Page images
PDF
EPUB

Meade, commander of the troops in Georgia, dated March 2nd, 1868, in regard to a similar question which had arisen there, in which General Grant stated that officers elected under the new constitution of Georgia were not required to take the iron-clad oath. Mr. Stuart returned home, assuring the committee that he would endeavor to devise some means to prevent the order of General Canby from being Issued.

The knowledge that such an order would be issued was well calculated to discourage the activity of the conservative voters, and thereby defeat the election of the Walker ticket; to defeat the ratification of the constitution with the objectionable clause eliminated; and the order would certainly disqualify a large number of those who had been nominated for the Legislature from taking their seats, if elected. The situation was a most critical one, as the election was to be held on July the 6th, within less than two weeks.

On June 25th, 1869, the day after his return from Richmond, Mr. Stuart wrote a letter to General Grant calling his attention to the rumor which was current in regard to General Canby's interpretation of the reconstruction act, and his purpose to require the test-oath of all members of the Legislature elected under the new constitution on July 6th. He insisted that General Canby had placed an erroneous construction on the act and gave his reasons therefor at length. He laid special stress upon the telegram of General Grant to General Meade in reference to the oath to be required of officers elected in Georgia under their new constitution.1

In a few days, the President directed General Canby not to issue the order. New life was infused into the campaign and on July 6th victory was won. The constitution was ratified without the test-oath and disfranchisement clauses; Gilbert C. Walker was elected Governor; the majority of the members-elect of the Legislature represented

1Restoration of Virginia, Stuart, page 64.

the conservative and best element of the people; Virginia was virtually restored to the Union; her citizens were reinvested with their rights, and Wells and his carpet-baggers and scalawags sank into oblivion.

The thoughtful people of the State realized that Mr. Stuart had saved them from the iniquities of the Underwood Constitution, and their estimate of his service in this matter was well expressed by Professor John B. Minor in a letter dated February 13, 1891, to Major Thomas C. Elder of Staunton, in which he wrote:

"His conduct as one of the famous 'Committee of Nine' will rank him as a true statesman, keen to discern the action which the crisis required, and brave to follow it out through all obstacles, and despite the adverse sentiments of many of his countrymen. In contemplating conduct so wise, and so fearless, one is strongly reminded of Horace's heroic ode,

'Justum ac tenaceum propositi virum, etc.''

At the request of the Virginia Historical Society, Mr. Stuart wrote a full account of the Committee of Nine under the title of the "Restoration of Virginia to the Union," which was published by that Society.1

1See Appendix II.

CHAPTER XXXIII

ADDRESS BEFORE THE LITERARY SOCIETIES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, JUNE 29TH, 1866

N JUNE 29th, 1866, Mr. Stuart delivered an address before the Literary Societies of the University of Virginia. This was the first "Commencement" that had been held there since 1860. He began the address with these words:

"We have assembled today under circumstances of peculiar interest and solemnity. Six years have elapsed since a similar exhibition was held in this hall. During that period, a cruel war has desolated our country, and brought anguish and mourning into every household. Thousands of those nearest and dearest to us have fallen on the battlefield, or languished and died in camps and hospitals. Hostilities having ceased; we have now met to commemorate the close of the first session of the University since the restoration of peace. Under these circumstances, the first thought of every mind is of the gallant men who suffered and died in the discharge of what they believed to be their duty; and the first impulse of every heart is to offer a grateful tribute to their memory. But, for reasons which will be appreciated by this intelligent audience, I forbear from giving utterance at this time to many thoughts which it would be pleasing to me to express, and to you to hear. When the excitement and irritation engendered by the recent conflict shall have passed away, it will be no less our duty than our privilege to do full justice to the motives and conduct of those who died in defence of their families and firesides."

[graphic]

Then referring to the peculiar situation of the Southern

States as a result of the war, by which they had been driven far from the true course marked out for them by the Constitution, he declared: "We should take new observations to ascertain how far we have drifted, and to determine by what means we can regain our true position, and recover our constitutional rights."

He then announced that the subject which he would present for their consideration was: "The Recent Revolution; Its Causes and Consequences, and the Duties and Responsibilities Which It has Imposed on the People, and Especially the Young Men of the South."

He referred to the common mistake on the part of many persons, North and South, who had not given the subject thoughtful consideration, to assume that the institution of slavery was the cause of the late war. In his judgment, this was a grave error and one which demanded refutation. He said:

"In my opinion it would be quite as correct to affirm that the tax on tea was the cause of the war of 1776 as that slavery was the cause of the war of 1861. Both sprang from far wider and deeper causes. Both were the growth of many years, and the results of combinations of many causes, and the tax on tea in the one case, and the apprehended interference with slavery in the other, were merely the occasions for the development of the logical consequences of those causes. Both wars originated in the contests for political power. Both were conflicts arising from antagonistic ideas, and discordant systems of political philosophy and economy, and both were destined to occur in some form or other, irrespective of the tea tax or slavery. If these pretexts or occasions for development had not presented themselves, others, equally adapted to the purpose, would have been readily found."

He then gave what, in his judgment, were the true causes of the war. It had its origin, not in slavery but in discordant opinions and adverse interests. He thought, however, that those causes were insufficient to justify the war.

"I have always believed that the supposed antagonisms of interest were rather imaginary than real," he said. "I have never been a believer in the doctrine of an 'irrepressible conflict' between the interests or the labor systems of the two sections. I have always thought that under the guidance of enlightened statesmanship and catholic patriotism all pending difficulties could have been, and ought to have been, adjusted without an appeal to arms. On more than one public occasion I have expressed the opinion that the diversities of soil, climate, production and occupation, instead of being elements of discord and strife, should, by a wise and generous policy, have been wrought into bonds of union and strength."

While he realized that it was useless to repine over misfortunes which were irreparable, he recurred to them "not to open old wounds, or to cast vain reproaches, but to draw from them lessons of wisdom, forbearance and moderation for our guidance in the future." The war, among other things, had settled the question that no State had the right to secede from the Union; that all debts, Confederate, State or Municipal, contracted in aid of the war were absolutely null and void; that slavery was finally and forever abolished within the jurisdiction of the United States; and that freedmen were to be invested with and protected by law in the enjoyment of every necessary civil right. Each of these propositions was briefly discussed. He said that the destruction of the labor system of the South was destined to produce important changes in social, political and industrial relations. Referring to the mode of life to which the people of Virginia had been accustomed, and which they could not see pass away without regret, he declared:

"Virginia society has been fashioned on the English model. A fondness for country life has been its distinguishing characteristic. Professional men, merchants and mechanics looked forward with hope to the day when they could leave their offices, stores, and shops and become landed

« PreviousContinue »