University of Virginia Library

CHAPTER VI

THE COMMITTEE OF NINE

The story of the contest in 1868 and 1869 between the
Conservatives and the Radicals over the adoption of the
Underwood Constitution is one of continual changes in the
political attitude of both parties. The Conservatives grew
more liberal, and the conservative Republicans more conservative
until they finally became allies of the Conservative party.
The Radicals clung to the Underwood Constitution with all
of its objectionable clauses, in spite of the willingness of the
Conservatives to compromise. When defeated in the fall of
1869, they urged Congress to continue military rule in the
State and to inaugurate a government by Radicals alone. As
a result of these political alignments, the Conservative white
party grew larger, and the Radical, smaller and blacker.
Furthermore, the name "Republican," by which the Radical
party continued to call itself, became more and more disliked
in Virginia politics.

During the summer and fall of 1868, there seemed to be
but two alternatives for the people of Virginia; the Underwood
Constitution, which mean disfranchisement of the whites
and negro rule, or the continuance of military rule, which is
degrading to a people who are able and accustomed to govern
themselves.

An election to decide whether the constitution was to be
adopted, and to elect officers under the same, was ordered
by the Convention to be held on June 2, 1868. But General
Schofield issued an order on April 24 to the effect that, since
Congress had not made an appropriation to defray the expenses
of an election, he had no authority to carry out the

Handley Library, Winchester

ordinance of the Convention which provided for an election on
June 2. And since he thought that the constitution with the
disfranchising clauses would be most harmful to the State, he
refused to draw on the treasury for that purpose, as he had a
right to do.[1] He also advised Congress to have the disfranchising
and test oath clauses voted on separately. Wells and
other extreme Radicals appeared before the Reconstruction
committee in Congress to plead for an appropriation for holding
the election before enough whites would have political
disabilities removed from them to defeat the Radical aims.
But the constitution continued to rest peacefully in the pigeonhole
of the Commanding General's desk, and Virginia remained
unreconstructed under military government until
1870.

In spite of General Schofield's order of April suspending
the time of the election indefinitely, the two parties, which had
begun to plan their campaigns soon after the adjournment
of the Convention in April, held conventions during the first
two weeks of May, 1868, and nominated candidates for the
principal offices in the State in case there should be an election
at some time during the year. The Radicals nominated for
governor a Radical carpetbagger, H. H. Wells.[2] The Conservatives
nominated R. E. Withers.[3]

Wells had been appointed temporary governor of Virginia
by the Commanding General on April 4, 1868. It was
believed by the Conservatives that Governor Peirpoint was
not re-appointed because he was not radical enough to suit

the Republicans of the State. The real cause of the change
seems to have been the desire on the part of the Republican
managers to bring forward a leader who was sufficiently extreme
to get the support of the negroes and other Radicals,
but superior in ability and respectability to Hawxhurst and
Hunnicutt, who had announced their candidacy for the office
of governor before the adjournment of the Constitutional
Convention, and were actively canvassing the negro voters.
Wells would also receive prestige from his new office which
would make the way easy for his nomination on the Republican
ticket in the next election of governor.[4]

During the remainder of the year after the Convention had
adjourned, the campaign was conducted vigorously by both
parties. The Radicals became more confident of victory and
the Conservatives more determined to defeat the constitution
and to elect a Conservative governor. At this time the people
of the South believed that the intelligent people of the North
would not advocate universal negro suffrage in the South.[5]
Even the announcement by the Republican party in the summer
of 1868 of its platform with universal negro suffrage as
its cardinal doctrine did not make them lose hope of somehow

escaping negro suffrage. Public opinion had been somewhat
inclined towards negro suffrage as a compromise measure,
but it had changed during the year of negro domination in
politics which the people had just experienced. This campaign
increased the hostility to universal negro suffrage. When,
therefore, the elections in the fall of 1868 showed the Virginians
that Reconstruction could only come through the
sacrifice of feeling and conviction in accepting universal negro
suffrage with its dangers to their lives, property, and civilization,
the outlook for the future seemed most gloomy. The
apparent hopelessness of the situation, and the discouragement
of the people, threatened to cause entire inactivity in
politics among the Conservatives. It was felt that Congress
was determined to degrade them and that there was no use
to struggle against the inevitable. What was in store for them
was no longer an uncertainty, since negro suffrage had been
tested.

On December 8, 1868, the bill approving the Underwood
Constitution was passed in the Federal House of Representatives
with little notice or comment on the part of the members
of the House and with no protest from the people of Virginia.
Alexander H. H. Stuart of Staunton, Virginia, who had been
a close observer of affairs in the State and in Congress, had
urged one of the organized political committees in Richmond
to formulate a protest to Congress against the approval of
the Underwood Constitution. But it did not consider such
action within its jurisdiction.

Fortunately for Virginia, Congress took its recess soon
after the House of Representatives had approved the constitution.
Time was thus gained to aid Mr. Stuart in the carrying
out of a scheme which he had already set on foot to rid
the constitution of its most objectionable features—the test
oath, disfranchisement, and county organization clauses—
while accepting as a matter of necessity universal negro suffrage.
This scheme was first brought before the people in
an article over the signature "Senex," which appeared in the

Richmond Whig and in the Richmond Dispatch on Christmas
Day, 1868. By Mr. Stuart's permission his authorship of the
article was made known at the same time. He pointed out
that there would be military rule should the constitution be
rejected at the polls, and that a still greater calamity would
befall the State should the constitution be accepted in its
entirety. Negro suffrage was now inevitable since public sentiment
at the North, as shown by the recent elections and by
the tone of the press, had changed in this respect. He showed
that it had become the conviction of a majority of the people
of that section that negro suffrage was the legitimate, if not
the necessary, consequence of emancipation; and that these
people had the power to enforce their convictions. It would
be better, he counseled, to accept negro suffrage in return for
a revision of the Underwood Constitution. He advised the
executive committee of the Conservative party to call two men
of "approved wisdom and integrity" from each congressional
district of the State to meet and draw up for the consideration
of Congress a new constitution which would embody "the
universal suffrage and universal amnesty proposition in its
broadest terms, and negro eligibility [to office] to boot!"

So unprepared were the people of Virginia for accepting
universal negro suffrage, especially after the campaign that
had just been waged on that issue, that one of the leading
Richmond papers refused to publish Mr. Stuart's article, and
those that did publish it did so only on condition that they
assume no responsibility for it whatever. Even Colonel John
B. Baldwin, who was one of the active and useful advocates
of the "New Movement," as the plan was called, hesitated in
joining Mr. Stuart at first because he thought that public opinion
was not prepared to entertain so bold a proposition. On
January 2, 1869, he wrote to Mr. Stuart, who had just returned
from Richmond where he had gone in behalf of this movement,
a letter in which he said:

"I apprehend from all I can learn from Bell, Trout, and
Echols, that you found rather a slim showing of sympathy

in 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 anyone
dared 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 consider 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."[6]

Mr. Stuart's article was widely and earnestly discussed.
It had much influence upon public opinion and prepared the
way for the events that later took place. The "New Movement"
rapidly gained ground as the people began reluctantly
to admit that what had been said in the "Senex" article was
true.

Through the influence of Mr. Stuart a number of leading
men from all parts of the State met in Richmond on December
31, 1869, to formulate more definite plans for making the
movement a success. A committee of nine men was chosen
to go to Washington in order to acquaint Congress with the
true state of affairs in Virginia and to prevent the evils that
impended. Mr. Stuart was made chairman. The other members
were: John B. Baldwin, of Augusta County; John L.
Marye, Jr., of Fredericksburg; James F. Johnson, of Bedford
County; W. T. Sutherland, of Danville; Wyndham Robertson,
of Washington County; W. L. Owen, of Halifax County;
James Neeson, of Richmond, and J. F. Slaughter, of Lynchburg.
The New Movement was exceedingly fortunate in
having as its founder and guiding spirit Alexander H. H.

Stuart. He had served his State as a member of each branch
of the General Assembly, as a representative in Congress, as
presidential elector, and as Secretary of the Interior under
President Fillmore. He had been a Whig and a strong Union
man, but had been loyal to the State during the war.[7] His
mental and moral worth was well known and respected, and
the success of his scheme was largely due to the high regard
in which he was held.

At the time that the Committee of Nine was appointed,
resolutions were adopted setting forth the aims of those present
at the meeting, and requesting the people of Virginia
to choose delegates to a popular convention to be held in
Richmond on February 10, 1869, for the purpose of considering
the report of the Committee of Nine and to adopt such
measures as would be necessary to aid them. The views and
purpose of the meeting as set forth in its resolutions were
the same in substance as those expressed in the "Senex"
letter. They were stated in the resolutions as follows: "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 depositories 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 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."[8]

On January 8, 1869, the Committee of Nine met in Washington.

Dry Dock Newport News Shipbuilding Company

Colonel Baldwin was its chief spokesman before the
reconstruction and judiciary committees of Congress. He had
been active in Virginia politics and was moderate, pleasing
in address, and very forceful in debate. Mr. Stuart secured
the services of his friend, Horace Greeley, thereby enlisting
the powerful influence of the New York Tribune in bringing
the true state of affairs in Virginia before the people of the
North. In this way he rendered much aid to the Committee of
Nine.[9]

There were two other delegations present at the meetings
of the committees in Congress having charge of Reconstruction.
One of them represented the conservative faction of the
Republican party, and the other, the radical faction. The
former delegation, which was composed of Franklin Stearns,
L. H. Chandler, Edgar Allen, and others, was there simply as
a committee of observation to prevent any action prejudicial
to its faction in Virginia. The latter delegation, which was
more numerous, was led by Governor Wells and was composed
of both white and colored men. It had come to defeat, if possible,
the plans of the Committee of Nine.

Governor Wells testified before the Reconstruction Committee
that enfranchisement of the whites would not be safe
at that time; that it would put an end to the Republican party
in Virginia and destroy the last hope of the Loyalists in the
State; and that material development could only come through
Republican or Radical control. He stated furthermore that
public opinion in Virginia would not support the Committee
of Nine. He was answered by members of the other two delegations.
Mr. Stearns said that, since the defeat of the Democratic
party in the elections of the previous fall, the people
of Virginia were ready to comply with the Reconstruction
Acts; that a majority of the property-holders would support
the Committee of Nine; and that if Virginia were restored

under the proposed constitution without the disfranchising,
test oath, and county organization clauses, prosperity would
revive and "justice would be impartially administered and
all classes completely protected." He condemned the Underwood
Constitution and felt confident that it would be defeated
by an honest vote of the people, which would "leave the State
without a civil government and subject to all the whims and
caprices of military rule." He was therefore in favor of the
program of the Committee of Nine.[10] After a conference with
the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, the Committee of
Nine was requested to present in writing its grievances and
the amendments to the Underwood Constitution that it desired.[11] The report was written by Mr. Baldwin.

The conservative Republicans, finding themselves in accord
with the Committee of Nine, had become its ally. One
of those who was invited to Washington by the committee was
Gilbert C. Walker, a New Yorker, who had come to reside in
Norfolk, Virginia.[12] The aid that he rendered the committee
in Washington won for him the esteem of the most influential
conservatives of both parties and paved the way for his election
a few months later as governor of the State.

Remembering his promise to the Committee of Nine, General
Grant, in his first message to Congress of April 7, 1869,
advised that an election be held in Virginia and suggested
that such parts of the constitution as might be thought expedient
be submitted separately to the voters.[13] Three days
later, Congress responded to the President's message by authorizing

him to submit the Underwood Constitution to the
voters of Virginia for their approval or rejection at such a
time and in such a manner as he should see fit. The state
officers provided for under the constitution were to be elected
at the same time. Accordingly, on May 14, 1869, the President
named July 6 of that year as the date for the election. Sections
1 and 7 of Article III, those relating to the test oath and disfranchisement,
were to be voted on separately.[14] It was a
great disappointment to the Conservatives that the county
organization clause was not included among those to be submitted
to a separate vote. General Grant had expressed his
unqualified disapproval of this feature of the constitution to
the Committee of Nine, because it would put the governments
in about half of the counties of the State under the control
of the negroes and their unscrupulous white leaders. On this
point, however, the President had yielded to the opposition of
his cabinet which feared that a change in this respect would
destroy the public school system which was closely associated
in the constitution with the county organization.

The way was now clear for the decisive struggle between
the Conservatives and the Radical-Republicans for which both
sides had already been preparing.