CHAPTERXCLOSE OF THE RADICAL DOMINATIONAfterthe recognition of the loyal government by Congress, the only hope of the disfranchised ex-Confederates of regaining political control of the State lay in a division in the ranks of the Union party. So long as Governor Brownlow remained at the head of affairs, no such division occurred. He served as Governor the full term of two years, and was re-elected. Before the expiration of his second term, he was chosen by the Legislature to represent Tennessee in the United States Senate. According to a provision of the State constitution, the vacant governorship descended to De Witt Senter, Speaker of the State Senate. Mr. Senter was inducted into office on the 29th of February, 1868.Three years had now passed since the close of the war, and the restoration of civil government, but the majority of the white citizens still remained disfranchised, and no steps had been taken to remove their disqualifications. In speaking of this aspect of the situation, Mr. Fletcher, Secretary of the State, said: “Our mistake was that we made the franchise law sweeping and perpetual, offering no hope or inducement to the ex-rebel to become loyal. The man who is disfranchised in a republic is not apt to feel that it is his government, or to take pride or interest in it, nor apt to make a useful or even law-abiding citizen of it. I do not feel comfortable in a State where half of the people and two thirds of the tax-payers are publicly degraded by law, without motive to be proud of the State and government.”Upon the day of Governor Senter’s inauguration, the air was filled with rumors and signs of coming changes. Whether it would be a violent eruption or a peaceful change through constitutional means, no one could foresee. In the great crowd which gathered at the Capitol to hear the inaugural address, there was noticed by the press reporters a number of distinguished Southern leaders. This in itself was considered a harbinger of the coming storm. The address proved disappointing to all. It was expected that the Governor would give some intimation of the policy he intended to pursue, but he simply expressed his appreciation of the office to which he had been elevated, and his desire to see peace and prosperity restored to the State.There was little of interest in the character or career of the new Governor. He was born in Granger County in 1833. His father, William F. Senter, had represented the Second Congressional District in the Twenty-eighth Congress. Although Governor Senter had been chosen Speaker of the Radical Senate he had never shown himself an extreme partisan. He had even been a member of the secession Legislature of 1861; but Congress had relieved him of his political disabilities on the22dof December, 1868. It was therefore with a hopeful expectancy that the people of Tennessee hailed his advent into the office of Governor.But before Governor Senter could make any change in the administration, the State was plunged into a heated campaign to elect his successor. He was entitled by the Constitution to serve out Brownlow’s unexpired term, but only a few months remained of that. His aspirations naturally went beyond his briefprotem.term, and he, therefore, announced his intention of becoming a candidate subject to the approval of the Union party.A new candidate soon appeared in the person of W. B. Stokes. Mr. Stokes was the Representative of the Third District in Congress. His record had been somewhat similar to that of Governor Senter. At the beginning of the war he had identified himself with the secession movement, but had quickly deserted what he saw to be a sinking ship. After the war, as if to make amends for his past conduct, he became one of the most extreme and bitter Radicals.At first, the canvass was a mere personal contest, having little significance to any one except the Radical leaders. A Convention of the Union party was called to meet in Nashville on May22d. Both candidates pledged themselves to abide by the decision of this Convention.Ex-President Johnson’s return to Tennessee at this time added to the uncertainty of the contest. He was still a power in Tennessee politics, and it was rumored that he might enter the race as a Conservative Democrat. The Radical Convention assembled in Nashville on the day appointed. It was called to order by Thos. Cates, chairman of the Central Committee, who was a Stokes man. After the reading of the call, Judge Houck moved that Mr. Pearne, a friend of Governor Senter, be made temporary chairman of the Convention. His motion having failed to be recognized by Mr. Cates, he put it to the House himself and declared Mr. Pearne elected. Mr. Pearne attempted to reach the chair, but was forcibly prevented. This resulted in a hand-to-hand contest between the delegates. Failing to perfect a temporary organization, the Convention adjourned until the following day. But at the second meeting the disgraceful scenes of the first were repeated. It finally dissolved amid the utmost confusion.The Union and American, a daily newspaper, published in Nashville, contained the following report of the Convention’s proceedings.“The so-called Radical State Convention, the most disgraceful, profane, and vulgar assemblage of men ever congregated in the State to consider public affairs, came to an abrupt termination yesterday, after an ineffectual attempt of two days to organize. It simply dissolved. It could not even adjourn. It had no chairman, no secretary, and could not even transact any business. It met as if by chance, and dispersed from necessity. It was an agglomerate discord, an inflamed mob filled with mean whiskey and meaner passions. It was a meeting of mortal enemies under the guise of friendship to decide the spoils of misdeeds and crimes. They quarrelled and fought, and called each other liars and thieves, and all manner of epithets. Such a congregation of vulgar elements, so fierce, so bitter, and so reckless, was never seen before in this section of the Union.“This assemblage of Radicals was called together to counsel for the good of the State, and present to the people a person of such fair name and true patriotism as to be worthy of them and the State for their chief executive!”The above description was written by a “rebel” editor, but the following account, taken from theKnoxville Whig, is scarcely less severe: “We share in the regret of all good Republicans that the late Convention was so divided, boisterous, disrupted. We have attended many conventions, national and State. We never attended one in which such injustice, violence, and fraud were practised.”These two pictures of the Convention, drawn from different standpoints, give us some idea of the kind of men that had ruled Tennessee for four years. At last the household was divided against itself; it was only a matter of a few weeks until it should fall.The Senter faction attempted to throw the blame for the disrupted Convention upon Mr. Stokes and his friends. They denied the charge, and asserted that at least sixty-four counties had been instructed for Mr. Stokes, which would have insured him the nomination. The result of the discussion was that Governor Senter and Mr. Stokes declared their intentions to “fight it to a finish at the polls.” They began at Nashville, January 5th, a joint canvass of the State. A direct issue was soon made between them on the franchise question. Governor Senter declared “that the time has come, and is now, when the limitations and disabilities which have found their way into our statute-books, as the result of the war, should be abolished and removed, and the privilege of the elective franchise be restored, and extended so far as to embrace the mass of the adult population of the State.”Mr. Stokes thus defined his position: “When the killing of Union men ceases, the hellish organization of Ku-Klux is abandoned, and the laws are observed, then I am willing to entertain a proposition to amend the State constitution so far as to allow the disfranchised to come in gradually, by providing that the Legislature may by a two thirds vote remove the disabilities for those who petition, and come well recommended by their loyal neighbors.”After these declarations of principles the struggle became one of paramount importance to the whole people of the State.As the time for the election approached, and the official registration began, signs of uneasiness appeared among the supporters of Mr. Stokes. They felt confident that the majority of the Radical votes were for their candidate, but they realized that Governor Senter was “master of the situation.” He had control of the same machinery Governor Brownlow had employed so successfully in changing the results of Congressional and State elections. Would Governor Senter use this in his own behalf, thus destroying the Radical party with an instrument of their making? This question was asked and discussed both upon the stump and in the newspapers.The election occurred on the 5th day of August. At the same time the election for the State Legislature was held. The issue was the same as in the gubernatorial contest—that is, universal suffrage or continued disfranchisement. Contrary to expectations, the election passed without any serious conflicts or disturbances of the peace. The result was not long in doubt. It could be seen on the following day from the partial returns that Governor Senter had been elected by an enormous majority.The official returns were as follows:Senter.Stokes.East Tennesssee23,87722,471Middle ”58,64619,149West ”37,68113,209120,20454,87454,874Senter’s majority65,330The Conservative candidates to the Legislature, who stood upon the same platform as Governor Senter, were elected almost to a man.Immediately after election, Mr. Stokes and his friends raised the cry of fraud. They lost no time in hurrying to Washington in order to bring pressure to bear upon President Grant to declare the election void. Mr. Stokes set forth his claims in a lengthy interview. He said in part: “Governor Senter being governor or acting-governor had the appointment of the registrars of the election. He put in such men as he thought would do his bidding. They at once opened the flood-gates and let everybody in, the disfranchising clauses of the Constitution were trodden under foot and entirely disregarded, certificates of qualification as voters were issued to disfranchised rebels, and even boys of sixteen and seventeen were allowed to vote. Besides this there was a course of intimidation pursued under the instruction of Senter which prevented hundreds of Republicans from voting. You see Senter was governor. He had militia and intended to use them, if necessary, to elect himself. In many cases where the rebels had the upper hand the Republicans, especially the negroes, could not vote in their precincts for fear of violence. What defeated me was the rebels who were disfranchised under the constitution. I got 56,000, which was Grant’s vote last fall. Seymour’s was 33,000 last fall, but Senter’s vote was this time 119,000. The 86,000 additional which Senter got were rebels and minors.”These charges made by Mr. Stokes were replied to in the daily press by Governor Senter. He claimed that it was unfair to compare the vote in the recent election with the presidential election of the previous fall. In the presidential election the Republicans were sure of the result in the State, so they had made no effort to bring out a full vote. It would be much fairer to take the vote cast in the gubernatorial election of 1867 as the standard by which to measure the result of the recent election. In 1867, Governor Brownlow’s vote was 19,900 more than Mr. Stokes had received, yet the registration of 1867 exceeded the vote cast by over 20,000. The old registration law was still in force, but had been modified by a decision of the Supreme Court which admitted at least 40,000 votes which had been kept out in 1867. In other words, Mr. Senter claimed he could have received a majority of 20,000 had there been no new registration. The newly appointed registrars, referred to in Mr. Stokes’s interview, were, with the exception of three tenths, regularly discharged Federal soldiers.Mr. Stokes in his efforts to secure Federal intervention was supported by all the Radical leaders. Many of those who had supported Governor Senter in the election were now most active in the attempt to prevent his induction into office. Among the first to change front was Mr. Brownlow. Early in the contest he had favored the nomination of Governor Senter. After the disruption of the Radical Convention, he still continued to support Governor Senter. It was not until after election that he seemed to realize that Governor Senter’s victory meant the return to power of the ex-Confederate and consequently the downfall of Radical domination.President Grant turned a deaf ear to the entreaties of the Radical leaders. They sought Congressional action, but met defeat here also, as Congress passed a resolution thanking President Grant for his refusal to interfere with affairs in Tennessee.
Afterthe recognition of the loyal government by Congress, the only hope of the disfranchised ex-Confederates of regaining political control of the State lay in a division in the ranks of the Union party. So long as Governor Brownlow remained at the head of affairs, no such division occurred. He served as Governor the full term of two years, and was re-elected. Before the expiration of his second term, he was chosen by the Legislature to represent Tennessee in the United States Senate. According to a provision of the State constitution, the vacant governorship descended to De Witt Senter, Speaker of the State Senate. Mr. Senter was inducted into office on the 29th of February, 1868.
Three years had now passed since the close of the war, and the restoration of civil government, but the majority of the white citizens still remained disfranchised, and no steps had been taken to remove their disqualifications. In speaking of this aspect of the situation, Mr. Fletcher, Secretary of the State, said: “Our mistake was that we made the franchise law sweeping and perpetual, offering no hope or inducement to the ex-rebel to become loyal. The man who is disfranchised in a republic is not apt to feel that it is his government, or to take pride or interest in it, nor apt to make a useful or even law-abiding citizen of it. I do not feel comfortable in a State where half of the people and two thirds of the tax-payers are publicly degraded by law, without motive to be proud of the State and government.”
Upon the day of Governor Senter’s inauguration, the air was filled with rumors and signs of coming changes. Whether it would be a violent eruption or a peaceful change through constitutional means, no one could foresee. In the great crowd which gathered at the Capitol to hear the inaugural address, there was noticed by the press reporters a number of distinguished Southern leaders. This in itself was considered a harbinger of the coming storm. The address proved disappointing to all. It was expected that the Governor would give some intimation of the policy he intended to pursue, but he simply expressed his appreciation of the office to which he had been elevated, and his desire to see peace and prosperity restored to the State.
There was little of interest in the character or career of the new Governor. He was born in Granger County in 1833. His father, William F. Senter, had represented the Second Congressional District in the Twenty-eighth Congress. Although Governor Senter had been chosen Speaker of the Radical Senate he had never shown himself an extreme partisan. He had even been a member of the secession Legislature of 1861; but Congress had relieved him of his political disabilities on the22dof December, 1868. It was therefore with a hopeful expectancy that the people of Tennessee hailed his advent into the office of Governor.
But before Governor Senter could make any change in the administration, the State was plunged into a heated campaign to elect his successor. He was entitled by the Constitution to serve out Brownlow’s unexpired term, but only a few months remained of that. His aspirations naturally went beyond his briefprotem.term, and he, therefore, announced his intention of becoming a candidate subject to the approval of the Union party.
A new candidate soon appeared in the person of W. B. Stokes. Mr. Stokes was the Representative of the Third District in Congress. His record had been somewhat similar to that of Governor Senter. At the beginning of the war he had identified himself with the secession movement, but had quickly deserted what he saw to be a sinking ship. After the war, as if to make amends for his past conduct, he became one of the most extreme and bitter Radicals.
At first, the canvass was a mere personal contest, having little significance to any one except the Radical leaders. A Convention of the Union party was called to meet in Nashville on May22d. Both candidates pledged themselves to abide by the decision of this Convention.
Ex-President Johnson’s return to Tennessee at this time added to the uncertainty of the contest. He was still a power in Tennessee politics, and it was rumored that he might enter the race as a Conservative Democrat. The Radical Convention assembled in Nashville on the day appointed. It was called to order by Thos. Cates, chairman of the Central Committee, who was a Stokes man. After the reading of the call, Judge Houck moved that Mr. Pearne, a friend of Governor Senter, be made temporary chairman of the Convention. His motion having failed to be recognized by Mr. Cates, he put it to the House himself and declared Mr. Pearne elected. Mr. Pearne attempted to reach the chair, but was forcibly prevented. This resulted in a hand-to-hand contest between the delegates. Failing to perfect a temporary organization, the Convention adjourned until the following day. But at the second meeting the disgraceful scenes of the first were repeated. It finally dissolved amid the utmost confusion.
The Union and American, a daily newspaper, published in Nashville, contained the following report of the Convention’s proceedings.
“The so-called Radical State Convention, the most disgraceful, profane, and vulgar assemblage of men ever congregated in the State to consider public affairs, came to an abrupt termination yesterday, after an ineffectual attempt of two days to organize. It simply dissolved. It could not even adjourn. It had no chairman, no secretary, and could not even transact any business. It met as if by chance, and dispersed from necessity. It was an agglomerate discord, an inflamed mob filled with mean whiskey and meaner passions. It was a meeting of mortal enemies under the guise of friendship to decide the spoils of misdeeds and crimes. They quarrelled and fought, and called each other liars and thieves, and all manner of epithets. Such a congregation of vulgar elements, so fierce, so bitter, and so reckless, was never seen before in this section of the Union.
“This assemblage of Radicals was called together to counsel for the good of the State, and present to the people a person of such fair name and true patriotism as to be worthy of them and the State for their chief executive!”
The above description was written by a “rebel” editor, but the following account, taken from theKnoxville Whig, is scarcely less severe: “We share in the regret of all good Republicans that the late Convention was so divided, boisterous, disrupted. We have attended many conventions, national and State. We never attended one in which such injustice, violence, and fraud were practised.”
These two pictures of the Convention, drawn from different standpoints, give us some idea of the kind of men that had ruled Tennessee for four years. At last the household was divided against itself; it was only a matter of a few weeks until it should fall.
The Senter faction attempted to throw the blame for the disrupted Convention upon Mr. Stokes and his friends. They denied the charge, and asserted that at least sixty-four counties had been instructed for Mr. Stokes, which would have insured him the nomination. The result of the discussion was that Governor Senter and Mr. Stokes declared their intentions to “fight it to a finish at the polls.” They began at Nashville, January 5th, a joint canvass of the State. A direct issue was soon made between them on the franchise question. Governor Senter declared “that the time has come, and is now, when the limitations and disabilities which have found their way into our statute-books, as the result of the war, should be abolished and removed, and the privilege of the elective franchise be restored, and extended so far as to embrace the mass of the adult population of the State.”
Mr. Stokes thus defined his position: “When the killing of Union men ceases, the hellish organization of Ku-Klux is abandoned, and the laws are observed, then I am willing to entertain a proposition to amend the State constitution so far as to allow the disfranchised to come in gradually, by providing that the Legislature may by a two thirds vote remove the disabilities for those who petition, and come well recommended by their loyal neighbors.”
After these declarations of principles the struggle became one of paramount importance to the whole people of the State.
As the time for the election approached, and the official registration began, signs of uneasiness appeared among the supporters of Mr. Stokes. They felt confident that the majority of the Radical votes were for their candidate, but they realized that Governor Senter was “master of the situation.” He had control of the same machinery Governor Brownlow had employed so successfully in changing the results of Congressional and State elections. Would Governor Senter use this in his own behalf, thus destroying the Radical party with an instrument of their making? This question was asked and discussed both upon the stump and in the newspapers.
The election occurred on the 5th day of August. At the same time the election for the State Legislature was held. The issue was the same as in the gubernatorial contest—that is, universal suffrage or continued disfranchisement. Contrary to expectations, the election passed without any serious conflicts or disturbances of the peace. The result was not long in doubt. It could be seen on the following day from the partial returns that Governor Senter had been elected by an enormous majority.
The official returns were as follows:
The Conservative candidates to the Legislature, who stood upon the same platform as Governor Senter, were elected almost to a man.
Immediately after election, Mr. Stokes and his friends raised the cry of fraud. They lost no time in hurrying to Washington in order to bring pressure to bear upon President Grant to declare the election void. Mr. Stokes set forth his claims in a lengthy interview. He said in part: “Governor Senter being governor or acting-governor had the appointment of the registrars of the election. He put in such men as he thought would do his bidding. They at once opened the flood-gates and let everybody in, the disfranchising clauses of the Constitution were trodden under foot and entirely disregarded, certificates of qualification as voters were issued to disfranchised rebels, and even boys of sixteen and seventeen were allowed to vote. Besides this there was a course of intimidation pursued under the instruction of Senter which prevented hundreds of Republicans from voting. You see Senter was governor. He had militia and intended to use them, if necessary, to elect himself. In many cases where the rebels had the upper hand the Republicans, especially the negroes, could not vote in their precincts for fear of violence. What defeated me was the rebels who were disfranchised under the constitution. I got 56,000, which was Grant’s vote last fall. Seymour’s was 33,000 last fall, but Senter’s vote was this time 119,000. The 86,000 additional which Senter got were rebels and minors.”
These charges made by Mr. Stokes were replied to in the daily press by Governor Senter. He claimed that it was unfair to compare the vote in the recent election with the presidential election of the previous fall. In the presidential election the Republicans were sure of the result in the State, so they had made no effort to bring out a full vote. It would be much fairer to take the vote cast in the gubernatorial election of 1867 as the standard by which to measure the result of the recent election. In 1867, Governor Brownlow’s vote was 19,900 more than Mr. Stokes had received, yet the registration of 1867 exceeded the vote cast by over 20,000. The old registration law was still in force, but had been modified by a decision of the Supreme Court which admitted at least 40,000 votes which had been kept out in 1867. In other words, Mr. Senter claimed he could have received a majority of 20,000 had there been no new registration. The newly appointed registrars, referred to in Mr. Stokes’s interview, were, with the exception of three tenths, regularly discharged Federal soldiers.
Mr. Stokes in his efforts to secure Federal intervention was supported by all the Radical leaders. Many of those who had supported Governor Senter in the election were now most active in the attempt to prevent his induction into office. Among the first to change front was Mr. Brownlow. Early in the contest he had favored the nomination of Governor Senter. After the disruption of the Radical Convention, he still continued to support Governor Senter. It was not until after election that he seemed to realize that Governor Senter’s victory meant the return to power of the ex-Confederate and consequently the downfall of Radical domination.
President Grant turned a deaf ear to the entreaties of the Radical leaders. They sought Congressional action, but met defeat here also, as Congress passed a resolution thanking President Grant for his refusal to interfere with affairs in Tennessee.