F 231 
 .S93 
 Copy 2 
 
 A NARRATIVE 
 
 LEADING INCIDENTS OF THE ORGANIZATION 
 
 OF THE FIRST 
 
 Popular Movement in Virginia 
 
 IN 1S65 
 
 TO 
 
 RE-ESTABLISH PEACEFUL RELATIONS BETWEEN THE 
 
 NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN STATES, AND OF 
 
 THE SUBSEQUENT EFFORTS 
 
 ** Committee of Nine/' in 1869, 
 
 TO SECURE THE 
 
 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION, 
 
 ALEX. H. H. STUART. 
 
 MDCCCLXXXVIII. 
 
 WM, ELLIS JONES, BOOK AND JOB PRINTER. 
 RICHMOND, VA. 
 
A NARRATIVE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 LEADING INCIDENTS OF THE ORGANIZATION 
 
 OF THE FIRST 
 
 Popular Movement in Virginia 
 
 IN 1865 
 
 TO 
 
 RE-ESTABLISH PEACEFUL RELATIONS BETWEEN THE 
 y NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN STATES, AND OF 
 
 r THE SUBSEQUENT EFFORTS 
 
 ''Committee of Nine," in 1869, 
 
 TO SECURE THE 
 
 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION, 
 
 ALEX. H. H. STUART. 
 
 MDCCCLXXXVIII. 
 
 WM. ELLIS JONES, BOOK AND JOB PRINTER. 
 
 RICHMOND, VA. 
 

 'p^~ 
 
A NARRATIVE. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Several years ago the Virginia Historical Society adopted a reso- 
 lution, of which the following is a copy : 
 
 Resolved^ That the Hon. A. H. H. Stuart be requested to prepare for this 
 Society a history of the events of 1869, which led to a restoration of this 
 State to its place in the Union, in which he himself bore so distinguished a 
 part. 
 
 An official copy of this resolution was sent to me, to which I 
 replied, expressing my willingness to comply with the request of the 
 Society at as early a day as might be practicable, and at once I pro- 
 ceeded to collect such papers as I thought would be necessary to 
 enable me to do so. But, unfortunately, sickness and other causes 
 compelled me to postpone the fulfillment of my promise to a future 
 day. Time having brought improved health and spirits, I now 
 venture to enter on the performance of the task so long delayed. 
 
 In the outset, I wish it to be distinctly understood that I do not 
 propose to write a full history of all that occurred in connection with 
 the "events of 1869" referred to in the resolution of the Society. 
 J have not the material necessary for such a history. Doubtless many 
 things were said and done by others looking to the same end, of 
 which I had no knowledge. All that I propose to do in this paper 
 is to give a narrative of the leading facts and incidents relating to 
 the subject, so far as I was personally connected with or had cogni- 
 zance of them, accompanied by such papers as may be necessary to 
 verify and explain them. 
 
 As I shall speak mainly of matters in which I was an actor or wit- 
 ness, it will readily be conceded that my statement should be made 
 in the first person singular. 
 
 But I should feel that my work had been very imperfectly done it 
 I failed, before entering on my narrative of the "events" especially 
 referred to in the resolution of the Society, to refer to others of an 
 
4 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 antecedent date, which were not less important than the " events o( 
 X " and whi^h, in fact, opened the way for them. A knowledge 
 of these facts is necessary to enable the reader to understand the 
 condit on of public affairs in i868-'9. They supply an important 
 hnk n the history of Virginia, from the downfall of the Confederacy 
 to the restoration of the State to the Union. I deem it proper to 
 refer to these events, not only on account of their intrinsic interest as 
 m t ers of history, but because no permanent record has been made 
 °f them, and they are liable to be forgotten, with the men who par- 
 
 'Ifwm betrembered that it was the practice of General David 
 Hunter, in his raid through Virginia, to destroy all the newspaper 
 offices by breaking up their presses and scattering their type m the 
 streets The publication of newspapers was in this way effectual y 
 suppressed; and in Staunton, the place of my residence, the only 
 Jans of printing anything was by an old hand-press, which had 
 "caped the notice of the destroyer, and such type as had been 
 rescued from the gutter into which it had been thrown. Thus no 
 record of passing events was preserved in files of newspapers issued 
 from day to day, and the only authentic report of the Proceedings of 
 one of the most important popular meetings ever held m Angus a 
 county is to be found in a few copies of an unsightly hand-bilK 
 which was printed on the day after it was held, with the press and 
 tvoe above referred to. 
 
 As this meeting set on foot the first organized popular movement 
 for • ueace " I cannot doubt that I will render an acceptable service 
 to the public by putting the record of its proceedings in a more en- 
 duing form, and%iacing it under the guardianship of the Virgima 
 
 " ThfmttStwhich I refer, was a large assemblage of the best 
 people of Augusta county, held at their courthouse in Staunton on 
 8* of May, .865. in pursuance of a notice which had been circulated 
 as widely as possible during the preceding week. 
 
 The cLunistances under which the meeting was held were these^ 
 WhUe in elligent and thoughtful men, who were correctly informed 
 Tt he exhausted condition of the Confederate treasury, of the 
 absence of supplies of food, clothing, arms, and ammunition neces- 
 sary to maintain an array in the field, and, above all, of the disparity 
 of numbers and equipment of the troops which were arrayed under 
 °he banners of Grant and Lee respectively at the opemng of the 
 campaign of 1865, had been forced to the conclusion that the days 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. O 
 
 of the Confederacy were numbered, such was not the behef among 
 the masses of the people in the country. They had been misled to 
 some extent by the defiant attitude assumed by the Confederate 
 Government, and in larger measure by their unbounded confidence 
 in the abilities of their great leaders, Lee and Johnston, and their 
 associates, which caused them still to cling to the hope of final 
 success. 
 
 When, therefore, it became known to the people of Virginia, in 
 April, 1865, that President Davis and his Cabinet and other execu- 
 tive officers of the Confederate Government, and Governor William 
 Smith and the other State officers of Virginia, had been compelled 
 to withdraw from Richmond, and that General Lee had been obliged 
 to evacuate the city and retreat southward with the remnant of his 
 starving army — followed as this news was, in a few days, by intelli- 
 gence of the surrender of General Lee's army at Appomattox, and 
 The capitulation of General Johnston and his army — the tidings fell 
 on the popular ear like a "fireball in the night," filling the public 
 mind with consternation and dismay ! 
 
 Men of forecast saw at once that the Confederate cause was lost, 
 and that a continuance of the struggle was hopeless and could result 
 only in a wanton waste of blood and treasure, and an aggravation of 
 the calamities which were inevitable. They saw, further, that we 
 had been reduced to the sad condition of a people without any 
 government. State or Federal. The Confederate Government had 
 practically ceased to exist. The State Government had been over- 
 thrown. The officers of both were refugees, and there was no 
 reasonable prospect of the re-establishment of either. Every social 
 bond had been ruptured. Society had been resolved into its original 
 elements. All laws had become inoperative for want of officers to 
 enforce them. All the safeguards of life, liberty, and property had 
 been uprooted. Scenes of lawless violence and rapine were rife in 
 the country. There were no officials who would be recognized as 
 having authority to represent the people or to give expression to 
 their opinions and wishes. 
 
 In a word, a condition of things had arisen in which, if the people 
 wished their voice to be heard, they must speak for themselves ! 
 
 Such was the state of affairs which existed about the first of May, 
 1865, when half a dozen or more intelligent gentlemen of Staunton 
 met together, informally, to consider and decide what should be 
 done to meet the emergency which confronted them. After full and 
 free discussion of the subject in all its aspects, they concluded that 
 
6 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 the wisest course would be to convoke a mass-meeting of the people 
 of Augusta county, to assemble at their courthouse on Monday, 8th 
 of May, 1865, to decide for themselves. 
 
 Notices were accordingly issued, inviting the people to assemble at 
 the time and place above mentioned to give formal expression to 
 their sentiments on the grave questions to be submitted for their 
 consideration. These notices were widely circulated by means of 
 special messengers sent to all parts of the county during the week 
 preceding the day appointed for the meeting; and on Sunday, the 
 day before it was to be held, it naturally became the topic of con- 
 versation among the people at their homes, on the highways, and at 
 their respective places of public worship. In this way the purpose 
 to hold the meeting and its objects became known to almost every 
 man in the county, and to many in adjacent counties. 
 
 Among those who thus became acquainted with the purpose of 
 the people of Augusta to hold the meeting on the 8th of May, and 
 the subjects to be considered by it, was Governor William Smith. 
 After he had been obliged to leave Richmond, before its formal 
 evacuation, he had sought refuge in a secluded part of Rockbridge 
 county. On learning the facts above stated, and doubtless influenced 
 by a patriotic sense of official duty, he rode to Staunton, a distance 
 of twenty-five miles or more, where he arrived about noon on Sun- 
 day, 7th May. Soon after his arrival, he sent invitations to a number 
 of gentlemen who had been most active in getting up the " mass- 
 meeting," requesting them to call on him at his hotel at 3 o'clock 
 P. M. for conference. 
 
 I was one of those invited, and at the hour appointed, accompa- 
 nied by fifteen or twenty other gentlemen, went to the hotel, where 
 we were politely received by the Governor. After the ordinary 
 interchange of salutations and introductions. Governor Smith pro- 
 ceeded to open the interview by referring to the rumors he had 
 heard of the proposed meeting a*i its objects. Without expressing 
 any opinion, either favorable or unfavorable/ to the objects which we 
 had in view, he made known, in decided terms, his opposition to our 
 holding it, on the ground that the proceeding would be irregular, 
 and to some extent, revolutionary. He referred to the fact that he 
 was the Governor of Virginia, and as such the constitutional repre- 
 sentative of the State, and the only person empowered to open 
 negotiations with the Federal authorities to secure peace and the 
 restoration of the State to the Union. He insisted it was not com- 
 petent for the people of any single county to inaugurate such a 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. / 
 
 movement, thereby ignoring him and his constitutional powers and 
 duties as chief executive officer of the Commonwealth, and therefore 
 urged us to abandon the idea of holding the proposed meeting. 
 
 In reply, it was stated that while under a normal condition of 
 public affairs, in which he would be recognized as the lawful Gov- 
 ernor of the State of Virginia, his views would be entitled to great 
 weight, yet we thought it was obvious that he who had been a distin- 
 guished general in the military service of the Confederate States, 
 and who had been elected Governor of 07ie of the Confederate States, 
 under the auspices of the Confederacy, and had taken an oath of 
 allegiance to its government, could not possibly be recognized by 
 the Federal Government as the lawful Governor and constitutional 
 representative of the State of Virginia under the new order of things. 
 Such a recognition would be almost equivalent to a recognition of 
 the Confederate Government itself All purpose to ignore him or 
 offer him any personal disrespect was earnestly disclaimed ; but facts 
 were stubborn things, which could not be ignored. They must be 
 dealt with as they existed. The Confederate Government had col- 
 lapsed, and there was no reasonable prospect of its ever being 
 re-established. The State Government had been overthrown. We 
 were, therefore, without any government and liable at any time to be 
 overwhelmed by all the horrors of anarchy. We had no representa- 
 tives who would be recognized as having a right to speak for the 
 people, and hence they must speak for themselves. He was told he 
 was mistaken in supposing that the people of Augusta proposed to 
 act on behalf of the State. They claimed no such right. They 
 meant only to give expression to the sentiments and wishes of the 
 county of Augusta, leaving every other county free to take such 
 action as its people might deem proper. The demand for prompt 
 and decided action by the people was urgent. They could not afford 
 to wait for the result of tedious and probably ineffectual diplomatic 
 negotiation, and therefore we must persist in holding the proposed 
 meeting. The conference then closed, without unkind feeling on 
 either side, for each respected the motives of the other, and Governor 
 Smith returned to Rockbridge. 
 
 Before dismissing the subject of this interview, it may be proper to 
 say that the sequel proved the soundness of the reasoning of the 
 advocates of the meeting and the fallacy of that of Governor Smith. 
 
 The meeting having been held on the 8th of May, and a com- 
 mittee appointed to go to Richmond to confer with the military 
 authorities, it was received with courtesy and attention by the gen- 
 
8 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 eral in command as representing the people. But when Governor 
 Smith shortly afterwards, in his official character, appointed com- 
 missioners to negotiate with the military authorities, as soon as these 
 gentlemen presented their credentials they were arrested and held as 
 prisoners, and a reward of $25,000 was offered for the capture of the 
 Governor and the delivery of his person to the officer in command ! 
 But, to the honor of our people, it must be added that no one could 
 be tempted, even by such a munificent reward, to play the part of 
 Judas Iscariot ! 
 
 After the close of the conference with Governor Smith on Sunday 
 afternoon (7th May, 1865), I was notified that it was the wish of the 
 gentlemen who had been most active in getting up the meeting on 
 the 8th that I should preside over its deliberations, and that on 
 taking the chair I should make an address to the people, explaining 
 the objects and purposes of those who called it, with such sugges- 
 tions as to the policy to be pursued as I might deem appropriate. 
 
 After careful consideration, I concluded that in view of the gravity 
 and importance of the questions to be submitted to the meeting, and 
 of the liability of an oral address to be misunderstood and misrepre- 
 sented, it would be best to commit to writing what I proposed to say. 
 The occasion involved weighty responsibilities. It was proper that 
 the words used should be not only well weighed, but plain and sim- 
 ple, such as could be readily understood by all who might be present. 
 Another fact admonished me of the necessity for caution. A large 
 body of Federal troops occupied the town of Harrisonburg, twenty- 
 five miles distant, and I felt confident that a number of their enter- 
 prising "Jesse Scouts" would be present as vigilant spectators and 
 reporters of the proceedings of the meeting. I therefore wrote in 
 advance the address which I proposed to make. 
 
 At an early hour on the 8th of May, the people began to assemble 
 in the streets and public grounds near the courthouse to interchange 
 opinions and discuss the great questions which they had been invited 
 to consider and decide. Their solemn countenances and earnest 
 demeanor indicated that they clearly understood and appreciated the 
 gravity of the situation. 
 
 Before the hour of 12 M., which had been appointed for the organi- 
 zation of the meeting, a great crowd had assembled in the court- 
 house, which embodied a large share of the intelligence, patriotism 
 and property of the county. It was in all respects a representative 
 meeting, and therefore entitled to give authentic expression to the 
 sentiments and wishes of the people of the county. 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 9 
 
 Punctually at 12 o'clock the meeting was called to order, and the 
 chairman and secretaries nominated and elected. 
 
 Having been chosen as chairman, after a brief explanation of the 
 reasons which had induced me to reduce to writing the address which 
 I was about to make to the meeting, I proceeded to read it front the 
 manuscript, which I did slowly and distinctly so that every word 
 could be heard and understood by the large and attentive audience. 
 After it had thus been read, at the request of the secretaries I deliv- 
 ered the manuscript to them to be incorporated into their report of 
 the proceedings. These proceedings were faithfully and accurately 
 recorded by the secretaries, and as there was no newspaper published 
 in Staunton at that time, they were printed on the following day in 
 hand-bills on the little hand-press, to which I have already referred, 
 and many copies were sent to representative men in other counties. 
 A copy of that hand-bill is now before me, and will be annexed to this 
 narrative. It is in the following words : 
 
 MASS-MEETING OF THE PEOPLE OF AUGUSTA ! 
 
 In pursuance of a public notice, which had been extensively circulated, a 
 large and respectable meeting of the people of Augusta county assembled 
 at the courthouse on Monday, Sth of May, " to take measures looking to a 
 reorganization of the government of Virginia in conformity to the Consti- 
 tution and laws of the United States." 
 
 On motion of Colonel Wm. A. Bell, Hon. Alex. H. H. Stuart was called 
 to the chair and Dr. Thos. W. Shelton and W. H. H. Lynn were appointed 
 secretaries. 
 
 On taking the chair, Mr. Stuart spoke substantially as follows : 
 
 Fellow Citizens: — We have met together to-day to decide what course 
 we ought to pursue under the peculiar circumstances by which we are sur- 
 rounded. 
 
 The war which has raged throughout our land for four years past, and has 
 left so many evidences of its desolating power in every part of it, has at 
 length ceased. The veteran armies of Lee and Johnston have capitulated 
 and a similar fate doubtless awaits, if it has not already befallen, the Confed- 
 • erate forces west of the Mississippi. The President of the Confederate States 
 and his Cabinet have been constrained to abandon the seat of government, 
 without any reasonable prospect of being able to re-establish themselves and 
 resume the exercise of their functions in any of the Southern States. 
 
 The Governor of Virginia has also withdrawn himself from the capitol, 
 taking with him most of the principal officers of the State Government. 
 
 There has thus been a virtual abdication of the Confederate Government 
 and a suspension of the functions of the authorities of the State. 
 
 In this anomalous condition of things, when those officers who were 
 
10 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 chosen to represent the people and to be the guardians of their rights and 
 interests have lost the power to do so, it becomes the duty of the people to 
 speak for themselves, and to determine what measures may be best for the 
 advancement of their safety and welfare. 
 
 All must admit that the war is ended, and that there is no purpose to 
 resume military operations. The recent surrenders of Generals Lee and 
 Johnston embraced much the larger number of the experienced and skilful 
 officers of the Southern army, and the articles of capitulation and arrange- 
 ments subsequently entered into have placed almost the entire organized 
 military force east of the Mississippi under obligations not to take up arms 
 against the United States until regularly exchanged. 
 
 We are thus in the extraordinary condition of a people deprived of the 
 benefit of any regular government, either civil or military. The tendency 
 of such a state of things is to disorder and anarchy In some instances 
 marauding parties of armed men have plundered our citizens and acts of 
 violence have been committed, which are calculated to create a sense of 
 insecurity amongst our people. 
 
 Under these circumstances, we are assembled to consider what course we 
 shall adopt to secure the best protection of person and property and the 
 largest measure of our rights, both personal and political, which may be 
 practicable. 
 
 It has been suggested that our wisest course is to do nothing, but to await 
 the development of events. I do not approve this suggestion. I think we 
 should endeavor as far as we can to give shape and direction to our own 
 destiny. If we fail, we will at least save ourselves the reproach of not having 
 made an effort to do so. Those who advocate a policy merely passive, seem 
 to act on the idea that we have lost all our rights and must accept such form 
 of government as may be imposed on us. This notion arises from the fact 
 that those who entertain it confound the ideas of power and right, which 
 are two very different things. A victorious party may have the power to 
 impose an obnoxious form of government on its defeated adversary, but it 
 by no means follows that it has the right to do so. 
 
 In my judgment, it is proper that the people of Virginia should express in 
 public meetings — the only mode left to them of giving authentic expression 
 to their sentiments — their recognition of the fact that the war has ceased, 
 finally ceased ; that the attempted revolution has finally failed, and that 
 there is no purpose on their part to renew it. 
 
 When it is thus made manifest that the people accept the fate, which in 
 the fortunes of war has befallen them, that the war is over and that they are 
 prepared to recognize the authority of the Constitution of the United States, 
 from that moment our relations to the United States Government are mate- 
 rially modified, and rights which may have remained in abeyance during 
 the continuance of hostilities are immediately revived in full force and 
 vigor. 
 
 When the war is at an end, all those powers claimed as war powers and 
 as matters of military necessity must cease with it. 
 
 The restoration of peace will bring up for discussion and decision many 
 novel and complicated questions. The experience and the precedents de- 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 11 
 
 rived from the history of other nations will furnish very insufficient guides 
 in their solution, because the history of the world affords no case that is 
 parallel to ours. In other countries the relation of the citizen or subject to 
 his government is simple and direct. He owes allegiance to but one gov- 
 ernment — under our complex system every citizen owes allegiance to two 
 governments. Before the war every citizen owed allegiance to his State as 
 well as to the United States. He was bound to defend both. It was thus a 
 double or a divided allegiance with the hne of demarcation not very dis- 
 tinctly defined. When, therefore, a conflict occurred it was not always easy 
 to determine the path of duty or safe to pursue it, for what was obedience 
 to the one might be treason against the other. 
 
 The war having terminated and the Confederate government having 
 potentially ceased to exist, we are released from all claim of allegiance 
 to it and remitted to our rights as citizens of Virginia. What may be the 
 extent of those rights, or how far anv individual may have forfeited his 
 rights, may be a question to be determined hereafter in the mode prescribed 
 by the Constitution of the United States. One thing, however, we may 
 safely assume. A State in its political capacity cannot commit treason. A 
 State as a political community cannot incur forfeitures. Treason can only 
 be committed by individuals, and the penalties can be inflicted on individuals 
 only. How far a State can throw the tegis of her protection over her citi- 
 zens who acted under her authority will have to be settled hereafter. 
 
 I take it, therefore, that Virginia still has rights under the Constitution of 
 the United States, which have only been suspended during the abortive 
 effort to sever her connection with the United States, and it seems to me to 
 be our duty to try and have those rights recognized and respected. 
 
 If it be true, as has been almo.st universally assumed in the Northern 
 States, that the ordinances of secession were mere nullities and absolutely 
 void, then the Southern States have never severed their connection with the 
 United States — have never been out of the Union, and are therefore entitled, 
 from the moment the war ceases, to resume their position as members of 
 the Union. 
 
 I advert to these questions with no view to discuss them, but simply to 
 combat the idea that all our rights have been lost and as a satisfactory rea- 
 son for meeting promptly the issue which has been forced upon us, and 
 declaring that so far as we are concerned (and we believe we speak the 
 sentiments of Virginia) the war has finally closed; that we have no purpose 
 to renew it ; that we are prepared to conform our State government to the 
 changed condition of public affairs; and that we are convinced that by a 
 wise and conciliatory policy on the part of the Federal authorities, peace 
 and tranquility can soon be firmly and permanently re-established. 
 
 After the close of Mr. Stuart's remarks, on motion of Hugh W. Sheffey, 
 Esq., the chair was instructed to appoint a committee of thirteen to prepare 
 and report suitable resolutions for the consideration of the meeting. 
 
 The chair thereupon named the following gentlemen to constitute the 
 committee. 
 
12 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 NAMES OF COMMITTEE. 
 
 H. W. Sheffey, T. J. Michie, Jno. B. Baldwin, W. M. Tate, D. S. Bell. J. M. 
 McCue, M. G. Harman, H. G. Guthrie, Chesley Kinney, Bolivar Christian, 
 George Baylor, Absalom Coiner, J. Givens Fulton. 
 
 After some time spent in deliberation, the committee reported the follow- 
 ing series of resolutions: 
 
 RESOLUTIONS. 
 
 1. Resolved, That we believe we express the thorough conviction of the 
 people of Augusta county, when we declare that opposition to the authority 
 of the United States within this county is at an end and that there is no pur- 
 pose on the part of any of our people to attempt any renewal of it. 
 
 2. Resolved, That the people of Augusta county, recognizing the necessity 
 of reorganizing the government of Virginia so as to conform to the Consti- 
 tution and laws of the United States, are prepared to co-operate in good 
 faith with the people of other portions of the State for that purpose. 
 
 3. Resolved, That in our opinion the best mode of effecting the object 
 proposed is by a State Convention, chosen by the voters and organized upon 
 the basis of the House of Delegates. 
 
 4. Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed to go to Richmond 
 and ascertain whether the military authorities of the United States will inter- 
 pose any obstruction to the election, assembling and action of such a con- 
 vention for the purpose indicated, and that the chairman of this meeting be 
 the chairman of said committee. 
 
 5. Resolved, That this committee be also authorized to confer with similar 
 committees to be appointed in other counties, and to adopt in concert such 
 measures as will best promote the objects herein declared. 
 
 In pursuance of the request of the committee, Hon. John B. Baldwin pro- 
 ceeded to explain the nature and purport of the resolutions and to urge 
 their adoption in a speech of great power and eloquence, which produced a 
 profound impression on the audience. 
 
 After the close of Colonel Baldwin's speech, no other person manifesting 
 any desire to speak, the resolutions were again read to the meeting seriatim, 
 and each resolution adopted by a unanimous vote. 
 
 After the other resolutions had been adopted, on motion of Bolivar Chris- 
 tian, Esq., the chairman was instructed to appoint at his leisure the members 
 of the committee contemplated by the fourth resolution. 
 
 The proceedings of the meeting were marked by great solemnity and dig- 
 nity, and evidently expressed the deliberate sense of the people of Augusta. 
 The assembly was a full one, and embraced a large share of the intelligence 
 and weight of the county. 
 
 ALEX. H. H. STUART, Chairman. 
 
 Thos. W. Shelton, \ ^grretaries 
 Wm. H. H. Lynn, ] Secretaries. 
 
 I have nothing to add to the record made by the secretaries of the 
 proceedings of this meeting. It is in all respects full and accurate. 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION, 13 
 
 It will be observed that the fourth resolution provided for the " ap- 
 pointment of a committee of five, of which the chairman of the 
 meeting shall be chairman, to go to Richmond and ascertain whether 
 the military authorities of the United States will interpose any objec- 
 tion to the election and assembling of a State Convention chosen on 
 the basis of the House of Delegates " 
 
 By a subsequent resolution "the chairman was instructed to 
 appoint, at his leisure, the other members of the committee contem- 
 plated by the fourth resolution." 
 
 Under the power thus conferred on me, I appointed as my associates 
 on the committee, Judge Hugh W. Sheffey, Colonel John B. Baldwin, 
 Colonel Michael G. Harman, and Major William M. Tate. 
 
 A few days afterwards the committee went to Richmond and 
 sought an interview with the military authorities. We were court- 
 eously received, but were informed that the officer in command had 
 no authority to consider or decide the questions which were the sub- 
 jects of our mission. We were also informed that Hon. Francis H. 
 Peirpoint had been recognized by the United States Government as 
 Governor of Virginia, and that in a few days he would be in Rich- 
 mond to enter on the discharge of his duties ; and it was suggested 
 that we had better await his arrival and make our communication to 
 him. We accordingly remained in Richmond until Governor Peir- 
 point had been duly installed as Governor under military auspices. 
 We then called on him and exhibited to him a copy of the resolutions 
 which had been adopted by the people of Augusta, and explained 
 fully the objects of our mission. A full and free discussion of all the 
 questions connected with the restoration of Virginia to the Union 
 ensued, the details of which it is not necessary to state. The Gov- 
 ernor, throughout the conference, displayed an amicable and patriotic 
 spirit, and closed the interview by giving such assurances of sym- 
 pathy and friendly co-operation as were satisfactory to the committee, 
 and thus their mission closed. 
 
 It is proper to add that, during the sojourn of the committee in 
 Richmond, we were met by delegates from other counties, whose 
 people, having heard of the action taken by the people of Augusta, 
 had hastened to hold similar meetings and select committees to co- 
 operate with us. 
 
 We also learned from the newspapers that the people of counties 
 and cities of other Southern States were making movements of a 
 similar character and with the same end in view. 
 
 It will thus be seen that the first organized popular movement for 
 
14 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 peace and the restoration of Virginia to the Federal Union was made 
 by the people of Augusta in their great mass-meeting, on the 8th of 
 May, 1865. 
 
 Results proved that the meeting was not only a bold but a wise and 
 judicious movement. It dispelled many popular delusions caused by 
 the over-confidence of the Confederate authorities. It uncovered 
 the nakedness of the Confederate cause. It awakened public thought 
 and gave a new direction to public opinion. It illustrated the genius 
 of our institutions by a majestic exhibition of popular sovereignty. 
 When politicians faltered and were at a loss what course to take, the 
 people quietly took the reins of government from, their hands and 
 acted for themselves. Under their guidance hostilities ceased and 
 social order was re-established. And thus the extraordinary specta- 
 cle was presented to the world of a fierce and bloody war of four 
 years' duration being substantially closed by the direct action of the 
 people themselves, without the intervention of any of the forms of 
 diplomacy. And there is good reason to believe that but for the 
 atrocious murder of President Lincoln, and the exasperated feeling 
 caused by it, the terms of permanent and satisfactory peace could 
 have been adjusted at an early day. That deplorable event, and the 
 subsequent quarrels between Congress and President Johnson, ren- 
 dered it impossible to make any further movement for restoration 
 during his ill-starred administration. 
 
 It may be fairly inferred from the following letter, which was 
 addressed to me by Governor William Smith, dated 27th of February, 
 1880, that in the light of subsequent events he had seen cause to 
 change his opinion as to the wisdom of the meeting of the people of 
 Augusta on the 8th of May, 1865. He wrote as follows : 
 
 Warrenton, February 27, 18S0. 
 Hon. A. H. H. Stuart: 
 
 My Dear Sir,— 1 have your very satisfactory favor of the 25th instant, 
 but am sorry to have again to trouble you, but I should be very glad to 
 have a copy of the proceedings of your meeting of the 8th of May, 1865, as 
 I may wish to publish it. 
 
 When I left Richmond the night of 2d of April, 1865, it was with the firm 
 resolve to do everything in my power still to change the current of our dis- 
 asters. With that view, I declined President Davis's invitation to accom- 
 pany him the night of the evacuation. With that view, I ordered the Capitol 
 officers, the Public Guard, and the State Cadets to report to me in Lynch- 
 burg, etc. And when they failed to do so, it was with this view that I 
 followed President Davis to Greensboro. North Carolina, to obtain from 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 15 
 
 him a transfer to me of all his authority, etc., in Virginia. And when, 
 most strangely, after a full explanation of my plans and purposes, he refused 
 my request, it was still with the same view, desperate as was the prospect, 
 that I felt it to be my duty to collect public sentiment in every way I could, 
 traveling many a weary mile, and finally reaching your town on the 7th May, 
 1865, the time you state, and no doubt correctly, to know if the people 
 were willing, in any form, to prosecute the war or quietly submit. I soon 
 inferred from what passed during the evening I was with you and friends 
 that your great county was hopeless, and that all further struggles were 
 useless, etc. Now, I want your proceedings of the next day, because they 
 were the first embodiment of such sentiments by so important a portion of 
 the people, etc. 
 I shall be glad to get your educational report. 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 William Smith. 
 
 This closes my narrative of the events of 1865. It shows what 
 had been done toward restoration. The war had ceased, and the 
 rights of person and property were comparatively safe. Anarchy 
 had been averted. But much still remained to be done to secure the 
 full measure of the civil and political rights of Virginia as one of the 
 members of the Federal Union. The time for action on this subject, 
 however, had not yet come. Prudence admonished the people to 
 wait patiently, to watch vigilantly the development of events, and to 
 seize promptly and boldly the first opportunity for action that offered 
 a chance of success. AH knew that while a great and good work 
 had been done in re-establishing peace and social order, a much 
 more important one — the restoration of Virginia to her rights in the 
 Union — remained to be accomplished at a later day. 
 
 The foregoing narrative may properly be regarded as the first 
 chapter in the history of the efforts of Virginia to accomplish her 
 restoration to her position and rights in the Union. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 I proceed now to give a narrative of subsequent events, so far as I 
 vi^as an active participator in or a vigilant observer of them. This 
 will be more directly responsive to the resolution of the Virginia 
 Historical Society, and may be called the second chapter. 
 
 It would be foreign to the purposes of this paper to refer to all the 
 important events which marked the progress of Virginia from 1865 
 
16 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 to 1868. They belong to the general history of the Commonwealth, 
 and are as well known to the public as to myself. 
 
 It is sufficient for my purpose to advert to a few of them, which 
 have a direct relation to the subject of this narrative. 
 
 In 1865, after Peirpoint had been installed as Governor of Vir- 
 ginia, elections of members of the Senate and House of Delegates 
 of Virginia and of members of the House of Representatives of the 
 United States were ordered, with the sanction of President Andrew 
 Johnson. At this Congressional election I was chosen to represent 
 the district in which I resided in the House of Representatives of 
 the United States. 
 
 On the day appointed for the commencement of the session of 
 Congress, the Representatives who had been elected by the Southern 
 States, after seeing that their certificates of election were in due 
 form and properly authenticated and filed in the office of the clerk 
 of the House of Representatives, took their seats in the hall. But 
 on the formal roll-call, preliminary to the administration of the oath 
 of office to members, it was found that the clerk had failed to enter 
 the name of any Southern nietnber on it. By what authority this 
 outrage on the constitutional rights of the Southern members was 
 perpetrated I do not know. That it was in violation of the Consti- 
 tution, is obvious from the fact that the Constitutio)i itself specifically 
 enumerates and defines the requisites for eligibility of members, and 
 Congress has no constitutional power to add to or take from, to 
 enlarge or curtail, qualifications thus fixed by the Constitution itself. 
 We were not permitted to be heard in defence of our rights, and by 
 this lawless device we were quietly evicted from our seats ! That 
 this act was a gross usurpation of power, not warranted by the 
 Constitution, was at a later day substantially admitted by leading 
 members of Congress, when they acknowledged that they had been 
 acting outside the limits of the Constitution ! 
 
 I refer to this fact as one which tended largely to retard the 
 growth of fraternal feeling between the Northern and Southern 
 people and to reopen the wounds of the war, which, under the 
 soothing influences of time, had begun to heal. 
 
 It is also necessary to state that provision had been made by the 
 military authorities of "District No. i" (as Virginia was then 
 called) for the election, in October, 1867, of members of a conven- 
 tion to frame a new Constitution for the State. It was provided 
 that this convention should assemble in Richmond on the 3d of 
 December, 1867; but there were such stringent restrictions imposed 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 17 
 
 on eligibility of members that much the larger number of the men 
 of intelligence, education, and experience in public affairs were 
 effectually excluded from participation in its deliberations. 
 
 The convention was mainly composed of ignorant and excited 
 negroes, led by greedy adventurers from the North, popularly known 
 as " carpet-baggers," and a few recreant natives, who were desig- 
 nated "scallawags." To this hideous majority were opposed a small 
 minority of the better class of citizens, generally young men, who, 
 not having held any public office before the war, were not disfran- 
 chised by the Congressional iron-clad test oath. 
 
 These young men fought a good fight in defence of the rights and 
 interests of the people of Virginia, but found themselves powerless 
 to resist the torrent of malignity and radicalism which swept every- 
 thing before it. 
 
 The convention remained in session from 3d December, 1867, to 
 the 24th April, 1868. 
 
 The result of the labors of such a body of men could readily be 
 anticipated. It was the formation and recommendation of a Consti- 
 tution at war with every principle of civil liberty, bristling with test 
 oaths and disfranchisements and other enormities, and containing 
 provisions artfully and insidiously worded, so as not only to throw 
 the whole political power of the State into the hands of the most 
 ignorant classes of her people, but to render practicable the virtual 
 confiscation, by the agency of corrupt judges and ignorant and 
 prejudiced and interested juries, of the estate of every one who had 
 ever been a slaveholder ! Under this Constitution it was provided 
 that no man who could not take the Congressional test oath could be 
 allowed to vote at any public election, or be eligible to any public 
 office, or be allowed to serve on any jury ! Fortunately, the act of 
 Congress, which allowed the convention to be held, provided that the 
 Constitution which it might form should be reported to Congress for 
 its approval before it could be submitted to popular vote for ratifica- 
 tion or rejection. 
 
 The publication of this monstrous document filled the public 
 mind with horror and dismay. The only rational hope of defeating 
 its adoption, lay in an effort to induce Congress to withhold its 
 approval. But, as Virginia was then without representation in Con- 
 gress, she had no accredited agent whose duty and privilege it 
 would be to expose its enormities and demand its modification or 
 rejection. Although this fact was well known to every man of ordi- 
 nary intelligence, when the Constitution was transmitted to Congress 
 
18 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 for approval or disapproval, not a voice was heard from Virginia in 
 the u^ay of protest or objection. Everybody remained quiescent, 
 either in the belief that "what was everybody's business was no- 
 body's business," or in the delusive hope that some Northern mem- 
 ber of Congress would volunteer to examine, critically, the volumi- 
 nous instrument and point out the grounds of objection to it. I 
 remember when, at a later day, I was in Washington, I met Mr. 
 James Brooks, of New York, then a leading Conservative member 
 of the House of Representatives, and inquired of him how it hap- 
 pened that such a monstrous instrument could have received the 
 approval of the House? His reply was, that very few members 
 knew anything about it. It was reported to the House by the 
 appropriate committee as the work of a convention of Virginia, and 
 as no one from Virginia had even suggested an objection to it, it 
 was presumed to be satisfactory to everybody, and passed as a 
 matter of course. He closed by the pertinent inquiry, " If the 
 people of Virginia will not attend to their own interests, how can 
 they expect other people to do so for them?" 
 
 I was a vigilant observer of the progress of events at Washington, 
 and had written to a friend in Richmond, urging him to call on one 
 of the organized political committees in that city and get them to 
 formulate a protest against the approval of the Constitution by the 
 House of Representatives. His reply was, that he had done so, and 
 that the answer was that the committees thought they had no juris- 
 diction over the subject, and declined to take any action in the 
 matter. 
 
 It thus happened that by default of the people of Virginia, the bill 
 approving the proposed Constitution of Virginia (popularly called 
 the Underwood Constitution) was allowed to pass the House of 
 Representatives, and be sent to the Senate for its concurrence, with- 
 out a whisper of opposition ! 
 
 Shortly thereafter, Congress passed a joint resolution for the usual 
 Christmas recess, to commence about the 21st of December, 1868, and 
 lo continue to the 4th of January, 1869. This action gave us a respite of 
 about a fortnight, as it was hardly probable the Senate would act on the 
 bill before the commencement of the recess. I have not access to the 
 journals of Congress, and therefore I cannot give with certainty the 
 dates of either of these events. 
 
 It was evident that unless some measure was adopted within the 
 ensuing fortnight to arrest the passage of the bill by the Senate, the 
 Underwood Constitution would be permanently fastened on Virginia. 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 19 
 
 I had looked in vain to the Richmond press for some movement to 
 organize opposition to its passage. But apathy seemed to pervade 
 the State, and everybody remained quiescent. Thus the strange 
 spectacle was presented to the country of a high-spirited people, 
 who in 1861 had promptly rushed to arms to encounter all the dan- 
 gers and horrors of civil war, in defence of their rights against a 
 remote and contingent danger, yet now, when a disaster tenfold 
 greater in degree, actually present and certain, was immediately 
 impending, failed to raise voice or arm to ward off the unspeakable 
 calamity ! 
 
 I have no doubt that hundreds — nay, thousands — of my fellow- 
 citizens thought and felt as I did as to the necessity of taking action 
 on the subject. But no one seemed to be willing to assume the 
 responsibility of taking the lead ! 
 
 Under these circumstances, as the necessity for moving in the 
 matter was urgent, and the time within which action likely to lead 
 to a successful result was limited to two weeks, I determined to 
 sound a note of alarm by calling the attention of the people of Vir- 
 ginia to the frightful dangers which threatened them, and urging 
 those who thought as I did to unite in an organized attempt to avert 
 them. 
 
 With this object in view, I wrote " a communication," over the 
 signature "Senex," intended for publication in the Richmond 
 Dispatch. This paper was written entirely on my own responsi- 
 bility, and without conference or consultation with any one. My 
 purpose was to try and arouse the people to the necessity of imme- 
 diate action, and to suggest as the most feasible, if not the oyily, 
 means of obtaining relief from the disfranchisements and test oaths 
 embodied in the Underwood Constitution, the tender to Congress 
 on behalf of Virginia of a compromise, on the basis of tmiversal 
 suffrage as an equivalent for universal am^iesiy. 
 
 After the close of the Presidential and Congressional elections of 
 November, 1868, it became manifest to all thoughtful men that 
 universal suffrage was a foregone conclusion in the Northern mind. 
 It was as inevitable as any decree of fate. The Northern States had 
 the political as well as the physical power to enforce it. Nor had 
 they left any doubt as to their fixed purpose to exercise that power, 
 for they had incorporated it as a cardinal feature of the future policy 
 of the Republican party. 
 
 If, therefore, we could secure as an equivalent for it relief from 
 the disfranchisements and test oaths, which would make slaves of us 
 
20 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 for a generation to come, it would be so much substantial gain for a 
 merely nominal concession ! 
 
 I knew full well, however, that in the condition of public opinion 
 which then existed in Virginia, in regard to granting the right of 
 suffrage to the ignorant negroes, the simple announcement of the 
 proposed basis of compromise would arouse a storm of fierce indig- 
 nation throughout the State, and draw down on him who had the 
 hardihood to suggest it a torrent of denunciation and obloquy which 
 few men have been called on to endure ! 
 
 The sequel proved that I was not mistaken in this respect. The 
 people were not prepared to reason calmly on the subject. The 
 sacrifice they were required to make was hateful to them. For a 
 time, passion and prejudice exercised unlimited sway over the popu- 
 lar mind, and no inconsiderable portion of the public press. Six 
 months elapsed before the sober reason and common sense of the 
 people enabled them to look at the other side of the question, and to 
 comprehend the incalculable advantages which they had secured to 
 themselves by yielding gracefully to what was inevitable ! 
 
 The article, "Senex," was in the following words : 
 
 To the Editors of the Dispatch : 
 
 The present unhappy condition of Virginia, and the gloomy pros- 
 pects which seem to lie before us, naturally fill every thoughtful mind with 
 painful apprehension. Should the Constitution recommended by the recent 
 convention be ratified, or be reported to Congress as ratified by the popu- 
 lar vote, the condition of the Commonwealth will be simply intolerable. 
 Almost every man worthy of public trust will be disfranchised, not only as 
 to office, but in regard to suffrage ; and the political power of the State will 
 pass into the hands of strangers and adventurers. The property of the 
 country will be at the mercy of those who pay little or no portion of the 
 taxes, and we shall be plundered at the will of those who come among us 
 to obtain office and gratify their greed for spoils. 
 
 It requires much prudence on the part of the people of Virginia, and the 
 sacrifice of many cherished opinions, to avert these direful calamities. The 
 question is now forced upon us to decide, not what we would desire — not 
 what we are willing to take— but what we shall be allowed to retain. 
 
 We have already made many and painful sacrifices. We have sanctioned 
 by our votes the constitutional amendment which abolished slavery, and we 
 have shaped our legislation so as to accord with the provisions of that 
 amendment. 
 
 These measures were exceedingly distasteful to most of our people, 
 and many thought at the time they would be fatal to the prosperity of the 
 State. But in large portions of the Commonwealth, if not throughout its 
 whole extent, it has been found that the results have not been so disastrous 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 21 
 
 as was anticipated. In some districts, in which there was not an over pro- 
 portion of blacks, the change has proved beneficial ; and the writer of this 
 paper has heard many who had been slaveholders say that they would be 
 unwilling to restore slavery if it were in their power to do so. As immigra- 
 tion flows into the State, this opinion will become more general, and when 
 our political troubles are finally settled, it will prove to be almost universal. 
 
 But the point to which I now wish to draw public attention is, what fur- 
 ther sacrifices of opinions and prejudices are necessary to render those 
 which we have already made productive of good fruit, and to secure to our- 
 selves and our families exemption from the evils to which I have adverted? 
 As matters now stand, we have great reason to apprehend that the ballot- 
 boxes will be so manipulated at the coming election as to fasten the pro- 
 posed Constitution, with all its odious features of disfranchisement and 
 burdensome taxation, upon us. We are naturally led, then, to inquire, 
 how can this bitter cup be turned away from our lips ? 
 
 There is one point on which Northern sentiment, or, as the politicians 
 and the press of the North are pleased to call it, "the national will," seems 
 to be fixed and irreversible ; and that is, that universal suffrage, without 
 distinction of race or color, shall be forced on us. They maintain that 
 negro suffrage is a legitimate, " if not a necessary sequence " of negro 
 emancipation. Judge Chase and the more conservative Republicans hold 
 this opinion, and urge us to adopt it as the means of avoiding greater evils. 
 This proposition is exceedingly unpalatable to the people of the South. 
 We know that the negroes are not qualified to exercise the elective fran- 
 chise, and that they would be unsafe depositaries of political power. But 
 how are we to help ourselves ? We are powerless to resist by arms, and the 
 recent national elections have shown that we are equally powerless at the 
 ballot-box. 
 
 There is an old adage that " half a loaf is better than no bread," and I 
 would respectfully ask, is not ours a case for the application of that propo- 
 sition? Is it not better to surrender half than to lose all? Is it not better 
 to take universal suffrage, with an exemption from disfranchisement and 
 the other evils to which I have alluded, than to have them all forced upon 
 us ? After grievous travail of spirit, I have come to the conclusion that 
 such is the dictate of prudence and common sense. 
 
 The Southern mind is naturally sensitive in regard to everything like 
 negro equality. We cannot forget that they were recently our slaves, nor 
 can we dismiss from our minds the conviction that they are naturally infe- 
 rior to the white race, and the knowledge that they are uneducated and 
 ignorant of the first principles of government. Every step, therefore, in 
 the direction of that equality has been taken reluctantly and with many 
 misgivings. When it was proposed to introduce negroes as witnesses, the 
 public mind of Virginia was not prepared for the proposition. At first, their 
 admissibility was limited by law to cases in which a negro was a party. 
 Afterwards the restriction was removed, and they became lawful, competent 
 witnesses in all cases, and, as far as I have heard, no mischief has resulted. 
 Their testimony is received and weighed like that of other men. But 
 competency does not necessarily imply credibility. Their testimony is 
 
22 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 believed or disbelieved in proportion to the character of the witness and 
 the intrinsic probability of his evidence. 
 
 We now look with extreme aversion on negro suffrage. It is natural we 
 should do so for reasons already stated. But may we not find upon actual 
 experiment, as in the case of negro testimony, that it is not such a bad thing 
 as we have been accustomed to believe ? 
 
 The inherent inferiority of the race, and their want of education and 
 property, will necessarily place them in a position of subordination to the 
 superior race. This has been found to be the case in Mississippi, Georgia 
 and Louisiana. Knowledge is power. Property is power. Would it not, 
 therefore, be strange if the superior intelligence and accumulated property 
 of the superior race should not exercise a controlling influence over the 
 ignorance and penury of the inferior? It seems to me a contrary appre- 
 hension must be ill-founded, because it is opposed to reason and human 
 experience. 
 
 Will it not, therefore, be wise for the people of Virginia to make up their 
 minds to come up at once to the proposition of Judge Chase and the New 
 York Tribune — " Universal suffrage and universal amnesty " ? Better that 
 than ^^ universal suffrage and universal disfranchisement." 
 
 Matters may not work altogether smoothly for a time. We may have 
 some trouble in portions of the State, but it will be temporary. The influx 
 of whites from abroad, and the efllux of blacks from the State, will soon 
 establish Caucasian preponderance on a firm basis. 
 
 What we want is peace. We want these troublesome questions settled, 
 so that the tide of immigration may flow into Virginia. As long as we are 
 in our present abnormal condition immigrants will not come among us, 
 because they do not know what to expect in the future. Let these ques- 
 tions be settled — it matters not how — and population and capital will flow 
 in an unbroken stream into all parts of our State, building up our cities, 
 opening our mines, buying and improving our land, constructing new rail- 
 ways and canals, and giving vigor and activity to our industrial interests. 
 
 Thousands are now anxiously awaiting this settlement. Let us throw no 
 farther obstacles in the way. Let us say to the conservative Republicans, 
 we accede to your proposition. Let us respond to General Grant's demand 
 for peace. When peace is restored, and the Southern States are again 
 represented in Congress by men who will truly reflect their sentiments, we 
 can have a word to say in regard to the future policy of the country. It 
 seems to me obvious that by this course we must gain something, and can- 
 not lose anything. 
 
 And now for the mode of carrying these ideas into practical effect. This 
 is a subject by no means free from difficulty, and the time for action is short. 
 We cannot get up another convention to form a new Constitution. But a 
 Constitution derives its validity, not from the body which frames and 
 proposes it, but from its ratification by the votes of the people. If the 
 Legislature of a State were to instruct the Court of Appeals, instead of a 
 convention, to frame a Constitution to be voted on by the people, it would 
 be competent for them to do so ; and such a Constitution, if ratified by the 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 23 
 
 popular vote, would be just as valid and obligatory as if the same had been 
 framed by a convention assembled in the usual form. 
 
 To avoid unnecessary delay, let the Executive Committee, in the interval 
 between the present time and the ist of February, take the Constitution of 
 1850 and the proposed Constitution of i86r, and from the two select the 
 better provisions, omitting the word "white" and all other provisions that 
 would be in conflict with "universal suffrage and universal amnesty," and 
 thus frame a complete Constitution. 
 
 Let us, then, avail ourselves of this idea. Let the Central Conservative 
 Committee call together, say two gentlemen of approved wisdom and 
 integrity from each Congressional district, to meet that committee in Rich- 
 mond about the first of February, to agree upon a Constitution for Virginia, 
 to be submitted to Congress as a substitute for that recommended by the 
 late convention. Let this Constitution embody the universal suffrage and 
 universal amnesty proposition in its broadest terms, and negro eligibility to 
 boot! 
 
 On the ist of February the E.xecutive Committee and their adjunct 
 advisers could come together, and, by limiting discussion to five minutes 
 on each proposition, they could revise the work of the committee and 
 perfect a Constitution in three or four days to be presented to Congress 
 as a substitute for the Constitution which has already elicited such strong 
 censure from the New York Times and other Northern papers. 
 
 May I ask, Mr. Editor, that you will give this proposition your calm 
 consideration, and, if you approve, that you will extend to it the support of 
 your vigorous pen and invoke the aid of the press of the State ? 
 
 It seems to me that this will be the easiest and the shortest way of getting 
 out of our present unhappy difficulties. 
 
 Senex. 
 
 This article, " Senex," was written on the evening of 19th Decem- 
 ber, 1868, and was not finished until 11 o'clock at night. As the 
 mail left Staunton for Richmond at a very early hour next morning, 
 I apprehended some difficulty in having it mailed in time for the first 
 train. Being anxious to have it published as promptly as practicable, 
 so as to afford as much time as possible to the people to consider a 
 question of so much gravity and importance. I enclosed it irv an 
 unsealed envelope, directed to "The Editors of the Dispatch'' and 
 at sunrise next morning carried it to the railroad station, intending 
 to mail it on the train, unless I could find some person going to 
 Richmond, to whom I could safely entrust it for delivery to the 
 Dispatch, with an earnest request for its publication. 
 
 Fortunately, I found my friend General John Echols on the plat- 
 form, about to take the train for Richmond. I then explained to 
 him the object of my early visit, and delivered to him the envelope, 
 telling him that it contained " a communication " to the Dispatch on 
 
24 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 a subject of a momentous character, which I wished to have pub- 
 Hshed as promptly as possible. I added that I did not know what 
 he might think of it, but that I hoped he would approve it, and at 
 the proper time would unite with me in carrying it into effect. I 
 begged him, when he took his seat on the cars, to read it carefully 
 and give me his aid in securing its prompt publication, which he 
 promised to do. My hope was that it would be published in the 
 Dispatch of Tuesday, the 2ist of December, 1868, or in any event 
 on Wednesday, 22d. I also said to General Echols that if any 
 enquiry were made why I did not attach my own name io it, a7id 
 the7'eby asstime the responsibility of its authorship, I authorized him 
 to say, on my behalf, that I was restrained from doing so solely by 
 the consideration that I feared some persons might think me guilty 
 of vanity in assuming that my name would add anything to the 
 intrinsic weight of the sentiments expressed in the communication. 
 But, if the editors desired to indicate who was the responsible atdhor 
 of it, they were at liberty to refer to me in any way thev might think 
 proper as bearing that relation to it. The General then took his 
 departure on the train, carrying the paper with him. 
 
 The communication not having appeared in the Dispatch of Tues- 
 day or Wednesday, I naturally inferred that there was an unwillingness 
 on the part of the editors to publish it at all. 
 
 General Echols returned to Staunton by the night train of Wed- 
 nesday, the 23d. When I met him next morning he informed me 
 that he had read my "communication" with much interest, and, 
 cordially approving it, he had taken the liberty of reading it to seve- 
 ral friends whom he met on the train, who also approved it. When 
 he arrived at the Exchange Hotel, he was gratified to find that 
 Colonel W. T. Sutherlin, of Danville, was one of the guests. Having 
 confidence in his good sense and sound judgment, he sought an 
 early opportunity to read to him my paper and invite his co-opera- 
 tion in the movement proposed, which Colonel Sutherlin promptly 
 promised to give. The paper was then taken by General Echols to 
 the editors of the Dispatch, who, after reading it, made some objec- 
 tion to publishing it in their paper, on the ground that public opinion 
 was not prepared to entertain the propositions contained in it, and 
 asked why I had not signed my name to it? In reply to this inquiry, 
 General Echols stated the reasons which had restrained me from 
 signing it, but informed him that I was willing that the editors 
 should refer to me as the author of the communication and responsi- 
 ble for its contents. 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 25 
 
 To this proposition no definite answer was given, and the objec- 
 tions of the editor did not seem to be removed by it. Being thus 
 discouraged, General Echols took the communication to the office of 
 the Whig- for publication, but was met with similar objections to 
 those made at the office of the Dispatch, and a like answer was given 
 to the enquiry, why I had not signed my name to the paper. The 
 result was a polite refusal to publish it. It was then submitted to the 
 editor of the Enquirer, who at once, and emphatically, declined to 
 publish it under any circumstances. On his return to the hotel. 
 General Echols reported the result of his mission to Colonel Suther- 
 lin, who readily volunteered to go with him, after supper, to see Mr. 
 Alexander Mosely, then editor of the Whig, at his private residence 
 and try to overcome his objections to publishing the communication. 
 They accordingly went to Mr. Mosely' s, and had an interview with 
 him, in which, after some discussion, it was finally agreed that Mr. 
 Mosely would publish it in the Whig on three conditions : ist, that I 
 should be referred to as the author ; 2d, that the editor should not be 
 held committed to support the propositions contained inthe paper ; 
 and 3d, that the Dispatch should agree to publish it simultaneously 
 under like conditions.* 
 
 The Dispatch having consented to this arrangement, the publication 
 was made in both papers on the 25th of December, 1868, indicating 
 me, unmistakably, as the author. 
 
 After my communication had been sent to Richmond, as above 
 stated, and while the publication of it was in suspense, I held confer- 
 ences with several leading citizens of Staunton, informing them of the 
 contents of the paper I had written, and urging them to unite with me 
 in organizing opposition to the passage by the Senate of the bill 
 which had been sent to it by the House of Representatives, 
 
 Among the most prominent were Thomas J. Michie, Esq., Judge 
 H. W. Sheft'ey, Nicholas K. Trout, Esq., Major H. M. Bell, R. H. Cat- 
 let, and others. Colonel John B. Baldwin, who always took an active 
 part in all matters affecting public affairs, was at that time in Washing- 
 ton attending to professional business in the Supreme Court of the 
 United States, and therefore I could not consult with him. 
 
 *The foregoing statements as to the publication of the article, "Senex," was 
 submitted to General John Echols, who writes, loth December, 1887, to the 
 author: " I think that you have stated, at least with substantial accuracy, 
 the manner in which the article, 'Senex,' came to be published, and the 
 connection which I, as your friend and agent, had therewith." 
 
26 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 On Friday, the 25th of December, 1868, these gentlemen met by 
 appointment at my office in Staunton, for the purpose of considering 
 the best means of promoting the object we had in view. General 
 Echols and Colonel John B. Baldwin (who had meanwhile returned 
 to Staunton) were also present at that meeting. The whole subject 
 was fully discussed and considered in all its bearings, and all con- 
 curred in the necessity of securing the co-operation of gentlemen of 
 intelligence and weight of character in all parts of the State. All 
 felt that the necessity for action was urgent, as the time for taking it 
 (little more than a fortnight) was very limited. We therefore agreed 
 forthwith to issue invitations to prominent gentlemen in all parts of 
 the State to meet us in Richmond on 31st of December, 1868, to 
 confer and decide what measures should be adopted to rescue the 
 State from the dangers which threatened her. The form of the 
 invitation was then prepared, and the names of all the gentlemen 
 present were attached to it, with the exception of that of Judge Sheffey> 
 which (though he was in full accord with us and willing to sign it), 
 we thought had better be omitted, as he then occupied the position of 
 judge of our Circuit Court. The paper was, without delay, sent to 
 the office of the Spectator to be printed. In a short time the work 
 was executed, and more than a hundred copies were returned to us. 
 These were promptly placed in envelopes, directed and mailed to 
 leading men, who we thought would probably be disposed to co-ope- 
 rate with us. 
 
 On the 30th of December, Mr. T. J. Michie, General Echols, Major 
 H. M. Bell, N. K. Trout, and myself, went to Richmond to attend 
 the meeting. Colonel J. B. Baldwin did not accompany us, partly, as 
 I believed, from the urgency of professional business which had 
 accumulated in his office during his absence at Washington, and 
 partly because of doubts which had arisen in his mind whether public 
 opinion was prepared to entertain so bold a proposition. 
 
 We were met in Richmond by a number of the gentlemen who 
 had been invited to join us in conference, and by a number of others 
 to whom formal invitations had not been sent, but who had heard of 
 and sympathized with the objects of the meeting, and others who 
 were attracted by curiosity to know what we proposed to do. The 
 whole subject, in all its aspects, was the subject of earnest conversa- 
 tion in the halls and public rooms of the hotel during the evening of 
 our arrival and the forenoon of the following day. 
 
 Colonel Carrington, the proprietor of the Exchange Hotel, having 
 kindly tendered us the use of a large room in his hotel, known as the 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 27 
 
 "Concert Hall," for our meetings, we assembled in it at noon on 31st 
 of December, 1868. An organization was effected by calling me to 
 the chair, and the appointment of Mr. C. C. McRae, of Chesterfield, 
 as secretary. 
 
 I do not deem it necessary to say anything in regard to the pro- 
 ceedings of the meeting. A full and accurate record was kept of them 
 at the time by the secretary, and was incorporated in his journal, 
 which he sent to me, and is in my possession, and which is herewith 
 presented as part of this narrative. 
 
 The following is a copy of it: 
 
 A meeting of citizens from different portions of the State of Virginia, 
 convened at the Exchange Hotel, in the city of Richmond, on the 31st day 
 of December, 1868, for the purpose of consultation in regard to matters 
 explained in the narrative of their proceedings hereinafter supplied, was 
 organized by inviting the Hon. A. H. H. Stuart to the chair, and by the 
 appointment of C. C. McRae as secretary. 
 
 Mr. Stuart, on taking the chair, explained the objects for which the meet- 
 ing was held, and the circumstances under and the manner in which it 
 originated. 
 
 After considerable discussion, in which a large number of the meeting 
 participated, and in which much harmony of feeling and views was dis- 
 played, it was determined that a committee of eight in number (of which 
 the Hon. A. H. H. Stuart was made chairman by the meeting) should be 
 appointed, charged with the duty of deliberating and reporting in regard 
 to suitable business for the consideration of the meeting. 
 
 The Chair being requested to appoint the remaining members of the 
 committee, accordingly named Messrs. George W. Boiling, of Petersburg ; 
 Thomas S. Flournoy, of Halifax; John L. Marye, Jr., of Fredericksburg; 
 D. C. Dejarnette, of Caroline ; Frank G. RufKn, of Chesterfield ; B. H, 
 McGruder, of Albemarle; and James Johnston, of Bedford. 
 
 Whereupon, the meeting adjourned to convene on the ensuing evening at 
 the same place. 
 
 According to the order of adjournment, the meeting again assem- 
 bled on January ist, 1869, when the committee appointed at the former 
 session, through its chairman, submitted a report; the distinct features of 
 which, being separately considered and acted on as a whole, after elaborate 
 discussion was finally approved, with some modifications introduced by the 
 action of the meeting by a vote nearly unanimous, only two gentlemen who 
 participated in the meeting expressing unwillingness to concur in its final 
 action. The names of several other gentlemen, who acted with the meet- 
 ing, would doubtless have been added had they been present at the time of 
 adjournment. 
 
 In the progress of the meeting, the following proceedings occurred : It 
 was resolved that the Hon. Alexander H. H. Stuart be requested to serve 
 as chairman of the committee of nine persons to be appointed to visit 
 
 v 
 
28 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 Washington for the purpose indicated in another part of the proceedings, 
 and that the Chair be requested to appoint a committee of three, to recom- 
 mend for the consideration of the meeting the names of eight other gentle- 
 men who, with the chairman, shall constitute the delegation referred to. 
 
 In accordance with the foregoing resolution, the Chair named Messrs. 
 John Echols, F. G. Ruffin and James D. Johnston as the committee; who, 
 after short retirement, reported, recommending as the delegation, in addition 
 to the Hon. A. H. H. Stuart as chairman, Messrs. John L. Marye, Jr., of Fred- 
 ericksburg; James F. Johnston, of Bedford; W. T. Sutherlin, of Danville; 
 Wyndham Robertson, of Washington county; W. L. Owen, of Halifax; 
 John B. Baldwin, of Augusta; James Neeson, of Richmond, and J. F. 
 Slaughter, of Lynchburg. 
 
 The question being put on the recommendation of the committee, the 
 same was unanimously approved. 
 
 It was resolved that the press of the city of Richmond be requested to 
 publish these proceedings ; and, on motion, the meeting adjourned. 
 
 C. C. McRae, Secretary. 
 
 The following is the report of the committee referred to, as modi- 
 fied by the meeting, with signatures thereto : 
 
 The undersigned, residents of different parts of Virginia, having, upon 
 invitation of some of their own number, assembled in Richmond for the 
 purpose of holding a conference in regard to the present imperilled condition 
 of the Commonwealth, after a full interchange of opinions, have come to the 
 following conclusions, which they respectfully submit to the calm and patriotic 
 judgment of their countrymen : 
 
 1. While the convictions of the undersigned and, as they believe, of the 
 people of Virginia generally remain unchanged, that the freedmen of the 
 Southern States, in their present uneducated condition, are not prepared for 
 the intelligent exercise of the elective franchise and the performance of 
 other duties connected with public affairs, and are, therefore, at this time, 
 unsafe depositaries of political power. Yet, in view of the verdict of public 
 opinion in favor of their being allowed to exercise the right of suffrage as 
 expressed in the recent elections, the undersigned are prepared, and they 
 believe the majority of the people of Virginia are prepared, to surrender 
 their opposition to its incorporation into their fundamental law as an offering 
 on the altar of peace, and in the hope that union and harmony may be 
 restored on the basis of universal suffrage and universal amnesty. 
 
 2. To give effect to this purpose, and to spare no effort to effect a speedy 
 and permanent restoration of union and harmonious relations between the 
 portions of our country which have for some years past been alienated, 'the 
 undersigned will appoint a Committee of Nine from different parts of the 
 State, and reflecting, as far as may be practicable, the public sentiment of 
 the State, whose duty it shall be at an early day to proceed to Washington 
 and be authorized to make known the views and purposes hereby declared 
 to the Congress of the United States, and to take such other measures as 
 they may think proper to aid in obtaining from that body such legislation 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 29 
 
 concerning the organic law of Virginia as Congress, in its wisdom, may 
 deem expedient and best under ail tiie circumstances. The delegation so 
 to be constituted may fill vacancies, and are authorized to enlarge their 
 number in their discretion. 
 
 3. The undersigned recommend to the people of Virginia, by primary meet- 
 ings, to appoint delegates to a popular convention, to be held in Richmond 
 on Wednesday, the loth day of February, 1869, to receive the report of the 
 committee appointed by this meeting, and to adopt such other measures as 
 may be deemed most expedient to promote the objects herein indicated. 
 
 [Signed] 
 
 Alex. H. H. Stuart, Augusta. J. D. Johnston, Giles. 
 
 Thomas Branch, Richmond. N. K. Trout, Staunton. 
 
 D. C. DeJarnette, Caroline. H. M. Bell, Staunton. 
 
 Thomas S. Flournoy, Halifax. John Echols, Staunton. 
 
 Wyndham Robertson, Washington. Matthew Harrison, Loudoun. 
 
 W. D. QuESENBERRY, Caroline. Frank G. Ruffin, Chesterfield. 
 
 B. H. Magruder, Albemarle. C. C. McRae, Chesterfield. 
 
 George W. Bolling. Petersburg. R. L. Walker, Chesterfield. 
 
 Asa D. Dickinson, Prince Edward. W. T. Sutherlin. Danville. 
 
 John L. Marye, Jr., Fredericksburg. J. L. Carrington, Richmond. 
 
 W. C. Knight, Richmond. W. E. Cameron, Petersburg. 
 
 Ro. Whitehead, Nelson. J. F.Johnson, Liberty. 
 
 J. F. Slaughter, Lynchburg. Thomas J. Michie, Staunton. 
 
 A. G. Pendleton, Giles. James Neeson, Richmond. 
 
 A correct copy, 
 
 C. C. McRae, Secretary. 
 
 After the adjournment of the meeting on the ist January, 1869, 
 most of the members attended the pubHc reception given by General 
 Stoneman, the Federal general then in command in Richmond. He 
 received them courteously, expressed sympathy with the objects of 
 their meeting and hoped that it might prove successful. 
 
 Before leaving Richmond, I issued a summons to my associates on 
 the " Committee of Nine " to assemble in Washington on the evening 
 of the 8th January, 1869. 
 
 On the 2d of January, 1869, I returned to my home in Staunton. 
 Within an hour or two after my arrival. Colonel Baldwin sent his ser- 
 vant to me with a request that I would let him know what we had 
 done at the meeting in Richmond. As I was fatigued by my journey 
 and, therefore, indisposed to write an account of our proceedings, I 
 drew from my pocket a rough draft of the report of the committee 
 of eight, of which I was chairman, and which, with a few immaterial 
 alterations, had been adopted by the meeting, and handed it to the 
 servant, with instructions to deliver it to Colonel Baldwin and say to 
 
30 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 him that it contained the substance of our action, and added that I 
 . would be obhged if Colonel Baldwin would return it to me as it was 
 the only copy I had. 
 
 In a few hours the servant returned with the paper, and wrapped 
 around it was the following note, written in pencil by the Colonel 
 himself in his own familiar handwriting, and the original of which is 
 filed with this narrative : 
 
 Dear Stuart : 
 
 I apprehend, from all I can learn from Bell, Trout and Echols, that 
 you found rather a slim showing of sympathy at Richmond, and I shall not 
 be surprised if you find the movement entirely tabooed before many days. 
 
 Our people seem to be in pretty much the same condition they were just 
 before the fall of the Confederacy. Everybody looked for it and believed it 
 was coming, and yet if any one dared to utter his thoughts he was set upon 
 and cuffed without mercy. 
 
 Our people now do not seem to be prepared to discuss, or even to con- 
 sider, any plan of dealing with the awful danger which threatens them, and 
 I very much fear they will be caught as the people of old were by the 
 deluge. 
 
 I am afraid of General Stoneman. They say he has no instructions from 
 Washington, and yet he goes on to kick and cuff our people as if he were a 
 very radical, aiming at political objects. Truly we are fallen on evil times 
 and I fear worse are coming. Yours truly, 
 
 John B. Baldwin. 
 Sat. night. 
 
 I have thought proper to publish this letter, not only to vindicate 
 the truth of history but to do justice to the memory of Colonel Bald- 
 win. We were closely connected by the triple bond of blood, mar- 
 riage and intimate personal friendship. His grandmother and my 
 mother were sisters. His eldest sister was my wife. I had 
 known him from his infancy, and when he commenced the practice of 
 law, I invited him to become my partner in business, a relationship 
 which continued for several years, and was terminated by mutual con- 
 sent when he had attained eminence at the bar and we thought the 
 interests of both would be promoted by a dissolution. We were in 
 the habit of conferring and interchanging opinions on almost every 
 public question that arose, and were generally in accord. Hence, we 
 rarely failed to act in concert. He was one of the purest and most 
 intellectual and bravest men, both physically and morally, I ever knew. 
 If he had been at home when I wrote the article, " Senex," I have no 
 doubt I would have conferred with him on the subject. But he was, 
 as has already been stated, absent in Washington on professional 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 31 
 
 business, and the date of his return was uncertain. I, therefore, 
 wrote the article, " Senex," in his absence and without his knowledge. 
 When he returned home, I was the first to make known to him what 
 I had done, but as the newspapers containing " Senex " had not then 
 been published he had had no opportunity of reading it. He con- 
 curred, generally, in the opinion that it was absolutely necessary to 
 take some measures to arrest the passage by the Senate of the bill 
 which had been passed by the House of Representatives, and, there- 
 fore, readily consented to attend the conference at my office on the 
 morning of the 25th of December, and united in the invitation to 
 other gentlemen to meet in Richmond on the 31st for consultation. 
 But he was in nowise committed to any specific measures of policy. 
 
 On mature consideration, but after some hesitation. Colonel Bald- 
 win finally decided to accept the position of member of "the Com- 
 mittee of Nine," to which he had been elected by the Richmond 
 meeting. Having thus for the first time identified himself with the 
 movement, he took hold of it with the grasp of a giant. He 
 promptly made himself master of all the facts bearing on the various 
 questions which were likely to come up for discussion before the 
 Congressional committees. I venture to say that no member of the 
 committee was so thoroughly equipped as he for the debates which 
 were anticipated. 
 
 He was then in the prime of vigorous manhood, having just com- 
 pleted his forty-eighth year. He possessed a broad, luminous and 
 well-cultivated intellect — powers of perception which, at times, vied 
 in speed and brilliancy of action with flashes of electricity; a sound 
 and clear judgment; masculine common sense, enlivened by ready 
 and sparkling wit; an ample command of language; a wonderful 
 power of elucidation by comparisons, which, though sometimes 
 quaint and homely, were always apt and instructive. He was also 
 thoroughly versed in the principles of constitutional law and popular 
 rights. 
 
 Nature had been equally lavish to him in her physical gifts — of a 
 large, well-proportioned and robust frame, and a massive head and 
 spacious brow, on the scale of Daniel Webster's. His features were 
 well-formed and expressive of every emotion. His voice, while not 
 always melodious, was clear, distinct and penetrating, and thus could 
 be heard by an audience of many thousands. His gesture, though 
 not specially graceful and flowing, was, under all circumstances, 
 striking and efifective, and his elocution and intonations peculiarly 
 
32 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 adapted to make the desired impression on the crowds who thronged 
 to hear him. 
 
 Knowing as I did that Colonel Baldwin possessed these great 
 powers, I should have regarded myself as singularly neglectful of 
 my duties as chairman of the Committee of Nine if I had failed 
 to make them available in defence of the rights and interests of 
 Virginia. 
 
 As chairman of the committee, it was my official duty to open the 
 conferences with the Senate and House committees at Washington, 
 by brief statements of the objects of our mission, and explanations 
 of the features of the Underwood Constitution to which we objected, 
 accompanied by some general remarks intended to present the mat- 
 ters in issue, and thus open the way for more full and thorough 
 discussion. Having done this, it was my habit to ask leave to 
 introduce Colonel Baldwin to present our views more at large. In 
 the propriety of this course I am sure I was sustained by the unani- 
 mous judgment of the committee. 
 
 In this way a most important and responsible duty was confided to 
 Colonel Baldwin, and I am sure every surviving member of the com- 
 mittee will bear willing testimony to the zeal, fidelity and ability with 
 which he discharged it. He was also the author of a very strong 
 paper, prepared at the request of the judiciary Committee of the 
 Senate, setting forth specifically and in detail the modifications of the 
 Underwood Constitution which we wished to have made. This paper 
 (which will be presently given) was signed by every member of the 
 committee and placed in the hands of the Senate committee. In this 
 way, Colonel Baldwin unquestionably became the most conspicuous 
 member of the committee. 
 
 Begging pardon for this digression, which seemed to be necessary 
 to correct misstatements which have been widely circulated, I resume 
 the thread of my narrative. 
 
 In the interval between the adjournment of the Richmond meeting, 
 on the 1st of January, 1869, and the assemblage of the " Committee 
 of Nine " in Washington on the 8th of the same month, I took several 
 steps intended to promote the success of our mission. The first of 
 these was to address a letter to Hon. Horace Greeley, editor of New 
 York Tribune, with whom I had, many years before, a pleasant per- 
 sonal acquaintance, informing him of the proceedings of the Rich- 
 mond meeting, and of the appointment of the " Committee of Nine " 
 to go to Washington and endeavor to secure a compromise of all our 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 33 
 
 difficulties on the basis of " universal suffrage and universal amnesty," 
 
 and asking him, if possible, to come to Washington and give us his 
 
 assistance in accomplishing it. I kept no copy of this letter, but its 
 
 purport can readily be inferred from Mr. Greeley's reply, which was 
 
 addressed to me at Washington, D. C. 
 
 The following is a copy of it, and the original will be filed with this 
 
 paper : 
 
 "New York Tribune," New York, January 8, /86g. 
 Dear Sir : 
 
 I cannot be in Washington soon, nor is it essential. I shall try to 
 make myself felt there without. I enclose my article on your mission, from 
 last Monday's Tribune, though I presume you have already seen it. 
 
 I beg you to confer directly with General Grant, and also with Senator 
 Stewart, of Nevada, who is all right. I wish you would call on Senator 
 Sumner, especially. He has faults of manner, not of purpose. 
 
 Yours, Horace Greeley. 
 
 Hon. A. H. H. Stuart. 
 
 I was induced to write to Mr. Greeley because I was satisfied that, 
 although he entertained many opinions in which I could not concur, 
 he was a man of kind heart and honest purposes, as well as a jour- 
 nalist of wonderful ability. 
 
 Mr. Greeley's letter, when read to the committee, gave us great 
 encouragement, and he faithfully fulfilled his promise "to make 
 himself felt" at Washington. His paper (the Tribune) contained, 
 from day to day, leading articles in support of the objects of our 
 mission, which had great effect in mollifying the prejudices and 
 moulding the sentiment of members of Congress. 
 
 A day or two before leaving home to meet the committee in 
 Washington, I received the following letter from Hon. John L. 
 Marye, of Fredericksburg, who was a member of the committee: 
 
 Fredericksburg, Wednesday, 6th Jan'y, iS68. 
 My Dear Sir : 
 
 For reasons which I feel assured you would deem adequate (when 
 stated to you) I am satisfied that our committee would be materially aided 
 by the presence and co-operation of Mr. George W. Boiling, of Petersburg. 
 I write to suggest that you write to him and request him to be at Washington 
 on Friday evening, and be ready to confer with us. 
 
 Mr. Boiling has very favorable access to and footing with General Scho- 
 field. The latter would cotmnunicate freely with Mr. B. 
 
 It is almost certain that all of our committee will not be in attendance, 
 and Mr. B. would be desirable as a substitute. 
 
 I have had no intercourse with Mr. B, since our conference at Richmond, 
 but am sure he would give us his help. 
 
 3 
 
34 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 I am informed through intelligent sources that there is a gentleman at 
 Norfolk, Mr. Gilbert C. Walker, who could help us in some of our needs 
 there. He is a Northern man, but a resident of Norfolk, largely and influen- 
 tially concerned in its commercial and financial affairs ; a man of integrity, 
 intelligence, experience m public tnatters, with most favorable personal rela- 
 tions and access to official personages, whose ear we should have. Mr. 
 Walker has been a decided, out-spoken foe to the Underwood Constitution, 
 and would act energetically and cordially in favor of our movement. I do 
 not propose that lie should be placed on the committee. But I am convinced 
 that it would be well for you, in writing to Mr. Boiling, to ask Mr. B. to write 
 to Mr. Walker at o?ice, and request (as coming from Mr. Boiling) that he 
 (Mr. W.) would be in Washington and extend his aid to us. I write it haste. 
 
 I am very truly yours, 
 
 Hon. A. H. H. Stuart. Jno. L. Marye. 
 
 On receiving tiiis letter, I promptly wrote to Mr. Boiling, inviting 
 him to meet the committee at Washington, and as I had no personal 
 acquaintance with Mr. Gilbert C. Walker, I requested Mr. Boiling 
 to give to Mr. Walker in my behalf a similar invitation. This I 
 presume he did, as both Mr. Boiling and Mr. Walker came promptly 
 to Washington, and announced their readiness to co-operate with 
 the committee. It was in this vyay that Mr. Walker first became 
 known to the people of Virginia and identified with her cause. 
 
 The first meeting of the committee was held at the National Hotel, 
 in Washington city, on the evening of the 8th of January, 1869. On 
 calling the roll, we were gratified to find that every member was 
 present. Our proceedings were informal, and no record of them, 
 in the form of a journal, was kept. All the members understood 
 clearly the obiects for which we had met, and the only matter which 
 required consideration and discussion was the best means of accom- 
 plishing them. Many suggestions were made, which became the 
 subject of conversation, and were adopted, modified or abandoned, 
 according to the wishes of the majority. There were some propo- 
 sitions, however, which received unanimous approval : ist. That the 
 committee should meet daily, or oftener, for conference and inter- 
 change of ideas and information ; 2d. That we should invite the 
 co-operation of Mr. Boiling, Mr. G. C. Walker, and his brother, Mr. 
 Jonas Walker, and of all citizens of Virginia, who might be in Wash- 
 ington, in promoting the work of the committee; 3d. That we would, 
 in a body, call on the President (Andrew Johnson) to pay our re- 
 spects, but that as the close of his term of office was so near at hand, 
 and his relations to Congress of such an unfriendly character, it would 
 be useless to ask assistance from him ; 4th. That we would, without 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 35 
 
 delay, seek an interview with General Grant, the President elect, ex- 
 plain to him fully the grievances of which we complained, and earnestly 
 invoke his aid in relieving us from them ; 5th. That the members of 
 the committee, individually, and the gentlemen who proposed to co- 
 operate with them, should proceed, without delay, to seek confer- 
 ences with the leading members of the two Houses of Congress, and 
 explain to them the objects of our mission, and impress upon them 
 the justice of our claims, and seek their aid in obtaining relief from 
 the dangers which threatened us. 
 
 This programme was duly carried into effect. The committee, in 
 a body, called on President Johnson, and were courteously received 
 by him, but no effort was made to induce him to take any official 
 action in regard to the objects of our mission. 
 
 It is proper to state, that shortly after " the Committee of Nine" 
 assembled in Washington, two committees or delegations from Rich- 
 mond made their appearance in Washington on behalf of the Re- 
 publican party, one of them consisted, as we learned unofficially, of 
 Mr. Franklin Stearns, L. H. Chandler, William Forbes and Edgar 
 Allen, and probably others. The other, which was led by Governor 
 H. H. Wells, was more numerous, and composed of white and 
 colored men. The former, which consisted of men of intelligence, 
 education and good standing, was regarded as a Committee of Ob- 
 servation, and was supposed to be present, not with a view of making 
 factious opposition to every measure of relief which might be pro- 
 posed by the Committee of Nine, but to see that nothing was done 
 prejudicial to the interests of the Conservative Republicans. The 
 Wells Committee, on the other hand, was emphatically a Committee 
 of Obstructio7i and Antagonism. It was in full sympathy with all 
 the test oaths, disfranchisements, and other objectionable features of 
 the Constitution, and opposed to any change in any of its provisions. 
 
 CONFERENCE WITH RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE OF HOUSE OF 
 REPRESENTATIVES. 
 
 In accordance with the original programme, as above set forth, the 
 committee applied for and obtained permission to appear before the 
 Reconstruction Committee of the House of Representatives and the 
 Judiciary Committee of the Senate, to explain to them, respectively, 
 the grievances of which we complained and the nature of the redress 
 which we desired to obtain. 
 
 It is not necessary, for the purposes of this narrative, to give in 
 
36 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 detail all that occurred in the various interviews which were held bv 
 the Virginia committee with the committees of Congress. It is suffi- 
 cient to mention some of the leading incidents which tend to show 
 the varied phases of public opinion of that day, and to throw light 
 on the motives and purposes of those who were prominent actors in 
 them. 
 
 At the hour appointed for the conference with the Reconstruction 
 Committee of the House of Representatives, all the members of the 
 Committee of Nine were in attendance. We were politely received 
 by ex-Governor Boutwell, chairman of the Committee, and after an 
 interchange of salutations and introductions, we were assigned to the 
 seats which had been provided for us. It then became my duty, as 
 chairman of the committee, to open the interview by a brief explana- 
 tion of the origin of our committee and the objects of our mission. 
 Before I had concluded my remarks, we were interrupted by the 
 arrival of the two Richmond committees, headed, respectively, by 
 Mr, Franklin Stearns and Governor H. H. Wells, who expressed a 
 wish to be present at the interview. This was readily granted with 
 the assent of all parties. As the sessions of the Reconstruction 
 Committee were necessarily short, being limited to the hour, 12 noon, 
 appointed for the meeting of the House of Representatives, and as 
 all parties desired to be heard in support of their respective opinions, 
 the conference was continued by adjournment, from time to time, 
 through several sessions of the Committee, during which full and free 
 debate was allowed. 
 
 This discussion was conducted, on behalf of our committee, mainly 
 by Colonel Baldwin. He had been speaker of the House of Dele- 
 gates in the session of the General Assembly of Virginia, which had 
 recently been held under the Peirpoint administration, and was, 
 therefore, better posted than any other member of the committee in 
 regard to its proceedings. 
 
 After he had presented, with great clearness and force, the views 
 of the committee, Governor H. H. Wells took the floor as the repre- 
 sentative of the opinions of the Radical Committee, of which he was 
 chairman. As reported by Mr. Cowardin, of the Dispatch, he spoke 
 substantially as follows : " Governor Wells said he did not believe 
 that loyal men would be safe from wrong and outrage if the white 
 people of Virginia were all enfranchised ; he believed that the only 
 mode of protecting them would be to adopt the Constitution made by 
 the Underwood Convention as it ivas ; he was satisfied that the 
 adoption of the plan of the ' Committee of Nine' would break down 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 37 
 
 the Republican party and destroy the last hope of ' Loyalists ' in 
 Virginia. He was sure the people, whatever they might say now, 
 would, in a few years, take away the rights of the negro unless the 
 Republican party became strong enough to protect them, and the 
 only way to secure strength to that party was to give it power to 
 direct the restoration of the State ; none but the Republican party 
 could secure justice to all classes and rebuild the State. There could 
 be no justice, no education, no prosperity, save through the Repub- 
 lican party. That party would invite immigration, insure the safe 
 investment of capital and put Virginia in the way of rapid improve- 
 ment. He assured the Committee that there were ten millions of 
 dollars ready, at this time, to be brought into the Slate under Repub- 
 lican auspices to build railroads, etc., etc. He declared that the new 
 movement had not the support of Virginians; that he did not believe 
 that ten thousand white people in Virginia would support it ; that if 
 it is carried it would have to be carried by Republican votes, but the 
 Republican party would not vote for it. They were opposed to 
 reconstructing Virginia in that way. They would be willing to see 
 the whites enfranchised after a few years when it could be done safely, 
 but not now." 
 
 It was asked whether, if the plan of the "Nine" succeeded, the 
 loyal men would have anything to compensate them for the conces- 
 sion that would be made. He replied, " None whatever." 
 
 The same reporter (Mr. Cowardin) says " Colonel Baldwin spoke 
 eloquently for an hour in reply, and was listened to with marked at- 
 tention. In reply to questions of the Committee, he expressed his 
 confident belief that the people of the State would support and carry 
 out in good faith the plan which he advocated." 
 
 By request of the committee, Mr. Franklin Stearns, of Richmond, 
 a staunch Republican, and Chairman of the Conservative Republi- 
 can Committee, addressed the Reconstruction Committee at some 
 length, and said "that since the defeat of the Democratic party 
 (meaning in the Presidential election of November, 1868,) the people 
 of Virginia were ready to comply with the reconstruction laws, and 
 more than half of the property holders were ready to restore the 
 State on the basis proposed by the Committee of Nine. If the State 
 was restored under the pending Constitution, with disfranchisements 
 and county organizations stricken out, she would immediately have 
 her prosperity revived, and rapidly grow in wealth and population. 
 So restored, justice would be impartially administered, and all classes 
 completely protected. 
 
38 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 " Mr. Stearns condemned the ' Underwood Constitution,' and 
 said it would be defeated by an hoyiest vote of the people, but that its 
 defeat would leave the State without a civil government, and subject 
 to all the whims and caprices of military rule. Hence, as the repre- 
 sentative of the Radical party of Virginia, he favored the programme 
 of the Conservative Committee, which did offer the people some pros- 
 pect of a stable government." 
 
 The reporter adds : " Mr. Stearns was listened to attentively, and 
 his statement made a decided impression." 
 
 This synopsis of the discussion before the Reconstruction Com- 
 mittee of the House of Representatives will be sufficient to show the 
 nature of the matters in issue, and the spirit in which they were pre- 
 sented by the several speakers. 
 
 CONFERENCES WITH JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF SENATE. 
 
 The committee also had interviews with the Judiciary Committee 
 of the Senate of an important and interesting character. But it is 
 unnecessary to state the proceedings in detail. In all material mat- 
 ters they were similar to the proceedings before the Committee of 
 Reconstruction of the House. This Committee was one of extraor- 
 dinary ability. Among the members were Conkling, of New York, 
 Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, Doolittle, of Wisconsin, Trumbull, of 
 Illinois, and others of almost equal celebrity. The conference hav- 
 ing been opened by the Chairman of the Committee of Nine, by a 
 brief statement of the objects of their mission, and of their objec- 
 tions to the Underwood Constitution, the further discussion of the 
 subject was turned over to Colonel Baldwin, who made a clear and 
 forcible exposition of the enormities contained in the Constitution. 
 The Senators listened with great attention, and seemed to be desirous 
 of making themselves acquainted with the subject. They asked many 
 questions, which were promptly answered, giving the information 
 that was sought. The interview was less formal than that with the 
 House Committee, and the discussion of a more colloquial character, 
 intended to promote a full and free interchange of facts and opinions, 
 and the members manifested an earnest desire to acquire all the 
 knowledge which was necessary to make them to act intelligently on 
 the subject. Colonel Baldwin was the principal spokesman on behalf 
 of Virginia, and presented the views of the committee with so much 
 clearness and force as to leave a profound impression on the minds of 
 the Senators. Before separating, the Senate Committee requested the 
 Committee of Nine to prepare for their use, a condensed statement, 
 in writing, of the grievances of which they complained, accompanied 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 39 
 
 by a detailed draft of the amendments which they desired to have in- 
 corporated into the Constitution. This was accordingly done a few 
 days afterwards. The paper was prepared by Colonel Baldwin with 
 great care, and after thorough scrutiny by the committee was, on 
 i8th January, 1869, adopted and signed by every member of it, and 
 sent to the Senate Committee. The full text of this paper was pub- 
 lished, and is to be found in the columns of the newspapers of that 
 day. It is as follows : 
 
 To the Judiciary Committee 
 
 of the United States Senate : 
 
 On behalf of the delegation of citizens of Virginia, and in accordance 
 with the request of your committee, we beg leave respectfully to submit, in 
 the form of amendments to House Bill 1485, now under your consideration, 
 such modifications of the Constitution proposed by the late Convention as, 
 in our opinion, will, under all the circumstances, lead to its acceptance by 
 the people of Virginia. 
 
 It is due to candor to say, in this connection, that those who sent us here 
 expressed, as we believe, the real feelings and purposes of the people of 
 Virginia when they declared, " while the conviction of the undersigned and, 
 as they believe, of the people of Virginia generally remains unchanged, that 
 the freedmen of the Southern States, in their present uneducated condition, 
 are not prepared for the intelligent exercise of the elective franchise and the 
 performance of other duties connected with public affairs, and are therefore, 
 at this time, unsafe depositaries of political power ; yet, in view of the ver- 
 dict of public opinion in favor of their being allowed to exercise the right 
 of suffrage, as expressed in the recent elections, the undersigned are pre- 
 pared, and they believe the majority of the people of Virginia are prepared, 
 to surrender their opposition to its incorporation into their fundamental law 
 as an offering on the altar of peace, and in the hope that union and harmony 
 may be restored on the basis of universal suffrage and universal amnesty." 
 
 Taking it, then, to be established as the policy of this government to 
 require in Virginia a constitutional recognition and enforcement of the civil 
 and political equality of all men before the law, we have, in the amendments 
 proposed, inserted all the provisions looking to that result which Congress 
 has heretofore deemed proper, and we have left undisturbed all the provi- 
 sions of the proposed Constitution in any manner relating to that subject. 
 
 The first modification of the proposed Constitution suggested by us, is to 
 strike from it all those features of disfranchisement and disqualification, and 
 all those elements of bitterness and strife, political, sectional, and sectarian, 
 which, in our judgment, are wholly incompatible with good government and 
 good feeling, and tend to perpetuate alienations and discords, which all good 
 citizens must deprecate. The power of a State to subject any of its citizens 
 to disabilities for offences against the United States has been seriously ques- 
 tioned. It seems to be conceded that for the purpose of the punishment no 
 such power exists, and that disqualifications and disfranchisements are only 
 admissible as measures of precaution and safety. 
 
40 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 In this point of view, it is worthy of consideration that since the close of 
 the war the people of Virginia have been living without disfranchisement or 
 disability of any kind, under a government whose legislative and judicial 
 departments and whose local organizations have been in the hands of the 
 very classes whom it is sought bv the proposed Constitution to exclude from 
 every position of trust in the State. We claim, with confidence, that the 
 result has been that the supremacy of law and order has been as fully main- 
 tained, and that the functions of good government have been as well per- 
 formed, in Virginia as in any State in the Union. 
 
 It is believed that Article III, section one, paragraph four, would dis- 
 franchise not less than ten or fifteen thousand voters in the State, including 
 all those whom the people have been accustomed to trust in public employ- 
 ments. 
 
 Article III, section seven, would disqualify for every position of public 
 trust not less than ninety-five of every hundred of the white people of Vir- 
 ginia who would otherwise be eligible, and would, in connection with sec- 
 tion three of the same Article, extend the like disability to serve upon juries. 
 
 It is believed that there is no advocate of universal negro suffrage who 
 will not agree that in its application to Virginia at this time it is a fearful 
 experiment, requiring for its success all the wisdom and experience that can 
 be brought to its management ; and it is respectively submitted that to ex- 
 clude from participation in State or local government at this time so large a 
 proportion of those who, by experience in public affairs, are fitted to deal 
 with this great problem, would be unwise and unsafe. 
 
 We earnestly declare that, in our belief, it would be wholly inconsistent 
 with domestic tranquility, public order, or the security of the lives, liberty 
 or property of the great body of the white population of Virginia. 
 
 The provision of Article XI, relating to church property, is an attempt 
 to reverse the settled policy of Virginia, which restricts the ownership of 
 church property in amount, and confines it strictly to the local religious 
 congregation. The purpose is to enable "ecclesiastical bodies" outside 
 of Virginia, in opposition to the legislation of the State, and against its 
 judicial decisions, to take the churches of Virginia from the local congre- 
 gations who built them. The provision opens a controversy, full of all the 
 combined bitterness of party and section and sect, over every Presbyterian 
 and Methodist church building in Virginia. 
 
 The next modification suggested by us is to strike from the proposed 
 Constitution, and thus to leave to legislative enactment or modification, the 
 whole of the cumbrous machinery for local organization, government and 
 policy, which, in our judgment, is clearly unfitted to the condition of the 
 State, and if fixed to the Constitution will be a cause of embarrassment and 
 difficulty and strife, seriously affecting the public peace and the harmony 
 and good order of society. 
 
 The population of Virginia is very sparsely and unequally distributed over 
 the territory of the State, and the physical and geographical features of the 
 country are such as to render wholly impracticable any arbitrary plan of 
 subdivision for local purposes. The most we have been able to do thus far 
 is to make the counties the units of local government, and to give to the 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 41 
 
 county courts, composed of all the county justices, the control and direction 
 of the local government and police. 
 
 In view of the introduction into our system of so large a political element 
 so unequally distributed as to result in the complete predominance of the 
 whole white race in one section of the State and of the colored race in 
 another section, we are very earnestly of opinion that any system of local 
 government and police engrafted upon the Constitution and placed under 
 the absolute control of limited districts, will naturally incur the distrust and 
 excite the apprehensions of the local minority and tend to collisions calcu- 
 lated to impair personal security and endanger the public peace. 
 
 The difficulties surrounding the subjects of local taxation and education, 
 in regard to which we are satisfied that the proposed system will be found 
 unequal and inefficient in its operation, and in its results intolerably expensive 
 and oppressive. 
 
 The solution of these difficulties, which we propose, is to strike the whole 
 of this system from the Constitution and leave it to the Legislature, in which 
 all localities, interests and classes will be fully represented, to regulate the 
 whole subject by laws which will be at all times open to modification and 
 improvement, such as experience may suggest or the public interest may 
 require. 
 
 The next modification proposed by us is to strike out the provisions in 
 Article XI relating to homestead and other exemptions. The laws in 
 Virginia now in force provide for homestead and other exemptions, pros- 
 pective in their operation. The provisions of these laws are believed to be 
 not materially different from those in the proposed Constitution, except in 
 regard to past indebtedness, as to which we regard the proposed provision 
 as clearly in conflict with the Constitution of the United States. The chief 
 importance which we attach to striking out this provision grows out of its 
 injurious effect upon the minds of the people, whose necessities already 
 incline them to look with favor upon any suggestion of relief from pecuniary 
 obligation. 
 
 The only remaining suggestion of modification is as to the maximum of 
 taxation for local free school purposes in Article VIII, section 8. 
 
 It will be observed that we have made no objection to the school system 
 proposed, except so far as it depends on the local organization, to which we 
 have already referred. 
 
 No objection is offered in any quarter to the establishment of a thorough 
 system of free public schools, at least as rapidly as the proposed Constitu- 
 tion requires ; and although we have asked to strike out the vwde of local 
 taxation proposed, we have suggested a modification which avoids any 
 diminution of the amount to be raised by taxation for public free school 
 purposes. 
 
 In suggesting the modifications referred to, we by no means wish to be 
 understood as conceding that the proposed Constitution is free from what 
 we regard as important defects in other particulars, but we do not under- 
 stand it to be the purpose of Congress to interfere in such matters further 
 than may be required by high considerations affecting the integrity of the 
 Constitution and the maintenance of justice and domestic tranquility. We 
 have therefore confined our objections to provisions of the proposed Con- 
 
42 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 stitution, falling properly, as we believe, within the scope of such an inter- 
 position. 
 
 The clauses which we ask to have stricken out from the proposed Consti- 
 tution are of different degrees of importance, but the least important, we 
 think, will be found to involve some grave public mischief or injustice. 
 Those included in our first suggestion could not but plunge our .State into 
 civil anarchy and discord, and disturb the general and growing harmony 
 of the two races of our people, if not to array them in deplorable hostility 
 to one another. They would arrest immigration, paralyze all forms of in- 
 dustry, destroy our domestic peace and hope of prosperity, and render us a 
 burden to the Union instead of an important addition to its resources, 
 wealth, credit and power. 
 
 In our personal interview with the Committee, we called their attention to 
 provisions' of the proposed Constitution, and especially to that relating to 
 usury, as instances of the insertion into a Constitution of matters peculiarly 
 proper to be left to ordinary legislation, the provision in regard to usury 
 is one new m Virginia, and will establish a policy which, whatever may be 
 its merits, must seriously affect all the material interests of our people. 
 
 It is respectfully submitted, for the consideration of the Committee, 
 whether a measure of legislation so important, and in regard to which 
 opinion is so much divided, ought to be fixed in the Constitution and so 
 placed beyond legislative control. 
 
 As to the mode of granting relief from the mischievous provisions to 
 which we have referred — to-wit : by act of Congress, suggesting modifica- 
 tions as fundamental conditions precedent, we desire to say that it has been 
 suggested as the result of an examination of the precedents found in the 
 past legislation of Congress, and upon consultation with a number of the 
 wisest and most experienced members of both Houses. In the preparation 
 of the amendments proposed to the pending bill, we have endeavored fairly 
 to follow the precedents established m like cases, and we may be permitted 
 to suggest, in conclusion, that we believe it will be found that the modifica- 
 tions proposed by us will, in fact, conform the proposed Constitution to the 
 principles and policy of the Reconstruction acts. 
 
 It is perhaps proper to say we, and those with whom we act, though con- 
 curring, as we believe, with the people of Virginia, do not claim to be 
 authorized to speak for them. 
 
 Respectfully, your obedient servants, 
 
 Alexander H. H. Stuart, 
 John B. Baldwin, 
 Wyndham Robertson, 
 w. "^sutherlin, 
 James Neeson, 
 J. F. Johnson, 
 W. L. Owen, 
 J. L. Marye, Jr., 
 J. F. Slaughter, 
 
 Committee. 
 Washington City, January i8, 1869. 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 43 
 
 The following are the changes in the proposed Virginia Constitution, 
 which the committee will ask Congress to enact: 
 
 House of Representatives, 1485- — Bill entitled " An act providing for an 
 election in Virginia." 
 
 Amendments suggested for the consideration of the Senate Committee 
 of the Judiciary : 
 
 First Amendment. — Strike out the whole of the first section after the 
 enacting clause, and insert in lieu thereof three sections, as follows: 
 
 That the State of Virginia shall be entitled and admitted to representation 
 in Congress as a State of the Union when the voters of the said State — who 
 at the time of the election hereinafter provided for, shall be registered and 
 qualified as such in compliance with the acts of Congress, known as the Re- 
 construction acts — shall have agreed to and ratified the Constitution adopted 
 bv the Convention which met in Richmond, Virginia, on the 3d day of De- 
 cember, Anno Domini, 1867, subject to and in accordance with the conditions 
 and modifications hereinafter declared and proposed. 
 
 Section 2. And be it further enacted. That the foregoing section is sub- 
 ject to the following fundamental conditions precedent, and shall not take 
 effect until the same and each of them are fully accepted by the voters of 
 Virginia at the said election. 
 
 I. The Constitution of said State shall never be so amended or changed 
 as to deprive any citizen or class of citizens of the United States of the 
 right to vote in said State who are entitled to vote by the Constitution 
 thereof herein recognized, except as a punishment for such crimes as are 
 now felonies at common law, whereof they shall have been duly convicted 
 under laws equally applicable to all the inhabitants of the State : provided, 
 that any alteration of said Constitution may be made with regard to time 
 and place of residence of voters. 
 
 II. That in the adoption and ratification of said Constitution there shall 
 be omitted therefrom the following parts and provisions thereof, which, in 
 the opinion of the Congress, are unnecessary for the protection of any right, 
 and tend to retard and prevent the restoration of that harmony and good 
 will among the people which are among the chief objects sought to be 
 attained by the Reconstruction acts aforesaid, viz. : 
 
 1. The provision for disfranchisement and disqualification contained in 
 Article III, section one, clause four, and in section seven of the same Article 
 and that relating to church property in Article XI of said Constitution. 
 
 2. The provision for local organization, government and police contained 
 in Article VI, sections thirteen to twenty-one inclusive, those in Article 
 VII and in the two last sentences of Article VIII, section eight. 
 
 3. The provision relating to homestead and other exemptions in Article 
 XI, sections one to seven, inclusive. 
 
 III. That the limitations upon the power of taxation for public free school 
 purposes in Article VIII, section eight, be changed from five mills to ten 
 mills. 
 
 Section 3. A^id be it further enacted, That the said Constitution, subject 
 
44 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 to the said fundamental conditions, and with the modifications aforesaid, be 
 submitted for ratification to the voters registered and qualified as aforesaid, 
 according to the provisions of the Reconstruction acts, on the fourth Thurs" 
 day of April, 1869. The vote on said Constitution shall be "for the Consti- 
 tution, subject to the fundamental conditions prescribed by Congress," or 
 "against the Constitution." The said election shall be held at the same 
 places where the election for delegates to said convention was held, and 
 under the regulations to be prescribed by the Commanding General of the 
 military district and the returns made to him as directed by law. 
 
 Second Amendment. — Strike out in section five, line four, the word "Sep- 
 tember," and insert "June." 
 
 Proposed Title. — " An act to provide for admitting the State of Virginia to 
 representation in Congress." 
 
 CONFERENCES WITH GENERAL GRANT. 
 
 Very soon after their arrival in Washington, the committee took 
 steps necessary to obtain an interview with General Grant, President- 
 elect, who was then in the city awaiting his inauguration. With this 
 end in view, the committee called on General Schofield, then acting 
 Secretary of War, and, after explaining to him the objects of their 
 mission, asked the favor of him to make known to General Grant 
 their desire to call on him to pay their respects and have an oppor- 
 tunity of explaining to him the objects of their visit to Washington. 
 General Schofield, who expressed full sympathy with the objects we 
 had in view, promptly agreed to do so. He accordingly called on 
 General Grant, and made an arrangement with him to receive the 
 committee on the 14th of January at a specified hour. About half 
 an hour before the time indicated, the majority of the committee 
 met in their room, with a view of going in a body to General Grant's 
 headquarters. Unfortunately, however, in consequence of some 
 misapprehension about the hour of meeting, two or three of the 
 committee (of whom Colonel Baldwin was one) failed to attend. 
 After waiting as long as they could, honing the absent member? 
 would appear, the members present proceeded to the office of Gene- 
 ral Schofield, who kindly agreed to accompany them to headquarters 
 and introduce them to General Grant. The committee was received 
 with frankness and courtesy by General Grant, who entered into 
 general conversation with its members in a familiar way, which at 
 once put every one at ease. 
 
 The committee, through their chairman, then proceeded to explain 
 to him the objects of their visit to Washington. The objectionable 
 features of the Underwood Constitution were fully explained to him. 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. ' 45 
 
 and also the disastrous consequences which would necessarily follow 
 their adoption. General Grant gave close attention to all that was 
 said, and showed, by the pertinent and searching questions which 
 he asked from time to time, that he thoroughly understood and ap- 
 preciated the injustice and oppression which would be done to the 
 people of Virginia by adopting the Constitution without amendment. 
 
 The conversation then became of a more general character, in the 
 course of which he did not hesitate to express in strong terms his 
 opposition to the test-oaths and disfranchisements embodied in the 
 Constitution. He referred, however, to the fact that, for the present, 
 he was a mere military officer, and, as such, powerless to render any 
 assistance. His language and manner throughout the interview left 
 no doubt on the minds of the committee that if the Senate should 
 fail to act on the bill then pending until after his inauguration, he 
 would interpose in some way to afford relief The interview lasted 
 an hour or two, and the results were very gratifying to the com- 
 mittee. 
 
 When the committee returned to their hotel they found their asso- 
 ciates, who had been disappointed in not attending the interview, 
 much mortified at their mistake in regard to the time of holding it, 
 which had prevented their participation in it. 
 
 During the next day rumors reached the committee that mis- 
 chievous persons had represented to the friends of General Grant 
 that the absence of the members, who had failed to attend the inter- 
 view, was intentional and a premeditated mark of disrespect to Gene- 
 ral Grant. This absurd and malicious falsehood naturally created a 
 strong feeling among all the members of the committee, and they at 
 once determined to give the most emphatic contradiction to it, by 
 seeking a second interview with General Grant, to enable every mem- 
 ber of the committee to be present. A request to that effect was 
 accordingly made, which was promptly granted. 
 
 At the time appointed for the second interview every member of 
 the committee was present, and a number of distinguished gentle- 
 men from Virginia, who had asked leave to accompany the com- 
 mittee. The whole party then proceeded in a body to General 
 Grant's headquarters. They were cordially received, and the gen- 
 tlemen of the committee, who had not been present at the former 
 interview, were afforded an opportunity of explaining the mistake 
 which had caused their absence, and their regret that they had been 
 thereby denied the pleasure of participating in it. 
 
 The most interesting incident which I can recall in connection with 
 
46 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 this interview was the following : Shortly after all the gentlemen 
 present had paid their respects to General Grant and been seated, 
 he turned to the chairman of the committee, and, addressing him by 
 name, said : " Mr. Stuart, since you were here the other day I have 
 been thinking a good deal of the matters discussed in our interview, 
 and looking somewhat into the provisions of your proposed Con- 
 stitution ; and I must confess that, bad as the provisions in regard to 
 test-oaths and disfranchisements unquestionably are, it seems to me 
 that the county organization feature is, if possible, worse. In the 
 eastern portion of your State the negro population is greatly in ex 
 cess of the white. Under the county organization features of the 
 new Constitution, as proposed, you must have in that section of the 
 State negro judges, negro juries, negro magistrates, negro super- 
 visors, and negro sheriffs and constables ; in other words, a negro 
 government. Under such a condition of things, no decent white man 
 can afford to live in that part of the State, and they will be compelled 
 to move away. In the western part of the State, where the whites 
 predominate, the condition of things will be reversed, and the negroes 
 will have to remove. In this way the two races will be segregated 
 by a geographical line, which is greatly to be deplored ; and what is 
 more, the labor of the State will be separated from the capital, and 
 the productive power of the State will be greatly impaired, if not 
 destroyed." I believe I report the language of General Grant with 
 almost absolutely literal accuracy. His sentiments, as well as the 
 language in which he expressed them, made a profound impression 
 on my mind at the time, and have remained fresh in my memory, 
 because I have had frequent occasions to recall and repeat them in 
 private conversations, from time to time, since they were first uttered. 
 A free talk between General Grant and the members of the com- 
 mittee then followed, in which he clearly indicated his sympathy with 
 our movement, and his desire to see Virginia restored to the Union 
 on fair and honorable terms. The interview was gratifying to every 
 member of the committee, and they left him, cheered by the confi- 
 dent belief that at an early day after his inauguration, his strong 
 arm would be interposed for the relief of Virginia. 
 
 INTERCOURSE OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WITH SENATORS 
 AND REPRESENTATIVES. 
 
 Immediately after the organization of the Committee of Nine in 
 Washington, it was agreed that the members of the committee. 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 47 
 
 singly or in pairs, should call on as many of the leading members of 
 Congress as they could conveniently visit, either at the capitol or 
 their lodgings. Many other gentlemen from Virginia, who were in 
 sympathy with the objects of the committee, were invited to co- 
 operate with us in this important work. Among those who were most 
 efficient in this department of service, were Gilbert C. Walker, and his 
 brother, Mr. Jonas Walker. Being in some way connected by marriage 
 with Senator Stewart, of Nevada, they had ready access to him, and 
 at an early day secured his active assistance in promoting the objects 
 of the committee. Mr. Gilbert C. Walker, being a man of fine intel- 
 lect, imposing appearance and manners, and a good talker, was well 
 fitted to make a favorable impression on all classes of men. Having 
 been born and reared in the interior of New York, and being an 
 avowed Republican in politics, he had no difficulty in approaching 
 Northern Republicans and explaining to them the gross injustice and 
 oppression which would be imposed on Virginia by the Underwood 
 Constitution. He devoted his whole time, for a week or ten days, to 
 this good work, and reported the results of his labors, from time to 
 time, to the committee. They were deeply impressed with the value 
 of his services in mitigating the asperity of party and sectional preju- 
 dices, and awakening a more kindly sentiment in the minds of 
 Northern men. It was by work of this kind that Gilbert C. Walker 
 won for himself the favorable regard of all Virginians who were then 
 in Washington, and opened the way to the conspicuous position 
 which he afterwards filled in Virginia. 
 
 CLOSING SCENES IN WASHINGTON. 
 
 After the lapse of ten days or more spent in earnest efforts to 
 rescue Virginia from the ruin which threatened her, the committee felt 
 that they had fulfilled the duties which had been entrusted to them. 
 They had done all that they could hope to accomplish at that time. 
 They had aroused the attention, not merely of Virginia and the 
 Southern States, but of the whole North, to the enormities of the 
 " Underwood Constitution." They had secured, as advocates of jus- 
 tice to Virginia, the New York Tribune, New York Times, Boston 
 Advertiser, Chicago 'Tribune, and other leading organs of public 
 opinion in the North and Northwest. They had arrested the pas- 
 sage of the House Bill in the Senate. They had received satisfac- 
 tory assurances from General Grant that — as soon as practicable after 
 his inauguration as President — he would bring the subject to the 
 
48 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 attention of Congress, and endeavor to obtain for Virginia substantial 
 relief In a word, the committee felt that they had faithfully tilled 
 the political field and sown good seed, which, at the proper time, 
 would germinate and bear an abundant harvest of blessings. If the 
 committee had been able to accomplish nothing more than the de- 
 feat by the Senate of the passage of the House Bill, submitting the 
 Underwood Constitution without amendment for ratification, they 
 would have felt that they had rendered a service of incalculable value 
 to the State. 
 
 Let us pause a moment and contemplate the condition of things 
 which existed when what was popularly called the " new movement " 
 was set on foot. The House Bill had been introduced and passed 
 through all its stages by the House of Representatives without objec- 
 tion or debate. This occurred a few days before Christmas recess of 
 1868, and the Bill was sent to the Senate for concurrence. Parlia- 
 mentary rules required (unless temporarily suspended) a reference to 
 the Judiciary Committee, and a report from that Committee before 
 the Bill could be put on its passage. The delay thus caused pre- 
 vented its passage by the Senate before the Christmas vacation. 
 
 No fair-minded man will venture to deny that, if some responsible 
 party had not interposed objections to the Bill, it would have been 
 taken up and passed by the Senate as it had been by the House, 
 without debate. The single question then submitted to the people 
 of Virginia would have been the "ratification" or "rejection" of 
 the Underwood Constitution which, in popular parlance, would have 
 been a choice between " the devil and the deep sea." If the Consti- 
 tution were ratified, according to the estimate made by the " Com- 
 mittee of Nine" in their paper submitted to the Judiciary Committee 
 of the Senate, ninety-five per cent, of the adult white popula- 
 tion of Virginia would have been not only rendered iiieligible to a?iy 
 office, but deprived of the right of suffrage, and rendered incompetent 
 to serve on a jury, civil or crimhial ! 
 
 Under these circumstances, we would have had Wells for Governor, 
 backed by a constituency consisting mainly of ignorant negroes and 
 depraved whites. The better class of white people would have been 
 powerless. We should have had, in the graphic language of General 
 Grant, " negro judges, negro sheriffs, negro juries, negro magistrates 
 — in a word, a negro government — which would have compelled 
 every decent white man to move away ! " 
 
 But this is not all. Under such a condition of things, what was to 
 prevent any emancipated slave from bringing suit against his late 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 49 
 
 master to recover compensation for his service while he was held in 
 slavery ? Negro, or carpet-bag, judges would have been prompt to 
 sustain such actions, and ignorant and interested juries eager to award 
 verdicts for heavy damages. Each negro juryman would have had a 
 personal interest in the question, as a verdict in one case would estab- 
 lish a precedent to enable him to maintain a similar suit against his 
 former master ! In this way, under the forms of law, the estate of 
 every man, who had ever been a slave-holder, might have been con- 
 fiscated ! 
 
 If, on the other hand, the Constitution were "rejected," the people 
 of Virginia would have been remitted to despotic military sway, with 
 Wells, a mere dependent Governor, prepared to execute the arbitrary 
 behests of the commander, for the time being, of Military District 
 No. I ! 
 
 Nor could we have looked to Congress for relief ! It would have 
 been truly said we had contumaciously rejected a Constitution, to 
 which we had refused to offer any objections, and which had been ap- 
 proved by the unanimous vote of both Houses of Congress ! 
 
 There were some facts which had occurred in Richmond within 
 the year 1868, the year preceding the visit of the "Committee of 
 Nine" to Washington, which, while they did not seem to attract 
 public attention at the time, were full of significance to every thought- 
 ful observer. 
 
 Pierpoint had been recognized and regularly installed as Governor 
 of Virginia in May, 1865. His administration had been as fair as 
 the people of Virginia had a right to expect under the circumstances. 
 A session of the Legislature was held while he occupied the Execu- 
 tive Mansion, and the Convention called to frame a Constitution met 
 in Richmond on the 3d of December, 1867, and continued in session 
 until about the 24th of April, 1868. The Constitution framed by 
 this body provided for an election to be held on the 2d of June, 1868, 
 to decide whether the Constitution should be "ratified" or "re- 
 jected," and at the same time that an election should be held for 
 members of the General Assembly and for all State officers to be 
 elected by the people under the Constitution. 
 
 It was further provided " that the returns of the election shall be 
 made in duplicate, one copy to the Commanding General and one 
 copy to the President of this Convention (Underwood), who shall 
 give certificates of election to the persons elected " ! 
 
 Almost simultaneously with the publication of the Constitution 
 and of the election ordinance under it, a general order was issued 
 
50 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 from military headquarter? removmg Governor Pierpoint from office, 
 and substituting Mr. H. H. Wells in his place ! There was no 
 charge of official misconduct by Pierpoint, and his removal was, 
 obviously, for political reasons. He was too conservative to suit the 
 purposes of extreme partisans ! 
 
 The Conservatives of Virginia, supposing that the election would 
 be held on the 2d of June, 1868, proceeded at once to organize for 
 the contest. A convention of the Conservatives was held m Rich- 
 mond on the 4th of May, 1868, to nominate a State ticket to conduct 
 the canvass in opposition to the ratification of the Underwood Con- 
 stitution and the election of H. H. Wells as Governor of Virginia. 
 At this convention, Colonel R. E. Withers was nominated for Gov- 
 ernor, Hon. John L. Marye for Lieutenant-Governor, and General 
 James A. Walker for Attorney-General. These were gentlemen of 
 unquestionable ability and character, and each well qualified for the 
 high position for which he was nominated. These gentlemen without 
 delay took the field to canvass the State in opposition to the ratifica- 
 tion of the Underwood Constitution. Wherever they appeared they 
 were met by enthusiastic crowds. 
 
 At that time (May, 1868,) neither the speakers nor the people of 
 Virginia could be led to believe that the intelligent population of the 
 North could be persuaded to tolerate universal suffrage among the 
 ignorant negroes of the South. Hence, the disfranchisements of the 
 whites and enfranchisements of the blacks, proposed by the Under- 
 wood Constitution, became subjects of the most unqualified denun- 
 ciations by the Conservative candidates and their advocates. It is 
 plain to see that one of the effects of this exciting popular canvass 
 was to stimulate and strengthen the public sentiment in opposition to 
 negro suffrage, and render more difficult the task of reconciling the 
 public mind of Virginia, a year later, to acqtiiescence in it even after 
 the announcement in the platform of the Republican party, in the 
 summer of 1868, of universal negro stiff rage as one of their cardinal 
 doctrines. The people of Virginia still continued to hope against 
 hope, and it was not until the results of the Presidential and Con- 
 gressional elections of 1868, which turned on that issue, had been 
 ascertained that their eyes were opened to the appalling and inevitable 
 fact that no reconstruction of civil government in the South was 
 possible which did not embody this hateful feature in it. No people 
 were ever called on to submit to a more painful sacrifice of feeling and 
 conviction. But, like the surrender of General Lee and his gallant 
 associates in arms, it was inevitable. Our great leaders were obliged 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 51 
 
 to submit to overwhelming^ force on the battlefield. The people of 
 the South, in like manner, were constrained to surrender by an equally 
 disastrous defeat in the field of political contest ! The masses were 
 in no condition to reason dispassionately. Indignation beclouded 
 their judgment. This tends to explain why, at the outset, the move- 
 ment of the " Committee of Nine," and the intelligent and patriotic 
 citizens who co-operated with them, encountered such fierce opposi- 
 tion and reproach from a portion of the public press and some of 
 the people. 
 
 During the pendency of the elections in the North in 1868, to 
 which reference has been made, the elections in Virginia were post- 
 poned indefinitely to await the future action of Congress. 
 
 But the State ticket, which had been nominated on the 4th of May, 
 1868, eight months before, and under circumstances so entirely dif- 
 ferent, still retained their position as nominees, and, it was generally 
 understood, that when an election should be ordered, H. H. Wells 
 would be placed at the head of the opposing Radical ticket. 
 
 This glance at the condition of things that existed in Virginia at 
 the time the "Committee of Nine" were in session in Washington, 
 is necessary to make the narrative of subsequent events intelligible. 
 
 It has already been stated that very soon after the Committee of 
 Nine assembled in Washington, two other committees, headed re- 
 spectively by Mr. Franklin Stearns and Governor H. H. Wells, both 
 professing to be Republican, appeared at Washington as representa- 
 tives of the party in Richmond. It soon became manifest that the 
 members of the first of these committees were essentially conserva- 
 tive, and in large measure sympathized with the general objects of 
 the Committee of Nine. This discovery naturally broke down all 
 barriers between these two committees, and thereafter they became 
 allies, instead of adversaries, in the great work of liberating Vir- 
 ginia. Mr. George Rye also, who originally was a member of the 
 Wells Committee, soon became satisfied that he occupied a false po- 
 sition, and became a zealous co-worker with the Stearns Committee, 
 and rendered valuable assistance. 
 
 Community of purpose soon led to free interchange of sentiment 
 and opinions, and while there were no formal interviews between the 
 two committees as such, the individual members at an early day 
 became acquainted with each other, and discussed, without reserve, 
 the best means of promoting the objects they had in view. 
 
 In these conferences the future of Virginia was the subject of much 
 earnest and anxious conversation, not merely with reference to the 
 
52 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 probable action of the Government at Washington, but also as to the 
 best policy to be pursued to insure success in the elections that must 
 soon be ordered. All recognized the fact that Wells had been ap- 
 pointed military Governor with a view to give him prestige and pave 
 the way for his nomination as Governor at the coming State election. 
 All saw that, coming before the nominating convention under such 
 auspices, and backed by the whole power of the Radical Republicans, 
 Wells must prove a formidable candidate. Finally, all feared that, 
 let the popular vote as between Withers, a red-handed Confederate 
 colonel, and Wells, a loyal Republican, be as it might, Wells would 
 be " counted in." 
 
 These matters were informally, but fully and freely discussed by 
 individual members of the committees at Washington. It was sug- 
 gested that possibly a condition of things might arise, in which the 
 conservative Republicans, who were co-operating with Mr. Stearns, 
 might hold the key to the political position ! It might be found, on 
 consultation, in the event of the nomination of Wells, that it would 
 be unwise for the Conservative party to enter into the contest under 
 the leadership of Withers, and thereby encounter the double hazard 
 of his defeat by the popular vote, and the still greater one of his 
 being '' counted out' ^ by the returning officers! 
 
 It was known that the Republican Convention would be held at an 
 early day, and it was regarded as important that the leading con- 
 servative Republicans should be present at that meeting and en- 
 deavor to defeat the nomination of Wells. But if that should be 
 found impracticable, that they should withdraw and nominate some 
 safe conservative man, who would honestly and fairly administer the 
 duties of the office. In this connection, the names of Franklin 
 Stearns, William L. Owen, and Gilbert C. Walker were favorably 
 mentioned. 
 
 The primary object was the defeat of Wells— first, by preventing 
 his nomination in the Convention, and if that could not be done, 
 then by breaking the force of it by the nomination of a rival Re- 
 publican candidate of conservative principles by the seceding mem- 
 bers of the Convention. By adopting this course, the Conservative 
 party would be left free to decide, at a later day, whether it would be 
 best for them to continue the contest, under the lead of Withers, 
 Marye, and Walker, or to withdraw that ticket and give their sup- 
 port to the candidates named by the seceders from the Republican 
 Convention, and thereby consolidate all the conservative elements 
 in opposition to Wells. It is proper to add, however, that while 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 53 
 
 speculative opinions like these were freely expressed, no attempt was 
 made to formulate or agree to any line of policy founded on them. 
 Every one was left free to pursue in the future such course as his 
 judgment might dictate. 
 
 After a sojourn of ten days or more in Washington, the members 
 of the "Committee of Nine," believing that they had substantially 
 accomplished the objects of their mission, returned to their respective 
 homes, to await the development of the fruits of their labors. 
 
 Important events soon followed in rapid succession. General 
 Grant was inaugurated on the 4th of March, 1869. The Republican 
 Convention met at Petersburg on the 9th of the same month, and 
 after a turbulent session of two days, nominated H. H. Wells for 
 Governor, J. D. Harris (colored) for Lieutenant-Governor, and T. M. 
 Bowden for Attorney-General. 
 
 But before these nominations were made, the conservative Repub- 
 lican members of the Convention, finding themselves overpowered by 
 a riotous mob of ignorant negroes, led by unprincipled adventurers, 
 withdrew from the Convention, and in a few days thereafter, aided by 
 more than one hundred respectable gentlemen of both parties from 
 other parts of the State, published an address to the people, nomi- 
 nating, in opposition to Wells and his associates, a Conservative- 
 Republican ticket, composed of Gilbert C. Walker for Governor, 
 John F. Lewis for Lieutenant-Governor, and James C. Taylor for 
 Attorney-General. This address was signed by Franklin Stearns, 
 Horace L. Kent, George Rye, John S. Develin, and about one hun- 
 dred and fifty other gentlemen, whose names were known to the peo- 
 ple of Virginia as men of intelligence and character, and largely in- 
 terested in the welfare of the Commonwealth. 
 
 On the 7th of April, 1869, President Grant, in accordance with the 
 assurances he had given to the "Committee of Nine," sent the fol- 
 lowing, which was his first message, to Congress : 
 
 Washington, D. C, April jth, i86g. 
 To the Senate and 
 
 House of Representatives : 
 
 While I am aware that the time in which Congress proposes now to 
 remain in session is very brief, and that it is its desire, so far as is consistent 
 with the public interests, to avoid entering upon the general business of 
 legislation, there is one subject which concerns so deeply the welfare of the 
 country that I deem it my duty to bring it before you. 
 
 I have no doubt that you will concur with me in my opinion, that it is 
 desirable to restore the States, which were engaged in the Rebellion, to their 
 proper relations to the government and the country at as early a period as 
 
54 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 the people of those States shall be found willing to become peaceful and 
 orderly communities, and to adopt and maintain such constitutions and laws 
 as will effectually secure the civil and political rights of all persons within 
 their borders. 
 
 The authority of the United States, which has been vindicated and estab- 
 lished by its military power, must undoubtedly be asserted for the absolute 
 protection of all its citizens in the full enjoyment of the freedom and security, 
 which is the object of a republican government. But, whenever the people 
 of a rebellious State are ready to enter, in good faith, upon the accomplish- 
 ment of this object, in entire conformity with the constitutional authority of 
 Congress, it is certainly desirable that all causes of irritation should be re- 
 moved as promptly as possible, that a more perfect union may be established 
 and the country be restored to peace and prosperity. 
 
 The Convention of the people of Virginia, which met in Richmond on 
 Tuesday, December 3d, 1867, framed a Constitution for that State, which was 
 adopted (endorsed) by the Convention on the 17th of April, 1868. and I desire 
 respectfully to call the attention of Congress to the propriety of providing, 
 by law, for the holding of an election in that State, at some time during the 
 months of May and June next, under the direction of the military com- 
 mander of the district, at which the question of the adoption of that Consti- 
 tution shall be submitted to the citizens of the State; and, if this should 
 seem desirable, I would recommend that a separate vote be taken on such 
 parts as may be thought expedient, and that, at the same time and under the 
 same authority, there shall be an election for the officers provided under 
 such Constitution, and that the Constitution, or such parts thereof as shall 
 have been adopted by the people, be submitted to Congress on the first 
 Monday in December next for its consideration, so that, if the same is then 
 approved, the necessary steps will have been taken for the restoration of 
 the State of Virginia to its proper relations to the Union. 
 
 I am led to make this recommendation in the confident hope and belief 
 that the people of that State are now ready to co-operate with the National 
 Government in bringing it again into such relations to the Union as it ought, 
 as soon as possible, to establish and maintain, and to give to all its people 
 those equal rights, under the law, which were asserted in the Declaration of 
 Independence, in the words of one of the most illustrious of its sons. 
 
 I desire, also, to ask the consideration of Congress to the question, 
 whether there is not just ground for believing that the Constitution, framed 
 by a convention of the people of Mississippi for that State, and once rejected, 
 might not be again submitted to the people of that State in like manner and 
 without the probability of the same result. 
 
 U. S. Grant. 
 
 On the loth of April, 1869, Congress responded to this message 
 by passing a bill, the following synopsis of which is taken from the 
 Code of Virginia of 1873, page 26 : 
 
 The Act prescribed that the President of the United States may, at such 
 time as he may deem best, submit the Constitution, which was framed by the 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 55 
 
 Convention, to the voters for ratification or rejection ; and may also submit 
 to a separate vote such provisions of said Constitution as he may deem best, 
 such vote to be taken, either upon each of the said provisions alone, or in 
 connection with the other portions, as he may direct. 
 
 That at the same time the members of the General Assembly and the 
 officers of the State and members of Congress provided for by the Consti- 
 tution shall be elected, and the Commanding General for the District of 
 Virginia shall provide therefor. 
 
 That if the Constitution shall be ratified at such election, the Legislature 
 of the State, elected as provided for, shall assemble in the Capitol of said 
 State on the fourth Tuesday after the official promulgation of such ratifica- 
 tion by the military officer commanding in the State. 
 
 That before the State of Virginia shall be admitted to representation in 
 Congress, their several Legislatures, which may be hereafter lawfully organ- 
 ized, shall ratify the Fifteenth Amendment proposed by Congress to the 
 Constitution of the United States, and then that all these proceedings shall 
 be approved by Congress. « 
 
 On the 14th of May, 1869, President Grant issued the following 
 proclamation, under the authority given to him by the Act of Con- 
 gress approved April loth, 1869: 
 
 In pursuance of the provisions of the Act of Congress, approved April 10, 
 1869, 1 hereby designate the 6th day of July, 1869, as the time for submitting 
 the Constitution, passed by the Convention which met in Richmond, Virginia, 
 on Tuesday, the 3d day of December, 1867, to the voters of said State, 
 registered at the date of such submission — viz. : July 6th, 1S69 — for ratification 
 or rejection ; and I submit, to a separate vote, the fourth clause of section 
 I, Article III, of said Constitution, which is in the following words: 
 
 " Every person who has been a Senator or Representative in Congress, or 
 elector of President or Vice-President, or who held any office, civil or military, 
 under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken 
 an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or 
 as a member of any State Legislature, or as an e^^ecutive or judicial officer 
 of any State, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the 
 same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." 
 
 This clause shall include the following officers: Governor, Lieutenant- 
 Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor of Public Accounts, Second Auditor, 
 Register of the Land Office, State Treasurer, Attorney-General, Sheriffs, 
 Sergeants of a city or town. Commissioner of the Revenue, County Sur- 
 veyors, Constables, Overseers of the Poor, Commissioner of the Board of 
 Public Works, Judges of the Supreme Court, Judges of the Circuit Court, 
 Judges of the Court of Hustings, Justices of the County Courts, Mayor, 
 Recorder, Alderman, Councilman of a city or town, Coroners, Escheators, 
 Inspectors of Tobacco, Flour, etc., Clerks of the Supreme, District, Circuit 
 and County Courts, and of the Court of Hustings, and Attorneys for the 
 Commonwealth: provided, that the Legislature may, by a vote of three- 
 
56 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 fifths of both Houses, remove the disabilities incurred by this clause, from 
 any person included therein, by a separate vote in each case. 
 
 And I also submit to a separate vote section 7 of Article III of the said 
 Constitution; which is in the following words : 
 
 " In addition to the foregoing oath of office, the Governor, Lieutenant- 
 Governor, members of the General Assembly, Secretary of State, Auditor 
 of Public Accounts, State Treasurer, Attorney-General, and all persons 
 elected to any convention to frame a Constitution for this State, or to 
 amend or revise this Constitution in any manner, and Mayor and Coun- 
 cil of any city or town, shall, before they enter on the duties of their 
 respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation ; 
 provided, the disabilities therein contained may be individually removed 
 
 by a three-fifths vote of the General Assembly : ' I, , do 
 
 solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never voluntarily borne arms against 
 the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have volun- 
 tarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons 
 engaged in armed hostility thereto ; that I have never sought nor ac- 
 cepted, nor attempted to exercise, the functions of any office whatever 
 under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States ; 
 that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, 
 authority, power, or constitution within the United States hostile or inimical 
 thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my know- 
 ledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United 
 States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith 
 and allegiance to the same ; that I take this obligation freely, without any 
 mental reservation or purpose of evasion ; and that I will well and faithfully 
 discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help 
 me God.' The above oath shall also be taken by all the city and county 
 officers before entering upon their duties, and by all other State officers not 
 included in the above provision." 
 
 I direct the vote to be taken upon each of the above-cited provisions 
 alone, and upon the other portions of the said Constitution in the following 
 manner, viz., each voter favoring the ratification of the Constitution, exclud- 
 ing the provisions above quoted, as framed by the Convention of December 
 3d, 1867, shall express his judgment by voting for the Constitution. Each 
 voter favoring the rejection of the Constitution, excluding the provisions 
 above quoted, shall express his judgment by voting against the Constitution. 
 Each voter will be allowed to cast a separate ballot for or against either or 
 both of the provisions above quoted. 
 
 In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of 
 the United States to be affixed. 
 
 Done at the city of Washington this 14th day of May, in the year of our 
 Lord 1869, and of the Independence of the United States of America the 
 ninety-third. 
 
 U. S. Grant. 
 
 By the President : 
 
 Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State. 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 57 
 
 It will be seen that this proclamation restricted the separate votes 
 to be taken to the two clauses which imposed test-oaths and disfran- 
 chisements, thus denying- the right to a separate vote on the " county- 
 organization," which he had, in the presence of the " Committee of 
 Nine," emphatically denounced as the worst feature of the Consti- 
 tution ! 
 
 This singular and unexpected omission caused great surprise and 
 a good deal of indignation, at the time, among the people of Virginia. 
 The public press had made known to them the substance of what 
 General Grant had said to the "Committee of Nine" in regard to 
 this particular feature of the Constitution, and of the mischievous 
 consequences which must inevitably follow its adoption. In the 
 absence of all explanation, some were disposed to impute bad faith 
 to President Grant. I did not concur in this view of the subject. 
 I felt sure there must be some strong reason (which it would not be 
 prudent to disclose at the time) which had constrained General Grant 
 to forbear from including this clause among those upon which separate 
 votes were to be taken. 
 
 And here, in justice to General Grant's memory, it is proper that I 
 should say that, at a later day, I learned from an unquestionable 
 source that I was right in my conjecture. 
 
 The question, as to what clauses should be voted on separately, was 
 the subject of consideration in the Cabinet. There was little, if any, 
 difference of opinion about the " test-oath " and the " disfranchise- 
 ment" clauses. But when the "county-organization" clause came 
 up, much diversity of thought developed itself General Grant was 
 earnestly in favor of submitting it separately, but a majority of the 
 Cabinet had been led to believe that the secret but controlling reason 
 why the people of Virginia wished to strike out that feature, was to 
 rid themselves of the obligation to establish a system of free schools, 
 with which it was so intimately blended. This view of the subject 
 was pressed with so much warmth and earnestness that, although 
 General Grant did not believe it to be true, he found himself obliged, 
 for the sake of harmony in his Cabinet, to yield the point. 
 
 The President's proclamation became the subject of excited dis- 
 cussion in the newspapers and on the street corners and at every 
 place where half a dozen people met together. The disappointment 
 was keenly felt, and the enquiry was on the lips of every intelligent 
 man, " What shall we do?" This condition of things existed, not 
 only among the younger and more impetuous classes ; it prevailed, 
 to a great extent, among the most judicious and thoughtful men of 
 
58 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 the State. In a word, the pubHc mind was unsettled as to what was 
 the wisest course to pursue. 
 
 As an illustration of the condition of things which then existed, I 
 will refer to an incident within my own knowledge. 
 
 Business required my presence in Charlottesville, for a few days, 
 about the time of the issue of the President's proclamation. As I 
 walked from the courthouse to the railroad depot, where I was to 
 take the cars on my return to my home in Staunton, I casually fell 
 in company with an old and valued friend. Professor John B. Minor, 
 one of the most honored professors of the University of Virginia, 
 who was also about to take the cars as far as the University of Virginia. 
 The President's proclamation naturally became the subject of dis- 
 cussion. He inclined to the opinion that it would be best for the 
 people of Virginia to vote down the Underwood Constitution, and 
 said that such seemed to be the sentiment of his brother professors. 
 I differed with him, and we discussed the question until we arrived 
 at the University station, where the train then stopped for a few 
 moments. As he was about leaving the train, he said to me he had 
 been impressed with some of the views I had presented, and begged 
 me, when I arrived at home, to write him a letter, giving more full 
 expression to them, which I promised to do. 
 
 On the following day I wrote a letter to him, giving my opinion in 
 regard to the proper policy to be pursued by the people of Virginia, 
 and some of the most urgent reasons in support of it. This letter 
 was not written with any view to its publication. But, in a day or 
 two afterwards, I received a note from Professor Minor, thanking me 
 for the letter, and stating, that as it had aided him and some of his 
 co-professors in coming to a right conclusion on the subject, he 
 thought it might possibly render a similar service to others, and he 
 had, therefore, taken the liberty, without asking my consent, to send 
 it to the Richmond Enquirer for publication. It was, accordingly, 
 published in the Enquirer, and thence re-published in many other 
 papers. The following is a copy of it : 
 
 LETTER ADDRESSED BY HON. ALEXANDER H. H. STUART TO PRO- 
 FESSOR JOHN B. MINOR. 
 
 Staunton, May 24th, i86g. 
 My Dear Sir : 
 
 When I casually met you a few days ago, you requested that 
 I would express to you, in writing, my views of the course the people of 
 Virginia should pursue in regard to the questions about to be submitted for 
 their decision under the President's proclamation. I now proceed to do so. 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 59 
 
 There certainly was much disappointment felt when it was ascertained that 
 the President had failed to include the "county organization " clauses of the 
 Constitution among those which were to be submitted to the people to be 
 voted on separately. It was known that the President had expressed strong 
 opposition to these clauses, as tending to segregate the white and colored 
 population by a geographical line, and to impair the productive power of the 
 State, by separating the labor of the country from the capital of the Com- 
 monwealth. Hence a confident expectation was entertained that he would 
 afford to the people an opportunity of striking these objectionable features 
 from the proposed Constitution. In the first excitement occasioned by this 
 disappointment, some persons expressed their purpose to try and defeat 
 the whole instrument, by voting, first, to strike out the disfranchising clauses 
 and the test-oath, and then against the instrument thus expurgated. This 
 disposition was not unnatural under the circumstances. Within the four 
 years which have elapsed since the close of the war the people of Virginia 
 have been subjected to so much disappointment, annoyance, and obloquy, 
 that they have become sensitive and in some degree soured. 
 
 But, unfortunately, we are in no condition now to take counsel of our 
 wishes. We are not in that happy state in which we can afford to 
 indulge in the luxury of a little ill-temper. We are bound by inexorable 
 necessity to confront the stern realities of our situation, and to make the 
 best we can of them. After giving to the subject the best consideration, I 
 have satisfied myself that it is the true policy of the people of Virginia to 
 vote to strike out the test-oath and disfranchising clauses, and then to vote 
 for the adoption of the residue of the Constitution. I admit that it is a 
 painful necessity, yet it is not the less a necessity. 
 
 It is true that we will not get all that we had expected to get, yet I think 
 it is obvious that by so doing we gain a great deal. The Constitution, even 
 when expurgated, will be a very objectionable instrument, but it is certainly 
 much better than in its original form, and, in my judgment, it is infinitely 
 preferable to no Cotistitiition at all. We can at least live under it for a time, 
 with the certain assurance that after awhile we can greatly improve it. It 
 would tax my time and your patience too largely to give all the reasons 
 which have brought my mind to this conclusion. But I will state one or 
 two of the most prominent : It seems to me that in casting their votes under 
 the President's proclamation, the people are called on to decide where the 
 political power of the State is to rest hereafter, and who are to control her 
 destinies in the future. They will have to elect between three competing 
 propositions, neither of which is entirely acceptable, but there is no other 
 open to us. These propositions are: ist. To take the Underwood Consti- 
 tution pure and simple ; 2d. To vote the whole Constitution down ; 3d. To 
 adopt it, with the disfranchisement and test-oath stricken out. Let us now 
 consider what is the practical bearing and effect of each one of these propo- 
 sitions. Let us see how it will affect the future status of the political power 
 of the Commonwealth. 
 
 If we allow the Underwood Constitution to be adopted, with all of its 
 disqualifications, it is obvious that we voluntarily disfranchise ourselves for 
 a generation to come, and place the political power — the power to control 
 
60 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 our lives, liberty, and property — in the hands of the carpet-baggers and the 
 worst classes of our own people. I presume there are few intellig'ent and 
 upright men in the State who will favor this proposition, and I, therefore, 
 pass it by without further commentary. Let us now consider the second. 
 Suppose we vote the whole Constitution down, what follows ? Some con- 
 tend that matters would stand as they are. Assuming such to be the fact, I 
 ask is that not bad enough? We would have Wells for our nominal Gov- 
 ernor, and all of our offices filled by aliens and strangers. We would have 
 justice administered under military supervision and by appointees of a military 
 commandant. But what assurance have we that matters would remain as 
 they are ? How do we know whether our situation will not be rendered 
 more intolerable than it is now ? By votmg down the Constitution alto- 
 gether, we, in effect, recommit the whole political power of the State to a 
 Radical Congress. Has the past action of that body been such as to render 
 it desirable that they should again assume unlimited control over our des- 
 tiny ? I must acknowledge I think not. If we virtually decide that we will 
 have nothing to do with shaping our fortunes, we compel Congress to take 
 upon itself that office. The third proposition is, then, the only one that 
 offers any hope of escape from the terrible evils by which we are threat- 
 ened. If we strike out the restrictive features, and then adopt the residue 
 of the instrument, while we do not gain all we want, we at least place the 
 political power of the State in the hands of the better classes of the people 
 of Virginia. We snatch it from the grasp of the carpet-baggers and their 
 allies, and we withdraw it from the control of a Radical Congress. We will 
 entitle ourselves to a restoration to our rights in the Union, "and to the 
 withdrawal of military supervision and control over us. We can elect 
 officers and enact laws of our own, and within a year or two, after the excite- 
 ment incident to these political struggles shall have passed away, we can 
 call a new Convention and form a new Constitution adapted to our existing 
 condition. By striking out the disfranchisements and test-oaths, almost the 
 whole body of our population will be clothed with the power to vote and be 
 rendered eligible to office. The principle of popular sovereignty will be 
 established on a firm basis, and the voice of our own citizens will be poten- 
 tial in framing our future organic law and shaping our future policy. 
 
 I have thus stated, I think, fairly the three propositions between which the 
 people of Virginia are compelled to choose If there be any other open to 
 them I am not aware of it. Ought the people of Virginia to hesitate 
 between them ? I think not. I think they ought to expurgate the Constitu- 
 tion and then adopt it. But it is all-important that we should spare no 
 pains to secure a good Legislature and a good Governor. The reasons are 
 too obvious to require enumeration. They will readily suggest themselves 
 to every intelligent mind. If we expect good laws, we must elect a good 
 Legislature If we desire and wish an honest execution of the laws, we 
 must choose a wise and honest Governor. And while this is at all times 
 necessary, it is especially so now. The new Legislature will have to enact 
 all laws necessary to put the new government into operation. The Consti- 
 tution is not self-enforcing ; it requires legislation to give effect to it. The 
 new Governor will be clothed with the veto power to check hasty and im- 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 61 
 
 provident legislation. Need I say anything to show to the people the neces- 
 sity of making a wise selection of those who are to wield powers, fraught 
 with so much of weal or woe to the State ? 
 
 Very truly yours, etc., 
 
 Alex. H. H. Stuart. 
 
 But, resuming the narrative of events in their chronolog-ical order, 
 it will be observed that the withdrawal of the anti-Wells wing of the 
 Republican party from the Convention of the party at Petersburg, 
 and their subsequent nomination of a State ticket of Conservative- 
 Republicans, put a new face on the condition of public affairs. There 
 were now three distinct State tickets in the field. First, the Withers 
 ticket, which represented the Conservative party, which was opposed 
 to the general policy of the Republican party and to the Underwood 
 Constitution ; second, the Wells ticket, which was in favor of the 
 harshest policy of the Republican party and of the Underwood Con- 
 stitution just as it came from the hands of the Convention, without 
 any amendment ; and, third, the Walker ticket, which, while on national 
 questions it agreed with the conservative branch of the Republican 
 party, was earnestly and inflexibly opposed to the adoption of the 
 Underwood Constitution, unless some of its most objectionable fea- 
 tures were stricken out. The contest, therefore, seemed as if it 
 would assume a tripartite character, involving so many and such 
 complicated questions as to render it difficult for the masses of the 
 people to know what to think or how to act ! 
 
 Under these circumstances, the executive committee, which had 
 been appointed by the popular Convention of May 4th, 1868 (which 
 had nominated Withers and his associates), deemed it wise to call a 
 new Convention, to meet in Richmond on the 28th April, 1869, to 
 consider and decide what course it would be best to pursue, under 
 the new condition of affairs, to enable all opponents of the unmodi- 
 fied Underwood Constitution, without sacrifice of principle, to act in 
 harmony. 
 
 The Convention accordingly assembled in Richmond on the 28th 
 April, 1869, and immediately after its organization, Messrs. Withers, 
 Marye and Walker, with a view to relieve the Convention from any 
 embarrassment arising out of their nominations, made by the Con- 
 vention of 4th of May, 1868, patriotically resigned their respective 
 claims to said nominations. The Convention was thus left free to act, 
 as if no such nominations had ever been made, and with an eye single 
 to what was best for the safety and welfare of the State, under exist- 
 ing circumstances. 
 
62 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 The whole subject, in all its aspects, was fully and ably discussed 
 by gentlemen whose names and public services gave ample assurance 
 of their patriotic purposes ; and, after mature deliberation, the con- 
 vention finally decided — 
 
 ist. That the resignations of Messrs. Withers, Marye and Walker 
 be accepted. 
 
 2d. That it was not expedient to make aiiy iiominations to fill their 
 places ; but, " while expressing its hostility to the leading and general 
 features of the Constitution, and recognizing the necessity of organi- 
 zation for the purpose of defeating such provisions as may be sub- 
 mitted separately," declined to make any recommendation to the 
 Conservative voters of the State as to their suffrages upon the Con- 
 stitution, expurgated of said provisions, or as to the candidates that 
 may be before the people, feeling well assured that their own good 
 sense and patriotism will lead them to such results as will best sub- 
 serve the true and substantial interests of the Commonwealth." 
 
 These resolutions were adopted on 28th April, 1869, two weeks 
 before it was known what provisions of the Constitution would be 
 submitted for separate votes. The proclamation of President Grant, 
 indicating them, was not issued until 14th May, 1869. 
 
 The practical effect of the action of the Convention was, to leave 
 but two State tickets in the field, and to narrovc and simplify the issue 
 to be decided by the people to a choice between Wells & Co. and 
 the original Underwood Constitution, on the one hand, or Walker 
 and his associates and the Constitution, stripped of its most objec- 
 tionable features, on the other. 
 
 This action of the Convention was hailed with great enthusiasm 
 by the people of Virginia, as it gave them almost certain assurance 
 of relief from the horrors of the Underwood Constitution and the 
 domination of Wells ! 
 
 Both parties immediately set to work to organize for the contest, 
 by selecting candidates for the Senate and House of Delegates and 
 all other offices which were to be filled at the coming election ; and 
 notwithstanding the disappointment caused by the failure of Presi- 
 dent Grant in his proclamation to allow separate votes in regard to 
 other objectionable features of the Constitution, there was little, if 
 any, relaxation in the effort to arouse the people to a proper sense of 
 the dangers which threatened them, and to stimulate them to vigor- 
 ous efforts to ward them off". 
 
 The canvass was prosecuted with great spirit. The candidates 
 entered the field in person, and traversed the State, making speeches 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION.- 63 
 
 to the crowds assembled at the court-houses and other pubHc places. 
 Gilbert C. Walker, being a man of imposing appearance and a good 
 speaker, and being introduced and endorsed by Conservative gentle- 
 men, was received with enthusiasm as the champion of the rights of 
 the people. From these exhibitions of public opinion it seemed 
 manifest that the combined Conservative party would certainly 
 achieve a brilliant victory, unless some unexpected obstacle should 
 be interposed by Federal authority to impede its onward progress. 
 
 Thus matters stood until about the 20th of June, 1869. On that 
 day I received a telegram from Mr. Raleigh T. Daniel and Messrs. 
 Branch and Fisher, his associates on the Executive Committee, 
 urging me to come to Richmond as promptly as possible on business 
 of an urgent character I replied to this communication that I would 
 go to Richmond the next day, and could be found at the residence 
 of Dr. Hunter McGuire, who then lived diagonally across Broad 
 street from Ford's Hotel. I accordingly went to Richmond, and 
 within a few minutes after my arrival at Dr. McGuire' s, the gentlemen 
 above named called on me and explained the objects of their sum- 
 mons. They said they had learned from an authentic source that 
 General Canby, then in command of the United States troops at 
 Richmond, had expressed the opinion that tinder the terms of the 
 Reconstruction acts it ivould become his diity to preve^it any member- 
 elect of the Legislature from taki?ig his seat unless he would take the 
 oath prescribed by the act of fuly 2d, 1862, commonly called the 
 " iron-clad oath,'\ and that he proposed to issue a military order to 
 that effect ! 
 
 It was obvious that the results of such a measure would be dis- 
 astrous to the interests of the Conservative party, in destroying con- 
 fidence and unseating a large number of the members who would 
 probably be elected to the Legislature. It might also tend to arouse 
 a feeling of indignation among the people, that might endanger the 
 success of the Conservative ticket and defeat the expurgation and 
 ratification of the Constitution. 
 
 The object of the gentlemen in summoning me to Richmond was 
 to confer with me as to the best means of defeating the plans of 
 General Canby, and to invite me to render such assistance as I could 
 in accomplishing that object. 
 
 I remained the following day in Richmond in conference with the 
 committee, and after obtaining a copy of General Grant's telegram 
 to General Meade, commander of the troops in Georgia, dated 2d 
 March, 1868, I told them I could not see that I could render any 
 
64 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 service by remaining longer, but would return home and endeavor to 
 devise some means of extricating the State from the dangers which 
 threatened her. Accordingly I came home the following day. 
 
 On my return, after careful consideration, I prepared the following 
 letter to General Grant : 
 
 Staunton, y««(? ^j/A, i86g. 
 
 To His Excellency, 
 
 the President of the United States : 
 
 Sir, — I respectfully beg leave to bring to your notice a matter which 
 deeply affects the people of Virginia, and which, in my judgment, calls for 
 Executive interposition. 
 
 You are doubtless aware of the fact that the 6th day of July has been 
 named as the day for the election of State officers under the new Constitu- 
 tion, which is submitted, at the same time, for ratification or rejection, under 
 the terms of the Reconstruction acts of Congress, and your orders made in 
 pursuance thereof. 
 
 The people of Virginia, recognizing the considerate regard which you 
 have displayed for their interests and feelings, in affording them the oppor- 
 tunity of expurgating the proposed Constitution of two of its most obnoxious 
 features, have determined, in good faith, to accept the residue of the Con- 
 stitution and, in all respects, to comply with the terms prescribed by the acts 
 of Congress and your proclamation. 
 
 With this view, they have proceeded to make nominations of a State 
 ticket and members of the Legislature, taking care, in all cases, to nominate 
 none who were ineligible under the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment 
 of the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 Within a few days past, however, a rumor has become prevalent, which 
 I have reason to believe well founded, that General Canby, the military 
 commander of Virginia, has expressed the opinion that, under the terms of 
 the Reconstruction acts, it would become his duty to prevent any member 
 elect of the Legislature from taking his seat, unless he would take the oath 
 prescribed by the act of July 2d, 1862, commonly called the "iron-clad"' 
 oath. 
 
 While no one questions the good faith and upright purposes of General 
 Canby, I am persuaded that he has placed an erroneous construction on the 
 9th clause of the act of July 19th, 1867. 
 
 In this position I am sustained by very high judicial authority, to whom, 
 within a few days past, the question has been informally submitted, and also, 
 as I believe, by your telegram to General Meade, on 2d March, 1S68, in re- 
 gard to the officers elected, under similar circumstances, in Georgia. That 
 telegram is in the following words: "The officers elected under the new 
 Constitution of Georgia are not officers of the provisional government 
 referred to in the Reconstruction acts, nor are they officers elected under 
 any so-called State authority, and are not, therefore, required to take the 
 oath prescribed in section 9, act of July 19, 1867. The eligibility to hold 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 65 
 
 office must be determined by the new Constitution and the amendment to 
 the United States Constitution, designated as Article XIV." 
 
 The language of the gtli section of the act of July 19th, 1867, is, I believe, 
 substantially as follows: "That all members of said boards of registration 
 and all persons hereafter elected or appointed under any so-called State or 
 municipal authority, or by detail or appointment of the district commander, 
 shall be required to take and to subscribe the oath of office prescribed by law 
 for officers of the United States." 
 
 I respectfully submit that this act of Congress refers to the existing gov- 
 ernment of the State of Virginia, which exists only by sufferance and is 
 properly styled a "so-called government." In the contemplation of Con- 
 gress, it is a government not lawfully established, and in no sense a govern- 
 ment de jure. It is simply a temporary, provisional and " so called " 
 government. 
 
 But I respectfully submit, with equal confidence, that the new government, 
 now in process of establishment in Virginia under the direct authority of 
 Congress, i.i in nowise a " so-called " government, but, at each step of its 
 progress, is a lawful, dejure government, and that the reservation of power 
 by Congress to examine and approve the Constitution, does not make it 
 either a provisional or "so-called" government. 
 
 In support of this position, I respectfully refer to the fact that Congress 
 obviously contemplated action by the Legislature, so elected, on the pro- 
 posed Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution. It can hardly be supposed 
 that Congress would authorize the Legislature of a mere " so-called " gov- 
 ernment to exercise one of the highest functions of a de jure government, 
 viz. : to vote for or against an amendment of the Constitution of the United 
 States. 
 
 I also respectfully refer to the 6th section of the act of Congress under 
 which the election in Virginia is about to be held. That section provides 
 "That in either of said States, the commanding general, subject to the 
 approval of the President of the United States, may suspend, until the action 
 of the Legislatures elected under their Constitutions, respectively, all laws 
 that he may deem unjust and oppressive to the people." 
 
 Here it will be seen that the power to suspend injurious laws is expressly 
 limited " until the action of the Legislatures elected under their Constitu- 
 tions, respectively." 
 
 Why is this dispensing power given at all, and why is it subjected to the 
 limitation imposed ? Clearly it is given because the present government 
 is a mere "so-called" government, whose action is subordinate to military 
 authority, while, on the other hand, it is limited, because the Legislature 
 elected under the new Constitution is a Legislature recognized as de jure 
 and competent to enact the laws necessary for the welfare of the people. 
 When that Legislature meets, the suspending power of the military com- 
 mander ceases. The civil power is re-established on a lawful basis, which 
 is recognized by Congress, in advance, as superseding the necessity for mili- 
 tary intervention. 
 
 I would further respectfully suggest that the interpretation given by Gene- 
 
66 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 ral Canby to the acts of Congress is directly at variance with the policy 
 recommended by the Executive, sanctioned by Congress, and which is now 
 being carried out under your proclamation, directing separate votes to be 
 taken on the test-oath and disfranchising clauses of the Constitution. 
 
 It was obviously the purpose of Congress and the Executive to afford to 
 the people of Virginia an opportunity of excluding those objectionable fea- 
 tures from the Constitution. But, assuming General Canby's construction 
 to be correct, of what avail would a unanimous vote to exclude those 
 clauses be, if, in spite of such vote, the very test-oaths and disfranchise- 
 ments thus stricken from the instrument shall be applied to all officers 
 elected under the expurgated Constitution? The practical result would be 
 that, while these objectionable clauses would be stricken out by the vote of 
 the people on the 6th of July, they would be reinstated by military authority, 
 on the assembhng of the Legislature, four weeks after the adoption of the 
 Constitution. 
 
 I respectfully submit that no such condition of things could have been 
 contemplated either by Congress or the Executive. 
 
 I need hardly add anything in regard to the inexpediency of the course 
 which seems to be contemplated by General Canby. The people of Vir- 
 ginia are sincerely desirous of seeing harmony and good feeling restored. 
 They have surrendered many cherished convictions to secure this result. 
 But now, when we are on the eve of its accomplishment, a new and fearful 
 element of discord and ill-feeling is about being introduced, which, if per- 
 sisted in, will entail lasting evils on our country. 
 
 For these and other reasons, which I will not trouble you by stating in 
 detail, I now most respectfully, on behalf of the people of Virginia, request 
 that you will cause such instructions to be given to General Canby as may 
 lead him to conform his action to your telegram to General Meade, above 
 quoted, and thus avert the mischiefs which would otherwise result to the 
 State of Virginia. 
 
 Having for the last six months used every effort in my power to secure 
 the restoration of my native State to her proper relations to the Federal 
 Government, I have felt it to be a solemn duty to make this appeal to you 
 to so exercise the prerogative of your high office as to secure the prompt 
 accomplishment of that most desirable result. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 Alex. H. H. Stuart. 
 
 After the letter had been written and a fair copy made, by a confi- 
 dential friend, many difficulties presented themselves as to the best 
 means of ensuring its safe delivery to President Grant. I felt that if 
 I entrusted it to the mail, it was very doubtful whether General 
 Grant would ever see or hear of it. While my thoughts were thus 
 occupied, I fortunately saw my old and valued friend, Hon. John F. 
 Lewis, passing my office. I immediately invited him in and explained 
 to him the object of my recent visit to Richmond and the danger by 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION., 67 
 
 which we were threatened. I also read to him the letter to Grant, 
 which I had prepared and explained to him the necessity of hav- 
 ing it promptly and safely delivered into the President's own hands, 
 and proposed, that as he was a personal and political friend of the 
 President and could readily gain access to him, he should go to 
 Washington and deliver the letter. This he readily agreed to do. I 
 then placed the fair copy of the letter in an unsealed envelope, and 
 after directing it to President Grant, I suggested that it would be 
 well for him, before calling on General Grant, to read the letter to 
 General Rawlins, then acting Secretary of War, and try to secure 
 his co-operation with us. 
 
 On the following day, which I think was the 26th of June, 1869, 
 Mr. Lewis went to Washington and was absent for several days. On 
 his return, he informed me that he had had an interview with General 
 Rawlins and read to him my letter to the President, and that General 
 Rawlins had expressed, in emphatic terms, his concurrence in the 
 views expressed in it, and his readiness to do anything in his power 
 to secure the revocation of General Canby's order. Mr. Lewis 
 added that he had then sealed the letter and delivered it, in person, 
 to the President, who, after reading it, said he would give the subject 
 his attention without delay. But he gave no intimation as to what 
 his action would be. Of course, no personal answer to that letter 
 was expected ; but the official response was awaited with intense 
 anxiety, as much of weal or woe to the Commonwealth hung upon it. 
 In a few days, the response came in the most acceptable form in which 
 it could have been presented, viz.: a peremptory mandate to General 
 Canby to rescind his general order. 
 
 This mandate was promptly obeyed, and thus, by the vigorous 
 and patriotic interposition of General Grant, the last obstacle to the 
 deliverance of Virginia from tyrannical misrule was removed. The 
 spirits of the people were revived ; the canvass was prosecuted with 
 renewed vigor and energy. Finally, on the 6th of July, 1869, a 
 glorious victory was won by the Conservatives. The Underwood 
 Constitution was expurgated of its test-oath and disfranchisements 
 and adopted ; Gilbert C. Walker and his associates were elected to fill 
 the high offices for which they had respectively been nominated, and 
 a Legislature chosen which reflected the sentiment of the people. 
 Virginia was thus practically restored to her place in the Union and 
 her citizens reinvested with all the rights of freemen ! In a word, 
 the great work for which the Committee of Nine and their associates 
 had labored so faithfully and energetically for six months, in the face 
 
ba RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 of the storm of misrepresentation and obloquy by which they had 
 been assailed, was finished, and the committee were able to retire 
 from the field of action with the proud consciousness that the results 
 had fully demonstrated the wisdom and patriotism of their conduct. 
 I cannot close this "Narrative" without bearing my willing and 
 grateful testimony to the patriotic and magnanimous conduct of 
 General Grant toward the people of Virginia in all their troubles. 
 He received their representatives with kindness and affability, and 
 extended to them all the courtesy which was due to them as gentle- 
 men. He listened to all their complaints with patience and close 
 attention, and met every appeal in behalf of justice to Virginia in a 
 spirit of fairness and generosity. I believed in 1869 that he was dis- 
 posed to make every concession in the interests of peace which he 
 could make consistently with his obligations to the party which had 
 chosen him as its representative. He was the head and front of a 
 great party flushed with victory and still laboring under the excite- 
 ment of the recent fierce conflicts of the war. As such he was ne- 
 cessarily a party man. But he was more. He was a patriot, and 
 in the eloquent language of the late Hon. William C. Rives, he 
 never ceased ' ' to remember that he had a country to serve as well as 
 a party to obey " ! 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 69 
 
 ADDENDUM TO THE FOREGOING NARRATIVE. 
 
 After taking leave of General Grant in January, 1869, in Wash- 
 ington, I had no opportunity of meeting him again personally until 
 25th of June, 1872. 
 
 In October, 1871, a vacancy having been created in the Board of 
 Directors of the Trustees of the Peabody Education Fund by the 
 death of Admiral Farragut, one of the original trustees appointed by 
 Mr. Peabody, I was elected by the surviving members of the Board 
 to succeed him in the administration of this beneficent and honor- 
 able trust. 
 
 At the next succeeding meeting of the Board, which was held in 
 Boston on the 25th of June, 1872, I took my seat for the first time as 
 a member of the body of which General Grant was also a member. 
 In this way we were brought into close association at almost all the 
 meetings of the Board which were held from 1872 to 1884 inclusive. 
 During all this lapse of years, while there was nothing like intiniacy 
 between us, our relations were uniformly those of courtesy and good 
 feeling. 
 
 When General Grant closed his earthly career on the 23d of July, 
 1885, the whole country was filled with sympathy and sorrow and 
 mourning, which were shared in full measure by his late associate 
 members of the Peabody Board. 
 
 In anticipation of the next ensuing annual meeting of the Board, 
 which was appointed to be held in New York on the 7th day of Oc- 
 tober, 1885, I received a note from Hon. Robert C. Winthrop, Presi- 
 dent of the Board, informing me that he understood it to be the wish 
 of many of the friends of General Grant that I should prepare and 
 offer the formal tribute to his memory and character, to be entered 
 on the records of the Board. 
 
 I must acknowledge that this indication of myself to perform this 
 delicate and important duty was entirely unexpected, for I had sup- 
 posed it would have been devolved on ex-Secretary of State Hon. 
 Hamilton Fish, Hon. William M. Evarts, or the late Chief Justice, 
 Morrison R. Waite, who were also members of the Board, and whose 
 personal and political relations to General Grant had been of a much 
 more intimate character than mine. But I undertook the duty with 
 pleasure, because it afforded me, the only representative of Virginia 
 on the Board, a suitable and welcome opportunity of speaking in 
 
70 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 such terms as I deemed proper in commemoration of the talents, 
 pubHc services, virtues, and cathoHc patriotism of the illustrious 
 deceased, and more especially of the signal assistance which he had 
 given to my native State on more than one occasion of her sorest 
 need. 
 
 In pursuance of this arrangement, when the President, the Hon. 
 Robert C. Winthrop, had closed his address with an eloquent and 
 touching reference to the death of General Grant, I addressed the 
 Board as follows : 
 
 "Mr. Chairman, — I hope I shall not be regarded by my colleagues as 
 officious or obtrusive in moving that so much of our chairman's address as 
 refers to the death of General Grant be referred to a select committee of 
 three, to consider and report what action should be taken by the Board in 
 relation thereto. 
 
 General Grant, though a native and resident of the North, in fact belonged 
 to the whole country, and it has seemed to me that it would tend to give 
 emphasis to that fact if the movement to do honor to his memory were to 
 come from a Southern man. 
 
 I, therefore, as the representative of Virginia — a State which was under 
 many obligations to General Grant — take the liberty of submitting that 
 motion." 
 
 The motion was passed, and Messrs. Stuart, Hayes and Manning were 
 appointed the committee. 
 
 On the following morning I submitted the paper, which I had pre- 
 pared for the consideration of the committee, and it was promptly 
 and unanimously approved by them without modification or amend- 
 ment, and I was instructed to report it to the Board. The following 
 is the minute touching this report: 
 
 Mr. Stuart, in behalf of the committee to consider the tribute paid to 
 General Grant, submitted the following report and resolutions, which were 
 unanimously adopted, all the members rising when the question was put : 
 
 The committee to whom was referred so much of our chairman's open- 
 ing address as refers to the death of General U.S.Grant have had the same 
 under consideration, and respectfully submit the following 
 
 Death has again broken the ranks of our Board. General Ulysses S. 
 Grant, the laurel-crowned warrior, the statesman who was twice elevated 
 by the suffrages of the American people to the Presidency of the United 
 States, the large-hearted patriot whose affections and aspirations during life 
 were dedicated to his country's welfare and honor, the soldier who fought 
 through long years of war that peace and all its attendant blessings might 
 be secured to his countrymen, has been summoned from our side. 
 
RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 71 
 
 He went to his grave honored and lamented by men of all sections, and 
 parties, and races. Men who had been arrayed against him on the battle- 
 field twenty years ago were no less sincere in their grief for his death than 
 those who had stood by his side in the deadly encounters of war. All ap- 
 preciated his patriotic purposes — all admired his heroic courage and stead- 
 fastness — all honored his truthfulness and fidelity to every obligation. Bold, 
 fearless, and aggressive in war, he was humane and magnanimous in the 
 hour of victory. When mainly through his efforts civil war had ceased, he 
 was among the first to seek to calm the angry passions to which it had given 
 birth, and to invoke the blessings of peace and the restoration of union in 
 fact as well as in name. 
 
 All remember how his patriotic appeal to his countrymen at the com- 
 mencement of his first Presidential term, "Letus have peace," thrilled the 
 heart of every true American from the Lakes to the Gulf, and from the At- 
 lantic to the Pacific. From that hour to the close of his earthly career there 
 is good reason to believe that the first wish of his heart was to witness the 
 fulfilment of that prayer. When he stood, as it were, on the verge of the 
 grave — when his mortal frame was wasted by disease, and his tongue had 
 lost the power of giving utterance to the thoughts which filled his great 
 soul — he made the hand which had so successfully wielded the sword in 
 defence of the Union its substitute, to record his gratitude to God for having 
 permitted him to live long enough to witness the restoration of union and 
 fraternity between his lately discordant countrymen. 
 
 These noble sentiments sank deeply into the American mind, and 
 awakened an echo in every patriotic heart. When he was stricken with 
 the disease, which finally proved fatal, the hearts of the people of all sec- 
 tions overflowed with sympathy, and when the end came, a wail of grief 
 was heard throughout our whole country, which found expression in popu- 
 lar meetings, through the public press, and in every other mode of testifying 
 respect and affection known to civilized society, and his obsequies were 
 celebrated with a solemn pomp and ceremony unparalleled in our country 
 since the death of Washington. 
 
 General Grant was one of the sixteen original trustees named by Mr. 
 Peabody himself to administer his beneficent trust in behalf of the illiterate 
 children of the Southern States. He was in full sympathy with the purpose 
 of the founder of the trust, and earnestly and cordially co-operated with his 
 associates in their efforts to fulfil it. 
 
 At the date of his appointment, he was, with probably one exception, 
 the youngest member of the Board, and his robust frame and apparently 
 vigorous health gave promise of long life. But as it has pleased Him, in 
 whose hands are the issues of life and death, to order otherwise, all that 
 remains for us is, with bowed heads and reverent hearts, to submit to His 
 decree. 
 
 Having assembled now at our annual meeting for the first time since this 
 great affliction fell upon us, we, the surviving members of the Board of 
 Trustees of the Peabody Educational Fund, gladly embrace the opportunity 
 to place on our official records this testimonial of our profound esteem for 
 
LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 014 441 408 1 
 
 72 
 
 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 the character of our deceased associate, of our sincere grief at his loss, and 
 of our sympathy with his widow and family in their bereavement. 
 
 Of the achievements of General Grant, as a soldier and a statesman, we 
 have purposely forborne to speak more fully. They are of too recent date, 
 and in some respects too closely connected with the political and party con- 
 tests of the day to admit of impartial judgment by contemporaries. VVe 
 therefore remit these subjects to the domain of history, to which they 
 properly belong. 
 
 But there are asoects of his character and attributes of his nature which 
 elevate him far above the plane of the mere politician. Upon these all can 
 dwell with pleasure. His heroic courage, his unselfish devotion to his coun- 
 try, his fidelity to his friends, and his magnanimity to those who had been 
 his enemies, his prompt obedience to every call of duty, and his broad and 
 catholic patriotism, which embraced in its scope his whole country, and 
 ignored all sectional divisions, must command the approval of all good men. 
 Like Washington, he believed "the union of the States" to be "the palla- 
 dium of our political safety and prosperity," and no one was more prompt 
 than he "to frown upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any 
 portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which 
 now link together the various parts." 
 
 Whatever differences of opinion may exist as to the wisdom of special acts , 
 which he felt called on to perform during his long and brilliant career, few 
 will be found disposed to question the purity of his motives, and a still 
 smaller number to deny his title to be regarded as one of the most illus- 
 trious men of the nineteenth century. 
 
 In private life he was faithful in the discharge of every duty. A devoted 
 husband, an affectionate and indulgent father, a law-abiding citizen, a kind 
 neighbor, a courteous and affable gentleman, he enjoyed the confidence and 
 esteem of all who knew him, and few had warmer and more steadfast and 
 devoted friends. 
 
 As a member of this Board, he was prompt in his attendance on its ses- 
 sions, and an active and zealous supporter of every measure proposed by it 
 for the promotion of the sacred trusts committed to its charge, and the sur- 
 viving members will never cease to deplore the loss of his companionship 
 and the withdrawal ot the moral weight and influence which his great name 
 gave to the deliberations and action of the Board. 
 
 RESOLUTIONS. 
 
 Resolved, That the foregoing report be approved and adopted by the 
 Board, and that it be spread at large on our record as a heartfelt though 
 imperfect tribute of affection and respect by the surviving members of the 
 Board to the memory of their late distinguished associate. 
 
 Resolved, That our Chairman be requested to transmit a properly authen- 
 ticated copy of these proceedings to the widow and family of General Grant, 
 with an assurance of the profound sympathy of each and every member of 
 the Board in their sore bereavement. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 014 441 408 1 
 
 HolHnger 
 
 pH S3 
 
 MjU Run 503-2193 
 
LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 014 441 408 1 ^ 
 
 72 RESTORATION OF VIRGINIA TO THE UNION. 
 
 the character of our deceased associate, of our sincere grief at his loss, and 
 of our sympathy with his widow and family in their bereavement. 
 
 Of the achievements of General Grant, as a soldier and a statesman, we 
 have purposely forborne to speak more fully. They are of too recent date, 
 and in some respects too closely connected with the political and party con- 
 tests of the day to admit of impartial judgment by contemporaries. We 
 therefore remit these subjects to the domain of history, to which they 
 properly belong. 
 
 But there are asoects of his character and attributes of his nature which 
 elevate him far above the plane of the mere politician. Upon these all can 
 dwell with pleasure. His heroic courage, his unselfish devotion to his coun- 
 try, his fidelity to his friends, and his magnanimity to those who had been 
 his enemies, his prompt obedience to every call of duty, and his broad and 
 catholic patriotism, which embraced in its scope his whole country, and 
 ignored all sectional divisions, must command the approval of all good men. 
 Like Washington, he believed "the union of the States" to be "the palla- 
 dium of our political safety and prosperity," and no one was more prompt 
 than he "to frown upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any 
 portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which 
 now link together the various parts." 
 
 Whatever differences of opinion may exist as to the wisdom of special acts, 
 which he felt called on to perform during his long and brilliant career, few 
 will be found disposed to question the purity of his motives, and a still 
 smaller number to deny his title to be regarded as one of the most illus- 
 trious men of the nineteenth century. 
 
 In private life he was faithful in the discharge of every duty. A devoted 
 husband, an affectionate and indulgent father, a law-abiding citizen, a kind 
 neighbor, a courteous and affable gentleman, he enjoyed the confidence and 
 esteem of all who knew him, and few had warmer and more steadfast and 
 devoted friends. 
 
 As a member of this Board, he was prompt in his attendance on its ses- 
 sions, and an active and zealous supporter of every measure proposed by it 
 for the promotion of the sacred trusts committed to its charge, and the sur- 
 viving members will never cease to deplore the loss of his companionship 
 and the withdrawal ot the moral weight and influence which his great name 
 gave to the deliberations and action of the Board. 
 
 RESOLUTIONS. 
 
 Resolved, That the foregoing report be approved and adopted by the 
 Board, and that it be spread at large on our record as a heartfelt though 
 imperfect tribute of affection and respect by the surviving members of the 
 Board to the memory of their late distinguished associate. 
 
 Resolved, That our Chairman be requested to transmit a properly authen- 
 ticated copy of these proceedings to the widow and family of General Grant, 
 with an assurance of the profound sympathy of each and every member of 
 the Board in their sore bereavement.