ARTICLE I. GOVERNOR CHAMBERLAIN'S ADMINISTRATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA. Governor Chamberlain's Administration in South Carolina: A Chapter of Reconstruction in the Southern States. By WALTER ALLEN. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 8vo. 1888. MR. ALLEN's history of Governor Chamberlain's administration is the first attempt which has been made to give a popular account of southern reconstruction. He has done his work well. The material which he has had at command is ample, complete, authoritative, and is well arranged according to subject matter and chronology. There can be no question that Governor Chamberlain's administration is the most interesting in the whole period of republican reconstruction in the South. To begin with, the man himself has an attractive personality. In addition to a scholarly diction and a literary merit of high order displayed in his public utterances, Governor Chamberlain has great force and decision of character and singular administrative ability. His courageous, conscientious republicanism is proved by his words and his acts; and in respect of this quality especially no man of the times in the South was his peer. His administration was a trying ordeal. But no taint of dishonesty, no suspicion of a disreputable motive, which it was in Governor Chamberlain's power to prevent, attaches to it. By his skillful control of affairs of State, there arose such a hope of political quiet and industrial progress under negro suffrage as had never been experienced before. His administration was the best as it was the last republican administration in South Carolina. The tragic events connected with the presidential election of 1876 gave the control of the State government into the hands of the democrats, and they have since maintained their political supremacy in that State as in every other State of the South. The portion of the reformative period in the history of the Southern States preceding Governor Chamberlain's administration has not yet been satisfactorily described. The historical material is accessible only in official documents, detached congressional investigations, public letters, and newspaper items. The evidence is fragmentary in the extreme, distorted by the refraction of excessive partisanship, discolored by prejudiced and hasty observation. But some facts which are well attested* may be mentioned by way of preface to the story in Mr. Allen's book. After the surrender of Lee at Appomattox in April, 1865, the anxiety of a long war waged for Union and humanity was soon dispelled, and hope sprang fresh in the hearts of the people. Political sentiment, however, immediately re-distributed itself about a new issue: How shall the rebel States be governed? How shall the results of the war be preserved? The Confederate governor, McGrath, of South Carolina, called upon the Confederate State officers, in May, 1865, to resume their duties. Their attempt to comply was frustrated by General Gillmore. But military rule in time of peace is only a tem * McPherson's "Handbook of Politics" series, Pike's "Prostrate State," Congressional documents, and the indexed files of the New York Times have been consulted. porary expedient according to the genius of our government. Some other arrangement had to be made at once. Two plans of reconstruction were tried at different times-one proposed by Congress in 1867, and the other employed by President Johnson in the interim. nor. On June 30, 1865, by virtue of his authority as commanderin-chief of the army, President Johnson commissioned Benjamin F. Perry, a citizen of the State, to act as provisional goverHe was instructed by his commission to call a convention to alter and amend the State constitution and to enable the people to restore their State "to its constitutional relations to the Federal government." Such people as would take the prescribed oath of loyalty to the United States in addition to satisfying the requirements of the State laws of 1861 were invited to participate. A convention was duly held; the ordinance of secession was "repealed;" a State government was formed as soon as possible; slavery was declared to have been abolished by the war; and the thirteenth amendment was adopted. But the right of Congress to legislate on the status of the freedman was denied by a resolution. It was evident from the temper of the convention that under this government the negro, though he gained his freedom, would only obtain the elective franchise under a property and educational qualification. Acquiescence in the "results of the war "claimed by the North was not so enthusiastic and complete as even President Johnson wished. As for Congress, it would have nothing to do with the presidential plan of reconstruction. It would not readmit the State into the Union nor its representatives to seats in the senate and house. Governor Orr was elected in October, 1865, to succeed Governor Perry, who had been appointed provisionally, and the affairs of the State were managed by civil officers, though the military authority was not suspended. More than a year passed before the quarrel between the president and Congress was concluded by the victory of the latter. In 1867 and 1868 Congress passed the necessary laws over the president's veto, and reconstruction was begun over again. The South was divided into military districts. The States were required to accept the fourteenth amendment, which contains the civil rights and the rebel debt clauses, and to grant universal suffrage to the negro, previous to restoration to the Union. Moreover it was made imperative upon the States by these acts of Congress that all males over twenty-one who should take the oath of loyalty must be allowed to participate in the preliminary elections and conventions. The Supreme court has given a decision affecting the validity of these laws; but the acts of the States, both under congressional reconstruction and under President Johnson's provisional government, have been accepted as valid. In South Carolina, Governor Orr assisted the military commander of the district under the new order in making the preliminary registration in the summer of 1867. The registration list included 46,800 whites and 80,500 blacks; 8,244 whites and 625 blacks were disfranchised. It was a foregone conclusion that the reconstructionists would be successful. The vote on adopting the new State constitution-on the whole an unobjectionable document was 70,758, for-which was a majority of the total registration-and 27,288 against it. In the constitutional convention and in the new State government there was a large proportion of negroes. A few democrats sat in the legislature for the upland counties, in which the white voters outnumbered the black, but in general the color line was the party line and the native white influence in the government was inappreciable. In the known temper of Congress it is doubtful whether any success the democrats might have gained would have been permanent. There is little doubt that the old masters and friends of the negroes might have influenced the action of a considerable number at this time if the attempt had been made, and that their indifference helped the republican leaders to attach the negro vote firmly to the republican party and to prejudice it against the democratic party. The new State officers were elected in April, 1868, on the same day that the new constitution was adopted. Governorelect Scott immediately qualified and succeeded Governor Orr, serving two terms, until the fall of 1872. Mr. Chamberlain was a member of the constitutional convention and was attorneygeneral for both terms under Governor Scott. When it was altogether too late, the democrats severely but ineffectually criticized the enfranchisement of the blacks; an act which, as statistics prove, gave the taxing power into the hands of the non-property-holding class, except that the educational tax was by the constitution a poll tax. The new officers, both whites and blacks, were called by the democrats "a mockery of official dignity and integrity." A few of the colored members of the Legislature were intelligent men, and proved themselves artful parliamentarians and makers of convincing arguments; but the negro voter and legislator generally was a very ignorant person. The attitude of the black race toward the white was that of timidity born of many years of subjection; of the white race toward the black, imperiousness. The black man had no social position but he had a vote. These facts-the negro's low social position, his subservience to the white race, his belief that the supremacy of the republican party was all that separated him from his old status, his ignorance, and his well-known weak moral sense, explain how detestable he was to the whites, and how easily he might be made the tool of those who appealed to his cupidity, or his prejudices, or his fears. A correspondent of the New York Times credits the notorious ex-Governor Moses with the sagacity to have foreseen, when he worked in the constitutional convention for manhood suffrage, how useful the negro voter might be made. Nobody did any- Now what happened in South Carolina in these conditions was a deluge of fraud and corruption. thing to prevent the impending calamity. dation of the negro vote from the very first. congressional investigating committees prove this. Those whose preeminent duty, as republican officers and leaders, was to help the negro establish his freedom and equality neglected their duty and used their position to plunder the treasury. The plundering was done boldly. Some of the freebooters were "carpet-baggers;" some were natives; some were whites; some were blacks; most were republicans. The democrats, also, never hesitated to offer bribes when they had private bills to pass; and the national republican party did not interfere in behalf of its wards. The State owed in 1868, when Governor Scott was elected, a just obligation of less than $6,000,000, consisting of ante-war debt and provisional government expenses. The State was |