John Schofield As Military Director of Reconstruction in Virginia

John Schofield As Military Director of Reconstruction in Virginia James L. McDonough In 1895 when a bill was before Congress to revive the grade of Lieutenant General for the benefit of John M. Schofield, dien commanding general of the United States Army, a former Confederate general, Senator Eppa Hunton from Virginia, supported Schofield unreservedly. Hunton stated on the Senate floor that as virtual governor of Virginia during Reconstruction Schofield had "left behind him none but friends."1 That this northern general who commanded in the Cavalier State during the "Dark and Bloody" days of Reconstruction received such praise from a former rebel officer is indeed interesting and prompts this examination of Schofield's service.2 As Commander of the XXIII Army Corps, Schofield had been with Sherman when the latter received Joe Johnston's surrender in North Carolina. Schofield was then left in command of the Department of North Carolina and confronted with the problem of restoring civil government . The thirty-three-year-old general soon demonstrated a mod* erate attitude toward the South. His müitary campaigns had afforded him an opportunity to observe the southern people, Negroes and whites, and he had become convinced that moderation was the only sane policy. His views are set forth in a letter to General Grant on May 10, 1865. He would place the southern states under military government and declare existing state laws in force, excepting those which conflicted with Federal laws and the Constitution. Persons who took an amnesty oath would be permitted to elect members to a convention which should repudiate the doctrine of secession, abolish slavery, and restore the state to constitutional relations with the Federal government. He then would allow the people to approve or disapprove the action of the convention and at the same time elect state officers. If the required actions of the convention were approved the state would be readmitted. He would leave die conditions of suffrage up to the state, as guaranteed in the Constitution. He doubted botii the wisdom and legality of attempting 1 Congressional Record, 53 Cong., 3 sess., p. 1898. 2 The author wishes to acknowledge a special debt of gratitude to Dr. William T. Aldersorf, Executive Director of the American Association for State and Local History , whose suggestions and doctoral dissertation were particularly helpful in the preparation of this article. The author, of course, is responsible for all statements of fact or opinion. 237 238CIVIL WAR HISTORY to force the South to accept Negro suffrage. The Negroes were not prepared for suffrage. They could neither read nor write, had no knowledge of law and government, and needed education before being granted such a responsibility. To "raise the Negro," he concluded, "in his present ignorant and degraded condition," to political equality with the whites would be to enslave the latter and would tend to incite them to rebellion.3 Schofield was relieved of Reconstruction responsibüities in North Carolina, however, and after a mission in Europe he was assigned, in August, 1866, to command the Department of the Potomac, which included the state of Virginia. He soon showed that he intended to be reasonable and impartial in his dealings with both races. Eleven days after assuming command he reported that there was a well-founded feeling of insecurity among the whites caused by their being destitute of arms while a considerable portion of the Negro population possessed weapons, many of them of a müitary nature. Since Negroes were guaranteed the constitutional right to bear arms, the insecurity of the whites could be corrected, Schofield believed, only by organizing volunteer militia companies throughout the state under authority of Governor Francis H. Peirpoint. Membership in these companies should be limited to men who were loyal and well-disposed toward the freedmen. And the Army should supply the arms and ammunition for these companies .4 Neither did Schofield intend to favor whites at the expense of Negroes . His impartiality was evident in December, 1866, in the case of a killing of a freedman by Dr. James L. Watson, of Rockbridge County. The Negro had run into Watson's vehicle, whereupon the doctor shot him. The Rockbridge court acquitted Watson of the charge...