Chapter VII: Part I: 206 (1)

Howard University, in common with nearly all the larger private institutions of learning in the southern and border States devoted to the education of the Negro, was founded shortly after the Civil War.[207] These institutions with a few exceptions were originally supported by northern philanthropy, and their courses of study were determined by the zealous missionaries from the North, who successfully attempted to transplant among the freedmen the pedagogic traditions of New England. That such a procedure, so vigorously condemned on many sides when initiated but so gloriously justified in its results, could have been possible may well prove a cause of wonder to the student of education a century hence. And indeed, under ordinary circumstances, the establishment of classical colleges and schools of law, medicine and theology for a primitive people, unable to read or write, would seem the height of folly. But the circumstances were not ordinary. The situation was critical and unusual remedies were required.

The close of the War of the Rebellion in 1865 witnessed something new in the field of educational problems. A group numbering nearly four millions was presented to the American nation for training in the essentials of manhood and the duties of citizenship. The apprenticeship which this group had served had been spent under a system that did little more than acquaint them with the cruder tools of industry and an imperfect use of a modern language. And while it is true that many individual slaves acquired considerable skill in industrial pursuits and a few became artisans of a rather high order, the great mass of Negroes were laborers of the lowest class, requiring the exercise of an intelligence but little above that of the beasts of burden. On the side of the mastery of letters the best that can be said by even the most generous students of this subject is that, at the beginning of the year 1861, about ten per cent. of the adult Negroes in the United States could read and write.[208]

From the standpoint of the white South the liberation of the slaves had let loose upon the land what they considered a horde of half-savage blacks, descendants of jungle tribes, inferior in every respect to the white man and incapable of assimilating the knowledge of the dominant race or of becoming citizens except in name only. In addition to this attitude there remained in the South the traditional idea that education was the peculiar privilege of the favored few of the white race, and, except in its lowest reaches, a non-essential in the life of the masses. At the close of the Civil War free public schools were unknown in that section.[209] When it came to the question of educating the Negro, all of the teachings and practice of the South stamped it as a dangerous risk. To offer him the higher courses of college and university grade was indeed an absurdity.

The North, on the other hand, looked upon the slave as a sufferer released from an earthly torment and, because of his long period of involuntary servitude, deserving of recompense of every kind that the nation could bestow. As to his mental capacity, the North believed that in order to rise from his degraded state and to take his place among the races of civilized men the freedman awaited only the same means of education that the Anglo-Saxon for centuries had enjoyed. Whatever may be the judgment of history concerning these two conflicting views, it is clear that the South had neither the inclination nor the means to enter upon the task of educating the Negro whereas the North was abundantly supplied with both.

Here, at any rate, was a situation offering the greatest opportunity for the exercise of philanthropic zeal, both in the way of financial aid and personal service. And to this call the North responded, pouring out treasure, labor and love in a way that stamps the whole movement of educating the Negro in America during the first half century of his freedom as one of the most heroic examples of true missionary zeal of all times. Those who took an active part in the movement, including founders and teachers, seemed imbued with no other idea than that of giving the best and in the largest measure. They went to their tasks and took with them their ideals of human equality and brotherhood. Every effort was bent toward raising the unfortunate race to the level of their own standards of intellect, of society and of morals. They, therefore, applied to the solution of the problem the only educational machinery that they knew. Experiments in education would not supply the immediate need. No man was to be limited in his opportunities for intellectual development. Only his own desire and capacities were to determine his limitations. Besides, such opportunity was necessary for the training of leaders and must not be denied. Howard University was a child of this movement and the greatest embodiment of this idea.

The situation out of which this institution evolved requires some comment. The abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia and later throughout the South resulted in a large influx of freedmen into the National Capital until they formed one third of its population, thus constituting the largest urban group of Negroes in the world. The educational problem presented by this group was quickly realized by various freedmen's aid organizations and philanthropic individuals with the result that day and night schools were immediately established for persons of all ages, providing instruction in the elementary studies.[210] In the opinion of many the situation had been fully met by the establishment of these elementary schools. The task had been difficult and attended with much opposition and even open violence. The problem of the future was the maintenance and extension of such schools at their present grade. Others, on the other hand, considering the task only half done, believed that their duty would be fully discharged only when an institution of higher learning had been established at the capital of the nation, where Negro youth could be trained for positions of leadership.

"Such an Institution," said one of the founders of Howard University, "was demanded by the necessities of the great educational movement which was inaugurated among the freed people at the close of the late war. When primary, secondary and grammar schools were being opened throughout the South, for the benefit of a class hitherto wholly deprived of educational advantages, it became evident that institutions of a higher grade were needed for the training of the teachers and ministers who were to labor in this field. It was with a view of supplying this need that Howard University was founded."[211] On November 17, 1866, at the Columbia Law Building opposite Judiciary Square in Washington, was uttered the first word from which the idea of Howard University evolved. Using this building as a temporary house of worship, members of the First Congregational Church[212] were on that date holding a meeting on missions with Dr. C. B. Boynton, the pastor of the church. After remarks by several persons concerning various phases of the duty of the country towards the freedmen, Reverend Benjamin F. Morris, a son of former Senator Thomas A. Morris, of Ohio, arose to speak. He referred to his surprise and gratification at the remarkable showing made in theological studies, by half a dozen young colored men in an examination which he had recently witnessed. These were students in what was then known as Wayland Institute, which had at that time only one teacher. In this enthusiasm he expressed the wish that the Congregational Church might some day establish a theological school at the capital of the nation.[213]

The seed thus sown found such fruitful soil in the minds of the pastor and Reverend Danforth B. Nichols that they, with Mr. Morris, resolved to see the plan carried out at a subsequent meeting to be held at the residence of Mr. Henry H. Brewster for the purpose of establishing a New Missionary Society. At this meeting there prevailed the idea that such a society was not needed for the reason that the American Missionary Association was already occupying this field. Mr. Morris thereupon took the floor and advocated the establishment of a theological school for the preparation of colored men for the ministry to work in the South and to go as missionaries to Africa. Dr. Boynton supported the plan and urged immediate action; Dr. Nichols, in answering objections raised concerning the financing of the project, suggested the possibility of aid from the Freedmen's Bureau, an idea which marked the beginning of the relationship of the University with the Federal Government.

At the next meeting, a committee appointed to bring in a plan of organization, recommended that a night school be opened at first; that application be made to the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau for quarters, fuel and light for the school; and that three chairs of instruction be established. These recommendations were adopted and the first faculty appointed comprised the following: Evidences and Biblical Interpretation, Reverend E. W. Robinson; Biblical History and Geography, Reverend D. B. Nichols; Anatomy and Physiology, Dr. Silas Loomis. Thus was the University born with neither a local habitation nor a name. It was styled a Theological Institute and its aim was "the education of the colored youth for the ministry."[214]

The development of plans for this new educational center was rapid. Senator Pomeroy, of Kansas, who had become greatly interested in the movement, suggested at first an extension of the original idea so as to include the training of teachers. Later he made a motion that the doors be thrown open to all who wished to enter. This proposition was heartily agreed to, and Howard was given the distinction of being the first University in America to be established without some restriction based on race, sex, creed or color.[215] At a later meeting held to consider the charter, it was decided to embrace in that instrument university privileges and to provide for the departments of theology, law and medicine.

When the question of a name was reached several were suggested and rejected. Finally Dr. Nichols proposed that the University bear the name of "The American Philanthropist, the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, the true friend of the downtrodden and oppressed of every color and nation of the Earth," General Oliver Otis Howard.[216] This was enthusiastically adopted with but one dissenting vote, that of General Howard himself, who felt that his usefulness to the new institution would be greater under another name than his.

The act of incorporation was drawn by Senator Pomeroy, of Kansas, and presented to the Senate by Henry Wilson, of Massachusetts, afterwards Vice-President of the United States under Grant. Senator Pomeroy was one of the incorporators and a member of the first board of trustees. Senator Wilson had attended several of the organization meetings and was an enthusiastic supporter of the plan. The bill passed both houses of Congress and became a law when President Andrew Johnson affixed his signature, March 2, 1867. The first meeting of the corporation was held at the residence of Mr. Brewster for the purpose of organizing the board of trustees. This board was made to include the seventeen incorporators with the addition of General G. W. Balloch who was elected treasurer.

The preliminaries disposed of, the University began its work by opening classes in the Normal and Preparatory Departments united on the first of the following May. The first student body consisting of five pupils were altogether young white women, the daughters of trustees Robinson and Nichols.[217] The recitations were held in a rented frame building, previously used as a German dance hall and saloon, which stood on the east side of what is now Georgia Avenue, a short distance south of W Street.[218] The building and lot were later purchased by the University but finally sold when the classes were removed to their permanent home.

The selection of the permanent site for the University is due largely to the fortunate combination of judgment, persistence and faith characteristic of General Howard. He, with General E. Whittlesey, acting as a committee on the selection of a site, wished to procure the commanding elevation in the northern part of the city where the University now stands. This was part of the tract of 150 acres known as _Effingham_ and owned by John A. Smith. On the plea that the location of a Negro school would depreciate the remainder of his property, the owner refused to sell any part of it. After much argument, General Howard asked him to state his price for the whole farm. The rate given was one thousand dollars an acre, making a total valuation of $150,000, a staggering sum under the circumstances. Undaunted, however, General Howard closed the bargain, although the treasury of the University was without a single dollar. Adjustments brought the final purchase price for the property down to $147,500, for which the corporation made itself responsible.[219]

With the exception of about thirty acres, the land was divided into lots and sold at a price averaging about four times its original cost.[220] The part reserved consisted of the main campus now occupied by the academic building, dormitories and residences; the site of the Medical School and the old Freedmen's Hospital; and a park between the two covering four city blocks.[221]

The main part of the purchase price for the property was supplied by the Freedmen's Bureau. The funds from the sale of the property not needed for University purposes were placed in the treasury to be used for the construction of buildings.[222] The corporation received additional grants from the Freedmen's Bureau, bringing the sum obtained from this source to about $500,000.[223] With these funds several residences for professors and four large buildings were erected; namely University Hall, Miner Hall, Clark Hall and the Medical Building. Clark Hall, the boys' dormitory, was named in honor of David Clark, of Hartford, Connecticut, who contributed $25,000 toward the support of the University. Miner Hall, the dormitory for girls, was named in honor of Miss Myrtilla Miner, one of the pioneers in the education of colored girls in the District of Columbia.[224]

The early financial management of the University soon brought it into difficulties. The hopeful spirit of the times and the enthusiasm and faith of those in charge of the enterprise were responsible for the too rapid expansion of the first few years of the existence of the institution which resulted in a constantly growing deficit. A financial statement for the first eight years up to June 30, 1875, leaving out of account the value of lands and buildings given by the Government and of borrowed funds, shows receipts of $645,067.30 and expenditures of $744,914.56, leaving a deficit of nearly $100,000. At the annual meeting of the trustees, May 31, 1873, it was decided that a retrenchment of one half the current expenses would be necessary in order to avert disaster. To effect this the management had to make radical readjustment in the faculties and in the salary schedule. To this end every salaried officer in the University resigned upon the request of the trustees.

In reestablishing the faculties the basis was one of rigid economy and the only way by which the situation could be saved; for the nation-wide financial crisis of 1873 and the lean years that followed precluded the possibility of any increase in the income. The success of this measure[225] is indicated by the fact that the immediate expenses of the University were reduced from $57,160.40 in 1872 to $9,446.19 in 1877. "This heroic treatment," says former President Patton, "far too long delayed, saved the institution, but it cost it much in professors, in students and in prestige." The vessel escaped shipwreck with loss of many of the crew and passengers and a lot of her cargo. The professional departments were cut off from any support from the general funds, and remanded to receipts from tuition fees and special donations. College professorships were reduced from $2,500 to $1,200 and a residence worth $300; and the salaries of other officers were similarly reduced. Incidentals were brought down to the lowest living figure, and finally, with half the main building and a large part of the dormitories closed, the point was reached at which the income covered expenses.[226]

DWIGHT O. W. HOLMES.

FOOTNOTES:

[206] The most easily available information concerning the history of Howard University is contained in a number of short sketches, speeches, reports, announcements, and the like, in pamphlet form, and a well-prepared volume of three hundred pages by Dr. Daniel S. Lamb giving the history of the Medical Department up to 1900. These with the files and annual catalogs have been freely used in the preparation of this sketch.

[207] William M. Patton, _The History of Howard University_, 1896.

[208] Woodson, _The Education of the Negro Prior to 1861_, p. 228.

[209] Albert Bushnell Hart, _The Southern South_, pp. 289-291.

[210] Probably the most famous of these early schools was the normal school for girls opened by Miss Myrtilla Miner, December 3, 1851, and chartered under the name "Institution for the Education of Colored Youth," under the Miner Board. In 1879 it was taken over by the public school system of the District as the Myrtilla Miner Normal School. From 1871 to 1876 it worked cooperatively with the Normal Department of Howard University.

[211] _Annual Report of the President of Howard University, September 2, 1869._

[212] The relationship between the First Congregational Church and Howard University has been very close from the first. Three of its pastors have become presidents of the University, Doctors Rankin, Boynton and Newman. The church building at the corner of Tenth and G Streets has always been available for use for University exercises when needed. For many years the commencement exercises of various departments were held regularly in that auditorium.

[213] Danforth B. Nichols, _The Genesis of Howard University_, 1892, p. 4.

[214] Nichols, _The Genesis of Howard University_, 1892, pp. 5, 6.

[215] Dean Robert Reyburn, _Address at the Inauguration of President John Gordon_, 1904, p. 9.

[216] "Oliver Otis Howard, the founder of the University, and the one whose name it bears, and who was president from April 5, 1869, to December 1, 1873, was born in Leeds, Maine, November 8, 1830. He was graduated at Bowdoin, 1850, and at West Point in 1854. He was instructor in mathematics at West Point in 1854 and resigned in 1861 to take command of the Third Maine Regiment in the War of the Rebellion, in which he served with distinction. For gallantry at the first battle of Bull Run he was made Brigadier-General, September 3. He lost his arm at Fair Oaks, June 1, 1862, and was in the battle of Antietam. In November, 1863, he was made General of Volunteers. He commanded the Eleventh Corps under General Hooker, served at Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Lookout Mountain and Missionary Ridge, and was assigned to the Army of the Tennessee. In the march to the sea he commanded the right wing of Sherman's army, and was brevetted Major-General in the regular army for gallant conduct in the campaign of Atlanta. He was Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau from March, 1865, to July, 1864, when he was assigned to the command of the Department of the Columbia. In 1877 he led the expedition against the Nez Perces Indians and in 1878 against the Bannocks and Piutes. In 1881-1882 he was Superintendent of the United States Military Academy at West Point. In 1886 he was commissioned Major-General in the regular army.

"In 1863 he was made A.M. by Bowdoin College, and LL.D. in 1865 by Watervelt College. The same degree was given him by Shurtliff College and Gettysburg University. He was made Chevalier of the Legion of Honor of France in 1884. He published war articles in the _Century_ and some stories that are partly autobiographical; also _Chief Joseph_ and the _Life of Count Gasparin_. In 1892 he was commander of the Department of the Atlantic, and the second in command of the United States Army. Major-General Howard died at Burlington, Vermont, October 26, 1909."--J. E. Rankin, _Presidents of Howard University_, pp. 11-12.

[217] James B. Johnson, _Address at the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of Howard University_, 1892, p. 18.

[218] William M. Patton, _The History of Howard University_, 1896, p. 30.

[219] The tract as originally purchased may be approximately described as extending eastward to the Soldiers' Home grounds and including almost the entire present site of the reservoir (not including the extreme eastward projection) and running south on its eastern boundary to V Street. Its southern boundary was an irregular line passing south of the Medical School building and including a small part of the ground now occupied by the American League baseball park. Its northern boundary toward the east extended up to and at one point a little beyond what is now Hobart Street, tapering toward the west and meeting Georgia Avenue at Fairmount Street. The western, boundary followed Georgia Avenue to Howard Place, whence it followed Sixth Street to the southern boundary.

[220] Daniel S. Lamb, _Howard University Medical Department_, 1900, p. 2.

[221] This park was at one time surrendered to the Federal government for the remission of back taxes and exemption from further taxation. Later, when the new Freedmen's Hospital was about to be erected on that site the ground was transferred back to the University. The ground is now leased by the government from Howard University for a rental of one dollar a year.

[222] William M. Patton, _The History of Howard University_, p. 17.

[223] The Freedmen's Bureau was established in 1866 by the Federal government for the purpose of promoting the general welfare of the freedmen. General Howard was made commissioner of the organization and held this office until 1872, when it was discontinued. It was through this relation with the Freedmen's Bureau that the University became the creature and ward of the Federal Government, a relation that has been maintained continuously ever since.

The commissioner of the bureau was granted large powers, including the control of all subjects relating to refugees and freedmen from slave States or from any district or county within the territory embraced in the operations of the army, under such rules and regulations as might be prescribed by the head of the bureau and the President.

General Howard during the existence of the bureau disbursed approximately $13,000,000 in various ways. Much of this was used for educational purposes, including all grades of work. Among some of the beneficiaries of this fund were Lincoln University, Wilberforce University, Berea College, Fisk University, Biddle University, Straight University and Lincoln Institute. In his efforts to enable the people of the District of Columbia to share the benefits of this fund the commissioner offered to erect a building for a certain denominational institution located in Washington at that time, on the condition that it become undenominational. The offer was declined, whereupon the trustees of Howard University immediately made application to receive this Federal aid. Because of the location of the proposed institution at the nation's capital the application was favorably acted upon and liberal appropriations made so that the institution might stand as a monument to the nation's philanthropy.

As these large expenditures for Howard University with the other operations of the bureau brought upon General Howard charges of malfeasance, which led to two investigations, it should be said here that both of the official investigations, one civil, the other military, completely exonerated him.--See _Report of Special Committee of the Trustees of Howard University upon Certain Charges_, etc., 1873, and _Act of March 3, 1865, establishing the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands_.

[224] It is worthy of note that the magnificent new home of the Myrtilla Miner Normal School of Washington is named in honor of the same noble woman. It stands on a site formerly owned by the University and looks upon Miner Hall several hundred yards away across the campus.

[225] Much credit for the skillful financial management of the institution during these critical times is due to the secretary and treasurer, Mr. James B. Johnson, who was a potent factor in the early struggles of the institution. He was secretary and treasurer for many years, dying while still in service in 1898.

[226] William M. Patton, _The History of Howard University_, 1896, pp. 21, 22.

MORE ABOUT THE HISTORICAL ERRORS OF JAMES FORD RHODES

In its issue of October, 1917, THE JOURNAL OF NEGRO HISTORY published an article of which I am the author, pointing out some of the historical errors made by Mr. Rhodes in his "_History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850 to the Final Restoration of Home Rule at the South in 1877_." Since it appears that Mr. Rhodes has no personal knowledge of the important historical events referred to, he sent a copy of the journal containing the article to a friend who was presumed to be better informed along those lines. Mr. Rhodes referred to him as an expert, with the request that he make a careful examination of the article and write a reply to the same, or perhaps to make such comments as would furnish Mr. Rhodes with the information desired. I have been favored, through a mutual friend, with a copy of that reply, which is now before me and to which I shall now proceed to make a reply.

In a labored effort to weaken the force of what I have written, this expert in his opening generalization made several observations which may be classed under three different heads: first, if the white men referred to by me were of such a high character, why should the acts accredited to them have been of such a low character? second, that I am influenced in what I write about that period by racial bias and the fact that I was an active participant in the events referred to; third, that what I write is based upon my own experience and memory, much of which is liable to be inaccurate through the treachery of memory, the same not being fortified by references to other historical works.

This expert says:

An obvious general comment on the article is that if the
Reconstruction period throughout the South and in Mississippi in
particular was engineered and controlled by men of such high
character as Mr. Lynch records, why should the acts accredited
to them have been of such a low character? It is not enough to
say that there were "mistakes"; the measures were too numerous
and systematic for this. It is to be noticed that Mr. Lynch does
not attempt to controvert statements of events in Mississippi,
with one or two exceptions to be considered below. To attempt to
review the conclusions to which Mr. Lynch takes exception would
involve a review of too great a mass of evidence. The web of
Reconstruction is such a tangled one, that even if one has
carefully considered a large part of the great bulk of primary
material on the subject, generalizations on the period must still
be accepted cautiously. This much may be said: Mr. Rhodes's
conclusions are in harmony with those of the other trained
historical students who have devoted time to a careful study of
this period. Mr. Lynch's racial bias, the fact that he was an
active participant in the events, and finally that his judgments
are based on his own experiences and not on a closer study of a
far wider field of material, make whatever he writes of value as
source material, but at the same time mitigate against its value
as an impartial opinion. This is especially evident from the fact
that he makes no attempt either in the article or in his book to
substantiate his statements by such references to his authorities
as modern historiography demands. His authority is of course,
himself and his recollections, and the recognition of the
treachery of the memory is a first fundamental in historical
work.

Referring to my contention that thousands of white men were identified with the Republican party during the Reconstruction period he further says:

A comparison of census and election statistics do not give
support to this fact; and tho such figures are far from exact,
they give a basis for generalizing superior to that of any
personal recollection, or, indeed, of anything short of a general
agreement of contemporary statements to the contrary. No such
agreement exists so far as I have been able to search. In
Tennessee, North Carolina, Arkansas, and to less extent in
Virginia and Texas, there were a considerable number of white
Republicans; but in the other southern states in no election
between 1868 and 1872 did the Republican vote equal the census
figures for Negroes of voting age in 1870. The nearest approach
to this was in South Carolina in 1870, when the Republican vote
for governor was 85,000 and the Negroes of voting age 85,400. In
Mississippi the nearest approach was in the vote for Grant in
1872, when there were 82,000 votes against the census figures of
90,000. The machinery for getting out the Negro vote, and it was
Republican machinery, was such as to permit the assumption that
an unusually large percentage of the Negroes voted at the
elections.

Undertaking to prove that Dent was not a carpet-bagger, he says:

Tho supported by the Democrats he was nominated by a faction of
Republicans; moreover, he was a Missourian by birth, had family
connections in Mississippi, and had, while living in California
married the daughter of a prominent Mississippian. He was
scarcely a typical carpet-bagger. That there should have been a
split in the Republican party of the state so early is not a very
good argument for the character of the leaders or of the measures
they endorsed.

Of the high hopes of such men as Alcorn there can be no doubt;
but scarcely less doubtful was the failure to realize their
hopes. Alcorn himself favored Negro disfranchisement in 1890.

Referring to others, the expert continues:

Judges Peyton was a Republican, Tarbell a carpet-bagger, but
Simrall is generally classed as a Democrat. He was chairman of
the state legislative committee that reported in favor of
rejecting the 14th Amendment. Riley classes him as a Democrat, as
does Garner, tho Mayes calls him a moderate Republican, of the
same class as Dent. Tarbell seems to have been a good judge.
Garner is lukewarm in his appreciation, but Lamar said that "his
decisions attest his extraordinary ability and industry." All
commend his uprightness. Tarbell in 1887 called himself a
conservative carpetbagger, one who found himself in the minority.
He said that the Republican party in Mississippi collapsed
through its own weakness; having devised a constitution in which
"there was much to praise and to be proud of, and little to
condemn," the party gave birth to legislation of which "the
criticism is, in a measure, reversed."[227] The judiciary was the
best department of government under Reconstruction in
Mississippi.

Taking up the question of ignorant Negro office holders, he says:

All that I find as to Evans, except Garner's statement of "it was
alleged," is in an account of Reconstruction in De Soto County,
written by I. C. Nichols in the publication of the Miss. Hist.
Soc., XI, 307. He does not say that Evans could not read or
write, but that his "bondsmen really administered his affairs and
ran his office." At one time there was a charge of defalcation
against him, but nothing specific, and Nichols concludes that
nothing really was wrong. After this some changes were made in
his bondsmen and "R. R. West was put in charge of the office and
became Sheriff in all but name." West was, perhaps, one of the
"honest, efficient, and capable assistants." Evans had been a
slave. In Washington County there was also a negro sheriff,
Winslow by name. Mr. Lynch does not mention him, but according to
the testimony of H. B. Putnam, a carpet-bagger, Winslow was
"nominally" sheriff, but his bondsmen ran the office; the
sheriff, tho he could read and write, was "incompetent to take
charge of his office," which was worth $10,000 or $15,000 a year
legitimately, and, according to a white Democrat, about $100,000
by other means.[228] Scott of Issaquena, whom Mr. Lynch mentions,
testified before the Boutwell committee, and so far as can be
judged by that testimony he was a man of fair intelligence, tho
according to the testimony of one of his own race, not endowed
with rash courage.[229] The testimony of another carpet-bagger,
with reference to Holmes County, is interesting, tho it does not
show whether the sheriff-elect was white or black. He was
probably not Sumner, as this man never served in the office. This
carpet-bagger said that the sheriff of the county having died and
this man elected to fill the vacancy the successor arranged to
have the witness assist in making the bond. "Other gentlemen
hesitated to go on the bond unless I would go there and be
responsible for the running of the office." The man was prevented
from taking office so nothing came of the arrangement. On the
whole such first-hand material as I have been able to find does
not uphold Garner entirely in his estimate of this class of
officials, especially as to his footnote statement about their
dishonesty; neither does it give the impression that they were
worthy, as a whole, of the important positions they occupied. If
Evans, as described by Rhodes, following Garner, was not typical,
neither was Bruce.

Mr. Lynch gives figures for 1875 and 1907 on financial matters
and on the basis of these claims that the profligacy of
Reconstruction finances is not proven. The manifest unfairness of
taking figures for 1907 may be passed over; but the necessary
basis of comparison must be wider than this. Nor do his
conclusions agree with any others that I have seen, nor, which is
more important, with other statistics. Both those of the census
or those given annually by Appletons' Annual Cyclopædia lead to
other conclusions. Just as an illustration of what is said on the
other side take this statement, which seems to be that of the
land tax. This was 1 mill in 1869, 5 mills in 1870, 4 mills in
1871, 8-1/2 mills in 1872, 12-1/2 mills in 1873, 14 mills in
1874, 9-1/4 mills in 1875, 6-1/2 mills in 1876, 6-1/5 mills in
1877, 3-1/2 mills in 1878. Another point that should be
considered is that Mr. Lynch confines his figures to state
finances; while it is for local finances that the Reconstruction
government of Mississippi is most severely condemned.

Conceding a point in this case, he says:

Mr. Lynch is correct in saying that the Mississippi senators at
the time of the state election of 1875 were Alcorn and Bruce.
Pease had been succeeded by Bruce on March 4 of that year. Pease
opposed Ames but he was no longer senator.

Mr. Lynch, in upholding the Reconstruction policy of Stevens and
Sumner and what he calls their desire to delay restoration, seems
to have overlooked the fact that the wisest of all the Civil War
statesmen desired to get the states back into the Union before
Congress should meet in December, 1865. Mr. Lynch is right in
thinking that the 14th Amendment was essentially a correct
measure, but so also does Mr. Rhodes. The 15th Amendment is quite
a different proposition, however. Nor does it follow, because
legislation of some sort might have been necessary to enforce the
14th Amendment or to take its place when the South refused to
adopt it, that the Reconstruction Acts were the legitimate
offspring of that necessity. That the negro soldiers helped to
win the war is not proof that the war would have failed without
them, or that the necessary price of their valor was suffrage for
all the men of their race, the bulk of whom were not capable of
understanding it; or that such suffrage was necessary to the
preservation of the Union. Oratory, inside or outside of
Congress, is not historical proof.

Directing attention to my idea of the undoing of Reconstruction he maintains:

Mr. Lynch's statement that the failure of Reconstruction was due
to unwise judicial interpretation need not be considered. It is
anachronistic and does not agree with the views now generally
accepted by historical students. But what he says of the
infidelity of Waite and Bradley can be refuted directly from the
Supreme Court Reports. As to the appointment of these justices,
there is no evidence that it was because of any specially strong
nationalistic position on their part. Bradley, if chosen for any
particular views, got the justiceship because of his attitude on
legal tender; and the conditions under which Waite was appointed
do not show up any such bias on his part. In U. S. _v._ Reese the
court stood seven to two; and the dissentients were Clifford, a
Democrat, and Hunt, appointed by Grant.

In U. S. _v._ Harris (the Ku Klux decision) Woods delivered the
decision. Harlan alone dissented and only on the question of
jurisdiction. The bench at that time held two judges appointed by
Lincoln, two by Grant, two by Hayes, one by Garfield, and two by
Arthur. The Civil Rights Cases decision was delivered by Bradley.
Harlan was the only dissenter. These were the three important
Reconstruction decisions during the term of Waite and Bradley.
All of them were delivered after Reconstruction had failed. On
the other hand, Bradley delivered the opinion in Ex parte
Siebold, in which the federal election laws were upheld, and
Field and Clifford were the only ones who disagreed with it.

In the first place, I frankly confess that what I have written and shall write in defense of the reconstructed governments at the South has been and will be of very little value if it were conceded that the acts accredited to the men to whom I have referred were of a low character. This is the very point upon which the public has been misinformed, misled and deceived. I do not hesitate to assert that the Southern Reconstructed Governments were the best governments those States ever had before or have ever had since, statements and allegations made by Mr. Rhodes and some other historical writers to the contrary notwithstanding. It is not claimed that they were perfect, but they were a decided improvement on those they succeeded and they were superior in every way to those which are representative of what Mr. Rhodes is pleased to term the restoration of home rule. They were the first and only governments in that section that were based upon the consent of the governed. If Mr. Rhodes honestly believed that what he wrote in condemnation and denunciation of those governments was based upon authenticated facts, then the most charitable view that can be taken in his case is that he, like thousands of others, is simply an innocent victim of a gross deception.

In the second place, whether or not I am influenced by racial ties or partisan bias in what I have written and may hereafter write, I am willing to allow the readers to decide. I am sure that they have not failed to see from what I have thus far written, that the controlling purpose with me is to give actual facts, free from racial partiality or partisan bias. If some of the things I have written appear otherwise, it is due to the fact that the misrepresentations I am pointing out and correcting have been in the opposite direction. The idea that I have endeavored to keep in mind is, that what the readers and students of American history desire to know is the unbiased truth about the important events of the period in question and not the judgment and opinions of the person or persons by whom they are recorded.

In the third place, the statement that the value of what I have written is impaired because what is said about the important events of the period in question is based in the main upon my own knowledge and experience, must impress the intelligent reader as being strange and unusual. He discredits what I say too because I do not make reference to source materials. What this expert himself has to say is, like most studies of Reconstruction, based on ex-parte evidence which is in violation of all rules governing modern historical writing. No just judge would rely altogether on the testimony of one's enemies to determine the truth.

With reference to the period under consideration, the difference between what I have written and what has been written by Mr. Rhodes and some other historical writers is what the lawyers would call the difference between primary and secondary evidence. The primary is always considered the best evidence, the secondary to be used only when the primary can not be obtained. And yet what I have written is not based wholly upon memory. It is only so with reference to distinguished persons and important events and tendencies, which are not likely to be inaccurate through the treachery of memory. The statistical information I have given is not from memory, but from the files of the official records which are accessible to the public. But it appears that Mr. Rhodes and some other historical writers used only such parts of the official records as answered the purpose they seemed to have in view, which evidently was to mislead and deceive the public. This is virtually admitted by Mr. Rhodes's expert, in stating that "the point Mr. Lynch makes about the defalcation of Hemingway is an interesting one, and one that is evidently carefully kept in the background by the local writers." Yes, they not only kept that point in the background, but all other points that were not in harmony with the purpose they seemed to have in mind, which was evidently one of deception and misrepresentation.

The reader will not fail to see that Mr. Rhodes's nameless expert passed over in silence a number of important points in my article. Some of those alluded to by him he frankly admitted to be right, as in the case of Treasurer Hemingway. In the case of Mr. Evans, the Negro sheriff of De Soto County, he relies upon a statement written by a Mr. Nichols of that county who was evidently a partisan, who makes an effort to paint Mr. Evans in as unfavorable a light as possible, and yet he fails to confirm the allegation that Mr. Evans could neither read nor write, but concludes his communication with the declaration "that nothing really was wrong." Judging from what is written by Mr. Rhodes's expert I conclude that Garner is the one from whom Mr. Rhodes obtained most of his misinformation. Yet in speaking of the Negro sheriffs in a general way Mr. Rhodes's expert was frank enough to say: "On the whole such first-hand material as I have been able to find does not uphold Garner entirely in his estimate of this class of officials, especially as to his footnote statement about their dishonesty." This bears out the statement made by me that if Mr. Rhodes had desired to be fair and impartial he would have taken all the colored sheriffs into consideration and would have drawn an average, which would have shown that in point of intelligence, capacity and honesty they would have compared favorably with the whites.

The assertion made by me that the Republican party in the State of Mississippi included in its membership many of the best and most substantial white men in that State is disputed because the Republican vote in the State at the Presidential election of 1872 happened to be only a few thousand less than the number of Negroes in the State of voting age, as shown by the census of 1870. It is, therefore, assumed that very few if any white men voted the Republican ticket at that election. To ascertain the voting strength of a political party census figures cannot be relied upon with any degree of certainty, but since Mr. Rhodes's expert seems to think otherwise I am perfectly willing to accept them in this instance for what they may be worth. The number of Negroes of voting age in the State at that time, as shown by the census of 1870, was 88,850; whites 76,909, colored majority, 11,941, and yet the Republican majority in 1872 was 34,887. If the voting strength of the two parties were in proportion to the number of blacks and whites in the State, as this expert would have the public believe, and the percentage of blacks and whites who voted were about the same, which can be safely assumed, the Republican majority in that case could not have been more than 12,000, whereas it was nearly three times that number. Assuming that the Republican and Democratic vote combined comprised the whole number that voted at that election, the total number of votes polled was 129,463, which was 36,296 less than the number of voters in the State. Of the 36,296 that did not vote I estimate that at least 16,000 of them were white men. Subtract the 16,000 from the 76,909 white voters and it will be seen that the number of white men that voted at that election was 60,909, and yet the Democratic vote was 47,288, which was 13,621 less than the number of white men that voted. My own estimate is that of the 82,175 Republican votes, 61,266 were cast by the blacks and 20,909 by the whites. Of the 47,288 Democratic votes, 40,000 were cast by the whites and 7,288 by the blacks.

From the above estimate it will be seen that more than one third of the white men that voted at that election voted the Republican ticket. This estimate is strengthened when the result of the election in the different counties is taken into consideration. The Republicans not only carried every county in which the Negro voters had a majority, but also a number of counties in which the whites were in the majority. The majority by which the State was carried by Alcorn in 1869 was about the same as that by which it was carried by Grant in 1872. Alcorn not only carried a number of white counties, but ten of them elected Republicans to the Legislature, two of them, Lawrence and Marion, elected each a Negro member. The ten counties were Pike, Lawrence, Marion, Jackson, Jasper, Clark, Lee, Leak, Lafayette and Attala. Judge Green C. Chandler, afterwards a judge of the Circuit Court and later U. S. District Attorney, was elected from Clark. Hon. H. W. Warren, who succeeded Judge Franklin as Speaker of the House, was elected from Leak, Judge Jason Niles and Hon. E. Boyd, both able and brilliant lawyers, were elected from Attala. Judge Niles was afterwards appointed a Judge of the Circuit Court and later served as a Republican member of Congress.

In the opinion of this expert Judge Dent, the Democratic candidate for Governor in 1869, was scarcely a typical carpet-bagger because he was born in Missouri and had family connections in Mississippi. Still if he were not a typical carpet-bagger, then we had none in the State, because the designation included all those that settled in the State after the war was over. Judge Dent was one of that number. But I may be able to give Mr. Rhodes what was believed to be the principal reason that influenced the Democrats to support Judge Dent. He was President Grant's brother-in-law. Hence it was hoped and believed that in this case family ties would prove to be stronger than party ties and that the national administration would support Dent instead of Alcorn, the Ex-Confederate. But in this case they were mistaken. Grant had been elected as a Republican, and he could not be induced to throw the weight of his influence against his own party, even in a State election, merely to contribute to the realization of the personal ambition of his wife's brother. It is true that a few men who called themselves Republicans also supported Judge Dent, but the result of the election was conclusive evidence that the so-called split in the party was not at all serious.

Speaking of the three Supreme Court Judges, the expert admits that Peyton and Tarbell were Republicans, but Simrall, he claims, is generally classed as a Democrat. In support of this assertion attention is called to the fact, among others, that he was chairman of the State legislative committee that reported in favor of rejecting the 14th Amendment. But that was before the passage of the Reconstruction Acts and before the Republican party in the State was organized. Judge Simrall joined the Republican party in 1868 or 1869. What I asserted and now repeat is that he was a Republican when he was made a Justice of the State Supreme Court in 1870. Even if he, like thousands of others, rejoined the Democratic party, that would not disprove my assertion that he was a Republican while he was on the bench. But it appears that he was not one of those that rejoined the Democrats, but remained a Republican to the day of his death. In 1884, nine years after the _Redemption_, he canvassed the State for Blaine and Logan, Republican candidates for President and Vice-President. In 1890 the Democrats of Warren County in selecting suitable persons to represent them in the State Constitutional Convention to be held in the fall of that year were anxious to have the benefit of the knowledge, ability and experience of Judge Simrall. They took the liberty of placing his name on their ticket to which it appears he made no objection, and in that way he was elected a delegate to that convention. But did that make him a Democrat? I am sure both Mr. Rhodes and his expert will allow Judge Sim rail to answer that question for himself and that they will accept his answer as conclusive on that point. For his answer to that question they are respectfully referred to page 704 of the official journal of the Constitutional Convention of 1890. They will see that the members of the convention were politically classified. Each member, of course, furnished the information about his own party affiliations. It will be seen that Judge Sim rail is classified as a "National Republican." Ex-Governor Alcorn was also a member of that convention, having been elected from Coahoma County in the same way. His political classification is that of a "Conservative." So it seems that neither Sim rail nor Alcorn rejoined the Democratic party. Instead, therefore, of Republicans being obliged to utilize Democratic material in the selection of Judges, as erroneously stated by Mr. Rhodes, it seems that the Democrats were obliged to utilize Republican talent, experience and ability to assist them in framing a new constitution. I am sure the assertion can be safely made that Sim rail and Alcorn were not among the "lovers of good government" who rejoiced "at the redemption of Mississippi" through the employment of means that Mr. Rhodes so much regretted.

"The judiciary," the expert asserts, "was the best department of government under Reconstruction in Mississippi," and yet the Judges were all appointed by the Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. It goes without saying that if the Governor's appointees were good, the appointing power was equally as good. The expert virtually admits that there was no justification for the declaration that "all lovers of good government must rejoice at the redemption of Mississippi," when he used the following language: "Mr. Lynch confines his figures to state finances; while it was for local finances that the Reconstruction government of Mississippi is most severely condemned." In other words, there was nothing wrong with the State administration; it was the local county and municipal governments that were bad. And yet, a fair and impartial investigation will reveal the fact that there is no more foundation for this allegation than for those about the State government. It is admitted that during the early part of Reconstruction the local tax rate was high, the reasons for which are fully explained in _The Facts of Reconstruction_. Such an investigation would show that the charges of extravagance, recklessness and maladministration so generally made about the administration of county and municipal affairs were grossly exaggerated and nearly, if not all of them wholly untrue. In fact, the expert flatly contradicts himself on this point, because he admits that the evidence does not support the charge of dishonesty in the case of the Negro sheriffs, and yet the sheriff is the principal officer in the administration of the county government.