__________________________________
In my last three posts, I have
attempted to give the reader some idea of events elsewhere in 1868 influencing
the decision on Mississippi’s acceptance back in the Union. With this post, I
return to where The Committee of Five Comes Alive... ended. As of that post, the committee of five, an outgrowth of the
Black and Tan Convention that had framed a progressive “reconstruction”
constitution subsequently rejected by the people of Mississippi (10 July 1868),
had appointed a committee of sixteen, on which James Lusk Alcorn represented
the state’s first congressional district. The purpose of the committee of
sixteen was to go to Washington and lay a memorial before Congress requesting
redress in the wake of the rejection of both the constitution and Republican
ticket at the polls.
Mississippi’s committee of sixteen
arrived in Washington in December of 1868, shortly after the opening of the
40th Congress’ third session. Before the Reconstruction Committee, the chairman
of the committee of five, W. H. Gibbs, now representing Mississippi’s fifth
congressional district on the committee of sixteen, repeated his conversation
with Gillem regarding the committee’s proposed investigation into the July
election and the general’s refusal to conduct (further) inquiry. Gibbs told Congress he had a right to make
arrangements for the election and appoint commissioners at the polls—I’m not
sure of Gibbs’ point here, unless prior to Gibbs’ testimony, Gillem had pointed
out to the Reconstruction Committee that he had allowed the committee of five
such liberties before the election—exceeding the requirements set forth in the
Reconstruction Acts—and therefore the committee of five had no valid reason for
complaining about the army’s conduct during the election. Gibbs further told
the Reconstruction Committee that a large number of members elected to the
legislature in July would be unable to take the oath required by the
Reconstruction Acts. For weeks after, the committee of sixteen continued to badger
the Reconstruction Committee to ignore General Gillem’s report and either
declare Mississippi’s propose constitution ratified or revive the convention.
On 16 December 1868, William
Sharkey, the old-line Whig who had opposed secession and served as
Mississippi’s provisional governor immediately after the war and who had been
elected Senator along with Alcorn back in ’65 when Southern representatives had
been denied their seats in Congress, and against whom
not even a whisper of disloyalty could be lodged, testified to the
Reconstruction Committee that the election had been as fair an election as he’d
ever seen, and that many Negroes had voluntarily voted with the Democrats. The
feelings between the races were good, he thought, and though the Freedman did
want his right to vote, he did not wish to deny the vote to whites. Sharkey
told the Reconstruction Committee that the constitution had been fairly
defeated and if another were submitted, with the proscriptive clauses removed
it would be ratified. It was the whole-scale proscription of white Confederates
from the polling booth that was the cause of the constitution’s rejection, not
the admittedly unpopular inclusion of Negro suffrage. This same point was made in Georgia. [Truth is, that point was being made across the
South.]
When Gillem made his appearance
before the Reconstruction Committee, he reiterated the precautions he’d taken
to ensure a fair election and that he had investigated every reported violation
made before and during the election. In response to an accusation that both
sheriffs and soldiers had electioneered against the constitution, he stated
that most of the sheriffs were “loyal” men appointed by him or his predecessor,
General Ord, and there were not twenty soldiers who had enlisted from
Mississippi. In other words, the soldiers in Mississippi were Northern men and
if they voted against the constitution, which he said they had a right to do,
it was because they, too, found it obnoxious. If the constitution had been framed,
he reiterated, according to the Reconstruction Acts, it would have been
adopted. Remember, the Reconstruction Acts denied the right of ex-Confederates
to ever hold office—unless, of course, the individual became a turncoat and
supported Reconstruction—but did not deny the vote to such individuals into
perpetuity. This proposed state constitution did.
The Republican “engine” in the
state maintained that General Gillem’s administration had not taken the
Reconstruction Act of ’67 in the spirit it had been intended. Since Gillem
hadn’t orchestrated a Republican
victory, they were probably right. There’s getting into the “spirit” of tyranny
and then there’s being the spirit of tyranny. The general stated the Republican
opposition came from (1) disgruntled individuals who had failed to get
appointments they sought, (2) those he would not allow to enter upon their
duties because they could not give requisite bonds, and (3) those whose schemes
of plunder he thwarted.
J. W. C. Watson from Marshall
County, Mississippi and that county’s representative at both the 1865 and 1868
Constitutional Conventions told the Reconstruction Committee that he had
finally resigned from the 1868 convention when the majority of delegates
managed to force the proscriptive clauses into the constitution. Based on those
clauses, he campaigned against the constitution. He frankly admitted that the
people were opposed to Negro suffrage, but were willing to live with it, but not
the disfranchisement of the white voter on top of it.
Wheeling, dealing, dickering, and
bickering, as well as testimony continued through the winter months of 1869.
Then March ushered in a new administration along with spring—sounds poetically
hopeful doesn’t it? It didn’t prove to be. I’ll elaborate next time.
Thanks for reading,
Charlsie
