(eBook PDF) Strategic Management: A

Competitive Advantage Approach,

Concepts and Cases 16th Edition
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/download/ebook-pdf-strategic-management-a-competitive-a
dvantage-approach-concepts-and-cases-16th-edition/
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 The Court decided to take a vote upon the articles on Tuesday, the
12th of May, at 12 o’clock, M. A secret session was held on Monday,
during which several Senators made short speeches, giving the
grounds upon which they expected to cast their votes. On Tuesday
the Court agreed to postpone the vote until Saturday, the 16th. Upon
that day, at 12 o’clock, a vote was taken upon the eleventh article, it
having been determined to vote on that article first. The vote resulted
in 35 votes for conviction, and 19 for acquittal.
The question being put to each Senator, “How say you, is the
respondent, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, guilty
or not guilty of a high misdemeanor as charged in the article?”—
those who responded guilty were Senators Anthony, Cameron,
Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake,
Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan,
Morrill, of Vermont, Morrill, of Maine, O. P. Morton, Nye, Patterson,
N. H. Pomeroy, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton,
Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson and Yates.
Those who responded not guilty were Senators Bayard, Buckalew,
Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson,
Hendricks, Johnson, M’Creery, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee,
Ross, Saulsbury, Trumbull, Van Winkle and Vickers.
The Constitution requiring a vote of two-thirds to convict, the
President was acquitted on this article. After taking this vote the
Court adjourned until Tuesday, May 26th, when votes were taken
upon the second and third articles, with precisely the same result as
on the eleventh, the vote in each case standing 35 for conviction and
19 for acquittal. A verdict of acquittal on the second, third, and
eleventh articles was then ordered to be entered on the record, and,
without voting on the other articles, the Court adjourned sine die. So
the trial was ended, and the President acquitted.
The political differences between President Johnson and the
Republicans were not softened by the attempted impeachment, and
singularly enough the failure of their effort did not weaken the
Republicans as a party. They were so well united that those who
disagreed with them passed at least temporarily from public life,
some of the ablest, like Senators Trumbull and Fessenden retiring
permanently. President Johnson pursued his policy, save where he
was hedged by Congress, until the end, and retired to his native
State, apparently having regained the love of his early political
associates there.
 Grant.

The Republican National Convention met at Chicago, Ill., May

20th, 1868, and nominated with unanimity, Ulysses S. Grant, of
Illinois, for President, and Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, for Vice-
President. The Democratic Convention met in New York City, July
4th, and after repeated ballots finally compromised on its presiding
officers,[34] notwithstanding repeated and apparently decided
declarations on his part, Horatio Seymour, of New York, was
therefore nominated for President, and Francis P. Blair, Jr., of
Missouri, for Vice-President.[35]
An active canvass followed, in which the brief expression—“let us
have peace”—in Grant’s letter of acceptance, was liberally employed
by Republican journals and orators to tone down what were regarded
as rapidly growing race and sectional differences, and with such
effect that Grant carried all of the States save eight, receiving an
electoral vote of 214 against 80.
Grant inaugurated, and the Congressional plan of reconstruction
was rapidly pushed, with at first very little opposition save that
manifested by the Democrats in Congress. The conditions of
readmission were the ratification of the thirteenth and fourteenth
constitutional amendments.
On the 25th of February, 1869, the fifteenth amendment was
added to the list by its adoption in Congress and submission to the
States. It conferred the right of suffrage on all citizens, without
distinction of “race, color or previous condition of servitude.” By the
30th of March, 1870, it was ratified by twenty-nine States, the
required three-fourths of all in the Union. There was much local
agitation in some of the Northern States on this new advance, and
many who had never manifested their hostility to the negroes before
did it now, and a portion of these passed over to the Democratic
party. The issue, however, was shrewdly handled, and in most
instances met Legislatures ready to receive it. Many of the Southern
States were specially interested in its passage, since a denial of
suffrage would abridge their representation in Congress. This was of
course true of all the States, but its force was indisputable in sections
containing large colored populations.
The 41st Congress met in extra session March 4th, 1869, with a
large Republican majority in both branches. In the Senate there were
58 Republicans, 10 Democrats and 8 vacancies; in the House 149
Republicans, 64 Democrats and 25 vacancies, Mississippi, Texas,
Virginia and Georgia not being represented. James G. Blaine, for
several years previous its leading parliamentarian and orator, was
Speaker of the House. All of Grant’s nominations for Cabinet places
were confirmed, except A. T. Stewart, of New York, nominated for
Secretary of the Treasury, and being engaged in foreign commerce he
was ineligible under the law, and his name was withdrawn. The
names of the Cabinet will be found in the list of all Cabinet officers
elsewhere given. Their announcement at first created the impression
that the Grant administration was not intended to be partisan, rather
personal, but if there ever was such a purpose, a little political
experience on the part of the President quickly changed it. A political
struggle soon followed in Congress as to the admission of Virginia,
Mississippi and Texas, which had not ratified the Fourteenth
Amendment or been reconstructed. A bill was passed April 10th,
authorizing their people to vote on the constitutions already
prepared by the State conventions, to elect members of Congress and
State officers, and requiring before readmission to the Union, their
Legislatures to ratify both the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments. This work done, and the extra session adjourned.
In all of the Southern States, those who then prided themselves in
being “unreconstructed” and “irreconcilable,” bitterly opposed both
the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and on these issues
excited new feelings of hostility to the “carpet baggers” and negroes
of the South. With the close of the war thousands of Northern men
had settled in the South. All of them were now denounced as political
adventurers by the rebels who opposed the amendments,
reconstruction and freedman’s bureau acts. Many of these organized
themselves first into Ku Klux Klans, secret societies, organized with a
view to affright negroes from participancy in the elections, and to
warn white men of opposing political views to leave the country. The
object of the organization broadened with the troubles which it
produced. Efforts to affright were followed by midnight assaults, by
horrible whippings, outrages and murders, hardly a fraction of which
could be traced to the perpetrators. Doubtless many of the stories
current at the time were exaggerated by partisan newspapers, but all
of the official reports made then and since go to show the dangerous
excesses which political and race hostilities may reach. In Georgia
the whites, by these agencies, soon gained absolute political control,
and this they used with more wisdom than in most Southern States,
for under the advice of men like Stevens and Hill, they passed laws
providing for free public schools, etc., but carefully guarded their
newly acquired power by also passing tax laws which virtually
disfranchised more than half the blacks. Later on, several Southern
States imitated this form of political sagacity, and soon those in favor
of “a white man’s government,” (the popular battle cry of the period)
had undisputed control in Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas
and Texas—States which the Republicans at one time had reason to
believe they could control.
 The Enforcement Acts.

To repress the Ku Klux outrages, Congress in May 31, 1870, passed

an act giving to the President all needed powers to protect the
freedmen in their newly acquired rights, and to punish the
perpetrators of all outrages, whether upon whites or blacks. This was
called in Congress the Enforcement Act, and an Amendatory
Enforcement Act was inserted in the Sundry Civil Bill, June 10, 1872.
The Ku Klux Act was passed April 20, 1871. All of these measures
were strongly advocated by Senator Oliver P. Morton, who through
this advocacy won new political distinction as the special champion
of the rights of the blacks. Later on James G. Blaine, then the
admitted leader of the House, opposed some of the supplements for
its better enforcement, and to this fact is traceable the refusal on the
part of the negroes of the South to give him that warm support as a
Presidential candidate which his high abilities commanded in other
sections.
The several Enforcement Acts and their supplements are too
voluminous for insertion here, and they are of little use save as relics
of the bitter days of reconstruction. They have little force now,
although some of them still stand. They became a dead letter after
the defeat of the “carpet-bag governments,” but the President
enforced them as a rule with moderation and wisdom.
The enforcement of the Ku Klux Act led to the disbanding of that
organization after the trial, arrest and conviction of many of the
leaders. These trials brought out the facts, and awakened many
Southern minds, theretofore incredulous, to the enormity of the
secret political crimes which had been committed in all the Southern
States, and for a time popular sentiment even in the South, and
amongst former rebel soldiers, ran strongly against the Klan. With
fresh political excitements, however, fresh means of intimidation
were employed at elections. Rifle clubs were formed, notably in
South Carolina and Mississippi, while in Louisiana the “White
League” sprang into existence, and was organized in all of the
neighboring States. These were more difficult to deal with. They were
open organizations, created under the semblance of State militia
acts. They became very popular, especially among the younger men,
and from this time until the close of the Presidential election in 1876,
were potent factors in several Southern States, and we shall have
occasion further on to describe their more important movements.
 Readmission of Rebellious States.

Before the close of 1869 the Supreme Court, in the case of Texas
vs. White, sustained the constitutionality of the Reconstruction acts
of Congress. It held that the ordinances of secession had been
“absolutely null;” that the seceding States had no right to secede and
had never been out of the Union, but that, during and after their
rebellion, they had no governments “competent to represent these
States in their relations with the National government,” and
therefore Congress had the power to re-establish the relations of any
rebellious State to the Union. This decision fortified the position of
the Republicans, and did much to aid President Grant in the difficult
work of reconstruction. It modified the assaults of the Democrats,
and in some measure changed their purpose to make Reconstruction
the pivot around which smaller political issues should revolve.
The regular session of the 41st Congress met Dec. 4th, 1869, and
before its close Virginia, Georgia, Texas, and Mississippi had all
complied with the conditions of reconstruction, and were re-
admitted to the Union. This practically completed the work of
reconstruction. To summarize:—*
Tennessee was re-admitted July 24th, 1866; Arkansas, June 22d,
1868; North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia and
Florida under the act of June 25th, 1868, which provided that as
soon as they fulfilled the conditions imposed by the acts of March,
1867, they should be re-admitted. All did this promptly except
Georgia. Virginia was re-admitted January 25th, 1870; Mississippi,
Feb. 23d, 1870; Texas, March 30th, 1870. Georgia, the most powerful
and stubborn of all, had passed State laws declaring negroes
incapable of holding office, in addition to what was known as the
“black code,” and Congress refused full admission until she had
revoked the laws and ratified the 15th Amendment. The State finally
came back into the Union July 15th, 1870.
 The above named States completed the ratification of the 15th
amendment, and the powers of reconstruction were plainly used to
that end. Some of the Northern States had held back, and for a time
its ratification by the necessary three-fourths was a matter of grave
doubt. Congress next passed a bill to enforce it, May 30th, 1870. This
made penal any interference, by force or fraud, with the right of free
and full manhood suffrage, and authorized the President to use the
army to prevent violations. The measure was generally supported by
the Republicans, and opposed by all of the Democrats.
The Republicans through other guards about the ballot by passing
an act to amend the naturalization laws, which made it penal to use
false naturalization papers, authorized the appointment of Federal
supervisors of elections in cities of over 20,000 inhabitants; gave to
these power of arrest for any offense committed in their view, and
gave alien Africans the right to naturalize. The Democrats in their
opposition laid particular stress upon the extraordinary powers given
to Federal supervisors, while the Republicans charged that Seymour
had carried New York by gigantic naturalization frauds in New York
city, and sought to sustain these charges by the unprecedented vote
polled. A popular quotation of the time was from Horace Greeley, in
the New York Tribune, who showed that under the manipulations of
the Tweed ring, more votes had been cast for Seymour in one of the
warehouse wards of the city, “than there were men, women, children,
and cats and dogs in it.”
 The Legal Tender Decision.

The Act of Congress of 1862 had made “greenback” notes a legal

tender, and they passed as such until 1869 against the protests of the
Democrats in Congress, who had questioned the right of Congress to
issue paper money. It was on this issue that Thaddeus Stevens
admitted the Republicans were travelling “outside of the
constitution” with a view to preserve the government, and this soon
became one of his favorite ways of meeting partisan objections to war
measures. At the December term of the Supreme Court, in 1869, a
decision was rendered that the action of Congress was
unconstitutional, the Court then being accidentally Democratic in its
composition. The Republicans, believing they could not afford to
have their favorite, and it must be admitted most useful financial
measure questioned, secured an increase of two in the number of
Supreme Justices—one under a law creating an additional
Justiceship, the other in place of a Justice who had resigned—and in
March, 1870, after the complexion of the Court had been changed
through Republican appointments made by President Grant, the
constitutionality of the legal tender act was again raised, and, with
Chief Justice Chase (who had been Secretary of the Treasury in 1862
presiding) the previous decision was reversed. This was clearly a
partisan struggle before the Court, and on the part of the
Republicans an abandonment of old landmarks impressed on the
country by the Jackson Democrats, but it is plain that without the
greenbacks the war could not have been pressed with half the vigor,
if at all. Neither party was consistent in this struggle, for Southern
Democrats who sided with their Northern colleagues in the plea of
unconstitutionality, had when “out of the Union,” witnessed and
advocated the issue of the same class of money by the Confederate
Congress. The difference was only in the ability to redeem, and this
ability depended upon success in arms—the very thing the issue was
designed to promote. The last decision, despite its partisan
surroundings and opposition, soon won popularity, and this
popularity was subsequently taken as the groundwork for the
establishment of
 The Greenback Party.

This party, with a view to ease the rigors of the monetary panic of
1873, advocated an unlimited issue of greenbacks, or an “issue based
upon the resources of the country.” So vigorously did discontented
leaders of both parties press this idea, that they soon succeeded in
demoralizing the Democratic minority—which was by this time such
a plain minority, and so greatly in need of new issues to make the
people forget the war, that it is not surprising they yielded, at least
partially, to new theories and alliances. The present one took them
away from the principles of Jackson, from the hard-money theories
of the early days, and would land them they knew not where, nor did
many of them care, if they could once more get upon their feet. Some
resisted, and comparatively few of the Democrats in the Middle
States yielded, but in part of New England, the great West, and
nearly all of the South, it was for several years quite difficult to draw
a line between Greenbackers and Democrats. Some Republicans, too,
who had tired of the “old war issues,” or discontented with the
management and leadership of their party, aided in the construction
of the Greenback bridge, and kept upon it as long as it was safe to do
so. In State elections up to as late as 1880 this Greenback element
was a most important factor. Ohio was carried by an alliance of
Greenbackers and Democrats, Allen being elected Governor, only to
be supplanted by Hayes (afterwards President) after a most
remarkable contest, the alliance favoring the Greenback, the
Republicans not quite the hard-money, but a redeemable-in-gold
theory. Indiana, always doubtful, passed over to the Democratic
column, while in the Southern States the Democratic leaders made
open alliances until the Greenbackers became over-confident and
sought to win Congressional and State elections on their own merits.
They fancied that the desire to repudiate ante-war debts would
greatly aid them, and they openly advocated the idea of repudiation
there, but they had experienced and wise leaders to cope with. They
were not allowed to monopolize this issue by the Democrats, and
their arrogance, if such it may be called, was punished by a more
complete assertion of Democratic power in the South than was ever
known before. The theory in the South was welcomed where it would
suit the Democracy, crushed where it would not, as shown in the
Presidential election of 1880, when Garfield, Hancock and Weaver
(Greenbacker) were the candidates. The latter, in his stumping tour
of the South, proclaimed that he and his friends were as much
maltreated in Alabama and other States, as the Republicans, and for
some cause thereafter (the Democrats alleged “a bargain and sale”)
he practically threw his aid to the Republicans—this when it became
apparent that the Greenbackers, in the event of the election going to
the House, could have no chance even there.
Gen’l Weaver went from the South to Maine, the scene of what was
regarded at that moment as a pivotal struggle for the Presidency.
Blaine had twice been the most prominent candidate for the
Presidency—1876 and 1880—and had both times been defeated by
compromise candidates. He was still, as he had been for many years,
Chairman of the Republican State Committee of Maine, and now as
ever before swallowed the mortification of defeat with true political
grace. The Greenbackers had the year before formed a close alliance
with the Democrats, and in the State election made the result so
close that for many weeks it remained a matter of doubt who was
elected Governor, the Democratic Greenbacker or the Republican. A
struggle followed in the Legislature and before the Returning Board
composed of State officers, who were Democrats, (headed by Gov.
Garcelon) and sought to throw out returns on slight technicalities.
Finally the Republicans won, but not without a struggle which
excited attention all over the Union and commanded the presence of
the State militia. Following Garfield’s nomination another struggle,
as we have stated, was inaugurated, with Davis as the Republican
nominee for Governor, Plaisted the Democratic-Greenback, (the
latter a former Republican). All eyes now turned to Maine, which
voted in September. Gen’l Weaver was on the stump then, as the
Greenback candidate for President, and all of his efforts were bent to
breaking the alliance between the Greenbackers and Democrats.
He advocated a straight-out policy for his Greenback friends,
described his treatment in the South, and denounced the Democracy
with such plainness that it displayed his purpose and defeated his
object. Plaisted was elected by a close vote, and the Republicans
yielded after some threats to invoke the “Garcelon precedents.” This
was the second Democratic-Greenback victory in Maine, the first
occurring two years before, when through an alliance in the
Legislature (no candidate having received a majority of all the
popular vote) Garland was returned.
The victory of Plaisted alarmed the Republicans and enthused the
Democrats, who now denounced Weaver, but still sought alliance
with his followers. General B. F. Butler, long a brilliant Republican
member of Congress from Massachusetts, for several years
advocated Greenback ideas without breaking from his Republican
Congressional colleagues. Because of this fact he lost whatever of
chance he had for a Republican nomination for Governor, “his only
remaining political ambition,” and thereupon headed the
Greenbackers in Massachusetts, and in spite of the protests of the
hard-money Democrats in that State, captured the Democratic
organization, and after these tactics twice ran for Governor, and was
defeated both times by the Republicans, though he succeeded, upon
State and “anti-blue blood” theories, in greatly reducing their
majority. In the winter of 1882 he still held control of the Democratic
State Committee, after the Greenback organization had passed from
view, and “what will he do next?” is one of the political questions of
the hour.
The Greenback labor party ceased all Congressional alliance with
the Democrats after their quarrel with General Weaver, and as late as
the 47th session—1881–82—refused all alliance, and abstained from
exercising what some still believe a “balance of power” in the House,
though nearly half of their number were elected more as Republicans
than Greenbackers.
As a party, the Greenbackers, standing alone, never carried either
a State or a Congressional district. Their local successes were due to
alliances with one or other of the great parties, and with the passage
of the panic they dissolved in many sections, and where they still
obtain it is in alliance with labor unions, or in strong mining or
workingmen’s districts. In the Middle States they won few local
successes, but were strong in the coal regions of Pennsylvania.
Advocates of similar theories have not been wanting in all the
countries of Western Europe following great wars or panics, but it
was reserved to the genius of Americans to establish an aggressive
political party on the basis of theories which all great political
economists have from the beginning antagonized as unsafe and
unsound.
 The Prohibitory Party.

The attempt to establish a third party in the Greenback, begot that

to establish a National Prohibitory Party, which in 1880 ran James
Black of Pennsylvania, as a candidate for the Presidency, and four
years previous ran Neal Dow of Maine. He, however, commanded
little attention, and received but sparsely scattered votes in all the
States. The sentiment at the base of this party never thrived save as
in States, particularly in New England, where it sought to impress
itself on the prevailing political party, and through it to influence
legislation. Neal Dow of Maine, first advocated a prohibitory law, and
by his eloquent advocacy, secured that of Maine, which has stood for
nearly thirty years. That of Massachusetts has recently been
repealed. The prohibitory amendment to the Constitution of Kansas
was adopted in 1881, etc. The Prohibitory Party, however, never
accomplished anything by separate political action, and though fond
of nominating candidates for State and local officers, has not as yet
succeeded in holding even a balance of power between the political
parties, though it has often confused political calculations as to
results in New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Connecticut,
Massachusetts, etc. It seems never to have taken hold in any of the
Southern States, and comparatively little in the Western, until the
whole country was surprised in 1880 by the passage of the Kansas
amendment by over 20,000 majority in a vote of the people invoked
by the Legislature. An effort followed to submit a similar amendment
through the Pennsylvania Legislature in 1881. It passed the House by
a large majority, but after discussion in the Senate, and amendments
to indemnify manufacturers and dealers in liquor (an amendment
which would cripple if it would not bankrupt the State) was adopted.
Governor St. John of Kansas, a gentleman fond of stumping for this
amendment, insists that the results are good in his State, while its
enemies claim that it has made many criminals, that liquor is
everywhere smuggled and sold, and that the law has turned the tide
of immigration away from that great State. The example of Kansas,
however, will probably be followed in other States, and the
Prohibitory Party will hardly pass from view until this latest
experiment has been fairly tested. It was also the author of “Local
Option,” which for a time swept Pennsylvania, but was repealed by a
large majority after two years’ trial.
 Annexation of San Domingo.

The second session of the 41st Congress began December 5th,

1870. With all of the States represented, reconstruction being
complete, the body was now divided politically as follows: Senate, 61
Republicans, 13 Democrats; House 172 Republicans, 71 Democrats.
President Grant’s annual message discussed a new question, and
advocated the annexation of San Domingo to the United States. A
treaty had been negotiated between President Grant and the
President of the Republic of San Domingo as early as September 4th,
1869, looking to annexation, but it had been rejected by the Senate,
Charles Sumner being prominent in his opposition to the measure.
He and Grant experienced a growing personal unpleasantness,
because of the President’s attempt to negotiate a treaty without
consulting Mr. Sumner, who was Chairman of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs, and it was charged that through the influence of the
President he was removed by the Republican caucus from this
Chairmanship, and Senator Simon Cameron put in his place.
Whether this was true or not, the differences between Grant and
Sumner were universally remarked, and Sumner’s imperious pride
led him into a very vindictive assault upon the proposition. Grant
gave few other reasons for annexation than military ones, suggested
that as a naval station it would facilitate all home operations in the
Gulf, while in the hands of a foreign power, in the event of war, it
would prove the depot for many and dangerous warlike preparations.
The question had little political significance, if it was ever designed
to have any, and this second attempt to bring the scheme to the
attention of Congress, was that a joint resolution (as in the
annexation of Texas) might be passed. This would require but a
majority, but the objection was met that no Territory could be
annexed without a treaty, and this must be ratified by two-thirds of
the Senate. A middle course was taken, and the President was
authorized to appoint three Commissioners to visit San Domingo
and ascertain the desires of its people. These reported favorably, but
the subject was finally dropped, probably because the proposition
could not command a two-thirds vote, and has not since attracted
attention.
 Amendatory Enforcement Acts.

The operation of the 15th Amendment, being still resisted or

evaded in portions of the South, an Act was passed to enforce it. This
extended the powers of the Federal supervisors and marshals,
authorized in the first, and gave the Federal Circuit Courts exclusive
jurisdiction of all cases tried under the provisions of the Act and its
supplements. It also empowered these Courts to punish any State
officer who should attempt to interfere with or try such cases as in
contempt of the Court’s jurisdiction. The Republicans sustained, the
Democrats opposed the measure, but it was passed and approved
February 28, 1871, and another supplement was inserted in the
Sundry Civil Bill, and approved June 10th, 1872, with continued
resistance on the part of the Democrats. After the appointment of a
committee to investigate the condition of affairs in the Southern
States, Congress adjourned March 4th, 1871.