History of Baltimore, Maryland, from its founding as a town to the current year, 1729-1898, including its early settlement and development; a description of its historic and interesting localities; political, military, civil, and religious statistcs; biographies of representative citizens, etc., etc, Part 64

Author: Shepherd, Henry Elliott, 1844-1929, ed. 4n
Publication date: 1898
Publisher: [Uniontown? Pa.] S.B. Nelson
Number of Pages: 1344

USA > Maryland > Baltimore County > Baltimore City > History of Baltimore, Maryland, from its founding as a town to the current year, 1729-1898, including its early settlement and development; a description of its historic and interesting localities; political, military, civil, and religious statistcs; biographies of representative citizens, etc., etc > Part 64

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).

make that belief the ground of political proscription. It is more credible that he may have thought it better to allay in this manner the apprehensions of his informants and their friends, whose patriotism or timid- ity was continually getting the better of their good sense and veracity, as well as on his part, perhaps, out of abundant caution, to take the proverbial ounce of prevention by seizing this armory and allowing his sol- diers to lend a hand in the dispersion of an alleged "disloyal" meeting.

The Constitution was defeated by the peo- ple of the State, the majority against it being two thousand. But that instrument con- tained a provision directing the taking of the votes of the Maryland troops in the field. It is needless to say on which side that vote was reported to be cast. It took ten days to collect and return the soldiers' vote. On the 24th of October the final returns of this vote were announced to be twenty-two hundred and ninety-four for the convention and seventy-six against it. This wiped out the popular or home majority against the Constitution and left a small majority in its favor. The Constitution further provided that if the Governor, to whom the returns were to be made, was satisfied that the Con- stitution had been ratified, he should also declare by proclamation, in order that the Constitution should go into effect on the Ist day of November, 1864.

A sub-committee of the Democratic State Central Committee, of which Judge Cham- bers was chairman, had in the meantime called on Governor Bradford and filed with him a remonstrance and protest against counting the soldiers' vote on the ground that under the Constitution of 1851, still the existing fundamental law, no election could

543

HISTORY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.

be held outside of the State; that voters must cast their ballots at the polling places of their legal residences; that the new Con- stitution could not confer these privileges claimed for the soldiers since that instru- ment had not yet been adopted by the people, and might never be adopted; and on the additional ground that there were many and manifest frauds and irregu- larities in the returns of the soldiers' vote; and the committee demanded an oppor- tunity to inspect and canvass these returns. Hon. William Schley, I. Nevett Steele and Thomas S. Alexander appeared for the Democratic State Central Committee before the Governor; Hon. Henry Winter Davis and Mr. Henry Stockbridge represented the Republican party. The protest was una- vailing. A Democratic State Convention which met in Baltimore on October 28th, and of which Col. Oden Bowie was chair- man and Mr. Knott secretary, protested against the action of Governor Bradford but in vain. On the 29th of October the Governor issued his proclamation declaring the ratification of the Constitution by the people; the vote being thirty thousand, one hundred and seventy-four for the Constitu- tion and twenty-nine thousand, seven hun- dred and ninety-nine against it ; the majority being the very narrow one of three hundred and seventy-five. The deed, involving the wholesale spoilation of the rights of prop- erty, the impoverishment of thousands of our fellow-citizens and the disfranchisement of a majority of the voters of the State, was consummated. It is due to truth and can- dor to add in this connection, and the fact should be put on record, that but for the conduct of some Democrats in Baltimore City of note and prominence, some of them

the eager, solicitous and successful aspirants for the offices and honors of the party in the days of its former prosperity and who became such aspirants again after its restor- ation to power in 1867, this Constitution would have been defeated; and the people of the State spared the long and arduous strug- gle which ensued for the recovery of their political rights. Some of these gentlemen not content with declining all participation in the movement which had been set on foot without their consent, exerted their influ- ence to deter others from entering into it, and unfortunately in many instances with success. This extraordinary conduct, so little to be looked for considering the political antecedents of these gentlemen, was in marked contrast with the uniform conduct of the Democrats throughout the counties who gave that movement their ac- tive and energetic support.

The Presidential and State election took place on Tuesday, November 8th, under the new Constitution thus proclaimed as adopted. The Fourth Section of Article I of this instrument was a wholesale bill of pains and penalties, of exclusions and pro- scriptions against the Democratic voters of the State. This section provided that "No person who has at any time been in armed hostility to the United States, or the lawful authorities thereof, or who has been in any manner in the service of the so-called "Con- federate States of America" and no person who has voluntarily left this State and gone within the military lines of the so-called "Confederate States of America" with the purpose of adhering to said States and armies, and no person who had given any aid, comfort, countenance or support to those en- gaged in armed hostility to the United States,

544

HISTORY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.

or in any manner adhered to the enemies of the United States either by contributing to the enemies of the United States or unlawfully sending within the lines of such enemies money, or goods, or letters, or information, or who has disloyally held communication with the enemies of the United States, or who has ad- vised any person to enter the service of said enemies, or aided any person so to enter, or who has by any open deed or word declared his ad- hesion to the cause of the enemies of the United States, or his desire for the triumph of said enemies over the arms of the United States, shall ever be entitled to vote at any election to be held in this State, or to hold any office of honor, profit or trust under the laws of this State, unless since such unlawful acts he shall have voluntarily entered into the military service of the United States, and been hon- orably discharged therefrom, or shall be on the day of election actually and voluntarily in such service, or unless he shall be restored to lus full rights of citizenship by an Act of the General Assembly passed by a vote of two- thirds of all the members elected to each House; and it shall be the duty of all officers of Regis- tration and Judges of Election carefully to ex- clude from voting or being registered, all per- sons so as above disqualified; and the Judges of Election at the first elec- tion under this Constitution shall, and at any subsequent election may ad- minister to any person offering to vote the following oath or affirmation: I do swear or affirm that I am a citizen of the United States, that I have never given any aid, countenance or support to those in armed hostility to the United States ; that I have never expressed a desire for the triumph of said enemies over the arms of the United States, and I make this oath or affirmation

without any reservation or evasion, and believe it to be binding on me; and any person declining to take such oath shall not be allowed to vote, but the taking of such oath shall not be deemed conclusive evidence of the right of such person to vote; and any person swearing or affirming falsely shall be liable to the penalty of perjury.

Section 7 and Section 8 of Article I were equally severe in their proscriptive require- ments. By Section 7 it was required that "Every person elected or appointed to any office of trust or profit under this Constitu- tion or under the laws made pursuant thereto, before he shall enter upon the du- ties of such office shall take and subscribe the "an oath or affirmation" which required the affiant among other things to declare "That I have never directly or indirectly, by word, act or deed, given aid, comfort or en- couragement to those in rebellion against the United States." By Section 8 it was provided that "Every person holding any office of trust or profit under the late Con- stitution or under any law of this State who shall be continued in office under this Con- stitution or under any law of the State shall within thirty days after this Constitution shall have gone into effect take the oath set forth in Section 7 of this Article," and on failure to do so his office was declared ipso facto vacant.

It is manifest from these sections that it was the intent and purposes of their authors to exclude forever, or so long as the constitu- tion they were framing should endure, all persons who had committed the acts or entertained or expressed the sentiments, denounced in these sections, from all share and participation whatever in the political government of the State, and thereby to secure and perpetuate the rule and su-

545

HISTORY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.

premacy of the Republican party. With the malignant and painstaking industry of inquisitors they sought to probe the con- science of the voter and to compel him un- der the penalties of perjury to disclose and lay bare his inmost thoughts and to make such disclosures thus forced from him matters of crimination and exclusion against him. One reads these sections now with amazement. Democrats of that day also read them with amazement, not un- mingled, however, with fear and appre- hension. The authors of these disqualify- ing and expurgatory clauses seem to have gone back two or three centuries, to the days of civil and religious intolerance for examples and precedents. They read like sections from the penal statutes of England or of a decree of the Parliament of Paris, or of an edict of Philip II. of Spain, in the sixteenth century. The terms employed are as broad and comprehensive "as the casing air," as the most searching and ma- lignant ingenuity could suggest or the English language could furnish. But this was not all. They were open to the widest and wildest expansion by construction at the hands of the officers of the Registration and Judges of Election in their discretion. These officers charged with the administra- tion of a law on which depended the dearest rights of freeman, but selected for their notorious and unscrupulous partisanship, were instructed in these sections not to re- gard as conclusive the oath taken by the voter, but to go beyond it in their inquisi- tions into his mind and conscience. All the dictates of humanity, all the ties of natural love and affection, all the sweet and sooth- ing offices of friendship were reprobated and ruthlessly aimed at and stricken down

by these provisions. It was well known that thousands of the citizens of Maryland had fathers, brothers, sons or friends in the armies of the Confederate States. By any communication with these relatives or friends, by any "aid or comfort" given them, by any expression of a wish for their safety, or success when they stood on "the perilous edge of battle," the party so of- fending contracted the deadly guilt of dis- loyalty, and incurred as a consequence the loss forever of all his political rights and privileges. A system of espionage, a body of informers was necessary to round out and complete this constitutional bulwark against "incivism," as the "terrorists" of the French Revolution characterized such acts of love and friendship, nor were these wanting, as many a Democratic voter of that time could bear witness.

That the officers of registration and Judges of Election were willing and pre- pared to execute these provisions of the Constitution in the vindictive spirit in which they were conceived was abundantly dem- onstrated.

At the meeting of the Judges of Election of the city of Baltimore held on Friday, No- vember 4, 1864, it was on motion of one Mr. E. L. Thomas among other things unani- mously resolved :

I. That the simple taking of the oath should not be deemed conclusive evidence of the loyalty of the party (i. e. applicant to vote).

2. That the judges be instructed to put such other questions to voters outside of the oath as shall satisfy them that the party offering to vote is not a rebel or a rebel sympathizer.

3. That the judges be requested to commit to the custody of the police any person offering to vote who in their opinion had sworn falsely.

546

HISTORY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.

It will be seen that these resolutions went far beyond the requirements of the fourth Section of Article I of the Constitution, se- vere as they are in their denunciations; they outraged all law and every sentintent of jus- tice. Under their operation the unfortu- nate Democratic voter was indeed "put to the question" as that term was employed by Tor- quemanda and his familiars, or by the min- isters of the penal laws in the reigns of Eliza- beth and James the First.

Mr. Thomas, the State's Attorney at that time, was present and advocated the adop- tion of these resolutions. One of the judges, a Reverend Mr. Jarboe not only supported the resolutions and bestowed his benedic- tion in advance on the political autos da fe of Democrats proposed to be celebrated on the ensuing election day, but offered an ad- ditional resolution of so stringent and ex- treme a character, however, that it shocked even the callous sensibilities of the laymen present and they left his resolution to be acted on by the judges in their discretion.

There were, according to report, out of the two hundred and forty Judges of Elec- tion just exactly seventy present at this meeting, but the absent Judges on the day of election acted on these resolutions, so that they may be regarded as the accepted and authoritative exposition of the 4th Sec- tion of Article I of-the creed of the Re- publican party. Mr. Lincoln was returned as having received a vote of fourteen thou- sand eight hundred and thirty-four against a vote of two thousand seven hundred and seventy-six for General McClellan, the to- tal vote of the city being only seventeen thousand six hundred and ten.

As the total vote of the city of Baltimore in the Presidential election of 1860 four

years before, when every voter exercised his right without fear or favor, was thirty thousand one hundred and fifty-five, and as the total vote in 1867, three years after his election, when there was, as is known and admitted, a thoroughly fair and honest ex- pression of public sentiment, was twenty- four thousand seven hundred and fifty-six -the Democratic majority being fifteen thousand and fifty-six-we may form some estimate of the number of Democratic vot- ers of the city of Baltimore disfranchised in the election of 1864.

The Republicans carried their electoral and State tickets by five thousand majority in the State. Outside of the city they were defeated. The election on the adoption or rejection of the Constitution in the previous October had gone against them on the popular vote. They were put on their guard by this result so unexpected on their part, and which had made them hustle in the camps and among the camp followers to overcome it. They realized that to a party in the minority the unscrupulous exercise of power is the price of success.

It was some time after admitted to the writer of this sketch by a distinguished gen- tleman once high in the councils of the Re- publican party and of the country, that the Democrats carried the State at this election, and also defeated the Constitution in Octo- ber; but that the imperious necessities of the war, the rule, Salus reipublicae suprema lex -a maxim often perverted to the worst pur- poses of tyranny, to the overthrow more fre- quently than to the salvation, of republics --- required the defeat of General McClellan and the success in a non-seceding Southern State of a Constitution which abolished slavery. An apprehension began to be felt

547

HISTORY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.

lest the war should end without the total extinction of slavery. The emancipation proclamation of Mr. Lincoln of January I, 1863, did not extend to the States of Dela- ware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, which, though subjected to military rule, and to treatment as disloyal communities and to all the ravages of Civil War, had not passed acts of secession and made war against the Union. If therefore these States could be induced either voluntarily, or by the exertion of military constraint or political pressure to abolish that insinua- tion, it would be a great point gained and would relieve the country and the Repub- lican party from a grave and an embar- rassing situation in the future. Maryland was therefore to be constrained to point the way which the other three States must fol- low.

Thus was the Democratic party of Mary- land after an interregnum of four years re- suscitated, and started again on a career, which though marked in its early stages by trials and defeats, was destined in the end to be crowned with success.

II.

FEDERAL INTERFERENCE IN MARYLAND ELECTIONS-MR. LINCOLN'S CON- NECTION WITH EMANCIPATION IN THAT STATE.

That the interference of the Federal troops with the elections held in Maryland during the war, especially in 1863 and and 1864, was authorized and sanctioned by President Lincoln is made clear by reference to the correspondence between the President and Governor Bradford on that subject to be found in the elaborate life of Mr. Lincoln by Mr. John Hay and

Mr. John G. Nicolay, vol. 8. pages 450, 462, 463. In order to understand fully the bear- ings and significance of this correspondence it is necessary to premise a few observa- tions on the political condition of the State at that period.

The disruption of the Democratic party at Baltimore in 1860, and the fact that the large majority of the voters of that party supported the Breckenridge-Lane ticket in the election of that year, had undoubtedly predisposed the minds of many in our State for the secession movement which took place immediately after that election, as a necessary consequence of that disruption. This disposition was further encouraged and strengthened by the visits of com- missioners from several of the Southern States and also by numerous public meet- ings held during the winter of 1860-1861 in Baltimore, notably at Maryland Institute Hall and Taylor's Hall, Fayette near Cal- vert street. At these meetings addresses of an passionate and exciting character were made by gentlemen, some of whom were frank and outspoken in favor of Mary- land casting her lot with her sister States of the South at once; while others had no other object in view than to spread their sails to the popular breeze, blow from what quarter soever it might, which promised to waft them into the safe and pleasant havens of office, to which they had become accus- tomed by long continued occupation. The latter class as is usual with the insincere and selfish were the more violent and intem- perate in their harangues. .

Unfortunately for themselves and still more so for their hearers, the standards by which these gentlemen were used to gauge public opinion were unequal to the task of

548

HISTORY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.

measuring the great and profoundly preg- nant events, in the midst of which they all, unconsciously, were playing their little parts. While anticipating a prosperous voyage over a comparatively smooth sea only to be a little disturbed perhaps by the ripples of a shortlived agitation, they were suddenly struck by the awful storm of Civil War, and the places which had known them knew them no more-that is for six or seven years-until the storm had wholly abated, the waters of the deluge had gone down, and they felt the terra firma of assured offi- cial position safe under their feet. A majority of the people of the State were at the begin- ning of the war opposed to secession and so remained, there is every reason to believe, to its close. But a majority was equally opposed to the war made on the South, believing and rightfully believing, that a union achieved by force and cemented by blood was not the union formed by the founders of the government, and that the mere contemplation of such union would have been as abhorrent to those founders, as it was to themselves. In this belief the people of Maryland remained firm and con- stant without regard to the fine spun theo- ries and speculations of lawyers and politi- cians about the abstract right of secession on the one side, or about the constitutional duty to defend what was termed the nation's life on the other; but taking their ground on the broad principles of the Declaration, that all governments derive their just powers from consent of the governed, and that when any government becomes destructive of the ends for which government is insti- tuted-the protection of the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of hap- piness-it is the right of the people to alter

or abolish such government and institute a new government. By the light of these great and indefeasible principles the people of Maryland could see no right or justice in the war between the States.

But in times of civil commotion and in- ternecine strife reason and judgment, like the laws, are silent. In such times,

" The genius and the mortal instruments Are then in council, and the state of man, Like to a little kingdom suffers then The nature of an insurrection,"

and the voice of passion and of tumult is alone heard.

This attitude of the people brought upon our State first the censure, and then the active hostility of the administration at Washington. The State was promptly taken possession of by the military forces of the United States, a large number of its prominent citizens arbitrarily arrested and imprisoned; its legally constituted authori- ties either suppressed or permitted to 'dis- charge their duties and functions only in subordination to, and at the let and hind- rance of those forces. There was indeed a complete overthrow of all constitutional and legal government in Maryland, as much so as if the State had gone into the rebellion. A military rule was established whose chief officer was a Provost Marshal acting under orders from a Major General commanding the department. The liberty, the property, even the very lives of our citizens were at the discretion of an irresponsible personal dictatorship with an appeal only-not to the laws and established tribunals of the land, but to the President at Washington or his Secretary of War. It is true after a while the ordinary civil tribunals when re- constructed in their personel by military force, and put in the hands of loyal men,

549

HISTORY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.

were permitted to relieve the military authorities of a share of the responsibility to conduct the government; but it was only a permission extended, which at any time might be withdrawn if occasion required, or political or military necessity dictated. Such was the political condition of Mary- land during the war. As that war pro- gressed and the policy of the Republican party developed and became more and more pronounced in its hostility to the South and to the institution of slavery, division appeared in the ranks of that party here in Maryland. It became di- vided into two factions. One was known as "The Union party" simply; it was con- servative in character, was opposed to meddling with the institution of slavery in the State, and also to the high handed courses pursued by the Government in dealing with the loyal State authorities. It was headed by Governor Bradford, Hon. Thomas Swann, William H. Purnell, Edwin Webster, Mayor Chapman, C. C. Fulton, J. V. L. Findlay. The other faction went by the name of the "Unconditional Union party," and, as its name imparted, was radical and revolutionary in its character. It favored and supported any and every measure favored and supported by the Government at Washington and deemed by that government necessary or ad- visable to suppress the rebellion. The leaders of this faction were Hon. Henry Winter Davis, J. A. J. Creswell, Judge Bond, Henry Howes Goldsborro, Arch- ibald Sterling, Jr., Henry Stockbridge, and it embraced a majority of the rank and file of the party especially in the counties. In obedience to the command of the authorities at Washington, as well

perhaps as in accordance with the convic- tions of some of its leaders, this party fa- vored the abolition of slavery in the State by constitutional action, and to this party for that reason Mr. Lincoln lent his all pow- erful influence. It was mainly on this issue of abolishing slavery in the State that the division had taken place.

In November, 1863, an election was to be held for a State Comptroller and the Gen- eral Assembly of the State. It was im- portant for the radical faction to secure a majority in that body in order to enable it to carry out its policy of emancipation by passing a bill for calling a convention to frame a new Constitution for the State. This election furnished an opportunity for the two factions to make a trial of their strength. They each nominated a candi- date for Comptroller. The Conservative or Union candidate polled 15,982 votes; the Radical or Unconditional Union candi- date 36,360. The contest was quite bitter. The Radicals claimed to represent the wishes and to carry out the policy of the administration, and strange to say charged their opponents with a want of loyalty. Hon. Thomas Swann, chairman of the Re- publican State Central Committee, wrote a letter dated October 26, 1863, to President Lincoln, complaining that union voters had a suspicion that the election would be at- tended with undue influence on the part of persons claiming to represent the govern- ment. Mr. Lincoln replied disclaiming any desire to interfere. In view of extracts from some of Mr. Lincoln's letters of about the same date hereafter given this disclaimer is. to say the least, a little singular.

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.

Author: Shepherd, Henry Elliott, 1844-1929, ed. 4n Publication date: 1898 Publisher: [Uniontown? Pa.] S.B. Nelson Number of Pages: 1344

Author: Shepherd, Henry Elliott, 1844-1929, ed. 4n
Publication date: 1898
Publisher: [Uniontown? Pa.] S.B. Nelson
Number of Pages: 1344