ranging from two to three cents a pound during the three years after the war,
brought in over $68,000,000. This tax, with other Federal revenues, yielded
much more than the entire expenses of reconstruction from 1865 to 1868 and of
all relief measures for the South, both public and private. After May 1865,
the 25 percent tax was imposed only upon the produce of slave labor. None of
the war taxes, except that on cotton, was levied upon the crops of 1866, but
while these taxes lasted, they seriously impeded the resumption of trade.

Even these restrictions, however, might have been borne if only they had been
honestly applied. Unfortunately, some of the most spectacular frauds ever
perpetrated were carried through in connection with the attempt of the United
States Treasury Department to collect and sell the confiscable property in the
South. The property to be sold consisted of what had been captured and seized
by the army and the navy, of "abandoned" property, as such was called whose
owner was absent in the Confederate service, and of property subject to
seizure under the confiscation acts of Congress. No captures were made after
the general surrender, and no further seizures of "abandoned" property were
made after Johnson's amnesty proclamation of May 29, 1865. This left only the
"confiscable" property to be collected and sold.

For collection purposes the states of the South were divided into districts,
each under the supervision of an agent of the Treasury Department, who
received a commission of about 25 percent. Cotton, regarded as the root of the
slavery evil, was singled out as the principal object of confiscation. It was
known that the Confederate Government had owned in 1865 about 150,000 bales,
but the records were defective and much of it, with no clear indication of
ownership, still remained with the producers. Secretary Chase, foreseeing the
difficulty of effecting a just settlement, counseled against seizure, but his
judgment was overruled. Secretary McCulloch said of his agents: "I am sure I
sent some honest cotton agents South; but it sometimes seems doubtful whether