University of Virginia Library

CHAPTER III

THE "RESTORED GOVERNMENT" AT ALEXANDRIA
AND THE BEGINNING OF RECONSTRUCTION

The "Restored Government" of Virginia had now given
away most of the territory under its feet to form the new
State of West Virginia. It could not gracefully remain in
West Virginia while claiming to exist as the government of
Virginia. Peirpoint consequently moved his seat of government
to Alexandria in the summer of 1863. This so-called
government of Virginia extended its control, after a fashion,
over those sections of the State which were at that time within
the lines of the Federal armies; namely, Alexandria City and
Alexandria County (now Arlington), Fairfax, Northampton,
Accomac, Norfolk City, and the adjacent country. A few
representatives came from counties over which the government
had no control. Fairfax was represented in both the
"Restored" legislature at Alexandria and in the unrestored
one at Richmond.

Prior to the disruption of Virginia, the "Restored Government"
could claim, over a limited area, a certain amount of
loyalty to itself. Now only a few hundred "loyal" citizens
were left—those who were emigrants from the North to Virginia,
and those few natives who did not represent the prevailing
loyalty to the Richmond government. Governor Peirpoint's
limited sphere of influence was further narrowed a year later
(in the summer of 1864), when that "damaged soul," Gen.
Benjamin F. Butler, called for an "election" in Norfolk to
enable the people of that city to decide between Peirpoint's
civil government and his own military rule. In spite of Peirpoint's
protest and appeal to the "loyal" people of Norfolk,

the election was held, and the result was announced by General
Butler, who had won by a vote of 330 to 16. The "Restored
Government" lost its control over the counties of the Eastern
Shore about the same time. But this farce of an administration
continued its existence—used or abused by the Federal
Government to suit its convenience—a typical example of the
absurd and almost humorous horseplay which characterized
the whole of the political disruption and reconstruction in
Virginia from 1861 to 1870. One of the remarkable things
about it all was that the Federal Government aided or abetted
this performance, under color of that article in the Constitution
of the United States which says that "The United States
shall guarantee to every state of the Union a republican form
of government."

Shortly after the "Restored Government" had been set up
in Alexandria, nominations were made and elections were held
for state and local officers. Francis Harrison Peirpoint was
reelected governor; E. L. C. Cooper, lieutenant-governor, and
T. R. Bowden, attorney-general. An election was held in one
congressional district, the Seventh. It was contested and
neither claimant was seated by Congress because of the small
number of votes cast. Elections were also held to decide
whether Berkeley and Jefferson Counties should become a
part of West Virginia or remain in Virginia. The majority
of the few votes cast was for annexation with West Virginia.
At the same time, however, the two counties elected delegates
to the "Restored" Virginia legislature. Although these counties
were nominally made a part of West Virginia by November,
1863,[1] their status continued uncertain for several years.
When the "Restored" legislature gave place in December,
1865, to a legislature which was truly representative of the
people of Virginia, the resolution giving the consent of the
State for the withdrawal of the two counties was repealed

because the election was a fraud. But this action was disregarded
by the Federal Government, and the counties were lost
to the State by the Act of Congress of March 2, 1866. As soon
as Virginia was restored to herself, in 1870, after Reconstruction,
she carried her claim to these lost counties into the
Supreme Court. The court refused to go behind the returns
of the election and Virginia lost the case.

On December 7, 1863, the legislature of the "Restored
Government" met in Alexandria for the first time. There were
six senators and seven delegates. They claimed to represent
the counties of Accomac, Alexandria, Fairfax, Loudoun,
Norfolk, Northampton, and Prince William, and the city of
Norfolk. J. Madison Downey, of Loudoun, was chosen speaker
of the House of Delegates. At the suggestion of Governor
Peirpoint, this legislature of thirteen members called a constitutional
convention to meet in January, 1864. A bill to
repeal the law against educating negroes failed to pass. Except
for summoning the convention, nothing of importance was
accomplished.

On February 13, 1864, the Constitutional Convention met
at Alexandria.[2] It was composed of fifteen delegates "representing"
twelve counties. Among the many changes made by
the Convention in the Constitution of 1851 were the abolition
of slavery, removal of many restrictions upon the rights and
privileges of negroes, provision for the disfranchisement of
Confederates, and also for the establishment of free schools.
It adopted no measure for the enfranchisement of negroes.
After the Convention adjourned on April 7, 1864, the Constitution
was submitted to the people and was approved by about
500 votes.[3]

The second session of the legislature of the Alexandria
Government began on December 5, 1864. This was its last

meeting in that city. Governor Peirpoint, in his message to
its members, suggested an extensive program of legislation
which would carry into effect the provisions of the new constitution
in regard to negroes, public schools, etc. These recommendations
resulted only in bills that did not pass. The
Assembly elected as senators from Virginia, John C. Underwood,
for the full term, and Joseph Segar to fill the vacancy
caused by the death of Lemuel J. Bowden. Congress refused
to admit them, however. The Assembly on February 9, 1865,
ratified the Thirteenth Amendment. It adjourned March 7.

The fall of Richmond and the surrender of Lee in April,
1865, left Virginia without a real system of government, since
the "Restored Government" was recognized by only an insignificant
minority. The people of the State realized that the
surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia meant the end
of the struggle. The soldiers returned to their neglected and
devastated farms. Although defeated, the people appreciated
the calm which followed the continual tumult of battle
throughout the State. They had no great apprehensions as
to their political future, since they knew Lincoln's plan for
reconstruction. In his proclamation of December 8, 1863, the
President had outlined this plan. He had offered amnesty to
all, with the exception of a few of the leaders; had recognized
those states where "loyal" governments had already
been established; and had offered to recognize any state government
as reconstructed so soon as one-tenth of the persons
who were qualified voters in 1860 should take an oath to support
the Union. Lincoln held that the states of the Confederacy
could not secede, and were, therefore, still in the Union.
They would then function as states of the Union so soon as
"loyal" governments could be formed. They would have to
accept, of course, the outcome of the war in regard to emancipation.
Lincoln in accordance with this plan, had already
established governments in Arkansas, Louisiana and
Tennessee before the end of the war.

After Richmond was occupied by Federal troops, Lincoln

visited the city and began to plan the reorganization of the
state government. On April 6, 1865, he wrote to General
Weitzel, who commanded the Federal troops in Richmond,
directing him to permit the legislature to meet and recall the
troops of the State from the armies in the field. Three days
later Lee surrendered. President Lincoln showed a certain
willingness to treat with the state officers in Richmond, but
unfortunately he was assassinated before he could effect the
reorganization of the state government. General Halleck,
who now took command in Richmond, refused to recognize in
anyway the state officers. For several weeks, there was a
period of uncertainty. During this period, the desire for
civil government was manifested by meetings of the citizens
to discuss its reestablishment. The most important of these
was held in Staunton, under the leadership of Alexander H.
H. Stuart, of Augusta, on May 8, 1865.[4] Resolutions were
adopted which declared that the people of Augusta accepted
the outcome of the war as final; were willing to conform to the
laws of the United States; and advised the calling together of
a state convention to reorganize the state government.

On May 9, 1865, President Johnson issued an executive
order "to reestablish the authority of the United States and
execute the laws within the geographical limits known as the
State of Virginia." This order declared null and voil all acts
of the late Confederacy and all acts of the government of
Virginia under the administrations of Governors Letcher and
Smith. It decreed that the laws and agencies of the Federal
Government should become operative in Virginia. And it was
further ordered, "That, to carry into effect the guaranty by
the Federal Constitution of a republican form of state government,
and to afford the advantage and security of domestic
laws, as well as to complete the reestablishment of the
authority and laws of the United States, and the full and complete
restoration of peace within the limits aforesaid, Francis
H. Peirpoint, Governor of the State of Virginia, will be aided

by the Federal Government as far as may be necessary in the
lawful measures which he may take for the extension and
administration of the State government throughout the
geographical limits of said State."[5]

President Johnson gave his ideas in regard to the constitutional
status of the Southern States and defined his plan for
their reconstruction in his first message to Congress, December
4, 1865, the day on which that body refused to admit representatives
of the state governments which he had set up in the
South. His arguments for not attempting to reconstruct the
commonwealths of the late Confederacy by the establishment
there of military government were so strikingly confirmed by
later events that they seem almost prophetic. He said, "Now
military governments, established for an indefinite period,
would have offered no security for the early suppression of
discontent; would have divided the people into the vanquishers
and the vanquished; and would have envenomed hatred rather
than have restored affection. Once established, no precise
limit to their continuance was conceivable. They would have
occasioned an incalculable and exhausting expense. Peaceful
emigration to and from that portion of the country is one of
the best means that can be thought of for the restoration of
harmony, and that emigration would have been prevented; for
what emigrant from abroad, what industrious citizen at home,
would place himself willingly under military rule? The chief
persons who would have followed in the train of the army
would have been dependents on the general government, or
men who expected profit from the miseries of their erring
fellow citizens. On this principle I have acted, and I have
gradually and quietly, and by almost imperceptible steps,
sought to restore the rightful energy of the general government
and of the states."

The recognition of the Alexandria government by the
President gave Virginia a state government under civil

authorities. This government, unlike those established in the
states in which the provisional governments had been formed
under military control after the War, had already been
recognized as the legal government of the commonwealth and
a member of the Union.

Governor Peirpoint, who had been the chief executive of
Virginia largely by the aid of a generous imagination, and for
the convenience of the Federal Government, was now recognized
as governor by the people of the whole State, a people
who were anxious for some form of civil administration. He
accordingly moved his government from Alexandria to Richmond
during the latter part of May, 1865. From June 19 to
23, 1865, an extra session of the "Restored," or "Alexandria"
legislature met in the capital city. It was the last session of
the "Restored" Assembly. There were present three senators
and nine members of the House of Delegates. At the
suggestion of Governor Peirpoint, this Assembly enacted
some much needed laws regarding freedmen, and passed an
enabling act which allowed a popular vote on the revision of
Article III of the Virginia Constitution of 1864, which had
disfranchised the Confederates in the State. The conservatism
of the Assembly is further shown when, on the last day
of the session, a resolution was adopted commending the
reconstruction policy of the Federal administration as
"eminently wise, just and proper," and when Speaker
Downey, before adjournment, congratulated its members
because the recognition of the Alexandria government had
delivered the state out of the hands of the "Abolitionists"
(the radical republicans). "Virginia," he said, "is now safe.
Whatever they may do to other states, thank God they cannot
now saddle negro suffrage upon us."

It should be remembered that the Speaker and those whom
he addressed were of the same group which had adhered to
the Union under the shelter of Federal bayonets in Alexandria.

This utterance, though coming from the foreign and Union
element in Virginia, is not surprising in view of the fact that

the negro was not only denied the suffrage in most of the
Northern States but was even forbidden to enter some of them
with the intention of residing.[6]

Speaker Downey was but expressing the sentiment of the
great body of conservative men of the North at that time.
But the unfortunate personality of President Johnson, the
necessary but unwise vagrancy laws of the Southern states,
and the growing need of the Republican party for extreme
measures to keep itself in power, brought the Radicals in
Congress to the front.

In 1865, Virginia came out of the war freed from slavery,
but confronted with a tremendous racial and social problem in
the great crowd of freedmen who were poor, ignorant, unmoral,
superstitious, easily led astray, and utterly unused to the
ways of freedom and self-control. They outnumbered the
whites in almost half of the counties, the local units of government
in the State. The difficulties of the situation were
enhanced by the fact that the State Government was no longer
in the hands of those who understood the real conditions, and
who were best equipped to administer it.

Before the radical element of the Republican party gained
control of the Federal Government, the conservative leaders
of both parties in the North looked upon negro suffrage as
unwise and dangerous in the South,[7] and not highly desirable

in the North. In 1865, there were only six Northern states
which permitted negroes to vote: Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.[8]
In those states there were discriminations against them, with
the probable exception of Maine. Yet negroes in the Northern
States were not an appreciable factor in the population and
were far more intelligent than the former Southern slaves.
In the Federal capital itself, they were not allowed to vote.
On June 8, 1867, Congress passed a bill over the President's
veto establishing negro suffrage in the District of Columbia.
When the plan was submitted to the ballot, it was rejected by
a vote of 6,521 to 35 in Washington, and by a vote of 812 to 1
in Georgetown. But negro suffrage was introduced, and after
four years of trial proved so disastrous that Congress had to
rid the District of the disturbing element in politics by
disfranchising the whole population.

Unlimited negro suffrage had no place in Lincoln's plan of
Reconstruction, or in the early congressional plan. It was

forced upon the South by a group of aggressive radicals led
by Thaddeus Stevens as a means of their personal aggrandizement
and of inflicting punishment and revenge upon the
Southern States. Its effects in Virginia are shown in the
pages that follow.

Governor Peirpoint,[9] though a stanch Union man, was
conservative, and for that reason soon lost favor with the
extremists of his party. These men, for the most part scalawags
and carpetbaggers, desired to gain control of the State
for their own purposes by disfranchising most of the whites
and giving the ballot to the ignorant blacks. On June 12,
1865, the Republicans of the Radical center, Alexandria,
formed a political association. They adopted resolutions to the
effect that the State was in danger of coming under the control
of secessionists; and that, to prevent this, "the constitution of
Virginia should be amended so as to confer the right of suffrage
upon, and restrict it to, loyal male citizens without
regard to color." This "Union Association of Alexandria,"
as it was called, also urged the people of the North, and Congress,
to regard the Peirpoint government as merely provisional,
and to order an election of members to a state convention,
in which all "loyal" men should vote regardless of
their color. According to Dr. Eckenrode, "This was the first
announcement of their advocacy of negro suffrage by the
Republican party in Virginia."[10]

The state elections in the fall of 1865 resulted in the amendment
of the Alexandria Constitution of 1864 so as to extend
the franchise to those who had aided the Confederacy, and to
allow them to hold office. As a result, the legislature that

met on December 4, the very day that the Virginia delegates
were refused seats in Congress, was a very representative and
conservative body. John B. Baldwin, of Augusta County, an
ex-congressman of the Confederacy, and one of the ablest
politicians of the State, was made speaker of the House of
Delegates. However, R. M. T. Hunter, William Smith, and
many others of like prominence in the Commonwealth, were
not members of the Assembly. It was composed of younger and
less experienced men. The conservatism of this body may be
inferred from the fact that out of the ninety-seven members
of the House of Delegates all but one were old line Whigs.[11]

The attitude of the governor and of the citizens of Virginia
was correctly stated in Governor Peirpoint's message to the
Assembly, in which he said:

"I have made every exertion to restore to each man in the
State all the rights of a citizen. I have done this under a high
sense of duty to my country. The people professed subordination
to the laws and allegiance, in good faith, to the government,
and I believe them to be sincere in their professions.
I am satisfied that no state can be governed under a republican
form of government where three-fourths of the people,
embracing the largest taxpayers, are disfranchised and denied
a voice in making or executing the laws of the State."[12]

There was plenty of work for this legislature to do for a
war-stricken community. It attempted to win back West Virginia,
and, since that was impossible, to effect with that state
a reasonable adjustment of the public debt. On March 2, 1866,
the Assembly passed by an unanimous vote an act to provide
for the funding of the interest on this debt. One-third of it
was considered as West Virginia's share.[13] In order to put
an end to the rumors that the Assembly would repudiate the

state debt, this legislature passed the following joint
resolution:

"1. Resolved, That this General Assembly will pass no
such acts of repudiation.

"2. That such legislation would be no less destructive of
our future prosperity than of our credit, our integrity, and
our honor."

This resolution of what may be regarded as the last General
Assembly of the ante-bellum regime should be carefully
borne in mind when considering the Readjuster legislation of
1879 to 1884.[14]

The greatest problem that confronted the legislature
when it met in December, 1865, was the large number of aimless
and vagrant freedmen. The State had been the main battlefield
of a long war. Many of her young men were dead;
her ante-bellum capital was gone; her transportation system
was crippled; her whole system of labor was demoralized.
Although want and poverty were everywhere and labor was
needed as never before, there was in many localities an
abundance of freedmen who understood emancipation to mean
exemption from work, and the ability to roam at will, and to
live by the aid of the Freedmen's Bureau and petty thieving.
Many of them, in order fully to demonstrate their freedom,
left their old homes. Often their wives and children were left
as a further burden on their former masters. They crowded
into the cities. They congregated in some places in the
country, killed the cattle and poultry, and devastated the cornfields
and melon patches. The whites of the State, scattered
through the rural districts with little police protection, if any,
were naturally alarmed at this condition of affairs.[15]

The reports of the military officers stationed in Virginia
show that this tendency among the freedmen was also causing

them grave concern. They advised the negroes to go to work,
and attempted to put an end to vagrancy among them by the
use of their authority. An order of June 1, 1865, of General
Gregg, who was stationed at Lynchburg, reads as follows, "No
freedman can be allowed to live in idleness when he can obtain
any description of work. Should he refuse to work he will be
treated as a vagabond." On the day following the date of this
order, another was issued by General Gregg to the effect that
"Able-bodied men will be prevented, as far as it is possible to
do so, from deserting their women, children, and aged persons;
and where there is no good cause shown why they left, they
will be sent back." General Duval at Staunton gave notice on
June 2, 1865, "That all negroes now roaming the country will
be made at once to break up their idle pursuits and seek
employment." Colonel Brown, in a report of January 2,
1866, said that "in the neighborhood of Norfolk, Fortress
Monroe, and Yorktown, about 70,000 negroes have been collected
during the war. * * * In other districts, thousands
of freedmen were roaming about without settled employment
and without homes. In localities least disturbed by the pressure
or conflict of armies, and where the average amount of
land was under cultivation, the crops were suffering from
want of proper attention."[16]

The wages paid the freedmen were very low. The farmers
were without capital and could afford to pay little. On
the other hand, the negroes showed no disposition to assume
any responsibility for their contracts or their work, and, consequently,
their aid could not be depended upon in advance.
At the same time, they were encouraged by the carpetbaggers,
and sometimes by the officers of the Freedmen's Bureau, to
demand wages higher than had ever been paid in the State to
either whites or blacks. In speaking of the freedmen,
Governor Peirpoint said in his address to the General
Assembly, December 4, 1865:

"A prevalent idea among them was that when they were
liberated they were to occupy the lands of their former masters.
Since they were liberated, many of them were induced
to believe that, if they remained with their old masters, they
would be in danger of reenslavement—hence they became roving.
In many instances, where satisfactory wages are paid,
they render fair service; but I think this is not generally the
case. The great mass of them refuse to enter into contract
for more than a month and frequently leave before that time
expires."

The need for legislation to prevent vagrancy was very
great, and the demand for such legislation was especially
urgent and insistent throughout eastern Virginia. Under
these circumstances, it was natural that the legislature should
have attempted to find some relief for the situation. An act
was, therefore, passed whose stringency was commensurate
with the seriousness of the evil that existed.[17] It was provided
that all beggars, except those who were incapable of
labor, and all persons in the State who could not support themselves
and their families and yet refused to work for the
"usual and common wages given to other laborers in the like
work in the place where they then were" be classed as vagrants.
Along with these were placed all persons who came into the
State, and who had no occupation, or visible means of support,
and who could not give an account of themselves or their
business. If, upon due examination, a person was found to
be a vagrant, he was to be hired out for any term not exceeding
three months, and the wages used for him or his family.
Provision was made for the punishment of the vagrant should
he attempt to escape from his enforced employment.

There was no distinction of color made in this law.
Although it was intended primarily for the freedmen, the
fifth section of the second article of the law undoubtedly
refers to the political adventurers who had already begun to
swarm into the State in search of plunder. The law resembled

those enacted in the New England states when they were
menaced by a large number of more or less ignorant and
vagrant immigrants. It was stringent only for incorrigibles,
but was subject to abuse. Although circumstances demanded
a rigid law, it was unwise at this time, because it furnished at
a critical period in national politics good material for radical
Republican propaganda. The practical working of the law was
not tested, since it was annulled nine days after its passage
by Major-General Terry on the ground that it would virtually
restore slavery under another guise. It was, no doubt, on
account of the misinterpretation of this vagrancy law that
the legislature passed the following resolution on February
6, 1866:

"Resolved, That involuntary servitude, except for crime,
is abolished, and ought not to be reestablished, and that the
negro race among us be treated with justice, humanity, and
good faith, and every means that the wisdom of the legislature
can devise should be used to make them useful and
intelligent members of society."

That the legislature wished to make it clear that, in their
opinion, the time was not ripe for precipitating the ignorant
freedman into the electorate without preliminary training is
shown by the further resolution "that earnest thanks are due
the President for the firm stand he has taken against amendments
of the Constitution forced through in the present
condition of affairs."[18] That this legislature had no desire
to reenslave the negro is shown by the act of February 27,
1866,[19] which repealed, for the most part, the old slave code.
Even the laws prohibiting the freedmen from owning firearms
or other weapons were repealed, in spite of the prevailing
unrest among them, and the fear among many of the whites of
negro insurrections.

On January 23, 1866, the condition of affairs in Virginia
came before the Reconstruction Committee in Congress. The

First Mixed Jury of Virginia Charging Jeff Davis with Treason, 1866
Inserts of Chief Justice Chase, Underwood and Davis

great majority of witnesses were Republicans, mostly Radicals,
who were not even natives of the State, and in some
cases their views were very extreme. For example, one witness,
when asked what the Virginians, if left to themselves,
would do to the negro, answered, "They would entirely extirpate
him from the face of the earth. They would first commence
with the Union men and then they would take the
negroes."[20] This is an example of what the people of the
North were induced to believe by the Radicals. Most extraordinary
rumors of all kinds were afloat. At this time some
acts of violence were committed by members of both races in
the State. The state government had wholly collapsed; the
country was filled with vagrants; and the whole social as well
as economic structure of the Commonwealth was rapidly
changing. The party in power also made the mistake of treating
the political and racial questions in the South as a whole,
in spite of the fact that conditions varied greatly in the
different states.

The people of Virginia never blamed the negroes for the
War and its evil consequences. In fact, the fidelity of the
great majority of them to their masters, and their masters'
families, during the whole period of hostilities has always been
remembered with appreciation by the white people of the
South. The old servants still depended upon their former
masters for advice and aid. The press and the official reports
of the Federal officers stationed in Virginia indicate an
increasing spirit of harmony between the two races from 1865
to 1867. It was the injection of the negroes into politics
before they were sufficiently intelligent to assume the responsibilities
of the franchise, and the radical influence of the
Freedmen's Bureau officials, Union Leaguers, Northern political
adventurers of all kinds, and Northern school teachers,

that caused the friction that existed between whites and
blacks after 1867.[21]

The year 1866 was full of anxiety to the people of Virginia.
At the end of the previous year, Congress had refused to
admit their representatives. Lincoln's plan of early conciliation
and restoration, which President Johnson had adopted,
was doomed to failure. From the nature of the witnesses and
the testimony they gave before the Reconstruction Committee
in January, 1866, it was evident that Congress had nothing
good in store for Virginia. It was felt that the old South with
its traditions had gone; that the eastern part of the State
would probably sink into the condition of Hayti; and that
whatever might be saved from being "negroized," would only
be saved at the price of being "Yankeeized," whatever that
word connotated at the time.[22]

Emboldened by the increased strength of the Radicals in
Congress, their followers were much encouraged to seek control
of affairs in Virginia. On May 17, 1866, the "Unconditional
Union Convention" met in Alexandria. It was the first

state-wide political convention in Virginia since the war. Its
chairman was John Minor Botts, a man of no mean ability,
who had remained loyal to the Union during the war and had
not thereby increased his popularity in his native state. A
resolution was adopted by this convention, "That no reorganized
state government of Virginia should be recognized by
the government of the United States which does not exclude
from suffrage and holding office, at least for a term of years,
all persons who have voluntarily given moral or material support
to rebellion against the United States, and which does
not, with such disfranchisement, provide for the immediate
enfranchisement of all Union men without distinction of
color."

It also declared that, since the Virginia legislature was
made up largely of rebels, it was an unlawful body, and that
its laws, therefore, should be considered illegal and void.

The convention furthermore took steps to circulate
through the State a petition, addressed to the Senate and
House of Representatives of the United States, asking that
the Peirpoint government be overthrown, and that the reconstruction
of Virginia be made along those lines afterwards
adopted by Congress and known as the Congressional plan
of Reconstruction. This plan would require the appointment
of a provisional governor. Therefore, "They [the signers
of this petition] further request," continued the petition,
"that the Hon. John C. Underwood, the faithful patriot and
distinguished jurist, who has always adhered to the Government
with a fidelity which no flattery could seduce, no bribery
corrupt, nor fears intimidate, be selected as said provisional
governor."[23]

John C. Underwood was a native of New York[24] who had
lived in Clarke County, Virginia, for a few years prior to the
War of Secession, and who had become so unpopular there
on account of his radicalism that he soon found it more agreeable

to reside at the North. He was a man of little education
or natural ability, and was utterly unscrupulous. He
returned to Virginia in the wake of the Federal armies and
was appointed district judge of Virginia in 1861, with his court
at Alexandria. Underwood had already made himself
obnoxious by advocating the disfranchisement of all but
"loyal" whites; by his activity in confiscating the property of
Virginians who had aided the Confederacy; and by urging the
negroes to be active in politics.

Besides the adverse testimony before the Reconstruction
Committee, there was other material for radical propaganda
against Virginia in 1866. In the spring of that year, Judge
Thomas, of Alexandria, rendered a decision adverse to the
Civil Rights law. He held that the laws of Virginia forbade
negroes to testify in cases where only whites were concerned;
and that a Federal law could not prescribe qualifications for
witnesses in a state. A more serious case was that of Dr.
Watson, of Rockbridge County, who was brought to trial in
the autumn for the murder of a negro and was acquitted.
Whereupon he was ordered by General Schofield to appear
before a military tribunal, but was pardoned by President
Johnson before trial. Although such cases were exceptional,
they were used with much effect in creating an unfavorable
impression at the North of conditions in Virginia.

On September 2, a convention was called at Philadelphia
to bring together the Republicans at the North and the Unionists
at the South. The topic that was most discussed in that
body was unrestricted suffrage. Of the Virginia delegation,
John Minor Botts opposed unrestricted suffrage, and James
W. Hunnicutt, who was destined to become one of the leading
Radicals of the state, advocated manhood suffrage, except to
"rebels."[25] During the last days of its session, the convention,

by a small vote, declared itself in favor of manhood
suffrage. As Dr. Eckenrode points out,[26] it was not until
after this convention that manhood suffrage was accepted by
the Republican party.

When on December 2, of his unhappy year, 1866, the legislature
met in its second session, Governor Peirpoint wisely
advised moderation in all laws regarding freedmen and Federal
relations, and counseled the ratification of the Fourteenth
Amendment. But public sentiment in the State was very
strong against the amendment, and the legislature could not
conscientiously ratify it while there was hope of its being
defeated. Besides, Virginia considered it most illogical and
unlawful to be treated as a conquered province, and at the
same time be forced to aid in ratifying an unwelcome amendment
as one of the states of the Union. Consequently, it
rejected the amendment on January 9, 1867.[27]

On March 3, 1867, the Assembly adjourned. On that day
the Speaker of the House of Delegates, John B. Baldwin,
stated that Virginians were loyal to the Union. He admonished
them to show prudence, calmness, and forbearance and
to watch and work and wait. "Let us," he said, "realize the
fact that after all that has passed, we have still a country to
make the most of, to make the best of; and that it is indeed our
country to be defended, if need be, against a world in arms."
Before this legislature closed its doors, it requested the Governor
to call an extra session at once to meet the emergency
that would arise out of legislation pending in Congress.
Governor Peirpoint complied with the request.

In his message of March 4, 1867, to the newly convened
Assembly, he reviewed the course of Reconstruction. He said
that President Johnson's course was commended by both parties
and by both sections in the summer and fall of 1866. The
Congress of 1866-1867, which had been in session for seven
months, had brought in the Fourteenth Amendment. It had
been rejected by a hostile South whose press had been "bold,
defiant, and bitter." The President and Congress had not
agreed. This resulted in the Reconstruction Act of March 2,
1867, "to provide for the more efficient government of the
rebel states." He then described Virginia's attitude toward
the Union. His judgment is especially valuable on account
of his own loyalty to the Union, and on account of his intimate
knowledge of the political situation in the State. "If there
is any truth in human testimony," he said, "three-fourths of
the men of Virginia—farmers, mechanics, and merchants—
are as well disposed as any people in the nation. The causes
of irritation [to Congress] came from comparatively few.
The masses desire peace and its blessings, and have no sympathy
with those restless agitators and disturbers of the
public peace."

He then laid before the Assembly the Reconstruction Act
of March 2 with the advice that a convention be called to make
a constitution to meet the conditions therein imposed. The
legislature, realizing that the radicals now had control of
Congress, decided to act upon the Governor's advice. A bill
providing for the calling of a constitutional convention was
introduced in the Senate on March 9, and a committee was
sent to Washington to learn the wishes of congressional
leaders in this matter. They returned with the assurance of
these men that the proposed bill was satisfactory, and that a
convention, called according to its provisions, would be considered
legal by them under the Reconstruction Act of
March 2.[28]

The Richmond Whig had, at an early date, began to urge

the people of the State to accept the inevitable. The Richmond
Dispatch also counseled them to support the action of
the Senate and "to come out and take part in the political
measures of the day, and, gracefully submitting to necessity,
thus save themselves and their state from the most dreadful
fate that ever came upon a nation, namely, the giving up,
through inaction, their government and their fates to the colored
voters and the followers of Hunnicutt." There were
many advocates of inaction in politics at first, but this
changed as Reconstruction progressed.

The bill for calling a constitutional convention was passed
by a large majority in the Senate. But the Act of Congress of
March 23 made a vote on the bill of no use in the House. In
the meanwhile, however, the Reconstruction Act of March 2
was being put into execution. Virginia now became Military
District No. 1, and Lieut.-Gen. John M. Schofield, who had been
in charge of the Federal troops of the Potomac Division, was
put in command. He assumed control of the district on
March 13, 1867. Reconstruction had come.

Virginia was most fortunate in having General Schofield
at this time. He was conservative, wise and just; and it was
due to his moral courage and good sense that Virginia was
spared the reign of terror that existed in most of the Southern
States during the Reconstruction period. His policy was to
gain the confidence and support of the people of the State and
to interfere as little as possible with the civil authorities.[29]

The Reconstruction Acts of March 2 and March 23 gave
to the freedmen the right to vote for delegates to a constitutional
convention to frame a constitution according to the
wishes of Congress. The negroes had, however, already made
their first attempt to vote on March 5, 1867, at Alexandria,
where they had been influenced by the Northern settlers in
their midst. The mayor of the town and the local judge asked
the advice of the President of the United States, and of the

Attorney-General, as to the right of these people to participate
in the municipal election. As no definite answers were given
to the inquiry, negro votes were not recognized. In this election
there were cast 1,400 such votes (counted by a Radical
agent), 1,000 white Conservative votes, and seventy-two white
Radical votes.[30] This action on the part of the election officials
brought forth much harsh criticism in the North. Similar
troubles elsewhere in Virginia were prevented by an order
from General Schofield of April 2, which forbade any local
election until after registration under the Reconstruction Acts
had been completed. In the meanwhile, vacancies were filled
by the commanding general.[31]

Immediately after the Reconstruction Act of Congress of
March 23 was published, General Schofield appointed a board
of army officers to select suitable persons as registering officers
throughout the State. In making the selection, preference was
given, first, to officers of the army and of the Freedmen's
Bureau on duty in the State; second, to persons who had been
honorably discharged from the army after having seen service;
and third, to "loyal" citizens of the locality in which they
were to serve. In fact, the greater part of them were chosen
from the first class.

The outlook in Congress was becoming more and more
discouraging to the Southern people. On March 19, 1867,
Thaddeus Stevens introduced his bill for confiscating the
property of "rebels." In a speech advocating this measure as
a punishment of the people of the South, he said, "The punishment
of traitors has been wholly ignored by a treacherous
executive and by a sluggish Congress. I wish to make an issue
before the American people and see whether they will sanction
the perfect impunity of a murderous belligerent. * * * To
this issue I desire to devote the small remnant of my life." It
was in the hands of this man and his followers that the fate of
the country seemed to rest in March, 1867. In view of such

leadership in Congress, and of such legislation as had already
been enacted, it is not surprising that the feeling of uncertainty,
gloom, and dread should have settled down over the
people of Virginia. The description of the conditions that
prevailed at the time in Virginia, given in the following
extracts from letters published in the Richmond Dispatch of
March 21, 1867, are typical of those found in many letters and
other contemporaneous accounts.

The first letter, dated March 19, 1867, is from Halifax
County. "The country," said the writer, "wears now a
gloomy aspect, and the farmers are depressed. Before the
war many farmers worked a large number of negroes. But it
is now the rarest thing to find a half dozen negroes working
together. * * * Politically, the people want rest and peace.
They have been in war and storm long enough. They feel they
have no power of resistance and hence desire to heal the breach
between the South and the Federal Government with the
least possible delay. True, you sometimes meet with individuals
who counsel entire inactivity; but these are the exceptions
to the general rule. Submit to any requirements of the
conquering party—for it is a necessity—is well nigh the
unanimous voice of this region of the country."

The second is a private letter to the Baltimore Sun, which
says that it was written by one of the most eminent citizens of
Accomac County and adds that "there is much reason to
believe it too true." "I regret," he said, "that there is nothing
pleasant to communicate; general gloom and despondency
hang over our entire section, and a fearful looking for what
is to come. The prospect is less promising to me than at any
previous period. We might nerve ourselves to meet the most
stringent of political measures if there was a certainty of its
being final. But it seems a disposition to accede to the
demands of the dominant party leads to more oppressive
demands.

"A want of confidence, a perfect stupor, and an indisposition
to attempt anything, or to form any plans for the future,

is the inevitable consequence of the position of matters. God
only knows what is to become of us."

The above letter explains in part the amazing inactivity
that existed in some sections of the South among the whites
during the first part of Reconstruction.[32]

Prior to September, 1866, negro suffrage was not favorably
considered except by a few extreme Radicals. But as the Republican
party came under the control of the radical element,
which was destined to bring so much discredit upon the party,
not only at the South but at the North, negro suffrage was
adopted by that party to bolster up its declining strength.
The negro was most unfortunate in the time of his induction
into politics (March, 1867). And he was still more unfortunate
in his sponsors on that occasion. It would be hard to
imagine less desirable political teachers and leaders for the
freedmen in Virginia than such men as the carpet-bagger
Underwood and the scalawag Hunnicutt. Yet these men,
whose radicalism was fast bringing them into prominence in
1865 and 1866, absolutely dominated the negro voters, and,
through them, Virginia politics, in the campaign of 1867.