor of the
State, Isham G. Harris. Governor Harris had entered public life just
after the rupture between Andrew Jackson and Hugh Lawson White, which
had resulted in the formation, in Tennessee, of the Whig party. For
thirty years the Whigs and Democrats contended for the control of the
State. They were so equally matched that victory often turned upon the
individual strength of the candidate. This resulted in the development
of a class of public men who possessed, in a high degree, the usually
divergent abilities of public speakers and party leaders. From this
school of practical politics were graduated James K. Polk, Cave
Johnson, Felix Grundy, John Bell, and Andrew Johnson.
The contest between the Whigs and Democrats, which was at first merely
a personal quarrel, soon ripened into a division along true party
lines. The Democrats, after the death of Andrew Jackson, joined the
national Democratic party in its struggle for the perpetuation and
extension of slavery. The Whigs on the other hand shared in the broad
policies and national aspirations of the national Whig party.
Governor Harris had at the very beginning of his career allied himself
with the Democrats. As early as 1849, he had been elected to Congress,
where he became conspicuous for his advocacy of extreme State rights.
In 1857 he defeated Neil S. Brown for governor, and was re-elected in
1859. It was not difficult to predict what his action would be in the
crisis of 1860. Immediately after the election of President Lincoln,
he issued a call for an extra session of the Legislature. It convened
on the seventh day of January, and on the same day he sent in his
message. This message is worthy of study, as it has been pronounced by
a distinguished writer to be “the ablest and most succinct as well as
the most intelligent presentation and justification of the reasons for
the action of the seceding States.”[1] It began with the following
description of the crisis confronting the State: “The long,
systematic, and wanton agitation of the slavery question, with actual
and threatened aggressions of the Northern States and a portion of
their people upon the well-defined constitutional rights of the
Southern citizens, the rapid increase of a purely sectional party,
whose bond of union is uncompromising hostility to the rights and
institutions of the fifteen Southern States, have produced a condition
in the affairs of the country unparalleled in the history of the past,
resulting already in the withdrawal from the Confederacy of one of the
sovereignties which compose it, while others are rapidly preparing to
move in the same direction.”[2]
This opening statement was followed by an historical review in which
was traced the growth of the Republican party. The offences it had
committed against the Southern States were then enumerated. Among
other things, he said:
“It has sought to appropriate to itself, and to exclude the
slaveholders from, the territory acquired by the common
blood and treasure of all. It has, through the
instrumentality of the Emigrants’ Aid Society under State
patronage, flooded the territories with its minions armed
with Sharp’s rifles and bowie knives, seeking thus to
accomplish by intimidation, violence, and murder what it
could not do by constitutional means.
“It claimed the constitutional right to abolish slavery in
the District of Columbia, the forts, arsenals, dock-yards,
and other places ceded to the United States within the
bounds of the slaveholding States. It proposed a prohibition
of the slave-trade between the States, thereby crowding the
slaves together, and preventing the exit south until they
became unprofitable to such an extent that it would force
the owner finally to abandon them in self-defence. It has,
by the deliberate legislative enactments of a large majority
of the Northern States, openly and flagrantly nullified the
clause of the Constitution which provided for the return of
fugitive slaves.
“It has, through the executive authority of the States,
denied the extradition of murderers and marauders.
“It obtained its own compromise in the Constitution to
continue the importation of slaves, and now sets up a higher
law than the Constitution to destroy the property imported
and sold to us by their fathers.
“It has caused the murder of owners in the pursuit of the
fugitive slave, and shielded from punishment the murderers.
“It has on many occasions sent its emissaries into the
Southern States to corrupt our slaves, induce them to run
off, and excite them to insurrection. It has by its John
Brown and Montgomery raids invaded sovereign States and
murdered peaceful citizens. It has justified and exalted to
highest honors of admiration the horrid murders, arsons, and
rapines of the John Brown raid, and canonized the felons as
saints and martyrs.
“It has burned the towns, poisoned the cattle, and conspired
with the slaves to depopulate Northern Texas. In has through
certain leaders proclaimed to the slaves the terrible motto:
‘Alarm to the sleep, fire to the dwellings, and poison to
the food and water of the slaveholders.’
“It has repudiated the decision of the Supreme Court.
“It has assailed our rights, guaranteed by the plainest
provisions of the Constitution, from the floor of each House
of Congress, the pulpit, the hustings, the schoolroom, their
State Legislatures, and through the public press, dividing
churches, and disrupting political parties and civil
government.”
The party that had committed the offences enumerated was in possession
of the House of Representatives, and had elected one of its leaders to
the presidency, and in the progress of events the Supreme Court and
Senate must also pass into its hands. With such a party in power,
Governor Harris contended that the Union could be preserved only on
the condition that certain amendments to the Constitution should be
adopted, which would put slavery beyond its attacks.
The amendments he suggested were:
1. Establish a line upon the northern boundary of the present slave
States, extend it through the territories to the Pacific Ocean, upon
such parallel of latitude as will divide them equitably between North
and South, expressly providing that all territory now owned, or that
may be hereafter acquired, north of said line shall be forever free,
and south of it forever slave.
2. In addition to the fugitive-slave clause, provide, that, whenever a
slave has been demanded of the executive authority of the State to
which he has fled, and is not delivered, and the owner permitted to
carry him out of the State in peace, the State so failing to deliver
shall pay to the owner double the value of such slave, and secure his
right of action in the Supreme Court.
3. Provide for the protection of the owner in the peaceable possession
of his slave while in transition or temporarily sojourning in any of
the States of the Confederacy, and, in the event of the slave’s
escaping or being taken from the owner, require the State to return,
or account for, him as in the case of a fugitive.
4. Especially prohibit Congress from abolishing slavery in the
District of Columbia, in any dock-yard, navy-yard, arsenal, or any
district of any character whatever, within the limits of any slave
State.
5. Provide that these amendments shall never be changed except by
consent of all the slave States.
With these amendments to the Constitution, Governor Harris said that
he could feel that the rights of the Southern States were reasonably
secure, not only in theory, but in fact, and should indulge the hope
of living in the Union in peace. “If the non-slaveholding States
refuse to comply with a demand so just and reasonable; refuse to
abandon at once and forever their unjust war upon us, our
institutions, and our rights; refuse, as they have heretofore done to
perform, in good faith, the obligations of the compact of the Union,
much as we appreciate the power, prosperity, and glory of this
government, deeply as we deplore the existence of the causes which
have already driven one State out of the Union, much as we regret the
imperative necessity which they have wantonly and wickedly forced upon
us, every consideration of self-preservation and self-respect requires
that we should assert and maintain our equality in the Union, or our
independence out of it.”
The message closed with the following recommendation to the
Legislature: “I recommend that you provide by law for submitting to
the people of the State the question of Convention or No Convention;
and also the election of delegates by the people to meet in State
Convention at the Capitol at Nashville, at the earliest day
practicable, to take into consideration our federal relations, and
determine what action shall be taken by the State of Tennessee for the
security of the rights and the peace of her citizens. This will place
the whole matter in the hands of the people, for them, in their
sovereignty, to determine how far their rights have been violated, the
character of the redress or guaranty they will demand, or the action
they will take for their present and future security.”
The Legislature proceeded without delay to put into effect the
recommendations contained in Governor Harris’s message. On January
19th it passed an act known as the Convention Bill,[3] which provided
for submitting the question of holding a convention to the vote of the
people. The convention was to take into consideration the relation
between the government of the United States and the people of the
State, and was to have the power to adopt any measures for vindicating
the sovereignty of the State and the people it saw fit.
Only a few days intervened between the passage of the Convention Bill
and the day appointed for taking the popular vote; nevertheless, an
exciting canvass of the State ensued. The people came together in vast
crowds to hear the question debated. The Whig leaders were almost
unanimous in their opposition. They were joined by the Democrats of
East Tennessee. The vote was taken on the fifth of February, 1861. The
result was: 24,749 for the Convention; and, 91,803 against it.
This defeat put a stop for the moment to all official action, as the
Legislature had adjourned, but the public agitation and discussion
continued. The disunion sentiment began to grow very rapidly as a
result of events which were transpiring outside the State. Amid the
intense excitement which followed the taking of Fort Sumter, Governor
Harris issued a call for a second extra session of the Legislature. On
the 18th of April he had replied to President Lincoln’s call for
troops: “Tennessee will not furnish a single man for coercion, but
fifty thousand, if necessary, for the defence of our rights and those
of our Southern brothers.”
The Legislature convened on the twenty-seventh of April. The public
were excluded from its meeting, and its members were pledged to
secrecy. The session opened with the reading of the gubernatorial
message,[4] which asserted that the President of the United States had
wantonly inaugurated an internecine war upon the people of the slave
States. “This war,” he said, “is likely to assume an importance,
nearly, if not equal to the struggle of our revolutionary fathers in
their patriotic efforts to resist usurpations and throw off the
tyrannical yoke of the British Government.
“This declaration of war upon the South has virtually dissolved the
Union. It will be idle to speak of ourselves any longer as members of
the Federal Union; and it is believed by many whose opinions are
entitled to the highest respect, that, by reason of the subversion of
the Constitution by the authorities in power, inaugurating a
revolution between the States thereof, each and every individual is
already released from his obligations to that government; yet, as best
comports with the dignity of the subject, and also from due regard to
those who may hold a different opinion――and further still, that all
the world may be advised of our action,――I respectfully recommend that
our connections with the Federal Union be formally annulled in such
manner as shall involve the highest exercise of the sovereign
authority of the people of the State and best secure that harmony, so
much to be desired, in times like the present, in questions of detail.
The speediest method of accomplishing this will be the perfecting of
an ordinance by the Legislature formally declaring the independence of
the State of Tennessee of the Federal Union, renouncing its authority,
and resuming each and every function belonging to a separate
sovereignty; and said ordinance when perfected should be submitted to
a vote of the people to be by them adopted or rejected. Under existing
circumstances I can see no propriety in encumbering the people of the
State with the election of delegates, to do that which is in our power
to enable them to do directly for themselves. The most direct as well
as the highest act of sovereignty, according to our theory, is that by
which the people vote, not merely for men, but for measures submitted
for their approval or rejection. Since it is only the voice of the
people that is to be heard, there is no reason why they may not as
readily and effectively express themselves upon an ordinance framed
and submitted to them by the Legislature as if submitted by a
convention.“
The Legislature was as eager as before to execute the will of the
Governor. It embodied his recommendations in an act passed May 6,
1861.[5] This act contained two important provisions. The first was:
“Declaration of Independence and Ordinance dissolving the
federal relations between the State of Tennessee and the
United States of America.
“We the people of the State of Tennessee, waiving any
expression of opinion as to the abstract doctrine of
secession, but asserting the right, as a free and
independent people, to alter, reform, or abolish our form of
government in such manner as we think proper, do ordain and
declare, that all the laws and ordinances by which the State
of Tennessee became a member of the Federal Union of the
United States of America are hereby abrogated and annulled,
and that all obligation on our part be withdrawn therefrom;
and we do hereby resume all the rights, functions, and
powers which by any of said laws and ordinances were
conveyed to the Government of the United States, and absolve
ourselves from all obligations, restraints, duties, incurred
thereto; and do hereby henceforth become a free, sovereign,
and independent State.“
This ordinance was to be submitted to a direct vote of the people. Two
sets of tickets were to be prepared; one set marked Separation, the
other Non-Separation. Those favoring the ordinance were to vote the
former ticket, those opposed, the latter. The act of May 6th further
provided for the submission at the same election of the question as to
whether Tennessee, if it severed its relations with the Union, should
join the Confederacy. This question was also embodied in the form of
an Ordinance.
But the Governor and the Legislature did not wait for the popular
verdict upon these Ordinances. As early as May 7th, they extended an
invitation to the Confederacy to select Nashville as its capital city.
A few days later a still more extraordinary step was taken. Governor
Harris, acting under a joint resolution of the Legislature, appointed
three commissioners to negotiate a military league with the
Confederate authorities. These commissioners, representing the State
of Tennessee, and Mr. Henry W. Hilliard, an agent of the Confederacy,
drew up the following agreement:
“Convention between the State of Tennessee and Confederate
States of America.[6]
“The State of Tennessee, looking to a speedy admission into
the Confederacy established by the Confederate States of
America, in accordance with the Constitution for the
Provisional Government of said States, enters into the
following temporary Convention, Agreement, and Military
League with the Confederate States, for the purpose of
meeting pressing exigencies affecting common rights,
interests, and safety of said State and said Confederacy.
“First. Until the said State shall become a member of said
Confederacy, according to the constitutions of both powers,
the whole military force and military operations, offensive
and defensive, of said State in the impending conflict with
the United States, shall be under the chief control and
direction of the President of the Confederate States, upon
the same basis, principle, and footing as if said State were
now during the interval a member of said Confederacy, said
force, together with that of the Confederate States, to be
employed in common defence.
“Secondly. The State of Tennessee will, upon becoming a
member of said Confederacy under the permanent Constitution
of said Confederate States, if the same shall ever occur,
turn over to the Confederate States all the public property
acquired from the United States on the same terms as the
other States of said Confederacy have done in like case.”
This agreement was laid before the Legislature in a special message,
and almost unanimously ratified. Its provisions were promptly
executed. The vote of the people upon the Declaration of Independence
and the Ordinance adopting the Provisional Constitution of the
Confederacy did not occur till the eighth of June. The result of the
vote, as shown by the official returns, was as follows:
------------------+---------------+-----------------
| Separation. | No Separation.
------------------+---------------+-----------------
East Tennessee | 14,780 | 32,923
Middle Tennessee | 58,265 | 7,956
West Tennessee | 29,127 | 6,117
Camps | 6,246 |
+---------------+-----------------
Total | 108,418 | 46,996
------------------+---------------+-----------------
------------------+-----------------+-------------------
| Representation. | No Representation.
------------------+-----------------+-------------------
East Tennessee | 14,061 | 32,962
Middle Tennessee | 58,198 | 8,298
West Tennessee | 28,912 | 6,104
Camps | 6,340 |
+-----------------+-------------------
Total | 107,511 | 47,364
------------------+-----------------+-------------------
Immediately after the election, Gov. Harris issued a proclamation
announcing Tennessee’s withdrawal from the Union. This was followed by
the proclamation of Jefferson Davis, officially declaring that
Tennessee had become a member of the Confederacy. On the first of
August the State adopted the permanent Confederate Constitution by
vote of 83,133 for, 30,357 against.
Nothing now remained to complete Tennessee’s absorption into the
Confederacy but the election of representatives to the Confederate
Congress. In October, the Legislature selected Langdon C. Haynes and
Gustavus Henry as Confederate Senators. Haynes was a distinguished
Democrat of East Tennessee, while Henry was a Whig. Representatives to
the Lower House were chosen by a vote of the people. Here again the
Whigs and Democrats were equally represented.
[1] Cox: _Three Decades of Federal Legislation_.
[2] Acts of Tennessee, Extra Session, 1861, pp. 1 to 13.
[3] Acts of Tennessee, Extra Session, 1861, p. 14.
[4] Acts of Tennessee, 2d Extra Session, 1861, pp. 1 to 11.
[5] Acts of Tennessee, 2d Extra Session, 1861, p. 13.
[6] Acts of Tennessee, 2d Extra Session, 1861, p. 19.
CHAPTER II
RESPONSIBILITY FOR SEPARATION
Just as radical differences of opinion have existed as to the parties
responsible for the whole secession movement, so the action of
Tennessee has been variously interpreted. A number of writers have
contended that the majority of her citizens were never in favor of
secession, and it was only a _coup d’état_ of Governor Harris that
carried the State into the Confederacy. This view is a survival of the
opinion once so widely prevalent in the North that the Civil War was
the result of a conspiracy of a few ambitious Southern politicians,
who tricked the mass of the Southern people into a war which never had
their genuine approval.
It must be confessed that at first view the mode of Tennessee’s
withdrawal gives some countenance to this theory. In February, 1861,
she had placed her disapproval upon secession by voting down a
proposition to call a convention. Instead of yielding to this mandate
of the people, Governor Harris and the Legislature had entered into a
military league with the Confederate authorities, and having thus
surrendered the real control of the State, they again went through the
form of appealing to a plebiscite for approval of their action.
Nevertheless, we are confident that an unprejudiced examination of
these events will show that Tennessee, with the exception of the
eastern part of the State, joined the Confederacy as willingly as
South Carolina or Mississippi.
In the first place, these writers have made the mistake of classing
Tennessee among the border States. Mr. Wilson in his _History of the
Slave Power_ says: “Exactly why Tennessee should have been taken out
of the Union, while Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri were prevented
from going, no man is wise enough to say. At least, none but general
reasons can be given. Exactly why the conspirators were foiled in one
case and not in the other, exactly by whom the current of treason was
checked and turned in the one and not in the other, the wisest can
only conjecture.”
The answer to the problem which Mr. Wilson found so difficult to solve
lies in the fact that conditions in Tennessee were in no wise similar
to those in Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. These border States were
not distinctly slave States. In all of them the institution of slavery
existed, but their industrial system was not based upon it. This arose
largely from the fact that cotton was not their chief staple.
Tennessee, on the other hand, was a great cotton-producing State.
According to the census of 1860, her annual product was 296,465 bales
of 400 lbs. each. Her interest was therefore identical with the
extreme Southern States. If there were to be two republics side by
side, one free and the other slave, both sentiment and interest
apparently demanded that Tennessee should cast her lot with the
latter.
When the vote of February was taken she was confronted by no such
dilemma. At that time, the Confederacy had not yet been organized, and
it was by no means clear that war would occur. In June, conditions had
entirely changed. The Confederacy was an established fact, and actual
hostilities had commenced. Neither side would permit Tennessee to
occupy a neutral position. She must fight either for or against the
South.
This change in the issues is clearly shown in the two messages of
Governor Harris. In his message of January 7th, he had sought to
establish the right of secession, and justify its present or immediate
assertion. But these principles had found no support in the Whig
party. Their opposition defeated the proposal for a convention. The
keynote to his second message is found in the following passage:
“Whatever differences may have heretofore existed amongst us growing
out of party divisions, as to the constitutional right of secession as
a remedy against usurpations, all admit the moral right asserted by
our fathers to resist wrong and to maintain their liberties by
whatever means necessary.” This was a direct appeal to the right of
revolution, and it found as ready a response among the Whigs as the
Democrats. It was therefore this change in the issue, and not coercive
means adopted by Governor Harris, that turned the tide toward
disunion.
The recognized leader of the Whig party was John Bell. Throughout his
long career in the service of the national government, he had
consistently opposed the doctrine of secession. In the presidential
election of 1860, he, even more than Mr. Lincoln, was the Union
candidate. When the question of holding a convention was submitted to
a vote of the people, he vigorously opposed it. In this opposition he
was joined by Neil S. Brown, Cave Johnson, Ewing, and other
distinguished Whig politicians. It was due to their efforts that the
Convention proposal was defeated. The vote against the Convention was
91,803. This represented the entire Whig party, and the Democrats of
East Tennessee. The votes cast for the Convention came almost wholly
from the Democrats of Middle and West Tennessee. In short, the
election of February was a division along party lines. Its result was
simply an indication that the Whig party of Tennessee was still
opposed to the doctrine of secession.
In June, party lines had been obliterated. For only a few weeks
elapsed after the defeat of the Convention, till a majority of the
Whig leaders, either in public addresses or through the public press,
counselled withdrawal from the Union. The contest now became
sectional; it was East Tennessee against Middle Tennessee and West
Tennessee. Governor Harris, in his negotiations with the Confederate
authorities, was counselled and supported by both Whigs and Democrats.
Although the unfavorable verdict of the people upon secession had not
been formally reversed, he was conscious that a real change had taken
place in their sentiments, and that he was, in fact, executing their
will by concluding a military league with the Confederacy.
CHAPTER III
LOYALTY OF EAST TENNESSEE
While we have attempted to show the untenable position of those who
maintain that the majority of the people of Tennessee were opposed to
separation and it was only a _coup d’état_ of Governor Harris that
carried the State into the Confederacy, it is, however, true that a
great number of her inhabitants did resist withdrawal and remain
openly loyal. This was especially the case with East Tennessee. Her
persistent loyalty is a striking illustration of the physical
conditions and causes which lay behind the Civil War. Tennessee had
been settled by a common stock of pioneers from North Carolina. Many
of these, attracted by the beautiful scenery and genial climate, had
found homes east of the Cumberland Mountains, while others had crossed
the mountains and taken possession of the rich tablelands and the
alluvial bottoms of Middle and West Tennessee. When the State was
admitted into the Union, in 1796, her population was homogeneous. The
institution of slavery existed in all sections of the State.
In West and Middle Tennessee, where the soil and climate were suitable
for raising cotton, slave labor was very profitable. In East
Tennessee, the poor upland farms scarcely yielded a return to white
labor. As the result of this difference in natural conditions, slavery
flourished in West and Middle Tennessee, but in East Tennessee, by
1860, it had become almost extinct, except upon the rich plantations
that bordered the Tennessee River. The efforts to form a Confederacy
based upon slavery found, therefore, no support among the inhabitants
of East Tennessee. Their interests and sympathy were with the free
States of the North, and they rejected by a vote of two to one every
proposal looking toward separation.
In the eyes of the nation, Andrew Johnson stood as the representative
of East Tennessee loyalty. Upon the floor of the United States Senate
he denounced the withdrawal of the Southern members as treason, and
refused to vacate his own seat even after Tennessee had been
proclaimed by Jefferson Davis a part of the Confederacy.
Next to Johnson, the most prominent Union man was W. G. Brownlow, the
editor of the _Knoxville Whig_. Mr. Brownlow is in many respects the
most unique figure in the history of Tennessee. He commenced life as a
carpenter’s apprentice, but after serving his apprenticeship he
entered the Methodist ministry and travelled as a circuit rider for
ten years without intermission. His love of controversy led him into
most of the political and religious discussions of the day, and gained
for him the name of the “Fighting Parson.” About 1835 he became the
editor and publisher of a Whig newspaper, which rapidly gained a
larger circulation than any other political paper in the State.
In the presidential election of 1860 Mr. Brownlow supported Bell and
Everett. After the election his voice was on the side of peaceful
acquiescence in the results. In vigorous editorials he denounced the
sentiments expressed in the message of Governor Harris to the extra
session of the Legislature. After the passage of the Convention Bill
he joined several prominent citizens in issuing a call for an “East
Tennessee Convention.” Every county in East Tennessee except two
responded to the call. The Convention assembled at Knoxville, on the
13th of May, 1861. The delegates present numbered four hundred and
sixty-nine, and represented twenty-eight counties. Hon. Thos. A. R.
Nelson was elected chairman. On motion, he appointed a committee to
prepare and report business for the Convention.
This committee drew up an address to the people, which was in part as
follows:[7]
“Our country is at this moment in a most deplorable
condition. The Constitution of the United States has been
openly contravened and set at defiance, while that of our
own State has shared no better fate, and by the sworn
representatives of the people has been utterly disregarded.
In this calamitous state of affairs, when the liberties of
the people are so imperilled and their most valued rights
endangered, it behooves them, in their primary meetings and
in all their other accustomed modes, to assemble, consult
calmly as to their safety, and with firmness to give
expressions to their opinions and convictions of right.
“We, therefore, the delegates here assembled, representing
and reflecting, as we verily believe, the opinions and
wishes of a large majority of the people of East Tennessee,
do resolve and declare:
“That the evils which now afflict our beloved country, in
our opinion, are the legitimate offspring of the ruinous and
heretical doctrine of secession; and that the people of East
Tennessee have ever been, and we believe still are, opposed
to it by a very large majority. That while the country is
now upon the very threshold of a most ruinous and desolating
Civil War, it may with truth be said, and we protest before
God, that the people, so far as we can see, have done
nothing to produce it. That the people of Tennessee, when
the question was submitted to them in February last, decided
by an overwhelming majority that the relations of the State
towards the Federal Government should not be changed;
thereby expressing their preference for the Union and the
Constitution under which they had lived prosperously and
happily, and ignoring in the most emphatic manner the idea
that they had been oppressed by the General Government in
any of its acts, legislative, executive, or judicial.
“That in view of a so decided expression of the will of the
people, in whom all power is inherent and on whose authority
all free governments are founded, and in the honest
conviction that nothing has transpired since that time which
should change that deliberate judgment of the people, we
have contemplated with peculiar emotions the pertinacity
with which those in authority have labored to over-ride the
judgment of the people and to bring about the very result
which the people themselves had so overwhelmingly condemned.
“That the Legislative Assembly is but the creature of the
Constitution of the State, and has no power to enact any
laws or to perform any act of sovereignty, except such as
may be authorized by that instrument: and believing, as we
do, that in their recent legislation, the General Assembly
have disregarded the rights of the people and transcended
their own legitimate powers, we feel constrained, and we
invoke the people throughout the State, as they value their
liberties, to visit that hasty, unconsiderate, and
unconstitutional legislation with a decided rebuke, by
voting on the eighth day of next month against both the Act
of Secession and that of Union with the Confederate States.
“That the Legislature of the State, without having first
obtained the consent of the people, had no authority to
enter a ‘Military League’ with the ‘Confederate States’
against the General Government, and by so doing to put the
State of Tennessee in hostile array against the Government
of which it then was and still is a member. Such legislation
is in advance of the expressed will of the people to change
their governmental relations, was an act of usurpation, and
should be visited with the severest condemnation of the
people.”
This report was unanimously adopted by the Convention and ordered to
be printed, so that it might be circulated among the voters of the
State. Before the Convention adjourned it was addressed by Andrew
Johnson. According to a contemporary report, “he spoke for three hours
and commanded earnest attention throughout his entire speech.”
In the election of June 8th, the vote of East Tennessee stood: 14,780,
separation; 39,923, no separation; 14,601, representation; 32,962, no
representation.
Nine days after the election, a second Convention of Union men
assembled at Greenville. Two hundred and ninety-nine delegates were
present. Many of them were in favor of forming at once a Provisional
Government and organizing an army, but after a heated discussion more
moderate counsel prevailed. A Declaration of Grievances was drawn up
by the same committee that had prepared the address to the people
adopted by the Knoxville Convention. A new committee was appointed to
prepare and present a memorial to the State Legislature, asking its
consent to the formation of a new State to be composed of East
Tennessee and such counties in Middle Tennessee as desired to
coöperate to that end. But before this committee had an opportunity to
present the memorial to the Legislature the Confederate Government had
put it beyond the power of Tennessee to act in the matter by
organizing East Tennessee into a military department, and placing
General Zolicoffer in supreme command. His presence in Knoxville with
several regiments of soldiers prevented any further steps towards the
formation of a new State hostile to the Confederacy.
There was at first no disposition on the part of the Confederate
authorities to deal harshly with the loyal inhabitants of East
Tennessee, or to coerce them into the Confederate army. They were
allowed to remain undisturbed in their ordinary occupations. The
general leniency with which they were treated is shown by the fact
that Mr. Brownlow was allowed to continue the publication of the
_Knoxville Whig_, although every issue contained editorials denouncing
the action of Governor Harris and the Legislature as treason and
rebellion. This peaceful policy was rudely disturbed by an act of the
Union men themselves. On the night of the eighth of November, an
organized conspiracy was partially carried out by the bands of Union
men, to burn the bridges of the East Tennessee, Virginia, and Georgia
Railway. The bridges over the Hiwassee River, Lick Creek, and three
other streams were destroyed. That one over the Holston River at
Strawberry Plains was saved by the bravery of the watchmen.
This attempt at bridge-burning created the utmost alarm and
excitement. The East Tennessee, Virginia, and Georgia Railway was the
main artery which connected Richmond with the southwest. Thousand of
troops were being hurried over it daily in order to reach Richmond in
time to defend it from McClellan’s advances. The road traversed the
whole eastern part of the State, and on account of its extent could
not be properly patrolled. Extraordinary measures must thereupon be
resorted to, in order to keep open this important line of
communication, and protect the lives of the soldiers from the terrible
disaster which would have resulted from the secret destruction of the
bridges.
On the 25th of November, the Confederate Secretary of War, Mr.
Benjamin, sent the following orders to Colonel Wood, who was in
command of the troops at Knoxville:
“All such as can be identified in having been engaged in
bridge-burning are to be tried summarily by drum-head
court-martial, and if found guilty, executed on the spot by
hanging. It would be well to leave their bodies hanging in
the vicinity of the burned bridges.”
This order was vigorously executed. A number of persons suspected of
complicity in the bridge-burning were seized, and after a summary
trial were executed in the manner suggested by the Secretary of War.
Martial law was proclaimed, and the meetings of Union men forcibly
dispersed.
As a result of these measures there now began a general exodus of the
able-bodied Union men. In small bands they crossed over the mountains
into Kentucky. Many of them joined the Federal army, and rendered
valuable service. Others formed camps safely within the Union lines,
and quietly awaited the termination of the war. Their most prominent
leaders made tours of the Northern cities, and raised funds for their
support. Boston alone contributed over one hundred thousand dollars to
this purpose.[8] Vast crowds listened to the eloquent appeals of these
exiled loyalists, and the impression became general in the North that
the Southern authorities were treating the loyal mountaineers of East
Tennessee with the most savage cruelty. Edward Everett, in a brilliant
oration, compared them with followers of William Tell and the
slaughtered saints of Piedmont.
The sacrifices and sufferings of the loyal inhabitants of East
Tennessee were indeed very great, but there is no evidence that they
were treated by the Confederacy in any manner not necessary and
justified by the usages of war. After the failure of its conciliatory
policy, the Confederacy either had to permit the erection of a hostile
State within the heart of its territory, or coerce the loyalists into
submission. It naturally adopted the latter alternative. It is
frequently stated that in thus adopting coercive methods it acted
inconsistently with the principles under which it withdrew from the
Union. Mr. Everett, in the same speech quoted above, said: “One would
suppose that under the usurped rule of men who profess to go to war
for self-government and State rights, the people of East Tennessee, if
for any reason they saw fit to do so, had a right to burn their own
bridges.”
The absurdity of such statements lies in the fact that they confuse
the denial of coercive powers to federal government, with the denial
of coercive powers to all government. The first is State rights, but
the second is anarchy. It was in perfect harmony with the Southern
theory of State sovereignty, that Tennessee should use any means it
saw fit, to force its citizens into obedience to its laws. The
Confederate army acted as the agent of the State in quelling
insurrection and rebellion in East Tennessee.
After the intense excitement created by the bridge-burning had
somewhat subsided, the Confederate and State authorities again
manifested a desire to win over, or at least conciliate, the Union
element. The commander at Knoxville issued a proclamation to the
“Disaffected People of East Tennessee,” and assured “all those
interested who have fled to the enemy’s lines, and who are actually in
their army, that he will welcome their return to their homes and their
friends; they are offered amnesty and protection, if they come to lay
down their arms, and act as loyal citizens.” But these conciliatory
measures again met with failure, as it soon became necessary to
enforce the military drafts, which aroused the greatest opposition. In
the summer of 1863, East Tennessee became the theatre of active war.
Its history for the next three years is to be found in the military
annals of the State.
[7] Hume’s, _Loyal Mountaineers of Tennessee_.
[8] See Everett’s “Account of the Fund for the Relief of
East Tennessee.”
CHAPTER IV
THE RESTORATION OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT
While Tennessee escaped both executive and congressional
reconstruction, it did not follow in the restoration of its civil
government the plan laid down by President Lincoln. The most
distinctive feature of Lincoln’s reconstruction policy lay in the fact
that it made the old political people in each of the Southern States
self-acting nuclei, which were to bring order out of chaos. According
to this theory, neither the President nor Congress had the power to
reconstruct a State government. The people within a State alone had
the right to initiate and carry into effect measures for the
rehabilitation of the deranged governmental machinery. It was the duty
of the President under Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution, to
see that their efforts in this direction did not prove abortive by
reason of domestic violence.
The germs of this policy may be seen in the instructions sent to the
military governors. It was more fully developed in the amnesty
proclamation of Dec. 8, 1863. By the terms of this proclamation, a
general pardon was granted to all “who directly or by implication had
participated in the rebellion, with certain exceptions specified, upon
their taking an oath to henceforth support the Constitution of the
United States, and abide by the proclamations of the President and the
acts of Congress in relation to slavery.” It was further promised,
“that whenever a number of persons in any of the rebel States, equal
to not less than one tenth of the votes cast in such State in the
presidential election of the year 1860, each having taken the oath
aforesaid, and not having violated it, and being a qualified voter by
the election law of the State existing immediately before the
so-called act of secession, and excluding all others, shall establish
a State government which shall be republican in form, and in nowise
contravening said oath, such shall be recognized as the true
government of the State.”
This was, substantially, Lincoln’s plan for reconstruction. It was not
carried out in any of the Southern States. In all, except Tennessee,
it was succeeded by executive reconstruction under Johnson, which was
in turn supplanted by congressional reconstruction. In Tennessee an
entirely original plan was adopted. This plan shut out from
participation in the work of organizing civil government, all those
who had taken part in secession. An oath of past loyalty was made the
test of political capacity. In short, the restored civil government in
Tennessee was based solely on that portion of its inhabitants that had
remained loyal to the Union. These Union men, or Radicals as they
chose to call themselves, composed about one third of the population
of the State, and represented about one fifth of the taxpayers. It
will be the object of this chapter to trace the steps by which this
small minority seized the reins of government and exercised for three
years absolute control of the State.
After the fall of Fort Donelson, on February 15, 1862, the greater
part of Tennessee soon came into the possession of the Union army,
president Lincoln immediately appointed Andrew Johnson military
governor. Athough vested with almost unlimited powers, Governor
Johnson had at first little opportunity for their exercise, as the
Union army did not remain in peaceful possession of the State. Along
the southern border raged the bloody battles of Shiloh, Chickamauga,
and Missionary Ridge.
By the fall of 1863, the tide of battle had rolled so far southward
that the soil of Tennessee was at last free from contending armies.
The time had now arrived for the restoration of civil government. But
Governor Johnson felt secure in the exercise of his power only so long
as it rested upon a military basis. He therefore seemed in no hurry to
reorganize the State government. He contented himself with filling the
vacant offices, most of which under the laws were elective, by the
appointment of his political friends thereto.
The leaders of the Union men in the State, the majority of whom were
never in sympathy with Johnson, began to grow restive under his
military dictatorship.
In May, 1864, occurred Johnson’s nomination for the Vice-Presidency.
He naturally desired to obtain the electoral vote of his own State. A
Convention was therefore called to meet in Nashville for the purpose
of nominating an electoral ticket. The Union leaders seized the
opportunity which the Convention presented for perfecting an
organization of the Union party. A committee was appointed by the
Convention, and empowered to issue a call for a second Convention.
The second Convention was called to meet in Nashville, Dec. 19, 1864.
It failed to convene on the day appointed, as Nashville was at that
time threatened by Hood’s army. The defeat of the Confederate forces
in the battle of Nashville removed the danger, and the Convention came
together on the third day of January, 1865.
The work of the Convention was summed up in the passage of one
resolution.[9] The first section contained this statement of the
authority under which it claimed to act: “Whereas the first article
and the first section of the Declaration of Rights in the Constitution
of the State of Tennessee declares, ‘That all power is inherent in the
people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and
instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and that for the
advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and
indefeasable right to alter, reform, or amend the governments as they
may think proper,’ We, the people of Tennessee, in Convention
assembled, do propose the following alterations and amendments to the
Constitution, which, when ratified by the sovereign loyal people shall
be and constitute a permanent part of the Constitution of Tennessee.“
This assertion of constituent powers by the Convention was purely a
revolutionary act. The Constitution could be legally changed only in
the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself. In the third section
of the eleventh article, it provided that all amendments must
originate with the State Legislature. In no sense could the Convention
be held to represent the Legislature. It was therefore in the eyes of
the law a body of private citizens.
The second section of the resolution passed by the Convention
contained the proposed amendments. The most important were: the
abolition of slavery, the declaration of the invalidity of the
secession acts, and an article giving the Legislature the power to
determine the suffrage. It was further provided that these amendments
should be submitted to a vote of the people, and if ratified by the
majority of those voting, the military governor was ordered to hold an
election for Governor and Legislature. All voters should be required
to take the following oath: “I solemnly swear that I will henceforth
support the Constitution of the United States, and defend it against
the assaults of all its enemies; that I am an active friend of the
government of the United States, and the enemy of the so-called
Confederate States; that I ardently desire the suppression of the
present rebellion against the United States; that I rejoice in the
triumph of the armies and navies of the United States, and in the
defeat of the armies, navies, and all other armed combinations of the
so-called Confederate States; that I will cordially oppose all
armistices or negotiations for peace with rebels in arms until the
Constitution of the United States and all laws and proclamations made
in pursuance thereof, shall be established over all the people of
every State and territory embraced within the national Union; and that
I will heartily aid and assist the loyal people in whatever measures
may be adopted for the attainment of these ends; and further, that I
take this oath freely and voluntarily and without mental reservation,
so help me God.”
This test oath marks the first grave departure from President
Lincoln’s plan. He had suggested a simple oath “to henceforth” support
the Constitution on the principle, as he expressed in his message to
Congress, that “that test is a sufficient one which accepts as sound
whoever will make a sworn recantation of his former unsoundness.” This
test oath, framed by the Convention, went much further and virtually
disfranchised all who had served in the Confederate army.
The Convention completed its labors by nominating a candidate for
Governor, and a general ticket for the Legislature. It thus combined
the functions of a political and constitutional convention.
Governor Johnson now had no motive for delaying the reorganization of
the State government, as it was only a month until his inauguration as
Vice-President. He thereupon gave force to the action of the
Convention by a proclamation ordering a vote of the people to be taken
in the mode prescribed by the Convention. The election was held on
February 22d, and resulted in 25,293 for, 48 against. On February
25th, Johnson issued a second proclamation declaring the amendment
ratified, and ordering an election for Governor and Legislature. The
second election occurred on the 4th of March. W. G. Brownlow, the
candidate for Governor, received 23,352 votes against 35 scattering.
The legislative candidates received the same number of votes as the
election was by general ticket.
In the presidential election of 1860 the vote of the State was
145,000. Johnson therefore held that Tennessee had fulfilled the 10
per cent. requirement of Lincoln’s amnesty proclamation. He issued a
final proclamation in which he attempted to set the stamp of legality
upon the newly elected Governor and Legislature.
The energies of the new State government were immediately directed
toward securing the continued ascendancy of the Union party. This was
at first an easy matter, as one of the new amendments to the
Constitution had given the Legislature the power of determining the
suffrage qualifications.
The Legislature convened on the 2d of April. On the 7th Brownlow was
inaugurated. His message contained the following brief reference to
the all-important question of the franchise: “While I would not
recommend you to give way to the impulse of vengeance any more than to
the appeals of sympathy and pity, I would urge you to guard the
ballot-box faithfully and effectually against the approach of treason,
no matter in what character it may come.”[10]
Most of the Union leaders in the Legislature desired the absolute
disfranchisement of the “rebels,” but it was feared so extreme a
measure would arouse hostility in Congress to seating the
Representatives from Tennessee. A compromise bill, known as the Arnell
Bill,[11] was finally passed. By its provisions the right to vote was
restricted to the following persons: “White men over twenty-one years
old, who were publicly known to have entertained unconditional Union
sentiment from the outbreak of the Rebellion, or who arrived at age
since March 4, 1866, and who had not been engaged in armed rebellion
against the United States Government, also those who had served in the
Federal army, and been honorably discharged, those who had been
conscripted by force in the Confederate army, and were known to be
Union men, and all those who had voted at the election in March and
February, 1865.” All other persons were disfranchised. For all persons
who had held civil or diplomatic office under the Confederate
Government, or who had held military offices above the ranks of
captain in the Confederate army, or lieutenant in the Confederate
navy, also for those who had resigned from the Congress of the United
States, or the army or navy of the United States, the term of
disfranchisement was for fifteen years. For all other persons from
whom the suffrage was withheld the disfranchisement was to last only
four years.
The first election to occur after the passage of the Arnell Franchise
Law, was the congressional election of August 3, 1865. All the
candidates were Union men, but one set represented the conservative
element which opposed disfranchisement and tests oaths. The Radicals
felt perfectly confident of defeating the Conservatives, if the
provisions of the new law were carried out. But it soon became evident
that the Radicals had much to fear both from open violation of the
law, and secret intimidation of the voter. Governor Brownlow, on the
10th of July, issued a proclamation declaring “that all who had banded
together to defeat the franchise law would be dealt with as rebels.”
The election passed off without violence. On the 10th of August,
before all the returns were in, Governor Brownlow requested the clerks
and sheriffs to give him information as to illegal voting. On the
information thus received, he cast out the vote of twenty-five
counties. Notwithstanding this action of the Governor, four of the
Conservatives were elected.
The August election demonstrated to the Union party the necessity of
enacting a more efficient machinery for executing the election laws.
On January 19, 1866, a new franchise bill was introduced in the
Legislature.[12] It made the disfranchisement of the ex-Confederates
perpetual. It also established the office of the Commissioner of
Registration in each county, and required that certificates of
registration issued by these commissioners should be presented by
every voter in all elections, municipal, county, and State. The power
of appointing and removing these commissioners was given to the
Governor. He was also authorized to cast out any registration he
considered illegal. This made him absolute judge of elections. The
bill was passed May 3, 1866. It was amended in November so as to give
the suffrage to the negro. The ascendancy of the Union party in
Tennessee was now secured, so far as State statute could accomplish
this result.
[9] Laws of Tennessee, 1865, Introductory Documents, p. 3.
[10] Laws of Tennessee, 1865, 1-15.
[11] _Ibid._, p. 32.
[12] Acts of Tennessee, 1866-67, p. 26.
CHAPTER V
RECOGNITION BY CONGRESS
The Radical leaders in Tennessee naturally expected that the
readmission of the Representatives to their seats in Congress would
immediately follow the restoration of the State government. Therefore,
upon the assembling of the first session of the Thirty-ninth Congress,
the full delegation from Tennessee was present on the floor, ready to
answer to their names. When Mr. Edward McPherson, the clerk of the
House, omitted the name of Tennessee along with the other Southern
States from the preliminary roll-call, Mr. Horace Maynard created a
dramatic scene by waving aloft his certificate of election, and
demanding recognition. In the discussion which followed the roll-call,
the cause of Mr. Maynard was championed by Mr. Brooks, the leader of
the Democratic minority. “If Mr. Maynard,” he said, “is not a loyal
man, and is not from a State in this Union, what man, then, is loyal?
In the darkest and most doubtful period of the war, when an exile from
his own State, I heard his eloquent voice on the banks of the St.
Lawrence rousing the people of my State to discharge their duties to
their country.” The action of Mr. McPherson was upheld by a vote of
the House.
This refusal to seat the Tennessee Representatives arose, partly on
account of the failure to distinguish between the loyal government in
Tennessee, and the so-called Johnson governments, but chiefly because
the Republican leaders wished to delay action until a complete
reconstruction policy could be mapped out. The Representatives
continued, however, to press the claims of the State for recognition
before the “Joint Committee of Fifteen,” to which was referred all
measures affecting the status of the Southern States.
This Committee was just on the point of yielding, when the veto of the
Freedman Bureau Bill occurred. The day after the veto, Mr. Stevens
brought before the House, from the Committee of Fifteen, a “concurrent
resolution concerning the insurrectionary States,” as follows: “Be it
resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), that
in order to close agitation upon a question which seems likely to
disturb the action of the Government, as well as to quiet the
uncertainty which is agitating the minds of the people of the eleven
States which have been declared to be in insurrection, no Senator or
Representative shall be admitted to either branch of Congress, from
any of the said States until Congress shall have declared such State
entitled to such representation.” A strong effort was made to exempt
Tennessee from the provisions of the Resolution. Mr. Grider, a member
of the Committee of Fifteen, offered, to that effect, a minority
report as follows: “The minority of the Committee on Reconstruction,
on the part of the House, beg leave to report that said committee have
caused an inquiry to be made as to the condition and loyalty of
Tennessee. There has been a large amount of evidence taken, a part of
it conducing to show that at some localities occasionally there have
been some irregularities and disaffection, yet the main direction and
weight of the testimony are ample and conclusive to show that a great
body of the people in said State are not only loyal and willing, but
anxious to have and maintain amicable, sincere, and patriotic
relations with the General Government. Such being the state of facts,
we offer the following resolution, to wit:
“_Resolved_, That the State of Tennessee is entitled to
representation in the Thirty-ninth Congress, and the
representatives elected from and by said State are hereby
admitted to take their seats therein upon being qualified by
oath according to law.”
In speaking in opposition to this minority resolution, Mr. Stevens
said: “I think I may say without impropriety, that until yesterday
there was an investigation into the condition of Tennessee, to see
whether by act of Congress we could admit that State to a condition of
representation here, and admit its members to seats here, but since
yesterday there has arisen a state of things which the committee deem
puts it out of their power to proceed further without surrendering a
great principle, without the loss of all their dignity, without
surrendering the rights of this body to the usurpation of another
power.” The “Concurrent Resolution,” introduced by Mr. Stevens, was
carried without amendment, so the readmission of Tennessee was again
postponed indefinitely.
Two months later, however, its readmission was foreshadowed in a
speech by Mr. Bingham on the Fourteenth Amendment. “I trust,” he said,
“that this amendment will pass this House, that the day will soon come
when Tennessee――loyal Tennessee――loyal in the very heart of the
rebellion, her mountains and plains blasted by the very ravagers of
war and stained with blood of her faithful children fallen in the
great struggle for the maintenance of the Union, having already
conformed her constitution and laws to every provision of this
amendment, will at once, upon its submission by Congress, irrevocably
ratify it, and be, without further delay, represented in Congress by
her loyal Representatives and Senators. Let that great example be set
by Tennessee, and it will be worth a hundred thousand votes to the
loyal people in the free North.”
The suggestion contained in this speech was promptly acted upon by the
Radical government in Tennessee. On the 19th of June, the Fourteenth
Amendment was ratified by the Legislature. Mr. Brownlow immediately
sent the following telegram to Washington:
“NASHVILLE, TENN., Thursday, July 18.
To HON. E. M. STANTON, _Sec. of War_,
Washington, D. C.
“My compliments to the President. We have carried the
Constitutional Amendment in the House. Vote 43 to 18; two of
his tools refusing to vote.
“W. G. BROWNLOW.”
On the same day the news of this ratification was received, Mr.
Bingham introduced into the House the following resolution:
“Joint resolution declaring Tennessee again entitled to
Senators and Representatives in Congress.
“_Whereas_, The State of Tennessee has in good faith
ratified the article of amendment to the Constitution of the
United States proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress to the
Legislatures of the several States, and has also shown, to
the satisfaction of Congress, by the proper spirti of
obedience in the body of her people, her return to her due
allegiance to the Government, laws, and authority of the
United States; therefore,
Be it resolved by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, That the State of Tennessee is hereby restored to
her former proper practical relation in the Union, and again
entitled to be represented by Senators and Representatives
in Congress, duly elected and qualified, upon their taking
the oaths of office required by existing laws.“
In urging the immediate adoption of the resolution, Mr. Bingham
declared that: “Inasmuch as Tennessee has conformed to all our
requirements; inasmuch as she has, by a majority of her whole
Legislature in each House, ratified the amendment in good faith;
inasmuch as she has of her own voluntary will conformed her
constitution and laws to the Constitution and Laws of the United
States; inasmuch as she has by her fundamental law forever prohibited
the assumption or payment of the rebel debt, or the enslavement of
men; inasmuch as she has by her own constitution declared that rebels
shall not exercise any of the political power of the State or vote at
elections; and thereby giving the American people assurance of her
determination to stand by this great measure of security for the
future of the Republic, Tennessee is as much entitled to be
represented here as any other State of the Union.”
The resolution was opposed by a few members on the ground that
Tennessee had not, as yet, conferred the suffrage upon the negro. Mr.
Boutwell offered an amendment providing that Tennessee should not be
readmitted until it had established an “equal and just system of
suffrage.”
On June 20th the resolution passed the House, one hundred and
twenty-five voting in the affirmative, and twelve in the negative. On
the succeeding day, it came up for consideration in the Senate. Mr.
Trumbull proposed, in the place of the preamble which had been framed
by Mr. Bingham and passed by the House, the following substitute:
“_Whereas_, In the year 1861, the government of the State of
Tennessee was seized upon and taken possession of by persons
in hostility to the United States, and the inhabitants of
said State in pursuance of an act of Congress were declared
to be in a state of insurrection against the United States,
and whereas said State government can be restored to its
former political relations in the Union only by the consent
of the law-making power of the United States; and whereas
the people of said State did on the 22d of February, 1865,
by a large and popular vote adopt and ratify a constitution
of government whereby slavery was abolished, and all
ordinances and laws of secession and debts contracted under
the same were declared void; and whereas a State government
has been organized under said Constitution, which has
ratified the amendment to the Constitution of the United
States abolishing slavery, also the amendment proposed by
the Thirty-ninth Congress, and has done other acts
proclaiming and denoting loyalty; Therefore, etc.”
Mr. Sherman opposed the substitution of this preamble on the ground
that it would probably cause the President to veto the resolution.
“These political dogmas,” he said, “cannot receive the sanction of the
President, and to insert them will only create delay, and postpone the
admission of Tennessee.”
After a considerable discussion, the question being taken on the
passage of the preamble as substituted by the Senate, together with
the resolution of the House, resulted in twenty-eight votes in the
affirmative, and four in the negative. The House promptly agreed to
the amendment of the Senate, and the joint resolution was sent to the
President for his approval.
The President approved the joint resolution, but sent a message to the
House which was in the nature of a protest against the opinions
expressed in the preamble. After giving at length his objections to
the preamble, the President said:
“Earnestly desiring to remove every cause of further delay,
whether real or imaginary, on the part of Congress to the
admission to their seats of loyal Senators and
Representatives from the State of Tennessee, I have,
notwithstanding the anomalous character of this proceeding,
affixed my signature to the resolution. My approval,
however, is not to be construed as an acknowledgment of the
right of Congress to pass laws, preliminary to the admission
of duly qualified representatives from any of the States.
Neither is it to be construed as committing me to all the
statements made in the preamble, some of which are, in my
opinion, without foundation in fact, especially the
assertion that the State of Tennessee has ratified the
amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed
by the Thirty-ninth Congress. No official notice of such
ratification has been received by the Executive, or filed in
the Department of State; on the contrary, unofficial
information from most reliable sources, induces the belief
that the amendment has not yet been constitutionally
sanctioned by the Legislature of Tennessee. The right of
each House, under the Constitution, to judge of the
elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members is
undoubted, and my approval or disapproval of the resolution
could not in the slightest degree increase or diminish the
authority in this respect conferred upon the two branches of
Congress.”
CHAPTER VI
TENNESSEE AND THE NEW AMENDMENTS
The deed of cession of Tennessee to the United States by North
Carolina contained the provision “that no regulation made or to be
made by Congress shall tend to emancipate slaves.” The constitution
under which Tennessee was admitted into the Union also recognized
slavery by the use of the term “freeman” throughout the bill of
rights. It was, however, exceedingly liberal in regard to the
suffrage, conferring it upon every “freeman of the age of twenty-one
years, and upwards.” Under this provision, free negroes were allowed
to vote.
About 1830, there developed a strong movement in favor of
emancipation. At Jonesborough was established the first abolition
newspaper ever published in America. But this emancipation sentiment
had entirely disappeared by 1860. Even in East Tennessee, the most
extreme opponents of secession were firm believers in slavery.
The Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, did not include
Tennessee within its provisions. Slavery, therefore continued to exist
as a legal institution until abolished by an amendment to the State
constitution. This amendment, as we have seen, was framed by the
Radical Convention of 1865. In April, of the same year, Gov. Brownlow
laid before the Legislature a joint resolution of Congress containing
the proposed Thirteenth Amendment. It was promptly ratified.
In his initial message, Gov. Brownlow discussed, at considerable
length, the race problem. He sought to impress upon the Legislature,
“that some legislation was necessary for the protection, government,
and control of the emancipated slave.” The Legislature did not enter
upon this work immediately. It was not till May 11, 1866, that a bill
was passed entitled, “An act to define the term, ‘A Person of Color,’
and to declare the rights of such persons.”
The first section of this act provided that under the term “Person of
Color” should be included all “negroes, mulatoes, meztigsoes, and
their descendants having African blood.” The second section declared:
“That persons of color have the right to make and enforce contracts,
to sue and be sued, to be parties and give evidence, and have full and
equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person
and estate, and shall not be subject to any other or different
punishment, pains, or penalty for the commission of any act or offence
than such as are prescribed for white persons committing like acts or
offences.” By the fifth section, slave marriages were legalized. The
last section declared that nothing in the act should be so construed
as to admit persons of color to serve on the jury, or to require the
education of colored and white children in the same school.
Soon after the passage of this act occurred the great struggle over
the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. At the time of its
submission by Congress to the State the Legislature was not in
session. Gov. Brownlow, therefore, issued a call for an extra session
to convene on July 4th. The members were very slow in assembling. It
became apparent that the opponents of the amendment in the Lower House
would seek to defeat its ratification by preventing a quorum, which
was fixed by the constitution at two thirds of all the members. Upon
the first roll-call only forty-two members answered to their names. At
the third meeting this list was increased to fifty-four, but it still
fell short two votes of the necessary two thirds. The Sergeant-at-arms
was, therefore, instructed to arrest the absentees, and bring them by
force to the floor of the House. He did not find this an easy task, as
the refractory members sought by every means possible to elude his
search.
The following extract from his report gives a glimpse of the ludicrous
game of hide-and-seek enacted in different parts of the State:
“I have the honor to report that in compliance with
instruction that I should proceed to Hamilton County, and
arrest George B. Foster, member of the House of
Representatives, I proceeded to Chattanooga on Friday the
13th, 1866, arriving on the morning of the fourteenth, at 2
o’clock; communicated with the Sergeant of the Metropolitan
Police, procured a wagon, and, in company with Sergeant
Bently, proceeded to the summit of Lookout Mountain, to the
residence of Mr. Foster, and was there informed by his
family that he had ridden out in the country; carefully
watched the premises without result until evening; was
informed that he would be home that night; lay up on the
mountain all night, awaiting his return. Mr. Foster did not
return. I am satisfied that his family on the mountain, at
the time of my leaving them, did not positively know of his
whereabouts, although there was a manifest intention on
their part to mislead as to his locality. I found it
impossible to conceal my business, and destination,――the
resolution of the House and order for the arrest of the
absentees having been published and otherwise
communicated.”[13]
Several of the members attempted to resign, but Governor Brownlow
refused to accept their resignations. He sent the following response
to Mr. Dunnaway, representative from Bedford County: “Sir,――As it is
evident the design of your resignation is to reduce the House below a
quorum and to break up the Legislature, the same is not accepted.”
Exasperated at the repeated failure of the Sergeant-at-arms to arrest
the hiding members, Governor Brownlow, on the 14th of July, applied to
General Thomas for military assistance. This request was referred to
the Secretary of War, Mr. Stanton, who replied: “That the duty of the
United States forces is not to interfere in any way in the
controversies between the political authorities of the State, and Gen.
Thomas will strictly refrain from any interference between them.”
The deadlock was finally broken on the 19th of July, in a somewhat
extraordinary manner. Two members, arrested by the Sergeant-at-arms,
were brought to the Capitol, and placed in a committee-room
communicating with the hall of the House. A motion was then passed
that they “be invited and required to take their seats within the bar
of the House.” The two members refused to come out of the committee
and continued to remain silent when their names were called. The
Speaker thereupon declared that no quorum was present. An appeal was
taken from this ruling, and it was reversed. The House then proceeded
to a vote upon the amendment; and it was declared duly ratified,
forty-three votes having been cast in the affirmative, and eleven in
the negative.
In the meantime, Mr. Williams, one of the arrested members, applied
for and obtained a writ of habeas corpus. It was made returnable to
Thomas N. Frazier, Judge of the Criminal Court of Davidson County,
who, upon the hearing of the case, discharged Mr. Williams from the
custody of the Sergeant-at-arms. On account of this decision, the
House of Representatives preferred articles of impeachment against
Judge Frazier. He was tried by the Senate, sitting as a Court of
Impeachment. It sustained the articles of impeachment, and deposed
Judge Frazier from office. He was also forever disqualified from
holding any office of profit or trust in the State. His
disqualifications were however removed by the Constitutional
Convention of 1870, and he was afterward re-elected Criminal Judge.
The Fifteenth Amendment was submitted to Tennessee in 1869, just
before the close of the radical era. The suffrage had been conferred
upon the negro by an act of the Legislature of the previous year, but
it was known that the whole question would be reopened by the
Constitutional Convention which had just been called. The Legislature,
therefore, refused to take final action on the amendment. It was
referred to the Committee on Federal Relations, from which it was
never reported.
[13] Acts of Tennessee, Extra Session, 1866.
CHAPTER VII
FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE RADICAL GOVERNMENT
The joint resolution of July 24, 1866, completed, so far as Congress
was concerned, the restoration of civil government in Tennessee. Her
Senators and Representatives were admitted to their seats, and the
State, to all intents and purposes, was restored to the same position
it had occupied prior to the attempted withdrawal in 1861.
The political basis of the restored government was, as we have pointed
out, the loyal people of the State. They consisted mainly of four
elements, namely, the inhabitants of the small towns and the upland
farms of East Tennessee, and poor whites, or “white trash,” as they
were commonly called, scattered throughout the State, a few “old-line”
Whigs in West and Middle Tennessee, and lastly the negro and the
carpetbagger. This ruling minority was, therefore, neither an
aristocracy of wealth, intelligence, nor social position. It could not
be expected that the management of public affairs by such hands would
be just and conservative. From the beginning it showed a tendency
toward reckless expenditures and an entire disregard of property
rights. Mr. Brownlow, in his first message to the Legislature, advised
a general increase in the salaries of State officials. This advice
came at a time when the finances were at a low ebb, and the whole
industrial and agricultural interests of the community were thoroughly
demoralized. Nevertheless, the Legislature was only too ready to carry
these suggestions of Governor Brownlow into execution. They passed a
bill increasing the salaries of the supreme judges from $2000 to $5000
a year. This was followed by other bills increasing the salaries of
the various State officials. This resulted in an enormous increase in
the current expenditures of the State.
The whole expenses of the State government for the years 1851 to 1861,
inclusive, had been about $6,500,000. The entire expenses during the
Brownlow administration, which lasted only three years and a half,
were $7,301,352. The taxes in 1868 were fourfold greater than in 1861,
yet on the former date, the Comptroller announced in his report to the
Legislature that the State was on the verge of bankruptcy.
But the most troublesome legacy Mr. Brownlow left the people of
Tennessee was an increase in the State debt of $21,647,000.
By an Act of the Legislature in 1852, known as the General Internal
Improvement Law, the Governor had been empowered to issue State bonds
to the amount of $8000 per mile in aid of railroad companies, upon the
following conditions: “1. That the company shall first secure bonafide
subscriptions to its capital stock to an amount sufficient to grade,
bridge, and prepare for the inner rails the whole extent of the main
trunk line proposed to be constructed; 2. That it be shown by the
company to the Governor that the said subscriptions are good and
solvent; 3. That the company shall have graded, bridged, and made
ready to put down the necessary timbers, for the reception of rails,
and fully completed a specified number of miles at either terminus in
a good and substantial manner, with good material for putting the iron
rails and equipments in place, and that the State shall be given a
first-mortgage lien on their property; 4. That the Governor shall be
notified of these facts by the written affidavits of the Chief
Engineers and President of the Company, together with the written
affidavit of a competent engineer appointed by the Governor to examine
the specified section; and shall be furnished with an affidavit of the
President of the Company, and a resolution of a majority of its Board
of Directors for the time being, pledging that the bonds issued to it
shall not be used for any other purpose than that of procuring the
iron rails, chairs, spikes, and equipments, and for putting down the
iron rails on the specified section for which they are issued; and
that the President shall deposit in the office of the Secretary of
State a full and accurate list of all the stockholders, with the sum
subscribed by each and every stockholder.”
Under the provisions of this act, there had been issued, prior to the
war, bonds amounting to $14,841,000. In the main, the conditions
enumerated in the act, were fairly complied with, and the State
protected from all loss.
The close of the war left the railroads, like every other industrial
interest in the State, in a thoroughly demoralized condition. Upon the
first arrival of the Federal troops, they had been seized by the
Government and used for military purposes. A great part of the rolling
stock had been destroyed, and many of the bridges and buildings burnt.
As soon as the restored government was in working order, the railroad
interests turned to the State treasury for relief. This was obtained
through the passage of a number of bills, which professed to be based
upon the Act of 1852. They were known as Omnibus bills, and under
their provisions bonds to the amount of $14,393,000 were issued.
The means resorted to to secure the passage of the Omnibus bills
furnished the greatest scandals of the restoration period. They are
vividly set forth in the following extract from the Report of the
Committee of Investigation appointed by the Legislature of 1879:
“Many corporate presidents, agents, and representatives came
to Nashville to attend the sittings of the Legislature. All
known influences were used upon the supposed representatives
of the people. From the pulpit to the bagnio, recruits were
gathered for the assault on the treasury of the State. Fine
brandy by the barrel was on hand to fire thirst and muddle
the brain, and first-class suits of clothing to capture the
vanity or avarice of the gay or needy. Money, the proceeds
of the bonds issued by the State, for specific purpose to
these men, was here in abundance, and it was used. Take one
example: A man came to the State. He was appointed Receiver
of two short insolvent railroads at a salary of $5000. He
was appointed Commissioner of Registration for Franklin
County. He sent his Superintendent to the Legislature of
1867 as a member. That member, in conjunction with a certain
Senator, was active in procuring ‘State aid.’ The
Commissioner and Receiver let out contracts on his road, and
was a silent member. The proof shows that this Receiver,
this member, and this Senator formed a conspiracy to defraud
the State. About a million dollars of bonds issued under the
Act of 1867 went into the hands of the Receiver. Take
another: A president of a railroad would sell bonds and
apply a portion of the proceeds in corrupt efforts to get
more bonds. They got bonds for roads that had never been
surveyed and located. One railroad president says that he
had great influence with the Governor, that another railroad
president wanted bonds and desired his services with said
Governor, that he got them, that, in addition to pay
directly for his services and influences with the Governor,
he was to have control of a portion of the bonds obtained to
use as margin in stock speculations in New York. They got
885 bonds in New York. This man of influence with the
Governor further says that he and the other president were
partners in stock speculation, and used the bonds obtained
from the State in these speculations.”
When the Democrats regained control of the State, the settlement of
the State debt, which had been so greatly increased by the Brownlow
Administration, proved a most perplexing question. It became an apple
of political discord, and retarded the industrial and commercial
regeneration of the State. It disrupted the Democratic party into
three factions. A few of the most prominent leaders desired to see the
State’s credit preserved by paying the bonds in full. A still larger
number, while recognizing the validity of the bonds, conscientiously
believed that the State, on account of the amount of the debt, and the
demoralized business conditions resulting from the war, would be
unable to meet its just obligations. They therefore favored some
agreement with the bondholders, whereby the debt could be scaled
without inflicting dishonor upon the State. A third faction was for
open repudiation. They contended that the bonds were illegal on two
grounds, first, they had been issued in direct violation of the
conditions precedent laid down in the Internal Improvement Act of
1852, and its amendments; secondly, the Brownlow Administration, which
had issued the bonds, did not represent the State, it was a mere
interim of usurpation and revolutionary government. While for purposes
of convenience its acts, which affected merely private rights, should
not be disturbed, nevertheless it could not pledge the credit of the
State.
In 1873 a Funding Act was passed by the Legislature. It provided that
all past due coupons and bonds might be funded into new bonds bearing
interest at six per cent., redeemable after July 1, 1884, and payable
July 1, 1914. Coupons on the new bonds were payable on January and
July of each year, beginning with July, 1874. The question as to the
validity of the Brownlow bonds was avoided by inserting a provision
that only “bonds legally issued should be funded.” But the State
officials ignored this provision by funding all the bonds that were
presented.
This Funding Act of 1873 proved a failure. The State was unable to
meet its interest on the new bonds. A series of bad crops increased
the difficulty. The assessment returns for 1874, as compared with
those of 1873, exhibited a decrease of $18,556,173.
On January 1, 1877, the arrears of interest amounted to $1,570,646. It
now became apparent to the bondholders that they must either effect
some compromise with the State, or run the risk of losing the entire
debt. They, therefore, entered into personal communications with the
Governor, and signified to him their willingness to compromise. Their
communications were laid before the Legislature, and it adopted on
January 26, 1877, the following resolution:
“_Whereas_, The General Assembly has with pleasure received,
through the message of his Excellency the Governor, the
communications of certain gentlemen, holders of bonds of the
State, and representatives of holders of bonds, asking for a
conference looking to a permanent and equitable adjustment
and compromise of the claims held by them against the State;
therefore, be it
“_Resolved_, By the General Assembly, that the Governor be
requested to communicate by telegram, or by letter, with the
gentlemen holding securities of the State, mentioned in his
message, and request them to submit, on the earliest day
possible, through him, to the General Assembly any
proposition of adjustment and compromise, which they may
desire.”
As the result of this resolution, a committee of the Legislature and a
committee of the bondholders met and agreed to the following
proposition: “That arrearages of interest to July 1, 1877, be added to
the bonds, and that new ones for sixty per cent. of the total amount
be issued, made to bear interest at six per cent., and to fall due in
thirty years.” It was naturally expected that the Legislature would
ratify the action of its committee. Much to the surprise of every one
concerned, it not only rejected the proposition, but decreased the tax
rate from forty to ten cents per hundred dollars, and thus made the
payment of interest absolutely impossible.
Later in the year the bondholders presented a second proposition, in
which they agreed to a scaling of the debt fifty per cent., but this
was also rejected by the Legislature.
In 1879 a committee was appointed by both Houses of the Legislature to
investigate and report upon the State debt. This committee, after
taking a great amount of evidence, presented an elaborate report.
Acting upon this report the Legislature passed a second bill, March
31st. It provided for the issue of bonds bearing four per cent.
interest to be exchanged for outstanding bonds with the interest
accrued thereon, at the rate of fifty per cent. on the dollar. It was
not to become a law until approved by a vote of the people, and two
thirds of the bondholders. The consent of the bondholders was readily
obtained, but the measure was defeated at the polls.
A settlement of the debt now seemed hopeless. It was the chief issue
in the gubernatorial campaign of 1880. The divisions of the Democratic
party resulted in the election of the Republican candidate, Alvin
Hawkins. The newly elected Legislature was also favorable to the
bondholders. A bill was passed which provided for the funding of the
outstanding debt at par, the new bonds to bear interest at three per
cent., and the coupons to be receivable for taxes. The bill was signed
by the Governor, and went into effect in April. It was regarded
as a great triumph for the bondholders, but their rejoicing
was short-lived. In a test case the courts decided the law
unconstitutional, on the ground that the Legislature could not make a
valid contract in which the coupons should be receivable for taxes for
ninety-nine years. This decision reopened the whole question.
The defeat which the Democrats had suffered in 1880 served to unite
them in 1882. Their candidate, W. B. Bate, was elected Governor. In
his message to the Legislature, Governor Bate marked out a plan for
the settlement of the debt which was finally adopted, by an act passed
March 15, 1883. This act declares: “That the State will pay in full
the bonds held by Mrs. James K. Polk, and all bonds held by
educational, literary, and charitable institutions in the State; that
it will pay in discharge of its just obligations, what is known as the
State debt proper in full, less war interest; and that in compromise
of the remainder of the debt, known as the railroad debt, it will pay
one half of the principal and accrued interest by issuing therefor
bonds of the State bearing interest at the rate of three per cent. per
annum.”
CHAPTER VIII
RADICAL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
The “carnival of crime and corruption” described in the preceding
chapter was not confined to the Legislature. Similar scenes were
enacted in almost every county and city in the State. As the suffrage
limitations placed upon the ex-Confederates applied to all elections,
the Radicals were in complete control of these local governments. The
large municipalities, such as Memphis, Nashville, Chattanooga, and
Knoxville were the greatest sufferers from the rule of irresponsible
and corrupt officials.
In 1867, a carpetbagger, by the name of Alden, had succeeded in being
elected Mayor of Nashville. Having filled the city council with his
political followers, most of whom were non-property-holders, he
entered upon a course of open and systematic public plunder, which
made even the State administration stand aghast. The city treasury was
soon drained. The tax rate was enormously increased; but as this did
not suffice, checks, warrants, and due bills, made out in the name of
the city, and payable to bearer, were sold to street shavers of notes
at any price they could bring. Bonds were also issued. As these
evidences of indebtedness multiplied, the market quotations for them
declined.
In the face of this wholesale corruption, Alden and his associates
were re-elected. It now became evident that, unless some heroic
measure was resorted to, the entire property of the city would be
confiscated by their rapacity. A tax-payers association was formed,
which began a campaign of public agitation. Public meetings were held
in various parts of the city, and resolutions were adopted denouncing
the “Alden ring” in the most scathing terms.
It was finally decided to seek relief through the courts. All the
judges throughout the State were Radical, but in striking contrast
with all the other officials of the Radical régime, they were men of
unquestioned integrity, and, for the most part, lawyers of high
standing. They had displayed great independence in interpreting the
franchise laws, and in curtailing, as far as possible, the excessive
use of the military power. Mr. Thornburg, the defeated candidate for
mayor, filed a bill in the Chancery Court of Davidson County, in which
he alleged that the city administration was inefficient, that its
members were guilty of fraud and corruption, and that of right their
offices were vacant because they were not owners of real estate, as
required by law. He therefore prayed that the city officials be
enjoined from the further issuance of checks and notes, and that they
be declared usurpers and turned out of office, and that a receiver be
appointed to take charge of the affairs of the corporation. Pending
the coming in of the answer of the defendants, and the final decision
of the case, Chancellor Shackelford granted a temporary injunction
restraining the mayor and the city council from receiving any salary
or perquisites of office. On December 7th, final decision was
rendered, the Chancellor using the following language: “I am of the
opinion that the complainants are not entitled to the injunction or
the receiver prayed for, and the application is therefore refused.”
In May, 1869, Col. A. S. Colyar, editor of the _Union and American_,
and one of the most distinguished lawyers in the South, made a
thorough examination of the city’s books and records. At a
mass-meeting of the citizens, he made the most startling disclosure in
regard to the extravagance and corruption uncovered by that
investigation. He declared that the city was in the hands of thieves,
and expressed the opinion that there was not a judge on the bench of
Tennessee who would refuse to grant relief. On June 1st, he filed a
bill at Gallatin, Tenn., before Charles Smith, Chancellor of the
Seventh Chancery Division.
The bill was brought “in the name of the State in the relation of 466
citizens in behalf of themselves and others against the mayor, and the
city council, the city treasurer, revenue collector, and others.” It
prayed “that further speculation in checks be enjoined; that no more
checks be issued and no more received until, on the one hand, the
right of the city to issue them should be accurately defined, and
until, on the other, the validity of outstanding checks should be
determined; that the corporation officers who were defendants in the
case, be compelled to account for money made by speculation in the
means and credit of the city; and lastly, that a receiver of known
financial ability, with good credit and good reputation, be appointed
with full power to control the finances of the city and make contracts
so as to save the city from ruin.”
The terrible condition of the city was set forth at length in the
bill. It was alleged, among other things, that $1,323,668 in checks
had been issued, $759,000 of which were without authority of law,
while much of the remainder was for illegal purposes. The most
exorbitant rates of interest were paid, in some cases as much as 100%.
Failing to meet its maturing obligations, the creditors of the city
were resorting to the courts, and the city’s property was being sold
to satisfy them.
After an elaborate argument of the case, in which the defendants were
represented by eminent lawyers, Chancellor Smith granted the prayer of
the petitioners. Mr. John M. Bass was appointed receiver. After
furnishing a bond of $500,000, he entered upon the receivership, June
28th. On the following month, a motion was made by the deposed
officials, in the Nashville Chancery Division, to have the
receivership dissolved. The motion came up for hearing before Judge
Edwin H. East, the successor of Chancellor Shackelford. Judge East had
been the private secretary of President Johnson, and had taken a
leading part in the reorganization of the State.
In arguing against the motion to dissolve, Col. Colyar took the ground
that a municipal corporation was not a political body, but simply a
business corporation whose officers were amenable to the courts for
the proper discharge of their functions. Judge East concurred in this
view, and upheld the receivership. In his opinion, he used the
following language: “The functions of a municipality are twofold:
first, political, discretionary, legislative; secondly, ministerial.
While acting within the sphere of the former, they are exempt from
liability inasmuch as the corporation is a part of the government, to
that extent, and its officers are to the same extent public officers,
and as such entitled to the protection of this principle; but within
the sphere of the latter (ministerial duties), they drop the badge of
governmental officers, and become, as it were, the representatives of
a private corporation in the exercise of private functions. The
distinction between these legislative powers which it holds for public
purposes as a part of the government of the country, and those public
franchises which belong to it as creation of law, is well taken.”
The receivership was of short duration. In August the regular city
election occurred. Mr. Morris, a wealthy citizen, was elected mayor.
Immediately after the election, the affairs of the city were again
placed in the hands of its ordinary officials.
Several years after the occurrence of these extraordinary proceedings,
Col. Colyar, in a speech delivered at Buffalo, N. Y., explained the
legal theory on which he placed the application for the receivership.
“I took the ground,” he said, “that, while in England, cities were in
a sense political, because in the creation of the House of Commons,
the cities and boroughs had in part organized it, in the time of
Edward I., and to this day, as cities and boroughs, they elect members
to the House of Commons; but that in this country, our cities have no
such political status, and that in nowise are they separate from the
balance of the community in politics, and therefore our cities are not
political bodies, and that the delegation of a part of a State’s
sovereignty is a fiction, and the management of a city is a mere
trust.”
CHAPTER IX
KU-KLUX OUTRAGES
It does not fall within the limits of our subject to go into the
general history of Ku-Klux Klan. This mysterious organization
originated in Tennessee, but it soon spread beyond the borders of the
State, and became the organ of all those who believed in resorting to
violent measures to secure the emancipation of the Southern States
from negro and carpetbag domination. Its history, therefore, belongs
under the general history of Reconstruction. Nevertheless, the study
of the civil disturbances in Tennessee resulting from the war would
indeed be incomplete without some account of the operation of the
Ku-Klux within the borders of the State. It formed the chief occasion
for interferences with civil liberty, as well as for congressional
legislation, which rendered the Radical government so hateful in the
eyes of the ex-Confederates.
The first official reference to disturbances of an extraordinary
character is found in Governor Brownlow’s first message to the
Legislature. In this, he calls the attention of the Legislature to
“the roving bands of guerrillas and squads of robbers and murderers
who frequent those counties remote from the military forces.” He
recommended that the criminal law of the State be so revised as to
make house-stealing, and house-breaking, and highway robbery
punishable with death. Acting upon his recommendations, the
Legislature, in May, 1865, passed a bill to punish “all armed
Prowlers, Guerrillas, Brigands, and Highway Robbers.” But as yet there
were no indications, either in the message of the Governor or the
action of the Legislature, that these early disturbances were of a
political character.
The Ku-Klux Klan did not come into existence until the following year.
The little town of Pulaski, in Giles County, claims the doubtful honor
of being its birthplace. It seems to have originated with a coterie of
young men, who banded together for the purpose of obtaining amusement
by playing upon the superstitious fancies of the negroes. They
organized themselves into a lodge, and adopted a fantastic ceremony
and ritual. Their meetings were held at night, and they usually came
together mounted on horseback, and wearing hideous disguises. They
frightened the negroes by telling them horrible ghost stories.
It was quickly seen that the measures adopted purely for amusement
could be turned into practical use in controlling the negro. The
conditions were ripe all over the South for such an organization, so
it spread like wildfire. Lodges sprang up in all parts of the Southern
States, with the possible exception of Virginia. A loose bond of union
was formed between them, but in different localities they assumed
various names, such as “The Pale Faces,” “The Invisible Empire,” “The
Brotherhood.” They were all finally denominated “The Ku-Klux Klan.”
Somewhat antedating the Ku-Klux Klan, and almost equally rapid in
growth, were the Union secret societies. They also bore various names,
the most popular being “The Loyal League” and “The Union League of
America.” They were devoid of any fantastic features, and did not, as
a rule, resort to violent measures, but their object was the same as
the rival organization, namely, to secure political control of the
negro.
In the spring of 1867, the Radical newspapers of Knoxville, Nashville,
and Memphis commenced to be filled with reports of outrages committed
upon negroes and Union men. Upon investigation, these reports
oftentimes turned out to be either wholly untrue or greatly
exaggerated, but they served to throw the Radical party into a state
of intense excitement. Their leaders believed, or professed to
believe, that another general insurrection was threatened. Acting
under this conviction, the Legislature passed a bill on the twentieth
of February, 1867, to equip and call into active service, under the
absolute command of the Governor, a State Guard to be composed solely
of Union men. It also passed a joint resolution requesting the
Governor to “apply to General Thomas, the commander of the department,
for a sufficient force of United States soldiers to keep the peace and
restore order and quiet in our State.”[14] In response to this
application several regiments were furnished by General Thomas, but he
cautioned that they should be used only in aid of the civil authority.
These Ku-Klux outrages followed closely upon the passage of the Arnell
Franchise Law. This bill, as we have pointed out, made the political
disabilities of the ex-Confederate absolute and perpetual. It
destroyed the last hope of regaining political control of the State,
through legal and constitutional means. As a natural result, public
opinion commenced to tolerate acts of violence which till then had
been strongly condemned. The best men of the communities, while they
did not take active part in the Ku-Klux movement, gave it their
approval by a policy of acquiescence. Juries refused to commit, even
upon the clearest evidence, persons accused of offences against
negroes or Union men.
A crisis was reached in the spring of 1868. Mr. S. M. Arnell, the
framer of the election law and Congressman from the Eighth District,
was made the object of a Ku-Klux raid. Having narrowly escaped hanging
through flight and concealment, he sent the following dispatch to the
Governor: “The Ku-Klux searched the train for me last night, pistols
and rope in hand. Empower me to call upon the military here, if
necessary in your name, to suppress all armed and masked parties in
this vicinity. I propose to fight it out.“
Upon the receipt of this dispatch, Governor Brownlow made a second
request for federal troops. This time he received an unfavorable
response. General Thomas informed him that “the State of Tennessee,
being in full exercise of the civil functions of a State, the military
authority of the United States cannot legally interfere except in aid
and support of the civil authority. For these purposes troops have
been sent to various locations. These details, together with the
present demand for troops to assist the United States officers in
collecting revenue, have so exhausted the forces at my command as to
prevent the complying with your request to send companies to the
counties named.”
Governor Brownlow now had recourse to an extra session of the
Legislature. His message was couched in the most violent language.
“The rebel element of the State,” he said, “were secretly arming
themselves, and perfecting a military organization, known as the
Ku-Klux Klan, composed of ex-rebel soldiers, and those in sympathy
with them, thus violating their paroles at the time of their
surrender, and violating the laws of the State, and plotting and
planning mischief in every respect.
“These men have been arming and organizing for a year past, with an
eye to the overthrow of the State government, and, ultimately, to
carrying the State in the presidential election. Organized upon the
same basis, and having the same dark designs in view that found a fit
culmination in Booth’s assassination of Abraham Lincoln, it works in
secret with signs, symbols, and pass-words, hatching plans to scatter
anarchy and permanent disorder wherever it may have an existence. I
recommend, most emphatically, that these organized bands of assassins
and robbers be declared outlaws by special Legislature, and punished
with death wherever found.”[15]
The violent language of the message aroused the greatest alarm among
the Democratic leaders of the State. They feared that if the measures
recommended by the Governor were adopted, civil war would indeed
result. A meeting was held at Nashville in August, and a memorial to
the Legislature was framed, by the following men, all of whom had been
generals in the Confederate army: N. B. Forrest, B. F. Cheatham, W. B.
Bate, J. C. Brown, Bushrod Johnson, Gideon J. Pillow, W. A. Quarles,
S. R. Anderson, G. G. Dibrell, and George Maney.
In this memorial they expressed a deep solicitude for the peace and
quiet of the State, protested against the charge of hostility to the
State government, or of a desire for its overthrow by revolutionary or
lawless means, as well as against the charge that those who had been
associated with them in the past days contemplated any such rashness
or folly; nor did they believe that there was in Tennessee any
organization, public or secret, which had such a purpose, and that, if
there was, they had neither sympathy nor affiliation therewith. They
further declared, that the peace of the State did not require a
military organization; that such a measure might bring about and
promote collisions rather than conserve the harmony and good order of
society; and finally that they would pledge themselves to maintain the
order and peace of the State with whatever influence they possessed,
and would uphold and support the laws and aid the constituted
authorities in their execution, trusting that a reciprocation of those
sentiments would produce the enactment of such laws as would remove
all causes disturbing society.
“For,” they continued, “when it is remembered that the large mass of
white men in Tennessee are denied the right to vote or to hold office,
it is not wonderful or unnatural there should exist more or less
dissatisfaction among them. And we beg leave respectfully to submit to
your consideration that prompt and efficient action on the part of the
proper authorities, for the removal of the political disabilities
resting upon so many of our people, would heal all the wounds of our
State, and make us once more a prosperous, contented, and united
people.”[16]
This memorial came too late to allay the excited minds of the
Radicals. On the 10th of September, the Legislature passed a bill “to
preserve the public peace.” This bill imposes “a fine of not less than
five hundred dollars, and imprisonment in the penitentiary for not
less than five years, and renders infamous any person who shall unite
with, associate with, promote or encourage any organization of persons
who shall prowl through the counties and towns of this State, by day
or night, for the purpose of disturbing the peace or alarming the
peaceful citizens of any part of the State. In order to secure the
proper execution of this act, the same punishment is to be meted out
to any person summoned as a witness, who shall fail or refuse to obey
the summons, or who shall appear and refuse to testify; the same to
any prosecuting attorney who shall be informed of the violation of the
act, and fail or refuse to prosecute the person informed on; the same
to any officer or other person who shall inform any other person that
he was to be summoned as a witness, with the intent of defeating any
of the provisions of the act; the same to any one who shall feed,
lodge, or entertain or conceal in the woods, or elsewhere, any one
known to such person to be charged with an offence under the act.”
The act further provides, that “no indictment shall be required for
prosecution, and no indictments held insufficient for want of form;
that where any sheriff or other officer shall return process issued
under the act, unexecuted, an alias shall issue, and the officer shall
give notice to the inhabitants of the county of such alias by posting
a notice at the court-house door, and if the inhabitants shall permit
the defendant to be or live in the county without arrest, they shall
be subject to an assessment of not less than five hundred dollars and
not more than five thousand dollars; that all the inhabitants of the
State shall be authorized to arrest offenders under the act, without
process; that every public officer shall swear that he has never been
a member of the Ku-Klux Klan.“ The measure of damages was as follows:
For entering the house or place of residence of any officer at night,
in a hostile manner, or against his will, ten thousand dollars; and
for the killing of any peaceable individual at night, twenty thousand
dollars. All other damages were to be assessed in proportion.[17]
Even the passage of this extraordinary law did not satisfy Governor
Brownlow. Under his guidance, the Legislature re-enacted the military
laws, and conferred upon him the power to declare martial law whenever
and wherever he saw fit. He did not suffer this prerogative to remain
idle. On the 20th of January, 1868, he called the State Guards into
active service. Several days later he issued the following
proclamation:
“_Whereas_, There are now sixteen hundred State Guards at
Nashville armed and equipped under the command of Joseph
Cooper; and _Whereas_, These troops are intended to preserve
peace and enforce the laws in counties heretofore in partial
rebelion.
“Now, therefore, I, W. G. Brownlow, Governor of Tennessee,
do hereby proclaim martial law in and over the following
named counties, to wit: Overton, Jackson, Maury, Giles,
Marshall, Lawrence, Gibson, Madison, and Haywood.
“And I further direct that General Cooper distribute these
troops at once and continue them in service until
unmistakable evidence is given by all parties of a
disposition to keep the peace.
“W. G. BROWNLOW,
“_Governor of Tennessee_.”
The counties named in the proclamation were among the richest and most
populous in the State. Their prominent citizens were unanimous in
condemning what they conceived to be the tyrannical and arbitrary
action of the Governor. The following is a fair sample of the numerous
protests made through the public press[18]:
“NASHVILLE, February 21, 1869. I see that martial law is
declared over the county of Lawrence, the county I have the
honor to represent, which I must acknowledge greatly
astonished me, for I know of no person or persons who
complained of any depredations in the county, or that there
was any difficulty at all in enforcing the law in said
county; but on the contrary, the people of the said county
are at this time, and have been for some months past, more
peaceable, quiet, and law-abiding than they have been for
the past ten years; and only a few days ago James H. MacKay,
sheriff, Ira J. Brown, clerk of the Circuit Court, and other
officials of said county in a written communication to the
Governor, stated that there was no difficulty in enforcing
the civil law in said county, and consequently no necessity
for the militia or other troops to enforce law, all of whom
are men of respectability and worthy of credit, and the
persons specially named above were soldiers of the Federal
army during the late Rebellion, and are all now, and always
have been, members of the Radical Republican party.
“I am at a loss to know why troops should have been
quartered upon the people of my county without consulting
their immediate Representative. I think surely some person
or persons have made misrepresentations to the Governor, and
sincerely hope that the order will be revoked and save my
people the mortification and expense of having troops
quartered amongst them in times of profound peace. ‘Let us
have peace.’
“W. P. H. TURNER,
“_Representative, Lawrence County_.”
Governor Brownlow answered these protests by declaring his intention
to further extend the sway of martial law. But fortunately for the
peace of the State, only a few days of his term as Governor remained.
Under his successor the troops were withdrawn and the military laws
were repealed. A state of tranquillity quickly ensued.
[14] Acts of Tennessee, 1867-68, p. 22.
[15] Acts of Tennessee, Extra Session, 1868.
[16] See _Why the Solid South_, by Hilary Herbert, and others.
[17] Acts of Tennessee, Extra Session, 1868, p. 18.
[18] _Union and American_, February 21, 1869.
CHAPTER X
CLOSE OF THE RADICAL DOMINATION
After the recognition of the loyal government by Congress, the only
hope of the disfranchised ex-Confederates of regaining political
control of the State lay in a division in the ranks of the Union
party. So long as Governor Brownlow remained at the head of affairs,
no such division occurred. He served as Governor the full term of two
years, and was re-elected. Before the expiration of his second term,
he was chosen by the Legislature to represent Tennessee in the United
States Senate. According to a provision of the State constitution, the
vacant governorship descended to De Witt Senter, Speaker of the State
Senate. Mr. Senter was inducted into office on the 29th of February,
1868.
Three years had now passed since the close of the war, and the
restoration of civil government, but the majority of the white
citizens still remained disfranchised, and no steps had been taken to
remove their disqualifications. In speaking of this aspect of the
situation, Mr. Fletcher, Secretary of the State, said: “Our mistake
was that we made the franchise law sweeping and perpetual, offering no
hope or inducement to the ex-rebel to become loyal. The man who is
disfranchised in a republic is not apt to feel that it is his
government, or to take pride or interest in it, nor apt to make a
useful or even law-abiding citizen of it. I do not feel comfortable in
a State where half of the people and two thirds of the tax-payers are
publicly degraded by law, without motive to be proud of the State and
government.”
Upon the day of Governor Senter’s inauguration, the air was filled
with rumors and signs of coming changes. Whether it would be a violent
eruption or a peaceful change through constitutional means, no one
could foresee. In the great crowd which gathered at the Capitol to
hear the inaugural address, there was noticed by the press reporters a
number of distinguished Southern leaders. This in itself was
considered a harbinger of the coming storm. The address proved
disappointing to all. It was expected that the Governor would give
some intimation of the policy he intended to pursue, but he simply
expressed his appreciation of the office to which he had been
elevated, and his desire to see peace and prosperity restored to the
State.
There was little of interest in the character or career of the new
Governor. He was born in Granger County in 1833. His father, William
F. Senter, had represented the Second Congressional District in the
Twenty-eighth Congress. Although Governor Senter had been chosen
Speaker of the Radical Senate he had never shown himself an extreme
partisan. He had even been a member of the secession Legislature of
1861; but Congress had relieved him of his political disabilities on
the 22d of December, 1868. It was therefore with a hopeful expectancy
that the people of Tennessee hailed his advent into the office of
Governor.
But before Governor Senter could make any change in the
administration, the State was plunged into a heated campaign to elect
his successor. He was entitled by the Constitution to serve out
Brownlow’s unexpired term, but only a few months remained of that. His
aspirations naturally went beyond his brief _pro tem._ term, and he,
therefore, announced his intention of becoming a candidate subject to
the approval of the Union party.
A new candidate soon appeared in the person of W. B. Stokes. Mr.
Stokes was the Representative of the Third District in Congress. His
record had been somewhat similar to that of Governor Senter. At the
beginning of the war he had identified himself with the secession
movement, but had quickly deserted what he saw to be a sinking ship.
After the war, as if to make amends for his past conduct, he became
one of the most extreme and bitter Radicals.
At first, the canvass was a mere personal contest, having little
significance to any one except the Radical leaders. A Convention of
the Union party was called to meet in Nashville on May 22d. Both
candidates pledged themselves to abide by the decision of this
Convention.
Ex-President Johnson’s return to Tennessee at this time added to the
uncertainty of the contest. He was still a power in Tennessee
politics, and it was rumored that he might enter the race as a
Conservative Democrat. The Radical Convention assembled in Nashville
on the day appointed. It was called to order by Thos. Cates, chairman
of the Central Committee, who was a Stokes man. After the reading of
the call, Judge Houck moved that Mr. Pearne, a friend of Governor
Senter, be made temporary chairman of the Convention. His motion
having failed to be recognized by Mr. Cates, he put it to the House
himself and declared Mr. Pearne elected. Mr. Pearne attempted to reach
the chair, but was forcibly prevented. This resulted in a hand-to-hand
contest between the delegates. Failing to perfect a temporary
organization, the Convention adjourned until the following day. But at
the second meeting the disgraceful scenes of the first were repeated.
It finally dissolved amid the utmost confusion.
_The Union and American_, a daily newspaper, published in Nashville,
contained the following report of the Convention’s proceedings.
“The so-called Radical State Convention, the most
disgraceful, profane, and vulgar assemblage of men ever
congregated in the State to consider public affairs, came to
an abrupt termination yesterday, after an ineffectual
attempt of two days to organize. It simply dissolved. It
could not even adjourn. It had no chairman, no secretary,
and could not even transact any business. It met as if by
chance, and dispersed from necessity. It was an agglomerate
discord, an inflamed mob filled with mean whiskey and meaner
passions. It was a meeting of mortal enemies under the guise
of friendship to decide the spoils of misdeeds and crimes.
They quarrelled and fought, and called each other liars and
thieves, and all manner of epithets. Such a congregation of
vulgar elements, so fierce, so bitter, and so reckless, was
never seen before in this section of the Union.
“This assemblage of Radicals was called together to counsel
for the good of the State, and present to the people a
person of such fair name and true patriotism as to be worthy
of them and the State for their chief executive!”
The above description was written by a “rebel” editor, but the
following account, taken from the _Knoxville Whig_, is scarcely less
severe: “We share in the regret of all good Republicans that the late
Convention was so divided, boisterous, disrupted. We have attended
many conventions, national and State. We never attended one in which
such injustice, violence, and fraud were practised.”
These two pictures of the Convention, drawn from different
standpoints, give us some idea of the kind of men that had ruled
Tennessee for four years. At last the household was divided against
itself; it was only a matter of a few weeks until it should fall.
The Senter faction attempted to throw the blame for the disrupted
Convention upon Mr. Stokes and his friends. They denied the charge,
and asserted that at least sixty-four counties had been instructed for
Mr. Stokes, which would have insured him the nomination. The result of
the discussion was that Governor Senter and Mr. Stokes declared their
intentions to “fight it to a finish at the polls.” They began at
Nashville, January 5th, a joint canvass of the State. A direct issue
was soon made between them on the franchise question. Governor Senter
declared “that the time has come, and is now, when the limitations and
disabilities which have found their way into our statute-books, as the
result of the war, should be abolished and removed, and the privilege
of the elective franchise be restored, and extended so far as to
embrace the mass of the adult population of the State.”
Mr. Stokes thus defined his position: “When the killing of Union men
ceases, the hellish organization of Ku-Klux is abandoned, and the laws
are observed, then I am willing to entertain a proposition to amend
the State constitution so far as to allow the disfranchised to come in
gradually, by providing that the Legislature may by a two thirds vote
remove the disabilities for those who petition, and come well
recommended by their loyal neighbors.”
After these declarations of principles the struggle became one of
paramount importance to the whole people of the State.
As the time for the election approached, and the official registration
began, signs of uneasiness appeared among the supporters of Mr.
Stokes. They felt confident that the majority of the Radical votes
were for their candidate, but they realized that Governor Senter was
“master of the situation.” He had control of the same machinery
Governor Brownlow had employed so successfully in changing the results
of Congressional and State elections. Would Governor Senter use this
in his own behalf, thus destroying the Radical party with an
instrument of their making? This question was asked and discussed both
upon the stump and in the newspapers.
The election occurred on the 5th day of August. At the same time the
election for the State Legislature was held. The issue was the same as
in the gubernatorial contest――that is, universal suffrage or continued
disfranchisement. Contrary to expectations, the election passed
without any serious conflicts or disturbances of the peace. The result
was not long in doubt. It could be seen on the following day from the
partial returns that Governor Senter had been elected by an enormous
majority.
The official returns were as follows:
SENTER. STOKES.
East Tennesssee 23,877 22,471
Middle ” 58,646 19,149
West ” 37,681 13,209
------- ------
120,204 54,874
54,874
------- ------
Senter’s majority 65,330
The Conservative candidates to the Legislature, who stood upon the
same platform as Governor Senter, were elected almost to a man.
Immediately after election, Mr. Stokes and his friends raised the cry
of fraud. They lost no time in hurrying to Washington in order to
bring pressure to bear upon President Grant to declare the election
void. Mr. Stokes set forth his claims in a lengthy interview. He said
in part: “Governor Senter being governor or acting-governor had the
appointment of the registrars of the election. He put in such men as
he thought would do his bidding. They at once opened the flood-gates
and let everybody in, the disfranchising clauses of the Constitution
were trodden under foot and entirely disregarded, certificates of
qualification as voters were issued to disfranchised rebels, and even
boys of sixteen and seventeen were allowed to vote. Besides this there
was a course of intimidation pursued under the instruction of Senter
which prevented hundreds of Republicans from voting. You see Senter
was governor. He had militia and intended to use them, if necessary,
to elect himself. In many cases where the rebels had the upper hand
the Republicans, especially the negroes, could not vote in their
precincts for fear of violence. What defeated me was the rebels who
were disfranchised under the constitution. I got 56,000, which was
Grant’s vote last fall. Seymour’s was 33,000 last fall, but Senter’s
vote was this time 119,000. The 86,000 additional which Senter got
were rebels and minors.”
These charges made by Mr. Stokes were replied to in the daily press by
Governor Senter. He claimed that it was unfair to compare the vote in
the recent election with the presidential election of the previous
fall. In the presidential election the Republicans were sure of the
result in the State, so they had made no effort to bring out a full
vote. It would be much fairer to take the vote cast in the
gubernatorial election of 1867 as the standard by which to measure the
result of the recent election. In 1867, Governor Brownlow’s vote was
19,900 more than Mr. Stokes had received, yet the registration of 1867
exceeded the vote cast by over 20,000. The old registration law was
still in force, but had been modified by a decision of the Supreme
Court which admitted at least 40,000 votes which had been kept out in
1867. In other words, Mr. Senter claimed he could have received a
majority of 20,000 had there been no new registration. The newly
appointed registrars, referred to in Mr. Stokes’s interview, were,
with the exception of three tenths, regularly discharged Federal
soldiers.
Mr. Stokes in his efforts to secure Federal intervention was supported
by all the Radical leaders. Many of those who had supported Governor
Senter in the election were now most active in the attempt to prevent
his induction into office. Among the first to change front was Mr.
Brownlow. Early in the contest he had favored the nomination of
Governor Senter. After the disruption of the Radical Convention, he
still continued to support Governor Senter. It was not until after
election that he seemed to realize that Governor Senter’s victory
meant the return to power of the ex-Confederate and consequently the
downfall of Radical domination.
President Grant turned a deaf ear to the entreaties of the Radical
leaders. They sought Congressional action, but met defeat here also,
as Congress passed a resolution thanking President Grant for his
refusal to interfere with affairs in Tennessee.
CHAPTER XI
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1870
While the Radical leaders were engaged in their futile efforts at
Washington to obtain Federal intervention, the Legislature convened at
Nashville, and Governor Senter was inaugurated with the usual
ceremony. Both the Governor and the Legislature manifested a desire to
fulfill their election pledges, by restoring the franchise to the
ex-Confederates, but the manner in which this should be accomplished
was not at first very apparent.
In the Constitution, as it was prior to the war, the suffrage
qualifications had been clearly stated and no power had been vested in
the Legislature to alter them. It was in virtue of the amendments
adopted by the Radical Convention of 1865, that the Legislature had
passed the disfranchising acts of 1866 and 1867.
The simple repeal of these acts would have re-enfranchised the
ex-Confederates, but it would have left unsettled a number of
perplexing problems resulting from the war. It was felt that the
solution of these questions should not be left to the Legislature, as
its members were all Union men, and therefore did not represent the
whole political body. It was also recognized that the questions to be
settled were of a constitutional character, and could be properly
dealt with only by a constitutional Convention.
These considerations led to the passage of an act which authorized the
Governor to put to a vote of the people the question of holding a
constitutional Convention. At the same election delegates were to be
chosen. Every male person not convicted of infamous crime, of the age
of twenty-one, and a citizen of the United States, and a citizen of
the State of Tennessee was allowed to vote. The election was held on
the 3d of December and resulted in a large majority in favor of the
Convention.
The first constitutional Convention in the history of the State was
the one which had met in Knoxville, and framed the Constitution under
which Tennessee had been admitted into the Union.[19] Conspicuous
among the members of the first Convention were John Sevier and Andrew
Jackson. The constitution they adopted was modelled after that of the
mother State, North Carolina. In 1834, a second Convention met at
Nashville, and modified the old Constitution, so as to bring it into
harmony with the industrial changes of the first quarter of a century.
The next assertion of constituent powers was in 1861, when the
Legislature passed the Declaration of Independence, and the Ordinance
of Union with the Confederacy. In 1865, the Radical Convention, as we
have seen, framed a number of constitutional amendments.
The newly elected convention assembled at Nashville on the 10th day of
January. The character of its members was a guaranty that its action
would be Conservative. It has been pronounced the most intelligent
body ever elected in Tennessee for any purpose. John C. Brown, an
ex-major-general of the Confederate army, was elected to preside over
its deliberations. As the Authorization Act did not limit the power of
the Convention, it was at liberty to enter into a thorough-going
provision of the constitution, but it manifested from the start the
intention to confine itself to the task of settling the question
growing out of the war. Chief among these was negro suffrage.
The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States had
not yet been adopted, so it was still in the power of the State to
withhold the franchise from the negro. In the discussion of this
suffrage question, the Convention was divided into three factions. The
Union delegates, who were greatly in the minority, favored universal
suffrage. The extreme opposite opinion was expressed in the minority
report of the Suffrage Committee: “We hold that the negro race is the
lowest order of human beings, incapable in themselves of a virtuous
intelligence, or free government; and for the truth, we appeal to
history, and challenge the world to show a single exception. We hold
that the inferiority of the negro to the white man, in race, color,
and capacity for permanent, well-ordered government has been fixed by
Him who ‘doeth all things well,’ and whose natural or revealed law has
never been violated by any human government without disaster and
confusion.”
In the abstract, the above statement undoubtedly represented the view
of a majority of the delegates. But the conservative men of the
Convention recognized that the rejection of negro suffrage would
strengthen the Radicals in their efforts to obtain Federal
intervention. Considerations of political expediency led, therefore,
to the adoption of the following provision in regard to suffrage:
“Every male person of the age of twenty-one years, being a citizen of
the United States, and a resident of this State for twelve months, and
of the county wherein he may offer his vote, for six months next
preceding the day of election, shall be entitled to vote for members
of the General Assembly, and all civil officers of the county or
district in which he resides, and there shall be no qualification
attached to the right of suffrage, except that each voter shall give
to the judge of the election, where he offers to vote, satisfactory
evidence that he has paid the poll taxes assessed against him for such
preceding period as the Legislature shall prescribe, and at such time
as may be prescribed by law, without which his vote cannot be
received.”[20]
After fixing the suffrage qualifications, all the important changes in
the constitution proposed by the Convention, were directed, with
possibly two exceptions, towards the prevention of the recurrence of
the political abuses, from which the State had suffered under the
Radical administration. Fresh in the minds of all were the arbitrary
acts of Governor Brownlow in suspending the writ of habeas corpus, and
proclaiming martial law. A number of limitations were, therefore,
placed upon the military power of the Governor. It was provided that
“the militia shall not be called into service except in case of
rebellion or invasion, and then only when the General Assembly shall
declare by law that the public safety requires it.” The Bill of Rights
was so amended that “the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the General Assembly
shall declare the public safety requires it.”
Another flagrant abuse under Radical rules had been the too frequent
meeting of the Legislature. During the four years of Governor
Brownlow’s administration, it had been in almost continuous session.
To remedy this, regular sessions were made biennial, and it was
provided that no member “shall be paid for more than seventy days of
the regular session, or for more than twenty days of an extra or
called session.”
The two important changes in the constitution, which had no relation
to the disturbed political conditions resulting from the war, were the
creation of a homestead exemption, and the delegation to the
Legislature of the power to pass general laws for the organization of
private corporations.
Having completed its labors, the Convention proceeded to the Capitol,
and, in the presence of both Houses of the Legislature, it placed the
revised constitution in the hands of the Governor. By him it was
submitted to a vote of the people, and ratified by a vote of 98,128
for, to 33,872 against.
At the first State election that occurred under the provisions of the
new Constitution, the Democrats regained political control of the
State. This ended the Reconstruction Period in Tennessee.
[19] Caldwell’s “Studies in the Constitutional History of
Tennessee.”
[20] _Journal of the Constitutional Convention of 1870._
AUTHORITIES.
Acts of Tennessee: Extra Session, 1861; 2d Extra Session, 1861;
1861-62; 1865; 1865-66; Extra Session, 1866; 1868; 1869; 1869-70;
1870; 1870-71; 1871; 1872; 1873; 1875; 1877; 1879; 1881. Extra
Session, 1881; 1882; 1883.
BARNES, W. H. “History of the Thirty-ninth Congress.”
BATE, W. B. Messages to the General Assembly.
BLAINE, JAMES G. “Twenty Years of Congress.”
BROWN, JOHN C. Messages to the General Assembly.
BROWNLOW, W. G. “Sketches of the Rise, Progress, and Decline of
Secession, with a Narrative of Personal Experiences among the Rebels.”
Philadelphia, 1862.
CALDWELL, JOSHUA W. “Studies in the Constitutional History of
Tennessee.” Cincinnati, 1895.
COX, S. S. “Three Decades of Federal Legislation.”
DUNNING, W. A. “Essays on the Civil War and Reconstruction.” New York,
1898.
EVERETT, EDWARD. “Account of the Fund for the Relief of East
Tennessee.” Boston, 1864.
HARRIS, ISHAM G. Messages to the General Assembly.
HAWKINS, ALVIN. Messages to the General Assembly.
_House Journals_ for 1865, 1865-66, 1866. Extra Session, 1866,
1867-68. Extra Session, 1868, 1868-69, 1869-70.
HUMES, THOMAS WILLIAM. “The Loyal Mountaineers of Tennessee.”
Knoxville, 1888.
_Journal of the Constitutional Convention of 1870._
_Knoxville Whig_, Knoxville, Tennessee.
MARK, ALBERT. Messages to the General Assembly.
MACPHERSON, EDWARD. “History of the Rebellion.”
MACPHERSON, EDWARD. “History of the Reconstruction.”
MILLER, CHAS. A. “The Official and Political Manual of the State of
Tennessee.” Nashville, 1890.
Report of the Committee Appointed to Investigate the State Debt.
Appendix to the _Senate Journal_ for 1879.
SCOTT, W. A. “The Repudiation of State Debts.” New York, 1893.
_Senate Journal_ for 1865, 1866, 1867-68, 1868-69. Extra Session,
1868.
SENTER, DE WITT. Message to the General Assembly.
TOWNSEND’S Records of the Great Rebellion.
_The Union and American_, Nashville.
“Why the Solid South?” Hilary Herbert, Baltimore, 1890.
WILSON, HENRY. “History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power.”
VITA
The author of this dissertation, John Randolph Neal, was born
September, 16, 1874, at Rhea Springs, Tennessee. His early education
was received at the public schools in Tennessee and Washington, D. C.
In 1890, he entered the University of Tennessee and was graduated in
1893 with the degree of A.B. During the years 1893-96, he pursued
graduate work in Vanderbilt University, taking courses in History,
Economics, Literature, and Philosophy. In 1894, he received the degree
of A.M.; and in 1896, the degree of LL.B.
Since 1896, Mr. Neal has been a graduate student at Columbia
University. He has had Constitutional and Administrative Law as a
major subject, and Roman Law, and Political Economy and Finance as
minor subjects. He has attended courses given by Professors Burgess,
Goodnow, Munroe Smith, Mayo-Smith, Moore, and Seligman.
While at Vanderbilt, Mr. Neal held university scholarships in
Economics and History. At Columbia, he has been University Scholar in
Political Science and Public Law.
* * * * * *
Transcriber’s note:
Footnotes were renumbered sequentially and were moved to the end
of the chapter in which related anchors occur.
Inconsistent hyphenation and misspelled words were not corrected.
Space was removed after apostrophe in “coup d’état.”
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Disunion and Restoration in Tennessee - Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.