CHAPTER XLII

A SOLID SOUTH IN THE MAKING

ONE cannot review the story of the South during these years without a feeling of deep melancholy. We have seen how in the flood of negro suffrage the States of the Black Belt had been misgoverned, and we have had a dark recital of the extravagance, dishonesty, and ignorance which laid a heavy hand upon a proud though conquered people. There are few instances in history of such complete misapprehension of a human problem by those entrusted with its settlement. The North, befooled by myths about the negro, failed utterly to comprehend the mental attitude of those who after exercising feudal power found themselves suddenly subordinate to former slaves, a race still looked upon by them as of a hopelessly inferior type. The hurried grant of universal suffrage was an offense for which both North and South have paid a grievous penalty. In throwing off a hateful burden, the people of the South, as if pursuant to a law of nature, have let all other problems wait upon the vital problem of local government. It would be hard to overestimate the injury done the nation as a whole by the existence of the "Solid South," where

there is found the finest essence of the Anglo-Saxon race, yet where there is no adequate debate of timely themes because the negro question overshadows all. That it may now be a fantastic fear is quite beside the point. The dread of negro domination has become ingrained through memory of actual experience in Reconstruction times. The South itself must bear the cruel load of its solidity; but the North, which furnished the excuse unwittingly, must share the expiation because it shares the blame.

The part Grant had to play in his endeavor to do justice in the South is one he neither relished nor deserved. He did not favor negro suffrage at the start, and acquiesced in it as a necessity only when through others' folly it seemed unavoidable. But when corruption and malfeasance led to bloodshed his soldier's instinct led him to enforce the law. His use of federal troops, subject to hot denunciation at the time, has been thrown up against him ever since; as if it were the cause of violence and not intended as the cure. The opposition charged that he essayed to play the rôle of Cæsar, that he aimed to keep himself in office by military force, till men forgot that all the federal soldiers in the South could hardly have policed a single town. It took four years of fighting and two million men to put down insurrection in a territory which he was charged with trying to enslave with

four thousand soldiers scattered through a dozen States. That was the highest number in the South under arms at any single time, embracing the garrisons of all the forts between the Delaware and the Gulf of Mexico. It would have been a great thing for the South, in Grant's opinion, if some of the streams of emigration from New England and the Middle States had been diverted in that direction instead of toward Iowa and Kansas. In the light of history and his own experience we must examine with respect Grant's matured views upon the problem which pressed upon him heavily so long:

"Looking back over the whole policy of Reconstruction, it seems to me that the wisest thing would have been to have continued for some time the military rule. Sensible Southern men see now that there was no government so frugal, so just, and fair as what they had under our generals. That would have enabled the Southern people to pull themselves together and repair material losses. . . . Military rule would have been just to all, to the negro who wanted freedom, the white man who wanted protection, the Northern man who wanted Union. As State after

1 The whole number of troops in the States of Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, Maryland, and Virginia at the time of the election was 4082. This embraces the garrisons of all the forts from the Delaware to the Gulf of Mexico! (Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. vII, p. 298.)

State showed willingness to come into the Union, not on their own terms, but upon ours, I would have admitted them. This would have made universal suffrage unnecessary, and I think a mistake was made about suffrage. It was unjust to the negro to throw upon him the responsibilities of citizenship, and expect him to be on even terms with his white neighbor. It was unjust to the North.

.

"In giving the South negro suffrage, we have given the old slaveholders forty votes in the Electoral College. They keep those votes, but disfranchise the negroes. That is one of the gravest mistakes in the policy of Reconstruction. I am clear now that it would have been better for the North to have postponed suffrage, Reconstruction, State Governments, for ten years, and held the South in a territorial condition. . . . It would have avoided the scandals of the State Governments, saved money, and enabled the Northern merchants, farmers, and laboring men to reorganize society in the South. But we made our scheme, and must do what we can with it. Suffrage once given can never be taken away and all that remains for us now is to make good that gift by protecting those who have received it."1

Such elections as were held in 1873 disclosed a Democratic trend, due partly to the panic, partly to 1 Young, p. 362.

other things, and as election day approached in 1874, the Democratic trend throughout the North became intensified. In sympathy with the general tendency there was a recurrence in several Southern States of anti-negro demonstrations, which Grant described in his December message.1

In Alabama, "men of intelligence and property"

1 "I regret to say that with preparations for the late election decided indications appeared in some localities in the Southern States of a determination, by acts of violence and intimidation, to deprive citizens of the freedom of the ballot because of their political opinions. Bands of men, masked and armed, made their appearance; White Leagues and other societies were formed; large quantities of arms and ammunition were imported and distributed to these organizations; military drills, with menacing demonstrations, were held, and with all these murders enough were committed to spread terror among those whose political action was to be suppressed, if possible, by these intolerant and criminal proceedings. I understand that the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution was made to prevent this and a like state of things, and the Act of May 31, 1870, with amendments, was passed to enforce its provisions, the object of both being to guarantee to all citizens the right to vote and to protect them in the free enjoyment of that right. Enjoined by the Constitution to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,' and convinced by undoubted evidence that violations of said act had been committed and that a widespread and flagrant disregard of it was contemplated, the proper officers were instructed to prosecute the offenders, and troops were stationed at convenient points to aid these officers, if necessary, in the performance of their official duties. Complaints are made of this interference by federal authority; but if said amendment and act do not provide for such interference under the circumstances as above stated, then they are without meaning, force, or effect, and the whole scheme of colored enfranchisement is worse than mockery and little better than a crime." (Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. vII, p. 297.)