Much of the material included in this volume was collected several years ago while the author was a graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania. The researches then commenced probably first suggested to him the lack in our political literature of an ample and interesting account of the return of the States. Students, librarians, and even professors of history knew no adequate treatise on the era of reconstruction, and their testimony was confirmed by the authority of Mr. Bryce, who happil

So closely blended with the essential principles of our federal system of government were the causes of the Civil War that a clear understanding of its results appears to require some account of the origin, the independence and the permanent union of these States. Upon the eventful years between the Treaty of Paris and the Declaration of Independence, crowded as they are with work of note, one could linger with pleasure; this epoch, however, has already engaged the pens of so many writers, emine

While the celebrated joint debates with Senator Douglas in 1858, the Cooper Union and other addresses, marked Mr. Lincoln, in the new political party just rising to power, as the intellectual peer of able and trusted leaders like Sumner, Chase and Seward, his conservative opinions on the subject of slavery made his nomination by the Chicago Convention more acceptable to delegates from the border States. Though his competitors received, in the memorable contest which followed, almost a million vo

The first movement toward reconstruction in Louisiana, as in the case of Tennessee, was bound up with the war powers of the President, and, no doubt, was made with some expectation of aiding his military plans. The thought of restoring a loyal government there proceeded quite naturally from the peculiar situation in the State. Though not so nearly unanimous for secession as South Carolina, her people acted with energy and promptness when they received tidings of “this last insult and outrage,” a

The people of northern Arkansas were strongly attached to the Union, and until December 20, 1860, when a commissioner from Alabama addressed its Legislature, no secession movement took place within the State. Her geographical position classed her with the Western, her productions bound up her interests with the Southern, States. [113] As late as January 5, 1861, resolutions opposing separate action were adopted almost unanimously by the largest meeting ever held at Van Buren. Mr. Lincoln’s elect

The Federal Government, as already observed, was constrained at an early stage of the Civil War to define its attitude toward loyal citizens of the seceding States. The earliest indications of the policy adopted may be discerned in the case of Virginia, which presents the only instance of a people in any of the insurrectionary States organizing open resistance to revolution. All departments of government in that Commonwealth having gone over to rebellion, the loyal minority were left without any

The efforts of Union minorities in Tennessee, in Louisiana and in Arkansas to establish governments in harmony with the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the agency of President Lincoln in effecting that result, have been somewhat particularly described in the preceding pages. The principal events which marked the progress of secession in those States, the military successes which brought Federal authorities to consider the restoration of loyal governments within their borders, and

In considering the different plans of reconstruction it is not deemed necessary to discuss further than has been done in the preceding pages the President’s theory of State status. There, in his effort to establish loyal governments in three of the rebellious States, as well as in the protection and encouragement extended to reorganized Virginia, we have seen practical applications of that theory. In his first inaugural Mr. Lincoln said: “It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a

A previous chapter, in relating the military events which succeeded the disaster at Chickamauga, noticed a suggestion of the defeated Federal commander as well as Mr. Lincoln’s reply relative to the publication at that time of a declaration of amnesty to those in arms against the Government. [309] The double victory of Mission Ridge and Lookout Mountain, following the removal of Rosecrans, confirmed the President in his purpose of offering a general pardon to those who would lay down their arms

When Congress met in December, 1864, Mr. Lincoln, who received the electoral votes of twenty-two of the twenty-five States participating in the contest, had again been chosen President. In the struggle for power he had refrained with his usual prudence from improving his advantage over the Legislative department. The annual message omitted all reference to the controversy occasioned by his failure to sign, and his proclamation concerning, the bill of Messrs. Wade and Davis; the question of recon

A preceding chapter has noticed the result of the Presidential election of 1864. It was thought proper, however, to reserve for separate treatment the various questions presented by the participation in that contest of Louisiana and Tennessee, two States reorganized under Executive auspices. On the introduction by Mr. Wilson of a joint resolution declaring certain named States not entitled to representation in the Electoral College, the entire subject came before the House soon after the meeting

At the opening of its second session, December 5, 1864, the Speaker of the Thirty-eighth Congress laid before the House the credentials of W. D. Mann, T. M. Wells, Robert W. Taliaferro, A. P. Field and M. F. Bonzano, who claimed seats as Representatives from the State of Louisiana. A petition, signed by numerous citizens of that commonwealth, protesting against the admission of these claimants, was referred at the same time on motion of Henry Winter Davis to the Committee of Elections in connect

The Emancipation Proclamation did not affect, as is well known, the status of slaves in the loyal border States or in the excepted parts of Virginia and Louisiana. The State of Tennessee, too, as we have seen, was not named in the edict of freedom; that was published by the President simply as a measure of military necessity, and was not regarded by him or by others as operative to prevent, when war had ceased, a revival of servitude in the insurgent States, for negroes could easily be imported

Able and candid exponents of public opinion in the South, even those who were a part of the “Lost Cause,” are almost unanimous in regarding the assassination of President Lincoln as one of the greatest calamities that befell their section of the Union. [435] Indeed, the writer has heard a distinguished editor ascribe to Jefferson Davis himself the opinion that next to the failure of the Confederacy the untimely death of Mr. Lincoln was the severest blow inflicted on Southern interests. [436] Man

First session, July 4, 1861, to August 6, 1861. Republicans (31) in Roman, Democrats (10) in Italics , Unionists (7) in SMALL CAPITALS , vacancies 2. Second session, Dec. 1, 1862, to Mar. 4, 1864. CALIFORNIA.— Milton S. Latham and James A. McDougall ( vice E. D. Baker, who died). CONNECTICUT.—James Dixon and Lafayette S. Foster. DELAWARE.— James A. Bayard and Willard Saulsbury . ILLINOIS.—Lyman Trumbull and Orville H. Browning. INDIANA.—Henry S. Lane and Jesse D. Bright (expelled Feb. 5, 1862, a

CALIFORNIA.—Aaron A. Sargent, Timothy G. Phelps, Frederick F. Low. CONNECTICUT.—Dwight Loomis, James E. English , Alfred A. Burnham, George C. Woodruff . DELAWARE.— George P. Fisher. ILLINOIS.—Elihu B. Washburne, Isaac N. Arnold, Owen Lovejoy, William Kellogg, William A. Richardson , James C. Robinson , Philip B. Fouke , John A. Logan . INDIANA.— John Law , James A. Cravens , William McKee Dunn, William S. Holman , George W. Julian, Albert G. Porter, Daniel W. Voorhees , Albert S. White, Schuyle

COLORADO.—Hiram P. Bennett. DAKOTA.—John B. S. Todd. NEBRASKA.—Samuel G. Daily. NEVADA.— John C. Cradlebaugh. NEW MEXICO.—John S. Watts. UTAH.— John M. Bernhisel. WASHINGTON.—James H. Wallace....

First regular session, Dec. 7, 1863, to July 4, 1864. Second session from Dec. 5, 1864, to March 3, 1865. CALIFORNIA.—John Conness and James A. McDougall . CONNECTICUT.—James Dixon and Lafayette S. Foster. DELAWARE.— Willard Saulsbury and George Read Riddle ( vice Senator Bayard , who resigned). ILLINOIS.— William A. Richardson and Lyman Trumbull. INDIANA.— Thomas A. Hendricks and Henry S. Lane. IOWA.—James Harlan and James W. Grimes. KANSAS.—Samuel C. Pomeroy and James H. Lane. KENTUCKY.— Garre

CALIFORNIA.—Thomas B. Shannon, William Higby, Cornelius Cole. CONNECTICUT.—Henry C. Deming, James E. English , Augustus Brandegee, John H. Hubbard. DELAWARE.—Nathaniel B. Smithers. ILLINOIS.—Isaac N. Arnold, John F. Farnsworth, Elihu B. Washburne, Charles M. Harris , Owen Lovejoy (died Mar. 25, 1864, and was succeeded by Ebon C. Ingersoll), Jesse O. Norton, John R. Eden , John T. Stuart , Lewis W. Ross , Anthony L. Knapp , James C. Robinson , William R. Morrison , William J. Allen , James C. All

ARIZONA.—Charles D. Poston. COLORADO.—Hiram P. Bennett. DAKOTA.—William Jayne (seat successfully contested by John B. S. Todd). IDAHO.—William H. Wallace. MONTANA.—Samuel McLean. NEBRASKA.—Samuel G. Daily. NEVADA (admitted as a State).—Gordon N. Mott (Henry G. Worthington was elected Representative when Nevada became a State). NEW MEXICO.—Francisco Perea. UTAH.— John F. Kenney. WASHINGTON.— George E. Cole....