CHAPTER XVII THE ERA OF RECONSTRUCTION HOW THE NORTH USED ITS VICTORY Southerner's Johnson on Among the Johnson papers in the Library of Congress at 100. A Washington is the following letter of General Howell Cobb advice to of Georgia, Secretary of the Treasury under Buchanan, President written at the request of Major General J. H. Wilson of reconstructhe Union army in Georgia, to be submitted to President tion, June 14, Johnson: [477] 1865 Macon, 14 June, 1865 Com'ding &c. Macon, Ga. Brevet Maj. Genl. J. H. Wilson GENERAL In compliance with my promise I submit to you in writing the views and suggestions which I had the honor of presenting in our interview on yesterday. It is due to candor to say that I was a secessionist, and counseled the people of Georgia to secede.1 When the adoption of that policy resulted in war, I felt it my duty to share in the privations of the struggle, and accordingly at the commencement of the contest, I entered the army, and declining all civil employments, remained there to its close. I was an ardent supporter of the cause throughout the struggle. Upon the surrender of General Johnston, I regarded the contest at an end, and have since that time conformed my actions to that conviction. . . . The contest has ended in the subjugation of the South. The parties stand toward each other in the relative position of conqueror and conquered; and the question for statesmen to decide, 1 See No. 91, p. 394, for Cobb's advice to the people of Georgia. is, the policy and duty of the respective parties. With regard to the latter [the conquered South] the course is plainly marked out. . . . A return to the peaceful and quiet employments of life; obedience to the constitution and laws of the United States; and the faithful discharge of all the duties and obligations imposed upon them by the new state of things, constitute their plain and simple duty.1 In the adoption of the policy, which the Government will pursue towards the people of the South, there are two matters which present themselves for primary and paramount consideration, 1st the present condition of things in the South. 2nd the state of things it is desirable to produce, and the best mode of doing it. ... The whole country [South] has been more or less devastated. Their physical condition in the loss of property, and the deprivation of the comforts of life. . . is as bad as their worst enemy could desire. . . . The abolition of slavery not only 1 That the men of the South were sincerely ready to fulfill that duty we have ample testimony. General Grant, who was sent South on a tour of inspection by Johnson, reported in December, 1865: "I am satisfied that the mass of thinking men of the South accept the present situation of affairs in good faith. The question which has hitherto divided the sentiment of the two sections - Slavery and State rights, or the right of a State to secede from the Union - they regard as having been settled forever by the highest tribunal [arms] that man can resort to. ... My observations lead me to the conclusion that the citizens of the southern States are anxious to return to self-government, within the Union, as soon as possible. . . . It is to be regretted that there cannot be a greater commingling, at this time, between the citizens of the two sections, and particularly of those entrusted with the law-making power (Senate Executive Documents, 39th Congress, 1st session, No. 2, p. 107). General Lee wrote to a friend, September 7, 1865: "Like yourself, I have, since the cessation of hostilities, advised all with whom I have conversed on the subject, who come within the terms of the president's proclamations [of amnesty, May 29, 1865] to take the oath of allegiance, and accept in good faith the amnesty offered. ... The war being at an end, the Southern States having laid down their arms, and the questions at issue between them and the Northern States having been decided, I believe it to be the duty of every one to unite in the restoration of the country and the reëstablishment of peace and harmony" (W. L. Fleming, Documentary History of Reconstruction, Vol. I, p. 63). deprives them of a large property, but revolutionizes the whole system of agricultural labor, and must necessarily retard the restoration of former prosperity. So completely has this institution been interwoven with the whole framework of society, that its abolition involves a revision, and modification of almost every page of the Statute books of the States where it has existed. It is with a people, thus depressed in mind, seriously injured in estate, and surrounded by embarrassing questions of the greatest magnitude, that the Government has to deal... The avowed object of the Government was to restore the Union. The successful termination of the war has effected that result, so far as further resistance on the part of the South is concerned. The people of the South, being prepared to conform to that result, all else for the restoration of the Union is in the hands of the Government. Looking to the future interests, not only of the Southern people, but of the whole country, it is desirable that the bitter animosities . . . should be softened as much as possible; and a devastated country restored . . . to comparative prosperity. To effect these results requires the exercise of virtues, which the history of the World shows, are not often, if ever found, in the hearts of the conquerors, magnanimity and generosity. The World is sadly in need of such an example. Let the United States furnish it. There never was a more fitting opportunity. It will never be followed by more satisfactory results. . . . 1 The laws passed to adjust the framework of society in the South to the new conditions occasioned by the liberation of 4,000,000 slaves were called the "black laws" or the "black codes" (see Muzzey, An American History, pp. 480-481). They were used by the radicals of the North in the campaign of 1866 against President Johnson's policy of granting "home rule" to the Southern states. They never went into force, for the Freedman's Bureau at first suspended them, and then the "carpetbag governments" established by the Reconstruction Act (see No. 101, p. 455) repealed them. Since the fall of the Reconstruction Governments, however, the black codes have been virtually reenacted in all the Southern States - prohibition of intermarriage, distinct white and colored schools, "Jim Crow" cars, etc. A number of interesting examples of the black codes may be found in W. L. Fleming's Documentary History of Reconstruction, Vol. I, pp. 273–312. 2 See the Resolution of Congress of July 22, 1861, No. 93 (d), p. 412. I leave it for those who would counsel a different policy, to foreshadow the effects of a contrary course. They may be able to see, how more blood, and more suffering will sooner restore kindlier feelings. I cannot. In the sufferings already endured, and the privations of the present, there appears to me an ample atonement, to satisfy the demands of those who would punish the South for the past. For the security of the future no such policy is required. Giving to these general principles the form of practical recommendations, I would say that all prosecutions and penal ties should cease against those who stand charged alone with the offence of being parties to, and supporters of the Southern cause.... If I could make my voice heard in the councils of the Government, I would seek to restore concord and good feeling by extending it to those, from whom I asked it in return. . . . No man will doubt that the man who is received back into the Union, and feels that he has been subjected to no severe penalty, and been required to submit to no humiliating test, will make a truer and better citizen, than the one who feels that his citizenship has been obtained by submitting to harsh and degrading terms, which he was compelled to yield to, to secure the rights he has acquired. . . By the abolition of slavery. . a state of things has been produced, well calculated to excite the most serious apprehensions with the people of the South. I regard the result as unfortunate both for the white and black. The institution of slavery, in my judgment provided the best system of labor that could be devised for the negro race. . . . You will find that our people are fully prepared to conform to the new state of things [emancipation]; and will be disposed to pursue towards the negroes, a course dictated by humanity and kindness. I take it for granted, that the future relations, between the negroes and their former owners, like all other questions of domestic policy, will be under the control and direction of the State Governments.1 . . . 1 In expecting to be allowed to solve their questions of "domestic policy" after the war the Southerners were not asking an unreasonable favor, according to the views of Abraham Lincoln. In his last cabinet I am fully conscious of the fact, that what I have said, is subject to the criticism of proceeding from an interested party. This is true. I am interested, deeply interested in the question, not so much for myself, for I have no future, but for my family, my friends, my countrymen. . So is every man who feels an interest in the future not of the South only, but of the whole country. ... The men prevailed who "counselled a different policy" 101. The Refrom that of complete amnesty and home rule for the meeting Lincoln remarked: "We can't undertake to run State Governments in all these Southern States. Their people must do that, though I reckon that at first they may do it badly” (F. W. Seward, Life of Seward, Vol. III, p. 275). It was neither the Southern leaders nor Andrew Johnson, under their sinister influence, that inaugurated the idea of home rule for the South after the war-it was Abraham Lincoln. The radicals at the North were indignant that Johnson should take into his own hands the problem of Reconstruction, during the recess of Congress, by issuing an amnesty proclamation and allowing governments to set themselves up in the Southern states; and were exasperated that these measures of Johnson were winning for him the approbation of moderate men in both sections. "Is there no way to arrest the insane course of the President in reorganization," wrote Thaddeus Stevens to Sumner on the very day (June 14, 1865) that Cobb wrote his letter of advice to the President; "If something is not done, the President will be crowned king before Congress meets " (Works of Charles Sumner, ed. G. F. Hoar, Vol. IX, p. 543). And Benjamin Wade of Ohio wrote to Sumner (July 29): "The President is pursuing and resolved to pursue a course in regard to reconstruction that can result in nothing but consigning the great Union or Republican party, bound hand and foot to the tender mercies of the rebels we have so lately conquered in the field, and their copperhead allies of the North" (Works of Charles Sumner, Vol. IX, p. 480). Extreme radicals like Sumner, Wade, and Chase had made up their minds before the close of the war that the negro must be given the ballot in order to protect himself. Chase wrote to Lincoln, from Baltimore, April 11, 1865: "As to the rebel States, the easiest and safest way seems to me to be the enrollment of loyal citizens without regard to complexion. . . . This you know has long been my opinion. It is confirmed by observation more and more. . . . It will be hereafter counted equally a crime and a folly if the colored loyalists of the rebel States are left to the control of restored rebels..." (War of the Rebellion, Official Records, Series I, Vol. XLVII, Part III, PP. 427-428). construction Act, March 2, 1867 [484] |