On the other hand I hear complaints from all quarters that white soldiers garrisoning the country, in a great many instances combine with the white population against the blacks and sometimes aid the former in inflicting cruel punishments on the latter. A good many cases of this description have come to my notice. But this is not all. I am reliably informed that much of the cotton stealing going on all over the country especially in Alabama, is effected not only with the passive connivance, but by the active aid and cooperation of white soldiers. The reports that have come to me, leave no doubt in my mind as to the truthfulness of this statement. Finally, white soldiers are generally tired of serving; they say that the war is over, that they were enlisted for the war, and that they want to go home. Their discipline is in a majority of cases rather lax, and they perform their duties with less spirit than the exigencies of their situation require.
The discipline of the black troops, on the contrary, is uniformly as good as their officers want to have it. They perform their duties with pride and a strict observance of their instructions. I have not heard of a single instance, nor even of a suspicion, that a colored soldier connived at any dishonest practices such as cotton stealing etc. In this State I have not heard a single officer complain of their conduct. Gen. Osterhaus who at present has none but colored troops in his District, tells me that he never saw any better behaved troops, and that, if the choice between a white and a black regiment was offered him for such duties as they have at present to perform, he would without hesitation choose the blacks.
That their presence is somewhat distasteful to former slaveowners, I have no reason to doubt, especially to those who like to whip a negro but do not like to pay him wages. But it seems to me, the garrisoning of this country with colored troops is apt to produce one important moral result. When discussing with men of liberal views the many atrocities perpetrated in the country, they almost uniformly tell me, apologizingly: “You see, it is so difficult for our people to realize that the negro is a free man.” If this true—and no doubt it is—if the main cause of the horrible outrages committed almost daily, is the not-realizing on the part of the Southern people that the negro is a free man, there is no better remedy than to make the fact as evident as possible to all concerned. And there is nothing that will make it more evident than the bodily presence of a negro with a musket on his shoulder.
For these reasons it is my deliberate opinion that the negro troops now garrisoning the country ought not only not to be withdrawn, but that they are the best troops that can be put here for the duties now to be performed.
I am informed that Mr. William Porterfield of this city is an applicant for one of the most lucrative mail contracts in this part of the country, and that he has received encouraging assurances from the employees of the Post-office Department at Washington. Mr. Porterfield bases his claims upon a protection paper he received from Gen. Grant intended to cover his property. I learn from the most reliable sources that he is one of the most disreputable characters in this part of the country in every respect. He was several times indicted for felonies and the official records of the cases can be found in this city. Mr. G. L. Little, Treasury agent in this city, took up a copy of them together with other documents concerning Mr. Porterfield to Washington. Aside from his general character he has been one of the worst rebels in this place. If such a man received any favors at the hands of the Government, and if power is placed in the hands of such characters, the Union men have certainly a right to feel themselves aggrieved.
I would respectfully suggest that as to federal appointments in this State, Gen. Slocum be consulted. He has better means of information than anybody else.
Very truly and respectfully
Your obedt servant C. Schurz.
Enclosures:
No. 1.
Letter of Maj. Houston, Prov. Mar. at Selma.
No. 2.
Letter of Gen. Osterhaus to C. Schurz
No 3.
List of capital offenses committed in Northern District of Mississippi
No 4.
Letters addressed by Gen. Osterhaus to Department
No. 5.
Headquarters.
No. 6.
Maj. Genl. Osterhaus to Gov. Sharkey
No. 7.
Gov. Sharkey to Maj. Genl. Osterhaus.
No. 8.
Genl. Slocums Genl. Order No. 22.
No. 9.
Gov. Sharkey to Col. Yorke
No. 10.
Lt. Col. Yorke to Genl. Davidson.
I would invite special attention to No. 9 and 10., two letters bearing upon the militia question.
C. S.
“INDENTURES OF APPRENTICESHIP”:
NORTH CAROLINA, SEPTEMBER 1865
Christopher Memminger to Andrew Johnson
Flat Rock, Sep. 4, 1865.
EVERY SOUTHERN man is so deeply interested in the great questions of public policy which are now under your consideration, that it will scarcely be deemed officious in one of them to offer you some suggestions, if made solely with a view to the public good. Although I am not personally known to your Excellency, and at present am under the Ban of the Government, yet I feel assured that your judgment can easily discern the ring of truth, and will justly appreciate any effort to relieve the immense responsibilities which are now pressing upon you.
I take it for granted that the whole Southern Country accepts emancipation from Slavery as the condition of the African race; but neither the North nor the South have yet defined what is included in that emancipation. The boundaries are widely apart which mark on the one side, political equality with the white races, and on the other, a simple recognition of personal liberty. With our own race, ages have intervened between the advance from one of these boundaries to the other. No other people have been able to make equal progress, and many have not yet lost sight of the original point of starting. Great Britain has made the nearest approach; Russia has just started; and the other nations of Europe, after ages of struggle, are yet on the way from the one point to the other, none of them having yet advanced even to the position attained by England. The question now pending is, as to the station in this wide interval which shall be assigned to the African race. Does that race possess qualities, or does it exhibit any peculiar fitness which will dispense with the training which our own race has undergone, and authorize us at once to advance them to equal rights? It seems to me that this point has been decided already by the Laws of the free States. None of them have yet permitted equality, and the greater part assert this unfitness of the African by denying him any participation in political power.
The Country then seems prepared to assign to this race an inferior condition; but the precise nature of that condition is yet to be defined, and also the Government which shall regulate it. I observe that you have already decided (and I think wisely) that the adjustment of the right of suffrage belongs to the State Governments, and should be left there. But this, as well as most of the other questions on this subject, rest upon the decision which shall be made upon the mode of organizing the labor of the African race. The Northern people seem generally to suppose that the simple emancipation from slavery will elevate the African to the condition of the white laboring classes; and that contracts and competition will secure the proper distribution of labor. They see, on the one hand, the owner of land wanting laborers, and on the other, a multitude of landless laborers without employment; and they naturally conclude that the law of demand and supply will adjust the exchange in the same manner as it would do at the North. But they are not aware of the attending circumstances which will disappoint these calculations.
The laborer in the Southern States, with his whole family, occupies the houses of his employer, built upon plantations widely separate. The employment of a laborer involves the employment and support of his whole family. Should the employer be discontent with any laborers and desire to substitute others in their place, before he can effect that object, he must proceed to turn ou
t the first with their entire families into the woods, so as to have houses for their successors. Then he must encounter the uncertainty and delay in procuring other laborers; and also the hostility of the laborers on his own plantation, which would probably exhibit itself in sympathy with the ejected families and combinations against himself. Should this occur at any critical period of the crop, its entire loss would ensue. Nor would his prospect of relief from other plantations be hopeful. On them arrangements will have been made for the year, and the abstraction of laborers from them would result in new disorganization. The employer would thus be wholly at the mercy of the laborer.
It may be asked why the laborer is more likely to fail in the performance of his contract than his employer. The reasons are obvious. The employer by the possession of property affords a guarantee by which the law can compel his performance. The laborer can offer no such guarantee, and nothing is left to control him but a sense of the obligation of the contract.
The force of this remedy depends upon the degree of conscientiousness and intelligence attained by the bulk of a people. It is well known that one of the latest and most important fruits of civilization is a perception of the obligation of contracts. Even in cultivated nations, the Law must be sharpened at all points to meet the efforts to escape from a contract which has become onerous; and nothing short of a high sense of commercial honor and integrity will secure its strict performance. It would be vain, under any circumstances, to count upon such performance from an ignorant and uneducated population. But where that population is from constitution or habit peculiarly subject to the vices of an inferior race, nothing short of years of education and training can bring about that state of moral rectitude and habitual self-constraint which would secure the regular performance of contracts. In the present case, to these general causes must be added the natural indolence of the African race, and the belief now universal among them that they are released from any obligation to labor. Under these circumstances the employer would have so little inducement to risk his Capital in the hands of the laborer, or to advance money for food and working animals in cultivating a Crop which, when reaped, would be at the mercy of the laborers, that he will certainly endeavor to make other arrangements. The effect will be the abandonment of the negro to his indolent habits, and the probable relapse of large portions of the Country into its original forest condition. The two races, instead of exchanging mutual good offices, will inflict mutual evil on each other; and the final result must be the destruction or removal of the inferior race.
The appropriate remedy for these evils evidently points to the necessity of training the inferior race; and we are naturally led to look to the means which would be employed by our own race for the same purpose. The African is virtually in the condition of the youth, whose inexperience and want of skill unfit him for the privileges of manhood. He is subjected to the guidance and control of one better informed. He is bound as an apprentice to be trained and directed; and is under restraint until he is capable of discharging the duties of manhood.
Such, it seems to me, is the proper instrumentality which should now be applied to the African race. The vast body are substantially in a state of minority. They have been all their lives subject to the control and direction of another; and at present are wholly incapable of self-government. Alongside of them are their former masters, fully capable of guiding and instructing them, needing their labor, and not yet alienated from them in feeling. The great point to be attained is the generous application by the one of his superior skill and resources, and their kindly reception by the other. This can be effected only by some relation of acknowledged dependence. Let the untrained and incapable African be placed under indentures of apprenticeship to his former master, under such regulations as will secure both parties from wrong; and whenever the apprentice shall have obtained the habits and knowledge requisite for discharging the duties of a citizen, let him then be advanced from youth to manhood and be placed in the exercise of a citizen’s rights, and the enjoyment of the privileges attending such a change.
I have no means of procuring here a Copy of the Laws passed by the British Parliament on this subject, for the West India Colonies. They are founded upon this idea of apprenticeship. Such an adjustment of the relations of the two races would overcome many difficulties, and enable the emancipation experiment to be made under the most favorable circumstances. The experience of the British colonies would afford valuable means for improving the original plans; and no doubt the practical common sense of our people can, by amending their errors, devise the best possible solution of the problems and afford the largest amount of good to the African race.
The only question which would remain would be as to the Government which should enact and administer these Laws. Unquestionably the jurisdiction under the Constitution of the United States belongs to the States. This fact will most probably disincline the Congress to an early recognition of the Southern States upon their original footing under the Constitution, from the apprehension of harsh measures towards the former slaves. The difficulty would be obviated, if a satisfactory adjustment could be previously made of the footing upon which the two races are to stand. If by general agreement an apprentice system could be adopted in some form which would be satisfactory as well as obligatory, it seems to me that most of the evils now existing, or soon to arise, would be remedied; and that a fair start would be made in the proper direction. The details of the plan could be adjusted from the experience of the British Colonies; and if it should result in proving the capacity of the African race to stand upon the same platform with the white man, I doubt not but that the South will receive that conclusion with satisfaction fully equal to that of any other section.
C G Memminger.
CONFISCATING REBEL ESTATES:
PENNSYLVANIA, SEPTEMBER 1865
Thaddeus Stevens:
Speech at Lancaster
Fellow Citizens:
In compliance with your request, I have come to give my views of the present condition of the Rebel States—of the proper mode of reorganizing the Government, and the future prospects of the Republic. During the whole progress of the war, I never for a moment felt doubt or despondency. I knew that the loyal North would conquer the Rebel despots who sought to destroy freedom. But since that traitorous confederation has been subdued, and we have entered upon the work of “reconstruction” or “restoration,” I cannot deny that my heart has become sad at the gloomy prospects before us.
Four years of bloody and expensive war, waged against the United States by eleven States, under a government called the “Confederate States of America,” to which they acknowledged allegiance, have overthrown all governments within those States which could be acknowledged as legitimate by the Union. The armies of the Confederate States having been conquered and subdued, and their territory possessed by the United States, it becomes necessary to establish governments therein, which shall be republican in form and principles, and form a more “perfect Union” with the parent Government. It is desirable that such a course should be pursued as to exclude from those governments every vestige of human bondage, and render the same forever impossible in this nation; and to take care that no principles of self-destruction shall be incorporated therein. In effecting this, it is to be hoped that no provision of the Constitution will be infringed, and no principle of the law of nations disregarded. Especially must we take care that in rebuking this unjust and treasonable war, the authorities of the Union shall indulge in no acts of usurpation which may tend to impair the stability and permanency of the nation. Within these limitations, we hold it to be the duty of the Government to inflict condign punishment on the rebel belligerents, and so weaken their hands that they can never again endanger the Union; and so reform their municipal institutions as to make them republican in spirit as well as in name.
We especially insist that the property of the chief rebels should be seized and appropriated to the payment of the National debt, caused by the unjust and
wicked war which they instigated.
How can such punishments be inflicted and such forfeitures produced without doing violence to established principles?
Two positions have been suggested.
First—To treat those States as never having been out of the Union, because the Constitution forbids secession, and therefore, a fact forbidden by law could not exist.
Second—To accept the position to which they placed themselves as severed from the Union; an independent government de facto, and an alien enemy to be dealt with according to the laws of war.
It seems to me that while we do not aver that the United States are bound to treat them as an alien enemy, yet they have a right to elect so to do if it be for the interests of the Nation; and that the “Confederate States” are estopped from denying that position. South Carolina, the leader and embodiment of the rebellion, in the month of January, 1861, passed the following resolution by the unanimous vote of her Legislature:
“Resolved, That the separation of South Carolina from the Federal Union is final, and she has no further interests in the Constitution of the United States; and that the only appropriate negotiations between her and the Federal Government are as to their mutual relations as foreign States.”
The convention that formed the Government of the Confederate States, and all the eleven states that composed it, adopted the same declaration, and pledged their lives and fortunes to support it. That government raised large armies and by its formidable power compelled the nations of the civilized world as well as our own Government to acknowledge them as an independent belligerent, entitled by the law of nations to be considered as engaged in a public war, and not merely in an insurrection. It is idle to deny that we treated them as a belligerent, entitled to all the rights, and subject to all the liabilities of an alien enemy. We blockaded their ports, which is an undoubted belligerent right; the extent of coast blockaded marked the acknowledged extent of their territory—a territory criminally acquired but de facto theirs. We acknowledged their sea-rovers as privateers and not as pirates, by ordering their captive crews to be treated as prisoners of war. We acknowledged that a commission from the Confederate Government was sufficient to screen Semmes and his associates from the fate of lawless buccaneers. Who but an acknowledged government de jure or de facto, could have power to issue such a commission? The invaders of the loyal States were not treated as out-laws, but as soldiers of war, because they were commanded by officers holding commissions from that Government. The Confederate States were for four years what they claimed to be, an alien enemy, in all their rights and liabilities. To say that they were States under the protection of that constitution which they were rending, and within the Union which they were assaulting with bloody defeats, simply because they became belligerents through crime, is making theory overrule fact to an absurd degree. It will, I suppose, at least be conceded that the United States, if not obliged so to do, have a right to treat them as an alien enemy now conquered, and subject to all the liabilities of a vanquished foe.
Reconstruction Page 12
