Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

IDLE TO FIX CONDITIONS OF RECONSTRUCTION.

189

layed until February.1 The utterances of the Mississippi convention expressed the opinions of the people of all the Gulf States. Governor Parsons, in his message to the Alabama convention, declared the slave code a dead letter, and that there were no more slaves in the State.

It was clear from the message of the President and his advisory words to the various delegations from the southern States, that he intended to treat them with clemency, yet each State was looked upon and treated as still in insurrection, and subject to military law, and this condition of things was certain to continue so long as any State refused the proposition which the President had made that it should adapt its organic law to existing facts; it was therefore idle to discuss the conditions of submission. Though the institution of slavery was abolished by ceasing to exist, the laborers were still upon the soil; and, by just legislation and fair dealing, they might be so directed as to enable the people of the South to regain a great degree of their former prosperity. The white man owned the land; the negro owned the labor; and such an

in October and November, 1865 (October 25-November 8), together with the Ordinances and Resolutions adopted; Published by Order of the Convention; Milledgeville, Georgia; R. M. Orme and Son, Printers for the Convention, 1865; 269 pp.

Executive Document No. 26, Senate, 39th Congress, First Session, pp. 202-218. The Convention assembled at Tallahassee October 25th, and adjourned November 8, 1865. Id., pp. 203-207.

1 Journal of the Texas State Convention, assembled at Austin, February 7, 1866, adjourned April 2, 1866, Austin; Printed at the Southern Intelligencer Office, 1866, 391 pp. The Constitution as Amended and Ordinances of the convention of 1866, together with the proclamation of the Governor declaring the ratification of the amendment to the Constitution and the General Laws of the regular session of the 11th Legislature of the State of Texas; by Anthony Austin; Printed at the Gazette Office by John Walker, State Printer, 1866, 272 pp. Index xxvii, p. 272.

190 THE SLAVE-OWNER VS. THE NORTHERN FARMER.

arrangement might be made as would compensate the one for his work; the other for the use of the land.

In 1859 slave labor had brought forty-five million dollars to Mississippi, for its cotton crop; though the product of that year, one million three hundred thousand bales, might not again be repeated; yet the diminution of the product would increase its value; and if the State raised only three hundred thousand bales, it could now realize sixty millions of dollars for them. The poor white, who had raised his cotton with his own hands, and had realized, perhaps, one hundred dollars for his toil, could now receive five times as much. Of all industrial systems, that of slave labor, as experience proved, was the most costly. The slaveowner could not cultivate his land unless he owned, or actually bought for life, the labor necessary for its operation. Every laborer cost from one thousand to fifteen hundred dollars, the interest on which sum was no less than ten per cent a year. He had to feed and clothe the slave, to supply him with medicine and to lose his time in sickness. If the slave died the owner lost his value in actual capital. He was, in fact, an insurer of the slave's life and health. Henceforth every man who had land to cultivate could go into the market, and for an annual hire cultivate it without this expensive insurance. He would simply pay for the use of the labor during the year. The surplus he would use, not in buying hands, but to invest in real estate, in banks and in internal improvements. It was precisely this which had enabled the North to make its vast material progress.1

Those who would demand compensation for slaves as a condition of abolition, should remember that there was but one course to follow; no man could sue the United

1 See almost the same statement in the debates in the Federal Convention: Ante, Vol. I, pp. 536-539

States in any court. If loyal, all that he could do, with any claim against the government, would be to petition Congress to allow it, or to bring it before the Court of Claims. If adjudicated in his favor, he could then ask Congress for an apportionment; and this it might refuse or not, as it pleased.1

The war had produced many evils, but the state of things was not without some compensation. Beyond all question, the war had demonstrated that in a military point of view, and as a political institution, slavery is a source of positive weakness. When the southern States were invaded by an army, proclaiming freedom to the slaves, it obtained positive power with which to enforce the declaration and continue the war. "This fact," said a member,2 "was recognized by the Congress of the Confederate States, which at its last session was prepared to declare, and probably did pass laws declaring, the emancipation of slaves upon condition of service in the army."

The reference was to the bill passed by the Confederate Congress on the seventh of March, 1865,-about three weeks before the fall of Richmond,-which authorized Mr. Davis to receive into the military service such ablebodied slaves as might be patriotically tendered by their masters, to be employed in whatever capacity he might direct; but the bill made no change in the relation of master and slave. The result of the act was the organization of two negro companies in Richmond, composed, it was said, chiefly of vagabonds, who were allowed to give balls at Libby Prison, and were exhibited in fine, fresh 1 Journal, 158.

2 J. S. Yerger, of Jackson, who had been a member of the Secession Convention of 1861, and who was one of the Commissioners of Mississippi who took counsel with President Johnson as to the best method of reorganizing a State government. See Journal, p. 145, and the last page of "Tabular View."

[blocks in formation]

uniforms on the streets, as decoys to obtain other recruits. The act was evidence of the desperate straits of the Confederacy, and was generally considered, by the few who heard of it, as a surrender of the South to the whole theory of abolitionism, and a confession to the whole world that secession and the organization of the Southern Confederacy were unjustifiable.1 "It was a declaration," continued the member,2 "that in the opinion of the Confederate Congress, there was one thing better than slavery, the independence of the southern States."3

But there was another and a very favorable compensation for abolition. Formerly the State was permitted representation on the floor of Congress for only threefifths of its population; henceforth, it would be increased by fifteen to twenty additional members.

It was evident that the amendment abolishing slavery would be adopted; the question was, simply, whether or not to load it down with conditions. On the twentyfirst of August the vote was taken, and the amendment adopted declared that slavery in the State was destroyed. It was made the duty of the legislature to provide for the protection of the freed-men, and to guard the State from

1 For an account of the bill, its opponents and defenders, see Edward A. Pollard's Life of Jefferson Davis, with a Secret History of the Southern Confederacy (1869), pp. 447-457. On the 17th of February, 1864, the Confederate Congress passed an act to increase the efficiency of the army, by the employment of free negroes and slaves in certain capacities. Free negroes were dcelared liable to duty in action with the military defence, and were to receive rations, clothing and $11 a month. Male negro slaves not to exceed 20,000 might be employed in a similar manner; the owners to receive such wages as might be agreed upon with the Secretary of War. He could resort to impressment, if necessary. Public Laws of the Confederate States of America, passed at the 4th Session of the First Congress, 1863-4. Richmond, 1864, p. 235. 2 Mr. Yerger.

3 Journal, p. 157.

evils that might arise from their sudden emancipation.1

The next question was whether the ordinance of secession should be declared "null and void," or, "repealed and abrogated."3 A long discussion followed, and several ordinances, varying in language, were submitted. Could the act of a sovereign convention, such as that of 1861, ever be repealed, abrogated and declared null and void? Would not a vote to repeal stultify the political life and principles of the members? Did not all believe in the right of revolution? Did the ordinance of secession rest upon no other principle? In the same hall in which the convention was now assembled, men equal to the members now present, and seven of these were among them,5 -had, in 1861, asserted the right of revolution. If the ordinances of secession were now declared a nullity, from what time would the nullity begin?

The answer to these questions involved the legality of the administration of the government of the State for the last five years. After all, was not a repeal of the ordinance superfluous? Was the act of secession in exactly the same condition as slavery? The convention might find itself in a dilemma. If it did not repeal the ordinance, would it be possible to resume federal relations? If it declared the ordinance null and void, would it not thereby declare an interregnum in the government of the State since 1860? The way to avoid the difficulty would be to declare the laws and ordinances since 1860 to be of "no further force or effect." Whether the State had been

1 The amendment passed by a vote of 87 to 11 (Journal, 165).

2 Journal, 33.

3 Journal, 17

4 Journal, 185,

5 Six of them had voted against the ordinance of secession.

6 January 9, 1861. Convention Journal (January), p. 16.

7 Journal, 192-195.

« AnteriorContinuar »