I should be able to, but cannot, fully explain the sharp conflict over the
"Henry resolutions."  I do know that the relatively new Readjuster Party membership,
including legislators, were rather confused as to how to proceed in
a national, as opposed to a state election.  In 1879, the
Readjusters had contested many state legislative seats, and when
the dust settled, after a deal with African-American Republican
members of the General Assembly, claimed majority control of
both houses.  The white Republicans had been deterred from
cooperating with William Mahone, et al, because President
Rutherford B. Hayes (and his successor, James A. Garfield) found
the idea of debt readjustment abhorrent.  (They would, being
financially undergirded by industrialists and bondholders.)  Thus the
Readjusters had every reason to back Winfield Scott Hancock's bid
for the Presidency in 1880, except for the fact that the Funders, the
Democrats would of course back him as well.
  Their solution was to run a separate pro-Hancock electoral ticket,
while the Readjusters' erstwhile allies, African-American
Republicans, joined white Republicans supporting the Mugwump
Garfield.  Hancock carried Virginia and the cockeyed three way
campaign for two candidates did nothing to further the interests of
the Readjusters as a party.  Garfield viewed them with a jaundiced
eye and the danger that the coalition would founder because of the
influence of the National Republican Party's hostility was a
palpable reality.  The assassination of Garfield and a closely
divided US Senate (just like now) altered the course of history.  VP
Chester A. Arthur, a stalwart, machine politician immediately threw
his support to the political leader who could provide the most
support for his administration:  William Mahone, Senator-elect from
Virginia.  Mahone entered a Senate equally divided between
Republicans and Democrats and the bidding began.  The
Democrats' offer was:  as a southern gentleman who served as a
general under Robert E. Lee, you will of course vote with us.  The
Republicans, eminently more practical, offered Mahone complete
control over federal patronage in Virginia, chairmanship of the
Senate Agriculture committee, and apparently guaranteed financial
support for future state and national electoral campaigns.  Mahone
threw in with the Republicans.
  This period, 1879-1881, is one of the most exciting in Virginia's
long political history.  Imagine how difficult it was for the typical
Readjuster local leader/legislator, recruited in say 1877, to accept
the alliances made by the Party by 1881.  Remember, this typical
"conservative readjuster" as they were called, was a junior officer in
the Confederate Army, often in Mahone's brigade or division.  By
1879, they had brought the majority of black legislators into their
movement, though these men remained Republicans for purposes
of national politics, they were Readjusters at the state and local
level.  By 1881, Mahone had decided that "I am for Arthur, because
Arthur is for me!"  Though the official transformation of the
Readjusters into the Republican Party of Virginia did not take place
until 1884, for all practical purposes it was accomplished by 1881.
  Virginia is the first state in the post-Appomattox period in which
large numbers of white men VOTED THE OPPOSITE WAY THAT
THEY HAD SHOT.  Personal ambition, greed, personal animosity
all played a role in the internal conflict within the party, but I think
that there must have been a kind of cognitive dissonance at work
too.  They were blazing an uncharted trail to the new South and it
must have perplexed the best of them.  This whole subject
certainly perplexes the historians who study it.

Harold S. Forsythe
History & Black Studies
Fairfield University


Date sent:              Fri, 04 May 2001 19:32:11 -0400 (EDT)
From:                   Janet Hunter <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                Stovall/Smith/Politics/Richmond/1880
To:                     [log in to unmask]
Send reply to:          Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
        <[log in to unmask]>

> I found a very interesting notice and article in the Alexandria VA
> Gazette, March 15, 1880...A public announcement that two state senators,
> C.T. SMITH (of Nelson Co) and J. T. STOVALL (of Henry Co), had apparently
> "made up" following what sounds like a rather noisy exchange in on the
> floor of the state Senate in Richmond.  It also looks like friends or
> possibly lawyers got involved to facilitate the amicable adjustment of
> differences.
>
> I don't believe that today's conflicts in that august chamber result in
> subsequent public announcements that all is well....but I could be wrong,
> yet again.
>
> Does anyone have any idea whether this sort of public statement was common
> back then?  If so, for what period of time would that have been the case?
>
> Also, what faction would have been considered "readjusters" in the phrase
> below:  "republicans and some readjusters"?
>
> Below you will find the brief statement and an article that it looks like
> is taken from the "Rich. Commonwealth", and I am not sure exactly what
> that was.
>  It could be a newspaper (though I looked around and found none) or the
> byline of the Gazette's correspondent in Richmond.
>
> I went back to the date of the encounter, March 9, and looked at the
> editions of the paper for the next few days but did not find any more
> coverage, so I don't know what the "Henry resolutions" referred to below
> were about.  Being as how 1880 was an election year, I would imagine there
> was alot of "dodging" of votes, just there is now...Again, some things
> never change.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Janet Hunter -- Step-Cousin to all (including the John Stovall below) --
> and bona fide cousin to many -- descendants of Bartholomew Stovall and
> Anne Burton Stovall, as (a) a descendant of John Saunders, Anne's second
> husband, and likely guardian of some of her younger children (according to
> one of the Stovall books); and (b) via several Stovall marriages to
> siblings of my direct ancestors.
>
> From the Alexandria Gazette, March 15, 1880
>
> The Smith-Stovall Affair.
>
> To the Public:  All matters of difference growing out of the discussions
> in the Senate chamber on the evening of the 9th instant between Hons. C.
> T. Smith and J. T. Stovall have been amicably and honorably adjusted.
>
> J. D. PATTON for C. T. Smith
> Wm. E. BOISEAU, for J. T. Stovall.
>
> We assent to the above statement
>
> C. T. Smith
> J. T. Stovall
>
> Richmond, March 13, 1850.
>        __________
>
> It has been known for several days since the adjournment of the
> Legislature, the 9th instant, that a correspondence has been going on
> between the two senators above named in regard to ofsive [sic] language
> used by Senator John T. Stovall, of Henry, in reply to a charge made in
> debate by Senator C. T. Smith, of Nelson, that Senators Fulkerson, French,
> Paul, Riddleberger, Stovall, of Henry, and Wood, had "dodged" a vote on
> the Henry resolutions, which threw the Senate in its expiring hours into
> such excited convulsions and caused such a flutter with the republicans
> and some readjusters.
>
> By the voluntary intercession of friends the aforesaid correspondence has
> been withdrawn, and the affair, we are glad to say, terminated as above
> shown.
>
> Senator Riddleberger, who was occupying the floor when he gave Mr. Smith
> leave to read the names of senators who had not voted on said resolutions
> and to comment thereon, wrote Mr. Smith the next day, in reply, in the
> following manly words:  "At no time did I feel any bad blood in the matter
> or intend any offence to you, and was highly amused at the whole
> performance."  Neither did either of the other five senators included in
> the said charge take offence at such a common charge except Mr. Stovall,
> of Henry.  The explanation for such unwarrantable conduct on his part is,
> that on the desks by him there HAD BEEN (in italics) three "whiskey
> cocktails."  Men of his own party, and personal friends, admitted that he
> was clearly in the wrong throughout, and the President of the Senate so
> ruled.  His coarse allusions to Senator Smith, of Nelson, were unprovoked.
>  The conduct and bearing of Senator Smith, manly and gentle as usual, was
> in striking contrast with the unparliamentary, vulgar rantings of the
> TOO-SPIRITED (in italics) senator from Henry, who undertook to display
> courage when no insult was offered or intended, and when such inexcusable
> conduct was against the dignity of the Senate, to which he was forced to
> apologize for initiating a disgraceful scene.
>
> All sides sympathized with Senator Smith in such a trying ordeal.
> Intoxicating liquors and intoxicated men should not be tolerated in any
> legislative body.--RICH. COMMONWEALTH. (in italics)
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html