army chaplain and superintendent of the central district. Charges of cruelty and extortion were made against one Fitz, assistant superintendent of the Trent River settlement, opposite New Bern. The charge was made that Captain Horace James, formerly su perintendent of the eastern district, with an employee, had killed a negro convict without any action being taken against them. Other officials were charged with various offenses. Major Clinton A. Cilley, superintendent of the western district, was mentioned as a bright exception and was highly commended.* Vehement denials were made by those accused, and it was later clearly shown that the examination had been very hasty and inadequate and that many errors had been made. It is also true that the inspectors had been sent for the purpose of gathering damaging evidence against the bureau to use as proof of the charges Johnson had made in his veto of the second bureau act, and that, on this account, their report must be taken with a grain of salt. But it is also evident that far too much of it was true.‡ General Howard took the ground that the connection of bureau officials with industry was beneficial and that he had encouraged it. He further made the astonishing statement that every accusa *Major Cilley was a Democrat and not at all popular with his colleagues of the bureau. †Ho. Ex. Docs., No. 123, 1st Sess. 39th Cong. The following is an extract from the report, which gives an idea of the methods of some of the bureau officials: "In one of our interviews with the freedmen at New Bern, some of them who were employed in the commissary department of the bureau, stated that rations in bulk had been taken from the supply warehouse at unusual hours, before the doors were opened for the transaction of business, and hauled off in carts and wagons, and that on one occasion they had followed a cart containing four barrels of pork, to see if it went to the freedmen's ration-house. They ascertained that it did not. We investigated the case. Captain Rosekrans stated that he knew nothing about it. His brother, a citizen, whom he has employed to act as commissary sergeant, stated that the four barrels alluded to were ordered by himself to be taken from the store-house to the building from which rations are issued to the freedmen, but that the driver of the cart had made a mistake and took the pork to the wrong place, a provision store kept by Mr. P. Merlin, and immediately upon discovering the mistake he had it rectified and the pork returned to the store-house. Afterwards we called upon Mr. Merlin, who stated that at about the time Mr. Rosekrans said that the pork had been sent by mistake to his store, he borrowed four barrels of pork from Captain Rosekrans, which he had not yet returned. He also stated that Captain Rosekrans on that day, and after his examination before us, called at his store and requested him to return the four barrels of pork immediately." Ho. Ex. Docs., No. 120, 1st Sess. 39th Cong., p. 68. tion against the bureau or against its officials was false.* Opinion in the State was divided on the question of the connection of bureau officials with agriculture, but, among other papers, the Sentinel took the ground that nothing could be said against it. But, on May 21st, General Howard prohibited bureau officials from engaging in business. General F. D. Sewall was also sent by General Howard to inspect and report on the condition and work of the bureau in the State. His report shows utter carelessness on the part of the officials, but he praised the institution in no uncertain terms, more than seems deserved from his own statements of fact, which were as biased in favor of the bureau as those of Generals Steedman and Fullerton had been against it.† Colonel Whittlesey at first said that he had no time to answer such charges, but both time and opportunity were given him, for the President on May 16th directed the arrest and trial by court martial of all the accused, including such citizens as were in business partnerships with bureau officials. Few were convicted, t but suspicion of the bureau remained, and with cause.§ General Howard was directed by the court martial to censure Colonel Whittlesey, but said the direction to censure was sufficient, and, refusing to obey the order, recalled him at once to Washington where he was given duties at bureau headquarters. No stain whatever attaches to Colonel Whittlesey's name, and, during his whole administration, he acted as fairly and impartially as his bias for the negro would allow him. In the matter of protection of the freedmen, the bureau rendered a substantial service to the cause of justice to the negro, but here again another side, not so favorable, appears. Injustice to the white people was common, and a false idea of freedom and of their position was instilled into the minds of the freedmen to their later detriment. Little can be said in criticism of the bureau's assistance to the *Howard to Rev. George Whipple, Standard, May 23d, 1866. †Ho. Ex. Docs., No. 120, 1st Sess. 39th Cong., pp. 31-39. The author has been unable to obtain the result of all these trials. Glavis was convicted on several counts and was dismissed from the service Nation, December 20th, 1866. §George O. Sanderson, of Massachusetts, for two years superintendent of the colony at Roanoke Island, testified before the Reconstruction Committee that many agents in North Carolina were corrupt. At Roanoke Island, he said, a regular trade was carried on in Government supplies. Ho. Reports, No. 30, 1st Sess. 39th Cong. pp. 179-180. freedmen in securing employment, except that it encouraged dependence and that, through its operations, the negroes were led to distrust the Southern whites.* If the charge before mentioned in this connection is true, the case is presented in a much worse light. Finally, in its educational activities, the bureau was of considerable assistance in encouraging negro education, but, even in this regard, it held out false hopes to the negroes, gave encouragement to false educational ideals which have not yet been entirely replaced by sound ones, and through fanaticism and lack of tact made many enemies for negro education in general. Apart from the direct objects of the bureau, it was active in a way that created the most intense hostility on the part of the white people. As early as September, 1865, its agents were busying themselves in a political way and preparing for the organization of the freedmen. This activity increased as time passed, and in 1867 the bureau agents were among the most active in extending the organization of the Union League and in arousing the negroes to political activity. An example of bureau methods was seen in Raleigh in 1867, when Dr. H. C. Vogell, a surgeon and bureau agent, issued a circular to the colored people advising them to deal with certain merchants, presumably those favoring the Reconstruction policy then in operation.† Opinions may and do vary as to the correct view of the Reconstruction measures, but there can be but one opinion of such an action as this. Political activity, particularly of the sort that strove to array race against race, was not the true policy, or even a defensible one, for the bureau. When it had come to this, it had outlived its usefulness and it was a good thing for black and white when it ceased to exist.‡ That the faults of the bureau were in the main due to the character of its officials is proved by the fact that, where the agents were men of character and ability, the bureau was an influence *On October 12th, 1865, when General Howard visited Raleigh, a public meeting was held. Among the speakers, two in particular condemned the bureau as a bad influence in labor matters. These were Edwin G. Reade, president of the convention of 1865, and Alfred Dockery, a member of the same body, both inclining already to the Republican party and both later to become Radicals. Standard, Oct. 13th, 1865. +Western Democrat, November 12th, 1867. Major H. C. Lawrence, a bureau agent, in his testimony before the Reconstruction Committee, said that the bureau was no longer needed. for good. This was true in a marked degree in Raleigh, Charlotte, Tarboro, and Salisbury.* But these were exceptional cases, and in general the officers were to be distinguished for ignorance and inefficiency. Prejudice,† often without a reasonable basis, existed towards the bureau from the autumn of 1865, and, though at a later period than that its services were often requested,‡ by January 1st, 1869, it had become utterly hateful to the great majority of the white people of the State, who witnessed its demise without regret and with no respect for the departed. *Colonel J. V. Bomford in Raleigh, Captain John C. Barnett in Charlotte, and Major Clinton A. Cilley in Salisbury, were popular with both blacks and whites, and there was but little friction between the races while they were in charge. +As an example of the attitude of the press, the following extract from the New Bern Commercial of May, 1866, is quoted: "The Freedmen's Bureau is an institution of doubtful utility and needs all proper investigation. It most certainly has a very bad reputation generally, whether deserved or not, and, if half that is reported of it be true, the sooner it is locked and laid aside, the better." In a number of instances the assistance of the bureau was asked by the State or county governments for the suppression of violence on the part of the negroes. The Services of Commissary James Blair to the Colony of Virginia BY PAUL MICOU Fellow in History in the University of Virginia There are many chapters in our early colonial history which, in the quaint style of the documents and letters of that day, read like a novel. The difficulties and dangers of the period were well calculated to engender strong and noble men, yet the pages of the chronicles are not free from the petty spites and stronger hatreds which give a certain littleness to human character. Such a situation was especially true in the life of Commissary James Blair of Virginia, whose lofty character is offset by the evil natures of some of the royal governors with whom he came in sharp conflict. Great as were his contributions to the civil life of his day, he is better known to us as the founder of William and Mary College. The stern old man is an interesting study, for around him are grouped many of the characters of early Virginia. James Blair was born in Scotland in the year 1656, almost half a century after the founding of Jamestown Colony. Little is known of his early life, except that he went to the schools of Edinburgh, and in 1673 took his degree of Master of Arts from the University of the city. He served with "diligence, care, and gravity" as rector of Cranston Parish, but in the latter part of the reign of Charles II., he came to the metropolis of England, where he met Dr. Compton, the Bishop of London. The Bishop was greatly impressed with "the energy and zeal of Blair," and persuaded him to go as a missionary to the struggling colony of Virginia. No country ever had greater need of a minister of Blair's character and qualifications than Virginia. The condition of the clergy was not attractive to the better ministers of England. The vestries elected their pastors for one year only-a popular control which seemed unbearable to the aristocratic clergy of England, accustomed as they were to life tenure of their parishes. The inadequate salaries were hard to collect, and the fact that they were paid in tobacco led at this time, as well as later, to |