USA > Tennessee > Notable men of Tennessee, from 1833 to 1875, their times and their contemporaries > Part 30
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
328
NOTABLE MEN OF TENNESSEE
of April previously, Colonel Peter Turney's regiment of volun- teers (the 1st Tennessee Infantry) embarked on a train for Virginia, having been accepted by the Confederate authorities and assigned to the Army of Virginia. Presumably all this was with the knowledge and consent of the Governor, and by his command. He must have issued Colonel Turney his commis- sion. All this was done without provocation, or one justifiable reason, on the part of Tennessee. This was nearly entirely the work of one man, Isham G. Harris, then Governor of the State.
It will be noticed that the fact of secession was done by a Legislative Act, and passed by a body of men elected in August, 1859-twenty-one months previously. Admit the con- stitutional right of a State to secede from the Union, in as broad terms as possible, without cause or with cause, and still no lawyer will risk his reputation by insisting that this can be done by a legislative enactment. To withdraw from the Union, if the right exists at all, is an act of the highest sovereignty on the part of the people, as entering the Union was, and can be done only, even according to the theory of secession, by a Constitutional convention, the members of which have been duly elected thereto, and who for this purpose represent the collect- ive sovereignty of the State. Who ever heard of a Legisla- ture having the power to make constitutions or abrogate them; to make war; to enter into alliances; and to transfer the allegiance of the people, and the military resources of the State and its army to a foreign party, as this Legislature attempted to do in 1861! No, this was not legal, constitutional seces- sion-if there can be such a thing-but revolution and force.
In review of these facts the election on June 9th to determine the question of the ratification or rejection of the Ordinance of Secession, was a mere idle form. The State, as we have seen, had seceded, or rather revolted, from the Union more than a month before this election, by its alliance, "offensive and de- fensive," with the Confederate States; by turning over to the latter its army ; by the adoption of a Declaration of Independ- ence and an Ordinance of Secession, and by sending troops to the seat of war. If the people had rejected the proposition to secede at the polls, it would have been all the same. That fatal measure was already practically accomplished. Who could have resisted it? What power could have stopped it with
329
NOTABLE MEN OF TENNESSEE
an ambitious Governor determined to push forward his revolu- tionary schemes backed by the army of the State and by the whole power of the Confederate States? The people would have been as powerless to resist it, as were the people of East Ten- nessee after the June election.
These acts and measures on the part of the Governor and the Legislature, were plain and palpable violations of the Consti- tution of the United States, and that of the State. The leading spirit who inspired all these measures is to-day the most honored citizen of the State. In 1861, in the plenitude of his power, the Governor formed alliances and made war as coolly as the Czar of Russia. He equipped and put into the field an army greater than was ever commanded by Washington, Jackson, or Scott. He played with war as with a toy. The people of the State were as children in his hands.
Let me say deliberately, but in the kindest spirit: the State should not have seceded; there was no necessity for it. There was not a single fact justifying it. It was a stupendous folly. It was productive of not a single benefit, but of untold and multiplied evils, which no man can number. By it every ma- terial interest of the State was laid low in ruin. Slavery, which seemed to have the first consideration in the minds of the Southern people, was forever destroyed. In vain President Lincoln, in his Inaugural Address, in the most assuring, the most supplicating words, begged the Southern States not to se- cede. He had frequently declared publicly, in the most solemn manner, that neither a President nor Congress had any power to interfere with slavery in the States where it then existed. He had declared also that the Fugitive Slave law was con- stitutional and must be enforced. The Republican party had elected him well knowing these opinions, and for the most part approving them. The Abolition party proper constituted but an insignificant part of the Northern people. Slavery was really in no danger, and would exist to-day, but for the tran- scendent madness and folly of its friends. Let it be kept in mind that all these illegal acts referred to were passed by a Legislature which had been elected in 1859, when no question of secession was before the voters of the State.
Let me cite the example of Kentucky-and I might mention Maryland and Missouri also-Kentucky did not secede from the Union, and therefore her people escaped all the ills and hard-
330
NOTABLE MEN OF TENNESSEE
ships of reconstruction and disfranchisement. Her school fund, her public revenues, and the assets of her banks, were not wasted in equipping armies and in a mad scheme of war. Her railroads, instead of being seized and sequestered as Confederate property, and used by the United States as such, grew rich by transport- ing government troops and supplies. At the end of the war they needed no aid from the State, in the form of bonds, to repair the waste of war. Out of respect for the declared "neu- trality" of the State, not a Federal soldier was enlisted within her borders, nor did a Federal Army set foot on her soil, until after Confederate soldiers had seized and occupied Columbus, Bowling Green, and Cumberland Gap. As late as August, 1861, General L. H. Rousseau was enlisting his legion of Kentuckians for the Federal Army, in obedience to the will of the State, not in Kentucky, but on the other side of the Ohio, in the State of Indiana. Thus the neutrality of the State and the sentiments of her people were respected. Tennessee might have escaped all these evils also if she had listened to the voice of wisdom and moderation. The example of Kentucky is lasting proof of the supreme folly of Tennessee. She saved her revenues, saved her railroads, and made money out of them, and escaped reconstruction and disfranchisement. Will any- one to-day say that the policy of Kentucky was not wiser than that of Tennessee? If Kentucky were thus treated, can any one give reason why Tennessee would not have received the same treatment? Her sons-many of them-went South and fought for the Confederacy, as the sons of Maryland and Missouri did also, but as the State in its sovereign capacity did not secede from the Union, she was treated as a loyal State by the Government, as Maryland and Missouri were likewise. So Tennessee would have been treated.
On March 6, 1903, the Governor of Kentucky received from the United States, on account of money advanced for raising volunteers, and for interest on loans negotiated during the Civil War, the sum of $1,433,399-more than enough to pay off her public debt.
For the sake of argument, admit that Tennessee had the unquestioned constitutional right to secede from the Union. Will any candid man of this day point out a single benefit that she derived from the exercise of this right? Wherein was she benefited? Were her people made freer, happier, and better?
331
NOTABLE MEN OF TENNESSEE
Have they larger liberties? Is the State more prosperous? Nearly all sensible men of this day admit that secession was a mistake, and rejoice that it failed.
Perhaps it was believed at first by those who were most active in the cause of secession in Tennessee that there would be no war : that the North would not fight; that it would meekly submit to a dismemberment of the Union. Let us charitably indulge this belief. All through the winter of 1860-61, until April, it did appear as if secession might be peaceably accom- plished without war. The overwhelming sentiment of the North seemed to be against "coercion." Effort after effort was made in Congress and out of it, and by public meetings, by news- papers, by addresses to the public, in favor of a settlement of the questions in dispute-by a compromise of some kind, by con- cessions to the South-to save the nation from civil war. Mr. Lincoln earnestly deprecated war. Up to the fatal shot fired at Fort Sumter, he had not mustered a man for the defenses of the Union. The Southern Confederacy was in full existence with an army, and with all its departments in full operation. It was a government. And for anything that can be seen now, or that could be seen then, it might have gone on in its career unmolested until it had established its independence, by the silent acquiescence of the old government. But the new gov- ernment, confident in its strength, becoming impatient at the delay of Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina, and possibly at the hesitation of Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland, and hoping by "striking a blow" to rouse a wild passion for war, and thus to draw those States to its side, without any military necessity, struck that blow in Charleston, and immediately kindled the flame of war from the center to the uttermost boundaries of our country. Contrary to what was anticipated, there was a united North and a divided South.
There were many able and far-sighted men in the State in 1861 who deplored the secession of Tennessee as an act of folly and of inconsiderate haste. There were such men as John Bell, Justice John M. Catron, Ex-Governor William B. Campbell, Return J. Meigs, John Trimble, William H. Polk, Dr. W. P. Jones, Bailie Peyton, Emerson Etheridge, Alvin Hawkins, An- drew Johnson, T. A. R. Nelson, James W. Deadrick, N. G. Taylor, John Netherland, Samuel Milligan, W. G. Brownlow, Horace Maynard, John Baxter, and Connally F. Trigg. Surely
332
NOTABLE MEN OF TENNESSEE
these men were the equals in judgment, intellect, and patriot- ism of any similar number in the State.
The reasons influencing their minds were many, and they were of the most momentous gravity. In the very threshold they saw the danger to the existence of the institution of slavery itself-the very cause of the war. It was hazarding its existence upon the chances of battle, with three slave States, in their sovereign capacity, and with a very considerable part of the population of three others, in sympathy with the Union. The amazing folly of abandoning the guarantees of the Constitu- tion for the protection of slavery, and appealing to the sword, in the face of nearly three fighting men against one, and with immensely superior resources for war, thus giving the Aboli- tionists and a part of the Free-soilers an opportunity and a pretext they had long desired of destroying that institution, is almost inconceivable in its folly. The South, in a spirit of chivalry, in effect said to the North: "The Constitution pro- tects slavery wherever it now exists, and you dare not touch it. But we will tear to pieces that instrument and abandon our advantages under it, by seceding from the Union, and we challenge you to settle the moral question by a contest of arms."
These eminent men, as many others did in the South, warned the Southern people of the danger of secession, but in the whirlwind and delirium of popular excitement, their voices and admonitions were not heeded.
These losses which I have enumerated in the foregoing pages will be repaired by the flight of years, except the sufferings, the tears of anguish, and the fearful loss of life among noble Tennesseeans. But there are some great, but partial com- pensations :
(1) The doctrine of State sovereignty-the right of a State to secede at will from the Union-though still prevailing as a theory of the Constitution, was greatly weakened by the results of the war, and is not likely to be resorted to as a practical remedy for grievances by any of the States for gen- erations to come, if ever again.
(2) The idea of national sovereignty as contradistinguished from State sovereignty and State independence, was immensely strengthened by the result of the late war. The idea of a Union "one and indivisible" has taken hold of the popular
333
NOTABLE MEN OF TENNESSEE
mind and heart, and nothing but a great and terrible war to divide it-could have accomplished this.
(3) The sectional question of slavery, being eliminated for- ever from the forum of agitation, there is no human probabil- ity of any question ever arising that will draw one-third or one-half of the co-terminus States of any section unitedly into the act of revolting against the government.
There is compensation, too, in the reflection that the na- tional government came out of the war with a prestige, with a halo of glory, it never had before, arising out of the splendid feats of arms performed on a hundred battlefields by the gal- lant sons both of the North and of the South. Then the almost marvelous power of recuperation shown by both sections-es- pecially in the South, which was left in almost hopeless ruin and desolation-is well calculated to exalt our pride. The nation was left by the war with a debt of twenty-seven hundred mil- lions of dollars to be provided, and yet that debt has been reduced eighteen hundred millions, and our government's bonds are floated at a lower rate of interest than any in the world. The whole country-the South, after a period of readjust- ment, as well as the North-sprang forward on a career of prosperity and development such as has never been surpassed, if ever equaled, in the history of human affairs.
CHAPTER V.
Brownlow Re-elected, 1867-Emerson Etheridge-Isham G. Harris- Brownlow Elected to United States Senate, October, 1867-Johnson Arraigns Brownlow-The Reply-Author's Personal Relations with Brownlow.
IN 1867 Governor Brownlow was a candidate for re-election, receiving the party nomination without opposition. During his first term bitter opposition to him had sprung up among certain men who had formerly been Union sympathizers. The leader in this movement was the somewhat celebrated Emerson Etheridge, for several terms a distinguished Whig member of Congress. He was put forward as a candidate for Governor against Mr. Brownlow, backed and supported by such men as T. A. R. Nel- son, John Baxter, John Netherland, J. M. Fleming, John Wil- liams, and certain prominent men in Middle and West Tennessee. Mr. Etheridge took the stump and made a very bitter and a very powerful canvass. The administration of Governor Brown- low and his party was arraigned as only Mr. Etheridge could have done it. He was the most brilliant and the most versatile man at that time in the State. With no early advantages and no education, except that acquired at old-fashioned country schools, he had become one of the most accurate and polished speakers in the State. His mind was stored with a vast fund of useful as well as polite knowledge. He was a constant reader, and his memory was something wonderful. It is said that years afterward he could still call by memory the roll of the House of Representatives of which he was clerk in 1861. His reading embraced a wide range of topics. Long ago he returned from his political wanderings of 1867, and his brief alliance with the secession party to the faith of the old Whig party, of which he had been so bright an ornament. He deserted his new spouse, for which he had but little love, with the words of the nuptial ceremony still sounding in his ears. Unquestionably he was one of the strongest characters that had appeared in Tennessee for many years. As a public man he possessed certain peculiarities, not in the least affecting his moral standing, that were always a drawback to him. In this category may be placed his frank,
334
335
NOTABLE MEN OF TENNESSEE
outspoken independence and his eccentricities. His honesty, both as a public and a private citizen, has always been con- ceded. His private life was spotless. As a conversationalist, in his prime, he was unusual. In Washington or wherever he might be he always had a crowd around him, listening to his brilliant conversation. Next after Haskell and Gentry he was the bright- est man in the State. His mind was not massive like John Baxter's, but it was quick and electrical .*
Mr. Etheridge pressed his canvass in 1867 with great power and bitterness, only to be disastrously beaten. Governor Brown- low was unable to take the stump on account of the failure of his voice, but he was triumphantly re-elected, running ahead of his party. His second term, like the first, was stormy and full of exciting incidents. During this term the Ku-Klux were again at their nefarious work, but the strong arm and will of the Governor triumphed and violence was everywhere suppressed.
The weakest points in Mr. Brownlow's character were his absolute trust in the good faith of his friends, and the readiness with which he became reconciled to his enemies. The first ex- posed him in public life to the wiles of false and corrupt men as it did General Grant also. The second exposed him to the charge of inconsistency and insincerity. These charges were not in fact just. The first was the result of too much faith in the honesty of men and his inability to say no. The second arose from a grand spirit of magnanimity. He was so generous, so trustful, so forgiving that he took all men to be what they professed to be.
His treatment, while Governor, of Isham G. Harris after the war is a good illustration of his magnanimity. Harris, it will be remembered, was Governor of Tennessee in 1861. It was almost exclusively through his influence and exertions that Tennessee was finally induced to secede after one signal failure. His courage, ability, and iron will accomplished this result in the face of a Union majority in the previous February election of 64,000 votes. Harris was very bitter toward Union men. He did everything that could be done, whether legal or illegal, for the cause of secession. No man in the South was more active, or more bitter, or more successful in the cause of disunion. He had boldly inaugurated secession in defiance of the popular will as expressed at the ballot box by entering into a "military
*He died in 1902.
336
NOTABLE MEN OF TENNESSEE
league" with the Southern Confederacy before the people of the State voted for secession. He had organized an army and made war on the United States by sending troops to Virginia weeks before the vote in favor of separation. From that time until the day of his precipitate flight from the State, after the fall of Fort Donelson, in February, 1862, he had carried things with an imperial will. Yet there was something manly and noble in his manner of doing things. No man was so cordially hated by Union men. When the State Government was reorganized the Legislature directed the Governor to offer a reward of five thou- sand dollars for his apprehension.
On the downfall of the Confederacy Harris, with a number of other violent Confederates, went to Cordova, Mexico, where they proposed to establish a colony from the Southern States and engage in the business of raising coffee. William M. Gwin, an ex-Senator from California, was one of these voluntary exiles. Maximilian created Gwin Duke of Sonora. The overthrow of Maximilian made it necessary for Harris and Gwin and their followers to get out of Mexico as they had gotten out of the United States. The fate of the unfortunate Maximilian was a warning to them that revolutionists in Mexico who fail, espe- cially foreigners who attempt to overturn the government, were not regarded as heroes and objects of popular idolatry as in the United States. Harris was not anxious to die in Mexico, as he had not been in the United States, so he again began his wander- ings. This time he went to Liverpool, where he became a com- mission merchant. He was an exile, while his family and friends were in the United States. It is impossible to realize how anxious one thus situated would be to return to his home and his kindred, and yet who dared not do so. So Harris became restless and sick at heart. Greatly as he hated the United States, he burned with desire to return to it. But appalling difficulties were in the way. His old and bitter enemy, Andrew Johnson, by a strange fortune, was President. To apply to him for pardon was revolting to his proud spirit. He would starve first, would remain an exile forever before humbling him- self before that man he hated above all others. And Brownlow, the terrible Brownlow, was Governor of Tennessee, that great State which he had plunged by his iron will into secession. But he would trust Brownlow while he would not Johnson. Brown- low was tender-hearted, and if he gave his word of promise, that
337
NOTABLE MEN OF TENNESSEE
promise would be sacredly kept like an oath. Humiliating as it was to appeal to his enemies for clemency, and revolting as it was to live in a government controlled by hated Yankees, yet he determined to submit to both. Accordingly, he wrote to his late associate in the work of secession, ex-Governor Neill S. Brown, to sound Brownlow and to intercede for him. Governor Brown went with the letter to Brownlow and frankly stated that he came to appeal for clemency on behalf of the man who had done more to take Tennessee out of the Union than any other person, and therefore had done more damage to the State. That man now desired to return to his home, to become a peace- able citizen, to resume the practice of law and to try to support his family. Under this appeal all the long-cherished prejudices of Governor Brownlow at once gave way. The immense loss the State had sustained by reason of Harris' conduct-the over- whelming ruin and universal desolation he had brought to the people of the State-were all forgotten by that great, forgiving heart at the recital of the sufferings of the exile and the poverty of his family. A pledge of protection and immunity was gen- erously and unconditionally given. Governor Brownlow at once sent a message to the Legislature, asking it to withdraw the offer of a reward for the arrest of Harris, which was accord- ingly done on November 11, 1867 .*
As soon as the mail could carry the news to Liverpool Harris set sail for the United States. On his arrival in New York, without meeting anyone who knew him, he hurried on to Nash- ville and stopped with a friend at a private house. The next morning, being the Sabbath, at an early hour, before it was known he was in the city, Harris and ex-Governor Brown pre- sented themselves before Governor Brownlow. When the latter saw them approaching, with extended arms he advanced to meet Harris, saying: "While the lamp holds out to burn, the vilest sinner may return." Harris and Brown both laughed feebly at this pleasantry, but it was plain that the former did not enjoy it. The case of Harris was then discussed. He was apprehen- sive that he would be arrested the moment he reached his home in Paris. Governor Brownlow assured him of his protection,
*It is a curious fact that the Act of the Legislature repealing the law offering a reward for Harris, winds up with a brand on him: "that the Governor is hereby instructed to revoke his proclamation offering a re- ward for the apprehension of said Isham G. Harris, the traitor."
338
NOTABLE MEN OF TENNESSEE
and directed him to telegraph him if he should be arrested, and he would become his bail .*
The following extract is taken from a letter in the Atlanta Constitution of 1886, inspired, if not written, by the Hon. W. C. Whitthorne, the intimate friend of Harris, and no doubt written at his (Harris') suggestion. This gives a little different version of this affair :
"With this (a reward of $5000) hanging over him, when the rebellion collapsed, Harris made haste for Mexico, and upon the failure of the French Empire sailed for Europe. Meantime his family was without means of comfortable support. Governor Brownlow, softening much toward Harris, and becoming con- vinced in his own mind that in some of his former charges and denunciations he had done Governor Harris injustice, sent for one of the receivers whom he had appointed to take charge of a State railroad, and told him to appoint quietly a relative (a son) of Governor Harris to a position which would enable him to sup- port the family. This was done.
"When Harris returned from Europe he went directly to Nashville and called on the Governor, by whom he was received with unexpected cordiality. Harris explained that he had come to surrender himself, preferring that to a summary arrest. Brownlow insisted that no trouble would then come from the old proclamation of reward for his capture. Harris insisted that as the United States marshal had a warrant for his arrest he would prefer to have it settled before he should go home. When he met his family he desired, if possible, it should be in peace. The Governor told him to go home at once, and he would arrange the matter with the marshal. This he did by becoming bondsman for Harris' appearance when wanted.
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.