CHAPTER IX

That the power granted by the constitution of Georgia to the general assembly to change the time of holding elections ... shall not be so exercised as to postpone the election for members of the next general assembly beyond the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in the year 1872.

The power here referred to was that conferred by Article III., section 1, of the state constitution;

The election for members of the general assembly shall begin on Tuesday after the first Monday in November of every second year ... but the general assembly may by law change the time of election, and members shall hold until their successors are elected and qualified.

The constitutional term of the present legislature (except of one-half of the senators, who held four years) would expire in November, 1870. But this section of the constitution, Butler pointed out, would enable the legislature to postpone the election and perpetuate its power. This grave danger he proposed to remove by the clause of his bill above quoted. In order to prevent the legislature from prolonging its tenure forever, he proposed, not to forbid prolongation, but to allow it for two years.

I also propose [he said] by this [clause] to give to the present State officers of Georgia a two years’ term of office in that state as a state in this Union.

That Congress should pose as the defender of the people of Georgia against a usurping legislature, and at the same time by the guaranty of its approval encourage that legislature to double its constitutional term—this was a conception of political genius which, independently of its realization, should make Butler immortal.

The moderate Republicans of the House of Representatives were willing, for the sake of settling doubt, to pass a bill declaring Georgia restored, but were decidedly opposed the scheme to use the bill as a means of prolonging the tenure of the Georgia Radicals. Anamendmentto Butler’s bill, known as the Bingham amendment, was offered, to the following effect:

... neither shall this act be construed to extend the official tenure of any officer of said state beyond the term limited by the constitution thereof, dating from the election or appointment of such officer.[250]

The bill with this amendment passed the House by a large majority on March 8.[251]

In the Senate the necessity of any bill and the propriety of the Bingham amendment were warmly debated for some weeks. Then the so-called Drake amendment was offered. It provided that whenever the legislature or governor of any state should inform the President of the existence within that state of associations organized for the purpose of obstructing the law and doing violence to persons, then the President should send troops to that state, declare martial law, suspend the privileges of the writ ofhabeas corpus, and take such other military measures as he saw fit, and should levy the cost of the expedition on the people of the state.[252]The propriety of grafting this general measure on a special bill like the present should not be discussed, it was said, in view ofthe pressing necessity of passing it in some way, no matter how.[253]The debate thus complicated continued until April 19, when the bill went to the committee of the whole. There, the night being far spent, two entirely new amendments were suddenly offered. One commanded Georgia to hold a general election in the present year; the other declared that the existing government of Georgia was still “provisional” and provided that the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 should continue to be enforced there. These amendments were adopted by the committee. The Drake amendment was also adopted. Finally, the entire bill as it came from the house was stricken out.[254]Thus transformed so that, as a Senator said, “it would not be recognized by the oldest inhabitant,” the bill was passed by the Senate.[255]

The House of Representatives did not take up the bill again until June 23. On June 24 it decided to insist on the passage of the bill substantially as before passed.[256]As a result of the conference following, the Senate yielded to the House. The bill became law on July 15, 1870. It said:

... It is hereby declared that the state of Georgia is entitled to representation in the Congress of the United States. But nothing in this act contained shall be construed to deprive the people of Georgia of the right to an election for members of the general assembly of said state, as provided for in the constitution thereof.[257]

One would suppose that this act of July 15 should close the chapter; that it recognized Georgia as a state, and that henceforth all peculiar relations between Georgia and the federal government were at an end. The Georgia Radicals were able to avoid this conclusion. In a message to the legislature on July 18 the governor said that according to the act of March 2, 1867, the federal military power was toremain until the state was not only entitled to representation but actually represented in Congress. Section 5 of that act contained this language:

When ... any one of said rebel states shall have [fulfilled all requirements], said state shall be declared entitled to representation in Congress, and Senators and Representatives shall be admitted therefrom ... and then and thereafter the preceding sections of this act shall be inoperative in said state.

Hence, the military authority, said Bullock, would continue in Georgia until the following December. But he informed the legislature that it might proceed with legislation, since Terry had informed him that he would allow it.[258]

The Radicals in the legislature took advantage of the theory announced by the governor to make one last attempt at prolongation of power. On July 26 a resolution was offered in the upper house to this effect: That the authority of the United States was still paramount in Georgia; that no offence ought to be offered to Congress by an apparent denial of this fact; that therefore no election should be held in the state until Congress had fully recognized its statehood by receiving its representatives.[259]On July 29 the senate adopted a resolution similar to this, but the lower house rejected it by a few votes.[260]With the failure of this attempt, the Reconstruction Acts ceased to operate in Georgia, either in fact or in any one’s theory.

At the next session of Congress a delegation from Georgia composed of men elected in December, 1870, was seated in the House of Representatives.[261]In the Senate, Farrow and Whitely, elected by the legislature in February, 1870, presented credentials. They were referred to the judiciary committee, which reported adversely. It recommended that Hill, elected in 1868, be seated, and reported that Miller,elected with Hill, would be entitled to a seat except that he was unable to take the Test Oath required of members of Congress by the act of July 2, 1862.[262]Since this committee had decided in January, 1869, that the Georgia legislature was not legally organized in 1868, and in March, 1870, that its organization in January of that year was also illegal, and since therefore the election of Hill and Miller and that of Farrow and Whitely were both illegal, the committee had to decide the question: To which of these illegal elections ought we to givede factovalidity? It decided in favor of the earlier one on grounds of equity. The Senate adopted the committee’s opinion. The Test Oath act was suspended in favor of Miller by a special act of Congress, and he and Hill were sworn in, in February, 1871.[263]

Thus, after federal intervention had been imposed in 1865 and apparently withdrawn in the same year, again imposed in 1867 and again apparently withdrawn in 1868, and yet again imposed in 1869, it was now withdrawn for the last time, and Georgia was completely restored to statehood.

RECONSTRUCTION AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT

In the preceding chapters we have mentioned the immediate effect of reconstruction upon social conditions. To its immediate effects upon political conditions, in other words to the character and conduct of the new state government, which have been mentioned only incidentally, we shall now give a more direct and consecutive consideration.

With reference to the political reforms of reconstruction the white men of Georgia formed three distinct parties. There were those who favored them, either on their ethical and political merits or (more often) as a means of attaining political power otherwise unattainable. They were called Scalawags, Carpet-baggers and Radicals, of which termsweshall adopt the last. There were those unalterably opposed to them, called Rebels by their critics and Conservatives by themselves. There were, thirdly, those who supported them not upon their merits, which they doubted, but because they saw the state at the mercy of a conqueror and believed that, bad as the measures were, it was better to accept them quickly than to make a vain resistance, which could only prolong the social and commercial disturbances in the state, and which might occasion the administration of a still worse dose. This group embraced many of the commercial class, which was especially large in Georgia, and one of the men prominent in former politics, namely Governor Brown. They were classed by the Conservatives with the basest of Radicals, but we shall call them the Moderate Republicans. The admixture of this group with the Radicalparty had important consequences. Differing from their party in principle and allying themselves with it to bring peace to the state, when the peace of the state seemed secure, they sometimes adhered to their principles rather than to their party. It is true, many of them became so interested in the great game of politics then going on that they played it for its own sake, but some party splits of importance occurred.

The first fruit of the policy of negro enfranchisement and rebel disenfranchisement was the constitutional convention of 1867-68. It was stated in the latter part of Chapter IV. that in the election for members of this convention many Conservatives declined to take part. For this reason the Radicals obtained a predominance in the convention which they did not retain in the state government after the Conservatives decided to fight. The convention, in fact, was extremely Radical. The constitution which it framed shows the thoroughness with which it entered into the Humanitarian reforms. The speeches and resolutions show that a close sympathy with the Republican party and a bitter antagonism to the Conservatives were entertained by most of the members. The temporary chairman, Foster Blodgett, in his opening speech, mentioned the suspicious, hostile and contemptuous attitude of the Conservatives toward the convention. He said:

They may stand and rail at us and strive to distract us from our patriotic labors; but we are engaged in a great work ... we are building up the walls of a great state.[264]

Parrot, the permanent chairman, said:

Many of us come here from amongst a people who have spurned us and spit upon us ... the enemies of the convention are watching with envious eyes to see whether we shall be able to meet public expectation.... We should form a state government for an unwilling people based upon the soundest principles ... and in governing them rescue human liberty from the grave, and prevent them from trampling us under foot.

On the other side, he said:

The Republican party of the nation is waiting with intense anxiety the movements of this body. Our friends will soon be able to determine whether we shall be a burden upon them ... or aid them in the great work of restoring our state.[265]

When Governor Jenkins brought suit against Stanton on behalf of the state, the convention declared the action unauthorized and in the name of the people of Georgia demanded that the suit be dismissed.[266]On December 17, 1867, a resolution was passed, asking Pope to appoint, in lieu of Governor Jenkins, a provisional governor, and asking that the person appointed be Rufus B. Bullock.[267]Unsuccessful here, the convention tried again on January 21. It requested Congress to allow it to vacate the governorship and all other offices now filled by men unfriendly to reconstruction and to fill them with new appointees.[268]These two last named resolutions suggest not only Radical sentiment, but also Radical organization in the convention.

The attitude of the convention toward the military authorities was most cordial. On December 20, a reception was given to Pope. The general made a speech and received an ovation.[269]Resolutions of friendship and gratitude were voted him on his departure.[270]Meade, on his arrival, received resolutions of welcome,[271]and resolutions of friendly import on various other occasions.[272]Meade did not entirely reciprocate this cordiality.

Toward Congress the convention was not only cordial; it was almost filial. Not only was the United States government eloquently thanked for its magnanimity,[273]but it was appealed to by the convention as a kind parent by a child confident of favor. It was petitioned to appropriate thirty million dollars to be loaned on mortgage to southernplanters;[274]to loan a hundred thousand dollars to the South Georgia and Florida railroad,[275]and “to make a liberal appropriation” for building the proposed Air Line railroad.[276]

The constitutional convention of 1865 had met on October 25, and adjourned on November 8, thus completing its work in fourteen days. This dispatch, as well as the style of its resolutions and of the speeches of its members,[277]had marked it as a body where good taste, decorum and public spirit prevailed.

The reconstruction convention met on December 9, 1867, and continued in session (excepting a recess from December 24 to January 7), until March 11, 1868. The first article of the new constitution on which the convention took action was reported on January 9.[278]Before that time many resolutions and ordinances were introduced. Most of them related to “relief” (such as suspension of tax collections, homestead exemption, stay of execution for debt, etc.), or to the pay and mileage of delegates, and only rarely was anything said about the constitution. On December 16 the more conscientious members secured the appointment of a committee to inquire whether the convention had power to do any business besides frame a constitution.[279]This committee did not discuss the law of the question, but recommended on moral grounds a resolution to this effect:

That all ordinances or other matter ... already introduced and pending are hereby indefinitely postponed; and in future no ordinance or other matter ... not necessarily connected with the fundamental law shall be entertained by this convention [except relief legislation].

This report met with vigorous opposition. It was saved from the table by two votes. But it was adopted.[280]Thecontemporary Conservative press describes the convention as very infamous and very disgusting.[281]It contained thirty-three negroes, and the transactions recorded in the official journal show that it was composed largely of men of low character.

Hence, to many of the delegates, framing the constitution was only a minor incident of the convention, and the main part of that work was left to a small number of men. Their work shows intelligence and ability. Moreover, in the records of the convention there are not wanting traces of that undoubted public spirit which animated many of the supporters ofreconstruction—the honest desire to repair and develop the material welfare of the state. This spirit is evident in the speeches we have cited, and in some of the resolutions.

We have stated how the campaign of 1868 resulted in giving the governorship to the Republicans and a majority of twenty-nine in the legislature to the Conservatives; how Governor Bullock tried to reduce that majority through Meade, and how Meade refused his aid; and how the majority was more than doubled by the expulsion of the negroes and the seating of the minority candidates. From that time to the reorganization of the legislature in 1870, the most remarkable fact in the state politics was the hostility between the governor and the legislature.

After the expulsion of the negroes, the lower house asked the governor to send it the names of the candidates who at the election had received the next highest vote to the persons expelled. The governor sent the names and with them a long protest against the expulsion of the negroes.[282]The house, on hearing the message, adopted a tart resolution, reminding the governor that the members of each housewere “the keepers of their own consciences, and not his Excellency.”[283]A similar message to the upper house in response to a similar request provoked a similar resolution, which was defeated by two votes.[284]

It will be remembered that in December, 1868, and January, 1869, the governor urged upon Congress, through his letter presented in the Senate and through his testimony before the Reconstruction Committee, the theory that Georgia had not yet been restored. On January 15, 1869, he urged the same view upon the legislature. He advised it to reorganize itself by summoning all men elected members in 1868, requiring each to take the Test Oath, excluding only those who should not take it, and thus constituted to repass the resolutions required by the Omnibus Act. If the legislature did not do this, it must submit to Congressional interference.[285]This message apparently caused the legislature some apprehension. It adopted a joint resolution to the effect that it desired the question of the eligibility of negroes to office to be determined by the supreme court of the state. The governor sent this resolution back with one of his admirably keen and powerful messages. He said that Congress had two grievances against the present legislature; that it had admitted members disqualified by the Fourteenth Amendment, contrary to the Omnibus Act, and that it had expelled twenty-eight negroes. The present resolution, intended to appease Congress, ignored the first grievance and proposed no remedy for the second; therefore it was meaningless and absurd.[286]

On January 21, 1869, the state treasurer, Angier, in response to an inquiry from the house of representatives regarding the affairs of his department, intimated that the governor had drawn money from the treasury under suspiciouscircumstances.[287]Thus began the feud between the governor and the treasurer which continued during the rest of Bullock’s term. Angier’s report was referred to the committee on finance. The majority of the committee reported that the governor’s acts had been irregular but in good faith. The minority reported that his acts were culpable and his explanations inadequate, and concluded: “The facts herein set forth develop the necessity for further legislation for the security of the treasury.”[288]This report the house adopted by a large majority.[289]

Another index of the relations between the governor and the legislature is furnished by the governor’s message submitting the proposed Fifteenth Amendment. It opened thus:

It is especially gratifying to learn, as I do from the published proceedings of your honorable body, that senators and representatives who have heretofore acted with a political organization which adopted as one of its principles a denunciation of the acts of a Republican Congress ... should now give expression to their anxious desire to lose no time in embracing this opportunity of ratifying one of the fundamental principles of the Republican party ... and I very much regret that the preparation necessary for a proper presentation of this subject to your honorable body has necessarily caused a short delay, and thereby prolonged the suspense of those who are so anxious to concur.[290]

The radicals probably desired the rejection of the amendment, since it would furnish another strong argument to Congress in favor of reorganizing the legislature. Hence, the Radical governor, as his message shows, did not do his best to induce the legislature to ratify, and probably some Radical members for the same reason voted against the amendment or refrained from voting for it. It was defeated in the lower house on March 12,[291]and in the upper on March 18.[292]

In the last chapter we saw that Terry excluded five menfrom the legislature because the board of inquiry had found them ineligible, and excluded nineteen others because they had failed to take the required oath, and had applied to Congress for removal of disabilities. It is safe to assume that all of these twenty-four men were conservatives. Nineteen of them had been elected to the lower house, five to the senate.[293]Immediately after organization, on advice of Bullock and with the sanction of Terry, the senate gave the five vacated seats to the minority candidates,[294]and the house gave fourteen of its vacated seats to the minority candidates.[295]The result was that the Republicans secured a majority in each house.[296]The Republican control thus secured remaineduninterrupted for the remainder of 1870. Perfect accord now existed between the governor and legislature, and in the quarrel between Bullock and Angier, which went on with increased acerbity in the press and before a congressional committee,[297]the legislature proceeded to transfer its support to the governor.[298]

But Republican supremacy was in danger. It was threatened by the Moderate Republicans. J. E. Bryant, a Republican, prominent in the state politics since the beginning of the newrégime, in testifying before the Reconstruction Committee in January, 1869, had advocated reorganization of the legislature, but had opposed any other interference, especially the restoration of military government.[299]He and other Republicans who shared his opinion were disgusted with the proceedings of Bullock and Terry. As early as January 12, 1870, there were reports that the Radicals were apprehensive of a combination between the Moderate Republicans and the Conservatives.[300]Probably the strenuous efforts of the Radicals to take and make every possible advantage for themselves in the reorganization is partly accounted for by this apprehension. On February 2, Bryant caused to be entered on the journal of the house of representatives a protest denouncing the reorganization proceedings as illegal.[301]Shortly afterwards he published a statement of his position. He said that he was a Republican, but was opposed to the corrupt ring which controlled the party in Georgia.[302]Fromthis time on the papers frequently referred to the alliance between the followers of Bryant and the Conservatives as the salvation of the state.[303]

The Radical majority was not quite strong enough to pass a resolution declaring that there should be no election in 1870, as was attempted in August of that year.[304]But it was strong enough to pass an election law very favorable to the Radical party. It changed the date of the election from the regular time in November to December 22, and following the example set by General Pope in 1867, provided that it should continue three days. It established a board of five election managers for each county, three to be appointed by the governor and senate, and two by the county ordinary. It provided that the board should have “no power to refuse the ballot of any male person of apparent full age, a resident of the county, who [had] not previously voted at the said election.” Also it said: “They [the managers] shall not permit any person to challenge any vote.”[305]Another act was passed, calculated to prevent the loss of Republican votes through disqualification of negroes for non-payment of taxes. It declared the poll tax levied in 1868, 1869 and 1870 illegal.[306]

At the election thus provided for were to be chosen a new legislature (except half of the senators, who held four years) and Congressmen. To what extent the Republicans availed themselves of the advantages offered by the election law we do not know. At any rate, the Conservatives obtained two-thirds of the seats in the legislature, and five of the seven seats in Congress.[307]

This result meant trouble for the governor, whose term ran to November, 1872. His efforts to secure Congressional interference, his conduct in January, 1870, and the accusationsof extravagance, corruption, and other crimes continually made by an intemperate press, had raised public indignation to a high point. It was certain that when the new legislature met it would investigate the charges, and it was hoped that the governor would be impeached.[308]The time of reckoning had been postponed, however, by the prudence of the outgoing legislature, which had provided that the next session of the legislature should begin, instead of in January, the regular time set by the constitution,[309]on the first Wednesday in November, 1871.[310]

The first Wednesday in November, 1871, was November 1. On October 23, the governor recorded in the executive minutes that he resigned his office, for “good and sufficient reasons,” the resignation to take effect on October 30.[311]He then quietly left the state. The fact that he had resigned was kept secret until October 30.[312]

In case of a vacancy in the office of governor, the constitution directed the president of the senate to fill the office.[313]On October 30, therefore, Conley, the president of the senate at its last session, hastened to be sworn in as governor.[314]By resigning just before the meeting of the incoming Conservative legislature, Bullock had thus cleverly prolonged Republican power, while at the same time resigning. The question whether under the constitution the governor’s office should not be filled by the president of the newly-organized senate, was raised by the papers.[315]But Conley was by common consent left in possession of the office. Though, as he said in his first message to the legislature,[316]“a staunchRepublican,” he was not personally unpopular.[317]Moreover, the legislature intended to furnish a successor very soon.

On November 22, a bill was passed ordering a special election for governor for the remainder of the unexpired term, to be held on the third Tuesday in December.[318]The authority for this act was found in the following provision of the constitution: “The general assembly shall have power to provide by law for filling unexpired terms by a special election.”[319]Conley vetoed the bill, on the ground that the section of the constitution quoted empowered the legislature to make general provisions for filling unexpired terms, not to make special provision for single cases.[320]The bill was passed over his veto.

Although Republican power was now doomed in a few weeks, and although resistance to a legislature which could easily override his vetoes was futile, yet Conley stubbornly continued to offer obstructions to the legislature at every possible point up to the very day when his successor was inaugurated.[321]He exhibited a courage and a political efficiency worthy of his predecessor, but accomplished nothing. He was able, however, to help his friends by means of the pardoning power. Several prominent Republicans were indicted at this time for various acts of public malfeasance. On the ground that in the existing state of public excitement these men could not obtain a fair trial, Conley ordered proceedings against several of these to be discontinued.[322]

On January 11, 1872, the returns from the special electionwere sent to the legislature by Conley, under protest,[323]and James M. Smith was declared elected. On January 12, Smith was inaugurated. Conley assisted at this ceremony, thus yielding the last inch of Republican ground.[324]

Reviewing the events recorded from the beginning of this chapter, we observe that the period of reconstruction in Georgia was not a period when a swarm of harpies took possession of the state government and preyed at will upon a helpless people. The constitutional convention of 1867-68 forebodes such a period, but when the Conservatives rouse themselves, from that time on the stage presents an internecine war between two very well matched enemies. This struggle is usually represented as between a wicked assailant and a righteous assailed. That it was a struggle between Republicans and Democrats is much more characteristic. In such a contest mutual vilifying of course abounded, and it is not to be supposeda priorithat the vilifying of one party was more truthful than that of the other.

It is often vaguely said that reconstruction resulted in government by carpet-baggers. John B. Gordon, the Conservative candidate for governor who was defeated by Bullock, expressed before a Congressional committee in 1870 the belief that there were not more than a dozen men holding offices in Georgia who had recently been non-residents. He further said that the judges appointed by the Republican governor were entirely satisfactory.[325]

The reconstruction government is charged with having imposed such heavy taxes that as a result the people were impoverished, industry was checked, and many plantations went to waste. During the decade before the war the law provided that a tax should be annually levied at such a rate as to produce $375,000, provided the rate should not exceedone-twelfth of one per cent.[326]The revenue law of 1866 provided that a tax should be levied at such a rate as to produce $350,000.[327]Owing to the vast destruction of property during the war, this necessitated a higher rate than that before the war. The law of 1867 ordered a levy at such a rate as to raise $500,000.[328]This law, made by the Johnson government, before reconstruction began, was continued by the legislature in the four following years.[329]In 1870 the rate of assessment was two-fifths of one per cent.[330]This rate was much higher than the one prevailing before the war, but this misfortune cannot be charged to reconstruction, since the reconstruction government merely followed the example of the Johnson government.

That the reconstructionrégimedid not do the economic harm often attributed to it is shown by the fact that during thatrégimethe value of land and of all property in the state steadily increased, as appears from the following table:

Nevertheless, the reconstruction government spent the public money extravagantly. This fact is shown by a comparison of the expenditures of the state under Bullock’s administration and under that of his predecessor. Such a comparison, it is true, has been employed to prove the contrary. Governor Bullock was wont to rebut charges of extravagance by showing that the state spent more under Jenkins’ administration than under his, in proportion to thetime occupied by each.[335]This was true, as the following figures show:[336]

A comparison of gross expenditures, however, is of no significance unless the sums contrasted represent payments for the same purposes. Under the earlier administration the government undertook largeexpendituresfor the relief of destitute persons, especially of wounded soldiers and the relicts of soldiers.[337]This accounts for the remarkable size of the amounts credited to “special appropriations” in the report for 1866 and 1867. Under Bullock’s administration the government spent nothing for these purposes. For a fair comparison of the economy of the Johnson government and the reconstruction government, it is necessary to compare the amounts which they spent respectively for the same objects. Their payments for the more important administrative purposes are shown in the following table:[338]

These figures show that almost all the annual expenditures of Bullock’s administration, aside from “special appropriations,” were well above those of the preceding administration, and that the payments from the printing fund, especially in 1870, and from the contingent fund in 1870, were so large as to convict the administration of great extravagance.

The reconstruction legislature was reproached because of its largeper diem—nine dollars. Thisper diemwas established by the Johnson government,[339]and is, therefore, not a charge against reconstruction. But the other expenses of the legislature fully corroborate the charges of extravagance made against it. This is shown by the following table:[340]

The state debt created by the reconstruction government was of two kinds; direct and contingent. When the reconstruction government went into operation the state debt was $6,544,500.[341]The reconstruction government incurred a bonded debt of $4,880,000.[342]This includes bonds to theamount of $1,880,000 which were issued to a railroad in exchange for its bonds to a greater amount and bearing interest at the same rate. This amount, therefore, was not a burden on the state, provided the railroad remained solvent; though in form a direct, it was virtually a contingent liability. Further, $300,000 of the money borrowed was used to pay the principal of the old debt. Deducting these two sums, we find that the burden of direct debt was increased by $2,700,000.

Contingent debt was incurred by the indorsement of railroad bonds. In 1868 the state offered aid of this kind to three railroad companies,[343]in 1869 to four,[344]and in 1870 to thirty.[345]The state offered to indorse the bonds of each of these companies to the amount, usually, of from $12,000 to $15,000 per mile, sometimes more and sometimes less. If all the roads had accepted the full amount of aid offered, the state would have become contingently liable for about$30,000,000.[346]But only six roads accepted, and the contingent liability thus created was $6,923,400.[347]The laws offering the aid involved little risk to the state; they made substantial progress in construction and substantial evidence of soundness conditions precedent to indorsement, and secured to the state a lien on all the property of each road in case it defaulted. The indorsement of railroad bonds is not a reproach to the reconstruction government. The great policy of that government, when it was sufficiently free from partisan labors to have a policy, was to repair the prosperity of the state, and the construction of railroads was an important means to this end.[348]

The worst stain on the reconstruction government is its management of the state railroad. The Western and Atlantic Railroad, owned and operated by the state until 1871, was placed under the superintendence of Foster Blodgett by the governor in January, 1870.[349]Thenceforth hundreds of employees were discharged to make room for Republican favorites; important positions were filled by strangers to the business; the receipts were stolen,[350]or squandered in purchases made from other Republicans at monstrous prices; and the road suffered great dilapidation.[351]

The preferred object of the Conservative abuse in thereconstruction government was Governor Bullock. We have seen that he was remarkably powerful as well as remarkably active in promoting the interests of his party. He was abused for that. For the extravagance of the state government the governor was held largely responsible. He was abused for that. But he was further accused of fraud in financial matters.

Although this charge has never been established, the public had some excuse for believing it at the time. As a result of the quarrel between the governor and the treasurer, the governor ordered the bankers who were the financial agents of the state to hold no further communication with the treasurer after June 3, 1869, but to communicate only with the governor.[352]The effect upon the public was an impression of great confusion and irregularity in the finances. The treasurer’s reports could not give a complete account of state moneys, and the governor was not careful to inform the public of the condition of that part of the finances over which he had assumed control. Moreover, the governor and the treasurer kept up a constantinterchangeof accusation and insinuation in the newspapers. In another way the governor put himself in an unfortunate light. In his letter to the Ku Klux Committee his statements regarding his bond transactions were so vague as to give the impression (rightly or wrongly) of a desire to conceal something.[353]The same laxity of statement appears in Conley’s statement of the use to which the bonds issued by Bullock had been put.[354]His sudden resignation and departure on the eve of a threatened investigation seemed to confirm the evidence of his guilt.

But though he did not keep the public informed, it hasnever been established that his accounts were wrong. He spent money freely, and in some cases without authority;[355]but none of his accusers has ever proved that he spent any without regular and correct record by the comptroller. And though he issued bonds perhaps in excess, he issued none without proper registration in the comptroller’s records.[356]His apparent efforts to conceal facts do not prove fraud; a sufficient motive would be furnished by desire to conceal the extravagance of his administration. Furthermore, he has been positively acquitted of the charge of fraud. In 1878 he returned to Georgia, and the courts proceeded to give him “a speedy and public trial.” Of his many alleged crimes, indictments were secured for three. One indictment was quashed.[357]Upon the other two the verdict was “not guilty.”[358]His resignation was explained in a letter tohis“political friends,” published on October 31, 1871.[359]He said that he had obtained evidence of a concerted design amongcertain prominent members of the incoming legislature to impeach him (as they could easily do, with the immense Conservative majority), and instal as governor the Conservative who would be elected president of the senate. To resign and put the governorship in the hands of a Republican who could not be impeached was the only way to defeat this “nefarious scheme.” This explanation was of course ignored by Bullock’s enemies when it was made; but in view of the lack of evidence that he was guilty of any fraud, and in view of the positive evidence to the contrary, there is now no reason to doubt it.

The governor made extraordinary use of the pardoning power. According to a statement sanctioned by him, he pardoned four hundred and ninety-eight criminals, forty-one of whom were convicted or accused of murder, fifty-two of burglary, five of arson, and eight of robbery.[360]The leader of the Conservative party at that time, B. H. Hill, emphatically declared in a public statement that the governor had no worse motive than “kindness of heart.”[361]

To sum up the case against the reconstruction government, we have seen that it was extravagant, that it mismanaged the state railroad, and that it pardoned a great many criminals. It was not guilty of the enormities often associated with reconstruction; but it was a government composed of men who obtainedpoliticalposition only through the interference of an outside power—it was the product of a system conceived partly in vengeance, partly in folly, and partly in political strategy, and imposed by force. It was hated partly for what it did, but more for what it was.

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.

AtlantaNew Era.AtlantaConstitution.MilledgevilleFederal Union(during the war called theConfederate Union).SavannahNews.SavannahRepublican.

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.

Back to Index Next