Imágenes de páginas



Seven other protests, signed, in the aggregate, by thirteen members, were on substantially the same ground."

Scarcely less ominous were the reports from Virginia and Mississippi. The military commander at Richmond sent accounts of outrages at the hands of the Ku-Klux-Klan which disclosed the existence of as powerful and lawless a body as Reynolds reported in Texas, and the evidence taken by the Committee of Reconstruction on affairs in Mississippi showed a like deplorable condition there.3 From many other parts of the South came news of acts of violence perpetrated upon the black race. The evidence satisfied Congress that the provisional government of Virginia, Mississippi and Texas must be, as it were, purified, and a series of acts relating especially to these States were now passed. All persons holding office in the provisional governments of Virginia and Texas, who could not subscribe to the oath of loyalty under the act of July, 1862, were to be at once removed. The President was authorized to submit the constitutions of the three States to their electors, and neither State should be admitted to representation in Congress until its legislature, lawfully organized, should ratify the Fifteenth Amendment.5

The reconstruction of Georgia was the subject of an act passed in December which gave special protection to the colored race. On the fourteenth of May, 1869, President Grant issued a proclamation announcing that the consti

1 Journal, p. 520.

2 For some account of the outrages in Virginia see H. R. Executive Document No. 95, 40th Congress, Third Session.

3 For this evidence see House of Representatives Miscellaneous Document No. 53, 40th Congress, Third Session, 299 pages.

4 Resolution of February 18, 1869: Statutes at Large, XV, 344.

8 Act of April 10, 1869: Statutes at Large, Vol. XVI, p. 40. 6 Id. pp. 59-60, see pages supra.



tution of Virginia would be submitted to the voters on the sixth of July, and that a separate vote would be taken on two of its clauses.' The election resulted in the adoption of the constitution and the rejection of both clauses.2 The President issued a similar proclamation, on the thirteenth of July, designating the thirtieth of November as the time when the constitution of Mississippi should be submitted, and empowered the electors to cast a separate vote on the clause affecting disfranchisement; on that prescribing eligibility to office; on that forbidding the State to pledge its credit, and on that part of the oath respecting the exercise of the franchise by those who had signed the ordinance of secession.3

At the election, the constitution was ratified almost unanimously, and, with the exception of the clause forbidding the State to lend its credit to any person or corporation, all the provisions separately submitted were defeated. Against the section which disfranchised citizens for adhering to the Confederacy, the vote was almost unanimous. The canvass in the State, though subordinated in a great

1 Statutes at Large, XVI, 1125-1126. The special clauses were the 4th clause of Section 1, Article III, on disfranchisement, and the 7th Section of Article III on the oath.

2 The number of registered voters was 149,781 white; 120,103 colored; 125,144 whites and 97,205 colored electors voted. The vote for the constitution was 210,585, and against it, 9,136. The vote for Clause 4, Section 1, Article III, was 84,410, and against it, 124,360. The vote for Section 7, Article III, was 83,458, and against it, 124,715. See Senate Executive Document No. 13, 41st Congress, Second Session, pp. 106-107.

3 See the proclamation, Statutes at Large, Vol. XVI, pp. 11271128. A separate vote was taken on a part of Section 3, of Article VII; on Section 5, of Article VII; on Section 5, of Article XII, and on Section 26, of Article XII. It was understood that Sections 4 to 15, inclusive, of Article XIII, were to be considered as forming no part of the constitution.

4 The constitution was ratified by a vote of 105,223 to 954.

[blocks in formation]

measure to the policy of Congress, was conducted hopefully, if not aggressively, by the Republicans; but the Democratic party, at least its radical wing, offered no suggestion or advice as to the course proper for the people to pursue, but firm in its devotion to the "great doctrine of State rights,” left the responsibility for the establishment of a Republican party in the State to rest where it properly belonged." The result of the election was a Republican majority in both branches of the legislature. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were ratified on the seventeenth of January, 1870.2

Virginia had ratified both on the eighth of October preceding? Having thus complied with the conditions imposed upon them, these two States were admitted to representation in Congress, Virginia by the act of the twenty-sixth of January, and Mississippi by that of the twentythird of February. The President, by proclamation of the fifteenth of July, fixed the thirtieth of November as the time for submitting the constitution of Texas to its voters. The election extended over four days and resulted

1 Resolution of the Canton convention, October 20, 1869.

2 The Fourteenth by a vote of 24 to 2 in the Senate and 79 to 2 in the House. The Fifteenth by the Senate unanimously, and by 79 to none in the House. Senate Executive Document No. 30, 41st Congress, Second Session. See the ratification also in Documentary History of the Constitution, II, p. 856.

3 The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in the Senate by a vote of 46 to 4; and in the House, by 126 to 6; the Fifteenth by a vote of 40 to 2 in the Senate, and by the House unanimously. See ratification in Senate Miscellaneous Document No. 63, 41st Congress, Second Session; and in Documentary History of the Constitution, II, p. 888.

4 Act of January 26, 1870, Statutes at Large, Vol. XVI, pp. 6263, of February 23, 1870: Ib. pp. 67-68. See also the supplementary act on the admission of Virginia of February 1, 1870, empowering persons either to take the oath or to affirm.

5 See the Proclamation of July 15, 1869: Statutes at Large,

p. 1129,

[blocks in formation]

in a majority of over sixty-seven thousand for the constitution. On the eighteenth of February, 1870, the legislature of the State by joint resolution, ratified the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments. On the thirtieth of March, the State was admitted to representation in Congress. It had been unrepresented since the eleventh of July, 1861. With its return, all the States were again represented in Congress for the first time in nearly ten years.

During the year which had elapsed between the adoption of the Henderson resolution by Congress and its ratification as the Fifteenth Amendment by Texas, it had been approved by the legislatures of twenty-eight States. Nevada, West Virginia, North Carolina, Louisiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Maine, South Carolina, Pennsylvania and Arkansas had ratified within a month of its passage by Congress. New York ratified on the fourteenth of April, but the new legislature elected in the autumn was Democratic in both branches, and on the first day of its session, responding to a resolution introduced by

1 72,366 for and 4,928 against it. H. R. Executive Document No. 265, 41st Congress, Second Session, p. 26.

2 Senate Miscellaneous Document No. 77, 41st Congress, Second Session; also Documentary History of the Constitution, II, p. 888. The Senate Document contains the constitution of Texas ratified at the polls and also some account of the election. The Journals of the Texas legislature, showing the votes on the three amendments, were destroyed in the burning of the capitol, 1884.

3 Act of March 30, 1870; Statutes at Large, Vol. XVI, pp. 80-81; Supplementary Act, May 4, 1870: Id. p. 96.

4 James Chestnut, Jr., James H. Hammond of South Carolina retired from the Senate November 10-11, 1860.

8 The votes are obtained from the archives of the several States, the acts of ratification are reprinted in Documentary History, II, Department of State. I am indebted to Mr. Theodore L. Cole of Washington, D. C., for aid in consulting the journals of Arkansas, March 30; almost unanimously; Id. p. 831.



Tweed, of New York city, withdrew its assent. In May, Ohio, fulfilling Senator Sherman's prophecy, rejected the amendment, but the legislature, again becoming Republican by a new election, ratified the amendment on the twenty-seventh of the following January.2 Indiana and

some State legislatures, in the matter of the vote on the last three amendments.

Nevada, March 1, 1869, by 23 yeas to 16 nays, in the House; 13 yeas to 6 nays, in the Senate; see ratification in Doc. History, II, p. 797.

West Virginia, March 3, by a vote of 10 to 6, in the Senate, and of 22 to 19 in the House; Id. p. 803.

North Carolina, March 5; 40 to 8 in the Senate, and 87 to 20 in the House; Id. p. 800.

Louisiana, March 5; 18 to 3 in the Senate, and 55 to 9 in the House; 36 Republicans not voting; Id. p. 806.

Illinois, March 5; 17 to 7 in the Senate, and 54 to 28 in the House; Id. p. 808.

Michigan, March 8; 25 to 5 in the Senate, and 68 to 24 in the House; Id. p. 810.

Wisconsin, March 9; 15 to 11 in the Senate, 7 not voting; 63 to 29 in the House, 8 absent or not voting; Id. p. 812.

Massachusetts, March 12; 36 to 2 in the Senate, and 212 to 16 in the House; Id. p. 814.

Maine, March 12; 25 to 1 in the Senate, and 141 to 0 in the House; Id. p. 819.

South Carolina, March 16; 18 to 1 in the Senate, and 88 to 3 in the House; Id. p. 825.

Pennsylvania, March 26; 18 to 15 in the Senate, and 61 to 38 in the House; Id. p. 828.

1 New York ratified in the assembly March 17, 1869; 72 yeas to 47 nays; and in the Senate April 14; 17 yeas to 15 nays. On the withdrawal of the ratification, the vote in the Senate, January 5, 1870, was 16 yeas to 13 nays, and in the assembly, 69 yeas to

59 nays.

2 Ohio, May 4, 1869, rejected by a vote of 19 to 14 in the Senate and 47 to 36 in the House. On the 27th of January, 1870, it ratified by a vote of 19 to 18 in the Senate, and of 62 to 36 in the House: Documentary History, II, p. 870. See the resolution in the Ohio laws, 1869, pp. 424-425.

« AnteriorContinuar »