Report on the Condition of the South | Page 9

their declarations as far as
they go; but all there qualified their Unionism by the same important
statement. Mr. Cooper: "In 1850 I opposed an attempt to break up the

United States government, and in 1860 I did the same. I travelled in
Alabama and Mississippi to oppose the measure. (Applause.) But after
the State did secede, I did all in my power to sustain it." (Heavy
applause.) Mr. Evans: "In 1861 I was a delegate from Lauderdale
county to the State convention, then and in 1860 being opposed to the
act of secession, and fought against it with all my powers. But when the
State had seceded, I went with it as a matter of duty, and I sustained it
until the day of the surrender with all my body and heart and mind."
(Great applause.) Colonel Partridge: "He was a Union man before the
war and a soldier in the war. He had performed his duty as a private
and an officer on the battle-field and on the staff."
These speeches, fair specimens of a majority of those delivered by the
better class of politicians before the better class of audiences, furnish an
indication of the kind of Unionism which, by candidates, is considered
palatable to the people of that region. And candidates are generally
good judges as to what style of argument is best calculated to captivate
the popular mind. In some isolated localities there may be some chance
of success for a candidate who, proclaiming himself a Union man, is
not able to add, "but after the State had seceded I did all in my power to
sustain it," although such localities are certainly scarce and difficult to
find.
It is not so difficult to find places in which a different style of argument
is considered most serviceable. Your attention is respectfully invited to
a card addressed to the voters of the sixth judicial district of Mississippi
by Mr. John T. Hogan, candidate for the office of district attorney.
(Accompanying document No. 15.) When, at the commencement of the
war, Kentucky resolved to remain in the Union, Mr. Hogan, so he
informs the constituency, was a citizen of Kentucky; because Kentucky
refused to leave the Union Mr. Hogan left Kentucky. He went to
Mississippi, joined the rebel army, and was wounded in battle; and
because he left his native State to fight against the Union, "therefore,"
Mr. Hogan tells his Mississippian constituency, "he cannot feel that he
is an alien in their midst, and, with something of confidence in the
result, appeals to them for their suffrages." Such is Mr. Hogan's
estimate of the loyalty of the sixth judicial district of Mississippi.

A candidate relying for success upon nothing but his identification with
the rebellion might be considered as an extreme case. But, in fact, Mr.
Hogan only speaks out bluntly what other candidates wrap up in
lengthy qualifications. It is needless to accumulate specimens. I am
sure no Mississippian will deny that if a candidate there based his
claims upon the ground of his having left Mississippi when the State
seceded, in order to fight for the Union, his pretensions would be
treated as a piece of impudence. I feel warranted in saying that
Unionism absolutely untinctured by any connexion with, or at least
acquiescence in the rebellion, would have but little chance of political
preferment anywhere, unless favored by very extraordinary
circumstances; while men who, during the war, followed the example
of the Union leaders of East Tennessee, would in most places have to
depend upon the protection of our military forces for safety, while
nowhere within the range of my observation would they, under present
circumstances, be considered eligible to any position of trust, honor, or
influence, unless it be in the county of Jones, as long as the bayonets of
the United States are still there.
The tendency of which in the preceding remarks I have endeavored to
indicate the character and direction, appeared to prevail in all the States
that came under my observation with equal force, some isolated
localities excepted. None of the provisional governments adopted the
policy followed by the late "military government" of Tennessee: to
select in every locality the most reliable and most capable Union men
for the purpose of placing into their hands the positions of official
influence. Those who had held the local offices before and during the
rebellion were generally reappointed, and hardly any discrimination
made. If such wholesale re-appointments were the only thing that could
be done in a hurry, it may be asked whether the hurry was necessary.
Even in Louisiana, where a State government was organized during the
war and under the influence of the sentiments which radiated from the
camps and headquarters of the Union army, and where there is a Union