Chapter VII: Only the first stage of its development, however, falls (3)

Under the apportionment of 1850 that State sent four, and by the census of 1860 became entitled to five, Representatives. By an act of Congress approved July 14, 1862, each State entitled to more than one member in the lower House was to be divided into as many districts as it had been allotted Representatives.

But, said Chairman Dawes, as Louisiana had never been so divided no person in that State had been chosen according to Federal law. The election under which Mr. Field claimed a seat occurred in the old First Congressional District, which, with a great portion of the city of New Orleans, included two adjacent parishes, Placquemines and St. Bernard. On November 1, General Shepley issued a military order forbidding the election, and none was held in New Orleans. In the two outlying parishes, however, under the auspices of a citizens’ committee, to which returns were made, a few voters appeared at the polls. In the parish of St. Bernard, the only locality in which the House had any proof that electors participated, Mr. Field received one hundred and fifty-six votes, and though no evidence in support of his statement had been offered, about the same number, he alleged, had been cast for him in Placquemines.

The question was, proceeded Mr. Dawes, whether a gentleman with this constituency could be in any sense considered as having been elected. There were in his district over 10,000 qualified voters, and of these the claimant received the support of only one hundred and fifty-six; hence nearly ten thousand electors expressed no opinion, armed interference having prevented 9,844 of them from indicating a preference. There was no evidence that this majority acquiesced in what was done by one hundred and fifty-six men in a corner of St. Bernard parish where an election was permitted. If no other objection existed, the State had not been districted as required by the Act of July, 1862; this consideration of itself appeared to the Committee a reason sufficient for his exclusion. Further, his certificate was signed by one John Leonard Riddell, himself chosen Governor at the same time and in the same parishes. His term, according to the laws of Louisiana, did not commence till January 1, 1864, and it was not easy to comprehend how he came to regard himself as Executive of the State on November 20, 1863, when he signed the certificate presented by the claimant. Mr. Riddell, indeed, had not then been inaugurated.

Had not Congress failed to divide the State, the suppression of this election would have been without justification and have deserved the condemnation of the House. It, however, did not conform to the laws of Louisiana, for the votes were not cast nor were they counted or canvassed as prescribed thereby. This, in substance, was the argument of Mr. Dawes.

By other members attention was invited to the fact that under the same laws and conditions an election had been held in Louisiana a year before, and in consequence two Representatives admitted. To this observation Mr. Stevens replied that Hahn and Flanders, the members referred to, had been seated by the power of the House without, as he then supposed, any law or right. Henry Winter Davis alone among all who spoke on the question approved the action of the Military Governor on the ground that there was no legal right to hold an election, and the attempt of any number of persons to do so was an usurpation of sovereign authority which was properly prevented. Other Representatives, however, strongly condemned this act of Governor Shepley and at least one desired the House to express as an amendment to the resolution its disapproval of his conduct. Though not the question in debate, there could be no mistaking upon this point the sentiments of a majority of the members.

Mr. Field, permitted to address the House, observed that it was the fault of the General Government that Union men in Louisiana had not been aided by the previous administration. If they had been, the blood of Illinois and Massachusetts patriots would not have sprinkled the soil of his State.

To show that some sort of government existed there he caused the clerk to read a list of one hundred and twenty-five officers acting in those parishes included within Federal military lines, and added that though New Orleans since its capture paid annually in taxes, collected through Governor Shepley, two and a half million dollars, besides a considerable sum in internal revenue, her people were represented neither in the local nor the national Government.

The constitution of Louisiana, he said, required that qualified electors should be white males who had attained the age of twenty-one years, and been residents of the State for twelve months immediately preceding the election. The provision was so modified by Governor Shepley that persons of this description were allowed to vote after a residence of six months. Mr. Field did not know whence was derived the authority to amend constitutions.

To secure his coöperation in establishing a loyal government Union men met as early as September 19 in convention at New Orleans, and appointed a committee of nine to present an address to the Military Governor inviting his assistance. He declined, however, after a lengthy interview to order an election for Representatives until the State had first been divided. In fact, until instructions which he had requested, were received from Washington he refused to order any election whatever, though he volunteered to forward to Mr. Lincoln any communication which they desired to address him on that subject. Besides its correspondence with Governor Shepley, the New Orleans convention on September 21 had sent a letter to General Banks, the Department commander, to secure if possible his approval of their movement.

Notice, dated October 20, was given that an election would be held, November 2, at the usual places in the parish of St. Bernard, and the State and Federal offices to be filled, as well as the precise places at which voters could cast their ballots, were mentioned. Since the military authorities had refused to assist them, and had then issued no order against an election, loyal men thought it not improper to express their opinions at the polls. As the Free State people considered Louisiana out of the Union they declined to participate, and though General Banks in obedience to instructions from the President had subsequently ordered an election they maintained the same attitude. The claimant’s party did not oppose this order; for if unable to restore their State in the manner most acceptable they were willing to coöperate in any method likely to accomplish that object.

Precisely what number of voters would be called a constituency Mr. Field had not been informed. In the portion of his Congressional District included in St. Bernard and Placquemines parishes there were only 2,400 electors, and the President’s plan required only one tenth of the number of votes cast in 1860. Though the election of November 2 preceded the Executive proclamation, that fact should not make it void. The electors in New Orleans were not free to express a choice, and even if it had been otherwise the vote in the First District must have been greatly diminished since 1860, for he was assured by two paymasters that 7,000 men had been recruited there for the Union army.

Some members admitted that the national Government had not given sufficient protection to Union men in Louisiana, and therefore should not now take advantage of that neglect to also deprive them of representation in Congress. These believed that if Mr. Field had received a majority of the votes in his district any informality in the election should be overlooked, for the right to representation in Congress grows out of the Constitution, and regulations governing such elections are matters of mere convenience. The fact that no State organization existed there did not create a legal impediment, and it was no objection that Louisiana had not been redistricted, for the additional member was not imposed as a burden but as a right which she was free to exercise or not; besides, the greater representation includes the less.

Notwithstanding these considerations, and strong, though not universal, testimony to the claimant’s loyalty, he was denied admission, February 9, 1864, by a vote of 85 to 48.[85] His case, however, was not exactly similar to that of Messrs. Hahn and Flanders, as stated by one Representative, for they had received, in the circumstances, a comparatively large vote.

To this end came the movement of the planters designed primarily to counteract that inaugurated by the Free State Committee, which also, as we shall see, was soon at variance with the military authorities. Important changes had occurred in the shifting politics of his State before the House had taken final action in the case of Mr. Field; these will be briefly related.

Military necessity had led the President to issue, December 8, 1863, his Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction proposing, though not rigidly insisting upon, a plan for reinaugurating State governments wherever there existed such a loyal nucleus as could effectively assist in overthrowing the rebellion. In discussing the affairs of Tennessee that plan has been quoted at such length as to require no further mention in this place.[86]

General Banks on January 8, 1864, announced his intention of ordering an election of State officers. He was urged at this point by the Free State Committee to allow their election to go on, but he refused to yield even under pressure of an immense public meeting favorable to their object.[87] Without his coöperation their plan was doomed to failure, and when entreaties did not avail to move him they promptly inveighed against his methods and his motives in the columns of _The National Intelligencer_ at Washington. In a letter dated New Orleans, January 9, 1864, a correspondent writes:

President Lincoln has started a Missouri case in Louisiana, and has
made Banks our master; and Banks is another Schofield, only worse
than he. Our mass meeting last evening was a complete success; but
its object will be defeated by Banks, who, under orders direct from
the President, declares his purpose to order an election for a
convention; thus playing into the hands of Cottman, Riddle, and
Fields, and their crew. The Union men—the true Union men—are
thunderstruck by the course of the President in this matter.

We were not informed of the President’s orders to General Banks
until the hour of the meeting last night, and the meeting was not
informed at all. General Shepley, who is generally liked, and who
has done all he could to promote the free State cause, and to
organize a free State government, will resign, and the election
ordered by Banks will be purely at military dictation, and will be
so regarded.

The correspondent does not know the secret springs of all these acts of the President, but thinks he has probably been deceived by base and interested men. “Banks,” he believes, “has the unchanged confidence of Mr. Lincoln.” The writer concludes by asking whether it is not possible to get the President to countermand his orders to Banks immediately, “and let the people manage matters as they have begun to do?”[88] To prove that no line of policy would be acceptable to the Free State Committee Mr. Field, in his remarks before the House, read in full the communication from which these excerpts are taken.

To comprehend clearly the nature of the controversy which so suddenly arose between the Free State General Committee and the Federal commander in Louisiana it may be necessary to explain with some detail the precise attitude of that organization relative to the question at issue between the adverse parties. In discussing the respective merits of the State constitutions of 1852 and 1861 the organ of the Free State men says:

The question is altogether immaterial; for, in the conflict of arms
incident to this rebellion, the predominant ideas of the good people
of Louisiana have far preceded either constitution; and to
reorganize now the State on the slave basis, which both
constitutions and the laws passed under them recognized, has become
an utter impossibility. Free soil and free speech have grown up into
absolute necessities, directly resulting from the war, which has
converted into dust and ashes all the constitutions which Louisiana
has ever made, embodying the ideas of property in our fellow-man,
and all the baneful results of this system of African slavery. The
present war is nothing but the conflict of the ideas of slavery and
liberty.... We cannot have peace until public opinion is brought
quite up to this point. We cannot reorganize the civil government of
our city, and still less that of our State, and get rid of the
fearful incubus of martial law now pressing down our energies by its
arbitrary influence, unless we believe, give utterance to and
establish the fundamental principle of our national government: “all
men are created free and equal.” We know of no better way to effect
this than by calling a convention as soon as possible, to declare
the simple fact that Louisiana now is and will forever be a free
State.[89]

The party favoring this method insisted that in August, 1863, when General Shepley was in Washington, their plan in all its parts was adopted in a Cabinet meeting, and that a special order issued from the War Department directing the Military Governor to carry it into execution. The movement for reorganizing the State would thus be placed under control of the steadfast opponents of slavery. They further claimed that Mr. Lincoln then preferred the calling of a convention to an election of State officers under the old constitution. His letter of August 5, 1863, to General Banks certainly leaves no doubt as to his sentiments at that time, for he expressed his approval of the enrollment being taken by Durant with a view to an election for a constitutional convention, the mature work of which, he thought, should reach Washington by the meeting of Congress. The impossibility of so expediting registration outside of New Orleans as to be ready for an election at that early date was explained to the President by the Free State Committee.

Mr. B. F. Flanders returning from Washington in October, 1863, reported the President as saying, in reply to an objection that enough territory and population were not under protection of the Union army to justify an election, that so great was the necessity for immediate action that he would recognize and sustain a State government organized by any part of the population of which the National forces then had control, and that he wished Flanders on his return to Louisiana to say so.[90]

The registration under Governor Shepley, though frequently interrupted, had proceeded, and the Free State Committee, to insure the success of their object, conferred with him for the purpose of holding, about January 25, 1864, an election for delegates to a State convention which, as already observed, intended to frame a new constitution abolishing slavery everywhere throughout the State. The announcement, then, on January 8, 1864, by General Banks of his intention to order an election of State officers under the old constitution was regarded by them as a decision for their adversaries. Their objections to the proclamation itself will be noticed in the proper place. It provided not only for an election of State officers on February 22 following, but also for the choice of delegates to a convention to be held in April for a revision of the constitution. The paramount objection of the Free State men was that the election of State officers would, under the course of General Banks, precede that for delegates to the convention, the point at which they desired to begin the work of reëstablishing a civil government for the State.

To Thomas Cottman, who accompanied Mr. Field to Washington claiming a seat in Congress as Representative from the Second Louisiana District, Mr. Lincoln, on December 15, wrote:

You were so kind as to say this morning that you desire to return to
Louisiana, and to be guided by my wishes, to some extent, in the
part you may take in bringing that State to resume her rightful
relation to the General Government.

My wishes are in a general way expressed, as well as I can express
them, in the proclamation issued on the eighth of the present month,
and in that part of the annual message which relates to that
proclamation. It there appears that I deem the sustaining of the
Emancipation Proclamation, where it applies, as indispensable; and I
add here that I would esteem it fortunate if the people of Louisiana
should themselves place the remainder of the State upon the same
footing.[91]

Though this letter expressed as one of Mr. Lincoln’s strongest wishes a hope that all Union men in Louisiana would “eschew cliquism,” he was destined to be disappointed, for at this very time letters from General Banks, dated December 6 and 16, informed him that Governor Shepley, Mr. Durant and others had given him to understand that they were charged exclusively with the work of reconstruction in Louisiana and hence he had not felt authorized to interfere. Other officers had set up claims to jurisdiction conflicting and interfering with his own powers of military administration. Annoyed that a misunderstanding was delaying work which he had been urging for a year, the President, on the 24th of December, wrote General Banks as follows:

I have all the while intended you to be master, as well in regard to
reorganizing a State government for Louisiana, as in regard to the
military matters of the department; and hence my letters on
reconstruction have nearly, if not quite, all been addressed to you.
My error has been that it did not occur to me that Governor Shepley
or any one else would set up a claim to act independently of you;
and hence I said nothing expressly upon the point.

Language has not been guarded at a point where no danger was thought
of. I now tell you that in every dispute with whomsoever, you are
master.

Governor Shepley was appointed to assist the commander of the
department, and not to thwart him or act independently of him.
Instructions have been given directly to him, merely to spare you
detail labor, and not to supersede your authority. This, in its
liability to be misconstrued, it now seems was an error in us. But
it is past. I now distinctly tell you that you are master of all,
and that I wish you to take the case as you find it, and give us a
free State reorganization of Louisiana in the shortest possible
time. What I say here is to have a reasonable construction. I do not
mean that you are to withdraw from Texas, or abandon any other
military measure which you may deem important. Nor do I mean that
you are to throw away available work already done for
reconstruction; nor that war is to be made upon Governor Shepley, or
upon any one else, unless it be found that they will not coöperate
with you, in which case, and in all cases, you are master while you
remain in command of the department.[92]

This letter making General Banks “master” of the situation in Louisiana the President concluded by thanking him for his successful and valuable operations in Texas. But before receiving this extensive authority and the undoubted assurance of Mr. Lincoln’s confidence the commander, on December 30, submitted to the President a plan of reconstruction based upon the Proclamation and the Message of the 8th of that month. For evident reasons this communication deserves to be reproduced almost entire:

I would suggest [says General Banks], as the only speedy and certain
method of accomplishing your object, that an election be ordered, of
a State government, under the constitution and laws of Louisiana,
except so much thereof as recognizes and relates to slavery, which
should be declared by the authority calling the election, and in the
order authorizing it, inoperative and void. The registration of
voters to be made in conformity with your Proclamation, and all
measures hitherto taken with reference to State organization, not
inconsistent with the Proclamation, may be made available. A
convention of the people for the revision of the constitution may be
ordered as soon as the government is organized, and the election of
members might take place on the same or a subsequent day with the
general election. The people of Louisiana will accept such a
proposition with favor. They will prefer it to any arrangement which
leaves the subject to them for an affirmative or negative vote.
Strange as this may appear, it is the fact. Of course a government
organized upon the basis of immediate and universal freedom, with
the general consent of the people, followed by the adaptation of
commercial and industrial interests to this order of things, and
supported by the army and navy, the influence of the civil officers
of the Government, and the Administration at Washington, could not
fail by any possible chance to obtain an absolute and permanent
recognition of the principle of freedom upon which it would be
based. Any other result would be impossible. The same influence
would secure with the same certainty the selection of proper men in
the election of officers.

Let me assure you that this course will be far more acceptable to
the citizens of Louisiana than the submission of the question of
slavery to the chances of an election. Their self-respect, their
_amour propre_ will be appeased if they are not required to vote for
or against it. Offer them a government without slavery and they will
gladly accept it as a necessity resulting from the war. On all other
points, sufficient guarantees of right results can be secured; but
the great question, that of immediate emancipation, will be covered
_ab initio_, by a conceded and absolute prohibition of slavery.

Upon this plan a government can be established whenever you wish—in
thirty or sixty days; a government that will be satisfactory to the
South and the North; to the South, because it relieves them from any
action in regard to an institution which cannot be restored, and
which they cannot condemn; and to the North, because it places the
interests of liberty beyond all possible accident or chance of
failure. The result is certain.[93]

Upon receiving this communication the President, who cherished no plan of restoration to which exact conformity was indispensable, expressed, January 13, 1864, in a letter to General Banks his gratitude for the zeal and confidence manifested by him on the question of reinaugurating a free State government in Louisiana. He hoped, because of the authority contained in the letter of December 24, that the Department Commander had already commenced work. “Whether you shall have done so or not,” continues the letter, “please, on receiving this, proceed with all possible despatch, using your own absolute discretion in all matters which may not carry you away from the conditions stated in your letters to me, nor from those of the message and proclamation of December 8. Frame orders, and fix times and places for this and that, according to your own judgment.”[94]

This letter repeats the idea of subordination to General Banks of all officials in his department holding authority from the President, and stated that the bearer of the communication, Collector Dennison, of New Orleans, understood the views of the commander and was willing to assist in carrying them out. Before Mr. Dennison arrived in New Orleans, however, General Banks had already, in his proclamation of January 11, 1864, fixed a date for the election. This action was determined, said the Department Commander, upon ample assurance “that more than a tenth of the population desire the earliest possible restoration of Louisiana to the Union”; hence he invited “the loyal citizens of the State qualified to vote in public affairs ... to assemble in the election precincts designated by law, ... on the 22d of February, 1864, to cast their votes for the election of State officers herein named, _viz._ Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Attorney-General, Superintendent of Public Instruction and Auditor of Public Accounts—who shall, when elected, for the time being, and until others are appointed by competent authority, constitute the civil government of the State, under the constitution and laws of Louisiana, except so much of said constitution and laws as recognize, regulate or relate to slavery, which being inconsistent with the present condition of public affairs, and plainly inapplicable to any class of persons now existing within its limits, must be suspended, and they are therefore and hereby declared to be inoperative and void. This proceeding is not intended to ignore the right of property existing prior to the rebellion, nor to preclude the claim for compensation of loyal citizens for losses sustained by enlistment or other authorized acts of Government.”[95]

The qualifications of voters in this election were to be determined by the oath of allegiance prescribed by the President’s proclamation together with the condition annexed to the elective franchise by the constitution of Louisiana. Officers elected were to be duly installed on the 4th of March.

So much of the registration effected under direction of Governor Shepley and the several Union Associations as was not inconsistent with the proclamation and other orders of the President was approved. The proclamation further announced that arrangements would be made for the early election of members of Congress for the State, and, that the organic law might be made to conform to the will of the people and harmonize with the spirit of the age, an election of delegates to a convention for the revision of the constitution would be held on the first Monday of April following.

This proclamation declared, among other things, that

The fundamental law of the State is martial law.... The Government
is subject to the law of necessity, and must consult the condition
of things, rather than the preferences of men, and if so be that its
purposes are just and its measures wise, it has the right to demand
that questions of personal interest and opinion shall be subordinate
to the public good. When the national existence is at stake, and the
liberties of the people in peril, faction is treason.

The methods herein proposed submit the whole question of government
directly to the people—first, by the election of executive officers,
faithful to the Union, to be followed by a loyal representation in
both Houses of Congress; and then by a convention which will confirm
the action of the people, and recognize the principles of freedom in
the organic law. This is the wish of the President.[96]

On February 13, nine days before the election, General Banks issued an order relative to the qualifications of electors. It provided, in addition to the declarations on that subject in his proclamation, that Union voters expelled from their homes by the public enemy might cast their ballots for State officers in the precincts where they temporarily resided and that qualified electors enlisted in the army or navy could vote in those precincts in which they might be found on election day. If without the State, then commissioners would be appointed to receive their ballots wherever stationed, returns to be made to General Shepley.[97]

For governor three candidates were nominated—B. F. Flanders, a representative of the Free State Committee; Michael Hahn, the choice of those who approved the measures of General Banks, and J. Q. A. Fellows, a pro-slavery conservative who favored “the Constitution and the Union with the preservation of the rights of all inviolate.” The friends of Hahn would deny to persons of African descent the privileges of citizenship, whereas the supporters of Flanders generally would extend to them such rights and immunities.[98]

On Washington’s birthday, as announced in the proclamation of General Banks, an election was held in seventeen parishes, Hahn receiving 6,183, Fellows 2,996 and Flanders 2,232 votes, a total of 11,411, of which 107 were cast by Louisiana soldiers stationed at Pensacola, Florida.[99]

Writing February 25 to the President General Banks says:

The election of the 22d of February was conducted with great spirit
and propriety. No complaint is heard from any quarter, so far as I
know, of unfairness or undue influence on the part of the officers
of the Government. At some of the strictly military posts the entire
vote of the Louisiana men was for Mr. Flanders, at others for Mr.
Hahn, according to the inclination of the voters. Every voter
accepted the oath prescribed by your proclamation of the 8th of
December.... The ordinary vote of the State has been less than forty
thousand. The proportion given on the 22d of February is nearly
equal to the territory covered by our arms.[100]

The friends of the Free State General Committee in a protest pronounced the result of the election “the registration of a military edict,” and “worthy of no respect from the representatives and Executive of the nation.” To the question whether this election had in the meaning of the President reëstablished a State government they promptly answered in the negative, for the commanding general recognized the Louisiana constitution of 1852 and ordered an election under it in which the votes of the people had nothing to do with reëstablishing government; his proclamation, by recognizing the existence of the old constitution, made the reëstablishment beforehand for them. The Governor and Lieutenant-Governor, together with the other executive officers chosen, did not, they argued, constitute a State government; for all the constitutions of Louisiana, including that of 1852, described the government as consisting of three departments: executive, legislative and judicial.

Though not avowed, the reason of Banks’ failure to order an election for members of the Legislature was plain, for there was not, they claimed, within the Union lines a sufficient number of parishes to elect a majority of that body, and less than a majority was, by the constitution, not a quorum to do business; so that no officer elected could be legally paid, for that could be done by only a legal appropriation. The same constitution, they said further, provided that Justices of the Supreme and District Courts, as well as justices of the peace, should be elected by the people. The present incumbents had been simply appointed by General Shepley. Should Mr. Hahn under pretence of being civil governor undertake to appoint judicial officers, the act would be a mere usurpation.

Not only, they declared, had no State government been established by this election, but still further, the proclamation of the President had not in the matter of electors been complied with; for Article XII. of the constitution of 1852 says: “No soldier, seaman, or marine in the army or navy of the United States ... shall be entitled to vote at any election in this State.” Yet, continued the protestants, it was a notorious fact that the general commanding permitted soldiers recruited in Louisiana, and otherwise qualified, to vote, and that many availed themselves of the privilege. Again, they went on to say, the Legislature by act of March 20, 1856, provided for the appointment in New Orleans of a register of voters whose office should be closed three days before an election, and no one registered during that period. Now prior to the late election, the register having closed his office according to law, orders were at once given to two other officers, recorders of the city, who had no such powers or functions by law, to register voters, which they did night and day, and persons so registered were allowed to vote.

Referring to the declared intention of General Banks to order an election of delegates to a constitutional convention, and by a subsequent order fix the basis of representation, the number of delegates and the details of the election, they said: “This will put the whole matter under military control, and the experience of the last election shows that only such a convention can be had as the overshadowing influence of the military authority will permit. Under an election thus ordered, and a constitution thus established, a republican form of government cannot be formed. It is simply a fraud to call it the reëstablishment of a State government. In these circumstances, the only course left to the truly loyal citizens of Louisiana is, to protest against the recognition of this pretended Government, and to appeal to the calm judgment of the nation to procure such action from Congress as will forbid military commanders to usurp the powers which belong to Congress alone, or to the loyal people of Louisiana.”[101]

But neither the protest nor the criticism of Free State men availed to arrest the march of events, and in the presence of a vast multitude Michael Hahn, who had received a majority of all the votes cast, was inaugurated Governor amidst great enthusiasm on March 4. To the oath prescribed in the amnesty and reconstruction proclamation of December 8, 1863, given above, was added the following:

And I do further solemnly swear, that I am qualified according to
the constitution of the State to hold the office to which I have
been elected, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge
and perform all the duties incumbent on me as Governor of the State
of Louisiana, according to the best of my abilities and
understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and Laws of the United
States, and in support of and according to the constitution and laws
of this State, so far as they are consistent with the necessary
military occupation of the State by the troops of the United States
for the suppression of the rebellion, and the full restoration of
the authority of the United States.[102]

This language clearly indicates the legal theory upon which General Banks was proceeding, and citizens understood that Mr. Hahn represented a popular power entirely subordinate to the armed occupation of the State.

On March 13, 1864, the President wrote the following private letter to Governor Hahn:

I congratulate you on having fixed your name in history as the first
free-state governor of Louisiana. Now you are about to have a
convention, which, among other things, will probably define the
elective franchise. I barely suggest for your private consideration
whether some of the colored people may not be let in—as, for
instance, the very intelligent, and especially those who have fought
gallantly in our ranks. They would probably help, in some trying
time to come, to keep the jewel of liberty within the family of
freedom. But this is only a suggestion, not to the public, but to
you alone.[103]

Speaking of this personal note Mr. Blaine says: “It was perhaps the earliest proposition from any authentic source to endow the negro with the right of suffrage, and was an indirect but most effective answer to those who subsequently attempted to use Mr. Lincoln’s name in support of policies which his intimate friends instinctively knew would be abhorrent to his unerring sense of justice.”[104]

At the suggestion of General Banks, the President two days later invested Mr. Hahn until further order “with the powers exercised hitherto by the military governor of Louisiana.”[105]

From the sentiments of the Free State party it requires little insight into human affairs to foretell that in some manner they would soon be found in opposition. Their candidate, Mr. B. F. Flanders, who received fewer votes than either of his competitors, was a prominent official in the Treasury Department, and from this vantage ground, without, so far as appears, rebuke from Secretary Chase, began to stir up in Congress a feeling of hostility to the new government in Louisiana. Precisely why Mr. Lincoln decided to take into his own hands the entire subject of reconstruction may be collected without difficulty from what has already been said; but that this determination was confirmed by his knowledge of an alliance between the Free State leaders and the “Radicals” in Congress there can be little doubt.

The Department Commander in a general order gave notice on March 11 that an election would be held on the 28th of that month for the choice of delegates to a State convention to meet in New Orleans “for the revision and amendment of the constitution of Louisiana.”[106] Five days later, March 16, Governor Hahn, in a proclamation to the sheriffs and other officers concerned, authorized the election and commanded them to give due notice thereof to the qualified voters of the State and to make prompt returns to the Secretary of State in New Orleans.[107]

Pursuant to these notices the election was held on the 28th, and resulted in the choice of ninety-seven members, two of whom were rejected because of irregular returns. The entire State was entitled to 150 delegates. The parish of Orleans was represented by sixty-three members, leaving to the country parishes but thirty-two. Of the vote, which was exceedingly light, no return appears to have been published. Because of their recent defeat no nominations were made by the Radicals, and this fact, together with heavy rains on election day, was assigned by Governor Hahn in a letter to the President as an explanation of the meagre vote. The Parish of Ascension, which in 1860 had a population of 3,940 whites, elected her delegates by 61 votes; Placquemines, which by the same census had 2,529 white inhabitants, cast 246, while the single delegate from Madison was chosen by only twenty-eight electors.[108]

General Banks informed a committee of Congress that all that section of the State as far up as Point Coupée voted; some men from the Red River cast their ballots at Vidalia. In his statement he declared that “The city of New Orleans is really the State of Louisiana”; yet at that time it contained less than half the population of the State.[109]

The constitutional convention, which assembled April 6, 1864, was organized on the 7th with E. H. Durell as president, and after a session of more than two and a half months adjourned July 25. A proclamation of the Governor appointed the 5th of September as the time for taking a vote on the work of the convention. The result was 6,836 for the adoption, and 1,556 for the rejection of the constitution. Besides these there were a number of electors who did not vote on either side of the question.[110]

Of the work of the convention General Banks spoke as follows:

In a State which held 331,726 slaves, one half of its entire
population in 1860, more than three fourths of whom had been
specially excepted from the Proclamation of Emancipation, and were
still held _de jure_ in bondage, the convention declared by a
majority of all the votes to which the State would have been
entitled if every delegate had been present from every district in
the State:—

Instantaneous, universal, uncompensated, unconditional emancipation
of slaves!

It prohibited forever the recognition of property in man!

It decreed the education of all the children, without distinction of
race or color!

It directs all men, white or black, to be enrolled as soldiers for
the public defence!

It makes all men equal before the law!

It compels, by its regenerating spirit, the ultimate recognition of
all the rights which national authority can confer upon an oppressed
race!

It wisely recognizes for the first time in constitutional history,
the interest of daily labor as an element of power entitled to the
protection of the State.[111]

At the same election, that of September 5, the following persons were chosen Representatives in Congress: M. F. Bonzano, A. P. Field, W. D. Mann, T. M. Wells and R. W. Taliaferro. A Legislature was elected at the same time, the members of which were almost entirely in favor of a free State, and by this body seven electors of President and Vice-President were appointed. On October 10th two United States Senators were elected—R. King Cutler for the unexpired term ending March 4, 1867, and Charles Smith for the vacancy created by the resignation of Judah P. Benjamin, and ending March 4, 1865.[112]

It is matter of familiar history that the State government thus organized was never recognized by Congress. The question was presented to that body December 5, 1864, at the opening of the second session of the Thirty-eighth Congress, when the claimants above named appeared in Washington applying for admission to seats, and again in January and February, 1865, upon consideration of a joint resolution declaring certain States not entitled to representation in the Electoral College. As in the case of Tennessee, however, the vote offered by Louisiana was not counted.

The agency of the President in setting up this civil government, and the successive steps in its accomplishment have been related with some degree of minuteness, so that the nature of the controversy between the Executive and the Legislative branches of the Government may be better understood. Whether Mr. Lincoln exceeded his constitutional authority will be considered when an account has been presented of the result of his efforts to restore civil government in the States where Federal authority had been overthrown.

-----

Footnote 47:

Ann. Cycl., 1861, p. 427.

Footnote 48:

McPherson’s Pol. Hist., p. 4n.

Footnote 49:

McPherson’s Pol. Hist., p. 25; Ann. Cycl., 1861, p. 428.

Footnote 50:

Ann. Cycl., 1861, p. 432.

Footnote 51:

Ibid.

Footnote 52:

Taylor’s Destruction and Reconstruction, pp. 102–103.

Footnote 53:

McPherson’s Pol. Hist., p. 1.

Footnote 54:

Ann. Cycl., 1863, p. 589.

Footnote 55:

Letters and State Papers of Lincoln, Vol. II., pp. 214–215; Ann.
Cycl., 1862, p. 650.

Footnote 56:

Letters and State Papers of Lincoln, Vol. II., p. 216.

Footnote 57:

Ibid., pp. 217–218.

Footnote 58:

Ann. Cycl., 1863, p. 586.

Footnote 59:

Ann. Cycl., 1863, p. 586.

Footnote 60:

Ibid.

Footnote 61:

Ann. Cycl., 1863, p. 586.

Footnote 62:

Ann. Cycl., 1863, p. 587; Ibid., pp. 770–776. Scott’s Reconstruction
During the Civil War, pp. 325–326, 328–331, 376.

Footnote 63:

Letters and State Papers of Lincoln, Vol. II. p. 247.

Footnote 64:

Ibid.

Footnote 65:

Ibid., p. 255.

Footnote 66:

Globe, Part I., 3 Sess. 37th Cong., p. 835.

Footnote 67:

Globe, Part I., 3 Sess. 37th Cong., pp. 831–837, 1030–1036.

Footnote 68:

McPherson’s Pol. Hist., pp. 228–229.

Footnote 69:

Blaine’s Twenty Years of Congress, Vol. II. p. 39; Nicolay and Hay’s
Lincoln, Vol. VIII. p. 419.

Footnote 70:

Ann. Cycl., 1863, p. 589.

Footnote 71:

N. & H., Vol. VIII. p. 420.

Footnote 72:

Ann. Cycl., 1863, p. 590; Letters and State Papers of Lincoln, Vol.
II. p. 536.

Footnote 73:

Letters and State Papers of Lincoln, Vol. II. p. 356.

Footnote 74:

Ibid., pp. 214–215.

Footnote 75:

Ibid., p. 356.

Footnote 76:

Taylor’s Destruction and Reconstruction, ch. x; also the general
history of military operations in the Red River country.

Footnote 77:

Bulloch’s Secret Service of the Confederate States in Europe, Vol. II.
chs. i and ii.

Footnote 78:

N. & H., Vol. VIII. pp. 285–286; Conduct of the War, Vol. II. pp.
1–401 (_passim_).

Footnote 79:

Letters and State Papers of Lincoln, Vol. II. p. 380.

Footnote 80:

Letters and State Papers of Lincoln, Vol. II. p. 436.

Footnote 81:

Ann. Cycl., 1863, p. 591.

Footnote 82:

Ibid.

Footnote 83:

Ann. Cycl., 1863, pp. 591–592.

Footnote 84:

Globe, Part I., 1 Sess. 38th Cong., pp. 5–6.

Footnote 85:

Globe, Part I., 1 Sess. 38th Cong., pp. 411–415, 543–547.

Footnote 86:

See pp. 24–28 _ante_.

Footnote 87:

Ann. Cycl., 1863, pp. 592–593.

Footnote 88:

Globe, Part I., 1 Sess. 38th Cong., p. 543.

Footnote 89:

Ann. Cycl., 1863, p. 590.

Footnote 90:

Ann. Cycl., 1863, p. 591.

Footnote 91:

Letters and State Papers of Lincoln, Vol. II. pp. 458–459.

Footnote 92:

Letters and State Papers of Lincoln, Vol. II. pp. 465–466.

Footnote 93:

N. & H., Vol. VIII. pp. 428–430.

Footnote 94:

Ibid., p. 469.

Footnote 95:

Ann. Cycl., 1863, p. 592.

Footnote 96:

Ann. Cycl., 1863, pp. 592–593.

Footnote 97:

Ann. Cycl., 1864, p. 476.

Footnote 98:

Ibid.

Footnote 99:

Ann. Cycl., 1864, p. 476.

Footnote 100:

N. & H., Vol. VIII. pp. 432–433.

Footnote 101:

Ann. Cycl., 1863, pp. 593–594.

Footnote 102:

Ann. Cycl., 1864, p. 477.

Footnote 103:

Letters and State Papers of Lincoln, Vol. II. p. 496.

Footnote 104:

Twenty Years of Congress, Vol. II. p. 40.

Footnote 105:

Letters and State Papers of Lincoln, Vol. II. p. 498.

Footnote 106:

Ann. Cycl., 1864, p. 478.

Footnote 107:

Ibid.

Footnote 108:

Ann. Cycl., 1864, pp. 478–479.

Footnote 109:

Ibid.

Footnote 110:

Ibid., p. 479.

Footnote 111:

Ann. Cycl., 1864, p. 479.

Footnote 112:

Ibid.

III
ARKANSAS

The people of northern Arkansas were strongly attached to the Union, and until December 20, 1860, when a commissioner from Alabama addressed its Legislature, no secession movement took place within the State. Her geographical position classed her with the Western, her productions bound up her interests with the Southern, States.[113] As late as January 5, 1861, resolutions opposing separate action were adopted almost unanimously by the largest meeting ever held at Van Buren. Mr. Lincoln’s election was not then deemed a sufficient cause to dissolve the Union. Citizens of every party favored all honorable efforts for its preservation, and demonstrations to the contrary were regarded as the work of only an extreme and inconsiderable faction.[114] So rapid, however, was the succession of events that scarcely two weeks had elapsed when she exhibited signs of resting uneasily in the Union; for on January 16 a bill submitting to popular vote the question of holding a convention passed the Legislature.[115] At the election of delegates to this assembly 23,626 votes were cast for the Union, against 17,927 for the secession, candidates. Though this convention, which assembled March 4, was organized by the choice of Union officers, the proposal to hold it had been carried by a majority of 11,586 in the election of February 18. While secession was strongly urged, a conditional ordinance was defeated by a vote of 39 to 35.[116] At Van Buren and Fort Smith salutes of thirty-nine guns were fired in honor of the loyal members. The inaugural of President Lincoln, received two days after organizing, produced a somewhat unfavorable impression. On the 17th an ordinance, reported by a self-constituted committee of seven secessionists and seven coöperationists, was unanimously adopted.[117] This provided for an election on the first Monday of August, when the qualified voters in the State could cast their ballots either for “secession” or “coöperation.” The result, though not wholly satisfactory to either party, afforded time for deliberation.

Tidings of the fall of Sumter, together with the President’s proclamation and a requisition for troops from the Secretary of War, interrupted the brief interval of repose following the adjournment of the convention. In these circumstances the State was compelled to make a choice of sides. Governor Rector’s reply, April 22, to this requisition shows him to have been ardently in favor of disunion; the president of the convention, concurring in this sentiment, issued a call for that body to reassemble May 6, when an ordinance of secession was promptly passed with but one dissenting vote.[118] By a resolution the convention authorized the Governor to call out, if necessary, 60,000 men, and ordered the issue of $2,000,000 in bonds. Another ordinance confiscated debts due to persons in non-slaveholding States.[119]

The first military movement, after the ordinance of secession had been carried, aimed to secure Federal property within the State, and their value to the South singled out for seizure the arsenals at Fort Smith and Little Rock. The latter city on February 5 was thrown into a great turmoil of confusion and excitement by the unexpected arrival of a body of troops from Helena with the avowed purpose of taking the arsenal; more soldiers arrived during that and the succeeding day until about 400 had assembled. Though the Governor, in response to their inquiry, informed the city council that this force was not there by his order, the troops believed they were acting under his command; at any rate they came to take the arsenal and were not to be diverted from their object. To prevent a collision, which must have followed a refusal of the commanding officer to surrender to a body of men disavowed by their Governor, the latter was easily persuaded to assume the responsibility of the movement and he consented to demand its surrender in the name of the State. This demand Captain Totten asked until three o’clock the next day to consider; then he made known his readiness to evacuate the arsenal, which about noon of the following day was delivered to the State authorities.[120]

The delegates of Arkansas on May 18 took their seats in the Confederate Congress.[121] The convention, it will be observed, assumed at the outset the functions of a law-making body, and, because of further extending its authority by the appointment of a Military Board, soon came into conflict with both the Governor and the Legislature. When the convention empowered the former to call out, if necessary, 60,000 men it divided the State into two districts, an eastern and a western. General Bradley was elected to the command of the former and General Pearce, late of the United States Army, to that of the latter division. Before General McCulloch, stationed in the Indian Territory, could assume any offensive operations the Federal General, Lyon, in pursuit of Jackson, approached the southern boundary of Missouri; upon this the Military Board called out ten regiments for defence. On June 21 it despatched to Richmond a messenger who proposed to transfer to the Confederate Government all the State troops with their arms making, however, a condition precedent: they were to be employed for the protection of Arkansas; but as the Secretary of State could make no promise as to their future disposition the transfer was not then effected.[122] On July 4 a second effort was made by a member of the Military Board who visited General Hardee, with whom an arrangement was completed by which a vote should be taken among the troops. If a majority of each company consented, those so consenting were to be turned over as a company. If a majority declined, the company was to be disbanded altogether. One entire company was thus mustered out, and from various motives two or three hundred soldiers returned home. This was from the eastern division. The western was not so easily disposed of. The Military Board after the battle of Springfield directed General Pearce to turn over his force to Hardee, who became angry when the agent proposed to submit the question of transfer, and refused to allow it to be done; this insubordinate conduct he followed up by writing an abusive letter to the Board. Pearce then separated his troops from McCulloch’s command and marched them back to Arkansas, where they were informally disbanded and sent home. Fearing such a result, the Board had ordered General Pearce to do nothing further in the matter, but their despatches arrived too late.[123]

Governor Rector’s account shows Arkansas troops, claimed to be 22,000 in number, to have been at that time in a state of complete demoralization.[124] The Germans and the Irish, as well as their descendants, showing little inclination to enlist, the Governor ascribed their indifference to a want of opportunity for promotion in the service. If this was not the cause, then, he thought, authority should be given to draft a regiment of each race.[125]

More than a third of the voting population was in the field, and as late as October they had received no pay except Arkansas war bonds, the worthlessness of which occasioned much murmuring. This discontent was heightened somewhat by the poor equipment of the regiments, many soldiers being without blankets or shoes.[126] There were other symptoms of unrest within the State. On the charge of attempted insurrection two negro men and a girl were hanged in Monroe County.

All this occasioned much uneasiness, but the chief cause of alarm was the Union sentiment known to exist in the State. In October twenty-seven persons were brought to Little Rock as members of a secret Union organization in Van Buren County and placed in jail to await a civil trial. Many others also were taken about this time, and it was estimated that the “Peace and Constitutional Society” numbered 1,700 members in Arkansas.[127]

The activity of Federal armies in the West excited so much apprehension that Governor Rector on the 18th of February, by proclamation, called into immediate service every man in the State subject to military duty.[128] A Confederate force under Price was driven into Arkansas by General Curtis on the same day, and within a week the commandant at Pocahontas issued an appeal to every man “to turn out promptly, shoulder his musket, and drive the vandals from the State.” The Richmond Government being unable to assist Arkansas, she was forced to rely upon her own resources and such aid as might be obtained from Missouri, the Indian Territory and Texas.[129]

Disaster and a conviction of neglect led the Governor in May, in an address to the people, to express his indignation and threaten to secede from secession. He said:

If the arteries of the Confederate heart do not permeate beyond the
east bank of the Mississippi, let southern Missourians, Arkansians,
Texans and the great West know it and prepare for the future.
Arkansas lost, abandoned, subjugated is not Arkansas as she entered
the Confederate Government. Nor will she remain Arkansas, a
Confederate State, desolated as a wilderness. Her children, fleeing
from the wrath to come, will build them a new ark, and launch it on
new waters, seeking a haven somewhere of equality, safety and
rest.[130]