The Facts of Reconstruction | Page 4

held in Mississippi under the Reconstruction Acts
took place in 1867, when delegates to a Constitutional Convention
were elected to frame a new Constitution. The Democrats decided to
adopt what they declared to be a policy of "Masterly Inactivity," that is,
to refrain from taking any part in the election and to allow it to go by
default. The result was that the Republicans had a large majority of the
delegates, only a few counties having elected Democratic delegates.
The only reason that there were any Democrats in the Convention at all
was that the party was not unanimous in the adoption of the policy of
"Masterly Inactivity," and consequently did not adhere to it. The
Democrats in a few counties in the State rejected the advice and
repudiated the action of the State Convention of their party on this
point. The result was that a few very able men were elected to the
convention as Democrats,--such men, for instance, as John W.C.
Watson, and William M. Compton, of Marshall County, and William L.
Hemingway, of Carroll, who was elected State Treasurer by the
Democrats in 1875, and to whom a more extended reference will be
made in a subsequent chapter.
The result of the election made it clear that if the Democratic
organization in the State had adopted the course that was pursued by
the members of that party in the counties by which the action of their
State Convention was repudiated, the Democrats would have had at
least a large and influential minority of the delegates, which would
have resulted in the framing of a constitution that would have been
much more acceptable to the members of that party than the one that
was finally agreed upon by the majority of the members of that body.
But the Democratic party in the State was governed and controlled by
the radical element of that organization,--an element which took the
position that no respectable white Democrat could afford to participate
in an election in which colored men were allowed to vote. To do so,
they held, would not only be humiliating to the pride of the white men,
but the contamination would be unwise if not dangerous. Besides, they
were firm in the belief and honest in the conviction that the country
would ultimately repudiate the Congressional Plan of Reconstruction,

and that in the mean time it would be both safe and wise for them to
give expression to their objections to it and abhorrence of it by
pursuing a course of masterly inactivity. The liberal and conservative
element in the party was so bitterly opposed to this course that in spite
of the action of the State Convention several counties, as has been
already stated, bolted the action of the convention and took part in the
election.
Of the Republican membership of the Constitutional Convention a
large majority were white men,--many of them natives of the State and
a number of others, though born elsewhere, residents in the State for
many years preceding the war of the Rebellion. My own county,
Adams (Natchez), in which the colored voters were largely in the
majority, and which was entitled to three delegates in the convention,
elected two white men,--E.J. Castello, and Fred Parsons,--and one
colored man, H.P. Jacobs, a Baptist preacher. Throughout the State the
proportion was about the same. This was a great disappointment to the
dominating element in the Democratic party, who had hoped and
expected, through their policy of "Masterly Inactivity" and intimidation
of white men, that the convention would be composed almost
exclusively of illiterate and inexperienced colored men. Although a
minor at that time, I took an active part in the local politics of my
county, and, being a member of a Republican club that had been
organized at Natchez, I was frequently called upon to address the
members at its weekly meetings.
When the State Constitution was submitted to a popular vote for
ratification or rejection I took an active part in the county campaign in
advocacy of its ratification. In this election the Democrats pursued a
course that was just the opposite of that pursued by them in the election
of delegates to the Constitutional Convention. They decided that it was
no longer unwise and dangerous for white men to take part in an
election in which colored men were allowed to participate. This was
due largely to the fact that the work of the convention had been far
different from what they had anticipated. The newly framed
Constitution was, taken as a whole, such an excellent document that in
all probability it would have been ratified without serious opposition

but for the fact that there was an unfortunate, unwise and unnecessary
clause in it which practically disfranchised those who had held an
office under the