jt^GVXS>^ 
 
Class. 
 
 Book_J24TS. 
 
 m' 
 
 COFmiGHT DEPOSm 
 
MAJOR JOHN R. LYNCH 
 
SOME HISTORICAL ERRORS OF 
 JAMES FORD RHODES 
 
Some Historical Errors 
 of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 MAJOR JOHN R. LYNCH 
 
 M 
 
 THE CORNHILL PUBLISHING COMPANY 
 BOSTON NEW YORK 
 
■A 
 
 COPTRIQHT 1922 
 
 Bt TflE CORNHILL PUBLISHING COMPANY 
 
 Printed in the United States of America 
 
 THE JORDAN & MORE PRESS 
 BOSTON 
 
 !ll!fcjHL...i.. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 Those who will do me the honor of reading 
 these chapters, and have read, or may hereafter 
 read, the " Facts of Reconstruction," will not 
 fail to see the fact brought out that, shortly after 
 the Democratic victories in the state and Con- 
 gressional elections of 1874, a propaganda was 
 put on foot to deceive and mislead the pubUc 
 with reference to the political situation at the 
 South, with a view to shaping and educating pub- 
 lic opinion so as to bring about acquiescence in, 
 and-i* endorsement of, illegal and questionable 
 election methods, in that section. The public 
 was to be taught to believe that such methods 
 were necessary to prevent " Negro domination." 
 The true purpose was not in the interest of " white 
 supremacy," but in the perpetuation of the local 
 oligarchies which had been brought into existence 
 through the adoption and enforcement of methods 
 which Mr. Rhodes is pleased to term " regret- 
 table." But the real facts are to be carefully 
 concealed and never pubUcly revealed. 
 
 The proponents of this propaganda seem to 
 have found in Mr. James Ford Rhodes their most 
 persuasive and versatile champion and advocate. 
 No one can read the chapters in his history cover- 
 
vi Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 ing the reconstruction period without coming to 
 the conclusion that, if what he writes is true, 
 poUtical contests in those states at that time 
 were not between two pohtical parties but be- 
 tween the two races — that the success of one 
 party would result in the domination of the 
 whites, and the success of the other in the domi- 
 nation of the blacks, to prevent which the public 
 should acquiesce in, countenance and endorse 
 election methods that would otherwise be re- 
 pudiated, denounced and condemned. 
 
 The writer of these lines speaks whereof he 
 personally knows when he declares that there 
 never was the slightest foundation for these alle- 
 gations and assertions. That the colored vote 
 was at that time, and in a large measure still is, 
 a menace to the success of the pohtical party 
 with which a majority of the whites of the South 
 were and are still identified will not be denied, 
 but this was as much from necessity as from 
 choice, the opposition of that party to the civil 
 and political rights of the colored American con- 
 stituting the necessity. But those who are in- 
 telligent enough to know the facts and candid 
 enough to admit them will not claim that this 
 jeopardized the domination of the whites in the 
 administration of the government, even in states 
 and districts where the blacks were in majority. 
 The only line the colored voters ever drew in 
 politics was that of party. At least ninety per 
 
Preface vii 
 
 cent of them voted for the candidates of the Re- 
 pubUcan party, white and colored, because they 
 were RepubUcans, and against the candidates of 
 the Democratic party, white and colored, be- 
 cause they were Democrats. They never at any 
 time voted for colored men because they were 
 colored, and against white men because they 
 were white. They not only would not draw the 
 race or color line in politics, but they refused to 
 discriminate against any one group or class of 
 white men. They would not, for instance, re- 
 fuse to vote for white men who had been slave- 
 owners or Confederate soldiers. Neither would 
 they draw the hne against those who were not 
 natives or old citizens — in other words, " carpet- 
 baggers " — if they were otherwise acceptable. 
 
 Between 1868 and 1874 the race or color line 
 in politics was not strictly drawn even by the 
 Democratic party, hence colored men were some- 
 times nominated for positions of importance by 
 the Democrats. The fact was revealed from the 
 election returns that the colored candidates re- 
 ceived about the same number of votes as their 
 white associates, and the white RepubUcan can- 
 didates about the same number as their colored 
 associates, thus showing that the race identity of 
 the opposing candidates did not enter into the 
 contests. In speaking of the attitude of the 
 colored people of the State of Mississippi towards 
 the whites, the Jackson Clarion, the leading 
 
viii Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 Democratic ~ paper of that state, in a political 
 editorial in 1874, said: "While they have been 
 naturally tenacious of their newly-acquired privi- 
 leges, their general conduct will bear them wit- 
 ness that they have shown consideration for the 
 feelings of the whites." 
 
 If the race or color line had been drawn by the 
 colored voters, as Mr. Rhodes would have his 
 readers believe, the above quotation would not 
 have been written. Again, if that allegation had 
 been true, colored men would have been elected 
 to a number of important positions to which white 
 men were chosen. No colored man, for instance, 
 was ever elected, or even aspired to, the governor- 
 ship of any one of the reconstructed states. 
 Hon. P. B. S. Pinchback of Louisiana, by virtue 
 of the position occupied by him as acting heut.- 
 governor, was called upon to serve as governor 
 of that state for a brief period, during the suspen- 
 sion by the legislature of the governor, and, 
 judging from the manner in which the duties of 
 the position were discharged during this time, it 
 is apparently true that the state would have had 
 a much better administration had he been elected 
 and served as governor for a full term. Only 
 three of the reconstructed states, South Carolina, 
 Mississippi and Louisiana, elected colored men to 
 the office of Lieut.-Governor, and Mississippi 
 did not elect one until 1873. Prior to that 
 time only one out of seven state officials in 
 
Preface ix 
 
 Mississippi had been a colored man. Except 
 South CaroUna, on whose Supreme Court bench 
 a colored man by the name of Wright served for 
 a short time, no colored man ever held a judicial 
 position above that of a justice of the peace. 
 Mississippi was the only state to send a colored 
 man to the United States Senate. Two, Revels 
 and Bruce, were sent from that state, but the 
 election of Revels was to fill out an unexpired 
 term of about fourteen months. He was elected 
 by a legislature in which there were about three 
 white men to one colored. 
 
 Hon. P. B. S. Pinchback was a senator-elect 
 from Louisiana, but since there was some question 
 about the legal status of the legislature by which 
 he was elected, his right to the seat was con- 
 tested. He finally came within one vote of being 
 seated. 
 
 Except South Carolina, no one of the recon- 
 structed states ever elected more than two colored 
 men to Congress at any one time. The largest 
 number ever chosen at any one election was in 
 1872, when eleven members of that race were 
 elected — five from South CaroUna, two from 
 Alabama and one each from Louisiana, Florida, 
 Mississippi and North Carolina. The other Re- 
 pubHcan members from that section, about thirty 
 in number, elected chiefly by the votes of colored 
 men, were all whites. The allegation that the 
 newly enfranchised blacks drew the race or color 
 
X Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 line in politics is a grave injustice and a cruel 
 slander. They never, at any time, manifested 
 the slightest desire, or showed the least inclina- 
 tion, to dominate, but always to participate. In 
 their attitude towards their white fellow citizens 
 they never desired to humiliate but always to 
 cooperate. In political matters they never de- 
 sired to separate themselves from, but rather to 
 act in harmony with, the whites who were mem- 
 bers of the party to which they belonged. It was 
 their aim, purpose and wish to establish and 
 maintain friendly, cordial and amicable relations 
 with their white fellow citizens. 
 
 When Mr. Revels was sent to the United 
 States Senate he carried a petition which had 
 been adopted by the legislature that elected him, 
 cheerfully concurred in by the colored members, 
 asking for the removal of the political disabilities 
 which had been imposed by the 14th Amendment 
 upon many of the leaders of the late Confederacy. 
 In consequence of this pacificatory attitude 
 thousands of the best and most substantial white 
 men of the South came into the Republican party 
 of that section, taking charge and assuming 
 leadership of it. One of the number, Ackerman 
 from Georgia, was honored with a seat in the 
 cabinet of President Grant. Another, Hunt of 
 Louisiana, was honored with a seat in the cabinet 
 of President Garfield. And but for the agreement 
 between Northern Republicans and Southern 
 
Preface xi 
 
 Democratic congressmen to have the Democratic 
 House accept and ratify the findings of the elec- 
 toral commission, seating Mr. Hayes as President, 
 possibly another one of the number, Ex-Senator 
 Alcorn of Mississippi, instead of Ex-Senator Key 
 of Tennessee, a Democrat, would have been made 
 a member of the Hayes cabinet. 
 
 In view of the many letters of congratulation 
 and commendation received from persons of note 
 and prominence, I am led to believe that my 
 efforts to correct some of the flagrant misstate- 
 ments and misrepresentations about the recon- 
 struction period have not been wholly in vain. 
 
 To my personal friend, Mr. George A. Myers 
 of Cleveland, Ohio, I am especially indebted. He 
 is the one that first brought Rhodes's History to 
 my notice. He is not only personally acquainted 
 with Mr. Rhodes, but sustains pleasant relations 
 with him. He was the medium through whom 
 the correspondence took place which resulted in 
 the preparation of these chapters. He is not 
 only a man of marked intelligence, but he is a 
 close and diligent student of American history. 
 
 In a letter to me under date of May 22, 1918, 
 he said: "Being unfamihar with the real hap- 
 penings of those early days, I once wrote Mr. 
 Rhodes . . . that the early granting of amnesty 
 to the South and the enfranchisement of the 
 Negro without an educational quahfication . . . 
 were both national mistakes. . . . Had I been 
 
xii Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 informed as I now am, through your " Facts 
 about Reconstruction " and this recent contro- 
 versy between you and Mr. Rhodes, I would have 
 made no such statement. I write this that you 
 may see how one as careful as I am to make 
 accurate statements may err by not having 
 reUable information." 
 
 Mr. Charles W. Chesnutt of Cleveland, Ohio, 
 one of our most widely-known authors, in a letter 
 addressed to Mr. George A. Myers dated Decem- 
 ber 24, 1917, says: " If Mr. Lynch had never 
 written anything else but this article, it would 
 stamp him as a man of pronounced ability. His 
 points are made clearly and forcefully, and as he 
 speaks from first-hand knowledge, they have the 
 ring of truth, notwithstanding the suggestion on 
 the other side that the memory is apt to be 
 treacherous. The expert makes several admis- 
 sions, but some of his statements are very vague 
 and unconvincing .... Mr. Rhodes has evi- 
 dently been fed up with the Southern view-point 
 and has adopted it as his own. This seems 
 regrettable, inasmuch as a serious historical work 
 is likely to be accepted as a true record of past 
 events." 
 
 Since this work is in a large measure an amplifi- 
 cation of some of the material points brought out 
 in " The Facts of Reconstruction," a brief quo- 
 tation from a letter written by a gentleman of 
 note relative to that work will not be out of place 
 
Preface xiii 
 
 here. The gentleman referred to is Mr. Frank 
 Hamlin, a prominent member of the Chicago 
 Bar and a son of Ex- Vice-President Hannibal 
 Hamlin. In his letter addressed to the author 
 dated June 23, 1916, Mr. Hamlin said: "I have 
 read your book ' The Facts of Reconstruction ' 
 with the keenest interest and appreciation. In 
 this time of gross misrepresentation and exagger- 
 ation concerning this particular period, it is a 
 matter of much satisfaction to obtain information 
 at first hand, from one who has a personal knowl- 
 edge of the facts of that particular time. . . . 
 Your own views on reconstruction confirm my 
 own opinion so strongly in regard to those policies 
 that I have taken this liberty of writing you and 
 thanking you for expressing them so clearly and 
 forcibly. ... I think you have performed a 
 public service by placing your statements in 
 print, making them a matter of public record 
 concerning the days of reconstruction, and I wish 
 to express my sincere thanks to you for having 
 performed the same." 
 
 The above extracts are taken from only a few 
 of the many hundreds of similar letters that the 
 author has received from all parts of our country 
 and some from abroad. 
 
 In my opinion, what will make this work es- 
 pecially attractive is the fact that both sides of 
 the matters in controversy are presented under 
 one cover. The work is divided into three parts. 
 
xiv Historical Errors of James Ford RJwdes 
 
 The first is the author's review of that part of 
 Rhodes's history which covers the reconstruction 
 period, in which many of his errors, misstate- 
 ments and misrepresentations are pointed out and 
 refuted. The second contains the answer to the 
 first, written by an " expert " selected by Mr. 
 Rhodes for that purpose. The third is the author's 
 reply to that answer. 
 
 The reader will not fail to see that the state 
 governments at the South claimed by Mr. Rhodes 
 to be the representatives of the restoration of 
 home rule were the products of violence and 
 force. They were not governments of law, but of 
 force; not governments of right, but of might. 
 They were not based upon the popular will, but 
 the result of a violent suppression of that will. 
 Having seized possession of the machinery called 
 the state governments vi et armis, they proceeded 
 to perpetuate themselves in power by the adop- 
 tion and enforcement of various schemes and 
 devices of questionable legality and constitution- 
 ality, to avoid and prevent an expression of the 
 popular will. In other words, to disfranchise, 
 through an evasion, if not violation, of the Federal 
 Constitution, thousands of persons who would 
 otherwise be qualified to vote at all popular 
 elections. Since these governments were brought 
 into existence through violence and force, and are 
 maintained in power through the adoption and 
 enforcement of inexcusable and indefensible meth- 
 
Preface 
 
 XV 
 
 ods, their retrogression, degeneraov .r.A w 
 decay must necessanl^r ' ,, ^^^^^^ and ultimate 
 rr XI I'^^^essanly lollow m coursp nf +i>^ 
 
 stone upon which pv^r, '''"'^^ "o^er- 
 
 who have faithiL thIZbSr--* "^'^' ^"'^ 
 Republican institu ionf 1l ^ ? P*"P«t"ity of 
 conunended, wi^ he hoie^hTtt ^ -7^'^''' 
 -ful, thou.h«u, and d^hilirrn! 
 
 JOHN R. LYNCH. 
 
INTRODUCTORY 
 
 In 1916, in glancing over one of the volumes of 
 Rhodes's history of the United States, I came 
 across the chapters giving information about what 
 took place in the State of Mississippi during the 
 period of Reconstruction. I detected so many 
 statements and representations which, to my 
 knowledge, were absolutely groundless that I de- 
 cided to read carefully the entire work, which I 
 have done; and I regret to say that, so far as the 
 Reconstruction period is concerned, the history is 
 not only inaccurate and unreliable, but is the 
 most one-sided, biased, partisan and prejudiced 
 historical work I have ever read. In his preface 
 to volume six, the author was frank enough to 
 make the following observation: " Nineteen years' 
 almost exclusive devotion to the study of one 
 period of American history has had the tendency 
 to narrow my field of vision." Without doing 
 violence to the truth he could have appropriately 
 added these words : '' And since the sources of my 
 information touching the Reconstruction period 
 were partial, partisan and prejudiced, my field of 
 vision has not only been narrowed, but my mind 
 has been poisoned, my judgment has been warped, 
 
xviii Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 my deductions have been biased, and my opinions 
 so influenced that my alleged facts have not only 
 been exaggerated, but my comments, arguments, 
 inferences and deductions based upon them can 
 have very little, if any, value for historical 
 purposes. " 
 
 Many of his alleged facts were so magnified 
 and others so minimized as to make them harmo- 
 nize with what the author thought the facts 
 should be, rather than what they actually were. 
 In the first place, the very name of his work is a 
 misnomer: " History of the United States from 
 the Compromise of 1850 to the Final Restoration 
 of Home Rule at the South in 1877," I have em- 
 phasized the words, '' to the final restoration of 
 home rule at the South in 1877 " because those 
 are the words that constitute the misnomer. If 
 home rule were finally restored to the South in 
 1877, the natural and necessary inference is that 
 prior to that time those states were subjected to 
 some other kind of rule, presumably that of 
 foreigners and strangers, — an inference which is 
 wholly at variance with the truth. Another in- 
 ference to be drawn is that those states had 
 enjoyed home rule until the same was disrupted 
 and set aside by the Reconstruction Acts of 
 Congress, but that it was finally restored in 1877. 
 If this is the inference which the writer intended 
 the reader to draw, it is conclusive evidence that 
 he was unpardonably and inexcusably ignorant 
 
Introductory xix 
 
 of the subject matter about which he wrote. As 
 the term home rule is generally understood, there 
 never was a time when those states did not have 
 it, unless we except the brief period when they 
 were under military control, and even then the 
 military commanders utilized home material in 
 making appointments to office. But since the 
 officers were not elected by the people, it may be 
 plausibly claimed that they did not for that 
 period have home rule. But the state govern- 
 ments organized and brought into existence under 
 the Reconstruction Acts of Congress were the 
 first and only governments in that section which 
 were genuinely Republican in form. The form of 
 government which existed in the ante-bellum 
 days was that of an aristocracy. The govern- 
 ment which has existed since what Mr. Rhodes 
 is pleased to term the restoration of home rule is 
 simply that of a local despotic oligarchy. The 
 former was not, and the present is not, based 
 upon the will and choice of the masses, but the 
 former was by far the better of the two, for what- 
 ever may be truthfully said in condemnation and 
 in derogation of the Southern aristocracy of ante- 
 bellum days, it cannot be denied that they repre- 
 sented the wealth, the intelligence, the decency 
 and the respectability of their respective states. 
 While the state governments that were domi- 
 nated by the aristocrats were not based upon the 
 will of the people as a whole, yet from an admin- 
 
XX Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 istrative point of view they were not necessarily- 
 bad. Such cannot be said of those who are now 
 the representatives of what Mr. Rhodes is pleased 
 to term home rule. 
 
SOME HISTORICAL ERRORS OF 
 JAMES FORD RHODES 
 
SOME HISTORICAL ERRORS OF 
 JAMES FORD RHODES 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 Southern White Republicans 
 
 In volume 7, page 171, Mr. Rhodes says: 
 " Some Southern men at first acted with the 
 Repubhcan party, but they gradually slipped 
 away from it as the color Une was drawn and 
 reckless and corrupt financial legislation inaugu- 
 rated." That thousands of white men at the 
 South who identified themselves with the Repub- 
 lican party between 1868 and 1876 subsequently 
 left it will not be denied, but the reasons for their 
 action are not those given by Mr. Rhodes. In 
 fact, there is no truth in the statement about the 
 drawing of the color line and very little in the 
 one about corrupt or questionable financial legis- 
 lation. The true reason for the action of the 
 white men referred to will be found in Chapter II 
 of " The Facts of Reconstruction," but for the 
 information of those who have not seen that 
 book the matter will be touched upon and briefly 
 explained here. 
 
4 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 The white men who joined and assumed the 
 leadership of the Repubhcan party at the South 
 between 1868 and 1876 were among the most 
 intelligent and cultivated representative men of 
 that section. As a rule they were men who were 
 identified with what was known as " Southern 
 aristocracy." Such men, for instance, as Ex- 
 Governor Orr of South Carolina, Parsons of 
 Alabama, Reynolds of Texas, and Brown of 
 Georgia. Also such men as Mosby, Wickham, 
 and subsequently Mahone, Massey, Paul, Ful- 
 kerson and Riddleberger of Virginia. General 
 R. E. Lee was known to have leanings in the same 
 direction, but since he was not politically ambitious 
 his views were not made a matter of public dis- 
 cussion. In addition to Ex-Governor Brown of 
 Georgia, they included such men as Gen. Long- 
 street, Joshua Hill, Bullock and many others of 
 like caliber. Even Ben Hill was suspected by 
 some and accused by others of leaning in the same 
 direction. In Louisiana not less than twenty- 
 five per cent of the best and most substantial 
 white men of that state became identified with 
 the Republican party under the leadership of 
 such men as Ex-Governor Hahn and Messrs. 
 Hunt (appointed Secretary of the Navy by 
 President Garfield), Wells, Anderson, and many 
 others. Although he took no active part in 
 politics, General Beauregard was known, or at 
 any rate believed to be, in sympathy with these 
 
Southern White Republicans 5 
 
 men and the cause they represented. But it was 
 in my own state, Mississippi, where I had an 
 intimate knowledge of and acquaintance with the 
 soHd and substantial white men who identified 
 themselves with the Republican party, and whose 
 leadership the newly enfranchised blacks faith- 
 fully followed. They included such men as 
 James L. Alcorn, elected governor of the state by 
 the Republicans in 1869 and to the United States 
 Senate by the legislature which was elected at 
 the same time. Alcorn was one of the aristocrats 
 of the past. He served with Mr. Lamar in the 
 Secession Convention of 1861 and was a general 
 in the Confederate Army. Mr. Rhodes failed to 
 inform his readers of the fact that the Democratic 
 candidate for governor against Alcorn, Judge 
 Louis Dent, belonged to that much-abused class 
 called " carpetbaggers," but who, like thousands 
 of others of that class, both Democrats and Re- 
 publicans, was a man of honor and integrity. 
 The same was true of Messrs. Tarbell, Powers, 
 Perce, McKee, Jeffords, Speed, and many others, 
 some of whom were Democrats. In addition to 
 Alcorn, there was Col. R. W. Flournoy, who also 
 served with Mr. Lamar as a member of the Seces- 
 sion Convention and who was the Republican 
 candidate for Congress against Mr. Lamar in 
 1872. Also Judge Jason Niles, who served as a 
 member of the State Legislature, Judge of the 
 Circuit Court and member of Congress, whose 
 
6 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 able and brilliant son, Judge Henry Clay Niles, ^ 
 is now the United States District Judge for that 
 state, appointed by President Harrison. He has 
 the reputation of being one of the best and finest 
 Judges on the Federal Bench. The state never 
 had before, and has not had since, a finer judiciary 
 than it had under the administrations of Alcorn, 
 Powers and Ames, the three RepubUcan Gover- 
 nors. In referring to the three justices of the 
 state supreme court Mr. Rhodes made the state- 
 ment that eligible material in the Republican 
 party was so scarce that, in order to get three 
 competent judges, the governor was obliged to 
 select a Democrat, which is not true. Chief 
 Justice E. G. Peyton and Associate Justice H. F. 
 Simrall were both southern RepubUcans. Justice 
 Tarbell, though a " carpetbagger," so-called, 
 was also a Republican and an able judge who 
 enjoyed the confidence and respect of the Bench 
 and Bar. When he retired from the Bench he 
 was made second Comptroller of the United 
 States Treasury. In addition to these able and 
 brilliant men, I feel justified in naming a few 
 others, such as R. W. Millsaps, in whose honor 
 one of the educational institutions at Jackson was 
 named; W. M. Compton, T. W. Hunt, J. B. 
 Deason, W. H. Vasser, Luke Lea, who was at 
 one time United States District Attorney, and his 
 son, A. M. Lea, who subsequently held the same 
 
 * Judge Niles has since died. 
 
Southern White Republicans 7 
 
 office; J. L. Morphis, one of the first Republicans 
 elected to Congress; Judge Hiram Cassidy, who 
 was the recognized leader of the Bar in the south- 
 ern part of the state, and his able and brilliant 
 son, Hiram Cassidy, Jr.; also his law partner, 
 Hon. J. F. Sessions. Among the circuit and 
 chancery court judges there were such jurists as 
 Messrs. Chandler, Davis, Hancock, Walton, Smy- 
 ley, Henderson, Hill, Osgood, Walker, Millsaps, 
 McMillan and Crain — all Republicans, as in 
 fact was every judge on the Bench without a 
 single exception. In addition to these were 
 thousands of others, such as J. N. Carpenter and 
 James Surget, men of character, wealth and 
 intelligence, who had no ambition for official 
 recognition or political distinction, but who were 
 actuated by what they honestly believed to be 
 conducive to the best interests of their country, 
 their state and their section. In fact, the south- 
 ern white men that came into the Republican 
 party were typical representatives of the best 
 blood and the finest manhood of the South, than 
 whom no better men ever lived. And yet to 
 read what Mr. Rhodes has written one would 
 naturally assume that the opposite of this was 
 true — that the Republican party in that section 
 was under the domination of Northern carpet- 
 baggers and a few worthless Southern whites and 
 a number of dishonest and incompetent colored 
 men. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 Some Mistakes Were Made 
 
 That some mistakes were made during the 
 progress of reconstruction cannot and will not be 
 denied. No friend and supporter of the Con- 
 gressional plan of reconstruction will claim that 
 everything was perfect and that no mistakes were 
 made. On the contrary, it is frankly admitted 
 that a number of grave mistakes and blunders 
 were made, but they were not confined to any one 
 party. No one party could justly lay claim to 
 all that was good or truthfully charge the other 
 with all that was bad. Of those who were selected 
 as representatives of the parties, the Democrats 
 had, in point of experience and intelligence, a 
 slight advantage over the Republicans, but in 
 point of honesty and integrity the impartial 
 historian will record the fact that the advantage 
 was with the Republicans. This point will be 
 again referred to and will be more fully amplified 
 and explained. But, as has been stated, some 
 mistakes were made by both parties. How could 
 it have been otherwise? The Civil War had just 
 come to a close; sectional animosity was bitter and 
 intense. The Republican party was looked upon 
 as the party of the North, and therefore the bitter 
 
Some Mistakes Were Made 9 
 
 enemy of the South. The Southern white men 
 who joined the RepubUcan party were accused of 
 being traitors to their section and false to their 
 own race and blood; they were called scalawags. 
 Through a process of intimidation, chiefly by 
 means of social ostracism, independent thought 
 and action on the part of Southern whites, during 
 the early period of Reconstruction, were pretty 
 effectually prevented. Through such methods 
 they were quite successfully held under the sub- 
 jection and control of those whose leadership 
 they had been accustomed to follow. Under 
 such circumstances the reader may ask the ques- 
 tion, why was it and how was it that so many of 
 the best white men of that section joined the 
 Republican party? The answer is that prior to 
 the election of Gen. Grant to the presidency in 
 1868 very few of them did so. After the election 
 of Grant in 1868 the feeling of intolerance some- 
 what subsided, resulting in a large number of 
 accessions to the Republican party from the 
 ranks of the best and most substantial white men 
 of that section. But it was not until the re- 
 election of Grant in 1872 that political proscrip- 
 tion, social ostracism and intolerance completely 
 and entirely disappeared. It was then that white 
 men came into, took charge of and assumed the 
 leadership of, the Republican party in large num- 
 bers. They then had nothing to fear and nothing 
 to lose by being identified with it. Political 
 
10 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 proscription and social ostracism had been com- 
 pletely abandoned. The South then entered 
 upon a new era which was calculated to bring to 
 that section wealth and prosperity, with happiness 
 and contentment among its people of both races, 
 all living under local governments dominated and 
 controlled by the better element of native whites, 
 with the cooperation, assistance and participation, 
 to some extent, of the newly enfranchised blacks. 
 All the mischief that had resulted from the policy 
 of proscription, intolerance and social ostracism 
 was prior to this period. It was during that 
 period that thousands of white men were coerced 
 into acting with the Democratic party, and the 
 colored men, of course, were compelled from 
 necessity, if not from choice, to act with the 
 Republican party. Very little independent ac- 
 tion and voting could be indulged in by either 
 race. It was never a question of men; it was 
 always a question of party. Under such circum- 
 stances thousands of white men were obliged to 
 vote for certain Democratic candidates who were 
 otherwise objectionable, as against certain Re- 
 publicans who were otherwise acceptable. In a 
 like manner thousands of colored men were 
 obliged to vote for certain Republican candidates 
 who were otherwise objectionable, as against 
 certain Democrats otherwise acceptable. The 
 wonder, therefore, is not that so many, but that 
 so few, mistakes were made, — not that so many, 
 
WILLIAM McCARY 
 
 Sheriff and Tax Collector of 
 Adams County, Natchez, Miss., 
 from 1874 to 1870. From a photo- 
 sraph taken by Major Lynch at 
 Natchez, Miss., in 1868. 
 
 Hon. B. K. BRUCE 
 
 Who was Sheriff and Tax Col- 
 lector of Bolivar County, Miss., 
 when he was elected U. S. Senator, 
 in 1874. 
 
 ROBERT H. WOOD 
 
 Sheriff and Tax Collector of 
 .\dams County, Natchez, from 
 1876 to 1878. 
 
Some Mistakes Were Made 11 
 
 but that so few, objectionable persons were elected 
 to important and responsible positions. The 
 writer of this book has always believed it to be a 
 misfortune to his race and to the country if con- 
 ditions be such as to make it necessary for any 
 race or group of which our citizenship is composed 
 to act in a solid body with any one political party. 
 The writer called attention to this in a speech 
 which he delivered on the floor of the National 
 House of Representatives over thirty years ago. 
 He then made an appeal to the Democrats to 
 change the attitude of their party towards the 
 colored Americans. While the colored people, 
 he said, were grateful to the Republican party for 
 their physical emancipation, they would be 
 equally grateful to the Democratic party for their 
 political emancipation. While he was a Repub- 
 lican from choice, he personally knew of many 
 members of his race who were Republicans not 
 from choice, but from necessity, and that the 
 Democratic party was responsible for the exis- 
 tence of that necessity. Upon economic questions 
 there are differences of opinion among colored as 
 well as white persons. It is an injustice to the 
 colored race and a misfortune to the country if 
 they cannot vote in accordance with their con- 
 victions upon such questions. No race or group 
 can be true and independent American citizens, 
 as all should be, when they are made to feel that 
 the exercise and enjoyment by them of their civil 
 
12 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 and political rights are contingent upon the result 
 of an election. It must be said to the credit of 
 the late Grover Cleveland that he did all in his 
 power, both as governor of his state and as Presi- 
 dent of the United States, to bring about this 
 necessary change and reform in his party. That 
 his efforts were not crowned with success was 
 through no fault of his. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 The Type of Men Elected by Colored Voters 
 
 The newly enfranchised blacks at the South, as 
 I have endeavored to show, had no other alterna- 
 tive than to act with the Republican party. 
 That some objectionable persons should have been 
 elected by their votes under these conditions 
 could not very well be prevented; but the 
 reader of Mr. Rhodes's history cannot fail to see 
 that he beUeved it was a grave mistake to give 
 the colored men at the South the right to vote, 
 and in order to make the alleged historical facts 
 harmonize with his own views upon this point he 
 took particular pains to magnify the virtues and 
 minimize the faults of the Democrats and to 
 magnify the faults and minimize the virtues of the 
 RepubUcans, the colored Republicans especially. 
 In vol. 7, page 97, for instance, Mr. Rhodes says: 
 " But few Negroes were competent to perform the 
 duties; for instance, it was said that the colored 
 man who for four years was sheriff of De Soto 
 county could neither read nor write. The Negro 
 incumbent generally farmed out his office to a 
 white deputy for a share of the revenue." The 
 above is one of the most barefaced and glaring 
 misstatements and misrepresentations that could 
 
14 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 possibly be made. The reader will notice that 
 the allegation is based upon the phrase " it has 
 been said "; but if Mr. Rhodes had been anxious 
 to record only what was accurate and true, he 
 should, as he easily could, have found out just 
 what the facts were, as I have done. The facts 
 were these: When Tate County was created the 
 greater part of the territory composing the new 
 county had been taken from the county of De- 
 Soto. The then sheriff of De Soto County lived 
 in that section which was made a part of the new 
 county of Tate. It thus became necessary for a 
 new sheriff to be appointed by the governor for 
 De Soto County, who could hold office until the 
 election of a sheriff at the ensuing election. 
 Rev. J. J. Evans, a colored Baptist minister and 
 an ex-federal soldier, was thus appointed. Since 
 this took place in 1873, the appointment must 
 have been made by Governor R. C. Powers, who 
 had been elected lieutenant-governor on the 
 ticket with Alcorn in 1869 and became governor 
 when Alcorn went to the United States Senate in 
 1871. Although he was one of those who be- 
 longed to the class called " carpetbaggers," 
 Governor Powers was known to be an honest and 
 upright man, and one who exercised great care in 
 all of his appointments. Governor Powers never 
 could have been induced to appoint a man sheriff 
 of any county who could neither read nor write. 
 Mr. Evans discharged the duties of his position 
 
Type of Men Elected hy Colored Voters 15 
 
 with such entire satisfaction that he was nomi- 
 nated by the Republicans and elected to succeed 
 himself at the regular election in November, 1873, 
 for the full term of two years. In 1875 he was 
 re-nominated by his party to succeed himself. 
 Mr. Evans's administration had been so satis- 
 factory that when the Democratic county con- 
 vention met to nominate a county ticket, no 
 nomination was made for the office of sheriff. 
 But between the nomination and election the 
 Democratic organization in the state saw a new 
 light. It was decided that the state must be 
 " redeemed,^' and that nearly all of the counties 
 must be included in that redemption. The Demo- 
 cratic executive committee of De Soto County 
 was, therefore, directed to meet and complete 
 the county ticket by nominating a candidate for 
 sheriff, which was done, and the ticket as thus 
 completed was, of course, declared elected. De- 
 Soto County was " redeemed.''^ It is a fact of 
 which Mr. Rhodes may not be aware, that the 
 county sheriff in Mississippi is also the county 
 tax collector, and as such he is required to give a 
 heavy bond. These bonds are usually made by 
 property owners of the county, nearly all of whom 
 are white men and Democrats. Had Mr. Evans 
 been the man described by Mr. Rhodes, he never 
 could have qualified for the office. It is also a 
 fact of which Mr. Rhodes may be not aware, that 
 the county sheriff in Mississippi as the chief 
 
16 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 executive and administrative officer of his county 
 is necessarily obliged, regardless of his own 
 qualifications and fitness, to employ a number of 
 assistants and deputies to aid him in running the 
 office. The number of persons, with the salary 
 or compensation of each, is fixed by law or the 
 court, and they are paid according to law out of 
 money appropriated for that purpose. In mak- 
 ing these appointments it is both reasonable and 
 natural that the appointing power would favor- 
 ably consider a suggestion or recommendation 
 from any one of his sureties. At any rate, Mr. 
 Evans had the good sense to surround himself 
 with honest, efficient and capable assistants. 
 He is still Uving at Hernando, De Soto County, 
 Miss. As I write these lines an autograph letter 
 from him is before me. While it is clear that he 
 is not a college graduate, his letter effectually 
 disproves the allegation that he can neither read 
 nor write. I judge from the contents of his 
 letter that there is no truth in the allegation that 
 he divided any part of his own compensation with 
 any one or more of his assistants. He left the 
 office with a spotless record, every dollar of the 
 public funds that passed through his hands and 
 for which he was liable being honestly and faith- 
 fully accounted for. 
 
 But even if Mr. Evans had been the man 
 described by Mr. Rhodes, it would have been 
 manifestly unfair and unjust to the colored voters 
 
Type of Men Elected hy Colored Voters 17 
 
 of Mississippi to select him as a typical represen- 
 tative of those who were elected to important and 
 responsible positions by the votes of colored men. 
 Out of seventy-two counties of which the state 
 was then composed not more than twelve ever 
 had at any one time colored sheriffs, and they 
 did not all hold office at the same time. Of those 
 who were thus honored the writer of these lines 
 was personally acquainted with not less than ten. 
 Mr. Evans was one of the few whom he did not 
 know personally. If Mr. Rhodes had desired to 
 be fair and impartial he would have taken all of 
 them into consideration and would have drawn 
 an average. But this would not have answered 
 his purpose. It would have shown that in point 
 of intelligence, capacity, fitness, honesty and 
 integrity the colored sheriffs compared favorably 
 with the whites. Take, for instance, the county 
 of Adams-Natchez, my own home, where two 
 colored men at different times held the office of 
 sheriff. The first of the two was Wm. McCary, 
 who was elected in 1873. He belonged to that 
 small class known as free persons of color dicing 
 the days of slavery. His father was the leading 
 barber of Natchez for white business men, and a 
 private school teacher. He taught the children 
 of those who were identified with his own class, of 
 whom there were quite a number, who enjoyed 
 privileges and advantages which were denied the 
 children of slaves. His own children, of course, 
 
18 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 were not neglected. Wm. McCary, therefore, 
 had a good Enghsh education. He was also a 
 property owner and tax payer. He was one of 
 the two colored men who qualified as a surety on 
 the bond of the writer of these Unes when he was 
 appointed a justice of the peace in 1869. He was 
 held in high esteem by the people of the city of 
 Natchez and county of Adams, both white and 
 colored. Prior to his election to the office of 
 sheriff he had served as a member of the board of 
 aldermen for the city of Natchez, and also as 
 treasurer for the county of Adams, and subse- 
 quently as postmaster of Natchez, the duties of 
 all of which he discharged with credit to himself 
 and satisfaction to the public. In 1876 he was 
 succeeded as sheriff by another colored man, 
 Robert H. Wood, who in all important particulars 
 was about on a par with McCary. He had 
 previously served as mayor of Natchez, to which 
 position he was elected by popular vote in De- 
 cember, 1870. He was serving the people of 
 Natchez as their postmaster when he was elected 
 to the office of sheriff. 
 
 These men not only gave satisfaction to the 
 people whom they served, but they reflected 
 credit upon themselves, their race and their 
 party, and also the community that was so fortu- 
 nate as to have the benefit of their services. 
 What was true of those two men was also true, in 
 a large measure, of Harney of Hinds, Scott of 
 
Type of Men Elected by Colored Voters 19 
 
 Issaquena, Sumner of Holmes, and several others. 
 But if Mr. Rhodes wanted to be fair and impartial 
 and preferred to select but one man as a typical 
 representative of those who were elected to such 
 positions by the votes of colored men, he would 
 have selected B. K. Bruce, who was sheriff of 
 Bolivar County when he was elected to the United 
 States Senate. Mr. Bruce needs no introduction 
 to intelligent and reading Americans. He de- 
 veloped into a national character. He reflected 
 credit not only upon himself, his race and his 
 party, but his country as well. And yet he typi- 
 fied in a most preeminent degree the colored men 
 who were elected to important and responsible 
 positions chiefly by the votes of members of that 
 race. 
 
 But the reader of Rhodes's history will look in 
 vain for anything that will give him accurate and 
 impartial information along these Hues. His 
 history, therefore, is remarkable, not only for 
 what it says, but for what it leaves unsaid. In 
 fact it is plain to the intelligent reader that he 
 started out with preconceived notions and ideas 
 as to what the facts were or should have been, 
 and that he took pains to select such data and so 
 to color the same as to make them harmonize 
 with his preconceived notions and opinions. 
 He thus passed over in silence all facts which 
 could not be so distorted as to make them thus 
 harmonize. He could find nothing that was 
 
20 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 creditable or meritorious in the career of any- 
 colored member of either house of Congress, not- 
 withstanding the favorable impression made and 
 the important and dignified service rendered by 
 Revels and Bruce in the Senate, and by such 
 members of the House as Rainey, Rapier, Elliott, 
 Smalls, Cain, Langston, O'Hara, Miller, Cheat- 
 ham, White and others. 
 
 The speech of R. B. Elliott in reply to A. H. 
 Stephens in the debate on the Civil Rights Bill 
 was admitted to be one of the most eloquent and 
 scholarly speeches ever delivered in Congress. 
 But Mr. Rhodes's preconceived opinions and 
 prejudices were so firmly fixed that he was in- 
 capable of detecting anything in the acts or 
 utterances of any colored member of either 
 branch of Congress that deserved to be commended 
 or favorably noticed. 
 
 The following is a brief extract from the elo- 
 quent speech of Mr. Elliott on the occasion above 
 referred to : 
 
 " The results of the war, as seen in Recon- 
 struction, have settled forever the political status 
 of my race. The passage of this bill will deter- 
 mine the civil status, not only of the Negro, but 
 of any other class of citizens who may feel them- 
 selves discriminated against. It will form the 
 capstone of that temple of liberty, begun on this 
 continent under discouraging circumstances, car- 
 ried on in spite of the sneers of monarchists and 
 
Type of Men Elected hy Colored Voters 21 
 
 the cavils of pretended friends of freedom, until 
 at last it stands, in all its beautiful symmetry and 
 proportions, a building the grandest which the 
 world has ever seen, realizing the most sanguine 
 expectations and the highest hopes of those who, 
 in the name of equal, impartial and universal 
 liberty, laid the foundation-stone. 
 
 " The Holy Scriptures tell us of an humble 
 handmaiden who long, faithfully and patiently 
 gleaned in the rich fields of her wealthy kinsman, 
 and we are told further that at last, in spite of 
 her humble antecedents, she found favor in his 
 sight. For over two centuries our race has 
 * reaped down your fields,' the cries and woes which 
 we have uttered have ' entered into the ears of 
 the Lord of Saboath " and we are at last politi- 
 cally free. The last vestige only is needed — 
 Civil Rights. Having gained this, we may, with 
 hearts overflowing with gratitude and thankful 
 that our prayer has been answered, repeat the 
 prayer of Ruth : ' Entreat me not to leave thee, 
 or to return from following after thee, for whither 
 thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I 
 will lodge; thy people shall be my people, and 
 thy God my God; where thou diest I will die; 
 and there will I be buried : the Lord do so to me, 
 and more also, if aught but death part thee and 
 me.' " 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 Conditions in Mississippi 
 
 But to return to Mississippi. The reader will 
 remember I have previously stated that in point 
 of honesty and integrity the impartial historian 
 will record that the advantage was with the 
 Republicans. This point I will now more fully 
 amphfy. Referring to the political and sangui- 
 nary revolution which took place in Mississippi 
 in 1875, Mr. Rhodes in vol. 7, page 141, makes 
 use of these words: ''Whilst regretting some of 
 the means employed, all lovers of good govern- 
 ment must rejoice at the redemption of Missis- 
 sippi." . . . " Since 1876 Mississippi has increased 
 in population and in wealth ; her bonded indebted- 
 ness and taxation are low." It is difficult to 
 conceive how an intelligent man, claiming to be 
 an impartial recorder of historical events, could be 
 induced to make such glaring misstatements as 
 the above, when he ought to have known that 
 just the opposite of what he affirms is true, except 
 as to increase in population and wealth. " All 
 lovers of good government must rejoice at the 
 redemption of Mississippi." Redemption from 
 what? The reader is led to believe that the re- 
 demption is from bad to good government; from 
 high to low taxes; from increased to decreased 
 
Conditions in Mississippi 23 
 
 bonded indebtedness; from incompetent, ineffi- 
 cient and dishonest administration to competent, 
 efficient, and honest. Now let us see just what 
 the facts were and are. In 1875 there was just 
 one state officer to be elected, that of state trea- 
 surer, to fill the vacancy caused by the death of 
 George H. Holland, who was elected on the ticket 
 with Ames in 1873. The Democrats nominated 
 Hon. Wm. L. Hemingway of Carroll County, 
 whose nomination was favorably received. His 
 life had been an open book. He had the reputa- 
 tion of being an honest, honorable and upright 
 man. In addition, he was identified with that 
 wing of his party which was known to be pro- 
 gressive, liberal and fair. In the early days of 
 Reconstruction the Democratic party in the state 
 was sharply divided into two factions. One, the 
 major faction, adopted what they termed a 
 policy of " masterly inactivity," which meant 
 that white Democrats should take no part in the 
 organization of a state government under the 
 Reconstruction Acts of Congress, with a view of 
 making the work of reconstruction as odious, as 
 objectionable and as unpopular as possible. The 
 other faction believed it to be the duty of the white 
 Democrats to take an active part in the forma- 
 tion of a state government, elect as many Demo- 
 crats to the state constitutional convention of 
 1868 as possible, with a view to having a constitu- 
 tion framed which would have very few, if any, 
 
24 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 objectionable clauses. Wm. L. Hemingway was 
 one of the latter number, and as such he was 
 elected to the constitutional convention of 1868 
 from Carroll County. The nomination of Hem- 
 ingway for state treasurer by the Democratic 
 state convention in 1875 was looked upon as a 
 concession to that element of the party. The 
 Republicans did not fail to see that in order to 
 carry the state they must nominate their strongest 
 and best man, even should the election be fair 
 and honest, as they hoped would be the case; 
 but this hope they had good reason to appre- 
 hend would not be fully realized. Capt. George 
 M. Buchanan of Marshall County was nomi- 
 nated. Buchanan had been a brave and gallant 
 Confederate soldier. He had served as sheriff 
 of Marshall County for a number of years. He 
 was strong, able and popular. He was known to 
 be the best fitted and best qualified man for the 
 office of state treasurer. With a half-way decent 
 election his victory even over so popular a man 
 as Wm. L. Hemingway was an assured fact. 
 But the Democrats had decided that the time 
 had come for the state to be " redeemed," peace- 
 ably and fairly if possible, violently and unfairly 
 if necessary. With George M. Buchanan as the 
 Republican candidate it was necessary for means 
 to be employed, the employment of which Mr. 
 Rhodes so much regretted, but which he justifies 
 because, as he understands it, they were employed 
 
Conditions in Mississippi 
 
 in the interest of good government, 
 true? Let us see. Buchanan, of coi 
 clared defeated and Hemingway decla 
 Mississippi was thus " redeemed," " f < ..^n all 
 
 lovers of good government must rejoice but Mr. 
 Rhodes failed to record the fact that this man who 
 was the representative of the redemption of the 
 state had been in ojQfice a comparatively brief 
 period when the discovery was made that he was 
 a defaulter to the amount of $315,612.19. See 
 chapter 16 of " The Facts of Reconstruction." 
 It would be a reflection upon Mr. Rhodes's intel- 
 ligence to assume that he was ignorant of this 
 important fact. He must have known it, but to 
 make any allusion to it would be out of harmony 
 with the purpose he evidently had in view. It is 
 safe to assume that if the will of a majority of the 
 legal voters of the state had not been violently 
 suppressed in the interest of good and honest (?) 
 government, but had secured the election of 
 George M. Buchanan, the state, while it would 
 not have been redeemed, would have been saved 
 the loss of $315,612.19. 
 
 The writer of these lines has never beUeved 
 that Hemingway was the personal beneficiary of 
 this money or any part thereof, but that he was 
 the instrument in the hands of others. Still, he 
 was the official representative of the redemption 
 of the state for which " all lovers of good govern- 
 ment must rejoice." 
 
/ Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 :e was a material increase in the 
 and in the wealth of Mississippi 
 denied. These two things would 
 na,» d even if the state had never been 
 
 redeemer. They were not the result of that re- 
 demption, but in spite of it. In fact, there was a 
 marked increase in population and in wealth 
 before as well as subsequent to the redemption. 
 But when the author states that the bonded in- 
 debtedness and taxations are low, the impression 
 necessarily made, and intended to be made, upon 
 the reader's mind is that after the redemption took 
 place, and as a result of it, the rate of taxation was 
 reduced, the volume of money paid into the 
 state treasury annually for the support of the 
 government was less than it had been before, and 
 that there had been a material reduction in the 
 bonded debt of the state; none of which is true. 
 See chapter 8 of " The Facts of Reconstruction." 
 If Mr. Rhodes had been disposed to record the 
 truth and nothing but the truth, which is pre- 
 sumed to be the aim of an impartial historian, ht 
 could easily have obtained the facts, because they 
 are a matter of record. To give the reader an 
 idea of what the facts were and are, I will take, 
 for purpose of comparison, one example prior and 
 one subsequent to the redemption of the state. 
 
 In 1875, the year the redemption took place, 
 the assessed value of taxable property was $119,- 
 313,834.00. The receipts from all sources that 
 
Conditions in Mississippi 27 
 
 year amounted to $1,801,129.12. Disbursements 
 for the same year, $1,430,192.83. In 1907 the 
 assessed value of taxable property was reported 
 to be $373,584,960. Receipts from all sources, 
 same year, $3,391,127.15. Disbursements, same 
 year, $3,730,343.29. The above figures speak 
 for themselves. They are from the official rec- 
 ords, the accuracy of which cannot be questioned. 
 (See chapter 8 of " The Facts of Reconstruction.") 
 
 In reading the chapter to which attention is 
 called, the reader will find that during the ad- 
 ministration of Governor Ames, which was about 
 half over when the redemption took place, the 
 rate of taxation had been reduced from seven 
 mills to four mills, that a material reduction had 
 been made in the bonded debt of the state, and 
 that after the redemption took place the tax rate 
 was increased from four mills to six mills, and 
 that by 1907, $732,890.74 had been added to the 
 bonded debt of the state. And yet in the opinion 
 of Mr. Rhodes these are conditions, the inaugu- 
 ration of which made the employment of regret- 
 table means necessary, in regard to which, how- 
 ever, " all lovers of good government should re- 
 joice," since their employment resulted in the 
 redemption of the state. 
 
 But another evidence of Mr. Rhodes's careless 
 and reckless manner of stating alleged historical 
 facts will be found in a paragraph on page 132, 
 volume 7, of his history. In speaking of Gover- 
 
28 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 nor Ames's unsuccessful efforts to have troops 
 sent to the state to assist in maintaining order and 
 insuring a fair and peaceable election, he says: 
 " A number of the white Republicans of Missis- 
 sippi who had quarrelled or differed with Ames, 
 among whom were both the United States sena- 
 tors, used their influence against the sending of 
 federal troops to Mississippi, and none were 
 sent." The two United States senators at that 
 time were J. L. Alcorn and B. K. Bruce. Bruce 
 was a strong friend and loyal supporter of Ames 
 and did all in his power to have Ames's request 
 granted. This statement is based upon my own 
 knowledge. Senator Alcorn was one of the few 
 white Republicans who had quarrelled with 
 Ames. In fact, he ran as an Independent for 
 governor against Ames in 1873. But he was a 
 Republican United States senator, and as such he 
 had no sympathy with the Democratic party. 
 My relations with both senators were cordial. 
 If Alcorn had used his influence to prevent having 
 federal troops sent to the state, I am sure I would 
 have known it. If he raised his voice or used his 
 pen for such purpose, that fact was never brought 
 to my notice, and I am satisfied it was never done. 
 My own opinion is that he remained reticent and 
 refused to take sides. The true reason why 
 troops were not sent in compUance with the re- 
 quest of Governor Ames will be found in chapter 
 14 of " The Facts of Reconstruction." 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 The Reconstruction Acts of Congress 
 
 " Stevens's Reconstruction Acts, ostensibly in 
 the interests of freedom, were an attack on civili- 
 zation," vol. 6, page 35. " In my judgment 
 Sumner did not show wise constructive states- 
 manship in forcing unqualified Negro Suffrage on 
 the South," vol. 6, page 40. The truth is 
 Stevens and Sumner were wiser than their day 
 and generation. They were not favorable to an 
 immediate restoration of the states lately in 
 rebellion, upon any conditions. They knew that 
 after the cessation of hostilities, the flower of the 
 Confederate army, an army which it took the 
 entire North, with all its numbers, immense wealth 
 and almost Umitless resources, four years to con- 
 quer, would be at the South, and that upon the 
 completion of reconstruction and the withdrawal 
 of the federal troops that army could be utilized 
 to bring about practically the same conditions 
 that existed before the war, hence their opposi- 
 tion to immediate restoration. But in this they 
 were not supported by popular sentiment, even 
 at the North. Popular sentiment did not even 
 support them in an effort to give the colored men 
 the right to vote, conditionally or uncondition- 
 
30 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 ally; hence the 14th Amendment was so worded 
 as to leave the question of suffrage, subject to 
 certain conditions, where it had always been, 
 with the several states. 
 
 President Johnson, who contended that the 
 rebel states had never been legally out of the 
 Union, had proceeded to organize state govern- 
 ments at the South upon a plan of his own. The 
 principal condition which he exacted of these 
 governments was that they should ratify the pro- 
 posed 13th Amendment to the Constitution, 
 which would legalize and nationalize the Procla- 
 mation of Emancipation. But popular sentiment 
 at the North demanded something more than this, 
 hence the 14th Amendment. It is safe to assume 
 that if the Johnson state governments at the 
 South had accepted and ratij&ed the 14th Amend- 
 ment, the controversy would have ended and no 
 further action would have been taken. But that 
 Amendment was contemptuously rejected by 
 them. Congress, which reflected the dominant 
 sentiment at the North, was confronted with a 
 grave situation. The fact was soon made clear 
 that no governments could be organized in that 
 section on a plan different from the one supported 
 by the president without giving the colored men 
 the right to vote. After much deliberation this 
 plan was finally adopted and carried out. This 
 is what Mr. Rhodes characterizes as an attack on 
 civilization. To what civilization does he refer? 
 
Reconstruction Acts of Congress 31 
 
 He surely could not have had in mind the civiliza- 
 tion which believed in the divine right of slavery 
 and which recognized and sanctioned the right of 
 one man to own another as his property; yet this 
 was the only civilization upon which the Congres- 
 sional plan of reconstruction was an attack. 
 But for the adoption of this plan and the subse- 
 quent legislation of Congress along the same line, 
 the abolition of slavery through the ratification 
 of the 13th Amendment would have been in name 
 only — a legal and constitutional myth. And 
 yet this is the civilization, an attack upon which 
 Mr. Rhodes so deeply deplores. It is fortunate 
 for the country that a majority of Mr. Rhodes's 
 fellow citizens did not and do not agree with him 
 along these lines. 
 
 Since Stevens and Sumner could not secure the 
 adoption of the plan advocated by them, they 
 proceeded to secure the adoption of the best one 
 possible to obtain under conditions as they then 
 existed; hence they insisted, successfully, as was 
 then believed, that the legislation, including the 
 14th Amendment, should be so framed as not 
 only to create national citizenship, as distinguished 
 from state citizenship, but that it should be made 
 the duty of the federal government to protect its 
 own citizens, when necessary, against domestic 
 violence, . . . that it should be the duty of the 
 federal government to protect them at home as 
 well as abroad, hence the closing clause in the 
 
32 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 14th Amendment, which declares that Congress 
 shall have power to enforce the provisions of that 
 Amendment by appropriate legislation. 
 
 But, says Mr. Rhodes, the Congressional plan 
 of reconstruction was a failure. The defeat of the 
 Republican party at the North, especially in 1874, 
 he believes " was due to the failure of the South- 
 ern policy of the Republican party." In speaking 
 of the action of President Hayes, he says: " In- 
 deed it was the final admission of the Republican 
 party that their pohcy of forcing Negro suffrage 
 upon the South was a failure." Is it true that 
 Reconstruction was a failure? That depends 
 upon the view one takes of it. That some things 
 many of its friends and supporters expected of it 
 were not fully realized will not be denied; but 
 that it was a failure can and will be easily dis- 
 proved. Admitting that certain things expected 
 of it by friends and supporters of it were not fully 
 reaUzed, its failure even to that extent was, in a 
 large measure, one of the results, but not one of 
 the contributory causes, of the Democratic national 
 victory of 1874. The particulars in which the 
 hopes and expectations of many of its friends 
 were not fully realized will be touched upon and 
 explained later. I shall now proceed to show 
 wherein that policy was a great and brilliant 
 success. 
 
 In the first place, as I have already stated, when 
 the split between Congress and President Johnson 
 
Reconstruction Acts of Congress 33 
 
 took place the fact was soon evident that the en- 
 franchisement of the blacks was the only plan 
 possible to adopt by which the one advocated by 
 the President could be defeated. It was frankly 
 admitted that the war for the preservation of the 
 Union could not have been brought to a success- 
 ful conclusion without putting the musket in the 
 hands of the loyal blacks. The fact was now 
 made plain that the fruits of the victory won on 
 the battlefield could not be preserved without 
 putting the ballot in their hands, hence it was 
 done. Was it a mistake? Mr. Rhodes says it 
 was; but the results prove that it was not. But 
 for the enfranchisement of the blacks of the South 
 at the time and in the way it was done, the 14th, 
 and subsequently the 15th, Amendments to the 
 Federal Constitution never could have been 
 ratified. 
 
 The ratification of those two Amendments alone 
 vindicated the wisdom of that legislation. The 
 14th Amendment, among other things, made the 
 colored people American citizens. It was, in 
 effect, a recall of the famous Dred Scott Decision. 
 The 15th Amendment gave the colored American 
 access to the ballot-box in every state in the 
 Union. The fundamental principles that were 
 carried into effect through the Reconstruction 
 Acts of Congress were embodied in those two 
 Amendments. After the ratification of those 
 Amendments, what had previously been local 
 
34) Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 became national. No state, North, South, East 
 or West, can now legally and constitutionally 
 make or enforce any law making race or color the 
 basis of discrimination in the exercise and enjoy- 
 ment of civil and public rights and privileges, nor 
 can it make race or color the basis of discrimina- 
 tion in prescribing the qualification of electors. 
 By the ratification of those Amendments the right 
 of an American citizen to the exercise and enjoy- 
 ment of civil and political rights and the right to 
 vote ceased to be local and became national. 
 But it is claimed by some that because the 15th 
 Amendment is successfully evaded in some states, 
 it is, for that reason, a failure. That point will 
 be touched upon and to some extent elaborated 
 later. I will state here in passing, however, that 
 no law or constitution has ever been made or ever 
 can be made that cannot at certain times and in 
 some places be successfully evaded. This does 
 not necessarily prove that the law or constitution 
 in question is a mistake and should, for that 
 reason, be repealed. To the extent and for the 
 reasons and purposes above stated, the wisdom of 
 the Reconstruction Acts of Congress has been 
 more than vindicated. 
 
 In addition to what is said above I am satisjfied 
 that if the colored men of the South had not been 
 enfranchised at this time and this way, but each 
 state had been allowed to determine for itself 
 whether or not any of the colored inhabitants 
 
Reconstruction Acts of Congress 35 
 
 thereof should be allowed to vote, as Mr. Rhodes 
 thinks should have been done, there would be 
 very few states, even now, in which the right to 
 vote would be granted to any of the colored in- 
 habitants. I repeat, therefore, that if nothing 
 else had been accomplished as the result, the 
 ratification of the 14th and 15th Amendments to 
 the Federal Constitution more than vindicated 
 the wisdom of that legislation. 
 
 In what, then, was Reconstruction a disappoint- 
 ment? I have frankly stated that some of the 
 hopes and expectations of a number of the friends 
 and supporters of the Congressional plan of re- 
 construction have not been fully realized. They 
 hoped and beheved, for instance, that when equal 
 civil and pohtical rights were conferred upon the 
 colored American and he was given access to the 
 ballot-box upon the same terms and conditions 
 appHcable to whites, he had been clothed with a 
 weapon by which he could defend and protect 
 himself against wrong and injustice. The dis- 
 appointment grows out of the fact that in some 
 localities these hopes and expectations have not 
 been fully realized. It is safe to assume that if 
 Stevens and Sumner had lived long enough to 
 witness the final results of that legislation they 
 would not be among those who were thus dis- 
 appointed, because they foresaw what the final 
 result in some instances and in some states might 
 be, and therefore advocated the adoption of the 
 
36 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 necessary means to anticipate them and to pre- 
 vent their successful consummation. Since the 
 14th Amendment had created national citizenship 
 and had incorporated the colored American into 
 the body politic of the country, they insisted, 
 successfully, upon the enactment of such legis- 
 lation as made it the duty of the National ad- 
 ministration to protect the individual American 
 citizen against domestic violence whenever the 
 state in which he might live should fail, refuse or 
 neglect to do so. That Congress possessed the 
 constitutional right to pass laws for that purpose 
 was an interpretation in harmony with the con- 
 struction placed upon the 14th Amendment by 
 the Republican leaders in and out of Congress, 
 which included some of the ablest constitutional 
 lawyers our country had produced, some of whom 
 had a hand in framing that Amendment. It was 
 not only in harmony with the construction placed 
 upon the 14th Amendment by the Repubhcan 
 leaders, but also by the party itself as expressed 
 from time to time in the platforms adopted by its 
 national conventions. 
 
 The attitude of the party on this point was 
 never more clearly and succinctly set forth than by 
 the Chicago Tribune as late as July, 1888, a news- 
 paper which then was, and now is, one of the 
 strongest and most influential newspapers in the 
 country. In its issue of July 3, 1888, that able 
 paper defined the attitude of the party upon this 
 
Reconstruction Acts of Congress 37 
 
 point in these words: " Questions of policy, such 
 as the tariff for revenue, are wholly subordinate to 
 the cardinal doctrine of Republicanism. That 
 the national government is supreme in its juris- 
 diction and represents an indestructible union of 
 indissoluble states, and as a sovereign power owes 
 protection to and claims allegiance from all its 
 citizens at home and abroad, is the vital funda- 
 mental doctrine of the Republican party." In 
 harmony with that construction of the Constitu- 
 tion, Congress passed the necessary laws, having 
 for their object the protection of individual 
 citizens of the United States against domestic 
 violence, this power being lodged primarily in the 
 president, to be exercised and used by him when- 
 ever in his judgment a state should fail, refuse or 
 neglect to afford that protection. Under this legis- 
 lation the secret and lawless pohtical organization 
 known as the Ku Klux Klan was crushed out by 
 President Grant, through the successful prosecu- 
 tion of many of its leaders in the federal courts 
 and through federal machinery. It is claimed by 
 some in recent years that the primary purpose of 
 this organization was the protection of white 
 women against the assaults of vicious colored 
 men. But every student of Anaerican history 
 knows that this is not true. He knows, on the 
 contrary, that it was a secret political organiza- 
 tion brought into existence for the sole purpose of 
 wresting the state governments at the South 
 
38 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 from the party then in control of most of them, 
 through lawless methods, such as intimidation 
 and murder. The protection of women had noth- 
 ing whatever to do with it. In fact, the student 
 of American history knows that during the Re- 
 construction period, and prior thereto, such a thing 
 as an assault upon a white woman by a colored 
 man seldom, if ever, occurred. While reports of 
 that character during the past quarter of a century 
 have been largely exaggerated, it is admitted that 
 more crimes of the sort have been committed 
 during this period than during the preceding 
 century. For this there must be a reason. The 
 subject is one which has occupied no inconsider- 
 able part of my most serious consideration and 
 reflection. My conclusions will be given to the 
 public through a work which I have in contem- 
 plation. But the protection of women was not 
 one of the objects and purposes of the Ku Klux 
 Klan. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 States Rights 
 
 That the hopes and expectations of some of the 
 friends and supporters of the Congressional plan of 
 reconstruction have not been fully realized are due, 
 in a large measure, to the reasons given below, and 
 they also account for the actions of many Southern 
 white men in deserting the Republican party. 
 In Mr. Rhodes's opinion one of the reasons for 
 Democratic victories at the North, subsequent to 
 1872, was due to a conviction in the public mind 
 that the Congressional plan of reconstruction was 
 a failure. In this I am satisfied he is mistaken. 
 As I have already stated, what Mr. Rhodes is 
 pleased to term the failiu-e of the Congressional 
 plan of reconstruction, but which, in point of 
 fact, was not, in its important and essential par- 
 ticulars, a failure, was one of the results but not 
 one of the primary causes of the national Demo- 
 cratic victories in 1874 and subsequent thereto. 
 I am satisfied in my own mind that very few men 
 at the North who voted the Repubhcan ticket in 
 1872, and the Democratic ticket in 1874 were 
 influenced in changing their votes by anything 
 growing out of, or connected with, the reconstruc- 
 tion policy of the government. On the contrary, 
 
40 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 they regarded that question as having been 
 settled, hence they could give their attention to 
 other matters. Some things connected with the 
 national administration, among them the back 
 salary bill and the financial panic of 1873, had 
 brought the administration into popular disfavor, 
 hence the Democratic victories of 1874. But let 
 the reasons be what they may, the results and the 
 effect were the same as if the Congressional plan 
 of reconstruction had been the sole question upon 
 which the people had rendered judgment. After 
 the presidential election of 1872 further opposition 
 to the Congressional plan of reconstruction had 
 been completely abandoned. But after the Demo- 
 cratic victories of 1874 a radical change in the 
 situation immediately took place. It was then 
 determined that the work of redemption should be 
 commenced without further delay, and that a 
 propaganda should at the same time be organized 
 through which the North should be kept misin- 
 formed with reference to the actual political 
 situation at the South. That the efforts of those 
 engaged in this propaganda have not been wholly 
 in vain, subsequent events have amply demon- 
 strated. But even if popular sentiment through- 
 out the country were on the right side of this 
 important question, it would ameliorate, but 
 would not wholly remedy, the evils complained of, 
 as I shall point out later on. I repeat, public 
 sentiment can ameliorate, but will not cure, these 
 
States Rights 41 
 
 evils, on account of several unfortunate decisions 
 rendered by the United States Supreme Court, 
 the result of two unfortunate appointments to 
 seats on the Bench made by President Grant. 
 The judges referred to are Waite of Ohio and 
 Bradley of New Jersey. Both were supposed to 
 be Republicans and beUeved to be in accord with 
 the other leaders and constitutional lawyers in 
 the Republican party in their construction of the 
 war amendments to the Federal Constitution. 
 But they proved to be strong States Rights men, 
 and therefore strict constructionists. Those two, 
 with the other States Rights men already on the 
 Bench, constituted a majority of that tribunal. 
 The result was that the court declared unconsti- 
 tutional and void, not only the National Civil 
 Rights Act, but also some of the principal sections 
 of the different enforcement acts which provided 
 for the protection of individual citizens by the 
 national government against domestic violence. 
 National citizenship had been created by the 
 14th Amendment and the general government 
 had been clothed with power to enforce the pro- 
 visions of that amendment. Legislation for that 
 purpose had been placed upon the statute books, 
 and they were being enforced whenever and 
 wherever necessary, as in the case of the lawless 
 and criminal organization called Ku Klux Klan. 
 But the Supreme Court, very much to the sur- 
 prise of everyone, steps in and ties the hands of 
 
42 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 the national administration and prevents any- 
 further prosecutions for violence upon the person 
 of a citizen of the United States, if committed 
 within the limits of any one of the states of the 
 Union. In other words, if the state in which a 
 citizen of the United States may reside cannot, 
 does not or will not protect him in the exercise 
 and enjoyment of his personal, civil and political 
 rights, he is without a remedy. The result is 
 that the general government is placed in the awk- 
 ward and anomalous position of exacting support 
 and allegiance from its citizens, which are pre- 
 sumed to be paramount, to whom it cannot in 
 return afford protection unless he should be out- 
 side the boundaries of his own country. By 
 those unfortunate and fatal decisions the mis- 
 chievous doctrine of States Rights, called by some 
 state sovereignty, by others local self-government, 
 which was believed to have perished upon the 
 battlefields of the country, was given new life, 
 strength and vitality. The decision declaring 
 the Civil Rights law unconstitutional was ren- 
 dered by Mr. Justice Bradley, and nearly all of 
 those by which some of the principal sections of 
 the different enforcement laws were nullified 
 were rendered by Chief Justice Waite. 
 
 States Rights, or state sovereignty, has been 
 the source and the cause of all of our national ills 
 since the foundation of the government. It was 
 the chief corner-stone upon which the institution 
 
States Rights 43 
 
 of slavery rested. It was the cause of the conflict 
 between the North and the South, which brought 
 on the war of the rebellion. The contention of 
 the South was that whatever is sovereign is neces- 
 sarily supreme, and since from their point of view 
 each and every state was a sovereign body, the 
 right of a state to remain in or withdraw from the 
 Union could not be denied — a contention which 
 would seem to be in perfect harmony with the 
 doctrine of state sovereignty, a denial of which 
 was a repudiation of that doctrine. Hence it was 
 hoped and believed that this vicious doctrine 
 came to an end when the surrender took place at 
 Appomattox. It was so regarded by its advocates 
 and champions at the South, who had decided to 
 gracefully accept the situation and govern them- 
 selves accordingly, when very much to their 
 surprise and gratification the Supreme Court, 
 through the dominating influence of Chief Justice 
 Waite and Associate Justice Bradley, came to 
 their rescue and reaffirmed and re-established, in 
 effect at least, the principle and doctrine for which 
 they had always contended. 
 
 Just as States Rights had been the cause of all 
 our national ills before the war of the rebelHon, 
 all our national woes, troubles and misfortimes 
 since that time are due to the same cause. It is 
 the foundation pillar which supports the so-called 
 solid South, the soUdity of which is based, not 
 upon the will, but contrary to the wishes of a 
 
44 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 majority of the people of that section. Those 
 unfortunate decisions, some of which were charac- 
 terized by the late Justice Harlan as a process of 
 judicial legislation, made such conditions possible. 
 The reaffirmation of that vicious doctrine is not 
 only the foundation upon which the so-called 
 solid South is based, which was brought about and 
 can be maintained only through a violation or 
 evasion of the national Constitution, but it is 
 also responsible for lynch law, political proscrip- 
 tion, racial discrimination and official segregation. 
 In fact, it has a tendency to encourage and pro- 
 mote sectional animosity, racial antagonism and 
 class discrimination. That the colored American 
 has been the principal sufferer during the last 
 quarter of a century is merely incidental. Mem- 
 bers of that race may be the chief victims today; 
 those of another race or group may be the prin- 
 cipal victims tomorrow. The mischief grows out 
 of the fact that the National Government cannot 
 interfere in any event and under any circum- 
 stances. States Rights, therefore, means the rule 
 of the mob in any state or locality where the mob 
 spirit is strong enough to dominate, influence and 
 control popular sentiment in that state or locality. 
 Take, for instance, the case of Leo Frank in 
 Georgia, a Hebrew, but a white man, who was 
 generally believed to have been judicially lynched, 
 and known to have been physically lynched 
 later. Many, if not all, of those who composed 
 
States Rights 45 
 
 the mob that took this man's Hfe are, no doubt, 
 well known to the people of that state and lo- 
 cality, yet nothing has been done in the case of 
 any one of them, and nothing ever will be done. 
 If the governor that commuted the sentence of 
 Frank had been lynched, as was threatened, the 
 result would have been the same, and if the 
 President of the United States had publicly de- 
 nounced the crime and had gone to Georgia and 
 been lynched, the result would not have been 
 materially different, because under the doctrine 
 of states rights, each state is a law unto itself, and 
 in its sovereign capacity as an independent state 
 must be its own judge as to what constitutes law 
 within its borders. It may not be in accord with 
 what is law in any other state, but that makes no 
 difference. What should constitute law in Geor- 
 gia is Georgia's business, and any interference by 
 outsiders is a violation of the sacred prerogatives 
 of the sovereign state of Georgia, and therefore 
 cannot be tolerated. This is the principal reason 
 why popular sentiment in the country as a whole 
 may ameliorate, but cannot remedy, the evils 
 complained of. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 Why White Men at the South Left the 
 Republican Party 
 
 The true reason, therefore, why so many white 
 men at the South left the Repubhcan party may 
 be stated under three heads. First: The Demo- 
 cratic victories of 1874, which were accepted by 
 Southern Democrats as a national repudiation of 
 the Congressional plan of reconstruction. Second : 
 The closeness of the presidential election of 1876, 
 and the bargain made and entered into between 
 the Hayes Managers and Southern Democratic 
 members of Congress by which the South was to 
 be turned over to the Democrats of that section 
 in consideration of their giving consent to the 
 peaceable inauguration of Hayes. Third: The 
 decisions of the Federal Supreme Court above 
 referred to, by which the doctrine of States 
 Rights was given new life, strength and vitality. 
 It is true there are some men whose party affiUa- 
 tions are based upon principle and conviction, 
 regardless of consequences personal to them- 
 selves. Occasionally some are found who are 
 even willing to be martyrs, but they are excep- 
 tions to the general rule. The average man is 
 politically ambitious. He desires pohtical dis- 
 
Republican Party m the South 47 
 
 tinction and official recognition. In determining 
 his party affiliations, therefore, he is more than 
 apt to cast his lot with the party through which 
 he believes that ambition may be gratified. 
 
 After the consummation of the events above 
 referred to, the conviction became settled in the 
 minds of white men at the South that the Demo- 
 cratic party in that section would be, for a genera- 
 tion at least, the only channel through which it 
 would be possible for any one to have his political 
 ambition gratified, hence thousands of those who 
 had previously joined the Republican party 
 returned to the Democratic, since that party 
 presented the only hope for their future pohtical 
 ambitions. 
 
 I hope the readers of these pages can now see 
 why thousands of white men at the South who 
 joined the RepubHcan party between 1868 and 
 1876 afterwards left that party and became 
 identified with the Democratic party. I trust I 
 have made it clear that the reasons given by Mr. 
 Rhodes are not the true ones. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 The Solid South 
 
 Notwithstanding what has been said, the solid 
 South of today is not the national menace that it 
 was forty years ago, because at that time it in- 
 cluded the border states of Delaware, Maryland, 
 West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, which 
 states were then as reliably Democratic, even in 
 presidential elections, as the states of Texas and 
 Georgia. Such is not true of them now. Whilst 
 three of them went Democratic at the presidential 
 election of 1916, not one of them should be in- 
 cluded in what now constitutes the solid South. 
 But if it took forty years for the development of 
 the slight change in the border states named 
 above, it will take, under like conditions, about 
 one hundred years more for the same progress to 
 be made in the states which now comprise what is 
 called the " solid South." The truth is that the 
 solid South could have been, and would have been, 
 long since a thing of the past but for the fact 
 that the national Republican party has lacked 
 the courage of its convictions in dealing with the 
 situation. It has not only failed to meet bravely 
 the issue thus involved and denounce and oppose 
 the methods that have been adopted and en- 
 
The Solid South 49 
 
 forced with the purpose of violating and evading 
 the war amendments to the Constitution, but it 
 has acquiesced in them, indirectly at least, as, 
 for instance, in the change that was made in the 
 basis of representation in the national conven- 
 tions of the party, which resulted in reduced 
 representation from the states in which the 
 colored vote is suppressed. To the reduced 
 representation per se there can be no objection. 
 The objection is not to the result, but to the 
 method adopted to bring it about, making the 
 party vote, as per the official returns, the basis of 
 representation. No plan could be adopted that 
 would be sectionally more inequitable, unjust and 
 unfair than this. So far as the South is con- 
 cerned, it is equivalent to an acceptance and en- 
 dorsement of the methods that have been adopted 
 in some of those states to exclude the colored men 
 from the ballot-box. Since representation in 
 national conventions prior to this last change was 
 based upon the state's representation in Congress, 
 it necessarily follows that if the representation in 
 Congress from those states were reduced in the 
 manner prescribed by the 14th Amendment, the 
 representation in the national conventions of the 
 party would be reduced as a result, to which no 
 objection would be made. But making the party 
 vote the basis of representation will prove to be 
 unsatisfactory, inequitable and sectionally un- 
 just, even if no state violates or evades the 15th 
 
50 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 Amendment. There are some states, for example, 
 in which women vote. This is Hkely to produce 
 sectional inequality, which cannot be other than 
 unsatisfactory. Then again, the question with 
 which the party will find itself confronted is, 
 what is the party vote? In the presidential 
 election of 1916, according to the official returns, 
 thousands of Republicans, especially in California, 
 Kansas and Minnesota, must have voted the 
 national Democratic ticket and the local Repub- 
 lican ticket. On the other hand, thousands of 
 RepubUcans in the State of Illinois must have 
 voted the Democratic local ticket and the Repub- 
 lican national ticket. Any plan under the exist- 
 ing apportionment that may be adopted must be 
 uniform, therefore arbitrary and consequently 
 unsatisfactory. The change in the basis of 
 representation was unfortunate and unwise. It 
 is safe to assume that the change never would 
 have been made but for the apparent sectional 
 inequality in representation resulting from the 
 suppression of the colored vote at the South. 
 The change was equivalent to an acquiescence in 
 the methods by which that vote is suppressed, 
 rather than a strong and vigorous condemnation 
 and denunciation of them. 
 
 With reference to the political situation at the 
 South, popular sentiment at the North has been 
 radically wrong for a number of years. That 
 sentiment is fairly and clearly expressed in the 
 
The Solid South 61 
 
 following paragraph, taken from the leading 
 political editorial which appeared in the Chicago 
 Tribune in its issue of November 16th, 1916: 
 " We are for having the South attend to its local 
 political affairs as it sees fit. We concede the 
 South the right to protect white domination. 
 The Negro en masse is unfit to rule the South, and 
 if the only fashion in which he can be kept from 
 ruling is to keep him from voting, then keep him 
 from voting." That the Tribune reflects, in the 
 above, the dominant sentiment of the North at 
 this time, and what it has been for a number of 
 years, is, I think, unfortunately true. The reader 
 will remember that I have made a quotation 
 approvingly from the same paper, but that was 
 what the Tribune thought and said in 1888. The 
 Tribune of 1916 is not the Tribune of 1888. Still, 
 it is a strong, able and influential paper. It 
 wields, no doubt, a great and wonderful influence 
 in molding and shaping popular sentiment in the 
 territory in which it circulates. That such an 
 influential journal should be so radically wrong 
 upon this vital and important national question 
 is a great misfortune. The views entertained by 
 the editor of the Tribune are not, I am sure, based 
 upon his own knowledge and experience; but they 
 are based upon what he has read, chiefly from such 
 works as Rhodes's history, for no one can read 
 what is therein recorded and accept the same as 
 accurate and authoritative without coming to 
 
52 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 the same conclusions as those expressed by the 
 Tribune. I give the editor of the Tribune credit 
 for being honest and sincere in the beUef that if 
 the colored vote were not suppressed, " Negro 
 domination " would be the result in states and 
 districts in which the blacks outnumber the whites. 
 Even if this were true, if he were actuated by that 
 sentiment which should actuate every true Ameri- 
 can citizen, he would be opposed to the inaugura- 
 tion of any extraneous or questionable methods 
 to defeat and prevent it. The true spirit which 
 should actuate and control every law-abiding 
 American is the faithful execution and enforce- 
 ment of every law, while it is law whether it be 
 good or bad, wise or unwise. If a law is found to 
 be bad or unwise, it is far better that it be repealed 
 than violated. 
 
 But the editor of the Tribune is mistaken in 
 assuming that " Negro domination " would be 
 the result in any state or district if the colored 
 vote were not suppressed. His conception of 
 " Negro domination " is different from that 
 entertained by the representatives of the southern 
 oUgarchy. What the editor evidently had in 
 mind is the actual physical domination of the 
 blacks in local administration. This is incorrect. 
 What is meant by " Negro domination " at the 
 South is the election, for instance, of one white 
 man over another, to whose election the colored 
 vote may have contributed. In other words, 
 
The Solid South 53 
 
 whenever the choice of a majority of the whites is 
 defeated by the votes of colored men, the man 
 thus elected, though a white man, represents 
 " Negro domination." If, for instance, the editor 
 of the Tribune happened to be a citizen of South 
 Carolina and nominated by the RepubHcan party 
 of that state for governor, and if all of his associates 
 on the ticket should be members of the same race 
 and of his own personal selection, the same 
 methods would be employed to defeat that ticket 
 as would be employed if the ticket were made up 
 exclusively of colored men. Why? Because its 
 election would result in the defeat of the wishes 
 of a majority of the white men of the state, and 
 this would mean " Negro domination." What is 
 true of the state locally is true of the country 
 nationally. Hence the same methods which 
 would be used to defeat the Republican ticket in 
 the state, even should all of its candidates be 
 reputable white men, would be used to defeat the 
 Republican candidate for President of the United 
 States, and for the same reasons. The masses of 
 Southern whites have been taught to believe that 
 the Republican party, nationally and locally, or 
 any other party, for that matter, which may be in 
 opposition to the Democratic party, is the anti- 
 white party, while the Democratic party is the 
 white man's party. 
 
 In the presidential campaign of 1916, the 
 Tribune strongly and ably supported Judge 
 
54 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 Hughes, the Republican candidate for President. 
 After the election it bitterly denounced the solid 
 South for being solid in national elections, and 
 yet it supports, defends and endorses the methods 
 by which that solidity was brought about and is 
 maintained. This is inconsistent. As long as 
 the Tribune entertains the views to which expres- 
 sion is given in the paragraph above quoted, it 
 should not criticise and find fault with the fruits 
 of its own teachings. It is strange and inexpli- 
 cable that intelhgent and well-informed men like 
 the editor of the Tribune, Ex-President Taft, 
 Senator Borah and thousands of others cannot 
 see that this is not a racial but a political question 
 — that it is not a contest between races but be- 
 tween parties. But as long as such men can be 
 deceived, thus causing popular sentiment to 
 excuse, justify and tolerate methods that would 
 otherwise be condemned, just so long will the 
 conditions of which they complain continue to 
 exist. As I have already pointed out, popular 
 sentiment will ameliorate, but, owing to the 
 resuscitation of the doctrine of States Rights, 
 cannot eradicate, the evils of which complaint is 
 made. 
 
 If in every Southern state today no attempt 
 were made to violate or evade the 15th Amend- 
 ment, and colored men were allowed free and un- 
 restricted access to the ballot-boxes and their 
 votes were fairly and honestly counted, there 
 
The Solid South 65 
 
 would be no more danger of " Negro domination " 
 in any one of these states than there is of female 
 domination in states where women have the right 
 to vote. All that colored men have ever insisted 
 upon was to participate — not to dominate — 
 not to rule, but to have a voice in the selection of 
 those who were to rule. In view of their numeri- 
 cal strength the probalities are that more of 
 them would be officially recognized than in other 
 sections of the country, but never regardless of 
 their fitness and capacity, unless there should be 
 a repetition of conditions that existed in the early 
 days of Reconstruction, which is improbable. 
 The dominant element in the Democratic party 
 in that section at that time adopted, as I have 
 already stated, what was called the policy of 
 " masterly inactivity," which was intended to 
 prevent white men, through threats, coercion, 
 and intimidation, from taking any part in the 
 organization and reconstruction of the state 
 governments, with a view to making the govern- 
 ments thus organized as odious and as objection- 
 able as possible. In other words, to make them, 
 in point of fact, " Negro governments." This 
 pohcy proved to be somewhat effective in many 
 localities. Consequently, the colored men found 
 much difficulty in finding desirable white men 
 outside of the Democratic party for the different 
 positions at their disposal, which made it neces- 
 sary in some instances for colored men to be 
 
56 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 selected to fill positions for which white men 
 would have otherwise been chosen. But under 
 the present order of things a repetition of any- 
 thing of this sort would be wholly out of the 
 question. 
 
 That so many intelligent people at the North 
 should be so easily deceived about the situation 
 at the South is almost incomprehensible. Even 
 so astute a statesman as the late James G. Blaine 
 was a victim of the same delusion. He believed, 
 in the first place, that from a standpoint of 
 gratitude for his action in defeating the Federal 
 Elections Bill of 1875, and his friendly interest in 
 certain Democratic leaders from the South, 
 notably Mr. Lamar of Mississippi, that even as 
 the candidate of the Republican party for the 
 Presidency of the United States he would get fair 
 treatment at the South. He lived long enough to 
 see and acknowledge his mistake. In the second 
 place, his idea was that the Republican party had 
 nothing to fear from a solid South, because in his 
 opinion a solid South in support of the Democratic 
 party would produce a solid North in support of 
 the Republican party. While it is true that the 
 vote of the South has not been decisive in any 
 presidential election since 1884, when Mr. Blaine 
 was himself the victim of his own delusion, until 
 1916, Mr. Blaine ought to have had sagacity and 
 foresight enough to see that to maintain a solid 
 North in support of the Republican party was 
 
The Solid South 57 
 
 wholly out of the question, for the reason that the 
 people of that section are free and independent 
 and think, speak and act for themselves. Conse- 
 quently they are not only open to reason, argu- 
 ment and persuasion, but they are hkely to change 
 their opinions and their votes in accordance with 
 changed conditions that may take place from 
 time to time. Not so with the South. In that 
 section party affiliation is largely the result of 
 habit, custom and tradition. Like property, it is 
 in most instances a matter of inheritance. The 
 masses of the white men are Democrats, not 
 because of convictions based upon their own study 
 and investigation, but because it is the custom of 
 the section in which they live. To be anything 
 else they would be out of touch with their neigh- 
 bors, friends, associates and companions. Some 
 of them attend poHtical meetings, not for infor- 
 mation or instruction, but for diversion and 
 amusement, and sometimes to satisfy curiosity. 
 Sometimes a man who may be out of harmony 
 with the local order of things will give expression 
 to his views in conversation, but his case is one 
 of such isolation that no serious account is made 
 of what he may say, especially if no effort is made 
 by him to bring about organized opposition to 
 existing local conditions. The machine is usually 
 in the hands of trained and experienced persons 
 who will not tolerate serious nor effective opposi- 
 tion from any quarter. They attach no impor- 
 
58 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 tance to platform declarations, local, national or 
 otherwise, nor to the personnel of opposing candi- 
 dates. They are for the party and the candidates 
 to which the local machine may belong, it matters 
 not what the platform may declare or the candi- 
 dates may say. That the national Democratic 
 party is the beneficiary of their partiality and 
 support is merely incidental. If they were 
 called upon to choose between the national 
 Democratic organization and what they call 
 " local self-government " they would choose the 
 latter. This is the altar upon which Samuel J. 
 Tilden was sacrificed in 1877. 
 
 In writing these lines I do not wish to create 
 the impression that there are no white men at the 
 South who are independently inclined and who 
 are not disposed to rebel against the local oppres- 
 sion to which they are now subjected. On the 
 contrary there are many thousands of them, but 
 as long as influential papers like the Chicago 
 Tribune support and defend the methods by 
 which they are held in political subjection, they 
 can do nothing. Their hands are tied, their lips 
 are sealed and their voices are hushed. All they 
 can do is to remain quiet and bide their time. 
 At present they have no incentive to make a 
 break. They know that under existing conditions 
 the effort would be useless and nothing can be 
 accomplished. The Tribune and other influential 
 papers may eventually see their mistake and take 
 
The Solid South 59 
 
 a position through which a popular sentiment 
 will be created throughout the country that will 
 result in liberating the conservative white men of 
 the South from the political bondage to which 
 they are now subjected. The Tribune bitterly 
 complains about the solidity of the South in 
 national elections. It declares that so far as 
 that section is concerned the presidential election 
 of 1916 was decided in 1865. That is true; and 
 if popular sentiment at the North remains what 
 the Tribune represents it to be, the same will be 
 true of the South for at least the next century. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 The Difference Between Southern and 
 Northern White Men. 
 
 As political strategists the Northern white man 
 is not the equal of his Southern brother. The 
 average Northern white man has his heart set 
 upon the accumulation of wealth, to which he 
 subordinates everything else, politics not ex- 
 cepted. The average Southern white Democrat 
 has his heart set upon obtaining and retaining 
 control of the machinery of government, state 
 and national, to which he subordinates everything 
 else, the accumulation of wealth not excepted. 
 He is not very much concerned about the means 
 to be used and the methods to be employed. It 
 is the results politically about which he is con- 
 cerned and in which he is interested. This fact 
 has been clearly estabhshed through his willing- 
 ness to run the risk of having the producers of the 
 only wealth and prosperity possible for him to 
 possess demoralized and driven out of many 
 parts of that section, simply because he finds this 
 mythical race question to be his best paying 
 political asset. As long as the political agitator 
 finds this question can be successfully utilized to 
 enable him to secure political distinction and 
 
Southern and Northern White Men 61 
 
 official recognition he will continue to utilize it, 
 regardless of the consequences that may follow 
 in other directions. 
 
 The South is the natural home of the average 
 colored American. He would rather live there 
 than in any other section of the country. Its 
 climate and soil are better adapted to his wants 
 and needs than that of any other section. He 
 knows more about producing cotton, corn and 
 sugar than he does about producing wheat, rye 
 and oats. He prefers to remain at the South, 
 but he wants to feel and to know that in the en- 
 joyment of life, liberty and property he has the 
 protection of society and the law, and that he is 
 permitted to have a voice in the government 
 under which he lives and byj which he is taxed. 
 He wants to feel and to know that his presence 
 is not utilized for purposes of political exploitation. 
 He is willing to have his presence utilized as a 
 commercial, but not as a political asset. The 
 colored American will remain at the South unless 
 he finds that by going elsewhere he can improve 
 and better his condition financially and other- 
 wise and escape from outrage and oppression. 
 But the average Southern political agitator finds 
 this mythical race question has served his purpose 
 for such a long time that he is not disposed to 
 abandon it. In fact he will never abandon it 
 as long as it can be made to answer his selfish 
 purposes. 
 
62 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 During the last forty years he has been quite 
 successful, through a well-directed and organized 
 propaganda, in shaping popular sentiment at the 
 North by appealing to the Northern white man's 
 sympathies on the one hand and to his timidity 
 and financial interests on the other. During that 
 period he has been fairly successful in impressing 
 the fact upon the mind of the Northern white 
 man that it is to his financial interest to let the 
 South have its own way and do what it pleases in 
 the management and conduct of its local affairs, 
 even at the risk of having that section placed in 
 control of the national government. 
 
CHAPTER X 
 
 Some of the Republican Party's Mistakes 
 
 The trouble with the RepubUcan party is that 
 during this important period it has lacked the 
 courage to meet bravely this vital and important 
 question. This unfortunate fact was brought to 
 a painful climax during the administration of Mr. 
 Taft, whose Southern policy was an abject, com- 
 plete and unconditional surrender to the Southern 
 oligarchies, including the elimination of the colored 
 American as a political factor. Of all the experi- 
 ments that had been tried looking to the dissolu- 
 tion of the soUd South, this one was the most 
 indefensible and inexcusable. Mr. Taft's idea 
 seems to have been that it was only necessary to 
 convince the South that the sole difference be- 
 tween the two major parties was that one stood 
 for a Uttle higher rate of duty on foreign imports 
 than the other: that in all other respects the two 
 parties stood practically for the same things, and 
 that so far as the colored American was concerned 
 the South had no more to fear from Republican 
 than from Democratic success. The thought 
 never seems to have occurred to Mr. Taft that 
 there are thousands of citizens who have acted 
 with the Republican party and supported its 
 candidates, not on account of the attitude of the 
 
64 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 party on the tariff question, but in spite of that 
 fact — not because they were in accord with the 
 party on that question, but because the party 
 stood for national supremacy, human rights and 
 manhood suffrage. This was clearly and dis- 
 tinctly set forth by the Chicago Tribune in its 
 issue of July 3, 1888, quoted above. As long as 
 the party was sound along those hues it could 
 safely count upon the loyal support of that large, 
 important and influential element, regardless of 
 its position and attitude upon other questions and 
 issues, because the principles and doctrines thus 
 defined they deemed to be paramount. But 
 when they were abandoned and repudiated by 
 Mr. Taft, his administration and the party which 
 he represented had no further claim upon their 
 loyalty and support. It is, therefore, not at all 
 surprising that such a weak and spineless adminis- 
 tration should fail to command and receive public 
 support. 
 
 Then, again, it seems never to have occurred to 
 Mr. Taft that there was not a particle of sincerity 
 in the alleged apprehension of " Negro domina- 
 tion." If he had been a diligent student of the 
 political history of his country he would have 
 known that this was a mere pretext and excuse 
 used for purposes of deception. Very few believed 
 that a man of Mr. Taft's intelhgence could be 
 thus deceived ; hence his opponents smiled at his 
 credulity and rejoiced at his political calamity. 
 
Republican Party's Mistakes 65 
 
 What he intended as a concession was accepted as 
 evidence of weakness, which was true. Since the 
 presence of the colored man in politics was not the 
 cause of the evils complained of, his pohtical 
 elimination, of course, would not remedy them. 
 But even if it had been otherwise, Mr. Taft's 
 course would still have been reprehensible and 
 inexcusable. He should have gone into office 
 with a fixed determination that the Constitution 
 and laws should be obeyed and enforced, that the 
 rights and privileges of American citizens should 
 be protected as far as this could be done by the 
 chief executive, both at home and abroad, and 
 without regard to differences of race, color, 
 nationality or religion, and that in making ap- 
 pointments to office, instead of declaring that no 
 member of any one particular race or group would 
 be recognized or considered if members of another 
 race or group objected (thus giving national 
 sanction, aid and encouragement to racial dis- 
 crimination and segregation), he should have 
 made it known that the door of hope and of 
 opportunity would be closed against no American 
 citizen on account of race, color, nationality, 
 section or religion, but that all would be con- 
 sidered upon the basis of efficiency, experience, 
 ability and integrity. In that event his adminis- 
 tration would have gone down in history as one 
 of the strongest and best with which our country 
 had been blessed. 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 
 How TO Remedy Existing Evils 
 
 But how and in what way are the existing evils 
 to be remedied? The Chicago Tribune clearly 
 points them out — the evils, but suggests no cure. 
 As long as it adheres to the position stated in its 
 editorial of November 16, 1916, quoted above, 
 and popular sentiment at the North supports 
 and sustains the same, there can be no remedy 
 and it is useless to complain. Those who suggest 
 a repeal of the 15th Amendment as a cure simply 
 show their lack of intelligent comprehension of 
 the situation. The repeal of that Amendment 
 would not only fail to modify and improve the 
 situation, but would magnify and intensify it. In 
 the first place, there are very few states in which 
 any effort is made to evade the 15th Amendment 
 by legislative enactment or constitutional provi- 
 sion, but if the Amendment were enforced in 
 those states what remains of the solid South 
 would be a thing of the past. As political parties 
 are now, the States of Mississippi, Louisana and 
 South Carolina, with twenty-nine electoral votes, 
 would be, especially in national elections, as 
 reliably RepubUcan as the State of Vermont, 
 whilst Alabama and Florida would be close and 
 
How to Remedy Existing Evils 67 
 
 doubtful, with chances in favor of the same party. 
 But the principal reason why the abrogation of 
 the 15th Amendment would not remedy existing 
 evils is because representation in Congress, and 
 consequently in the electoral college, is based 
 not upon votes or voters but upon population. 
 It is, therefore, the physical presence of the 
 colored man at the South, and not his participa 
 tion in poUtics or in elections, that gives that 
 section a representation in Congress and in the 
 electoral college out of proportion to its voting 
 strength as revealed by election returns. It will 
 be seen, therefore, that the abrogation of the 
 15th Amendment would afford no relief whatever 
 from the evils of which complaint is so justly 
 made. But there are those who profess to beUeve 
 that if the 15th Amendment were repealed the 
 fear of " Negro domination " would disappear 
 and then white men at the South would divide on 
 economic questions as they do at the North, 
 hence the South would no longer be solid in the 
 support of any one party. Those who thus 
 believe are unpardonably ignorant of the South- 
 ern political situation. If that impression had 
 been well founded it would have developed under 
 the administration of Mr. Taft. Again, let us 
 take the State of Mississippi, in which the 15th 
 Amendment has been successfully evaded for the 
 last quarter of a century. During that period 
 there has been no more danger of " Negro domi- 
 
 ! / 
 
68 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 nation " there than in the State of lUinois, and 
 yet this mythical race question is the only one 
 that is ever considered or discussed in Mississippi. 
 They know very little about the tariff and care 
 less. They are not interested in that or any other 
 economic question; what they are interested in 
 and concerned about is control of the machinery 
 of government, state and national. Why, then, 
 should they consider and discuss what to them 
 are extraneous matters when the mythical race 
 question will answer their purpose? And it will 
 continue to answer their purpose as long as 
 popular sentiment at the North remains what it 
 is — as long as papers like the Chicago Tribune 
 continue so to mold and shape popular sentiment 
 at the North as to cause it to sanction and ap- 
 prove the extraneous and questionable, if not 
 illegal, methods that have been adopted in several 
 states at the South to suppress the colored vote. 
 No, it is the presence of the colored man, even in 
 these states, as a prospective voter that gives the 
 white men who are independently inclined their 
 only hope of future deliverance from political 
 tyranny and oppression. White men of that 
 class (and they are among the best in that section), 
 are now quiet and inactive and will remain so 
 until there comes a radical change in popular 
 sentiment throughout the country. Just as soon 
 as they can see a reasonable prospect of deliver- 
 ance from poUtical oppression they will strike the 
 
How to Remedy Existing Evils 69 
 
 blow, knowing that they can depend upon the 
 loyal co-operation and support of their fellow 
 colored citizens. Repeal the 15th Amendment, 
 and this prospect and this hope will be forever 
 destroyed. Yes, the colored people of that sec- 
 tion will cheerfully co-operate with and support 
 the better element of the whites in any movement 
 they may make to bring about deliverance from 
 the local tyrannical oppression to which they are 
 now subjected. They have done so in the past. 
 They will do the same thing in the future. 
 
CHAPTER XII 
 
 The Supreme Court Decision 
 
 Already the liberal element among the whites 
 at the South sees a ray of hope in the decision of 
 the United States Supreme Court by which the 
 different schemes to evade the 15th Amendment 
 are declared unconstitutional and void. The 
 present court has no doubt seen some of the bad 
 effects of previous decisions rendered by that 
 tribunal and are now disposed to remedy some of 
 them by placing a more liberal construction upon 
 the war Amendments to the Constitution. But 
 let the reasons be what they may, the effect of 
 the decision is beneficial and encouraging. No 
 immediate results, of course, will follow, but it 
 has prepared the way for future union, co-opera- 
 tion and fusion of the better element of the two 
 races at the South, which will ultimately result in 
 the restoration of representative government 
 there. In the meantime, if the North wants to 
 remedy the existing evils of which it so justly 
 complains, it must recognize the fact that this is 
 not only a legal but also a great moral question, 
 in the settlement of which there can be no com- 
 promise and no middle ground. It must insist 
 that the Constitution and laws be enforced, re- 
 
The Supreme Court Decision 71 
 
 spected and obeyed. It must cease to approve, 
 justify, tolerate and excuse questionable methods 
 for the suppression of the colored vote upon the 
 absurd and ridiculous plea that they are neces- 
 sary to prevent " Negro domination." Will the 
 North have the courage to take this stand? 
 Perhaps it will, but I fear not. If not, all com- 
 plaints and faultfinding about the solid South 
 may as well cease, for under present conditions no 
 material change may be expected for an indefinite 
 period. 
 
CHAPTER XIII 
 The Mississippi Constitution of 1890 
 
 Mr. Rhodes may contemplate bringing his 
 history down to a period subsequent to " the 
 restoration of home rule at the South in 1877." 
 To enable him to be more accurate in what he may 
 write about the State of Mississippi I will take the 
 liberty of recording a few facts bearing upon this 
 subject. 
 
 Mississippi was the first state that invented a 
 scheme to disfranchise the colored men through 
 an evasion of the national Constitution. It was 
 done in the fall of 1890, through the medium of a 
 constitutional convention. The better and more 
 liberal element of the Democratic party of the 
 state, under the leadership of United States 
 Senator E. C. Walthal, was opposed to the pro- 
 posed constitutional convention. That element 
 contended that the constitution that was framed 
 in 1868 and ratified in 1869, the Reconstruction 
 constitution, was an excellent document, and that 
 the amendments and changes desired were not 
 sufficient to justify the calling of a convention to 
 frame a new organic law for the state. But the 
 radical element, under the leadership of United 
 States Senator J. Z. George, was successful and 
 
Mississippi Constitution of 1890 73 
 
 the convention was held. Senator George had 
 himself nominated and elected a delegate from 
 the state at large. Wlien the convention met, the 
 fact appeared that the delegates were divided 
 into two strong and hostile factions, one under 
 the leadership of Senator George, who insisted 
 upon the adoption of the scheme of which he was 
 the author, called the " Understanding Clause," 
 the purpose of which was to evade the 15th 
 Amendment to the Federal Constitution — to do 
 indirectly that which could not be done directly. 
 The other faction was under the able leadership of 
 Judge J. B. Christman, of Lincoln County, who 
 insisted upon the adoption of a plan of which he 
 was the author, that there be established an 
 honest educational qualification as a condition 
 precedent to voting, the same to be applicable to 
 both races alike. Strong and able arguments 
 were made for and against both plans. Many 
 able lawyers agreed with Judge Christman in the 
 opinion that the George plan would not stand the 
 test of a judicial interpretation, while no one 
 questioned the constitutionality of the plan pro- 
 posed by Judge Christman. Under the Christ- 
 man plan illiterates of both races would be ex- 
 cluded, whilst the George plan was so worded as 
 to put it in the power of those in control of the 
 election machinery to exclude the illiterates of 
 one race without excluding those of the other. It 
 looked for a while as if the Christman plan would 
 
74 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 be adopted, but the supporters of the George 
 plan were desperate and determined. The presi- 
 dent of the convention, Judge S. S. Calhoun, was 
 prevailed upon to leave the chair and come to the 
 floor of the convention and take part in the de- 
 bates in defense of the George plan. He spoke 
 with more frankness and candor than any of the 
 other speakers. He had nothing to conceal. He 
 called attention to the fact that the party of 
 which all of the delegates were members had been 
 carrjdng elections in the state since 1875 by 
 methods that were wholly indefensible, such as 
 murder, perjury and fraud. These methods, he 
 contended, should be discontinued and wholly 
 abandoned, because they were corrupting the 
 morals of the people of the state, and yet " white 
 supremacy " must be maintained at any cost. 
 The rejection of the George plan, he contended, 
 would result in the continuance of the methods to 
 which he had referred. Pointing dramatically at 
 the advocates of the Christman plan, he exclaimed 
 that in the event of the adoption of the plan advo- 
 cated by them, the blood of every Negro here- 
 after killed in an election riot would rest upon 
 their shoulders. When the vote was finally 
 taken it was found that a majority had voted for 
 the questionable George plan, a fact which created 
 intense excitement throughout the state. It was 
 soon made clear that the constitution would be 
 rejected when submitted tc the people for ratifi- 
 
Mississippi Constitution of 1890 75 
 
 cation. The Democratic press of the state was 
 about equally divided for and against it. It was 
 estimated that at least forty per cent of the 
 Democrats would vote against it, whilst the Re- 
 publican vote would be solid against it. But the 
 George faction was equal to the occasion. They 
 did not intend to allow their work and their heroic 
 efforts to be wholly in vain. When the fact was 
 made plain to them that the constitution as thus 
 framed would be rejected by the voters, they 
 coolly decided that the dear people should not be 
 allowed to pass judgment upon it, hence the con- 
 vention that framed it declared it ratified and by 
 ordinance fixed the date when it should go into 
 effect. This was in the fall of 1890. Since that 
 time the people of that unfortunate state have 
 been living under a constitution which they had 
 no voice in making and which they would have 
 rejected had the privilege been given them to pass 
 judgment upon it. But this high-handed proce- 
 dure will, no doubt, be justified by Mr. Rhodes 
 upon the ground that, from his point of view, it 
 was a completion of the restoration of home rule 
 in that state. 
 
 I cannot close this chapter without giving ex- 
 pression to the hope that a fair, just and impartial 
 historian will some day write a history covering 
 the Reconstruction period, in which an accurate 
 account, based upon the actual facts of what took 
 place at that time, will be given, instead of a 
 
76 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 compilation of untrue, unreliable and grossly- 
 exaggerated statements taken from political cam- 
 paign literature. 
 
 The following chapter is the answer to the 
 foregoing, written by an " expert " selected by 
 Mr. Rhodes for that purpose. 
 
CHAPTER XIV 
 
 Some Comments on the Article by John R. 
 
 Lynch on Some Historical Errors of 
 
 James Ford Rhodes 
 
 An obvious general comment on the article is 
 that if the Reconstruction period throughout the 
 South and in Mississippi in particular was engi- 
 neered and controlled by men of such high charac- 
 ter as Mr, Lynch records, why should the acts 
 accredited to them have been of such a low 
 character? It is not enough to say that there 
 were " mistakes "; the measures were too numer- 
 ous and systematic for this. It is to be noticed 
 that Mr. Lynch does not attempt to controvert 
 statements of events in Mississippi, with one or 
 two exceptions to be considered below. To 
 attempt to review the conclusions to which Mr. 
 Lynch takes exception would involve a review of 
 too great a mass of evidence. The web of Recon- 
 struction is such a tangled one, that even if one 
 has carefully considered a large part of the great 
 bulk of primary material on the subject, generaliza- 
 tions on the period must still be accepted cau- 
 tiously. This much may be said: Mr. Rhodes's 
 conclusions are in harmony with those of the 
 other trained historical students who have de- 
 
78 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 voted time to a careful study of this period. Mr. 
 Lynch's racial bias, the fact that he was an active 
 participant in the events, and finally that his 
 judgments are based on his own experiences and 
 not on a close study of a far wider field of material, 
 make whatever he writes of value as source 
 material, but at the same time mitigate against 
 its value as an impartial opinion. This is espe- 
 cially evident from the fact that he makes no 
 attempt either in the article or in his book to 
 substantiate his statements by such reference 
 to his authorities as modern historiography 
 demands. His authority is, of course, himself and 
 his recollections, and the recognition of the treach- 
 ery of memory is a first fundamental in historical 
 work. 
 
 Page 347. Taking up some of Mr. Lynch's 
 statements: He speaks of thousands of white 
 men who were identified with the Republican 
 party in the South in Reconstruction time. A 
 comparison of census and election statistics do 
 not give support to this fact; and though such 
 figures are far from exact, they give a basis for 
 generalizing superior to that of any personal 
 recollection, or, indeed, of anything short of a 
 general agreement of contemporary statements 
 to the contrary. No such agreement exists so 
 far as I have been able to search. In Tennessee, 
 North Carolina, Arkansas, and to less extent in 
 Virginia and Texas, there were a considerable 
 
Comments on Article hy John R. Lynch 79 
 
 number of white Republicans; but in the other 
 Southern states in no election between 1868 and 
 1872 did the Republican vote equal the census 
 figures for Negroes of voting age in 1870. The 
 nearest approach to this was in South Carolina in 
 1870, when the Republican vote for governor was 
 85,000 and the Negroes of voting age 85,400. 
 In Mississippi the nearest approach was in the 
 vote for Grant in 1872, when there were 82,000 
 votes against the census figures of 90,000. The 
 machinery for getting out the Negro vote, and it 
 was Republican machinery, was such as to permit 
 the assumption that an unusually large percent- 
 age of the Negroes voted at the elections. 
 
 Page 349. Mr. Lynch speaks of Dent as a 
 Democrat carpetbagger, but he was scarcely 
 that. Though supported by the Democrats he 
 was nominated by a faction of Republicans; 
 moreover, he was a Missourian by birth, had 
 family connections in Mississippi, and had while 
 living in California married the daughter of a 
 prominent Mississippian. He was scarcely a 
 typical carpetbagger. That there should have 
 been a split in the Republican party of the state 
 so early is not a very good argument for the 
 character of the leaders or of the measures they 
 endorsed. 
 
 Page 349. Of the high hopes of such men as 
 Alcorn there can be no doubt; but scarcely less 
 doubtful was the failure to realize their hopes. 
 
80 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 Alcorn himself favored Negro disfranchisement in 
 1890. 
 
 Page 350. Judges Peyton and Tarbell, a car- 
 petbagger, were Republicans, but Simrall is 
 generally classed as a Democrat. He was chair- 
 man of the state legislative committee that re- 
 ported in favor of rejecting the 14th Amendment. 
 Riley classes him as a Democrat, as does Garner, 
 though Mayes calls him a moderate Republican, 
 of the same class as Dent. Tarbell seems to have 
 been a good judge. Garner is luke-warm in his 
 appreciation, but Lamar said that " his decisions 
 attest his extraordinary ability and industry." 
 All commend his uprightness. Tarbell in 1887 
 called himself a conservative carpetbagger, one 
 who found himself in the minority. He said that 
 the Republican party in Mississippi collapsed 
 through its own weakness; having devised a 
 constitution in which " there was much to praise 
 and to be proud of, and little to condemn," the 
 party gave birth to legislation of which " this 
 criticism is, in a measiu-e, reversed."^ The judi- 
 ciary was the best department of government 
 under Reconstruction in Mississippi. 
 
 Page 354- Ignorant Negro office-holders. All 
 that I find as to Evans, except Garner's statement 
 of "it was alleged," is in an account of Recon- 
 struction in De Soto County, written by I. C. 
 Nichols in the publications of the Miss. Soc, 
 
 J Mag. of Am. Hbtory XXVIII, 424. 
 
Comments on Article hy John R. Lynch 81 
 
 XI, 307. He does not say that Evans could not 
 read or write, but that his " bondsmen really 
 administered his affairs and ran his office." At 
 one time there was a charge of defalcation against 
 him, but nothing specific, and Nichols concludes 
 that nothing really was wrong. After this some 
 changes were made in his bondsmen and " R. R. 
 West was put in charge of the office and became 
 sheriff in all but name." West was, perhaps, one 
 of the " honest, efficient, and capable assistants." 
 Evans had been a slave. In Washington County 
 there was also a Negro sheriff,' Winslow by name. 
 Mr. Lynch does not mention him, but according 
 to the testimony of H. B. Putnam, a carpet- 
 bagger, Winslow was " nominally " sheriff, but 
 his bondsmen ran the office; the sheriff, though 
 he could read and write, was " incompetent to 
 take charge of his office," which was worth 
 $10,000 or $15,000 a year legitimately, and, ac- 
 cording to a white Democrat, about $100,000 by 
 other means.^ Scott of Issaquena, whom Mr. 
 Lynch mentions, testified before the Boutwell 
 committee, and so far as can be judged by that 
 testimony he was a man of fair intelligence, though, 
 according to the testimony of one of his own race, 
 not endowed with rash courage.^ The testimony 
 of another carpetbagger, with reference to Holmes 
 County, is interesting, though it does not show 
 whether the sheriff-elect was white or black. He 
 
 * BoutweU Report, 1446, 1470. » Ibid, 608. 
 
82 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 was probably not Sumner, as this man never 
 served in the office. This carpetbagger said 
 that the sheriff of the county having died and this 
 man elected to fill the vacancy, the successor 
 arranged to have the witness assist in making the 
 bond. " Other gentlemen hesitated to go on the 
 bond unless I would go there and be responsible 
 for the running of the office." The man was 
 prevented from taking office so nothing* came of 
 the arrangement. On the whole, such first-class 
 material as I have been able to find does not uphold 
 Garner entirely in his estimate of this class of 
 officials, especially as to his footnote statement 
 about their dishonesty; neither does it give the 
 impression that they were worthy, as a whole, of 
 the important positions they occupied. If Evans, 
 as described by Rhodes, following Garner, was 
 not typical, neither was Bruce. 
 
 Page 360. The point Mr. Lynch makes about 
 the defalcation of Hemingway is an interesting 
 one, and one that is evidently carefully kept in 
 the background by the local writers. 
 
 Page 361. Mr. Lynch gives figures for 1875 
 and 1907 on financial matters, and on the basis of 
 these claims that the profligacy of Reconstruction 
 finances is not proven. The manifest unfairness 
 of taking figures for 1907 may be passed over; 
 but the necessary basis of comparison must be 
 wider than this. Nor do his conclusions agree 
 
 « Ibid, 580. 
 
Comments on Article hy John R. Lynch 83 
 
 with any others that I have seen, nor, which is 
 more important, with other statistics. Both 
 those of the census or those given annually by 
 Appletons' Annual Cyclopedia lead to other 
 conclusions. Just as an illustration of what is 
 said on the other side, take this statement, which 
 seems to be that of the land tax. This was 1 
 mill in 1869, 5 mills in 1870, 4 mills in 1871, 8i 
 mills in 1872, 12i mills in 1873, 14 mills in 1874, 
 9t mills in 1875, 6j mills in 1876, 6i mills in 1877, 
 3i mills in 1878. Another point that should be 
 considered is that Mr. Lynch confines his figures 
 to state finances; while it was for local finances 
 that the Reconstruction government of Missis- 
 sippi is most severely condemned. 
 
 Page 362. Mr. Lynch is correct in saying that 
 the Mississippi senators at the time of the state 
 election in 1875 were Alcorn and Bruce. Pease 
 had been succeeded by Bruce on March 4 of that 
 year. Pease opposed Ames, but he was no longer 
 senator. 
 
 Page 362. Mr. Lynch, in upholding the Re- 
 construction policy of Stevens and Sumner and 
 what he calls their desire to delay restoration, 
 seems to have overlooked the fact that the wisest 
 of all the Civil War statesmen desired to get the 
 states back into the Union before Congress should 
 meet in December, 1865. Mr. Lynch is right in 
 thinking that the 14th Amendment was essen- 
 tially a correct measure, but so also does Mr. 
 
84 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 Rhodes. The 15th Amendment is quite a differ- 
 ent proposition, however. Nor does it follow 
 because legislation of some sort might have been 
 necessary to enforce the 14th Amendment or to 
 take its place when the South refused to adopt it, 
 that the Reconstruction Acts were the legitimate 
 offspring of that necessity. That the Negro 
 soldiers helped to win the war is not proof that 
 the war would have failed without them; or that 
 the necessary price of their valor was suffrage for 
 all the men of their race, the bulk of whom were 
 not capable of understanding it; or that such 
 suffrage was necessary to the preservation of the 
 Union. Oratory, inside or outside of Congress, 
 is not historical proof. 
 
 Pages 365, 367. Mr. Lynch's statement that 
 the failure of Reconstruction was due to unwise 
 judicial interpretation need not be considered. 
 It is anachronistic and does not agree with the 
 views now generally accepted by historical stu- 
 dents. But what he says of the infidelity of 
 Waite and Bradley can be refuted directly from 
 the Supreme Court Reports. As to the appoint- 
 ment of these justices, there is no evidence that 
 it was because of any specially strong nationalistic 
 position on their part. Bradley, if chosen for 
 any particular views, got the justiceship because 
 of his attitude on legal tender; and the conditions 
 under which Waite was appointed do not show up 
 any bias on his part. In U. S. v. Reese the court 
 
Comments on Article by John R. Lynch 85 
 
 stood seven to two; and the dissentients were 
 Clifford, a Democrat, and Hunt, appointed by 
 Grant. 
 
 In U. S. V. Harris (the Ku Klux decision) Woods 
 dehvered the decision. Harlan alone dissented 
 and only on the question of jurisdiction. The 
 Bench at that time held two judges appointed by 
 Lincoln, two by Grant, two by Hayes, one by 
 Garfield, and two by Arthur. The Civil Rights 
 Cases decision was delivered by Bradley. Har- 
 lan was the only dissenter. These were the three 
 important Reconstruction decisions during the 
 term of Waite and Bradley. All of them were 
 delivered after Reconstruction had failed. On 
 the other hand, Bradley delivered the opinion in 
 ex parte Siebold, in which the federal election 
 laws were upheld, and Field and Clifford were the 
 only ones who disagreed with it. 
 
 The following is the author's reply to the 
 expert's answer. 
 
CHAPTER XV 
 
 Some Historical Errors of James Ford 
 Rhodes 
 
 In its issue of October, 1917, " The Journal of 
 Negro History " published in part an article by 
 me, pointing out some of the historical errors 
 made by Mr. Rhodes in his " History of the 
 United States from the Compromise of 1850 to 
 the Final Restoration of Home Rule at the South 
 in 1877." 
 
 Since it appears that Mr. Rhodes had no per- 
 sonal knowledge of the important historical events 
 referred to, he sent a copy of the journal contain- 
 ing the article to a friend who was presumed to 
 be better informed along those hues, to whom 
 Mr. Rhodes refers as an expert, with the request 
 that he make a careful examination of the article 
 and write a reply to the same, or perhaps to make 
 such comments as would furnish Mr. Rhodes 
 with the information desired. I have been 
 favored through a mutual friend with a copy of 
 that reply, which is now before me. 
 
 In an effort to weaken the force of what I have 
 written, this expert, in his opening generahzation, 
 made several observations which may be classed 
 
Errors of James Ford Rhodes 87 
 
 under three different heads. First: If the white 
 men referred to by me were of such a high charac- 
 ter, why should the acts accredited to them have 
 been of such a low character? 
 
 Second: That I am influenced in what I write 
 about that period by racial bias and the fact that 
 I was an active participant in the events referred 
 to. 
 
 Third: That what I write is based upon my 
 own experience and memory, much of which is 
 likely to be inaccurate through the treachery of 
 memory, the same not being fortified by refer- 
 ences to other historical works. 
 
 In the first place, I frankly confess that what I 
 have written and shall write in defense of the 
 Reconstruction governments at the South has 
 been and will be of very little value if it were 
 conceded that the acts accredited to the men to 
 whom I have referred were of a low character. 
 That is the very point upon which the public has 
 been misinformed, misled and deceived. I do 
 not hesitate to assert that the Southern recon- 
 structed governments were the best governments 
 those states ever had before or have ever had 
 since, statements and allegations made by Mr. 
 Rhodes and some other historical writers to the 
 contrary notwithstanding. It is not claimed 
 that they were perfect, but they were a decided 
 improvement on those they succeeded, and they 
 were superior in every way to those which are 
 
88 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 representative of what Mr. Rhodes is pleased to 
 term the restoration of home rule. They were 
 the first and only governments in that section 
 that were based upon the consent of the governed. 
 If Mr. Rhodes honestly believed that what he 
 wrote in condemnation and denunciation of those 
 governments was based upon authenticated facts, 
 then the most charitable view that can be taken 
 in his case is that he, like thousands of others, is 
 simply an innocent victim of a gross deception. 
 
 Whether or not I am influenced by racial ties 
 or partisan bias in what I have written and may 
 hereafter write, I am willing to allow my readers 
 to decide. I am sure they have not failed to see 
 from what I have thus far written that the con- 
 trolling purpose with me is to give actual facts, 
 free from racial partiality or partisan bias. The 
 idea that I have endeavored to keep in mind is, 
 that what the readers and students of American 
 history desire to know is the unbiased truth about 
 the important events of the period in question, 
 and not the judgment and opinions of the person 
 or persons by whom they are recorded. 
 
 In the third place, the statement that the value 
 of what I have written is impaired because what 
 is said about the important events of the period 
 in question is based, in the main, upon my own 
 knowledge and experience, must impress the 
 intelligent reader as strange and unusual. 
 
 With reference to the period under considera- 
 
Errors of James Ford Rhodes 89 
 
 tion, the difference between what I have written 
 and what has been written by Mr. Rhodes and 
 some other historical writers is what the lawyers 
 would call the difference between primary and 
 secondary evidence. The primary is always 
 considered the best evidence, the secondary to be 
 used only when the primary cannot be obtained. 
 And yet what I have written is not based wholly 
 upon memory. Where it is I have referred to 
 distinguished persons and important events and 
 occurrences which are not hkely to be confused 
 through the treachery of memory. The statisti- 
 cal information I have given is not from memory, 
 but from the files of the official records, accessible 
 to the public. But it appears that Mr. Rhodes 
 and some other historical writers used only such 
 parts of the official records as answered the pur- 
 pose they seem to have had in view. This is 
 virtually admitted by Mr. Rhodes's expert, in 
 stating that " the point Mr. Lynch makes about 
 the defalcation of Hemingway is an interesting 
 one, and one that is evidently carefully kept in 
 the background by the local writers." Yes, they 
 not only kept that point in the background, but 
 all other points that were not in harmony with 
 the purpose they seem to have had in mind, 
 which is in effect one of misrepresentation. 
 
 The reader will not fail to see that Mr. Rhodes's 
 expert passed over in silence a number of impor- 
 tant points in my article. In some of those 
 
90 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 alluded to by him he frankly admitted that I am 
 right, as in the case of Treasurer Hemingway. In 
 the case of Mr. Evans, the colored sheriff of De 
 Soto County, he relies upon an ex parte statement 
 written by a Mr. Nichols of that county, evidently 
 a partisan, who makes an effort to paint Mr. 
 Evans in as unfavorable a light as possible, and 
 yet he fails to confirm the allegation that Mr. 
 Evans could neither read nor write, but concludes 
 his communication with the declaration " that 
 nothing really was wrong." From what is writ- 
 ten by Mr. Rhodes's expert I find that Garner is 
 the one from whom Mr. Rhodes obtained most of 
 his misinformation. In speaking of the colored 
 sheriffs in a general way Mr. Rhodes's expert was 
 frank enough to say: " On the whole, such first- 
 hand material as I have been able to find does 
 not uphold Garner entirely in his estimate of this 
 class of officials, especially as to his footnote 
 statement about their dishonesty." This bears 
 out the statement made by me that if Mr. Rhodes 
 had desired to be fair and impartial he would 
 have taken all the colored sheriffs into considera- 
 tion and would have drawn an average, which 
 would have shown that in point of intelligence, 
 capacity and honesty they compared favorably 
 with the whites. 
 
 The assertion made by me that the Republican 
 party in Mississippi included in its membership 
 many of the best and most substantial white men 
 
Errors of James Ford Rhodes 91 
 
 in that state is disputed, because the Repubhcan 
 vote in the state at the presidential election of 
 1872 happened to be only a few thousand less 
 than the number of colored men in the state of 
 voting age, as shown by the census of 1870. It is 
 therefore assumed that very few, if any, white 
 men voted the Republican ticket at that election. 
 To ascertain the voting strength of a political 
 party, census figures cannot be relied upon with 
 any degree of certainty, but since Mr. Rhodes's 
 expert seems to think otherwise I am perfectly 
 willing to accept them in this instance for what 
 they may be worth. The number of colored men 
 of voting age in the state at that time, as shown 
 by the census of 1870, was 88,850; whites 76,909; 
 colored majority, 11,941, and yet the Republican 
 majority in 1872 was 34,887. If the voting 
 strength of the two parties were in proportion to 
 the number of colored and white men in the 
 state, as this expert would have the public be- 
 lieve, and the percentage of colored and white 
 men who voted was about the same, which can 
 be safely assumed, the Republican majority in 
 that case could not have been more than 12,000, 
 whereas it was nearly three times that number. 
 Assuming that the Republican and Democratic 
 vote combined comprised the whole number that 
 voted at that election, the total number of votes 
 polled was 129,463, which was 36,296 less than 
 the number of voters in the state. Of the 36,296 
 
92 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 that did not vote, I estimate that at least 16,000 
 of them were white men. Subtract the 16,000 
 from the 76,909 white voters and it will be seen 
 that the number of white men that voted at that 
 election was 60,909, and yet the Democratic vote 
 was 47,288, which was 13,621 less than the num- 
 ber of white men that voted. My own estimate 
 is that of the 82,175 Republican votes, 61,266 
 were cast by colored men and 20,909 by white 
 men. Of the 47,288 Democratic votes, 40,000 
 were cast by white men and 7,288 by colored men. 
 From the above estimate it will be seen that 
 more than one third of the white men who voted 
 at that election voted the Republican ticket. 
 This estimate is strengthened when the result of 
 the election in the different counties is taken into 
 consideration. The Republicans not only carried 
 every county in which the colored voters had a 
 majority, but also a number of counties in which 
 the whites were in the majority. The majority 
 by which the state was carried by Alcorn in 1869 
 was about the same as that by which it was carried 
 by Grant in 1872. Alcorn not only carried a 
 number of white counties, but ten of them elected 
 Republicans to the legislature, two of them, 
 Lawrence and Marion, elected each a colored 
 member. The ten counties were Pike, Lawrence, 
 Marion, Jackson, Jasper, Clark, Lee, Leak, 
 Lafayette and Attala. Judge Green C. Chandler, 
 afterwards a judge of the circuit court and later 
 
Errors of James Ford Rhodes 93 
 
 U. S. district attorney, was elected from Clark, 
 Hon. H. W. Warren, who succeeded Judge Frank- 
 lin as Speaker of the House, was elected from 
 Leak, Judge Jason Niles and Hon. E. Boyd, both 
 able and brilliant lawyers, were elected from 
 Attala. Judge Niles was afterwards appointed 
 a judge of the circuit court and later served as a 
 Republican member of Congress. 
 
 In the opinion of this expert, Judge Dent, the 
 Democratic candidate for governor in 1869 was 
 scarcely a typical carpetbagger, because he was 
 born in Missouri and had family connections in 
 Mississippi. Still, if he were not a typical carpet- 
 bagger, then we had none in the state, because the 
 designation included all those that settled in the 
 state after the war was over. Judge Dent was 
 one of that number. But I may be able to give 
 Mr. Rhodes what was believed to be the principal 
 reason that influenced the Democrats to support 
 Judge Dent. He was President Grant's brother- 
 in-law, hence it was hoped and beheved that in 
 this case family ties would prove to be stronger 
 than party ties and that the national administra- 
 tion would support Dent instead of Alcorn, the 
 ex-Confederate. In this case they were mis- 
 taken. Grant had been elected as a Republican, 
 and he could not be induced to throw the weight 
 of his influence against his own party, even in a 
 state election, merely to contribute to the realiza- 
 tion of the personal ambition of his wife's brother. 
 
94! Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 It is true that a few men who called themselves 
 Republicans also supported Judge Dent, but the 
 result of the election was conclusive evidence 
 that the so-called split in the party was not at 
 all serious. 
 
 Speaking of the three Supreme Court judges, 
 the expert admits that Peyton and Tarbell were 
 Republicans, but Simrall, he claims, is generally 
 classed as a Democrat. In support of this asser- 
 tion attention is called to the fact, among others, 
 that he was chairman of the state legislative com- 
 mittee that reported in favor of rejecting the 14th 
 Amendment. But that was before the passage 
 of the Reconstruction Acts and before the Repub- 
 lican party in the state was organized. Judge 
 Simrall joined the Republican party in 1868 or 
 1869. What I asserted, and now repeat, is that 
 he was a Republican when he was made a justice 
 of the state supreme court in 1870. Even if he, 
 like thousands of others, had rejoined the Demo- 
 cratic party, that would not disprove my assertion 
 that he was a Republican while he was on the 
 bench. But it appears that he was not one of 
 those who rejoined the Democrats, but remained 
 a Republican to the day of his death. In 1884, 
 nine years after the redemption, he canvassed the 
 state for Blaine and Logan, Republican candi- 
 dates for president and vice-president. In 1890 
 the Democrats of Warren County, in selecting 
 suitable persons to represent that important 
 
Errors of James Ford Rhodes 95 
 
 county in the state constitutional convention, 
 held in the fall of that year, were anxious to have 
 the benefit of the knowledge, ability and experi- 
 ence of Judge Simrall. They took the liberty of 
 placing his name on their ticket, to which it 
 appears he made no objection, and in that way 
 he was elected a delegate to the convention. 
 But did this make him a Democrat? I am sure 
 both Mr. Rhodes and his expert will allow Judge 
 Simrall to answer that question for himself, and 
 that they will accept his answer as conclusive on 
 that point. For his answer they are respectfully 
 referred to page 704 of the official journal of the 
 constitutional convention of 1890. They will 
 see that the members of the convention were 
 politically classified, each member, of course, 
 furnishing the information as to his own party 
 affiliations. It will be seen that Judge Simrall is 
 classified as a " National Republican." Ex- 
 Governor Alcorn was also a member of that 
 convention, having been elected from Coahoma 
 County in the same way. His political classifica- 
 tion is that of " Conservative." So it seems that 
 neither Simrall nor Alcorn rejoined the Demo- 
 cratic party. Instead, therefore, of Repubficans 
 being obliged to utilize Democratic material in 
 the selection of Judges, as erroneously stated by 
 Mr. Rhodes, it appears that the Democrats were 
 obliged to utilize Repubhcan talent, experience 
 and ability to assist them in framing a new con- 
 
96 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 stitution. I am sure that the assertion can be 
 safely made that Simrall and Alcorn were not 
 among the " lovers of good government " who 
 rejoiced " at the redemption of Mississippi," 
 through the employment of means that Mr. 
 Rhodes so much regretted. 
 
 " The judiciary," the expert declares, " was 
 the best department of government under Re- 
 construction in Mississippi," and yet the judges 
 were all appointed by the Governor, by and with 
 the advice and consent of the Senate. It goes 
 without saying that if the Governor's appointees 
 were good, the appointing power was equally 
 good. The expert virtually admits that there 
 was no justification for the declaration that " all 
 lovers of good government must rejoice at the 
 redemption of Mississippi," when he used the 
 following language: " Mr. Lynch confines his 
 figures to state finances; while it was for local 
 finances that the Reconstruction government of 
 Mississippi is most severely condemned." In 
 other words, there was nothing wrong with the 
 state administration; it was the local county and 
 municipal governments that were bad. And 
 yet, a fair and impartial investigation will reveal 
 the fact that there is no more foundation for this 
 allegation than for those about the state govern- 
 ment. It is admitted that during the early part 
 of Reconstruction the local tax rate was high, 
 the reasons for which are fully explained in " The 
 
Errors of James Ford Rhodes 97 
 
 Facts of Reconstruction." Such an investiga- 
 tion would show that the charges of extravagance, 
 recklessness and maladministration so generally 
 made about the administration of county and 
 municipal affairs were grossly exaggerated and 
 nearly if not all of them wholly untrue. In 
 fact the expert flatly contradicts himself on this 
 point, because he admits that the evidence does 
 not support the charge of dishonesty in the case 
 of the colored sheriffs, and yet the sheriff is the 
 principal officer in the administration of the 
 county government. 
 
 With reference to the financial affairs of the 
 state the expert makes no effort to disprove a 
 single statement of mine. He simply makes the 
 broad assertion that my conclusions do not agree 
 with other statistics, and yet he fails to produce 
 the statistics with which they do not agree. To 
 illustrate his point he calls attention to the differ- 
 ent rates of taxation covering a period of about 
 ten years, which, if true, is of no importance in 
 this connection, because the same has no bearing 
 upon the material point now under considera- 
 tion. The tax rate is always determined by the 
 amount of money needed to meet the obligations 
 of the state, predicated upon the assessed value of 
 taxable property. Changes in the tax rate, 
 therefore, are likely to be of frequent occurrence. 
 The pertinent point at issue is the volume of 
 money paid into the treasury and the disposition 
 
98 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 made of it. In this connection a slight amphfica- 
 tion of the figures already given will not be in- 
 appropriate. In 1875, the last year of RepubU- 
 can rule and the year the state was redeemed, the 
 total receipts from all sources amounted to 
 $1,801,129.12. Disbursements, same year, $1,- 
 430,192.83, or $370,936.29 less than received. In 
 1907 the receipts from all sources amounted to 
 $3,391,127.15. Disbursements, same year, $3,- 
 730,343.29, or $339,216.14 more than was received; 
 and $2,300,150.46 more than was paid out in 
 1875. In fact, the financial condition of the state 
 during several years was such that the legislature 
 was obliged to authorize the issuance of bonds 
 upon which to borrow money to meet current 
 demands, thus adding materially to the bonded 
 debt of the state. Can anything more inex- 
 cusable and indefensible than this be imagined? 
 That any one of the reconstructed governments 
 could possibly have been guilty of such malad- 
 ministration as this is inconceivable. And yet, 
 this administration typifies what Mr. Rhodes is 
 pleased to term the restoration of home rule at 
 the South, for which all lovers of good government 
 should rejoice. 
 
 The expert admits that I am right in what was 
 said about Senators Alcorn and Bruce, but asserts 
 that Senator Pease, Mr. Bruce's immediate prede- 
 cessor, was opposed to Ames. This is another 
 assertion that is not in harmony with the truth. 
 
Errors of James Ford Rhodes 99 
 
 Ames was a United States senator when he was 
 elected governor; when he resigned the senator- 
 ship to become governor there remained about 
 fourteen months of his senatorial term. The 
 duty, therefore, devolved upon the legislature 
 elected in 1873, at the same time Senator Ames 
 was elected governor; of electing a senator for the 
 full term and also for the unexpired term. Bruce, 
 an Ames man, was elected for the full term, and 
 Pease, also an Ames man, was elected for the unex- 
 pired term. If Pease had been opposed to Ames 
 he could not have been elected to the senate by 
 that legislature, for it was unquestionably an 
 Ames legislature. It is true Pease was defeated 
 for renomination for state superintendent of 
 education by the convention that nominated 
 Ames, still he loyally supported the ticket, and 
 after the election he was looked upon as one of 
 the friends and supporters of Ames's administra- 
 tion, and as such, and for that reason, he was 
 elected one of the administration senators. I 
 was a member of Congress at that time and 
 therefore had occasion frequently to confer with 
 Senator Pease, as the senatorial representative 
 of the state and national administrations. If 
 Senator Pease was opposed to Ames, I am sure 
 that both Mr. Rhodes and his expert will admit 
 I would have known it; and yet I do not hesitate 
 to say that Senator Pease never did by word, 
 act or deed cause me to entertain the sUghtest 
 
100 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 suspicion that he was not a loyal friend and 
 supporter of the Ames administration. 
 
 In regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court, 
 the expert simply makes the declaration that my 
 statement that the failure of Reconstruction 
 was due to unwise judicial interpretation, need 
 not be considered. Of course not, at least by 
 him. In the first place it is not true that I ad- 
 mitted that Reconstruction was a failure. On 
 the contrary, those who will carefully read what 
 I have written will not fail to see that my con- 
 tention is that in its important and essential 
 particulars that policy was a great and brilliant 
 success; also that I instanced the ratification of 
 the 14th and 15th Amendments, neither of which 
 could have otherwise been ratified, as a vindica- 
 tion of the wisdom of that legislation, even if 
 nothing else had resulted from it. It is admitted 
 that some of the friends and supporters of the 
 Congressional plan of Reconstruction have been 
 disappointed because those governments did not 
 and could not stand the test of time. To this 
 extent and for this reason some persons claim 
 that the policy was a failure. I am not of that 
 number, for reasons which the readers of the 
 article referred to will see. But the inability of 
 those governments to stand the test of time I 
 accounted for under three heads, one of which 
 was several unfortunate decisions rendered by the 
 Supreme Court, the result, in my opinion, of two 
 
Errors of James Ford Rhodes 101 
 
 unfortunate appointments made by President 
 Grant in the persons of Chief Justice Waite and 
 Associate Justice Bradley. I do not assert that 
 those two Judges, or any others for that matter, 
 were appointed with reference to their attitude 
 upon any pubhc question, still I am satisfied that 
 they were believed to be in accord with the other 
 leaders and constitutional lawyers in the Repub- 
 lican party in their construction of the 14th 
 Amendment. The constitutional warrant for the 
 Civil Rights Bill is the clause which declares 
 that " No state shall make or enforce any law 
 which shall abridge the privileges or immunities 
 of citizens of the United States." It was there- 
 fore held that any law or ordinance which pro- 
 vided for, recognized or sanctioned separate 
 accommodations for the two races in the exercise 
 and enjoyment of the rights and privileges that 
 are supposed to be common to all classes of per- 
 sons would be a violation of this provision of the 
 14th Amendment; and since Congress was author- 
 ized to enforce the Amendment, affirmative legis- 
 lation for the enforcement of that provision was 
 held to be thus warranted. This view was held 
 by such able and brilliant constitutional lawyers 
 as Edmunds and Conkling in the Senate* and 
 Butler, George F. Hoar and E. Rockwood Hoar, 
 Lyman Tremaine, Garfield and Wilson in the 
 House. Senator Carpenter was the only Repub- 
 lican lawyer of any note that took a different view 
 
102 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 of the matter. While he believed the whole bill 
 was unconstitutional, the section prohibiting race 
 discrimination in the selection of jurors in state 
 courts he believed to be especially obnoxious to 
 the constitution. He declared that if that sec- 
 tion could stand the test of a judicial decision all 
 the others could and should, and yet the Court, 
 through a decision handed down by Mr. Justice 
 Strong, affirmed the constitutionality of that 
 section; but in a decision handed down by Mr. 
 Justice Bradley the section providing for equal 
 accommodations in hotels, inns and places of 
 amusement was declared unconstitutional except 
 in the District of Columbia and the territories. 
 In several subsequent decisions, handed down in 
 the main by Chief Justice Waite, some of the most 
 vital and important sections of the enforcement 
 acts, especially those having for their object the 
 protection of individual citizens against domestic 
 violence through federal machinery when neces- 
 sary, were also declared to be unconstitutional 
 and void. 
 
 I am of the opinion, shared by many others, 
 that if men of the type of Edmunds and Conkling 
 had been appointed Supreme Court Justices in- 
 stead of Waite and Bradley, the rulings of the 
 Court in the important cases referred to might 
 have been different. The unfortunate thing 
 about those decisions is the wide scope of authority 
 thus conceded to the states. In other words, they 
 
Errors of James Ford Rhodes 103 
 
 amount to a judicial recognition of the dangerous 
 doctrine of States Rights — a doctrine which has 
 been the source and the cause of most of our 
 domestic troubles and misfortunes since those 
 decisions were rendered. But for those unfortu- 
 nate decisions our country would not be cursed 
 and disgraced today by lynch law and other 
 forms of lawlessness and racial proscription and 
 discrimination. But for those unfortunate deci- 
 sions, lynching could have been, and I am sure 
 would have been, held to be an offense against 
 the peace and dignity of the United States as 
 well as the state. Consequently, the criminals 
 could be, and in most cases would be, prosecuted 
 in the federal courts and through federal machin- 
 ery, as was done in the case of many of the leaders 
 of that secret criminal organization called the 
 Ku Klux Klan. But this took place before the 
 decisions referred to were rendered. The Court 
 has also decided that a state law providing for 
 separate accommodations for white and colored 
 people on railroad trains, at least for passengers 
 whose journey begins and ends in the same state, 
 is not an abridgement in violation of the Consti- 
 tution, provided the accommodations for the two 
 races are exactly equal, which means that the 
 vaUdity even of those laws will not be affirmed 
 whenever it can be shown that the accommoda- 
 tions are not equal, which can be very easily 
 done. Equal separate accommodations is both 
 
104 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 a physical and a financial impossibility. It is 
 simply impossible for a railroad company to 
 provide the same accommodations for one colored 
 passenger that it provides for one hundred whites. 
 If, then, a colored passenger cannot occupy a 
 seat or a sleeping berth in a car in which white 
 persons may be passengers, this will not only be 
 an abridgement, but, in some cases, an absolute 
 denial, of such accommodations. The ultimate 
 nulhfication of such imfair, unjust and unreason- 
 able laws must necessarily follow. 
 
 In spite of the unfavorable rulings of the Court, 
 as above noted, that tribunal as at present con- 
 stituted has rendered several very important 
 decisions which have given the friends of national 
 supremacy and equal rights much hope and en- 
 couragement. The most important of these is 
 the one declaring unconstitutional and void the 
 ordinances providing for the segregation of the 
 races in the purchase and occupation of property 
 for residential purposes in several cities. The 
 decision in this case was broad, comprehensive 
 and far-reaching. This important, fair and equi- 
 table decision has given the colored American new 
 hope and new inspiration. It has strengthened 
 and intensified his loyalty and devotion to his 
 country, his government, its flag and its institu- 
 tions. It makes him feel that with all of its 
 faults and shortcomings, our form of government 
 is superior to, and better than, that of any other, 
 
Errors of James Ford Rhodes 105 
 
 and that a few more decisions along the Hne of this 
 one, which I hope and beUeve may be safely 
 anticipated, every justifiable cause of complaint 
 on the part of the colored American will have been 
 removed, because the evils resulting from the 
 unfavorable and unfortunate rulings above noted 
 will have been remedied and cured. Our type of 
 democracy will then be what it now purports to 
 be, the pure and genuine article. This will then 
 be in truth and in fact the land of the free and the 
 home of the brave. It will then be a typical 
 representative of that form of democracy under 
 which there can be no slave, no vassal and no peon, 
 but everyone will be an equal before the law in 
 the exercise and enjoyment of life, liberty and 
 property, and in the exercise and enjoyment of 
 such public rights and privileges as are, or should 
 be, common to all citizens alike, without distinc- 
 tion or discrimination based upon differences of 
 race, color, nationality or religion. These were 
 the aims, objects and purposes the framers of the 
 14th Amendment had in view when that Amend- 
 ment was drawn, and from present indications it 
 seems to be clear that the highest court in the 
 land will not allow the same to be defeated. But 
 the most significant point about the segregation 
 decision grows out of the fact that the fair, 
 reasonable, sound and equitable principles therein 
 set forth and clearly enunciated received the 
 approbation and endorsement of a unanimous 
 
106 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 court consisting of nine judges, in which conflict- 
 ing and antagonistic pohtical views were presumed 
 to be represented. This indicates that the day 
 is not far off when the so-called race question will 
 cease to be a political factor, and that all political 
 parties will recognize merit and not race, fitness 
 and not color, experience and not religion, ability 
 and not nationality, as the tests by which persons 
 must be judged, not only in the administration 
 of the government but in the industrial field as 
 well. For the accomplishment of these meri- 
 torious ends and the attainment of these desirable 
 purposes, men of the type of James Ford Rhodes 
 should give their aid, support and influence, 
 instead of allowing these to be used in the interests 
 of that small class of unpatriotic Americans who 
 seek political distinction and official recognition 
 at the expense of racial harmony and brotherly 
 love. 
 
CHAPTER XVI 
 
 The purpose of this chapter is to amplify and bring out in 
 more detail some of the points touched upon in preceding 
 chapters. 
 
 The Presidential Election of 1916 
 
 There were some phases of the presidential 
 election of 1916 which should receive the careful 
 consideration and serious reflection of the students 
 of American history, especially those who are 
 believers in a genuine Republican form of govern- 
 ment. In considering these matters the mind 
 should be entirely divested of partisan bias or 
 racial prejudice; the aim and purpose should be 
 to ascertain what effect these matters may have 
 upon the stability and perpetuity of our Republi- 
 can institutions. 
 
 The presidential election of 1916 was the first 
 one since 1884 when the vote of the states com- 
 posing what is left of the " solid South " proved 
 to be a deciding factor. In all presidential 
 elections since 1884 and until 1916 the vote of the 
 states above referred to would not have changed 
 the result one way or the other. But in 1916 the 
 case was different. 
 
 It is hoped that the reader will not suspect that 
 the author is actuated or influenced either by 
 
108 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 partisan bias or racial partiality in making the 
 statement based upon his personal knowledge of 
 political conditions as they then existed, that 
 President Wilson was legally and constitution- 
 ally, but not fairly and honestly, re-elected. In 
 other words, he was duly elected according to the 
 forms of law, the observance and enforcement of 
 which are essential to the maintenance of law and 
 order and to avoid and prevent revolution, 
 anarchy and chaos. But it sometimes happens 
 that, through the application and enforcement of 
 these essential and necessary forms, the choice of 
 a majority of those who are legally entitled to 
 participate in the selection of public officials is 
 defeated. Such was the case in 1916. Accord- 
 ing to the political situation at that time there 
 were at least three states at the South, Missis- 
 sippi, Louisiana and South Carolina, which 
 would have been as reliably Republican as the 
 states of Pennsylvania and Vermont, but for the 
 suppression of the colored vote in those states, 
 through an evasion or violation of the Federal 
 Constitution. It will be seen, therefore, that, 
 but for the suppression of the colored vote at the 
 South, Hughes instead of Wilson would have 
 been elected President in 1916. But this would 
 have meant " Negro domination," because the 
 choice of a majority of the white voters would 
 have been defeated by the votes of colored men. 
 We would not only have had " Negro domina- 
 
Presidential Election of 1916 109 
 
 tion " in the executive but also in the legislative 
 department of the government, because by the 
 same vote the party of which Judge Hughes was 
 the representative would have had a majority in 
 both branches of the legislative department. 
 This would not only have been true of the Con- 
 gress that was elected at that time but of several 
 preceding Congresses, for there are not less than 
 six members of the Senate and thirty of the House 
 that would be of a different political classification 
 but for the suppression of the colored vote at the 
 South. It will thus be seen that if that vote had 
 not been suppressed in 1916 we would have 
 had " Negro domination " in both the execu- 
 tive and legislative departments of the national 
 government, although no colored man may have 
 been officially identified with either of those 
 departments. 
 
 It does not necessarily follow that the political 
 party to which a majority of the colored voters 
 belong is, in every case, the beneficiary when the 
 colored vote proves to be a deciding factor in a 
 closely contested election. In the presidential 
 election of 1884, for instance, Mr. Cleveland, the 
 Democratic candidate for President of the United 
 States, polled a very small percentage of the 
 colored vote in the state of New York, but the 
 fact was developed that the plurality by which 
 he carried that important and pivotal state was 
 considerably less than the number of colored men 
 
110 Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes 
 
 who voted for him. If, therefore, the colored 
 men, or a majority of them, who voted for Mr. 
 Cleveland in New York at that time had voted 
 against him he would have lost the state and 
 consequently the presidency of the United States. 
 But there seems to have been no public appre- 
 hension of " Negro domination " as a result of 
 that election, although the colored vote proved to 
 be a deciding factor. 
 
 In what is written in this chapter no reflection 
 upon President Wilson is meant or intended. He 
 was twice elected to the Presidency of the United 
 States, and on each occasion his election was due 
 to a combination of circumstances for the exis- 
 tence of which he was in no sense responsible. 
 His first election, 1912, was due to a serious split 
 in the Repubhcan party. If in the election of 
 presidential electors a majority instead of a 
 plurality had been required to elect, Mr. Wilson 
 would not have been elected. He was, therefore, 
 a minority candidate, but the same was true in 
 the first election of Mr. Lincoln, who proved to 
 be one of the best presidents the country has 
 ever had. The election of 1912, therefore, was 
 not only valid and constitutional, but since the 
 vote of the South was not a deciding factor, its 
 fairness cannot very well be questioned. 
 
 In 1916 President Wilson was the beneficiary 
 of the suppression of the colored vote at the 
 South through the apphcation and enforcement 
 
Presidential Election of 1916 111 
 
 of methods which popular sentiment of the 
 country, North as well as South, had, through a 
 misapprehension of the facts, excused, tolerated 
 and acquiesced in. While, therefore, the legality 
 of the election cannot and should not be ques- 
 tioned, the reader cannot fail to see that there 
 are some grave and complicated questions in- 
 volved, which, if not corrected, are calculated to 
 weaken and impair, if not to undermine and 
 destroy, the fundamental principle and doctrine 
 upon which our system of government is based. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Ackerman, x. 
 
 Alcorn, J. L., 5, 6, 14, 28, 79, 
 
 80, 83, 92, 93, 95. 
 Anderson, 4. 
 Ames, Adalbert, 6, 27, 28, 98, 
 
 99. 
 Aristocracy, xix, 4, 5. 
 Appomattox, 43. 
 Arthur, President, 85. 
 
 B 
 
 Bruce, Hon. B. K., ix, 19, 20, 
 
 28, 82, 83, 98, 99. 
 Brown, Ex-Governor, 4. 
 Bullock, Ex-Governor, 4. 
 Beauregard, General, 4. 
 Bill, Civil Rights, 20, 41, 42, 
 
 101. 
 Buchanan, Hon. G. M., 24, 25. 
 Bradley, Judge, 41, 42, 43, 84, 
 
 101. 
 Blaine, James G., 56, 94. 
 Boyd, Hon. E., 93. 
 Butler, Gen. B. F., 101. 
 Borah, Senator, 54. 
 
 C 
 
 Chestnutt, C. W., xii. 
 Compton, W. M., 6. 
 Cassidy, Judge Hiram, St., 7. 
 Cassidy, Judge Hiram, Jr., 7. 
 Chandler, Judge, 7, 92. 
 Crain, Judge, 7. 
 Carpenter, J. N., 7. 
 Cleveland, President, 12, 109. 
 Cain, Congressman, 20. 
 Cheatham, Congressman, 20. 
 Court, U. S. Supreme, 43, 46, 
 
 100. 
 Clause, Understanding, 75. 
 Christman, Judge, 73. 
 Calhoun, Judge S. S., 74. 
 
 Conkling, Senator, 101, 102. 
 Carpenter, Senator, 101. 
 Civil Rights BiU, 20, 41, 42, 
 101. 
 
 D 
 
 Dent, Judge Louis, 5, 79, 80, 
 
 93, 94. 
 Deason, J. B., 6. 
 Davis, Judge, 7. 
 Decision, Dred Scott, 33. 
 Decisions, Supreme Court, 41, 
 
 70, 100. 
 
 Evans, Rev. J. J., 14, 15, 16, 
 
 17, 80, 81, 82, 90. 
 EUiott, Congressman, 20. 
 Edmunds, Senator, 101, 102. 
 
 " Facts of Reconstruction," 25, 
 
 26, 27, 28. 
 Fulkerson, 4. 
 Flournoy, Hon. R. W., 5. 
 Frank, Leo, 44, 45. 
 Federal Elections Bill, 56. 
 Frankhn, Judge F. E., 93. 
 
 Grant, President, 9, 37, 41, 85, 
 
 93, 101. 
 Garfield, President, 85, 101. 
 George, Hon. J. Z., 72, 73, 74, 
 
 75. 
 Garner, 80, 82, 90. 
 
 H 
 
 Hunt, 4. 
 
 Hayes, President R. B., 32, 46, 
 
 85. 
 Hamhn, Frank, xiii. 
 Hill, Ben, 4. 
 Hill, Joshua, 4. 
 
114 
 
 Index 
 
 Hahn, Ex-Governor, 4. 
 Harrison, President, 6. 
 Hunt, T. W., 6. 
 Hancock, Judge, 7. 
 Henderson, Judge, 7. 
 HiU, Judge, 7. 
 Harney, W. H., 18. 
 Hemingway, Wm. L., 23, 24, 
 
 25, 82, 89, 90. 
 Holland, Hon. George H., 23. 
 Harlan, Justice, 44, 85. 
 Hoar, G. F., 101. 
 Hoar, E. R., 101. 
 Hughes, Judge C. E., 54, 108, 
 
 109. 
 
 Jackson, Clarion, vii. 
 Jeffords, Congressman, 5. 
 Johnson, President, 30, 32. 
 " Journal of Negro History," 
 86. 
 
 Key, xi. 
 
 Ku Klux Klan, 37, 38, 41, 103. 
 
 Lee, Gen. R. E., 4. 
 Longstreet, General, 4. 
 Lamar, Hon. L. Q. C, 5, 56, 
 
 80. 
 Lea, Judge Luke, 6. 
 Lea, A. M., 6. 
 Langston, Congressman, 20. 
 Logan, Senator, 94. 
 Lincoln, President, 85. 
 
 M 
 Myers, George A., xi. 
 Mosby, 4. 
 Mahone, 4. 
 Massey, 4. 
 
 McKee, George C, Congress- 
 man, 5. 
 MiUsaps, R. W., 6. 
 Morphis, Hon. J. L., 7. 
 McMillan, Judge, 7. 
 McCary, Wm., 17, 18. 
 
 Miller, Congressman, 20. 
 Mississippi Constitution, 1890, 
 
 72. 
 Mayes, 80. 
 MiUsaps, Judge, 7. 
 
 N 
 Niles, Judge Jason, 5, 93. 
 Niles, Judge H. C, 6. 
 " Negro Domination," 52, 53, 
 
 64, 67. 
 Nichols, I. C, 80, 81. 
 
 O 
 
 Orr, Ex-Governor, 4. 
 Osgood, Judge, 7. 
 O'Hara, Congressman, 20. 
 OHgarchy, xix, 52, 63. 
 
 Pinchback, Hon. P. S. B., viii, 
 
 ix. 
 Parsons, Ex-Governor, 4. 
 Paul, 4. 
 
 Powers, Governor, 5, 6, 14. 
 Perce, Congressman, 5. 
 Peyton, Judge E. G., 6, 80, 94. 
 Putnam, H. B., 81. 
 Pease, U. S. Senator, 83, 98. 
 
 R 
 
 Revels, Hon. H. R., ix, x, 20. 
 Reynolds, Ex-Governor, 4. 
 Riddleberger, 4. 
 Rainey, Congressman, 20. 
 Rapier, Congressman, 20. 
 Riley, 80. 
 
 Southern White RepubUcans, 
 
 3. 
 Speed, Judge, 5. 
 SimraU, Judge H. F., 6, 80, 94, 
 
 95. 
 Sessions, Hon. J. F., 7. 
 Smyley, Judge, 7. 
 Surget, James, 7. 
 Scott, H. P., 18, 81. 
 
Index 
 
 115 
 
 Smalls, Congressman, 20. 
 Stephens, Congressman, 20. 
 Stevens, Thad., Congressman, 
 
 29, 31, 35, 83. 
 Sumner, Sen. Charles, 29, 31, 
 
 35, 83. 
 Strong, Justice, 102. 
 States Rights, 42, 43, 44, 45, 
 
 46, 54, 103. 
 Supreme Court, 43, 46, 100. 
 
 TarbeU, Judge, 5, 6, 80, 94. 
 Tribune, Chicago, 36, 51, 52, 
 
 53, 54, 64, 66, 68. 
 Taft, President, 54, 63, 67. 
 Tremaine, Lyman, 101. 
 Tilden, Samuel J., 58. 
 
 U 
 
 " Understanding Clause," 73. 
 
 Vasser, W. H., 6. 
 
 W 
 
 Wickham, 4. 
 
 WeUs, 4. 
 
 Walton, Judge, 7. 
 
 Walker, Judge, 7. 
 
 Wood, Robert H., 18. 
 
 White, Congressman, 20. 
 
 Waite, Chief Justice, 41, 42, 43, 
 
 84, 101. 
 Walthal, Hon. E. C, 72. 
 West, R. R., 81. 
 Winslow, 81. 
 Warren, Hon. H. W., 93. 
 Wilson, Representative, 101. 
 Wilson, President, 108, 110. 
 Wright, Judge, ix. 
 Woods, Justice, 85. 
 
L