RECONSTRUCTION. 



327 



lightened people on earth. Congress was confronted 

 by the fact that the former owners of these people, to 

 whose grace they would be committed in the event that 

 political rights were denied tlieni by Congress, were 

 unwillingly deprived of their slaves by the eventualities 

 of a war waged for the very purpose of perpetuating 

 the condition of slavery, and regarded that deprivation 

 as an act of great injustice. As their former masters 

 held that the rights in society that appertain to the 

 white man have no application to the black man. Con- 

 gress hesitated to absent to surrender the career of those 

 upon whom it had conferred liberty as their due ac- 

 cording to the same principles that form the title to the 

 white man to liberty, to those who held opinions and 

 sentiments diametrically opposite to these. In view 

 of the considerations of State prudence respected by 

 all governments Congress hesitated to disfranchise a 

 population that had every motive to be loyal to the 

 nation as the author of their liberty, and to commit 

 the reins of government to those exclusively who 

 sought the dismemberment of the nation. It has been 

 said that on grounds of expediency Congress erred in 

 the judgment that produced these measures of recon- 

 struction, but the important question is whether the 

 consideration of expediency was open to Congress in a 

 case where the principles of liberty were at stake, and 

 where it had placed itself in an attitude to the eman- 

 cipated slave that implied a large measure of govern- 

 mental protection to his condition, present and future. 

 The solution offered by Congress to the grave questions 

 thus presented was sustained by the opinion of tin- 

 great majority of the people of the loyal States, and 

 whatever may be said of the expediency of its policy 

 will command respect for its sincerity of purpose and 

 justice. 



The failure of the former slave States to accept the 

 terms thus offered called for further action on the part 

 of Congress, and the acts known as the Reconstruction 

 Acts of Congress were passed, the first upon March 

 23, and the second on July 1 9, J 867. The first of these 

 acts was a modification of the previous act providing 

 for the government of the rebel States. It pro- 

 vided for a registration to be made in each of 

 the States there enumerated under the authority 

 of the military officers assigned to them, which 

 should include the emancipated slaves with all 

 other classes, excepting only such persons as had been 

 disfranchised by previous acts. As the exact bearing 

 of this act upon disfranehiseincnts on the ground of 

 aiding in the rebellion was in doubt, the second act of 

 reconstruction was passed to remove such doubt. The 

 persons excluded for participating in the rebellion were 

 declared to be persons who, having been members of 

 tin- Legislatures orof the executive or judiciary of any 

 of these States, had etiL'a.tred in the rebellion, whether 

 piich complicity arose while holding such offices or at a 

 later t'uie. 



Tinier these reconstruction acts registration of the 

 voters of those States who possessed the requisite quali- 

 fications, was made ; elections were called for the choice 

 of delegates to conventions to frame constitutions for 

 such States ; conventions were held and constitutions 

 framed that were submitted to the vote of the people 

 of the States who 'had the proper qualifications as 

 voters and were ratified. The State offices were filled 

 by election, the Legislatures convened, and the govern- 

 ments were placed in operation. The new State 

 governments promptly adopted Amendment XIV. and 

 at i .nee were admitted to representation in Congress. 



During the proceedings in the Second Military Dis- 

 trict under the acts of reconstruction, (Jen. Sickles was 

 relieved in August, ]S(>7, and Maj.-Gen. E. R. S. Canby 

 assigned to the command. In December of that year 

 (Jon. I'oi... was relieved from the command of the 

 Third Military District and Maj.-Gen. G. G. Meade 

 ned to that command. On July 28, 1868, the 

 military government of the Second and Third Military 

 Districts was terminated, the States composing those 



districts having fully complied with the acts of recon- 

 struction. Gen. Schofield was relieved in 1868 from 

 the command of the First Military District, having 

 been made Secretary of War, and Maj.-Gen. G. Stone- 

 man assigned to that command. Virginia, which con- 

 stituted that district, was not admitted to the Union 

 until 1870. A constitution, formed at Alexandria in 

 1864 by delegates that were within the military lines of 

 the United States, had not been submitted to the 

 people for ratification. A constitution was framed in 

 1868 under the acts of reconstruction, but was not sub- 

 mitted to the people until July, 1869, a special act of 

 Congress haying been passed for that purpose in April, 

 1869, when it was ratified and the State admitted iu 

 1870. 



Gen. Ord was relieved in December, 1867, from 

 the command of the Fourth Military District, and 

 Maj.-Gen. I. McDowell assigned to (hat command. 

 (.Jen. McDowell was relieved in June, 1SG8, and Maj.- 

 Gen. A. C. Gilleui assigned to that command. Mis- 

 sissippi, one of the States of this district, ratified the 

 constitution framed under the reconstruction acts in 

 December, 1868, that constitution having been pre- 

 viously submitted to the people in June of that same 

 year and rejected. Prior to the ratification by Missis- 

 sippi Arkansas, also in that military district, had rati- 

 fied her constitution. 



Gen. Sheridan was in August, 1867, relieved from 

 the command of the Fifth Military District and the 

 command at first .assigned to Maj.-Gen. G. II. Thomas, 

 but soon after to Maj.-Gen. W. S. Hancock. The 

 latter was relieved in March, 1868, and was succeeded 

 by Maj.-Gen. J. J. Reynolds. Louisiana, one of the 

 States of this district, ratified the constitution passed 

 under the reconstruction nets in August, 18C8. la 

 July of (hat year the Fifth Military District was con- 

 fined to Texas, under the command of Gen. Reynolds. 

 This State finally ratified its constitution in March, 

 1 BOff, and was readmitted to the Union in March, 1870. 



It will be observed that by the final conclusion of 

 Congress the disfranchiseuient within the States on 

 the ground of participating in rebellion was limited to 

 the case of those who had held office under the 

 United States or in any of those States and while hold- 

 ing such office or afterwards had engaged in the rebel- 

 lion. The mere fact that a citizen of those States had 

 taken part in the rebellion, even if that part was an 

 important and conspicuous one, did not produce dis- 

 franchisement. The class thus temporarily separated 

 from a controlling influence over the new State govern- 

 ments were presumably those who in former years had 

 shaped the policy of the State, and were the re- 

 sponsible authors of the attempt to destroy the Union 

 of the States. To select them personally would have 

 been invidious and might, from erroneous information, 

 have worked injustice in individual cases. To place them 

 in a numerous class that would necessarily include the 

 active agents of rebellion seemed to Congress to be 

 the only mode of distinguishing between the authors 

 of secession and those who had followed them, whether 

 voluntarily or by compulsion, that was not open to 

 serious objection. 



The Congressional reconstruction had the effect to 

 write into the constitutions of the States upon which it 

 acted the language of liberty and equality as it had 

 been framed through the revolutions of England and 

 perfected in America, and thus to exhibit an entire 

 unity in the principles upon which government was 

 administered among all the States of the Union. That 

 Congress did not intend that the consequences of rebel- 

 lion should be perpetuated in the disfranchisemcnt of 

 those engaged in it beyond what appeared to that body 

 to be necessary to give to the new governments of 

 the former slave States principles and forms in har- 

 mony with the general institutions of the country was 

 abundantly evidenced by the readiness and rapidity 

 with which the disfranchised were relieved from 

 their disabilities after the habilitation of the States. 



