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 65

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 65

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).

In October, 1863, a few weeks before the State election, Gen. Robert C. Schenck,

550

HISTORY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.

then Military Commander of the Depart- nent of Maryland, issued the following orders:

I. That provost marshals and other military officers should arrest disloyal persons found at or hanging around the polls or places of election.

2. That provost marshals and other military officers should support judges of election in requiring an oath of allegiance to the United States as a test of citizenship of any one, whose vote may be challenged on the ground that he is not loyal.

3. That provost marshals and other military officers should report judges of election refus- ing to require such oaths.

Vol. 8, Chap. XIX, 462, of Hay and Nicolay's Life of Lincoln.

General Schenck had also informed the President by letter that the Union men in the State had assured him (Schenck) that they would not attend the polls or run a ticket without the assurance of military protection. Ibid, 463.

And this demand for military protection at the polls was made at a time when the Union men of the State, conditional and unconditional alike, were proclaiming to the outside world that a great majority of the people of the State were cordially with them in sentiment and feelings; when the Na- tional State and City Governments with their vast machinery were wholly on their hands, and every quarter of the State was occupied by United States troops. There was false representation in one or the other of these two wholly irreconcilable state- ments.

The test of loyalty also became more severe and exacting in consequence of the division in the Republican party. To be deemed truly loyal it was no longer suffi-

cient to take the oath of allegiance, to sup- port the Government, to vote supplies for the war, to urge its unrelenting prosecution until the last rebel in arms disappeared -- killed or captured-to hold an office or to secure a contract. These were old and unsatisfactory criteria of loyalty. The very salt had lost its savor according to this new theory. The voter or the candidate had to be loyal according to the pattern pre- scribed at Washington, and that pattern was to obey orders received from the Cap- ital, through the. Military Commander, or the Provost Marshal, unargued and without question.

Governor Bradford was a thoroughly loyal citizen and Chief Magistrate, a sin- cere and an honorable gentleman. He had given abundant evidence of his devotion to the cause of the Union in his office, and was celebrated as one of the famous "War Gov- ernors." Yet he thus saw his authority summarily set aside and himself disparaged by these wholly illegal orders of a military commander from the State of Ohio. He bore it ill that he should thus be treated after all his services and sacrifices, and ad- dressed a communication to President Lin- coln, protesting against these orders as an usurpation and contempt of his authority and an insult to the people of the State. This appeal and protest met with a response from Mr. Lincoln in a reply dated Novem- ber 2, 1863, which is to be found on pages 462, 463 of Vol. 8 of Hay and Nicolay biography. In this letter the President fully appproved of and sustained, with but slight and wholly immaterial changes, the orders of General Schenck and thus made these orders his own. He says to Governor Bradford: "Your suggestion that nearly all

551

HISTORY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.

the candidates are loyal, I do not think quite mects the case. In this struggle for the nation's life, I cannot so confidently rely on those whose election may have depended on disloyal votes. Such men when elected may prove true, but such votes are given them in the expectation that they will prove false. Nor do I think that to keep the peace at the polls and to prevent the persistently disloyal from voting constitutes a just cause of offense to Maryland. If I mistake not, it is precisely zehat General Dix;"-and here Mr. Lincoln administered a sly dig, a tu quoque which ad- mitted of neither reply or response, to the Governor, anent his election three years be- fore over Gen. Benjamin C. Howard- "when your Excellency was elected Governor in 1861." So sustained and upheld by Pres- ident Lincoln over and against the protest of the Governor of the State, a man of unim- peachable loyalty and of distinguished ser- vices in the Union cause, General Schenck and his provost marshals and "other military officers" conducted and supervised the elec- tions in Maryland in the fall of 1863, with the result that a large majority of the mem- bers elected to the Legislature were of the most radical character.

Extreme measures were adopted during the ensuing session of that body of 1864. A registration act, bristling with pains and penalties, was passed, as was also a bill sub- mitting a call for a convention to frame a new Constitution for the State; and, to put the success of this measure beyond all per- adventure, every precaution was adopted that ingenuity could suggest to prevent the intrusion into the ballot box of Democratic votes against it. Indeed this was the crucial measure. To vote for the Bill and afterward to vote for the Constitution became the

supreme and only test of loyalty. It made no difference what might have been an in- dividual's services and sacrifices, though he had given all his substance to the cause of the Union and poured out his blood like water, he was but tinkling brass and a sounding cymbal, 'unless he gave his voice and his vote for the measure, for by this measure slavery was abolished in the State. It was for this reason that Mr. Lincoln gave this measure, and the party in the State that advocated it, his warm and active sympathy and support. Indeed his biographers claim for him the high merit of having "prompted" the whole movement. See Vol. 8, page 465, Hay and Nicolay's Life.

That this is true admits of no doubt after reading the letter of Mr. Lincoln to Mr. J. A. J. Cresswell, a distinguished leader of the radical wing of the party and a senator in Congress. In this letter, dated March 17, 1864, Mr. Lincoln says: "It needs not to be a secret that I wish success o emancipation in Maryland. It would aid much to end the Rebellion. Hence it is a matter of national consequence in which every national man may rightfully feel a deep interest. I sincerely hope the friends of the measure will allow no minor consideration to divide and distract them."

This was written while a bill for a con- vention was still pending in the Legislature, where it was fought with untiring zeal and courage by a small Spartan band of Demo- crats led by Oliver Miller of Anne Arundel, and Col. John F. Dent of St. Mary's.

After the convention had completed the task set it by the President, and its work, the Constitution, was before the people of the State for ratification or rejection, Mr. Lincoln, in answer to an invitation from

552

HISTORY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.

Hon. Henry W. Hoffman, then Collector of the Port of Baltimore, to send some word of encouragement to a meeting to be held in that city in favor of ratifying the Constitution, wrote a letter dated October 10, 1864, in which he observed "that he only felt an interest in the provision in that instru- ment (the Constitution of 1864), abolishing slavery. I desire it on every consideration, and I shall be gratificd exceedingly if the good people of the State shall by their votes ratify the Constitution." Vol. 8, page 467, Hay and Nicolay's Life.

The biographers add:

"The election proved one of the most closely contested elections during the war. Rigid provisions had been adopted to prevent disloyal persons from voting, and liberal pro- visions had been made for taking votes of Maryland soldiers on the question in the camps or stations where they might be serving. The result of the vote was 30,174 for the Con- stitution, 29,799 against it. A majority of only 375 out of a vote of 60,000, a very narrow majority. But, however small was the majority by which the result was ob- tained, it was in entire harmony with the manifest popular will of the State; for within the succeeding month occurred the Presi- dential election of 1864 at which were cast 40,152 votes for Mr. Lincoln, and 32,759 for McClellan, giving the President who had prompted and aided State emancipation a pop- ular majority of 7,414.

"This," continue the enthusiastic biogra- phers, "was a remarkable transformation." "A remarkable transformation" indeed! How that transformation was brought about has already been shown in this rela- tion. By what wholesale exclusion of Democrats from voting in Baltimore City

and in the western and middle counties of the State, by what arrests and intimidation of voters by the military authorities, by what fears aroused by General Schenck's orders, by what fraudulent manipulations of the returns of the soldiers' votes this "re- markable transformation" was effected is now known of all men, but the two collabo- rateurs of these ten bulky volumes. But for these instrumentalities of violence and of fraud, deliberately planned and provided by General Schenck in contempt of the au- thority of the Governor, and "against the peace, government and dignity of the State," and sanctioned by the highest au- thority in the country, President Lincoln, the Constitution of 1864, which disfran- chised forever two-thirds of the voters of the State, would have been overwhelmed under an avalanche of the honest votes of an indig- nant people, and General McClellan would have triumphantly carried the State. Out- rages innumerable were perpetrated in Bal- timore. To be known as a Democrat was sufficient proof of disloyalty.

Let the story of one instance suffice as an illustration. Mr. Knott, the Demo- cratic candidate for Congress from the Third District against General (now Judge) Charles E. Phelps, was challenged at his polling place, North Amity near Lexington street, his vote rejected and a warrant made Out for his arrest on the ground of disloy- alty, in that he was in arms against the Gov- ernment on the 19th of April, 1861. The fact was that Mr. Knott was, and had been from its formation, a member of the 53rd Regiment, which, together with the other military organizations of the city, had been called into service to protect life and prop- erty by the express orders of Governor

553

HISTORY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.

Hicks. The arrest was not carried out, however, owing to the kindly suggestions of one of the Judges, a Mr. Baughman, a neighbor and acquaintance of Mr. Knott, that he knew several Union men who were in arms on that occasion, and, moreover, that it would not look well to arrest a Dem- ocratic candidate for Congress.

Proceedings like these, carried on throughout the city and the State on the day of the Presidential election by the judges of election acting under the or- ders of the Provost Marshal, sufficiently account for "the remarkable transforma- tion" of a beggarly 375 majority for the Constitution on the 13th of October into a majority of 7,414 for Mr. Lincoln on the 4th day of November, 1864, and effectually dispose of the utterly fictitious claim that the result of the vote on the Con- stitution "was in entire harmony with the manifest popular will of the State."

III

THE TRANSACTIONS OF 1865-INTERVIEW OF DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE WITH PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON.

On the 19th day of July, 1865, a commit- tee representing the Democratic State Cen- tral Committee, and composed of Gen. Wil- liam P. Maulsby, of Frederick; Col. Wil- liam Kimmel and Mr. Knott, of Baltimore City, waited on President Andrew Johnson in Washington, upon the suggestion and at instance of Mr. Francis P. Blair, Sr., and of his son, Hon. Montgomery Blair. These gentlemen were anxious that representa- tives from Democratic organizations should call on President Johnson to assure him of their sympathy and support in the struggle which they then saw was imminent and in-

evitable between him and the Republican Congress on the grave question of the re- construction of the Southern States. The interview was arranged through Col. Wright Rives, then Military Secretary to President Johnson, a personal friend of Mr. Knott, and now a resident of Wash- ington City.

This committee laid before Mr. Johnson a memorandum setting forth the political con- dition in Maryland, and the situation of par- ties; and representing that under the Con- stitution of the State, recently proclaimed as adopted, and as it was interpreted by the party in power, and under the proscriptive registration laws, which were most arbitrar- ily construed, two-thirds of the voters of State, constituting the bulk of the Demo- cratic party were disfranchised; that while that party would, it was believed, earnestly support the President's policy towards the Southern States, as that policy had been outlined and was understood, it would be impossible to make that support effective so long as this disfranchisement continued; and that his (the President's) friends in the Republican party in Maryland must realize the utter hopelessness of their cause with- out the aid of the Democratic vote, which could not be given without a change in the Constitution or a repeal or an essential mod- ification of the existing registration laws.

Mr. Johnson listened with attention, and at the close assured the committee of the in- terest he felt in the political situation in Maryland, and his sympathy with the aims and purposes of the committee; that without committing himself to any definite propo- sition, he felt that where there was a com- munity of views, a common ground of action could no doubt be reached. For himself, he

554

HISTORY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.

added, that having been a Democrat on prin- ciple and conviction, and having acted with the Republican party only so long as the country was at war, and the Union in dan- ger, now that the war was over and its pur- pose accomplished in the restoration of the Union, he was in favor of a policy of con- ciliation; that he believed the Southern States should be restored to the exercise of their constitutional rights and functions- suspended or interrupted by the war-with- out the exaction of conditions other than those imposed by the Constitution itself and by the inevitable results of the war.

The policy of reconstruction pursued and carried out at this time by the Republican Congress is a pregnant illustration of the gross and glaring inconsistencies to which the excesses of party spirit and faction will oftentimes lead mankind.

At the outbreak of the war the Republican party proclaimed that the Union was not dissolved, and was indissoluble, by reason of the several acts of secession passed by the States that went out of the Union; that these acts were unconstitutional, void and of no effect. This was the attitude taken and con- stantly and solemnly maintained by that party before the country and before the world, at home and abroad.

The seceding States, it was gravely rep- resented by the highest authorities, were but erring sisters temporarily seduced or forced from their duty and allegiance, and when undeceived or relieved from the armed pressure and constraint which had been placed upon them, and brought back by the gentle ministrations of the Union army, they would be welcomed to, and be re- instated in, their former positions in the sisterhood of States, with all their constitu-

tional rights and privileges undiminished and unimpaired. On this ground the war was begun and its patriotic support by the people invoked until it was triumphantly closed at Appomattox Court House. After the war, by keeping the Southern States out of the Union for several years, by converting them into military satrapies until they should perform certain condi- tions, not enumerated or provided in the Constitution, and should agree to certain amendments to that instrument, the Re- publican party turned completely around, and acknowledged, thereby, by necessary and logical implication, the constitutional and legal efficacy of those very acts to be what the secessionists originally claimed to be, and the fact of the dissolution of the Union as effected by them.

The formula of that party was the utterly absurd and untenable tone: A territory by coming into the Union becomes a State, a State e converso by going out of the Union becomes a territory; and thus has to un- dergo a sort of a political palingenesis in order to qualify it for re-admission into the Union. This theory was in total disregard of the historical fact that four of the seced- ing States, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia were sovereign and independent States, making war and peace, thirteen years before they entered into, or rather in conjunction with their sister sover- eign States, made the Union; as well as of the settled constitutional doctrine that the new States when admitted are on a footing of entire and absolute equality with the old States. But a theory had to be found or made to fit the unconstitutional measures already resolved upon, and this was as good as any other for that purpose.

555

HISTORY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.

Several interviews subsequently took place between President Johnson and the members of this sub-committee. And it is but just to add that the Democratic party of Maryland owe to the memory of that statesman a debt of gratitude for the valua- ble aid he gave to it, at more than one im- portant crisis in the long and arduous strug- gle it maintained for the rights of the peo- ple against a desperate and an intolerant faction of the Republican party, which did not number at any time during its usurpa- tion of power, as the elections subsequently showed, more than one-third of the voters of the State.

The defeat of the Democratic party in 1864, the ratification of the Constitution with its odious and intolerant provisions; the passage of the registration law conceived in the same spirit of political animosity, the tragic death of Mr. Lincoln and the harsh and vindictive measures of reconstruction proposed and subsequently carried out by Congress, all conspired to plunge the people of Maryland into a condition of almost hopeless indifference if not despair, as to the political situation and the exercise of their political rights and duties.

The Democratic State Central Commit- tee, however, undeterred by these discour- aging circumstances, resolved to continue the work of agitation and reform. On Sep- tember 2, 1865, about two weeks before the work of registration was begun, the com- mittee issued an address, drawn up by Mr. Knott, to the Democratic voters of the State explaining the clauses of the Constitution imposing political disabilities for acts of dis- loyalty committed during the war, and the provisions of the registration law passed to enforce these clauses. It pointed out that

under governments claiming to be free acts only were and could be, punished, not senti- ments and opinions. That the great body of the Democratic voters under any fair and honest construction of the disqualifying clauses of the Constitution of 1864 did not, and could not come under their ban, and concluding with an earnest and fervent ap- peal to claim and exercise their right and duty as citizens, to present themselves for registration, tender their readiness to coni- ply with the law and demand and insist upon their names being entered on the registra- tion lists, and if refused to appeal to the courts for redress. The address had a salu- tary effect. It served to reanimate the spirit of the people, to call attention to the politi- cal situation of the country, and the grave consequences to be apprehended if that situ- ation should be prolonged by the indiffer- ence or apathy of the people. But the re- sults conclusively showed that, the officers of registration were swayed by a spirit of bitter and uncompromising partisanship and that the Republican party was determined to perpetuate its ascendancy by the entire disfranchisement, if necessary, of its Demo- cratic opponents.

IV.

THE TWO CONVENTIONS OF JANUARY 24, 1866 AND FEBRUARY 25, 1866, TO SE- CURE A MODIFICATION OF THE REG- ISTRY LAW AND TO SUSTAIN PRES- IDENT JOHNSON. THE TRIUM- PHANT ELECTION OF A DEMO- CRATIC CONSERVATIVE LEG- ISLATURE ON NOV. 6, 1866.

Early in the year 1866 in compliance with a general sentiment shared in by the Repub- licans of note and of patriotic character, it was resolved to make one more appeal to

556

HISTORY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.

the sense of justice of the party in power and to memorialize the Legislature then in ses- sion, to relieve the people of the State from the political burdens that oppressed them. In accordance with a call issued by the com- mittee for that purpose, a State Convention was held in Temperance Temple, North Gay street, Baltimore, on Wednesday, January 24. 1866, of those who were in favor of a repeal or a relaxation of the harsh provisions of the registry law. It was largely attended. The city of Baltimore and the counties were fully represented and by some of the most distinguished citizens of the State. Hon. E. K. Wilson, Levin L. Irving, Isaac D. Jones, Col. Sam Hambleton, Daniel M. Henry, George R. Dennis, Lloyd T. Tighl- man, Hiram McCollough, Gov. Philip Francis Thomas, Henry D. Farnandis, John B. Brown, James U. Dennis, Henry W. Archer, Samuel Brady, Jacob Kunkel, A. K. Syester, James Wallace, Richard H. Alvey, William M. Merrick, Outerbridge Horsey, Anthony Kimmel, James T. Blackistone, Benedict Hanson, Frederick J. Nelson, George M. Gill, James R. Brewer, William T. Hamilton, John Glenn, Edward Ham- mond, W. W. Watkins, Sprigg Harwood, W. W. Crichton, Zachariah S. Claggett, James B. Groome, J. Carroll Walsh, John Thompson Mason, J. Dixon Roman, Ed- ward Belt and George H. Carman were among the members of the convention. Hon. Montgomery Blair presided and an address to the people and a memorial to the Legislature praying for a repeal or modifi- cation of the registry law were adopted. The Baltimore Sun in its issue of the 27th of January referred to the representative char- acter of the members of the convention, the moderation of its utterances and com-

mended its resolutions to the consideration of the Legislature.

A committee of eleven, of which the Hon. Montgomery Blair was chairman and Mr. Knott, secretary, was appointed to present the memorial to the Legislature of the State.

On the day following the adjournment of the convention the committee went to An- napolis to perform this duty. The House of Delegates, on motion of Hon. Oliver Miller, had voted to give the committee a public hearing. The committee was courteously received, though not without a subsequent protest by a few of the more radical mem- bers, one of whom characterized the appear- ance of the committee on the floor of the House on the errand on which they came as a piece of "unparalleled presumption and unwarranted impertinence." A committee of the House, to which this memorial was subsequently referred, made on February 9th, an elaborate report in which they de- nounced the memorial and the action of the convention as "insolent self-assertion," its representations "the clamor of an unrepentant and unshrived multitude, of men of unregener- ate tempers, not seeking mercy, but demand- ing the restoration of rights which had been justly forfeited." "Let them . stand," con- tinued the report, "in the position they have taken," and it concluded with a resolution that "neither the temper nor the conduct of the people of the State, who have hereto- fore been hostile to the Government, nor the condition of our national affairs nor the principles of the Constitution of the State, warrant any interference with the registry lawo and that it ought to be rigidly enforced." The report and resolution were adopted by the House. This action convinced the people that no measure of relief could be

557

HISTORY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.

looked for from the Republican party. Henceforth the people must work out their own redemption.

On the 26th of February, 1866, a meeting under the joint auspices of the Democrats and conservative Republicans was held in Maryland Institute Hall to sustain Presi- dent Johnson in his policy towards the Southern States. The union between these two organizations was then the subject of negotiation, but had not been consummated. Some of the conservatives desired that this meeting should be confirmed exclusively to an endorsement of President Johnson and his administration, and that in the proceed- ings no reference should be made to local issues, especially to the burning question of a repeal or relaxation of the proscriptive features of the registry law. These gentle- men were not prepared for so decided a step. As the Democrats were to furnish the bulk of the meeting or to use a phrase of Dean Swift's were "to furnish the con- gregation," they very naturally thought they were entitled to have something to say about the doctrine to be set forth on the occasion. They insisted therefore that while the gentleman chosen to preside should be a conservative of the most thor- oughly loyal type, he should also be one concerning whose attitude on this import- ant question there should be no doubt or misunderstanding, and that that attitude should be made plain in his speech at the meeting. They represented that one could hardly be considered a real friend of Mr. Johnson and his policy and at the same time be willing to keep his friends and supporters excluded from the polls. While a very con- siderable number of the distinguished Re- publicans of the State approved of the

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