historic “cause of irritation”

Posted on April 9, 2016 by SUMPTER
Outside of the galleries of the House of Representatives during the passage of the civil rights bill ( Illus. in: Harper's weekly, v. 10, no. 487 (1866 April 28), p. 269. ; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2010652199/#))

“Outside of the galleries of the House of Representatives during the passage of the civil rights bill” – Library of Congress

April 9, 1866 marked the first anniversary of General Lee’s surrender at Appomattox. On that same day the United States House of Representatives overrode President Andrew Johnson’s veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. In conjunction with the Senate’s override vote on April 6th this represented “the first time in American history [that] Congress enacted a major piece of legislation over a President’s veto”[1]

Eric Foner explains that President Johnson’s veto of the Civil Rights Bill did not isolate the Radicals – it made moderate Republicans realize that the president’s policies were dangerous for the party, especially since the Civil Rights Act was the right thing to do and naturally followed the Union victory in the war. President Johnson thought he would win on the Civil Rights Bill because racism was “deeply embedded in Northern as well as Southern public life” and because of the importance of individual state sovereignty over local affairs, as Frederick Douglass noted. “Given the Civil Rights Act’s astonishing expansion of federal authority and blacks’ rights, it is not surprising that Johnson considered it a Radical measure and believed he could mobilize voters against it.”[2]

The Civil Rights Bill and Freedmen’s Bill of early 1866 impinged on the embedded racism in Alabama’s public life and on Alabama’s notions of state control over local matters, as Walter L. Fleming’s 1905 Civil War and Reconstruction in Alabama pointed out:

NY Times April 7, 1866

NY Times April 7, 1866

New Conditions of Congress and Increasing Irritation

The first general assembly under the provisional government ratified the Thirteenth Amendment, “with the understanding that it does not confer upon Congress the power to legislate upon the political status of freedmen in this state.” The same legislature requested the President to order the withdrawal of the Federal troops on duty in Alabama, for their presence was a source of much disorder and there was no need of them.

The President was asked to release Hon. C. C. Clay, Jr., who was still in prison. At the end of the session a resolution was adopted approving the policy of President Johnson and pledging coöperation with his “wise, firm, and just” work; asserting that the results of the late contest were conclusive, and that there was no desire to renew discussion on settled questions; denouncing the misrepresentations and criminal assaults on the character and interest of the southern people; declaring that it was a misfortune of the present political conditions that there were persons among them whose interests were promoted by false representations; confidence was expressed in the power of the administration to protect the state from malign influences; slavery was abolished and should not be reëstablished; the negro race should be treated with humanity, justice, and good faith, and every means be used to make them useful and intelligent members of society; but “Alabama will not voluntarily consent to change the adjustment of political power as fixed by the Constitution of the United States, and to constrain her to do so in her present prostrate and helpless condition, with no voice in the councils of the nation, would be an unjustifiable breach of faith.”

NY Times April 10, 1866

NY Times April 10, 1866

During the year 1866 there was a growing spirit of independence in the Alabama politics. At no time had there been a subservient spirit, but for a time the people, fully accepting the results of the war, were disposed to do nothing more than conform to any reasonable conditions which might be imposed, feeling sure that the North would impose none that were dishonorable. To them at first the President represented the feeling of the people of the North, perhaps worse. The theory of state sovereignty having been destroyed by the war, the state rights theories of Lincoln and Johnson were easily accepted by the southerners, who were content, after Johnson had modified his policy, to leave affairs in his hands. When the serious differences between the executive and Congress appeared, and the latter showed a desire to impose degrading terms on the South, the people believed that their only hope was in Johnson. They believed the course of Congress to be inspired by a desire for revenge. Heretofore the people had taken little interest in public affairs. Enough voters went to the polls and voted to establish and keep in operation the provisional government. The general belief was that the political questions would settle themselves or be settled in a manner fairly satisfactory to the South. Now a different spirit arose. The southerners thought that they had complied with all the conditions ever asked that could be complied with without loss of self-respect. The new conditions of Congress exhausted their patience and irritated their pride. Self-respecting men could not tamely submit to such treatment.

Alabama 1866 (LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/98688440/)

Alabama 1866

During the latter part of 1865 and in 1866, ex-Governor Parsons travelled over the North, speaking in the chief cities in support of the policy of the President. He asked the northern people to rebuke at the polls the political fanatics who were inflaming the minds of the people North and South. He demanded the withdrawal of the military. There had been, he said, no sign of hostility since the surrender; the people were opposed to any legislation which would give the negro the right to vote; and it was the duty of the President, not of Congress, to enforce the laws.

Much angry discussion was caused by the passage of the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill in 1866. The Bureau officials had caused themselves to be hated by the whites. They were a nuisance, when no worse, and useless,—a plague to the people. Though there were comparatively few in the state, they were the cause of disorder and ill-feeling between the races. Though there was now even less need of the institution than a year before, the new measure was much more offensive in its provisions. There was great rejoicing when the President vetoed the bill, which the Mobile Times called “an infamous disorganization scheme of radicalism.” The Bureau had become a political machine for work among white and black. The passage of the bill over the veto was felt to be a blow at the prostrate South.

The Civil Rights Bill of 1866 was also a cause of irritation. There was a disposition among the officials of the Freedmen’s Bureau to enforce all such measures before they became law. Orders were issued directing the application of the principles of measures then before Congress. The United States commissioner in Mobile decided that under the “Civil Rights Bill” negroes could ride on the cars set apart for the whites. Horton, the Radical military mayor of Mobile, banished to New Orleans an idiotic negro boy who had been hired to follow him and torment him by offensive questions. Horton was indicted under the “Civil Rights Bill” and convicted. The people of Mobile were much pleased when a “Yankee official was the first to be caught in the trap set for southerners.”

Another citizen of Mobile, a magistrate, was haled before a Federal court, charged with having sentenced a negro to be whipped, contrary to the provisions of the “Civil Rights Bill.” The magistrate explained that there was nothing at all offensive about the whipping. He had not acted in his magisterial capacity, but had himself whipped the negro boy for lying, stealing, and neglect of duty while in his employ. The agent of the Bureau at Selma notified the mayor that the “chain gang system of working convicts on the streets had to be discontinued or he would be prosecuted for violation of the ‘Civil Rights Bill.’” Judge Hardy of Selma decided in a case brought before him that the “Civil Rights Bill” was unconstitutional. He declared it to be an attack on the independence of the judiciary.

The man that blocks up the highway. (1866; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/scsm000329/)

Congress found a detour

Poster offering fifty dollars reward for the capture of a runaway slave Stephen. (1852; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/rbpe.00101200/)

1852: “Poster offering fifty dollars reward for the capture of a runaway slave Stephen.” – Library of Congress

Negroes, descendants of former slaves of the Pettway Plantation. They are living under primitive conditions on the plantation. Gees Bend, Alabama (1937 Feb.; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/fsa2000006860/PP/)

1937: “Negroes, descendants of former slaves of the Pettway Plantation. They are living under primitive conditions on the plantation. Gees Bend, Alabama” – Library of Congress

Alabamians receiving rations / sketched by A.R. Waud. ( Illus. in: Harper's weekly, 1866 Aug. 11, p. 509; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/94510083/)

1866: “Alabamians receiving rations / sketched by A.R. Waud.” – Library of Congress

From the Library of Congress: outside the House; map; read the cartoon’s (square) speech balloons; runaway poster; old plantation; Alfred Waud’s drawing of folks receiving rations appeared in the August 11, 1866 edition of Harper’s Weekly. The text above the image seems to be discussing the Freedmen’s Bureau’s work in Alabama, although there doesn’t appear to be very many freedman in the drawing. “Much of the money expended by the Bureau has gone to the support of the poor … Major PIERCE – an officer, who is one of many I have met, sacrificing their personal comfort and desire to be at home to a sense of duty; and, of all trying positions, it is hard to imagine anything worse than that of a Bureau officer …”
  1. [1]Foner, Eric. Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877. New York: HarperPerennial, 2014. Updated Edition. Print. pages 250-251.↩
  2. [2]ibid.page 251.↩
Posted in 150 Years Ago This Week, Aftermath, Postbellum Society, Reconstruction, Southern Society | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

this just in

Posted on April 2, 2016 by SUMPTER

On April 2, 1866 President Andrew Johnson proclaimed the American Civil War officially ended, finished, no more. You read the document at the Library of Congress and at The American Presidency Project. Here’s a bit of it:

… Whereas there now exists no organized armed resistance of misguided citizens or others to the authority of the United States in the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida, and the laws can be sustained and enforced therein by the proper civil authority, State or Federal, and the people of said States are well and loyally disposed and have conformed or will conform in their legislation to the condition of affairs growing out of the amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting slavery within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States; and

Whereas, in view of the before-recited premises, it is the manifest determination of the American people that no State of its own will has the right or the power to go out of, or separate itself from, or be separated from, the American Union, and that therefore each State ought to remain and constitute an integral part of the United States; and

Whereas the people of the several before-mentioned States have, in the manner aforesaid, given satisfactory evidence that they acquiesce in this sovereign and important resolution of national unity; and

Whereas it is believed to be a fundamental principle of government that people who have revolted and who have been overcome and subdued must either be dealt with so as to induce them voluntarily to become friends or else they must be held by absolute military power or devastated so as to prevent them from ever again doing harm as enemies, which last-named policy is abhorrent to humanity and to freedom; and

Whereas the Constitution of the United States provides for constituent communities only as States, and not as Territories, dependencies, provinces, or protectorates; and

NY Times April 3, 1866

NY Times April 3, 1866

Whereas such constituent States must necessarily be, and by the Constitution and laws of the United States are, made equals and placed upon a like footing as to political rights, immunities, dignity, and power with the several States with which they are united; and

Whereas the observance of political equality, as a principle of right and justice, is well calculated to encourage the people of the aforesaid States to be and become more and more constant and persevering in their renewed allegiance; and

Whereas standing armies, military occupation, martial law, military tribunals, and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus are in time of peace dangerous to public liberty, incompatible with the individual rights of the citizen, contrary to the genius and spirit of our free institutions, and exhaustive of the national resources, and ought not, therefore, to be sanctioned or allowed except in cases of actual necessity for repelling invasion or suppressing insurrection or rebellion; and

Whereas the policy of the Government of the United States from the beginning of the insurrection to its overthrow and final suppression has been in conformity with the principles herein set forth and enumerated:

Now, therefore, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare that the insurrection which heretofore existed in the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida is at an end and is henceforth to be so regarded.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this 2d day of April, A. D. 1866, and of the Independence of the United States of America the ninetieth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

Secretary of State.

As it turns out the war was only almost officially at an end. As The Civil War points out, President Johnson only listed ten states in his April proclamation because The Lone Star State … rebel territory was alone again. Texas had not yet formed a new state government. It looks like we’re going to have to wait another four months.

The end of the rebellion in the United States, 1865 / C. Kimmel. (c1866; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2004665369/)

It ended in 1865?

Posted in 150 Years Ago This Week, Aftermath, Postbellum Politics, Postbellum Society, Reconstruction | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

planes, trains, and auto trucks

Posted on March 31, 2016 by SUMPTER

On March 9, 1916 Francisco (Pancho) Villa’s“guerrilla militia” attacked a United States army outpost at Columbus, New Mexico and killed several Americans. In response General John J. Pershing lead the Villa Punitive Expedition into Mexico. Despite pulling out seemingly all the technological stops, the guerrilla leader was proving difficult to capture.

Army camp Columbus, N.M., auto truck supply train about to leave for Mexico / Shulman. (1916?; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2002719615/)

“Army camp Columbus, N.M., auto truck supply train about to leave for Mexico …” (Library of Congress)

NY Times March 24, 1916

NY Times March 24, 1916

NY Times March 25, 1916

NY Times March 25, 1916

Carranza and U.S. troops use trains in search for Villa--Mexican-U.S. campaign after Villa, 1916 (LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/96513069/)

“Carranza and U.S. troops use trains in search for Villa–Mexican-U.S. campaign after Villa, 1916” (Library of Congress)

NY Times March 26, 1916

NY Times March 26, 1916

NY Times March 27, 1916

“Aeroplanes are patrolling the line of communication from Columbus.” (NY Times March 27, 1916)

NY Times March 31, 1916

“It is officially confirmed by aeroplane that the southernmost American cavalry forces are pressing Francisco Villa hard.” (NY Times March 31, 1916)

Lieut. C.G. Chapman preparing for a scouting expedition at Casas Grandes, Mexico--Mexican-U.S. campaign after Villa, 1916 (LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/95511629/)

“Lieut. C.G. Chapman preparing for a scouting expedition at Casas Grandes, Mexico–Mexican-U.S. campaign after Villa, 1916” (Library of Congress)

__________________________________________________________

And motorcycles, machine guns, and wireless

8th Machine Gun Cavalry in action on Mexican border--Mexican-U.S. campaign after Villa, 1916 (c1916 April 20.; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/96509207/)

“8th Machine Gun Cavalry in action on Mexican border–Mexican-U.S. campaign after Villa, 1916” (Library of Congress)

Receiving wireless messages from the border near Casas Grandes, Mexico - Mexican-U.S. Campaign after Villa, 1916 (c1916; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2002718111/)

“Receiving wireless messages from the border near Casas Grandes, Mexico – Mexican-U.S. Campaign after Villa, 1916” (Library of Congress)

Motorcycle squad attached to brigade headquarters near Casa Grandes, Mexico Mexican-U.S. campaign after Villa, 1916. (c1916 May 6.; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2013645867/)

“Motorcycle squad attached to brigade headquarters near Casa Grandes, Mexico Mexican-U.S. campaign after Villa, 1916.” (Library of Congress)

This post certainly has even less to do with the Civil War and/or Reconstruction than usual, but technology did seem to be a theme during the Civil War 150th remembrance. I always liked stories of the telegraph, but by 1916 the army was using wireless. Thaddeus Lowe used hot air balloons were used for aerial reconnaissance during the Civil War; 50 years later aeroplanes were up in the air keeping track (and Zeppelins were still full of hot air). Technological change can be gradual – there were plenty of horses in use as I browsed through all the excellent photos from the Villa Expedition. And sometimes old technology can come to the rescue of the new stuff.

Fair Oaks, Va. Prof. Thaddeus S. Lowe observing the battle from his balloon "Intrepid" (1862 May 31.; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/cwp2003000067/PP/)

1862: “Fair Oaks, Va. Prof. Thaddeus S. Lowe observing the battle from his balloon “Intrepid”” – Library of Congress)

The camp blacksmith at Casas Grandes, Mexico (c1916.; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/95508689/)

1916: “The camp blacksmith at Casas Grandes, Mexico”

Capt. B.D. Foulois and Lieut. J.E. [or J.C.?] Carberry picked up by Mexican along road [in wagon] after their aeroplane had fallen 1500 feet - Mexican-U.S. Campaign after Villa, 1916 (c1916 April 27; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2002699808/)

“Capt. B.D. Foulois and Lieut. J.E. [or J.C.?] Carberry picked up by Mexican along road [in wagon] after their aeroplane had fallen 1500 feet – Mexican-U.S. Campaign after Villa, 1916” (Library of Congress)

Posted in 100 Years Ago, Technology | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

nay-a-gainsayer

Posted on March 26, 2016 by SUMPTER
NY Times March 28, 1866

NY Times March 28, 1866

In February 1866 President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Freedmen’s Bureau extension act. On March 27th he vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Here’s an 1896 summary from The Struggle between President Johnson and Congress over Reconstruction by Charles Ernest Chadsey:

6. After the President had thus publicly stigmatized the opponents of his policy as instigators of a new rebellion, and classed Stevens, Sumner and Wendell Phillips as traitors to be compared with Davis, there could be no hope of reconciliation, and the Republican party grimly settled down to fight for its principles. The first important measure to take effect was the civil rights bill.

On the first day of the session Senator Wilson, of Massachusetts, had introduced a bill looking to the personal protection of the freedmen. It was aimed directly at the “black laws” of the Southern States, and declared all laws, statutes, acts, etc., of any description whatsoever, which caused any inequality of civil rights, in consequence of race or color, to be void. In his speech of December 13, 1865, explaining his reasons for introducing the bill, Wilson said that, while honest differences as to the expediency of negro suffrage might exist, he could not comprehend “how any humane, just and Christian man can, for a moment, permit the laws that are on the statute-books of the States in rebellion, and the laws that are now pending before their legislatures, to be executed upon men whom we have declared to be free. * * * To turn these freedmen over to the tender mercies of men who hate them for their fidelity to the country is a crime that will bring the judgment of heaven upon us.”

This bill and a similar bill introduced by the same senator on December 21, and one introduced by Senator Sumner on the first day of the session, never came to a vote, the last two being postponed indefinitely by the Senate. In place of these bills, Senator Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, on January 5, 1866, introduced a bill which, slightly amended, became a law. This measure passed the Senate on February 2, was amended and passed by the House on March 13, and the amendments were concurred in by the Senate on the 15th. It was returned to the Senate by the President, without his approval, March 27, and on April 6 the Senate passed the bill over the veto of the President by a vote of 33 to 15. Three days later the House passed the bill by a vote of 122 to 41, and the measure became a law.

The lobby of the House of Representatives at Washington during the passage of the civil rights bill ( Illus. in: Harper's weekly, v. 10, no. 487 (1866 April 28), pp. 264-265. ; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2010652197/)

“The lobby of the House of Representatives at Washington during the passage of the civil rights bill” – Library of Congress

As passed it was entitled, “An Act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication.” It first declared “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed,” to be citizens of the United States. Such citizens, without regard to race, color, or previous servitude, were declared to have the same rights in all the States and Territories, as white citizens, to make and enforce contracts; to “sue, be parties, and give evidence; to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property;” to enjoy the equal benefit of all laws for the security of person and property, and to be subject only to the same punishments. The second section provided penalties for the deprivation of equal rights. The third gave to the United States courts exclusive cognizance of all causes involving the denial of the rights secured by the first section. The remaining sections specified the powers and duties of the district attorneys, marshals, deputy marshals and special commissioners, in connection with the enforcement of the act, the ninth section providing: “It shall be lawful for the President of the United States, or such person as he may empower for that purpose, to employ such part of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia, as shall be necessary to prevent the violation and enforce the due execution of the Act.”

From this summary of the act its nature can be seen plainly. Up to this time there had been no legislation affecting the status of the freedman. This declared him to be a citizen of the United States, and thereby entitled to all the privileges of citizenship. The war having resulted in the anomalous condition of the several millions of freedmen, some such legislation was necessary, especially in view of the fact that discriminative legislation was being enacted in the South. The bill was moderate in its terms, the most questionable portion being the section empowering the President to enforce the act through the war department, but even that in the then unsettled condition of the country had much to justify it.

Andy veto (Root & Cady, Chicago, 1866. ; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/ihas.200002334/)

act would “break down the barriers which preserve the rights of the States”

The President’s veto message was a lengthy document and discussed in detail the significance of the bill. He questioned the policy of conferring citizenship on four million blacks while eleven of the States were unrepresented in Congress. He doubted whether the negroes possessed the qualifications for citizenship, and thought that their proper protection did not require that they be made citizens, as civil rights were secured to them as they were, while the bill discriminated against the intelligent foreigner. Naturally, he also declared that the securing by federal law of equality of the races was an infringement upon state jurisdiction. “Hitherto, every subject embraced in the enumeration of rights contained in this bill has been considered as exclusively belonging to the States.” The second section he thought to be of doubtful constitutionality and unnecessary, “as adequate judicial remedies could be adopted to secure the desired end, without invading the immunities of legislators, * * * without assailing the independence of the judiciary, * * * and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers. * * * The legislative department of the United States thus takes from the judicial department of the States the sacred and exclusive duty of judicial decision, and converts the State judge into a mere ministerial officer bound to decide according to the will of Congress.” The third section he characterized as undoubtedly comprehending cases and authorizing the “exercise of powers that are not by the Constitution within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States.” He also considered the extraordinary powers of the numerous officials created by the act as jeopardizing the liberties of the people, and the provisions in regard to fees as liable to bring about persecution and fraud.

In addition to these objections he argued that the bill frustrated the natural adjustment between capital and labor in a way potent to cause discord. It was “an absorption and assumption of power by the General Government which, if acquiesced in, must sap and destroy our federative system of limited powers, and break down the barriers which preserve the rights of the States. * * * The tendency of the bill must be to resuscitate the spirit of rebellion, and to arrest the progress of those influences which are more closely drawing around the States the bonds of union and peace.”

Here is the last part of the president’s veto message from TeachingAmericanHistoryorg:

Andrew Johnson, Prest. U.S. / printed in oil colors, by Bingham & Dodd, Hartford, Conn. (c.1866; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2004671507/)

new federal bureaucrats won’t work themselves out of a job

… I do not propose to consider the policy of this bill. To me the details of the bill are fraught with evil. The white race and black race of the South have hitherto lived together under the relation of master and slave—capital owning labor. Now that relation is changed; and as to ownership, capital and labor are divorced. They stand now, each master of itself. In this new relation, one being necessary to the other, there will be a new adjustment, which both are deeply interested in making harmonious. Each has equal power in settling the terms; and, if left to the laws that regulate capital and labor, it is confidently believed that they will satisfactorily work out the problem. Capital, it is true, has more intelligence; but labor is never ignorant as not to understand its own interests, not to know its own value, and not to see that capital must pay that value. This bill frustrates this adjustment. It intervenes between capital and labor, and attempts to settle questions of political economy through the agency of numerous officials, whose interest it will be to foment discord between the two races; for as the breach widens, their employment will continue; and when it is closed, their occupation will terminate. In all our history, in all our experience as a people living under Federal and State law, no such system as that contemplated by the details of this bill has ever before been proposed or adopted. They establish for the security of the colored race safeguards which go indefinitely beyond any that the General Government has ever provided for the white race. In fact, the distinction of race and color is by the bill made to operate in favor of the colored against the white race. They interfere with the municipal legislation of the States; with relations existing exclusively between a State and its citizens, or between inhabitants of the same State; an absorption and assumption of power by the General Government which, if acquiesced in, must sap and destroy our federative system of limited power, and break down the barriers which preserve the rights of the States. It is another step, or rather stride, towards centralization and the concentration of all legislative powers in the National Government. The tendency of the bill must be to resuscitate the spirit of rebellion, and to arrest the progress of those influences which are more closely drawing around the States the bonds of union and peace.

My lamented predecessor, in his proclamation of the 1st of January, 1863, ordered and declared that all persons held as slaves within certain States and parts of States therein designated, were, and thenceforward should be free; and further, that the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, would recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons. This guaranty has been rendered especially obligatory and sacred by the amendment of the Constitution abolishing slavery throughout the United States. I, therefore, fully recognize the obligation to protect and defend that class of our people whenever and wherever it shall become necessary, and to the full extent, compatible with the Constitution of the United States. Entertaining these sentiments, it only remains for me to say that I will cheerfully co-operate with Congress in any measure that may be necessary for the preservation of civil rights of the freedmen, as well as those of all other classes of persons throughout the United States, by judicial process under equal and impartial laws, or conformably with the provisions of the Federal Constitution.

I now return the bill to the Senate, and regret that in considering the bills and joint resolutions, forty-two in number, which have been thus far submitted for my approval, I am compelled to withhold my assent from a second measure that has received the sanction of both Houses of Congress.
Andrew Johnson

Washington, D.C., March 27, 1866.

The cruel uncle and the vetoed babes in the wood ( Illus. in: Frank Leslie's illustrated newspaper, v. 22, no. 554 (1866 May 12), p. 128.; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2001695524/)

he’s got his hands full

The Senate on April 6th and the House on April 9th voted to override President Johnson’s veto. The Civil Rights Act of 1866, which you can read at PBS, became federal law.

Outside of the galleries of the House of Representatives during the passage of the civil rights bill ( Illus. in: Harper's weekly, v. 10, no. 487 (1866 April 28), p. 269. ; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2010652199/#))

“Outside of the galleries of the House of Representatives during the passage of the civil rights bill” – Library of Congress

Many thanks to the Library of Congress for all the images: song; portrait; cartoon (from Frank Leslie’s May 12, 1866; the two images from Harper’s Weekly April 28, 1866 (during the early April override vote?) – lobby, joy
Posted in 150 Years Ago This Week, Aftermath, Postbellum Society, Reconstruction | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Pancho and Black Jack

Posted on March 18, 2016 by SUMPTER
General Grant's Richmond march (1865,1866; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/ihas.200000130/)

and then Schofield on to Mexico City?

As Walter Stahr explains in his biography of William H. Seward, after the American Civil War ended, famous Union generals were eager to invade Mexico and drive the French and Maximilian I out of North America. Ulysses S. Grant “was keen to enforce the Monroe doctrine in Mexico,” by supporting the U.S. recognized Benito Juárez government. In July 1865 President Johnson read a letter from General Philip Sheridan to Grant stating that he and his troops were eager to cross the Rio Grande and march towards Mexico City.

Despite having been nearly killed in mid-April, Secretary Seward worked hard during the rest of 1865 to prevent a second Mexican war. He based his approach on his doubt that “invaders from the United States would be more welcome in Mexico than the French”. He argued at cabinet meetings that the French would eventually leave Mexico of their own volition and that, if the United States did drive out the French, “‘we could not get out ourselves.'” The Secretary of State co-opted General John Schofield, whom Grant intended to lead a joint American-Mexican army, by sending him to Paris. Mr. Seward limited the Juárez government ambassador’s access to President Johnson and assured General Grant that he was going to get the French out of Mexico with diplomacy. But he also used the threat of an invasion in his negotiations with the French. By the end of 1865 “Seward had not solved the Mexican crisis, but he had prevented Grant from leading the United States into a second Mexican war, and he had increased the pressure on France to get out of Mexico.” [1]

100 years ago this week another (at least soon to be) famous American general did invade Mexico in pursuit of a Mexican force commanded by Pancho Villa. John J. Pershing led the Pancho Villa Expedition, which:

was launched in retaliation for Villa’s attack on the town of Columbus, New Mexico, and was the most remembered event of the Border War. The declared objective of the expedition by the Wilson administration was the capture of Villa. Despite successfully locating and defeating the main body of Villa’s command, responsible for the raid on Columbus, U.S. forces were unable to prevent Villa’s escape and so the main objective of the U.S. incursion was not achieved.

Generals Obregon, Villa and Pershing meet at Ft Bliss, TX (1). Immediately behind Pershing on the left is his aide Lt. George S. Patton. (https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/jul15.html)

Pancho and Black Jack (August 27, 1914)

Here’s a little more detail, from The Story of General Pershing by Everett Titsworth Tomlinson:

In Pursuit of Villa

General Pershing had been sent to the Mexican border in command of the Southwestern Division early in 1915. In command of the El Paso patrol district, he necessarily was busy much of his time in guarding and patrolling the long thin lines of our men on duty there.

NY Times March, 10 1916

NY Times March, 10 1916

The troubles with Mexico had been steadily increasing in seriousness. The rivalry and warfare between various leaders in that country had not only brought their own country into a condition of distress, but also had threatened to involve the United States as well. Citizens of the latter country had invested large sums in mining, lumber and other industries in Mexico and were complaining bitterly of the failure of our Government either to protect them or their investments. Again and again, under threats of closing their mines or confiscating their property, they had “bought bonds” of the rival Mexican parties, which was only another name for blackmail.

Raids were becoming increasingly prevalent near the border and already Americans were reported to have been slain by these irresponsible bandits who were loyal only to their leaders and not always to them. The condition was becoming intolerable.

Germany, too, had her agents busy within the borders of Mexico, artfully striving not only to increase her own power in the rich and distracted country, but also to create and foment an unreasonable anger against the United States, vainly hoping in this way to prevent the latter country from entering the World War by compelling her to face these threatening attacks from her neighbor on the south. President Wilson was doing his utmost to hold a steady course through the midst of these perils, which daily were becoming more threatening and perplexing.

Columbus, after the battle.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Columbus.jpg

“Columbus, after the battle.”

The climax came early in March, 191[6], when Francesco Villa, the most daring and reckless leader of all the Mexican bandit bands, suddenly with his followers made an attack on the post at Columbus, New Mexico. The American soldiers were taken completely by surprise. Their machine guns (some said there was only one at the post) jammed and their defense was inadequate. They were not prepared. When Villa withdrew he left nine dead civilians and eight dead American soldiers behind him.

Instantly the President decided that the time had come when he must act. There was still the same strong desire to avoid war with Mexico if possible. The same suspicion of Germany was in his mind, but in spite of these things Villa must be punished and Americans must be protected. Quickly a call for regulars and State troops was made and General Pershing was selected as the leader of the punitive expedition.

NY Times March 17, 1916

NY Times March 17, 1916

The New York Sun, in an editorial at the time of his selection, said: “At home in the desert country, familiar with the rules of savage warfare, a regular of regulars, sound in judgment as in physique, a born cavalryman, John J. Pershing is an ideal commander for the pursuit into Mexico.”

The selection indeed may have been “ideal,” but the conditions confronting the commander were far from sharing in that ideal. Equipment was lacking, many of his men, though they were brave, were untrained, and, most perplexing of all, was the exact relation of Mexico to the United States. There could not be said to exist a state of war and yet no one could say the two countries were at peace. He was invading a hostile country which was not an enemy, for the raids of bandit bands across the border did not mean that Mexico as a state was attacking the United States. He must move swiftly across deserts and through mountain fastnesses, he was denied the use of railroads for transporting either troops or supplies, enemies were on all sides who were familiar with every foot of the region and eager to lure him and his army into traps from which escape would be well nigh impossible. The fact is[122] that for nearly eleven months Pershing maintained his line, extending nearly four hundred miles from his base of supplies, in a country which even if it was not at war was at least hostile. It is not therefore surprising that after his return the State of New Mexico voted a handsome gold medal to the leader of the punitive expedition for his success in an exceedingly difficult task.

It was on the morning of March 15, 1916, when General Pershing dashed across the border in command of ten thousand United States cavalrymen, with orders to “get” Villa. A captain in the Civil War who was in the Battle of Gettysburg, when he learned of the swift advance of General Pershing’s forces, said: “The hardest march we ever made was the advance from Frederick. We made thirty miles that day between six o’clock a.m. and eleven o’clock p.m. But Maryland and Pennsylvania are not an alkali desert. I have an idea that twenty-six miles a day, the ground Pershing was covering on that waterless tramp in Mexico, was some hiking.” And the advance[123] is one of the marvels of military achievements when it is recalled that the march was begun before either men or supplies, to say nothing of equipment, were in readiness. …

The Pershing "punitive" expedition : well named (Published in: New York Herald, Nov. 26, 1916, p. 2. ; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2010717753/)

punishing Pershing?

Although the punitive expedition failed in its main purpose,—the capture of Villa,—the opinion in America was unanimous that the leadership had been superb. The American Review of Reviews declared that “the expedition was conducted from first to last in a way that reflected credit on American arms.”

An interesting incident in this chapter of Pershing’s story is that fourteen of the nineteen Apache Indian scouts whom he had helped to capture in the pursuit of Geronimo, in 1886, were aiding him in the pursuit of Villa. Several of these scouts were past seventy years of age; indeed, one was more than eighty, but their keenness on the trail and their long experience made their assistance of great value. One of the best was Sharley and another was Peaches. Several of these Indian scouts are with the colors in France, still with Pershing. …

"U.S. Army Punitive Expedition after Villa, Mexico: General Pershing and General Bliss inspecting the camp, with Colonel Winn, Commander of the 24th Infantry" (Library of Congress)

“U.S. Army Punitive Expedition after Villa, Mexico: General Pershing and General Bliss inspecting the camp, with Colonel Winn, Commander of the 24th Infantry” (Library of Congress)

Villa & staff, Mexico (between ca. 1910 and ca. 1915; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/ggb2004010234/)

the uncatchable General Villa and staff (between ca. 1910 and ca. 1915)

_______________________________________________________

Another Wikisummary:

Villa subsequently led a raid against the U.S.-Mexican border town of Columbus, New Mexico in 1916. The U.S. government sent U.S. Army General John J. Pershing to capture Villa in an unsuccessful nine-month incursion into Mexican sovereign territory that ended when the United States entered World War I and Pershing was called back.

Untitled. [I've Had About Enough of This] (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/306154)

border matters?

Image 9 of The New York times, April 9, 1916, Edition 1 (LOC: https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn78004456/1916-04-09/ed-1/?sp=9)

NY Times April 9, 1916

The Library of Congress provides the images of Richmond March, cactus cartoon, Black Jack inspecting, Pancho and staff (“X” marks Villa’s spot), NY Times photo page. The Library also links to the photo of Pershing and Villa standing together. The man to the right of Villa is Álvaro Obregón; the soldier to the left of Pershing might be George S. Patton. The barbed wire cartoon can be found at the National Archives.
  1. [1]Stahr, Walter Seward: Lincoln’s Indispensable Man. 2012. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2013. Print. pages 440-446.↩
Posted in Aftermath | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

subsidized limbs

Posted on March 7, 2016 by SUMPTER

Good-by, old arm (1865; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/ihas.200001796/)

sacrifice for the Union


From a Seneca County, New York newspaper in March 1866:

FREE LIMBS. – Soldiers who have lost limbs in the service of the United States, are entitled to artificial substitutes, that can be procured upon the presentation of evidence of honorable discharge, and that the wound causing the loss of limb was received in the service. They are furnished free of charge, and do not affect any pension or bounty claim the soldier may have against the Government.

You can actually see a veteran fitted out with an artificial leg in a Photo Essay at The Civil War Monitor; however, the essay also points out that the empty sleeve became a badge of courage.

[Two unidentified soldiers in Union private's uniforms sitting next to table with cannon ball on top; one soldier has an amputated leg and holds crutches] (between 1861 and 1865; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2012648229/)

“Two unidentified soldiers in Union private’s uniforms sitting next to table with cannon ball on top; one soldier has an amputated leg and holds crutches” – Library of Congress

Michael Dunn, Raymond, Potter Co., Penna. / Photographed by Hope, successor to M.H. Kimball, 477 Broadway, New York. (1864 or after; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2015649856/)

“Michael Dunn, Raymond, Potter Co., Penna. …” – Library of Congress)

Posted in 150 Years Ago This Month, Aftermath, Veterans | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

“large hearts and corresponding purses”

Posted on March 4, 2016 by SUMPTER
The Freedman's song (1866; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/ihas.200002555/)

help’s on the way

[I missed this last month.] During the war many fairs were held to benefit the Sanitary Commission. On February 22 and 23, 1866 the Young Ladies’ Aid Society of a small town on one of the Finger Lakes in New York State held a fair to benefit the Freedmen in the South. The event successfully raised real money for the good cause. [But reader beware, a man reviewing the fair had an unliberated mind: he seemed to appreciate the young women working at the fair even more than the fried oysters. I was startled by his attitude – it seemed so 19th century.]

From Village Life in America 1852-1872 by Caroline Cowles Richards (200-204):

February 20.—Our society is going to hold a fair for the Freedmen, in the Town Hall. Susie Daggett and I have been there all day to see about the tables and stoves. We got Mrs. Binks to come and help us.

February 21.—Been at the hall all day, trimming the room. Mr. Thompson and Mr. Backus came down and if they had not helped us we would not have done much. Mr. Backus put up all the principal drapery and made it look beautiful.

February 22.—At the hall all day. The fair opened at 2 p.m. We had quite a crowd in the evening and took in over three hundred dollars. Charlie Hills and Ellsworth Daggett stayed there all night to take care of the hall. We had a fish pond, a grab-bag and a post-office. Anna says they had all the smart people in the post-office to write the letters,—Mr. Morse, Miss Achert, Albert Granger and herself. Some one asked Albert Granger if his law business was good and he said one man thronged into his office one day.

February 23.—We took in two hundred dollars to-day at the fair. We wound up with an auction. We asked Mrs. George Willson if she could not write a poem expressing our thanks to Mr. Backus and she stepped aside for about five minutes and handed us the following lines which we sent to him. We think it is about the nicest thing in the whole fair.

“In ancient time the God of Wine

They crowned with vintage of the vine,

And sung his praise with song and glee

And all their best of minstrelsy.

The Backus whom we honor now

Would scorn to wreathe his generous brow

With heathen emblems—better he

Will love our gratitude to see

Expressed in all the happy faces

Assembled in these pleasant places.

May joy attend his footsteps here

And crown him in a brighter sphere.”

February 24.—Susie Daggett and I went to the hall this morning to clean up. We sent back the dishes, not one broken, and disposed of everything but the tables and stoves, which were to be taken away this afternoon. We feel quite satisfied with the receipts so far, but the expenses will be considerable.

In Ontario County Times of the following week we find this card of thanks:

Caroline Cowles Richards, 1860

diarist and society president

February 28.—The Fair for the benefit of the Freedmen, held in the Town Hall on Thursday and Friday of last week was eminently successful, and the young ladies take this method of returning their sincere thanks to the people of Canandaigua and vicinity for their generous contributions and liberal patronage. It being the first public enterprise in which the Society has ventured independently, the young ladies were somewhat fearful of the result, but having met with such generous responses from every quarter they feel assured that they need never again doubt of success in any similar attempt so long as Canandaigua contains so many large hearts and corresponding purses. But our village cannot have all the praise this time. The Society is particularly indebted to Mr. F. F. Thompson and Mr. S. D. Backus of New York City, for their very substantial aid, not only in gifts and unstinted patronage, but for their invaluable labor in the decoration of the hall and conduct of the Fair. But for them most of the manual labor would have fallen upon the ladies. The thanks of the Society are especially due, also, to those ladies who assisted personally with their superior knowledge and older experience. Also to Mr. W. P. Fiske for his valuable services as cashier, and to Messrs. Daggett, Chapin and Hills for services at the door; and to all the little boys and girls who helped in so many ways.

The receipts amounted to about $490, and thanks to our cashier, the money is all good, and will soon be on its way carrying substantial visions of something to eat and to wear to at least a few of the poor Freedmen of the South.

By order of Society,
Carrie C. Richards, Pres’t.
Emma H. Wheeler, Sec’y.

Mr. Editor—I expected to see an account of the Young Ladies’ Fair in your last number, but only saw a very handsome acknowledgment by the ladies to the citizens. Your “local” must have been absent; and I beg the privilege in behalf of myself and many others of doing tardy justice to the successful efforts of the Aid Society at their debut February 22nd.

Greenbacks: new song for the times; sung by Bryant's Minstrels words and music by Dan D. Emmett, author of Dixie's land, High daddy, &c. (Wm. A. Pond & co., New York, c1863 ; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/scsm000044/)

“thanks to our cashier, the money is all good”

Gotham furnished an artist and an architect, and the Society did the rest. The decorations were in excellent taste, and so were the young ladies. The eatables were very toothsome. The skating pond was never in better condition. On entering the hall I paused first before the table of toys, fancy work and perfumery. Here was the President, and I hope I shall be pardoned for saying that no President since the days of Washington can compare with the President of this Society. Then I visited a candy table, and hesitated a long time before deciding which I would rather eat, the delicacies that were sold, or the charming creatures who sold them. One delicious morsel, in a pink silk, was so tempting that I seriously contemplated eating her with a spoon—waterfall and all. [By the way, how do we know that the Romans wore waterfalls? Because Marc Antony, in his funeral oration on Mr. Cæsar, exclaimed, “O water fall was there, my countrymen!”] At this point my attention was attracted by a fish pond. I tried my luck, caught a whale, and seeing all my friends beginning to blubber, I determined to visit the old woman who lived in a shoe.—She was very glad to see me. I bought one of her children, which the Society can redeem for $1,000 in smoking caps.

The fried oysters were delicious; a great many of the bivalves got into a stew, and I helped several of them out. Delicate ice cream, nicely “baked in cowld ovens,” was destroyed in immense quantities. I scream when I remember the plates full I devoured, and the number of bright women to whom I paid my devours. Beautiful cigar girls sold fragrant Havanas, and bit off the ends at five cents apiece, extra. The fair post-mistress and her fair clerks, so fair that they were almost fairies, drove a very thriving business.

It was altogether a “great moral show.”—Let no man say hereafter that the young ladies of Canandaigua are uneducated in all that makes women lovely and useful. Anna Dickinson has no mission to this town. The members of this Society have won the admiration of all their friends, and especially of the most devoted of their servants,

Q. E. D.

If I had written that article, I should have given the praise to Susie Daggett, for it belongs to her.

The Library of Congress provides the sheet music: freedman and greenbacks
Posted in Aftermath, Postbellum Society, Reconstruction | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

no respect

Posted on February 29, 2016 by SUMPTER
Group of Negros on their way to the cotton field, St. Helena Is. [i.e. Island], S.C. (Photograph shows freedmen on the Marion Chaplin Plantation on St. Helena Island, South Carolina.; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2015646735/)

“Group of Negros on their way to the cotton field, St. Helena Is. [i.e. Island], S.C.” – Library of Congress

It was pitiful enough to find so much idleness, but it was more pitiful to observe that it was likely to continue indefinitely. The war will not have borne proper fruit, if our peace does not speedily bring respect for labor, as well as respect for man.

One of President Andrew Johnson’s objections to the Freedmen Bureau extension bill was that the Bureau would allow freedmen to rely on outside help for their survival: “The idea on which the slaves were assisted to freedom was that, on becoming free, they would be a self-sustaining population. Any legislation that shall imply that they are not expected to attain a self-sustaining condition must have a tendency injurious alike to their character and their prospects.” In the fall of 1865 a correspondent from Massachusetts spent three months in three Southern states. He found plenty of idle freedmen. but he tried to understand why this was and discovered that it wasn’t just the blacks – whites were just as likely to shirk work. The following is about the last third of the long report.

City of Atlanta, Ga., no. 1 / Photo from nature by G. N. Barnard. ([1866]; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2008679857/)

“Illustration showing the destroyed Atlanta roundhouse, with steam engines and train cars in place but with collapsed stone walls.” – Library of Congress

From The Atlantic Monthly, VOL. XVII.—FEBRUARY, 1866—NO. C.:

THREE MONTHS AMONG THE RECONSTRUCTIONISTS.

I spent the months of September, October, and November, 1865, in the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. I travelled over more than half the stage and railway routes therein, visited a considerable number of towns and cities in each State, attended the so-called reconstruction conventions at Raleigh, Columbia, and Milledgeville, and had much conversation with many individuals of nearly all classes.

I.

I was generally treated with civility, and occasionally with courteous cordiality. I judge, from the stories told me by various persons, that my reception was, on the whole, something better than that accorded to the majority of Northern men travelling in that section. Yet at one town in South Carolina, when I sought accommodations for two or three days at a boarding-house, I was asked by the woman in charge, “Are you a Yankee or a Southerner?” and when I answered, “Oh, a Yankee, of course,” she responded, “No Yankee stops in this house!” and turned her back upon me and walked off. …

[the end of section III.]

The really bad feature of the situation with respect to the relations of these States to the General Government is, that there is not only very little loyalty in their people, but a great deal of stubborn antagonism, and some deliberate defiance. Further war in the field I do not deem among the possibilities. Be the leaders never so bloodthirsty, the common people have had enough of fighting. The bastard Unionism of North Carolina, the haughty and self-complacent State pride of South Carolina, the arrogant dogmatism and insolent assumption of Georgia,—how shall we build nationality on such foundations? That is the true plan of reconstruction which makes haste very slowly. It does not comport with the character of our Government to exact pledges of any State which are not exacted of all. The one sole needful condition is, that each State establish a republican form of government, whereby all civil rights at least shall be assured in their fullest extent to every citizen. The Union is no Union, unless there is equality of privileges among the States. When Georgia and the Carolinas establish this republican form of government, they will have brought themselves into harmony with the national will, and may justly demand readmission to their former political relations in the Union. Each State has some citizens, who, wiser than the great majority, comprehend the meaning of Southern defeat with praiseworthy insight. Seeing only individuals of this small class, a traveller might honestly conclude that the States were ready for self-government. Let not the nation commit the terrible mistake of acting on this conclusion. These men are the little leaven in the gross body politic of Southern communities. It is no time for passion or bitterness, and it does not become our manhood to do anything for revenge. Let us have peace and kindly feeling; yet, that our peace may be no sham or shallow affair, it is painfully essential that we keep these States awhile within national control, in order to aid the few wise and just men therein who are fighting the great fight with stubborn prejudice and hidebound custom. Any plan of reconstruction is wrong which accepts forced submission as genuine loyalty, or even as cheerful acquiescence in the national desire and purpose.

IV

Before the war, we heard continually of the love of the master for his slave, and the love of the slave for his master. There was also much talk to the effect that the negro lived in the midst of pleasant surroundings, and had no desire to change his situation. It was asserted that he delighted in a state of dependence, and throve on the universal favor of the whites. Some of this language we conjectured might be extravagant; but to the single fact that there was universal good-will between the two classes every Southern white person bore evidence. So, too, in my late visit to Georgia and the Carolinas, they generally seemed anxious to convince me that the blacks had behaved well during the war,—had kept at their old tasks, had labored cheerfully and faithfully, had shown no disposition to lawlessness, and had rarely been guilty of acts of violence, even in sections where there were many women and children, and but few white men.

Yet I found everywhere now the most direct antagonism between the two classes. The whites charge generally that the negro is idle, and at the bottom of all local disturbances, and credit him with most of the vices and very few of the virtues of humanity. The negroes charge that the whites are revengeful, and intend to cheat the laboring class at every opportunity, and credit them with neither good purposes nor kindly hearts. This present and positive hostility of each class to the other is a fact that will sorely perplex any Northern man travelling in either of these States. One would say, that, if there had formerly been such pleasant relations between them, there ought now to be mutual sympathy and forbearance, instead of mutual distrust and antagonism. One would say, too, that self-interest, the common interest of capital and labor, ought to keep them in harmony; while the fact is, that this very interest appears to put them in an attitude of partial defiance toward each other. I believe the most charitable traveller must come to the conclusion, that the professed love of the whites for the blacks was mostly a monstrous sham or a downright false pretence. For myself, I judge that it was nothing less than an arrant humbug.

"Zion" school for colored children, Charleston, South Carolina / from a sketch by A.R. Waud. ( Illus. in: Harper's weekly, v. 10, 1866 Dec. 15, p. 797. )

“‘Zion’ school for colored children, Charleston, South Carolina / from a sketch by A.R. Waud.” – Library of Congress

The negro is no model of virtue or manliness. He loves idleness, he has little conception of right and wrong, and he is improvident to the last degree of childishness. He is a creature,—as some of our own people will do well to keep carefully in mind,—he is a creature just forcibly released from slavery. The havoc of war has filled his heart with confused longings, and his ears with confused sounds of rights and privileges: it must be the nation’s duty, for it cannot be left wholly to his late master, to help him to a clear understanding of these rights and privileges, and also to lay upon him a knowledge of his responsibilities. He is anxious to learn, and is very tractable in respect to minor matters; but we shall need almost infinite patience with him, for he comes very slowly to moral comprehensions.

Going into the States where I went,—and perhaps the fact is true also of the other Southern States,—going into Georgia and the Carolinas, and not keeping in mind the facts of yesterday, any man would almost be justified in concluding that the end and purpose in respect to this poor negro was his extermination. It is proclaimed everywhere that he will not work, that he cannot take care of himself, that he is a nuisance to society, that he lives by stealing, and that he is sure to die in a few months; and, truth to tell, the great body of the people, though one must not say intentionally, are doing all they well can to make these assertions true. If it is not said that any considerable number wantonly abuse and outrage him, it must be said that they manifest a barbarous indifference to his fate, which just as surely drives him on to destruction as open cruelty would.

Cotton team in North Carolina ( Illus. in: Harper's weekly, 1866 May 12, p. 297. ; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/93513244/)

“Cotton team in North Carolina” – Library of Congress

There are some men and a few women—and perhaps the number of these is greater than we of the North generally suppose—who really desire that the negro should now have his full rights as a human being. With the same proportion of this class of persons in a community of Northern constitution, it might be justly concluded that the whole community would soon join or acquiesce in the effort to secure for him at least a fair share of those rights. Unfortunately, however, in these Southern communities the opinion of such persons cannot have such weight as it would in ours. The spirit of caste, of which I have already spoken, is an element figuring largely against them in any contest involving principle,—an element of whose practical workings we here know very little. The walls between individuals and classes are so high and broad, that the men and women who recognize the negro’s rights and privileges as a freeman are almost as far from the masses as we of the North are. Moreover, that any opinion savors of the “Yankee”—in other words, is new to the South—is a fact that even prevents its consideration by the great body of the people. Their inherent antagonism to everything from the North—an antagonism fostered and cunningly cultivated for half a century by the politicians in the interest of Slavery—is something that no traveller can photograph, that no Northern man can understand, till he sees it with his own eyes, hears it with his own ears, and feels it by his own consciousness. That the full freedom of the negroes would be acknowledged at once is something we had no warrant for expecting. The old masters grant them nothing, except at the requirement of the nation,—as a military and political necessity; and any plan of reconstruction is wrong which proposes at once or in the immediate future to substitute free-will for this necessity.

Three fourths of the people assume that the negro will not labor, except on compulsion; and the whole struggle between the whites on the one hand and the blacks on the other hand is a struggle for and against compulsion. The negro insists, very blindly perhaps, that he shall be free to come and go as he pleases; the white insists that he shall come and go only at the pleasure of his employer. The whites seem wholly unable to comprehend that freedom for the negro means the same thing as freedom for them. They readily enough admit that the Government has made him free, but appear to believe that they still have the right to exercise over him the old control. It is partly their misfortune, and not wholly their fault, that they cannot understand the national intent, as expressed in the Emancipation Proclamation and the Constitutional Amendment. I did not anywhere find a man who could see that laws should be applicable to all persons alike; and hence even the best men hold that each State must have a negro code. They acknowledge the overthrow of the special servitude of man to man, but seek through these codes to establish the general servitude of man to the commonwealth. I had much talk with intelligent gentlemen in various sections, and particularly with such as I met during the conventions at Columbia and Milledgeville, upon this subject, and found such a state of feeling as warrants little hope that the present generation of negroes will see the day in which their race shall be amenable only to such laws as apply to the whites.

Plowing in South Carolina / from a sketch by Jas. E. Taylor. ( Illus. in: Frank Leslie's illustrated newspaper, v. 23, no. 577 (1866 October 20), p. 76.; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2004669782/)

“Plowing in South Carolina / from a sketch by Jas. E. Taylor.” – Library of Congress

I think the freedmen divide themselves into four classes: one fourth recognizing; very clearly, the necessity of work, and going about it with cheerful diligence and wise forethought; one fourth comprehending that there must be labor, but needing considerable encouragement to follow it steadily; one fourth preferring idleness, but not specially averse to doing some job-work about the towns and cities; and one fourth avoiding labor as much as possible, and living by voluntary charity, persistent begging, or systematic pilfering. It is true, that thousands of the aggregate body of this people appear to have hoped, and perhaps believed, that freedom meant idleness; true, too, that thousands are drifting about the country or loafing about the centres of population in a state of vagabondage. Yet of the hundreds with whom I talked, I found less than a score who seemed beyond hope of reformation. It is a cruel slander to say that the race will not work, except on compulsion. I made much inquiry, wherever I went, of great numbers of planters and other employers, and found but very few cases in which it appeared that they had refused to labor reasonably well, when fairly treated and justly paid. Grudgingly admitted to any of the natural rights of man, despised alike by Unionists and Secessionists, wantonly outraged by many and meanly cheated by more of the old planters, receiving a hundred cuffs for one helping hand and a thousand curses for one kindly word,—they bear themselves toward their former masters very much as white men and women would under the same circumstances. True, by such deportment they unquestionably harm themselves; but consider of how little value life is from their stand-point. They grope in the darkness of this transition period, and rarely find any sure stay for the weary arm and the fainting heart. Their souls are filled with a great, but vague longing for freedom; they battle blindly with fate and circumstance for the unseen and uncomprehended, and seem to find every man’s hand raised against them. What wonder that they fill the land with restlessness!

City of Atlanta, Ga., no. 2 / Photo from nature by G. N. Barnard. ([1866]; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2008679858/)

“Illustration showing a street corner in Atlanta with a destroyed bank building, intact neighboring buildings and shops, and covered wagons.” – Library of Congress

However unfavorable this exhibit of the negroes in respect to labor may appear, it is quite as good as can be made for the whites. I everywhere found a condition of affairs in this regard that astounded me. Idleness, not occupation, seemed the normal state. It is the boast of men and women alike, that they have never done an hour’s work. The public mind is thoroughly debauched, and the general conscience is lifeless as the grave. I met hundreds of hale and vigorous young men who unblushingly owned to me that they had not earned a penny since the war closed. Nine tenths of the people must be taught that labor is even not debasing. It was pitiful enough to find so much idleness, but it was more pitiful to observe that it was likely to continue indefinitely. The war will not have borne proper fruit, if our peace does not speedily bring respect for labor, as well as respect for man. When we have secured one of these things, we shall have gone far toward securing the other; and when we have secured both, then indeed shall we have noble cause for glorying in our country,—true warrant for exulting that our flag floats over no slave.

Meantime, while we patiently and helpfully wait for the day in which

“All men’s good shall
Be each man’s rule, and Universal Peace
Lie like a shaft of light across the land,”

there are at least five things for the nation to do; make haste slowly in the work of reconstruction; temper justice with mercy, but see to it that justice is not overborne; keep military control of these lately rebellious States, till they guaranty a republican form of government; scrutinize carefully the personal fitness of the men chosen therefrom as representatives in the Congress of the United States; and sustain therein some agency that shall stand between the whites and the blacks, and aid each class in coming to a proper understanding of its privileges and responsibilities.

Freedom on the plantation ([Charleston, S.C.?] : [publisher not identified], [between 1863 and 1866]; LOC: v)

“Freedom on the plantation” – Library of Congress

Posted in 150 Years Ago This Month, Aftermath, Postbellum Society, Reconstruction, Southern Society | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

at any cost, except

Posted on February 24, 2016 by SUMPTER

We covet peace, and shall preserve it any cost but the loss of honor.

For a little variety … A year and a half after the First World War began and during the week when the Battle of Verdun began America’s President Woodrow Wilson wrote a letter declaring that he would do whatever it took to keep the United States out of the war unless the nation’s honor was at stake. Apparently there was a discrepancy between Germany’s earlier assurances and a newer statement about its use of “undersea warfare” – it was going to use its U-Boats to sink armed merchant ships.

NY Times February 25, 1916

NY Times February 25, 1916

NY Times February 28, 1916

NY Times February 28, 1916

Posted in World War I | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

birthday bashing

Posted on February 22, 2016 by SUMPTER
NY Times February 21, 1866

NY Times February 21, 1866

Back in 1861 even small towns celebrated Washington’s Birthday with cannon fire and bells. Five years later there were definitely some fireworks in Washington, D.C. as a crowd looked for a speech from President Andrew Johnson. It was a couple days after the Senate failed to override the president’s veto; Andrew Johnson used the occasion to bash his opponents by likening some named radicals to Southern rebels. Even moderate Republicans viewed the speech as something like a declaration of war. Here is a bit of the impromptu speech (from Teaching American History):

… We find that, in fact, by an irresponsible central directory, nearly all the powers of Government are assumed without even consulting the legislative or executive departments of the Government. Yes, and by resolution reported by a committee upon whom all the legislative power of the Government has been conferred, that principle in the Constitution which authorizes and empowers each branch of the legislative department to be judges of the election and qualifications of its own members, has been virtually taken away from those departments and conferred upon a committee, who must report before they can act under the Constitution and allow members duly elected to take their seats. By this rule they assume that there must be laws passed; that there must be recognition in respect to a State in the Union, with all its practical relations restored, before the respective houses of Congress, under the Constitution, shall judge of the election and qualifications of its own members. What position is that? You have been struggling for four years to put down the rebellion. You denied in the beginning of the struggle that any State had the right to go out. You said that they had neither the right nor the power to go out of the Union. And when you have settled that by the executive and military power of the Government, and by the public judgment, you turn around and assume that they are out and shall not come in. (Laughter and cheers.)

I am free to say to you, as your Executive, that I am not prepared to take any such position. I said in the Senate, at the very inception of the rebellion, that States had no right to go out and that they had no power to go out. That question has been settled. And I cannot turn round now and give the direct lie to all I profess to have done in the last five years. (Laughter and applause.) I can do no such thing. I say that when these States comply with the Constitution, when they have given sufficient evidence of their loyalty, and that they can be trusted, when they yield obedience to the law, I say, extend to them the right hand of fellowship, and let peace and union be restored. (Loud cheers.) I have fought traitors and treason in the South; I opposed the Davises and Toombses, the Slidells, and a long list of others whose names I need not repeat; and now, when I turn round at the other end of the line, I find men I care not by what name you call them (A voice “Call them traitors”) who still stand opposed to the restoration of the Union of these States. And I am free to say to you that I am still for the restoration of this Union; I am still in favor of this great Government of ours going on and following out its destiny. (A voice “Give us the names.”)

A gentleman calls for their names. Well, suppose I should give them. (A voice “We know them.”) I look upon them I repeat it, as President or citizen as being as much opposed to the fundamental principles of this Government, and believe they are as much laboring to pervert or destroy them as were the men who fought against us. (A voice “What are the names?”) I say Thaddeus Stevens, of Pennsylvania (tremendous applause) I say Charles Sumner (great applause) I say Wendell Phillips, and others of the same stripe, are among them.

Here is an 1896 summary from The Struggle between President Johnson and Congress over Reconstruction by Charles Ernest Chadsey:

On February 22 [President Johnson] made a speech in which he not only attacked by name certain leading politicians, but also criticised in terms the legislative branch of the government. This speech marks a distinct epoch in the history of the struggle between the President and Congress. Prior to it, the latter, although conscious of the rapid divergence of the paths each was following, and determined to render as nugatory as possible the President’s policy, had not permitted the feeling of personal antagonism to influence its actions to any great extent. But from this time forth the lines were sharply drawn, culminating in the impeachment. Johnson bitterly hated the Joint Committee on Reconstruction. The very manner in which it had been authorized—through a concurrent resolution instead of a joint resolution for the purpose of preventing executive action—had embittered him; the principles which its majority represented and the personnel of the committee were equally distasteful to him.

In connection with the speech of February 22, it should be noticed that Mr. Stevens had two days before introduced a concurrent resolution, which passed the House, providing that no senators or representatives were to be admitted until Congress should declare the State entitled to representation. Such a provision, the practical effect of which would be to place the subject in the exclusive control of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, Congress, as we have seen, struck out of the resolution authorizing that committee’s appointment. The President had good reason to believe that Mr. Stevens’ resolution would pass the Senate, as it did on the 2d of March, and he looked upon it as one more step in the usurpation of power by an “irresponsible directory.” Sensitive to all tendencies towards centralization, he saw in the power granted to the committee, and the measures proposed by it, a tendency towards the conditions against which he had spoken on April 21, 1865, when he said: “While I have opposed dissolution and disintegration on the one hand, on the other I am equally opposed to consolidation, or the centralization of power in the hands of a few.”

The Dawn of peace (LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/ihas.200001472/)

The Dawn of Peace?

Public sentiment in Washington was very hostile to the Freedmen’s Bureau, and on February 22 a mass-meeting was held to express popular approval of the action of the President in vetoing the bill. Adjourning to the White House, the crowd congratulated Johnson with tumultuous enthusiasm. A man more cautious would have limited his reply to a temperate expression of his views; but Johnson, ever eager to pose as the leader of the people, was led by the enthusiasm of the moment to abandon himself entirely to his prejudices, aggravated as they were by the circumstances above mentioned. Thus, on the anniversary of Washington’s birthday, a day when he should have particularly refrained from partisan politics, he took occasion to assail the committee violently, declaring that the end of one rebellion was witnessing the beginning of a new rebellion; saying that “there is an attempt now to concentrate all power in the hands of a few at the federal head, and thereby bring about a consolidation of the Republic, which is equally objectionable with its dissolution. * * * The substance of your government may be taken away, while there is held out to you the form and the shadow.” He described the Joint Committee as an “irresponsible central directory,” which had assumed “nearly all the powers of Congress,” without “even consulting the legislative and executive departments of the Government. * * * Suppose I should name to you those whom I look upon as being opposed to the fundamental principles of this Government, and as laboring to destroy them. I say Thaddeus Stevens, of Pennsylvania; I say Charles Sumner, of Massachusetts; I say Wendell Phillips, of Massachusetts.”

6. After the President had thus publicly stigmatized the opponents of his policy as instigators of a new rebellion, and classed Stevens, Sumner and Wendell Phillips as traitors to be compared with Davis, there could be no hope of reconciliation, and the Republican party grimly settled down to fight for its principles. The first important measure to take effect was the civil rights bill.

Posted in 150 Years Ago This Week, Aftermath, Postbellum Politics, Postbellum Society, Reconstruction | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment