Disunion and Restoration in Tennessee: Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University — John Shaqi
Disunion and Restoration in Tennessee: Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia UniversityNeal, John Randolph
History
Disunion and Restoration in Tennessee: Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University
Neal, John Randolph
Reconstruction (U.S. history, 1865-1877) -- Tennessee; Tennessee -- Politics and government -- 1861-1865; Thesis (Ph. D.)
When the Democrats regained control of the State, the settlement of
the State debt, which had been so greatly increased by the Brownlow
Administration, proved a most perplexing question. It became an apple
of political discord, and retarded the industrial and commercial
regeneration of the State. It disrupted the Democratic party into
three factions. A few of the most prominent leaders desired to see the
State’s credit preserved by paying the bonds in full. A still larger
number, while recognizing the validity of the bonds, conscientiously
believed that the State, on account of the amount of the debt, and the
demoralized business conditions resulting from the war, would be
unable to meet its just obligations. They therefore favored some
agreement with the bondholders, whereby the debt could be scaled
without inflicting dishonor upon the State. A third faction was for
open repudiation. They contended that the bonds were illegal on two
grounds, first, they had been issued in direct violation of the
conditions precedent laid down in the Internal Improvement Act of
1852, and its amendments; secondly, the Brownlow Administration, which
had issued the bonds, did not represent the State, it was a mere
interim of usurpation and revolutionary government. While for purposes
of convenience its acts, which affected merely private rights, should
not be disturbed, nevertheless it could not pledge the credit of the
State.
In 1873 a Funding Act was passed by the Legislature. It provided that
all past due coupons and bonds might be funded into new bonds bearing
interest at six per cent., redeemable after July 1, 1884, and payable
July 1, 1914. Coupons on the new bonds were payable on January and
July of each year, beginning with July, 1874. The question as to the
validity of the Brownlow bonds was avoided by inserting a provision
that only “bonds legally issued should be funded.” But the State
officials ignored this provision by funding all the bonds that were
presented.
This Funding Act of 1873 proved a failure. The State was unable to
meet its interest on the new bonds. A series of bad crops increased
the difficulty. The assessment returns for 1874, as compared with
those of 1873, exhibited a decrease of $18,556,173.
On January 1, 1877, the arrears of interest amounted to $1,570,646. It
now became apparent to the bondholders that they must either effect
some compromise with the State, or run the risk of losing the entire
debt. They, therefore, entered into personal communications with the
Governor, and signified to him their willingness to compromise. Their
communications were laid before the Legislature, and it adopted on
January 26, 1877, the following resolution:
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account