the blacks, just. freed from slavery. The discipline of some of these negro troops was effective and satisfactory. Some of their officers were simply soldiers who felt that they could as legitimately command free negroes regularly enlisted as they could white men, whilst others, using the opportunity which the negro regiments or companies afforded for getting commissions, accepted these with the purpose to fight for the flag just as they might do--as some indeed had before done-in bodies of white troops. Many of these officers, however, of either class, resented the aversion which they and all others in like relations naturally excited in the white people, and were thus tempted to condone conduct on the part of their soldiers which should have been repressed. The negro soldiers were commonly arrogant, frequently impertinent, sometimes insulting. They were even lawless, brutish, in some instances murderous.

In the town of Chester there were stationed two companies of negro soldiers who became very annoying and offensive to the white citizens. At times a bloody riot seemed imminent. On one occasion these black soldiers clubbed and bayoneted an old gentleman, who died from the wounds thus inflicted. Other citizens were at other times injured, and the situation at last became so serious that the obnoxious troops were removed. As they moved out on their train they fired on the citizens, many of whom, fully armed, had assembled at the depot in response to the call that had been previously fixed.

In Abbeville a lady and a gentleman quietly using the sidewalk were approached by a negro soldier who had with him a negro woman, and were rudely informed that they must make way. The soldier's language was so abusive and his general bearing so threatening that the lady deemed it best to get a guard of white soldiers at her home for the night. While the sentinel walked his post in the hall he was killed by a shot from some negro soldiers who had appeared at the gate-the shot evidently intended for the gentleman whose rightful remonstrances had provoked insult in the afternoon. On the following morning the negro company was moved away.

A party of negro soldiers stopped at a house in Charleston, asking that they might stay until the rain was over. Permission was given, and they next asked for food-the family being then at dinner. This request was complied with, but later on the soldiers, taking offense at some fancied grievance, proceeded to act in a most

outrageous manner. They felled the lady of the house to the floor, so that she was unconscious for a time and was severely hurt. They were about to smash the furniture on the premises when they were interrupted by the arrival of a squad of white soldiers, who, after something of a fight, arrested the rioters and carried them off.

At Newberry, Calvin Crozier, a paroled soldier of the Confederate army, who was on his way to his home in Texas, was in a railway car in company with two young ladies under his care. Leaving the car for a short time he found on his return a negro soldier in such offensive proximity to one of these ladies that he ordered the fellow out. The negro refusing to go, an altercation ensued, in the course of which he was cut in the neck. Going back to his regiment (which was at Newberry only en route to some other point), he soon returned with a squad of negro soldiers, under the command of a sergeant. Hunting for Crozier they arrested another gentleman by mistake and threatened to shoot him. Crozier very soon appeared and avowed that he was the man wanted. He was seized, taken to the camp, and a few hours later shot to death-the negro soldiers showing their brutish delight by dancing on his grave, while they swore vengeance on all "rebels." The colonel of the regiment, addressing his men, formally approved the murder. To the memory of Calvin Crozier the people of Newberry have built a handsome monument.

In Beaufort District a party of negro soldiers visited a house occupied by unprotected ladies, and there committed acts too horrible to relate. Two of the brutes were apprehended, tried by military court, sentenced to death and promptly hung-the authorities. sparing no pains to visit that summary punishment upon the guilty scoundrels.

These instances may be taken as specimens, and to them might be added numerous cases of misconduct of lesser enormity, but none the less calculated to spread alarm in every community exposed to the misdoings of the negro troops.

The original purpose in thus using these troops was clearly to harry and insult the white people among whom they were sent. Whether that purpose was Andrew Johnson's or Secretary Stanton's cannot be safely asserted. Of Johnson, however, it must be said that he took early steps to rid the South of the presence of negroes wearing the army uniform, whilst Stanton made no sign of relenting

in his hatred towards the Southern people or in his purpose to oppress them.

THEORIES OF RECONSTRUCTION.

The authority of the United States was promptly recognized and obeyed by the white people. They very generally took the oath of allegiance to the National Government-wherein also each affiant in terms disavowed all allegiance to "the so-called Confederate States," and promised obedience to President Lincoln's proclamation setting free the slaves. Negroes were neither invited nor expected to take the oath.

The Federal authority thus paramount, it was natural that some exponent of that authority should set about to reestablish civil order in the South and restore the States "lately in rebellion" to their proper relations to the Federal Union. What these relations should be, and what the process of restoration, were questions which had long engaged the attention of both the Executive and the Congress. Diverse views were entertained; and these should be stated in order to a sufficient understanding of the subsequent course of President Johnson, of Congress, and of the Southern people. Of the doctrines held by different leaders among the Northern people there were five that attained to special prominence in the debates in Congress in the earlier discussions of the "Southern question." These have been well stated as follows:

I. The Restoration Doctrine. This was based on the assumption that the acts of secession were essentially invalid and of no effect. No State, therefore, had seceded, or could secede; the State officers who were acting against the Federal Government were simply committing illegal acts which rendered them liable to punishment, but the States themselves were not destroyed nor their Constitutions abrogated, and so soon as their officers returned to their duty, or other officers took their places, the States would ipso facto resume their normal relations with the Union.

II. The Presidential Doctrine. This doctrine, which originated with President Lincoln, was of gradual development. Its essential feature was that prior to the restoration of the seceding States to their rights and privileges under the Constitution the President was empowered to dictate such terms as in his opinion seemed necessary to secure the Union from further peril. These terms were eventually

defined to be the cessation of resistance, the appointment of a provisional governor, the taking of an oath of amnesty, proffered to all but certain specified classes of leading men, by at least one-tenth of the white voters of a State, the recognition and declaration of the permanent freedom of the blacks, and the formation of a new republican government by the State. But it was expressly announced that the admission of Senators and Representatives from the States lately in insurrection was a matter that rested not with the executive, but with the separate houses of Congress.

III. The Davis-Wade Doctrine. This plan was proposed by Henry Winter Davis, of Maryland, and Benjamin F. Wade, of Ohio, as a remedy for what they believed the defects of the Presidential policy. The latter, they complained, asked no security for the faithful performance of the terms of restoration, proposed no guardianship of the United States over the reorganization of the State governments, no law to prescribe who shall vote, no civil functionaries to see that the law be faithfully executed, no supervising authority to control and judge of the elections. Their plan, therefore, was to appoint provisional governors, who, through the aid of the United States marshals, were to administer the oath of allegiance to white citizens. When the citizens who had taken the oath constituted a majority, they were to hold a State convention, excluding, however, all Confederate officeholders and all who had voluntarily borne arms. against the United States, and adopt a new constitution repudiating the Confederate debt, abolishing slavery and prohibiting the military and civil leaders of the Confederacy from serving in any official capacity. The provisional governor was then to notify the President, and when the latter had obtained the assent of Congress he was to recognize the new government by proclamation, after which Senators and Representatives were to be admitted.

IV. The Sumner Doctrine. This doctrine, formulated by Charles Sumner, of Massachusetts, and vehemently supported by a small band of his followers, directly combated the restoration theory, which the two last-named plans had merely sought to modify. According to Sumner the declaration of secession, although it was void as against the Constitution, was an abrogation by the State of its rights under the Constitution. It had ceased to exist as an integral element of national sovereignty, and its soil became a territory under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. For, as a territory became a

State by coming into the Union, so a State becomes a territory by leaving it. In other words, secession was State suicide. Therefore, it was the duty of Congress to establish republican forms of government in the vacated territory, taking care to provide for the protection of the persons who had recently been made free.

V. The Stevens Doctrine. This doctrine, fathered by Thaddeus Stevens, of Pennsylvania, reached the same results as the Sumner theory, by a different course of reasoning. Stevens held that the Constitution was suspended in any part of the country where the resistance to its execution was too strong to be suppressed by peaceful methods. It was absurd to say that the Constitution and the laws were in force when they could not be enforced. The termination of the suspension could be decided only by the victorious party. If the Civil War were successful the suspension would be permanent-if unsuccessful the suspension would continue until the war-making and law-making power should decide that the resistance had been honestly abandoned. Congress had omnipotent power, because the seceding States had repudiated the Constitution, and could no longer claim its advantages.

THE AMNESTY PROCLAMATION.

Mr. Johnson had early manifested his purpose to carry out the "Presidential" program. Pardon for past offenses being necessary to any action by the people held to have been in rebellion against the Government, looking to their restoration to full citizenship and their proper relations to the Union of States under the Constitution, the President proclaimed amnesty to those people upon stated terms and conditions. In his proclamation dated May 29, 1865, he indicated not only his ideas of the mode of restoration, but more particularly his conception of the different degrees of guilt among those whose past conduct was to be condoned. For this reason—in addition to considerations of historic value-that paper must be given. in full:

Whereas, the President of the United States, on the 8th day of December, A. D. 1863, and on the 26th day of March, A. D. 1864, with the object to suppress the existing rebellion, to induce all persons to return to their loyalty and to restore the authority of the United States, did issue proclamations offering amnesty and pardon. to certain persons who had, directly or by implication, participated