VOLUME XII. OCTOBER, 1908. NUMBER 2.
THE QUARTERLY OF THE TEXAS STATE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
PUBLICATION COMMITTEE:
DAVID F. HOUSTON.
GEORGE P. GARRISON. BRIDE NEILL TAYLOR.
Z. T. FULMORE. W. J. BATTLE.
EDITOR:
GEORGE P. GARRISON.
ASSOCIATE EDITORS:
HERBERT EUGENE BOLTON. EUGENE C. BARKER.
- THE EXPERIENCES OF AN UNRECOGNIZED SENATOR O. M. Roberts
- NOTES ON CLARK'S "THE BEGINNINGS OF TEXAS." Herbert E. Bolton
- BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTICES.
CONTENTS.
The Texas State Historical Association.
PRESIDENT:
A. W. TERRELL.
VICE-PRESIDENTS:
BEAUREGARD BRYAN,MILTON J. BLIEM,
R. L. BATTS,LUTHER W. CLARK.
RECORDING SECRETARY AND LIBRARIAN:
GEORGE P. GARRISON.
CORRESPONDING SECRETARY AND TREASURER:
CHARLES W. RAMSDELL,
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL:
PRESIDENT A. W. TERRELL,
EX-PRESIDENT DUDLEY G. WOOTEN,
EX-PRESIDENT DAVID F. HOUSTON,
FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT BEAUREGARD BRYAN,
SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT R. L. BATTS,
THIRD VICE-PRESIDENT MILTON J. BLIEM,
FOURTH VICE-PRESIDENT LUTHER W. CLARK,
RECORDING SECRETARY AND LIBRARIAN GEORGE P. GARRISON,
STATE LIBRARIAN JOSEPH MYERS.
Z. T. FULMORE FOR TERM ENDING 1909.
FELLOWSHERBERT E. BOLTON FOR TERM ENDING 1910.
JOHN C. TOWNES FOR TERM ENDING 1911.
BRIDE NEILL TAYLOR FOR TERM ENDING 1911.
S. P. BROOKS FOR TERM ENDING 1910.
MEMBERSS. H. MOORE FOR TERM ENDING 1909.
DORA FOWLER ARTHUR FOR TERM ENDING 1912.
W. J. BATTLE FOR TERM ENDING 1913.
The Association was organized March 2, 1897. The annual dues are two dollars. THE QUARTERLY is sent free to all members.
Contributions to THE QUARTERLY and correspondence relative to historical material should be addressed to GEORGE P. GARRISON, Recording Secretary and Librarian, AUSTIN, TEXAS.
All other correspondence concerning the Association should be addressed until further notice, to CHARLES W. RAMSDELL, Corresponding Secretary and Treasurer, AUSTIN, TEXAS.
FELLOWS AND LIFE MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION
The constitution of the Association provides that "Members who show, by published work, special aptitude for historical investigation, may become Fellows. Thirteen Fellows shall be elected by the Association when first organized, and the body thus created may thereafter elect additional Fellows on the nomination of the Executive Council. The number of Fellows shall never exceed fifty."
The present list of Fellows is as follows:
BARKER, MR. EUGENE C.LEMMON, PROF. LEONARD
BATTS, JUDGE R. L.LOOSCAN, MRS. ADELE B.
BOLTON, PROF. HERBERT EUGENEMCCALEB, DR. W. F.
CASIS, PROF. LILIA M.MILLER, MR. E. T.
CLARK, PROF. ROBERT CARLTONPENNYBACKER, MRS. PERCY V.
COOPER, PRESIDENT O. H.RAMSDELL, MR. CHAS. W.
COX, DR. I. J.RATHER, ETHEL ZIVLEY
ESTILL, PROF. H. L.SHEPARD, JUDGE SETH
FULMORE, JUDGE Z. T.SMITH, PROF, W. ROY
GAINES, JUDGE R. R.TERRELL, JUDGE A. W.
GARRISON, PROF. GEORGE P.TOWNES, PROF. JOHN C.
GRAY, MR. A. C.WILLIAMS, JUDGE O. W.
HATCHER, MRS. MATTIE AUSTINWINKLER, MR. ERNEST WILLIAM
HOUSTON, PRESIDENT D. F.WOOTEN, HON. DUDLEY G.
KLEBERG, RUDOLPH, JR.
The constitution provides also that "Such benefactors of the Association as shall pay into its treasury at any one time the sum of thirty dollars, or shall present to the Association an equivalent in books, MSS., or other acceptable matter, shall be classed as Life Members."
The Life Members at present are:
AUTRY, JAMES L.KENEDY, JNO. G.
AYER, EDWARD EVERETTKIRBY, JNO. H.
BAKER, R. H.MCFADDEN, W. P. H.
BRACKENRIDGE, HON. GEO. W.MINOR, F. D.
BUNDY, Z. T.MOODY, W. L.
COCHRANE, SAM P.MOREHEAD, C. R.
COURCHESNE, A.NEALE, WM. J.
COX, MRS. NELLIE STEDMANRICE, HON. W. M.
CRANE, R. C.SCHMIDT, JOHN
DAVIDSON, W. S.SEVIER, MRS. CLARA DRISCOLL
DEALEY, GEORGE B.SUMPTER, JESSE
DILWORTH, THOS. G.WALKER, J. A.
DONALDSON, MRS. NANNA SMITHWICKWASHER, NAT M.
WEBB, MACK
GILBERT, JOHN N.WILLIAMS, JUDGE O. W.
HANRICK, R. A.
VOL. XII. OCTOBER, 1908. No. 2.
The publication committee and the editors disclaim responsibility for views expressed by contributors to THE QUARTERLY.
On the 24th day of August, A. D. 1866, I was elected Senator for the State of Texas in the United States Congress by the Legislature of the State then in session, by a vote of 61 in my favor to 49 in favor of Mr. Epperson, of Red River County. I was fifty-one years of age in the month of July preceding my election.
Before the meeting of the Legislature (on the first Monday of August, 1866) efforts had been made to bring forward prominently for this position several gentlemen in the east and north— Mr. Epperson, of Red River, and Mr. Stedman, of Rusk County, Judge Evans, of Marshall, was also spoken of frequently as one likely to be elected. The two former were originally Union men, but had participated in the Civil War in favor of the South; while the latter had remained out of the limits of the Southern Confederacy during the war and was in favor of the North without having actively engaged in the war on either side. He had made speeches in favor of McClellan in the last Presidential election, and after the cessation of hostilities returned to Texas and made conciliatory speeches, advocating strongly the policy of President Johnson, and objecting to the course of Governor Hamilton in delaying the organization of the State government in Texas. I heard one of his speeches in the fall of 1865 at Gilmer, in Upshur County, and expressed to him my gratification at the liberal tone and conciliatory spirit by which it was characterized.
It had also come to my knowledge from many sources that my name was spoken of in connection with the Senate. I invariably disclaimed any intention of being a candidate when spoken to upon the subject. Lest my position should be misapprehended I approached the Senator, Hon. T. B. Selman, and Representatives, Messrs. Gaston and Leuter, of Smith County, and told them that I did not wish to be considered a candidate for the senatorship; that I had always regarded that as a "position neither to be sought nor declined;" that many of the members might think it inopportune for my name to be brought forward at that time on account of my prominence in the secession movement, and participation in the war, and that I did not wish it to stand in the way of complete harmony in the action of the Legislature; that my principal concern personally was that my name should not be brought forward under unfavorable circumstances and I be defeated on account of my supposed unfitness to satisfy the public opinion of the North, after having been repeatedly elevated to the highest offices in the State. I wrote the same, in effect, to Captain D. M. Short, Representative from Shelby County, and Colonel George Shelley, Senator of Travis County.
I did nothing, and said nothing, with a view of securing a nomination or an election. Indeed, up to the very day and hour that the news of my election reached me, I really did not expect it. The newspapers were advocating the claims of other persons and not mine. The wish that I should be elected was expressed by one paper alone (published at my first home in Texas, San Augustine) and that I did not see or hear of until I had heard of my election. I do not profess to be a stoic, and do not, therefore, deny that I was highly gratified at the honor of being elected to so exalted a position at such a time and under such circumstances without my own solicitation. I was elected because I was believed to be a representative man.
Some time afterwards I received a certificate of election, of which the following is a copy, with the accompanying letter from the Governor:
"Executive Office, Austin, October 3rd, 1866. To the President of the Senate of the United States:
I, James W. Throckmorton, Governor of the State of Texas, hereby certify that O. M. Roberts was chosen by the Legislature of this State on the 24th day of August, A. D. 1866, it being on the Friday next succeeding the second Tuesday after the organization of the said Legislature at its 11th session, Senator to the Congress of the United States, in accordance with the act of Congress in such case made and provided to fill the vacancy from Texas in the term expiring on the 30th day of March, 1869.
In testimony whereof I have caused the great seal of the State to be affixed at the city of Austin, the date herein first above written. [SEAL]
By the Governor. J. W. Throckmorton." Jno. A. Green, Secretary of State.
"Executive of Texas, October 3rd, 1866. Hon. O. M. Roberts:
Dear Sir: Accompanying you will find your credentials as Senator to the Congress of the United States. With the hope that yourself and venerable colleague may be recognized by the authorities as Senators and that perfect restoration of unity and tranquility of the American States may speedily succeed the long winter of our national troubles—that the government of our fathers may be fully restored and started anew on the career of glory and usefulness intended by them, and that you may have strength and health to serve your State and the nation, I have the honor to be most respectfully,
Your Obedient Servant, J. W. Throckmorton."
Soon after hearing of my election to the United States Senate I wrote to ex-Governor Sharkey, Senator-elect from Mississippi, requesting to know whether or not the Southern members, who had already been elected to Congress by the Southern States, had agreed upon any other time than on the first Monday of December for assembling at Washington. He wrote me an answer, dated the 5th of October, at Washington, stating that he knew of no agreement on the subject, but that he had urged upon all those with whom he had corresponded to be in Washington punctually at the meeting of Congress, if not a few days previous; and requested me to notify my colleague and the representatives of Texas, suggesting that "important matters may require our presence and concert of action."
Upon getting this letter I wrote to Governor Throckmorton requesting him to aid me in giving this information, as I would probably leave by the 15th of November for Washington and would not likely then know who were elected in the west. I also wrote to Colonel Forshey, of Galveston, to let Judge David G. Burnet know of it, supposing at that time that my colleague was still in the North, where he had gone some time before to represent Texas in the Philadelphia Conservative Convention. I also showed Senator Sharkey's letter to Major George W. Chilton, who was elected to the Thirty-ninth Congress.
This letter determined me to hasten my arrangements and start to Washington on the 15th of November so as to be certain to reach there a few days before the meeting of Congress.
On Thursday morning, two hours before daylight, the 15th day of November, 1866, I left my home, where were all my children, my wife and my father-in-law, Peter Edwards. I traveled in the stage to Marshall, thence to Shreveport in a hired carriage, the cars not having come up the day before, thence to New Orleans by Steamboat Homeyer, thence on the cars by way of Jackson, Canton, Grand Junction, Decatur, Huntsville, Chattanooga, Knoxville, Lynchburg, Charlotte, Manassas, to Washington City, District of Columbia, where I arrived just before dark on Sunday evening, the 25th day of November, having made the trip in eleven days. Having stopped at Willard's Hotel, I started out next morning in search of Mr. C. C. Clay, Jr., of Alabama, a Senator formerly of both United States and Confederates States government from Alabama. I had gone to school with him at the University of Tuscaloosa, but had not seen him for thirty years. Getting out of the carriage at a Mrs. Parker's, where I had been directed, a gentleman came to the door whom I recognized at once as Mr. Clay, and so addressed him: He could not make out my name, though, as he said, my face looked familiar to him. Upon my telling him my name he shook me by the hand a long time, and was glad to see me, and invited me into the parlor, where he introduced me to his wife, who is a most accomplished and beautiful woman. (They have no children.) After conversing perhaps an hour about our old school fellows and other matters in the past, I accompanied him around to the General Land Office and other places where he had business. We met with Mr. Rose, with whom I had been acquainted in Texas, who told me that my colleague, Judge David G. Burnet, either was or would be at Mr. Buckingham's, north side of E Street, No. 388, between Ninth and Tenth Streets. At Willard's Hotel Mr. Clay introduced me to ex-Governor Parsons, now Senator-elect from Alabama, who had spent most of his time here since February last. Mr. Clay told him that I was a stranger here, and asked him to introduce me, etc., which Governor Parsons seemed willing cheerfully to undertake. The next day I was invited into his room, and he stated to me that he had heard of me so often in Alabama that he felt almost like he had been acquainted with me, and again tendered his services to give me any aid in his power. Mr. Clay left for home the next day. On Tuesday night, November 27th, Judge Burnet, with Mr. Rose, called to see me at Willard's, I having that day left a card for him at Mr. Buckingham's. I was glad to meet with him, and to see that he looked so well and stout. He is now seventy-eight years of age. I invited him to my room, and after conversing an hour or two, went to his house with him. The next day I took a room in the same house, that we might be near each other while we stayed at Washington. We on the same day visited President Johnson, merely to pay our respects, as he seemed to be very busy.
On Thursday, Mr. A. H. Evans, who once lived in San Augustine, Texas, a practicing lawyer, while I was judge of the district court there, called to see me, and taking me in his buggy showed me the various celebrities of the city in the way of buildings and statuary on the open squares.
Then for the first time I saw Mill's statue of General Washington and Jackson on horseback, the horse of the former in the attitude of refusing to go further forward, as if from affright, that of the latter rearing upon his hind feet, as if impatient to rush forward. Both riders, with drawn swords, were made to sit their steeds most naturally and gracefully. The city of Washington would be incomplete as the capital of the United States without these two statues, designed and executed exactly as they are. While on this subject I may here say that I spent most of Tuesday, 27th Novr., in examining the capitol, its surrounding grounds, its halls, its dome, its statuary and paintings. It occurred to me that I had better take a good survey of all these things before the meeting of Congress, and while I could do so as a stranger, and without exciting the curiosity of those who might choose to stare at a Texan "rebel" in the "loyal" capitol,— more particularly as it is highly probable, from the present aspect of affairs, that I shall never be admitted into the hall of the Senate, to which my State has sent me. I was delighted with all that I saw, but most of all with the portrait of Washington by Trumbull, which, unlike anything in the nature of a likeness that I had ever seen, in expression, in finish of features and form, enabled me fully to appreciate how it was that Washington was the great man of his age. It was well worth the travel to Washington from remote Texas to see these portraits, and thereby verify the correctness of my previous conceptions of the nobleness and grandeur of this exalted character, who was truly "first in peace, first in war, and first in the hearts of his countrymen"; and whom Lord Brougham justly styles "the model man of all ages." Friday morning Judge L. D. Evans called at my room to see Judge Burnet and myself, and had an agreeable conversation upon public affairs for two hours. Saturday morning Judge Evans called again and went out with me to introduce me to some of the members of Congress. At Willard's Hotel we met with, and he introduced me to, Reverdy Johnson, Senator from Maryland, who, when told that I was Senator-elect from Texas, observed in a pleasant way very quickly, "well, you haven't got your seat yet?" I requested to have an interview with him for advice and assistance, and he promptly appointed next morning at 10 o'clock at his house,—pointing out to his right and saying that any one could tell me where it was.
On our way back Judge Evans introduced me to the Hon. L. M. Morrel, Senator from Maine (Radical), observing that we were from the two extreme States. He invited me to call at the "National" to see him. While going around we called into a law office to see Mr. Waterson, an attorney, formerly member of Congress from Tennessee, and was there introduced to several persons, and amongst the rest to Mr. Emerson Ethridge, of Tennessee, who, I then heard talk generally, graphically, peculiarly, and particularly against negro suffrage and negro equality.
He had left Tennessee as a Union man, had been elected to some office by Congress, clerk of the House, I believe, and having gone back to Tennessee and become a candidate for Congress, was for some cause arrested and put in jail by Governor Brownlow, where he was kept until his opponent was elected. Indeed, he has much to talk about, and among the rest that he will be a candidate for Governor of Tennessee.
In the evening I visited Senator Parsons, and he came with me to my room to see Judge Burnet, and spent an hour with us. We three are the only members-elect from the excluded Southern States that have arrived in the city that I have heard of up to Saturday night the 1st day of December, 1866. By previous arrangement made by Judge Burnet and myself we send to many of the newspapers of Texas, commencing December 1st, eighteen copies of the Daily National Intelligencer, and nine copies of the Daily Chronicle, so that through them our constituents may be informed of passing events on both sides in Congress and at the capitol.
I do not regret having gotten here a week in advance of the meeting of Congress, for I have been busily employed in getting settled in my room and in arranging everything so as to be ready for business when it shall commence. I should not omit to mention as one of the events of Saturday that when I went to Senator Parson's room he introduced me to General Humphrey Marshall, of Kentucky, who is a large, corpulent man, who, among other things, said that it was fortunate for Jeff Davis that he had been incarcerated, that it had shielded the weakness of his administration from criticism and exposure, prefacing this by the remark that we all (meaning the three present) were Southern men. Further, he said that he had been "seduced" into the Southern struggle by John Breckenridge and Jeff Davis at Richmond in September, 1861, where he had gone (with Breckenridge) to get guns from Fletcher (Governor of Virginia) to defend Kentucky (in her position of neutrality, as I suppose). He said that it was right that Davis should stand forth as the frontispiece of the affair, being the head of it as he was, etc., etc. Upon leaving he invited us to call on him at his rooms.
On Sunday, December 2d, I wrote home and visited Judge L. D. Evans.
On Monday, December 3d, Judge David G. Burnet and I, by previous appointment, called upon Mr. Reverdy Johnson, Senator from Maryland, at 10 o'clock a. m., and gave him our certificates of election as Senators-elect from Texas. He very kindly undertook to present them to the Senate. About 12 o'clock I went up to the capitol, and while in the gallery of the Senate chamber saw Mr. Revedry Johnson present our credentials. He announced very distinctly what they were and each of our names, with the terms of service for which we had each, respectively, been elected (reading it from each paper as he separately presented it). They were carried to the secretary's desk and there delivered, and nothing further was done with them.
After some time, during which the Senate seemed to be waiting for something, the private secretary of the President (who is his son, a young man who favors his father very much), announced the President's message in writing. It was delivered to the secretary of the Senate, who read it from his desk, and it was listened to with great attention by most of the Senators.
It simply set forth and maintained the plan of restoration that he had inaugurated and carried out, and insisted that it was complete, except as to what devolved on Congress in the admission of loyal representatives. He goes one step further than he has heretofore gone and admits that Congress has a right to reject a member whom they do not deem loyal, thereby in effect sanctioning the test oath. Or most certainly he concedes that want of allegiance to the government of a member-elect is ground of rejection, and Congress can inquire into that subject, upon the presentation of his credentials, and reject him, and thereby his constituents "are admonished that none but persons loyal to the United States will be allowed a voice in the legislative councils of the nation." If by this it is meant that Congress can exclude a member for acts of aid to or sympathy for the South during the late Civil War, all of which must have transpired before his election, then the whole question at issue of State rights might as well be given up—for that power alone is sufficient to centralize the government and perpetuate power in the hands of the minority that are in office. Although the President had often used the term loyal in this connection, I had supposed that he meant by that term to designate those who had returned to their allegiance by taking and observing the amnesty oath which he had himself prescribed as the test of loyalty.
After hearing the President's message Judge Evans and I, being together, walked down to the passage near the Senate chamber, where he introduced me to Senator Doolittle, of Wisconsin. Thence we went down to the east front of the capitol to witness the "welcome" given by the loyal citizens to the reconvening of Congress. Such a sight!! The two houses of Congress on the steps, reaching half way down, with the President of the Senate and Speaker of the Representatives at their head, confronted by a Judge Carter, delivering his address of "welcome," backed by thousands upon thousands of negroes, men, women and children, with white people intermixed at the ratio of about one to nine, covering the steps and front yard and every place near the capitol, from which anything transpiring could be seen,—numerous flags waving, borne aloft by blacks and whites, ensigns of the various societies and companies enlisted in radical republicanism, with a brass band playing "Yankee Doodle" and other airs suited to Northern tastes.
Judge Carter's address was but indistinctly heard, except that Congress had been sustained by the votes of the people in the recent elections.
Mr. Colfax, Speaker of the House, read in a plainly audible voice the reply on the part of the House of Representatives, and amongst other things said that the voice of the people in the recent Northern elections have settled four things definitely.
First. The work of reconstruction must be in the hands of those who have been the friends and not the enemies of the nation.
Second. The freedom of the negro maintained and secured against the possibility of abuse.
Third. No representation shall be allowed for those of any color who are not allowed to vote.
Fourth. The national debt shall be held sacred, and Confederate debt void.
He closed his speech with the quotation:
"No black laws in our borders, No pirates on our strand; No traitors in our Congress, No slave upon our land." 2
Very frequently during the delivery or rather reading of the speech those on the steps, at proper pauses for the purpose, manifested great applause by cheers and waving of hats, which was caught up and re-echoed lustily by the negroes in the yard, which at the close was quite a long time protracted. Upon which a negro woman near me in her innocence declared that "that would do to get happy over."
Mr. Wilson, Senator from Massachusetts, was called for, but did not respond.
Mr. Yates, Senator from Illinois, made an animated speech, which largely increased the wild enthusiasm that moved the vast multitude.
Mr. Kelly, of Pennsylvania, then said a few words to the effect that an enabling act should be passed by Congress for reorganizing the rebellious States, in which all the people should be allowed to vote, etc.
While all this was transpiring, my mind contemplating the scene before me,—the motley mass heaving with fanatical excitement, my eyes rested upon a statue at the head of the steps on the right side (coming out). It represented a powerful man in an exultant attitude, with his right arm elevated and extended, holding in his right hand a globe representing the earth, and a female figure near by was looking up at him in the posture of shrinking from affright.
I said to Judge Evans, "I do not know what that statue is designed to represent, but I will interpret it under the inspiration of passing events—that is—when America holds the world in its grasp, liberty will shrink in alarm from the sight." Which embraces the idea that where the United States, confident of its great power, and arrogant and domineering in spreading its principles and influence, assumes to grasp and control the great moral and political world, the liberty of the people will shrink in dismay from neglect, disregard and abuse.
On Tuesday, the 4th day of December, Judge Burnet and I went to the ante-chamber of the Senate, sent in our card to Mr. Reverdy Johnson, who came and invited us to a seat in the lobby of the Senate chamber, where we remained for about half an hour, when the Senate adjourned.
I spoke to Senator Doolittle, of Wisconsin, and introduced Judge Burnet to him, and made an appointment to see him the next day.
On Wednesday I went to the capitol and saw Senator Doolittle.
On Thursday I met with and was introduced to ex-Governor Sharkey, Senator-elect from Mississippi, and Judge Burnet and I visited the President and laid before him papers received from Governor Throckmorton relating to outrages committed by the officers and soldiers of the United States Army, and by his directions submitted them also to Mr. Stanton, Secretary of War. By the President's permission we retained them, and I prepared a letter signed by Judge Burnet and myself addressed to the President, containing a synopsis of the cases, and requesting a decision of the question, whether or not the military authorities should be allowed any longer to assert and exercise their supremacy over the civil authorities of Texas.
On the next day, Friday, December 7, 1866, it being Cabinet day, I sent in the papers with our letter to the President by his permission given the day before. He had then told us that the subject of preventing a conflict between the military and civil authorities was under consideration by the Cabinet.
On the evening of Friday at 7 o'clock Judge Burnet, Mr. B. H. Epperson (he having arrived here the day before) and myself. called upon Mr. Wm. H. Seward, Secretary of State, at his own residence, opposite Lafayette Square, that course having a few days before been suggested to me by his son as the best mode of having some conversation with him, when he would not be pressed with business.
Mr. Epperson and I both intimated that we would like to hear his views. He talked for an hour with a great deal of apparent freedom.
He said that he had never allowed himself to get in a passion or to be without hope for the country, either before the war or during the war, or since the end of the war. That we had got mad and fought, and others had got mad and fought with us, and after the fighting was over others had got mad and wanted to punish us. And now they must go on until they got in a good humor. What they would be able to do or would do he could not say. They now refuse to let you into Congress because they believe you are disloyal. No explanation you can make will satisfy them. I told the people at St. Louis that the South was now more loyal to the government than those of the North. If they will not believe me, who have always been with them, how can they believe you, that have been against them. They don't want to believe it, and won't believe it, while their temper lasts. But that can't last always; and if you do not irritate it, it will subside the sooner. You will have to bear whatever comes and be patient. If they won't let you come into Congress, stay out. Come here; I will recognize you, and sooner or later they will recognize you on some terms or other. You will get your pay whether you stay in or out. Send in your credentials and let them see that you are here. Talk with them, but exhibit no great anxiety about it. I want you to be anxious, he said, for that is evidence of loyalty, but they would not so construe it now.
This, in substance, and much more in the same strain, is what he said. When we left he invited us very cordially to call at the office and see him.
We had called the day before on the Attorney General, Stanbery, who conversed freely and courteously with us on business. His manner is a happy admixture of familiarity and dignity, making him the most approachable and winning man I have met with among the public functionaries at the capitol.
Thursday night, December 21, 1866.
Up to this time I have visited the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Br. Boge, Mr. Taylor, Comptroller of the Treasury, the Attorney General, and the President, all on business for the State.
The President, Judge Burnet and I visited today, to present the memorial of the Legislature of Texas at its late session at Austin, asking for the release of President Davis.
I took occasion at the same time to urge upon him to have something done to protect our frontier against the depredations of the Indians.
Tonight I went to Willard's Hotel and called on Judge Sharkey, where I met with Governor Parsons, of Alabama. I developed to them what I had been finding out as to the doings of the "Southern Loyalists" here, their resolves and memorials, urging on Congress negro suffrage and the exclusion of the "rebels" in the South,—and submitted to them whether or not we should make any answer. It was concluded that there were not enough of us here to do anything of the kind. Governor Parsons was inclined to make same effort to get a full attendance at Washington of the Southern members about the 20th of January, 1867. This was at a consultation of Southern members, Judge Sharkey, Governor Marvin, Governor Parsons, Judge Burnet, Mr. B. H. Epperson, Mr. Fowler (from Alabama) and myself being present. Judge Sharkey thought they would not come if called upon, that the effort had been made last year and had failed.
Judge Burnet and I having previously discussed the matter, he mentioned to them the propriety of those present presenting an address on behalf of our States and the South generally, but his suggestion met with little favor, and was not pressed. Governor Parsons was evidently desirous that we should get up some sort of measure that the Southern States would adopt in addition to the President's plan of reconstruction that would satisfy and draw off enough of the Radicals to make the President's plan succeed in the main at least. Judge Sharkey thought that it was too late and that nothing could be effected by the effort, to use his own emphatic expression, "the government has gone to hell." He had in October previously written a letter to the Governor of Mississippi advocating the position that Congress was an unconstitutional body and should be repudiated as such while the Southern representatives were excluded. Reverdy Johnson had made a speech to the same effect. It was strongly anticipated that these views of his (the President's) known friends promulgated at and near Washington City indicated in advance the course to be adopted by the President at the opening of the second session of the Thirty-ninth Congress in December, 1866. But the Radicals had anticipated this, and immediately after the first intimation of this doctrine (in his speech to the committee of the Conservative Philadelphia Convention that waited on him with the address and resolutions, headed by Reverdy Johnson, Senator from Maryland), they commenced organizing "The Grand Army of the Republic" pledged to the support of Congress, and by the time of the meeting of Congress in December, 1866, it had, as I learned from both parties at Washington, been fully organized with officers numbering, rank and file, 1,200,000, as alleged by the Radicals, and half a million as admitted by the Conservatives. This organization extended all over the North, into the regular army, into Washington City and even into the department employes of the capitol. This Grand Army of the Republic simply by its known existence settled the question of the repudiation of Congress by the President. They were in condition to turn him out of doors, instead of being turned out of doors by him, as the British Parliament was turned out by Cromwell.
A week or two after getting to Washington I met with Governor A. J. Hamilton and we had a two hours' conversation in the anteroom of the Senate at the capitol, much of which was not very agreeable, though nothing disrespectful occurred on either side. He, at my request, was telling me his designs and those of his Southern coadjutors in reference to the south, the substance of which was that the Southern States in some shape or other should and would be placed in the hands and under the control of loyal Southern men, without respect to color. In this conversation I derived the impression that this Grand Army was relied on to neutralize the President and his friends at the capitol, or at least to render them powerless. I will only say in reference to this interview further that he seemed to entertain a most bitter personal and political hostility towards President Johnson; so much so that I remarked that he seemed to dislike President Johnson more than President Davis, whereupon he said with great emphasis: "I do,—I think he is the worse man of the two,—you can rely on what Davis says," and much more of the like. A Mr. Lorenzo Sherwood, now of New York, formerly of Texas, and yet claiming to be a Texan, often came to my room to develop and talk with me about his "Creap freight, anti-monopoly, doubletrack railroad scheme." In his conversations on this subject he often ran into politics, which, indeed, was connected with and part of his railroad schemes. From him I learned that this "Grand Army of the Republic" was fully organized and (as he estimated it) numbered 1,200,000.
Governor Parsons, with whom I conversed on the subject, and who had spent most of his time in Washington since the preceding February, thought Sherwood's estimate excessive, but had no doubt himself that there was a complete organization of one-half a million of men, ready to take arms in support of the behests of Congress.
I sought to find out, but could not ascertain, that the President and his party had any counter-organization to support him in his efforts to sustain his view of the Constitution. From all that I could see and hear I was pretty well satisfied that there was none, but that the President relied solely upon a reaction of sentiment amongst the people of the North for his support.
For two or three weeks after my arrival in Washington I was engaged almost continually in visiting the different departments of the government on business sent to us by the Governor for the State or for individual citizens of Texas, so that I had little other opportunity than this afforded to make acquaintances in the city. In this I was generally accompanied by Judge Burnet or Mr. B. H. Epperson,—and sometimes by L. D. Evans, who exhibited the greatest kindness to us personally and a constant solicitude for the interests of our State and its people.
Knowing the people at home were anxious to hear something direct from us, I wrote a letter, of which the following is a copy, to be published in the Tyler Reporter and Galveston News:
"Washington, D. C., December 14th, 1866. Captain Jas. Douglas.
Dear Sir: I am now for the first time since my arrival here satisfied to write to you something definite. Our Senators and Representatives from Texas will not be admitted to seats during this session of Congress. A strong effort will be made to reorganize our State government upon a basis, having in view two main objects, to wit, negro suffrage, qualified or general, and the disfranchisement, temporarily or permanently, of those who participated in the late Civil War on the side of the South. The exact shape of this measure I can not yet give, but it will appear in a few days, and will be strongly pressed by the radical Republicans and strongly opposed by all those sustaining the administration. There is some hope, as the difficulties in the way are so great, and the dangers of the experiment so appalling that it may not be carried through over the veto of the President.
From the debates in Congress and from all that I can learn otherwise I am satisfied that there is now no intention to adopt or attempt to carry out and confiscation scheme, unsettling the property of the country.
Under these trying circumstances our people are called upon to exercise their highest virtues,—to sustain law and order, and by constant perseverance in maintaining the right, to show themselves worthy of a better destiny than that which is sought to be prepared for them,—to be hopeful, and to go right on with their industrial pursuits in all the departments of life. The farming interest, being now reasonably secure, should be vigorously prosecuted, not only in the production of the staple articles for market, but also in making provisions, in anticipation of a large immigration to Texas next fall. Respectfully,
Your Obedient Servant, O. M. Roberts."
This letter was written, sent and published in the Texas papers for the purpose of encouraging the people to increase their efforts, in the ensuing year in developing the crippled resources of the country, and in amending their own fortunes while still they could, as well as to give them the most certain conclusions to which I could at that time arrive as to the true condition of political affairs.
I met several times with ex-Governor Pease of Texas, who had been in the North ever since his defeat for Governor in August, 1866. He conversed with me very agreeably. It was soon discoverable that he had enlarged his views very much by his visit to the North, at least in the expressions of them. For I found him fully as radical in sentiment as Hamilton. Judge James H. Bell was also in the city, but I did not meet him.
The "Southern Loyalists" from all the Southern States were in full organization, with Mr. Durant, of Louisiana, as chairman or president of the association, having their regular meetings upon reconstruction and keeping constant communication with, and furnishing facts (and pretended facts) and views to their friends in both houses of Congress. They were representing that the President's plan had reinstated secessionists in all the Southern States and that a rebellious spirit was still rife in the whole country, and demanding that the Southern States should be put under the control of loyal citizens without respect to color, and for that purpose as a necessity as well as in gratification of their ill-feelings, they demanded that the rebels should be disfranchised and disqualified from holding office. This outside machinery, under the management of the extreme radicals of Congress, was having a powerful influence in both houses, as well as in preparing the country for any extreme measures that might be adopted.
Appreciating this, I called alone on Mr. Doolittle, Senator from Wisconsin, at his room and had an interview of about an hour's length. I called on him because he had been the president of the Conservative Convention at Philadelphia in August, 1866. I told him that I had called upon him for the special purpose of submitting to him as a representative man a proposition, which was, should my reasons for it be satisfactory to his judgment, that he should get together in his room or at such place as he might designate, any number, say ten or twelve of the conservative friends, in order to furnish the members from the South, a few of whom were in the city, an opportunity of consulting with them, and of enabling us to communicate facts of importance to them and to the country.
I said to him that we wanted to shape our course so as to aid those who are seeking to preserve constitutional government, that it might be also true that we could inform them of a number of facts and present to them general views particularly as to the condition of things in our respective States that would much better enable them to defend the Southern people from the aspersions and misrepresentations to which we had been subject from the radicals in Congress; that I thought I could readily get the co-operation of the Southern members present in the city in this matter, and that if this proposition should meet his approbation so that [he] might choose to act upon it he could let me know, otherwise I should drop the subject. He talked at length upon the designs, plans, and acts of the radicals, freely and familiarly enough, and particularly advised that we should directly contradict, over [our] own signatures every false report circulated by Congressmen in their speeches, and when I, before leaving, brought my proposition to his attention again, he said that he would consult some of the friends about it. I left wellnigh satisfied that I should never hear from my proposition again, in which I was not disappointed. I met him several times afterwards and he stopped merely long enough to speak to me.
About the third time I called on the President with business, I remarked to him that I would be pleased for us to have an interview with him when he was more at leisure than in the regular business hours, that we might have a more full conversation in relation to the state of affairs, and especially relating to matters to Texas. He said in a very reserved businesslike style, as I thought, that he had no more leisure at one time than another, that we could call here at any time and see him. That ended that conversation, and as I supposed, would end my visits to the White House except when made strictly on business of an urgent character. What prevented it from being the last visit will afterwards appear.
Under all these discouraging circumstances as the Christmas holidays approached (Mr. Epperson having gone to New York and Governor Parsons to Alabama) Judge Burnet and I concluded that we could do no good by staying longer at Washington. He went to Newark, in New Jersey, to spend some time with his relations there and I commenced packing up, buying some books and generally making my arrangements to leave for home. The nearer I got ready the less I felt like going unless something more was done. I could not but feel that my mission was incomplete; that the great State of Texas—a far-off country—would expect of me and her other representatives to make her, her people, and their sentiments to be publicly known to Congress and to the whole country. This idea possessed me until, though then there alone, I determined to write and publish an address. I mentioned it to Judge Evans and to Mr. Waskom, of Texas (president of the Southern Pacific Railroad), and they both encouraged the idea. The members-elect from the other Southern States had published no address, either individually or collectively.
In less than three days and nights I had it ready, and read it to Judge Sharkey. He was delighted with it, and said that Texas having been a republic before her admission such an address came appropriately from her excluded members of Congress, and asked me not to write it over lest I should weaken its force. That very night I started to New York, getting there next morning,—found Mr. Epperson and read it to him, who approved it.
I stopped at the National Hotel and remained there five or six days, Mr. Epperson having left the next day after I arrived there to go back to Washington for some papers which he had left relating to his Memphis & El Paso Railroad, of which he was president, and the sale of which he was then completing to Fremont and others in the North. While there I rearranged and rewrote the address, and as I will not stop here to note what interested me in New York (which I may as well do hereafter) I went to Newark and soon found Judge Burnet at his grandnephew's, a Mr.———, editor of a newspaper. The old man was housedup snugly in that land of snow and ice, and had been out of the house but two or three times since he had gotten there. He was very glad, though a little surprised, to see me come there. I read him the address, and he cheerfully joined with me in signing it, and was evidently pleased that I had written it, and especially that I had called on him to sign it with Mr. Epperson and me. Having spent a most agreeable evening with the Judge and his relatives I went to the hotel, and next morning took the cars for Washington and arrived there the same evening, which was the last day of December, A. D. 1866. The next day Mr. Epperson and I called on George W. Chilton and A. M. Branch, Representatives-elect from Texas, who had arrived and were stopping at Willard's Hotel. During the night of my arrival I had read the address as rewritten to Mr. Epperson, and he suggested that "writing was my forte," and was pleased with it, but preferred to leave out the concluding part, which spoke pointedly upon the government being centralized, etc. I told him to write a conclusion to the address, which he did, and I adopted it.
Messrs. Chilton and Branch, coming to my room, read and approved the address (preferring my conclusion to that of Mr. Epperson's), whereupon it was signed by all of us and carried to the National Intelligencer to be published. [The address appeared in the issue of that paper for January 10, 1867.]
ADDRESS OF THE TEXAS DELEGATION.
To the Congress and People of the United States:We, having been chosen to represent the State of Texas in the Congress of the United States, and not having been admitted to seats, take this mode of presenting the following facts and views relating to her history, present condition, and Federal relations:
Anterior to the revolution of thirty-five and six, Texas was a part of the State of Coahuila and Texas, in the Republic of Mexico. By the intelligence and valor of its citizens, prompted by an ardent love of freedom, it established a separate nationality, which was recognized by the United States and by the leading nations of Europe, and which it maintained against the power of Mexico and the ravages of savage tribes for ten years, exercising the powers, externally and internally of a perfect sovereignty, being a nation among nations. Resting on the Gulf of Mexico for its outlet to the commerce and intercourse of the world, spreading out over vast and fertile territory, yielding rich harvests of all the varied and valuable productions of the temperate zone, she was an empire within herself, self-sustaining, and capable of the highest material and intellectual development, with all her interests and institutions combined and harmonized under a representative republic.
By annexation, in 1845-6, she surrendered her separate nationality to become a State in the United States of America. It was done by the almost unanimous voice of her people, without compulsion from any quarter, without any necessity, impending or prospective, the alternative being then presented to her of "annexation to the United States" or "independence, acknowledged by Mexico and guaranteed by Great Britain and France." In that act was presented an unselfishness, a devotion to American unity, which challenges comparison with the memorable example of Virginia and other Southern colonies in the Revolution of '76.
Her entrance into the Federal Union, while it caused a great influx of population, and hastened prosperous development, entailed upon her the political agitations common to her sister States. Her remoteness from the center of political power subjected her to many disadvantages, among the most prominent of which was the want of adequate protection against the continuous depredations of savage tribes of Indians on her frontier, by whom thousands of her people—men, women and children—have been murdered and taken into captivity, and vast amounts of their property stolen from time to ime. These shocking barbarities are now being perpetrated, and within the last eighteen months have caused the frontier to recede from thirty to fifty miles along the whole border.
This has often made it necessary for the State to place a military force of its own on its frontier at great expense, for which it has never yet been entirely reimbursed.
In 1861 Texas, in convention, passed the ordinance of secession, and participated with other sister States in the foundation of the Southern Confederacy. It was regarded as certain that six or seven of the Southern States would secede. Texas had either to follow or stand still. To stand still was to be rent in twain by civil war at home. The State was sectionally divided upon the question, and nothing but a vote of the people, promptly taken, and the acquiescence of the minority, could then save her from the horrors of a civil war, and make her people a unit on one side or the other. Having thus made her decision, the mass of the people sustained the cause of the South during the whole time of the war. Whatever wrongs and outrages may have occurred, as among themselves, the unity, thus produced, saved the State from a hundredfold more that would have occurred without it. Probably, too, it saved the country from the desolation of fire and sword, that swept over other States. It also left it possible, at the close, to harmonize society, and adapt it to the changed condition of public affairs, without the distraction of irreconciliable feuds engendered between neighbors and families during the struggle.
The causes which led to this great Civil War between the two sections had taken deep root long before Texas entered the Union. One class of thinkers believe that they saw in the language and spirit of the Constitution of the United States a plain indication of intention on the part of its framers that the government should be shaped to the discouragement rather than encouragement and extension of the institution of slavery, while another class believed it was intended to protect and permit the spread of that institution. One class of thinkers believed that in the adoption of the Constitution of the United States the people of each State, previously distinct, became merged and amassed into one people, for certain purposes embraced within the scope and objects of that Constitution, and to that extent lost a portion of their State sovereignty; whereas, another class thought that the people of each State retained their exclusive identity as a sovereign State, and could, therefore, withdraw the powers delegated to the general government by the State. For it was hardly ever questioned but that a sovereign power, the people, could "reform, alter, or abolish" their form of government; but the question was, who, for that purpose, in reference to the general government, constituted the people? The Constitution, as it was thought, did not, in express terms, settle either of these questions of slavery and secession. Construction, analogy, and facts of history were resorted to for their solution. The greatest intellects of the country, for more than fifty years, had exhausted the arguments on both sides, and had continually diverged the more the longer they debated them. These different constructions necessarily led to radically different results in the scope and action of the government, and in the modelling of society under it. One was adapted to the progressive ideas of the North; the other to the stationary views of the South. The weaker party sought to escape the consequences of the construction of the stronger by withdrawing from the Union—not to prevent the Northern States from retaining the government over themselves with their own construction, but to insure its preservation as to the Southern States as they understood it.
This statement of these questions that have been settled is here made for the purpose, and for the purpose only, of disrobing them of numerous irritating adjuncts and incidents of passion and prejudice; of inviting a liberal and charitable consideration for the motives of the mass of those in Texas who participated in secession, and to facilitate a more ready comprehension of the reasons why the minority, who did not want to secede, so promptly acquiesced in the decision of the majority, by which the unity of the people was secured and preserved.
The war was brought on by these questions and their surroundings. The South was overwhelmed by superior force. Measures of conciliation, pacification, and readjustment were set on foot by the President, which were responded to and acted upon by the people of Texas by taking the amnesty oath, by amending their Constitution which was in force previous to 1861, acknowledging the supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the United States, declaring the ordinance of secession to be null and void, and renouncing the claim of the right of a State to secede, declaring the slaves to have been freed, and preventing involuntary servitude, except for crime, within the limits of the State, ordaining the full protection of the equal civil rights and immunities of all persons, irrespective of color, and forbidding the Legislature forever thereafter from making any provision for the payment of any debts of the State or of the Confederate States, contracted during the war. Under this amended Constitution the officers of the State have been elected, supplanting those of the provisional government, and are in the performance of their duties, the organization of the State government being as complete as it ever was before the war, in full harmony with the Constitution and laws of the United States, and commanding the respect, confidence, and obedience of the great body of the people. The laws of the United States are being executed within its limits without hindrance or resistance from the people or State authorities. The Federal army is on our frontier for protection; the Federal judiciary are performing their functions; the United States mails are being carried all over the State; the navy is protecting our commerce; the officers of customs and internal revenue are doing their duty; and the people are paying duties and taxes as in other States. What more could be said of the States of New York and Ohio, except that they have their Senators and Representatives in Congress to speak for and represent the rights, interests, and necessities of their States, and to defend their people from unjust aspersions and misrepresentations, when necessary?
Texas was annexed or admitted into the Union by an act of Congress which has never been repealed, and she is now performing the duties and resting under the obligations of a state in the Union, except that one of the departments of the government—the Congress—has not admited its Senators and Representative select to seats within their respective bodies. They are left to learn the reasons of their non-admission from the debates and measures proposed in Congress, and from public discussions upon the subject, rather than from any specific, legislative action.
The adoption by a State of the amendment to the Constitution proposed at the last session was not expressly declared to be sufficient to entitle it to representation, and that it was ever so intended is now denied by leading members of great ability and influence. Texas is charged with disloyalty in not adopting it, while it is claimed that she is not in a situation to have done so, being out of the Union. Texas did not adopt it, because she believed its provisions prejudicial to her best interests and dangerous to the public good. But then she had no reliable and sufficient inducement to aid in engrafting principles upon the government which she did not approve, and to make a sweeping disqualification of so many of her useful citizens as to make it almost amount to self-imposed degradation. She may yield to such a fate if imposed by others, or possibly under some species of duress, and it is to be hoped that her people will do it, if they must, with that uncomplaining fortitude and unshrinking manhood that have characterized them in every emergency. But is it not, indeed, asking too much of such a people to do it themselves?
It is alleged to the prejudice of Texas that she has elected Senators and Representatives who can not take the test oath. It is taken as an evidence that her people are seeking to reward those who were formerly prominent in opposing the government. That, it is believed, is a misconception of the subject, for with the very slight prospect of getting seats, it could not have been regarded a very valuabel reward. In time of great trial, dread and gloom in the political horizon, the people are not likely to select men as mere objects of reward, but far more likely because they are for the time representatives in fact. The test oath, at most, was regarded as a war measure, and was supposed to be founded on the feeling (rather than the principle) that "the preservation of the life of the nation is a public duty, rising above the Constitution and laws of the United States." Such a proposition is not to be reasoned upon, not being susceptible of argumentation. The feeling which prompted it has been kept alive far beyond any conceivable occasion for its exercise. If, however, it is assumed to be founded on any part of the written Constitution, it is presumed to be on that clause which makes each house the judge of the "qualifications" of its own members. If the term here quoted can be construed to mean anything other than those prescribed for members in the Constitution, then the judgment, as to general fitness, of the majority of each house of Congress becomes the standard of qualification, which could be used to perpetuate their principles after a majority of their electors should become opposed to them, and thereby make the agent superior to the principal, which is destructive of representative republican government. It is thought, however, that it was commonly believed that if the State was allowed to be represented at all, the two houses would not retain this rule of exclusion.
It is said that the people of Texas are disloyal and rebellious in disposition still. If that were all it would hardly in other times be held a good ground for excluding its representatives; for that would establish the precedent that a majority in Congress could exclude the delegation from a State whose people, in their judgment, were manifesting a rebellious and disloyal spirit—which might often be the case in times of high party rancor and strife. But, admitting that under the present pressure of disfavor we have to be judged by that rule, we beg it to be considered, that Texas has no voice of her own in Congress to explain or contradict statements made about the conduct and temper of her people. Further, it must occur to any reflective mind how readily the general tone of sentiment in the States of Massachusetts and Illinois, as well as in Texas, might be wholly misunderstood, by considering only the representations of bad actions and idle expressions here and there, scattered over a large country, and perhaps reported ex parte, with the exaggerations and coloring of prejudiced informers. Where do members of Congress get their information? Not from the messages of the President; not from the reports of the general of the army; not from any published reports of the officers of the judiciary or revenue in Texas; not from our patriotic and vigilant Governor, or other State officers. It is but fair dealing to recollect that there may be disappointed men and violent partisans, and even good men, as well as those not falling under that class, who are continually seeing things around them in a distorted light. Besides, it is not to be disguised that there is a class of men in and out of Texas, small though they may be, who seem to be endeavoring to bring her people in as bad odor as possible before the public mind. In grave questions, involving the future welfare and destiny of a great State, ordinary prudence would dictate a careful examination into the facts upon which national action is to be based. We respectfully solicit the most searching and extensive inquiry as to the real facts on this subject.
As part of the representatives chosen by the State, we assert, is as our sincere belief that the great body of the people of Texas are loyal to the government of the United States, and have now the most intense desire to obliterate all cause of animosity between the sections, and to enter upon a social and material development that shall redound to the power and stability of the whole Union. What motive have they otherwise? During the late struggle they looked to foreign powers for help. It came not. Disgust and bitter estrangement followed disappointed hopes.
An asylum was searched for by many in Mexico, Brazil, and other countries. There they found and reported the evils in reality they were seeking to escape from in anticipation at home. They are looking to no other land as their abode and that of their children. They are entirely satisfied with the experiment of division, and are resigned to their losses and sacrifices. They aspire to arise from the new standpoint, and to be part and parcel in the great progress of their race on this continent. Texas will stand by the flag of the United States against any nation on earth, and the descendants of the heroes of San Jacinto will contest the palm on any field where the country's foe may be met with the descendants of the heroes of Bunker Hill.
It is said that Northern men, "Southern Loyalists," and negroes are badly treated in Texas, and that the laws are so administered as to furnish them no adequate protection. This, ordinarily, would hardly be considered good ground for the non-admission of members of Congress, being purely a matter of local State jurisdiction. But so far from this assertion being true, we are prepared, from personal experience and recent observation, to assert that there are thousands of Northern men and "Southern Loyalists" now in Texas, who are no more the objects of insult and injury than any one else; and for any offenses committed against them they would, as it is believed, find in the courts an impartial redress of them. The juidciary, from the Supreme Bench down, so far as known to us, are men of high character for intelligence, integrity, independence, and impartiality, and would scorn to shrink from the discharge of a duty from considerations of party or political opinion as readily as they would in any other State or country.
As to the negroes, it is not to be expected that the prejudices against an inferior class should be banished in a day or a year. Still, in the main, they are treated humanely and justly by the whites; and when such has not been the case, they have appealed, and are now constantly appealing, to our own courts for redress, and not in vain. If society is allowed to adjust itself, as it certainly is doing, and will do, a public opinion will be formed for the full protection of the negro in every respect. When reports of personal injuries, either to whites or blacks, are heard, it should be borne in mind that in the Southwest the people are more prone to personal rencounters than in the North; that the country is sparsely settled over a vast extent, and that from these and other such causes the laws punishing offenses of personal violence have never been as rigidly and certainly executed as in the older States. This is not peculiar to Texas. Nor is there any reason to believe that the laws are not as well executed there as they were before the war, or that there are any more crimes of that character now being committed than were usual before the war. The people of Texas, pursuing their ordinary peaceful avocations, would doubtless be amazed at the exaggerated impressions produced in the North of their alleged enormities against the weaker portions of their own community. It is the part of cowardice, and not of bravery, to concert or encourage a systematic oppression of the weak. How can such a thing be believed of such a people—a people whose courage has added lustre to the name of Texas in every field where its flag has floated, from the time of its birth as a nation to the present?
Isolated instances of wrong from impulse and passion will occur, and bad men will here and there continue to do wrong, no doubt. These are the exceptions, not the rule.
During several months after the close of the war a few negroes were killed in different parts of the State, and other wrongs were committed by bad men. But to those who understand the facts it is a matter of surprise that there were not ten times as many crimes committed as there were. Upon the surrender of the forces east of the Mississippi River, those west of it regarding a further effort to maintain a separate independence futile, with one accord broke up their camps and departed for their homes, traversing the country in all directions with arms in hand, and without the restraint of commanders. Several months afterwards a nearly similar scene occurred by the soldiers going to places appointed to be paroled. In the meantime the negroes were declared to be free by military order, many of whom left their homes and wandered about over the country. There were only a few military posts established, hundreds of miles apart. For three months there was no civil officer who knew that his interference to preserve order would be tolerated by the Federal authorities. During this whole period of confusion and disorganization there was a moral restraint pervading the masses which so reduced the amount of crime below what might have been expected as to present the civilization of our people in a light of elevated grandeur never before contemplated of it. The truth is now that all classes of persons have gone to work in some avocation, with a spirit and energy redoubled by their losses, to improve their fortunes, and develop the resources of the country, directing their attention more than ever before to factories, railroads, and whatever else will tend to advance their industrial and social interests. In the race of competition in these pursuits, previous differences will be forgotten, passions and prejudices will subside, all classes will find their proper level, and general protection of each and all will be commensurate with the common interest.
It is now proposed, as the means of protecting "Southern Loyalists," Northern men, and negroes, and of reforming State governments generally in the South, to set aside the State governments now existing, and, either directly or through Territorial governments, to erect new State governments, based upon the suffrage of the Southern Loyalists and negroes, and upon the disfranchisement and disqualification from office of all those who adhered to and aided in the rebellion, excepting those only who may be relieved from such disability by Congress. This plan is understood to be proposed by some of the Southern Loyalists themselves, and advocated by prominent members of Congress.
It presents an entirely new feature of our affairs, that rises above the mere exclusion of our representatives from Congress. It takes for granted that the whole question of war and peace is still open. That depends upon stubborn facts in the past, and no construction can now alter them or warp the legitimate deductions from them. What are they? The government of the United States took measures to prevent the withdrawal of the Southern States, and by the proclamations of the President, and by the resolutions of both houses of Congress, and by diplomatic correspondence with other powers, defined and announced its object in carrying on the war to be for the preservation of the Union, "with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the States unimpaired," and not in "any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation." Such an object, so declared, raised up hosts to fight the battles of the Union, and stayed the hand of foreign powers. To carry it out Congress afterwards authorized the President to extend an amnesty and pardon.
All of the authoritative acts of the general government during the whole war, it is believed, spoke the same language; and under and by that policy the war was brought to a successful close. It was on that ground, and that only, that the right was claimed to prosecute the war at all.
It was on that ground that the Confederate government would never be recognized, and, therefore, no treaty was made with it at the surrender.
The manifest intention with which an act is done, in law and reason, forms a part of the act itself, and gives character to it.
Considering the objects of the war as here shown, and as made known to the world, and acted upon throughout, the surrender of the Southern armies, and the subsequent acts of the people and States of the South in response to the proclamations and orders of the President constitute in effect a pacification upon terms as binding upon the good faith of the government of the United States, and upon the Southern people, as though they had been stipulated in a treaty.
This proposition rests upon the basis that the President had the power to use the means which he did, and that the people of the Southern States have, in good faith, complied with what was required or expected of them.
The soldiers of the Southern army surrendered under the obligation to repair to their homes and obey the laws of the country. Under a law of Congress, giving the President the power, under such terms and conditions as might meet his approbation, he issued his proclamation tendering to the mass of the people amnesty and pardon, upon their taking an oath in effect surrendering the issues of the war—secession and slavery. Afterwards, through his proclamations, the President instituted provisional governments, for the purpose of enabling the people of the States who had taken the oath to reform their State governments and resume their Federal relations as States of the Union.
Through this instrumentality, and for such purpose, that being the consideration in part inducing them, the people of Texas responded to the call for a convention, and did in convention by delegates assembled make a political surrender of the questions at issue in the war, and their incidents, as previously stated herein, thereby binding not only those who had been bound by the amnesty oath, but every one in the State, with their posterity after them. Is it to be held as nothing that a people who had espoused cherished principles of government, and had attested their sincerity during a struggle in camp and field for four years, should, by affirmative action, surrender them under the solemnity of oaths and constitutions, and thereby deprive themselves of the privilege, in conscience and right, to revive them should an opportunity in future present itself? They did it in good faith, and did it not for the mere love of the thing itself, but upon an obvious consideration—to be enabled thereby to readjust their State government and to restore their Federal relations in the Union.
The President had a right, we believe, to effect a complete pacification upon such terms. Had it been regarded doubtful, we were in no situation to call it in question without great disadvantage to us. It would have been denounced as evidence of an incorrigibly rebellious spirit if we had refused to take the amnesty oath or assemble in convention. But the President had the power, we think, not that he is the government, any more than that Congress or the Federal judiciary is the government. For, while all these departments constitute the government, each one of them represents and binds the government when acting within the scope of its authority—the Congress to prescribe the rules of action, the President to execute them, and the judiciary to construe and enforce them when brought within the scope of its jurisdiction.
It is not to be denied that the war was prosecuted on the theory of the government, that a State had no right to secede, and that the ordinances of secession were utterly void and of no effect. Under no other view could force have been rightfully used of prevent secession. Under this view the President needed no new rule in view of the declared objects of the war. He simply held the Southern States in subjection to his military authority until they voluntarily embraced the amnesty and pardon which Congress had authorized him to tender them, and conformed their State governments to the results of the war, and orderly acquiesced in the extension over the country of Federal authority in every department, military, financial, postal, and judicial. Had the people of the Southern States been obstinate and refused to reorganize their State governments and resume their Federal relations, some legislation might have been necessary. Or had the Congress been in session, it might or might not have prescribed some additional or different rule for consummating the pacification and restoring the Federal relations of the State. But the fact that the President accomplished it without the necessity of any additional law to aid or guide him, makes it equally binding upon all the departments of the government, as though each had participated in it. Texas having in good faith performed everything required of her in the pacification and resumption of Federal relations, awaits the result with patient solicitude. If the war was really not waged in the 'spirit of oppression and for the purpose of conquest and subjugation,' she may well hope that she has done enough to entitle her to the 'dignity, equality, and rights' of a State within the Union.
This new project ignores or disregards all these considerations, and seeks to make the government now, nearly two years after the cessation of hostilities, and after the pacification has been long completed, and the Federal relations all resumed, except representation in Congress, adopt a new policy by treating us as a subjugated people. without laws, without government, without State boundaries, without public property of any kind, without social organization, with our lives and property at the will of the conqueror. It is believed and respectfully submitted that such a thing is impossible, without a perversion of facts as notorious as the war itself; without a breach of faith to the brave soldiers who conquered us to preserve the Union of the States; without a breach of faith to the nations of Europe, who were assured that the object of the war was only to preserve the Union, and who, under such assurances saw us overwhelmed; and should it be regarded as a matter of any importance, without a breach of faith to the Southern people, who surrendered their arms, and the principles at issue in the war, and complied with what was necessary to secure peace and restore their political relations, with a full knowledge of, and in reference to, the avowed and notorious object of the war on the part of the United States. Should the government of the United States change its whole policy on that subject, regarding the war as still progressing, as it must do, and demand, either in express terms or in effect, of the people of Texas, such a surrender—the most abject known to war—'a capitulation at will,' Texas may, and doubtless will have to, submit to it. But it should be known and declared to the world to be a new surrender that will cancel, in conscience, all of the obligations assumed in the one she has hitherto made.
Before breaking asunder such ties, and plunging the whole country into such confusion, distrust, and disaffection as, we fear, must ensue, let us most respectfully beg a patient and dispassionate examination of the whole subject in all its bearings and consequences. The Constitution should be again unrolled, and clear and definite ideas fully grasped upon the momentous questions now pending. The proposition presupposes that Texas is dead, politically defunct! Texas was carved out of the domain of Mexico by the swords of the patriots of 1836, who gave it shape and form, and breathed into it the breath of life, and it became an organized body, an independent political society. Annexation did not destroy its corporate existence. It only modified its powers and relations. The late war did not destroy its corporate existence an hour or a day. A temporary suspension of her officers and a substitution of others by the provisional government, with the same powers and duties as those displaced, and whose acts were afterwards recognized by the convention, could not destroy its corporate existence. Under the strongest theory of the Federal government as expounded by such jurists and statesmen as Story and Webster, it has always been admitted that a State on entering the Union retained a portion of its sovereignty for the regulation of its own local and domestic concerns, upon which its State government is founded. Those powers of the State of Texas, thus reserved, were not in any wise affected by loss or gain during or at the end of the war, because the controversy was not about them, but about the powers that had been delegated to the United States on annexation, and as to whether they could or should be withdrawn and vested into another confederacy for their exercise. So equally on the doctrine that a State could secede, rightfully or wrongfully, the State government still existed at the close of the war, though a different mode of readjustment of Federal relations might have been necessary. Again, the use of the State government in hostility to the general government does not of itself destroy the State government any more when it fails than when it succeeds. The existence of a government is a matter of fact, and not of legal fiction. Nothing but the conquest and subjugation, evidenced in some way as being intended and declared, by the United States, and submitted to by Texas, could annihilate the State. That can hardly be assumed to have been the case. If Texas may now be demolished as a State, the precedent is set, and the principle established, that the general government may, for such acts as a majority in Congress may deem sufficitnt to have forfeited its political existence, set aside a State government and reduce it to a Territory.
The danger of such a principle to republican freedom is above description; and words will fail to express the dismay, horror, and reckless despair of the people of Texas, if they should have the misfortune to live to see the power of the United States used in pulling down the venerated pillars and in digging up the deeply settled foundations of their State government, endeared to them by its own beauty and merits and enshrined in their hearts by a history and a name of which her sons, whether in freedom or in bondage, will ever be proud.
As to the disfranchisement and disqualification of 'rebels' in Texas in this scheme, it is only necessary to bring to mind the universal truth, that love begets love, kindness begets kindness, generosity begets gratitude; and it can not be pretended as yet that the people of Texas have advanced high enough in the sliding scale of Christian civilization as to be above the murky atmosphere of hate. Too many of us will fail to love those who may despitefully use us. It is the part of wisdom to recognize and act upon the fact that this was no mere insurrection, or petty rebellion of a district, that was contemplated in the Constitution to be punished by prosecutions as therein prescribed. That is found impracticable, because it was a great civil war of sections, embracing whole States, and the stamina, intellectual and physical, of the great body of the people in each of these States.
Why is it that the Irish will not adopt English civilization and pride of country? Because they hate England for its traditional oppression of Ireland. Surely that lesson ought to be known, without learning it by bitter experience in America. The way is still open to keep us one people, rising out of the life and death struggle with common motives and aspirations for the prosperity and glory of the common country, and not bound together by the galling fetters of cold iron. Christian charity and liberal statesmanship point the way.
We most earnestly desire their exercise towards our people. They are in a tone of mind now to appreciate the necessity of progress, so as to keep pace with the safe advances of the age, in intellectual, social, material, and political development. Their faces are already turned in that direction, with the hope that a powerful and magnanimous government will neither thrust them back with its frowns and blows, nor drive them along with a blinding rapidity.
Texas has now done what she has deemed necessary for the full restoration of the government. She feels that she has vast interests which ought to be represented in the Congress of the United States; and she is still willing to do whatever may appear to her to be her duty. But situated as we are—denied any voice in matters which most vitally affect our constituents—to indicate upon what other terms (if these are deemed insufficient), upon which, in our opinion, the government might be permanently restored, would render us obnoxious to the charge of presumption or dictation, when it is said we ought to exhibit only the spirit of submission. Texas may submit to whatever measures may be adopted, but it does not follow that with this submission there will be good feeling and harmony. If this be desirable, it can not be attained whilst a sense of injustice and oppression rankles in the hearts of her people. If it be that it is required that the right of suffrage shall be conferred upon the emancipated colored population of the State, this can be more safely and effectually accomplished by kind treatment and magnanimity towards her white population than in any other way. To force it now, by Congressional action, against the almost universal sentiment of the whole State, under the penalty of exclusion or the destruction of the existing State government, will cause the hearts of men to rankle with the sense of injustice, and a feeling of bitterness which will pass from generation to generation. And the negro, from being the subject of kindness, as he is now, may be loathed and hated as the cause—the unconscious victim—of a feeling he has had nothing to do with producing.
The restoration of the government upon an enduring basis—and this is what we most heartily desire—ought, as we think, to be upon such terms as the good people of each section can heartily support. Malice and revenge should not find any place in them, otherwise strife and bitterness will be perpetual, sectional hate will be crystallized and become chronic. Can any man of either section wish to see this?
If the restoration were now complete, the test oath repealed, or stored away with the relics of the war, universal amnesty proclaimed, what joy would there be in this land! It would be like the sun bursting suddenly from the clouds after many days of gloom and darkness. Then, indeed, a day of national thanksgiving might well be proclaimed. Then would the whole people, in every part of this broad land, and those now in exile and in foreign climes, who are Americans in heart, go into the temple of the living God, and offer up heartfelt thanks for the restoration of kindly feeling and brotherly love to a united nation of freemen—united not merely in name, but in fact—who have been divided and at war with each other, but are so no longer. Then would a people, united truly and in fact, pour out upon bended knees the overflowing gratitude of pure hearts, unsullied by the remembrance of past bitterness, to the God of their fathers, for the blessed happiness afforded by mutual forgiveness, good feeling, and esteem.
O. M. ROBERTS, D. G. BURNET, Senators-elect from Texas. B. H. EPPERSON, Representative of the Second Congressional District. A. M. BRANCH, Representative Third Congressional District. GEO. W. CHILTON, Representative First Congressional District. Washington, January 1, 1867."
The conclusion written by Mr. Epperson commences with the sentence, "Texas has now done what she has deemed necessary for the full restoration of the government."
The conclusion as I had written it was as follows, after the expression "nor drive them along with a blinding rapidity," towit:
As to negro suffrage, it may, we think, be safely said, that nine-tenths of the white people in Texas are opposed to it,—and that nine-tenths of those who would vote for it have a purpose in it,—either to get power themselves, or favor with those who have power, or to thwart those who could otherwise retain or get power. The people of Texas have some right to claim to know the capacities, disposition, and habits of the negro race; and with that knowledge they do not now believe that they are fit to be made voters, and to be entrusted with the government of the State. Should their future improvement show them to be capable, which is very improbable, or should their relative strength make it expedient, it will be time enough then to allow them suffrage in such way as may be deemed best.
The storm has passed over, but the waves of public opinion are still dashing high, and giving taken of settling in a deep, overwhelming current of dreadful portent. A new principle is being evolved, which is pressing negro suffrage in its broad, sweeping train. Under the clause of the Constitution which says that, 'the United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government,' an effort is being made to emperialize the whole country under one head,—one department,—the Congress of the United States,—who shall dictate the basis, now for the Southern States, and ultimately for all of the States, upon which citizenship, suffrage, and qualification for office, State and Federal, shall rest, and who, when other questions of State policy may in future arise prominently, will draw them into the arena of national politics, and by the decree of the central power, at discretion, assimilate all the leading interests and institutions of all the States; and who, to insure this grand ultimate result, will, at any time, when necessary, reform, reorganize, or 'reconstruct' the other departments of the government, the executive and judiciary of the Federal government, as well as the States. It is appalling to contemplate the machinery and process for its accomplishment. It is now simply to fasten the charge of being allied to the treason of the South on all who stand in the way, fight the battles of the country over again on paper, and the ostracism of the doomed from the public confidence and favor is expected to follow.
Should Congress suffer itself to be foisted on this magnificent car of state, it will be necessary to go into perpetual session, or at least to devise agencies in the interim of the same power and effect. The annals of the past are not wanting in examples to illustrate the dangers of the experiment. This, it is submitted, will not be the Union of the Constitution; that establishes a general government with three coordinate departments, acting in harmony, and leaving each State forming it to preserve its own individuality, its own favorite organism and peculiar policy, so long as it is in 'republican form.' And what was meant by the expression, 'a republican form of government' is easily arrived at by examining the general structure of the Constitutions of those States that formed the Union.
This centralization of power based upon a reckless extension of suffrage to the negro, were it adopted for its own sake, earnestly, as the best government for the country, must be predicated on the theory that republicanism is the normal condition of mankind, adapted to all races and countries. In that point of view it is an invitation of all the inferior races of the world to this country. It may be very much doubted whether all history, reason and philosophy do not teach that constitutional republicanism can only exist under the most favorable circumstances,—of independent habits, intelligence and integrity of a people, as well as of relative space and population.
Texas, as a State, has large and diversified interests, both local and general, that should be represented in the Congress of the United States. She would be pleased to have representatives of her own choice to speak for her there. Texas having done what she deems to have been her duty, and still being willing to do it, leaves the responsibility of the future upon those who have the power to shape the destinies of the country."
The following remarks appeared in the National Intelligencer of Washington for January 17, 1867:
It is now evident, from the measures presented to the present Congress, and the debates thereon, together with the response of the press in the various parts of the country, that consolidation is receiving a new impetus that threatens a total change of the government as it has heretofore existed under the Constitution of the United States. The storm of war has passed over, but the waves of public opinion are still dashing high, and are even now giving token of continuing in a deep, overwhelming current of dreadful portent. A new principle is being evolved and acted upon, which, though it may not be formally announced, is really that which is exciting to the destruction of State governments, the introduction of universal suffrage of all races in all the States, and finally, the complete identity and similarity of institutions and interests in all of them. Under the clause of the Constitution which says that 'the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government,' an effort is being made to imperialize the whole country under one head, one department the Congress of the United States—who shall dictate the basis for the Southern States, and ultimately for all of the States, upon which citizenship, suffrage, and qualification for office—State and Federal—shall rest; and who, when other questions of State policy may arise, shall draw them into the arena of national politics, and by the decree of this central power, seek to assimilate all interests and institutions throughout all the States; and who, to insure this grand ultimate object, may reform, reorganize, or reconstruct the other departments of the government—the executive and the judiciary—as well as that of the States.
Should Congress perch itself on this magnificent car of state, it will be necessary to go into perpetual session, or at least devise agencies to effect the same object. The history of the past in other countries is not wanting in examples to illustrate the dangers of this experiment. The process for its accomplishment is already stereotyped. It is simply to fasten the charge of being allied to the treason of the South on all who stand in the way, fight the battles of the country over again on paper, and the ostracism of the doomed from public confidence and favor is expected to follow. This scheme has a long lease in efficiency in prospect, and when frequent repetition shall have destroyed its effect, other means will be resorted to.
This process is objectionable, because it decoys the public mind from the real questions at issue, and keeps alive an infuriated sentiment against a prostrate people. It deters the Christian, the philanthropist, and the statesman from extending to them a helping hand. Who, now, in all this broad land, dares to say that all imaginable degradation and punishment may not be inflicted on the Southern people? He is branded as a traitor by the new army of politicians, enlisted since the war, though he had been one of the heroes who conquered the South—though he had been one of the patriots whose intellects had directed public events, resulting in Union victory, in the great struggle.
The scheme, if consummated, will establish a new Union, and not the Union of the Constitution, which creates a general government, with three co-ordinate departments acting in harmony, leaving each State forming it to preserve its own individuality, its own local policy and peculiar organism, so long as it is in form republican. What was meant by a 'republican form of government' is easily arrived at by examining the general structure of the Constitutions of the States when they formed the general government. It can hardly be argued that they expected the general government to require more perfect models of republicanism than their own; or to compel them, or others, to adopt a more perfect form of republican government than that contained in their own Constitutions.
It will be found that such a government would absorb in its administration and under its care and protection an infinity of local matters, extended over a vast space of country, embracing a great variety of climate and production, and consequently different modes and habits of life, and different phases of thought; all which are incapable of uniformity without the imposition by force of flagrant injustice and oppression. This system of centralization has been often tried, and has always failed in the end.
It was that lesson in history That admonished our forefathers to preserve State lines and State governments, so that the peculiar wants, necessities, and interests of each different section might be best promoted.
The civil rights bill and freedman's bureau bill are parts of this scheme, which have already been inaugurated. The army of officers employed, the expense incurred, the complexity involved, and the conflicts of authority, as well as the little good accomplished under them, all show the intrinsic difficulty, if not utter impracticability, of carrying it out.
This imperialism, seeking to master all conflicting internal elements, and moving on with a consciousness of concentrated power, will in the end become intolerably aggressive and domineering. Canada and Mexico will be absorbed, with all their mixed populations and varied institutions and interests. The nations of Europe will be dictated to by this gigantic power of the west. Continued war will be our occupation, and military glory will lead to its usual end—military despotism.
It is an experiment resting on the proposition that republicanism is the normal condition of mankind, adapted to all races and to all countries. Whereas, it never has, and, it is believed, never can exist, except under the most favorable circumstances of race, of population not overcrowded, habits of personal independence, intelligence and integrity of the people. It requires the incorporation into the body politic, as a portion of the governing class, of negroes, and necessarily contemplates that of the Indians, Chinese, and all other inferior races of men who may be found in the country. It offers them, out of the country, the extra premium of political privileges as an inducement to immigration. These races have never shown themselves capable of self-government, and it is only when they shall show themselves capable, by their elevation in this country, that it will be time to enfranchise them. Their incorporation into the body politic, instead of being kept in a present tribal condition, will inevitably, sooner or later, lead either to a continual strife, and perhaps war of races, or to the production of a mongrel race, by which the standard of the white race will be dragged down in the scale of civilization; or perhaps even both of these calamities may ensue, as has been the case in Mexico and South America. If that can be deferred until the surplus population of Europe can flow into and fill up this country, the inferior races will be almost lost sight of amidst the millions of our own people, and, ceasing to be an object of special attention, will find their proper level in society.
There are those who believe that negro suffrage is necessary as a matter of policy, for the reason that they constitute a strength too potent not to he allowed some share in the government. Others believe it necessary to enable them to protect themselves as a class in the community. Others believe it is necessary because it is right and just in and of itself, they being free inhabitants born in the country. A due consideration of what has already been said will suffice as to these propositions. But others believe it to be necessary now to place the 'Southern Loyalists' in power in the South, and give them a constituency to represent. This is the real ground, whether avowed or not, of which all classes of negro suffrage advocates are at present availing themselves to fasten upon the country a measure which, if it stood upon its own abstract merits, would hardly command a respectful attention. Before that can be done it also becomes necessary to destroy the State governments themselves and re-erect them in more perfect purity, with this deluge of negro suffrage, and 'rebels' disfranchised. All this is necessary under this grand scheme of consolidation to enable the general government to protect and forward the interests of favored classes of individuals within the States.
What right have the States to expect anything better when the President is almost daily being shorn of his powers, and is even menaced with impeachment, because he stands in the way? And the Supreme Court is also arraigned before the bar of public opinion, its decisions subjected to a fiery ordeal in the heated political crucible, and its body menaced with 'reconstruction.'
Are the people of this country, of any party, prepared to desire this radical change in government? If they do not, it is high time that they were at work—manfully at work—to stop its bounding and accelerating progress in that direction. It may soon be too late.
The foregoing piece was taken from the views of my conclusion of the address,—written out by me, and published in the National Intelligencer as an editorial, a few days after the address was published.
At the time the address was published some of the editors [in an editorial of January 10, 1867] presented a synopsis of it as follows:
We trust that our readers will give the appeal to the Congress and people of the United States, by the representatives-elect of Texas a careful and thoughtful perusal. The fact that it comes from gentlemen whom the people of that Empire State think worthy to represent them in the Senate and House of Representatives at this important juncture, should entitle it to consideration. But when, added to this, it is found to be a dispassionate, calmly statement of the late sad controversy, a strong, and, as we think, conclusive argument against the constitutionality and the policy of continued exclusion, and a manly, frank avowal of the abandonment of the teachings of secession, and of devotion to the Union under the Constitution, it should arrest the attention of every thoughtful patriot.
The address briefly sketches the formation of the Republic of Texas and its incorporation into this Union. The subsequent secession was due, in the main, to conflicting interpretations of the Constitution, one class affirming that the general government was the creation of the States, any one of which could withdraw its assent from a government no longer acceptable; the other declaring it was the act of the United States, from which no section or community could withdraw. It is claimed that the weaker party sought to withdraw from the Union, 'not to prevent the Northern States from retaining their government over themselves with their own construction, but to insure its preservation as to the Southern States as they understood it.' In the warlike struggle which ensued, the South was overcome, and the address gives the history of the President's efforts at reconstruction, and forcibly says, 'the laws of the United States are being executed within its limits without hindrance or resistance from the people or the State authorities; the Federal army is on our frontier for protection; the Federal judiciary are performing their functions; the United States mails are being carried all over the State; the navy is protecting our commerce; the officers of customs and internal revenue are doing their duty, and the people are paying duties and taxes as in other States. What more could be said of the people of New York and Ohio—except that they have their Senators and Representatives in Congress to speak for and represent the rights, interests, and necessities of their States," etc. The reasons for this exclusion are to be gathered from the debates and measures proposed in Congress, and the public discussions elsewhere, rather than specific legislative action. The injustice of this is apparent, for it leaves the people of Texas in the dark as to what is really asked of them. The adoption of the proposed constitutional amendment is pronounced by some as sufficient to insure readmission, though this is controverted by many in leading positions. And we are told that though Texas may submit to the constitutional amendment, she will never become party to her own humiliation. If exclusion is to be justified on the ground that it is authorized by the clause respecting each house judging of the qualifications of its members, a Congressional majority might override the will of the people of a State. To the intimation that Texas is disloyal, it is replied that that assumption establishes the precedent that a Congressional majority might charge a rebellious temper on the people of a State as a reason for perpetuating an injustice. As it is, the voice of Texas is not heard in her own defense, and again, no greater wrong can be done a community than to judge of its character by isolated expressions or acts. Such statements come, not from the President, the general-in-chief, or the authorized agents of the government, but from a small and discontented faction, and a searching inquiry as to the true state of affairs is solicited. The people are claimed to be loyal to the government, and intensely anxious that sectional strife should cease. Surely this part of the address can not fail to make an impression. Exclusion can not be justified on the ground of ill-treatment of any class of the population. This is a matter of State legislation, and ordinarily would not be considered. But the imputation is fully denied. Allowance must be made for the greater readiness of the Southern people to engage in personal rencontres, and for the sparser settlements. The people of Texas, engaged as they are, in peaceful vocations, would be amazed at the stories told of them and their violent deeds, and a graphic picture is given of the self-control of a great commonwealth which, for months after the surrender and the breaking up of its camps, first quietly absorbed its soldiers, and then governed itself without laws, without judges and sheriffs, and the appliances of the civil power. Such a people, who have uniformly gone to work, are not likely to be given up to lawlessness and disorder now that the civil authority has resumed its sway.
Of the proposition to ignore the present State government and construct a new one that shall enfranchise the blacks and disfranchise the late secessionists, the address truly says it assumes that the question of peace or war is still open. The object of the war was announced, by the procalmation of the President, the resolutions of Congress, and the diplomatic correspondence with foreign powers, to be the preservation of the Union. To carry this out Congress authorized the President to make proclomation of amnesty. It was only on this ground that the right to prosecute the war was placed—on this that the recognition of the Confederate government was steadily refused. The manifest intention with which an act is done forms part of the act itself, and gives it character. And it is claimed 'that the surrender of the Southern armies, and the subsequent acts of the people and States of the South in response to the proclamations and orders of the President, constitute, in effect, a pacification upon terms as binding upon the government of the United States and upon the Southern people as though they had been stipulated in a treaty.' The parole of the Southern armies, the amnesty proclamation, the proclamations and orders respecting the provisional governments and the holding of State conventions, the acceptance by those conventions of the offered conditions, are binding alike upon all parties. The President did not overstep his authority—at least the South was in no condition to question that authority, for though he is not the government, yet he can bind the government. His duty is to preserve, to protect, and defend the Constitution; and he was doing that most effectually when solemnly binding to its observance those who had been resisting the authority of the government. He simply held the South by military authority till they restored the civil, and gave every assurance of respecting the laws. And, in the absence of Congressional legislation, Congress is bound by his acts. And if the war was not waged 'for the purpose of conquest and subjugation' Texas may well expect to enjoy, unmolested, all 'the rights, the dignity, and equality' of a State.
After two years' cessation of hostilities, this new project substitutes for the surrender of the Southern people, on terms constantly put forth by the United States government, a mere surrender at will. But this is a new and enforced capitulation, which will absolve Texas from the obligations heretofore assumed. And this project assumes that Texas is dead, despite the fact that its reserved powers were never involved in the contest of war, and were not affected by its result; and that other fact, that the hostility of a State government to the Federal no more destroys it in case of failure than of success. Such an assumption concedes the right of a Congressional majority to declare that any State, for causes it may deem sufficient, has forfeited its political rights, and shall be reduced to a Territory.
The impolicy of imposing disabilities on the late 'rebels' is very forcibly argued, and the standing warning of Ireland quoted. The temper of the Texan people is claimed as extremely favorable to this government, and the development of the most intense patriotism. But denied any voice in legislation, it is bootless to propose terms. She may submit to any imposition, but not willingly. Negro suffrage, if indispensable, is more likely to be commended by kindness to the white population than its opposite; and the overthrow of the existing State government will only engender bitterness and animosity, while the policy of forgiveness and of reconciliation would only strengthen the bonds of fraternal affection and of patriotism with which the people would be bound to the nation and its institutions.
The address was republished in many of the Southern papers, and met with general approbation on the part of the friends of the Constitution, both in the North and South. I here subjoin a few other notices of it.
[From The Texas Observer, Rusk, Texas, January 26, 1867.]
We offer no apology to our readers for the amount of space occupied in The Observer this week, by the address of the Texas congressional delegation, but enjoin upon all to give it a careful perusal.
There are special reasons why this address should have been prepared,—the people of Texas had been foully slandered, all sorts of aspersions heaped upon the authorities of the State, and at last her civil government sought to be subverted, and we remanded back to territorial inferiority—that, too, chiefly by her own sons, whom she had once delighted to honor. To refute such misrepresentations, and avoid, if possible, the destruction of our State government, to maintain the great principle, that the people should choose their own ruler, and regulate their own municipal affairs, free from the dictation or interference of Federal power, or Federal patronage, this truthful history of the sentiments entertained by our citizens, this able argument in vindication of our rights, has been given to the public; and from its calm and dispassionate tone, from its marked ability, justifies Texas and her people against all the falsehoods which have been told against them; and, although madness and fanaticism now rule the hour at Washington, they must soon give way before the truth and justice which this appeal contains.
The thanks of the whole State are due to our representatives now at the national capital, for their exertions in this behalf,—although excluded from seats in Congress, yet by their talent as statesmen and bearing as gentlemen, they are exerting a moral influence, with the thinking portions of Northern men, more potent than speeches delivered under the sanction of official position.
[From the Daily Picayune, New Orleans, January 15, 1867.]
Address of the Texas Delegation.—We this morning make room for the masterly address of the Texas delegation, awaiting admission to Congress, to the members of the Senate and House of Representatives at Washington, and to the people of the United States generally. It is long, and we thought of cutting it down, but on reading it over we had not the heart to erase a line. We should almost as soon think of condensing the 13th chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, where St. Paul is speaking of charity, or the Declaration of Independence. The document is calm, stragihtforward, well worded, dignified in tone, tolerant in spirit, charitable in intention, and tells the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, in as plain and as forcible English as we have lately read. We heartily commend a perusal of it to our readers in city and country. During the madness of the present hour it may have little or no effect at Washington, yet the most ultra among the enemies of the South can not get up and answer its calm, courteous, forcible and truthful arguments.
[From the Weekly State Gazette, Austin, Texas, January 26, 1867.]
Address of the Texas Delegation.—This address, which we lay before our readers today is a masterly production, whoever wrote it. From some notice, by a contemporary, we were led to suppose that it was an ordinary affair, until we read it with surprise and gratification. It is calm and moderate in tone, but clear and strong and unanswerable in statement and argument. We think it calculated to do much good, if it could only be read by the Northern people. We are glad that our delegation went to Washington, and we do not believe that the time and money were thrown away. All have now left, unless, perhaps, Mr. Epperson, whose zeal, industry and patriotism are to be much commended. Mr. Epperson has some railroad interests to attend to, but that will not prevent his keeping a sharp lookout for the State.
One remarkable circumstance attended this address, which was that though it circulated and was commended in the highest terms all over the United States, no answer to it was attempted and not even a criticism against it was published anywhere.
It was generally suspected or known that I had written it, and I received the congratulations of many friends and acquaintances upon having produced it. Ex-Governor Marvin, Senator-elect from Florida, immediately called upon me at my room to express his gratification upon reading it. I was told that Mr. Seward commended its tone, style, and matter very highly.
But what was equally, if not far more gratifying to me, was that I was pleased with it myself, and felt that I had thereby endeavored to do my duty to Texas, that had so long and often done me honor by conferring on me its highest offices.
Immediately after making arrangements for the publication of the address, Col. B. H. Epperson and I called on the President and introduced Cols. George W. Chilton and Antony M. Branch, Representatives from Texas. We were received cordially and the President was more communicative, and less reserved than I had before seen him. His conversation upon public affairs was more hopeful of the future, though still of a very general character, without pointing out any details or points of future operations by which any amelioration of our condition or of that of the country would or could be accomplished. Mr. Johnson has habitually a countenance and manner indicating reserve, secretiveness, and shrewdness. He occasionally changes his manner, according to the advice of Chesterfield, and while he appears to be open and frank, bold and strong in his expressions and manner, he thereby the more effectually accomplishes his purpose of concealment of what he does not wish to disclose. In which art, I must say, Mr. Seward is certainly the greatest adept that I have ever met. We told him that we had prepared an address for publication, which course he very strongly approved, and, indeed, seemed much gratified that we had done it. He advised us to remain at Washington without pointing any particular object for it. The increased cordiality of this reception, with the incipient hope aroused by it of finding something more behind the curtain, if any good was, indeed, there concealed for us, induced me to postpone indefinitely my previously intended departure so soon as the address was published and distributed to our friends in Texas.
I should not omit to mention that in company with some of the other members I called on Mr. Wells, Secretary of the Navy, and was kindly received by him at his residence. He is a large, portly, good-looking old man, of good sense, who, I think, has let the present age outrun him about twenty years, and he will never overtake it, but will soon be lost with the other relics of the past.
We also called once upon Mr. Stanton in the war office. He received us standing at his desk, received the papers which we presented to him in reference to depredations of Indians upon our frontier, said not a word outside of business, and but few in that, while his countenance and deportment were simply not offensive, while they gave no encouragement to the desire for another visit, either on business or otherwise.
The Legislature of Arkansas sent a delegation of about ten of their own members to Washington to represent the condition of their State. They arrived about the first days of the new year, 1867 (I do not recollect the exact date). Col. Epperson and I called to see them, and got acquainted with several of them. Their mission, however, as that of other Southern delegations of all sorts, except "the loyal," did not accomplish anything. From the time of my arrival at Washington I had every day or two met with Judge Evans, on the street, at my room or at his room, and h