Report on the Condition of the South

C >> Carl Schurz >> Report on the Condition of the South

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20

Produced by Distributed Proofreaders

REPORT ON THE CONDITION OF THE SOUTH

Carl Schurz

First published 1865

39TH CONGRESS, SENATE. Ex. Doc.
1st Session. No. 2.

MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,

COMMUNICATING,

_In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 12th instant,
information in relation to the States of the Union lately in rebellion,
accompanied by a report of Carl Schurz on the States of South Carolina,
Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana; also a report of Lieutenant
General Grant, on the same subject_.

DECEMBER 19, 1865.--Read and ordered to be printed, with the reports of
Carl Schurz and Lieutenant General Grant.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In reply to the resolution adopted by the Senate on the 12th instant, I
have the honor to state, that the rebellion waged by a portion of the
people against the properly constituted authorities of the government
of the United States has been suppressed; that the United States are
in possession of every State in which the insurrection existed; and
that, as far as could be done, the courts of the United States have
been restored, post offices re-established, and steps taken to put
into effective operation the revenue laws of the country.

As the result of the measures instituted by the Executive, with the
view of inducing a resumption of the functions of the States
comprehended in the inquiry of the Senate, the people in North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana,
Arkansas, and Tennessee, have reorganized their respective State
governments, and "are yielding obedience to the laws and government of
the United States," with more willingness and greater promptitude than,
under the circumstances, could reasonably have been anticipated. The
proposed amendment to the Constitution, providing for the abolition of
slavery forever within the limits of the country, has been ratified by
each one of those States, with the exception of Mississippi, from which
no official information has yet been received; and in nearly all of
them measures have been adopted or are now pending to confer upon
freedmen rights and privileges which are essential to their comfort,
protection, and security. In Florida and Texas the people are making
commendable progress in restoring their State governments, and no doubt
is entertained that they will at an early period be in a condition to
resume all of their practical relations with the federal government.

In "that portion of the Union lately in rebellion" the aspect of affairs
is more promising than, in view of all the circumstances, could well have
been expected. The people throughout the entire south evince a laudable
desire to renew their allegiance to the government, and to repair the
devastations of war by a prompt and cheerful return to peaceful pursuits.
An abiding faith is entertained that their actions will conform to their
professions, and that, in acknowledging the supremacy of the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, their loyalty will be unreservedly
given to the government, whose leniency they cannot fail to appreciate,
and whose fostering care will soon restore them to a condition of
prosperity. It is true, that in some of the States the demoralizing
effects of war are to be seen in occasional disorders, but these are local
in character, not frequent in occurrence, and are rapidly disappearing as
the authority of civil law is extended and sustained. Perplexing questions
were naturally to be expected from the great and sudden change in the
relations between the two races, but systems are gradually developing
themselves under which the freedman will receive the protection to which
he is justly entitled, and, by means of his labor, make himself a useful
and independent member of the community in which he has his home. From all
the information in my possession, and from that which I have recently
derived from the most reliable authority, I am induced to cherish the
belief that sectional animosity is surely and rapidly merging itself
into a spirit of nationality, and that representation, connected with
a properly adjusted system of taxation, will result in a harmonious
restoration of the relations of the States to the national Union.

The report of Carl Schurz is herewith transmitted, as requested by the
Senate. No reports from the honorable John Covode have been received by
the President. The attention of the Senate is invited to the accompanying
report of Lieutenant General Grant, who recently made a tour of inspection
through several of the States whose inhabitants participated in the
rebellion.

ANDREW JOHNSON

Washington, D.C., _December_ 18, 1865.

REPORT OF CARL SCHURZ ON THE STATES OF SOUTH CAROLINA, GEORGIA, ALABAMA,
MISSISSIPPI, AND LOUISIANA.

Sir: When you did me the honor of selecting me for a mission to the States
lately in rebellion, for the purpose of inquiring into the existing
condition of things, of laying before you whatever information of
importance I might gather, and of suggesting to you such measures as my
observations would lead me to believe advisable, I accepted the trust with
a profound sense of the responsibility connected with the performance of
the task. The views I entertained at the time, I had communicated to you
in frequent letters and conversations. I would not have accepted the
mission, had I not felt that whatever preconceived opinions I might carry
with me to the south, I should be ready to abandon or modify, as my
perception of facts and circumstances might command their abandonment or
modification. You informed me that your "policy of reconstruction" was
merely experimental, and that you would change it if the experiment did
not lead to satisfactory results. To aid you in forming your conclusions
upon this point I understood to be the object of my mission, and this
understanding was in perfect accordance with the written instructions I
received through the Secretary of War.

These instructions confined my mission to the States of South Carolina,
Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and the department of the Gulf. I informed
you, before leaving the north, that I could not well devote more than
three months to the duties imposed upon me, and that space of time proved
sufficient for me to visit all the States above enumerated, except Texas.
I landed at Hilton Head, South Carolina, on July 15, visited Beaufort,
Charleston, Orangeburg, and Columbia, returned to Charleston and Hilton
Head; thence I went to Savannah, traversed the State of Georgia, visiting
Augusta, Atlanta, Macon, Milledgeville, and Columbus; went through
Alabama, by way of Opelika, Montgomery, Selma, and Demopolis, and through
Mississippi, by way of Meridian, Jackson, and Vicksburg; then descended
the Mississippi to New Orleans, touching at Natchez; from New Orleans I
visited Mobile, Alabama, and the Teche country, in Louisiana, and then
spent again some days at Natchez and Vicksburg, on my way to the north.
These are the outlines of my journey.

Before laying the results of my observations before you, it is proper that
I should state the _modus operandi_ by which I obtained information and
formed my conclusions. Wherever I went I sought interviews with persons
who might be presumed to represent the opinions, or to have influence
upon the conduct, of their neighbors; I had thus frequent meetings with
individuals belonging to the different classes of society from the highest
to the lowest; in the cities as well as on the roads and steamboats I had
many opportunities to converse not only with inhabitants of the adjacent
country, but with persons coming from districts which I was not able to
visit; and finally I compared the impressions thus received with the
experience of the military and civil officers of the government stationed
in that country, as well as of other reliable Union men to whom a longer
residence on the spot and a more varied intercourse with the people had
given better facilities of local observation than my circumstances
permitted me to enjoy. When practicable I procured statements of their
views and experience in writing as well as copies of official or private
reports they had received from their subordinates or other persons. It was
not expected of me that I should take formal testimony, and, indeed, such
an operation would have required more time than I was able to devote to
it.

My facilities for obtaining information were not equally extensive in the
different States I visited. As they naturally depended somewhat upon the
time the military had had to occupy and explore the country, as well as
upon the progressive development of things generally, they improved from
day to day as I went on, and were best in the States I visited last. It is
owing to this circumstance that I cannot give as detailed an account of
the condition of things in South Carolina and Georgia as I am able to give
with regard to Louisiana and Mississippi.

Instead of describing the experiences of my journey in chronological
order, which would lead to endless repetitions and a confused mingling
of the different subjects under consideration, I propose to arrange my
observations under different heads according to the subject matter. It
is true, not all that can be said of the people of one State will apply
with equal force to the people of another; but it will be easy to make
the necessary distinctions when in the course of this report they become
of any importance. I beg to be understood when using, for the sake of
brevity, the term "the southern people," as meaning only the people of
the States I have visited.

CONDITION OF THINGS IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE WAR.

In the development of the popular spirit in the south since the close of
the war two well-marked periods can be distinguished. The first commences
with the sudden collapse of the confederacy and the dispersion of its
armies, and the second with the first proclamation indicating the
"reconstruction policy" of the government. Of the first period I can state
the characteristic features only from the accounts I received, partly from
Unionists who were then living in the south, partly from persons that had
participated in the rebellion. When the news of Lee's and Johnston's
surrenders burst upon the southern country the general consternation was
extreme. People held their breath, indulging in the wildest apprehensions
as to what was now to come. Men who had occupied positions under the
confederate government, or were otherwise compromised in the rebellion,
run before the federal columns as they advanced and spread out to occupy
the country, from village to village, from plantation to plantation,
hardly knowing whether they wanted to escape or not. Others remained at
their homes yielding themselves up to their fate. Prominent Unionists told
me that persons who for four years had scorned to recognize them on the
street approached them with smiling faces and both hands extended. Men of
standing in the political world expressed serious doubts as to whether the
rebel States would ever again occupy their position as States in the
Union, or be governed as conquered provinces. The public mind was so
despondent that if readmission at some future time under whatever
conditions had been promised, it would then have been looked upon as a
favor. The most uncompromising rebels prepared for leaving the country.
The masses remained in a state of fearful expectancy.

This applies especially to those parts of the country which were within
immediate reach of our armies or had previously been touched by the war.
Where Union soldiers had never been seen and none were near, people were
at first hardly aware of the magnitude of the catastrophe, and strove to
continue in their old ways of living.

Such was, according to the accounts I received, the character of that
first period. The worst apprehensions were gradually relieved as day after
day went by without bringing the disasters and inflictions which had been
vaguely anticipated, until at last the appearance of the North Carolina
proclamation substituted new hopes for them. The development of this
second period I was called upon to observe on the spot, and it forms the
main subject of this report.

RETURNING LOYALTY.

It is a well-known fact that in the States south of Tennessee and North
Carolina the number of white Unionists who during the war actively aided
the government, or at least openly professed their attachment to the cause
of the Union, was very small. In none of those States were they strong
enough to exercise any decisive influence upon the action of the people,
not even in Louisiana, unless vigorously supported by the power of the
general government. But the white people at large being, under certain
conditions, charged with taking the preliminaries of "reconstruction" into
their hands, the success of the experiment depends upon the spirit and
attitude of those who either attached themselves to the secession cause
from the beginning, or, entertaining originally opposite views, at least
followed its fortunes from the time that their States had declared their
separation from the Union.

The first southern men of this class with whom I came into contact
immediately after my arrival in South Carolina expressed their
sentiments almost literally in the following language: "We acknowledge
ourselves beaten, and we are ready to submit to the results of the war.
The war has practically decided that no State shall secede and that the
slaves are emancipated. We cannot be expected at once to give up our
principles and convictions of right, but we accept facts as they are,
and desire to be reinstated as soon as possible in the enjoyment and
exercise of our political rights." This declaration was repeated to me
hundreds of times in every State I visited, with some variations of
language, according to the different ways of thinking or the frankness
or reserve of the different speakers. Some said nothing of adhering to
their old principles and convictions of right; others still argued
against the constitutionality of coercion and of the emancipation
proclamation; others expressed their determination to become good
citizens, in strong language, and urged with equal emphasis the
necessity of their home institutions being at once left to their own
control; others would go so far as to say they were glad that the war
was ended, and they had never had any confidence in the confederacy;
others protested that they had been opposed to secession until their
States went out, and then yielded to the current of events; some would
give me to understand that they had always been good Union men at heart,
and rejoiced that the war had terminated in favor of the national cause,
but in most cases such a sentiment was expressed only in a whisper;
others again would grumblingly insist upon the restoration of their
"rights," as if they had done no wrong, and indicated plainly that they
would submit only to what they could not resist and as long as they
could not resist it. Such were the definitions of "returning loyalty" I
received from the mouths of a large number of individuals intelligent
enough to appreciate the meaning of the expressions they used. I found a
great many whose manner of speaking showed that they did not understand
the circumstances under which they lived, and had no settled opinions at
all except on matters immediately touching their nearest interests.

Upon the ground of these declarations, and other evidence gathered in the
course of my observations, I may group the southern people into four
classes, each of which exercises an influence upon the development of
things in that section:

1. Those who, although having yielded submission to the national
government only when obliged to do so, have a clear perception of the
irreversible changes produced by the war, and honestly endeavor to
accommodate themselves to the new order of things. Many of them are not
free from traditional prejudice but open to conviction, and may be
expected to act in good faith whatever they do. This class is composed, in
its majority, of persons of mature age--planters, merchants, and
professional men; some of them are active in the reconstruction movement,
but boldness and energy are, with a few individual exceptions, not among
their distinguishing qualities.

2. Those whose principal object is to have the States without delay
restored to their position and influence in the Union and the people of
the States to the absolute control of their home concerns. They are ready,
in order to attain that object, to make any ostensible concession that
will not prevent them from arranging things to suit their taste as soon as
that object is attained. This class comprises a considerable number,
probably a large majority, of the professional politicians who are
extremely active in the reconstruction movement. They are loud in their
praise of the President's reconstruction policy, and clamorous for the
withdrawal of the federal troops and the abolition of the Freedmen's
Bureau.

3. The incorrigibles, who still indulge in the swagger which was so
customary before and during the war, and still hope for a time when the
southern confederacy will achieve its independence. This class consists
mostly of young men, and comprises the loiterers of the towns and the
idlers of the country. They persecute Union men and negroes whenever they
can do so with impunity, insist clamorously upon their "rights," and are
extremely impatient of the presence of the federal soldiers. A good many
of them have taken the oaths of allegiance and amnesty, and associated
themselves with the second class in their political operations. This
element is by no means unimportant; it is strong in numbers, deals in
brave talk, addresses itself directly and incessantly to the passions and
prejudices of the masses, and commands the admiration of the women.

4. The multitude of people who have no definite ideas about the
circumstances under which they live and about the course they have to
follow; whose intellects are weak, but whose prejudices and impulses are
strong, and who are apt to be carried along by those who know how to
appeal to the latter.

Much depends upon the relative strength and influence of these classes.
In the course of this report you will find statements of facts which may
furnish a basis for an estimate. But whatever their differences may be,
on one point they are agreed: further resistance to the power of the
national government is useless, and submission to its authority a matter
of necessity. It is true, the right of secession in theory is still
believed in by most of those who formerly believed in it; some are still
entertaining a vague hope of seeing it realized at some future time, but
all give it up as a practical impossibility for the present. All
movements in favor of separation from the Union have, therefore, been
practically abandoned, and resistance to our military forces, on that
score, has ceased. The demonstrations of hostility to the troops and
other agents of the government, which are still occurring in some
localities, and of which I shall speak hereafter, spring from another
class of motives. This kind of loyalty, however, which is produced by the
irresistible pressure of force, and consists merely in the non-commission
of acts of rebellion, is of a negative character, and might, as such,
hardly be considered independent of circumstances and contingencies.

OATH-TAKING.

A demonstration of "returning loyalty" of a more positive character is the
taking of the oaths of allegiance and amnesty prescribed by the general
government. At first the number of persons who availed themselves of the
opportunities offered for abjuring their adhesion to the cause of the
rebellion was not very large, but it increased considerably when the
obtaining of a pardon and the right of voting were made dependent upon
the previous performance of that act. Persons falling under any of the
exceptions of the amnesty proclamation made haste to avert the impending
danger; and politicians used every means of persuasion to induce people to
swell the number of voters by clearing themselves of all disabilities. The
great argument that this was necessary to the end of reconstructing their
State governments, and of regaining the control of their home affairs and
their influence in the Union, was copiously enlarged upon in the letters
and speeches of prominent individuals, which are before the country and
need no further comment. In some cases the taking of the oath was publicly
recommended in newspapers and addresses with sneering remarks, and I have
listened to many private conversations in which it was treated with
contempt and ridicule. While it was not generally looked upon in the
State I visited as a very serious matter, except as to the benefits and
privileges it confers, I have no doubt that a great many persons took it
fully conscious of the obligations it imposes, and honestly intending to
fulfil them.

The aggregate number of those who thus had qualified themselves for voting
previous to the election for the State conventions was not as large as
might have been expected. The vote obtained at these elections was
generally reported as very light--in some localities surprisingly so. It
would, perhaps, be worth while for the government to order up reports
about the number of oaths administered by the officers authorized to do
so, previous to the elections for the State conventions; such reports
would serve to indicate how large a proportion of the people participated
in the reconstruction movement at that time, and to what extent the masses
were represented in the conventions.

Of those who have not yet taken the oath of allegiance, most belong to the
class of indifferent people who "do not care one way or the other." There
are still some individuals who find the oath to be a confession of defeat
and a declaration of submission too humiliating and too repugnant to their
feelings. It is to be expected that the former will gradually overcome
their apathy, and the latter their sensitiveness, and that, at a not
remote day, all will have qualified themselves, in point of form, to
resume the right of citizenship. On the whole, it may be said that the
value of the oaths taken in the southern States is neither above nor below
the value of the political oaths taken in other countries. A historical
examination of the subject of political oaths will lead to the conclusion
that they can be very serviceable in certain emergencies and for certain
objects, but that they have never insured the stability of a government,
and never improved the morals of a people.

FEELING TOWARDS THE SOLDIERS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE NORTH.

A more substantial evidence of "returning loyalty" would be a favorable
change of feeling with regard to the government's friends and agents, and
the people of the loyal States generally. I mentioned above that all
organized attacks upon our military forces stationed in the south have
ceased; but there are still localities where it is unsafe for a man
wearing the federal uniform or known as an officer of the government to be
abroad outside of the immediate reach of our garrisons. The shooting of
single soldiers and government couriers was not unfrequently reported
while I was in the south, and even as late as the middle of September,
Major Miller, assistant adjutant general of the commissioner of the
Freedmen's Bureau in Alabama, while on an inspecting tour in the southern
counties of that State, found it difficult to prevent a collision between
the menacing populace and his escort. His wagon-master was brutally
murdered while remaining but a short distance behind the command. The
murders of agents of the Freedmen's Bureau have been noticed in the public
papers. These, and similar occurrences, however, may be looked upon as
isolated cases, and ought to be charged, perhaps, only to the account of
the lawless persons who committed them.

But no instance has come to my notice in which the people of a city or a
rural district cordially fraternized with the army. Here and there the
soldiers were welcomed as protectors against apprehended dangers; but
general exhibitions of cordiality on the part of the population I have not
heard of. There are, indeed, honorable individual exceptions to this rule.
Many persons, mostly belonging to the first of the four classes above
enumerated, are honestly striving to soften down the bitter feelings and
traditional antipathies of their neighbors; others, who are acting more
upon motives of policy than inclination, maintain pleasant relations with
the officers of the government. But, upon the whole, the soldier of the
Union is still looked upon as a stranger, an intruder--as the "Yankee,"
"the enemy." It would be superfluous to enumerate instances of insult
offered to our soldiers, and even to officers high in command; the
existence and intensity of this aversion is too well known to those who
have served or are now serving in the south to require proof. In this
matter the exceptions were, when I was there, not numerous enough to
affect the rule. In the documents accompanying this report you will find
allusions confirming this statement. I would invite special attention to
the letter of General Kirby Smith, (accompanying document No. 9.)

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20