USA > Kentucky > History of Kentucky, Volume II > Part 50
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90
But the question could not be settled upon its merits as long as the military regime lasted in the state and continued its meddlings. It soon came to be the position of Palmer that if the State of Kentucky would not ratify the Thirteenth Amendment or pass immediately an act freeing the slaves on her own authority 7 he would proceed to do so himself with the means that he had in his power as military commander of the state. The surrender of Lee did not bring an end to slave recruiting. This practice was kept up for the purpose of filling certain negro regiments and as a method of freeing slaves, as many Kentuckians believed. The operation of the Federal statute providing for the enlistment of slaves made them free as well as their wives and children. By this method it was estimated that at least 500 slaves were being freed every day.8 In fact, through various causes, the number of slaves in the state by the latter part of July, 1865, had, according to the estimates of Palmer, dwindled to less than 65,000 out of 230,000 in 1860. Negro enlistments amounted to over 28,000, and counting two and one-half as the average freed on account of being members of the family over 72,000 were thus freed. Then, according to Palmer's estimate, at least one-half of the slave population belonged to Confederate sympathizers, and was, there- fore, free. By this method of computation he arrived at his estimate
3 See Lexington Observer and Reporter, March 29, 1865.
4 Cincinnati Daily Gazette, March 3, 1865; Collins, History of Kentucky, I, 155. The real value of the slaves was estimated at over $100,000,000.
6 Cincinnati Daily Gazette, Feb. 13, 1865.
6 Lexington Observer and Reporter, April 29, 1865.
7 Of course, the Legislature could not constitutionally pass such an act.
& American Annual Cyclopaedia, 1865, p. 462.
908
HISTORY OF KENTUCKY
of less than 65,000 mentioned above." With their movements so gen- eral and incessant over the country, it was exceedingly difficult to deter- mine which negroes came under the different conditions, and the result was that Palmer took the easiest course of procedure. He made little distinction among them, but considered them all free when it came to the practical application of a rule. Free passes were readily granted to any negroes desiring them, and under this ease of movement they began in a constant stream to cross the Ohio into the states north of the river. By July at least 5,000 had crossed at Louisville alone.10 Thus, it was only a matter of time until every slave in the state could be freed with- out legal action by either the state or nation. Protests against the un- constitutionality of Palmer's actions availed nothing. The situation only convinced those Kentuckians who were willing to recognize an eventuality that slavery was dead and the most tactful act for Kentucky to perform was to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment.
Immediately after the end of hostilities, political and social conditions in the state were insecure and uncertain. Just what would be the recep- tion given to the Confederate soldiers and sympathizers who should come wandering back to their homes? Certain legislation during the war indi- cated that a stern policy might be adopted; but toward the end of the war a change was noticeable. In February, 1864, Kentuckians who had joined the Confederacy were so far forgiven that citizenship was restored to those who enlisted in the Federal armies; and a year later Palmer, primarily to encourage desertion from the Confederate armies, prom- ised all so deserting and registering with the provost marshals military protection.11 With the coming of peace, it was soon evident that there was to be no prolonging of hostile feeling against those whose principles had led them to join the Confederacy. One who knew the spirit of these days through experience said, "We search in vain for any evidence of hatred or even dislike among these men who were so lately in arms against each other." 12 But this observation should be carefully weighed. It is by no means to be understood as meaning that there was not the most bitter hatreds soon to spring up knowing scarcely any bounds. This came in the play of politics and the scramble for preferment carried on by politicians who had known none of the honorable instincts and feel- ings of the soldier. It was surprisingly true that the soldiers almost unanimously banded together in friendship, which led to political alli- ances, all drifting distinctly to the advantage of the Confederate element and producing such bitter hatreds that the radical element, a small minor- ity, sought to bring the state under the heel of the Federal Government and into the reconstruction program.
The election in August (1865) of a state Legislature, congressmen, and a state treasurer gave the people a chance to show their temper and the political elements an opportunity to drift into natural alliances. The democrats included all elements that had a latent or expressed sympathy for the South and those who were irreconcilable to the Federal military regime. By their opponents they were declared to be composed of "re- turned traitors and rebels," "sympathizers with the rebellion, those traitors who stayed at home," "all that class who have opposed the war for the Union and who have denounced all the war measures of the administration as tyrannical and unconstitutional," and "the no-more- men-or-money-party, those at Chicago who pronounced the war a fail- ure." 13 The democrats were, in fact, the great body of Kentucky con- servatism. The radicals, who stood with the national administration in
9 Cincinnati Daily Gazette, Aug. 3, 1865.
10 Lexington Observer and Reporter, Aug. 9, 1865.
11 Collins, History of Kentucky, I, 131, 156.
12 Shaler, Kentucky, 387.
13 Editorial in Semi-Weekly Frankfort Commonwealth, June 27, 1865
909
HISTORY OF KENTUCKY
the days of its extreme radicalism when it was at one with the Congres- sional leaders, called themselves the Union party. They were the group that had stood for the election of President Lincoln in 1864, and were now the national administration party in the state. Palmer, besides being military commander of the state, was also a powerful political factor in this party. There were also many Union soldiers who were at this time identified with this party, due to the too conspicuous friendship evinced by the democrats for the former Confederate element. The election of James Guthrie to the United States Senate in January ( 1865) over the gallant Federal commander, Rousseau, showed the power of the democrats and the temper of the Legislature.14
As the August election approached there was considerable apprehen- sion that the Confederate element would seek to carry the day. Even Bramlette, who was an almost inextricable bundle of opposites, thunder- ing protests against the Federal Government at one time and wreaking vengeance on Confederates at another, issued his proclamation quoting the Expatriation Act, and requiring all voters to take the oath that they had not directly or indirectly given voluntary aid to those opposing the United States Government.15 The military authorities also took due precautions to guard the polls, thus in the long run injuring the cause of the radicals more than aiding it. The main issues in the campaign were the question of the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment and the support of national measures. The memories as well as present experiences of the military regime also played their part. The election resulted in a victory for the democrats, or conservatives, as they were often called. They elected five out of the nine Congressmen, maintained their majority both in the House and Senate of the Legislature, and car- ried the state for Garrard, state treasurer, by a slight majority.16
There was much chagrin among the radical leaders at this defeat, as they had hoped to easily carry the state along with the momentum of a successful war. Some charged that many "returned rebels" had voted, while others sought to explain their defeat by declaring that the conservative character of Kentuckians had been shocked by the radical- ism displayed by the national party of which the Kentucky radicals claimed to be a part. Others laid practically the whole blame on Palmer : "General Palmer has already cost the Union party 10,000 votes in this State, and the way in which he is allowing his negro troops and their officers to demean themselves, he will cost it its existence, unless that party denounce him and his policy and demand his removal." 17 But all the charges of corruption did not come from the radicals; the democrats immediately raised the cry of military interference with the ballot box. Lists had been prepared before the election, and persons whose names appeared on these lists were prevented from voting, and that often in a most repulsive way by negro soldiers. When the Legislature met much bitterness was manifested. Investigations were ordered and certain elec- tions were declared illegal. The seats of four senators and of seven representatives were declared vacant and new elections were ordered. Soldiers prosecuted for interfering with the election; some were fined and others sent to jail.18
The democrats, now in control of the Government, began a course of legislation designed to erase forever from the statute books every memory of the past struggle, and in their zeal they so completely em- braced, or were embraced by the Confederate group, that they brought
14 For vote see Cincinnati Daily Gazette, Jan. 12, 1865.
15 Semi-Weekly Frankfort Commonwealth, July 21, 1865.
16 The vote for Garrard was 42,187, while Neale received 42,082. Collins, History of Kentucky, I, 163.
17 Cincinnati Daily Gazette, Sept. 15, 1865.
18 Lexington Observer and Reporter, Dec. 23, 1865; Jan. 31, et seq., 1866.
910
HISTORY OF KENTUCKY
down the denunciations of the radical party and caused the Congressional leaders to debate seriously putting Kentucky under the Reconstruction Acts. The evidences of a desire for reconciliation appearing before the end of the war were now quickly magnified into major acts. Governor Bramlette, in his message to the Legislature in December, sounded the keynote of forgiveness: He asked if those laboring under disabilities should be "crushed-humiliated-debased by continual punishment ? or shall they be forgiven-trusted-restored?" Continuing, he said, "Though secession is heterodox and suicidal, yet there were many able, intelligent, and conscientious men who honestly held and taught the right. Those who held to it, and fought for it, have given it up and abandoned the claim. Those who fought the battles are for peace. Those who nursed their courage at a distance from danger, 'to keep it warm,' only ask time to cool." 19
Two days after the Legislature met the mill began to grind. A bill to repeal the Expatriation Act was introduced and the fight was on; and before the session was over almost every vestige of war legislation was swept away. The Expatriation Act was repealed by a vote in the Senate of 22 to 12 and in the House, 62 to 33. The attempt to require an oath of allegiance was voted down. The Louisville Democrat said, "We are opposed to this miscellaneous swearing ; it is of no practical use." 20 The repeal of this act was bitterly denounced by the radicals. A newspaper editor thus expressed his resentment at the mild course pursued gen- erally : "We had hoped that treason had become so odious with the loyal men of the state as that traitors must be made to suffer at least some of the consequences of their great crime. There are sufficient of those re- turned rebels to form a balance of power in Kentucky. Their votes will be cast with those who have sympathies with the rebellion, and they will elect their own nien to the control of the state. Failing to conquer Union men with the bullet they will accomplish it with the ballot." 21 The law of 1861 declaring a Kentuckian who joined the Confederacy and later invaded the state guilty of a felony was repealed, and the oath required of ministers, jurors and others was abolished. Also various other pen- alties against Confederates were swept away.22 This Legislature was sternly denounced at home and abroad. The Cincinnati Daily Gazette, declared editorially, "That the majority of the present Legislature of Kentucky is as disloyal in spirit as any that ever met at Richmond or in South Carolina, is not to be doubted; that it is their desire to persecute, drive out or crush Union men, they have made clearly apparent; and that it is their wish and their intention, if possible, to re-enslave the freedmen, they do not pretend to deny. The most popular men with the majority of the Legislature today, are returned rebel soldiers, who fought through the war to destroy the Government, and the most unpop- ular are returned Union soldiers and Union men who sustained the Gov- ernment through the bloody struggle for its life." 23
The immediate result politically of the repeal of the war legislation was to substantiate the worst fears of the radicals, namely : the capture of the state by the Confederate element. Their aggressive leadership and skill soon brought them into complete possession of the democratic or conservative party. They were so active that they threw the more conservative leaders of the party into confusion. The Lexington Ob- server and Reporter, said, "Never before, in the history of Kentucky politics, were parties and politicians in such confusion as at present." 24
19 Lexington Observer and Reporter, Dec. 9, 1865.
20 Quoted in Lexington Observer and Reporter, Dec. 16, 1865.
21 Semi-Weekly Frankfort Commonwealth, May 28, 1865.
22 See Collins, History of Kentucky, I, 166.
23 January 26, 1866.
24 January 31, 1866.
911
HISTORY OF KENTUCKY
The conservatives, as they had been most commonly called heretofore, were made up of those who had fought the war for the Union, but with many misgivings on Federal occupation, and those who had fought the war for the South and now were largely in control. Would this com- bination hold together? Then, there were the out-and-out Union men, the so-called radicals who wanted no reconciliation with the Southern group, and who hoped to capture the whole vote of those who had aided the Union in any way. The political situation was one of complete chaos as to national connections. The radicals were at first in whole-hearted accord with President Johnson and looked to him as their national leader; but his veto of the Freedman Bureau bill and his growing conservatism so bitterly opposed by the Congressional leaders, soon set the radicals into opposition to him. Now the conservatives of every kind began to attach themselves to Johnson. A radical convention in August, 1866, declared he was guilty of "defection * * * from the loyal men of the nation," and condemned him for his "factious opposition to the supreme law-making power of the nation, in Congress assembled." 25 The South- ern element in conservative party, pushing their advantage at every point, called through the Louisville Courier, their chief party organ, a convention to nominate a candidate for the clerkship of the Court of Appeals, the only office of a state-wide character to be filled in the August, 1866, elections. The notice was for a meeting to reorganize "the democratic party in the state, with the view of acting in conjunc- tion with the party in the other states, in defense of the Constitution, and the support of the Union restoration policy." 26 A full party con- vention met and nominated Alvin Duval. It came out strongly for Presi- dent Johnson and declared that "the Democracy of Kentucky pledge him a generous and hearty support in his efforts to restore the Constitution and the union of the states." 27 This convention was thoroughly under the control of the Southern element, and the definite birth of the demo- cratic party after the war can be attributed to this meeting.
The radicals had been so completely worsted in their fight in the pre- ceding Legislature that for a time they were almost quiescent as far as the organization of efficient party machinery was concerned. They were flirting with the element in the conservative party (or more appropriately called democratic hereafter), with the view of annexing their support. The result of this condition was that a candidate soon arose to claim the nomination of the radicals and another to represent the Union wing of the democrats, which was in the process of trying to split away. Under the leadership of the Louisville Journal, a Union conservative con- vention was held for the purpose of setting up a candidate of its own. Bolling was nominated. The union of this group with the radicals was now made easier, and was finally accomplished by the radical and Union conservative candidates resigning, and through the nomination of Gen. E. H. Hobson, a veteran of the Union armies. The campaign was fought out largely on the issues connected with the return of the Con- federate element. The Louisville Journal said, "The issue is at last fairly and squarely presented to the people of Kentucky, between those who fought for the Union, and those who fought for the revolt all through the war." 28 But the Lexington Gazette maintained that, "it is suffi- ciently plain that the issue still is between destructive radicalism on the one hand and constitutional conservatism on the other." 29 The demo- crats were attacked as the party of "returned rebels" and Duval was called the secessionist candidate. This election was eagerly watched by
25 Lexington Observer and Reporter, Aug. 29, 1866.
26 Quoted in Cincinnati Daily Gazette, April 19, 1866.
27 Lexington Observer and Reporter, May 5, 1866.
28 Quoted in Cincinnati Daily Gazette, June 28, 1866.
29 Quoted in Cincinnati Daily Gazette, July 24, 1866.
912
HISTORY OF KENTUCKY
all, as it would give an indication of the former Confederate strength. The democrats were overwhelmingly successful. Duval was elected by a majority of over 37,000 votes in a total of about 155,000. The radical candidate received 58,035 as compared to 42,082 for their candidate in 1865, before the Confederate element was repatriated. Duval received 95,979, while the democratic candidate in 1865 received 42,082. It is safe to say then that the so-called "rebel element" amounted to about 40,000 voters. The election returns also show that the attempt to draw away the Union conservatives into an alliance with the radicals failed. The radicals were disappointed and gloomy. They admitted that "It is a straight out rebel victory. There is not the least necessity in trying to dodge or evade the issue. This was the test, and with it they canvassed and won the state. It is a sad record for Kentucky. The rebel gray has whipped the Union blue at the polls, and as humiliating as it may be, it is nevertheless true." 30 But the democrats looked upon the result in a somewhat different light. To them it meant a condemnation of the Freedman Bureau, the Thirteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Bill, and the whole course of Congressional radical legislation. A Lexington editor declared that Kentucky would not "proscribe a man because he has been a Confederate, nor will choose a man merely because he has served in the Federal army. She has refused to proscribe for many local offices men against whom nothing was urged except service in the Confederate army." 31 These election results were well in keeping with the state's course through the war in opposing the military regime in her limits and unquestionably many now expressed the desires that had long been in their minds. Kentucky was now in complete accord with her Southern traditions.
The course of the state throughout the period during which the effects of the war were felt, harmonized with the position taken in this election. She thoroughly detested all radical measures as seen especially in the Congressional programs of reconstructing the South. She also set her- self squarely against all attempts of the Federal Government to interfere in Kentucky affairs. She was very zealous in her advocacy of state rights. So strongly was she impregnated with opposition to the Federal Government's attempts to deal with the questions growing out of the war as they were related to Kentucky that she often took a reactionary and unreasoning position. At no point was this better shown than in her dealing with the negro question. But in this she believed she had great provocation.
On December 18, 1865, with the final adoption and promulgation of the Thirteenth Amendment all slaves throughout the United States not hitherto liberated were now freed. The Freedman's Bureau had already been instituted and with the coming of the Thirteenth Amendment it was extended to Kentucky, despite her protests that she had never seceded and should, therefore, not be subjected to this method of dealing with problems in the conquered territories. But the Federal Govern- ment believed it was necessary for the proper care of the liberated negroes in the state. It should look after their schools, their laboring conditions, protect them in its special courts in the enjoyment of their new-born liberties, and see that oppressive contracts were not entered into with their former masters.32
For the next two years it grew into the most detested institution the state had ever been forced to endure. Well-meaning and honest as many of its officers were, it failed to grasp the spirit of the state or to recog- nize it in any way. By the end of 1868, its activities were restricted to
30 Ibid., Aug. 10, 1866.
31 Lexington Observer and Reporter, Aug. 8, 1866.
32 For order extending it to Kentucky see Cincinnati Daily Gazette, Jan. 1, 1866.
913
HISTORY OF KENTUCKY
Louisville, and finally in 1873 it was removed altogether. This bureau had its own courts where the negroes were supposed to be given justice, since it was contended that the state courts would not grant them jus- tice and, indeed, could not until the disabilities against negroes were re- moved. One of the direct results of these Freedman's Bureau courts was to develop in the minds of the negroes the feeling that they were not amenable to state authority, which led them into an unruly attitude toward the state laws and courts. The Kentucky Yeoman said, "The Federal officers are in the habit of taking from the State officers persons arrested for crime, where a negro is concerned, whether the person ar- rested be a white man or a negro, and of removing him to the Federal Courts for trial."33 Soon after the Freedman's Bureau entered the state the Legislature sought to drive it out by a law which made it a felony for any persons "pretending to act under the civil or military authority of this state or the United States," who should, without the warrant of law, collect money "under the pretense of a fine, tax, duty, or contribu- tion, or as being due to the verdict of any pretended court." 34
It was largely due to this interference by the Freedman's Bureau that the state took the attitude it did regarding negro testimony in the courts as well as other civil rights withheld for a time from the negroes. As the negroes were freed in the latter part of 1865, it was necessary to immediately repeal the slave code and make provisions for them as free- men. In February, 1866, negroes were given virtually all civil rights held by white people, except that negro testimony could not be used as evidence against whites. However, negroes were competent witnesses in civil suits where only negroes were concerned, and in criminal suits where a negro was the defendant. A contest was now precipitated for the admission of negro testimony in the state courts which took up the time of the Legislature during every session until 1872, when finally a law was passed declaring that "No one shall be incompetent as a witness because of his or her race or color." 35 During the same session the benefits of the Homestead Act, which had hitherto been withheld from the negroes, was granted "irrespective of race or color."
Directly after the war there sprang up a species of lawlessness en- gaged in by bands of people called Regulators, the Ku Klux Klan, and other designations in particular localities. It was almost the natural resultant of the disorganization produced by the guerilla gangs during the war. The natural inclination of much of that element toward law- lessness was gratified first in the Regulator bands; later the Ku Klux Klan began to operate under restraint, and when the better element abandoned it, the name was used by the most depraved, who vented their private grudges against every class, color and sex. The workings of the Freedman's Bureau were instrumental in starting the Klan; the negroes, relying on the protection of this Bureau against state courts, became exceedingly boisterous and troublesome. An epidemic of thefts broke out, followed by rape and murder. Being unable to bring the criminals to justice in state courts, men of respectability used the Klan to protect themselves and their people. The ignorant and designing took up this cudgel for their meanest ends, because they knew that negro testimony could never be used to convict them in the state courts. The dangers in the situation were soon evident, and the better element of the state rose up to put an end to this carnival of crime. The granting of negro testimony was urged as one remedy; and the varied powers of the state to deal with crime was held by many as sufficient if honestly applied. Governors referred successively in their messages to the un-
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.