Chapter DX: Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by

appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

_W. H. Barnes,
History of the 39th Congress,
chapters 17-18._

ALSO IN:
_J. G. Blaine,
Twenty Years of Congress,
volume 2, chapter 9._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866 (July).
Restoration of Tennessee to her
"former, proper, practical relation to the Union."

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866 (July).
The New Orleans Riot.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865-1867.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1867 (October-March).
The Reconstruction issue before the people.
Congress sustained by the North.
President Johnson and the South.
Rejection of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Southern States.

In the elections of 1866 the canvass turned upon the issue
between Congress and the President concerning Reconstruction,
and the popular verdict was overwhelmingly adverse to the
Presidential policy, while a new Congress was elected far more
Radical in disposition than its predecessor. Every Northern
State was swept by the Republicans, with heavily increased
majorities. Even those "which had been tenaciously Democratic
gave way under the popular pressure. … The aggregate majority
for the Republicans and against the Administration in the
Northern States was about 390,000 votes. In the South the
elections were as significant as in the North, but in the
opposite direction. Wherever Republican or Union tickets were
put forward for State or local offices in the Confederate
States, they were defeated by prodigious majorities. Arkansas
gave a Democratic majority of over 9,000, Texas over 40,000,
and North Carolina 25,000. The border slave States were
divided. Delaware, Maryland and Kentucky gave strong
majorities for the Democrats, while West Virginia and Missouri
were carried by the Republicans. The unhappy indication of the
whole result was that President Johnson's policy had inspired
the South with a determination not to submit to the legitimate
results of the war, but to make a new fight and, if possible,
regain at the ballot-box the power they had lost by war. The
result of the whole election was to give to the Republicans
143 representatives in Congress and to the Democrats but 49."
But when Congress assembled, in December, the President was
found to be inflexibly determined to pursue the line of policy
which he had marked out. In his message he reiterated his
views "with entire disregard of the popular result which had
so significantly condemned him. … The President's position …
excited derision and contempt in the North, but it led to
mischievous results in the South. The ten Confederate States
which stood knocking at the door of Congress for the right of
representation, were fully aware, as was well stated by a
leading Republican, that the key to unlock the door had been
placed in their own hands. They knew that the political
canvass in the North had proceeded upon the basis, and upon
the practical assurance (given through the press, and more
authoritatively in political platforms), that whenever any
other Confederate State should follow the example of
Tennessee, it should at once be treated as Tennessee had been
treated. Yet, when this position had been confirmed by the
elections in all the loyal States, and was, by the special
warrant of popular power, made the basis of future admission,
these ten States, voting upon the Fourteenth Amendment at
different dates through the winter of 1866-67, contemptuously
rejected it. In the Virginia Legislature only one vote could
be found for the Amendment. In the North-Carolina Legislature
only 11 votes out of 148 were in favor of the Amendment. In
the South-Carolina Legislature there was only one vote for the
Amendment. In Georgia only two votes out of 169 in the
Legislature were in the affirmative. Florida unanimously
rejected the Amendment. Out of 106 votes in the Alabama
Legislature only ten could be found in favor of it.
Mississippi and Louisiana both rejected it unanimously. Texas,
out of her entire Legislature, gave only five votes for it,
and the Arkansas Legislature, which had really taken its
action in the preceding October, gave only three votes for the
Amendment. … It was naturally inferred and was subsequently
proved, that the Southern States would not have dared to take
this hostile attitude except with the encouragement and the
unqualified support of the President."

_J. G. Blaine,
Twenty Years of Congress,
volume 2, chapter 10-11._

{3567}

"No factor in those elections [of 1866] proved more potential
than the rejection by Southern Legislatures of the pending
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The clauses on which its acceptance or rejection turned in
these assemblies were: Section II., which apportioned
Representatives in Congress upon the basis of the voting
population; and Section II!., which provided that no person
should hold office under the United States who, having taken
an oath as a Federal or state officer to support the
Constitution, had subsequently engaged in the war against the
Union. It was claimed by the friends of the Amendment to be
especially unfair that the South should have representation
for its freedmen and not give them the ballot. The right,
however, of a state to have representation for all its free
inhabitants, whether voters or not, was secured by the
Constitution, and that instrument even allowed three-fifths
representation for slaves. New York, Ohio, and other states
denied the ballot to free negroes; some states excluded by
property qualification and others by educational tests, yet
all enjoyed representation for all their peoples. The reply to
this was that the Constitution ought to be amended because the
South would now have, if negroes were denied the ballot, a
larger proportion of non-voters than the North. Southern
people were slow to see that this was good reason for change
in the Constitution, especially as they believed they were
already entitled to representation, and conceived that they
ought to have a voice in proposing as well as in the
ratification of amendments. Five of the restored states had
already ratified the Thirteenth Amendment, and such
ratification had been counted valid. If they were states, they
were certainly entitled to representation. So they claimed. It
was perhaps imprudent for Southern people at that time to
undertake to chop logic with their conquerors, or indeed to
claim any rights at all. … The insuperable objection, however,
to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment was to be
found in the clause which required the people of the late
Confederate States to disfranchise their own leaders, to brand
with dishonor those who had led them in peace and in war."

_H. A. Herbert,
Why the Solid South?
(Noted Men on the Solid South)
pages 15-16._

In a letter addressed, November 25, 1866, to General Richard
Taylor, lately of the Confederate army, and brother-in-law of
Jefferson Davis, General Grant wrote: "I have talked with
several members of Congress who are classed with the Radicals;
Schenck and Bidwell for instance. They express the most
generous views as to what would be done if the Constitutional
amendments proposed by Congress were adopted by the Southern
States. What was done in the case of Tennessee was an earnest
of what would be done in all cases. Even the disqualification
to hold office imposed on certain classes by one article of
the amendment would, no doubt, be removed at once, except it
might be in the cases of the very highest offenders, such, for
instance, as those who went abroad to aid in the Rebellion,
those who left seats in Congress, etc. All or very nearly all
would soon be restored, and so far as security to property and
liberty is concerned, all would be restored at once. I would
like exceedingly to see one Southern State, excluded State,
ratify the amendments to enable us to see the exact course
that would be pursued. I believe it would much modify the
demands that may be made if there is delay." "But the
President's endeavors did not cease. … He used all the
authority of his office to dissuade the Southerners from
accepting the amendment which the entire North had ratified. …
He converted good feeling and good will on both sides into
discord, and precipitated disasters almost equal to those from
which the State had barely escaped. … This view of Johnson's
conduct was thenceforth steadily maintained by Grant."

_A. Badeau,
Grant in Peace,
chapter 5._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1867 (December-March).
The Tenure-of-Office Bill.

"Against the early decision of the founders of the Government,
… against the repeatedly expressed judgment of ex-President
Madison, against the equally emphatic judgment of Chief
Justice Marshall, and above all, against the unbroken practice
of the Government for 78 years, the Republican leaders now
determined to deprive the President of the power of removing
Federal officers. Many were induced to join in the movement
under the belief that it was important to test the true
meaning of the Constitution in the premises, and that this
could be most effectively done by directly restraining by law
the power which had been so long conceded to the Executive
Department. To that end Mr. Williams of Oregon, on the first
Monday of December, 1866, introduced a bill 'to regulate the
tenure of civil offices.'"

_J. G. Blaine,
Twenty Years of Congress,
volume 2, page 270._

"After grave consideration and protracted discussion in both
houses of Congress, the [Tenure-of-Office bill] was passed
near the close of the session. On the 2d of March [1867] the
bill encountered the veto of the President, who saw in the
measure serious interference with the ability of the Executive
to keep his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution of the United States. The bill was immediately
passed over the veto without debate. The act thus passed
provides that officers appointed by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate shall hold their offices until their
successors are in like manner appointed and qualified. Members
of the Cabinet hold their offices during the term of the
President by whom they are appointed, and for one month
thereafter, subject to removal by consent of the Senate."

_W. H. Barnes,
History of the 39th Congress,
page 560._

Soon after the inauguration of President Grant, in 1868, the
Tenure-of-Office act was so far modified as to practically
release the President from the restraint which it put upon his
power of removal.

_J. G. Blaine,
Twenty Years of Congress,
volume 2, chapter 18, and Appendix B._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1869.
Organization of the Bureau of Education.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1869.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.
The Ku-Klux Klan of the Southern States and its outrages.

"It would have been contrary to the experience of mankind,
and an exception to all the teachings of history, if the
social and political revolution which the results of the war
had imposed on the states then recently insurgent had gone
into operation peacefully, harmoniously, and successfully. It
was impossible for such to be the case. The transition was
from a state in which the superiority and domination of the
white race over the colored race existed unquestioned for
centuries. It was to a condition of things in which the most
prominent whites were disfranchised and deprived of the right
to hold public offices. Their late slaves were enfranchised,
and the judicial and other offices were largely filled by
dishonest and unfriendly strangers from the North. What was
worse still, many of these places were filled by ignorant and
brutal negroes. The transition was too sudden and violent. It
was hard to submit to it quietly.
{3568}
No people, least of all such a proud and intolerant people as
that of the South, could see their local governments
transferred from their own hands into the hands of their
former slaves without being goaded into violent resistance.
This resistance took the form, in most of the Southern
States, not of armed opposition to the Federal or the state
governments, but of organized intimidation and terrorism. It
was directed against the colored people and against their
white allies and leaders. It made an objective point of the
agents of the Freedmen's Bureau, ministers of the gospel, and
school teachers,—all adventurers from the North, or men who
had, in quest of fortune, immigrated into these states. All
of these classes were regarded as public or private enemies.
They were designated by the opprobrious title of
'carpet-baggers.' The history of these outrages fills many
volumes of reports made by joint and separate committees of
the two houses of Congress. It is from these volumes, from
reports of military commanders in the South, and from other
official documents, that the following epitome, exhibiting
the lawlessness that prevailed in the Southern States during
the … decade between 1865 and 1875, is made. These documents
are so full of the details of crime and violence, and are so
voluminous, that it is exceedingly difficult to select from
them, or to convey a correct idea of their relations. Very
soon after the close of the Civil War, almost as soon as the
Reconstruction acts were begun to be put in operation, secret
societies were organized in various states of the South.
Their object, either secret or avowed, was to prevent the
exercise of political rights by the negroes. These societies
took various names, such as 'The Brotherhood,' 'The Pale
Faces,' 'The Invisible Empire,' 'The Knights of the White
Camellia'; but all these were finally merged into, or
compounded with, the formidable and dreaded society
denominated the 'Ku-Klux Klan.' Their acts of lawlessness and
cruelty have passed into local and congressional history as
'Ku-Klux outrages.' The State of Virginia was a remarkable
exception to the other states in its exemption from crimes of
this character; while the two neighboring States of North
Carolina and Tennessee furnished, perhaps, more material for
investigation into Ku-Klux outrages than any other portion of
the South. This barbarous and bloodthirsty organization is
said to have originated in 1866. There is no doubt that the
Ku-Klux Klan was organized at first only to scare the
superstitious blacks. It is true that it arose out of the
frivolities of some young Tennesseans. Horrid tales were told
to frighten the negroes from roaming about and pilfering. The
testimony before the committee on that subject, of which the
writer was a member, showed that they daily visited houses
and talked their foolish talk; that they were 'mummicking
about,'—whatever that means. … There is no doubt that
political reasons had their influence after the Ku-Klux were
under way. … Certain it is, that they soon came to be made
use of, in the most arbitrary, cruel, and shocking manner,
for the furtherance of political ends, and for the crushing
out of Republicanism in the Southern States; to which party
the colored people were almost unanimously attached. The
crimes and outrages narrated in these pages had their origin,
almost exclusively, in political causes,—in the effort on the
part of the whites to set at naught the rights of suffrage
guaranteed to the negroes, and to exclude from Federal,
state, county, and local offices all persons whose reliance
for election to such offices was mainly if not altogether, on
negro votes. General Forrest estimated the strength of the
Ku-Klux organization in Tennessee at 40,000. He expressed the
belief that it was still stronger in other states. The
members were sworn to secrecy, under the penalty of death for
breach of fidelity. Their ordinary mode of operation—as
gathered from the mass of evidence—was to patrol the country
at night. They went well armed and mounted. They wore long
white gowns. They masked their faces. Their appearance
terrified the timid and superstitious negroes who happened to
see them as they rode past, and who then regarded them as
ghostly riders. But most frequently they surrounded and broke
into the cabins of the negroes; frightened and maltreated the
inmates; warned them of future vengeance; and probably
carried off some obnoxious negro, or 'carpet-bagger,' whose
fate it was to be riddled with murderous bullets, hung to the
limb of a tree, or mercilessly whipped and tortured, for some
offense, real or imaginary, but generally because he was
active in politics or in negro schools or churches. …
According to the majority report of the Senate select
committee of March 10, 1871, the Ku-Klux associations, by
whatever name known, were instituted in North Carolina in
1867 or 1868. … The report of the Senate committee of the
10th of March, 1871, before referred to, recites a startling
number of Ku-Klux outrages. They embrace whipping,
mutilation, and murder. These cruelties took place in North
Carolina, between December, 1868, and December, 1870. The
report gives some of the horrifying details."

_S. S. Cox,
Three Decades of Federal Legislation,
chapters 25-26._

"Senator Scott, in a speech in the Senate, gave as the result
of the investigation that came to his own knowledge, as
follows: In North Carolina, in 14 counties, there were 18
murders and 315 whippings. In South Carolina, 9 counties, 35
murders and 276 other flagrant outrages. In Georgia, 20
counties, 72 murders and 126 whippings. In Alabama, 26
counties, 215 murders and 116 other outrages. In Florida, in
one county alone there were 153 cases of homicide. In
Mississippi, 20 counties, 23 homicides and 76 other cases of
outrage. In 99 counties in different States he found 526
homicides and 2,009 cases of whipping. But the committee state
that in Louisiana alone in the year 1868 there were more than
1,000 murders, and most of them were the result of the
operations of the Ku Klux."

_H. Wilson,
History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
volume 3, chapter 45._

ALSO IN:
_Report of Joint Select Committee
(42d Congress, 2d session, Senate Report, number 41)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1867 (January).
Negro Suffrage in the District of Columbia.

As early as the 18th of January, 1866, the House of
Representatives passed a bill extending the suffrage in the
District of Columbia, by striking out the word "white" from
all laws and parts of laws prescribing the qualification of
electors for any office in the District, and declaring that no
person should be disqualified from voting at any election in
the District on account of color.
{3569}
As it was known that the President would veto the bill if sent
to him, the Senate held it until the next session. In
December, 1866, it was called up in that body by Senator
Sumner, and after considerable debate was passed, December
13th. On the 7th of January following it was returned by the
President with his veto, but was passed over the veto by the
Senate (29 to 10) the same day, and by the House (113 to 38)
the day following, thus becoming a law.

_W. H. Barnes,
History of the 39th Congress,
chapters 4 and 21._

ALSO IN:
_G. W. Julian,
Political Recollections,
chapter 12._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1867 (March).
The Purchase of Alaska.

See ALASKA: A. D. 1867.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1867 (March).
The Military Reconstruction Acts of Congress.

"Congress had declared amply enough how the rebel States
should not be reinstated. Two years after the close of the
war, however, the Union was still unrestored, and while
claiming, under the Constitution, absolute jurisdiction of the
question, Congress had failed to prescribe the terms on which
the Union should be restored. … Both the country and Congress
were at last convinced by the course of events that
affirmative Congressional action was indispensable, involving
the sweeping away of Mr. Johnson's ex-rebel State governments
and the enfranchisement of the emancipated slaves. Mr. Stevens
had been of that opinion ever since the emasculation by the
Senate of the Fourteenth Amendment, as adopted by the House
[which had proposed to exclude from the right to vote for
Representatives in Congress and for Presidential electors,
'until the 4th day of July, in the year 1870, all persons who
voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid
and comfort'], and immediately thereupon proposed a measure
containing the germ of the Military Reconstruction Act. Called
up from time to time, and pressed upon the attention of the
House by Mr. Stevens, it was passed on the 13th day of
February, 1867, after a four weeks' debate upon it in
Committee of the Whole. By the 20th both Houses had agreed
upon it, and passed it. On the 2d day of March the President
returned it to the House with his veto, over which it was at
once passed by both Houses; and with only two days of the
Thirty-ninth Congress to spare, it become law."

_O. J. Hollister,
Life of Schuyler Colfax,
chapter 9._

The Military Reconstruction Act set forth in its preamble that
"Whereas, no legal State governments or adequate protection
for life or property now exists in the rebel States
[enumerating all the late Confederate States except
Tennessee]; … and whereas it is necessary that peace and good
order should be enforced in said States until loyal and
republican State governments can be legally established:
therefore, Be it enacted, … That said rebel States shall be
divided into military districts and made subject to the
military authority of the United States, as hereinafter
prescribed; and for that purpose Virginia shall constitute the
first district, North Carolina and South Carolina the second
district, Georgia, Alabama and Florida the third district,
Mississippi and Arkansas the fourth district, and Louisiana
and Texas the fifth district." Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the act
made it the duty of the President to assign to the command of
each of the said districts an officer of the army not below
the rank of brigadier-general, and defined the duties and
powers of such commander, providing for the assignment to him
of an adequate military force. Section 5 provided "That when
the people of any one of said rebel States shall have formed a
constitution of government in conformity with the Constitution
of the United States in all respects, framed by a convention
of delegates elected by the male citizens of said State 21
years old and upward, of whatever race, color, or previous
condition, who have been resident in said State for one year
previous to the day of such election, except such as may be
disfranchised for participation in the rebellion or for felony
at common law, and when such constitution shall provide that
the elective franchise shall be enjoyed by all such persons as
have the qualifications herein stated for electors of
delegates, and when such constitution shall be ratified by a
majority of the persons voting on the question of ratification
who are qualified as electors for delegates, and when such
constitution shall have heen submitted to Congress for
examination and approval, and Congress shall have approved the
same, and when said State, by a vote of its Legislature
elected under said constitution, shall have adopted the
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed
by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and known as article fourteen,
and when said article shall have become a part of the
Constitution of the United States, said State shall be
declared entitled to representation in Congress, and Senators
and Representatives shall be admitted therefrom on their
taking the oath prescribed by law, and then and thereafter the
preceding sections of this act shall be inoperative in said
State." It was further provided that no person excluded from
office by the Fourteenth Amendment should be a member of the
convention to frame a constitution for any of said rebel
States, and that any civil government which might exist in any
of the said States prior to the admission of its
representatives to Congress should be deemed provisional only,
and subject to the paramount authority of the United States.
"The friends of this measure were dissatisfied with it on the
ground of its incompleteness in not containing provisions for
carrying it into effect in accordance with the purpose of its
framers. … The Fortieth Congress, meeting on the 4th of March,
immediately upon the close of its predecessor, proceeded
without delay to perfect and pass over the President's veto
[March 23, 1867] a bill supplementary to the act to provide
for the more efficient government of the rebel States." By
this supplementary act specific instructions were given as to
the course of procedure to be followed in making a
registration of the voters qualified under the act and in
conducting the elections provided for.

_W. H. Barnes,
History of the 39th Congress,
chapter 22._

ALSO IN:
_Why the Solid South?
(Noted Men on the Solid South.)_

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868 (March-May).
Impeachment and Trial of President Johnson.

"Until the spring of 1866, a year after Mr. Johnson became
President, there was entire harmony between him and his
Cabinet. … No objection was raised even to that part of the
President's first message which treated of the suffrage
question, by any member of the Cabinet. It was in fact
approved by all, and by none more heartily than by Mr.
Stanton. A change took place soon after the Civil Rights bill
became a law over the President's veto, and bitter controversy
arose between the President and Congress.
{3570}
In this controversy, and at its commencement, Mr. Dennison
[Postmaster-general] and Mr. Harlan [Secretary of the
Interior] sided with Congress and tendered their resignations,
which were very reluctantly accepted. They resigned because
they could not heartily sustain the President, but there was
no breach of the social relations which had existed between
them. Mr. Speed [Attorney-general] soon after followed the
example of Dennison and Harlan. Mr. Stanton [Secretary of War]
also sided with Congress, but he did not resign. He was
advised by prominent political and personal friends to
'stick,' and he did so, contrary to all precedent and in
opposition to the judgment of conservative men of his party. …
He attended the Cabinet meetings, not as an adviser of the
President, but as an opponent of the policy to which he had
himself been committed, and the President lacked the nerve to
dismiss him. … In this crisis of his political life, Mr.
Johnson exhibited a want of spirit and decision which
astonished those who were familiar with his antecedents. He
knew when the Tenure-of-Office Bill was before Congress that
the object of its leading supporters was to tie his hands, and
yet he refrained from using them when they were free. … When
he did act he acted unwisely. He retained Mr. Stanton in his
Cabinet when his right to remove him was unquestionable. He
suspended him [August 12, 1867] after the Tenure-of-Office
Bill had become a law, and in accordance with its provisions,
[directing General Grant to act as Secretary of War ad
interim]; and when the Senate refused to approve of the
suspension [January 13, 1868], he issued orders for his
removal and the appointment of Lorenzo Thomas to be Secretary
of War ad interim. If he had tried to give his enemies an
advantage over him, to furnish them with weapons for his own
discomfiture, he could not have done it more effectually. … If
he had removed Mr. Stanton instead of suspending him, and
justified his action on the ground that his control of the
members of his Cabinet was a constitutional right of which he
could not be deprived by Congress, he probably would not have
been impeached. The gist of the charges against him was that
he had violated a law of Congress in removing Mr. Stanton, or
issuing an order for his removal, after the Senate had refused
to sanction his suspension. In the articles of impeachment
there were other charges against the President, the most
serious of which were that he had delivered intemperate,
inflammatory speeches, which were intended to bring into
contempt the Congress of the United States and duly enacted
laws. The speeches made by the President in Cleveland, St.
Louis, and other places in August and September, 1866—in fact,
all his public addresses during his contest with Congress—were
in the worst possible taste, derogatory to himself and to his
high position; but they … did not constitute good ground for
his impeachment; and this was the opinion of the House, which
in January, 1867, after they were made, refused to impeach him
by the decisive vote of 108 to 57. Other causes for his
impeachment were subsequently sought for. His bank account was
examined. His private conduct in Washington was carefully
scrutinized. Men were employed to investigate his public and
private character in Tennessee, but nothing was found to his
discredit. … Nothing was found to justify his impeachment but
the order which he issued for the removal of Mr. Stanton and
his appointment of General Thomas to be Secretary of the War
Department ad interim after the Senate had refused to sanction
Mr. Stanton's suspension." The formal presentment by the House
of Representatives of its Impeachment against the President,
at the bar of the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment,
was made on the 5th day of March, 1868. The answer of the
President was presented on the 23d; the trial opened on
Monday, the 30th of March, and closed on the 26th of May
following. "The trial was a very interesting one, not only to
the people of the United States, but to the people of other
countries. … It was the first instance in the history of
nations of the trial of the head of a government before one of
the branches of the law-making power, sitting as a judicial
tribunal, on charges presented by another. The presiding
officer was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court—the
senators of the respective States were the jury—the House of
Representatives the prosecutor. The managers to conduct the
impeachment for the House were John A. Bingham, George S.
Boutwell, James F. Wilson, Benjamin F. Butler, Thomas
Williams, Thaddeus Stevens and John A. Logan, all members of
the House, all lawyers, and some of them distinguished in the
profession. The President entered his appearance by Henry
Stanbery, Benjamin K. Curtis, Jeremiah S. Black, William H.
Evarts, and Thomas A. K. Nelson. William S. Groesbeck, in the
course of the trial, appeared and took part as counsel for the
President in place of Mr. Black." The result of the trial was
a failure of the Impeachment. The senators who voted "guilty"
were 35 in number—being less than two-thirds of the
whole—against 19. Of those who voted in the negative, seven
were Republicans who had steadily opposed the President's
policy; four were Republicans who had adhered to him
throughout; eight were Democrats.

_H. McCulloch,
Men and Measures of Half a Century,
chapter 26._

In the opinion of Mr. Blaine, "the sober reflection of later
years has persuaded many who favored Impeachment that it was
not justifiable on the charges made," and that "the President
was impeached for one series of misdemeanors, and tried for
another series."

_J. G. Blaine,
Twenty Years of Congress,
volume 2, chapter 14._

ALSO IN:
Trial of Andrew Johnson,
(Published by Order of the Senate), 3 volumes.

Trial of Andrew Johnson,
Congressional Globe, Supplement, 40th Congress, 2d session.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868.
The Burlingame Treaty with China.

See CHINA: A. D. 1857-1868.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868 (November).
The Twenty-first Presidential Election.

General Ulysses S. Grant, nominated by the Republican party,
was elected President in November 1868, by 3,012,833 votes of
the people against 2,703,249 votes cast for Horatio Seymour,
ex-Governor of New York, the candidate of the Democratic
party. The electoral vote returned and counted was 214 for
Grant and 80 for Seymour, who carried the States of New York,
New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky,
and Oregon. Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, was elected Vice
President, over General Frank P. Blair.

_E. Stanwood,
History of Presidential Elections,
chapter 22._

{3571}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868-1870.
Reconstruction complete.
Restoration of all the Southern States
to representation in Congress.

"On the 22d of June, 1868, an act was passed, with the
following preamble and resolution, for the admission of
Arkansas:—'Whereas the people of Arkansas, in pursuance of an
act entitled, An act for the more efficient government of the
Rebel States, passed March 2, 1867, and the acts supplementary
thereto, have framed and adopted a constitution of State
government, which is republican, and the legislature of said
State has duly ratified the amendment of the Constitution of
the United States proposed by the XXXIXth Congress, and known
as Article XIV.; Therefore, Be it enacted, etc., that the
State of Arkansas is entitled and admitted to representation
in Congress, as one of the States of the Union, upon the
following fundamental condition.' The 'fundamental condition,'
as finally agreed upon, was, 'That there shall never be in
said State any denial or abridgment of the elective franchise,
or of any other right, to any person by reason or on account
of race or color, except Indians not taxed.' The bill was
vetoed by the President on the 20th, but passed over the veto
on the 22d in the House by the vote of 111 to 31, and in the
Senate by a vote of 30 to 7. On the 25th of June a similar act
was passed admitting the States of North Carolina, South
Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, in
pursuance of a similar preamble, with the conditions that they
should ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, that they should not
deprive 'any citizen, or class of citizens of the State of the
right to vote by the constitution thereof'; and that no person
prohibited from holding office by said Amendment should be
'deemed eligible to any office in either of said States unless
relieved from disability as provided in said amendment'; the
State of Georgia being also required to declare 'null and
void' certain provisions of its constitution, and 'in addition
give the assent of said State to the fundamental condition
herein before imposed on the same.' The bill passed the House,
May 14,—yeas 110, nays 35; in the Senate, June 9,—yeas 31,
nays 5. It was vetoed by the President on the 25th, and
passed, the same day, by both houses, over the Presidential
veto. On the 27th of January, 1870, Virginia was admitted into
the Union by a vote, in the House, of 136 to 58; and in the
Senate by a vote of 47 to 10. The following were the preamble,
oaths, and conditions precedent: 'Whereas the people of
Virginia have framed and adopted a constitution of State
government which is republican; and whereas the legislature of
Virginia, elected under said constitution, has ratified the
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the
United States; and whereas the performance of these several
acts in good faith is a condition precedent to a
representation of the State in Congress,' said State should be
admitted to a representation in Congress; with the additional
conditions precedent, however, that the constitution should
never be so amended as to deprive any class of citizens of the
right 'to vote,' 'to hold office,' on account of race, color,
or previous condition of servitude; neither should there be
'other qualifications' required for such reason; nor should
any be deprived of 'school rights or privileges' on such
account. On the 3d of February Mississippi was admitted by a
bill resembling the former in every particular, by
substantially the same vote. On the 30th of March Texas was
readmitted to the Union on a bill very similar, though not
identical with the above. … By this act of Congress the last
of the 'wayward sisters' was brought back and restored to the
family of States, and the fractured Union was, outwardly at
least, repaired. It was ten years, eight months, and twenty
days after South Carolina raised the banner of revolt and led
off in 'the dance of death.'"

_H. Wilson,
History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
volume 3, chapter 44._

ALSO IN:
_S. S. Cox,
Three Decades of Federal Legislation,
chapters 27-31._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868-1876.
The reconstructed government of South Carolina.

See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865-1876.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869.
Negotiation of the Johnson-Clarendon Treaty and
its rejection by the Senate.

See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1869.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869.
Gold Speculation.
Black Friday.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1869.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869.
Founding of the Order of Knights of Labor.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1869-1883.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869-1870.
The Fifteenth Constitutional Amendment.

"The great defect of the Fourteenth Amendment, as freely
charged during its discussion, was its at least tacit
recognition of the right of States to disfranchise the
ex-slaves, should they so elect. True, they could not do it
without sacrificing so much in the basis of their
representation in Congress; but if they were willing to make
that sacrifice, there was nothing in the amendment to prevent
such discrimination. To remedy that defect … it was resolved
to incorporate into the organic law a new provision for their
protection, and to supplement the amendments of the
Constitution already adopted by another. There were
accordingly introduced into both houses, almost
simultaneously, measures for that purpose. … In the House, on
the 11th of January, 1869, Mr. Boutwell reported from the
Committee on the Judiciary a joint resolution proposing an
amendment which provided that the right to vote of no citizen
should be abridged by the United States or any State by reason
of race, color, or previous condition of slavery." The joint
resolution was adopted in the House, 150 affirmative to 42
negative votes, on the 30th of January. Adopted in the Senate
with amendments, by 39 to 16 votes, it went to a Committee of
Conference, on whose report the joint resolution was finally
adopted by both Houses on the 25th of February, and submitted
for ratification to the legislatures of the States, in the
following form:

"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote
shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any
State on account of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude.