Part 6 — CHAPTER XXIV (continued 3)

From 1829 to 1844 $17,366.36

From 1845 to 1864 340,166.67

Before the separation the planters were not favorably inclined toward Methodist missionaries on account of the attitude of the northern section of the church. They preferred the Baptists and Presbyterians, who did most of their work with the blacks in connection with the white congregations. After the separation, in 1845, there was a greater demand for Methodist missionaries. Many planters of the Episcopal Church paid the salaries of Baptist and Methodist missionaries to their slaves, and erected chapels for their use. Harrison, “Gospel among the Slaves,” pp. 302, 312, 313, 326. In 1860 there were 20,577 negro southern Methodists in Alabama, about half of whom were attached to the white churches and the rest to plantation missions. The number was rapidly increasing. The number of negro Baptists was much greater, but there are no exact statistics of membership. There were smaller numbers in all the other churches.

[623] The following statistics relate to colored mission work by the Methodists:—

Year Number of Missions Members Missionaries Appropriations

1859 38 8381 39 $25,849.10

1860 40 9208 40 27,091.66

1861 40 —— 40 27,091.66

1862 36 8962 35 10,800.00

1863 37 9020 37 31,311.59

1864 22 5153 22 24,508.00

(Montgomery Conference)

1864 23 5684 33 26,938.16

(Mobile Conference)

1865 Some money was raised in 1864 for 1865.

The General Conference raised, in 1862, $93,509.87 for negro missions; in 1864, $158,421.96; and, for 1865, $80,000.

[624] Harrison, p. 314.

[625] Riley, “Baptists of Alabama.”

[626] Hague, pp. 10, 11.

[627] Riley, “Baptists of Alabama,” pp. 286, 300; McTyeire, “A History of Methodism,” p. 671; Tichenor, “The Work of the Baptists among the Negroes.” The war records of the churches show that sometimes the slaves gave more money for church purposes than the whites; for example, in the Methodist church of Auburn, Ala.

[628] Smith, “Methodists in Georgia and Florida.”

[629] McPherson, p. 521.

[630] McPherson, p. 521.

[631] McPherson, pp. 521, 522; Nicolay and Hay, Vol. V, p. 337.

[632] See Gulf States Hist. Mag., Sept., 1902, on “The Churches in Alabama during Civil War and Reconstruction”; O. R., Ser. I, Vol. XLIX, Pt. I, p. 718; Southern Review, April, 1872, p. 414; Boston Journal, Nov. 15, 1864; McTyeire, “A History of Methodism,” p. 673.

[633] Richardson, “Lights and Shadows of Itinerant Life,” p. 183.

[634] See Whitaker’s paper in Transactions Ala. Hist. Soc., Vol. IV, p. 211 et seq.

[635] Col. Higginson seems to understand the influence of the women, but not the reason for their interest in public questions. He says: “But for the women of the seceding states, the War of the Rebellion would have been waged more feebly, been sooner ended, and far more easily forgotten.... Had the voters of the South been all women, it would have plunged earlier into the gulf of secession, dived deeper, and come up even more reluctantly.” Higginson, “Common Sense about Women,” pp. 54, 209. Professor Burgess, with a better understanding, explains the reason for the interest of the women in sectional questions. He says that, after the attempt of John Brown to incite the slaves to insurrection, “especially did terror and bitterness take possession of the hearts of the women of the South, who saw in slave insurrection not only destruction and death, but that which to feminine virtue is a thousand times worse than the most terrible death. For those who would excite such a movement or sympathize with anybody who would excite such a movement, the women of the South felt a hatred as undying as virtue itself. Men might still hesitate ... but the women were united and resolute, and their unanimous exhortation was: ‘Men of the South, defend the honor of your mothers, your wives, your sisters, and your daughters. It is your highest and most sacred duty.’” Burgess, “Civil War and the Constitution,” Vol. I, p. 42.

[636] “Our Women in War,” passim; Ball, “Clarke County,” pp. 261-274; oral accounts, scrap-books, letters.

[637] One of my acquaintances says that quite often she had only bread, milk, and syrup twice a day. Sometimes she was unable to eat any breakfast, but after spinning an hour or two she was hungry enough to eat. To many the diet was very healthful, but the sick and the delicate often died for want of proper food.

[638] At the close of the war my mother was twelve years old; for more than two years she had been doing a woman’s task at spinning. Her sister had been spinning for a year, though she was only six years old.

[639] Many of the heavier articles woven during the war, such as coverlets, counterpanes, rugs, etc., are still, after forty years, almost as good as new.

[640] Acts, Dec., 1861, 2d Called and 1st Regular Sess., p. 70.

[641] Hague, “Blockaded Family,” passim; Miller, pp. 223-232; “Our Women in the War,” p. 275 et seq.; Clayton, “White and Black under the Old Régime,” pp. 112-149; Porcher, “Resources of the Southern Fields and Forests,” pp. 70, 107, 284-295, 351, 372, 657.

[642] Clayton, “White and Black under the Old Régime”; Hague, “Blockaded Family,” passim; Miller, p. 229; Jacobs, “Drug Conditions,” p. 16; oral accounts; Porcher, passim.

[643] O. R., Ser. IV, Vol. III, pp. 1073-1075; Jacobs, “Drug Conditions.”

[644] Jacobs, pp. 4-6, 12-14, 16-21; Porcher, p. 65.

[645] Hague, “Blockaded Family.”

[646] Jacobs, “Drug Conditions,” pp. 4-6, 12-14, 16-21; Hague, “Blockaded Family,” passim; “Our Women in the War”; Ball, “Clarke County”; Miller, “Alabama”; Porcher; Pub. So. Hist. Ass’n, March, 1903.

[647] Smedes, “A Southern Planter,” p. 226.

[648] In the early part of the war when a soldier received a slight wound he was given a furlough for a few weeks until he was well again. Slight wounds came to be called “furloughs,” and some soldiers when particularly homesick are said to have exposed themselves unnecessarily in order to get a “furlough.”

[649] See Boston Journal, Sept. 29 and Nov. 15, 1864.

[650] See Mrs. Clayton’s “White and Black” in regard to rations for negroes.

[651] See Acts of Ala., Nov. 28 and 30, 1861, Dec. 9, 1862, and Dec. 8, 1863; Transactions Ala. Hist. Soc., Vol. IV, pp. 219 et seq.

[652] It was estimated that one-fourth of the people of the state were furnished for three years with meal and salt.

[653] Moore, “Rebellion Record,” Vol. IV (1862).

[654] N. Y. News, March 29, 1864, from the Richmond Whig, from the Mobile Evening News; oral accounts. There were numbers of women who actually cut off their hair, thinking that it could be sold through the blockade. For a while they were hopeful and enthusiastic in regard to the plan of selling their hair.

[655] P. A. Hague’s “Blockaded Family” is the best account of life in Alabama during the war. Mrs. Clayton’s “White and Black under the Old Régime” is very good, but brief. “Our Women in the War” is a valuable collection of articles by a number of women. Nearly all the incidents mentioned I have heard related by relatives and friends. “John Holden, Unionist,” by T. C. De Leon, gives a good account of life in the hill country. Mary A. H. Gay’s “Life in Dixie during the War” and Miller’s “History of Alabama” give information based on personal experiences. Porcher’s “Resources of the Southern Fields and Forests,” published in 1863, is a mine of information in regard to economic conditions in the South. Porcher quotes much from the newspapers and from correspondence. The second edition, published in 1867, omits much of the more interesting material.

[656] In his inaugural proclamation of July 20 (or 21), 1865, Governor Parsons gives the following figures:—

Alabama male population (1860), 15 to 60 years 126,587

Connecticut male population (1860), 15 to 60 years 120,249

Alabama soldiers enlisted 122,000

Connecticut soldiers enlisted 40,000

Alabama soldiers died in service 35,000

Alabama soldiers disabled 35,000

N. Y. Times, Aug. 2, 1865; N. Y. Herald, Aug. 11, 1865; Parsons’s Message, Nov. 22, 1865; Parsons’s Speech at Cooper Institute, Nov. 13, 1865.

[657] Fowler’s Report, Transactions Ala. Hist. Soc., Vol. II, p. 188.

[658] Ho. Mis. Doc., No. 114, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.

[659] N. Y. Times, Oct. 31, 1865.

[660] Southern Hist. Soc. Papers, Vol. XV (Paroles at Appomattox); Miller, “History of Alabama,” p. 233; Brewer, “Regimental Histories.”

[661] Census of 1866, Selma Times and Messenger, March 24, 1868.

[662] Censuses of 1860, 1866, 1870.

Whites Blacks

1860 526,271 1860 437,770

1866 522,799 1866 423,445

1870 521,384 1870 475,510

[663] Ho. Mis. Doc., No. 114, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.

[664] Miller, “History of Alabama,” p. 141.

[665] Miller, “Alabama,” p. 141 (Auditor’s Report).

[666] 1860, 6,385,724 acres; 1880, 6,375,706 acres.

[667] 1860, $7,433,178; 1890, $4,511,645; 1900, $8,675,900.

[668] Which must be reduced by one-fifth for depreciated currency.

[669] See Census Bulletin, No. 155, 12th Census.

[670] Census, 1860 and 1900; Miller, “Alabama,” p. 235.

[671] N. Y. Times, Nov. 2, 1865 (Truman).

[672] The explosion was caused by fire reaching the ordnance stores left by the Confederate troops. One of the cotton agents claimed that 9000 bales of cotton were destroyed for him in the explosion. But the government held otherwise. It was charged, without satisfactory proof, that the cotton agents caused the explosion to cover their shortage.

[673] “Northern Alabama Illustrated,” p. 321.

[674] “Northern Alabama Illustrated,” p. 427.

[675] M. G. Molinari, “Lettres sur les États-Unis et le Canada,” p. 233; Somers, “Southern States,” pp. 181, 183.

[676] Somers, “Southern States,” p. 114; Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 114, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.

[677] John Hardy, “History of Selma,” pp. 51, 52; Reid, “After the War,” pp. 211, 214, 222, 371; Miller, “Alabama,” pp. 233-235; Ho. Mis. Doc., No. 114, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. (Patton to Congress); N. Y. Times, Nov. 2, Oct. 31, and Aug. 17, 1865; Riley, “History of Conecuh County”; Riley, “Baptists of Alabama,” pp. 304, 305; Brewer, “Alabama,” pp. 65, 69; Brown, “Alabama,” pp. 254, 256; DuBose, “Alabama,” pp. 114, 115; “Our Women in the War,” p. 277 et seq.

[678] Somers, “Southern States,” p. 115.

[679] Somers, “Southern States,” p. 115.

[680] Somers, “Southern States,” p. 114.

[681] Reid, “After the War,” pp. 222, 371; Ball, “Clarke County,” p. 294; Riley, “Baptists of Alabama,” pp. 304-305; N. Y. Times, Oct. 31, 1865; N. Y. Herald, July 23, 1865.

[682] An indignant northern newspaper correspondent appealed to the military authorities to check this “rebellious discrimination,” but nothing was done. The railroad officials, as well as all other southern people, were now suspicious of paper money.

[683] Ho. Repts., Vol. IV, 39th Cong., 2d Sess., on “Affairs of Southern Railroads”; Trowbridge, “The South,” p. 451; Reid, “After the War,” p. 212; Brewer, “Alabama,” pp. 78, 79; Miller, “Alabama,” pp. 141, 234; N. Y. World, July 18, 1865; Selma Times, Jan. 25 and Feb. 2, 1866; N. Y. Times, Oct. 31, 1865; April 25 and July 2, 1866; Berney, “Handbook of Alabama”; Hodgson, “Alabama Manual and Statistical Register.”

[684] N. Y. Herald, June 17 and Aug. 30, 1865; Taylor, “Destruction and Reconstruction,” pp. 227, 228; Miller, “History of Alabama,” p. 237; McCulloch, “Men and Measures,” p. 235.

[685] N. Y. Herald, July 17 and 20, 1865; N. Y. World, July 20, 1865; N. Y. Times, Aug. 17 and Dec. 27, 1865; Miller, “History of Alabama,” pp. 235, 237; Herbert, “The Solid South,” pp. 18, 19; Ku Klux Rept., Ala. Test., p. 451; oral accounts.

[686] “Our Women in the War,” p. 279; Riley, “Baptists of Alabama,” pp. 304, 305. See also Elizabeth McCracken, “The Southern Woman and Reconstruction,” in the Outlook, Nov., 1903.

[687] Miller, “History of Alabama,” p. 238; Patton’s Message, Jan. 16, 1866.

[688] Brewer, “Alabama,” pp. 205, 206.

[689] N. Y. Times, Nov. 2, 1865 (Truman).

[690] N. Y. Herald, Oct. 5, 1895; Report of Carl Schurz.

[691] Chicago Tribune, (fall of) 1865, Montgomery correspondence.

[692] Governor Patton’s Message, Jan. 16, 1866.

[693] Oral accounts; Daily News, Sept. 3, 1865 (Selma correspondence).

[694] Ordinances, No. 4, Sept. 20, 1865, and No. 54, Sept. 30, 1865.

[695] Reid, “After the War,” pp. 351, 352; Ordinance, No. 43, Sept. 30, 1865.

[696] Daily Times, Aug. 17, Nov. 2, and Dec. 27, 1865; Report of Carl Schurz; oral accounts.

[697] Report of the Freedmen’s Bureau, Oct. 24, 1865; Patton’s Message, Jan. 16, 1866; Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, Pt. III, p. 140.

[698] N. Y. Times, Oct. 10, 1865. See also Resolutions of Legislature, 1865-1866.

[699] Joint Memorial and Resolutions of the General Assembly, in Acts of Ala. (1865-1866), pp. 598-600.

[700] Memorial and Joint Resolutions, Acts of Ala. (1865-1866), pp. 601-603.

[701] Miller, “Alabama,” p. 242.

[702] N. Y. Herald, Dec. 15, 1865.

[703] The wife of one of these officers was a notorious prostitute.

[704] Selma Times, Feb. 22, 1866.

[705] From Ms. account by a citizen of Greensboro. The young man who came so near hanging was some years later a hotel proprietor in Birmingham and created much newspaper discussion by ordering General Sherman to leave his hotel.

[706] See Mrs. Clayton, “White and Black Under the Old Régime,” pp. 152-153.

[707] Washington, “Up From Slavery,” pp. 23, 24.

[708] Columbus (Ga.) Sun, Nov. 22, 1865; The World, July 20, 1865; N. Y. Herald, July 23, 1865; Parsons’s Speech, Cooper Institute, Nov. 13, 1865; Riley, “Baptists of Alabama,” pp. 305, 307; Ball, “Clarke County,” p. 294; Herbert, “Solid South,” pp. 19, 20; Miller, “History of Alabama,” Ch. CXLI; oral accounts.

[709] N. Y. Herald, Aug. 27, 1865; Mobile Register, Aug. 16, 1865.

[710] Huntsville Advocate, July 26 and Nov. 9, 1865; McTyeire, “History of Methodism”; Riley, “Baptists of Alabama”; conversations with various negroes and whites.

[711] Hardy, “History of Selma,” p. 85.

[712] DeBow’s Review, March, 1866.

[713]

Negro population in 1860 437,770

Negro population in 1866 423,325

Decrease 14,445

[714] Estimated 20,000—Census of 1866.

[715] Southern Mag., Jan., 1874. Authorities as already noted and DeBow’s Review, March, 1866; Montgomery Advertiser, March 21, 1866; Hardy, “History of Selma,” p. 85; N. Y. Times, Oct. 31, 1865; Huntsville Advocate, Nov. 9, 1865; N. Y. Herald, July 17, 1865; N. Y. News, Sept. 7 and Dec. 4, 1865; Census of 1866 in Selma Times and Messenger, March 24, 1868; Mrs. Clayton, “White and Black,” pp. 152, 153; “Our Women in the War”; Thomas, “The American Negro,” p. 190; Report of the Joint Committee, Pt. III, p. 140; B. C. Truman, Report to the President, April 9, 1866; Carl Schurz, Report to the President, see Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 2, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.; General Grant, Report to the President, Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 2, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.

[716] Southern Mag., Jan., 1874.

[717] Protestant Episcopal Freedmen’s Commission, Occasional Papers, Jan., 1866.

[718] N. Y. Times, Aug. 17, 1865, Jan. 25, Feb. 12, and July 2, 1866; N. Y. Herald, June 24, 1866; The Nation, Feb. 15 and April 19, 1866; Reid, “After the War,” pp. 369-371; Reports of Grant, Truman, and Schurz; Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction (Fisk); Herbert, “Solid South,” p. 20; Paper by Petrie in Transactions Ala. Hist. Soc., Vol. IV, p. 465.

[719] Brown, “Alabama,” p. 259.

[720] Montgomery Advertiser, Dec., 1865, and Jan. 31, 1866; N. Y. Times, Oct. 31 and Dec. 27, 1865; N. Y. News, Dec. 4, 1865; N. Y. Herald, Dec., 1865, and Jan. 31, 1866; Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 70, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.; Ho. Mis. Doc., No. 42, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. (W. H. Smith); Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 6, 39th Cong., 2d Sess. (Swayne’s Report); Riley, “Baptists of Alabama,” p. 305; Trowbridge, “The South,” p. 445; Miller, “Alabama,” pp. 228, 229; Somers, “South since the War,” p. 134; Huntsville Advocate, Nov. 23, 1865.

[721] Montgomery Advertiser, Jan. 31, 1866.

[722] Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 70, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.; Buckley’s Report, Jan. 16, 1865; Report of John H. Hurst and A. B. Strickland, Oct. 4, 1865.

[723] Swayne’s Report, Oct. 31, 1866; R. T. Smith to Swayne, Jan. 6, 1866 (in Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 70, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.); W. H. Smith, D. C. Humphreys, and J. J. Giers, Memorial to Congress, Ho. Mis. Doc., No. 42, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.; Patton’s Message, Jan. 16, 1866.

[724] Report of M. H. Cruikshank, March, 1866.

[725] Ho. Mis. Doc., No. 114, 39th Cong., 1st Sess; National Intelligencer, Oct. 2, 1866.

[726] Huntsville Independent, April 3 and 19, 1866; Selma Times, June 9, 1866; oral accounts.

[727] W. Garrett to Swayne, Jan. 15, 1866, in Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 70, 38th Cong., 1st Sess.

[728] Chicago Tribune, June 2, 1866 (Correspondent at Bellefonte, Jackson County); Huntsville Independent, April 3 and 19, 1866; Reports of General Swayne, 1865-1866.

[729] March 8, 1867, General Howard of the Freedmen’s Bureau reported that in Alabama there were 10,000 whites and 5000 blacks in a destitute condition, and that during the next five months, owing to the failure of the crops in 1866, there would be needed 2,250,000 rations valued at $562,500, or 25 cents per ration. Sen. Ex. Docs., No. 1, 40th Cong., 1st Sess. Report of Swayne, Oct. 31, 1866; Report of Com. Bureau, Nov. 1, 1867; G. O., No. 4, Hq. Dist. of Ala., Montgomery, Oct. 10, 1866.

[730] Freedmen’s Bureau Report, Oct. 24, 1868.

[731] Swayne’s Report, Nov., 1866; Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 6, 39th Cong., 2d Sess.; Reid, “After the War,” p. 221; Freedmen’s Bureau Report, Nov. 1, 1866, Nov. 1, 1867, Oct. 2, 1868; and other authorities noted above.

[732] These were general agents, supervising special agents, assistant special agents, local special agents, agency aids, aids to the revenue, customs officers, and superintendents of freedmen. Rules and Regulations, July 29, 1864. Ho. Mis. Doc., No. 190, 44th Cong., 1st Sess.

[733] Amended regulations, Sec. IV, March 30, 1865.

[734] Rules and Regulations, Sec. IX, Treasury Department, May 9, 1865. Renewed by Circular Instructions, May 16, 1865, and in force to June 30, 1865. In Alabama the regulation was enforced during the entire summer. Ho. Rept., No. 83, 45th Cong., 3d Sess.

[735] McPherson, “Reconstruction,” p. 9.

[736] Proclamations, June 13 and 23, 1865.

[737] Proclamation, Aug. 29, 1865.

[738] Wilson burned at Selma 32,000 bales, and at Columbus, Ga., 150,000 bales, much of which came from Alabama. During the raid he destroyed 275,000 bales, 125,000 of which were burned in Alabama. The Confederates destroyed at Montgomery 80,000 bales (other accounts say 97,000 and 125,000; see Greeley, Vol. II, p. 19). Government cotton was, of course, the first destroyed, and there is no doubt but that nearly all of it was burned either by the raiders or by the Confederates to prevent its falling into the hands of the enemy. Cotton was also destroyed at Mobile and by the Federal armies that came up from the South.

[739] Report of A. Roane, Chief of the Produce Loan, C.S.A. Office, in Ho. Mis. Doc., No. 190, 44th Cong., 1st Sess.

[740] Roane then estimated that by April 1, 1865, the Confederacy owned in all no more than 150,000 bales. Dr. Curry, a member of the Confederate Congress, stated that only 250,000 bales were ever owned by the Confederate government. “Civil History,” pp. 115, 128. F. S. Lyon, when a member of the Confederate Congress in 1864, found that the Confederacy had a claim on about 150,000 bales scattered over ten states. Ku Klux Rept., Ala. Test., 1426.

[741] J. Barr Robertson, “The Confederate Debt and Private Southern Debts,” p. 25.

[742] Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 78, 38th Cong., 1st Sess. (Chase).

[743] Circular, Sept. 9, 1865.

[744] Act, March 12, 1863.

[745] Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 114, 39th Cong., 2d Sess.; Treasury Department Doc., No. 2261. According to a decision of the Supreme Court in case of Klein vs. United States (13 Wallace, 128), “disloyal” owners might become “loyal” by pardon and thus have all rights of property restored. This was the effect of proclamations of the President. “The restoration of the proceeds [then] became the absolute right of persons pardoned.” See Ho. Repts., No. 784, 51st Cong., 1st Sess., and No. 1377; 52d Cong., 1st Sess. The Attorney-General stated that “Congress took notice of the fact that captures of private property on land had been made and would continue to be made by the armies as a necessary and proper means of diminishing the wealth and thus reducing the powers of the insurgent rulers,” and that after a seizure had been made there could be no question of whether the usages of war were observed or violated, except through the courts; the President and the Secretary of the Treasury had no discretion in the matter. Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 114, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. According to the opinion of the United States law officers, “No one who submitted to the Confederate States, obeyed their laws, and contributed to support their government ought to recover under the statute” of March 12, 1863, See Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 22, 40th Cong., 2d Sess.

[746] Secretary McCulloch to President of the Senate, Jan. 16, 1869. Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 22, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., No. 37, 39th Cong., 25th Sess.

[747] Department Circular, No. 4, Jan. 9, 1900; 15 Stats.-at-Large, p. 251.

[748] See Ho. Mis. Doc., No. 16, 42d Cong., 2d Sess.; No. 12, 42d Cong., 3d Sess.; No. 23, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.; No. 18, 43d Cong., 2d Sess.; No. 30, 44th Cong., 1st Sess.; No. 4, 45th Cong., 2d Sess.; Nos. 10 and 30, 46th Cong., 2d Sess.; also Treasury Department Doc., No. 2261 (1901); Department Circular, No. 4. Jan. 9, 1900.

[749] Sen. Rept., No. 41, Pt. I, pp. 442, 445, 42d Cong., 2d Sess.

[750] Ku Klux Rept., Ala. Test., p. 1941.

[751] Curry, “Civil History Confederate States,” pp. 115, 126, 128. See testimony of Lieut.-Col. Hunter Brooke in Rept. Joint Committee on Reconstruction, Pt. III, p. 115.

[752] Whitelaw Reid, “After the War,” p. 204.

[753] Reid, “After the War,” pp. 208, 209.

[754] Miller, “Alabama,” p. 236.

[755] One who suffered writes from Selma: “Our cotton, the only thing left us with which to buy the necessaries of life, was seized at the point of the bayonet under the plea that it was Confederate cotton and that it was being seized by the government for its own use, whereas it was taken by the officers and sold, and the money put into their own pockets. It was then worth $255 a bale. Gen. —— commanded at this place, and he and his staff coined money faster than a mint could turn it out.” Judge B. H. Craig. In July, 1865, a train of wagons at Talladega was sent to the ginnery of Ross Green, at Alexandria, and 59 bales of cotton, Green’s own property, worth $100 a bale in gold, were carried off. Miller, p. 236.

[756] Testimony in Rept. of Joint Committee on Reconstruction, Pt. III, p. 115; Ku Klux Rept., Ala. Test., p. 1426. F. S. Lyon said that the people would have been better reconciled to the confiscation had the cotton been sold for the benefit of the United States, but it was plainly stolen by the agents and the army, and they began to resist in every way. Some of them concealed Confederate cotton; some stole from the government, some from the agents what the latter had stolen from them; some went into partnership with the agents. No one believed that any one except the original owner had a right to the cotton, and they did anything to get even.

[757] Miller, p. 236; N. Y. Times, March 2 and Aug. 30, 1865. In the Black Belt the United States military authorities collected the tax-in-kind which had been levied by the Confederate authorities but not collected. One planter had to pay one thousand bushels of corn, two barrels of syrup, and smaller quantities of other produce. From those who refused to pay the tax was taken forcibly. See Ku Klux Rept., p. 446 (F. S. Lyon).

[758] Ho. Mis. Doc., No. 30, 46th Cong., 2d Sess.

[759] Trowbridge, “The South,” p. 447; Reid, “After the War,” pp. 208, 209, 375; N. Y. Times, Aug. 30, 1865; N. Y. Herald, June 23, 1865.

[760] N. Y. Times, Aug. 30 and Nov. 2, 1865; De Bow’s Review, 1866; oral accounts.

[761] McCulloch, “Men and Measures,” pp. 234, 235.

[762] Sen. Rept., No. 41, Pt. I, 42d Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 442-445.

[763] The minority Ku Klux Report asserted that it was a well-known fact that Draper when appointed cotton agent was a bankrupt, and that when he died he was a millionnaire.

[764] The cotton secured in this way was, it was claimed, sold as “waste,” “trash,” or “dog tail” to some friend of the agent, who would divide with the latter.

[765] All freight, agency, auctioneer, insurance, storage, etc., charges, and fees for legal advice, were charged against the cotton, and had to be paid before it was restored.

[766] Probably Draper was correct here. The agents would consign to him all cotton that they felt sure the government had record of, and the rest they sold for their own benefit.

[767] Ho. Mis. Doc., No. 190, 44th Cong., 1st Sess.

[768] Secretary McCulloch to President of the Senate, March 2, 1867, in Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 37, 39th Cong., 2d Sess. In this way, during the summer of 1865, $616,844.34 was restored to owners, and to the end of 1866 $1,018,459.83 was restored. Most of the owners lived in Alabama and Louisiana.

[769] See Brewer, p. 375, and Garrett, p. 587. Lyon was one of the most useful, reliable, and respected public men of Alabama and his account is entitled to confidence. He had been a lawyer, clerk of the senate, senator, member of Congress, state bank commissioner, presidential elector, member Confederate Congress, etc.

[770] Letter to F. P. Blair, in Sen. Rept., No. 41, Pt. I, p. 445, 42d Cong., 2d Sess.

[771] Under the reconstruction government Dustin held the office of major-general of militia.

[772] See Ku Klux Rept., pp. 444-446. Letter of F. S. Lyon to General Blair. Also Ku Klux Rept., Ala. Test., pp. 1410-1426, 1661.

Lyon had been agent for the Confederate Produce Loan, and consequently knew what was government cotton and what was not. After the war he acted as attorney for those whose cotton was unlawfully seized. The general officers commanding in his district approved his conduct, but he was hated by the cotton agents, who frequently complained of his “rebellious conduct.” Lyon tried to save even the cotton pledged to the Confederacy, on the ground that the promise or sale had not been completed and that the transaction was void from the beginning, and that the right of capture did not exist after the close of the war.

[773] Ho. Mis. Doc., No. 190, 44th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 146.

[774] Calculation based on subscriptions to Produce Loan. Most of it had been destroyed.

[775] N. Y. Times, June 2, 1865; Huntsville Advocate, May 26, 1866. Report of Grand Jury.

[776] N. Y. Times, June 2, 1866.

[777] Worth $500,000, at the lowest price.

[778] G. O., No. 55, Department of Ala., Oct. 30, 1865; G. O., No. 8, Department of Ala., Feb. 14, 1866; Ms. records in War Department archives. For years these men were in prison while their friends were working to secure their release. The principal arguments for Dexter’s release were the virtue of his wife’s relations in New England and the illegality of the trial before the military commission in time of peace. Judging from the tone of the indorsements he was probably released, though there is no record of the fact in the archives. The manuscript proceedings of the trial show that thousands of bales of cotton had been “spirited away,” but everything was in such a state of confusion that little could be plainly proven against the agents. Only one thing was certain, “that much more cotton was seized for the government than was received by the government.” The investigation was hushed up as soon as possible; too many were implicated.

[779] Sen. Rept., No. 41, Pt. I, pp. 442, 445, 42d Cong., 2d Sess. This estimate is probably too large for both numbers.

[780] “Civil History, Confederate States,” pp. 115, 128.

[781] Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 37, 39th Cong., 2d Sess.

[782] Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 56, 40th Cong., 2d Sess.

[783] Sen. Rept., No. 41, Pt. I, p. 444, 42d Cong., 2d Sess.

[784] After which date confiscation was forbidden by Treasury regulation.

[785] An example of the way charges were piled up: A lot of 448 bales of cotton was seized in Eufaula, Alabama, and shipped to New York, via Appalachicola. The expenses were:—

Expenses to and at Appalachicola $24,264.85

Freight 4,164.69

Expenses at New York 2,500.05

Information and collecting 30,893.31

Total expenses 61,822.90

Gross proceeds of sale 78,352.56

Net proceeds of sale 16,529.66

Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 23, 43d Cong., 2d Sess.

The following cotton statistics show how the Mobile agents ran up expenses:—

J. R. Dillon, 1st Agency: Cotton sales $57,033.66

Total proceeds of all sales 129,076.33

Expenses, total 64,350.01

S. B. Eaton, 1st Agency: Cotton sold 15,963.01

Total receipts 27,799.48

Total expenses 27,799.48

T. C. A. Dexter, 9th Agency: Cotton sold 39,945.39

Total receipts 783,152.62

Expenses 485,137.77

J. M. Tomeny, 9th Agency: Cotton sold 14,159.51

Total receipts 208,185.63

Expenses 208,185.63

Total expenses of every kind amounted to 6,546,000.95

On receipts of 34,396,189.95

Of which cotton sold for 29,518,041.17

[786] Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 56, 40th Cong., 2d Sess.

[787] Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 97, 39th Cong., 2d Sess.

[788] See Ku Klux Rept., pp. 443-446; Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 37, 39th Cong., 2d Sess.; Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 97, 39th Cong., 2d Sess.; Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 113, 41st Cong., 2d Sess.; Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 23, 43d Cong., 2d Sess.; Department Circular, No. 4, Jan. 9, 1900.

[789] Department Circular, No. 4, Jan. 9, 1900; Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 23, 43d Cong., 2d Sess. There are imperfect records of only two Alabama agencies, which reported a certain number of bales seized. The other agencies did not report their operations in Alabama. The agents not reporting were: J. R. Dillon, H. M. Buckley, S. B. Eaton, E. P. Hotchkiss, L. Ellis, A. D. Banks, James and Ellis Carver, and perhaps others. None of the numerous collecting agents made reports or kept records. In 1876, thirty-three cotton agents were defaulters to the United States, one man owing the United States $337,460.44. Of these, sixteen were not to be found anywhere. Four of the defaulters had operated in Alabama. These men were by their own records defaulters—having failed to turn over to the government the proceeds of sales they had reported. Ho. Mis. Doc., No. 190, 44th Cong., 1st Sess.

[790] In addition to the tax of twenty-five per cent on purchases of cotton levied by a Treasury regulation during the war and in force during 1865. Treasury regulations, May 9, 1865. See also President’s proclamation, in McPherson, “Reconstruction,” p. 9.

[791] Governor Patton, in his message of Nov. 12, 1866, stated that the cotton tax of three cents a pound was oppressive and unjust, a burden on the farmers and on the laborers also; that the tax went into the United States Treasury and then passed into the hands of the manufacturers as a gratuity of three cents per pound; that there was no way of getting the ruinous tax raised or lightened unless by an appeal in the form of a petition; that the people of Alabama had no voice in the government; that this “law paralyzes our energies and represses the development of our resources and is injurious to the whole country.” Governor’s Message, House Journal, 1866-1867, p. 21.

[792] Twenty states and territories are not included in these sums, as no reports were received from them. Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 181, 42d Cong., 3d Sess., and Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 2, 39th Cong., 2d Sess.

[793] Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 181, 42d Cong., 3d Sess.

[794] Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 47, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.; Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 181, 42d Cong., 3d Sess.

[795] $54,191,229 in 1870.

[796] Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 181, 42d Cong., 3d Sess.

[797] The cotton tax was justified on the ground that while Alabama had paid $14,200,982 from 1862 to 1872, New Jersey had paid a total tax of $48,528,298, the two states having very nearly the same population. But no account was taken of the fact that for four years no tax was collected from Alabama by the United States, while nearly all of the movable wealth was destroyed during the war, and that in 1865 property was almost non-existent in Alabama. New Jersey, however, was a rich state. Alabama had besides paid an enormous war tax and had been looted of millions of dollars’ worth of cotton. And in Alabama there were 500,000 negroes who paid no tax, while most of the population of New Jersey were taxpayers. Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 181, 42d Cong., 3d Sess.

[798] Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 34, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.

[799] Sen. Mis. Doc., No. 100, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. (A. A. Low, Chairman of Committee of the N. Y. Chamber of Commerce).

[800] Ku Klux Rept., Ala. Test., pp. 383, 403 (General Pettus); Journal of the Convention of 1867.

[801] See Saunders, “Early Settlers,” p. 31 (Reverdy Johnson to Saunders). Jan. 18, 1872, the Alabama legislature (Republican Senate and Democratic House) memorialized Congress, asking to have the cotton tax refunded to the impoverished people, and stating that the tax was “most unjust and oppressive, a direct tax upon industry”; that to refund the tax would be “evenhanded but tardy justice.” Acts of Ala., 1871-1872, pp. 445-446. A similar petition was made on Feb. 23, 1875. Acts of Ala., 1874-1875, p. 674.

[802] In December, 1903, Representative J. S. Williams of Mississippi introduced a measure in Congress to refund the amount of the cotton tax to the southern states.

[803] It is difficult to understand now how thoroughly the Confederate soldier realized that the questions at issue were decided against him. But that it was a crime to have been a Confederate soldier, he did not understand. See also testimony of John B. Gordon and of Edmund W. Pettus in the Ku Klux Testimony.

[804] A neglected point of view is the attitude of the Confederate soldier. He had surrendered with arms in hand, and certain terms had been made with him, as he thought, a contract, embodied in the parole. This he believed secured his rights in return for laying down arms, and that as long as he was law-abiding his rights were to be inviolate. He was well pleased with the “spirit of Appomattox,” but nearly all that happened after Appomattox was in violation, he felt, of the terms of surrender. The whole radical programme was contrary to the contract made with men who had arms in their hands. Lee had decided that there should be no guerilla warfare, and in return certain moral obligations rested on the North. See the statements of General (now Senator) Edmund W. Pettus, in Ku Klux Rept., Ala. Test., pp. 377, 383, and of General John B. Gordon, in Ga. Test., pp. 314, 332, 333, 343.

[805] See “Our Women in the War,” p. 280; Ball, “Clarke County,” p. 463; Le Conte, “Autobiography,” p. 236.

[806] N. Y. Herald, June 17 and Aug. 30, 1865; N. Y. Times, Aug. 17 and Oct. 31, 1865; Mrs. Clay, “A Belle of the Fifties”; Nation, Feb. 15, 1865; oral accounts; Clayton, “White and Black under the Old Régime.”

[807] Letter concerning affairs at the South, Dec. 18, 1865, Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 2, 39th Cong., 2d Sess.; McPherson, “Reconstruction,” p. 67. General Grant’s conclusions were undoubtedly correct, but they evidently could not be based on the information gathered in a week’s journeying through the South. This gave the Radicals an opportunity to attack his report as being based on insufficient information. But General Grant knew the men against whom he had fought, he had talked with many of the representative men of the South, and through military channels was well informed as to actual conditions at the South.

[808] Report of Carl Schurz, Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 2, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. Schurz made a journey of more than two months through the southern states. Judging from the testimony which he submits, his confidence must have been confined to the officers of the Freedmen’s Bureau. As a foreigner (a German), he would not be able, even if so inclined, to ascertain anything of the sentiments of the representative people. However, his report was evidently not based entirely on the evidence submitted with it; if it had been, it would have been even more unfavorable. In McClure’s Magazine, January, 1904, Schurz has an article which is practically a rewriting of this report made nearly forty years before. He repeats some of the same stories told him then, and endeavors to reconcile his attitude in 1865-1866 with his course as a Liberal Republican in 1871-1872.

[809] Report of Benjamin C. Truman to the President, April 9, 1866, Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 43, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.; N. Y. Times, March 2, 1865. Truman spent two months in Alabama, and saw many prominent men whom Schurz did not see, and came in contact with thousands of other citizens. His aim was to picture conditions as they were. The newspaper correspondents, regardless of politics, gave better accounts than the volunteer officers, who had little training or education and much prejudice.

[810] See Blaine, Vol. II, p. 127.

[811] The sub-committee: Senator Harris (New York) and Senator Boutwell (Massachusetts) and Morrill (Vermont) from the House.

[812] Smith and Humphreys.

[813] J. J. Giers.

[814] M. J. Saffold. He was pardoned by President Johnson for that offence.

[815] George E. Spencer, Colonel 1st Alabama Union Cavalry.

[816] The witnesses who furnished testimony to the Congressional committee were:—

Name Nativity Remarks

1. Warren Kelsey Massachusetts Cotton speculator

2. General Edward Hatch Iowa Volunteer army

3. General George E. Spencer Iowa Volunteer army

4. William H. Smith Alabama Deserter

5. J. J. Giers Alabama Tory

6. Mordecai Mobley Iowa

7. General George H. Thomas Virginia U. S. Army

8. General Clinton B. Fisk North Freedmen’s Bureau

9. M. J. Saffold Alabama “Union” man

10. D. C. Humphreys Alabama Deserter

11. Colonel Milton M. Bane Illinois Volunteer army

12. General Joseph R. West California Volunteer army

13. Colonel Hunter Brooke North Volunteer army

14. General Grierson Illinois Volunteer army

15. General Swayne North Freedmen’s Bureau

16. General C. C. Andrews Minnesota Volunteer army

17. General Chetlain Illinois Volunteer army

18. General Tarbell North Volunteer army

[817] One of these men (W. H. Smith) became the first scalawag governor of Alabama, another (George E. Spencer) became a United States senator by negro votes, the third (Giers) was provided for in the departments at Washington, the fourth (Saffold) became a circuit judge in Alabama, and the fifth (Humphreys) a judge of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. See Herbert, “The Solid South,” pp. 19, 20.

[818] Testimony of General Swayne, Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, 1866, Pt. III, pp. 138-141.

[819] Other witnesses gave, in some respects, more favorable testimony, though most of them were very much more bitter. General Swayne showed no bias except the natural bias of one who did not understand the people, and who had no sympathy with any of the southern social or political principles. Of the northern men he was the best qualified by experience and observation to testify as to conditions in the South. He was an intelligent, educated man, trained in the law, and had a good military record. Most of the others were distinctly below his standard,—ignorant, prejudiced officers of volunteers from the West.

[820] General Swayne was in Alabama nearly three years as the head of the unpopular Freedmen’s Bureau, and his accounts, from first to last, of conditions in Alabama were marked by a fairness which can be found in but little of the official correspondence from the South. He believed in the Freedmen’s Bureau, in negro suffrage, and in the political proscription of white leaders; but his feelings influenced his judgment but little, and, unlike other Bureau officials, he never made misrepresentations.

[821] The Nation, Feb. 15, 1866.

[822] Huntsville Advocate, July 26, 1865.

[823] Herbert, “Solid South,” pp. 29, 30; Atlantic Monthly, Feb., 1901.

[824] See Memorial of William H. Smith, J. J. Giers, and D. C. Humphreys to Congress, Feb., 1866, in Ho. Mis. Doc., No. 42, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. Testimony of the same and of M. J. Saffold in Report of Joint Committee on Reconstruction, 1866; letter of D. H. Bingham from West Point, New York; Reid, “After the War,” passim.

[825] See Le Conte, “Autobiography,” p. 236; Montgomery correspondent in N. Y. Daily News, May 7, 1866.

[826] A newspaper correspondent, the guest of ex-Governor C. C. Clay, wrote: “While the Yankee boldly marched in at the front door into his [Clay’s] parlors and best chambers to dream loyal dreams and rest now that the warfare’s o’er, the quondam aristocrat [a son of ex-Governor Clay, editor of a paper in Huntsville, had been outlawed for his sentiments during the occupation of north Alabama by the Federal troops and was in hiding] must plod around to the rear and there eat the (corn) bread of mad passion weighed down with mad remorse.” Letter from a travelling correspondent of the N. Y. Times, Aug. 17, 1865. The Times usually had very little of such correspondence. The Times, the Herald, and the World had good correspondents in the South, especially during Reconstruction.

[827] An old Alabama river steamboat captain had had his boat burned by Wilson, but had secured another. The Federal army regarded him as a most unmitigated “rebel.” He would play “Dixie” in spite of all prohibitions. He was finally arrested on a more serious charge.

“What do you answer to the charge against you?”

“Faith, an’ which one?”

“That you refuse to take the bodies of dead Federal soldiers on your boat to Montgomery.”

“No, no, that’s not true. God knows it would be the pleasure of my life to take the whole Yankee nation up the river in that same fix.” “Our Women in the War,” p. 281.

Colonel Robert McFarland returned to Florence in the only suit he possessed—a gray uniform. He was peremptorily ordered by the Federal officers not to wear it. He was in a quandary until a friend secured a long linen duster for him to wear. “Northern Alabama,” p. 291.

[828] Gen. T. Kilby Smith, on Sept. 14, 1865, in Mobile, made a statement for Carl Schurz in which he asserted that one of the most intelligent, well-bred, pious ladies of Mobile wanted the military authorities to whip or torture into a confession of theft two negroes whom she suspected of stealing. She considered it a hardship, he said, that a negro might not be whipped or tortured in order to force a confession, when there was no evidence against him. “I offer this,” he wrote, “as an instance of the feeling that exists in all classes against the negro.” See Doc. No. 9, accompanying the report of Schurz.

[829] I have seen a coarse article reflecting on the character of southern women originally published in the Tribune and copied in a small Alabama paper each issue for several weeks. It asserted in thinly veiled terms that many of the young southern women were too intimate with negro men; the solution of the race question by amalgamation was asserted as sure to come; details of such a solution were suggested, and examples of what was taking place were cited.

[830] General Terry attempted to explain the condition of affairs by saying that the results of the war were but the legitimate consequence of a conflict between an inferior and a superior race. “Land We Love,” Vol. IV, p. 243. Gen. T. Kilby Smith, in September, 1865, complained that Federal officers were not received in society in Mobile. General Wood, he said, had been six weeks in Mobile, “ignored socially and damned politically”; and this, he said, in a community which before the war was considered one of the most refined and hospitable of all the southern maritime cities, the favorite home of army and naval officers. Doc. No. 9, accompanying the report of Schurz.

[831] In addition to references cited above, see also Huntsville Advocate, March 9 and 23, July 26, 1865; Ho. Mis. Doc., No. 42, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.; Sen. Mis. Doc., No. 43, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. (Truman); Reid, “After the War,” pp. 211, 212, 218, 219; “The Land We Love,” passim; “Our Women in the War,” p. 279 et passim; Abbott, “The Rights of Man,” pp. 224-226; Clayton, “White and Black,” pp. 150-152; Clay, “A Belle of the Fifties”; Straker, “The New South Investigated,” pp. 24, 57; Report of the Joint Committee, 1866, Pt. III; N. Y. Daily News, April 16, 1864, and Dec. 4, 1865; Reports of Schurz, Truman, and Grant; Reports of the Freedmen’s Bureau; Southern Magazine, 1874 (DeLeon); N. Y. Times, Oct. 31, 1865; N. Y. Herald, July 23, 1865; Miller, “Alabama,” pp. 233-251; Columbus (Ga.) Sun, March 22 and April 19, 1865; The Nation, Feb. 15, 1866; Ku Klux Rept., Ala. Test., passim; Reconstruction articles in Atlantic Monthly, 1901.

[832] Trowbridge, “The South,” p. 448.

[833] Thomas W. Conway, of the Freedmen’s Bureau, who passed through the state in 1866, stated that there were men in Alabama who, rather than sell their lands to northern men or borrow money in the North, would see their plantations lie waste, and before they would hire their former slaves as free laborers they would starve. The spirit of hatred toward northern men was universal, he said. Report to Chamber of Commerce, New York, June 7, 1866.

[834] Jan. 17, 1867, the state legislature declared that the reports published in the northern papers that it was unsafe for northern men to reside in Alabama were false. The lower house declared that “we, in the name of the people of Alabama, most cordially invite skilled labor and capital from the world, and particularly from all parts of the United States, and pledge the hearty coöperation and support of the state.” Annual Cyclopædia (1867), p. 15. For several years every inducement was offered by the planters to encourage immigration to the Black Belt. As late as 1869 immigration conventions were held. Annual Cyclopædia (1869), p. 10. During 1865 the north Alabama “unionists” hoped to see northern white men come in and take the place of the negroes. The Nation, Aug. 17, 1865.

[835] Report of Truman, Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 43, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.; Reid “After the War,” passim; Trowbridge, “The South,” p. 448; N. Y. Times, Nov. 10, 1865, July 2 and Oct. 31, 1866; General Swayne’s testimony, Report Joint Committee, Pt. III, p. 141; General Tarbell’s testimony, Report Joint Committee, Pt. III, pp. 155, 156.

[836] Report Joint Committee, 1866, Pt. III, pp. 139-141.

[837] In addition to the above references, see The World, Nov. 13, 1865; N. Y. Times, July 2 and Sept. 9, 1866; N. Y. Herald, July 23 and Aug. 28, 1865 (Swayne); Truman’s Report, April 9, 1866; Swayne’s Report, Jan., 1866; Harper’s Monthly Magazine, Jan., 1874.

[838] Pastoral Letters, May 30 and June 20, 1865.

[839] Perry, “History of the American Episcopal Church,” Vol. II, p. 328 et seq.; Whitaker, “The Church in Alabama,” pp. 172-175; N. Y. Herald, Sept. 4, 1865; Wilmer, “The Recent Past from a Southern Standpoint,” p. 143. Gen. T. Kilby Smith said that Wilmer had great influence among the better class of people, especially the women. Doc. No. 9, accompanying the report of Carl Schurz.

[840] Perry, “History of the American Episcopal Church,” Vol. II, p. 328 et seq.; Whitaker, pp. 175, 176; Wilmer, pp. 143-145.

[841] Whitaker, p. 177; Wilmer, “Recent Past,” p. 145. A copy of the order was also found in the War Department archives.

[842] Pastoral Letter, Sept. 28, 1865.

[843] Whitaker, pp. 180, 181; Wilmer, pp. 145, 146; Montgomery Mail, Oct. 2, 1865.

[844] Whitaker, p. 182; Wilmer, p. 146; Copy of order in War Department archives. Republished on G. O. 2, Jan. 10, 1866, Hq. Dept. Ala., Mobile.

[845] Whitaker, p. 186; Mobile Register, Jan. 9, 1866; Montgomery Mail, Jan. 19, 1866.

[846] Annual Cyclopædia (1865), p. 25; Wilmer, pp. 147-152; Whitaker, pp. 189-194; Perry, Vol. II, p. 328 et seq. The northern conferences of the Methodist Protestant Church returned in 1877 to the southern organization. See “Statistics of Churches,” p. 566.

[847] See Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. X, p. 562.

[848] See Dunning, “Essays on the Civil War and Reconstruction,” pp. 100-103.

[849] McPherson, “Reconstruction,” pp. 121, 122, 504, 505.

[850] Taylor, “Destruction and Reconstruction”; Report of Joint Committee on Reconstruction, Pt. III, pp. 15, 60.

[851] See Dunning, “Essays,” pp. 103-104.

[852] With only two dissenting votes.

[853] Some of these were southerners who were about to withdraw.

[854] Cong. Globe, July 22, 24, 25, 1861.

[855] Cong. Globe, Dec. 5, 1862.

[856] Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. VI, pp. 5-12.

[857] Proclamation, Dec. 8, 1863, in Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. VI, p. 213.

[858] Proclamation, July 8, 1864, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. VI, p. 223.

[859] Lincoln to Reverdy Johnson, Nicolay and Hay, p. 349.

[860] Nicolay and Hay, Vol. IX, p. 457; Vol. X, p. 123.

[861] Nicolay and Hay, Vol. VIII, p. 434.

[862] Message, Dec. 4, 1865, in Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. VI, p. 379.

[863] Cong. Globe, Feb. 11, 1862.

[864] Atlantic Monthly, Oct., 1863.

[865] Globe, Feb. 25, 1865, and Dec. 4, 1865. See Henry Adams, “Historical Essays.”

[866] Speeches in the Globe, 1865-1867.

[867] Globe, Aug. 2, 1861.

[868] Globe, Jan. 8, 1863.

[869] Globe, Jan. 22, 1864.

[870] Globe, Jan. 8, 1863.

[871] Globe, Dec. 4, 1865, March 10, 1866; Taylor, “Destruction and Reconstruction,” p. 244.

[872] See also Dunning, “Essays,” pp. 106-108.

[873] See Dunning, “Essays,” pp. 99-112; Texas versus White (1869), 7 Wallace 700; Scott, “Reconstruction during the Civil War”; McCarthy, “Lincoln’s Plan of Reconstruction”; Burgess, “Reconstruction and the Constitution,” pp. 1-143.

[874] N. Y. Times, April 4, 1865.

[875] Elected in 1863.

[876] Testimony of M. J. Saffold, Report Joint Committee, 1866, Pt. III, p. 60. The “union” men greatly exaggerated the strength of the “union” sentiment in the state during the war and their individual part in the peace movement. This was necessary in order to secure recognition as representatives of a strong “union” element. When the plan of the President was so modified as to leave them in their natural position of no influence, they became very bitter against it and played the martyr act to perfection.

[877] Testimony of J. J. Giers, Report Joint Committee, Pt. III, p. 15; O. R., Ser. I, Vol. XLIX, Pt. II, pp. 473, 485, 505, 506.

[878] See pp. 143-148.

[879] O. R., Ser. I, Vol. XLIX, Pt. II, p. 560.

[880] Judge Byrd was elected to the Supreme Court in 1865. He was a distant relative of Colonel William Byrd, of Westover, Va., Esq. Brewer, p. 224.

[881] General C. C. Andrews, in O. R., Ser. I, Vol. XLIX, Pt. II, p. 727; N. Y. Commercial Advertiser, May 27, 1865; N. Y. Tribune, June 2, 1865.

[882] There were present: Ex-Gov. John G. Shorter, M. A. Baldwin (Attorney-General, Brewer, p. 445), W. B. Bell, A. B. Clitherall (Brewer, p. 479), all of whom had been ardent secessionists, and L. E. Parsons (see p. 143), Col. J. C. Bradley, Col. J. J. Seibels (Brewer, p. 459; see p. 143), W. J. Bibb, J. G. Strother, M. J. Saffold (Brewer, p. 215), George Goldthwaite (Brewer, p. 451, A. and I. General). It was a fairly representative body of government officials and “stay-at-homes.”

[883] Garrett, p. 166. Reese was a “Union” man.

[884] N. Y. Commercial Advertiser, May 27, 1865; N. Y. Tribune, June 2, 1865; Montgomery Mail, May 12, 1865. The members of the committee which went to Washington were: Joseph C. Bradley, L. E. Parsons, M. J. Saffold, Lewis Owen, George S. Houston, James Birney, W. J. Bibb, John M. Sutherlin, Albert Roberts, Luke Pryor. None of the committee had been secessionists. Reese had been a “Union” man, Saffold a “political agent.” W. J. Bibb had made a visit to Washington during the war and had a consultation with Lincoln. Parsons was a “Union” man. Houston and Pryor (see Brewer, pp. 324, 326) were neither “Union” nor “secessionist,” but “constitutional.” The others were unknown to public life.

[885] Formerly colonel of the 48th Alabama Infantry.

[886] N. Y. Daily News, May 29, 1865.

[887] O. R., Ser. I, Vol. XLIX, Pt. II, p. 826.

[888] O. R., Ser. I, Vol. XLIX, Pt. II, p. 971.

[889] O. R., Ser. I, Vol. XLIX, Pt. II, pp. 810, 854, 877.

[890] Member of Congress, Confederate colonel of the 36th Alabama, former Whig. Brewer, p. 425.

[891] Former Whig, Adjutant and Inspector-General during the war. Brewer, p. 397.

[892] N. Y. Herald, June 15, 1865.

[893] N. Y. World, June 13, 1865. The absence of the old names in all these movements is noticeable. The old leaders had been strongly in favor of the Confederacy and now took back seats while smaller men came forward. They never came into power again.

[894] Huntsville Advocate, July 19, 1865.

[895] In one of the mountain counties, but the exact location was never named in any of the accounts of the convention.

[896] N. Y. Herald, June 17, 1865.

[897] He represented Talladega in the convention of 1867.

[898] See above, p. 125.

[899] Parsons, Bradley, Houston, Nicholas Davis, Pryor, Saffold, Bibb, Roberts, etc.

[900] Letter in N. Y. Herald, June 17, 1865.

[901] See McPherson, “Rebellion,” p. 286.

[902] The Mobile Register and Advertiser (John Forsyth, editor) supported the President’s policy: “The states were never out of the Union”—July 18, 1865. The Huntsville Advocate, July 19, said, “The presidential policy is simple, direct, and emphatic.” Henry W. Hilliard, General Cullen A. Battle, Ex-Governors Shorter, Moore, Watts, and Fitzpatrick declared that there would be no opposition but a hearty effort “to get straight.”

[903] Lilian Foster, “Andrew Johnson: Services and Speeches,” pp. 199, 210, “Address to Loyal Southerners,” April, 1865.

[904] There is little reason to believe that Lincoln could have succeeded in the struggle with Congress.

[905] See Foster, “Andrew Johnson,” for change of feeling in Johnson as expressed in his speeches in 1865 and 1866.

[906] “President Tamers” the Radicals called them.

[907] McCulloch, p. 517 and Preface; Nation, Oct. 26, 1865; Mayes, “L. Q. C. Lamar”; Reid, “After the War,” pp. 404, 405, 578; Mobile Register and Advertiser, July 18, 1865; Huntsville Advocate, July 18, 1865.

[908] McPherson, p. 10; Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. VI, p. 310.

[909] McPherson, p. 10.

[910] G. O., Nos. 5, 13, and 14, Department of Alabama, 1865.

[911] N. Y. Herald, June 21, 1865; Brewer and Garret, sub. nom.

[912] Article II, section 2: Article IV, section 4.

[913] Lewis Eliphalet Parsons, born 1817, Boone County, New York, was the son of a farmer and the grandson of the celebrated Jonathan Edwards. He came to Alabama in 1840 and practised law in Talladega, was a Whig, later a Douglas Democrat, and on both sides during the war. See above, p. 143.

[914] Here “loyal” seems to mean those who had taken the amnesty oath.

[915] Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. VI, p. 323.

[916] Those who could take the iron-clad test oath of 1862.

[917] Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 26, p. 97, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.

[918] James Redpath in The Nation, Aug. 17, 1865, condensed.

[919] See Foster, “Andrew Johnson,” pp. 199, 210, 214, 220, 250.

[920] The 22d of May was the date when the Confederate state government ceased to exist.

[921] Garrett, p. 735, says Aug. 30 and Sept. 12. The convention met on Sept. 12.

[922] Parsons’s Proclamation, July 20 (or 22), 1865; in N. Y. Herald, July 26 and Aug. 11, 1865; Garrett, p. 735; McPherson, p. 21.

[923] Parsons’s Message to Convention, Sept. 21, 1865; Proclamation, July 20, 1865; in N. Y. Herald, Aug. 11, 1865.

[924] Huntsville Advocate, Aug. 17, 1865.

[925] See McCulloch, p. 517 and passim; N. Y. Tribune, May 4, 1866; Mobile Times, April 25, 1866.

[926] N. Y. Herald, Sept. 3, 1865.

[927] Testimony of M. J. Saffold, Report of Joint Committee, 1866, Pt. III, pp. 59-63.

[928] Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 16, 40th Cong., 2d Sess.

[929] Others were pardoned for having aided the Confederacy in the following occupations: agents of the Nitre and Mining Bureau; tax collector and state assessor; tax receiver (Confederate); general officer of the Confederate army; postmasters who had held office before the war; members of the state legislature; cotton agents; foreign agents and commissioners; graduates of West Point and Annapolis; resigning United States service to join Confederacy; mail contractors; clerks of the Confederate government; state and Confederate judges; members of Congress; receivers of subscriptions for the Confederacy; marshals and deputy marshals; clerks of state and Confederate courts; agents for the purchase of supplies; members of advisory board; cotton bond agent; Confederate government official; commissioner of appraisement; depositary; route agent; commissioner of Indian affairs; member of convention of 1861; prize commissioner; commissioner to take testimony; Indian agent; Confederate financial agent; commissioner to examine prisoners held by military authorities; agent of the Produce Loan; receiver of the tax-in-kind; leaving loyal state; commissioner of “fifteen million loan”; agent to receive subscriptions for cotton and produce loans; depot agent to receive the tax-in-kind; agent under sequestration laws; enrolling officer; impressment agent; Treasury agent; Confederate contractor; sequestration commissioner; agent to collect provisions for the army; district attorney; state printer; border agriculturist; custom officer; agent to receive titles; commissioner to examine political prisoners. Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 16, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., gives a list of those pardoned. Some of the more well-known men pardoned were: R. M. Patton, “agent for the sale of rebel bonds, and worth over $20,000”; Nicholas Davis, “member of rebel provisional Congress”; Charles Hays, worth over $20,000; Benjamin Fitzpatrick, “resigned United States Senate”; J. G. Gilchrist, “member of Secession Convention”; S. F. Rice, worth over $20,000; S. S. Scott, Indian agent; H. C. Semple, worth over $20,000; Thomas H. Watts, “member of rebel convention, voted for ordinance of secession, colonel in rebel army, attorney-general of the would-be Southern Confederacy, rebel governor of Alabama, and worth $20,000”; M. J. Saffold, “commissioner to examine political prisoners, and state printer.”

[930] The names and offences of those pardoned are given in Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 99, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.; No. 16, 40th Cong., 2d Sess.; and No. 31, 39th Cong., 2d Sess.

[931] N. Y. Herald, Oct. 15, 1865.

[932] Montgomery Daily Advertiser, Oct. 1, 1865.

[933] N. Y. Herald, Sept. 26 and Oct. 15, 1865.

[934] N. Y. Herald, Sept. 26, 1865.

[935] Journal of the Convention, 1865, p. 28.

[936] Journal of the Convention, 1865, pp. 16, 57, 58; N. Y. Herald, Sept. 26 and Oct. 15, 1865.

[937] Annual Cyclopædia (1865), pp. 16, 17; Journal of the Convention, 1865, pp. 57, 58.

[938] The vote cast was 92, probably all who were present. Journal of the Convention, p. 59; N. Y. Herald, Sept. 26, 1865; Shepherd, “Constitution and Ordinances,” 1865, p. 48; Code of 1867, Ordinance No. 13, Sept. 25, 1865. Early in the session Mardis of Shelby, a “loyal” member, proposed a resolution to the effect that the ordinance of secession was “unconstitutional and therefore illegal and void, [and that] the leaders of the rebellion having been forced to lay down their arms and turn over to the conservative people of the state the reigns of the civil government by which the state has become more peaceful and loyal to the United States government. She is now entitled to all the rights as before ordinance of secession.” Journal of the Convention, 1865, p. 16. The resolutions of the “loyalists” were curiosities, and the secretary did not always expurgate bad spelling, etc.

[939] Shepherd, “Constitution and Ordinances,” 1865, p. 49; Ordinance No. 14.

[940] N. Y. Herald, Sept. 22, 1865.

[941] Annual Cyclopædia (1865), p. 17; N. Y. Times, Sept. 29, 1865; N. Y. Herald, Oct. 15, 1865; Shepherd, “Constitution and Ordinances,” 1865, pp. 53, 54; Ordinances Nos. 25-28, September, 1865. In spite of this ordinance certain war debts were paid. Fowler, Superintendent of Army Records, was paid $3000 for his work during the war, the legislature buying the records from him. Coleman, a Confederate judge, was paid for services during the war. See Acts 65-66 and the Journal of the Convention of 1867. The newspaper reports give summaries of the debates on the more important ordinances; the Journal of the Convention gives only the votes and resolutions.

[942] Chairman of the committee on suffrage, Convention of 1901.

[943] It seems to have been taken for granted by the convention that slavery was already abolished.

[944] The amnesty proclamation expressly excepted property in slaves.

[945] Annual Cyclopædia (1865), p. 14; N. Y. Times, Sept. 30, 1865.

[946] “Loyalist,” and later a “scalawag.”

[947] N. Y. Herald, Oct. 15, 1865.

[948] Journal of the Convention, 1865, p. 49.

[949] Journal of the Convention, 1865, pp. 49, 50; N. Y. Herald, Oct. 15, 1865; Shepherd, “Constitution and Ordinances,” 1865, p. 45, Ordinance No. 6. The three members who voted against the abolition ordinance were Crawford of Coosa, Cumming of Monroe, and White of Talladega. They wanted to let the Supreme Court decide. The Supreme Court of Alabama, a year later, held that, as a matter of history which the court would recognize, slavery was dead as a result of war before the passage of the ordinance of Sept. 22, 1865.

[950] That class of men called all negroes “free negroes” and “freedmen” for years after the war as a term of contempt.

[951] Afterwards second provisional governor.

[952] N. Y. Times, Sept. 30, 1865.

[953] N. Y. Herald, Oct. 15, 1865.

[954] N. Y. Times, Sept. 30, 1865.

[955] Journal of the Convention, 1865, p. 80; Shepherd, “Constitution and Ordinances,” 1865, p. 61, Ordinance No. 34.

[956] Huntsville Advocate, Sept. 28, 1865. A “Johnson reconstruction paper.”

[957] Huntsville Advocate, Oct. 12, 1865.

[958] Shepherd, p. 57, Ordinance No. 30; Journal of the Convention, 1865, pp. 67, 68. See Constitution of 1865, Article IV, Section 4.

[959] Journal of the Convention, 1865, p. 34.

[960] A member of the convention of 1861.

[961] N. Y. Herald, Oct. 15, 1865.

[962] Journal of the Convention, 1865, p. 74.

[963] Shepherd, p. 44, Ordinance No. 5.

[964] Shepherd, p. 54, Ordinance No. 26.

[965] Shepherd, p. 46, Ordinance No. 7.

[966] Shepherd, p. 63, Ordinance No. 39.

[967] Shepherd, p. 74, Ordinance No. 42. See Constitution, 1865, Article IV, Section 31.

[968] Shepherd, pp. 44, 53, 65, Ordinances Nos. 4, 23, 43.

[969] Shepherd, pp. 49, 62, 68, Ordinances Nos. 15, 37, 49.

[970] Ordinances Nos. 8, 16, 22, 33.

[971] Shepherd, p. 70.

[972] N. Y. Herald, Oct. 15, 1865; Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 26, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. (Parsons); Report Joint Committee, 1866, Pt. III, pp. 138-141.

[973] Parsons’s Proclamation, Sept. 28, 1865.

[974] Montgomery Advertiser, May 12, 1866.

[975] In Macon, Russell, and Lowndes counties.

[976] N. Y. Daily News, Sept. 7, 1865; N. Y. Tribune, Feb. 6, 1866; Swayne’s Report, Jan., 1866, in Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 70, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.; Report Joint Committee of Reconstruction, 1866, Pt. III, p. 140 (Swayne).

[977] “I, A. B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have never sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority or pretended authority, in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto; and I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” McPherson, “Reconstruction,” p. 193.

[978] Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 81, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., McCulloch, Report, March 19, 1866; McCulloch, “Men and Measures,” pp. 227, 233. The Finance Committee reported in favor of paying these officials, accepting as correct the secretary’s statement. They were paid, in spite of the opposition of Sumner, who voted not to pay “those rebels.” McCulloch, p. 232.

[979] On March 17, 1866, the Postmaster-General, in a letter to the President, stated that the test oaths of July 2, 1862, and March 3, 1863, hindered the reconstruction of the postal service in the South. Of 2258 mail routes in 1861, only 757 had been restored. Before the war there were 8902 postmasters, and in 1866 there were but 2042, of whom 420 were women and 865 others could not take the oath. Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 81, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.

[980] N. Y. News, Dec. 8 and Oct. 23, 1865; N. Y. Times, July 2, 1866.

[981] Cox, “Three Decades,” p. 603; Reid, “After the War,” pp. 401, 402; N. Y. Daily News, Oct. 23 and Dec. 8, 1865; N. Y. Times, July 2, 1866.

[982] Selma Times, April 10, 1866. The rejection of such men as Dr. F. W. Sykes of Lawrence as tax commissioner was especially discouraging to the anti-Democratic party in the state. Sykes had been an obstructionist in the legislature during the war. Brewer, p. 309.

[983] One official who had suffered from objections made against his past record inserted the following advertisement in the Selma Times, April 11, 1866:—

“Having been elected twice, given three approved bonds, and sworn in five times, I propose opening the business of the city courts of Selma.

“E. M. Garrett, “Clerk City Court of Selma.”

[984] There were no nominating conventions; the candidates were announced by caucuses of friends. Several other men were spoken of, but the contest narrowed down to three.

[985] N. Y. Times, Nov. 10, 1865.

[986] R. M. Patton, 21,442; M. J. Bulger, 15,234; W. R. Smith, 8194. The total vote was 44,870; the registration to Sept. 22, 1865, had been 65,825; the vote for delegates to the convention had been about 56,000; the vote for presidential electors in 1860 had been 89,579. The falling off in the vote may be explained by the death and disfranchisement of voters and by the indifference of south Alabama people to the north Alabama candidates.

[987] The convention in September had proceeded to correct the theory of the situation by conferring the powers of a civil governor upon Parsons, and authorizing him to act as governor until the elected governor should be qualified.

[988] McPherson, “Reconstruction,” p. 21. Alabama was the twenty-seventh state to ratify, and with seven other seceding states made up the necessary three-fourths of the thirty-six states. So far the Johnson state governments were recognized. Tribune Almanac, 1866. Later, when all that the “restoration” administration had done was found to be useless or worse than useless, an Alabama writer, in “The Land We Love,” complained:—

“The constitutional amendment abolishing slavery could only be passed constitutionally when the southern states were in the Union. We were then in the Union for the few weeks during which time this was being done. For this brief privilege we lost 4,000,000 of slaves valued at $1,200,000,000. We have every reason to be thankful for being wakened out of our brief dream of being in the Union. A few more weeks of such costly sleep would have stripped us entirely of houses and lands.”

[989] N. Y. Herald, Dec. 19, 1865.

[990] Inaugural Addresses, Dec. 13, 1865; Annual Cyclopædia (1865), p. 19.

[991] Both Parsons and Houston had been “Unionists,” but neither could have subscribed to the oath exacted from members of Congress. The representatives chosen were: (1) C. C. Langdon, Whig, Bell and Everett man, of northern birth, opposed secession, a member of the legislature of 1861; (2) George C. Freeman, Whig, Bell and Everett man, opposed secession, captain and major 47th Alabama; (3) Cullen A. Battle, Democrat, major-general C.S.A.; (4) Joseph W. Taylor, Whig, Bell and Everett man, opposed secession; (5) Burwell T. Pope, Whig, opposed secession; (6) Thomas J. Foster, Whig, Bell and Everett man, opposed secession. None of the congressmen-elect could subscribe to the test oath. The people would have voted for no man who could take the test oath.

[992] McPherson, p. 15.

[993] Cong. Globe, Dec. 4, 1865.

[994] Globe, Dec. 4, 1865. This was a distinct refusal to recognize, for the present at least, the restoration as done by the President.

[995] Cong. Globe, Dec. 18, 1865.

[996] Herbert, “Solid South,” p. 12.

[997] McPherson made a collection of extracts from various newspapers relating to his action in omitting the names of the southern members. Few of the editorials seem to indicate any belief that a grave constitutional question was to be settled. Most of the editors believed that he had exceeded his authority, but approved his action because the southern members were Democrats. The general opinion seemed to be that their politics alone was a cause of offence. See McPherson’s scrap-book, “The Roll of the 39th Congress,” in the Library of Congress.

[998] Globe, March 2, 1866.

[999] Swayne’s Report, Oct. 31, 1866, Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 6, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.

[1000] Acts of Ala. (1865-1866), p. 601.

[1001] Swayne’s Reports, Dec. 26, 1865, Jan. 31, 1866, and Oct. 31, 1866, in Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 70, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., and Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 6, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.; Patton’s Message, Jan. 16, 1866; N. Y. Times, Jan. 18, 1866; N. Y. Evening Post, Jan. 29, 1865; McPherson, “Reconstruction,” p. 21; McPherson’s scrap-book, “Freedmen’s Bureau Bill,” 1866.

[1002] McPherson, “Reconstruction,” pp. 21, 22; Act, approved Feb. 23, 1866, Penal Code of Ala., pp. 6-8; Acts of Ala. (1865-1866), pp. 121, 124.

[1003] Acts of Ala. (1865-1866), Act of Dec. 15, 1865; Penal Code of Ala., p. 12. The compilers of the Penal Code placed this act in the Code separate from the rest, as irreconcilable with the provisions of the Code and with other legislation. That is, they refused to codify it and left it for the courts to decide. The law was meant to suppress a common practice of encouraging negroes to steal cotton, etc., for sale.

[1004] Acts of Ala. (1865-1866), p. 98; Penal Code, pp. 164, 165. In one respect the negro had a better standing in court than the white: he was a competent witness in his own behalf, and his wife might also be a witness.

[1005] Acts, Dec. 11 and 26, 1865. See below, Ch. XII.

[1006] In an interview with General Swayne, in 1901, he informed me that he was present when the bills were drawn up. The governor and the president of the Senate in consultation decided that all measures already brought forward should be vetoed or dropped; the apprentice and contract laws as they stood on the statute book were then drawn up, and no objection was made to them by General Swayne, who was present by request. He made suggestions as to what would be acceptable to the Bureau and to northern public opinion.

[1007] Acts of Ala. (1865-1866), pp. 111, 112 (Act of Feb. 16, 1866); Penal Code, p. 13.

[1008] Penal Code, pp. 50, 51.

[1009] Acts of Ala. (1865-1866), pp. 128-131 (Act Feb. 23, 1866).

[1010] Penal Code, pp. 34, 35.

[1011] Penal Code of Ala., pp. 10-12; Acts of Ala. (1865-1866), pp. 119-121. This was another act which the compilers refused to incorporate into the Penal Code. It was an amendment to the law already on the statute books, and the constitution of the state provided that the law revised or amended must be set forth in full (Article IV, Section 2.) The next legislature repealed this and similar laws as being in conflict with the Code. Acts of Ala. (1866-1867), pp. 107, 115, 504. It was never in force, being practically repealed by the later adoption of the Penal Code, which had the old ante-bellum law of vagrancy, which provided a fine of $10 to $50 for the first offence, and for a second conviction, $50 to $100 and hard labor for not more than six months. (See Penal Code, p. 37). The laws regulating labor and vagrancy were so carelessly drawn that it would have been practically impossible to enforce them. Not only were they technically unconstitutional, but they were also in conflict with the provisions of the Code. The consequence was confusion and the suspension of both Code and statutes. Colonel Herbert, in “The Solid South” (pp. 31-36), gives a summary of similar laws of the northern states which were more stringent than the Alabama laws. As a matter of fact, all the states had similar laws, but in the South they had always been a dead letter on the statute book.

[1012] See Blaine, “Twenty Years,” Vol. II, p. 93.

[1013] It was not possible then, nor is it now, to pass any law in regard to labor contracts, vagrancy, or minor crimes, that would not affect the negroes to a much greater degree than the whites. All laws regulating society, if strictly enforced, would bear with much greater force upon blacks than upon whites.

[1014] Neither Swayne nor Howard made any objection to the apprentice and vagrancy laws, and so far as I can gather from the reports of General Swayne, they were not enforced. If so, there were no results unfavorable to the freedmen. In 1901, in an interview, Swayne stated that all measures that he considered objectionable had either failed to pass the Senate or had been vetoed by the governor. He intimated that he had a great deal to do with the suppression of such measures and the framing of new ones.

[1015] Feb. 13, 1866.

[1016] The date of the beginning of the provisional government.

[1017] General Swayne’s account.

[1018] Montgomery Advertiser, Feb. 14, 1865; Swayne’s Report, Oct. 31, 1866; Swayne’s Testimony, Report Joint Committee, Pt. III, pp. 138-141.

[1019] Truman’s Report, April 19, 1866; Mrs. Clayton, “White and Black,” p. 152 et passim; “Our Women in the War,” passim; The Nation, Oct. 5, 1865; Reid and Trowbridge.

[1020] Truman’s Report, April 19, 1865.

[1021] The Nation, Feb. 15, 1866.

[1022] Referring to the emigration movement to Mexico, Brazil, Europe, etc.

[1023] This charge was published in the general presentments of the Pike County grand jury and was immediately taken up by the northern Democratic and the conservative Republican papers and given a wide publication. Mrs. Clayton republished it in her book (pp. 156-165). Judge Clayton was disfranchised by the Reconstruction Acts, and not until 1874 was he again able to hold judicial office. The bench and bar were generally in favor of admitting the negro to the fullest standing in the courts. Under slavery, when a case turned on negro testimony, extra-legal trials were often held and the decision given by “lynch-law” jury, the court officials presiding. In 1865 the lawyers and judges were ready to admit negro testimony, according to General Swayne, but made more or less objection in order not to alienate those of the people who objected.

[1024] Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 43, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.

[1025] The Nation, Oct. 5, 1865.

[1026] Brooks was a cousin of Preston Brooks of South Carolina, and had been president of the convention of 1861. The measure was indorsed by Governor Patton, Judge Goldthwaite, and a respectable minority. Ku Klux Rept., Ala. Test., p. 226.

[1027] McPherson’s scrap-book, “Fourteenth Amendment,” p. 55.

[1028] First Confederate Secretary of War, brigadier-general, C.S.A.

[1029] For this incident my authority is a statement of General Swayne made to me in 1901. He was much interested in the movement, and was positive that in time the native whites would have given the suffrage to the negro had not the Reconstruction Acts and other legislation so alienated the races. General Swayne gave me full explanations of his policy in Alabama. His death, a year after the interview, prevented him from verifying some details. His account, though given thirty-five years after the occurrences, was correct so far as I could compare it with the printed matter available. It agreed almost exactly with his reports as printed in the public documents, though he had not those at hand, and had not seen them for thirty years. I have several times been told by old citizens that negroes voted in 1866, in minor elections, by consent of the whites.

[1030] “Diary and Correspondence of S. P. Chase,” in the Annual Report of the Amer. Hist. Assn. (1902), Vol. II, p. 517.

[1031] Stephen B. Weeks, in Polit. Sci. Quarterly (1894), Vol. IX, pp. 683-684.

[1032] See Herbert, “Solid South,” pp. 29, 30, 37.

[1033] Resolution, Dec. 2, 1865, Acts of Ala. (1865-1866), p. 598.

[1034] Resolution, Jan. 16, 1866, Acts of Ala. (1865-1866), p. 603.

[1035] Resolution, Dec. 15, 1865, Acts of Ala. (1865-1866), p. 604.

[1036] Resolution, Feb. 22, 1866, Acts of Ala. (1865-1866), p. 607; McPherson, p. 22; Selma Times, Feb. 27, 1867.

[1037] See N. Y. Herald, April 17, 1866 (Alabama correspondence).

[1038] McPherson’s scrap-book, “The Campaign of 1866,” Vol. I, pp. 84, 122.

[1039] See Burgess, “Reconstruction,” pp. 64-67.

[1040] McPherson’s scrap-book, “Freedmen’s Bureau Bill, 1866,” pp. 47, 128.

[1041] The reconstruction laws of Congress were almost invariably referred to as “Bills” even in official documents and military orders.

[1042] McPherson’s scrap-book, “Civil Rights Bill, 1866,” pp. 136, 151.

[1043] McPherson’s scrap-book, “Civil Rights Bill, 1866,” p. 135.

[1044] McPherson’s scrap-book, “Civil Rights Bill, 1866,” p. 110.

[1045] McPherson’s scrap-book, “Civil Rights Bill, 1866,” p. 120.

[1046] McPherson’s scrap-book, “Fourteenth Amendment,” pp. 33, 34.

[1047] The cotton tax, for instance.

[1048] Ku Klux Rept., Ala. Test., p. 226.

[1049] N. Y. Tribune, Nov. 30, 1866. I have not been able to discover what the name of the paper was, but very likely it was the Mobile National.

[1050] McPherson’s scrap-book, “Fourteenth Amendment,” pp. 39, 55, 56.

[1051] Governor’s Message, Nov. 12, 1866, in House Journal (1866-1867), p. 35; N. Y. Tribune, Nov. 19, 1866; Annual Cyclopædia (1866), pp. 11, 12.

[1052] House Journal (1866-1867), p. 198.

[1053] McPherson, p. 194; McPherson’s scrap-book, “Fourteenth Amendment,” p. 55; N. Y. Times, Jan. 23, 1867. General Wager Swayne to S. P. Chase, Dec. 10, 1866, wrote, in substance, that—the evident intention of Congress to enforce its own plan makes it seem possible to secure from the Alabama legislature the ratification of the Amendment; that the Senate was ready to ratify in spite of the governor’s message against it, and of the certain disapproval of “the people, poor, ignorant, and without mail facilities,” but a despatch had been sent to Parsons in the North for advice, and he advised rejection; inspired, it was asserted by the President, the cry was raised, “we can’t desert our President,” and the measure was lost; but when they return (in January) they will be prepared for either course, and the governor will recommend ratification. “Diary and Correspondence of S. P. Chase,” in the Annual Rept. of the Amer. Hist. Assn. (1902), Vol. II, pp. 516-517.

[1054] N. Y. Times, Jan. 9, 1867. Patton also went to Washington during the recess.

[1055] Annual Cyclopædia (1866), pp. 11, 12.

[1056] McPherson, pp. 352, 353; McPherson’s scrap-book, “Fourteenth Amendment,” pp. 60, 66. The telegrams are in the Impeachment Testimony, Vol. I, pp. 271-272. Interview with General Swayne, 1901.

[1057] Annual Cyclopædia (1867), p. 15.

[1058] See McPherson, pp. 118, 240, 241.

[1059] N. Y. Herald, July 19, 1866.

[1060] According to his own report. See Nation, Feb. 15, 1866. Hart, “American History as told by Contemporaries,” Vol. IV, p. 49.

[1061] Report of B. C. Truman, April 9, 1866; Report of Joint Committee, 1866, Pt. III, passim; Report of Schurz with accompanying documents; N. Y. Times, Sept. 9 and Oct. 3, 1866; Nation, Feb. 15, et passim; World and Tribune; Herald and Tribune correspondent, 1865; Montgomery Mail and Advertiser; Selma Times; Tuscaloosa Monitor and Blade, 1865 to 1875. Of the New York papers the Nation and Tribune were especially violent at first, but changed later. The Times and the Herald had fair correspondents most of the time.

[1062] N. Y. Daily News, May 7, 1866 (Montgomery correspondent).

[1063] See N. Y. Times, Sept. 9, 1866 (Federal soldier), Oct. 3, 1866 (Ohio man); N. Y. News, May 7, 1866 (Montgomery correspondent).

[1064] Lewis E. Parsons (New York), Whig; George S. Houston; A. B. Cooper (New Jersey), Whig; John Forsyth, State Rights Democrat; R. B. Lindsay (Scotch), Douglas Democrat; James W. Taylor, Whig; Benjamin Fitzpatrick, Douglas Democrat.

[1065] Some of them were W. H. Crenshaw (Democrat), who presided,—Crenshaw was then president of the Senate; John G. Shorter (Democrat), war governor of Alabama; H. D. Clayton (Whig), Confederate general; C. C. Langdon (Whig); William S. Mudd (Whig); William Garrett (Whig); M. J. Bulger (Douglas Democrat), Confederate general; C. A. Battle (Democrat), Confederate general; A. Tyson (Whig). See Brewer and Garrett, and N. Y. Times, Aug. 3 and 9, 1866.

[1066] McPherson, pp. 240, 241.

[1067] N. Y. Times, Aug. 27, 1866. By “Union” party, Parsons evidently meant those who opposed secession.

[1068] The northern business men were on the side of the whites.

[1069] McPherson, p. 124.

[1070] McPherson, p. 242.

[1071] N. Y. Times, Sept. 8, 1866.

[1072] Davis was of good middle-class Virginia stock. A Whig in politics, Mrs. Chesnut called him “a social curiosity.” In convention of 1861 he voted against immediate secession, threatened resistance among the hills of north Alabama, and ended by signing the ordinance of secession; was chosen to succeed Dr. Fearn in the Confederate Provisional Congress; was appointed lieutenant-colonel of the 19th Alabama Infantry, but declined; commanded a battalion for a while; his “loyalty” consisted in his leaving the Confederate service and returning to Huntsville within the Federal lines. Brewer, p. 365, Garrett, pp. 341, 342; Smith’s Debates, passim. He soon fell out with the carpet-baggers and “formed a party of one.”

[1073] The disposition of some of the north Alabama leaders (even among the Conservatives) to play the childish act was one of the disgusting features of Reconstruction.

[1074] N. Y. Times, Jan. 23, 1867. Among those present were: D. C. Humphreys (Douglas Democrat), Confederate officer, who deserted to Federals (he was in the first carpet-bag legislature, and later judge of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia; see Garrett, p. 364); John B. Callis, agent of the Freedmen’s Bureau, Veteran Reserve Corps, member of Congress, 1868; C. C. Sheets, in convention of 1861, refused to sign ordinance of secession and deserted to Federals, a member of Congress, 1868; Thomas M. Peters, Whig, deserted to Federals, later judge of Supreme Court of Alabama (see Brewer, p. 309; Garrett, p. 440); F. W. Sykes, member of legislature during war, soon returned to Conservative party (Brewer, p. 309); J. J. Hinds, afterward a notorious scalawag.

[1075] One new man was S. C. Posey of Lauderdale, who had been in the convention of 1861 and refused to sign the ordinance of secession and was in the legislature during the war. Returned soon to Conservative party. Brewer, p. 299, Garrett, p. 389.

[1076] The Radical party might have done much worse than to send him to the Senate. Warren and Spencer, the senators elected, were far inferior in character and abilities to Swayne. He was too decent a man to suit the Radicals and was soon dropped.

[1077] N. Y. Herald, March 6, 1867.

[1078] The proclamation announcing that the rebellion had ended was issued April 2, 1866. McPherson, p. 15.

[1079] Van Horne, Life of Thomas, pp. 153, 399, 400, 408; Huntsville Advocate, June 9, 1866 (for copy of order relating to Department of the South that I have not found elsewhere); G. O. No. 1, Mil. Div. Tenn., June 20, 1865; G. O. No. 118, W. Dept., June 27, 1865; G. O. No. 1, Dept. Ala., July 18, 1865; G. O. No. 1, Dist. Ala., June 4, 1866; G. O. No. 1, Dept. Tenn., Aug. 13, 1866; G. O. No. 42, Dept. Tenn., Nov. 1, 1866. The general and special orders cited in this chapter are on file in the War Department at Washington.

[1080] O. R., Ser. I, Vol. XLIX, Pt. II, pp. 505, 560, 727, 826, 854, 971; Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, Pt. III.

[1081] Miller, “Alabama,” p. 236; Acts of Ala. (1865-1866), pp. 598, 601.

[1082] That is, the officers had the privileges and authority of officers of a division. G. O. Nos. 1, 9, 17, 29, 54, Dept. Ala., 1865; G. O. No. 1, Mil. Div. Tenn., 1865.

[1083] The “Amnesty Oath.” The oath of allegiance had already been administered to all who would take it. See McPherson, “Reconstruction,” pp. 9, 10.

[1084] G. O. Nos. 13 and 14, Dept. Ala., 1865.

[1085] G. O. No. 3, Dept. Ala., July 21, 1865. There was complaint about the stealing of cotton by troops.

[1086] G. O. No. 6, Post of Montgomery, May 15, 1865. This order is printed on thin, blue Confederate writing paper, which seems to have been shaped with scissors to the proper size. Supplies had not followed the army.

[1087] G. O. No. 24, Dept. of Ala., Aug. 25, 1865.

[1088] G. O. No. 6, Post of Mobile, in N. Y. Daily News, June 27, 1865.

[1089] G. O. No. 48, Dept. Ala., Oct. 18, 1865.

[1090] Statement of General Woods, Sept. 4, 1865, Document No. 11, accompanying the Report of Schurz.

[1091] See statement of Woods, Sept. 4, 1865, Schurz’s Report.

[1092] G. O. No. 4, Dept. Ala., Jan. 26, 1866.

[1093] N. Y. Daily News, Sept. 7, 1865.

[1094] Statement of Gen. T. K. Smith, Sept. 14, 1865, in Schurz’s Report.

[1095] Statement of General Woods, Sept. 4, 1865.

[1096] G. O. No. 5, Sub-dist. Ala., Oct. 13, 1866.

[1097] See Ch. VI, sec. 1.

[1098] G. O. No. 30, Dept. of Ala., Sept. 4, 1865; Statement of General Woods, Sept. 4, 1865, in Schurz’s Report.

[1099] See Ch. VI, sec. 1.

[1100] N. Y. Herald, Nov. 26 and Dec. 15, 1865.

[1101] Document No. 19, accompanying Schurz’s Report.

[1102] G. O. No. 55, Dept. Ala., Oct. 30, 1865.

[1103] G. O. No. 8, Dept. Ala., Feb. 17, 1866.

[1104] G. O. No. 1, Dept. Ala., Jan. 5, 1866.

[1105] G. O. No. 13, Dept. Ala., 1866.

[1106] G. O. No. 17, Dept. Ala., 1866.

[1107] G. O. No. 20, Dept. Ala., 1866.

[1108] G. O. No. 23, Dept. Ala., 1866.

There were other trials, but the records are missing and the names of the parties are unknown. A large number of cases were prosecuted before military commissions convened at the instance of the Freedmen’s Bureau.

[1109] For two years after the war the Confederate sympathizers in north Alabama suffered from persecution of this kind. During the war the Confederates in north Alabama had been classed as guerillas by the Federal commanders.

[1110] G. O. No. 29, Mil. Div. Tenn., Sept. 21, 1865; G. O. No. 42, Dept. Ala., Sept. 26, 1865.

[1111] G. O. No. 3, H. Q. A., Jan. 12, 1866; G. O. No. 7, Dept. Ala., Feb. 12, 1866.

[1112] G. O. No. 48, Dept. Ala., Oct. 18, 1865.

[1113] G. O. No. 6, Mil. Div. Tenn., Feb. 21, 1866.

[1114] G. O. No. 25, Mil. Div. Tenn., Sept. 13, 1865.

[1115] G. O. No. 44, H. Q. A., July 6, 1866; G. O. No. 13, Dept. of the South, July 21, 1866.

[1116] Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 26, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.

[1117] P. M. Dox to Governor Parsons, Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 26, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.

[1118] See p. 327.

[1119] Selma Times, Feb. 3, 1866.

[1120] There were really three governments in Alabama based on the war powers of the President: (1) the army ruling through its commanders; (2) the Freedmen’s Bureau, with its agents; (3) the provisional civil government.

[1121] Circular No. 1, Aug. —, 1865; G. O. No. 21, Dept. Ala., April 9, 1866.

[1122] De Bow’s Review, 1866. De Bow made a trip through the South. Nation, Oct. 5 and 26, 1865; Truman, Report to President, April 9, 1866. See also Grant, Letter to President, Dec. 18, 1865.

[1123] Colonel Herbert says that the relations between the soldiers and the ex-Confederates were very kindly, but the latter hoped the army would soon be removed, when civil government was established. “Solid South,” p. 30.

[1124] Miller, “Alabama,” p. 242; Resolutions of the Legislature, Jan. 16, 1866.

[1125] Testimony of Swayne, Report Joint Committee, 1866, Pt. III, p. 139; various reports of Swayne as assistant commissioner of Freedmen’s Bureau. It was noticeable that when Swayne was placed in command of the army in the state there was less interference and better order than before, though he never obtained the cavalry.

[1126] For instance: In the city of Mobile a petition of some kind might be made out in proper form and given to the commander of the Post of Mobile. The latter would indorse it with his approval or disapproval, and send it to the commander of the District of Mobile, who likewise forwarded it with his indorsement to the commander of the Department of Alabama at Mobile or Montgomery. In important cases the paper had to go on until it reached headquarters in Macon, Nashville, Louisville, Atlanta, or Washington, and it had to return the same way.

The following orders relate to the changes made so often:—

G. O. Nos. 1, 9, 10, 12, 17, 19, 20, 27, Dept. Ala., from July 18 to Sept. 1, 1865; G. O. No. 18, Dept. Ala., March 30, 1866; G. O. No. 1, Dist. Ala., June 1, 1866; G. O. No. 1, Sub-dist. Ala., Oct. —, 1866; G. O. No. 1, Mil. Div. Tenn., June 20, 1865; G. O. Nos. 1 and 42, Dept. of the Tenn., Aug. 13 and Nov. 1, 1866; G. O. No. 1, Dept. of the South, June 1, 1866; G. O. No. 1, Dept. of the Gulf, ——, 1865; G. O. No. 1, Dist. of the Chattahoochee, Aug. —, 1866.

There were numerous general orders from local headquarters of the same nature. See also Van Horne, “Life of Thomas,” pp. 153, 399, 400, 418; and Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 13, 38th Cong., 2d Sess.

[1127] G. O. No. 1, Sub-dist. Ala., March 28, 1867.

[1128] Freedmen’s Bureau Report, Oct. 20, 1869; Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 143, 41st Cong., 2d Sess.

[1129] Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 28, 38th Cong., 2d Sess.

[1130] Regulations, July 9, 1864.

[1131] Stats.-at-Large, Vol. XIII, pp. 507-509. See also O. O. Howard, “The Freedmen during the War,” in the New Princeton Review, May and Sept., 1886.

[1132] Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 7, 39th Cong., 2d Sess.

[1133] McPherson, “Reconstruction,” pp. 69-74, 147-151, 349, 350, 378; Burgess, “Reconstruction,” pp. 87-90.

[1134] N. Y. Times, Oct. 31, 1865.

[1135] Circular No. 16, Sept. 19, 1865 (Howard); Circular No. 6, June 13, 1865 (Howard); Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 70, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.; Circular No. 1, July 14, 1865 (Conway); Circular No. 2, July 14, 1865 (Conway).

[1136] One of them—Chaplain C. W. Buckley—was guardian of the blacks at Montgomery. He afterwards played a prominent part in carpet-bag politics.

[1137] Ku Klux Rept., p. 441; N. Y. World, July 20, 1865; oral accounts and letters. It was on this theory that the Bureau was established, and at the head of the institution was placed General O. O. Howard, who was a soft-hearted, unpractical gentleman, with boundless confidence in the negro and none whatever in the old slave owner. A man of hard common sense like Sherman would have done less harm and probably much good with the Bureau.

[1138] Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 70, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.

[1139] Circular No. 5, June 2, 1865 (Howard); Circular No. 2, July 14, 1865 (Conway); Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 70, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.

[1140] Freedmen’s Bureau Report, Dec., 1865.

[1141] In November, 1866, the following army officers, most of whom were members of the Veteran Reserve Corps, were made superintendents of these depots: Montgomery, Capt. J. L. Whiting, V.R.C.; Mobile, Brevet Major G. H. Tracy, 15th Infantry; Huntsville, Brevet Col. J. B. Callis, V.R.C.; Selma, Lieut. George Sharkley; Greenville, James F. McGogy, Late First Lieut. U.S.A.; Tuscaloosa, Capt. W. H. H. Peck, V.R.C.; Talladega, J. W. Burkholder, A.A.G., U.S.A.; Demopolis, Brevet Major C. W. Pierce, V.R.C. Other Bureau officials who afterward became well-known carpet-baggers were: Major C. A. Miller, 2d Maine Cavalry, A.A.G.; Major B. W. Norris, Additional Paymaster; Lieut.-Col. Edwin Beecher, Additional Paymaster; Rev. C. W. Buckley, Chaplain 47th U.S.C. Infantry. Other officers of the V.R.C. who arrived later were Capt. Roderick Theune, Lieuts. George F. Browing, G. W. Pierce, John Jones, P. E. O’Conner, and Joseph Logan. See Swayne’s Report, Oct. 31, 1866; Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 21, 40th. Cong., 2d Sess. With one exception these later assisted in Reconstruction.

[1142] Freedmen’s Bureau Report, Oct. 24, 1869.

[1143] Freedmen’s Bureau Report, Oct. 24, 1868.

[1144] McPherson’s scrap-book, “Freedmen’s Bureau Bill, 1866,” p. 128.

[1145] For examples, see Schurz’s Report and accompanying documents, Nos. 20, 21, 22, 28; Taylor, “Destruction and Reconstruction”; article by Schurz in McClure’s Magazine, Jan., 1904.

[1146] The Nation, Feb. 15, 1866.

[1147] Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, Pt. III, p. 138.

[1148] G. O. No. 7, Montgomery, Aug. 4, 1865.

[1149] No one ever knew exactly how far the military commander was bound to obey the assistant commissioner and vice versa. The problem was at last solved by making Swayne military commander also.

[1150] Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, Pt. III, p. 138 (testimony of General Wager Swayne).

[1151] Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, Pt. III, p. 138.

[1152] Swayne did not hesitate to intimidate such men as Parsons. He would treat old men—former senators, governors, and congressmen—as if they were bad boys; he himself was under thirty.

[1153] The reason for this was that the day before several Federal drunken officers had been careering around the bay in a boat, and Forsyth, who was on this boat, did not want his party of ladies to meet them.

[1154] Statement of Swayne, 1901; N. Y. News, Aug. 21, 1865.

[1155] Circular No. 20 (Freedmen’s Bureau), War Dept., Nov. 30, 1865.

[1156] Circular No. 15, Sept. 12, 1865.

[1157] McPherson, “Reconstruction,” p. 13.

[1158] Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. VI, p. 352; G. O. No. 64, Dept. Ala., Dec. 10, 1865; Swayne’s Report, Jan. 31, 1865; Freedmen’s Bureau Reports, Dec., 1865, and Nov., 1866.

[1159] Freedmen’s Bureau Report, Dec., 1895; Swayne’s Reports, Jan. 31 and Oct. 31, 1866, in Ho. Ex. Doc., No. 70, and Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 6, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.

[1160] Freedmen’s Bureau Report, Nov. 1, 1866.