CONCLUSION
A Confederate veteran recently remarked amid great applause at an assembly in Atlanta that there never was a conqueror so magnanimous as the North, for within six years from the surrender of the southern armies she had allowed the South to take part in her national councils. Nevertheless, within those six years the Congressional Disciplinarians gave the South a discipline which she will never forget. It did not result in permanent estrangement between the North and the South, for sectional bitterness seems extinct. But whether there was any profit in it—whether, in case the South never again attempts to secede, that happy omission will be due to reconstruction—may be doubted.
Was there a clearer gain from the humanitarian point of view? We have seen that at the close of the war a spirit of gratitude and philanthropy prevailed among the most influential of the southern white people as regards the negroes. Instead of allowing this spirit to develop and in the course of time to produce its natural results, the North, believing that suffrage was essential to the negro’s welfare and progress, forced the South to enfranchise him, by reconstruction. This caused the negro untold immediate harm (since reconstruction was a contributary cause of Kukluxism), and delayed his ultimate advance by giving the friendly spirit of the white people a check in its development from which it has not yet recovered.From the point of view of the Republican Politicians, reconstruction at first succeeded, but later proved a mistaken policy. By it they lost the support of the southern white men who had been opposed to secession. These formed a large party in Georgia. The victory of the federal arms had the nature of a party victory for them. They would have added their strength to the Republican party. Reconstruction, with its threat of negro domination, drove them into the Democratic party, where they still remain. For a time this loss was made good by negro votes, but not long.
Without reconstruction there would have been no Fifteenth Amendment. But the good will and philanthropy of the people among whom the negro lives, which reconstruction took away, would have brought him more benefit than the Fifteenth Amendment. Without reconstruction there would have been no Fourteenth Amendment. But a long line of decisions of the Supreme Court has determined that the Fourteenth Amendment did not achieve the nationalization of civil rights—an end which might justify reconstruction as a means. In short, reconstruction seems to have produced bad government, political rancor, and social violence and disorder, without compensating good.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
PUBLIC RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS.
Of the United States Government.
Congressional Globe.
Public Documents.
Statutes at Large.
Supreme Court Reports.
Military orders in the archives of the Department of War.
Correspondence in the same archives.
Correspondence in the archives of the Department of State.
Unpublished records in the same archives.
Of the Government of Georgia.
Journal of the constitutional convention of 1865.
Journal of the constitutional convention of 1867-8.
Journals of the legislature.
Reports of the four committees appointed by the legislature in December, 1871 to investigate respectively—
The management of the state railroad.
The lease of the same road.
The official conduct of Governor Bullock.
The transactions of Governor Bullock’s administration relating to the issue of state bonds and the indorsement of railroad bonds.
These reports were published in Atlanta in 1872.
Session Laws.
Supreme Court Reports.
Reports of the State Comptroller.
Executive minutes in the archives of the state in Atlanta.
Minutes of the Fulton County Superior Court in the office of that court in Atlanta.
NEWSPAPERS.
Atlanta New Era.
Atlanta Constitution.
Milledgeville Federal Union (during the war called the Confederate Union).
Savannah News.
Savannah Republican.
CONTEMPORARY PAMPHLETS.
A letter from Rufus B. Bullock to the chairman of the Ku Klux committee, Atlanta, 1871.
Address of the same to the people of Georgia, dated October, 1872.
Letter from the same “to the Republican Senators and Representatives who support the Reconstruction Acts,” Washington, May 21, 1870.
HISTORICAL WORKS AND COMPENDIA.
American Annual CyclopÆdia. New York.
Avery, I. W., History of Georgia. New York, 1881.
Bancroft, F. A., The Negro in Politics. New York, 1885.
Clews, Henry, Twenty-eight Years in Wall Street. London, 1888.
Cox, S. S., Three Decades of Federal Legislation. Providence, 1886.
Dunning, W. A., The Civil War and Reconstruction. New York, 1898.
Fielder, H., The Life and Times of Joseph E. Brown. Springfield, Mass., 1883.
Hill, B. H., Jr., The Life, Speeches and Writings of Benjamin H. Hill. Atlanta, 1891.
Lalor, J. J., CyclopÆdia of Political Science. New York, 1893. Articles on Reconstruction, Georgia, and Ku Klux.
Poor, H. V., Manual of the Railroads of the United States. New York, published yearly.
Sherman, W. T., Memoirs. New York, 1875.
Stephens, Alex., The War between the States. Philadelphia, 1868-70.
Taylor, Richard, Destruction and Reconstruction. New York, 1893.
Tribune Almanac. New York.
Wilson, Henry, History of the Reconstruction Measures. Hartford, 1868.
STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW
EDITED BY THE
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY.
VOLUME I, 1891-2. Second Edition, 1897. 396 pp.
Price, $3.00; bound, $3.50.
1. The Divorce Problem—A Study in Statistics. By Walter F. Willcox, Ph. D. Price, 75¢.
2. The History of Tariff Administration in the United States, from Colonial Times to the McKinley Administrative Bill. By John Dean Goss, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.
3. History of Municipal Land Ownership on Manhattan Island. By George Ashton Black, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.
4. Financial History of Massachusetts. By Charles H. J. Douglas, Ph. D. (Not sold separately.)
VOLUME II, 1892-93. 503 pp.
Price, $3.00; bound, $3.50.
1. The Economics of the Russian Village. By Isaac A. Hourwich, Ph. D. (Out of print.)
2. Bankruptcy. A Study in Comparative Legislation. By Samuel W. Dunscomb, Jr., Ph. D. Price, $1.00.
3. Special Assessments: A Study in Municipal Finance. By Victor Rosewater, Ph. D. Second Edition, 1898. Price, $1.00.
VOLUME III, 1893. 465 pp.
Price, $3.00; bound, $3.50.
1. History of Elections in the American Colonies. By Cortlandt F. Bishop, Ph. D. Price, $1.50.
Vol. III, no. 1, may also be obtained bound. Price, $2.00.
2. The Commercial Policy of England toward the American Colonies. By George L. Beer, A. M. Price, $1.50
VOLUME IV, 1893-94. 438 pp.
Price, $3.00; bound, $3.50.
1. Financial History of Virginia. By W. Z. Ripley, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.
2. The Inheritance Tax. By Max West, Ph. D. (Out of print.)
3. History of Taxation in Vermont. By Frederick A. Wood, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.
VOLUME V, 1895-96. 498 pp.
Price, $3.00; bound, $3.50.
1. Double Taxation in the United States. By Francis Walker, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.
2. The Separation of Governmental Powers. By William Bondy, LL. B., Ph. D. Price, $1.00.
3. Municipal Government in Michigan and Ohio. By Delos F. Wilcox, Ph. D. Price $1.00.
VOLUME VI, 1896. 601 pp.
Price, $4.00; bound, $4.50.
History of Proprietary Government in Pennsylvania. By William Robert Shepherd, Ph. D. Price, $4.00; bound, $4.50.
VOLUME VII, 1896. 512 pp.
Price, $3.00; bound, $3.50.
1. History of the Transition from Provincial to Commonwealth Government in Massachusetts. By Harry A. Cushing, Ph. D. Price, $2.00.
2. Speculation on the Stock and Produce Exchanges of the United States. By Henry Crosby Emery, Ph. D. Price, $1.50.
VOLUME VIII, 1896-98. 551 pp.
Price, $3.50; bound, $4.00.
1. The Struggle between President Johnson and Congress over Reconstruction. By Charles Ernest Chadsey, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.
2. Recent Centralizing Tendencies in State Educational Administration. By William Clarence Webster, Ph. D. Price, 75¢.
3. The Abolition of Privateering and the Declaration of Paris. By Francis R. Stark, LL. B., Ph. D. Price, $1.00.
4. Public Administration in Massachusetts. The Relation of Central to Local Activity. By Robert Harvey Whitten, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.
VOLUME IX, 1897-98. 617 pp.
Price, $3.50; bound, $4.00.
1. English Local Government of To-day. A Study of the Relations of Central and Local Government. By Milo Roy Maltbie, Ph. D. Price, $2.00.
Vol. IX, no. 1, may also be obtained bound. Price, $2.50.
2. German Wage Theories. A History of their Development. By James W. Crook, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.
3. The Centralization of Administration in New York State. By John Archibald Fairlie, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.
VOLUME X, 1898-99. 500 pp.
Price, $3.00; bound, $3.50.
1. Sympathetic Strikes and Sympathetic Lockouts. By Fred S. Hall, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
2. Rhode Island and the Formation of the Union. By Frank Greene Bates, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
3. Centralized Administration of Liquor Laws in the American Commonwealths. By Clement Moore Lacey Sites, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
VOLUME XI, 1899. 495 pp.
Price, $3.50; bound, $4.00.
The Growth of Cities. By Adna Ferrin Weber, Ph.D. Price, $3.50; bound, $4.00.
VOLUME XII, 1899-1900. 586 pp.
Price, $3.50; bound, $4.00.
1. History and Functions of Central Labor Unions. By William Maxwell Burke, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.
2. Colonial Immigration Laws. By Edward Emberson Proper, A.M. Price, 75¢.
3. History of Military Pension Legislation in the United States. By William Henry Glasson, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
4. History of the Theory of Sovereignty since Rousseau. By Charles E. Merriam, Jr., Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
VOLUME XIII, 1901. 570 pp.
Price, $3.50; bound, $4.00.
1. The Legal Property Relations of Married Parties. By Isidor Loeb, Ph. D. Price, $1.50.
2. Political Nativism in New York State. By Louis Dow Scisco; Ph. D. Price, $2.00.
3. The Reconstruction of Georgia. By Edwin C. Woolley, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.
VOLUME XIV, 1901.
1. Loyalism in New York during the American Revolution. By Alexander Clarence Flick, Ph. D. Price, $2.00.
2. The Economic Theory of Risk and Insurance. By Allan H. Willett, Ph. D. Price, $1.50.
VOLUME XV, 1901.
Civilization through Crime. By Arthur Cleveland Hall. [Ready in July.]
The set of thirteen volumes (except that Vol. II can be supplied only in unbound nos. 2 and 3) is offered bound for $43.
For further information apply to
Prof. EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN, Columbia University,
or to THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, New York,
London: P. S. KING & SON, Orchard House, Westminster.
Footnotes:[1] Alex. Stephens, The War Between the States, vol. ii, p. 623; W. T. Sherman, Memoirs, vol. ii, pp. 346-362.[2] M. C. U., May 9, 1865.[3] See the account of the gigantic relief operations of the federal army, A. A. C., 1865, p. 392.[4] M. C. U., May 9, 1865.[5] Letter from Joseph E. Brown to Andrew Johnson, dated May 20, 1865, in the Department of War, Washington. Brown was arrested on May 10. On May 8, upon surrendering the state troops to the federal general Wilson, he had been paroled. (The parole paper is in the above mentioned archives.) Hence the arrest was a violation of his parole. When Wilson entered into the parole engagement he had not been informed how his superiors would regard the summoning of the legislature. Immediately afterward he probably received orders from the central authorities to arrest Brown. He preferred obeying orders to observing his engagement.[6] G. O. D. S., 1865, no. 63.[7] See G. O. D. S., 1865, passim. Also Savannah Republican, May 1, 2, 3, etc., 1865.[8] Savannah Republican, July 4, 1865. See also James Johnson’s proclamation of July 13, 1865, M. F. U. of same date.[9] M. F. U., July 25, 1865.[10] U. S. L., vol. 13, 760. The provisional governorship, it may be remarked, was characterized by the Secretary of War as “ancillary to the withdrawal of military force, the disbandment of armies, and the reduction of military expenditure by provisional [civil organizations] to take the place of armed force.” The salaries of the provisional governors were paid from the army contingencies fund. See S. D., 39th Congress, 1st session, no. 26.[11] U. S. L., vol. 13, p. 764.[12] M. F. U., July 13, 1865; A. A. C., 1865, p. 394.[13] M. F. U., August 15, 1865; A. A. C., loc. cit.[14] Letter from Brown to Johnson, dated May 20, 1865, archives of the Department of War, Washington.[15] Letter from Johnson to Stanton dated June 3, 1865, in same archives.[16] M. F. U., July 11, 1865.[17] M. F. U., July 18. Savannah Republican, July 1 and 3.[18] J. C., 1865, p. 3.[19] J. C., 1865, p. 8.[20] Ibid., pp. 17, 18.[21] Ibid., p. 234. The ordinance to this effect was passed only after a hard fight, and after a telegraphic warning from the President that if it failed the state would fail of restoration. See S. D., 39th Congress, 1st session, no. 26, p. 81.[22] J. C., 1865, pp. 18 and 28.[23] S. J., 1865-6, p. 3.[24] S. D., 39th Congress, 1st session, no. 26, p. 95.[25] S. L., 1865, p. 313.[26] M. F. U., December 19 and 26, 1865.[27] See Jenkins’ message to the legislature, M. F. U., December 19, 1865.[28] K. K. R., vol. 6, p. 320 (testimony of John B. Gordon).[29] Report of Carl Schurz on conditions in the South, made in December, 1865. S. D., 39th Congress, 2d session, no. 2.[30] Report of Carl Schurz on conditions in the South, made in December, 1863. S. D., 39th Congress, 2d session, no. 2.[31] Art. v, sect. 1, § 1.[32] Art. ii, sec. 5, § 5.[33] S. L., 1865-66, p. 6.[34] S. L., 1865-66, p. 234.[35] Before, the maximum penalty for rape, arson, and burglary in the night had been imprisonment for 20 years, and for horse stealing imprisonment for 5 years.[36] S. L., 1865-66, p. 232; 1866, p. 151.[37] Ibid., 1866, p. 150.[38] Ibid., 1865-66, p. 233.[39] S. L., 1866, p. 153.[40] Ibid., 1865-66, p. 239.[41] Ibid.[42] Ibid., p. 240.[43] Ibid., 241.[44] S. L., 1866, p. 59.[45] J. C., 1865, p. 16.[46] Ibid., p. 17.[47] Ibid., 137.[48] S. L., 1866, p. 216. For the governor’s message and the report of the committee to which the amendment was referred, see A. A. C., 1865, p. 352. For a further expression of public opinion, see Atlanta New Era, October 19, 1866.[49] S. L., 1865-66, p. 315.[50] S. L., 1865-66, p. 14, and S. L., 1866, p. 143.[51] S. L., 1866, p. 219.[52] Report of Carl Schurz above cited.[53] C. G., 39th Congress, 1st session. Appendix, p. 1.[54] One of the Senators elect from Georgia had been Vice-President of the defunct Confederacy.[55] C. G., 39th Congress, 1st session, p. 2.[56] R. C., 39th Congress, 1st session, vol. ii, p. iii.[57] C. G., 39th Congress, 1st session, appendix, p. 82.[58] C. G., 39th Congress, 1st session, p. 915.[59] U. S. L., vol. 14, p. 27.[60] Trumbull’s speech, C. G., 39th Congress, 1st session, p. 474.[61] R. C., 39th Congress, 1st session, vol. ii.[62] Senate resolution (by Andrew Johnson), C. G., 37th Congress, 1st session, pp. 243, 265; House resolution (by Crittenden), ibid., pp. 209, 222.[63] U. S. L., vol. 14, P. 358.[64] Ibid., p. 173.[65] U. S. Senate Journal, 39th Congress, 2d session, p. 21.[66] C. G., 39th Congress, 2d session, p. 814.[67] Ibid.[68] C. G., 39th Congress, 2d session, p. 251.[69] U. S. L., vol. 14, p. 428.[70] C. G., 39th Congress, 2d session, p. 1076.[71] U. S. L., vol. 15, p. 2.[72] Ibid., p. 14.[73] Mississippi versus Johnson, 4 Wallace, 475; Georgia versus Stanton, 6 Wallace, 51; Ex parte McCardle, 6 Wallace, 324, and 7 Wallace, 512.[74] 7 Wallace, 700.[75] The Federalist, no. 43.[76] Story on the Constitution, chap. 41 (4th edition).[77] Cooley on the Constitution, p. 23 (4th edition).[78] Prize Cases, 2 Black, 687.[79] Ex parte Garland, 4 Wallace, 333.[80] Archives of the Department of State, Washington.[81] C. G., 39th Congress, 2d session, p. 615. For other expressions of the same doctrine, see Cullom’s speech, ibid., p. 814; Sumner’s resolutions, C. G., 39th Congress, 1st session, p. 2; Sumner’s resolutions, C. G., 40th Congress, 2d session, p. 453.[82] G. O. H., 1867, no. 18 and 104; 1868, no. 55; G. O. T. M. D., 1867, no. 1; 1868, no. 3 and 108.[83] G. O. T. M. D., 1867, no. 5.[84] Ibid., 1867, no. 20.[85] G. O. T. M. D., 1867, no. 50.[86] Ibid., 1867, no. 69.[87] Ibid., 1867, no. 83.[88] Ibid., 1867, no. 89. Also see Pope’s Report, in R. S. W., 40th Congress, 2d session, vol. i, p. 320.[89] There is a slight inaccuracy in the official figures.[90] G. O. T. M. D., 1867, no. 89.[91] Georgia Constitution of 1868, art. i, sec. i.[92] Ibid., art. i, sect. xi.[93] Ibid., art. ii, sect. ii.[94] Ibid., art. ii, sect. vii, § 10.[95] Ibid., art. i, sect. xxii.[96] Ibid., art. vi, sect. i.[97] G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 39 and 40.[98] Ibid., no. 76, 90 and 93. Also, E. D., 40th Congress 2d session, no. 300.[99] Pope’s Report in R. S. W., 40th Congress, 2d session, vol. i, p. 320.[100] G. O. T. M. D., 1867, no. 1.[101] G. O. T. M. D., 1867, no. 10.[102] For the correspondence between Jenkins and Pope see A. A. C., 1867, p. 363.[103] G. O. T. M. D., 1867, no. 49.[104] Ibid., 1867, no. 45.[105] Ibid., 1867, no. 28.[106] Ibid., 1867, no. 69.[107] S. O. T. M. D., 1867, passim.[108] G. O. T. M. D., 1867, no. 53.[109] S. O. T. M. D., 1867, no. 92, 100, 104.[110] Ibid., 1867, no. 263.[111] These figures are compiled from the special orders of the Third Military District.[112] G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 22.[113] Ordinance of Dec. 20, 1867, J. C., 1867-8, p. 564.[114] Avery, History of Georgia, p. 378.[115] G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 8. Meade acted with the greatest courtesy, and the relations between him and the officers remained friendly. See Meade’s letter to Jenkins, A. A. C., 1867, p. 367. The removal of the treasurer was a formality to preserve the appearance of due discipline; Jones was allowed to retain the money then in the treasury, and to use it in paying the state debt and other expenses of the state government. See his report to the legislature, Sept. 18, 1868; H. J., 1868, p. 359.[116] J. C., 1867-8, p. 581.[117] G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 12 and 17.[118] S. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 112.[119] G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 39 and 57.[120] Ibid., 1868, no. 58.[121] Ibid., 1868, no. 51.[122] Ibid., 1868, no. 54.[123] Ibid., 1868, no. 57.[124] Ibid., 1868, no. 27 and 37.[125] G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 27, 55, 99, 123, 136, and 148.[126] M. F. U., Oct. 29, 1867.[127] Atlanta New Era, Nov. 16, 1866; March 13, 1867; March 19, 1867.[128] Testimony of John B. Gordon, K. K. R., vol. 6, p. 308.[129] Atlanta New Era, March 13, 16 and 30, 1867.[130] M. F. U., Oct. 29 and Nov. 5, 1867.[131] A. A. C., 1868, p. 309.[132] Testimony before the reconstruction committee, H. M. D., 40th Congress, 2d session, no. 52, p. 26. See also M. F. U., March 10 and 17, 1867.[133] Tribune Almanac for 1869, p. 78.[134] U. S. L., vol. 15, Public Laws, p. 41.[135] See sects. 5 and 6.[136] The vote in Alabama on the adoption of the constitution resulted in favor of adoption; but less than half of the registered voters voted, and the vote was taken before the passage of the act of March 11, 1868, above mentioned. Excuse was found by the Republican leaders for waiving this irregularity. C. G., 40th Congress, 2d session, p. 2463.[137] C. G., 40th Congress, 2d session, p. 2859 (Trumbull’s speech).[138] U. S. L., vol. 15, Public Acts, p. 73.[139] S. J., 1868. p. 3.[140] The Iron Clad or Test Oath, to the effect that the person swearing had never borne arms against the United States, or in any way served the Confederacy. U. S. L., vol. 12, p. 502.
[141] G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 61.[142] S. R., 40th Congress, 3d session, no. 192, p. 38. See also C. G., 41st Congress, 1st session, p. 594.[143] G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 98.[144] S. R., 40th Congress, 3d session, no. 192, p. 7.[145] Ibid. See also H. J., 1868, p. 25.[146] S. J., 1868, p. 34.[147] H. J., 1868, pp. 36, 44.[148] S. R., 40th Congress, 3d session, no. 192, p. 8.[149] S. R., 40th Congress, 3d session, no. 192, p. 38.[150] Ibid.[151] Ibid., p. 13.[152] H. J., 1868, p. 52.[153] G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 103.[154] G. O. H., 1868, no. 55.[155] H. J., 1868, p. 57.[156] C. G., 40th Congress, 2d session, pp. 4472, 4499, 4500.[157] H. J., 1868, p. 104.[158] C. G., 40th Congress, 2d session, p. 4518.[159] A. A. C., 1868, p. 312.[160] The most prominent of these was Ex-Governor Brown. He went as a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 1868, but in a speech there declared his opposition to the granting of political power to the negro. Avery, History of Georgia, p. 385.[161] S. J., 1868, p. 84.[162] Constitution of 1868, Art. xi, § 3.[163] Irwin’s Code, 1868, § 1648.[164] Art. i, sec. 2.[165] This ingenious argument of intent was made by Bullock. H. J., 1868, p. 300.[166] White versus Clements, Georgia Reports, vol. 39, p. 232.[167] H. J., 1868, pp. 242, 247. S. J., 1868, pp. 278, 280.[168] Irwin’s Code, 1868, § 121.[169] C. G., 40th Congress, 3d session, p. 3.[170] Ibid., p. 2.[171] C. G., 40th Congress, 3d session, p. 3.[172] Richard Taylor, Destruction and Reconstruction.[173] K. K. R., vol. 6, p. 93 (testimony of Augustus R. Wright); p. 274 (testimony of Ambrose R. Wright); p. 236 (testimony of J. H. Christy); p. 818 (testimony of J. E. Brown).[174] Ibid., vol. 7, pp. 812, 818 (testimony of J. E. Brown); p. 786 (testimony of B. H. Hill).[175] Ibid., vol. 6, pp. 21 (testimony of C. D. Forsythe), 118 (testimony of Aug. R. Wright); vol 7, pp. 988 (testimony of Linton Stephens), 1071.[176] Ibid., vol. 6, pp. 426, 440 (testimony of J. H. Caldwell), 108 (testimony of Aug. R. Wright); vol. 7, p. 818 (testimony of J. E. Brown).[177] Ibid., vol. 6, p. 344 (testimony of J. B. Gordon).[178] C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 1929 (Trumbull’s remarks).[179] Report of committee on reconstruction, H. M. D., 40th Congress, 3d session, no. 52, pp. 12 (testimony of Akerman), 27 (testimony of J. E. Bryant).[180] K. K. R., vol. 6, p. 107 (testimony of Aug. R. Wright).[181] K. K. R., vol. 7, p. 838 (testimony of C. W. Howard).[182] This statement is corroborated by the testimony of B. H. Hill, K. K. R., vol. 7, p. 767.[183] C. G., 40th Congress, 3d session, p. 2.[184] S. R., 40th Congress, 3d session, no. 192.[185] C. G., 40th Congress, 3d session, p. 27.[186] Ibid., p. 144.[187] Ibid., pp. 10 and 674.[188] H. M. D., 40th Congress, 3d session, no. 52.[189] U. S. L., vol. 15, Public Laws, p. 257.[190] C. G., 40th Congress, 3d session, pp. 934, 976. A precedent for this rule was found in the similar treatment of Missouri’s electoral vote in 1821.[191] C. C. 40th Congress, 3d session, pp. 1057, ff.[192] G. C., 1867-8, p. 567.[193] C. G., 41st Congress, 1st session, pp. 16, 18. The committee of elections reported on Jan. 28, 1870, that the Georgia representatives were not entitled to seats in the 41st Congress, having sat in the 40th. R. C., 41st Congress, 2d session, no. 16.[194] C. G., 41st Congress, 1st session, pp. 8, 263, 591.[195] U. S. L., vol. 15, appendix, p. xii.[196] W. A. Dunning, The Civil War and Reconstruction, pp. 226-228, 243.[197] S. J., 1869, p. 806; H. J., p. 610.[198] C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 251.[199] Ibid., p. 4.[200] H. M. D., 40th Congress, 3d session, no. 52.[201] S. D., 41st Congress, 2d session, no. 3.[202] Ibid. Halleck’s annual report of Nov. 6, 1869, speaks to the same effect. R. S. W., 1869, abridged edition, p. 70.[203] C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 246.[204] U. S. L., vol. 16, Pub. Laws, p. 59.[205] C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 1710 (Lawrence’s speech).[206] Ibid., pp. 165 (Carpenter’s speech) and 208 (Conkling’s speech).[207] C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 2062.[208] Ibid., p. 1710 (Lawrence’s speech).[209] G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 90.[210] G. O. II., 1870, no. 1. This and other documents relating to Terry’s administration are published in E. D., 41st Congress, 2d session, no. 288.[211] S. R., first Congress, 2d session, no. 58.[212] G. O. M. D. G., 1870, no. 2, 14, 16, 17.[213] S. O. M. D. G., no. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 17.[214] Ibid., no. 10 and 11.[215] H. J., 1870, p. 3.[216] S. J., 1870, p. 3; H. J., p. 7.[217] H. J., p. 17.[218] S. J., 1870., p. 26.[219] H. J., 1870, p. 3.[220] Ibid., pp. 19 and 21.[221] See also a letter from Sherman to Terry, published in K. K. R., vol. i, p. 311.[222] Judge Cabaniss in Atlanta Constitution, Jan. 8, 1870.[223] H. J., 1870, p. 9.[224] G. O. M. D. G., 1870, no. 3 and 4.[225] Ibid., no. 9 and 11.[226] Ibid., no. 9.[227] Ibid., no. 9 and 11.[228] Atlanta Constitution, Jan. 27, 1870.[229] C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 1926 (Trumbull’s speech).[230] H. J., 1870, p. 22.[231] H. J., 1870, p. 23.[232] Ibid., p. 25.[233] Ibid., p. 26.[234] G. O. M. D. G., 1870, no. 10.[235] H. J., 1870, p. 33.[236] C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 208.[237] S. J., 1870, p. 74; H. J., p. 74.[238] See Bullock’s message, H. J., 1870, p. 52.[239] H. J., 1870, p. 95.[240] Ibid., pp. 113, 156.[241] H. J., 1870, p. 106.[242] Ibid., p. 140.[243] Ibid., p. 121.[244] C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 576. For Sherman’s reply see E. D., 41st Congress, 2d session, no. 82.[245] C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 1029.[246] Ibid., p. 1128.[247] S. R., 41st Congress, 2d session, no. 58.[248] Chicago Tribune, Dec. 7, 1868.[249] C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, pp. 1570, 1704.[250] C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 1770.[251] Ibid.[252] Ibid., p. 1988.[253] C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 2091.[254] Ibid., pp. 2820, ff.[255] Ibid., p. 2829.[256] Ibid., p. 4747.[257] U. S. L., vol. 16, Public Laws, p. 363.[258] H. J., 1870, p. 181.[259] S. J., 1870, vol. ii, p. 29.[260] Ibid., p. 50; H. J., p. 343.[261] C. G., 41st Congress, 3d session, pp. 527, 530, 678, 703, 1086.[262] S. R., 41st Congress, 3d session, no. 308.[263] C. G., 41st Congress, 3d session, pp. 871, 1632.[264] J. C., p. 14.[265] J. C., pp. 16, 17.[266] Ibid., p. 587.[267] Ibid., pp. 49, 53.[268] Ibid., p. 581.[269] Ibid., p. 75.[270] Ibid., p. 63.[271] Ibid., p. 84.[272] Ibid., pp. 581, 594.[273] Ibid., p. 68.[274] J. C., p. 583.[275] Ibid., p. 593.[276] Ibid., p. 591.[277] See J. C., 1865, p. 201 (speech of H. V. Johnson).[278] J. C., 1867-8, p. 90.[279] Ibid., p. 39.[280] Ibid., p. 47.[281] M. F. U., Dec. 24, 1867, Jan. 7, Jan. 14, 1868.[282] H. J., 1868, p. 294.[283] H. J., 1868, p. 303.[284] S. J., 1868, p. 326.[285] H. J., 1869, p. 5.[286] Ibid., p. 228.[287] H. J., p. 54.[288] Ibid., p. 260.[289] Ibid., p. 265.[290] H. J., 1869, p. 575.[291] Ibid., 1869, p. 618.[292] S. J., p. 806.[293] G. O. M. D. G., 1870, no. 9 and 11.[294] S. J., 1870, p. 39.[295] H. J., pp. 34, 40, 84, 88.[296] The complexion of the legislature when composed of the men elected in April, 1868, was as follows:
| | Senate. | | Lower House. |
| Republicans | | 22 | | 73 |
| Conservatives | | 22 | | 102 |
After the colored members were expelled and their seats given to the minority candidates, it was as follows:
| | Senate. | | Lower House. |
| Republicans | | 19 | | 48 |
| Conservatives | | 25 | | 127 |
After the reorganization of 1870 it was as follows:
| | Senate. | | Lower House. |
| Republicans | | 27 | | 87 |
| Conservatives | | 17 | | 83 |
The figures in the second and third tables are based upon the changes produced only by the official transactions referred to. Perhaps some slight corrections might be made on account of accidental circumstances, such as the non-attendance or death of a few members.[297] See K. K. R., vol. 6, p. 149; vol. 7, p. 1062.[298] H. J., 1870, p. 156.[299] H. M. D., 40th Congress, 3d session, no. 52, p. 27.[300] Savannah News, Jan. 12, 1870.[301] H. J., p. 50.[302] M. F. U., Feb. 15, 1870[303] M. F. U., Jan. 25, 1870.[304] H. J., p. 343.[305] S. L., 1870, p. 62.[306] Ibid., p. 431.[307] Tribune Almanac, 1871, p. 75.[308] M. F. U., March 14, 8871; Atlanta Constitution, Oct. 26 and 31, 1871.[309] Art. iii, sect. i, § 3.[310] S. L., 1870, p. 419.[311] E. M., 1870-74, p. 197.
[312] See entry of the secretary of state, ibid.[313] Art. iv, sect. i,§ 4.[314] E. M., 1870-74, p. 198.[315] Atlanta Constitution, Nov. 3, 1871.[316] S. J., 1871, p. 17.[317] Atlanta Constitution, Nov. 2, 1871.[318] S. L., 1871, p. 27.[319] Art. iv, sect. i, § 4.[320] H. J., 1871, p. 179.[321] For vetoed bills see S. L., 1871 and 1872, pp. 12, 15, 18, 27, 68, 74. See also ibid., p. 260, and H. J., 1872, p. 25.[322] E. M., 1870-74, p. 277 (pardon of V. A. Gaskill); Minutes of Fulton County Superior Court, vol. J, p. 404 (pardon of F. Blodgett).[323] H. J., 1872, p. 25.[324] Ibid., p. 31.[325] K. K. R., vol. 6, p. 327.[326] Digest of tax laws, 1859, p. 11.[327] S. L., 1865-66, p. 253.[328] Ibid., 1866, p. 164.[329] Ibid., 1868, p. 152; 1869, p. 159.[330] B. L., p. 11.[331] C. R., 1870 (printed in S. J., 1870, part ii, p. 83).[332] C. R., 1870.[333] C. R., April, 1871.[334] C. R., April, 1872.[335] B. L., p. 9; B. A., p. 42.[336] Report of state treasurer Jones, published in H. J., 1868, p. 361; R. C., 1870; R. C., April, 1871; R. C., April, 1872.[337] S. L., 1865-1866, pp. 12 and 14; ibid., 1866, pp. 10, 11, 143.[338] Compiled from the financial documents above cited.[339] S. L., 1865-66, p. 250.[340] Compiled from the financial reports above cited.
The enemies of reconstruction were fond of placing the state expenses of Bullock’s administration in juxtaposition with those before the war. Contrasts truly horrible could thus be produced. But it was not a fair comparison, for the expenses in such circumstances as prevailed after the war and after the social revolution would naturally be larger than before. The expenses of many states besides those which enjoyed reconstruction increased largely after the war. E.g. the records of Pennsylvania show that “Expenses of Government” were—
| In | 1857 | $423,448.89 |
| 1858 | 399,888.36 |
| 1860 | 404,863.41 |
| 1866 | 668,909.63 |
| 1867 | 802,878.58 |
| 1868 | 845,539.89 |
| 1869 | 804,730.17 |
| 1870 | 826,069.25 |
Pennsylvania Executive Documents, Auditor’s Reports, for the years named. In Massachusetts the “Ordinary Expenses” were—
| In | 1857 | $1,236,204.26 |
| 1858 | 1,008,620.50 |
| 1859 | 999,899.76 |
| 1860 | 1,193,896.41 |
| 1866 | 6,877,720.85 |
| 1867 | 5,953,003.31 |
| 1868 | 5,908,678.48 |
Massachusetts Public Documents for the years named.[341] C. R., 1870.[342] C. R., April, 1871, p. 14; C. R., April, 1872, p. 17; B. L., p. 13; Conley’s message to the legislature, Jan. 11, 1872 (quoted in B. A., p. 6, and in K. K. R., vol. i, p. 141).
Of these bonds 3,000, representing a debt of $3,000,000, were issued under a law of Sept. 15, 1870 (S. L., 1870, p. 10), authorizing the governor to issue bonds for various purposes without specified limit as to amount. The rest were issued under an act of Oct. 17, 1870 (omitted from the session laws, see Conley’s message just cited), authorizing the governor to issue to the Brunswick and Albany railroad state bonds to the amount of $1,880,000 in exchange for bonds of the railroad to the amount of $2,350,000.
In addition to the bonds already mentioned, bonds to the amount of $600,000 were issued under acts of 1868 (S. L., 1868, pp. 14 and 138.) These were not sold and were returned to the possession of the state during Bullock’s administration (Angier’s statement, K. K. R., vol. 6, p. 162). Also, before the issue of $3,000,000 mentioned, bonds to the amount of $2,000,000 were issued (Conley’s message cited). These were hypothecated with several bankers in New York. Some of them, amounting to $500,000, were returned and cancelled during Bullock’s administration (Conley’s message). The rest, amounting to $1,500,000, remained in the hands of the bankers. Conley stated, in January, 1872 (message cited), that these bonds had been replaced by bonds of a later issue and canceled during Bullock’s administration, and had therefore ceased to be a claim against the state. This statement conflicts with three facts. 1. The bankers who held these bonds refused to return them after their alleged cancellation. 2. One of these bankers sold the bonds which he held after their alleged cancellation (Henry Clews, Twenty-eight Years in Wall Street, p. 277). 3. The legislature of Georgia repudiated these bonds in 1872, which would have been unnecessary if they had been cancelled. It seems probable, therefore, though not certain, that this $1,500,000 should be added to the debt incurred by the reconstruction government.[343] S. L., 1868, title xvii.[344] Ibid., 1869, title xv.[345] Ibid., 1870, title xi, division vii.[346] Angier’s statement, K. K. R., vol. i, p. 129.[347] Conley’s message above cited.[348] It is to be remarked, however, that four of the roads whose bonds the state had guaranteed became bankrupt before 1874. See Poor’s Railroad Manual for 1873-4, pp. 432 and 582; and for 1874-5, p. 426.[349] E. M., 1870-74, p. 449.[350] See the case of Hoyt, Minutes of Fulton County Superior Court, vol. I, pp. 371, 445.[351] Report of the investigating committee of the legislature appointed in Dec., 1871. Its report was printed in Atlanta in 1872. It is bitterly partisan, but a minority report made by a Republican admits, with humorous resignation, that the charges are true.[352] A. A. C., 1869, P. 305.[353] See K. K. R., vol. i, pp. 137 and 138. The statements are on pp. 11 and 12 of the letter as published in Atlanta in 1871.[354] See Conley’s message cited.[355] In the latter part of 1868 and in 1869 the governor paid to a certain H. I. Kimball $54,500 from the treasury. He paid this to be used in furnishing a building which was at that time occupied as the state capital. (Bullock’s statement, B. A., p. 29.) There was no law authorizing this payment, nor was the state under any obligation to make it. The state bought the building in 1870 by an act of the legislature which provided that the $54,500 should be counted as part of the price. Thus Bullock’s advance was ratified by the state. (S. L., 1870, p. 494.) This, however, does not change the character of the act.[356] See C. R., April, 1871, and April, 1872. Bullock was accused of indorsing the bonds of three railroads contrary to law. In the case of two of these (the Cartersville and Van Wert, or Cherokee railroad, and the Bainbridge, Cuthbert and Columbus railroad) he refuted the charge beyond contradiction in his address to the public of 1872. In the case of the third (the Brunswick and Albany railroad) he admitted that he had indorsed bonds before the road had complied with the conditions required by law, but said that he did it for the public good. (B. A., pp. 39-41.)[357] Atlanta Constitution, Jan. 3, 1878; Minutes of the Fulton County Superior Court, vol. N, p. 261.[358] Ibid., pp. 263, 273.[359] Atlanta New Era, Oct. 31, 1871. Printed as an appendix to B. A.[360] Appendix to B. L. (printed in K. K. R., vol. 7, p. 825).[361] K. K. R., vol. 7, pp. 767 and 780.
Transcriber’s Notes:
Punctuation has been corrected without note.
Other than the corrections noted by hover information, inconsistencies in spelling and hyphenation have been retained from the original.
Footnote 141 appears on page 51, but there is no corresponding marker on the page.
