The Journal of Negro History, Volume 5, 1920. Various

of 1875-6 there were 3 negro Senators, and 13 negro members of the House. In the session of 1876-77 there were three negro members in the Senate, and 12 negro members of the House. In 1877-78 there were 3 negro members of the Senate, and four negro members of the House. In 1878-9 there were three negro members of the Senate and four negro members of the House. For the session of 1879-80 the almanac gives no marks of differentiation. For the session of 1880-81 the almanac makes no distinction. For the 1881-2 session the almanac has no list of the members. For the session of 1882-3 the almanac does not differentiate. For the session of 1883-4 there were 3 negro senators and 8 members of the House. For the session of 1884-5 there was one negro senator, and 7 members of the House, out of a total membership of one hundred. In the session of 1885-6 there was only one senator out of a membership of 39, and only one member of the House of Delegates, out of one hundred. In the session of 1886-7 there was one senator and one member of the House. In the session of 1887-8 there was one negro senator, and there were seven members of the House. In the session of 1889-9 there was one senator, and seven members of the House. In the session of 1889-90 there was one negro senator, and three members of the House. In the session of 1890-91 there was one negro senator, and three members of the House. In the session of 1891-2 there were no negroes in either the Senate or the House, that is, none marked. For the session of 1892-3 no negroes were marked. For the session of 1893-4 there seem to have been none. I have not looked further, but I do not believe there has been a negro member in either House since that time.

Very truly yours,(Signed)   H. R. McIlwaineState Librarian.

      JAMES G. THOMPSON, THE ORIGINAL CARPETBAGGER 177

      "I suppose I might call myself the first Carpet Bagger." This expression casually let fall by Mr. J.G. Thompson, of this city, in a conversation with the writer, was so striking and so suggestive that I asked him to explain. He complied, and in so doing, gave the following extraordinary narrative, which he subsequently consented to have published:

      From the 7th of November, 1861, when Hilton Head was captured by the United States naval forces, the sea islands of South Carolina never passed out of the hands of the United States. Those islands and a considerable portion of the mainland were thereupon brought under the operation of the United States direct tax act, and were in time sold for United States taxes to whoever would buy them. They were mainly bought in by the United States and were subsequently re-sold to soldiers, army followers and Negroes. Towards the close of the war, having concluded my service under the government, I resolved to settle in the South, and purchased in 1864, a plantation on St. Helena, one of these islands, with the intention of becoming a Southern planter. I was thus engaged when Andrew Johnson began his reconstruction efforts and appointed Benjamin F. Perry provisional governor. This was the first attempt at the reconstruction of the South, and South Carolina was the first state called upon to resume its relations with the Union, as she had been the first to go out. In October, 1865, the provisional governor issued a proclamation setting a day for an election of delegates to a

Constitutional Convention

      His Proclamation called upon the people to repeal the ordinances of secession form a constitution and make such preparations as were necessary to obtain admission into the Union. St. Helena parish was entitled to one delegate to that constitutional convention.

      All the original inhabitants of the parish, upon the approach of the Federal forces, had fled. There was but one man left in the whole parish when the United States took possession of the town of Beaufort, and he was found in a garret dead drunk. Consequently when the convention was called the question arose who were citizens of the parish. There were few white natives of South Carolina in the parish. The managers of election were not present. Governor Perry had named the managers of the previous elections held under the confederate government as the ones to conduct the election now to be held, but none of these people were there. So a town meeting in the New England style was called to consider the situation, at which the colored people were in a large majority. Probably one hundred white ex-soldiers, army officers, settlers, clerks, quartermasters, employes, etc., came to the meeting. An examination of the law of South Carolina as to

What Constituted Citizenship

      showed that it required a three years' residence to be a citizen, and that no person then a soldier of the United States could vote in the state at any election. A long discussion followed, whether to nominate a candidate or not, which ended in a decision to nominate. Then came the query whether every one at the town meeting could take part in naming a candidate to be voted for. The advocates of Negro suffrage claimed that the colored native citizens of South Carolina had a better right to select the candidate to be voted for than any of the white men present. It should be remembered that at this time the Fifteenth amendment had not been adopted. The point was made on the other side that only those who would have the right to vote for such a candidate had the right to participate in the nomination. This proposition was voted down, however, by a large majority, and H.G. Judd, a philanthropist engaged in the work of educating the Negroes, was nominated. Subsequently, however, another meeting was held by the white settlers who had acquired a residence, and who were entitled under the laws of South Carolina to vote, having resided there three years, at which meeting I was nominated.

This Election

      occurred the next day, and I received 36 votes and H.G. Judd 8 votes. There being no authorized managers of the election, the voters assembled at the polls on the morning of the election and elected three persons to act in that capacity. These persons made a certificate that I had received the largest number of votes at the election.

      When the convention assembled in Columbia, I presented by credentials and could have been sworn in without question if I had preferred to make a statement to the convention that it might not act unadvisedly of the circumstances of my election. I asked that the credentials be referred to the committee on credentials. It was so ordered and I then appeared before the committee and related the facts. After the hearing a report was presented which stated that perhaps this was the only case known to legislative history in which a man contested his own seat, and that all the evidence for and against my right to the seat was presented by myself. The committee reported unanimously in favor of

Seating Me

      A long debate, however, ensued in the convention upon the question, and it was finally decided only by the close vote of 53 to 50 that I be seated. George D. Tillman, now a member of Congress from South Carolina, made a very bitter speech against seating me. He thought the insolence of this Yankee was beyond precedent in claiming to represent the grand old parish of St. Helena, which had been represented in the past by Middleton, Rhett, Bull and other distinguished citizens of the State. In a speech that was really prophetic, he predicted that to admit me would be to show dragons' teeth, and that ultimately I would be followed by a horde which should devour the state.

      James L. Orr made a speech in favor of my admission, and said that he hoped to see the state overrun with just such newcomers. I was, perhaps, the youngest man in the convention, and was surrounded by men of the first rank of the State. Scarcely a man in that convention but had a title. There were ex-senators, ex-governors, ex-chancellors, ex-judges and ex-members of Congress. It was the intellectual power of the state to say nothing of ex-generals, colonels and ex-captains of the confederate army. Probably two-thirds of those men had been members of the convention which carried the state out of the Union, and had looked upon that act at the time it was performed as

The Crowning End

      of a lifetime of agitation and anxiety. Now they were called upon to undo it all, but they seemed incapable of understanding the true position of affairs, and were totally ignorant of what had been accomplished by the war and blind to the logic of events.

      For instance, one of the questions early raised and referred to the judiciary committee was whether Negroes should be allowed to testify in the courts. Judge Frost of Charleston introduced a resolution that the ordinance fixing the status of the Negro upon this question should be passed by the convention. Chancelor Ingalls, who recently died in Baltimore, opposed the proposition, claiming that a sovereign convention called as this was for a special purpose, ought not to legislate. Upon the question of discharging the committee from further consideration of the subject, there were but two votes in the negative, Judge Frost, the mover, a man of 80 years, and myself.

      Isolated

177

This account was taken from James G. Thompson's Papers by his daughter, Caroline B. Stephen, of Washington, D.C. Special Correspondence of the New York Tribune.