Staunton Spectator: September 26, 1865Go To Page : 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
Hiring of Negroes on Farms in Tennessee
(Column 04)Summary: Details the rules laid out be a Freedman's Bureau agent in Tennessee, all but one of which pertain to the behavior of the "employees" rather than the "employer." Among the rules are requirements for "a cheerful and willing performance of duty" and fines for "impudence, swearing, or indecent and unseemly language."
Full Text of Article:To the Voters in the 6th Congressional District
Colonel Davis, in charge of the Freedmen's Bureau, at Clarksville, Tennessee, has adopted the following rules:
1. One half of the wages of the employee will be retained by the employer, until the end of the contract for its faithful performance.
2. The employees will be required to rise at daybreak, each one to feed and take care of the stock allotted to him, or perform any other business that may be assigned to him; to eat their breakfast and be ready for work at the signal, which will be given when the sun in half our high. Al time lost after the signal is given will be deducted.
3. No general conversation will be allowed during working hours.
4. Bad work will be assessed at its proper value.
5. For disobedience one dollar will be deducted.
6. Neglect of duty and leaving without permission will be considered disobedience.
7. No live stock will be permitted to be raised by the employee, will be charged for.
8. Apples, peaches, and melons, or any other product of the farm taken by the employee, will be charged for.
9. The employee shall receive no visitors during work hours.
10. Three quarters of an hour will be allowed during the winter months for dinner, and one hour and a half during the months of June, July, and August.
11. Impudence, swearing, or indecent and unseemly language to, or in the presence of the employer or his family, or agent, or quarrelling or fighting, so as to disturb the peace of the farm, will be fined one dollar for the first offence, and if repeated, will be followed by dismissal and loss of such pay as shall be adjudged against him by the proper authority.
12. All difficulties that my arise between the employees shall be adjusted by the employer, and, if not satisfactory, an appeal may be taken to an agent of the U. S. Government or a magistrate.
13. All abuse of stock, or willful breaking of tools, or throwing away gear, &c., will be charged against the employee.
14. Good and sufficient rations will be furnished by the employer, not, however, to exceed six pounds of bacon and one peck of meal per week for each adult.
15. House rent and fuel will be furnished, free, by the employer.
16. No night work will required of the employee but such as the necessities of the farm absolutely demand -- such as tying up fodder, firing tobacco, setting plant beds afire securing a crop from frost, &c.
17. A cheerful and willing performance of duty will be required of the employee.
18. Stock must be fed and attended to on Sunday.
19. The woman will be required to do the cooking in rotation on Sunday.
20. The employee will be expected to look after and study the interest of his employer; to inform him of anything that is going amiss; to be peaceable, orderly and pleasant; to discourage theft, and endeavor by his conduct to establish a character for honesty, industry and thrift.
21. In case of any controversy in regard to the contract or its regulations, between the employer and the employee, the agent of the Bureau for the county shall be the common arbiter to whom the difficulty shall be referred.
(Column 05)Summary: This letter from John Lewis responds to a similar one from Alexander Stuart, his competitor for a seat in Congress. Lewis defends his "Union" credentials, distances himself from secessionists, attacks Stuart's actions during the war and questions his ability to take the test-oath.
(Names in announcement: John F. Lewis)Full Text of Article:
Like my competitor, Mr. Stuart, I was an original Union man. I was taught from my childhood to regard the Union as the palladium of our liberties, and that any attempt to destroy it, would result in war, desolation and ruin. I believed that secession would prove "a shirt of Nessus" to the South.
I did not believe in the right, justice or practicability of secession, but believed it to be conceived in sin, brought forth in iniquity, and hat it would be baptized in the best blood of the country. How, then, could I be expected to vote for, or sign an ordinance claiming to exercise such a right?
I would not have done it for all the honors within the gift of the people.
I could not desert my principles "and go with the multitude to do evil.
My competitor was a very good "Union man," until the Union needed his support. He was a very good friend of "Billy Patterson," until Billy was struck; then he deserted him, but as soon as Billy triumphs over his foes, he (Mr. Stuart) returns to his first love, and reminds Billy how devotedly, how ardently, how sincerely he had loved him, and how delighted he would be serve him in the next Congress. But "Billy" will be very apt to say to him: "You deserted me in the very hour of my trials, I will not trust you, I want none of your counsels."
No longer ago than last February or march when it was evident that further resistance would only result in the sacrifice of human life, and end in subjugation and ruin, some of the most prominent gentlemen in the State desired Mr. Stuart to join them in an effort to stop further effusion of blood. But Mr. Stuart declined, saying, "nothing could done that we could not live with the Northern Vandals again, the breach was too wide, and too bloody, that the Southern members would have to legislate in Congress with bowie knives and pistols."
If this is to be the style of legislation, whilst I yield to Mr. Stuart in diplomacy, in oratory and statesmanship, i must be allowed to say that I think I would make as good, if not a better "Congressman" than Mr. Stuart. But If I believed that this was to be the style of legislation, I would not consent to represent you -- I would prefer that you should send Mr. Stuart. But to be serious: -- Whilst I sympathized deeply with our people at home, and with our brave and gallant soldiers in the field, who were, in many instances, the victims of an odious, tyrannical and unconstitutional conscription, and had neither negroes nor lands to fight for, I never for one moment sympathized with, or desired the success of secession. If I had believed it a struggle for liberty, I would have been ashamed to have held up my head anywhere else than in the army. I never could have been found enjoying the ease and comforts of home, when others, who had nothing to fight for, were enduring all the hardships of camp-life, and risking their lives upon the battle-field for me and mine. The army would have been the place to have shown sympathy for the cause, but like the war horse mentioned in the book of Job, Mr. Stuart smelled the battle afar off.
But Mr. Stuart says he hated secession as much as any one, and prophesied that it would result in ruin to the South, and that he did not sign the ordinance until he was instructed by the people at the polls. Now let us examine this matter. The ordinance of secession was passed by the Convention on the 17th day of April, 1861, 88 voting for, and 55 voting against it. On Monday, the 23rd of April, just five days after the passage of the ordinance, Mr. Stuart, in a speech delivered at the Court house of his county, advised his constituents to vote for the ratification of the ordinance of secession, and subsequently canvassed his county, urging his constituents to vote for the ordinance. So you will perceive, that Mr. Stuart first instructed his constituents to vote for the ordinance, and then voted for the ratification himself, urged men to volunteer in the Southern army, but now claims that he signed the ordinance under instructions. I did not sign the ordinance; I did not advise persons to volunteer, or vote for the ratification of the ordinance of secession. How, then, can Mr. Stuart say that I would be as objectionable to the Northern people as himself?
But Mr. Stuart says I had a Government contract. I admit I was one of a company who owned and carried on Iron Works.--But I deny that I voluntarily made a contract with the Government, or ever made a pound of iron for the purpose of aiding the Confederate cause. When to shield me from the threatened violence of the secessionists, it was urged by some of my friends, that I was making iron for the Government, I invariably denied that I was making iron from any desire to aid that I was making iron from any desire to aid the Confederate cause. I can, and will, take an oath, that I never, voluntarily, gave aid or encouragement to the Confederate Government.
I was the only member of the Convention East of Alleghany Mountains, who did not sign the Ordinance of Secession, which has proven to the South, (as I predicted it would,) "the direful spring of woes unnumbered." I am proud of my course in the Convention -- whether it is popular or unpopular, I would not exchange records with Mr. Stuart to secure a seat in Congress.
But the question in which we are most interested now, is not the past, but the present and the future. If I am elected to Congress, I will give to the Administration of President Johnson, a cordial and hearty support in every thing designed, or calculated to restore the country to peace, prosperity and happiness. I will use every means within my power, to have all the restrictions removed, and a general amnesty declared.
I will oppose the enforcement of the Monroe doctrine by the Government of the United States -- I am emphatically for peace. My platform is opposition to the next war.
But the great question with us now is, not who could do most in Congress, but who, it elected, will be allowed to take his seat. Mr. Stuart has repeatedly declared his inability to take the oath, and has said he would despise himself if he did take it. I am sure I have as much regard for the obligations of chance to occupy a seat in Congress who like Mr. Stuart, declares that he cannot and will not take the oath. Mr. Seward said, a few days ago, to a prominent gentlemen of Albemarle County, "you had better send a child or a fool to the next Congress, rather than one who cannot take the oath," and this is the general impression of the best informed, and unprejudiced and disinterested men.
The law of Congress requiring all members to take an oath, that they have not given aid, or counsel in any way, to the Confederate Government is still in force, and will continue to exclude person who cannot conscientiously comply with it, until it is repealed, or is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. Then, it behooves you to send persons to Congress who can take their seats, and vote with the conservative members for the repeal of these restrictions. There is a powerful party at the North, aided by some fanatical person at the South, who are anxious to keep the Southern States in the condition of conquered Provinces until they consent to negro suffrage, and we, by electing men to Congress who can not take their seats, are aiding and abetting these Fanatics. That the law of Congress will be changed, or altered to allow any Southern man to occupy a seat, is absurd; much more absurd to suppose that it will be altered to benefit one who advised the Southern people to vote for the ratification of the ordinance of Secession, voted for it himself, and signed the Ordinance in the Convention. I call your attention to the case of Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, who was elected to the United States Senate, but was elected to the United States Senate, but was not allowed to take his seat until he subscribed to the oath. He complied with the law, made an elaborate argument against the expediency and constitutionality of it, and failing to have the law repealed, resigned his seat.
Mr. Bright, a member of the lower House, was expelled from Congress because it was proven that he had given counsel to the South. With these facts before you, are you willing to vote for one who tells you he cannot comply with the law, and that he would despise himself if he could? This will be the most important Congress that has ever assembled for good, or for evil, and the vote of every conservative member, will be of inestimable value to the South. We cannot afford, at this critical juncture of our affairs, to be trifling -- it is representation on the one hand, and no representation on the other. But if you prefer military rule to having civil law established in the South, vote for a man who tells you he cannot and will not take the oath, and that he would despise himself if he did. But I am determined that the voters in this District shall have the choice between one who can and will, and one declares he cannot and will not take the oath.
But Mr. Stuart say, "better be unrepresented than misrepresented." Now this implies one of two things. Mr. Stuart means to say that I have not the capacity to represent you, or that he and myself differ in our political opinions. We have always agreed perfectly in our private conversations. If there is any difference, it must be that Mr. Stuart claims to be more inclined to the doctrine of secession than I do. He is welcome to all the capital he can make out of this position.
I am not of those who despair of the Republic, but, in the language of one of Virginia's most gifted sons, "I am full of exultant hope for my country." I am looking forward with confidence to a bright, prosperous, and happy future, and believe that "Union and liberty are one and inseparable, now and forever." If we are but true to ourselves, and act with prudence, discretion and wisdom, "the Morning will come, that bright morning, when the dew-drops, collected during the night of our troubles, will sparkle in its beams, when, in one glorious reunion, a long oppression will have been forgotten, or only remembered by contrast to enhance, or only remembered by contrast to enhance the fullness of the joys of freedom."
John F. Lewis
Trailer: John F. Lewis
(Column 02)Summary: The editor praises "our noble, impulsive and high spirited Irish friends" who are fighting "to rid themselves of English domination." But, he suggests, Palmerston and Russell will be as slow to recognize the "'Irish Republic'" as they were "'the Southern Confederacy.'"[No Title]
(Column 03)Summary: This letter from A. H. H. Stuart aims "to correct several errors into which Mr. Lewis," his opponent for the Congressional seat, "has (no doubt inadvertently) fallen" in the course of his public letter on the front page of the Spectator. Stuart defends his position during secession and his view that a negotiated settlement late in the war would not have brought real peace.
(Names in announcement: Alexander Stuart, John Lewis)Full Text of Article:
To the Editor of the Spectator:
Sir:--A friend has called my attention to the recent Card of Mr. Lewis, and I beg leave through your paper to correct several errors into which Mr. Lewis has, (no doubt inadvertently) fallen.
1st. Mr. Lewis says, that "five days after the passage of the Ordinance. Mr. Stuart, in a speech delivered a the C. H. or his county, advised his constituents to vote for the ratification of the Ordinance of secession, and subsequently canvassed his county urging his constituents to vote for the ordinance.
Mr. Lewis is mistaken in regard to both of these important propositions. I made a speech of the occasion referred to, but it was not on an entirely different subjects. A proposition was pending before the County Court, to appropriate a sum of money for the benefit of the wives and children of soldiers then in, or soon to be in, the field. I was called on to express my opinion on that subject, and did so, by earnestly advocating it. I made no speech in favor of the ordinance, and so little was known to my opinions [the seal of secrecy not having been removed from the proceedings of the Convention] that a note signed by a number of our best citizens was addressed to me, probably a month afterwards, and few days before the vote was to be taken on ratification or rejection, asking my views on the subjects.
So far from canvassing my county in favor of the ordinance. I returned to my seat in the Convention, the day after making the speech above referred to, and remained in Richmond until short time before the vote was taken.
Mr. Lewis professes to quote from some private letter addressed by me to some person whose name is not given. I shall make no point in regard to the propriety of quoting from a private letter without my permission, but I would have preferred that if any part of the letter was published, the whole should have been given. I think the context was material to the true understanding of the letter. If Mr. Lewis will examine the whole letter, he will probably find that his report of it is not accurate.
I remember that, in February last, a gentlemen wrote to me, urging immediate re-construction.--I replied, stating in substance, that I feared his hopes misled his better judgement; that public sentiment was not ripe for it, and that any arrangement which might be patched up, in the then condition of public affairs, would be but a hollow truce, and that, ere long, hostilities would again break out, probably commencing in the halls of Congress.
I am still of the same opinion. I believe that if anything like a treaty of peace had been made before the defeat of our great armies, they would have been a large party in the country who never could have been persuaded otherwise than that if we had continued the contest, we would have been powerful, defiant and ready, at any moment, to renew the struggle. Nothing but such disasters as did befall our arms, would have produced the convictions that the contest was hopeless, and made that party willing to accept the result as a final settlement of the matters in issue.
Mr. Lewis insists that he did not voluntarily enter into any contract with the Confederate States Government to furnish iron for military purposes. I certainly did not intend to do Mr. Lewis any injustice. He does not deny that entered into such contract. That is an indisputable fact. I have no disposition to discuss refined distinctions with Mr. Lewis. I have been taught to believe that every contract implied willingness on the part of those who entered into it, and I apprehend that Mr. Lewis will find that Congress will not stop to have privy examination of contractors to see how far they assented to contracts. The fact that they signed, sealed and expected them, will be taken as conclusive on that point.
Alex. H. H. Stuart.
Trailer: Alex H. H. Stuart[No Title]
(Column 03)Summary: The latest in an ongoing controversy, this letter from Maj. J. M. McCue is a response to "Citizen's" most recent attack on McCue's conduct at the nominating meeting in August. Rather than address the charges directly, McCue devotes most of his letter to attacking "Citizen's" ineptitude as a soldier during the war.
(Names in announcement: Maj. J. McCue)Trailer: J. M. McCue[No Title]
(Column 03)Summary: This letter from "A Voter" praises both Joseph Waddell's willingness to serve in the legislature and his refusal to gain that position by "'dint of electioneering.'"
(Names in announcement: Joseph Waddell)Trailer: A Voter[No Title]
(Column 04)Summary: Announces a Temperance Convention to be held in Sangersville on Friday, October 13.To "Naked Creek"
(Names in announcement: N. B. Kiracofe, John Gregory, J. C. Rivercomb, John Hodge)
(Column 04)Summary: George Seawright, nominated for the Senate in a letter from "Naked Creed" published in the Spectator, declines the candidacy.
(Names in announcement: George Seawright)Trailer: Geo. Seawright
(Column 01)Summary: Announces the reopening of post offices throughout the region. In Augusta, Samuel Hawes has been appointed Postmaster at Fishersville, Andrew Ross at Mount Sidney and Bettie Dull as "postmistress" at Swoope's Depot.Tournament and Picnic
(Names in announcement: Bettie A. Dull, Cornelius Dull, Andrew H. Ross, James E. Ross, Sam'l Hawes)
(Column 01)Summary: A tournament was held at Spring Hill on the preceding Saturday, where twenty-nine "Knights" contested for the "distinguished honor of crowning the fair 'Queen of Love and Beauty'" while "several hundred persons" looked on. W. D. Mills was the victor, and crowned Maggie Shreckhise Queen.[No Title]
(Names in announcement: W. Mills, Maggie Shreckhise, Crawford Miller, Maggie Crist, Butler Burke, Lucinda Clinedinst, Edward Parker, Virginia Dunlap, Dr. James Cury, E. Trotter, James Shreckhise, E. Fulton)
(Column 02)Summary: Mary Jane Vanlear and Frank B. Carson were married on September 21 by the Rev. Pinkerton.[No Title]
(Names in announcement: Rev. J. Pinkerton, Frank Carson, Mary Vanlear, Robert Vanlear)
(Column 02)Summary: Margaret Bean and Robert Graw were married on September 22 by Rev. George Taylor. Both bride and groom were "Deaf Mutes," and in another column the editor wishes the couple "unspeakable happiness."[No Title]
(Names in announcement: Job Turner, Rev. George Taylor, Robert Graw, Margaret Bean)
(Column 02)Summary: On September 14, Jennie Beard and George Ensor were married at the home of the bride's father by the Rev. J. C. Dice.Died
(Names in announcement: Rev. J. Dice, George Ensor, Jennie Beard, John Beard)
(Column 02)Summary: Mary Bell, wife of Jno. Bell, died on June 3 in Waynesboro after a painful illness of several months. She was 49 and is remembered as "a Christian woman, a valued member of the Presbyterian church, and discharged well and faithfully her duties as a wife, a mother and a mistress."Died
(Names in announcement: Mary B. Bell, Jno. J. Bell)
(Column 02)Summary: M. H. Hamilton, wife of Dr. R. S. Hamilton, died on September 8 after a brief illness.
(Names in announcement: M. H. Hamilton, Dr. R. S. Hamilton, Henry Sterrett)
(Column 02)Summary: This letter argues that manufacturing will lift the South to prosperity. The author laments the fact that "heretofore men of capital would add to their lands or their negroes, and that was the height of their ambition" and encourages his "fellow-citizens" to "go to work like men."