THE FACTS OF RECONSTRUCTION

John R. Lynch

Copyright, 1913, by The Neale Publishing Company

[Illustration: John R. Lynch]

CONTENTS

PREFACE

CHAPTER

I THE PART PLAYED BY MISSISSIPPI IN THE EARLY DAYS OF RECONSTRUCTION

II REORGANIZATION OF THE STATE DEPARTMENTS DURING GOVERNOR ALCORN'S ADMINISTRATION

III THE REPUBLICAN COUNTY CONVENTION OF 1869

IV IMPORTANT EDUCATIONAL AND POLITICAL MEASURES OF THE NEW LEGISLATURE

V THE CONTEST FOR SPEAKER OF THE MISSISSIPPI HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

VI FUSION OF DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS IN THE STATE ELECTION OF 1873. REPUBLICAN VICTORY

VII MISSISSIPPI SENDS B. K. BRUCE TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE

VIII IMPROVED FINANCIAL CONDITION OF MISSISSIPPI UNDER THE AMES ADMINISTRATION

IX WHAT CONSTITUTES "NEGRO DOMINATION"

X OVERTHROW OF THE REPUBLICAN STATE GOVERNMENT IN MISSISSIPPI

XI RISE OF DEMOCRATIC RADICALISM IN THE SOUTH

XII EVENTFUL DAYS OF THE FORTY-THIRD CONGRESS

XIII STATE CAMPAIGN OF 1875. REPUBLICAN VICTORY

XIV INTERVIEW BETWEEN THE AUTHOR AND THE PRESIDENT REGARDING STATE APPOINTMENTS

XV THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1876 AND ITS RESULTS

XVI EFFECTS OF THE REFORM ADMINISTRATION IN MISSISSIPPI

XVII THE HAYES-TILDEN CONTEST. THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION

XVIII ATTITUDE OF THE HAYES ADMINISTRATION TOWARD THE SOUTH

XIX QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF SENATOR LAMAR'S ELECTION

XX REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION OF 1880. NOMINATION OF THE COMPROMISE CANDIDATE, GARFIELD

XXI STORY OF THE MISUNDERSTANDING BETWEEN GARFIELD AND CONKLING

XXII THE NATIONAL CAMPAIGN OF 1884

XXIII THE ELECTION OF GROVER CLEVELAND

XXIV INTERVIEW WITH SECRETARY LAMAR ON THE RETAINING OF COLORED MEN IN OFFICE

XXV THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS BILL

XXVI MISSISSIPPI AND THE NULLIFICATION OF THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT

XXVII EFFECT OF THE MCKINLEY TARIFF BILL ON BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES

XXVIII INTERVIEW BETWEEN THE AUTHOR AND PRESIDENT CLEVELAND AND SECRETARY GRESHAM

XXIX THE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONVENTION OF 1900

XXX ARGUMENT ON PROPOSED CHANGE OF REPRESENTATION IN CONVENTION

XXXI COMPARISON OF BRYAN AND CLEVELAND

XXXII THE SOLID SOUTH. FUTURE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

PREFACE

The author of this book is one of the few remaining links in the chainby which the present generation is connected with the reconstructionperiod, --the most important and eventful period in our country'shistory. 

What is herein recorded is based upon the author's own knowledge, contact and experience. Very much, of course, has been written andpublished about reconstruction, but most of it is superficial andunreliable; and, besides, nearly all of it has been written in such astyle and tone as to make the alleged facts related harmonize with whatwas believed to be demanded by public sentiment. The author of this workhas endeavored to present _facts_ as they were and are, rather than ashe would like to have them, and to set them down without the slightestregard to their effect upon the public mind, except so far as that mindmay be influenced by the truth, the whole truth and nothing but thetruth. In his efforts along these lines he has endeavored to giveexpression to his ideas, opinions and convictions in language that ismoderate and devoid of bitterness, and entirely free from raceprejudice, sectional animosity, or partisan bias. Whether or not he hassucceeded in doing so he is willing to leave to the consideratejudgment and impartial decision of those who may take the time to readwhat is here recorded. In writing what is to be found in these pages, the author has made no effort to draw upon the imagination, nor togratify the wishes of those whose chief ambition is to magnify thefaults and deficiencies in some and to extol the good and commendabletraits and qualities in others. In other words, his chief purpose hasbeen to furnish the readers and students of the present generation witha true, candid and impartial statement of material and important factsbased upon his own personal knowledge and experience, with such commentsas in his judgment the occasion and circumstances warranted. 

Was the enfranchisement of the black men at the South by act of Congressa grave mistake?

Were the reconstructed State Governments that were organized as a resultthereof a disappointment and a failure?

Was the Fifteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution premature andunwise?

An affirmative answer to the above questions will be found in nearlyeverything that has been written about Reconstruction during the lastquarter of a century. The main purpose of this work is to present theother side; but, in doing so, the author indulges the hope that thosewho may read these chapters will find that no extravagant andexaggerated statements have been made, and that there has been noeffort to conceal, excuse, or justify any act that was questionable orwrong. It will be seen that the primary object the author has sought toaccomplish, is to bring to public notice those things that werecommendable and meritorious, to prevent the publication of which seemsto have been the primary purpose of nearly all who have thus far writtenupon that important subject. 

But again, the question may be asked, if the reconstructed StateGovernments that were organized and brought into existence under theCongressional Plan of Reconstruction were not a disappointment and afailure, why is it that they could not and did not stand the test oftime? The author hopes and believes that the reader will find in one ofthe chapters of this book a complete and satisfactory answer to thatquestion. 

It will be seen that the State of Mississippi is made the pivotal one inthe presentation of the facts and historical points touched upon in thiswork; but that is because Mississippi was the field of the author'spolitical activities. That State, however, was largely typical, hencewhat was true of that one was, in the main, true of all the otherreconstructed States. 

The author was a member of Congress during the settlement of thecontroversy between Hayes and Tilden for the Presidency of the UnitedStates, resulting from the close and doubtful election of 1876, --acontroversy that was finally decided through the medium of theElectoral Commission. The reader will find in the chapter on thatsubject many important facts and incidents not heretofore published. 

Why was it that the able and brilliant statesman from Maine, James G. Blaine, died, as did Henry Clay, without having reached the acme of hisambition, --the Presidency of the United States? Why was he defeated forthe Republican Presidential nomination in 1876, --the only time when itwas possible for him to be elected, and defeated for the election in1884, --the only time when it was possible for him to be nominated? Theanswer to these questions will be found in this book. 

Then the interviews between the author and Presidents Grant andCleveland, and Secretaries Blaine, Lamar, and Gresham will no doubt beinteresting, if not instructive. 

If, in writing this book, the author shall have succeeded in placingbefore the public accurate and trustworthy information relative toReconstruction, his highest ambition will have been fully gratified, hissense of justice entirely satisfied. 

JOHN R. LYNCH. 

THE FACTS OF RECONSTRUCTION

CHAPTER I

THE PART PLAYED BY MISSISSIPPI IN THE EARLY DAYS OF RECONSTRUCTION

The year 1866 was an eventful one in the history of this country. Abitter war was in progress between Congress and President Andrew Johnsonover the question of the reconstruction of the States lately inrebellion against the National Government. The President had inaugurateda policy of his own that proved to be very unpopular at the North. Hehad pardoned nearly all the leaders in the rebellion through the mediumof amnesty proclamations. In each rebel State he had appointed aprovisional governor under whose direction Legislatures, State officers, and members of Congress had been chosen, and the Legislatures thuschosen elected the United States Senators for the Southern States inaccordance with the President's plan of reconstruction. To makerestoration to the Union full and complete nothing remained to be donebut to admit to their seats the Senators and Representatives that hadbeen chosen. In the mean time these different Legislatures had enactedlaws which virtually re-enslaved those that had been emancipated intheir respective States. For this the North would not stand. Sentimentin that section demanded not only justice and fair treatment for thenewly emancipated race but also an emancipation that should be thoroughand complete, not merely theoretical and nominal. 

The fact was recognized and appreciated that the colored people had beenloyal to the Union and faithful to the flag of their country and thatthey had rendered valuable assistance in putting down the rebellion. From a standpoint of gratitude, if not of justice, the sentiment of theNorth at that time was in favor of fair play for the colored people ofthe South. But the President would not yield to what was generallybelieved to be the dominant sentiment of the North on the question ofreconstruction. He insisted that the leaders of the Republican party inCongress did not represent the true sentiment of the country, so heboldly determined to antagonize the leaders in Congress, and to presenttheir differences to the court of public opinion at the approachingCongressional elections. The issue was thus joined and the people werecalled upon to render judgment in the election of members of Congressin the fall of 1866. The President, with the solid support of theDemocrats and a small minority of the Republicans, made a brave andgallant fight. The result, however, was a crushing defeat for him and anational repudiation of his plan of reconstruction. 

Notwithstanding this defeat the President refused to yield, continuingthe fight with Congress which finally resulted in his impeachment by theHouse of Representatives for high Crimes and Misdemeanors in office andin his trial by the Senate sitting as a High Court for that purpose. When the vote of the court was taken the President was saved fromconviction and from removal from office by the narrow margin of onevote, --a sufficient number of Republican Senators having voted with theDemocrats to prevent conviction. It was believed by many at the timethat some of the Republican Senators that voted for acquittal did sochiefly on account of their antipathy to the man who would succeed tothe Presidency in the event of the conviction of the President. This manwas Senator Benjamin Wade, of Ohio, --President _pro tem. _ of theSenate, --who, as the law then stood, would have succeeded to thePresidency in the event of a vacancy in that office from any cause. 

Senator Wade was an able man, but there were others who were much morebrilliant. He was a strong party man. He had no patience with those whoclaimed to be Republicans and yet refused to abide by the decision ofthe majority of the party organization unless that decision should bewhat they wanted. In short, he was an organization Republican, --what hassince been characterized by some as a machine man, --the sort of activeand aggressive man that would be likely to make for himself enemies ofmen in his own organization who were afraid of his great power andinfluence, and jealous of him as a political rival. That some of hissenatorial Republican associates should feel that the best service theycould render their country would be to do all in their power to preventsuch a man from being elevated to the Presidency was, perhaps, perfectlynatural: for while they knew that he was a strong and able man, theyalso knew that, according to his convictions of party duty and partyobligations, he firmly believed that he who served his party best servedhis country best. In giving expression to his views and convictions, ashe usually did with force and vigor, he was not always considerate ofthe wishes and feelings of those with whom he did not agree. That hewould have given the country an able administration is the concurrentopinion of those who knew him best. 

While President Johnson was retained in office he was practically shornof the greater part of the power and patronage that attaches to theoffice. This was done through the passage of a bill, over thepresident's veto, known as the Tenure of Office Act. Theconstitutionality of this act, which greatly curtailed the power of thePresident to make removals from office, was seriously questioned at thetime, but it was passed as a political necessity, --to meet an unusualand unexpected emergency that seemed to threaten the peace andtranquillity of the country and practically to nullify the fruits of thevictory which had been won on the field of battle. The law was repealedor materially modified as soon as President Johnson retired from office. The President also vetoed all the reconstruction bills, --billsconferring suffrage on the colored men in the States that were to bereconstructed, --that passed Congress; but they were promptly passed overthe veto. 

The rejection by the country of the Johnson plan of reconstruction, hadclearly demonstrated that no halfway measures were possible. If thecolored men were not enfranchised then the Johnson plan might as well beaccepted. The Republican or Union white men at the South were notsufficient in numbers to make their power or influence felt. Thenecessities of the situation, therefore, left no alternative but theenfranchisement of the blacks. It was ascertained and acknowledged thatto make possible the reconstruction of the States lately in rebellion, in accordance with the plan which had met with the emphatic approval ofthe North, the enfranchisement of the blacks in the States to bereconstructed was an absolute necessity. 

The first election held in Mississippi under the Reconstruction Actstook place in 1867, when delegates to a Constitutional Convention wereelected to frame a new Constitution. The Democrats decided to adopt whatthey declared to be a policy of "Masterly Inactivity, " that is, torefrain from taking any part in the election and to allow it to go bydefault. The result was that the Republicans had a large majority of thedelegates, only a few counties having elected Democratic delegates. Theonly reason that there were any Democrats in the Convention at all wasthat the party was not unanimous in the adoption of the policy of"Masterly Inactivity, " and consequently did not adhere to it. TheDemocrats in a few counties in the State rejected the advice andrepudiated the action of the State Convention of their party on thispoint. The result was that a few very able men were elected to theconvention as Democrats, --such men, for instance, as John W. C. Watson, and William M. Compton, of Marshall County, and William L. Hemingway, ofCarroll, who was elected State Treasurer by the Democrats in 1875, andto whom a more extended reference will be made in a subsequent chapter. 

The result of the election made it clear that if the Democraticorganization in the State had adopted the course that was pursued bythe members of that party in the counties by which the action of theirState Convention was repudiated, the Democrats would have had at least alarge and influential minority of the delegates, which would haveresulted in the framing of a constitution that would have been much moreacceptable to the members of that party than the one that was finallyagreed upon by the majority of the members of that body. But theDemocratic party in the State was governed and controlled by the radicalelement of that organization, --an element which took the position thatno respectable white Democrat could afford to participate in an electionin which colored men were allowed to vote. To do so, they held, wouldnot only be humiliating to the pride of the white men, but thecontamination would be unwise if not dangerous. Besides, they were firmin the belief and honest in the conviction that the country wouldultimately repudiate the Congressional Plan of Reconstruction, and thatin the mean time it would be both safe and wise for them to giveexpression to their objections to it and abhorrence of it by pursuing acourse of masterly inactivity. The liberal and conservative element inthe party was so bitterly opposed to this course that in spite of theaction of the State Convention several counties, as has been alreadystated, bolted the action of the convention and took part in theelection. 

Of the Republican membership of the Constitutional Convention a largemajority were white men, --many of them natives of the State and a numberof others, though born elsewhere, residents in the State for many yearspreceding the war of the Rebellion. My own county, Adams (Natchez), inwhich the colored voters were largely in the majority, and which wasentitled to three delegates in the convention, elected two whitemen, --E. J. Castello, and Fred Parsons, --and one colored man, H. P. Jacobs, a Baptist preacher. Throughout the State the proportion wasabout the same. This was a great disappointment to the dominatingelement in the Democratic party, who had hoped and expected, throughtheir policy of "Masterly Inactivity" and intimidation of white men, that the convention would be composed almost exclusively of illiterateand inexperienced colored men. Although a minor at that time, I took anactive part in the local politics of my county, and, being a member of aRepublican club that had been organized at Natchez, I was frequentlycalled upon to address the members at its weekly meetings. 

When the State Constitution was submitted to a popular vote forratification or rejection I took an active part in the county campaignin advocacy of its ratification. In this election the Democrats pursueda course that was just the opposite of that pursued by them in theelection of delegates to the Constitutional Convention. They decidedthat it was no longer unwise and dangerous for white men to take part inan election in which colored men were allowed to participate. This wasdue largely to the fact that the work of the convention had been fardifferent from what they had anticipated. The newly framed Constitutionwas, taken as a whole, such an excellent document that in allprobability it would have been ratified without serious opposition butfor the fact that there was an unfortunate, unwise and unnecessaryclause in it which practically disfranchised those who had held anoffice under the Constitution of the United States and who, having takenan oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, hadafterwards supported the cause of the Confederacy. This clause causedvery bitter and intense opposition to the ratification of theConstitution. When the election was over it was found that theConstitution had been rejected by a small majority. This result couldnot be fairly accepted as an indication of the strength of the twoparties in the State, for it was a well-known fact that the Republicanparty had a clear majority of about 30, 000. 

Notwithstanding the large Republican majority in the State, which wasbelieved to be safe, sure and reliable, there were several causes thatcontributed to the rejection of the newly framed Constitution. Among thecauses were:

First. In consequence of the bitterness with which the ratification ofthe Constitution had been fought, on account of the objectionable clausereferred to, intimidating methods had been adopted in several countiesin which there was a large colored vote, resulting in a loss of severalthousand votes for the Constitution. 

Second. There were several thousand Republicans both white andcolored, --but chiefly colored, --who were opposed to that offensive andobjectionable clause, believing the same to be unjust, unnecessary, andunwise; hence, many of that class refused to vote either way. 

Third. There were thousands of voters, the writer being one of thatnumber, who favored ratification because the Constitution as a whole wasa most excellent document, and because its ratification would facilitatethe readmittance of Mississippi into the Union; after which the oneobjectionable clause could be stricken out by means of an amendment. While all of this class favored and advocated ratification for thereasons stated, yet their known attitude towards the clause proved to bea contributary cause of the rejection of the Constitution. 

The reader may not understand why there were any colored men, especiallyat that time and in that section, that would have any sympathy for thewhite men who would have been victims of this clause had the newConstitution been ratified. But if the reader will closely follow whatthis writer will set down in subsequent chapters of this work, he willfind the reasons why there was and still is a bond of sympathy betweenthe two races at the South, --a bond that the institution of slavery withall its horrors could not destroy, the Rebellion could not wipe out, Reconstruction could not efface, and subsequent events have not beenable to change. The writer is aware of the fact that thousands ofintelligent people are now laboring under the impression that thereexists at the South a bitter feeling of antagonism between the two racesand that this has produced dangerous and difficult problems for thecountry to solve. That some things have occurred that would justify sucha conclusion, especially on the part of those who are not students ofthis subject, will not be denied. 

After the rejection of the Constitution no further effort was made tohave Mississippi readmitted into the Union until after the Presidentialand Congressional elections of 1868. The Democratic party throughout thecountry was solid in its support of President Andrew Johnson, and wasbitter in its opposition to the Congressional Plan of Reconstruction. Upon a platform that declared the Reconstruction Acts of Congress to beunconstitutional, revolutionary, and void, the Democrats nominated forPresident and Vice-President, Ex-Governor Horatio Seymour, of New York, and General Frank P. Blair, of Missouri. The Republicans nominated forPresident General U. S. Grant, of Illinois, and for Vice-PresidentSpeaker Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana. These candidates were nominatedupon a platform which strongly supported and indorsed the CongressionalPlan of Reconstruction. 

On this issue the two parties went before the people for a decision. TheRepublicans were successful, but not by such a decisive majority as inthe Congressional election of 1866. In fact, if all the Southern Statesthat took part in that election had gone Democratic, the hero ofAppomattox would have been defeated. It was the Southern States, givingRepublican majorities through the votes of their colored men, that savedthat important national election to the Republican party. To the verygreat surprise of the Republican leaders the party lost the importantand pivotal State of New York. It had been confidently believed that theimmense popularity of General Grant and his prestige as a brilliant andsuccessful Union general would save every doubtful State to theRepublicans, New York, of course, included. But this expectation was notrealized. The result, it is needless to say, was a keen and bitterdisappointment, for no effort had been spared to bring to the attentionof the voters the strong points in General Grant. A vote against Grant, it was strongly contended, was virtually a vote against the Union. Frederick Douglass, who electrified many audiences in that campaign, made the notable declaration that "While Washington had given us acountry, it was Grant who had saved us a country. " And yet the savior ofour country failed in that election to save to the Republican party themost important State in the Union. But, notwithstanding the loss of NewYork, the Republicans not only elected the President and Vice-President, but also had a safe majority in both branches of Congress. 

One of the first acts of Congress after the Presidential election of1868 was one authorizing the President to submit Mississippi's rejectedConstitution once again to a popular vote. The same act authorized thePresident to submit to a separate vote such clause or clauses of saidConstitution as in his judgment might be particularly obnoxious to anyconsiderable number of the people of the State. It was not and could notbe denied that the Constitution as a whole was a most admirabledocument. The Democrats had no serious objection to its ratification ifthe clause disfranchising most of their leaders were eliminated. When itbecame known that this clause would be submitted to a separate vote, andthat the Republican organization would not insist upon its retention, noserious opposition to the ratification of the Constitution wasanticipated. And, indeed, none was made. 

The time fixed for holding the election was November, 1869. In the meantime the State was to be under military control. General Adelbert Ameswas made Military Governor, with power to fill by appointment everycivil office in the State. Shortly after General Ames took charge asMilitary Governor the Republican club at Natchez agreed upon a slate tobe submitted to the Military Governor for his favorable consideration, the names upon said slate being the choice of the Republicanorganization of the county for county and city officials. Among thenames thus agreed upon was that of the Rev. H. P. Jacobs for Justice ofthe Peace. It was then decided to send a member of the club to Jackson, the State capital, to present the slate to the Governor in person inorder to answer questions that might be asked or to give any informationthat might be desired about any of the persons whose names appeared onthe slate. It fell to my lot to be chosen for that purpose; thenecessary funds being raised by the club to pay my expenses. I acceptedthe mission, contingent upon my employer's granting me leave of absence. 

Natchez at that time was not connected with Jackson by railroad, so thatthe only way for me to reach the capital was to go by steamer fromNatchez to Vicksburg or to New Orleans, and from there by rail toJackson. The trip, therefore, would necessarily consume the greater partof a week. My employer, --who was what was known as a Northern man, having come there after the occupation of the place by the Federaltroops, --not only granted me leave of absence but agreed to remain inthe city and carry on the business during my absence. 

When I arrived at the building occupied by the Governor and sent up mycard, I had to wait only a few minutes before I was admitted to hisoffice. The Governor received me cordially and treated me with markedcourtesy, giving close attention while I presented as forcibly as Icould the merits and qualifications of the different persons whose nameswere on the slate. When I had concluded my remarks the Governor's onlyreply was that he would give the matter his early and carefulconsideration. A few weeks later the appointments were announced; butnot many of the appointees were persons whose names I had presented. However, to my great embarrassment I found that my own name had beensubstituted for that of Jacobs for the office of Justice of the Peace. Inot only had no ambition in that direction but was not aware that myname was under consideration for that or for any other office. Besides, I was apprehensive that Jacobs and some of his friends might suspect meof having been false to the trust that had been reposed in me, at leastso far as the office of Justice of the Peace was concerned. At first Iwas of the opinion that the only way in which I could disabuse theirminds of that erroneous impression was to decline the appointment. But Ifound out upon inquiry that in no event would Jacobs receive theappointment. I was also reliably informed that I had not beenrecommended nor suggested by any one, but that the Governor's action wasthe result of the favorable impression I had made upon him when Ipresented the slate. For this, of course, I was in no way responsible. In fact the impression of my fitness for the office that my brief talkhad made upon the Governor was just what the club had hoped I would beable to accomplish in the interest of the whole slate. That it sohappened that I was the beneficiary of the favorable impression that mybrief talk had made upon the Governor may have been unfortunate in onerespect, but it was an unconscious act for which I could not becensured. After consulting, therefore, with a few personal friends andlocal party leaders, I decided to accept the appointment although, inconsequence of my youth and inexperience, I had serious doubts as to myability to discharge the duties of the office which at that time was oneof considerable importance. 

Then the bond question loomed up, which was one of the greatestobstacles in my way, although the amount was only two thousand dollars. How to give that bond was the important problem I had to solve, for, ofcourse, no one was eligible as a bondsman who did not own real estate. There were very few colored men who were thus eligible, and it was outof the question at that time to expect any white property owner to signthe bond of a colored man. But there were two colored men willing tosign the bond for one thousand dollars each who were considered eligibleby the authorities. These men were William McCary and David Singleton. The law, having been duly satisfied in the matter of my bond, I waspermitted to take the oath of office in April, 1869, and to enter uponthe discharge of my duties as a Justice of the Peace, which office Iheld until the 31st of December of the same year when I resigned toaccept a seat in the lower branch of the State Legislature to which Ihad been elected the preceding November. 

When I entered upon the discharge of my duties as a Justice of the Peacethe only comment that was made by the local Democratic paper of the townwas in these words: "We are now beginning to reap the ravishing fruitsof Reconstruction. "

CHAPTER II

REORGANIZATION OF THE STATE DEPARTMENTS DURING GOVERNOR ALCORN'SADMINISTRATION

The new Constitution of Mississippi, which had been rejected in 1868, was to be submitted to a popular vote once more in November, 1869. Atthe same time State officers, members of the Legislature, Congressmen, and district and county officers were to be elected. Since theobjectionable clauses in the Constitution were to be put to a separatevote, and since it was understood that both parties would favor therejection of these clauses, there was no serious opposition to theratification of the Constitution thus amended. A hard and stubborn fightwas, however, to be made for control of the State Government. 

General James L. Alcorn, who had been a general in the Confederate Armyand who had recently openly identified himself with the Republicanparty, was nominated by the Republicans for the office of Governor ofthe State. Of the other six men who were associated with him on thestate ticket, only the candidate for Secretary of the State, theReverend James Lynch, --an able and eloquent minister of the MethodistChurch, --was a colored man. Lynch was a man of fine ability, of splendideducation, and one of the most powerful and convincing orators that theRepublicans had upon the stump in that campaign. He was known andrecognized as such an able and brilliant speaker that his services werein great demand from the beginning to the end of the campaign. NoDemocratic orator, however able, was anxious to meet him in jointdebate. He died suddenly the latter part of 1872. His death was a greatloss to the State and to the Republican party and especially to thecolored race. 

Of the other five candidates on the ticket two, --the candidates forState Treasurer and Attorney General, --were, like General Alcorn, Southern white men. The candidate for State Treasurer, Hon. W. H. Vasser, was a successful business man who lived in the northern part of theState, while the candidate for Attorney General, Hon. Joshua S. Morris, was a brilliant member of the bar who lived in the southern part of theState. The other three, the candidates for Lieutenant-Governor, StateAuditor and Superintendent of Education, were Northern men who hadsettled in the State after the War, called by the Democrats, "CarpetBaggers, " but they were admitted to be clean and good men who hadlived in the State long enough to become fully identified with itsindustrial and business interests. H. C. Powers, the candidate forLieutenant-Governor, and H. Musgrove, the candidate for Auditor ofPublic Accounts, were successful cotton planters from Noxubee and Clarkecounties respectively; while H. R. Pease, the candidate for StateSuperintendent of Education, had been identified with educational workever since he came to the State. It could not be denied that it was astrong and able ticket, --one that the Democrats would find it verydifficult to defeat. In desperation the Democratic party had nominatedas their candidate for Governor a brother-in-law of President Grant's, Judge Lewis Dent, in the hope that the President would throw the weightof his influence and the active support of his administration on theside of his relative, as against the candidate of his own party, especially in view of the fact that Dent had been nominated not as aDemocrat but as an Independent Republican, --his candidacy simply havingbeen indorsed by the Democratic organization. But in this they weredisappointed, for if the President gave any indication of preference itwas in favor of the Republican ticket. General Ames, for instance, wasthe Military Governor of the State, holding that position at thepleasure of the President; and Ames was so outspoken in his support ofthe Republican ticket, that in an address before the State RepublicanConvention that nominated General Alcorn for the Governorship heannounced, "You have my sympathy and shall have my support. " Thisdeclaration was received by the convention with great applause, for itwas known that those words from that source carried great weight. Theymeant not only that the Republican party would have the active andaggressive support of the Military Governor, --which was very importantand would be worth thousands of votes to the party, --but they alsoindicated the attitude of the National Administration. The campaign wasaggressive from beginning to end. Judge Dent was at a disadvantage, since his candidacy had failed to bring to his support the influence ofthe National Administration, which had been the sole purpose of hisnomination. In spite of that fact Dent made a game and gallant fight;but the election resulted in an overwhelming Republican victory. Thatparty not only elected the State ticket by a majority of about 30, 000but it also had a large majority in both branches of the StateLegislature. 

The new administration had an important and difficult task before it. AState Government had to be organized from top to bottom; a new judiciaryhad to be inaugurated, --consisting of three Justices of the StateSupreme Court, fifteen Judges of the Circuit Court and twenty ChanceryCourt Judges, --who had all to be appointed by the Governor with theconsent of the Senate, and, in addition, a new public school system hadto be established. There was not a public school building anywhere inthe State except in a few of the larger towns, and they, with possiblya few exceptions, were greatly in need of repairs. To erect thenecessary school houses and to reconstruct and repair those already inexistence so as to afford educational facilities for both races was byno means an easy task. It necessitated a very large outlay of cash inthe beginning, which resulted in a material increase in the rate oftaxation for the time being, but the Constitution called for theestablishment of the system, and of course the work had to be done. Itwas not only done, but it was done creditably and as economically aspossible, considering the conditions at that time. 

That system, though slightly changed, still stands, --a creditablemonument to the first Republican State administration that was organizedin the State of Mississippi under the Reconstruction Acts of Congress. 

It was also necessary to reorganize, reconstruct and, in many instances, rebuild some of the penal and charitable institutions of the State. Anew code of laws also had to be adopted to take the place of the oldcode and thus wipe out the black laws that had been passed by what wasknown as the Johnson Legislature and in addition bring about otherchanges so as to make the laws and statutes of the State conform withthe new order of things. This was no easy task, in view of the fact thata heavy increase in the rate of taxation was thus made necessary, forthe time being at least. That this important work was splendidly, creditably, and economically done no fair-minded person who is familiarwith the facts will question or dispute. 

That the State never had before, and has never had since, a finerJudiciary than that which was organized under the administration ofGovernor Alcorn and which continued under the administration of GovernorAmes is an indisputable and incontrovertible fact. The Judges of theSupreme Court were E. G. Peyton, H. F. Simrall and J. Tarbell, who inMississippi had no superiors in their profession, and who had therespect and confidence of the bar and of the people without regard torace or politics. Judge Peyton was the Chief Justice, Simrall andTarbell being the Associate Justices. The first two were old residentsof the State, while Mr. Justice Tarbell was what the Democrats wouldcall a "Carpet Bagger. " But that he was an able lawyer and a man ofunimpeachable integrity no one doubted or questioned. During the secondadministration of President Grant he held the important position ofSecond Comptroller of the United States Treasury. The Circuit Courtbench was graced with such able and brilliant lawyers as Jason Niles, G. C. Chandler, George F. Brown, J. A. Orr, John W. Vance, RobertLeachman, B. B. Boone, Orlando Davis, James M. Smiley, Uriah Millsaps, William M. Hancock, E. S. Fisher, C. C. Shackleford, W. B. Cunningham, W. D. Bradford and A. Alderson. Judges Brown and Cunningham were the onlyones in the above list who were not old residents of the State. Afterleaving the bench, Judge Chandler served for several years as UnitedStates Attorney. Judge Niles served one term as a member of Congress, having been elected as a Republican in 1875. His son Henry Clay Niles isnow United States District Judge for the State, having been appointed tothat important position by President Harrison. He was stronglyrecommended by many members of the bench and bar of the State; and thevery able and creditable way in which he has discharged the duties ofthe position has more than demonstrated the wisdom of the selection. 

The Chancery Courts as organized by Governor Alcorn and continued byGovernor Ames were composed of men no less able and brilliant than thosewho composed the Bench of the Circuit Courts. They were: J. C. Lyon, E. P. Harmon, E. G. Peyton, Jr. , J. M. Ellis, G. S. McMillan, Samuel Young, W. G. Henderson, Edwin Hill, T. R. Gowan, J. F. Simmons, Wesley Drane, D. W. Walker, DeWitte Stearns, D. P. Coffee, E. W. Cabiness, A. E. Reynolds, Thomas Christian, Austin Pollard, J. J. Hooker, O. H. Whitfield, E. Stafford, W. A. Drennan, Thomas Walton, E. H. Osgood, C. A. Sullivan, HiramCassedy, Jr. , W. B. Peyton, J. D. Barton, J. J. Dennis, W. D. Frazee, P. P. Bailey, L. C. Abbott, H. W. Warren, R. Boyd, R. B. Stone, William Breck, J. N. Campbell, H. R. Ware and J. B. Deason. The above names composed thosewho were appointed both by Governors Alcorn and Ames. A majority ofthose originally appointed by Governor Alcorn were reappointed byGovernor Ames. Of the forty appointments of Judges of the ChanceryCourts made under the administrations of Alcorn and Ames, not more thanabout seven were not to the "manner born. " The administration of JamesL. Alcorn as Governor of the State of Mississippi is one of the bestwith which that unfortunate State has been blessed. A more extendedreference to the subsequent administration of Governor Ames will be madein a later chapter. 

CHAPTER III

THE REPUBLICAN COUNTY CONVENTION OF 1869

Although it was not charged nor even intimated that my acceptance of theoffice of Justice of the Peace was the result of bad faith on my part, still the appointment resulted in the creation for the time being of twofactions in the Republican party in the county. One was known as theLynch faction, the other as the Jacobs faction. 

When the Constitution was submitted to a popular vote in November, 1869, it was provided that officers should be elected at the same time to alloffices created by the Constitution and that they, including members ofthe Legislature, were to be chosen by popular vote. The county of Adams(Natchez) was entitled to one member of the State Senate and threemembers of the House of Representatives. Jacobs was a candidate for theRepublican nomination for State Senator. The Lynch faction, however, refused to support him for that position although it had no objection tohis nomination for member of the House. Since Jacobs persisted in hiscandidacy for State Senator the Lynch faction brought out an opposingcandidate in the person of a Baptist minister by the name of J. M. P. Williams. The contest between the two Republican candidates wasinteresting and exciting, though not bitter, and turned out to be veryclose. 

The convention was to be composed of thirty-three delegates, seventeenbeing necessary to nominate. The result at the primary election ofdelegates to the convention was so close that it was impossible to tellwhich one had a majority, since there were several delegates, --aboutwhose attitude and preference there had been some doubt, --who refused tocommit themselves either way. In the organization of the convention theWilliams men gained the first advantage, one of their number having beenmade permanent chairman. But this was not important since there were nocontests for seats, consequently the presiding officer would have nooccasion to render a decision that could have any bearing upon thecomposition of the body over which he presided. 

Both sides agreed that the nomination for State Senator should be madefirst and that the vote should be by ballot, the ballots to be receivedand counted by two tellers, one to be selected by each faction. When theresult of the first ballot was announced, Jacobs had sixteen votes, Williams, sixteen, and a third man had one. Several ballots were takenwith the same result, when, with the consent of both sides, a recess wastaken until 3 o'clock in the afternoon. The one delegate that refusedto vote for either Jacobs or Williams made no effort to conceal hisidentity. To the contrary, he was outspoken in his determination anddecision that he would not at any time or under any circumstances votefor either. Strange to say, this man was also a colored Baptistpreacher, the Rev. Noah Buchanan, from the Washington district. Membersof both factions approached him during the recess and pleaded with him, but their efforts and pleadings were all in vain. Nothing could move himor change him. He stated that he had given the matter his careful andserious consideration, and that he had come to the conclusion thatneither Jacobs nor Williams was a fit man to represent the importantcounty of Adams in the State Senate, hence neither could get his vote. At the afternoon session, after several ballots had been taken with thesame result, an adjournment was ordered until 9 o'clock next morning. 

Soon after adjournment each side went into caucus. At the Jacobs meetingit was decided to stick to their man to the very last. At the Williamsmeeting Hon. H. C. Griffin, white leader of the Williams men, suggestedthe name of the Rev. H. R. Revels as a compromise candidate. Revels wascomparatively a new man in the community. He had recently been stationedat Natchez as pastor in charge of the A. M. E. Church, and so far asknown he had never voted, had never attended a political meeting, and ofcourse, had never made a political speech. But he was a colored man, andpresumed to be a Republican, and believed to be a man of ability andconsiderably above the average in point of intelligence; just the man, it was thought, the Rev. Noah Buchanan would be willing to vote for. 

After considerable discussion it was agreed that a committee should beappointed to wait on Mr. Williams in order to find out if he would bewilling to withdraw in favor of Revels should his friends and supportersdeem such a step necessary and wise. In the event of Williams'withdrawal, the committee was next to call on Revels to find out if hewould consent to the use of his name. If Revels consented, the committeewas next to call on Rev. Buchanan to find out whether or not he wouldvote for Revels. This committee was to report to the caucus at 8 o'clocknext morning. 

At the appointed time the committee reported that Williams had statedthat he was in the hands of his friends and that he would abide by anydecision they might make. Revels, the report stated, who had been takenvery much by surprise, --having had no idea that his name would ever bementioned in connection with any office, --had asked to be allowed until7 o'clock in the morning to consider the matter and to talk it over withhis wife. At 7 o'clock he notified the chairman of the committee thathe would accept the nomination if tendered. 

Buchanan had informed the committee that he had heard of Revels but didnot know him personally. He too had asked to be allowed until 7 o'clockin the morning before giving a positive answer, so as to enable him tomake the necessary inquiries to find out whether or not Revels was asuitable man for the position. At 7 o'clock he informed the chairman ofthe committee that if the name of Williams should be withdrawn in favorof Revels he would cast his vote for Revels. The caucus then decided bya unanimous vote that upon the assembling of the convention at 9 o'clockthat morning Mr. Griffin should withdraw the name of Williams frombefore the convention as a candidate for State Senator, but that noother name should be placed in nomination. Every member of the caucus, however, was committed to vote for Revels. This decision was to becommunicated to no one outside of the caucus except to Mr. Buchanan, whowas to be privately informed of it by the chairman of the committee towhom he had communicated his own decision. 

As soon as the convention was called to order Mr. Griffin was recognizedby the chair. He stated that he had been authorized to withdraw the nameof Rev. J. M. P. Williams from before the convention as candidate forState Senator. This announcement was received by the Jacobs men withgreat applause. The withdrawal of the name of Williams without placingany other in nomination they accepted as evidence that furtheropposition to the nomination of their candidate had been abandoned andthat his nomination was a foregone conclusion. But they were not allowedto labor under that impression very long. The roll-call was immediatelyordered by the chair and the tellers took their places. When the ballotshad been counted and tabulated, the result was seventeen votes forRevels and sixteen votes for Jacobs. The announcement was received bythe Williams men with great applause. The result was a victory for thembecause it was their sixteen votes together with the vote of Rev. NoahBuchanan that had nominated Revels. The Jacobs men accepted their defeatgracefully. A motion was offered by their leader to make the nominationunanimous and it was adopted without a dissenting vote. In anticipationof his nomination Revels was present as one of the interested spectatorsand upon being called upon for a brief address he delivered it withtelling effect, thereby making a most favorable impression. This addressconvinced Rev. Noah Buchanan that he had made no mistake in voting forRevels. Jacobs was then nominated for member of the House ofRepresentatives without opposition, his associates being John R. Lynchand Capt. O. C. French, a white Republican. The ticket as completed waselected by a majority of from fifteen hundred to two thousand, aRepublican nomination in Adams County at that time being equivalent toan election. 

When the Legislature convened at Jackson the first Monday in January, 1870, it was suggested to Lieutenant-Governor Powers, presiding officerof the Senate, that he invite the Rev. Dr. Revels to open the Senatewith prayer. The suggestion was favorably acted upon. That prayer, --oneof the most impressive and eloquent prayers that had ever been deliveredin the Senate Chamber, --made Revels a United States Senator. He made aprofound impression upon all who heard him. It impressed those who heardit that Revels was not only a man of great natural ability but that hewas also a man of superior attainments. 

The duty devolved upon that Legislature to fill three vacancies in theUnited States Senate: one, a fractional term of about one year, --theremainder of the six year term to which Jefferson Davis had been electedbefore the breaking out of the Rebellion, --another fractional term ofabout five years, and the third, the full term of six years, beginningwith the expiration of the fractional term of one year. The coloredmembers of the Legislature constituted a very small minority not only ofthe total membership of that body but also of the Republican members. Ofthe thirty-three members of which the Senate was composed four of themwere colored men: H. R. Revels, of Adams; Charles Caldwell, of Hinds;Robert Gleed, of Lowndes, and T. W. Stringer, of Warren. Of the onehundred and seven members of which the House was composed about thirtyof them were colored men. It will thus be seen that out of the onehundred forty members of which the two Houses were composed only aboutthirty-four of them were colored men. But the colored members insistedthat one of the three United States Senators to be elected should be acolored man. The white Republicans were willing that the colored men begiven the fractional term of one year, since it was understood thatGovernor Alcorn was to be elected to the full term of six years and thatGovernor Ames was to be elected to the fractional term of five years. 

In this connection it may not be out of place to say that, ever sincethe organization of the Republican party in Mississippi, the whiteRepublicans of that State, unlike some in a few of the other SouthernStates, have never attempted to draw the color line against theircolored allies. In this they have proved themselves to be genuine andnot sham Republicans, --that is to say, Republicans from principle andconviction and not for plunder and spoils. They have never failed torecognize the fact that the fundamental principle of the Republicanparty, --the one that gave the party its strongest claim upon theconfidence and support of the public, --is its advocacy of equal civiland political rights. If that party should ever come to the conclusionthat this principle should be abandoned, that moment it will merit, andI am sure it will receive, the condemnation and repudiation of thepublic. 

It was not, therefore, a surprise to any one when the white Republicanmembers of the Mississippi Legislature gave expression to their entirewillingness to vote for a suitable colored man to represent the state ofMississippi in the highest and most dignified legislative tribunal inthe world. The next step was to find the man. The name of the Rev. JamesLynch was first suggested. That he was a suitable and fit man for theposition could not be denied. But he had just been elected Secretary ofState for a term of four years, and his election to the Senate wouldhave created a vacancy in the former office which would havenecessitated the holding of another State election and another electionwas what all wanted to avoid. For that reason his name was not seriouslyconsidered for the Senatorship. 

[Illustration: HON. HIRAM R. REVELS. The first colored man that occupieda seat in the U. S. Senate. From a photograph taken by Maj. Lynch atNatchez, Miss. , in 1868. ]

The next name suggested was that of the Rev. H. R. Revels and those whohad been so fortunate as to hear the impressive prayer that he haddelivered on the opening of the Senate were outspoken in their advocacyof his selection. The white Republicans assured the colored membersthat if they would unite upon Revels, they were satisfied he wouldreceive the vote of every white Republican member of the Legislature. Governor Alcorn also gave the movement his cordial and active support, thus insuring for Revels the support of the State administration. Thecolored members then held an informal conference, at which it wasunanimously decided to present the name of Rev. H. R. Revels to theRepublican Legislative Caucus as a candidate for United States Senatorto fill the fractional term of one year. The choice was ratified by thecaucus without serious opposition. In the joint Legislative session, every Republican member, white and colored, voted for the threeRepublican caucus nominees for United States Senators, --Alcorn, Ames andRevels, --with one exception, Senator William M. Hancock, of Lauderdale, who stated in explanation of his vote against Revels that as a lawyer hedid not believe that a colored man was eligible to a seat in the UnitedStates Senate. But Judge Hancock seems to have been the only lawyer inthe Legislature, --or outside of it, as far as could be learned, --whoentertained that opinion. 

CHAPTER IV

IMPORTANT EDUCATIONAL AND POLITICAL MEASURES OF THE NEW LEGISLATURE

In addition to the election of three United States Senators thisLegislature had some very important work before it, as has already beenstated in a previous chapter. A new public school system had to beinaugurated and put in operation, thus necessitating the construction ofschoolhouses throughout the State, some of them, especially in the townsand villages, to be quite large and of course expensive. All of theother public buildings and institutions in the State had to be repaired, some of them rebuilt, all of them having been neglected and some of themdestroyed during the progress of the late War. In addition to this theentire State Government in all of its branches had to be reconstructedand so organized as to place the same in perfect harmony with the neworder of things. 

To accomplish these things money was required. There was none in thetreasury. There was no cash available even to pay the ordinary expensesof the State government. Because of this lack of funds the governmenthad to be carried on on a credit basis, --that is, by the issuing ofnotes or warrants based upon the credit of the State. These notes wereissued at par to the creditors of the State in satisfaction of theobligations. In turn they were disposed of at a discount to bankers andbrokers by whom they were held until there should be sufficient cash inthe treasury to redeem them, --such redemption usually occurring in fromthree to six months, though sometimes the period was longer. To raisethe necessary money to put the new machinery in successful operation oneof two things had to be done: either the rate of taxation must bematerially increased or interest bearing bonds must be issued and placedupon the market, thus increasing the bonded debt of the State. Althoughthe fact was subsequently developed that a small increase in the bondeddebt of the State could not very well be avoided, yet, after carefuldeliberation, the plan agreed upon was to materially increase the rateof taxation. 

This proved to be so unpopular that it came near losing the Legislatureto the Republicans at the elections of 1871. Although it was explainedto the people that this increase was only temporary and that the rate oftaxation would be reduced as soon as some of the schoolhouses had beenbuilt, and some of the public institutions had been repaired, still thiswas not satisfactory to those by whom these taxes had to be paid. Theyinsisted that some other plan ought to have been adopted, especially atthat time. The War had just come to a close, leaving most of the peoplein an impoverished condition. What was true of the public institutionsof the State was equally true of the private property of those who wereproperty owners at that time. Their property during the War had beenneglected, and what had not been destroyed was in a state of decay. Thiswas especially true of those who had been the owners of large landedestates and of many slaves. Many of these people had been theacknowledged representatives of the wealth, the intelligence, theculture, the refinement and the aristocracy of the South, --the rulingclass in the church, in society and in State affairs. These were the menwho had made and molded public opinion, who had controlled the pulpitand the press, who had shaped the destiny of the State; who had made andenforced the laws, --or at least such laws as they desired to haveenforced, --and who had represented the State not only in the StateLegislature but in both branches of the National Legislature atWashington. Many of these proud sons, gallant fathers, cultured mothersand wives and refined and polished daughters found themselves in asituation and in a condition that was pitiable in the extreme. It wasnot only a difficult matter for them to adjust themselves to the neworder of things and to the radically changed conditions, but no longerhaving slaves upon whom they could depend for everything, to raise thenecessary money to prevent the decay, the dissipation and the ultimateloss or destruction of their large landed estates was the serious anddifficult problem they had before them. To have the rate of taxationincreased upon this property, especially at that particular time, was tothem a very serious matter, --a matter which could not have any othereffect than to intensify their bitterness and hostility towards theparty in control of the State Government. But since Governor Alcorn, under whose administration, and in accordance with whose recommendationthis increase had been made, was a typical representative of thisparticular class, it was believed and hoped that he would havesufficient influence with the people of his own class to stem the tideof resentment, and to calm their fears and apprehensions. That theRepublicans retained control of the Legislature as a result of theelections of 1871, --though by only a small majority in the lowerhouse, --is conclusive evidence that the Governor's efforts in thatdirection were not wholly in vain. The argument made by the taxpayers, however, was plausible and it may be conceded that, upon the whole, theywere about right; for no doubt it would have been much easier upon thetaxpayers to have increased at that time the interest-bearing debt ofthe State than to have increased the tax rate. The latter course, however, had been adopted and could not then be changed. 

Governor Alcorn also recommended, --a recommendation that was favorablyconsidered by the Legislature, --that there be created and supported bythe State a college for the higher education of the colored boys andyoung men of the State. This bill was promptly passed by theLegislature, and, in honor of the one by whom its creation wasrecommended the institution was named "Alcorn College. " The presidencyof this much-needed college was an honorable and dignified position towhich a fair and reasonable salary was attached, so the Governor, whohad the appointing power, decided to tender the office to Senator H. R. Revels upon the expiration of his term in the Senate. I had the honor ofbeing named as one of the first trustees of this important institution. After the Governor, the trustees and Senator Revels had carefullyinspected many different places that had been suggested for the locationof the institution, Oakland College near the town of Rodney in ClaiborneCounty, was finally purchased, and Alcorn College was established, withSenator Revels as its first president. 

As an evidence of the necessity for such an institution it will not beout of place to call attention to the fact that when the writer wasfirst elected to Congress in 1872, there was not one young colored manin the State that could pass the necessary examination for a clerkshipin any of the Departments at Washington. Four years later the supply wasgreater than the demand, nearly all of the applicants being graduates ofAlcorn College. At this writing the institution is still beingmaintained by the State, although on a reduced appropriation and on aplan that is somewhat different from that which was inaugurated at itsbeginning and while the Republicans were in control of the Stategovernment. One of the reasons, no doubt, why it is supported by aDemocratic administration, is that the State might otherwise forfeit andlose the aid it now receives from the National Government for thesupport of agricultural institutions. But, aside from this, there arevery many liberal, fair-minded and influential Democrats in the Statewho are strongly in favor of having the State provide for the liberaleducation of both races. 

The knowledge I had acquired of parliamentary law not only enabled me totake a leading part in the deliberations of the Legislature, but itresulted in my being made Speaker of the House of Representatives thatwas elected in 1871. Shortly after the adjournment of the first sessionof the Legislature, the Speaker of the House, Hon. F. E. Franklin, ofYazoo County, died. When the Legislature reassembled the first Monday inJanuary, 1871, Hon. H. W. Warren, of Leake County, was made Speaker ofthe House. In addition to the vacancy from Yazoo, created by the deathof Speaker Franklin, one had also occurred from Lowndes County, whichwas one of the safe and sure Republican counties. Through apathy, indifference and overconfidence, the Democratic candidate, Dr. Landrum, was elected to fill this vacancy. It was a strange and novel sight tosee a Democratic member of the Legislature from the rock-ribbedRepublican county of Lowndes. It was no doubt a source of considerableembarrassment even to Dr. Landrum himself, for he was looked upon by allas a marvel and a curiosity. When he got up to deliver his maiden speecha few days after he was sworn in, he was visibly and perceptiblyaffected, for every eye was firmly and intently fixed upon him. Everyone seemed to think that the man that could be elected to a seat in theLegislature from Lowndes County as a Democrat, must be endowed with somestrange and hidden power through the exercise of which he could directthe movements and control the actions of those who might be brought incontact with him or subjected to his hypnotic influence; hence theanxiety and curiosity to hear the maiden speech of this strange andremarkable man. The voice in the House of a Democrat from the county ofLowndes was of so strange, so sudden, so unexpected and so remarkablethat it was difficult for many to bring themselves to a realization ofthe fact that such a thing had actually happened and that it was aliving reality. To the curious, the speech was a disappointment, although it was a plain, calm, conservative and convincing statement ofthe new member's position upon public questions. To the great amusementof those who heard him he related some of his experiences while he wasengaged in canvassing the county. But the speech revealed the fact that, after all, he was nothing more than an ordinary man. No one wasimpressed by any word or sentence that had fallen from his lips thatthere was anything about him that was strange, impressive or unusual, and all decided that his election was purely accidental; for it was nomore surprising than was the election of a colored Republican, Hon. J. M. Wilson, to the same Legislature the year before, from the reliableDemocratic county of Marion. 

There was not much to be done at the second session of the Legislatureoutside of passing the annual appropriation bills; hence the session wasa short one. Although Governor Alcorn's term as a United States Senatorcommenced March 4, 1871, he did not vacate the office of Governor untilthe meeting of Congress, the first Monday in the following December. Anew Legislature and all county officers were to be elected in Novemberof that year. It was to be the first important election since theinauguration of the Alcorn administration. The Governor decided toremain where he could assume entire responsibility for what had beendone and where he could answer, officially and otherwise, all chargesand accusations and criticisms that might be made against hisadministration and his official acts. The Republican majority in theState Senate was so large that the holdover Senators made it well nighimpossible for the Democrats to secure a majority of that body, but theprincipal fight was to be made for control of the House. As alreadystated the heavy increase in taxation proved to be very unpopular andthis gave the Democrats a decided advantage. They made a strong andbitter fight to gain control of the House, and nearly succeeded. 

When every county had been heard from it was found that out of the onehundred fifteen members of which the House was composed, the Republicanshad elected sixty-six members and the Democrats, forty-nine. Of thesixty-six that had been elected as Republicans, two, --Messrs. Armsteadand Streeter, --had been elected from Carroll County on an independentticket. They classed themselves politically as Independent or AlcornRepublicans. Carroll was the only doubtful county in the State that theDemocrats failed to carry. The Independent ticket in that county, whichwas supported by an influential faction of Democrats, was brought outwith the understanding and agreement that it would receive the supportof the Republican organization. This support was given, but upon apledge that the candidates for the Legislature, if elected, should notenter the Democratic caucus, nor vote for the candidates thereof in theorganization of the House. These conditions were accepted, whichresulted in the ticket being supported by the Republicans and, consequently elected. All the other doubtful and close counties wentDemocratic, which resulted in the defeat of some of the strongest andmost influential men in the Republican party, including Speaker Warrenof Leake County, Lucas and Boyd of Altala, Underwood of Chickasaw, Averyof Tallahatchie, and many others. Notwithstanding these reverses, theRepublicans sent a number of able men to the House, among whom may bementioned French of Adams, Howe and Pyles of Panola, Fisher of Hinds, Chandler and Davis of Noxubee, Huggins of Monroe, Stone and Spelman ofMadison, Barrett of Amite, Sullivan and Gayles of Bolivar, Everett andDixon of Yazoo, Griggs and Houston of Issaquina, and many others. Inpoint of experience and ability this Legislature was the equal of itsimmediate predecessor. 

CHAPTER V

THE CONTEST FOR SPEAKER OF THE MISSISSIPPI HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The elections being over, and a Republican majority in both branches ofthe Legislature being assured, Governor Alcorn was then prepared tovacate the office of Governor, to turn over the administration of Stateaffairs to Lieutenant-Governor Powers and to proceed to Washington so asto be present at the opening session of Congress on the first Monday inDecember when he would assume his duties as a United States Senator. 

The Legislature was to meet the first Monday in the followingJanuary, --1872. As soon as the fact was made known that the Republicanswould control the organization of the House, the Speakership of thatbody began to be agitated. If Speaker Warren had been reëlected he wouldhave received the Republican caucus nomination without opposition, buthis defeat made it necessary for a new man to be brought forward forthat position. A movement was immediately put on foot to make me theSpeaker of the House. 

Upon a careful examination of the returns it was found that of the onehundred fifteen members of which the House was composed there wereseventy-seven whites and thirty-eight colored. Of the seventy-sevenwhites, forty-nine had been elected as Democrats and twenty-eight asRepublicans. The thirty-eight colored men were all Republicans. It willthus be seen that, while in the composition of the Republican caucusthere were ten more colored than white members, yet of the totalmembership of the House there were thirty-nine more white than coloredmembers. But in the organization of the House, the contest was notbetween white and colored, but between Democrats and Republicans. No onehad been elected, --at least on the Republican side, --because he was awhite man or because he was a colored man, but because he was aRepublican. After a preliminary canvass the fact was developed that thewriter was not only the choice of the colored members for Speaker of theHouse, but of a large majority of the white Republican members as well. They believed, --and voted in accordance with that belief both in theparty caucus and in the House, --that the writer was the best-equippedman for that responsible position. This fact had been demonstrated totheir satisfaction during the two sessions of the preceding Legislature. 

The nomination of the writer by the House Republican caucus for Speakerwas a foregone conclusion several weeks before the convening of theLegislature. With a full membership in attendance fifty-eight voteswould be necessary to perfect the organization. When the Republicancaucus convened sixty members were present and took part in thedeliberations thereof. Four of the Republicans-elect had not at thattime arrived at the seat of government. The two Independents fromCarroll refused to attend the caucus, but this did not necessarily meanthat they would not vote for the candidates thereof in the organizationof the House. But since we had sixty votes, --two more than werenecessary to elect our candidate, --we believed that the organizationwould be easily perfected the next day, regardless of the action of themembers from Carroll County. 

In this, however, we were sadly disappointed. The result of the firstvote for Speaker of the House was as follows:

 Lynch, Republican caucus nominee 55 Streeter, Democratic nominee 47 Chandler, Independent Republican 7 Armstead, Independent Republican 1 Howe, Regular Republican 1 Necessary to elect 56

Judge Chandler of Noxubee, who had been elected as a regular Republicanwith four other white Republicans, --all of whom attended and took partin the caucus the night before, --refused to vote for the nominee of thecaucus for Speaker but voted instead for Chandler. It will be seen thatthe vote for Streeter, the Democratic caucus nominee, was two less thanthat party's strength; thus showing that two Democrats must have alsovoted for Chandler. It will also be seen that if every vote that was notreceived by Lynch had been given to Chandler or to any other man, thatman would have received the required number of votes and would have beenelected. The Democrats stood ready to give their solid vote to any oneof the Independents whenever it could be shown that their votes wouldresult in an election. But it so happened that Chandler and Armsteadwere both ambitious to be Speaker and neither would give way for theother, which, of course, made the election of either impossible. The onevote cast for Howe was no doubt Mr. Armstead's vote, while the one votefor Armstead was no doubt cast by his colleague. In the nomination ofHon. H. M. Streeter, the Democrats selected their strongest man, and thebest parliamentarian on their side of the House. The refusal of theso-called Independents to vote for the Republican caucus nominee forSpeaker produced a deadlock which continued for a period of severaldays. At no time could any one of the regular Republicans be inducedunder any circumstances to vote for any one of the Independents. Theywould much rather have the House organized by the Democrats than allowparty treachery to be thus rewarded. 

While the deadlock was in progress, Senators Alcorn and Ames suddenlymade their appearance upon the scene of action. They had made the tripfrom Washington to use their influence to break the deadlock, and tobring about an organization of the House by the Republican party. ButSenator Alcorn was the one that could render the most effective servicein that direction, since the bolters were men who professed to befollowers of his and loyal to his political interests and leadership. 

As soon as the Senator arrived he held a conference with the bolters, including Messrs. Armstead and Streeter, --the two independents fromCarroll. In addressing those who had been elected as Republicans and whohad attended and participated in the caucus of that party, the Senatordid not mince his words. He told them in plain language that they werein honor bound to support the caucus nominees of their party, or thatthey must resign their seats and allow their constituents to electothers that would do so. With reference to the Independents fromCarroll, he said the situation was slightly different. They had beenelected as Independents under conditions which did not obligate them toenter the Republican caucus or support the candidates thereof. They hadpledged themselves not to support the Democratic caucus nominees, nor toaid that party in the organization of the House. Up to that time theyhad not made a move, nor given a vote that could be construed into aviolation of the pledge under which they had been elected, but they hadpublicly declared on several occasions that they had been elected asIndependents or Alcorn Republicans. In other words, they had beenelected as friends and supporters of the Alcorn administration, and ofthat type of Republicanism for which he stood and of which he was therepresentative. If this were true then they should not hesitate to takethe advice of the man to support whose administration they had beenelected. He informed them that if they meant what they said the best wayfor them to prove it was to vote for the Republican caucus nominees forofficers of the House, because he was the recognized leader of the partyin the State and that the issue involved in the elections was either anendorsement or repudiation of his administration as Governor. Republicansuccess under such circumstances meant an endorsement of hisadministration, while Republican defeat would mean its repudiation. Themost effective way, then, in which they could make good theirante-election pledges and promises was to vote for the candidates ofthe Republican caucus for officers of the House. 

The two Carroll County Independents informed the Senator that he hadcorrectly outlined their position and their attitude, and that it wastheir purpose and their determination to give a loyal and effectivesupport, so far as the same was in their power, to the policies andprinciples for which he stood and of which he was the accreditedrepresentative; but that they were apprehensive that they could notsuccessfully defend their action and explain their votes to thesatisfaction of their constituents if they were to vote for a coloredman for Speaker of the House. 

"But, " said the Senator, "could you have been elected without the votesof colored men? If you now vote against a colored man, --who is in everyway a fit and capable man for the position, --simply because he is acolored man, would you expect those men to support you in the future?"

The Senator also reminded them that they had received very many morecolored than white votes; and that, in his opinion, very few of thewhite men who had supported them would find fault with them for votingfor a capable and intelligent colored man to preside over thedeliberations of the House. 

"Can you then, " the Senator asked, "afford to offend the great mass ofcolored men that supported you in order to please an insignificantlysmall number of narrow-minded whites?"

The Senator assured them that he was satisfied they had nothing to fearas a result of their action in voting for Mr. Lynch as Speaker of theHouse. He knew the candidate favorably and well and therefore did nothesitate to assure them that if they contributed to his election theywould have no occasion to regret having done so. The conference thencame to a close with the understanding that all present would vote thenext day for the Republican caucus nominees for officers of the House. This was done. The result of the ballot the following day was asfollows:

 Lynch, Republican caucus nominee, 63 Chandler, Independent Republican, 49 Necessary to elect 57

It will be seen that Judge Chandler received the solid Democratic votewhile Lynch received the vote of every voting Republican present, including Chandler and the two Independents from Carroll, --threeRepublicans still being absent and not paired. By substantially the samevote ex-Speaker Warren, of Leake County, was elected Chief Clerk, andEx-Representative Hill, of Marshall County, was electedSergeant-at-arms. The Legislature was then organized and was ready toproceed to business. 

At the conclusion of the session, the House not only adopted aresolution complimenting the Speaker and thanking him for the able andimpartial manner in which he had presided over its deliberations, butpresented him with a fine gold watch and chain, --purchased with moneythat had been contributed by members of both parties and by a fewoutside friends, --as a token of their esteem and appreciation of him asa presiding officer. On the outside case of the watch these words wereengraved: "Presented to Hon. J. R. Lynch, Speaker of the House ofRepresentatives, by the Members of the Legislature, April 19, 1873. "That watch the writer still has and will keep as a sacred familyheirloom. 

A good deal of work was to be done by this Legislature. The seats of anumber of Democrats were contested. But the decision in many cases wasin favor of the sitting members. The changes, however, were sufficientto materially increase the Republican majority. 

Among the important bills to be passed was one to divide the State intosix Congressional Districts. The apportionment of Representatives inCongress, under the Apportionment Act which had recently passedCongress, increased the number of Representatives from Mississippi, which had formerly been five, to six. Republican leaders in bothbranches of the Legislature decided that the duty of drawing up a billapportioning the State into Congressional Districts should devolve uponthe Speaker of the House, with the understanding that the partyorganization would support the bill drawn by him. 

I accepted the responsibility, and immediately proceeded with the workof drafting a bill for that purpose. Two plans had been discussed, eachof which had strong supporters and advocates. One plan was so toapportion the State as to make all of the districts Republican; but indoing so the majority in at least two of the districts would be quitesmall. The other was so to apportion the State as to make five districtssafely and reliably Republican and the remaining one Democratic. I hadnot taken a decided stand for or against either plan. Perhaps that wasone reason why the advocates of both plans agreed to refer the matter tome for a final decision. 

The Democrats heard what had been done. One of them, Hon. F. M. Goar, ofLee County, called to see me so as to talk over the matter. He expressedthe hope that in drawing up the bill, one district would be conceded tothe Democrats. 

"If this is done, " he said, "I assume that the group of counties locatedin the northeastern part of the State will be the Democratic district. In that event we will send a very strong and able man to Congress in theperson of Hon. L. Q. C. Lamar. "

I had every reason to believe that if Mr. Lamar were sent to Congresshe would reflect credit upon himself, his party, and his State. Ipromised to give the suggestion earnest and perhaps favorableconsideration. After going over the matter carefully I came to theconclusion that the better and safer plan would be to make five safe andsure Republican districts and concede one to the Democrats. Anotherreason for this decision was that in so doing, the State could be morefairly apportioned. The Republican counties could be easily madecontiguous and the population in each district could be made as nearlyequal as possible. The apportionment could not have been so fairly andequitably made if the other plan had been adopted. 

After the bill had been completed, it was submitted to a joint caucus ofthe Republican members of the two Houses, and after a brief explanationby me of its provisions it was accepted and approved by the unanimousvote of the caucus. 

When it was brought before the house, a majority of the Democraticmembers, --under the leadership of Messrs. Streeter, Roane andMcIntosh, --fought it very bitterly. They contended that the Democratsshould have at least two of the six Congressmen and that anapportionment could have been made and should have been made with thatend in view. The truth was that several of those who made such astubborn fight against the bill had Congressional aspirations themselvesand, of course, they did not fail to see that as drawn the bill did nothold out flattering hopes for the gratification of that ambition. But itwas all that Mr. Goar and a few others that he had taken into hisconfidence expected, or had any right to expect. In fact, the oneDemocratic district, constructed in accordance with their wishes, wasjust about what they wanted. While they voted against the bill, --merelyto be in accord with their party associates, --they insisted that thereshould be no filibustering or other dilatory methods adopted to defeatit. After a hard and stubborn fight, and after several days of excitingdebate, the bill was finally passed by a strict party vote. A few dayslater it passed the Senate without amendment, was signed by theGovernor, and became a law. 

As had been predicted by Mr. Goar, Hon. L. Q. C. Lamar was nominated bythe Democrats for Congress in the first district, which was theDemocratic district. The Republicans nominated against him a very strongand able man, the Hon. R. W. Flournoy, who had served with Mr. Lamar as amember of the Secession Convention of 1861. He made an aggressive andbrilliant canvass of the district, but the election of Mr. Lamar was aforegone conclusion, since the Democratic majority in the district wasvery large. 

CHAPTER VI

FUSION OF DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS IN THE STATE ELECTION OF 1873. REPUBLICAN VICTORY

An important election was to be held in Mississippi in 1873, at whichState, district, and county officers, as well as members of theLegislature, were to be elected. The tenure of office for the State andcounty officers was four years. 1873, therefore, was the year in whichthe successors of those that had held office since 1869 had to beelected. 

The legislature to be elected that year would elect the successor ofSenator Ames as United States Senator. Senator Ames was the candidatenamed to succeed himself. For some unaccountable reason there had been afalling out between Senator Alcorn and himself, for which reason SenatorAlcorn decided to use his influence to prevent the reëlection of SenatorAmes. This meant that there would be a bitter factional fight in theparty, because both Senators were popular with the rank and file of theparty. 

The fact was soon developed, however, that the people favored the returnof Senator Ames to the Senate. This did not necessarily mean oppositionor unfriendliness to Senator Alcorn. It simply meant that both were tobe treated fairly and justly, and that each was to stand upon his ownrecord and merits, regardless of their personal differences. 

If Senator Alcorn had been in Senator Ames' place the probabilities arethat the sentiment of the party would have been just as strongly in hisfavor as it was at that time in favor of Ames. But on this occasionSenator Alcorn made the mistake of making opposition to Senator Ames thetest of loyalty to himself. In this he was not supported even by many ofhis warmest personal and political friends. In consequence of the bitterfight that was to be made by Senator Alcorn to prevent the return ofSenator Ames to the Senate, many of Senator Ames' friends advised him tobecome a candidate for the office of Governor. In that way, it wasbelieved, he could command the situation, and thus make sure hiselection to succeed himself as Senator; otherwise it might be doubtful. 

But this involved two important points which had to be carefullyconsidered. First, it involved the retirement of Governor Powers, whowas a candidate to succeed himself. Second, the candidate forLieutenant-Governor would have to be selected with great care, since ifthat program were carried out he would be, in point of fact, theGovernor of the State for practically the whole term. 

After going over the situation very carefully with his friends andsupporters Senator Ames decided to become a candidate for Governor, public announcement of which decision was duly made. This announcementseemed to have increased the intensity of Senator Alcorn's opposition toSenator Ames, for the former did not hesitate to declare that in theevent of Ames' nomination for Governor by the regular party conventionhe would bolt the action of the convention, and make the race forGovernor as an independent candidate. This declaration, however, made noimpression upon the friends and supporters of Ames, and evidently hadvery little effect upon the rank and file of the party; for the factbecame apparent shortly after the announcement of the candidacy of Amesthat his nomination was a foregone conclusion. In fact, Senator Ames hadsuch a strong hold upon the rank and file of the party throughout theState that when the convention met there was practically no oppositionto his nomination. The friends and supporters of Governor Powersrealized early in the campaign the hopelessness of the situation, so faras he was concerned, and therefore made no serious effort in his behalf. 

What gave the Ames managers more concern than anything else was theselection of a suitable man for Lieutenant-Governor. Many of the coloreddelegates insisted that three of the seven men to be nominated shouldbe of that race. The offices they insisted on filling were those ofLieutenant-Governor, Secretary of State, and Superintendent ofEducation. Since the colored men had been particularly loyal andfaithful to Senator Ames it was not deemed wise to ignore their demands. But the question was, Where is there a colored man possessing thequalifications necessary to one in charge of the executive department ofthe state?

After going over the field very carefully it was decided that there wasjust one man possessing the necessary qualifications, --B. K. Bruce, ofBolivar County. He, it was decided, was just the man for the place, andto him the nomination was to be tendered. A committee was appointed towait on Mr. Bruce and inform him of the action of the conference, andurge him to consent to the use of his name. But Mr. Bruce positivelydeclined. He could not be induced under any circumstances to change hismind. He was fixed in his determination not to allow his name to be usedfor the office of Lieutenant-Governor, and from that determination hecould not be moved. 

Mr. Bruce's unexpected attitude necessitated a radical change in theentire program. It had been agreed that the Lieutenant-Governorshipshould go to a colored man, but after Brace's declination the Amesmanagers were obliged to take one of two men, --H. C. Carter, or A. K. Davis. Davis was the more acceptable of the two; but neither, it wasthought, was a fit and suitable man to be placed at the head of theexecutive department of the State. After again going over the field, andafter canvassing the situation very carefully, it was decided that Ameswould not be a candidate to succeed himself as United States Senator, but that he would be a candidate to succeed Senator Alcorn. Thisdecision, in all probability, would not have been made if Alcorn hadbeen willing to abide by the decision of the convention. But, since heannounced his determination to bolt the nomination of his party forGovernor and run as an Independent candidate, it was decided that he hadforfeited any claim he otherwise would have had upon the party tosucceed himself in the Senate. Senator Alcorn's term would expire March4, 1877. His successor would be elected by the Legislature that would bechosen in November, 1875. If Ames should be elected to the Governorshiphis successor in that office would be elected in November, 1877. In theevent of his election to the Senate to succeed Senator Alcorn, his termas Senator would commence March 4, 1877, yet he could remain in theoffice of Governor until the meeting of Congress the following December, thus practically serving out the full term as Governor. 

With that plan mapped out and agreed upon, and the party leaderscommitted to its support, Davis was allowed to be nominated for theoffice of Lieutenant-Governor. Two other colored men were also placedupon the State ticket, --James Hill, for Secretary of State, and T. W. Cardozo, for State Superintendent of Education. While Davis had madequite a creditable record as a member of the Legislature, it could notbe said that his name added strength to the ticket. Hill, on the otherhand, was young, active, and aggressive, and considerably above theaverage colored man in point of intelligence at that time. Hisnomination was favorably received, because it was generally believedthat, if elected, he would discharge the duties of the office in a waythat would reflect credit upon himself and give satisfaction to thepublic. In point of education and experience Cardozo was admitted to beentirely capable of filling the office of Superintendent of Education;but he was not well known outside of his own county, Warren. In fact hisnomination was largely a concession to that strong Republican county. 

The three white men nominated, --besides the candidate forGovernor, --were, W. H. Gibbs, for Auditor of Public Accounts; Geo. E. Harris, for Attorney-General, and Geo. H. Holland, for State Treasurer. Gibbs had been a member of the Constitutional Convention of 1868, andsubsequently a member of the State Senate. Holland had served as amember of the Legislature from Oktibbeha County. Harris had been amember of Congress from the Second (Holly Springs) District, having beendefeated for the nomination in 1872 by A. R. Howe, of Panola County. While the ticket, as a whole, was not a weak one, its principal strengthwas in its head, --the candidate for Governor. 

Shortly after the adjournment of the convention Senator Alcorn hadanother convention called which nominated a ticket, composed exclusivelyof Republicans, with himself at its head for Governor. The Democrats attheir convention endorsed the Alcorn ticket. While it would seem thatthis action on the part of the Democrats ought to have increasedAlcorn's chances of success, it appears to have been a contributorycause of his defeat. Thousands of Republicans who were in sympathy withthe movement, and who would have otherwise voted the Alcorn ticket, refused to do so for the reason that if it had been elected theDemocrats could have claimed a victory for their party. On the otherhand, both tickets being composed exclusively of Republicans, thousandsof Democrats refused to vote for either, while some of them voted theAmes ticket. At any rate the election resulted in the success of theAmes ticket by a majority of more than twenty thousand. The regularRepublicans also had a large majority in both branches of theLegislature. 

[Illustration: HON. B. K. BRUCE United States Senator, 1875-1881]

CHAPTER VII

MISSISSIPPI SENDS B. K. BRUCE TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE

As soon as the result of the election was known, the candidacy of B. K. Bruce, for United States Senator to succeed Senator Ames, was announced. Ames' term as Governor was to commence the first Monday in January, 1874. His term as Senator would expire March 4, 1875. Upon assuming theduties of Governor he had been obliged to tender his resignation asSenator; thus it devolved upon the incoming legislature to elect aSenator to serve out the unexpired term, as well as for the full term ofsix years. Bruce's candidacy was for the full term. 

The secret of Mr. Bruce's positive refusal to allow his name to be usedfor the Lieutenant-Governorship, which would have resulted in making himGovernor, was now revealed. He had had the Senatorship in mind at thetime, but, of course, no allusion was made to that fact. As between theSenatorship and the Governorship he chose the former, which proved to bea wise decision, in view of subsequent events. It was soon developedthat he was the choice of a large majority of the Republican members ofthe Legislature, white as well as colored. His nomination by the partycaucus, therefore, was a foregone conclusion. Before the legislaturemet, it had been practically settled that Mr. Bruce should be sent tothe Senate for the long term and Ex-Superintendant of Education, H. R. Pease, should be elected to serve out the unexpired term ofGovernor-elect Ames. 

This slate was approved by the joint legislative caucus without a hitchand the candidates thus nominated were duly elected by theLegislature, --not only by the solid Republican vote of that body, butthe additional vote of State Senator Hiram Cassidy, Jr. , who had beenelected as a Democrat. 

Senator Alcorn's keen disappointment and chagrin at the outcome of hisfight with Governor Ames was manifested when Senator Bruce made hisappearance to be sworn in as a Senator. It was presumed that SenatorAlcorn, in accordance with the uniform custom on such occasions, wouldescort his colleague to the desk of the President of the Senate to besworn in. This Senator Alcorn refused to do. When Mr. Bruce's name wascalled Senator Alcorn did not move; he remained in his seat, apparentlygiving his attention to his private correspondence. Mr. Bruce, somewhatnervous and slightly excited, started to the President's deskunattended. Senator Roscoe Conkling, of New York, who was sitting nearby, immediately rose and extended his arm to Mr. Bruce and escorted himto the President's desk, standing by the new Senator's side until theoath had been administered, and then tendering him his heartycongratulations, in which all the other Republican Senators, exceptSenator Alcorn, subsequently joined. 

This gracious act on the part of the New York Senator made for him alifelong friend and admirer in the person of Senator Bruce. Thisfriendship was so strong that Senator Bruce named his first and only sonRoscoe Conkling, in honor of the able, distinguished, and gallantSenator from New York. 

Senator Alcorn's action in this matter was the occasion of considerableunfavorable criticism and comment, some of his critics going so far asto intimate that his action was due to the fact that Mr. Bruce was acolored man. But, from my knowledge of the man and of the circumstancesconnected with the case, I am satisfied this was not true. His antipathyto Mr. Bruce grew out of the fact that Mr. Bruce had opposed him and hadsupported Ames in the fight for Governor in 1873. 

So far as I have been able to learn, I am the only one of the Senator'sfriends and admirers who opposed his course in that contest that he everforgave. He, no doubt, felt that I was under less personal obligationsto him than many others who pursued the same course that I did, sincehe had never rendered me any effective personal or political service, except when he brought the Independent members of the House in line forme in the contest for Speaker of that body in 1872; and even then hisaction was not so much a matter of personal friendship for me as it wasin the interest of securing an endorsement of his own administration asGovernor. 

In Mr. Bruce's case he took an entirely different view of the matter. Hebelieved that he had been the making of Mr. Bruce. Mr. Bruce had come tothe State in 1869 and had taken an active part in the campaign of thatyear. When the Legislature was organized it was largely through theinfluence of Governor Alcorn that he was elected Sergeant-at-arms of theState Senate. When the Legislature adjourned Governor Alcorn sent Bruceto Bolivar county as County Assessor. Bruce discharged the duties ofthat office in such a creditable and satisfactory manner that he waselected in 1871 Sheriff and Tax Collector of that important and wealthycounty, the most responsible and lucrative office in the gift of thepeople of the county. He was holding that office when elected to theUnited States Senate. Senator Alcorn felt, therefore, that in takingsides against him and in favor of Ames in 1873 Mr. Bruce was guilty ofgross ingratitude. This accounted for his action in refusing to escortMr. Bruce to the President's desk to be sworn in as Senator. In thisbelief, however, he did Mr. Bruce a grave injustice, for I know thatgratitude was one of Mr. Brace's principal characteristics. If SenatorAlcorn had been a candidate from the start for the Republican nominationfor Governor, Mr. Bruce, I am sure, would have supported him even asagainst Senator Ames. But it was known that the Senator had no ambitionto be Governor. His sole purpose was to defeat Senator Ames at any cost, and that, too, on account of matters that were purely personal and thathad no connection with party or political affairs. Mr. Bruce, like verymany other friends and admirers of the Senator, simply refused to followhim in open rebellion against his own party. I am satisfied, however, that Mr. Bruce's race identity did not influence the action of SenatorAlcorn in the slightest degree. As further evidence of that fact, hisposition and action in the Pinchback case may be mentioned. He spoke andvoted for the admission of Mr. Pinchback to a seat in the Senate whensuch a staunch Republican as Senator Edmunds, of Vermont, opposed andvoted against admission. In spite of Senator Alcorn's political defeatand humiliation in his own State, he remained true and loyal to theNational Republican party to the end of his Senatorial term, whichterminated with the beginning of the Hayes Administration. Up to thattime he had strong hopes of the future of the Republican party at theSouth. 

CHAPTER VIII

IMPROVED FINANCIAL CONDITION OF MISSISSIPPI UNDER THE AMESADMINISTRATION

The administrations of Governor Alcorn and of Governor Ames, the twoRepublican Governors, who were products of Reconstruction, --both havingbeen elected chiefly by the votes of colored men, --were among the bestwith which that State was ever blessed, the generally acceptedimpression to the contrary notwithstanding. In 1869 Alcorn was electedto serve for a term of four years. Ames was elected to serve thesucceeding term. Alcorn was one of the old citizens of the State, andwas therefore thoroughly identified with its business, industrial, andsocial interests. He had been one of the large and wealthy landownersand slave-owners, and therefore belonged to that small but select andinfluential class known as Southern aristocrats. 

Alcorn had taken an active and prominent part in public matters sincehis early manhood. Before the War of the Rebellion he had served severalterms as a member of the Legislature. He represented his county, Coahoma, in the Secession Convention of 1861. He was bitterly opposedto Secession and fought it bravely; but when he found himself in ahopeless minority he gracefully acquiesced in the decision of themajority and signed the ordinance of Secession. He also joined theConfederate Army and took an active part in raising troops for the same. He was made brigadier-general, and had command of the Confederate forcesin Mississippi for a good while. But, since the President of theConfederacy did not seem to be particularly partial to him, he was notallowed to see very much field service. 

When the war was over he took an active part in the work ofrehabilitation and Reconstruction. He strongly supported the AndrewJohnson plan of Reconstruction, and by the Legislature that was electedunder that plan he was chosen one of the United States Senators, but wasnot admitted to the seat to which he had been elected. When the Johnsonplan of Reconstruction was repudiated and rejected by the voters of theNorthern States, and when what was known as the Congressional Plan ofReconstruction was endorsed and approved, Alcorn decided that furtheropposition to that plan was useless and unwise, and he publicly advisedacceptance of it. His advice having been rejected by the Democrats, nothing remained for him to do but to join the Republican party, whichhe did in the early part of 1869. 

Since he was known to be a strong, able and influential man, --one whopossessed the respect and confidence of the white people of the Stateregardless of party differences, --he was tendered the Republicannomination for the Governorship at the election that was to be held thelatter part of that year. He accepted the nomination and was dulyelected. He discharged the duties of the office in an able, creditableand satisfactory manner. The only point upon which the administrationwas at all subject to unfavorable criticism was the high rate oftaxation to which the people were subjected for the support of the StateGovernment; but the reader will see that this could hardly have beenavoided at that particular time. In his message to the Legislature inJanuary, 1910, Governor E. F. Noel accurately stated the principle bywhich an administration is necessarily governed in raising revenue tocarry on the government. This is the same principle that governed theAlcorn administration when it took charge of the State Government in1870. In that message Governor Noel said: "The amount of assessmentdetermines the tax burden of each individual, corporation, town, andcounty. The Legislature or local authorities settle the amount necessaryto be provided for their respective treasuries. If all property beassessed at the same rate, --whether for the full value or for ten percent, of the value of the property, --the payment of each owner would beunaffected; for the higher the assessment, the lower the levy; the lowerthe assessment, the higher the levy. Our State revenue is mainly derivedfrom a six mill ad valorem tax. "

When the Alcorn administration took charge of the State Government theWar had just come to a close. Everything was in a prostrate condition. There had been great depreciation in the value of real and personalproperty. The credit of the State was not very good. The rate ofinterest for borrowed money was high. To materially increase the bondeddebt of the State was not deemed wise, yet some had to be raised in thatway. To raise the balance a higher rate of taxation had to be imposedsince the assessed valuation of the taxable property was so low. 

The figures showing the assessed valuation of taxable property in theState and the receipts and disbursements prior to 1875 are notavailable, but, taking the figures for that year, the reader can form apretty accurate idea of what the situation must have been prior to thattime. In 1875 the assessed valuation of real and personal property, subject to taxation in the State, was $119, 313, 834. The receipts fromall sources that year amounted to $1, 801, 129. 12. The disbursements forthe same year were, $1, 430, 192. 83. 

Now let us see what the situation was after the Ames administration hadbeen in power about two years, --or half of the term for which it hadbeen elected. According to a very carefully prepared statement that wasmade and published by an expert accountant in the State Treasurer'soffice in the latter part of 1875 the ad valorem rate of taxes forgeneral purposes had been reduced from seven to four mills, and yet theamount paid into the Treasury was not only enough to meet all demandsupon the State, but to make a material reduction in the bonded debt. Thefollowing is taken from that statement:

"An examination of the report of the State Treasurer, of the first ofJanuary, 1874, at which time the administration of Governor Amescommenced, exhibits the fact that the indebtedness of the State at thatdate, exclusive of the amounts to the credit of the Chickasaw and commonschool funds, balance of current funds on hand, and warrants in theTreasury belonging to the State, was $1, 765, 554. 33 The amount of the taxof the previous year remaining uncollected on January first, 1874, andafterward collected, $944, 261. 51, should be deducted from the aboveamount, which will show the actual indebtedness of the State at thatdate to be $821, 292. 82. A further examination of the report of the sameofficer, for January first, 1875, shows the indebtedness, afterdeducting amounts to the credit of the Chickasaw and common schoolfunds, balance of current funds on hand and warrants in the Treasurybelonging to the State, to be, $1, 707, 056. 24. Then by deducting theamount of the tax of the previous year remaining uncollected Januaryfirst, 1875, and afterwards collected, $998, 628. 11, the result shows theactual indebtedness on January first, 1875, to be $708, 428. 13. Theforthcoming annual report of the State Treasurer, for January first, 1876, will show the indebtedness of the State, exclusive of the amountsto the credit of the Chickasaw and common school funds, the balance ofcurrent funds on hand, and warrants in the Treasury belonging to theState, to be $980, 138. 33. Then, by proceeding again as above, anddeducting the amount of the tax of the previous year, uncollected onJanuary first, 1876, and now being rapidly paid into the Treasury, at alow estimate, $460, 000. 00, we have as an actual indebtedness of theState on January first, 1876, $520, 138. 33. Thus it will be seen that theactual indebtedness of the State is but little over a half milliondollars, and that during the two years of Governor Ames' administrationthe State debt has been reduced from $821, 292. 82, on January first, 1874, to $520, 138. 33, on January first, 1876, or a reduction of morethan three hundred thousand dollars in two years--upwards of one thirdof the State debt wiped out in that time. Not only has the debt beenreduced as above, but the rate of taxation for general purposes hasbeen reduced from seven mills in 1873 to four mills in 1875. "

Notwithstanding the fact that the rate of taxation under theadministration of Governor Ames had been reduced as shown above fromseven mills in 1873 to four mills in 1875 the amount paid into the StateTreasury was substantially the same as that paid in prior years. Thiswas due to the great appreciation in the value of taxable property. Thenagain, a material reduction in the rate of taxation was made possiblebecause the public institutions had all been rebuilt and repaired and asufficient number of school buildings had been erected, thus doing awaywith the necessity for a special levy for such purposes. From thisshowing it would seem as if it were reasonable to assume that if such anadministration as the one then in power could have been retained a fewyears longer there would not only have been a still further reduction inthe rate of taxation, but the payable debt of the State would have beenentirely wiped out. Instead of this we find the conditions to be aboutas follows:

First. Shortly after the first reform State Treasurer had been in chargeof that office it was developed that he was a defaulter to the amount of$315, 612. 19. 

Second. Notwithstanding the immense increase in the value of taxableproperty from year to year, it appears from the official records thatthe rate of ad valorem tax for general purposes has been increased fromfour to six mills. 

Third. There has been a very heavy increase in what is known as thespecific or privilege taxes, --that is, a specific sum that business andprofessional persons must pay for the privilege of doing business or ofpracticing their professions in the State. 

Fourth. The amounts now collected and paid out for the support of theState Government are more than double what they were a few years ago, thus showing extravagance, if not recklessness, in the administration ofthe affairs of the State, --the natural result of a condition by whichthe existence of but one political party is tolerated. 

Fifth. Notwithstanding the immense increase in the value of taxableproperty, and in spite of the enormous sums paid into the State Treasuryeach year, there has been a material increase in the bonded debt of theState. In fact it has been necessary at different times to borrow moneywith which to pay the current expenses of the State Government. 

The following statistics for three years, 1907, 1908 and 1909, wouldseem to substantiate the above statement:

The value of the taxable property of the State in 1907 was $373, 584. 960. Receipts from all sources that year were $3, 391, 127. 15. Disbursementsfor the same period were $3, 730, 343. 29. Excess of disbursements overreceipts, $339, 216. 14. 

In 1908 the value of taxable property was $383, 823, 739. Receipts fromall sources that year were $3, 338, 398. 98. Disbursements, same period, $3, 351, 119. 46. Excess of disbursements over receipts, $12, 720. 48. 

In 1909 the value of taxable property was $393, 297, 173. Receipts fromall sources were $3, 303, 963. 65. Disbursements, same period, $3, 315, 201. 48. Excess of disbursements over receipts, $11, 237. 83. 

On the first day of January, 1907, what is called the payable debt ofthe State was reported to be $1, 253, 029. 07. On the first day of January, 1876, it was $520, 138. 33. Increase, $732, 890. 74. 

CHAPTER IX

WHAT CONSTITUTES "NEGRO DOMINATION"

It is claimed that in States, districts, and counties, in which thecolored people are in the majority, the suppression of the colored voteis necessary to prevent "Negro Domination, "--to prevent the ascendencyof the blacks over the whites in the administration of the State andlocal governments. 

This claim is based upon the assumption that if the black vote were notsuppressed in all such States, districts, and counties, black men wouldbe supported and elected to office because they were black, and whitemen would be opposed and defeated because they were white. 

Taking Mississippi for purposes of illustration, it will be seen thatthere has never been the slightest ground for such an apprehension. Nocolored man in that State ever occupied a judicial position above thatof Justice of the Peace and very few aspired to that position. Of sevenState officers only one, that of Secretary of State, was filled by acolored man, until 1873, when colored men were elected to three of theseven offices, --Lieutenant-Governor, Secretary of State, and StateSuperintendent of Education. Of the two United States Senators and theseven members of the lower house of Congress not more than one coloredman occupied a seat in each house at the same time. Of the thirty-fivemembers of the State Senate, and of the one hundred and fifteen membersof the House, --which composed the total membership of the StateLegislature prior to 1874, --there were never more than about sevencolored men in the Senate and forty in the lower house. Of theninety-seven members that composed the Constitutional Convention of 1868but seventeen were colored men. The composition of the lower house ofthe State Legislature that was elected in 1871 was as follows:

Total membership, one hundred and fifteen. Republicans, sixty-six;Democrats, forty-nine. Colored members, thirty-eight. White members, seventy-seven. White majority, thirty-nine. 

Of the sixty-six Republicans thirty-eight were colored and twenty-eight, white. There was a slight increase in the colored membership as a resultof the election of 1873, but the colored men never at any time hadcontrol of the State Government nor of any branch or department thereof, nor even that of any county or municipality. Out of seventy-two countiesin the State at that time, electing on an average twenty-eight officersto a county, it is safe to assert that not over five out of one hundredof such officers were colored men. The State; district, county, andmunicipal governments were not only in control of white men, but whitemen who were to the manor born, or who were known as old citizens of theState--those who had lived in the State many years before the War of theRebellion. There was, therefore, never a time when that class of whitemen known as Carpet-baggers had absolute control of the StateGovernment, or that of any district, county or municipality, or anybranch or department thereof. There was never, therefore, any ground forthe alleged apprehension of negro domination as a result of a free, fair, and honest election in any one of the Southern or ReconstructedStates. 

And this brings us to a consideration of the question, What is meant by"Negro Domination?" The answer that the average reader would give tothat question would be that it means the actual, physical domination ofthe blacks over the whites. But, according to a high Democraticauthority, that would be an incorrect answer. The definition given bythat authority I have every reason to believe is the correct one, thegenerally accepted one. The authority referred to is the late AssociateJustice of the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi, H. H. Chalmers, who, in an article in the _North American Review_ about March, 1881, explained and defined what is meant or understood by the term "NegroDomination. "

According to Judge Chalmers' definition, in order to constitute "NegroDomination" it does not necessarily follow that negroes must be electedto office, but that in all elections in which white men may be divided, if the negro vote should be sufficiently decisive to be potential indetermining the result, the white man or men that would be electedthrough the aid of negro votes would represent "Negro Domination. " Inother words, we would have "Negro Domination" whenever the will of amajority of the whites would be defeated through the votes of coloredmen. If this is the correct definition of that term, --and it is, nodoubt, the generally accepted one, --then the friends and advocates ofmanhood suffrage will not deny that we have had in the past "NegroDomination, " nationally as well as locally, and that we may have it inthe future. 

If that is the correct definition then we are liable to have "NegroDomination" not only in States, districts, and counties where the blacksare in the majority, but in States, districts and counties where theyare few in numbers. If that is the correct definition of "NegroDomination, "--to prevent which the negro vote should besuppressed, --then the suppression of that vote is not only necessary inStates, districts, and counties in which the blacks are in the majority, but in every State, district, and county in the Union; for it will notbe denied that the primary purpose of the ballot, --whether the voters bewhite or colored, male or female, --is to make each vote decisive andpotential. If the vote of a colored man, or the vote of a white man, determines the result of an election in which he participates, then thevery purpose for which he was given the right and privilege will havebeen accomplished, whether the result, as we understand it, be wise orunwise. 

In this connection it cannot and will not be denied that the coloredvote has been decisive and potential in very many important National aswell as local and State elections. For instance, in the Presidentialelection of 1868, General Grant, the Republican candidate, lost theimportant and pivotal State of New York, a loss which would haveresulted in his defeat if the Southern States that took part in thatelection had all voted against him. That they did not do so was due tothe votes of the colored men in those States. Therefore Grant's firstadministration represented "Negro Domination. "

Again, in 1876, Hayes was declared elected President by a majority ofone vote in the electoral college. This was made possible by the resultof the election in the States of Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida, about which there was much doubt and considerable dispute, and overwhich there was a bitter controversy. But for the colored vote in thoseStates there would have been no doubt, no dispute, no controversy. Thedefeat of Mr. Hayes and the election of Mr. Tilden would have been anundisputed and an uncontested fact. Therefore, the Hayes administrationrepresented "Negro Domination. "

Again, in 1880, General Garfield, the Republican candidate forPresident, carried the State of New York by a plurality of about 20, 000, without which he could not have been elected. It will not be denied bythose who are well informed that if the colored men that voted for himin that State at that time had voted against him, he would have lost theState and, with it, the Presidency. Therefore, the Garfield-Arthuradministration represented "Negro Domination. "

Again, in 1884, Mr. Cleveland, the Democratic candidate, carried thedoubtful but very important State of New York by the narrow margin of1, 147 plurality, which resulted in his election. It cannot and will notbe denied that even at that early date the number of colored men thatvoted for Mr. Cleveland was far in excess of the plurality by which hecarried the State. Mr. Cleveland's first administration, therefore, represented "Negro Domination. " Mr. Cleveland did not hesitate to admitand appreciate the fact that colored men contributed largely to hissuccess, hence he did not fail to give that element of his partyappropriate and satisfactory official recognition. 

Again, in 1888, General Harrison, the Republican Presidential candidate, carried the State of New York by a plurality of about 20, 000, whichresulted in his election, which he would have lost but for the votes ofthe colored men in that State. Therefore, Harrison's administrationrepresented "Negro Domination. "

The same is true of important elections in a number of States, districtsand counties in which the colored vote proved to be potential anddecisive. But enough has been written to show the absurdity of the claimthat the suppression of the colored vote is necessary to prevent "NegroDomination. " So far as the State of Mississippi is concerned, in spiteof the favorable conditions, as shown above, the legitimate StateGovernment, --the one that represented the honestly expressed will of amajority of the voters of the State, --was in the fall of 1875 overthrownthrough the medium of a sanguinary revolution. The State Government wasvirtually seized and taken possession of _vi et armis_. Why was this?What was the excuse for it? What was the motive, the incentive thatcaused it? It was not in the interest of good, efficient, and capablegovernment; for that we already had. It was not on account ofdishonesty, maladministration, misappropriation of public funds; forevery dollar of the public funds had been faithfully accounted for. Itwas not on account of high taxes; for it had been shown that, while thetax rate was quite high during the Alcorn administration, it had beenreduced under the Ames administration to a point considerably less thanit is now or than it has been for a number of years. It was not toprevent "Negro Domination" and to make sure the ascendency of the whitesin the administration of the State and local governments; for that wasthen the recognized and established order of things, from which therewas no apprehension of departure. Then, what was the cause of thissudden and unexpected uprising? There must have been a strong, if not ajustifiable, reason for it. What was it? That question will be answeredin a subsequent chapter. 

CHAPTER X

OVERTHROW OF THE REPUBLICAN STATE GOVERNMENT IN MISSISSIPPI

In the last preceding chapter it was stated that the reason for thesanguinary revolution, which resulted in the overthrow of the Republicanstate government in the State of Mississippi in 1875, would be given ina subsequent chapter. What was true of Mississippi at that time waslargely true of the other Reconstructed States where similar resultssubsequently followed. When the War of the Rebellion came to an end itwas believed by some, and apprehended by others, that serious andradical changes in the previous order of things would necessarilyfollow. 

But when what was known as the Johnson Plan of Reconstruction wasdisclosed it was soon made plain that if that plan should be accepted bythe country no material change would follow, for the reason, chiefly, that the abolition of slavery would have been abolition only in name. While physical slavery would have been abolished, yet a sort of feudalor peonage system would have been established in its place, the effectof which would have been practically the same as the system which hadbeen abolished. The former slaves would have been held in a state ofservitude through the medium of labor-contracts which they would havebeen obliged to sign, --or to have signed for them, --from which they, andtheir children, and, perhaps, their children's children could never havebeen released. This would have left the old order of things practicallyunchanged. The large landowners would still be the masters of thesituation, the power being still possessed by them to perpetuate theirown potential influence and to maintain their own political supremacy. 

But it was the rejection of the Johnson Plan of Reconstruction thatupset these plans and destroyed these calculations. The Johnson plan wasnot only rejected, but what was known as the Congressional Plan ofReconstruction, --by which suffrage was conferred upon the colored men inall the States that were to be reconstructed, --was accepted by thepeople of the North as the permanent policy of the government, and wasthus made the basis of Reconstruction and readmission of those Statesinto the Union. 

Of course this meant a change in the established order of things thatwas both serious and radical. It meant the destruction of the power andinfluence of the Southern aristocracy. It meant not only the physicalemancipation of the blacks but the political emancipation of the poorwhites, as well. It meant the destruction in a large measure of thesocial, political, and industrial distinctions that had been maintainedamong the whites under the old order of things. But was this to be thesettled policy of the government? Was it a fact that the incorporationof the blacks into the body politic of the country was to be the settledpolicy of the government; or was it an experiment, --a temporaryexpedient?

These were doubtful and debatable questions, pending the settlement ofwhich matters could not be expected to take a definite shape. With theincorporation of the blacks into the body politic of the country, --whichwould have the effect of destroying the ability of the aristocracy tomaintain their political supremacy, and which would also have the effectof bringing about the political emancipation of the whites of the middleand lower classes, --a desperate struggle for political supremacy betweenthe antagonistic elements of the whites was inevitable and unavoidable. But the uncertainty growing out of the possibility of the rejection bythe country of the Congressional Plan of Reconstruction was what heldmatters in temporary abeyance. President Johnson was confident, --orpretended to be, --that as soon as the people of the North had anopportunity to pass judgment upon the issues involved, the result wouldbe the acceptance of his plan and the rejection of the one proposed byCongress. 

While the Republicans were successful in 1868 in not only electing thePresident and Vice-President and a safe majority in both branches ofCongress, yet the closeness of the result had the effect of preventingthe abandonment of the hope on the part of the supporters of the Johnsonadministration that the administration Plan of Reconstruction wouldultimately be adopted and accepted as the basis of Reconstruction. Hencebitter and continued opposition to the Congressional Plan ofReconstruction was declared by the ruling class of the South to be thepolicy of that section. While the Republicans were again successful inthe Congressional elections of 1870 yet the advocates of the Johnsonplan did not abandon hope of the ultimate success and acceptance by thecountry of that plan until after the Presidential and Congressionalelections of 1872. In the meantime a serious split had taken place inthe Republican party which resulted in the nomination of two sets ofcandidates for President and Vice-President. The Independent or LiberalRepublicans nominated Horace Greeley of New York, for President, and B. Gratz Brown, of Missouri, for Vice-President. The regular Republicansrenominated President Grant to succeed himself, and for Vice-President, Senator Henry Wilson, of Massachusetts, was selected. 

The Democratic National Convention endorsed the ticket that had beennominated by the Liberal Republicans. The Republicans carried theelection by an immense majority. With two or three exceptions theelectoral vote of every state in the Union was carried for Grant andWilson. The Republicans also had a very large majority in both branchesof Congress. 

Since the result of the election was so decisive, and since every branchof the government was then in the hands of the Republicans, furtheropposition to the Congressional Plan of Reconstruction was for the firsttime completely abandoned. The fact was then recognized that this wasthe settled and accepted policy of the Government and that furtheropposition to it was useless. A few of the southern whites, GeneralAlcorn being one of the number, had accepted the result of thePresidential and Congressional elections of 1868 as conclusive as to thepolicy of the country with reference to Reconstruction; but those whothought and acted along those lines at that time were exceptions to thegeneral rule. But after the Presidential and Congressional elections of1872 all doubt upon that subject was entirely removed. 

The Southern whites were now confronted with a problem that was bothgrave and momentous. But the gravity of the situation was chiefly basedupon the possibility, --if not upon a probability, --of a reversal ofwhat had been the established order of things, especially those of apolitical nature. 

The inevitable conflict between the antagonistic elements of whichSouthern society was composed could no longer be postponed. But thecolored vote was the important factor which now had to be considered andtaken into account. It was conceded that whatever element or factioncould secure the favor and win the support of the colored vote would bethe dominant and controlling one in the State. It is true that between1868 and 1872, when the great majority of Southern whites maintained apolicy of "masterly inactivity, " the colored voters were obliged toutilize such material among the whites as was available; but it is awell-known fact that much of the material thus utilized was fromnecessity and not from choice, and that whenever and wherever anacceptable and reputable white man would place himself in a positionwhere his services could be utilized he was gladly taken up and loyallysupported by the colored voters. 

After 1872 the necessity for supporting undesirable material no longerexisted; and colored voters had the opportunity not only of supportingSouthern whites for all the important positions in the State, but alsoof selecting the best and most desirable among them. Whether the poorwhites or the aristocrats of former days were to be placed in control ofthe affairs of the State was a question which the colored voters alonecould settle and determine. That the colored man's preference should bethe aristocrat of the past was perfectly natural, since the relationsbetween them had been friendly, cordial and amicable even during thedays of slavery. Between the blacks and the poor whites the feeling hadbeen just the other way; which was due not so much to race antipathy asto jealousy and envy on the part of the poor whites, growing out of thecordial and friendly relations between the aristocrats and their slaves;and because the slaves were, in a large measure, their competitors inthe industrial market. When the partiality of the colored man for theformer aristocrats became generally known, they--the formeraristocrats, --began to come into the Republican party in large numbers. In Mississippi they were led by such men as Alcorn, in Georgia byLongstreet, in Virginia by Moseby, and also had as leaders suchex-governors as Orr, of South Carolina; Brown, of Georgia, and Parsons, of Alabama. 

Between 1872 and 1875 the accessions to the Republican ranks were solarge that it is safe to assert that from twenty-five to thirty per centof the white men of the Southern States were identified with theRepublican party; and those who thus acted were among the best and mostsubstantial men of that section. Among that number in the State ofMississippi was J. L. Alcorn, J. A. Orr, J. B. Deason, R. W. Flournoy, andOrlando Davis. In addition to these there were thousands of others, manyof them among the most prominent men of the State. Among the number wasJudge Hiram Cassidy, who was the candidate of the Democratic party forCongress from the Sixth District in 1872, running against the writer ofthese lines. He was one of the most brilliant and successful members ofthe bar in southern Mississippi. Captain Thomas W. Hunt, of JeffersonCounty, was a member of one of the oldest, best, and most influentialfamilies of the South. The family connections were not, however, confined to the South; George Hunt Pendelton of Ohio, for instance, whowas the Democratic candidate for Vice-President of the United States onthe ticket with McClellan, in 1864, and who was later one of the UnitedStates Senators from Ohio, was a member of the same family. 

While the colored men held the key to the situation, the white men knewthat the colored men had no desire to rule or dominate even theRepublican party. All the colored men wanted and demanded was a voice inthe government under which they lived, and to the support of which theycontributed, and to have a small, but fair, and reasonable proportion ofthe positions that were at the disposal of the voters of the State andof the administration. 

While the colored men did not look with favor upon a political alliancewith the poor whites, it must be admitted that, with very fewexceptions, that class of whites did not seek, and did not seem todesire such an alliance. For this there were several well-definedreasons. 

In the first place, while the primary object of importing slaves intothat section was to secure labor for the cultivation of cotton, theslave was soon found to be an apt pupil in other lines of industry. Inaddition to having his immense cotton plantations cultivated by slavelabor, the slave-owner soon learned that he could utilize these slavesas carpenters, painters, plasterers, bricklayers, blacksmiths and in allother fields of industrial occupations and usefulness. Thus the whiteswho depended upon their labor for a living along those lines had theirfield of opportunity very much curtailed. Although the slaves were notresponsible for this condition, the fact that they were there and werethus utilized, created a feeling of bitterness and antipathy on the partof the laboring whites which could not be easily wiped out. 

In the second place, the whites of that class were not at that time asambitious, politically, as were the aristocrats. They had been held inpolitical subjection so long that it required some time for them torealize that there had been a change. At that time they, with a fewexceptions, were less efficient, less capable, and knew less aboutmatters of state and governmental administration than many of theex-slaves. It was a rare thing, therefore, to find one of that class atthat time that had any political ambition or manifested any desire forpolitical distinction or official recognition. As a rule, therefore, thewhites that came into the leadership of the Republican party between1872 and 1875 were representatives of the most substantial families ofthe land. 

CHAPTER XI

RISE OF DEMOCRATIC RADICALISM IN THE SOUTH

After the Presidential election of 1872 no one could be found whoquestioned the wisdom or practicability of the Congressional Plan ofReconstruction, or who looked for its overthrow, change or modification. After that election the situation was accepted by everyone in perfectgood faith. No one could be found in any party or either race who wasbold enough to express the opinion that the Congressional Plan ofReconstruction was a mistake, or that negro suffrage was a failure. Tothe contrary it was admitted by all that the wisdom of both had beenfully tested and clearly vindicated. It will not be denied even now bythose who will take the time to make a careful examination of thesituation, that no other plan could have been devised or adopted thatcould have saved to the country the fruits of the victory that had beenwon on the field of battle. The adoption of any other plan would haveresulted in the accomplishment of nothing but the mere physicalabolition of slavery and a denial of the right of a State to withdrawfrom the Union. These would have been mere abstract propositions, withno authority vested in the National Government for their enforcement. The war for the Union would have been practically a failure. The Southwould have gained and secured substantially everything for which itcontended except the establishment of an independent government. Theblack man, therefore, was the savior of his country, not only on thefield of battle, but after the smoke of battle had cleared away. 

Notwithstanding the general acceptance of this plan after thePresidential election of 1872, we find that in the fall of 1874 therewas a complete and radical change in the situation, --a change bothsudden and unexpected. It came, as it were, in the twinkling of an eye. It was like a clap of thunder from a clear sky. It was the State andCongressional elections of that year. 

In the elections of 1872 nearly every State in the Union wentRepublican. In the State and Congressional elections of 1874 the resultwas the reverse of what it was two years before, --nearly every Stategoing Democratic. Democrats were surprised, Republicans weredumbfounded. Such a result had not been anticipated by anyone. Even theState of Massachusetts, the birthplace of abolitionism, the cradle ofAmerican liberty, elected a Democratic Governor. The Democrats had amajority in the National House of Representatives that was about equalto that which the Republicans had elected two years before. Such veteranRepublican leaders in the United States Senate as Chandler, of Michigan, Windom, of Minnesota, and Carpenter, of Wisconsin, were retired from theSenate. When the returns were all in it was developed that the Democratsdid not have a clear majority on joint ballot in the MichiganLegislature, but the margin between the two parties was so close that afew men who had been elected as independent Republicans had the balanceof power. These Independents were opposed to the reëlection of SenatorChandler. That the Democrats should be anxious for the retirement ofsuch an able, active, aggressive, and influential Republican leader asChandler was to be expected. That party, therefore, joined with theIndependents in the vote for Senator which resulted in the election of aharmless old gentleman by the name of Christiancy. The Michigansituation was found to exist also in Minnesota, and the result was theretirement of that strong and able leader, Senator William Windom, andthe election of a new and unknown man, McMillan. 

What was true of Michigan and Minnesota was also found to be true ofWisconsin. The same sort of combination was made, which resulted in theretirement of the able and brilliant Matt Carpenter, and the election ofa new man, Cameron, who was not then known outside of the boundaries ofhis State. Cameron proved to be an able man, a useful Senator, a goodRepublican and an improvement, in some respects, upon his predecessor;but his election was a defeat of the Republican organization in hisState, which, of course, was the objective point with the Democrats. 

It was the State and Congressional elections of 1874 that proved to bethe death of the Republican party at the South. The party in thatsection might have survived even such a crushing blow as this, but forsubsequent unfortunate events to which allusion has been made in aprevious chapter, and which will be touched upon in some that are tofollow. But, under these conditions, its survival was impossible. If theState and Congressional elections of 1874 had been a repetition of thoseof 1872 or if they had resulted in a Republican victory, Republicansuccess in the Presidential election of 1876 would have been areasonably assured fact. By that time the party at the South would haveincluded in its membership from forty to fifty per cent of the white menof their respective States and as a result thereof it would have beenstrong enough to stand on its own feet and maintain its own independentexistence, regardless of reverses which the parent organization mighthave sustained in other sections. But at that time the party in thatsection was in its infancy. It was young, weak, and comparativelyhelpless. It still needed the fostering care and the protecting hand ofthe paternal source of its existence. 

When the smoke of the political battle that was fought in the early partof November, 1874, had cleared away, it was found that this strong, vigorous and healthy parent had been carried from the battle-fieldseriously wounded and unable to administer to the wants of its Southernoffspring. The offspring was not strong enough to stand alone. Theresult was that its demise soon followed because it had been deprived ofthat nourishment, that sustenance and that support which were essentialto its existence and which could come only from the parent which hadbeen seriously if not fatally wounded upon the field of battle. Afterthe Presidential election of 1872 Southern white men were not onlycoming into the Republican party in large numbers, but the liberal andprogressive element of the Democracy was in the ascendency in thatorganization. That element, therefore, shaped the policy and declaredthe principles for which that organization stood. This meant theacceptance by all political parties of what was regarded as the settledpolicy of the National Government. In proof of this assertion aquotation from a political editorial which appeared about that time inthe Jackson, Mississippi, _Clarion_, --the organ of the Democraticparty, --will not be out of place. In speaking of the colored people andtheir attitude towards the whites, that able and influential paper said:

"While they [the colored people] have been naturally tenacious of theirnewly-acquired privileges, their general conduct will bear them witnessthat they have shown consideration for the feelings of the whites. Therace line in politics would never have been drawn if opposition had notbeen made to their enjoyment of equal privileges in the government andunder the laws after they were emancipated. "

In other words, the colored people had manifested no disposition to ruleor dominate the whites, and the only color line which had existed grewout of the unwise policy which had previously been pursued by theDemocratic party in its efforts to prevent the enjoyment by thenewly-emancipated race of the rights and privileges to which they wereentitled under the Constitution and laws of the country. But after theState and Congressional elections of 1874 the situation was materiallychanged. The liberal and conservative element of the Democracy wasrelegated to the rear and the radical element came to the front andassumed charge. 

Subsequent to 1872 and prior to 1875 race proscription and socialostracism had been completely abandoned. A Southern white man couldbecome a Republican without being socially ostracized. Such a man was nolonger looked upon as a traitor to his people, or false to his race. Heno longer forfeited the respect, confidence, good-will, and favorableopinion of his friends and neighbors. Bulldozing, criminal assaults andlynchings were seldom heard of. To the contrary, cordial, friendly andamicable relations between all classes, all parties, and both racesprevailed everywhere. Fraud, violence, and intimidation at electionswere neither suspected nor charged by anyone, for everyone knew that nooccasion existed for such things. But after the State and Congressionalelections of 1874 there was a complete change of front. The new order ofthings was then set aside and the abandoned methods of a few years backwere revived and readopted. 

It is no doubt true that very few men at the North who voted theRepublican ticket in 1872 and the Democratic ticket in 1874 wereinfluenced in changing their votes by anything connected withReconstruction. There were other questions at issue, no doubt, thatinfluenced their action. There had been in 1873, for instance, adisastrous financial panic. Then there were other things connected withthe National Administration which met with popular disfavor. These werethe reasons, no doubt, that influenced thousands of Republicans to votethe Democratic ticket merely as an indication of their dissatisfactionwith the National Administration. 

But, let their motives and reasons be what they may, the effect was thesame as if they had intended their votes to be accepted and construed asan endorsement of the platform declarations of the National DemocraticConvention of 1868, at least so far as Reconstruction was concerned. Democrats claimed, and Republicans could not deny, that so far as theSouth was concerned this was the effect of the Congressional electionsof 1874. Desertions from the Republican ranks at the South, inconsequence thereof, became more rapid than had been the accessionsbetween 1872 and 1875. Thousands who had not taken an open stand, butwho were suspected of being inclined to the Republican party, deniedthat there had ever been any justifiable grounds for such suspicions. Many who had taken an open stand on that side returned to the fold ofthe Democracy in sackcloth and ashes, --upon bended knees, pleading formercy, forgiveness and for charitable forbearance. They had seen a newlight; and they were ready to confess that they had made a gravemistake, but, since their motives were good and their intentions werehonest, they hoped that they would not be rashly treated nor harshlyjudged. 

The prospects for the gratification and realization of the ambition ofwhite men in that section had been completely reversed. The convictionbecame a settled fact that the Democratic party was the only channelthrough which it would be possible in the future for anyone to securepolitical distinction or receive official recognition, --hence the returnto the ranks of that party of thousands of white men who had left it. All of them were eventually received, though some were kept on theanxious seat and held as probationers for a long time. 

It soon developed that all that was left of the once promising andflourishing Republican party at the South was the true, faithful, loyal, and sincere colored men, --who remained Republican from necessity as wellas from choice, --and a few white men, who were Republicans fromprinciple and conviction, and who were willing to incur the odium, runthe risks, take the chances, and pay the penalty that every whiteRepublican who had the courage of his convictions must then pay. Thiswas a sad and serious disappointment to the colored men who were justabout to realize the hope and expectation of a permanent politicalcombination and union between themselves and the better element of thewhites, which would have resulted in good, honest, capable, andefficient local government and in the establishment and maintenance ofpeace, good-will, friendly, cordial, and amicable relations between thetwo races. But this hope, politically at least, had now been destroyed, and these expectations had been shattered and scattered to the fourwinds. The outlook for the colored man was dark and anything butencouraging. Many of the parting scenes that took place between thecolored men and the whites who decided to return to the fold of theDemocracy were both affecting and pathetic in the extreme. 

The writer cannot resist the temptation to bring to the notice of thereader one of those scenes of which he had personal knowledge. ColonelJames Lusk had been a prominent, conspicuous and influentialrepresentative of the Southern aristocracy of ante-bellum days. Heenjoyed the respect and confidence of the community in which helived, --especially of the colored people. He, like thousands of othersof his class, had identified himself with the Republican party. Therewas in that community a Republican club of which Sam Henry, a well-knowncolored man, was president. When it was rumored, --and before it could beverified, --that Colonel Lusk had decided to cast his fortunes with theRepublican party Henry appointed a committee of three to call on him andextend to him a cordial invitation to appear before the club at its nextmeeting and deliver an address. The invitation was accepted. As soon asthe Colonel entered the door of the club, escorted by the committee, every man in the house immediately arose and all joined in giving threecheers and a hearty welcome to the gallant statesman and braveex-Confederate soldier who had honored them with his distinguishedpresence on that occasion. He delivered a splendid speech, in which heinformed his hearers that he had decided to cast his lot with theRepublican party. It was the first public announcement of that fact thathad been made. Of course he was honored, idolized and lionized by thecolored people wherever he was known. 

After the Congressional elections of 1874 Colonel Lusk decided that hewould return to the ranks of the Democracy. Before making publicannouncement of that fact he decided to send for his faithful and loyalfriend, Sam Henry, to come to see him at his residence, as he hadsomething of importance to communicate to him. Promptly at the appointedtime Henry made his appearance. He did not know for what he was wanted, but he had a well-founded suspicion, based upon the changed conditionswhich were apparent in every direction; hence, apprehension could beeasily detected in his countenance. Colonel Lusk commenced by remindingHenry of the fact that it was before the club of which he was presidentand upon his invitation that he, Lusk, had made public announcement ofhis intention to act in the future with the Republican party. Now thathe had decided to renounce any further allegiance to that party hethought that his faithful friend and loyal supporter, Sam Henry, shouldbe the first to whom that announcement should be made. When he hadfinished Henry was visibly affected. 

"Oh! no, Colonel, " he cried, breaking down completely, "I beg of you donot leave us. You are our chief, if not sole dependence. You are ourMoses. If you leave us, hundreds of others in our immediate neighborhoodwill be sure to follow your lead. We will thus be left without solid andsubstantial friends. I admit that with you party affiliation isoptional. With me it is not. You can be either a Republican or aDemocrat, and be honored and supported by the party to which you maybelong. With me it is different. I must remain a Republican whether Iwant to or not. While it is impossible for me to be a Democrat it is notimpossible for you to be a Republican. We need you. We need yourprestige, your power, your influence, and your name. I pray you, therefore, not to leave us; for if you and those who will follow yourlead leave us now we will be made to feel that we are without a country, without a home, without friends, and without a hope for the future. Oh, no, Colonel, I beg of you, I plead with you, don't go! Stay with us;lead and guide us, as you have so faithfully done during the last fewyears!"

Henry's remarks made a deep and profound impression upon Colonel Lusk. He informed Henry that no step he could take was more painful to himthan this. He assured Henry that this act on his part was from necessityand not from choice. 

"The statement you have made, Henry, that party affiliations with me isoptional, " he answered, "is presumed to be true; but, in point of fact, it is not. No white man can live in the South in the future and act withany other than the Democratic party unless he is willing and prepared tolive a life of social isolation and remain in political oblivion. WhileI am somewhat advanced in years, I am not so old as to be devoid ofpolitical ambition. Besides I have two grown sons. There is, no doubt, abright, brilliant and successful future before them if they areDemocrats; otherwise, not. If I remain in the Republican party, --whichcan hereafter exist at the South only in name, --I will thereby retard, if not mar and possibly destroy, their future prospects. Then, you mustremember that a man's first duty is to his family. My daughters are thepride of my home. I cannot afford to have them suffer the humiliatingconsequences of the social ostracism to which they may be subjected if Iremain in the Republican party. 

"The die is cast. I must yield to the inevitable and surrender myconvictions upon the altar of my family's good, --the outgrowth ofcircumstances and conditions which I am powerless to prevent and cannotcontrol. Henceforth I must act with the Democratic party or make myselfa martyr; and I do not feel that there is enough at stake to justify mein making such a fearful sacrifice as that. It is, therefore, with deepsorrow and sincere regret, Henry, that I am constrained to leave youpolitically, but I find that I am confronted with a condition, not atheory. I am compelled to choose between you, on one side, and my familyand personal interests, on the other. That I have decided to sacrificeyou and yours upon the altar of my family's good is a decision for whichyou should neither blame nor censure me. If I could see my way clear topursue a different course it would be done; but my decision is basedupon careful and thoughtful consideration and it must stand. "

Of course a stubborn and bitter fight for control of the Democraticorganization was now on between the antagonistic and conflictingelements among the whites. It was to be a desperate struggle between theformer aristocrats, on one side, and what was known as the "poorwhites, " on the other. While the aristocrats had always been the weakerin point of numbers, they had been the stronger in point of wealth, intelligence, ability, skill and experience. As a result of their wideexperience, and able and skillful management, the aristocrats weresuccessful in the preliminary struggles, as illustrated in the personsof Stephens, Gordon, Brown and Hill, of Georgia; Daniels and Lee, ofVirginia; Hampton and Butler, of South Carolina; Lamar and Walthall, ofMississippi, and Garland, of Arkansas. But in the course of time and inthe natural order of things the poor whites were bound to win. All thatwas needed was a few years' tutelage and a few daring and unscrupulousleaders to prey upon their ignorance and magnify their vanity in orderto bring them to a realization of the fact that their former politicalmasters were now completely at their mercy, and subject to their will. 

That the poor whites of the ante-bellum period in most of the lateslaveholding or reconstructed States are now the masters of thepolitical situation in those States, is a fact that will not bequestioned, disputed or denied by anyone who is well informed, or who isfamiliar with the facts. The aristocrats of ante-bellum days and theirdescendants in the old slave States are as completely under thepolitical control and domination of the poor whites of the ante-bellumperiod as those whites were under them at that time. Yet the reader mustnot assume that the election returns from such States indicate theactual, or even the relative, strength of the opposing and antagonisticelements and factions. They simply indicate that the poor whites of thepast and their descendants are now the masters and the leaders, andthat the masters and the leaders of the past are now the submissivefollowers. 

In the ranks of those who are now the recognized leaders is to be foundsome of the very best blood of the land, --the descendants of the finest, best, most cultivated, and most refined families of their respectiveStates. But as a rule they are there, not from choice, but fromnecessity, --not because they are in harmony with what is being done, orbecause they approve of the methods that are being employed and pursued, but on account of circumstances and conditions which they can neithercontrol nor prevent. They would not hesitate to raise the arm of revoltif they had any hope, or if they believed that ultimate success would bethe result thereof. But as matters now stand they can detect no ray ofhope, and can see no avenue of escape. Hence nothing remains for them todo but to hold the chain of political oppression and subjugation, whiletheir former political subordinates rivet and fasten the same aroundtheir unwilling necks. They find they can do nothing but sacrifice theirpride, their manhood, and their self-respect upon the altar of politicalnecessity. They see, they feel, they fully realize the hopelessness oftheir condition and the helplessness of their situation. They see, theyknow, they acknowledge that in the line of political distinction andofficial recognition they can get nothing that their former politicalsubordinates are not willing for them to have. With a hope of getting afew crumbs that may fall from the official table they make wry faces andpretend to be satisfied with what is being done, and with the way inwhich it is done. They are looked upon with suspicion and their loyaltyto the new order of things is a constant source of speculation, conjecture, and doubt. But, for reasons of political expediency, a fewcrumbs are allowed occasionally to go to some one of that class, --crumbsthat are gratefully acknowledged and thankfully received, upon thetheory that some little consideration is better than none at all, especially in their present helpless and dependent condition. But eventhese small crumbs are confined to those who are most pronounced andoutspoken in their declarations and protestations of loyalty, devotion, and subservient submission to the new order of things. 

CHAPTER XII

EVENTFUL DAYS OF THE FORTY-THIRD CONGRESS

The Mississippi Constitution having been ratified in 1869, --an odd yearof the calendar, --caused the regular elections for State, district andcounty officers to occur on the odd year of the calendar, while theNational elections occurred on the even years of the calendar, thusnecessitating the holding of an election in the State every year. Therefore, no election was to be held in 1874, except for Congressmen, and to fill a few vacancies, while the regular election for countyofficers and members of the Legislature would be held in 1875. 

Since the regular session of the 44th Congress would not convene beforeDecember, 1875, in order to avoid the trouble and expense incident toholding an election in 1874, the Legislature passed a bill postponingthe election of members of Congress until November, 1875. There beingsome doubt about the legality of this legislation, Congress passed abill legalizing the act of the Legislature. Consequently no election washeld in the State in 1874 except to fill a few vacancies that hadoccurred in the Legislature and in some of the districts and counties. 

One of the vacancies to be filled was that of State Senator, created bythe resignation of Senator Hiram Cassidy, Jr. Senator Cassidy, who waselected as a Democrat in 1873, and who had voted for Mr. Bruce, theRepublican caucus nominee, for United States Senator, had in the meantime publicly identified himself with the Republican party, thusfollowing in the footsteps of his able and illustrious father, JudgeHiram Cassidy, Sr. , who had given his active support to the Republicancandidate for Governor in 1873. 

Governor Ames had appointed Senator Cassidy a Judge of the ChanceryCourt, to accept which office it was necessary for him to resign hisseat as a member of the State Senate. A special election was held inNovember, 1874, to fill that vacancy. The Democrats nominated a strongand able man, Judge R. H. Thompson, of Brookhaven, Lincoln County. TheRepublicans nominated a still stronger and abler man, Hon. J. F. Sessions, of the same town and county, --a Democrat who had representedFranklin County for several terms, but who had that year identifiedhimself with the Republican party. Sessions was Chancellor Cassidy's lawpartner. 

Since the counties comprising that senatorial district constituted apart of the district that I then represented in Congress, I took anactive part in the support of the candidacy of Sessions. Although aDemocrat, Hiram Cassidy, Jr. , had been elected from that district in1873, Sessions, a Republican, was elected by a handsome majority in1874. A vacancy had also occurred in the Legislature from FranklinCounty, to fill which the Republicans nominated Hon. William P. Cassidy, brother of Chancellor Cassidy; but the Democratic majority in the countywas too large for one even so popular as Wm. P. Cassidy to overcome;hence he was defeated by a small majority. 

From a Republican point of view Mississippi, as was true of the otherreconstructed States, up to 1875 was all that could be expected anddesired and, no doubt, would have remained so for many years, but forthe unexpected results of the State and Congressional elections of 1874. While it is true, as stated and explained in a previous chapter, thatGrant carried nearly every state in the Union at the Presidentialelection in 1872, the State and Congressional elections throughout thecountry two years later went just the other way, and by majorities justas decisive as those given the Republicans two years before. 

Notwithstanding the severe and crushing defeat sustained by theRepublicans at that time, it was claimed by some, believed by others, and predicted by many that by the time the election for President in1876 would roll around it would be found that the Republicans hadregained substantially all they had lost in 1874; but these hopes, predictions, and expectations were not realized. The Presidentialelection of 1876 turned out to be so close and doubtful that neitherparty could claim a substantial victory. While it is true that Hayes, the Republican candidate for President, was finally declared electedaccording to the forms of law, yet the terms and conditions upon whichhe was allowed to be peaceably inaugurated were such as to complete theextinction and annihilation of the Republican party at the South. Theprice that the Hayes managers stipulated to pay, --and did pay, --for thepeaceable inauguration of Hayes was that the South was to be turned overto the Democrats and that the administration was not to enforce theConstitution and the laws of the land in that section against theexpressed will of the Democrats thereof. In other words, so far as theSouth was concerned, the Constitution was not to follow the flag. 

In the 43rd Congress which was elected in 1872 and which would expire bylimitation March 4, 1875, the Republicans had a large majority in bothHouses. In the House of Representatives of the 44th Congress, which waselected in 1874, the Democratic majority was about as large as was theRepublican majority in the House of the 43rd Congress. The Republicansstill retained control of the Senate, but by a greatly reduced majority. 

During the short session of the 43rd Congress, important legislation wascontemplated by the Republican leaders. Alabama was one of the Stateswhich the Democrats were charged with having carried in 1874 byresorting to methods which were believed to be questionable and illegal. An investigation was ordered by the House. A committee was appointed tomake the investigation, of which General Albright, of Pennsylvania, waschairman. This committee was authorized to report by bill or otherwise. After a thorough investigation, the chairman was directed, andinstructed by the vote of every Republican member of the committee, which constituted a majority thereof, to report and recommend thepassage of what was called the Federal Elections Bill. This bill wascarefully drawn; following substantially the same lines as a previoustemporary measure, under the provisions of which what was known as theKu Klux Klan had been crushed out, and order had been restored in NorthCarolina. 

It is safe to say that this bill would have passed both Houses andbecome a law, but for the unexpected opposition of Speaker Blaine. Mr. Blaine was not only opposed to the bill, but his opposition was sointense that he felt it his duty to leave the Speaker's chair and comeon the floor for the purpose of leading the opposition to its passage. This, of course, was fatal to the passage of the measure. After adesperate struggle of a few days, in which the Speaker was found to bein opposition to a large majority of his party associates, and whichrevealed the fact that the party was hopelessly divided, the leaders inthe House abandoned the effort to bring the measure to a vote. 

Mr. Blame's motives in taking this unexpected position, in openopposition to the great majority of his party associates, has alwaysbeen open to speculation and conjecture. His personal and politicalenemies charged that it was due to jealousy of President Grant. Mr. Blaine was a candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination thefollowing year. It was a well-known fact that President Grant was notfavorable to Mr. Blaine's nomination, but was in sympathy with themovement to have Senator Roscoe Conkling, of New York, Mr. Blaine'sbitterest political enemy, nominated. Mr. Blaine was afraid, his enemiesasserted, that, if the Federal Elections Bill, --under the provisions ofwhich great additional power would have been conferred upon thePresident, --had become a law, that power would be used to defeat hisnomination for the Presidency in 1876; hence his opposition to the Bill. But, whatever his motives were, his successful opposition to thatmeasure no doubt resulted in his failure to realize the ambition of hislife, --the Presidency of the United States. But for the stand he tookon that occasion, he would probably have received sufficient supportfrom Southern delegates in the National Convention to secure him thenomination, and, had he been nominated at that time, the probabilitiesare that he would have been elected. But his opposition to that billpractically solidified the Southern delegates in that convention againsthim, and as a result he was defeated for the nomination, although he wasthe choice of a majority of the Northern delegates. 

Even when Blaine received the nomination in 1884 it was developed thatit could not have happened had the Southern delegates been as solidlyagainst him at that time as they were in 1876. But by 1884 the SouthernRepublicans had somewhat relented in their opposition to him, and, as aresult thereof, he received sufficient support from that section to givehim the nomination. But he was defeated at the polls because the Southwas solid against him, --a condition which was made possible by his ownaction in defeating the Federal Elections Bill in 1875. In consequenceof his action in that matter he was severely criticised and censured byRepublicans generally, and by Southern Republicans especially. 

Although I was not favorable to his nomination for the Presidency at anytime, my relations with Mr. Blaine had been so cordial that I felt atliberty to seek him and ask him, for my own satisfaction andinformation, an explanation of his action in opposing and defeating theFederal Elections Bill. I therefore went to him just before the finaladjournment of the 43rd Congress and informed him that I desired to havea few minutes' private audience with him whenever it would be convenientfor him to see me. He requested me to come to the Speaker's roomimmediately after the adjournment of the House that afternoon. 

When I entered the room Mr. Blaine was alone. I took a seat only a fewfeet from him. I informed him of the great disappointment and intensedissatisfaction which his action had caused in defeating what was notonly regarded as a party measure, but which was believed by theRepublicans to be of vital importance from a party point of view, to saynothing of its equity and justice. I remarked that for him to arrayhimself in opposition to the great majority of his own partyassociates, --and to throw the weight of his great influence against suchan important party measure as the Federal Elections Bill was believed tobe, --he must have had some motive, some justifiable grounds of which thepublic was ignorant, but about which I believed it was fair to himselfand just to his own friends and party associates, that he give someexplanation. 

"As a southern Republican member of the House, and as one that is nothostile or particularly unfriendly to you, " I said, "I feel that I havea right to make this request of you. "

At first he gave me a look of surprise, and for several seconds heremained silent. Then, straightening himself up in his chair, heanswered:

"I am glad, Mr. Lynch, that you have made this request of me, since I amsatisfied you are not actuated by any unfriendly motive in doing so. Ishall, therefore, give a frank answer to your question. In my judgment, if that bill had become a law the defeat of the Republican partythroughout the country would have been a foregone conclusion. We couldnot have saved the South even if the bill had passed, but its passagewould have lost us the North; indeed, I could not have carried even myown State of Maine, if that bill had passed. In my opinion, it wasbetter to lose the South and save the North, than to try through suchlegislation to save the South, and thus lose both North and South. Ibelieved that if we saved the North we could then look after the South. If the Southern Democrats are foolish enough to bring about a SolidSouth the result will be a Solid North against a Solid South; and inthat case the Republicans would have nothing to fear. You now have myreasons, frankly and candidly given, for the action taken by me on theoccasion referred to. I hope you are satisfied with them. "

I thanked Mr. Blaine cordially for giving me the desired explanation. "I now feel better satisfied with reference to your action upon thatoccasion, " I assured him. "While I do not agree with you in yourconclusions, and while I believe your reasoning to be unsound andfallacious, still I cannot help giving you credit for having beenactuated by no other motive than to do what you honestly believed wasfor the best interest of the country and the Republican party. "

CHAPTER XIII

STATE CAMPAIGN OF 1875. REPUBLICAN VICTORY

When I returned to my home after the adjournment of Congress in March, 1875, the political clouds were dark. The political outlook wasdiscouraging. The prospect of Republican success was not at all bright. There had been a marked change in the situation from every point ofview. Democrats were bold, outspoken, defiant, and determined. Inaddition to these unfavorable indications I noticed that I was notreceived by them with the same warmth and cordiality as on previousoccasions. With a few notable exceptions they were cold, indifferent, even forbidding in their attitude and manner. This treatment was soradically different from that to which I had been accustomed that Icould not help feeling it keenly. I knew it was indicative of a changein the political situation which meant that I had before me the fight ofmy life. 

My advocacy and support of the Federal Elections Bill, commonly calledthe "Force Bill, " was occasionally given as the reason for this change;but I knew this was not the true reason. In fact, that bill would hardlyhave been thought of but for the fact that Mr. Blaine, the RepublicanSpeaker of the House, had attracted national attention to it through hisaction in vacating the chair and coming on the floor of the House tolead the opposition to its passage. This act on the part of thestatesman from Maine made him, in the opinion of many SouthernDemocrats, the greatest man that our country had ever produced, --GeorgeWashington, the Father of the Republic, not excepted. They were loud intheir thanks for the valuable service he had thus rendered them and, asevidence of their gratitude to him, they declared their determination toshow their appreciation of this valuable service in a substantial mannerwhenever the opportunity presented itself for it to be done. 

No man in the country was stronger, better or more popular than thestatesman from Maine, until his name came before them as a candidate forPresident of the United States on a Republican ticket. A suddentransformation then took place. It was then discovered, to their greatsurprise and disappointment, that he was such an unsafe and dangerousman that no greater calamity could happen to the country than hiselevation to the Presidency. Nothing, therefore, must be left undone tobring about his defeat. 

I was well aware of the fact at the time that it was the result of theState and Congressional elections at the north in 1874 that hadconvinced Southern Democrats that Republican ascendency in the NationalGovernment would soon be a thing of the past--that the Democrats wouldbe successful in the Presidential and Congressional elections of 1876and that that party would, no doubt, remain in power for at least aquarter of a century. It was this, and not the unsuccessful effort topass a Federal Elections Bill, that had produced the marked change thatwas noticeable on every hand. Every indication seemed to point to aconfirmation of the impression that Democratic success at thePresidential election was practically an assured fact. 

There had been a disastrous financial panic in 1873 which was no doubtlargely responsible for the political upheaval in 1874; but that waslost sight of in accounting for that result. In fact they made no effortto explain it except in their own way. The Democrats had carried thecountry; the reasons for this they construed to suit themselves. Theconstruction they placed upon it was that it was a national condemnationand repudiation of the Congressional Plan of Reconstruction, and theyintended to govern themselves accordingly. 

The election in Mississippi in 1875 was for members of Congress, membersof the Legislature, and county officers, and also a State Treasurer toserve out the unexpired term of Treasurer Holland, deceased. My ownrenomination for Congress from the Sixth (Natchez) District was aforegone conclusion, since I had no opposition in my own party; but Irealized the painful fact that a nomination this time was not equivalentto an election. Still, I felt that it was my duty to make the fight, letthe result be what it might. 

If Congressmen had been elected in 1874 the State would have returnedfive Republicans and one Democrat as was done in 1872; but in 1875 theprospect was not so bright, the indications were not so favorable. TheDemocrats nominated for State Treasurer Hon. Wm. L. Hemmingway, ofCarroll County. He was an able man, and had been quite prominent as aparty leader in his section of the State. The defiant attitude assumed, and the bold declarations contained in the platform upon which he wasnominated were accepted by the Republicans as notice that the Democratsintended to carry the election--"peaceably and fairly. "

The Republicans nominated Hon. George M. Buchanan, of Marshall County, upon a platform which strongly endorsed the National and Stateadministrations. Mr. Buchanan was a strong and popular man. He had beena brave and gallant Confederate soldier. He had been for several yearsSheriff and Tax Collector of his county, and was known to be especiallyfitted for the office of State Treasurer. As Sheriff and Tax Collectorof Marshall County, --one of the wealthiest counties in the State, --hehad handled and disbursed many thousands of dollars, every dollar ofwhich had been faithfully accounted for. His honesty, integrity, ability, fitness, and capacity, everyone, regardless of race or party, unhesitatingly admitted. 

The administration of Governor Ames was one of the best the State hadever had. The judiciary was quite equal to that which had been appointedby Governor Alcorn. The public revenues had been promptly collected, andhonestly accounted for. There had not only been no increase in the rateof taxation, but, to the contrary, there had been a material reduction. Notwithstanding these things the Democrats, together with the radicalelement in charge of the party machinery, determined to seize the StateGovernment _vi et armis_; not because it was at all necessary for anyspecial reason, but simply because conditions at that time seemed toindicate that it could be safely done. 

After the nominations had all been made, the campaign was opened in deadearnest. Nearly all Democratic clubs in the State were converted intoarmed military companies. Funds with which to purchase arms werebelieved to have been contributed by the National Democraticorganization. Nearly every Republican meeting was attended by one ormore of those clubs or companies, --the members of which weredistinguished by red shirts, indicative of blood, --the attendance beingfor the purpose, of course, of "keeping the peace and preservingorder. " To enable the Democrats to carry the State a Republican majorityof between twenty and thirty thousand had to be overcome. This could bedone only by the adoption and enforcement of questionable methods. Itwas a case in which the end justified the means, and the means had to besupplied. 

The Republican vote consisted of about ninety-five per cent of thecolored men, and of about twenty-five per cent of the white men. Theother seventy-five per cent of the whites formerly constituted a part ofthe flower of the Confederate Army. They were not only tried andexperienced soldiers, but they were fully armed and equipped for thework before them. Some of the colored Republicans had been Unionsoldiers, but they were neither organized nor armed. In such a contest, therefore, they and their white allies were entirely at the mercy oftheir political adversaries. 

Governor Ames soon took in the situation. He saw that he could notdepend upon the white members of the State militia to obey his orders, to support him in his efforts to uphold the majesty of the law, and toprotect the law-abiding citizens in the enjoyment of life, liberty, andproperty. To use the colored members of the militia for such a purposewould be adding fuel to the flames. Nothing, therefore, remained for himto do but to call on the National administration for military aid inhis efforts to crush out domestic violence and enforce the laws of theState. He did call for such aid, but for reasons that will be givenlater it was not granted. 

When the polls closed on the day of the election, the Democrats, ofcourse, had carried the State by a large majority, --thus securing aheavy majority in both branches of the Legislature. Of the six membersof Congress the writer was the only one of the regular Republicancandidates that pulled through, and that, by a greatly reduced majority. In the Second (Holly Springs) District, G. Wiley Wells ran as anIndependent Republican against A. R. Howe, the sitting member, and theregular Republican candidate for reëlection. The Democrats supportedWells, who was elected. 

The delegation, therefore, consisted of four Democrats, one Republican, and one Independent Republican. While the delegation would haveconsisted of five straight Republicans and one Democrat had the electionbeen held in 1874, still, since the Democrats had such a large majorityin the House, the political complexion of the Mississippi delegation wasnot important. The election of the writer, it was afterwards developed, was due in all probability to a miscalculation on the part of some ofthe Democratic managers. Their purpose was to have a solid delegation, counting Wells as one of that number, since his election would be dueto the support of the Democratic party. 

But in my district the plan miscarried. In one of the counties therewere two conflicting reports as to what the Democratic majority was;according to one, it was two hundred and fifty, according to the other, it was five hundred. The report giving two hundred and fifty was, nodoubt, the correct one, but the other would probably have been acceptedhad it been believed at the time that it was necessary to insure theelection of the Democratic candidate. To overcome the majority in thatdistrict was more difficult than to overcome it in any of the otherdistricts. While their candidate, Colonel Roderick Seal, was quite apopular man, it was well known that I would poll a solid Republican voteand some Democratic votes in addition. Fortunately for me there was asplit in the party in my own county (Adams) for county officers, whichresulted in bringing out a very heavy vote. This split also made thecount of the ballots very slow, --covering a period of several days. Myname was on both tickets. The election took place on Tuesday, but thecount was not finished until the following Friday evening. Hence, theresult for member of Congress in that county could not be definitelyascertained until Friday night. 

The Democratic managers at the State Capital were eager to know as soonas possible what the Republican majority in Adams County would be forCongressman, hence, on Wednesday evening, the editor of the localDemocratic paper received a telegram from the Secretary of theDemocratic State Committee, requesting to be informed immediately whatthe Republican majority for Congressman would be in Adams County. Theeditor read the telegram to me and asked what, in my opinion, would bemy majority in the county. My reply was that I did not think it wouldexceed twelve hundred; whereupon he sent in the following report:"Lynch's majority in Adams will not exceed twelve hundred. "

Upon receipt of this telegram the majority of two hundred and fiftyinstead of five hundred was deemed sufficient from the county heretoforereferred to. If the Republican majority in Adams would not exceed twelvehundred, the success of the Democratic Congressional candidate by asmall but safe majority was assured on the face of the returns. SinceAdams was the last county to be reported, no change could thereafter bemade. When the count was finally finished in Adams it was found I had amajority of over eighteen hundred. This gave me a majority in thedistrict of a little over two hundred on the face of the returns. 

The disappointment and chagrin on the part of the Democratic managerscan better be imagined than described. But the agreeable surprise to theRepublicans was at least equal to the Democrats' disappointment. Thedefeated Democratic candidate threatened to make a contest for the seaton the ground of violence and fraud; but this was so ridiculous that themanagers of his own party would not allow him to carry the threat intoexecution. 

CHAPTER XIV

INTERVIEW BETWEEN THE AUTHOR AND THE PRESIDENT REGARDING STATEAPPOINTMENTS

Shortly after I reached Washington in the latter part of November, 1875, I called on the President to pay my respects, and to see him on businessrelating to a Civil Service order that he had recently issued, and thatsome of the Federal office-holders had evidently misunderstood. Postmaster Pursell, of Summit, an important town in my district, was oneof that number. He was supposed to be a Republican, having beenappointed as such. But he not only refused to take any part in thecampaign of 1875, but he also declined to contribute a dollar to meetthe legitimate expenses of that campaign. The President's Civil Serviceorder was his excuse. According to Pursell's construction of that order, Federal office-holders must not only take no part in political or partycampaigns, but they must make no contributions for political purposes. He not only said nothing and did nothing in the interest of his party inthat campaign, but it was believed by some that he did not even vote theRepublican ticket. 

After paying my respects to the President I brought this case to hisattention. I informed him that I very much desired to have PostmasterPursell removed, and a good Republican appointed in his stead. 

"What is the matter with him?" the President asked. "Is he not a goodpostmaster?"

"Yes, " I replied, "there is nothing to be said against him, so far as Iknow, with reference to his administration of the office. I only objectto him on account of politics. He may be, --and no doubt is, --a good, capable, and efficient postmaster; but politically he is worthless. Froma party point of view he is no good. In my opinion, there ought to be aman in that office who will not only discharge his duties in acreditable manner, but who will also be of some service to the party andto the administration under which he serves. In the present postmasterof the town of Summit we have not such a man, but we can and will haveone if you will appoint the one whose name I now present and for whom Iask your favorable consideration. We had, as you know, a bitter anddesperate struggle. It was the very time that we stood sadly in need ofevery man and of every vote. We lost the county that Summit is in by asmall majority. If an active and aggressive man, such as the one whosename I now place before you, had been postmaster at Summit, the resultin that County might have been different. I therefore earnestlyrecommend that Pursell be removed, and that Mr. Garland be appointed tosucceed him. "

The President replied: "You have given good and sufficient reasons for achange. Leave with me the name of the man you desire to have appointed, and his name will be sent to the Senate as soon as Congress meets. " Icordially thanked the President, and assured him that he would have nooccasion to regret making the change. In explanation of his CivilService order the President remarked that quite a number ofoffice-holders had seemed to misunderstand it, although it was plainlyworded, and, as he thought, not difficult to understand. There had neverbeen any serious complaints growing out of active participation inpolitical campaigns on the part of office-holders, and that it was not, and never had been, the purpose of the administration, by executiveorder or otherwise, to limit or restrict any American citizen in thedischarge of his duties as a citizen, simply because he happened to bean office-holder, provided that in so doing he did not neglect hisofficial duties. There had, however, been serious complaints from manyparts of the country about the use and abuse of Federal patronage inefforts to manipulate party conventions, and to dictate and controlparty nominations. To destroy this evil was the primary purpose of thecivil service order referred to. 

I told the President that his explanation of the order was in harmonywith my own construction and interpretation of it. That is why I madethe recommendation for a change in the postmastership at Summit. Thechange was promptly made. I then informed the President that there wasanother matter about which I desired to have a short talk with him, thatwas the recent election in Mississippi. After calling his attention tothe sanguinary struggle through which we had passed, and the greatdisadvantages under which we labored, I reminded him of the fact thatthe Governor, when he saw that he could not put down without theassistance of the National Administration what was practically aninsurrection against the State Government, made application forassistance in the manner and form prescribed by the Constitution, withthe confident belief that it would be forthcoming. But in this we were, for some reason, seriously disappointed and sadly surprised. The reasonfor this action, or rather non-action, was still an unexplained mysteryto us. For my own satisfaction and information I should be pleased tohave the President enlighten me on the subject. 

The President said that he was glad I had asked him the question, andthat he would take pleasure in giving me a frank reply. He said he hadsent Governor Ames' requisition to the War Department with his approvaland with instructions to have the necessary assistance furnished withoutdelay. He had also given instructions to the Attorney-General to usethe marshals and the machinery of the Federal judiciary as far aspossible in coöperation with the War Department in an effort to maintainorder and to bring about a condition which would insure a peaceable andfair election. But before the orders were put into execution a committeeof prominent Republicans from Ohio had called on him. (Ohio was then anOctober State, --that is, her elections took place in October instead ofNovember. ) An important election was then pending in that State. Thiscommittee, the President stated, protested against having therequisition of Governor Ames honored. The committee, the President said, informed him in a most emphatic way that if the requisition of GovernorAmes were honored, the Democrats would not only carry Mississippi, --aState which would be lost to the Republicans in any event, --but thatDemocratic success in Ohio would be an assured fact. If the requisitionwere not honored it would make no change in the result in Mississippi, but that Ohio would be saved to the Republicans. The President assuredme that it was with great reluctance that he yielded, --against his ownjudgment and sense of official duty, --to the arguments of thiscommittee, and directed the withdrawal of the orders which had beengiven the Secretary of War and the Attorney-General in that matter. 

This statement, I confess, surprised me very much. 

"Can it be possible, " I asked, "that there is such a prevailingsentiment in any State in the North, East or West as renders itnecessary for a Republican President to virtually give his sanction towhat is equivalent to a suspension of the Constitution and laws of theland to insure Republican success in such a State? I cannot believe thisto be true, the opinion of the Republican committee from Ohio to thecontrary notwithstanding. What surprises me more, Mr. President, is thatyou yielded and granted this remarkable request. That is not like you. It is the first time I have ever known you to show the white feather. Instead of granting the request of that committee, you should haverebuked the men, --told them that it is your duty as chief magistrate ofthe country to enforce the Constitution and laws of the land, and toprotect American citizens in the exercise and enjoyment of their rights, let the consequences be what they may; and that if by doing this Ohioshould be lost to the Republicans it ought to be lost. In other words, no victory is worth having if it is to be brought about upon suchconditions as those, --if it is to be purchased at such a fearful cost aswas paid in this case. "

"Yes, " said the President, "I admit that you are right. I should nothave yielded. I believed at the time that I was making a grave mistake. But as presented, it was duty on one side, and party obligation on theother. Between the two I hesitated, but finally yielded to what wasbelieved to be party obligation. If a mistake was made, it was one ofthe head and not of the heart. That my heart was right and my intentionsgood, no one who knows me will question. If I had believed that anyeffort on my part would have saved Mississippi I would have made it, even if I had been convinced that it would have resulted in the loss ofOhio to the Republicans. But I was satisfied then, as I am now, thatMississippi could not have been saved to the party in any event and Iwanted to avoid the responsibility of the loss of Ohio, in addition. This was the turning-point in the case. 

"And while on this subject, " the President went on, "let us look moreclosely into the significance of this situation. I am very muchconcerned about the future of our country. When the War came to an endit was thought that four things had been brought about and effectuallyaccomplished as a result thereof. They were: first, that slavery hadbeen forever abolished; second, that the indissolubility of the FederalUnion had been permanently established and universally recognized;third, that the absolute and independent sovereignty of the severalStates was a thing of the past; fourth, that a national sovereignty hadbeen at last created and established, resulting in sufficient powerbeing vested in the general government not only to guarantee to everyState in the Union a Republican form of government, but to protect, whennecessary, the individual citizen of the United States in the exerciseand enjoyment of the rights and privileges to which he is entitled underthe Constitution and laws of his country. In other words, that there hadbeen created a National citizenship as distinguished from Statecitizenship, resulting in a paramount allegiance to the UnitedStates, --the general Government, --having ample power to protect its owncitizens against domestic and personal violence whenever the State inwhich he may live should fail, refuse, or neglect to do so. In otherwords, so far as citizens of the United States are concerned, the Statesin the future would only act as agents of the general Government inprotecting the citizens of the United States in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. This has been my conception of the duties of thePresident, and until recently I have pursued that course. But thereseems to be a number of leading and influential men in the Republicanparty who take a different view of these matters. These men have usedand are still using their power and influence, not to strengthen but tocripple the President and thus prevent him from enforcing theConstitution and laws along these lines. They have not only used theirpower and influence to prevent and defeat wise and necessary legislationfor these purposes, but they have contributed, through the medium ofpublic meetings and newspaper and magazine articles, to the creation ofa public sentiment hostile to the policy of the administration. Whatevertheir motives may be, future mischief of a very serious nature is boundto be the result. It requires no prophet to foresee that the nationalgovernment will soon be at a great disadvantage and that the results ofthe war of the rebellion will have been in a large measure lost. Inother words, that the first two of the four propositions above statedwill represent all that will have been accomplished as a result of thewar, and even they, for the lack of power of enforcement in the generalgovernment, will be largely of a negative character. What you have justpassed through in the State of Mississippi is only the beginning of whatis sure to follow. I do not wish to create unnecessary alarm, nor to belooked upon as a prophet of evil, but it is impossible for me to closemy eyes in the face of things that are as plain to me as the noondaysun. "

It is needless to say that I was deeply interested in the President'seloquent and prophetic talk which subsequent events have more than fullyverified. 

CHAPTER XV

THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1876 AND ITS RESULTS

The Presidential election was held in 1876. The Republicans had carriedthe country in 1872 by such a decisive majority that it indicated manyyears of continued Republican ascendency in the National Government. Butthe severe reverses sustained by that party at the polls two years latercompletely changed this situation and outlook. Democrats confidentlyexpected and Republicans seriously apprehended that the Presidentialelection of 1876 would result in a substantial Democratic victory. Mr. Blaine was the leading candidate for the Republican nomination, but hehad bitter opposition in the ranks of his own party. That oppositioncame chiefly from friends and supporters of Senator Conkling at theNorth and from Southern Republicans generally. The opposition of theConkling men to Mr. Blaine was largely personal; while southernRepublicans were opposed to him on account of his having caused thedefeat of the Federal Elections Bill. The great majority of southernRepublicans supported Senator Oliver P. Morton of Indiana. 

After the National Convention had been organized, it looked for a whileas if Mr. Blaine's nomination was a foregone conclusion. Hon. EdwardMcPherson, of Pennsylvania, --a strong Blaine man, --had been madePresident of the Convention. In placing Mr. Blaine's name in nomination, Hon. Robert G. Ingersoll of Illinois made such an eloquent and effectivespeech that he came very near carrying the Convention by storm, and thussecuring the nomination of the statesman from Maine. But the oppositionto Mr. Blaine was too well organized to allow the Convention to bestampeded, even by the power and eloquence of an Ingersoll. It was thisspeech that gave Mr. Ingersoll his national fame and brought him to thefront as a public speaker and lecturer. It was the most eloquent andimpressive speech that was delivered during the sitting of theConvention. After a bitter struggle of many hours, and after a number offruitless ballots, the Convention finally nominated Gov. R. B. Hayes, ofOhio, as a compromise candidate. This result was brought about through aunion of the combined opposition to Mr. Blaine. Hon. Wm. A. Wheeler, ofNew York, was nominated for Vice-President and the work of theConvention was over. 

The Democrats nominated ex-Governor Samuel J. Tilden, of New York, forPresident, and Thomas A. Hendricks, of Indiana, for Vice-President. Their platform pledged many radical reforms in the administration of thegovernment. This ticket was made with the hope that it would besuccessful in the doubtful and debatable States of New York, New Jersey, Indiana, and Connecticut, which, with the Solid South, would constitutea majority of the electoral college, even if all the other States shouldgo Republican, which was not anticipated. 

That the prospect of Democratic success was exceedingly bright and theprobability of a Republican victory extremely dark, was generallyconceded. The South was counted upon to be solid in its support of theDemocratic ticket, for the methods that had been successfullyinaugurated in Mississippi the year before, to overcome a Republicanmajority of more than twenty thousand, were to be introduced and adoptedin all the other States of that section in which conditions werepractically the same as in Mississippi. 

To insure success, therefore, it was only necessary for the Democrats toconcentrate their efforts upon the four doubtful States outside of theSolid South. Up to a certain point the plan worked well. Everyindication seemed to point to its successful consummation. As had beenanticipated, the Democrats were successful in the four doubtful NorthernStates, and they also carried, on the face of the returns, everySouthern State, just as had been planned; the Mississippi methodshaving been adopted in such of them as had Republican majorities toovercome. Since through those methods the Democrats had succeeded inovercoming a large Republican majority in Mississippi, there was noreason why the same methods should not produce like results in SouthCarolina, in Louisiana, and in Florida. In fact, it was looked upon as areflection upon the bravery and party loyalty of the Democracy of thoseStates if they could not do what had been done under like conditions inMississippi. Hence those States _had_ to be carried, "peaceably andfairly, " of course, "but they must be carried just the same. " Failure tocarry them was out of the question, because too much was involved. According to the plans and calculations that had been carefully made, noSouthern State could be lost. While it might be possible to win withoutall of them, still it was not believed to be safe to run any such risk, or take any such chance. If the Democrats should happen to carry a statethat was not included in the combination, so much the better. 

Everything seemed to work admirably. That it was a plan by whichelections could be easily carried, with or without votes, had beenclearly demonstrated. On the face of the returns the majorities werebrought forth just as had been ordered and directed. But it seems thatsuch methods had been anticipated by the Republican governments in SouthCarolina, Louisiana, and Florida, and that suitable steps had beentaken to prevent their successful consummation through the medium ofState Returning Boards. When the Returning Boards had rejected andthrown out many of the majorities that had been returned from some ofthe counties and parishes, the result was changed, and the Republicancandidates for Presidential electors were officially declared elected. This gave the Republican candidates for President and Vice-President amajority of one vote in the Electoral College. It has, of course, beenalleged by many, --and it is believed by some, --that the actions of thoseReturning Boards defeated the will of the people as expressed at thepolls, thus bringing about the seating in the Presidential chair of theman that had been fairly and honestly defeated. Yet, no one who isfamiliar with the facts, and who is honest enough to admit them, willdeny that but for the inauguration in South Carolina, Florida, andLouisiana, of the Mississippi methods, those three States would havebeen as safely Republican at that time and in that election as were theStates of Pennsylvania and Vermont. But the plans of the Democraticmanagers had been defeated. It was hard for them to lose a victory theyfelt and believed to have been won by them, notwithstanding theextraneous methods that had been employed to bring about such results. 

CHAPTER XVI

EFFECTS OF THE REFORM ADMINISTRATION IN MISSISSIPPI

Because the Democrats carried the election in Mississippi in 1875, theydid not thereby secure control of the State Government. That electionwas for members of the Legislature, members of Congress and countyofficers. Only one State officer was elected, --a State Treasurer, --tofill the vacancy created by the death of Treasurer Holland. All theother State officers were Republicans. But the Democrats could notafford to wait until Governor Ames' term expired. They were determinedto get immediate control of the State Government. There was only one wayin which this could be done, and that was by impeachment. 

This course they decided to take. It could not be truthfully denied thatGovernor Ames was a clean, pure, and honest man. He had given the Statean excellent administration. The State judiciary had been kept up to thehigh standard established by Governor Alcorn. Every dollar of the publicmoney had been collected, and honestly accounted for. The State was in aprosperous condition. The rate of taxation had been greatly reduced, and there was every prospect of a still further reduction before the endof his administration. But these facts made no difference to those whowere flushed with the victory they had so easily won. They wanted theoffices, and were determined to have them, and that, too, without verymuch delay. Hence, impeachment proceedings were immediately institutedagainst the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor, --not in the interest ofreform, of good government or of low taxes, but simply in order to getpossession of the State Government. 

The weakness of the case against the Governor was shown when itdeveloped that the strongest charge against him was that he had enteredinto an alleged corrupt bargain with State Senator Cassidy, resulting inCassidy's appointment as one of the Judges of the Chancery Court. Cassidy had been elected a member of the State Senate as a Democrat. Notwithstanding that fact he voted for Mr. Bruce, the Republican caucusnominee for United States Senator, and subsequently publicly identifiedhimself with the Republican party. Later his brother, William P. Cassidy, and his law partner, Hon. J. F. Sessions, did likewise. In 1874Sessions was elected to the State Senate as a Republican to serve outthe unexpired term of his law partner, Cassidy, who had resigned hisseat in the Senate upon his appointment as a Judge of the ChanceryCourt. 

Cassidy was a brilliant young man, and an able lawyer. That theGovernor should have selected him for an important judicial position wasboth wise and proper. It was one of his best and most creditableappointments and was generally commended as such when it was made. Thefact that he had been elected to the State Senate as a Democrat, andshortly thereafter joined the Republican party was made the basis of thecharge that his change of party affiliation was the result of a corruptbargain between the Governor and himself, for which the Governor, butnot the Judge, should be impeached and removed from office. There were afew other vague and unimportant charges, but this one, as weak as itwas, was the strongest of the number. 

When the articles of impeachment were presented to the House, it wasseen that they were so weak and so groundless that the Governor believedit would be an easy matter for him to discredit them even before anantagonistic legislature. With that end in view, he employed several ofthe ablest lawyers in the country to represent him. They came to Jacksonand commenced the preparation of the case, but it did not take them longto find out that their case was a hopeless one. They soon found out totheir entire satisfaction that it was not to be a judicial trial, but apolitical one and that the jury was already prepared for convictionwithout regard to the law, the Constitution, the evidence, or thefacts. Governor Ames was to be convicted, not because he was guilty ofany offense, but because he was in the way of complete Democraticcontrol of the State Government. 

Personally they had nothing against Ames. It was not the man but theoffice they wanted, and that they were determined to have. They knew hehad committed no offense, but, as matters then stood, being a Republicanwas an offense which justified removal from office. To punish himotherwise, for anything he had done or failed to do, did not at any timeenter into their calculations. The Governorship was the prize at stake. In this matter there was no concealment of their purposes andintentions. As soon as the Governor's legal advisers found out what theactual situation was, they saw it was useless to continue the fight. Upon their advice, therefore, the Governor tendered his resignation, which was promptly accepted. He then left the State never to returnagain. If the impeachment proceedings had been instituted in goodfaith, --upon an honest belief that the chief executive had committedoffenses which merited punishment, --the resignation would not have beenaccepted. The fact that it was accepted, --and that, too, withouthesitation or question, --was equivalent to a confession that the purposeof the proceedings was to get possession of the office. Short work wasmade of the Lieutenant-Governor's case; and State Senator John M. Stone, the Democratic President pro tem. Of the State Senate, was dulysworn in and installed as the acting Governor of the State. Thusterminated a long series of questionable acts, the inauguration of whichhad no other purpose than to secure the ascendency of one politicalparty over another in the administration of the government of the State. 

The sanguinary revolution in the State of Mississippi in 1875 wasclaimed to be in the interest of good administration and honestgovernment; it was an attempt to wrest the State from the control ofdishonest men, --negroes, carpet baggers, and scalawags, --and place it incontrol of intelligent, pure, and honest white men. With that end inview, Geo. M. Buchanan, a brave and gallant ex-Confederate soldier, was, through questionable and indefensible methods, defeated for the officeof State Treasurer, and Wm. L. Hemmingway was declared elected. Yet whenthe change took place it was found that every dollar of the public moneywas accounted for. During the whole period of Republican administrationnot a dollar had been misappropriated, nor had there been a singledefalcation, although millions of dollars had passed through the handsof the fiscal agents of the State and of the different counties. 

How was it with the new reform administration? Treasurer Hemmingway hadbeen in office only a comparatively short while when the startlinginformation was given out that he was a defaulter to the amount of$315, 612. 19. William L. Hemmingway a defaulter! Could such a thing bepossible? Yes, it was an admitted and undisputed fact. 

Mr. Hemmingway had been quite prominent in the politics of the State;but those who knew the man, and I was one of those, had every reason tobelieve that he was an honest man, and that he was the personificationof integrity. He was neither a speculator nor a gambler. Even after thedefalcation was made known there was nothing to indicate that any partof the money had been appropriated to his own use. Yet the money hadmysteriously disappeared. Where was it? Who had it? These were questionsthe people of the State desired to have answered, but they have neveryet been answered and, it is safe to say, they never will be. Hemmingwayno doubt could and can answer those questions, but he has not done soand the probabilities are that he never will. He evidently believed thatto turn State's evidence would render him more culpable than to beguilty of the act which he had allowed to be committed. He might havebeen forced to make a confession, or at least been compelled to give theprosecution a clue to the real criminal or criminals if the prosecutionhad been in charge of persons who could not be suspected of being thepolitical beneficiaries of the methods by which it was possible for himto be placed in charge of the office. It was hardly reasonable to expectsuch men to make very much of an effort to secure a confession. In fact, it seems to have been a relief to them to have the accused take theposition that he alone was the responsible party and that he was willingto bear all the blame and assume all the consequences that would resultfrom the act. The names, therefore, of those who were the beneficiariesof this remarkable defalcation will, no doubt, remain a secret in thebosom of William L. Hemmingway, and will be buried with him in hisgrave. 

Hemmingway was tried, convicted, sentenced and served a term in theState Prison; all of which he calmly endured rather than give the nameof any person having connection with that unfortunate affair. All thesatisfaction that the public can get with reference to it, --other thanthe punishment to which Hemmingway was subjected, --is to indulge inconjectures about it. One conjecture, and the most reasonable andplausible one, is that if Hemmingway had made a full confession it mighthave involved not only some men who were prominent and influential, butperhaps the Democratic State organization as well. For it was awell-known fact that in 1875 nearly every Democratic club in the Statewas converted into an armed military company. To fully organize, equip, and arm such a large body of men required an outlay of a large sum ofmoney. The money was evidently furnished by some persons or through someorganization. Those who raised the money, or who caused it to be raised, no doubt had an eye to the main chance. A patriotic desire to have theState redeemed (?) was not with them the actuating motive. When theredemption (?) of the State was an accomplished fact they, no doubt, felt that they were entitled to share in the fruits of that redemption. Their idea evidently was that the State should be made to pay for itsown salvation and redemption, but the only way in which this could bedone was to have the people's money in the State treasury appropriatedfor that purpose otherwise than by legislative enactment. This, as Ihave already stated, is only a conjecture, but, under the circumstances, it is the most reasonable and plausible one that can be imagined. 

The case of Treasurer Hemmingway is conclusive evidence that in point ofefficiency, honesty and official integrity the Democratic party had noadvantage over the party that was placed in power chiefly through thevotes of colored men. What was true of Mississippi in this respect wasalso true, --in a measure, at least, --of the other reconstructed States. 

CHAPTER XVII

THE HAYES-TILDEN CONTEST. THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION

Although the action of the returning boards in South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida, gave Mr. Hayes a majority of one vote in theElectoral College, the Democrats, who were largely in the majority inthe National House of Representatives, were evidently not willing toacquiesce in the declared result, --claiming that Mr. Tilden had beenfairly elected and that he ought to be inaugurated. 

Hon. Henry Watterson, of Kentucky, --who was at that time a member of theHouse, --delivered a fiery speech in which he declared that a hundredthousand armed men would march to Washington to see that Mr. Tilden wasinaugurated. The situation for a while looked very grave. It seemed asif there would be a dual government, Hayes and Tilden each claiming tobe the legally elected President. To prevent this was the problem thenbefore Congress and the American people. Conferences, composed ofinfluential men of both parties, were being frequently held in differentparts of the city. 

The creation of an electoral commission to pass upon and decide thedisputed points involved was finally suggested, and was accepted by amajority of both parties. The name of the originator of this suggestionhas never been made public; but it is believed by many that SenatorEdmunds, of Vermont, was the man, since he was the principal champion ofthe measure in the Senate. Subsequent events appeared to indicate thatHon. Wm. M. Evarts of New York, was also an influential party to thescheme, if not the originator of it. At any rate, no one seemed to havebeen sufficiently proud of it to lay claim to its paternity. It wasmerely a temporary scheme, intended to tide over an unpleasant, andperhaps dangerous, condition which existing remedies did not fully meet. It was equivalent to disposing of the Presidency by a game ofchance, --for the composition of the proposed commission was, politically, purely a matter of chance. 

As finally agreed upon, the measure provided for a commission to becomposed of fifteen members, --five from the House, five from the Senate, and five Justices of the Supreme Court. As the Democrats had a majorityin the House, it was agreed that they should have three, and theRepublicans two of the five members of that body. Since the Republicanshad a majority in the Senate it was agreed that they should have three, and the Democrats two of the five members of that body. Of the fivejustices of the Supreme Court, two were to be Republicans and two, Democrats; the fifth Justice to be an independent, --or one who was asnear an independent as could be found on the bench of that Court. 

When the bill creating this commission came before the House I spokeagainst it, and voted against it, for two reasons. In the first place, Ibelieved it was a dangerous precedent to subject the Presidency of theUnited States to such a game of chance as was contemplated by the billthen under consideration. Either Hayes or Tilden had been elected, andthe result ought to be ascertained according to legal forms. In thesecond place, I had a suspicion that it was the outgrowth of anunderstanding or agreement which would result in the abandonment ofSouthern Republicans by the National Administration. 

Mr. Lamar, for instance, did not hesitate to declare that it was moreimportant that the South should have local self-government than that thePresident should be a Democrat. In other words, what Southern Democratswanted was to be let alone, --was to have the National Administrationkeep its hands off, and allow them to manage their own affairs in theirown way, even if that way should result in a virtual nullification, inpart at least, of the War Amendments to the Federal Constitution. 

I had a suspicion that this concession had been granted upon conditionthat the southern Democratic leaders in Congress would consent to thecreation of the proposed commission, and to the ratification of itsdecision, whatever that decision might be. To such a bargain I did notcare to be even an innocent party. My suspicions were strengthened bythe fact that the principal opposition among Democrats to the creationof the commission and to the ratification of its decision came fromnorthern Democrats. Southern Democrats, with a few notable exceptions, not only favored the creation of the commission and the ratification ofits decision, but even the fiery Watterson was induced to hold his peaceand to give expression to his righteous indignation through the mediumof a silent vote. That my suspicions were well founded subsequentsevents more than demonstrated. I took the position that Mr. Hayes hadbeen legally elected, at least according to the forms of law and in themanner prescribed by the Constitution, --and that he should, therefore, be duly inaugurated even if it should be necessary for President Grant, as Commander-in-chief of the Army, to use the military force of theGovernment for that purpose. I contended that, having been thus legallyelected, Hayes should not be subjected to the chance of losing his titleto the office and that the incoming President should not be bound byany ante-inauguration pledges, which, in the opinion of some, would havea tendency to cast a cloud upon his title to the office. But the billwas passed and the commission was duly appointed. 

At this point the game of chance turned in favor of the Republicans. Itwas generally understood that Justice David Davis, of Illinois, would bethe fifth Justice to be placed on the commission. He was said to be anIndependent, --the only member of the Supreme Court that could be thusclassed politically. But, in point of fact, he was more of a Democratthan an Independent. Had he been made a member of the commission it ismore than probable that Mr. Tilden, and not Mr. Hayes, would have beenmade President. The Legislature of Illinois was at that time engaged inan effort to elect a United States Senator. The Legislature was composedof about an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, --threeIndependents holding the balance of power. The Independents at lengthpresented the name of Justice David Davis as their choice for Senator. In order to make sure of the defeat of a Republican, the Democratsjoined the Independents in the support of Justice Davis, which resultedin his election. This took place only a few days before the timeappointed for the selection of the commissioners. 

As soon as it was announced that Justice Davis had been elected to theSenate the Republican leaders in Congress insisted that he was nolonger eligible to a seat on the Electoral Commission. This was at firststrongly combated by the Democrats, who contended that the Justice wasonly a Senator-elect, and that he did not cease to be a member of theCourt until he tendered his resignation as such; this he was neitherrequired nor expected to do until shortly before the beginning of histerm as a Senator. But the Republicans pressed their objections sostrongly that the Democrats were induced to yield the point, and JusticeBradley was selected as the fifth Justice. Next to Davis, Bradley cameas near being an Independent as any member of the Court. Although he hadbeen appointed as a Republican by President Grant, --as had Justice Davisby President Lincoln, --yet he had rendered several decisions which gavethe Democrats hope that he might give the deciding vote in their favorand thus make Mr. Tilden President. In this they were disappointed; forit turned out that the substitution of Bradley for Davis made HayesPresident of the United States. It would, perhaps, be unfair to say thatthe decisions of the commission were rendered regardless of theevidence, the law, and the arguments, yet it so happened that everyimportant point was decided by a strict party vote, --eight to seven. 

In this connection it will not be out of place to refer to a scene thatwas created on the Democratic side of the House by Hon. Ben. Hill, ofGeorgia. Mr. Hill entered the House one afternoon, having just returnedfrom the Supreme Court Chamber, where the commission was in session. Heremarked to one of his colleagues in a low tone that he had justreturned from where the sessions of the commission were being held, andthat while there the important and valuable information had beenimparted to him that on a most vital point the Democrats could withabsolute certainty depend upon the vote of Mr. Justice Bradley. 

"Can that be possible?" exclaimed his excited and highly elatedcolleague. 

"Yes, " replied Mr. Hill, "there can be no doubt about it. I know whereofI speak. It came to me through a source that cannot be questioned. "

"Then wait until I can call several of our friends, " replied hiscolleague, "I want them to hear the good news at the same time it isheard by me, so that we can rejoice together. "

Mr. Hill was soon surrounded by an eager, excited, and interested groupof anxious Democratic members. "We are now ready, " said his delightedcolleague, whose face was covered with a smile of satisfaction, "to hearthe good news. "

"Well, " replied Mr. Hill, whose manner was grave and whose countenancegave every evidence of deep emotion, "whenever a motion to adjourn ismade by a Democratic member of the commission we can safely depend uponthe vote of Mr. Justice Bradley being cast in the affirmative. "

The heads of the anxious group immediately fell in deep disappointmentand despair. But, of course, they did not fail to see the irony of Mr. Hill's remark. It did transpire that whenever a motion to adjourn wasmade by a Democratic member of the commission it was usually carried bya vote of eight to seven, --Mr. Justice Bradley voting in the affirmativewith the Democrats. On no other question, however, could they depend onhis vote. 

The decision of the Electoral Commission was finally rendered in favorof Mr. Hayes by a strict party vote, --eight to seven. Strong and bitteropposition to the approval of the decision was made in the House byquite a number of northern Democrats, but the majority of southernDemocrats, aided by such northern Democrats as represented districtshaving large commercial interests, --interests that are at all timeswilling to pay any price for peace, --accepted the decision, and Mr. Hayes was allowed to be peacefully inaugurated. 

CHAPTER XVIII

ATTITUDE OF THE HAYES ADMINISTRATION TOWARD THE SOUTH

The new administration had been in power only a short while before itbecame apparent to southern Republicans that they had very little toexpect from this administration. It was generally understood that asouthern man would be made Postmaster General in the new cabinet, but itwas assumed, of course, by those, at least, who were not fully informedabout the secret deals and bargains that had been entered into as acondition precedent to a peaceable inauguration of the newadministration, --that he would be a Republican. 

Senator Alcorn, of my own State, Mississippi, who had just retired fromthe Senate, had an ambition to occupy that position. I was one to whomthat fact was made known. I did not hesitate to use what littleinfluence I had to have that ambition gratified. I was so earnest andpersistent in pressing his claims and merits upon those who were knownto be close to the appointing power, that I succeeded in finding outdefinitely and authoritatively the name of the man that had been agreedupon and would, no doubt, be appointed to that position. Ex-SenatorKey, a Democrat from Tennessee, was the man. When I informed SenatorAlcorn of that fact the manifestation of surprise, disappointment, anddisgust with which he received it can better be imagined than described. This was not due so much to the fact that some other one than himselfhad been selected, but to the fact that the fortunate man was a SouthernDemocrat. For the first time the Senator became convinced that southernRepublicans had been made the subjects of barter and trade in theshuffle for the Presidency, and that the sacrifice of southernRepublicans was the price that had to be paid for the peaceableinauguration of Mr. Hayes. This, in Senator Alcorn's opinion, meant thatthe Republican party in the reconstructed States of the South was athing of the past. There was no hope for it in the future. 

"It would have been far better, " said the Senator, "not only for theRepublican party at the South but for the country at large, to haveallowed the Democrats to inaugurate Tilden, and to have taken charge ofthe Government, than to have purchased Republican victory at such afearful cost. What inducement can a southern white man now have forbecoming a Republican? Under the present state of things he will behated at home, and despised abroad. He will be rejected by his oldfriends and associates, and discountenanced by his new ones. He willincur the odium, and merit the displeasure and censure of his formerfriends, associates, and companions with no compensating advantages forthe sacrifices thus made. "

The Senator spoke with deep feeling. He could see that his efforts tobuild up a strong Republican party at the South must necessarily failunder such conditions, and that it was useless to make any furthereffort in that direction. Under his influence and leadership very manyof the best and most influential white men in his state had identifiedthemselves with the Republican party. His efforts in that directionwould have been continued, in spite of the temporary defeat of the partyat the polls, however severe that defeat might have been, if thoseefforts had been appreciated and appropriately recognized by thenational leaders of the organization. But when he saw that not only wasthis not to be done, but that one of those who was known to be fullyidentified with the political persecutors of southern Republicans was tobe recognized, --thus placing the stamp of approval upon their work by anadministration that was supposed to be Republican and therefore opposedto such methods, --it was time for southern white men, who had beenacting with the Republican party and for those who may have such actionin contemplation, to stop and seriously consider the situation. It wasnow in order for each one of them to ask himself the question: "Can Iafford to do this?"

The appointment of a southern Democrat to a seat in the Cabinet of aRepublican President, especially at that particular time, was a crushingblow to southern Republicans. It was the straw that broke the camel'sback. Senator Alcorn was a man suitable in every way for the office ofPostmaster-General. He had a commanding presence, he was an eloquentspeaker, and an able debater, --by nature a leader and not a follower. Hehad taken an active part in the politics of his state before and afterthe War. After he identified himself with the Republican party he wasambitious to be chiefly instrumental in building up a strong party inhis State and throughout the South which would not only recognize meritin the colored people and accord absolute justice and fair play to them, but which would include in its membership a large percentage, if not amajority, of the best and most substantial white men of that section. 

That he had made splendid progress along those lines cannot be denied. The announced southern policy of the Hayes administration not onlycompleted the destruction of what had been thus accomplished, but itmade any further progress in that direction absolutely impossible. Theselection of ex-Senator Key was, however, not the only Cabinetappointment which clearly indicated the southern policy of theadministration. There were two others, --those of William M. Evarts andCarl Schurz. Those men had been prominent in their bitter opposition tothe southern policy of President Grant. Mr. Schurz had been one of theleaders in the Greeley movement against President Grant and theRepublican party in 1872, while Mr. Evarts was later the principalspeaker at a public indignation meeting that was held at New York todenounce the southern policy of the Grant administration. In fact, JohnSherman was the only one of the Cabinet ministers that had a positivenational standing, and even his brilliant star was somewhat marred onaccount of the impression that, as one of the Hayes managers, he hadbeen a party to the deals and agreements that had been made and enteredinto as a condition precedent to the peaceable induction of Mr. Hayesinto office. It was known, or at any rate believed, that Mr. Sherman'sappointment as Secretary of the Treasury was for the one specificpurpose of bringing about the resumption of specie payments. He was theauthor of the act which fixed the date when specie payments should beresumed. He had the reputation of being one of the ablest financiers thecountry had produced. That he should be named to carry into effect theact of which he was the author was to be expected. For the reasons abovestated, it was the one Cabinet appointment that met with generalapproval. 

It was soon seen, however, that the Cabinet was so constructed as tomake it harmonize with the southern policy of the administration. It wasnot long before the announcement was officially made in prolixsentences, of which Secretary Evarts was no doubt the author, that thearmy could not and would not be used to uphold and sustain any StateGovernment in an effort to maintain its supremacy and enforce obedienceto its mandates. In other words, it was a public announcement of thefact that if there should be an armed revolt in a State against thelawful State Government which would be strong enough to seize and takepossession of that government, the National Government would refuse tointerfere, even though a request for assistance should be made by theChief Executive of the State in the manner and form prescribed by theConstitution. I have never believed that this policy, --which was meant, of course, for the South, --was in harmony with Mr. Hayes' personalconvictions; especially in view of his public utterances during theprogress of the campaign and immediately after the announcement had beenmade that he had been defeated. But he no doubt asked himself thequestion: "What can I do?" This is what he had been bound to do, by hismanagers through the medium of an ante-inauguration pledge, which hefelt in honor bound to respect. Mr. Hayes was not a man of sufficientforce of character to disregard and repudiate such a pledge or bargain. Had he been a Napoleon, or even an Andrew Jackson, he would havedeclared that no man or set of men had any authority to make for him anyante-inauguration pledge, promise, or bargain by which he would be boundas chief magistrate of the country. To the contrary, he would haveopenly and publicly declared:

"I am President, or I am not. That I am the legally elected President isa recognized and undisputed fact, and, as such, I shall neitherrecognize nor respect any pledge, promise or bargain which involvesdishonor on my part or acquiescence in the suspension, violation orevasion of the Constitution or of any law made in pursuance thereof. AsPresident of the United States I have taken and subscribed to an oath bywhich I am bound to uphold the Constitution of my country, and to seethat the laws are duly executed and enforced. That oath I am determinedto respect and honor. I shall not only do all in my power to see thatthe Constitution and the laws of the land are obeyed and enforced, --bothin letter and in spirit, --but it is also my determination to see thatevery American citizen is protected in the exercise and enjoyment of hisrights, as far as it may be in the power of the President to protecthim. " Such a declaration, accompanied by an honest effort to carry thesame into effect, even if he had been unsuccessful, would have carriedthe name of R. B. Hayes down in history as one of the greatest and mostbrilliant statesmen our country had ever produced. But, he was not equalto the occasion, and therefore failed to take advantage of such a goldenopportunity. On the contrary, he decided to live up to and carry out tothe very letter, every pledge, promise, agreement or bargain that hadbeen made in his behalf, which involved the dishonor of his own name andthe disgrace of his country. Packard, for Governor of Louisiana, andChamberlain, for Governor of South Carolina, were voted for at the sametime that the Hayes electors were voted for in their respective States. Each of these candidates polled a much larger vote than that of theHayes electors. If, therefore, Mr. Hayes was legally or mortallyentitled to the electoral votes of those States, without which he couldnot have been elected, those men were entitled to be recognized andsupported as Governor of their respective States. But it was awell-known fact that without the support and backing of the NationalAdministration at that particular time, they could not maintain andenforce their authority against the organization of the Democraticparty. The public announcement of the southern policy of the NationalAdministration put an effectual end to any further effort on the partof either Packard or Chamberlain. The Administration not only desertedand abandoned those two men and the party for which they had so bravelyand so gallantly stood, but it allowed the very men whose votes made Mr. Hayes President to be harassed and persecuted for what they had done inthat direction. After Packard surrendered to the inevitable he wastendered a position in the foreign service, which he accepted. WhenChamberlain was forced to abandon the hopeless struggle in SouthCarolina, he moved to New York and engaged in the practice of law. Politically he affiliated with the Democratic party until his death. 

CHAPTER XIX

QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF SENATOR LAMAR'S ELECTION

Mr. Blaine had been elected to the United States Senate from Maine, histerm beginning March 4th, 1877. The term for which Mr. Lamar, ofMississippi, had been elected, commenced at the same time. It was notpossible to have a Congressional investigation of the Mississippielection of 1875 unless the same should be ordered by the Senate, --theRepublicans having a small majority in that body. Each House being thesole judge of the elections and qualifications of its own members, theSenate could, of course, have Mr. Lamar's credentials referred to theCommittee of Privileges and Elections, with instructions to make aninvestigation of the methods used to carry the election. This committeewould ascertain and report whether or not there had been a legal andvalid election in that State, and, pending the investigation and reportby the committee and the disposition of the same by the Senate, the seatto which Mr. Lamar had been elected would remain vacant. As the resultof a number of conferences between Republican Senators andrepresentative Mississippi Republicans, this course was decided upon asthe one to be pursued. But, in order to do this, the Senate must havesomething upon which to base its contemplated action. It could not beexpected to take official notice of rumors or newspaper reports of whathad taken place. It was therefore decided that a memorial should bedrawn up and signed by a number of reputable and well-known citizens ofthe State, making specific allegations with reference to that election, and concluding with a request that a thorough investigation be madebefore the Senator, chosen by the Legislature that had been brought intoexistence by that election, could be admitted to the Senate. 

In support of this contemplated action there had been a number ofprecedents, --the recent case of Mr. Pinchback, of Louisiana, being oneof them. It fell to my lot to draw up the memorial. It was to bepresented to the Senate and championed in that body by Senator Morton, of Indiana. The Republican majority in the Senate was small. TheDemocrats, of course, would bitterly oppose the Morton motion. To makesure of its adoption the affirmative vote of nearly every RepublicanSenator was necessary. At any rate there could be no serious defectionin the Republican ranks, otherwise the Morton proposition could notprevail. That anyone on the Republican side would oppose it was notanticipated, for every one that had been approached expressed hisintention of supporting it. No one of the newly elected Senators hadbeen approached. It was not deemed necessary. It was not anticipatedthat any one of them would do otherwise than support the program thathad been agreed upon by the older members of the Senate. Senator Mortonwas to submit the memorial and make the motion when the name of Mr. Lamar was called to take the oath of office. 

The names of the States were called in alphabetical order, about threebeing called at a time. Maine was reached before Mississippi, and Mr. Blaine was duly sworn in as a Senator from that State. No one expectedthat he would do otherwise than support the program that had been agreedupon, but, contrary to expectations, as soon as Mississippi was calledMr. Blaine was on his feet, demanding recognition. Of course he wasrecognized by the chair. He made a motion that Mr. Lamar be sworn in_prima facie_ as the Senator from Mississippi. His contention was that, since his credentials were regular, the Senator-elect should be swornin; and if there should be any question about the legality of theelection it could be made the subject of a subsequent investigation. 

This unexpected action on the part of Mr. Blaine took everyone bysurprise, with the possible exception of Mr. Lamar, who, no doubt, waswell aware of what was in contemplation. It produced consternation andcaused a panic among the Republican leaders in the Senate. Hurried andexcited conferences were being held while the subject was being debated. For the seriousness of the situation was recognized. Mr. Blaine'sdefection meant the defeat of the Morton motion should it be made, andthe adoption of the Blaine motion by the solid vote of the Democrats, towhich would be added a small minority of the Republicans. This divisionin the ranks of the party at the beginning of the Hayes administrationhad to be avoided if possible. That Mr. Blaine should recede from hisposition was, of course, out of the question. Nothing, therefore, remained to be done but for Senator Morton to refrain from making hismotion; for a hurried canvass of the Senate had revealed the fact thatthe motion, if made and brought to a vote, would be defeated, and theeffect of such a defeat would be worse than if the motion had not beenmade. So the Blaine motion was allowed to go by default, and Mr. Lamarwas duly sworn in as a Senator from Mississippi. Of course it was wellknown at the time by many, --Mr. Blaine among the number, --that thisended the controversy and that no subsequent investigation would bemade. That Mr. Blaine was sadly and seriously disappointed at theresult of his action in this case, as well as in his action in defeatingthe Federal Elections Bill, will be made clear in subsequent chapters. 

CHAPTER XX

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION OF 1880. NOMINATION OF THE COMPROMISECANDIDATE, GARFIELD

Since the indications were that the Democrats would be successful in theCongressional elections of 1878, the election in the "shoe-stringdistrict" that year was allowed to go by default. 

In 1880, the year of the Presidential election, I decided that I wouldagain measure arms with Chalmers for Representative in Congress fromthat district. It was practically a well-settled fact that there was tobe a bitter fight for the Republican Presidential nomination that year. There were three prominent candidates in the field for thenomination, --James G. Blaine, U. S. Grant, and John Sherman. Grant wasespecially strong with southern Republicans, while Blaine had verylittle support in that section. Sherman was well thought of on accountof the splendid record he had made as a member of the United StatesSenate, and, in addition to that, he had the influence and the supportof the National Administration, of which he was a member, --being at thattime Secretary of the Treasury. 

In the State of Mississippi Bruce, Hill and I, --the three leadingcolored men, --had formed an offensive and defensive alliance. Bruce wasUnited States Senator, which position he had secured largely through theinfluence and active support of myself and Hill, --of Hill especially, since he was on the ground at the time of the election, which enabledhim to take personal charge of the campaign before the Legislature inthe interest of Mr. Bruce. 

Hill had been elected Secretary of State on the ticket with Ames in 1873and, after the expiration of his term, was, through the influence andsupport of Bruce and myself, made Collector of Internal Revenue for theState of Mississippi. The office of Secretary of State, to which he waselected in 1873, was one that the Democrats did not take possession ofin 1876. Unlike the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor, the removal of theincumbent was not necessary to put that party in possession of the StateGovernment. 

I, Lynch, was at that time a member of the National House ofRepresentatives, which position I was able to retain for a long timewith the active assistance and support of Bruce and Hill, --especially ofBruce. 

That we three should work in perfect political harmony was both naturaland proper, since, in doing so, we protected our own interests andsecured for ourselves, and for our friends and supporters, appropriateofficial recognition. At nearly every State convention either Bruce or Iwas made chairman of the convention, with Hill as floor manager. 

The State committee was organized and controlled in the same way. Through that thorough and effective organization I was Chairman of theRepublican State Committee from 1881 to 1892, and I could have retainedit longer had I consented to serve; notwithstanding the dissolution ofthe combination, which took place about that time, as will be shown andexplained later. 

There was a faction in the party that was opposed to the leadership ofthese three influential colored men, but it was never strong enough toorganize or control a State Convention as long as we three worked inunion. While this union had the effect of keeping us at the front asrecognized leaders of the party it could not be said it was detrimentalto the party organization, for the reason that under that leadership theorganization never failed to support the men that the party believed tobe the strongest. In other words, while we used the party machinery toprevent our own political extinction we never allowed our own ambitionsto conflict with what was believed by other influential members of theparty to be for the best interest of the organization. 

It looked for a while as if the State Convention of 1880 would resultin a dissolution of this combination which had so successfullycontrolled the party organization in the State so many years. Bruce andHill were supporters of Secretary Sherman for the RepublicanPresidential nomination, while I was favorable to the candidacy ofex-President Grant. That Grant was the choice of a large majority of theRepublicans of the State could not be truthfully denied. Mr. Bruce wasthe Republican United States Senator in harmony with the administration. Mr. Hill was an office-holder under that administration, and SecretarySherman was believed to be the administration candidate for thenomination. 

As soon as the fact was developed that Bruce and Hill were for Shermanand that I was for Grant, the faction which had always opposed andfought the leadership of the Bruce-Lynch-Hill combination took up thefight for Grant, with the determination to take advantage of Grant'sstrength and popularity in order to secure control of the partymachinery. It was this that prevented at that time a dissolution of theBruce-Hill-Lynch combination. The situation with which we wereconfronted made it necessary for the three to come together and, in aspirit of concession, agree upon a common line of action. Upon thesuggestion of Mr. Bruce a conference soon took place at which I agreedthat, since it was my purpose to be a candidate for the Congressionalnomination in the Sixth or "shoe-string district, " I would not be acandidate for delegate to the National Convention, but that I wouldsupport Bruce and Hill as delegates from the State at large, with theunderstanding that, if at any time Sherman's name should be withdrawnand Grant's nomination were possible, they should support Grant. It wasfurther agreed that I should support the Bruce-Lynch-Hill combination inthe fight for the organization of the State Convention, but that Ishould be at liberty to use my influence for the election of Grant menas delegates other than Bruce and Hill. 

At the conclusion of this conference I made public announcement of thefact that, since it was my purpose to become a candidate for Congress inthe Sixth or "shoe-string district, " I would not be a candidate fordelegate to the National Convention but would give my support to Bruceand Hill, for two of the four places on the delegation from the State atlarge, with the understanding that the delegation, if controlled bythem, would not be hostile to Grant. I had reasons to know that Mr. Bruce, in consequence of his cordial relations with SenatorConkling, --the national leader of the Grant forces, --was not unfriendlyto Grant, and that he would use his influence to prevent the delegationfrom going into any combination for the sole purpose of defeating thenomination of Grant. In other words, Grant was Brace's second choice forthe nomination. 

The fight for the delegation was waged with a good deal of heat andbitterness. The canvass had not progressed very far before it wasdeveloped that Grant was much stronger than the faction by which he wasbeing supported. The fight was so bitter, and the delegates to the StateConvention were so evenly divided, that the result was the election of acompromise delegation which was about evenly divided between Grant andSherman. Bruce and Hill were among those that were elected. 

The National Convention, which was held in Chicago in June of that year, was one of the most exciting and interesting in the history of theparty. It was that convention that abolished what was known as "the unitrule. " Up to that time the right of a State Convention to elect all thedelegates to which the State was entitled, --district as well asState, --and to instruct them as a body had never before been questioned. New York, as well as other States, had instructed the delegates to castthe entire vote of the State for Grant. This was the unit rule. It is arule which even now is enforced in National Conventions of theDemocratic party. It was through the enforcement of this rule that Mr. Cleveland was renominated, when he was so bitterly opposed by a portionof the delegation from his own State, --especially the Tammanydelegates, --that General Bragg was moved to make the celebrateddeclaration that he "loved Mr. Cleveland on account of the enemies hehad made. " Notwithstanding the fact that those delegates were stronglyopposed to Mr. Cleveland, and though they protested against having theirvotes recorded for him, they were so recorded through the applicationand enforcement of the unit rule. It was the enforcement of this ruleupon which Mr. Conkling insisted in the National Republican Conventionof 1880. About twenty of the New York district delegates, under theleadership of Judge W. H. Robertson, refused to be governed by theinstructions of the State Convention. Their contention was that theState Convention had no right to bind by instructions any delegatesexcept the four from the State at large. After a lengthy and heateddebate the convention finally sustained this contention, and since thattime the unit rule has not been recognized in a National RepublicanConvention. 

This action, no doubt, resulted in the defeat of General Grant for thenomination; for it was a well-known fact that his nomination waspossible only through the enforcement of the unit rule. His friends andsupporters, however, under the leadership of Senator Conkling, made astrong and desperate fight with the hope that the tide might ultimatelyturn in their favor, but with the intention, in any event, ofpreventing if possible the nomination of Mr. Blaine. General Grant'sname was placed before the Convention by Senator Conkling in one of hismost eloquent and masterly efforts. 

"The man whose name I shall place in nomination, " he said, "does nothail from any particular State; he hails from the United States. It isnot necessary to nominate a man that can carry Michigan. Any Republicancan carry Michigan. You should nominate a man that can carry New York. That man is U. S. Grant. "

Mr. Blaine's name was placed in nomination by a delegate from Michiganby the name of Joy. His effort did not come up to public expectation. The eloquent speech of Senator Frye, of Maine, who seconded thenomination, made up in part for the public disappointment in Mr. Joy'seffort. The name of Secretary John Sherman was placed before theConvention in one of General Garfield's most powerful and convincingefforts. It is safe to say that the speech delivered by General Garfieldon that occasion made him the nominee of that convention. After drawingan eloquent and vivid picture of the kind of man that should be madePresident, --with the intention of naming John Sherman as the man thusdescribed, --he asked in a tone of voice that was pitched in a high key:

"Who is that man?"

The response came from different parts of the hall, "Garfield. "

And sure enough it was Garfield. After a number of fruitless ballots itbecame apparent that neither of the three leading candidates couldpossibly be nominated. Very few, if any, of the Grant men would at anytime go to either Blaine or Sherman. Very few, if any, of the Shermanmen would go to Blaine, while Blaine men could not in any considerablenumbers, be induced to go either to Grant or Sherman. While a number ofSherman men would have supported Grant in preference to Blaine, therewere not enough of them, even with the Grant men, to constitute amajority. When Garfield's name was suggested as a compromise candidatehe was found to be acceptable to both the Blaine and the Sherman men aswell as to some of the Grant men, who had abandoned all hope of Grant'snomination. The result was that Garfield was finally made the unanimouschoice of the convention. The New York delegation, being allowed to namethe man for Vice-President, nominated Chester A. Arthur, of that State. 

Although General Garfield was nominated as a compromise candidate hiselection was by no means a foregone conclusion. The Democrats hadnominated a strong and popular man, General W. S. Hancock, one of themost brilliant and successful generals in the Union Army. Associated onthe ticket with him was a popular Indiana Democrat, William H. English. It looked for a while as if Democratic success were reasonably certain, especially after the September State and Congressional elections in theState of Maine, the result of which was virtually a Democratic victory. 

What was known as the celebrated Mentor Conference then took place. Mentor was the home of General Garfield. The conference consisted ofGeneral Garfield, General Grant, and Senator Conkling. Who wasinstrumental in bringing that conference into existence perhaps willnever be known, and what was actually said and done on that occasionwill, no doubt, remain a mystery. But it resulted in bringing theGrant-Conkling wing of the party, --which up to that time had beenlukewarm and indifferent, --into the active and aggressive support of theticket. Senator Conkling immediately took the stump and made a brilliantand successful campaign, not only in New York but also in the otherclose and doubtful States. The result was that Garfield carried New Yorkby a majority of about twenty thousand and was elected. Without New Yorkhe would have been defeated; for the South this time was unquestionablysolid in its support of the Democratic ticket; at least, according tothe forms of law. It was not necessary to resort to the questionableexpedient of an electoral commission to determine the result of thatelection. It is safe to say that, but for the active support given theticket in that campaign by General Grant and Senator Conkling, New Yorkwould have been lost to the party and Garfield would have been defeated. With the election of Garfield the National House of Representatives wasalso Republican. The majority was small, but it was large enough toenable the party to organize the House. The Garfield administrationstarted out under very favorable auspices. How it ended will be told inanother chapter. 

CHAPTER XXI

STORY OF THE MISUNDERSTANDING BETWEEN GARFIELD AND CONKLING

The Garfield Administration, as I have said, started out under mostfavorable auspices. Mr. Conkling took an active part in the Senate as achampion and spokesman of the administration. He seemed to have taken itfor granted, that, --although his bitter enemy, Mr. Blaine, was Secretaryof State, --his own influence with the administration would be potential. In conversation with his personal friends he insisted that this was apart of the agreement that had been entered into at the famous MentorConference, about which so much had been said and published. If it weretrue that Mr. Conkling's control of the Federal patronage in New York inthe event of Republican success was a part of that agreement, ittranspired that Mr. Blaine had sufficient influence with the Presidentto bring about its repudiation. 

It is a fact well known that the President was anxious to avoid a breakwith Senator Conkling. Judge W. H. Robertson, who was a candidate for theCollectorship of the port of New York was strongly supported by Mr. Blaine. Judge Robertson had been one of the influential leaders of theBlaine movement in New York. It was he who had disregarded the action ofthe State Convention in instructing the delegates to cast the vote ofthe State as a unit for General Grant. In bolting the action of theState Convention Judge Robertson carried about nineteen other delegateswith him over to Mr. Blaine. Therefore Mr. Blaine insisted upon theappointment of Judge Robertson to the Collectorship of the port at NewYork. Senator Conkling would not consent under any circumstances to thisappointment. Mr. Blaine, it appears, succeeded in convincing thePresident that, but for Judge Robertson's action, his, Garfield's, nomination would have been impossible and that consequently it would bebase ingratitude not to appoint Robertson to the position for which hewas an applicant. Mr. Blaine contended that the administration would notonly be guilty of ingratitude should it refuse to appoint his candidate, but that it would thereby allow itself to be the medium through whichthis man was to be punished for his action in making the existence ofthe administration possible. 

"Can you, Mr. President, afford to do such a thing as this?" asked Mr. Blaine. 

To which the President gave a negative answer. Perhaps it did not occurto Mr. Blaine at that time that, while the action of Judge Robertsonmay have made the nomination of Mr. Garfield possible, the subsequentaction of Senator Conkling made his election possible. But, notwithstanding this, the President decided that Judge Robertson shouldhave the office for which he was an applicant. 

As previously stated, however, the President was anxious to avoid abreak with Senator Conkling. To get the Senator to consent to theappointment of Judge Robertson was the task the President had beforehim. With that end in view the President invited Mr. Conkling to aprivate conference, at which he expressed a willingness to allow the NewYork Senator to name every important Federal officer in New York exceptthe Collector of the Port, if he would consent to the appointment ofJudge Robertson to that office. But the only concession Senator Conklingwas willing to make was to give his consent to the appointment of JudgeRobertson to any position in the foreign service. This was notsatisfactory, hence the conference was a failure. The President was thusplaced in a very disagreeable dilemma, being thus forced, very muchagainst his inclination, to take a decided stand in a very unpleasantcontroversy. He was thus forced to choose between Mr. Blaine, his ownSecretary of State, on one side, and Senator Conkling on the other. Toone he felt that he was indebted for his nomination. To the other hebelieved that his election was largely due. It was asserted by some whowere in a position to know that, if the President had taken sides withMr. Conkling, Mr. Blaine would have immediately tendered hisresignation, and thus would have severed his official connection withthe administration. While no intimation of this was made known to thePresident, yet he no doubt believed, in consequence of the deep andintense interest Mr. Blaine had shown in the matter, that such action onhis part, in the event of an adverse decision, was more than probable. When the President saw that there was no escape, --that he was obliged totake a decided stand one way or the other, --he decided to sustain thecontention of his Secretary of State. Consequently, after the fruitlessconference between the President and Senator Conkling, the name of JudgeRobertson for Collector of the port at New York, was sent to the Senate. Senator Conkling, joined by his colleague, Senator Platt, at first madean effort to have the nomination rejected, but the other RepublicanSenators were not willing to place themselves in open opposition to theadministration. When the fact was developed that the nomination would beconfirmed, Senators Conkling and Platt immediately tendered theirresignations. 

This in my opinion was a grave blunder on their part, as subsequentevents more than proved. They had before them the example of SenatorSumner, by which they should have profited. Senator Sumner was greatlyhumiliated, when, through the influence of the administration, he wassupplanted by Senator Cameron as Chairman of the Senate Committee onForeign Relations on account of a misunderstanding with President Grant, growing out of the effort on the part of the administration to bringabout the annexation of Santo Domingo, to which Senator Sumner wasbitterly opposed. Yet he did not, --because he was thus, as he felt, unjustly humiliated, --resign his seat in the Senate. He realized thatwhile he was commissioned to speak for his own State, his great powerand immense influence were not confined solely to that particular State. He appreciated the fact that when he spoke and voted as a Senator, hedid so, not merely as a Senator from the State of Massachusetts, but asa Senator of the United States. He belonged to no one State, but to theUnited States. He had, --on account of his great intellect, power, influence, and ability, --long since ceased to be the spokesman andrepresentative of any particular State or section; he was arepresentative of his country--recognized as such throughout thecivilized world. Knowing these things to be true Sumner did not feelthat he should deprive the people of his valuable services simplybecause he was not in harmony with the administration upon some onematter, however important that matter might be. In this Senator Sumnerwas unquestionably right. 

What, then, was true of Senator Sumner was equally true of SenatorsConkling and Platt in their misunderstanding with President Garfieldabout the Collectorship of the port of New York. 

Mr. Conkling was one of the greatest men our country had ever produced. He was a man of much influence and great power. He was not only anintellectual giant, but he was a man of commanding presence andattractive personality. As an orator he had few equals and no superiors. As in the case of Senator Sumner he spoke and voted as a Senator notmerely for his State, but for his country; not for any particularsection or locality, but for the United States. He was too great a man, and his services were too important and valuable for his country to bedeprived of them merely on account of a misunderstanding between thePresident and himself about Federal patronage in New York. He and hiscolleague should have retained their seats in the Senate and trusted tothe judgment of their fellow-citizens for a vindication of their courseand action in that as in other matters. They not only made a mistake inresigning their seats in the Senate, but consummated it when they wentbefore the Legislature of their State, which was then in session, andasked for a vindication through the medium of reëlection. This wassubjecting their friends to a test to which they were not willing tosubmit. Their friends, both in the Legislature and out of it, were loyalto them, and this loyalty would have been demonstrated at the propertime and in the right way had the two Senators remained in a positionwhich would have enabled their adherents to do so without serious injuryto the party organization. But when these men were asked, as the priceof their loyalty, to place the party organization in the State in openopposition to the National Administration for no other reason than amisunderstanding about Federal patronage in the city of New York, theydid not think that the controversy was worth the price; hence therequest was denied. The result was the defeat of Conkling and Platt, andthe election of two Administration Republicans, Warner Miller and E. G. Lapham. 

This foolhardy act of Conkling's had the unfortunate effect ofeliminating him from public life, at least so far as an activeparticipation in public affairs was concerned. But this was not true ofMr. Platt. He was determined to come to the front again, and in this hewas successful. At the very next National Convention (1884) he turned upas one of the Blaine delegates from New York, and was one of thespeakers that seconded Mr. Blaine's nomination. That was something Mr. Conkling never could have been induced to do. He was proud, haughty anddictatorial. He would never forget a friend, nor forgive an enemy. Tohis friends he was loyal and true. To his enemies he was bitter andunrelenting. For his friends he could not do too much. From his enemieshe would ask no quarter and would give none. More than one man ofnational reputation has been made to feel his power, and suffer theconsequences resulting from his ill-will and displeasure. But for theunfriendliness of Mr. Conkling, Mr. Blaine no doubt would have attainedthe acme of his ambition in reaching the Presidency of the UnitedStates. It was Mr. Blaine's misfortune to have made an enemy of the oneman who, by a stroke of destiny, was so situated as to make it possiblefor him to prevent the realization of Mr. Blaine's life ambition. It wasdue more to Mr. Conkling than to any other one man that Mr. Blaine wasdefeated for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1876, --the yearin which he could have been elected had he been nominated. 

Mr. Conkling was too much of a party man to support the Democraticticket under any circumstances, hence, in 1884, when Mr. Blaine was atlength nominated for the Presidency, Mr. Conkling gave the ticket thebenefit of his silence. That silence proved to be fatal. In consequenceof Mr. Conkling's silence and apparent indifference in 1884, Mr. Blainelost New York, the pivotal State, and was defeated by Mr. Cleveland forthe Presidency. The falling off in the Republican vote in Mr. Conkling'shome county alone caused the loss of the State and of the Presidency ofthe United States to the Republican party. 

The quarrel between Blaine and Conkling originated when both of themwere members of the House of Representatives. In a controversy that tookplace between them on the floor of the House Mr. Blaine referred to Mr. Conkling as the member from New York with the "turkey gobbler strut. "That remark made the two men enemies for life. That remark wounded Mr. Conkling's pride; and he could never be induced to forgive the one whohad so hurt him. 

As a United States Senator Conkling was both felt and feared. No Senatorever desired to get into a controversy with him, because he was not onlya speaker of great power and eloquence, but as a debater he was cuttingand scathing in his irony. Senator Lamar, of Mississippi, who as aneloquent orator compared favorably with the best on both sides of theChamber, had the misfortune to get into a controversy on one occasionwith the distinguished New York Senator. In repelling an accusation thatthe Senator from Mississippi had made against him, Mr. Conkling said:"If it were not that this is the United States Senate I wouldcharacterize the member from Mississippi as a coward and aprevaricator. "

If those words had been uttered by any other Senator than RoscoeConkling it is more than probable that he would have been severelyreprimanded; no other Senator, however, cared to incur Conkling'sdispleasure by becoming the author of a resolution for that purpose. 

Senator John J. Ingalls, of Kansas, was the only other Senator that evercame near holding a similar position; for, while he was by no means theequal of Conkling, he was both eloquent and sarcastic. For that reasonSenators were not anxious to get into a controversy with him. On oneoccasion it seemed that he came near getting into a dispute with SenatorManderson, of Nebraska. While the Senator from Nebraska was delivering aspeech, he made a remark to which the Senator from Kansas tookexceptions. When the Kansas Senator arose, --flushed with anger, andlaboring under intense excitement, --to correct what he declared in wordsthat were more forcible than elegant, to be a misstatement of hisposition, the Senator from Nebraska did not hesitate for a moment toaccept the correction, remarking by way of explanation and apology thathe had not distinctly heard the remark the Senator from Kansas had made, and to which he was alluding when interrupted. 

"Then, " retorted the Senator from Kansas, "that is your misfortune. "

"I admit, " the Senator from Nebraska quickly replied, "that it is alwaysa misfortune not to hear the Senator from Kansas. "

The unfortunate controversy between President Garfield and SenatorConkling resulted in a national calamity. The bitterness that grew outof it had the effect of bringing a crank on the scene of action. Earlyin July, 1881, --when the President, in company with Mr. Blaine, wasleaving Washington for his summer vacation, --this cowardly crank, whohad waited at the railroad station for the arrival of the distinguishedparty, fired the fatal shot which a few months later terminated theearthly career of a President who was beloved by his countrymen withoutregard to party or section. 

Whatever may have been the merits of this unfortunate controversy, itresulted in the political death of one and the physical death of theother; thus depriving the country of the valuable services of two of thegreatest and most intellectual men that our country had ever produced. 

When the President died I was at my home, Natchez, Mississippi, where amemorial meeting was held in honor of his memory, participated in byboth races and both parties. I had the honor of being one of thespeakers on that occasion. That part of my remarks which seemed toattract most attention and made the deepest impression was thedeclaration that it was my good fortune, as a member of the NationalHouse of Representatives, to sit within the sound of his eloquent voiceon a certain memorable occasion when he declared that there could neverbe a permanent peace and union between the North and the South until theSouth would admit that, in the controversy that brought on the War theNorth was right and the South was wrong. Notwithstanding thatdeclaration, in which he was unquestionably right, I ventured theopinion that, had he been spared to serve out the term for which he hadbeen elected, those who had voted for him would have been proud of thefact that they had done so, while those who had voted against him wouldhave had no occasion to regret that he had been elected. 

Upon the death of President Garfield Vice-President Arthur, --who hadbeen named for that office by Mr. Conkling, --became President; but he, too, soon incurred the displeasure of Mr. Conkling. Mr. Conkling hadoccasion to make a request of the President which the latter could notsee his way clear to grant. For this Mr. Conkling never forgave him. ThePresident tried hard afterwards to regain Mr. Conkling's friendship, butin vain. He even went so far, it is said, as to tender Mr. Conkling aseat on the bench of the Supreme Court; but the tender wascontemptuously declined. 

President Arthur aspired to succeed himself as President. As a whole hegave the country a splendid administration, for which he merited arenomination and election as his own successor. While there was a strongand well-organized effort to secure for him a renomination, theprobabilities are that the attitude of Mr. Conkling towards himcontributed largely to his defeat; although the ex-Senator took noactive part in the contest. But, as in the case of Mr. Blaine, hissilence, no doubt, was fatal to Mr. Arthur's renomination. 

CHAPTER XXII

THE NATIONAL CAMPAIGN OF 1884

When the Forty-seventh Congress expired March 4th, 1883, I returned tomy home at Natchez, Mississippi. 1884 was the year of the Presidentialelection. Early in the year it was made clear that there was to be abitter fight for the Presidential nomination. 

President Arthur was a candidate to succeed himself; but Mr. Blaine, itwas conceded, would be the leading candidate before the Convention. Senator John Sherman was also a candidate. It was generally believedthat Senator Edmunds of Vermont would get a majority of the delegatesfrom the New England States. Mr. Blaine was weaker in his own section, New England, than in any other part of the country except the South. TheSouth, however, had somewhat relented in its opposition to him, aspreviously stated, in consequence of which he had a stronger supportfrom that section than in any of his previous contests for thenomination; to this fact may be attributed his nomination by theConvention. That support, it was believed, was due more to a deferenceto public opinion at the North, --the section that must be depended uponto elect the ticket, --than confidence in Mr. Blaine. 

The delegation from my own State, Mississippi, was, with one exception, solid in its support of President Arthur. The one exception was Hon. H. C. Powers, one of the delegates from the first district. 

Two active, aggressive, able and brilliant young men had just enteredthe field of national politics, both of them having been electeddelegates to this convention. Those men were Theodore Roosevelt, of NewYork, and H. C. Lodge, of Massachusetts. Both were vigorously opposed tothe nomination of Mr. Blaine. Roosevelt's election as a delegate fromNew York was in the nature of a national surprise. Mr. Blaine wasbelieved to be very strong in that State. The public, therefore, was notprepared for the announcement that Theodore Roosevelt, --an anti-Blaineman, --had defeated Senator Warner Miller, --the able and popular leaderof the Blaine forces in that State, --as delegate to the NationalConvention from the State at large. The Blaine leaders were brought to arealization of the fact, that, in consequence of their unexpected defeatin New York, it was absolutely necessary, in order to make sure of thenomination of their candidate, to retain the support they had among theSouthern delegates. 

With that end in view the National Committee, in which the Blaine menhad a majority, selected a Southern man, Hon. Powell Clayton, ofArkansas, for temporary chairman of the Convention. The anti-Blainemen, --under the leadership of Messrs. Roosevelt, Lodge, Hoar, Hanna, Geo. William Curtis and others, --decided to select another Southern manto run against Clayton. For that purpose a conference washeld;--composed of many of the active supporters of Arthur, Sherman, andEdmunds, --to select the man to put up against Clayton. 

I did not attend the conference. Senator Hoar suggested my name andinsisted that I was the man best fitted for the position. After a briefdiscussion it was decided unanimously to select me. A committee wasappointed, of which ex-Governor Pinchback, of Louisiana, was chairman, to wait on me and inform me of what had been done, and to insist upon myacceptance of the distinguished honor which had thus been conferred uponme. Another committee was appointed, --of which Hon. M. A. Hanna, of Ohio, was chairman, to poll the Convention to find out the strength of themovement. This committee subsequently reported that Clayton would bedefeated and Lynch elected by a majority of about thirty-five votes. Fortwo reasons I had some doubt about the propriety of allowing my name tobe thus used. First, I doubted the wisdom of the movement. It had beenthe uniform custom to allow the National Committee to select thetemporary chairman of the Convention, and I was inclined to the opinionthat a departure from that custom might not be a wise step. Second, Idid not think it could possibly win. My opinion was that a number ofdelegates that might otherwise vote for me could not be induced to votein favor of breaking what had been a custom since the organization ofthe party. 

I did not come to a definite decision until the morning of the day thatthe Convention was to be organized. Just before that body was called toorder I decided to confer with Maj. William McKinley and Hon. M. A. Hanna, of Ohio, and act upon their advice. McKinley was for Blaine andHanna was for Sherman, but my confidence in the two men was such that Ibelieved their advice would not be influenced by their personalpreference for the Presidential nomination. I did not know at that timethat Mr. Hanna had taken an active part in the deliberations of theconference that resulted in my selection for temporary chairman of theConvention. I first consulted Major McKinley. I had served with him inCongress and had become very much attached to him. He frankly statedthat, since he was a Blaine man, he would be obliged to vote against me, but he told me that this was an opportunity that comes to a man but oncein a lifetime. 

"If you decline, " he said, "the anti-Blaine men will probably put upsomeone else who would, no doubt, receive the same vote that you wouldreceive. If it is possible for them to elect anyone, I know of no man Iwould rather have them thus honor than you. While, therefore, I shallvote against you and hope you will not be elected, --simply because I ama Blaine man, and a vote for you means a vote against Blaine, --I shallnot advise you to decline the use of your name. "

I then approached Mr. Hanna, who appeared to be surprised that Ihesitated about consenting to the use of my name. 

"We have you elected, " he said, "by a majority of about thirty-five. Youcannot decline the use of your name, for two reasons; first, since weknow we have the votes necessary to elect you, should you now declinethe public would never believe otherwise than that you had beenimproperly influenced. This you cannot afford. In the second place, itwould not be treating us fairly. We have selected you in perfect goodfaith, with the expectation that you would allow your name to be thusused; or, if not, you would have declined in ample time to enable us toreconvene, and select someone else. To decline now, on the eve of theelection, when it is impossible for us to confer and agree upon anotherman for the position, would be manifestly unfair to us as well as toyour own candidate for the Presidential nomination, whose chances maybe injuriously affected thereby. "

This argument was both impressive and effective. I then and theredecided to allow my name to be used. I learned afterwards that it wasunder the direction and management of Mr. Hanna that the Convention hadbeen so carefully and accurately polled. That his poll was entirelycorrect was demonstrated by the result. This also established the factthat as an organizer Mr. Hanna was a master, which was subsequentlyproved when he managed Mr. McKinley's campaign both for the nominationand election to the Presidency in 1896. 

When the Convention was called to order, and the announcement was madethat the National Committee had selected Hon. Powell Clayton, ofArkansas, for temporary chairman of the Convention, an attractive youngman in the Massachusetts delegation was recognized by the chair. He gavehis name, as H. C. Lodge. He said he rose to place the name of anothergentleman in nomination; and, after making a neat and appropriate speechin commendation of his candidate, --a speech that created a veryfavorable impression, --he named ex-Congressman John R. Lynch, ofMississippi, whom he believed to be a suitable man for the position. Theball was then opened. This was an indication of a combination of thefield against Blaine. Many speeches were made on both sides, but theywere temperate in tone, and free from bitterness. Among those that spokein support of my candidacy were Messrs. Theodore Roosevelt, and Geo. William Curtis, of New York. When the debate was over the chairmandirected that the States be called in alphabetical order, --the roll ofdelegates from each State to be called, so as to allow each individualdelegate to cast his own vote. When Mississippi was reached, I joinedwith H. C. Powers, the Blaine member of the delegation, in voting forClayton. The result was just about what Mr. Hanna said it would be. 

The Blaine men were discouraged and the anti-Blaine men were jubilant. It was claimed by the latter, and apprehended by the former, that it wasindicative of Mr. Blaine's defeat for the nomination. It certainlylooked that way, but the result of the election for the temporarychairmanship proved to be misleading. Mr. Hanna's poll was not to findout how many delegates would vote for the nomination of Mr. Blaine, buthow many would vote for Lynch for temporary chairman. On that point hispoll was substantially accurate. It was assumed that every Blaine manwould vote for Mr. Clayton. This is where the mistake was made. Itturned out that there were some Blaine men, especially from the South, that voted for Lynch. The result, therefore, was not, as it was hoped itwould be, an accurate test of the strength of the Blaine andanti-Blaine forces in the Convention. 

Since my election had not been anticipated, --at least, by me, --my speechof acceptance was necessarily brief. I presided over the deliberationsof the Convention the greater part of two days, when Hon. John B. Henderson, of Missouri, was introduced as the permanent chairman. Thisis the same Henderson, who, as a Republican United States Senator fromMissouri, voted against the conviction of President Andrew Johnson, whohad been impeached by the House of Representatives for high crimes andmisdemeanors in office. The Democratic Senators needed but seven votesfrom the Republican side of the chamber to prevent conviction. Theysucceeded in getting the exact number, Senator Henderson being one. Heappears to have been the only one of that number that politicallysurvived that act. All others soon passed into political oblivion;although several of them subsequently identified themselves with theDemocratic party. While it may be said that Senator Henderson survivedthe act, it is true that his election as a delegate to the NationalRepublican Convention of 1884 and his selection as the permanentchairman thereof are the only prominent illustrations of that fact. 

During the deliberations of the Convention Mr. Bishop, one of thedelegates from Massachusetts, introduced a resolution to change thebasis of representation in future National Conventions of the party. Hisplan was to make the number of Republican votes cast, counted, certifiedand returned at the last preceding National election, the basis ofrepresentation in succeeding National Conventions. 

Hon. W. O. Bradley, of Kentucky, led off in a very able, eloquent, andconvincing speech in opposition to the resolution. The colored delegatesfrom the South selected me to present their side of the question. Forthat purpose I was recognized by the chair, and spoke against theresolution. In the first place I called attention to the fact that ifelections were fair, and the official count honest in every State, theprobabilities were that there would be no occasion for the proposedchange. That the change proposed would result in a material reduction inthe representation in future conventions chiefly from Southern Stateswas because the greater part of the Republican votes in some of saidStates were suppressed by violence or nullified by fraud. The effect ofthe change proposed would be simply to make such questionable methodsthe basis of representation in future Republican National Conventions. This, I claimed, the Republican party could not afford to do. At theconclusion of my remarks the resolution was withdrawn by its author, Mr. Bishop, who came over to my seat, and congratulated me upon the way inwhich I had presented the case; stating at the same time that my speechhad convinced him that his proposition was a mistake. 

After a hotly contested fight Mr. Blaine was finally nominated. SenatorJohn A. Logan, of Illinois, was named as the candidate forVice-President. It looked as if the time had at last come when thebrilliant statesman from Maine would have the acme of his ambitioncompletely realized. 

I was honored by the delegation from my State with being made a memberof the National Committee, and also a member of the committee that wasnamed to wait on Mr. Blaine and notify him officially of his nomination. The notification committee went all the way to Mr. Blaine's home, Augusta, Maine, to discharge that duty. 

The ceremony of notification took place in Mr. Blaine's front yard. Theweather was fine. The notification speech was delivered by the chairman, Senator Henderson, to which Mr. Blaine briefly responded, promising tomake a more lengthy reply in the form of a letter of acceptance. At theconclusion of the ceremony he called me to one side and asked what wasthe outlook in Mississippi. I informed him that he could easily carrythe State by a substantial majority if we could have a fair election andan honest count; but that under the existing order of things this wouldnot be possible, and that the State would be returned against him. 

"Oh, no, " he replied, "you are mistaken about that. Mr. Lamar will seethat I get a fair count in Mississippi. "

I confess that this remark surprised me very much. 

"Mr. Blame, " I replied, "you may understand the political situation inMississippi better than I do, but I know whereof I speak when I say thatMr. Lamar would not if he could and could not if he would, secure you afair count in Mississippi. The State will be returned against you. "

"You will find, " he said, "that you are mistaken. Mr. Lamar will seethat I get a fair count in Mississippi. "

Mr. Lamar not only made an aggressive campaign against Mr. Blaine, butit was chiefly through his influence and efforts that the State wasreturned against Mr. Blaine by a very large majority. And yet no one whoknew Mr. Lamar could justly accuse him of being an ingrate. He wasessentially an appreciative man; as he never failed to demonstratewhenever and wherever it was possible for him to do so. No one knewbetter than did Mr. Lamar that he was under deep and lasting obligationsto Mr. Blaine; but it seems that with all his wisdom and politicalsagacity and foresight Mr. Blaine was unable to distinguish between apersonal and a political obligation. Mr. Lamar felt that what Mr. Blainehad done for him was personal, not political, and that ifhis, --Lamar's, --party was in any respect the beneficiary thereof, itwas merely incidental. At any rate, it was utterly impossible for him toserve Mr. Blaine in a political way. Had he made the effort to do so henot only would have subjected himself to the accusation of partytreachery, but it would have resulted in his own political downfall. Toexpect any ambitious man to make such a sacrifice as this was contraryto human nature. 

The truth was that Mr. Blaine had been chiefly instrumental in bringingabout a condition of affairs at the South which made it impossible forany of his Democratic or Republican friends in that section to be of anymaterial service to him at the time he most needed them. And yet, hecould not see this until it was too late. In spite of this he would havebeen elected, but for the fact that he lost the pivotal State of NewYork by a small plurality, about eleven hundred and forty-seven, thereasons for which have been given in a previous chapter. It is thereforesad, but true, that by his own act this able and brilliant statesman, like Henry Clay, died without having reached the acme of hisambition, --the Presidency of the United States. 

CHAPTER XXIII

THE ELECTION OF GROVER CLEVELAND

The Republicans of my district insisted that I make the race forCongress again in 1884, and I decided to do so, although I knew it wouldbe useless for me to do so with any hope of being elected, for I knewthe prospect of success was not as favorable as two years previous. 

Judge Van Eaton, the Democratic candidate for Congressman in 1882, was arepresentative of the better element, and would, therefore, rather bedefeated than be declared elected through the enforcement andapplication of questionable methods. He publicly declared on severaloccasions that, as anxious as he was to be a member of Congress, hewould rather be defeated than have a certificate of election taintedwith fraud. In other words, if he could not be fairly and honestlyelected he preferred to be defeated. He insisted upon a fair electionand an honest count. This was not agreeable to many of his partyassociates. They believed and privately asserted that his opendeclarations on that point not only carried an implied reflection uponhis party in connection with previous elections, but that he was takingan unnecessary risk in his own case. Chiefly for these reasons, theJudge, though a strong and able man, was denied the courtesy of anomination for a second term. It had always been the custom to allow amember to serve at least two terms; but this honor was denied Judge VanEaton, the nomination being given to Honorable T. R. Stockdale, of Pikecounty. 

Stockdale was a different type of a man from Van Eaton. He was inperfect accord with the dominant sentiment of his party. He felt that hehad been nominated to go to Congress, --"peaceably and fairly, " ifpossible, but to go in any event. Then, again, that was the year of thePresidential election, and the Democrats were as confident of successthat year as they had been in 1876 and in 1880. 

For President and Vice-President the candidates were Blaine and Logan, Republicans, and Cleveland and Hendricks, Democrats. 

Mr. Cleveland had the prestige of having been elected Governor of NewYork by a majority of about one hundred thousand. New York was believedto be the pivotal and the decisive State, and that its votes woulddetermine the election for President. That the Republicans, even withsuch a popular man as Mr. Blaine as their candidate, would be able toovercome the immense majority by which Mr. Cleveland had carried theState for Governor was not believed by any Democrat to be possible. TheDemocrats did not take into account any of the local circumstances thatcontributed to such a remarkable result; but they were well known toRepublicans in and out of that State. One of the principal contributorycauses was a determination on the part of thousands of Republican votersin that State to resent at the polls National interference in localState affairs. 

Judge Folger, President Arthur's Secretary of the Treasury, was theRepublican candidate against Mr. Cleveland for the Governorship when thelatter was elected by such an immense majority. It was a well-known factthat Judge Folger could not have been nominated but for the active andaggressive efforts of the National Administration, and of its agents andrepresentatives. The fight for the Republican nomination for Governorthat year was the beginning of the bitter fight between the Blaine andthe Arthur forces in the State for the delegation in 1884. In thenomination of Judge Folger the Blaine men were defeated. To neutralizethe prestige which the Arthur men had thus secured, thousands of theBlaine men, and some who were not Blaine men, but who were against theNational Administration for other reasons, refused to vote for JudgeFolger, and thus allowed the State to go Democratic by default. In 1884, when Mr. Blaine was the candidate of the Republicans for thePresidency, a sufficient number of anti-Blaine men in New York, --in aspirit of retaliation, no doubt, --pursued the same course and thusallowed the State again to go Democratic by default. The loss which Mr. Blaine sustained in the latter case, therefore, was much greater thanthat gained by him in the former. 

But, let the causes, circumstances, and conditions be what they may, there was not a Democrat in Mississippi in 1884 who did not believe thatMr. Cleveland's election to the Presidency was a foregone conclusion. That he would have the support of the Solid South there was no doubt. Those States, they believed, were as certain to be returned Democraticas the sun would rise on the morning of the day of the election. 

Although I accepted the nomination for Congress, I as chairman of theRepublican State Committee, devoted the greater part of my time to thecampaign throughout the State. Mr. Blaine had many warm friends andadmirers among the white men and Democrats in the State, some of thembeing outspoken in their advocacy of his election. In making up theelectoral ticket I made every effort possible to get some of those mento consent to the use of their names. One of them, Joseph N. Carpenter, of my own home town, Natchez, gave his consent to the use of his name. He was one of the solid business men of the town. He was not only alarge property owner but the principal owner of a local steamboat thatwas engaged in the trade on the Mississippi River between Natchez andVicksburg. He was also the principal proprietor of one of thecotton-seed-oil mills of the town. In fact his name was associated withnearly every important enterprise in that community. Socially no familystood higher than his in any part of the South. His accomplished wifewas a Miss Mellen, whose brother, William F. Mellen, was one of the mostbrilliant members of the bar that the State had ever produced. She hadanother brother who acquired quite a distinction as a minister of thegospel. 

When the announcement was made public that Joseph N. Carpenter was to bean elector on the Republican ticket, intense excitement was immediatelycreated. The Democratic press of the State immediately turned theirbatteries upon him. Personal friends called upon him in large numbersand urged him to decline. But he had consented to serve, and he feltthat it was his duty, and ought to be his privilege to do so. Besides, he was a sincere Blaine man. He honestly believed that the election ofMr. Blaine would be conducive to the best interests of the country, theSouth especially. To these appeals, therefore, he turned a deaf ear. Butit was not long before he was obliged to yield to the pressure. The factwas soon made plain to him that, if he allowed his name to remain onthat ticket, the probabilities were that he would be financiallyruined. He would soon find that his boat would be without eitherpassengers or freight; his oil mill would probably be obliged to closebecause there would be no owners of the raw material of whom he couldmake purchases at any price, and even his children at school would, nodoubt, be subjected to taunts and insults, to say nothing of the socialcuts to which his family might be subjected. He was, therefore, broughtto a painful realization of the fact that he was confronted withconditions which he had not fully anticipated. He could then see, as hehad never seen before, that he had been brought face to face with acondition and not a theory. He was thus obliged to make his choicebetween accepting those conditions upon the one hand, and on the otherthe empty and temporary honor of serving as an elector on the BlaineRepublican ticket. His convictions, his manhood and his self-respectwere on one side; his material interests and family obligations were onthe other. His mental condition during that period can better beimagined than described. After giving thoughtful consideration andsleepless nights to the matter, he at length decided to yield to thepressure and decline the use of his name. He informed me of his decisionthrough the medium of a private letter which he said he had written withgreat reluctance and sincere regret. The committee thereupon named Dr. Jackson, of Amite County, an old line Republican, to fill the vacancy. 

It will thus be seen that in pursuing a course that Mr. Blaine thoughtwould place southern Democrats under obligations to him he placed aweapon in the hands of his own personal and political enemies by whichthey were enabled to crush and silence his friends and supporters; forafter all it is not so much the love of fair play, as it is the fear ofpunishment, that actuates the average man in obeying the laws andrespecting the rights and privileges of others. Mr. Blaine's friends andsupporters at the South were the very people who stood most in need ofthat security and protection which can come only through a thorough andimpartial enforcement of laws for the protection of citizens in theexercise and enjoyment of their civil and political rights, as well asthe enforcement of laws for the protection of life, liberty andproperty. 

Judge H. F. Simrall, one of the most brilliant lawyers in the State, --whocame into the Republican party under the leadership of General Alcorn in1869, and who had served as a Justice of the Supreme Court of theState, --made an effort to canvass the State for Mr. Blaine, but hisformer associates, with whom he tried to reason, treated him with suchscanty courtesy that he soon became discouraged and abandoned theeffort. 

There were two factions in the Democratic party, Mr. Lamar being therecognized head of one of them. His political enemies suspected and someof them accused him of being partial to Mr. Blaine. To save himself andhis friends from humiliation and defeat in his own party it wasnecessary for him to dispel that suspicion, and disprove thoseaccusations. With that end in view he made a thorough canvass of theState in the interest of Mr. Cleveland and the Democratic party. TheState was returned for Mr. Cleveland by a large majority, for which Mr. Lamar was in a great measure credited. Mr. Blaine finally saw hismistake, which he virtually admitted in the speech delivered by him athis home immediately after the election; but it was then too late toundo the mischief that had been done. It was like locking the stabledoor after the horse had been stolen. That Mr. Blaine died withouthaving attained the goal of his ambition was due chiefly to his lack offoresight, poor judgment, political blunders, and a lack of thatsagacity and acumen which are so essential in a successful party leader. 

CHAPTER XXIV

INTERVIEW WITH SECRETARY LAMAR ON THE RETAINING OF COLORED MEN IN OFFICE

In selecting his first cabinet Mr. Cleveland did Mr. Lamar and the Stateof Mississippi the honor of making him his Secretary of the Interior. Early in the administration, upon the occasion of my first visit toWashington after the inauguration of Mr. Cleveland, I called onSecretary Lamar to pay him my respects and tender him my congratulationsupon his appointment. When I entered his office he was engaged inconversation with some prominent New York Democrats, Mayor Grace, of NewYork City, being one of the party. The Secretary received me cordially;and, after introducing me to the gentlemen with whom he was conversing, requested me to take a seat in the adjoining room, which was used as hisprivate office, until the departure of the gentlemen with whom he wasthen engaged; remarking at the same time that there was an importantmatter about which he desired to talk with me. 

I had been seated only a short while before he made his appearance. Assoon as he had taken his seat he said:

"Lynch, you have shown me some favors in the past, and I desire tomanifest in a substantial way my appreciation of what you have done forme and the friendly interest you have taken in me. No one knows betterthan I do, or can appreciate more keenly than I can, the value of theservices you have rendered me, and the satisfactory results of yourfriendly interest in me. In saying this I do not wish to even intimatethat you have done anything for me that was inconsistent with theposition occupied by you as an influential leader of the Republicanparty of our State. The truth is, you were, fortunately, placed in sucha position that you were enabled to render a great service to aMississippi Democrat without doing a single act, or giving expression toa single thought, that was not in harmony with your position as a leaderof your own party. That you saw fit to make me, rather than some otherDemocrat, the beneficiary of your partiality is what I keenlyappreciate, highly value and now desire to reciprocate. The Republicanparty is now out of power, and it is likely to remain so for the nextquarter of a century. Fortunately for me I am now so situated that I canreciprocate, in a small measure, the friendly interest you have taken inme in the recent past; and this, I hope, you will allow me to do. I havean office at my disposal that I want you to accept. I know you are apronounced Republican. I neither ask nor expect you to change yourpolitics. Knowing you as I do, it would be useless for me to make such arequest of you even if I desired to have you make such a change. All Ishall ask of you is that you be not offensively active or boldlyaggressive in political matters while you hold a commission from me. Inother words, I want to render you a service without having youcompromise your political standing, and without making the slightestchange in your party affiliations. However, recognizing as you must thedelicacy of the situation resulting from the position I occupy and therelation that I sustain to the administration, you will, I know, refrainfrom saying and doing anything that will place me in an embarrassingposition before the public and before the administration with which I amidentified. The office to which I refer is that of special agent ofpublic lands. The salary is fifteen hundred a year and expenses. Theplace is worth from two thousand to two thousand five hundred a year. Ishall not send you down South, where you may have some unpleasant andembarrassing experiences, but I will send you out into the Black Hills, where you will not be subjected to the slightest inconvenience and whereyou will have very little to do, but make your reports and draw yourpay. If you say you will accept the appointment I shall give immediatedirections for the commission to be made out and you can take the oathof office within the next twenty-four hours. "

Of course I listened with close attention and with deep interest to whatthe honorable Secretary said. When he had finished, I replied in aboutthese words:

"Mr. Secretary, I fully appreciate the friendly interest you manifest inme, and I also appreciate what you are willing to do for me. If I haverendered you any services in the past, I can assure you that they werenot rendered with the expectation that you would thereby be placed underany obligations to me whatever. If I preferred you to others in your ownparty it was because I believed in you the State would have the servicesof one of its best, most brilliant and most eloquent representatives. Itwas the good of the State and the best interests of its people ratherthan the personal advancement of an individual that actuated me. Theexalted position now occupied by you I consider a confirmation of thewisdom of my decision. But the fact cannot be overlooked that while youare an able and influential leader in the Democratic party, I am, thoughnot so able nor so influential, a leader, --locally, if notnationally, --in the Republican party. While I can neither hope norexpect to reach that point of honor and distinction in the Republicanparty that you have reached in the Democratic, I am just as proud ofthe position I occupy to-day as a Republican, as it is possible for youto be of yours as a Democrat. Even if it be true, as you predict--ofcourse I do not agree with you--that the Republican party will be out ofpower for the next quarter of a century, or even if that party shouldnever again come into power, that fact cannot and will not have theslightest weight with me. Therefore, I do not feel that you, as a memberof a National Democratic Administration, can afford to tender me anyposition that I can see my way clear to accept. While I fully and keenlyappreciate your friendly interest in me and your desire and willingnessto serve me, I cannot accept the position you have so gracefullytendered me, nor can I accept any other you may see fit to offer me. 

"But, if you want to render me a service, I can tell you wherein it canbe done, --a service that will be just as much appreciated as any you canpossibly render me. When I was a member of Congress I secured theappointment of quite a number of young colored men to clerkships in thePension Bureau of your department. I understand that all these men haveexcellent records. If you will retain them in their positions I shallfeel that you have repaid me for whatever you may think I have done foryou in the past. "

"That, " the Secretary replied, "is a very reasonable request. Come tosee me again in a day or two and bring a list of their names and I willthen see just what I can do along those lines. "

I then bade Mr. Lamar good-bye and left his office. A few days later Ireturned with the list. But upon that list I had placed the names of twomen who had not been appointed on my recommendation. One was a coloredman, a physician; the other was a white man, a lawyer. The physicianoccupied a position that was in the line of his profession. The lawyerwas a clerk in the Pension Bureau, who had been recently appointed uponthe recommendation of Senator Bruce. The physician had been connectedwith the public service a long time. I knew both men favorably and feltthat it was my duty to save them if in my power. Both were married andhad interesting families. 

When I placed the list in the Secretary's hands he read it over verycarefully, and then said:

"I think I can safely assure you that the name of every one on this listwill be retained except these two"--indicating the colored physician andthe white lawyer. "This physician, " the Secretary said, "is a coloredman, and the husband of a white wife. The lawyer is a white man, and thehusband of a colored wife. I cannot promise you, therefore, that theywill be retained, however capable and efficient they may be. So far as Iam personally concerned, it would make no material difference; I shouldjust as lief retain them as any of the others. But I cannot afford toantagonize public opinion in my State on the question of amalgamation. One of these men, the white lawyer, is from my own State, where he iswell known. His case is recent, and fresh in the public mind. So far ashe is concerned, I can see no escape. With the colored physician it maybe different. He is not from my State and is not known in the State. Idoubt very much if anyone in the State knows anything about him, or isaware of the fact that the position occupied by him is under mydepartment. If attention is not called to his case, I shall let himalone. 

"But with the lawyer it is different. A representative of a Mississippinewspaper that is unfriendly to me is now on the ground. He has a listof all the Republicans, --especially the colored ones, --holding positionsin this department. The name of this lawyer is on that list. It is theintention of the faction his paper represents to bring pressure to bearupon me to force me to turn all of these men out of office for politicalreasons, regardless of their official standing. But, so far as yourfriends are concerned, I shall defy them except in the case of thislawyer, and also in the case of this physician if attention is called tohim. In their cases, or either of them, I shall be obliged, for reasonsalready given; to yield. "

Strange to say, attention was never called to the case of the physicianand he remained in office during the whole of Mr. Cleveland's firstadministration. I made a strong appeal to the Secretary in behalf of myfriend, the white lawyer. I said in substance:

"Mr. Secretary, you ought not to allow this deserving man to be punishedsimply because he was brave enough to legally marry the woman of hischoice. You know him personally. You know him to be an able andbrilliant young man. You know that he is now discharging the responsibleduties of the position which he occupies in your department with creditto himself, and to the satisfaction of his official superiors. You knowthat you have not a better nor a more capable official connected withthe public service than you have in this able young man. Under thesecircumstances it is your duty, as the responsible head of yourdepartment, to protect him and his estimable family from this grosswrong, --this cruel injustice. For no one knows better than you do, Mr. Secretary, that this alleged opposition to amalgamation is bothhypocritical and insincere. If a natural antipathy existed between thetwo races no law would be necessary to keep them apart. The law, then, against race intermarriage has a tendency to encourage and promote raceintermixture, rather than to discourage and prevent it; because underexisting circumstances local sentiment in our part of the countrytolerates the intermixture, provided that the white husband and fatherdoes not lead to the altar in honorable wedlock the woman he may haveselected as the companion of his life, and the mother of his children. If, instead of prohibiting race intermarriage, the law would compelmarriage in all cases of concubinage, such a law would have a tendencyto discourage race intermixture; because it is only when they marryaccording to the forms of law that the white husband and father issocially and otherwise ostracized. Under the common law, --which is theestablished and recognized rule of action in all of our States in theabsence of a local statute by which a different rule is established, --avalid marriage is nothing more than a civil contract entered intobetween two persons capable of making contracts. But under our form ofgovernment marriage, like everything else, is what public opinion seesfit to make it. 

"It is true that in our part of the country no union of the sexes islooked upon as a legal marriage unless the parties to the union aremarried according to the form prescribed by the local statutes. Whilethat is true it is also true that there are many unions, which, but forthe local statutes, would be recognized and accepted as legal marriagesand which, even under existing conditions, are tolerated by localsentiment and sanctioned by custom. Such unions are known to exist, andyet are presumed not to exist. None are so blind as those who can seebut will not see. One of the unwritten but most effective and rigid lawsof our section, --which everyone respects and never violates, --is that aman's private and domestic life must never be made the subject ofpolitical or public discussion or newspaper notoriety. The man, who atany time or under any provocation will so far forget himself as to sayor do anything that can be construed into a violation of that unwrittenlaw, will be likely to pay the penalty with his own life and that, too, without court, judge, or jury; and the one by whom the penalty may beinflicted will stand acquitted and justified before the bar of publicopinion. If, then, this able and brilliant young man, --whose bread andmeat you now have at your disposal, --had lived in concubinage with themother of his children, no law against custom and tradition would havebeen violated, and no one would suggest that he be punished for what hehad done. Knowing these facts as you do, you ought to rise to thedignity of the occasion and protect this good and innocent man from thecruel, unjust, and unreasonable demands that are now being made upon youto dispense with his valuable services. This gentleman, to my personalknowledge, is not only worthy of whatever you may do for him, but hiselegant and accomplished wife is one of the finest and most cultivatedladies it has ever been my good fortune to know. She is not onlyremarkably intelligent, but she is a woman of fine natural ability andof superior attainments. She is such a brilliant conversationalist, --sointeresting, so instructive and so entertaining, --that it is a greatpleasure and satisfaction to have the opportunity of being in herdelightful presence, and of sitting within the sound of her sweet, charming, and musical voice. In physical development she is as nearperfection as it is possible for a woman to be. I have had the goodfortune of knowing her well for a number of years, and I have alwaysadmired her for her excellent traits and admirable qualities. She is awoman that would ornament and grace the parlor and honor the home of thefinest and best man that ever lived, regardless of his race ornationality or the station he may occupy in life, however exalted thatstation may be. She married the man of her choice because she hadlearned to love and honor him, and because, in her opinion, he possessedeverything, except wealth, that was calculated to contribute to hercomfort, pleasure and happiness. In a recent conversation I had withher, her beautiful, large dark eyes sparkled with delight, and her sweetand lovely face was suffused with a smile of satisfaction when sheinformed me that she had never had occasion to regret her selection of ahusband. She was then the mother of several very handsome children, towhom she pointed with pardonable pride. The products of such a unioncould not possibly be otherwise than attractive, for the father was aremarkably handsome man, while the mother was a personification of thetypical southern beauty. The man was devoted to his family. How could hebe otherwise? Husband and wife were so strongly attached to each otherthat both were more than willing to make any sacrifice that cruel fatemight have in store for them. 

"I therefore appeal to you, Mr. Secretary, in behalf of this charmingand accomplished woman and her sweet and lovely children. In taking thisposition I am satisfied you will have nothing to lose, for you will notonly have right on your side, but the interest of the public service aswell. Rise, then, to the dignity of the occasion and assert and maintainyour manhood and your independence. You have done this on previousoccasions, why not do it again? As a member of the Senate of the UnitedStates you openly and publicly defied the well-known public sentiment ofyour party in the State which you then had the honor in part torepresent, when you disregarded and repudiated the mandate of the StateLegislature, instructing you to vote for the free and unlimited coinageof silver. It was that vote and the spirit of manly independence shownby you on that occasion that placed you in the high and responsibleposition you now occupy, the duties of which your friends know will bedischarged in a way that will reflect credit upon yourself and honorupon your State. 

"You again antagonized the dominant sentiment of the Democratic party ofyour State when you pronounced an eloquent eulogy upon the life andcharacter of Charles Sumner. And yet you were able to overcome thebitter opposition you had encountered on each of those occasions. Youcan do the same thing in this case. I therefore ask you to promise methat this worthy and competent public servant shall not be discharged aslong as his official record remains good. "

The Secretary listened to my remarks with close and respectfulattention. When I had finished he said:

"I agree with nearly all you have said. My sympathies are with yourfriend and it is my desire to retain him in the position he now sosatisfactorily fills. But when you ask me to disregard and openly defythe well-known sentiment of the white people of my State on the questionof amalgamation, I fear you make a request of me which I cannot safelygrant, however anxious I may be to serve you. I could defend myselfbefore a public audience in my State on the silver question and on theSumner eulogy much more successfully than on the question ofamalgamation; although in the main, I recognize the force and admit thetruth of what you have said upon that subject. Hypocritical andinsincere as the claim may be with reference to maintaining the absoluteseparation of the two races, the sentiment on that subject is one whichno man who is ambitious to have a political future can safely afford toignore, --especially under the new order of things about which you arewell posted. While I am sorry for your friend, and should be pleased togrant your request in his case, I cannot bring myself to a realizationof the fact that it is one of sufficient national importance to justifyme in taking the stand you have so forcibly and eloquently suggested. "

This ended the interview. I went to the home of my friend that evening, and informed him and his amiable wife of what had been said and done. They thanked me warmly for my efforts in their behalf, and assured methat there was a future before them, and that in the battle of life theywere determined to know no such word as "fail. " A few weeks later myfriend's official connection with the public service was suddenlyterminated. He and his family then left Washington for Kansas, I think. About a year thereafter he had occasion to visit Washington on business. I happened to be there at that time. He called to see me and informed methat, instead of regretting what had occurred, he had every reason to bethankful for it, since he had done very much better than he could havedone had he remained at Washington. I was, of course, very muchgratified to hear this and warmly congratulated him. Since that time, however, I have not seen him nor any member of his family, nor have Iheard anything from them except indirectly, although I have made anumber of unsuccessful efforts to find them. I am inclined to theopinion that, like thousands of people of the same class, their identitywith the colored race has long since ceased and that they have beenabsorbed by the white race, as I firmly believe will be true of thegreat mass of colored Americans. It is to prevent any embarrassmentgrowing out of the probability of this condition that has actuated me innot making public the names of the parties in question. No good couldcome of the disclosure, and much harm might follow. I can, however, mostpositively assure the public that this is not a fiction, --that it is nota mere picture that is painted from the vividness of my imagination, butthat the story as related in all its details is based upon actualoccurrences. 

With this one exception, Secretary Lamar retained in office every clerkwhose name appeared on the list that I gave him. They were not onlyretained throughout the Administration but many of them were promoted. It can be said to the credit of Secretary Lamar that during hisadministration very few changes were made in the clerical force of thedepartment for political reasons, and, as a rule, the clerks weretreated with justice, fairness and impartiality. 

CHAPTER XXV

THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS BILL

It was during the administration of President Harrison that anothereffort was made to secure the enactment by Congress of the necessarylegislation for the effective enforcement of the war amendments to theNational Constitution, --a Federal Elections Bill. Mr. Lodge, ofMassachusetts, was the author of the bill. But the fact was soondeveloped that there were so many Republicans in and out of Congress wholacked the courage of their convictions that it would be impossible tosecure favorable action. In fact there were three classes of white menat the South who claimed to be Republicans who used their influence todefeat that contemplated legislation. The white men at the South whoacted with the Republican party at that time were divided into fourclasses. 

First, those who were Republicans from principle and conviction--becausethey were firm believers in the principles, doctrines, and policies forwhich the party stood, and were willing to remain with it in adversityas well as in prosperity, --in defeat as well as in victory. This class, I am pleased to say, while not the most noisy and demonstrative, comprised over seventy-five per cent, of the white membership of theparty in that part of the country. 

Second, a small but noisy and demonstrative group, comprising aboutfifteen per cent of the remainder, who labored under the honest, buterroneous, impression that the best and most effective way to build up astrong Republican party at the South was to draw the color line in theparty. In other words, to organize a Republican party to be composedexclusively of white men, to the entire exclusion of colored men. Whatthose men chiefly wanted, --or felt the need of for themselves and theirfamilies, --was social recognition by the better element of the whitepeople of their respective localities. They were eager, therefore, tobring about such a condition of things as would make it possible forthem to be known as Republicans without subjecting themselves and theirfamilies to the risk of being socially ostracized by their whiteDemocratic neighbors. And then again those men believed then, and someof them still believe or profess to believe, that southern Democratswere and are honest and sincere in the declaration that the presence ofthe colored men in the Republican party prevented southern white menfrom coming into it. "Draw the race line against the coloredman, --organize a white Republican party, --and you will find thatthousands of white men who now act with the Democratic party will jointhe Republicans. " Some white Republicans believed that the men by whomthese declarations were made were honest and sincere, --and it may bethat some of them were, --but it appears not to have occurred to themthat if the votes of the colored men were suppressed the minority whitevote, unaided and unprotected, would be powerless to prevent theapplication of methods which would nullify any organized effort on theirpart. In other words, nothing short of an effective national law, toprotect the weak against the strong and the minority of the whitesagainst the aggressive assaults of the majority of that race, wouldenable the minority of the whites to make their power and influenceeffective and potential; and even then it could be effectively done onlyin coöperation with the blacks. Then again, they seemed to have lostsight of the fact, --or perhaps they did not know it to be a fact, --thatmany leading southern Democrats are insincere in their declarations uponthe so-called race question. They keep that question before the publicfor political and party reasons only, because they find it to be themost effective weapon they can use to hold the white men in politicalsubjection. The effort, therefore, to build up a "white" Republicanparty at the South has had a tendency, under existing circumstances, todiscourage a strong Republican organization in that section. But, evenif it were possible for such an organization to have a potentialexistence, it could not be otherwise than ephemeral, because it would bewholly out of harmony with the fundamental principles and doctrines ofthe national organization whose name it had appropriated. It would be inpoint of fact a misnomer and, therefore, wholly out of place as one ofthe branches of the national organization which stands for, defends, andadvocates the civil and political equality of all American citizens, without regard to race, color, nationality, or religion. Anyorganization, therefore, claiming to be a branch of the Republicanparty, but which had repudiated and denounced the fundamental and sacredcreed of that organization, would be looked upon by the public as aclose, selfish and local machine that was brought into existence toserve the ends, and satisfy the selfish ambition of the promoters andorganizers of the corporation. Yet there were a few well-meaning andhonest white men in some of the Southern States who were disposed, through a mistaken sense of political necessity, to give such a movementthe benefit of their countenance. But the movement has been a lamentablefailure in States where it has been tried, and it cannot be otherwise inStates where it may yet be tried. Men who were in sympathy with amovement of this sort took a pronounced stand against the proposedFederal Elections Bill, and used what influence they had to prevent itspassage; their idea being that, if passed, it would have a tendency toprevent the accomplishment of the purposes they had in contemplation. 

Third, a group that consisted of a still smaller number who wereRepublicans for revenue only, --for the purpose of getting office. If anoffice were in sight they would be quite demonstrative in their advocacyof the Republican party and its principles; but if they were notofficially recognized, their activities would not only cease, but theywould soon be back into the fold of the Democracy. But should they beofficially recognized they would be good, faithful, and loyalRepublicans, --at least so far as words were concerned, --until theyceased to be officials, when they would cease at the same time to beRepublicans. Men of this class were, of course, opposed to the proposedlegislation for the enforcement of the war amendments to theConstitution. 

Fourth, a group that consisted of an insignificantly small number ofwhite men who claimed to be national Republicans and localDemocrats, --that is, they claimed that they voted for the Republicancandidate for President every four years, but for Democrats in all otherelections. Of course they were against the proposed legislation. Thesemen succeeded in inducing some well-meaning Republican members ofCongress, like Senator Washburne, of Minnesota, for instance, to believethat the passage of such a bill would have a tendency to prevent thebuilding up of a strong Republican organization at the South. Thenagain, the free silver question was before the public at that time. TheRepublican majority in the Senate was not large. Several of those whohad been elected as Republicans were free silver men. On that questionthey were in harmony with a majority of the Democrats, and out ofharmony with the great majority of Republicans. The Free SilverRepublicans, therefore, were not inclined to support a measure that wasparticularly offensive to their friends and allies on the silverquestion. After a careful canvass of the Senate it was developed thatthe Republican leaders could not safely count on the support of any oneof the Free Silver Republicans in their efforts to pass the bill, and, since they had the balance of power, any further effort to pass it wasabandoned. It was then made plain to the friends and supporters of thatmeasure that no further attempt would be made in that direction for along time, if ever. 

I wrote and had published in the Washington _Post_ a letter in which Itook strong grounds in favor of having the representation inCongress, --from States where the colored men had been practicallydisfranchised through an evasion of the Fifteenth Amendment, --reducedin the manner prescribed by the Fourteenth Amendment. In that letter Imade an effort to answer every argument that had been made in oppositionto such a proposition. It had been argued by some fairly good lawyers, for instance, that the subsequent ratification of the FifteenthAmendment had so modified the Fourteenth as to take away from Congressthis optional and discretionary power which had been previouslyconferred upon it by the Fourteenth Amendment. I tried in thatletter, --and I think I succeeded, --to answer the argument on that point. It was also said that if Congress were to take such a step it wouldthereby give its sanction to the disfranchisement of the colored men inthe States where that had been done. This I think I succeeded in provingwas untrue and without foundation. The truth is that the only materialdifference between the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments on thisparticular point is that, subsequent to the ratification of theFourteenth and prior to the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment, aState could legally disfranchise white or colored men on account of raceor color, but, since the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment, thiscannot be legally done. If, then, Congress had the constitutional rightunder the Fourteenth Amendment to punish a State in the manner thereinprescribed, for doing what the State then had a legal andconstitutional right to do, I cannot see why Congress has not now thesame power and authority to inflict the same punishment upon the Statefor doing or permitting to be done what it now has no legal andconstitutional right to do. 

No State, in my opinion, should be allowed to take advantage of its ownwrongs, and thus, by a wrongful act, augment its own power and influencein the government. To allow a majority of the white men in the State ofMississippi, for instance, to appropriate to themselves throughquestionable methods the representative strength of the coloredpopulation of that State, excluding the latter from all participation inthe selection of the representatives in Congress, is a monstrous wrong, the continuance of which should not be tolerated. 

For every crime there must be a punishment; for every wrong there mustbe a remedy, and for every grievance there must be a redress. That thisstate of things is wrong and unjust, if not unlawful, no fair-mindedperson will deny. It is not only wrong and unjust to the colored peopleof the State, who are thus denied a voice in the government under whichthey live and to support which they are taxed, but it also involves agrave injustice to the States in which the laws are obeyed and theNational Constitution, --including the war amendments to the same, --isrespected and enforced. I am aware of the fact that it is claimed bythose who are responsible for what is here complained of that, whilethe acts referred to may be an evasion if not a violation of the spiritof the Constitution, yet, since they do not violate the letter of theConstitution the complaining parties are without a remedy, and thereforehave no redress. This contention is not only weak in logic but unsoundin law, even as construed by the Supreme Court of the United States, which tribunal seems to be the last to which an appeal can besuccessfully made, having for its object the enforcement of theConstitution and laws so far as they relate to the political and civilrights of the colored Americans. That a State can do by indirection whatit cannot do directly, is denied even by the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates. 

That doctrine was clearly and distinctly set forth in a decision of theCourt rendered by Mr. Justice Strong, which was concurred in by amajority of his associates. In that decision it was held thataffirmative State action is not necessary to constitute racediscrimination by the State. In other words, in order to constituteaffirmative State action in violation of the Constitutional mandateagainst distinction and discrimination based on race or color, it is notnecessary that the State should pass a law for that purpose. The State, the Court declared, acts through its agents, Legislative, Executive andJudicial. Whenever an agent or representative of the State acts, hisacts are binding upon the State, and the effect is the same as if theState had passed a law for that purpose. If a judge, for example, in theselection of jurors to serve in his court should knowingly andintentionally allow a particular race to be excluded from such serviceon account of race or color, the effect would be the same as if theState, through its Legislature, had passed a law for that purpose. Thecolored men in the States complained of, have been disfranchised inviolation of the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution, either byaffirmative State action, or through and by the State's agents andrepresentatives. Their acts, therefore, constitute State action as fullyas if the Legislature had passed a law for that purpose. 

CHAPTER XXVI

MISSISSIPPI AND THE NULLIFICATION OF THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT

The defeat or abandonment of the Lodge Federal Elections Bill wasequivalent to a declaration that no further attempts would be made for agood while, at least, to enforce by appropriate legislation the waramendments to the Constitution. Southern Democrats were not slow intaking advantage of the knowledge of that fact. 

My own State, Mississippi, was the first to give legal effect to thepractical nullification of the Fifteenth Amendment. On that question theDemocratic party in the State was divided into two factions. The radicalfaction, under the leadership of Senator George, advocated the adoptionand enforcement of extreme methods. The liberal or conservativefaction, --or what was known as the Lamar wing of the party under theleadership of Senator Walthall, --was strongly opposed to such methods. Senator George advocated the calling of a Constitutional Convention, toframe a new Constitution for the State. Senator Walthall opposed it, contending that the then Constitution, though framed by Republicans, was, in the main, unobjectionable and should be allowed to stand. ButSenator George was successful, and a convention was called to meet inthe fall of 1890. In order to take no chances the Senator had himselfnominated and elected a member of the Convention. 

When the Convention met, it was found that there were two strongfactions, one in favor of giving legal effect to the nullification ofthe Fifteenth Amendment, and the other opposed to it. The George factionwas slightly in the majority, resulting in one of theirnumber, --nullificationists, as they were called, --Judge S. S. Calhoun, being elected President of the Convention. The plan advocated andsupported by the George faction, of which Senator George was the author, provided that no one be allowed to register as a voter, or vote ifregistered, unless he could read and write, or unless he couldunderstand any section of the Constitution when read to him and give areasonable interpretation thereof. This was known as the "understandingclause. " It was plain to every one that its purpose was to evade theFifteenth Amendment, and disfranchise the illiterate voters of one racewithout disfranchising those of the other. 

The opposition to this scheme was under the leadership of one of theablest and most brilliant members of the bar, Judge J. B. Christman, ofLincoln County. As a substitute for the George plan or understandingclause, he ably and eloquently advocated the adoption of a fair andhonest educational qualification as a condition precedent toregistration and voting, to be equally applicable to whites and blacks. 

The speeches on both sides were able and interesting. It looked for awhile as if the substitute clause proposed by Judge Christman would beadopted. In consequence of such an apprehension, Judge Calhoun, thePresident of the Convention, took the floor in opposition to theChristman plan, and in support of the one proposed by Senator George. The substance of his speech was that the Convention had been called forthe purpose of insuring the ascendency of the white race, --theDemocratic party, --in the administration of the State Government throughsome other methods than those which had been enforced since 1875. 

"If you fail in the discharge of your duties in this matter, " hedeclared, "the blood of every negro that will be killed in an electionriot hereafter will be upon your shoulders. "

In other words, the speaker frankly admitted, what everyone knew to be afact, that the ascendency of the Democratic party in the State had beenmaintained since 1875 through methods which, in his opinion, should nolonger be sanctioned and tolerated. These methods, he contended, werecorrupting the morals of the people of the State and should bediscontinued; but the ascendency of the Democratic party must bemaintained at any cost. The George plan, he urged, would accomplish thisresult, because if the negroes were disfranchised according to the formsof law, there would be no occasion to suppress his vote by violencebecause he would have no vote to suppress; and there would be nooccasion to commit fraud in the count or perjury in the returns. 

Notwithstanding this frank speech, which was intended to arouse thefears of the members of the Convention from a party standpoint, thedefeat of the Christman substitute was by no means an assured fact. Butthe advocates of the George plan, --the "understanding clause, "--wereboth desperate and determined. Contrary to public expectation twoRepublicans, Geo. B. Melchoir and I. T. Montgomery, had been elected tothe Convention from Bolivar County. But their seats were contested, andit was assumed that their Democratic contestants would be seated. Still, pending the final disposition of the case, the two Republicans were thesitting members. Montgomery was colored and Melchoir was white. But theGeorge faction needed those two votes. No one suspected, however, thatthey would get them in any other way than by seating the contestants. The advocates and supporters of the Christman substitute were, therefore, very much surprised and disappointed when they learned thatMr. Montgomery, the only colored member of the Convention, intended tomake a speech in favor of the adoption of the George plan, and vote forit; which he did. Why this man, who had the reputation of being honestand honorable, and who in point of intelligence was considerably abovethe average of his race, should have thus acted and voted has alwaysbeen an inexplicable mystery. It is difficult to believe that he waswilling to pay such a price for the retention of his seat in theConvention, still it is a fact that the contest was never called andMontgomery and his colleague were allowed to retain their seats. 

The adoption of the George plan was thus assured, but not without adesperate fight. The opponents of that scheme made a brave, thoughunsuccessful, fight against it. But it was soon made plain to theadvocates of the George plan that what they had succeeded in forcingthrough the Convention would be defeated by the people at theballot-box. In fact, a storm of protest was raised throughout the State. The Democratic press, as well as the members of that party, werebelieved to be about equally divided on the question of the ratificationof the Constitution as thus framed. Since it was well known that theRepublicans would be solid in their opposition to ratification, therejection of the proposed Constitution was an assured fact. But thesupporters of the George scheme felt that they could not afford to havethe results of their labors go down in defeat. In order to prevent thisthey decided to deny the people the right of passing judgment upon thework of the Convention. The decision, therefore, was that the Conventionby which the Constitution was framed should declare it duly ratified andapproved, and to go into effect upon a day therein named. The people ofthat unfortunate State, therefore, have never had an opportunity to passjudgment upon the Constitution under which they are living and whichthey are required to obey and support, that right having been deniedthem because it was known that a majority of them were opposed to itsratification and would have voted against it. 

But this so-called "understanding clause, " or George scheme, is muchmore sweeping than was intended by its author. The intent of that clausewas to make it possible to disfranchise the illiterate blacks withoutdisfranchising the illiterate whites. But as construed and enforced itis not confined to illiterates but to persons of intelligence as well. No man, for instance, however intelligent he may be, can be registeredas a voter or vote if registered, if the registering officers or theelection officers are of the opinion that he does not understand theConstitution. It is true, the instrument is so worded that no allusionis made to the race or color of those seeking to be registered and tovote; still, it is perfectly plain to everyone that the purpose was toenable the State to do, through its authorized and duly appointed agentsand representatives, the very thing the Fifteenth Amendment declaresshall not be done. According to the decision of the Supreme Court, asrendered by Mr. Justice Strong, the effect is the same as if theinstrument had declared in so many words that race or color should bethe basis of discrimination and exclusion. 

The bitter and desperate struggle between the two factions of theDemocratic party in the State of Mississippi in this contest, forciblyillustrates the fact that the National Republican party made a gravemistake when it abandoned any further effort to enforce by appropriatelegislation the war amendments to the Constitution. In opposing anddenouncing the questionable methods of the extreme and radical factionof their own party, the conservative faction of the Democrats believed, expected, and predicted that such methods would not be acquiesced in bythe Republican party, nor would they be tolerated by the NationalGovernment. If those expectations and predictions had been verified theywould have given the conservative element a justifiable excuse to breakaway from the radicals, and this would have resulted in having twostrong political parties in that section to-day instead of one. Butwhen it was seen that the National Republican party made no furtheropposition to the enforcement of those extraneous, radical andquestionable methods, that fact not only had the effect of preventingfurther opposition on the part of the conservative Democrats, but italso resulted in many of the politically ambitious among them joiningthe ranks of the radicals, since that was then the only channel throughwhich it was possible for their political aspirations to be gratified. 

The reader cannot fail to see that under the plan in force inMississippi there is no incentive to intelligence; because intelligencedoes not secure access to the ballot-box, nor does the lack of itprevent such access. It is not an incentive to the accumulation ofwealth; because the ownership of property does not secure to the owneraccess to the ballot-box, nor does the lack of it prevent such access. It is not a question of intelligence, wealth or character, nor can it besaid that it is wholly a question of party. It is simply a question offactional affiliation. The standard of qualification is confined to suchwhite men as may be in harmony with the faction that may happen to havecontrol for the time being of the election machinery. What is true ofMississippi in this respect is equally true of the other States in whichschemes of various sorts have been invented and adopted to evade theFifteenth Amendment to the Constitution. 

CHAPTER XXVII

EFFECT OF THE MCKINLEY TARIFF BILL ON BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES

The Congressional elections of 1890 resulted in a crushing defeat forthe Republicans. This was due, no doubt, to the McKinley Tariff Billwhich became a law only about a month before the elections of that year. Congress convened the first Monday in December, 1889, and that sessiondid not come to a close until the following October. The Democrats inCongress made a bitter fight against the McKinley Tariff Bill, and, since it was a very complete and comprehensive measure, a great deal oftime was necessarily consumed in its consideration and discussion. Whenit finally became a law the time between its passage and the electionswas so short that the friends of the measure did not have time toexplain and defend it before the elections took place. This placed theRepublicans at a great disadvantage. They were on the defensive from thebeginning. The result was a sweeping Democratic victory. 

But, strange to say, the same issues that produced Democratic successand Republican defeat at that election brought about Republican successand Democratic defeat at the Presidential and Congressional elections in1896. The McKinley Tariff Bill of 1890 was so popular six years later, that the author of that measure was deemed the strongest and mostavailable man to place at the head of the Republican ticket as thecandidate of that party for President. His election was a completevindication of the wisdom of the measure of which he was the author andchampion. In 1890 his bill was so unpopular that it resulted in his owndefeat for reëlection to Congress. But this did not cause him to losefaith in the wisdom and the ultimate popularity of the bill which he wasproud to have bear his name. 

"A little time, " said McKinley, "will prove the wisdom of the measure. "In this he was not mistaken. His defeat for reëlection to Congressultimately made him President of the United States; for the followingyear the Republicans of his State elected him Governor, which was astepping-stone to the Presidency. All that was needed was an opportunityfor the merits of his bill to be thoroughly tested. Shortly after itspassage, but before it could be enforced or even explained, the peoplewere led to believe that it was a harsh, cruel, and unjust measure, imposing heavy, unreasonable, and unnecessary taxes upon them, increasing the prices of the necessaries of life without acorresponding increase in the price of labor. The people were in anugly mood in anticipation of what was never fully realized. 

It is true that the tariff was not the sole issue that resulted in sucha sweeping Republican victory in the National elections of 1896. Thefinancial issue, which was prominent before the people at that time, wasone of the contributory causes of that result. Still it cannot be deniedthat McKinley's connection with the Tariff Bill of 1890 was what gavehim the necessary national prominence to make him the most available manto be placed at the head of his party ticket for the Presidency thatyear. 

CHAPTER XXVIII

INTERVIEW BETWEEN THE AUTHOR AND PRESIDENT CLEVELAND AND SECRETARYGRESHAM

When Mr. Cleveland was inaugurated in 1893, I was Auditor of theTreasury for the Navy Department. Hon. J. G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, hadbeen made Secretary of the Treasury. My resignation had been tendered, the acceptance of which I expected to see announced any day, but thechange did not take place until August of that year. 

While seated at my desk one day a messenger from the White House madehis appearance, and I was informed that the President desired to see mein person. When I arrived at the White House I was immediately usheredinto the President's private office, where he was seated alone at a deskengaged in reading a book or a magazine. It was at an hour when he wasnot usually accessible to the public. He received me in a very cordialway. He informed me that there was an important matter about which hedesired to talk with me--to get the benefit of my opinion andexperience. He assured me of his friendly interest in the coloredpeople. It was his determination that they should have suitable andappropriate recognition under his administration. He said he was verymuch opposed to the color line in politics. There was no more reason whya man should be opposed or discriminated against on account of his racethan on account of his religion. He believed it to be the duty of theDemocratic party to encourage the colored voters to divide their votes, and the best way to do this was to accord to that race the same relativeconsideration, the same treatment, and to give the race the samerecognition that is given other races and classes of which ourcitizenship is composed. The party line is the only one that should bedrawn. He would not appoint a colored Republican to office merely forthe purpose of giving official recognition to the colored race, norwould he refuse to appoint a colored Democrat simply because he wascolored. If this course were pursued, and this policy adopted andadhered to by the Democratic party, the colored voters who are inharmony with that party on questions about which white men usuallydivide, could see their way clear to vote in accordance with theirconvictions upon such issues, and would not be obliged to vote againstthe party with which they may be in harmony on account of that party'sattitude towards them as a race. "In other words, " he said, "it is awell-known fact that there are thousands of colored men who vote theRepublican ticket at many important elections, --not from choice butfrom what they believe to be a necessity. If the views entertained by meon this subject should be accepted by the Democratic party, as I hopeand believe they will be, that necessity, --real or imaginary, --would nolonger exist, and the gradual division of the colored vote wouldnecessarily follow. "

He went on to say that he had not hesitated to express himself fully, freely and frankly with members of his own party on the subject, andthat he had informed them of the course he intended to pursue; but thathe had been advised against appointing any colored man to an office inwhich white women were employed. 

"Now, " said the President, "since you have been at the head of animportant bureau in the Treasury Department during the past four years, a bureau in which a number of white women are employed as clerks, Idesire very much to know what has been your experiences along thoselines. " I informed the President that I would take pleasure in givinghim the information desired. I assured him that if my occupancy of thatoffice had been the occasion of the slightest embarrassment to anyoneconnected with the public service, --whether in the office over which Ipresided or any other, --that fact had never been brought to my notice. On the contrary, I had every reason to believe that no one who hadpreviously occupied the position enjoyed the respect, good-will andfriendship of the clerks and other employees to a greater extent thanwas enjoyed by me. My occupancy of that office had more thandemonstrated the fact, if such were necessary, that official positionand social contact were separate and distinct. My contact with theclerks and other employees of the office was official, not social. During office hours they were subject to my direction and supervision inthe discharge of their official duties, and I am pleased to say that allof them, without a single exception, have shown me that courtesy, deference and respect due to the head of the office. After office hoursthey went their way and I went mine. No new social ties were created andnone were broken or changed as the result of the official positionoccupied by me. I assured the President, that, judging from my ownexperience, he need not have the slightest apprehension of anyembarrassment, friction or unpleasantness growing out of the appointmentof a colored man of intelligence, good judgment and wise discretion ashead of any bureau in which white women were employed. 

I could not allow the interview to close without expressing to thePresident my warm appreciation of his fair, just, reasonable anddignified position on the so-called race question. 

"Your attitude, " I said, "if accepted in good faith by your party, willprove to be the solution of this mythical race problem. Although I am apronounced Republican, yet, as a colored American, I am anxious to havesuch a condition of things brought about as will allow a colored man tobe a Democrat if he so desires. I believe you have stated the caseaccurately when you say that thousands of colored men have voted theRepublican ticket at important elections, from necessity and not fromchoice. As a Republican, it is my hope that colored as well as whitemen, act with and vote for the candidates of that party when worthy andmeritorious, but as a colored American, I want them to be so situatedthat they can vote that way from choice and not from necessity. No mancan be a free and independent American citizen who is obliged tosacrifice his convictions upon the altar of his personal safety. Theattitude of the Democratic party upon this so-called race question hasmade the colored voter a dependent, and not an independent, Americancitizen. The Republican party emancipated him from physical bondage, forwhich he is grateful. It remains for the Democratic party to emancipatehim from political bondage, for which he will be equally grateful. Youare engaged, Mr. President, in a good and glorious work. As a coloredman I thank you for the brave and noble stand you have taken. God grantthat you, as a Democrat, may have influence enough to get the Democraticparty as an organization to support you in the noble stand you have sobravely taken. "

The President thanked me for my expressions of good-will, and thusterminated what to me was a remarkable as well as a pleasant and mostagreeable interview. 

A few days later a messenger from the State Department called at myoffice and informed me that the Secretary of State, Judge Gresham, desired to see me. Judge Gresham and I had been warm personal friendsfor many years. He had occupied many positions of prominence andresponsibility. He had been a major-general in the Union army, and waswith Sherman's army during that celebrated March through Georgia. He wasone of the leading candidates for the Presidential nomination before theNational Republican Convention at Chicago in 1888, when General BenjaminHarrison, of Indiana, was nominated. 

I was a member of that Convention and one of Judge Gresham's activesupporters. In the campaign that followed Judge Gresham gave GeneralHarrison his active and loyal support, but, for some unaccountablereason, he supported Mr. Cleveland against General Harrison in 1892. Mr. Cleveland was not only elected, but, contrary to public expectation, hecarried the State of Illinois, --a State in which Judge Gresham was knownto be very popular, especially among the colored people of Chicago;many of whom, it was said, voted for Mr. Cleveland through the effortsand influence of Judge Gresham. Mr. Cleveland evidently believed thathis success in Illinois was due largely to Judge Gresham, and asevidence of that fact, and because Judge Gresham was known to be a veryable man, Mr. Cleveland paid him the distinguished honor of appointinghim to the leading position in his cabinet, --that of Secretary of State. 

When I called at the State Department the Judge invited me to a seat inhis private office. He said there was an important matter about which hedesired to talk with me. My name, he said, had been the subject of arecent conversation between the President and himself. The President, hesaid, was well aware of the cordial relations existing between us, andbelieved that if any man could influence my action he, Gresham, was thatman. 

"Now, " said the Judge, "the President has formed a very favorableopinion of you. He is anxious to have you remain at the head of theimportant bureau over which you are now presiding in such a creditableand satisfactory manner. But you understand that it is a politicaloffice. As anxious as the President is to retain you, and as anxious asI am to have him do so, he could not do it and you could neither ask norexpect him to do it, unless you were known to be in sympathy with, and asupporter of, his administration, --at least in the main. Now, you knowthat I am not only your friend, but that I am a friend to the coloredpeople. I know you are a Republican. So am I; but I am a Cleveland man. Cleveland is a better Republican than Harrison. In supporting Clevelandagainst Harrison I am no less a Republican. As your friend I would notadvise you to do anything that would militate against your interests. Knowing, as you do, that I am not only your friend but also a goodRepublican, you can at least afford to follow where I lead. I want you, then, to authorize me to say to the President that you are in sympathywith the main purposes of his administration as explained to you by me, and that his decision to retain you in your present position will befully and keenly appreciated by you. "

In my reply I stated that while I was very grateful to the Judge for hisfriendly interest in me, and while I highly appreciated the President'sgood opinion of me, it would not be possible for me to consent to retainthe position I then occupied upon the conditions named. 

"If, " I said, "it is the desire of the President to have me remain incharge of that office during his administration or any part thereof, Iwould be perfectly willing to do so if I should be permitted to remainfree from any conditions, pledges, promises or obligations. Theconditions suggested mean nothing more nor less than that I shallidentify myself with the Democratic party. The President has no officeat his disposal the acceptance or retention of which could be asufficient inducement for me to take such a step as that. I agree withwhat you have said about Mr. Cleveland, so far as he is personallyconcerned. I have every reason to believe that he has a friendlyinterest in the colored people and that he means to do the fair thing bythem so far as it may be in his power. But he was elected as a Democrat. He is the head of a National Democratic Administration. No man can bewholly independent of his party, --a fact recognized in the conditionssuggested in my own case. I don't think that Mr. Cleveland is what wouldbe called in my part of the country a good Democrat, because I believehe is utterly devoid of race prejudice, and is not in harmony with thosewho insist upon drawing the color line in the Democratic party. In myopinion he is in harmony with the Democratic party only on one importantpublic question, --the tariff. On all others, --the so-called racequestion not excepted, --he is in harmony with what I believe to begenuine Republicanism. Still, as I have already stated, he was electedas a Democrat; and, since he holds that the office now occupied by me isa political one, it ought to be filled by one who is in politicalharmony with the administration. I am not that man; for I cannottruthfully say that I am in harmony with the main purposes of theadministration. "

The Judge remarked that my decision was a disappointment to him, and hebelieved that I would some day regret having made it, but that he wouldcommunicate to the President the result of our interview. In spite ofthis, my successor, Morton, a Democrat from Maine, was not appointeduntil the following August. 

CHAPTER XXIX

THE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONVENTION OF 1900

As a delegate to the National Republican Convention of 1900, I washonored by my delegation with being selected to represent Mississippi onthe Committee on Platform and Resolutions; and by the chairman of thatcommittee, Senator Fairbanks, I was made a member of the sub-committeethat drafted the platform. At the first meeting of the sub-committee, the Ohio member, Senator J. B. Foraker, submitted the draft of a platformthat had been prepared at Washington which was made the basis of quite alengthy and interesting discussion. This discussion developed the factthat the Washington draft was not at all satisfactory to a majority ofthe sub-committee. The New York member, Hon. L. E. Quigg, was especiallypronounced in his objections, not so much to what was declared, but tothe manner and form in which the declarations were made. In his opinion, the principles of the party were not set forth in the Washington draftin language that would make them clearly understood and easilycomprehended by the reading public. After every member who desired tospeak had done so, it was agreed that those who desired amendments, changes, or additions should submit the same in writing, and that thesewith the Washington draft be turned over to Mr. Quigg as a sub-committeeof one. A platform in harmony with the views expressed by members of thecommittee would then be carefully prepared, and the same submitted tothe sub-committee at an adjourned meeting to be held at an early hourthe next morning. 

The only amendment suggested by me was one, the purpose of which was toexpress more clearly the attitude of the party with reference to theenforcement of the war amendments to the National Constitution. When thesub-committee met the next morning Mr. Quigg submitted an entirely newdraft, which he had prepared the afternoon and night before, using theWashington draft and the amendments submitted by members of thesub-committee as the basis of what he had done. His draft proved to beso satisfactory to the sub-committee that it was accepted and adoptedwith very slight modifications. Mr. Quigg seemed to have been verycareful in the preparation of his draft, not only giving expression tothe views of the sub-committee, which had been developed in thediscussion, and as had been set forth in the suggested amendmentsreferred to him, but the manner and form of expression used by himimpressed the committee as being a decided improvement upon theWashington draft, although the subject matter in both drafts wassubstantially the same. Mr. Quigg's draft, with very slight changes andalterations, was not only accepted and adopted, but he was the recipientof the thanks of the other members for the excellent manner in which hehad discharged the important duty that had been assigned him. 

The full committee was then convened by which the unanimous report ofthe sub-committee was adopted without opposition and without change. ButI had anticipated a renewal of the effort to change the basis ofrepresentation in future National Republican Conventions, and had, therefore, made some little mental preparation to take a leading part inopposition to its adoption. Such a proposition had been submitted atnearly every National Convention of the party since 1884. That a similareffort would be made at this convention I had good reasons to believe. In this I was not mistaken. It was introduced by Senator Quay, ofPennsylvania. His proposition, like the others, was that in the futuredelegates to the National Convention should be apportioned among thedifferent States upon the basis of the votes polled for the partycandidates at the last preceding national election, instead of upon thebasis of the States' representation in Congress. On the first view thisproposition seems to be both reasonable and fair, but it cannot standthe test of an intelligent analysis. As soon as I sought and securedthe recognition of the chair, I offered an amendment in the nature of asubstitute, declaring it to be the judgment of the party that in allStates in which there had been an evasion of the Fifteenth Amendment byState action, that there should be a reduction in the representation inCongress from such State or States in the manner and for the purposeexpressed in the Fourteenth Amendment. A point of order was immediatelymade against the amendment, but the occupant of the chair, SenatorLodge, stated that he would hold his decision in reserve pending anexplanation by me of the amendment I had submitted. At that time asuggestion was made that the whole subject be postponed until the nextday, to which I assented, and then yielded the floor. But it was notagain called up, hence my speech was never delivered. Since it may be ofsome interest to the reader to get an idea of what I had in mind, Ishall here set down in the main what I intended to say on that occasionhad the opportunity been presented. 

"Mr. Chairman, while there may be some doubt, in a parliamentary sense, as to whether or not the amendment I have submitted can be entertainedas a substitute for the original proposition, it cannot be denied thatit relates to the same subject matter. I hope, therefore, that theConvention will have an opportunity in some way of voting upon it inlieu of the one that has been presented by the distinguished gentlemanfrom Pennsylvania. It is a well-known fact that under the present systemeach State is entitled to double the number of delegates that it hasSenators and Representatives in Congress. The plan now proposed is thatthe apportionment in future conventions be based upon the number ofvotes polled for the candidates of the party at the last precedingNational election, according to what is known as the 'official returns, 'although it may be a fact, as is unquestionably true in some States, that the 'official returns' may not be free from fraud, --that they mayrepresent in some instances not the actual party vote polled, but theparty vote counted, certified, and returned. This plan, therefore, meansthat representation from some States in future National RepublicanConventions will not be based upon Republican strength, nor determinedby Republican votes, but will be fixed and determined by Democraticelection officials. In other words, Democrats, and not Republicans, willfix and determine in a large measure, representation in futureConventions of the Republican party. 

"The proposed change is predicated upon the assumption that electionsare fair and returns are honest in all the States at each and everyNational election. If that were true the difference in therepresentation from the several States would be unimportant andimmaterial, even under the proposed change, hence there would be nooccasion for the change. The fact that this assumption is not truefurnishes the basis for the alleged inequality in representation, andthe apparent necessity for the change proposed. In addition to this itis a well-known fact that in several of the Southern States, --my own, Mississippi, among the number, --the Fifteenth Amendment to the NationalConstitution has been practically nullified, and that the colored men insuch States have been as effectually disfranchised as if the FifteenthAmendment were not a part of the organic law of the land. If the planthat is now proposed by the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvaniashould be adopted, the National Republican party by accepting them andmaking them the basis of representation in future National Conventionsof the party will have thereby placed itself on record as having givenits sanction to the questionable methods by which these results havebeen accomplished. I frankly confess that the plan I have presented isbased upon the humiliating confession that the Government is withoutpower under the Constitution as construed by the Supreme Court toeffectually enforce the war amendments; and that in consequence thereofnothing is left to be done but to fall back upon the plan prescribed bythe Fourteenth Amendment, which is to reduce the representation inCongress from such States in the manner and for the purposes thereinstated. 

"It is true that the Fourteenth Amendment having been proposed andsubmitted prior to the Fifteenth, the provision with reference toreduction of representation in Congress was predicated upon theassumption that the different States could then legally make race orcolor a ground of discrimination in prescribing the qualification ofelectors. Still, it occurs to me that if a State could be thus punishedfor doing that which it had a legal right to do, the same punishment cannow be inflicted for doing that which it can no longer legally do. Ifthe plan proposed by the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvaniashould be adopted, the Republican party will not only have placed itselfon record as having given its sanction to the methods by which theseresults will have been accomplished, but it will be notice to thedifferent States, north as well as south, that any of them that may seefit to take advantage of their own wrongs will have no occasion to fearany future punishment being inflicted upon the State for so doing. Underthe plan thus proposed the State that may thus take advantage of its ownwrongs will not only receive no punishment in the reduction of itsrepresentation in Congress, but its methods and practices will have beenapproved and adopted by the Republican party. 

"On the other hand, the plan I propose is one which is equivalent to anotice to the different States that, while the National Government maynot be able to enforce by appropriate legislation the war amendments tothe Constitution, the Legislative department of the Government canprevent a State from taking advantage of its own wrongs, through theinfliction of a punishment upon the State in the reduction of itsrepresentation in Congress. Since representation in the NationalConvention is based upon the States' representation in Congress, it willbe seen that if the representation in Congress from such States shouldbe reduced, it would result in a reduction in the representation fromsuch States in the National Convention. The main purpose, therefore, which the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania seems to have inview will have been practically accomplished, but in a far different andin a much less objectionable way. It will be some satisfaction tosouthern Republicans, who are denied access to the ballot-box through anevasion of the National Constitution, to know that if they are to bedenied a voice in future National Conventions of the party to which theybelong, because they are unable to make their votes effective at theballot-box, the party or State by which they are thus wronged will notbe allowed to take advantage of, and enjoy the fruits thereof. They willat least have the satisfaction of knowing that if they cannot votethemselves, others cannot vote for them, and thus appropriate tothemselves the increased representation in Congress and in the electoralcollege to which the State is entitled, based upon their representativestrength. 

"The strongest point in favor of this proposed change, as I haveendeavored to show, grows out of the apparent inequality inrepresentation in the National Convention due to the denial of access tothe ballot-box to Republicans through an evasion of the FifteenthAmendment. I cannot believe, Mr. Chairman, that this convention can beinduced to favorably consider any proposition, the effect of which willbe to sanction and approve the questionable methods by which the coloredRepublicans in several Southern States have been disfranchised. I cannotbelieve that this convention can be induced to favorably consider anyproposition, the effect of which will be the sending of a message ofsympathy and encouragement to the Democrats of North Carolina, who arenow engaged in an effort to disfranchise the colored Republicans of thatState. 

"The colored Americans ask no special favors as a class, --and no specialprotection as a race. All they ask and insist upon is equal civil andpolitical rights, and a voice in the government under which they live, and to which they owe allegiance, and for the support of which they aretaxed. They feel that they are entitled to such consideration andtreatment, not as a matter of favor but as a matter of right. They cameto the rescue of their country when its flag was trailing in the dust oftreason and rebellion, and freely watered the tree of liberty with theprecious and patriotic blood that flowed from their loyal veins. 

"There sits upon the floor of this convention to-day a distinguishedgentleman whose name is upon the lips of every patriotic Americancitizen. The gentleman to whom I refer, is the member from the great andimportant State of New York, Theodore Roosevelt, who, as the braveleader of the American troops, led the charge upon San Juan Hill. Infollowing the lead of that gallant officer on that momentous occasion, the colored American again vindicated his right to a voice in thegovernment of his country. In his devotion to the cause of liberty andjustice the colored American has shown that he was not only willing andready at any and all times to sacrifice his life upon the altar of hisown country, but that he is also willing to fight side by side with hiswhite American brother in an effort to plant the tree of liberty upon aforeign soil. Must it now be said, that, in spite of all this, thecolored American finds himself without a home, without a country, without friends, and even without a party? God forbid!

"Mr. Chairman, the colored American has been taught to believe that whenall other parties and organizations are against him, he can always lookwith hope and encouragement to conventions of the Republican party. Mustthat hope now be destroyed? Must he now be made to feel and to realizethe unpleasant fact that, as an American citizen, his ambition, hishopes and his aspirations are to be buried beneath the sod ofdisappointment and despair? Mr. Chairman, the achievements of theRepublican party as the friend and champion of equal civil and politicalrights for all classes of American citizens, constitute one of the mostbrilliant chapters in the history of that grand and magnificentorganization. Must that chapter now be blotted out? Are you now preparedto confess that in these grand and glorious achievements the party madea grave mistake?

"It was a most beautiful and imposing scene that took place yesterdaywhen a number of venerable men who took part in the organization of theRepublican party, occupied seats upon the platform of this convention. The presence of those men brought to mind pleasant and agreeablerecollections of the past. Until the Republican party was organized, themiddle classes, the laboring people, the oppressed and the slave had nochannel through which to reach the bar of public opinion. The Democraticparty was controlled by the slave oligarchy of the South, whilst theWhig party had not the courage of its convictions. The Republican partycame to the front with a determination to secure, if possible, freedomfor the slave, liberty for the oppressed, and justice and fair play forall classes and races of our population. That its efforts in thesedirections have not been wholly in vain are among the most glorious andbrilliant achievements that will constitute a most important part of thehistory of our country; for it had been the unmistakable determinationof that party to make this beautiful country of ours in truth and infact the land of the free and the home of the brave. Surely it is notyour purpose now to reverse and undo any part of the grand and noblework that has been so successfully and so well done along these lines. 

"And yet that is just what you will have done if you adopt theproposition presented by the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania. While I do not assert and cannot believe that such was or is the purposeand desire of the author of that proposition, yet no one that will givethe matter careful consideration can fail to see that the effect of itwill be to undo, in part at least, what the Republican party hasaccomplished since its organization. As a colored Republican, speakingin behalf of that class of our fellow citizens who honor and revere theRepublican party for what it has accomplished in the past, I feel that Ihave a right to appeal to you not to cloud the magnificent record whichthis grand organization has made. So far as the colored man isconcerned, you found him a slave; you have made him a free man. Youfound him a serf; you have made him a sovereign. You found him adependent menial; you have made him a soldier. I therefore appeal to themembers of this Convention, in the name of the history of the Republicanparty, and in behalf of justice and fair-play, to vote down this unjust, unfair, unwise and unnecessary proposition which has been presented bythe distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania. "

CHAPTER XXX

ARGUMENT ON PROPOSED CHANGE OF REPRESENTATION IN CONVENTION

In addition to the reasons already given there are many others thatmight be urged against the proposed change of representation. 

In the first place, the present plan is based upon the sound and stableprinciple upon which the Government was organized. Representation inCongress is not based upon votes or voters, but upon population. Thesame is true of the different State Legislatures. All politicalparties, --or, at any rate, the principal ones, --have adopted the samesystem in the make-up of their State and National Conventions. Themembership of the National Convention being based upon each State'srepresentation in Congress, the State Conventions, with perhaps a fewexceptions, are based upon the representation in the State Legislaturesfrom each county, parish, or other civil division. It is the fairest, safest, best, and most equitable plan that can be devised or adopted. 

Under this plan or system, no State, section or locality can gain orlose representation in any party convention through the application ofextraneous or questionable methods, either by the action of thegovernment or of a political party. The representation in Congress andin the different State Legislatures, which is based upon population, fixes the representation from each State in the different NationalConventions and in many of the State Conventions. Any other plan orsystem, --especially that which is based upon the number of votes castfor the candidates of the party as officially ascertained anddeclared, --would have a tendency to work serious injustice to certainStates and sections. In fact, it would have a tendency to sectionalizethe party by which the change is made. 

Under the present system, for instance, Pennsylvania and Texas have thesame representation in a National Democratic Convention that they havein a National Republican Convention, although one is usually Republicanin National elections and the other Democratic. And why should not therepresentation from those States be the same in both conventions? Whyshould Texas, because it is believed to be safely Democratic, have morepower and influence in a Democratic Convention on that account than theRepublican State of Pennsylvania? The answer may be because one is aDemocratic and the other a Republican State--because one can be reliedupon to give its electoral votes to the candidates of the Democraticparty while the other cannot. But this is not in harmony with ourgovernmental system. Representation in Congress being based uponpopulation, every State, section and locality has its relative weightand influence in the government in accordance with the number of itsinhabitants. 

That this is the correct principle will not be seriously questioned whenit is carefully considered. What is true of Pennsylvania and Texas in aNational Democratic Convention is equally true of the same States in aNational Republican Convention, and for the same reasons. The argumentthat Pennsylvania should have relatively a larger representation in aNational Republican Convention than Texas, because the former isreliably Republican while the latter is hopelessly Democratic, is justas fallacious in this case as in the other. But it is said thatdelegates from States that cannot contribute to the success of theticket should not have a potential voice in nominating a ticket thatother States must be depended upon to elect. Then why not exclude themaltogether, and also those from the territories and the District ofColumbia?

The argument is unsound, and unreasonable; a State may be reliablyRepublican at one election and yet go Democratic at the next. In 1872General Grant, the Republican candidate for President, carried nearlyevery State in the Union, in the South as well as in the North. Fouryears later Governor Hayes, the Republican candidate for President, came within one vote of being defeated in the electoral college; andeven then his election was made possible only through the decision ofthe Electoral Commission. In 1880 General Garfield, the Republicancandidate for President, carried New York, and was elected; while fouryears later Mr. Blaine, the candidate of the same party, lost it and wasdefeated. In 1888 Harrison, the Republican Presidential candidate, carried New York, and was elected; four years later he not only lost NewYork, but also such important States as Indiana and Illinois, and camewithin a few votes of losing Ohio. This was due to a slump in theRepublican vote throughout the country, which would have made a veryradical change in the National Convention of 1896 if the apportionmentof delegates to that convention had been based upon the votes cast forHarrison in 1892. While McKinley, the Republican Presidential candidate, was elected by a large majority in 1896, he lost such important WesternStates as Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Montana, Washington and Nevada. While he was reëlected four years later by an increased majority, heagain lost some of the same States. While Roosevelt, the RepublicanPresidential candidate in 1904, carried every State that McKinleycarried in 1900, and several others besides, Mr. Bryan, the Democraticcandidate in 1908, though defeated by a large majority, regained someof the Western States that Roosevelt carried in 1904, --notably his ownState of Nebraska. 

There was a time when such States as Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee were as safely Democratic as Texas andGeorgia. Will anyone assert that such is true of them now? There alsowas a time when such States as Nebraska, Colorado and Nevada were asreliably Republican as Pennsylvania and Vermont. Is that true of themnow? In addition to these, taking into consideration important electionsthat have been held since 1880, the Republicans cannot absolutely relyupon the support of such States as Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, and even Ohio. Even thestrong Republican State of Pennsylvania has occasionally gone Democraticin what is called an "off year. " Other Republican States, --or Statesthat usually go Republican, --have gone Democratic when it was not an offyear, --Illinois, for instance, in 1892. All of this goes to prove howunreliable, unsafe, unsatisfactory, unjust and unfair would be thechange in the basis of representation as thus proposed. 

Another argument in support of the proposed change is that delegatesfrom Democratic States are, as a rule, controlled by the administrationthen in power, if Republican, and that such delegates can be dependedupon to support the administration candidate whoever he may be, regardless of merit, strength or availability. This argument, of course, is based upon the assumption that what is true of Democratic States inthis respect is not true of Republican States. The slightestinvestigation will easily establish the fallacy of this assumption. Thetruth is that the federal office-holders--especially those holdingappointive offices, --can, with a few exceptions, always be depended uponto support the Administration candidate, whoever he may be. The onlydifference between the North and the South in this respect is that insome of the Southern States, where but one party is allowed toexist, --the Democratic party, --the Republican office-holders can moreeasily manipulate and control the conventions of their party in suchStates. But that the office-holders of all sections constitute animportant factor in the election of delegates to the NationalConventions will not be denied by those who are familiar with the facts, and are honest enough to admit them. 

For purposes of illustration we will take the National RepublicanConvention of 1908, which nominated Judge Taft. It was known that JudgeTaft was the man whose candidacy was supported by the Administration. The proceedings of the Convention revealed the fact that outside of fiveStates that had what were called "favorite son" candidates of theirown, there were perhaps not more than fifty votes in the wholeConvention that were opposed to the administration candidate, althoughit is more than probable that Judge Taft would not have been nominatedbut for the fact that he was the choice of the administration. 

I am sure no fair-minded person will assert that, in thus voting, thedelegates from the Democratic States were influenced by theadministration, while those from Republican States were not. It is notmy purpose to assert or even intimate that any questionable methods wereused to influence the election, or control the votes of the delegates inthe interest of any one candidate. Nothing of that sort was necessary, since human nature is the same the world over. 

That the office-holders should be loyal to the administration to whichthey belong is perfectly natural. That those who wish to becomeoffice-holders should be anxious to be on the winning side is alsonatural, and that, too, without regard to the locality or section inwhich they live. It is a fact, therefore, that up to 1908 no candidatehas ever been nominated by a Republican National Convention who did notfinally receive a sufficient number of votes from all sections of thecountry to make his nomination practically the choice of the partywithout regard to sectional lines. 

If, then, it be a fact that in 1908, for instance, delegates to theNational Republican Convention were elected and controlled throughadministration influences in the interest of any one candidate, suchinfluences were no less potential in Republican than in DemocraticStates. Outside of the administration candidate there were at thatConvention five very important States that presented candidates of theirown. They were New York, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. That the delegation from each of said States were practically solid inthe support of its "favorite son" was due largely to the wise decisionof the managers of the administration candidate to concede to each ofsaid "favorite sons" the delegation from his own State without acontest. But for this decision, which was wisely made in the interest ofparty harmony, no one of those "favorite sons" would have had the soliddelegation from his own State. As it was, a large majority of thedelegates from the five States named was not unfriendly to theAdministration candidate. These delegates voted for their "favoritesons" simply because they knew that in doing so they were notantagonizing the administration. There never was a time, therefore, whenthey could have been united upon any one candidate in opposition to theone that had at his back the powerful support of the Administration. Ourgovernment has reached that point in its growth, where it is not onlypossible, but comparatively easy, for an administration to secure thenomination of the one by whom it desires to be succeeded, --especiallyunder the present system of electing delegates. It was in anticipationof this, and to prevent any one man from perpetuating himself in power, that Washington established the precedent against a third successiveterm. 

If the advocates of this proposed change are to be believed, and if theywish to be consistent, they should include the National Committee. Thecomposition of that body is somewhat similar to that of the UnitedStates Senate. In the Senate Nevada and Delaware have the samerepresentation as New York and Pennsylvania. In the National Committeeeach State, territory, and the District of Columbia has one vote. If anychange in the interest of reform is necessary, the National RepublicanCommittee is the organization where it should first be made; for itoften happens that that committee can not only shape the policy of theparty but control the nomination as well, --especially when the resultbetween opposing candidates is close and doubtful. In such a contest thecandidate that has the support of a majority of the National Committeehas a decided advantage over his rivals for the nomination. If theresult should be close that advantage will be more than likely to securehim the nomination. 

The National Committee prepares the roll of the delegates to theConvention, and, in doing so, it decides primarily every contestedseat. If the contests thus decided should give any one candidate amajority, that majority will be sure to retain the advantage thussecured. It will thus be seen that if any change is necessary this isthe place where it should first be made. It occurs to me that instead ofchanging the basis of representation the most effective remedy for theevils now complained of is to have the delegates to National Conventionselected at popular primaries, instead of by State and districtconventions. 

CHAPTER XXXI

COMPARISON OF BRYAN AND CLEVELAND

It was upon the territory which now comprises the States of Kansas andNebraska that the preliminary battles in the interest of freedom weresuccessfully fought. This is especially true of that part of theterritory which now comprises the State of Kansas. But not only for thatreason has that State occupied a prominent place before the public;other events of national importance have had their birth there. It wasKansas that furnished one of the Republican United State Senators whovoted against the conviction, of Andrew Johnson, --who had been impeachedby the House of Representatives for high crimes and misdemeanors inoffice, --and thus secured the President's acquittal. That State alsofurnished one of the most remarkable men that ever occupied a seat inthe United States Senate, John J. Ingalls. 

I distinctly remember him as an able and brilliant young Senatorwhen, --in 1875, under the leadership of Senator George F. Edmunds, ofVermont, --he took a prominent part in the successful fight that was madein that body to secure the passage of the Sumner Civil Rights Bill. Itwas this fight that demonstrated his fitness for the position hesubsequently occupied as one of the distinguished leaders on theRepublican side of the Senate. He was a natural born orator, having awonderful command of the English language; and, while he was somewhatsuperficial and not always logical, he never failed to be interesting, though he was seldom instructive. For severe satire and irony he had fewequals and no superiors. It was on this account that no Senator wasanxious to get into a controversy with him. But for two unfortunateevents in the career of John J. Ingalls he would have filled a much moreimportant position in the history of his country than it is now possiblefor the impartial historian to give him. 

Kansas, unfortunately, proved to be a fertile field for the growth anddevelopment of that ephemeral organization known as the Populistparty, --a party that had secured a majority in the Legislature that wasto elect the successor to Mr. Ingalls. The Senator evidently had greatconfidence in his own oratorical ability. He appeared to have conceivedthe idea that it was possible for him to make a speech on the floor ofthe Senate that would insure his reëlection even by a PopulistLegislature. In this, --as he soon found out, to his bitterdisappointment, --he was mistaken. He no doubt came to the sameconclusion that many of his friends and admirers had already come to, that in bidding for the support of the Populists of his State he hadmade the mistake of his life. The impression he made upon the publicmind was that he was devoid of principle, and that he was willing tosacrifice his own party upon the altar of his ambition. 

But it was neither known nor suspected that he contemplated making a bidfor the support of the Populist members of the Legislature until hedelivered his speech. When, therefore, it was announced that SenatorIngalls would address the Senate on a certain day, he was greeted, as onprevious occasions, with a large audience. But this was the first timethat his hearers had been sadly disappointed. This was due more to whatwas said than how it was said. Then it was plain to those who heard himthat his heart was not in what he was saying; hence the speech wasdevoid of that fiery eloquence which on previous occasions had charmedand electrified his hearers. But, after that speech, when one of hisauditors would ask another what he thought of it, the reply invariablywas a groan of disappointment. When the immense crowd dispersed at theconclusion of the speech instead of smiling faces and pleasingcountenances as on previous occasions, one could not help noticingmarked evidences of disappointment in every face. The impression thathad been made was, that it was an appeal to the Populist members of theLegislature of his State to return him to the Senate, in exchange forwhich he was willing to turn his back upon the party which he was thenserving. It was almost equivalent to an open declaration of hiswillingness to identify himself with the Populists, and champion theircause if they would reelect him to the seat he then occupied. From theeffects of that fatal blunder the Senator never recovered. 

Another thing that lessened the distinguished orator and Senator in theestimation of the public was his radically changed attitude uponquestions affecting the political, social and industrial status of thecolored Americans. From a brilliant and eloquent champion and defenderof their civil and political rights he became one of their most severecritics. From his latest utterances upon that subject it was clear tothose who heard what he said that the colored Americans merited nothingthat had been said and done in their behalf, but nearly everything thathad been said and done against them. Why there had been such a radicalchange in his attitude upon that subject, has been an inexplicablemystery. The only explanation that I have heard from the lips of some ofhis former friends and admirers was that it was in the nature of anexperiment, --the expectation being that it would give him a sensationalfame throughout the country, which could be utilized to his financialadvantage upon his retirement to private life. This explanation wouldhave been rejected without serious consideration, but for the fact thatsome others have pursued the same course for the same reason, and theirhopes have been, in a large measure, realized. In his bid for thesupport of the Populist members of the Legislature of his State theSenator had established the fact that he did not have very strongconvictions upon any subject, and that those he had could be easilychanged to suit the times and the occasion. 

Nebraska, though not very strong politically, is one of the mostimportant States in the West. It has sent a number of men to the frontwho have made an impression upon the public mind. For many years noState in the Union was more reliably Republican than Nebraska. A largemajority of its voters, I am sure, are not now in harmony with theDemocratic party, --nor have they ever been so, --but it is true, at thesame time, that thousands of those who for many years acted with theRepublican party, and voted for its candidates, have become alienated, thus making Republican success at any election in the State close anddoubtful, and that, too, regardless of the merits of opposing candidatesor the platform declarations of opposing parties. 

For this remarkable change there must be a good and sufficient reason. The State in its early history was sparsely populated, and stood verymuch in need of railroads for the development of its resources. Inthose days, railroads were very popular, and the people were in a moodto offer liberal inducements to those who would raise the means tofurnish them with the necessary transportation facilities. 

For the same reason the Federal Government made valuable concessions inthe interest of railroad construction in the Western States. Since therailroads, thus aided, were in a large measure the creatures of theState and Nation they thereby acquired an interest in the administrationof the National and State Governments, --especially those of theState, --that they otherwise would not have had. 

The construction of the roads went on at such a rapid rate that theysoon acquired such a power and influence in the administration of theState Government that the people looked upon it as being dangerous totheir liberties. In fact it was claimed, --a claim, no doubt, largelysupported by the facts, --that the State Government was actuallydominated by railroad influence. No one, it was said, could be electedor appointed to an important office who was not acceptable to therailroad interests. This state of affairs produced a revulsion among thecommon people; thousands of whom decided that they would vote againstthe Republican party, which was then, --as it had been for manyyears, --in control of the State Government because of its havingallowed such a state of affairs to be brought about. 

Edward Rosewater, editor and proprietor of the Omaha _Bee_, the mostinfluential Republican paper in the State, took sides against therailroad interests. The result was that Nebraska, for the first time, elected a Democratic governor. 

But many of the Republicans who acted with the Democrats on thatoccasion could not see their way clear to remain in that party, thoughsome of them were not willing to return to the ranks of the Republicans. So they decided to cast their lot with the Populist party, which in themeantime had made its appearance upon the field of political activity. While the Democratic party remained the minority party in the State, itwas seldom that the Republicans could poll more votes than the Democratsand Populists combined, and since, under the then leadership of theDemocratic party in the State, that party and the Populist stoodpractically for the same things, it was not difficult to bring aboutfusion of the two parties against the Republicans. This gave theFusionists control of the State Government for a number of years. 

In the meantime a brilliant, eloquent and talented young man had comeupon the stage of political activity. This man was William J. Bryan. Hisfirst entry into public life was his election to Congress as a Democratfrom a Republican district. While a member of the House he made aspeech on the tariff question which gave him national fame. As a speakerWilliam Jennings Bryan has always been plausible and captivating. He canclothe his thoughts in such beautiful and eloquent language that heseldom fails to make a favorable impression upon those who hear him. Itwas this wonderful faculty that secured him his first nomination for thePresidency. His name was hardly thought of in connection with thenomination by that convention. In fact his right to a seat as a memberof the convention was disputed and contested. But, after he haddelivered his cross of gold and crown of thorns speech before that body, he carried the Convention by storm. His nomination was then a foregoneconclusion. 

It was under the leadership and chiefly through the influence of Mr. Bryan that the fusion between the Democrats and the Populists of hisState was brought about. But for his advocacy of Free Silver and hisaffiliation with the Populists, he might have reached the goal of hisambition. The result of the election showed that while he commanded andreceived the support of not less than eighty per cent of his own party, the remaining twenty per cent proved to be strong enough to insure hisdefeat. In fact the business interests of the country were almost solidagainst him; and it is safe to say that no man can ever hope to becomePresident of the United States who cannot at least divide thesubstantial and solid business interests. The business men wereapprehensive that the election of Mr. Bryan would bring about financialand commercial disaster, hence they, almost regardless of previous partyaffiliations, practically united in an effort to defeat him. 

The State of Nebraska, therefore, will always occupy a prominent placein the history of the country, because, --though young, small, andpolitically weak, --it has produced the most remarkable man of whom theDemocratic party can boast. It has also produced a number of very ablemen on the Republican side, such men, for instance, as C. F. Manderson, and John M. Thurston, --who both served the State in the United StatesSenate, and made brilliant records. But Mr. Bryan had an advantage overthese two when he stood before a popular audience in Nebraska, becausethey had been identified with the railroad interests, while he had not. 

That Mr. Bryan is a strong man and has a wonderful hold upon his partyis shown by the fact that he has been three times the party candidatefor the Presidency. While it may be true that he can never be elected tothe Presidency, it is no doubt equally true that while he lives no otherDemocrat can become President who is not acceptable to him and to hisfriends. 

In one respect at least, Mr. Cleveland and Mr. Bryan were very muchalike. As already stated, Mr. Bryan is a Democrat. The same was true ofMr. Cleveland; and yet they were as radically different as it ispossible for two men to be. They were not only different in temperamentand disposition, but also in their views and convictions upon publicquestions, --at least, so far as the public is informed, --with thepossible exception of the tariff. There was another question that cameto the front after the Spanish American war, --the question of"Imperialism, "--upon which they may have been in accord; but this is notpositively known to be a fact. Indeed, the tariff is such a complicatedsubject that they may not have been in perfect accord even on that. Mr. Cleveland was elected President in 1892 upon a platform pledged to atariff for revenue only. The Democrats had a majority in both Houses ofCongress; but when that majority passed a tariff bill, it fell so farshort of Mr. Cleveland's idea of a tariff for revenue only that he notonly denounced it in strong language, but refused to sign it. Whether ornot Mr. Bryan was with the President or with the Democratic majority inCongress in that fight is not known; but, judging from his previouspublic utterances upon the subject, it is to be presumed that he was inaccord with the President. 

It is claimed by the friends and admirers of both Mr. Cleveland and Mr. Bryan that each could be truly called a Jeffersonian Democrat; whichmeans a strong advocate and defender of what is called States Rights, adoctrine on which is based one of the principal differences between theRepublican and Democratic parties. Yet President Cleveland did nothesitate to use the military force of the government to suppressdomestic violence within the boundaries of a State, and that too againstthe protest of the Governor of the State, for the alleged reason thatsuch action was necessary to prevent the interruption of the carrying ofthe United States mail. Mr. Bryan's views upon the same subject appearto be sufficiently elastic to justify the National Government, in hisopinion, in becoming the owner and operator of the principal railroadsof the country. His views along those lines are so far in advance ofthose of his party that he was obliged, for reasons of politicalexpediency and party exigency, to hold them in abeyance during thePresidential campaign of 1908. Jeffersonian democracy, therefore, seemsnow to be nothing more than a meaningless form of expression. 

CHAPTER XXXII

THE SOLID SOUTH, PAST AND PRESENT. FUTURE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

To turn again to the South. This section has been a fertile field forpolitical experimental purposes by successive Republicanadministrations, ever since the second administration of PresidentGrant. The Solid South, so-called, has been a serious menace to thepeace and prosperity of the country. How to bring about such a conditionof affairs as would do away with the supposed necessity for itscontinuance has been the problem, the solution of which has been thecause of political experiments. President Hayes was the first to try theexperiment of appointing Democrats to many of the most importantoffices, hoping that the solution would thus be found. But he was notgiven credit for honest motives in doing so, for the reason that thepublic was impressed with the belief that such action on his part wasone of the conditions upon which he was allowed to be peaceablyinaugurated. At any rate the experiment was a complete failure, hence, so far as the more important offices were concerned, that policy was notcontinued by Republican administrations that came into power subsequentto the Hayes administration, and prior to that of Taft's. 

I do not mean to say that no Democrats were appointed to importantoffices at the South by the administrations referred to, but suchappointments were not made with the belief or expectation that theywould contribute to a solution of the problem that was involved in whatwas known as the Solid South. Political and social conditions in thatsection of the country are such that the appointment to some of thefederal offices of men who are not identified with the Republican partyis inevitable. The impression that the writer desires to make upon themind of the reader is that, between the administration of Hayes and thatof Taft no Republican administrations made such appointments with theexpectation that they would contribute to a breaking up of the solidsouth. President Roosevelt tried the experiment of offeringencouragement and inducements in that direction to what was known as theGold-standard Democrats, but even that was barren of satisfactoryresults. President Taft seems to be the only Republican President sinceMr. Hayes who has allowed himself to labor under the delusion that thedesired result could be accomplished through the use and distribution ofFederal patronage. The chief mistake on the part of those who thusbelieve, and who act in accordance with that belief, grows out of aserious lack of information about the actual situation. In the firstplace their action is based upon the assumption that the SolidSouth, --or what remains of it, --is an outgrowth of an honest expressionof the wishes of the people of that section, whereas, in point of fact, the masses had very little to do with bringing about present conditionsand know less about them. Those conditions are not due primarily to thefact that colored men are intimidated by white men, but that white menare intimidated by the Democratic party. They are not due primarily tothe fact that colored men are disfranchised, but that white men areprevented from giving effective expression to their honest politicalopinions and convictions. 

The disfranchisement of the colored men is one of the results growingout of those conditions, which would not and could not exist if therewere absolute freedom of thought and action in political matters amongthe white people. The only part that the so-called Race Question playsin this business is that it is used as a pretext to justify the coerciveand proscriptive methods thus used. The fact that the colored man isdisfranchised and has no voice in the creation and administration of thegovernment under which he lives and by which he is taxed does not changethe situation in this respect. His presence, --whether he can vote ornot, --furnishes the occasion for the continuance of such methods, and, as long as intelligent persons, especially at the North and particularlyin the Republican party, can be thus fooled and deceived they will notbe discontinued. 

The announcement of President Taft's Southern policy, therefore, wasreceived by the present leaders of the Democratic party at the Southwith satisfaction and delight, not on account of the officialrecognition that members of their party were to receive, for that was ofsecondary importance, but on account of the fact that they could clearlysee that their contention about the so-called race question was thusgiven a national sanction, which would have the effect of making thatquestion serve them for several more Presidential campaigns. It wasgiving a new market value to this "watered stock, " from which they wouldderive political dividends for a much longer period than they otherwisewould. They could thus see to their unbounded glee that if a man ofPresident Taft's intelligence and experience could thus be deceived asto conditions at the South, they would not have very much difficulty indeceiving others who were not believed to be so well informed. 

To solve this problem, therefore, the disposition of the federalpatronage will cut a very small figure. The patronage question is nothalf so important, in a political or party sense, as many have been ledto believe. It really makes very little difference by whom the fewoffices are held, whether they be all Democrats, all Republicans, somewhite, some colored, provided they be honest, capable, and efficient Forpolitical, personal or party reasons some feeling may be created, andsome prejudice may be aroused on account of the appointment of a certainperson to an office; but if no attention should be paid to it, and thefact should be developed that the duties of the same are beingdischarged in a creditable and satisfactory manner the public will soonforget all about it. The fact remains, however, that the disposition ofthe federal patronage will not produce the slightest change in thepolitical situation in such localities. If a national Republicanadministration should refuse to appoint a colored man, for instance, toany office in any one of the Southern States for the alleged reason thatit might be objectionable to the white people of the community, --andtherefore might have a tendency to prevent white men from coming intothe Republican party, --at the very next election in that community thefact would be demonstrated that the Republican party had not gained andthat the Democratic party had not lost a single vote as a resultthereof. The reason for this result would be in the first place that theexcuse given was insincere and untrue, and in the second place, becausethe incumbent of the office, whoever he might be, would produce noeffect whatsoever in the local situation in consequence of hisappointment to the office and his acceptance of it. If there should beany change at all in the situation it would doubtless be to thedetriment of the Republican party; for there would, no doubt, be somewho would be disposed to resent what would seem to them to be politicalor party ingratitude. 

So far as the colored Republicans are concerned they have been in thepast, and must be in the future, nothing more than party allies. Theyhave never dominated a State, nor have they controlled the Republicanorganization of any State to the exclusion of the white men thereof. They have simply been the allies of white men who could be induced tocome forward and assume the leadership. This is all they have been inthe past; it is all they desire to be in the future. They are perfectlywilling to follow where others lead provided those others lead wiselyand in the right direction. All they ask, desire and insist upon is tobe recognized as political allies upon terms of equality and to have avoice in the councils of the party of their choice and in the creationand administration of the government under which they live, and by whichthey are taxed, and also a fair and reasonable recognition as a resultof party success, based, all things else being equal, upon merit, fitness, ability and capacity. Even in States where it is possible forthem to wield a sufficient influence to be potential in partyconventions, and to help shape the policy and select the candidates ofthat party, they never fail to support the strongest and best men amongthe white members of the organization. If it be true that they weresometimes the victims of misplaced confidence, it cannot, and will not, be denied that the same is equally true of white men of far moreexperience in such matters. 

If there is ever to be again, as there once was, a strong andsubstantial Republican party at the South, or a party by any other namethat will openly oppose the ruling oligarchy of that section, --as I haveevery reason to believe will eventually take place, --it will not bethrough the disposition of federal patronage, but in consequence of theacceptance by the people of that section of the principles and policiesfor which the National Organization stands. For the accomplishment ofthis purpose and for the attainment of this end time is the mostimportant factor. Questionable methods that have been used to hold inabeyance the advancing civilization of the age will eventually beovercome and effectually destroyed. The wheels of progress, ofintelligence, and of right cannot and will not move backwards, but willgo forward in spite of all that can be said and done. In the mean timethe exercise of patience, forbearance, and good judgment are all thatwill be required. 

Another fact which seems to be overlooked by many is that the so-calledSolid South of to-day is not the menace to the country that it wasbetween 1875 and 1888. During that period the Solid South included theStates of Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri. Those States at that time were as reliably Democratic as Texas andGeorgia. Such does not seem to be true of them now, and yet I venturethe assertion that the disposition of the federal patronage in them hadvery little, if anything, to do with bringing about the change. What hasbeen done and is being done in those States can be done in others thatare located south of them. As strong as the Republican party is there isone thing it cannot afford to do, and that is to encourage or toleratethe drawing of the race or color line in any efforts that may be made tobreak up and dissolve what now remains of the Solid South. One of thecardinal principles and doctrines of the Republican party, --theprinciple that has, more than any other, secured for it the loyal andconsistent support of those who represent the moral sentiment of thecountry, --is its bold and aggressive advocacy and defense of liberty, justice, and equal civil and political rights for all classes ofAmerican citizens. From that grand and noble position it cannot affordto descend in an effort to find new and doubtful allies. If it should inan evil moment allow itself to make such a grave blunder, such acriminal mistake, it will thereby forfeit the confidence and support ofthe major part of those upon whom in the past it has relied, --and neverin vain, --for its continuance in power. There is nothing in thesituation that would justify the experiment, even if it were thoughtthat a little temporary and local advantage would be secured thereby. 

The Fifteenth Amendment to the National Constitution was not intended toconfer suffrage upon any particular race or class of persons, but merelyto place a limit upon the National Government and that of the severalStates in prescribing the qualifications of electors. Whatever power thenational or any state government may have had in prescribing thequalification of electors prior to the ratification of the FifteenthAmendment it still has, save that it cannot legally and constitutionallymake race or color a ground of disqualification. In other words, whatever qualifications may be prescribed and fixed as a conditionprecedent to voting, must be applicable to white and colored alike. Afew States, under the false plea of political necessity, have resortedto certain schemes of doubtful constitutionality, for the sole purposeof evading this plain provision of the National Constitution. They maystand for a while, but, even if they could stand indefinitely, that factwould furnish no excuse for the party, --a party that has stood so long, and fought so hard for liberty, justice, equal rights, and fairplay, --to enter into a political alliance with any other party orfaction which would involve a compromise or an abandonment of thosegrand and noble principles. The Republican party is still in the primeand glory of its usefulness. It is still strong in the confidence andaffections of the masses of the people, at least such was the case in1908, because it had not up to that time allowed itself to compromise orabandon, --so far as its platform utterances were concerned, --thefundamental principles which called it into existence and which causedit to be placed in control of the National Government, and which havecaused its continuance in power for so many years. Whether or not theunwise and unfortunate southern policy inaugurated by the TaftAdministration will result in disaster to the party is not and cannot beknown at this writing. We can only hope. 

THE END