The Facts of Reconstruction | Page 2

and unwise?
An affirmative answer to the above questions will be found in nearly
everything that has been written about Reconstruction during the last
quarter of a century. The main purpose of this work is to present the
other side; but, in doing so, the author indulges the hope that those who
may read these chapters will find that no extravagant and exaggerated
statements have been made, and that there has been no effort to conceal,
excuse, or justify any act that was questionable or wrong. It will be
seen that the primary object the author has sought to accomplish, is to
bring to public notice those things that were commendable and
meritorious, to prevent the publication of which seems to have been the
primary purpose of nearly all who have thus far written upon that
important subject.

But again, the question may be asked, if the reconstructed State
Governments that were organized and brought into existence under the
Congressional Plan of Reconstruction were not a disappointment and a
failure, why is it that they could not and did not stand the test of time?
The author hopes and believes that the reader will find in one of the
chapters of this book a complete and satisfactory answer to that
question.
It will be seen that the State of Mississippi is made the pivotal one in
the presentation of the facts and historical points touched upon in this
work; but that is because Mississippi was the field of the author's
political activities. That State, however, was largely typical, hence what
was true of that one was, in the main, true of all the other reconstructed
States.
The author was a member of Congress during the settlement of the
controversy between Hayes and Tilden for the Presidency of the United
States, resulting from the close and doubtful election of 1876,--a
controversy that was finally decided through the medium of the
Electoral Commission. The reader will find in the chapter on that
subject many important facts and incidents not heretofore published.
Why was it that the able and brilliant statesman from Maine, James G.
Blaine, died, as did Henry Clay, without having reached the acme of
his ambition,--the Presidency of the United States? Why was he
defeated for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1876,--the only
time when it was possible for him to be elected, and defeated for the
election in 1884,--the only time when it was possible for him to be
nominated? The answer to these questions will be found in this book.
Then the interviews between the author and Presidents Grant and
Cleveland, and Secretaries Blaine, Lamar, and Gresham will no doubt
be interesting, if not instructive.
If, in writing this book, the author shall have succeeded in placing
before the public accurate and trustworthy information relative to
Reconstruction, his highest ambition will have been fully gratified, his
sense of justice entirely satisfied.

JOHN R. LYNCH.

THE FACTS OF RECONSTRUCTION
CHAPTER I
THE PART PLAYED BY MISSISSIPPI IN THE EARLY DAYS OF
RECONSTRUCTION
The year 1866 was an eventful one in the history of this country. A
bitter war was in progress between Congress and President Andrew
Johnson over the question of the reconstruction of the States lately in
rebellion against the National Government. The President had
inaugurated a policy of his own that proved to be very unpopular at the
North. He had pardoned nearly all the leaders in the rebellion through
the medium of amnesty proclamations. In each rebel State he had
appointed a provisional governor under whose direction Legislatures,
State officers, and members of Congress had been chosen, and the
Legislatures thus chosen elected the United States Senators for the
Southern States in accordance with the President's plan of
reconstruction. To make restoration to the Union full and complete
nothing remained to be done but to admit to their seats the Senators and
Representatives that had been chosen. In the mean time these different
Legislatures had enacted laws which virtually re-enslaved those that
had been emancipated in their respective States. For this the North
would not stand. Sentiment in that section demanded not only justice
and fair treatment for the newly emancipated race but also an
emancipation that should be thorough and complete, not merely
theoretical and nominal.
The fact was recognized and appreciated that the colored people had
been loyal to the Union and faithful to the flag of their country and that
they had rendered valuable assistance in putting down the rebellion.
From a standpoint of gratitude, if not of justice, the sentiment of the
North at that time was in favor of fair play for the colored people of the
South. But the President would not yield to what was generally

believed to be the dominant sentiment of the North on the question of
reconstruction. He