YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

.PRESIDENT 1369-1877

Twenty Tears of Congress:

LINCOLN TO GARFIELD.

WITH A REVIEW OF

THE EYENTS WHICH LED TO THE POLITICAL
REVOLUTION OF 1860.

BY

JAMES G. BLAINE. Ml

VOLUME II.

NORWICH, CONN.:
THE HENRY BILL PUBLISHING COMPANY.
1886.

Copyright, 1884,
By JAMES G. BLAINE.

All rights reserved.

ELECTROTTPED AND PRINTED
BT BAND, AVEKY, AND COMPANY,
BOSTON, MASS.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME II

CHAPTER I.
PAGE
Andrew Johnson installed as President. — Cabinet and Senators "Witnesses
to the Ceremony. — Responsibilities of the New President delicate in
Character. — Requiring the Highest Order of Statesmanship. — The
Question of Reconstruction. — Its Peculiar Difficulties. — New and Per
plexing Questions. — Character and Career of Mr. Johnson. — Born in
North Carolina. — Migrates to Tennessee. — His Rapid Promotion in
that State. — A Tailor by Trade. — Without Education — Taught to
read at Fifteen. — Mayor of Town at Twenty-two. — In the Legisla
ture at Twenty-seven. — Presidential Elector in 1840 at Thirty-two. —
In Congress at Thirty-five. — Governor from 1853 to 1857. — United-States
Senator in 1857. — His Service in Congress. —His Homestead Policy. —
Necessary Antagonism with Slavery. —His Ideal of a Rural Population.
— Boldness of his Political Course in Tennessee. — His Loyalty to the
Union. — Separates from the Democratic Conspirators. — His Career in
the Civil "War. —Appointed Military Governor of Tennessee. — His Able
Administration of the Office. — Foreshadows a Severe Policy as Presi
dent. — Contrast with Mr. Lincoln. — Analysis of Johnson's Position. —
His Brief Inaugural Address. — Effect produced by it. — His Address
to an Illinois Delegation. — Significant Indication of a Harsh Policy
towards the. Rebels. — Preston King's Influence. — President's Address
to Christian Commission. — To Loyal Southerners. — To a Pennsylvania
Delegation. — President's Tone grows Sterner towards "Traitors." —
Striking Conversation with Senator "Wade. — Funeral Ceremonies of
the Late President. — Remains carried to Illinois. — Impressive Scene
in Baltimore. —In Philadelphia. — Body reposes in Independence Hall.
— Contrast with Four Years before. — Unparalleled Display of Feel
ing in New York. — Oration by George Bancroft. — Elegiac Ode by
William Cullen Bryant. — Interment in Illinois. — Ceremonies compared
with those of Roy-alty. — Profound Feeling throughout the Country.
— Public Manifestation of Mourning  1
CHAPTER II.
Military Review in Honor of Union Victory. — The Eastern and Western
Armies. — Their Great Achievements. — Special Interest. — Number of
Battles during the War. — Number Each Year. — Struggle of 18(i4-65.—
Discipline of TnE Army. — Moral Responsibility of continuing the Con
test. — Needless Slaughter of Men. — Confederate Responsibility. —
Speech of Robert M. T. Hunter, followed by Judah P. Benjamin. —
Extreme Measures advocated by him. — His Over-Zeal. — Mr. Benjamin
iii

iv CONTENTS OF VOLUME II. PAGE
seeks Refuge in England. — His Success there due to English Sympathy
with the Rebellion. — His Malignity Towards the Union. — Southern
Character. — Its Strong Points and its Weak Points. — Conduct of Con
federate Congress. — Their Inflammatory Address. — Its Extravagance
and Absurdity. —Jefferson Davis's Address to Congress. — His Lack of
Moral Courage. — Disbandment of Union Army, 1,000,516 Men. —Another
Million gone before. — Self-Support and Self-Adjustment. — Comparison
with the Army of the Revolution. — Union Officers all Young Men.
— Ages of Officers in other Wars. — Ages of Regular Army Officers.
— Of Volunteer Officers. — Harmony of the Two. — Special Efficiency
of the Volunteers. — Magnitude of the Union Army. —The Infantry,
Cavalry, Artillery. — Number of Generals. —Number of Regiments. —
Military Resources of the Republic. —Its Security in Time of Danger, 18
CHAPTER III.
The Reconstruction Problem — The President's Public Addresses. — Time
for Action arrived. — Proclamation declaring Hostilities ceased. —
Manner of Dealing with Insurrectionary States. — Mr. Lincoln's First
Efforts at Reconstruction. — Election in Louisiana. — Flanders and
Hahn. — Mr. Lincoln's Note to General Shepley. — To Cuthbert Bul-
lett.— Mr. Lincoln's Definite Plan. — " One-Tenth " of Voters to or
ganize Loyal State Government. — Free-State Convention in Louisiana.
— Michael Hahn elected Governor. — Constitutional Convention. —
Mr. Lincoln's Congratulations. — Similar Action in Arkansas. — Isaac
Murphy elected Governor. — Representation in Congress denied to
these States. —Mr. Sumner's Resolution. —Adopted by Senate. — Simi
lar Action in House. — Conflict between the President and Congress.
— Congressional Plan of Reconstruction. — Three Fundamental Condi
tions. — Bill passed July 4, 1864. — Not approved by the President. —
His Reasons given in a Public Proclamation. — Senator Wade and H.
Winter Davis criticise the Proclamation. — Their Protest. — Subse
quent Resolution of. Congress. — The President's Reply to it. — Mr.
Lincoln's Probable Course on the Subject of Reconstruction. — Recon
struction of the Government of Tennessee. — The Quick Process of
doing. —^Ratified by Popular Vote, 25,293 to 48. — Parson Brownlow
chosen Governor. — Patterson and Fowler elected Senators. — John
son's Inauguration as Vice-President. — His Speech. — Were the Rebel
States out of the Union? — Johnson's Views. — Mr. Lincoln's Views. —
Radical and Conservative. — Extra Session debated. — Adverse Decis
ion. — Ill-Luck of Extra Sessions  34
CHAPTER IV.
President Johnson and the Cabinet. — Effect of Vice-President's Accession.
— Example of Tyler in 1841 and Fillmore in 1850. —A Vice-President's
Difficult Position. — Personnel of Cabinet in 1865. — Its Nearly Even
Division on Reconstruction Issues. — Presumed Position of Each Member.
— Stanton, Harlan, and Dennison Radical. — Welles, McCulloch, and
Speed Conservative. — Mr. Seward's Relation to the President.  His
Position explained. — Mr. Seward regains his Health. — Display of his
Personal Power. — Characteristics of Mr. Seward. — Superiority of
his Mind. — Tendency op the President's Mind. — Social Influences at
Work upon him. — His Radical Change of Position. — President's Proc
lamation May 29. — Amnesty and Pardon to Rebels. — Thirteen Excepted

CONTENTS OF VOLUME II.

Classes. — The "Twenty-thousand-dollar "Disability. — Warmly opposed
by Mr. Seward. — Clemency promised to Excepted Classes. — Pardons
applied for. — Fourteen Thousand granted in Nine Months. — Another
Proclamation of Same Date. — Provisional Governors appointed. — First
for North Carolina. — Existing Governments in Virginia, Louisiana,
Arkansas, and Tennessee recognized. — President's Reconstruction Pol
icy. —Now fully disclosed. — Oath of Allegiance prescribed. — Provis
ional Governors to assemble Conventions. — The Conventions to form
Constitutions. — Legislatures then to assemble. — Whole Machinery of
Government in Motion. — Rebels in Possession of State Governments. —
Colored Men excluded from All Participation. — Suffrage left to the
States. — Pkesident's Personal Position on Suffrage. — Reconstruction
Scheme complete in July. — The President and the Republican Party.
— His Belief that the Party would follow him. — His Hostility to
Radicals. — President depends on Conduct of the South. — Public In
terest TRANSFERRED TO THAT SECTION  56
CHAPTER V.
Great Opportunity given to the South. — Their Response to the President's
Treatment. — Northern Desire for Restoration of the Union. — South
does not respond to it. — southern reconstruction conventions. — in
COMPLETE and Ill-digested Proceedings. — Rebels apply for Seats in
Congress. — Iron-clad Oath in their Way. — They denounce it as Uncon
stitutional. — Course of Alexander H. Stephens. — Southern Feeling
towards the Union. — Their Conventions exhibit Hatred. — Hostile
Manifestations. — Expressions of Press and Stump Orators. — Leading
Rebels nominated for Office. — South described by Mr. Fessenden's
Committee. — South misled by Northern Democracy in 1865. — Former
Calamity from Same Cause in 1861.— What Congress would demand of
the South. — Three Indispensable Requirements. — Southern Legisla
tures DEFIANTLY RESIST. — CHARACTER OF THOSE LEGISLATURES. — PRACTICAL
Re-enactment of the Slave-code. — Cruelty of Alabama Statutes. —
Fraudulent in their Nature. — Course of the City of Mobile. — Stat
utes of Florida still worse. — Unfair Taxation. — Poll-tax of Three
Dollars. — A Lien upon the Negro's Labor. — Oppression of the Negro.
— Enactments in South Carolina. — Characterized by Rank Injustice.
— Penal Enactments in Mississippi. — Atrocious Provisions. — Laws of
Louisiana worst of All. — Capitation Tax in the South. — Its Unjust
Effect. — School Laws. — Education practically denied to the Negro.
— He is taxed for the Education of the Whites. — Disproportion of
Burdens placed upon him. — Review of the Black Code. — Some Details
of its Provisions. — Incredibly- Cruel. — The South without Excuse for
its Enactment. — Their Determination to vindicate Slavery. — To bring
Reproach on the North. — Influence of these Proceedings on Mr.
Seward. — His Mode of Self-justification. — Severely censured by his
Old Supporters. — Misled by the Course of Events. — His Loss of Popu
larity  84
CHAPTER VI.
Meeting of the Thirty-ninth Congress. — Re-election of Speaker Colfax. -t-
His Address on taking the Chair. — Thaddeus Stevens moves for a Com^
mitteb of Reconstruction. — Resisted by Democrats. — Rebel Contestants
denied Admission to the Floor. — Much Feeling on the Question. — Pro-

vi CONTENTS OF VOLUME II.

ceedings of the senate. — propositions of mr. sumner. — annual message
of the President. — Outline of its Contents. — Apparently" Conservative
in Tone. —Not Personally Aggressive. — Leading Men of the Thirty-
ninth Congress. — Death of Both Vermont Senators. — New Senators.
New Members of the House. — Sketches of Prominent Senators and
Representatives. — President Johnson's Patronage. — Unprecedented
Volume of it due largely to the War. — Danger of its Use against
Republicans. — Apprehensions of Republicans. — Reconstruction Resolu
tion in the Senate. — Amended in that Body. — Concurrence of House.
— Appointment of Committee. — Strong Character of its Members. —
House Resolutions. — Debate on Reconstruction. — Longest Debate in
the History of Congress. — Opened by Mr. Stevens. — Very Radical in
its Tone. — He sketches Changed Basis of Representation. — Gives Of
fense to the Administration. — Mr. Henry J. Raymond. — His Reply to
Mr. Stevens. — His Strong Attachment to Mr. Seward. — Theory of Dead
States. — Speech of Mr. Spalding. — Mr. Shellabarger replies to Mr.
Raymond. — Exhaustive Speech. — Gave him a Leading Place in the
House. — Severe Attack on the South. — Resolutions of Mr. Voorhees
sustaining Administration. — Speech in Support of them. — Mr. Bingham's
Reply. — House refuses to indorse the Administration. — Two Republi
cans join Democratic Vote. — Disappointment of Mr. Raymond. — Thinks
Democratic Support a Misfortune. — Character of Mr. Raymond. — His
Great Ability. — His Life shortened. — Died at Forty-nine. Ill
CHAPTER VII.
Senate Debate on Reconstruction. — Speech of Mr. Wilson. — Denounces
the Pro-slavery Statutes of Southern States. — Reply of Reverdy
Johnson. — Mr. Sumner sustains Mr. Wilson. — Speeches of Willard
Saulsbury and Mr. Cowan. — Earnest Debate before Holidays. — Em
barrassment of the Republican Party. — The President's Presumed
Strength. — Position of Commercial Men. — Firmness of Republican
Members of Congress. — Contrasted with Conduct of Whigs in 1841.—
Resolution of Mr. Cowan.— Mr. Sumner's Amendment. —Reports of
Covode and Schurz called for. —President's Special Message. — Sends
Report of Mr. Schurz and Lieutenant-General Grant. — Calls Special
- Attention to General Grant's Report. — Report apparently sustains
the Administration. — Mr. Sumner denounces President's Message.—
Compares Johnson to Pierce. — Mr. Schurz's Report submitted. —His
Picture of the Southern Condition. — His Recommendations. —Favors
Negro Suffrage. — How Mr. Schurz was selected. —Extent of his Tour
in the South. — How General Grant was selected. — Extent of his
Tour in the South. — Divergent Conclusions of the Two. — Subsequent
Change of Position of Both. - Interesting Case in the United-States
Senate. — John P. Stockton sworn in as Senator from New Jersey.—
Protest against his Right to a Seat. - Judiciary Committee report in
his Favor.- Debate in the Senate. — Mr. Clarke of New Hampshire.
-Able Speech of Mr. Fessenden. - He examines the Constitutional
Ground. — His Conclusive Reasoning. - Long Debate. — Decision against
Mr. Stockton. — Important Results flowing from it. — Congress regu
lates Time and Manner of electing Senators. — Change from State
Control to National Control. — Alexander G. Cattell succeeds Mr
Stockton. -Death of Mr. Wright. -Frederick T. Frelinghuysen suc
ceeds him  „,„
 142

CONTENTS OF VOLUME II. vii
CHAPTER VIII. PAGE
The President offended. — Adverse Vote in Congress surprises him. —
Freedmen's Bureau established. — Major-General Howard appointed
Commissioner. — His Character. — Deficiency of the Bureau. — Supple
mentary Act. — Its Provisions. — Conflict with State Power. — Long De
bate. — Speech of Ignatius Donnelly. — The President's Veto. — Severe
Attack upon the Policy*. — Expense of the Bureau. — Senate fails to
pass Bill over Veto. — Another Bill to Same Effect passed. — More
guarded in its Provisions. — President vetoes the Second Bill. — Senate
and House pass it over the Veto. — Unpopularity of the Measure. —
Senator Trumbull introduces Civil Rights Bill. — Its Provisions. —
Radical in their Effect. — Speech of Reverdy Johnson. — Debate in
the House. — President vetoes the Bill. — Makes Elaborate Argument
against it. — Exciting Debate on Veto. — Mr. Trumbull's Speech. —
Severe Review of President's Course. — Exciting Speech of Mr. Wade.
— Illness of Mr. Wright. — Severe Remarks of Mr. McDougal and Mr.
Guthrie. — Debate in the House. — Both Branches pass Bill over Veto.
— Radical Character of the Measure. — Relations of President and
Congress. — Openly- Hostile. — Popular Meeting in Washington. — Presi
dent's Action approved. — President's Speech 22d of February. — Its
Undignified and Violent Character. — Calls Men by Name. — Unfavor
able Impression upon the Country. — The President losing Ground. —
Republicans ln Congress Anxious. — Exciting Period. — Senator Lane of
Kansas. — His Political Defection. — His Suicide. — Personal History.
— His Public Services. — Suicide of Preston King. — Supposed Reasons
for the Act  162
CHAPTER IX.
Contest between President and Congress. — Points of Difference. — What
Congress insisted on. — Required Definition of American Citizenship. —
Political Disabilities. — The Public Credit. — Protection of National
Pensions. — Repudiation of Rebel Debt. — Possible Payment for Slaves.
— Apprehensions of Capitalists. —Danger hanging over National Treas
ury. — Amendments to the Federal Constitution. — Should Rebel States
participate. — Mr. Seward's View. — Mr. Thaddeus Stevens's View. —Pro
ceedings of Reconstruction Committee. — Proposed Bases of Representa
tion. — Amendment proposed by Mr. Spalding. — By Mr. Blaine. — By Mr.
Conkling. — Speech by Mr. Jenckes of Rhode Island. — By Mr. Baker
and Mr. Ingersoll of Illinois. — By Mr. Shellabarger. — By Mr. Pike
of Maine. — Mr. Schenck's Amendment. — House adopts Amendment.—
Opposed in the Senate. — Long Speech of Mr. Sumner. — Reply of Mr.
Fessenden. — Speech of Senator Henderson. — His Radical Proposition.
— Senate defeats House Amendment. — New Proposition from the Re
construction Committee. — Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
proposed. — Its Original Form. — Debate in the House. — Proceedings in
the Senate. — Long Debate. — Speeches by Mr. Howard, Mr. Hendricks,
Mr. Sherman, Mr. Reverdy Johnson, Mr. Doolittle. — Final Adoption
of the Fourteenth Amendment by Both Branches. — Notification to
the States June 16. — Prompt Adoption by Tennessee. — Tennessee re
admitted to Representation. — Action of Senate and House Thereon.
— Reasons assigned for passing the Bill. —President approves the
Bill, but disapproves the Reasons for its Passage. — His Ingenuous
Censure of Congress. — Adjournment of Congress. — Impending Political
Contest. — Struggle between the President and Congress . ' . . . 188

viii CONTENTS OF VOLUME II.
CHAPTER X.
PAGE
A Cabinet Crisis.— Resignation of William Dennison, Postmaster-General,
James Speed, Attorney-General, and James Harlan, Secretary of the
Interior. — Succeeded respectively by Alexander W. Randall, Henry
Stanbury, and Orville H. Browning. — Political Campaign of 1866. —
Four National Conventions. — Two favoring the President; two ad
verse. — Philadelphia Convention, August 14, favoring the President.
— Impressive in Numbers, distinguished in Delegates. — Philadelphia
Convention of September 13. — Southern Loyalists and Northern Sym
pathizers. — List of Prominent Men in Attendance. — Marked Effect
of its Proceedings. — Speech of Honorable James Speed. — Address to
the People. — Written by the Honorable J. A. J. Creswell. — Sol
diers' Convention at Cleveland. — Favoraele to President. — Speech of
General Ewing. — Convention principally Democratic in Membership.
— Its Proceedings ineffective. — Soldiers' Convention at Pittsburg. —
Hostile to President. — General Cox presides. — Distinguished Officers
present. — Twenty-five Thousand Soldiers present. — Great Effect
followed it in the Country. — Fourteenth Amendment the Rallying-
point. — Political Events of the Summer. — Hostile to President. —
New-Orleans Riot of July 30. — Great Slaughter. — Rebel Officers in
Louisiana responsible. — Investigated by Congress. —Also by Military
Authorities. — Reports substantially agree. — Censure of the Presi
dent. — Result hurtful to his Administration. — His Famous Tour. —
Injurious to his Administration. — Republicans victorious in Elections
throughout the North. — Democrats victorious throughout the South.
— House of Representatives Republican by Three to One. — President
depressed. — Importance of the Elections of 1866. — Negro Suffrage. —
The Difficulty of imposing it on the South. — Fourteenth Amendment
the Test for Reconstruction  218
CHAPTER XI.
Second Session Thirty-ninth Congress. — President's Message. — Repeats his
Former Recommendations. — Mischievous Effect produced in the South.
— The Ten Confederate States vote on the Fourteenth Amendment. —
Rejected by Every One. — Defiance to Congress. — Madness of the
Southern Leaders. — Determination of the North. — New Plan of
Reconstruction. — Bill reported by Mr. Stevens. — South divided into
Military Districts. — Bill elaborately debated. — Views of Leading
Members. — Extracts from Speeches. — Blaine Amendment. —Debated in
the House. — Opposed by Mr. Stevens. — Rejected in the House. —
Adopted in Different Form in the Senate. — Finally Incorporated in
Reconstruction Bill. — President vetoes the Bill. — Passed over his
Veto. — Character of the Measure. — The South forces the Adoption
of Negro Suffrage. — Not contemplated originally by the North.—
Character of the Struggle. — Executive Patronage. — President's Pol
icy to be sustained by it. — The Power of Removal. - Early Decision
of the Government. —Views of Mr. Madison and Mr. Webster. — Of
Hamilton and of Washington. — Republican Leaders determined to
CURTAIL THE POWER. — Mr. WILLIAMS INTRODUCES TENURE OF OFFICE BlLL.
— Speeches of Edmunds, Howe, and Others. — President vetoes the Bill!
— Passed over his Veto. —Doubtful Character of the Measure. — Repub
lican Distrust of it. — New States in the North-Wbst. — Mr. Lincoln's
Policy shown in the Case of Nevada.— Increase of Free Territories.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME II. ix
PAGE
— Nebraska and Colorado apply for Admission. — President Johnson
vetoes the blll. — admission of colorado prevented. — power of pardon
and Amnesty by Proclamation taken from the President. — Scandals
reported  246
CHAPTER XII.
Meeting of Fortieth Congress, March 4th, 1867. — Conspicuous Changes in
Senate and House. — Cameron, Conkling, Morton, in Senate. — Butler,
Peters, Beck, in House. —Mr. James Brooks objects to the Organiza
tion of the House. — Seventeen States absent. — The Clerk declines
to receive his motion. — third election of mr. colfax as speaker.—
Supplementary Reconstruction Act. — The President's Prompt Veto. —
Passed over his Objections. — Congress adjourns to July 3d. — Second
Supplementary Act of Reconstruction. — Another Veto. — Ominous
Words from the President. — Republicans disquieted. — Congress ad
journs to November. — The South placed under Military Government.
— Practical Reconstruction. — Conventions in the Southern States. —
Constitutions submitted to the People. — Second Session Fortieth Con
gress. — Aggressive Message from the President. — Southern States
re-admitted to Representation. — Another Veto from the President. —
Reconstruction Contest practically ended. —Representatives and Sen
ators from the South. — Mistakes of Former Slave-holders. — Unfor
tunate Blunders. — Peculiar Mental Qualities of President Johnson.
— The Veto Power. — Its Infrequent Use by Earlier Presidents. — Ex
ample of Jackson. — Followed by his Successors. — Difference between
Democratic and Whig Presidents. — Mr. Tyler and Mr. Johnson. — Rati
fication of the Fourteenth Amendment. — Proclaimed by Mr. Seward.
— Importance of its Provisions. — Singular Hostility of the Democrats.
— A New Charter of Freedom. — Sweeps away Oppression and Every
Denial of Justice. — Credit of it conceded to the Republicans . . 283
CHAPTER XIII.
Government Finances after the War. — Difficulties of the Situation. — In
trepidity of Congress. — Its Great Task. —$600,000,000 Bill. — Summary
of Public Debt, December, 1865. — Funded and Floating Obligations. —
Aggregate Debt, January 1, 1866, $2,739,491,745. — $1,600,000,000 Floating
Obligations. — Mr. McCulloch's Estimates. — His Financial Policy. —
Contraction the Leading Feature. — Ways and Means Committee report
a Funding Bill. — House Debate Thereon. — Senate Debate. — Final Pas
sage. —Revenue Laws in Congress. — Contrasted with British Parlia
ment. — Large Reduction of Internal Taxes. — Second Reduction of
Internal Taxes. — Contraction Policy oppressive. — Indirect Relief. —
Hostility rapidly increases. — Progress of Funding Bill. — Repeal of
Contraction Bill. — Its Evil Effects. — Further Reduction of Internal
Taxes. — Financial Achievements of the Government. — Large Reduc
tion of National Debt. — Valuable Treasury Officials. — Purchase of
Alaska. — Price, $7,200,000 in Gold Coin. — Purchase at First Unpopular.
— Resistance in the House. — Mr. Washburne and General Butler op
pose. — Treaty ably sustained by General Banks. — Interesting Debate.
— Many Participants. — Power of the House respecting Treaties. —
Chronic Controversy. — The Bill passed. — Opinion of Judge McLean.—
Of Mr. Jefferson. — Extent of Alaska. — Value of it. — Its Elements
of Wealth. — First Northern Territory acquired by the United States.
— Negotiation ably conducted by Mr. Seward  317

X CONTENTS OF VOLUME II.
CHAPTER XIV. PAGE
Impeachment of President Johnson. — First Movement thereto. — Mr. Ash
ley's Grave Charges. — General Grant's Important Testimony. — Judi
ciary Committee divide. — Impeachment defeated, December, 1867.
Analysis of Vote. — Suspension of Mr. Stanton. — Tenure-of-Office
Law. — Senate disapproves Mr. Stanton's Suspension. — Mr. Stanton re
stored as Secretary of War. — An Unwelcome Cabinet Officer. — Pre
vious Views of Leading Senators. — President's Anomalous Situation.
— He removes Mr. Stanton. —Appoints Lorenzo Thomas Ad Interim. —
Senate condemns the President's Course. — Impeachment moved in the
House. — Exciting Debate. — Impeachment carried. — Managers ap
pointed. — Articles of Impeachment presented to the Senate. — Thomas
Ewing nominated for Secretary of War. — Not confirmed. — Court of
Impeachment. — The Chief Justice. — The President's Counsel. — Judge
Curtis. — Mr. Evarts. — Mr. Groesbeck. — The President's Answer. —
General Butler's Argument. — Testimony presented by Managers. —
Argument of Judge Curtis. — The President's Witnesses. — Rejection
of Testimony by Senate. — Testimony concluded. — Argument of Gen
eral Logan. — Of Mr. Boutwell. — Of Mr. Nelson. — Of Mr. Groesbeck.
— Of Thaddeus Stevens. — Of Thomas Williams. — Of Mr. Evarts. — Of
Mr. Stanbery. — Of Mr. Bingham. — Twenty-nine Senators file their
Opinions — First Vote on Last Article. — General Interest and Ex
citement. — The Result. — Acquittal of President. — Views of Republi
cans. — Condemnation of Certain Senators. — Subsequent Change of
Opinion. — The President Unwisely Impeached. — Actual Offenses of
the President. — Their Gravity. — Impeached on other Grounds. — The
Real Test. — Nature of an Impeachable Offense. — Lawyers differ. —
Effect on Mr. Stanton. — His Political Attitude. — His Resignation.
— Appointed Supreme Justice. — His Death. — General Schofield Sec
retary of War. — Mr. Evarts Attorney-General  341

CHAPTER XV.
Presidential Election of 1868. — Republican National Convention at
Chicago. — General Grant the Clearly Indicated Candidate of his
Party. — Contest for the Vice-Presidency. — Wade, Colfax, Fenton,
Wilson, Curtin. — Spirited Balloting. — Colfax nominated. — Platform.
— Democratic National Convention. — Meets in New York, July 4. —
Numerous Candidates. — George H. Pendleton most Prominent. — An
Organized Movement for Chief Justice Chase. — His Alliance with
the Democracy.— His Eagerness for the Nomination. — His Friendly
Relations with Vallandigham. — President Johnson. — Seeks Democratic
Indorsement. — Mr. August Belmont's Opening Speech. — Horatio Sey
mour President of the Convention. - His Arraignment of the Repub
lican Party. — Character of his Mind. -The Democratic Platform —
Favors paying the Public Debt in Paper Money. -Declares the Re
construction Acts to be Usurp ations. - Wade Hampton's Prominence
— Various Names presented for the Presidency. — Varying Fortunes
of Candidates. -Seymour nominated. — The Vice-Presidency. — Frank
Blair nominated by Acclamation. —Aggressive Campaign on Both Sides
Mr. Seymour's Popular Tour. -Final Result — General Grant's Elec
tion 
 385

CONTENTS OF VOLUME II. xi
CHAPTER XVI. PAGE
Republican Victory of 1868 analyzed. — Mr. Seymour's Strength Unexpect
edly Great. — Astounding Defection of Certain States. — Democratic
Victory' in New York, New Jersey, and Oregon. — Evil Omens.— Demo
cratic Victory in Louisiana. — Won by Fraud and Violence. — The
Figures examined. — Action of Congress thereon. — Fraud suspected in
Georgia. — Democratic Duty unperformed. — Impartial Suffrage. — Vari
ous Propositions. — Amendment to the Constitution. — Mr. Henderson
of Missouri. — Mr. Stewart of Nevada. — Mr. Garrett Davis. — Proceed
ings in the House. — Speech of Mr. Boutwell. — Answered by Mr. Beck
and Mr. Eldridge. — Passage of Amendment by House. — Action thereon
in Senate. — Amendment of Mr. Wilson. — Proposition of Mr. Morton
and Mr. Buckalew. — Disagreement of the Two Branches. — Conference
Committee. — Fifteenth Amendment reported. — Public Opinion in the
United States. — Fourteenth Amendment now modified. — Its Effect
and Potency lessened. — Its Failure to remove Evils. — Great Value
of the Three Amendments. — Their Assured Enforcement. — Honor to
their Authors. — Lesson taught by Mr. Lincoln. — Its Significance. . 407

CHAPTER XVII.
Inauguration of General Grant for First Term. — Popular Enthusiasm. —
His Inaugural Address. — Approves Fifteenth Amendment. — Announce
ment of his Cabinet. — General Surprise. — E. B. Washburne. — Jacob
D. Cox. — E. Rockwood Hoar.— John A. J. Creswell. — Alexander T.
Stewart. — Ineligible. — Name withdrawn. — George S. Boutwell ap
pointed. — Adolph E. Borie. — Hamilton Fish. — George M. Robeson. —
General Schofield. — General Rawlins. — General Belknap. — General
of the Army. — The Succession. — Sherman appointed. — Lieuten ant-Gen
eral. — Sheridan appointed. — Halleck. — Meade. — Thomas. — Hancock.
— Congress convenes. — Election of Speaker. — Mr. Blaine chosen. —
Mr. Kerr the Democratic Candidate. — Various Members. — Mr. Wheeler.
— Mr. Potter. — Judge Noah Davis. — General Slocum. — Mr. Hale. —
Thomas Fitch. — The Pennsylvania Delegation. — Mr. S. S. Cox. — Mr.
George F. Hoar. — New Era politically under President Grant. — The
Opposition Party in the House. — Its Strong Leaders. — Their Manly
Character  422

CHAPTER XVIII.
Senate in the Forty-first Congress. — Hannibal Hamlin elected for the
Fourth Term. — Matthew H. Carpenter. — His Double Load of Work. —
Carl Schurz. — Allen G. Thurman. — William G. Brownlow. — Thomas
Francis Bayard. — Governor Fenton. — William A. Buckingham.— Daniel
D. Pratt. — John Scott. — John P. Stockton. — Southern Representa
tion Complete. — Character of Senators and Representatives. — Unjust
Abuse. — Southern Resistance to Carpet-bag Rule. — Admission of a
Colored Senator. — Hiram R. Revels of Mississippi. — Successor to Jef
ferson Davis. — The Moral of it. — President Grant and the Tenure-
of-office Act. — House votes to repeal the Act. — Delay in Senate. —
Position of Mr. Trumbull, Mr. Edmunds and Mr. Schurz. — Disagreement
between Senate and House. — Conference Committee. — Practical Re
peal of the Act. — Death of William Pitt Fessenden. — His Character, 437

xii CONTENTS OF VOLUME II.
CHAPTER XIX. PAGE
Events of Interest. — In Diplomacy and Reconstruction. — The Dominican Re
public. — Annexation Treaty. — Defeated by Senate. — President Grant
renews the effort. — commission sent to san domingo. — their report.
Opposition of Mr. Sumner. —The President and Mr. Sumner. — Reconstruc
tion Measures completed. —Virginia, Mississippi and Texas. — Re-admitted
to Representation. — Peculiar Case of Georgia. — Her Reconstruction
postponed. — Last State re-admitted to Representation. — Fifteenth
Amendment. — Adopted. — Proclaimed March 30, 1870. — President's Mes
sage. — Course of the Southern States. — Hostility to Reconstructed
Governments. — Determination to break them down. — Military Inter
position of the Government. — Ku-Klux-Klans. — Violence in the South.
— Legislation to prevent it. — Difficult Task. — Motive inspiring the
South. — Carpet-bag Immigration. — Cotton-rearing Original Motive. —
Political Consequence. — Disabilities in the South. — Cause thereof. —
Responsibility of Southern States. — Original Mistake of the South. —
The Aims of the North  458
CHAPTER XX.
Resentment against England. — Popular Feeling in the United States. —
Conduct of the Palmerston Ministry-. — Hostile Speeches in the House of
Commons. — Mr. Roebuck. — Lord Robert Cecil. — Conduct of the Tories.
— Of the Liberals. — Criticisms of the British Press. — South compared
with Ireland. — United States demands Compensation. — Refused by
England. — Negotiations. — Johnson-Clarendon Treaty. — Rejected by
Senate. — Character of Treaty. — Speech of Mr. Sumner. — Position of
President Grant. — Negotiation closed. — England asks that it be re
opened. — Joint High Commission. — Its Deliberations. — Its Basis of Set
tlement. — Geneva Award. — The Three Rules. — England's Course in
Regard thereto. — Private Claims adjusted. — The San Juan Question. —
Its Final Settlement. — Hon. George Bancroft  476
CHAPTER XXI.
Opening Forty-second Congress. —Deposition of Charles Sumner from Chair
manship of Foreign Relations. — Exciting Debate. — Grave Injustice to
Mr. Sumner. — Democratic Senators oppose the Act. — New Senators. 
Matt W. Ransom. — Frank P. Blair, Jun. — Henry G. Davis. — Powell
Clayton. — Organization of the House. — Mr. Blaine re-elected Speaker.
— Democrats control more than One-Third of House. — Valuable Ac
cessions to Membership. — Political Disabilities. — Removed from Indi
viduals.— General Amnesty proposed. — Civil-Rights Bill. — Course of
Colored Members of the House. —Their Justice and Magnanimity. . 503
CHAPTER XXII.
Presidential Election of 1872. — Liberal Republican Movement. — Its Origin.
— Division in Missouri. - Gratz Brown, Blair, Schurz. — Contest in New
York. — Greeley, Fenton, Conkling. — Conkling's Triumph. — Liberal
Republican Convention. — Meets at Cincinnati. — Nomination of Mr.
Greeley. — Adjustment of Tariff Issues. — Chagrin of Free-traders and
Democrats. — Mr. Greeley's Letter of Acceptance. — National Repub
lican Convention. — Meets in Philadelphia. — Renominates General
Grant. — Henry Wilson nominated for Vice-President. — Democratic

CONTENTS OF VOLUME II. xiii

National Convention. — Meets in Baltimore. — Endorses Greeley and
Brown. — Accepts the Cincinnati Platform. — Mr. Greeley's Letter of
Acceptance. — Contest between Grant and Greeley. — Character of Mr.
Greeley-. — His Strength and his Weakness. — North Carolina Election.
— Claimed by Both Sides. — Favorable to Republicans. — September Elec
tions.— Republican Gains. — Nomination of O'Connor and Adams. — Mr.
Greeley's Western Tour. — October Elections. — Strong Nominations
for State Officers. — Enormous Majorities for General Grant. — His
Overwhelming Election. — Death of Mr. Greeley  516
CHAPTER XXIII.
President Grant's Second Inauguration. — Complains of Partisan Abuse. —
Organization of Forty-third Congress. — Prominent Members of Senate
and House. — Death of Charles Sumner. — Impressive Funeral Ceremo
nies. — Singular Reminiscence by Mr. Dawes. — Speech by Mr. Lamar.
— Career of Alexander H. Stephens. — Government of District of
Columbia. — Radical Change. — Great Improvement. — Alexander R.
Shepherd. — Republican Reverse, 1874. — Democratic House of Repre
sentatives. — Michael C. Kerr, Speaker. — Members of Senate and
House. — Radical Changes. — Andrew Johnson in the Senate. — His
Speech. — Dies at his Home in Tennessee. — Condition of the South. —
Amnesty. — Amendment to except Jefferson Davis. — Bill defeated . 537
CHAPTER XXIV.
The Public Credit. — First Law enacted under President Grant. — Demo
cratic Opposition. — Thurman, Garrett Davis, Bayard. — President,
Grant's First Message. — Funding Bills discussed. — Action of Both
Houses. — Debates. — Further Reduction of Revenue. — Premium on
Gold. — Meeting of Forty-second Congress. — Financial Debates. —
Financial Panic of 1873. — Forty-third Congress meets. — President
Grant's Position. — Abolition of Moieties. — Specie Pay-ments. — Resump
tion Act. — Special Message of the President. — Admission of Colorado.
— Death of Speaker Kerr. — Samuel J. Randall his Successor . . 556
CHAPTER XXV.
Presidential Election of 1876. — Republican Candidates for Nomination. —
Convention at Cincinnati, June 14, 1876. — Republican Platform. — Bal
loting. — Nomination of Hayes and Wheeler. — Democratic National
Convention. — Samuel J. Tilden the Principal Candidate. — His Career.
— Other Democratic Candidates. — Tilden and Hendricks nominated. —
Democratic Platform. — The Canvass. — The Result. —Doubtful States.
— Popular Excitement. — Dispute in Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina.
— President Grant's Course. — A Portentous Question. — Electoral
Commission. — Members. — Questions before them. — Decision. — Hayes
and Wheeler elected. — Subsequent Investigation. — Potter Committee.
— Discovery of Telegrams. — Attempts at Bribery in the South . . 567
CHAPTER XXVI.
Inauguration of President Hayes. — His Southern Policy. — Appointment
of his Cabinet. — Organization of Senate and House of Representatives.
— Re-election of Speaker Randall. — Silver Discussion. — Coinage of

xiv CONTENTS OF VOLUME II.
Silver Dollar. — Report of Silver Commission. — Discussion on Silver
Question. - Product of Silver and Gold. — Thirty-two Years of Each.
— Navigation Interests. — Loss op Ground by the United States.— Rea
son THEREFOR. — HOW CAN IT BE REGAINED ? 

PAGE

595

CHAPTER XXVII.
The Question of the Fisheries. — Origin of American Rights. — Early Dis
putes.— Treaty of 1782. — Treaty of Ghent. — Treaty of 1818. — Reci
procity Treaty. — Joint High Commission. — Fisheries Question to be
arbitrated.— selection of arbitrators. —negotiation for reciprocity
Treaty. — The Halifax Award. — Its Large Amount.— Dissatisfaction.
— Action of Senate. — Correspondence with the British Government. —
Mr. Evarts and Lord Salisbury  615
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Forty-sixth Congress. — Extra Sessions. — Organization op House. — Op Sen
ate.— Leading Men in Each. — Democratic Gain in Influence. — Control
of Both Senate and House. — Death of Senator Chandler. —Question
of Civil Service Reform. — The Patronage of the Government. — Its
Illegitimate Influence. — The Question op Chinese Labor. — Legisla
tion thereon  i 638
CHAPTER XXIX.
Presidential Election of 1880. — Third Term suggested. — Chicago Conven
tion. — Exciting Contest. — Many Ballotings. — Nomination of General
Garfield. — Democratic Convention. — Nomination of General Hancock.
— The Contest. — The Result. — The Solid South. —Its Meaning. — Its
Effect. — Its End. — Review of the Twenty Years. — Progress of the
People.— Majesty of the Republic  657

LIST OF STEEL PORTRAITS.

Ulysses S. Grant
Andrew Johnson
Hannibal Hamlin
Schuyler Colfax
Henry Wilson
William A. Wheeler
Alexander H. Stephens
Samuel J. Randall
Lucius Q. C. Lamab
Thomas F. Bayard
Benjamin H. Hill
Augustus H. Garland
James B. Beck
B. K. Bruce
H. R. Revels
James T. Rapieb
John R. Lynch
J. H. Rainey
Allen G. Thtjrman
Timothy- O. Howe
Benjamin F. Butler
Roscoe Coxkling
George F. Edmunds
Matthew Hale Carpenter
William A. Buckingham
Rutherford B. Hayes
James A. Garfield .

>

>

>

>

PAGE
Frontispiece.

64

128

304

440

600 672

TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.

CHAPTER I.
Andrew Johnson installed as President. — Cabinet and Senators Witnesses to
the Ceremony. — Responsibilities of the New President delicate in Char
acter. — Requiring the Highest Order of Statesmanshd?. — The Question of
Reconstruction. — Its Peculiar Difficulties. — New and Perplexing Ques
tions. — Character and Career of Mr. Johnson. — Born in North Carolina.
— Migrates to Tennessee. — His Rapid Promotion in that State. — A Tailor
by Trade. — Without Education. — Taught to read at Fifteen. — Mayor of
Town at Twenty-two. — In the Legislature at Twenty-seven. — Presidential
Elector in 1840 at Thirty-two. — In Congress at Thirty-five. — Governor
from 1853 to 1857. — United-States Senator in 1857. — His Service in Con
gress. — His Homestead Policy. — Necessary Antagonism with Slavery. —
His Ideal of a Rural Population. — Boldness of his Political Course in
Tennessee. — His Loyalty to the Union. — Separates from the Democratic
Conspirators. — His Career in the Civil War. — Appointed Military Gov
ernor of Tennessee. — His Able Administration of the Office. — Fore
shadows a Severe Policy as President. — Contrast with Mr. Lincoln. —
Analysis of Johnson's Position. — His Brief Inaugural Address. — Effect
produced by it. — hls address to an illinois delegation. — significant in
DICATION op a Harsh Policy towards the Rebels. — Preston King's Influence.
— President's Address to Christian Commission. — To Loyal Southerners. —
To a Pennsylvania Delegation. — President's Tone grows sterner towards
"Traitors." — Striking Conversation with Senator Wade. — Funeral Cere
monies of the Late President. — Remains carried to Illinois. — Impresstve
Scene in Baltimore. — In Philadelphia. — Body reposes in Independence
Hall. — Contrast with Four Years before. — Unparalleled Display of
Feeling in New York. — Oration by George Bancroft. — Elegiac Ode by
William Cullen Bryant. — Interment in Illinois. — Ceremonies compared
with those op royalty. — profound feeling throughout the country. —
Public Manifestation of Mourning.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN expired at twenty-two minutes after
seven o'clock on the morning of April 15, 1865. Three hours
later, in the presence of all the members of the Cabinet except Mr.
Seward who lay wounded and bleeding in his own home, the oath
of office, as President of the United States, was administered to
Andrew Johnson by Chief Justice Chase. The simple but impres-

2 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
sive ceremony was performed in Mr. Johnson's lodgings at the Kirk-
wood Hotel; and besides the members of the Cabinet, who were
present in their official character, those senators who had remained
in Washington since the adjournment of Congress were called in as
witnesses. While the death of Mr. Lincoln was still unknown to the
majority of the citizens of the Republic, his successor was installed
in office, and the administration of the Federal Government was radi
cally changed. It was especially fortunate that the Vice-President
was at the National Capital. He had arrived but five days before,
and was intending to leave for his home in Tennessee within a few
hours. His prompt investiture with the Chief Executive authority
of the Nation preserved order, maintained law, and restored confi
dence to the people. With the defeat and disintegration of the
armies of the Confederacy, and with the approaching disbandment
of the armies of the Union, constant watchfulness was demanded of
the National Executive. It is a striking tribute to the strength of the
Constitution and of the Government that the orderly administration
of affairs was not interrupted by a tragedy which in many countries
might have been the signal for a bloody revolution.
The new President confronted grave responsibilities. The least
reflecting among those who took part in the mighty struggle per
ceived that the duties devolved upon the Government by victory —
if less exacting and less critical than those imposed by actual war —
were more delicate in their nature, and required statesmanship of a
¦different character. The problem of reconstructing the Union, and
adapting its varied interests to its changed condition, demanded
the highest administrative ability. Many of the questions involved
were new, and, if only for that reason, perplexing. No experience
of our own had established precedents; none in other countries
afforded even close analogies. Rebellions and civil wars had, it is
true, been frequent, but they had been chiefly among peoples con
solidated under one government, ruled in all their affairs, domestic
and external, by one central power. The overthrow of armed resist
ance in such cases was the end of trouble, and political society and
public order were rapidly re-formed under the restraint which the
triumphant authority was so easily able to impose.
A prompt adjustment after the manner of consolidated govern
ments was not practicable under our Federal system. In the divis
ion of functions between the Nation and the State, those that reach
and affect the citizen in- his every-day life belong principally toTJbe

CHARACTER AND CAREER OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 3
State. The tenure of land is guarantied and regulated by State
Law ; the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child,
guardian and ward, together with the entire educational system, are
left exclusively to the same authority, as is also the preservation of
the public peace by proper police-systems — the National Govern
ment intervening only on the call of the State when the State's
power is found inadequate to the suppression of disorder. These
leading functions of the State were left in full force under the Con
federate Government ; and the Confederate Government being now
destroyed, and the States that composed it being under the complete
domination of the armies of the Union, the whole framework of
society was in confusion, if not indeed in chaos. To restore the
States to their normal relations to the Union, to enable them to
organize governments in harmony with the fundamental changes
wrought by the war, was the embarrassing task which the Admin
istration of President Johnson was compelled to meet on the very
threshold of its existence.
The successful issue of these unprecedented and complicated dif
ficulties depended in great degree upon the character and temper of
the Executive. Many wise men regarded it as a fortunate circum
stance that Mr. Lincoln's successor was from the South, though a
much larger number in the North found in this fact a source of
disquietude. Mr. Johnson had the manifest disadvantage of not pos
sessing any close or intimate knowledge of the people of the Loyal
States. It was feared moreover, that his relations with the ruling
spirits of the South in the exciting period preceding the war specially
unfitted him for harmonious co-operation with them in the pending
exigencies. The character and career of Mr. Johnson were anomalous and in
many respects contradictory. By birth he belonged to that large
class in the South known as "poor whites," — a class scarcely less
despised by the slave-holding aristocracy than were the human chat
tels themselves. Born in North Carolina, and bred to the trade of a
tailor, he reached his fifteenth year before he was taught even to
read. In his eighteenth year he migrated to Tennessee, and estab
lished himself in that rich upland region on the eastern border of the
State, where by altitude the same agricultural conditions are devel
oped that characterize the land which lies several degrees farther
North. Specially adapted to the cereals, the grasses, and the fruits
of Southern Pennsylvania and Ohio, East Tennessee could not em-

4 TAVENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
ploy slave-labor with the profit which it brought in the rich cotton-
fields of the neighboring lowlands, and the result was that the
population contained a large majority of whites.
Owing much to a wise marriage, pursuing his trade with skill
and industry, Johnson gained steadily in knowledge and in influence.
Ambitious, quick to learn, honest, necessarily frugal, he speedily be
came a recognized leader of the class to which he belonged. Before
he had attained his majority he was chosen to an important munici
pal office, and at twenty-two he was elected mayor of his town.
Thenceforward his promotion was rapid. At twenty-seven he was
sent to the Legislature of his State ; and in 1840, when he was in
his thirty-second year, he was nominated for the office of Presidential
elector and canvassed the State in the interest of Mr. Van Buren.
Three years later he was chosen representative in Congress where he
served ten years. He was then nominated for governor, and in the
elections of 1853 and 1855 defeated successively two of the most
popular Whigs in Tennessee, Gustavus A. Henry and Meredith P.
Gentry. In 1857 he was promoted to the Senate of the United
States, where he was serving at the outbreak of the civil war.
While Mr. Johnson had been during his entire political life a
member of the Democratic party, and had attained complete control
in his State, the Southern leaders always distrusted him. Though
allied to the interests of slavery and necessarily drawn to its de
fense, his instincts, his prejudices, his convictions were singularly
strong on the side of the free people. His sympathies with the
poor were acute and demonstrative — leading him to the advocacy
of measures which in a wide and significant sense were hostile to
slavery. In the early part of his career as a representative in
Congress, he warmly espoused, if indeed he did not originate, the
homestead policy. In support of that policy he followed a line of
argument and illustration absolutely and irreconcilably antagonistic
to the interests of the slave system as those interests were understood
by the mass of Southern Democratic leaders.
The bestowment of our public domain in quarter-sections (a hun
dred and sixty acres of land) upon the actual settler, on the simple
condition that he should cultivate it and improve it as his home, was
a more effective blow against the spread of slavery in the Territories
than any number of legal restrictions or provisos of the kind pro
posed by Mr. Wilmot. Slavery could not be established with success
except upon the condition of large tracts of land for the master, and

JOHNSON AND THE HOMESTEAD POLICY. 5
the exclusion of the small farmer from contact and from competition.
The example of the latter's manual industry and his consequent
thrift and prosperity, must ultimately prove fatal to the entire slave
system. It may not have been Mr. Johnson's design to injure the
institution of slavery by the advocacy of the homestead policy ; but
such advocacy was nevertheless hostile, and this consideration did
not stay his hand or change his action.
Mr. Johnson's mode of urging and defending the homestead
policy was at all times offensive to the mass of his Democratic
associates of the' South, many of whom against their wishes were
compelled to support the measure on its final passage, for fear of
giving offense to their landless white constituents, and in the still
more pressing- fear, that if Johnson should be allowed to stand alone
in upholding the measure, he would acquire a dangerous ascendency
over that large element in the Southern population. Johnson spoke
with ill-disguised hatred of "an inflated and heartless landed aris
tocracy," not applying the phrase especially to the South, but making
an argument which tended to sow dissension in that section. He
declared that " the withholding of the use of the soil from the actual
cultivator is violative of the principles essential to human existence,"
and that when "the violation reaches that point where it can no
longer be borne, revolution begins." His argument startlingly out
lined a condition such as has long existed in Ireland, and applied it
with suggestive force to the possible fate of the South.
He then sketched his own ideal of a rural population, an ideal
obviously based on free ¦ labor and free institutions. " You make
the settler on the domain," said he, " a better citizen of the commu
nity. He becomes better qualified to discharge the duties of a free
man. He is, in fact, the representative of his own homestead, and
is a man in the enlarged and proper sense of the term. He comes
to the ballot-box and votes without the fear or the restraint of some
landlord. After the hurry and bustle of election day are over, he
mounts his own horse, returns to his own domicil, goes to his own
barn, feeds his own stock. His wife turns out and milks their own
cows, churns their own butter ; and when the rural repast is ready,
he and his wife and their children sit down at the same table
together to enjoy the sweet product of their own hands, with hearts
thankful to God for having cast their lots in this country where the
land is made free under the protecting and fostering care of a benefi
cent Government."

6 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
The picture thus presented by Johnson was not the picture of a
home in the slave States, and no one knew better than he that it
was a home which could not be developed and established amid
the surroundings and the influences of slavery. It was a home in the
North-West, and not in the South-West. Proceeding in his speech,
Johnson became still more warmly enamored of his hero on the
homestead, and with a tongue that seemed touched with the gift
of prophecy he painted him in the possible career of a not distant
future. " It has long been near my heart," said he in the House of
Representatives in July, 1850, "to see every man in the United
States domiciled. Once accomplished, it would create the strongest
tie between the citizen and the Government : what a great incentive
it would afford to the citizen to obey every call of duty ! At the
first summons of the note of war you would find him leaving his
plow in the half-finished furrow, taking his only horse and convert
ing him into a war-steed: his scythe and sickle would be thrown
aside, and with a heart full of valor and patriotism he would rush
with alacrity to the standard of his country."
Such appeals for popular support subjected Johnson to the im
putation of demagogism, and earned for him the growing hatred of
that dangerous class of men in the South who placed the safety
of the institution of slavery above the interest and the welfare of
the white laborer. But if he was a demagogue, he was always a
brave one. In his early political life, when the mere nod of Presi
dent Jackson was an edict in Tennessee, Johnson did not hesitate to
espouse the cause of Hugh L. White when he was a candidate for the
Presidency in 1836, nor did he fear to ally himself with John Bell
in the famous controversy with Jackson's protSgS, James K. Polk, in
the fierce political struggle of 1834-5. Though he returned to the
ranks of the regular Democracy in the contest between Harrison and
Van Buren, he was bold enough in 1842 to propose in the Legisla
ture of Tennessee that the apportionment of political power should
be made upon the basis of the white population of the State. He
saw and keenly felt that a few white men in the cotton section of
the State, owning many slaves, were usurping the power and tramp
ling upon the rights of his own constituency, among whom slaves
were few in number and white men numerous. Those who are
familiar with the savage intolerance which prevailed among the
slave-holders can justly measure the degree of moral and physical
courage required in any man who would assail their power at a vital

PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S STEADY LOYALTY. 7
point in the framework of a government specially and skillfully
devised for their protection.
In all the threats of disunion, in all the plotting and planning for
secession which absorbed Southern thought and action between the
years 1854 and 1861, Mr. Johnson took no part. He had been absent
from Congress during the exciting period when the Missouri Com
promise was overthrown ; and though, after his return in 1857, he
co-operated generally in the measures deemed essential for Southern
interests, he steadily declared that a consistent adherence to the
Constitution was the one and the only remedy for all the alleged
grievances of the slave-holders. It was natural therefore, that when
the decisive hour came, and the rash men of the South determined
to break up the Government, Johnson should stand firmly by the
Union. Of the twenty-two senators from the eleven States that afterwards
composed the Confederacy, Johnson was the only one who honorably
maintained his oath to support the Constitution ; the only one who
did not lend aid and comfort to the enemies of the Union. He
remained in his seat in the Senate, loyal to the Government, and
resigned a year after the outbreak of the war (in March, 1862), upon
Mr. Lincoln's urgent request that he should accept the important
post of Military Governor of Tennessee. His administration of that
office and his firm discharge of every duty under circumstances of
great exigency and oftentimes of great peril, gave to him an excep
tional popularity in all the Loyal States, and led to his selection for
the Vice-Presidency in 1864. The national calamity had now sud
denly brought him to a larger field of duty, and devolved upon him
the weightiest responsibility.
The assassination of Mr. Lincoln naturally1 produced a wide
spread depression and dread of evil. His position had been one of
exceptional strength with the people. By his four years of consid
erate and successful administration, by his patient and positive trust
in the ultimate triumph of the Union — realized at last as he stood
on the edge of the grave — he had acquired so complete an ascen
dency over the public mind in the Loyal States that any policy
matured and announced by him would have been accepted by a
vast majority of his countrymen. But the same degree of faith
could not attach to Mr. Johnson ; although after the first shock of
the assassination had subsided, there was a generous revival of trust,
or at least of hope, that the great work which had been so faithfully

8 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
prosecuted for four years would be faithfully carried forward in the
same lofty spirit to the same noble ends. The people of the North
waited with favorable disposition and yet with balancing judgment
and in exacting mood. They had enjoyed abundant opportunity to
acquaint themselves with the principles and the opinions of the new
President, and confidence in his future policy was not unaccom
panied by a sense of uncertainty and indeed by an almost painful
suspense as to his mode of solving the great problems before him.
As has been already indicated, the more radical Republicans of the
North feared that his birth and rearing as a Southern man and his
long identification with the supporters of the slave system might
blind him to the most sacred duties of philanthropy, while the more
conservative but not less loyal or less humane feared that from the
personal antagonisms of his own stormy career he might be disposed
to deal too harshly with the leaders of the conquered rebellion. The
few words which Mr. Johnson had addressed to those present when
he took the oath of office were closely scanned and carefully analyzed
by the country, even in the stunning grief which Mr. Lincoln's death
had precipitated. It was especially noticed that he refrained from
declaring that he should continue the policy of his predecessor. By
those who knew Mr. Johnson's views intimately, the omission was
understood to imply that Mr. Lincoln had intended to pursue a
more liberal and more generous policy with the rebels than his suc
cessor deemed expedient or prudent.
It was known to a few persons that when Mr. Johnson arrived
from Fortress Monroe on the morning of April 10, and found the
National Capital in a blaze of patriotic excitement over the surrender
of Lee's army the day before at. Appomattox, he hastened to the
White House, and addressed to the unwilling ears of Mr. Lincoln an
earnest protest against the indulgent terms conceded by General
Grant. Mr. Johnson believed that General Lee should not have
been permitted to surrender his sword as a soldier of honor, but that
General Grant should have received the entire command as prisoners
of war, and should have held Lee in confinement until he could
receive instructions from the Administration at Washington. The
spirit which these views indicated was understood by those who best
knew Mr. Johnson to be contained, if not expressed, in this declara
tion of his first address: "As to an indication of any policy which
may be pursued by me in the conduct of the Government, I have to
say that that must be left for development as the Administration

PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S SPEECHES. 9
progresses. The message or the declaration must be made by the
acts as they transpire. The only assurance I can now give of the
future is by reference to the past."
The effect produced upon the public by this speech, which might
be regarded as an Inaugural address, was not happy. Besides its
evasive character respecting public policies which every observing
man noted with apprehension, an unpleasant impression was created
by its evasive character respecting Mr. Lincoln. The entire absence
of eulogy of the slain President was remarked. There was no men
tion of his name or of his character or of his office. The only allu
sion in any way whatever to Mr. Lincoln was Mr. Johnson's declara
tion that he was " almost overwhelmed by the announcement of the
sad event which has so recently occurred." While he found no time
to praise one whose praise was on every tongue, he made ample
reference to himself and his own past history. Though speaking
not more than five minutes, it was noticed that "I" and "my" and
" me " were mentioned at least a score of times. A boundless
egotism was inferred from the line of his remarks : " My past public
life which has been long and laborious has been founded, as I in
good conscience believe, upon a great principle of right which lies
at the basis of all things." " I must be permitted to say, if I under
stand the feelings of my own heart, I have long labored to amelio
rate and alleviate the condition of the great mass of the American
people." "Toil and an honest advocacy of the great principles of
free government have been my lot. The duties have been mine,
the consequences God's." Senator John P. Hale of New Hamp
shire, who was present on the occasion, said with characteristic wit,
that " Johnson seemed willing to share the glory of his achieve
ments with his Creator, but utterly forgot that Mr. Lincoln had
any share of credit in the suppression of the Rebellion."
Three days later (April 18) a delegation of distinguished citizens
of Illinois called upon Mr. Johnson under circumstances at once
extraordinary and touching. The dead President still lay in the
White House. Before the solemn and august procession should
leave the National Capital to bear his mortal remains to the State
which had loved and honored him, the Illinois delegation called to
assure his successor of their respect and their confidence. Governor
Oglesby who spoke for his associates, addressed the President in
language eminently befitting the occasion. "In the midst of this
sadness," said he, "through the oppressive gloom that surrounds us,

10 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
we look to you and to a brighter future for our country. . • • The
record of your past life, familiar to all, your noble efforts to stay
the hand of treason and restore our flag to the uttermost bounds
of the Republic, give assurance to the great State we represent
that we may safely trust the nation's destinies in your hands."
Mr. Johnson responded in a speech of much greater length than
his first, embodying a wider range of topics than seemed to be de
manded by the proprieties of the occasion. He evidently strove to
repair the error of his former address. He now diminished the num
ber of gratulatory allusions to his own career, and made appropriate
and affecting reference to his predecessor. He spoke with profound
emotion of the tragical termination of Mr. Lincoln's life: "The
beloved of all hearts has been assassinated." Pausing thoughtfully
he added, "And when we trace this crime to its cause, when we
remember the source whence the assassin drew his inspiration, and
then look at the result, we stand yet more astounded at this most
barbarous, most diabolical act. . . . We can trace its cause through
successive steps back to that source which is the spring of all our
woes. No one can say that if the perpetrator of this fiendish deed
be arrested, he should not undergo the extremest penalty of the law
known for crime : none will say that mercy should interpose. But is
he alone guilty ? Here, gentlemen, you perhaps expect me to present
some indication of my future policy. One thing I will say : every
era teaches its lesson. The times we live in are not without instruc
tion. The American people must be taught — if they do not already
feel — that treason is a crime and must be punished. The Govern
ment must be strong not only to protect but to punish. When we
turn to the criminal code we find arson laid down as a crime with its
appropriate penalty. We find theft and murder denounced as crimes,
and their appropriate penalty prescribed ; and there, too, we find the
last and highest of crimes, — treason. . . . The people must under
stand that treason ¦ is the blackest of crimes and will surely be pun
ished. . . . Let it be engraven on every mind that treason is a crime,
and traitors shall suffer its penalty. ... I do not harbor bitter or
resentful feelings towards any. . . . When the question of exercising
mercy comes before me it will be considered calmly, judicially 
remembering that I am the Executive of the Nation. I know men love
to have their names spoken of in connection with acts of mercy and
how easy it is to yield to that impulse. But we must never forget
that what may be mercy to the individual is cruelty to the State."

PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S SPEECHES. 11
This speech was reported by an accomplished stenographer, and
was submitted to Mr. Johnson's inspection before publication. It
contained a declaration intimating to his hearers, if not explicitly
assuring them, that " the policy of Mr. Lincoln in the past shall be
my policy in the future." When in reading the report he came to
this passage, Mr. Johnson queried whether his words had not been
in some degree misapprehended ; and while he was engaged with the
stenographer in modifying the form of expression, Mr. Preston King
of New York, who w"as constantly by his side as adviser, interposed
the suggestion that all reference to the subject be stricken out. To
this Mr. Johnson promptly assented. He had undoubtedly gone
farther than he intended in speaking to Mr. Lincoln's immediate
friends, and the correction — inspired by one holding the radical
views of Mr. King — was equivalent to a declaration that the policy
of Mr. Lincoln had been more conservative than that which he in
tended to pursue. By those who knew the character of Mr. John
son's mind, the ascendency of Mr. King in his councils, and the
retirement of Mr. Seward from the State Department were foregone
conclusions. The known moderation of Mr. Seward's views would
not consist with the fierce vigor of the new administration as now
clearly foreshadowed. Mr. Seward and Mr. King, moreover, were
not altogether in harmony in New York ; and this was so far recog
nized by the public that Mr. King's displacement from the Senate by
the election of Governor Morgan two years before was universally
attributed to the Seward influence skillfully directed by Mr. Thurlow
Weed. The resentment felt by Mr. King's friends had been very
deep, and the opportunity to gratify it seemed now to be presented.
As soon as the Illinois delegation had retired, the members of the
Christian Commission then in session at Washington called upon
the President. In reply to their earnest address, he begged them as
intelligent men representing the power of the Christian Church, to
exert their moral influence " in erecting a standard by which every
body should be taught to believe that treason is the highest crime
known to the laws, and that the perpetrator should be visited with
the punishment which he deserves." This substantial repetition
of the views expressed in his Illinois speech derived significance
from the fact that the clergyman who spoke for the Christian Com
mission (Rev. Dr. Borden of Albany) had expressed the hope in his
address to the President that " in the administration of justice, mercy
would follow the success of arms."

12 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
While the remains of the late President were yet reposing in the
National Capital, and still more while his funeral-train was on the
way to his tomb, the reception of official deputations and political
bodies was continued by his successor. Mr. Johnson was always
ready to explain with some iteration and with great emphasis his
views of the Government's duty respecting those who had been en
gaged in rebellion against its authority. To a representative body of
loyal Southerners who by reason of their fidelity to the Union had
been compelled to flee from home, Mr. Johnson was especially demon
strative in his sympathy, and positive in his assurances. In reply to
their address he said : " It is hardly necessary for me on this occasion
to declare that my sympathies and impulses in connection with this
nefarious rebellion beat in unison with yours. Those who have
passed through this bitter ordeal and who participated in it to a
great extent, are more competent, as I think, to judge and determine
the true policy that should be pursued. I know how to appreciate
the condition of being driven from one's home. I can sympathize
with him whose all has been taken from him : I can sympathize with
him avIio has been driven from the place that gave his children birth.
. . . I have become satisfied that mercy without justice is a crime, and
that when mercy and clemency are exercised by the Executive it
should always be done in view of justice. In that manner alone the
great prerogative of mercy is properly exercised. The time has now
come, as you who have had to drink this bitter cup are fully aware,
when the American people should be made to' understand the true
nature of crime. Of crime generally our people have a high under
standing as well as of the necessity of its punishment ; but in the
catalogue of crimes there is one, and that the highest known to the
laws and the Constitution, of which since the days of Aaron Burr
they have become oblivious. That crime is treason. The time has
come when the people should be taught to understand the length
and breadth, the height and depth, of treason. One who has become
distinguished in the rebellion says that 'when traitors become nu
merous enough, treason becomes respectable, and to become a traitor
is to constitute a portion of the aristocracy of the country.' God
protect the American people against such an aristocracy! . . . When
the Government of the United States shall ascertain who are the
conscious and intelligent traitors the penalty and the forfeit should
be paid." A delegation of Pennsylvanians called upon him with ex-Secre-

THE SPIRIT OF THE VENDETTA. 13
tary Simon Cameron as their spokesman. In reply Mr. Johnson
said, " There has been an effort since this rebellion began, to make
the impression that it was a mere political struggle, or, as I see it
thrown out in some of the papers, a struggle for the ascendency of
certain principles from the dawn of the government to the present
time, and now settled by the final triumph of the Federal arms. If
this is admitted, the Government is at an end ; for no question can
arise but they will make it a party issue, and then to whatever length
they carry it, the party defeated will be only a party defeated, with
no crime attaching thereto. But I say treason is a crime, the very
highest crime known to the law, and there are men who ought to
suffer the penalty of their treason ! ... To the unconscious, the de
ceived, the conscripted, in short, to the great mass of the misled, I
would say mercy, clemency, reconciliation, and the restoration of
their government. But to those who have deceived, to the conscious,
intelligent, influential traitor who attempted to destroy the life of a
nation, I would say, on you be inflicted the severest penalties of
your crime."
The inflexible sternness of Mr. Johnson's tone and the frequent
repetition of his intention to inflict the severest penalty of the law
upon the leading traitors, began to create apprehension in the North.
It was feared that the country might be called upon to witness, after
the four years' carnival of death on the battle-field and in the hospi
tal, an era of "bloody assizes," made the more rigorous and revenge
ful from the peculiar sense of injury which the President, as a loyal
Southerner, had realized in his own person. This feeling was proba
bly still further aggravated by his avowed sympathy with the thou
sands in the South who had been maimed, driven from home,
stripped of all their property, simply because of their fidelity to the
Constitution and the Union of their fathers. The spirit of the Ven
detta, unknown in the Northern States, was frequently shown in the
South, where it had long been domesticated with all its Corsican
ferocity. It had raged in many instances to the extermination of
families, and in many localities to the destruction of peace and
the utter defiance of law — not infrequently indeed paralyzing the
administration of justice in whole counties. Often seeking and
waging open combat with ferocious courage, it did not hesitate at
secret murder, at waylaying on lonely roads with superior numbers,
and it sometimes went so far as to torture an unhappy victim before
the final death-blow. The language of Mr. Johnson was interpreted

14 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
by the merciful in the North as indicating that his own injuries and
fierce conflicts during the war had possibly inspired him with this
fell spirit of revenge, which in his zeal he might mistake for the
rational demands of justice.
A personal and somewhat curious illustratioir* of Mr. Johnson's
temper and purpose at the time is afforded by a conference between
himself and Senator Wade of Ohio. Mr. Wade was widely known
as among the radical and progressive members of the Republican
party. His immediate constituents of the Western Reserve were a
just and God-fearing people, amply endowed with both moral and
physical courage ; but they were not men of blood, and they were
not in sympathy with the apparent purposes of the President. It is
not improbable that Mr. Wade's views were somewhat in advance
of those held by the majority of the people he represented, but he
was evidently not in accord with the threatenings and slaughter
breathed out by the President.
"Well, Mr. Wade, what would you do were you in my place
and charged with my responsibilities?" inquired the President. "I
think," replied the frank and honest old senator from Ohio, " I should
either force into exile or hang about ten or twelve of the worst
of those fellows : perhaps by way of full measure, I should make it
thirteen, just a baker's dozen." — "But how," rejoined the President,
" are you going to pick out so small a number and show them to
be guiltier than the rest?" — "It won't do to hang a very large
number," rejoined Wade, " and I think if you would give me time,
I could name thirteen that stand at the head in the work of rebel
lion. I think we would all agree on Jeff Davis, Toombs, Benjamin,
Slidell, Mason, and Howell Cobb. If we did no more than drive
these half-dozen out of the country, we should accomplish a good
- deal." The interview was long, and at its close Mr. Johnson expressed
surprise that Wade was willing to let " the traitors," as he always
styled them, "escape so easily." He said that he had expected the
heartiest support from Wade in a policy which, as he outlined it to
the senator, seemed in thoroughness to rival that of Strafford. Mr.
Wade left the Executive Mansion with his mind divided between
admiration for the stern resolve and high courage of the President
on the one hand, and his fear on the other that a policy so deter
mined and aggressive as Mr. Johnson seemed bent on pursuing,
might work a re-action in the North, and that thus in the end less

FUNERAL OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN. 15
might be done in providing proper safeguards against another rebel
lion, than if too much had not been attempted.

The remains of the late President lay in state at the Executive
Mansion for four days. The entire city seemed as a house of
mourning. It was remarked that even the little children in the
streets wore no smiles upon their faces, so deeply were they im
pressed by the calamity which had brought grief to every loyal heart.
The martial music which had been resounding in glad celebration of
the national triumph had ceased ; public edifice and private mansion
were alike draped with the insignia of grief; the flag of the Union,
which had been waving more proudly than ever before, was now
lowered to half-mast, giving mute but significant expression to the
sorrow that was felt wherever on sea or land that flag was honored.
Funeral services, conducted by the leading clergymen of the city,
were held in the East Room on Wednesday the 19th of April. Amid
the solemn tolling of church-bells, and the still more solemn thunder
ing of minute-guns from the vast line of fortifications which had
protected Washington, the body, escorted by an imposing military
and civic procession, was transferred to the rotunda of the Capitol.
The day was observed throughout the Union as one of fasting,
humiliation, and prayer. The deep feeling of the people found
expression in all the forms of religious solemnity. Services in the
churches throughout the land were held in unison with the services
at the Executive mansion, and were everywhere attended with exhi
bition of profound personal grief. In all the cities of Canada busi
ness was suspended, public meetings of condolence with a kindred
people were held, and prayers were read in the churches. Through
out the Confederate States where war hadceased but peace had not,
yet come, the people joined in significant expressions of sorrow over
the death of him whose very name they had been taught to execrate.
Early on the morning of the 21st the body was removed from
the Capitol and placed on the funeral-car which was to transport it
to its final resting-place in Illinois. The remains of a little son who
had died three years before, were taken from their burial-place in
Georgetown and borne with those of his father for final sepulture
in the stately mausoleum which the public mind had already decreed
to the illustrious martyr. The train which moved from the National

16 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Capital was attended on its course by extraordinary manifestations
of grief on the part of the people. Baltimore, which had reluctantly
and sullenly submitted to Mr. Lincoln's formal inauguration and to
his authority as President, now showed every mark of honor and
of homage as his body was borne through her streets, Confederate
and Unionist alike realizing the magnitude of the calamity which
had overwhelmed both North and South. In Philadelphia the entire
population did reverence to the memory of the murdered patriot.
A procession of more than a hundred thousand persons formed his
funeral cortege to Independence Hall, where the body remained until
the ensuing day. The silence of the sorrowful night was in strange
contrast with the scene in the same place, four years before, when
Mr. Lincoln, in the anxieties and perils of the opening rebellion,
hoisted the National flag over our ancient Temple of Liberty, and
before a great and applauding multitude defended the principles which
that flag typifies. He concluded in words which, deeply impressive
at the time, proved sadly prophetic now that his dead body lay in a
bloody shroud where his living form then stood : " Sooner than sur
render these principles, I would be assassinated on this spot."
In the city of New York the popular feeling was, if possible, even
more, marked than in Philadelphia. The streets were so crowded
that the procession moved with difficulty to the City Hall, where,
amid the chantings of eight hundred singers, the body was placed
upon the catafalque prepared for it. Throughout the day and
throughout the entire night the living tide of sorrowful humanity
flowed past the silent form. At the solemn hour of midnight the
German musical societies sang a funeral-hymn with an effect so im
pressive and so touching that thousands of strong men were in tears.
Other than this no sound was heard throughout the night except
the footsteps of the advancing and receding crowd. At sunrise
many thousands still waiting in the park were obliged to turn
away disappointed. It was observed that every person who passed
through the hall, even the humblest and poorest, wore the insignia of
mourning. In a city accustomed to large assemblies and to unre
strained expressions of popular feeling, no such scene had ever been
witnessed. On the afternoon appointed for the procession to move
Westward, all business was suspended, and the grief of New York
found utterance in Union Square before a great concourse of people
in a funeral oration by the historian Bancroft and in an elegiac ode
by William Cullen Bryant.

FUNERAL OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN. 17
Similar scenes were witnessed in the great cities along the entire
route. Final obsequies were celebrated in Oakridge Cemetery near
Springfield on the fourth day of May. Major-General Joseph
Hooker acted as chief marshal upon the occasion, and an impres
sive sermon was pronounced by Bishop Simpson of the Methodist-
Episcopal church. Perhaps in the history of the world no such
outpouring of the people, no such exhibition of deep feeling, had ever
been witnessed as on this funeral march from the National Capital
to the capital of Illinois. The pomp with which sovereigns and
nobles are interred is often formal rather than emotional, attaching
to the rank rather than to the person. Louis Philippe appealed to
the sympathy of France when he brought the body of the Emperor
Napoleon from St. Helena twenty years after his death; but the
popular feeling among the French was chiefly displayed in connection
with the elaborate rites which attended the transfer of the dead hero
to the Invalides, where the shattered remnants of his valiant and once
conquering legions formed for the last time around him. Twelve
years later the victorious rival by whom the imperial warrior was at
last overcome, received from the populace of London, as well as
from the crown, the peers, and the commons of England, the heartiest
tribute that Britons ever paid to human greatness.
The splendor of the ceremonials which aggrandize living royalty
as much as they glorify dead heroism, was wholly wanting in the
obsequies of Mr. Lincoln. No part was taken by the Government
except the provision of a suitable military escort. All beyond was
the spontaneous movement of the people. For seventeen hundred
miles, through eight great States of the Union whose population
was not less than fifteen millions, an almost continuous procession of
mourners attended the remains of the beloved President. There
was no pageantry save their presence. There was no tribute but
their tears. They bowed before the bier of him who had been
prophet, priest, and king to his people, who had struck the shackles
from the slave, who had taught a higher sense of duty to the free
man, who had raised the Nation to a loftier conception of faith
and hope and charity. A countless multitude of men, with music and
banner and cheer and the inspiration of a great cause, presents a
spectacle that engages the eye, fills the mind, appeals to the imagi
nation. But the deepest sympathy of the soul is touched, the height
of human sublimity is reached, when the same multitude, stricken with
a common sorrow, stands with uncovered head, reverent and silent.
Vol. II. 2

CHAPTEE II.
Military Review in Honor op Union Victory. — The Eastern and Western
Armies. — Their Great Achievements. — Special Interest. — Number of
Battles during the War. — Number Each Year. — Struggle of 1864-65. —Dis
cipline of the Army. — Moral Responsibility of continuing the Contest.—
Needless Slaughter of Men. — Confederate Responsibility. — Speech of
Robert M. T. Hunter, followed by* Judah P. Benjamin. — Extreme Measures
advocated by him. — His Over-Zeal. — Mr. Benjamin seeks Refuge in Eng
land. — His Success there due to English Sympathy with the Rebellion.—
His Malignity towards the Union. — Southern Character. — Its Strong
Points and its Weak Points. — Conduct op Confederate Congress. — Their
Inflammatory Address. — Its Extravagance and Absurdity. — Jefferson
Davis's Address to Congress. — His Lack of Moral Courage. — Disbandment
of Union Army, 1,000,516 Men. — Another Million gone before. — Self-Support
and Self-Adjustment. — Comparison with the Army op the Revolution. —
Un ion Officers all Young Men. — Ages of Officers in Other Wars. — Ages
of Regular Army Officers. — Op Volunteer Officers. — Harmony of the
two. — Special Efficiency of the Volunteers. — Magnitude of the Union
Army. — The Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery. — Number of Generals. — Num
ber of Regiments. — Military Resources of the Republic. — Its Security in
Time op Danger.
FROM saddening associations with the tragical death of Mr.
Lincoln, popular attention was turned three weeks after his
interment to a great military display in the Capital of the Nation
in honor of the final victory for the Union. The exigencies of the
closing campaign had transferred the armies commanded by General
Sherman from the Mississippi Valley to the Atlantic coast. The
soldiers of Port Hudson and Vicksburg, the heroes of Donelson,
Chattanooga, and Atlanta, had been brought within a day's march
of the bronzed veterans whose battle-flags were emblazoned with the
victories of Antietam and Gettysburg and with the crowning triumph
at Appomattox. It was the happy suggestion of Secretary Stanton
which assembled all these forces in the National Capital to be re
viewed by the Commander-in-Chief. Through four years of stern and
perilous duty, there had been no holiday, no parade of ceremony, no
evolution for mere display, either by the troops of the East or of the
West. Their time had been passed in camp and in siege, in march
18

REVIEW OF THE UNION ARMIES. * 19
and in battle, with no effort relaxed, no vigor abated, no vigilance
suspended, during all the long period when the fate of the Union
was at stake. It was now fitting that the President, attended by
the chief officers of the Government, should welcome them and
honor them in the name of the Republic. They had brought from
the field the priceless trophy of American Nationality as the reward
of their valorous struggle. By the voice of the people a " triumph "
as demonstrative, if not as formal, as that given to a conqueror in
Ancient Rome was now decreed to them. They had earned the
right to be applauded on the via sacra, and to receive the laurel-
wreath from the steps of the Capitol.
The first day's review, Wednesday, May 23, was given to the
Army of the Potomac, of which General Meade had remained the
commander since the victory at Gettysburg, but whose operations
during the closing year of the struggle had been under the personal
direction of General Grant. A part only of its vast forces marched
through Washington on that day of loyal pride and gladness ; but
the number was large beyond the power of the eye to apprehend,
beyond any but the skilled mind to reckon. An approximate con
ception of it can be reached by stating that one hundred and fifty-one
regiments of infantry, thirty-six regiments of cavalry, and twenty-
two batteries of artillery passed under the eye of the President, who
reviewed the whole from a platform in front of the Executive
Mansion. On the ensuing day the Army of the Tennessee and the Army of
Georgia, constituting the right and left wing of General Sherman's
forces, were reviewed. There was naturally some rivalry of a
friendly type between the Eastern and Western soldiers, and special
observation was made of their respective qualities and characteris
tics. The geographical distinction was not altogether accurate, for
Western troops had always formed a valuable part of the Army of
the Potomac ; while troops from the East were incorporated in Sher
man's army, and had shared the glories of the Atlanta campaign and
of the March to the sea. It was true, however, that the great mass
of the Army of the Potomac came from the eastern side of the Alle-
ghanies, while the great mass of Sherman's command came from the
western side. The aggregate number reviewed on the second day
did not differ materially from the number on the first day. There
were some twenty more regiments of infantry on the second day, but
fewer cavalry regiments and fewer batteries of artillery.

20 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
The special interest which attached to the review, aside from the
inestimable significance of a restored Union, consisted in the fact
that the spectators, who were reckoned by tens of thousands, saw
before them an actual, living, fighting army. They were not holiday
troops with bright uniforms, trained only for display and carrying
guns that were never discharged against a foe. They were a great
body of veterans who had not slept under a roof for years, who had
marched over countries more extended than those traversed by the
Legions of Caesar, who had come from a hundred battle-fields on
which they had left dead comrades more numerous than the living
who now celebrated the final victory of peace. It was the remem
brance of this which in all the glad rejoicing over the past and all the
bright anticipation of the future lent a tinge of sadness to the splen
did and inspiring spectacle of the day. The applause so heartily
given for the soldiers who were present could not be unaccompanied
by tears for the fate of that vast host which had gone down to death
without even the consolation of knowing that they had not died in
vain. In the four years of their service the armies of the Union, count
ing every form of conflict, great and small, had been in twenty-two
hundred and sixty-five engagements with -the Confederate troops.
From the time when active hostilities began until the last gun of the
war was fired, a fight of some kind — a raid, a skirmish, or a pitched
battle — occurred at some point on our widely extended front nearly
eleven times per week upon an average. Counting only those en
gagements in which the Union loss in killed, wounded, and missing
exceeded one hundred, the total number was three hundred and
thirty, — averaging one every four and a half days. From the north
ernmost point of contact to the southernmost, the distance by any
practicable line of communication was more than two thousand
miles. From East to West the extremes were fifteen hundred miles
apart. During the first year of hostilities — one of preparation on both
sides — the battles were naturally fewer in number and less decisive
in character than afterwards, when discipline had been imparted to
the troops by drill, and when the materiel of war had been collected
and stored for prolonged campaigns. The engagements of all kinds
in 1861 were thirty-five in number, of which the most serious was
the Union defeat at Bull Run. In 1862 the war had greatly in
creased in magnitude and intensity, as is shown by the eighty-four

A GRAVE MORAL RESPONSIBILITY. 21
engagements between the armies. The net result of the year's oper
ations was highly favorable to the Rebellion. In 1863 the battles
were one hundred and ten in number — among them some of the
most significant and important victories for the Union. In 1864
there were seventy-three engagements, and in the winter and early
spring of 1865 there were twenty-eight.
In fact, 1864-65 was one continuous campaign. The armies of the
Union did not go into winter-quarters to the extent of abandoning or
suspending operations. They felt that it was in their power to bring
the struggle to an end at once, and they pressed forward with prodi
gious vigor and with complete success. General Grant with his
characteristic energy insisted that " active and continuous operations
of all the troops that could be brought into the field regardless of
season and weather were necessary to a speedy termination of the
war." He had seen, as he expressed it in his own terse, quaint lan
guage, that " the armies of the East and the West had been acting
independently and without concert, like a balky team, no two of
them ever pulling together." Under his direction the forces of the
Union, however distant from each other, were brought into har
monious co-operation and with the happiest results. The discipline
of the Union army was never so fine, its vigor was never so great,
its spirit was never so high, as at the close of that terrible campaign
which under Grant's command in the East began at the Wilderness
and ended with Lee's surrender, and which under Sherman's com
mand in the West began with the march towards Atlanta, and closed
with the complete conquest of Georgia and the Carolinas.

A grave moral responsibility rests upon those who continue a con
test of arms after it is made clear that there is no longer a possibility
of success. However far the laws of war may justify a belligerent
in deceiving an enemy, the laws of honorable and humane dealing
are violated with one's own partisans when a brave and confiding
soldiery are led into a fight known by their commanders to be hope
less. Early in January, 1865, Jefferson Davis indicated the desire
of the Confederate authorities to negotiate witli the National Gov
ernment for the arrangement of the terms of peace, and as a result
the famous conference was held at Fortress Monroe. This step was
taken by Mr. Davis because he saw that further effort on the part

22 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
of the Confederates must be utterly futile. When he failed at the
conference to secure any recognition of his government, he spitefully
turned to the prolongation of the struggle. Every life destroyed m
the conflict thereafter was needless slaughter, and the blood of the
victims cries out against the Confederate Government for compelling
the sacrifice.
When at last through sheer exhaustion the Confederate Armies
ceased resistance and surrendered, they did so on precisely the same
terms that had been offered by the Government of the Union three
months before. In the interim the Confederate leaders had been
deluding their people Avith the pretense that the " Lincoln Govern
ment" had outraged the South in refusing- to recognize Confederate
Nationality even long enough to treat with it for peace. " Nothing
beyond this," exclaimed Mr. Robert M. T. Hunter in a speech de
livered at a meeting in Richmond held immediately after the Peace
Conference to which he had been one of the commissioners, —
" Nothing beyond this is needed to stir the blood of Southern men."
In the course of his inflammatory address Mr. Hunter made this
naive confession : " If our people exhibit the proper spirit they will
bring forth the deserters from their caves ; and the skulkers, who
are avoiding the perils of the field, will go forth to share the dangers
of their countrymen." The " skulkers " and " deserters " referred to
were no cloubt brave men who, having fought as long as there was
hope, were not ambitious to sacrifice their lives to carry out the
shameless bravado of the political leaders of the Rebellion.
Mr. Hunter spoke with singular intemperance of tone for one
who was usually cool, guarded, and conservative. He was followed
by the MepMstopheles of the Rebellion, the brilliant, learned, sinister
Secretary of State, Judah P. Benjamin. He spoke as one who felt
that he had the alias of an English subject for shelter, or possibly
the Spanish flag for protection, when the worst should come, and that
he might continue to play the part of Confederate citizen so long as
it favored his ambition and his fortune. He delivered a speech full
of desperate suggestion — so desperate indeed that it re-acted and
injured the cause for which he was demanding harsh sacrifices on the
part of others. He urged upon his hearers that the States of the Con
federacy had nearly seven hundred thousand male slaves of the age
for military service. He gave the assurance that if freedom should
be conceded to these men they would fight in aid of the Rebellion.
Besides advocating a guaranty of emancipation to all these black

CHARACTER OF JUDAH P. BENJAMIN. 23
men, — for the right to keep whom in slavery the war had been
undertaken, — Mr. Benjamin urged that every bale of cotton, every
hogshead of tobacco, every pound of bacon, every barrel of flour,
should be seized for the benefit of the common cause.
Happily Mr. Benjamin went too far. His over-zeal had tempted
him to prove too much. The Southern people who had desired to
build up a slave empire, and who despised the negro as a freeman,
were asked by Mr. Benjamin to surrender this cherished project, and
join with him in the ignoble design of founding a confederacy whose
corner-stone should rest on hatred of the Northern States, and whose
one achievement should be the revival and extension of English
commercial power on this continent. When the end came, Mr. Ben
jamin did not share the disasters and sacrifices with the sincere and
earnest men whom he had done so much to mislead, and to whom he
was bound in an especial manner by the tie which unites the victims
of a common calamity. Instead of this magnanimous course which
would in part have redeemed his wrong-doing, Mr. Benjamin took
quick refuge under the flag to whose allegiance he was born. He
left America with the full consciousness that to the measure of his
ability, which was great, he had inflicted injury upon the country
which had sheltered and educated him, and which had opened to
him the opportunity for that large personal influence which he had
used so discreditably to himself and so disastrously to the cause he
espoused. Mr. Benjamin became a resident of London and subsequently
won distinction at the English Bar — rising to the eminence of
Queen's counsel. His ability and learning were everywhere recog
nized, but it was at the same time admitted that he owed much of
his success to the sympathy and the support of that preponderating
class among British merchants who cordially wished and worked for
our destruction, — who, covertly throughout the entire civil conflict,
and openly where safe opportunity was presented, did all in their
power to embarrass and injure the Union. If Mr. Benjamin had
been loyal, and had honorably observed the special oath which he
had taken to maintain and defend the Constitution, he might in vain
have sought the patronage of that large number of Englishmen who
enriched him with generous retainers. No one grudged to Mr.
Benjamin the wages of his professional work, the reward of ability
and industry ; but the manner in which he was lauded into noto
riety in London, the effort constantly made to lionize and to

24 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
aggrandize him, were conspicuous demonstrations of hatred to our
Government, and were significant expressions of regret that Mr.
Benjamin's treason had not been successful. Those whom he served
either in the Confederacy or in England in his efforts to destroy
the American Union may eulogize him according to his work ; but
every citizen of the Great Republic, whose loyalty was unswerving,
will regard Mr. Benjamin as a foe in whom malignity was unrelieved
by a single trace of magnanimity.
The Confederates had failed in war, but their leaders had not the
moral courage to accept the only practicable peace. Their subse
quent course in Congress, in the Cabinet, and in the field, exposed in
very striking outline the strong points and the weak points of South
ern character. It exhibited Southern men as possessed of the utmost
physical courage — often carried indeed to foolish audacity. It ex
hibited them at the same time as singularly deficient in the attribute
of moral courage. When the Southern leaders knew the Confederate
cause to be hopeless not a single man among them displayed sufficient
heroism to brave public opinion with the declaration of his honest
belief. The absolute suppression of free discussion which had long
prevailed in the South, the frequent murder of those who attempted
to express an unpopular opinion however honestly entertained, had
deprived brave men of every trait of that higher form of courage
which has given immortality of fame to the moral heroes of the
world. Not individually alone but in combined action this weak trait in
Southern character was made manifest. Only a month before the
time when the Confederacy was in ruins and the members of its
Congress were fugitives from its Capital, they united in an inflam
matory address to the people of the South, urging them to continue
the contest. They made assertions and employed arguments which
as men of intelligence they could not themselves believe and accept.
They strove by exciting evil passions and blind animosities to hurl
the soldiers of the Confederacy once more into a desperate fight with
all its suffering and with certain defeat. In this address, which was
the unanimous voice of the Confederate Senate and the Confederate
House of Representatives, the people were told that if they failed in
the- war, " the Southern States would be held as conquered provinces
by the despotic government at Washington;" that they "would be
kept in subjugation by the stern hand of military power as Venetia
and Lombardy have been held by Austria, as Poland is held by the

ADDRESS OF THE CONFEDERATE CONGRESS. 25
Russian Czar." A still more terrible fate was foretold. " Not only,"
continued the address, "would we be deprived of every political
franchise dear to freemen, but socially we would be degraded to the
level of slaves. . . . Not only would the property and estates of van
quished rebels be confiscated, but they would be divided and distrib
uted among our African bondsmen."
Even the extravagance and absurdity of the foregoing declara
tions were outdone in other parts of the address. These senators
and representatives — not ignorant men themselves — presumed so
far upon the ignorance of their constituents as to assure them that
" our enemies with a boastful insolence unparalleled in the history of
modern civilization have threatened not only our subjugation, but
some of them have announced their determination if successful in
this struggle to deport our entire white population, and supplant it
with a new population drawn from their own territory and from
European countries. . . . Think of it! That we the descendants
of a brave ancestry who wrested from a powerful nation by force of
arms the country which we inhabit — bequeathed to us by them, and
upon which we have been born and reared ; that we should be up
rooted from it and an alien population planted in our stead is a
thought that should inspire us with undying hostility to an enemy
base enough to have conceived it."
The white population of the eleven Confederate States was at
that time between five and six millions. Of course no man who
signed the address believed its statements. No one believed that the
Government of the United States or the loyal people of the North
were so inhuman and so unpatriotic as to advocate the deportation
of this vast population, or so foolish as to think that such a task
would be practicable even if it were desirable. The address was
read in the North immediately after it was issued, and created a
mingled feeling of astonishment, amusement, and sorrow. The
severest comment made upon it was the remark of a Republican
representative in Congress who had a most kindly feeling for the
men of the South — that " the deportation for life of the men who
signed and issued the libel would not only be a just punishment for
the offense, but would be an undoubted advantage to both North
and South." The close of the address was in harmony with its
opening, and contained an argument which to some minds relieved
the whole document from wickedness by making it ludicrous. Its
last words insisted that "failure makes us vassals of an arrogant

26 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
people — secretly if not openly hated by the most enlightened and
elevated portions of mankind. Success records us forever in letters
of light upon one of the most glorious pages of history. Failure will
compel us to drink the cup of humiliation even to the bitter dregs of
having the history of our struggle written by New-England historians."
The same lack of moral courage to face the inevitable and deal
frankly with friends and supporters was still more palpably shown by
Jefferson Davis when he sent a message to the Confederate Congress
on March 13, three weeks before the fall of Richmond, in a tone
similar to that of the famous address. Even after he was a fugitive,
and the Capital of the Confederacy was in the possession of the
Union Army, Mr. Davis halted long enough at Danville, to issue
a proclamation in which he said, " We have now entered upon a new
phase of the struggle. Relieved from the necessity of guarding par
ticular points, our army will be free to move from point to point to
strike the enemy in detail far from his base. Let us but will it, and
we are free. . . . Let us not despond, my countrymen, but, relying
on God, meet the foe with fresh defiance, with unconquered and un
conquerable hearts." It is clearly established that Mr. Davis was
fully aware of the state of affairs when he issued this misleading
and inexcusable proclamation. Four days after its publication the
army upon which he relied even for personal protection surrendered
to General Grant, and Mr. Davis again sought safety in flight.
These extravagant misrepresentations do infinite damage to the
Confederate cause and to the Confederate leaders in history. They
reveal in strong light the method by which those leaders were
willing to impose and actually did impose upon the almost unlimited
credulity of the white population of their States. Prejudice on the
question of slavery could be easily stimulated, and no effort was
spared to poison the minds of the Southern people against the Na
tional Government and against the Northern people. But the
exaggerations at the close of the struggle were no greater than those
which had been employed at its commencement. From beginning
to end the Rebellion was based upon the suppression of that which
was true and the suggestion of that which was untrue. To mete
out the proper share of responsibility to the leaders who organized
the insurrection would be a task at once ungracious and impossible.
The aggressive character of the movement was not concealed, and
the motives underlying it were understood. That which was not
understood, and which still remains to be accounted for, was the

MUSTERING OUT OF THE UNION ARMY. 27
conduct of the thousands of Southern Unionists who did not express
their opinions and maintain their faith with the firmness and effect
iveness which had been widely hoped for and expected in the North.
From the timidity of the friends of the Union and the boldness of
the advocates of Secession, it is not difficult to understand how the
large class of poor whites in the South could be urged into a contest
in which every blow struck by them was in support of a system to
whose baleful influence they owed their own ignorance, their social
degradation, their pitiable poverty.

The wonder excited by the raising of the vast army which saved
the Union from destruction was even surpassed by the wonder ex
cited by its prompt and peaceful dissolution. On the day that the
task of disbandment was undertaken, the Army of the United States
bore upon its rolls the names of one million five hundred and sixteen
men (1,000,516). The killed, and those who had previously retired
on account of wounds and sickness and from the expiration of shorter
terms of service, aggregated, after making due allowance for re-en
listments of the same persons, at least another million. The living
among these had retired gradually during the war, and had resumed
their old avocations, or, in the great demand for workmen created
by the war itself, had found new employment. But with the close
of hostilities many industries which had been created by the de
mands of war ceased, and thousands of men were thrown out of
employment. The disbandment of the Volunteer Army would
undoubtedly add hundreds of thousands to this number, and thus
still further overstock and embarrass the labor-market. The pros
pect was not encouraging, and many judicious men feared the result.
Happily all anticipations of evil proved groundless. By an in
stinct of self-support and self-adjustment, that great body of men who
left the military service during the latter half of the year 1865 and
early in the year 1866 re-entered civil life with apparent content
ment and even with certain advantages. Their experience as sol
diers, so far from unfitting them for the duties and callings of an era
of Peace, seem rather to have proved an admirable school, and to
have given them habits of promptness and punctuality, order and
neatness, which added largely to their efficiency in whatever field
they were called to labor. After the Continental Army was dis-

28 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
solved, its members were found to be models of industry and intelli
gence in all the walks of life. The successful mechanics, the thrifty
tradesmen, the well-to-do farmers in the old thirteen States were
found, in great proportion, to have held a commission or carried a
musket in the Army of the Revolution. They were, moreover, the
strong pioneers who settled the first tier of States to the westward, and
laid the solid foundation which assured progress and prosperity to
their descendants. Their success as civil magistrates, as legislators,
as executives was not less marked and meritorious than their illus
trious service in war. The same cause brought the same result a
century later in men of the same blood fighting with equal valor the
same battle of Constitutional liberty. The inspiration of a great
cause does not fail to ennoble the humblest of those who do battle
in its defense. Those who stood in the ranks of the Union Army
have established this truth by the twenty years of honorable life
through which they have passed since their patriotic service was
crowned with victory.
The officers who led the Union Army throughout all the stages
of the civil conflict were in the main young men. This feature has
been a distinguishing mark in nearly all the wars in which the
American people have taken part, and with a few notable exceptions
has been the rule in the leading military struggles of the world.
Alexander the Great died in his thirty-second year. Csesar entered
upon the conquest of Gaul at forty. Frederick the Great was the
leading commander of Europe at thirty-three. Napoleon and Wel
lington, born the same year, fought their last battle at forty-six years
of age. On the exceptional side Marlborough's greatest victories
were won when he was nearly sixty (though he had been brilliantly
distinguished at twenty-two), and in our own day the most skillful
campaign in Europe was under the direction of Von Moltke when
he was in the seventieth year of his age.
Washington took command of the Continental Army at forty
three. Lafayette was a major-general at twenty. Nathaniel Greene
was a general officer in the military establishment of the Revolution
at thirty-three, and entered upon his memorable campaign in the
South at thirty-eight. Winfield Scott was but twenty-eight when
he commanded at Chippewa and Lundy's Lane. Macomb was
thirty-two when he gained the famous victory over Sir George
Prevost at Plattsburg. Jackson was forty-seven when he won the
decisive battle over Pakenham at New Orleans. On the other hand

AGE OF UNION COMMANDERS. 29
Taylor was sixty-three when he conquered at Buena Vista, and Scott
was sixty-one when he made his celebrated march from Vera Cruz
to the Capital. Scott enjoys the rare distinction of having held
high and successful command in two wars which were a full genera
tion of men apart. In 1847 he commanded in Mexico the sons of
those officers who aided in his brilliantly successful campaign against
the British on the borders of Canada in 1814.
At the opening of the war of the Rebellion General Scott again
assumed command, but his seventy-five years pressed heavily upon
him, and he soon gave way to younger men who came rapidly for
ward with patriotic ardor and with worthy ambition. Nearly all the
graduates of the United-States Military Academy who achieved dis
tinction were in what might be termed their middle youth ; a few
were in their twenties ; none were old. General Grant won his cam
paign of the Tennessee, and fought the battles of Henry, Donelson,
and Shiloh when he was thirty-eight years of age. Sherman entered
upon his onerous work in the South- West when he was forty-one, and
accomplished the march to the sea when he was forty-four. Thomas
began his splendid career in Kentucky when he was forty-three, and
fought the critical and victorious battle of Nashville when he was
forty-six. Sheridan was but thirty-three when he confirmed a reputa
tion, already enviable, by his great campaign of 1864 in the Shenan
doah Valley. Meade won the decisive battle of Gettysburg when he
was forty-seven. McClellan was but thirty-five when he succeeded
General Scott in command of the army. McDowell was forty-five
when he fought the first battle of magnitude in the war. Buell was
forty-two when he joined his forces with Grant's army on the second
day's fight at Shiloh. Pope was scarcely over forty when he attained
the highest credit for his success in the South- West. Hancock was
forty-one when he approved himself one of the most brilliant com
manders in the army by his superb bearing on the field of Spottsyl-
vania. Hooker was forty-six when he assumed command of the
Army of the Potomac.
General Schofield was thirty-four when he commanded with
signal ability and success in the battle of Franklin. John Reynolds
was forty-three when he fell at the head of his corps in the first
day's fight at Gettysburg. Rosecrans was forty-two when he gained
the important victory at Stone River. Burnside was thirty-seven
when he made the admirable record of his North-Carolina campaign.
Howard was thirty-two when he was assigned to the command of a

30 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
corps, and only a year older when he succeeded McPherson in the
command of the army of the Tennessee. McPherson was thirty-five
when he gave up his heroic life on the bloody field before Atlanta.
Slocum was an able corps-commander at thirty-two. William F.
Smith was thirty-eight when he handled his division with consummate
skill at White-Oak Swamp. Joseph J. Reynolds was a major-general
before he was forty. Parke was at the head of a corps when he was
thirty-five. Hazen was thirty-four when he led in the important cap
ture of Fort McAllister. McKenzie, Custer, Kilpatrick, and Ames
had each won his star before he had passed his twenty-sixth year.
The only West-Point man who became conspicuous in the command
of troops after he was fifty years of age was David Hunter. He en
tered upon his sixtieth year on the day of the unfortunate battle of
Bull Run, and engaged thenceforth in severe and meritorious field-
service. Montgomery C. Meigs, one of the ablest graduates of the
Military Academy, was kept from the command of troops by the inesti
mably important services he performed as quartermaster-general, in
which office he succeeded Joseph E. Johnston when the latter cast his
fortunes with the Confederacy. Perhaps in the military history of the
world there was never so large an amount of money disbursed upon
the order of a single man as by the order of General Meigs. The
aggregate sum could not have been less during the war than fifteen
hundred millions of dollars, accurately vouched and accounted for to
the last cent. General Meigs is still living, vigorous in mind and
body, active in good works, and enjoying the unstinted confidence
and admiration of his countrymen.
Among the officers who volunteered from civil life the success of
young men as commanders was not less marked than among the
graduates of West Point. General Logan, to whom is conceded by
common consent the leading reputation among volunteer officers, and
who rose to the command of an army, went to the field at thirty-five.
General Butler was forty-two when he was placed at the head of the
Army of the Gulf, and began his striking career in Louisiana. Gen
eral Banks was forty-four when with the rank of major-general he
took command of the Department of Maryland. Alfred Terry, since
distinguished in the regular service, achieved high rank as a volunteer
at thirty-five. Garfield was a major-general at thirty-one with bril
liant promise as a soldier when he left the field to enter Congress.
Frank Blair at forty-one was a successful commander of a division in
the arduous campaign which ended with the fall of Vicksburg.

AGE OF UNION COMMANDERS. 31
Jacob D. Cox had achieved his reputation in the field at thirty-four.
Sickles was forty-one when, desperately wounded, he was borne from
the head of his corps at Gettysburg. Cadwallader Washburn in his
forty-third year was in command of an important district in the
South-West. Rawlins was high in General Grant's confidence and
favor at thirty when he filled the important post of chief of staff.
James B. Steedman was forty-four when he received Mr. Lincoln's
special encomium for bravery. Franz Sigel was in command of a
corps before he was thirty-five. Crawford was thirty-three when his
division did its noble work at Gettysburg. Chamberlain was thirty-
four when he associated his name indelibly with the defense of Little
Round-Top. Corse was but twenty-nine when he held the pass at
Altoona. Beaver was still younger when he received his terrible
wound and his promotion. Grenville Dodge had risen to the rank
of a major-general and approved his merit in the Atlanta campaign
before he was thirty-three. Hawley did splendid service in the field
at thirty-five, and rose rapidly to the rank of brigadier-general.
Gresham had made his brave record at thirty-two, and bears wounds
to attest his service. The McCooks were all young, all gallant, all
successful. Negley was a major-general before he was forty. John
Beatty was a brigadier-general at thirty-two. Robert Potter com
manded a corps before he was thirty-seven. Joseph B. Carr achieved
an honorable reputation in his early thirties. Hartranft was highly
distinguished before he was thirty-seven. Nelson A. Miles left his
counting-room at twenty-one, enlisted as a private, and in two years
was a brigadier-general. Selden Connor was rewarded with the same
rank for his conduct at the battle of the Wilderness before he was
twenty-seven. Nicholas L. Anderson was under thirty when he
received his brevet of major-general for a military career worthy in
all respects of his eminent kinsman who fired the first gun in defense
of the Union. The only general of volunteers beyond fifty years of
age who acquired special distinction was James S. Wadsworth who
in his fifty-seventh year fell in one of the most sanguinary battles
of the war.
The list, both of regulars and volunteers, who achieved high
command while still young, might be largely increased. The names
given are selected from a roll of honor that has never been sur
passed for gallantry of spirit and intrepidity of action in the military
service of any country, — a roll too long to have full justice done to
all the names borne upon it. Indeed, one of the obstacles to wide-

32 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
spread popular fame for many, was in the great number of generals
who fairly earned the laurels due to exalted heroism. In a mili
tary establishment so vast that the major-generals number one hun
dred and fifty, and the generals of brigade nearly or quite six
hundred, with battles, engagements, and skirmishes in full propor
tion to the force which such a number of commanders implies, it is
difficult to give even the names of all who are worthy of lasting
renown. Battles such as established Scott's fame in the Niagara
campaign, or Jackson's at New Orleans, or Taylor's at Buena Vista,
were in magnitude repeated a hundred times during the civil conflict
under commanders whose names are absolutely forgotten by the
public. A single corps of Grant's army at the Wilderness, or of
Sherman's at Atlanta, or of Meade's at Gettysburg, or of McClellan's
on the Peninsula, or of Hooker's at Chancellorsville, contained a
larger number of troops than Washington or Scott ever commanded
on the field, a larger number than Taylor or Jackson ever saw
mustered. A more correct conception of the real magnitude of
the Union Army can be reached by measuring the proportions
of the several branches of the service, than by simply stating the
aggregate number of men. There were in all some seventeen hun
dred regiments of infantry, over two hundred and seventy regiments
of cavalry, and more than nine hundred batteries of artillery. These
numbers are without parallel in the military history of the world.
There was a very strong and patriotic disposition to engage in
the war, on the part of the sons of the Northern statesmen who had
been prominent during the generation preceding the outbreak of
hostilities. It was no doubt felt by the juniors to be a chivalric duty
to defend on the field what had been, advanced by the seniors in
Congress and in Cabinet. A very notable instance was that of the
brothers Ewing, — Hugh, Thomas, and Charles, sons of the eminent
Thomas Ewing of Ohio, — each of whom attained through gradual
promotion, fairly earned by meritorious service in the field, the rank
of brigadier-general. They were all young, the eldest not being
over thirty-five when he received his commission, the youngest under
thirty. Senator Fessenden of Maine had two sons who rose to the
rank of brigadier-general; a third with the rank of captain, was
killed in the second battle of Bull Run. Vice-President Hamlin had
one son who attained the rank of brigadier-general; another who
served as colonel. William H. Seward, jun., also reached the rank
of brigadier-general. William H. Harris, son of Mr. Seward's sue-

REGULAR AND VOLUNTEER OFFICERS. 33
cessor in the Senate, honorably distinguished himself in the service.
Benjamin Harrison of Indiana commanded a brigade before he was
thirty, and made a military record which did honor to the illustrious
name which he inherits. Fletcher Webster lost his life while bravely
commanding a Massachusetts regiment in a war which his illustrious
father's exposition of the Constitution had nerved the arm of the
Government to maintain. Similar instances in the Union Army
might be cited in great number. The same disposition was mani
fested on the Confederate side, and it may be said with truth that
almost every name which grew into prominence in the long political
contention between the North and the South was represented in the
conflict of arms to which it led.
That men without previous military education should prove to be
intelligent, brave, efficient, and skillful officers, was a constant sur
prise to the foreign critics of our campaigns. The commanders of
batteries, of regiments, of brigades, not to speak of battalions and
companies, were almost wholly from the volunteer service. Many
of the volunteers, as already indicated, rose to the command of
divisions, a few to the command of corps, and in some marked in
stances to the command of separate armies and to the military direc
tion of vast districts. At the same time the value of strict military
training was shown by the superior prominence attained in propor
tion to their numbers by the officers who had been educated at the
West Point Military Academy. The wisdom of maintaining that
institution was abundantly vindicated by the results of the war. Its
graduates worked in harmony with the volunteers, and, as matter
of fact, the field offices they held during the war were, with few
exceptions, under the law for the organization of the volunteer
forces. They imparted to the entire army the discipline,, the organ
ization, and the efficiency of a regular military establishment. There
was naturally at the beginning of the war a certain jealousy between
the regulars and the volunteers, but none that did not yield to the
patriotism and good sense of both. The two services were rapidly
and most happily combined, and demonstrated by their joint prowess
the strength of the country for defense, and, if need be, for offense.
Without maintaining a large military establishment, which besides
its expense entails multiform evils, it was shown that the Republic
possesses in the strong arms and patriotic hearts of its sons an un
failing source of military power.
Vol. II. 3

CHAPTER III.
The Reconstruction Problem. — The President's Public Addresses. — Time for
Action arrived. — Proclamation declaring Hostilities ceased. — Manner of
dealing with Insurrectionary States. — Mr. Lincoln's First Efforts at Re
construction. — Election in Louisiana. — Flanders and Hahn. — Mr. Lincoln's
Note to General Shepley. — To Cuthbert Bullett. — Mr. Lincoln's Definite
Plan. — "One-Tenth" of Voters to organize Loyal State Government.—
Free-State Convention in Louisiana. — Michael Hahn elected Governor.—
Constitutional Convention. — Mr. Lincoln's Congratulations. — Similar Ac
tion in Arkansas. — Isaac Murphy elected Governor. — Representation in
Congress denied to these States. — Mr. Sumner's Resolution. — Adopted
by Senate. — Similar Action in House. — Conflict between the President
and Congress. — Congressional Plan of Reconstruction. — Three Funda
mental Conditions. — Bill passed July 4, 1864. — Not approved by the Presi
dent. — His Reasons given in a Public Proclamation. — Senator Wade and
H. Winter Davis criticise the Proclamation. — Their Protest. — Subsequent
Resolution of Congress. — The President's Reply to it. — Mr. Lincoln's
Probable Course on the Subject of Reconstruction. — Reconstruction of
the Government of Tennessee. — The Quick Process of doing. — Ratified by
Popular Vote, 25,293 to 48. — Parson Brownlow chosen Governor. — Patterson
.and Fowler elected Senators. — Johnson's Inauguration as Vice-President.
— His Speech. — Were the Rebel States out of the Union ? — Johnson's
Views. — Mr. Lincoln's Views. — Radical and Conservative. — Extra Session
debated. — Adverse Decision. — Ill-Luck of Extra Sessions.
MR. JOHNSON continued his public receptions, his interviews,
and his speeches for nearly a month after his accession to the
Presidency — until indeed, in the judgment of his most anxious and
most cautious friends, he had talked too much. All were agreed
that the time had now come when he must do something. He had
evidently sought to impress the country with the belief that his
Administration was to be marked by a policy of extraordinary
vigor, that the standard of loyalty was to be held high, that the
leaders of the Rebellion were to be dealt with in a spirit of stern
justice. His position gave satisfaction to those who thought the
chief conspirators against the Union could not be punished too
severely ; but it led to uneasiness among the anti-slavery philanthro
pists, lest, in wreaking vengeance upon white traitors, the President

THE PRESIDENT'S PROCLAMATION. 35
might leave the loyal negroes unprotected in their newly acquired
civil rights.
On the 10th of May the President issued a proclamation declar
ing substantially that actual hostilities had ceased, and that " armed
resistance to the authority of the Government in the insurrectionary
States may be regarded at an end." This great fact being officially
recognized, the President found himself face to face with the momen
tous duty of bringing the eleven States of the Confederacy into
active and harmonious relations with the Government of the Union.
He had reached the point where he must take the first step in the
serious task of Reconstruction, and the country awaited it with
profound interest. He had in other official stations given distinct
intimations of the conditions which he considered essential to the
restoration of a rebel State to its place in the Union, but in the
numerous speeches he had delivered since his accession to the Presi
dency he had studiously avoided a repetition of his former position,
and had witli equal care refrained from a public committal to any
specific line of action.
The manner in which the insurrectionary States should be dealt
with at the close of hostilities had been the object of solicitous in
quiry throughout the war. It was indeed often a question of angry
disputation in Congress, in the press, and among the people. The
tentative and somewhat speculative efforts in this field, which had
been made or at least encouraged by Mr. Lincoln, had confused rather
than solved the problem, and yet his action could not fail to exert
an embarrassing and possibly a decisive influence upon the course of
his successor. Difficult as it might have proved to Mr. Lincoln him
self to go forward on the line he had marked out, it would obvi
ously prove far more difficult to Mr. Johnson to maintain the same
policy with the inevitable result of renewing the conflict with Con
gress which Mr. Lincoln had only allayed and -postponed — not re
moved. A brief review of what Mr. Lincoln had done in the field
of Reconstruction will give a more accurate knowledge of President
Johnson's policy, which afterwards became the subject of prolonged
and bitter controversy. Mr. Lincoln had naturally been anxious
from the beginning of the war to re-establish civil government in
any and every one of the Confederate States where actual resistance
should cease. A military autocracy controlling people who were en
gaged in the ordinary avocations of life was altogether contrary to his
views of expediency, altogether repugnant to his conceptions of right.

36 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
At the end of the first year of the war (April, 1862) the rebel
fortifications on the Lower Mississippi and the city of New Orleans
surrendered to the guns of Farragut, and not long afterwards a
movement was made to re-establish in Louisiana a civil government
that would be loyal to the Union. The first step was the election on
the third of December, 1862, of Benjamin F. Flanders and Michael
Hahn, old citizens of Louisiana, as Representatives in Congress.
On the 9th of February, 1863, when the Thirty-seventh Congress
was drawing to its close, Messrs. Flanders and Hahn were admitted
to their seats, though not without contention and misgiving. They
had been chosen at an election ordered by the military governor of
Louisiana (General George F. Shepley), and their credentials bore
the signature of that official. General Shepley had undoubtedly
been permitted, if not specifically authorized, by the National Admin
istration to take this step ; though it was afterwards perceived by all
friends of the Union to be useless if not mischievous, and its repeti
tion for the ensuing Congress was seriously opposed. On the 21st of
November — only a fortnight before the election ordered by General
Shepley — Mr. Lincoln addressed him a note which in effect was a
warning that Federal officers, not citizens of Louisiana, must not be
chosen to represent the State in Congress. " We do not," said the
President, referring to the South, "particularly need members of
Congress from those States to enable us to get along with legislation
here. What we do want is the conclusive evidence that respectable
citizens of Louisiana are willing to be members of Congress and to
swear support to the Constitution, and that other respectable citi
zens are willing to vote for them and send them. To send a parcel
of Northern men here as representatives, elected as would be under
stood (and perhaps really so) at the point of the bayonet, would be
disgraceful and outrageous."
Previous to this instruction to Governor Shepley, Mr. Lincoln
had been in correspondence with Cuthbert Bullett, Esq., a Southern
gentleman, who enjoyed his personal regard and confidence. In a
letter to Mr. Bullett of July 28, 1862, the President reviewed some
of the impracticable methods of re-establishing civil authority
desired by certain citizens of Louisiana who were very anxious to
prevent any interference with property in slaves. Mr. Thomas J.
Durant was the spokesman for this large class of men who professed
anxiety for the fate of the Union but were unwilling to do any thing
to aid in saving it. Mr. Lincoln's letter is very characteristic. He

EARLY RECONSTRUCTION IN LOUISIANA. 37
says, "Mr. Durant speaks of no duty, apparently thinks of none
resting upon Southern Union men. He even thinks it injurious to
the Union cause that they should be restrained in trade and passage
without taking sides. They are to touch neither a sail nor a pump,
live merely as passengers (' dead-heads ' at that) to be carried snug
and dry throughout the storm and safely landed right side up. Nay,
more, even a mutineer is to go untouched, lest these sacred passen
gers receive an accidental wound. Of course the Rebellion will
never be suppressed in 'Louisiana if the professed Union men there
will neither help to do it nor permit the Government to do it with
out their help. . . . What would you do in my position? Would
you drop the war where it is, or would you prosecute it in the future
with elder-stalk squirts charged with rose-water ? Would you deal
lighter blows rather than heavier ones? Would you give up the
contest leaving every available means unapplied ? I am in no boast
ful mood : I shall not do more than I can, but I shall do all I can to
save the Government, which is my sworn duty as well as my personal
inclination. I shall do nothing in malice. What I deal with is too
vast for malicious dealing."
The pressure of these political events in Louisiana had increased
Mr. Lincoln's desire to attempt some form of reconstruction, and the
admission of Messrs. Flanders and Hahn to seats in the House of
Representatives had to a certain degree misled him as tp the temper
and tendency of Congress on the whole subject of re-establishing
civil government in the insurrectionary States. During the year
1862, when the original movements were made in Louisiana, the
military situation grew so critical and so discouraging that the
Administration had no time for the consideration of any other subject
than the raising of men and money. But in 1863 the Government
was incalculably strengthened by General Meade's victory at Gettys
burg and by the opening of the Mississippi River to navigation in
consequence of General Grant's capture of the rebel stronghold at
Vicksburg. The latter event practically destroyed the military
power of the Rebellion on the western side of the Mississippi, and
opened, as Mr. Lincoln hoped, a great opportunity for the formation
of State governments loyal to the Union and able to aid effectively
in the overthrow of the Rebellion.
To this end the President proposed a definite plan of reconstruc
tion in his message of December 8, 1863, sent to the Thirty-eighth Con
gress at its first session. He accompanied the message with a public

38 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
proclamation which more fully embodied his conception of the neces
sities of the situation and the duties of the loyal people. According
to the message of the Presiden-t "the constitutional obligation to
guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican form of govern
ment and to protect the State in such cases is explicit and full. . . .
This section of the Constitution contemplates a case wherein the ele
ments within a State favorable to Republican government in the
Union may be too feeble for an opposite and hostile element external
to or even within the State, and such are precisely the cases with
which we are now dealing. An attempt to guarantee and protect a
revived State government constructed in whole or in preponderating
part from the very element against whose hostility and violence it is
to be protected is simply absurd. There must be a test by which to
separate the opposing elements so as to build only from the sound,
and that test is a sufficiently liberal one which accepts as sound who
ever will make a sworn recantation of his former unsoundness."
In his proclamation the President made known that " to all per
sons who have directly or by implication participated in the existing
rebellion except as herein after excepted, a full pardon is hereby
granted with restoration of all rights of property except as to slaves,
upon condition that every such person shall take and subscribe an
oath, and thenceforward maintain said oath inviolate," to the follow
ing effect: viz., to "henceforth faithfully support and defend the
Constitution and the Union of the States thereunder," and to abide
by all laws and proclamations " made during the existing rebellion,
having reference to slaves, so long and so far as not modified of de
clared void by decision of the Supreme Court." Those excepted from
the benefits of the pardon were first the civil and diplomatic officers
of the Confederate Government ; second, those who left judicial sta
tions in the United-States Government to aid the rebellion ; third,
military officers of the Confederacy above the rank of colonel, and
naval officers above the rank of lieutenant ; fourth, all who left seats
in the Congress of the United States to aid the rebellion ; fifth, all
who left the National Army or Navy to aid the rebellion; sixth,
all who had treated colored persons found in the military or naval
service of the United States otherwise than as prisoners of war.
The President was willing to intrust the task of establishing a
State government to a population whose loyalty to the Union should
be tested by taking the prescribed oath, provided that the population
should be sufficiently numerous to cast a vote one-tenth as large as

EARLY RECONSTRUCTION IN LOUISIANA. 39
that cast at the Presidential election of 1860. A government thus
established, the President declared, " shall be recognized as the true
government of the State, and the State shall receive thereunder the
benefits of the constitutional provision which declares that the United
States shall guarantee to each State a Republican form of govern
ment." At the same time the President was careful to affirm that
"whether members sent to Congress from any State shall be admitted
to seats constitutionally rests exclusively with the respective Houses,
and not to any extent with the Executive."
The Union men in Louisiana had been so encouraged by the ad
mission of Flanders and Hahn to seats in Congress, that they were
active during the year 1863 in maturing schemes for re-establishing
a loyal State government. . But the decisive step was not taken until
the opening of the ensuing year. On the 8th of January, 1864, a
large Free-State Convention was held in New Orleans, which proved
to be in harmony with the National Administration at all points,
accepting the emancipation policy of the President as the basis of
all their action. General Banks, then in command of the military
district, at once issued a proclamation as requested by the conven
tion, appointing an election for State officers on the 22d of February
— the officers chosen, to be installed on the 4th of March. Michael
Hahn was elected governor as the especial representative of the
President's firm yet cautious and moderate policy. B. F. Flanders
and C. Roselius were the opposing candidates, the former represent
ing a more radical the latter a more conservative policy than the
President was willing to adopt.
Mr. Hahn was duly installed in office on the 4th of March, and on
the 15th the President issued an order declaring the new governor to
be "invested until further orders with the powers exercised hitherto
by the military governor of Louisiana." In a personal note to Gov
ernor Hahn at the same time the President said, " I congratulate you
on having fixed your name in history as the first Free-State Governor
of Louisiana. Now you are about to have a convention which
among other things will probably define the elective franchise. I
barely suggest for your private consideration whether some of the
colored people may not be let in, as for instance the very intelligent
and especially those who have fought gallantly in our ranks. They
would probably help in some trying time in the future to keep the
jewel of Liberty in the family of Freedom." The form of the clos
ing expression, quite unusual in Mr. Lincoln's compact style, may

40 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
have been pleonastic, but his meaning was one of deep and almost
prophetic significance. It was perhaps the earliest proposition from
any authentic source to endow the negro with the right of suffrage,
and was an indirect but most effective answer to those who subse
quently attempted to use Mr. Lincoln's name in support of policies
which his intimate friends instinctively knew would be abhorrent to
his unerring sense of justice.
The scheme of reconstruction in Louisiana was completed by the
assembling of a convention to form a constitution for the State. The
convention was organized early in April, and its most important act
was the prompt incorporation of an anti-slavery clause in the organic
law. By a vote of seventy to sixteen the convention declared slavery
to be forever abolished in the State. The constitution was adopted
by the people on the fifth day of the ensuing September by a vote
of 6,836 in its favor to 1,566 against it. As the total vote of Louisi
ana at the Presidential election of 1860 was 50,510, the new State
government had obviously fulfilled the requirement of the Presi
dent's proclamation in demonstrating that it was sustained by more
than one-tenth of that number. The President's scheme had there
fore so far succeeded that Louisiana was at least in form under a
loyal government. It was, however, a government that could not
sustain itself for a day if the military support of the Nation should
be withdrawn, and therein lay the weakness of the President's
plan. The action of Louisiana was accompanied, indeed in some parts
preceded, by a similar action in Arkansas. A loyal governor (Isaac
Murphy) was elected, an anti-slavery constitution adopted, a gov
ernment duly installed over the State, and senators and representa
tives in Congress were elected in due form. These successive steps
were taken in the early spring of 1864. But when the senators,
Messrs. Fishback and Baxter, presented themselves for admission to
the body to which they were thus chosen, it was found that Congress
was not in sympathy with what was derisively termed the " short
hand " method of reconstruction proposed in Mr. Lincoln's procla
mation. Mr. Sumner, when the credentials were presented, offered
a resolution declaring that " a State pretending to secede from the
Union, and battling against the General Government to maintain
that position, must be regarded as a rebel State subject to military
occupation and without representation on this floor until it has been
re-admitted by a vote of both Houses of Congress ; and the Senate

ARKANSAS SENATORS NOT ADMITTED. 41
will decline to entertain any such application from any such rebel
State until after such a vote of both Houses."
Mr. Sumner's resolution embodied a radical and absolute dissent
from the President's scheme of reconstruction. The Senate, how
ever, was not quite ready for so emphatic a declaration, and the
resolution was referred with the credentials to the Judiciary Com
mittee. A few weeks later, on the 27th June (1864), the committee
made a report covering substantially the ground of Mr. Sumner's
resolution. By a vote of twenty-seven to six the Senate declared
that "the rebellion is not so far suppressed in Arkansas as to entitle
that State to representation in Congress, and therefore Messrs.
Fishback and Baxter are not entitled to admission as senators."
Similar action was taken in the House — the representatives not
being allowed to take seats.
The conflict between the President and Congress on the subject
of reconstruction was made still more apparent by the further action
of each. After the Arkansas case had been disposed of, Congress
passed a bill embodying its own views of the proper process of re
construction. By this measure it was directed that the President
should appoint a provisional governor for each of the States declared
to be in rebellion ; that said governor should, as soon as military
resistance to the United States ceased, make an enrolment of the
white male citizens, submitting to each an oath to support the Con
stitution. If a majority of the citizens should take and subscribe
the oath, the governor was to order an election of delegates to a
constitutional convention.
It was made the duty of the convention as its initial proceeding
to declare on behalf of the people of the State their submission to
the Constitution of the United States, and to incorporate in their
own organic law three fundamental provisions : First, No one who
has held any office under the Confederate Government except civil
offices merely ministerial, or military office below the rank of colonel,
shall vote for or be a member of the Legislature, or shall vote for or
be elected governor. Second, Involuntary servitude shall be forever
prohibited, and the freedom of all persons in the State guarantied.
Third, No debt, State or Confederate, created in aid of the rebellion
shall ever be paid. In the event of a constitution being framed
with these provisions inserted, and then adopted by a majority of
the popular vote as already enrolled, the governor shall certify that
fact to the President, and thereupon the President, after obtaining

42 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
the assent of Congress, shall recognize the State government so estab
lished as a legitimate and constitutional government competent to
elect senators and representatives in Congress and electors of Presi
dent and Vice-President.
This bill was passed on the last day of the session, July 4, 1864.
It was commonly regarded as a rebuke to the course of the President
in proceeding with the grave and momentous task of reconstruc
tion without waiting the action or invoking the counsel of Congress.
Some of the more radical members of both Houses considered the
action of the President as beyond his constitutional powefj and they
were very positive and peremptory in condemning it. But Mr.
Lincoln, with his habitual caution and wise foresight, had specially
avoided any form of guaranty, or even suggestion to the States
whose reconstruction he was countenancing and aiding, that their
senators and representatives would be admitted to seats in Con
gress. Admission to membership he took care to advise them was
a discretion lodged solely in the respective Houses. What he had
done was in his own judgment clearly within his power as Comman
der-in-Chief of the Armies of the Union, and was thus obviously and
solely an Executive act.
Mr. Lincoln was not therefore in the humor to be rebuked by
Congress. Though the least pretentious of men, he had an abound
ing self-respect and a full appreciation of the dignity and power of
his office. He had given careful study to the duties, the responsi
bilities, and the limitations of the respective departments of the
Government, and he was not willing that his judgment should be
revised or his course censured, however indirectly, by a co-ordinate
branch of the Government. He therefore declined to sign the bill.
He did not veto it but let it quietly die. Four days after the session
had closed, he issued a proclamation in which he treated the bill
merely as the expression of an opinion by Congress as to the best
plan of Reconstruction — " which plan," he remarked, "it is now
thought fit to lay before the people for their consideration."
The President further stated in his proclamation that he had
" already propounded one plan of restoration," and that he was
"unprepared by a formal approval of this bill to be inflexibly com
mitted to any single plan of restoration," and also " unprepared to
declare that the Free-State constitutions and governments already
adopted and installed in Louisiana and Arkansas shall be set aside
and held for naught, thereby repelling and discouraging the loyal

THE WADE AND DAVIS CONTROVERSY. 43
citizens who have set up the same as to further effort ; " and also
" unprepared to declare a constitutional competency in Congress to
abolish slavery in the States" — though " sincerely hoping at the
same time that a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery in all
the States might be adopted." While with these objections Mr.
Lincoln could not approve the bill, he concluded his proclamation in
these words: "Nevertheless I am fully satisfied with the plan of
restoration contained in the bill as one very proper for the loyal
people of any State choosing to adopt it, and I am and at all times
shall be prepared to give executive aid and assistance to any such
people so soon as the military resistance to the United States shall
have been suppressed in any such State and the people thereof
shall have sufficiently returned to their obedience to the Constitution
and Laws of the United States — in which cases military governors
will be appointed with directions to proceed according to the bill."
It must be frankly admitted that Mr. Lincoln's course was in
some of its aspects extraordinary. It met with almost- unanimous
dissent on the part of Republican members of Congress, and violent
opposition from the more radical members of both Houses. If Con
gress had been in session at the time, a very rancorous hostility
would have been developed against the President. Fortunately the
senators and representatives had returned to their States and dis
tricts before the proclamation was issued, and they found the people
united and enthusiastic in Mr. Lincoln's support. No contest was
raised, therefore, by the great majority of those who had sustained
the bill which the President had refused to approve. The pending
struggle for the Presidency demanded harmony, and by common con
sent agitation on the question was abandoned. Two of the ablest,
most fearless, most resolute men then in public life — Senator Wade of
Ohio, and Representative Henry Winter Davis of Maryland — were
exceptions to the general rule of acquiescence. They were respec
tively the chairmen in Senate and House of the " Committees on the
Rebellious States," and were primarily and especially responsible for
the bill which the President criticised in his proclamation. They
united over their own signatures in a public " Protest " against the
action of Mr. Lincoln. The paper was prepared by Mr. Davis,
which of itself was guaranty that it would be able, caustic, and
unqualified. Mr. Wade was known to be a man of extraordinary
courage, both physical and moral. To these qualities Mr. Davis
added a highly cultivated mind and a style of writing which in

44 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
political controversy has rarely been surpassed — a style at once
severe, effective, and popular.
The " Protest " embodied a sharp contrast between the President's
plan of Reconstruction in his proclamation of December 8 (1863),
and that contained in the bill presented by Congress for his approval.
" The bill," said Messrs. Wade and Davis, " requires a majority of
the voters to establish a State government, the proclamation is satis
fied with one-tenth; the bill requires one oath, the proclamation
another ; the bill ascertains voters by registering, the proclamation
by guess ; the bill exacts adherence to existing territorial limits, the
proclamation admits of others ; the bill governs the rebel States by
law equalizing all before it, the proclamation commits them to the
lawless discretion of military governors and provost marshals ; the
bill forbids electors for President (in the rebel States), the procla
mation with the defeat of the bill threatens us with civil war for the
exclusion of such votes."
The criticisms of the President's course closed with the language
of stern admonition if not indeed of absolute menace. The act of
the President was denounced as "rash and fatal," and as "a blow at
the friends of the Administration, at the rights of humanity, and
at the principles of Republican government." The President was
warned that the support of the Republican party was " of a cause
and not of a man," that the " authority of Congress is paramount and
must be respected," that the " whole body of Union men of Congress
will not submit to be impeached by him of rash and unconstitutional
legislation," that he must " confine himself to his Executive duties
— to obey and execute, not make the laws ; " that he " must sup
press armed rebellion by arms and leave political re-organization to
Congress." No political result followed the publication of this remarkable
paper save that it probably defeated the renomination of Mr. Davis
for Congress. The Democrats were of course hostile to it in spirit
and in letter, and the leading Republicans saw in it the seeds of
a controversy between the President and Congress which might
rapidly grow into dangerous proportions. The very strength of the
paper was, by one of the paradoxes that frequently recur in public
affairs, its special weakness. It was so powerful an arraignment of
the President that of necessity it rallied his friends to his support
with that intense form of energy which springs from the instinct of
self-preservation. It was at once seen and profoundly realized by the

THE WADE AND DAVIS CONTROVERSY. 45
great majority of the loyal people that even if the President had
fallen into an error, no result could possibly flow from adhering to it
that would prove half so perilous to the Union cause as would dis
sension and division in the ranks of those who were relied upon to
keep the Government in the control of an Administration, devoted
heart and soul to the preservation of the Union. It was, they
thought, safer to follow Mr. Lincoln who had all the power in his
hands than to follow Messrs. Wade and Davis who had no power in
their hands.
When Congress convened in December (1864), Mr. Lincoln, who
had meanwhile been re-elected to the Presidency, studiously re
frained from any reference in his annual message to the controversy
over his proclamation. With the intuitive sagacity and caution
which never failed him, he did not touch upon the question of
reconstruction. He had foreseen that the unhappy differences with
which the close of the previous session of Congress had been marked
might be renewed, and thence lead the party into warring factions if
he should again attempt to urge his own views. This was undoubt
edly a disappointment to those Who had regarded the controversy
with the President as only postponed till the assembling of Con
gress, and who were impatiently awaiting its renewal. The assumed
views of the President were antagonized later in the session by the
passage of a joint resolution " declaring certain States not entitled to
representation in the electoral college." This was done to cut off
the electoral votes (should any such votes be returned) of Louisi
ana and Arkansas, satirically referred to by the opponents of the
Administration policy as Mr. Lincoln's " ten per cent States " — in
allusion to the permission given to one-tenth of the population to
organize a State government.
The passage of this joint resolution, to which great importance
was attached by the critics of the President, was met by Mr. Lincoln
in a spirit and with a tact which deprived its authors of all sense of
triumph. In a brief special message (February 8, 1865) the President
declared that he had " signed the joint resolution in deference to the
view of Congress implied in its passage and presentation." In his
own view, however, the two Houses of Congress, convened under
the twelfth article of the Constitution, " have complete power to ex
clude from counting all electoral votes deemed by them to be illegal,
and it is not competent for the Executive to defeat or obstruct the
power by a veto, as would be the case if his action were at all es-

46 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
sential to the matter." The President further informed Congress
that " he disclaims all right on the part of the Executive to interfere
in any way in the matter of canvassing or counting the electoral
votes, and he also disclaims that by signing said resolution he has
expressed any opinion on the recitals of the preamble or any judg
ment of his own upon the subject of the resolution."
The message was indeed throughout a sarcastic reflection upon
the action of Congress. It was as if the President had said, " You
have passed a resolution making certain declarations which nobody
controverts : you have claimed certain powers which nobody denies.
If I should sign your resolution without explanation, it might imply
my right to veto it, and thereby take from you your undoubted
Constitutional power. You are really guilty of weakening your
own prerogatives under the Constitution by asking me to assent to
their existence. If you intended your resolution as a reflection on
my policy of reconstruction, you might have spared yourselves the
trouble, for that policy never contemplated the slightest violation
of the rights and prerogatives of Congress." The message through
out was a singularly apt illustration of that keen perception and
abounding common sense which made Mr. Lincoln so formidable an
antagonist in every controversy political and official in which he
became involved. His triumph was complete both in the estimation
of Congress and of the people.
Mr. Lincoln really adhered with unexpected tenacity to the plan
of reconstruction which he had attempted, and which, putting aside
the opprobrious names applied to it, was called by himself "The
Louisiana Plan." He had stubbornly maintained his ground against
the almost unanimous protest of Republican senators and represen
tatives, and he justified himself by elaborate argument. He had been
much influenced by the representations made by General Banks who
was commander of the Military District, and much impressed by the
perfect faith in its success entertained by leading men of the State.
In the last speech he ever made (April 11, 1865), referring to the
twelve thousand men who had organized the Louisiana Government,
the President said, " If we now reject and spurn them, we do our
utmost to disorganize and disperse them. We say to the white man,
you are worthless or worse. We will neither help you nor be helped
by you. To the black man we say, this cup of liberty which these,
your old masters, hold to your lips, we will dash from you, and leave
you to the chances of gathering the spilled and scattered contents in

LOUISIANA PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION. 47
some vague and undefined when and where and how. If this course,
discouraging and paralyzing to both white and black, has any ten
dency to bring Louisiana into proper practical relations with the
Union, I have so far been unable to perceive it. If, on the contrary,
they recognize and sustain the new government of Louisiana, the
converse of all this is made true. We encourage the hearts and
nerve the arms of twelve thousand men to adhere to their work and
argue for it, and proselyte for it, and fight for it, and grow it,
and ripen it to a complete success. The colored man too, in seeing
all united for him, is inspired with vigilance and with energy and
daring to the same end. Grant that he desires the elective franchise.
He will yet attain it sooner by saving the already advanced steps
towards it than by running backward over them. Concede that the
new government of Louisiana is only to what it should be as the egg
is to the fowl, we shall sooner have the fowl by hatching the egg than
by smashing it."
Mr. Lincoln described also at some length the process by which
he had been induced to try the Louisiana plan. Like all his conclu
sions it was reached after much consultation and serious reflection.
He was conscientiously convinced that, all things considered, it was
the promptest and most feasible process of re-establishing civil gov
ernment in the insurrectionary States. Mr. Lincoln was especially
anxious that neither the ruling power nor the conquered rebels should
by needless procrastination become accustomed to military govern
ment — a form of administration which he regarded as very tempting,
but very sure to undermine, and in time to destroy, the real spirit of
independence and self-government. It was his belief, as he expressed
it himself, that " We must begin with and mold from disorganized and
discordant elements, nor is it a small additional embarrassment that
we, the loyal people, differ among ourselves as to the mode, manner,
and measure of reconstruction. As a general rule I abstain from read
ing the reports of attacks upon myself, wishing not to be provoked by
that to which I cannot properly make answer. In spite of this precau
tion, however, it comes to my knowledge that I am much censured for
some supposed agency in setting up and seeking to sustain the new
State Government of Louisiana. In this I have done just so much
and no more than the public knows." He then gave somewhat full
details of the successive steps he had taken in his attempt at recon
struction, — steps already detailed with precision in this chapter.
After completing his recital he stated with entire frankness that he

48 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
had done nothing else. " Such," said he, " has been my only agency
in setting up the Louisiana Government." He was thus explicit be
cause certain members of Congress, in the excitement caused by their
hostility to the President's plan, had been rash enough to insinuate
that the President had a secret understanding with certain rebels,
who, as soon as the President's hand was withdrawn, would turn the
control of the State over to the unrepentant Democracy who had
been so active in precipitating the war.
Concluding his remarks to an audience loath to leave and eager to
hear every word from lips which seemed then to be those of an ora
cle, Mr. Lincoln dwelt with great seriousness, even with solemnity,
upon this subject which now wholly engrossed his mind. The con
test of arms was over, but the President realized that the great press
ure of duty which had been weighing him down was not removed
by the coming of peace. Its character was changed, its exactions
were perhaps less urgent, but withal he felt that the war would have
been in vain unless, in exchange for all its agonies and all its burdens,
there should come to the institutions of the country some great re
forms, and to the people a new baptism of patriotic interest and phil
anthropic duty. He dwelt with deep solicitude on the situation in
the rebellious States, and, unable to speak as fully as he desired, said
with evident emotion, " It may be my duty to make some new an
nouncement to the people of the South. I am considering, and shall
not fail to act when satisfied that action will be proper."
The " new announcement " to the South was never made. Three
days after it was promised, Mr. Lincoln met his fate. What changes
might have been wrought if he had lived to make the promised
exposition can only be surmised. It may be well believed however
that the confidence reposed in him universally in the North, and the re
spect he had as universally won in the South, would have given such
commanding power to his counsel as would have seriously influ
enced, if not promptly directed, the mode of reconstruction. Mr.
Lincoln's position when he spoke his closing words was very different
from that which he held when Senator Wade and Henry Winter
Davis ventured upon a controversy with him the preceding summer —
boldly assailing his measures and challenging his judgment. He was
at that time a candidate for re-election, undergoing harsh criticism
and held rigidly accountable for the prolongation of the war. Now
he stood triumphant in every public relation — chosen by an almost
unprecedented vote to his second term, the rebellion conquered, the

LOUISIANA PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION. 49
Union firmly re-established ! Never since Washington's exalted po
sition at the close of the Revolution, or his still more elevated station
when he entered upon the Presidency, has there been a man in the
United States of so great personal power and influence as Mr.
Lincoln then wielded.
It was perhaps not unnatural that from the day of Mr. Lincoln's
death, his views as to the proper mode of reconstruction should be
come a subject of warm dispute between the partisans of different
theories ; yet no controversy could be less profitable for the simple
reason that it was absolutely incapable of settlement. Beyond his
experiment with the " Louisiana plan " Mr. Lincoln had never given
the slightest indication either by word or deed as to the specific
course he would adopt in the rehabilitation of the insurrectionary
States. His characteristic anecdote of the young preacher who was
exhorted " not to cross ' Big Muddy ' until he reached it " was a
perfect illustration of the painstaking, watchful habit in which he
dealt with all public questions. He invariably declined to anticipate
an issue or settle a question before it came to him in its natural,
logical order. Louisiana was wholly in the possession of the Union
troops in 1862-3, and presented a question that to his view had
ripened for decision. Hence his prompt and definite procedure in
that State. Severely challenged for what his accusers deemed a
blunder, Mr. Lincoln defended himself with fair and full statements
of fact, and was apparently justified in adopting the policy he had
chosen. He had fortified his own judgment, as he frankly declared,
"by submitting the Louisiana plan in advance to every member of
the Cabinet, and every member approved it." His " promise was out,"
he said, to sustain this policy, but " bad promises," he significantly
added, " are better broken than kept, and I shall treat this as a bad
promise and break it whenever I shall be convinced that keeping it
is adverse to thejpublic interest."
It is apparent therefore that Mr. Lincoln had no fixed plan for the
reconstruction of the States. Pertinently questioned on the subject
by one whose personal relations entitled him to unreserved confidence,
the President answered by one of his homely and apt illustrations :
"The pilots on our Western rivers steer from point to point as they call
it — setting the course of the boat no farther than they can see ; and
that is all I propose to myself in this great problem." This position
was practically re-affirmed in the speech already copiously quoted.
"So great peculiarities pertain to each State, and such important and
Vol. II. i

50 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
sudden changes occur in the same State, and withal so new and so
unprecedented is the whole case, that no exclusive and inflexible plan
can safely be prescribed in details and collaterals. Such exclusive
and inflexible plan would only become a new entanglement." Such
was the latitude of judgment which the President reserved to himself,
such the liberty of action which he deemed essential to the complex
problem, for whose solution there was no prescribed rule, no estab
lished precedent. On all questions of expediency the President
maintained not only the right but the frequent necessity of change.
" Principle alone," said he, " must be inflexible."

Encouraged by the result of the controversy, if it may be so
termed, between the President and Congress as to the mode of
reconstruction, Andrew Johnson determined to re-organize the gov
ernment of his State. Though Vice-President-elect he was still dis
charging the functions of military governor of Tennessee. A
popular convention, originating from his recommendation and as
sembling under his auspices, was organized at Nashville on the ninth
day of January, 1865. Membership of the body was limited to those
who " give an active support to the Union cause, who have never
voluntarily borne arms against the Government, who have never
voluntarily given aid and comfort to the enemy." The manifest
purpose, indeed the proclaimed intention, was to re-organize the
State, so as to bring all its powers distinctly and unreservedly under
the control of that small minority of the population which had re
mained loyal to the Government of the Union. The preamble which
prefaced their action cited the Declaration of Rights in the consti
tution of Tennessee to the effect that " all power is inherent in the
people, and the people have an inalienable right to alter, reform, or
abolish the Government in such manner as they may think proper."
This was followed by a declaration which might well be viewed as a
non sequitur. "Therefore," said the convention, "a portion of the citi
zens of the State of Tennessee and of the United States of America
in convention assembled do propound the following amendments to
the Constitution, which when ratified by the sovereign, loyal people
shall be and constitute a part of the permanent constitution of the
State of Tennessee."
It was very easy by strict logic to state grave objections to this

RECONSTRUCTION IN TENNESSEE. 51
mode of procedure. It was easy to say that " a portion of the peo
ple " did not constitute "the people " in the sense in which the phrase
was used in the constitution of Tennessee. It was easy to charge
that the proposed mode of proceeding embodied all the heresy of
the Dorr Rebellion of Rhode Island in 1842-43, which had fallen
under the animadversion of every department of the United-States
Government. But in answer to such objections, Governor Johnson,
and those who co-operated with him, could urge that the objections
and cavilings of all critics seemed to ignore the controlling fact
that they were acting in a time of war, and were pursuing the only
course by which the power of civil government in Tennessee could
be brought to the aid of the military power of the National Govern
ment. Tennessee, as Johnson bluntly maintained, could only be
organized and controlled as a State in the Union by that portion of
her citizens who acknowledged their allegiance to the Government
of the Union.
Under this theory of procedure the popular convention proposed
an amendment to the State constitution, "forever abolishing and
prohibiting slavery in the State," and further declaring that "the
Legislature shall make no law recognizing the right of property in
man." The convention took several other important steps, annul
ling in whole and in detail all the legislation which under Confed
erate rule had made the State a guilty participant in the rebellion.
Thus was swept away the ordinance of Secession, and the State debt
created in aid of the war against the Union. All these proceedings
were submitted to popular vote on the 22d of February, and were
ratified by an affirmative vote of 25,293 against a negative vote of
48. The total vote of the State at the Presidential election of 1860
was 145,333. Mr. Lincoln's requirement of one-tenth of that num
ber was abundantly complied with by the vote on the questions sub
mitted to the popular decision. Small as was the ratio of avowed
Union men at the time, Mr. Johnson argued with much confidence
that Tennessee, freed from coercion, would adhere to the Union by
a large majority of her total vote. His faith was based on the fact
that when the plain and direct question of Union or Disunion was
submitted to the people in the winter of 1860-61, the vote for the
former was 91,813, and for the latter only 24,749.
Under this new order of things, William G. Brownlow, better
known to the world by his soubriquet of " Parson " Brownlow, was
chosen governor without opposition on the fourth day of March,

52 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
1865, the day of Mr. Lincoln's second inauguration. The new Legis
lature met at Nashville a month later, on the 3d of April, and on the
5th ratified the Thirteenth Amendment ; thus adding the abolition of
slavery by National authority to that already decreed by the State.
The Legislature completed its work by electing two consistent
Union men, David T. Patterson and Joseph S. Fowler, to the
United-States Senate. The framework of the new Government was
thus completed and in operation before the death of Mr. Lincoln.
It had not received the recognition and approval of the National
Government in any specific or direct manner. But Andrew Johnson
was inaugurated as Vice-President on the 4th of March, and the
only form of government left in Tennessee was that of which
Brownlow was the acknowledged head. The crucial test would come
when the senators and representatives, elected under the Brownlow
government, should apply for their seats in Congress.
The course pursued in Tennessee afforded a significant index to
Mr. Johnson's conception of what was deemed necessary to prepare
a State that had been in rebellion, for its full rehabilitation as a mem
ber of the Federal Union. His position was rendered still more pro
nounced and positive by his declarations in the remarkable speech
delivered by him when he took the oath of office as Vice-President:
" Before I conclude this brief Inaugural address in the presence of
this audience, ... I desire to proclaim that Tennessee, whose repre
sentative I have been, is free. She has bent the tyrant's rod, she has
broken the yoke of slavery, she stands to-day redeemed. She waited
not for the exercise of power by Congress ; it was her own act ; and
she is now as loyal, Mr. Attorney-General, as the State from which
you come. It is the doctrine of the Federal Constitution that no
State can go out of this Union, and, moreover, Congress cannot eject
a State from this Union. Thank God, Tennessee has never been out
of the Union ! It is true the operations of her government were
for a time interrupted ; there was an interregnum ; but she is still
in the Union, and I am her representative. This day (March 4,
1865) she elects her Governor and her Legislature, which will be
convened on the first Monday of April, and her senators and repre
sentatives will soon mingle with those of her sister States ; and who
shall gainsay it, for the Constitution provides that to every State
shall be guarantied a Republican form of government."
The very positive declaration by Mr. Johnson that " Tennessee
has never been out of the Union " indicated the side he would take

RECONSTRUCTION IN TENNESSEE. 53
in a pending controversy which was waxing warm between the dis
putants. Whether the act of Secession was void ab initio and really
left the State still a member of the Union, or whether it did, how
ever wrongfully, carry the State out of the Union as claimed by
those engaged in the Rebellion, was one of the purely abstract po
litical questions concerning which men will argue without ceasing, 
reaching no conclusion because there is no conclusion to be reached.
Both propositions were at the time affirmed and denied with all the
earnestness, indeed with all the temper, which distinguished the
mediaeval theologians upon points of doctrine once regarded as
essential to salvation, but the very meaning of which is scarcely
comprehended by modern ecclesiastics. With his usual acumen and
with his never-failing common sense, Mr. Lincoln declined to take
part in the discussion. In his last public speech he treated this
question with admirable perspicuity, and with his wonted felicity of
homely illustration: "I have been shown what is supposed to be an
able letter," said he, " in which the writer expresses regret that my
mind has not seemed to be definitely fixed upon the question whether
the seceded States, so called, are in the Union or out of it. . . . It
would perhaps add astonishment to his regret to learn that as it
appears to me, that question has not been and is not a practically
material one, and that any discussion of it could have no effect other
than the mischievous one of dividing friends. As yet, whatever it
may become, the question is bad as the basis of a controversy — a
merely pernicious abstraction. We all agree that the seceded States,
so called, are out of their proper practical relation with the Union,
and that the sole object of the Government is to get them back into
their proper practical relation. I believe it is easier to do this with
out deciding or even considering whether those States have ever been
out of the Union. The States finding themselves once more at
home, it would seem immaterial to me to inquire whether they had
ever been abroad."
The essential difference between the upholders and the opponents
of this theory was not shown in the practical treatment proposed for
the States which had been in rebellion. It was in truth a difference
only in degree. The stoutest defenders of the dogma that the States
had not been out of the Union did not propose to permit the re-organ
ization of their local governments except upon conditions prescribed
by the National authority, and did not assert the rightfulness of their
claims to representation in the Senate and House until the prescribed

54 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
conditions were complied with. Those who protested against the
dogma did not assert the right to keep the States out of the Union,
but only claimed an unrestricted power to exact as the prerequisite
to re-admission such conditions as might be deemed essential to
the public safety — especially such as would most surely prevent
another rebellion against National authority. The two schools in
short marked the dividing line between the radical and the conserv
ative. Perhaps another feature might still more clearly indicate the
difference between the two. The conservatives thought the process
of reconstruction could be accomplished under the sole authority and
direction of the Executive Department of the Government, while the
radicals held it to be a matter for the exclusive determination of
Congress, affirming that the President's right of intervention was
limited to approval or veto of the bills which Congress should send
to him, and to the execution of all laws which should be constitu
tionally enacted.
An extra session of Congress seemed specially desirable at the
time, and had one been summoned by the President, many of the
troubles which subsequently resulted might have been averted. The
propriety of ordering an earlier assemblage of the Thirty-ninth Con
gress than that already provided by the Constitution had been dis
cussed to a very considerable extent among the members of the
Thirty-eighth, as its final adjournment (March 3, 1865) approached.
The rebellion seemed tottering to its fall, and it was the belief of
many of the leading men both of the Senate and the House, that
it might be a special advantage if Congress should be in session
when the final surrender of the Confederate forces should be made.
But the prevailing opinion was in favor of leaving the matter to
Mr. Lincoln's discretion. It was felt by the members that if the
situation should demand the presence of Congress, Mr. Lincoln would
promptly issue his proclamation, and if the situation should not de
mand it, the presence of Congress might prove hurtful, and would
certainly not be helpful. The calamity of Mr. Lincoln's death had
never entered into the public mind, and therefore no provision was
made with any view of its remotest possibility.
Mr. Johnson, however, is scarcely to be blamed for not calling an
extra session of Congress. Aside from his confidence in his own
power to deal with the problems before him, he shared, no doubt, in
the general dislike which Presidents in recent years have shown for
extra sessions. Indeed, to the Executive Department of the Govern-

UNPOPULARITY OF EXTRA SESSIONS. 55
ment, Congress, even in its regular sessions, is a guest whose coming
is not welcomed with half the heartiness with which its departure is
speeded. But an extra session, especially at the beginning of an
Administration, is looked upon with almost superstitious aversion,
and is always to be avoided if possible. It was remembered that all
the woes of the elder Adams' Administration, all the intrigues which
the choleric President fancied that Hamilton was carrying on against
him in connection with our French difficulties, had their origin in the
extra session of May, 1797. It was remembered also that the unpopu
larity which attached to the Presidency of Mr. Madison was connected
with the two extra sessions which his timid Administration was per
haps too ready to assemble. So deeply was hostility to extra sessions
implanted in the minds of political leaders by the misfortunes of
Adams and Madison that another was not called for a quarter of a
century. In September, 1837, Mr. Van Buren inaugurated the ill-
fortune of his Administration by assembling Congress three months
in advance of its regular session. John Tyler in turn never recov
ered from the dissensions and disasters of the extra session of May,
1841, — though it was precipitated upon him by a call issued by
President Harrison. All these extra sessions except the one in Mr.
Van Buren's Administration had been held in May, and even in his
case the proclamation summoning Congress was issued in May. No
wonder, therefore, that ill-luck came to be associated with that
month. When the necessity of assembling Congress was forced
upon Mr. Lincoln by the firing on Sumter, Mr. Seward warned him
that in any event he must not have the session begin in May. It
must be confessed therefore that the precedents were sufficiently
alarming to influence Mr. Johnson against an extra session. Nor
was there any popular demand for it because the President's policy
had not as yet portended trouble or strife in the ranks of the Re
publican party.

CHAPTER IV.
President Johnson and the Cabinet. — Effect op Vice-President's Accession. —
Example of Tyler in 1841 and Fillmore in 1850. — A Vice-President's Diffi
cult Position. — Personnel of Cabinet in 1865. —Its Nearly Even Division
on Reconstruction Issues. — Presumed Position of Each Member. — Stanton,
Harlan, and Dennison Radical. — Welles, McCulloch, and Speed Conserva
tive. —Mr. Seward's Relation to the President. — His Position explained.—
Mr. Seward regains his Health. — Display of his Personal Power. — Char
acteristics of Mr. Seward. — Superiority of his Mind. — Tendency of the
President's Mind. — Social Influences at work upon him. — His Radical
Change of Position. — President's Proclamation May 29. — Amnesty and
Pardon to Rebels. — Thirteen Excepted Classes. — The " Twenty-thousand-
dollar " Disability. — Warmly opposed by Mr. Seward. — Clemency prom
ised to Excepted Classes. — Pardons applied for. — Fourteen Thousand
granted in Nine Months. — Another Proclamation of Same Date. — Pro
visional Governors appointed. — First for North Carolina. — Existing Gov
ernments in Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee recognized. —
President's Reconstruction Policy. — Now fully disclosed. — Oath of Al
legiance PRESCRIBED. — PROVISIONAL GOVERNORS TO ASSEMBLE CONVENTIONS. —
The Conventions to form Constitutions. — Legislatures then to assemble.
— Whole Machinery of Government in Motion. — Rebels in Possession of
State Governments. — Colored Men excluded from All Participation. —
Suffrage left to the States. — President's Personal Position on Suffrage.
— Reconstruction Scheme complete in July. — The President and the Re
publican Party. — His Belief that the Party would follow him. — His
Hostility to Radicals. — President depends on Conduct of the South. —
Public Interest transferred to that Section.
DECLINING to seek the advice of Congress in the embarrass
ments of his position, President Johnson necessarily subjected
himself to the counsel and influence of his Cabinet. He had inher
ited from Mr. Lincoln an organization of the Executive Departments
which, with the possible exception of Mr. Seward, was personally
agreeable to him and politically trusted by him. He dreaded the
effect of changing it, and declined upon his accession to make room
for some eminent men who by long personal association and by iden
tity of views on public questions would naturally be selected as his
advisers. He had not forgotten the experience and the fate of the two
chief magistrates who like himself had been promoted from the Vice-
56

VICE-PRESIDENTS MADE PRESIDENT. 57
Presidency. He instinctively wished to avoid their mistakes, and to
leave behind him an administration which should not in after years
be remembered only for its faults, its blunders, its misfortunes.
The Federal Government had existed fifty-two years before it en
countered the calamity of a President's death. The effect which
such an event would produce upon the personnel of the Government
and upon the partisan aspects of the Administration was not therefore
known prior to 1841. The Vice-President in previous years had not
always been on good terms with the President. In proportion to his
rank there was no officer of the Government who exercised so little
influence. His most honorable function — that of presiding over the
Senate — was purely ceremonial, and carried with it no attribute of
power except in those rare cases when the vote of the Senate was
tied — a contingency more apt to embarrass than to promote his
political interests. He was, of course, neither sought nor feared by
the crowds who besieged the President. He was therefore not un
naturally thrown into a sort of antagonism with the Administration
— an antagonism sure to be stimulated by the coterie who, disap
pointed in efforts to secure favor with the President, were disposed
to take refuge in the Cave of Adullam, where from chagrin and sheer
vexation the Vice-Presidents had too frequently been found. The
class of disappointed men who gathered around the Vice-President
held a political relation not unlike that of the class who in England
have on several occasions formed the Prince of Wales' party — com
posed of malcontents of the opposition, who were on the worst
possible terms with the Ministry.
John Tyler, as President Johnson well knew from personal obser
vation, began his Executive career with an apparent intention of fol
lowing in the footsteps of the lamented Harrison, to which course
he had indeed been enjoined by the dying President in words of the
most solemn import. Tyler gave assurances to his Cabinet that he
desired them to retain their places. But the suggestion — which
he was too ready to adopt — was soon made, that he would earn no
personal fame by submissively continuing in the pathway marked
out by another. With this uneasiness implanted in his mind, it was
impossible that he should retain a Cabinet in whose original selec
tion he had no part, and whose presence was the symbol of a political
subordination which constantly fretted him. A cause of difference
was soon found ; difference led to irritation, irritation to open quarrel,
and quarrel ended in a dissolution of the Cabinet five months after

58 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Mr. Tyler's accession to the Executive chair. The dispute was then
transferred to his party, and grew more angry day by day until
Tyler was driven for political shelter and support to the Democratic
party, which had opposed his election.
Mr. Fillmore had not been on good terms with General Taylor's
Administration, and when he succeeded to the Presidency he made
haste to part with the illustrious Cabinet he found in power. He
accepted their resignations at once, and selected heads of depart
ments personally agreeable to himself and in political harmony with
his views. He did not desert his party, but he passed over from
the anti-slavery to the pro-slavery wing, defeated the policy of his
predecessor, secured the enactment of the Fugitive-slave Law, and
neutralized all efforts to prohibit the introduction of slavery in the
Territories. In this course Mr. Fillmore had the support of the two
great leaders of the party, Mr. Clay and Mr. Webster, but he dis
regarded the young Whigs who under the lead of Mr. Seward were
proclaiming a new political dispensation in harmony with the ad
vancing public opinion of the world. Mr. Fillmore did not leave
his party, but he failed to retain the respect and confidence of the
great mass of Northern Whigs ; and his administration came to an
end in coldness and gloom for himself, and with the defeat, and
practically the destruction, of the party which had chosen him to his
high place four years before. His faithlessness to General Scott gave
to the Democratic candidate an almost unparalleled victory. Scott
encountered defeat. Fillmore barely escaped dishonor.
With the ill-fortune of these predecessors fresh in his memory,
Mr. Johnson evidently set out with the full intention not merely of
retaining the Cabinet of his predecessor, not merely of co-operating
with the party which elected him, but of espousing the principles
of its radical, progressive, energetic section. A Southern man, he
undoubtedly aspired to lead and control Northern opinion — that
opinion which had displayed the moral courage necessary to the
prolonged anti-slavery struggle in Congress, and had exhibited the
physical courage to accept the gauge of battle and prosecute a gigan
tic war in support of deep-rooted convictions. The speeches of the
President had defined his position, and the Nation awaited the series
of measures with which he would inaugurate his policy. Public in
terest in the subject would indeed have caused greater impatience if
public attention had not in every Northern State been intently occu
pied in welcoming to their homes the troops, who in thinned ranks

A A

MEMBERS OF THE CABINET IN 1865. 59
and with tattered standards were about to close their military career
and resume the duties of peaceful citizens.
The personal character and political bias of the members of the
Cabinet, and especially their opinions respecting the policy which
the President had indicated, became therefore a matter of controlling
importance. The Cabinet had undergone many changes since its
original organization in March, 1861. The substitution of Mr.
Stanton for Mr. Cameron and of Mr. Fessenden for Mr. Chase has
already been noticed ; but on the day of Mr. Lincoln's second in
auguration Mr. Fessenden returned to the Senate, resuming the seat
which he had left the July previous, and which had in the interim
been filled by Nathan A. Farwell, an experienced ship-builder and
ship-master of Maine, who possessed an extraordinarily accurate
knowledge of the commercial history of the country. Mr. Farwell
is still living, vigorous in health and in intellect.
When Mr. Fessenden left the Treasury, he was succeeded by
Hugh McCulloch, whose valuable service as Comptroller of the Cur
rency had secured for him the promotion with which Mr. Lincoln
now honored him. Mr. McCulloch was a native of Maine, who had
gone to the West in his early manhood, and had earned a strong
position as a business man in his Indiana home. He was a descend
ant of that small but prolific colony of Scotch and Scotch-Irish who
had settled in northern New England, and whose blood has en
riched all who have had the good fortune to inherit it. Mr. McCul
loch was a devoted Whig, and was so loyal to the Union that during
the war he could do nothing else than give his influence to the
Republican party. But he was hostile to the creed of the Aboli
tionist, was conservative in all his modes of thought, and wished the
Union restored quite regardless of the fate of the negro. He believed
that unwise discussion of the slavery question had brought our trou
bles upon us, and that it would be inexcusable to continue an agita
tion which portended trouble in another form. The policy which he
desired to see adopted was that which should restore the Rebel States
to their old relations with the Union upon the freest possible condi
tions and within the shortest possible time.
Mr. Stanton, though originally a pro-slavery Democrat, had by
the progress of the war been converted to the creed of the most
radical wing of the Republican party. The aggressive movement,
the denunciatory declarations made by Mr. Johnson against the
"rebels "and "traitors "of the South, immediately after his acces-

60 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
sion to the Presidency, were heartily re-echoed by Mr. Stanton, who
looked forward with entire satisfaction to the vigorous policy so
vigorously proclaimed. Mr. Stanton's tendency in this direction had
been strengthened by the intolerance and hatred of his old Demo
cratic friends, — of whom Judge Black was a type, — who lost no
opportunity to denounce him as a renegade to his party, as one
who had been induced by place to forswear his old creed of State-
rights. Such hostility should, however, be accounted a crown of
honor to Mr. Stanton. He certainly came to the public service
with patriotic and not with sordid motives, surrendering a most bril
liant position at the bar, and with it the emolument of which in the
absence of accumulated wealth his family was in daily need.
Mr. Stanton's observation and wide experience through the years
of the war had taught him to distrust the Southern leaders. Now
that they had been subdued by force, yielding at the point of the
bayonet when they could no longer resist, he did not believe that
they should be regarded as returning prodigals to be embraced and
wept over, for whom fatted calves should be killed, and who should
be welcomed at once to the best in their father's house. He thought
rather that works meet for repentance should be shown by these
offenders against the law both of God and man, that they should
be held to account in some form for the peril with which they had
menaced the Nation, and for the agony they had inflicted upon her
loyal sons. Mr. Stanton was therefore, by every impulse of his heart
and by every conviction of his mind, favorable to the policy which
the President had indicated, if not indeed assured, to the people.
Gideon Welles of Connecticut, Secretary of the Navy, was a
member of the original Cabinet of Mr. Lincoln. He belonged by
habit of thought and former affiliation to the Democratic party : he
had united with the Republicans solely upon the slavery issue. With
the destruction of slavery his sympathies with the party were les
sened. The industrial policy which the Republicans had adopted
during the war was distasteful to Mr. Welles in time of peace. He
had been a bureau-officer in the Navy Department during Mr. Polk's
administration, and believed in the wisdom of the tariff of 1846, to
which he gave the support of his pen. He possessed a strong intel
lect, but manifested little warmth of feeling or personal attachment
for any one. He was a man of high character, but full of prejudices
and a good hater. He wrote well, but was disposed to dip his pen in
gall. He was careful as to matters of fact, fortified his memory by an

PERSONAL SKETCH OF CABINET. 61
accurate diary, and had an innate love of controversy. With slavery
abolished, the tendency of his mind was towards a lenient policy in
Southern matters and for the promptest mode of reconstruction.
James Harlan of Iowa was Secretary of the Interior. Caleb B.
Smith, who was a member of Mr. Lincoln's original Cabinet, had
resigned in order to accept a Federal judgeship in Indiana, and his
able assistant-secretary, John P. Usher, had been promoted to the
head of the department, fulfilling his trust to Mr. Lincoln's satisfac
tion. He in turn resigned, and was succeeded by Mr. Harlan who
was nominated by Mr. Lincoln, and unanimously confirmed by the
Senate on the 9th of March — the confirmation to take effect on
the 15th of May. It was an exceptional form of appointment ; but
when the date was reached, President Johnson insisted that the
new Secretary should assume the duties of the office. Mr. Harlan
was a well-educated man with strong natural parts. He had shown
admirable capacity for public affairs in various positions in Iowa,
and had served that State efficiently in the Senate of the United
States, which he entered March 4, 1855, at thirty-five years of age.
He was a pronounced and unflinching Republican, ready from per
sonal attachment to Mr. Lincoln to follow him in any public policy,
and while somewhat distrustful of Johnson was undoubtedly gratified
and re-assured by the tone of his speeches. Mr. Harlan was not hasty
in judgment but thoughtful and reflective, and aimed always to be
just in his conclusions.
William Dennison of Ohio was Postmaster-General. He had
succeeded Montgomery Blair during the Presidential campaign of
1864, when that officer's resignation was asked by the President as a
means of appeasing the unreasonable and unreasoning body of men
who had attempted to divide the Republican party at the height of
the war by the nomination of General Fre'mont as a candidate for
the Presidency. Mr. Dennison was an amiable man of high princi
ples and just intentions, but he was not endowed with executive
force or the qualities of a leader. He had secured the warm friend
ship of Mr. Lincoln during his service as war governor of Ohio.
His selection as president of the convention that nominated Mr.
Lincoln a second time was due to the zeal and the warmth with
which he had supported the National Administration. His sympa
thies and associations were all with the strong Republican element
of the country, and he was sure to be firm and exacting in hia
views of a reconstruction policy.

62 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
James Speed was Attorney-General. He had succeeded Edward
Bates in December, 1864, and was selected for reasons which were
partly personal, partly public. He was a Kentuckian and a Clay
Whig, two points in his history which strongly attracted the favor
of Mr. Lincoln. But more than all, he was the brother of Joshua
Speed, with whom in young manhood, if not indeed in boyhood,
Mr. Lincoln had been closely associated in Illinois. Of most kindly
and generous nature, Mr. Lincoln was slow to acquire intimacies,
and had few close friendships. But those who knew him well cannot
fail to remember the kindling eye, the warmth of expression, the
depth of personal interest and attachment with which he always
spoke of " Josh Speed," and the almost boyish fervor with which he
related incidents and anecdotes of their early association. James
Speed, to whom Mr. Lincoln had been thus drawn, was a highly
respectable lawyer, and was altogether a fit man to succeed Mr.
Bates as the Border-State member of the Cabinet. As a Southern
man, he was expected to favor a lenient policy towards his offending
brethren, and was supposed to look coldly upon much that was im
plied in the President's declarations.
Of the six Cabinet ministers thus enumerated, it will be seen
that three — Mr. McCulloch, Mr. Welles, and Mr. Speed — might be
regarded as favoring a conservative plan of reconstruction, and three
— Mr. Stanton, Mr. Harlan, and Mr. Dennison — a radical plan.
These positions were thus assigned from circumstantial evidence
rather than from direct declarations of the gentlemen themselves.
At a time so critical, responsible officials were naturally reserved and
cautious in the expression of opinions. But it was instinctively per
ceived by close observers of public events, that in correctly estimat
ing the influence of the Cabinet upon the policy of President Johnson,
great consideration must be given to the attitude which Mr. Seward
might assume. If his strength should go with Mr. Stanton and the
radical wing of the Cabinet, the President would be readily and
completely confirmed in the line of policy frequently forecast in his
speeches. If on the other hand, Mr. Seward should follow the gen
erally anticipated course, and take ground against the harsh and
vengeful spirit indicated by the President, a struggle would ensue,
of which the issue would be doubtful.
During the period in which Mr. Johnson had been copiously illus
trating the guilt of treason, and avowing his intention to punish
traitors with the severest penalty known to the law, Mr. Seward

MR. SEWARD RECOVERS FROM HIS WOUNDS. 63
lay wounded and helpless. His injuries, received at the hands of
the assassin, Payne, at almost the same moment in which Booth
fired his fatal shot at the President, were at first considered mortal.
The murderous assault came only a short time after a severe injury
Mr. Seward had received in consequence of being violently thrown
from his carriage. The shock to his nervous system from the attack
of the assassin was so great that his physicians did not for some
days permit him to learn the fate of the President, or even to know
that his own son, Mr. Frederick Seward, who had been his faithful
and able assistant in the State Department, was also one of the vic
tims of the plot of assassination, and was lying, as it was feared, and
indeed generally believed, at the point of death.
To the joy no less than to the surprise of the entire country Mr.
Seward rallied and regained his strength very rapidly. He was
wounded on the night of the 14th of April. By the first of May
he had so far recovered as to be informed somewhat minutely of the
sorrowful situation. By the tenth of the month he received visits
from the President and his fellow-members of the Cabinet, and con
ferred with them on the engrossing questions that pressed upon the
Administration. On the 20th he repaired to the Department of State
— which then occupied the present site of the north front of the
Treasury building — and held conference with foreign ministers,
especially with the minister of France, touching the complication in
Mexico. From that time onward, though still weak, and bowed
down with grief by the death of Mr. Lincoln and the possibly
impending death of one still nearer to him, Mr. Seward gave close
attention to public affairs. The need of action and of energy so
pressed upon him that he found no time to utter lamentation, none
to indulge even in the most sacred personal grief. The heroic ele
ment of the man was displayed at its best. His moral strength, his
mental fibre, his wiry constitution were all tested to their utmost,
and no doubt to the serious shortening of his days.
Mr. Seward feared that the country was in danger of suffering
very seriously from a possible, if not indeed probable, mistake of
the Administration. In the creed of his own statesmanship, there
was no article that comprehended revenge as a just motive for action.
No man had suffered more of personal obloquy from the South than
he, no one living had received deeper personal injury from the
demoniac spirit, the wicked inspiration of the rebellion. But he did
not for one moment permit those causes which would have power-

64 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
fully influenced lower natures to control his action, or even to extort
a single word of passionate resentment.
It had been Mr. Seward's fortune at different epochs in the coun
try's history and in different phases of his own career to incur the
harshest censure from political associates. He had been accused at
one time of urging the anti-slavery cause so far as to endanger the
Union; and, when the Union was endangered, he was accused of
being willing to sacrifice the anti-slavery cause to save it. " The
American people," said he in February, 1861, " have in our day two
great interests, — one the ascendency of freedom, the other the
integrity of the Union. The slavery interest has derived its whole
political power from bringing the latter object into antagonism with
the former. Twelve years ago Freedom was in danger, and the
Union was not. . . . To-day practically Freedom is not in danger,
and the Union is. With the loss of the Union, all would be lost."
Mr. Seward, influenced by this belief, went farther in the direction of
conciliation for the avoidance of war than his associates were willing
to follow. His words gave offense to some who had long been his
most earnest supporters, — a fact thus pointedly recognized by him:
" I speak now singly for Union, striving if possible to save it peace
ably ; if not possible, then to cast the responsibility upon the party
of slavery. For this singleness of speech, I am suspected of infidelity
to freedom." But Mr. Seward held his course firmly, and waited for
vindication as men of rectitude and true greatness can afford to wait.
" I refer myself not to the men of my time, but to the judgment of
history." A similar dedication of himself to the judgment of history was
in Mr. Seward's opinion again demanded of him. He was firmly
persuaded that the wisest plan of reconstruction was the one which
would be speediest ; that for the sake of impressing the world with
the strength and the marvelous power of self-government, with its
Law, its Order, its Peace, we should at the earliest possible moment
have every State restored to its normal relations with the Union.
He did not believe that guarantee of any kind beyond an oath of
renewed loyalty was needful. He was willing to place implicit faith
in the coercive power of self-interest operating upon the men lately
in rebellion. He agreed neither with the President's proclaimed
policy of blood, nor with that held by the vast majority of his own
political associates, which, avoiding the rigor of personal punish
ment, sought by exclusion from political honor and emolument to

IGE« PRFSI DENTS I 8 M I ¦- I 8 b I

MR. SEWARD'S VIEWS ON RECONSTRUCTION. 65
administer wholesome discipline to the men who had brought peril
to the Government and suffering to the people.
Mr. Seward was undoubtedly influenced in no small degree in
these conclusions by the habit of mind he had acquired in conduct
ing the foreign affairs of the Government during the period of the
war. He had keenly felt the reproach, the taunt, and the open or
ill-disguised satisfaction reflected by a large number of the public
men of Europe that we were no longer and could never again be
"the United States of America." He felt that the experiment of
Imperial Government in Mexico, then in progress under Maximilian,
was a disturbing element, and tended by possible conflicts on this
continent to embroil us with at least two great European powers.
The defense against that unwelcome alternative, and the defense
against its evil result, if it should come, would in his judgment be
found in a completely restored Union — with the National Govern
ment supreme, and all its parts working in harmony and in strength.
He believed moreover that the legislation which should affect the
South, now that peace had returned, should be shared by representa
tives of that section, and that as such participation must at last come
if we were to have a restored Republic, the wisest policy was to
concede it at once, and not nurture by delay a new form of discon
tent, and induce by withholding confidence a new phase of distrust
and disobedience among the Southern people.
Entertaining these views, and deeply impressed with the impor
tance of incorporating them in the plan of reconstruction, Mr.
Seward rose from his sick-bed, pale, emaciated, and sorrowful, to
persuade his associates in the Government, of the wisdom and neces
sity of adopting them. He had undoubtedly a hard task with the
President. The two men were naturally antagonistic on so many
points that agreement and cordiality seemed impossible upon a
question in regard to which they held views diametrically opposite.
Mr. Johnson inherited all his political principles from the Democratic
party. He had been filled with an intense hatred of the Whigs and
with an almost superstitious dread of the Federalists. Mr. Seward
and he were therefore political antipodes. The one was the eulogist
and follower of John Quincy Adams, the other was a sincere be
liever in the creed and the measures of Andrew Jackson. As
Adams and Jackson had agreed only in devotion to the Union, so
now Seward and Johnson seemed to have no other principle of Gov
ernment in common, and that principle was equally strong in each.
Vol. II. 5

66 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Not only was this obstacle of inherent difference of political view
in Mr. Seward's way, but he also encountered an intense personal
prejudice which even while he was disabled by wounds had been
insinuated into the President's mind. Nor had Mr. Seward any force
of popularity at the time with the Republican party of the country.
It had fallen to his lot during the four eventful years of the war to
assume unpleasant responsibilities and to perform ungracious acts.
He was not at the head of a department where popular applause
awaited his ablest work, or where popular attention was attracted
by the most brilliant triumphs of his diplomatic correspondence.
The successful placing of a vast loan among the people redounded
everywhere to the praise of Mr. Chase. The gaining of a victory
in the field reflected credit upon Mr. Stanton. But a series of diplo
matic papers far outreaching in scope and grasp those of any states
man or publicist with whom he was in correspondence, recalling in
.skill the best efforts of Talleyrand, and in spirit the loftiest ideals
K)f Jefferson, did not advance the popularity of Mr. Seward because
ithe field of his achievements and triumphs was not one in which the
masses of the people took an active interest. The most difficult and
in many cases the most successful of diplomatic work is necessarily
.confidential for long periods. In legislative halls, discussion on ques
tions of interest enlists public attention and holds the popular mind
in suspense before the fate of the measure is decided. But the
dispatches and arguments of a minister of Foreign Affairs, which
may lead to results of great consequence to his country, ^.re not
gazetted till long after they have borne their fruit ; and the public,
rejoicing in the conclusion, seldom turns to examine the toilsome
process by which it was attained. It was from the comparative
isolation of the Department of State, four years removed from
active contact with the people, that Mr. Seward now assumed the
task of controlling the new President and directing his policy on
the weightiest i question of his Administration.
Those who thoroughly knew Mr. Seward through all the stages
of his political career were aware that, great as he was in public
speech, in the Senate, at the Bar, before popular assemblies, cogent
and powerful as he had so often proved with his pen, his one peculiar
gift, greater perhaps than any other with which he was endowed, was
his faculty, in personal intercourse with one man or with a small
number of men, of enforcing his own views and taking captive his
hearers. With the President alone, or with a body no larger than a

.j j

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MR. SEWARD. 67
Cabinet, where the conferences and discussions are informal and
conversational, Mr. Seward shone with remarkable brilliancy and with
power unsurpassed. He possessed a characteristic rare among men
who have been long accustomed to lead, — he was a good listener.
He gave deferential attention to remarks addressed to him, paid the
graceful and insinuating compliment of seeming much impressed,
and offered the delicate flattery, when he came to reply, of repeating
the argument of his opponent in phrase far more affluent and eloquent
than that in which it was originally stated.
In his final summing up of the case, when those with whom he
was conferring were, in Dr. Johnson's phrase, "talked out," Mr.
Seward carried all before him. His logic was clear and true, his
illustration both copious and felicitous, his rapid citation of histori
cal precedents surprising even to those who thought they had them
selves exhausted the subject. His temper was too amiable and
serene for stinging wit or biting sarcasm, but he had a playful humor
which kept the minds of his hearers in that receptive and compliant
state which disposed them the more readily to give full and generous
consideration to all the strong parts of his argument. It might well
indeed be said of Mr. Seward as Mr. Webster said of Samuel Dexter,
"The earnestness of his convictions wrought conviction in others.
One was convinced and believed and assented because it was gratify
ing and delightful to think and feel and believe in unison with an
intellect of such evident superiority."
Equipped with these rare endowments, it is not strange that Mr.
Seward made a deep impression upon the mind of the President. In
conflicts of opinion the superior mind, the subtle address, the fixed
purpose, the gentle yet strong will, must in the end prevail. Mr.
Seward gave to the President the most luminous exposition of his
own views, warm, generous, patriotic in tone. He set before him the
glory of an Administration which should completely re-establish the
union of the States, and re-unite the hearts of the people, now es
tranged by civil conflict. He impressed him with the danger of delay
to the Republic and with the discredit which would attach to himself
if he should leave to another President the grateful task of reconcil
iation. He pictured to him the National Constellation no longer
obscured but with every star in its orbit, all revolving in harmony,
and once more shining with a brilliancy undimmed by the smallest
cloud in the political heavens.
By his arguments and by his eloquence Mr. Seward completely

68 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
captivated the President. He effectually persuaded him that a
policy of anger and hate and vengeance could lead only to evil re
sults ; that the one supreme demand of the country was confidence
and repose ; that the ends of justice could be reached by methods
and measures altogether consistent with mercy. The President was
gradually influenced by Mr. Seward's arguments, though their whole
tenor was against his strongest predilections and against his pro
nounced and public committals to a policy directly the reverse of
that to which he was now, almost imperceptibly to himself, yielding
assent. The man who had in April avowed himself in favor of
"the halter for intelligent, influential traitors," who passionately
declared during the interval between the fall of Richmond and the
death of Mr. Lincoln that "traitors should be arrested, tried, con
victed, and hanged," was now about to proclaim a policy of recon
struction without attempting the indictment of even one traitor, or
issuing a warrant for the arrest of a single participant in the Rebel
lion aside from those suspected of personal crime in connection with
the noted conspiracy of assassination.
In this serious struggle with the President, Mr. Seward's influ
ence was supplemented and enhanced by the timely and artful in
terposition of clever men from the South. A large class in that
section quickly perceived the amelioration of the President's feelings,
and they used every judicious effort to forward and develop it. They
were ready to forget all the hard words of Johnson, and to forgive
all his harsh acts, for the great end to be gained to their States
and their people by turning him aside from his proclaimed policy of
punishing a great number of rebels with the utmost severity of the
law. Johnson's wrath was evidently appeased by the complaisance
shown by leading men of the South. He was not especially open to
flattery, but it was noticed that words of commendation from his
native section seemed peculiarly pleasing to him.
The tendency of his mind under such influences was perhaps not
unnatural. It is a common instinct of mankind to covet in an
especial degree the good will of the community among whom the
years of childhood and boyhood are spent. Applause from old friends
and neighbors is the most grateful that ever reaches human ears.
When Washington's renown filled two continents, he was still sensi
tive respecting his popularity among the freeholders of Virginia.
When Bonaparte had kingdoms and empires at his feet, he was jealous
of his fame with the untamed spirits of Corsica, where among the

REASONS INFLUENCING THE PRESIDENT. 69
veterans of Paoli he had received the fiery inspiration of war. The
boundless admiration and gratitude of America never compensated
Lafayette for the failure of his career in France. This instinct had
its full sway over Johnson. It was not in the order of nature that
he should esteem his popularity among Northern men, to whom he
was a stranger, as highly as he would esteem it among the men of
the South, with whom he had been associated during the whole of his
career. In that section he was born. There he had acquired the
fame which brought him national honors, and after his public service
should end he looked forward to a peaceful close of life in the beauti
ful land which had always been his home.
Still another influence wrought powerfully on the President's
mind. He had inherited poverty in a community where during the
slave system riches were especially envied and honored. He had
been reared in the lower walks of life among a people peculiarly
given to arbitrary social distinctions and to aristocratic pretensions
as positive and tenacious as they were often ill-founded and unsub
stantial. From the ranks of the rich and the aristocratic in the
South, Johnson had always been excluded. Even when he was gov
ernor of his State or a senator of the United States, he found him
self socially inferior to many whom he excelled in intellect and char
acter. His sentiments were regarded as hostile to slavery, and to be
hostile to slavery was to fall inevitably under the ban in any part
of the South for the fifty years preceding the war. His political
strength was with the non-slave-holding white population of Ten
nessee which was vastly larger than the slave-holding population,
the proportion indeed being twenty-seven to one. With these a
"good fellow" ranked all the higher for not possessing the graces
or, as they would term them, the " airs " of society.
As Mr. Johnson grew in public favor and increased in reputation,
as his talents were admitted and his power in debate appreciated, he
became eager to compel recognition from those who had successfully
proscribed him. A man who is born to social equality with the best
of his community, and accustomed in his earlier years to its enjoy
ment, does not feel the sting of attempted exclusion, but is rather
made pleasantly conscious of the prestige which inspires the adverse
effort and can look upon its bitterness in a spirit of lofty disdain.
Wendell Phillips, descended from a long line of distinguished ances
try, was amused rather than disconcerted by the strenuous but futile
attempts to ostracize him for the maintenance of opinions which he

70 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
lived to see his native city adopt and enforce. But the feeling is far
different in a man who has experienced only a galling sense of
inferiority. To such a one, advancing either in fortune or in fame,
social prominence seems a necessity, without which other gifts con
stitute only the aggravations of life.
It was therefore with a sense of exaltation that Johnson beheld
as applicants for his consideration and suppliants for his mercy
many of those in the South who had never recognized him as a social
equal. A mind of true loftiness would not have been swayed by
such a change of relative positions, but it was inevitable that a mind
of Johnson's type, which if not ignoble was certainly not noble,
should yield to its flattering and seductive influence. In the present
attitude of the leading men of the South towards him, he saw the
one triumph which sweetened his life, the one requisite which had
been needed to complete his happiness. In securing the good opinion
of his native South, he would attain the goal of his highest ambition,
he would conquer the haughty enemy who during all the years of
his public career had been able to fix upon him the badge of social
inferiority.

On the 29th of May (1865), nineteen days after Mr. Seward's
first interview with President Johnson, and nine days after his first
visit to the State Department, two decisive steps were taken in the
work of reconstruction. Both steps proceeded on the theory that
every act needful for the rehabilitation of the seceded States could
be accomplished by the Executive Department of the Government.
This was known to be the favorite doctrine of Mr. Seward, and the
President readily acquiesced in its correctness. There is nothing
of which a public officer can be so easily persuaded as of the en
larged jurisdiction which pertains to his station. If the officer be
of bold mind, he arrogates power for purposes of ambition; and
even with timid men power is often assumed as a measure of pro
tection and defense. Mr. Johnson was a man of unquestioned
courage, and was never afraid to assume personal and official
responsibility when circumstances justified and demanded it. Mr.
Seward had therefore no difficulty in persuading him that he pos
sessed, as President, every power needful to accomplish the complete
reconstruction of the rebellious States.
The first of these important acts of reconstruction, upon the

CLASSES EXCEPTED FROM AMNESTY. 71
expediency of which the President and Mr. Seward had agreed, was
the issuing of a Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon to " all persons
who have directly or indirectly participated in the existing Rebel
lion " upon the condition that such persons should take and subscribe
an oath — to be registered for permanent preservation — solemnly
declaring that henceforth they would "faithfully support, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States and the union of
the States thereunder;" and that they would also "abide by and
faithfully support all laws and proclamations which have been made
during the existing Rebellion, with reference to the emancipation of
slaves." It was the first official paper which Mr. Seward attested as
Secretary of State under President Johnson. He undoubtedly in
tended to signalize his return to health and his resumption of official
duty by public participation in an act which he regarded as one of
wisdom and mercy — an act which was wise because merciful.
The general declaration of amnesty was somewhat narrowed in
its scope by the enumeration, at the end of the proclamation, of cer
tain classes which were excepted from its benefit. In naming these
classes a keen discrimination had been made as to the character and
degree of guilt on the part of those who had participated in the
Rebellion.
— First, "All diplomatic officers and foreign agents of the Confeder
ate Government" were excluded. Their offense was ranked high
because of their efforts to embroil us with other nations.
— Second, " All who left judicial stations under the United States
to aid the Rebellion." They were held to be specially culpable
because they had been highly honored by their Government, and be
cause they could not, like many, plead in excuse tlie excitement and
antagonisms which spring from an active participation in political
affairs.
— Third, "All military and naval officers of the Confederacy above
the rank of colonel in the army or lieutenant in the navy " The
men who actually bore arms were, of course, the chief offenders;
but holding officers only of high grade accountable, was intended as
an act of marked and significant leniency to the multitude of the
rank and file.
— Fourth, "All who left seats in the Congress of the United States
to join the Rebellion." These should, indeed, have been first named,
for they, above all other men, fomented the Rebellion in its early
stages.

72 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
— Fifth, " All who resigned, or tendered resignations, in the Army
or Navy of the United States to evade duty in resisting the Rebel
lion." These men were even more culpable than those who joined
the Rebellion. They were not openly traitors, but were popularly
and significantly termed " sneaks."
— Sixth, " All who have been engaged in treating otherwise than as
lawful prisoners of war, persons found in the United-States service
as officers, soldiers, or seamen." This was specially directed against
those who had maltreated negro troops and attempted, by personal
cruelty, to frighten them from the National service.
— Seventh, " All persons who have been, or are, absentees from the
United States for the purpose of aiding the Rebellion." The men
who had misled public opinion in England, and who hovered along
the Canadian border during the war, concocting schemes for burning
Northern cities, and for spreading the infection of yellow-fever and
the plague of the small-pox in the loyal States, were specially aimed
at in this exclusion.
— Eighth, " All officers in the rebel service who had been educated
at the United-States Military or Naval Academy." These men had
received the bounty of the Government, shared its confidence, and
were under peculiar obligation to defend it.
— Ninth, "All men who held the pretended offices of governors of
States in insurrection against the United States." As the civil war
had for its basis the dogma of State-rights, the chief executive officers
of States represented in an especial manner the guilt of the Rebellion.
— Tenth, " All persons who left their homes within the jurisdiction
and protection of the United States, and passed beyond the Federal
military lines into the pretended Confederate States for the purpose
of aiding the Rebellion." The personal guilt of these men lay in the
fact that, according to their own theory of State-rights, they were
traitors. They did not adhere to the States which gave them birth,
or to the States of which they were citizens.
— Eleventh, "All persons who have been engaged in the destruc
tion of the commerce of the United States upon the high seas, and
all persons who have been engaged' in destroying the commerce of the
United States upon the lakes and rivers that separate the British
Provinces from the United States." The acts of these men were
specially reprobated because they did not proceed according to the
laws of war. In the popular mind they were held amenable to
the charge of piracy.

CLASSES EXCEPTED FROM AMNESTY. 73
— Twelfth, "All persons who, at the time when they seek to obtain
amnesty and pardon, are in military, naval, or civil confinement, as
prisoners of war, or persons detained for offenses of any kind either
before or after conviction." Many prisoners in the custody of the
Government were charged with acts of peculiar cruelty or perfidy,
especially with the committal of personal outrages which did not, in
any degree, affect the fortunes of the war, and were not therefore
entitled to the excuse of having been the necessities of a bad cause.
— Thirteenth, "All participants in the Rebellion, the estimated
value of whose taxable property is over twenty thousand dollars."
The intention of this exception was to draw the line between the
men who could exert influence in their respective communities, and
those who were necessarily led by others. Fixing this partition be
tween voluntary and involuntary guilt on the property line was a
favorite measure with President Johnson. It met with much oppo
sition from the loyal as well as the disloyal.
A fourteenth class was excepted, not from the benefits of the
proclamation of amnesty, but from the necessity of taking the oath
demanded from the other classes. Full pardon was granted, with
out further act on their part, to all who had taken the oath pre
scribed in President Lincoln's proclamation of December 8, 1863, and
who had thenceforward kept and maintained the same inviolate. The
status of every man in the Confederate States was thus determined
and proclaimed, — a procedure which was intended to be the corner
stone of the work of reconstruction.
Standing naked and unqualified these thirteen exceptions might
seem tb imply a harshness of treatment inconsistent with the spirit
of forgiveness and generosity upon which Mr. Seward had been in
sisting, and to which the President had apparently assented, The
classes excepted were more numerous and far more comprehensive
than those excluded from amnesty under the proclamation issued by
Mr. Lincoln on the 8th of December, 1863. That proclamation not
only embodied the views of Mr. Lincoln, but was approved by Mr.
Seward in whole and in detail. The difference between the two
proclamations was not, however, radical, and was readily reconcilable
with Mr. Seward's purpose. He had indeed equalized their attri
butes of mercy by inducing President Johnson to insert a proviso
declaring that " special application may be made to the President for
pardon by any person belonging to the excepted classes," and the
assurance was added that "such clemency will be liberally extended

74 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
as may be consistent with the facts of the case and with the peace
and dignity of the United States." This proviso was, in effect, an
invitation to the excepted classes to apply for pardon, with an inti
mation that the case of any individual must indeed be one of aggra
vated guilt to involve serious danger of the withholding of Executive
favor. Mr. Lincoln had held out no hope of amnesty to the excluded
classes in his proclamation, though doubtless he intended, as he after
wards expressed it himself, to " let them up in due season."
Mr. Seward had favored the large list of exceptions for another
cause which he thought, might work good results. The ruling classes
of the old slave aristocracy were all included in the exceptions, and
it was Mr. Seward's belief that they would more highly appreciate
the benefit of amnesty by receiving it as an individual gift for which
they were compelled to ask. Nor did the acute Secretary of State
fail to see that the personal importance and prestige of the excluded
classes were by the very fact of exclusion advanced in the South. In
an unsuccessful revolt the man who has dealt the heaviest blows is
the one upon whose head a price is set by the conquering power. By
excluding these Southern leaders, their sense of self-importance was
enhanced, their influence among their people was increased. Subse
quently, by granting special pardon and amnesty to individuals of
these excluded classes, as was intended from the first, Mr. Seward felt
that he would be bringing each one to whom Executive clemency was
extended under a sense of personal obligation to the President, and
would thereby be increasing the influence of the Administration in
directing the process and progress of reconstruction in the South.
Every exclusion except the thirteenth had therefore received the
ready concurrence and approbation of Mr. Seward. He resisted the
thirteenth as far as he could, but finally yielded to the President,
who had from the first seemed bent on punishing the men of prop
erty in the Confederate States. Mr. Seward could not approve an
arbitrary declaration that a man who had inherited, or by thrift had
acquired, twenty thousand dollars should for that assigned reason be
put under the ban. In Mr. Johnson's mind, however, the belief was
firmly rooted and grounded that the Rebellion was the work of the
slave-lfblders ; and as the slave-holders were in large proportion the
men of wealth in the South, he was sure he would catch in his
twenty-thousand-dollar drag-net some great offenders not included in
other classes. But as a matter of fact it is not true that the men of
property in the South were in any special degree responsible for the

THE "TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLAR" EXCLUSION. 75
origin of "he civil war. The large slave-holders as a class, uninflu
enced by those who used the institution of slavery as a political
weapon, would not have taken' measures to break up the Union
because of Mr. Lincoln's election. Mr. Johnson, therefore, was
merely striking at the class whom he personally hated when he
arraigned the men of property and excluded them all from the
benefit of amnesty.
The final though reluctant assent of Mr. Seward to the exclu
sion of the property-owners as a class, rested in his confidence that
special pardons would cure the evil and repair the injustice which
the singular and vindictive action of Mr. Johnson might entail.
He believed, moreover, that after all the destruction resulting from
the civil war and all the loss to slave-holders from the decree of
emancipation, the men in the South who possessed taxable property
to the net amount of twenty thousand dollars did not constitute a
large number. The South, at the beginning of the war, had 'no
manufactories ; and all its stores of merchandise — the cotton, the
rice, the sugar, the tobacco, the hemp, the tar, the turpentine — had
been exhausted, either by home consumption or by shipments as
return cargoes on blockade runners, in payment of debts contracted
for material of war. The property of the South, therefore, was simply
its real estate, and that, in the overthrow of the labor system by the
enfranchisement of the slave, could not be sold for more than twenty
per cent of the sum it would have brought at public auction at any
time during the ten years preceding the war. Mr. Seward must,
therefore, have been correct in his estimate that there were very few
men in the late Confederacy whose property, by any fair valuation,
could be assessed for taxation at twenty thousand dollars.
The judgment of Mr. Seward as to the promptness with which
Southern men would seek special pardon and amnesty was abundantly
vindicated. The promise of Executive clemency, which he induced
President Johnson to insert in his proclamation, exerted a speedy and
strong influence upon the excepted classes. Those who but a short
time before had been vowing unending hostility to the Union, found
themselves confronted with the prospect of a State Government or
ganized, not by aliens and enemies whom they could thwart and
resist, but by their own brethren of the South who had been washed
clean of the sin of rebellion by the simple taking of an oath of future
loyalty and fidelity to the Union. The excluded classes could not
endure to contemplate this result, and hence they were drawn to ask

7G TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
for amnesty and pardon. Applications came in great numbers from
the South. In the archives of the State Department there are some
twenty-four large volumes recording the pardons granted in less
than nine months after the proclamation. The aggregate number
is nearly fourteen thousand, and the list includes prominent men of
all classes in the South, who, recognizing the fact that the Rebellion
had failed, turned, as the only alternative, to the Government which
had conquered and was now ready to extend a magnanimous forgive
ness. Many of these sought to place themselves in harmony with
the restored Union, and looked forward hopefully to the events of
the future. Many others, as it must be regretfully but truthfully
recorded, appeared to have no proper appreciation of the leniency
extended to them. They accepted every favor with an ill grace, and
showed rancorous hatred to the National Government even when
they knew it only as a benefactor.

Having by the proclamation extended amnesty on the simple con
dition of an oath of loyalty to the Union and the Constitution, and
obedience to the Decree of Emancipation, the President had estab
lished a definite and easily ascertainable constituency of white men
in the South to whom the work of reconstructing civil government in
the several States might be intrusted. A circular from Mr. Seward
accompanied the proclamation, directing that the oath might "be
taken and subscribed before any commissioned officer, civil, military,
or naval, in the service of the United States, or before any civil or
military officer of a loyal State or Territory, who, by the laws there
of, may be qualified to administer oaths." Every one who took the
oath was entitled to a certified copy of it, as the proof of his resto
ration to all civil rights, and a duplicate, properly vouched, was
forwarded to the State Department, to be " deposited and remain
in the archives of the Government." Mr. Seward had thus adopted
the simplest, most convenient, and least expensive process for the
administration of the oath of loyalty. Indeed the certifying officer
was almost brought to the door of every Southern household. The
mercy and grace of the Government fell upon the great mass of
those who had been engaged in rebellion as gently and as plen-
teously as the rain from heaven upon the place beneath the feet of
the offenders.

APPOINTMENT OF PROVISIONAL GOVERNORS. 77
With these details complete, a second step of great moment was
taken by the Government on the same day (May 29). A proclama
tion was issued appointing William W. Holden provisional governor
of the State of North Carolina, and intrusting to him, with the co
operation of the constituency provided for in the first proclamation,
the important work of reconstructing civil government in the State.
The proclamation made it the duty of Governor Holden "at the
earliest practicable period, to prescribe such rules and regulations
as may be necessary and proper for assembling a convention — com
posed of delegates who are loyal to the United States and no others
— for the purpose of altering or amending the Constitution thereof,
and with authority to exercise, within the limit of said State, all the
powers necessary and proper to enable the loyal people of the State
of North Carolina to restore said State to its constitutional relations
to the Federal Government and to present such a Republican form
of State Government as will entitle the State to the guaranty of the
United States therefor and its people against invasion, insurrections,
and domestic violence."
It was specially provided in the proclamation that in "choosing
delegates to any State Convention no person shall be qualified as an
elector or eligible as a member unless he shall have previously taken
the prescribed oath of allegiance, and unless he shall also possess the
qualifications of a voter as defined under the Constitution and Laws
of North Carolina as they existed on the 20th of May, 1861, imme
diately prior to the so-called ordinance of secession." Mr. Lincoln
had in mind, as was shown by his letter to Governor Hahn of Louisi
ana, to try the experiment of negro suffrage, beginning with those
who had served in the Union Army, and who could read and write ;
but President Johnson's plan confined the suffrage to white men, by
prescribing the same qualifications as were required in North Caro
lina before the war. The convention that might be chosen by the
voters whose qualifications were thus preliminarily defined, or the
Legislature which the convention might order to meet, were empow
ered to prescribe the permanent qualifications of voters and the eligi
bility of persons to hold office under the Constitution and Laws of
the State — "a power," as the President was careful to declare,
"which the people of the several States composing the Federal Union
have rightfully exercised from the origin of the Government to the
present time."
The military commander of the Department of North Carolina

78 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
and all officers and persons in the military and naval service of the
United States were directed to aid and assist in carrying the proc
lamation into effect, and they were specially ordered to "abstain
from hindering, impeding, or discouraging the loyal people in any
manner whatever from the organization of a State Government as
herein authorized." The several heads of the Executive Depart
ments were directed to re-establish the entire machinery of the
National Government within the limits of North Carolina. The Sec
retary of the Treasury was directed to nominate for appointment, col
lectors of customs, assessors and collectors of internal revenue, and
such other officers, of the Treasury Department as were authorized
by law. The Postmaster-General was directed to re-establish the post-
offices and postmasters. The United-States district judge was directed
to hold courts in North Carolina, and the Attorney-General was or
dered to " enforce the administration of justice within said State in all
matters within the cognizance and jurisdiction of the Federal courts."
In short, every power of the National Government in North Carolina
was re-asserted, every function re-established, every duty re-assumed.
In making appointments for office, it was ordered in the proclama
tion that " preference shall be given to qualified loyal persons resid
ing within the districts where their respective duties are to be per
formed. But if suitable residents of the districts shall not be found,
then persons residing in other States or districts shall be appointed."
A fortnight later, on the 13th of June, a proclamation was issued
for the reconstruction of the civil government of Mississippi, and
William L. Sharkey was appointed provisional governor. Four days
later, on the 17th of June, a similar proclamation was issued for
Georgia with James Johnson for provisional governor, and for Texas
with Andrew J. Hamilton for provisional governor. On the 21st of
the same month Lewis E. Parsons was appointed provisional governor
of Alabama, and on the 30th Benjamin F. Perry was appointed pro
visional governor of South Carolina. On the 13th of July the list
was completed by the appointment of William Marvin as provisional
governor of Florida. The precise text of the North-Carolina procla
mation, mutatis mutandis, was repeated in each one of those relating
to these six States. The process was designed to be exhaustive by
fully restoring every connection existing under the Constitution be
tween the States and the National Government. Viewed merely as
a theory it was perfect. The danger was that in the test of actual
practice it might end like so many similar experiments in other

RECONSTRUCTION IN FOUR STATES. 79
countries. An opponent wittily characterized it as Government by
diagram, accurately drawn on an Executive blackboard.
For the reconstruction of the other four States of the Confederacy
different provisions were made. In Virginia Francis H. Pierpont had
been made governor after the State had seceded and the State of
West Virginia had been established. He was the head of the Loyal
Government of Virginia, which gave its assent to the division of the
State. His Government, the shell of which had been preserved after
West Virginia's separate existence had been recognized by the
National Government, with its temporary capital at Alexandria,
was accepted by President Johnson's Administration as the legiti
mate Government of Virginia. All its archives, property, and effects,
as was afterwards said by Thaddeus Stevens, were taken to Richmond
in an ambulance. As early as the 9th of May President Johnson
had issued a proclamation recognizing Mr. Pierpont as governor of
the State, and assuring him that he would be " aided by the Federal
Government, so far as may be necessary, in the lawful measures he
may take for the extension and administration of the State Govern
ment throughout the geographical limits of said State." The same
proclamation declared that " All acts and proceedings of the politi
cal, military, and civil organizations which have been in a state of
insurrection and rebellion within the State of Virginia against the
laws and authority of the United States are declared null and void."
The proclamation further declared that any person assuming to
exercise any authority in Virginia by virtue of a military or civil
commission issued by Jefferson Davis, President of the so-called
Confederate States, or by John Letcher, or William Smith, Gov
ernors of Virginia, " shall be deemed and taken as in rebellion against
the United States, and dealt with accordingly."
A course not dissimilar to that adopted in Virginia was fol
lowed in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee. In all of them the
so-called "ten per cent" governments established under Mr. Lincoln's
authority were now recognized. Governor Hahn was held to be the
true executive of Louisiana, — a concession all the more readily
made, because, under the revised constitution of the State, the
people would be called upon in the approaching autumn to choose
his successor. In Arkansas also, the Government, with Isaac
Murphy at its head, was now recognized; and in Tennessee the
authority of William G. Brownlow as governor was promptly
accepted as constitutional and regular. This Government, as already

80 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
narrated, had been brought into existence by the earnest effort of
Mr. Johnson in the period which had elapsed between his election
and inauguration as Vice-President. The direct committal of the
President to the legality of his own work was the controlling cause
which led to the recognition of the Governments of the four States
under consideration. But for the impossibility of disowning or in
any way discrediting the existing Government of Tennessee, it is
probable that the plan by which provisional governments were
established in seven of the rebellious States would have been uni
formly applied to the entire eleven which formed the Confederacy.
The same executives would doubtless have been selected for provis
ional service, but there would have been evident advantage in treat
ing all the States in precisely the same manner.
The scope and design of the President's reconstruction policy
were thus made fully apparent. The work was committed to the
white men of the several States, who, outside of the excepted classes,
were ready to take the oath of allegiance to the Government. They
were empowered to form the Convention which should shape the
organic law of the State, and in that law they were authorized to
establish the basis of suffrage, — a right which the President held
to belong to the State, to be, indeed, inalienable from the State. It
was, therefore, evident that the white men who were allowed to
regain all the rights of citizenship by a mere oath of fidelity would
not, in framing an organic law for the State, exclude the classes
whom the President had excepted from pardon. The excluded
classes had been the leaders, the commanders, the men of position,
the friends and the patrons of those who, only less guilty because
less influential and powerful, were now intrusted with the initial
work in the re-establishment of civil Government in their respective
States. It was not a possible supposition that these men, when they
assembled in convention, would exclude the entire leading class of
the South, or even one member of it, from the full constitutional
privileges and benefits of the civil Government they were about to
re-organize. The suffrage conferred on others would, in like manner,
be conferred on them: the offices of rank and emolument in the
new Government would likewise be open to them, and it would thus
be made evident that the President's exclusion of these classes was
merely an inhibition from doing a preliminary work which others
would do equally well for them. Unless, therefore, some other form

POLITICAL EXCLUSION OF THE COLORED RACE. 81
of denial or exclusion should be announced, — and none other appar
ently was intended, — the President's policy would end in promptly
handing over to the authors and designers of the Rebellion the com
plete control of the States whose civil power they had willfully
perverted and turned against the National authority. Mr. Seward's
magnanimity, his boundless confidence in human nature, had led
him to believe that this was wise policy. He believed it so firmly
that he had persuaded the President — against his own will and
purpose — to adopt it, and to attempt its enforcement.
It soon became evident that President Johnson realized how com
pletely he had excluded men of the colored race. from any share of
1 political power in the Southern States by his process of reconstruc
tion. It is true that he stood loyally by the Thirteenth Amendment
to the Constitution, which had been submitted by Congress before
his accession to the Presidency but had not yet been ratified by the
States. He used his influence, which was commanding, to induce
the Southern States to accept it in good faith. But he saw, as others
had seen before him, that this was not going far enough to satisfy
the reasonable desire of many in the North whom he felt it necessary
to conciliate. To emancipate the negro and concede to him no pos
sible power wherewith to protect his freedom would, in the judg
ment of many Northern philanthropists, prove the merest mockery
of justice. This sentiment wrought on Mr. Johnson so powerfully
that against his own wish he was compelled to address a circular to
his provisional governors, suggesting that the elective franchise should
be extended to all persons of color " who can read the Constitution
of the United States, and write their names, and also to those who
own real estate valued at not less than two hundred and fifty dollars,
and pay taxes thereon."
In writing to Governor Sharkey of Mississippi in relation to this
subject the President argued that his recommendations touching
colored suffrage could be adopted "with perfect safety," and that
thereby "the Southern States would be placed, with reference to
free persons of color, upon the same basis with the free States."
That Mr. Johnson made this recommendation simply from policy
and not from any proper conception of its inherent justice is indicated
by the closing paragraph in his letter to Governor Sharkey. Indeed,
by imprudent language the President made an unnecessary exposure
of the character of his motives, and deprived himself of much of the
credit which might otherwise have belonged to him. " I hope and
Vol. II. 6

82 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
trust," he wrote to his Mississippi governor, " that your convention
will do this, and as a consequence the Radicals, who are wild upon
negro franchise, will be completely foiled in their attempt to keep
the Southern States from renewing their relations to the Union by
not accepting their senators and representatives."
At this period the President did not contemplate a break with
the Republican party, much less a coalition with its opponents. He
had the vanity to believe, or was at least under the delusion of be
lieving that — with the exception of those whom he denominated
Radicals — he could induce the party to follow him. Mr. Seward
had undoubtedly influenced him to this conclusion, as the Secretary
of State indulged the same hopeful anticipation himself. The
President seemed to have no comprehension of the fact that with
inconsiderable exceptions the entire party was composed of Radicals,
men who in aim and sympathy were hostile to the purposes indicated
by his policy. His own radicalism, from which Mr. Seward had suc
ceeded in turning him, was the radicalism of revenge upon the authors
of the Rebellion. The radicalism to which he now contemptuously
indicated his opposition was that which looked to the broadening of
human rights, to philanthropy, to charity, and to good deeds. Every
intelligent Republican saw that the attempt which the President was
now making with his provisional governors to secure a partial fran
chise to the colored man, was really only a petition to the States to
act in a certain manner upon a subject over which, by his own proc
lamation, their power of control was declared to be absolute. With
the prejudices which inspired the South, — prejudices made still more
intense by the victory of the Union, — it was altogether certain that
the Southern Conventions would not extend the elective franchise
or civil right of any kind to the colored men of any class. The
Southern States would undoubtedly agree pro forma to the Thir
teenth Amendment as a means of regaining their representation in
Congress. Beyond that, so long as the National Government con
ceded their right of control, it was probable that every step which
did not conflict with the Constitution and Laws of the United States
would be taken by the Southern States to deprive the negro of all
power or opportunity for advancement. Mr. Seward, by the gener
ous instinct of his own philanthropy, believed all things for the
Union, which had been regenerated by the emancipation of the slave,
and hoped all things for the Southern people, who had been chastened
by defeat. His philanthropy taught him a faith in others as strong

RECONSTRUCTION SCHEME IN OPERATION. 83
as his own consciousness of right ; and, by assuming the full respon
sibility of the President's position, he brought to its support thou
sands of advocates who, but for his personal influence and persuasive
power, would have opposed and spurned it.
The whole scheme of reconstruction, as originated by Mr. Seward
and adopted by the President, was in operation by the middle of
July, three months after the assassination of Mr. Lincoln. Every
step taken was watched with the deepest solicitude by the loyal
people. The rapid and thorough change in the President's position
was clearly discerned and fully appreciated. His course of pro
cedure was dividing the Republican party, and already encouraging
the hopes of those in the North who had been the steady opponents
of Mr. Lincoln's war policy, and of those in the South who had
sought for four years to destroy the Great Republic. It soon be
came evident that the Northern Democrats who had been opposed
to the war, and the Southern Democrats who had been defeated in
the war, would unite in political action, and that the course of the
National Administration would exercise a potential influence upon
their success or their failure. In turn, the course of the National
Administration would certainly be influenced, and its fate in large
degree determined, by the conduct of the Southern men, in whom
the President was placing unbounded trust. Public interest was
therefore transferred for the time from the acts of the President
at the National Capital to the acts of the Reconstruction conventions
about to assemble in the Southern States.

CHAPTER V.
Great Opportunity given to the South. — Their Response to the President's
Treatment. — Northern Desire for Restoration of the Union. — South does
not respond to it. — southern reconstruction conventions. — incomplete
and Ill-digested Proceedings. — Rebels apply for Seats in Congress. —
Iron-clad Oath in their Way. — They denounce it as Unconstitutional. —
Course of Alexander H. Stephens. — Southern Feeling towards the Union.
— Their Conventions exhibit Hatred. — Hostile Manifestations. — Expres
sions of Press and Stump Orators. — Leading Rebels nominated for Office.
South described by Mr. Fessenden's Committee. — South misled by North
ern Democracy in 1865. — Former Calamity from Same Cause in 1861. — What
Congress would demand of the South. — Three Indispensable Require
ments. — Southern Legislatures defiantly resist. — Character of those
Legislatures. — Practical Re-enactment of the Slave-code. — Cruelty of
Alabama Statutes. — Fraudulent in their Nature. — Course of the City of
Mobile. — Statutes of Florida still worse. — Unfair Taxation. — Poll-tax
of Three Dollars. — A Lien upon the Negro's Labor. — Oppression of the
Negro. — Enactments in South Carolina. — Characterized by Rank Injustice.
— Penal Enactments in Mississippi. — Atrocious Provisions. — Laws of Lou
isiana worst of All. — Capitation Tax in the South. — Its Unjust Effect.
— School Laws. — Education practically denied to the Negro. — He is taxed
for the Education of the Whites. — Disproportion of Burdens placed upon
him. — Review of the Black Code. — Some Details of its Pro visions. — In
credibly Cruel. — The South without Excuse for its Enactment. — Their
Determination to vindicate Slavery. —To bring Reproach on the North.
— Influence of these Proceedings on Mr. Seward. — His Mode of Self-
justification. — Severely CENSURED BY HIS OLD SUPPORTERS. — MISLED BY THE
Course of Events. — His Loss of Popularity.
A GREAT opportunity was now given to the South. It was
given especially to the leading men of the South. Only a
few weeks before, they had all been expecting harsh treatment,
many, indeed, anticipated punishment, not a few were dejectedly
looking forward to a life of exile and want. The President's policy,
which had been framed for him by Mr. Seward, changed all this.
Confidence took the place of apprehension, the fear of punishment
was removed, those who conscious of guilt had been dreading expa
triation were bidden by the supreme authority of the Nation to stay
in their own homes, and to assist in building up the waste and deso
late places. 84

THE PROGRESS OF RECONSTRUCTION. 85
Never in the history of the world had so mighty a rebellion been
subdued. Never had any rebellion been followed by treatment so
lenient, forgiving, and generous on the part of the triumphant Gov
ernment. The great mass of those who had resisted the National
authority were restored to all their rights of citizenship by the simple
taking of an oath of future loyalty, and those excepted from imme
diate re-instatement were promised full forgiveness on the slightest
exhibition of repentance and good works. Mr. Seward believed, and
had induced the President to believe, that frank and open generosity
on the part of the Government would be responded to in like spirit
on the part of those who had just emerged from rebellion. The
Administration, therefore, waited with confidence for its justification,
which could be made complete only by the display of a manly appre
ciation and noble course on the part of those who had participated
in the Rebellion.
The desire for a complete restoration of all the States to their
normal position, as pictured so attractively by Mr. Seward, was
general and deep throughout the North. The policy of the Presi
dent was therefore essentially aided by the patriotic and ardent love
for the Union, — a love always present with the loyal people of the
free States, but developed in an extraordinary degree by the costly
struggle which the slaveholders' rebellion had precipitated. If the
Southern States should meet the overture of the Administration
in the spirit in which it was made, the probability was decidedly in
favor of their restoration to their old places without condition, with
out promise, without sacrifice. Observing men in the loyal States
regarded such a policy not only as weak and maudlin, but as utterly
insufficient and assuredly dangerous to the future safety of the
Government. But they realized at the same time that the most
important demands of far-seeing statesmanship and of true patriotism
might be disregarded, and even contemned, by a wild, unreasoning
wish of the people to see the old Government, in all its parts,
promptly and fully re-established. The popular cry which demanded
" the Union as it was, the Constitution as it is," was echoed by many
from emotional love of country, and by many more from a conviction
that the financial interests of the Government and the commercial
interests of the people called for the speediest settlement of all
political questions. The Administration believed, and with good
reason, that the combined influence of sentiment for the Union and
the supposed necessities of trade would overcome all obstacles, and

86 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
that the rebellious States would be so promptly and completely recon
structed that their senators and representatives would be admitted
at the beginning of the next session of Congress.
In forming an estimate of the probable response of the South to
the plan of reconstruction now submitted, the Administration was
certainly justified in believing that its own spirit of liberality and
good will would be met with like spirit by those who, having failed
in war, were specially interested in promptly securing all the con
ditions of a magnanimous peace. It could not anticipate that
quibbles would be made by the defeated and lately suppliant parties,
that captious objections would be interposed, that carping criticism
would be indulged, that gross outrages would be perpetrated, that
absurd conditions would be demanded, and that finally a postpone
ment of the whole procedure would be hazarded, indeed its utter
failure secured, by the lack of tact, by the willfulness, and by the
apparent ignorance of the Southern men who were in control.
The kindness, consideration, gentleness of Mr. Seward's recom
mendations, instead of 'securing a return of like feeling, seemed
rather to inflame the misjudging men of the South with a new sense
of resentment. Instead of calling forth the natural and proper
response, it appeared rather to impress them afresh with that vain
imagination of Northern timidity which had always been the beset
ting weakness of the South. It seemed impossible at the time, it
seems even more plainly impossible on a review of the facts after the
lapse of years, that any body of reasonable men could behave with
the ineffable folly that marked the proceedings of the Reconstruction
Conventions in the South, and the still greater folly that governed
the succeeding Legislatures of the lately rebellious States.
In the President's proclamation accompanying the appointment
of provisional governors he had taken the ground that " the Rebel
lion, in its revolutionary progress, has deprived the people (of the
revolting States) of all civil Government." It is evident, therefore,
that the President — eager and even impatient as he was for the pro
cess of reconstruction to be completed — expected that a new Govern
ment would be built on the full recognition of the new order of
things, casting behind all that pertained to the old, or had the spirit
of the old. " No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old gar
ment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment,
and the rent is made worse." This Scripture was exactly applicable
to the Southern Conventions which assembled for reconstruction.

RECONSTRUCTION CONVENTIONS OF THE SOUTH. 87
They could begin anew with organic laws adapted to the great revo
lution which had swept over them, or they could patch up the old
constitutions now become indissolubly associated with a Rebellion
which had been fostered and protected under their provisions. In
every State the Southern leaders chose the latter form of procedure.
They assumed that the old constitutions were still in full force and
vigor, and they made only such amendments to them as would in
their judgment promptly insure to their States the right of repre
sentation in Congress. They did not even stop to submit these
changes to the popular vote, but assumed for their own assemblage
of oligarchs the full power to modify the organic laws of their
States — an assumption without precedent and without repetition
in the history of State constitutions in this country, and utterly
subversive of the fundamental idea of Republican Government.
With these incomplete and ill-digested changes in the organic
laws of their respective States, the Reconstruction Conventions
usurped legislative power, and hastily proceeded to order the elec
tion of representatives in Congress. The Congressional elections
proved to be little else than partisan assemblages under the dicta
torial direction of rebel authorities — just as the Reconstruction
Conventions were, in their membership and their organization, little
else than consulting bodies of Confederate officers under the rank of
brigadier-general, actually sitting throughout their deliberations in
the uniform of the rebel service, and apparently dictating to the
Government of the Union the grounds on which they would consent
to resume representation in the National Congress. A joint com
mittee of Congress subsequently commented with appropriate direct
ness upon this offensive phase of the Southern Conventions. " Hardly
is the war closed," said the committee, " before the people of the
insurrectionary States come forward and haughtily claim, as a right,
the privilege of participating at once in that Government which they
have for four years been fighting to overthrow. Allowed and en
couraged by the Executive to organize State Governments, they at
once placed in power leading rebels, unrepentant and unpardoned,
excluding with contempt those who had manifested an attachment
to the Union, and preferring in many instances those who had
rendered themselves peculiarly obnoxious. In the face of the law
requiring an oath that would necessarily exclude all such men from
Federal offices, they have elected, with very few exceptions, as sena
tors and representatives in Congress, the very men who have actively

88 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
participated in the Rebellion, insultingly denouncing the law as un
constitutional." The oath referred to in the foregoing extract from the committee's
report is that popularly known as the " Ironclad oath," prescribed
by the Act of July 2, 1862, to be taken by every person elected or
appointed to any office of honor or profit under the Government of
the United States, either in the civil, military, or naval departments
of the public service, the President alone excepted. The officer,
before entering upon his duties or receiving any emolument, was
compelled to swear that he had "never voluntarily borne arms
against the United States;" that he had "voluntarily given no aid,
countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed
hostility to the National Government ; " that he had " neither sought
nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office
whatever under authority or pretended authority in hostility to the
United States ; " that he had " never yielded a voluntary support to
any pretended Government within the United States, hostile or
inimical thereto." Of course the men who had been waging war
against the Government could not take this oath except by com
mitting perjury and risking its pains and penalties. But nothing
daunted by the existence of this obstacle at the threshold of public
service, the most notorious rebels sought election to the Senate and
House, boasting that they would prove the unconstitutionality of the
Ironclad oath, and demand their seats.
Alexander H. Stephens "had the assurance," as the committee
already quoted declared, " with that oath staring him in the face, to
lay his credentials on the table of the Senate as a senator-elect from
Georgia." When Congress adjourned, March 3, 1865, Mr. Stephens
was acting as the Vice-President of the rebel Confederacy. Six weeks
later the Confederacy was destroyed, and with a political agility un
paralleled, with a degree of presumption unprecedented, Mr. Stephens
secured an election to the Senate, and was in Washington at the
ensuing session of Congress, asking admission to a seat as coolly as
if every living man had forgotten that for four years he had been ex
erting his utmost effort to destroy the Constitution under which he
now claimed the full rights of a citizen. In his astounding effrontery
Mr. Stephens even went so far as to insist on interpreting to those
loyal men, who had been conducting the Government of the United
States through all its perils, the Constitution under which they had
been acting, and to point out how they were depriving him of his

RECONSTRUCTION CONVENTIONS OF THE SOUTH. 89
rights by demanding an oath of loyalty and good faith as the condi
tion on which he should be entitled to take part in legislating for the
restored Union. The same committee, worthy at all times to be
cited, declared further, that " Other rebels of scarcely less note and
notoriety than Mr. Stephens were selected from other quarters. Pro
fessing no repentance, glorying apparently in the crime they had
committed, avowing still, as the uncontradicted testimony of Mr.
Stephens and many others proves, an adherence to the pernicious
doctrine of secession, and declaring that they yielded only to neces
sity, they insist with unanimous voice upon their rights as States,
and proclaim that they will submit to no conditions whatever as
preliminary to their resumption of power under that Constitution
which they still claim the right to repudiate."
|Not only were the official acts of the Southern Conventions
inspired by a spirit of apparently irreconcilable hatred of the Union,
but the popular manifestations in the South were far more decided
in the same direction. A sense of official propriety, no doubt, in
some degree governed the conduct and modified the language of
the members of the conventions. It was left to the press and the
stump-orators of the South to give full expression to what they knew
to be the ruling sentiment of the people. The report of the Con
gressional Committee, whose members had closely investigated all the
facts, stated that " the Southern press, with few exceptions, abounds
with weekly and daily abuse of the institutions and people of the
loyal States ; defends the men who led, and the principles which
incited, the Rebellion ; denounces and reviles Southern men who
adhered to the Union ; and strives constantly and unscrupulously,
by every means in its power, to keep alive the fire and hate and dis
cord between the sections ; calling upon the President to violate his
oath of office, overturn the Government by force of arms, and drive
the representatives of the people from their seats in Congress. The
National banner is openly insulted and the National airs scoffed at,
not only by an ignorant populace, but at public meetings, and once,
among other notable instances, at a dinner given in honor of a noto
rious rebel, who had violated his oath and abandoned his flag. The
same individual is elected to an important office in the leading city
of his State, although an unpardoned rebel, and so offensive that the
President refuses to allow him to enter upon his official duties. In
another State the leading general of the rebel armies is openly nom
inated for governor by the House of Delegates, and the nomination

90 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
is hailed by the people with shouts of satisfaction and openly indorsed
by the press."
These representations of the prevailing spirit in the South and of
the conduct of Southern men were not the loose and exaggerated
statements of Northern partisans put forth to influence political
opinion in the loyal States. They were the deliberate and consci
entious statements of an eminent committee of the two Houses of
Congress, of which Senator Fessenden of Maine was chairman. The
quotations already made are from the same official report — a report
based upon exhaustive testimony and prepared with scrupulous care.
In that report, which is to be taken as an absolutely truthful picture
of the Southern States at the time, it is averred that "witnesses of
the highest character testify that, without the protection of United-
States troops, Union men, whether of Northern or Southern origin,
would be obliged to abandon their homes. The feeling in many por
tions of the country towards the emancipated slaves, especially among
the ignorant and uneducated, is one of vindictive and malicious
hatred. The deep-seated prejudice against color is assiduously cul
tivated by the public journals and leads to acts of cruelty, oppres
sion, and murder, which the local authorities are at no pains to
prevent or punish."
It was further declared by Mr. Fessenden's committee " that the
evidence of an intense hostility to the Federal Union, and an equally
intense love for the late Confederacy, nurtured by the war, is deci
sive. While it appears that nearly all are willing to submit, at least
for the time being, to the Federal authority, it is equally clear that
the ruling motive is a desire to obtain the advantages which will be
derived from a representation in Congress." It was also proved
before the committee, on the testimony, or rather the admissions, of
witnesses who had been prominent in the Rebellion, that " the gen
erally prevailing opinion in the late Confederacy defends the legal
right of. secession and upholds the doctrine that the first allegiance
of the people is due to the States and not to the United States." It
was further admitted by the same class of witnesses that " the taxes
levied by the United States will be paid only on compulsion and with
great reluctance," and that "the people of the rebellious States would,
if they could see a prospect of success, repudiate the National debt."
It was stated by witnesses from the South, with evident pride, that
" officers of the Union Army, on duty in the South, and Northern
men who go there to engage in business, are generally detested and

SOUTHERN SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES. 91
proscribed," and that " Southern men who adhered to the Union are
bitterly hated and relentlessly persecuted."

Upon the conclusion of the work of the respective conventions,
the election of State Legislatures and of senators and representatives
in Congress followed as promptly as was practicable in the several
States. The Legislatures were all in session before the close of the
year 1865, and their proceedings startled the country. If any need
existed for proof of the spirit that animated the conventions, or of
the ends to which they had directed their work, it was furnished in
full by the action of the Legislatures. Indeed, when the latter bodies
assembled, they were inspired with a fresh accession of courage and
daring, imparted by the example of the former and the apparent
acquiescence of the North in their proceedings. The period between
the adjournment of the conventions and the assembling of the Legis
latures was so short that there was no time for the maturing of public
opinion in the North, and still less for bringing it to bear in any way
upon Southern action. It is, moreover, doubtful whether any rep
resentation, however strong, from the North, would have exerted the
slightest influence in holding the South back from its mad course.
Emboldened by the support of the National Administration, the
Southern leaders believed that they could carry their designs through,
and, instead of being restrained by the protest or the advice of Repub
licans, they chose with apparent gladness the course that would prove
most offensive to them. It would indeed, according to their own
boasts, add a peculiar gratification to their anticipated triumph if they
could feel assured that it would bring chagrin or a sense of humilia
tion to the Republican masses of the loyal States.
At this critical period it was the ill fortune of the South to be
misled by the Democratic press and the Democratic orators of the
North, as it had been before on perilous occasions. The South had
been induced by the same press and the same orators to believe, in
the winter of 1860-61, that efforts at secession would not be resisted
by arms. Many Northern Democrats had indeed given the assur
ance that if any attempt at coercion should be made by the Repub
lican National Administration, they would themselves meet it with
force, and that, if war should come, it would be in the free States
and not in the slave States. The South, in 1865, had apparently

92 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
forgotten these baseless assurances ; they had forgotten that, in the
hour of conflict, the Democrats who did not become loyal, at once
became silent, and that the few — scattering exceptions to a general
rule — who were demonstrative and loud in their sympathy for the
rebels were compelled to flee or accept imprisonment in Fort Lafay
ette. They seemed again ready and eager to believe all the un
supported assertions which the Northern Democrats, in a spirit of
effrontery and not without gasconade, ventured to put forth. It
might be difficult to determine which displayed the greater folly
— those who made false representations, or those who, warned by
previous deception, appeared so ready to be influenced anew by
deception equally gross.
The truth was that the Republicans of the North, constituting,
as was shown by the elections of 1865, a majority in every State,
were deeply concerned as to the fate arri fortune of the colored popu
lation of the South. Only a minority of Republicans were ready to
demand suffrage for those who had been recently emancipated, and
who, from the ignorance peculiar to servitude, were presumably unfit
to be intrusted with the elective franchise. The minority, however,
was composed of very earnest men of the same type as those who
originally created and combined the anti-slavery sentiment of the
country, and who now espoused the right of the negro to equality
before the law. Equality, they believed, could neither be conferred
nor maintained unless the negro were invested with the badge of
American manhood — the right to vote — a right which they were
determined to guarantee as firmly to the colored man as it was
already guaranteed to the white man.
The great mass of the Republicans stopped short of the demand
for the conferment of suffrage on the negro. That privilege was,
indeed, still denied him in a majority of the loyal States, and it
seemed illogical and unwarrantable to expect a more advanced phi
lanthropy, a higher sense of justice, from the South than had been
yet attained by the North. But without raising the question of
suffrage, there were rights with which the negro must be endowed
before he could essentially better his material condition or advance
in knowledge. It was, first of all, required that he should have the
full protection of the law of marriage, of which he had always been
deprived, and that with the privilege he should be subjected to the
honest observance of the obligations which marriage imposes — to
the end that good morals should be inculcated, and that every child

THE LEGISLATURES IN THE SOUTHERN STATES. 93
should have a responsible father. It was, in the second place, in the
highest degree necessary that he should have the benefit of such laws
as would assure to him the wages of his labor and confer upon him
the right to acquire and hold real estate and other property, with the
same security and protection enjoyed by the whites. In the third
place, it was imperatively demanded that some provision be made
for the rudimentary instruction of colored children, in order that
they might learn the mechanical arts and have the privilege of
working at such callings as were best adapted to them. The list
of requirements might be enlarged, but the three which are given
represent primary and indisputable necessities, without the con
cession and free establishment of which the negro, with nominal
freedom, would be in a worse condition than if he had been left in
slavery. In view of these facts, the course of the newly organized Legisla
tures was watched with deep and jealous interest. It was in their
power to repair, in large degree, the blunders of policy — nay, the
crimes against human rights — which the Reconstruction Conventions
had abetted if not committed. The membership of the Legislatures
in all the States was composed wholly of those who, either in the mili
tary or civil service, had aided the Rebellion. If in such an organ
ization a spirit of moderation and justice should be shown, if consid
eration should be exhibited for the negro, even so far as to assure to
him the inherent rights of human nature, a deep impression would
be made on the conscience and the public opinion of the North.
Such a course in the South might, indeed, open the way for the
success of the simple and speedy process of reconstruction, upon
which Mr. Seward had staked his reputation as a statesman, and to
which Mr. Johnson had pledged the power and committed the for
tunes of his Administration.
As soon as the Southern Legislatures assembled, it was made evi
dent that their members disregarded, and even derided, the opinion
of those who had conquered the Rebellion and held control of the
Congress of the United States. If the Southern men had intended,
as their one special and desirable aim, to inflame the public opinion
of the North against them, they would have proceeded precisely as
they did. They treated the negro, according to a vicious phrase
which had at one time wide currency, " as possessing no rights which
a white man was bound to respect." Assent to the Thirteenth
Amendment to the Constitution by the Southern States was but a

94 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
gross deception so long as they accompanied it with legislation which
practically deprived the negro of every trace of liberty. That which
was no offense in a white man was made a misdemeanor, a heinous
crime, if committed by a negro. Both in the civil and criminal code
his treatment was different from that to which the white man was
subjected. He was compelled to work under a series of labor laws
applicable only to his own race. The laws of vagrancy were so
changed as, in many of their provisions, to apply only to him, and
under their operation all freedom of movement and transit was de
nied. The liberty to sell his time at a fair market rate was destroyed
by the interposition of apprentice laws. Avenues of usefulness and
skill in which he might specially excel were closed against him lest
he should compete with white men. In short his liberty in all direc
tions was so curtailed that it was a bitter mockery to refer to him
in the statutes as a " freedman." The truth was, that his liberty was
merely of form and not of fact, and the slavery which was abolished
by the organic law of a Nation was now to be revived by the enact
ments of a State.
Some of these enactments were peculiarly offensive, not to say
atrocious. In Alabama, which might indeed serve as an example for
the other rebellious States, "stubborn or refractory servants" and
" servants who loiter away their time " were declared by law to be
" vagrants," and might be brought before a justice of the peace and
fined fifty dollars ; and in default of payment they might be " hired
out," on three days' notice by public outcry, for the period of "six
months." No fair man could fail to see that the whole effect, and
presumably the direct intent, of this law was to reduce the helpless
negro to slavery for half the year — a punishment that could be
repeated whenever desired, a punishment sure to be desired for that
portion of each recurring year when his labor was specially valuable
in connection with the cotton crop, while for the remainder of the
time he might shift for himself. By this detestable process the
" master " had the labor of the " servant " for a mere pittance ; and
even that pittance did not go to the servant, but was paid into the
treasury of the county, and thus relieved the white men from their
proper share of taxation. There may have been more cruel laws en
acted, but the statute-books of the world might be searched in vain
for one of meaner injustice.
The foregoing process for restoring slavery in a modified form
was applicable to men or women of any age. But for " minors " a

UNJUST LAWS OF SOUTHERN STATES. 95
more speedy and more sweeping method was contrived by the law
makers of Alabama, who had just given their assent to the Thir
teenth Amendment to the Constitution. They made it the " duty of
all sheriffs, justices of the peace, and other civil officers of the several
counties," to report the " names of all minors under the age of eigh
teen years, whose parents have not the means or who refuse to sup
port said minors," and thereupon it was made the duty of the Court
to " apprentice said minor to some suitable person on such terms as
the Court may direct." Then follows a suggestive proviso directing
that " if said minor be the child of a freedman " (as if any other class
were really referred to !), "the former owner of said minor shall have
the preference;" and "the judge of probate shall make a record
of all the proceedings," for which he should be entitled to a fee of
one dollar in each case, to be paid, as this atrocious law directed, by
" the master or mistress." To tighten the grasp of ownership on the
minor who was now styled an apprentice, it was enacted in almost
the precise phrase of the old slave-code that " whoever shall entice
said apprentice from his master or mistress, or furnish food or cloth
ing to him or her, without said consent, shall be fined in a sum not
exceeding five hundred dollars."
The ingenuity of Alabama legislators in contriving schemes to
re-enslave the negroes was not exhausted by the odious and compre
hensive statutes already cited. They passed an Act to incorporate
the city of Mobile, substituting a new charter for the old one. The
city had suffered much from the suspension and decay of trade dur
ing the war, and it was in great need of labor to make repairs to
streets, culverts, sewers, wharves, and all other public property. By
the new charter, the mayor, aldermen, and common council were
empowered " to cause all vagrants," ..." all such as have no visi
ble means of support," ..." all who can show no reasonable cause
of employment or business in the city," ..." all who have no fixed
residence or cannot give a good account of themselves," . . . "or are
loitering in or about tippling-houses," "to give security for their good
behavior for a reasonable time and to indemnify the city against any
charge for their support, and in case of their inability or refusal to
give such security, to cause them to be confined to labor for a lim
ited time, not exceeding six calendar months, which said labor shall
be designated by the said mayor, aldermen, and common council,
for the benefit of said city."
It will be observed even by the least intelligent that the charge

96 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
made in this city ordinance was, in substance, the poverty of the
classes quoted — a poverty which was of course the inevitable result
of slavery. To make the punishment for no crime effective, the city
government was empowered " to appoint a person or persons to take
those sentenced to labor from their place of confinement to the place
appointed for their working, and to watch them while at labor and
return them before sundown to their place of confinement ; and, if
they shall be found afterwards offending, such security may again be
required, and for want thereof the like proceeding may again be had
from time to time, as often as may be necessary." The plain mean
ing of all this was, that these helpless and ignorant men, having been
robbed all their lives of the fruit of their labor by slavery, and being
necessarily and in consequence poor, must be punished for it by
being robbed again of all they had honestly earned. If they stub
bornly continued in their poverty, the like proceeding (of depriving
them of the fruits of their labor) " may again be had from time to
time, as often as may be necessary." It would, of course, be found
" necessary " just so long as the city of Mobile was in need of their
labor without paying for it.
It has been abundantly substantiated, by impartial evidence, that
when these grievous outrages were committed under the forms of
law, by the joint authority of the Alabama Legislature and the city
government of- Mobile, the labor of thousands of willing men could
be hired for the low wages of twenty-five cents per day, with an
allowance of a peck of corn-meal and four pounds of bacon for each
man per week. It does not change the character of the crime
against these humble laborers, but it certainly enhances its degree
that the law-makers of Alabama preferred an oppressive fraud to the
honest payment of a consideration so small as to be almost nominal.
A man must be in abject poverty when he is willing to work an
entire week for a sum usually accorded in the Northern States for
the labor of one day. But only a community blind to public justice
and to public decency as well, could enact a law that in effect
declares the poverty of the laborer to be a crime, in consideration of
which he shall be deprived of the beggarly mite for which he is
willing to give the sweat of his face.
Apparently fearing that the operations of the law already re
ferred to would not secure a sufficient number of laborers for the
work required in the city, the law-makers of Alabama authorized
the municipal government of Mobile to " restrain and prohibit the

UNJUST LAWS OF SOUTHERN STATES. 97
nightly and other meetings or disorderly assemblies of all persons,
and to punish for such offenses by affixing penalties not exceeding
fifty dollars for any one offense ; and in case of the inability of any
such person to pay and satisfy said fine or penalty and the cost
thereof, to sentence such person to labor for said city for such rea
sonable time, not exceeding six calendar months, for any one offense,
as may be deemed equivalent to such penalty and costs, which labor
shall be such as may be designated by the mayor, aldermen, and
common councilmen of the city."
Power was thus given to consider any evening meeting of colored
persons a disorderly one, and to arrest all who were participating in
it. Nothing was more natural than that the negroes, with their
social and even gregarious habits, should, in their new estate of free
dom, be disposed to assemble for the purpose of considering their
own interests and their future prospects. It is eminently to the dis
credit of the State of Alabama and of the city of Mobile that so
innocent a purpose should be thwarted, perverted, made criminal
and punished.
The fact will not escape attention that in these enactments the
words "master," "mistress," and "servant" are constantly used,
and that under the operation of the laws a form of servitude was
re-established, more heartless and more cruel than the slavery which
had been abolished. Under the institution of slavery a certain
attachment would spring up between the master and his slave, and
with it came a certain protection to the latter against want and
against suffering in his old age. With all its wrongfulness and its
many cruelties, there were ameliorations in the slave system which
softened its asperities and enabled vast numbers of people possessing
conscience and character to assume the relation of master. But m
the treatment of the colored man, now proposed, there was absolute
heartlessness and rank injustice. It was proposed to punish him for
no crime, to declare the laborer not worthy of his hire, to leave him
friendless and forlorn, without sympathy, without rights under the
law, socially an outcast and industrially a serf— a serf who had no
connection with the land he tilled, and who had none of the protec
tion which even the Autocracy of Russia extended to the lowliest
creature that acknowledged the sovereignty of the Czar.
These laws were framed with malignant cunning so as not to be
limited in specific form of words to the negro race, but they were
exclusively confined to that race in their execution. It is barely
Vol. II. 7

98 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
possible that a whitg vagrant of exceptional depravity might, now
and then, be arrested ; but the negro was arrested by wholesale on
a charge of vagrancy which rested on no foundation except an arbi
trary law specially enacted to fit his case. Loitering around tippling-
shops, one of the offenses enumerated, was in far larger proportion
the habit of white men, but they were left untouched and the negro
alone was arrested and punished. In the entire code this deceptive
form, of apparently including all persons, was a signally dishonest
feature. The makers of the law evidently intended that it should
apply to the negro alone, for it was administered on that basis with
rigorous severity. The general phrasing was to deceive people out
side, and, perhaps, to lull the consciences of some objectors at home,
but it made no difference whatever in the execution of the statutes.
White men, who had no more visible means of support than the
negro, were left undisturbed, while the negro, whose visible means
of support were in his strong arms and his willingness to work, was
prevented from using the resources conferred upon him by nature,
and reduced not merely to the condition of a slave, but subjected to
the demoralization of being adjudged a criminal.
In Florida the laws resembled those of Alabama, but were per
haps more severe in their penalties. The " vagrant " there might be
hired out for full twelve months, and the money arising from his
labor, in case the man had no wife and children, was directed to be
applied for "the benefit of the orphans and poor of the county,"
although the negro had been declared a vagrant because he had no
visible means of support, and was therefore quite as much in need of
the avails of his labor as those to whom the law diverted them.
Among the curious enactments of that State was one to establish
and organize a criminal court for each county, empowered to exer
cise jurisdiction in the trial of all offenses where the punishment did
not affect the life of the offender. It is obvious that the law was
originated mainly for the punishment of negroes ; and to expedite its
work it was enacted that " in the proceedings of said court, no pre
sentment, indictment, or written pleading shall be required, but it
shall be sufficient to put the party accused upon his or her trial,
that the offense and facts are plainly set forth with reasonable cer
tainty in the warrant of arrest." It was further provided that where
fines were imposed and the party was unable to pay them, "the
county commissioner may hire out, at public outcry, the said. party
to any person who will take him or her for the shortest time, and

UNJUST LAWS OF SOUTHERN STATES. 99
pay the fine imposed and the cost of prosecution." The fines thus
paid went in the county treasury for the general expenses of the
county. The law was thus cunningly contrived to hurry the negro
into an odious form of slavery, and to make the earnings which came
from his hard labor pay the public expenses, which were legitimately
chargeable upon the property of the county.
Accompanying the Act establishing this court was a law pre
scribing additional penalties for the commission of offenses against
the State ; and this, like the former, was framed especially for the
negro. Its first section provided that where punishment of an
offense had hitherto been limited to fine or imprisonment, there
should be superadded, as an alternative, the punishment of standing
in the pillory for one hour, or whipping, not exceeding thirty-nine
lashes, on the bare back. The latter punishment was reserved ex
pressly for the negro. It was provided further that it "shall not
be lawful for any negro, mulatto, or person of color to own, use, or
keep any bowie-knife, dirk, sword, fire-arms, or ammunition of any
kind, unless he first obtain a license to do so from the judge of pro
bate for the county in which he is a resident." The judge could issue
the license to him only upon recommendation of two respectable
white men. Any negro attempting to keep arms of any kind was
to be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, compelled to " forfeit the
arms for the use of the informer, stand in the pillory " (and be pelted
by the mob) " for one hour, and then whipped with thirty-nine lashes
on the bare back." The same penalty was prescribed for any person
of color " who shall intrude himself into any religious or other public
assembly of white persons, or into any railroad-car or other vehicle
set apart for the accommodation of white persons," and with a mock
show of impartiality it was provided that a white man intruding him
self into an assembly of negroes, or into a negro-car, might be sub
jected to a like punishment. This restriction upon the negro was
far more severe than that imposed in the days of slavery, when, in
many of the Southern States, the gallery of the church was per
mitted to be freely occupied by them. A peculiarly atrocious dis
crimination against the negro was included in the sixth section of
the law from which these quotations are made. It was provided
therein that " if any person or persons shall assault a white female
with intent to commit rape, or be accessory thereto, he or they, upon
conviction, shall suffer death ; " but there was no prohibition and no
penalty prescribed for the same crime against a negro woman. She

100 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
was left unprotected by law against the brutal lust and the violence
of white men.
In the laws of South Carolina the oppression and injustice towards
the negro were conspicuously marked. The restriction as to fire
arms, which was general to all the States, was especially severe. A
negro found with any kind of weapon in his possession was punished
by "a fine equal to twice the value of the weapon so unlawfully
kept, and, if that be not immediately paid, by corporal punishment."
Perhaps the most radically unjust of all the statutes was reserved
for this State. The Legislature enacted that "no person of color
shall pursue the practice, art, trade, or business of an artisan, me
chanic, or shopkeeper, or any other trade or employment besides that
of husbandry, or that of a servant under contract for labor, until he
shall have obtained a license from the judge of the District Court,
which license shall be good for one year only." If the license was
granted to the negro to be a shopkeeper or peddler, he was com
pelled to pay a hundred dollars a year for it ; and if he wished to
pursue the rudest mechanical calling, he was compelled to pay a
license-fee of ten dollars. No such fees were exacted of white men,
and no such fees were exacted of the free black man during the era
of slavery. Every avenue for improvement was closed against him ;
and in a State which boasted somewhat indelicately of its chivalric
dignity, the negro was mercilessly excluded from all chances to better
his condition individually, or to improve the character of his race.
Mississippi followed in the general line of penal enactments pre
scribed in South Carolina, though her code was possibly somewhat
less severe in the deprivations to which the negro was subjected.
It was, however, bad enough to stir the indignation of every lover
of justice. The Legislature had enacted a law that " if the laborer
shall quit the service of the employer before the expiration of his
term of service without just cause, he shall forfeit his wages for that
year up to the time of quitting." Practically the negro was himself
never permitted to judge whether the cause which drove him to seek
employment elsewhere was just, the white man being the sole arbiter
in the premises. It was provided that " every civil officer shall, and
every person may, arrest and carry back to his or her legal employer
any freedman, free negro or mulatto, who shall have quit the service
of his or her employer before the expiration of his term of service
without good cause, and said officer shall be entitled to receive for
arresting and carrying back every deserting employee aforesaid the

UNJUST LAWS OF SOUTHERN STATES. 101
sum of five dollars, and ten cents per mile from the place of arrest
to the place of delivery, and these sums shall be held by the em
ployer as a set-off for so much against the wages of said deserting
employee ; provided that said arrested party, after being so returned
home, may appeal to a justice of the peace, or a member of the
Board of Police, who shall summarily try whether said appellant is
legally employed by the alleged employer."
It requires little familiarity with Southern administration of jus
tice between a white man and a negro to know that such appeal was
always worse than fruitless, and that its only effect, if attempted,
would be to secure even harsher treatment than if the appeal had
not been made. The provisions for enticing a negro from his em
ployer, included in this Act, were in the same spirit and almost in the
same language as the provisions of the slave-code applicable to the
negro before the era of emancipation. The person " giving or selling
to any deserting freedman, free negro or mulatto, any food, raiment,
or other things, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor," and might be
punished by a fine of two hundred dollars and costs, or he might be
put into prison, and be also sued by the employer for damages.
For attempting to entice any freedman or free negro beyond the
limits of the State, the person offending might be fined five hundred
dollars ; and if not immediately paid, the court could sentence the
delinquent to imprisonment in the county jail for six months. The
entire code of Mississippi for freedmen was in the spirit of the laws
quoted. Justice was defied, and injustice incorporated as the very
spirit of the laws. It was altogether a shameless proclamation of
indecent wrong on the part of the Legislature of Mississippi.
Louisiana probably attained the worst eminence in this vicious
legislation. At the very moment when the Thirty-ninth Congress was
assembling to consider the condition of the Southern States and the
whole subject of their reconstruction, it was found that a bill was
pending in the Legislature of Louisiana providing that " every adult
freed man or woman shall furnish themselves with a comfortable home
and visible means of support within twenty days after the passage of
this act," and that " any freed man or woman failing to obtain a home
and support as thus provided shall be immediately arrested by any
sheriff or constable in any parish, or by the police officer in any city
or town in said parish where said freedman may be, and by them
delivered to the Recorder of the parish, and by him hired out, by
public advertisement, to some citizen, being the highest bidder, for

102 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
the remainder of the year." And in case the laborer should leave
his employer's service without his consent, " he shall be arrested and
assigned to labor on some public works without compensation until
his employer reclaims him." The laborers were not to be allowed to
keep any live-stock, and all time spent from home without leave was
to be charged against them at the rate of two dollars per day, and
worked out at that rate. Many more provisions of the same general
character were contained within the bill, the whole character and
scope of which were forcibly set before the Senate by Mr. Wilson of
Massachusetts. It was not only a proof of cruelty enacted into law,
but was such a defiance to the spirit of the Emancipation amendment
that it subjected the Legislature which approved the amendment
and enacted these laws, to a charge of inconsistency so grave as to
make the former act appear in the light of both a legal and moral
fraud. It was declaring the negro to be free by one statute, and
immediately proceeding to re-enslave him by another.
By a previous law Louisiana had provided that all agricultural
laborers should be compelled to "make contracts for labor during
the first ten days of January for the entire year." With a demon
strative show of justice it was provided that " wages due shall be a
lien on the crop, one-half to be paid at times agreed by the parties,
the other half to be retained until the completion of the contract ;
but in case of sickness of the laborer, wages for the time shall be
deducted, and where the sickness is supposed to be feigned for the
purpose of idleness, double the amount shall be deducted ; and should
the refusal to work extend beyond three days, the negro shall be
forced to labor on roads, levees, and public works without pay."
The master was permitted to make deductions from the laborer's
wages for " injuries done to animals or agricultural implements com
mitted to his care, or for bad or negligent work," he, of course, being
the judge. " For every act of disobedience a fine of one dollar shall
be imposed upon the laborer ; " and among the cases deemed to be
disobedience were " impudence, swearing, or using indecent language
in the presence of the employer, his family, or his agent, or quarreling
or fighting among one another." It has been truthfully said of this
provision that the master or his agent might assail the ear with pro-
faneness aimed at the negro man, and outrage every sense of decency
in foul language addressed to the negro woman ; but if one of the
helpless creatures, goaded to resistance and crazed under tyranny,
should answer back with impudence, or should relieve his mind with

UNJUST LAWS OF SOUTHERN STATES. 103
an oath, or retort indecency upon indecency, he did so at the cost to
himself of one dollar for every outburst. The agent referred to in
the statute was the well-known overseer of the cotton region, who was
always coarse and often brutal, sure to be profane, and scarcely know
ing the border-line between ribaldry and decency. The care with
which the law-makers of Louisiana provided that his delicate ears
and sensitive nerves should not be offended with an oath or with an
indelicate word from a negro, will be appreciated by all who have
heard the crack of the whip on a Southern plantation.
The wrongs inflicted under the name of law, thus far recited,
were still further aggravated in a majority of the rebellious States
by the exaction of taxes from the colored men to an amount alto
gether disproportionate to their property. Indeed, of property they
had none. Just emerging from a condition of slavery in which their
labor had been constantly exacted without fee or reward of any kind,
it was impossible that they could be the owners of any thing except
their own bodies. Notwithstanding this fact, the negroes, en masse,
were held to be subjects of taxation in the State Governments about
to be re-organized. In Georgia, for example, a State tax of three
hundred and fifty thousand dollars was levied in the first year of
peace. The property of the State, even after all the ruin of the war,
exceeded two hundred and fifty million dollars. This tax, therefore,
amounted to less than one-seventh of one per cent upon the aggregate
valuation of the State, — equal to the imposition of only a dollar and
a half upon each thousand dollars of property. The Legislature of
the State decreed, however, that a large proportion of this small levy
should be raised by a poll-tax of a dollar per head upon every man
in the State between the ages of twenty-one and sixty years. There
were in Georgia at the time from eighty-five thousand to ninety
thousand colored men subject to the tax: perhaps, indeed, the
number reached one hundred thousand. It was thus ordained that
the negroes, who had no property at all, should pay one-third as much
as the white men, who had two hundred and fifty millions of property
in possession. This odious and unjust tax was stringently exacted
from the negro. To make sure that not one should escape, the tax
was held as a lien upon his labor, and the employer was under dis
traint to pay it. In Alabama they levied for the same purpose two
dollars on every person between the ages of eighteen and fifty, caus
ing a still larger proportion of the total tax to fall on the negro than
the Georgia law-makers deemed expedient.

104 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Texas followed with a capitation tax of a dollar per head, while
Florida levied upon every inhabitant between the ages of twenty-
one and fifty-five years a capitation tax of three dollars, and upon
failure or refusal to pay the same the tax-collector was " authorized
and required to seize the body of the delinquent, and hire him out,
after five days' public notice before the door of the Court House, to
any person who will pay the said tax and the costs incident to the
proceedings growing out of said arrest, for his services for the shortest
period of time." As the costs as well as the capitation tax were to
be worked out by the negro, it is presumable that, in the spirit of
this tax-law, they were enlarged to the utmost limit that decency,
according to the standard set up by this law, would permit. It is
fair to presume that, in any event, the costs would not be less than
the tax, and might, indeed, be double or treble that amount. As a
negro could not, at that time, be hired out for more than seven dollars
and a half per month, the plain inference is that for the support of
the State of Florida the negro might be compelled to give one
month's labor yearly. Even by the capitation tax alone, without
the incident of the costs, every negro man was compelled to give the
gains and profits of nearly two weeks' labor.
A poll-tax, though not necessarily limited in this manner, has
usually accompanied the right of suffrage in the different States of
the Union, but in the rebellious States it conferred no franchise.
It might be supposed that ordinary generosity would have devoted
it to the education of the ignorant class from which it was forcibly
wrung, but no provision of the kind was even suggested. Indeed,
in those States there was scarcely an attempt made to provide for
the education of the freedmen, and the suggestions made in that
direction carried with them another display of studied wrong. As
an example of rank injustice the course of the Legislature of Florida
may be profitably cited. That body passed an Act concerning schools
for freedmen, in which the governor was authorized to appoint a
superintendent of common schools for freedmen, and in each county
the county commissioners were authorized to appoint assistant super
intendents. These officers were directed to "establish schools for
freedmen when the number of colored children in any county will
warrant the same, provided " (and the proviso is one of great signifi
cance) " that the sums hereinafter authorized shall be sufficient to
•meet the expenses thereof." The funds provided for this seemingly
ijphilanthropic design were to be derived exclusively from a tax upon

UNJUST LAWS OF SOUTHERN STATES. 105
the colored man. The law directed that all colored men between the
ages of twenty-one and fifty-five years should pay annually a dollar
each, to be collected at the same time and in the same manner as
the three-dollar poll-tax, which should be paid into the treasury of the
State for the use of the freedmen, and should constitute a fund to be
denominated "the common-school fund for the education of freed
men." It was further provided in this law, that " a tuition-fee shall
be collected from each pupil, under such regulations as the superin
tendents shall prescribe, and paid into the treasury as a portion of
the common-school fund for freedmen."
The salary of the superintendents of the schools for freedmen
was fixed at a thousand dollars, and of the county superintendents at
two hundred dollars. There were, at that time, about twelve thou
sand negro men subject to the capitation tax of three dollars, already
referred to, and under that law they paid thirty-six thousand dollars
annually into the State Treasury of Florida; but the school law
forbade that the salary of superintendents and assistant superin
tendents should be paid from the fund derived from the poll-tax.
They provided that it should be chargeable solely to the fund raised
for common schools. As there were thirty-seven counties in Florida
at that time, it is a fair presumption that twenty-five of them had
assistant superintendents, whose aggregate salaries would amount to
five thousand dollars. With the superintendent's salary, which was
a thousand dollars, a draft of six thousand dollars for the salaries of
white men was at once made upon the twelve thousand dollars which
were to be collected from freedmen. Every teacher who was to teach
in these schools was required to pay five dollars for his certificate,
which also went into the school-fund; and the end of the whole
matter was, that a bare pittance was left for the thirty thousand
negro children in Florida of the school age. The whole scheme was
a ghastly wrong, one which, if attempted upon that class of any
population in the North which is able to pay only a poll-tax, would
consign the party attempting it to defeat and disgrace, and, if its
enforcement were attempted, would lead to riot and bloodshed.
These laws, with all their wrong (even a stronger word might be
rightfully employed), were to become, and were, indeed, already an
integral part of the reconstruction scheme which President Johnson
had devised and proclaimed. Whoever assented to the President's
plan of reconstruction assented to these laws, and, beyond that, as
sented to the full right of the rebellious States to continue legislation

106 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
of this odious type. It was at once seen that if the party which
had insisted upon the emancipation of the slave as a final condition
of peace, should now abandon him to his fate, and turn him over to
the anger and hate of the class from whose ownership he had been
freed, it would countenance«and commit an act of far greater wrong
than was designed by the most malignant persecutor of the race in
any one of the Southern States. When the Congress of the United
States, acting independently of the Executive power of the Nation,
decreed emancipation by amending the Constitution, it solemnly
pledged itself, with all its power, to give protection to the emanci
pated at whatever cost and at whatever sacrifice. No man could
read the laws which have been here briefly reviewed without seeing
and realizing that, if the negro were to be deprived of the protect
ing power of the Nation that had set him free, he had better at
once be remanded to slavery, and to that form of protection which
cupidity, if not humanity, would always inspire.
The South had no excuse for its course, and the leaders of its
public opinion at that time will always, and justly, be held to a
strict accountability. Even the paltry pretext, afterwards so often
advanced, that they were irritated and maddened by the interposi
tion of carpet-bag power, does not avail in the least degree for the
outrages in the era under consideration. When Mr. Johnson issued
his proclamation of reconstruction, the hated carpet-bagger was an
unknown element in the Southern States. What was done during
the year immediately following the surrender of the rebel armies
was done at Southern suggestion, done by Southern men, done under
the belief that the President's policy would protect them in it, done
with a fixed and merciless determination that the gracious act of
emancipation should not bring amelioration to the colored race, and
that the pseudo-philanthropy, as they regarded the anti-slavery feel
ing in the North, should be brought into contempt before the world.
They deliberately resolved to prove to the public opinion of man
kind that the negro was fit only to be a chattel, and that in his
misery and degradation, sure to follow the iniquitous enactments for
the new form of his subjection, it would be proved that he had lost
and not gained by the conferment of freedom among a population
where it was impossible for him to enjoy it. They resolved also to
prove that slavery was the normal and natural state of the negro ;
that the Northern people, in taking any other ground, had been de
ceived by a sentiment and had been following a chimera ; that the

MR. SEWARD'S EMBARRASSING POSITION. 107
Southern people alone understood the question, and that interference
with them by war or by law should end in establishing their justifi
cation before the public opinion of the world. The Southern men
believed and boasted that they would subject to general reproach and
expose to open shame that whole class of intermeddlers and fanatics
(as they termed opponents of slavery) who had destroyed so many
lives and wasted so much treasure in attempting the impossible and,
even if possible, the undesirable.

There can be no doubt that the objectionable and cruel legisla
tion of the Southern States — examples of which might be indefinitely
cited in addition to those already given — exerted a strong influence
upon Mr. Seward's mind. It is well known that, to those who were
on intimate terms with him, he expressed a sorrowful surprise that
the South should respond with so ill a grace to the liberal and mag
nanimous tenders of sympathy and friendship from the National Ad
ministration. He could not comprehend why confidence did not
beget confidence, why generosity should not call forth generosity in
return. There are good reasons for believing that Mr. Seward de
sired some modification of the President's policy of Reconstruction
after he comprehended the spirit which had been exhibited by the
Southern Conventions, and the still more objectionable spirit shown
by the Southern Legislatures. His philanthropic nature, the record
of his public life, his great achievements in the anti-slavery field, all
forbid the conclusion that he could knowingly and willingly consent
to the maltreatment and the permanent degradation of the freedmen.
If he had no higher motive, the selfish one of preserving his own
splendid fame must have inspired him.
Mr. Seward had reached the age of sixty-five years, and he surely
could not consent to undo the entire work of his mature manhood.
Consistency, it is true, is not the highest trait of statesmanship.
Crises often arise in the conduct of National affairs when cherished
opinions must be sacrificed and new departures taken. But this
necessity can never apply to that class of political questions closely
and inseparably allied with moral obligation. Mr. Seward had him
self taught the nation that conflict on questions involving the rights
of human nature is irrepressible. The slavery against which he had
warred so long and so faithfully had been abolished in vain if an-

108 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
other form of servitude, even more degrading in some of its aspects,
was to take its place. To desert the colored man, and leave him to
his fate, undefended and defenseless against the wrongs already per
petrated and the greater wrongs foreshadowed, would do dishonor to
the entire spirit of Mr. Seward's statesmanship, and would certainly
be unworthy of his fame.
He strove no doubt to persuade himself, as Mr. Marcy had done
in the Cabinet of President Pierce, that even if he did not approve
the policy pursued, it was better for him to remain and prevent many :
evils sure to follow if he should resign. Mr. Seward felt moreover
a certain embarrassment in deserting the Administration after he had
induced the President to adopt the very policy which was now re
sulting adversely. But for his energetic interposition the President
would have been executing an entirely different policy — one of
severe and perhaps sanguinary character. After persuading Mr.
Johnson to abandon his proposed line of action and to adopt that
which Mr. Seward had himself originated, it might well occur to the
distinguished Secretary of State that good faith to the President re
quired him to remain at his post and aid in working out the best
result possible. It would to Mr. Seward's apprehension be an act
of unpardonable selfishness if in such a crisis to the Republic he
should seek to increase his own popularity in the Northern States by
separating from Mr. Johnson who had generously trusted him and
cordially accepted his leadership. By resigning he could only add
to the excitement which he especially desired to allay, whereas he
might by continuing in his place of power be able to hold a part
of the ground which would all be finally lost if he should join the
crusade against the Administration. Under these motives Mr. Sew
ard retained his portfolio. He staid on and on, continually hoping
to do some act of patriotic service, and steadily losing that great
host of friends who for twenty years had looked to him with un
faltering faith for counsel and direction.
Many who had been steadfastly devoted to Mr. Seward for the
whole generation in which he had been prominent in public affairs,
never could become reconciled to his course at this period. Some,
indeed, refused to concede to him the benefit of worthy motives.
He had, as they believed and declared, been incurably wounded in
his pride, and disappointed in his ambition, when Mr. Lincoln, then
a comparatively unknown man, was preferred to him by the Repub
lican party as a candidate for the Presidency in 1860. He had, as

MR. SEWARD'S EMBARRASSING POSITION. 109
they believed, bided his time for revenge. During the war, the
pressure of patriotic duty, as his new but reluctant enemies alleged,
held him steadily to his old faith; but now, when he could do it
without positive danger to the country, he was bent on administering
discipline to the party and its leaders. They likened him to Mr.
Van Buren, revengefully defeating General Cass in 1848; to Mr.
Webster, who on his death-bed gave his sympathy to the party which
had always reviled him ; to Mr. Fillmore, who deserted his anti-
slavery professions in the hour of most pressing responsibility.
Comments even more severe were made by many who had been
deeply attached to Mr. Seward, and had deplored his defeat at Chi
cago. At such a period of excitement, it was not possible that a
man of Mr. Seward's exalted position could in any degree change his
party relations without great exasperation on the part of old
friends, — an exasperation sure to lead to extravagance of expression
and to personal injustice.
Mr. Seward's course at this period must not be judged harshly by
a standard established from a retrospective view of the circumstances
surrounding him. It is more just to consider the situation as it ap
peared to his own observation when his eyes were turned to the
future. He no doubt looked buoyantly forward, according to his
temperament, trusting always to the healing influences of time and
to that re-action in the headlong course of Southern men which he
felt sure would be brought about by the sting of personal reflection
and by the power of public opinion. A silver lining to the darkest
cloud was always visible to his eye of faith, and he now brought to
the contemplation of the adverse elements in the political field a full
measure of that confidence which had always sustained him when
adverse elements in the field of war caused many strong hearts to
faint and grow weary.
The course of events developed occasions when Mr. Seward's in
fluence proved valuable to the country, but it did not serve to re
call his popularity. He was thwarted and defeated at all points by
the Southern leaders whom he had induced the President to forgive
and re-instate. These men had originally established their relations
with Mr. Johnson by reason of Mr. Seward's magnanimous interposi
tion. But once established they had been able, from motives ad
verted to in the preceding chapter, to fasten their hold upon Mr.
Johnson even to the exclusion of Mr. Seward. When Mr. Seward
was beaten for the Presidential nomination in a convention com-

110 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
posed of anti-slavery men who had learned their creed from him,
Senator Toombs, in a tone full of exultation but not remarkable for
delicacy, declared that " Action had been devoured by his own dogs."
The fable would be equally applicable in describing the manner in
which the Southern men, who owed their forgiveness and their immu
nity to Mr. Seward, turned upon him with hatred and with impreca
tion. They were graciously willing to accept benefits and favors at
his hands so long as he would dispense them, but they never forgave
him for the work of that grand period of his life, between his election
to the Senate and the outbreak of the civil war, when he wrought
most nobly for humanity and established a fame which no error of
later life could blot from the minds of a grateful people.
Mr. Seward could not have been surprised at the treatment he
thus received. He had for nearly half a century been an intelligent
observer of the political field, and he could not recall a single North
ern man who had risked his popularity at home in defense of what
were termed the rights of the South who had not in the supreme
crisis of his public life been deserted by the South. Mr. Webster,
General Cass, William L. Marcy, Mr. Douglas, and President Pierce
were among the most conspicuous of those who had been thus sacri
ficed. The last sixty days of Mr. Buchanan's Presidency furnished
the most noted of all the victims of Southern ingratitude. Men of
lower rank but similar experience were to be found in the years pre
ceding the war in nearly every Northern State — men who had ven
tured to run counter to the principles and prejudices of their own
constituency to serve those who always abandoned a political leader
when they feared he might have lost the power to be useful to them.
The pro-slavery men of the South, in following this course, presented
a striking contrast to the anti-slavery men of the North who, under
all circumstances and against all temptation, were faithful to the
leaders who proved faithful to their cause.

CHAPTER VI.
Meeting of the Thirty-ninth Congress. — Re-election of Speaker Colfax. — His
Address on taking the Chair. — Thaddeus Stevens moves for a Committee
of Reconstruction. — Resisted by Democrats. — Rebel Contestants denied
Admission to the Floor. — Much Feeling on the Question. — Proceedings of
the Senate. — Propositions of Mr. Sumner. —Annual Message of the Presi
dent. — Outline of its Contents. — Apparently Conservative in Tone. —
Not Personally Aggressive. — Leading Men of the Thirty-ninth Congress. —
Death of Both Vermont Senators. — New Senators. — New Members of the
House. — Sketches of Prominent Senators and Representatives. — Presi
dent Johnson's Patronage. — Unprecedented Volume of it due largely to
the War. — Danger of its Use against Republicans. — Apprehensions of
Republicans. — Reconstruction Resolution in the Senate. — Amended in
that Body. — Concurrence of House. — Appointment of Committee. — Strong
Character of its Members. — House Resolutions. — Debate on Reconstruc
tion. — Longest Debate in the History of Congress. — Opened by Mr.
Stevens. — Very Radical in its Tone. — He Sketches Changed Basis of
Representation. — Gives Offense to the Administration. — Mr. Henry J.
Raymond. — His Reply to Mr. Stevens. — His Strong Attachment to Mr.
Seward. — Theory of Dead States. — Speech of Mr. Spalding. — Mr. Shel-
labarger replies to Mr. Raymond. — Exhaustive Speech. — Gave him a
Leading Place in the House. — Severe Attack on the South. — Resolutions
of Mr. Voorhees sustaining Administration. — Speech in Support of them.
— Mr. Bingham's Reply. — House refuses to indorse the Administration. —
Two Republicans join Democratic Vote. — Disappointment of Mr. Raymond.
— Thinks Democratic Support a Misfortune. — Character of Mr.. Raymond. —
His Great Ability. — His Life shortened. — Died at Forty-nine.
DURING the progress of events in the South, briefly outlined in
the preceding chapter, the Thirty-ninth Congress came together
— on the first Monday of December, 1865. The Senate and House
each contained a large majority'of Republicans. In the House Mr.
Colfax was re-elected Speaker, receiving 139 votes to 36 cast for James
Brooks of New York. The address of the Speaker on taking the
chair is usually confined to thanks for his election and courteous
assurance of his impartiality and good intentions. But Mr. Colfax,
instinctively quick, as he always was, to discern the current of
popular thought, incorporated in the ceremonial^ address some very
decisive political declarations. Referring to the fact that the Tliirty-
Hi

112 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
eighth Congress had closed nine months before, with "the storm-
cloud of war still lowering over us," and rejoicing that "to-day,
from shore to shore in our land there is peace," he proceeded to
indicate the line of policy which the people expected. " The duties
of Congress," said he, " are as obvious as the sun's pathway in the
heavens. Its first and highest obligation is to guarantee to every
State a republican form of government, to establish the rebellious
States anew on such a basis of enduring justice as will guarantee
all safeguards to the people and protection to all men in their
inalienable rights." ..." In this great work," he said, " the world
should witness the most inflexible fidelity, the most earnest devotion
to the principles of liberty and humanity, the truest patriotism and
the wisest statesmanship."
The remarks of Mr. Colfax had evident reference to the perverse
action of Southern rebels, and were so entirely in harmony with
the feeling of the House that at different stages of the brief address
the Republican side of the chamber broke forth into loud applause.
As soon as the election of Speaker and of the subordinate officers of
the House was completed, Mr. Thaddeus Stevens, recognized as the
leader of the majority, offered a resolution for the appointment of a
" joint committee of fifteen members — nine from the House and six
from the Senate — who shall inquire into the condition of the States
which formed the so-called Confederate States of America, and report
whether they, or any of them, are entitled to be represented in either
House of Congress, with leave to report at any time by bill or other
wise." His resolution demanded that " until such report shall have
been made and finally acted upon by Congress, no member shall
be received into either House from any of the so-called Confed
erate States," and further directed that " all papers relating to the
representation of the said States shall be referred to the said com
mittee without debate." Mr. Eldridge of Wisconsin objected to the
introduction of the resolution, and was met by Mr. Stevens with a
motion to suspend the rules, which? was carried by 129 ayes to 35
noes. Mr. John L. Dawson of Pennsylvania inquired whether it
would not be in order to postpone the resolution until after the
receipt of. the President's message ; but the House was in no disposi
tion to testify respect for Mr. Johnson, and the resolution was
adopted by as large a vote as that by which it had been received.
Mr. Niblack of Indiana offered a resolution that " pendipg the
question as to the admission of persons claiming to have been elected

REBEL ASPIRANTS TO SEATS IN CONGRESS. 113
representatives to the present Congress from the States lately in
rebellion, such persons be entitled to the privileges of the floor of
the House." This was a privilege always accorded to contestants for
seats, but Mr. Wilson of Iowa now objected ; and, on motion of Mr.
Stevens, the House adjourned without even giving the courtesy of a
vote to the resolution. No action of a more decisive character could
have been taken to indicate, on the threshold of Congressional pro
ceedings, the hostility of the Republican party, not merely to the
President's plan of reconstruction, but to the men who, under its
operation in the South, had been chosen to represent their districts
in Congress. Against a bad principle a good one may be opposed
and the contest proceed in good temper. But this is not practi
cable when personal feeling is aroused. The presence in Washing
ton of a considerable number of men from the South, who, when
Congress adjourned in the preceding March, were serving in the
Confederate Army, and were now at the Capital demanding seats in
the Senate and House, produced a feeling of exasperation amounting
to hatred. The President's reconstruction policy would have been
much stronger if the Southern elections to Congress had been post
poned, or if the members elect had remained at home during the
discussion concerning their eligibility. The presence of these ob
noxious persons inflamed minds not commonly given to excitement,
and drove many men to act from anger who were usually governed
by reason. In the Senate the proceedings were conducted with even more
disregard of the President than had been manifested in the House.
An entire policy was outlined by Mr. Sumner, without the slightest
reference to what the President might communicate " on the state of
the Union," and a system of reconstruction proposed which was in
absolute hostility to the one that Mr. Johnson had devised. Mr.
Sumner submitted resolutions defining the duty of Congress in respect
to guarantees of the National security and National faith in the rebel
States. While the conditions were not put forth as a finality, they
were significant, if not conclusive, of the demands which would be
made, first by the more advanced Republicans, and ultimately by the
entire party. These resolutions declared that, in order to provide
proper guarantees for security in the future, " Congress should take
care that no one of the rebellious States should be allowed to resume
its relations to the Union until after the satisfactory performance of
five several conditions, which must be submitted to a popular vote,
Vol. II. 8

114 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
and be sanctioned by a majority of the people in each of those
States respectively." These conditions were, in some respects,
marked by Mr. Sumner's lack of tact and practical wisdom as a
legislator. He required stipulations, the fulfillment of which could
not really be ascertained.
Mr. Sumner demanded, first, "the complete re-establishment of
loyalty, as shown by an honest recognition of the unity of the Re
public, and the duty of allegiance to it at all times, without mental
reservation or equivocation of any kind." How Mr. Sumner could
determine that " the recognition of the unity of the Republic " was
honest, how he could know whether there was not, after all, a mental
reservation on the part of the rebels now swearing allegiance, he
did not attempt to inform the Senate. The next or second condition
was somewhat more practical in fact, but might have been expressed
in simpler form. He demanded "the complete suppression of all
oligarchical pretensions, and the complete enfranchisement of all citi
zens, so that there shall be no denial of rights on account of race
or color." His third condition was " the rejection of the rebel debt,
and the adoption, in just proportions, of the National debt and the
National obligations to Union soldiers, with solemn pledges never
to join in any measure, directly or indirectly, for their repudiation, or
in any way tending to impair the National credit." His fourth con
dition was " the organization of an educational system for the equal
benefit of all, without distinction of color or race." His fifth had
some of the objectionable features of his first, demanding "the choice
of citizens for office, whether State or National, of constant and
undoubted loyalty, whose conduct and conversation shall give assur
ance of peace and reconciliation." The rebel States were not to be,
in Mr. Sumner's language, "precipitated back to political power and
independence, but must wait until these conditions are, in all respects,
fulfilled." In addition, he desired a declaration of the Senate that
"the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, has become and is
a part of the Constitution of the United States, having received the
approval of the Legislatures of three-fourths of the States adhering
to the Union." He declared that " the votes of the States in re
bellion are not necessary, in any way, to its adoption, but they must
all agree to it through their Legislatures, as a condition precedent
to their restoration to their full rights as members of the Union."
With these resolutions Mr. Sumner submitted another long series
declaratory of the duty of Congress in respect to loyal citizens in

PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S FIRST MESSAGE. 115
the rebel States. His first series had defined what the lately rebel
lious States must agree to by popular vote, and he now outlined
quite fully what would be the duty of Congress respecting the
admission of those States to representation in the Senate and the
House. The sum of the whole, or the central fact of the whole
series, was that the color of the skin must not exclude a loyal man
from civil rights.
On the succeeding day, the President, having received notice of
the organization of the two Houses, communicated his annual mes
sage. It had been looked for with great interest and with varying
speculations as to its character. It was expected, and as the event
proved with good reason, that it would affect the relation of parties
in the Northern States ; that it would produce ill-feeling between the
President and the Republicans, who had chosen him; and that it
would lead, with equal certainty, to a tender of support from the
Democrats who had hitherto opposed him. But Mr. Johnson had
evidently resolved to exhibit a spirit of calmness and firmness in
his official communication, and, while steadily maintaining his own
ground, to avoid all harsh words that might give offense to those who
differed from him. The moderation in language and the general
conservatism which distinguished the message were perhaps justly
attributed to Mr. Seward, who had no doubt hoped, by kindly words
of conciliation, to avert the threatened break in the ranks of the
Republican party. Mr. Seward had never in his Congressional
career been a compromiser, but he now worked most earnestly to
bring about an accommodation between the Administration and
Congress. His argument was the one skillfully employed by all
who seek an adjustment between those who ought to be friends:
Let each party give way a little; let a common ground of action
be established ; and, above all, let the calamity of a party division
be averted. The President in his message dwelt at some length in a tone of
moderation upon the condition of affairs in the South. He saw before
him but two modes of dealing with the insurrectionary States, — one
was " to bring them back into practical relations with the Union ; "
the other was to " hold them in military subjection." ..." Military
government," said the President, " established for an indefinite period,
would offer no security for the suppression of discontent, would
divide the people into the vanquishers and the vanquished, and
would envenom hatred rather than restore affection." . . . The

116 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
President set forth the danger of permanent arbitrary rule. " Once
established, no precise limit to the continuance of the military
governments is conceivable. They would occasion an incalculable
and exhausting expense. Peaceful emigration would be prevented ,•
for what emigrant abroad, what ' industrious citizen at home, would
willingly place himself under military rule ? " — " Besides," asked
the President, " would not the policy of military rule imply that the
States whose inhabitants may have taken part in the Rebellion have,
by the act of those inhabitants, ceased to exist? whereas the true
theory is, that all pretended acts of secession were from the begin
ning null and void." The President then briefly explained how he
had proceeded in the appointment of provisional governors, the call
ing of conventions, the election of civil governors and Legislatures,
the choosing of senators and representatives in Congress, — com
pactly sketching the progress of events from the date of his accession
until the date of the message.
Discussing his proposed policy he said with great frankness, " I
know very well that for its success it requires, at least, the acqui
escence of the States which it concerns ; that it implies an invitation
to those States, by renewing their allegiance to the United States, to
resume their functions as States of the Union ; but it is a risk that
must be taken, and in the choice of difficulties, it is the smallest
risk." He urged very earnestly the adoption of the Thirteenth
Amendment in order that the negro should be freed, and with equal
strength maintained that, as respected the qualifications for suffrage
in each of the States, " the General Government should not inter
fere, but leave that matter where it was originally left, — in the
Federal Constitution." But the most partial friend of the President
could hardly claim that he frankly communicated the proceedings or
the spirit of the Southern conventions and Legislatures. He chose
to ignore that subject, to hide it by fluent and graceful phrase from
public criticism, and thus to keep from the official knowledge of
Congress the most important facts in the whole domain of recon
struction. It was a great mistake in the President to pass over
this subject in silence. Such a course enforced one of two im
pressions, either of which was hurtful to him. He must, according
to the common understanding of Congress, have thought the character
of Southern legislation so offensive that he could find no excuse for
it and therefore would not mention it ; or he must have regarded it
as outside the line of his observation and beyond the pale of his

MEMBERS OF THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS. 117
power of review. Either construction was bad, but the second and
more probable one was especially offensive.

The leading men of the Thirty-ninth Congress were mainly those
of the Thirty-eighth, though there had been a few important changes.
The eminent senator from Vermont, Jacob Collamer, died on the
9th of November (1865) ; and Luke P. Poland, afterwards a mem
ber of the House of Representatives, appeared as his successor. Mr.
Solomon Foot, who announced Judge Collamer's death, survived him
but a few months. On the 28th of March Mr. Sumner announced
his death to the Senate ; and eight days later — on the 5th of April
(1866) — George F. Edmunds was sworn in as his successor. His
first speech was in eulogy of his predecessor. Mr. Edmunds rose
rapidly to prominence in the Senate and after the habit of his State
has been maintained for a long period in his position.
Honorable James Guthrie of Kentucky, who had been Secretary
of the Treasury under President Pierce, now entered the Senate as
the successor of Lazarus W. Powell. He was a man of strong parts,
possessing a steady industry and thrift not common to the South.
He had for many years occupied a commanding financial position
in the South- West. Richard Yates, the War Governor of Illinois,
displaced William A. Richardson, the intimate friend of Douglas.
John P. Hale gave way to Aaron H. Cragin. In recognition of Mr.
Hale's ability and long and faithful public service, Mr. Lincoln nomi
nated him to the Spanish Mission. John A. J. Creswell came from
Maryland as the successor of Anthony Kennedy. George H. Wil
liams, a Republican, came from Oregon to take the place of Benjamin
F. Harding, a Democrat. John P. Stockton of New Jersey, a Demo
crat, took the place of John C. Ten Eyck, a Republican. Samuel
J. Kirkwood entered as the successor of James Harlan to fill his
unexpired term, and performed a somewhat unusual service in pre
senting the credentials of James Harlan as his successor for the full
term, beginning March 4, 1867. This was the first appearance of Mr.
Kirkwood in the National field, though he had long been well known
for honorable and eminent service in his State.
In the House the changes were more significant than in the
Senate. Gilman Marston entered anew, having been absent serving
with great credit as a brigadier-general in the war. General Banks

118 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
resumed the seat which he had left to accept the governorship of
Massachusetts in 1857. His checkered and remarkable career, both
civil and military, during the eight intervening years had greatly
increased his reputation. Henry C. Deming of Connecticut entered
fresh from the field of war, choosing a political life rather than a
return to literary labor. New York was greatly strengthened in her
delegation. Roscoe Conkling resumed the seat which he had lost
in the political reverses of 1862. Among the new members were
Henry J. Raymond, the able founder and editor of The New-York
Times, Robert S. Hale, who became at once distinguished in the

THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS.
REPUBLICANS IN ROMAN; DEMOCRATS IN ITALIC; ADMINISTRATION REPUBLICANS IN SMALL
CAPITALS.

Lafayette S. Foster of Connecticut, President of the Senate.
John W. Forney of Pennsylvania, Secretary.
Maine. — William Pitt Fessenden, Lot M. Morrill.
New Hampshire. — Daniel Clark,1 Aaron H. Cragin.
Vermont. — Solomon Foot,2 Luke P. Poland.
Massachusetts. — Charles Sumner, Henry Wilson.
Rhode Island. — Henry B. Anthony, William Sprague.
Connecticut. — James Dixon, Lafayette S. Foster.
New York. — Ira Harris, Edwin D. Morgan.
New Jersey. — William Wright,3 John P. Stockton.*
Pennsylvania. — Charles R. Suckalew, Edgar Cowan.
Delaware. — George Reed Riddle, Willard Saulsbury.
Maryland. — John A. J. Creswell, Reverdy Johnson.
Ohio. — John Sherman, Benjamin F. Wade.
Kentucky. — James Guthrie, Garrett Davis.
Indiana. — Henry S. Lane, Thomas A. Hendricks.
Illinois. — Lyman Trumbull, Richard Yates.
Missouri. — B. Gratz Brown, John B. Henderson.
Michigan. — Zachariah Chandler, Jacob M. Howard.
Iowa. — James W. Grimes, Samuel J. Kirkwood.
Wisconsin. — James R. Doolittle, Timothy O. Howe.
California. — John Conness, James A. McDougal.
Minnesota. — Daniel S. Norton, Alexander Ramsey.
Oregon. —James W. Nesmith, George H. Williams.
Kansas. — Samuel C. Pomeroy, James H. Lane.5
West Virginia. — Peter C. Van Winkle, Waitman T. Willey.
Nevada. — James W. Nye, William M. Stewart.
Tennessee.— David T. Patterson, Joseph S. Fowler. From July 24, 1866.

' Resigned. Succeeded by George G. Fogg. s Died. Succeeded by Frederick T. Frelinghuysen.
2 Died. Succeeded by George F. Edmunds. « Unseated. Succeeded by Alexander G. Cattell.
» Died. Succeeded by Edmund G. Ross.

MEMBERS OF THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS. 119
arena of debate, and Hamilton Ward, afterwards Attorney-General
of his State. These additions gave to the delegation a prestige
which its numbers did not always secure. John H. Ketcham, who
had attained the rank of brigadier-general by successful service in the
field, took his seat in this Congress, destined to hold it for a long
period, destined also to exert large political influence without ever
once addressing the House of Representatives or an assembly of the
people. Reuben E. Fenton, after long and able service in the House,
was now transferred to the gubernatorial chair of his State.
Three new men of note entered from Pennsylvania — John M.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Schuyler Colfax of Indiana, Speaker.
Edward McPherson of Pennsylvania, Clerk.
Mad? e. — John Lynch, Sidney Perham, James G. Blaine, John H. Rice, Frederick A. Pike.
New Hampshire. — Gilman Marston, Edward H. Rollins, James W. Patterson.
Vermont. — Frederick E. Woodbridge, Justin S. Morrill, Portus Baxter.
Massachusetts. — Thomas D. Eliot, Oakes Ames, Alexander H. Rice, Samuel Hooper,
John B. Alley, Nathaniel P. Banks, George S. Boutwell, John D. Baldwin, Wil
liam B. Washburn, Henry L. Dawes.
Rhode Island. — Thomas A. Jenckes, Nathan F. Dixon.
Connecticut. — Henry C. Deming, Samuel L. Warner, Augustus Brandegee, John H.
Hubbard.
New York. — Stephen Taber, Teunis G. Bergen, James Humphrey,1 Morgan Jones, Nelson
Taylor, Henry J. Raymond, John W. Chanler, James Brooks,2 William A. Darling,
William Radford, Charles H. Winfield, John H. Ketcham, Edwin N. Hubbell, Charles
Goodyear, John A. Griswold, Robert S. Hale, Calvin T. Hulburd, James M. Mar
vin, Demas Hubbard, jun., Addison H. Laflin, Roscoe Conkling, Sidney T. Holmes,
Thomas T. Davis, Theodore M Pomeroy, Daniel Morris, Giles W. Hotchkiss,
Hamilton Ward, Roswell Hart, Burt Van Horn, James M. Humphrey, Henry Van
Aernam.
New Jersey. — John F. Starr, William A. Newell, Charles Sitgreaves, Andrew J. Rogers,
Edwin R. V. Wright.
Pennsylvania. — Samuel J. Randall, Charles O'Neill, Leonard Myers, William D. Kelley,
M. Russell Thayer, Benjamin M. Boyer, John M. Broomall, Sydenham E. Ancona,
Thaddeus Stevens, Myers Strouse, Philip Johnson,3 Charles Denison, Ulysses Mercur,
George F. Miller, Adam J. Glossbrenner, Alexander H. Coffroth,* Abraham A. Barker,
Stephen F. Wilson, Glenni W. Scofield, Charles V. Culver, John L. Dawson, James
K. Moorhead, Thomas Williams, George V. Lawrence.
Delaware. — John A. Nicholson.
Maryland.— Hiram McCullough, John L. Thomas, jun., Charles E. Phelps, Francis
Thomas, Benjamin G. Harris.
Ohio. — Benjamin Eggleston, Rutherford B. Hayes, Robert C. Schenek, William Law
rence, Francis C. Le Blond, Reader W. Clarke, Samuel Shellabarger, James R.
Hubbell, Ralph P. Buckland, James M. Ashley, Hezekiah S. Bundy, William E.
Finck, Columbus Delano, Martin Welker, Tobias A. Plants, John A. Bingham,
Ephraim R. Eckley, Rufus P. Spalding, James A. Garfield.

1 Died. Succeeded by John W. Eunter. s Died. Succeeded by Daniel M. Van Auken.
• Unseated. Succeeded by William E. Dodge. * Unseated. Succeeded by William H. Koontz.

120 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Broomall, an independent thinker and keen debater, inflexible in
principle, untiring in effort; Ulysses Mercur, whose learning as a
lawyer and whose worth as a man have since received their reward
in a promotion to the Supreme Bench of his State ; George V. Law
rence, one of the best known and most sagacious political leaders in
Western Pennsylvania, inheriting his capacity from his honored father,
Joseph Lawrence, who died during his membership of the Twenty-
seventh Congress. John L. Thomas, junior, entered as the representa
tive of the city of Baltimore ; and the venerable Francis Thomas
returned from his hermitage and his weird life in the Alleghanies.
Kentucky. — Lawrence S. Trimble, Burwell C. Ritter, Henry Grider,1 Aaron Harding, Lov-
ell H. Rousseau, Green Clay Smith,2 George S. Shanklin, William H. Randall,
Samuel McKee.
Tennessee. — Nathaniel G. Taylor, Horace Maynard, William B. Stokes, Edmund Cooper,
William B. Campbell, Samuel M. Arnell, Isaac R. Hawkins, John W. Leftwich.
From July 24, 1866.
Indiana. — William E. Niblack, Michael C. Kerr, Ralph Hill, John H. Farquhar, George
W. Julian, Ebenezer Dumont, Daniel W. Voorhees,3 Godlove S. Orth, Schuyler Col
fax, Joseph H. Defrees, Thomas N. Still well.
Illinois. — John Wentworth, John F. Farnsworth, Elihu B. Washhurne, Abner C.
Harding, Ebon C. Ingersoll, Burton C. Cook, Henry P. H. Bromwell, Shelby M.
Cullom, Lewis W. Ross, Anthony Thornton, Samuel S. Marshall, Jehu Baker, An
drew J. Kuykendall, Samuel W. Moulton.
Missouri. — John Hogan, Henry T. Blow, Thomas E. Noell, John R. Kelso, Joseph W.
McClurg, Robert T. Van Horn, Benjamin F. Loan, John F. Benjamin, George W.
Anderson.
Michigan. — Fernando C. Beaman, Charles Upson, John W. Longyear, Thomas W.
Ferry, Roland E. Trowbridge, John F. Driggs.
Iowa. — James F. Wilson, Hiram Price, William B. Allison, Joseph B. Grinnell, John
A. Kasson, Asahel W. Hubbard.
Wisconsin. — Halbert E. Paine, Ithamar C. Sloan, Amasa Cobb, Charles A. Eldridge,
Philetus Sawyer, Walter D. Mclndoe.
California. — Donald C. McRuer, William Higby, John Bidwell.
Minnesota. — William Windom, Ignatius Donnelly.
Oregon. — James H. D. Henderson.
Kansas. — Sidney Clarke.
West Virginia. — Chester D. Hubbard, George R. Latham, Kellian V. Whaley.
Nevada. — Delos R. Ashley.
Nebraska. — Thomas M. Marquette. From Feb. 9, 1867.
territorial delegates.
New Mexico. — J. Francisco Chaves.
Utah. — William H. Hooper.
Washington. — Arthur A. Denny.
Arizona. — John N. Goodwin.
Nebraska. — Phineas W. Hitchcock.
Colorado. — Allen A. Bradford.
Dakota. — Walter A. Burleigh.

i Died. Succeeded by Elijah Htie. 2 Resigned. Succeeded by Andrew H. Ward.
* Unseated. Succeeded by Henry D. Washburn.

MEMBERS OF THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS. 121
Ohio grew even stronger than before, and her delegation was again
recognized as the leading one of the House. Samuel Shellabarger,
John A. Bingham and Columbus Delano re-entered with reputation
already established by previous service in Congress. William Law
rence, a conscientious legislator and careful lawyer, entered from the
Bellefontaine District. Martin Welker, since promoted to the bench
in his State, came from the Wooster District. One of the Cincin
nati districts was represented by Benjamin Eggleston, a man of great
force and energy; and the other, by a modest man, without experience
in legislation, but who had been a good and true soldier in the war
Idaho. — E. D. Holbrook.
Montana. — Samuel McLean.
SENATORS CHOSEN FROM THE LATE INSURRECTIONARY STATES.
Alabama. —Lewis E. Parsons, George S. Houston.
Arkansas. — Elisha Baxter, William D. Snow.
Florida. — William Marvin, Wilkerson Call.
Georgia.— Alexander H. Stephens, Herschel V. Johnson.
Louisiana. — Randall Hunt, Henry Boyce. (R. King Cutler and Michael Hahn also
claim under a former election in October, 1864.)
Mississippi. — William L. Sharkey, James L. Alcorn.
North Carolina. — William A. Graham, John Pool.
South Carolina. — Benjamin F. Perry, John L. Manning.!
Tennessee.— David T. Patterson, Joseph S. Fowler.
Texas. — David G. Burnett, O. M. Roberts.
Virginia. — John C. Underwood, Joseph Segar.
representatives chosen from the late insurrectionary states.
Alabama. — C. C. Langdon, George C. Freeman,2 General Cullen A. Battle, Joseph W.
Taylor, B. T. Pope, Thomas J. Foster.
Arkansas. — William Byers, George H. Kyle, James M. Johnson.
Florida. — F. McLeod.
Georgia. — Solomon Cohen, General Philip Cook, Hugh Buchanan, E. G. Cabaniss,
J. D. Matthews, J. H. Christy, General W. T. Wofford.3
Louisiana. — Louis St. Martin, Jacob Barker, Robert C. Wickliffe, John E. King, John
S. Ray. (Henry C. Warmoth claims seat as delegate under universal suffrage
election.)
Mississippi. — Colonel Arthur E. Reynolds, Colonel Richard A. Pinson, James T. Harri
son, A. M. West, E. G. Peyton.
North Carolina. — Jesse R. Stubbs, Charles C. Clark, Thomas C. Fuller, Colonel Josiah
Turner, jun., Lewis Hanes, S. H. Walkup, Alexander H. Jones.
South Carolina. — Colonel John D. Kennedy, William Aiken, General Samuel
McGowan, James Farrow.
Tennessee. — Nathaniel G. Taylor, Horace Maynard, William B. Stokes, Edmund
Cooper, William B. Campbell, Samuel M. Arnell, Isaac R. Hawkins, John W. Left-
wich.
Texas. — George W. Chilton, Benjamin H. Epperson, A. M. Branch, C. Herbert.
Virginia. — W. H. B. Custis, Lucius H. Chandler, B. Johnson Barbour, Robert Ridgeway,
Beverly A. Davis, Alexander H. H. Stuart, Robert Y. Conrad, Daniel H. Hoge.
Resigned. Succeeded by James B. Campbell. 2 Died. Succeeded by J. McCaleb Wiley.
» Died. Succeeded by James P. Hambleton.

122 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
for the Union and was highly esteemed by his neighbors. He did
not take an active part in Congress, but was destined to a promi
nence of which he little dreamed — Rutherford B. Hayes.
The Indiana delegation was strengthened on the Democratic side
by the return of William E. Niblack, who had made a good record in
the Thirty-seventh Congress; and by the entrance of Michael C.
Kerr, who served for a long period and ultimately became Speaker of
the House. Messrs. Julian, Orth, and Dumont were again elected.
The last-named had made a reputation in the preceding Congress
as a keen and able man. The Illinois delegation, which had con
tained a large majority of Democrats in the Thirty-eighth Congress,
now returned strongly Republican, — Mr. Lincoln's victory of 1864
having, with three exceptions, carried with it every Congressional
district. Four men of marked characteristics were among the new
members of the delegation, one of whom was already widely known :
the three others were destined to become so in different degrees —
John Wentworth, Shelby M. Cullom, Burton C. Cook, and Jehu
Baker. Wentworth had been in the House as a Democrat prior to
the war, having represented the Chicago District continuously from
March 4, 1843 to March 4, 1851 ; and again from March 4, 1853 to
March 4, 1855. He was endowed by nature with a mind as strong
as his body, and that was of Titanic proportions. He was an ardent
partisan in behalf of any cause he espoused •, was willful, aggressive,
and dominating. He was, at the same time, genial and kindly in
many relations of life, not without gifts of both wit and humor,
and courageous to the point of absolute fearlessness. He had been
well educated at Dartmouth College in his native State, and long
practice had made him a dangerous antagonist in debate. He had
been an intense Democrat, but he refused to join Douglas in the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and subsequently united with
the Republicans. — Shelby M. Cullom, with good natural parts and
sound education, amiable, pleasing, and endowed with the gracious
quality which attracts and holds friends, won his way promptly in
the House and gave early promise of the success which afterwards
elevated him to the governorship of Illinois, and thence transferred
him to the Senate of the United States. — Burton C. Cook was recog
nized as an able lawyer from the beginning of his service. He con
stantly grew in influence and strength during the eight years of
his continuous membership, and at its close returned to the bar with
an enviable reputation and with the assurance of that eminent sue-

MEMBERS OF THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS. 123
cess which has since attended his professional career. — Jehu Baker
was a man of peculiarities, not to say oddities, of bearing ; but these
did not conceal his worth and ability, nor retard the growing reputa
tion which has since retained him in a diplomatic position.
Missouri, then under the control of the Republican party, included
in her delegation Robert T. Van Horn, a Pennsylvanian by birth,
who had borne a conspicuous part in the contest with the disloyal
elements of the State of his adoption; and John Hogan, a genial
Irish Democrat from the St. Louis District. The Michigan delegation
was the same as in the Thirty-eighth Congress, with the exception of
Thomas W. Ferry, who now entered for the first time, and Roland
E. Trowbridge, who had served in the Thirty-seventh Congress. The
Iowa delegation was the same as in the Thirty-eighth Congress, — a
very able body of men with growing influence in the House. The
Wisconsin delegation was also in large part the same. But the new
members were men of note. Among them were Halbert E. Paine
and Philetus Sawyer. General Paine had served with distinction in
the war and had lost a leg in battle. He was a lawyer in full
practice, a man of the highest integrity, without fear and without
reproach. Born in the Western Reserve, he was radical in his views
touching the slavery question and progressive in all matters of gov
ernmental reform. — Philetus Sawyer was a native of Vermont, who,
when a young man, had emigrated to Wisconsin. Without early
advantages, either of education or fortune, he was in the best sense
of the phrase a self-made man. He engaged in the business of lum
bering and by sagacity had acquired wealth. It is easy to supply
superlatives in eulogy of popular favorites ; but Mr. Sawyer, in
modest phrase, deserves to be ranked among the best of men, —
honest, industrious, generous, true to every tie and to every obliga
tion of life. He remained for ten years in the House, with con
stantly increasing influence, and was afterwards promoted to the
Senate. California sent an excellent delegation — McRuer, Higby,
and Bidwell ; and West Virginia contributed a valuable member in
the person of Chester D. Hubbard.
The members of the House had been elected in 1864 — borne to
their seats by the force of the same popular expression that placed
Mr. Lincoln in the Presidential chair for a second term. It is
scarcely conceivable that had Mr. Lincoln lived any serious differ
ences could have arisen between himself and Congress respecting
the policy of reconstruction. The elections of 1865, held amid the

124 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
shouts of triumph over a restored Union, went by default in favor
of the Republicans, who were justly credited with the National
victory so far as any one political party was entitled to such honor.
The people had therefore given no expression, in any official or
registered form, touching the policy outlined by Mr. Johnson. He
was the duly-elected Vice-President. . He had come to the chief
magistracy in presumed sympathy and close affiliation with the Re
publicans whose suffrages he had received. All beyond these facts
was surmise or inference. No one knew any thing with precision
respecting the new President's intentions.
He undoubtedly had control of an enormous public patronage.
The Peace establishment of the Army, it was thought at that time,
would not be less than seventy-five regiments, and this, with the
necessary staff, would give to him the appointment of nearly two
thousand officers without disturbing the commissions of those already
in the regular service. A like increase was expected in the naval
establishment. The internal-revenue system, devised for the support
of the war, was all-pervasive in its character, and required for its
administration a great number of officers and agents, all removable
and appointable at the pleasure of the Executive. The customs'
service was correspondingly large, having grown immensely during
the war. In proportion to the population of the country there never
had been, there has never since been, and perhaps there will never
again be, so vast an official patronage placed at the absolute disposal
of the President.
Public opinion, which has in later years tended to restrain the
Executive Department from the personal use of the patronage of the
Government, did not at that time exert a perceptible influence in
this direction. The maxim originating with William L. Marcy, but
frequently attributed to President Jackson, that " to the victor be
long the spoils," was then held in full honor; and though it was
deprecated by many and openly opposed in Congress by a few, it
was acquiesced in by the vast majority and was the rule and practice
of the National Administration. The patronage placed a formidable
weapon in the hands of the President which could be so used as to
annoy or help every Republican representative in Congress, — so
used, indeed, as to prevent the election of many who were peculiarly
offensive to Mr. Johnson. He had been reared in the Democratic
school of proscription, and had measured the force and indulged in
the use of patronage throughout all his political life in Tennessee.

SOLICITUDE OF REPUBLICANS. 125
Though a man of the strictest personal integrity, he had apparently
no scruples on this subject, but believed that the patronage of the
Government might be honestly used to build up his own political
power. When he entered political life he imbibed this doctrine from
the teachings of President Jackson ; he afterwards received its advan
tage under Van Buren ; he aided in its enforcement under Polk ; and
when a senator, during the Administration of Buchanan, he witnessed
its prodigious power in the overthrow of Douglas as a Presidential
candidate, though a large majority of the rank and file of his party
desired his nomination. While the Democratic masses were, in fact,
clamorous for Douglas, he was defeated by combinations brought
about through the active instrumentality of United-States district
attorneys, collectors, marshals, and their deputies — all acting, as
they had good reason to know, in harmony with the wishes of the
Administration from whose favor they had received their places.

The Republicans of the loyal States, whose convictions and whose
prejudices were strongly developed by the controversy between the
President and Congress, had grave apprehensions as to the ultimate
issue. At various times during the fifteen years preceding the war,
they had seen men of strong anti-slavery professions, with strong
anti-slavery constituencies, "palter in a double sense" when intrusted
with the duties of a representative in Congress, and fall from the
faith, influenced by what were termed the blandishments of power,
or as was sometimes more plainly said, corrupted by the gifts of
patronage. They had seen this result brought about by an Admin
istration which the tempted and yielding representatives had been
specially chosen to oppose. They had now double ground to fear
that many more would prove treacherous to their professions of
principle, since they could take refuge under the protection of an
Administration chosen by their own party and still nominally pro
fessing to be Republican. The magnitude of the patronage at the
President's disposal intensified the popular alarm ; and the prompt
ness with which a large proportion of those holding office echoed the
President's sentiments and defended his policy, was taken as a signal
that acquiescence therein would be the one condition upon which
the honors and emoluments of public place could be enjoyed.
The great mass of loyal Republicans had descried a peculiar

126 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
danger in the gentle, persuasive, insinuating words with which the
President, in his annual message, sought to commend his policy.
Phrasing of a specious type can deceive an individual far more easily
than it can deceive a multitude of men. The quick comprehension
of the people so far transcends that of a single person as to amount
almost to the possession of a sixth sense. While the single person
might be misled by fallacious statements and suppressions of truth
by the President, the people discerned with keen precision the abso
lute facts of the case. They saw that the policy of the President
was at war with the creed and the spirit of the Republican party, and
that, if carried into effect, the legitimate fruits of the bloody struggle
which had afflicted the Nation would be lost to posterity, the laws of
humanity would be violated, and a fresh rebellion against National
authority would be invited. The ancient maxim, that the voice of
the people is the voice of God, is illogical in its direct statement, and
like all adages it covers both a truth and an untruth. Its truth was
now signally vindicated, when, against the authority of those in high
places, against the instruction of those who had always before been
trusted, the mass of the Republican party stood with heroic firmness
for what they believed to be right. They stood against the seduc
tions of patronage in the hands of the President whom they had
elected, and against the eloquent pleadings of the Secretary of State,
who for ten years before the war had been their sagacious guide,
their profound philosopher, their trusted friend.
It was this common instinct and prompt expression by the people
which rescued Congress from the danger of injurious complication.
The first test in the Senate, as to the solidity of the Republican
party, was made on the 12th of December, when the resolution to
form a select committee of reconstruction, passed by the House on
the first day of the session, came up for consideration. It was
amended on motion of Mr. Anthony, by striking out that portion of
it which provided that no member should be received into either
House from the so-called Confederate States until the report of the
committee was received and acted upon. This was held to impinge
on the power of each House to be the judge of its own elections, and
was expunged by general consent. On the propriety of the resolu
tion thus amended a brief debate occurred, which to a certain
extent enabled senators to define their position ; and before it was
concluded it was made evident that Mr. Cowan of Pennsylvania,
Mr. Dixon of Connecticut, and Mr. Doolittle of Wisconsin, would

APPOINTMENT OF RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE. 127
separate from the mass of their Republican associates, would support
the reconstruction policy of the President, and would ultimately be
come merged in the Democratic party. Mr. Norton of Minnesota
not long afterwards became one of the supporters of the President,
making a net loss of four to the Republican side of the chamber.
The Senate, at that time, contained fifty members, twenty-five States
being represented. Of this number the Democrats had but eleven.
The loss of four still left the Republicans in possession of more than
two-thirds of the seats in the Senate. The House had even a larger
proportion of Republican members. These facts were destined to
exert a wide and then unforeseen influence upon the legislation of
Congress and upon the political affairs of the country.
The House concurred promptly in the amendment which the Sen
ate had made to the resolution providing for a joint committee on the
subject of Reconstruction. It is not often that such solicitude is felt
in Congress touching the membership of a committee as was now
developed in both branches. It was foreseen that in an especial degree
the fortunes of the Republican party would be in the keeping of the
fifteen men who might be chosen. The contest, predestined and
already manifest, between the President and Congress might, unless
conducted with great wisdom, so seriously divide the party as to
compass its ruin. Hence the imperious necessity that no rash or ill-
considered step should be taken. Both in Congress and among the
people the conviction was general that the party was entitled to the
services of its best men. There was no struggle among members for
positions on the committee ; and when the names were announced
they gave universal satisfaction to the Republicans. There was some
complaint by the Democrats that they had only one representative
upon the committee in the Senate and two in the House, but the
relative strength of parties in both branches scarcely justified a
larger representation of the minority.
Even before the announcement of the names a great number of
resolutions were offered in the House, intended to call forth expres-
Note. — The members of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction were as fol
lows: —
On the part of the Senate. — William P. Fessenden of Maine, James W. Grimes of
Iowa, Ira Harris of New York, Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, George H. Williams of
Oregon, and Reverdy Johnson of Maryland.
On thepart of the House. — Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania, Elihu B. Washburne
of Illinois, Justin S. Morrill of Vermont, John A. Bingham of Ohio, Roscoe Conkling of
New York, George S. Boutwell of Massachusetts, Henry T. Blow of Missouri, A. J.
Rogers of New Jersey, and Henry Grider of Kentucky.

128 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
sions of opinion that should operate as instructions to the new com
mittee, but none of them were of marked importance, except as
indicating the pronounced divergence of the two parties regarding
the mode of reconstruction. Each political party, in such parlia
mentary declarations, seeks to get the advantage of the other and
each is in the habit of overrating the importance of expressions in
this form. They are diligently contrived for catches and committals
to be subsequently used in political campaigns, but it may well be
doubted whether they ever produce substantial effect upon legisla
tion or prove either gainful or hurtful in partisan contests. The
practice is somewhat below the dignity of a legislative body, has
never been resorted to in the Senate and might with great advan
tage be abandoned by the House.
The debate on Reconstruction, perhaps the longest in the his
tory of National legislation, was formally opened by Mr. Thaddeus
Stevens on the 18th of December (1865). He took the most radi-.
cal and pronounced ground touching the relation to the National
Government of the States lately in rebellion. He contended that
" there are two provisions in the Constitution, under one of which
the case must fall." The Fourth Article says that " new States may
be admitted by the Congress into this Union." " In my judgment,"
said Mr. Stevens, "this is the controlling provision in this case.
Unless the law of Nations is a dead letter, the late war between
the two acknowledged belligerents severed their original contracts
and broke all the ties that bound them together. The future condi
tion of the conquered power depends on the will of the conqueror.
They must come in as new States or remain as conquered provinces."
This was the theory which Mr. Stevens had steadily maintained from
the beginning of the war, and which he had asserted as frequently
as opportunity was given in the discussions of the House. He pro
ceeded to consider the probable alternative. "Suppose," said he,
" as some dreaming theorists imagine, that these States have never
been out of the Union, but have only destroyed their State govern
ments, so as to be incapable of political action, then the fourth section
of the Fourth Article applies, which says, ' The United States shall
guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of govern
ment.' " " But," added he, " who is the United States ? Not the
Judiciary, not the President ; but the sovereign power of the people,
exercised through their representatives in Congress, with the concur
rence of the Executive. It means political government — the con-

MR. STEVENS OPENS RECONSTRUCTION DEBATE. 129
current action of both branches of Congress and the Executive."
He intended his line of debate to be an attack, at the very begin
ning, upon the assumption of the President in his attempt at Recon
struction. " The separate action of the President, or the Senate or
the House," added Mr. Stevens, " amounts to nothing, either in
admitting new States or guaranteeing republican forms of government
to lapsed or outlawed States." " Whence springs," asked he, " the
preposterous idea that any one of these, acting separately, can deter
mine the right of States to send representatives or senators to the
Congress of the Union ? "
Though many others had foreseen and appreciated the danger,
Mr. Stevens was the first to state in detail the effect which might
be produced by the manumission of the slaves upon the Congressional
representation of the Southern States. He pointed out the fact that
by counting negroes in the basis of representation, the number of rep
resentatives from the South would be eighty-three ; excluding negroes
from the basis of representation, they would be reduced to forty-six ;
and so long as negroes were deprived of suffrage he contended that
they should be excluded from the basis of representation. "If,"
said he, " they should grant the right of suffrage to persons of color,
I think there would always be white men enough in the South, aided
by the blacks, to divide representation and thus continue loyal
ascendency. If they should refuse to thus alter their election laws
it would reduce the representation of the late slave States, and ren
der them powerless for evil." Mr. Stevens's obvious theory at that
time was not to touch the question of suffrage by National interposi
tion, but to reach it more effectively perhaps by excluding the entire
colored population from the basis of Congressional representation,
until by the action of the Southern States the*mselves the elective
franchise should be conceded to the colored population. As he pro
ceeded in his speech, Mr. Stevens waxed warm with all his ancient fire
on the slavery question. " We have," said he, " turned or are about
to turn loose four million slaves without a hut to shelter them or a
cent in their pockets. The diabolical laws of slavery have prevented
them from acquiring an education, understanding the commonest
laws of contract, or of managing the ordinary business of life. This
Congress is bound to look after them until they can take care of
themselves. If we do not hedge them around with protecting laws,
if we leave them to the legislation of their old masters, we had better
have left them in bondage. Their condition will be worse than that
Vol. II. " 9

130 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
of our prisoners at Andersonville. If we fail in this great duty now
when we have the power, we shall deserve to receive the execration
of history and of all future ages."
In conclusion Mr. Stevens declared that " Two things are of vital
importance : first, to establish a principle that none of the rebel
States shall be counted in any of the Amendments to the Constitu
tion, until they are duly admitted into the family of States by the
law-making power of their conqueror ; second, it should now be sol
emnly decided what power can revive, re-create and re-instate these
provinces into the family of States and invest them with the rights
of American citizens. It is time that Congress should assert its
sovereignty and assume something of the dignity of a Roman Sen
ate." He denounced with great severity the cry that " This is a
white man's Government." " If this Republic," said he with great
earnestness, " is not now made to stand on solid principle, it has no
honest foundation, and the Father of all men will still shake it to
its centre. If we have not yet been sufficiently scourged for our
national sin to teach us to do justice to all God's creatures, without
distinction of race or color, we must expect the still more heavy
vengeance of an offended Father, still increasing his afflictions, as
he increased the severity of the plagues of Egypt until the tyrant
consented to do justice, and when that tyrant repented of his
reluctant consent and attempted to re-enslave the people, as our
Southern tyrants are attempting to do now, he filled the Red Sea
with broken chariots and drowned horses, and strewed the shores
with the corpses of men. Sir, this doctrine of a white man's Gov
ernment is as atrocious as the infamous sentiment that damned the
late Chief Justice to everlasting fame, and I fear to everlasting
fire." The speech of Mr. Stevens gave great offense to the Administra
tion. He had not directly assailed the President by name, and had
even assumed to construe one of the paragraphs of the message as
referring the question of reconstruction anew to Congress ; but this
assumption was simply for effect and was well known by Mr. Stevens
to be unfounded. The Administration did not misapprehend the
drift and intention of Mr. Stevens, and its members saw that it was
the first gun fired in a determined war to be waged against its policy
and its prestige. They were especially anxious that its defense
should not be undertaken by Democrats, or at least that Demo
crats should not take the lead in defending it. Mr. Stevens spoke

POLITICAL COURSE OF HENRY J. RAYMOND. 131
on the 18th of December, and Congress had already voted to adjourn
on the 21st for the Christmas recess. The Administration desired
that Mr. Stevens's speech should not be permitted to go unanswered
to the country and thus hold public attention until Congress should
re-assemble in January. It was important that some response be
made to it at once ; and Mr. Henry J. Raymond, widely known to
the political world but now in Congress for the first time, was selected
to make the reply.
In a political career that was marked by many inconsistencies,
as consistency is measured by the party standard, with a disposition
not given to close intimacies or warm friendships, Mr. Raymond had
continuously upheld the public course of Mr. Seward, and had main
tained a singular steadiness of personal attachment to the illustrious
statesman from New York. On the other hand, he was the rival of
Horace Greeley in the field of journalism and had become person
ally estranged from the founder of the Tribune ; though in his early
manhood he had been one of his editorial assistants. The fact that
the Tribune was against the Administration would of itself dispose
Mr. Raymond to support it. But aside from this consideration,
the chivalric devotion of Mr. Raymond to Mr. Seward would have
great weight in determining his position in the pending conflict. Mr.
Seward's committal to the policy and the assault upon it by the
New- York Tribune would therefore through affection on the one
side and prejudice on the other, naturally fix Mr. Raymond's posi
tion. He had acquired wide and worthy fame as conductor of
the New- York Times, had achieved a high reputation as a polemical
writer, was well informed on all political issues and added to his
power with the pen the gift of ready and effective speech.
On the twenty-first day of December, the last day before the
recess, Mr. Raymond, desiring the floor, was somewhat chagrined to
find himself preceded by Mr. Finck of Ohio, a respectable gentle
man of the Vallandigham type of Democrat, — representing a political
school whose friendship to the Administration at that time was a
millstone about its neck. Mr. Raymond followed Mr. Finck late in
the day, and could not help showing his resentment that the ground
which the Administration intended to occupy should be so promptly
pre-empted by the anti-war party of the country. " I have," said Mr.
Raymond at the opening of his speech, " no party feeling which would
prevent me from rejoicing in the indications apparent on the Demo
cratic side of the House, of a purpose to concur with the loyal

132 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Administration of the Government and with the loyal majorities in
both Houses of Congress in restoring peace and order to our common
country. I cannot, however, help wishing, sir, that these indications
of an interest in the preservation of our Government had come some
what sooner. I cannot help feeling that such expressions cannot now
be of as much use to the country as they might once have been. If
we could have had from that side of the House such indications of an
interest in the preservation of the Union, such heartfelt sympathy
with the friends of the Government for the preservation of that
Union, such hearty denunciations for all those who were seeking its
destruction, while the war was raging, I am sure we might have been
spared some years of war, some millions of money and rivers of
blood and tears." This utterance was sharpened and made signifi
cant by the manner and by the accent of Mr. Raymond. No more
pointed rebuke, no more keen reproach (not intended for Mr. Finck
personally, but for his party) could have been administered. What
the Administration or especially what Mr. Seward desired, and- what
Mr. Raymond was to speak for, was Republican support ; and the
prior indorsement of Mr. Johnson's position by the Democracy was
a hinderance and not a help to the cause he had espoused.
Mr. Raymond's principal aim was to join issue with Mr. Stevens
on his theory of dead States. " The gentleman from Pennsylvania,"
said Mr. Raymond, " believes that what we have to do is to create
new States out of this conquered territory, at the proper time, many
years distant, retaining them meanwhile in a territorial condition,
and subjecting them to precisely such a state of discipline and tute
lage as Congress and the Government of the United States may see
fit to prescribe. If I believed in the premises he assumes, possibly
though I do not think probably, I might agree with the conclusion
he has reached ; but, sir, I cannot believe that these States have ever
been out of the Union or that they are now out of the Union. If
they were, sir, how and when did they become so ? By what specific
act, at what precise time, did any one of those States take itself out
of the American Union ? Was it by the ordinance of secession ? I
think we all agree that an ordinance of secession passed by any State
of the Union is simply a nullity because it encounters the Constitu
tion of the United States which is the supreme law of the land.
" Did the resolutions of those States," continued Mr. Raymond,
"the declarations of their officials, the speeches of the members of
their Legislatures, or the utterances of their press, accomplish the

RECONSTRUCTION DEBATE CONTINUED. 133
result desired? Certainly not. All these were simply declarations
of a purpose to secede. Their secession, if it ever took place, cer
tainly could not date from the time when their intention to secede
was first announced. They proceeded to sustain their purpose of
secession by arms against the force which the United States brought
to bear against them. Were their arms victorious ? If they were,
then their secession was an accomplished fact. If not, it was nothing
more than an abortive attempt — a purpose unfulfilled. They failed
to maintain their ground by force of arms. In other words, they
failed to secede."
Mr. Raymond's speech was listened to with profound attention,
and evoked the high compliment of frequent interruptions from lead
ing men on the Republican side of the House. Messrs. Schenck,
Bingham and Spalding of Ohio, Mr. Jenckes of Rhode Island, and
Mr. Kelley of Pennsylvania, all put pointed questions and were at
once answered with undoubted tact and cleverness. Mr. Raymond
was helped to a specious point by Mr. Niblack of Indiana, of which
he made prompt and vigorous use, to the effect that the theory of
Mr. Stevens, if carried to its legitimate consequences, would make
those who resisted the Confederacy in the insurrectionary States
guilty of treason to that power ; and that therefore " we would be
unable to talk of loyal men in the South. Loyal to what? Loyal
to a foreign and independent power, which the gentleman from
Pennsylvania was really maintaining the Confederacy for the time
being to represent."
Immediately after the recess the Reconstruction debate was re
sumed, and an able speech made by Mr. Spalding of Ohio, reviewing
the subject generally rather than specifically replying to Mr. Ray
mond. Representing one of the districts of the Western Reserve
(the most radical section of the United States), it is interesting to
see what Mr. Spalding declared would be satisfactory to the mass
of his constituents as conditions precedent to the re-admission of the
rebel States. He laid down five requirements : First, "to give a quali
fied right of suffrage to the freedmen in the District of Columbia ; "
second, to "so amend the Constitution of the United States that
people of color shall not be counted with the population in making
up the ratio of representation in Congress, except in those States
where they are permitted to exercise the elective franchise ; " third,
"to insert a provision in the Constitution prohibiting nullification
and secession;" fourth, "to insert a provision in the Constitution

134 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
prohibiting the repudiation of the National debt and also prohibiting
the assumption of the rebel debt ; " fifth, to provide in the Consti
tution that " no person who has at any time taken up arms against
the United States shall ever be admitted to a seat in the Senate or
House of Representatives."
On the eighth day of January, two days after the re-assembling
of Congress, Mr. Shellabarger of Ohio specifically answered the
speech of Mr. Raymond. He spoke with care and preparation, as
was his habit. He wasted no words, but in clear, crisp sentences
subjected the whole question to the rigid test of logic. "I shall
inquire," said Mr. Shellabarger, "whether the Constitution deals
with States. I shall discuss the question whether an organized
rebellion against a government is an organized State in that govern
ment ; whether that which cannot become a State until all its officers
have sworn to support the Constitution, remains a State after they
have all sworn to overthrow that Constitution. If I find it does
continue to be a State after that, then I shall strive to ascertain
whether it will so continue to be a Government — a State — after,
by means of universal treason, it has ceased to have any constitu
tion, laws, legislatures, courts, or citizens in it."
"If, in debating this question," continued Mr. Shellabarger, "I
debate axioms, my apology is that there are no other questions to
debate in Reconstruction. If," said he with well-timed sarcasm, " in
the discussion, I make self-evident things obscure or incomprehen
sible, my defense shall be that I am conforming to the usages of
Congress. I will not inquire whether any subject of this Govern
ment, by reason of the revolt, passed from under its sovereignty or
ceased to Owe it allegiance ; nor shall I inquire whether any territory
passed from under that jurisdiction, because I know of no one who
thinks that any of these things did occur. I shall not consider
whether, by the Rebellion, any State lost its territorial character or
its defined boundaries or subdivisions, for I know of no one who would
obliterate these geographical qualities of the States. These questions,
however much discussed, are in no practical sense before Congress."
"What is before Congress?" asked Mr. Shellabarger. "I at
once define and affirm it in a single sentence. It is, under our
Constitution, possible to, and the late Rebellion did in fact, so over
throw and usurp, in the insurrectionary States, the loyal State Gov
ernments, as that during such usurpation such States and their people
ceased to have any of the rights or powers of Government as States

MR. SHELLABARGER'S SIGNIFICANT SPEECH. 135
of this Union, and this loss of the rights and powers of Government
was such that the United States may, and ought to, assume and exer
cise local powers of the lost State Governments, and may control
the re-admission of such States to their powers of Government in this
Union, subject to, and in accordance with, the obligation to guarantee
to each State a republican form of Government."
Upon the broad proposition thus laid down by Mr. Shellabarger,
he proceeded to submit an argument, which for closeness, compact
ness, consistency and strength has rarely, if ever, been surpassed in
the Congress of the United States. Other speeches have gained
greater celebrity, but it may well be doubted whether any speech in
the House of Representatives ever made a more enduring im
pression, or exerted greater convincing power, upon the minds of
those to whom it was addressed. It was a far more valuable exposi
tion of the Reconstruction question than that given by Mr. Stevens.
It was absolutely without acrimony, it contained no harsh word, it
made no personal reflection; but the whole duty of the United
States, and the whole power of the United States to do its duty,
were set forth with absolute precision of logic. The Reconstruction
debate continued for a long time and many able speeches were
contributed to it. While much of value was added to that which
Mr. Shellabarger had stated, no position taken by him was ever
shaken. Mr. Raymond had asked repeatedly and with great emphasis
what specific act had deprived these rebellious States of their rights
as States of the Union. Mr. Shellabarger gave an answer to that
question, which, as a caustic summary, is worthy to be quoted in
full. " I answer him," said the member from Ohio, " in the words
of the Supreme Court. ' The causeless waging against their own
Government of a war which all the world acknowledge to have been
the greatest civil war known in the history of the human race.'
That war was waged by these people as States, and it went through
long, dreary years. In it they threw off and defied the authority of
your Constitution, your laws, and your Government. They oblit
erated from their State constitutions and laws every vestige of
recognition of your Government. They discarded all their official
oaths, and took, in their places, oaths to support your enemies' gov
ernment. They seized, in their States, all the Nation's property.
Their senators and representatives in your Congress insulted, ban
tered, defied and then left you. They expelled from their land or

136 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
assassinated every inhabitant of known loyalty. They betrayed and
surrendered your arms. They passed sequestration and other Acts
in flagitious violation of the law of nations, making every citizen of
the United States an alien enemy, and placing in the treasury of
their rebellion all money and property due such citizens. They
framed iniquity and universal murder into law. For years they
besieged your Capital and sent your bleeding armies in rout back
here upon the very sanctuaries of your national power. Their
pirates burned your unarmed commerce upon every sea. They carved
the bones of your unburied heroes into ornaments and drank from
goblets made out of their skulls. They poisoned your fountains, put
mines under your soldiers' prisons, organized bands whose leaders
were concealed in your homes, and whose commissions ordered the
torch to be carried to your cities, and the yellow-fever to your wives
and children. They planned one universal bonfire of the North,
from Lake Ontario to the Missouri. They murdered, by systems of
starvation and exposure, sixty thousand of your sons as brave and
heroic as ever martyrs were. They destroyed, in the four years of
horrid war, another army so large that it would reach almost around
the globe in marching-columns. And then to give to the infernal
drama a fitting close, and to concentrate into one crime all that is
criminal in crime and all that is detestable in barbarism, they mur
dered the President of the United States."
"I allude to these horrid events," continued Mr. Shellabarger,
"not to revive frightful memories, or to bring back the impulses
towards the perpetual severance of this people which they provoke.
I allude to them to remind us how utter was the overthrow and the
obliteration of all government, divine and human, how total was the
wreck of all constitutions and laws, political, civil and international.
I allude to them to condense their monstrous enormities of guilt into
one crime, and to point the gentleman from New York to it and to
tell him that that was the specific act."
Mr. Voorhees of Indiana followed on the day succeeding Mr. Shel-
labarger's speech, in support of a series of resolutions which he had
offered on the same day that Mr. Raymond addressed the House, still
further embarrassing Mr. Raymond by the proffer of Democratic
support, and proportionately discouraging the Republicans from
coming forward in aid of the Administration. The resolutions of
Mr. Voorhees declared in effect that "the President's message is
regarded by the House as an able, judicious and patriotic State

RELATION OF THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS. 137
paper;" that "the principles therein advocated are the safest and
most practicable that can be applied to our disordered domestic
affairs ; " that " no State or number of States confederated together
can in any manner sunder their connection with the Federal Union ; "
and that " the President is entitled to the thanks of Congress and
the country for his faithful, wise and successful efforts to restore
civil government, law and order to the States lately in rebellion."
Mr. Voorhees made an exhaustive speech in support of these resolu
tions, indicating very plainly the purpose of the Democratic party
to combine in support of the President. He was answered promptly
and eloquently, though not without some display of temper, by Mr.
Bingham of Ohio, who at the close of his speech moved a substitute
for the series of propositions made by Mr. Voorhees — simply declar
ing that " this House has an abiding confidence in the President, and
that in the future as in the past, he will co-operate with Congress in
restoring to equal position and rights with the other States in the
Union, the States lately in insurrection."
Up to this period there had been no outbreak of the Republican
party against the President. There had been coolness and general
distrust, with resentment and anger on the part of many, but the
hope of his co-operation with the party had not yet been entirely
abandoned. Mr. Bingham's resolution represented this hope, if not
expectation, but the Republican members of the House were not
willing to make so emphatic a declaration of their confidence as that
resolution would imply ; and when Mr. Bingham demanded the pre
vious question he was interrupted by Mr. Stevens, who suggested
that the whole subject be referred to the Joint Committee on Recon
struction. Mr. Bingham changed his motion accordingly; and the
roll being called, the series of resolutions offered by Mr. Voorhees,
with the substitute of Mr. Bingham, were sent to the Committee on
Reconstruction by 107 ayes against 32 noes. Mr. Raymond and his
colleague, Mr. William A. Darling, were the only Republicans who
voted with the Democrats. The act was simple in a parliamentary
sense, but its significance was unmistakable. A House, four-fifths
of whose members were Republicans, had refused to pass a resolution
expressing confidence in the President who, fourteen months before,
had received the vote of every Republican in the Nation. From that
day, January 9th, 1866, the relation of the dominant party in Con
gress to the President was changed. It may not be said that all
hope of reconciliation was abandoned, but friendly co-operation to
any common end became extremely difficult.

138 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Mr. Raymond was bitterly disappointed. Few members had ever-
entered the House with greater personal prestige or with stronger
assurance of success. He had come with a high ambition, — an ambi
tion justified by his talent and training. He had come with the
expectation of a Congressional career as successful as that already
achieved in his editorial life. But he met a defeat which hardly fell
short of a disaster. He had made a good reply to Mr. Stevens, had
indeed gained much credit by it, and when he returned home for the
holidays he had reason to believe that he had made a brilliant begin
ning in the parliamentary field. But the speech of Mr. Shellabarger
had destroyed his argument, and had given a rallying-point for the
Republicans, so incontestably strong as to hold the entire party in
allegiance to principle rather than in allegiance to the Administra
tion. If any thing had been needed to complete Mr. Raymond's
discomfiture after the speech of Mr. Shellabarger, it was supplied in
the speech of Mr. Voorhees. He had been ranked among the most
virulent opponents of Mr. Lincoln's Administration, had been bit
terly denunciatory of the war policy of the Government, and was
regarded as a leader of that section of the Democratic party to. which
the most odious epithets of disloyalty had been popularly applied.
Mr. Raymond, in speaking of the defeat, always said that the Demo
crats had destroyed Johnson by their support, and that he could have
effected a serious division in the ranks of Republican members if he
could have had the benefit of the hostility of Mr. Voorhees and other
anti-war Democrats.
Three weeks after Mr. Shellabarger's reply Mr. Raymond made
a rejoinder. He struggled hard to recover the ground which he had
obviously lost, but he did not succeed in changing his status in the
House, or in securing recruits for the Administration from the ranks
of his fellow Republicans. To fail in that was to fail in every thing.
That he made a clever speech was not denied, for every intellectual
effort of Mr. Raymond exhibited cleverness. That he made the
most of a weak cause, and to some extent influenced public opinion,
must also be freely conceded. But his most partial friends were
compelled to admit that he had absolutely failed to influence Repub
lican action in Congress, and had only succeeded in making himself
an apparent ally of the Democratic party — a position in every way
unwelcome and distasteful to Mr. Raymond. His closing speech was
marked by many pointed interruptions from Mr. Shellabarger and
was answered at some length by Mr. Stevens. But nothing, beyond

PARLIAMENTARY FAILURE OF MR. RAYMOND. 139
a few keen thrusts and parries and some sharp wit at Mr. Raymond's
expense, was added to the debate.
Mr. Raymond never rallied from the defeat of January 9th. His
talents were acknowledged ; his courteous manners, his wide intelli
gence, his generous hospitality, gave him a large popularity ; but his
alliance with President Johnson was fatal to his political fortunes.
He had placed himself in a position from which he could not with
grace retreat, and to go forward in which was still further to blight
his hopes of promotion in his party. It was an extremely mortifying
fact to Mr. Raymond that with the power of the Administration
behind him he could on a test question secure the support of only
one Republican member, and he a colleague who was bound to him
by ties of personal friendship.
The fate which befell Mr. Raymond, apart from the essential
weakness of the issue on which he staked his success, is not uncom
mon to men who enter Congress with great reputation already
attained. So much is expected of them that their efforts on the
floor are almost sure to fall below the standard set up for them by
their hearers. By natural re-action they receive, in consequence, less
credit than is their due. Except in a few marked instances the House
has always been led by men whose reputation has been acquired in
its service. Entering unheralded, free from the requirements which
expectation imposes, a clever man is sure to receive more credit than
is really his due when he is so fortunate as to arrest the attention of
members in his first speech. Thenceforward, if he be discreet enough
to move slowly and modestly, he acquires a secure standing and may
reach the highest honors which the House can confer.
If, ambitious of a career, Mr. Raymond had been elected to Con
gress when he was chosen to the New- York Legislature at twenty-
nine years of age, or five years later when he was made Lieutenant-
governor of his State, he might have attained a great parliamentary
fame. It has long been a tradition of the House that no man be
comes its leader who does not enter it before he is forty. Like most
sweeping affirmations this has its exceptions, but the list of young
men who have been advanced to prominent positions in the body
is so large that it may well be assumed as the rule of promotion.
Mr. Raymond was nearly forty-six when he made his first speech in
the House. While he still exhibited the intellectual acuteness and
alertness which had always been his characteristics, there was ap
parent in his face the mental weariness which had come from the

140 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
prolonged and exacting labor of his profession. His parliamentary
failure was a keen disappointment to him, and was not improbably
one among many causes which cut short a brilliant and useful life.
He died in 1869, in the forty-ninth year of his age.

This first debate on reconstruction developed the fact that the
Democrats in Congress would endeavor to regain the ground they had
lost by their hostility to Mr. Lincoln's Administration during the war.
The extreme members of that party, while the war was flagrant,
adhered to many dogmas which were considered unpatriotic and to
none more so than the declaration that even in case of secession
" there is no power in the Constitution to coerce a State." They
now united in the declaration, as embodied in the resolution of Mr.
Voorhees, that "no State or number of States confederated together
can in any manner sunder their connection with the Federal Union."
This was intended as a direct and defiant answer to the heretical
creed of Mr. Stevens, that the States by their attempted secession
were really no longer members of the Union and could not become
so until regularly re-admitted by Congress. By antagonizing this
declaration the Democrats strove to convince the country that it
was the accepted doctrine of their political opponents, and that they
were themselves the true and tried friends of the Union.
The great majority of the Republican leaders, however, did not
at all agree with the theory of Mr. Stevens and the mass of the
party were steadily against him. The one signal proof of their dis
sent from the extreme doctrine was their absolute unwillingness to
attempt an amendment to the Constitution by the ratification of
three-fourths of the Loyal States only, and their insisting that it must
be three-fourths of all the States, North and South. Mr. Stevens
deemed this a fatal step for the party, and his extreme opinion had
the indorsement of Mr. Sumner ; but against both these radical lead
ers the party was governed by its own conservative instincts. They
believed with Mr. Lincoln that the Stevens plan of amendment would
always be questioned, and that in so grave a matter as a change in
the organic law of the Nation, the process should be unquestionable
— one that could stand every test and resist every assault.
The Republicans, as might well have been expected, did not
stand on the defensive in such a controversy with their opponents.

REPUBLICANS BECOME AGGRESSIVE. 141
They became confidently aggressive. They alleged that when the
Union was in danger from secession the Northern Democrats did all
in their power to inflame the trouble, urged the Southern leaders to
persevere and not yield to the Abolitionists, and even when war was
imminent did nothing to allay the danger, but every thing to encour
age its authors. Now that war was over, the Democrats insisted on
the offending States being instantly re-invested with all the rights of
loyalty, without promise and without condition. At the beginning
of the war and after its close, therefore, they had been hand in hand
with the offending rebels, practically working at both periods to
bring about the result desired by the South. Their policy, in short,
seemed to have the interests of the guilty authors of the Rebellion
more at heart than the safety of the Union. Their efforts now to
clothe the Southern conspirators with fresh power and to take no
note of the crimes which had for four years drenched the land in
blood, constituted an offense only less grave in the eyes of the
Republicans than the aid and comfort given to the Rebellion in the
hour of its inception.
These were the accusations and criminations which were ex
changed between the political parties. They lent acrimony to the
impending canvass and increased the mutual hostility of those
engaged in the exciting controversy. The Republicans were resolved
that their action should neither be misinterpreted by opposing parti
sans nor misunderstood by the people. They were confident that
when their position should be correctly apprehended it would still
more strongly confirm their claim to be the special and jealous
guardians of the Union of the States — of a Union so strongly based
that future rebellion would be rendered impossible, the safety and
glory of the Republic made perpetual.

CHAPTER VII.
Senate Debate on Reconstruction. — Speech of Mr. Wilson. — Denounces the
Pro-slavery Statutes of Southern States. — Reply of Reverdy Johnson —
Mr. Sumner sustains Mr. Wilson. — Speeches of Willard Saulsbury and
Mr. Cowan. — Earnest Debate before Holidays. — Embarrassment of the
Republican Party. — The President's Presumed Strength. — Position of Com
mercial Men. — Firmness of Republican Members of Congress. — Contrasted
with Conduct of Whigs in 1841. — Resolution of Mr. Cowan. — Mr. Sumner's
Amendment. — Reports of Covode and Schurz called for. — President's Spe
cial Message. — Sends Report of Mr. Schurz and Lieutenant-General Grant.
— Calls Special Attention to General Grant's Report. — Report appar
ently sustains the Administration. — Mr. Sumner denounces President's
Message. — Compares Johnson to Pierce. — Mr. Schurz's Report submitted.
— His Picture of the Southern Condition. — His Recommendations. — Favors
Negro Suffrage. — How Mr. Schurz was selected. —Extent of his Tour in
the South. — How General Grant was selected. — Extent of his Tour in the
South. — Divergent Conclusions of the Two. — Subsequent Change of Posi
tion of Both. — Interesting Case in the United-States Senate. — John P.
Stockton sworn in as Senator from New Jersey. — Protest against his Right
to a Seat. — Judiciary Committee report in his Favor. — Debate in the Sen
ate. — Mr. Clarke of New Hampshire. — Able Speech of Mr. Fessenden. —
He examines the Constitutional Ground. — His Conclusive Reasoning. — Long
Debate. — Decision against Mr. Stockton. — Important Results flowing
from it. — Congress regulates Time and Manner of electing Senators. —
Change from State Control to National Control. — Alexander G. Cattell
succeeds Mr. Stockton. — Death of Mr. Wright.— Frederick T. Freling-
huysen succeeds him.
THE debate on the direct question of Reconstruction did not
begin at so early a date in the Senate as in the House,
but kindred topics led to the same line of discussion as that in
which the House found itself engaged. During the first week of
the session Mr. Wilson of Massachusetts had submitted a bill for
the protection of freedmen, designed to overthrow and destroy the
odious enactments which in many of the Southern States were
rapidly reducing the entire negro race to a new form of slavery.
Mr. Wilson's bill provided that " all laws, statutes, acts, ordinances,
rules and regulations in any of the States lately in rebellion, Avhere
by inequality of civil rights and immunities among the inhabitants
142

SENATORS WILSON AND JOHNSON. 143
of said States is established or maintained by reason of differences
of color, race or descent, are hereby declared null and void." For
the violation of this statute a punishment was provided by fine of
not less than five hundred dollars nor more than ten thousand
dollars, and by imprisonment not less than six months nor more than
five years.
In debating his bill Mr. Wilson declared that he had "no desire
to say harsh things of vthe South nor of the men who have been
engaged in the Rebellion. I do not ask their property or their
blood ; I do not wish to disgrace or degrade them; but I do wish that
they shall not be permitted to disgrace, degrade or oppress anybody
else. I offer this bill as a measure of humanity, as a measure that
the needs of that section of the country imperatively demand at our
hands. I believe that if it should pass it will receive the sanction of
nineteen-twentieths of the loyal people of the country. Men may
differ about the power or the expediency of giving the right of suf
frage to the negro ; but how any humane, just and Christian man
can for a moment permit the laws that are on the statute-books of
the Southern States and the laws now pending before their Legisla
tures, to be executed upon men whom we have declared to be free,
I cannot comprehend."
Mr. Reverdy Johnson replied to Mr. Wilson in a tone of apology
for the laws complained of, but took occasion to give his views of the
status of the States lately in rebellion. "I have now," said Mr.
Johnson, " and I have had from the first, a very decided opinion that
they are States in the Union and that they never could have been
placed out of the Union without the consent of their sister States.
The insurrection terminated, the authority of the Government was
thereby re-instated ; eo instanti they were invested with all the rights
belonging to them originally — I mean as States. ... In my judg
ment our sole authority for the acts which we have done during the
last four years was the authority communicated to Congress by the
Constitution to suppress insurrection. If the power can only be
referred to that clause, in my opinion, speaking I repeat with great
deference to the judgment of others, the moment the insurrection
was terminated there was no power whatever left in the Congress of
the United States over those States ; and I am glad to see, if I under
stand his Message, that in the view I have just expressed I have
the concurrence of the President of the United States."
Mr. Sumner sustained Mr. Wilson's bill in an elaborate argument

144 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
delivered on the 20th of December. There was an obvious desire in
both branches of Congress and in both parties — those opposed to
the President's policy and those favoring it — to appeal to the popu
lar judgment as promptly as possible, and this led to a prolonged
and earnest debate prior to the holidays, an occurrence unusual and
almost unprecedented. Mr. Sumner declared that Mr. Wilson's bill
was simply to maintain and carry out the Proclamation of Emanci
pation. The pledge there given was that the Executive Government
of the United States, including the military and naval authority
thereof, would recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons.
"This pledge," said Mr. Sumner, "is without limitation in space or
time. It is as extended and as immortal as the Republic itself; to
that pledge Ave are solemnly bound ; wherever our flag floats, as long
as time endures, we must see that it is sacredly observed. The
performance of that pledge cannot be intrusted to another, least of
all to the old slave-masters, embittered against their slaves. It must
be performed by the National Government. The power that gave
freedom must see that freedom is maintained."
" Three of England's greatest orators and statesmen," continued
Mr. Sumner, " Burke, Canning and Brougham, at successive periods
unite in declaring, from the experience of the British West Indies,
that whatever the slave-masters undertook to do for their slaves was
always arrant trifling ; that whatever might be its plausible form it
always wanted the executive principle. More recently the Emperor
of Russia, in ordering the emancipation of the serfs, declared that all
previous efforts had failed because they had been left to the sponta
neous initiative of the proprietors." ... "I assume that we shall
not leave to the old slave-proprietors the maintenance of that free
dom to which we are pledged, and thus break our own promise and
sacrifice a race." In concluding his speech Mr. Sumner referred to
the enormity of the wrongs against the freedmen as something that
made the blood curdle. " In the name of God," said he, " let us
protect them ; insist upon guarantees ; pass the bill under considera
tion ; pass any bill, but do not let this crying injustice rage any
longer. An avenging God cannot sleep while such things find coun
tenance. If you are not ready to be the Moses of an oppressed
people, do not become their Pharaoh."
Mr. Willard Saulsbury of Delaware made a brief reply to Mr.
Sumner, not so much to argue the points put forward by the senator
from Massachusetts, not so much to deny the facts related by him or

SENATORS SUMNER AND COWAN. 145
to discuss the principles which he had presented, as to announce
that " it can be no longer disguised that there is in the party which
elected the President an opposition party to him. Nothing can be
more antagonistic than the suggestions contained in his Message and
the speeches already made in both Houses of Congress." He adjured
the President to be true and faithful to the principles he had fore
shadowed, and pledged him " the support of two million men in the
States which have not been in revolt, and who did not support him
for his high office."
Mr. Cowan of Pennsylvania, one of the Republican senators who
had indicated a purpose to sustain the President, was evidently some
what stunned by Mr. Sumner's speech. He treated the outrages of
which Mr. Sumner complained as exceptional instances of bad con
duct on the part of the Southern people. "One man out of ten
thousand," said Mr. Cowan, " is brutal to a negro, and that is pa
raded here as a type of the Avhole people of the South ; whereas
nothing is said of the other nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-
nine men who treat the negro well." Mr. CoAvan's argument was
altogether inapposite ; for what Mr. Sumner and Mr. Wilson had
complained of was not the action of individual men in the South,
but of laws solemnly enacted by Legislatures Avhose right to act had
been recognized by the Executive Department of the National Gov
ernment, and which had indeed been organized in pursuance of the
President's Reconstruction policy, — almost in fact by the personal
patronage of the President. The situation was one very difficult to
justify by a man with the record of Mr. Cowan. He had been not
merely a Republican before his entrance into the Senate but a radical
Republican, taking ground in the campaign of 1860 only less ad
vanced than that maintained by Mr. Thaddeus Stevens himself.
These debates in both Senate and House, at so early a period of
the session, give a full and fair indication of the temper Avhich pre
vailed in the country and in Congress. The majority of the members
had not, at the opening of the session, given up hope of some form of
co-operation with the President. As partisans and party leaders
they looked forward with something of dismay to the rending of all
relations with the Executive, and to the surrender of the political
advantage which comes to the party and to the partisan from a close
alliance between the Executive and Legislative Departments. On
the re-assembling of Congress after the holidays a great change was
seen and realized by all. It was feared by many, even of the most
Vol. II. 10

146 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
conservative, that the policy of Congress and the policy of the Presi
dent might come into irreconcilable conflict, and that the party which
had successfully conducted the Government through the embarrass
ments, the trials and the perils of a long civil war, might now be
wrecked by an angry controversy between two departments of the
Government, each owing its existence to the same great constitu
ency, — the loyal people of the North.
Circumstances suggested the impossibility of a successful contest
against the President and the Democratic party united. Even those
elections which result, in the exuberant language of the press, in
an overwhelming victory on the one side and an overwhelming defeat
on the other, are often found, upon analysis, to be based on very
narrow margins in the popular result, the reversal of which requires
only the change of a few thousand votes. This was demonstrated in
many of the great States, even in the second election of Mr. Lincoln,
when to the general apprehension he was almost unanimously sus
tained. From this fact it was well argued by Republicans in Con
gress that great danger to the party was involved in the impending
dissension. Even the most sanguine feared defeat, and the naturally
despondent already counted it as certain. Never before had so
stringent a test of principle been applied to the members of both
Houses. The situation was indeed peculiar. The great statesman
who had been honored as the founder of the Republican party was
now closely allied with the Administration. His colleague who had
sat next him in the Cabinet of Mr. Lincoln, and who, in the judg
ment of his partial friends, was the peer of Mr. Seward both in
ability and in merit, did not hesitate to show from the exalted seat
of the Chief Justice his strong sympathy with the President.
The leading commercial men, who had become weary of war,
contemplated with positive dread the re-opening of a controversy
which might prove as disturbing to the business of the country as
the struggle of arms had been, and without the quickening impulses
to trade which active war always imparts. The bankers of the great
cities, whose capital and whose 'deposits all rested upon the credit of
the country and were invested in its paper, believed that the speedy
settlement of all dissension and the harmonious co-operation of all
departments of the Government were needed to maintain the finan
cial honor of the nation and to re-instate confidence among the
people. Against obstacles so menacing, against resistance so Omi
nous, against an array of power so imposing, it seemed to be an act

FIRMNESS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 147
of boundless temerity to challenge the President to a contest, to array
public opinion against him, to denounce him, to deride him, to defy
him. It is to the eminent credit of the Republican members of Con
gress that they stood in a crisis of this magnitude true to principle,
firm against all the power and all the patronage of the Administra
tion. No unmanly efforts to compromise, no weak shrinking from
duty, sullied the fame of the great bpdy of senators and representa
tives. Even the Whig party in 1841, with Mr. Clay for a leader,
did not stand so solidly against John Tyler as the Republican party,
under the lead of Fessenden and Sumner in the Senate and of Thad
deus Stevens in the House, now stood against the Administration
of President Johnson. The Whigs of the country, in the former
crisis, lost many of their leading and most brilliant men, — a sufficient
number indeed to compass the defeat of Mr. Clay three years later.
The loss to the Republican party now was so small as to be unfelt
and almost invisible in the political contests into which the party
was soon precipitated. The Whigs of 1841 were contending only for
systems of finance, and they broke finally with the President because
of his veto of a bill establishing a fiscal agency for the use of the
Government, — merely a National Bank disguised under another
name. The Republicans of 1866 were contending for a vastly greater
stake, — for the sacred uess of human rights, for the secure foundation
of free government. Their constancy was greater than that of the
Whigs because the rig" ts of person transcend the rights of property.

On the 12th of December Mr. Cowan had submitted a resolution
requesting the President to furnish to the Senate information of
" the condition of that portion of the United States lately in rebellion ;
whether the rebellion has been suppressed and the United States
again put in possession of the States in which it existed ; whether
the United-States post-offices are re-established and the revenues col
lected therefrom ; and also, whether the people of those States have
re-organized their State governments ; and whether they are yielding
obedience to the laws and Government of the United States." Mr.
Sumner moved an amendment, directing the President to furnish to
the Senate at the same time " copies of such reports as he may have
received from the officers or agents appointed to visit this portion of

148 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
the Union, including especially any reports from the Honorable John
Covode and Major-General Carl Schurz." The President's message,
sent to the Senate a week later, in response to this resolution, was
brief, being simply a statement of Avhat had been accomplished by his
Reconstruction policy, with an expression of his belief that " sectional
animosity is surely and rapidly merging itself into a spirit of nation
ality ; that representation, connected with a properly adjusted system
of taxation, will result in a harmonious restoration of the relations of
the States to the National Union." He transmitted the report of Mr.
Schurz and also invited the attention of the Senate to a report of
Lieutenant-General Grant, Avho had recently made a tour of inspec
tion through several of the States lately in rebellion.
The President evidently desired that General Grant's opinions
concerning the South should be spread before the public. From
the high character of the General-in-Chief and his known relations
with the prominent Republicans in Congress, the Administration
hoped that great influence would be exerted by the communica
tion of his views. His report was short and very positive. He de
clared his belief that " the mass of thinking men of the South accept
the present situation of affairs in good faith." At the same time he
thought that " four years of Avar have left the people possibly in a
condition not ready to yield that obedience to civil authority which
the American people have been in the habit of yielding, thus render
ing the presence of small garrisons throughov t those States necessary
until such time as labor returns to its pre er channels and civil
authority is fully established."
It was General Grant's opinion however that acquiescence in the
authority of the General Government was so universal throughout
the portions of the country he visited, that " the mere presence of a
military force, without regard to numbers, is sufficient to maintain
order." He urged that only white troops be employed in the South.
The presence of black troops, he said, " demoralizes labor " and "fur
nishes in their camps a resort for freedmen." He thought there was
danger of collision from the presence of black troops. His obser
vations led him to the conclusion that " the citizens of the Southern
States are anxious to return to self-government within the Union as
soon as possible ; " that " during the process of reconstruction they
want and require protection from the Government;" that "they
are in earnest, and wishing to do Avhat they think is required by the
Government, not humiliating to them as citizens ; " and that " if

GENERAL GRANT'S REPORT ON THE SOUTH. 149
such a course were pointed out they would pursue it in good faith."
" The questions," continued General Grant, " heretofore dividing the
people of the two sections — slavery and the right of secession — the
Southern men regard as having been settled forever by the tribunal
of arms. I Avas pleased to learn from the leading men whom I met that
they not only accepted the decision as final, but now that the smoke
of battle has cleared aAvay and time has been given for reflection,
that this decision has been a fortunate one for the whole country."
He suggested that the Freedmen's Bureau be put under command of
military officers in the respective departments, thus saving the ex
pense of a separate organization. This would create a responsibility
that would secure uniformity of action throughout the South. His
general characterization of the Bureau Avas, that it tended to impress
the freedman Avith the idea that he would not be compelled to work,
and that in some way the lands of his former master were to be
divided among the colored persons.
The supporters of the Administration considered General Grant's
report a strong justification of their position towards the South, and
they used it with some effect throughout the country. The popu
larity of the Lieutenant-General was boundless, and of course there
was strong temptation to make the most of whatever might be said
by him. Mr. Sumner immediately demanded the reading of the
report of Mr. Schurz. He likened the message of the President to
the " whitewashing " message of President Pierce with regard to the
^T7ormities in Kansas. " That," said he, " is its parallel." Mr. Doo
little criticised the use of the Avord " whitewashing," and asked Mr.
Sumner to qualify it, but the Massachusetts senator declared that he
had " nothing to modify, nothing to qualify, nothing to retract. In
former days there AA'as one Kansas that suffered under a local power.
There are noAv eleven Kansases suffering as one : therefore, as eleven
is more than one so is the enormity of the present time more than the
enormity of the days of President Pierce." Later in the debate, Mr.
Sumner indirectly qualified his harsh Avords, saying that he had no
reflection to make on the patriotism or the truth of the President of
the United States. "Never in public or in private," said he, "have
I made such reflection and I do not begin now. When I spoke I
spoke of the document that had been read at the desk. I character
ized it as I thought I ought to characterize it." The distinction he
sought to make was not clearly apparent, the only importance attach
ing to it being that Mr. Sumner had not yet concluded that a bitter

150 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
political war was to be made upon the President of the United
States. The character of Mr. Schurz's report at once disclosed the reason
of Mr. Sumner's anxiety to have it printed with the report of General
Grant. It was made after a somewhat prolonged investigation in
the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and the
Department of the Gulf. Mr. Schurz's conclusions were that the
loyalty of the masses and of most of the leaders in the South " con
sists in submission to necessity." Except in individual instances,
he found " an entire absence of that national spirit which forms the
basis of true loyalty and patriotism." He found that " the emanci
pation of the slaves is submitted to only in so far as chattel-slavery
in the old form could not be kept up ; and although the freedman is
no longer considered the property of the individual master he is con
sidered the slave of society, and all independent State legislation will
share the tendency to make him such. The ordinances abolishing
slavery, passed by the conventions under the pressure of circum
stances, will not be looked upon as barring the establishment of a
new form of servitude." " Practical attempts," Mr. Schurz con
tinued, " on the part of the Southern people to deprive the negro
of his rights as a freedman may result in bloody collision, and will
certainly plunge Southern society into resistless fluctuations and
anarchical confusion."
These evils, in the opinion of Mr. Schurz, " can be prevented
only by continuing the control of the National Government in the
States lately in rebellion, until free labor is fully developed and firmly
established. This desirable result will be hastened by a firm decla
ration on the part of the Government that national control in the
South will not cease until such results are secured." It was Mr.
Schurz's judgment that "it will hardly be possible to secure the freed
man against oppressive legislation and private persecution unless he
be endowed with a certain measure of political power." He felt sure
of the fact that the "extension of the franchise to the colored peo
ple, upon the development of free labor and upon the security of
human rights in the South, being the principal object in view, the
objections raised upon the ground of the ignorance of the freedmen
become unimportant."
Mr. Schurz made an intelligent argument in favor of negro
suffrage. He was persuaded that the Southern people would never
grant suffrage to the negro voluntarily, and that " the only manner

MR. SCHURZ'S REPORT ON THE SOUTH. 151
in which the Southern people can be induced to grant to the freed
men some measure of self-protecting power, in the form of suffrage,
is to make it a condition precedent to re-admission." He remarked
upon the extraordinary delusion then pervading a portion of the
public mind regarding the deportation of the freedmen. "The
South," he said, " stands in need of an increase and not a diminution
of its laboring-force, to repair the losses and disasters of the last
four years. Much is said of importing European laborers and North
ern men. This is the favorite idea among planters, who want such
emigrants to work on their plantations, but they forget that Euro
pean and Northern men will not come to the South to serve as hired
hands on the plantations, but to acquire property for themselves ;
and even if the Avhole European emigration, at the rate of two hun
dred thousand a year, Avere turned into the South, leaving not a
single man for the North and West, it would require between fifteen
and twenty years to fill the vacuum caused by the deportation of
freedmen." Mr. Schurz desired not to be understood as saying that " there are
no well-meaning men among those who are compromised in the
Rebellion. There are many, but neither their number nor their
influence is strong enough to control the manifest tendency of the
popular spirit." Apprehending that his report might be antagonized
by evidence of a contrary spirit shown in the South by the action of
their conventions, Mr. Schurz declared that it was " dangerous to be
led by such evidence into any delusions." " As to the motives," said
Mr. Schurz, " upon which the Southern people acted when abolishing
slavery (in their conventions) and their understanding of the bear
ings of such acts, we may safely accept the standard they have set
up for themselves." The only argument of justification was that
" they found themselves in a situation where they could do no better."
A prominent Mississippian (General W. L. Brandon) said in a public
card, according to Mr. Schurz, "My honest conviction is that we
must accept the situation until we can once more get control of our
own State affairs. ... I must submit for the time to evils I cannot
remedy." Mr. Schurz expressed his conviction that General Bran
don had " only put in print what a majority of the people say in more
emphatic language."
The report of Mr. Schurz was quoted even more triumphantly by
the opponents of the President's policy than Avas General Grant's
by its friends. It was a somewhat singular train of circumstances

152 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
that produced the two reports, while the sequel, so far as the authors
were involved, Avas quite as remarkable as the contradictory char
acter of the views put forth. In the early summer (1865) when
Mr. Johnson had yielded many of his preconceived views of recon
struction to the persuasions of Mr. SeAvard, but was still adhering
tenaciously to some exactions which the Secretary of State deemed
unwise if not cruel, it had occurred to the President to procure an
accurate and intelligent report of the Southern situation by a man of
capacity. Mr. Johnson held at that particular time a middle ground,
measuring from the original point of his extreme antagonism towards
the Southern rebels to the subsequent point of his extreme antago
nism towards the Northern Republicans. His selection of Mr. Schurz
for the special duty was deemed significant, because at that period
of a political career consistent only in the frequency and agility of
its changes Mr. Schurz happened to take an extreme position on the
Southern question — one that was in general harmony with the views
entertained and avowed by Mr. Sumner. Mr. Schurz, according to
his own declaration, had communicated his "views to the President
in frequent letters and conversations," and added an assurance, the
truth of which all who know Mr. Schurz will readily concede — "I
would not have accepted the mission had I not felt that whatever
preconceived opinions I might carry Avith me to the South I should
be ready to abandon or modify, as my perception of facts and circum
stances might command their abandonment or modification."
Mr. Schurz started on his mission in the early part of July, and
was engaged in traveling, observing and taking copious notes until
the middle of the ensuing autumn. His report did not reach the
President until the month of November. In the intervening months
Mr. Johnson had been essentially and rapidly changing his views,
— growing more and more favorable to the Southern leaders, less
and less in harmony with the Republican leaders. He had gone far
beyond the balancing-point of impartiality, where he stood Avhen he
was willing to intrust the task of Southern investigation to a man
of the radical views which Mr. Schurz then professed. He Avas now
altogether unwilling to submit the report of Mr. Schurz to Congress
as an ex cathedra exposition. If not in some way counterbalanced it
Avould necessarily be considered authoritative, and in a certain sense
accredited by the Administration.
It was the President's desire to neutralize the effect of Mr.
Schurz's representations, which led to the report of General Grant,

PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND GENERAL GRANT. 153
the chief points of which have been already quoted. The Commander
of the Army Avas necessarily in close relations with the Executive
Department, and was recognized by the President as possessing an
extraordinary popularity in the Northern States. During the months
that had passed since the war closed General Grant had been re
ceived, wherever he had been induced to visit, with a display of
enthusiasm never surpassed in our country. The people looked upon
him simply as the illustrious soldier who had led the armies of the
Union to victory. They attributed to him no political views except
those of undying loyalty to his country, and they sought no party
advantage from the use of his name. He had indeed made no par
tisan expressions, either during the war or since its close, on any
subject whatever, except the necessity of maintaining the Union —
and this was a partisan question only in consequence of the evil
course pursued by the Democratic party during the closing years of
the war.
On the civil and political aspects of the situation General Grant
had not deemed it necessary to mature his views. He desired above
all things the speedy restoration of the Southern States to the Union
as the legitimate result of the victories in the field. But so far as
action or even the exertion of any positive influence was involved, he
confined himself strictly to his duties as Commander of the United-
States Army. President Johnson saw an opportunity for turning
the prestige of General Grant to the benefit of his Administration.
Towards the close of November the general was starting South on
a tour of military inspection " to see what changes were necessary
in the disposition of the forces, and to ascertain how they could be
reduced and expenses curtailed." The President requested him " to
learn during his tour, as far as possible, the feelings and intentions
of the citizens of the Southern States toAvarcls the National Govern
ment," — a request with Avhich the general complied in a perfunctory
manner, giving merely the impressions formed in the rapid journey
of a few days. He left Washington on the 27th of November and
passed through Virginia " Avithout conversing or meeting with any
of its citizens." He spent one day in North Carolina, one in South
Carolina and two in Georgia. This was the whole extent of the
observation upon which General Grant had innocently given his
views, Avithout the remotest suspicion that his brief report was to
figure largely in the discussions of Congress upon the important and
absorbing question of reconstruction.

154 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
The divergent conclusions which were thus made to appear be
tween the authors of the conflicting reports did not cease with this
single exhibition. It was soon perceived that in the President's
anxiety to parry the effect of Mr. Schurz's report he had placed
General Grant in a false position, — a position which no one realized
more promptly than the General himself. Further investigation led
him to a thorough understanding of the subject and to a funda
mental change of opinion. It led him to approve the reconstruction
measures of the Republican party, and in a subsequent and more
exalted sphere to continue the policy which these measures fore
shadowed and implied. Mr. Schurz, on the other hand, received new
light and conviction in the opposite direction, and from the point
of extreme Republicanism he gradually changed his creed and be
came, first a distracting element in the ranks of the party, and after
wards one of its malignant opponents in a great national struggle in
which General Grant was the leader, — the aim of which struggle
was really to maintain the views which Mr. Schurz had, with appar
ent sincerity, endeavored to enforce in his report to President John
son. These changes and alternations in the position of public men
are by no means unknown to political life in the United States, but
in the case under consideration the actors were conspicuous, and for
that reason their reversal of position was the more marked.

An interesting and important case, relating to the mode of electing
United-States senators, came up for decision at this session and led
to a prolonged debate, which was accompanied with much personal
feeling and no little acrimony. — In the Avinter and spring of 1865 the
Legislature of New Jersey was engaged in the duty of choosing a
senator of the United States to succeed John C. Ten Eyck, whose
term was about to expire. After many efforts at election it had
been found that no candidate was able to secure "a majority of
the votes of all the members elected to both Houses of the Legisla
ture," which was described in the rule adopted by the joint con
vention of the two Houses as the requisite to election. On the
15th of March the convention rescinded this stringent rule and de
clared that " any candidate receiving a plurality of votes of the mem
bers present shall be declared duly elected." The Legislature was
composed of a Senate with twenty-one members and an Assembly

THE NEW-JERSEY SENATORSHIP. 155
Avith sixty members. The resolution giving to a plurality the power
to elect was carried in the joint convention by a majority of one —
forty-one to forty. In this vote eleven senators were in the affirma
tive and ten in the negative, and of the members of the House thirty
were in the affirmative and thirty in the negative. It was therefore
numerically demonstrated that the resolution could not have been
carried with the two Houses acting separately. There would have
been a majority of one in the Senate and a tie in the House.
Proceeding to vote under this neAv rule, John P. Stockton, the
Democratic candidate, receiA'ed forty votes, John C. Ten Eyck, the
Republican candidate, thirty-seven votes, and four other candidates
one vote each. Forty-one votes Avere thus cast against Mr. Stockton,
but as he had secured a plurality he was duly elected according to
the rule adopted by the joint convention. — Mr. Stockton was thirty-
nine years of age at the time of his election. His family had been
for several generations distinguished in the annals of New Jersey.
His great-grandfather Richard Stockton was a member of the Conti
nental Congress and was a signer of the Declaration of Independ
ence ; his grandfather Richard Stockton was a senator of the United
States under the administrations of Washington and John Adams ;
his father was the well-known Commodore Robert F. Stockton, who
was conspicuously effective as a naval officer in the conquest of Cali
fornia, and afterwards a senator of the United States. Mr. Stockton
entered the Senate, therefore, with personal prestige and a good share
of popularity with his party.
On the 20th of March, five days after the alleged election of Mr.
Stockton, seven senators and thirty-one members of the Assembly
forwarded to the Senate of the United States a protest against his
admission, for the reason that he Avas not elected by a majority of
the votes of the joint meeting of the Legislature. The substantial
ground on which the argument in the protest rested, was that a
Legislature means at least a majority of what constitutes the Legis
lature as convened at the moment of election. This had been, as
they set forth at length, the undoubted law and the unbroken usage
of New Jersey, and an election falling short of this primary require
ment was necessarily invalid. " The Constitution of the United
States directs," said this memorial, "that a senator must be chosen by
the Legislature, and a minority does not constitute the Legislature."
They illustrated the wrongfulness of the position by the reductio
ad absurdum. " The consequences which are possible," argued the

156 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
protestants, " from admitting the right to elect by a plurality vote,
furnish a conclusive argument against it. If two members vote for
one person and every other member, by himself, for different indi
viduals, the person having two votes would have a plurality. Can it
be that in such a case he would be senator? This indeed is an
extreme case, but such cases test the propriety of legal doctrine, and
many equally unjust but less extreme may easily be offered."
Mr. Stockton took his seat on the first day of the ensuing session
(December 4, 1865), and was regularly sworn in. At the same time
the protest was presented by Mr. Cowan of Pennsylvania and re
ferred to the Judiciary Committee. That committee was composed
of five Republicans and two Democrats, and was therefore politically
biased, if at all, against Mr. Stockton. On the 30th of January,
after a patient examination of nearly two months, the committee,
greatly to the surprise of the Republican side of the chamber, re
ported that " Mr. Stockton was duly elected and entitled to his
seat." The report was said to have been approved by every member
of the committee except Mr. Clark of NeAv Hampshire. The validity
or invalidity of the election hinged upon the ability of the joint con
vention of the two branches to declare a plurality sufficient to elect.
The committee decided that the convention possessed that power,
and the report, drawn by Mr. Trumbull, argued the point with con
siderable ingenuity.
The subject came up for consideration in the Senate on the 22d
of March (1866), Mr. Clark, the dissenting member of the commit
tee, leading off in debate. He was ably sustained by Mr. Fessenden,
who left little to be said, as was his habit in debating any question
of constitutional laAV. He maintained that " the Legislature, in the
election of a United-States senator, is merely the agent of the Con
stitution of the United States to perform a certain act. It is there
fore under the control of no other power. No provision of the
Constitution of New Jersey, directing the mode in which a senator
shall be elected, or the course that shall be taken, or the rules of the
proceeding, would bind in any way the Legislature which is to per
form the act. Nor would any law of a previous Legislature have
binding force. The existing Legislature is independent of every
thing except the Constitution of the United States ; but while it is
thus independent and may disregard those provisions, being the mere
agent of the Federal Constitution, still it must necessarily act as
a Legislature in the performance of that duty. There must be a

THE NEW-JERSEY SENATORSHIP. 157
legislative act. . . . Whatever is done in relation to the election of
a senator, must be done as a consequence of legislative action, other
wise it is no election by the Legislature. They vote to form a con
vention for the purpose of choosing a senator, and when they meet
in convention that choice may be made. If there is legislative ac
tion previously that is sufficient. The convention can choose a sena
tor because there has been legislative action which authorizes them
to choose a senator in that form. The Legislature, when it votes to
go into a convention of the two branches, may provide the mode of
election. If it desires to change the ordinary and received law on
the subject it may provide how the election shall be made. It may
say that a plurality shall elect if it pleases. It may make any pro
vision that it pleases, but it must be done by the Legislature. It
must be the legislative body which gives the power that is to settle
the mode of action. Now what are the facts in this case ? There
was no provision whatever made by the Legislature of the State of
NeAv Jersey as to the mode in which the senator should be chosen.
The legislatiAre action which authorized the convention was perfectly
silent upon that subject. What then had the Legislature the right
to conclude ? Was it not this, and this only? — that when it author
ized a body other than itself, though constituted of the same mem
bers, a convention to choose a senator, that body must proceed in the
choice of a senator according to the universally received Parliamen
tary and common law upon the subject of elections. But this con
vention in New Jersey, without any legislative act, Avithout any such
authority conferred upon it, without any thing done on the subject by
the Legislature which formed the body, undertook to say that they
would change the received and acknowledged Parliamentary and com
mon law in their mode of proceeding, and instead of acting accord
ing to that law, as the Legislature must have intended that it should
do, Avould elect in a totally different manner from that prescribed
by law, namely, by a plurality vote, for Avhich they had no legislative
sanction and for Avhich there was no authority but their own will."
There was a long debate on the question, but the argument sub
mitted by Mr. Fessenden Avas never refuted by his opponents, and
it was practically repeated by every one Avho concurred in his gen
eral views. Mr. Stockton made an able presentation of his own case,
perhaps better than any made for him, but he was never able to evade
the point of Mr. Fessenden's argument, or even to dull it. The case
came to a vote on the 23d of March, the first test coming upon an

158 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
amendment to the committee's report, which declared Mr. Stockton
" not entitled to a seat." This amendment was defeated — yeas 19,
nays 21. The vote was then taken on the direct question of declar-
ing him entitled to his seat. At the conclusion of the roll-call the
yeas Avere 21, the nays 20, when Mr. Morrill of Maine rose and asked
to have his name called. He voted in the negative and produced a
tie. Thereupon Mr. Stockton rose and asked to vote. No objection
being interposed his vote was received. The result was then an
nounced 22 yeas to 21 nays, thereby confirming Mr. Stockton in his
seat. Mr. Stockton, disclaiming any intention to reflect upon Mr.
Morrill, intimated that he was under the obligation of a pair with
Mr. William Wright (the absent colleague of Mr. Stockton) and
therefore should not have voted. The two had undoubtedly been
paired, but Mr. Morrill considered that the time had expired and
acted accordingly. He was not only a gentleman of scrupulous
integrity, but in this particular case he had taken counsel with his
colleague, Mr. Fessenden, and with Mr. Sumner, safe mentors, and
was advised by both that he had a clear right to vote. It cannot be
denied however that Mr. Morrill's action created much ill-feeling on
the Democratic side of the Senate.
Mr. Stockton's determination to vote must have been taken very
hastily, Avithout due reflection on his own part and without the
advice of his political associates, Avho should have promptly counseled
him against his unfortunate course. The Parliamentary position of
the question, at the moment he committed the blunder of voting, was
advantageous to him on the record. The Senate had defeated by a
majority of two the declaration that he was not entitled to a seat,
and the declaration in his favor, even after Mr. Morrill's negative
vote, stood at a tie. Nothing therefore had been done to unseat him,
and if he had left it at that point he would still have remained a
member by the prima facie admission upon his regular credentials.
. These proceedings took place on Friday and the Senate adjourned
until Monday. Meanwhile the obvious impropriety of Mr. Stockton's
vote upon his own case had deeply impressed many senators, and on
Monday, directly after the Journal was read, Mr. Sumner raised a
question of privilege and moved that the Journal of Friday be
amended by striking out the vote of Mr. Stockton on the question of
his seat in the Senate. He did this because, being on the defeated
side, he could not move a reconsideration ; but Mr. Trumbull and
Mr. Poland, who had sustained Mr. Stockton's right to a seat, both

THE NEW-JERSEY SENATORSHIP. 159
offered to move a reconsideration, because they believed that he had
no right to vote on the question. Mr. Poland made the motion and
it was unanimously agreed to. Then, instead of urging the correction
of the Journal of Friday, Mr. Sumner proposed a resolution declaring
that " the vote of Mr. Stockton be not received in determining the
question of his seat in the Senate," which was agreed to without a
division. The original resolution being again before the Senate, Mr.
Clark renewed his amendment declaring that John P. Stockton was
not elected a senator from New Jersey, on which the yeas were 22
and the nays 21. As thus amended the resolution passed by 23 yeas
to 20 nays. Mr. Riddle of Delaware voted with the majority for the
purpose of moving a reconsideration on a succeeding day — a privi
lege from which he Avas excluded by the action of Mr. Clark of NeAv
Hampshire, who made the motion at once with the object of securing
its defeat and thereby exhausting all power to renew the contro
versy. Mr. Clark of course voted against his own motion, and with
its rejection Mr. Stockton ceased to be a member of the Senate.
More than half of those who sustained Mr. Stockton's right to his
seat were Republicans, or had, until the current session of Congress,
acted with the party. The majority of a single vote by which he
was ejected would have been neutralized if Mr. Stockton's colleague
could have been present. Mr. Wright was ill at his home in NeAV-
ark and contradictory reports were made as to the time when
he could probably be present. Some of the Republicans justified
their urgent demand for a final vote on the belief entertained by
them that Mr. Wright would never appear in the Senate again. As
matter of fact he resumed his seat eight days after the decision of
Mr. Stockton's case., His vote would have changed the result. The
haste with which the question was brought to a decision can hardly
be justified, and is a striking illustration of the intense party-feeling
which had been engendered by the Avar. In a matter so directly
affecting the interests and the feelings of the people of New Jersey
it was certainly a hardship that the voice of the State was not heard.
With one senator excluded from voting by parliamentary, law and
the other absent by reason of physical disability, Mr. Stockton had
good ground for declaring that the Senate had not treated him with
magnanimity or generosity. It is due to Mr. Stockton to say that
under very trying circumstances he bore himself with moderation
and dignity.
In the decision itself, however, there has been general acquies

160 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
cence, and it led to an important reform in the manner of choosing
United-States senators. The well-known Act of July 26, 1866,
" regulating the time and manner of holding elections for senators
in Congress," was the direct fruit of the Stockton controversy.
Though it may not be perfect in all its details that law has done
much to insure the fair and regular choice of senators. It has cer
tainly accomplished a great deal by preventing various objectionable
devices, which prior to its enactment had marked the proceedings
of every senatorial election where the Legislature was almost equally
divided between political parties. The reluctance to interfere with
the supposed or asserted rights of States had too long delayed this
needful exercise of National power. The Constitution provides that
" the times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and
representatives in Congress shall be prescribed in each State by the
Legislature thereof ; but the Congress may, at any time, by laiv, make or
alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators."
There was a reluctance in the early administration of the Federal
Government to assume any function which had been given alterna
tively to the States. It thus came to pass that many methods were
developed in different States for choosing senators, — methods that
widely differed in their essential characteristics. Hence there was
variety, and even contrariety, where there should have been only
unity and harmony. These divergent practices had been allowed to
develop for seventy-seven years of the nation's life, when, admonished
by the Stockton case of the latitudinary results to which loose meth
ods might lead, Congress took jurisdiction of the whole subject. The
exercise of this power was a natural result of the situation in which
the nation was placed by the war. Previous to the civil conflict
every power was withheld from the. National Government which could
by any possibility be exercised by the State Government. Another
theory and another practice were now to prevail; for it had been
demonstrated to the thoughtful statesmen who then controlled the
Government, that every thing which may be done by either Nation or
State may be better and more securely done by the Nation. The
change of view was important and led to far-reaching consequences.

Alexander G. Cattell succeeded Mr. Stockton and served in the
Senate with usefulness and high credit until March 4, 1871. He had

THE NEW-JERSEY SENATORSHIP. 161
been all his life engaged in commercial affairs, but had taken active
part in politics and had held many positions of trust in his native
State. Iii 1844, at tAventy-eight years of age, he Avas a member of the
Constitutional Convention of New Jersey and made his mark in its
proceedings. His upright character, his recognized ability and his
popular manners had given him a strong hold upon the people of
his State.
William Wright, the colleague of Mr. Stockton, who was unable
from illness to vote on his case, died the ensuing November (1866)
at seventy-two years of age. He served two terms (1843-47) in the
House of Representatives from the NeAvark district as a Whig, and
was a zealous supporter of Mr. Clay in 1844. He was a wealthy
manufacturer, largely engaged in trade with the South, and the
agitation of the slavery question became distasteful to him. In
1850 he united with the Democratic party and was sent to the Senate
in 1853. Frederick Theodore Frelinghuysen was chosen as Mr. Wright's
successor. He was in his fiftieth year when he entered the Senate,
but was known as a distinguished member of the New-Jersey Bar
and had served as Attorney-General of his State. His grandfather,
Frederick Frelinghuysen, was a member of the Continental Congress
and a senator during Washington's second term. His uncle, Theo
dore Frelinghuysen, was a senator during the first term of Jackson
and ran for Vice-President on the ticket with Mr. Clay in 1844.
The family came with the early emigration from Holland and soon
acquired a hold upon the confidence of the people of New Jersey
which has been long and steadily maintained. — Mr. Frelinghuysen
soon attained prominence in the Senate, and grew in strength and
usefulness throughout his service in that body.
Vol. II. 11

CHAPTER VIII.
The President offended. —Adverse Vote in Congress surprises him. — Freed
men's Bureau established. — Major-General Howard appointed Commis
sioner. — His Character. — Deficiency of the Bureau. — Supplementary Act.
— Its Provisions. — Conflict with State Power. — Long Debate. — Speech
of Ignatius Donnelly. — The President's Veto. — Severe Attack upon the
Policy. — Expense of the Bureau. — Senate fails to pass Bill over Veto. —
Another Bill to Same Effect passed. — More guarded in its Provisions.—
President vetoes the Second Bill. — Senate and House pass it over the
Veto. — Unpopularity of the Measure. — Senator Trumbull introduces
Civil Rights Bill. — Its Provisions. — Radical in their Effect. — Speech of
Reverdy Johnson. — Debate in the House. — President vetof.s the Bill. —
Makes Elaborate Argument against it. — Exciting Debate on Veto. — Mr.
Trumbull's Speech. — Severe Review of._Presjdent'j /Course. — Exciting
Speech of Mr. Wade. — Illness of Mr. Wright. — Severe Remarks of Mr.
McDougal and Mr Guthrie. — Debate in the House. — Both Branches pass
Bill over Veto. — Radical Character of the Measure. — Relations of Presi
dent and Congress. — Openly Hostile. — Popular Meeting in Washington. —
President's Action approved. — President's Speech 22d of February. — Its
Undignified and Violent Character. — CallsVMen by Name. — Unfavorable
Impression upon the Country. — The President losing Ground. — Republi
cans in Congress Anxious. —Exciting Period. -* Senator Lane of Kansas.—
His Political Defection. —His Suicide. — Personal History. — His Public
Services. — Suicide of Preston King. — Supposed Reasons for the Act.
WITH the disposition manifested in both Houses of Congress
it was feared that the conflict between the Legislative and
Executive Departments of the Government would assume a virulent
and vindictive spirit. It Avas known that President Johnson was
deeply offended by the indirect refusal of the House to pass any
resolution in the remotest degree approving his course. He had
doubtless been led to believe that the influence of such eminent
Republicans as Mr. Seward in his Cabinet, Mr. Cowan and Mr. Doo
little in the Senate and Mr. Raymond in the House, would bring
about so considerable a division in the Republican ranks as to give
the Administration, by uniting with the Democratic party, the con
trol of Congress, or at least of one branch. The test vote of January
9th was an unwelcome demonstration of the degree to which the Presi-
162

BUREAU OF FREEDMEN AND REFUGEES. 163
dent had almost wilfully deceived himself and had been innocently
deceived by others. He foresaw the struggle and with his com
bative nature prepared for it.
On the last day of the preceding Congress, March 3, 1865, an
Act had been passed to establish a bureau for the relief of freedmen
and refugees. It was among the very last Acts approved by Mr. Lin
coln, and was primarily designed as a protection to the freedmen of
the South and to the class of white men known as "refugees," —
driven from their homes by the rebels on account of their loyalty to
the Union. Protection was needed by both classes during the dis
organization necessarily incident to so great and sudden a change in
their condition and in their relations to society. The total destruc
tion of the long-established labor system of the South — based as it
had been on chattel-slavery — led inevitably to great confusion,
indeed almost to social anarchy. The result was that many of the
freedmen, removed from the protection of their old masters, were
exposed to destitution and to many forms of suffering. But for the
interposition of the National Government there was serious danger
that thousands of them might be reduced to starvation. Having
taken the responsibility of freeing them, first by Proclamation of the
President and then by Amendment of the Constitution, it would
have been a lasting reproach to the Government not to extend
protection and assistance to such of them as were thrown into dire
extremity of want. They could not be left to the chance relief of
the alms-giver, for their number was too large. The white popula
tion of the South were themselves reduced almost to poverty by the
long struggle ; and even if they had been able they were in no
mood to extend relief to negroes who, as they believed, had been
wrongfully released from slavery.
The Act provided that the Bureau should have supervision and
management of all abandoned lands and control of all subjects re
lating to freedmen and refugees from Rebel States, under such regu
lations as might be prescribed by the Commissioner at the head of the
Bureau and by the President. The Secretary of War was authorized
"to direct such issues of provisions, clothing and fuel as he may
deem needful for the immediate and temporary shelter and supply of
destitute and suffering refugees and freedmen and their wives and
children, under such rules and regulations as he may approve." The
Commissioner was authorized to lease, for a term of three years, to
every male citizen, whether refugee or freedman, not more than forty

164 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
acres of the lands which had been abandoned by their owners or
confiscated to the United States, at a rental of six per cent on the
last appraised value. At the end of three years the occupant Avas
entitled to purchase and receive the land, with such title as the
United States could convey, at a price proportioned to the rental
value. Very little permanent advantage came to the negro from
this provision; for the abandoned lands were legally reclaimed by
their owners and the confiscations, few in number, could, by the
Constitution, be only for the life of the owner. Temporary relief
however was afforded ; but much harm was done by creating in the
minds of ignorant freedmen, just redeemed from slavery, the belief
that the Government would give to each of them "forty acres of
land and a mule."
The Commissioner selected was Major-General Oliver O. How
ard, who had gone through the war with marked honor. He was a
lieutenant of ordnance when Sumter was fired upon and a brigadier-
general in the regular army three years later. He had discharged
his military duties with steadiness, intelligence, earnestness and cour
age. He was a man of pure character, of deep religious faith, and
was somewhat an exception to West-Point graduates in being from
the outset thoroughly anti-slavery in his intellectual and moral con
victions, it was the possession of these characteristics Avhich led
Secretary Stanton to select General Howard for the important trust.
For his ease and his peace of mind he should have declined the place,
as he might well have done, since it was not a military duty to
accept. During his administration of the office he was subjected
to unreasonable fault-finding, often to censure and obloquy; but
throughout the whole he bore himself with the honor of a soldier
and the purity of a Christian, — triumphantly sustaining himself
throughout a Congressional investigation set on foot by political
malice, and confronting with equal credit a military inquiry which
had its origin in the jealousy that is often the bane of army service.
On the first attempt to enforce the provisions of the original Act,
its advocates and sympathizers found that it did not go far enough,
nor give power enough to its agents to effect the desired object. On
the 12th of January, therefore, Mr. Trumbull introduced from the
Judiciary Committee a supplementary Act to enlarge the powers of
the Freedmen's Bureau. By the new bill the President was author
ized to " divide the section of country containing the refugees into
districts, not exceeding twelve in number, each containing one or more

BUREAU OF FREEDMEN AND REFUGEES. 165
States, and with the advice and consent of the Senate to appoint
an Assistant Commissioner for each district." The Bureau, at the
discretion of the President, might be placed under a Commissioner
and Assistant Commissioners to be detailed from the Army. Sub-
districts, not to exceed the number of counties or parishes in each
State, were provided for ; and to each sub-district an agent, either a
citizen or officer of the Army, might be detailed for service. Each
Assistant Commissioner might employ not more than six clerks.
The President of the United States, through the War Department
and through the Commissioner, was authorized to extend military
jurisdiction and protection over all employees, agents and officers
of the Bureau; and the Secretary of War was authorized to issue
such provisions, clothing, fuel and other supplies, including medical
stores, and to afford such aid, as he might deem needful for the im
mediate and temporary shelter and supply of destitute refugees and
freedmen, their wives and children, under such rules and regulations
as he might direct. The President was also authorized to reserve
from sale or settlement under the Homestead and Pre-emption Laws,
public lands in Florida, Mississippi and Arkansas, not to exceed
three millions of acres of good land in all, for the use of the freed
men, at a certain rental to be named in such manner as the Com
missioner should by regulation prescribe ; or the Commissioner could
purchase or rent such tracts of land in the several districts as might
be necessary to provide for the indigent refugees and freedmen
depending upon the Government for support.
It was further provided that wherever in consequence of any
State or local law any of the civil rights or immunities belonging to
white persons, such as the right to enforce contracts, to sue, to give
evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold or convey real and
personal property, were refused or denied to freedmen on account of
race or color or any previous condition of slavery or involuntary
servitude, or whenever they were subjected to punishment for crime
different from that provided for white persons, it was made the duty
of the President, through the Commissioner, to extend military juris
diction and protection over all cases affecting persons against whom
such unjust discriminations were made. It was made the duty of the
officers and agents of the Bureau to take jurisdiction of and to hear
and determine all cases, in which by local law discrimination was
made against the freedmen. This was to be done under such rules
and regulations as the President, through the Commissioner, might

166 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
prescribe. But the jurisdiction Avas to cease "whenever the dis
crimination on account of which it is conferred shall cease," and
was in no event to be exercised in any State " in which the ordi
nary course of judicial proceeding has not been interrupted by the
Rebellion, nor in those States after they shall have been fully re
stored to their constitutional relations to the United States, and
when the courts of the State and of the United States, within their
limits, are not disturbed or stopped in the peaceable course of
justice." In a time of peace these provisions seemed extraordinary, but
the condition of affairs, in the judgment of leading Republican
statesmen, justified their enactment. The Thirteenth Amendment,
about to be formally promulgated by the Executive Department of
the Government, as incorporated in the Constitution, had made every
negro a free man. The Southern States had responded to this Act
of National authority by enacting a series of laws which really
introduced, as has already been shown, a new, offensive and most
oppressive form of servitude. Thus not only was rank injustice con
templated by the States lately in rebellion, but they conveyed also
an insulting challenge to the authority of the Nation. It was as if
they had said to the National Government : " In order to destroy the
Confederacy and restore the Union you have manumitted these black
men ; but Ave will demonstrate to you, by our local legislation, that
you are powerless to give them any further freedom than we are
willing to concede, and we defy you to show by what means you can
achieve it ! "
The first answer of the National Government to this defiance
was Mr. Trumbull's bill conferring upon the Freedmen's Bureau a
degree of power which combated and restrained the Southern authori
ties at every point where wrong was committed or menaced. It
was designed for the purpose of extending to the freedman protection
against all the wrongs of local legislation, and to make him feel that
the Government which had freed him would not desert him and
allow his release from slavery to be made null and void. Mr. John
son's policy of declaring all the States at once restored to the Union
and in full possession of their powers of local legislation, would
carry with it necessarily the confirmation of the odious laws already
enacted in those States, and also the power to make them as stringent
and binding upon the freedmen as the discretion of Southern legis
lators might dictate. The war would thus have practically injured

BUREAU OF FREEDMEN AND REFUGEES. 167
the negro, for after taking from him that form of protection which
slavery afforded, it would have left him an object of still harsher
oppression than slavery itself — an oppression that would be inspired
and quickened by a spirit of vengeance.
The bill was debated at full length, nearly every prominent man
in the Senate taking part. Mr. Hendricks of Indiana and Mr. Gar
rett Davis of Kentucky opposed it in speeches of excessive bitter
ness, and Mr. Guthrie of Kentucky Avith equal earnestness but less
passion. It was sustained with great ability by all the leading
Republican senators ; and on the final passage, in an unusually full
Senate, the vote in its favor was 37 ; those opposed were 1 0. There
were only three absentees. Even those Republican senators who had
given strong evidence of sympathy with the Administration did not
unite with the Democrats on this issue. Mr. Cowan declined to vote,
while Messrs. Dixon, Doolittle and Norton voted in the affirmative.
The public opinion of the country unmistakably sustained this legis
lation — the purpose to extend protection to the freedmen being
deep-set and all-pervading among the men of the North who had
triumphed in the war. When the bill reached the House it was
referred to the Select Committee on Freedmen's Affairs, of which
Mr. Thomas D. Eliot of Massachusetts was chairman. It Avas
promptly reported and came to a final vote on the 6th of February,
when it was passed on a call of yeas and nays by 136 to 33. It
was a clear division upon the line of party, the nays being com
posed entirely of Democrats, with the possible exception of Mr.
Rousseau of Kentucky, who had been elected with the aid of Repub
lican votes.
One of the most striking speeches made in the House upon the
subject was by Mr. Ignatius Donnelly of Minnesota. He had care
fully prepared for the debate and dwelt with great force upon the
educational feature. " Education," said he, " means the intelligent
exercise of liberty ; and surely without this liberty is a calamity,
since it means simply the unlimited right to err. Who can doubt
that if a man is to govern himself he should have the means to
knoAV what is best for himself, and what is injurious to himself,
what agencies work against him and what for him ? The avenue to
all this is simply education. Suffrage without education is an edged
tool in the hands of a child, — dangerous to others and destructive
to himself. Now what is the condition of the South in reference to
all this ? I assert that it is such as would bring disgrace upon any

168 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
despotism in Christendom. Tlie great bulk of the people are rude,
illiterate, semi-civilized : hence the Rebellion ; hence all the atrocious
barbarities that accompanied it. ... I repeat, the condition of the
South in this respect would be shameful to any semi-civilized people,
and is such as to render a republican government, resting upon the
intelligent judgment of the people, an impossibility."
It is worthy of remark that the question so cogently presented
and enforced by Mr. Donnelly — that of the connection between
education and suffrage — disclosed the general fact that even among
Republicans there was no disposition at this period to confer upon
the negro the right to vote. Even so radical a Republican as Mr.
Fessenden, during the debate in the Senate on this question, said, " I
take it that no one contends — I think the Honorable Senator from
Massachusetts himself (Mr. Sumner), who is the great champion of
universal suffrage, would hardly contend — that now, at this time,
the whole of the population of the recent slave States is fit to be
admitted to the exercise of the right of suffrage. I presume no man
who looks at the question dispassionately and calmly could contend
that the great mass of those who were recently slaves (undoubtedly
there may be exceptions), and who have been kept in ignorance all
their lives, oppressed and more or less forbidden to acquire informa
tion, are fitted at this stage to exercise the right of suffrage, or could
be trusted to do it unless under such good advice as those better
informed might be prepared to give them."
The bill, as finally passed by both Houses, reached the President
on the 10th of February. On the 19th he sent a message to Con
gress informing each House that, having with much regret come to
the conclusion that it would not be consistent with the public wel
fare to give his approval to the measure, he returned the bill to the
Senate, stating his objections to its becoming a law. The main argu
ment of the President was based upon the principle that legislation
such as that contained in the bill was not proper for States that were
deprived of their right of representation in both branches of Con
gress. "The Constitution," he said, "imperatively declares, in
connection with taxation, that each State shall have at least one
representative, and fixes the rule for the number to which in future
times each State shall be entitled. It also provides that the Senate
of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each
State, and adds with peculiar force that no State, Avithout its con
sent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. . . .

BUREAU OF FREEDMEN AND REFUGEES. 169
Burdens have now to be borne by all the country, and Ave may best
deem that they shall be borne without murmur when thej<- are voted
by a majority of the representatives of all the people. ... At pres
ent all the representatives of eleven States are excluded, those
who were most faithful during the war not less than others. The
State of Tennessee, for instance, whose authorities were engaged in
rebellion, was restored to all her Constitutional relations to the
Union by the patriotism and energy of her patriot people. I know
no reason why the State of Tennessee should not fully enjoy all her
Constitutional relations. . . . The bill under consideration refers to
certain of the States as though they had not been fully restored in
all their Constitutional relations to the United States. If they have
not let us at once act together to secure that desirable end at the
earliest possible moment. In my judgment most of these States, so
far at least as depends upon their own acts, have already been fully
restored and should be deemed as entitled to enjoy their Constitu
tional rights as members of the Union."
He reviewed at some length the minor provisions of the bill,
objected to them as unwarrantably interfering with the local admin
istration of justice, and declared that a system for the support of
indigent persons in the United States was never contemplated by
the authors of the Constitution. " Nor can any good reason be ad
vanced," said the President, " why as a permanent establishment it
should be founded for one class or color of our people more than
another." He objected to it on the ground of its expense. "The
appropriations asked for by the Freedmen's Bureau, as already estab
lished, for the current year, amount," he said, " to $11,745,000 ; and
it may be safely estimated that" the cost to be incurred under the
pending bill will require double that amount, — more than any sum
expended in any one year of the Administration of John Quincy
Adams." The argument of the message based on expense and extravagance
was much applauded by the opponents of the Republican party, and
there was great expectation that it would create a strong re-action in
favor of the President ; but those who thus reckoned utterly failed
to appreciate the temper of the public mind. The disbursement of
vast sums in the war had accustomed the people to large appropria
tions of money, and the pecuniary aspect of the case, upon which the
President had much relied, made far less impression than he antici
pated. The philanthropists did not deem the question at issue to be

170 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
one of dollars and cents ; and those less disposed to sympathize with
the humanitarian aspects of the subject had not yet learned the
lesson of economy which the adversity of after years taught them.
The great expansion of our currency, the ease with which money
had been obtained, and the extravagance with which it had been
expended in all the walks of life, produced in the minds of the people
an indifference to the question of economy. The President, in his
own long career, had exercised a rigid watchfulness over the dis
bursements of public money, and he did not fully realize the great
change which had been wrought in the people — a change sure to
follow the condition of war if historic precedents may be trusted —
a change in which economy gives way to lavishness and careful cir
cumspection is followed by loose disregard of established rules. It
is a condition not implying dishonesty or even recklessness, but one
which follows from a positive inability in the public mind to estimate
the expenditure of money by the standards which are applied in the
era of peaceful industry, careful supervision and prudent restraint.
The Senate voted upon the veto the day after it was received.
Greatly to the surprise of the public the dominant party was unable
to pass the bill against the objections of the President. Messrs.
Dixon, Doolittle, Morgan, Norton and Van Winkle had voted for it,
but now changed their votes and thereby reversed the action of the
Senate. These senators, with the addition of Nesmith and Willey,
who did not vote on the passage of the bill, gave the final count of
30 in favor of the passage to 18 against — lacking the two-thirds
and therefore failing to pass the bill. The result was wholly un-
looked for and the vote of Governor Morgan of New York gave
great uneasiness to his political associates. It was for a time
believed that under the persuasive influence of Mr. Seward, with
whom he had long been on terms of close intimacy, Mr. Morgan
might be intending to join the Administration party. The same Avas
thought possible Avith regard to Mr. Van Winkle of West Virginia,
his location suggesting the possibility of such a change. The ex
citement among Republicans was great for a time, because if they
should so far lose control of either branch of Congress as to be
unable to override the vetoes of the President, all attempts to enforce
a more radical policy of Reconstruction than Mr. Johnson could be
induced to approve would necessarily be futile. It was soon ascer
tained however, that the apprehension of clanger was unfounded,
and that Messrs. Morgan and Van Winkle did not design any change

BUREAU OF FREEDMEN AND REFUGEES. 171
of political relations, but Avere only more cautious and perhaps wiser
than the other Republican senators.
A few Aveeks later, the disaster of the veto — for such it was
esteemed by Republicans — was repaired by the passage of another
bill, originating in the House. This was simply a bill to continue in
force the original Freedmen's Bureau Act, with some enlarging pro
visions to make it more effective. The Act was so framed as to
escape the objections which had controlled some of the Republican
votes that sustained the President's veto. Among the most impor
tant of the changes were the limitation of the statute to the term of
two years and a serious modification of the judicial powers accorded
to the officers of the Bureau in the preceding bill. It was not so
elaborately debated in either branch as was the original act, but its
passage was retarded by the interposition of other measures and it
did not reach the President until the first week in July.
The President promptly returned the bill to the House with his
veto. He found it to fall within the objections which he had assigned
in his message vetoing the Senate bill on the same subject. He
believed that the only ground upon which this kind of legislation
could be justified was that of the war-making power. He admitted
therefore that the original Act organizing a Freedmen's Bureau,
passed during the existence of the war, was proper and Constitu
tional. By its own terms it Avould end within one year from the
cessation of hostilities and the declaration of peace. It would proba
bly continue in force, he thought, as long as the freedmen might
require the benefit of its provisions. "It will certainly," said he,
" remain in operation as a law until some months subsequent to the
meeting of the next session of Congress, when, if experience shall
make evident the necessity of additional legislation, the two Houses
Avill have ample time to mature and pass the requisite measures."
The President reneAved in varied forms the expression of his belief
that all the States should be admitted to the privilege of legislation,
especially in matters affecting their own Avelfare. The House pro
ceeded at once to vote upon the reconsideration of the bill, and by
104 in the affirmative and 33 in the negative passed it over the veto
of the President. The Senate voted on the same day with the House,
and passed it against the President's objections by 33 in the affirma
tive and 12 in the negative. A measure of very great importance to
the colored race was thus completed, after serious agitation in both
Houses and against two vetoes by the President. It required potent

172 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
persuasion, re-enforced by the severest exercise of party discipline,
to prevent a serious break in both Houses against the bill. The
measure had lost, under discussion, much of the popularity which
attended its first introduction in Congress.
On the same day that Mr. Trumbull introduced his original bill
to enlarge the powers of the Freedmen's Bureau, he introduced
another bill, more important in its scope and more enduring in its
character, — a bill " to protect all persons of the United States in
their civil rights and furnish the means of their vindication." It
was referred to the Judiciary Committee on the 5th day of January
and was reported back on the 11th. The bill was one which exem
plified in a most striking manner the revolution produced by the war.
It declared that "there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or.
immunities among the inhabitants of any State or Territory of the
United States, on account of race, color or previous condition of
servitude ; but the inhabitants of every race and color shall have the
same right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give
evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and
personal property, and to full and equal benefits of all laws and pro
visions for the security of personal property ; and shall be subject to
like punishment, fines and penalties, and none other, — any law,
statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to the contrary notwith
standing." Any person who under any law, statute or regulation of any
kind should attempt to violate the provisions of the Act, would be .
punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or by im
prisonment not exceeding one year. Very stringent provisions
were made, and a whole framework of administration devised, by
which the rights conferred under this enactment could be enforced
through "the judicial power of the United States." The district
attorneys, marshals, deputy marshals of the United States, the com
missioners appointed by the Circuit and Territorial Courts of the
United States, the officers and agents of the Freedmen's Bureau, and
every other officer who was sufficiently empowered by the President
of the United States, Avere, by the Act, specially authorized and re
quired, at the expense of the United States, to institute proceedings
against every person Avho should violate its provisions, and " cause
him or them to be arrested and imprisoned for trial at such court of
the United States or Territorial court as, by the Act, has cogni
zance of the case." Any person who should obstruct or hinder an

THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL. 173
officer in the performance of his duty or any person lawfully assist
ing him in the arrest of an offender, or who should attempt to res
cue any person from the custody of an officer, was in turn subjected
to severe penalties.
The bill Avas designed, in short, to confer upon the manumitted
negro of the South the same civil rights enjoyed by the white man,
with the exception of the right of suffrage ; to give him perfect
equality in all things before the law, and to nullify every State law,
wherever existing, that should be in conflict with the enlarged pro
visions of the Federal statute. It left no loophole for escape on the
question of the citizenship of the negro. ''As the decisions of the
Supreme Court of the United States then stood he was not a citizen
of the United States ; and to prevent this question being raised the
word inhabitant was used, — thus making the conferment of civil
rights so broad that it was impossible to defeat the full intent of the
law by any technical evasion. It was undoubtedly a very sweeping
enactment, the operation of which was not confined to the States
which had been slave-holding, but bore directly upon some of the
free States where the negro had always been deprived of certain
rights fully guaranteed to the Avhite man.
Lest " inhabitant " might be held to mean " citizen " in the con
nection in which it was used Mr. Trumbull proposed, at the initial
point of the discussion, to amend by inserting the declaration that
"all persons born in the United States and not subject to any for
eign power are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States
without distinction of color." Mr. Guthrie of Kentucky and Mr.
Howard of Michigan both asked whether that would naturalize all
the Indians in the United States. Mr. Trumbull thought not, be
cause "we deal with the Indians as foreigners — as separate nations;"
but he Avas willing to change it so as specifically to exclude Indians.
Mr. Cowan asked " whether the amendment would not have the
effect of naturalizing children of Chinese and gypsies born in this
country." Mr. Trumbull replied that it undoubtedly would. Mr.
Cowan then thought it would be proper to hear the senators from
California on that question, because " at the present rate of emigra
tion the day may not be very distant when California, instead of
belonging to the Indo-European race, may belong to the Mongolians,
may belong to the Chinese." Mr. Trumbull inquired if the children
of Chinese born in this country were not citizens? Mr. Cowan
thought they were not.

174 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Mr. Reverdy Johnson of Maryland pointed out a difficulty not
anticipated by Mr. Trumbull. By using the word inhabitant in the
bill he made it impossible for any State in the Union to " draw any
distinction between citizens who have been there from birth, or have
been residents for a long time, and him who comes into the State now
for the first time as a foreigner. He becomes at once an inhabitant.
If he comes from England or from any of the countries of the world
he becomes that moment an inhabitant ; and if this bill is to pass
in the shape it stands he can buy, he can sell, he can hold, he can
inherit and be inherited from and possess all the rights of a native-
born citizen," without being naturalized. Mr. Johnson pointed out
another difficulty which perhaps the senator from Illinois did not
foresee. Many of the States in the North as Avell as in the South
forbade the marriage of a black man with a white woman or a white
man with a black woman. This law would destroy all State power
over the subject ; and the man who offended in the matter of mar
riage between the races, so far from being punished himself, could
bring the judge who attempted to enforce the law against him into
punishment. The bill, after much elaboration of debate and many
amendments offered and defeated, came to a vote on the 2d of Feb
ruary and was passed by 33 yeas to 12 nays. Mr. Dixon of Connecti
cut, one of the Administration Republicans, voted for the bill ; Mr.
Cowan and Mr. Norton against it : Mr. Doolittle did not vote.
The bill immediately went to the House, and on the 1st of
March that body proceeded to consider it without its reference to
the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Wilson of Iowa, chairman of that
committee, said they had considered it informally, and in order to
save time it Avas brought up for action at once. The first amend
ment offered Avas to strike out " inhabitants " and insert " citizens
of the United States," and thus avoid the embarrassments that might
result from giving it so broad an extension. The amendment was
promptly agreed to. Mr. Wilson, by another amendment, removed
the difficulties suggested in the Senate by Reverdy Johnson, touch
ing the question of marriage between the races*^ He supported the
bill in a speech of great strength and legal research. He admitted
at the outset that " some of the questions presented by the measure
are not entirely free from defects. Precedents, both judicial and
legislative, are found in sharp conflict concerning them. The line
Avhich divides these precedents is generally found to be the same
which separates the early from the later days of the Republic. The

PRESIDENT VETOES THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL. 175
farther the Republic drifted from the old moorings of the equality
of human rights, the more numerous became the judicial and legis
lative utterances in conflict Avith some of the leading features sought
to be re-established by this bill."
The debate was continued by Mr. Rogers of New Jersey, in the
opposition, by Mr. Russell Thayer of Pennsylvania, who made an
uncommonly able speech in its favor, and by Mr. Eldridge of Wis
consin, who tersely presented the objections entertained by the Dem
ocratic party to such legislation. There were some apprehensions
in the minds of members on both sides of the House that the broad
character of the bill might include the right of suffrage, but to pre
vent that result Mr. Wilson moved to add a new section declaring
that " nothing in this Act shall be so construed as to affect the laws
of any State concerning the right of suffrage." Mr. Wilson said that
the amendment he proposed did not change his own construction of
the bill ; he did not believe the term " civil rights " included the right
of suffrage ; he offered it simply from excessive caution, because cer-.
tain gentlemen feared trouble might arise from the language of the
bill. The amendment was unanimously agreed to, not one voice on
either side of the House being raised against it. Mr. Bingham, Mr.
Raymond and other prominent members of the House, to the num
ber of forty in all, debated the bill exhaustively. It was passed by
111 yeas to 38 nays.
The bill reached the President on the 18th of March (1866),
and on the 27th he sent to the Senate a message regretting that it
contained provisions which he could not approve. " I am therefore
constrained," he said, " to return it to the Senate, in which it origi
nated, with my objections to its becoming a law." The President
stated that by the first section the Chinese of the Pacific States,
Indians subject to taxation, the people called gypsies, as well as the
entire race designated as black, — people of color, negroes, mulattoes,
and persons of African blood, — " are made citizens of the United
States." The President did not believe that this class possessed
"the requisite qualifications to entitle them to all the privileges
and immunities of citizens of the United States." He sought to
raise prejudice against the bill because it proposed " to discriminate
against large numbers of intelligent, worthy and patriotic foreigners,
in favor of the negro, to whom, after long years of bondage, the ave
nues to freedom and intelligence have now been suddenly opened."
"It is proposed," he said, "by a single legislative enactment to

176 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
confer the rights of citizens upon all persons of African descent born
within the extended limits of the United States, while persons of
foreign birth who make our land their home must undergo a
probation of five years, and can then only become citizens of the
United States upon the proof that they are of good moral character,
attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States,
and well disposed towards the good order and happiness of the
same." The President sought to impress upon Congress, in strong lan
guage, the injustice of advancing four millions of colored persons to
citizenship " Avhile the States in which most of them reside are de
barred from any participancy in the legislation." He found many
provisions of the bill in conflict with the Constitution of the United
States as it had been hitherto construed, and argued elaborately
against its expediency or necessity in any form. "The white race
and the black race," said the President, " have hitherto lived in the
South in the relation of master and slave, — capital owning labor.
Now suddenly the relation is changed and as to the OAvnership,
capital and labor are divorced. In this new relation, one being
necessary to the other, there will be a new adjustment, which both
are deeply interested in making harmonious. . . . This bill frus
trates this adjustment. It intervenes betAveen capital and labor and
attempts to settle questions of political economy through the agency
of numerous officials, whose interest it will be to foment discord
between the two races, for as the breach widens their employment
Avill continue and Avhen the breach is closed their occupation AviU
terminate.'' " The details of this bill," continued the President, " establish for
the security of the colored race safeguards which go infinitely beyond
any that the General Government has ever provided for the white
race ; in fact, the distinction between white and colored is by the
provisions of this bill made to operate in favor of the colored and
against the white race." "The provisions of the bill," he main
tained, " are an absorption and assumption of power by the General
Government, which, being acquiesced in, must eventually destroy
our federative system of limited power and break down the barriers
which preserve the rights of States. It is another step, or rather
stride, towards centralization and the concentration of all legislative
power in the General Government. The tendency of the bill must
be to resuscitate rebellion and to arrest the progress of those influ-

DEBATE UPON THE PRESIDENT'S VETO. 177
ences which are more closely thrown around the States — the bond
of union and peace."
The debate upon the President's veto was not very prolonged
but was marked by excitement approaching to anger. Mr. Trum
bull, who had charge of the bill, analyzed the President's argument
with consummate ability and readily answered him on every point of
Constitutional law Avhich he had adduced. He did more than this.
He pointed out Avith unflinching severity what he considered the
demagogical features of the message. '' The best ansAver," said Mr.
Trumbull, "to the President's objection that the bill proposes to
make citizens of Chinese and gypsies and his reference to the dis
crimination against foreigners, is to be found in a speech delivered
in this body by the President himself, on the occasion of a message
being sent to the Senate by Mr. Buchanan, then President of the
United States, returning with his objections what was known as
the Homestead Bill. On that occasion Senator Johnson of Tennessee
said, ' This idea about poor foreigners somehow or other bewilders
and haunts the imagination of a great many. I am constrained to
say that I look upon this objection to the bill as a mere quibble on
the part of the President, as being hard pressed for some excuse in
withholding his approval of the measure. His allusion to foreigners
in this connection looks to me more like the ad captandum of the
mere politician or demagogue, than a grave and sound reason to be
offered by the President of the United States in a veto message on
so important a measure as the Homestead Bill.' "
In exposing the inconsistency between Andrew Johnson, Presi
dent of the United States, and Andrew Johnson, Senator from Ten
nessee, Mr. Trumbull said that he would not use as harsh language as
Mr. Johnson had used towards President Buchanan when he accused
him of "quibbling and demagogery." Mr. Trumbull argued with
great force that the citizen has a counter-claim upon the Government
for the comprehensive claim which the Government has upon the
citizen. " It cannot be that we have constituted a government," said
Mr. Trumbull, "which is all-powerful to command the obedience of
the citizen but has no power to afford him protection." "Tell it
not, sir," said he, " to the father whose son was starved at Ander
sonville, or the widow whose husband was slain at Mission Ridge, or
the little boy who leads his sightless father through the streets of
your city, or the thousand other mangled heroes to be seen on every
side of us to-day, that this Government, in defense of which the son
Vol. II. 12

178 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
and the husband fell, the father lost his sight and the others were
maimed and crippled, had the right to call these persons to its de
fense, but now has no power to protect the survivors or their friends
in any rights whatever in the States. Such, sir, is not the meaning
of our Constitution : such is not the meaning of American citizenship.
Allegiance and protection are reciprocal rights."
During the progress of the debate a curious incident showed the
temper engendered in the Senate. Mr. Trumbull, on the 5th of
April, intimated his readiness to have the vote taken if the Senate was
ready. It was late in the evening. Mr. Cowan interposed the
suggestion that two senators detained at home by illness, Mr. Dixon
of Connecticut and Mr. Wright of New Jersey, could not Avith safety
come out at night. The point of courtesy was strongly insisted
upon by Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Hendricks and other members. Mr.
Wade spoke very excitedly in reply to it. " If the President of the
United States," said he, " can impose his authority upon a question
like this and can by a veto compel Congress to submit to his dic
tation, he is an emperor and a despot. Because I believe the great
question of Congressional power and authority is at stake here, I
yield to no importunities on the other side. I feel myself justified
in taking every advantage Avhich the Almighty has put in my hands
to defend the power and authority of this body. I Avill not yield to
these appeals of comity on a question like this, but I will tell the
President and everybody else that if God Almighty has stricken a
member of this body so that he cannot be here to uphold the dicta
tion of a despot, I thank him for it and I will take every advantage
of it I can."
Mr. Wade was answered with great severity by Mr. McDougal of
California. Mr. Guthrie spoke with much spirit, but not with the
temper of Mr. McDougal. " I should not like it to go out from this
body," said the senator from Kentucky, "that Mr. Stockton was
removed to get rid of his vote. I do not want it to go out from this
body that we would not extend courtesy to sick senators because we
could pass a bill without their votes Avhen we might not pass it if
they were here. The time will come Avhen the people, being con
vinced of these things, will say that there is more to be feared from
a combined Congress than from a President, in relation to the liberties
of the people." The angry position of Mr. Wade was not sustained
by the Senate and the motion to adjourn was carried by 33 to 12.
The debate continued throughout the next day and disclosed during

CIVIL RIGHTS BILL BECOMES A LAW. 179
its progress that Senator Lane of Kansas had joined the small band
of Administration Republicans. He attempted to take part in the
debate but Avas unmercifully dealt with by Mr. Wade, Mr. Trum
bull and others, and paid dearly for his personal defection. When
the vote was taken upon passing the bill over the President's veto
the ayes were 33 and the noes 15. Every senator was present except
Mr. Dixon of Connecticut, still detained from the Senate by illness.
There was one vacancy, Mr. Stockton's seat not having yet been
filled. Among the nays were Mr. Cowan, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Lane
of Kansas, Mr. Norton and Mr. Van Winkle.
The bill Avent to the House and after a very brief debate came
to a vote on the 9th of April — yeas 122, nays 41. Speaker Colfax
directed that his name should be called in order that he might have
the honor of recording himself for the bill. He then announced
that having received the vote of two-thirds of each House the Civil
Rights Bill had become a law, the President's objections to the
contrary notwithstanding. The announcement was received with an
outburst of applause, in which the members of the House as well as
the throng of spectators heartily joined — the speaker being unable
to restore order for several minutes. It recalled the scene of a little
more than a year before, Avhen the rejoicing over the passage of the
Thirteenth Amendment was equally demonstrative.

To many persons of conservative mind the bill seemed too radical
— to many it seemed positively rash. It was an illustration of how
rapidly public opinion is changed, and with what force it may be
brought to bear on a given question in a period that is filled with
the spirit of revolutionary excitement. If five years before the most
pronounced anti-slavery man in the country had been told that not
only would slavery be abolished, not only would the slave be trans
formed into a citizen, but that the National Government would confer
upon him all the civil rights pertaining to the white man and Avould
stretch forth its arm to protect him in those rights throughout the lim
its of the Republic, it would have seemed to him as the wildest fancy
of a distempered brain. But this had actually come to pass through
the ordinary forms of legislation, and by such a preponderating display
of senatorial and representative strength as had scarcely ever before
controlled a public policy since the foundation of the Government.

180 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
It was not, of course, without some misgiving, Avithout a certain
timidity and distrust, that many Republicans were brought to the
support of these measures. They did not object to their inherent
and essential justice and rightfulness, but with instinctive caution
they feared that an attempt to wipe away the prejudices of two
centuries in a single day might lead to a dangerous re-action, and
to a consequent change in the political control of the country.
Many who were borne along in the irresistible current of aggres
sive reform dreaded all the more the effect of the votes Avhich the
moral and political pressure of their constituents compelled them
to give. In the Constitutional amendment abolishing slavery they
went forward without distrust, with complete approbation of con
science, with undoubting belief in the expediency of the act. They
knew that the great mass of the North was heartily opposed to
slavery : they knew that its abolition was not merely right but was
destined to be popular. It affected moreover only that great sec
tion of country which had engaged in the crime of rebellion ; and if
it were viewed only as a punishment of those who had sought the
destruction of the Government, they felt more than justified in
inflicting it.
But the legislation now accomplished was of a different type.
In no State of the North had there ever been social equality be
tween the negro and the white man. It had been most nearly
approached in New England , but still there were points of prejudice
which time had not effaced nor custom changed. In the Middle and
Western States the feeling Avas much deeper. In many of their
laws a discrimination was made against the negro, and a direct inter
ference with the habits of loyal communities on this subject involved
many considerations which did not in any degree attach to legis
lation affecting only the Southern States. There was among Demo
cratic leaders a confidence as marked as the timidity on the part
of Republicans. They were sure of a re-action in their favor ; they
believed that the Republicans had taken the step which would prove
fatal to them, and that with the prejudices of the people supple
mented by the patronage of the President a serious division would
ensue, which would prove fatal to Radical ascendency in a major
ity of the Northern States. Overcome in both chambers by the,
aggressive force of a majority which transcended the limit of two-
thirds, they congratulated themselves that this very power, beyond
the restraint of the Executive and exercised in defiance of his

GROWING HOSTILITY OF PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS. 181
opinions, would prove the pitfall of Republicanism wherever race
prejudice was kept alive.
The passage of these bills by Congress, their persistent veto by the
President and their re-enactment against his objections, produced,
as had been anticipated, not only an open political hostility, but one
which rapidly advanced to a condition in which violent epithet and
mutual denunciation indicated the deplorable relations of the two
great departments of the Government. The veto of the Freedmen's-
Bureau Bill, on the 19th of February, was followed by a large popu
lar meeting in Washington, on the 22d, to approve the President's
action. The meeting adjourned to the White House to congratu
late the President, and he in turn made a long speech in which he
broke through all restraint, and spoke his mind with exasperating
frankness. " I have," said the President, " fought traitors and trea
son in the South. I opposed Davis, Toombs, Slidell, and a long list
of others whose names I need not repeat; and now, Avhen I turn
around at the other end of the line, I find men — I care* not by Avhat
name you call them (a voice : ' Call them traitors ') — who still stand
opposed to the restoration to the Union of these States. (A voice :
' Give us their names.') A gentleman calls for their names. Well !
suppose I should give them ? I look upon them, I repeat it as Presi
dent or citizen, as being as much opposed to the fundamental princi
ples of this Government, and believe they are as much laboring to
pervert or destroy them, as were the men who fought against them
in the Rebellion. (A voice : ' Give us the names.') I say Thaddeus
Stevens of Pennsylvania. (Tremendous applause.) I say Charles
Sumner. (Tremendous applause.) I say Wendell Phillips and
others of the same stripe are among them. (A voice : ' Give it to
Forney.') Some gentleman in the crowd says, ' Give it to Forney.'
I have only to say that I do not waste my ammunition upon dead
ducks." (Laughter and applause.) . . . "They may traduce me,"
continued the President, " they may slander me, they may vituperate,
but let me say to you that it has no effect upon me ; and let me say
in addition that I do not intend to be bullied by my enemies. . . .
There is an earthquake coming, gentlemen : there is a ground-swell
coming of popular judgment and indignation. The American people
will speak for their interests, and they will know who are their friends
and who their enemies. What positions have I held under this Gov
ernment? — beginning with an alderman and running through all the
branches of the Legislature. (A voice : ' From a tailor up.') Some

182 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
gentleman says I have been a tailor. (Tremendous applause.) Now
that did not discomfit me in the least; for when I used to be a
tailor I had the reputation of being a good one and of making close
fits (great laughter); always punctual with my customers and always
did good work. (A voice : ' No patchwork.') No : I do not want any
patchwork. I want a whole suit. But I will pass by this little face-
tiousness. ... I was saying that I had held nearly all positions, from
alderman, through both branches of Congress, to that Avhich I now
occupy ; and who is there that AviU say Andrew Johnson ever made
a pledge that he did not redeem or made a promise that he did not
fulfill?" Some one had spoken in Congress about the Presidential obstacle
to be gotten out of the Avay. Mr. Johnson interpreted this as mean
ing personal violence to himself. " I make use," said he, " of a very
strong expression when I say that I have no doubt the intention was
to incite assassination and so get out of the way the obstacle to
place and power. Whether by assassination or not, there are individ
uals in this Government, I doubt not, who want to destroy our insti
tutions and change the character of the Government. Are they not
satisfied with the blood Avhich has been shed? Does not the murder
of Lincoln appease the vengeance and wrath of the opponents of this
Government? Are they still unslaked? Do they still want more
blood? I am not afraid of the assassin attacking me Avhere a brave
and courageous man would attack another. I only dread him when
he would go in disguise, his footsteps noiseless. If it is blood they
want let them have courage enough to strike like men."
The speech produced a very unfavorable impression upon the
country. Its low tone, its vulgar abuse, recalled Mr. Johnson's
unhappy words at the time of his inauguration as Vice-President,
and produced throughout the country a feeling of humiliation. His
effort to make it appear that his political opponents meditated
assassination was regarded as a thoroughly unscrupulous declaration,
as an unworthy attempt to place himself beside Lincoln in the mar
tyrdom of duty — to suggest that as Lincoln had fallen, sacrificed to
the spirit of hostility in the South, so he, in pursuing his line of duty,
was in danger of being sacrificed to hostility in the North. The
delivery of this speech was the formal forfeiture of the respect and
confidence of the great majority of the people Avho had elected him
to his place, and he failed to secure compensation by gaining the re
spect or confidence of those who had opposed him. A few Democrats

GROWING HOSTILITY OF PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS. 183
who wished to worry and divide the Republican party, the place-
hunters who craved the favor of the Executive, a few deserters from
the Republican ranks unable to pursue the path of exacting duty,
represented by their combination a specious support for the President.
Natives of the border States, who had been unwilling to join in
treasonable demonstrations against the Government but who had
not been inspired with sufficient loyalty to join actively in its de
fense, now naturally rallied around Mr. Johnson. The residents of
Washington, consisting at that time of Southern men and South
ern sympathizers, now applauded the President because they saw an
opportunity to distract and defeat the Republican party. But the
entire mass of those who were now eager to sustain the President
exhibited but a pitiable contrast with the magnificent party which he
had voluntarily abandoned.
The increasing fierceness of the struggle between the President
and Congress gave rise to every form of evil suspicion and evil
imputation. The close vote on the Civil Rights Bill admonished the
Republicans of their danger. If Mr. Dixon had not been confined
to his house by illness, if Mr. Stockton had not been a few days
before deprived of his seat, the Administration Avould have been able
to rally seventeen votes in the negative, leaving but thirty-three to
the Republicans out of a Senate of fifty members. The exigencies
of the situation presented the strongest possible temptation to take
every fair advantage, and this naturally led to the imputation of un
fair advantage. A large number of honest-minded opponents believed
that a careful calculation had been made by the Republican leaders,
and that they had found the margin so close as to be unsafe in a con
test with the President. If the margin- had been broader and the
two-thirds vote assured past all reasonable danger, it was asserted, and
no doubt believed, by their opponents, that the Constitution would
not have been strained to exchange Mr. Stockton for a Republican
senator, who was sure to succeed him. It was the first attempt in our
history to establish the policy of the Government without regard to
the President, and indeed against his power. In the case of Presi
dent Tyler the reverse had been practically attempted. In his con
troversy with the Whigs his friends constituted more than a third in
each House — thus making his veto effective and leading him to at
tempt the adminstration of the Government without regard to the
opinions of Congress. Mr. Tyler had failed ; but thus far in the con
troversy with Johnson, Congress had succeeded. It was said, how-

184 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
ever, with great pertinency by the friends of the President, that
Congress was enabled to do this only by the exclusion of eleven
States of the Union from representation ; and from this fact came the
Democratic denunciation of the Republican party for administering
the affairs of the Government in a revolutionary spirit.
The narrow escape of the measure again created great uneasiness,
not only among the Republicans in Congress but throughout the
country. One or two more defections would imperil Republican con
trol of the Senate. The loyalty of every member to his party was
therefore scanned with closest observation. Rumors, gossip, inven
tions of all kinds were set afloat in the public press, — hinting first
at one man and then at another among the Republican senators as
likely to weaken, as about going over to the Administration, as
having just had a confidential interview with Mr. Seward, as dining
the evening before with the President, or as being concerned in some
matter of even less consequence. When public interest is height
ened the imagination of the people is stimulated, until trifles light
as air have fatal significance in one direction or the other. Through
out the spring and early summer of 1866 (the tentative period, as
it may be called, in fixing the relations of the President and Con
gress) this suggestion of doubt, this latent apprehension, continued,
and was not indeed wholly removed until the political lines were
definitely drawn by the elections for representatives to Congress in
the ensuing autumn.
The situation in all its bearings was one of peculiar embarrass
ment, beset with extraordinary difficulties to those who directed the
proceedings of Congress. In revieAving the events of that day, what
ever may be thought respecting their Avisdom and expediency, candid
men of all parties will concede that the Republican leaders exhibited
great determination of purpose, remarkable steadiness of nerve and
unflagging devotion to principle. They were absolutely without
precedent to guide them in the exigencies and emergencies of the
situation. It was well said at the time that the framers of the Con
stitution in 1787 were not confronted with difficulties so grave or
surrounded Avith problems so complex and unproved, as Avere the
leaders of Congress during the period of Reconstruction. The
framers of the Constitution met for one purpose, upon which all
were agreed. They had only to reconcile differences of detail and
to adjust the jealousies of local interest ; but in 1866 Congress was
called upon to exclude the President practically from all share in the

SUICIDE OF SENATOR LANE. 185
law-making power, and to charge him on his oath of duty to faithfully
execute laws, against which he had constantly entered his solemn
protest, not only as inexpedient but as unconstitutional. Perhaps a
man of more desperate resolution than Mr. Johnson might have used
his Executive power more effectively against Congress, but he must
have done so at the expense of his fidelity to sworn obligations.
The practical deduction as to the working of our Governmental
machinery, from the whole experience of that troublous era, is that
two-thirds of each House, united and stimulated to one end, can
practically neutralize the Executive power of the Government and
lay down its policy in defiance of the efforts and the opposition of
the President.

The defection of Senator Lane of Kansas from the ranks of the
most radical Republicanism caused great surprise to the country.
He had been so closely identified with all the tragic events in the
prolonged struggle to keep slavery out of Kansas, that he was con
sidered to be an irreconcilable foe to the party that tolerated or in
any way apologized for its existence. The position he had taken in
voting against the Civil Rights Bill worried and fretted him. He
keenly felt his separation from the sympathy of such men as Sumner,
Chandler, Wade, and the whole host who had nobly fought the bat
tle of Kansas in the halls of Congress. He felt still more keenly the
general and somewhat indignant disapproval of his action, freely ex
pressed by the great mass of his constituents. One of his intimate
friends said that on the very day of his vote he received a ielegram
warning him that if he voted against the bill it would be the mistake
of his life. The telegram reached him after the roll had been called.
He said excitedly, " The mistake has been matte. I would give all I
possess if it were undone." He was still further disturbed by impu
tations upon his integrity in connection with some transactions of
the Indian Bureau — imputations which were pronounced baseless by
the two senators from Indiana (Thomas A. Hendricks and Henry S.
Lane), one a political opponent and the other a political friend, who
had impartially examined all the facts. But under the mortification
caused by parting with old political associates, and the humiliation
to Avhich he was subjected by groundless imputations upon his char
acter, his mind gave way and on the 11th of July, 1866 he com
mitted suicide.

186 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
General Lane was a native of Indiana, son of a reputable lawyer,
Amos Lane, who was a representative in Congress during the Ad
ministrations of Jackson and Van Buren. He thus inherited Democ
racy of the most aggressive type. He was a man of violent passions
and marked courage. He commanded a regiment of Indiana volun
teers at the battle of Buena Vista, and in 1852 was elected a member
of the House of Representatives. He was a warm supporter of Doug
las and voted for the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. He im
mediately afterwards emigrated to Kansas, as he said, "to see fair
play under the doctrine of popular sovereignty." His career thence
forward formed a large part of the history of Kansas. He contrib
uted perhaps as largely as any other one man to the victory of
the Free-State policy, and became as violent in his hostility to the
Democratic party as he had formerly been in its advocacy. When
his State was admitted to the Union in 1861 he was rewarded with
the honor of being one of her first senators in Congress. His course
in the Senate, until the time of his defection, had been especially
marked for its aggressiveness in support of the war and the destruc
tion of the institution of slavery. He was profoundly attached to
Mr. Lincoln and had received many marks of his friendship. The
motive for his strange course under President Johnson was never
clearly disclosed. He was in the full vigor of life when he closed it
with his own hands, being a few weeks beyond his fifty-first birthday.
The Administration of Mr. Johnson had, before the death of Mr.
Lane, been unhappily associated in the popular mind with another
suicide. A few days before the assembling of Congress Mr. Preston
King, collector of the port of New York, had drowned himself in the
Hudson River by leaping from a ferry-boat. He had been for more
than twenty years an intimate friend of Mr. Johnson and held, as
already narrated, a confidential relation to him at the time of his
accession to the Presidency. He had been especially influential in
the National Republican Convention of 1864 in securing for Mr.
Johnson the nomination for the Vice-Presidency. The original disa
greement with Mr. Seward was generally ascribed to the influence of
Mr. King upon the President, but Avhen, with Mr. Seward in the
Cabinet, Mr. King was appointed collector of customs for the port of
New York, it was understood to mean that a perfect reconciliation
had taken place between all the Republican factions in his State.
The change in the President's position was a complete surprise to
Mr. King and left him in a peculiarly embarrassing situation. He

SUICIDE OF PRESTON KING. 187
was essentially a radical man in all his political vieAvs, and the evi
dent tendency of the President toAvards extreme conservatism on the
question of reconstruction was a keen distress to him. He was at a
loss to determine his course of action. If he should resign his post
it would be the proclamation of hostility to one to whom he was
deeply attached. If he should remain in office he feared it might
be at the expense of forfeiting the good Avill of the tens of thousands
of New-York Republicans who had always reposed the utmost confi
dence in his fidelity to principle, and who had rewarded him with
the highest honors in their power to bestow. He had not desired the
collectorship, and consented to accept it only from his sincere friend
ship for the President and from his earnest desire to harmonize the
Republican party in New York and bring its full strength to the sup
port of the Administration. The office had given him no pleasure.
It had indeed brought him nothing but care and anxiety. The appli
cations for place were numerous and perplexing, the daily routine of
duty was onerous and exacting, and his pecuniary responsibility to
the Government, much exaggerated by his worried mind, constantly
alarmed him. Mr. King found himself therefore so situated that,
whichever way he turned, he faced embarrassment in his career,
and as he imagined, disaster to his reputation. In the conflicting
emotions incident to his entangled position, his brain was fevered and
his intellect became disordered. From the anguish which his sensi
tive nature could not endure, he sought relief in the grave.
Mr. King was born in 1806 at Ogdensburg, St. Lawrence County,
New York, which throughout his life continued to be his home. He
became prominent in political affairs, while still a young man, as a
zealous supporter of President Jackson in whose interest he edited
a paper. He attached himself to that strong school of New-York
Democrats of whom Silas Wright was the acknowledged leader.
After conspicuous service in the New- York Legislature, he entered
Congress in 1845 and remained until 1851. When the South de
manded the abrogation of the Missouri Compromise Mr. King fol
lowed his personal convictions, broke from his Democratic associations
and aided in the organization of the Republican party. He adhered
steadily to the fortunes of the new party and brought with him a
strong popular support — the large Republican majorities in Northern
New York being originally due in no small degree to his personal
influence and earnest efforts.

CHAPTER IX.
Contest between President and Congress. — Points of Difference. — What
Congress insisted on. — Required Definition of American Citizenship. —
Political Disabilities. — The Public Credit. — Protection of National Pen
sions. — Repudiation of Rebel Debt. — Possible Payment for Slaves. — Ap
prehensions of Capitalists. — Danger hanging over National Treasury.—
Amendments to the Federal Constitution. — Should Rebel States partici
pate. — Mr. Seward's View. — Mr. Thaddeus Stevens's View. — Proceedings
of Reconstruction Committee. — Proposed Bases of Representation. —
Amendment proposed by Mr. Spalding. — By Mr. Blaine. — By Mr. Conk-
ling. — Speech by Mr. Jenckes of Rhode Island. — By Mr. Baker and Mr.
Ingersoll of Illinois. — By Mr. Shellabarger. — By Mr. Pike of Maine.—
Mr. Schenck's Amendment. — House adopts Amendment. — Opposed in the
Senate. — Long Speech of Mr. Sumner. — Reply of Mr. Fessenden. — Speech
of Senator Henderson. — His Radical Proposition. — Senate defeats House
Amendment. — New Proposition from the Reconstruction Committee. —
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution proposed. — Its Original Form.
— Debate in the House. — Proceedings in the Senate. — Long Debate. —
Speeches by Mr. Howard, Me. Hendricks, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Reverdy John
son, Mr. Doolittle. — Final Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment by
Both Branches. — Notification to the States June 16. — Prompt Adoption
by Tennessee. — Tennessee re-admitted to Representation. — Action of
Senate and House Thereon. — Reasons assigned for passing the Bill. —
President approves the Bill, but disapproves the Reasons for its Passage.
— His Ingenuous Censure of Congress. — Adjournment of Congress. —Im
pending Political Contest. — Struggle between the President and Congress.
THE controversies between the President and Congress, thus far
narrated, did not involve what have since been specifically known
as the Reconstruction measures. Those Avere yet to come. The es
tablishment of the Freedmen's Bureau was at best designed to be a
temporary charity ; and the Civil Rights Bill, while growing out of
changes effected by the Avar, was applicable alike to all conditions
and to all times. The province of the Special Committee on Recon
struction was to devise and perfect those measures which should
secure the fruits of the Union victory, by prescribing the essential
grounds upon which the revolted States should be re-admitted to
representation in Congress. The principal objects aimed at were at
188

MEASURES OF RECONSTRUCTION. 189
least four in number. That which most largely engaged popular
attention at the outset Avas the increased representation which the
South was to secure by the manumission of the negroes. In the
original Constitution only three-fifths of the slaves were permitted
to be enumerated in the basis of apportionment. Two-fifths were
now added and an increase of political power to the South appeared
probable as the somewhat startling result of the civil struggle.
There was an obvious injustice in giAdng to the white men of the
South the right to elect representatives in Congress apportioned to
their section by reason of the four and a half millions of negroes,
Avho were enumerated in the census but not allowed to exercise any
political power. By permitting this, a Confederate soldier who
fought to destroy the Union would be endowed with a larger power
of control in the National Government than the loyal soldier who
fought to maintain the Union. To allow this to be accomplished
and permanently incorporated in the working of the Government
would be a mere mockery of justice, the utter subversion of fair
play between man and man.
Another subject deeply engaging Northern thought was the defi
nition of American citizenship. There was a strong desire to place
it on such substantial foundation as should prevent the possibility of
sinister interpretation by the Judiciary, and guard it at the same
time against different constructions in different States. This was an
omission in the original Constitution — so grave an omission, indeed,
that the guarantee entitling citizens of each State to the privileges
and immunities of citizens of the several States, was in many cases
ignored, often indeed defied and destroyed. If we were now to
have a broader nationality as the result of our civil struggle, it was
apparent to the mass of men, as well as to the publicist and states
man, that citizenship should be placed on unquestionable ground —
on ground so plain that the humblest man who should inherit its pro
tection would comprehend the extent and significance of his title.
A third point had taken possession of the popular mind, quick
ened and intensified as it was by the conflict between the President
and Congress. The President, as already stated, had by the lavish
use of the pardoning power signalized his change on the subject of
Reconstruction. Many of the worst offenders in the Confederate
cause had received Executive clemency. Not only had the general
mass of rebels been pardoned by the amnesty proclamation of May
29th, but many thousands of the classes excepted in that instrument

190 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
had afterwards received special pardons from the President. The
crime of treason, which 'they had committed, was thus condoned,
and the Executive pardon could be pleaded against any indictment
or any attempt to punish by process of law. If there should be no
provision to the contrary, these pardoned men would jthus become as
eligible to all the honors and emoluments of the Republic as though
they had not for four years been using their utmost efforts to de
stroy its existence. It was therefore the general expectation of the
people that by some law, either statute or organic, the political privi
leges of these men, so far as the right to hold office was involved,
should be restricted, and that, without contravening the full force
and effect of the President's pardon, they might justly be deprived
of all right to receive the honors of the Nation and of the State.
From the crime of rebellion they had been freed by the President,
but it was expected that Congress would clearly define the difference
between pardoning a rebel for treason to his country and endowing
him Avith the right to enjoy the honors and emoluments of office.
Other subjects had entered into the public apprehension and
were brought prominently to the attention of Congress, and by Con
gress referred to the Reconstruction Committee. There was a fear
that if, by a political convulsion, the Confederates of the South should
unite with the Democratic opponents of the war in the North and
thus obtain control of the Government, they might, at least by some
indirect process if not directly, impair the public obligations of the
United States incurred in suppressing the Rebellion. They feared
that the large bounties already paid to Union soldiers, and the gen
erous pensions already provided or which might afterwards be pro
vided, for those Avho had been maimed or fjpr the orphan and the
widoAV of those who had fallen, might, in the advent of the same
adverse political power in the Government, be objected to, unless at
the same time a similar concession should be granted to the misled
and deceived masses of the South, who had with reckless daring
been forced into the service of the ill-starred Confederacy. It was
therefore expected that Congress would, so far as organic law could
attain that end, guard the sacredness of the public debt and the
equal sacredness of the National pensions, and that to do this effec
tively it should be provided that no recognition should ever be made,
either by the National Government or by any State Governments,
of debts incurred in aid of the Rebellion.
Still another subject was considered to be of grave consequence.

MEASURES OF RECONSTRUCTION. 191
Preventive measures of the most stringent character were demanded
against a threatened danger to the National credit. With the single
exception of land, which is the basis of all property, the South had
lost the largest aggregate investment held in one form in the entire
country. The money value of Southern slaves, reckoned at current
prices, Avas larger when the war broke out than the money value of
railroads or of manufacturing establishments in the United States.
For the defense of this great interest the war had been avowedly un
dertaken. Perhaps it would be more truthful to say that the ambi
tious and conspiring politicians of the South had assumed the danger
to this vast investment as the pretext for destroying the Government ;
and they had met with the fate so solemnly foretold in Sacred Writ,
— they had drawn the sword and perished by the sword. As the one
grand consummation of the struggle, the institution of slavery had
disappeared. It was probable, nay, it was certainly to be expected,
that in the destruction of so large an investment great suffering
would come to many who had not participated in the Rebellion ; to
many indeed who had opposed it. That remuneration for losses
should be asked was apparently inevitable.
Men of financial skill and experience saAV that if such a contin
gent liability should overhang the National Treasury the public credit
might be fatally impaired. The acknowledged and imperative indebt
edness of the Government was already enormous ; contingencies yet
to be encountered would undoubtedly increase it, and its weight
would press heavily upon the people until a firmly re-established
credit should enable the Government to lower the rate of interest
upon its bonds. So long as the Government was compelled to pay
its interest in coin, while the business of the country was conducted
upon the basis of suspended paper, the burden upon the people
would be great. It would be vastly increased in imagination (and
imagination is rapidly transformed to reality in the tremulous balance
which decides the standard of public credit) if the Nation should
not be able to define with absolute precision the metes and bounds
of its aggregate obligation. Hence the imperious necessity of
excluding all possibility of the payment of from two to three thou
sand millions of dollars to the slave-holders of the South. If that
were not accomplished, the burden would be so great that the Nation
which had survived the shock of arms might be engulfed in the
manifold calamities of bankruptcy.
The magnitude of the reforms for which the popular desire Avas

192 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
unmistakable, may in some degree be measured by the fact that they
involved the necessity of radical changes in, and important additions
to, the Federal Constitution. It was frankly acknowledged that if
the President's plan of Reconstruction should be followed, involving
the instant admission of senators and representatives from the re
volted States, these Constitutional changes could not be effected,
because the party desiring them would no longer control two-thirds
of both Senate and House. Mr. Seward, in his persuasive mode of
presenting his views, had urged as a matter of justice that legislation
affecting the Southern States should be open to the participation of
representatives from those States ; but Mr. Thaddeus Stevens, who
had as keen an intellect as Mr. Seward and a more trenchant style,
declared that view to involve an absurdity. He avowed his belief
that there was no greater propriety in admitting Southern senators
and representatives to take part in considering the financial adjust
ments and legislative safeguards rendered necessary by their crime,
than it would have been to admit the Confederate generals to the
camp of the Union Army when measures were under consideration
for the overthrow of the Rebellion.
The great mass of Republicans in Congress maintained that it
was not only common justice but common sense to define, without
interposition or advice from the South, the conditions upon Avhich
the insurrectionary States should be re-clothed with the panoply of
National power. " In no body of English laws," said Mr. Stevens,
in an animated conversation in the House, "have I ever found a
provision which authorizes the criminal to sit in judgment when the
extent of his crime and its proper punishment were under considera
tion." The argument, therefore, which Mr. Seward had made with
such strength for the President was, in the judgment of the great
majority of Northern people, altogether ill-founded. By the caustic
sentence of Mr. Stevens it had been totally overthrown. The aver
age judgment approved the sharply defined and stringent policy of
Congress as set forth by Mr. Stevens, rather than the policy so com
prehensively embodied and so skillfully advocated by Mr. Seward on
behalf of the Administration. Whatever may have been the temp
tations presented by the apparent magnanimity and broad charity of
Mr. SeAvard's line of procedure, they were more than answered by the
instincts of justice and by the sense of safety embodied in the plan of
Reconstruction announced and about to be pursued by Congress.

THE COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION. 193
The Joint Special Committee on Reconstruction, appointed at the
opening of the Thirty-ninth Congress in December, did not meet for
organization until the 6th of January, 1866. As an indication of
the respectful manner in which they desired to treat the President,
and the care with which they would proceed in their important
duties, they appointed a sub-committee to wait on Mr. Johnson and
advise him that the committee desired to avoid all possible collision
or misconstruction between the Executive and Congress in regard to
their relative positions. They informed the President that in their
judgment it was exceedingly desirable that while this subject was
under consideration by the joint committee no further action in
regard to Reconstruction should be taken by him unless it should
become imperatively necessary. The committee plainly declared
that mutual respect would seem to require mutual forbearance on
the part of the President and Congress. Mr. Johnson replied in
effect that, while desiring the question of Reconstruction to be
advanced as rapidly as would be consistent with fhe public interest,
he earnestly sought for harmony of action, and to that end he would
take no further steps without advising Congress. This promise of
each branch of the Government to wait patiently on the other was
no doubt sincere, but it soon proved difficult, if not impossible, to
maintain the compact. When two co-ordinate departments were
.holding antagonistic views on the vital question at issue, collisions
between them could not be averted. As matter of fact the resolution,
as has been seen by events already narrated, so far from proving itself
to be an adjustment did not serve even as a truce between the Presi
dent and Congress. It was found impracticable to secure repression
and the contest went forward with constantly accelerating speed.
The first question on the subject of Reconstruction which engaged
the attention of Congress, was the re-adjustment of the basis of
representation ; and for a time it absorbed all others. The first
proposition to amend the Constitution in this respect had been made
by Mr. Stevens on the 5th of December, providing " that representa
tives shall be apportioned among the States which may be within the
Union according to their respective legal voters, and for this pur
pose none shall be named as legal voters who are not either natural
born citizens of the United States or naturalized foreigners." During
the month of December the question of representation was discussed,
partly in public debate, but more in conference among members ; and
the plan of placing the basis upon legal voters, at first Avarmly urged,
Vol. II. 13

194 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
was quickly abandoned as its probable results were scrutinized.
When Congress convened after the holidays, on Friday the 5th of
January, Mr. Spalding of Ohio, in a speech already referred to, pro
posed an amendment to the Constitution in regard to representation
in Congress, directing that "^people of color shall not be counted
with the population in making up the ratio of representation, except
it be in States where they are permitted to exercise the elective fran
chise," and this was probably the earliest foreshadowing of the real
change in the basis of representation that was made by the Four
teenth Amendment.
On the ensuing Monday Mr. Blaine of Maine proposed the fol
lowing, in lieu of the Constitutional provision then existing : " Rep
resentatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several
States which shall be included within this Union according to their
respective numbers, which shall be determined by taking the whole
number of persons, except those whose political rights or privileges are
denied or abridged by the constitution of any State on account of race or
color." Mr. Blaine objected to taking voters as the basis of repre
sentation. "If," said he, "voters instead of population shall be
made the basis of representation, certain results will follow, not fully
appreciated perhaps by some who are now urgent for the change. I
shall confine my examination of these results to the nineteen free
States, whose statistics are presented in the census of 1860, and the
very radical change which the new basis of apportionment would
produce among those States forms the ground of my opposition to it.
The ratio of voters to population differs very widely in different sec
tions, varying, in the States referred to, from a minimum of nineteen
per cent to a maximum of fifty-eight per cent ; and some of the changes
which its effect would work in the relative representation of certain
States would be monstrous. For example, California has a population
of 358,110 and Vermont has a population of 314,369, and each has
three representatives on this floor to-day. But California has 207,000
voters and Vermont has only 87,000. Assuming voters as the basis
of apportionment and allowing to Vermont three representatives,
California would be entitled to eight. The great State of Ohio, with
nearly seven times the population of California, would have but
little more than two and a half times the number of representatives ;
and New York, with quite 'eleven times the population of California,
would have, in the proposed method of apportionment, less than five
times as many members of this House."

THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION. 195
Mr. Blaine adduced some other examples less extreme than
those quoted, but the generalization was no doubt too broad and
presented in some respects an erroneous conclusion. The only mode
of getting at the number of voters was by the ballots cast at the
general elections, and the relative ratio was varied by so many con
siderations that it did not correctly represent the actual number of
voters in each State. But the facts presented by Mr. Blaine and
elaborated by other speakers turned the attention of the -House away
from an apportionment based on voters.
Mr. Conkling, a few days later, in referring to Mr. Blaine's argu
ment, maintained that "the ratio, in dividing the whole population
of the United States into two hundred and forty-one representative
districts, leaving out such extreme cases as California, would not be
seriously affected by assuming the white male voters as the basis of
apportionment." On the 15th of January Mr. Conkling submitted
a Constitutional amendment on the subject, in two forms ; making
the proviso in one case that " whenever in any one State the politi
cal rights or privileges of any man shall be denied or abridged on
account of race or color, all persons of such race or color shall be
excluded from the basis of representation," and the other providing
that "when the elective franchise in any State shall be denied or
abridged on account of race or color, all persons of such race or color
so denied shall be excluded from the basis of representation."
On the 22d of January the Reconstruction Committee, both in
the Senate and House, reported their proposed amendment to the
Constitution on this subject. It was in these words : " Representa
tives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States
which may be included within this Union according to their respec
tive numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State —
excluding Indians not taxed ; provided, that whenever the elective
franchise shall be denied or abridged in any State on account of race
or color, all persons of such race or color shall be excluded from
the basis of representation." The amendment was substantially the
second form of that proposed by Mr. Conkling. He was a member
of the Reconstruction Committee and opened the discussion on the
subject with a carefully prepared speech. The peculiar feature of
this amendment was that if any portion of the people should be
excluded by reason of race or color, every individual of that race or
color would be excluded from the basis of apportionment. As Mr.
Stevens expressed it, if one man should be excluded from the ballot-

196 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
box on account of his race, then the whole race should be excluded
from the basis of apportionment.
The proposition led to a long debate, the differences being to a
great extent among members on the Republican side. Mr. Jenckes
of Rhode Island objected to it, because it would not effect the object
aimed at. "Suppose," said he, "this amendment is adopted by
three-fourths of the States and becomes a part of the Constitution,
and after its adoption the State of South Carolina should re-instate
her old* constitution, striking out the word ' white,' and re-establish
ing the property qualification of fifty acres of land or town-lots or the
payment of taxes, there would then be no discrimination of color in
South Carolina ; yet, while the number of her voters would not be
enlarged five hundred, the representation would be exactly as it is,
with the addition of two-fifths of the enfranchised freedmen." Mr.
Blaine objected that " if by ordinary fair play we exclude any class
from the basis of representation they should be excluded from the
basis of taxation, and therefore we should strike out the word ' taxes.'
Ever since the Government was founded taxation and representation
have gone hand in hand. If we exclude that principle from this
amendment we shall be accused of narrow, illiberal, mean-spirited,
money-grasping policy."
Mr. Donnelly of Minnesota supported the measure, not as a
finality but as a partial step, — as one of a series of necessary laws.
Mr. Sloan of Wisconsin made an urgent argument for the basing of
representation upon voters, " as those voters are determined by the
States." Mr. Jehu Baker of Illinois objected to the amendment,
because it " leaves any State of the Union perfectly free to narrow
her suffrage to any extent she pleases, imposing proprietary and other
disqualifying tests and strengthening her aristocratic power over the
people, provided only she steers clear of a test based on race or color."
Mr. Ingersoll of Illinois followed the speech of his colleague, Mr.
Baker, by moving to add to the Constitutional amendment these
words : " and no State within this Union shall prescribe or establish
any property qualifications Avhich may or shall in any way abridge
the elective franchise." Mr. Jenckes of Rhode Island argued against
Mr. Ingersoll's amendment as needlessly abridging the power of the
States. On the 24th of January Mr. Lawrence of Ohio moved that
" the pending resolution and all amendments be recommitted to the
Committee on Reconstruction/with instructions to report an amend
ment to the Constitution which shall, first, apportion direct taxation

THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION. 197
among the States according to the property in each, and second,
apportion the representation among the States upon the basis of male
voters who may be citizens of the United States."
Mr. Shellabarger followed his colleague, giving objections to the
amendment as reported by the Committee on Reconstruction : " First,
it contemplates and provides for and in that way authorizes the
States to wholly disfranchise an entire race of people ; second, the
moral teaching of the clause offends the free and just spirit of
the age, violates the foundation principle of our own Government
and is intrinsically wrong ; third, associated with that clause in our
Constitution relating to the States being republican this amend
ment makes it read thus : ' the United States shall guarantee to
every State in this Union a republican form of government, pro
vided, however, that a government shall be deemed republican when
whole races of its people are disfranchised, unrepresented and
ignored.' " Mr. Eliot of Massachusetts moved an amendment that
representation should be based upon the whole number of persons,
" and that the elective franchise shall not be denied or abridged in
any State on account of race or color."
Mr. Pike of Maine made a strong speech against the amendment,
the spirit of which was in favor of declaring universal suffrage. He
added to the illustrations already given of the inefficacy of the
proposed amendment to reach the desired end, one of special force
and pertinency. " Suppose," said he, " this Constitutional amend
ment to be in full force, and a State should provide that the right of
suffrage should not be exercised by any person who had been a slave
or who was the descendant of a slave, whatever his race or color ? "
He suggested that it was " a serious matter to tell whether this sim
ple provision would not be sufficient to defeat the Constitutional
amendment which we here so laboriously enact and submit to the
States." Mr. Conkling argued that " the amendment we are propos
ing is not for Greece or Rome, or anywhere where anybody besides
Africans were held as slaves. It is to operate in this country, where
one race, and only one, has been held in servitude." Mr. Pike replied
that " in no State has slavery been confined to one race." " So far,"
added he, " as I am acquainted with their statutes, slavery has not
been confined to the African race. I have examined the matter with
some care, and I know of no slave-statute which says that Africans
alone shall be slaves. Well-authenticated instances exist in every
slave State, where men of Caucasian descent, of Anglo-Saxon blood,

198 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
have been confined in slavery and they and their posterity held as
slaves, so that not only were free blacks found everywhere but white
slaves abounded."
On the 29th of January the debate closed, and the resolutions
originally reported from the Committee on Reconstruction, together
with the suggested amendments, were again referred to that com
mittee. Especial interest was taken by many members in the lan
guage proposed by Mr. Schenck of Ohio : " Representatives shall be
apportioned among the several States which may be included within
this Union, according to the number of male citizens of the United
States over twenty-one years of age having the qualifications of
electors of the most numerous branch of the Legislature ; " and also
in the proposition of Mr. Broomall of Pennsylvania, providing that
" when the elective franchise shall be denied by the constitution or
laws of any State, to any proportion of its male citizens over the age
of twenty-one years, the same proportion of its entire population
shall be excluded from the basis of representation." Two days after
wards, on the 31st of January, Mr. Stevens reported from the Joint
Committee on Reconstruction the proposition in this form : " Repre
sentatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may
be included within this Union according to their respective numbers,
counting the whole number of persons in each State — excluding
Indians not taxed; provided that whenever the elective franchise shall be
denied or abridged in any State on account of race or color, the persons
therein of such race or color shall be excluded from the basis of represen
tation." Mr. Schenck submitted his amendment basing apportion
ment upon the number of male citizens of the United States who are
voters, but it was rejected by an overwhelming vote, only twenty-
nine of the entire House voting in the affirmative. The amendment,
as reported from the committee, was then adopted, — yeas 120, nays
46. It was substantially a party division, though some half-dozen
Republicans voted in the negative.
The amendment reached the Senate on the thirty-first day of
January and on the sixth of February was taken up for consider
ation. Mr. Fessenden, chairman of the Joint Committee on Recon
struction, was entitled to open the debate, but yielded to Mr. Sum
ner. Mr. Sumner, with his rigid adherence to principle, opposed the
amendment. " Knowing as I do," said he, " the eminent character
of the committee which reports this amendment, its intelligence, its
patriotism and the moral instincts by which it is moved, I am at a

THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION. 199
loss to understand the origin of a proposition which seems to me
nothing else than another compromise of human rights, as if the
country had not already paid enough in costly treasure and more
costly blood for such compromises in the past." He declared that
he was " painfully impressed by the discord and defilement which
the amendment would introduce into the Constitution." He quoted
the declaration of Madison in the convention of 1787, that it Avas
wrong to admit into the Constitution the idea of property in man.
" Of all that has come to us from that historic convention, where
Washington sat as President and Franklin and Hamilton sat as
members, there is nothing having so much of imperishable charm.
It was wrong to admit into the Constitution the idea that man could
hold property in man. Accordingly, in this spirit the Constitution
was framed. This offensive idea was not admitted. The text at
least was kept blameless. And now, after generations have passed,
surrounded by the light of Christian truth and in the very blaze of
human freedom, it is proposed to admit into the Constitution the
twin idea of inequality in rights, and thus openly set at naught
the first principles of the Declaration of Independence and the guaran
tee of republican government itself, while you blot out a whole race
politically. For some time we have been carefully expunging from
the statute-books the word ' white,' and now it is proposed to insert
into the Constitution itself a distinction of color."
Upon this foundation Mr. Sumner spoke at great length, his
speech filling forty-one columns of the Congressional Globe. It
would hardly be proper indeed to call it a speech. It was a great
historic review of the foundation of the Republics of the world, an
exhaustive analysis of what constituted a true republic, closing with
an eloquent plea for the ballot for the freedmen. He demanded " en
franchisement for the sake of the public security and public faith."
He pleaded for the ballot as " the great guarantee." The ballot, he
declared, " is a peacemaker, a schoolmaster, a protector." " Show
me," said he, as he approached the conclusion of his speech — "shoAV
me a creature with erect countenance and looking to heaven, made in
.the image of God, and I show you a man who, of whatever country
or race — whether darkened by equatorial sun or blanched with the
northern cold — is an equal with you before the heavenly Father,
and equally with you entitled to all the rights of human nature."
..." You cannot deny these rights without impiety. God has
so linked the National welfare Avith National duty that you cannot

200 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
deny these rights without peril to the Republic. It is not enough
that you have given liberty. By the same title that we claim liberty
do we claim equality also. . . . The Roman Cato, after declaring
his belief in the immortality of the soul, added, that if this were an
error it Avas an error that he loved ; and now, declaring my belief in
liberty and equality as the God-given birthright of all men, let me
say in the same spirit, if this be an error it is an error which I love ;
if this be a fault it is a fault which I shall be slow to renounce ; if
this be an illusion it is an illusion which I pray may wrap the world
in its angelic form."
Mr. Sumner's speech may be regarded as an exhaustive and mas
terly essay, unfolding and illustrating the doctrine of human rights.
As such it remains a treatise of great value ; but as a political argu
ment calculated to shape and determine the legislation of Congress,
it was singularly inapt. As a counter-proposition he submitted, a
preamble and joint resolution in these words : " Whereas it is pro
vided by the Constitution that the United States shall guarantee to
every State of the Union a republican form of government, and
whereas, by reason of the failure of certain States to maintain gov
ernments which Congress might recognize, it has become the duty
of the United States, standing in the place of guarantor," . . .
— "Therefore be it resolved, that there shall be no oligarchy, aris
tocracy, caste or monopoly invested with peculiar privileges or
powers, and there shall be no denial of rights, civil or political, on
account of race or color within the limits of the United States or the
jurisdiction thereof, but all persons therein shall be equal before the
law, whether in the court-room or at the ballot-box, and this statute,
made in pursuance of the Constitution, shall be the supreme law of
tlie land, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the
contrary notwithstanding."
Mr. Fessenden replied to Mr. Sumner in an elaborate speech in
justification of the amendment proposed by the Reconstruction Com
mittee. His argument was marked with all his peculiar ability, and
the two speeches contain within themselves the fullest exposition of
the difference in mental quality of the two eminent New-England
statesmen who were so long rivals in the Senate of the United
States. Mr. Fessenden was above all things practical ; he was un
willing at any time to engage in legislation that was not effective
and direct , he had no sympathy with mere declarations, was abso
lutely free from the vanity so often exhibited in legislative bodies,

FESSENDEN REPLIES TO SUMNER. 201
of speaking when there was no question before the body for decision,
or of submitting resolutions merely in response to a popular senti
ment, without effecting any valuable result. In short, Congress was
with him a law-making body. It met for that business and so far
as he could direct its proceedings, Mr. Fessenden, as chairman at
different times of leading committees, held it to its work. He was
felicitous with his pen beyond the rhetorical power of Mr. Sumner,
though not so deeply read', nor so broad in scholarship and general
culture. He made an able argument for the pending amendment as the
most effective mode of bringing the South to do justice to the col
ored race. He believed that if the Southern States should feel that
they could derive larger political power in the Government of the
United States by admitting colored men to the elective franchise,
they would in time conclude to do so ; and doing so they would
be compelled in the mere process to realize their indebtment to that
race, and thus from self-interest, if not from a sense of justice, would
extend equal protection to the whole population. Mr. Fessenden
could not refrain from some good-natured ridicule of the declaratory
resolutions which Mr. Sumner had offered. "Sir," said he, "does
'the Constitution authorize oligarchy, aristocracy, caste or monopoly?
Not at all. Are you not as safe under the Constitution as you are
under an Act of Congress ? Why re-enact the Constitution merely
to put it in a bill? What do you accomplish by it? What remedy
does it afford ? It is merely as if it read in this way : ' Whereas it
is provided in the Constitution that the United States shall guarantee
to every State of the Union a republican form of government, there
fore we declare that there shall be a republican form of government,
and nothing else.' That is all there is of it. Of what particular use
it is as a bill, practically, is more than I can tell. I presume the
Honorable Senator from Massachusetts will very easily explain it,
but it reminds me (I say it with all due respect to him) of a poetical
travesty of a law argument by an eminent lawyer of his own State,
running somewhat in this way : —
' Let my opponents do their worst,
Still my first point is point the first,
Which fully proves my case, because
All statute laws are statute laws.'
The sequitur is obvious, — the case is proved because, inasmuch as

202 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
the Constitution provides that there shall be no aristocracy, no oli
garchy, no caste, no monopoly, therefore Congress has resolved that
there shall not be any thing of the kind."
Mr. Fessenden would not admit the essential justice of the argu
ment which Mr. Sumner made in behalf of universal suffrage, and
showed that he was not consistent in the ground which he took.
" While," said he, " the Honorable Senator from Massachusetts argued
with great force that every man should have the right of suffrage,
his argument, connected with the other principle that he laid down,
and the application of it, — that taxation and representation should
go together, — would apply with equal force and equal equity to
woman as to man ; but I notice that the Honorable Senator carefully
and skillfully evaded that part of the proposition. If a necessary
connection between taxation and representation applies to the indi
viduals in a State, and that is the application which the Honorable
Senator made of it, — an application never made by our ancestors,
but applied by them to communities and not to individuals, — I should
like him to tell me Avhy, according to his own argument, every female
that is taxed should not be allowed to have the right of suffrage."
" There are," said Mr. Fessenden, " but two propositions to be
considered in the pending amendment : one is whether you will base '
representation on voters, and the other is the proposition which is
before the Senate. I suppose the proposition to base representation
upon actual voters would commend itself to the Honorable Senator
from Massachusetts. I believe I have in my desk a proposition he
made to amend the Constitution (laid before the Senate so early in
the session that the bell which called us together had hardly struck
its note before it was laid upon the table), in which he proposed that
representation in the United States should be based on voters. Let
me ask him if that does not leave in the hands of the States the
same power that exists there now, and has existed heretofore ? What
is the difference ? How does the Honorable Senator find the pend
ing proposition so objectionable, and the one he offered so suitable
to accomplish the purpose Avhich he desires to accomplish? The two
propositions, in respect to the point upon which the gentleman has
made his speech, are identical in effect."
The Constitutional amendment was debated earnestly until the
9th of March. One of the boldest and most notable speeches was
made by Mr. Henderson of Missouri, who surprised the Senate by
taking a more radical ground than the Reconstruction Committee.

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 203
He moved the following as a substitute for the committee's proposi
tion to amend the Constitution: "No State, in prescribing the qualifi
cations requisite for electors therein, shall discriminate against any
person on account of color or race." Mr. Henderson, though repre
senting a State lately slave-holding, was in advance of the majority
of his associates from the free States ; but he defended his amend
ment with great ability. He said, " I am aware that the Senate will
vote it down now. Let them vote it down. It will not be five years
from to-day before this body will vote for it. You cannot get along
without it. You may adopt the other proposition, but the States
will not accept it. The Northern States in my judgment will not
accept it, because they will misapprehend the meaning of it." When
the vote was reached ten senators, including Mr. Henderson, sus
tained his proposition in favor of negro suffrage. The resolution of
the Reconstruction Committee, after several attempts to modify it,
came to a vote, — yeas 25, nays 22. Two-thirds being required the
amendment was defeated. A reconsideration was made for the pur
pose of resuming the discussion, but the resolution was never taken
up again, having become merged in a new proposition.
Pending the consideration of the Constitutional amendment so
long before Congress, the Reconstruction Committee reported, and
both Houses of Congress agreed to adopt, a resolution declaring that
"No senator or representative shall be admitted into either branch
of Congress from any of said States until Congress shall have de
clared such State entitled to representation." It was the pressure
of the State of Tennessee for admission which brought about this
declaration. Her condition was regarded as peculiar, and her sena
tors and representatives were seeking admission to their appropriate
bodies, claiming exemption from the general requirements of the
Reconstruction policy, because they had, without the aid of Congress,
established a loyal State government. This was regarded as totally
inexpedient, and the committee, reported the resolution, as they
declared, " in order to close agitation upon a question which seems
likely to disturb the action of the Government, as well as to quiet
the uncertainty which is agitating the minds of the people of the
eleven States which have been declared to be in insurrection." The
objection to this course was, that in a certain degree it involved a
renunciation on the part of both Senate and House of their right to
be the exclusive judge of the qualification of members of their re
spective bodies. Mr. Stevens was the author of the resolution and

204 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
it really included, as its essential basis, the view which he had so
strenuously insisted upon, that the insurrectionary States must be
treated by Congress, in all that related to their restoration to the
Union, as if they were new States seeking admission for the first
time. Instead of each House acting as the judge of the qualifica
tions of its members, both Houses agreed that neither should take a
step in that regard until there had been common action declaring the
State entitled to representation. A similar proposition at the open
ing of the session had been defeated in the Senate : its ready adop
tion now showed how the contest between the President and Congress
was driving the latter day by day to more radical positions.
After the defeat in the Senate of the amendment touching repre
sentation, and the postponement by the House of another amendment
reported from the Committee on Reconstruction touching the pro
tection of citizens in their rights and immunities, there was a general
cessation of discussion on the question of changing the Constitution,
and a common understanding in both branches to await the formal
and final report of the Committee. That report was made by Mr.
Stevens on Monday, the 30th of April.1 It consisted of a joint reso
lution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United
1 The following is the form in which the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu
tion (consolidated from various propositions previously discussed) was originally re
ported from the Committee on Reconstruction by Mr. Stevens : —
"ARTICLE XIV.
" Sect. 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privi
leges or immunities of citizens of the United States ; nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
" Sect. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which
may be included within this Union according to their respective numbers, counting the
whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But whenever in
any State the elective franchise shall be denied to any portion of its male citizens not
less than twenty-one years of age, or in any way abridged, except for participation in
rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation in such State shall be reduced in the
'proportion which the number of male citizens shall bear to the whole number of such
male citizens not less than twenty-one years of age.
" Sect. 3. Until the fourth day of July in the year 1870, all persons who voluntarily
adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort, shall be excluded from the
right to vote for representatives in Congress and for electors for President and Vice-
President of the United States.
" Sect. 4. Neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or
obligation already incurred, or which may hereafter be incurred, in aid of insurrection
or war against the United States, or any claim for compensation for loss of involuntary
service or labor.
" Sect. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the
provisions of thi3 article."

DEBATE ON FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 205
States, in which were consolidated under one article the several
amendments which had been proposed, and which in their aggregate,
as finally shaped, made up the famous Fourteenth Amendment. In
addition to this was a bill reciting the desirability of restoring the
lately revolted States to full participation in all political rights, and
enacting in substance that when- the Constitutional amendment
should be agreed to by them, their senators and representatives in
Congress might be admitted. A further bill was reported, declaring
certain persons who had been engaged in rebellion to be ineligible to
office under the Government of the United States.
The debate on the consolidated Fourteenth Amendment was
opened on the 8th of May by Mr. Stevens. The House had agreed
that all speeches should be limited to half an hour. The debate
was therefore condensed and direct. Mr. Stevens complained
of the Senate for having defeated the amendment relating to repre
sentation, and though assenting to that which was now reported by
the committee, thought it inferior to, and less effective than, the one
which had failed. The third section he thought too lenient. " There
is," said he, "a morbid sensibility sometimes called mercy, which
affects a few of all classes from the priest to the clown, which has
more sympathy for the murderer on the gallows than for his victim.
I hope I have a heart as capable of feeling for human woe as others.
I have long since wished that capital punishment were abolished.
But I never dreamed that all punishment could be dispensed with in
human society. Anarchy, treason and violence would reign triumph
ant. The punishment now prescribed is the mildest ever inflicted
upon traitors. I might not consent to the extreme severity pro
nounced upon them by a provisional Governor of Tennessee — I mean
the late lamented Andrew Johnson of blessed memory — but I would
have increased the severity in this section. ... In my judgment we
do not sufficiently protect the loyal men in the rebel States from the
vindictive persecutions of their rebel neighbors."
Mr. Blaine of Maine called the attention of Mr. Stevens to the
fact that on the 17th of July, 1862, Congress had passed an Act
of which the following was one section: "That the President is
hereby authorized, at any time hereafter, by proclamation, to extend
to persons who may have participated in the existing rebellion in any
State or part thereof, pardon and amnesty, with such exceptions, at
such times and on such conditions as he may deem expedient for the
public welfare." " Under and in pursuance of this Act," said Mr.

206 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Blaine, " the late President Lincoln issued a proclamation granting a
great number of pardons upon certain specified conditions, and sub
sequently President Johnson issued his celebrated amnesty proclama
tion granting pardons to certain specified classes in the South that had
participated in the Rebellion. ... Do we not by the proposed action
place ourselves in the attitude of taking back by Constitutional
amendment that which has been given by Act of Congress, and by
Presidential proclamation issued in pursuance of the law ? and will
not this be justly subjected to the charge of bad faith on the part of
the Federal Government ? "
Mr. Stevens replied that a pardon, whether by the President hav
ing the power or specially by Act of Parliament or Congress, extin
guishes the crime. " After that," said he, " there is no such crime
in the individual. A man steals and he is pardoned. He is not then
a thief and you cannot call him a thief, or if you do you are liable to
an action for slander. None of those Avho have been fully pardoned
are affected by this provision."
Mr. Blaine replied that the Constitutional amendment would be
held to override the President's proclamation, being organic in its
nature and therefore supreme. " That," said Mr. Blaine, " is my
understanding and that, it seems to me, would be the legal construc
tion ; but if the gentleman from Pennsylvania is correct, then I main
tain that it is the bounden duty of this House to make the language
so plain that he who runs may read — that there may be no doubt
about its construction."
Mr. Garfield said that " the point made by the gentleman from
Maine shows that, whatever may be the intention of the committee
or of the House, the section is at least susceptible of double con
struction. Some may say that it revokes and nullifies in part the
pardons that have already been granted in accordance with laAv and
the proclamation of the President. Others may say that it does not
apply to the rebels who have been pardoned."
Mr. Stevens interrupted Mr. Garfield and said, " I was not per
haps sufficiently explicit in what I stated in answer to the interroga
tory of the gentleman from Maine. I admit that a pardon removes
all liability to punishment for a crime committed, but there is a vast
difference between punishment for a crime and withholding a privi
lege. While I admit that the pardon will be full and operative so
far as the crime is concerned, it offers no other advantage than an
exemption from punishment for the crime itself."

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN THE SENATE. 207
Mr. Garfield, resuming, said that he was about to remark that
" if the section does not apply to those who have been pardoned then
it would apply to so small a number of people as to make it of no
practical value, for the excepted classes in the general system of par
dons form a very small fraction of the rebels."
Mr. Boyer, a Democratic member from Pennsylvania, declared
that the effect of the amendment if adopted would be to disfran
chise for a period of four years nine-tenths of the voting population
of eleven States.
The point was subsequently alluded to by the leading laAvyers of
the House, with the general admission that, whatever might have
been the implied pledge of the President or of Congress, or whatever
might be the effect of the pardon of the President, it did not in any
way limit the power of the people to amend their Constitution. To
the proposition to exclude those who had been engaged in the
Rebellion from the right of suffrage for National office until 1870,
there was strong hostility from two classes — one class opposing it
because it was a needless proscription, and the other, equally large,
because it did not go far enough in proscribing those who had been
guilty of rebellion. The amendment came' to a vote on the 10th of
May and the result was 128 ayes to 37 noes. Not a single Republi
can vote was cast against it. Mr. Raymond voted in the affirmative,
and his ringing response elicited loud applause both on the floor and
in the galleries.
When the Senate proceeded to consider the Constitutional amend
ment it soon became evident that it could not be adopted in the form
in which it came from the House. The first important change
was suggested by Mr. Howard of Michigan on behalf of the Senate
members of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction. He proposed to
prefix these words to the first clause of the amendment : " All per
sons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction there
of, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they
reside." Mr. Doolittle moved to insert " excluding Indians not
taxed," but Mr. Howard made a pertinent reply that " Indians born
within the limits of the United States, who maintain their tribal re
lations, are not in the sense of this amendment born subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States." Mr. Doolittle's amendment was
supported by only ten senators on a call of the ayes and noes, and
the amendment proposed by Mr. Howard was then agreed to without
division. Mr. Howard next proposed to amend the second section

208 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
of the constitutional amendment by striking out the word " citizens "
and inserting "inhabitants, being citizens of the United States."
This was done, as Mr. Fessenden explained, " to prevent a State from
saying that though a person is a citizen of the United States he is not
a citizen of the State, and to make it conform to the first clause as
just amended."
Mr. Howard offered next to change the third clause as it came
from the House by inserting a substitute, which is precisely that
which became formally incorporated in the amendment as it passed.
Mr. Hendricks of Indiana moved to amend by inserting after the
word "shall" the words "during the term of his office," so as to
read, " shall, during the term of his office, have engaged in insurrec
tion or rebellion." Mr. Hendricks understood " the idea upon which
this section rests, to be that men who held office, and upon assuming
the office took the oath prescribed by the Constitution, became obli
gated by that oath to stand by the Constitution and the oath," and
that " going into the Rebellion was not only a breach of their alle
giance but a breach of their oath," and that "persons who had vio
lated the oath to support the Constitution of the United States ought
not to be allowed to hold any office." Mr. Howard hoped the
amendment would not be adopted. " If," said he, " I understand the
senator from Indiana rightly, he holds that although a person may
have taken that Constitutional oath, if he has not committed insur
rection during the continuance of the term of his office, but commits
that act after the expiration of that term, the previous taking of the
oath by him adds to the act no additional moral guilt. I do not
concur with him in that view. It seems to me that where a person
has taken a solemn oath to support the Constitution of the United
States, there is a fair implication that he cannot afterwards commit
an act which in its effect would destroy the Constitution of the
United States, without incurring at least the moral guilt of per
jury." Mr. Reverdy Johnson supported Mr. Hendricks's amendment.
" Tlie effect of the amendment of the committee," said he, " would
be to embrace nine-tenths, perhaps, of the gentlemen of the South,
to disfranchise them until Congress shall think proper, by a majority
of two-thirds of each branch, to remove the restriction. If the sug
gestion of the senator from Indiana is not adopted," continued Mr.
Johnson, " then all who have at any time held any office under the
United States, or who have been in any branch of the Legislature

EFFECT OF THE PRESIDENT'S PARDON. 209
of a State, which they could not be without taking the oath required
by the Constitution of the United States, are to be excluded from
holding the office of senator or representative, or that of an elector
for President and Vice-President, or any office, civil or military, un
der the United States." Mr. Fessenden reminded the senator from
Maryland that the provision, as proposed by the committee, included
exactly those classes to whom the obligation of an oath to support
the Constitution was prescribed in the sixth article of the Constitution,
namely, " Senators and representatives and the members of the sev
eral State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both
of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by oath
or affirmation to support this Constitution."
Mr. Sherman of Ohio pointed out that the amendment of Mr.
Hendricks Avould exclude from the operation of the section those
who had left the army of the United States to join the Rebellion.
Mr. Hendricks's amendment received but eight votes in the Senate,
falling short of the admitted Administration strength. Mr. Reverdy
Johnson moved to strike out the words which included members of
the State Legislatures, but the amendment secured only ten votes.
He also moved to strike out the words " having previously taken,"
and insert " at any time within ten years preceding the 1st of Jan
uary, 1861, had taken ; " and this also received but ten votes. Mr.
Van Winkle moved to amend so that a majority of all the members
elected to each House should be empowered to remove the disability,
instead of two-thirds as required by the amendment. This also
received but ten votes.
In further discussion of the extent to which the pardon of the
President goes, Mr. Reverdy Johnson cited a case which had just
been argued by himself and others but was not yet decided, in the
Supreme Court of the United States, as to whether an attorney in
that court could be bound to take the ironclad oath as prescribed
by Act of Congress, January 24, 1865. He had no doubt, he said,
that the operation of^ the pardon was^ to clear the party pardoned
from the obligation to take that oath. The ease referred to was
that since so widely known as ex parte Garland, and decided by the
Supreme Court adversely to the Constitutionality ©f the statute.
Mr. Howe of Wisconsin interrupted the senator from Maryland and
asked him whether he knew " of any authority which has gone to
the extent of declaring that either an amnesty or a pardon can im
pose any limitation whatever upon the power of the people of the
Vol. II. 14

210 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
United States, through an amendment to their Constitution, to fix
the qualifications of officers." Mr. Johnson replied, " That is not the
question to which I spoke. It is quite another inquiry. I was
speaking of the operation of a statute."
Mr. Doolittle also answered his colleague by saying, " I know it
may be said that by an amendment to the Constitution, which is the
supreme law of the land, you can annul all existing rights. You
could, perhaps, by an amendment to the Constitution, enact a pro
vision Avhich would deprive individual citizens of their property, and
vest the whole of it in the Government of a State or in the Govern
ment of the United States. You might, perhaps, by a Constitutional
amendment, pass a bill of attainder by which certain men would be
sentenced to death and to corruption of blood. But, sir, would it
be right ? That is the question." Mr. Doolittle was discussing it on
the ground of its moral rightfulness and not upon the ground of the
power of the people to amend their Constitution. An attempt was
made to insert the word "voluntarily" in the amendment, so that
only those would be under disabilities who had voluntarily taken
part in the Rebellion ; but this received only ten votes. The Senate
rejected it for the obvious reason that it would open the entire
amendment to evasion.
The amendment, as supported by Mr. Howard, was finally agreed
to with only ten votes in the negative. Mr. Hendricks, in lieu of the
amendment on the subject of representation, moved to add a clause
excluding two-fifths of " such persons as have been discharged from
involuntary servitude since the year 1861, and to whom the elective
franchise may be denied." He did this in order that representation
should be maintained on the same numerical basis that existed before
the war. The amendment was rejected without a division. Mr.
Doolittle offered an amendment on the subject of representation,
embodying the two propositions of making voters the basis of repre
sentation and providing that " direct taxes shall be apportioned among
the several States according to the value of the real and personal
taxable property situated in each State, not belonging to the State
or to the United States;" but after elaborate debate it received
only seven votes. On motion of Mr. Williams of Oregon the amend
ment to section two was still further amended by substituting the
words "the right to vote" for "elective franchise," as already
agreed to. Mr. Clarke of New Hampshire, who had shown through
out the discussion great aptness at draughting Constitutional pro-

EFFECT OF THE PRESIDENT'S PARDON. 211
visions in appropriate language, now moved to substitute for section
four, which had gone through various mutations not necessary to
recount here, the precise section as it now stands in the Constitu
tion. In the course of the discussion Mr. Doolittle had moved that in
imposing political disabilities, those should be excepted " who have
duly received pardon and amnesty under the Constitution and laws."
He had just admitted the broadest possible power of a Constitutional
amendment duly adopted, and, recognizing that the amendment as it
stood would certainly include those who had received pardon from
the President, desired to avert that result. His amendment was very
briefly debated and on a call of the ayes and noes received only ten
votes. The effect of this vote unmistakably settled, in the judgment
of the law-making power of the Government, that the operation of
the Fourteenth Amendment would not in the least degree be affected
by the President's pardon. Before the proposed amendment of Mr.
Doolittle, Mr. Saulsbury had tested the sense of the Senate practi
cally on the same point, by moving to make the clause of the amend
ment read thus : " Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each
House and the President may by the exercise of the pardoning power,
remove such disabilities ; " but it was rejected by a large majority,
and every proposition to permit the pardon of the President to affect
the disabilities prescribed by the Fourteenth Amendment in any way
whatever was promptly overruled.
As a result of this decision, Southern men who, under the Four
teenth Amendment, had incurred disabilities by reason of participa
tion in the Rebellion, could not assume office under the National
Government until their disabilities should le removed by a vote of
two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, even though
they had previously been pardoned by the President. The language
of the amendment, the very careful form in which the tense was ex
pressed, appeared to leave no other meaning possible, and the inten
tion of legislators was definitively established by the negative votes
already referred to. The intention indeed was in no wise to inter
fere with the pardon of the President, leaving to that its full scope
in the remission of penalty which it secured to those engaged in the
Rebellion. The pertinent clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was
regarded as merely prescribing a qualification for office, and the
Constitutional lawyers considered it to be within the scope of the
amending power as much as it would be to change the age at which

212 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
a citizen would be eligible to the Senate or the House of Representa
tives.1 One of the singular features attending the discussion and forma
tion of this amendment, was that all the Democratic senators pre
ferred the third section as embodied in the Constitutional amend
ment finally passed, to that which had been proposed as it passed the
House. The amendment could not probably be incorporated in the
Constitution for a year and according to the original proposition of
the House, therefore, it would only have excluded those who par
ticipated in the Rebellion from the ballot-box for a period of three
years, — until the 4th of July, 1870; whereas the third section, as
adopted, perpetually excluded the great mass of the leading men of
the South from holding public office, either in Nation or State, unless
their disabilities should be removed by a vote of two-thirds in each
House of Congress. No adequate explanation was given for this
preference, and the final vote substituting that which was incorpo
rated in the Constitution for the House proposition was 42 in the
affirmative to 1 in the negative. The negative vote was given by
Reverdy Johnson; while such staunch Democrats as Guthrie of
Kentucky, Hendricks of Indiana, McDougal of California and Wil-
lard Saulsbury of DelaAvare voted to prefer the one to the other.
Mr. Johnson afterwards explained that he voted under a misappre
hension; so that the substitution was made, in effect, by a unani
mous vote of the Senate.
On the final passage in the Senate of the consolidated amend
ment the ayes were 33 and the noes 11. When the amendment was
returned to the House, Mr. Stevens briefly explained the changes

1 Among the prominent Southern men who had received the pardon of the Presi
dent, and who, desiring to hold office under 'the National Government, had their disa-
abilities under the Fourteenth Amendment subsequently removed by Congress, were:
M C. Butler, James L. Orr, and William Aiken of South Carolina; Joseph E. Brown,
Henry W. Hilliard, and Lafayette McLaws of Georgia; F. M. Cockrell, George G. Vest,
and John B. Clarke of Missouri; J. D. C. Atkins and George Maney of Tennessee; Ran
dall Gibson of Louisiana; Otho R. Singleton of Mississippi; Alexander R. Boteler of
Virginia; Allen T. Caperton and Charles J. Faulkner of West Virginia; M. W. Ran
som, Thomas S. Ashe, and A. M. Scales of North Carolina; W. B. Machen of Kentucky;
John T. Morgan and James L. Pugh of Alabama.
These gentlemen had all held high positions either in the civil or military service of
the Confederacy. A great number of additional names might be cited of persons who,
having been fully pardoned by the President, were afterwards relieved of their disabili
ties by Congress. The names quoted are but a few of the more conspicuous of those
who have, since the Rebellion, held high official positions under the Government of the
United States.

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PERFECTED. 213
that had been made in the Senate. The first section was altered to
define who are citizens of the United States and of the States. Mr.
Stevens declared this to be an excellent amendment, long needed to
settle conflicting decisions between the several States and the United
States. He said the second section had received but slight alteration.
" I wish," he continued, " it had received more. It contains much
less power than I could wish. It has not half the vigor of the amend
ment which was lost in the Senate." The third section, he said, had
been wholly changed by substituting the ineligibility of certain high
officials for the disfranchisement of all rebels until 1870. Mr. Stevens
declared that he could not look upon this as an improvement. " It
opens the elective franchise to such as the States may choose to
admit. In my judgment it endangers the government of the country,
both State and National, and may give the next Congress and Presi
dent to the reconstructed rebels." The fourth section, " which ren
ders inviolable the public debt and repudiates the rebel debt, will
secure the approbation of all but traitors." " While I see," concluded
Mr. Stevens, " much good in the proposition I do not pretend to be
satisfied with it; yet I am anxious for its speedy adoption, for I
dread delay. The danger is that before any Constitutional guard
shall have been adopted, Congress will be flooded by rebels and rebel
sympathizers." The House came to a final test on the Senate amend
ments on the 13th of June and concurred in all of them by a single
vote — ayes 120, noes 32. The work of Congress in securing the Four
teenth Amendment was thus made complete.
The Constitutional amendment not requiring the assent of the
President (for the good reason that the two-thirds of each House
which can override a veto are here required in advance), was sub
mitted to the States without delay. The notification to the States
was dated June 16th. Connecticut was the first to assent to the
amendment, — her Legislature being in session and her ratification
made complete on the 30th, — precisely a fortnight from the date
of submission. New Hampshire followed on the 7th of July. The
third State was Tennessee. Her Legislature ratified the amendment
on the 19th of July, by a vote of 58 to 17, counting both branches.
Many of the States would doubtless have held extra sessions of their
Legislatures to expedite the adoption of the amendment if such a
course had been considered desirable by the leading members of Con
gress. It was deemed best, however, to leave the question open to
discussion and deliberation, in order that the provisions of the amend-

214 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
ment, in all their length and breadth, should be completely under
stood by the people before the formal assent of the States should be
urged. The three States named were the only ones which ratified
the amendment before Congress adjourned.1

When the Reconstruction Committee reported the Fourteenth
Amendment, they reported with it a bill declaring that " whenever
said amendment shall become a part of the Constitution of the
United States, and any State lately in insurrection shall have ratified
the same and shall have modified its constitution and laws in con
formity therewith," such State should be admitted to representation.
' i The form of the Fourteenth Amendment, as finally agreed upon by Congress and
submitted to the States for ratification, is as follows : —
"ARTICLE XIV.
" Sect. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they
reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States ; nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
" Sect. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according
to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each, excluding
Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors
for President and Vice-President of the United States, representatives in Congress, the
executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is
denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and
citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebel
lion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion
which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens
twenty-one years of age in such State.
" Sect. 3. No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of
President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United
States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Con
gress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or
as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the
United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given
aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of
each House, remove such disability.
" Sect. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,
including debts incurred for the payment of pensions, and bounties for services in sup
pressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United
States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insur
rection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation
of any slave; but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and void.
" Sect. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the
provisions of this article."

RE-ADMISSION OF TENNESSEE. 215
There had been during the entire session of Congress a disposition
to make an exception in favor of the State of Tennessee. She had
of her own motion elected her loyal governor, and now for a year
and a half the administration of the State was in a comparative degree
orderly and regular. When telegraphic intelligence of the action of
the Tennessee Legislature reached the Capitol Mr. Bingham of Ohio
moved a joint resolution, reciting in effect by preamble, that as the
" State of Tennessee has in good faith ratified the Fourteenth Amend
ment, and has also shown to the satisfaction of Congress, by a proper
spirit of obedience in the body of her people, her return to due
allegiance to the Government, laws and authority of the United
States ; therefore, be it resolved that the State of Tennessee is hereby
restored to her former, proper, practical relations to the Union,
and is again entitled to be represented in Congress by senators
and representatives duly elected and qualified, upon their taking the
oaths of office required by existing laws." Mr. Boutwell of Massa
chusetts desired to add a condition that Tennessee, as a prerequisite
to the privilege of representation, should provide "an equal and just
system of suffrage for the male citizens within its jurisdiction Avho
are not less than twenty-one years of age." Mr. Bingham declined
to admit it, shutting off all amendments by the force of the previous
question, for which the House sustained his demand. After a
few hours' debate the House passed the joint resolution by 125 ayes
to 12 noes. The Democrats all supported the measure, though they
objected strenuously to some of the implications of the preamble.
The few votes in the negative were given by some radical Republi
cans, though Mr. Stevens, the leader of that wing of the party, sup
ported the bill.
When the bill admitting Tennessee reached the Senate there
was a discussion of some length in regard to changing the preamble
which had been adopted by the House, the principal aim being to
insert the declaration that "said State Government can only be
restored to its former political relations in the Union by the consent
of the law-making power of the United States." There was division
among the Republican senators in regard to the expediency of this
change. It was the judgment of the more conservative Republicans
who followed Mr. Fessenden, that it was needless to risk a veto of an
important bill of this character by confronting the President with
a distinct negation of his own theory in a place where it practically
availed nothing. After much discussion however it was concluded

216 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
to change the preamble for the sake of establishing a precedent in
the first one of the Confederate States restored to the right of rep
resentation in Congress. The resolution of the House remained
unchanged. The phrase, "hereby restored to her former, proper,
practical relations to the Union," was one much cherished, because
it was the original expression of Mr. Lincoln in his last public
speech. The House readily concurred in the change of preamble.
The President accepted the challenge of his theory embodied in
the preamble, not by veto, but in the more innocent form of argu
ment. "If," said he, in a special message of July 25th, "the ratifica
tion of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States be one of the conditions of admitting Tennessee, and if, as is
also declared by the preamble, said State Government can only be
restored to its former political relations to the Union by the consent
of the law-making power of the United States, it would really seem
to follow that the joint resolution, which at this late day has received
the sanction of Congress, should have been passed, approved and
placed on the statute-books before any amendment to the Consti
tution was submitted to the State of Tennessee for ratification.
Otherwise the inference is plainly deducible tha/t while in the opinion
of Congress the people of a State may be too disloyal to be entitled
to representation, they may nevertheless have an equally potent voice
with other States in amending the Constitution, upon which so essen
tially depends the stability, prosperity and very existence of the
nation." The argument in the message was regarded as an ingenious cen
sure of Congress by the President, and was loudly applauded on the
Democratic side of the House. He concluded by declaring that not
withstanding the anomalous character of the resolution, he had
affixed his signature to it. " My approval, however," he added, " is
not to be construed as an acknowledgment of the right of Congress
to pass laws preliminary to the admission of duly qualified represen
tatives from any of the States." The senators and representatives
of the State were sworn in and took their seats as soon as the
President's message approving the bill was read, and the reconstruc
tion of Tennessee was complete. She had regained all her rights
as a member of the Union, coming in through the gateway of' two
Constitutional Amendments, the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth. It
was evident from that moment that no one of the Confederate States
would ever again be admitted, so long as the Republican party held

ELECTIONS FOR FORTIETH CONGRESS. 217
power in the country, except by giving their assent to the incorpora
tion of the Fourteenth Amendment in the Constitution. The bill
from the Reconstruction Committee requiring this as a condition was
not enacted into law, but the admission of Tennessee was a prece
dent stronger than law. Of all the seceding States Tennessee was
held to be the least offending, and the feeling of kindliness towards
her had been manifest from the first among Republicans. It was
evident therefore to the least observing, that no other State which
had been engaged in the Rebellion would be permitted to resume
the privilege of representation on less exacting conditions than had
been imposed on Tennessee. It might be that their own conduct
would cause more exacting conditions to be imposed.
Congress adjourned on the 28th of July. Elections were to be
held in the ensuing autumn for representatives to the Fortieth Con
gress, and an opportunity was thus promptly afforded to test the
popular feeling on the issue raised by the President's plan of Recon
struction. The appeal was to be made to the same constituency
which two years before had chosen him to the Vice-Presidency, —
augmented by the vote of Tennessee, now once more authorized to
take part in electing the representatives of the nation. Seldom in
the history of the country has a weightier question been submitted
to popular arbitrament ; seldom has a popular decision been evoked
which was destined to exercise so far-reaching an influence upon
the progress of the nation, upon the prosperity of the people. It
was not an ordinary political contest between partisans of recog
nized and chronic hostility. It was a deadly struggle between the
Executive and Legislative Departments of the Government, both
of which had been chosen by the same party. This peculiar fact
imparted to the contest a degree of personal acrimony and political
rancor never before exhibited in the biennial election of representa
tives in Congress.

CHAPTER X.
A Cabinet Crisis. — Resignation op William Dennison, Postmaster-General,
James Speed, Attorney-General, and James Harlan, Secretary op the
Interior. — Succeeded respectively by Alexander W. Randall, Henry
Staneury, and Orville H. Browning. — Political Campaign of 1866. — Four
National Conventions. — Two favoring the President; two adverse. —
Philadelphia Convention, August 14, favoring the President. — Impressive
in Numbers, distinguished in Delegates. — Philadelphia Convention op
September 13. — Southern Loyalists and Northern Sympathizers. — List of
Prominent Men in Attendance. — Marked Effect of its Proceedings. —
Speech of Honorable James Speed. — Address to the People. — Written by
the Honorable J. A. J. Creswell. — Soldiers' Convention at Cleveland. —
Favorable to President. — Speech of General Ewing. — Convention princi
pally Democratic in Membership. — Its Proceedings ineffective. — Soldiers'
Convention at Pittsburg. — Hostile to President. — General Cox presides.
— Distinguished Officers present. — Twenty-five Thousand Soldiers pres
ent. — Great Effect followed it in the Country. — Fourteenth Amendment
the rallying-point. — political events of the summer. — hostile to presi
DENT. — New-Orleans Riot of July 30. — Great Slaughter. — Rebel Officers
in Louisiana responsible. — Investigated by Congress. — Also by Military
Authorities. — Reports substantially agree. — Censure of the President.
— Result hurtful to his Administration. — His Famous Tour. — Injurious
to his Administration. — Republicans victorious in Elections throughout
the North. — Democrats victorious throughout the South. — House of Rep
resentatives Republican by Three to One. — President depressed. — Im
portance of the Elections of 1866. — Negro Suffrage. — The Difficulty of
imposing it on the South. — Fourteenth Amendment the Test for Recon
struction.
THE hostility of the President to all measures which the Repub
lican party deemed necessary for the proper reconstruction of
the Southern States, had made a deep impression upon certain mem
bers of his Cabinet, and before midsummer it was known that a crisis
was impending. On the 11th of July Mr. William Dennison, the
Postmaster-general, tendered his resignation, alleging as the chief
cause the difference of opinion between himself and the President in
regard to the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
He had for some months felt that it would be impossible for him to
co-operate with the President, and the relations between them were
218

A CRISIS IN THE CABINET. 219
no longer cordial, if they were not indeed positively hostile. Alexan
der W. Randall of Wisconsin, the first assistant Postmaster-general,
was an outspoken supporter of the measures of the Administration,
and was using every effort to prejudice Mr. Johnson's mind against
Mr. Dennison, whom he was ambitious to succeed. Mr. Dennison felt
that he was seriously compromising his position at home by remaining
in the Cabinet, though he had been urged to that course by some zeal
ous opponents of the Administration, who desired, as long as possible,
to restrain the President from using the patronage of the Government
in aid of his policy. Mr. Randall was promptly nominated as Mr.
Dennison's successor and proved, in all respects, a faithful follower
of his chief.
A week later Mr. James Speed resigned his post as Attorney-gen
eral. He had been regarded as very conservative on all pending issues
relating to Reconstruction, but he now saw plainly that the President
was inevitably drifting, not only to extreme views on the issue pre
sented, but to an evident alliance with the Democratic party and per
haps a return to its ranks. Against this course Mr. Speed revolted.
His inheritance of Whig principles, his anti-slavery convictions, his
personal associations, all forbade his following the President in his
desertion of the Republican party. He saw his duty, and promptly
retired from a position which he felt that he could not hold with
personal consistency and honor. His successor was Henry Stanbery
of Ohio, a lawyer of high reputation and a gentleman of unsullied
character. He belonged to that association of old Whigs who, in
their extreme conservatism on the slavery question, had been driven
to a practical union with the Democratic party.
A few days after Mr. Speed's resignation Mr. James Harlan
retired from the Interior Department. He would have broken his
relations with the President long before, but for the same cause that
had detained Mr. Dennison. He was extremely reluctant to sur
render the large patronage of the Interior Department to the control
of a successor who would undoubtedly use it to promote the Recon
struction policy of the President, just as Mr. Randall would use the
patronage of the Post-office Department. Mr. Harlan had therefore
remained in the Cabinet as long as was consistent with his personal
dignity, for the purpose of protecting the Republican principles
which the President and he were alike pledged to uphold. He was
succeeded by Mr. Orville H. Browning of Illinois, who had been
a devoted friend of Mr. Lincoln, and had done much to secure his

.220 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
nomination at Chicago. He had served for two years in the Senate
after the death of Mr. Douglas, and but for the immediate control
over his course by President Lincoln would have been a co-laborer
with those who were hostile to the mode in which the war was pros
ecuted. His faith in Mr. Lincoln, his great admiration for his talent,
and his strong personal attachment to him, had for the time main
tained Mr. Browning in loyalty to the Republican party ; but with
the restraining influence of the great President gone, Mr. Browning,
by reason of his prejudices not less than his convictions, at once
affiliated and co-operated with the Democratic party. He was a man
of fair ability and of honorable intentions^ but always narrow in his
views of public policy. Any thing that could possibly be considered
radical inevitably encountered his hostility.
The political campaign of 1866 was one of greater excitement
than had ever been witnessed in this country, except in the election
of a President. The chief interest was in choosing members of the
House of Representatives for the Fortieth Congress, and in controll
ing the Legislatures which were to choose senators of the United
States and pass upon the Fourteenth Amendment. In elections of
this character, even in periods of deepest interest, the demonstrations
of popular feeling are confined to the respective States, but in this
instance there were no less than four National Conventions, three of
them, at least, of imposing magnitude and exerting great influence
on popular action.
The first was called by the friends of President Johnson to meet
in Philadelphia on the 14th of August. The object was to effect a
complete consolidation of the Administration Republicans and the
Democratic party, under the claim that they were the true conserva
tors of the Union, and that the mass of the Republican party, in
opposing President Johnson, were endangering the stability of the
Government. A large majority of the delegates composing the
convention were well-known Democrats, and they were re-enforced
by some prominent Republicans, who had left their party and fol
lowed the personal fortunes of President Johnson. The most con
spicuous of these were Montgomery Blair (who for some years had
been acting with the Republicans), Thurlow Weed, Marshall O.
Roberts, Henry J. Raymond, John A. Dix and Robert S. Hale of
New York, Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, James R. Doolittle and
Alexander W. Randall of Wisconsin, O. H. Browning of Illinois,
and James Dixon of Connecticut. The Democrats were not only

AN ADMINISTRATION CONVENTION. 221
overwhelmingly in the majority, but they had a very large represen
tation of the leaders of the party in several States. So considerable
a proportion of the whole number were men who had been noticeably
active as opponents of Mr. Lincoln's Administration, that the con
vention was popularly described as a gathering of malignant copper
heads who, during the war, could not have assembled in the city
where they were now hospitably received, without creating a riot.
Among the most conspicuous and most offensive of this latter class, —
those who had especially distinguished themselves for the bitterness,
and in some cases for the vulgarity, of their personal assaults upon
Mr. Lincoln, — were Mr. Vallandigham of Ohio, Fernando Wood,
Benjamin Wood and James Brooks of New York, Edmund Burke
and John G. Sinclair of New Hampshire, Edward J. Phelps of Ver
mont, George W. Woodward, Francis W. Hughes and James Camp
bell of Pennsylvania, and R. B. Carmichael of Maryland. Among
the leading Democrats, less noted for virulent utterances against the
President, were Samuel J. Tilden, Dean Richmond and Sanford E.
Church of New York, John P. Stockton and Joel Parker of New
Jersey, David R. Porter, William Bigler and Asa Packer of Penn
sylvania, James E. English of Connecticut, Robert C. Winthrop and
Josiah G. Abbott of Massachusetts, William Beach Lawrence of
Rhode Island, and Reverdy Johnson of Maryland.
Mr. Vallandigham's participation in the proceedings was met with
objection. He had not spoken more violently and offensively against
President Lincoln and against the conduct of the war than some other
members of the convention, but his course had been so notorious and
had been rendered so odious by his punishment, both in being sent
beyond the rebel lines and afterwards in being defeated for gov
ernor of his State by more than one hundred thousand majority,
that many of the delegates were not content to sit with him, —
a sentiment which Mr. Vallandigham is said to have considered
one of mawkish sentimentality, but one to which he deferred by
quietly withdrawing from* all participation in the proceedings. It was
believed, and indeed openly asserted, at the time, that if he had chosen
to remain the attempt to eject him by resolution, as was threatened,
would have led to a practical dissolution of the convention.
The work of the convention was embodied in a long series of
resolutions reported by Mr. Cowan of Pennsylvania, and an address
prepared and read by Mr. Henry J. Raymond. Both the resolutions
and the address simply emphasized the issue already presented to the

222 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
country by the antagonistic attitude of the President and Congress.
In the resolutions, in the address, and in all the speeches, the one
refrain was the right of every State to representation in Congress.
The convention challenged the right in Congress to deny representa
tion to a State, for a single day after the war was ended and sub
mission to National authority had been proclaimed throughout the
area of the Rebellion. In every form in which the argument could
be presented, they disputed the right or power to attach any con
dition whatever to the re-admission of the rebel States to a free
participation in the proceedings of Congress. One of the resolu
tions declared that "representation in the Congress of the United
States or in the Electoral College is a right recognized by the Con
stitution as abiding in every State and as a duty imposed upon its
people, fundamental in its nature and essential to the exercise of our
republican institutions ; and neither Congress nor the General Gov
ernment has any authority or power to deny this right to any State,
or withhold its enjoyment under the Constitution from the people
thereof; and we call upon the people of the United States to elect to
Congress, as members thereof, none but men who admit this funda
mental right of representation and who will receive to seats in Con
gress their loyal representatives from every State in allegiance to the
United States." This sentiment was embodied in many forms in Mr.
Raymond's address, was, in fact, the one fundamental article in the
creed of the Administration and the Democratic party, and afforded
the common ground for their political co-operation.
Mr. Raymond undoubtedly marred the general effect of the
address by carrying his argument to an extreme point. "It is
alleged," said he, "that the condition of the Southern States and
people is not such as renders safe their re-admission to a share in
the government of the country, that they are still disloyal in senti
ment and purpose, and that neither the honor, the credit, nor the
interest of the Nation would be safe if they were re-admitted to a
share in its counsels." Mr. Raymond maintained, even if the truth
of this premise were granted, that it was sufficient to reply that
" we have no right, for such reasons, to deny to any portion of the
States or people rights expressly conferred upon them by the Consti
tution of the United States, and we have no right to distrust the
purpose or the ability of the people of the Union to protect and
defend, under all contingencies and by whatever means may be re
quired, its honor and its welfare."

HOPES OF THE ADMINISTRATION. 223
This assertion of the right of the Southern States to take part at
once and peremptorily in the legislation of a country they had sought
to ruin, was not conceded by the people of the loyal States. They
did not require any refinement of argument to convince them that
men who attempt to destroy a Government should not be permitted
at once to share in its administration. They believed that the Con
gress of the United States would be guilty of a great wrong if it
should unconditionally surrender its power to the men who demanded
admission to peaceful control of the Nation only because they had'
failed to disrupt it by war. Mr. Raymond's personal friends and
admirers, who were not confined to any one party, were amazed at
the recklessness of his position. He did violence to sound logic by
claiming more than was necessary to his argument, and he seriously
injured his repute for political shrewdness by attempting to enforce a
policy which grated on the sensibilities and aroused the prejudices
of the vast majority of those who had filled the ranks of the Union
Army. Great advantage was expected by the President's supporters
from the fact that the convention, as they averred, was so truly
" National " — having delegates from every State of the Union. This
feature was presented as in hurtful contrast with Republican conven
tions, whose members came almost entirely from the loyal States. A
striking spectacle was attempted by having members from Northern
and Southern States enter the great wigwam (which had been spe
cially prepared for the meetings of the convention) arm in arm. To
intensify the effect Massachusetts and South Carolina headed the
procession, General Couch and ex-Speaker Orr typifying in this dis
play the thorough cordiality of Unionist and Confederate in the return
of peace and amicable relations. The danger of all such exhibitions
is, that they may be made a subject of ridicule. This did not escape.
The " wigwam " was parodied by the political wits of the Republican
party as " Noah's Ark," into which there went, as described in Gene
sis, " in two and two," " of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean,
and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth? The
humor which this comparison evoked was of a kind especially adapted
to the stump and was used most effectively. Indeed the President's
supporters, long before the canvass closed, heartily regretted that
they had ever resorted to dramatic scenes as a method of promoting
a political cause. *
The convention of the President's supporters was followed a fort-

224 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
night later (September 3rd) in the same city — Philadelphia — by
a still more imposing assemblage called by the loyalists of the South,
who, desiring to explain their exact situation to co-operating friends,
invited delegations from the Northern States to meet them. Promi
nent Republicans from every loyal Commonwealth responded in full
force to these men who were endeavoring to reconstruct their States
on an enduring basis of Constitutional liberty. Pennsylvania sent
a generous delegation as hosts to those who were to enjoy the hospi
talities of the State. Governor Curtin headed the list. Associated
with him were General Geary, already named as his successor, Gene
ral Simon Cameron, at that time a private citizen, Colonel John W.
Forney, then editor of the Philadelphia Press, and representatives
from every Congressional district in the State. Other States re
sponded with equal cordiality. Senators Morgan and Harris, Horace
Greeley, and John Jaeob Astor, came from New York. Massachu
setts sent her governor, her senators, and all her living ex-governors.
It became, indeed, the fashion for the New-England States to send
governors and ex-governors, and every State was represented in this
way. New Jersey did likewise. The Western States were fully
represented by their ablest and most zealous men. Two future Presi
dents were on the delegation from Ohio, with General Schenck and
Stanley Matthews and the influential German editor Frederick
Hassaurek. Oliver P. Morton came from Indiana, Lyman Trumbull
from Illinois, Fairchild and Howe from Wisconsin, Zachariah Chan
dler and Carl Schurz (then editor of the Detroit Post) from Michigan.
The border slave States sent strong men. N. B. Smithers came from
Delaware ; Senator Creswell, Francis Thomas, and C. C. Fulton of
the Baltimore American, from Maryland ; Governor Boreman, A. W.
Campbell and Nathan Goff from West Virginia ; Robert J. Breck-
enridge accompanied ex- Attorney-general Speed from Kentucky; while
Missouri sent Governor Fletcher, sustained by an able delegation, of
whom Van Horn, Fincklenberg and Louis Gottschalk were promi
nent members. A number of business men, headed by E. W. Fox,
came from St. Louis.
Many of the Southern States were somewhat scantily represented.
It was not safe in certain sections of the South to hold a convention
for the selection of delegates, and yet one or more appeared from
every one of the lately rebellious States. Thomas J. Durant and
H. C. Warmoth came from Louisiana; D. H. Bingham and M. J.
Safford from Alabama ; G. W. Ashburn from Georgia ; and Governor

CONVENTION OF THE PRESIDENT'S OPPONENTS. 225
A. J. Hamilton, Lorenzo Sherwood and George W. Paschal from
Texas. Albion W. Tourgee, who has since won a brilliant reputation
in literature, came from North Carolina with a strong delegation ;
J. W. Field and H. W. Davis from Mississippi. Virginia and Ten
nessee, of the original Confederacy, sent a large number of good
men. From the former came John Minor Botts, George W. Somers,
Lucius H. Chandler, Daniel H. Hoge, Lewis McKenzie, James M.
Stewart, and some hundred and fifty others: the latter was repre
sented by Governor Brownlow, Joseph S. Fowler, Samuel Arnell,
A. W. Hawkins, Thomas H. Benton, General John Eaton, Barbour
Lewis, and many others whose loyalty had been tested by many forms
of personal peril.
These names give a fair indication of the character and weight
of the convention. It was intended to be, and was, a representative
body of true Union men, of the men who had borne persecution for
Loyalty's sake, of the men who, having aided in achieving great vic
tory, were resolved that it should not fail to bear its legitimate fruits.
The delegates from all the States first assembled in Independence
Square, and after a meeting of congratulation, marked by great
enthusiasm, proceeded to form into two conventions, — one contain
ing the loyalists who had called the convention, and the other the
Northern delegates who had met to welcome them. Of the Southern
Convention Mr. Thomas J. Durant of Louisiana was selected as tem
porary chairman, and Honorable James Speed of Kentucky as per
manent chairman ; and of the Northern Convention Governor Curtin
of Pennsylvania was both temporary and permanent chairman. The
motive for thus separating was to leave the Southern loyalists entirely
untrammeled in their proceedings, in order that their voice might
have greater weight in the country than if it were apparently directed
by a large majority of Northern men assembling in the same body
with them.
The Northern Convention concluded its proceedings on the third
day with a mass-meeting larger than any that had ever assembled
in Philadelphia. The Southern Convention remained in session full
five days. The interest was sustained from beginning to end, and
besides the delegates present, a vast assemblage of people thronged
the streets of Philadelphia during all the sessions of the conventions.
In an off year, as partisans call it, there had never been seen so
great excitement, enthusiasm and earnestness in any political assem
blage. Mr. Durant called the Southern Convention to order with
Vol. II. 15

226 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
the same gavel that had been used in the Secession Convention in
South Carolina. Governor Hamilton of Texas, who presented it for
the occasion, reminded his audience that the whirligig of time brings
about its revenges, and that it seemed a poetic retribution that a con
vention of Southern loyalists should be called to order with the same
instrument that had rapped the South into disunion and anarchy.
. On taking the chair as permanent president of the Southern Con
vention, Mr. Speed spoke of the Administration, of which for the past
few months he had been a reluctant member, with a freedom which,
during his connection with it, would have been improper if not im
possible. He described the late convention in this place as one with
which " we could not act." " Why was that convention here ? It
was here in part because the great cry came up from the white man
of the South, — My Constitutional and my natural rights are denied
me ; and then the cry came up from the black man of the South, —
My Constitutional and my natural rights are denied me. These com
plaints are utterly antagonistic, the one to the other ; and this con
vention is called to say which is right. Upon that question, if upon
none other, as Southern men, you must speak out your mind. Speak
the truth as you feel it, speak the truth as you know it, speak the
truth as you love permanent peace, as you may hope to establish the
institutions of this Government so that our children and our children's
children shall enjoy a peace that we have not known. . . . The con
vention to which I have referred, as I read its history, came here
to simply record in abject submission the commands of one man.
That convention did his commands. The loyal Congress of the
United States had refused to do his commands ; and whenever you
have a Congress that does not resolutely and firmly refuse, as the
present Congress has done, to merely act as the recording secretary
of the tyrant at the White House, American liberty is gone forever."
Mr. Speed's language was a complete revelation, more emphatic
than had yet been made, of the great differences which had prevailed
in the Cabinet of the President with respect to his policy ; and his
words naturally created a sensation, not alone in the convention, but
throughout the country. The fact of his identification with the
President, in the closest official intercourse, ever since his accession,
added vastly to the weight of Mr. Speed's address and gave to it an
influence which he had not, perhaps, anticipated when he delivered
it. This influence was doubtless enhanced by the fact that the
author of the speech was a native and citizen of the South. It was

THE ADDRESS OF LOYAL SOUTHERNERS. 227
a stimulus to the patriotic zeal of Northern Republicans to find a
man from the South taking advanced ground that possibly involved
peril to himself before the angry contest should be finally settled.
— The address agreed upon in the Southern Convention was in the
form of an appeal " from the loyal men of the South to their fellow-
" citizens of the United States." It declared that the representatives
of eight millions of American citizens "appeal for protection and
justice to their friends and brothers in the States that have been
spared the cruelties of the Rebellion and the direct horrors of civil
war." "Having," said the address, "lost our champion, we return
to you who can make presidents and punish traitors. Our last hope,
under God, is in the unity and firmness of the States that elected
Abraham Lincoln and defeated Jefferson Davis."
— "We cannot better define at once our wrongs and our wants
than by declaring, that since Andrew Johnson affiliated with his
early slanderers and our constant enemies, his hand has been laid
heavily upon every earnest loyalist of the South."
— " History, the just judgment of the present and the certain con
firmation of the future, invites and commands us to declare, that after
neglecting his own remedies for restoring the Union, Andrew John
son has resorted to the weapons of traitors to bruise and beat down
patriots."— " After declaring that none but the loyal should govern the
reconstructed South, he has practiced upon the maxim that none but
traitors shall rule."
— " In the South he has removed the proved and trusted patriot
from office, and selected the unqualified and convicted traitor."
— " After brave men, who had fought the great battle for the Union,
had been nominated for positions, their names were recalled and
avowed rebels substituted."
— " Every original Unionist in the South, who stands fast to Andrew
Johnson's covenants from 1861 to 1865, has been ostracized."
— " He has corrupted the local courts by offering premiums for
the defiance of the laws of Congress, and by openly discouraging the
observance of the oath against treason."
— " While refusing to punish one single conspicuous traitor, though
great numbers have earned the penalty of death, more than one
thousand devoted Union soldiers have been murdered in cold blood
since the surrender of Lee, and in no cases have their assassins been
brought to judgment."

228 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
— "He has pardoned some of the worst rebel criminals, North and
South, including some who have taken human life under circum
stances of unparalleled atrocity."
— " While declaring against the injustice of leaving eleven States
unrepresented, he has refused to authorize the liberal plan of Con
gress, simply because they have recognized the loyal majority and
refused to perpetuate the traitor minority."
— " In every State south of Mason and Dixon's line his policy has
wrought the most deplorable consequences, — social, moral and
political." Upon these indictments a powerful address was based, giving
argument, illustration, fact and indisputable conclusion. The ad
dress was framed by Senator Creswell of Maryland, and the style
and tone were beyond praise. It was received with great applause
in the convention, was adopted with unanimity, and created a pro
found influence upon the public opinion of the North. It was the
deliberate, well-conceived and clearly stated opinion of thoughtful
and responsible men, was never disproved, was practically unan
swered, and its serious accusations were in effect admitted by the
South. The one objective point proclaimed in the address, repeated
in the resolutions, echoed and re-echoed by every speaker, both in the
Northern and Southern Conventions, was the adoption of the Four
teenth Amendment. It was evidently the unalterable determination
of the Republicans to make that the leading feature of the cam
paign, to enforce it in every party convention, to urge it through
the press, to present it on the stump, to proclaim it through every
authorized exponent of public opinion. They were determined that
the Democratic party of the North should not be allowed to ignore
it. or in any way to evade it. It was to be the Shibboleth of the
Republican canvass, and the rank and file in every loyal State were
engaged in its presentation and its exposition.
The friends of the Administration, feeling the disadvantage under
which they labored by an apparent combination of all the earnest
supporters of the war for the Union against them, sought to create
a re-action in their favor by calling a soldiers' convention to meet
at Cleveland, on the 17th of September. A considerable number
of respectable officers responded to the summons ; but relatively the
demonstration was weak, ineffective and in the end hurtful to the
Administration. The venerable General Wool of the regular army,
the oldest major-general in the United States at the time, was made

SOLDIERS SUPPORTING THE ADMINISTRATION. 229
president of the convention and his selection was significant of the
proceedings. He had been all his life a soldier and nothing but a
soldier. He was a major of infantry in the war of 1812 and had
been in continuous service thereafter. He denounced the Abolition
ists after the manner that had been the custom in the regular army
prior to the war. He thought the convention had been called to
protest against another war which he was sure the Abolitionists
were determined to force on the country. "Another civil war is
foreshadowed," said he, " unless the freedmen are placed on an equal
ity with their previous masters. If this cannot be accomplished,
radical partisans, with a raging thirst for blood and plunder, are
again ready to invade the Southern States and lay waste the country
not already desolated, with the sword in one hand and the torch in
the other. These revengeful partisans would leave their country
a howling wilderness for the want of more victims to gratify their
insatiable cruelty. . . . Let there be peace ! Yet there are those
among us who are not sufficiently satiated with blood and plunder,
and cry for more war." General Wool would have been severely
criticised if it had not been remembered that for nearly sixty years
he had been a faithful soldier and had loyally followed the flag of the
Union in three wars.
Many members of the convention were outspoken Democrats
and their presence, therefore, did not indicate any division in the
Republican ranks, — the objective point to which all the efforts of
the Administration were steadily addressed. Conspicuous represen
tatives of this class were Generals John A. McClernand of Illinois,
J. W. Denver of California, Willis A. Gorman of Minnesota, James
B. Steedman of Ohio. The delegates who had been Republicans
were all of the most conservative type, and it is believed that every
one of them became permanently identified with the Democratic
party. The most prominent of these were General Thomas Ewing
of Kansas, Governor Bramlette and General Rousseau of Kentucky,
and Honorable Lewis D. Campbell of Ohio. General Gordon Granger
and General George A. Custer of the regular army were very active
in organizing the convention. It was evident that the number of
soldiers present was small ; and the convention really failed in its
principal aim, which was to strengthen the President in the loyal
States. A telegram, expressing sympathy with its proceedings, was
received by the convention from a number of Confederate officers

230 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
who were gathered at Memphis. But it was unfortunate that Gen
eral N. B. Forrest was a conspicuous signer ; still more unfortunate
that the convention passed a resolution of thanks to Forrest and
his rebel associates for the " magnanimity and kindness " of their
message. Forrest's name was especially odious in the North for
his alleged guilty participation in the massacre at Fort Pillow. All
other circumstances united did not condemn the convention in
Northern opinion so deeply as this incident. Further investigation
of the Fort Pillow affair has in some degree ameliorated the feeling
against General Forrest, but at that time his name among the soldiers
of the Union was as bitterly execrated as was that of the Master of
Stair among the Macdonalds of Glencoe, or of Haynau, at a later day,
among the patriots of Hungary.
The only noteworthy speech in the convention was delivered by
General Thomas Ewing. It was able, but extreme in its hostility to
the policy of Congress. He and Mr. Browning were law-partners at
the time of Mr. Johnson's accession to the Presidency. Both had sup
ported Mr. Lincoln, and both now resolved to oppose the Republican
party. General Ewing's loss was regretted by a large number of
friends. He had inherited talent and capacity of a high order, was
rapidly rising in his profession, and seemed destined to an inviting
political career in the party to which he had belonged from its first
organization. In supporting the policy of President Johnson he made
a large sacrifice, — large enough certainly to free his action from the
slightest suspicion of any other motive than conviction of duty.
General Ewing has since adhered steadily to the Democratic party.
The fourth of the National Conventions which this remarkable
year witnessed, was that of the citizen soldiers and sailors, held at
Pittsburg on the 25th and 26th of September. Nine out of ten,
perhaps even a larger proportion, of those who had defended the
Union with arms, were hostile to the President's policy. As soon
therefore as it was attempted to secure a political advantage for
the Administration by calling the Cleveland Convention, the great
mass of Union soldiers demanded that a convention be held in which
their true position might be proclaimed. The response was over
whelming both in numbers and enthusiasm. Pittsburg was literally
overrun. In addition to the large number of regimental and company
officers who had done their duty in the service, there was an immense
outpouring of privates. It was said that not less than twenty-five
thousand who had served in the ranks of the Union army were

SOLDIERS OPPOSING THE ADMINISTRATION. 231
present. A private soldier, L. Edwin Dudley, was chosen temporary
president, and a majority of the prominent officers of the convention
were privates and non-commissioned officers. Mr. Dudley was a
clerk in the Treasury Department at Washington, and being refused
a leave of absence for two days to attend the convention, he promptly
resigned his place and joined his brethren at Pittsburg. The inci
dent of the resignation strikingly illustrates the depth of feeling
which the contest between the President and Congress had developed
among the soldiery of the Union.
Officers of high rank in the volunteer service were not wanting.
Generals Butler and Banks of Massachusetts, Palmer and Farnsworth
of Illinois, Negley, Geary, Hartranft and Collis of Pennsylvania,
Cochrane, Barnum and Barlow of New York, Chamberlain from
Maine, Schenck and Cox from Ohio, Duncan and Harriman from New
Hampshire, Daniel McCauley of Indiana, and many of their fellow-
officers, took active and zealous part in the convention. Every loyal
State except possibly Oregon was represented. Far-off California
and Nevada, then without the facility of railway connection, sent dele
gates. The border States of the South were present in full force, and
Union men who had borne their part in the civil contest came from
every Confederate State. General John A. Logan had been unani
mously elected as permanent president of the convention, but at the
last moment he found himself unable to attend and his place was filled,
with equal unanimity of selection, by General Jacob D. Cox of Ohio.
General Cox, on taking the chair, made an address of great firmness.
It was even radical in its positions and aggressive in its general tone.
He said it was " unpleasant to recognize the truth that it is in the
minds of some to exalt the Executive Department of the Govern
ment into a despotic power and to abase the representative portion
of our Government into the mere tools of despotism. Learning that
this is the case, we now, as heretofore, know our duty, and knowing,
dare maintain it. The citizen soldiery of the United States recognize
the Congress of the United States as the representative government
of the people. We know and all traitors know that the will of the
people has been expressed in the complexion and character of the
existing Congress. . . . We have expressed our faith that the propo
sition which has been made by Congress for the settlement of all
difficulties in the country [the Fourteenth Amendment] is not only
a wise policy, but one so truly magnanimous that the whole world
stood in wonder that a people could, under such circumstances, be

232 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
so magnanimous to those whom they had conquered. And when we
say we are ready to stand by the decision of Congress, we only say
as soldiers that we follow the same flag and the same principles which
we have followed during the war."
The resolutions, read by General B. F. Butler, were explicit and
unqualified in their declarations, and were indorsed with absolute
unanimity. They declared that " the action of the present Congress
in passing the pending Constitutional amendment is wise, prudent
and just. That amendment clearly defines American citizenship and
guarantees all his rights to every citizen. It places on a just and
equal basis the right of representation, making the vote of a man in
one State equally potent with the vote of another man in any State.
It righteously excludes from places of honor and trust the chief con
spirators and guiltiest rebels, whose perjured crimes have drenched
the land in blood. It puts into the very frame of our Government
the inviolability of our National obligations, and nullifies forever the
obligations contracted in support of the Rebellion." The resolu
tions further declared it to be " unfortunate for the country that the
propositions contained in the Fourteenth Amendment have not been
received with the spirit of conciliation, clemency and fraternal feel
ing in which they were offered, as they are the mildest terms ever
granted to subdued rebels."
The members of the convention were in a tempest of anger against
the President. They declared " that his attempt to fasten his scheme
of Reconstruction upon the country is as dangerous as it is unwise ;
that his acts in sustaining it have retarded the restoration of peace
and unity ; that they have converted conquered rebels into impudent
claimants to rights which they have forfeited and to places which
they have desecrated. If the President's scheme be consummated it
would render the sacrifice of the Nation useless, the loss of her
buried comrades vain, and the war in which we have so gloriously
triumphed a failure, as it was declared to be by President Johnson's
present associates in the Democratic National Convention of 1864."
Many other propositions of an equally decisive character were an
nounced by the convention, and General John Cochrane declared that
" a more complete, just and righteous platform for a whole people to
occupy has never before been presented to the National sense."
Of the four conventions held, this, of the soldiers who had fought
the battles of the Union, was far the most influential upon public
opinion. In its membership could be found representatives of every

POLITICAL MURDERS IN THE SOUTH. 233
great battle-field of the war. Their testimony was invaluable. They
spoke for the million comrades with whom they had stood in the
ranks, and their influence consolidated almost en masse the soldier
vote of the country in support of the Republican party as repre
sented by Congress. Their enthusiasm was greater, their feeling
more intense, their activity more marked than could be found among
the civilians of the country who were supporting the same principles.
They declared the political contest to be their own fight, as they
expressed it, and considered themselves bearing the banner of loyalty
as they had borne it in the actual conflict of arms. Their convention,
their expressions, their determination were felt throughout the entire
Union as an aggressive, irresistible force. From their ranks came
many of the most attractive and most eloquent speakers, who dis
cussed the merits of the Constitutional amendment before popular
audiences as ably as they had upheld the flag of the Union through
four years of bloody strife. Their convention did more to popularize
the Fourteenth Amendment as a political issue than any other instru
mentality of the year. Not even the members of Congress, who re
paired to their districts with the amendment as the leading question,
could commend it to the mass of voters with the strength and with
the good results which attended the soldier orators who were inspired
to enter the field.

Other events powerfully contributed to the political overthrow
of the President. After the change in his policy in the summer and
autumn of 1865, which has been already noted, the Southern rebels,
who had at first been cast down and discouraged, saw before them
the prospect of regaining complete ascendency in their respective
States. As the division between the President and Congress
widened, their confidence increased; and as their confidence in
creased, a reign of lawlessness and outrage against the rights of the
defenseless was inaugurated. The negroes, who had begun to learn
their freedom, were not only subjected to laws of practical re-enslave
ment, but to a treatment whose brutality could not have been fore
seen. It was estimated that before the adjournment of Congress
more than a thousand negroes and many white Unionists had been
murdered in the South, without even the slightest attempt at prose
cuting the murderers. Though the aggregate number of victims was
so great, they were scattered over so vast a territory that it was diffi-

234 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
cult to impress the public mind of the North with the real magnitude
of the slaughter. But this incredulity vanished in a moment when
the nation was startled on the 30th of July, two days after the
adjournment of Congress, by a massacre at New Orleans, which had
not the pretense of justification or even of provocation.
The circumstances that led to it may be briefly stated. The
convention which formed the free constitution of the State in 1864
was ordered to re-assemble by its president, upon authority which,-
he held, was conferred upon him by the convention at the time the
constitution was formed. Apprehending that some measures were
to be taken hostile to the re-establishment of rebel power in the State
of Louisiana, it was resolved by the opponents of the Republican
party that the members of the convention should not be allowed to
come together and organize. Threats were insufficient to effect this
end. Intimidation of every character had been tried in vain. The
men who thought they had the right, as American citizens, to meet
for conference refused to be bullied out of their plain privileges under
the guarantees of the National Constitution. There was a dispute
as to their legal right to take any action touching the constitution of
the State — a dispute altogether proper for judicial inquiry. Even
if they had assembled and proceeded to amend the constitution,
their action could have had no binding effect until approved by a
vote of the people. The question which lay at the bottom of the
agitation was that of negro suffrage ; but the negroes were not en
titled to vote under the constitution as it stood, nor could they
vote upon an amendment to the constitution conferring the right of
suffrage upon them. Whatever the convention might do, therefore,
would be ineffectual until approved by a majority of the white voters
of the State. It obviously followed that the men who violently re
sisted the assembling of the convention could not justify themselves
by the declaration that negro suffrage was about to be imposed upon
them. Their position practically was that a majority of the white
population should not exercise the right of giving suffrage to the
negro. When the convention attempted to assemble against the desire and
remonstrance of their political opponents, a bloody riot ensued — not
a riot precipitated by the ordinary material that makes up the mobs
of cities, but one sustained by the obvious sympathy and the indirect
support of the municipal authorities of New Orleans, and by the
leading rebels of the State. General Absalom Baird, an able and pru-

POLITICAL MASSACRE IN NEW ORLEANS 235
dent officer of the regular army, was in command of the district, but
was purposely deceived by the municipal authorities, to the end that
troops might not be at hand to quell the riot and stop the assassina
tion which had been planned with diabolical ingenuity. The slaugh
ter, in point of numbers, resembled that of a brisk military engage
ment in the field. The number killed outright was about forty. The
wounded exceeded one hundred and fifty, of whom perhaps one-third
were severely injured, many of them mortally. The city police of
New Orleans aided the rioters. General Sheridan, in command of the
department, officially reported that " the killing was in a manner so
unnecessary and atrocious as to compel me to say it was murder."
The lamentable transaction was investigated by a committee of Con
gress, composed of Messrs. Eliot of Massachusetts, Shellabarger of
Ohio, and Boyer of Pennsylvania, the first two being Republicans,
the last-named a Democrat. An investigation was also made under
the direction of the War Department, by a commission of military
officers, composed of Generals Mower, Quincy, Gregg, and Baldy.
These officers reported that in their opinion "the whole drift
and current of the evidence tend irresistibly to the conclusion that
there was among the class of violents known to exist in the State,
and among the members of the ex-Confederate associations, a precon
certed plan and purpose of attack upon the convention, provided any
possible pretext therefor could be found. '
The majority of the Congressional Committee took the same view,
declaring that " the riotous attack upon the convention with its terri
ble results of massacre and murder was not an accident. It was the
determined purpose of the mayor of the city of New Orleans to
break up this convention by armed force." The Congressional Com
mittee did not make their investigation until the succeeding winter
session of 1866-7. " We state one fact," said the committee, " signi
ficant both as bearing upon the question of preparation and as indu
eating the true and prevailing feeling of the people of New Orleans.
Six months have passed since the convention assembled, when the
massacre was perpetrated and more than two hundred men were slain
and wounded. This was done by city officials and New-Orleans citi
zens, but not one of those men has been punished, arrested or even
complained of. These officers of the law, living in the city and known
to that community, acting under the eye of superiors, clothed with
the uniform of office, and some of them known, as the proof shows,
to the chief officer of police, have not only escaped punishment but
have been continued in their places."

236 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Not only were the men who instigated and committed the terrible
murders left unpunished, but, as the committee said, " the gentlemen
who composed the convention have not, however, been permitted to
escape. Prosecutions in the criminal court, under an old law passed
in 1805, were at once commenced and are now pending against them
for breach of the peace." Another authority declares that "the
judge of the criminal court in New Orleans instructed the grand jury
to find bills of indictment against the members of the convention and
the spectators, charging them with murder ; giving the principle of
law and applying it in this case, that whoever is engaged in an un
lawful proceeding from which death ensues to a human being, is
guilty of murder, and alleging that as the convention had no right
to meet and the police had killed many men on the day of its meet
ing, the survivors were, therefore, guilty of murder." The Congres
sional Committee did not hesitate to declare that "the facts tend
strongly to prove that the criminal actors in the tragedy were the
agents of more criminal employe's, and demonstrate the general sym
pathy of the people in behalf of the men who did the wrong against
those who suffered the wrong."
The President came in for a full share of censure in connection
with this unhappy event. The committee reported that " The Presi
dent knew that riot and bloodshed were apprehended. He knew
what military orders were in force, and yet, without the confirmation
of the Secretary of War or the General of the Army, upon whose re
sponsibility these military orders had been issued, he gave orders by
telegraph, which if enforced, as they would be, would have com
pelled our soldiers to aid the rebels against the men in New Orleans
who had remained loyal during the war, and sought to aid and sup
port, by official sanction, the persons who designed to suppress, by
arrest and criminal process under color of law, the meeting of the
convention; and all this, although the convention was called with
the sanction of the governor, and by one of the judges of the Su
preme Court of Louisiana claiming to act as President of the con
vention. The effect of the action of the President was to encourage
the heart, to strengthen the hand, and to hold up the arms of those
who intended to prevent the convention from assembling." Mr.
Boyer, the minority member of the committee, submitted a report dis
senting from the conclusions of the majority, and making, as nearly
as could be done, a defense of the men who had really been the guilty
aiders and abettors of the crime ; but he did not deny the fact of the
riot nor of the great number of its victims.

THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL TOUR. 237
The substantial correctness of the report made by the majority
of the Congressional Committee was never shaken, though it was
angrily attacked by the supporters of the Administration. Aside
from the credit imparted to it by the conscientious character of both
Mr. Eliot and Mr. Shellabarger, the corroboration of all its material
statements by the Commission of Army officers was invaluable. The
military men were not suspected of partisan motives. They had no
political theories to maintain, no animosities to indulge, no personal
revenges to cherish. They proceeded as coolly as though they were
investigating alleged frauds by army contractors or were hearing evi
dence touching the damage to frontier settlers by an Indian raid.
The intelligence and impartiality of investigations entrusted to army
officers have become proverbial, and their report of the facts in the
New Orleans riot arrested the attention of the North in an unpre
cedented degree. Every thing possible was done by the opponents
of the Republican party to break the force of the damaging facts,
but apparently without success. Indeed the people of the United
States have rarely been stirred to greater excitement than that
aroused by the full details of this nefarious transaction as it came to
them through the public press and through official reports. The
effect was disastrous to the President, and was hurtful, in the ex
treme, to the cause of prompt reconstruction. The Northern people
shrank from the responsibility of transferring the government of
States to the control of men who had already shown themselves capa
ble of desperate deeds. In their wrathful zeal for justice they would
hear no apology and no defense of the President. They held him as
an accomplice in the crime, — as one having in advance a guilty
knowledge of the pre-arranged assassination. In every way in which
public indignation can be expressed, in every form in which public
anger can vent itself, the loyal people of the Northern States mani
fested their feelings, and did not spare in their bitter denunciations
the personal character of the President or the unspeakable guilt of
his Southern supporters.
The bloody tragedy of midsummer, which had weighed down the
people with a sense of the gravest solicitude, was followed by what
might well be termed its comedy. During the early spring the
President had accepted an invitation from the citizens of Chicago to
attend the ceremony of laying a corner-stone for a monument to be
erected to the memory of Stephen A. Douglas. The date fixed for
the President's visit was September 6th, and he left Washington on

238 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
the 28th of August, accompanied by Secretary Welles, Postmaster-
general Eandall, General Grant, Admiral Farragut, by a consider
able number of army officers and by a complement of private
secretaries and newspaper reporters, — apparently intending to con
vert the journey into a political canvass. Mr. Seward joined the
company in New York. The somewhat ludicrous effect produced by
combining a series of turbulent partisan meetings to be addressed
by the President with the solemn duty of paying respect to the
memory of a dead statesman, did not fail to have its effect upon
the appreciative mind of his countrymen, and from the beginning
to the end of the tour there was a popular alternation between harsh
criticism and contemptuous raillery of Mr. Johnson's conduct.
His journey was by way of Philadelphia and New York, to Albany ;
thence westward to Chicago. At all the principal cities and towns
along the route large bodies of people assembled. Democrat and
Republican, Administration and anti-Administration, were com
mingled. The President spoke everywhere in an aggressive and dis
putatious tone. It has been the decorous habit of the Chief Magis
trate of the country, when upon a tour among his fellow-citizens, to
refrain from all display of partisanship, and to receive popular con
gratulations with brief and cordial thanks. President Johnson,
however, behaved as an ordinary political speaker in a heated can
vass, receiving interruptions from the crowd, answering insolent
remarks with undignified repartee, and lowering at every step of his
progress the dignity which properly appertains to the great office.
At Cleveland the meeting resembled occasions not unfamiliar to our
people, where the speaker receives from his audience constant and
discourteous demonstrations that his words are unwelcome. The
whole scene was regarded as lamentable and one which must have
been deeply humiliating to the eminent men who accompanied the
President. He made the tour the occasion for defending at great length his
own policy of Reconstruction, and arraigned with unsparing severity
the course of Congress in interposing a policy of its own. The most
successful political humorist of the day,1 writing in pretended support
of the President, described his tour as being undertaken " to arouse
the people to the danger of concentrating power in the hands of Con
gress instead of diffusing it through one man." Wit and sarcasm

1 Petroleum V. Nasby.

POPULAR DEFEAT OF THE ADMINISTRATION. 239
were lavished at the expense of the President , gibes and jeers and
taunts marked the journey from its beginning to its end. " My
policy " was iterated and reiterated, until the very boys in the
streets, without knowing its meaning, knew that it was the source
and subject of ridicule, and made it a jest and a by-word at Mr.
Johnson's expense. The whole journey came to be known as
"swinging around the circle," and its incidents entered daily into
the thoughts of the people only as subjects of disapprobation on the
part of the more considerate, and of persiflage and ribaldry on the part
of those who regarded it only as matter of amusement. With what
ever strength or prestige the President left Washington, he certainly
returned to the Capital personally discredited and politically ruined.
Upon the direct public issue which he had raised he would undoubt
edly have been beaten in nearly all the Northern States, but when
his weakness had brought him within fair range of ridicule, he
became powerless even in the place of power.

Meanwhile, during the National Conventions referred to and dur
ing the remarkable tour of the President, the cause of his opponents
was urged in every State and in every district, with extraordinary
energy on the part of leaders, with corresponding interest on the part
of the people. The contest for the governorship of New York
between Reuben E. Fenton and John T. Hoffman, and for the
governorship of Pennsylvania between John W. Geary and Hiester
Clymer, excited deep interest far beyond the borders of either State.
The vote for these candidates was looked to as giving the aggregate
popular expression touching the merits of the Administration, and
carried with it the united interest which attached to all the Con
gressional districts. When at last a test was reached and the people
had an opportunity to speak the Administration was overwhelmingly
defeated. Vermont, usually so strong in its Republican vote, now
increased the ordinary majority by thousands. Maine elected General
Chamberlain governor by twenty-eight thousand majority.
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Iowa were then all known in
current phrase as October States. They voted for members of Con
gress and State officers on the second Tuesday of that month. The
result was a significant verdict against the Administration. In Penn
sylvania Geary, on a much fuller vote than was cast at the Presiden
tial election two years before, led Clymer by nearly as large a majority

240 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
as that by which Lincoln led McClellan. The Congressional election
resulted in the choice of eighteen Republican to six Democratic rep
resentatives. Ohio, on her State ticket, gave forty-three thousand
majority against the Administration, and elected sixteen Republican
representatives in Congress, leaving only three districts to the Dem
ocrats. In Indiana, a State always hotly contested, the Republicans
secured the popular vote by a majority of nearly fifteen thousand
and carried every Congressional district except three. Iowa gave
a popular majority of thirty-six thousand and carried every Con
gressional district for the Republicans.
Under the impulse and influence of these great victories in
October the November States recorded a like result. New York, of
course, absorbed the largest share of public interest. Two years
before, Lincoln had beaten McClellan by less than seven thou
sand votes. Fenton had now double that majority over Hoffman
and the Republicans carried two-thirds of the Congressional dis
tricts. Throughout the West, Republican victory swept every thing
before it. Michigan gave thirty-nine thousand popular majority and
a unanimous Republican delegation in Congress. Illinois gave fifty-
six thousand popular majority, with nearly all the representatives.
Wisconsin gave twenty-four thousand popular majority and elected
every Republican candidate for representative except one. Northern
States which had been tenaciously Democratic gave way under the
popular pressure. New-Jersey Republicans elected a majority of
the members of Congress and a majority of each branch of the State
Legislature. Connecticut was carried by Governor Hawley against
the most popular Democrat in the State, James E. English. Cali
fornia gave seven thousand majority for the Republicans, while
Oregon elected a Republican governor and Republican representa
tive in Congress.
The aggregate majority for the Republicans and against the
Administration in the Northern States was about three hundred and
ninety thousand votes. In the South the elections were as signifi
cant as in the North, but in the opposite direction. Wherever Re
publican or Union tickets were put forward for State or local offices
in the Confederate States, they were defeated by prodigious majori
ties. Arkansas gave a Democratic majority of over nine thousand,
Texas over forty thousand, and North Carolina twenty-five thou
sand. The border slave States were divided. Delaware, Maryland
and Kentucky gave strong majorities for the Democrats, while West

PRESIDENTS JACKSON AND JOHNSON COMPARED. 241
Virginia and Missouri were carried by the Republicans. The un
happy indication of the whole result was that President Johnson's
policy had inspired the South with a determination not to submit to
the legitimate results of the war, but to make a new fight and, if
possible, regain at the ballot-box the power they had lost by war.
The result of the whole election was to give to the Republicans one
hundred and forty-three representatives in Congress and to the
Democrats but forty-nine. The defeat was so decisive that if the
President had been wisd he would have sought a return of friendly
relations with the party which had elected him, or at least some form
of compromise which would have averted constant collision, with its
certainty of defeat and humiliation. But his disposition was unyield
ing. His prejudices obscured his reason.
It was well known that the President felt much cast down by the
result. He had, as is usual with Presidents, been surrounded by
flatterers, and had not been advised of the actual state of public
opinion. Political deserters, place-seekers and personal sycophants
had constantly assured the President that his cause was strong and
his strength irresistible. They had discovered that one of his espe
cial weaknesses was an ambition to be considered as firm and heroic
in his Administration as General Jackson had proved in the Execu
tive chair thirty years before. He received, therefore, with evident
welcome the constant adulation of a comparison between his quali
ties and those of General Jackson, and he came to fancy that he
would prove, in his contest for the unconditional re-admission of
Southern States to representation, as mighty a power in the land as
Jackson had proved in his struggle with the Bank monopolists and
with the Disunionists of South Carolina. But those who had studied
the character of Johnson knew that aside from the possession of per
sonal integrity, he had few qualities in common with those which
distinguished Jackson. Johnson was bold and fluent in public speech,
irresolute and procrastinating in action : Jackson wasted no words,
but always acted with promptness and courage. Johnson was vain,
loquacious, and offensively egotistic : Jackson, on the other hand, was
proud, reserved, and with such abounding self-respect as excluded
egotism. The two men, instead of being alike, were in fact signal
contrasts in all that appertains to the talent for administration, to
the quick discernment of the time for action, and to the prompt
execution of whatever policy might be announced.
The Republicans had found an easier victory over Johnson than
Vol. II. 16

242 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
they had anticipated. They were well led in the great contest of
1866. In New England the President really secured no Republican
support whatever. Soon after his accession to the Presidency he
had induced Hannibal Hamlin, with whom he had been on terms of
personal intimacy in Congress, to accept the Collectorship of Customs
at Boston, but as soon as Mr. Hamlin discovered the tendency of
Johnson's policy he made haste, with that strict adherence to prin
ciple which has always marked his political career, to separate him
self from the Administration by resigning the office. It was urged
upon him that he could maintain his official position without in any
degree compromising his principles, but his steady reply to earnest
friends who presented this view, was that he was an old-fashioned
man in his conception of public duty, and he would not consent to
hold a political office under a President from whose policy he instinc
tively and radically dissented. Mr. Hamlin's course was highly
applauded by the mass of Republicans throughout the country, and
especially by his old constituents in Maine. His action took from
Mr. Johnson the last semblance of a prominent Republican friend in
New England and gave an almost unprecedented solidity to the
public opinion of that section.
The adherence of Mr. Seward to the Administration, the loss of
Thurlow Weed as an organizer, and the desertion of the New -York
Times, had created great fear as to the result in New York, but the
popularity of Governor Fenton, supplemented by the support of
Senator Morgan and of the younger class of men then coming for
ward, of whom Roscoe Conkling was the recognized chief, imparted
an energy and enthusiasm to the canvass which proved irresistible.
In Pennsylvania the contest was waged with great energy by both
parties. The result would determine not merely the control of
the local administration, not merely the character of the delega
tion in Congress, but the future leadership of the Republican
party of the State. Simon Cameron sought a restoration to his
old position of power by a return to the Senate. During the five
years that had elapsed since he retired from the War Department
Mr. Cameron's supremacy had been challenged by the political coterie
that surrounded Governor Curtin. They boastfully proclaimed in
deed that the sceptre of power was in their hands and could not be
wrenched from them. But the reaction against them was strong and
did not cease until Cameron had driven his leading enemies to seek
refuge in the Democratic party.

THE QUESTION OF NEGRO SUFFRAGE. 243
In the West the hostility to the President and the support of
the policy of Congress were even more demonstrative than in the
East. All the prominent Republicans of Ohio were on the stump
and the canvass was extraordinarily heated, even for a State which
has had an animated contest every year since the repeal of the Mis
souri Compromise. Governor Morton's candidacy for the Senate
gave great earnestness to the struggle in Indiana, while Senator
Chandler not only rallied Michigan to the necessity of giving an
immense majority, but with his tremendous vitality added nerve
and zeal to every contest in the North-western States. The whole
result proved to be one of commanding influence on the future
course of public events. The Republicans plainly saw that the
triumph of President Johnson meant a triumph of the Democratic
party under an alias, that the first-fruits of such a victory would be
the re-establishment of the late Confederate States in full political
power inside the Union, and that in a little more than five years from
the firing on Sumter, and a little more than one year from the sur
render of Lee, the same political combination which had threatened
the destruction of the Union would be recalled to its control.
The importance, therefore, of the political struggle of 1866 cannot
be overestimated. It has, perhaps, been underestimated. If the
contest had ended in a victory for the Democrats the history of the
subsequent years would, in all probability, have been radically differ
ent. There would have been no further amendment to the Constitu
tion, there would have been no conditions of reconstruction, there
would have been such a neutralization of the anti-slavery amendment
as would authorize and sustain all the State laws already passed
for the practical re-enslavement of the negro, with such additional
enactments as would have made them cruelly effective. With the
South re-admitted and all its representatives acting in cordial co
operation with the Northern Democrats, the result must have been a
deplorable degradation of the National character and an ignoble sur
render to the enemies of the Union, thenceforth to be invested with
the supreme direction of its government.
There was an unmistakable manifestation throughout the whole
political canvass of 1866, by the more advanced section of the Repub
lican party, in favor of demanding impartial suffrage as the basis of
reconstruction in the South. It came from the people rather than
from the political leaders. The latter class, with few exceptions,
shunned the issue, preferring to wait until public sentiment should

244 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
become more pronounced in favor of so radical a movement. But a
large number of thinking people, who gave more heed to the abso
lute right of the question than to its political expediency, could not
see how, with consistency, or even with good conscience and common
sense, the Republican party could refrain from calling to its aid the
only large mass of persons in the South whose loyalty could be
implicitly trusted. To their apprehension it seemed little less than
an absurdity, to proceed with a plan of reconstruction which would
practically leave the State governments of the South under the con
trol of the same men that brought on the civil war.
They were embarrassed, however, in this step by the constantly
recurring obstacle presented by the constitutions of a majority of the
loyal States. In five New-England States suffrage to the colored
man was conceded, but in Connecticut only those negroes were al
lowed to vote who were admitted freedmen prior to 1818. New
York permitted a negro to vote after he had been three years a citi
zen of the State and had been for one year the owner of a freehold
worth two hundred and fifty dollars, free of all incumbrances. In
every other Northern State none but " white men " were permitted
to vote. Even Kansas, which entered the Union under the shadow
of the civil war, after a prolonged and terrible struggle with the
spirit of slavery, at once restricted suffrage to the white man ; while
Nevada, whose admission to the Union was after the Thirteenth
Amendment had been passed by Congress, denied suffrage to " any
negro, Chinaman or mulatto." A still more recent test was applied.
The question of admitting the negro to suffrage was submitted to
popular vote in Connecticut, Wisconsin and Minnesota in the autumn
of 1865, and at the same time in Colorado, when she was forming
her constitution preparatory to seeking admission to the Union. In
all four, under the control of the Republican party at the time, the
proposition was defeated.
With these indisputable evidences of the unpopularity of negro
suffrage in the great majority of the Northern States, there was
ample excuse for the reluctance of leading statesmen to adopt it as
a condition of reconstruction, and force it upon the South by law
before it had been adopted by the moral sense of the North. The
period, however, was one calculated to bring about very rapid changes
in public opinion ; and there had undoubtedly been great advance in
the popular judgment concerning this question since the elections
of the preceding year. The question was really in the position

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 245
where it would be materially influenced by the course of events
in the South. The violence and murder at New Orleans in July
had changed the views of many men ; and, while the more consider
ate and conservative tried to regard that outbreak as an exceptional
occurrence, the mass of the Northern people feared that it indicated
a dangerous sentiment among a people not yet fitted to be entrusted
with the administration of a State Government.
While these views were rapidly taking form throughout the
North, they were strongly tempered and restrained by the better
hope that the people of the South would be able to restore such a
feeling of confidence as would prevent the exaction of other condi
tions of reconstruction and the consequent postponement of the
re-admission of the Southern States to representation. The average
Republican sentiment of the North was well expressed by the Re
publican State Convention of New York, which, after reciting the
provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, and declaring that "That
amendment commends itself, by its justice, humanity, and modera
tion, to every patriotic heart," made this important declaration :
" That when any of the late insurgent States shall adopt that amend
ment, such State shall, at once, by its loyal representatives, be permitted
to resume its place in Congress." This view was generally concurred
in by the Western States ; and, if the Southern States had accepted
the broad invitation thus given, there is little doubt that before the
close of the year they might have been restored to the enjoyment of
every power and privilege under the National Constitution. There
would have been opposition to it, but the weight of public influence,
and the majority in both branches of Congress, would have been
sure to secure this result.

CHAPTER XI.
Second Session Thirty-ninth Congress. — President's Message. — Repeats his
Former Recommendations. — Mischievous Effect produced in the South. —
The Ten Confederate States vote on the Fourteenth Amendment. — Re
jected by Every One. — Defiance to Congress. — Madness of the Southern
Leaders. — Determination op the North. — New Plan of Reconstruction.—
Bill reported by Mr. Stevens. — South divided into Military Districts.—
Bill elaborately debated. —Views of Leading Members. — Extracts from
Speeches. — Blaine Amendment. — Debated in the House. — Opposed by Mr.
Stevens. — Rejected in the House.— Adopted in Different Form in the
Senate. — Finally Incorporated in Reconstruction Bill. — President vetoes
the Bill. — Passed over his Veto. — Character of the Measure. — The South
forces the Adoption of Negro Suffrage. — Not contemplated originally
by the North. — Character of the Struggle. — Executive Patronage. —
President's Policy to be sustained by it. — The Power of Removal. — Early
Decision of the Government. — Views of Mr. Madison and Mr. Webster. —
Of Hamilton and of Washington. — Republican Leaders determined to
curtail the Power. — Mr. Williams introduces Tenure of Office Bill.
— Speeches of Edmunds, Howe, and Others. — President vetoes the Bill. —
Passed over his Veto. — Doubtful Character of the Measure. — Republican
Distrust op it. — New States in the North- West. — Mr. Lincoln's Policy
shown in the Case of Nevada. — Increase of Free Territories. — Nebraska
and Colorado apply for Admission. — President Johnson vetoes the Bill.
— Admission of Colorado prevented. — Power op Pardon and Amnesty by
Proclamation taken from the President. — Scandals reported.
THE rejoicing over the result of the elections throughout the
free States had scarcely died away when the Thirty-ninth Con
gress met in its second session (December 3, 1866). There was no
little curiosity to hear what the President would say in his message,
in regard to the issue upon which he had sustained so conclusive a
defeat. He was known to be in a state of great indignation, and
as he had broken forth during the campaign in expressions altogether
unbecoming his place, there was some apprehension that he might be
guilty of the same indiscretion in his official communication to Con
gress. But he was saved from such humiliation by the evident inter
position of a judicious adviser. The message was strikingly moderate
and even conciliatory in tone. The President re-argued his case with
246

THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. 247
apparent calmness and impartiality, repeating and enforcing his posi
tion with entire disregard of the popular result which had so signifi
cantly condemned him. After rehearsing all that had been done in
the direction of reconstruction, so far as his power could reach it,
and so far as the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution was an
essential part of it, the President expressed his regret that Congress
had failed to do its duty by re-admitting the Southern States to
representation. " It was not," said he, " until the close of the eighth month of
the session that an exception was made in favor of Tennessee by
the admission of her senators and representatives." " I deem it," he
continued, " a subject of profound regret that Congress has thus far
failed to admit to seats loyal senators and representatives from the
other States, whose inhabitants with those of Tennessee had engaged
in the Rebellion. Ten States, more than one-fourth of the whole
number, remain without representation. The seats of fifty members
in the House and twenty members in the Senate are yet vacant, not
by their own consent, nor by a failure of election, but by the refusal
of Congress to accept their credentials. Their admission, it is be
lieved, would have accomplished much towards the renewal and
strengthening of our relations as one people, and would have removed
serious cause for discontent upon the part of the inhabitants of those
States." The President did not discuss the ground of difference
between his policy and that of Congress, simply contenting himself
with a restatement of the case, in declaratory rather than in argu
mentative form. He did not at all seem to realize, or even to recog
nize, the vantage ground which Congress had obtained by the popular
decision in the recent elections. He apparently did not understand
that every issue dividing the Executive and Legislative Depart
ments of the Government had been decided in favor of the latter
by the masters of both — decided by those who select and control
Presidents and Congresses.
The President's position in pursuing a policy which had been so
pointedly condemned, excited derision and contempt in the North,
but it led to mischievous results in the South. The ten Confederate
States which stood knocking at the door of Congress for the right
of representation, were fully aware, as was well stated by a leading
Republican, that the key to unlock the door had been placed in their
own hands. They knew that the political canvass in the North had
proceeded upon the basis, and upon the practical assurance (given

248 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
through the press, and more authoritatively in political platforms),
that whenever any other Confederate State should follow the exam
ple of Tennessee, it should at once be treated as Tennessee had
been treated. Yet, when this position had been confirmed by the
elections in all the loyal States, and was, by the special warrant of
popular power, made the basis of future admission, these ten States,
voting upon the Fourteenth Amendment at different dates through
the winter of 1866-67, contemptuously rejected it. In the Virginia
Legislature only one vote could be found for the Amendment. In
the North-Carolina Legislature only eleven votes out of one hundred
and forty-eight were in favor of the Amendment. In the South-
Carolina Legislature there was only one vote for the Amendment.
In Georgia only two votes out of one hundred and sixty-nine in the
Legislature were in the affirmative. Florida unanimously rejected
the Amendment. Out of one hundred and six votes in the Alabama
Legislature only ten could be found in favor of it. Mississippi and
Louisiana both rejected it unanimously. Texas, out of her entire
Legislature, gave only five votes for it, and the Arkansas Legislature,
which had really taken its action in the preceding October, gave
only three votes for the Amendment.
This course on the part of the Southern States was simply a
declaration of defiance to Congress. It was as if they had said in
so many words, " We are entitled to representation in Congress, and
we propose to resume it on our own terms ; and therefore we reject
your conditions with scorn. We will not consent to your Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution. We will not consent that the free
dom of the negro shall be made secure by endowing him with citi
zenship. We demand that without giving negroes the right to
vote, they shall yet be counted in the basis of representation, thus
increasing our political power when we re-enter Congress beyond that
which we enjoyed before we rebelled, and beyond that which white
men in the North shall ever enjoy. We decline to give any guaran
tee for the validity of the public debt. We decline to guarantee the
sacredness of pensions to soldiers disabled in the War for the Union.
We decline to pledge ourselves that the debts incurred in aid of the
Rebellion shall not in the future be paid by our States. We decline,
in brief, to assent to any of the conditions or provisions of the pro
posed amendment to the Constitution, and we deny your right to
amend it without our consent."
The madness of this course on the part of the Southern leaders

HOSTILITY TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 249
Was scarcely less than the madness of original secession ; and it is
difficult, in deliberately weighing all the pertinent incidents and
circumstances, to discover any motive which could, even to their own
distorted view, justify the position they had so rashly taken. Strong
as the Republican party had shown itself in the elections, it grew
still stronger in all the free States, as each of the Confederate States
proclaimed its refusal to accept the Fourteenth Amendment as the
basis of their return to representation. The response throughout
the North, in the mouths of the loyal people, was in effect : " If these
rebel States are not willing now to resume representation on the
terms offered, let them stay out until their anger ceases and their
reason returns. If they are not willing to concede the guaranties of
the Fourteenth Amendment, and to give that pledge to the country
of their future loyalty and their common sense of justice, they shall
find that we can be as resolute as they, and we shall insist on the
right as stubbornly as they persist in the wrong." These were not
merely the declarations of statesmen, or of the press, or of the pop
ular speakers of the Republican party. They came spontaneously,
as if by inspiration, from the mass of the people, and were based on
that instinctive sense of justice which the multitude rarely fails to
exhibit. It was naturally inferred and was subsequently proved, that the
Southern States would not have dared to take this hostile attitude
except with the encouragement and the unqualified support of the
President. He was undoubtedly in correspondence, directly and in
directly, with the political powers that were controlling the action of
the insurrectionary States, and he was determined that the policy
of Congress should not have the triumph that would be implied in a
ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment by those States. Tele
graphic correspondence clearly establishing the President's position,
subsequently came to light. Governor Parsons of Alabama tele
graphed him indicating that the rejection of the Fourteenth Amend
ment might be reconsidered by the Alabama Legislature, if in
consequence thereof an enabling Act could be passed by Congress
for the admission of the State to representation. Johnson promptly
replied on the same day : " What possible good can be obtained by
reconsidering the Constitutional Amendment? I know of none in
the present posture of affairs, and I do not believe the people of the
country will sustain any set of individuals in attempts to change the
whole character of our Government by enabling Acts or otherwise.

250. TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
I believe on the contrary, that they will eventually uphold all those
who have patriotism and courage to stand by the Constitution and
who place their confidence in the people. There should be no falter
ing on the part of those who are honest in a determination to sustain
the several co-ordinate Departments of the Government in accord
ance with its original design." It was evident from this disclosure
that Johnson's hand was busy throughout the South, secretly as well
as openly, and that he inspired the resolute obstinacy with which the
insurrectionary States resisted the fair and magnanimous offers of
Reconstruction made by Congress. The Rebel element of the South
had gradually come to repose implicit confidence in Johnson, and
this fact increased his power to sow dissension and produce discord.
His stubborn and apparently malicious course at this time, was in
spired in large part by a desire to be avenged on the Northern States
and Northern leaders for the stinging rebuke administered to him in
the recent elections.

Sustained by the same popular sentiment which had given offense
to the President, Congress did not doubt its duty or hesitate in its
action. Its course, indeed, was firm to the point of severity. It met
the spirit of defiance on the part of the South with an answer so
decisive, that the misguided people of that section were rapidly un
deceived as to their power to command the situation, even with all
the aid the President could bring. The principal debates for the
first two months of the session related wholly to the condition of
the South, and on the 6th of February (1867) Mr. Stevens, from the
Commictee on Reconstruction, reported a bill which after sundry
amendments became the leading measure of the Thirty-ninth Con
gress. In its original form the preamble declared that " whereas the
pretended State governments of the late so-called Confederate States
afford no adequate protection for life or property, but countenance
and encourage lawlessness and crime ; and whereas it is necessary
that peace and good order should be enforced in said so-called Con
federate States, until loyal State governments can be legally estab
lished ; therefore be it enacted that said so-called Confederate States
shall be divided into military districts, and made subject to the mili
tary authority of the Urited States, as hereinafter prescribed ; and
for that purpose Virginia shall constitute the first district, North
Carolina and South Carolina the second district, Georgia, Alabama

THE RECONSTRUCTION BILL. 251
and Florida the third district, Mississippi and Arkansas the fourth
district, and Louisiana and Texas the fifth district."
It was made the duty of the General of the Army to assign to
the command of each of said districts an officer not below the rank
of Brigadier-general, and to detail a sufficient force to enable such
officer to perform his duties and enforce his authority within the
district to which he was assigned. The protection of life and prop
erty, the suppression of insurrections, disorders, and violence, and
the punishment of all criminals and disturbers of the public peace,
were entrusted to the military authority, with the power to allow civil
tribunals to take jurisdiction and try offenders ; and if that was not
sufficient in the officer's judgment, he was authorized to organize
military commissions, "any thing in the constitutions and laws of
these so-called Confederate States to the contrary notwithstanding."
It was further declared that all legislative acts or judicial processes
to prevent the proceedings of such tribunals, and all interference by
"said pretended State governments with the exercise of military
authority under this Act, shall be void and have no effect." The
courts and judicial officers of the United States were forbidden to
issue writs of habeas corpus, except under certain restrictions which
further established the military authority over the people. Prompt
trials were guarantied to all persons arrested, cruel and unusual pun
ishments were forbidden, and no sentence could be executed until
it was approved by the officer in command of the district.
Mr. Stevens, in his speech upon introducing the bill, did not
attempt to conceal its positive and peremptory character. " It pro
vides," said he, " that the ten disorganized States shall be divided
into five military districts ; that the Commander of the Army shall
take charge of them, through his officers not below the rank of Brig
adier-general, who shall have the general supervision of the peace,
quiet and protection of the people, loyal and disloyal, who reside
within those precincts ; and that to do so, he may use, as the law of
nations would authorize him to do, the legal tribunals whenever he
may deem them competent ; but these tribunals are to be considered
of no validity per se, of no intrinsic force, of no force in consequence
of their origin ; the question being wholly within the power of the
conqueror, and to remain until that conqueror shall permanently
supply their place with something else. This is the whole bill. It
does not need much examination. One night's rest after its reading
is enough to digest it."

252 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Mr. Brandegee of Connecticut followed Mr. Stevens in a speech
strongly supporting the measure. "Mr. Speaker, something must
be done," said he. " The American people demand that we shall do
something, and quickly. Already fifteen hundred Union men have
been massacred in cold blood (more than the entire population of
some of the towns in my district), whose only crime has been loyalty
to your flag. ... In all the revolted States, upon the testimony of
your ablest generals, there is no safety to the property or lives
of loyal men. Is this what the loyal North has been fighting for?
Thousands of loyal white men, driven like partridges over the moun
tains, homeless, houseless, penniless, to-day throng this capital. They
fill the hotels, they crowd the avenues, they gather in these marble
corridors, they look down from these galleries, and with supplicating
eye ask protection from the flag that hangs above the Speaker's chair
— a flag which thus far has unfurled its stripes, but concealed the
promise of its stars."
— Mr. Le Blond of Ohio declared that " the provisions of this bill
strike down every important provision in the Constitution. You
have already inaugurated enough here to destroy any government
that was ever founded. . . . Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not predict any
thing. I do not desire war, but as one American citizen I do prefer
war to cowardly submission to a total destruction of the fundamental
principles of our Government."
— He was followed by his colleague, Mr. Finck, who declared that
" no member on this floor who understands the Constitution of the
United States, and who is a friend of our Government, will pretend
to urge that we have any Constitutional power to pass this bill. . . .
I declare it as my solemn conviction that no government can long
continue to be free when one-third of its people and one-third of its
States are controlled by military power."
— Mr. Bingham of Ohio, speaking for a more conservative type of
republicanism than Mr. Stevens represented, begged gentlemen to
"make haste slowly in the exercise of this highest possible power
conferred by the Constitution upon the Congress of the United
States. For myself, sir, I am not going to yield to the proposition of
the chairman of the committee, for a single moment, that one rood
of the territory within the line of the ten States enumerated in this
bill is conquered territory. The Government of the United States
does not conquer any territory that is under the jurisdiction of the
Constitution."

DEBATE ON THE RECONSTRUCTION BILL. 253
— Mr. William Lawrence of Ohio said, " For myself I am ready to
set aside by law all these illegal governments. They have rejected
all fair terms of reconstruction. They have rejected the Constitu
tional amendments we have tendered them. They are engines of
oppression against all loyal men. They are not republican in form
or purpose. Let them not only be ignored as legal governments, but
set aside because they are illegal." Mr. Lawrence suggested some
amendments that would give to all the people the protection of the
judiciary under National authority.
— Mr. Russell Thayer of Pennsylvania argued warmly for the bill,
and said, "This measure will be of brief duration, and will be
followed, as I am informed, by other measures, which will secure the
permanent and peaceful restoration of these States to their proper
and just position in the Union, upon their acceptance of such terms
as are necessary for the future security of the country. When that
is done, and when order is restored, and permanent protection is
guarantied to all the citizens of that section of the country, this
measure will be abrogated and abandoned."
— Mr. Shellabarger argued in favor of the bill, and said in conclu
sion, " This measure, taken alone, is one which I could not support
unaccompanied by provisions for the rapid and immediate establish
ment of civil government based upon the suffrages of the loyal people
of the South. I could not support a military measure like this if it
was to be regarded as at all permanent in its character. It is because
it is entirely the initiative, because it is only the employment of the
Army of the United States as a mere police force, to preserve order
until we can establish civil government based upon the loyal suffrages
of the people, that I can support this measure at all. If it stood by
itself, I could not, with my notions of the possibility and practica
bility of establishing civil governments in the South, based upon
loyal suffrage, vote for this bill."
— Mr. Dawes made the pertinent inquiry whether, " after the Gen
eral of the Army has, under this bill, assigned a competent and trust
worthy officer to the duties prescribed, there is any thing to hinder
the President of the United States, under virtue of his power as
Commander-in-Chief, from removing that officer and putting in his
place another of an opposite character, thus making the very instru
mentality we provide one of terrible evil?"
— Mr. John A. Griswold, who became the Republican candidate for
governor of New York the ensuing year, earnestly opposed the bill.

254 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
" By it," said he, " we are proceeding in the wrong direction. For
more than two years we have been endeavoring to provide civil gov
ernments for that portion of our country, and yet by the provisions
of this bill we turn our backs on our policy of the last two years, and
by a single stride proceed to put all that portion of the country under
exclusively military control. . . . For one, I prefer to stand by the
overtures we have made to these people, as conditions of their again
participating in the government of the country. We have already
placed before them conditions which the civilized world has indorsed
as liberal, magnanimous, and just. I regret exceedingly that those
very liberal terms have not been accepted by the South, but I prefer
giving those people every opportunity to exhibit a spirit of obedience
and loyalty."
— Mr. Henry J. Raymond opposed the bill in a vigorous speech.
" Because we cannot devise any thing of a civil nature adequate to
the emergency," said he, "it is urged that we must fly to the most vio
lent measure the ingenuity of man could devise. Let me remind gen
tlemen that this has been the history of popular governments every
where, the reason of their downfall, their decadence, and their death."
— Mr. Garfield indicated his support of the measure if it could be
amended. " But," said he, " I call attention to the fact that from
the collapse of the Rebellion to the present hour, Congress has under
taken to restore the States lately in rebellion by co-operation with
their people, and that our efforts in that direction have proven a com
plete and disastrous failure." Alluding to the fact that the Four
teenth Amendment had been submitted as the basis of reconstruction,
Mr. Garfield continued, "The constitutional amendment did not
come up to the full height of the great occasion. It did not meet all
I desired in the way of guaranties to liberty, but if the rebel States
had adopted it as Tennessee did, I should have felt bound to let them
in on the same terms prescribed for Tennessee. I have been in favor
of waiting to give them full time to deliberate and to act. They
have deliberated. They have acted. The last one of the sinful ten
has at last, with contempt and scorn, flung back in our teeth the
magnanimous offer of a generous nation. It is now our turn to act.
They would not co-operate with us in building what they destroyed.
We mus.t remove the rubbish, and build from the bottom. . . . But
there are some words which I want stricken out of this bill, and some
limitations which I wish added, and I shall at least ask that they be
considered."

DEBATE ON THE RECONSTRUCTION BILL. 255
— Mr. Kasson objected that the bill was too sweeping in its provis
ions, that it affected the loyally disposed in the South with the same
severity as it did the disloyally disposed. " Instead of erecting," said he,
" this great military power over people of some portions of the South
who are, in fact, at peace and observing law and order, our rule should
be so flexible that we may apply martial law wherever peace and law
and order do not prevail, without imposing it upon people whose
subordination to the law renders military rule unnecessary."
— Mr. Boutwell said, " To-day there are eight millions and more
of people, occupying six hundred and thirty thousand square miles of
territory in this country, who are writhing under cruelties nameless
in their character, and injustice such as has not been permitted to
exist in any other country of modern times ; and all this because in
this capital there sits enthroned a man who, so far as the Executive
Department of the Government is concerned, guides the destinies of
the Republic in the interest of the rebels ; and because, also, in those
ten former States, rebellion itself, inspired by the Executive Depart
ment of this Government, wields all authority, and is the embodi
ment of law and power everywhere. ... It is the vainest delusion,
the wildest of hopes, the most dangerous of aspirations, to' contem
plate the reconstruction of civil government until the rebel despot
isms enthroned in power in these ten States shall be broken up."
— Mr. Banks asked for deliberation and delay in the discussion. He
believed that " we might reach a solution in which the two Houses
of Congress will agree, which the people of this country will sus
tain, and in which the President of the United States will give us
his support. And if we should agree on a measure satisfactory to
ourselves, in which we should be sustained by the people, and the
President should resist it, then we should be justified in dropping
the subject of reconstruction, and considering the condition of the
country in a different sense." The allusion of General Banks,
though thus veiled, was understood to imply the possible necessity
of impeaching the President. It attracted attention because General
Banks had been reckoned among the determined opponents of that
extreme measure.
— Mr. Kelley of Pennsylvania declared that "the passage of this
bill or its equivalent is required by the manhood of this Congress, to
save it from the hissing scorn and reproach of every Southern man
who has been compelled to seek a home in the by-ways of the North,
from every homeless widow and orphan of a Union soldier in the

256 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
South, who should have been protected by the Government, and who,
despite widowhood and orphanage, would have exulted in the power
of our country had it not been for the treachery of Andrew Johnson."
— Mr. Allison of Iowa said, " Believing as I do, that this measure is
essential to the preservation of the Union men of the South, believ
ing that their lives, property and liberty cannot be secured except
through military law, I am for this bill."
— Mr. Blaine of Maine expressed his unwillingness to support any
measure that would place the South under military government, if it
did not at the same time prescribe the methods by which the people
of a State could by their own action re-establish civil government.
He therefore asked Mr. Stevens to admit an amendment declaring
that " when any one of the late, so-called, Confederate States shall
have given its assent to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitu
tion, and conformed its constitution and laws thereto in all respects,
and when it shall have provided, by its constitution, that the elective
franchise shall be enjoyed equally and impartially by all male citizens
of the United States twenty-one years of age and upwards, without
regard to race, color, or previous condition of servitude, except such
as may be disfranchised for participating in the late rebellion, and
when such constitution shall have been submitted to the voters of
said State as then defined, for ratification or rejection, and when the
constitution, if ratified by the popular vote, shall have been submitted
to Congress for examination and approval, said State shall, if its con
stitution be approved by Congress, be declared entitled to represen
tation in Congress, and senators and representatives shall be admitted
therefrom on their taking the oath prescribed by law, and then and
thereafter the preceding sections of this bill shall be inoperative in
said State."
— Mr. Blaine added, " It happened, Mr. Speaker, possibly by mere acci
dent, that I was the first member of this House who spoke in Commit
tee of the Whole on the President's message at the opening of this ses
sion. I then said that I believed the true interpretation of the election
of 1866 was that, in addition to the proposed constitutional amend
ment, impartial suffrage should be the basis of reconstruction. Why
not declare it so ? Why not, when you send out this military police
through the lately rebellious States, send with it that impressive
declaration ? "
— Mr. Schenck of Ohio earnestly urged that before calling the pre
vious question, Mr. Stevens would allow a vote upon the amendment

DEBATE ON THE RECONSTRUCTION BILL. 257
offered by Mr. Blaine. Mr. Stevens declined, and a motion by Mr.
Blaine to refer the bill to the Judiciary Committee with instructions
to report back the amendment, was defeated by ayes 69, noes 94.
The bill was then passed by a vote of 109 to 55. The Republicans
who voted against it were Baker of Illinois, Banks of Massachusetts,
Davis of New York, Defrees of Indiana, Dodge of Iowa, Kuykendall
of Illinois, Loan of Missouri, Randall of Kentucky, Francis Thomas
and John L. Thomas, jun., of Maryland.
The bill reached the Senate on the 13th of February. On the
14th Mr. Williams of Oregon gave notice that he would offer an
amendment, which was almost literally the same as that offered by
Mr. Blaine in the House, but fearing that it might obstruct the pas
sage of the bill he withdrew it. Mr. Reverdy Johnson of Maryland
renewed it, with the remark that if it should be adopted it would
make the bill very much less objectionable than it then was, and
upon the amendment debate proceeded.
Mr. Stewart of Nevada warmly sustained the amendment, re
gretting that the senator from Oregon had changed his mind with
regard to it. Mr. Stewart said that the history of military bills was
that they were always temporary in the beginning. " But suppose
the President of the United States approved it, or the next Presi
dent, if you please, should like the bill, and should veto your measure
repealing it, or suppose a bare majority in either House of Congress
should like it, then you could not repeal it. It may be years after
you desire to get rid of it before you can. I say, when you use the
military for temporary purposes you should give the people of. the
South a chance to comply with all the requirements which you pro
pose to make. If in the Blaine Amendment, as it is called, there are
not sufficient guaranties, not enough conditions, then put in more
and make it sufficient."
— Mr. Henderson of Missouri said, "If I understand the extent
and scope of this bill, it will simply be to give the sanction of Con
gress to military administration in the Southern States by the Presi
dent. If there is any thing else in it, I desire to have it understood
now, before we proceed any farther. I am not exceedingly favorable
to military government anywhere, and if I can get along without it
in the Southern States I am anxious to do so. I am not pleased with
it anywhere." Mr. Henderson expressed the opinion that the Presi
dent of the United States could command General Grant in making
the assignments of officers to the respective districts.
Vol. II. 17

258 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
— Mr. Willard Saulsbury of Delaware declared that " there is not
a single provision in the bill that is constitutional or will stand the
test in any court of justice."
— Mr. Buckalew and Mr. Hendricks pointed out that the amend
ment, as Mr. Johnson had submitted it, made suffrage universal, just
as the amendment had been framed in the House.
— Mr. Johnson explained that he had taken it as prepared by the
senator from Oregon.
- — Mr. Howard of Michigan objected to the amendment because it
would permit the increase of representatives in Congress, and of
Presidential electors, from the Confederate States.
— After prolonged debate on the amendment offered by the senator
from Maryland, it was agreed to lay it aside by common consent, that
Senator Sherman might offer a substitute for the entire bill, the fifth
section of which substantially embodied the amendment offered by
the senator from Maryland and which had been known as the Blaine
Amendment in the House. Mr. Sherman's substitute gave to the
President his rightful power to control the assignment of officers
of the army to the command of the military districts in the South.
After debate the substitute of Mr. Sherman was passed by a party
vote, — twenty-nine to ten.
When the bill went to the House it was violently opposed by Mr.
Stevens and Mr. Boutwell. Mr. Boutwell said, "My objection to
the proposed substitute of the Senate is fundamental and conclusive,
because the measure proposes to reconstruct the State governments
at once through the agency of disloyal men."
— Mr. Stevens said, " When this House sent the bill to the Senate it
was simply to protect the loyal men of the Southern States. The
Senate has sent us back an amendment which contains every thing
else but protection. It has sent us back a bill which raises the whole
question in dispute as to the best mode of reconstructing these
States, by making distant and future pledges which this Congress
has no authority to make and no power to execute."
— Mr. Blaine argued against Mr. Stevens's proposition to send the
measure to a Conference Committee, and he begged those " who look
to any measure that shall guarantee a republican form of govern
ment to the rebel States, with universal suffrage for loyal men," to
vote for this bill as it came from the Senate.
— Mr. Wilson of Iowa sustained the bill. "Although it does not
attain," said he, " all that I desire to accomplish, it embraces much

DEBATE ON THE RECONSTRUCTION BILL. 259
upon which I have insisted, and seems to be all that I can ge t at this
session. It reaches far beyond any thing which the i lost sanguine of
us hoped for a year ago."
— Mr. Bingham declared that " the defeat of this bill to-day is really
a refusal to enact any law whatever for the protection of any man in
that vast portion of our country which was so recently swept over
by our armies from the Potomac to the Rio Grande."
— General Schenck spoke with great force in favor of the bill, an
swering the somewhat reckless objections of Mr. Stevens in the most
effective manner.
— General Garfield replied to those who objected to the Senate pro
vision giving the command of officers in the South directly to the
President. He said, " I want this Congress to give its command to
the President of the United States, and then, perhaps, some impeach
ment hunters will have a chance to impeach him. They will if he
does not obey." He rebuked the gentlemen " who, when any meas
ure comes here that seems almost to grasp our purpose, resist and
tell us that it is a surrender of liberty. I remember that this was
done to us at the last session, when everybody knew that if the Re
publican party lived, it must live by the strength of the Constitu
tional amendment, and wh:n we agreed to pass it the previous
question was waived to allow certain gentlemen to tell us that it was'
too low and too unworthy, too mean and too unstatesmanlike."
— Mr. Russell Thayer of Pennsylvania supported the bill. He said,
" I see in this provision, as I believe, what the deliberate judgment
of the American people will regard as ample guaranties for the
future loyalty and obedience of the South. Those conditions are :
first, that the Southern States shall adopt a constitution in conformity
with the Constitution of the United States ; second, that it shall be
ratified by a majority of the people of the State, without distinction
of race, color, or condition ; third, that such constitution shall guar
antee universal and impartial suffrage ; fourth, that such constitution
shall be approved by Congress ; fifth, that the States shall adopt
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution ; and sixth, that the
amendment shall become a part of the Constitution of the United
States. All this is required to be done before representation is ac
corded to the States lately in rebellion, and then no representative
presenting himself for admission, can be received unless he can take
the test oath."
— Mr. Eldridge of Wisconsin denounced the whole measure as most

260 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
wicked and abominable. "It contains," said he, "all that is vicious,
all that is mischievous in any of the propositions which have come
either from the Committee on Reconstruction or from any gentleman
upon the other side of the House."
— Mr. Elijah Hise of Kentucky declared that, "under such a sys
tem as this bill proposes, the writ of habeas corpus cannot exist, be
cause even if the civil tribunals are not entirely abolished, they will
exist only at the will of the military tyrant in command."
— Mr. Davis of New York spoke of the danger of suddenly enfran
chising the whole body of rebels. " The State of Kentucky," he said,
"has enfranchised every rebel who has been in the service of the
Confederate States. What to-day is the condition of affairs in that
State? Why, sir, her political power is wielded by rebel hands.
Rebel generals, wearing the insignia of the rebel service, walk the
streets of her cities, admired and courted ; while the Union officers,
with their wounds yet unhealed, are ostracized in political, commer
cial and social life."
— Mr. Niblack of Indiana, one of the leading Democrats of the
House, thought the bill had been much improved by the action of
the Senate. "Though," said he, "it still retains many of the first
features to which I objected when it was before the House for dis
cussion, it is not now properly a military bill, nor is it properly a
measure of civil administration. It is a most extraordinary attempt
to blend the two principles together."
When a vote was reached, the House rejected the Senate amend
ment—ayes 73, noes 98. This result was effected by a coalition of all
the Democrats with a minority of extreme Republicans. But thir
teen days of the session remained, and it looked as if by a disagree
ment of Republicans all legislation on the subject of Reconstruction
would be defeated. Under the pressure of this fear Republican dif
ferences were adjusted, and the Senate and the House found common
ground to stand upon by adding two amendments to the bill as the
Senate had framed it. It was agreed, on motion of Mr. Wilson of
Iowa, to add a proviso to the fifth section, in these words : " that no
person excluded from the privilege of holding office by said proposed
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, shall be eligible
as a member of a convention to frame a constitution for any of said
rebellious States, nor shall any such person vote for members of such
convention." It was also agreed, on motion of Mr. Shellabarger, that
"until the people of said rebel States shall be admitted to repre-

VETO OF THE RECONSTRUCTION BILL. 261
sentation in the Congress of the United States, any civil govern
ments which may exist therein shall be deemed provisional only, and
in all respects subject to the paramount authority of the United
States at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede. . . . All
persons shall be entitled to vote, and none others, who are entitled
to vote under the fifth section of this act ; and no person shall be
eligible to any office under such provisional government, who shall
be disqualified from holding office under the provisions of the Third
Article of such Constitutional amendment." With these modifications
both Senate and House passed the bill by a party vote. During the
discussion in the Senate Mr. Doolittle moved that " nothing in this
act shall be construed to disfranchise any persons in any of said
States from voting or holding office who have received pardon and
amnesty in accordance with the Constitution and Laws." The
proposition received but eight votes. The bill went to the President
for approval on the 20th of February, leaving but a small margin of
time for passage over his veto if as anticipated he should decline to
sign it. The decisive character of the measure had evoked fierce
opposition, and this in turn had stimulated Republican advocacy to a
degree of great earnestness.
On the 2d of March the President sent to the House, in which
branch the bill had originated, a long veto message of very compre
hensive character. He had summed up all the arguments that had
been made against the measure in both Houses, and had arrayed
them with greater strength than when they were originally pre
sented. His argument against placing the States under military
government was cogently stated. "This bill," said he, "imposes
martial law at once, and its operation will begin as soon as the gen
eral and his troops can be put in place. The dread alternative
between its harsh rule and compliance with the terms of this meas
ure is not suspended, nor are the people afforded any time for free
deliberation. The bill says to them, 'Take martial law first, and
then deliberate.' And when they have done all that this measure
requir s them to do, other conditions and contingencies, over which
they have no control, yet remain to be fulfilled before they can be
relieved from martial law. Another Congress must approve the
constitutions maclu in conformity with the law of this Congress, and
must declare these States entitled to representation in both branches.
The whole question thu remains open and unsettled, and must
again occupy the attention of Congress ; and in the mean time the

262 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
agitation which now prevails will continue to disturb all portions of
the people."
The President's veto reached the House on the afternoon of Sat
urday. On Monday, March 4th, at noon, Congress would expire by
Constitutional limitation. The President had communicated his veto
on the last day permitted by the Constitution, and it was generally
believed that his motive for the postponement was to give the minor
ity in one branch or the other the power to defeat the bill either by
dilatory motions or by " talking against time." Mr. Le Blond and
Mr. Finck of Ohio, and Mr. Boyer of Pennsylvania, frankly indicated
their intention to employ all means within their power to compass
this end. A system of parliamentary delay was thus foreshadowed,
but was prevented by Mr. Blaine moving that the rules be suspended
and a vote immediately taken on the question required by the Con
stitution ; namely, " Will the House, on reconsideration, agree to the
passage of the bill, the President's objection to the contrary notwith
standing ? " The Speaker decided that the motion in this form cut
off all dilatory proceedings. Mr. Finck appealed from the decision
of the Chair, but only four members sustained him. The rules were
suspended, and the House, by a vote of one hundred and thirty-five
ayes to forty-eight noes, passed the bill over the veto of the President.
The Senate concurred in the action of the House by ayes thirty-eight,
noes ten; and the famous Reconstruction law, from which flowed
consequences of great magnitude, was thus finally enacted against
every effoit of the Executive Department of the Government.1

The successive steps of this legislation have been given some
what in detail because of its transcendent importance and its
unprecedented character. It was the most vigorous and determined
action ever taken by Congress in time of peace. The effect pro
duced by the measure was far-reaching and radical. It changed the
political history of the United States. But it is well to remember
that it never could have been accomplished except for the conduct
of the Southern leaders. The people of the States affected have
always preferred as their chief grievance against the Republican
party, that negro suffrage was imposed upon them as a condition of
1 The original Reconstruction Act and the several supplementary Asts are given in
full in Appendix A.

THE SOUTH AND NEGRO SUFFRAGE. 263
their re-admission to representation ; but this recital of the facts in
their proper sequence shows that the South deliberately and wit
tingly brought it upon themselves. The Southern people knew, as
well as the members of Congress knew, that the Northern people
during the late political canvass were divided in their opinion in
regard to the requirements of reconstruction, but that the strong
preponderance was in favor of exacting only the adoption of the
Fourteenth Amendment as the condition of representation in
Congress. It was equally plain to all who cared to investigate, or
even to inquire, that if that condition should be defiantly rejected,
the more radical requirements would necessarily be exacted as a
last resort, — rendered absolutely necessary indeed by the truculence
of the Southern States.
The arguments that persuaded the Northern States of the necessity
of this step were simple and direct. " We are willing," said they, " that
the Southern States shall themselves come gradually to recognize the
necessity and the expediency of admitting the negro to suffrage ; we
are content, for the present, to invest him with all the rights of citizen
ship, and to except him from the basis of representation, allowing the
South to choose whether he shall remain, at the expense of their de
crease in representation, outside of the basis of enumeration." It was
the belief of the North that as the passions of the civil contest should
die out, the Southern States, if not inspired by a sense of abstract
justice, would be induced by the highest considerations of self-inter
est to enfranchise the negro, and thus increase their power in Con
gress by thirty-five to forty members of the House. It was the
belief that when they should come to realize that the negro had
brought to them this increased power and prestige in the National
councils, they would treat him with justice and with fairness. It
was, therefore, not merely with surprise, but with profound regret,
and even with mortification, that the North found the South in an
utterly impracticable frame of mind. They would do nothing : they
would listen to nothing. They had been inspired by the President
with the same unreasoning tenacity and stubbornness that distin
guished his own official conduct. They believed that, even against
the popular verdict in the North, the President would in the end
prevail. They had unbounded faith in the power of patronage, and
they constantly exhorted the President to turn every opponent of
his policy out of office, and give only to his friends the honors and
emoluments of the National Government. They had full faith that

264 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
this would carry consternation to the Republican ranks, and would
establish the President's power on a firm foundation.
Unless, therefore, the Loyal States were willing to allow the
Rebel States to come back on their own terms, in a spirit of dictation
to the Government of the Union, they were under the imperious
necessity of providing some other basis of reconstruction than the
one which the South had unitedly rejected. Congress was charged,
in the name of loyalty, to see that no harm should come to the
Republic, and the point was now reached where three ways were
open : first, Congress might follow the Administration, and allow the
States to come in at once without promise, without condition, with
out guarantee of any kind ; second, it might adopt the plan of Mr.
Stevens, which had just been narrowly defeated, and place the South
ern States under military government, with no date assigned for its
termination by National authority, and no condition held out by
which the South itself could escape from it; third, it might place
the Southern States temporarily under a military government, for the
sake of preserving law and order and the rights of property, during
the prescribed period of reconstruction — upon the basis that all loyal
men, regardless of color or previous condition of servitude, should
take part in the movement.
Reduced to the choice of these three methods, the considerate,
well-pondered, conclusive judgment of the Republican party was in
favor of the last named, and the last named was adopted.. If, there
fore, suffrage was prematurely granted to the negro ; if, in conse
quence, harm came to the Southern States ; if hardship was inflicted
upon Southern people, the responsibility for it cannot be justly laid
upon Northern sentiment or upon the Republican party. It is true,
and was not denied, that the vast mass of the negroes thus admitted
to suffrage were without property and without education, and that it
might have been advantageous, if just treatment could have been as
sured them, that they should tarry for a season in a preparatory state.
While it was maintained as an abstract proposition that the right of
the negro to vote was well grounded, many thought it desirable, as
Mr. Lincoln suggested, that at first only those who were educated
and those who had served in the Union Army should be enfranchised.
But the North believed, and believed wisely, that a poor man, an
ignorant man, and a black man, who was thoroughly loyal, was a
safer and a better voter than a rich man, an educated man, and a white
man, who, in his heart, was disloyal to the Union. This sentiment

THE SOUTH AND NEGRO SUFFRAGE. 265
prevailed, not without hesitation, not without deep and anxious de
liberation ; but in the end it prevailed with the same courage and
with the same determination with which the party had drawn the
sword and fought through a long war in aid of the same cause, for
which the negro was now admitted to suffrage.
During the civil war the negro had, so far as he was able, helped
the Union cause — his race contributing nearly a quarter of a mil
lion troops to the National service. If the Government had been
influenced by a spirit of inhumanity, it could have made him terribly
effective by encouraging insurrection and resistance on his part
against his master. But no such policy was ever entertained in
counsels controlled in the Cabinet by Seward and Chase and Stan
ton, or in operations in the field directed by Grant and Sherman
and Sheridan. The negro was left to raise the crops that supplied
the Confederate armies with bread, when a policy of cruelty, no worse
than that of Andersonville and Belle Isle, might have made him a
terror to the Southern population. The humane policy thus pursued
would have been scorned by European warriors who have become
the heroes of the world, but there is not a Northern man who does
not look back with profound satisfaction upon the philanthropic
determination that forbade the encouragement of a single insurrec
tion, or the destruction of a single Southern life, except under the
recognized and restricted laws of war.
Peace had now come, and the question was, whether the power
of these four and a half millions of men should be continually used
against the Northern States, against the loyalty which had saved
the Union. Only three-fifths of their number, in the day when the
Southern States were true to the Union, were admitted in the basis
of representation. Should the disloyalty of the South which had
failed to destroy the Government only by lack of power, be now
rewarded by admitting the whole number of negroes into the basis
of representation, and at the same time giving them no voice in the
selection of representatives ? Surely, if this were conceded, it would
offer such a premium upon rebellion as no government guided by
reason should confer; and, therefore, the question came by the
instinct of justice, and with the precision of logic, to this point —
the negro shall not be admitted into the basis of representation until
he is himself empowered to participate in the choice of the repre
sentative. The North had hoped that the South would cordially
accept the justice of this principle, but whether the South accepted it

266 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
or not, the North resolved that it should become part of the organic
law of the Republic.
As matter of historical truth which has been ingeniously and con
tinuously, whether ignorantly or malignantly, perverted, this point
cannot be too fully elaborated nor too forcibly emphasized : — The
Northern States or the Republican party which then wielded the aggre
gate political power of the North, did not force negro suffrage upon the
South or exact it as a condition of re-admitting the Southern States to
the right and privilege of representation in Congress until after other
conditions had been rejected by the South. The privilege of resuming
representation in Congress had in effect been tendered to the South
ern States, upon the single condition that they would ratify the Four
teenth Amendment, which provided among other safeguards for the
future, that so long as the negro was denied suffrage, he should not
be included in the basis of Federal enumeration, — in other words,
that the white men of the South should not be allowed to elect thirty-
five or forty representatives to Congress, based on the negro popula
tion, in addition to the representatives duly apportioned to their own
numbers. When all the Southern States — with the exception of
Tennessee — declined to accept this basis of reconstruction by their
rejection of the Fourteenth Amendment, they ought to have meas
ured the consequences. The imperative question thenceforward was
whether the loyal or the disloyal — the victorious Union or the de
feated Confederacy — should prescribe the terms of Reconstruction.
The Northern States were thus compelled to consider whether they
would unconditionally surrender to the Rebel element of the South
or devise some other plan of reconstruction. At that point, in the
order of time and in the order of events, and not until then, the just
resolve was made by the Republicans to reconstruct the South on
the basis of Loyalty, regardless of race or color. By refusing to
co-operate with the Republicans in the work of rehabilitating their
States, the Southern rebels forced the Northern States to make im
partial suffrage the corner-stone of the restored Union. The South
had its choice, and it deliberately and after fair warning decided to
reject the magnanimous offer of the North and to insist upon an
advantage in representation against which a common sense of justice
revolted. The North, foiled in its original design of reconstruction
by the perverse course of the South, was compelled, under the provi
dence of the Ruler of Nations, to deal honestly and justly with the
colored people. It was the insane folly of the South, in drawing

THE TENURE-OF-OFFICE BILL. 267
the sword against the life of the Nation, that led irresistibly to the
abolition of slavery. In a minor degree the folly was now repeated,
in resisting the mode of Reconstruction first tendered, and thus for
cing Congress to confer civil rights and suffrage upon the emancipated
slave. A higher than human power controlled these great events.
The wrath of man was made to praise the righteous works of God.
Whatever were the deficiencies of the negro race in education, for
the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, they had exhibited the
one vital qualification of an instinctive loyalty, and as far as lay in
their power a steadfast helpfulness to the cause of the National Union.

As the strife between the Executive and Legislative Departments
had grown in intensity, President Johnson naturally sought to
increase his own prestige by the use of the patronage of the Gov
ernment. To this end he had already removed certain conspicuous
Republicans from office, especially those who had been recommended
and were now sustained by senators and representatives prominently
engaged in frustrating his plan of reconstruction. The wonder in
the political world was, that the President had not resorted to this
form of attack more promptly, and pursued it more determinedly.
His delay could be explained only by what was termed his talent for
procrastination, and to a certain indecision which was fatal to him
as an executive officer. But as the breach between himself and
Congress widened, as the bitterness between the partisans of the
Executive and of the Legislative Departments grew more intense, the
belief became general, that, as soon as Congress should adjourn, there
would be a removal of all Federal officers throughout the Union who
were not faithful to the principles, and did not respond to the exac
tions, of the Administration. Outside of his Cabinet, the President
was surrounded by the class of men who had great faith in the per
suasive power of patronage, and the pressure upon him to resort to
its use was constant and growing. Inside of his Cabinet, there were
men of the same belief, but their power was somewhat neutralized
by the attitude of Mr. Seward, whose faith always lay in the strength
of ideas, and not in the use of force, or in the temptation of personal
advantage. Mr. Seward's influence had constantly tended to hold
the President back from a ruthless removal of the whole body of
officers who declined to take part against the policy of Congress.

268 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
According to long-accepted construction of the Constitution, the
President's power of removal was absolute and unqualified. Ap
pointment to office could not be made unless the consent of the
Senate was given in each and every case — but the consent of the
Senate had not been held as requisite to the removal of an officer.
The Constitution was silent upon the subject, and the existence or
non-existence of power in the Senate to prevent a removal from office
had been matter of dispute from the foundation of the Government.
Those who contended for the right of the President to remove with
out consulting the Senate were fortified by the early legislation of
Congress and the early practice of the Executive. The First Con
gress of the Union had provided for officers whose appointment
depended upon confirmation by the Senate as required by the Con
stitution, but whose removal was left in explicit terms to the President
alone. The decision to that effect was made after debate in which
Madison had strenuously contended for that construction, and his
high authority gave to the conclusion great weight with subsequent
administrations of the Government. But there was undoubtedly
a divided opinion in the Congress that conceded it, and that division
has continued among Constitutional lawyers and statesmen to this
day. In 1835 Mr. Webster, " after considering the question again and
again," made this declaration in the Senate : " I am willing to say
that, in my deliberate judgment, the original decision was wrong.
I cannot but think that those who denied the power in 1789 had
the best of the argument. It appears to me, after thorough and
repeated and conscientious examination, that an erroneous interpreta
tion was given to the Constitution in this respect by the decision
-of the First Congress. ... I have the clearest conviction that the
Convention which formed the Constitution looked to no other
mode of displacing an officer than by impeachment or the regular
appointment of another to the same place. ... I believe it to be
within the just power of Congress to reverse the decision of 1789,
and I mean to hold myself at liberty to act hereafter on that ques
tion as the safety of the Government and of the Constitution may
require." Mr. Webster's words would have exerted a far wider influence
npon public opinion if his argument had not been made under the
pressure of a partisan excitement caused by General Jackson's re
moval of officers who were not in sympathy with the measures of his
Administration. He was effectively though not directly answered

THE TENURE-OF-OFFICE BILL. 269
by the venerable ex-President Madison. In October, 1834, in a let
ter to Edward Coles, Mr. Madison said, " The claim of the Senate
on Constitutional ground to a share in removal as well as appoint
ment of officers is in direct opposition to the uniform practice
of the Government from its commencement. It is clear that the
innovation would pot only vary essentially the existing balance of
power, but expose the Executive occasionally to a total inaction,
and at all times to delays fatal to the due execution of the laws."
A year later, and only a few months before his death, Mr. Madi
son in a letter to Charles Francis Adams thus repeated his views :
" The claims for the Senate of a share in the removal from office,
and for the Legislature an authority to regulate its tenure, have had
powerful advocates. I must still think, however, that the text
of the Constitution is best interpreted by reference to the tripartite
theory of Government, to which practice has conformed, and which
so long and uniform a practice would seem to have established. The
face of the Constitution and the journalized proceedings of the Con
vention strongly indicate a partiality to that theory then at the
zenith of favor among the most distinguished commentators on the
organization of political power." Chief Justice Marshall fortified the
position of Mr. Madison, by declaring that the action of the First
Congress on this question " has ever been considered as a full expres
sion of the sense of the Legislature on this important part of the
American Constitution."
Of the thirty-nine members of the Convention of 1787 who
signed the Constitution, thirteen, including Mr. Madison, were mem
bers of the first Congress ; Alexander Hamilton was Secretary of the
Treasury under the new Government ; and above all, General Wash
ington, who had presided over the deliberations of the Convention,
had attentively listened to every discussion, and had carefully studied
every provision, was President of the United States. More than one-
third of the members of the Constitutional Convention were there
fore engaged in the Executive and Legislative Departments of the
new Government in applying the organic instrument which they had
taken so large a part in creating. The cotemporaneous interpreta
tion was by these facts rendered valuable if not authoritative. Co
temporaneous interpretations of organic law are not always, it is
true, to be regarded as conclusive, but they dre entitled to the most
careful and respectful consideration, and cannot be reversed with
safety unless the argument therefor is unanswerable and the motive

270 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
which suggests the argument altogether patriotic and unselfish. The
familiar rule laid down by Lord Coke is as pertinent to-day as when
first announced: "Great regard ought, in construing a law, to be
paid to the construction which the sages, who lived about the time or
soon after it was made, put upon it, because they were best able to
judge of the intention of the makers at the time when the law was
made. Contemporania expositio est fortissima in legem."
Against the early decision of the founders of the Government,
against the ancient and safe rule of interpretation prescribed by Lord
Coke, against the repeatedly expressed judgment of ex-President
Madison, against the equally emphatic judgment of Chief Justice
Marshall, and above all, against the unbroken practice of the Gov
ernment for seventy-eight years, the Republican leaders now deter
mined to deprive the President of the power of removing Federal
officers. Many were induced to join in the movement under the
belief that it was important to test the true meaning of the Constitu
tion in the premises, and that this could be most effectively done by
directly restraining by law the power which had been so long con
ceded to the Executive Department. To that end Mr. Williams of
Oregon on the first Monday of December, 1866, introduced a bill
"to regulate the tenure of civil offices." It was referred to the
Committee on Retrenchment, and reported back with amendment
by Mr. Edmunds of Vermont, who thenceforward assumed parlia
mentary control of the subject.
The bill came up for discussion on the 10th day of January.
Its first section provided that every person except members of the
Cabinet, "holding any civil office to which he has been appointed
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and every person
who shall hereafter be appointed to such office, shall be entitled
to hold such office until a successor shall have been, in like manner,
appointed and duly qualified, except as herein otherwise provided."
The second section declared that "when any officer shall, during
the recess of the Senate, be shown by evidence satisfactory to the
President, to be guilty of misconduct in office, or crime, or for any
reason shall become legally disqualified or incapable of performing
the duties of his office; in such case, and in no other, the Presi
dent may suspend such officer and designate some suitable person
to perform temporarily the duties of such office, until the next meet
ing of the Senate, and until the case shall be acted upon by the
Senate : and in such case it shall be the duty of the President, with-

THE TENURE-OF-OFFICE BILL. 271
in twenty days after the first day of such meeting of the Senate, to
report to the Senate such suspension, with the evidence and reasons
for the same, and if the Senate shall concur in such suspension, and
advise and consent to the removal of such officer, they shall so certify
to the President, who shall thereupon remove such officer, and by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate appoint another person to
such office ; but if the Senate shall refuse to concur in such sus
pension, such officer so suspended shall forthwith resume the func
tions of his office, and the powers of the person so performing its
duties in his stead shall cease."
Mr. Howe wished to know why members of the Cabinet should
be excepted. " Each one of those offices," he said, " is created by
statute; and created not for the personal benefit of the Executive,
but created for the benefit of the public service, just as much as a
deputy postmaster or an Indian agent." Mr. Edmunds, in reply to
Mr. Howe, said that the Committee, " after a great deal of consulta
tion and reflection," had resolved to except members of the Cabinet
from the scope of the proposed Act. He gave reasons therefor,
which from the foundation of the Government have been considered
conclusive — reasons founded on the personal and confidential rela
tions necessarily existing between the President and his Constitu
tional advisers. The reasons did not satisfy Mr. Howe. He thought
"the tenure of Cabinet officers should be under the control of law
and independent of any undue exercise of Executive influence." He
therefore moved to amend the bill so as to put the members of the
Cabinet on the same basis as other civil officers — not removable by
the President, except with the advice and consent of the Senate. But
the Senate was decidedly averse to so radical a change in the prac
tice of the Government, and Mr. Howe secured the vo.tes of only
eight senators to join him in support of his amendment.
Mr. Edmunds moved, subsequently, to amend the bill by the ad
dition of several clauses, one declaring it a high misdemeanor for
" any person, contrary to the provisions of this Act, to accept any
appointment or employment in office, or to hold or attempt to hold,
or exercise, any office or employment." The signing, sealing, counter-
sealing, or issuing of any commission, or letter of authority, contrary
to the provisions of the Act, was made punishable by a fine not ex
ceeding ten thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding five
years, or by both. Various other provisions of great severity were
incorporated, and were adopted after brief debate.

272 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
When the bill reached the House, every provision of it was
readily agreed to except that which excluded Cabinet officers from
its operation. An amendment offered by Mr. Williams of Pennsyl
vania to strike that out was defeated — ayes 76, noes 78. Later in
the day, just as the bill was passing to its engrossment, Mr. Far-
quhar of Indiana, having voted with the majority, moved to recon
sider the vote by which the amendment was rejected. The vote was
taken the ensuing day, and by the zealous work of the intervening
night, the motion to reconsider prevailed — ayes 75, noes 69 — and
the amendment was at once adopted. The bill was then passed by a
party vote — ayes 111, noes 38. When it was returned to the Senate,
that body refused, by a decisive vote, to concur in the amendment
which placed members of the Cabinet on the same basis with other
officers respecting the President's power of removal. Upon a confer
ence between the two branches on the disagreement, a substitute was
adopted, declaring that the members of the Cabinet " shall hold their
offices, respectively, for and during the term of the President by
whom they may have been appointed, and for one month thereafter,
subject to removal by and with the advice and consent of the Sen
ate." Both Houses agreed to the bill in this form. Mr. Farquhar's
change of mind and his motion to reconsider led to the incorporation
in the bill of the provision whose alleged violation by President
Johnson was the direct cause of his impeachment by the House of
Representatives a year later.
The final action on the measure by the Senate was on the 20th
of February, so that the President had the opportunity to endanger
its passage by postponing the veto, and it was generally anticipated
that he would do so. He communicated it, as in the case of the Re
construction Bill, on the 2d of March. In reviewing the measure
Mr. Johnson said : " In effect it provides that the President shall not
remove from their places any of the civil officers whose terms of ser
vice are not limited by law, without the advice and consent of the
Senate of the United States. The bill conflicts, in my judgment,
with the Constitution of the United States. The question, as Con
gress is well aware, is by no means a new one. That the power of
removal is constitutionally vested in the President of the United
States, is a principle which has been not more distinctly declared by
judicial authority and judicial commentators, than it has been uni
formly practiced upon by the Legislative and Executive Departments
of the Government. . . . The question has often been raised in

THE TENURE-OF-OFFICE BILL. 273
subsequent times of high excitement, and the pracrrce of the Gov
ernment has nevertheless conformed in all cases to the decision thus
made. Having at an early period accepted the Constitution, in
regard to the Executive office, in the sense in which it was inter
preted with the concurrence of its founders, I have found no suffi
cient grounds in the arguments now opposed to that construction, or
in any assumed necessity of the times, for changing those opinions.
. . . For these reasons, I return the bill to the Senate, in which
House it originated, for the further consideration of Congress which
the Constitution prescribes. Experience, I think, has shown that it
is the easiest, as it is also the most attractive, of studies to frame
constitutions for the self-government of free states and nations ; but
I think experience has equally shown that it is the most difficult of
all political labors to preserve and maintain such free constitutions
of self-government when once happily established."
The veto message was a very able document. In all official
papers of importance the President appeared at his best. He had
the inestimable advantage of Mr. Seward's calm temper and of his
attractive and forcible statement of the proper argument. Few
among the public men of the United States have rivaled Mr.
Seward in the dignity, felicity, and vigor which he imparted to an
official paper. No one ever surpassed him. In the veto message
under consideration his hand was evident in every paragraph ; and
if it had been President Johnson's good fortune to go down to pos
terity on this single issue with Congress, he might confidently have
anticipated the verdict of history in his favor. The delicate, almost
humorous sarcasm in the closing words above quoted from the mes
sage, afford a good specimen of Mr. Seward's facility of stating the
gravest of organic propositions in a form attractive to the general
reader. He wrote as one who felt that in this particular issue with
Congress, whatever might be the adverse votes of the Senate and
House, time would be sure to vindicate the position of the President.
But the message did not arrest the action, indeed scarcely the atten
tion, of Congress, and the bill was promptly, even hurriedly, passed
over the veto, — in the Senate by 35 ayes to 11 noes ; in the House
by 133 ayes to 37 noes.
The bill was not passed, however, without considerable misgiving
on the part of many members of both Houses who voted for it. It
was an extreme proposition, — a new departure from the long-
established usage of the Federal Government, and for that reason,
Vol. II. 18

274 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
if for no otherfpersonally degrading to the incumbent of the Presi
dential office. It could only have grown out of abnormal excite
ment created by the dissensions between the two great Departments
of the Government. The bitterness engendered resembled that which
always distinguishes a family quarrel. The measure was resorted to
as one of self-defense against the alleged aggressions and the unre
strained power of the Executive Department. But the history of
its operation, and of its subsequent modification, which practically
amounted to its repeal, is one to which the Republican party can
not recur with any sense of pride or satisfaction. As matter of
fact, a Republican Congress, largely composed of the same members
who had enacted the law, indirectly confessed two years later that
it could not be maintained. Regarded only in the light of expedi
ency at the time, it could readily be demonstrated (as was after
wards admitted by candid men among those who supported it) to
be a blunder, — a blunder all the more censurable because the Act
was not needed to uphold the Reconstruction policy of Congress,
in aid of which it was devised. That policy relied for its vindication
upon the judgment and conscience of the loyal people, and it was an
impeachment of their good faith to say that either could be affected
by the removal of one man, or of many men, from official position
under the Federal Government. The Reconstruction policy stood
upon a strong and enduring principle, — as strong and enduring as
the question of human right, — and was sustained with vigor and
enthusiasm by the great party which was responsible for the war
measures that had saved the Union. The same sentiment did not
attach to the Tenure-of-office Law, which indeed was only the cause of
subsequent humiliation to all who had taken part in its enactment.1

It was part of the fixed policy of Mr. Lincoln's administration
to increase the number of distinctively free States from that section
of the public domain which had never been in any way contaminated
by the institution of slavery. To this end he was anxious to
encourage the settlement of the Territories already organized west
of the Missouri River. To provide for the still more rapid creation of
North-western States, two additional Territories, Idaho and Montana,
1 The full text of the Act to regulate the tenure of certain civil offices, is given in
Appendix B.

NEBRASKA AND COLORADO. 275
were organized from the area which had been included in Dakota.
Mr. Lincoln's evident motive was to place beyond the calculation,
or even the hope, of the disloyal States the possibility of ever again
having sufficient political power to compete in the Senate for the
mastery of the Republic. He was persuaded that the sectional con
test would be fatally pursued so long as the chimerical idea of equal
ity in the Senate should stimulate Southern ambition. He knew,
moreover, that the war could not close with victory for the Union
without the proposal of certain changes in the Constitution, and to
this end it was desirable that the loyal States should as early and as
nearly as possible constitute three-fourths of the entire Union. With
this motive, he had towards the close of his first term, somewhat
prematurely it was believed by many, stimulated the desire of the
settlers of Nevada for a State government. He had faith not only
in the justice, but in the popularity, of this policy ; for he took pains
to issue the proclamation declaring Nevada a State in the Union
only a week preceding the Presidential election of 1864, when the
existence of his administration was at stake, and when every public
measure was scanned with special scrutiny.
Nebraska had been organized as a Territory in the original Doug
las bill repealing the Missouri Compromise, in 1854 ; and Colorado
was made a Territory the week preceding Mr. Lincoln's first inaugu
ration. After Nevada, these Territories offered the earliest promise
of becoming States. They were both parts of the old Louisiana
purchase from France, and had in popular estimation and in the
classification of the earlier geographers been included within the
borders of the Great American Desert. But settlers had swarmed
upon the plains of Nebraska, and the waving fields of grain and the
innumerable herds of cattle browsing on her rich pasture-land soon
dispelled that misconception, and gave promise of the prosperous
development which the State has since attained. Earlier than the
farmer or the grazier could reach its soil, Colorado was settled by an
intelligent mining population, whose industry has extracted from her
mountains more than two hundred millions of the precious metals,
contributed in the last quarter of a century to the wealth of the world.
Encouraged by the policy of the Administration, and especially by the
precedent of Nevada, both Territories sought an enabling Act from
Congress in the winter of 1862-63. Neither succeeded at the time ;
but in the next Congress a bill " to enable the people of Colorado to
form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of

276 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
said State into the Union on an equal footing with the original
States," passed both Houses, and was approved by Mr. Lincoln on
the 21st of March, 1864. A month later (April 19, 1864) a similar
bill for Nebraska was signed by the President.
It appeared that the citizens of each Territory who had been
forward in asking an enabling Act from Congress were somewhat in
advance of popular sentiment, for when the question of forming a
State government was submitted to direct vote in Colorado it was
rejected, and the same action was taken in Nebraska. But soon after
ward (in the year 1865) the movement for a State government gained
strength in both Territories. Through duly organized conventions,
and the formation and adoption of State constitutions, the people in
dicated a willingness, if not an active desire, to be admitted to the
Union. In Colorado 5,895 votes were cast when the constitution
was submitted, and the majority in favor of the new State was but
155. William Gilpin was elected governor, and John Evans and
Jerome B. Chaffee were chosen senators of the United States. But
when the new senators reached Washington (early in the year 1866)
they found that the policy of the National Administration on the
subject of new States had changed, and that instead of a friend in
the White House, as Mr. Lincoln had steadily proved, they had a
determined opponent in the person of Mr. Johnson. Congress with
reasonable promptness passed the bill in both Houses for the admis
sion of Colorado, though it was opposed by the more radical class
of Republicans because negroes were excluded from the right of suf
frage. It is a striking illustration of the rapid change of public
sentiment, that in the winter and early spring of 1866 a bill con
taining that provision could pass a Congress in which the Republi
cans had more than two-thirds of the membership of each branch,
whereas in less than a year negro suffrage was required as the con
dition of re-admission of the Southern States.
The Colorado bill passed the Senate by a vote of nineteen to
thirteen, and the House by eighty-one to fifty-seven. It reached the
President on the fifth day of May and was promptly vetoed. Mr.
Johnson did not believe that the establishment of a State government
was necessary to the welfare of the people of Colorado ; " nor was it
satisfactorily established that a majority of the citizens of Colorado
desire, or are prepared for, an exchange of the Territorial for a State
government." He thought that Colorado, instead of increasing, had
declined in population. " At an election for a Territorial Legislature

NEBRASKA AND COLORADO. 277
in 1861, 10,580 votes were cast ; at an election in 1864 only 6,192
votes were cast ; while at the election of 1865 only 5,905 votes have
been cast." He said, " I regret this apparent decline of population
in Colorado, but it is manifest that it is due to emigration which is
going out from that Territory into other regions of the United States,
which either are in fact, or are believed to be by the citizens of Colo
rado, richer in mineral wealth and agricultural resources." The
President commented upon the injustice of creating from so small
a population a State with senatorial strength equal to that of the
largest State in the Union. He thought Colorado did not have a
population of more than thirty thousand persons, "whereas one hun
dred and twenty-seven thousand are required in other States for a
single representative in Congress." The President did not neglect
his one constant theme — the unrepresented condition of the South
ern States. He insisted that " so long as eleven of the old States
remain unrepresented in Congress, no new State should be prema
turely and unnecessarily admitted to a participation in the political
power which the Federal Government wields." The strong minority
which had opposed the Colorado bill gave no hope of overriding the
President's veto, which was simply laid on the table and ordered to
be printed. The bill for the admission of Nebraska came later in the session,
not being introduced for consideration until the 23d of July. It
passed very promptly by a vote of twenty-four to eighteen in the
Senate, and by sixty-two to fifty-two in the House. As in the case of
Colorado the constitution excluded the negro from the right of suf
frage, and for that reason a very considerable proportion of the Re
publicans of each branch voted against the bill. The vote was so
close in the House that but for a frank and persuasive statement
made by Mr. Rice of Maine, from the Committee on Territories, it
would have been defeated. He pictured the many evils that would
come to the people of Nebraska, now more than sixty thousand in
number, if they could not do for themselves, as a State, many things
which the National Government would not do for them as a Terri
tory. Under the influence of his speech a majority of ten was found
for the bill, but Congress adjourned the day after it was finally
passed by both branches, and the President quietly " pocketed " the
bill; and thus the earnest and prolonged effort to create two new
States came to naught for the time.
Nothing daunted by the President's veto of the bill admitting

278 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Colorado, and his pocketing the bill admitting Nebraska, Mr. Wade
promptly introduced both bills anew, at the beginning of the second
session of the Thirty-ninth Congress. The case of Nebraska was,
in popular judgment, stronger than the case of Colorado. The pop
ulation was larger, and being devoted to agriculture, was naturally
regarded as more stable than that of Colorado, which was based
principally upon the somewhat fortuitous discovery of mines of the
precious metals. But there was an admitted political embarrass
ment in regard to both Territories, the principal debate on which
occurred when the bill admitting Nebraska was under consideration.
Congress was, at the time, engaged in passing the Reconstruction
Act for the States lately in rebellion, and had made it imperative
that negroes should be endowed with suffrage by those States.
While insisting on this condition for the Southern States it was ob
viously impossible for Congress to admit two Northern States with
constitutions prohibiting suffrage to the negro. In the months of the
Congressional vacation public opinion in the North had made great
strides on this question.
A minority of Republicans were intent on sending the bill back
and having the question of negro suffrage submitted for popular de
cision, but in the opinion of the majority of the party this was a
needless postponement of a pressing question, and all propositions
looking to such postponement were rejected. A final compromise
of views was reached, by inserting in the Act of admission an addi
tional section declaring " that this Act shall not take effect except
upon the fundamental condition that within the State of Nebraska
there shall be no denial of the elective franchise or of any other
right to any person, by reason of race or color, excepting Indians
not taxed; and upon the further fundamental condition that the
Legislature of said State, by a solemn public act, shall declare the
assent of said State to the said fundamental condition and shall
transmit to the President of the United States an authentic copy of
said Act." When notified of this solemn public act by the Legisla
ture, it was made the duty of the President to announce the fact by
proclamation, and thereupon the admission of the State to the
Union, without further proceedings of Congress, was to be considered
complete. The objection to this compromise by those who opposed it
and by others who reluctantly supported it, was that it did not have
the force of Organic Law ; that the proposed act of the Legislature
would not be rendered any more binding by reason of being called a

NEBRASKA AND COLORADO. 279
solemn act, and that it might be repealed by any subsequent Legisla
ture. Much argument was expended upon this point, but the general
judgment was that an act of the Legislature, made in pursuance of
such an understanding with Congress, was in the nature of a compact
which, without discussing the question of power, would certainly be
regarded as binding upon the State. With this understanding, Con
gress passed a bill admitting the State, but the vote in both branches
was divided on the line of party.
This action was accomplished late in January (1867), and on
the 29th of that month the President vetoed the bill. He objected
especially to the clause just referred to, because it was an addition
to the enabling Act which Congress had no moral right to make,
and because it required of Nebraska a condition not theretofore
required of States, — contradicting flatly the declaration of the first
section of the bill, in which the State was declared to be " admitted
into the Union upon an equal footing with the original States in all
respects whatever." He argued that the imposition of the condition
prescribed in the bill, and its acceptance by the Legislature, was
practically a change in the organic law of the State without con
sulting the people, which he regarded as an innovation upon the safe
practice of the Government. But his arguments fell upon unwilling
ears, and the bill was passed over the veto by a vote of thirty to
nine in the Senate, and in the House by one hundred and twenty to
forty-three. Colorado did not fare so well. The bill was passed by both
branches of Congress, though not with so full a vote nor with so
much confidence in the propriety and necessity of the measure. Pre
cisely the same condition in regard to suffrage was inserted as in the
case of the Nebraska bill. It met with a prompt veto, more elabo
rately argued and presented with more confidence by the President
than in the case of Nebraska. He said, " I cannot perceive any rea
son for the admissson of Colorado that would not apply with equal
force to nearly every other Territory now organized, and I submit
whether, if this bill becomes a law, it will be possible to resist the
logical conclusion that such Territories as Dakota, Montana, and
Idaho must be received as States whenever they present themselves,
without regard to the number of inhabitants they may respectively
contain." He dwelt forcibly upon the necessity of requiring popula
tion enough to secure one representative. " The plain facts of our
history," said he, " will attest that the leading States admitted since

280 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
1845, namely, Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, and Kansas
(including Texas, which was admitted that year), have all come in
with an ample population for one representative, and some of them
with nearly, if not quite, enough for two."
There were really no facts before Congress tending to prove the
existence of those great resources which have since advanced Colo
rado so rapidly in population and prosperity. Little was known of
the Territory. It was several hundred miles beyond the Western
border of continuous settlement, and the men who came from it were
regarded as adventurous pioneers on the very outposts of civiliza
tion. Under this condition of affairs it was not strange that the
Senate failed to pass the bill for the admission of the State over the
veto of the President. Edmunds, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Harris,
Morgan, and some other Republicans, less prominent, voted in the
negative. The result was twenty-nine in favor of passing it over the
veto, and nineteen against. Defeated in the Senate the bill did not
go to the House, and the admission of Colorado was by this action
postponed for several years.
The President gave specious reasons for his vetoes, especially in
the case of Colorado, but they did not conceal the fact that his posi
tion was radically different from that which Mr. Lincoln had held, —
radically different from the position which he would himself have
assumed if he had maintained in good faith the principles he pro
fessed when he secured the suffrages of the Republican party for the
Vice-Presidency. Having allied himself with the South and compro
mised his patriotic record by espousing the cause he had so hotly
opposed, he naturally adopted all its principles and its worst preju
dices. For nearly half a century the leading exponents of Southern
sentiment had been envious of the growth of the free North- West,
and so far as lay in their power they had obstructed it — being
unwilling for a long period to admit one of its giant Territories to
the Union until its power could be politically offset by one of far
less population and wealth in the South. Mr. Johnson in his new
associations at once adopted this jealous and ungenerous policy —
which had indeed lost something of its significance by the abolition
of slavery, but was still stimulated by partisan considerations and
was invariably hostile to the admission of a Republican State. The
most bitter prejudices could not blind Mr. Johnson or the Southern
leaders to the inevitable growth of free commonwealths in the North-
West, but it seemed to be an object with both to keep them from

PARDONING POWER OF THE PRESIDENT. 281
participation in the government of the Union as long as possible, and
to accomplish this end by every expedient that could be adopted.

An Act in relation to the President's power to grant pardon and
amnesty, passed at this session, was more important in its spirit than
in its results. By the thirteenth section of the Confiscation Act of
July 17, 1862, the President was authorized, at any time, by procla
mation, "to extend to persons who may have participated in the
existing rebellion in any State or part thereof, pardon and amnesty."
Under a suspension of the rules, the House of Representatives, by a
vote of one hundred and twelve to twenty-nine, repealed this sec
tion on the first day of the session (December 3, 1866). There was
anxiety on the part of many, under the lead of Mr. Chandler of
Michigan, to repeal it as promptly in the Senate, but it was referred
to the Judiciary Committee and passed after discussion. Mr. Chan
dler said, "It is a notorious fact, as notorious as the records of a
court, that pardons have been for sale around this town, for sale by
women — by more than one woman. The records of your court in
the District of Columbia show this. Any senator who desires this
disgraceful business to go on, of course desires that this clause shall
remain." The repeal of the clause, however, would not take from the
President his constitutional power of pardoning, but in the judgment
of Mr. Trumbull, who had charge of the bill in the Senate, it took
from him the power to pardon by proclamation and confined him to
his right of issuing individual pardons. The difference between par
don and amnesty was defined by Mr. Trumbull. Pardon is an act of
mercy extended to an individual. It must be by deed. It must be
pleaded. According to Chief Justice Marshall, it is essential to its
validity that it be delivered to the person pardoned. But an amnesty
is a general pardon by proclamation. Mr. Trumbull thought the
repeal would be a "valuable expression of opinion on the part of
Congress that general pardons and restoration of property will not
be continued, and if the President continues to pardon rebels and
restore their property by individual acts under the Constitution, let
him do so without having the sanction of Congress for his act."
Mr. Reverdy Johnson took issue with Mr. Trumbull. He main
tained that the President's power to grant pardons, as conferred by

282 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
the Constitution, had not been affected by the provision of law
whose repeal was now urged. He declared that the power of the
President " to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the
United States " was as broad, as general, as unrestricted as language
could make it. He could find no logical ground for the distinction
made by Mr. Trumbull between individual pardons and general am
nesties by proclamation — in illustration of which he said President
Washington had by proclamation pardoned the offenders engaged in
the Whiskey Insurrection. The enactment of the provision had not,
in Mr. Johnson's opinion, enlarged the President's pardoning power,
and its repeal would not restrict it.
It was thought that a majority of the Senate concurred in Mr.
Johnson's interpretation of the Constitution, but they passed the bill
as a rebuke to the scandalous sale of pardons which Mr. Chandler
had brought to the attention of the Senate. This vile practice had
no doubt been pursued to some extent, but only by a class of " mid
dle men " who had neither honor nor sensibility. They had in some
form the opportunity to secure the interposition of men who could
reach the ear of the President or the Attorney-General. It is hardly
necessary to add that neither of those high officials was in the remot
est degree reflected upon even by their bitterest opponents. How
ever wrong-headed Mr. Johnson and Mr. Stanbery might have been
considered on certain political issues, the personal integrity of both
was unblemished. It was believed that the nefarious practice was
stopped by Mr. Chandler's action in the Senate. Exposure made
public men careful to examine each application for pardon before
they would consent to recommend it to the President.
The President neither approved the bill nor objected to it, but
allowed it to become a law by the expiration of the Constitutional
limit of ten days. He obviously took the same view that had been
advanced by Mr. Reverdy Johnson, and did not take the trouble to
sign it, much less to veto it. It was brutum fulmen, and the Presi
dent used his Constitutional power to pardon by proclamation just
as freely after its enactment as before.

Note. — " Pocketing a bill " is the phrase commonly used to describe the President's
course when he permits a bill which reaches him within the last ten days of the session,
to die without act on his part. It is frequently termed the " pocket veto."

CHAPTER XII.
Meeting of Fortieth Congress, March 4th, 1867. — Conspicuous Changes in Senate
and House. — Cameron, Conkling, Morton, in Senate. — Butler, Peters, Beck,
in House. — Mr. James Brooks objects to the Organization of the House. —
Seventeen States absent. — The Clerk declines to receive his Motion. —Third
Election of Mr. Colfax as Speaker. — Supplementary Reconstruction Act.
— The President's Prompt Veto. — Passed over his Objections. — Congress
adjourns to July 3d. — Second Supplementary Act of Reconstruction. — An
other Veto. — Ominous Words from the President. — Republicans disquieted.
— Congress adjourns to November. — The South placed under Military
Government. — Practical Reconstruction. — Conventions in the Southern
States. — Constitutions submitted to the People. — Second Session Fortieth
Congress. — Aggressive Message from the President. — Southern States re
admitted to Representation. — Another Veto from the President. — Recon
struction Contest practically ended. — Representatives and Senators from
the South. — Mistakes of Former Slave-holders. — Unfortunate Blunders. —
Peculiar Mental Qualities of President Johnson. — The Veto Power. — Its
Infrequent Use by Earlier Presidents. — Example of Jackson. — Followed
by his Successors. — Difference between Democratic and Whig Presidents. —
Mr. Tyler and Mr. Johnson. — Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.
— Proclaimed by Mr. Seward. — Importance of its Provisions. — Singular
Hostility op the Democrats. — A New Charter of Freedom. — Sweeps away
Oppression and Every Denial of Justice. — Credit of it conceded to the
Republicans.
THE Fortieth Congress met at the very moment the Thirty-ninth
closed — on the fourth day of March, 1867. The valedictory
' words of the presiding officers in both branches were followed imme
diately by the calling to order of the succeeding bodies. The con
test between the President and Congress had grown so violent, the
mutual distrust had become so complete, that the latter was unwill
ing to have its power suspended for the customary vacation of nine
months between the 4th of March and the first Monday of the ensu
ing December ; and therefore at the preceding session a law had
been passed directing that each Congress should be organized imme
diately after the existence of its predecessor had closed. The
Republican leaders felt that without the supervising and counter
acting power of Congress, full force and effect might not be given
283

284 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
to the Reconstruction laws by the President; that they might possibly
be neutralized by hostile action from the office of the Attorney-
General, and that for this reason it would be well, nay, it was imper
atively demanded, that the legislative power should be kept ready to
interpose with fresh enactments, the very moment those already in
force should be dulled by adverse construction, or haltingly admin-
FORTIBTH CONGRESS.
republicans in roman; democrats in italic; administration republicans in small
capitals.

Benjamin F. Wade of Ohio, President.
John W. Forney of Pennsylvania, Secretary.1
Maine. — Lot M. Morrill, William Pitt Fessenden.
New Hampshire. — Aaron H. Cragin, James W. Patterson.
Vermont. — George F. Edmunds, Justin S. Morrill.
Massachusetts. — Charles Sumner, Henry Wilson.
Rhode Island. — William Sprague, Henry B. Anthony.
Connecticut. — James Dixon, Orris S. Ferry.
New York. — Edwin D. Morgan, Roscoe Conkling.
New Jersey. — Frederick T. Frelinghuysen, Alexander G. Cattell.
Pennsylvania. — diaries R. Buckalew, Simon Cameron.
Delaware. — George Read Riddle,2 Willard Saulsbury.
Maryland. — Reverdy Johnson,3 Philip Francis Thomas.4
Ohio. — Benjamin F. Wade, John Sherman.
Kentucky. — Garrett Davis, James Guthrie.5
Tennessee. — David T. Patterson, Joseph S. Fowler.
Indiana. — Thomas A. Hendricks, Oliver P. Morton.
Illinois. — Richard Yates, Lyman Trumbull.
Missouri. — John B. Henderson, Charles D. Drake.
Arkansas. — Alexander McDonald, Benjamin F. Rice.6
Michigan. — Zachariah Chandler, Jacob M. Howard.
Florida. — Adonijah S. Welch, Thomas W. Osborn.6
North Carolina. — Joseph C. Abbott, John Pool.6
South Carolina. — Thomas J. Robertson, Frederick A. Sawyer.6
Alabama. — Willard Warner, George E. Spencer.6
Louisiana. — John S. Harris, William P. Kellogg.6
Iowa. — James W. Grimes, James Harlan.
Wisconsin. — James R. Doolittle, Timothy O. Howe.
California. — John Conness, Cornelius Cole.
Minnesota. — Alexander Ramsey, Daniel S. Norton.
Oregon. — George H. Williams, Henry W. Corbett.
Kansas. — Edmund G. Ross, Samuel C. Pomeroy.
West Virginia. — Peter G. Van Winkle, Waitman T. Willey.
Nevada. — William M. Stewart, James W. Nye.
Nebraska. — Thomas W. Tipton, John M. Thayer.
1 Resigned. Succeeded by George C. Gorham. s Resigned. Succeeded by William PinckneyWhyte.
- Died. Succeeded by James A. Bayard. * Denied admission. George Vickers admitted.
* Resigned. Succeeded by Thomas C. DfcCreery. ' Admitted under Acts June 22-25, 1868.

MEMBERS OF FORTIETH CONGRESS. 285
istered by Executive agents not in sympathy with the policy of
Congress. The membership of the Fortieth Congress was changed in some
important respects in both branches. Simon Cameron, at sixty-eight
years of age, returned from Pennsylvania as the successor of Edgar
Cowan in the Senate. It was the third time he had entered that
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Schuyler Colfax of Indiana, Speaker.
Edward McPherson of Pennsylvania, Clerk.
Maine. — John Lynch, Sidney Perham, James G. Blaine, John A. Peters, Frederick
A. Pike.
New Hampshire. — Jacob H. Ela, Aaron F. Stevens, Jacob Benton.
Vermont. — Frederick E. Woodbridge, Luke P. Poland, Worthington C. Smith.
Massachusetts. — Thomas D. Eliot, Oakes Ames, Ginery Twichell, Samuel Hooper,
Benjamin F. Butler, Nathaniel P. Banks, George S. Boutwell, John D. Baldwin,
William B. Washburn, Henry L. Dawes.
Rhode Island. — Thomas A. Jenckes, Nathan F. Dixon.
Connecticut. — Richard D. Hubbard, Julius Hotchkiss, Henry H. Starkweather, William
H. Barnum.
New York. — Stephen Taber, Demas Barnes, William E. Robinson, John Fox, John
Morrissey, Thomas E. Stewart, John W. Chanter, James Brooks, Fernando Wood,
William H. Robertson, Charles H. Van Wyck, John H. Ketcham, Thomas Cornell,
John V. L. Pruyn, John A. Griswold, Orange Ferriss, Calvin T. Hrilburd, James
M. Marvin, William C. Fields, Addison H. Laflin, Alexander H. Bailey, John C.
Churchill, Dennis McCarthy, Theodore M. Pomeroy, William H. Kelsey, William
S. Lincoln, Hamilton Ward, Lewis Selye, Burt Van Horn, James M. Humphrey,
Henry Van Aernarn.
New Jersey. — William Moore, Charles Haight, Charles Sitgreaves, John Hill, George A.
Halsey.
Pennsylvania. — Samuel J. Randall, Charles O'Neill, Leonard Myers, William D.
Kelley, Caleb N. Taylor, Benjamin M. Boyer, John M. Broomall, J. Lawrence Getz,
Thaddeus Stevens,1 Henry L. Cake, Daniel M. Van Aulcen, Charles Denison,2 Ulysses
Mercur, George F. Miller, Adam J. Glossbrenner, William H. Koontz, Daniel J.
Morrell, Stephen F.Wilson, Glenni W. Scofleld, Darwin A. Finney,3 John/Covode,
James K. Moorhead, Thomas Williams, George V. Lawrence.
Delaware. — John A. Nicholson.
Maryland. — Hiram McCullough, Stevenson Archer, Charles E. Phelps, Francis
Thomas, Frederick Stone.
Ohio. — Benjamin Eggleston, Rutherford B. Hayes,4 Robert C. Schenck, William Law
rence, William Mungen, Reader W. Clarke, Samuel Shellabarger, Cornelius S.
Hamilton,5 Ralph P. Buckland, James M. Ashley, John T. Wilson, Philadelph Van
Trump, George W. Morgan,6 Martin Welker, Tobias A. Plants, John A. Bingham,
Ephraim R. Eckley, Rufus P. Spalding, James A. Garfield.
Kentucky. — Lawrence S. Trimble, (vacancy), Jacob S. Golladay, J. Proctor Knott, Asa
P. Grover, Thomas L. Jones, James B. Beck, George M. Adams, Samuel McKee.
Tennessee. — Roderick R. Butler, Horace Maynard, William B. Stokes, James Mullins,
John Trimble, Samuel M. Arnell, Isaac R. Hawkins, David A. Nunn.
1 Died. Succeeded by Oliver J. Dickey. * Resigned. Succeeded by Samuel F. Gary.
2 Died. Succeeded by George W. Woodward. B Died. Succeeded by John Beatty.
3 Died. Succeeded by S. Newton Pettis. * Unseated. Succeeded by Columbus Delano.

286 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
body, and now, as it proved, for a longer period than ever before. —
Roscoe Conkling, who had been steadily growing in strength with
the Republican party of New York, was transferred from the House
and took the seat of Ira Harris. — Justin S. Morrill of Vermont, after
twelve years of useful and honorable service in the House, was now
promoted to the Senate for a still longer and equally honorable and
Indiana.— William E. Niblack, Michael C. Kerr, Morton C. Hunter, William S. Holman,
George W. Julian, John Coburn, Henry D. Washburn, Godlove S. Orth, Schuyler
Colfax, William Williams, John P. C. Shanks.
Illinois. — Norman B. Judd, John F. Farnsworth, Elihu B. Washburne, Abner C.
Harding, Ebon C. Ingersoll, Burton C. Cook, Henry P. H. Bromwell, Shelby M.
Cullom, Lewis W. Ross, Albert G. Burr, Samuel S. Marshall, Jehu Baker, Green B.
Raum, John A. Logan.
Missouri. — William A. Pile, Carman A. Newcomb, Thomas E. Noell,1 Joseph J.
Gravely, Joseph W. McClurg,2 Robert T. Van Horn, Benjamin F. Loan, John F.
Benjamin, George W. Anderson.
Arkansas. — Logan H. Roots, James Hinds,3 Thomas Boles.4
Michigan. — Fernando C. Beaman, Charles Upson, Austin Blair, Thomas W. Ferry,
Rowland E. Trowbridge, John F. Driggs.
Florida. — Charles M. Hamilton.4
North Carolina. — John R. French, David Heaton, Oliver H. Dockery, John T.
Deweese, Israel G. Lash, Nathaniel Boyden, Alexander H. Jones.4
South Carolina. — Benjamin F. Whittemore, C. C Bowen, Simeon Corley, James H.
Goss.4
Georgia. — J. W. Clift, Nelson Tift, W. P. Edwards, Samuel F. Gove, C. H. Prince,
(vacancy), P. M. B. Young.*
Alabama. — Francis W. Kellogg, Charles W. Buckley, Benjamin W. Norris, Charles W.
Pierce, John B. Callis, Thomas Haughey.4
Louisiana. — J. Hale Sypher, James Mann, Joseph P. Newsham, Michael Vidal,
W. Jasper Blackburn.4
Iowa. — James F. Wilson, Hiram Price, William B. Allison, William Loughridge,
Grenville M. Dodge, Asahel W. Hubbard.
Wisconsin. — Halbert E. Paine, Benjamin F. Hopkins, Amasa Cobb, Charles A. Eldridge,
Philetus Sawyer, Cadwalader C. Washburn.
California. — Samuel B. Axtell, William Higby, James A. Johnson.
Minnesota. — William Windom, Ignatius Donnelly.
Oregon. — Rufus Mallory.
Kansas. — Sidney Clarke.
West Virginia. — Chester D. Hubbard, Bethuel M. Kitchen, Daniel Polsley.
Nevada. — Delos R. Ashley.
Nebraska. — John Taffe. territorial delegates.
Arizona. — Coles Bashford.
Colorado. — George M. Chilcott.
Dakota. — Walter A. Burleigh.
Idaho. — E. D. Holbrook.
Montana. — James M. Cavanaugh.
New Mexico. — Charles P. Clever.
Utah. — William H. Hooper.
Washington. — Alvan Flanders.

1 Died. Succeeded by James B. McCormicle. a Died. Succeeded by James T. Elliott.
2 Resigned. Succeeded by John H. Stover. i Admitted under Acts June 22-25, 1868.

MEMBERS OF FORTIETH CONGRESS. 287
useful service in that body. — Oliver P. Morton, bearing his great
reputation as the War Governor of Indiana, now took the seat of
Henry S. Lane, whom, six years before, he had succeeded in the
gubernatorial chair of his State. — James W. Patterson of New Hamp
shire had grown rapidly in favor by four years' service in the House
and now entered the Senate as the successor of Daniel Clark. — Orris
S. Ferry, who but for physical disability would have acquired wider
fame, succeeded Lafayette S. Foster as senator from Connecticut. —
James Harlan returned from Iowa after a somewhat extraordinary
experience with the President during his two years' absence. — Charles
D. Drake, fresh from bitter political controversies, entered from
Missouri as the successor of B. Gratz Brown. — Cornelius Cole, who
had already served in the House, came from California. — Henry W.
Corbett, a successful merchant, came from Oregon. The Senate on
the whole had received valuable accessions. Some of the men who
entered that day became prominent and influential in the public
councils for many years.
The House also received some noteworthy additions among the
new members. Two marked men from the North- West, who had
served as representatives in opposing parties, before the Rebellion,
now returned as members of the same political organization, having
in the four intervening years acquired great distinction in the war
for the Union — John A. Logan of Illinois, and Cadwalader C. Wash
burn of Wisconsin. — Grenville M. Dodge, who had attained high
rank in the volunteer service, entered from Iowa. — Norman B. Judd,
who had gained much influence by his long membership of the State
Senate of Illinois between 1844 and 1860, and by his service as min
ister to Berlin under Mr. Lincoln, now came from one of the Chicago
districts. The New- York delegation was strengthened by the advent of
some new men. — Dennis McCarthy, an enterprising and success
ful merchant, with wide knowledge of public affairs, entered from
the Syracuse district. He proved a most intelligent and useful
member of the House, as he already had of the Legislature of New
York. His ability, his industry, and his broadly liberal views have
given him a high standing among the people of his State. — William
H. Robertson entered at the same time from the Westchester district.
He was a member of the House for only a single term, but he left
a clear imprint of the high character which has since been put to
severe x tests and was never found wanting. Able and frank, con-

288 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
scientious and careful in the discharge of every trust, Mr. Robertson
has established a reputation without spot or blemish. — Orange Ferriss,
since of honorable repute as one of the Auditors in the Treasury
Department, John C. Churchill, who had already attained a good
standing at the Bar, and Addison H. Laflin, afterwards appointed
to an important customs office in the city of New York, all entered
at this session.
John Coburn, who had made a good record in the war, came
from the State of Indiana. Firm and tenacious in his opinions, even
to the point of obstinacy, he was for years an active and useful rep
resentative of the people. He could not be deflected from what he
regarded as the line of duty and he soon acquired the respect of both
sides of the House. — Morton C. Hunter, who had done good service
in the Army of the Tennessee, as Colonel of an Indiana regiment,
and afterwards commanded a brigade in Sherman's Atlanta cam
paign, now entered from the Bloomington district. — Austin Blair,
who had won great praise as Governor of Michigan during the
war, now entered as representative from the Jackson district. He
exhibited talent in debate, was distinguished for industry in the work
of the House and for inflexible integrity in all his duties. He was
not a party man in the ordinary sense of the word, but was inclined
rather to independence of thought and action. This habit separated
him from many friends who had wished to promote his political ambi
tion, and estranged him for a time from the Republican party. But
it never lost him the confidence of his neighbors and friends, and did
not impair the good reputation he had earned in his public career.
— George A. Halsey, a successful manufacturer and a most intelli
gent, worthy man, entered from the Newark district of New Jersey,
bringing to the House a thorough and valuable knowledge of the
trade relations of the country, both domestic and foreign. — The New-
Hampshire delegation, not present at the organization of the House,
had been entirely changed by the late election. Aaron F. Stevens,
a lawyer of high standing, Jacob H. Ela, afterwards for many years
an Auditor of the Treasury Department, and Jacob Benton, well
known in the politics of his State, were the new members. — Worth-
ington C. Smith, an experienced man of affairs, entered from Ver
mont as the successor of Justin S. Morrill. — Henry L. Cake, an
enthusiastic representative of the Pennsylvania Germans and of the
anthracite-coal miners, came from the Schuylkill district. — Green
B. Raum, afterwards for a considerable period Commissioner of

MEMBERS OF FORTIETH CONGRESS. 289
Internal Revenue, entered from Illinois. — William A. Pile and Car
man A. Newcomb, two active and earnest young Republicans, came
as representatives of the city of St. Louis.
Benjamin F. Butler now took his seat in Congress for the first
time. He was sent from a Massachusetts district of which he was
not a resident, thus breaking a long established and approved cus
tom. Though his military career had been the subject of adverse
and bitter criticism, it had been marked by certain features which
pleased the people, and he came out of the war with an extraordi
nary popularity in the loyal States. He engaged at once in political
strife. During the canvass against the President's policy in 1866
he went through the country, it may with truth be said, at the
head of a triumphal procession. He was received everywhere with
a remarkable display of enthusiasm, and was fortunate in. com
mending himself to the good will of the most radical section of the
Republican party. He naturally affiliated with that side because it
never was General Butler's habit to be moderate in the advocacy of
any public policy. When he was a Democrat he sustained the ex
treme Southern wing of the party with all his force and zeal ; and
when the course of his political associates pointed to a disruption of
the Government he turned upon them with savage hostility, declared
without hesitation for the support of the Union, offered his services
as a soldier, and was constantly in the vanguard of those who de
manded the most aggressive and most destructive measures in the
prosecution of the war. He entered Congress, therefore, with appar
ent advantages and in the full maturity of his powers, at forty-nine
years of age.
— General Butler had long been regarded as a powerful antagonist
at the bar and he fully maintained his reputation in the parliamentary
conflicts in which he became at once involved. He exhibited an ex
traordinary capacity for agitation, possessing in a high degree what
John Randolph described as the " talent for turbulence." His mind
was never at rest. While not appearing to seek controversies, he
possessed a singular power of throwing the House into turmoil and
disputation. The stormier the scene, the greater his apparent enjoy
ment and the more striking the display of his peculiar ability. His
readiness of repartee, his great resources of information, his familiarity
with all the expedients and subtleties of logical and illogical dis
cussion, contributed to make him not only prominent but formidable
in the House for many years. He was distinguished by habits of
Vol. II. 19

290 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
industry, had the patience and the power required for thorough
investigation, and seemed to possess a keen insight into the personal
defects, the motives, and the weaknesses of his rivals. He was auda
cious in assault, apparently reckless in his modes of defense, and in
all respects a debater of strong and notable characteristics. Usually
merciless in his treatment of an aggressive adversary, he not infre
quently displayed generous and even magnanimous traits. He had
the faculty of attaching to himself, almost as a personal following,
those members of the House who never came in conflict with him,
while he regarded his intellectual peers of both political parties as
natural foes whom he was destined at some time to meet in combat,
and for whose overthrow he seemed to be in constant preparation.
Another marked character came from New England, — John A.
Peters of Maine, — a graduate of Yale, a man of ability, of humor, of
learning in the law. He had enjoyed the advantage of a successful
career at the bar and was by long training and indeed by instinct
devoted to his profession. In his six years' service in the House he
acquired among his fellow-members a personal popularity and per
sonal influence rarely surpassed in Congressional experience. He
made no long speeches and was not frequently on the floor, but when
he rose he spoke forcibly, aptly, attractively, and with that unerring
sense of justice which always carried him to the right side of a
question, with unmistakable influence upon the best judgment of
the House. Since his retirement from Congress his career on the
Supreme Bench of Maine, and more recently as its Chief Justice,
has given roundness and completeness to a character whose integ
rity, generosity, and candor have attracted not only the confidence
and respect of an entire State, but the devoted attachment of a
continually enlarging circle of friends.
James B. Beck took his seat for the first time as representative
from the Ashland District of Kentucky. He was born in Scotland
in 1822, and though he came to the United States while yet a lad,
he has retained in strength and freshness all the characteristics and
peculiarities of his race. He has a strong mind in a strong body.
Well grounded in the rudiments of education in his native land, he
completed his intellectual training in Kentucky and bears the diploma
of Transylvania University — in whose list of graduates may be
found many of the ablest men of the South-West. Originally a
Whig, Mr. Beck followed John C. Breckinridge into the Democratic
party at a period when the pro-slavery crusaders had gone mad and

OBJECTION TO HOUSE ORGANIZING. 291
were commanding, indeed morally coercing, the services of a great
majority of the able and ambitious young men of the South. He
became the law-partner of Breckinridge, and was zealously and de
votedly attached to him to the end. Had Beck been a native of the
South he would undoubtedly have followed Breckinridge hastily and
hot-headedly into the rebellion. He was saved from that fate by the
abundant caution and the sound sense which he inherited with his
Scotch blood.
— But Mr. Beck had all the sympathy with the Rebellion which was
necessary to secure popular support in Kentucky — without which,
indeed, a Democrat in that State has had no chance for promotion
since the war closed. He has grown steadily in Congress from the
day of his entrance. He is honest-minded, straightforward, extreme
in his views on many public questions, and though a decided partisan
of Southern interests has always had the tact and the good fortune to
maintain kindly relations with his political opponents — a desirable
end to which his generous gift of Scotch humor has essentially aided
him. It is among the singular revolutions of political opinion and
political power in this country, that the State and the very city
made memorable by Mr. Clay's impassioned devotion to the National
Union and his prolonged advocacy of protection, should be repre
sented in Congress by a disciple of the extreme State-rights school
and by a radical defender of free trade.

As soon as the Clerk of the House finished the calling of the roll
and announced that a quorum had answered to their names, Mr.
Brooks of New York rose and called attention to the fact that there
were seventeen absent States, ten of which, belonging to the late
Confederacy, were not called at all, and the remaining seven —
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Kentucky, Tennessee,
Nebraska, and California — had presented no credentials of mem
bers, inasmuch as under their respective laws, Representatives to the
Fortieth Congress had not yet been chosen. Among the absent
were seven of the " old thirteen " — an absolute majority of the
States which founded the Republic. The absentees in all amounted to
eighty members ; and on behalf of his political associates Mr. Brooks
presented a formal protest, signed by every Democratic member
present, " against any and every action tending to the organization

292 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
of this House until the absent States be more fully represented."
He asked that it be entered upon the Journal as the protest of the
minority of the House. Under the rules the Clerk refused to receive
or submit the paper for consideration, and the House immediately
proceeded to the election of Speaker. Mr. Colfax was chosen for
the third and last time. He received one hundred and twenty-seven
votes against thirty cast for Mr. Samuel S. Marshall, a highly
respectable Democratic member from Illinois. As before, Mr. Col
fax, in his remarks when he took the chair, sought to present an
embodiment of Republican policy on current issues. He declared
that " the freeman's hands should wield the freeman's ballot ; " that
" none but loyal men should govern a land which loyal sacrifices
have saved ; " that " there can be no safe or loyal reconstruction
on a foundation of unrepentant treason or disloyalty."
The principal business of the session was to provide supplement
ary legislation to the Reconstruction Act which had been passed
over the President's veto only two days before the new Congress
assembled. That Act, from a variety of circumstances, had been
forced through at the last under whip and spur. Upon close exam
ination by the leading Republicans of both Senate and House it was
found to be defective in many important respects, and especially to
lack the detail necessary to give life and vigor to proceedings
looking to the practical reconstruction of the Southern States. The
two Houses therefore addressed themselves promptly to the task of
supplying the necessary amendments and additions. On the 19th
of March they sent to the President an Act prescribing in detail the
mode for the registering of voters in the insurrectionary States, and
for the summoning of a convention to frame a constitution prepara
tory to the re-admission of each State to representation. The Act
declared that " if the constitution shall be ratified by a majority of
the votes of the registered electors qualified to vote, at least one-
half of all the registered voters voting upon the question, a copy of
the same, duly certified, shall be transmitted to the President of the
United States, who shall forthwith transmit the same to Congress,
and if it shall appear to Congress that the election was one at which
all the registered and qualified electors in the State had an oppor
tunity to vote freely and without restraint, fear, or the influence of
fraud, and if Congress shall be satisfied that such constitution meets
the approval of a majority of all the qualified electors in the State,
and if the said constitution shall be declared by Congress to be in

THE PRESIDENT'S VETO. 293
conformity with the provisions of the Act to which this is supple
mentary, and the other provisions of said Act shall have been com
plied with, and the said constitution shall be approved by Congress,
the State shall be declared entitled to representation, and senators
and representatives shall be admitted therefrom as therein pro
vided." The President promptly vetoed the bill. Among various objec
tions he said, " This supplemental bill superadds an oath to be taken
by every person, before his name can be admitted upon the registra
tion, that he 'has not been disfranchised for participation in any
rebellion or civil war against the United States.' It thus imposes
upon every person the necessity and responsibility of deciding for
himself, under the penalty of punishment by a military commission
if he makes a mistake, what works disfranchisement by participation
in rebellion and what amounts to such participation. . . . The ques
tion with the citizen to whom this oath is to be proposed must be a
fearful one, for while the bill does not declare that perjury may be
assigned for such false swearing nor fix any penalty for the offense,
we must not forget that martial law prevails and that every person
is answerable to a military commission, without previous present
ment by a grand jury, for any charge that may be made against him,
and that the supreme authority of the military commander deter
mines the question as to what is an offense and what is to be the
measure of punishment. ... I do not deem it necessary further to
investigate the details of this bill. No consideration could induce
me to give my approval to such an election law for any purpose, and
especially for the great purpose of framing the constitution of a
State. If ever the American citizen should be left to the free
exercise of his own judgment, it is when he is engaged in the work
of forming the fundamental law under which he is to live. That is
his work and it cannot properly be taken out of his hands."
The whole issue presented by the bill was but another of the
countless phases of that prolonged and fundamental contest between
those who believed that guarantees should be exacted from the rebel
States, and those who believed that these States should be freely ad
mitted, without condition and without restraint, to all the privileges
which they had recklessly thrown away in their mad effort to destroy
the Government. The strength of each side had again been well
stated in the debates of the Senate and House and in the veto-
message of the President, and no change of opinion was expected

294 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
by either party from the reasoning or the protest of the other. The
President's argument was therefore met by a prompt vote passing
the bill over his veto, in the House by 114 ayes to 25 noes, and in
the Senate by 40 ayes to 7 noes. The resistance was very slight,
and the fruit of the great Republican victory of 1866 was now real
ized in the formidable strength which the President's opponents
exhibited in both branches.
The session lasted until the thirtieth day of March, and though
Congress had then completed all the business pressing upon its
attention the Republican leaders would not permit an adjournment
sine die. They decided to meet again in midsummer. The same
necessity that had induced them to convene in March persuaded them
that the President should not be allowed to have control of events
for eight months without the supervision of the legislative branch
of the Government. It was resolved therefore that Congress should
meet on Wednesday, July 3d. The vigilance and determination
evinced by this action did not prove useless or go unrewarded.
Only a few weeks after Congress had taken its recess the danger
anticipated by the Republican leaders, from hostile interpretation of
the Reconstruction Acts by the Attorney-General, was made fully
apparent. On the 24th of May and the 12th of June Mr. Stanbery
gave two opinions to the President, which in many respects neu
tralized the force both of the original and supplementary acts of
Reconstruction. His adverse views were elaborately and skilfully
presented, and tended to' embarrass the military commanders of
the Southern districts in the administration of law, and to hinder the
registration of voters and the holding of elections for constitutional
conventions. Republican leaders therefore felt not only justified in
the precautions they had taken to keep the power of Congress alive,
but esteemed ¦ it peculiarly fortunate that they could so promptly
prevent the evil effects which might otherwise flow from the un
friendly constructions of the Attorney-General. The principal busi
ness of the July session was to provide a second supplementary Act
which effectually remedied all the objections and obstructions which
Mr. Stanbery's acute legal knowledge had suggested. The bill
passed both branches by the 13th of July and reached the President
on the 14th — meeting at his hands the same fate that its predeces
sors had incurred. On the 19th he vetoed it — rehearsing the objec
tions he had repeatedly stated on the same issues.
The President complained that within less than a year Congress

OMINOUS WORDS OF THE PRESIDENT. 295
had attempted to strip the Executive Department of the Government
of some of its essential powers. "The military commander," said he,
" is, as to the power of appointment, made to take the place of the
President, and the General of the Army the place of the Senate, and
any attempt on the part of the President to assert his own Constitu
tional power may, under pretense of law, be met by official insub
ordination. It is to be feared that these military officers, looking to
the authority given by these laws, rather than to the letter of the
Constitution, will recognize no authority but the commander of the
district or the General of the Army. ... If there were no other
objection than this to the proposed legislation it would be sufficient.
While I hold the chief executive authority of the United States,
while the obligation rests upon me to see that all laws are faithfully
executed, I can never willingly surrender that trust or the powers
given for its execution. I can never give my assent to be made
responsible for the faithful execution of laws, and at the same time
surrender that trust and the powers which accompany it to any
other executive officer, high or low, or to any number of executive
officers." Many of those who kept closest watch of the controversy between
the President and Congress saw in the foregoing words something
ominous. In their apprehensions of evil they construed it as a
threat that the President would exercise his power as Commander-
in-Chief of the Army and Navy with which he was fully invested by
the Constitution, to change the assignment of military officers at
will. Should he stubbornly or capriciously assert this power he might
seriously embarrass the entire administration of the Reconstruction
Acts in the approaching registrations and elections in the Southern
States. A change of officers at a single point might frustrate all the
preparations for the reconstruction of a State, and a general change
might produce chaos in the South and possibly develop a spirit of
violence of which no man could measure the effect. The President's
words made a deep impression on Congress. Mr. Boutwell saw in
them a deadly intent " which provokes and demands the exercise of
the highest and gravest duty of this House " — meaning that the
President should be impeached. Mr. Randall of Pennsylvania
taunted Mr. Boutwell with the declaration that all the talk of im
peachment was "mere bluster;" while Mr. Thaddeus Stevens,
though believing that Mr. Johnson deserved impeachment, con
sidered it " a vain and futile thing." " There are," said he, " unseen

296 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
agencies at work, invisible powers operating everywhere in this
country, which will protect a man like Johnson when called upon."
Debate, however, was very brief, and the House passed the bill over
the veto by ayes 108, noes 25. In the Senate there was no discus
sion whatever on the President's message, that body being content to
pass the bill against his objections by 30 ayes to 6 noes.
The Senate and House were both ready to adjourn on the 20th of
July, but Mr. Sumner, Mr. Howard of Michigan, and others of the most
radical type in both branches, desired that Congress might remain
in session for the summer and autumn, or at least have such short
vacations as would practically amount to a continuous session.
Their object was to keep constant watch of the course of the Admin
istration and be at all times ready to neutralize its evil purposes.
Aside from the great personal inconvenience which this would occa
sion to many men bers, the judgment of the majority was against so
radical a step. Ihe more conservative members of the Republican
party feared that a continuous session of Congress would seriously
increase the uneasiness and excitement in the country by creating
the impression that the Senate and House were sitting as a commit
tee of public safety, in the apprehension of a civil revolution. The
reply of those who opposed the adjournment was that the condition
of public affairs did actually tend to revolution, and that instead of
fanning the popular excitement by remaining in session, Congress
would be thus most wisely allaying the fears which had entered the
minds of so large a number of the people. But this argument did
not prevail, and the conservative view secured a majority in both
Houses. The vote in the Senate however was very close, there
being only one more Republican in the affirmative than in the nega
tive, leaving to Democratic votes, really, the decision of the question.
A very inconvenient compromise was made by an adjournment to
the 21st of November — only a fortnight before Congress would
convene in regular annual session on the first Monday of December.
No good reason was assigned for so extraordinary a step, and no
benefit resulted from it.

The Reconstruction Acts, both original and supplementary, were
now in full operation throughout the South. The President did not
interpose serious objection to the assignment of the Army officers
whose names were suggested by General Grant, and the ten insur-

APPOINTMENT OF SOUTHERN COMMANDERS. 29T
rectionary States not yet re-admitted to representation were re
manded to military government with apparent quiet and order.
General Schofield was directed to take charge of the district of Vir
ginia ; General Sickles was placed in command of the district of
North Carolina and South Carolina; General John Pope was as
signed to the district of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida; General
Ord to the district of Mississippi and Arkansas ; and General Sheri
dan to the district of Louisiana and Texas. These assignments were
made with due promptness after the enactment of the laws, and the
several commanders at once proceeded to their novel and responsible
duties.1 1 The President's personal hostility to some of the officers thus assigned was well
known, and surprise was expressed that he did not countermand or qualify the order of
General Grant when first issued. He was especially unfriendly to General Sheridan,
and late in the summer of 1867 relieved him from his command. General Hancock was
gazetted as Sheridan's successor, but he did not reach his post until late in November,
the district meanwhile being under the command, first, of General Charles Griffin,
and, second, of General Joseph A. Mower. General Hancock's order assuming com
mand, issued on the 29th of November, had a certain political significance. He expressed
gratification " that peace and quiet reign in the Department," and that in his purpose
to preserve this condition of things, he regarded " the maintenance of the civil author
ities in the faithful execution of the laws as the most efficient under existing circum
stances." He said that when insurrectionary force had been overthrown and peace
established, "the military power should cease to lead, and the civil administration
resume its natural and rightful dominion." " Solemnly impressed with these views,"
the General announced that " the great principles of American liberty are still the lawful
inheritance of the people and ever should be. The right of trial by jury, the habeas
corpus, the liberty of the press, the freedom of speech, the natural rights of persons,
and the rights of property, must be preserved."
General Sheridan had issued an order defining the qualifications of those who might
sit on juries during the period of Reconstruction. One of the first acts of General
Hancock was to annul this order. He declared " that the determination of who shall
and who shall not be jurors appertains to the legislative power," and he indicated his
intention of carrying out the existing law of Louisiana in regard to the selection of
juries. General Sheridan had distributed certain memoranda of disqualification, together
with questions to be proposed, for the registrars. Their effect in substance was to dis
qualify all persons who, having acted, prior to January 26, 1861, as United-States senators
and representatives, electors, officers of the Army and Navy, civil officers of the United States,
and State officers provided for by the Constitution of the State, had afterwards engaged
in the Rebellion; and also all those who in 1862 and 1864 had claimed the protection of
foreign powers. General Hancock set aside this action, declaring that he dissented from
the construction given to the Reconstruction laws therein, and ordered the registrars to
be guided by their own interpretation of the laws and of the Fourteenth Amendment.
It was the popular understanding that General Hancock, in these successive steps, was
acting in full sympathy with the wishes and designs of the Administration, in all of
which he readily concurred as a Democrat.
The appointment of General Pope for the District of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida,
had not been agreeable to the President. General Pope's political convictions were of a
very positive character, and they were not at all in sympathy with the National Admin
istration. He administered the Reconstruction laws, therefore, in their full spirit and

298 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Under the enlargements of suffrage in the direction of loyalty,
and its restrictions in the direction of disloyalty, the Southern States
once more turned their attention to the question of Reconstruction.
They saw, as the law intended them to see, that military govern
ment would exist until the loyal inhabitants of those States should
present themselves before Congress with a constitution adapted to
the changed circumstances resulting from the war, and to the neces
sities superinduced by the abolition of slavery. The Southern men
who had defiantly rejected the Fourteenth Amendment, and had
with confidence relied upon the power of President Johnson to vin
dicate their position, now discovered their mistake, and were reluc
tantly but completely convinced that the only road to representation
in Congress for their States was through submission to the conditions
imposed by the Acts of Reconstruction, — conditions far more exact
ing than those which had been required by the preceding Congress
and which they had so unwisely refused to accept.
The assignments of Army officers to the Southern districts were
made early in the spring of 1867. From that time onward it was
hoped that the preservation of order would be secured in the South,
with an entire belief in their justice and equity. He insisted on fair dealing, and sup
pressed all interference with voters by violence or threats of violence on the part of the
late rebels. He would not permit the menace of military organizations, and expressly
refused to allow any parading of armed men, except of United-States troops. It was
General Pope's opinion that the South had seen quite enough of men in arms within the
past four years, and he believed that safety and order would be best maintained by hav
ing no uniform worn except that of the Army of the United States, and no other flag
shown than the flag of the Union. Holding these pronounced views, aggressively loyal
in every thought and action, General Pope was naturally in antagonism with the policy
of the President. Towards the close of the year he was relieved of his command and
General Meade ordered to take his place.
General Sickles, of the District of North Carolina and South Carolina, was relieved
of his command early in September (1867), and General E. R. S. Canby appointed as his
successor. General Sickles had been very energetic in the administration of affairs in
his department, and had shown remarkable aptitude and efficiency in the discharge of
his peculiar duties, — exhibiting in his administration the very qualities most likely to
prove offensive to the President. He had perhaps the most difficult command of any of
the generals on duty in the South, as the State of South Carolina had from the begin
ning of the Rebellion presented certain phases of disobedience to Federal authority
peculiar to her population and naturally arising from her antecedent history. General
Sickles had some trouble with Attorney-General Stanbery, and asked for a court of in
quiry, that he might vindicate himself from the accusations of that official.
General Schofield and General Ord alone of the original commanders in the Southern
military districts were left to carry through the work of Reconstruction. They both dis
charged their duties with intelligence and fidelity. Nor was the work of Reconstruction
essentially hindered by the changes in other departments. It is the trained habit of the
officers of the United-States Army to carry out their orders with implicit faith, and there
is seldom a conflict as to the line of duty to be followed. If there was any exception, it

ANXIETY CONCERNING THE SOUTH. 299
and that the rights of all classes would be adequately protected.
But notwithstanding the anticipation of this desirable result, there
was throughout the summer and autumn of 1867 a feeling of great
anxiety concerning the condition of the Southern States, — a con
stant apprehension that some outbreak similar to that in New
Orleans the preceding year might lead to deplorable consequences,
among the least of which would be the postponement of the organi
zation of State governments. The cause of this solicitude among
Northern people was the novel experiment in the South of allowing
loyal men regardless of race or color to share in the suffrage and to
participate in the administration of the Government. Under any
less .authoritative mandate than that which is conveyed in a military
order with the requisite force behind it, the Southern communities
would never have accepted or submitted to the conditions thus im
posed. But the sympathy which their condition under other circum
stances might have evoked in the North, was stifled by the pertinent
consideration that they had refused other forms of Reconstruction,
and had wilfully drawn upon themselves all that was unwelcome in
the one now about to be enforced. It was to be noted moreover
that the feature which was most unwelcome — impartial suffrage —
was in regard to the course pursued by General Hancock. His conduct became a subject
of controversy, and the popular division respecting its merits was on the political line.
The National Administration and the Democratic party, both North and South, ap
plauded every thing which General Hancock said and did in Louisiana. The Republi
can party throughout the country, and the General commanding the army, who was
about to be nominated for the Presidency, united in strong disapproval of his course.
But General Hancock's construction of the laws under which he was acting was the
same as that held by the Attorney-General of the United States, and he thus felt abun
dantly justified and fortified in his position. He disobeyed no-specific order of the Gen
eral commanding the army, and, even if there had been a difference between them,
General Hancock was sure of the sympathy and support of their common superior — the
President of the United States.
It was however the subsequent opinion of General Grant that much of the disorder
and bloodshed in the State of Louisiana during the national election of 1868 had resulted
from the military government of General Hancock. It was not his belief that General
Hancock had the slightest desire or design to produce such results, but that they were
the outgrowth of the encouragement which the rebels of Louisiana received from the
changes which General Hancock inaugurated in the manner of administering the Recon
struction Laws. Aside however from the conduct of General Hancock, the removal of
General Sheridan from the Louisiana District was unqualifiedly offensive to General
Grant in a personal sense, and contrary to his best judgment on grounds of public policy
and safety. His attachment to Sheridan was very strong, and a wrong against the latter
was sooner or later sure to be resented by General Grant. His feelings on the question
were promptly and significantly shown when he became President. Inaugurated on the
4th of March, he caused an army order to be issued on the morning of the 5th, restoring
General Sheridan to his former command in Louisiana, and ordering General Hancock
to the remote and peaceful Department of Dakota.

300 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
was the one especially founded upon justice, abstract as well as
practical. Conventions were held successively in all the States, the elections
being conducted in good order, while every man entitled to vote was
fully secured in his suffrage. The conventions were duly assembled,
constitutions formed, submitted in due time, and approved by popu
lar vote. State governments were promptly organized under these
organic laws, Legislatures were elected, and the Fourteenth Amend
ment ratified in each of the States with as hearty a unanimity as
in the preceding winter it had been rejected by the same commu
nities. The proceedings were approximately uniform in all the
States, and the constitutions, with such minor differences and adapta
tions as circumstances required, were in all essential points the same.
All were ordained in the spirit of liberty, all prohibited the existence
of any form of slavery, and all heartily recognized the supreme sov
ereignty of the National Government as having been indisputably
established by the overthrow of the Rebellion which was undertaken
to confirm the adverse theory of State-rights.
These proceedings in the South were in full progress when the
second or long session of the Fortieth Congress began, on the first
Monday of December, 1867. While President Johnson had not inter
posed any obstructions to the working of the Reconstruction Act
which had not been effectively cured by the two supplementary Acts,
he had neither concealed nor abated his utter hostility to the policy
of Congress, — a form of hostility that grew in rancor in proportion
as he had been thwarted and rendered powerless by the enactment
of the laws over his. veto. When Congress came together he seemed
to have gathered all his strength for a final assault upon its Recon
struction work and for a final vindication of his own policy. His
message was laden with every form of attack which ingenuity could
devise to throw discredit upon Congress, and if possible to affright
the people by the dismal consequences destined in his judgment to
follow the flagrant violation of the Constitution which he saw in the
Reconstruction policy. He appealed to the people on the ground of
patriotism, public safety, and personal interest. He pictured anew
the advantage and the grandeur of having the old Union fully re
stored ; he warned the people of the danger of sowing the seeds of
another rebellion by allowing continued maltreatment of the South
ern people ; and he appealed to the commercial and financial interests
of the country by pointing out how every form of property was

THE PRESIDENT'S ARGUMENT REPEATED. 301
endangered by the chaotic condition of affairs to which, in his belief,
the policy of Congress was steadily tending. Beyond these consid
erations he endeavored to arouse among the people all possible preju
dice against negro suffrage. He declared that "of all the dangers
which our Nation has yet encountered, none are equal to those which
must result from the success of the effort now making to Africanize
the half of our country." "We must not," said he, "delude our
selves. It will require a strong standing army, and probably more
than two hundred millions per annum, to maintain the supremacy of
negro governments after they are established, — a sum thus thrown
away which would, if properly used, form a sinking-fund large enough
to pay the whole National debt in less than fifteen years."
The argument of the President however was not merely a twice-
told tale. It had been repeated many times and though never more
.artfully stated than now, it fell upon unlistening ears, making no
impression whatever upon Congress and very little upon the coun
try. The process of Reconstruction went on, and its first fruit was
the presentation of a constitution from Arkansas, framed in exact
accordance with the requirements prescribed by Congress, and ac
companied by proof that the State had ratified the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution. A bill was introduced in the
House by Mr. Stevens, on the 7th of May (1868), to admit the
State of Arkansas to representation in Congress. The question of
Reconstruction had been debated so elaborately and for so long a
period of time that there was little disposition now to open the sub
ject afresh, and with far less resistance than had been anticipated the
Arkansas bill was passed in both branches, and the State declared
entitled to all those rights in the Union which she, with her sisters
in rebellion, had so flippantly thrown aside in 1861. A fundamental
condition was attached to the admission, declaring "that the Con
stitution of Arkansas shall never be so amended or changed as to
deprive any citizen or class of citizens of the United States of the
right to vote, who are entitled to vote by the Constitution herein
recognized, except as a punishment for such crimes as are now felo
nies at common law, whereof they shall have been duly convicted
under laws equally applicable to all the inhabitants of said State."
The Act re-admitting Arkansas to the right of representation
was followed immediately by one of the same general scope with
respect to the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana,
Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. The same fundamental condition

302 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
already cited as imposed on Arkansas was imposed on all these
States, and the further condition was exacted from Georgia that
certain provisions in her Constitution should by a solemn Act of
her Legislature be declared null and void. The provisions to be
thus annulled related to the collection of debts, and their spirit and
intent may be inferred from the opening declaration that " no court
in this State shall have jurisdiction to try or determine any suit
against any resident of this State upon any contract or agreement
made or implied prior to the first day of June, 1865, or upon any
contract made in renewal of any debt existing prior to the date
named." The provision as the Georgia convention had framed it
would have wrought great injury to a large number of creditors in
the North. It was a complete outlawry of thousands of dollars
legally and equitably due to honest creditors, and Georgia was com
pelled to agree to its nullification before her senators and representa
tives could be admitted to seats in Congress.
The bills admitting these States to representation did not secure
Executive approval. On the 20th of June (1868) the President
sent a message to the House of Representatives with his objections
to the Arkansas bill. " The approval of this bill," said he, " would
be an admission on the part of the Executive that the Act for the
more efficient government of the rebel States, passed March 2, 1867,
and the Act supplementary thereto, were proper and constitutional.
My opinion however in reference to these measures has undergone
no change, but on the contrary has been strengthened by the results
which have attended their execution." He then proceeded to state
his objections as he had so often done before, with no variation of
argument, without the production of new facts. — Five days later, on
the 25th of June, the President communicated his objections to the
bill admitting the other Southern States to representation. He had
apparently become fatigued with the reiteration of his arguments,
and he frankly stated that he would not "undertake at this time
to re-open the discussion upon the grave Constitutional question
involved in the Reconstruction Acts." He declared that " the bill
assumes authority over States which has never been delegated to
Congress," and "imposes conditions which are in derogation of
equal rights." The vetoes did not evoke long debate in either House,
and both bills were promptly passed over the objections of the Presi
dent by a party vote, amounting indeed to more than three to one in
both Senate and House.

POSITION OF THE REPUBLICANS. 303
In the arguments which the President had found such frequent
occasion to submit, he quietly ignored the facts of secession, the crime
of rebellion, the ruthless sundering of Constitutional bonds which
these States had attempted. He took no note of the immense losses
both of life and property which they had inflicted upon the Nation,
and gave no consideration to the suffering which they had cause
lessly brought upon the people. If the President's logic should
be accepted as indicating the true measure of Constitutional obliga
tion imposed on the different members of the Union, then any State
might rebel at any time, seize and destroy the National property,
levy war, form alliances with hostile nations, and thus subject the
Republic to great peril and great outlay, her citizens to murder and
to pillage. If the rebellious State be finally subdued, the National
Government must not attach the slightest condition to her re-admis
sion to the Union ; must not impose discipline or even administer
reproof. The fact that the rebellion fails is the full warrant for its
guilty authors to be at once repossessed of all the rights and all the
privileges which in the frenzy of anger and disobedience they had
thrown away. Such was in effect th3 argument of the President
throughout the Reconstruction contest ; such was the demand of the
leaders of the Rebellion; such was the concession which the Demo
cratic party constantly urged in Congress, through the press, and in
all the channels through which its great power was exerted.
The position of Republicans was steadily the opposite of that
described. They held that the States which had rushed into a rebel
lion so wicked, so causeless, and so destructive, should not be allowed
to resume their places of authority in the Union except under such
conditions as would guard, so far as human foresight could avail,
against the outbreak of another insurrection. They should return
to the Union on precisely the same terms as those on which the loyal
States held their places ; they should have the same privileges and be
subjected to the same conditions. As slavery had been the chief inciting
cause of disunion, slavery should die. As the vicious theory of State-
rights had been constantly at enmity with the true spirit of Nationality,
the Organic Law of the Republic should be so amended that no stand
ing-room for the heresy would be left. As the basis of representation
in the Constitution had always given the slave States an advantage,
those States, now that slavery was abolished, should not be permitted
to oppress the negro population and use them merely for an enlarged
Congressional power to the white men who had precipitated the

304 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
rebellion. As the war to maintain Union and Liberty had cost a
vast treasure and sacrificed countless lives, the States that had forced
the bloody contest should agree by solemn amendment to the Con
stitution that the National debt and the pension to the soldier should
be secured. These conditions — applying to all the States alike, to
the loyal and the disloyal in the same measure — must be honorably
agreed to by the States that had gone into Disunion before they
should be permitted to resume and enjoy the blessings of Union.
History and the just judgment of mankind will vindicate the wisdom
and the righteousness of the Republican policy, and that vindication
will always carry with it the condemnation of Andrew Johnson.

The long contest over Reconstruction, so far as it involved the
re-admission of the States to representation, was practically ended.
Eight of the eleven Confederate States, at the close of June 1868,
had their senators and representatives in Congress. Three — Vir
ginia, Mississippi, and Texas — were prevented by self-imposed ob
stacles from enjoying the same privilege until after President John
son had retired from office. Of the representatives on the floor of
the Fortieth Congress from the eight States lately in rebellion,
only two were Democrats. The senators were unanimously Repub
lican. Of the aggregate number about one-half were natives of the
South. The war upon the " Carpet-bagger " had not yet reached its
era of savage atrocity, but the indignation pervading the governing
classes of the South, as they were termed, was poured forth in un
stinted measure upon the heads of all native Southerners who con
sented to accept offices conferred by negro votes. It was evident
that the admission of the States to representation was to be taken as
the signal for a new contest in the South — embittered in its character
and sanguinary in its results. The men who had been foremost hi
plunging their States into the vortex of rebellion were determined to
rule them — their determination being of that type which disregards
the restraint of law and considers that the end justifies the means.
With all the advantages of old association and in numberless in
stances of kindly relation with the colored race, the former masters
showed themselves singularly deficient in the tact and management
necessary to win the negroes and bind them closely to their interest,
in the new conditions which emancipation had created. Of the evil re-

BLUNDER OF SOUTHERN MEN. 305
suits that flowed from the contest now about to ensue — a contest that
had many elements of provocation and of wrong on both sides — one
of the most remarkable features was the complete control which the
white men from the North, entire strangers to the negro, to his habits
and to his prejudices, so readily obtained over him. The late slave-
masters did not adapt themselves to the new situation. They gave
way to repining and regretting, to sulking and to anger, to resent
ment and revenge, and thereby lost a great opportunity for binding
together the two races in those ties of sympathy and confidence
which must be maintained as an indispensable condition of prosperity,
or even of domestic order and the reign of law, in the Southern
States. The lack of moral courage among the physically brave men
of the South has already been indicated and illustrated. It was
something of this same defect that held back the slave-masters from
the condescension, as they esteemed it, of establishing any relation
whatever with the negro in his new condition of freedom. Such
action was frowned upon by the public opinion of this class through
out the South, and for lack of bold leadership at the critical period,
for lack of that consideration which in many subsequent instances
has been lavished upon the colored man, the current of fatal preju
dice was set strongly against the old master in the mind of his former
slave. Events, as they developed in the stirring and sorrowful years
that followed, were but a continual proof of that form of original
blunder on the part of the Southern whites, which in affairs of civil
administration is worse than a crime.
In excuse, or at least in explanation, of this unfortunate blunder
on the part of Southern men, the obstinacy and wrong-headed course
of President Johnson must be pleaded. It was his causeless, volun
tary, unpardonable quarrel with his party which misled Southern men
at the time when they most needed lessons of wisdom and modera
tion. The different result which we may well conceive might have
followed in the South under the considerate and kindly spirit which
Mr. Lincoln would have brought to the problem; gives us by contrast
some faint appreciation of the enormity of Johnson's conduct and of
the evil effects flowing from it. At the very moment when the Pres
ident should have stood as a generous mediator, calming the irritation
of the South — an irritation inevitably incident to defeat — and re
straining somewhat, at least in the manner of preferring them, the
demands and requirements which the Government in its hour of
victory was justified in making, Johnson committed the grievous
Vol. II. 20

306 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
fault of espousing the Southern cause and quarreling with the party
which had confided to him the power he was abusing.
Under the patronage and protection of the President, Southern
men would have been more or less than human if they had not grown
arrogant and defiant towards the men of the North. The chivalric
sympathy which always moves the magnanimous in their treatment
of a fallen foe, was therefore drowned in the indignation to which
Northern men were naturally moved by provocations as unexpected
as they were extraordinary. Stimulated by the protection of the
President and encouraged by his contumacious quarrel with Con
gress, the South was driven from one unwise step to another, until
the entire situation became hopelessly entangled, and every move
ment affected by anger and passion ; — the North resolving more and
more to insist on the fruits of victory, the South resolving more
and more to act as though they had conquered in the contest. It
was .not unnatural, under the anxieties and discouragements of the
crisis, that the South should have clung to Mr. Johnson for protection ;
but in the calm review which the lapse of twenty years affords, the
most ardent Southern partisan must see that the President's policy
was at enmity with the interest and happiness of his section.
It is not to be forgotten, however, that Mr. Johnson's course
was marked by the inherent qualities of his mind. He had two sig
nal defects, either of which would impair his fitness for Executive
duty ; united they rendered him incapable of efficient administra
tion: — he was conceited and he was obstinate. Conceit without
obstinacy may be overcome by the advice of judicious counselors;
united with obstinacy it carries its possessor beyond the bounds of
prudence, almost beyond the control of reason. Obstinacy united
with good judgment is softened into the virtue of firmness. It has
often been said that self-made men, as they are termed, are neces
sarily conceited. Like all aphorisms, this must be taken with num
berless exceptions, but it was singularly applicable to Johnson, who
was in all respects a self-made man. His great career was never
absent from his thoughts, and he was always looking at himself as
he fancied he would appear in history. He came to regard himself
.as the hero upon a remarkable stage of action, and naturally made
the reflection that if he could have had in his early years the advan
tages which so many possess without improving, he would have made
strides in life which would have left him without rivals. It would
be impossible to gain a full and correct appreciation of Mr. Johnson's

USE OF VETO BY EARLIER PRESIDENTS. 307
character without taking into account these qualities — qualities
which were both the remote and immediate cause of his extraor
dinary career as Chief Magistrate.

The earlier Presidents, filled with the spirit of the convention
that formed the Constitution, were extremely careful in the use of
the veto-power. In eight years Washington used it but twice.
Neither John Adams nor Thomas Jefferson used it even once. Mad
ison resorted to it three times, Monroe only once, John Quincy
Adams in not a single instance. Under the first six Presidents, the
veto-power had been used but six times in all ; unless there should
be included some private bills sent back for correction and not
in any sense furnishing matter of contest between parties. The
country had thus been educated by the sages of the era of the Con
stitution in the belief that only an extraordinary occasion justified a
resort to what, in the popular dislike of its character, had received
the name of " the one-man power." President Jackson, therefore, sur
prised the country and shocked conservative citizens by his frequent
employment of this great prerogative. During his term he thwarted
the wish and the expressed resolve of Congress no less than eleven
times on measures of great public consequence. Seven of these
vetoes were of the kind which, during his Presidency, received the
name of " pocket-vetoes."
In Madison's administration a bill which reached the President
during the last ten days of the session failed by accident or inad
vertence to receive the President's signature, and did not become a
law. Mr. Webster is authority for saying that there was not a single
instance prior to the administration of General Jackson in which
the President by design omitted to sign a bill and yet did not return
it to Congress. " The silent veto," said he, " is the exclusive adop
tion of the present administration." There had been instances in
which, during a session of Congress, a President, unwilling to ap
prove and yet not prepared to veto a measure, suffered it to become
a law by the lapse of the Constitutional period of ten days ; but it
was an entirely new device, to defeat a bill by permitting the period
of less than ten days to expire at the close of the session — defeat it
without action, without expression of opinion, without the responsi
bility which justly attaches to the Executive office. Commenting

308 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
with great power, at the time, upon the new use of the veto-power
in all its forms by President Jackson, Mr. Webster declared its ten
dency was " to disturb the harmony which ought always to exist
between Congress and the Executive, and to turn that which the
Constitution intended only as an extraordinary remedy for extraor
dinary cases, into a common means of making Executive discretion
paramount to the discretion of Congress in the enactment of laws."
It was literally making the extreme medicine of the Constitution its
daily bread.
An example set by so strong a ruler as Jackson, especially in the
establishment of a practice so congenial to man's natural love of
power, was certain to be followed by other Presidents. It was fol
lowed so vigorously indeed that the forty years succeeding Jack
son's advent to power presented a strong contrast with the forty
years which preceded it. The one began with Washington: the
other ended with Andrew Johnson. Mr. Van Buren, though in all
respects a lineal heir to the principles of Jackson, did not imitate
him in the frequent use of the veto-power. But Mr. Tyler on nine
different occasions ran counter to the action of Congress by the
interposition of his veto. Mr. Polk resorted to it in three signal
instances, but neither General Taylor nor Mr. Fillmore came in con
flict with Congress on a single measure. President Pierce almost
rivaled General Jackson in the ten vetoes with which he emphasized
his own views as distinct from those of Congress. Mr. Buchanan
used his arbitrary power on four occasions during his term. Mr.
Lincoln permitted one bill to be defeated, as already noted in these
pages, by the expiration of Congress, and arrested the passage of
another by direct use of the veto. President Johnson, who in many
features of his career has been suspected of an attempted imitation
of Jackson, far surpassed his great prototype in the use of the veto-
power, employing it directly in no less than twenty-one instances,
besides pocketing at least two bills of public importance. The aggre
gate number of vetoes, therefore, in the forty years that followed
General Jackson's first election exceeded fifty, as against six for the
forty years preceding it.
It will not escape observation that the most frequent resort to
the veto has been by those Presidents who were chosen by the po
litical organization which has always declared its hostility to Execu
tive power. The Democratic party had its origin and its early
growth in the cry against the overshadowing influence of the Presi-

RATIFICATION OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 309
dential office — going so far in their denunciations as to declare that
it was aping royalty in its manners and copying monarchy in its pre
rogatives. The men who made this outcry defeated John Quincy
Adams who never used the veto, and installed Jackson who resorted
to it on all occasions when his judgment differed from the conclusion
of a majority of Congress. Neither Taylor nor Fillmore — both reared
in the Whig school — ever attempted to defeat the will of Congress,
though each wielded Executive power at a time when questions
even more exciting than those of Jackson's era engaged public atten
tion. Mr. Lincoln presents a strong contrast with his predecessors, —
Pierce and Buchanan, — illustrating afresh the contradiction that the
party declaiming most loudly against Executive power has constantly
abused it. Mr. Tyler and Mr. Johnson were both chosen by the op
ponents of the Democracy, but they were both reared in that school,
and both returned to it — exhibiting in their apostasy the readiness
with which the Democratic mind turns to the tyranny of the veto.

The success of reconstruction in the South carried with it the
ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment by the requisite number of
States. The result was duly certified by Mr. Seward as Secretary
of State, on the twenty-eighth day of July, 1868, and the Amendment
was thenceforward a part of the organic law of the nation. It had
been carried, from first to last, as a party measure — unanimously sup
ported by the Republicans, unanimously opposed by the Democrats.
Its grand and beneficent provisions failed to attract the vote of a
single Democratic member in any State Legislature in the whole
Union. Wherever the Democrats were in majority the Legislature
rejected it, and in every Legislature where the Republicans had
control the Democrats in minority voted against it. Not only was
this true, but the States of Ohio and New Jersey, which had ratified
it in 1866-67 when their Legislatures were Republican, formally
voted in 1868, when the Democrats had come into power, to recall
their assent to the Amendment and to record their opposition to its
adoption. It is very seldom in the history of political issues, even
when partisan feeling is most deeply, developed, that so absolute a
division is found as was recorded upon the question of adopting
the Fourteenth Amendment. It has not been easy in succeeding
years to comprehend the deep-seated, all-pervading hostility of the

310 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Democratic party to this great measure. Even on the Thirteenth
Amendment, containing the far more radical proposition to abolish
slavery, a few Democrats, moved by philanthropic motives, broke
from the restraint of party and honored themselves by recording
their votes on the side of humanity and justice ; but on the Four
teenth Amendment the line of Democratic hostility in Nation and
in State was absolutely unbroken.
It seems incredible that Democrats can be satisfied with the rec
ord made by their party on this most grave and important question.
Every one of the many objects aimed at in the Fourteenth Amend
ment is founded upon a basis of justice, of liberty, of an enlarged and
enlightened nationality. Its minor provisions might be regarded as
temporary in their nature, but its leading provisions are permanent
and are essential to the vitality of a true republic. Even those
which may be held as temporary deeply affect more than one genera
tion of American citizens, and are of themselves sufficiently important
to justify a great struggle for their adoption.
It was certainly of inestimable concern to the honor of the
country that those who had shed their blood and those who had
given their treasure for its defense, should have their claims upon
the national justice placed beyond the whim, or the caprice, or the
malice of an accidental majority in Congress. Nor would it have
been wise to leave open to those who in the conflict of arms had lost
their slaves, the temptation to besiege Congress and the Legislatures
of their States for compensation. Such an opportunity would have
been a menace to the public credit, and would have proved a con
stant source of corruption. The Republicans therefore said, "We
shall incorporate the right of the soldier to his pension, and of the
public creditor to repayment, in the very Constitution of the Re
public ; and shall in the same solemn manner decree that as slavery
instigated the drawing of the sword against the life of the nation,
and justly perished by the sword, its assumed value shall not be
placed upon the free people of the United States as a mortgage
whose payment may be exacted from their property and their toil."
Against these just provisions, which in their nature are limited as
to time, the Democrats in Congress and in every Legislature of the
Union recorded an absolutely unanimous vote.
Another provision of the Fourteenth Amendment, temporary in
its application, indeed necessarily limited to the existing generation,
was demanded by the Republicans. The great mass of those en-

THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION. 311
gaged in the Rebellion were pardoned the moment their arms were
laid down. But the leaders who, in official position before the war,
had solemnly sworn to support the Constitution, were held to be far
more guilty than the multitude who followed them. They deliber
ately rebelled against a government to which, on their consciences and
on their oaths, they had given their personal pledge of fidelity. The
Republicans did not propose to visit even these chief offenders with
pains and penalties ; but they resolved to place in the Constitution
a prohibition upon their holding office under the National govern
ment until after two-thirds of both branches of Congress, satisfied of
their good intentions, should remove their disabilities. The Dem
ocrats unanimously voted against even this mild discipline to those
who precipitated the desperate war, thereby declaring their willing
ness, if not their desire, that the most guilty should fare as well as
the innocent; that for example Mr. Toombs might resume his seat
as a senator from Georgia, Mr. Breckinridge as a senator from Ken
tucky, Mr. Benjamin as a senator from Louisiana, Mr. Jefferson Davis
as a senator from Mississippi.
Still another provision of the Amendment which might prove
temporary in its application, or might prove permanent, as the
South should decide, was that relating to representation in Con
gress. On this point the Republicans held, as has been so often
repeated, that the negro should not be included in the basis of repre
sentation until he was admitted to suffrage. There is such abso
lute justice and fair dealing in this proposition, that no reply which
deserves to be called an argument has ever been made to it. The
original provision in the Constitution by which three-fifths of the
slaves were enumerated in the basis of representation, agreed to
originally as a compromise in connection with the subject of direct
taxation, had lost its relevancy by reason of emancipation as decreed
in the Thirteenth Amendment. The question now before Congress
was therefore a new one. It affected the rights of States and the
equality of citizens. To concede four and a half millions of negroes
to the basis of Southern representation, and at the same time to
confine the suffrage to the whites, was not merely a harsh injustice
to the colored race, but it was an insulting discrimination against
Northern white men. It gave, as was well said at the time, a far
greater influence in National affairs to the vote of the Confederate
soldier in the South than to the vote of the Union soldier in the
North. In Congressional districts where the colored race constituted

312 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
one-half of the total population (and in many instances the propor
tion was even larger), the vote of one white man offset the vote of
two in a Northern district where suffrage was impartial. This ratio
of influence went into the Electoral College, and gave to the white
men of South Carolina, Mississippi and Louisiana double the power
of that enjoyed by white men in New York, Illinois and California.
The loss of Representatives to the Northern States, or more properly
speaking the gain to the Southern States on existing numbers, would
be nearly one-eighth of the entire House, and fully one-quarter of
those likely to occupy seats on the Democratic side of the chamber.
In the Electoral College, the loss to the North and the gain to the
South would be in nearly the same ratio. In the rapid increase of
the negro race the offensive discrimination against the North would
be continually enlarging in its proportions. The corrective provision
in the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to prevent this grave
injustice both to the negro and to the white man — but every Demo
crat in Congress and in the State Legislatures voted against it through
all the stages of its enactment and its ratification, and thereby ex
pressed a willingness to give an unfair advantage to the Southern
white man, and to establish an unfair discrimination against the
Northern white man.
Important and essential as are the provisions of the Fourteenth
Amendment just cited, indispensable as they have proved in the sys
tem of Southern Reconstruction, they are relatively of small conse
quence when compared with that great provision which is for all
time : — that provision which establishes American citizenship upon
a permanent foundation, which gives to the humblest man in the
Republic ample protection against any abridgment of his privileges
and immunities by State law, which secures to him and his descend
ants the equal protection of the law in all that relates to his life, his
liberty, and his property. The first section of the Constitutional
amendment which includes these invaluable provisions is in fact a
new charter of liberty to the citizens of the United States ; is the
utter destruction of the pestilent heresy of State-rights, which con
stantly menaced the prosperity and even the existence of the Re
public ; and is the formal bestowment of Nationality upon the wise
Federal system which was the outgrowth of our successful Revolution
against Great Britain.
Before the adoption of this Amendment citizenship of the United
States was inferred from citizenship of some one of the States, for

THE BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP. 313
there was nothing in the Constitution defining or even implying
National citizenship as distinct from its origination in or derivation
from a State. It was declared in Article IV, Section 2, of the Fed
eral Constitution, that "Citizens of each State shall be entitled to
all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States ; "
but nothing was better known than that this provision was a dead
letter from its very origin. A colored man who was a citizen of a
Northern State was certain to be placed under the surveillance of the
police if he ventured south of the Potomac or the Ohio, destined prob
ably to be sold into slavery under State law, or permitted as a special
favor to return at once to his home. A foreign-born citizen, with
his certificate of naturalization in his possession, had prior to the
war no guarantee or protection against any form of discrimination
or indignity, or even persecution, to which State law might subject
him, as has been painfully demonstrated at least twice in our history.
But this rank injustice and this hurtful inequality were removed by
the Fourteenth Amendment. Its opening section settled all conflicts
and contradictions on this question by a comprehensive declaration
which defined National citizenship and gave to it precedence of
the citizenship of a State. "All persons born or naturalized in the
United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the
United States and of the States wherein they reside." These pregnant
words distinctly reversed the origin and character of American citi
zenship. Instead of a man being a citizen of the United States
because he was a citizen of one of the States, he was now made a
citizen of any State in which he might choose to reside, because he
was antecedently a citizen of the United States.
The consequences that flowed from this radical change in the
basis of citizenship were numerous and weighty. Nor were those
consequences left subject to construction or speculation. They were
incorporated in the same section of the Amendment. The abuses
which were formerly heaped on the citizens of one State by the
legislative and judicial authority of another State were rendered
thenceforth impossible. The language of the Fourteenth Amend
ment is authoritative and mandatory: "No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty
or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Under the force of
these weighty inhibitions, the citizen of foreign birth cannot be per-

314 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
secuted by discriminating statutes, nor can the citizen of dark com
plexion be deprived of a single privilege or immunity which belongs
to the white man. Nor can the Catholic, or the Protestant, or the
Jew be placed under ban or subjected to any deprivation of per
sonal or religious right. The provision is comprehensive and abso
lute, and sweeps away at once every form of oppression and every
denial of justice. It abolishes caste and enlarges the scope of hu
man freedom. It increases the power of the Republic to do equal
and exact justice to all its citizens, and curtails the power of the
States to shelter the wrong-doer or to authorize crime by a statute.
To Congress is committed the authority to enforce every provision
of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the humblest man who is denied
the equal protection of the laws of a State can have his wrongs-
redressed before the Supreme Judiciary of the Nation.
It is perhaps not strange that the Democrats of the South were
hostile to the great results wrought for freedom, for justice, and for
popular rights by the Fourteenth Amendment. Their education,
their prejudices, their personal interests had all been in the opposite
direction, and it was doubtless too much to hope that all these would
be overcome by a victory for the Union — a victory which carried to
their minds a sense of personal humiliation and of remediless ruin.
If their course was unwise it is not altogether unintelligible. But
the action of the Northern Democrats cannot be accounted for and
cannot be excused. They stood stubbornly, solidly, without reason,
without justification, against a great enlargement of popular rights.
It is matter of wonder that a political organization which claims Jef
ferson for its founder and Jackson for its exemplar, should have sur
rendered to its rival the sole glory of an achievement which may well
be compared with that increase of liberty attained by our ancestors,
when the dependence of Colonies was exchanged for the independ
ence of States.

Two eminent judges of the Supreme Court who died after the
close of the war are entitled to the admiration and gratitude of the
loyal citizens of the United States. When Mr. Lincoln was in
augurated there were three judges on the Supreme Bench from the
States which afterwards formed the Confederacy, — James M. Wayne
of Georgia, John Catron of Tennessee, and John A. Campbell of
Alabama. The last-named was placed upon the bench in 1853, and

JUDGE WAYNE AND JUDGE CATRON. 315
was undoubtedly the choice of Jefferson Davis, who as the leading
Southern member of President Pierce's Cabinet exerted large influ
ence, if not absolute control, over appointments from the slave-
holding States. The personal and political associations of Judge
Campbell led him to resign his position on the Supreme Bench, and
to give the weight of his name and his learning to the Confederate
cause. Judge Wayne was appointed by President Jackson in 1835, and
Judge Catron by President Van Buren immediately after his in
auguration in 1837, under a bill enlarging the Court, which had been
approved by General Jackson. Judge Catron had long been a fa
vorite of General Jackson in Tennessee, and it was understood that
in appointing him to the Bench Mr. Van Buren was carrying out the
expressed wishes of his predecessor. Both judges came from that
earlier and better school of Southern Democracy which resisted the
injurious heresies of State-rights and Nullification, sustained the Force
Bill under President Jackson, and stood loyally by the Union of the
States. They were allied to the South by birth, by education, and
by the associations of a lifetime. Their friends, their kindred, even
members of their own families, joined in the Rebellion. But these
patriotic men, one of whom was born during the Revolutionary war
and the other during the first term of Washington's Presidency,
maintained their judicial positions and were unshaken in their loy
alty to the Union. Their example was followed by few officials from
the States that seceded, but the steadfastness of their faith was a
striking illustration of the difference between the South of Jefferson
and Jackson and the South of Calhoun and Davis. They sat on the
Bench throughout the entire civil struggle, — Judge Catron dying in
May, 1865, in the eighty-seventh year of his age, and Judge Wayne
in July, 1867, in his seventy-eighth year.
The conduct of these venerable judges is all the more to be praised
because they did not personally sympathize in any degree with the
Republican leaders. They did not believe in the creed or the policies
of the party, and feared the result of its administration of the National
Government. Their views in regard to the Constitutional rights of
the slave-holders were the same as those held by the Confederate
chieftains. They had both concurred with Chief Justice Taney in
the Dred Scott decision. But it was enough for them now to know
that Mr. Lincoln had been Constitutionally chosen President of the
United States, and had been Constitutionally installed in his great

316 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
office. It was not for them as Justices of the Supreme Court to
know any thing of his Executive acts, except as they might properly
come for review before their high tribunal. They illustrated the
honorable line of duty for a Judge under the Government of the
United States. Off the Bench, his right to political opinions is no
more to be questioned than that of any other citizen. On the Bench,
he falls short of the full measure of his exalted duty if by any act
or any expression he discloses his sympathy with one political party or
his prejudice against another.
It is a tribute of honor to the Supreme Court that through all the
mutations of its existence only a single Justice has proved unfaithful
to the Union of the States ; and prior to the war three-fifths of all the
Justices were appointed from the South. Southern men in all other
departments of the Public Service — those eminent in our Congres
sional annals, in the Army, in the Navy, in the field of Diplomacy,
and even one who had occupied the Presidential chair — followed
the lead of their States in rebellion against the Union ; or rather it
may with truth be said, they led their States into rebellion against
the Union. Judge Campbell, in furnishing the sole exception to the
record of judicial loyalty, did not yield without a struggle. He was
surrounded with peculiar embarrassments, and was not strong enough
to overcome them. He realized his position, and did what he could
to avert war; but when war was inevitable, he upheld the Con
federate cause and became one of its directing minds. In contrast
with the fall from his high estate and over against all the evil influ
ences which forced Judge Campbell to his fate, the names of Catron
and Wayne will shine in history as examples of the just judge and
the incorruptible patriot.

CHAPTER XIII.
Government Finances after the War. — Difficulties of the Situation. — In
trepidity of Congress. — Its Great Task. — $600,000,000 Bill. — Summary of
Public Debt, December, 1865. — Funded and Floating Obligations. — Aggregate
Debt January 1, 1866, $2,739,491,745. — $1,600,000,000 Floating Obligations. — Mr.
McCulloch's Estimates. — His Financial Policy. — Contraction the Leading
Feature. — Ways and Means Committee report a Funding Bill. — House De
bate thereon. — Senate Debate. — Final Passage. — Revenue Laws in Con
gress. — Contrasted with British Parliament. — Large Reduction of Internal
Taxes. — Second Reduction of Internal Taxes. — Contraction Policy oppres
sive. — Indirect Relief. — Hostility rapidly increases. — Progress of Funding
Bill. — Repeal of Contraction Bill. — Its Evil Effects. — Further Reduc
tion of Internal Taxes. — Financial Achievements of the Government.
— Large Reduction of National Debt. — Valuable Treasury Officials. —
Purchase of Alaska. — Price, $7,200,000 in Gold Coin. — Purchase at First
Unpopular. — Resistance in the House.— Mr. Washburne and General But
ler oppose. — Treaty ably sustained by General Banks. — Interesting De
bate. — Many Participants. — Power of the House respecting Treaties.
— Chronic Controversy. — The Bill passed. — Opinion of Judge McLean. — Of
Mr. Jefferson. — Extent of Alaska. — Value of it. — Its Elements of
Wealth. — First Northern Territory acquired by the United States. —
Negotiation ably conducted by Mr. Seward.
THE financial experience of the Government of the United
States in the years following the war is without precedent
among nations. When Congress first met after the close of hostili
ties (December, 1865), it was as a ship sailing into dangerous and
unknown seas without chart of possible channels. The Reconstruc
tion problem before the country seemed at the time to be less difficult
than the financial problem. Other nations had incurred great expen
ditures for war purposes, but had always left them in chief part as a
heritage for the future. Great Britain will probably never pay the
total principal of her public debt. France will be burdened perhaps
as long as her nationality endures by the debts heaped upon her
through the ambition of her sovereigns, and in her own struggles to
enlarge the liberty of her people. But in this country the purpose
was early formed, not simply to provide for the interest upon the
debt incurred in the war for the Union, but to begin its payment at
317

318 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
once, and to arrange for its rapid liquidation. In view of the mag
nitude of the sum involved this was a new undertaking in the
administration of Government finances.
The difficulties of the situation were undoubtedly aggravated
and complicated by the questions which arose from the condition of
the Southern States. Could Congress expect at once that the popula
tion in those States would begin to contribute to the revenue, would
cease to require large expenditures for the maintenance of the Na
tional authority, would again add to the volume of our exports, to
our commerce, and our general prosperity? Serious re-action had
in other lands followed the financial expansion created by great wars,
even without complications similar to those which the disturbed con
dition of the South seemed to render unavoidable. Ought Congress
to accept such a re-action as the necessary condition of the restoration
of our currency, of return to a normal situation, of adjustment of
expenditure to revenue on a peace footing? Could -the possibility
be entertained of such a return and such an adjustment, without
panic, without paralysis of industry, without temporary interrup
tion and prostration of commerce ? Grave apprehensions were felt
as to the possible effect upon production and trade of the legisla
tion required to maintain the National credit. These apprehensions
derived force and peculiar seriousness from the growing conflict
between President Johnson and Congress upon measures of Recon
struction and upon removals from office.
In spite however of all suggested fears and doubts, a feeling of
confidence pervaded the country, and was fully shared by Congress,
that the power which had saved the Union could re-establish its
credit without panic and without dangerous and prolonged depres
sion. Faith in the resources which had equipped and supported the
National armies, now embraced the plainer and less exciting duties of
funding and paying the debt and of protecting the notes of the United
States. The loans had been placed, the money borrowed, under the
excitement of war, — sometimes under the pressure of defeat, some
times in the exaltation of victory. Without this pressure, without
this exaltation, could money be secured for longer time at lower
interest, could taxes be continued at a rate adequate to build up a
National credit worthy to be compared with that of the older and
richer nations beyond the Atlantic ?
The intrepidity with which Congress met its task will always
compel the admiration of the student of American history. While

GOLD PREMIUM IN DECEMBER, 1865. 319
the war lasted, the contributions by taxes and by loans had been on a
munificent scale. The measures adopted at the close of the Thirty-
eighth Congress, after four years of desperate struggle and on the
very eve of National victory, showed as great readiness to make
sacrifices, as little disposition to count the cost of saving the Union,
as had marked previous legislation. Less than six weeks before the
surrender of Lee the internal taxes were increased, the duties on
imports were adjusted to that increase, and a new Loan Bill was
enacted. The bill provided for borrowing, in addition to the
authority given by previous Acts, any sum not exceeding $600,-
000,000, in bonds, or treasury notes convertible into bonds, at six
per cent interest in coin or seven and three-tenths per cent interest
in currency. This, provision was found to be so comprehensive that
it not only provided a strong instrumentality for meeting the im
mense demands incident to the disbanding of the armies and the
final settlement of claims connected with that momentous change
in our affairs, but also laid the foundation for the policy of funding
the debt at a reduced rate of interest. These results testify to the
magnificent proportions of the financial legislation during the period
of hostilities. When the Thirty-ninth Congress met in December, 1865, gold
stood at 147| (a) 148£. A month later, on the 1st of January, 1866,
the legal-tender notes and fractional currency amounted to $452,-
231,810 ; notes bearing 7j5 per cent interest, to $830,000,000 ; com
pound-interest notes payable three years from date (a considerable
proportion of which time had elapsed), to $188,549,041 ; certificates
of indebtedness, payable at various dates within the current year, to
-$50,667,000 ; and the temporary loan, practically payable on demand,
had reached the large sum of $97,257,194. These might all be called
floating and pressing obligations, and their grand aggregate was
$1,618,705,045. At the same time the amount represented by bonds
(6's of 1861, 5-20's, and 10-40's) was $1,120,786,700, — showing a
total National debt on New-Year's Day, 1866, of $2,739,491,745. If
the National credit was to be maintained these sixteen hundred mil
lions of floating obligations must be promptly placed on a basis that
would give time to the Government to provide means for their ulti
mate redemption. President Johnson, in his message at the opening
of the session, spoke of the debt not as a public blessing, but as a
heavy burden on the industry of the country, to be discharged
without unnecessary delay. This was the popular sentiment in all

320 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
sections of the country, although in financial circles arguments were
frequently heard in favor of creating interminable obligations and of
adjusting the debt on a basis of permanency, after the European
fashion. The reduction had indeed already begun, since the maxi
mum of debt had been attained in the preceding August.
The Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Hugh McCulloch, estimated
that for the fiscal year ending with June, 1867 (for which Congress
was about to provide), the revenue would exceed the expenditures
by $111,682,818, and that the whole of our vast debt could be liqui
dated by annual payments within thirty years. Mr. McCulloch's
plans were to take from the compound-interest notes their legal-
tender quality, from the date of their maturity, and to sell six per
cent bonds, redeemable at the pleasure of the Government, for the
purpose of retiring both the compound-interest notes and the plain
legal-tenders. He believed that the entire debt might be funded at
five per cent, while the average of the annual interest now stood at
6-^j- per cent. He pointed to harmony between the different parts
of the Union and to the settlement of the relations of labor in the
Southern States, as essential conditions to the best management of
the National obligations.
The leading feature of Mr. McCulloch's financial policy was the
immediate and persistent contraction of the currency. His argu
ment in support of this policy, as given in his annual report, was not
accepted by the country or by Congress without serious reservation ;
but his belief in the theory was strong and determined, and so far as
the laws permitted he went on reducing the volume of paper in cir
culation until on the 12th of April, 1866, the sum of legal-tenders
was brought down to $421,907,103. Financiers of the Eastern cities
favored the policy of contraction, although the logical plea was urged
against them that the country would grow up to the volume of cur
rency if not harried and disturbed by new legislation. Manufac
turers and the holders of their products, and many who had incurred
pecuniary obligations in the expanded currency, took alarm at the
rapidity with which the Treasury notes were withdrawn. The
argument was urged that the heavy taxes could not be met if
the withdrawal were so rapid, and that industry and trade would
in consequence be paralyzed by the enforced fall in prices.
These opinions and apprehensions were developed in the debates
which led to the passage of the Act of April 12, 1866. The subject
was first introduced by Mr. Alley of Massachusetts. On the 18th

FUNDING THE PUBLIC DEBT. 321
of December (1865) he offered a resolution concurring in the views of
the Secretary of the Treasury, in relation to the necessity for a con
traction of the currency, with a view to as early a resumption of
specie payment as the business interests of the country would per
mit. Under a suspension of the rules, without debate, 144 voted for
the resolution, 6 against it, and 32 were not recorded. Two months
later, on the 21st of February, 1866, Mr. Morrill, from the Commit
tee on Ways and Means, reported a bill which, as he explained, would
expand the authority provided by the Act of March 3, 1865, for
funding interest-bearing obligations, so as to include non-interest-
bearing obligations. The measure authorized the Secretary to ex
change the bonds prescribed by that Act for notes or certificates, and
power was given to negotiate them and make them payable either in
the United States or elsewhere, but if beyond the sea at not over
five per cent interest.
— Mr. Thaddeus Stevens declared that the bill put over sixteen hun
dred millions of Government paper under the absolute and uncon
trolled discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. "This is a
tremendous bill," said he. " It proposes to confer more power upon
Mr. McCulloch than was ever before conferred upon any one man in
a government claiming to have a constitution."
— Mr. Hooper of Massachusetts magnified the financial achieve
ments of the Government, urged the policy embodied in the bill,
and insisted on the importance of restoring the currency to a sound
condition at the earliest practicable moment. He controverted the
suggestion which had been made to increase United-States notes to
$1,000,000,000, on the ground that the value of that dollar would be
constantly fluctuating. A minority of the commissioners appointed
by the preceding Congress to inquire into the state of trade and com
merce had presented a specious argument in favor of debasing the
coinage, but Mr. Hooper dismissed the proposition summarily and
argued strongly for a contraction of legal-tender notes.
— Mr. Hulburd of New York maintained that taxation could not be
increased to meet the existing and maturing obligations of the Gov
ernment. He held that under the Acts of June, 1864, and March,
1865, the Secretary had power to sell at home or abroad six per cent
coin bonds in any amount to meet short obligations of the Govern
ment. "Under the proposed measure," he said, "authority is specifi
cally asked to withdraw the fractional currency and legal-tender
notes, in whole or in part, and to substitute bonds for them. The
Vol. II. 21

322 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
like power was never asked for Neckar or for Pitt. As a principle
the proposition is dangerous." He protested vigorously against mak
ing any part of the public debt payable in foreign countries.
— Mr. John Wentworth? of Illinois argued in favor of contraction,
maintaining that the purpose of the pending bill was to make the
Secretary of the Treasury master of the situation. " If we expect
him to compete successfully with the most desperate body of men in
the world we must confer upon him the necessary powers. The real
question is, Shall our Government pay its pensions and all its em
ployees and creditors in depreciated paper, when by borrowing a
little money at six per cent it can bring its paper to par?" He
charged that an immense lobby against the bill had thronged the
hall, and was surprised to find importers among them. " But the
importers have found," said he, "that a bloated currency bloats
the fashions." He earnestly indorsed Mr McCulloch as a cautious
man, who would not be precipitate, no matter what power might be
conferred upon him : " If we adopt his policy we shall wake up some
morning and find the paper of our country at par."
— Mr. Pike of Maine doubted the necessity of enforced contraction ;
but if contraction was necessary, he was for taxing the circulation
of national banks out of existence, and afterwards retiring green
backs. "Once upon a specie basis," said he, "let the business of the
country regulate itself." He proposed also to allow the States to
tax the bonds of the United States.
— Mr. Price of Iowa asked : " Would any prudent and sensible
business man who had given his note payable at his own option,
without interest, be likely to give for it another note for the same
amount payable at a certain time, with interest at six per cent semi
annually, in gold coin? "
— Mr. Scofield of Pennsylvania asked if the legal-tender notes were
not, upon their face, payable on demand.
— Mr. Allison of Iowa insisted that " the Secretary of the Treasury
does not propose to return to specie payments immediately, but he
expresses the opinion that the reduction of greenbacks by the sum
of one hundred million dollars will secure that result."
— Mr. Boutwell of Massachusetts was content to try the experiment
of converting the interest-bearing obligations into long bonds, but
was unwilling to go farther.
— Mr. Sloan of Wisconsin proposed an amendment to make " bonds
and all other obligations of the United States hereafter issued pay
able in lawful money," but the suggestion met with no favor.

DEBATE ON FUNDING BILL. 323
— Mr. Roscoe Conkling maintained' that "in the first place, the
Secretary of the Treasury has now the power, under the Act of
March 3, 1865, to exchange any securities of the Government which
bear interest for any other securities which bear interest. In the
second place, he has the power to call in, to cancel, to annihilate, so
that it shall never go out again, every particle of currency issued
prior to June 30, 1864 ; and the truth is, that substantially if not
literally the whole of the currency was issued previous to that
time." . . . "Only one power," said Mr. Conkling, "remains to be
conferred upon him ; and that is, the power to put his bonds upon
the market when he pleases, where he pleases, as he pleases, sell
them for money, and with that money purchase the outstanding
obligations of the Government."
— Mr. Garfield argued that " under existing law, the Secretary can
issue compound-interest notes and 7-30 bonds to meet current indebt
edness ; but these are the most expensive forms of government obli
gations, and therefore he ought not to use the power." He thought
the proposed bill was necessary in the interest of the Government.
He would "trust the Secretary to proceed cautiously in the path
required by honor, to place our currency on a sound basis. . . . We
have travelled one-third of the way since Congress met. Gold was
then 148. It is now 130. Defeat this bill, and there will be a jubilee
on Wall Street."
— Mr. Lawrence of Ohio opposed the bill, and presented a letter from
Mr. Freeman Clarke, then Comptroller of the Currency, saying, " We
have full power to fund every dollar of the floating debt without any
legislation, and with no occasion for making any loan whatever."
— Mr. Morrill closed debate on the 16th of March; and the bill
coming to a vote, was defeated, — ayes 65 ; noes 70. But on a
motion to reconsider, it was again brought before the House on the
19th of March, and after brief debate was recommitted. When it
re-appeared, four days later, it contained a proviso " that the Secretary
of the Treasury shall not retire more than ten million dollars of legal-
tender notes in the first six months after the passage of the Act, and
not more than four million dollars a month afterwards ; and shall
make a report to Congress of his action under this provision." Mr.
Morrill submitted a letter from Mr. McCulloch, expressing the opin
ion that "it will be a national calamity if Congress shall fail to
grant additional powers to the Secretary." He added, that "the
apprehension which exists, that if power is given to the Secretary to

324 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
retire legal-tender notes the circulation will be ruinously contracted,
is without any special foundation." The effect of the discussion
was to strengthen the bill in the House where it was passed by ayes
83 ; noes 53.
The bill was favorably reported to the Senate from the Finance
Committee, and came up for consideration on the 9th of April, under
the charge of Mr. Fessenden.
— Mr. Sherman re-affirmed the objections made in the House, that
the power conferred was greater than had ever been granted to any
Secretary of the Treasury since the foundation of the Government.
" The power," said he, " is absolute. The Secretary may sell securi
ties of any form at any time and fund the whole debt. No present
necessity exists for such grant of authority. The proviso for restrict
ing contraction is not adequate for that purpose. By retaining a
large balance in the Treasury, the Secretary can contract the currency
without violating the proviso." He deemed it unwise "to place in
the hands of any mortal man this absolute and extreme control over
the currency."
— Mr. Fessenden said the true principle of the bill was, "that as
soon as it can be done with safety, Congress means that we shall get
back to the old system of specie payments. That is about all there
is of it. The effect of rejecting the measure will be to say to every
body that the Government intends to keep depreciated paper in the
financial market."
— Mr. Chandler of Michigan believed the measure " to be evil, and
evil only; containing dangerous powers which should not be con
ferred, and which no man should be willing to accept." Mr. Howe
of Wisconsin agreed with him.
— Mr. Guthrie of Kentucky (Secretary of the Treasury under Presi
dent Pierce) pronounced it " necessary and proper to give this power
to the Secretary." And Mr. Morgan of New York, agreeing with
him, declared that he desired the bill "just as it is."
— An amendment to strike out the words authorizing the sale of the
bonds elsewhere than in the United States was overwhelmingly
defeated, — ayes 7, noes 35. The bill was then passed by ayes 32,
noes 7, and by the President's signature became a law on the 12th
of April, 1866.
The discussion of this important financial measure illustrates
the various phases of opinion prevailing both in Congress and in the
country. The desire to return to a specie basis was general, and yet

CHARACTER OF FUNDING BILL. 325
not a few clung to the legal-tender notes as a permanent and stand
ard currency. While the argument in favor of contraction was pre
sented with great force, the possibility of going too fast, even in the
right direction, was conceded by the wisest financiers. The natural
disinclination of the American people to entrust unrestricted power
to any officer was frequently and forcibly expressed. The policy of
funding the obligations bearing interest was admitted on all hands,
and for this purpose the sale as well as the direct exchange of bonds
was approved. But the repugnance to accepting less than par, or
allowing the possibility of such a rate, had its origin and support
in the patriotic instincts and in the sound judgment of the people.
The requirement of a report from the Secretary and the limitation
of the extent of contraction, were the essential changes which made
the measure acceptable.
The enactment of this bill presents in an instructive light the
character of our financial legislation and the methods by which it is
accomplished. As originally presented the bill had the approval of
the Secretary of the Treasury and came before the House with the
favorable report of the Committee on Ways and Means. Yet it had
no such standing as in the British Parliament is given to a financial
project of the Government. There, such a proposition would be
definitely framed at the Treasury, and its details would be elaborated
when first presented. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would state
the full character of the measure and the reasons for asking its adop
tion. Opposition or question would be expected only from the
benches of the rival party. Here, on the other hand, after the House,
using its own judgment, had modified the bill, criticism and hostility
came from the Treasury that had originally proposed it. Several
prominent members of the dominant party were pronounced in oppo
sition. Saved by parliamentary strategy when once defeated, the bill
was started into new life by the adoption of restrictions upon the
power and the action of the Secretary of the Treasury. These re
strictions were shown to be necessary in the progress of the debate.
Individual judgment asserted itself and the Act became the harmoni
ous resultant of the conflicting opinions of the entire House.
Congress therefore did not enact anybody's theory. It put into
the statute the prudent, cautious sense of the people. Recognizing
the principle of funding the floating obligations, and of contraction
as a means to resumption, Congress only responded to the common
sense of its great constituency, in forbidding reckless haste, and in

326 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
defining the rate of speed. The purpose of keeping in Congress the
control of the rate of contraction was only a part of the general de
termination that the representatives of the people and of the States
shall prescribe the methods of conduct as well as the principles and
broad measures of administration. Every Government finds by prac
tice the system of legislation and administration best adapted to its
own wants. While ministerial power and a trained following, such as
obtain in England, may possess advantages under the circumstances
existing in the British Empire, it is the settled judgment of this
country that a perfectly free discussion, enlightened but not restrained
by departmental recommendation or by dictation of committees, is
best adapted to the varied and conflicting wants of the whole people.
. And this was never better illustrated than in the financial bill whose
important provisions have been under consideration.
The revenue laws received careful attention during this session.
The chief measure was the Act of July 13, 1866. It came before the
House with the assurance from the Ways and Means Committee that
it would steadily and materially reduce internal taxes. The system
of internal revenue which had been so elaborately and intelligently
constructed for war purposes, yielded $310,906,984 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1866. Reductions were now made in the taxes on
several hundred articles of manufacture, on savings banks, on the
gross receipts of certain corporations; and the income tax was in
some degree mitigated. The total reductions were estimated at
$75,684,000, but an increase was proposed on raw cotton amounting
to nearly one-third of this sum. Prolonged discussion arose over
this tax and resulted in disagreement between the two Houses. The
bill was finally perfected in a conference committee and ended by
reducing the total internal revenue to $265,920,474 per annum —
with all allowance made for the growth of the country and the
elasticity of Government receipts.
Not satisfied with the large reduction of taxes made at the first
session after the close of the war, Congress resumed the subject at
the second session. Early in February, 1867, Mr. Morrill, from the
Committee of Ways and Means, reported a bill for the further reduc
tion of taxes, which became a law on the 2d of March. The taxes
removed were returning a yearly revenue of more than $36,000,000
to the National Treasury. The principal reductions were $19,500,-
000 from the income tax; $4,000,000 from clothing; $3,500,000
from woolens; $3,250,000 from leather; $1,000,000 from engines;

FURTHER MEASURES FOR FUNDING. 327
$600,000 from sugar-refiners ; $600,000 from tinware; $500,000 from
castings ; $500,000 from doors, sashes and blinds ; with many others
yielding less sums. All these formed a part of what were termed war
taxes, and the steady purpose of Congress was to remove them as
rapidly as the obligations of the Treasury would permit. As matter
of fact they were removed long before such action was expected by
the people, and before the special interests subjected to the burden
had time to petition for relief or even to complain of hardship.
During the winter of 1866-67 there was a prolonged discussion
in Congress over an Act finally passed March 2, 1867, authorizing
the Secretary of the Treasury to exchange three per cent certificates
of indebtedness for compound-interest notes, and allowing these cer
tificates to be counted as a part of the reserve of National Banks.
The first proposition was to allow interest at 3^T per cent. The
exchange of notes not bearing interest for those bearing compound
interest was proposed by Mr. Stevens, and at first supported by a
majority, but on reconsideration it was defeated. Objection was
made to the bill that it was a scheme for giving to the banks interest
on their reserves, which they could not otherwise receive when the
compound-interest notes should be retired. Of these notes the banks
held $90,000,000 and the limit proposed for the certificates was $100,-
000,000. Congress finally limited the amount of certificates to $50,-
000,000 at three per cent, and allowed them to stand for two-fifths of
the reserve of any bank.
While this arrangement was an obvious advantage to the National
banks, no such motive inspired Congress in passing the bill. Quite
another object was aimed at in its enactment. The influence of con
traction, which had gone into operation by the Act of the preceding
summer, was already felt in the business of the country. The real
significance of the Act just passed was that to a certain degree it
checked and even neutralized the operation of the statute which
ordered contraction. The compound-interest notes served the Na
tional banks as a part of their reserve, and as rapidly as they were
cancelled, legal-tender notes were to be held in their stead. Their
withdrawal from circulation for this purpose led therefore to a direct
and forcible contraction of the actual currency of the country. By
substituting the certificates of indebtedness as available for reserves
this contraction was prevented, and by the concession of interest,
even at three per cent, the banks were induced to surrender the
securities which cost the Government a higher rate. The limit of

328 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
these certificates was subsequently raised to $75,000,000, — a limit
which in fact was often reached, — but as legal-tenders were needed
the certificates were surrendered to the Treasury.
This is substantially the history of contraction, or of attempts
at contraction made by the Thirty-ninth Congress. The successful
effort to parry its effect, as already described, shows how unwelcome
it had proved to the business community, and how Congress, without
resorting at once to an absolute repeal of the act, sought an indirect
mode of neutralizing its effect. Mr. McCulloch, in trying to enforce
the policy of contraction, represented an apparently consistent theory
in finance ; but the great host of debtors who did not wish their obli
gations to be made more onerous, and the great host of creditors who
did not desire that their debtors should be embarrassed and possibly
rendered unable to liquidate, united on the practical side of the
question and aroused public opinion against the course of the Treas
ury Department. An individual, by an effort of will, can bring him
self to endure present inconvenience and even suffering, for a great
good that lies beyond, but it was difficult for forty millions of people
to adopt this resolve. Nor were the cases quite similar in motive
and influence, for although it might be admitted that the entire nation
would be benefited by the ultimate result, the people knew that the
process would bring embarrassment to vast numbers and would re
duce not a few to bankruptcy and ruin. It was easy to see, there
fore, that as each month the degree of contraction was made public,
the people more and more attributed their financial troubles to its
operation. Perhaps, in large degree, this was the result of imagina
tion, and of that common desire in human nature to ascribe one's
faults and misfortunes to some superior power. The effect neverthe
less was serious and lasting. In the end, outside of banking and
financial centres, there was a strong and persistent demand for the
repeal of the Contraction Act.

The process of funding and paying the National debt, and of
contracting the currency, went on with vigor and persistency during
the summer and autumn of 1867. The Treasury statements for the
year showed that up to November 1, 1867, the long obligations of
the Government had been increased to $1,781,462,050; while the short
obligations, other than currency, had been reduced to $441,655,120.63,

THE POLICY OF CONTRACTION. 329
and the currency in greenbacks, fractional notes and certificates of
deposit for gold, to $402,385,677.39. The Treasury held $133,998,-
398.02; so that the National debt, less this cash, stood at $2,491,-
504,450. It thus exhibited an average reduction of the debt from
its maximum, August 31, 1865, to November 1, 1867, of more than
$10,000,000 per month.
Gold was lower than it had been, but great disappointment was
felt because the premium, which had ranged in January, 1867, at 32^
(a) 37|, was in November 37£ (a) 48|, and the latter figure was higher
than the quotation at the beginning of the first session of the Thirty-
ninth Congress. The charge was current, and was believed by many,
that the premium had been advanced by speculators to compel Con
gress to enforce the policy of contraction. On the other hand, it was
declared to be demonstrably true that the reduction of the volume
of paper did not lower the premium on gold. It only depressed pro
duction and placed the markets of every kind under the control of
reckless operators. Surely, it was argued, the contraction had been
severe enough to satisfy the advocates of the most stringent Pro
crustean policy. The short obligations had been cut down nearly,
one-half since January, 1866. If account were taken of compound-
interest notes the reduction in currency ought to be reckoned at
$100,000,000, and even at twice that sum, since the cash held by the
Treasury had been taken from the circulation of the country.
The Secretary of the Treasury still adhered to the policy of
contraction, and yet was charged with putting into circulation legal-
tender notes that had been once withdrawn, in order to affect the mar
ket. Thus in August, 1866, between the 8th and the 22d inclusive,
he had withdrawn and destroyed $12,530,111, and on the 31st of that
month he issued $12,500,000. He had again in October, 1866, can
celled $500,000 on the 24th, and issued anew the same sum on the
25th. On the 31st of January, 1867, he had issued anew $4,000,000,
May 31 $2,500,000, and during December, 1867, $1,842,400. In an
swer to remonstrance against this practice the Secretary maintained
that the authority to contract and to cancel the legal-tender notes
did not require him to do it, but left it within his discretion. This
was unquestionably the law of the case.
Mr. McCulloch in his official report insisted on the funding or
payment of the balance of interest-bearing notes, and upon a con
tinued contraction of the currency, as the first measure for promoting
the National prosperity ; and he presented a strong argument in

330 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
favor of permanent specie payment. He reported that he had not
always retired notes in each month to the extent permitted, but he
declared that the effect of the policy as carried out had been salutary
and that its continuation would be obviously wise. Yet he found
that financial views were inculcated, which if not corrected might
lead to its abandonment. The truth was that the Secretary's policy
was counter to the popular wish, and evidence was accumulating that
Congress would not sustain him in its continued enforcement. The
Secretary had confidently relied upon the bankers and commercial
men of the country ; but the serious fact was now developed, that
many of the most prudent financiers had concluded that the changes
in the volume of the currency were causing mischief, and that the
process of contraction had been carried as far as was desirable.
The Secretary argued bravely and wisely in his report, in favor
of paying the principal and interest of the Government bonds in
coin. His argument was designed to meet heresies which had found
favor in unexpected quarters. The plea was urged by the new and
short-lived school of finance that the notes of the National banks
should be withdrawn and greenbacks substituted for them, that all
payments by the Government on the principal of the bonds should
be in its own paper. It was admitted by these novel theorists that
the bonds on their face promised coin for interest ; but they main
tained that the bonds had been issued in large part when gold was at
a heavy premium for paper, and could rightfully be liquidated in paper
at its advanced value. Propositions were frequently presented to
stop the issue of bonds and to pay out notes for any obligations of
the Government offered at the Treasury or becoming due in any
form. The pressure of rapid contraction secured a hearing for every
extravagant proposition. Prejudice against speculators in gold, who
during the war had grown rich on the disasters of the Union, was
added to the discussion, especially while the premium was maintained
and the National credit charged with odium on its account.
At the opening of the second session of the Fortieth Congress
(December, 1867) numerous resolutions and bills demanding the
stoppage of contraction were referred to the Committee on Ways
and Means. Five days afterwards Mr. Schenck reported a bill of
four lines, by which the "further reduction of the currency by
retiring and cancelling United-States notes is prohibited." It had
the unanimous approval of the Committee on Ways and Means,
and was passed by the House, — ayes 127, noes 32. The minority

PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S REPUDIATION SCHEME. 331
included a goodly number of leading Republicans. In the Senate
Mr. Sherman, in supporting the bill, stated the amount of contrac
tion since August 1, 1866, at $140,122,168. He argued from these
figures that " contraction should go no farther while industry is in
a measure paralyzed, and that Congress ought to resume control of
the currency, which should not be delegated to any single officer."
He declared that the measure was entirely preliminary to other legis
lation, " which must include the banking system, the time and man
ner of resuming specie payments, the payment of the debt and the
kind of money in which it may be paid, and the reduction of expen
ditures and taxes." Debate was somewhat prolonged, and a con
ference committee gave final form to the measure, which failed to
receive the President's signature, but became a law without it. It
is known as the "Act of February 4, 1868, prohibiting any further
reduction of the currency, and authorizing the replacing of mutilated
notes." By this Act the minimum limit of legal-tender notes was
fixed at $356,000,000, —the volume then afloat after Mr. McCulloch's
policy of contraction had done its work.
The actual legislation of the second session of the Fortieth
Congress included also the repeal of the tax on raw cotton, and the
further reduction of internal revenue, by the Acts of March 31 and
July 20 (1868). Great relief was given to manufacturers by the
abolition of the five per cent tax on a variety of products. The
surrender of revenue was estimated at $23,000,000 on cotton and
at $45,000,000 on manufactures. These concessions were much
needed, for the producers of cotton were crippled by the condition
of their States, and manufacturers found that prices did not justify
the payment of these war charges.
In his annual message to Congress in December, 1868, President
Johnson argued "that the holders of our securities have already
received upon their bonds a larger amount than their original invest
ments, measured by the gold standard. Upon this statement of facts
it would seem but just and equitable that the six per cent interest
now paid by the Government should be applied to the reduction
of the principal, in semi-annual installments, which in sixteen years
and eight months would liquidate the entire National debt." This
bold and shameless advocacy of repudiation was less mischievous
than it would have been if Mr. Johnson had held a longer lease of
power, and if the people had not in the Presidential election pro
nounced so clear and positive a verdict in favor of the maintenance

332 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
of the National credit. The Senate deemed it worth while to put on
record a resolution condemning this part of Mr. Johnson's message.
Mr. Hendricks of Indiana moved a substitute indorsing the senti
ment in the message, and closing with the words of the Democratic
National Convention in favor of paying the bonds in lawful money.
Only seven senators supported his substitute, while forty-four opposed
it ; and President Johnson's proposal for repudiation was, by the action
of the Senate, " utterly disapproved and condemned," — ayes 43,
noes 6. In the House of Representatives a similar resolution was
passed by a vote of 155 ayes to 6 noes, 60 not voting. No Demo
cratic member in that body seemed willing to assume the objection
able position taken by Mr. Hendricks in the Senate, and a declaration
" that all forms of repudiation are odious to the American people "
was adopted without a division.
The financial achievements of the National Government herein
reviewed, for the four years following the war, may be briefly sum
marized. The National debt was reduced by the sum of nearly
$300,000,000, while at the same time the Government reduced its
revenue to the amount of $140,000,000 per annum by the repeal of a
long series of internal taxes. During this period more than $35,000,-
000 had been paid from the Treasury towards the construction of the
Union and Central Pacific Railroads, and $7,200,000 was paid to the
Russian Government on account of the purchase of the Territory
of Alaska. It is also to be noted that within this period were em
braced all the expenses incident to the disbandment of the Union
army, and also a very large addition to the pension-list. Notwith
standing all these enormous expenditures the business interests of
the country continued prosperous, and the fact that so large a reduc
tion had been made in internal taxes gave promise that within a
comparatively short period the Government would be able to remove
all levies that were in any degree oppressive or even vexatious to
private interests.
By reason of his official and personal connection with the Presi
dent, Mr. McCulloch had failed to secure cordial support from
Congress, and had moreover given offense by his obvious sympathy
with the free-traders, who were already beginning to assault the
protective tariff which the necessities of war had led the country to
adopt. The Secretary had also gone far beyond the popular wish
and the best business judgment of the country in regard to the rapid
contraction of the currency. But while his politics and his policies

THE PURCHASE OF ALASKA. 333
were not acceptable to Congress or to the people, he is entitled to
high credit for his direct, honest, intelligent administration of the
Treasury Department. In the peculiar embarrassments to the admin
istration of the Government, caused by the course of President John
son, it was matter of sincere congratulation that a Secretary of the
Treasury, so competent and trustworthy as Mr. McCulloch had
approved himself, was firmly in place before the serious political dis
turbances began — a congratulation in which his most ardent Repub
lican opponents were ready to join, knowing how fatal it might prove
if President Johnson had the opportunity to nominate his successor.
Throughout the more difficult period of his administration of the
department, Mr. McCulloch was aided by two most intelligent and
efficient officers. Mr. William E. Chandler, though only twenty-nine
years of age, was appointed First Assistant Secretary in March, 1865,
and exhibited great aptitude, discrimination, and ability in his posi
tion. He developed an admirable talent for details, a quick insight
into the most difficult problems that came before the Department,
and at all times an honorable devotion to public duty. The Bureau
of Internal Revenue, the most important of the Treasury Depart
ment, was under the direction of another citizen of New Hamp
shire, Edward Ashton Rollins. The Bureau for a time collected
more than half the revenue of the United States, and required in its
Commissioner integrity, administrative talent, and singular skill in
providing against every form of fraud. No department of the Gov
ernment had to contend against so many corrupt combinations to rob
the Government, and the slightest relaxation of vigilance on the part
of the Commissioner might involve at any time a loss of millions to
the National Treasury. In the complex and difficult duties of this
station, Mr. Rollins proved himself equal to every requirement.

The purchase of Alaska was completed by the Act of July 27,
1868, which appropriated the amount agreed upon in the treaty of
March 30, 1867, — negotiated by Mr. Seward on behalf of the United
States, and by Baron Stoeckl representing the Emperor of all the
Russias. The Russian Government had initiated the matter, and
desired to sell much more earnestly than the United States desired to
buy. There is little doubt that a like offer from any other European
government would have been rejected. The pressure of our financial

334 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
troubles, the fact that gold was still at a high premium, suggested
the absolute necessity of economy in every form in which it could
be exercised; and in the general judgment of the people the last
thing we needed was additional territory. There was, however, a
feeling of marked kindliness towards Russia ; and this, no doubt,
had great weight with Mr. Seward when he assented to the obvious
wishes of that government. But while there was no special difficulty
in securing the ratification of the treaty by the Senate, a more serious
question arose when the House was asked to appropriate the necessary
amount to fulfill the obligation. Seven million two hundred thousand
dollars in- gold represented at that time more than ten million dollars
in the currency of the Government ; and many Republicans felt, on
the eve, or rather in the midst, of a Presidential canvass, that it was
a hazardous political step (deeply in debt as the Government was,
and with its paper still at heavy discount) to embark in the specula
tion of acquiring a vast area of "rocks and ice," as Alaska was
termed in the popular and derisive description of Mr. Seward's
purchase. When the bill came before the House, General Banks, as Chair
man of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, urged the appropriation
with great earnestness, not merely because of the obligation imposed
upon the Government by the treaty, which he ably presented ; not
merely by reason of the intrinsic value of the territory, which he
abundantly demonstrated ; but especially on account of the fact that
Russia was the other party to the treaty, and had for nearly a century
shown a most cordial disposition towards the United States. Gen
eral Banks maintained that at every step of our history, from 1780
to the moment when he was speaking, Russia had been our friend.
" In the darkest hour of our peril," said he, " during the Rebellion,
when we were enacting a history which no man yet thoroughly com
prehends, when France and England were contemplating the recog
nition of the Confederacy, the whole world was thrilled by the
appearance in San Francisco of a fleet of Russian war vessels, and
nearly at the same time, whether by accident or design, a second
Russian fleet appeared in the harbor of New York. Who knew how
many more there were on their voyage here? From that hour
France, on the one hand, and England on the' other, receded, and
the American Government regained its position and its power. . . .
Now, shall we flout the Russian Government in every court in
Europe for her friendship ? Whoever of the representatives of the

THE PURCHASE OF ALASKA. 335
American people in this House, on this question, turns his back, not
only upon his duty, but upon the friends of his country, upon the
Constitution of his Government, and the honor of his generation,
cannot long remain in power."
Mr. Cadwalader C. Washburn answered the speech of General
Banks on the succeeding day (July 1, 1868). He assumed the lead
ership of the opposition to the treaty. He proposed to demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the House five distinct propositions: "First,
that at the time the treaty for Alaska was negotiated, not a soul in
the whole United States asked for it; second, that it was secretly
negotiated, and in a manner to prevent the representatives of the
people from being heard ; third, that by existing treaties we possess
every right that is of any value to us, without the responsibility and
never-ending expense of governing a nation of savages ; fourth, that
the country ceded is absolutely without value ; fifth, that it is the
right and duty of the House to inquire into the treaty, and to vote
or not vote the money, according to its best judgment." Mr. Wash
burn made an able speech in support of his radical propositions.
General Butler sustained Mr. Washburn's position in a character
istic speech, especially answering General Banks's argument that we
should pay this amount from a spirit of friendship for Russia. " If,"
said General Butler, " we are to pay this price as usury on the friend
ship of Russia, we are paying for it very dear indeed. If we are to
pay for her friendship, I desire to give her the seven million two
hundred thousand dollars in cash, and let her keep Alaska, because
I think it may be a small sum to give for the friendship if we could
only get rid of the land, or rather the ice, which we are to get by
paying for it." He maintained that it was in evidence before the
House officially, " that for ten years the entire product of the whole
country of Alaska did not exceed three million dollars."
— Mr. Peters of Maine pronounced the territory " intrinsically
valueless; the conclusive proof of which is found in the fact that
Russia is willing to sell it." He criticised the action of the Senate
in negotiating the treaty. "If the treaty-making power can buy,
they can sell. If they can buy land with money, they can buy
money with land. If they can buy a part of a country, they can
buy the whole of a country. If they can sell a part of our country,
they can sell the whole of it ! "
— Mr. Spalding of Ohio, on the other hand, maintained that " not
withstanding all the sneers that have been cast on Alaska, if it could

336 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
be sold again, individuals would take it off our hands and pay us
two or three millions for the bargain."
— General Schenck thought the purchase in itself highly objection
able, but was "willing to vote the money because the treaty has
been made with a friendly power; one of those that stood by us, —
almost the only one that stood by us when all the rest of the powers
of the world seemed to be turning away from us in our recent
troubles."
— Mr. Stevens supported the measure on the ground that it was a
valuable acquisition to the wealth and power of the country. He
argued also in favor of the right of the Senate to make the treaty.
— Mr. Leonard Myers was sure that if we did not acquire Alaska it
would be transferred to Great Britain. " The nation," said he,
"which struggled so hard for Vancouver and her present Pacific
boundary, and which still insists on having the little island of San
Juan, will never let such an opportunity slip. Canada, as matters
now stand, would become ours some day could her people learn to be
Americans ; but never, if England secures Alaska."
— Mr. Higby of California answered the objections relating to
climate. " I do not know," said he, "whether the people of the East
yet believe what has been so often declared, that our winters on the
Pacific are nearly as mild as our summers, and yet such is the fact.
In my own little village, situated over fourteen hundred feet above
the level of the ocean, I have seen a plant growing in the earth green
through all the months from October to April."
— Mr. Shellabarger opposed the purchase. He said those nations
which had been compact and solid had been the most enduring, while
those which had the most extended territory lasted the least space of
time.
— Mr. Price of Iowa thought that it was " far better to expend the
$7,200,000 in improving the Mississippi River, in order that bread-
stuffs may be transported cheaply from the West to the seaboard." He
had no faith in the value of the territory proposed to be purchased.
— Mr. McCarthy of New York rejected the plea that we should
purchase Alaska because Russia is a friendly power. "I ask this
House," said he, " whence this friendship comes. It comes from self-
interest. She is the absorbing power of the Eastern continent, and
she recognizes us as the absorbing power of the Western continent ;
and through friendship for us she desires to override and overbalance
the governments of Europe which are between her and us."

THE PURCHASE OF ALASKA. 337
— General Butler moved a proviso, that " the payment of $500,000
of said appropriation be withheld until the Imperial Government of
Russia shall signify its willingness to refer to an impartial tribunal
all such claims by American citizens against the Imperial Govern
ment as have been investigated by the State Department of the
United States and declared to be just, and the amounts so awarded
to be paid from said $500,000 so withheld."
— General Garfield, presiding at the time over the Committee of the
Whole, ruled it out of order, and on an appeal being taken the
decision was sustained by ayes 93, noes 27. After dilatory motions
and the offer of various amendments, which were rejected, the bill
was passed by ayes 113, noes 43.
— The House prefaced the bill by a preamble, asserting in effect
that " the subjects embraced in the treaty are among those which by
the Constitution are submitted to the power of Congress, and over
which Congress has jurisdiction ; and for these reasons, it is neces
sary that the consent of Congress should be given to the said stipula
tions before the same can have full force and effect." There was no
mention of the Senate's ratification, merely a reference to the fact
that " the President has entered into a treaty with the Emperor of
Russia, and has agreed to pay him the sum of seven million two
hundred thousand dollars in coin." The House by this preamble
evidently claimed that its consent to the treaty was just as essential
as the consent of the Senate, — that it was, in short, a subject for
the consideration of Congress.
The Senate was unwilling to admit such a pretension, especially
when put fort]:, hy the House in this bald form, and therefore
rejected it unanimously. The matter was sent to a conference, and
by changing the preamble a compromise was promptly effected, which
preserved the rank and dignity of both branches. It declared that
" whereas the President had entered into a treaty with the Emperor
of Russia, and the Senate thereafter gave its advice and consent to said
treaty, . . . and whereas said stipulations cannot be carried into full
force and effect, except by legislation to which the consent of both Houses
of Congress is necessary ; therefore be it enacted that there be appro
priated the sum of $7,200,000" for the purpose named. With this
compromise the bill was readily passed, and became a law by the
President's approval July 27, 1868.
The preamble finally agreed upon, though falling far short of
the one first adopted by the House, was yet regarded as a victory
Vol. II. 22

338 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
for that branch. The issue between the Senate and the House, now
adjusted by a compromise, is an old one, agitated at different periods
ever since the controversy over the Jay treaty in 1794-95. It is
simply whether the House is bound to vote for an appropriation to
carry out a treaty Constitutionally made by the President and the
Senate, without judging for itself whether, on the merits of the treaty,
the appropriation should be made. After the appropriation required
under the Jay treaty had beei- yoted by the House, that body de
clared, in a resolution which was adopted by ayes 57, noes 35, " that
it is the Constitutional right and duty of the House of Representa
tives, in all such cases, to deliberate on the expediency or inexpe
diency of carrying such treaty into effect, and to determine and act
thereon as in their judgment may be most conducive to the public
good." But that was the declaration of the House only; whereas
the preamble agreed to in the appropriation of money for the pur
chase of Alaska contained the assent of both branches.
Though the Constitutional principle involved may not be con
sidered as one settled beyond a fair difference of opinion, there has
undoubtedly been a great advance, since the controversy between the
two branches in 1794, in favor of the rights of the House when an
appropriation of money is asked to carry out a treaty. The change
has been so great indeed that the House would not now in any
case consider itself under a Constitutional obligation to appropriate
money in support of a treaty, the provisions of which it did not
approve. It is therefore practically true that all such treaties must
pass under the judgment of the House as well as under that of the
Senate and the President. Judge McLean of the Supreme Court
delivered an opinion which is often referred to as embodying the
doctrine upon which the House rests its claim of power.1 "A treaty,"
said the learned Justice, " is the supreme law of the land only when
the treaty-making power can carry it into effect. A treaty which
stipulates for the payment of money undertakes to do that which the
treaty-making power cannot do; therefore the treaty is not the supreme law
of the land. To give it effect the action of Congress is necessary, and
in this action the representatives and senators act on their own judg
ment and responsibility and not on the judgment and responsibility
of the treaty-making power. A foreign government may be presumed
to know that the power of appropriating money belongs to Congress. No

i Turner vs. The American Baptist Missionary Union, 5 McLean, 344.

THE PURCHASE OF ALASKA. 339
act of any part of the Government can be held to be a law which
has not all the sanctions to make it law." 1
The important transaction was not closed without a feeling of
resentment in Congress against Mr. Seward, because of his going so
far in the negotiation without reserving any judgment for other
Departments of the Government. The treaty with Russia was
absolute in its terms. There was no qualifying clause making its
fulfillment dependent upon the appropriation of the money by
Congress. By the time Congress had the subject under considera
tion, Russia had removed her military guard and surrendered the
territory to President Johnson, who had taken formal possession of
it in the name of the United States. Our flag was hoisted where
that of Russia had lately floated. It was no doubt Mr. Seward's
intention by this course to render a withholding of the purchase
money by Congress impossible, and it must be confessed that the
moral coercion was skilfully applied and was found to be irresistible.
Mr. Seward did not consider the treaty from a financial point of
view. He knew intuitively that the territory was worth more to
the United States than to any other power; and he knew that at the
most critical point in our civil war, the outspoken friendship of
Russia had been worth to the cause of the American Union many
times over the amount we were about to pay for Alaska.

The territory which we thus acquired is of vast extent, exceeding
in its entire area a half million square miles. Its extreme length is
about eleven hundred miles ; its extreme width about eight hundred.
It stretches nearly to the seventy-second degree of north latitude,
1 Mr. Jefferson, more promptly than other great statesmen of his generation, appre
ciated the degree of power residing in the House of Representatives. In a private letter
discussing the subject he expressed views in harmony with Justice McLean's opinion,
long before that opinion was delivered. He wrote to Mr. Monroe: "We conceive the
Constitutional doctrine to be, that though the President and Senate have the general
power of making treaties, yet whenever they include in a treaty matters confided by the
Constitution to the three branches of the Legislature, an act of legislation will be neces
sary to confirm these articles, and that the House of Representatives, as one branch of
the Legislature, are perfectly free to pass the act or to refuse it, governing themselves by
their own judgment whether it is for the good of their constituents to let the treaty go
into effect or not. On this depends whether the powers of legislation shall be transferred
from the President, Senate, and House of Representatives, to the President, Senate, and
Piamingo, or any other Indian, Algerine, or other chief."

340 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
three hundred and fifty miles beyond Behring's Straits ; and borders
upon the Arctic Ocean for more than a thousand miles. The adjacent
islands of the Aleutian group are included in the transfer, and reach
two-thirds of the way across the North Pacific in the latitude of 60°,
— the westernmost island being within six hundred miles of the
coast of Kamtchatka. The resources of the forests of Alaska are
very great, — the trees growing to a good height on the mountain
sides as far as two thousand feet above the tide level. The timber
is of the character generally found in Northern climates : yellow
cedar of durable quality, spruce, larch, fir of great size, and hemlock.
In the world's rapid and wasteful consumption of wood, the forests
of Alaska will prove not merely a substantial resource for the interests
of the future, but a treasure-house in point of pecuniary value. To
this source of wealth on land that of the water must be added, in the
seal and food'fish which are found in immeasurable quantities along
the coast of the mainland and the islands.
From the time of the acquisition of Louisiana until the purchase
of Alaska, the additions of territory to the United States had all been
in the interest of slavery. Louisiana, stretching across the entire
country from South to North, was of equal value to each section ;
but the acquisition of Florida, the annexation of Texas, the territory
acquired from Mexico by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, with the
addition of Arizona under the Gadsden treaty, were all made under
the lead of Southern statesmen to strengthen the political power and
the material resources of the South. Meanwhile, by the inexcusable
errors of the Democratic party, and especially of Democratic diplo
macy, we lost that vast tract on the north known as British Columbia,
the possession of which, after the acquisition of Alaska, would have
given to the United States the continuous frontage on the Pacific
Ocean from the south, line of California to Behring's Straits. Look
ing northward for territory, instead of southward, was a radical
change of policy in the conduct of the Government, — a policy
which, happily and appropriately, it was the good fortune of Mr.
Seward to initiate under impressive and significant circumstances.

CHAPTER XIV.
Impeachment of President Johnson. — First Movement thereto. — Mr. Ashley's
Grave Charges. — General Grant's Important Testimony. — Judiciary Com
mittee divide. — Impeachment defeated, December, 1867. — Analysis of Vote.
— Suspension of Mr. Stanton. — Tenure-of-Office Law. — Senate disapproves
Mr. Stanton's Suspension. — Mr. Stanton restored as Secretary of War. —
An Unwelcome Cabinet Officer. — Previous Views of Leading Senators. —
President's Anomalous Situation. — He removes Mr. Stanton. — Appoints
Lorenzo Thomas Ad Interim. — Senate condemns the President's Course. — Im
peachment moved in the House. — Exciting Debate. — Impeachment carried.
— Managers appointed. — Articles of Impeachment presented to the Sen
ate. — Thomas Ewing nominated for Secretary of War. — Not confirmed. —
Cocrt of Impeachment. — The Chief Justice. — The President's Counsel.—
Judge Curtis. — Mr. Evarts. — Mr. Groesbeck. — The President's Answer. —
General Butler's Argument. —Testimony presented by Managers. — Argu
ment of Judge Curtis. — The President's Witnesses. — Rejection of Testi
mony by Senate.— Testimony concluded. — Argument of General Logan. —
Of Mr. Boutwell. — Of Mr. Nelson. — Of Mr. Groesbeck. — Of Thaddeus
Stevens. — Of Thomas Williams. — Of Mr. Evarts. — Of Mr. Stanbery. — Of
Mr. Bingham. — Twenty-nine Senators file their Opinions. — First Vote on
Last Article. — General Interest and Excitement. — The Result. — Acquit
tal of President. — Views of Republicans. — Condemnation of Certain Sena
tors. — Subsequent Change of Opinion. — The President Unwisely Impeached.
— Actual Offences of the President. — Their Gravity. — Impeached on other
Grounds. — The Real Test. — Nature of an Impeachable Offense. — Lawyers
differ. — Effect on Mr. Stanton. — His Political Attitude. — His Resigna
tion. — Appointed Supreme Justice. — His Death. — General Schofield Sec
retary of War. — Mr. Evarts Attorney-General.
AS the result of the great victory over the President in the
political contest of 1866, and of his stubborn maintenance of
a hostile attitude, the ardent and extreme men of the Republican
party began, in the autumn of that year, to discuss the propriety of
ending the whole struggle by impeaching Mr. Johnson and removing
him from office. They believed that his contumacious and obstinate
course constituted a high crime and misdemeanor, and the idea of
Impeachment, as soon as suggested, took deep root in minds of a
certain type. When Congress came together in December the agita
tion increased ; and on the 7th of January (1867), directly after the
341

342 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
holidays, two Missouri representatives (Loan and Kelso) attempted
in turn to introduce resolutions in the House proposing an Impeach
ment, but each was prevented by some parliamentary obstruction. At
a later hour of the same day Mr. James M. Ashley of Ohio rose to a
question of privilege and formally impeached the President of high
crimes and misdemeanors. " I charge him," said Mr. Ashley, " with
an usurpation of power and violation of law: in that he has cor
ruptly used the appointing power ; in that he has corruptly used the
pardoning power ; in that he has corruptly used the veto power ; in
that he has corruptly disposed of the public property of the United
States ; in that he has corruptly interfered in elections and committed
acts which in contemplation of the Constitution are high crimes and
misdemeanors." Mr. Ashley's charges were very grave, but they created slight
impression upon the House and did not alarm the country. Every
one present felt that they were gross exaggerations and distortions
of fact, and could not be sustained by legal evidence or indeed by
reputable testimony of any kind. They were however referred in
due form to the Judiciary Committee, with full power to send for
persons and papers, to administer the customary oath to witnesses,
and to make in all respects a thorough investigation. Nothing was
heard from the committee until the 2d of March, when on the eve
of the expiration of Congress they reported that many documents
had been collected, a large number of witnesses examined, and every
practicable thing done to reach a conclusion of the case; but that
not having fully examined all the charges preferred against the Presi
dent, they did not deem it expedient to submit any conclusion be
yond the statement that sufficient testimony had been brought to the
committee's notice to justify and demand a further prosecution of
the investigation. They therefore passed the testimony they had
taken into the custody of the Clerk of the House, as a notification to
the succeeding Congress that inquiry into the matter should be pur
sued. The report was made by Mr. James F. Wilson of Iowa,
chairman of the committee, and concurred in by all the Republican
members. Mr. Rogers, a Democratic member from New Jersey,
made a minority report, stating that he had carefully examined
all the testimony in the case; that there was not one particle of
evidence to sustain any of the charges which had been made ; that
the case was entirely void of proof; and that most of the testimony
taken was of a secondary character, such as could not be admitted

FIRST RESOLUTION OF IMPEACHMENT. 343
in any court of justice. He objected to continuing the subject and
thereby keeping the country in a feverish state. No action was
taken by the House except to lay both reports upon the table.
There was on the part of conservative Republicans a sincere hope
that nothing more would be heard of the Impeachment question. If
a committee industriously at work for sixty days could find nothing
on which to found charges against the President, they thought that
wisdom suggested the abandonment of the investigation. But Mr.
Ashley, with his well-known persistency, was determined to pursue it ;
and on the 7th of March, the third day after the new Congress was
organized, he introduced a resolution directing the Judiciary Com
mittee to continue the investigation under the same instructions as
in the preceding Congress, with the additional power to sit during
the recess. Mr. Ashley expressed the hope that " this Congress will
not hesitate to do its duty because the timid in our own ranks hesi
tate, but will proceed to the discharge of the high and important
trust imposed upon it, uninfluenced by passion and uiiawed by fear."
He was answered with indignation by Mr. Brooks and Mr. Fernando
Wood of New York, and the question becoming a party issue Mr.
Ashley's resolution was carried without a division after an ineffectual
attempt to lay it on the table, — a motion which was sustained by
only thirty-two votes. The committee proceeded in their work
during the recess of Congress, and reported the testimony on the
25th of the ensuing November (1867).
Some ninety-five witnesses had been examined, and the report
of testimony covered twelve hundred octavo pages. Much of the
evidence seemed irrelevant, and that which bore directly upon the
question of the President's offenses fell far below the serious char
acter assigned to it by previous rumors. This was especially true
in regard to the testimony given by General Grant. There were
secret and ominous intimations that General Grant had been ap
proached by the President with the view of ascertaining whether, if
it should be determined to constitute a Congress of Democratic
members from the North and rebel members from the South (leav
ing the Republicans to come in or stay out as they might choose),
the Army could be relied "upon to sustain such a movement. There
is no doubt that many earnest Republicans were so impressed by
the perverse course of President Johnson that they came to believe
him capable of any atrocious act. They gave credulous ear, there
fore, to these extravagant rumors ; and in the end they succeeded

344 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
in making a deep impression upon the minds of certain members
of the Committee charged with the investigation into the President's
official conduct.
The persons who were giving currency to these rumors never
seemed to realize that General Grant, with his loyalty, his patriot
ism, and his high sense of personal and official honor, could not
for a moment have even so much as listened to a proposition which
involved an attack upon the legitimacy of the Congress of the
United States, and practically contemplated its overthrow through
means not different from those by which Cromwell closed the ses
sions of the Long Parliament. Nothing can be more certain than
the fact that if President Johnson had ever made such an intima
tion to General Grant, it would have been at once exposed and
denounced with a soldier's directness ; and the President would have
been promptly impeached for an offense in which his guilt would
not have been doubtful.
It was not surprising, therefore, that by General Grant's testi
mony 1 the entire charge was dissipated into thin air, and proved to
1 The following is General Grant's testimony in full, touching the point referred to.
It was given under oath before the Judiciary Committee on the 18th of July, 1867.
Mr. Boutwell: "Have you at any time heard the President make any remark
in reference to admission of members of Congress from the rebel States into either
House?" General Grant: " I cannot say positively what I have heard him say on the sub
ject. I have heard him say as much, perhaps, in his published speeches last summer, as
I ever heard him say at all upon that subject. I have heard him say — and I think I
have heard him say it twice in his speeches — that if the North carried the elections by
members enough to give them, with the Southern members, a majority, why would
they not be the Congress of the United States ? I have heard him say that several
times." Mr. Thomas Williams: "When you say 'the North,' you mean the Democratic
party of the North; or, in other words, the party favoring his policy ? "
General Grant: "I mean if the North carried enough members in favor of the
admission of the South. I did not hear him say that he would recognize them as the
Congress. I merely heard him ask the question, 'Why would they not be the Con
gress?' "
Mr. James F. Wilson: " When did you hear him say that?"
General Grant: " I heard him say that in one or two of his speeches. I do not
recollect where."
Mr. Boutwell: "Have you heard him make a remark kindred to that else
where ? "
General Grant: "Yes; I have heard him say that, aside from his speeches, in
conversation. I cannot say just when: it was probably about that same time."
Mr. Boutwell: " Have you heard him at any time make any remark or suggestion
concerning the legality of Congress with the Southern members excluded ? "
General Grant: "He alluded to that subject frequently on his tour to Chicago
and back last summer. His speeches were generally reported with considerable accu-

REPORT OF JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. 345
be only one of the thousand baseless rumors which in that exciting
period were constantly filling the political atmosphere. It was per
haps the intention of the Committee in examining General Grant on
this point, to give him an opportunity in an official report to stamp
the current rumors as utterly false. It can hardly be possible that
a single member of the Committee believed that General Grant had
silently received from the President a deliberate proposition to
revolutionize the Government. When the essential truth of the
matter was reached, it was found that General Grant had never
heard any thing from the President, on the question of organizing
Congress, at all different from the premises he had assumed in the
series of disreputable speeches delivered by him in his extraordinary
tour through the country the preceding year.
There was a marked divergence of views in the recommendations
from the Judiciary Committee. The majority, Messrs. George S.
Boutwell of Massachusetts, Francis Thomas of Maryland, Thomas
Williams of Pennsylvania, William Lawrence of Ohio, and John
C. Churchill of New York, reported a resolution directing that
"Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be impeached of
high crimes and misdemeanors." Mr. Wilson of Iowa, and Mr.
Frederic Woodbridge of Vermont, submitted a minority report, with
a resolution directing that " the Committee on the Judiciary be dis
charged from the further consideration of the proposed Impeachment
of the President of the United States, and that the subject be laid
upon the table." The two Democratic members of the committee,
Mr. Marshall of Illinois and Mr. Eldridge of Wisconsin, while agree-
ing with the resolution submitted by Mr. Wilson, desired to express
certain views from the Democratic stand-point. They therefore sub
mitted a separate report, reviewing the entire proceeding in language
more caustic than Mr. Wilson and Mr. Woodbridge had seen fit to
employ.
racy. I cannot recollect what he said, except in general terms; but I read his speeches
at the time, and they were reported with considerable accuracy."
Mr. Boutwell: " Did you hear him say any thing in private on that subject, either
during that trip or at any other time ? "
General Grant: "I do not recollect specially."
Mr. Boutwell: " Did you at any time hear him make any remark concerning the
Executive Department of the Government ? "
General Grant: "No: I never heard him allude to that."
Mr. Boutwell: " Did you ever hear him make any remark looking to any contro
versy between Congress and the Executive 1 "
General Grant: "I think not."

346 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
The effect of Mr. Boutwell's report was seriously impaired by the
fact that the chairman of the committee and another Republican
member had refused to concur, and it was at once evident from
the position in which this division left the question, that the House
would not sustain an Impeachment upon the testimony submitted.
By an arrangement to which only a few members objected, the
discussion of the reports was confined to two speeches, one by Mr.
Boutwell and one by Mr. Wilson. Mr. Boutwell's was delivered on
the 5th and 6th of December, and Mr. Wilson's reply immediately
after Mr. Boutwell had concluded on the second day. Both speeches
were able and positive, holding the attention of members in a marked
and exceptional degree. A large majority of the House desired the
vote to be taken as soon as Mr. Wilson had concluded ; but some
dilatory motions kept off the decision until the succeeding day (De
cember 7, 1867), when amid much excitement, and some display of
angry feeling between members, the resolution calling for the
impeachment of the President was defeated by an overwhelming
majority, — ayes 57, noes 108. 1 The affirmative vote was composed
entirely of Republicans, but a larger number of Republicans were

1 The following is the vote of the House, in detail, on the first Impeachment reso
lution. Republicans are given in Roman ; Democrats in Italic : —
Ayes. — Messrs. Anderson, Arnell, James M. Ashley, Boutwell, Bromwell, Broomall,
Butler, Churchill, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Coburn, Covode, Cullom,
Donnelly, Eckley, Ela, Farnsworth, Gravely, Harding, Higby, Hopkins, Hunter, Judd,
Julian, Kelley, Kelsey, William Lawrence, Loan, Logan, Loughridge, Lynch, Maynard,
McClurg, Mercur, Mullins, Myers, Newcomb, Nunn, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Pile, Price,
Schenck, Shanks, Aaron F. Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens, Stokes, Thomas, John Trimble,
Trowbridge, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Thomas Williams, William Williams, and
Stephen F. Wilson — 57.
Noes. — Messrs. Adams, Allison, Ames, Archer, Delos R. Ashley, Axtell, Bailey,
Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Barnum, Beaman, Beck, Benjamin, Benton, Bingham, Blaine,
Boyer, Brooks, Buckland, Burr, Gary, Chanter, Cook, Dawes, Dixon, Dodge, Driggs,
Eggleston, Eldridye, Eliot, Ferriss, Ferry, Fields, Garfield, Getz, Glossbrenner, Golla
day, Griswold, Grover, Haight, Halsey, Hamilton, Hawkins, Hill, Holman, Hooper,
Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Hulburd,
Humphrey, Ingersoll, Johnson, Jones, Kerr, Ketcham, Knott, Koontz, Laflin, George
V. Lawrence, Lincoln, Marshall, Marvin, McCarthy, McCullough, Miller, Moorhead,
Morgan, Mungen, Niblack, Nicholson, Perham, Peters, Phelps, Pike, Plants, Poland,
Polsley, Pruyn, Randall, Robertson, Robinson, Ross, Sawyer, Sitgreaves, Smith, Spald
ing, Starkweather, Stewart, Stone, Taber, Taylor, Upson, Van Aernam, Van Aucken,
Van Trump, Van Wyck, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D.
Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, James F Wilson, John T. Wilson, Wood-
bridge, and Woodward — 108.
Absent or not voting. —Messrs. Barnes, Blair, Cake, Cornell, Finney, Fox, Jenckes,
Kitchen, Mallory, Moore, Morrell, Morrissey, Pomeroy, Raum, Scofield, Selye, Shella
barger, Taffe, Twichell, Burt Van Horn, Windoin, and Wood — 22.

ANALYSIS OF THE VOTE. 347
included in the negative ; so that apart from any action of the
Democratic party the advocates of Impeachment were in the
minority. By this decisive vote the project of impeaching the President
was in the public belief finally defeated. But those best acquainted
with the earnestness of purpose and the "determination of the lead
ing men, who had persuaded themselves that the safety of the
Republic depended upon the destruction of Johnson's official power,
knew that the closest watch would be kept upon every action of the
President, and if an apparently justifying cause could be found the
project of his removal would be vigorously renewed. It is difficult
to understand the intensity of conviction which had taken possession
of certain minds on this subject — difficult to understand why the
same causes and the same reasons which operated so powerfully on
certain Republicans in favor of Impeachment, should prove so utterly
inadequate to affect others. Why should Mr. Boutwell be so de
cidedly on one side and Mr. Dawes with equal firmness on the other ?
Why should General Schenck and William Lawrence vote for Im
peachment and General Garfield and John A. Bingham against it?
Why should Thaddeus Stevens and Judge Kelley vote in the affirma
tive and the four Washburns in the negative ?
Geographically there was a traceable division in the vote. In
New England, usually so radical, only five members favored Impeach
ment. New York gave but two votes for it and Pennsylvania gave
but six. The large majority of those who exhibited such an earnest
desire to force the issue to extremes came from the West, but even
in that section the Republicans who opposed it were nearly equal
in number to those who favored it. The vote led to no little recrim
ination inside the ranks of the party — each side regarding the other
as pursuing an unwise and unjustifiable course. The advocates of
Impeachment were denounced as rash, hot-headed, sensational, bent
on leading the party into an indefensible position ; while its opponents
were spoken of as faint-hearted, as truckling to the Administration,
as afraid to strike the one blow imperatively demanded for the safety
of the Republic. But outside of this quarrel of partisans the great
mass of quiet citizens, and more especially the manufacturing, com
mercial, and financial communities, were profoundly grateful that the
country was not, as they now believed, to be disturbed by a violent
effort to deprive the President of his great office.

348 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
The prophets of Peace were disappointed in their hopes and their
predictions. A train of circumstances, not unnaturally growing out
of the political situation, led in the ensuing month to the renewal
of the scheme of Impeachment because of the President's attempt to
appoint a new Secretary of War. The President himself narrates
what he had done to secure the resignation of Mr. Stanton : " I had
come to the conclusion that the time had arrived when it was proper
for Mr. Stanton to retire from my Cabinet. The mutual confidence
and general accord which should exist in such a relation had ceased.
I supposed that Mr. Stanton was well advised that his continuance
in the Cabinet was contrary to my wishes, for I had repeatedly
given him to so understand by every mode short of an express
request that he should resign." On the fifth day of August (1867)
the President addressed Mr. Stanton a brief note in these words :
" Public considerations of a high character constrain me to say that
your resignation as Secretary of War will be accepted." Mr. Stan
ton replied immediately, acknowledging the receipt of the letter and
adding: "I have the honor to say that public considerations of a
high character, which alone have induced me to continue at the head
of this Department, constrain me not to resign the Secretaryship of
War before the next meeting of Congress."
Not acting with angry haste, but reflecting for a week upon the
situation resulting from Mr. Stanton's refusal to resign, the Pres
ident on the 12th of August suspended him from the Secretaryship
of War under the power conferred by the Tenure-of-office Act, and
added in a note to him: "You will at once transfer to General
Ulysses S. Grant, who has this day been authorized and empowered
to act as Secretary of War ad interim, all records, books, papers and
other public property now in your custody and charge." Mr.
Stanton replied to the President: "Under a sense of public duty
I am compelled to deny your right under the Constitution and
laws of the United States, without the advice and consent of the
Senate and without legal cause, to suspend me from the office of
Secretary of War, or the exercise of any of the functions pertaining
to the same ; but inasmuch as the General commanding the armies
of the United States has been appointed ad interim and has notified
me that he has accepted the appointment, I have no alternative but
to submit, under protest, to superior force." It is evident that
General Grant and his legal advisers saw no force in Mr. Stanton's
denial of the President's power to suspend him from office. The

RESTORATION OF SECRETARY STANTON. 349
General's acceptance of the Secretaryship of War was plain proof
that he recognized the President's course as entirely lawful and Con
stitutional. General Grant's willingness to succeed Mr. Stanton
was displeasing to a certain class of Republicans, who thought he
was thereby strengthening the position of the President ; but the
judgment of the more considerate was that as Mr. Johnson had de
termined in any event to remove Stanton, it was wise in General
Grant to accept the trust and thus prevent it from falling into mis
chievous and designing hands.
By the provisions of the Tenure-of-office Law the President was
under obligation to communicate the suspension to the Senate, with
his reasons therefor, within twenty days after its next meeting. He
did this in his message of the 12th of December (1867), in which
he reviewed with much care the relations between himself and the
Secretary of War. He certainly exhibited to an impartial judge,
uninfluenced by personal or party motives, strong proof of the utter
impossibility of Mr. Stanton and himself working together harmo
niously in the administration of the Government. If the President
of the United States has the right to Constitutional advisers who are
personally agreeable to him and who share his personal confidence,
then surely Mr. Johnson gave unanswerable proof that Mr. Stanton
should not remain a member of his Cabinet. But the Senate was
not influenced either by the general considerations affecting the
case or by the special reasons submitted by the President. The
question was not finally decided by the Senate until the 13th of
January (1868), when by a party vote it was declared that "having
considered the evidence and reasons given by the President in his
report of December 12, 1867, for the suspension of Edwin M. Stanton
from the office of Secretary of War, the Senate does not concur in
such suspension." The Secretary of the Senate was instructed to
send an official copy of the resolution to the President, to Mr. Stan
ton, and to General Grant.
Upon receipt of the resolution of the Senate, General Grant at
once locked the door of the Secretary's office, handed the key to the
Adjutant-General, left the War-Department building and resumed
his post at Army Headquarters on the opposite side of the street.
Secretary Stanton soon after took possession of his old office, as
quietly and unceremoniously as if he had left it but an hour be
fore. Perhaps with some desire to emphasize the change of situ
ation, he dispatched a messenger to Headquarters to say in the

350 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
phrase of the ranking position that "the Secretary desires to see
General Grant." General Grant did not like the way in which Mr.
Stanton resumed control of the War Office. He did not think
that he had been treated with the same courtesy which he had shown
to Mr. Stanton when he succeeded him the preceding August. In
fact, he had not expected, nor did he desire, the restoration of Mr.
Stanton, and but for differences that arose between him and the
President might have used his influence against Mr. Stanton's re
maining. He had indeed warmly seconded a suggestion of General
Sherman (who was then in Washington), made the day after Mr.
Stanton's restoration, that the President should immediately nomi
nate Governor Cox of Ohio for Secretary of War.
The President did not accept the suggestion respecting the name
of Governor Cox. His chief purpose was to get rid of Mr. Stanton,
and he did not believe the Senate would consent in any event to his
removal. He expressed surprise that General Grant did not hold the
office until the question of Mr. Stanton's Constitutional right to
resume it could be judicially tested. A heated controversy ensued
a fortnight later on this point, leading to the exchange of angry
letters between the President and General Grant. Mr. Johnson
alleged that the fair understanding was that General Grant should,
by retaining his portfolio, aid in bringing the case before the Supreme
Court of the United States. General Grant denied this with much
warmth, declaring in a letter addressed to the President that the lat
ter had made "many and gross misrepresentations concerning this
subject." It was doubtless in the beginning a perfectly honest mis
apprehension between the two. General Grant had on a certain
occasion remarked that " Mr. Stanton would have to appeal to the
courts to re-instate him," and the President, hastily perhaps, but not
unnaturally, assumed that by this language General Grant meant
that he would himself aid in bringing the matter to judicial arbit
rament. But the President ought to have seen and realized that
such a step would be altogether foreign to the duty of the Com
mander of the Army, and that with General Grant's habitual pru
dence he never could have intended to provoke a controversy with
Congress, and get himself entangled in the meshes of the Tenure-
of-office Law. The wrath of both men was fully aroused, and the
controversy closed by leaving them enemies for life — unreconciled,
irreconcilable. The severance of friendly relations between the President and

PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND GENERAL GRANT. 351
General Grant was not distasteful to the Republicans of the country.
Indeed it had been earnestly desired by them. Many of those who
were looking forward to General Grant's nomination as the Republi
can candidate for the Presidency in 1868, had been restless lest he
might become too much identified with the President, and thus be
held in some degree accountable for his policy. General Grant's
report on the condition of the South in 1865 had displeased Repub
licans as much as it had pleased the President. He had created still
further uneasiness in Republican ranks by accompanying the Presi
dent in 1866 on his famous journey to Chicago, when he "swung
around the circle." His acceptance of the War Office in 1867 as
the successor to Mr. Stanton was naturally interpreted by many as a
signal mark of confidence in the President. It was said by General
Grant's nearest friends that in his position as the Commander of the
Army he was bound in courtesy to comply with the President's
requests ; but others maintained that as these requests all lay outside
his official duties, and were in fact political in their nature, he might
decline to respond to them if he chose. It was in fact known to a
few persons that General Grant had declined (though requested by
the President) to accompany Minister Lewis D. Campbell to Mexico
and hold an interview with the officials of the Juarez Government, in
the autumn of 1866. The President, however, did not insist on
General Grant's compliance with his request, and at the suggestion
of the latter readily substituted Lieutenant-General Sherman, who
went upon the mission, with results — according to his own narrative
— more laughable than valuable. General Grant always believed that
Mr. Seward had originated the suggestion, and had desired him to
go upon the mission from some motives of his own not made fully
apparent. The incident did not interfere with the kindly relations
between the President and General Grant, as was shown by General
Grant's acceptance of the War Office ten months after the Mexican
Mission had come to its profitless conclusion.
From all the circumstances of the case, it is not difficult therefore
to understand why the quarrel between the President and General
Grant should be viewed with substantial satisfaction by the Republi
cans of the country. The National Convention of the party for 1868
had already been called, and it might be awkward for its members,
while denouncing President Johnson in the platform, to be reminded
that the candidate of their party was on terms of personal friendship
with him, and had been so throughout his administration. Such a

352 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
fact would embarrass the canvass in many ways, and would dull the
edge of partisan weapons already forged for the contest. General
Grant as a Presidential candidate was likely to draw heavily on the
Democratic voters of the Northern States, and Republicans felt
assured that his quarrel with Johnson would cause no loss even in
that direction. In every point of view, therefore, the political situa
tion was satisfactory to the Republicans — the last possible suggestion
of discontent with General Grant's expected nomination for the Presi
dency having been banished from the ranks of the party.

By the Senate's refusal to concur in the suspension of Secretary
Stanton, a confidential adviser under the Constitution was forced
upon the President against his earnest and repeated protest. This
action appears the more extraordinary, because when the Tenure-of-
office Bill was pending before the Senate, the expression of opinion
on the part of the majority was against any attempt to compel the
President to retain an unwelcome adviser. In fact the Senate voted
by a large majority to except Cabinet officers from the operation of
the law. The expressions of opinion by individual senators were
very pointed on this question.
— Mr. Edmunds said it was "right and just that the Chief Exec
utive of the Nation in selecting these named Secretaries, who, by
law and by the practice of the country, and officers analogous to
whom, by the practice of all other countries, are the confidential
advisers of the Executive respecting the administration of all his
Departments, should be persons who are personally agreeable to him
and in whom he can place entire confidence and reliance ; and when
ever it should seem to him that the state of relations between him
and any of them had become so as to render this relation of confi
dence and trust and personal esteem inharmonious, he should in such
- case be allowed to dispense with the services of that officer in vaca
tion and have some other person act in his stead."
— Mr. Williams of Oregon sustained the position of Mr. Edmunds,
but added : " I do not regard the exception as of any great practical
consequence, because I suppose if the President and any head of
Department should disagree so as to make their relations unpleas
ant, and the President should signify a desire that that head of
Department should retire from the Cabinet, that would follow with-

PRESIDENT'S RIGHT OF REMOVAL. 353
out any positive act of removal on the part of the President. . . .
It has seemed to me that if we revolutionize the practice of the
Government in all other respects, we might let this power remain in ,
the hands of the President of the United States ; that we should not
strip him of this power, which is one that it seems to me is necessary
and reasonable that he should exercise."
— Mr. Fessenden said : " A man who is the head of a Department
naturally wants the control of that Department. He wants to con
trol all his subordinates. ... In my judgment, in order to the good
and proper administration of all the Departments, it is necessary that
that power should exist in the head of it, and quite as necessary that
the power should exist in the President with reference to the few
men who are placed about him to share his counsel and to be his
friends and agents."
— Mr. Sherman said: "If a Cabinet officer should attempt to hold
his office for a moment beyond the time when he retains the entire
confidence of the President, I would not vote to retain him, nor
would I compel the President to have about him in these high posi
tions a man whom he did not entirely trust both personally and
politically. It would be unwise to require him to administer the
Government without agents of his own choosing. . . . And if I
supposed that either of these gentlemen was so wanting in manhood,
in honor, as to hold his place after the politest intimation from the
President of the United States that his services were no longer
needed, I certainly, as a senator, would consent to his removal at
any time, and so would we all."
Still more significant and conclusive was the action of both
Senate and House on the final passage of the Tenure-of-office Act.
That action was based upon the report of a conference committee,
of which Mr. Sherman was chairman on the part of the Senate, and
General Schenck on the part of the House. It will be remembered
that the Senate had insisted that officers of the Cabinet should be
excepted from the operation of the Tenure-of-office Act, and the
House had insisted that they should not be excepted. A compro
mise was made by the conference committee, the result of which was
thus explained to the Senate by Mr. Sherman: "In this case the
committee of conference — I agreed to it, I confess, with some reluc
tance — came to the conclusion to qualify to some extent the power of
removal over a Cabinet minister. We provide that a Cabinet minister
shall hold his office, not for a fixed term, not until the Senate shall con-
Vol. II. 23

354 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
sent to his removal, but as long as the power that appoints him holds the
office." General Schenck, representing the original House amend
ment, said: " A compromise was made, by which a further amendment
is added to this portion of the bill, so that the term of office of the
heads of Departments shall expire with the term of the President who
appointed them, allowing these heads of Departments one month
longer." These were the well-considered explanations made to their
respective branches by the chairmen of the committees that com
posed the conference. It was upon this uncontradicted, unqualified,
universally admitted construction of the Bill that the House and
Senate enacted it into a law.
It must not be forgotten that if the Senate had consented to
the removal of Mr. Stanton, as was confidently anticipated from the
expressions of opinion above quoted, no new Secretary could have
been installed without the Senate's explicit consent, and that mean
while the War Department would remain under the control of Gen
eral Grant, in whose prudent and upright discharge of duty every
senator had perfect confidence. The complaint of the President's
friends, therefore, was that senators, while perfectly able to exclude
from the control of the War Department a man in whom they had
no confidence, demanded that the President should retain at the
head of that Department an officer in whom he had no confidence.
Hence it was that for the first time in the history of the United
States, an officer distasteful to the President and personally distrusted
and disliked by him was forced upon him as one of his confidential
advisers in the administration of the Government. In the prima
facie statement of this case the Senate was in the wrong. Upon
the record of its votes and the expression of opinion by its own
members, the Senate was in the wrong. The history of every pre
ceding Administration and of every subsequent Administration of
the Federal Government proves that the Senate was in the wrong.
The situation in which the President was left by this action was
anomalous and embarrassing. One of the most important Depart
ments of the Government — especially important at that era — was
left under the control of a man with whom he did not even hold
personal relations. If this could be done in one Department it
could with equal justice be done in all, and the extraordinary spec
tacle would be presented of each Executive Department under the
control of an officer, who in matters of personal feeling and in public
policy was deadly hostile to the President of the United States.

REMOVAL OF SECRETARY STANTON. 355
Even those who insisted most warmly upon Mr. Stanton's being
retained in his position, must have seen that such a course would
contradict the theory of the National Constitution and be in direct
contravention of the practice of the Federal Government. Every
one could see that these circumstances had brought about an unnat
ural situation — a situation that must in some way be relieved. It
presented a condition of affairs for which there was no precedent,
and the wisest could not foresee to what end it might lead.
The issue was brought to a head by the President, who informed
the Senate on the 21st of February (1868), that in the exercise of the
power and authority vested in him by the Constitution of the United
States, he had that day removed Mr. Stanton from office and desig
nated the Adjutant-General of the Army — Lorenzo Thomas — as
Secretary of War ad interim. The communication was received with
great astonishment by the Senate and with loud expressions of in
dignation against the President. With short debate and with little
delay the Senate passed a resolution declaring "that under the
Constitution and laws of the United States, the President has no
power to remove the Secretary of War and to designate any other
officer to perform the duties of that office ad interim." The Senate
could do nothing more than express and record this opinion, but it
did that promptly, resentfully, almost passionately.
The House took up the matter in hot temper and in hot haste.
A flagrant offense against the Constitution and the laws had, in the
judgment of a majority of its members, been committed by the Presi
dent. In defiance of the letter and spirit of the Tenure-of-office Act
he had removed the Secretary of War from office. He had done
this under circumstances of peculiar aggravation, because the Senate
had passed upon all his reasons therefor when the question of Mr.
Stanton's suspension was before that body ; and if even the suspen
sion was not justifiable, how very grave must be the offense of remov
ing the Secretary from office ! These views and the discussion to
which they led engrossed the attention of the House as soon as it
was known that the President had sent a message to the Senate
communicating his action in regard to Mr. Stanton. The Senate
had no sooner recorded its dissent from the Executive power of re
moval than Mr. Covode of Pennsylvania, on the same day, rose to
a privileged question in the House and offered a resolution that
"Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be impeached of high
crimes and misdemeanors." The resolution was referred to the Com-

356 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
mittee on Reconstruction and the House adjourned. On the next
day (February 22d) Mr. Stevens, chairman of the Reconstruction
Committee, reported the resolution back to the House with the recom
mendation that it pass, suggesting that the question might immediately
be taken without debate.
— Mr. Brooks of New York had hoped for time to prepare a minority
report, but contented himself with a long speech earnestly protesting
against the Impeachment. " Suppose," said he, " you succeed. You
settle that hereafter a party having a sufficient majority in the House
and the Senate can depose the President of the United States. Yon
establish a precedent which all future parties in all time to come will
look to. The curse of other countries, the curse of France, the curse
of the South-American Republics, has been that they followed such
a precedent as you call upon us to establish here to-day — the over
throw of their Executive, not by law, not by the Constitution, but
by the irregular and arbitrary and revolutionary exercise of power,
in order merely to obtain a temporary possession of the Govern
ment." — Mr. Spalding of Ohio followed Mr. Brooks, earnestly supporting
the Impeachment. There seemed to be an inordinate desire among
gentlemen who had hitherto been conservative on the question, as
well as among those who had been constantly in favor of Impeach
ment, to place t lemselves on record against the President.
— Mr. John A. Bingham said that " the President having criminally
violated the Constitution and the laws, I propose for one to put
him on trial."
— Mr. Farnsworth of Illinois declared that " no student of our Con
stitution, no citizen, can doubt that Andrew Johnson has been guilty
of a flagrant violation of the Constitution, which is justly impeach
able."— Judge Kelley of Pennsylvania warned " those who have spoken
on the other side to-day, that they had better exercise the privilege
of revising their words, and that it will be well for others to pause
before they speak in defense of the great criminal whom the Ameri
can people arraign for thousands of crimes."
— General Logan, answering those who feared that Impeachment
might lead to some form of revolution, said " that a country which in
time of war and excitement can stand the assassination of so good
and just a President as Abraham Lincoln, can and will stand the
Impeachment of as bad a President as Andrew Johnson."

DEBATE ON IMPEACHMENT. 357
— Mr. IngersoU of Illinois, in the course of his remarks sustaining
Impeachment, read a telegram from Governor Oglesby, declaring his
belief " that the people of Illinois demand the Impeachment of An
drew Johnson, and will heartily sustain such action by our Congress."
Mr. IngersoU declared that the telegram from the Governor of
Rlinois " is but the voice of the people of the whole country on this
question. There have been grave doubts with regard to the policy
and the right of impeaching the President upon the facts as pre
sented heretofore, but at the present hour I know of no man who
loves his country more than party who will not pronounce a verdict
against the President. And, sir, I shall for one be grievously dis
appointed if, within ten days from this time, honest old Ben Wade
(now President of the Senate) is not President of the United
States." The proceedings were carried far into the night, and their deep
seriousness had been somewhat relieved by an amusing effort on the
part of several Democratic members to have Washington's Farewell
Address read in honor of the day. But they failed to accomplish it,
because a resolution to that effect could not take precedence of the
privileged subject which was holding the attention of the House.
At a late hour Mr. Holman of Indiana, unable to secure the reading
of the address, obtained leave to print it in connection with his
remarks, and thus left in the columns of the Globe a somewhat
striking contrast — on the one hand, the calm words of Washington
counseling peace and good will among his countrymen, and warning
them of the evils of party spirit; on the other, the exciting and
inflammatory attempt to remove one of Washington's successors from
office by impeaching him of high crimes and misdemeanors.
The hours of the intervening Sunday did not appease the temper
or cool the ardor of the Republican representatives, now so evidently
bent on impeaching the President. The House had adjourned on
Saturday night to meet at ten o'clock Monday morning, with the
declared intention on the part of the majority to force the resolution
of Impeachment to a vote on that day. Mr. Ashley of Ohio opened
the debate with a fierce attack upon the President, and was followed
by Mr. Burton C. Cook of Illinois in a brief but pointed legal argu
ment to prove that the President had violated the letter and spirit
of the law.
— Mr. Julian of Indiana made a somewhat remarkable speech. "Is
it not most fortunate," said he, " that this single act of lawlessness

358 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
has been evoked which so beautifully consolidates into a unit all the
friends of the country in this House and throughout the nation ? It
is true the removal of the Secretary of War is relatively a simple matter.
It is scarcely a peccadillo when considered beside the New-Orleans
massacre and many other of the wholesale enormities of which he
has been known to be guilty for many months past, but I believe it
would be regarded as scarcely sufficient ground for this proceeding if not
considered in the light of far greater previous offenses."
— Mr. James F. Wilson of Iowa said : " I will vote for the pending
resolution to the end that the law may be vindicated by the removal
of an unworthy public servant from an official position, which he has
dishonored by his perverse disregard of duty and his unjustifiable
contempt for the supremacy of the law."
— General Butler, after a careful recital of the acts of the Presi
dent, said: "For a tithe of these acts of usurpation, lawlessness and
tyranny our fathers dissolved their connection with the government.
of King George ; for less than this King James lost his throne, and
King Charles lost his head ; while we, the representatives of the people,
adjudge only that there is probable cause shown why Andrew John-
sonishould be deprived of the office he has desecrated and the power
he has abused, and if convicted by the court to which we shall
send him, be forever incapable of filling that office — the ambition to-
be again nominated to which has been the moving spring of all these
crimes."
— Mr. Washburne of Illinois said : " In my judgment the safety of
the country, the cause of good government, the preservation of
Constitutional right and public liberty, depend upon the prompt
impeachment of the President of the United States."
— Mr. Woodward of Pennsylvania, a bitter anti-war Democrat, for
merly Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of his State, protested
earnestly against Impeachment, on the ground that all the States not
being represented either in House or Senate, there was no competent
branch to impeach and none to try an officer. " If I were the Pres
ident's counselor," said he, "I would advise him, if you preferred
Articles of Impeachment, to demur to your jurisdiction and to that
of the Senate, and issue a proclamation giving you and all the world
notice that while he held himself impeachable for misdemeanors in
office before the Constitutional tribunal, he never would subject the
office he holds in trust to the irregular, unconstitutional, and frag
mentary bodies who propose to strip him of it."

DEBATE ON IMPEACHMENT. 359
— Mr. Boutwell spoke very earnestly and ably in favor of Impeach
ment. " I can but indicate," said he, " the plot in which the Pres
ident is engaged. He desires first to get control of the War
Department, in order that, as in 1861, the munitions of war, arms
and material might be used for the purpose of enabling him to
succeed in his aspirations to be President of the United States. He
knew that if he could corrupt the leaders of the Army, if he could
bend these men to his will, these ten States were in his control, and
that he could send to the Democratic Convention, to be holden on
the 4th of July next, men who would sustain his claim for the Pres
idency. Then, upon the allegation which he could well carry out
and which no other man could make good, that with the Army and
his influence among the rebels of the South, whom he had brought
to his support by his previous violations of law, he could secure the
electoral votes of those ten States by excluding the negroes whom
we have enfranchised from all participation in the election. Suc
ceeding in this, we were to be met next February with the electoral
votes of those ten States given for himself as President of the United
States. If by fortune, as was his hope, he should receive a sufficient
number of votes in the North to make a majority, then, with the
support of the Army which he had corrupted, he had determined to
be inaugurated President of the United States at the hazard of civil
war. To-day, sir, we escape from these evils and dangers."
— Mr. Kerr of Indiana, speaking for the Democrats, said : " I and
those with whom I act in this House had no knowledge whatever of
the purpose of the Executive to do the act for which the movement
is again inaugurated for his deposition. We are therefore free in
every sense to submit to the guidance alone of reason and duty."
Late in the afternoon Mr. Stevens rose to close the debate. He
said : " In order to sustain Impeachment under our Constitution I do
not hold that it is necessary to prove a crime as an indictable offense,
or any act malum in se. I agree with the distinguished gentleman
from Pennsylvania, on the other side of the House (Mr. Woodward),
who holds this to be a purely political proceeding. It is needed as a
remedy for malfeasance in office and to prevent the continuance
thereof. Beyond that it is not intended as a punishment for past
offenses or for future example." He made one of his peculiarly
pungent speeches, which' for some unexplained reason was scarcely
less bitter on General Grant than upon President Johnson. The
whole day's proceedings had been extraordinary. Never before had

360 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
so many members addressed the House on a single day. The
speeches actually delivered and the speeches for which leave to print
was given, fill more than two hundred columns of the Congressional
Globe. When Mr. Stevens closed the debate, many members who
still desired to be heard were cut off by the previous question.
The vote on the resolution impeaching the President resulted in
ayes 126, noes 47, not voting 17.1 Mr. Stevens immediately offered
a resolution directing the " appointment of a committee of two mem
bers td appear at the bar of the Senate, and in the name of the House
of Representatives and of the people of the United States to impeach
Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, of high crimes and
misdemeanors in office, and to acquaint the Senate that the House
will in due time exhibit particular Articles of Impeachment against
him and make good the same, and that the committee demand that
the Senate take order for the appearance of Andrew Johnson to
answer to said Impeachment." Mr. Stevens further moved that
" a committee of seven be appointed to prepare and report Articles
of Impeachment against Andrew Johnson, President of the United
States, with power to send for persons and papers." The resolutions

1 The following is the vote of the House, in detail, on the second Impeachment reso
lution, February 24, 1868. Republicans are given in Roman; Democrats in Italic: —
Ayes. — Messrs. Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnell, Delos R. Ashley, James M.
Ashley, Bailey, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Beaman, Beatty, Benton, Bingham, Blaine,
Blair, Boutwell, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Butler, Cake, Churchill, Reader W.
Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Coburn, Cook, Cornell, Covode, Cullom, Dawes, Dodge,
Driggs. Eckley, Eggleston, Eliot, Farnsworth, Ferriss, Ferry, Fields, Gravely, Gris-
wold, Halsey, Harding, Higby, Hill, Hooper, Hopkins, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester
D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Hunter, IngersoU, Jenckes, Judd, Julian, Kelley, Kelsey,
Ketcham, Kitchen, Laflin, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Lincoln, Loan,
Logan, Loughridge, Lynch, Mallory, Marvin, McCarthy, McClurg, Mercur, Miller, Moore,
Moorhead. Morrell, Mullins, Myers, 'Newcomb, Nunn, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Perham,
Peters, Pike, Pile, Plants, Poland, Polsley, Price, Raum, Robertson, Sawyer, Schenck,
Scofield, Selye, Shanks, Smith, Spalding, Starkweather, Aaron F. Stevens, Thaddeus
Stevens, Stokes, Taffe, Taylor, Trowbridge, Twichell, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van
Horn, Van Wyck, Ward, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Elihu B. Washburne, William B.
Washburn, Welker, Thomas Williams, James F. Wilson, John T. Wilson, Stephen F.
Wilson, Windom, Woodbridge, and the Speaker — 126.
Noes. — Messrs. Adams, Archer, Axtell, Barnes, Barnum, Beck, Boyer, Brooks, Burr,
Gary, Chanter, Eldridge, Fox, Getz, Glossbrenner, Golladay, Grover, Haight, Holman, Hotch-
ktss, Richard D. Hubbard, Humphrey, Johnson, Jones, Kerr, Knott, Marshall^ McCormick,
McCullough, Morgan, Morrissey, Mungen, Niblack, Nicholson, Phelps, Pruyn, Randall,
Ross, Sitgreaves, Stewart, Stone, Taber, Lawrence S. Trimble, Van Auken, Van Trump,
Wood, and Woodward — 47.
Absent or not voting. — Messrs. Benjamin, Dixon, Donnelly, Ela, Finney, Gar
field, Hawkins, Koontz, Maynard, Pomeroy, Robinson, Shellabarger, Thomas, John
Trimble, Robert T. Van Horn, Henry D. Washburn, and William Williams — IT.

THE MANAGERS OF IMPEACHMENT. 361
were adopted by a strict party vote. The Speaker appointed Mr.
Stevens and Mr. Bingham the committee to notify the Senate of the
impeachment of the President, and further appointed Mr. Boutwell,
Mr. Stevens, Mr. Bingham, Mr. J. F. Wilson, Mr. Logan, Mr. Julian,
and Mr. Hamilton Ward of New York, the committee to prepare
Articles of Impeachment against the President.
Five days afterwards, on the 29th of February, Mr. Boutwell,
chairman of the committee appointed to prepare Articles of Impeach
ment against the President, made his report. The Articles were de
bated with even greater manifestation of feeling than had appeared in
the discussion on the resolution of Impeachment. They were adopted
March 2d, by a party vote. The House then proceeded to elect man
agers of the Impeachment by ballot, and the following gentlemen
were chosen (their names being given in the order of the number
of votes which each received) : John A. Bingham, George S. Bout
well, James F. Wilson, Benjamin F. Butler, Thomas Williams, John
A. Logan, and Thaddeus Stevens. The votes for the several man
agers did not widely differ. The highest, 114, was given to Mr.
Bingham ; the lowest, 105, to Mr. Stevens. The latter was failing
in health and was considered by many members unequal to the
arduous work thus imposed on him. The Democrats presented no
candidates and took no part in the election of managers.
The aggregate ability and legal learning of the Managers were
everywhere conceded. Mr. Stevens in the period of his active
practice held a very high rank at the bar of Pennsylvania. General
Butler was in the profession of the law, as in all other relations,
somewhat peculiar in his methods, but his intellectual force and his
legal learning were recognized by his friends and his enemies —
and he had a full quota of each. Mr. Bingham, Mr. Boutwell, Mr.
Wilson, General Logan, and Mr. Williams represented the strength
of the Republican party in the House. Each was well known at
the bar of his State, and each was profoundly convinced of the
necessity of convicting the President. The most earnest — if there
was any difference in zeal among the Managers — were Mr. Boutwell
and Mr. Williams. Mr. Boutwell, for a man of cool temperament,
thoroughly honest mind, and sober judgment, had wrought himself
into a singularly intense belief in the supreme necessity of removing
the President ; while Mr. Williams, who tended towards the radical
side of all public questions, could not with patience hear any thing
said against the wisdom and expediency of Impeachment. Mr.

362 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Bingham and Mr. Wilson were the only Managers who on the first;
effort to impeach the President had voted in the negative.
President Johnson was well advised during this exciting period
in Congress and betrayed no uneasiness. He was guarded against
the folly of talking, which was his easily besetting sin, and he sought
to fortify his position by promptly submitting a nomination for Sec
retary of War. On Saturday, February 22d, the day following
the removal of Mr. Stanton, he sent to the Senate the name of
Thomas Ewing (senior) of Ohio as his successor. The Senate had
adjourned when the President's Secretary reached the Capitol, but
the nomination was formally communicated on the following Mon
day. No name could have given better assurance of good intentions
and upright conduct than that of Mr. Ewing. He was a man of
lofty character, of great eminence in his profession of the law, and
with wide and varied experience in public life. He had held high
rank as a senator in the Augustan period of the Senate's learning and
eloquence, and he had been one of the ablest members of the dis
tinguished Cabinets organized by the only two Presidents elected
by the Whig party. He had reached the ripe age of seventy-eight
years but was still in complete possession of all his splendid faculties.
He had voted for Mr. Lincoln at both elections, had been a warm
supporter of the contest for the Union, and was represented by his
own blood on many of the great battle-fields of the war. The
Lieutenant-General of the army, with his illustrious record of service,
second only to that of General Grant, was his son-in-law.
Of whatever deadly designs Mr. Johnson might be suspected,
there was no man of intelligence in the United States willing to be
lieve that Mr. Ewing could be tempted to do an unpatriotic act, to
violate the Constitution, or to fail in executing with fidelity the laws
of the land. If the President intended to corrupt the army, as
charged by Mr. Boutwell, he had certainly chosen a singular co-
laborer in the person of Mr. Ewing. Wild rumors had been in
circulation that the President was determined to install General
Thomas by military force, and to eject Mr. Stanton with violence
from the War Office which he refused to surrender. The public
uneasiness resulting from these sensational reports was in large degree
allayed, when it was announced that the President had signified his
desire that a grave and considerate man with long-established reputa
tion for ability and probity should serve as Secretary of War. The
surprise in the whole matter was that the President should have

FORMAL PRESENTMENT OF CHARGES. 363
selected Mr. Ewing, who, as was known to a few friends, had ear
nestly advised Mr. Johnson against removing Secretary Stanton.
The Senate however was in no mood to accept any nomination
for the War Office from President Johnson. The issue was not
whether Mr. Ewing was a judicious and trustworthy man for the
vacancy, but whether any vacancy existed. If Mr. Johnson had
removed or attempted to remove Mr. Stanton from office in an
unlawful and unconstitutional manner, the Senate, in the judgment
of those who were directing its action, would be only condoning his
offense by consenting to the appointment of a successor. Mr.
Johnson's right to nominate any one was denied, and when the name
of Mr. Ewing was received it was known by all that a committee
of Representatives might at any moment appear at the bar of the
Senate to present an Impeachment against the President for unlaw
fully attempting to remove Mr. Stanton. The course of the Senate
had been fully anticipated by the President and his advisers, and
they had, in their own judgment at least, obtained an advantage
before the public by so complete an abnegation of all partisan pur
poses as was implied in the offer to confide the direction of the War
Department to Mr. Ewing.

The formal presentment of the charges against the President at
the bar of the Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice of the
United States, and sitting as a Court of Impeachment, was made on
the fifth day of March (1868), when the House of Representatives,
the grand inquest of the nation, attended the Managers as they
came to the discharge of their solemn duty. Mr. Bingham, the chair
man of the Managers, read the Articles of Impeachment against
Andrew Johnson.1 At the conclusion of the reading the Senate ad
journed to the 13th, when the counsel of the President appeared and
asked that forty days be allowed for the preparation of his answer to
the charges. The time was regarded as unreasonably long, and the
Senate voted to adjourn until the 23d of March, when it was expected
that the President's counsel would present his answer. The Presi
dent's cause was represented by an imposing array of ability and
legal learning. The Attorney-General, Henry Stanbery, had from
1 The Articles of Impeachment on which the Senate voted are given in full in
Appendix C.

364 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
an impulse of chivalric devotion resigned his post for the purpose of
defending his chief. His reputation as a lawyer was of the first rank
in the West, where for nearly forty years he had been prominent in
his profession. But though first named, on account of his personal
and official relations with the President, he was not the leading coun
sel. The two men upon whom the success of the President's cause
chiefly rested were Judge Curtis and Mr. Evarts.
Benjamin R. Curtis, when he appeared in the Impeachment case,
was in the fullness of his powers, in the fifty-ninth year of his age.
At forty-one he had been appointed to the Supreme Bench of the
United States at the earnest request and warm recommendation of
Mr. Webster, then Secretary of State. Mr. Webster is reported to
have said that he had placed the people of Massachusetts under last
ing obligation to him by inducing Governor Lincoln, in 1830, to
appoint Lemuel Shaw Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the
State, a position which he honored and adorned for thirty years.
Mr. Webster thought he was doing an equal service to the people
of the entire Union when he induced the President to call Mr. Curtis
to the Supreme Bench. But judicial life had not proved altogether
agreeable to Judge Curtis, and after a remarkable and brilliant career
of six years he resigned, in October, 1857, and returned to the prac
tice of the law — his learning increased, his mind enriched and
broadened by the grave national questions engaging the attention
of the court during the period of his service. Thenceforward during
his life no man at the bar of the United States held higher rank.
He was entirely devoted to his. profession. He had taken no interest
in party strife, and with the exception of serving two sessions in the
Massachusetts Legislature he had never held a political office. In
arguing a cause his style was peculiarly felicitous, — simple, direct,
clear. In the full maturity of his powers and with all the earnestness
of his nature he engaged in the President's defense ; and he brought
to it a wealth of learning, a dignity of character, an impressiveness
of speech, which attracted the admiration and respect of all who had
the good fortune to hear his great argument.
William M. Evarts, who was associated with him, was nine years
the junior of Mr. Curtis. He had followed his profession with equal
devotion, and, like his illustrious colleague, had never been deflected
from its pursuit by participation in the honors of political life. His
career had been in the city of New York, where, against all the
rivalry of the Metropolitan bar, he had risen so rapidly that at forty

COUNSEL OF THE PRESIDENT. 365
years of age his victory of precedence was won and his high rank
established. A signal tribute was paid to his legal ability and his
character when, in the early stages of the civil war, the National
Government sent him abroad on an important and delicate errand in
connection with our international relations, — an errand which could
be safely entrusted only to a great lawyer. As an advocate Mr.
Evarts early became conspicuous, and, in the best sense, famous.
But he is more than an advocate. He is an orator, — affluent in
diction, graceful in manner, with all the rare and rich gifts which
attract and enchain an audience. He possesses a remarkable com
bination of wit and humor, and has the happy faculty of using both
effectively, without inflicting deadly wounds, without incurring hurt
ful enmities. Differing in temperament and in manner from Judge
Curtis, the two seemed perfectly adapted for professional co-opera
tion, and united they constituted an array of counsel as strong as
could be found at the English-speaking bar.
It was expected that Judge Jeremiah S. Black would add his
learning and ability to the President's counsel, but at the last mo
ment before the trial began he withdrew, and his place was filled by
William S. Groesbeck of Cincinnati. Mr. Groesbeck was favorably
known to the country by his service as a Democratic representative
in the Thirty-sixth Congress, but little had been heard of his legal
learning outside of Ohio. He took no part in the conduct of the
Impeachment case, but his final argument was a surprise to the
Senate and to his professional brethren, and did much to give him a
high reputation as a lawyer. — The counsel for the President was
completed by the addition of a confidential friend from his own State,
Hon. T. A. R. Nelson. Mr. Nelson had been closely associated with
Mr. Johnson in the Tennessee struggles for the Union, had gained
reputation as a representative in the Thirty-sixth Congress, and had
acquired a good standing at the bar of his State.
The answer of the President to the Articles of Impeachment
having been presented on the 23d, the replication of the House
duly made, and all other preliminary and introductory steps com
pleted, the actual trial began on Monday, the thirtieth day of March
' (1868), when General Butler, one of the Managers on behalf of the
House of Representatives, made the opening argument. It was very
voluminous, prepared with great care in writing, and read to the
Senate from printed slips. It was accompanied by a brief of authori
ties upon the law of impeachable crimes and misdemeanors, prepared

366 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
by Hon. William Lawrence of Ohio with characteristic industry and
learning. While every point in the charges preferred by the House
was presented by General Butler with elaboration, the weight of his
argument against the President lay in the fact that the removal of
Mr. Stanton from the office of Secretary of War was, as he averred,
an intentional violation of the Tenure-of-office Act, an intentional
violation of the Constitution of the United States. This was set
forth in every possible form, and argued in every possible phase,
with the well-known ability of General Butler ; and though other
charges were presented against the President, the House of Represen
tatives relied mainly upon this alleged offense for his conviction.
General Butler in his argument was evidently troubled by the
proviso in the Tenure-of-office Act, that members of the Cabinet
should hold their offices "during the term of the President by
whom they may have been appointed, and for one month longer."
He sought to anticipate his opponents' argument on this point.
"By whom was Mr. Stanton appointed?" asked General Butler.
" By Mr. Lincoln. Whose Presidential term was he holding under
when the bullet of Booth became the proximate cause of this trial ?
Was not his appointment in full force at that hour? Had any
act of President Johnson up to the twelfth day of August last
vitiated or interfered with that appointment ? Whose Presidential
term is Mr. Johnson now serving out ? His own or Mr. Lincoln's ?
If his own, he is entitled to four years up to the anniversary of the
murder, because each Presidential term is four years by the Consti
tution, aAd the regular recurrence of those terms is fixed by the Act
of May 8, 1792. If he is serving out the remainder of Mr. Lincoln's
term, then his term of office expires on the 4th of March, 1869, if it
does not before."
At the conclusion of General Butler's argument, the Managers
submitted their testimony in support of the charges brought by the
House. Some twenty-five witnesses in all were introduced by the
prosecution. Many of them were merely for the verification of
official papers which were submitted in evidence. The President's
speeches defaming Congress were produced and sworn to by the
reporters who took the notes when the President delivered them.
The Managers concluded their testimony on the fourth day of April
and the Senate took a recess for five days.
On the 9th of April Judge Curtis of the President's counsel
opened for the defense. He had no labored introduction, but went

ARGUMENT OF JUDGE CURTIS. 367
directly to his argument. He struck his first blow at the weak point
in General Butler's strong speech. Judge Curtis said : " There is a
question involved which enters deeply into the first eight Articles
of'Impeachment and materially touches two of the others ; and to
that question I desire in the first place to invite the attention of the
court, namely, whether Mr. Stanton's case comes under the Tenure-of-
office Act ? . . . I must ask your attention therefore to the construc
tion and application of the first section of that Act, as follows : ' that
every person holding an official position to which he has been ap
pointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and every
person who shall hereafter be appointed to any such office and shall
become duly qualified to act therein, is and shall be entitled to hold
such office until a successor shall have been in like manner appointed
and duly qualified, except as herein otherwise provided.' Then comes
what is 'otherwise provided.' '¦Provided however that the Secre
taries of the State, Treasury, War, Navy, and Interior Departments,
the Postmaster-General and Attorney-General, shall hold their offices
respectively for and during the term of the President by whom they
may have been appointed and for one month thereafter, subject to re
moval by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.'
"The first inquiry which arises on this language," said Judge
Curtis, " is as to the meaning of the words ' for and during the term
of the President.' Mr. Stanton, as appears by the commission which
has been put into the case by the honorable Managers, was appointed
in January, 1862, during the first term of President Lincoln. Are
these words, ' during the term of the President,' applicable to Mr.
Stanton's case ? That depends upon whether an expounder of this
law judicially, who finds set down in it as a part of the descriptive
words, ' during the term of the President,' has any right to add ' and
during any other term for which he may be afterwards elected.' I re
spectfully submit no such judicial interpretation can be put on the
words. Then if you please, take the next step. ' During the term
of the President by whom he was appointed.' At the time when
this order was issued for the removal of Mr. Stanton, was he hold
ing during the term of the President by whom he was appointed ?
The honorable Managers say, Yes ; because, as they say, Mr. John
son is merely serving out the residue of Mr. Lincoln's term. But is
that so under the provisions of the Constitution of the United
States? . . . Although the President, like the Vice-President, is
elected for a term of four years, and each is elected for the same

368 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
term, the President is not to hold his office absolutely during four
years. The limit of four years is not an absolute limit. Death is
a limit. A ' conditional limitation,' as the lawyers call it, is imposed
on his tenure of office. And when the President dies his term of
four years, for which he was elected and during which he was to
hold provided he should so long live, terminates and the office de
volves upon the Vice-President. For what period of time ? For
the remainder of the term for which the Vice-President was elected.
And there is no more propriety, under these provisions of the Con
stitution of the United States, in calling the time during which Mr.
Johnson holds the office of President, after it was devolved upon
him, a part of Mr. Lincoln's term than there would be propriety in
saying that one sovereign who succeeded another sovereign by death
holds part of his predecessor's term."
Judge Curtis consumed two days in the delivery of his argu
ment. He made a deep impression, not only on the members of
the Senate but on all who had the privilege of hearing him. His
manner was quiet and undemonstrative, with no gestures, and with
no attempt at loud talk. His language expressed his meaning
with precision. There was no deficiency and no redundancy. He
seldom used a word more or a word less than was needed to give
elegance to his diction, explicitness to his meaning, completeness to
his logic. He analyzed every argument of the Impeachment with
consummate skill. Those who dissented from his conclusions united
with those who assented to i them in praise of his masterly present
ment of the President's defense.
After Judge Curtis had concluded, witnesses were called on
behalf of the President. The struggle that followed for the admis
sion or exclusion of testimony obviously strengthened the Presi
dent's case in popular opinion, which is always influenced by
considerations of what is deemed fair play. Exclusion of testimony
by an arbitrary vote on mere technical objections, especially where
men equally learned in the law differ as to its competency and rel
evancy, is not wise in a political case that depends for its ultimate
judgment upon the sober thought of the people. Judge Curtis had
maintained with cogent argument that the President was entitled
to a judicial interpretation of the Tenure-of-office Law, and his
associate counsel, Mr. Evarts, in the progress of the case made this
proposition : —
" We offer to prove that the President at a meeting of the Cab-

TESTIMONY OFFERED AND REJECTED. 369
inet while the bill was before him for his approval, laid the Tenure-
of-office Bill before the Cabinet for their consideration and advice
respecting his approval of the bill, and thereupon the members of
the Cabinet then present gave their advice to the President that the
bill was unconstitutional and should be returned to Congress with
his objections, and that the duty of preparing the message setting
forth the objections to the constitutionality of the bill was devolved
upon Mr. Seward and Mr. Stanton." The Managers of the House
objected to the admission of the testimony and the question of its
admissibility was argued at length by General Butler, by Judge
Curtis, and by Mr. Evarts. Chief Justice Chase decided " that the
testimony is admissible for the purpose of showing the intent with
which the President has acted in this transaction." Mr. Howard of
Michigan thereupon demanded that the question be submitted to the
Senate, and by a vote of 29 to 20 the decision of the Chief Justice
was overruled and the testimony excluded. This exclusion impressed
the public most unfavorably.
Mr. Evarts offered further on behalf of the President, " to prove
that at the meetings of the Cabinet, at which Mr. Stanton was
present, held while the Tenure-of-office Bill was before the President
for his approval, the advice of the Cabinet in regard to the same
was asked by the President and given by the Cabinet, and there
upon the question whether Mr. Stanton and the other Secretaries
who had received their appointment from Mr. Lincoln were within
the restrictions upon the President's power of removal from office
created by said Act, was considered, and the opinion was ex
pressed that the Secretaries appointed by Mr. Lincoln were not
within such restrictions." The Chief Justice decided "that this
testimony is proper to be taken into consideration by the Senate
sitting as a Court of Impeachment," whereupon Senator Drake of
Missouri demanded that the question be submitted to the Senate,
and by a vote of 26 to 22 the Chief Justice was again overruled and
the testimony declared to be inadmissible.
On behalf of the President, Mr. Evarts then offered "to prove
that at the Cabinet meetings between the passage of the Tenure-
of-office Act and the order of the 21st of February, 1868, for the
removal of Mr. Stanton, upon occasions when the condition of
the public service was affected by the operation of that bill and it
came up for consideration and advice by the Cabinet, it was consid- ,
ered by the President and the Cabinet that a proper regard for the
Vol. II. 24

370 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
public service made it desirable that upon some proper case a judicial
determination of the constitutionality of the law should be obtained."
The Managers objected to the admission of the testimony, and the
Chief Justice, apparently tired of having his decisions overruled,
submitted the question at once to the Senate. By a vote of 30 to
19 the testimony was declared to be inadmissible. All the proffered
testimony on these several points was excluded while the Hon. Gideon
Welles, Secretary of the Navy, was on the stand. He was to be the
first witness to substantiate the offer of proof which the President's
counsel had made ; to be corroborated, if need be, by other members
of the Cabinet — possibly by Mr. Stanton himself.
The testimony on both sides having been concluded, on the 22d
of April General John A. Logan, one of the Managers on the part
of the House of Representatives, filed his argument in the case. It
was carefully prepared, well written, and throughout logical in its
analysis. It was uncompromisingly pungent in tone and severe in
its method of dealing with President Johnson. " The world," said
General Logan, " in after times will read the history of the Adminis
tration of Andrew Johnson as an illustration of the depth to which
political and official perfidy can descend. His great aim and purpose
has been to subvert law, usurp authority, insult and outrage Congress,
reconstruct the rebel States in the interest of treason, and insult the
memories and resting-places of our heroic dead."
Mr. Boutwell on the two succeeding days made a strong arraign
ment of the President. Indeed he made all that well could be made
out of the charges preferred by the House. He exhibited through
out his address the earnestness and the eloquence which come from
intense conviction. He believed that the President had committed
high crimes and misdemeanors, and he believed that the safety of the
Republic required his removal from office. With this belief his
argument was of course impressive. "The House of Representa
tives," said he in closing, " have presented this criminal at your bar
with equal confidence in his guilt and in your disposition to admin
ister exact justice between him and the people of the United States.
I do not contemplate his acquittal : it is impossible. Therefore I do
not look beyond ; but, senators, the people of the United States of
America will never permit an usurping Executive to break down the
securities for liberty provided in the Constitution. The cause of the
Republic is in your hands. Your verdict of Guilty is Peace to our
beloved country." Mr. Nelson of Tennessee followed Mr. Boutwell

ARGUMENT OF MR. GROESBECK. 371
with a long and earnest plea in behalf of the President, somewhat
effusive in its character but distinguished for the enthusiasm with
which he defended his personal friend.
Mr. Groesbeck next addressed the Senate on behalf of the Pres
ident. He made a clear, forcible presentation of the grounds of
defense. Mr. Boutwell had asserted " that the President cannot
prove or plead the motive by which he professes to have been gov
erned in his violation of the laws of the country. . . . The necessary,
the inevitable presumption in law is that he acted under the influence
of bad motives in so doing, and no evidence can be introduced con
trolling or coloring in any degree this necessary presumption of the
law." In reviewing this position, Mr. Groesbeck reminded the
Senate that President Lincoln had " claimed and exercised the power
of organizing military commissions under which he arrested and
imprisoned citizens within the loyal States. He had no Act of
Congress warranting it, and the Supreme Court has decided that the
act was against the express provisions of the Constitution. Accord
ing to the gentleman on the other side, then, Mr. Lincoln must be
convicted. . . . The gentleman seems to acknowledge that there
must be a motive. There can be no crime without motive ; but
when the party comes forward and offers to prove his motive, the
answer is, ' You shall not prove it.' When he comes forward and
offers to prove it from his warm, living heart, the answer is, ' We will
make up your motive out of the presumptions of law and conclude
you upon that subject. We will not hear you.' "
Mr. Boutwell renewed with vigor the argument that the excep
tion made in the Tenure-of-office Act, in regard to members of
the Cabinet, did not give the President power to1 remove Mr.
Stanton. "We maintain," said Mr. Boutwell, "that Mr. Stanton
was holding the office of Secretary of War for and in the term of
President Lincoln, by whom he had been appointed. ... It was
not a new office : it was not a new term. Mr. Johnson succeeded
to Mr. Lincoln's office and for the remainder of Mr. Lincoln's term
of office. He is serving out Mr. Lincoln's term as President."
Mr. Groesbeck's reply on this point was effective : " The gentle
man has said this is Mr. Lincoln's term. The dead have no owner
ship in offices or estate of any kind. Mr. Johnson is President of
the United States with a term, and this is his term. But it ivould
make no difference if Mr. Lincoln were living to-day. If Mr. Lincoln
were the President to-day he could remove Mr. Stanton. Mr. Lincoln

372 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
would not have appointed him during this term. It was during Mr.
Lincoln's first term that Mr. Stanton received his appointment, and
not this term ;. and an appointment by a President during one term, by
the operation of this law, will not extend the appointee during another
term because that same party may happen to be re-elected to the Pres
idency. Mr. Stanton therefore holds under his commission and not
under the law."
Mr. Thaddeus Stevens attempted to address the Senate, but he
found himself too much exhausted and handed his manuscript to
General Butler, who read it to the Senate. The argument had many
of the significant features of Mr. Stevens's style, but lacked the vigor
which in the clay of his strength he had always shown. He was
rapidly failing in health and was then within a few weeks of his
death. Hon. Thomas Williams of Pennsylvania followed Mr.
Stevens with a written argument, rhetorically finished and read with
great emphasis. It presented in new and attractive form the argu
ments already submitted, but towards the close contained the impru
dent expression that "the eyes of an expectant people -are upon the
Senate." Mr. Evarts followed with an argument of great length, reviewing
every phase and feature of the case and making a remarkably effective
plea on behalf of his eminent client. It was as strong in its logic as it
was faultless in its style. The concluding portion of the address was
especially eloquent and convincing. " We never dreamed," said he,
"that an instructed and equal people, with a government yielding
so readily to the touch of popular will, would have come to the trial
of force against it. We never thought that the remedy to get rid
of a ruler would bring assassination into our political experience.
We never thought that political differences under an elective Pres
idency would bring in array the departments of the Government
against one another to anticipate by ten months the operation of the ,
regular election. And yet we take them all, one after another, and
we take them because we have grown to the full vigor of manhood.
But we hay,e met by the powers of the Constitution these great
dangers — prophesied when they would arise as likely to be our
doom — the distractions of civil strife, the exhaustions of powerful
war, the intervention of the regularity of power through the violence
of assassination. We could summon from the people a million of
men and inexhaustible treasure to help the Constitution in its time
of need. Can we summon now resources enough of civil prudence

ARGUMENT OF MR. STANBERY. 373
and of restraint of passion to carry us through this trial, so that what
ever result may follow, in Avhatever form, the people may feel that
the Constitution has received no wound ? To this court, the last and
best resort for its determination, it is to be left."
Mr. Stanbery, unable to deliver his well-prepared argument,
employed one of the officers of the Attorney-General's department
to read the greater part of it. During his service as Attorney-Gen
eral he had become personally and deeply attached to the President,
and now made an earnest plea in his behalf. " During the eighty
years of our political existence," said' Mr. Stanbery, "we have wit
nessed the fiercest contests of party. ... A favorite legislative policy
has more than once been defeated by the obstinate and determined
resistance of the President, upon some of the gravest and most im
portant questions we have ever had or are ever likely to have. The
Presidential policy and the legislative policy have stood in direct
antagonism. During all that time this fearful power of Impeach
ment was in the hands of the legislative department, and more than
once a resort to it has been advised by extreme party men, as a sure
remedy for party purposes; but happily that evil hitherto has not
come upon us."
Hon. John A. Bingham summed up the case on behalf of the
House and reviewed all the charges against the President, answering
point by point the argument of his counsel. "I ask you, senators,"
said Mr. Bingham, " how long men would deliberate upon the ques
tion whether a private citizen, arraigned at the bar of one of your
tribunals of justice for criminal violation of law, should be per
mitted to interpose a plea in justification of his criminal act that
his only purpose was to interpret the Constitution and laws for
himself, that he violated the law in the exercise of his prerogative
to test its validity hereafter, at such day as might suit his own con
venience, in the courts of justice. Surely, senators, it is as compe
tent for the private citizen to interpose such justification in answer
to crime as it is for the President of the United States to interpose
it, and for the simple reason that the Constitution is no respecter of
persons, and vests neither in the President nor in the private citizen
judicial power. . . . For the Senate to sustain any such plea would
in my judgment be a gross violation of the already violated Consti
tution and laws of a free people."
When the counsel on both sides had finished, a certain period
was allowed for senators to prepare and file their opinions on the

374 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
case. This was done by twenty-nine senators 1 and the question was
thus re-argued with consummate ability, for the Senate contained a
number of lawyers of high rank and long experience at the bar. On
the 11th of May the Senate was ready to vote, and the interest in the
result was intense. There had been much speculation as to the posi
tion of certain senators, but as all the members of the body had main
tained discreet silence during the trial, it was impossible to forecast
the result with any degree of certainty. The only judgment that had
the least significance was founded on the votes given to admit or to
reject certain testimony proposed by the President's counsel. This
of course gave no certain indication of the vote of senators ; though
the general belief was that the Impeachment would fail. The trans
fer of the entire House to the floor of the Senate, the galleries
crowded with citizens from all parts of the Republic, the presence
of all the foreign ministers in the Diplomatic Gallery eagerly watch
ing the possible and peaceful deposition of a sovereign ruler, the
large attendance of the representatives of the press, — all attested
the profound impression which the trial had made and the intense
anxiety with which its conclusion was awaited.
By an order of the Senate the first vote was taken on the last
Article, which was a summary of many of the charges set forth at
greater length in some of the preceding Articles of Impeachment.
Upon the call of his name each senator was required to rise and
answer " Guilty " or " Not guilty." The roll was called in breathless
silence, with hundreds of tally-papers in the hands of eager observers
on the floor and in the gallery, carefully noting each response as
given. The result, announced at once by the Chief Justice, showed
that thirty-five senators had declared the President "guilty" and
nineteen had declared him " not guilty." 2 As conviction required two-
1 The following senators filed opinions : —
Messrs. Ferry of Connecticut, Trumbull and Yates of Illinois, Hendricks of Indi
ana, Grimes and Harlan of Iowa, Pomeroy of Kansas, Davis of Kentucky, Fessenden
and Morrill of Maine, Johnson and Vickers of Maryland, Sumner and Wilson of Massa
chusetts, Howard of Michigan, Henderson of Missouri, Tipton of Nebraska, Stewart of
Nevada, Patterson of New Hampshire, Frelinghuysen and Cattell of New Jersey, Sher
man of Ohio, Williams of Oregon, Buckalew of Pennsylvania, Edmunds and Morrill of
Vermont, Van Winkle of West Virginia, Howe and Doolittle of Wisconsin.
2 The following is the vote of the Senate in detail. Republicans are given in Roman,
Democrats in Italic, Administration Republicans in small oapitals. Every senator was
present and voted.
Guilty. —Messrs. Anthony of Rhode Island, Cameron of Pennsylvania, Cattell of
New Jersey, Chandler of Michigan, Cole of California, Conkling of New York, Conness
of California, Corbett of Oregon, Cragin of New Hampshire, Drake of Missouri, Ed-

THE CLOSE OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. 375
thirds the Impeachment on the Eleventh Article had failed. A
debate then arose on a proposition to rescind the resolution in regard
to the order in which the vote should be taken upon the other Arti
cles of Impeachment, but without reaching a conclusion, the Senate
as a Court of Impeachment adjourned, on motion of Mr. Cameron of
Pennsylvania, until Tuesday the 26th day of May.
During the intervening period of fifteen days the air was filled
with rumors that the result would be different when the Senate
should come to vote on the remaining Articles. A single senator
changing against the President would give thirty-six for conviction,
and leave only eighteen for acquittal. This would be fatal to the
President, as it would give the two-thirds necessary for conviction.
But it was not so ordained. When the Senate re-assembled on the
26th, the vote was taken on the Second Article, and then upon the
Third, with precisely the same result as was previously reached
on the Eleventh Article. When Mr. Ross of Kansas answered
"Not guilty," there was an audible sensation of relief on the part
of some, and of surprise on the part of others, showing quite plainly
that rumor had been busy with his name as that of the senator
who was expected to change his position. Satisfied that further
voting was useless, the Senate abandoned the remaining Articles,
and as a Court of Impeachment adjourned sine die.

The great trial was over, and the President retained his high
office. In the ranks of the more radical portion of the Republican
party there was an outbreak of indignation against the Republican
senators who had voted " Not guilty." In the exaggerated denuncia
tion caused by the anger and chagrin of the moment, great injustice
munds of Vermont, Ferry of Connecticut, Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, Harlan of
Iowa, Howard of Michigan, Howe of Wisconsin, Morgan of New York, Morrill of Maine,
Morrill of Vermont, Morton of Indiana, Nye of Nevada, Patterson of New Hampshire,
Pomeroy of Kansas, Ramsey of Minnesota, Sherman of Ohio, Sprague of Rhode Island,
Stewart of Nevada, Sumner of Massachusetts, Thayer of Nebraska, Tipton of Nebraska,
Wade of Ohio, Willey of West Virginia, Williams of Oregon, Wilson of Massachusetts.
and Yates of Illinois — 35.
Not Guilty. — Messrs. Bayard of Delaware, Buckaleio of Pennsylvania, Davis of
Kentucky, Dixon of Connecticut, Doolittle of Wisconsin, Fessenden of Maine, Fowler
of Tennessee, Grimes of Iowa, Henderson of Missouri, Hendricks of Indiana, Johnson
of Maryland, McCreery of Kentucky, Norton of Minnesota, Patterson of Tennessee,
Ross of Kansas, Saulsbury of Delaware, Trumbull of Illinois, Van Winkle of West
Virginia, and Vickers of Maryland — 19.

376 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
was done to statesmen of spotless character. But until time had been
given for reflection on the part of the excited mass of disappointed
men, it was idle to interpose a word in defense, much less in justifica
tion, of the senators who had conscientiously differed from the main
body of their political associates. While, however, the majority of
Republicans shared in the chagrin caused by the defeat of Impeach
ment, a large and increasing number of the cool-headed and more
conservative members of the party took a different view. Men of
this class rejoiced at the result as a fortunate exit from an indefensi
ble position, which had been taken in the heat of just resentment
against the President for his desertion of those important principles
of public policy to which he had been solemnly pledged. Still another
class, even more numerous than the last-named, took a less conscien
tious but more sanguine view of the situation — rejoicing both in the
act of Impeachment and in the failure to convict. Their specious
belief was that the narrow escape which the President had made
would frighten him out of all mischievous designs for the remainder
of his term ; while the narrow escape which the party had made, left
to it in the impending Presidential contest all the advantage of politi
cal power so firmly held by Congress, and at the same time imposed
upon the Democrats the responsibility for a discredited and disgraced
Administration of the Government.
The sober reflection of later years has persuaded many who
favored Impeachment that it was not justifiable on the charges made,
and that its success would have resulted in greater injury to free
institutions than Andrew Johnson in his utmost endeavor was able
to inflict. No impartial reader can examine the record of the plead
ings and arguments of the Managers who appeared on behalf of the
House, without feeling that the President was impeached for one
series of misdemeanors, and tried for another series. This was per
haps not unnatural. The Republicans had the gravest cause to
complain of the President's course on public affairs. He had pro
fessed the most radical creed of their party, had sought their
confidence, had received their suffrages. Entrusted with the chief
Executive power of the Nation by Republican ballots, he professed
upon his accession to office the most entire devotion to the principles
of the party ; but he had, with a baseness hardly to be exaggerated,
repudiated his professions, deserted the friends who had confided in
him, and made an alliance with those who had been the bitterest foes
of the Union in the bloody struggle which had just closed.

THE REAL OFFENSES OF THE PRESIDENT. 377
In the outraged and resentful minds of those who had sustained
the Union cause through its trials, the real offenses of the President
were clearly seen, and bitterly denounced: — his hostility to the
Fourteenth Amendment ; his unwillingness to make citizenship
National; his opposition to all efforts to secure the safety of the
public debt, and the sacredness of the soldier's pension; his resistance
to measures that would put the rebel debt beyond the possibility of
being a burden upon the whole nation or even upon the people of
the Southern States ; his determination that freedmen should not be
placed within the protection of Organic law ; his eagerness to turn
the Southern States over to the control of the rebel element, without
condition and without restraint ; his fixed hostility to every form of
reconstruction that looked to national safety and the prevention of
another rebellion; his opposition to every scheme that tended to
equalize representation in Congress, North and South, and his per
sistent demand that the negro should be denied suffrage, yet be
counted in the basis of apportionment; his treacherous and ma
lignant conduct in connection with the atrocious massacre at New
Orleans ; his hostility to the growth of free States in the North- West,
while he was constantly urging the instant re-admission of all the
rebel States ; his denial of a morsel of food to the suffering and
starving negro and white Unionist of the South in their dire ex
tremity, as shown by his veto of the Freedmen's-bureau Bill ; his
cruel attempt to exclude the colored man from the power to protect
himself by law, in his shameless veto of the Civil Rights Bill ; and
last, and worst of all, his heartless abandonment of that Union-lov
ing class of white men in the South who became the victims of rebel
hatred, from which he had himself escaped only by the strength of
the National arms. In recounting all the acts which made up the
roll of his political dishonor, Johnson had, in Republican opinion,
committed none so hideous as his turning over the Southern Union
ists to the vengeance of those who, as he well knew, were incapable
of dealing with them in a spirit of justice, and who were unwilling
to show mercy, even after they had themselves received it in quality
that was not strained.
Could the President have been legally and constitutionally im
peached for these offenses he should not have been allowed to hold
his office for an hour beyond the time required for a fair trial. But
the Articles of Impeachment did not even refer to any charge of this
kind, and a stranger to our history, in perusing them, could not pos-

378 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
sibly infer that behind the legal verbiage of the Articles there was in
the minds of the representatives who presented them a deadly hos
tility to the President for offenses totally different from the technical
violation of a statute, for which he was arraigned, — a statute that
never ought to have been enacted, as was practically confessed by
its framers, when, within less than a year after the Impeachment trial
had closed, they modified its provisions by taking away their most
offensive features.
The charges on which the House actually arraigned the President
were in substance, that he had violated the Tenure-of-office Act ;
that he had conspired with Lorenzo Thomas to violate it ; that he
had consulted with General Emory to see whether, independent of
the General-in-Chief, he could not issue orders to the army to aid
him in his determination to violate it ; and lastly, that he had spoken
of Congress in such a manner as tended to bring a co-ordinate branch
of the Government into " disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt, and
reproach." ' The charge of conspiring with Lorenzo Thomas, as well
as that in respect to General Emory, appeared in the end to be not
only unsu stained, but trivial. The President had conspired in
precisely the same way with General Sherman when he urged him to
accept the post of Secretary of War as Mr. Stanton's successor. The
charge that he had attempted to bring Congress into "disgrace,
ridicule, hatred, contempt, and reproach," was laughingly answered
in popular opinion, by the fact that he had not been able to say
half so many bitter things about Congress as Congress had said
about him ; and that, as the elections had shown, Congress had tri
umphed, and turned the popular contempt and ridicule against the
President. Besides, the offense charged against the President had
been committed nearly two years before, and seemed to be recalled
now for popular effect in the construction of the Articles of Im
peachment. This charge richly deserved the satire it received at
the hands of Judge Curtis when he spoke of " the House of Repre
sentatives erecting itself into a school of manners, and desiring
the judgment of the Senate whether the President has not been
guilty of an indecorum; whether he has spoken properly?" . . .
" Considering the nature of our government," said Judge Curtis,
" and the experience we have had on this subject, that is a pretty
lofty claim ! "
In fact there was but one charge of any gravity against the
President — that of violating the Tenure-of-office Act. But on this

JUDGMENT OF EMINENT LAWYERS. 379
charge there was a very grave difference of opinion among those
equally competent to decide. Mr. Fessenden, one of the ablest law
yers, if not indeed the very ablest that has sat in the Senate since
Mr. Webster, believed on his oath and his honor — an oath that was
sacred and an honor that was stainless — that the President had a
lawful and Constitutional right to remove Mr. Stanton at the time
and in the manner he did. Mr. Trumbull, whose legal ability had
been attested by his assignment to the chairmanship of the Judiciary
Committee, believed with Mr. Fessenden, as did Mr. Grimes of
Iowa, one of the strongest members of the Senate, and Mr. Hender
son of Missouri, whose legal attainments have since given him a high
professional reputation. Let it be frankly admitted that lawyers of
equal rank conscientiously believed in the President's guilt. This
only proves that there was ground for a substantial and fundamental
difference of opinion, and that it could not therefore with certainty
be charged that the President, " unmindful of the high duties of his
office, did this act in violation of the Constitution of the United
States." This was the very question in dispute, — the question in
regard to which lawyers of eminent learning and impartial mind,
members of the Republican party and zealous opponents of the
President's policy, radically differed in judgment. Opinions of dis
tinguished lawyers on the Democratic side of the Senate, like Reverdy
Johnson, are not quoted, because partisan motives would be ascribed
to their conclusions.
Perhaps the best test as to whether the act of the President in
removing Mr. Stanton was good ground for impeachment, would be
found in asking any candid man if he believes a precisely similar
act by Mr. Lincoln, or General Grant, or any other President in
harmony with his party in Congress, would have been followed by im
peachment, or by censure, or even by dissent. It is hardly conceiv
able, nay, it is impossible, that under such circumstances the slightest
notice would be taken of the President's action by either branch of
Congress. If there was a difference of opinion as to the intent and
meaning of a law, the general judgment in the case supposed would
be that the President had the right to act upon his own conscientious
construction of the statute. It might not be altogether safe to con
cede to the Executive the broad scope of discretion which General
Jackson arrogated to himself in his celebrated veto of the Bank Bill,
when he declared that " The Congress, the Executive, and the Court
must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution.

380 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution
swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is
understood by others." But without approving the extreme doctrine
which General Jackson announced with the applause of his party, it
is surely not an unreasonable assumption that in the case of a statute
which has had no judicial interpretation and whose meaning is not
altogether clear, the President is not to be impeached for acting upon
his own understanding of its scope and intent: — especially is he not
to be impeached when he offers to prove that he was sustained in his
opinion by every member of his Cabinet, and offers further to prove
by the same honorable witnesses that he took the step in order to
subject the statute in dispute to judicial interpretation.
It is to be noted that in the progress of the trial the Managers on
the part of the House and the counsel of the President proceeded
upon entirely different grounds as to what constituted an offense
punishable with impeachment. General Butler, who opened the
case against the President with circumspection and ability, took
care to exclude the idea that actual crime on the part of the officer
was essential to justify impeachment. Speaking for all the Managers
he said, " We define an impeachable high crime or misdemeanor to
be one in its nature or consequences subversive of some fundamental
or essential principle of government or highly prejudicial to the
public interest ; and this may consist of a violation of the Constitution,
of law, of an official oath, or of duty, by an act committed or omitted ; or,
without violating a positive law, by the abuse of discretionary powers from
improper motives or for any improper purpose." This of course would
give great latitude in proceedings against the President. It would
challenge his discretion, erect sins of omission into positive offenses,
and make inquest of his motives and purposes. There has not been
an occupant of the Executive Chair since the organization of the
Government, who did not at some period in his career commit an
act which in the judgment of his political opponents was " highly
prejudicial to the public interest," and therefore if his opponents
should happen to be in the majority they might impeach him, simply
for disagreement upon an issue of expediency upon which men equally
competent to judge might reasonably and conscientiously hold differ
ent opinions. This was in effect the same position assumed by
Mr. Thaddeus Stevens, that "in order to sustain impeachment under
the Constitution it is not necessary to prove a crime as an indictable
offense, or any act malum in se. It is a purely political proceeding."

GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE TRIAL. 381
The counsel for the President dissented altogether from this defi
nition of the grounds of Impeachment as given by the Managers.
Judge Curtis declared that " when the Constitution speaks of trea
son, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors, it refers to
and includes only high criminal offenses against the United States,
made so by some law of the United States existing when the acts
complained of were done. . . . Noscitur a sociis. High crimes and
misdemeanors ! so high that they belong in this company with trea
son and bribery." The position of Judge Curtis was fortified by the
fact that in the five cases of Impeachment tried before the President
was accused — the cases of Blount, of Pickering, of Chase, of Peck,
and of Humphries — the charges preferred by the House involved
criminality. Outside of professional opinion there was supposed to be a pop
ular demand, so far as the Republican party represented the people,
for the President's conviction — a demand found to be based, when
analyzed, upon other acts of the President than those for which he
was arraigned in the Articles of Impeachment. The people in this
respect followed precisely in the line of their Representatives. It
was certainly not a praiseworthy procedure that this supposed pop
ular wish should have been mentioned at all as an argument for
conviction. The most dignified of the many comments which this
feature of the trial elicited was by Senator Fessenden, in the official
opinion which accompanied his vote : — "To the suggestion that pop
ular opinion demands the conviction of the President on these
charges, I reply that he is not now on trial before the people, but
before the Senate. In the words of Lord Eldon, upon the trial of
the Queen, ' I take no notice of what is passing out of doors, because
I am supposed constitutionally not to be acquainted with it. j . .
It is the duty of those upon whom a judicial task is imposed to meet
reproach, and not to court popularity.' . . . The people have not
taken an oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution
and the law. I have taken that oath."
The trial of President Johnson is the most memorable attempt
made by any English-speaking people to depose a sovereign ruler in
strict accordance with all the forms of law. The order, dignity and
solemnity which marked the proceedings may therefore be recalled
with pride by every American citizen. From the beginning to the
end there was no popular menace, or even suggestion of disturbance
or violence, let the trial end as it might. If the President had been

382 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
convicted he would have quietly retired from the Executive Mansion
and Benjamin F. Wade, President of the Senate, sworn by the Chief
Justice in the presence of the two Houses of Congress, would have
assumed the power and performed the duties of Chief Magistrate
of the Nation. During the original agitation of Impeachment in the
House of Representatives some imprudent expressions had been
made by hot-headed partisans, in regard to the right of the Pres
ident to disperse Congress and appeal directly to the people to vin
dicate his title to his office. But these declarations were of no
weight and their authors would have promptly retracted them in
the hour of danger.
The time within which the trial of the President was comprised,
from the presentation of the charges by the House of Representa
tives until the final adjournment of the Senate as a Court of Im
peachment, was eighty-two days. Within that period the amplest
opportunity was afforded to submit testimony and to hear the pleas
of counsel. The gravity of the procedure was fully realized by all
who took part in it, and no pains were spared to secure the observ
ance of every Constitutional requirement to the minutest detail. In
conserving its own prerogatives Congress made no attempt to curtail
the prerogatives of the President during his trial. The army and the
navy were under his control, together with the power to change that
vast host of Federal officers and employees whose appointment does
not require the confirmation of the Senate. Confidence in the reign
of law was so absolute that no one ever dreamed it possible for the
President to resist the force of its silent decree against him if one
more voice in the Senate had pronounced him guilty.
The trial of Warren Hastings is always quoted as a precedent of
imposing authority and consequence. But that was simply the ar
raignment of a subordinate official, upon charges of peculation and
cruelty — misdemeanors not uncommon with the Englishmen of that
day who were entrusted with Colonial administration. The great
length of the Hastings trial, and especially the participation of
Edmund Burke as original accuser and chief manager, have given it
an extraneous importance to students of English history and law.
The Articles of Impeachment, drawn by Mr. Burke, were presented
at the bar of the House of Lords in April, 1786. They were so
elaborate as to fill a stately octavo volume of five hundred pages.
Mr. Burke's opening speech was not made for two years thereafter,
and his closing plea was made in June 1794. During these eight

RESIGNATION OF MR. STANTON. 383
years his splendid eloquence was the admiration and pride of the
English people, and gave to the arraignment of Hastings an extrinsic
interest far beyond its real importance. It bore no comparison in any
of its essential aspects with a change of Rulership in a Republic of
forty millions of people. Scarcely an incident of Hastings' life in
India would be known to the popular reader, except for the asso
ciation of his name with the most celebrated period of Mr. Burke's
majestic career. Baron Plassy, a far greater man in the same field
of achievement, is, compared with Hastings, little known — the title
not being remembered even by the mass of his countrymen to-day as
part of the reward to Robert Clive for founding the British Empire
in India. But the importance of the President's Impeachment does not
depend upon the fame of his accusers or upon the length of his trial.
The case in itself possesses intrinsic and enduring interest. It was
not affected by factitious circumstances. It is notable especially
because of the extreme tension to which it subjected the Consti
tution, and the attestation it affords of the restraint which a free
people instinctively impose upon themselves in times of public excite
ment. It will be studied as a precedent, or as a warning, by the
citizens of the Great Republic during the centuries through which,
God grant, it may pass with increasing prosperity and renown. And
it may well happen that in the crises of a distant future the mo
mentous trial of 1868, though properly resulting in acquittal of the
accused, will be recalled as demonstrating the ease and the serenity
with which, if necessity should demand it, the citizens of a free
country can lawfully deprive a corrupt or dangerous Executive of
the office he has dishonored and the power he has abused.

Mr. Stanton promptly resigned his post when the Impeachment
failed and returned to private life and to the practice of his profes
sion. He was accompanied into his retirement by a vote of thanks
from Congress for " the great ability, purity and fidelity with which
he had discharged his public duties " ; and in confirming his successor,
the Senate adopted a resolution that Mr. Stanton was not legally
removed, but had relinquished his office. He was broken in health
and very keenly disappointed by the failure of the Impeachment.
He supported General Grant for the Presidency and made one or

384 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
two important public speeches in aid of his election. On the 20th of
December, 1869, he was appointed by President Grant an Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. For many years
of his eminent professional life this high judicial position was the one
ambition which Mr. Stanton had cherished. But its realization came
too late. His prolonged labors, his anxieties and his disappointments
had done their work, and on the 24th of December, five days after he
had completed his fifty-fifth year, he sank to his grave, after herculean
labors for the safety and honor of his country.
General John M. Schofield was nominated by the President as
Mr. Stanton's successor and was confirmed by the Senate. He had
an unexceptionable record as a soldier, was a man of spotless per
sonal character, and possessed of sound judgment and discretion.
His ability for civil administration had been tested and satisfactorily
demonstrated during his command of the District of Virginia in the
period of reconstruction, and also in a certain degree during the war
when Mr. Lincoln entrusted to him the difficult task of preserving
loyal ascendency in Missouri. He took charge of the War Depart
ment at a difficult and critical time, but his administration of it
was in all respects successful and received the commendation of fair-
minded men in all parties.
Immediately after his acquittal the President renominated Mr.
Stanbery for Attorney-General. The Senate, in a spirit of resent
ment not altogether praiseworthy or intelligible, rejected him. It
was rumored that Mr. Stanbery's previous course as Attorney-Gen
eral " in construing the Reconstruction Acts " had given offense to
certain senators. No reason, however, was assigned and indeed no
good reason could be given, for this personal injustice to an able
lawyer and an honorable man. He was simply a victim to the politi
cal excitement of the hour. Upon Mr. Stanbery's rejection the
President nominated Mr. Evarts to his first official position under
the National Government. He was promptly confirmed, and, it need
not be added, discharged the duties of Attorney-General with eminent
ability and with a popularity which tended to re-establish in some
degree those relations of personal courtesy always so desirable be
tween Congress and the Executive Departments.

CHAPTER XV.
Presidential Election of 1868. — Republican National Convention at Chicago.
— General Grant the Clearly Indicated Candidate of his Party. — Contest
for the Vice-Presidency. — Wade, Colfax, Fenton, Wilson, Curtin. — Spirited
Balloting. — Colfax nominated. — Platform. — Democratic National Conven
tion. — Meets in New York, July 4. — Numerous Candidates. — George H.
Pendleton most Prominent. — An Organized Movement for Chief Justice
Chase. — His Alliance with the Democracy. — His Eagerness for the Nomi
nation. — His Friendly Relations with Vallandigham. — President Johnson.
— Seeks Democratic Indorsement. — Mr. August Belmont's Opening Speech.
— Horatio Seymour President of the Convention. — His Arraignment of
the Republican Party. — Character of his Mind. — The Democratic Plat
form. — Favors paying the Public Debt in Paper Money. — Declares the
Reconstruction Acts to be Usurpations. — Wade Hampton's Prominence.
— Various Names presented for the Presidency. — Varying Fortunes of
Candidates. — Seymour nominated. — The Vice-Presidency. — Frank Blair
nominated by acclamation. — aggressive campaign on both sides. — mr.
Seymour's Popular Tour. — Final Result. — General Grant's Election.
THE stirring events which preceded the Presidential campaign
of 1868 brought both parties to that contest with aroused
feeling and earnest purpose. The passionate struggle of which Pres
ident Johnson was the centre, had inspired the Republicans with an
ardor and a resolution scarcely surpassed during the intense period
of the war. The failure, on the 16th of May, to find the President
guilty as charged in the Eleventh Article of Impeachment, was
received by the public as a general acquittal, without waiting for the
vote of the 26th. A large proportion of the delegates to the Repub
lican National Convention which met at Chicago on the 20th of May,
gathered under the influence of keen disappointment at the Presi
dent's escape from what they believed to be merited punishment.
Though baffled in their hope of deposing the man whom they re
garded with the resentment that always follows the political apostate,
they were none the less animated by the high spirit which springs
from conscious strength and power. They were the representatives
of an aggressive and triumphant party, and felt that though suffering
Vol. II. 25 385

386 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
an unexpected chagrin they were moving forward with certainty to
a new and brilliant victory. The chief work of the Convention was
determined in advance. The selection of General Grant as the can
didate for the Presidency had for months been clearly foreshadowed
and universally accepted by the Republican party. At an earlier
stage there had been an effort to direct public thought towards some
candidate who was more distinctively a party chief, and who held
more pronounced political views; but public sentiment pointed so
unmistakably and irresistibly to General Grant that this effort was
found to be hopeless and was speedily abandoned. The enthusi
asm for General Grant was due to something more than the mere
fact that he was the chief hero of the war. It rested upon broader
ground than popular gratitude for his military services — great as
that sentiment was. During the conflict between Congress and the
President, General Grant had been placed in a trying position, and "
he had borne himself with a discretion and dignity which deepened the
popular confidence in his sound judgment and his tact. The people
felt that besides the great qualities he had displayed in war, he was
peculiarly fitted to lead in restoring peace and the reign of law.
Though the main work of the Convention was simply to ratify the
popular choice, the party sent many conspicuous men as delegates.
Joseph R. Hawley, William Claflin, Eugene Hale, George B. Loring,
and William E. Chandler were present from the New-England States.
New York was especially strong in the number of its prominent men.
General Daniel E. Sickles, with his honorable war record, Lyman
Tremaine, who had been Attorney-General of the State, Charles An
drews, since its Chief Justice, Moses H. Grinnell, Chauncey M.
Depew, Ellis H. Roberts, Frank Hiscock, and others of scarcely less
rank made up the notable delegation. Pennsylvania sent Colonel
Forney and General Harry White, while Colonel A. K. McClure
appeared in the Convention as a substitute. Maryland sent John A.
J. Creswell, afterward in General Grant's Cabinet. John A. Bingham
came from Ohio. The Indiana delegation included Richard W.
Thompson and Senator Henry S. Lane. John A. Logan and Emory
A. Storrs represented the great State of which General Grant was a
citizen. Governor Van Zandt of Rhode Island, Senator Cattell and
Cortlandt L. Parker of New Jersey, Ex-Attorney-General Speed of
Kentucky, Carl Schurz and Governor Fletcher of Missouri, added
strength and character to the roll of delegates.
The Convention rapidly completed its work, being in session but

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION. 387
two days. The opening speech by the Chairman of the National
Committee, Governor Ward of New Jersey, was short and pointed.
He expressed the dominant thought in the minds of all when he
said: "If, as indicated by the unanimity of feeling which prevails
here, you shall designate as our leader the great Captain of the age,
whose achievements in the field have been equaled by his wisdom
in the Cabinet, the 'Nation will greet it as the precursor of victory
to our cause, of peace to the Republic." Carl Schurz was selected
as temporary chairman, and his speech reflected the prevalent feel
ing of all Republicans. He exulted in the great achievements of the
party, now freshly recalled in its first National Convention since the
successful close of the war, and proclaimed its purpose to finish and
perfect the work of reconstructing the Union on the broad basis of
equal rights.
For permanent President of the Convention General Sickles and
General Hawley had both been prominently mentioned and warmly
advocated. The vote between them in the committee on permanent
organization was a tie. But New York bent every thing to the pur
pose of nominating Governor Fenton for the Vice-Presidency, and
feared that the selection of General Sickles for the highest honor
of the Convention might prejudice his chances. By the casting vote
of Hamilton Harris of Albany, a special friend of Governor Fenton
and a man of marked sagacity in political affairs, the choice fell upon
General Hawley. His speech on taking the chair was earnest and
impressive. . He briefly reviewed what the party had accomplished
in war and in peace, and emphasized the obligation of crowning these
triumphs with the permanent establishment of equal and exact jus
tice. He was especially forcible in rebuking the current financial
heresies and in insisting that the full demands of the Nation's honor
should be scrupulously observed. " For every dollar of the national
debt," he declared, "the blood of a soldier is pledged." "Every
bond, in letter and in spirit, must be as sacred as a soldier's grave."
As these patriotic maxims were pronounced by General Hawley, the
whole Convention broke forth in prolonged applause.
The platform, reported on the second day, succinctly stated the
Republican policy. It made two principles conspicuous : first, equal
suffrage ; and second, the maintenance of the public faith. These
were the pivots on which the political controversy of the year turned.
They embraced the two supreme questions left by the war. The
one involved the restoration of public liberty, in harmony with pub-

388 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
lie safety, in the lately rebellious States. The other involved the
honor of the Republic in observing its financial obligations. The
Reconstruction policy rested on equal suffrage as its corner-stone,
and the Convention congratulated the country on its established
success, as shown by its acceptance already in a majority of the
Southern States, and its assured acceptance in all. Equal suffrage
was still regarded however rather as an expedient- of security against
disloyalty than as a measure of National right, rather as an incident
to the power of re-organizing rebellious communities than as a sub
ject of National jurisdiction for all the States.
The Fourteenth Amendment was about to be proclaimed, and
would place American citizenship under Constitutional protection.
The Fifteenth Amendment, ordaining equal political and civil rights,
had not yet come. In this period of transition the platform asserted
that the guarantee of suffrage to the loyal men of the South must be
maintained, but that the question of suffrage in the loyal States
belonged to the States themselves. This was an evasion of duty
quite unworthy of the Republican party, with its record of con
sistent bravery through fourteen eventful years. It was a mere
stroke of expediency to escape the prejudices which negro suffrage
would encounter in a majority of the loyal States, and especially in
Indiana and California, where a close vote was anticipated. The
position carried with it an element of deception, because every intel
ligent man knew that it would be impossible to force negro suffrage
on the Southern States by National authority, and leave the Northern
States free to exclude it from their own domain. It was an extraor
dinary proposition that the South, after all the demoralization wrought
by the war, should be called upon to exhibit a higher degree of politi
cal justice and virtue than the North was willing to practice.
On the financial issue the platform was earnest and emphatic. It
denounced all forms of repudiation as a national crime, and demanded
the payment of the public debt in the utmost good faith, according to
the letter and the spirit of the law. The resolutions reflected uni
versal Republican feeling in an impassioned arraignment of President
Johnson. At the same time they commended the spirit of magna
nimity and forbearance with which those who had taken up arms
against the Union were received into fellowship with loyal men, and
favored the removal of all political disabilities as rapidly as was con
sistent with public safety.
When the preliminary business of the Convention had been con-

NOMINATION FOR THE VICE-PRESIDENCY. 389
eluded, John A. Logan, in a vigorous and eloquent speech, presented
the name of General Grant for President. On a call of the roll the
nomination was repeated by the entire Convention without a dissent
ing voice. The announcement of his unanimous nomination was
received with a great outburst of enthusiasm. The parallel to this
unanimity could be found in but few instances in our political his
tory, and it augured well for the success of the canvass in which
General Grant was thus made the standard-bearer.
The absence of any contest on the chief nomination imparted
unusual spirit and interest to the struggle for the Vice-Presidency.
Three candidates were urged by their respective friends with great
zeal and earnestness. Benjamin F. Wade of Ohio, President pro
tempore of the Senate, was already acting Vice-President. If the
Impeachment trial had ended in the conviction of President John
son, Mr. Wade would have succeeded him for the unexpired term,
and from this coigne of vantage would doubtless have secured the
nomination for the second office. The failure of Impeachment,
though fatal to his success, did not dissipate the support which his
long services and marked fidelity had commanded, without any of
the adventitious aids of power. He had entered the Senate seven
teen years before and found there but four members devoted to the
cause of free soil. Seward, Sumner, Chase, and John P. Hale had
preceded him. Less favored than these senators in the advantages of
early life, less powerful in debate, he yet brought to the common
cause some qualities which they did not possess. His bluff address,
his aggressive temper, his readiness to meet the champions of slavery
in physical combat as well as in intellectual discussion, drew to him
a large measure of popular admiration.
For several years Governor Fenton had been rising to leadership
among New-York Republicans. His political skill had been shown
while a member of the House, in forming the combination which
made Galusha A. Grow Speaker of the Thirty-seventh Congress.
Though not conspicuous in debate he had gained a high reputation
as a sagacious counselor and a safe leader. Of Democratic ante
cedents, he had never been in favor with the political dynasty
which so long ruled New York, and of which Thurlow Weed was
the acknowledged head. With his conservative views that consum
mate politician could not keep pace with his party during the war,
and thus lost the mastery which he had so long held without dis
pute. Thereupon Mr. Fenton quietly seized the sceptre which Mr.

390 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Weed had been compelled to relinquish. Elected Governor over
Horatio Seymour in 1864, he was re-elected in 1866 over John T.
Hoffman, and his four years in that exalted office not only increased
his reputation but added largely to his political power. The New-
York delegation to the National Convention was chosen under his
own eye and was admirably fitted to serve its purpose. It was not
only earnest in its loyalty but strong in character and ability. It
embraced an unusual number of representative men, and with the
favorable estimate which Republicans everywhere held of Governor
Fenton's services and administration, their efforts made a marked
impression upon the Convention.
The friends of Schuyler Colfax relied less on thorough organiza
tion and systematic work than upon the commop judgment that he
would be a fit and available candidate. He was then at the height of
his successful career. He was in the third term of his Speakership,
and had acquitted himself in that exacting place with ability and
credit. Genial and cordial, with unfailing tact and aptitude, skillful
in cultivating friendships and never provoking enmities, he had in a
rare degree the elements that insure popularity. The absence of the
more rugged and combative qualities which diminished his force in
the stormy struggles of the House, served now to bring him fewer
antagonisms as a candidate.
Beside the names of Wade, Fenton, and Colfax, two or three
others were presented, though not so earnestly urged or so strongly
supported. Senator Wilson of Massachusetts had warm friends and
was fourth in the rank of candidates. Pennsylvania presented
Governor Curtin, but with a divided and disorganized force which
crippled at the outset the effort in his behalf. The delegation was
nominally united for him, but fourteen of the number were friends
of Senator Cameron, and were at heart hostile to Governor Curtin.
Mr. J. Donald Cameron, son of the senator, appeared in person as
a contesting delegate. The State Convention had assumed the
authority to name the delegates from the several Congressional dis
tricts. Mr. Cameron denied that the State Convention had any such
prerogative. He presented himself with the Dauphin credentials as
the champion of the right of district representation. He was ad
mitted to nothing more than an honorary seat, but the opposition of
himself and Iris friends had the desired effect in preventing the
candidacy of Governor Curtin from becoming formidable.
On the first ballot Mr. Wade led with 147 votes. Mr. Fenton

SCHUYLER COLFAX FOR VICE-PRESIDENT. 391
was next with 126, Mr. Colfax followed with 125, and Mr. Wilson
with 119. Mr. Curtin had 51, and the remainder were scattering.
Several of the minor candidates immediately dropped out, and on the
second ballot the vote for Wade was raised to 170, for Colfax to 145,
and for Fenton to 144. The third and fourth ballots showed nearly
equal gains for Wade and Colfax, while Fenton made no increase.
All other names were withdrawn. Wade had been weakened by the
fact that after the first ballot his own State of Ohio had given several
votes for Colfax, to whom the tide now turned with great strength.
Iowa was the first State to break solidly. Pennsylvania turned her
vote to Colfax instead of Wade whose friends had confidently
counted upon it. Other changes rapidly followed, until the fifth
ballot, as finally announced, showed 541 for Colfax, 38 for Wade,
and 69 for Fenton. The result was received with general and hearty
satisfaction, and the Convention adjourned with undoubting faith in
a great victory for Grant and Colfax. General Grant's brief letter of
acceptance followed within a week, and its key-note was found in
the memorable expression, " Let us have peace ! " It was spoken in
a way and came from a source which gave it peculiar strength and
significance.

The Democratic National Convention of 1868 was invested with
remarkable interest, less from any expectation that it would seriously
contest and jeopard Republican ascendency, than from the several
personal issues which entered into it, and the audacious public
policies which would be urged upon it. The general drift of the
party was clear and unmistakable, but its personal choice and the
tone of its declarations would determine how bold a stand it would
take before the country. Would it openly proclaim the doctrine of
paying the public debt in depreciated paper money, and emphasize
its action by nominating Mr. George H. Pendleton, the most distinct
and conspicuous champion of the financial heresy ? Would it attempt
a discussion and review of its tendency and designs, and make what
would approach a new departure, in appearance if not in fact, by
going outside of its own ranks and nominating Chief Justice Chase ?
Would the recreancy of President Johnson to his own party and his
hope of Democratic support find any considerable response ? And
aside from the issue of virtually repudiating the public debt, would
the party now re-assert its hostile and revolutionary attitude towards

392 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
the well-nigh completed work of Reconstruction? These various
possibilities left a degree of uncertainty which surrounded the
Convention with an atmosphere of curious expectation.
The movement most deliberately planned and most persistently
pressed was that on behalf of Mr. Pendleton. The Greenback
heresy had sprung up with rapid growth. The same influence which
had resisted the issue of legal-tender notes during the war, when
they were deemed vital to National success,now demanded that they
be used to pay the public debt, though depreciated far below the
standard of coin. " The same currency for the bond-holder and the
plough-holder" was a favorite cry in the mouths of many. This
plausible and poisonous fallacy quickly took root in Ohio, whose
political soil has often nourished rank and luxuriant outgrowth of
Democratic heresies, and it came to be known distinctively as " The
Ohio Idea." The apt response of the Republicans was, the best cur
rency for both plough-holder and bond-holder! Mr. Pendleton was
peculiarly identified with the Ohio Idea. If not its author he had
been its zealous advocate, and had become widely known as its rep
resentative. The policy which typified the easy way of paying debts
spread through the West and South, and brought to Mr. Pendleton
a wide support. His popular address and attractive style of speech
increased his strength as a candidate, and his partisans came to the
Convention under the lead of able politicians, with the only move
ment which was well organized and which had positive and concen
trated force behind it.
While the Pendleton canvass was earnestly, openly, and skil
fully promoted it was also adroitly opposed. The keen and crafty
politicians of New York were neither demonstrative nor frank in
indicating their course, but they were watchful, sinuous, and efficient.
Their plot was carefully concealed. They were ready to have a New-
York candidate thrust upon them by other sections. If called upon
to look outside of their own State and select from the list of avowed
aspirants, they modestly suggested Mr. Hendricks of Indiana, a friend
and co-laborer of Mr. Pendleton. But the favorite scheme in the
inner councils of the New-York Regency, was to strike beyond the
Democratic lines and nominate Chief Justice Chase. This proposi
tion was little discussed in public, but was deeply pondered in private
by influential members of the Democratic party. Mr. Chase himself
presented no obstacle and no objection. He cherished an eager ambi
tion to be President. He had desired and sought the Republican

POSITION OF CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE. 393
nomination in 1864, and though the overwhelming sentiment for Mr.
Lincoln had soon driven him from the field, the differences he had
encouraged led to his retirement from the Cabinet. His elevation to
the highest judicial office in the land did not subdue or even check
his political aspirations. For a time he looked forward with hope to
the Republican nomination in 1868 ; but when it became evident that
none but General Grant could be the chosen leader, his thoughts
evidently turned towards the Democratic Convention.
Certain circumstances made the possible selection of the Chief
Justice as the Democratic candidate a less inconsistent procedure
than his long antagonism to the party might at first suggest. In the
beginning of his political career Judge Chase had leaned towards
the Democratic party, and at a more recent period had been promoted
to the Senate by the aid of Democrats. He had consistently advo
cated the fundamental principles which originally distinguished the
party. Recent circumstances had separated him from "active sym
pathy with the Republicans and placed him in opposition to the policy
of some of its leading measures. He had taken occasion to criticise
what he called the military governments in the Southern States.
Other causes had tended to separate him from the Republican party
and to commend him to the Democracy. When he took his seat on
the bench of the Supreme Court a majority of the judges belonged
to the Democratic party, and with them he soon acquired personal
intimacy and confidential relations. He had secured many friends in
the South by joining in the opinions pronounced by Mr. Justice
Field for the court in 1867, in regard to the test-oaths prescribed in
the Missouri constitution, and also in regard to the test-oath of
lawyers known as the case ex parte Garland. All the impressions
touching his Democratic tendencies had been deepened and increased
during the Impeachment trial. It was evident that he was not in
harmony with the Republican senators, and he took no pains to con
ceal his willingness to thwart them, so far as was consistent with his
duty, in the position of Presiding officer.
This demonstration of political sympathy, made manifest through
judicial channels, had brought Judge Chase and the Democratic
managers nearer together. Both realized however that a complete
change of position would defeat its own purpose. On one important
point indeed Judge Chase never wavered and was unwilling to com
promise. In all utterances and all communications he firmly main
tained the principle of universal suffrage as the primary article of his

394 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
political creed. If the Democrats should accept him they must
accept this doctrine with him. Six weeks prior to the Convention
Mr. August Belmont in a private letter advised him that the leading
Democrats of New York were favorable to his nomination, and urged
upon him that with the settlement of the slavery question, the issue
which separated him from the Democratic party had disappeared.
Judge Chase replied that the slavery question had indeed been set
tled, but that in the question of Reconstruction it had a successor
which partook largely of the same nature. He had been a party to the
pledge of freedom for the enfranchised race, and the fulfillment of that
pledge required, in his judgment, " the assurance of the right of suf
frage to those whom the Constitution has made freemen and citizens."
Not* long after this correspondence the Chief Justice caused a
formal summary of his political views to be published, with the
evident purpose of gaining the good will of the " American Democ
racy." The summary touched lightly on most of the controverted
political questions, and contained nothing to which the Democrats
would not have readily assented except the declaration for universal
suffrage. To this policy all Democratic acts and expressions had been
uncompromisingly hostile, and the sentiment of the party might not
easily be brought to accept a change which was at once so radical and
so repugnant to its temper and its training. Judge Chase hoped to
induce its acquiescence and believed that such an advance might open
the way to success. But his tenacity on this point was undoubtedly
an obstacle to his nomination. Another difficulty was the strenuous
opposition of the Ohio delegates and their zealous preference for
Mr. Pendleton. Superadded to all these objections was a popular
aversion to any thing which looked like a subordination of judicial
trust to political aims. Incurring this reproach through what seemed
to be inordinate ambition, Judge Chase had forfeited something of
the strength to secure which could be the only motive for his nomina
tion by his old political opponents.
Notwithstanding all these apparent obstacles, there was among
the most considerate men of the Convention a settled purpose to
secure the nomination of the Chief Justice. They intended to place
him before the people upon the issues in regard to which he was in
harmony with the Democratic party, and omit all mention of issues
in regard to which there was a difference of view. This was a
species of tactics not unknown to political parties, and might be used
with great effect if Mr. Chase should be the nominee. The astute

POSITION OF CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE. 395
men who advocated his selection saw that the great need of the De
mocracy was to secure a candidate who had been unquestionably
loyal during the war, and who at the same time was not offensive
to Southern feeling. The prime necessity of the party was to regain
strength in the North — to recover power in that great cordon of
Western States which had for so many years prior to the rebellion
followed the Democratic flag. The States that had attempted seces
sion were assured to the Democracy as soon as the party could be
placed in National power, and to secure that end the South would
be wise to follow the lead of New York as obediently as in former
years New York had followed the lead of the South. It was a con
test which involved the necessity of stooping to conquer.
The Chief Justice was, so far as his position would permit, active
in his own behalf. He was in correspondence with influential Demo
crats before the Convention, and in a still more intimate degree after
the Convention was in session. On the 4th of July he wrote a sig
nificant letter to a friend who was in close communication with the
leading delegates in New York. His object was to soften the hos
tility of the partisan Democrats, especially of the Southern school.
Referring to the policy of Reconstruction, he said, "I have always
favored the submission of the questions of re-organization after dis
organization by war to the entire people of the whole State." This
was intended to assure Southern men that if he believed in the jus
tice of giving suffrage to the negro, he did not believe in the justice
of denying it to the white man.
The strangest feature in Judge Chase's strange canvass was the
apparent friendship of Vallandigham, and the apparent reliance of
the distinguished candidate upon the strength which the notorious
anti-war Democrat could bring to him. Vallandigham had evi
dently been sending some kind messages to the Chief Justice, who
responded while the Democratic Convention was in session, in these
warm words : " The assurance you give me of the friendship of Mr.
V., affords me real satisfaction. He is a man of whose friendship
one may well be proud. Even when we have differed and separated
most widely, I have always admired his pluck and consistency, and
have done full justice to his abilities and energies." The plain
indication was that Vallandigham, who had come to the Convention
as an earnest friend of Pendleton, was already casting about for an
alternative candidate in the event of Pendleton's failure, and was
considering the practicability of nominating the Chief Justice.

396 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
President Johnson had also aspired to the Democratic candidacy.
Ambitious, untiring, and sanguine, this hope of reward had nerved
him in the bitter quarrel with his own party. The fate of Tyler and
Fillmore had no terrors and no lessons for one who eagerly and
blindly sought a position which would at once gratify his ambition
and minister to his revenge. He was using all the powers of the
Executive in a vain fight to obstruct and baffle the steadily advancing
Republican policy. The Democrats, instead of following a settled
chart of principles, were making the cardinal mistake of supporting
him in all his tortuous course of assumptions and usurpations, and
it was not strange that he should expect them to turn towards him
in choosing a leader to continue the contest. But it is an old maxim,
repeatedly illustrated, that while men are ready to profit by the
treason, they instinctively detest the traitor. Mr. Johnson had em
bittered the party which he had betrayed, without gaining the confi
dence of the party he had sought to serve. By his attempt to
re-establish the political power of the elements which had carried
the South into rebellion he had acquired some friends in that section,
but his intemperate zeal had so greatly exasperated public feeling at
the North that even those who applauded his conduct were unwilling
to take the hazard of his candidacy ^
The re-awakened opposition and designs of the Southern leaders
were shown in the active participation of several of the conspicuous
Confederate chiefs in the Convention. When the last preceding
National Convention was held they were in arms against the Gov
ernment. This was the first occasion upon which they could re
appear in the arena of National politics. It had been suggested to
them from friendly sources that while the memory of their part in the
bloody strife was still so fresh it would be prudent for them to remain
in the background, but they vigorously resented this proposed exclu
sion. General Forrest of Tennessee published an indignant letter,
in which he referred to " the counsel of timid men " that those who
had prominently borne the flag of rebellion should abstain from any
share in political action. He vehemently repelled the suggestion.
Instead of exacting only secondary places he boldly asserted the
highest claims. He appealed to the people and directly urged upon
his associates, "that we, who are the true representatives of the
greater portion of the true Constitutional men of the States, shall
not exclude ourselves from the Democratic Convention." This spirit
found a hearty response, and a large number of Confederate officers

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION 1868. 397
appeared in the National council of the party ; of whom the foremost
were Generals Forrest, Wade Hampton, John B. Gordon, and Wil
liam Preston.
The Convention met in New York on the fourth day of July.
Besides those active in the rebel armies, there were several leaders
who had been conspicuous in the civil councils of the Confederacy.
A. H. Garland of Arkansas, Benjamin H. Hill of Georgia, Zebulon
B. Vance of North Carolina, and R. Barnwell Rhett of South Caro
lina were the most widely known. Louisiana sent two delegates
whom she has since advanced to the Senate — Randall L. Gibson
and James B. Eustis. Thomas S. Bocock, fourteen years a repre
sentative in the National Congress, afterwards Speaker of the Con
federate Congress, came from Virginia. Montgomery Blair, who
like his more impulsive brother Frank had fallen back into the party
which seemed to be the natural home of the Blair family, came from
Maryland as the colleague of William Pinckney Whyte. New York
presented a strong array of delegates, among whom the most con
spicuous were Horatio Seymour, Samuel J. Tilden, Henry C. Murphy,
Augustus Schell, and Francis Kernan. Several of the regularly
chosen delegates from Ohio gave way in order that the State might,
in Mr. Pendleton's interest, secure greater parliamentary and debat
ing talent ; and to this end, Allen G. Thurman, Clement L. Vallan
digham, George E. Pugh, and George W. Morgan appeared on the
floor of the Convention. Pennsylvania sent ex-Senator Bigler and
Judge George W. Woodward, whose ability was equaled by his rank
Bourbonism. William R. Morrison and William A. Richardson of
Illinois, William W. Eaton of Connecticut, Josiah G. Abbott of Mas
sachusetts, James A. Bayard of Delaware, John G. Carlisle of Ken
tucky, Joseph E. McDonald and Daniel W. Voorhees of Indiana,
were names familiar in Democratic councils.
Mr. August Belmont's lurid speeches had become the accepted
signal-guns of national Democratic conventions, and he did not disap
point expectation on this occasion. His prophetic vision and historic
recital were even more far-reaching and alarming than before. He
drew a dark picture of evils which he charged upon the Republican
party, and then proceeded : " Austria did not dare to fasten upon
vanquished Hungary, nor Russia to impose upon conquered Poland,
the ruthless tyranny now inflicted by Congress on the Southern
States. Military satraps are invested with dictatorial power, over
riding the decisions of the courts and assuming the functions of the

398 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
civil authorities; and now this same party which has brought all
these evils upon the country comes again before the American people
asking for their suffrages ! And whom has it chosen for its candi
date? The General commanding the armies of the United States.
Can there be any doubt as to the designs of the Radicals if they
should be able to keep their hold on the reins of government ? They
intend Congressional usurpation of all the branches and factions of the
Government, to be enforced by the bayonet of a military despotism."
Apparently it never occurred to Mr. Belmont that each succeeding
sentence of his speech carried with it its own disproof. With loud
voice and demonstrative manner, speaking in public before a multi
tude of people, with his words certain to be quoted in the press
on account of the accident of his position, Mr. Belmont denounced
the policy of our Government as more tyrannical than that of Russia
or Austria. What did Mr. Belmont suppose would have been his fate
if on the soil of Russia or Austria he had attempted the slightest de
nunciation of the policy of those empires ? How long would he have
remained outside prison walls if he had, in either of those countries,
ventured upon a tithe of the unrestrained vituperation which he
safely indulged in here ? In his visions he now saw General Grant
upholding a Congressional usurpation with bayonets. Four years
before, he saw in Mr. Lincoln's election " the utter disintegration of
our whole political and social system amid bloodshed and anarchy."
Mr. Belmont had evidently not proved a true prophet and did' not
aspire even to be a trustworthy historian.
Mr. Henry M. Palmer of Wisconsin, who was chosen temporary
chairman, did not delay the Convention, and the organization was
speedily completed by the election of Governor Seymour as perma
nent president. He had filled the same position in the convention
of 1864. He was destined to hold a still more important relation to
the present body, but that was not yet foreseen. His admirers
looked to him as a political sage, who if not less partisan than his
associates was more prudent and politic in his counsels. No other
leader commanded so large a share of the confidence and devotion of
his party. No other equaled him in the art of giving a velvety
touch to its coarsest and most dangerous blows, or of presenting the
work of its adversaries in the most questionable guise. It was his
habit to thread the mazes of economic and fiscal discussion, and he
was never so eloquent or apparently so contented as when he was
painting a vivid picture of the burdens under which he imagined the

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION 1868. 399
country to be suffering, or giving a fanciful sketch of what might
have been if Democratic rule had continued. From the beginning
of the war he had illustrated the highest accomplishments of political
oratory in bewailing, like the fabled prophetess of old, the coming
woes — which never came. In his address on the present occasion
he arraigned the Republican party for imposing oppressive taxes, for
inflicting upon the country a depreciated currency, and for enforcing
a military despotism. Like all the other speakers he affected to see
a serious menace in the nomination of General Grant. Referring to
the Republican platform and candidate he said, "Having declared
that the principles of the Declaration of Independence should be
made a living reality on every inch of American soil, they put in
nomination a military chieftain who stands at the head of that system
of despotism which crushes beneath its feet the greatest principles
of the Declaration of Independence." And with this allusion he
proceeded to condemn an assumed military rule with all its asserted
evils. Extreme as was the speech of Mr. Seymour, it was moderate and
conservative in spirit compared with other displays and other proceed
ings of the Convention. The violent elements of the Democratic
party obtained complete mastery in the construction of the platform.
They presented in the resolutions the usual declarations on many
secondary questions, together with an elaborate and vehement arraign
ment of Republican rule. But the real significance of the new Demo
cratic creed was embodied in two salient and decisive propositions.
The first was the declaration " that all the obligations of the Govern
ment, not payable by their express terms in coin, ought to be paid in law
ful money." This was a distinct adoption of the Greenback heresy.
The movement to nominate Mr. Pendleton did not succeed in its per
sonal object, but it did succeed in embodying its ruling thought in
the Democratic creed. It proved to be the guiding and mastering
force of the Convention. The greenback issue went there with the
positive, resolute support of a powerful candidate, and of a formidable
array of delegates who knew precisely what they wanted. It was
organized under a name and had the strength of a personality.
There was opposition, but it was not coherent, organized or well led.
In fact the platform was expressly framed to fit Mr. Pendleton ; and
if, as often happens, the champion and the cause did not triumph
together, he compelled his party to commit itself fully and unreserv
edly to his doctrine.

400 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
The second vital proposition related to the policy and Acts of
Reconstruction. If Chief Justice Chase was to be nominated, the
party must accept the broad principle of universal suffrage or he
must abandon his lifelong professions. But universal suffrage,
especially if ordained by National authority, was irreconcilable with
Democratic traditions and Democratic prejudices. The Democrats
had uniformly maintained that the right of suffrage was a question
which came within the political power of the States and did not
belong to the National jurisdiction. They denied that the States had
in any degree, even by rebellion, forfeited their prerogatives or
changed their relations. They insisted that nothing remained but to
recognize them as restored to their old position. In framing the
present platform they re-affirmed this doctrine, under the declaration
that " any attempt of Congress, on any pretext whatever, to deprive
any State of its right (to regulate suffrage), or interfere with its exer
cise, is a flagrant usurpation of power, which cannot find any warrant
in the Constitution." This broad assertion was designed to deny
even the right of Congress to make impartial suffrage in the revised
constitutions a condition precedent to the re-admission of the rebel
lious States to representation. But the platform did not stop here.
With a bolder sweep it declared "that we regard the Reconstruction
Acts of Congress as usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary, and
void." This extreme proposition, deliberately adopted, was calcu
lated to produce a profound public impression. It was not a mere
challenge of the policy or rightfulness of the Reconstruction Acts ;
it was not a mere pledge of opposition to their progress and comple
tion ; but it logically involved their overthrow, with the subversion
of their results, in case the Democratic party should acquire the
power to enforce its principles and to execute its threats.
The import of this bold declaration receives additional light from
the history of its genesis and adoption. Its immediate paternity
belonged to Wade Hampton of South Carolina. In a speech at
Charleston, within two weeks from the adjournment of the Conven
tion, General Hampton recounted the circumstances which attended
its insertion in the platform, and proudly claimed it as his own plank.
He was himself a member of the Committee on Resolutions, and took
an active part in its deliberations. All the members, he said, agreed
that the control of suffrage belonged to the States; but General
Hampton himself contended that the vital question turned on what
were the States. In order that there might be no room for dispute

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION 1868. 401
he proposed that the platform should specifically say " the States as
they were before 1865." To this however some of the members
objected as impolitic and calculated to raise distrust, and it was
accordingly dropped. General Hampton then proposed to insert the
declaration that the "Reconstruction Acts are unconstitutional, revo
lutionary, and void;" and the manner in which this suggestion
was received is given by General Hampton himself : " When I pre
sented that proposition every member, and the warmest were from the
North, came forward and pledged themselves to carry it out." He
further reported to his people that the Democratic leaders declared
their "willingness to give us every thing we could desire; but they
begged us to remember that they had a great fight to make at the
North, and they therefore besought us not to load the platform with
a weight that they could not carry against the prejudices which they
had to encounter. Help them once to regain the power, and then they
would do their utmost to relieve the Southern States and restore to us the
Union and the Constitution as it had existed before the war."
This declaration received still further emphasis from at least one
of the nominations to which the Convention was now ready to pro
ceed. The New- York delegation, which was believed to be friendly
to Chief Justice Chase, had determined to mask itself for the present
behind a local candidate, and it chose Sanford E. Church for that
purpose. Pennsylvania, whose ultimate design was less certain, put
forward Asa Packer in the same way. James E. English of Connec
ticut, Joel Parker of New Jersey, and several minor candidates,
were presented as local favorites. The first ballot verified the claims
of Mr. Pendleton's friends, and showed him to be decisively in the
lead, though still far short of the number necessary to nominate.
He had 105, while Andrew Johnson had 65, Judge Church 34,
General Hancock 33, Packer 26, English 1Q, with the remainder
scattering. President Johnson had a higher vote than was expected,
but after the first ballot it immediately and rapidly declined. On
the second ballot Pendleton fell off to 99, but recovered on the third,
rising to 119, and thereafter slowly advancing. The first day of
voting, which was the third of the Convention, ended after six ballots
without any material change or decisive indication.
The name of Mr. Hendricks of Indiana had been brought forward
just at the close of the third day with thirty votes, and at the open
ing of the following day he immediately developed more strength.
The adroit use of his name, devised by the New- York regency, was
Vol. II. 26

402 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
fatal to Mr. Pendleton. Coming from the adjoining State Mr. Hen
dricks divided a section on which the Ohio candidate relied. A
majority of the Indiana delegation deserted to his banner. New
York, with an air of gratified surprise, withdrew Church and voted
solidly for Hendricks. Pendleton reached his highest vote of 156J
on the eighth ballot and thenceforward steadily declined. Mean
while Hancock had been gaining as well as Hendricks. South Caro
lina, Virginia, and several other States changed to his support. Then
Illinois broke from Pendleton and cast half her vote for Hendricks.
On the twelfth ballot the announcement of i a vote from California
for Chief Justice Chase was received with a great and prolonged out
burst of cheering. It was suspected that a single delegate from the
Pacific coast had cast the vote at the instigation of the New-York
managers, in order to test the sense of the galleries as well as of
the Convention. The day closed with the eighteenth ballot, on
which Hancock had 144J-, Hendricks 87, and Pendleton 56J. With
such an apparent lead after so many ballots, the nomination of
General Hancock on the ensuing day would, under ordinary circum
stances, have been reckoned as a probable result. But it was not
expected. It was indeed against the logic of the situation that a
Democratic Convention could at that time select a distinguished
Union general, of conservative record and cautious mind, for a Presi
dential candidate. General Hancock's name was in fact used only
while the actual contestants of the Convention were fencing for
advantageous position in the final contest.
The outlook for Mr. Hendricks was considered flattering by his
immediate supporters, but to the skilled political observer it was evi
dent that the figures of the eighteenth ballot gave no assurance to the
friends of any candidate. After the adjournment of the Convention,
and throughout the night that followed, calculation and speculation
.took every shape. The delegations from New York and Ohio ab
sorbed the interest of the politicians and the public. The two dele
gations were playing at cross-purposes — each trying to defeat the
designs of the other, and each finding its most available candidate in
the State of the other. The tactics of New York had undoubtedly
defeated Pendleton, and the same men were now planning to nomi
nate Chief Justice Chase. The leading and confidential friends of
Mr. Pendleton were resolved that the New York plot should not
succeed, and that Mr. Chase should not, in any event, be the candi
date. In a frame of mind which was half panic, half reason, they

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION 1868. 403
concluded that it would be impossible to defeat the Chief Justice if
his name should be placed before the Convention by the united dele
gation of New York speaking through the glowing phrases of Mr.
Seymour, who, as it was rumored, would next morning leave the
chair for that purpose. It was concluded, therefore, in the consulta
tions of Mr. Pendleton's friends, that the movement should be antici
pated by proposing the name of Mr. Seymour himself. The consul
tations in which these conclusions were reached were made up in
large part of the aggressive type of Western Democrats, who had
been trained to political fighting under the lead of Stephen A.
Douglas. Among the most active and combative was Washington
McLean of the Cincinnati Enquirer. It was this class of Democrats
that finally rendered the nomination of the Chief Justice impossible.
On the following morning (of the last day of the Convention, as
it proved) the Ohio delegation took the first and most important
step, in formally withdrawing the name of Mr. Pendleton. The vot
ing was then resumed, and the nineteenth and twentieth ballots
showed a slight loss for Hancock, and a corresponding gain for
Hendricks. On the twenty-first ballot Hancock had 135^, and Hen
dricks 132 ; with 48£ divided among minor candidates. At this
point the Ohio delegation, having been absent in conference, entered
the hall, and amid a hush of expectation and interest proposed the
name of Horatio Seymour. Mr. Seymour had been frequently men
tioned, and would have been formidable from the first if he had
permitted the use of his name, but he had invariably met the propo
sition with the answer that he could under no circumstances become
a candidate. He now repeated this statement from the chair, but
Ohio insisted and New York assented. With a whirl of excitement
all the States followed, and the nomination was made on the twenty-
second ballot by a unanimous vote. Mr. Seymour had, no doubt,
been sincere in declining to be a candidate; but the prolonged
balloting had produced great anxiety among the delegates, and the
pressure had at last come in a form which he could not resist.
The ticket was completed without delay. Just prior to the Con
vention General Frank Blair had written a remarkable letter to
Colonel Brodhead, one of the Missouri delegates. General Blair's
name had been mentioned as a Presidential candidate, and in this
letter he defined his position. He insisted, as the supreme issue, that
the Reconstruction Acts and their fruits must be overthrown. How
they should be overthrown he thus indicated : " There is but one way

404 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
to restore the Government and the Constitution, and that is for the
President to declare these Acts null and void, compel the army to
undo its usurpations at the South, dispossess the carpet-bag State
governments, allow the white people to re-organize their own govern
ments and elect senators and representatives." General Blair con
tended that this was " the real and only question," and that until
this work was accomplished " it is idle to talk of bonds, greenbacks,
the public faith, and the public credit." This letter, as will be noted,
harmonized in thought and in language with the plank which Wade
Hampton had inserted in the platform, and its audacious tone com
mended its author to those who had been potential in committing the
Convention to this extreme position. General Preston of Kentucky,
who had won his stars in the Confederate army, presented General
Blair for Vice-President. General Wade Hampton, distinguished in
the same cause, seconded it, and the nomination was made by accla
mation. The Democratic party thus determined, through its platform and
partially through its candidates, to fight its battle on the two issues
of paying the debt in depreciated paper currency and overthrowing
Reconstruction. Other questions practically dropped out. The
whole discussion of the canvass turned on these two controlling
propositions. No violence of design which the Republicans imputed
to their adversaries exceeded their open avowals. The greater pos-
itiveness of General Blair, the keener popular interest in the South
ern question and the broader realization of its possible dangers, made
the issue on Reconstruction overshadow the other. The utterances
of Southern leaders confirmed its superior importance in the public
estimate. The jubilant expressions of Wade Hampton at Charleston
have already been given. In a speech at Atlanta, Robert Toombs
declared that " all these Reconstruction Acts, as they are called, these
schemes of dissolution, of violence and of tyranny, shall no longer
curse the statute-book nor oppress the free people of the country ;
these so-called governments and legislatures which have been estab
lished in our midst shall at once be made to vacate. The conven
tion at New York appointed Frank Blair specially to oust them."
Howell Cobb and Benjamin H. Hill also made incendiary speeches
during the canvass, proclaiming their confidence in the practical
victory of those who had waged the Rebellion ; and Governor Vance
of North Carolina boasted that all they had lost when defeated by
Grant they would regain when they triumphed with Seymour.

PRESIDENTIAL CANVASS OF 1868. 405
It is not probable that the Democrats could, by any policy, have
achieved success in this contest. The prestige of Grant's great fame
and the momentum given to the Republican party by his achieve
ments during and immediately after the war, would have defeated
any opposition, however skillful. But had Governor Seymour him
self framed the platform on which he was to stand, and had he
been free from the burden and the embarrassment of Blair's impru
dent and alarming utterances, his greater sagacity and adroitness
would have insured a more formidable battle. As It was, the
rash action of the Democratic Convention made it reasonably clear
from the beginning that the ticket was doomed to defeat. The
progress of the canvass strengthened this impression ; the Democracy
was placed everywhere on the defensive ; its own declarations shotted
every gun that was aimed against it; and its orators and organs
could neither make effective reply nor divert public attention from
its fatal commitment.
The Democrats however made a strenuous contest and sought to
counterbalance the weakness of their national contest by strong
State tickets. In Indiana Mr. Hendricks was nominated for Gov
ernor, and it was hoped that the influence of his name would secure
the advantage of success in the preliminary October struggle. In
Pennsylvania a vigorous canvass was conducted under the skillful
management of William A. Wallace. But all these efforts were
unavailing. The October elections clearly presaged Republican vic
tory. The Republicans carried Pennsylvania, in spite of surprising
and questionable Democratic gains in Philadelphia ; they held Ohio
by a satisfactory majority; and in Indiana, Conrad Baker was elected
Governor over Mr. Hendricks. With this result in the October
States the November battle could not be doubtful.
The Democratic leaders however did not yet surrender the field.
They made one more energetic effort to snatch the victory which
seemed already in the grasp of their adversaries. But their counsels
were divided. One element proposed to try heroic surgery and
cut off the diseased member. While the echoes of the October
verdict were still resounding, the New- York World, the leading Met
ropolitan organ of the Democratic party, in a series of inflammatory
articles demanded that General Blair should be withdrawn from the
ticket. This disorganizing demonstration met with little favor in
the ranks of the party, and only served as a confession of weakness
without accomplishing any good. A more significant and better

406 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
advised movement was that of Governor Seymour himself. He had
thus far borne no public part in the campaign, but he now took the
field in person to rally the broken cohorts of his party and if pos
sible recover the lost ground. Up to this time General Blair,
through his self-assertion and his bold proclamation of Democratic
designs, had been the central figure of the canvass. It was now
determined that Blair should go to the rear and that Governor Sey
mour should go to the front and make a last and desperate effort to
change the line of battle.
He started the week following the October elections, and went
through Western New York, Ohio, Illinois, and Pennsylvania ; end
ing his tour only with the close of the National canvass. Delivering
at least one extended address each day at some central point, and
speaking frequently by the way, his journey fastened the attention
of the country and amply illustrated his versatile and brilliant intel
lectual powers. No man was more seductive in appeal, or more im-#
pressive in sedate and stately eloquence. With his art of persuasion
he combined rare skill in evading difficult questions while preserving
an appearance of candor. His speeches were as elusive and illusive
as they were smooth and graceful. In his present series of argu
ments he labored to convince the country that if the Democrats
elected the President they would still be practically powerless, and
that apprehension of disturbance and upheaval from their success
was unfounded. He sought also to draw the public thought away
from this subject and give it a new direction by dwelling on the cost
of government, the oppression of taxes, the losses from the disordered
currency and the various evils that had followed the trials and perils
through which the country had passed. But it was not in the power
of any man to change the current of public feeling. The popular
judgment had been fixed by events and by a long course of concur
rent evidences, and no single plea or pledge could shake it. The
election resulted in the success of General Grant. Virginia, Missis
sippi, and Texas, in which Reconstruction was not yet completed,
did not choose electors. Of the remaining thirty-four States Mr.
Seymour carried but eight. General Grant's majority on the popular
vote was 309,584. Of the electors he had 214 and Mr. Seymour
had 80.

CHAPTER XVI.
Republican Victory of 1868 analyzed. — Mr. Seymour's Strength Unexpectedly
Great. — Astounding Defection of Certain States. — Democratic Victory in
New York, New Jersey, and Oregon. — Evil Omens. — Democratic Victory
in Louisl\na. — Won by Fraud and Violence. — The Figures examined. — Ac
tion of Congress thereon. — Fraud suspected in Georgia. — Democratic Duty
unperformed. — impartial suffrage. — various propositions. — amendment
to the Constitution. — Mr. Henderson of Missouri. — Mr. Stewart of Nevada.
— Mr. Garrett Davis. — Proceedings in the House. — Speech of Mr. Bout
well. — Answered by Mr. Beck and Mr. Eldridge. — Passage of Amendment
by House. — Action thereon in Senate. — Amendment of Mr. Wilson. — Propo
sition of Mr. Morton and Mr. Buckalew. — Disagreement of the Two
Branches. — Conference Committee. — Fifteenth Amendment reported. —
Public Opinion in the United States. — Fourteenth Amendment now modi
fied. — Its Effect and Potency lessened. — Its Failure to remove Evils.
— Great Value of the Three Amendments. — Their Assured Enforcement. —
Honor to their Authors. — Lesson taught by Mr. Lincoln. — Its Significance.
WHILE the result of the Presidential election of 1868 was,
upon the record of the electoral votes, an overwhelming
victory for the Republican party and its illustrious candidate, certain
facts tended to qualify the sense of gratulation and triumph on the
part of those who give serious study to the progress and results of
partisan contests. It was the first Presidential election since the close
of the war, and the candidates represented in sharp and definite out
line the antagonistic views which had prevailed among Northern men
during the period of the struggle. General Grant was the embodi
ment of the war feeling, and presented in his own person the spirit
of the contest for the Union and the evidence of its triumph. The
Democratic candidate, if not open to the charge of personal disloy
alty, had done much as Governor of New York to embarrass the
National Administration in the conduct of the war, and would per
haps have done more but for the singular tact and address with which
Mr. Lincoln had prevented an open quarrel or even a serious conflict
of authority. Mr. Seymour was indeed unpleasantly associated in
the public mind with the riot which had been organized in the city
407

408 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
of New York against the enforcement of the draft. He had been a
great favorite of the Peace party, and at the most critical point in
the civil struggle he had presided over a National Convention which
demanded that the war should cease.
Under these circumstances it was not altogether re-assuring to the
ardent loyalists of the country, that the city of New York, whose
prosperity depended in so great a degree upon the preservation of
the Union, should now give Mr. Seymour a majority of more than
sixty thousand over General Grant, and that the Empire State, which
would cease to be Imperial if the Union ceased to exist, should in a
popular contest defeat General Grant by fully ten thousand votes.
New Jersey made an equally discouraging record by giving Mr. Sey
mour a majority of three thousand. The Pacific coast, whose progress
and prosperity depended so largely upon the maintenance of the
Union, presented an astonishing result, — California giving General
Grant a majority of only 514, while Oregon utterly repudiated the
great leader and gave her electoral vote for Mr. Seymour. Indiana,
in the test vote of the October election for governor, was carried for
the Republicans by only 961 ; Ohio gave a smaller majority in the
hour of National victory than she had given during any year of the
civil struggle, while Pennsylvania at the same election gave the party
but ten thousand majority. In the city and county of Philadelphia
the Democrats actually had a majority of nearly two hundred votes.
The Republican majorities in the three States were considerably in
creased in the November election by the natural falling off of the
Democratic vote, but the critical and decisive battle had been fought
in each State in October. It was a very startling fact that if Mr.
Seymour had received the electoral vote of the solid South (which
afterwards came to be regarded either as the rightful inheritance or
the fraudulent prerogative of the Democratic party), he would, in
connection with the vote he received in the North, have had a
majority over General Grant in the Electoral College. Considering
the time of the election, considering the record and the achievements
of the rival candidates, the Presidential election of 1868 must be
regarded as the most remarkable and the most unaccountable in our
political annals.
The result was not comforting to the thoughtful men who in
terpreted its true significance and comprehended the possibilities to
which it pointed. Of the reconstructed States (eight in number)
General Grant received the electoral votes of six, — North Carolina,

THE PRESIDENTIAL VOTE OF 1868. 409
South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, and Florida. A full
vote was secured in each, and the lawfulness and fairness of the
result under the system of Reconstruction were not questioned.
The vote of Georgia was disputed on account of some alleged irregu
larity in her compliance with the Acts of Reconstruction, and the
suspicion that the Presidential election was not fairly conducted.
But in Louisiana there was no moral doubt that violence , and dis
order had done their evil work. The result in the State was declared
to be in favor of Mr. Seymour. The subject was brought before
Congress, and the counting of the votes of these States was chal
lenged; but as the alleged irregularity in Georgia and the alleged
fraud in Louisiana had not been legally investigated, Congress
(Republican at the time by a large majority in both branches)
declined to exclude them from the electoral count.
There was great dissatisfaction on the part of a considerable
number of Republicans in Congress with the determination to admit
the vote of Louisiana without some qualifying record or explanation.
In the House General Schenck offered a resolution, declaring that
" the vote of the State was counted because no proof was formally
submitted to sustain the objections thereto." General Shanks of
Indiana offered a much more decisive resolution, declaring that " in
the opinion of the House the acceptance of the electoral vote of
Louisiana will encourage the criminal practice of enforcing elections
in the States lately in rebellion, and involves-the murder of thousands
of loyal people." The rule of the House required unanimous con
sent to admit these resolutions, and they were strenuously objected
to by Fernando Wood, Charles A. Eldridge, and other leading Demo
crats of the House.
In the Senate Mr. Morton of Indiana submitted a resolution,
declaring that " while there is reason to believe from common report
and information that the late Presidential election in Louisiana was
carried by force and fraud, still there being no legal evidence before
the Senate on that subject the electoral vote of Louisiana ought to
be counted." No debate being allowed under the rule regulating the
proceedings of the Senate in regard to the count of the electoral
vote, the resolution was defeated. It received however the support
of twenty-four Republican senators, some of them among the most
prominent members of the body. Mr. Sumner, Mr. Chandler, Mr.
Conkling, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Morton, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Morrill
of Vermont were among those who thought some record should be

410 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
made of the Senate's knowledge of the frauds in Louisiana, even if
they were unable on strictly legal grounds to reject her electoral vote.
Other Republican senators evidently thought, as they were unable
legally to reject the vote, it was not wise to make any record on the
question. Subsequent investigation abundantly established the fact (of
which at the time Congress did not possess legal knowledge) that
the State of Louisiana had been carried for Mr. Seymour by shameless
fraud, by cruel intimidation, by shocking violence. As incidental
and unmistakable proof of fraud, it was afterwards shown from the
records that in the spring election of 1868, in the parish of Orleans
29,910 votes had been cast, and that the Republicans had a majority
of 13,973 ; whereas in the ensuing autumn, at the Presidential elec
tion, the returns for the same parish gave General Grant but 1,178
votes, while Mr. Seymour was declared to have received 24,668. In
the parish of Caddo, where in the spring election the Republicans
had shown a decided majority, General Grant received but one vote.
In the parish of Saint Landry, where the Republicans had prevailed
in the spring election by a majority of 678, not a single vote was
counted for General Grant, the returns giving to Mr. Seymour the
entire registered vote — 4,787. In other parishes the results, if less
aggravated and less startling, were of like character, and the State,
which the Republicans had carried, at an entirely peaceful election in
the spring, by a majority of more than 12,000, was now declared to
have given Mr. Seymour a majority of 47,000.
There was no pretense that there had been a revolution of public
opinion in the State to justify these returns. It was not indeed
denied that General Grant was personally far stronger before the
people of Louisiana than any Republican candidate at previous State
or Parish elections. The change was simply the result of fraud, and
the fraud was based on violence. Various investigations ordered by
Congress establish this view. " From these investigations," as was
stated in a subsequent report, "it appears that over two thousand
persons were killed, wounded, and otherwise injured in that State
within a few weeks of the Presidential election of 1868 ; that half
the State was overrun by violence, midnight raids, secret murders,
and open riots, which kept the people in constant terror, until the
Republicans surrendered all claims, and then the election was carried
by the Democracy."
The same report states that in the parish of Orleans " riots pre-

MR. SEYMOUR'S VOTE IN LOUISIANA. 411
vailed for weeks, filling New Orleans with scenes of blood, and Ku-
Klux notices were scattered throughout the city warning the colored
men not to vote." In the parish of Caddo, where as already stated
only one vote was counted for General Grant, " there occurred one
of the bloodiest riots on record, in which the Ku-Klux killed and
wounded over two hundred Republicans, hunting and chasing them
for two days and nights through fields and swamps. Thirteen cap
tives were taken from the jail and shot, and a pile of twenty-five
dead bodies was found buried in the woods." These atrocious crimes
immediately preceded the election, and "having thus conquered the
Republicans and killed and driven off their white leaders, the masses
of the negroes were captured by the Ku-Klux, marked with badges of
red flannel, enrolled in clubs, led to the polls and compelled to vote
the Democratic ticket, after which they were given certificates of that
fact." One of the most alarming features connected with this series of
outrages was the promptness with which Louisiana resorted to vio
lence after her re-admission to the right of representation in Con
gress. Her senators and representatives had taken their seats in
their respective Houses only the preceding summer, and her right to
participate in the Presidential election was established at the same
time. Within* less than five months after her formal reconstruction,
outrages which would be exceptional in the governments of Algiers
or Egypt were committed in utter defiance of law, and without any
attempt at punishment by the authorities of the State. Not to
punish was in effect to approve.
As a mere question of figures, it is impossible that Mr. Seymour
could have received the 80,225 votes with which he was credited.
Indeed, his alleged majority of 47,000 over General Grant was greater
than the total vote which the Democratic party could honestly cast
in Louisiana. In the Presidential election of 1860, when circum
stances tended to call every Democrat in the South to the polls,
the united vote of Breckinridge and Douglas in Louisiana was but
30,306, while the total vote, including that given for John Bell, was
but 50,510. In 1867 the entire registered white vote of Louisiana
was but 45,199. The white voting population of the State, there
fore, was certainly no larger in 1868 than in I860 — if as large. It
was not denied that since the close of the war a considerable number
of white men had joined the Republican party ; while it was not even
claimed that a single negro voted the Democratic ticket in 1868, ex-

412 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
cept as he was led to the polls under the cover of Ku-Klux weapons,
terrorized by the violence of that association of lawless men.
It amounts therefore to a mathematical demonstration, that nearly
one-half of Mr. Seymour's vote was fraudulent ; and of that fact con
cealment is no longer attempted from any respectable source. It
has been matter of surprise to the cotemporaries of Mr. Seymour,
that sensitive as he has shown himself on many occasions in regard
to the record of his political life, he would consent, after investigation
and exposure of the atrocities had been made, to remain in history
without protest as the beneficiary of a vote that was demonstrably
fraudulent in its character, — a vote that was tainted with crime and
stained with the blood of innocent men. It is assuredly not to be
presumed that violent acts and murderous deeds are less repulsive to
Mr. Seymour than to any other refined and Christian gentleman;
But his silence in respect to the wicked transactions of his supporters
in Louisiana, when he was a candidate for the Presidency, has per
suaded many honest-minded Democrats that the whole narrative of
crime was a slander, concocted in the interest of the Republican
party. It has served also a far more deplorable purpose, for it has
in large measure aided in screening from public reprobation, and
possibly from exemplary punishment, the guilty principals and the
scarcely less guilty accomplices in the maiming and murder of Ameri
can citizens, who were only seeking to exercise their Constitutional
right of suffrage.

The Republican victory of 1866 led to the incorporation of
impartial suffrage in the Reconstruction laws. The Republican
victory of 1868, it was now resolved in the councils of tlie party,
should lead to the incorporation of impartial suffrage in the Consti
tution of the United States. The evasive and discreditable position
in regard to suffrage, taken by the National Republican Convention
that nominated General Grant in 1868, was keenly felt and appre
ciated by the members of the party when subjected to popular
discussion. There was something so obviously unfair and unmanly
in the proposition to impose negro suffrage on the Southern States
by National power, and at the same time to leave the Northern States
free to decide the question for themselves, that the Republicans
became heartily ashamed of it long before the political canvass had
closed. When Congress assembled, immediately after the election

FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. 413
of General Grant, there was found to be a common desire and a
common purpose among Republicans to correct the unfortunate
position in which the party had been placed by the National Con
vention ; and to that end it was resolved that suffrage, as between
the races, should by organic law be made impartial in all the States
of the Union — North as well as South.
Various propositions were at once offered, both in Senate and
House, to amend the Constitution of the United States in order to
attain impartial suffrage. It was both significant and appropriate
that the draught proposed by Mr. Henderson of Missouri was taken
as the basis of the Amendment first reported to the Senate. In the
preceding Congress, when the Fourteenth Amendment was under
consideration (in the spring of 1866), Mr. Henderson had proposed
substantially the same provision, and had solemnly warned his
Republican associates that though they might reject it then, it would
be demanded of them in less than five years. This declaration was
all the more suggestive and creditable, coming from a senator who
represented a former slave-holding State. And it was not forgotten
that Mr. Henderson had with equal zeal and equal foresight been
among the earliest to propose the Thirteenth Amendment. Mr. Hen
derson's proposition, now submitted and referred to the Judiciary
Committee, was in these words : " No State shall deny or abridge the
right of its citizens to vote or hold office, on account of race, color,
or previous condition." It was reported from the Judiciary Com
mittee by Mr. Stewart of Nevada, with an amendment proposing
another form of statement; namely, "The right of citizens of the
United States to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged
by the United States or any State on account of race, color, or pre
vious condition of servitude."
During the debate on the question Mr. Hendricks of Indiana
reproached the Republican party for forcing this question now upon
Congress, when in the platform of principles upon which they ap
pealed for popular support they had distinctly waived it, and when
the Legislatures to which it must go for ratification had been elected
without the slightest reference to it in the popular mind. In order
to prevent what might seem to be an unfair submission of the Amend
ment, Mr. Dixon of Connecticut proposed that it should be referred
to conventions in the respective States instead of to the Legislatures,
and thus give to the people, in the election of members of the con
ventions, a full opportunity to pass upon the merits of the question.

414 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
It was contended on the other hand by Republican senators, that no
subject had been more fully matured in the popular mind than this
had been by the discussions which had taken place since the begin
ning, and especially since the close, of the war. But this was not
a candid or truthful statement of the case, as had been abundantly
shown by the action of the National Republican Convention. Only
a few of the leaders of the party had openly announced themselves
in favor of negro suffrage in the Nation ; a few were openly hostile,
while the great majority of the prominent members feared it and
refrained from open expression in regard to it. The mass of the
party, as is usual on questions of this character, had made their own
conclusions, and their earnestness of conviction finally forced, if it
did not persuade, the reluctant chiefs to adopt it. When they at last
came to it, there was a natural disposition to represent it as one of
the cardinal principles of the party. The Democratic criticisms, as
to the time and method of presenting the Amendment, were well
aimed and practically remained unanswered for the simple retson
that no adequate or logical response could be made to them.
Mr. Garrett Davis of Kentucky charged that the Republican
party, in proposing this Amendment, was simply seeking to perpetu
ate its power in the country ; but on this point he was effectively
answered by Mr. Wilson of Massachusetts. " The senator from
Kentucky knows, and I know," said Mr. Wilson, " that this whole
struggle to give equal rights and equal privileges to all citizens
of the United States has been an unpopular one ; that we have been
forced to struggle against passion and prejudice engendered by
generations of wrong and oppression ; that we have been compelled
to struggle against great interests and powerful political organiza
tions. I say to the senator from Kentucky that the struggle of the
last eight years to give freedom to four and a half millions of men
who were held in slavery, to make them citizens of the United
States, to clothe them with the right of suffrage, to give them the
privilege of being voted for, to make them in all respects equal to
the white citizens of the United States, has cost the Republican
party a quarter of a million votes."
The House of Representatives had been considering the question
of the suffrage amendment at equal step with the Senate. On the
11th of January Mr. Boutwell of Massachusetts, from the Com
mittee on the Judiciary, proposed an Amendment to the Constitution
in these words : " The right of any citizen of the United States to

FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. 415
vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any
State, by reason of the race, color, or previous condition of slavery
of any citizen or class of citizens of the United States. — The Congress
shall have power to enforce by proper legislation the provisions of
this Article."
Mr. Boutwell made one of the strongest and most pointed argu
ments delivered in Congress for the adoption of the Fifteenth
Amendment. He showed that by the Fourteenth Amendment we
had declared that "all persons born or naturalized in the United
States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the States wherein they reside." "There are,"
said he, " citizens in Kentucky and Maryland eligible to-day to the
office of President or Vice-President of the United States, yet who
cannot vote for representatives in Congress, or even for a State,
county or town officer. What is the qualification for the office of
President ? He must be a native-born citizen of the United States
and thirty-five years of age. Nothing more ! These are the only
qualifications for the office of President. By the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution, we have declared that all the black
men in Maryland and other States shall be citizens of the United
States. Certain State governments have for the present denied
those people the right to vote, and yet one of them is eligible to the
Presidency of the United States and another to the Vice-Presidency.
Is there such an anomaly in our Government ? Are we prepared
to admit its existence unless the Constitution imperatively re
quires it?"
The speech of Mr. Boutwell was answered by Mr. Beck of Ken
tucky and Mr. Eldridge of Wisconsin, their respective arguments
resting mainly upon the propriety of leaving the regulation of suf-«
frage within the power of the States, where it was originally left by
the Constitution. After several ineffectual attempts to amend the
Constitutional Amendment as reported from the Judiciary Commit
tee, the House, on the 30th of January (1869), passed it by ayes 150,
noes 42, not voting 31.
When the House Amendment reached the Senate it was at once
taken up for consideration, and the Amendment which that body
had been considering was laid aside. This was done for the purpose
of expediting an agreement between the two branches. Numerous
modifications and additions were then proposed, including the one
originally reported by the Judiciary Committee. Every modification

416 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
or substitute failed, until Senator Wilson offered the following:
" No discrimination shall be made in any State among the citizens
of the United States in the exercise of the elective franchise, or in
the right to hold office in any State, on account of race, color,
nativity, property, education, or religious creed." Mr. Trumbull
declared that the adoption of this Amendment would abolish the
constitutions of perhaps all, certainly of half, the States of the
Union. He then pointed out that the constitution of almost every
State prescribed a qualification of age for the governor of the State,
and of a certain length of residence, many of them requiring a
natural-born citizen ; and that the effect of Mr. Wilson's Amend
ment would be to level all the constitutions, and radically reverse
the deliberate judgment of the people of the States who had ordained
them. Serious objections were also made against prohibiting an
educational test, as would be the effect of Mr. Wilson's Amendment.
Mr. Wilson frankly avowed his hostility to an educational test, and
declared that the one existing in Massachusetts had never proved
valuable in any sense. Against all objections and arguments Mr.
Wilson's Amendment was adopted by the Senate.
A proposition was now introduced and supported with equal zeal
by Mr. Morton of Indiana and Mr. Buckalew of Pennsylvania, pro
posing an amendment to the pending resolution, which should in
effect be a sixteenth amendment to the Constitution. Its aim was to
take from the States the power now confided to them by the Consti
tution, to direct the manner in which electors of President and Vice-
President shall be chosen. The declared motive for the change was
to prevent the possibility of the electors being chosen by State Legis
latures, as had been done in some cases, and to guarantee the cer
tainty of a popular vote in their selection in every State of the
Union. To insure this result it was proposed in the amendment that
the entire power over the choice of electors should be transferred to
Congress. After brief debate the amendment was agreed to,1 and the
1 The proposition of Messrs. Morton and Buckalew for a Sixteenth Article of Amend
ment was as follows : —
" The second clause, first section, second article of the Constitution of the United
States shall be amended to read as follows : ' Each State shall appoint, by vote of the
people thereof qualified to vote for representatives in Congress, a number of electors
equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the State may be
entitled in the Congress ; but no senator or representative, or person holding an office
of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector ; and the Con
gress shall have power to prescribe the manner in which such electors shall be chosen
by the people.' "

THE THREE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. 417
two proposed articles, included under one resolution, were adopted
by ayes 39, noes 16, and sent to the House for concurrence.
The House not being willing to accept the Senate's Amendments,
refused by formal vote to concur, and asked for a conference. The
Senate took the unusual step of declining a conference, promptly
receded from its own Amendments, and sent to the House the
original proposition of that body. The House, not to be outdone
by the Senate in capricious change of opinion, now refused to agree
to the form of amendment it had before adopted, and returned it to
the Senate with the added requirement of nativity, property, and
creed, which the Senate had originally proposed. The Senate in turn
rejected all it had before proposed. The rule indeed seemed to be
for each branch to desert its own proposition as soon as there was
a prospect that the other branch would agree to it. The strange con
troversy was finally ended and the subject brought into intelligible
shape by a conference committee, which reported the Fifteenth
Amendment in the precise form in which it became incorporated
in the Constitution. It received the sanction of the House by a
vote far beyond the two-thirds required to adopt it, the ayes being
145, the noes 44. In the Senate the ayes were 39, the noes were 13.
The action of Congress on the Amendment was completed on the
26th of February, six days before General Grant was installed in
the Presidency.
The gradual progress of public opinion in the United States on
questions relating to slavery and to the personal and political rights
of the negro race, may be clearly traced in the Thirteenth, Four
teenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
— The Thirteenth Amendment, proposed by Congress while the war
was yet flagrant, simply declared that neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude shall exist within the United States or in any place subject
to National jurisdiction.
— The Fourteenth Amendment advanced the negro to the status of
a citizen, but did nothing affirmatively to confer the right of suffrage
upon him. Negatively it aided him thereto, by laying the penalty of
a decreased representation upon any State that should deny or in
any way abridge his right to vote at any election for the choice of
electors for President and Vice-President of the United States,
representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a
State, or the members of the Legislature thereof.
 The Fifteenth Amendment, now proposed, did not attempt to de-
Vol. n. 27

418 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
clare affirmatively that the negro should be endowed with the elective
franchise, but it did what was tantamount, in forbidding to the
United States or to any State the power to deny or abridge the right
to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
States that should adopt an educational test or a property qualifica
tion might still exclude a vast majority of negroes from the polls,
but they would at the same time exclude all white men who could not
comply with the tests that excluded the negro. In short, suffrage
by the Fifteenth Amendment was made impartial, but not necessa
rily universal, to male citizens above the age of twenty-one years.
The adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment seriously modified the
effect and potency of the second section of the Fourteenth Amend
ment. Under that section a State could exclude the negro from the
right of suffrage, if willing to accept the penalty of the proportional
loss of representation in Congress, which the exclusion of the colored
population from the basis of apportionment would entail. But the
Fifteenth Amendment took away absolutely from the State the
power to exclude the negro from suffrage, and therefore the second
section of the Fourteenth Amendment can refer only to those other
disqualifications never likely to be applied, by which a State might
lessen her voting population by basing the right of suffrage on the
ownership of real estate, or on the possession of a fixed income, or
upon a certain degree of education, or upon nativity, or religious
creed. It is still in the power of the States to apply any one of these
tests or all of them, if willing to hazard the penalty prescribed in the
Fourteenth Amendment. But it is not probable that any one of
these tests will ever be applied. Nor were they seriously taken into
consideration when the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed by
Congress. Its prime object was to correct the wrongs which might
be enacted in the South, and the correction proposed was direct and
unmistakable ; viz., that the Nation would exclude the negro from
the basis of apportionment wherever the State should exclude him
from the right of suffrage.
When therefore the nation by subsequent change in its Consti
tution declared that the State shall not exclude the negro from
the right of suffrage, it neutralized and surrendered the contingent
right before held, to exclude him from the basis of apportionment.
Congress is thus plainly deprived by the Fifteenth Amendment of
certain powers over representation in the South, which it previously
possessed under the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. Be-

THE THREE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. 419
fore the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment, if a State should
exclude the negro from suffrage, the next step would be for Congress
to exclude the negro from the basis of apportionment. After the
adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment, if a State should exclude the
negro from suffrage, the next step would be for the Supreme Court
to declare that the act was unconstitutional, and therefore null and
void. The essential and inestimable value of the Fourteenth Amend
ment still remains in the three other sections, and pre-eminently in
the first section.
The contentions which have arisen between political parties as to
the rights of negro suffrage in the Southern States, would scarcely
be cognizable judicially under either the Fourteenth or the Fifteenth
Amendment to the Constitution. Both of those Amendments
operate as inhibitions upon the power of the State, and do not
have reference to those irregular acts of the people' which find no
authorization in the public statutes. The defect in both Amend
ments, in so far as their main object of securing rights to the colored
race is involved, lies in the fact that they do not operate directly
upon the people, and therefore Congress is not endowed with the
pertinent and applicable power to give redress. By decisions of
the Supreme Court, the Fourteenth Amendment has been deprived in
part of the power which Congress no doubt intended to impart to it.
Under its provisions, as construed by the Court, little, if any thing,
can be done by Congress to correct the evils or avert the injurious
consequences arising from such abuses of the suffrage as distin
guished the vote of Louisiana in the Presidential election of 1868,
and in the numerous flagrant cases which followed that baleful prece
dent of unrestrained violence and unlimited wrong. Those outrages
are the deeds of individual citizens or of associated masses, acting
without authority of law and in defiance of law. Yet when a
vitiated public opinion justifies their course, and when indictment
and conviction are impossible, the injured citizen loses his rights as
conclusively as if the law had denied them, and indeed far more
cruelly. Undoubtedly a large proportion of the members of Congress,
while following the lead of those who constructed the Fourteenth
Amendment, sincerely believed that it possessed a far greater scope
than judicial inquiry and decision have left to it. It is hazarding
little to say that if the same political bodies which submitted the
Amendment to the people could have measured both the need of its

420 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
application and the insufficiency of its power, it would have been
seriously changed, and would have conferred upon the National
Government the unquestioned authority to protect individual citi
zens in the right of suffrage, so far as that suffrage is used in the
choice of officers of the United States. The opportunity was
neglected and may never return. It is not at all probable that any
political party will succeed in time of peace, upon financial and
industrial issues, in electing two-thirds of the Senate and two-
thirds of the House of Representatives. No further change in the
Constitution of the Republic is probable therefore, within any period
whose line of thought or action may now be anticipated with reason
able certainty ; and if a sudden political convulsion should possibly
give two-thirds of each branch of Congress to one political party, it
would be found impracticable to propose any change in the Consti
tution, in the direction of enlarging the scope of liberty, that would
be likely to secure the support of three-fourths of the States of the
Union. The Constitutional Amendments were proposed and adopted
under the belief that they would be honorably observed and enforced
in all the States alike. The presumption was certainly in favor of
that loyal obedience to the organic law of the Republic without
which Anarchy has already begun its evil work. If however, by
reason of infidelity to Constitutional provisions in some sections,
if by violence in resisting them in others, it be suggested that they
should have been drawn with greater circumspection, with a broader
comprehension of all the contingencies of the future, the fact yet
remains that they are of priceless value to the Government and the
people. They have added largely to the muniments of personal
liberty ; they have immeasurably increased the just power of the
National Government ; they have exerted a constantly growing force
against the spirit that organized the Rebellion ; they have strength
ened the bonds of the Union against every form of danger which it
has hitherto encountered.
Without the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the Thir
teenth would have proved of little value to the oppressed race which
it declared to be free. In every step taken after the simple article
of emancipation was decreed, the Republicans who controlled the
Government met with obstacles from without and from within.
There were thousands in their own ranks who did not wish the
negro advanced to citizenship ; there were tens of thousands who

THE CONTINUOUS STRUGGLE. 421
were unwilling to see him advanced to the elective franchise. But
happily there were hundreds of thousands who plainly saw that
without the rights of citizenship his freedom could be maintained
only in name, and that without the elective franchise his citizenship
would have no legitimate and (if the phrase be allowed) no auto
matic protection.
To the brave men who led the Republican party to its duty and
its mission, who overcame the numbers of the opposition, who lifted
their associates from the slough of prejudice and led them out of the
darkness of tradition, let there be all honor and praise. They gave
hope to the hopeless, help to the helpless, liberty to the downtrodden.
They did more : they elevated the character and enlightened the
conscience of the oppressing race. The struggle is not yet ended,
the final battle is not fought ; but complete victory sooner or later
is assured. The three great Amendments to the Constitution were
bought with a great price — even the blood of the slain — and they
will assuredly, in their letter and in their spirit, be vindicated and
enforced. Mr. Lincoln taught his countrymen the lesson that he
who would be no slave must be content to have no slave. It is yet
to be learned with equal emphasis that he who would preserve his
own right to suffrage must never aid in depriving another citizen
of the same great boon. In moral as in physical conflicts it may
be easy to determine who strikes the first blow, but it is difficult to
foresee who may strike the last.

CHAPTER XVII.
Inauguration of General Grant for First Term. — Popular Enthusiasm. — His
Inaugural Address. — Approves Fifteenth Amendment. — Announcement of
his Cabinet. — General Surprise. — E. B. Washbcrne. — Jacob D. Cox. — E.
Rockwood Hoar. — John A. J. Creswell. — Alexander T. Stewart. — Ineli
gible. — Name withdrawn. — George S. Boutwell appointed. — Adolph E.
Borie. — Hamilton Fish. — George M. Robeson. — General Schofield. — Gen
eral Rawlins. — General Belknap. — General of the Army. — The Succes
sion. — Sherman appointed. — Lieutenant-General. — Sheridan appointed. —
Halleck. — Meade. — Thomas. — Hancock. — Congress convenes. — Election of
Speaker — Mr. Blaine chosen. — Mr. Kerr the Democratic Candidate. —
Various Members. — Mr. Wheeler. — Mr. Potter. — Judge Noah Davis. —
General Slocum. — Mr. Hale. — Thomas Fitch. — The Pennsylvania Delega
tion. — Mr. S. S. Cox. — Mr. George F. Hoar. — New Era politically under
President Grant. — The Opposition Party in the House. — Its Strong Lead
ers. — Their Manly Character.
aENERAL GRANT was inaugurated on Thursday, the 4th of
March, 1869, amid a great display of popular enthusiasm. All
parties joined in it. The Republicans, who had been embarrassed
by President Johnson's conduct for the preceding four years, felt
that they had overcome a political enemy rather than a man whom
they had themselves placed in power; and the Democrats, who had
supported Johnson so far as was necessary to embarrass and distract
the Republicans, were glad to be released from an entangling alliance
which had brought them neither profit nor honor. Contrary to the
etiquette of the occasion, the incoming President was not escorted
to the Capitol by his predecessor. The exceptions to this usage
have been few. John Adams was so chagrined by the circumstances
attending his defeat that he would not remain in Washington to
see Mr. Jefferson installed in power ; and the long-established hatred
which General Jackson and John Quincy Adams so heartily enter
tained for each other forbade any personal intercourse between them.
General Grant had conceived so intense a dislike of Johnson, by
reason of the effort to place him in a false position in connection
with the removal of Stanton, that he would not officially recognize
422

PRESIDENT GRANT'S INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 423
his predecessor, even so far as to drive from the White House to the
Capitol in the same carriage.
The Inaugural Address of the President was brief and character
istic. " I have," said he, " taken the oath of office without mental
reservation, and with the determination to do to the best of my
ability all that it requires of me. The responsibilities of the position
I feel, but accept them Avithout fear. The office has come to me
unsought. I commence its duties untrammelled. I bring to it a
conscientious desire and determination to fill it to the best of my
ability, and to the satisfaction of the people." He declared that on
all subjects he should have "a policy to recommend, but none to
enforce against the will of the people. Laws are to govern all alike,
— those opposed as well as those who favor them. I know of no
method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as
their stringent execution." He was very emphatic upon the duty
and necessity of upholding the public credit and paying the public
debt. " Let it be understood," said he, " that no repudiator of one
farthing of our public debt will be trusted in public place, and it
will go far to strengthen our public credit, which ought to be the
best in the world." " The question of suffrage," he said, " is one
which is likely to agitate the public so long as a portion of the citi
zens of the Nation are excluded from its privileges in any State. It
seems to me very desirable that this question should be settled now ;
and I entertain the hope and express the desire that it may be by
the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution."
General Grant had never been in any way connected with the
civil administration of Nation or State. The charge of being a
mere military chieftain had been in vain preferred against some of
his most illustrious predecessors ; but with the possible exception
of General Taylor, no President ever came to his office with so little
previous experience in civil affairs. Washington's fame, prior to
his accession to the Presidency, rested mainly on his victorious lead
ership of the Revolutionary army ; but he had, as a young man,
served in the Provincial Assembly of Virginia, had been a member
of the Continental Congress, and had, after the close of his military
career, presided over the convention that framed the Constitution.
Jackson was chosen President on account of his campaign in the
South- West, ending in his brilliant triumph at New Orleans; but
his experience in civil life had already been long and varied. He
entered Congress as a representative from Tennessee when Wash-

424 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
ington was President, took his seat in the Senate of the United
States the day John Adams was inaugurated, and afterwards served
as a judge of the Supreme Court of Tennessee. All these civil
duties had been performed before he received a military commis
sion. After his stormy career in the army had enddd, he was again
sent to the Senate during the second term of President Monroe.
President Taylor, like General Grant, had been simply a soldier;
but the people remembered that his service in the Executive Chair
was faithful, resolute, and intelligent; and they remembered also
that some of the greatest military heroes of the world had been
equally distinguished as civil rulers. Cromwell, William III.,
Frederick the Great, the First Napoleon, left behind them records
of civil administration which for executive force and personal energy
established a fame as great as they had acquired on the field of
battle. The inexperience of General Grant had not therefore hin
dered his election, and left no ground for apprehension as to the
successful conduct of his administration.
The President had so well kept his own counsels in regard to
the members of his Cabinet that not a single name was anticipated
with certainty. Five of the appointments were genuine surprises.
— Elihu B. Washburne, long the faithful friend of General Grant,
was nominated for Secretary of State. He had just entered upon his
ninth term as representative in Congress from Illinois, and resigned
immediately after swearing in Mr. Blaine as Speaker, — a duty
assigned to him as the oldest member of the House in consecutive
service. He was elected to Congress in 1852, from the Galena dis
trict, and his first term began on the day Franklin Pierce was in
augurated President. His period of service was crowded with events
of great magnitude, commencing with the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise, and ending with the elevation to the Presidency of
the chief hero in the great civil war, to which that repeal proxi
mately led. During all these- years Mr. Washburne was an aggres
sive, courageous, faithful representative, intelligent in all his actions,
loyal to the Nation, devoted to the interests of his State.
— Jacob D. Cox of Ohio, who had acquired credit in the war, and
added to it by his service as Governor of his State, was nominated
for Secretary of the Interior, and was universally considered to be
an admirable selection. His thorough training and his intellectual
strength fitted him for any station.
— E. Rockwood Hoar of Massachusetts was named for Attorney-

PRESIDENT GRANT'S CABINET. 425
General. His learning as a lawyer had been previously recognized
by his appointment to the Supreme Bench of his State, — a bench
always eminent for the legal ability and personal character of its
members, and for the value of its decisions. Outside of his mere
professional sphere, Judge Hoar was known as a man of generous
culture, varied knowledge, and the keenest wit. In party relations
he had originally been an anti-slavery Whig, and was prominent and
influential in organizing the Republican party.
— John A. J. Creswell of Maryland was nominated for Postmaster-
General. He was the best living representative of those loyal men
of the Border States who had proved a tower of strength to the
Union cause. He was the confidential friend, the eloquent eulogist,
of Henry Winter Davis, and had by service in both House and
Senate won general recognition as a man of ability and great moral
courage. These four appointments met with general approbation. If their
names had not all been anticipated, they were nevertheless welcome
to the great mass of the Republican party. Two other nominations
created general astonishment. Alexander T. Stewart, the well-known
merchant of New York, was named for Secretary of the Treasury ;
and Adolph E. Borie of Philadelphia, long known in that city as a
man of probity and wealth, was named for Secretary of the Navy.
No new nomination was made for Secretary of War, and the hope
with many was that General Schofield might be continued in a place
whose duties he had so faithfully and so successfully discharged.
The President was very anxious to have Mr. Stewart in his
Cabinet, and was therefore surprised and chagrined to find, after
he had been nominated, that under the law he was not eligible to
the office of Secretary of the Treasury. In the Act establishing the
Treasury Department, passed at the first session of the First Congress
under the Federal Government, it was provided that no person could
be appointed secretary, assistant secretary, comptroller, auditor,
treasurer, or register, who was " directly or indirectly concerned or
interested in carrying on the business of trade or commerce." It
was further provided that any person violating this Act should be
deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and upon conviction, fined
three thousand dollars, removed from office, and forever thereafter
rendered incapable of holding any position under the Government of
the United States. General Grant frankly informed the Senate that
he had .ascertained Mr. Stewart's disability after the nomination, and

426 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
suggested that "in view of these provisions of law and the fact
that Mr. Stewart has been unanimously confirmed by the Senate, he
be exempted, by joint resolution of the two Houses of Congress,
from the operation of the law."
As soon as the President's message was read, Mr. Sherman of
Ohio asked "unanimous consent to introduce a bill repealing so
much of the Act of September 2, 1789, as prohibits the Secretary
of the Treasury from being concerned in carrying on the business of
trade or commerce ; and providing instead that in no case shall he
act on any matter, claim, or account in which he is personally inter
ested." Mr. Sumner objected to the introduction of the bill, sug
gesting that it ought to be "most profoundly considered before it
is acted upon by the Senate." These proceedings were on Satur
day, March 6th. On Monday Mr. Sherman did not call up the bill,
it having been ascertained in private conferences that the Senate
was unwilling to pass it. On Tuesday General Grant withdrew the
request, Mr. Stewart resigned, and Hon. George S. Boutwell was
nominated and confirmed as Secretary of the Treasury.
Mr. Boutwell was at that time fifty-one years of age. He had
enjoyed a large experience in public affairs. He had served seven
years in the Massachusetts Legislature, had been Bank Commis
sioner, Secretary of the Board of Education, a member of the Con
stitutional Convention of 1853, and Governor of the Commonwealth.
Under the National Government he had been Commissioner of Inter
nal Revenue, and six years a representative in Congress. He was
an industrious student, a strong debater, possessed of great capacity
for work, and had always maintained a spotless reputation.
The surprises in connection with General Grant's Cabinet were
not yet ended. A week after the inauguration Secretary Wash
burne resigned, and a few days later was appointed Minister to
France. He was succeeded in the State Department by Mr. Ham
ilton Fish of New York. Mr. Fish was a member of one of the
old Knickerbocker families. He had inherited wealth, was of the
highest social rank, and enjoyed in a marked degree the confidence
and respect of his fellow-citizens. He was bred to the law, and as
a young man took deep interest in political affairs, earnestly attach
ing himself to the fortunes of Mr. Clay in his contest against General
Jackson, and having the great advantage of Mr. Webster's personal
friendship. He had served in both branches of the New- York
Legislature, was a representative from New- York City in the

CHANGES IN THE CABINET. 427
Twenty-eighth Congress, was chosen Governor of his State in
1848, and in 1851 succeeded Daniel S. Dickinson in the United-
States Senate, where he served for a full term as the colleague of
Mr. Seward. At the close of his senatorial service he was but forty-
eight years of age, and by his own wish retired from all participation
in political affairs, though he heartily united with his fellow-Repub
licans of New York in the effort to nominate Mr. Seward for the
Presidency in 1860. It was therefore an almost equal surprise to
the country that General Grant should call Mr. Fish from his retire
ment, and that Mr. Fish, at sixty years of age, should again be
willing to enter the political field. His career as Secretary of State
was fruitful in good works. He was throughout the eight years of
his service devoted to his official duties, and it was his good fortune,
to be connected with public events of exceptional importance. He
brought great strength to the Cabinet of General Grant, and added
in many ways to the prestige and power of the administration.
The changes in the Cabinet continued. Immediately after Mr.
Washburne's resignation as Secretary of State, General Schofield
retired from the War Department, and was succeeded by General
John A. Rawlins, who had been chief of staff to General Grant
during some of his most important .campaigns. General Rawlins
was born in Galena, and was a personal friend of General Grant
before the outbreak of the war. He was a lawyer, but had held
no civil position, and entered the Cabinet with only a military
experience. He was in ill health, and died in the following Sep
tember, when General Sherman succeeded him as Secretary ad
interim, and administered the affairs of the War Department until
the appointment of General Belknap at the close of October.
.Mr. Borie, though gratified with the compliment of being called
to the Cabinet, had no aptitude or desire for public affairs. He
urgently requested General Grant to accept his resignation, and in
June, three months after his appointment, he was succeeded by
Mr. George M. Robeson. Mr. Robeson was connected with some
of the old families of New Jersey that became especially distin
guished in the Revolutionary war. He received a thorough intel
lectual training in his youth, and graduated at Princeton College in
1847. He studied law in the office of the Chief Justice of his State,
and came to the bar under the most favorable auspices. He began
practice as soon as he had attained his majority, and rapidly
advanced in his profession. At thirty-six years of age he was

428 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
appointed Attorney-General of his State, and discharged the duties
of that important office with an ability which justly added to his
legal reputation. He has displayed great power in arguing ques
tions of Constitutional Law. While engaged in the Attorney-
Generalship he was appointed Secretary of the Navy by President
Grant. He was then thirty-nine years of age, and beyond his legal
learning was a man of literary taste and general knowledge of
affairs. Mr. Fish and Mr. Robeson were the only members of Gen
eral Grant's Cabinet appointed the first year of his administration,
who served throughout his Presidency.

General Grant would not resign his military commission in season
for President Johnson to control the Army changes which would
follow. There was no dispute about his immediate successor. Not
only the rank, but the illustrious services, the high personal charac
ter, and the popular estimate of Lieutenant-General Sherman estab
lished his right to the promotion. But discussion arose in army cir
cles and among the people as to the Lieutenant-Generalship. Those
holding the rank of Major-General were five in number, — Henry
W. Halleck, whose commission bore date August 19, 1861 ; George
G. Meade, August 18, 1864; Philip H. Sheridan, November 8, 1864;
George H. Thomas, December 15, 1864; and Winfield S. Hancock,
July 26, 1866. The President had the right under the law to fill
the office of Lieutenant-General by selection, and he was not bound
even by usage to regard any claim based only upon seniority of
commission. General Halleck's distinction had not been won by service in
the field. He was a graduate of West Point with a good record
in the Mexican war. He was appointed Major-General at the out
break of the Rebellion on account of his well-known ability and the
presumption of his fitness for high command — a presumption which
proved not to be well founded. Meade had gained his commission
by the splendid victory at Gettysburg. Sheridan, besides earning
his commission by his brilliant success in the valley of Virginia, had
been personally and most impressively commended by President
Lincoln : his success was in fact political as well as military, for it
totally destroyed General McClellan as a candidate for the Presi
dency. Thomas had received his promotion on account of the great

PROMOTIONS IN THE ARMY. 429
victory at Nashville, without which Sherman might have been seri
ously embarrassed in his march to the sea. General Hancock was
commissioned after the war for general efficiency as a soldier and for
heroism on many battle-fields. No task could be more invidious than
to decide between officers of merit so marked. If Mr. Johnson could
have had the opportunity, it was well known that he would appoint
Thomas to succeed General Sherman ; not so much from love of
Thomas as from hatred of Sheridan, — a hatred which did honor
to Sheridan. It was the fixed purpose of General Grant to defeat
this ; not from unfriendliness towards Thomas, but from a profound
admiration of the military genius of Sheridan, quickened by a very
strong personal attachment to him.
There was no little discussion as to the relative claims of Sheri
dan and Thomas. Sheridan undoubtedly ranked Thomas in com
mand, while Meade outranked both. General Meade however was
not put in rivalry with these two distinguished officers. Not rated
so high in military skill as at least four other commanders of the
Army, it had happened to General Meade to meet the chief com
mander of the rebel army on the most critical battle-field of the war,
and to win a victory which may well be termed the turning-point in
the civil struggle. The only battle fought on the soil of a Northern
State, it was quite natural that an extraneous interest should attach
to Gettysburg, and it is almost the only field of the war which
steadily attracts the visits of tourists and patriots alike.
In the end there was no doubt complete satisfaction in the Army
and among the people at large with the promotion of Sheridan, which
was ordered by President Grant the very day of his inauguration,
directly after Sherman had been gazetted as General. There was at
the same time a strong popular desire that the heroic achievements
of Meade and Thomas should be marked by some form of National
recognition; not, however, in any way to interfere with the just
reward of Sheridan. The proposition to make three Lieutenant-
Generals was canvassed in military and Congressional circles; but
the general aversion to a large military establishment in time of
peace prevented its favorable consideration, and these eminent sol
diers received no attention or favor from Congress after their work
had been crowned with success by the suppression of the Rebellion
and the complete restoration of the Union. Thomas left Washing
ton soon after President Grant's inauguration to take command of
the Department of the Pacific. He was disappointed in his expec-

430 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
tations and depressed in feeling. He died suddenly a year later
(March 28, 1870) at the age of fifty-four. His death was noticed
in a peculiarly impressive manner by a meeting of the two branches
of Congress in the Hall of Representatives, to hear addresses com
memorative of his character. General Meade, born a year earlier,
survived him for a brief period, — dying November 6, 1872. He
had evinced no dissatisfaction with the measure of his reward, and
had been especially gratified by the privilege of maintaining his
headquarters in Philadelphia (from which city he was originally
appointed to the Army) and of passing his closing years on the soil
of the noble State with which his fame is inseparably associated.
Peculiar circumstances surrounded the career of Thomas, im
parting great interest and enlisting on his behalf a strong affection
among the loyal people of the Nation. The popular regret that he
had not been appropriately recognized by the National Government
for his great services, was deepened by his untimely death. The
regard usually felt by soldiers for their successful leader was excep
tionally strong in his case, and manifested itself in many acts of
personal devotion. He was commended to popular favor by his
steadfast loyalty to the Union, when he was subjected to all the
temptations and all the inducements which had led Lee and John'
ston into the rebellion. He, like them, was born in Virginia, was
reared in Virginia, was appointed to the army from Virginia ; but
in the hour of peril to the Government he remembered that he was
a citizen and soldier of the United States, and had sworn to uphold
the Constitution. How well he maintained his faith to his country
is written in the history of great battles and great victories !
The grade of General of the Army, originally provided for Wash
ington in 1799, was revived for the avowed purpose of honoring
General Grant. As originally reported, the Act was to be exhausted
with one appointment; but this provision was struck out and the
grade was left open for General Sherman. It was then abolished,
leaving to Sheridan the command of the Army as Lieutenant-General
(after the retirement of General Sherman), and to his successor with
the rank of Major-General, — thus ultimately establishing the com
mand as it had existed before the war. The Act under which General
Grant received his highest rank authorized the President "whenever
he shall deem it expedient, to appoint a General of the Army of the
United States." The Act passed July 25, 1866, and General Grant
was immediately promoted. A year and a half later, when General

MEETING OF FORTY-FIRST CONGRESS. 431
Grant had broken all personal relations with President Johnson, there
is little doubt that the latter would have interposed his discretion and
failed to " deem it expedient to appoint a General of the Army of the
United States." Fortunately his disposition at the time was friendly
to General Grant, and led him to do with gladness what the loyal
people so unanimously desired for the first soldier of the Nation.

The Forty-first Congress was the second to organize under the
new law — March 4th 1869.1 In the House James G. Blaine of
Maine was elected Speaker, receiving 135 votes to 57 cast for
Michael C. Kerr of Indiana. Of the two hundred and forty-three
representatives on the roll, only ninety-eight had served in the pre
ceding Congress. Among the one hundred and forty-five new mem
bers were some men who afterwards became widely and favorably
known to the country.
— William A. Wheeler, who had been a member of the Thirty-
seventh Congress, now returned from his native district, the most
northerly of New York. He possessed admirable traits for a legis
lator ; being a conscientious worker, intelligent in the business of the
House, and implicitly trusted by his fellow-members. He was a
lawyer and a man of affairs, — engaged at one time in banking, and
for many years president of an important railroad company. He was
well trained for legislative duty, — having served with distinction in
both branches of the New- York Legislature and having been a mem
ber of the State Constitutional Convention of 1867. Not prominent
as a debater, he yet spoke with directness and fluency, and was always
listened to by the House. In all respects he was an admirable repre^
sentative, watchfully caring for the public interests.
— His Democratic colleague, Clarkson Nott Potter, from the West
chester district, entered the House at forty-four years of age. The
son of Bishop Alonzo Potter and grandson of President Nott of
Union College, he had the right by inheritance to the talents with
which he was endowed. After leaving college he devoted himself
to civil engineering, intending to adopt it as his profession, but his
tastes soon inclined him to the law. He was admitted to the bar of
New York in 1847 and in a few years acquired a practice from which
1 For complete membership of Forty-first Congress, see Appendix D.

432 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
he derived a handsome fortune. He was well adapted to Parlia
mentary life and promptly acquired high rank in the House. So
unfailing were his courtesy and kindliness that his personal influence
was as great with the Republicans as with the Democrats, among
whom almost from the day of his entrance he was accorded a lead
ing position.
— Noah Davis took his seat as representative from the strong Re
publican district of Monroe and Orleans in Western New York.
• He early attained distinction at the bar and had just left the Su
preme Bench of his State, where he had served for eleven years
with eminent credit. That high dignity had been conferred upon
him before he was forty years of age. He did not find service in
the House congenial and promptly abandoned all thought of a legis
lative career. This was sincerely regretted by his personal friends,
who had knowledge of his ability and foresaw brilliant success for
him should his ambition lead him to remain in Congress. His sub
sequent service on the Supreme Bench of New York has added to an
already exalted reputation.
— Henry W. Slocum, who now came as a Democratic representative
from the city of Brooklyn, was a graduate of West Point in the
class of 1852, but remained in the Regular Army only about four
years. After his resignation he studied law and was admitted to the
bar in Syracuse. When the civil war broke out he joined the Vol
unteers and rose to high rank. He was appointed a Major-General
and placed in command of a corps. His record as an officer was
without blemish. Though allied with the Democracy, he was not
a bitter partisan, and his course in the House was that of an
enlightened and liberal man.
— Eugene Hale entered the House from Maine in his thirty-third
year. He began the practice of law as soon as he attained his
majority, and was almost immediately appointed county attorney, —
a position which he held for nine years. His success at the bar was
very marked. Preceding his election to Congress he served in the
State Legislature and took a leading position in a body of able men.
In the House of Representatives he rose rapidly in the estimation of
his associates and was recognized as a sound and careful legislator,
of great industry in the committee-room, and of decided ability as
a debater. He exhibited an exceptional clearness of statement and
power of analysis. He possesses the peculiar tact and aptitude
which insure a successful career in a Parliamentary body. He has

MEMBERS OF FORTY-FIRST CONGRESS. 433
always been fond of books, and has constantly grown in knowledge
and in mental discipline.
The Pennsylvania delegation received some valuable accessions.
Washington Townsend of the Chester district brought to his public
duties a large experience in affairs, a good standing at the bar, with
the common sense, integrity, and trustworthiness found so gener
ally in the Society of Friends. — John B. Packer, a man of sturdy
character and strong parts, came from the Dauphin district. — John
Cessna of the Bedford district had served many years in the Legis
lature of Pennsylvania, had been tAvice Speaker of the House of
RepresentatiAres in that State, and had given much attention to Par
liamentary law. — William H. Armstrong from the Lycoming district,
was a graduate of Princeton, a lawyer, and extensively engaged in
business. — James S. Negley, from one of the Pittsburg districts, had
served in the Mexican war when only twenty years of age, and at
the outbreak of the Rebellion was appointed a Brigadier-General in
the Volunteer service. He joined General Sherman in the South-
West in the autumn of 1861 and fought through the war, attaining
an excellent reputation, and being reAvarded Avith the rank of Major-
General. — Daniel J. Morrell of the Johnstown district, who entered
the preceding Congress, had grown rapidly in his standing in the
House, and, next to Judge Kelley, was quoted as an authority upon
all industrial questions.
George W. McCrary and F. W. Palmer of Iowa, Jacob A. Ambler
and William H. Upson of Ohio, Horatio C. Burchard and John B.
Hawley of Illinois, and Stephen W. Kellogg of Connecticut, were
among the members Avho rose to rank and usefulness in the House.
— Gustavus A. Finkelnburg, a young German who spoke English
without the slightest accent, came from one of the St. Louis districts
and rapidly gained the respect and confidence of all who were asso
ciated with him. — S. S. Burdette, a man of force and readiness as
a debater, was one of his colleagues, as was also Erastus Wells, a
Democrat of character and popularity.
— Omar D. Conger of Michigan was a well-trained debater before
he entered the House, and at once took a prominent position in its
deliberations. He illustrated the virtue of persistence in its highest
degree, and had the art of annoying his opponent in discussion to the
point of torture. — John Beatty of Ohio, who had served a brief
period in the preceding Congress, now appeared for a full term. He
had an excellent record as a soldier, was a successful man of affairs,
Vol. II. 28

434 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
and was endowed with a firmness of purpose which could not be
overcome or changed. — James N. Tyner of Indiana, before entering
the House, had been an official of the Post-Office Department, and
possessed a thorough acquaintance with the details of the postal sys
tem of the United States. His knowledge gave him prominence at
once in an important field of legislation, and aided him in promptly
securing the attention and respect of the House.
— Thomas Fitch of Nevada was one of the noticeable figures on the
Republican side of the House. Born and educated in New York, he
was an editor in Wisconsin, a merchant in Missouri, a miner on the
Pacific slope, an editor in San Francisco, a member of the California
Legislature, a delegate in the Constitutional Convention of Nevada,
reporter of the Supreme Court of that State, elected to Congress —
all before he was thirty years of age. The singular variety of his
career could hardly be paralleled outside of the United States. If
his industry had been equal to his natural gifts he would have been
one of the first orators in the country.
— Samuel S. Cox had served eight years in the House from Ohio
(1857 to 1865) as the representative of the Columbus district. At
the close of his last term he went to New York and engaged in the
practice of law in company with Mr. Charlton Lewis, a man of
brilliant attainments and one of the most accomplished graduates
of Yale. But it was not possible for Mr. Cox to keep out of the
political field. His talent for the stump, his ready wit, and, above
all, his good nature and good sense, commended him to the New-
York Democrats, and he appeared in the Forty-first Congress from
one of the city districts. He has been a model of industry. In all
the pressure of Congressional life, to the duties of which he has
given assiduous attention, he has devoted much time to literature
and has published several original and entertaining books.
The Republican representatives from the South Avere in part
natives of the States which sent them to Congress. Of this class
Oliver H. Dockery of North Carolina was the leading man. Of
those who had gone to the South after the war the most conspicuous
were Lionel A. Sheldon of Louisiana, George C. McKee of Missis
sippi, Alfred E. Buck and Charles W. Buckley of Alabama. Horace
Maynard fairly represented both classes, for although a native of
Massachusetts he had lived in Tennessee for nearly a quarter of a
century before the war, and was in all respects identified with -the
interests of the South, and to a large extent shared its prejudices.

MEMBERS OF FORTY-FIRST CONGRESS. 435
But he would not join in secession and turned from a supporter of
slavery to be a radical Republican. He was a man of considerable
ability and great moral worth. He was a valuable representative of
his State after the war.
— The Worcester District of Massachusetts sent George Frisbie
Hoar as its representative. He is the son of Samuel Hoar, who was
honorably conspicuous in the early days of the anti-slavery struggle.
His mother was a daughter of the illustrious Roger Sherman, a signer
of the Declaration of Independence. Mr. Hoar is a graduate of
Harvard College and of the Dane Law School. For twenty years
after admission to the bar he gave his time and his energy to profes
sional pursuits, uninterrupted by any political engagements, except a
single term in each branch of the Massachusetts Legislature. He
began service in the House of Representatives in the full vigor
of manhood in the forty-third year of his age, keenly alive to the
great interests at stake in the Nation, admirably equipped and
disciplined for his duties.
Eminent in his profession, successful in his political career, Mr.
Hoar superadds accomplishments Avhich neither the practice of law
nor participation in public affairs can give. He has been a student
of history, has cultivated a taste for literature, and has acquired a
mass of information Avhich proves that his superb private library has
not been gathered in vain. In certain fields of learning Mr. Hoar
has few peers. It may, indeed, be questioned whether his knowl
edge of our Colonial and Revolutionary history does not surpass that
of any contemporary. Nor has he been content with the mere mastery
of details, with the collection of facts and incidents. He has studied
their relations and their interdependence, has analyzed their causes
and comprehended their effects. Of New England in its Provincial
period he could narrate " the rise of religious sects, the manners of
successive generations, the revolutions in dress, in furniture, in
repasts, in public amusements," even more accurately than Macaulay
presented the same features of the same time in Old England. Mr.
Hoar has studied the era with a devout enthusiasm for the character
of the people, — a people from whom he is proud to claim his own
descent, and whose positive virtues (even with the spice of acrid-
ness which distinguished them) are faithfully reproduced in his own
person. In truth Mr. Hoar is a Puritan, modified by the religious progress
of two centuries, but still a Puritan — in manners, in morals, in deep

436 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
earnestness, in untiring energy. He is independent without self-
assertion, courageous without bravado, conscientious without Phari
saism. In intellectual poAver, amply developed and thoroughly
trained, in force as a debater, both forensic and Parliamentary, Mr.
Hoar is entitled to high rank. And his rank will steadily increase,
for his mind is of that type which broadens and strengthens by con
flict in the arena of discussion.
There was a feeling common to both sides of the House that a
new political era had begun with the inauguration of President Grant.
Perhaps no one could have accurately defined what was expected,
but every one knew that the peculiar conflicts and troubles which
had distinguished the years of Mr. Johnson's administration would
not be repeated. General Grant's tendencies Avere liberal and non
partisan, though he recognized an honorable allegiance to the Repub
lican party, which had placed him in power. Many of his personal
friends Avere among the Democrats, and the first few months of his
administration promised peace and harmony throughout the country.
General Grant had never engaged in a partisan contention, had cast
no vote since the outbreak of the Avar, and was therefore free from
the exasperating influence of political controversy. The Democratic
members of the House shared fully in the kindly feeling towards the
neAv President. They were in a minority, but among them was a
large proportion of able men — men of experience and great skill
in debate. It is seldom that the opposition party has such a list
of champions as appeared on the Democratic side of the House in
the Forty-first Congress. Beck of Kentucky, Randall and Wood
ward of Pennsylvania, Marshall of Illinois, Brooks, Wood, Potter,
Slocum, and Cox of New York, Kerr, Niblack, Voorhees, and Hol-
man of Indiana, Eldridge of Wisconsin, Van Trump and Morgan of
Ohio, unitedly presented a strong array of Parliamentary ability.
In different degrees they were all partisans, but of a manly type.
Earnest discussion and political antagonism were not allowed by
them to destroy friendly relations.

CHAPTER XVIII.
Senate in the Forty-first Congress. — Hannibal Hamlin elected for the Fourth
Term. — Matthew H. Carpenter. — His Double Load of Work. — Carl Schurz.
— Allen G. Thurman. — William G. Brownlow. — Thomas Francis Bayard.
— Governor Fenton. — William A. Buckingham. — Daniel D. Pratt. — John
Scott. — John P. Stockton. — Southern Representation Complete. — Char
acter of Senators and Representatives. — Unjust Abuse. — Southern Resist
ance to Carpet-bag Rule. — Admission of a Colored Senator. — Hiram R.
Revels of Mississippi. — Successor to Jefferson Davis. — The Moral of it.
— President Grant and the Tenure-of-office Act. — House votes to repeal
the Act. — Delay in Senate. — Position of Mr. Trumbull, Mr. Edmunds and
Mr. Schurz. — Disagreement between ¦ ""snate and House. — Conference Com
mittee. — Practical Repeal of the A c. — Death of William Pitt Fessen
den. — His Character.
THE changes in the Senate on the 4th of March, 1869, were
notable in the character both of the retiring and incoming
members. — Hannibal Hamlin from Maine, entered the Senate for the fourth
time. His first election in 1848, to fill out the term of ex-Governor
Fairfield, was for three years. He resigned at the close of his second
term to accept the governorship of his State, and midway in his third
term he was promoted to the Vice-Presidency. From his earliest
participation in public life Mr. Hamlin enjoyed an extraordinary
popularity. Indeed, with a single exception, he was never defeated
for any office in Maine for which he was a candidate. In the great
Whig uprising of 1840 he was the Democratic candidate for Con
gress in the Penobscot district, and was beaten by Elisha H. Allen,
afterwards widely known as Chief Justice of Hawaii and Minister
from that kingdom to the United States. The candidates were
warm personal friends before and after the contest.
— Matthew H. Carpenter succeeded Mr. Doolittle as senator from
Wisconsin. He was forty-five years of age and had gained high
reputation as a lawyer. He had become well known at the National
Capital by his appearance in the Supreme Court, and from his
437

438 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
employment by Secretary Stanton, during the war, in some govern
ment cases of importance. He was a native of Vermont, but his
active career was in the North- West. His ambition as a lad was for
the army; and he spent some time at West Point, but left without
graduating, and devoted himself to the law. He completed his studies
in the office of Mr. Choate in Boston, and began the practice of his
profession in Wisconsin. Not long after his settlement in his new
home, he lost his sight from over-use of his eyes in study, and for a
period of three years was entirely blind. Judge Black, his intimate
friend and eulogist, believed that this appalling calamity wrought
Mr. Carpenter great good in the end : "It elevated, refined, strength
ened all his faculties. Before that time much reading had made
him a very full man : when reading became impossible, reflection
digested his knoAvledge into practical wisdom. He perfectly arranged
his storehouse of facts and cases, and pondered intently upon the first
principles of jurisprudence."
His service in the Senate may rather be termed brilliant than
useful. The truth is that Mr. Carpenter attempted to do. what no
man can accomplish: he tried to maintain his full practice at the
bar, and discharge his full duties as senator at the same time. His
strength was not equal to the double load. He Avas endowed with
a high order of ability. If he had given all his time to the Senate,
or all to the Bar, he Avould have found feAv peers in either field of
intellectual combat. Aside from the Aveight of his argument, his
manner of speech was attractive. He had an agreeable voice, pre
cisely adapted in volume and tone to the Senate Chamber. He was
affluent in language, graceful in manner, and, beyond all, was gifted
with that quality — rare, indefinable, but recognized by every one —
which constitutes the orator.
— Carl Schurz now took his seat as a senator from Missouri. He
was born a Prussian subject, and had just completed his fortieth
year. He had been well educated in the gymnasium at Cologne,
and in a partial course at the university of Bonn. Though retain
ing a marked German accent, he quickly learned to speak English
with fluency and eloquence, and yet with occasional idiomatic errors
discernible when his words are printed. He took active part before
German audiences, for Fremont, in the Presidential canvass of 1856,
and began to make public addresses in English in 1858, when he
espoused the cause of Mr. Lincoln in the famous contest with
Douglas. He was widely sought as a speaker in both of Mr.

CARL SCHURZ, SENATOR FROM MISSOURI. 439
Lincoln's contests for the Presidency, 1860 and 1864. In the latter
year he was especially forcible, attractive, and effective. Subse
quently he fell off, apparently in strength, certainly in popularity.
As a lecturer he lost his hold upon the lyceum, and as a political
orator he began to repeat himself, not merely in sense but in
phrase. As a senator he did not meet the expectation of his
friends. His failure Avas in large part due to the fact that he has
not the power of speaking extempore. He requires careful and studi
ous preparation, and has never attained the art of off-hand parlia
mentary discussion, which Colonel Benton likened to " shooting on
the wing." So deficient is Mr. Schurz in this talent, that he has
been known to use a manuscript in an after-dinner response, a style
of speech whose chief merit consists in its spontaneity, with apt
reference to incidents which could not possibly be foreseen.
The loss of Mr. Schurz's popularity — a popularity that was very
marked in the earlier period of his career — is due in part to certain
unsteady and erratic tendencies, some of which are in strong con
trast with characteristics that are recognized as belonging in an
especial degree to his race. Through all the centuries since Tacitus
drew his vivid picture of the habits and manners of the Germans,
their attachment, it might almost be called their passion, for home,
has been a marked and meritorious feature of their character. To
Fatherland first, and then to whatever country fate or fortune may
draw them, their devotion is proverbial. This admirable trait seems
altogether wanting in Mr. Schurz. When he left Germany he lived
for three years in other countries of Europe, — first in Switzerland,
then in France, then in England. In 1852 he came to America,
and resided first in Pennsylvania, then in Wisconsin, then in Michi
gan, then in Missouri, and then in New York. He has not become
rooted and grounded anywhere, has never established a home, is not
identified with any community, is not interwoven with the interests
of any locality or of any class, has no fixed relation to Church or
State, to professional, political, or social life, has acquired none of
that companionship and confidence which unite old neighbors in the
closest ties, and give to friendship its fullest development, its most
gracious attributes.
The same unsteadiness has entered as a striking feature in the
public career of Mr. Schurz. The party he upheld yesterday met
with his bitterest denunciations the day before, and to-morrow he
will support the political organization of whose measures he is the

440 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
most merciless censor to-day. He boasts himself incapable of attach
ment to party, and in that respect radically differs from the great
body of his American fellow-citizens. He cannot even comprehend
that exalted sentiment of honorable association in public life which
holds together successive generations of men, — a sentiment which in
the United States causes the Democrat to reverence the memory of
Jefferson and Jackson and Douglas, which causes his opponent to
glory in the achievements of Hamilton and Clay and Lincoln ; a sen
timent which in England has bound the Whigs in a common faith
and common glory, from Walpole to Gladstone, and their more
conservative rivals in a creed of loyalty whose disciples, from
Bolingbroke to Beaconsfield, include many of the noblest of British
patriots. For these party associations, to whose influence, under the just
restraint of intelligent patriotism, the wisest legislation is due, Mr.
Schurz has neither approbation nor appreciation. He aspires to the
title of " Independent," and has described his own position as that
of a man sitting on a fence, with clean boots, watching carefully
which way he may leap to keep out of the mud. A critic might,
without carping, suggest that it is the duty of an earnest man to
disregard the bespattering which fidelity to principle often incurs,
and that a beaten path to safe place for one's self is not an inspiring
or worthy object of statesmanship.
Nor is Mr. Schurz's independence of party more pronounced or
more complete than his independence of true American feeling. He
has taken no pride in appearing under the simple but lofty title of a
citizen of the United States. He stands rather as a representative
German-American. He has made his native nationality a political
resource, and has thereby fallen short of the full honor due to his
adopted nationality. The large body of American citizens of Ger
man birth are intensely attached to their new home, and seek the
most complete identification of themselves and their descendants
with the development and destiny of the Great Republic. This is
wise, and is in accordance with the best traditions and best aspira
tions of the Teutonic race. But to Mr. Schurz the Republic is not
great ! " This country," said he, in his Centennial lecture, " is ma
terially great, but morally small."
— Allen G. Thurman came suddenly into prominence in 1867.
He was the Democratic nominee for Governor of Ohio against
Rutherford B. Hayes. For the three years immediately preceding

ALLEN G. THURMAN, SENATOR FROM OHIO. 441
his candidacy the Republican majorities in the State had averaged
nearly 45,000, while in 1863 Vallandigham had been beaten by
101,699. Without premonition or visible cause, in an election for
State officers only, and not for representatives in Congress, the
total vote of 1867 proved to be larger than had ever been cast in
the State, while the majority of General Hayes was less than three
thousand. The Legislature was carried at the same time by the
Democrats, and it proved that Mr. Thurman had lost the Governor
ship only to be promoted at once to the United-States Senate. The
political revolution was as remarkable in character as it was sudden
in time. Ohio had shown profound loyalty to the Union and an
enthusiastic support of all measures for its preservation. Mr. Thur
man had run counter to the principles and prejudices of a large ma
jority of the people of Ohio by his bitter hostility to the war, and
yet he now received a larger popular vote than had ever before been
given even to a Republican candidate, except in the year 1863 when
so many Democrats repudiated Vallandigham.
It was at the full maturity of his powers, in the fifty-sixth year
of his age, that Mr. Thurman took his seat in the Senate, March 4,
1869. He had been chosen a representative in Congress for a single
term twenty-five years before, and had afterwards seiwed a full term
on the Supreme Bench of Ohio, the last two years as Chief Justice
of the court. He was not therefore an untried man, but had an
established reputation for learning in the law, for experience in
affairs, for intellectual qualities of a high order. During the long
interval between his service in the House and his installment in
the Senate the relation of political parties had essentially changed.
Mr. Thurman had changed with the times and with his associates.
When he took his seat in the Twenty-ninth Congress the issue in
regard to the extension of slavery in the Territories was beginning
to enlist public interest. The first impulse of all the representa
tives from that extensive and opulent domain, which had been
saved from the blight of slavery by the Ordinance of 1787, was to
aid in extending a similar blessing to all other Territories of the
United States. With the exception of Stephen A. Douglas and
John A. McClernand of Illinois, and John Pettit of Indiana, all the
Democratic representatives from the four North-western States (Ohio,
Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan) voted for the anti-slavery proviso
offered by Mr. Wilmot. Mr. Douglas, discerning the future more
clearly than his party associates, realized that the chief strength

442 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
of the Democracy must continue to lie in the South, and that an
anti-slavery attitude on the part of North-western Democrats would
destroy the National prestige of the party and lead to its defeat.
The Democratic supporters of the Wilmot Proviso had therefore
choice of two paths : they must abandon their anti-slavery attitude
or they must leave the party. Mr. Thurman adhered to his party.
With this exception, his political course has been one of unswerving
consistency and fidelity to all the extreme demands and severe
creeds imposed upon the Democracy by the South. His Virginia
birth, his rearing within the lines of the old Virginia Military res
ervation in Southern Ohio, his early associations with kindred and
with friends, all contributed to his education as a Democrat. He
naturally grew to strong influence with his associates, and when he
came to the Senate was entitled to be considered the foremost man
of his party in the Nation.
His rank in the Senate was established from the day he took his
seat, and was never lowered during the period of his service. He
was an admirably disciplined debater, was fair in his method of
statement, logical in his argument, honest in his conclusions. He
had no tricks in discussion, no catch-phrases to secure attention, but
was ahvays direct and manly. His mind was not pre-occupied and
engrossed with political contests or with affairs of State. He had
natural and cultivated tastes outside of those fields. He was a dis
criminating reader, and enjoyed not only serious books, but inclined
also to the lighter indulgence of romance and poetry. He was espe
cially fond of the best French writers. He loved Moliere and Racine,
and could quote with rare enjoyment the humorous scenes depicted
by Balzac. He took pleasure in the drama, and Avas devoted to
music. In Washington he could usually be found in the best seat of
the theatre when a good play was to be presented or an opera was
to be given. These tastes illustrate the genial side of his nature,
and Avere a fitting complement to the stronger and sterner elements
of the man. His retirement from the Senate was a serious loss to
his party — a loss indeed to the body. He left behind him pleasant
memories, and carried with him the respect of all with whom he had
been associated during his twelve years of honorable service.
— William G. Brownknv, a quaint and eccentric man, took his seat
as senator from Tennessee. He was in the sixty-fourth year of his
age, and in impaired health. He was born in South-western Vir
ginia in the wild and mountainous region adjacent to the borders

SENATOR BROWNLOW OF TENNESSEE. 443
of three other States. In early life he was a Methodist preacher of
peculiar earnestness and force, with special adaptations to the people
among whom his ministry lay. To his Church he always retained
an intense attachment and devotion. In his later years he pub
lished a work on Methodism, under the strange title of " Tlie Iron
Wheel examined, and its False Spokes extracted." He came into
public and general notice as the editor of the Knoxville Whig, Avhich,
though printed in the mountains of Tennessee when facilities of
communication were restricted, attained wide circulation and influ
ence. Its editor was known as " Parson " BroAvnlow, a sobriquet
which attached to him through life. His paper was strongly anti-
Jackson, warmly espoused the cause of Mr. Clay, and was distin
guished in its editorials by a treatment of public questions so original
that for nearly a quarter of a century it was known and quoted by
the journals of the whole country.
But the odd and humorous editor, hitherto notorious for his parti
san intensity and for the extravagance of his diction, was suddenly
transformed into a moral hero. When the Avild movement for seces
sion swept over Tennessee, and carried with it even such men as
John Bell, Brownlow took his stand for the Union. Threats could
not move him, persecution could not break him, the prison had no
terrors for him. His devotion to the National cause did not mean
simply the waving of the flag and the delivery of patriotic orations :
it meant cold and hunger, separation from his family, loss of property,
possibly loss of life. He endured all, and faced his bloodthirsty
enemies with a courage superior to their own. He Avon their respect
by his brave resistance, and was finally released from jail and ban
ished from the Confederacy. He came North, and remained until
the progress of the National arms enabled him to return to his
home. His patriotic devotion was rewarded by the boundless con
fidence of the loyal people of Tennessee. At the close of the Avar
he was chosen Governor, and was noAv promoted to the Senate of
the United States — too late for the exertion of his once strong
mental qualities, but early enough to testify by his presence the
triumph of loyalty and manhood in the bloody strife through Avhich
he had passed.
— Thomas F. Bayard, who entered the Senate at the opening of
the Forty-first Congress, was little known to the public, except as
a member of a family which had been for a considerable period
prominent in the political affairs of Delaware. His service in the

444 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Senate has been remarkable for one leading characteristic, — the
power, or the accidental fortune, to create a public impression as
to his career precisely the reverse of its actual history. The illus
trations are many: —
In financial circles Mr. Bayard has been held as a fair and con
servative exponent of sound views, a jealous guardian of the public
credit. As matter of fact, he joined in a political crusade to enforce
the payment of the National debt in depreciated paper money, and
almost the first vote he ever gave in the Senate was against the bill
declaring the National debt to be payable in coin. He voted to
except specifically the fifteen hundred millions of 5-20 bonds from
coin payment, argued earnestly in favor of taxing the bonds of the
Government, refused to support the bill for the resumption of specie
payments, and united with others in a National movement to repeal
the Act after it had been for a considerable period in operation.
On the Southern question, in all its phases, Mr. Bayard has been
proclaimed by his supporters as calm, considerate, and just. In truth
he has gone as far as the most rancorous rebel leader of the South,
touching the Reconstruction laws and the suffrage of the negro.
In the Forty-second Congress, in an official report on the condition
of the South, Mr. Bayard joined with the minority of the committee
in the distinct avowal that negro suffrage would practically cease
when the Republican party should be defeated. These are the exact
words in which Mr. Bayard concurred : " But whenever that party (the
Republican) shall go down, as go down it will at some time not long in
the future, that will be the end of the political power of the negro among
white men on this continent." When Mr. Bayard united with other
Democrats in this declaration the right of the negro to vote had
already been protected by an Amendment to the Constitution. His
language was, therefore, a distinct threat to override the Constitution
in order to strip the negro of the political power which the Constitu
tion had conferred upon him. This threat was so serious and so law
less that it should have received more attention than was bestowed
upon it when first put forth. It was not uncommon to hear brazen
defiance of Constitutional obligations from Southern speakers address
ing Southern audiences for mere sensational effect. But this was an
announcement made in the Senate of the United States, not hastily
and angrily in the excitement of debate, but with reflection and delib
eration, in an official report which had been studied for months and
subscribed to in writing by Mr. Bayard.

SENATOR BAYARD OF DELAWARE. 445
The common apprehension assigns to Mr. Bayard a high standing
at the bar and positive rank as a man of culture. As a lawyer
Mr. Bayard has doubtless cherished no ambition as he has attained
no prominence, Avhile in point of education he never enjoyed facili
ties beyond those of the common school or the private academy.
Originally destined for mercantile life, he did not receive in his early
years the benefit of liberal training; nor did his tastes lead him
into any special personal pursuit of literature or science, or even
into a close, careful study of the history of his own country, — a
study which would have exempted his public career from some of
his more notable mistakes.
For obvious reasons Mr. Bayard has acquired exceptional popu
larity in the South, and especially Avith Southern men in Congress.
When those who participated in the Rebellion were freed from their
disabilities and regained their old seats in the Senate and House,
they found Mr. Bayard in position, and they naturally accepted him
as a leader. It was fresh in the memory of these men that Mr.
Bayard's friendship for them had been constant and unremitting;
that even in the fatal folly and wrong of secession in 1861 they
had his sympathy, to such an extent that he advocated in a public
speech the policy of permitting them -to separate peacefully from
the Union. He spoke earnestly against the use of the National
power to hold these States to their duty as members of a common
government, and expressed the belief that it would be better to have
two republics, than to have one strong enough to command respect
for its laws and to enforce obedience at the cannon's mouth. The
avowal of these opinions north of the National Capital was greater aid
to the Southern conspirators than if Mr. Bayard had openly joined
their councils or expended his valor in the ranks of their army.
It was evidently not deemed prudent by Mr. Bayard to repeat his
disunion views. After Fort Lafayette, at Mr. Seward's command,
had opened its doors to men who publicly expressed disloyal senti
ments in the North, Mr. Bayard gave to the rebellion the benefit of
his silence. The great struggle went on ; myriads of patriots stepped
to the ranks of the Union Army ; the people were fired with love of
country ; from every loyal platform and. every loyal pulpit rang out
words of faith and hope for the cause and for its brave defenders.
But Mr. Bayard's silence was unbroken even by the thunders of
Gettysburg almost within sound of his home, or by the closing and
complete triumph of the National arms. He had spoken words of

446 | TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
sympathy and encouragement to the enemies of the Union. He
never uttered a word of cheer for its friends.1
The organization of Governor Fenton's friends in New York,
which had failed to secure him the nomination for Vice-President
at the Chicago Convention, was strong enough to elect him to the
Senate, even against so worthy a competitor as Governor Morgan,
who had the advantage of being in the seat. It was a strong attes
tation of Mr. Fenton's strength in his own State. — William A.
Buckingham, whose distinction as War Governor of Connecticut had
reached far beyond the limits of his State, was now promoted to
a seat in the Senate. — Daniel D. Pratt, afterwards Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, appeared from Indiana as the successor of Thomas
A. Hendricks. — John Scott, whose father had beena representative
in Congress, succeeded Mr. Buckalew as senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Scott had taken little part in politics, and had been altogether
devoted to his profession as a lawyer ; but his service in the Senate
was distinguished by intelligence and fidelity. No man Avrought so
1 A few extracts from Mr. Bayard's speech of July 9, 1861, at Dover, Del., will
exhibit his spirit of disloyalty to the Union of the States. Mr. Bayard said, —
"And is such a war necessary for the peace and happiness of the United States?
For half a century we have lived at .peace with Great Britain, with her Canadian posses
sions upon our Northern border. Upon the South, Mexico holds her government with
no threats of trouble to us or our citizens. Why, then, may not two American confedera
cies exist side by side without conflict, each emulating the other in the progress of civilization?
The coterminous kingdoms of Europe offer many examples of similar peace and pros
perity. With such a sickening alternative as civil war, why should not the experiment at least
be made? It is this question we are to pass upon to-day." . . .
"If peace will restore and secure these blessings to the people of the United States,
even though a number of their former associates have gone off under a new and inde
pendent organization, in the name of Heaven let us raise our voice for it I Shall this earnest
cry for peace be stifled at the bidding of a host of fanatical and cowardly editors, aided
hy an army of greedy contractors and public leeches, stimulating an ignorant mob to
denounce and attack us as traitors and secessionists? "...
" You and I are citizens of Delaware. To her laws and government we owe allegiance.
Through our Slate we owe allegiance to the Federal Government, of which she is a member.
But as State officials can command us to no duty unknown to State laws, neither can a
Federal officer claim any authority over us in matters not within his constitutional and
legal control. A palpable infraction of our written charter of government by our rulers,
justifies disobedience upon the part of a citizen as much as lawful orders are entitled to
loyal compliance."
[But who, as Mr. Webster had asked Mr. Hayne thirty years before, was to judge
of "the palpable infraction of our written charter of government"? Was it the Judi
cial department of that government? Or was it Mr. Bayard and his disloyal associates
in Delaware to whom he was addressing words of hostility to the National Administra
tion and of infidelity to the Union of the States? It is significant that Mr. Bayard
acknowledged allegiance to the National Government only as he owed it through his
State. This was the rank heresy upon which the leaders of the Southern rebellion
sought their justification.]

SENATORS FROM RECONSTRUCTED STATES. 447
effectively in exposing to the condemnation of public opinion the
evil work of the Ku-Klux organizations in the South. At the close
of his term he returned to the practice of laAV, and Avas honored by
the appointment of chief solicitor to one of the largest corporations
in the Avorld — the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. — Thomas C.
McCreery took his seat as senator from Kentucky. Originally a
lawyer, he had for many years devoted his attention to farming. He
had acquired prominence in his party by carefully preparing and ac
curately committing to memory a political oration each year, which
he delivered at the Democratic State Convention. He was an up
right, good-natured man, with extreme Democratic views ahvays
amiably expressed. — John P. Stockton, who was deprived of his
seat three years before under circumstances Avhich seemed to impose
a hardship upon him, now entered with undisputed credentials from
New Jersey.
The senators first admitted from the reconstructed States were
about equally divided between native Southerners and those who had
gone from the North at the close of the war ; but all were Republi
cans except one in Virginia and one in Georgia. John F. Lewis and
John W. Johnston were natives of the State, belonging to old and
influential families. The former was a Republican: the latter a
Democrat. — In North Carolina, John Pool was an old Whig, promi
nent in the politics of his State before the war. Joseph C. Abbot
was from NeAv Hampshire, a Brigadier-General in the Union Army.
— Thomas J. Robertson of South Carolina was a native of the
State, and Frederick A. Sawyer was from Massachusetts, but had
lived in the State since 1859. — Joshua Hill and Thomas M. Nor
wood of Georgia were both Southern men by birth. Mr. Hill was
a representative in the Thirty-fifth and Thirty-sixth Congresses, and
when the State seceded refused to resign. He joined the Republican
party after the war. Mr. Norwood entered the Senate as a Demo
crat. — Thomas W. Osborn and Abijah Gilbert, senators from Florida,
were both from the North, the former a native of New Jersey, the
latter of New York. — The senators from Alabama, Willard Warner
and George E. Spencer, the former born in Ohio, the latter in New
York, were both officers of the Union Army. — Hiram R. Revels and
Adelbert Ames were the senators from Mississippi. The former was
born in the South. The latter was born in Maine, was a graduate
of West Point and became highly distinguished as an officer in the
war. — John S. Harris and William Pitt Kellogg were senators from

448 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Louisiana. The former was a native of New York. The latter was
born in Vermont, but had long resided in Illinois. He served in the
Union Army with the rank of Colonel in the Donelson and Shiloh
campaigns under General Grant. — The senators from Texas, Morgan
C. Hamilton and J. W. Flanagan, were both natives of the South
and long domiciled in Texas. — Of the Tennessee senators one was
born in the South and one in the North.
The representation of the Southern States being complete in both
Houses before the close of the first session of the Forty-first Con
gress, an impartial estimate could be made of the strength and
capacity of the men who were opprobriously designated in the South
either as Carpet-baggers or Scalawags. It was soon ascertained that
the unstinted abuse heaped upon them as a class was unjust and often
malicious. The large proportion, and notably those avIio remained
in Congress beyond two years, Avere men of character and respecta
bility, in many cases indeed of decided cleverness. But their mis
fortune was that they had assumed a responsibility which could be
successfully discharged only by men of extraordinary endowments.
If any considerable number of them had been gifted in a high degree
as orators, they would have had great advantages among a people
who rate mere eloquence above its true value. If any of them had
been men of large fortune (invested in Southern property), and able
to make lavish expenditure, they could have produced a deep impres
sion upon a people more given to admiration of mere wealth than
the people of the North. But of the entire list of Republican sena
tors and representatives from the reconstructed States, there was not
one who was regarded as exceptionally eloquent or exceptionally
rich ; and hence they were compelled to enter the contest without
personal prestige, without adventitious aid of any kind. They were
doomed to a hopeless struggle against the influence, the traditions,
the hatred of a large majority of the white men of the South.
The Fifteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution, now
pending and about to be adopted, would confirm the colored man's
elective franchise and add the right of holding office. One of the
senators just admitted from Mississippi in advance of the ratification
of the amendment (Hiram R. Revels) was a colored man of respect
able character and intelligence. He sat in the seat which Jefferson
Davis had wrathfully deserted to take up arms against the Republic
and become the ruler of a hostile government. Poetic justice, his
toric revenge, personal retribution were all complete when Mr.

PRESIDENT GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION. 449
Revels' name was called on the roll of the Senate. But his presence,
while demonstrating the extent to which the assertion of equal
rights had been carried, served to increase and stimulate the South
ern resistance to the Avhole system of Republican reconstruction.
Those who anxiously and intelligently studied the political situation
in the South could see hoAv unequal the contest would be and how
soon the men who organized the rebellion would again Avield the
political power of their States — wield it lawfully if they could, but
unlaAvfully if they must ; peaceably if that would suffice, but vio
lently if violence in their judgment became necessary.

President Grant had scarcely taken a step in the duty of admin
istration before he realized that as soon as the current session of
Congress should terminate his hands would be completely tied,
respecting the removal and appointment of Federal officers, by the
Tenure-of-office Act. With his prompt and determined mode of pro
cedure he caused it to be known to Republican senators and repre
sentatives that so long as the statute was in force he would simply
stand still in the matter of appointments and permit the incumbents
to remain in position, except where flagrant misconduct should call
for suspension under the law. This position was startling to all
who were desirous of securing the appointment of political favor
ites, who in a party sense had earned their reAvard and were wait
ing to receive it. There was a general desire to remove the men
whom President Johnson had forced into office before the restraining
Act was passed. But General Grant was resolved that neither he
nor the members of his Cabinet would go through the disagreeable
and undignified process of filing reasons for suspending an officer,
when in fact no reasons existed aside from obnoxious political opin
ion. The Republican members of both branches quickly perceived
that tying the hands of a hostile President like Andrew Johnson
afforded more satisfaction than the same process applied to a friendly
President like General Grant.
It was therefore determined by the Republicans to escape from
their embarrassment, even at the expense of an inconsistency which
could but prove humiliating to them. On the 9th of March, just
five days after Andrew Johnson had left the Presidency, General
Butler introduced in the morning hour of the House, a bill of two
Vol. II. 29

450 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
lines, absolutely repealing the Tenure-of-office Act, for a constructive
violation of which he had ten months before urged the impeachment
of President Johnson and his expulsion from office. The standing
committees had not yet been announced ; and therefore without
reference or a moment's debate or consideration of the measure,
General Butler demanded the previous question, which was sustained ;
and under a call of the ayes and noes, the bill was passed by 138 to 16.
The small minority was composed of Republicans. The Democrats,
who had solidly voted against the Tenure-of-office bill two years
before, voted now with entire consistency for its repeal, and with
them also, in solid ranks, voted the men who, in the preceding Con
gress, had clamored most loudly for Johnson's decapitation.
When the bill reached the Senate, there was a disposition on the
part of some leading members of that body to pass it as promptly
as it had been passed by the House. Mr. Morton urged that it be
put on its passage without referring it ; but the Senate was not pre
pared for such haste, and on motion of Mr. Trumbull, the Bill was
sent to the Judiciary Committee. That Committee reported it with
out delay to the Senate, with an amendment in the form of a substi
tute. The House bill was a simple repeal in the fewest possible
words. The Judiciary Committee now proposed that instead of an
absolute repeal, the Tenure-of-office Act " be, and the same is, hereby
suspended until the next session of Congress."
This was a lame and impotent conclusion, and did not command
the support or even the respect of the Senate. Mr. Thurman, a
member of the committee that reported it, made haste to announce
,that he had not approved it. He treated the proposition for suspen
sion as .a practical confession that the Tenure-of-office Act "is to be
enforced when it will have no practical effect, and is not to be enforced
when it would have practical effect." The chief defenders of the
proposition to suspend the Act were Mr. Trumbull, Mr. Edmunds,
and Mr. Schurz. Mr. Edmunds, pressed by Mr. Grimes to furnish a
good reason for suspending the Act, replied that "owing to the
peculiar circumstances that have attended the last administration, it
is desirable that there should be an immediate and general removal
of the office-holders of the country as a rule ; and as an agency for
that removal, subject to our approval when we meet again in con
firmation of their successors, these bad men being pnit out, we are
willing to trust this Executive with that discretion."
Coming from a senator of the United States, this declaration was

MODIFICATION OF TENURE-OF-OFFICE ACT. 451
regarded as extraordinary. The " bad men " to whom Mr. Edmunds
referred were the appointees of President Johnson, and every one
of them had been Confirmed by the Senate of the United States
when the Republicans had more than two-thirds of the body. If
these appointees Avere "bad men," why, it was pertinently and for
cibly asked by the aggrieved, did not Mr. Edmunds submit proof of
the fact to his Republican associates and procure their rejection?
He knew, the accused men declared, as much about their characters
when their names were before the Senate, as he knew noAV Avhen he
sought, behind the protection of his privilege, to brand them with
infamy. To permit them to be confirmed in the silence and confi
dence of an executive session, and then in open Senate, Avhen their
places were wanted for others, to describe them as "bad men,"
seemed to them a procedure not to be explained on the broad
principles of statesmanship, or even on the common law of fair
dealing. Mr. Schurz was as anxious as Mr. Edmunds to give the President
full power to remove the office-holders. He declared that he " would
be the last man to hamper the President in the good work of cleaning
out the Augean stable, which he is now about to undertake." He
was sure that " the rings must be broken up," that " the thieves must
be driven out of the public service." He eulogized President Grant
as especially fit for the work. "We have," said he, "a President
who is willing to do what we and the country desire him to do." Mr.
Schurz expressed at the same time his " heartfelt concern " regarding
a rumor that the President was very sensitive touching the proposi
tion reported by the Judiciary Committee, and that " he will make
no removals unless the civil-tenure bill be repealed instead of being
suspended." Mr. Schurz was sure that "on all the great questions
of policy the President and Congress heartily agree," and he con-
'demned " the attempts made to sow the seeds of distrust and dis
cord." It is somewhat amusing as well as instructive to recall that
in little more than two years from that time, when nearly all the
appointees of President Johnson had been turned out of office,
Mr. Schurz began work again at "the Augean stable," now locating
it in the Grant administration, and demanding that it should be
cleansed, that "the rings" should be broken up, that "the thieves
must be driven out of the public service." He imputed to President
Grant's administration even greater corruption than he had charged
upon the administration of his predecessor, and from his ever-teeming

452 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
storehouse lavished abuse with even a more generous hand upon the
one than he had upon the other.
The amendment of the Judiciary Committee providing for a sus
pension of the law until Congress should meet again — a period of
about eight months — was so objectionable that it won no substantial
support from senators. There was something so baldly and shame
lessly partisan in the proposition to suspend the Act just long enough
to permit President Grant, without obstruction or encumbrance, to
remove the Democrats whom President Johnson had appointed to
office, that the common instinct of justice, and even of public decency,
revolted. The Tenure-of-office Act was either right or wrong, ex
pedient or inexpedient, Constitutional or unconstitutional, and it was
easy to see that men could honestly differ as to its character in these
respects. But it was impossible to comprehend how a candid legis
lator could maintain the* Constitutionality and expediency of the Act,
and +'.en propose to suspend it for that specific period of General
Giant's administration, when, if needed at all, it would be most
needed. Within the eight months next ensuing the President would
probably make more removals and appointments than for the remain
der of his term, and it was just for this period that Mr. Trumbull,
Mr. Edmunds, and Mr. Schurz urged that the law be made inopera
tive, — inoperative in order that removals of Democratic office-holders
for good cause, and for no cause except that they were Democrats,
might in every way be expedited.
It was soon perceived that if the question before the Senate
should be reduced to a choice between suspension of the Act or its
total repeal, there was danger that the majority would vote for repeal.
To avert that result, Mr. Edmunds asked to withdraw the proposi
tion, and it was accordingly recommitted to the Judiciary Committee
on the 23d of March. On the next day Mr. Trumbull reported a
substitute for the existing law, and the Senate, after brief discussion,
agreed to it by ayes 37, noes 15. The amendment seemed to be
ingeniously framed to destroy the original Act and yet appear to
maintain it in another form. The senators apparently wished to
gratify General Grant and promote their own purposes by render
ing the removal of President Johnson's appointees easy, and at the
same time avoid the inconsistency involved in the repeal of a law for
whose enactment they had so strenuously contended only two years
before. The first modification of the original Act, as embodied in the

MODIFICATION OF TENURE-OF-OFFICE ACT. 453
Senate amendment, was to relieve the President altogether from
the necessity of filing charges against an officer whom he desired to
suspend. In the second place, all provisions of the original law
authorizing the Senate to pass specific judgment on the propriety of
the suspension and declaring that if the Senate did not approve the
President's act the person suspended should " forthwith " resume his
office, were now abandoned. The President was left at liberty to
suspend any officer without assigning a cause, and to nominate his
successor. If the nomination should be rejected, another might
be made, and another, and another, until the Senate should confirm.
If the Senate should stubbornly reject all the nominations and the
session of Congress end without a confirmation, then, in that remote
and highly improbable event, the suspended officer, according to the
proposed laAV, should be restored to his place. The substance of
the original Act was gone, but the Senate sought shelter from its
record of inconsistency under the small shadow of this distant and
hypothetical restoration of the suspended officer.
But the House would not consent that even the small shadow
should remain. Representatives well knew that it was not agreeable
to President Grant that any authority should be retained by the
Senate whereby an obnoxious officer could in any event be kept in
place against his wishes, and they were in hearty accord with him.
The House had always been jealous of the power of the Senate over
appointments to office, and but for the desire to punish President
Johnson the representatives would never have consented to the
Tenure-of-office Act. They were now determined, if possible, to
strip the Senate of its great aggrandizement of power. The feeling
of many members of the House was to sustain an amendment offered
by General Logan directing that " all civil offices, except those of
judges of the United-States courts, filled by appointment before the
4th of March, 1869, shall become vacant on the 30th of June, 1869."
This would have been a wholesale removal beyond any scheme at
tempted since the organization of the Government ; but it was not
deemed wise even to bring it to a test, and the House contented
itself with the rejection of the Senate amendment by a decisive
vote. The subject was then referred to a Conference Committee, con
sisting of Messrs. Trumbull, Edmunds, and Grimes of the Senate,
and Messrs. Benjamin F. Butler, C. C. Washburn, and John A.
Bingham of the House. The Bill reported by this committee to both

454 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Houses is the present law on the subject.1 Mr. Trumbull, in making
the report, gave this assurance to the Senate : " As the' Committee
of Conference report the bill, the suspended officer would go back
at the end of the session unless somebody else was confirmed in his
place." On the same day in the House, in answer to a pressing
question from Mr. Hoar of Massachusetts, Mr. Bingham expressed
the opinion that " no authority without the consent of the President
can get a suspended officer back into the same office again." General
Butler, another of the House conferees, said : " I am free to say that
I think this amendment upon the question of removal and reinstate
ment of officers leaves the Tenure-of-office Act as though it had never
been passed, so far as the power of the President over the Executive
officers is concerned." It was certainly an extraordinary specta
cle, without precedent or parallel, that the report of the conferees
should have one meaning assigned to it in the Senate, and a dia
metrically opposite meaning assigned to it in the House, and that
these antagonistic meanings should be made on the same day,
and put forth by the conferees whose names were attached to
the report. Such a legislative proceeding cannot be too strongly
characterized. But the popular understanding among Democrats and Republi
cans alike was that the Tenure-of-office Act had been destroyed, and
that Mr. Trumbull's technical construction of the amendment was
made merely to cover the retreat of the Senate. By the new enact
ment, the provisions which had led to the dispute between President
Johnson and Congress were practically extirpated; and thus a volun
tary confession was recorded by both Senate and House that they had
forced an issue with one Executive on an assumed question of right,
which they would not attempt with his successor. The members of
the present House who in the preceding Congress had voted to im
peach the President, and the great mass of the senators who voted to
convict him, now voted to blot out the identical clause of the Act
under which they held the President to be deserving of removal for
even venturing to act upon his own fair construction of its meaning.
With all the plausible defenses that can be made for this contradictory
course, the fact remains that the authors of the law precipitately fled
from its enforcement the moment a President with whom they were in
sympathy was installed in office. They thereby admitted the partisan
1 The full text of the Amendment to the Tenure-of-office Act will be found in Ap
pendix B.

MODIFICATION OF TENURE-OF-OFFICE ACT. 455
intent that had governed the enactment, just as they admitted the
partisan intent that now led to the practical repeal. Casting off all
political disguises and personal pretenses, the simple truth remains,
that the Tenure-of-office Law was enacted lest President Johnson
should remove Republican office-holders too rapidly ; and it was prac
tically repealed lest President Grant should not remove Democratic
office-holders rapidly enough.
While President Grant did not find himself in the least degree
embarrassed by the Tenure-of-office Act as amended, he did not sur
render his hostility to its existence in any form whatever. In his
first annual message (nine months after the legislation just narrated)
he earnestly recommended its total repeal. " It could not," said the
President, " have been the intention of the framers of the Constitu
tion, when providing that appointments made by the President
should receive the consent of the Senate, that the latter should have
the power to retain in office persons placed there by Federal ap
pointment against the will of the President. The law is inconsistent
with a faithful and efficient administration of the Government. What
faith can an Executive put in officials forced upon Mm, and those, too,
whom he has suspended for reason? How will such officials be
likely to serve an Administration which they know does not trust
them?" The President was evidently of opinion that the doubtful and
contradictory constructions of the Act as amended left the whole
matter, (as described by Mr. Niblaek of Indiana when the Confer
ence report was under consideration) " in a muddle ; " with the in
evitable result that certain parties would be deceived and misled by
the peculiarly tortuous language which the Senate insisted upon in
troducing in the amendment. The House had acted throughout in
a straightforward manner, but the most lenient critic would be com
pelled to say that the course of the Senate was indirect and evasive.
That body had evidently sought to gratify the wishes of President
Grant, on the one hand, and to preserve some semblance of its power
over appointments, on the other. It was freely predicted at the time
that so long as the Senate and the President were in political harmony
nothing would be heard of the Tenure-of-office Act, but that when
the political interests of the Executive should come in conflict with
those of the Senate there would be a renewal of the trouble which
had characterized the relations of President Johnson and the Senate,
and which led to the original Tenure-of-office Act with its positive

456 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
assertion of senatorial power over the whole question of appointment
and removal.

William Pitt Fessenden took part in the first session of Congress
under the Presidency of General Grant. It was his last public ser
vice. On the eighth day of the following September (1869) he died
at his residence in Portland, Maine, in the sixty-third year of his
age. He was one of the many victims of that strange malady which,
breaking, out with virulence at the National Hotel in Washington on
the eve of Mr. Buchanan's inauguration (1856-57), destroyed many
lives. Its deadly poison undermined the constitutions of some who
apparently recovered health. Of these Mr. Fessenden was one.
He regained the vigor that carried him through those critical years
of senatorial work on which his fame chiefly rests"; yet he always
felt that he had been irreparably injured by the insidious attack.
The irritability and impatience which he occasionally displayed in
public and in private came undoubtedly from sufferings which he
bore with heroic endurance through the years when his public bur
dens were heaviest.
— His death was announced by his successor, Lot M. Morrill, who
delivered an appreciative eulogy upon his character and public ser-
A^ice. Mr. Sumner bore testimony to the greatness of his career in
the Senate. " All that our best generals were in arms, Mr. Fessenden
was in the financial field," said the Massachusetts senator. Describ
ing Mr. Fessenden's " extraordinary powers in debate — powers which
he commanded so readily," Mr. Sumner said, " His words warmed
as the Olympic wheel caught fire in the swiftness of the race. If
on these occasions there were sparkles which fell where they should
not have fallen, they cannot be remembered now." This reference
was well understood. Mr. Fessenden and Mr. Sumner were never
cordial. Members of the same party, supporters of the same general
measures, with perfect appreciation and with profound respect each
for the other, it seemed as impossible to unite them cordially, as in
earlier days it was to unite Adams and Hamilton in the ranks of the
Federalists.
— Mr. Fessenden had maintained a brilliant reputation for a long
period. When Mr. Webster, at the height of his senatorial fame,
made his celebrated tour through the Middle and Western States in
1837, he selected Mr. Fessenden, a young man of thirty, as his trav-

DEATH OF WILLIAM PITT FESSENDEN. 457
eling companion, — selected him for his brilliancy, when he had
choice of the brilliancy of all New England. Mr. Garrett Davis, a
senator from Kentucky, in his eulogy of Mr. Fessenden, referred
to Mr. Webster's visit to that State, and described the warm greeting
which Mr. Fessenden received, the deep impression made upon him
by Mr. Clay's hospitality at Ashland, and the impression which the
young man made upon Mr. Clay, with whom he thenceforward
became a marked favorite. Mr. Davis and Mr. Fessenden met not
long after as members of the House in the Twenty-seventh Congress
(under Harrison and Tyler). "Mr. Fessenden at that time," said
Mr. Davis, " was not only a young man of eminent ability and attain
ments, but he was warm-hearted, frank, honorable, eminently consci
entious. His health was then good, and he was always bright and
genial: sometimes he showed the lambent play of passion and of
fire."— His eulogists in both branches of Congress were many. Mr.
Hamlin, long his colleague, had been a student in his law office, and
placed him in the front rank of American senators. Mr. Trumbull
presented him as he was in 1855, when they first met in a Senate of
sixty-two members, of whom only fifteen were Republicans. Mr.
Williams of Oregon described him as "towering in mind among
those around him, like Saul in form among his countrymen." In the
House, Mr. Lynch, from his own city, gave the home estimate of Mr.
Fessenden's character. Mr. Peters eulogized him for his eminent
professional rank ; and Mr. Hale described him as a man " who never
kept himself before the people by eccentric forces, and Avent in quest
of no popularity that had to be bought by time-serving." Words of
tenderness and affection were spoken of him by men whose tempera
ment was as reserved and undemonstrative as his own. — "A truer,
kinder heart," said Henry B. Anthony, "beats in no living breast
than that which now lies cold and pulseless in the dead form of
William Pitt Fessenden."

CHAPTER XIX.
Events of Interest. — In Diplomacy and Reconstruction. — The Dominican Re
public. — Annexation Treaty. — Defeated by Senate. — President Grant
renews the Effort. — Commission sent to San Domingo. — Their Report.—
Opposition of Mr. Sumner. — The President and Mr. Sumner. — Reconstruc
tion Measures completed. — Virginia, Mississippi and Texas. — Re-admitted
to Representation. — Peculiar Case of Georgia. — Her Reconstruction post
poned. — Last State re-admitted to Representation. — Fifteenth Amendment.
— Adopted. — Proclaimed March 30, 1870. — President's Message — Course of
the Southern States. — Hostility to Reconstructed Governments. — Deter
mination to break them down. — Military Interposition of the Government.
— Ku-Klux-Klans. — Violence in the South. — Legislation to prevent it. —
Difficult Task. — Motive inspiring the South. — Carpet-bag Immigration. —
Cotton-rearing Original Motive. — Political Consequence. — Disabilities in
the South. — Cause thereof. — Responsibility of Southern States. — Original
mistake of the south. — the alms of the north.
THE chief interest in the events of General Grant's first term
was divided between questions of a diplomatic character and
those arising from the condition of the South after Reconstruction
had been completed. The first issue that enlisted popular atten
tion was in regard to the annexation of the Dominican Republic.
It was the earliest decisive step of General Grant's policy that
attracted the observation of the people. The negotiation was
opened on the request of the authorities of San Domingo, and it
began about three months after the President's inauguration. In
July General O. E. Babcock, one of the President's private secre
taries, was dispatched to San Domingo upon an errand of which the
public kneAV nothing. He bore a letter of instructions from Sec
retary Fish, apparently limiting the mission to an inquiry into the
condition, prospects, and resources of the Island. From its tenor
the negotiation of a treaty was not at that time anticipated by the
State Department. General Babcock's mission finally resulted how
ever in a treaty for the annexation of the Republic of Dominica,
and a convention for the lease of the bay and peninsula of Samana,
— separately negotiated and both concluded on the 29th of Novem-
458

PROPOSED PURCHASE OF SAN DOMINGO. 459
ber, 1869. The territory included in the Dominican Republic is
the eastern portion of the Island of San Domingo, originally known
as Hispaniola. It embraces perhaps two-thirds of the whole. The
western part forms the Republic of Hayti. With the exception of
Cuba, the island is the largest of the West India group. The total
area is about 28,000 square miles, — equivalent to Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Vermont and Rhode Island combined.
President Grant placed extravagant estimates upon the value of
the territory which he supposed was now acquired under the Babcock
treaties. In his message to Congress he expressed the belief that the
island would yield to the United States all the sugar, coffee, tobacco,
and other tropical products which the country would consume.
" The production of our supply of these articles," said the President,
" will cut off more than 1100,000,000 of our annual imports, besides
largely increasing our exports." " With such a picture," he added,
"it is easy to see how our large debt abroad is ultimately to be
extinguished. With a balance of trade against us (including interest
on bonds held by foreigners and money spent by our citizens travel
ing in foreign lands) equal to the entire yield of precious metals in
this country, it is not easy to see how this result is to be otherwise
accomplished." He maintained that " the acquisition of San Domingo
will furnish our citizens with the necessaries of every-day life at
cheaper rates than ever before ; and it is in fine a rapid stride towards
that greatness which the intelligence, industry, and enterprise of our
citizens entitle this country to assume among nations."
Earnest as General Grant was in his argument, deeply as his per
sonal feelings were enlisted in the issue, thoroughly as his Adminis
tration was committed to the treaty, the Senate on the 30th of June
(1870), to his utter surprise, rejected it. The vote was a tie, 28 to
28, as was afterwards disclosed in debate in open Senate. Though
the votes of two-thirds of the senators were required to confirm the
treaty President Grant was not discouraged. He returned to the
subject six 'months later, in his annual message of December, and
discussed the question afresh with apparently renewed confidence in
the expediency of the acquisition. " I now firmly believe," he said,
" that the moment it is known that the United States have entirely
abandoned the project of accepting as part of its own territory the
Island of San Domingo, a free port will be negotiated for by Euro
pean nations in the Bay of Samana, and a large commercial city
will spring up, to which we will be tributary without receiving cor-

460 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
responding benefits. Then will be seen the folly of our rejecting so
great a prize. ... So convinced am I of the advantages to flow
from the acquisition of San Domingo, and of the great disadvan
tages, I might also say calamities, to flow from its non-acquisition,
that I believe the subject has only to be investigated to be ap
proved." He recommended that "by joint resolution of the two
Houses of Congress, the Executive be authorized to appoint a com
mission to negotiate a treaty with the authorities of San Domingo
for the acquisition of that island, and that an appropriation be made
to defray the expenses of such commission."
The subject at once led to discussion in both branches of Con
gress, in Avhich the hostility to the scheme on the part of some lead
ing men assumed the tone of personal exasperation towards General
Grant. So intense was the opposition that the President's friends in
the Senate did not deem it prudent even to discuss the' measure
which he recommended. As the best that could be done, Mr. Morton
of Indiana introduced a resolution empowering the President to ap
point three Commissioners to proceed to San Domingo and make
certain inquiries into the political condition of the island, and also
into its agricultural and commercial value. The Commissioners were
to have no compensation. Their expenses were to be paid, and a
secretary was to be provided. ' Even in this mild shape the resolu
tion was hotly opposed. It was finally adopted by the Senate, but
when it reached the House that body refused to concur except with a
proviso that " nothing in this resolution shall be held, understood,
or construed as committing Congress to the policy of annexing San
Domingo." The Senate concurred in the condition thus attached,
and the President approved it. It was plain that the President could
not carry the annexation scheme ; but he courted a searching inves
tigation in order that the course he had pursued might be vindicated
by the well-considered judgment of impartial men.
The President's selections for the Commission were wisely made.
Benjamin F. Wade of Ohio, Andrew D. White of New York, and
Samuel G. Howe of Massachusetts, were men entitled to the highest
respect, and their conclusions, based upon intelligent investigation,
would exert large influence upon public opinion. The Commis
sion at once visited the island (carried thither on a United-States
vessel of war), made a thorough examination of all, its resources,
held conferences with its leading citizens, and concluded that the
policy recommended by General Grant should be sustained. The

PROPOSED PURCHASE OF SAN DOMINGO. 461
Commissioners corroborated General Grant's assertion that the island
could supply the United States with the sugar, coffee, and other
tropical products needed for our consumption; and they upheld
the President in his belief that the possession of the island by the
United States would by the laws of trade make slave labor in the
neighboring islands unprofitable, and render the whole slave and
caste systems odious.
In communicating the report, the President made some remarks
which had a personal bearing. " The mere rejection by the Senate
of a treaty negotiated by the President," said he, " only indicates
a difference of opinion among different departments of the Govern
ment, without touching the character or wounding the pride of
either. But when such rejection takes place simultaneously with
charges, openly made, of corruption on the part of the President,
or of those employed by him, the case is different. Indeed, in
such case the honor of the nation demands investigation. This
has been accomplished by the report of the Commissioners, here
with transmitted, and which fully vindicates the purity of motives-
and action of those who represented the United States in the
negotiation. And now my task is finished, and with it ends all
personal solicitude upon the subject. My duty being done, yours
begins, and I gladly hand over the whole matter to the judgment
of the American people and of their representatives in Congress
assembled." The pointed remarks of the President were understood as refer
ring to the speech made by Mr. Sumner when the resolution for the
appointment of the Commission was pending before the Senate. Mr.
Sumner had previously conceived a strong dislike to General Grant
on account of some personal grievance, either fancied or real ; and
he debated the resolution in a spirit not at all justified by the sub
ject itself. He spoke of it as " a measure of violence " and a " dance
of blood." "In other days," said he, "to carry a project, a President
has tried to change a committee : it was James Buchanan. Now we
have been called this session to witness a similar endeavor by our
.President. He was not satisfied with the Committee on Foreign
Relations, and wished it changed. He asked first for the removal of
the chairman [Mr. Sumner himself]. Somebody told him that this
would not be convenient. He then asked for the removal of the
senator from Missouri [Mr. Schur,z], and he was told that this could
not be done without affecting the German vote."

462 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Mr. Sumner continued : " The negotiation for annexation began
Avith a political jockey named Buenaventura Baez ; and he had about
him tAvo other political jockeys, Casneau and Fabens. These three
together, a precious copartnership, seduced into their firm a young
officer of ours, who entitles himself aide-de-camp to the President of
the United States. Together they got up what was entitled a pro
tocol,- in which the young officer, entitling himself aide-de-camp to
the President, proceeded to make certain promises for the President.
I desire to say that there is not one word showing that at the time
this aide-de-camp, as he called himself, had any title or instruction to
take this step. If he had, that title and that instruction have been
withheld. No inquiry has been able to penetrate it. ... I ask
you," said he, addressing the Vice-President, " do you know any such
officer in our government as -aide-de-camp to his Excellency the
President of the United States'? Does his name appear in the Con
stitution, in any statute, in the history of this country anyAvhere?
If it does, then your information is much beyond mine. . . . How
ever, he assumed the title ; and it doubtless produced a great effect
with Baez, Casneau, and Fabens, the three confederates. They were
doubtless pleased with the distinction. It helped on the plan they
were engineering. The young aide-de-camp pledged the President as
follows : ' His Excellency, General Grant, President of the United
States, promises privately to use all his influence, in order that the
idea of annexing the Dominican Republic to the United States may
acquire such a degree of popularity among members of Congress as
will be necessary for its accomplishment.' Shall I read the rest of
the document ? It is somewhat of the same tenor. There are ques
tions of money in it, cash down, all of which must have been par
ticularly agreeable to the three confederates." At one stage of his
bitter arraignment of the Administration Mr. Sumner besought the
Vice-President (Mr. Colfax) "as a friend of General Grant to coun
sel him not to follow the examples of Franklin Pierce, of James
Buchanan, and of Andrew Johnson."
After the delivery of this speech General Grant and Senator Sum
ner held no personal intercourse. Public opinion did not justify the
course of Mr. Sumner. It was regarded as an exhibition of temper
unworthy his high position, and his speech was distinguished by a
tone not proper to be employed towards the President of the United
States. But he had not imputed, as General Grant assumed, any
personal corruption to him. On the contrary he considered the

PROPOSED PURCHASE OF SAN DOMINGO. 463
questionable course of General Babcock to be without instruction.
General Grant's reference in his message to Mr. Sumner's angry
arraignment, a part of which is already quoted, closed with a men
tion of " acrimonious debates in Congress " and " unjust aspersions
elsewhere." "No man," said he, "can hope to perform duties so
delicate and responsible as appertain to the Presidential office with
out sometimes incurring the hostility of those who deem their opin
ions and wishes treated with insufficient consideration." This was
a direct personal reference to Mr. Sumner, perfectly understood at
the time. General Grant continued : " He who undertakes to con
duct the affairs of a great government as a faithful public servant, if
sustained by the approval of his own conscience, may rely with con
fidence upon the candor and intelligence of a free people, whose
best interests he has striven to subserve, and can bear with patience
the censure of disappointed men."
No further attempt was made by the President to urge the acqui
sition of San Domingo upon Congress. It was evident that neither
the Senate nor House could be induced to approve the scheme, and
the Administration was necessarily compelled to abandon it. But
defeat did not change General Grant's view of the question. He
held to his belief in its expediency and value with characteristic
tenacity. In his last annual message to Congress (December, 1876),
.nearly six years after the controversy had closed, he recurred to the
subject, to record once more his approval of it. " If my views," said
he, " had been concurred in, the country would be in a more pros
perous condition to-day, both politically and financially." He then
proceeded to re-state the question, and to sustain it with the argu
ments which he had presented to Congress in 1870 and 1871. His
last words were : " I do not present these views now as a recommen
dation for a renewal of the subject of annexation, but I do refer to
it to vindicate my previous action in regard to it."

Though the Reconstruction measures were all perfected before
General Grant's election to the Presidency, the necessary Acts pre
scribed by them had not been completed by all the States. The
three which had not been admitted to representation, and had not
taken part in the National election, — Virginia, Mississippi, and
Texas, — had by the spring of 1870 fully complied with all the

464 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
requirements, and were therefore admitted to all the privileges which
had been accorded to the other States of the South. Virginia was
admitted to representation in Congress by the Act of Jan. 26, Mis
sissippi by the Act of Feb. 23, and Texas by the Act of March 30
(1870). It was their own fault, and not the design of the Govern
ment, that prevented these States from being included in the same
bill with their associates in rebellion.
The reconstruction of Georgia, supposed to have been completed
the preceding year by the admission of her representatives to the
House, was taken up for revieAv at the opening of the Forty-first
Congress. Neither her senators nor representatives were permitted
to be sworn, but their credentials were referred in each House to the
Committee on Elections. In the judgment of the majority the con
duct of Georgia justified this severe course. Her Legislature, after
complying with every condition of reconstruction, took an extraordi
nary and unaccountable step. That body decided that colored men
were not entitled to serve as legislators or to hold any office in
Georgia. They were therefore expelled from their seats, while white
men, not eligible to hold office under the Fourteenth Amendment,
were retained. The Fifteenth Amendment was then rejected by the
Legislature, composed exclusively of white men. These facts were
ascertained before the senators from Georgia were admitted to their
seats, and before the Fifteenth Amendment had yet been ratified by
the requisite number of States.
Congress took prompt cognizance of this condition of affairs,
and passed another bill on the 16th of December (1869), declaring
" that the exclusion of persons from the Legislature upon the ground
of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, would be illegal and
revolutionary, and is hereby prohibited." In order to make the pro
hibition effective, Georgia was required, before her senators and rep
resentatives could be seated, to ratify the Fifteenth Amendment
to the Constitution. The Legislature of Georgia was accordingly
re-assembled, the colored members resumed their seats, and the Fif
teenth Amendment was duly ratified on the 2d of February (1870).
The conditions were considered by some prominent Republicans to
be an assumption of power on the part of Congress, and were there
fore opposed actively by Mr. Carpenter in the Senate and Mr. Bing
ham in the House ; but the great body of the party insisted upon
them, and the movement had the full sympathy of the President.
The course pursued by Georgia made her the last State to be recon-

ADOPTION OF FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT. 465
structed. The final Act for her re-admission to the right of repre
sentation in Congress was passed on the 15th of July, 1870.
The adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment had become in the
minds of thinking men an essential link in the chain of reconstruc
tion. The action of Georgia in expelling colored men from the
Legislature after her reconstruction was supposed to be complete,
roused the country to the knowledge of what was intended by the
leading men of the South ; and the positive action of Congress
roused the leading men of the South to a knowledge of what was
intended by Congress. On the 30th of March Secretary Fish issued
a proclamation making known to the people of the United States
that the Fifteenth Amendment had been ratified by the Legislatures
of thirty States, and was therefore a part of the Constitution of
the United States. New York, which had given her ratification
when the Legislature was Republican, attempted at the succeeding
session, with the Democratic party in power, to withdraw its recorded
assent; but as in the case of the Fourteenth Amendment, action
on the subject Avas held to be completed when the State officially an
nounced it, and New York was numbered among the States which
had ratified the Amendment. The only States opposing it were New
Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, California, and
Oregon. At the time the Amendment was submitted, the Legisla
tures of these States were under the absolute control of the Demo
cratic party. The hostility of that party to the Fifteenth Amend
ment was as rancorous as it had been to the Fourteenth. Not a
single Democrat voted to ratify it in either branch of Congress, and
the Democratic opposition in the State Legislatures throughout the
Union was almost equally pronounced.1
This radical change in the Organic Law of the Republic was
regarded by President Grant as so important, that he notified Con
gress of its official promulgation, by special message. He dwelt
upon the character of the Amendment, and addressed words of
counsel to both races. "I call the attention of the newly enfran
chised race," said he, " to the importance of striving in every hon
orable manner to make themselves worthy of their new privilege.
1 The New Jersey Legislature of 1871 reversed the action of the previous year, and
ratified the Amendment after it had been proclaimed by the Secretary of State as adopted.
Ohio at first rejected the Amendment, hut reversed her action in time to have her vote
recorded among the States ratifying the Amendment, New York ratified the Amendment
in 1869; the next year, under a Democratic majority, the Legislature attempted to with
draw the ratification ; and in the year succeeding the Republicans re-affirmed it.
Vol. II. 30

466 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
To the race more favored heretofore by our laws, I would say,
Withhold no legal privilege of advancement to the new citizens."
He called upon Congress to promote popular education throughout
the country by all the means within their Constitutional power, in
order that universal suffrage might be based on universal intelligence.
In the same spirit that led to the message of the President, Con
gress proceeded to enact laws protecting the rights that were guaran
teed under the new Constitutional Amendment. On the 31st of
May (1870), two months after the Amendment Avas promulgated,
an Act was passed " to enforce the right of citizens of the United
States to vote in the several States in this Union." Eight months
later, on the 28th of February, 1871, an additional Act on the same
subject was passed. These statutes were designed to protect, so
far as human law can protect, the right of every man in the United
States to Arote, and they were enacted with special care to arrest the
dangers already developing in the South against free suffrage, and to
prevent the dangers more ominously though more remotely menacing
it. The Republican party Avas unanimous in support of these meas
ures, while the Democratic party had nearly consolidated their votes
against them. It Avas not often that the line of party Avas so strictly
draAvn as at this period and on issues of this character.
As the Reconstruction of each State was completed, the Military
Government that was instituted in 1867 Avas withdrawn. The
Southern people — at first proclaiming a sense of outrage at the pres
ence of soldiers in time of peace — soon became content with the
orderly, just, and fair administration which the commanding generals
enforced. Many of the wisest men of the South would have been
glad to continue the same form of government, until the passions
engendered by the Avar had somewhat cooled and the new relations
of the two races had become so amicably adjusted as to remove all
danger of conflict betAveen them. But the course of events did not
suggest, and perhaps Avould not have permitted, an arrangement of
this character ; and hence the States Avere left, under the Constitution
and laws of the Union, to shape their own destiny.
The presumption was that these States would be obedient to the
Constitution and laws. But for this presumption, legislation would
be but idle play, and a government of laAvs would degenerate at
once into a government of force. In enacting the Reconstruction
Laws Congress proceeded upon the basis of faith in Republican
government, as defined so tersely by Mr. Lincoln — of the people,

SOUTHERN OPPOSITION TO AMENDMENTS. 467
by the people, for the people. It had the additional assurance of the
acceptance of the terms of Reconstruction by the lawful organiza
tions of the Southern States. And if the presumption of obedience
with respect to statute laAv be general, much stronger should it be
with respect to organic laAv, upon which the entire structure of free
government is founded. It was therefore logical for the National
administration to assume, as Reconstruction was completed, that
the harmonious working of the Federal government through all
its members was formally re-established. It was a cause of great
rejoicing that, after four years of bloody war and four years of
laborious and careful Reconstruction, every State in the Union
had regained its autonomy in the first year of General Grant's
Presidency ; and that the Government and the people of the Union
were entitled to look forward to peaceful administration, to friendly
intercourse, to the cultivation of kindly feeling, to the promotion of
agriculture, manufactures, and commerce. The lenity with which
the triumphant Union had treated the crime of rebellion — sacrificing
no man's life, stripping no man of his property, depriving no man
of his personal liberty — gave the Government the right to expect
order and the reign of law in the South.
But it was soon disclosed that on the part of the large mass
of those who had participated in the rebellion, properly speaking,
indeed, on the part of the vast majority of the white men of the
South, there was really no intention to acquiesce in the legislation
of Congress, no purpose to abide by the Constitutional Amendments
in good faith. A majority of the white people of the South accepted
rather the creed of General Blair, whom they had supported for Vice-
President, and regarded themselves justified in opposing, repudiating,
and if possible destroying, the governments that had grown up under
the protection of the Reconstruction Laws. The re-admission of their
States to representation was taken by them only as the beginning of
the era in Avhich they would more freely wage conflict against that
which was distasteful and, as they claimed, oppressive. It is not to
be denied that they had the inherent right, inside of Constitutional
limitations, to repeal the laws of their States, and even to change
the Constitution itself, if they should do it by prescribed methods
and by honest majorities, and should not, in the process, disturb the
fundamental conditions upon which the General Government had
assented to their re-admission to the right of representation in Con
gress. It was not, however, the purpose of the Southern Democrats

468 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
to be fettered and embarrassed by any such exemplary restraints. By
means lawful or unlawful they determined to uproot and overthrow
the State governments that had been established in a spirit of loyalty
to the Union. They were resolved that the negro should not be a
political power in their local governments ; that he should not, so far
as their interposition could prevent it, exert any influence over elec
tions, either State or national ; and that his suffrage, if permitted to
exist at all, should be only in the innocent form of a minority.
Seeing this determination, the National Government interposed
its strong arm, and a detail of soldiers at the principal points through
out the South gave a certain protection to those whose rights were
otherwise in danger of being utterly trodden down. It certainly has
never been proved in a single instance that a legal voter in any
Southern State was deprived of his right of suffrage by the presence
of United-States troops in those. States ; but the issue was at once
made by the Democratic party against the administration of President
Grant, that free elections were impossible in the Southern States
unless soldiers of the Regular Army were excluded ; that their simple
presence was a form of coercion absolutely inconsistent with Repub
lican government. Many of them, as they now declared, had been
willing to accept a Military government — as it had existed under
Reconstruction ; but they objected to the presence of troops in States
where self-government had been conceded by Congress.
There was undoubtedly an instinctive reluctance among the
people of all sections to permit the location of troops in the neigh
borhood of polling-places. It had happened that in the long-
continued strife in Kansas, Republicans complained that the anti-
slavery voters felt intimidated by the presence of troops of the
Regular Army. The application was, therefore, readily made to
the existing case; and it was not unnaturally or inaptly asked
whether the presence of the military at the elections of a State of
the Union was not even more offensive than their presence at the
elections in a Territory of the Union, which was directly under the
control of the National Government. On the abstract issue thus
presented the Eepublicans were placed somewhat at a disadvantage ;
and yet every white man making the complaint knew that the influ
ence of the troops was not to deprive him of a single right, but was
to prevent him from depriving the colored man of all his rights.
Between the effort, therefore, of President Grant's administration
to protect free suffrage in the South, and the protest of the Demo-

THE KU-KLUX-KLANS OF THE SOUTH. 469
cratic party against protecting it by the military arm of the Govern
ment, a physical contest ensued in the Southern States and a political
contest throughout the Union; It was perfectly understood, and
openly proclaimed, in the North, and perfectly understood, though
not openly proclaimed, in the South, that the withdrawal of the
protection of the National Government from the States lately in
rebellion meant the end of suffrage to the colored man, or at least
such impairment of its force and influence as practically implied
its total destruction. So bitter was the hostility to impartial suf
frage, so determined were the men who had lately been in re
bellion to concentrate all the political power of the Southern States
in their own hands, that vicious organizations, of which the most
notable were the Ku-Klux-Klans, were formed throughout the South
for the express purpose of depriving the negro of the political rights
conferred upon him by law. To effect this purpose they resorted to
a series of outrages calculated to inspire the negroes with terror if
they attempted to resist the will of white men.
In prosecuting their purposes these clans and organizations hesi
tated at no cruelty, were deterred by no considerations of law or of
humanity. They rode by night, were disguised with masks, were
armed as freebooters. They whipped, maimed, or murdered the vic
tims of their wrath. White men who were co-operating with the
colored population politically were visited with punishments of
excessive cruelty. It was difficult to arrest the authors of these
flagrant wrongs. Aside from their disguises, they were protected
against inculpating testimony by the fear inspired in the minds
of those who might be witnesses ; and they were protected even
by that portion of the white race who were not willing to join in
their excesses. It was well said of the leading members of the
clans, that " murder with them was an occupation, and perjury was a
pastime." The white man who should give testimony against them
did so aff the risk of seeing his house burned, of being himself beaten
with many stripes ; and if the offender had been at all efficient in his
hostility, he was, after torture, in many instances, doomed to death.
Congress did its utmost to strengthen the hands of the President
in a contest with these desperate elements. By the Act of April 20,
1871, "to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States" (commonly known as the
Ku-Klux Act, or the Enforcement Act), the President was empow
ered to go to the extreme of suspending the writ of habeas corpus

470 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
where peace and order could not otherwise be restored. Before
acting under the provisions of that vigorous statute, General Grant
gave warning to the Southern people by proclamation of May 3,
1871, that they might themselves, by good behavior, prevent the
necessity of its enforcement. "Sensible," said the President, "of
the responsibility imposed upon the Executive by the Act of Con
gress to Avhich public attention is now called, and reluctant to call
into exercise any of the extraordinary powers thereby conferred upon
me, except in case of imperative necessity, I do, nevertheless, deem
it my duty to make known that I will not hesitate to exhaust the
powers thus vested in the Executive, whenever and wherever it shall
become necessary to do so, for the purpose of securing to all citizens
of the United States the peaceful enjoyment of the rights guaranteed
to them by the Constitution and laws." The extreme power of sus
pending the writ of habeas corpus now placed in the President's hands
was limited in time, and would necessarily end, if not renewed, at
the close of the next regular session of Congress.
But the task of enforcing obedience to laAvs, when obedience is
not in the hearts of the people, is the most difficult undertaking
ever imposed upon the governing power. If the South had been
standing alone, if it had not been receiving daily words of encour
agement, of aid, and of comfort, from the North, if it had not seen
that the Democratic party in Congress was fighting its battle, it
might have yielded to the prestige and power of the National Gov
ernment. But the situation invited, urged, induced men, to persist.
They clearly saw, as their co-operating friends in the North had seen
long before, that a compact vote of all the Southern States could be
used as the sure foundation of a formidable, and, as they hoped,
irresistible political power. It was this hope which nerved their arm
for every encounter : it was this prospect of domination that steadily
encouraged them to continue a battle which must at times have
seemed desperate indeed. As the Southern leaders of an earlier day
had strenuously endeavored to maintain equality of membership in
the Senate, so now their successors promised to themselves such
solidification of their electoral vote, as would by its very force attract
sufficient strength in the North to restore the South to a position of
command in the National Government.
The instinctive hostility of the American people against the use
of troops at elections was not the only weapon of offense which the
Democratic party was able to use in this prolonged contest. As soon

ORIGIN OF CARPET-BAGGERS. 471
as the war had closed there was a considerable influx of Northern
men in the States of the late Confederacy. The original motive
which induced the migration was financial and speculative. A be
lief was prevalent in the North that great profit might be derived
from the cotton-culture, and that with the assured sympathy of the
colored men they would be able to command the requisite labor more
readily than the old slave masters. As a mere business enterprise
cotton-growing at that period, except in very few instances, proved
to be unprofitable. The complete disorganization of labor through
out the South, consequent upon emancipation, had embarrassed pro
duction and added largely to its cost. It would inevitably require
time to build up a labor-system based on the new relation of the
negro to the white race, and it was the misfortune of the Northern
men to embark on their venture at the time of all others when it
was least likely to prove remunerative. But these men, though
pecuniarily unsuccessful, quickly formed relations of kindliness and
friendship with the negro race. They addressed them in different
tone, treated them in a different manner, from that which they had
been accustomed in the past to receive from the white race, and it
was natural that a feeling of friendship should grow up between the
liberated and those whom they regarded as liberators.
It was soon apparent that, under the protection of the National
power and with the numerical superiority of the negroes in several
States (certain Southern leaders being under political disabilities),
it would be easy for the loyal white men to obtain control of the
local governments. Out of these circumstances there came into
political power the class of men known as " Carpet-baggers " — so de
scribed from the insulting presumption that the entire worldly estate
of each one of the class was carried in a carpet-bag, enabling him to
fly at any moment of danger from the State whose domestic policy
he sought to control. The prospect of the success of the new move
ment induced a number of former rebels to join in it, and to them
the epithet of " Scalawag " was applied. This combination was not
without disadvantages to the negro. By as much as it gave strength
to his political organization, it increased the hatred and desperation
of the ruling element among the whites, and demonstrated that the
negro could secure the rights conferred upon him by the Constitution
and laws, only through violence and bloodshed.
Many of those denounced under the epithet of Carpet-bagger and
Scalawag were honorable and true men; but a majority of these

472 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
were unobtrusive and not brought strongly into popular view:
while many of those who became entrusted with the power of
State governments and found themselves unexpectedly in possession
of great authority were not morally equal to its responsibility.
The consequence was that some of the States had wretched govern
ments, officered by bad men, who misled the negro and engaged in
riotous corruption. Their transgressions were made so conspicuous
that the Republican leaders of other Southern States, who were
really trying to act their part worthily and honorably, were obscured
from view, and did not obtain a fair hearing at the bar of public
opinion. The government of South Carolina, under its series of Re
publican administrations, was of such character as brought shame upon
the Republican party, exposed the negro voters to unmerited obloquy,
and thus wrought for the cause of free government and equal suffrage
in the South incalculable harm. These Southern State governments
proved a source of angry contention inside the Republican party in
the North, and thus brought one more calamity to the negro, and
gave one more advantage to the rebel element of the South that so
persistently sought for his disfranchisement.
The hostility of Southern men to Carpet-bag rule was instinctive
and irrepressible. The failure of the rebellion left its participants
stripped of property, depressed in spirit, angry and unreconciled.
Northern men appearing among them recalled in an offensive
manner the power that had overcome and as they thought humili
ated them, — recalled it before time had made them familiar with
the new order of things, before they could subject themselves
to the discipline of adversity, and gracefully accept the inevitable.
Even the most decorous and considerate behavior on the part of
these men would perhaps have failed to conciliate the Southern
population. But while unable to do this, they could no doubt in
due season have secured public confidence if they had administered
the trusts conMed to them with an eye single to the prosperity and
happiness of the people over whom by a strange concurrence of
circumstances they were empowered to rule. If these men had in
all cases established as good and trustworthy governments in the
South as they had been reared under in the North, they would have
conferred upon all the reconstructed States a blessing which as pre
judice wore away would have caused their names to be respected
and honored. Their governments were however demoralized by the
violent and murderous course of the clans organized to resist them.

THE ORIGINAL UNION MEN. 473
In the play between the two forces, — a government too weak to
command respect ; a native population too resentful to yield obedi
ence, — a state of social disorder and political chaos resulted, which
would in advance have seemed impossible among any people clothed
with the right of self-government, and living under a Republic of
vast power and prestige.
The Republicans lost in many of the Southern States a valuable
support upon which they had counted with confidence. Union men
whom no persecution could break and no blandishments could seduce,
were to be found in the South at the outbreak of the rebellion. They
were men who in a less conspicuous way held the same faith that in
spired Andrew Johnson and William G. Brownlow during the war.
It was the influence and example of this class of men which had
contributed to the Union Army so large a number of white soldiers
from the rebellious States, — numbering in the aggregate more than
one hundred thousand men. Tennessee alone furnished at least
thirty-five thousand white troops as brave as ever followed the flag.
The Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, all furnished loyal men
from their mountain districts ; and beyond the Mississippi a valuable
contingent came from Arkansas and Texas.
The men who had the courage to stand for the Union in time of
war should not have separated from its friends in time of peace. If
Reconstruction had been completed according to the first design, on
the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment, these men would have re
mained solidly hostile to the Southern Democracy. But as the con
test waxed warm, as negro suffrage became a prominent issue, many
of them broke away from their associations and became the bitterest
foes of the Republican party. They followed Andrew Johnson and
partook of his spirit. But against all adverse influences, some of the
truest and best of this class of Union men remained with the Re
publican party. If the whole number had proved steadfast, they
would have formed the centre of a strong and growing influence in
the South which in many localities would have been able — as in
East Tennessee — to resist the combined rebel power of their respec
tive communities. Under such protection the colored vote, intelli
gently directed and defended, could have resisted the violence which
has practically deprived it of all influence. Every day affords fresh
proof of the disasters which have resulted to the Republican party of
the South from the loss of so large a proportion of the original Union
men.

474 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Perhaps the most serious charge brought against the Republican
policy by the Southern men, was that the negro was advanced to the
right of suffrage, while a portion of the white population were placed
under such political disabilities as prevented their voting. This
allegation is often made, however, in a way that leads to erroneous
impressions, because as matter of fact it was not the policy of Con
gress to deprive any man of the right of suffrage. Congress even
left the voting franchise in full force with those who were under
such political disabilities as forbade their holding office. It is true
that in a certain election under the Reconstruction laws the voter
was subjected to a test-oath, but this condition was imposed under
what seemed to be a fair plea of necessity ; for it was applied in the
South only after the entire white population had refused to recon
struct their States on the basis first freely offered them, with no
restriction on white suffrage, and even before the negro was empow
ered to vote. Fearing from this experience that any organization of
a State under the auspices of Republican power might be voted down,
Congress resorted to the expedient of confining the suffrage in the
preliminary stage to those who had not rebelled, and who could
therefore be firmly trusted to establish a loyal government.
While the National Government refrained from withholding the
elective franchise from men who had fought to destroy the Union,
there is no doubt that disabilities and exclusions were imposed upon
large classes in certain States of the South. But perhaps even here
there have been exaggeration and misunderstanding, for in some
of the reconstructed States, — notably Georgia, Florida, and the
Carolinas, — there were no test-oaths and no exclusion from the right
of suffrage by reason of participation in the rebellion ; and yet hos
tility to the Reconstruction Acts, and personal wrongs and injuries
to the colored men, were quite as marked in these States as in those
where certain classes of citizens labored under the stigma of exclu
sion from the ballot. Possibly it might be said that exclusion, even
in one State, was an odious discrimination which all who had taken
part in the rebellion would, from a feeling of fellowship, resent and
resist. But the truth remains, nevertheless, that in the Southern
States in which no test-oaths were applied disturbance, disorder,
and resistance to law were as frequent and flagrant as in those
where suffrage had in some degree been qualified and restricted.
The original difficulty was the rejection of the Fourteenth Amend
ment by the South — a difficulty that recurred not only at every

UNWISE COURSE OF THE SOUTH. 475
subsequent step of reconstruction, but was even more plainly de
monstrated after reconstruction was nominally complete. If that
Amendment had been accepted by the Southern States as the basis
of reconstruction, the suffrage of the colored man would have fol
lowed as a necessity and a boon to the South. It would have origi
nated in popular demand, and the State authorities, instead of
expending their power in resisting the decree of the Nation, would
have upheld the same franchise with all the earnestness which the
combined power of necessity and self-interest could inspire. It is
difficult to compute the loss and the suffering endured by the South
from the folly of rejecting a Constitutional Amendment, which they
could have had with all its benefits, and which they were compelled
afterwards to accept with all its burdens. This unhappy result to
the South was the fruit of their unwise adherence to Andrew Johnson
in a political battle Avhich he was predestined to lose.
It was not unnatural that the unwise action on the part of the
South should lead to unwise action on the part of the North ; but
it must be remembered that if mistakes were made in the system
of reconstruction they were for a day only, while the objects sought
were for all time. The misfortune was, that the mistakes blinded
the eyes of many candid and patriotic men to the real merit
of the struggle. It is not the first time in history where a great
and noble purpose has been weakened and thwarted by preju
dices aroused against the means used to effect it. The design was
broad, patriotic, generous, and statesmanlike : the means to attain it
aroused prejudices which created obstacles at every step and led to
almost fatal embarrassment. The elevation of a race, the stamping
out of the last vestige of caste, the obliteration of cruel wrongs,
were the objects aimed at by the Republicans. If they remain
unaccomplished, or only partially accomplished, no discredit can
attach to the great political organization which entertained lofty
conceptions of human rights, and projected complete measures for
their realization. That prejudice should stand in the way of prin
ciple, that subsidiary issues should embarrass the attainment of great
ends, that personal and partisan interests should for a time override
the nobler instincts of philanthropy, must be regarded with regret,
but not with discouragement.

CHAPTER XX.
Resentment against England. — Popular Feeling in the United States. — Con
duct of the Palmerston Ministry. — Hostile Speeches in the House of Com
mons. — Mr. Roebuck. — Lord Robert Cecil. — Conduct of the Tories. — Of
the Liberals. — Criticisms of the British Press. — South compared with
Ireland. — United States demands Compensation. — Refused by England. —
Negotiations. — Johnson-Clarendon Treaty. — Rejected by Senate. — Char
acter of Treaty. — Speech of Mr. Sumner. — Position of President Grant.
— Negotiation closed. — England asks that it be re-opened. — Joint High
Commission. — Its Deliberations. — Its Basis of Settlement. — Geneva Award.
— The Three Rules. — England's Course in Regard thereto. — Private Claims
adjusted. — The San Juan Question. — Its Final Settlement. — Hon. George
Bancroft.
THE civil war closed with ill-feeling amounting to resentment
towards England on the part of the loyal citizens of the United
States. They believed that the Government of Great Britain, and
especially the aristocratic and wealthy classes (whose influence in the
kingdom is predominant), had desired the destruction of the Union,
and had connived at it so far as connivance was safe ; they believed
that great harm had been inflicted on the American marine by rebel
cruisers built in English ship-yards and manned with English sailors ;
they believed that the war had been cruelly prolonged by the Con
federate hope of British intervention, — a hope stimulated by the
utterances of high officials of the British Government ; they believed
that her Majesty's Ministers would have been willing at any time
to recognize the Southern Confederacy, if it could have been done
without the danger of a European conflict, the effect of which upon
the interests of England could not be readily measured.
Their belief did not wait for legal proofs or written arguments,
nor was it in any degree restrained by technicalities. The American
people had followed the varying fortunes of the war with intense
solicitude, and had made up their minds that the British Government
throughout the contest had been unfriendly and offensive, manifestly
violating at every step the fair and honorable duty of a neutral.
476

POPULAR FEELING IN THE UNITED STATES. 477
They did not ground their conclusions upon any specially enunciated
principles of international law ; they did not seek to demonstrate, by
quotations from accepted authorities, that England had failed in this
or in that respect to perform her duty towards the American Govern
ment. They simply recognized that England's hand had been against
us, concealed somewhat, and used indirectly, but still heavily against
us. They left to the officers of their own Government the respon
sible task of stating the law and submitting the evidence when the
proper time should come.
Perhaps the mass of the people in no other country keep so close
a watch upon the progress of public events as is kept by the people
of the United States. If the scholarship of the few is not so thor
ough as in certain European countries, the intelligence of the many
is far beyond that of any other nation. The popular conclusions,
therefore, touching the conduct of England, did not spring from
imagination or from prejudice ; nor were they the result of illogical
inference. To the outside world the British Government is the Brit
ish Parliament; and citizens of the United States knew that their
country had been subjected in the House of Lords and in the House
of Commons to every form of misrepresentation, to every insult which
malice could invent, to every humiliation which insolence and arro
gance could inflict. The most distant generation of Americans will
never be able to read the Parliamentary reports from 1861 to 1865
without indignation. Discussions touching the condition of the
United States occupied no small share of the time in both Houses,
and in the House of Lords cordiality was never expressed for the
Union. In the House of Commons the Government of the United
States had sympathizing friends, eloquent defenders, though few in
number. Bright, Forster, Cobden, and men of that class, spoke
brave words in defense of the cause for which brave deeds were done
by their kindred on this side of the Atlantic — a kindred always
more eager to cherish gratitude than to nurture revenge.
But from the Government of England, terming itself Liberal, with
Lord Palmerston at its head, Earl Russell as Foreign Secretary, Mr.
Gladstone as Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Duke of Argyll as
Lord Privy Seal, and Earl Granville as Lord President of the Coun
cil, not one friendly word was sent across the Atlantic. A formal
neutrality was declared by Government officials, while its spirit was
daily violated. If the Republic had been a dependency of Great
Britain, like Canada or Australia, engaged in civil strife, it could

478 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
not have been more steadily subjected to review, to criticism, and
to the menace of discipline. The proclamations of President Lincoln,
the decisions of Federal courts, the orders issued by commanders
of the Union armies, were frequently brought to the attention of Par
liament, as if America were in some Avay accountable to the judgment
of England. Harsh comment came from leading British statesmen;
while the most ribald defamers of the United States met with cheers
from a majority of the House of Commons, and indulged in the bit
terest denunciation of a friendly Government without rebuke from
the Ministerial benches.1
1 The following extracts are from Hansard's Parliamentary Debates: —
May 16th, 1861. Earl Derby, in discussing our blockade of the Southern coast,
said : " A blockade extending over a space to which it is physically impossible that an
effectual blockade can be applied will not be recognized as valid by the British Govern
ment." And he intimated that "it is essentially necessary that the Northern States
should not be induced to rely upon our forbearance."
— Feb. 10, 1862. Earl Derby discussed the right of Mr. Lincoln to suspend the writ of
habeas corpus, and even when Congress had passed a resolution affirming the course
taken by the President, the noble Earl declared that "No law can be shown to support
the President's exercise of the power."
— May 28, 1861. Mr. Bernal Osborne, in discussing the civil war in the United States,
said : " If this were the proper time, I could point to outrages committed by the militia
of New York in one of the Southern States occupied by them, where the General com
manding, on the pretext that one of his men had been poisoned by strychnine, issued
an order of the day, threatening to put a slave into every man's house to incite the
slaves to murder their masters. Such was the general order issued by General Butler."
— Feb. 17, 1862. Lord Palmerston discussed the Constitutional powers of the Govern
ment, and said he knew that Mr. Seward and Mr. Lincoln could not make war upon
their own authority. " We know that very well. It requires the sanction of the Senate."
— March 7, 1862. Mr. Gregory, in discussing the blockade of the Southern ports, said :
" Now I can assure my honorable friend that, so far as I was concerned, I should have
made use of no irritating expression. I should have affirmed then, as, undeterred by
what has occurred since then, I affirm now, that secession was a right, that separation
is a fact, and that reconstruction is an impossibility." Mr. Gregory denounced Mr.
Seward as "lax, unscrupulous, and lawless of the rights of others."
— March 7, 1862. General Butler's orders were discussed by the Earl of Carnarvon, in the
Lords, and by Sir John AValsh and Mr. Gregory in Commons. Lord Palmerston was
pleased to tell them that "with regard to the course which Her Majesty's Government
may, upon consideration, take on the subject, the House I trust will allow me to say that
that will be matter of reflection."
— March 7, 1862. Mr. G. W. P. Bentinck made a very bitter and abusive speech of the
United States, and invited Her Majesty's Government to offer some explanation why,
according to the policy which they had pursued with respect to Italian affairs, they had
abstained from recognizing the independence of the Confederacy. He sneeringly re
ferred to the " endless corruption in every public department in the Northern States."
— April 23, 1863. Mr. G. W. P. Bentinck transcended every limit of courtesy when in
referring to Mr. Adams he said : "The idea of the American Minister of honesty and
neutrality is remarkable. Every thing is honest to suit his own purposes."
— March 7, 1862. Lord Robert Cecil, in discussing the blockade of the Southern coast,
said: " The plain matter of fact is, as every one who watches the current of history must

BRITISH HOSTILITY TO THE UNION. 479
The notorious Mr. Roebuck, in a debate, March 14, 1864, upon
the progress of the civil war, said : " The whole proceedings in this
American war are a blot upon human nature ; and when I am told
that I should have sympathy for the Northern States of America, I
turn in absolute disgust from their hypocrisy. If there is a sink of
political iniquity, it is at Washington. They are corrupt ; they are
base ; they are cowardly ; they are cruel." This highly indecorous
speech was made in the presence of members of the British Min
istry. The Premier, Lord Palmerston, followed Mr. Roebuck on
the floor, calling Mm his " honorable and learned friend," and offering
know, that the Northern States of America never can be our sure friends, for this simple
reason — not merely because the newspapers write at each other, or that there are
prejudices on both sides, but because we are rivals, rivals politically, rivals commer
cially. We aspire to the same position. We both aspire to the government of the seas.
We are both manufacturing people, and in every port, as well as at every court, we are
rivals to each other. . . . With respect to the Southern States, the case is entirely re
versed. The population are an agricultural people. They furnish the raw material of
our industry, and they consume the products which we manufacture from it. With
them, therefore, every interest must lead us to cultivate friendly relations, and we
have seen that when the war began they at once recurred to England as their natural
ally."— March 14, 1864. Lord Robert Cecil, in discussing the Neutrality Act, admitting that
no case of enlistment had been proved against the United States, affirmed that American
agents were inducing men to go to America to obtain industrial employment, and said:
"When they get there they are enlisted." " What do the Confederates do ? Why, they
ask also to be allowed to obtain peaceful ships which shall leave our harbors in that
condition, and which, directly they get out of our jurisdiction, become vessels of war.
The case is precisely the same in both cases — the raw material, so to speak, of the soldier
or the vessel of war, is bought in this country, but it is not converted into a belligerent
implement until out of our jurisdiction. I confess it seems to me that the offence — if
offence it be — is exactly the same in both cases ; and it is unjust to charge one party
with a desire to elude the law when you do not make the same charge against the other."
— July 18, 1862. Mr. Lindsay, in discussing the question of the civil war, said : " The
re-establishment of the Union is indeed hopeless. That being so, — if we come to that
conclusion, — it behooves England, in concert, I hope, with the great Powers of Europe,
to offer her mediation, and to ask these States to consider the great distress among the
people of this country caused entirely by this unhappy civil war which is now raging."
— Aug. 4, 1862. Lord Campbell (discussing the civil war) said: "But if the present
moment is abandoned what are we to wait for? Not for Northern victories. Such vic
tories would clearly limit our capacity to acknowledge Southern independence, as it was
limited from the defeat and death of Zollicoffer in the winter down to the events which
have lately driven General McClellan to the river. We are to wait, therefore, for new
misfortunes to the Government of Washington before we grant to this unhappy strife the pos
sibility of closing."
— March 23, 1863. Lord Campbell said: "Swelling with omnipotence, Mr. Lincoln and
his colleagues .dictate insurrection to the slaves of Alabama." And he spoke of the
administration as " ready to let loose four million negroes on their compulsory owners
and to renew from sea to sea the horrors and crimes of San Domingo." — He argued
earnestly in favor of the British Government joining the government of France in ac
knowledging Southern independence. He boasted that within the last few days a

480 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
neither rebuke nor objection to the words he had used. On the con
trary, with jaunty recklessness he accused the American Government
of secretly and cunningly recruiting its armies in Ireland, by inducing
Irishmen to emigrate as laborers and " then to enlist in some Ohio
Southern loan of £3,000,000 sterling had been offered in London, and that £9,000,000 were
subscribed. He said : " Southern recognition will take away from the Northern mind .
the hope which lingers yet of Southern subjugation. From the Government of Washing
ton it will take away the power of describing eleven communities contending for their
liberty as rebels. . . . Victorious already, animated then, the Southern armies would be
doubly irresistible. They would not have, if they retain it now, the power to be van
quished."— Feb. 5, 1863. Earl Malmesbury spoke disdainfully of treating with so extraordinary a
body as the Government of the United States, and referred to the horrors of the war, —
" horrors unparalleled even in the wars of barbarous nations."
— March 27, 1863. Mr. Laird of Birkenhead (the builder of the Alabama and the rebel
rams) was loudly cheered when he declared that " the institutions of the United States are
of no value whatever, and have reduced the very name of liberty to an utter absurdity."
— April 23, 1863. Mr. Roebuck declared "that the whole conduct of the people of the
North is such as proves them not only unfit for the government of themselves, but unfit
for the courtesies and the community of the civilized world." Referring to some case of
an English ship that had been seized by an American man-of-war, he declared : " It may
lead to war; and I, speaking here for the English people, am prepared for war. I know
that language will strike the heart of the peace party in this country, but it will also
strike the heart of the insolent people who govern America."
— Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister, simply replied, without other comment, that the
question to which Mr. Roebuck referred " is of the greatest possible importance."
— June 30, 1863. Mr. Roebuck asserted that " the South will never come into the Union,
and what is more, I hope it never may. I will tell you why I say so. America while she was
united ran a race of prosperity unparalleled in the world. Eighty years made the Repub
lic such a power, that if she had continued as she was a few years longer she would have
been the great bully of the world. ... As far as my influence goes, I am determined to
do all I can to prevent the reconstruction of the Union. ... I say then that the Southern
States have indicated their right to recognition ; they hold out to us advantages such as
the world has never seen before. I hold that it will be of the greatest importance that
the reconstruction of the Union should not take place."
— April 24, 1863. Mr. Horsman of Stroud said : "We have seen the leviathan power of
the North broken and driven back, with nothing to show for two years of unparalleled
preparation and vast human sacrifice but failure and humiliation; the conquest of the
South more hopeless and unachievable than ever, and Washington at this moment in
greater jeopardy than Richmond. ... I am not surprised that we should hear the ques
tions asked now, ' How long are these afflictions to be endured 1 How long are the
cotton ports of the South to remain sealed to Europe ? How long are France and Eng
land to be debarred from intercourse with friendly States that owe no more allegiance
to the North than they owe to the Pope ? And how long are our patient but suffering
operatives to remain the victims of an extinct authority and an aggressive and a malevo
lent Legislature ?'"
— June 15, 1863. The Marquis of Clanricarde objected to our blockade, and said it was
kept up " although every man of common sense in the United States is now con
vinced that it is impossible to compel the Southern States to re-enter the Union.
... It is the duty of the British Government not to allow these infractions of mari
time law to continue, which are in effect setting aside all law and practice as hitherto
maintained."

SPEECHES IN BRITISH PARLIAMENT. 481
regiment or other, and become soldiers with the chance of plunder,'
and God knows what besides."
Lord Robert Cecil, since known as the Marquis of Salisbury, and
at present (1885) Premier of England, only a few months before
— June 26, 1863. The Marquis of Clanricarde thought that " proceedings of American
prize courts should be closely watched, for if doctrines are admitted there contrary to
those maintained in the highest courts of this country, great confusion will be the result
hereafter."— June 29, 1863. Mr. Peacocke, complaining of some decisions made in the prize courts
of the United States, said : " It is therefore the duty of the House to see how the law is
administered in those courts." He confessed that he greatly distrusted these prize courts
as they were at that time constituted.
— June 30, 1863. Mr. Clifford spoke of the " wanton barbarity with which the Federal
Government has allowed its officers to wage the war, as though they sought to emulate
the ravages of Attila and Genghis-Khan. . . . And these things were done not for
military objects which would afford some excuse for them, but out of such sheer wanton
malice that even the negroes looked-on disgusted and aghast."
— Feb. 9, 1864. Mr. Haliburton said : "The Canadians feel that the Americans are a
lawless people, who are bound by no ties, who disregard International Law, who resort
to violence and force."
— March 4, 1864. Lord Robert Montagu tauntingly remarked that it seemed to him
" that it is the Federals who are bound to stop the depredations of the Alabama. Why
have they not a ship quick enough to catch her and strong enough to destroy her ? "
— March 14, 1864. Sir James Fergusson declared that "wholesale peculations and rob
bery have been perpetrated under the form of war by the Generals of the Federal States,
and worse horrors than, I believe, have ever in the present century disgraced European
armies, have been perpetrated under the eyes of the Federal Government and yet
remain unpunished. These things are notorious as the proceedings of a Government
which seems anxious to rival one despotic and irresponsible power of Europe in its
contempt for the public opinion of mankind."
— March 18,1864. The Earl of Donoughmore, referring to a statement in regard to
enlistments made by Captain Winslow of the United States ship Kearsarge, said that
" either he stated what was a transparent falsehood or else he was not fit for his post."
He then added: " The fact, however, is that any transparent falsehood seems to be a suf
ficient excuse for a particular line of conduct when it comes from the Federal Govern
ment." — May 19, 1864. Mr. Alderman Rose declared "the whole system of Government in
the Northern States is false, rotten, and corrupt ; while the South is making for itself
a great name and a glorious history."
— June 9, 1864. Lord Brougham said that he believed there was " but one universal
feeling not only in this country, but all over Europe, of reprobation of the continuance
of this war, of deep lamentation for its existence, and of an anxious desire that it should
at length be made to cease." He lived in hopes " that before long an occasion might
arise when in conjunction with our ally on the other side of the channel we shall inter
fere with effect, and when an endeavor to accommodate matters and restore peace
between the two great contending parties will be attended with success."
— Lord John Russell agreed with Lord Brougham that " it is a most horrible war in
America. There seems to be such hatred and animosity between great hosts of men,
who were lately united under one government, that no consideration seems powerful
enough to induce them to put an end to their fratricidal strife; and it is difficult to deal
with them on those ordinary principles which have hitherto governed the conduct of
civilized mankind."
Vol. II. 31

482 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Mr. Roebuck's disreputable speech, attacked the Judiciary of the
United States, and told a story so remarkable that it needs no char
acterization. "American courts," said his lordship, "are not free
from circumstances of suspicion attaching to them peculiarly. It
might be that in old times judges sat on the American Bench who
enjoyed world-wide reputation, but within the last two or three years
the American tribunals have delivered their decisions under the press
ure of fixed bayonets. The Supreme Court of America two years
ago was applied to for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of
the American Constitution ; but the Judges were unable to pronounce
the judgment which their consciences would have prompted them to
deliver, because the soldiers of President Lincoln, appearing at their
doors in arms, so terrified them that they perverted the law to suit the
design of the Executive." If his Lordship believed this groundless
calumny, his ignorance concerning the United States would be sub
ject of pity. If his Lordship did not believe it, the just accusation
against him is too serious to be stated in these pages.
During the first year of the war Lord Robert Cecil had so frankly
expressed his view of the situation and his belief in the gain to
England which would result from the destruction of the American
Union, that his extraordinary madness may at least be said to have
had a method. He was already a prominent member of the party
of which he is now the head, and really reflected their sentiment
as to the advantage which would come to England if the rebellion
should be successful and the Southern Confederacy established.
They had witnessed the marvelous growth of the United States,
and had concluded that, already a powerful rival, the Republic
would certainly be dangerous as an enemy. This view is discernible
in the Tory speeches in Parliament and in the Tory press of Eng
land, and was the motive which inspired so many Englishmen to
connive at the destruction of the American Union. They went to
great length, even establishing an association to promote the cause of
the rebellion, and to supply the Confederate Treasury with money.
Lord Robert Cecil was one of the Vice-Presidents of the " Southern
Independence Association" and a subscriber to the Confederate loan,
as were also Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Gregory, and many other members
of the British Parliament.1

1 The subscribers to the Confederate loan in England were very numerous. The
following were among the most conspicuous, as given in an official list.
Right Hon. Lord Wharncliffe; Marquis of Bath; Marquis of Lothian; Admiral, Right
Hon. Lord Fitzardinge; Right Hon. Lord Claud Hamilton, M.P.; Right Hon. Viscount

TORY HOSTILITY TO THE UNITED STATES. 483
The conduct of the Tories was not, hoAvever, a surprise to the
American people. From the earliest period of our National exist
ence we had received from that party constant demonstrations of
unfriendliness ; and where safe opportunity offered, insult was added.
But of the Liberal party Americans had hoped, nay, had confidently
expected, if not open demonstrations of sympathy, at least a neu
trality which would deprive the Rebel leaders of any form of encour
agement. When the first shadow of real danger to the Union
appeared in 1860-61, there was instinctive gladness among loyal
Americans that a Liberal Ministry was in power in England, com
posed of men who would in no event permit their Government to
be used in aid of a rebellion whose first object was the destruction
of a kindred nation, and whose subsequent policy looked to the
perpetuation of human slavery. But the hope proved to be only
the delusion of a day. Americans found the Palmerston Ministry
in a hostile mood and ready to embarrass the Government of the
Union by every course that might be taken with safety to the in
terests of England ; and they at once recognized a vast increase of
the force against which they must contend.
But there was one apprehension which constantly enforced a lim
itation upon the action of the British Government, and that was the
danger that an open espousal of the cause of the Confederacy would
be the signal for a European conflict. Russia was more than friendly
to us : Germany had no interest in our destruction. Russia was
hostile to England : Germany was hostile to France. Active inter
vention by England and France, so much talked of, might have
Lefford; Right Hon. Lord Teynbam; Viscount Goimanson ; Lord Robert Cecil, M.P. ; Lord
Henry F. Thynne, M.P.; Sir John W. H. Anson; Sir Gerald George Aylmer; Sir George
H. Beaumont; Sir Samuel Bignold; Sir W. H. Capell Brook; Sir C. W. C. de Crispigny;
SirT. B. Dancer; Sir Arthur H. Elton; Sir W. H. Fielden; Sir W. Fitzherbert; Rev.
Sir C. H. Foster; General Sir J. W. Guise; Sir Robert Harty; Sir William Hartopp;
Sir Henry A. Hoare; Sir Henry de Hoghton; Vice- Admiral Hon. Sir Henry Keppel; Sir
Edward Kerrison, M.P.; Sir John Dick Lander, M.P. ; Sir E. A. H. Lechmere; Sir
Coleman M. 0. Loghlin, M.P. ; Rev. C. R. Lighton, Bart.; Lieut.-Col. Sir Coutts Lind
say; Captain Sir G. N. Brooke Middleton; Sir Edmund Prideaux; Sir George Ramsey;
Sir John S. Richardson; Sir George S. Robinson; Sir John S. Robinson; Sir J. A.
Stewart; Sir W. D. Stewart; Sir John Tysser Tyrrell; Sir C. F. Lascelles Wraxall;
Hon. A. Duneombe, M.P. ; Colonel, Right Hon. G. C. W. Forester, M.P. ; Right Hon.
J. Whiteside, M.P.; Hon. Percy S. Windham, M.P.; Lieut.-Col. T. Peers Williams,
M.P.; Hon. W. Ashley; Major Hon. W. E. Cochrane; Hon. M. Portman; Hon. S. P.
Vereker; Richard Bremige, M.P.; W. H. Gregory, M.P. ; Judge Haliburton, M.P. ; John
Hardy, M.P.; Beresford A. J. B. Hope, M.P.; J. T. Hopewood, M.P; W. S. Lindsay,
M.P.; Mathew Henry Marsh, M.P. ; Francis Macdonough, M.P. ; J. A. Roebuck, M.P.;
William Scholefield, M.P.; William Vansittart, M.P.; Arthur Edwin Way, M.P.

484 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
caused an earlier dethronement of Napoleon III., and a struggle in
the East which would have left England no military power to expend
on this side of the Atlantic. The American citizen cannot so wilfully
or ignorantly deceive himself as to believe that the Palmerston Gov
ernment, from any consideration of the duties of neutrality, from
any sympathy with the anti-slavery aspect of the contest, or from any
ennobling impulse whatever, refrained from formal recognition of the
Southern Confederacy and the open espousal of its cause.
When the question of recognizing the Confederacy came before
Parliament, it was withdrawn after discussion by request of Mr.
Gladstone, Chancellor of the Exchequer. He assured the House
that " the main result of the American contest is not, humanly speak
ing, in any degree doubtful." He thought " there never was a war
of more destructive, more deplorable, more hopeless character." The
contest in his judgment was " a miserable one." " We do not," said
he, " believe that the restoration of the American Union by force
is attainable. I believe that the public opinion of this country is unani
mous upon that subject. It is not, therefore, from indifference, it is
not from any belief that this war is waged for any adequate or worthy
object on the part of the North, that I would venture to deprecate in
the strongest terms the adoption of the motion of the honorable and
learned gentleman." The " honorable and learned gentleman " was
Mr. Roebuck, already quoted ; and his motion was for the recogni
tion of the Southern Confederacy as an independent Nation. The
argument which Mr. Gladstone brought against it was in effect that
the Confederacy was sure to succeed without foreign intervention.
The fruit when ripe would fall of itself, and hence there was no
need of prematurely beating the tree. The platform speeches of
Mr. Gladstone were still more offensive and unjust, but he need be
held answerable only for official declarations.
The only friends of the United States in England at that trying
period were to be found among the "middle classes," as they are
termed, and among the laboring men. The " nobility and gentry,"
the bankers, the great merchants, the ship-builders, were in the main
hostile to the Union, — wishing and waiting for the success of the
Confederacy. The honorable exceptions to this general statement
were so few in number that they could exert little influence on
public opinion and still less upon the course of the Ministry. The
philanthropy, the foresight, the insight of the realm were found
among the humbler classes. In all parts of the kingdom the laboring

ENGLAND AFTER THE UNION VICTORY. 485
men were on the side of the Union. Though they suffered from a
cotton-famine, they knew by intuition that the founding of a slave
empire in America would degrade labor everywhere ; they knew that
the triumph of the Union signified the equality of human rights and
would add to the dignity and reward of labor. It would have been
well for England's fame and for her prosperity if the statesmen at
Westminster had shared the wisdom and the nobler instincts of the
operatives of Lancashire.

When the National Government had finally triumphed over the
rebellion despite the evil wishes and machinations of England, Par
liament suddenly ceased to consider the condition of the United
States as one of the regular orders of the day ; and Lord Palmerston,
when inquiry was addressed to him whether any representations
would be made in regard to the arrest of Jefferson Davis, curtly
replied that it was not the intention of the Government in any
respect to interfere with the internal affairs of the United States.
The only expression now made in Parliament touching our policies,
was one of solicitude lest our Government should deal with the
citizens of the Southern States in terms of severity. In June, 1865,
two months after the war closed, two noble earls, Russell and Derby,
took it upon themselves to advise the American Government against
the indulgence of passion and revenge towards those who had engaged
in the rebellion. Earl Derby thought that "the triumphant Govern
ment should seek not to exasperate the feelings of their former antag
onists, which have already been too much embittered, but should
endeavor by deeds of conciliation and of mercy to re-cement if pos
sible a Union so nearly dissolved." Earl Russell expressed the opin
ion that it was " most desirable that there should be no appearance
of passion on the part of those who have the guidance of affairs in
the American Union."
Kindly advice is never to be rudely repelled ; but this was coun
sel which the American Government did not need. The war had
closed without the execution of a single man who had borne arms
against the Government, without imprisonment, without confiscation
of property, without even depriving one rebel of his franchise as
an elector. The advice of the noble earls, on the side of mercy,
would have had more weight and influence, had weight and influ
ence been needed, if their own Government, after every rebellion,

486 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
however small or under however great provocation, had not uniformly
followed its victory by the gibbet, by imprisonment, by transporta
tion of the men who had taken up arms against intolerable oppression.
If noble earls of England had scrutinized English policy, and advised
their own Government as they now advised the Government of the
United States, some heroic lives would have been spared to Ireland,
and subjects in India would not have been doomed to a personal
degradation which heightened the horror of impending death.
But while offensive surveillance of American affairs ceased in
Parliament, offensive criticisms in the British Press continued
throughout the period of Reconstruction, and our Government was
held answerable for alleged wrongs and outrages against a conquered
foe. Especial hostility was exhibited towards the Republican party,
which had conducted the Government through the war and led it
to its complete triumph. This party controlled Congress when it
levied heavy protective duties and stimulated manufacturing in
America as the basis of that financial strength which proved dur
ing the civil war a marvel to the world. Offended by the Protective
policy of the United States, the British Press now denounced the
measures proposed for the Reconstruction of the South. No censure
was too harsh, no epithet too severe to apply to the policy and to the
Republican party that stood sponsor for it. It might have surprised
those English critics to learn that the opponents of the Reconstruction
policy at home could find nothing to say of it so denunciatory or so
concentrated in bitterness as that the National Government was try
ing to reduce the Southern States to the condition of Ireland. And
thus while we were receiving from British oracles multiplied instruc
tions as to the manner of dealing with the States that had attempted
to break from their allegiance, those States knew that almost within
sight of England's shores there could be found the worst governed,
the most cruelly treated people within the circle of Christendom.
The American mote could be plainly descried beyond the broad
ocean, but the Irish beam was not visible across the narrow
channel. The comparison of the Southern States under the measures of
Reconstruction, with Ireland under the measures of the British
Government, naturally suggested by hostile criticism in the English
press,' is not without its useful lessons. The complaint of discon
tented people in the Southern States was that there had been too
great ah expansion of popular rights, too large an extension of the

COMPARISON OF RECONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS. 487
elective franchise. But in Ireland, according to eminent British
statesmen and historians, the suffering was from directly opposite
causes.1 Self-government of all the people was the rule established
in the Southern States : subjection of all the people and government
with the sword was the rule established in Ireland. Even if the
American Government had made a mistake in its treatment of
the Southern States, the history and traditions of the Republic gave
1 Three eminent British authorities may be quoted as to the mode in which England
has governed Ireland.
— Mr. Lecky, in his history of England in the eighteenth century, in reviewing the
condition of Ireland, says, in 1878: " It would be difficult in the whole compass of history
to find another instance in which such various and such powerful agencies concurred to
degrade the character and to blast the prosperity of a nation. That the greater part of
them sprang directly from the corrupt and selfish Government of England is incontest
able. No country ever exercised a more complete control over the destinies of another
than did England over those of Ireland for three-quarters of a century after the Revo
lution. No serious resistance of any kind was attempted. The nation was as passive
as clay in the hands of the potter, and it is a circumstance of peculiar aggravation that
a large part of the legislation I have recounted was a distinct violation of a solemn
treaty. The commercial legislation which ruined Irish industry, the confiscation of
Irish land, which disorganized the whole social condition of the country, the scandalous
misapplication of patronage, which at once demoralized and impoverished the nation,
were all directly due to the English Government and the English Parliament."
— Mr. Macaulay, in a speech in the House of Commons on the state of Ireland, in Feb.,
1844, said: " My first proposition, sir, will scarcely be disputed. Both sides of the House
aTe fully agreed.in thinking that the condition of Ireland may well excite great anxiety
and apprehension. That island, in extent about one-fourth of the United Kingdom, in
population more than one-fourth, superior probably in natural fertility to any area of
equal size in Europe, possessed of natural facilities for trade such as can nowhere else
be found in an equal extent of coast, an inexhaustible nursery of gallant soldiers, a
country far more important to the prosperity, the strength, the dignity of this great
empire than all our distant dependencies together, than the Canadas and the West
Indies added to Southern Africa, to Australasia, to Ceylon, and to the vast dominions of
the Moguls, — that island, sir, is acknowledged by all to be so ill affected and so turbu
lent that it must, in any estimate of our power, be not added, but deducted. You admit
that you govern that island, not as you govern England and Scotland, but as you govern
your new conquests in Scinde; not by means of the respect which the people feel for the
laws, but by means of bayonets, of artillery, of entrenched camps."
— Edmund Burke, writing to Sir Hercules Langrishe, in 1792, said: "The original scheme
was never deviated from for a single hour. Unheard-of confiscations were made in the
Northern parts, upon grounds of plots and conspiracies never proved upon their supposed
authors. The war of chicane succeeded to the war of arms and of hostile statutes ; and
a regular series of operations were carried on, particularly from Chichester's time, in
the ordinary courts of justice and by special commissions and inquisitions : First under
pretense of tenures, and then of titles in the Crown, for the purpose of the total extir
pation of the interests of the natives in their own soil, until this species of subtle ravage
being carried to the last excess of oppression and insolence under Lord Strafford, it
kindled the flames of that rebellion which broke out in 1641. By the issue of that war,
by the turn which the Earl of Clarendon gave to things at the Restoration, and by the
total reduction of the kingdom of Ireland in 1691, the ruin of the native Irish, and in a
great measure too of the first races of the English, was completely accomplished."

488 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
ample guarantee that wrong steps would be speedily retraced, that
all grievances would be thoroughly redressed ; whereas the com
plaints of Ireland have remained unredressed for centuries.
There is no parallel among civilized nations to the prolonged
discontent among the Irish people. A race gifted with many of the
noblest qualities of humanity, strong in intellect and quick in appre
hension, could not for centuries complain of grievances if they did
not exist, and the grievances could not exist for centuries without
serious reproach to the British Government. To the lasting honor
of American statesmanship, Southern grievances were not allowed
by neglect or arrogance to grow and become chronic after the civil
war had closed. The one safeguard against an evil so great was the
restoration of self-government to the people who had rebelled, the
broadening of the elective franchise, the abolition of caste and privi
lege. If Englishmen had studied the Reconstruction policy instead of
deriding it, they might have learned that the American Government
accomplished for the South in four years what their own Government
has failed to accomplish for Ireland through ten generations.

The Government of the United States had steadily protested
during the continuance of the civil war against the unfriendly and
unlawful course of England, and it was determined that compensa
tion should be demanded upon the return of Peace. Mr. Adams,
under instructions from Secretary Seward, had presented and ably
argued the American case. He proposed a friendly arbitration of the
Alabama claims, but was met by a flat refusal from Earl Russell, who
declined on the part of the British Government either to make repar
ation or compensation, or permit a reference to any foreign State
friendly to both parties.
In the autumn succeeding the close of the war, Mr. Seward noti
fied the British Government that no further effort would be made
for arbitration, and in the following August (1866) he transmitted
a list of individual claims based upon the destruction caused by the
Alabama. Lord Stanley (the present Earl of Derby) had succeeded
Earl Russell in the Foreign Office, and declined to recognize the
claims of this Government in as decisive a tone as that employed by
Earl Russell. Of opposite parties, Earl Russell and Lord Stanley
were supposed to represent the aggregate, if not indeed the unani-

THE JOHNSON-CLARENDON TREATY. 489
mous, public opinion of England ; so that the refusal to accede to
the demands of the United States was popularly accepted as con
clusive. Mr. Adams retired from his mission, in which his services
to the country had been zealous and useful, without effecting the
negotiations which he had urged upon the attention of the British
Government. He took his formal leave in May, 1868, and was suc
ceeded the following month by Mr. Reverdy Johnson.
The neAv Minister carried with him the respect and confidence
of his fellow-citizens. Appointed directly after the Impeachment
trial of President Johnson, he was among the few statesmen of the
Democratic party who could have secured the ready confirmation of
the Senate for a mission which demanded in its incumbent a talent
for diplomacy and a thorough knowledge of International law. The
only objection seriously mentioned at the time against Mr. Johnson's
appointment, was the fact that he was in his seventy-third year, and
might not therefore be equal to the exacting duties which his mis
sion involved.
Before Mr. Johnson could open his negotiation, the British Min
istry was changed, — Mr. Disraeli giving way to Mr. Gladstone as
Premier, and Lord Stanley being succeeded by Lord Clarendon as
Minister of Foreign Affairs. With the latter Mr. Johnson very
promptly agreed upon a treaty, which reached the United States in
the month of February, 1869. It purported to be a settlement
of the questions in dispute between the two countries. There Avas
great curiosity to learn its provisions. Much was hoped from it,
because it was known to have been approved by Mr. Seward at the
various stages of the negotiation, — a constant and confidential cor
respondence having been maintained by cable, between the State
Department and the American Legation in London, on every phase
of the treaty.
Mr. Seward had earned Approbation so hearty and general by his
diplomatic correspondence with Great Britain during the war and
in the years immediately succeeding, that no one was prepared for
the disappointment and chagrin experienced in the United States
when the Johnson-Clarendon treaty was made public. It gave
almost personal offense to the mass of people in the loyal States.
It overlooked, and yet by cunning phrase condoned, every unfriendly
act of England during our civil war. It affected to class the injuries
inflicted upon the Nation as mere private claims, to be offset by
private claims of British subjects, — the whole to be referred to a joint

490 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
commission, after the ordinary and constantly recurring method of
adjusting claims of private individuals that may have become matter
of diplomatic interposition.
The preamble to the treaty established its character and proved
its utter inadequacy to meet the demands of the United States. It
was in these words : " Whereas claims have at various times since
the exchange of the ratifications of the convention between Great
Britain and the United States of America-, signed at London on the
8th of February, 1853, been made upon the Government of her
Britannic Majesty on the part of citizens of the United States, and
-supon the Government of the United States on the part of subjects
of her Britannic Majesty ; and whereas some of such claims are still
pending and remain unsettled, her Majesty the Queen of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the President of the
United States of America, being of opinion that a speedy and
equitable settlement of all such claims will contribute much to the
maintenance of the friendly feelings which subsist between the two
countries, have resolved to make arrangements for that purpose by
means of a convention."
Among the first provisions of the treaty was a declaration that
the result of the proceedings of the commission thus to be provided
for, should be considered as "a full and final settlement of every
claim upon either government arising out of any transaction of a
date prior to the exchange of ratifications ; " and all claims thereafter
were to be " considered and treated as finally settled and barred, and
thenceforth inadmissible." For eight years the Government of the
United States had been protesting against the unfriendly course of
Great Britain, against her premature recognition of the Confederate
States as belligerents, against her special concession of ocean belliger
ency, against her making the dockyards and arsenals on her own
soil the dockyards and arsenals of the Confederacy, against her
wilful depredation upon the commerce of the United States, against
the destruction of property belonging to American citizens by her
agency and her fault. And now Mr. Johnson and Lord Clarendon
had concluded a treaty Avhich practically admitted that the com
plaints of the United States, as a government, against the conduct
of Great Britain, as a government, had been mere rant and bravado
on the part of the United States, and were not to be insisted on
before any International tribunal, but to be merged in an ordinary
claims convention, by whose award a certain amount in dollars and

REJECTION OF JOHNSON-CLARENDON TREATY. 491
cents might be paid to American claimants and a certain amount in
pounds, shillings and pence might be paid to British claimants. The
text of the treaty did not indicate in any manner whatever that
either nation was more at fault than the other touching the matters
to be arbitrated.
The treaty had short life in the Senate. The Committee on
Foreign Relations, after examination of its provisions, reported that
it should "be rejected." Mr. Sumner, who made the report, said
it was the first time since he had entered the Senate that such a
report had been made concerning any treaty. Amendments, he
said, were sometimes suggested, and sometimes a treaty had been
reported without any recommendation ; but the hostility to the
entire spirit and to every detail of the Johnson-Clarendon treaty
was so intense that the Committee had made the positive recommen
dation that it be rejected. This action was taken in the month of
April, 1869, a few weeks after President Grant had entered upon
his office. It was accompanied by a speech from Mr. Sumner, made
in Executive session, but by direction of the Senate given to the
public, in which the reasons for the action of the Senate were stated
with great directness, precision and force.
After enumerating the extent of our losses, National and indi
vidual, direct and indirect, Mr. Sumner said : " If the case against
England is strong, and if our claims are unprecedented in magni
tude, it is only because the conduct of that power at a trying period
was most unfriendly, and the injurious consequences of this conduct
were on a scale corresponding to the theatre of action. Life and
property were both swallowed up, leaving behind a deep-seated sense
of enormous wrong, as yet unatoned and even unacknowledged,
which is one of the chief factors in the problem now presented to
the statesmen of both countries. . . . The truth must be told, not in
anger, but in sadness. England has done to the United States an
injury most difficult to measure. Considering when it was done and
in Avhat complicity, it is most unaccountable. At a great epoch of
history, not less momentous than that of the French Revolution or
that of the Reformation, when civilization was fighting a last battle
with slavery, England gave her influence, her material resources, to
the wicked cause, and flung a sword into the scale with slavery."
President Grant was in full sympathy with the Senate in its
prompt rejection of the Johnson-Clarendon treaty, and in his annual
message to Congress in the ensuing December (1869) he expressed

492 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
his entire dissent from its provisions.1 He thought the rejection of
the treaty was " followed by a state of public opinion on both sides
not favorable to an immediate attempt at renewed negotiation," and
expressed " the hope that the time will soon arrive when the two
Governments can approach the solution of this momentous question,
with an appreciation of what is due to the rights, dignity, and honor
of each." The rejection of the Johnson-Clarendon treaty was formally
announced to the British Government through Mr. Motley, who
succeeded Mr. Johnson as Minister at London. Mr. Fish, in
his letter of instructions, suggested to Mr. Motley the propriety of
suspending negotiations for the present on the whole question. At
the same time he committed the Government of the United States
anew to the maintenance of the claim for National damages, as well
as for the losses of individual citizens. And thus the matter was
allowed to rest. The United States, though deeply aggrieved, did
not desire to urge the negotiation in a spirit of hostility that implied
readiness to go to war upon the issue, and simply trusted that a
1 The following is the language of President Grant in his message: —
" Toward the close of the last Administration a convention was signed at London
for the settlement of all outstanding claims between Great Britain and the United States,
which failed to receive the advice and consent of the Senate to its ratification. The time
and the circumstances attending the negotiation of that treaty were unfavorable to its
acceptance by the people of the United States, and its provisions were wholly inadequate
for the settlement of the grave wrongs that had been sustained by this Government as
well as by its citizens.
" The injuries resulting to the United States by reason of the course adopted by Great
Britain during our late civil war in the increased rates of insurance ; in the diminution
of exports and imports, and other obstructions to domestic industry and production; in
its effect upon the foreign commerce of the country ; in the decrease and transfer to
Great Britain of our commercial marine ; in the prolongation of the war and the increased
cost, both in treasure and in lives, of its suppression, could not be adjusted and satisfied
as ordinary commercial claims, which continually arise between commercial nations.
And yet the convention treated them simply as such ordinary claims, from which they
differ more widely in the gravity of their character than in the magnitude of their
amount, great even as is that difference. Not a word was found in the treaty, and not an
inference could be drawn from it, to remove the sense of the unfriendliness of the course
of Great Britain in our struggle for existence, which has so deeply and universally
impressed itself upon the people of this country.
" Believing that a convention thus misconceived in its scope and inadequate in its
provisions would not have produced the hearty, cordial settlement of pending questions,
which alone is consistent with the relations which I desire to have firmly established
between the United States and Great Britain, I regarded the action of the Senate in
rejecting the treaty to have been wisely taken in the interest of peace, and as a necessary
step in the direction of a perfect and cordial friendship between the two countries. A
sensitive people conscious of their power are more at ease under a great wrong wholly
unatoned than under the restraint of a settlement which satisfies neither their ideas of
justice nor their grave sense of the grievance they have sustained."

PRESIDENT GRANT'S PROPOSITION. 493
returning sense of justice in the British Government would lead to
a renewal of negotiations and a friendly adjustment of all differences
between the two Governments.
A year went by and nothing was done. The English Govern
ment was not disposed to go a step beyond the provisions of the
Johnson-Clarendon treaty, and had indeed been somewhat offended
by the promptness with which the Senate had rejected that agreement,
especially by the emphasis which the speech of Mr. Sumner had
given to the Senate's action. President Grant remained altogether
patient and composed — feeling that postponement could not be a
loss to the American Government, and would certainly prove no gain
to the British Government. In his annual message to Congress of
December, 1870, he assumed a position which proved embarrassing to
England. He recognized the fact that " the Cabinet at London does
not appear willing to concede that her Majesty's Government was
guilty of any negligence, or did or permitted any act of which the
United States has just cause of complaint ; " and he re-asserted with
great deliberation and emphasis that " our firm and unalterable convic
tions are directly the reverse." The President therefore recommended
that Congress should " authorize the appointment of a commission to
take proof of the amounts and the ownership of these several claims,
on notice to the representative of her Majesty at Washington, and that
authority be given for the settlement of these claims by the United
States, so that the Government shall have the ownership of the pri
vate claims, as well as the responsible control of all the demands
against Great Britain."
President Grant was evidently resolved that the Government of
the United States should not allow the pressing need of private
claimants to operate in any degree upon public opinion in the United
States, so as to create a demand for settlement with England on any
basis below that which National dignity required. He felt assured
that Congress would respond favorably to his recommendation, and
that with the individual claimants satisfied our Government could
afford to wait the course of events. This position convinced the
British Government that the President intended to raise the ques
tion in all its phases above the grade of private claims, and to make
it purely an international affair. No more effective step could have
been taken ; and the President and his adviser, Secretary Fish, are
entitled to the highest credit for thus elevating the character of the
issue — an issue made all the more impressive from the quiet man-

494 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
ner in which it was presented, and from the characteristic coolness
and determination of the Chief Magistrate who stood behind it.
Meanwhile the sanguinary war between Germany and France had
broken out, and was still flagrant when President Grant's recom,
mendation for paying the Alabama claims from the National Treasury
was sent to Congress. Though the foreign conflict terminated with
out involving other nations, it forcibly reminded England of the
situation, in which she might be placed if she should be drawn into
a European war, the United States being a neutral power. It would
certainly be an unjust imputation upon the magnanimity and upon
the courage of the people of the United States to represent them
as waiting for an opportunity to inflict harm upon England for
her conduct towards this Government in the hour of its calamity
and its distress. It was not by indirection, or by stealthy blows, or
by secret connivance with enemies, or by violations of international
justice, that the United States would ever have sought to avenge
herself on England for the wrongs she had received. If there had
been a disposition among the American people impelling them to
that course, it would assuredly have impelled them much farther.
But England was evidently apprehensive that if she should
become involved in war, the United States would, as a neutral power,
follow the precedent which the English Government had set in the
war of the rebellion, and in this way inflict almost irreparable damage
upon British shipping and British commerce. Piratical Alabamas
might escape from the harbors and rivers of the United States,
as easily as they had escaped from the harbors and riA-ers of Eng
land ; and she might well fear that if a period of calamity should
come to her, the people of the United States, with the neglect or
connivance of their Government, would be as quick to add to her
distress and embarrassment as the people of England, with the neg
lect or connivance of their Government, had added to the distress
and embarrassment of the United States. Conscience does make
cowards of us all; and Great Britain, foreseeing the possibility of
being herself engaged in a European war, was in a position to dread
lest her ill intentions and her misdeeds in the time of our civil
struggle should return to .plague her.
These facts and apprehensions seem to have wrought a great
change in the disposition of the British Government, and led them to*
seek a re-opening of the negotiation. In an apparently unofficial way
Sir John Rose, a London banker (associated in business with Honor-

SECRET MISSION OF SIR JOHN ROSE. 495
able L. P. Morton, a well-known banker and distinguished citizen of
New York), came to this country on a secret mission early in January,
1871. President Grant's message had made a profound impression in
London, the Franco-Prussian war had not yet ended, and Her Majesty's
Ministers had reason to fear trouble with the Russian Government.
Sir John's duty was to ascertain in an informal way the feeling of
the American Government in regard to pending controversies be
tween the two countries. He showed himself as clever in diplomacy
as he was in finance, and important results followed in an incredibly
short space of time. An understanding was reached, which on the
surface expressed itself in a seemingly casual letter from Sir
Edward Thornton to Secretary Fish of the 26th of January, 1871,
communicating certain instructions from Lord Granville in regard
to a better adjustment of the fishery question and all other matters
affecting the relations of the United States to the British North-
American possessions. To settle this question Sir Edward was
authorized by his Government to propose the creation of a Joint
High Commission, the members to be named by each, Government,
which should meet in Washington and discuss the question of the
fisheries and the relations of the United States to her Majesty's
possessions in North America.
Mr. Fish replied in a tone which indicated that Sir Edward
was really serious in his proposition to organize so imposing
a tribunal to discuss the fishery question. He informed Sir Ed
ward that " in the opinion of the President the removal of
differences which arose during the rebellion in the United States,
and which have existed since then, growing out of the acts com
mitted by'several vessels, which have given rise to the claims gen
erally known as the Alabama Claims, will also be essential to the
restoration of cordial and amicable relations between the two Gov
ernments." Sir Edward waited just long enough to hear from Lord
Granville by cable, and on the day after the receipt of Mr. Fish's
note assented in writing to his suggestion, adding a request that
" all other claims of the citizens of either country, arising out of the
acts committed during the recent civil war in the United States,
might be taken into consideration by the Commission." To this
Mr. Fish readily assented in turn. .
The question which for six years had been treated with easy
indifference if not with contempt by the British Foreign Office had
in a day become exigent and urgent, and the diplomatic details

496 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
which ordinarily would have required months to adjust were now
settled by cable in an hour. The first proposal for a Joint High
Commission was made by Sir Edward Thornton on the 26th of Jan
uary, 1871 ; and the course of events was so rapid that in twenty-
seven clays thereafter the British Commissioners landed in New York
en route to Washington. They sailed without their commissions, which
were signed by the Queen at the castle of Windsor on the sixteenth
day of February and forwarded to them by special messenger. This
was extraordinary and almost undignified haste, altogether unusual
with Plenipotentiaries of Great Britam. It was laughingly said at
the time that the Commissioners were dispatched from London " so
hurriedly that they came with portmanteaus, leaving their servants
behind to pack their trunks and follow." For this change of view
in the British Cabinet and this courier-like speed among British
diplomatists, there was a double cause, — the warning of the Franco-
Prussian war, and President Grant's proposition to pay the Alabama
Claims from the Treasury of the United States — and wait. Assuredly
the President did not wait long !

The gentlemen constituting the Joint High Commission were
well knoAvn in their respective countries, and enjoyed the fullest
measure of public confidence, thus insuring in advance the accept
ance of whatever settlement they might agree upon.1 The result
of their deliberations was the Treaty of Washington, concluded on
the eighth day of May, 1871. It took cognizance of the four ques
tions at issue between the two countries, and provided for the
settlement of each. The Alabama claims were to be adjusted by a
commission to meet at Geneva, in Switzerland ; all other claims for
loss or damage of any kind, between 1861 and 1865, by subjects of
Great Britain or citizens of the United States, were to be adjusted
1 The Commissioners on behalf of Great Britain were the Earl de Grey and Ripon,
President of the Queen's Counsel ; Sir Stafford Northcote, late Chancellor of the Ex
chequer ; Sir Edward Thornton, British Minister at Washington; Sir John Macdonald,
Premier of the Dominion of Canada; and Montague Bernard, Professor of International
Law in the university of Oxford. On the part of the United States the Commissioners
were Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State ; Robert C. Schenck, who had just been appointed
Minister to Great Britain; Samuel Nelson, Justice of the Supreme Court; E. Rockwood
Hoar, late Attorney-General ; and George H. Williams, late senator of the United States
from Oregon. — The Secretaries were Lord Tenterden, under secretary of the British For
eign Office, and J. C. Bancroft Davis, Assistant Secretary of State of the United States

ADJUSTMENT OF ALABAMA CLAIMS. 497
by a commission to meet in Washington ; the San Juan question was
to be referred for settlement to the Emperor of Germany, as Umpire ;
and the dispute in regard to the fisheries was to be settled by a com
mission to meet at Halifax, Nova Scotia.
The basis for adjusting the Alabama claims was promptly agreed
upon. This question stood in the forefront of the treaty, taking its
proper rank as the principal dispute between the two countries.
Her Britannic Majesty had authorized her High Commissioners and
plenipotentiaries " to express in a friendly spirit the regret felt by
Her Majesty's Government for the escape, under whatever circum
stances, of the Alabama and other vessels from British ports, and for
the depredations committed by those vessels." And with the expres
sion of this regret, Her Britannic Majesty agreed, through her Com
missioners, that all the claims growing out of acts committed by the
aforesaid vessels, and generally known as the Alabama claims, "shall
be referred to a tribunal of arbitration, to be composed of five arbi
trators, — one to be named by the President of the United States,
one by the Queen of England, one by the King of Italy, one by the
President of the Swiss Confederation, and one by the Emperor of
Brazil." This was a great step beyond the Johnson-Clarendon treaty,
which did not in any way concede the responsibility of England to the
Government of the United States. It was a still greater step beyond
the flat refusal, first of Earl Russell and then of Lord Stanley, to refer
the claims to the ruler of a friendly state.
But England was willing to go still farther. She agreed that " in
deciding the matters submitted to the arbitrators, they shall be gov
erned by three rules, which are agreed upon by the high contracting
parties as rules to be taken as applicable to the case ; and by such
principles of International Law, not inconsistent therewith, as the
Arbitrators shall determine to have been applicable to the case."1
1 The following are the three rules agreed upon : —
" A neutral Government is bound —
" First, to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within
its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to
cruisg or to carry on war against a power with which it is at peace ; and also to use like
diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise
or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part,
within such jurisdiction, to warlike use.
"Secondly, not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or
waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal
or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men.
" Thirdly, to exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to all persons
within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties."
Vol. II. 32

498 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Her Britannic Majesty had commanded her High Commissioners to
declare that " Her Majesty's Government cannot assent to these rules
as a statement of the principles of International Law which were in
force at the time when the claims arose ; but that Her Majesty's Gov-
¦ ernment, in order to evince its desire of strengthening the friendly
relations between the two countries, and of making satisfactory pro
vision for the future, agrees that in deciding the questions between
the two countries arising out of those claims, the Arbitrators shall
assume that Her Majesty's Government had undertaken to act upon
the principles set forth in these rules."
Her Majesty's Government had needlessly lost six years in coming
to a settlement which was entirely satisfactory to the Government
and people of the United States. Indeed a settlement at the close
of the war could have been made with even less concession on the
part of Great Britain, and perhaps if it had been longer postponed
the demands of the Government of the United States might have
increased. Wars have grown out of less aggravation and dispute
between nations; but the Government of the United States had
never anticipated such a result as possible, and felt assured that in
the -end Great Britain would not refuse to make the reparation
honorably due.
The Arbitrators met in the ensuing December at Geneva, Switzer
land, and after a hearing of nine months agreed upon an award,
made public on the 14th of September, 1872. The judgment was
that "the sum of 115,500,000 in gold be paid by Great Britain to
the United States for the satisfaction of all the claims referred to the
consideration of the tribunal." Sir Alexander Cockburn, the British
Commissioner, dissented in a somewhat ungracious manner from the
judgment of his associates ; but as the majority had been specially
empowered to make an award, the refusal of England's representa
tive to join in it did not in the least degree affect its validity.1
There is some question as to whether the British Government has
discharged one of the obligations which it assumed under the treaty.
After the three rules had been agreed upon, a clause of the treaty
declared that " the high contracting parties agree to observe these
1 The arbitrators who met at Geneva were as follows: —
Great Britain appointed Sir Alexander Cockburn ; the United States appointed Mr.
Charles Francis Adams ; the King of Italy named Count Frederick Sclopis ; the Presi
dent of the Swiss Confederation named Mr. Jacob Staempfli; the Emperor of Brazil
named the Baron d'ltajuba. Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis was appointed Agent of the
United States; and Lord Tenterden was the Agent of Great Britain.

ADJUSTMENT OF OTHER CLAIMS. 499
rules as between themselves in future, and to bring them to the
knowledge of the other maritime powers and invite them to accede
to them." Declaring that the three rules had not been recognized
theretofore as International Law by her Majesty's Government, it
was a fair agreement that they should be recognized thereafter, and
that the combined influence of the British and American Govern
ments should be used to incorporate them in the recognized code of
the world.
But the Government of England has been unwilling to perform
the duty which had thus been agreed upon, and this refusal gives
rise to the impression that England does not desire to bind herself
with other nations as she has bound herself with the United States.
As the matter stands, if England should be involved in war with a
European power, the United States is strictly bound by the letter
and spirit of the three rules ; but if two Continental powers become
engaged in war, England is not bound by those rules in her conduct
towards them. She certainly has gained much in securing the abso
lute neutrality of the United States when she is engaged in war,
but it cannot be considered an honorable compliance with the obliga
tions of the treaty if she fails to use her influence to extend the
operation of the rules.

Following the provision for arbitration of the Alabama claims,
the Treaty of Washington provided for a Commission to adjust " all
claims on the part of corporations, companies or private individuals,
citizens of the United States, upon the Government of her Britannic
Majesty ; and on the part of corporations, companies or private indi
viduals, subjects of her Britannic Majesty, upon the Government of
the United States." These were claims arising out of acts com
mitted against the persons or property of citizens of either country
by the other, during the period between the 13th of April, 1861, and
the 9th of April, 1865, inclusive, — being simply the damages inflicted
during the war. The tribunal to which all such claims were referred
was constituted of three Commissioners ; one to be named by the
President of the United States, one by her Britannic Majesty, and
the third by the two conjointly.
The Commission was organized at Washington on the 26th of
September, 1871, and made its final award at Newport, Rhode Island,
on the 25th of September, 1873. The claims presented by American

500 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
citizens before the Commission were only nineteen in number, amount
ing in the aggregate to a little less than a million of dollars. ^ These
claims were all rejected by the Commission — no responsibility of
the British Government having been established. The subjects
of her Majesty presented 478 claims which, with interest reckoned
by the rule allowed by the Commission, amounted to $96,000,000.
Of this number 181 awards were made in favor of the claimants,
amounting in the aggregate to $1,929,819, or only two per cent of
the amount claimed. The amount awarded was appropriated by
Congress and paid by the United States to the British Government.
All claims accruing between 1861 .and 1865 for injuries resulting in
any way from the war were thereafter barred.1

The subject of the north-western boundary line, commonly known
as the San Juan question, was one of very considerable importance,
over which there had been long contention between the two Govern
ments. The treaty of Independence in 1783 was followed by a series
of disputes relating to the boundary between the United States and
British America. It was inevitable that a tortuous line, drawn from
the north-western angle of Nova Scotia to the Lake of the Woods
and thence (as the treaty erroneously described it) due west to the
Mississippi River, would give occasion for honest difference of opin
ion and very frequent opportunity for technical disputes. The face
of the country was imperfectly known in 1783, and the highlands
and water-courses by which the line was to be determined could not
at that time be laid down with accuracy.
Beyond the Mississippi (then an unknown country) territorial
disputes grew up between Spain and Great Britain. By the pur
chase of Louisiana in 1803, and by the subsequently acquired claim
to the Oregon country, the sovereignty of the Republic was extended
to the Pacific ; Great Britain claiming to be co-termmous for the
1 The Commission that made these labored and accurate awards was composed as
follows : —
Right Hon. Russell Gurney, M.P., was the English Commissioner; Hon. James S.
Fraser of Indiana was Commissioner for the United States; Count Louis Corti (Minister
from Italy to the United States) was selected as third Commissioner. Hon. Robert S.
Hale, a learned member of the bar of New York, and distinguished as a representative
in Congress, was appointed agent of the United States ; and Mr. Henry Howard, one of
the British secretaries of Legation in Washington, and most favorably known to the
people of the Capital, was agent of Her Majesty's Government.

THE NORTH-WESTERN BOUNDARY SETTLED. 501
entire distance. By the treaty of 1818 the forty-ninth parallel was
agreed upon as the boundary from the line of the Lake of the Woods
to the "Stony Mountains." The boundary from the Stony Moun
tains to the Pacific was left for subsequent settlement, and was finally
adjusted (as already narrated in these pages) by the treaty of 1846.
By that treaty the two governments agreed to continue the forty-
ninth parallel as the boundary from the Stony Mountains "westward
to the middle of the channel which separates the continent from
Vancouver's Island, and thence southerly through the middle of said
channel and of Fuca Straits to the Pacific Ocean."
The Commissioners appointed by the two Governments to run the
line could not come to an agreement upon it, — the British Govern
ment claiming that it should be run through the Rosario Straits,
and the Government of the United States that it should be run
through the Canal de Haro. If the line should be run by the Rosa
rio Straits the Island of San Juan belonged to Great Britain; if
by the Canal de Haro the island belonged to the United States and
formed part of Washington Territory. It was now agreed in the
Treaty of Washington that the question should be left to the Emperor
of Germany, who was "authorized to decide finally and without
appeal which of these claims is most in accordance with the true
interpretation of the treaty of June 15, 1846." The question thus
submitted to his Imperial Majesty was purely a geographical one. Its
decision either way could scarcely wound the susceptibilities of either
party, however it might affect National interests. It also relieved
the august arbitrator from the consideration of all the political preju
dices and pretensions which had marked the long line of boundary
discussions between the two countries, and the jealousies and mis
understandings which had proved so troublesome during the period
of joint occupation of the Oregon country. The Emperor referred
the detailed examination of the subject to a Commission of eminent
experts both in law and science, and in accordance with their
report decided in favor of the claim of the United States that the
line should be run through the Canal de Haro.
The Government of the United States was fortunate in having
its rights and interests represented before the Umpire by its Minister
at Berlin, the Honorable George Bancroft. He was a member of
President Polk's Cabinet during the period of the discussion and
completion of the treaty of 1846, and was Minister at London when
the San Juan dispute began. With his prolonged experience in his-

502 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
torical investigation, Mr. Bancroft had readily mastered every detail
of the question, and was thus enabled to present it in the strongest
and most favorable light. His success fitly crowned an official career
of great usefulness and honor. His memorial to the Emperor of
Germany, when he presented the case, was conceived in his happiest
style. The opening words were felicitous and touching : " The treaty
of which the interpretation is referred to Your Majesty's arbitrament
was ratified more than a quarter of a century ago. Of the sixteen
members of the British Cabinet which framed and presented it for
the acceptance of the United States, Sir Robert Peel, Lord Aber
deen, and all the rest but one, are no more. The British Minister
at Washington who signed it is dead. Of American statesmen
concerned in it, the Minister at London, the President and Vice-
President, the Secretary of State, and every one of the President's
constitutional advisers, except one, have passed away. I alone re
main, and after finishing the threescore years and ten that are the
days of our years, am selected by my country to uphold its rights."
The decision of the Emperor was given on the 21st of October
(1872). The British Government accepted it cordially and Lord
Granville immediately instructed Sir Edward Thornton to propose
that the two Governments should resume the work of the boundary
commission, which was interrupted in 1859. In accordance with
this proposition a chart was immediately prepared and approved by
both parties to the treaty. It is unnecessary to point out the advan
tage to the United States of the decision. A glance at the map will
show it in full detail. The conclusion of the negotiation enabled
President Grant to say in his message to Congress, December, 1872,
— ninety years after the close of the Revolutionary war, — "It leaves
us for the first time in the history of the United States as a nation,
without a question of disputed boundary between our territory and
the possessions of Great Britain on the American continent."

Note. — The question of the fisheries — the last for whose adjudication the Treaty of
Washington provided — is referred to in a subsequent chapter.

CHAPTER XXI.
Opening Forty-second Congress. — Deposition of Charles Sumner prom Chair
manship of Foreign Relations. — Exciting Debate. — Grave Injustice to Mr.
Sumner. — Democratic Senators oppose the Act. — New Senators. — Matt W.
Ransom. — Frank P. Blair, Jun. — Henry G. Davis. — Powell Clayton. — Or
ganization of the House. — Mr. Blaine re-elected Speaker. — Democrats
control more than One-Third of House. — Valuable Accessions to Member
ship. — Political Disabilities. — Removed prom Individuals. — General Am
nesty proposed. Civil-Rights Bill. — Course' op Colored Members op the
House. — Their Justice and Magnanimity.
THE opening of the Forty-second Congress, on the 4th of March,
1871, was disfigured by an act of grave injustice committed by
the Senate of the United States. Charles Sumner was deposed from
the chairmanship of the Committee on Foreign Relations, — a
position he had held continuously since the Republican party gained
control of the Senate. The cause of his displacement may be found
in the angry contentions to which the scheme of annexing San
Domingo gave rise. Mr. Sumner's opposition to that project was
intense, and his words carried with them what was construed as a
personal affront to the President of the United States, — though
never so intended by the Massachusetts senator. When the commit
tees were announced from the Republican caucus on the 10th of
March, 1871, by Mr. Howe of Wisconsin, Mr. Cameron of Pennsyl
vania appeared as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations
and Mr. Sumner was assigned to the chairmanship of a new com
mittee, — Privileges and Elections, — created for the exigency.1
The removal of Mr. Sumner from his place had been determined
in a caucus of Republican senators, and never was the power of the
caucus more wrongfully applied. Many senators were compelled,
from their sense of obedience to the decision of the majority, to
commit an act against their conceptions of right, against what they
believed to be justice to a political associate, against what they
1 Objection was not interposed against Mr. Cameron personally. By seniority he was
entitled to the place in the event of a vacancy. The controversy related solely to the
refusal to give Mr. Sumner his old position. 503

504 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
believed to be sound public policy, against what they believed to be
the interest of the Republican party. The caucus is a convenience
in party organization to determine the course to be pursued in mat
ters of expediency which do not involve questions of moral obliga
tion or personal justice. Rightfully employed, the caucus is not only
useful but necessary in the conduct and government of party interests.
Wrongfully applied, it is a weakness, an offense, a stumbling-block
in the way of party prosperity.
Mr. Sumner's deposition from the place he had so long honored
was not accomplished, however, without protest and contest. Mr.
Schurz made an inquiry of Mr. Howe as to the grounds upon which
the senator was to be deposed ; and the answer was that " the per
sonal relations between the senator from Massachusetts and the
President of the United States and the head of the State Department
are such as preclude all social intercourse between them." "In
brief," said Mr. Howe, "I may say that the information communi
cated to us was that the senator from Massachusetts refused to hold
personal intercourse with the Secretary of State."
— Mr. Schurz, sitting near Mr. Sumner, immediately answered for
that senator that "he had not refused to enter into any official
relations, either with the President of the United States or with the
Secretary of State ; and that upon inquiry being made of him, Mr.
Sumner had answered that he would receive Mr. Fish as an old
friend, and would not only be willing but would be glad to transact
such matters and to discuss such questions as might come up for
consideration." And Mr. Sumner added: "In his own house."
— Mr. Wilson, the colleague of Mr. Sumner, spoke with great ear
nestness against the wrong contemplated by the act : " Sir," said he,
"we saw Stephen A. Douglas, on this floor, at the bidding of Mr.
Buchanan's administration, in obedience to the demands of the slave-
holding leaders and the all-conquering slave power, put down, dis
rated, from his committee. We saw seeds then sown that blossomed
and bore bitter fruit at Charleston in 1860. Now we propose to try
a similar experiment. I hope and trust in God that we shall not
witness similar results. I love justice and fair play, and I think I
know enough of the American people to know that ninety-nine hun
dredths of the men who elected this administration in 1868 will
disapprove this act." Mr. Trumbull, Mr. Logan and Mr. Tipton
were the only Republican senators who joined with Mr. Wilson in
openly deprecating the decree of the party caucus.

MR. SUMNER DEPOSED FROM HIS COMMITTEE. 505
— Mr. Edmunds, who was one of the active promoters of Mr. Sum
ner's deposition, declared that the question was " whether the Senate
of the United States and the Republican party are quite ready to
sacrifice their sense of duty to the whims of one single man, whether
he comes from New England, or from Missouri, or from Illinois, or
from anywhere else." He described the transaction as a business
affair of changing a member from one committee to another for the
convenience of the Senate, and said: "When I hear my friend from
Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson] and the senator from Missouri [Mr.
Schurz] making these displays about a mere matter of ordinary con
venience, it reminds me of the nursery story of the children who
thought the sky was going to fall, and it turned out in the end that
it was only a rose-leaf that had fallen from a bush to the ground."
— Senator Sherman defended the right of the caucus to make the
decision. " Whenever that decision is made known," said he, " every
one, however high may be his position, however great his services, is
bound by the common courtesies which prevail in these political
bodies to yield at once. ... I feel it my duty to make this explana
tion of the vote I shall give. I think I am bound by the decision
made after full debate upon this mere personal point, involving only
the question whether the honorable senator from Massachusetts shall
occupy the chairmanship of the Committee on Foreign Relations or
the chairmanship of the Committee on Privileges and Elections."
Other incidents connected with the removal tended to give it the
air of discourtesy to Mr. Sumner. One feature of it was especially
marked and painful. Mr. Sumner's acquaintance in Europe, cer
tainly in England, was larger than that of any other member of the
Senate. His speech on the Alabama claims was the first utterance on
the subject which had arrested the attention of England, and now,
as if in rebuke of his patriotic position, the Queen's High Commis
sioners directly after their arrival in Washington were called to
witness a public indignity toward Mr. Sumner. The action of the
Senate was, in effect, notice to the whole world that Mr. Sumner
was to have no further connection with a great international question
to which he had given more attentibn than any other person con
nected with the Government.
Mr. Sumner declined the service to which he was assigned, and
from that time forward to the day of his death he had no rank as
chairman, no place upon a committee of the Senate, no committee-
room for his use, no clerk assigned to him for the needed discharge

506 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
of his public duties. When Mr. Sumner entered the Senate twenty
years before, the pro-slavery leaders who then controlled it had
determined at one time in their caucus to exclude him from all
committee service on account of his offensive opinions in regard to
slavery, but upon sober second thought they concluded that a per
secution of that kind would add to Mr. Sumner's strength rather than
detract from it. He was therefore given the ordinary assignments
of a new member by the Southern men in control and was thence
regularly advanced until he became a member of the Committee on
Foreign Relations, under the chairmanship of James M. Mason, with
Douglas and Slidell as fellow-members.
For his fidelity to principle and his boldness in asserting the truth
at an earlier day Mr. Sumner was struck down in the Senate cham
ber by a weapon in the hands of a political foe. It was impossible to
anticipate that fifteen years later he would be even more cruelly
struck down in the Senate by the members of the party he had done
so much to establish. The cruelty was greater in the latter case, as
anguish of spirit is greater than suffering of body. In both instances
Mr. Sumner's bearing was distinguished by dignity and magnanimity.
He gave utterance to no complaints, and silently submitted to the
unjustifiable wrong of which he was a victim. That nothing might
be lacking in the extraordinary character of the final scene of his
deposition, the Democratic senators recorded themselves against the
consummation of the injustice. They had no co-operation from the
Republicans. The caucus dictation was so strong that discontented
Republicans merely refrained from voting.

The personal changes in the Senate, under the new elections,
were less numerous than usual. General Logan took the place of
Richard Yates from Illinois, having been promoted from the House,
where his service since the war had been efficient and distinguished.
— Matt W. Ransom, a Confederate soldier who had held high
command in General Lee's army, took the place of Joseph C. Abbott
of North Carolina. Mr. Ransom had been well educated at the
University at Chapel Hill, was a lawyer by profession, had been
Attorney-General of his State, and had served several years in the
Legislature. Severe service in the field during the four years of
the war had somewhat impaired his health, but his personal bearing

NEW SENATORS IN FORTY-SECOND CONGRESS. 507
and the general moderation of his views rapidly won for him many
friends in both political parties.
— General Frank P. Blair, jun., entered as senator from Missouri
a few weeks preceding the 4th of March, filling the place made va
cant by the resignation of Senator Drake, who was appointed to the
Bench of the Court of Claims. General Blair's political career had
been somewhat checkered and changeful. Originally a Democrat of
the Van Buren type, he had helped to organize the Republican party
after the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. He remained a Repub
lican until the defection of Andrew Johnson, when he joined the
Democrats, and became so vituperatively hostile that the Senate in
1866 successively rejected his nomination for Collector of Internal
Revenue in the St. Louis district, and for Minister to Austria. He
was a good soldier, rose to the rank of Major-General, and secured
the commendation of General Grant, which was far more than a brevet
from the War Department. His defeat for the Vice-Presidency had,
if possible, increased his antagonism to the Republican party, and he
now came to the Senate as much embittered against his late associates
as he had been against the Democrats ten years before. He was
withal a generous-minded man of strong parts, but the career for
which nature fitted him was irreparably injured by the unsteadiness
of his political course.
— Henry G. Davis, a native of Maryland, entered as the first
Democratic senator from West Virginia. His personal popularity
was a large factor in the contest against the Republicans of his
State, and he was naturally rewarded by his party as its most influ
ential leader. Mr. Davis had honorably wrought his own way to
high station, and had been all his life in active affairs. As a farmer,
a railroad man, a lumberman, an operator in coal, a banker, he had
been uniformly successful. He came to the Senate with that kind
of practical knowledge which schooled him to care and usefulness as
a legislator. He steadily grew in the esteem and confidence of both
sides of the Senate, and when his party attained the majority he was
entrusted with the responsible duty of the chairmanship of the Com
mittee on Appropriations. No more painstaking or trustworthy man
ever held the place. While firmly adhering to his party, he was at
all times courteous, and in the business of the Senate or in social
intercourse never obtruded partisan views. He was re-elected with
out effort, but early gave notice that at the end of his second term
he would retire from active political life.

508 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
— Powell Clayton, who succeeded Alexander McDonald as senator
from Arkansas, was a native of Delaware County, Pennsylvania,
a member of the well-known Clayton family long settled in Penn
sylvania, Delaware and Maryland. He was educated at a military
school in Pennsylvania and trained as a civil engineer. He was
engaged in that profession in Kansas in 1860-61, and upon the out
break of the war immediately enlisted in the Union Army. He was
rapidly promoted to the rank of Brigadier-General, and made an
admirable record for efficiency and bravery. When the war closed
he was commanding a district in Arkansas. He remained there as a
citizen of the State and was active and influential during the period
of reconstruction. In 1868 he was elected Governor, and at the close
of his term was chosen United-States senator. He is a man of char
acter, — quiet and undemonstrative in manner, but with extraordinary
qualities of firmness and endurance.

The House of Representatives was organized without delay or
obstruction. Mr. Blaine was re-elected Speaker, — receiving 126
votes to 92 cast for George W. Morgan of Ohio, who had been nomi
nated as the Democratic candidate. The oath of office was adminis
tered to the Speaker by Mr. Dawes of Massachusetts, who by Mr.
Washburne's retirement had become the member of longest continu
ous service. The vote of the opposing candidates showed that in the
elections for this Congress the Democrats had made an obvious gain
in the country at large. The Republicans for the first time since
1861 failed to command two-thirds of the House, — a circumstance
of much less importance when Congress is in harmony with the Ex
ecutive than when, in conflict with him, the necessity arises for pass
ing bills over his veto. But while the majority was not large, the
House received valuable accessions among the new members.
— Joseph R. Hawley, who now entered the House, was born in North
Carolina of Connecticut parents. He was educated in the North and
began the practice of law at Hartford in 1850. Gifted with a ready
pen, he soon adopted the editorial profession, and was conducting
a Republican journal in 1861 when the war broke out. He enlisted
the day after Sumter was fired upon, and remained in the service
until the rebel armies surrendered, when he returned to his home
and became editor of the Hartford Courant, with which his name has

PROMINENT REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS. 509
been conspicuously identified for many years. His military record
was faultless, as might well be inferred from the fact that he began
as a private and ended with the brevet of Major-General. He at
once entered upon a political career, which in a State so closely
divided as Connecticut involves labor and persistence. His two con
tests for Governor in 1866 and 1867, with James E. English as his
opponent, enlisted wide-spread interest. The men were both popular :
Hawley's special strength was the record of 'lis service in the field ;
English had maintained an honorable reputation as a War Democrat
at home, and had voted in Congress for the Thirteenth Amendment
to the Constitution. Both could therefore appeal to the Union
sentiment then so pronounced among the people. In the election
of 1866 Hawley was victorious by a few hundred ; in the election of
1867 English was victorious by a few hundred, — in a total poll each
year of about 90,000 votes. In Congress General Hawley at once
took active part in the proceedings and debates. A forcible speaker,
with quick perception and marked industry, he had all the requisites
for success in a Parliamentary body.
— Ellis H. Roberts took his seat as a Republican representative from
the Utica district, New York, of which he is a native. Immediately
after his graduation at Yale he became the editor of the Utica Morn
ing Herald, — a position he has ever since held. The strength of
Mr. Roberts, his intellectual resources, the variety and extent of his
knowledge, the elegance and purity of his style, may be found in his
editorial columns. No test of a man's power is more severe than the
demand made by a daily newspaper. Without the opportunity for
elaborate investigation of each subject as it arises, he must have a
mind well stored with knowledge ; without time for leisurely compo
sition, he must possess the power of writing off-hand with force and
precision. Tried by these requirements, Mr. Roberts has for a third
of a century exhibited a high order of ability, with a constantly en
larging sphere of knowledge, a constantly growing power of logical
statement. He entered Congress, therefore, with great advantages
and resources. So well recognized were these, that the general opin
ion of his colleagues indicated him for the Ways and Means Com
mittee, a position rarely assigned to any but an old member. Mr.
Roberts took active and influential part in all the financial legisla
tion, and soon acquired a strong hold upon the House. He always
spoke clearly and forcibly, possessing at the same time the art and
tact of speaking briefly. He was re-elected in 1872, but suffered

510 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
defeat in the general Republican reverse of 1874. If he had been
sustained by the force of a strong Republican majority, he could not
have failed to increase the distinction he gained in his brief service,
and to become one of the recognized leaders of the House.
— William P. Frye took his seat from Maine. Though but thirty-
nine years of age, he had for a considerable period been conspicuous
in his State. He graduated at Bowdoin College at nineteen years
of age (in 1850), and soon became professionally and politically
active. From the first organization of the Republican party he
supported its principles and its candidates with well-directed zeal.
He served several terms in the Legislature and was one of the fore
most figures in the House of Representatives in 1862, recognized as
one of the ablest that ever assembled in Maine. He acquired a
high reputation as an advocate and was thrice elected Attorney-Gen
eral of the State. At the close of his service in that important
office he was chosen to represent his district in Congress. His rank
as a debater was soon established, and he exhibited a degree of care
and industry in committee work not often found among represent
atives who so readily command the attention of the House.
— Charles Foster came from the north-western section of Ohio in
which his father had been one of the pioneers and the founder of
the town of Fostoria. He attracted more than the ordinary attention
given to new members, from the fact that he had been able to carry
a Democratic district, and, for a young man, to exert a large influ
ence upon public opinion. He was distinguished by strong common
sense, by a popular manner, by personal generosity, and by a quick
instinct as to the expediency of political measures and the strength
of political parties. These qualities at once gave him a position of
consequence in the House superior to that held by many of the older
members of established reputation. His subsequent career vindi
cated his early promise, and enabled him to lead the Republican
party of Ohio to victory in more than one canvass which at the
outset was surrounded with doubt and danger.
— Two of the most conspicuous and successful business men from
the North-West appeared in this House. Charles B. Farwell, one of the
leading merchants of Chicago, entered as a Republican ; and Alex
ander Mitchell, prominent in railway and banking circles, came as a
Democrat from Milwaukee. Mr. Farwell was a native of New York,
and went to the West when a boy, with a fortune which consisted of
a good education and habits of industry. When elected to Congress,

PROMINENT REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS. 511
he had long been regarded as one of the ablest and most successful
merchants of Chicago. He was chosen over John Wentworth by a
a majority of more than five thousand. — Alexander Mitchell was a
Scotchman by birth, with all the qualities of his race, — acute, indus
trious, wary and upright. He had taken a leading position in the
financial affairs of the North-West, and maintained it with ability,
being rated for years as a man of great wealth honestly acquired.
— Jeremiah M. Wilson of Indiana entered the House with the
reputation of being a strong lawyer — a reputation established by
his practice at the bar and his service on the bench. — H. Boardman
Smith of the Elmira district, New York, was afterwards well known
on the Supreme Bench of his State. — Jeremiah Rusk of Wisconsin
came with a good war record, and subsequently became Governor
of his State. — Mark H. Dunnell, from Minnesota, was a native of
Maine, had been a member of each branch of the Maine Legisla
ture and for several years was Superintendent of Public Instruc
tion. — John T. Averill was also a native of Maine. He had won the
rank of Brigadier-General in the war, and had afterwards become
extensively engaged in manufacturing in Minnesota. — James Mon
roe from the Oberlin district, Ohio, was a man of cultivation and of
high character. He had served for several years in the Legislature
of his State, and had been Consul-General at Rio Janeiro under Mr.
Lincoln's Administration. — Isaac C. Parker, a Republican from
Missouri, made so good a reputation in the house that he was ap
pointed to the United States District bench. — Walter L. Sessions,
an active politician, entered from the Chautauqua district of New
York. — Alfred C. Harmer, well known in Philadelphia, entered from
one of the districts of that city. — John Hancock, a man of ability
and character, entered from Texas. — Gerry W. Hazelton, with a
fine legal reputation, came from Wisconsin. — Henry Waldron, who
had served some years before, returned from Michigan.

The political disabilities imposed by the third section of the Four
teenth Amendment to the Constitution affected large classes in the
Southern States. When the Amendment was under discussion in Con
gress, the total number affected was estimated at fourteen thousand,
but subsequently it was ascertained to be much greater. It included
not only those who had been members of Congress, or held any

512 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
office under the United States, but all those who had been Executive
and Judicial officers or members of the Legislatures in the revolted
States. The Proclamation, making its ratification known to the
people, was issued by Secretary Seward on the twentieth day of July,
1868 ; but in advance of this formal announcement Congress (then in
session) began to relieve the persons affected. The first act was for
the benefit of Roderick R. Butler of Tennessee, representative-elect to
the Fortieth Congress. It was approved on the 19th of June (1868),
and permission was given him to take a modified oath. On the 25th
of June amnesty was extended to about one thousand persons, and
during the remainder of the Congress some five hundred more were
relieved from political disability. In the Forty-first Congress the
liberality of the majority did not grow less; and during the two
years thirty-three hundred participators in the rebellion — among
them some of the most prominent and influential — were restored to
the full privileges of citizenship ; the rule being, in fact, that every
one who asked for it, either through himself or his friends, was freely
granted remission of penalty.
At the opening of the Forty-second Congress it was evident that
the practice of removing the disabilities of individuals would not
find favor as in the two preceding Congresses. There was a dispo
sition rather to classify and reserve for further consideration the
really offending men and give general amnesty to all others. To this
end, Mr. Hale of Maine, on the 10th of April, 1871, moved to sus
pend the rules in order that a bill might be passed removing legal
and political disabilities from all persons who had participated in the
rebellion, except the following classes : first, members of the Congress
of the United States who withdrew therefrom and aided the rebel
lion ; second, officers of the Army and Navy, who, being above the
age of twenty-one years, left the service and aided the rebellion;
third, members of State Conventions who voted for pretended ordi
nances of secession. It was further provided that before receiving
the benefit of this Act each person should take an oath of loyalty
before the Clerk of a United States Court or before a United States
Commissioner. Debate was not allowed and the bill was passed by
more than the requisite two-thirds — ayes 134, noes 46.
When the Bill came before the Senate, Mr. Robertson of South
Carolina attempted to put it on its passage, but objection being made
it was referred under the rule, and thereby postponed for the ses
sion. With this result the pressure for individual relief of the dis-

UNIVERSAL AMNESTY PROPOSED. 513
abled persons became so great, that at the next session of Congress
a bill was prepared and passed in the House, containing some seven
teen thousand names, to which the Senate proposed to add some
three thousand. But the effect of this was still further to impress
upon Congress the necessity of some generalization of the process of
relief. The impossibility of examining into the merits of individuals
by tens of thousands, and of establishing the quality and degree of
their offenses, was so obvious that representatives on both sides of
the House demanded an Act of general amnesty, excepting there
from only the few classes whose names would lead to discussion and
possibly to the defeat of the beneficent measure.
General Butler accordingly reported from the Judiciary Commit
tee, on the 13th of May, 1872, a bill removing the disabilities " from
all persons whomsoever, except senators and representatives of the
Thirty-sixth and Thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the Judicial,
Military and Naval service of the United States, heads of Depart
ments, and foreign Ministers of the United States." This Act of
amnesty, which left so few under disabilities (not exceeding seven
hundred and fifty in all), would have been completed long before, but
for the unwillingness of the Democratic party to combine with it
a measure, originated and earnestly advocated by Mr. Sumner, to
broaden the civil rights of the colored man, to abolish discriminp ¦
tions against him as enforced by hotels, railroad companies, places vi
public amusement, and in short, in every capacity where he was ren
dered unequal in privilege to the white man. But the Democratic
leaders were not willing to accept amnesty for their political! friends
in the South, if at the same time they must take with it the libera
tion of the colored man from odious personal discriminations.
The Democrats were now to witness an exhibition of magna
nimity in the colored representatives which had not been shown
towards them. When the Amnesty Bill came before the House' for
consideration, Mr. Rainey of South Carolina, speaking for the colored
race whom he represented, said: "It is not the disposition of my
constituents that these disabilities should longer be retained. We
are desirous of being magnanimous : it may be that we are so to a
fault. Nevertheless we have open and frank hearts towards those
who were our former oppressors and taskmasters. We foster no en
mity now, and we desire to foster none, for their acts in the past to
us or to the Government we love so well. But while we are willing
to accord them their enfranchisement and here to-day give oua- votes
Vol. II. 33

514 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
that they may be amnestied, while we declare our hearts open and
free from any vindictive feelings towards them, we would say to
those gentlemen on the other side that there is another class of citi
zens in the country, who have certain rights and immunities which
they would like you, sirs, to remember and respect. . . . We invoke
you, gentlemen, to show the same kindly feeling towards us, a race
long oppressed, and in demonstration of this humane and just feel
ing, I implore you, give support to the Civil-rights Bill, which we
have been asking at your hands, lo ! these many days."
There was no disposition, as General Butler explained, to unite
the Civil-rights Bill with the Amnesty Bill, because the former could
be passed by a majority, while the latter required two-thirds. With
General Butler and the colored representatives speaking for the
most radical sentiment of the House, and the Democrats eager for
the bill if it could be disentangled from all connection with other
measures, complete unanimity was reached, and the bill was enacted
without even a division being demanded.
When the measure reached the Senate it was governed by an
understanding that without being united in the same Act it should
keep even pace with the Civil-rights Bill, and that while the South
ern white man was to be relieved of his political disabilities the
Southern black man should be endowed with his personal rights.
On the 21st of May, therefore, the Civil-rights Bill was taken up for
consideration in advance of the Amnesty Bill. In the temporary
absence of Mr. Sumner from the Senate chamber, the equality recog
nized as to public schools and jury service was struck out, and in
that form the bill was passed. The Amnesty Bill was immediately
taken up ; while it was pending Mr. Sumner returned and warmly
denounced the fundamental change that had been made in the
Civil-rights Bill. In .consequence of what he considered a breach
of faith on the question, he voted against the passage of the Amnesty
Bill, Senator Nye of Nevada being the only one who united with him
in the negative vote. Mr. Sumner's denunciations of the emascu
lated Civil-rights Bill were extremely severe ; but he was pertinently
reminded by Senator Anthony of Rhode Island that the bill was all
that could be obtained in the Senate at this session, and perhaps
more than could be enacted into law. The senator from Rhode
Island had correctly estimated the probable action of the House,
for although on three different occasions attempts were made to pass
the bill under .a .suspension of the rules, the Democratic members,

THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL. 515
who numbered more than one-third of the House, voted solidly in
the negative, and thus defeated the measure.
The colored representatives, who had been slaves, were willing to
release their late masters from every form of disability, but the im
mediate friends of the masters were unwilling to extend the civil
rights of the colored man. So far as chivalry, magnanimity, charity,
Christian kindness, were involved, the colored men appeared at an
advantage. Perhaps it is not surprising that lingering prejudice and
the sudden change of situation should have restrained Southern white
men from granting these privileges, but it must always be mentioned
to the credit of the colored man that he gave his vote for amnesty
to his former master when his demand for delay would have obstructed
the passage of the measure.
In the stubborn opposition maintained by the Democratic party
to the admission of colored men to the rights of citizenship, the
closing argument of violent harangues was usually in the form of a
question, " Do you want to see them in Congress ? " — to which the
natural and logical answer was that the right of the colored man to
sit in Congress does not depend in the least upon the desire or the
prejudice of other States and other districts. It is solely a matter
within the judgment of the State or district which in a fair vote and
honest election may choose to send him. The revolution in favor
of human rights, promoted and directed by the Republican party,
swept onward: the colored man, freed from slavery, attained the
right of suffrage, and in due season was sent to Congress. Did harm
result from it? Nay, was it not the needed demonstration of the
freedom and justice of a republican government? If it be viewed
simply as an experiment, it was triumphantly successful. The col
ored men who took seats in both Senate and House did not appear
ignorant or helpless. They were as a rule studious, earnest, ambi
tious men, whose public conduct — as illustrated by Mr. Revels and
Mr. Bruce in the Senate, and by Mr. Rapier, Mr. Lynch and Mr.
Rainey in the House — would be honorable to any race. Coals of
fire were heaped on the heads of all their enemies when the colored
men in Congress heartily joined in removing the disabilities of those.
who had before been their oppressors, and who, with deep regret be
it said, have continued to treat them with injustice and ignominy.

CHAPTER XXII.
Presidential Election op 1872. — Liberal Republican Movement. — Its Origin. —
Division in Missouri. — Gratz Brown, Blair, Schurz. — Contest in New York.
— Greeley, Fenton, Conkling. — Conkling' s Triumph. — Liberal Republican
Convention. — Meets at Cincinnati. — Nomination of Mr. Greeley. — Adjust
ment op Tariff Issues. — Chagrin of Free-traders and Democrats. — Me.
Greeley's Letter op Acceptance. — National Republican Convention. —
Meets in Philadelphia. — Renominates General Grant. — Henry Wilson
nominated for Vice-President. — Democratic National Convention. — Meets
in Baltimore. — Endorses Greeley and Brown. — Accepts the Cincinnati
Platform. — Mr. Greeley's Letter of Acceptance. — Contest between Grant
and Greeley. — Character op Mr. Greeley. — His Strength and his Weak
ness.— North Carolina Election. — Claimed by Both Sides. — Favorable to
Republicans. — September Elections. — Republican Gains. — Nomination op
O'Connor and Adams. — Mr. Greeley's Western Tour. — October Elections.
— Strong Nominations for State Officers. — Enormous Majorities for Gen
eral Grant. — His Overwhelming Election. — Death of Mr. Greeley.
THE Presidential canvass of 1872 was anomalous in its char
acter. Never before or since has a great party adopted as
its candidate a conspicuous public man, who was not merely out
side its own ranks, but who, in the thick of every political battle
for a third of a century, had been one of its most relentless and
implacable foes. In the shifting scenes of our varied partisan con
tests, the demands of supposed expediency had often produced
curious results. Sometimes the natural leaders of parties had been
set aside ; men without experience and without attainments had
been brought forward; the settled currents of years had been
suddenly changed by the eddy and whirl of the moment; but never
before had any eccentricity of political caprice gone so far as to
suggest the bitterest antagonist of a party for its anointed chief. It
was the irony of logic, and yet it came to pass by the progress of
events which were irresistibly logical.
The course of affairs had been threatening a formidable division
in the Republican party. It was in some degree a difference of pol-
516

REPUBLICAN DIVISIONS IN MISSOURI. 517
icy, but more largely a clashing of personal interests and ambitions.
The Liberal Republican movement, as the effort of dissatisfied par
tisans was termed, had its nominal origin, though not its exciting
cause, in the State of Missouri in 1870. Missouri had presented
the complications and conflicts which embarrassed all the Border
States. The State had not seceded, but tens of thousands of her
people had joined the rebel ranks. To prevent them from sharing
in the government while fighting to overthrow it, these allies of the
Rebellion had by an amendment to the State constitution been dis
qualified from exercising the rights of citizenship. The demand was
now made that these disabilities imposed during the war should be
removed. The Republicans, holding control of the Legislature,
divided upon this question. The minority, calling themselves Lib
erals, under the leadership of Benjamin Gratz Brown and Carl
Schurz, combined with the Democrats, and passed amendments
which removed the disqualifications. The same combination, as a
part of the same movement, elected Brown governor. An alliance,
offensive and defensive, between Brown and General Frank Blair,
as the chiefs of the Liberal and Democratic wings, cemented the
coalition, and gave Missouri over to Democratic control.
The question which divided Missouri was not presented in the
same form elsewhere. The disabilities against which the Liberals
protested were local, and were ordained in the State constitution.
They were wholly under State regulations. No such issue presented
itself in the National arena. The laws of the nation imposed no
disabilities upon any class of voters, and even the disqualification
for office, which rested upon those who had deserted high public
trust to join in the Rebellion, could by a vote of Congress be re
moved. Nevertheless, the creed of the Missouri Liberals, though
little applicable outside their own borders, found an echo far beyond.
Indeed, it was itself the echo of earlier demands. Mr. Greeley char
acterized the Republican allies of the Democrats in Missouri as
bolters, but he had long before sounded his trumpet cry of " univer
sal amnesty and impartial suffrage." With a political philosophy
which is full of interest and suggestion in view of his own im
pending experiment, he had in 1868 advised the Democrats, if
they did not nominate Mr. Pendleton on an extreme Democratic
platform, to go to the other extreme and take Chief Justice Chase
on a platform of amnesty and suffrage. He did not think they could
succeed by any such manoeuvre ; but he believed it would commit

518 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Democracy to a new departure, and be a long stride in the direc
tion of loyalty and good government. If other leaders did not
share his faith, not a few of them accepted his creed. Mr. Greeley's
zealous and powerful advocacy had impressed it upon many minds
as the true corner-stone of Reconstruction.
But this was obviously not a sufficient cause for division in the
Republican ranks. Whatever special significance it might have
possessed at an earlier period, the course of events had deprived
it of its distinctive force. It was now a matter of sentiment rather
than of practical efficacy. The readiness of Congress in responding
to every application for the removal of disabilities was itself a gener
ous amnesty. The Fifteenth Amendment had irrevocably established
the principle of equal suffrage. With this practical advance, the
demand of Liberalism did not leave room for any s&rious difference.
More potent causes were at work. The administration of President
Grant in some of its public measures had furnished pretexts, and
in some of its political dispensations had supplied reasons, for dis
content in various Republican quarters. The pretexts were loudly
emphasized : the reasons, more powerful in their effect, were less
plainly and directly proclaimed. The former related to questions
of public policy and to differences of opinion which would hardly
have been irreconcilable : the latter sprang from personal disappoint
ments and involved the rivalry of personal interests, which through
out history have been the pregnant source of the bitterest partisan
contention. The Liberals vigorously denounced what they characterized as
the military rule of General Grant. They criticised and condemned
the personal phases of the Administration : — they repeated the
Democratic charge that it was grasping undue power ; they decried
the channels through which its influence was felt in the South ; they
complained that its patronage was appropriated by leaders inimical
to themselves ; they saw a strong organization growing up, with
its centre in the Senate and combining the great States, from which
they were somewhat offensively excluded. The deposition of Sen
ator Sumner from the chairmanship of the Committee on Foreign
Relations had estranged him and alienated his friends.
In the State of New York the personal currents were especially
marked. Governor Fenton had, during his two terms, from 1865 to
1869, acquired the political leadership, and held it until Mr. Conk-
ling's rising power had created a strong rivalry. The struggle of

REPUBLICAN FACTIONS IN NEW YORK. 519
these antagonistic interests appeared in the State Convention of 1870,
when Mr. Greeley was defeated for governor, and Stewart L. Wood
ford was nominated. In 1871 it appeared again in still more deci
sive form. Through the contention of these opposing wings, two
general committees and two organizations of the party had been
created in the city of New York, each claiming the seal of regu
larity, and each sending a full delegation to the State Convention.
One represented the friends of Mr. Greeley and Mr. Fenton: the
other represented the friends of Mr. Conkling. The importance and
significance of the contest were fully recognized. It was a decisive
trial of strength between two divisions. Mr. Fenton and Mr. Conk
ling, colleagues in the Senate, were both present upon the scene of
battle. Mr. Fenton had skill and experience in political manage
ment: Mr. Conkling was bold and aggressive in leadership. Mr.
Fenton guided his partisans from the council chamber through ready
lieutenants : Mr. Conkling was upon the floor of the Convention and
took command in person. After several persuasive appeals, the Con
vention was about to compromise the difficulty and admit both dele
gations with an equal voice and vote, when Mr. Conkling took the
floor and by a powerful speech succeeded in changing its purpose.
Upon his resolute call the Fenton-Greeley delegation was excluded,
and his own friends were left in full control of the Convention and
of the party organization.
Under ordinary circumstances such a schism would have seemed
altogether unfortunate. At this juncture it looked peculiarly bold
and hazardous, for the " Tweed Ring " had complete control of New
York ; and apparently the only hope, and that a feeble one, of
rescuing the city and State from its despotic and unscrupulous thral
dom was in a united Republican party. But the " Tweed Ring," in
the very height of its arrogant and defiant power, was on the eve
of utter overthrow and annihilation. The opportune exposure and
conclusive proof of its colossal frauds and robberies came just then.
The effect of the startling revelation was such that the most absolute
political oligarchy ever organized in this country crumbled to dust
in a moment, and the Republicans carried New York for the first
time since 1866.
The unexpected success of 1871 crowning the triumph in the
State Convention fully confirmed the power of Mr. Conkling as
the leader of the party in New York. Mr. Greeley and his follow
ers, already opposed to the National Administration, now gave way

520 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
to a still more unrestrained hostility. All the antipathy which
they felt for their antagonists in the State was transferred to the
President. They ascribed their defeat to the free exercise of the
Federal power ; and the indictment, which they had long been fram
ing, was made more severe from their renewed personal disappoint
ment. In this temper and position they were not alone. Republi
cans of prominence in other States, either had similar grievances, or
shared the same view of the tendency at Washington. The discon
tent with the National Administration was stimulated and increased
by powerful journals like the New-York Tribune, the Chicago Tribune,
and the Cincinnati Commercial.
The drift of events placed the protesting Republicans in an em
barrassing situation. The renomination of General Grant was seen
to be inevitable ; and they were left to determine whether they
would remain in the party and acquiesce in what they were unable
to prevent, or whether they would try from the outside the opposi
tion which was impotent from the inside. They were thus driven by
events to extend into the National field the political experiment
which had been successfully undertaken in the State of Missouri.
The movement assumed apparently large proportions, and for a time
wore a threatening look. On the surface it was more wide-spread
than the Buffalo Free-soil revolt which defeated the Democratic
party in 1848 ; but its development was different, and the condi
tions were wholly dissimilar. Now, as then, there was a curious
blending of principle and of personal resentment, but the issue pre
sented was less enkindling than the sentiment of resistance to the
aggressions of slavery. The element of opposition in the impending
schism was, therefore, not as strong at the decisive point as in the
earlier outbreak.

The National Convention of the Liberal Republicans, which was
the first public step in the fusion with the Democracy, was held at
Cincinnati on the first day of May (1872), under a call emanating
from the Liberal State Convention of Missouri. There were no
organizations to send delegates, and it was necessarily called as a
mass convention. The attendance was large, especially from the
States immediately adjoining the place of meeting and from New
York. It was clear that with an aggregate so large and numbers
so disproportionate from the different States the disorganized and

NATIONAL CONVENTION OF LIBERALS. 521
irresponsible mass must be resolved into some sort of represen
tative convention, and those present from the several States were
left to choose delegates in their own way. The New- York delega
tion included Judge Henry R. Selden, General John Cochrane,
Theodore Tilton, William Dorsheimer (who two years later was
elected Lieutenant-Governor on the Democratic ticket with Samuel
J. Tilden), and Waldo Hutchins, who has since been a Democratic
member of Congress. — David Dudley Field, though participating
in the preliminary consultations, was excluded from the delegation
through the influence of Mr. Greeley's friends, because of his free-
trade attitude.
— Other leading spirits were Colonel McClure and John Hickman
of Pennsylvania ; Stanley Matthews, George Hoadly, and Judge R.
P. Spalding, of Ohio; Carl Schurz, William M. Grosvenor, and
Joseph Pulitzer, of Missouri ; John Wentworth, Leonard Swett,
Lieutenant-Governor Koerner, and Horace White, of Illinois; Cas-
sius M. Clay of Kentucky; George W. Julian of Indiana; Frank
W. Bird and Edward Atkinson of Massachusetts ; David A. Wells
of Connecticut; and John D. Defrees of the District of Columbia.
Men less conspicuous than these were present in large numbers from
many States. — The proportion of free-traders outside of New York
was a marked feature of the assemblage, and had an important bear
ing on some of the subsequent proceedings. From New York, also,
a number were present, and they were of course opposed to Mr.
Greeley; but Mr. Greeley's friends succeeded in keeping them off
the list of delegates.
Stanley Matthews was made temporary chairman. In his brief
speech he said that those who had assembled in tins gathering were
still Republicans, and he urged in justification of their independent
action that the forces in control of the party machinery had per
verted it to personal and unwarrantable ends. "As the war has
ended," he continued, "so ought military rule and military princi
ples." This imputation of a military character to the National
Administration was the key-note of all the expressions. Mr. Carl
Schurz was the leading spirit of the Convention, and amplified the
same thought in his more elaborate address as permanent President.
The platform was the object of much labor, as well as the theme
of much pride, on the part of its authors. It was designed to be a
succinct statement and a complete justification of the grounds on
which the movement rested. It started from the Republican posi-

522 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
tion and aimed to be Republican in tone and principle, only mark
ing out the path on which Liberal thought diverged from what
were characterized as the ruling Republican tendencies. It recog
nized the equality of all men before the law, and the duty of
equal and exact justice ; it pledged fidelity to the Union, to emanci
pation, to enfranchisement, and opposition to any re-opening of the
questions settled by the new Amendments to the Constitution ; it
demanded the immediate and absolute removal of all disabilities.
imposed on account of the Rebellion ; it declared that local self-
government with impartial suffrage would guard the rights of all
citizens more securely than any centralized power, and insisted upon
the supremacy of the civil over the military authorities ; it laid great
stress upon the abuse of the civil service and upon the necessity
of reform, and declared that no President ought to be a candidate for
re-election ; it denounced repudiation, opposed further land-grants,
and demanded a speedy return to specie payments.
On these questions there was no division in the Liberal ranks.
But there was another issue, which caused a sharper controversy
and came to a lame and impotent conclusion. The large number
of free-traders who participated in the Convention has been noted.
Indeed, its call emanated from free-traders, and outside of New York
free-traders constituted its controlling forces. The Missouri group
was unanimously and especially devoted to free trade ; and the Illi
nois, Ohio, and New-England influences in the Convention were for
the most part in full sympathy with it. The New- York element,
which centred in Mr. Greeley, shared his view of protection. What
ever other reasons he might have had for joining the movement, his
lifelong and conspicuous championship of Protection would have
made it impossible for him to sustain any demonstration against that
great doctrine. Even before his nomination was anticipated he was
the most important factor in the revolt against the Administration,
and any division ( of a division) which sacrificed or endangered the
chief pillar of strength seemed peculiarly fatuous and perilous.
Nevertheless the free-traders made a persistent effort to enforce
their views, and a strenuous struggle ensued. The policy which
Mr. Greeley had recommended finally prevailed. He knew there was
a radical difference among the Liberals on this question. He could
not surrender his position, and the free-traders would not surrender
their position. He therefore proposed that they should acknowl
edge the differences and waive the question. This suggestion was

BALLOTING FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. 523
accepted ; and a compromise was effected by declaring that the dif
ferences were irreconcilable, remitting the subject to the people in
their Congressional districts and to the decision of Congress free
from Executive interference or dictation. Thus the only agreement
reached was an agreement to disagree.
With this difficulty adjusted, the Convention was ready to pro
ceed to the choice of a candidate. The struggle had been actively
in progress for several days, and had developed sharp antagonisms.
In its earlier stages it bore the appearance of a contest between
Judge David Davis and- Charles Francis Adams. Judge Davis had
long been credited with aspirations and with some elements of politi
cal strength. He had been Lincoln's friend; he was rich, honest,
and popular. He had watched politics from the Supreme Bench
with judicial equipoise and partisan instincts, and by many discern
ing men was regarded as a highly eligible candidate. Mr. Adams
was strongly pressed on different grounds. Unlike Judge Davis, he
was austere, cold, even repellent in his manner ; but it was urged
that the traditions of his name and his distinguished diplomatic ser
vices would appeal to the judgment of the people and take from the
Republican party some of its best elements. He was earnestly sup
ported by many of the strongest Liberals, who felt that their only
hope of success lay in the selection of a candidate who was experi
enced in public life, and who could inspire public confidence.
The supporters of Mr. Adams displayed violent hostility to
Judge Davis. They charged his friends with bringing a great body
of hirelings from Illinois, and with attempting to " pack " the Con
vention, — with resorting, in short, to the alleged practices of the
Republicans who were still opposing the Democratic party. They
announced that even if Judge Davis should be nominated they
would not sustain him. This influential and unyielding opposition
was fatal to the Illinois candidate. As the Davis canvass declined
the Greeley sentiment increased, and it soon became evident that the
contest would lie between Adams and Greeley. On the first ballot
the vote stood, Adams 205, Greeley 147, Trumbull 110, Gratz Brown
95, Davis 92£, Curtin 62, Chase 2£. The minor candidates were
withdrawn as the voting proceeded, and on the sixth ballot Greeley
had 332, Adams 324, Chief Justice Chase 32, Trumbull 19. There
was at once a rapid change to Greeley, and the conclusion was not
long delayed. He was declared by formal vote to be the nominee of
the Convention. For the Vice-Presidency, Gratz Brown, Senator

524 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Trumbull, George W. Julian, and Gilbert C. Walker were placed
in nomination. Mr. Brown was successful on the second ballot.
The result of the balloting created surprise and disappointment.
Mr. Greeley's name had not been seriously discussed until the mem
bers assembled in Cincinnati, and no scheme of the Liberal man
agers had contemplated his nomination. It was evident from the
first that with his striking individuality, his positive views, and his
combative career, he had both strength and weakness as a candi
date ; but whatever his merits or demerits, his selection was out of
the reckoning of those who had formed the Liberal organization. It
was certainly a singular and unexpected result, that a Convention
which owed its formal call to a body of active and aggressive free
traders, should commit its standard to the foremost champion of
Protection in the country.
But there was another and still more important element of incon
gruity — another reason why the nomination was foreign to the
whole theory of the political experiment of 1872. The indispensable
condition attaching to the Liberal plan was its endorsement by the
Democracy. This demanded the selection of a candidate who, while
representing the Liberal Republican policy, would be acceptable to
the Democratic allies. No man seemed so little likely to fulfil this
requirement as Mr. Greeley. From the hour when he first entered
political life and acquired prominence in the wild Whig canvass for
Harrison and Tyler in 1840, he had waged incessant and unsparing war
against the Democrats. He had assailed them with all the weapons
in his well-filled armory of denunciation ; and not only had every
conspicuous Democratic leader received his stalwart blows, but the
whole party had repeatedly felt the force of his fearless and master
ful onset.There was naturally great curiosity to see how his nomination
would be received : first, by the projectors of the Liberal revolt, and
second, by <the Democracy. Most of the Liberals promptly acqui
esced, though a few protested. Especially among the Ohio represen
tatives there was great discontent. Stanley Matthews humorously
and regretfully admitted that he was "not a success at politics."
Judge Hoadly published a card calling the Cincinnati result " the
alliance of Tammany and Blair," but still hoping for some way of
escape from Grant. Most of the German Liberals rejected the ticket,
doubtless finding other objections emphasized by their dissent from
Mr. Greeley's well-known attitude on sumptuary legislation. The

EMBARRASSMENT OF THE DEMOCRACY. 525
free-trade Liberals of New York held a meeting of protest, presided
over by William Cullen Bryant, and addressed by David A. Wells,
Edward Atkinson, and others who had participated in the Cincinnati
Convention. But this opposition possessed little importance. The
positive political force which had entered into the Liberal movement
stood fast, and the really important question related to the temper
and action of the Democrats.
Their first feeling was one of chagrin and resentment. They
had encouraged the Republican revolt, with sanguine hope of a
result which they could cordially accept, and they were deeply mor
tified by an issue whose embarrassment for themselves could not be
concealed. They had counted on the nomination of Mr. Adams,
Judge Davis, Senator Trumbull, or some moderate Republican of
that type, whom they could adopt without repugnance. The unex
pected selection of their life-long antagonist confounded their plans
and put them to open shame. At the outset, the majority of the
Democratic journals of the North either deplored and condemned
the result or adopted a non-committal tone. Some of them, like the
New-York World, emphatically declared that the Democracy could
not ratify a choice which would involve a stultification so humiliat
ing and so complete. A few shrewder journals, of which the
Cincinnati Enquirer and the Saint-Louis Republican were the most
conspicuous, took the opposite course and from the beginning advo
cated the indorsement of Mr. Greeley.
In the South the nomination was received with more favor. Mr.
Greeley's readiness to go on the bail-bond of Jefferson Davis, his ear
nest championship of universal amnesty, and his expressed sympathy
with the grievances of the old ruling element of the slave States,
had created a kindly impression in that section. The prompt utter
ances of the Southern journals indicated that no obstacle would be
encountered in the Democratic ranks below the Potomac. At the
North, as the discussion proceeded, it became more and more evident
that however reluctant the party might be, it really had no alterna
tive but to accept Mr. Greeley. It had committed itself so fully to
the Liberal movement that it could not now abandon it without cer
tain disaster. Its only possible hope of defeating the Republican
party lay in the Republican revolt, and the revolt could be fomented
and prolonged only by imparting to it prestige and power. The
Liberal leaders and journals did not hesitate to say that if it came to
a choice between Grant and a Democrat, they would support Grant.

526 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
With this avowal they were masters of the situation so far as the
Democracy was concerned, and the Democratic sentiment, which at
first shrank from Greeley, soon became resigned to his candidacy.

While the work of reconciling the free-traders to the nomination
of a Protectionist, and of inducing the Democracy to accept an anti-
slavery leader, was in full progress, the Republican National Con
vention met at Philadelphia on the 5th of June. The venerable Ger-
ritt Smith led the delegation from New York, with William Orton,
Horace B. Claflin, Stewart L. Woodford, William E. Dodge, and
John A. Griswold among his associates. Governor Hayes came from
Ohio ; General Burnside from Rhode Island ; Governor Hawley
from Connecticut ; Governor Claflin and Alexander H. Rice from
Massachusetts; Henry S. Lane and Governor Conrad Baker from In
diana ; Governor Cullom from Illinois ; James Speed from Kentucky ;
Amos T. Akerman from Georgia ; John B. Henderson from Missouri;
William A. Howard from Michigan ; Ex-Senator Cattell and Cort-
landt Parker from New Jersey ; Governor Fairchild from Wisconsin ;
John R. Lynch, the colored orator, from Mississippi ; Morton McMi-
chael, Glenni W. Scofield, and William H. Koontz from Pennsylva
nia ; Thomas Settle from North Carolina ; James L. Orr from South
Carolina. Mr. McMichael, whose genial face and eloquent voice were always
welcome in a Republican Convention, was selected as temporary chair
man. " The malcontents," said he, " who recently met at Cincinnati
were without a constituency ; the Democrats who are soon to meet at
Baltimore will be without a principle. The former, having no motive
in common but personal disappointment, attempted a fusion of repel
lent elements which has resulted in explosion ; the latter, degraded
from the high estate they once held, propose an abandonment of
their identity which means death." \ The only business appointed
for the first day was speedily completed, and left ample time for
public addresses. Gerritt Smith, General Logan, Senator Morton,
Governor Oglesby, and others made vigorous party appeals, and deliv
ered enthusiastic eulogies upon General Grant. Among the speakers
were several colored men. It was the first National Convention in
which representatives of their race had appeared as citizens, and the
force and aptitude they displayed constituted one of the striking fea-

NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONVENTION. 527
tures of the occasion. William H. Gray of Arkansas, R. B. Elliott
of South Carolina, and John R. Lynch of Mississippi made effective
speeches which were heartily applauded.
With the completion of the organization, by the choice of Judge
Settle of North Carolina as permanent president, the Convention
was ready on the second day for the nominations ; and on the roll-
call General Grant was named for President without a dissenting
vote. Then came the contest in which the chief interest centred.
Mr. Colfax had, at the beginning of the year, written a letter
announcing that he would not be a candidate for re-election as Vice-
President. He had undoubtedly alienated some of the friendship
and popularity he had so long enjoyed. Under these circumstances
Senator Henry Wilson of Massachusetts appeared as a candidate,
and made rapid headway in party favor. He had always been a
man of the people, and, though not shining with brilliant qualities,
had acquired influence and respect through his robust sense, his
sound judgment, and his practical ability. In ready debate, and in
the clear and forcible presentation of political issues, he held a high
place among Republican leaders. Mr. Colfax had recalled his with
drawal, and as the Convention approached, the contest was so even
and well balanced as to stimulate both interest and effort.
The struggle was practically determined, however, in the pre
liminary caucusses of two or three of the large State delegations.
When the roll-call was completed on the first and only ballot, Wilson
had 364J votes, and Colfax had 321£. The 22 votes of Virginia had
been cast for Governor Lewis, the 26 of Tennessee for Horace May
nard, and the 16 of Texas for Governor Davis. The Virginia delega- ,
tion was the first to get the floor and change to Wilson, thus securing
his nomination ; and the others promptly followed. Among the
powerful influences which controlled the result were the combination
and zealous activity of the Washington newspaper correspondents
against Mr. Colfax, who had in some way estranged a friendship that
for many years had been most helpful to him.
The platform came from a committee, including among its mem
bers General Hawley, Governor Hayes, Glenni W. Scofield, Ex-
Attorney-General Speed, Mr. James N. Matthews, then of the Buffalo
Commercial, and other representative men. That the year was largely
one of personal politics, rather than of clear, sharp, overmastering
issues, might be inferred from the scope and character of the resolu
tions. It was an hour for maintaining what had been gained, rather

528 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
than for advancing to new demands. Equal suffrage had been es
tablished, and the danger of repudiation which had threatened the
country in 1868 had apparently passed away. The necessity and
duty of preparing for specie resumption, which soon after engrossed
public attention, were not yet apprehended or appreciated^ Be
tween the two periods the chief work was that of practically
enforcing the settlements which had been ordained in the Constitu
tional Amendments.
The platform, after reciting the chapter of Republican achieve
ments, declared "that complete liberty and exact equality in the
enjoyment of all civil, political, and public rights should be estab
lished and effectually maintained throughout the Union by efficient
and appropriate Federal and State legislation." It asserted that
"the recent amendments to the National Constitution should be
cordially sustained because they are right; not merely tolerated
because they are law." It answered the Liberal arraignment of the
civil service by declaring that "any system of the civil service
under which the subordinate positions of the Government are re
wards for mere party zeal is fatally demoralizing, and we therefore
favor a reform of the system by laws which shall abolish the evils of
patronage." Besides these points, the Republican platform opposed
further land-grants to corporations, recommended the abolition of the
franking privilege, approved further pensions, sustained the Protec
tive tariff, and justified Congress and the President in their measures
for the suppression of violent and treasonable organizations in the
South.

The Democratic National Convention met at Baltimore on the
9th of July. The intervening two months had demonstrated that
it could do nothing but follow the Cincinnati Convention. The
delegations were distinctly representative. New York sent Governor
Hoffman, General Slocum, S. S. Cox, Clarkson N. Potter, and John
Kelly. Among the Pennsylvania delegates were William A. Wallace,
Samuel J. Randall, and Lewis Cassidy. Henry B. Payne came from
Ohio ; Thomas F. Bayard from Delaware ; Montgomery Blair from
Maryland ; Henry G. Davis from West Virginia ; Senator Casserly
and Ex-Senator Gwin from California; Charles R. English and
William H. Barnum from Connecticut ; Senator Stockton and Ex-
Governor Randolph from New Jersey. The Confederate forces were

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION. 529
present in full strength. Generals Gordon, Colquitt, and Hardeman
came from Georgia ; Fitz-Hugh Lee, Bradley T. Johnson, and Thomas
S. Bocock from Virginia ; General John S. Williams from Kentucky;
Ex-Governor Vance from North Carolina ; Ex-Governor Aiken from
South Carolina ; John H, Reagan from Texas ; and George G. Vest
from Missouri. Mr. August Belmont, after twelve years of service
and defeat, appeared for the last time as chairman of the National
Democratic Committee. Thomas Jefferson Randolph of Virginia
(grandson of the author of the Declaration of Independence), a ven
erable and imposing figure, was made temporary chairman, and Ex-
Senator James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin permanent president. Mr.
Doolittle, having been first a Democrat, then a Republican, then a
Democrat again, could well interpret the duplicate significance of the
present movement ; and he made a long speech devoted to that end.
On the second day the Committee on Resolutions reported the
Cincinnati platform without addition or qualification. There was
something grim and grotesque in the now demonstrated purpose of
the Democratic Convention to accept the platform which Mr. Greeley
had constructed with especial regard for the tender sensibilities of
the Liberal Republicans. While the Democrats as a body had per
sistently opposed emancipation, and regarded it as a great political
wrong, the party now resolved to maintain it. Hostile throughout
all its ranks to any improvement in the status of the negro, they now
determined in favor of his "enfranchisement." Resisting at every
step the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amend
ments to the Constitution, they now resolved to "oppose any re
opening of the questions that have been settled " by the adoption of
these great changes in the organic law. With the Southern States
dominant in the Convention, their delegates (all former slave
holders and at a later period engaged in rebellion in order to per
petuate slavery) now resolved with docile acquiescence to " recognize
the equality of all men before the law ; and the duty of the Govern
ment, in its dealings with the people, to mete out equal and exact
justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious
or political." The Confederate leaders, still sore and angry over their failure
to break up the Union, now declared that they remembered " with
gratitude, the heroism and sacrifices of the soldiers and sailors of the
Republic," and that no act of the Democratic party " should ever
detract from their justly earned fame, nor withhold the full reward of
Vol. II. 34

530 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
their patriotism." Hitherto viewing the public debt as the price of
their subjugation, they now declared that " the public credit must
be sacredly maintained;" and they heartily denounced "repudiation
in every form and guise." In their determination to make a com
plete coalition with the other wing of Mr. Greeley's supporters, the
Confederate Democrats determined to accept any test that might
be imposed upon them, to endure any humiliation that was needful,
to assert and accept any and every inconsistency with their former
faith and practice. It is somewhat interesting to compare the plat
form to which the Democrats assented in 1872 with any they had
ever before adopted, or with the record of their senators and repre
sentatives in Congress upon all the public questions at issue during
the years immediately preceding the Convention.
The report which committed the Democracy to so radical a
revolution in its platform of principles met with protest from only
an inconsiderable number of the delegates, and was adopted by a
vote of 670 to 62. The Convention was now ready for the nomina
tions. It had been plain for some weeks that the Cincinnati ticket
would be accepted. The only question was whether the Democratic
Convention should formally nominate Greeley and Brown, or whether
it should simply indorse them without making them the regular
Democratic candidates. It was urged on the one hand that to put
the formal seal of Democracy on them might repel some Republican
votes which would otherwise be secured. It was answered on the
other hand that the passive policy would lose Democratic votes,
which were reluctant at the best and could only be held by party
claims. There was more danger from the latter source than from
the former, and the general sentiment recognized the necessity of
stamping the ticket with the highest Democratic authority. There
was but one ballot. Mr. Greeley received 686 votes ; while 15 from
Delaware and New Jersey were cast for James A. Bayard, 21 from
Pennsylvania for Jeremiah S. Black, 2 for William S. Groesbeck.
For Vice-President Gratz Brown received 713, John W. Stevenson
of Kentucky 6, with 13 blank votes.
Mr. Greeley's letter accepting the Democratic nomination ap
peared a few days later. He frankly stated that the Democrats had
expected and would have preferred a different nomination at Cincin
nati, and that they accepted him only because the matter was beyond
their control. He expressed his personal satisfaction at the endorse
ment of the Cincinnati platform, and affected to regard this act as

CHARACTERISTICS OF MR. GREELEY. 531
the obliteration of all differences. The only other point of the letter
was an argument for universal amnesty. This was the one doctrine
upon which the parties to the alliance could most readily coalesce,
and Mr. Greeley gave it singular prominence, as if confident that it
was the surest way of winning Democratic support. He emphasized
his position by referring to the case of Mr. Vance, who had just been
denied his seat as Senator from North Carolina. Mr. Greeley made
this case the chief theme of his letter, and insisted that the policy
which excluded the chosen representative from a State, whoever he
might be, was incompatible with peace and good will throughout the
Union.1

With Grant and Greeley fairly in the field, the country entered
upon a remarkable contest. At the beginning of the picturesque and
emotional " log cabin canvass of 1840," Mr. Van Buren, with his
keen insight into popular movements, had said, in somewhat mixed
metaphor, that it would be " either a farce or a tornado." The pres
ent canvass gave promise on different grounds of similar alterna
tives. General Grant had been tried, and with him the country
knew what to expect. Mr. Greeley had not been tried, and though
the best known man in his own field of journalism, he was the least
known and most doubted in the field of Governmental administra
tion. No other candidate could have presented such an antithesis of
strength and of weakness. He was the ablest polemic this country
has ever produced. His command of strong, idiomatic, controversial
English was unrivaled. His faculty of lucid statement and compact
reasoning has never been surpassed. Without the graces of fancy
or the arts of rhetoric, he was incomparable in direct, pungent, force
ful discussion. A keen observer and an omniverous reader, he had
acquired an immense fund of varied knowledge, and he marshaled
facts with singular skill and aptness.
In an era remarkable for strong editors in the New- York Press,
— embracing Raymond of the Times, the elder Bennett of the
Herald, Watson Webb of the Courier-Enquirer, William Cullen
1 Zebulon B. Vance had served in Congress prior to the war. He had participated in
the Rebellion and had thus become subject to the disabilities imposed by the Fourteenth
Amendment. His disabilities were removed at a later date, but at this time their remis
sion had not been asked and they were still resting upon him. With the full knowledge
that he was thus disqualified he was elected to the Senate, and the Senate declined to
recognize an election defiantly made in the face of the Constitutional objection.

532 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Bryant of the Evening Post, with Thurlow Weed and Edwin Cross-
well in the rival journals at Albany, — Mr. Greeley easily surpassed
them all. His mind was original, creative, incessantly active. His
industry was as unwearying as his fertility was inexhaustible. Great
as was his intellectual power, his chief strength came from the depth
and earnestness of his moral convictions. In the long and arduous
battle against the aggressions of Slavery, he had been sleepless and
untiring in rousing and quickening the public conscience. He was
keenly alive to the distinctions of right and wrong, and his philan
thropy responded to every call of humanity. His sympathies were
equally touched by the sufferings of the famine-stricken Irish and by
the wrongs of the plundered Indians. Next to Henry Clay, whose
ardent disciple he was, he had done more than any other man to edu
cate his countrymen in the American system of protection to home
industry. He had on all occasions zealously defended the rights of
labor ; he had waged unsparing war on the evils of intemperance ; he
had made himself an oracle with the American farmers ; and his in
fluence was even more potent in the remote prairie homes than within
the shadow of Printing-House Square. With his dogmatic earnest
ness, his extraordinary mental qualities, his moral power, and his
quick sympathy with the instincts and impulses of the masses, he was
in a peculiar sense the Tribune of the people. In any reckoning of
the personal forces of the century, Horace Greeley must be counted
among the foremost — intellectually and morally.
When he left the fields of labor in which he had become illus
trious, to pass the ordeal of a Presidential candidate, the opposite
and weaker sides of his character and career were brought into
view. He was headstrong, impulsive, and opinionated. If he had
the strength of a giant in battle, he lacked the wisdom of the sage
in council. If he was irresistible in his own appropriate sphere of
moral and economic discussion, he was uncertain and unstable when
he ventured beyond its limits. He was a powerful agitator and a
matchless leader of debate, rather than a mastervof government.
Those who most admired his honesty, courage, and power in the
realm of his true greatness, most distrusted his fitness to hold the
reins of administration. He had in critical periods evinced a want
both of firmness and of sagacity. When the Southern States were
on the eve of secesssion and the temper of the country was on trial,
he had, though with honest intentions, shown signs of irresolution
and vacillation. When he was betrayed into the ill-advised and

CHARACTERISTICS OF MR. GREELEY. 533
abortive peace negotiations with Southern commissioners at Niagara,
he had displayed the lack of tact and penetration which made the
people doubt the solidity and coolness of his judgment. His method
of dealing with the most intricate problems of finance seemed experi
mental and rash. The sensitive interests of business shrank from his
visionary theories and Iris dangerous empiricism. His earlier affilia
tion with novel and doubtful social schemes had laid him open to the
reproach of being called a man of isms.
Mr. Greeley had moreover weakened himself by showing a singu
lar thirst for public office. It is strange that one who held a command
ing station, and who wielded an unequaled influence, should have
been ambitious for the smaller honors of public life. But Mr. Gree
ley had craved even minor offices, from which he could have derived
no distinction, and, in his own phrase, had dissolved the firm of
Seward, Weed, and Greeley because, as he conceived, his claims to
official promotion were not fairly recognized. This known aspira
tion added to the reasons which discredited his unnatural alliance
with the Democracy. His personal characteristics, always marked,
were exaggerated and distorted in the portraitures drawn by his ad
versaries. All adverse considerations were brought to bear with irre
sistible effect as the canvass proceeded, and his splendid services
and undeniable greatness could not weigh in the scale against the
political elements and personal disqualifications with which his Pres
idential candidacy was identified.
The political agitation became general in the country as early as
July. Senator Conkling inaugurated the Grant campaign in New
York with an elaborate and comprehensive review of the personal and
public issues on trial. Senator Sherman and other leading speakers
took the field with equal promptness. On the opposite side, Senator
Sumner, who had sought in May to challenge and prevent the renom
ination of General Grant by concentrating in one massive broadside
all that could be suggested against him, now appeared in a public
letter advising the colored people to vote for Greeley. Mr. Blaine
replied in a letter pointing out that Mr. Greeley, in denying the
power of the General Government to interpose, had committed him
self to a policy which left the colored people without protection.1
The September elections had ordinarily given the earliest indica-
1 Senator Sumner retired from the canvass and sailed for Europe in September.
Hostile as he was to President Grant, lie saw in the end that his defeat would subject the
nation to Democratic rule and to a ruinous re-action, whieh Mr. Greeley as President
could not prevent.

534 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
tion in Presidential campaigns ; but circumstances conspired this year
to make the North-Carolina election, which was held on the 1st of
August, the preliminary test of popular feeling. The earliest returns
from North Carolina, coming from the eastern part of the State, were
favorable to the partisans of Mr. Greeley. They claimed a decided
victory, and were highly elated. The returns from the Western and
mountain counties, which were not all received for several days,
reversed the first reports, and established a Republican success.
This change produced a re-action, and set the tide in the opposite
direction. From this hour the popular current was clearly with the
Republicans. The September elections in Vermont and Maine re
sulted in more than the average Republican majorities, and demon
strated that Mr. Greeley's candidacy had not broken the lines of the
party. Early in that month a body of Democrats, who declined to
accept Mr. Greeley, and who called themselves " Straightouts," held
a convention at Louisville, and nominated Charles O'Connor for Pres
ident and John Quincy Adams for Vice-President. The ticket re
ceived a small number of votes in many States, but did not become
an important factor in the National struggle.
In anticipation of the October elections Mr. Greeley made an
extended tour through Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana, addressing
great masses of people every day and many times a day during a
period of two weeks. His speeches, while chiefly devoted to his view
of the duty and policy of pacification, discussed many questions and
many phases of the chief question. They were varied, forcible, and
well considered. They presented his case with an ability which
could not be exceeded, and they added to the general estimate of his
intellectual faculties and resources. He called out a larger propor
tion of those who intended to. vote against him than any candidate
had ever before succeeded in doing. His name had been honored for
so many years in every Republican household, that the desire to see
and hear him was universal, and secured to him the majesty of num
bers at every meeting. So great indeed was the general demonstra
tion of interest, that a degree of uneasiness was created at Republican
headquarters as to the ultimate effect of his tour.
The State contests had been strongly organized on both sides at
the decisive points. In New York the Democrats nominated Francis
Kernan for Governor, — a man of spotless character and great popu
larity. The Republicans selected General John A. Dix as the rival
candidate, on the earnest suggestion of Thurlow Weed, whose saga-

RE-ELECTION OF GENERAL GRANT. 535
city in regard to the strength of political leaders was rarely at fault.
General Dix was in his seventy-fifth year, but was fresh and vigorous
both in body and mind. In Indiana the leading Democrat, Thomas
A. Hendricks, accepted the gubernatorial nomination and the leader
ship of his party, against General Thomas M. Browne, a popular Re
publican and a strong man on the stump. Pennsylvania was the
scene of a peculiarly bitter and angry conflict. General Hartranft,
the Republican candidate for Governor, had been Auditor-General
of the State, and his administration of the office was bitterly assailed.
The old factional differences in the State now entered into the
antagonism, and he was strenuously fought by an element of his
own party under the inspiration of Colonel Forney, who, while pro
fessedly supporting Grant, threw all the force of the Philadelphia
Press into the warfare against Hartranft. This violent opposition
encouraged the partisans of Mr. Greeley with the hope that they
might secure the prestige of victory over the Republicans in Penn
sylvania, whose October verdicts had always proved an unerring
index to Presidential elections. But they were doomed to disap
pointment. The people saw that the charges against General Har
tranft were not only unfounded but malicious, and he was chosen
Governor by more than 35,000 majority. Ohio gave a Republican
majority on the same day of more than 14,000 ; and though Mr.
Hendricks carried Indiana by 1,148, this narrow margin for the
strongest Democrat in the State was accepted as confirming the sure
indications in the other States.
The defeat of Mr. Greeley and the re-election of General Grant
were now, in the popular belief, assured. The result was the most
decisive, in the popular vote, of any Presidential election since the
unopposed choice of Monroe in 1820; and on the electoral vote
the only contests so one-sided were in the election of Pierce in 1852,
and the second election of Lincoln in 1864, when the States in
rebellion did not participate. The majorities were unprecedented.
General Grant carried Pennsylvania by 137,548, New York by
53,455, Illinois by 57,006, Iowa by 60,370, Massachusetts by 74,212,
Michigan by 60,100, Ohio by 37,501, and Indiana by 22,515. Several
of the Southern States presented figures of similar proportion. In
South Carolina the Republican majority was 49,587, in Mississippi
34,887, and in North Carolina 24,675. Mr. Greeley carried no
Northern State, and only six Southern States, — Georgia, Kentucky,
Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas. But these great majori-

536 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
ties were not normal, and did not indicate the real strength of parties.
The truth is, that after the October elections Mr. Greeley's canvass
was utterly hopeless; and thousands of Democrats sought to hu
miliate their leaders for the folly of the nomination by absenting
themselves from the polls. The Democratic experiment of taking a
Republican candidate had left the Republican party unbroken ; while
the Democratic party, if not broken, was at least discontented and
disheartened, — given over within its own ranks to recrimination
and revenge.
The political disaster to Mr. Greeley was followed by a start
ling and melancholy conclusion. He was called during the last
days of the canvass to the bedside of his dying wife, whom he
buried before the day of election. Despite this sorrow and despite
the defeat, which, in separating him from his old associates, was
more than an ordinary political reverse, he promptly returned with
unshaken resolve and intrepid spirit to the editorship of the Tribune, —
the true sphere of his influence, the field of his real conquests. But
the strain through which he had passed, following years of incessant
care and labor, had broken his vigorous constitution. His physical
strength was completely undermined, his superb intellectual powers
gave way. Before the expiration of the month which witnessed his
crushing defeat he had gone to his rest. The controversies which
had so recently divided the country were hushed in the presence of
death; and all the people, remembering only his noble impulses, his
great work for humanity, his broad impress upon the age, united in
honoring and mourning one of the most remarkable men in American
history.

CHAPTER XXIII.
President Grant's Second Inauguration. — Complains of Partisan Abuse. — Or
ganization op Forty-third Congress. — Prominent Members of Senate and
House. — Death op Charles Sumner. — Impressive Funeral Ceremonies. —
Singular Reminiscence by Mr. Dawes. — Speech by Mr. Lamar. — Career of
Alexander H. Stephens. — Government of District of Columbia. — Radical
Change. — Great Improvement. — Alexander R. Shepherd. — Republican Re
verse, 1874. — Democratic House of Representatives. — Michael C. Kerr,
Speaker. — Members of Senate and House. — Radical Changes. — Andrew
Johnson in the Senate. — His Speech. — Dies at his Home in Tennessee. —
Condition of the South. — Amnesty. — Amendment to except Jefferson Davis.
— Bill defeated.
THE friends of General Grant intended that his second inaugu
ration (March 4, 1873) should be even more impressive than
the first ; but the skies were unpropitious, and the day will long be
remembered, by those who witnessed the festivities, for the severity
of the cold, — altogether exceptional in the climate of Washington.
It destroyed the pleasure of an occasion which would otherwise have
been given to unrestrained rejoicing over an event that was looked
upon by the great majority of the people of the United States as
peculiarly auspicious.
For a man who had always been singularly reticent concerning
himself, both in public and private, the President gave free expres
sion to what he regarded as the mistreatment and abuse he had re
ceived from political opponents. He looked forward, he said, " with
the greatest anxiety for release from responsibilities which at times
are almost overwhelming," and from which he had " scarcely had a
respite since the eventful firing on Fort Sumter, in April, 1861, to the
present day." "My services," said he, "were then tendered and
accepted under the first call for troops growing out of the event.
I did not ask for place or position, and was entirely without influ
ence or the acquaintance of persons of influence, but was resolved
to perform my part in a struggle threatening the very existence of
the Nation. I performed a conscientious duty without asking pro-
53T

538 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
motion or command, and without a revengeful feeling towards any
section or individual. Notwithstanding this, throughout the war
and from my candidacy for my present office in 1868 to the close
of the last Presidential campaign, I have been the subject of abuse
and slander scarcely ever equaled in political history, which to-day
I feel that I can afford to disregard in view of your verdict which I
gratefully accept as my vindication."
Surprise was generally expressed at this manifestation of personal
feeling on the part of the President. He had undoubtedly been
called upon to confront many unpleasant things, as every incum
bent of his office must ; but General Grant was surely in error in
considering himself defamed beyond the experience of his prede
cessors. The obloquy encountered by Mr. Jefferson in 1800, by both
Adams and Jackson in 1828, and by Mr. Clay, as a candidate, for
twenty years, far exceeded in recklessness that from which the Presi
dent had suffered. A military education and an army life had not
prepared General Grant for the abandoned form of vituperation to
which he was necessarily subjected when he became a candidate for
the Presidency. For this reason, perhaps, he endured it less patiently
than his predecessors, who had been subjected to it in worse form
and more intolerant spirit. But General Grant had the good for
tune, in great degree denied to his predecessors, to see his political
enemies withdraw their unfounded aspersions during his lifetime, to
see his calumniators become his personal and official eulogists, prac
tically retracting the slanders and imputations to which they had
given loose tongue when the object at stake was his defeat for the
Presidency. The President had made changes in his Cabinet and had lost the
two Massachusetts members, — E. Rockwood Hoar, Attorney-Gen
eral, and Mr. Boutwell, Secretary of the Treasury. The former re
signed in 1870; the latter in 1873, to take the seat in the Senate
made vacant by the election of Henry Wilson to the Vice-Presi
dency. These gentlemen were among the most valued of President
Grant's advisers, and the retirement of each was deeply regretted.
The changes in the Cabinet continued through President Grant's
second term.1

1 In the history of the Federal Government only one administration (that of
Franklin Pierce) has completed its full term without a single change in the Cabinet
announced at its beginning. The following are the members of General Grant's Cabi
net, the changes in which were in the aggregate more numerous than in the Cabinet of
any of his predecessors: —

ORGANIZATION OF FORTY-THIRD CONGRESS. 539
The Forty-third Congress organized on the first Monday in De
cember, 1873. Among the new senators were some men already well
known, and others who subsequently became conspicuous in the
public service : —
— William B. Allison of Iowa had served eight years in the House,
closing with March 4, 1871, and was now promoted to the Senate
by the people of his State, who appreciated his sterling qualities.
For industry, good judgment, strong common sense, and fidelity to
every trust, both personal and public, Mr. Allison has established
an enviable reputation. He devoted himself to financial questions
and soon acquired in the Senate the position of influence which he
had long held in the House. In both branches of Congress his
service has been attended with an exceptional degree of popularity
among his associates of both parties.
— Aaron A. Sargent, a native of Massachusetts, had served six
years in the House at two different periods (beginning in 1861) as
a representative from California. He was originally a printer and
editor, but turned his attention to the law and became a member of
the bar in 1854. He enjoyed the distinction in California of being a
pioneer of 1849, and was thoroughly acquainted with the develop
ment of the State at every step in her wonderful progress. No man
ever kept more eager watch over the interests of his constituency or
was more constant and indefatigable in his legislative duties.
— John J. Ingalls, a native of Massachusetts and a graduate of
Williams College, sought a home in Kansas directly after the com
pletion of his law studies in 1858. He at once took part in public
affairs, holding various offices under the Territorial and State Gov-
Secretaries of State. — Elihu B. Washburne, Hamilton Fish.
Secretaries of the Treasury. — George S. Boutwell, William A. Richardson, Benja
min H. Bristow, Lot M. Morrill.
Secretaries of War. —John A. Rawlins, William W. Belknap, Alphonso Taft, James
Donald Cameron.
Secretaries of the Navy. — Adolph E. Borie, George M. Robeson.
Postmasters-General. — John A. J. Creswell, James W. Marshall, Marshall Jewell,
James N. Tyner.
Attorneys-General. — E. Rockwood Hoar, Amos T. Akerman, George H. Williams,
Edwards Pierrepont, Alphonso Taft.
Secretaries of the Interior. — Jacob D. Cox, Columbus Delano, Zachariah Chandler.
By this it will be seen that twenty-four Cabinet officers served under General Grant.
But this number does not include Alexander T. Stewart, who though confirmed did not
enter upon his duties as Secretary of the Treasury; or General Sherman, who was
Secretary of War ad interim ; or Eugene Hale, who was appointed Postmaster-General,
but never entered upon service. Mr. Taft is counted only once, though he served in
two Departments.

540 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
ernments in succession ; was for some years editor of a prominent
paper ; and was engaged steadily in the practice of the law until his
election to the Senate. His training and culture are far beyond that
ordinarily implied by the possession of a college diploma. His mind
has been enriched by the study of books and disciplined by contro
versy at the Bar and in the Senate. As a speaker he is fluent and
eloquent, but perhaps too much given to severity of expression. He
possesses in marked degree the dangerous power of sarcasm, and in
any discussion which borders upon personal issues Mr. Ingalls is an
antagonist to be avoided. But outside the arena of personal conflict
he is a genial man. He devotes himself closely to his senatorial
duties, and exhibits the steady growth which uniformly attends the
superior mind.
— John P. Jones entered the Senate from Nevada in his forty-third
year. Though born in Wales, he was reared from infancy in the
northern part of Ohio. He went to California before he attained his
majority, and subsequently became a citizen of Nevada. His Welsh
blood, his life in the Western Reserve, and his long experience as a
miner on the Pacific slope, combined to make a rare and somewhat
remarkable character. His educational facilities embraced only the
public schools of Cleveland, but he has by his own efforts acquired a
great mass of curious and valuable information. A close observer
of men, gifted with humor and appreciating humor in others, he is a
genial companion and always welcome guest. He is a man of
originality and works out his own conclusions. His views of finan
cial and economical questions are often in conflict with current
maxims and established precedents, but no one can listen to him
without being impressed by his intellectual power.
— Richard J. Oglesby, who took the place of Lyman Trumbull as
senator from Illinois, is a native of Kentucky, but went to Illinois
when twelve years of age. He was admitted to the bar as soon as
he attained his majority, in 1845. He was a soldier in the Mexican
war, and spent two years as a miner in California. On returning to
Illinois he took active part in politics, and was influential in promote
ing the nomination of Mr. Lincoln for the Presidency in 1860. He
enlisted in the Union Army as soon as the civil war began, went to
the field as a Colonel and retired from it as a Major-General. He
was Governor of his State from 1865 to 1869, and was re-elected
to the same office in 1872 but was immediately transferred to the
Senate. Few men have enjoyed a greater degree of personal popu-

NEW MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. 541
larity among neighbors, acquaintances, and the people of an entire
State, than General Oglesby. His frankness, his kindly disposition,
his sympathy with the desires and the needs of the great mass of the
people, his pride in Illinois and his devotion to her interests, all
combined to give him not merely the political support but the strong
personal attachment of his fellow-citizens.
— John H. Mitchell, a native of Pennsylvania who went to the Paci
fic coast before he had fairly passed from the period of boyhood, now
returned as senator from Oregon at thirty-seven years of age. He
had been diligent and successful as a lawyer, and had acquainted
himself in a very thorough manner with the wants and the interests
of his State, to which he devoted himself with assiduity and success.
He was an accurate man and always discharged his senatorial duties
with care and fidelity. «
The new senators from the South were in themselves the proof
that the Republicans still had control in several of the reconstructed
States, and that in others the Democrats 'had regained complete ascend
ency. — Stephen W. Dorsey, who had been in the military service
from Ohio and settled in Arkansas after the war, now appeared as
senator from that State, at thirty-two years of age. — John J. Pat
terson, a native of Pennsylvania, came from South Carolina, and
Simon B. Conover, a native of New Jersey, from Florida. — Georgia
had been recovered by the Democrats, and now sent John B. Gordon
as senator to succeed Joshua Hill. General Gordon had been con
spicuous in the Confederate service, commanding a corps in the army
of General Lee. He enjoyed at the time of his election great per
sonal popularity in his State. — North Carolina, though carried on
the popular vote for General Grant, had elected a Democratic Legis
lature ; and A. S. Merrimon, prominent at the bar of his State and
of long service on the bench, now appeared with credentials as sena
tor to succeed John Pool.
The most conspicuous additions to the House of Representatives
of the Forty-third Congress were E. Rockwood Hoar of Massachu
setts, Lyman Tremaine of New York, L. Q. C. Lamar of Mississippi,
William R. Morrison of Illinois, John A. Kasson of Iowa, and Hugh
J. Jewett of Ohio. These gentlemen were already widely known to
the country. Judge Hoar and Mr. Tremaine served but one term ;
Mr. Jewett resigned to take the Presidency of the Erie Railroad ; Mr.
Morrison, Mr. Kasson, and Mr. Lamar acquired additional distinction
by subsequent service. Among those now entering who grew into

542 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS-
prominence, were Julius C. Burrows, George Willard, and Jay A.
Hubbell of Michigan ; Charles G. Williams of Wisconsin ; Richard
P. Bland (of "Bland dollar" fame), T. T. Crittenden, and Edwin O.
Stanard of Missouri: Horace F. Page of California; Greenbury
L. Fort of Illinois ; James Wilson and James W. McDill of Iowa ;
William A. Phillips of Kansas ; Lorenzo Danford, James W. Robin
son, Milton I. Southard, and Richard C. Parsons from Ohio ; Lemuel
Todd, A. Herr Smith, and Hiester Clymer of Pennsylvania ; Eppa
Hunton and John T. Harris of Virginia ; John M. Glover and Aylett
H. Buckner of Missouri. Henry J. Scudder, a very intelligent gen
tleman whose service should have been longer, came from the Staten
Island district, New York. Milton Sayler and Henry B. Banning
entered from the Cincinnati districts, the latter with the distinction
of having defeated Stanley Matthews. Stephen A. Hurlbut and
Joseph G. Cannon entered from Illinois. Each soon acquired a
prominent position in the House, — General Hurlbut as a ready
debater, and Mr. Cannon as an earnest worker. Mr. Cannon, indeed,
became an authority in the House on all matters pertaining to the
Postal Service of the United States.
— Thomas C. Piatt came from the Binghamton district of New
York. He had been an active man of business and had gained
personal popularity. He developed an aptitude for public affairs
and soon acquired influence in his State. He was not a trained
debater, nor had he, when he entered Congress, official experience of
any kind. But he was gifted with strong common sense, and had
that quick judgment of men which contributes so essentially to suc
cess in public life.
— William Walter Phelps came from the" Passaic district of New
Jersey. He is a member of the well-known Connecticut family of
that name, — a family distinguished for integrity and independence
of character, and for success in great financial enterprises. Mr.
Phelps received a thorough intellectual training and graduated with
distinction at Yale College in 1860. He was soon after admitted
to the bar of New York, and took part in the management of various
corporations. He has an admirable talent for extempore speech. The
inheritance of a large fortune has perhaps in some degree hindered
Mr. Phelps's success in a political career ; but it has not robbed him
of manly ambition, or lowered his estimate of a worthy and honor
able life.
— Stewart L. Woodford entered from one of the Brooklyn districts.

NEW MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE. 543
Graduating at Columbia College in 1854, he was soon after admitted
to the bar, but left his practice to enlist in the Union service when
the civil war began. He was a good soldier, and reached the rank
of Brigadier-General. He was elected Lieutenant-Governor of New
York in 1866 at thirty-one years of age. He has acquired wide
popularity as a platform speaker. He enjoys the unlimited confi
dence and respect of friends and neighbors, — the best attestation
that can be given of a man's real character.
— Stephen B. Elkins was for four years a most efficient delegate in
Congress from New Mexico. He was a distinguished graduate of
Missouri University, and though reared in a community where South
ern influences prevailed was an earnest Union man. He went to
New Mexico soon after attaining his majority, served in the Legisla
tive Assembly, became prominent at the bar, was Attorney-General
of the Territory, and afterwards United-States District Attorney.
He entered Congress in his thirty-second year.
— Two other delegates who were in Congress at the same time,
Richard C. McCormick of Arizona, and Martin Maginnis of Mon
tana, — the one a Republican and the other a Democrat, — became
distinguished for the zeal and ability with which they guarded the
interests of their constituents.
The long and honorable service of Edward McPherson as Clerk
of the House, terminated with the close of the Forty-third Congress.
He had held the position for twelve consecutive years — a period
which followed directly after four years of service as representative
in Congress from the Gettysburg district. When first elected to
Congress he was but twenty-eight years of age. The Clerkship of
the House is a highly responsible office, and no man could dis
charge its complex duties with greater intelligence, fidelity and
discretion than did Mr. McPherson throughout the whole period of
his service.1 Beyond his official duties he rendered great service to
the public by the compilation of political handbooks for Presidential
and Congressional elections. The facts pertinent to political dis
cussion were impartially presented and admirably arranged. Mr.
McPherson's larger works, the histories of the Rebellion and of Re
construction, are invaluable to the political student.

1 Pennsylvanians have filled the Clerkship of the House for forty years in all. The
best known, besides Mr. McPherson, are Matthew St. Clair Clarke, Walter S. Franklin
and John W. Forney.

544 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
On Friday, the sixth day of March, 1874, Charles Sumner was in
the Senate chamber for the last time. He took active part in the
proceedings of the day, debating at some length the bill proposing
an appropriation for the Centennial celebration at Philadelphia. On
Monday, the 9th, to which day the Senate adjourned, his absence
was noticed, but not commented on further than that one senator
remembered Mr. Sumner's complaining of a sense of great fatigue
after his speech of Friday. The session of Monday lasted but a
few minutes, as the Senate adjourned from respect to the mem
ory of Ex-President Fillmore, who had died the day before at his
home in Buffalo. On Tuesday there were rumors within the circle
of Mr. Sumner's intimate friends that he was ill, but no special anxi
ety was felt until near nightfall, when it was known that he was
suffering from a sudden and violent attack of angina pectoris, and
grave apprehensions were felt by his physicians. By a coincidence
which did not escape observation, it was the anniversary of the day
on which three years before he was removed from the chairmanship
of the Committee on Foreign Relations. He died in the afternoon
of the next day, Wednesday, March 11 (1874). On Thursday the
funeral services were held in the Senate chamber, and were marked
with a manifestation of personal sorrow on the part of multitudes
of people, more profound than had attended the last rites of any
statesman of the generation, — Abraham Lincoln alone excepted.
Formal eulogies were pronounced upon his life and character on
the 27th of April, his colleague Mr. Boutwell presenting the appro
priate resolutions in the Senate, and his intimate friend of many
years, E. Rockwood Hoar, in the House. The eulogies in both
branches were numerous and touching. They were not confined to
party, to section, or to race.
Whoever was first in other fields of statesmanship, the pre-emi
nence of Mr. Sumner on the slavery question must always be con
ceded. Profoundly conversant with all subjects of legislation, he yet
devoted himself absorbingly to the one issue which appealed to his
judgment and his conscience. He held the Republican party to a high
standard, — a standard which but for his courage and determination
might have been lowered at several crises in the history of the
struggle for Liberty. He did not live to see the accomplishment of
all the measures to which he had dedicated his powers. He died
without seeing his Civil Rights Bill enacted into law. For that only
he desired to live. To his colleague and faithful friend, Henry

DEATH OF CHARLES SUMNER. 545
Wilson, who followed him so soon, he said mournfully : " If the
publication of my works were completed and my Civil Rights Bill
passed, no visitor could enter the door that would be more welcome
than Death." He was weary of life. He was solitary, without kin
dred, without domestic ties. He had been subjected at intervals for
eighteen years to great suffering, which with the anxieties of public
life and the solitude which had become burdensome wore away his
energy. However much his wisdom may be questioned by those who
were not his political friends, whatever criticism may be made of the
zeal which not infrequently was assumed to be ill-timed and mis
judged, Mr. Sumner must ever be regarded as a scholar, an orator,
a philanthropist, a philosopher, a statesman whose splendid and unsul
lied fame will always form part of the true glory of the Nation.
An incident related by Mr. Dawes in his eulogy of Mr. Sumner
strikingly illustrates the shortsightedness and miscalculation of the
Southern statesmen preceding the Rebellion. Mr. Sumner's first
term in the Senate began just as the last term of Colonel Benton closed.
Soon after his arrival in Washington the Massachusetts senator met
the illustrious Missourian. They became well acquainted and friendly.
In the ensuing year the two eminent men had a conversation on
public affairs. The Compromise of 1850 had been approved by both
the great parties in their National Conventions, and Franklin Pierce
had just been chosen President. The power of the South seemed
fixed, its control of public events irresistible. To the apprehension
of the political historian the Slave power had not been so strong
since the day of the Missouri Compromise, and its statesmen looked
forward to policies which would still further enhance its strength.
Colonel Benton said to Mr. Sumner : " You have come upon the stage
too late, sir. All our great men have passed away. Mr. Calhoun
and Mr. Clay and Mr. Webster are gone. Not only have the great
men passed away, but the great issues, too, raised from our form of
government and of deepest interest to its founders and their
immediate descendants, have been settled, sir. The last of these
was the National Bank, and that has been overthrown forever.
Nothing is left you, sir, but puny sectional questions and petty
strifes about slavery and fugitive-slave laws, involving no National
issues." It is instructive to remember that in little more than eight years
after this conversation, and but three years after Colonel Benton's
death, the civil war began, and opened to Mr. Sumner the opportu-
Vol. II. 35

546 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
nity of leading in a political and social revolution almost without
parallel in modern times.

A singular interest was added to the formal eulogies of Mr. Sumner
by the speech of Mr. Lamar of Mississippi, who had just returned to
the House of Representatives which he left thirteen years before
to join his State in secession. It was a mark of positive genius in a
Southern representative to pronounce a fervid and discriminating
eulogy upon Mr. Sumner, and skilfully to interweave with it a defense
of that which Mr. Sumner like John Wesley believed to be the
sum of all villanies. Only a man of Mr. Lamar's peculiar mental
type could have accomplished the task. He pleased the radical anti-
slavery sentiment of New England : he did not displease the radical
pro-slavery sentiment of the South. There is a type of mind in the
East that delights in refined fallacies, in the reconciling of apparent
contradictions, in the tracing of distinctions and resemblances where
less subtle intellects fail to perceive their possibility. There is a
certain Orientalism in the mind of Mr. Lamar, strangely admixed
with typical Americanism. He is full of reflection, full of imagina
tion ; seemingly careless, yet closely observant ; apparently dreamy,
yet altogether practical.
It is the possession of these contradictory qualities which accounts
for Mr. Lamar's political course. His reason, his faith, his hope, all
led him to believe in the necessity of preserving the Union of the
States ; but he persuaded himself that fidelity to a constituency
which had honored him, personal ties with friends from whom he
could not part, the maintenance of an institution which he was
pledged to defend, called upon him to stand with the secession
leaders in the revolt of 1861. He was thus ensnared in the toils of
his own reasoning. His very strength became his weakness. He
could not escape from his self-imposed thraldom and he ended by fol
lowing a cause whose success could bring no peace, instead of main
taining a cause whose righteousness was the assurance of victory.
Alexander H. Stephens took his seat in the same Congress with
Mr. Lamar. He had acquired a commanding reputation in the
South by his sixteen years' service in the House from 1843 to 1859.
He had been trained in the Whig school, and had early espoused the
strong Federal principles which recognized the doctrine of secession
as a heresy, and disunion as a crime. In joining the Rebellion

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 547
he renounced a creed of Nationality in which the Democratic
promoters of the Confederacy had never believed. He incurred
thereby a heavier responsibility than those who, trained in the strict
construction school, found sovereignty in the State and recognized
no superior allegiance to the National Government ; who in fact
denied that there was any such power existing as a National Govern
ment. If Mr. Stephens had maintained his original devotion to the
National idea, a noble course lay before him ; but when he drifted
from his moorings of loyalty to the Union he surrendered the position
that could have given him fame. He was rewarded with the second
office in the Confederacy — which may be taken as the measure of his
importance to the Secession cause, according to the estimate of the
original conspirators against the Union.
Mr. Stephens was physically a shattered man when he resumed
his seat in Congress, but the activity of his mind was unabated. With
all their disposition to look upon him as an illustrious statesman, it
must be frankly confessed that he made little impression upon the
new generation of public men. Instead of the admiration which his
speeches were once said to have elicited in the House, the wonder
now grew that he ever could have been considered an oracle or a
leader. He had been dominated in the crises of his career by the
superior will and greater ability of Robert Toombs ; and he now
appeared merely as a relic of the past in a representative assembly
in which his voice was said to have been once potential.

At the close of the Forty-first Congress in the month of February,
1871, an Act was passed providing a government for the District of
Columbia. It repealed the charters of the cities of Washington and
Georgetown, destroyed the old Levy court which existed under the
statutes of Maryland before the District was ceded, and placed over
the entire territory a form of government totally differing from any
which had theretofore existed. It consisted of a Governor, and a
Legislative Assembly composed of a Council and a House of Dele
gates. The Governor and the Council were to be appointed by the
President and confirmed by the Senate, and the House of Delegates
was to be elected by the people ; thus making the government conform
in essential respects to that which had been provided for the earlier
Territories of the United States. Powers assimilating mainly with

548 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
those granted to new Territories were conferred upon the govern
ment of the District, including the power to borrow money to an
amount equivalent to " five per cent of the assessed value of prop
erty in said District ; " and to borrow without charter limitation,
" provided the law authorizing the same shall, at a general election,
have been submitted to the people, and have received a majority
of the votes cast for members of the Legislative Assembly at such
election. '
It was a radical change, and the powers were granted because
of the necessity, which was generally felt, that something should be
done for the improvement of the National Capital. Alexander R.
Shepherd, a native of the District, engaged in business as a plumber
and known to be a man of remarkable energy and enterprise, was
appointed Governor of the District by President Grant and was con
firmed by the Senate. He was a personal friend in whom the Presi
dent reposed boundless confidence. In the course of little more than
three years, which was the duration of the new government, an as
tonishing change was effected in the character and appearance of the
city of Washington. From an ill-paved, ill-lighted, unattractive
city, it became a model of regularity, cleanliness, and beauty. No
similar transformation has ever been so speedily realized in an
American city, the model being found only in certain European
capitals where public money had been lavishly expended for adorn
ment. Of course so great an improvement involved the expenditure of
large sums, and the District of Columbia found itself in debt to the
amount of several millions. An agitation was aroused against what
was alleged to be the corrupt extravagance of the government ; the
law authorizing it was repealed and the District placed under the
direction of three Commissioners, who have since administered its
affairs. Whatever fault may be found, whatever charges may be
made, the fact remains that Governor Shepherd wrought a com
plete revolution in the appearance of the Capital. Perhaps a pru
dent and cautious man would not have ventured to go as fast and
as far as he went, but there was no proof that selfish motives
had inspired his action. He had not enriched himself, and when the
government ended he was compelled to seek a new field of enterprise
in the mineral region of Northern Mexico. The prejudice evoked
towards Governor Shepherd has in large part died away, and he is
justly entitled to be regarded as one who conferred inestimable bene-

A DEMOCRATIC VICTORY. 549
fits upon the city of Washington. The subsequent growth of popu
lation, the great number of new and handsome residences, the rapid
and continuous rise in the value of real estate, the vastly increased
number of annual visitors, have given a new life to the National
Capital which dates distinctly from the changes and improvements
which he inaugurated.

The Republican party naturally considered itself invested with a
new lease of power. The victory in the Presidential election of 1872
had been so sweeping, both in the number of States and in the popu
lar majorities, that it seemed as if no re-action were possible for years
to come. The Liberal-Republican organization had been practically
dissolved by the disastrous defeat of Mr. Greeley, and the Democ
racy had been left prostrate, discouraged and rent with personal
feuds. But the financial panic of 1873 precipitated a new ele
ment into the political field, and led to a counter-revolution that
threatened to be as irresistible as the Republican victory which it
followed. The first warning came in the election of William Allen
Governor of Ohio in 1873, over Edward F. Noyes, the Republican
incumbent. It was followed by the defeat of General Dix and the
election of Samuel J. Tilden Governor of New York the ensuing
year, and by such a re-action throughout the country as gave to the
Democratic party control of the House of Representatives for the
first time since 1859.
The extent of the political revolution was made apparent in the
vote of the House of Representatives on the 6th of March, 1875,
when the Forty-fourth Congress was duly organized. Michael C.
Kerr of Indiana, long and favorably known as one of the Democratic
leaders of the House, was nominated by his party for Speaker, and
the Republicans nominated Mr. Blaine, who for the past six years
had occupied the Chair. Mr. Kerr received 173 votes ; Mr. Blaine
received 106. The relative strength of the two parties had therefore
been reversed from the preceding Congress. It was a species of
revolution which brought to the front many men not before known
to the public.
— Among the Democrats, now the dominant party, the most promi
nent of the new members from the South were John Randolph
Tucker of Virginia, a distinguished lawyer who had been Attorney-
General of his State and always a zealous adherent of the State-rights'

550 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
school ; Alfred M. Scales of North Carolina, a member of the House
in 1857-59 and afterwards Governor of his State ; Benjamin H. Hill
of Georgia, who had become distinguished as a member of the Con
federate Senate, and who as a popular orator and ready debater
had attained high rank in the South ; Joseph C. S. Blackburn and
Milton J. Durham of Kentucky, — the former a fluent speaker,
the latter an indefatigable worker ; Washington C. Whitthorne and
John D. C. Atkins of Tennessee, — the latter a member of the
House in the Thirty-fifth Congress ; John H. Reagan of Texas, Con
federate Postmaster-General ; Otho R. Singleton and Charles E.
Hooker of Mississippi, — the former a member of the House as early
as 1853 ; Charles J. Faulkner of West Virginia, a prominent Demo
crat before the war, and conspicuously identified with the rebellion ;
Thomas L. Jones of Kentucky, who had already served in the House ;
Randall L. Gibson and E. John Ellis, young and ambitious men from
Louisiana ; and John Goode, jun., of Virginia, who had been a mem
ber of the Confederate Congress. The growing strength of the
South was noticeable in the House, and was the main reliance of
the Democratic party.
— From the North the most distinguished Democrats were Abram S.
Hewitt and Scott Lord from New York ; Frank Jones of New
Hampshire, a successful business man of great and deserved popu
larity ; Charles P. Thompson, a well-known lawyer of Massachusetts ;
Chester W. Chapin, a railroad magnate from the same State ; George
A. Jenks, a rising lawyer from Pennsylvania ; John A. McMahon of
Ohio, apt and ready in discussion ; Alpheus S. Williams of Michigan,
a West-Point graduate, a General in the civil war, and in his younger
days an intimate friend and traveling-companion of the " Chevalier "
Wikoff; William Pitt Lynde of Milwaukee, a noted member of
the Wisconsin Bar. — From Illinois three Democrats entered who
became active in the partisan arena in after years, — Carter H.
Harrison, William M. Springer, and William A. J. Sparks. John
V. LeMoyne, son of the eminent anti-slavery leader, Francis J.
LeMoyne, entered as a Democratic member from Chicago.
— The most prominent Republicans among the new members were
Martin I. Townsend of the Troy district, New York, not more distin
guished for his knowledge of the law than for his rare gifts of wit
and humor; Elbridge G. Lapham of Canandaigua and Lyman K.
Bass of Buffalo, both well known at the bar of Western New York ;
Simeon B. Chittenden, a successful merchant of the city of New

THE FORTY-FOURTH CONGRESS. 551
York ; Winthrop W. Ketchum, for many years in the Legislature of
Pennsylvania ; Charles H. Joyce of Vermont, with a good war
record; William W. Crapo, a lawyer with large practice at New
Bedford, Massachusetts ; Julius H. Seelye, the able and learned
President of Amherst College ; Henry L. Pierce, a well-known
manufacturer of Massachusetts ; and Thomas J. Henderson of Illi
nois, a Brigadier-General in the Union Army. — Henry W. Blair of
New Hampshire was a member of the bar, enlisted early in the war,
and attained the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel. He had been in both
branches of the Legislature, of his State, and was a leader in the
Prohibition cause.
In the Senate the Democratic gain, though it had not changed
the control of the body, was very noticeable. William W. Eaton of
Connecticut, an old-fashioned Democrat, honest, sincere, and out
spoken in his sentiments, succeeded Governor Buckingham. Francis
Kernan of New York, who had already served in the House of Repre
sentatives, took the seat of Governor Fenton. Joseph E. McDonald
of Indiana, a man of strong parts, succeeded Daniel D. Pratt.
William A. Wallace of Pennsylvania, an extreme partisan, but an
agreeable gentleman and loyal friend, took the place of John Scott.
Allen T. Caperton, an estimable man who had served in the Confed
erate Senate, now succeeded Arthur I. Boreman of West Virginia.
Samuel B. Maxey of Texas, a graduate of West Point, succeeded
J. W. Flanagan. Charles W. Jones of Florida succeeded Abijah
Gilbert. Robert E. Withers of Virginia succeeded John F. Lewis.
Last and most prominent of all, Ex-President Andrew Johnson suc
ceeded William G. Brownlow from Tennessee.
These nine Democrats took the place of nine Republicans, making
a net difference in the Senate of eighteen, — a difference somewhat
increased by the fact that Francis M. Cockrell, a decided Democrat,
took the place of Carl Schurz, who, as between political parties, was
always undecided. Nor was this uniform series of Democratic gains
balanced in any degree by Republican gains. The new Republican
senators all took the places of Republican predecessors. The other
new Democratic senators took the places of Democratic predecessors.
The Republicans had lost the power to command two-thirds of the
Senate, and had entered upon that struggle which led soon after to
a contest for the mastery of the body. More and more it became
evident that as the commissions of the present Republican senators
from the South should expire, their places would be. filled by Demo-

552 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
crats ; and that with thirty-two senators in a compact body from the
recent slave States, it would require a strong Republican union in
the North to maintain a majority.
Among the Republicans who now entered the Senate were Gen
eral Burnside, who succeeded William Sprague from Rhode Island ;
Angus Cameron, who succeeded Matthew H. Carpenter from Wis
consin ; Isaac P. Christiancy, who succeeded Zachariah Chandler
from Michigan ; Samuel J. R. McMillan, who succeeded Alexander
Ramsey from Minnesota. Henry L. Dawes succeeded William B.
Washburn, who had served out the remnant of Mr. Sumner's term.
Newton Booth, who had been Governor of California, now took his
seat in the Senate as the colleague of Mr. Sargent. Governor Booth
had suddenly come into prominence on the Pacific coast, and though
professing a general allegiance to the Republican party, he had been
and continued to be somewhat independent in his views and his
votes, especially upon railroad questions.

Ex-President Johnson signalized his return by beginning in the
Senate just where he had left off in the Presidency. Two weeks
after the session convened he seized the occasion of a resolution re
lating to Louisiana affairs to recount some incidents in his own
Administration, and gave to his whole speech the color of a vin
dictive attack upon President Grant. The motive was somewhat
concealed under decorous language, but the attack was nevertheless
personal and direct. He assailed Sheridan's military administration
in Louisiana, defended that of General Hancock, accused President
Grant of designing to seize a third term of his office, imputed evil
motives to him for accepting gifts from friends, considered the liber
ties of the country in danger from his administration, and thought
that his tyranny was not concealed by the gloved hand. He seemed
to have nursed his wrath during the six years he had passed in pri
vate life, and to have aspired to the Senate simply for the revival of
animosities and for the' renewal of controversies with those for whom
he cherished special hatred.
The impression made upon the Senate and upon the country by
Mr. Johnson's speech was unpleasant. His anger, peculiarly unbe
coming his years and his station, was directed especially against the
men who would not follow him in his desertion of the party which

DEATH OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 553
had elevated him to power. At least twice before, in the history of
the Federal Government, it had been demonstrated that a President
who for any cause runs counter to the views and wishes of the party
that elected him is doomed to disappointment, and is fortunate if he
escape disgrace. Mr. Johnson had drunk the cup of humiliation to
its dregs, and the remaining energies of his life seemed now devoted
to the punishment, or at least the denunciation, of those who had
obstructed and defeated his policies while President. Revenge is
always an ignoble motive, pardonable, if at all, when inspired by
the hot blood of youth, but to be regarded as not only lamentable
but pitiable in men who approach threescore and ten. The extra
session closed on the 24th of March. Mr. Johnson did not live to
resume his seat. On the last day of the ensuing July (1875) he
died peacefully at his home in East Tennessee among friends who
had watched his progress from poverty and illiteracy to the highest
position in the Republic. He was in the sixty-seventh year of his

The annual message of the President contained no reference to
the condition of the South. The stringent and persistent prosecution
in the United States courts of members of the organized bands of
Ku-Klux had tended to dissolve that organization and to restrain its
members from the commission of such outrages as had distinguished
the earlier period of their existence. There was hope in the minds
of sanguine people of the North that an era of peace and harmony
had begun in the South, which would be characterized by a fair
recognition of the rights of all the population, that free suffrage
would be protected, that the hand of violence would be stayed,
and that the Centennial year would find every State of the Repub
lic in the enjoyment of material prosperity, of the fair administration
of the law, of the enforcement of equal rights.
No body of men rejoiced over this prospect more heartily than
Republican senators and representatives, for if it should prove true
they would have cause of gratulation both as patriots and partisans.
The complete pacification of the country on the basis of equal and
exact justice was the leading desire of all right-minded men, and the
free suffrage which this implied would give to the Republicans the
opportunity for a fair trial of strength in the advocacy of their prin
ciples before the Southern people. The picture was one which would

554 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
well adorn the great National anniversary so near at hand, but many
men feared that it was a picture only and not a reality.
An occasion arose four weeks after the delivery of the President's
message, to test the real feelings of the House concerning the South
ern question. Mr. Randall of Pennsylvania introduced a bill removing
the political disabilities from every person in the United States.
Since the broad Act of Amnesty in 1872, which excepted only a few
classes from its operation, a considerable number of Southern gen
tlemen had been relieved upon individual application ; but the mass
of those excepted were still under the disability. The disposition of
the Republicans was to grant without hesitation an amnesty almost
universal, the exceptions, with a majority of the party probably,
being limited to three persons, — Jefferson Davis, Robert Toombs,
and Jacob Thompson. Mr. Randall brought his bill to a vote on
the 10th of January, 1876. By the Constitution it required a vote
of two-thirds, but fell short of the number, the ayes being 175, the
noes 97. The negative vote was wholly Republican ; while the affirm
ative vote included all the Democratic members together . with a
small number of Republicans.
Mr. Blaine moved to amend by excepting Jefferson Davis from
the benefits of the bill. The situation was peculiar. Upon a direct
vote, if the amendment were submitted, very few Republicans could
be found who would include Mr. Davis by name in the amnesty;
and there was a large number of Democrats who wished to be saved
from the embarrassment implied in such a procedure. They appre
ciated the difference between voting for a bill of general amnesty
which included Jefferson Davis without name, and voting for an
amendment which named him and him only for restoration to eligi
bility to any office under the Government of the United States. No
punishment was inflicted upon Mr. Davis; no confiscation of his
property was attempted or desired ; Congress did not wish to deny
him the right of suffrage. He was simply deprived of the right to
aspire to the honors of the Republic. The Democrats being a
majority of the House could prevent the amendment of the bill, and
the Republicans being more than one-third could prevent the passage
of the bill. It was a singular case of playing at parliamentary
cross-purposes, and afforded the ground, as it proved in the end,
for a prolonged and somewhat exciting discussion.
The reason assigned for excepting Jefferson Davis was not that
he had been a rebel, for rebels were restored by thousands ; not that

DEBATE ON AMNESTY BILL. 555
he had been in Congress, for Southern Congressmen were restored by
scores if not by hundreds ; not that he had been the chief of the revo
lutionary government, for that would only be a difference of degree
in an offense in which all had shared. The point of objection was that
Mr. Davis, with the supreme power of the Confederacy in his hands,
both military and civil, had permitted extraordinary cruelties to be
inflicted upon prisoners of war. He was held to be legally and
morally responsible, in that, being able to prevent the horrors of
Andersonville prison, he did not prevent them.
The debate took a somewhat wide range, engaging Mr. Blaine
and General Garfield as the leading participants on the Republican
side, and Benjamin H. Hill, Mr. Randall, and Mr. Cox on the Demo
cratic side. Upon a second effort to pass the bill with an amend
ment requiring an oath of loyalty as a prerequisite to removal of
disabilities, it failed to secure the necessary two-thirds, the ayes being
184, the noes 97. All that the Republicans demanded was a vote on
the exclusion of Jefferson Davis, and this was steadily refused. Many
gentlemen of the South are still under disability because of the par
liamentary tactics pursued by the Democratic party of the House of
Representatives at that time. If a vote had been allowed on Jeffer
son Davis, his name would have been rejected, and the bill, which
included even Robert Toombs and Jacob Thompson, would have
been passed without delay. If Mr. Davis thought that he was un
generously treated by the Republicans, he must have found ample
compensation in the conduct of both Southern and Northern Demo
crats, who kept seven hundred prominent supporters of the rebellion
under disability for the simple and only reason that the Ex-President
of the Confederacy could not share in the clemency.

CHAPTER XXIV.
The Public Credit. — Flkst Law enacted under President Grant. — Democratic
Opposition. — Thurman, Garrett Davis, Bayard. — President Grant's First
Message. — Funding Bills discussed. — Action of Both Houses. — Debates. —
Further Reduction of Revenue. — Premium on Gold. — Meeting of Forty-
second Congress. — Financial Debates. — Financial Panic of 1873. — Forty-
third Congress meets. — President Grant's Position. — Abolition op Moieties.
— Specie Payments. — Resumption Act. — Special Message op the President.
— Admission op Colorado. — Death op Speaker Kerr. — Samuel J. Randall
his Successor.
THE course of President Grant's Administration in regard to the
Finances had proved in all respects successful. The first bill
which received his signature was the Act " to strengthen the public
credit," approved March 18, 1869. It pledged the Government to
the payment in coin, or its equivalent, of all obligations, notes, and
bonds, except those where the law authorizing the issue stipulated
that payment might be made in " lawful money," which simply meant
legal-tender notes. The demand for this declaratory Act arose from a
desire to undo the evil which had been caused by the resolution of the
Democratic party in the preceding Presidential election in favor of
paying all public debts in paper, except where coin was specifically
named in the law. The position of each party was therefore precisely
the reverse of the other : the Republicans held the normal law of
payment of Government obligations to be in coin, unless payment
in paper money had been previously agreed upon ; the Democrats
held that all Government obligations might be discharged in paper,
unless payment in coin had been previously agreed upon. This was
the division line in the Presidential canvass of 1868, and it was the
division line among parties in the Forty-first Congress. In the House,
where the Act had been reported by General Schenck, the vote on
its passage was 98 ayes to 47 noes. No Democrat voted in the affirm
ative. A few Republicans, under the lead of General Butler, voted
in the negative. 556

STRENGTHENING THE PUBLIC CREDIT. 557
When the Act was reported to the Senate, Mr. Thurman offered
an amendment declaring that " nothing in this Act shall apply to the
obligations commonly called Five-twenty bonds." This would reserve
three-fourths of the bonded debt from the operation of the law, and
would effectually defeat its object. Every Democrat in the Senate
who voted on the question, voted in favor of Mr. Thurman's amend
ment. Mr. Morton of Indiana and one or two other Republican
senators voted with the Democrats, but the amendment was defeated
by a decisive vote.
— Mr. Garrett Davis offered an amendment, "that the just and
equitable measure of the obligation of the United States upon their
outstanding bonds, is the value at the time in gold and silver coin
of the paper currency advanced and paid to the Government on
those bonds." Mr. Davis argued earnestly in favor of his amend
ment. He declared it to be " robbery and iniquity for this Congress
to make the people of the United States pay nearly $900,000,000
more than by law and equity they are bound to pay."
— Mr. Bayard seconded the arguments of Mr. Davis. "Suppose,
instead of issuing paper money," said Mr. Bayard, " it had pleased
Congress to order a debasement of our National coinage. Suppose
twenty-five per cent more of alloy or worthless metal had been inter
jected into our currency, and with that base coinage men had come
forward to buy your bonds, what would be thought of the man who,
when the day of payment of those bonds arrived, should say, ' I gave
you lead, or lead in certain proportions ; but for all the worthless
metal I handed you, you must give me back pure gold ' ? Whether
he was more maddened or more dishonest would be the only ques
tion arising in men's minds." Mr. Bayard used this analogy to illus
trate the wrong of paying the bonds of the Government in coin, and
expressed the belief that the debasing of the coinage would have
been " far more Constitutional and right than the power which Con
gress exercised when they issued paper money."
When President Grant sent his first annual message to Congress
(December, 1869), the National debt, less cash in the Treasury,
amounted to $2,453,559,735, the cash being $194,674,947. The aggre
gate obligations bearing interest in coin had risen to $2,107,938,000 ;
while the three per cent certificates and the Navy pension-fund,
which alone carried interest in currency, amounted to $61,195,000.
The debt bearing no interest, composed of old demand-notes, legal-
tenders, fractional currency, and certificates for gold deposited, had

558 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
fallen to $431,861,763. The seven-thirty notes had disappeared from
the financial statement, and the bonds authorized by the Act of
March 3, 1865, amounted to $958,455,700. The rate of interest on
the bonds still stood at six per cent, except on the old debt of 1858
and 1860, and upon $194,567,300 of the ten-forties issued under
the Act of March 3, 1864. One of the chief recommendations in
the President's message was the refunding of the debt in bonds,
with interest not exceeding four and a half per cent. He urged
legislation for redeeming the legal-tenders at their market value, at
the option of the holder, increasing the rate from day to day or week
to week. He believed " that immediate resumption, even if practi
cable, would not be desirable," but that " a return to a specie basis
should be commenced immediately." He expressed the belief that
the revenue might be at once reduced $60,000,000 or possibly $80,-
000,000 a year. In connection with this feature of the message,
Secretary Boutwell submitted a well-matured plan for funding the
debt and expressed entire confidence in its success.
The result was the refunding Act of July 14, 1870. It was a
broad and effective measure. It was subsequently modified by the
Act of Jan. 20, 1871, permitting the payment of interest quarterly,
and increasing the amount of bonds bearing five per cent interest.
The two laws for purposes of refunding, taken together, authorized
the issue of $500,000,000 at five per cent, $300,000,000 at four and a
half per cent, and $1,000,000,000, at four per cent, — all to be pay
able in coin, to be exempt from taxation, and to be issued without
any increase of the debt. The fives were redeemable after ten years,
the four-and-a-halfs after fifteen years, the fours after thirty years.
The laws were not enacted without considerable legislative contro
versy. The exemption from taxation and the payment in coin were
stubbornly though unsuccessfully resisted. A proposition to state
the interest in sterling money and in francs, as well as in dollars, so
that the bonds might be more easily negotiated abroad, was vigorously
pressed, but was happily defeated.
Further reduction of the revenue was effected by the Act of
July 4, 1870. There was an earnest effort to repeal the income tax,
but it was retained for the year, and was to terminate at the end of
1871. The duties on tea, coffee, sugar, and some articles of iron and
steel, were diminished. In presenting the conference report Mr.
Schenck estimated that the reduction in customs charges by the
Bill would be $27,000,000, and in the internal taxes more than

THE POLICY OF REFUNDING THE DEBT. 559
$50,000,000. Many persons feared that the reduction of taxes was
too rapid, but it was impossible to resist a movement so popular
as the removal of the burdens left by the war. Under such a pres
sure it was probable that Congress might not have sufficient regard
to the prospective needs of the Government.
The condition of trade, wise legislation, and the hope of refunding
the debt with rapid reduction of interest, were producing beneficent
results ; but the expectations of the Secretary of the Treasury in
regard to the prompt sale of the new bonds were rudely shocked by
the war between France and Germany, which was declared imme
diately after Congress had clothed him with enlarged powers. At
home, as well as in Europe, the money markets were so far disturbed
that prudence forbade immediate action. After a necessary post
ponement and careful preparation Mr. Boutwell gave notice that
on March 6, 1871, books would be opened in this country and in
Europe for subscriptions to the bonds. . Preference was awarded to
subscribers for the five per cents within the limit of $200,000,000.
On the anniversary of the passage of the Act, July 14, 1871, a
proposition came from a syndicate of London bankers to take the
whole amount of the five per cents. The National banks, with a
few individuals in this country, subscribed for $117,518,950, and the
residue was conceded to the foreign syndicate.
The leading arguments in the House for the policy of refunding
were made by Mr. Dawes and by Mr. Ellis H. Roberts. The gain
to the Government, as they proved, would be obvious and great.
If the new bonds were exchanged for the whole amount of six
per cents already issued, and were to run only till the time of re
demption, the saving, without compounding interest, would amount
to an enormous aggregate, certainly exceeding $600,000,000. The
country was therefore disappointed that events beyond the sea
had for a time suspended the operations of funding, and compelled
the Treasury to maintain its high rate of interest. The suspension
was not due to the neglect or mismanagement of any executive offi
cer, or to lack of foresight on the part of Congress in providing
the requisite legisla'tion. It was simply a case in which the money
market for the time prevented the Secretary of the Treasury from
accomplishing any large proportion of the total funding operations
contemplated by the Government.

560 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
When the Forty-second Congress met in December, 1871, the gold
premium was 110J (S) llOf . The funding process was in its early
stages. Specie was going to Europe at the- rate of $66,000,000 per
annum, and the balance of trade for that fiscal year was running
against the United States to the amount of $183,000,000. It was a
period of financial theories. The prejudice against National banks
seemed to increase, and the fiat of a Government so rich and pow
erful as that of the United States would, it was maintained, suffice
to make all the notes it might put out available for money, and
the volume ought to be abundant enough to stimulate every nerve
of production and trade.
Against such appeals the more conservative sentiment of the coun
try held that honor and safety demanded the redemption of the
United-States notes in coin at the earliest practicable day. The
steps proposed to this end were extreme and therefore unwise. A
large number of financiers urged the repeal of the legal-tender
clause, the funding of the notes into bonds with some limitations,
and further contraction of their volume by direct withdrawal. The
argument was presented that if a man could not pay his overdue
note he would deem it a privilege to give a new obligation to run
on interest for a longer period, and the Nation ought to prove
itself as honest as its citizens. This specious plea assumed that the
legal-tender note was simply a promise to pay, with only the qualities
of an individual obligation. It neglected to consider its different and
essential character as a circulating medium. The advocates of the
repeal of the legal-tender clause included many able lawyers, who
however did not meet the objection that this clause was an element
in the value of the currency, only less important than that of positive
redemption. Nor did they seem to perceive that the abrogation of
this feature in the contract between the Government and the note
holders would lead to confusion and distress in commercial circles,
and would violate the obligations of common honesty.
The debate went on in Congress and in the press, but no general
scheme of legislation could be agreed upon. Congress took up the
tariff and the internal revenue, and passed the Acts of March 5, May
1, and June 6, 1872. By the first Act, all internal taxes were re
moved from fish, fruits, and meats. By the second, all duties on tea
and coffee were absolutely removed after the first day of the ensuing
July, reducing the revenue by this single Act to the extent of
$20,000,000 per annum. The last Act (June 6) made a reduction

FINANCIAL PANIC OF 1873. 561
of ten per cent in the customs duties on all importations of cotton,
wool, iron, steel, paper, rubber, glass, and leather, with a number of
specific changes in the tariff, and a large addition to the free list.
The effect of the three Acts upon the revenue of the Government
was a diminution of $44,000,000 in custom receipts and $20,650,000
in internal taxes. The machinery for collecting the internal revenue
was greatly simplified and improved. A proposition introduced by
Mr. Clinton L. Merriam of New York proved to be of great con
venience and safety to the National banks. It permitted the Secre
tary of the Treasury to issue certificates of deposit in denominations
of $5,000 without interest, in exchange for notes, and these certifi
cates became available for the reserves of the banks and for settle
ments of clearing-house balances.

The Forty-third Congress met in a period of discouragement
and disaster. The financial panic which swept over New York in
the preceding September (1873) was followed by deep depression
throughout the country. Wrecks of business enterprises were every
where visible, the financial markets of the world were disturbed
and alarmed, doubt and hesitation filled the minds of senators and
representatives. A black flag seemed to overhang the finances of the
Government as well as of individuals. Plans for funding the public
debt were checked, the movement for resumption was weakened.
The situation gave fresh arguments to the champions of the fiat
dollar. It affected commerce and diminished the revenue by arrest
ing production and by reducing imports. The division of opinion
among senators and representatives was very pronounced, as was
shown in the bills introduced, in the amendments submitted, and
still more significantly in the debates upon the President's message.
The first definite action was upon a currency bill introduced in the
Senate. As reported from the Finance Committee, the first section
fixed the maximum limit of United-States notes at $382,000,000.
The limit was raised to $400,000,000 on motion of Mr. Wright of
Iowa, and the Senate refused to allow any clause for future reduc
tion. This was $44,000,000 beyond the amount of legal-tender
notes then in circulation. An enlargement of the circulation of the
National banks was made at the same time, by which in connection
with the greenbacks there might be an addition of $100,000,000 to
Vol. II. 36

562 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
the paper currency of the country. The two Houses differed as to
details, but soon agreed upon a bill containing the general provisions
proposed in the Senate.
This action of Congress followed an earnest popular demand,
resulting from the distrust which had become so general in conse
quence of the panic. A large proportion of the business men,
especially in the West and South-West, believed that an increased
circulation of notes would bring great relief. At the beginning
of the session of Congress, President Grant had clearly intimated
that he had come to the same conclusion. He said in his annual
message : " In view of the great actual contraction that has taken
place in the currency, and the comparative contraction continu
ously going on, due to the increase of manufactures and all the
industries, I do not believe there is too much of it now for the dullest
period of the year. Indeed, if clearing-houses should be established,
thus forcing redemption, it is a question for your consideration
whether banking should not be made free, retaining all the safe
guards now required to secure bill-holders." But nearly five months
had elapsed since the President had expressed these views, and during
that time he had come to more conservative conclusions, and he now
vetoed the bill, which did not seem so radical in its provisions as
his own recommendation had been. To make National banking
free before compelling the banks to redeem their notes in coin, would
have proved a measureless inflation, and the President wisely receded
from the position assumed in his annual message.
An important Act, changing the Customs laws, was reported from
the Committee on Ways and Means by Mr. Ellis H. Roberts, who
had made the investigation which led to it with great care and
sagacity. It received the assent of both branches, though some
amendments were added to it in the Senate. It was radical in its
nature. It changed methods which had prevailed from the foun
dation of the Government, and it has withstood all criticism since
its enactment. Instead of moieties and perquisites theretofore
allowed to customs officers in the chief cities for the detection of
frauds upon the revenue, specific salaries were established ; and the
modes of procedure against violators of the law were more clearly
defined, and made more efficient.

DEMOCRATIC HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTED. 563
The various propositions in this Congress fairly illustrate the
conflicting views on financial matters held among the people. The
business depression continued. The country looked to Congress for
relief, and yet did not agree upon any measure of relief. The party
in the majority was held responsible for the condition of industry
and trade, and the elections in the autumn of 1874 showed how
wide-spread and intense was the dissatisfaction with the existing
order of things. The very freedom and breadth of discussion which
were essential to secure unity of action were taken as ground of
censure, and the failure to provide for a return to specie payment
was brought as an indictment against the majority in Congress by
those who had shown the least faith in the National credit and the
least regard for the National honor.
For the first time since the organization of the Republican party
and its accession to power in the Union, an opposition majority was
elected to the House of Representatives. The Republican leaders
took warning, and agreed that before losing control of the lower
House they would secure the passage of an Act for the resumption
of specie payment. President Grant and Secretary Bristow were
earnest in recommending a measure of that character. Personal
conferences to compare views, to consolidate Republican opinion,
and to induce harmony of action were held early in the second ses
sion of the Forty-third Congress. Concessions were made, a middle
ground was secured, and a measure was finally perfected. The long
discussion had demonstrated the difficulties of the situation. But
public necessity and party interest combined to induce a sacrifice of
financial theories in order that practical results might be achieved.
The bill reported to the Senate by Mr. Sherman on the 21st of
December (1874) embodied the conclusions which had been reached
in private conferences. The next day he gave notice that he would
press it to an immediate vote. Mr. Thurman and Mr. Schurz spoke
of it as a party measure agreed upon in caucus. The former argued
at some length against the bill. The latter stated that " with the
present volume of currency it is impossible to resume and maintain
redemption," and he sought unsuccessfully to secure the cancella
tion of legal-tender notes at the rate of $2,000,000 per month. Mr.
Bayard charged that the bill was rather adverse than favorable to
resumption. The Senate passed the bill on the same day by a vote
of 32 to 14. Not a single Democratic member of the Senate sup
ported it. The negative vote was Democratic, with the exception
of Sprague of Rhode Island and Tipton of Nebraska.

564 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
The House did not consider the bill until the 7th of January,
directly after the holidays. It was then passed by 125 ayes to 106
noes, a much closer vote than had been anticipated. The Democrats
were unanimous against it, and were strengthened by the accession
of some twenty Republicans. These were of two classes. Judge
Kelley stood as the representative of one, deeming it unwise and
premature to force specie payment at that time ; the other class was
represented by Mr. Dawes and the Messrs. Hoar of Massachusetts,
General Hawley of Connecticut, and some others from New England,
who thought the measure that came from the Senate was incomplete,
in that it did not provide for specie payment soon enough, or take
means sufficiently energetic to secure it at the date named. With
these exceptions the Act was a Republican measure, unanimously
opposed by the Democratic party.
In approving the Act President Grant took the somewhat
unusual step of sending to the Senate a special message. While
declaring the measure a subject of congratulation, he suggested fur
ther legislation to make it more effective. His recommendations
included first an increase of the revenue ; second the redemption of
legal-tender notes in coin, reckoned at a premium of ten per cent in
the beginning and gradually diminishing until the date named in the
Act for resumption ; third an addition to the facilities for coinage, in
one or more of the Western cities, so as to save to the miner the cost
of transporting bullion to the principal mint at Philadelphia. Con
gress responded only to the first of the President's recommendations.
The policy of increasing the revenue became the subject of ear
nest discussion for the remainder of the Forty-third Congress. The
rapid repeal of taxes, in which each session of Congress had vied
with the one preceding it for a series of years, had produced its
legitimate result in an impending deficiency in the Treasury. This
was now remedied by the Act approved March 3, 1875, to protect
the sinking-fund and provide for the exigencies of the Government.
This Act repealed the provision for a reduction of ten per cent in
certain customs duties under the Act of June 6, 1872, which had
really been passed without full consideration or due appreciation of
its probable effect. The Act also increased the duties on sugars and
certain other articles, raised the tax on spirits from 70 to 90 cents
a gallon, and on tobacco from 20 to 24 cents per pound, and modified
in many respects the regulations concerning the collection of reve
nue from these products.

RESUMPTION OF SPECIE PAYMENT. 565
, Such was the action as originally devised for resumption of specie
payment. The most remarkable feature of the bill to that end was
the promptness with which it was passed, after the long period
of preparatory debate in both Houses of Congress on the subject.
Nearly ten years had elapsed since the war closed, and although the
subject was one which constantly engaged the attention of finan
ciers and to a large extent enlisted the interest of the public, it had
never been framed into a practical legislative measure. It had now
been accomplished, as might well be said, in a day. The pressure
upon the Republicans, caused by the Democratic victory of the pre
ceding autumn, was very great. The Democratic senators and
representatives, though recording themselves unanimously in opposi
tion to the measure, were not willing to risk its defeat by the parlia
mentary strategy of delay, as they might easily have done. Their
party leaders had no faith in the measure, but they knew how
troublesome was the subject; they knew that it had proved the
stumbling-block in the Republican policy for years, and they were
more than willing that it should be taken out of the way on the
eve of their accession to the control of the House of Representa
tives. If the Act should prove to be successful their hostility to
it might be forgotten and they could well arraign their opponents
for so long neglecting to enact it. If on the other hand it should
prove unsuccessful, it would remain a standing reproach to the finan
cial policy of the Republican party. Benefits as they well knew are
soon forgotten, while injuries are tenaciously remembered ; and this
they believed was as true of parties as of persons. In short, as the
leaders of the Democracy viewed it, the Resumption Act, passed over
their combined vote, could do them no harm, while the chances were
that it would inure to their advantage.

The Territory of Colorado, which was prevented by Andrew
Johnson from entering the Union in 1866, was now, after the lapse
of ten years, admitted as a State under a bill approved by General
Grant in the closing year of his Presidency. The Territory had in
the long interval developed great wealth in the precious metals, in
rich deposits of iron and coal, and most surprising of all, in its
agricultural resources. The two senators, Jerome B. Chaffee and
Henry M. Teller, were kinsmen and were among the pioneers of the

566 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Territory who had been deeply concerned in its progress and develop
ment. Mr. Chaffee had represented the Territory in Congress for
the six years immediately preceding its admission as a State, and had
worked with energy and success for the interest of his constituents.
He was somewhat impaired in health when he took his seat in the
Senate, and did not desire to remain in public life. Mr. Teller con
tinued in the Senate for a longer period, and acquired political
leadership in his State.

Michael C. Kerr, who was elected Speaker of the Forty-fourth
Congress, was prevented by ill-health from presiding for any consid
erable length of time. Owing to marked symptoms of pulmonary
disease he was warned by friends that he should not accept a position
so laborious and so exhausting as the Speakership. It was beyond
his strength. He died during the Congressional recess on the 19th
qf August, 1876, in the fiftieth year of his age. At the meeting of
Congress in the following December, Samuel J. Randall of Pennsyl
vania (who had been Mr. Kerr's competitor in the Democratic cau
cus) was chosen Speaker. He had represented a Philadelphia district
for thirteen years and had acquired a thorough knowledge of the
rules and methods of the House. He is a strong partisan, with many
elements of leadership. He is fair-minded towards his political
opponents, generous to his friends, makes no compromise with ene
mies, never neglects his public duties, and never forgets the interests
of the Democratic party.

CHAPTER XXV.
Presidential Election op 1876. — Republican Candidates for Nomination. — Con
vention at Cincinnati, June 14, 1876. — Republican Platform. — Balloting. —
Nomination of Hayes and Wheeler. — Democratic National Convention.—
Samuel J. Tilden the Principal Candidate. — His Career. — Other Demo
cratic Candidates. — Tilden and Hendricks nominated. — Democratic Plat
form. —The Canvass. — The Result. — Doubtful States. — Popular Excite
ment.— Dispute in Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina. — President Grant's
Course. — A Portentous Question. — Electoral Commission. — Members. —
Questions before them. — Decision. — Hayes and Wheeler elected. — Sub
sequent Investigation. — Potter Committee. — Discovery of Telegrams. —
Attempts at Bribery in the South.
BETWEEN 1860 and 1876 the Presidential nominations of the
Republican party had been predetermined and practically unop
posed. The second nomination of Mr. Lincoln and the two nomi
nations of General Grant were so unmistakably dictated by public
opinion that they came without a contest. In 1876, for the first
time since the Republican party had acquired National power, the
candidate was not selected in advance, and the National Convention
met to make a choice, not simply to register a popular decree. This
freedom of action imparted a personal interest to the preliminary
canvass and a struggle in the Convention itself, which previous
nominations had lacked. The public excitement was enhanced by
the close and doubtful balance between the two parties. For the
first time since its original success, the power of the Republican
party had been seriously broken in 1874. The war and reconstruc
tion periods were receding, and with the lessening stress of their
demands, the popular conviction of the necessity of Republican rule
was losing much of its force. New questions were pressing for
ward, and parties were largely judged by these later tests.
The open field and free choice on the Republican side developed
several competitors for the nomination. — Senator Morton of Indiana
naturally held a prominent place. His ability, his party devotion, his
fearless services as the War Governor of a State which was disturbed
567

568 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
with tumult and sedition, his conspicuous part in the Reconstruction
contests in the Senate, all marked him as entitled to great consider
ation. — Senator Conkling was earnestly sustained by the Republican or
ganization of New York, of which he was then the undisputed chief.
His friends went to the National Convention with the power of the
largest delegation and with the influence of the most important
State. He had the additional aid of the good will and good wishes
of President Grant.
— Mr. Bristow of Kentucky was also a candidate. As Secretary
of the Treasury he had been zealous in pushing investigation and
prosecution of the whiskey frauds then rife. His mode of procedure
created the impression that he was acting independently of the Ad
ministration of which he was a part, if not in studied conflict with it,
and this demonstration, while objectionable to many, commended him
to a considerable body of Republicans who were inclined on that
account to associate him with the growing cry for administrative re
form. He had the advantage also of strong local influence. He
came from a State adjoining the city where the Convention was to
be held, and through the newspapers the surrounding atmosphere
was colored in his favor.
— But Ohio, which has long held a prominent part in shaping
the National counsels, had a candidate more distinctively her own.
Rutherford B. Hayes had been chosen Governor the preceding year
under circumstances which attested his popular strength. In 1873
the Democrats had elected the venerable William Allen, and had won
a still more emphatic victory the following year in choosing members
of the House of Representatives. In 1875 the Republicans put for
ward General Hayes to defeat Mr. Allen and reclaim the State, and
his success vindicated the wisdom of their choice. He had already
served two terms as Governor, and was regarded as a safe and judi
cious executive. He was entirely free from factional entanglements,
and was considered by many wise political leaders to be a peculiarly
available candidate.
— The delegates from Pennsylvania, like those from Ohio, presented
their Governor as a candidate. But worthy as General Hartranft
was conceded to be, the circumstances surrounding the movement for
him inspired the general belief that he was brought forward less with
the expectation of a serious effort on his behalf than for the purpose of
making his candidacy the means of holding the delegation in hand.

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION. 569
— The only other candidate who had an active support was Mr.
Blaine of Maine.
The National Convention met at Cincinnati on the 14th of June
and became at once the centre of popular attention. Among the
delegates were many men of position and influence in their respec
tive States, and some with national reputation. Massachusetts sent
E. Rockwood Hoar, George F. Hoar, Richard A. Dana, jun., and
James Russell Lowell. Among the Maine delegates were Eugene
Hale, William P. Frye, Nelson Dingley, jun., Charles A. Boutelle, and
Seth L. Milliken. General Hawley and Samuel Fessenden came from
Connecticut, and Governor Van Zandt and Nelson W. Aldrich from
Rhode Island. New York had a strong representation, including
Alonzo B. Cornell, Theodore M. Pomeroy, James N. Matthews of the
Buffalo Express, George William Curtis, Stewart L. Woodford, Clar
ence A. Seward, William H. Robertson, Charles Emory Smith, then
editor of the Albany Journal, Frank Hiscock, and Thomas C. Piatt.
The Ohio delegation was led by the venerable Senator Wade and by
Governor Noyes. J. Donald Cameron, then Secretary of War, Henry
M. Hoyt, afterwards Governor, General Bingham, John Cessna, and
Edward McPherson, appeared at the head of the Pennsylvania forces.
Among other notable delegates were Robert G. IngersoU and
Charles B. Farwell of Illinois ; Richard W. Thompson of Indiana ;
Judge Harlan, later of the Supreme Court, and Ex-Attorney-General
Speed of Kentucky; Governor Packard and Senator Kellogg of
Louisiana ; Henry P. Baldwin and William A. Howard of Michigan ;
William J. Sewall, George A. Halsey, Garrett A. Hobart, and Fred
erick Potts of New Jersey; Alexander Ramsey and Dwight M.
Sabin of Minnesota ; John P. Jones of Nevada ; Nathan Goff, jun.,
of West Virginia; Philetus Sawyer of Wisconsin ; Jerome B. Chaffee
and Henry M. Teller of Colorado, — all of whom were then or at a
later period prominent in the public councils. Theodore M. Pomeroy
of New York was made temporary chairman of the Convention, and
Edward McPherson of Pennsylvania permanent president. The first
day was chiefly occupied with political addresses.
The report of the committee on resolutions was looked for with
especial interest. The exigent political issue of the hour was the
Currency question. Congress had the year before passed the Re
sumption Act providing for a return to specie payments in 1879.
While there was no serious conflict among Republicans over the gen
eral policy, there were differences of opinion as to the wisdom of

570 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
explicitly endorsing the act with its designation of time and its obli
gation of immediate preparatory measures. , A long struggle took
place in the committee on these points and on cognate questions.
After a protracted debate the whole subject of framing the plat
form was entrusted to a sub-committee, composed of General Hawley,
Ex-Attorney-General Speed, Governor Dingley of Maine, Governor
Chamberlain of South Carolina, James H. Howe of Wisconsin, Gov
ernor C. C. Waters of Arkansas, and Charles Emory Smith of New
York. Several of these gentlemen possessed experience in the line
of duty to which they were assigned. The youngest man of the list,
Mr. Emory Smith, then editor of the Albany Journal, had for years
taken part in preparing the platforms for Republican conventions in
New York, and had become distinguished for the skill and felicity
of his language, the aptness with which he embodied the popular
thought, and the precision with which he described the issue at stake.
The platform reported to the Convention was clear and emphatic
upon the leading issues. It improved the occasion of the Centennial
year to repeat the cardinal truths and principles of the Declaration of
Independence ; it recognized the pacification of the South and the
protection of all its citizens as a sacred duty ; the enforcement of
the Constitutional Amendments was enjoined ; and the obligation of
removing any just cause of discontent was coupled with that of secur
ing to every American citizen complete liberty and exact equality
in the exercise of all civil, political, and public rights ; the Public
Credit Act, the measure first signed by President Grant, was referred
to with the declaration that its " pledge must be fulfilled by a contin
uous and steady progress to specie payments." The platform also em
braced a distinct declaration for a radical reform of the civil service,
making a broader and more precise enunciation than was contained
in the Liberal platform of 1872, though the assigned reason for that
revolt, as given by its champions, was the alleged hostility of the
Republican party to improvement in the Government service. The
Protective policy was upheld ; the extirpation of polygamy was de
manded ; and an investigation into the Chinese question, then begin
ning to distract California, was recommended.
With the platform adopted, the Convention proceeded at once to
the task of nominating candidates. Mr. Thompson of Indiana pre
sented Senator Morton. The name of Mr. Bristow was submitted by
Judge Harlan, and supported by Mr. Curtis and Richard H. Dana, jun.
Colonel IngersoU followed in advocacy of Mr. Blaine, with a speech

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION. 571
which placed him at once in the front rank of popular orators.
He was seconded by Mr. Frye of Maine, and by Mr. Turner, a
well known colored preacher from Georgia. Senator Conkling was
eloquently presented by Mr. Stewart L. Woodford ; and Governor
Hayes by Ex-Governor Noyes, with a few words of approval from
Ex-Senator Wade. Marshall Jewell was nominated by Mr. Kellogg of
Connecticut ; and General Hartranft by Lynn Bartholomew of Penn
sylvania. The speeches, as a whole, were pointed and inspiring.
Under their stimulating influence the Convention was eager to begin
the balloting, but the gathering shades of evening compelled an
adjournment to the next morning.
With the opening of the third day the Convention immediately
proceeded to the first ballot. The result was : Blaine 285, Morton
124, Bristow 113, Conkling 99, Hayes 61, Hartranft 58, Jewell 11,
William A. Wheeler 3. Hartranft's 58 was the solid vote of Penn
sylvania ; Hayes had the solid 44 of Ohio and a few scattering votes
from other States ; Conkling had all but one of New York's 70, with
8 from Georgia, 7 from North Carolina, and the remainder scatter
ing ; Morton's vote, apart from the 30 of Indiana, came wholly from
the South ; Bristow's support was divided among nineteen States and
one Territory ; and Blaine's vote came from twenty-eight States and
seven Territories.
The second ballot, taken after the Convention had decided against
the unit rule and allowed each delegate to vote as he chose, showed
a gain of 11 votes for Blaine, 1 for Bristow, 3 for Hayes, and 5 for
Hartranft, with a loss of 4 for Morton and of 6 for Conkling. Jewell
had dropped out. The third and fourth ballots proceeded without
any material change. On the fifth ballot the solid vote of Michigan
was cast for Governor Hayes, and other changes were made which
carried his aggregate to 104 ; while Morton fell to 95. On the sixth
ballot the vote for Blaine rose to 308, and that for Hayes to 113,
While other candidates lost. When the seventh ballot opened New
York retired for consultation on one side of the hall, and Pennsylva
nia on the other. It was evident that the decisive moment had come.
As the roll-call advanced, other candidates were withdrawn and it
became a contest between Hayes and Blaine. A large majority of the
supporters of Morton, Conkling and Bristow went to Hayes. Penn
sylvania gave 28 votes for Hayes and 30 for Blaine. The ballot as
concluded stood, Hayes 384, Blaine 351, and Bristow 21. The last
named all favored Governor Hayes and his nomination was there-

572 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
upon made unanimous. For the Vice-Presidency William A. Wheeler
and Stewart L. Woodford of New York, Marshall Jewell and Joseph
R. Hawley of Connecticut, and Frederick T. Frelinghuysen of New
Jersey, were indicated ; but before the close of the first ballot Mr.
Wheeler was nominated by acclamation.
The ticket thus presented was a surprise to the country. The
candidates like all who are nominated against public expectation,
failed to excite enthusiasm in the earlier part of the canvass. But
both were regarded as able, judicious, and prudent men, and they
steadily grew in public favor as the contest waxed warm. Governor
Hayes had not been prominent during his brief service in Congress ;
but his repeated election over the strongest Democrats of Ohio, and
his three terms as Governor, had made an excellent impression on the
country. He was especially respected for the firmness and fidelity
with which he waged battle for honest money against the finan
cial heresies which had at that time taken deep root in his State.
Mr. Wheeler had achieved reputation in Congress as a discreet legis
lator and a practical man of affairs, and was cordially received by
the different factions which at that time divided the Republican
party of New York.

The Democratic National Convention assembled at St. Louis two
weeks after the nomination of Hayes and Wheeler. The party
leaders and managers came together with more hope of success than
they had dared to entertain at any period since the beginning of the
civil war. The Democratic victories of 1874 had encouraged them
with a confidence which the partial re-action of 1875 had not
diminished. They were recovering possession of the South; they
were profiting from political discontent in tlie North which they
strove in every way to develop ; they were gaining in assurance just
in proportion as the war feeling was dying out ; and they were reap
ing the usual advantage of the opposition party in a period of finan
cial depression. Learning wisdom from the blundering course of
1868 and the disastrous experiment of 1872, they were now to uplift
the banner of pure Democracy under Democracy's most skillful
leadership. Interest in the movement was deepened by the organized and
irresistible force with which Mr. Samuel J. Tilden had assumed

CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMUEL J. TILDEN. 573
leadership and was advancing to the Presidential nomination. Mr.
Tilden was in some respects the most striking figure in the Demo
cratic party since Andrew Jackson. Though more than threescore,
he had been a conspicuous party chief only three or four years.
He had moved forward to unchallenged personal supremacy with
a vigor and rapidity which in the political life of the United States
had seldom been equaled. His sudden elevation was not the result
of accidental circumstances of which he was the fortunate beneficiary.
He was the conscious and masterful creator of his position. The
sceptre of power in the Democratic party did not drop into his
hands ; he seized it, and wielded it at his own will. He moulded
the conditions which suited his designs, and when the hour was
come he assumed the command as of divine right.
But though he thus blazed forth with unexpected brilliancy, his
whole life had in fact been a school of preparation. His public career
in official position had it is true been limited. He served in the Le
gislature of 1846 and in the Constitutional Conventions of 1846 and
1867. In both he bestowed especial attention upon the canal policy
of the State. He bore a prominent part with Mr. Van Buren in the
Barnburners' Revolt of 1848, in which he and some of his associates
departed for a brief period from a lifelong pro-slavery record, and
rode Free-soil as the stalking-horse of personal resentments and
factional designs. He professed devotion to the Wilmot Proviso as
earnestly as one of the old Abolitionists, and turned from it as if
its advocacy had been the amusement of a summer vacation. He
occasionally appeared in National Conventions, and he acted for
some years as chairman of the Democratic State Committee of New
York. This was the total of his public service until he set forth
upon what was the immediate preliminary movement to his Presi
dential campaign.
But from his earliest manhood he had been a close student of
political affairs. He was a devotee of Jackson in his youth, and
became one of the ardent disciples of Van Buren, whom he adopted
as mentor and model. His earlier political papers are dignified and
elevated in tone beyond his years, and show a strong intellect and
careful reflection ; but they are in the stately and turgid style of the
period and lack the decisive and original force of his later productions.
Even when he followed the vigorous Dean Richmond as chairman
of the Democratic State Committee, he did not suggest the creative
political power which he afterwards revealed. He was regarded

574 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
rather as a respectable figure-head. It was on this assumption that
he escaped complicity in the notorious election frauds of New York
in 1868. His name was appended to the private call for the earliest
possible approximate returns from the interior, a call which meant
that the authors only wanted a clue to determine how large a ma
jority must be counted in the metropolis to secure the State. Mr.
Tilden denied all knowledge of the letter. Without even consulting
him, his authority had been appropriated by the " Tweed Ring," just
then rising to its colossal power. During the entire period of its
profligate ascendency, Mr. Tilden continued as chairman of the State
Committee, but he did not share its corrupt counsels or sanction its
audacious schemes. The worst reproach which lies against him is that
of remaining too long a passive witness. There was no bond of affilia
tion between him and the vulgar adventurers who had taken the
Democratic party and the city of New York by the throat. He had
no sympathy with their coarse and reckless measures. Aside from his
abhorrence of their riotous corruption every instinct of self-preserva
tion impelled him to desire their overthrow, for while they ruled he
had little hope of influence or preferment. When the exposure of
their monstrous robberies had opened the way to their downfall, Mr.
Tilden grappled with the menaced Ring and helped to complete its
destruction. He labored to capture its intrenchments in the Legis
lature, fought the conspiracy with a non-partisan combination, went
to the Assembly himself, co-operated in the legal prosecution, pro
moted the impeachment of the corrupt judges, and proved a powerful
and capable ally in rescuing the State from this shameful domination.
The extermination of the " Tweed Ring " was Mr. Tilden's oppor
tunity. His hour had come : he promptly grasped the party leader
ship thus left open. Starting out deliberately for the Presidential
nomination, his plan embraced three leading features : his stepping-
stone was the governorship, his shibboleth was administrative reform,
his method was organization to a degree which has never been sur
passed. He was swept into the Governor's chair on the crest of
the Democratic tidal wave in 1874, and once there every effort was
directed to the Presidential succession. He had the sagacity to per
ceive that in order to gain any solid foothold in the country the
Democratic party needed to cut loose from its discredited past and
secure a new rallying-cry. It was loaded down with its odious war
record ; it was divided on fiscal questions ; it had fought a losing
battle for twelve years on the defensive ; and if it was to struggle

CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMUEL J. TILDEN. 575
with any hope it must discover a line on which it could boldly take
the aggressive.
Mr. Tilden fancied that he found this pathway to a new career
in the resounding demand for a radical reform of administrative
methods, and from the hour of his accession to the governorship he
sought to give it effect in reality or in semblance. He had received
applause and secured promotion from his aid in the overthrow of the
" Tweed Ring," and he now declared war against the affiliated
" Canal Ring," whose destruction had already been made sure. The
circumstances were peculiarly propitious for his whole movement.
The extinguishment of the war debt of the State, already nearly
accomplished, would bring an immediate and large reduction of
taxes. The amendment to the State Constitution (already passed
and just producing its effect) prohibiting any taxation or any appro
priation for expenditures on the canals, beyond their revenues, would
starve the Canal Ring by cutting off its supply. Mr. Tilden became
Governor at the right hour to reap the harvest which others had
sown. It is seldom that any administration is ¦ signalized by two
events so impressive and far-reaching as the crumbling of a formid
able and long-intrenched foe to honest administration like the Tweed
Ring, and a decrease of the tax budget by nearly one-half. It was
Mr. Tilden's rare fortune that his Governorship was coincident with
these predetermined and assured results. It would be unjust to deny
to him the merit of resisting the canal extortionists and hastening
their extinction, but it would be equally untrue not to say that in
the work of the reformer he did not forget the shrewd calculations
of the partisan. He understood better than any other man the art of
appropriating to himself the credit of events which would have come
to pass without his agency, and of reforms already planned by his
political opponents.
By a fortunate concurrence of conditions which he partly made,
and which with signal ability he wholly turned to account, Mr.
Tilden thus gained the one commanding position in the Democratic
party. He held the most vital State of the North in his grasp. He
embodied the one thought which expressed the discontent with
Republicanism and the hope of the Democracy. He evinced a
power of leadership which no man in his party could rival. The
Democracy before his day could count but four chiefs of the first
rank — Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, and Van Buren. Mr. Tilden
was not indeed a leader of the same class with these masters

576 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
who for so long a period shaped the whole thought and policy
of their party, but he displayed political capacity of a very high
order. He was trained in the school of the famous Albany Regency,
and had exhibited much of its ingenuity and power. He placed his
reliance both upon ideas and organization. He sought to captivate
the popular imagination with a striking thought, and he supported it
with the most minute and systematic work. In his own State he
discarded all leaders of equal rank with himself, and selected active
young men or mere personal followers as his lieutenants. He bore
no brother near the throne. In other States he secured strong alli
ances to promote his interests, and called into existence a National
force which was as potent as it was compact.
His political observations covered nearly half a century, and
spanned the successive epochs which stretched from the struggle over
Nullification to the war of secession and the work of Reconstruc
tion. But through most of this long and stirring era he was en
gaged in the practice of his profession and the acquisition of wealth.
In this work he was peculiarly successful. To the subtlety of an
acute legal mind he added the sagacity of a keen business man.
He attained especial, indeed almost unrivaled eminence as a cor
poration lawyer, and thus gained a practice which leads to larger
rewards than can be found in other legal fields. While acquiring
great reputation he amassed a great fortune, and when at last he
entered upon his political career he combined the resources of a full
treasury with the arts of an unrivaled manager.
Mr. Tilden has been the subject of vehement and contradictory
judgments. His friends have well-nigh canonized him as represent
ing the highest type of public virtue ; his foes have painted him as
an adept in craft and intrigue. His partisans have held him up as
the evangel of a new and purer dispensation ; his opponents declare
that his ability is marred by selfishness and characterized by cun
ning. His followers have exalted him as the ablest and most high-
minded statesman of the times ; his critics have described him as a
most artful, astute, and unscrupulous politician. The truth doubt
less lies between the two extremes. Adroit, ingenious and wary,
skillful to plan and strong to execute, cautious in judgment and
vigorous in action, taciturn and mysterious as a rule and yet singu
larly open and frank on occasions, resting on the old traditions yet
leading in new pathways, surprising in the force of his blows and
yet leaving a sense of reserved power, Mr. Tilden unquestionably

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION. 577
ranks among the greatest masters of political management that our
day has seen. Certain it is that his extraordinary success and his
exceptional position had inspired the Democratic party with the con
viction that he was the one man to command victory, and he moved
forward to the Presidential nomination with a confidence which dis
couraged his opponents and inspired his supporters with a sense of
irresistible strength.

When the Convention assembled a futile attempt was made to
organize a movement against Mr. Tilden. His undisguised autocracy
in New York had provoked jealousies and enmities which were more
imposing in names than in numbers. John Kelly, now the master
spirit of reconstructed Tammany, and esteemed as a man of personal
integrity, led an implacable warfare, openly proclaiming that Mr.
Tilden's nomination would prove fatal to Democratic success in
New York. In this pronounced hostility Mr. Kelly had the avowed
approval or the secret sanction of conspicuous Democrats whom Mr.
Tilden's absorption of power had thrust into the background. Au
gustus Schell, chairman of the National Committee, encouraged the
opposition ; Erastus Corning was on the ground sustaining it ; Chief
Justice Church and his friends were known to be in sympathy with
it. Attempts were made to secure support for Governor Allen of
Ohio, for Governor Hendricks of Indiana, and for General Hancock ;
but no one of these demonstrations, nor all of them combined, could
resist the steady set of the current towards Mr. Tilden, and the
organization and all the action of the Convention were clearly in
the hands of his friends.
The interests of Mr. Tilden were committed to the care of Mr.
Dorsheimer, who had left the Republican ranks but four years before.
His chief associate was Senator Kernan. The most prominent dele
gates from other States were William A. Wallace and Samuel J.
Randall of Pennsylvania, James R. Doolittle and William F. Vilas of
Wisconsin, Judge Abbott of Massachusetts, Daniel W. Voorhees and
Governor Williams of Indiana, Leon Abbott of New Jersey, General
Thomas Ewing of Ohio, Robert M. McLane of Maryland, John A.
McClernand of Illinois, and Henry Watterson of Kentucky. The
opening speech of Mr. Augustus Schell, as chairman of the National
Committee, was notable only in demanding the repeal of the Re
sumption Act, a demand which expressed the prevailing Democratic
Vol. II. 37

578 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
sentiment, and which was the more significant as coming from one
of the most conservative of the Democratic leaders — one who had
large financial interests in New York. Mr. Henry Watterson was
made temporary chairman, and General John A. McClernand of
Illinois permanent president of the Convention.
The platform, reported from the Committee on Resolutions, was
believed to have been prepared under the eye of Mr. Tilden, and was
clothed, as general rumor had it, in the rhetoric of Mr. Manton Mar
ble. It was the most elaborate paper of the kind ever put forth by
a National Convention. It was marked by the language of an indict
ment, and contained the extended argument of- a stump speech. Its
one pervading thought, emphasized in resonant phrase, iterating and
reiterating, " that reform is necessary," was an additional proof of its
origin. But with all its effusiveness of expression, it lacked definite-
ness in the enunciation of principles. Only two or three propositions
upon pending issues were explicitly set forth. It accepted the Con
stitutional Amendments ; denounced " the present tariff levied upon
nearly four thousand articles as a masterpiece of injustice, inequality,
and false pretense ; " demanded that " all custom-house taxation
should be only for revenue ; " and then addressed itself to a some
what vituperative arraignment of the Republican party. On the
vital question of the currency it charged that party with " enacting
hindrances to the resumption of specie payments," adding : " As such
a hindrance we denounce the resumption clause of the Act of 1875,
and we here demand its repeal." A controversy arose as to whether
simply the resumption clause should be repealed or the entire
policy condemned ; and a discussion upon that question, led by
General Ewing on the one side and by Mr. Dorsheimer on the other,
was one of the interesting features of the Convention. General
Ewing had made a minority report embodying his views, but at
the close of the discussion it was defeated by a vote of 550 to 219,
and the platform as it had been arranged under Mr. Tilden's eye
was adopted.
The presentation of candidates followed. No one entertained
a doubt of the result, but Governor Hendricks, Senator Bayard,
General Hancock, Joel Parker, and Governor Allen, were formally
named by their respective States. Mr. Tilden was effectively pre
sented by Senator Kernan. The first ballot practically decided the
contest. Mr. Tilden received 404£, Mr. Hendricks 140J, General
Hancock 75„ Governor Allen 34, Senator Bayard 33, with 37 scatter-

MR. TILDEN'S LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE. 579
ing. Mr. Tilden lacked but a few votes of the requisite two-thirds,
and before the second ballot was concluded his nomination was
declared to be unanimous. The work was completed by the choice
of Mr. Hendricks of Indiana for Vice-President. The ticket thus
presented was the result of political skill, as it embodied the largest
measure of Democratic strength. It united the two States of the
North which with a solid vote from the South would control the
country. One candidate suited the hard-money element ; the other
the soft-money element. One aimed to draw recruits ; the other to
hold the old-time Democrats.
Mr. Tilden's letter of acceptance was directed chiefly to the state
of the currency and to the conditions and methods of resuming specie
payments. He had no sympathy with the soft-money ideas which
dominated so large a section of Ms party, but he was constrained to
support the demand of his own platform for the repeal of the Resump
tion clause, and he undertook to do it by urging that a system of
preparation was all-important, and that the promise of a specific day
was of no importance, — forgetting that the Act and the date contem
plated and provided preparation. Though the letter was of unusual
length it was almost exclusively devoted to these financial questions,
and only briefly referred to civil service reform at the conclusion.
On that subject his utterances had the same defect of indefiniteness.
He described recognized evils, without indicating any practical
remedy. Mr. Hayes had been more specific. He had positively
declared against the use of official patronage in elections and re
moved himself from all temptation by giving the voluntary pledge
that if elected he would not be a candidate for a second term. Mr.
Tilden did not bind himself by any personal pledge, but expressed
the " conviction that no reform of the civil service in this country
will be complete and permanent until its Chief Magistrate is Con
stitutionally disqualified for re-election."
The canvass was not marked by striking incidents. Mr. Hayes,
who had no inclination for political management, left the conduct
of the campaign in the hands of party leaders. It was throughout
practically directed by one of the most resolute and competent of
men — Zachariah Chandler of Michigan. Mr. Tilden was not an
orator, and did not follow the example of Mr. Seymour or Mr.
Greeley in going before the people, but skillfully and quietly directed
all the movements of the canvass. In spite of his personal fidelity
to hard money, the equivocal position of his party was used against

582 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
cannot afford to have the result tainted by the suspicion of illegal
or false returns."
The result of the contests in the three States, as determined by
the legal canvassing boards, gave the electoral votes in each of them
to Hayes and Wheeler ; and on the 6th day of December, when the
electors met in the several States, the result of the count from all the
States of the Union showed 185 electors for Hayes and Wheeler, 184
for Tilden and Hendricks. The Democrats had hoped to the last
that at least one of the States, or at least one of the electors in the
three States, would be returned for Tilden and Hendricks, and when
they found that every vote of the three States was counted for Hayes
and Wheeler their anger knew no bounds. Threats were openly
made that Hayes should never be inaugurated. One fiery editor
promised that a hundred thousand Democrats would march to Wash
ington and take possession of the Government in the name of the
President whom they claimed to have been duly elected.
President Grant, noticing the condition of the public mind and
giving full heed to the possibility of danger, quietly strengthened the
military forces in and about Washington, with the intention simply
of suppressing disorder, but as excited Democrats declared, with the
design of installing Hayes by the aid of the Army of the United
States. At no time in General Grant's career did his good judgment,
his cool temperament, and his known courage prove more valuable
to his countrymen. Every honest man knew that the President's
intention was to preserve order and to see that the conflict in regard
to the Presidency was settled according to law. To avert the reign of
a mob he rightfully took care that the requisite military force should
be at the Capital. No greater proof of General Grant's power to
command was given, even on the battle-field, than the quieting effect
of his measures upon the refractory and dangerous elements that
would have been glad to disturb the public peace.
The portentous question which engaged the thoughts of all patri
otic men was the count of the electoral votes when the certificates
from the several States should be submitted to Congress. By a joint
rule, adopted in February, 1865, by the two Houses, preliminary to
counting the electoral votes cast at the Presidential election of 1864,
it was directed that " no electoral vote objected to shall be counted
except by the concurrent votes of the two Houses." This rule necessarily
expired with the Congress which adopted it, but it was observed as
a regulation (no one raising a question against it) in counting the

BILL FOR THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION. 583
electoral votes of 1868 and 1872. Certain Democrats now put forth
the untenable claim that a joint rule adopted twelve years before and
never renewed should be considered in full force. On the other hand,
certain Republicans held that the Vice-President was clothed with
the power to open and count the electoral votes and declare the
result, the two Houses of Congress being present merely as specta
tors. According to the first construction it would be necessary only
for the House of Representatives, which had a Democratic majority,
to reject even one of the three disputed States from the count, and
Mr. Tilden would be left with a majority of the electors. According
to the second construction, the acting Vice-President, Mr. Ferry, who
was a Republican, could count the three States in favor of Mr. Hayes,
against the protest of either or both branches, and he would be
President-elect. It was soon found necessary to abandon both pretensions. On
the 14th of December the House adopted a resolution (reported from
the Judiciary Committee by Mr. Knott of Kentucky, and originally
introduced by Mr. McCrary of Iowa) which, recognizing in a preamble
that " there are differences of opinion as to the proper mode of count
ing the electoral votes for President and Vice-President," provided
for the appointment of a " committee of seven members, to act in con
junction with any similar committee to be appointed by the Senate,
to prepare and report without delay such a measure, either legislative
or Constitutional, as may in their judgment be best calculated to
accomplish the desired end ; and that said committee have leave to
report at any time." The Senate on the 18th of December appointed
a similar committee empowered to confer and act with the committee
of the House of Representatives.1
From the two committees acting as one, Mr. Edmunds on the 18th
of January (1877) reported a bill " to provide for and regulate the
counting of votes for President and Vice-President, and the decision
of questions arising thereon, for the term commencing March 4,
1 The joint committee respecting the mode of counting the electoral votes consisted
of the following members : —
Senators : George F. Edmunds of Vermont, F. T. Frelinghuysen of New Jersey,
John A. Logan of Illinois, Oliver P. Morton of Indiana, Allen G. Thurman of Ohio,
Thomas F. Bayard of Delaware, and Matt W. Ransom of North Carolina.
General Logan was detained in Illinois, and Mr. Conkling was substituted on the
committee. Representatives : Henry B. Payne of Ohio, Eppa Hunton of Virginia, Abram
S. Hewitt of New York, William M. Springer of Illinois, George W. McCrary of Iowa,
George F. Hoar of Massachusetts, and George Willard of Michigan.

582 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
cannot afford to have the result tainted by the suspicion of illegal
or false returns."
The result of the contests in the three States, as determined by
the legal canvassing boards, gave the electoral votes in each of them
to Hayes and Wheeler ; and on the 6th day of December, when the
electors met in the several States, the result of the count from all the
States of the Union showed 185 electors for Hayes and Wheeler, 184
for Tilden and Hendricks. The Democrats had hoped to the last
that at least one of the States, or at least one of the electors in the
three States, would be returned for Tilden and Hendricks, and when
they found that every vote of the three States was counted for Hayes
and Wheeler their anger knew no bounds. Threats were openly
made that Hayes should never be inaugurated. One fiery editor
promised that a hundred thousand Democrats would march to Wash
ington and take possession of the Government in the name of the
President whom they claimed to have been duly elected.
President Grant, noticing the condition of the public mind and
giving full heed to the possibility of danger, quietly strengthened the
military forces in and about Washington, with the intention simply
of suppressing disorder, but as excited Democrats declared, with the
design of installing Hayes by the aid of the Army of the United
States. At no time in General Grant's career did his good judgment,
his cool temperament, and his known courage prove more valuable
to his countrymen. Every honest man knew that the President's
intention was to preserve order and to see that the conflict in regard
to the Presidency was settled according to law. To avert the reign of
a mob he rightfully took care that the requisite military force should
be at the Capital. No greater proof of General Grant's power to
command was given, even on the battle-field, than the quieting effect
of his measures upon the refractory and dangerous elements that
would haAre been glad to disturb the public peace.
The portentous question which engaged the thoughts of all patri
otic men was the count of the electoral votes when the certificates
from the several States should be submitted to Congress. By a joint
rule, adopted in February, 1865, by the two Houses, preliminary to
counting the electoral votes cast at the Presidential election of 1864,
it was directed that " no electoral vote objected to shall be counted
except by the concurrent votes of the two Houses." This rule necessarily
expired with the Congress which adopted it, but it was observed as
a regulation (no one raising a question against it) in counting the

BILL FOR THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION. 583
electoral votes of 1868 and 1872. Certain Democrats now put forth
the untenable claim that a joint rule adopted twelve years before and
never renewed should be considered in full force. On the other hand,
certain Republicans held that the Vice-President was clothed with
the power to open and count the electoral votes and declare the
result, the two Houses of Congress being present merely as specta
tors. According to the first construction it would be necessary only
for the House of Representatives, which had a Democratic majority,
to reject even one of the three disputed States from the count, and
Mr. Tilden would be left with a majority of the electors. According
to the second construction, the acting Vice-President, Mr. Ferry, who
was a Republican, could count the three States in favor of Mr. Hayes,
against the protest of either or both branches, and he would be
President-elect. It was soon found necessary to abandon both pretensions. On
the 14th of December the House adopted a resolution (reported from
the Judiciary Committee by Mr. Knott of Kentucky, and originally
introduced by Mr. McCrary of Iowa) which, recognizing in a preamble
that " there are differences of opinion as to the proper mode of count
ing the electoral votes for President and Vice-President," provided
for the appointment of a " committee of seven members, to act in con
junction with any similar committee to be appointed by the Senate,
to prepare and report without delay such a measure, either legislative
or Constitutional, as may in their judgment be best calculated to
accomplish the desired end ; and that said committee have leave to
report at any time." The Senate on the 18th of December appointed
a similar committee empowered to confer and act with the committee
of the House of Representatives.1
From the two committees acting as one, Mr. Edmunds on the 18th
of January (1877) reported a bill " to provide for and regulate the
counting of votes for President and Vice-President, and the decision
of questions arising thereon, for the term commencing March 4,
1 The joint committee respecting the mode of counting the electoral votes consisted
of the following members : —
Senators : George F. Edmunds of Vermont, F. T. Frelinghuysen of New Jersey,
John A. Logan of Illinois, Oliver P. Morton of Indiana, Allen G. Thurman of Ohio,
Thomas F. Bayard of Delaware, and Matt W. Ransom of North Carolina.
General Logan was detained in Illinois, and Mr. Conkling was substituted on the
committee. Representatives : Henry B. Payne of Ohio, Eppa Hunton of Virginia, Abram
S. Hewitt of New York, William M. Springer of Illinois, George W. McCrary of Iowa,
George F. Hoar of Massachusetts, and George Willard of Michigan.

584 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
1877." Under the regulations of the proposed bill it was agreed that
" no electoral vote or votes from any State from which but one return
has been received shall be rejected, except by the affirmative vote of
the two Houses," in this respect reversing the joint rule of 1865.
Where more than one return had been received a reference to an
Electoral Commission was provided — the Commission to be com
posed of five members of the Senate, five members of the House and
five justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. When this
Electoral Commission should decide any question submitted to it,
touching the return from any State, the bill declared that the decision
should stand, unless rejected by the concurrent votes of the two
Houses. Every member of the Senate and House committees, with
the exception of Senator Morton of Indiana, joined in the report.
After an elaborate and very able debate the bill was passed in the
Senate on the 24th of January by ayes 47, noes 17. Two days later
it passed the House by a large majority, ayes 191, noes 86.
The mode prescribed in this act for selecting the members of the
Electoral Commission was by viva voce vote in the Senate and in the
House, — it being tacitly agreed that the Senate should appoint three
Republicans and two Democrats, and that the House should appoint
three Democrats and two Republicans, — each political party in caucus
selecting its own men. In regard to the Commissioners to be taken
from the Supreme Bench it was ordered that the " Justices assigned
to the First, Third, Eighth, and Ninth circuits shall select, in such
manner as a majority of them may deem fit, another Associate Jus
tice of the said Court ; which five persons shall be members of such
Commission." The four Justices thus absolutely appointed were
Nathan Clifford, Samuel F. Miller, Stephen J. Field, and William
Strong. From the hour when the Electoral Bill was reported to the
Senate the assumption was general that the fifth Justice selected for
the Commission would be David Davis. It was currently believed
that Mr. Abram S. Hewitt had given the assurance or at least strong
intimation that Judge. Davis would be selected, as one of the argu
ments to induce Mr. Tilden to support the Electoral Bill.
Originally a Republican, Judge Davis had for some years affiliated
with the Democratic party, and had in the late election preferred Mr.
Tilden to Mr. Hayes. Without any imputation of improper motives
there can hardly be a doubt that the Democrats, in their almost
unanimous support of the Electoral Bill, believed that Judge Davis
would be selected, and by parity of reasoning the large Republican

ELECTORAL COMMISSION ORGANIZED. 585
opposition to the bill might be attributed to the same cause. But an
unlooked-for event disturbed all calculations and expectations. On
the 26th of January the House was to vote on the Electoral Bill, and
a large majority of the members were committed to its support. To
the complete surprise of both parties it happened that Judge Davis
was elected senator from Illinois on the preceding afternoon, January
25th. Chosen by the Democratic members of the Legislature, reck
oned as a Democratic senator elect, there was an obvious impropriety,
which Judge Davis saw as quickly as others, in his being selected ;
and the four judges unanimously agreed upon Joseph P. Bradley as
the fifth judicial member of the Commission.1
The Electoral Commission was organized on the thirty-first day of
January, 1877. Eminent counsel were in attendance on both sides,2
and the hearing proceeded with regularity.
The case of Florida was the first adjudicated before the Com
mission, and the electors supporting Hayes and Wheeler were de
clared to have been regularly chosen. Only eight of the Commission
certified the result — Justices Miller, Strong, and Bradley, Senators
Edmunds, Morton, and Frelinghuysen, Representatives Garfield and
Hoar — the eight Republicans. It was confirmed by the Senate by
a vote of 44 to 24. The House voted against confirming it ; but,
according to the Electoral law, the decision of the Commission could
not be set aside unless both Houses united in an adverse vote. The
cases of the two other States, Louisiana and South Carolina, were
in like manner decided in favor of the Republican electors.
1 The Commission as organized was as follows: —
Justices of the Supreme Court : Nathan Clifford, Samuel F. Miller, Stephen J.
Field, William Strong, Joseph P. Bradley.
Senators: George F. Edmunds, Oliver P. Morton, Frederick T. Frelinghuysen,
Thomas F. Bayard, Allen G. Thurman.
Representatives: Henry B. Payne, Eppa Hunton, Josiah G. Abbott, James A.
Garfield, George F. Hoar.
2 The following counsel attended: —
On the Democratic side : Judge Jeremiah S. Black, Charles O'Connor, John A.
Campbell, formerly of the Supreme Court, Lyman Trumbull, Montgomery Blair,
Matthew H. Carpenter, Ashbel Green, George Hoadly, Richard T. Merrick, William C.
Whitney, Alexander Porter Morse.
On the Republican side : William M. Evarts, Stanley Matthews, E. W. Stoughton,
Samuel Shellabarger. In addition to the regular counsel the objectors to any certificate
or vote were allowed to be heard by two of their number. Senators Howe, Christiancy,
Sherman, McDonald, Sargent, Mitchell, C. W. Jones, Conover and Cooper, together
with Representatives Kasson, William Lawrence, David Dudley Field, Tucker, Hurd,
McCrary, Hurlbut, Dunnell, Cochrane, Thompson and Woodburn were appointed to
this duty.

586 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
The complication in Oregon was next decided. As soon as Mr.
Tilden's campaign managers began to fear that the electoral votes of
the three Southern States might be given to Hayes and Wheeler,
they turned their attention to securing an electoral vote elsewhere
for Tilden and Hendricks. The plan devised was to find in some
Northern State (with a Democratic Governor) an elector who might
be disqualified under some technical disability. Oregon seemed to
furnish the desired conditions. One of the Republican electors,
John W. Watts, was postmaster in a small office, and was therefore
declared to be ineligible ; and Governor Grover gave the certificate
to E. A. Cronin, who had received 1,049 fewer votes than Watts,
but who had the largest number of the three Democratic candi
dates for electors. On the 6th of December, the day appointed for
the meeting of the Electors, the two Republican Electors to whom
Governor Grover had given certificates (W. H. Odell and J. C.
Cartwright) refused to meet with Cronin or recognize him in any
way ; whereupon the officially certified list of votes and certificates
of election were, by Governor Grover's order, delivered to Cronin
and withheld from the Electors legally chosen by the voters of the
State. The two Electors who had received certificates of their elec
tion then obtained a certified copy of the returns, met and elected
Watts to fill the vacancy, and then proceeded to cast three votes for
Hayes. Cronin thereupon immediately elected to fill the vacancies,
two men who had not been voted for at all by the people, organized
a fraudulent Electoral College, and went through the farce of cast
ing his own vote for Tilden, while his two confederates (J. N. T.
Miller and John Parker) voted for Hayes. The extraordinary and
illegal action of Governor Grover had been urged through telegrams
by Mr. Abram S. Hewitt, Chairman of the Democratic National
Committee and by Mr. Manton Marble, a close personal friend of
Mr. Tilden. The Electoral Commission summarily condemned the
fraudulent proceeding and gave the three Electoral votes of Oregon
to Hayes and Wheeler. The Democratic members of the Commis
sion united with the Republicans in rejecting the factitious votes
cast by the men associated with Cronin, but at the same time they
voted to deprive Hayes of Watts' vote and to give the vote of Cronin
to Tilden. The proceedings in the Commission and in Congress were not
closed until the second day of March (1877). Meanwhile the capital
and indeed the country, were filled with sensational and distracting

WORK OF THE COMMISSION CONFIRMED. 587
rumors : First, that the Democratic majority in the House would
" filibuster " and destroy the count ; second, that they had agreed not
to " filibuster " by reason of some arrangement made with Mr. Hayes
in regard to future policies in the South. Every mischievous report
was spread ; and for five weeks the country was kept in a state of
uneasiness and alarm, not knowing what a day might bring forth.
But in the end the work of the Commission was confirmed ; and Mr.
Hayes was declared to have been elected by the precise vote which
Mr. Chandler, on behalf of the Republican National Committee,
claimed the day after the polls closed in November — 185 Republican
electors, 184 Democratic electors. It was the first instance in the
history of the country where a succession to the Presidency had been
disputed. Differences of opinion in regard to the legality and regu
larity of the election in single States had arisen in more than one
Presidential election ; but it happened in these cases that the count
ing of the vote of the disputed States either way would not affect
the decision, and therefore no test was made.

The result was undoubtedly a great disappointment to Mr. Tilden,
and even greater to his immediate friends and supporters. They at
once raised the cry that they had been defrauded, that Mr. Hayes
had received title to his office against the law and against the evidence,
that he was to occupy a place which the people had voted to confer
upon Mr. Tilden. In every form of insinuation and accusation, by
almost every Democratic paper in the country, it was affirmed that
Mr. Hayes was a fraudulent President. This cry was repeated until
the mass of the party believed that they had been made the victims
of a conspiracy, and had been entrapped by an Electoral Commis
sion. Yet the first authoritative movement for the committee that
reported the Electoral Bill was from a Southern Democrat in the
House, and the Electoral Bill itself was supported by an over
whelming number of Democrats in both branches ; whereas the joint
vote of the Republicans was, by a large majority, against the bill.
The vote of the Democrats in favor of the Electoral Bill, as
compared with the Democrats who voted against it in both branches,
was in the proportion of more than ten to one ; whereas but two-fifths
of the Republicans in the two Houses voted for the bill, and three-
fifths against it. Only a single Democrat in the Senate, Mr. Eaton

588 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
of Connecticut, cast a negative vote ; and he acknowledged in doing
it that the State Senate of Connecticut, controlled by the Democrats,
had requested him to support the bill. All the leading Democrats
of the Senate — Mr. Thurman, Mr. Bayard, Mr. Pinkney Whyte —
made earnest speeches in favor of it. Mr. McDonald of Indiana
declared that the popular sentiment of his State was overwhelmingly
in favor of it, and he reproached Mr. Morton for opposing it.
Other prominent Republicans in the Senate — Mr. Sherman, Mr.
Cameron of Pennsylvania, Mr. Hamlin, Mr. Blaine — earnestly united
with Mr. Morton in his opposition to the measure.
The division was the same in the House. Mr. Henry B. Payne
of Ohio, Mr. Abram S. Hewitt, Mr. Clarkson N. Potter, Mr. Samuel
S. Cox, and nearly all the influential men on the Democratic side,
united in supporting the bill ; while General Garfield, Mr. Frye, Mr.
Kasson, Mr. Hale, Mr. Martin I. Townsend, and the leading Repub
licans of the House, opposed it. The House was stimulated to
action by a memorial presented by Mr. Randall L. Gibson from
New Orleans, demanding the passage of the bill ; while Governor
Vance of North Carolina, afterwards elected senator, telegraphed
that the North-Carolina Legislature had almost unanimously passed
resolutions in favor of it. The Democrats, therefore, had in a
remarkable degree concentrated their influence and their votes in
support of the measure.1 It was fashioned precisely as they desired it.
They agreed to every line and every letter. They agreed that a ma
jority of the Commission, constituted as they ordained it should be,
might decide these questions, and when the final decision was made
they cried out in anger because it was not in Mr. Tilden's favor.
One of the ablest judges of the Supreme Court, Joseph P. Bradley,
has been made the subject of unmerited censure because he decided
the points of law according to his own convictions (sustained by
the convictions of Justices Miller and Strong), and not according
to the convictions of Justices Clifford and Field.
The Democratic dissatisfaction was instinctive and inevitable.

1 The following is an exact statement of the vote on the Electoral Bill in both
branches: — In the Senate 26 Democrats voted for the Bill and 1 against it.
" " " 21 Republicans " " " " " 16 " "
In the House 160 Democrats " " " " " 17 " "
" " " 31 Republicans " '  '69 " "
In the two Houses jointly, 186 Democrats voted for the Electoral Bill and 18 against
it, while 52 Republicans voted for the Bill and 75 against it.

THE POTTER INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE. 589
In the very nature of things it is impossible after an election to
constitute a Commission whose decisions will be accepted by both
political organizations as impartial. It is, or it certainly should be,
practicable to establish by law, before the election to which it may
first apply, a permanent mode of adjudicating disputed points in the
return of Presidential votes. Yet with the serious admonition of
1876, Congress has neglected the duty which may well be regarded
as the most important and most imperative that can devolve upon it.
The government of a Republic is left to all the chances of anarchy
so long as there is no mode established by law for determining the
election of its Chief Executive officer.
The disappointment of the Democratic masses continued after
the inauguration of President Hayes, and it took the form of a de
mand for an investigation. It was not expected, of course, that any
thing could be done to affect the decision of the Electoral Commis
sion, but the friends of Mr. Tilden clamored for an exposure of Re
publican practices in the Presidential campaign. The Democrats in
Congress were less eager for this course than the Democrats outside
of Congress. It was understood that personal and urgent requests —
one coming from Mr. Tilden himself — were necessary to induce Mr.
Clarkson N. Potter to take the lead by offering on the 13th of May,
1878, a resolution for the appointment of a select committee of
eleven " to inquire into the alleged false and fraudulent canvass and
return of votes by State, county, parish, and precinct officers in the
States of Louisiana and Florida, and into all the facts which in the
judgment of said committee are connected with or are pertinent
thereto." The resolution was adopted, and a committee was ap
pointed, with power to sit during the recess of Congress.1
Congress adjourned on the 20th of June, and after a short vaca
tion Mr. Potter's committee entered upon its extensive inquiries.
Perhaps with the view of stimulating the Democratic members of
the committee to zeal in the performance of their duty, Mr. Man-
ton Marble early in August published a carefully prepared letter on
the electoral counting of 1876. Mr. Marble was unsparing in his
denunciation of the Republicans for having, as he alleged, obtained
the election of Hayes and Wheeler by corruption in the Southern
1 The following were the members composing the committee : —
Clarkson N. Potter of New York, William R. Morrison of Illinois, Eppa Hunton of
Virginia, William S. Stenger of Pennsylvania, John A. McMahon of Ohio, J. C. S. Black
burn of Kentucky, William M. Springer of Illinois, Benjamin F. Butler of Massachusetts,
Jacob D. Cox of Ohio, Thomas B. Reed of Maine, Frank Hiscock of New York.

590 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
States. He dealt with unction upon the fact that the absolute trust
of Mr. Tilden and his adherents in the Presidential contest had been in
moral forces. As the accusations put forth were attributed to Mr.
Tilden, and only the remarkable rhetoric of the letter to Mr. Marble,
the public interest was fully aroused, and the threatened exposures
impatiently awaited.
The majority of the committee reported, though perhaps with
greater elaboration, substantially the same facts and assumptions that
had been brought against the Republicans in the Southern States
directly after the election, nearly two years before. If any thing new
was produced, it was in detail rather than in substance, and undoubt
edly showed some of the loose practices to which the character of
Southern elections has given rise. Between the violence of the rebel
organizers, and the shifts and evasions to which their opponents, both
white and colored, have been subjected, the elections in many of those
States have undoubtedly been irregular ; but the Committee did not
establish any fraudulent voting on the part of Republicans. Freely
analyzed, indeed, the accusations against the colored voters were
in another sense still graver accusations against the white voters.
Duplicity is a weapon often employed against tyranny by its victims,
and there is always danger that a popular election where law is
unfairly administered and violence constantly impending, will bring
into play on both sides the worst elements of society.
But all interest in the investigation as it was originally designed,
was suddenly diverted by incidents which were wholly unlooked for
when Mr. Potter moved his resolution and when Mr. Marble wrote
his letter — giving an unexpected conclusion to the grand inquest so
impressively heralded.
It happened that during an inquiry into the Oregon case by
a Senate Committee, some thirty thousand political telegrams
(mainly in cipher) had been brought into the custody of the com
mittee by subpoenas to the Western Union Telegraph Company.
The great mass of these telegrams were returned to the Company
without translation. About seven hundred, however, had been re
tained by an employi of the committee. The re-opening of the
Presidential controversy by the Democrats, and especially the offen
sive letter of Mr. Marble, led to a renewed effort to decipher the
reserved telegrams. The translation was accomplished by an able
and ingenious gentleman on the editorial staff of the New-York
Tribune (Mr. William M. Grosvenor), and the result disclosed aston-

ATTEMPTED BRIBERY OF ELECTORS. 591
ishing attempts at bribery on the part of Democratic agents in South
Carolina, Florida, and Oregon. What may have been done of the
same character in Louisiana can only be inferred, for no dispatches
from that State were found.
The gentlemen who went to Florida in Mr. Tilden's interests
were Mr. Manton Marble, Mr. C. W. Woolley, and Mr. John F.
Coyle. Mr. Marble's sobriquet in the cipher dispatches was Moses,
Mr. Woolley took the suggestive pseudonym of Fox, while Mr. Coyle
was known as Max. Their joint mission was to secure the Electoral
vote of the State, by purchase if need be, not quite as openly, but
as directly as if they were negotiating for a cargo of cotton or
offering money for an orange-grove. Mr. Marble was alarmed
soon after his arrival by finding that the Democratic electors had
"only about one hundred majority on certified copies, while the
Republicans claimed the same on returns." Growing anxious,
he telegraphed on November 22 to Mr. William T. Pelton (a
nephew of Mr. Tilden) : " Woolley asked me to say let forces
be got together immediately for contingencies either here or in
Louisiana." A few days later Mr. Marble telegraphed: "Have
just received a proposition to hand over at any time required,
Tilden decision of Board and certificate of Governor, for $200,000."
Mr. Pelton thought the " proposition too high," and thereupon Mr.
Marble and Mr. Woolley each found that an Elector could be
secured for 150,000, and so telegraphed Mr. Pelton. Mr. Pelton, with
commendable economy, warned them that he did not wish to pay
twice for the same article, and with true commercial caution advised
the Florida agents that "they could not draw until the vote of the
Elector was received." According to Mr. Woolley the power was
received too late, and on the 5th of December Mr. Marble closed the
interesting correspondence with these words to Mr. Pelton : " Propo
sition failed. Finished responsibility as Moses. Last night Woolley
found me and said he had nothing, which I knew already. Tell
Tilden to saddle Blackstone."
Mr. Smith M. Weed went on a similar errand to South Carolina.
He did not attempt to hide behind any disguised name, and simply
telegraphed over his own initial. On the 16th of November he in
formed Mr. Henry Havermeyer, who seemed to be co-operating with
Mr. Pelton in New York, that " the Board demand $75,000 for giving
us two or three electors," and that " something beyond will be needful
for the interceder, perhaps $10,000." At a later hour of the same day

592 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
he thought he had made a better bargain, and telegraphed Mr. Haver
meyer that " it looks now as though the thing would work at $75,000
for all seven votes." The next day Mr. Weed began to fear the in
terposition of the court, and advised Mr. Havermeyer to "press
otherwheres; for no certainty here, simply a hope." Twenty-four
hours later Mr. Weed's confidence revived, and on the 18th he tele
graphed, — " Majority of board have been secured. Cost is $80,000,
— one parcel to be sent of $65,000 ; one of $10,000 ; one of $5,000 ;
all to be in $500 or $1,000 bills, notes to be accepted as parties accept
and given up upon votes of South Carolina being given to Tilden's
friends. Do this at once and have cash ready to reach Baltimore
Sunday night." Mr. Weed then started to Baltimore with the inten
tion of meeting a messenger from New York with the money. Mr.
Pelton was there but had not brought the money, and both went to
New York to secure it.
Meanwhile the Canvassing Board of South Carolina reported the
returns to the court, showing on their face the election of the Hayes
Electors, and of a Democratic Legislature which would count the vote
for Governor. The Board also reported that the votes of Lawrence
and Edgefield Counties ought to be thrown out, which would make
a Republican Legislature. On the 22d the court issued an order to
the Board to certify the members of the Legislature according to the
face of the returns, but to revise and correct the Electoral vote ac
cording to the precinct returns. Without receiving this order the
Canvassing Board, whose powers expired by statutory limitation on
that day, perceiving the purpose of the Court to prevent any count
of the Electoral vote, declared and certified the election of the Re
publican electors, rejected the votes of Lawrence and Edgefield
Counties, certified the election of a Republican Legislature, and then
adjourned without day.
This result put an end to the plans of Mr. Weed and Mr. Pelton
for bribing the Canvassing Board. But their resources were not yet
exhausted. On the 4th of December Mr. Pelton offered to furnish
$20,000 if it " would secure several electors." This plan also failing,
he telegraphed, advising " that the Court under the pending quo
warranto proceedings should arrest the Electors for contempt, and
imprison them separately during Wednesday," the day for casting
their votes for President and Vice-President ; " for," as he plaintively
added, " all depends on your State." Imprisoning " separately " was
essential, for if they were imprisoned together they could have cast
the Electoral vote.

END OF THE POTTER INVESTIGATION. 593
In Oregon the attempt to bribe was quite as bold as in the two
Southern States. Mr. George L. Miller of Omaha, member of the
National Democratic Committee for Nebraska, had been requested
by Mr. Pelton to go to Oregon, but had sent in his stead one J. N. H.
Patrick, who upon his arrival at Portland began an active telegraphic
correspondence with Mr. Pelton. On the 28th of November he tele
graphed Mr. Pelton that Governor Grover would issue a certificate
of election to one Democratic Elector (Cronin), and added, "Must
purchase Republican Elector to recognize and act with the Democrat,
and secure vote to prevent trouble. Deposit $10,000 to my credit."
This telegram was endorsed by Senator Kelly, to whom Mr. Abram
S. Hewitt had on the 17th of November telegraphed at San Francisco
when on his way to Washington, that circumstances required his im
mediate return to Oregon to consult Governor Grover. Mr. Pelton
replied to Mr. Patrick, " If you will make obligation contingent on
result in March, it will be done, and incremable slightly if necessary,"
to which Mr. Patrick responded that the fee could not be made con
tingent ; whereupon the sum of $8,000 was deposited to his credit
on the 1st of December, in New York, but intelligence of it reached
Oregon too late to carry out any attempt to corrupt a Republican
Elector. As nothing had been known of these extraordinary facts when
Mr. Potter moved for the appointment of his investigating committee,
the House of Representatives, on the 20th of January, 1879, directed
that committee to investigate the cipher telegrams. Before this com
mittee the genuineness of the telegrams and the correctness of the
translation by the Tribune were abundantly established. Some of
the principal persons connected with them appeared before the com
mittee to explain and to excuse. Senator Kelly had previously
stated that he endorsed Mr. Patrick's dispatch without knowing
its contents, a statement probable in itself and sustained by Mr.
Kelly's good reputation. Mr. Marble swore that he transmitted to
headquarters information of the opportunities for corruption merely
"as danger signals." Mr. Weed admitted and tried to justify his
efforts to bribe the South Carolina Canvassing Board. Mr. Pelton
admitted all his attempts and took upon himself the full responsi
bility, saying that if money became actually necessary, he intended
to call for it upon Mr. Edward Cooper and the members of the
National Democratic Committee. Mr. Cooper swore that he first
knew that Mr. Pelton was conducting such negotiations when he
Vol. II. 38

594 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
went to Baltimore ; and that when on the next day he received from
Mr. Pelton a cipher telegram requesting that the $80,000 should be
sent to him at Baltimore, he informed Mr. Tilden what Pelton was
doing, whereupon he was recalled and "the thing was stopped."
Under cross-examination by Mr. Reed of Maine, Mr. Tilden swore
that he knew nothing of any of the telegrams ; that the first he knew
of the Florida transactions was when they were mentioned to him
by Mr. Marble after his return from Florida ; that he was informed
by Mr. Cooper of the South Carolina negotiations and stopped them ;
that he scorned to defend his title by such means as were employed
to acquire a felonious possession. Neither Mr. Patrick nor Mr.
Woolley appeared before the committee.
Two general conclusions may safely be drawn from the voluminous
evidence : first, that the Democratic agents in the contested States of
Florida, South Carolina, and Oregon earnestly and persistently en
deavored to change the result from Hayes to Tilden by the use of
large sums of money as bribes to official persons to violate their
duty; second, that the negotiations for that purpose do not show
that any member of any Canvassing Board or any Presidential
Elector ever contemplated betraying his trust for such induce
ment. The interest throughout the investigation centred upon
Mr. Tilden, and concerning him and his course there followed
general discussion — angry accusation and warm defense. There is
nothing in the testimony to contradict the oath taken by Mr. Tilden
and there has been no desire to fasten a guilty responsibility upon
him. But the simple fact remains that a Presidential canvass which
began with a ponderous manifesto in favor of " reform " in every
department of the Government, and which accused those who had
been entrusted with power for sixteen years of every form of dis
honesty and corruption, ended with a persistent and shameless effort
to bribe the electors of three States !

CHAPTER XXVI.
Inauguration of President Hayes. —His Southern Policy. — Appointment of his
Cabinet. — Organization op Senate and House of Representatives. —Re-elec
tion of Speaker Randall. — Silver Discussion. — Coinage of Silver Dollar. —
Report of Silver Commission. — Discussion on Silver Question. — Product of
Silver and Gold. — Thirty-two Years of Each. — Navigation Interests.—
Loss of Ground by the United States. — Reason therefor. — How can it be
REGAINED ?
PRESIDENT HAYES was inaugurated on the 5th day of March
(1877) — the 4th falling on Sunday. As matter of precau
tion the oath of office was administered to him by Chief Justice
Waite on Sunday — Mr. Hayes deeming it wise and prudent that he
should be ready as President of the United States to do his official
duty if any Executive act should that day be required for the pub
lic safety. Although his title had been in doubt until within
forty-eight hours of his accession, he had carefully prepared his Inau
gural address. It was made evident by his words that he would
adopt a new policy on the Southern question and upon the question
of Civil Service Reform. It was plainly his determination to with
draw from the South all National protection to the colored people,
and to put the white population of the reconstructed States upon
their good faith and their honor, as to their course touching the
political rights of all citizens.
The Inaugural address did not give satisfaction to the radical
Republicans, but was received with every mark of approbation by the
more conservative elements of the party. Many Democrats would
have supported Mr. Hayes cordially but for the mode of his election.
It was impossible for them to recover from the chagrin and disap
pointment of Mr. Tilden's defeat. The new President, therefore,
began his administration with a bitter personal opposition from the
Democracy, and with a distrust of his own policy on the part of a
large number of those who had signally aided in his election.
The one special source of dissatisfaction was the intention of the
President to disregard the State elections in the three States upon
595

596 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
whose votes his own title depended. The concentration of interest was
upon the State of Louisiana, where Governor Packard was officially
declared to have received a larger popular majority than President
Hayes. By negotiation of certain Commissioners who went to Louisi
ana under appointment of the President, the Democratic candidate for
Governor, Francis T. Nicholls, was installed in office and Governor
Packard was left helpless.1 No act of President Hayes did so much
to create discontent within the ranks of the Republican party. No
act of his did so much to give color to the thousand rumors that
filled the political atmosphere, touching a bargain between the
President's friends and some Southern leaders, pending the decis
ion of the Electoral Commission. The election of the President and
the election of Mr. Packard rested substantially upon the same foun
dation, and many Republicans felt that the President's refusal to
recognize Mr. Packard as Governor of Louisiana furnished ground
to his enemies for disputing his own election. Having been placed in
the Presidency by a title as strong as could be confirmed under the
Constitution and laws of the country, it was, in the judgment of the
majority of the Republican party, an unwise and unwarranted act on
the part of the President to purchase peace in the South by surren
dering Louisiana to the Democratic party.
The Cabinet selected by President Hayes was regarded as one
of great ability. Mr. Evarts, Secretary of State, Mr. Sherman, Sec
retary of the Treasury, Mr. Schurz, Secretary of the Interior, were
well known.
— The Secretary of War, George W. McCrary of Iowa, had steadily
grown in public esteem by his service in the House of Representa
tives, and possessed every quality desirable for the admmistration of
a great public trust.
— Mr. Richard W. Thompson of Indiana, appointed Secretary of the
Navy, was in his sixty-eighth year, and had been a representative in
Congress thirty-five years before. He was known throughout the
West as an ardent Whig and an equally ardent Republican.
— Charles Devens of Massachusetts was appointed Attorney-General.
His standing as a lawyer can be inferred from the fact that he left
the Supreme Bench of his State to accept the position. To eminence
1 The Louisiana Commission was composed as follows:
General Joseph R. Hawley of Connecticut, Judge Charles B. Lawrence of Ohio,
General John M. Harlan of Kentucky, Ex-Governor John C. Brown of Tennessee, Hon.
Wayne McVeagh of Pennsylvania.

CABINET OF PRESIDENT HAYES. 597
in his profession he added an honorable record as a soldier, having
served with distinction in the civil war and attained the rank of
Brigadier-General. As a private gentleman he was justly and widely
esteemed.
— For Postmaster-General the President selected David M. Key of
Tennessee, who during the previous session had served in the Sen
ate, by appointment of the Governor of his State, to fill the va
cancy caused by the death of Ex-President Johnson. The selection
of Mr. Key was made to emphasize the change of Southern policy
which President Hayes had foreshadowed in his Inaugural address.
Mr. Key was a Democrat, and personally popular. A Southern
Democrat in a Republican Cabinet presented a novel political com
bination, and it is evidence of the tact and good sense of Mr. Key
that he administered his Department in such manner as to secure,
not merely the respect of the Republican party, but the sincere
friendship of many of its leading members. He was wise enough
and fortunate enough to induce Hon. James N. Tyner, whom he suc
ceeded as Postmaster-General, to remain in the Department as First
Assistant, in order that Republican senators and representatives
might freely communicate upon party questions, which Mr. Key
delicately refrained from even hearing. The suggestion was made,
however, by men of sound judgment, that in projecting a new policy
towards the South, which was intended to be characterized by greater
leniency in certain directions, it would have been wiser in a party
point of view, and more enduring in its intrinsic effect, to make the
overture through a Republican statesman of rank and celebrity.
Among the new senators of the Forty-fifth Congress were some
who were transferred from the House and were already well known
to the country. James B. Beck of Kentucky, George F. Hoar of
Massachusetts, Benjamin H. Hill of Georgia, had each made a bril
liant record by his service in the House. Mr. Blaine of Maine now
entered for a full term, but had come to the Senate several months
before as the successor of Honorable Lot M. Morrill, when that gen
tleman was called by President Grant to administer the Treasury
Department. — Among those who had not served in Congress were
several distinguished men. David Davis of Illinois, who had been
fifteen years on the Bench of the Supreme Court of the United States,
now entered the Senate as the successor of General Logan. With
the exception of John Rutledge, who served in the House of Repre
sentatives after he had been on the Supreme Bench, Judge Davis is

598 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
the only man who entered Congress after service on the Bench.
John Jay was Minister to Great Britain and Governor of New York
after he resigned the Chief-Justiceship; and Oliver Ellsworth was
Minister to France after his retirement from the Bench. A large
proportion of the justices had been in Congress before they entered
upon their judicial service ; but the transfer of Judge Davis to the
Senate was a reversal of the natural order.
Samuel J. Kirkwood, already well known by his service in the
Senate, now returned from Iowa. — Preston B. Plumb of Kansas,
who had been printer, editor, soldier in the civil war with the rank
of Lieutenant-Colonel, member of the Bar, reporter of the Supreme
Court of his State, Speaker of the House of Representatives of Kan
sas, now succeeded James M. Harvey. Mr. Plumb was actively
and largely engaged in business affairs, and had perhaps as accurate
knowledge of the resources of the West as any man in the country.
— A. H. Garland entered from" Arkansas, being promoted from the
Governorship of his State. He was popular among his own people, and
had been a member of the Secession Convention and of both branches
of the Confederate Congress. His reputation as a lawyer had preceded
his entrance into the Senate, where he was at once accorded high rank
among his political friends. — John R. McPherson, a business man of
good repute in New Jersey, succeeded Mr. Frelinghuysen. — Edward
H. Rollins of New Hampshire, who had creditably served six years
in the House, now came to the Senate as the successor of Aaron H.
Cragin. — Alvin Saunders, who was appointed Governor of the Ter
ritory of Nebraska by Mr. Lincoln in 1861, and held the position
until the State was admitted to the Union in 1867, now came as one
of her senators. — Richard Coke who had been Governor of Texas,
and Lafayette Grover who had been Governor of Oregon, now
entered the Senate. — Isham G. Harris, who had been in Congress
twenty-five years before and had played a somewhat conspicuous part
in the rebellion as Governor of Tennessee, now succeeded Henry
Cooper as senator from that State.
— William Pinkney Whyte, who entered the Senate the previous
Congress for a full term, had already served in that body for a
brief period in 1868-69, succeeding Reverdy Johnson when he re
signed to accept the mission to England. In the interval between
the close of his first service and his second election he had served
as Governor of Maryland. He is a grandson of the eminent William
Pinkney, who was a member of the Senate at the time of his death,

SENATORS OF FORTY-FIFTH CONGRESS. 599
and who as an orator was considered by Mr. Benton, Mr. Clay, and
the younger men of that period, as the most eloquent in the country.
Mr. Pinkney Whyte held a distinguished position at the bar of
Maryland, was recognized as a senator of great ability, and as a
private gentleman was highly esteemed without reference to party
lines.— Stanley Matthews took the seat made vacant by the transfer of
Mr. Sherman to the Treasury Department. His reputation as a
lawyer was well established. He had been United-States District
Attorney for three years preceding the war. He commanded an Ohio
regiment for two years in the field and resigned to accept a position
on the bench of the Superior Court. His legislative experience had
been limited to a single term in the Ohio Senate, and as the Demo
crats had carried Ohio in the autumn of 1877 before he could take
his seat, he saw before him a short service in Congress. Within the
limit of two years, however, he made a profound impression upon his
associates in the Senate. He proved to be an admirable debater, and
seemed intuitively to catch the style of Parliamentary discussion as
distinguished from an argument in court. He left the Senate with
an enlarged reputation, and with, a valuable addition to his list of
personal friends.
— Simon Cameron from Pennsylvania resigned his seat in the spring
of 1877. He had been four times elected to the body, and had twice
resigned, leaving his total service some eighteen years. He was in
his seventy-ninth year when he retired, but in exceptional vigor of
body and mind. He had the graces of age without its infirmities,
and shared the good will of his fellow senators on both sides of the
chamber in an exceptional degree. He was succeeded by his son,
James Donald Cameron, who up to that period had never been a
member of any legislative body and who was in his forty-fourth year
when he took his seat in the Senate. He was educated at Princeton
College, became a banker, had been largely engaged in railroad affairs,
and had indeed devoted his life to business. During the last year of
President Grant's Administration he was a member of the Cabinet
as Secretary of War, in which position he showed the same executive
power that had characterized the prompt and orderly dispatch of his
private business.
— A fortnight after the meeting of Congress the Senate sustained a
deep loss in the death of Oliver P. Morton. He died at his home in
Indiana on the 1st day of November (1877). He had for several

600 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
years been in ill health, but struggled with great nerve against the
advances of disease. Few men could have resisted so long and so
bravely. An iron will sustained him and enabled him through years
of suffering to assume a leading part in the legislation of the country
and in directing the policy of the Republican party.
Governor Morton was succeeded by Daniel W. Voorhees, already
widely known by his service of ten years in the House. Mr. Voorhees
was a Democrat of the most pronounced partisan type, but always
secured the personal good will of his political opponents in Congress.
— - M. C. Butler of South Carolina entered the Senate on the 2d of
December, 1877. He had been engaged in all the partisan contests
by which the Republican party was overthrown in South Carolina,
and encountered much prejudice when he first took his seat ; but his
bearing in the Senate rapidly disarmed personal hostility, and even
gave to him a certain degree of popularity upon the Republican side
of the ehamber.
The House was organized at an extra session called by the Presi
dent on the 15th of October, 1877. The failure of the Army Appro
priation Bill at the preceding session rendered this early meeting of
Congress necessary. Samuel J. Randall was re-elected Speaker,
receiving 149 votes ; his Republican competitor, James A. Garfield,
receiving 132. Among the new members of the House were some
men who were afterwards advanced to great prominence. — Thomas
B. Reed of Maine came from the Portland district. He had been
a member of the Bar some twelve years, had rapidly risen in rank,
had served in the State Legislature two terms, and had been
Attorney-General of the State for three years. He was a strong
man in his profession, and had an admirable talent for parliamentary
service. His promotion was not more rapid than his ability justified
and his friends expected. — The Massachusetts delegation received a
strong reinforcement in several new members. George D. Robinson
was a conspicuous figure. He developed great readiness as a debater,
and his career in the House plainly indicated the eminence he has
since attained. — George B. Loring came from the Salem district.
He had served several terms in both branches of the Massachusetts
Legislature and had been President of the Senate. He had for many
years taken active part in National contests, and of the personnel
and principles of the political parties he possessed a knowledge
equaled by few men in the United States. — William W. Rice of
the Worcester district had devoted himself assiduously to his pro-

57 l-rSfLlL , fOOli & '.

C^y^()

PRESIDENT 1877-1881

ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE. 601
fession of the law and had generously shared in its rewards and its
honors. From the midst of his full practice he was chosen to Con
gress. — William Claflin, well known as a merchant, had taken active
part in the politics of Massachusetts, had been in both branches of
the Legislature, and served as Lieutenant-Governor, and Governor
of the State.
Horace Davis (a son of the eminent Senator John Davis of Massa
chusetts), long resident in California, came as the representative of
the San Francisco district. He had been successful as a business
man on the Pacific Coast, and brought to the service of the House
large experience, strong sense, and high character. — The Indiana
delegation was especially strong, with Thomas M. Browne, John H.
Baker, and William H. Calkins, among its members. Mr. Browne and
Mr. Calkins united a talent for parliamentary discussion with excep
tional power as platform speakers. Mr. Baker was one of the most
thorough, men in the House on all questions of finance and taxation.
— Hiram Price, who had already served six years, returned from
Iowa. — William A. Phillips, Dudley C. Haskell and Thomas H. Ryan
made a strong delegation from Kansas. — James F. Briggs, a lawyer
of good standing, entered from the Manchester district of New
Hampshire. — John T. Wait, a highly intelligent representative from
Connecticut, had served a part of the Forty-fourth Congress, and
was now returned for a full term. — Edwin Willitts who proved to
be a wise legislator came from Michigan. — Anson G. McCook, of
the well-known Ohio family that furnished so large a number of
good soldiers, came from New- York City, with the personal distinc
tion of having carried a Democratic district. — Frank Hiscock came
from the Syracuse district. He had been a member of the Constitu
tional Convention of 1867 and stood high as a lawyer. He rose
rapidly in the House, soon acquiring a position of the first rank. —
John H. Starin and George A. Bagley were among the conspicuous
members of the New- York delegation. — Judge A. B. James, of long
service on the Supreme Bench of his State, came from the Ogdens-
burg district, and George W. Patterson, in his seventy-ninth year,
from the Chautauqua district. Mr. Patterson was Lieutenant-Gov
ernor of the State when Hamilton Fish was governor.
Among the prominent Ohio representatives were Jacob D. Cox,
from the Toledo district; Joseph W. Keifer, from the Madison
district, afterwards promoted to the Speakership of the House;
Amos Townsend, from the Cleveland district, a successful merchant

602 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
and a man of strong sense. — General Thomas Ewing came from
the Fairfield district. He was one of the private secretaries of
President Taylor before he had attained his majority, was Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court of Kansas at thirty-one years of age
and member of the Ohio Constitutional Convention in 1873-74. He
was an able lawyer and strong debater. — William McKinley, jun.,
entered from the Canton district. He enlisted in an Ohio regiment
when but seventeen years of age, and won the rank of Major by
meritorious service. The interest of his constituency and his own
bent of mind led him to the study of industrial questions, and he
was soon recognized in the House as one of the most thorough
statisticians and one of the ablest defenders of the doctrine of
Protection. He was more widely known afterwards as a platform
speaker, always welcomed by large audiences.
Russell Errett and Thomas M. Bayne entered from the Pitts
burg districts, Pennsylvania. Mr. Errett was a veteran editor in
the anti-slavery cause, and Mr. Bayne was recognized as a young
man of superior ability, ready in debate and with special adaptation
to parliamentary service. — John I. Mitchell, afterwards chosen sena
tor, entered from the Lycoming district, and Edward Overton from
the Bradford district. — General Harry White entered from the Arm
strong district. He had been confined in Libby Prison for sixteen
months during the war and being a member of the Pennsylvania
Senate his absence made a tie vote. He was not allowed to send
his resignation and thus permit a Republican successor to be chosen,
because the Confederates were not engaged at that time in promot
ing Republican success. His resignation was finally sent through the
lines, concealed in a Testament carried by an exchanged surgeon.

The distinctive measure of the Forty-fifth Congress was the passage
of the Act for the coinage of silver dollars. The subject had been dis
cussed in the Senate and House and before the people, with increased
zeal, ever since the movement for resumption of specie payment took
decided form. For those who had not given special attention to the
question, arguments were at hand from an official source. It would
be difficult to find a more exhaustive examination into the silver ques
tion than is embodied in the report of the Monetary Commission
(organized under the joint resolution of August 15, 1875), presented

REMONETIZATION OF SILVER. 603
to Congress on the 2d of March, 1877. It has permanent value for
the compact and lucid form in which the history of the precious metals
is presented, and for the clear statement of conflicting theories in
regard to monetary systems.
— Three members of the Commission, John P. Jones and Louis V.
Bogy of the Senate, and George Willard, a representative from
Michigan, believed that the United States should remonetize silver
without regard to the future policy of Europe, and that a law should
be passed fixing 15 1 to 1 as the standard of relative values between
silver and gold in this country.
— Mr. William S. Groesbeck favored the remonetization of silver at
the old relation in the United States of 16 to 1, and was joined in
this suggestion by Mr. Richard P. Bland of Missouri.
— Senator George S. Boutwell expressed the opinion that it was not
expedient to coin silver dollars to be a legal-tender, and that the in
troduction of silver as currency should be postponed until the effort
to secure the co-operation of other nations had been faithfully made.
— Professor Francis Bowen and Representative Randall L. Gibson
thought that a double standard was an illusion and an impossibility,
and declared the proper place for silver in the monetary system to be
that of subsidiary or token currency, considerably overvalued by law
and a legal-tender only within certain minor limits. They advocated
the coinage of silver dollars of 345^ grains, to be legal-tender for
sums not over twenty dollars, and to take the place of all paper
currency of less denomination than five dollars.
President Hayes presented the subject in his message, December
3, 1877. He did not believe that " the interests of the Government
or the people would be promoted by disparaging silver," but held
that it should -be used only at its commercial value. "If," said he,
"the United States had the undoubted right to pay its bonds in
silver coin, the little benefit from that process would be greatly over
balanced by the injurious effect of such payments if made or proposed
against the honest convictions of the public creditors."
Secretary Sherman, in his annual report at the same time, said
that in the work of refunding he had informed his associates in an
official letter that " as the Government exacts in payment for bonds
their full face in coin, it is not anticipated that any future legisla
tion of Congress or any action of any Department of the Govern
ment will sanction or tolerate the redemption of the principal of
these bonds, or the payments of the interest thereon, in coin of less

604 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
value than the coin authorized by law at the time of their issue, —
being gold coin." He earnestly urged Congress to give its sanction
to this assurance.
These official utterances were put forward in the heat of the gen
eral discussion, and fell upon the ears of persons already engaged on
one side or the other of the earnest controversy in regard to the coin
age of silver. Congress was at once called upon from an unexpected
source to make a declaration hostile in aim and purpose to the policy
advocated both by the Head of the Nation and its chief financial
officer. In direct hostility to the recommendations of an Ohio Presi
dent and an Ohio Secretary of the Treasury, an Ohio senator, Mr.
Stanley Matthews, moved a concurrent resolution in the Senate, de
claring that "all bonds of the United States are payable in silver
dollars of 412^ grains, and that to restore such dollars as a full legal-
tender for that purpose, is not in violation of public faith or the
rights of the creditor." A motion to refer the resolution to the
Committee on the Judiciary was defeated — ayes 19, noes 31. It was
kept before the Senate for immediate consideration and discussion.
The eagerness for debate on the subject is shown by the record.
Thirty-four senators delivered speeches, most of them elaborately
prepared, going over the history of the precious metals, the field of
American legislation, and international practice in money.
The Senate refused to adopt Mr. Conkling's suggestion to make
the resolution joint instead of concurrent and thus require the
signature of the President. Mr. Matthews had framed it so as
simply to evoke an expression by both branches of Congress without
sending it to the Executive, whose opinions had just been made
known through his annual message. This was intended as an ex
pression of dissent on the part of Congress from the views of the
President. Mr. Edmunds moved an amendment declaring that "the
bonds are payable in gold coin or its equivalent, and that any other
payment without the consent of the creditor would be in violation of
the public faith." It was defeated — ayes 18, noes 44. On an amend
ment offered by Mr. Justin S. Morrill, declaring that " the bonds
will be payable in silver if the Silver Bill becomes the law of the
land," the division was ayes 14, noes 41. On the passage of the reso
lution in the Senate, the ayes were 43, the noes 22. In the House of
Representatives the resolution was passed under a suspension of the
rules, — ayes 189, noes 79. This proclamation of the financial creed
of Congress was made complete on the 28th of January, 1878.

REMONETIZATION OF SILVER. 605
On the 5th of the previous November, during the extra session,
the House passed, under a suspension of the rules, a bill for the
free coinage of silver dollars of 4121 grains, full legal tender for all
debts public and private. Mr. Richard P. Bland of Missouri was
the author of the measure. The vote upon it stood 163 ayes to 34
noes, 93 members not voting. It was reported in the Senate with
amendments, in December, and its discussion was superseded for the
time by the resolution of Mr. Matthews. As reported from the
Finance Committee, it provided for a coinage of dollars of 4121
grains to the extent of not less than 12,000,000 or more than $4,000,-
000 per month ; all seigniorage to accrue to the Treasury. A second
section, proposed by Mr. Allison of Iowa, authorized the President
to invite other nations to take part in a conference, and to appoint
three Commissioners to represent the United States, with a view to
the adoption of a common ratio for gold and silver.
The bill gave rise to a longer and broader discussion than that
which had occurred on Mr. Matthews' resolution. It was opened by
Mr. Morrill of Vermont. He pronounced the measure a "fearful
assault upon the public credit. It resuscitates the obsolete dollar
which Congress entombed in 1834, worth less than the greenback in
gold, and yet to be a full legal-tender." He thought that the causes
of the depreciation of silver were permanent. "The future price
may waver one way or the other, but it must finally settle at a much
lower point. Nothing less than National will and power can mitigate
its fall." #
— Mr. Wallace of Pennsylvania charged that the opponents of the
bill were "taking a course for the abasement, depreciation and
disuse of silver. The supporters of the bill favor both gold and
silver."— Mr. Dawes dwelt on the uncertain commercial value of silver and
on the harm to the public credit threatened by the impending meas
ure, insisting that the cheapest money would be our only money.
— Mr. Beck of Kentucky submitted a proposition to direct the coin
age of " not less than $3,000,000 per month, or as much more as can
be coined at the mints of the United States."
— Mr. Morgan of Alabama said the law did not deal with commer
cial values. It promised coin to the bondholder — coin of silver or
coin of gold.
— Mr. Thurman of Ohio thought that the contract provided for
the payment of public debts in coin of the standard of 1870, when the

606 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
dollar of 4121 grains was full legal-tender, and that such dollar
would approximate to gold in value.
— Mr. Kernan of New York said: " This bill does not proceed upon
the basis that we are to make a silver dollar equivalent to a gold
dollar," and he thought that the cheaper coin would inevitably drive
out the gold coin.
— Mr. Blaine submitted an argument " that gold and silver are the
money of the Constitution, the money in existence when the Consti
tution was formed, and Congress has the right to regulate their
relations." He favored the coinage of " such a silver dollar as will
not only do justice among our citizens at home, but prove an absolute
barricade against the gold monometalists." He did not believe that
"412J grains of silver would make such a dollar."
— Mr. Davis of West Virginia favored the utilization of silver,
"because it is one of our chief products, will make the money
known to the Constitution more abundant, will relieve distress, and
lead back to prosperity."
— Mr. McDonald of Indiana thought that " if no change had been
made in our coinage laws, no proposition would be made to change
them now. The Act of 1873 demonetizing the silver dollar made
the pending measure necessary."
— Mr. McPherson said that he was "charged by a large majority of
the people of New Jersey to remonstrate against the measure, which
they believe will retard prosperity, and throw a blot upon our
National integrity."
— Mr. Sargent of California, representing a mining State, opposed
the bill, " as against good faith, and against the interests of the
Government and of the people."
— Mr. Jones of Nevada supported the bill in a very elaborate speech.
He had an enthusiastic faith in silver as a circulating medium, and
had given a great deal of study to the question.
— Mr. Ingalls of Kansas argued " that the public debt is payable in
silver, and if the money unit should be established in the metal least
subject to fluctuation that metal is silver. Gold is the money of
monarchs, and was in open alliance with our enemies in the civil
war." — Mr. Lamar presented resolutions from the Legislature of his State,
instructing the senators and requesting representatives to vote for
the pending measure. He explained that he could not comply with
the instructions, and would give the reasons for his vote to his own
people.

DEBATE ON THE SILVER QUESTION. 607
— Mr. Allison of Iowa closed the debate, drawing the distinction
between free coinage as proposed in the House Bill, and limited
coinage as proposed in the Senate amendment. He dwelt on the
invitation for an International Monetary Conference. He recited
the growing demand for gold in Europe, and explained that " France
ceased coining silver because she already had in circulation as full
legal-tender from $350,000,000 to $400,000,000 in that coin."
In the course of the discussion the history of the Demonetizing
Act of 1873 was brought out, and the degree of attention, or rather
inattention, which was given to its passage. — On proceeding to vote
the Senate rejected an amendment by Mr. Morrill, providing that
for the first year only 25 per cent, and for the second year only 50
per cent, of the duties should be receivable in silver. — The amend
ment of Mr. Wallace " that $100,000,000 should be coined in silver
dollars within three years, and then the coinage should cease if
bullion should be more than three per cent below par," was also
rejected. — The Senate refused to agree to an amendment offered by
Mr. Edmunds, " that nothing in this section contained shall be con
strued to interfere with the coinage of gold and of the subsidiary
silver now authorized by law." — The section providing for an Inter
national Conference was adopted, — ayes, 40 ; noes, 30. — Several
forms of amendment relative to the legal-tender provision were
suggested, but the phrase as it appears in the law was preferred. —
Amendments offered by Mr. Eaton, Mr. Christiancy, Mr. Blaine, and
Mr. Cameron of Wisconsin to increase the amount of silver in the
coin, so as to approximate it to the value of the gold dollar, were
severally rejected by large majorities. — After providing, on Mr.
Chaffee's motion, for certificates of not less than $10 in exchange
for silver coin deposited and redeemable in the same on demand, the
Senate passed the bill with its amendments, by ayes 48, noes 21.
On the return of the bill to the House of Representatives debate
began on February 21st. — Mr. Phillips of Kansas advocated the
double standard with the ratio of metal properly determined, and he
thought this was done in the dollar of 412£ grains. — General Butler
of Massachusetts was in favor of insisting on the House bill for free
coinage, and was seconded by Mr. Atkins of Tennessee. — Mr. Bland
was willing to accept the Senate amendments and then pass a sup
plementary measure for free coinage on an appropriation bill. He
added : " If we cannot do that I am in favor of issuing paper money
enough to stuff down the bondholders until they are sick." — Mr.

608 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Dwight of New York sought to limit the legal-tender quality of the
silver dollar to $50, and for larger sums to make it receivable at its
value in gold. — A motion by Mr. Hewitt of New York to lay the
bill on the table was lost by ayes 71, noes 205. The several amend
ments of the Senate were then adopted; that limiting coinage by
203 ayes, to 72 noes, and that for an International Monetary Con
ference by ayes 196, noes 71. * The concurrence of the House in these
amendments passed the bill.
President Hayes returned the bill to the House of Representatives
with his objections, on the 28th of February. He based his veto on
the proposition that " the silver dollar authorized is worth eight or
ten per cent less than it purports to be worth, and is made a legal-
tender for debts contracted when the law did not recognize such
coin as lawful money. The effect would be to put an end to the
receipt of revenue in gold, and thus compel the payment of silver
for both the principal and interest of the public debt." This he
thought would be regarded as a grave breach of public faith : " It is
my firm conviction that if the country is to be benefited by a silver
coinage, it can only be done by the issue of silver dollars of full value
which will defraud no man. A currency worth less than it purports
to be worth, will in the end defraud not only creditors, but all who
are engaged in legitimate business, and none more surely than those
who are dependent on their daily labor for their daily bread."
1 The International Monetary Conference for which provision was made in the bill
was held at Paris in the autumn of 1878. The American Commissioners were Reuben E.
Fenton, William S. Groesbeck and Francis A. Walker, with S. Dana Horton as Secretary,
The principal European Nations were present with the exception of Germany. The Com
missioners received the impression that decided progress had been made towards the
remonetization of silver in Europe, hut subsequent events have not vindicated their
judgment. Mr. Goschen, who was the head of the British delegation, declared that " it
would be a misfortune for the world if a movement for a sole gold standard should suc
ceed; " but he indicated no purpose on the part of his own government to change from
the gold standard. The Conference came to no practical conclusion, simply agreeing
that " it is necessary to maintain in the world the monetary functions of silver as well as
those of gold; " but that '• the selection for use of one or the other of the two metals, or
both simultaneously, should be governed by the special position of each State or group
of States." The proposition of the United States "that the delegations recommend
to their respective governments the adjustment of a fixed relation between the two
metals and the use of both in that relation as unlimited legal-tender money," was re
jected. The supporters of a bi-metallic standard, though disappointed in the immediate
result of the Conference, received encouragement from the advance in International
opinion in the years that had elapsed since the previous Conference (18G7). At that time
the Nations declared almost unanimously in favor of a single standard of gold. Many
of them had found in the interval great difficulty in maintaining it and were withheld
from declaring for the double standard simply by the influence and example of Eng
land.

OPINIONS ON THE SILVER QUESTION. 609
The House voted at once on the veto — passing the bill against
the objections of the President, by ayes 196, to noes 73. The vote
was taken in the Senate on the same day, without debate, and the
bill was passed over the veto by ayes 46, noes 19. The senators not
voting were paired. Had every senator been present and voted the
result would have been ayes 53, noes 23. New England, New York
and New Jersey supplied the principal part of the negative vote.
Mr. Bayard, Mr. Pinkney Whyte, Mr. Butler of South Carolina, and
Mr. Lamar were the senators from the South who voted in the nega
tive. Pennsylvania, the South and the West sustained the bill. The
Pacific coast was divided, — Mr. Booth supporting the bill and Mr.
Sargent opposing it. The only vote for the bill in either House from
New England was that of General Butler. The proportion and
general location of the votes in the House were about the same as in
the Senate.
The opinions of senators and representatives were of three dis
tinct types. The majority believed, as the vote showed, in the policy
of coining silver dollars of full legal-tender, regardless of their in
trinsic equality of value with gold dollars, — thus creating two
metallic currencies differing in value for all purposes of commercial
interchange with the world, and keeping them at an equality of value
at home by the force of law. The great mass of the Democratic
party and a considerable number of Republicans joined in this view.
A small minority of both parties disbelieved in the use of silver
as money, except for subsidiary coins, with its legal-tender value
limited to small sums, — fifty dollars being the highest proposed, the
majority apparently favoring ten dollars.
A majority of Republicans and a minority of Democrats asserted
the necessity of maintaining silver coin at full legal-tender, but upon
the basis of equality in intrinsic value with the gold dollar. This class
feared the effect of an exclusively gold standard, while the supply of
gold, compared with the commercial demands of the world, is rela
tively and rapidly growing less. They had seen the ratio of gold-
supply far beyond that of silver for a series of years following 1850,
and then for a series of years the ratio of silver-supply in excess of
the supply of gold. The theory advocated by this class rested upon
the proposition that the dollar of commerce could not with safety be
exclusively based either upon the scarcer or upon the more plentiful
metal. An adjustment is required providing for the employment of
both metals — maintaining between them such fair equalization as
Voi.. n. 39

610

TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.

would not violently disturb the value of real property or of annual
products, and most important of all would secure a steadiness in
the wages of labor and a sound currency in which to recompense it.
The supply of both metals for two periods of sixteen years each
(1850-L865 both included and 1866-1881 both included) in the
United States and in the world at large may suggest some useful
lessons.1 From the Silver Bill the public interest turned to the approaching
day of Specie Resumption, January 1, 1879. To the last month there
had been many doubters, but when the day came it was found that
the Treasury was fully prepared and the gold coin which had borne
a premium for the seventeen years of specie suspension was not now
demanded even by those who had been hoarding legal-tender notes
for that express purpose.
The result has proved that legislators and financiers were wisest
who had the largest faith in the resources of the nation. The legis
lation proved to be adequate to the end in view, and resumption
was achieved with the least practicable disturbance of trade and the
least practicable depression to industry. The process of funding
¦the debt was of great assistance, as was the constant reduction of
the principal, which all the while drew our bonds from Europe and

1 The following tables have been prepared with care by Hon. A. London Snowden,
tthe able superintendent for several years of the United States Mint at Philadelphia.
Annual Production of Gold and Silver in the United States, from
1850 to 1881, Inclusive.

Yeaes.

Gold.

Silver.

Years.

Gold.

Silver.

1850 .
1851 .
1852 .
1853 .
1854 .
1855 .
1856 .
1857 .
1858 .
1859 .
1860 .
1861 .
1862 .
1863 .
1864 .
1865 .

$50,000,000 55,000,00060,000,000 65,000,00060,000,00055,000,00055,000,00055,000,00060,000,000 50,000,000
46,000,00043,000,000 39,200,000
40,000,00046,100,000 53,225,000

$50,000 50,00050,000 60,000
50,00050,00050,00050,000
500,000100,000150,000
2,000,000
4,500,000 8,600,000
11,000,000 11,250,000

1866186718681869187018711872187318741875187618771878 18791880
1881

$53,500,000 51,725,000
48,000,00049,500,000 50,000,000
43,500,000 36,000,00036,000,00033,500,00033,500,00039,930,00046,900,000 51,200,000
38,900,000 86,000,00030,650,000
$10,000,000 13,500,00012,000,00012,000,00016,000,00023,000,00028,750,000 35,750,00037,300,00031,700,00038,780,00089,800,00045,281,000 40,800,000 39,200,000
43,150,000
Total
$822,525,000
$38,400,000
Total
$678,805,000
$467,011,000
Total Gold lor thirty-two years, $1,501,330,000. Total Silver, $505,411,000.
DECAY OF AMERICAN CARRYING-TRADE.

611

thus reduced the amount due for foreign interest. The monthly
charge for interest had been in 1865 as high as $12,581,474, — a part
payable in paper. During the fiscal year ending with June, 1879, it
was only 16,981,148. It is obvious that from this source alone the
Treasury was greatly strengthened.
Generous credit was accorded to Secretary Sherman for the great
achievement. It seldom happens that the promoter of a policy in
Congress has the opportunity to carry it out in an Executive Depart
ment. But Mr. Sherman was the principal advocate of the Resump
tion Bill in the Senate, and during the two critical years preceding
the day for coin payment he was at the head of the Treasury Depart
ment. He established a financial reputation not second to that of
any man in our history.

During the period of the Crimean war (1854-6), the mercan
tile marine of the United States gained so rapidly that it approached
equality with that of England, in tonnage. But even before the
calamities of our civil war, a change was foreshadowed favorable to

Annual Production of Gold and Silver in the World, exclusive of the
United States, from 1850 to 1881, Inclusive.

Years.

Gold.

Silver.

Years.

Gold.

Silver.

1850 .
1851 .
1852 .
1853 .
1854 .
1855 .
1856 .
1857 .
1858 .
1859 .
1860 .
1861 .
1862 .
1863 .
1864 .
1865 .

$15,000,000 12,600,000 72,750,000
90,450,00067,450,00080,075,00082,600,00078,275,00074,650,00074,850,00073,250,00070,800,000
68,550,000 66,950,000
66,900,00066,975,000

$39,500,000 39,950,00040,550,00040,550,000 40,550,00040,550,000
40,600,00040,600,00040,150,00040,650,00040,650,00042,700,000
40,700,00040,700,00040,700,00040,700,000

1866 .
1867 .
1868 .
1869 .
1870 .
1871 .
1872 .
1873 .
1874 .
1875 .
1876 .
1877 .
1878 .
1879 .
1880 .
1881 .

$67,600,000 62,300,000 61,725,000
56,725,00056,850,00063,500,00063,600,00060,200,00057,250,00064,000,000
63,770,00067,100,00067,800,00069,800,000 70,400,000
65,800,000
$40,750,000 40,725,00038,225,000
36,500,00035,575,00038,050,00036,500,000 53,500,000
34,200,000 48,800,00048,820,000
41,200,00049,519,000 65,200,00057,500,00062,800,000
Total
$1,072,125,000
$649,800,000
Total
$1,008,420,000
$716,864,000
Total Gold, $2,080,545,000. Total Silver, $1,366,664,000.
Total for the Wholb World. Gold. Silver.
1850-1865  $1,894,650,000 $688,200,000
1866-1881  1,687,225,000 1,183,875,000
612 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
England, hostile to the United States. It was the change from sail
to steam. The utilization of iron as a ship-building material, the
cheapening of fuel, the superior speed, all betokened a radical change
in transportation on the principal ocean routes of the world. From
the close of 1856 to the outbreak of the rebellion the average loss to the
Navigation interests of the United States was two per cent annually.
This ratio of loss was immensely accelerated by the course of events
during the civil war, involving the utter destruction of many Ameri
can vessels or their change of flag. The natural result was that in
the spring of 1865 we stood in the carrying trade relatively and
absolutely far behind our position in 1855.
Practically, nothing has since been done to recover the lost
ground. Provision was made by Congress for the admission of cer
tain ship-building materials free of duty. This somewhat improved
the prospects and stimulated the construction of sailing vessels ; but
the competition in the world's carrying-trade is in steam-vessels.
Great Britain had for many years covered the ocean with subsidized
steamers, paying heavily for mail service until the lines were self-
supporting, and withdrawing her aid only when competition could be
safely defied. Congress steadily refused to enter upon any system
of the same kind. Fitful aid was granted to special lines here and
there, but no general system was devised, and the aid extended being
temporary and accompanied sometimes by scandals in legislation was
in the end rather hurtful than helpful.
Meanwhile the products we were exporting and importing en
larged so rapidly that we were giving more cargoes to ships than any
other nation of the world, — furnishing in the year 1879 between
thirteen and fourteen million tons of freight, and this altogether
exclusive of our coasting trade. Some very extreme cases occurred,
strikingly illustrative of the reluctance of Congress to help the Ameri
can carrying trade. It was shown by statistics that we were export
ing to Brazil not over $7,000,000 of our products, and taking from her
over $40,000,000 of her products. We had no steam communication
with Rio Janeiro, except by way of Europe. In 1876 the Emperor
of Brazil, an able and enlightened monarch, visited the United States.
As the result of his inquiries and examinations His Majesty expressed
a sincere desire for closer commercial connections between the two
countries, and eagerly spoke of his willingness to contribute by an
annual bounty to the establishment of a line of steamers.
After the Emperor's return to his dominions John Roach (a native

DECAY OF AMERICAN CARRYING-TRADE. 613
of Ireland, but long naturalized in the United States), an energetic
and capable ship-builder, of unusual foresight, energy, and integrity
of purpose, sent an agent to Rio Janeiro, and procured a contract from
the Brazilian Government pledging $125,000 per annum, provided
the Government of the United States would give the same amount,
for the establishment of a steam line between the two countries. Not
doubting the readiness of the American Government to respond, Mr.
Roach proceeded with full confidence, and built vessels for the line
in his own ship-yard. The enterprise promised the best commercial
results ; but to his chagrin and discomfiture, Mr. Koach found that no
amount of argument or appeal by those who were willing to speak
for him could induce Congress to contribute a single dollar for the
encouragement of the line. Brazil cancelled her offer when the
United States refused to join with her. Mr. Roach's ships were
withdrawn, and the line was surrendered to an inferior class of Eng
lish steamers.
During the period of this futile experiment, as well as before and
afterwards, Congress annually appropriated more than a million
dollars for the maintenance of the South-American squadron of
naval vessels, to protect a commerce that did not exist, and for the
creation of which the United-States Government was unwilling to
pay even ten per cent of the cost annually of maintaining the
squadron. Every intelligent man knows that it is impossible to
maintain a navy unless there be a commercial marine for the edu
cation of sailors. The American marine preceding 1861 was so
large that it could furnish seventy-six thousand sailors to maintain
a blockading squadron on the South Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The
value of this school for seamen, as one of the arms for National
defense, could not have been more strikingly illustrated, or more
completely proved. The lesson should have been heeded. It is a
familiar adage requiring no enforcement of argument, that navies do
not grow at the top. They grow from and out of a commercial
marine that educates men for sea service. If the Government of
the United States had, since the close of the war, expended annually
upon the mercantile marine one-fifth of the amount that has been
expended upon the Navy, our ships would have covered every sea,
and the Navy would have grown of itself. Instead of that, we have
been constructing the navy as an exotic, forcing it to grow without
a favoring atmosphere, establishing it with officers and not with men,
educating cadets on land, and not educating sailors on the ocean.

614 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
The Democratic party in Congress was hostile to every movement
for the encouragement of our carrying trade, and the Republican
party was fatally divided. The men who had earnestly attempted
to do something were therefore constantly defeated and compelled
to abandon the effort. Following this came the demand for free
ships, which meant simply that American capitalists might secure
the registry of the United States for vessels built in English ship
yards and manned with English sailors. This is the last movement
necessary to complete the dominion of Great Britain over the sea,
to complete the humiliation of the United States as a commercial
country. It would abolish the art of ship-building on this side of
the Atlantic, would educate no American sailor, except in the coast
ing trade. As a result, our naval vessels, if a Navy should be main
tained, would necessarily be constructed where the merchant vessels
were constructed; and the last point of absurdity in this policy
would be reached when, in case of possible conflict with a Euro
pean Power, we should be dependent for naval vessels upon a for
eign country from which we could be cut off by the superior strength
of our opponent on the sea.
With a more extended frontage on the two great oceans of the
world than any other nation ; with a larger freightage than that of
any other nation, it will be a reproach to the United States, more
pointed and decisive every year, if it neglects to establish a policy
which shall develop a mercantile marine, and as the outgrowth of
the mercantile marine, a Navy adequate to all the wants of the
Republic. If Congress, in the sixteen years following the war, had
given a tithe of the encouragement to the building and sailing of
ships, that it has Avisely given to manufactures, to the construction
of railways, and to every industrial pursuit on land, our flag would
before the close of that period have stood relatively on the ocean as
strong and as permanent as it stood before steam was applied to the
carrying trade of the world. In those sixteen years the Government
expended more than three hundred millions on the Navy ! x It ex
pended scarcely three millions to aid in building up its mercantile
marine, and expended much of that unwisely.
1 The Naval expenditures for the sixteen years following the war were as follows: —
Four years under President Johnson  $114,500,000
Eight years under President Grant  154,500,000
Four years under President Hayes  57,000,000

CHAPTER XXVII.
The Question of the Fisheries. — Origin of American Eights. — Early Disputes.
— Treaty of 1782. — Treaty of Ghent. — Treaty of 1818. — Reciprocity Treaty.
— Joint High Commission. — Fisheries Question to be arbitrated. — Selec
tion of Arbitrators. — Negotiation for Reciprocity Treaty. — The Halifax
Award. — Its Large Amount. — Dissatisfaction. — Action of Senate. — Corre
spondence with the British Government. — Mr. Evarts and Lord Salisbury.
THE question of the fisheries has been in dispute between Great
Britain and the United States for more than seventy years.
During that period it has been marked by constantly recurring, and
sometimes heated, controversy ; and it will continue to be a source
of irritation until the two Governments can reach a solution which
shall prove satisfactory, not only to the negotiators, but to the
class of brave and adventurous men who, under both flags, are
engaged in the sea-fisheries. For a long period each recurring
season brought its series of complaints, often threatening violence
between the fishermen, and tending to bring the two Governments
into actual collision. An adjustment was effected by the Reciprocity
Treaty of 1854 and again by the Treaty of Washington in 1871, but
for so brief a time under each agreement as only to postpone the
difficulty and not to settle it. There is a right and a wrong side to
this question, and either the Government of the United States or
the Government of England is to blame for the chronic contention
which marks it.
The American case can be briefly stated. When the independ
ence of the Colonies was recognized in the preliminary treaty of
1782 the provisions agreed upon in regard to two subjects were held
by both Governments to be final and perpetual. One was the terri
tory embraced within the boundaries conceded to the United States :
the other was the right to the fisheries. The people of the Colonies,
especially the people of the New-England Colonies, had as British
subjects used all the British fisheries in what is now known as the
Dominion of Canada and the island of Newfoundland ; and in the
615

616 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
preliminary treaty to which George III. gave his assent in 1782, as
well as in the final and more definite treaty of 1783, it was provided
that the privilege should continue to be enjoyed by citizens of
the new Republic.1 No doubt of the intent and proper construc
tion of this clause in both treaties had ever been suggested, until
the English and American negotiators were engaged in framing the
treaty of peace at Ghent in 1814, at the close of the second war
with Great Britain. The British negotiators claimed that the war of
1812 had put an end to all existing treaties, and that, the fishery
clause in the treaty of 1782 being no longer in force, our fishery
rights had expired, and if revived at all must be revived under new
stipulations. The direct purpose of this movement was obvious. By the treaty
of 1782 it was declared that " the navigation of the Mississippi River
from its source to the ocean shall forever remain free and open to the
subjects of Great Britain and to the citizens of the United States."
It was at that time assumed that the boundary line between the ter
ritory of British America and the United States, as set forth in the
treaty of peace, would at a certain point cross the Mississippi River,
and that the navigation of that river would thus be secured to the
subjects of his Britannic Majesty. But this was soon ascertained to
be an error, and to the end that the line might be determined with
precision the Jay treaty of 1794 provided for a joint survey. By the
time of the negotiation of the Treaty of Ghent, twenty years later, it
was definitely ascertained that the northern boundary of the United
States ran above the sources of the Mississippi, while the purchase
of Louisiana had given to our Government the control of the mouth
of the river. Hence the privilege of navigating the Mississippi (so

1 The third article of the treaty of 1782 is as follows: " It is agreed that the people of
the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the right to take fish of every kind
on the Grand Bank, and on all the other banks of Newfoundland; also in the Gulph of
St. Lawrence, and at all other places in the sea, where the inhabitants of both countries
used at any time heretofore to fish ; and also that the inhabitants of the United States
shall have liberty to take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of Newfoundland
as British fishermen shall use (but not to dry or cure the same on that island); and also on
the coasts, bays, and creeks of all other of his Britannic Majesty's dominions in America;
and that the American fishermen shall have the liberty to dry and cure fish in any of
the unsettled hays, harbours, and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labra
dor, so long as the same shall remain unsettled; but so soon as the same or either of
them shall be settled, it shall not he lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at
such settlement, without a previous agreement for that purpose with the inhabitants,
proprietors, or possessors of the ground." Precisely the same concession is embodied in
the treaty of 1783.

BRITISH POSITION UNTENABLE. 617
earnestly desired by the British Government) could not be insisted
on, since the river from its source to the sea was wholly within the
territory of the United States. If, therefore, our fishery rights were
void by the abrogation of the fishery clause of the treaty of 1782,
the restoration of those rights could be demanded only in exchange
for some equivalent ; and the equivalent to be asked, as was well
known, would be the concession to Great Britain of the free naviga
tion of the Mississippi River.
The position thus taken by the British Government was plainly
untenable. The treaty of 1782 was only the formal declaration of
certain facts consequent upon the termination of the Revolutionary
war. That treaty recognized three conclusions as fully established :
I. The independence of the thirteen Colonies; II. The territorial
limits of the United States ; III. The rights and methods of the com
mon fisheries in Colonial waters which the citizens of the United States
had exercised as British subjects. — The history of the negotiation
and the explicit language of the treaty prove that the clause touch
ing the fisheries was the recognition of an existing right and not the
grant of a new right. The British Government, in 1814, might with
equal force and justice have claimed that under this theory of the
abrogation of the treaty of 1782 by war, the recognition of our
independence and the establishment of our boundaries had also
become void. It is a rather curious fact, apparently unknown or
unnoticed by the negotiators of 1814, that as late as 1768 the law
officers of the Crown under the last Ministry of Lord Chatham (to
whom was referred the treaty of 1686 with France, containing certain
stipulations in reference to the Newfoundland fisheries) gave as their
opinion that such clauses were permanent in their character, and
that so far the treaty was valid, notwithstanding subsequent war.
The American negotiators of course refused to admit the principle
(that the war of 1812 had put an end to any provision of the
treaty of 1782) or its application ; and the result was that the
Treaty of Ghent was signed and ratified, without any provisions
either as to the Fisheries or the navigation of the Mississippi River,
— a position which left the United States in the full exercise of
its rights under the treaty of 1782, from which it could be ex
cluded only by the exercise of force on the part of the British Gov
ernment. There was no danger of force being applied. The war
of 1812 had satisfied Great Britain that she could gain nothing by
going to war with the United States.

618 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Within four years of this time a treaty was negotiated and ratified,
which is altogether the most inexplicable in our diplomatic history.
The war just concluded with Great Britain had reflected the highest
honor upon our navy ; while on land we had demonstrated, if not the
absolute impossibility, certainly the serious difficulty and danger, of
an invasion of our soil by any foreign power. We had risen greatly
in the estimation of the world as to our capacity for war, and we had
learned the especial importance of maintaining the fisheries as the
nursery of our sailors. The State Department was under the direc
tion of John Quincy Adams, who, above all statesmen of his day,
was supposed to appreciate the value of the fisheries and who had
stubbornly refused at Ghent to consent to any diminution of our
fishing-rights even if the alternative should be the continuation of
the war. Yet on the 20th of October, 1818, a treaty was concluded
at London, containing as its first and most important provision an
absolute surrender of some of our most valuable rights in the fish
eries. The negotiation was conducted by Albert Gallatin and Richard
Rush, men of established reputation for diplomatic ability and patri
otic zeal. The history of the transaction is meagre. A brief and
most unsatisfactory correspondence contains all that we know in
regard to it. Neither in the minute and important diary of Mr.
Adams, nor in the private letters, as published, of Mr. Gallatin and
Mr. Rush, is there the slightest indication of any reason for recom
mending, or any necessity for conceding, the treaty.
By reference to the Third Article of the treaty of 1782, already
quoted, it will be seen that the rights of the citizens of the United
States were recognized ; first, to take fish of every kind on the Grand
Bank, and on all the other banks of Newfoundland, and also in the
Gulf of St. Lawrence, and at other places in the sea where the
inhabitants of both countries used at any time before the treaty to
fish; second, to take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of
Newfoundland as British fishermen should use, but not to dry or
cure the same on that island ; third, to take fish of every kind on
the coasts, bays, and creeks of all other of his Britannic Majesty's
dominions in America ; fourth, to dry and cure fish in any of the
unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands,
and Labrador. By the provisions of the First Article of the treaty
of 1818, the right to take fish on the coast of Newfoundland and
Labrador was limited to certain portions of the coast, without preju
dice, however, to any of tlie exclusive rights of the Hudson Bay Com-

RECIPROCITY TREATY WITH CANADA. 619
pany; second, the right to dry and cure fish was granted on the
limited portions of the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, as
long as they remained unsettled ; third, for this privilege of drying
and curing fish, the United States "renounced forever any liberty
theretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take,
dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts,
bays, creeks, or harbors of his Britannic Majesty's dominions in
America not included within the limits so described." Of this ex
traordinary renunciation Mr. Rush wrote, many years after: "We
[Mr. Gallatin and himself] inserted the clause of renunciation ; the
British plenipotentiaries did not desire it."
From the execution of this treaty — as might well have been
seen — the misunderstanding between the two countries in relation
to the fisheries became more and more complicated. The treaty
seems to have considered only the cod-fishing, and even from that
point of view we paid an enormous price for the poor privilege of
drying fish on the Newfoundland coast, by abandoning the right
of mackerel fishing within three marine miles of all other coasts of
his Britannic Majesty's dominions in America ; for from that time
the mackerel fisheries grew into large proportions, and without re
gard to treaty provisions the right of cod-fishing on the banks could
never have been taken from us.
The difficulty of determining the three-mile line, the presence of
armed vessels to prevent its violation, the vexatious seizure of Ameri
can fishing-vessels, the reckless injustice of the British local courts
in their condemnations, constantly exasperated both parties, and
on several occasions threatened to bring the two Governments into
actual collision. Both countries recognized the necessity of a more
definite settlement ; and in June, 1854, after thirty-six years of con
tinuous disturbance and danger, Mr. Marcy as Secretary of State,
and Lord Elgin, Governor-General of Canada, as plenipotentiary for
Great Britain, negotiated what is known as the Reciprocity Treaty.
It was hoped that the opportunity would be used to settle this ques
tion permanently, or at least to secure an understanding that we
should not upon the termination of a temporary arrangement be
relegated to the irritating injustice of the treaty of 1818. But the
wary diplomatists of England, with sarcasm scarcely concealed, had
so phrased the opening clause of the Reciprocity treaty as to make
its provisions only " additional to the liberty secured to the United
States fishermen by the Convention of 1818."

620 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
The right in the fisheries conceded by the treaty of 1854 x —
originally ours under the treaty of 1782, and unnecessarily and
unwisely renounced in the treaty of 1818 — was not given freely
but in consideration of a great price. That price was reciprocity
of trade (so-called) between the United States and the British North
American Provinces in certain commodities named in the treaty.
The selection as shown by the schedule was made almost wholly
to favor Canadian interests. There was scarcely a product on the
list which could be exported from the United States to Canada
without loss, while the great market of the United States was
thrown open to Canada without tax or charge for nearly every
thing which she could produce and export. All her raw materials
were admitted free, while our manufactures were all charged with
heavy duty, the market being reserved for English merchants. The
fishery question had been adroitly used to secure from the United
States an agreement which was one-sided, vexatious, and unprofitable.
It had served its purpose admirably as a makeweight for Canada
in acquiring the most generous and profitable market she ever
enjoyed for her products. And yet Canadians seemed honestly
1 Article I. of the treaty of 1854 provided: —
" Article I. It is agreed by the high contracting parties that in/addition to the
liberty secured to the United-States fishermen by the above-mentioned convention of
Oct. 20, 1818, of taking, curing, and drying fish on certain coasts of the British North
American colonies therein defined, the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in
common with the subjects of her Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every
kind, except shell-fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbors, and creeks
of Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward's Island, and of the several
islands thereunto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance from the shore, with
permission to land upon the coasts and shores of those colonies and the islands thereof,
and also upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing
their fish; provided that, in so doing, they do not interfere with the rights of private
property, or with British fishermen, in the peaceable use of any part of the said coast
in their occupancy for the same purpose."
In Article II. of the treaty it was reciprocally agreed as follows : —
" Article II. It is agreed by the high contracting parties that British subjects
shall have, in common with the citizens of the United States, the liberty to take fish
of every kind, except shell-fish, on the eastern sea-coasts and shores of the United States
north of the 36th parallel of north latitude, and on the shores of the several islands
thereunto adjacent, and in the bays, harbors, and creeks of the said sea-coasts and
shores of the United States and of the said islands, without being restricted to any dis
tance from the shore, with permission to land upon the said coasts of the United States
and of the islands aforesaid, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish;
provided that, in so doing, they do not interfere with the rights of private property,
or with the fishermen of the United States, in the peaceable use of any part of the said
coasts in their occupancy for the same purpose."
Both concessions reserved "the salmon and shad fisheries and all fisheries in
rivers and the mouths of rivers." '

RECIPROCITY TREATY WITH CANADA. 621
to believe that they had conceded to us more on the sea than we
had conceded to them on the land ! x
The treaty of 1854 was to continue for ten years, with the right
of termination upon twelve months' notice by either party. It was
terminated on the 17th of March, 1866, upon notice given by the
United States one year before. By the abrogation of this treaty our
fishery rights were again, through our own unwise concession, sub
jected to the provisions of the treaty of 1818. But Canada gained
little by this relegation, while she suffered great loss in consequence
of being deprived of her free access to the markets of the United
States for all her products of forest, field and sea.
During the existence of the Reciprocity Treaty the enterprise and
capital of the American fishing industry had in some degree devel
oped mackerel fishing, while a free market in the United States had
encouraged the inshore fishing of the British dominions to a great
and profitable extent. Perhaps at this time the British fishermen
placed an exaggerated estimate upon the three-mile fisheries, while
the American fishermen followed the privilege rather as a conven
ience and as an exemption from the annoyance and expense of seizure
and trial, than as having any very large intrinsic value.
When the Joint High Commissioners proceeded to consider the
question of the fisheries three different views were manifest. The
British Commissioners desired a restoration of the Reciprocity Treaty,
to which the American Commissioners replied that such a cpncession
was impossible. During the discussion to which this refusal led,
the American Commissioners declared that the value of these in
shore fisheries had been largely over-estimated, and that the United-
States Government desired to secure their enjoyment, not for their
commercial or intrinsic value, but for the purpose of removing a
source of dissension. They intimated that $1,000,000 was the largest
1 The following is a complete list of the articles to be admitted in either country
from the other free of all duty : —
Grain, flour, and breadstuffs of all kinds; animals of all kinds: fresh, smoked, and
salted meats; cotton-wool, seeds, and vegetables; undried fruits, dried fruits; fish of all
kinds; products of fish, and of all other creatures living in the water; poultry, eggs;
hides, furs, skins, or tails, undressed; stone or marble, in its crude or un wrought state;
slate; butter, cheese, tallow; lard, horns, manures; ores of metals, of all kinds; coal;
pitch, tar, turpentine, ashes; timber and lumber of all kinds, round, hewed, and sawed,
unmanufactured in whole or in part; fire-wood; plants, shrubs, and trees; pelts, wool;
fish-oil; rice, broom-corn, and bark; gypsum, ground or unground; hewn, or wrought,
or un wrought burr or grindstones; dyestuffs; flax, hemp, and tow, unmanufactured;
unmanufactured tobacco; rags.

622 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
sum which they would be disposed to offer for the full and perma
nent use of the inshore fisheries without the addition of any privilege
as to the free admission of fish and fish-oil. The British Commis
sioners considered this to be an entirely inadequate estimate of the
value of the fisheries and found insuperable difficulties in the way of
an absolute and permanent transfer of the rights.
After prolonged consideration and discussion the American Com
missioners finally declared that they were "willing (subject to the
action of Congress) to concede the admission of Canadian fish and
fish-oil free of duty as an equivalent for the use of the inshore fish
eries, and to make the arrangement for a term of years." They were
firmly and intelligently of opinion that free fish and free oil to the
Canadian fishermen would be more than an equivalent for these fish
eries ; but they were also willing to agree upon a reference to deter
mine that question and the amount of money-payment that might be
found necessary to complete the equivalent — it being understood
that the action of Congress would be needed before any payment
could be made. This proposition was referred by the British Com
missioners to their Government, was accepted by cable, and was at
once embodied in the treaty. These articles adopted the language
of the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, recognizing, as it might again be
claimed by the British Government, the existence and full force of
the Convention of 1818. The Commission then provided for the
freedom from duty of Colonial fish and fish-oil, granted reciprocity
of inside fisheries to British fishermen, and finally provided that the
question of compensation should be referred to three Commissioners.1
It would not be just to impute carelessness to the American
members of the Joint High Commission in framing the articles of
the treaty relating to the fisheries. It is quite evident however that
1 Article XXII. of the Treaty of Washington is as follows : " Inasmuch as it is
asserted by the Government of her Britannic Majesty that the privileges accorded to the
citizens of the United States under Article XVIII. of this treaty are of greater value
than those accorded by Articles XIX. and XXI. of this treaty to the subjects of her
Britannic Majesty, and this assertion is not admitted by the Government of the United
States, it is further agreed that Commissioners shall be appointed to determine, having
regard to the privileges accorded by the United States to the subjects of her Britannic
Majesty, as stated in Articles XIX. and XXI. of this treaty, the amount of any compen
sation which, in their opinion, ought to be paid by the Government of the United States
to the Government of her Britannic Majesty in return for the privileges accorded to the
citizens of the United States under Article XVIII. of this treaty ; and that any sum of
money which the said Commissioners may so award shall be paid by the United-States
Government, in a gross sum, within twelve months after such award shall have been
given."

CONCESSION OF AMERICAN COMMISSIONERS. 623
they had not closely studied the question, and had allowed the Brit
ish Commissioners to gain an advantage. It was a mistake to agree
to a new confirmation of the treaty of 1818, apparently establish
ing it as the basis of all our rights and giving to it the authori
tative position which the treaty of 1782 originally held and should
have continued to hold on this question. We might not be able to
annul the treaty of 1818, but it was not wise to forfeit, by the assent
of so imposing a body as the Joint High Commission, our right of
protest against the injustice of its provisions and to agree practically
to the assertion that our fishing-rights began in 1818. But a much
graver blunder was committed. Our Commissioners had very justly
maintained that the admission of Canadian fish and fish-oil free of
duty into the United States would be more than an equivalent for
the fishery rights to be conceded by the British Government. They
had also maintained that for a concession of those rights in per
petuity the Government of the United States would not be willing
to pay more than $1,000,000. Holding these views, believing as
they did that we were giving more than we were gaining, the Com
missioners nevertheless consented to a reference to determine how
much in addition we should pay to Great Britain. The agreement
certainly should have been to ascertain to which party, if either, a
money consideration should be paid. Still further, if they were
willing to imply in advance that a money consideration might be
due to Great Britain and not to the United States, a maximum
limit should have been inserted in the treaty beyond which the
American Government would not be willing that any award should
extend. But by practically conceding, in the first place, that money
should be paid to Great Britain, and by leaving to the Reference to
determine the amount without any limit whatever, they offered a
great temptation to wrong dealing, against which the United States
had reserved no defense and could secure no redress.

Of the three Commissioners referred to in the Article providing
for an arbitration, the treaty directed that one should be appointed
by the President of the United States, one by Her Britannic Majesty,
and the third by the President and Her Britannic Majesty conjointly ;
and if they could not agree upon the third within a period of three
months after the Article should take effect, then " the third Commis-

624 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
sioner shall be named by the representative at London of his Majesty
the Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary." The legislation
necessary to give the Fishery Articles of the treaty full effect having
been completed in 1873, Acting Secretary of State J. C. Bancroft
Davis, on the 7th of July in that year, notified the British Minister
at Washington, Sir Edward Thornton, that in regard to the third
Commissioner " the Government of the United States is willing to
take the initiative and suggest to her Majesty's Government the
names of a number of persons, each one of whom would in the
opinion of the President be influenced only by a desire to do justice
between the parties." He then proposed (for the consideration of
the British Government) the names of the Mexican Minister, the
Russian Minister, the Brazilian Minister, the Spanish Minister, the
French Minister, and the Minister of the Netherlands, residing at
the time in Washington. Mr. Davis advised Sir Edward that they
had "omitted the names of those Ministers who have not the neces
sary familiarity with the English language," and also of those who
" by reason of the peculiar political connection of their governments with
Great Britain would probably esteem themselves disqualified for the
position." Sir Edward Thornton, being absent from Washington, did not
receive the note of Mr. Davis until the 11th of July, when (as he
advised him on the 16th) he immediately telegraphed the substance
of it to Lord Granville, and dispatched a copy by mail. Five weeks
later, on the 19th of August, without any intervening correspondence,
Sir Edward (writing from the Catskills) recalled to Secretary Fish
that he had spoken to him when last in Washington " on the subject
of the Belgian Minister, Mr. Delfosse, being a suitable person as
third Commissioner on the Commission which is to sit at Halifax. . . .
I had hoped [wrote Sir Edward] that he would have been agreeable
to your Government, until I spoke to you upon the subject. I sub
sequently received a telegram from Lord Granville, desiring me to
ascertain whether Mr. Delfosse would be agreeable to the Govern
ment of the United States as third Commissioner. . . . Lord Gran
ville desired me to ask you in his name that you would consent to the
appointment of the Belgian Minister, who, as he believes, would be in
all respects a suitable person for the position."
Mr. Fish was utterly astounded by this proposition submitted by
Sir Edward Thornton and coming almost as a personal and pressing
request from Lord Granville. The one Minister who was regarded

PROPOSED ARBITRATION OF FISHERY-RIGHTS. 625
as especially disqualified was Mr. Maurice Delfosse, the representative
of Belgium at Washington. The disqualification did not convey a
personal reflection upon that gentleman, but was based upon the
relations of his government to the Government of Great Britain.
The Kingdom of Belgium owed its origin to the armed interposition
of Great Britain, and its continuance, to her friendship and her
favor. Its first monarch Leopold, who had been but five years dead
when the Treaty of Washington was negotiated, had married the
Princess Charlotte, daughter of the Prince-Regent of England ; he
was brother to Queen Victoria's mother, and to Prince Albert's
father ; he held the rank of Marshal in the British Army, and had
been for a long period in receipt of an annual allowance of fifty
thousand pounds sterling from the British Exchequer. He was on
terms of the most affectionate friendship with the Queen and was
her constant and confidential adviser.
His son and successor Leopold II., the reigning monarch, cousin
of Queen Victoria, had married an Austrian princess, and the unfor
tunate Carlotta, widow of the Emperor Maximilian, was his sister.
The House of Hapsburg associated the American support of the
Mexican President Juarez with the death of Maximilian, and might
not be well disposed towards the Government of the United States.
It was not therefore an altogether happy circumstance that the
Austrian Ambassador in London had been designated as the person
to choose a third Commissioner, in the event of the British and
American Governments failing to agree in his selection. A sense of
honest dealing at the outset had plainly suggested the ineligibility
of a Belgian subject to the third Commissionership, and suggested
also the impropriety of leaving to the Austrian Ambassador in Lon
don the selection of the Commissioner. The narrative will show that
the British Government had determined upon the one or the other,
and in the end accomplished both.
The reply of Mr. Fish to Sir Edward's extraordinary communi
cation of August 19 was prompt and pointed. In a note of August
21 he courteously affected to believe that a grave mistake had oc
curred in the transmission of Lord Granville's telegram. He could
not believe that Lord Granville, advised of the inability of the
Government of the United States to assent to the selection of Mr.
Delfosse, would deliberately propose that gentleman. Mr. Fish was
sure that there had been "some mis-conveyance of information or in
struction, for which the telegraph must have been responsible." He
Vol. II. 40

626 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
reminded Sir Edward that in an interview with him in Washington
he (Mr. Fish) had declared that " while entertaining a high personal
regard for the character and abilities of the Belgian Minister to this
country, there are reasons in the political relations between his
government and that of Great Britain why the representative of the
former could not be regarded as an independent and indifferent arbi
trator on questions between the Government of her Majesty and the
United States." Mr. Fish still further reminded Sir Edward that
during the session of the Joint High Commission, when the question
of referring the Fishery dispute to the head of some foreign State
was under discussion, Earl de Grey, chairman of the British Commis
sioners, in proposing several powers, voluntarily said to the American
Commissioners, " I do not name Belgium or Portugal, because Great
Britain has treaty arrangements with them that might be supposed to
incapacitate them."
Five days later Sir Edward advised Mr. Fish that " as the matters
which are to be considered by the Commission deeply concern the
people of Canada, it was necessary to consult the Government of
the Domini an upon the point of so much importance as the appoint
ment of a third Commissioner ; and some delay was therefore un
avoidable. ... I have now [continued Sir Edward] the honor to
inform you that her Majesty's Government has received a communi
cation from the Governor-General of Canada (Lord Dufferin) to the
effect that the Government of the Dominion strongly objects to the
appointment of any of the foreign Ministers residing at Washington as
third Commissioner on the above mentioned Commission, and prefers to
resort to the alternative provided by the treaty ; namely, to leave
the nomination to the Austrian Ambassador at London."
The State Department was justified by this time in considering
that the British Government was resorting to devices for delay.
Circumstances all pointed in that direction. Tlie Government of
the United States had submitted the names of six Ministers, repre
senting countries of which at least four held more intimate relations
with Great Britain than with the United States. Specific reasons had
been given for not mentioning others. After a totally unreasonable
delay (from July 11 to August 19) the English Government re
sponded, proposing the very name that had originally been objected to by
the United States — proposing it with the urgency of a personal request
from Lord Granville. When it was found that our Government
would not accept Mr. Delfosse, the intelligence came within a week

THE BRITISH MINISTER AND SECRETARY FISH. 627
that the Canadian Government objected to any foreign Minister, who
had been residing in Washington, as third Commissioner. Of course
this objection excluded Mr. Delfosse with all the others, for Mr.
Delfosse had resided in Washington several years longer than the
majority of those who had been proposed by the United States.
Mr. Fish very justly and sharply rebuked this interposition of the
Government of Canada. On September 6 he wrote to Sir Edward
that " the reference to the people of the Dominion of Canada seems
to imply a practical transfer to that Province of the right of nomi
nation which the treaty gives to her Majesty." He informed Sir
Edward that " in the opinion of the President, a refusal on his part
to make a nomination, or to concur in the conjoint nomination con
templated by the treaty, on the ground that some local interest (jthat
for instance of the fishermen of Gloucester) objected to the primary
mode of filling the commission intended by the treaty, might well
be regarded by her Majesty's Government as a departure from the
letter and spirit of the treaty." Mr. Fish went still farther : " In
the President's opinion, such a course on his part might justify the
British Government in remonstrating, and possibly in hesitating as
to its future relations to the Commission." The rebuke was not too
severe, because if the matter was to be left to the judgment of the
people of Canada, it would have been far wiser to remand the nego
tiation originally to the authorities of the Dominion, with whom the
United States could probably have come to an agreement much
more readily than with the Imperial Government.
On the 24th of September Sir Edward advised Mr. Fish that he
was instructed by Earl Granville to propose that "the Ministers of
the United States and of her Majesty, at the Hague, should be
authorized to see if they could not agree upon some Dutch gentle
man to act as third Commissioner, who would be acceptable to both
Governments." Mr. Fish replied to Sir Edward, two days later, that
in regard to the plan of selecting " some Dutch gentleman," through
the American and English Ministers at the Hague, he was directed
by the President to say that such mode of appointment "varies from
the provisions of the treaty, which has received the Constitutional
assent of the Senate. The President, therefore, does not feel him
self at liberty to entertain a proposition which would require the
conclusion of a new treaty in the Constitutional form before the
proposition could be assented to by the United States." Mr. Fish
added, with a justifiable brusqueness not often found in his diplomatic

628 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
correspondence, that " it is deeply to be regretted that her Majesty's
Government has made no effort to comply with that provision of the
Twenty-third Article of the Treaty, whereby it was agreed that the third
Commissioner should be named by the President of the United States
and her Britannic Majesty conjointly."
A reply came from Sir Edward on the 1st of October. To Mr.
Fish's charge that no effort had been made on the part of her
Majesty's Government, he answered by reminding him that he had
proposed Mr. Delfosse, and also " some Dutch gentleman " to be
agreed upon by the Ministers of England and the United States at
the Hague. Mr. Fish replied on the 3d of October, in a somewhat
caustic review of the entire correspondence, in which he clearly
proved that " the effort of this Government to carry into execution
the provisions of the Twenty-third Article of the treaty have hitherto
failed from no fault or negligence on its part." He closed his note by
renewing the statement that " the President earnestly hopes that the
two Governments will yet agree upon a third Commissioner, and to
that end is willing to waive the question of the time within which
the joint nomination should be made."
After protracted correspondence Sir Edward advised Mr. Fish
that her Majesty's Government considered that the three months
having expired, the appointment of the third Commissioner rested
with the representative in London of the Emperor of Austria
and King of Hungary. Mr. Fish argued to the contrary in a dis
patch of October 25th. He was unable to perceive that any right of
nomination had passed beyond the control of the two Governments,
and still entertained the hope that an effort might be made by her
Majesty's Government to agree upon a third Commissioner, in the
spirit of the treaty and with the concurrent appointment of the two
Governments. Sir Edward replied, on December 2, as instructed by
Lord Granville, that " her Majesty's Government, concurring with the
Law Officers of the Crown, thinks the Article is explicit as to the
appointment of the third Commissioner being left to the Austrian
representative in London if not made within a certain date," and
added : " Her Majesty's Government, therefore, considers that the
Government of the Dominion of Canada might complain if the nom
ination were not made as provided for by the treaty ; and that if
the arbitrator were to give a decision unfavorable to Canada great
discontent might arise in consequence in the colony." Earl Gran
ville, therefore, asked that the two Governments might agree upon an

FRESH PROPOSAL FOR RECIPROCITY TREATY. 629
•' identic note to be addressed to the Austrian Government by the
representatives of the United States and Great Britain, requesting
that the Austrian embassador at London may be authorized to
proceed with the nomination of the third Commissioner."

Having by this dilatory if not tortuous process thrown the choice
of the third Commissioner into the hands of the Austrian Ambas
sador at London, the British Government evidently felt that it had
won a great advantage. If that Government had reason to fear the
influence of any foreign Minister residing in Washington, — unless
he should be one representing a country dependent upon British
power for its origin and existence, — it assuredly could not doubt
that an Austrian Ambassador, residing in London, instinctively hos
tile to a Republican government, and cherishing a special grievance
against the United States, would lean to the English side of any
question submitted to arbitration. Beyond these considerations came
the social influences in the richest capital of the world — all favorable
to England, all hostile to the United States. Apparently believing
that the United States would shrink from presenting the case of the
fisheries to a commission in which Great Britain had so manifest an
advantage, that Government proposed (before the Commission could
sit) to open negotiations looking to a renewal of the Reciprocity
Treaty between Canada and the United States. The British authori
ties had in their own hands, as they naturally supposed, a strong
leverage, by which our Government could be coerced, as it had been
in 1854, into reciprocity of trade upon other products. It was to
be a series of moral coercions, either accomplished or attempted.
Coerced into accepting Mr. Delfosse as third Commissioner, we were
now to be coerced into a commercial treaty for the benefit of Canada
in order to escape the possible award on the fisheries.
What the British Government desired was substantially a re
newal of the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, — fishery clauses included.
That treaty had expired in 1866 ; and to aid in securing its renewal
a highly intelligent special Commissioner, Mr. Rothery, was now sent
to Washington to aid the British Legation in negotiating such a
convention. Success was more easily attained with the Executive
department of our Government than with the Legislative. A treaty
of reciprocity was agreed upon between Mr. Fish and Sir Edward

630 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Thornton, and duly transmitted to the Senate. If ratified by that
body, it would still be incomplete until the consent of the House
should be obtained. But it was rejected by the Senate on the 3d of
February, 1875 ; and the two Governments were left to renew the
arrangements for the Fishery Commission, which by agreement had
not been affected by the postponement resulting from the' negotia
tions for reciprocity.
Various delays hindered the agreement between the two Govern
ments upon an identic note to be addressed to the Austrian Gov
ernment, requesting the appointment of the third Commissioner by
the representative of that Government in London ; and it was not
accomplished until the winter of 1876-77. Mr. Fish realized by that
time that he no longer had the power to prevent the selection of
Mr. Delfosse, and that this selection, made against open and avowed
opposition, might be especially detrimental to the interests of the
United States. Mr. Fish realized also that Count von Beust, the
Austrian Ambassador, might select some one even more objectiona
ble than Mr. Delfosse, if that were possible ; and he therefore thought
it expedient to withdraw his personal objections to that gentleman,
and agree to that which he could not change or avert. Upon intima
tions to that effect Count von Beust named Mr. Delfosse as the third
Commissioner. The Canadian Government, whose interests and
influence in the matter had been apparently consulted by Lord Gran
ville at every step, and which had been represented as objecting to
the appointment of any Minister accredited to Washington, gladly
approved the selection of Mr. Delfosse, although he was and had
been for many years " a Minister accredited to Washington."
The record of this case, as thus shown by the official correspond
ence, is not creditable to the English Government. If in an arbi
tration between private persons, either of them should make palpa
ble and avowed effort to secure a particular man — connected with
him by kinship and business interests — he would be considered
as acting unfairly, the common judgment of the people would con
demn him, and the tribunal to which the award was rendered would
unhesitatingly set it aside as vitiated, upon proof that advantage
had been secured in the selection of the Arbitrators. The English
Government would no doubt fall back for its defense upon the
acquiescence which was ultimately and reluctantly extorted from
Secretary Fish. But the official correspondence shows that Mr. Fish
resisted and protested as long as he had power to resist and protest,

HALIFAX FISHERY COMMISSION. 631
and consented when his consent was only a form of courtesy to the
gentleman whose appointment had been predetermined by the British
Government. It might have been wiser, perhaps, for Mr. Fish to
continue his protest to the last, and leave to the British Government
no shadow of excuse for its extraordinary and unjustifiable course.
The Fishery Commission met at Halifax, N.S., in the summer of
1877. Sir Alexander T. Gait was the British Commissioner, Honor
able Ensign H. Kellogg of Massachusetts was the United-States
Commissioner, and Mr. Delfosse was the third. The agent of the
British Government was Sir Richard Ford, a member of the British
Diplomatic Corps ; and the agent of the United-States Government
was Honorable Dwight Foster, formerly a judge of the Massachusetts
Supreme Court. The British case was represented by five able
members of the Colonial Bar, four of whom were Queen's counsel,
— Sir W. V- Whiteway of Newfoundland ; L. C. Davies, Premier of
Prince Edward's Island ; J. Doutre of Montreal ; C. J. Weatherby
of the Province of Nova Scotia ; S. R. Thompson of New Brunswick.
The American case was represented by the agent, Judge Foster,
Richard H. Dana of Massachusetts, and William Henry Trescot of
South Carolina, American Secretary of Legation in London under
the Presidency of Mr. Fillmore, and Assistant Secretary of State
during the Administration of Mr. Buchanan.
The case was elaborately prepared and ably argued on both sides.
Reduced to its most simple statement, the contention of the United-
States Government was this : that the duty of the Commission was
limited ; that it was charged with the decision of no political or
diplomatic questions ; that all such questions had been determined
by the high contracting parties in signing the treaty of Washington ;
and that this Commission was simply a reference for an accounting
in a given department of trade. They contended that the value of
the inshore fisheries was simply their value as mackerel fisheries ;
that to estimate one-fourth of the whole mackerel-catch as taken by
American fishermen was a liberal, even an extravagant concession on
the part of the United States ; and that the remission of duty on
Colonial fish and fish-oil, which was admitted to be worth $350,000
per annum to the Dominion of Canada, was an ample equivalent.
In presenting the British case every consideration was ^ut for
ward by the clever men who represented it, to magnify the conces
sion made to the United States. They dwelt at great length upon
the thousands of miles of coast thrown open to Americans ; upon

632 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
the fabulous wealth of the fisheries, where every one caught had,
like the fish of the miracle in Scripture, a bit of money in its mouth ;
upon the fact that the chief resource and variety of fishing lay with
in the three-mile limit. They managed to obscure the real issue
by great masses of confused statistics, and caused the sparsely
settled provinces to appear as granting an extraordinary privilege
to American fishermen, in allowing their nets to be dried and their
fish to be cured on the sands and rocks of their remote and unin
habited coasts.
After the respective cases had been stated and all the evidence
and arguments heard it was found that the differences of opinion
between the British and the United-States Commissioners were irrec
oncilable. The decision was therefore left to Mr. Delfosse — as was
anticipated from the first. He estimated the superior advantage
of the privilege of the inshore Colonial fisheries, over such as were
given to British subjects in American waters, at $5,500,000 for their
twelve years' use. The result of the negotiation, therefore, was
that for twelve years' use of the inshore British Colonial fisheries,
which were ours absolutely by the treaty of 1782, we paid to the
British Government the award of $5,500,000, and remitted duties
to the amount of $350,000 per annum (for the period of twelve years,
$4,200,000), besides building up into a profitable and prosperous
industry the shore-fishing of Prince Edward's Island, which before
the Reciprocity Treaty was not even deemed worthy of computation.

The award was made on the 23d of November, 1877. It pro
duced profound astonishment throughout the United States, accom
panied by no small degree of indignation. Rumors in regard to the
mode of Mr. Delfosse's appointment became frequent during the
ensuing winter; and on the 11th of March, 1878, Mr. Blaine of
Maine submitted a resolution in the Senate, requesting the Presi
dent, if not incompatible with the interests of the public service, to
transmit the correspondence which preceded the selection of Mr.
Delfosse as third Commissioner. It was promptly given to the
Senate zad to the public, and increased to a great degree the popu
lar dissatisfaction with the result. For the first time Mr. Delfosse
became acquainted with the serious objections made by the Govern
ment of the United States to his appointment. It is probable that

AMOUNT OF HALIFAX AWARD. 633
if his government had been advised of the facts Mr. Delfosse would
never have been subjected to the embarrassment and mortification
of serving on the Commission.
In transmitting to Congress the papers relating to the award, on
the 17th of May (1878), President Hayes recommended the "appro
priation of the necessary sum, with such discretion in the Executive
Government, in regard to the payment, as in the wisdom of Congress
the public interests may seem to require." The whole matter was
referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and on the 28th
of May the chairman of the Committee, Hon. Hannibal Hamlin,
made an elaborate report, reviewing the history of the transaction
in a very thorough and impartial manner. He also submitted a reso
lution, declaring that "the views and recommendations embraced
in the report of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, touch
ing the award made by the Fishery Commission at Halifax, are
hereby approved." The Committee, at the same time, reported
a bill appropriating five and a half millions for the payment of the
award. The report of the Committee recommended that " the President
of the United States should be authorized to pay the award, if, after
correspondence with the Government of Great Britain, he shall,
without further communication with Congress, deem that such pay
ment shall be demanded by the honor and good faith of the Nation ;
and if in pursuance of that conclusion the award shall be paid, the
President shall, as soon as may be convenient thereafter, lay the
correspondence with the British Government relating thereto before
Congress." Mr. Hamlin pointed out in his report the possibility
that " the Halifax Commission had proceeded ultra vires and taken
into consideration certain elements not fairly in the case submitted."
" When the King of the Netherlands," said the report, " was selected
as umpire in 1827 to settle the North-eastern Boundary dispute
between Great Britain and the United States, his award was set aside
on the plain and justifiable ground stated by Mr. Clay, then Secre
tary of State, that his Majesty had recommended a mode of settle
ment outside of the facts and terms of submission." Had Mr.
Delfosse and Mr. Gait proceeded in a similar manner ?
Attention was also called by Mr. Hamlin to the fact that the
award was made only by two Commissioners, the third dissenting.
In the two other Commissions organized under the Treaty of Wash
ington it was specifically provided that a majority of the Commis-

1 634 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
sioners should decide, but in constituting the Fishery Commission
no such provision was made. What was the fair inference ? Red
mond on arbitrations and awards, Francis Russell, and other eminent
English authorities, lay down the doctrine that" on a reference to
several arbitrators, with no provision that less than all shall make
an award, each must act, and all must act together ; and every stage
of the proceedings must be in the presence of all, and the award
must be signed by all at the same time." The London Times, July
6, 1877, just before the Commission was organized at Halifax, had
asserted that " on every point that comes before the Fishery Com
mission for decision, the unanimous consent of all its members is,
by the terms of the treaty, necessary before an authoritative verdict
can be given." And Mr. Blake, the Minister of Justice for Canada,
had declared in 1875 that " the amount of compensation we shall
receive must be the amount unanimously agreed upon by the
Commissioners." Mr. Hamlin, representing the Committee on Foreign Relations,
was careful not to put the United States in the attitude of repudi
ating the award. "However much," said the report, "we may
regard the award made at Halifax as excessively exorbitant and pos
sibly beyond the legal and proper power of those making it, your
Committee would not recommend that the Government of the United
States disregard it, if the Government of her Britannic Majesty, after
a full review of all the facts and circumstances of the case, shall con
clude and declare the award to be lawfully and honorably due." It
was aptly added that " the intelligence and virtue of British states
men cannot fail to suggest that arbitration can only be retained as a
fixed mode of adjusting international disputes by demonstrating its
efficiency as a method of securing mutual justice and thus assuring
that mutual content without which awards and verdicts are powerful
only for mischief."
To the resolution approving the report made by Mr. Hamlin, Mr.
Edmunds offered an amendment, declaring that " Articles XVIII. and
XXI. of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, con
cluded on the 8th of May, 1871 (remitting the duties on fish and
fish-oil), ought to be terminated at the earliest period consistent
with the provisions of Article XXXIII. of the same treaty (providing
that the remission should be for ten years)." A brief debate ensued
and the resolution, with Mr. Edmunds's amendment, was adopted by
a large majority. The bill reported by the committee, appropriating

EVARTS-SALISBURY CORRESPONDENCE. 635
the five and a half million dollars, was then passed without objec-
tipn. Congress had now done with the subject, and its final disposi
tion was left to the Executive Department of the Government.1
Responding to the judgment of Congress, Mr. Evarts, then Secre
tary of State, presented the whole argument against the award in a
dispatch of September 27, 1878. He was compelled to believe from
the magnitude of the award, that considerations foreign to the ques
tion submitted had been brought .before the Arbitration. He called
the attention of Lord Salisbury, who had become Foreign Secretary
in the second Disraeli Cabinet, that five fishing-seasons under the
treaty had elapsed before the Halifax Commission was organized,
and that therefore we had actual statistics showing the value of
the privilege conceded to the United States, instead of the conjectu
ral estimates which had been used when the treaty was made. By
these actual and careful statistics, it had been found that from the
inshore fishing American fishermen had in the five seasons secured
125,961 barrels of mackerel, — worth when packed and ready for
exportation $3.75 per barrel, and in the aggregate $472,353. But in
this price, as Mr. Evarts explained, "are included the barrel, the
salt, the expense of catching, curing and packing, which must all be
deducted before the profit is realized. Upon the evidence, a dollar
a barrel would be an excessive estimate of net profit, and this would
give to our fishermen, for the five seasons of the fishery privilege,
but $25,000 a year, or for the whole twelve years but $300,000."
Not content to rest his argument upon this statement alone, Mr.
Evarts called Lord Salisbury's attention to the fact that if the
mackerel be estimated at the most extravagant price of $10 per bar
rel, and half the sum estimated as net profit, the total value of the
fishery would be but $125,000 per annum, or $1,500,000 for the twelve
years. The only problem therefore, left for the Government of the
United States to consider, was whether in exchange for the $5,500,-
1 The following is the text of the hill appropriating the amount necessary to pay the
award : —
" That the sum of five and one-half million dollars, in gold coin, be, and the same is
hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and
placed under the direction of the President of the United States, with which to pay to
the Government of her Britannic Majesty the amount awarded by the fisheries commis
sion, lately assembled at Halifax in pursuance of the Treaty of Washington, if, after cor
respondence with the British Government on the subject of the conformity of the award
to the requirements of the treaty and to the terms of the question thereby submitted to
the commission, the President shall deem it his duty to make the payment without fur
ther communication with Congress."

636 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
000 awarded by Mr. Delfosse, and the $4,200,000 of duties remitted
to Canada on fish and fish-oil, we were actually to receive a total of
$300,000 or $1,500,000? In other words was the loss to the United
States by the transaction to be $9,400,000 or $8,200,000?
Lord Salisbury, in his reply, quoted eminent American publi
cists to show that a majority of the Commission was authorized to
make an award. He maintained that the rule in international arbi
trations empowered the majority of the arbitrators to decide; but
if that be a generally recognized rule, his Lordship should have ex
plained why in the case of the Geneva and Washington arbitrations,
(provided for in the same treaty with the Halifax arbitration), the
right of the majority to decide was specifically provided for, and was
regarded in at least one case as a concession by the High Commis
sioners of Great Britain. His Lordship declined to follow Mr. Evarts
"into the details of his argument." He maintained that "these
very matters were examined at great length and with conscientious
minuteness by the Commission whose award is under discussion."
He admitted, with diplomatic courtesy, that " Mr. Evarts' reasoning
is powerful," but still in his judgment " capable of refutation." He
did not, however, attempt to refute it, but based his case simply on
the ground that the award gave the $5,500,000 to England. In all
frankness his Lordship should have said that Mr. Delfosse, in his
grace and benevolence, gave the large sum to England.
Secretary Evarts, with great propriety, declined to press the
points submitted in his dispatch. His only design was to call the
attention of the British Government to the extraordinary facts, and
leave to the determination of that Government whether any thing
should be done to mitigate the glaring and now demonstrated injus
tice of the award. "The Government of the United States," said
Mr. Evarts in closing his dispatch, " will not attempt to press its own
interpretation of the treaty against the deliberate interpretation of
her Majesty's Government to the contrary." He made no rejoinder
to Lord Salisbury, and paid on the day it was due — one year from
date of award — the amount adjudged to Great Britain. Every
American felt that under such circumstances it was better to pay
than to be paid the five and a half millions of dollars.
It is not difficult to understand how Mr. Delfosse was brought
to such an extraordinary conclusion, and there has been no disposi
tion in the United States to impute his action to improper motives.
The wrong was done when he was selected as third Commissioner,

INFLUENCES SURROUNDING MR. DELFOSSE. 637
and the tenacity with which he was urged will always require expla
nation from the British Government. Mr. DeKosse had spent his life
in the Diplomatic service, was not in any sense a man of affairs, and
was profoundly ignorant of the fishery question. From the diplo
matic point of view he could not understand that the Dominion of
Canada should open her inshore fisheries to such a power as the
United States without some consideration beyond that of mere com
mercial demand. Measuring in his own mind the value of such a
right on the restricted coast of his own country, it was natural that
he should multiply it somewhat in the proportion of the vastly
extended coast of British America, now thrown open to the United
States. He was further influenced by the claim shrewdly put
forward by the British agent and British attorneys that the inshore
fisheries were worth $12,000,000 to the United States for the period
of the treaty, and the Newfoundland fisheries $2,280,000 in addition.
It is difficult to speak of these pretensions with respect, or to treat
them as honestly put forward by men to whom all the facts were
familiar. Above all, Mr. Delfosse knew that the Belgian sovereign, whose
favor was his own fortune, would earnestly desire a triumph for the
British cause. Both sides made strong representations, and pre
sented statistics and tabular statements and elaborate comparisons,
which he did not analyze, and perhaps did not understand. Eng
land, he knew, had been mulcted in fifteen and a half millions in
the Geneva award, and the San Juan controversy had been decided
against her by the Emperor of Germany. With the connections
and surroundings of Mr. Delfosse he would have been more than
human if he had not desired England to triumph in at least one
of the questions submitted to arbitration under the Treaty of Wash
ington. But while these circumstances relieve Mr. Delfosse from
any imputation upon his personal or official honor, they only render
more prominent and more offensive the singular pertinacity with
which the British Government insisted upon his appointment as one
of the Commissioners in an arbitration that-was originally designed
to be impartial.

CHAPTER XXVIII.
Forty-sixth Congress. — Extra Sessions. — Organization of House. —Of Senate.
— Leading Men in Each. —Democratic Gain in Influence. — Control of
Both Senate and House. — Death of Senator Chandler. — Question of Civil
Service Reform. — The Patronage of the Government. — Its Illegitimate
.Influence. — The Question of Chinese Labor. — Legislation thereon.
THE last session of the Forty-fifth Congress closed without making
provision for the expenses of the Legislative, Executive and
Judicial departments, or for the support of the army. Differences
between the two branches as to points of independent legislation
had prevented an agreement upon the appropriation bills for these
imperative needs of the Government. President Hayes therefore
called the Forty-sixth Congress to meet in extra session on the 18th
of March (1879). His Administration had an exceptional experience
in assembling Congress in extra session. In time of profound peace,
with no exigency in the public service except that created by dis
agreement of Senate and House, he had twice been compelled to
assemble Congress in advance of its regular day for meeting.
The House was organized by the re-election of Mr. Randall as
Speaker. He received 143 votes to 125 for James A. Garfield, while
13 members elected as Greenbackers cast their votes for Hendrick
B. Wright of Pennsylvania. Among the most prominent of the new
members were George M. Robeson from the Camden district of New
Jersey, who proved to be as strong in parliamentary debate as he
was known to be in argument at the bar ; Levi P. Morton from one
of the New-York City districts, who had all his life been devoted to
business affairs and who had achieved a high reputation in banking
and financial circles ; Warner Miller from the Herkimer district, who
was extensively engaged as a manufacturer and had already acquired
consideration by his service in the New- York Legislature ; Richard
Crowley from the Niagara district, a well-known lawyer in Western
New York.
—Henry H. Bingham came from one of the Philadelphia districts
638

ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE. 639
with an unusually good record in the war, which he entered aa
lieutenant in a Pennsylvania regiment and left with the rank of
brevet Brigadier-General. He served on the staff of General Han
cock and was wounded in three great battles. — John S. Newberry
was a successful admiralty lawyer from the Detroit district. —
Roswell G. Horr, from one of the Northern districts of Michigan,
became widely known as a ready and efficient speaker with a quaint
and humorous mode of argument.
— Thomas L. Young came from one of the Cincinnati districts. He
was a native of Ireland, a private soldier in the Regular Army of the
United States before the war, Colonel of an Ohio regiment during
the war, and was afterwards elected Lieutenant-Governor of Ohio on
the ticket with Rutherford B. Hayes. — Frank H. Hurd, an earnest
and consistent advocate of free trade, entered again from the Toledo
district. — A. J. Warner, distinguished for his advocacy of silver,
came from the Marietta district.
— William D. Washburn, a native of Maine but long a resident in the
North-West, came as the representative of the Minneapolis district.
Of seven brothers, reared on a Maine farm, he was the fourth who
had sat in the House of Representatives. Israel Washburn repre
sented Maine, Elihu B. Washburne represented Illinois, CadAvalader
C. Washburne represented Wisconsin. They were descended of
sturdy stock and inherited the ability and manly characteristics
which had received consideration in four different States.
The Democratic ascendency in the South had become so complete
that out of one hundred and six Congressional districts the opposi
tion had only been able to elect four representatives, — Leonidas C.
Houck from East Tennessee, Daniel L. Russell of North Carolina,
Milton G. Urner of Maryland, and Joseph Jorgensen of Virginia.
These were the few survivors in a contest waged for the extermina
tion of the Republican party in the South.

Among the new senators were some well-known public men : —
John A. Logan took his seat as the successor of Governor Oglesby.
He had been absent from the Senate two years, and returned with
the renewed endorsement of the great State which he had faithfully
served in war and in peace. He had been in Congress before the
rebellion. He was first a candidate for the House of Representatives

640 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
in the year of the famous contest between Lincoln and Douglas,
and was a partisan supporter and personal friend of the latter. He
changed his political relations when he found himself summoned to
the field in defense of the Union. General Logan's services at that
time were peculiarly important. He lived in that section of Illinois
whose inhabitants were mainly people of Southern blood, and whose
natural sympathies might have led them into mischievous ways but
for his stimulating example and efforts. The Missouri border was
near them on the one side, the Kentucky border on another, and
if the Southern Illinoisans had been betrayed, in any degree, into
a disloyal course the military operations of the Government in that
section would have been greatly embarrassed. General Logan did
not escape without misrepresentation at that critical time, but the
impartial judgment of his countrymen has long since vindicated his
course as one of exceptional courage and devoted patriotism. His
military career was brilliant and successful, and his subsequent
course in Congress enlarged his reputation. Indeed no man in the
country has combined a military and legislative career with the de
gree of success in both which General Logan has attained.
— George H. Pendleton, who had served in Congress during the
administrations of Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Lincoln, retired tempo
rarily from political life after his unsuccessful canvass for the Vice-
Presidency on the ticket with General McClellan in 1864. He was the
Democratic candidate for Governor of Ohio in 1869, against Ruther
ford B. Hayes, and now returned to the Senate as the successor of
Stanley Matthews. He entered with the advantage of a long career
in the House, in which, as the leader of the minority during the war,
he had sustained himself with tact and ability.
— Nathaniel P. Hill, a native of New York, a graduate of Brown Uni
versity and afterwards professor of chemistry in the same institution,
a student of metallurgy at the best schools in Europe, became a resi
dent of Colorado as manager of a smelting company, in 1867. He soon
acquired an influential position in that new and enterprising State,
and now took his seat in the Senate as the successor of Mr. Chaffee.
— Henry W. Blair, already well known by his service in the House,
now entered the Senate ; and Orville H. Piatt of Connecticut, who
had never served in Congress, came as the successor of Mr. Barnum.
Southern men of note were rapidly filling the Democratic side of
the Senate chamber : Wade Hampton had taken a very conspicuous
part in the Rebellion, had assisted in its beginning when South Caro-

ORGANIZATION OF THE SENATE. 641
lina was hurried out of the Union. He immediately joined the Con
federate Army, where he remained in high command until the close
of the war, after which he took active part in the politics of his State
and was elected to the Governorship in 1876. An extreme Southern
man in his political views, he was in all private relations kindly and
generous. His grandfather Wade Hampton was engaged in two
wars for the Union which the grandson fought to destroy. He was
with the men of Sumter and Marion during the Revolutionary
war, and was a major-general in the war of 1812, commanding in
Northern New York. At his death in 1835 he was believed to be the
largest slave-holder in the United States, owning it was said three
thousand slaves.
— George G. Vest, a native of Kentucky, was one of the few gen
tlemen who had occupied the somewhat anomalous position of
representing in the Confederate Congress a State that had not
seceded. He was a member of both House and Senate at Rich
mond. He was a good debater, of what is known as the Southern
type; logical, direct, forcible, withal showing certain peculiarities
of style and phrase characteristic of graduates from Transylvania
University.
— Zebulon B. Vance was born and reared in Buncombe County,
North Carolina. He belonged originally to that conservative class
of Southern Whigs whose devotion to the Union was considered
steadfast and immovable. He was a representative in Congress
during Mr. Buchanan's Administration, adhering to the remnant of
the Whig party, which went under the name of " American " in the
South. He joined the Confederate Army immediately after the war
began, and a year later was elected Governor of his State. He became
extensively known through the North, first by the rumors of his dis
agreements with Jefferson Davis during the war, and afterwards by
Horace Greeley's repeated reference, in the campaign of 1872, to
his " political disabilities " as an illustration of Republican bigotry.
He has been noted as a stump-speaker and as an advocate. Since
the war he has been so pronounced a partisan as in some degree to
lessen the genial humor which had always been one of his leading
personal traits.
— John S. Williams of Kentucky succeeded Thomas C. McCreery
in the Senate. He had gained much credit when only twenty-seven
years of age as Colonel of a Kentucky regiment in the Mexican war ;
but when the rebellion broke out he joined the Confederates and
Vol. II. 41

642 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
served as a Brigadier-General in the army of General Joseph E.
Johnston. It was said of him, as of many other Southern men of
character and bravery, that they had gallantly borne the flag of the
Union in foreign lands and the flag of Disunion at home. The genial
nature of General Williams won for him in Congress many friends
beyond the line of his own party.
Mr. Chandler of Michigan succeeded Mr. Delano as Secretary
of the Interior in the Cabinet of President Grant in the autumn of
1875, a few months after his retirement from the Senate. He re
turned to the Senate in less than two years from the close of Presi
dent Grant's Administration. Mr. Christiancy resigned to accept
the mission to Peru, and Mr. Chandler resumed his old seat on the
22d of February, 1879. He exhibited his full strength, physically
and mentally, taking active part at once in the debates, and in the
extra session of March, 1879, assuming to a large extent the lead.
In the long discussion on the Army Bill he made a brief speech,
which for force and point excelled any of his previous efforts. In
the campaigns of the ensuing summer and autumn he was invited
to almost every Northern State, and exerted himself for too long a
period. He died suddenly at Chicago on the night of November 1,
after having addressed a vast audience in the evening. He had
nearly completed his sixty-sixth year, and was apparently in the
vigor of life. His active political career embraced about twenty-
five years, and was added to a business life of unusual industry and
prosperity. The appreciation of his public character and the strong
attachment of his personal friends were shown in the eulogies pro
nounced in both Senate and House. At the moment of his death
Mr. Chandler had no doubt the most commanding political position
he ever held. He was a man of strong intellect, strong will, and
rugged integrity.
For the first time since the Congress that was chosen with Mr.
Buchanan in 1856, the Democratic party was in control of both
branches. In the House, with their Greenback allies, they had
more than thirty majority; in the Senate they had six. But under
a Republican President they were able to do little more than they
had already effected with their control of the House. With one
branch they could hold in check any legislation to which they were,
opposed, and even with the control of both branches, if they fell
short of two-thirds in either they could be checked in any legislation
which was in conflict with the Constitutional views and opinions of

SOUTHERN INFLUENCE IN CONGRESS. 643
the President. There was, however, a certain line of legislation to
which the mass of Republicans might be opposed, and which might
at the same time harmonize with the conservative views of the
President. And this they could accomplish.
The main point of difference which had caused the failure of the
Army Bin in the previous Congress was an amendment insisted upon
by the Democratic majority in the House concerning " the use of troops
at the polls," as the issue was popularly termed. It would be unjust
to the Republicans to say that they demanded military aid with the
remotest intention of controlling any man's vote. It was solely with
the purpose of preventing votes from being controlled, and especially
of preventing voters from being driven by violence from the polls.
But as has been already set forth in these pages, public opinion in the
United States is hostile to any thing that even in appearance indi
cates a Government control at elections, and most of all a control by
the use of the military arm. The majority of Representatives seemed
to prefer that voters by the thousand should be deprived by violence
of the right of suffrage, rather than that their rights should be pro
tected by even the semblance of National authority present in the
person of a soldier.
It was demonstrated in the debate that it was only the semblance
of National authority which was present in the South. The number
of troops scattered at various points through the Southern States
was not so large as the number of troops in the Northern States, and,
as was readily shown, did not amount on an average to one soldier
in each county of the States that had been in rebellion. But this
fact seemed to have no weight ; and the Democrats, having a majority
in both Senate and House, now appended to the Army Appropria
tion Bill the amendment upon which the House had insisted the
previous session : " that no money appropriated in this act is appro
priated or shall be paid for the subsistence, equipment, transporta
tion or compensation of any portion of the Army of the United
States to be used as a police force to keep peace at the polls at any
election held within any State." As this enactment was in general
harmony with the Southern policy indicated by President Hayes
upon his inauguration, he approved the bill; and the elections in
several of the Southern States were thenceforth left, not to the
majority of the voters, but to the party which had the hardihood
and the physical resources to decree any desired result. But it was
well known to all familiar with political struggles in the South that

644 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
the white men were not required to use force after the protection of
the National Government was withdrawn. Colored voters were not
equal to the physical contest necessary to assert their civil rights, and
thenceforward personal outrages in large degree ceased. The peace
which followed was the peace of forced submission and not the peace
of contentment. Even that form of peace was occasionally broken
by startling assassinations for the purpose of monition and discipline
to the colored race.

The reform of the Civil Service of the National Government
occupied a considerable share of public attention during the ad
ministration of President Grant and was still further advanced
under President Hayes. The causes which led to the necessity of
reform are more easily determined than the measures which will
effect a cure of admitted evils. When the Federal Government was
originally organized, the President and Vice-President, Senators and
Representatives, were specifically limited in their term of service.
The Federal judges were appointed for life. All other officers were
appointed without any limit as to time, but, according to the decision
of Congress, were removable at pleasure by the Executive. During
the administrations of General Washington and John Adams, covering
the first twelve years of the Federal Government, there were practi
cally no removals at all. Partisan spirit was developed in the con
test of 1800 and the change of public opinion installed Mr. Jefferson
as President. There is no reason to doubt that Mr. Jefferson's personal views
in regard to removals from office were as conservative as those of
his two predecessors, but he was beset for place in an extraordinary
manner by the hosts of eager applicants who claimed to have contrib
uted to his triumph over John Adams, and who, like their successors
in the later days of the Republic, demanded their reward. Mr. Jeffer
son, entertaining the belief that it was not fair that all the offices
should be held by the Federalists, began a series of removals. There
was great outcry against this course by conservative men, who were
averse to the removal of competent and faithful public servants;
and before Mr. Jefferson had proceeded far in his scheme of equaliza
tion it became widely known, through a letter which he had written
in defense of his course in removing the Collector of Customs at New
Haven, that he was intending to remove only a sufficient number

THE TENURE OF OFFICE AFTER 1820. 645
to give his own supporters a fair proportion of places under the
Government. As soon as this design was perceived it seems to have occurred
to the office-holders, most of whom had taken no decided stand
upon political issues, that they could effect the partition more readily
than Mr. Jefferson, by simply avowing themselves to be members of
the party that had elected him. There were certainly many instances
of political conversion among the office-holders of a character which
would to-day subject the incumbents of Federal place to personal
derision and public contempt. But the effect was undoubted ; for
between the clamor of those opposed to the system of removal and
the ready transfer of political allegiance on the part of those already in
place, Mr. Jefferson abandoned the whole effort to change the public
service after the removal of forty-seven officers. Thenceforward, under
his administration and under the administrations of Mr. Madison and
Mr. Monroe, removals were so few as scarcely to be noted, and were
made only upon the proof or the presumption of a justifying cause.
In 1820 a change was wrought which ultimately affected, to a
serious extent, the tenure of office under the General Government.
Thirty-one years had passed since the Constitution was adopted, and
during that whole period there had only been some sixty-five re
movals from office. It was inevitable, therefore, that a considerable
proportion of the incumbents had by reason of age become some
what unfit for the discharge of their duties. Many of them were
Revolutionary officers and soldiers, the youngest of whom must have
been verging upon threescore and ten. No provision had yet been
made for retiring disabled officers of the army, and pensioning the
civil list was not even dreamed of. What, then, should be done with
these old men who had been holding office for so long a period?
Mr. Monroe was opposed, on principle, to removals from office, and
was too kindly disposed to disturb men who had strong patriotic
claims, and who had personal need of the emoluments they were
receiving. As the Executive Department would take no step for relief, Con
gress initiated action, and passed a bill which Mr. Monroe approved
on the 15th of May, 1820, declaring that " all district attorneys, col
lectors of customs, naval officers and surveyors of customs, navy
agents, receivers of public monies for lands, registers of the land
offices, paymasters in the army, the apothecary-general, the assistant
apothecaries-general, the commissary -general of purchases, to be ap-

646 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
pointed under the laws of the United States, shall be appointed for the
term of four years, and shall be removable from office at pleasure."
It was further enacted that all commissions of these officers bearing
date prior to September 30, 1814, "shall cease and expire on the
day of their dates occurring next after the following 30th of Septem
ber;" and others were made to expire after four years from the
date thereof.
The Cabinet of Mr. Monroe contained at that time three able men,
each ambitious for the Presidency — John Quincy Adams, Secretary
of State ; William H. Crawford, Secretary of the Treasury ; John C.
Calhoun, Secretary of War. As there was much opposition to the
four-year law, the friends of Mr. Calhoun and of Mr. Adams united
in imputing its authorship to Mr. Crawford, whose Department
included far the largest share of Executive patronage. The accu
sation was openly made that Mr. Crawford intended to use the offices
of the Treasury Department to promote his political fortunes ; and
the friends of Mr. Calhoun and of Mr. Adams, seeing that their
chiefs had no corresponding number of offices to dispose of, found
their resource in virtuous denunciation of the selfish schemes pro
jected by Mr. Crawford. But there appears to have been no sub
stantial ground for the imputation — the official registers of the
United States showing that between the date of the Act and the year
1824 (when Mr. Crawford's candidacy was expected to ripen) only
such changes were made in the offices of the Treasury Department as
might well have been deemed necessary from causes of age and
infirmity already referred to. Besides, Mr. Crawford during all the
period was in ill-health, with ambition chastened, and strength con
stantly waning.
President John Quincy Adams, following Mr. Monroe, maintained
the conservative habit already established as to removals, — depriving
very few officers of their commissions during the four years of his
term, and those only for adequate cause. With the inauguration of
General Jackson in 1829, and the appointment of Mr. Van Buren as
Secretary of State, the practice of the Government was reversed,
and the system of partisan appointments and removals, familiar to
the present generation, was formally adopted. It became an avowed
political force in those States where the patronage of the Government
was large. It had no doubt a special and potential influence in the
political affairs of New York where the system had its chief inspira
tion, where the " science " of carrying elections was first devised

POLITICAL PARTIES AND THE CIVIL SERVICE. 647
and has since been continuously improved. The system of partisan
removals was resisted by Mr. Clay, Mr. Calhoun, Mr. Webster, and
all the opponents of the Democratic party as then organized; but
it steadily grew, and became the recognized rule under the well-
known maxim proclaimed by Mr. Marcy in the Senate of the United
States in 1832 : " To the victors belong the spoils." In two years
President Jackson had made ten times as many removals as all his
predecessors had made in forty years.
When the Whigs came into power by the election of 1840, Presi
dent Harrison discussed the question of patronage and its abuse, not
merely as tending to strengthen one political party against the other,
but as building up the power of the Executive against the Legislative
Department. Nevertheless with all the denunciations of the leaders
and the avowals of the new President, it is not to be denied that the
Whigs as a party desired the dismissal of the office-holders appointed
by Jackson and Van Buren. From that time onward, although
there was much condemnation of the evil practice of removing good
officers for opinion's sake, each party as it came into power practiced
it ; and prior to 1860 no movement was made with the distinct pur
pose of changing this feature of the civil service.
The Administration of Mr. Lincoln was prevented by the public
exigencies from giving attention to any other measures than those
necessary for the preservation of the Union, and during the war no
change was made or suggested as to the manner of appointment or
removal. The first step towards it was announced in Congress on the
20th day of December, 1865, when Mr. Thomas A. Jenckes of Rhode
Island introduced a bill in the House " to regulate the civil service
of the United States." A few months later, in the same session,
B. Gratz Brown, then a senator from Missouri, submitted a resolution
for " such change in the civil service as shall secure appointments to
the same after previous examination by proper Boards, and as shall
provide for promotions on the score of merit or seniority." While
he remained in Congress Mr. Jenckes annually renewed his proposi
tion for the regulation of the civil service, but never secured the
enactment of any measure looking thereto.
Neither of the two great political parties recognized the subject as
important enough to be incorporated in their platforms, until 1872,
when the National convention of the Republican party declared that
"any system of the civil service under which the subordinate positions
of the Government are considered rewards for mere party zeal is fatally

648 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
demoralizing, and we therefore demand a reform of the system by
laws which shall abolish the evils of patronage and make honesty,
efficiency, and fidelity essential qualifications for public positions,
without practically creating a life tenure of office." Thenceforward
the subject found a place in the creed of the party. But even prior
to this declaration of a political convention, Congress had on the
3d of March, 1871, appended a section to an appropriation bill,
authorizing the President "to prescribe such regulations for the
admission of persons into the civil service of the United States
as may best promote efficiency therein and ascertain the fitness of
each candidate in respect to age, health, character, knowledge, and
ability for the branch of service in which he seeks to enter ; and for
this purpose he may employ suitable persons to conduct such in
quiries, prescribe their duties, and establish regulations for the con
duct of persons who may receive appointments in the civil service."
Under this authority President Grant organized a Commission
composed of Messrs. George William Curtis, Joseph Medill, Alexander
G. Cattell, Davidson A. Walker, E. B. Ellicott, Joseph H. Blackfan,
and David C. Cox. But the Commissioners soon found that Con
gress was indisposed to clothe them with the requisite power, and that
public opinion did not yet demand the reform. Their good inten
tions were therefore frustrated and the Commission 'was unable to
move forward to practical results. When President Hayes came into
power he sought to make reforms in the Civil Service by directing
competitive examinations for certain positions, and by forbidding the
active participation of office-holders in political campaigns. The
defect of this course was that it rested upon an Executive order,
and did not have the permanency of law. The next President might
or might not continue the reform, and all that was gained in the four
years could at once be abandoned.
The settled judgment of discreet men in both political parties is
adverse to the custom of changing non-political officers on merely
political grounds. They believe that it impairs the efficiency of the
public service, lowers the standard of political contests, and brings
reproach upon the Government and the people. So decided is this
opinion among the great majority of Republicans and among a very
considerable number of Democrats, that the former method of ap
pointment will always meet with protest and cannot be permanently
re-established. The inauguration of a new system is hindered some
what by an honest difference of opinion touching the best methods

THE OFFICE-HOLDERS OF THE NATION. 649
of selecting subordinate officers. Competitive examination is the
method most warmly advocated, and on its face appears the fairest ;
yet every observing man knows that it does not always secure the
results most to be desired. Nothing is vouched for more frequently
by chiefs of Government bureaus, than that certain clerks who upon
competitive examination would stand at the head do in point of
efficiency and usefulness stand at the foot.
Another point of difference is in regard to the power of instant
removal, many of the most pronounced reformers of the civil service
holding that power to be essential, and believing that it will not be
abused so long as the removing power cannot arbitrarily appoint the
successor. The matured opinion of others is that a tenure of office
definitely fixed for a term of years, during which the incumbent can
not be disturbed except upon substantial written charges, will secure
a better class of officials. They hold that a subordinate officer is
stripped of his manhood by the consciousness that he may at any
moment be removed at the whim or caprice of some one superior in
station. It too often brings sycophants into the Government Depart
ments, and excludes men of pride and character. On the question
of a life tenure there is a similar division of opinion, which logically
follows the two positions just stated. A life tenure cannot be adopted
as a rule, unless pensions for a civil list shall follow.
There is also a belief with many who are most anxious to improve
the civil service, that the political influence of Government patron
age, as applied to the whole country, has been constantly misunder
stood and therefore exaggerated. At certain places where the customs
and postal services are large the appointing power can no doubt wield
great influence. New- York City is the strongest illustration of this ;
and in less degree a similar influence is recognized at all the large
cities of the country, especially the cities of the seaboard. But even
at those points the political influence of the Federal patronage is
far less than that of the municipal patronage. During the many
years that the patronage, both of National and State governments,
has been in the hands of the Republicans in New York, the municipal
patronage, steadily wielded by the Democrats, has been far more
potential in controlling elections. And throughout the United
States to-day the patronage controlled by municipal governments
largely outweighs in the aggregate that of the General and State
Governments at all points where they come in conflict.
Towards the close of President Hayes' Administration the total

650 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
number of men connected with the Postal service of the United
States was about 64,000. Excluding mail contractors and mail mes
sengers (whose service is allotted to the lowest bidder), the number
subject to political influence was nearly 49,000. Of these, 5,400 had
salaries under $10 per annum each; 19,400 others had salaries under
$100 per annum each; 11,500 others had salaries under $500 per
annum each; 8,100 others had salaries under $1,000 per annum each;
3,300 others had salaries under $1,600 per annum each ; 700 others
had salaries under $2,000 per annum each ; 400 others had salaries
under $3,000 per annum each; 84 had salaries under $4,000 per
annum each. Only 14 had salaries of $4,000, and 2 (the Postmaster-
General and the postmaster at New York) had $8,000 per annum
each. In a majority of the Congressional districts of the United
States there is scarcely any patronage known except that of post
masters ; and when more than one-half of the total number of Post
masters have salaries under $100 per annum each, the political
influence derived therefrom cannot be great.
The remaining officers of the United States were at the same
period about 21,000 in number. The mass of these were in the Cus
toms and Internal Revenue, and in the various Executive Depart
ments at Washington. They had a larger average of salary than
those engaged in the Postal Service. But one-half of the whole
number had less than $1,000 per annum each, and less than one-tenth
had salaries in excess of $2,000 per annum. Large salaries under
the Federal Government are extremely few in number. Excluding
the Federal Judiciary, whose members are appointed for life, and
excluding senators and representatives, who are elected in their re
spective States, there are not more than one hundred and fifty
officials under the National Government whose respective salaries
equal or exceed $5,000 per annum. The emolument cannot be re
garded as large in a country that opens so many avenues to fortune,
and the places of this highest grade cannot be regarded as numerous
when (in 1879-81) there were not more than three of them to every
million inhabitants of the Republic.
While these figures demonstrate that the civil service of the
United States is moderately paid, they also demonstrate that it can
be more easily modified than if the emoluments were greater. A
correct apprehension of an evil is the first step towards its remedy,
and it is a serious mistake to apply to the interior States and the
rural districts the imputations and accusations which justly lie

IMMIGRATION OF CHINESE LABORERS. 651
against the service where of necessity a large number of officers are
brought together. If lack of zeal is found in many sections of the
country on this subject, it is because the people are never brought in
contact with the evils, the abuses, and the corruptions which are well
known to exist at points where the patronage is large, and where
consequently many citizens are struggling for place.
No reform in the civil service will be valuable that does not
release members of Congress from the care and the embarrassment
of appointments ; and no boon so great could be conferred upon
senators and representatives as to relieve them from the worry, the
annoyance, and the responsibility which time and habit have fixed
upon them in connection with the dispensing of patronage, all of
which belongs under the Constitution to the Executive. On the
other hand the evil of which President Harrison spoke — the em
ployment of the patronage by the Executive to influence legislation
— is far the greatest abuse to which the civil service has ever been
perverted. To separate the two great Departments of the Govern
ment, to keep each within its own sphere, will be an immeasurable
advantage and will enhance the character and dignity of both. A
non-political service will be secured when Congress shall be left to its
legitimate functions, when the President shall not interfere therewith
by the use of patronage, and when the responsibility of appointments
shall rest solely with the Department to which the Organic Law of
the Republic assigns it.

The rapid settlement of California, stimulated as it was by the
discovery of gold, attracted a considerable immigration from China.
Industrious and patient laborers, the Chinese were found useful to
the pioneers ; and they received for their work a degree of compensa
tion many fold greater than they had ever realized in their native
land, yet far below the average wages of an American laborer. The
treaty relations between China and the United States, negotiated ori
ginally by Caleb Cushing in 1844 and afterwards by William B. Reed
in 1858, did not contemplate the immigration into either country of
citizens or subjects of the other. But in 1868 the treaty negotiated
by Mr. Seward as Secretary of State and Mr. Burlingame, acting as
Minister Plenipotentiary for China, recognized the right of the citi
zens of either country to visit or reside in the other, specially exclud
ing in both, however, the right of naturalization.

652 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Upon Mr. Seward's urgent request the following stipulation was
inserted in the Fifth Article of the Treaty : " The high contracting
parties join in reprobating any other than an entirely voluntary emigra
tion. . . . They consequently agree to pass laws making it a penal
offense for citizens of the United States or Chinese subjects to take
Chinese subjects either to the United States or to any foreign coun
try, or for a Chinese subject or citizen of the United States to take
citizens of the United States to China or to any foreign country
without their free and voluntary consent respectively."
The treaty was negotiated in Washington on the 28th of July,
1868 ; but the ratifications were not exchanged until November, 1869.
Fear of the evils that might result from it followed so closely upon
its conclusion that General Grant, in his first annual message (Decem
ber, 1869), gave this warning : " I advise such legislation as will for
ever preclude the enslavement of Chinese upon our soil under the
name of coolies, and also to prevent American vessels from engaging
in the transportation of coolies to any country tolerating the system."
In his message of December, 1874, the President recurred to the
subject, informing Congress that " the great proportion of the Chinese
emigrants who come to our shores do not come voluntarily to make their
homes with us or to make their labor productive of general prosperity,
but come under contracts with head men who own them almost abso
lutely. In a still worse form does this apply to Chinese women. Hardly
a perceptible percentage of them perform any honorable labor, but
they are brought here for shameful purposes, to the disgrace of the
communities where they are settled and to the great demoralization
of the youth of those localities. If this evil practice can be legislated
against, it will be my pleasure as well as duty to enforce any regula
tion to secure so desirable an end." In his message of December,
1875, he again invited the attention of Congress to " the evil arising
from the importation of Chinese women, but few of whom are brought
to our shores to pursue honorable or useful occupations."
These repeated communications to Congress by the President
were based upon accurate information furnished from California,
where the condition of Chinese immigrants had created grave solici
tude in the minds of leading citizens. So serious, indeed, had it
become in the view of the people of California, that the Legislature
of that State, in January, 1876, memorialized Congress in favor of
a modification of the treaty with China, for the purpose of averting
the grave evils threatened from immigration — carried on against

IMMIGRATION OF CHINESE LABORERS. 653
the letter and spirit of the treaty. Before appealing to Con-
gress California had attempted the accomplishment of this end
through laws of her own; but the Supreme Court of the United
States had decided that the subject was one within the exclusive
jurisdiction of Congress, and hence the State could do nothing to
protect itself against what a large majority of its citizens regarded
as a great danger. On the 20th of April, 1876, Mr. Sargent of
California submitted a resolution, asking the Senate to " recommend
to the President to cause negotiations to be entered upon with the
Chinese Government to effect such change in the existing treaty
between the United States and China as will lawfully permit the
application of restrictions upon the great influx of Chinese subjects
to this country." A few days later Mr. Sargent addressed the Senate
at length on the whole subject of Chinese immigration in California,
and presented in full detail the grievances of which the people on
the Pacific Coast complained.
The Senate, reluctant to take at once so decisive a step as was
involved in Mr. Sargent's resolution, adopted a substitute, moved
by Mr. Morton of Indiana, directing that " a committee of three sena
tors be appointed to investigate the character, extent, and effect of
Chinese immigration to this country." It was afterwards enlarged
by being changed into a joint committee with the addition of two
members from the House. Mr. Morton of Indiana, Mr. Sargent of
California, and Mr. Cooper of Tennessee were the senatorial mem
bers ; Mr. Piper of California and Mr. Meade of New York were the
Representatives on the joint committee. The Committee made a
thorough examination of the question, visiting California and devot
ing a large part of the Congressional recess to the duty. Their re
port embraced a vast amount of information touching the Chinese
immigrants in California, their religion, their superstitions, their
habits, their relations to the industrial questions, to trade and to
commerce. A large number of the reports were printed but noth
ing further was done for the session.
In the succeeding Congress, the first under President Hayes, the
subject was kept alive in both branches, in the first and second ses
sions, by the introduction of bills and resolutions ; but no conclusions
were reached until the last session. Early in December (1878) a
bill was introduced by Mr. Wren of Nevada, "to restrict the immi
gration of Chinese into the United States," and was referred to the
Committee on Education and Labor. It was reported to the House

654 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
by Mr. Willis of Kentucky on the 14th of January, and on the 28th,
after brief debate (maintained in the affirmative by the California
members and in the negative principally by Mr. Dwight Townsend of
New York), the bill was passed by ayes 155, noes 72, considerably
more than two-thirds voting in the affirmative.
The bill called forth prolonged debate in the Senate. The sen
ators from California (Mr. Booth and Mr. Sargent), Mr. Thurman,
Mr. Mitchell of Oregon, and Mr. Blaine, took the leading part in
favor of the bill ; while Mr. Hamlin, chairman of the Committee on
Foreign relations, Mr. Conkling, Mr. Hoar, and Mr. Stanley Matthews,
led in opposition. The bill passed the Senate by ayes 39, noes 27.
The principal feature of the measure was the prohibiting of any
vessel from bringing more than fifteen Chinese passengers to any port
of the United States, unless the vessel should be driven to seek a
harbor from stress of weather. The bill further requested the Presi
dent to give notice to the Emperor of China of the abrogation of
Articles V. and VI. of the Burlingame treaty of 1868. A large por
tion of the debate was devoted to this feature of the bill, — the con
tention on one side being that fair notice, with an opportunity for
negotiation, should be given to the Chinese Government, and on the
other, that as the treaty itself contained no provision for its amend
ment or termination, it left the aggrieved party thereto its own choice
of the mode of procedure.
The argument against permitting Mongolian immigration to con
tinue rested upon facts that were indisputable. The Chinese had
been steadily arriving in California for more than a quarter of a cen
tury, and they had not in the least degree become a component part
of the body politic. On the contrary, they were as far from any
assimilation with the people at the end of that long period as they
were on the first day they appeared on the Pacific Coast. They did
not come with the intention of remaining. They sought no perma
nent abiding-place. They did not wish to own the soil. They built
no houses. They adhered to all their peculiar customs of dress and
manner and religious rite, took no cognizance of the life and growth
of the United States, and felt themselves to be strangers and so
journers in a country which they wished to leave as soon as they
could acquire the pitiful sum necessary for the needs of old age in
their native land. They were simply a changing, ever renewing, for
eign element in an American State. They were ready to work at a
rate of wages upon which a white man could not subsist and support a

THE PRESIDENT VETOES THE CHINESE BILL. 655
family. Theirs was in all its aspects a servile labor, — one which would
inevitably degrade every workman subjected to its competition. To
encourage or even to permit such an immigration, would be to dedi
cate the rich Pacific slope to them alone and to their employers — in
short, to create a worse evil in the remote West than that which led
to bloody war in the South. The number at home was great. The
cost of landing a Chinaman at San Francisco was less than the cost
of carrying a white man from New York to the same port. The
question stripped of all disguises and exaggerations on both sides,
was simply whether the labor element of the vast territory on the
Pacific should be Mongolian or American. Patriotic instinct, the
sense of self-preservation, the importance of having a thorough
American sentiment dominant on the borders and outposts of the
Republic, all demanded that the Pacific coast should be preserved
as a field for the American laborer.
President Hayes vetoed the bill rather upon the ground of its
abrogation of a treaty without notice, than upon any discussion as to
the effects of Chinese labor. He did not doubt that the legislation
of Congress would effectually supersede the terms of the treaty, but
he saw no need for a summary disturbance of our relations with
China. Upon the communication of the veto to the House a vote
was taken thereon without debate ; and upon the question of passing
the bill despite the objections of the President, the ayes were 110, the
noes 96. A considerable number of gentlemen who voted for the
bill on its passage had meanwhile changed their views, and they now
voted to sustain the veto. Among the most conspicuous of these
were Mr. Aldrich of Rhode Island, Mr. Abram S. Hewitt of New
York, Mr. Blair of New Hampshire, Mr. Landers of Indiana, and
Mr. Townsend of Ohio. Finding his veto sustained by Congress,
President Hayes opened negotiations with the Chinese Empire for a
modification of the treaty. To that end he dispatched three commis
sioners to China, gentlemen of the highest intelligence, adapted in
every way to the important duties entrusted to them, — James B.
Angell, President of Michigan University, also appointed Minister
Plenipotentiary to China, John F. Swift of California, and William
Henry Trescot of South Carolina. They negotiated two treaties ;
one relating to the introduction of Chinese into the United States,
and one relating to general commercial relations. Both treaties were
ratified by the Senate, and laws restricting the immigration of
Chinese were subsequently enacted.

656 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
Some of the objections to the importation of Chinese on the Paci
fic coast apply to certain types of laborers that have been introduced
in the Atlantic States from Hungary and other European countries.
Where the labor is contracted for in Europe at a low price and
brought to the United States to produce fabrics that are protected by
customs duties, a grave injustice is done to the American laborer, and
an illegitimate advantage is sought by the manufacturer. Protective
duties should help both labor and capital, and the capitalist who is
not willing to share the advantage with the laborer is doing much to
break down the protective system. That system would indeed receive
a fatal blow if it should be demonstrated that it does not secure to
the American laborer a better remuneration than the same amount
of toil brings in Europe. Happily the cases of abuse referred to are
few in number and have perhaps proved beneficial in the lesson they
have taught and the warning they have evoked. The allegation that
the exclusion of the Chinese is inhuman and unchristian need not be
considered in presence of the fact that their admission to the country
already provokes conflicts which the laws are unable to restrain. The
bitterest of all antagonisms are those which spring from race. Such
antagonisms can be prevented by wise, foresight more easily than
they can be cured after their development is either intentionally or
carelessly permitted.

President Johnson made no appointments to the Supreme Bench
during his Administration. In 1870 President Grant appointed
William Strong of Pennsylvania and Joseph P. Bradley of New
Jersey Associate Justices. The former was an addition to the
Court ; the latter succeeded Robert C. Grier. In 1872 he appointed
Ward Hunt of New York to succeed Samuel Nelson. In 1873 he
appointed Morrison R. Waite Chief Justice to succeed Salmon P.
Chase, who died in May of that year. In 1877 President Hayes
appointed John M. Harlan of Kentucky to succeed David Davis, and
in 1880 William Woods of Georgia to succeed William Strong (re
tired). President Hayes nominated Stanley Matthews to succeed
Noah Swayne, but the Senate not acting on the nomination, it was
renewed by President Garfield, and Mr. Matthews was confirmed
in 1881.

CHAPTER XXIX.
Presidential Election of 1880. — Third Term suggested. — Chicago Convention. —
Exciting Contest. — Many Ballotixgs. — Nomination of General Garfield.
— Democratic Convention. — Nomination of General Hancock. — The Con
test. — The Result. — The Solid South. — Its Meaning. — Its Effect. — Its
End. — Review of the Twenty Years. — Progress of the People. — Majesty
of the Republic.
DURING the latter years of General Grant's Presidency there
had been some suggestion of his election for a third term.
The proposition, however, did not meet with favor. Several State
Conventions passed resolutions declaring as a matter of principle
that two terms should be the limit for any President. General Grant
himself discountenanced the movement and eventually ended it for
the canvass of 1876 by writing a public letter announcing that he
was not and would not be a candidate.
As the election of 1880 approached, the project was revived with
every evidence of a more deliberate design and a more determined
and persistent effort on the part of its chief promoters. General
Grant had just finished a memorable tour around the world, and had
everywhere been received with signal tributes of respect and admi
ration from the rulers and people of foreign lands. The honors of all
countries had stimulated the pride of his own country. He re
turned to the Pacific shore and traversed the whole continent with
the welcome and acclaim of the people whom he had so greatly
served in war and in peace. In the flush of this popular enthusiasm
some of the foremost men of the Republican party united in a
movement to make General Grant the Republican candidate for
President. A combination which included Senators Conkling, Cam
eron and Logan, with their dominant personal influence and political
force, and which aimed at the consolidation of the three great States
of New York, Pennsylvania and Illinois, presented a formidable
front. The leaders of the movement had to a certain extent misappre-
Vol. II. 42 657

658 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
hended public opinion. With all the respect and affection for the
illustrious commander of the Union armies, there was a deep and
earnest feeling against a third term. This sentiment was not per
sonal to General Grant. The contentions which had marked his
Presidential career had died away. The errors charged against him
had been well-nigh forgotten, and the real merits and achievements
of his Administration were better appreciated than at an earlier
period. His absence from the country for three years had softened
whatever asperities had grown out of political or factional differ
ences, and had quickened anew the grateful sense of his inestimable
services in the war. There was no fear that General Grant would
abuse a trust, however frequently or however long he might be in
vested with it. But the limit of two terms had become an unwritten
part of the code of the Republic, and the people felt that to dis
regard the principle might entail dangers which they would not care
to risk. They believed that the example of Washington if now rein
forced by the example of Grant would determine the question for
the future, and assure a regular and orderly change of rulers, which
is the strongest guarantee against the approach of tyranny.
While it was altogether probable that the feeling among the
people against a third term would be stimulated by other aspirants
to the Presidency, it was altogether impossible that they could create
the feeling. The interesting question at issue was whether the pre
cedents of the Government should be discredited. The National
Convention was to meet in June, but as early as February State
Conventions were called in Pennsylvania and New York to choose
delegates, with the intention of securing unanimity in favor of Gen
eral Grant's nomination. The rights of Congressional districts to
select their own delegates had been indirectly affirmed in the National
Convention of 1876, when the Unit Rule Avas overridden and the right
of each individual delegate to cast his own vote was established. But
against this authoritative monition the design now was to have the
States vote as a unit, and accordingly the Conventions in both the
great States adopted instructions to that effect. The opposition to
this course was very strong, the resolutions being carried in Pennsyl
vania by a majority of only twenty, while in New York, in a total
vote of three hundred and ninety-seven, the majority was but thirty-
eight. The delegations of both States included men who were known
to be opposed to General Grant's nomination and who represented
districts avowedly in accord with that view, but it was hoped by the

NEW YORK AND PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTIONS. 659
leaders that the assumption of the State Conventions to pass instruc
tions might control individual judgment.
The action of the Pennsylvania and New York Conventions in
creased the public agitation. A strong conviction that their proceed
ings had been precipitated and did not reflect the true judgment of
the Republican masses was rapidly developed in both States. In New
York the Tribune, the Albany Journal, the Utica Herald and other
influential papers led an earnest protest and opposition. In Pennsyl
vania the Philadelphia Press, through the zeal of its chief proprietor,
Mr. Calvin Wells, a leading iron-manufacturer of Pittsburg, sec
onded by other strong journals, gave voice to the decided and grow
ing public feeling against acquiescing in any attempt to prevent a
perfectly free representation. In the North-West the Chicago Tribune,
and in the middle West the Cincinnati Commercial, not only resisted
the mode of electing delegates in the large States but directly and
vigorously assailed the policy of presenting General Grant for a third
term. In the midst of this popular discussion came explicit declara
tions from individual delegates in both States that they would not
be bound by any unit rule and should represent the will of their
immediate constituencies. William H. Robertson was the first in
New York to make public announcement of this purpose, and James
McManes of Philadelphia led the movement in Pennsylvania. The
opposition spread to other States that had not yet held their conven
tions, in many of which the prevailing methods of party action per
mitted more freedom.
One of the last States to act was Illinois, and her Convention
became the arena of a stormy contest. The majority in that body
assumed authority to elect all the National delegates, without regard
to the voice or vote of Congressional districts ; and after a long
and stubborn struggle it named a complete delegation, overriding
in nine of the districts the duly accredited choice of a clear ma
jority of the undisputed local representatives in each district. This
proceeding was justified on the one hand as only the exercise of the
supreme power of the State Convention, and condemned on the other
as trampling on the right of district representation; and thus the
issue in its most distinct form was brought before the National Tribu
nal for settlement.
A large concourse of delegates and other active Republicans gath
ered in Chicago in advance of the time appointed for the National
Convention. The assemblage is memorable in political annals for its

660 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
large number of able men, for its brilliant displays of oratory, for
its long duration, and for its arduous struggle. From the United
States Senate came Mr. Conkling, General Logan, George F. Hoar,
J. Donald Cameron, Preston B. Plumb, William Pitt Kellogg, and
Blanche K. Bruce. Of the men soon to enter the Senate were
Benjamin H. Harrison of Indiana, Eugene Hale and William P.
Frye of Maine, William J. Sewall of New Jersey, Omar D. Conger
of Michigan, Dwight M. Sabin of Minnesota, and Philetus Sawyer of
Wisconsin. General Garfield, who already held his commission as
senator-elect, led the Ohio delegation, with Governor Foster and
Ex-Governor Dennison among his colleagues. Five of General
Grant's Cabinet Ministers were on the roll of the Convention, —
Mr. Boutwell of Massachusetts, Mr. Creswell of Maryland, Mr.
George H. Williams of Oregon, Mr. Edwards Pierrepont of New
York, and Mr. Cameron (already named with the senators). Among
other delegates of distinction were Chester A. Arthur of New York,
Henry C. Robinson of Connecticut, Governor Martin of Kansas,
General Beaver and Colonel Quay of Pennsylvania, William Walter
Phelps of New Jersey, William E. Chandler of New Hampshire,
Emory A. Storrs of Illinois, Governor Warmoth of Louisiana, Gov
ernor Henderson and J. S. Clarkson of Iowa, President Seelye and
Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts. Probably no other Conven
tion since that which nominated Mr. Clay in 1844 has contained a
larger number of eminent public men.
The two men who from the first especially attracted obser
vation were Mr. Conkling and General Garfield. By intellectual
force, by ardent zeal and earnest advocacy, and by common recogni
tion, Mr. Conkling was the master spirit and became the acknowl
edged leader of those who desired the nomination of General Grant.
General Garfield bore little part in the management, and was not
there to represent the main body of those who opposed General
Grant's candidacy. But the anti-Grant delegates, though divided as
to candidates, naturally made common cause, and in the parliamentary
contests of the Convention the personal and intellectual ascendency
of- General Garfield made him, though in a less active and aggressive
sense, the recognized leader of the opposition. Around the two chiefs
clustered the loyalty and the expectations which are always associated
with leadership, and the appearance of each, day by day towering
above his fellows, was the signal for an outburst of applause from
friends and followers.

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION. 661
The preliminary meeting of the National Committee portended
serious trouble. The organization was adverse to the sentiment of
the majority, and there was some fear that in the heat of contest the
just bounds of authority might be overstepped. Happily the points
in dispute were satisfactorily adjusted through frank conference and
a common understanding. Senator Hoar of Massachusetts, in whose
fairness and ability both sides had full confidence, was accepted by
common consent for temporary chairman, and the Convention was
organized without any conflict. In calling the vast assembly to order
as chairman of the National Committee, Senator Cameron bespoke
a friendly spirit ; and the speech of Senator Hoar, on taking the
chair, was a compact and forcible contrast of the career and record
of the two great parties of the country. With the appointment of
the committees necessary to complete the organization, the first day
of the Convention closed.
The delegations from the respective States named their own
members of the several committees, and their composition and votes
upon these questions indicated the division of the States upon the
main issue. In the Committee on Credentials Mr. Conger, supported
by the anti-Grant members, was chosen chairman by a vote of 29 to
11 for Mr. Tracy of New York. In the Committee on Permanent
Organization, Senator Hoar had 31 votes for permanent President,
against 9 for Mr. Creswell of Maryland. The Committee on Rules
made General Garfield chairman. It was known that apart from
the balloting for President, the great struggle would come in the
Committee on Credentials, and upon its report when made to the Con
vention. The Committee had several contests to deal with besides
the important Illinois case. The examination of these cases con
sumed two days, and meanwhile the Convention could do little be
yond completing the formalities. It converted the temporary into
the permanent organization, and on the evening of the second day,
the Committee on Credentials being still at work, Mr. Henderson of
Iowa moved that the Committee on Rules be requested to report.
An extended and spirited debate ensued, the one side contending
for immediate action and the other for delay. General Sharpe of
New York offered a substitute that the Committee on Credentials
be ordered to report. The substitute was lost by 318 ayes to 406
noes, and the vote was regarded as a measurably fair test of the rel
ative strength of the Grant and anti-Grant forces. On the call of
the roll the full vote of Alabama was announced for the substitute.

662 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
One of the delegates protested that he desired his vote recorded
against it, and the President of the Convention so ordered. This
decision broke at the outset any attempt to enforce the Unit Rule,
and affirmed the absolute right of the individual delegate to cast his
vote at his own pleasure and upon his own responsibility. It was
accepted without appeal, and thus the law of Republican Conven
tions was established. The substitute being defeated, the original
motion was laid upon the table, and the Convention adjourned until
the next day.
At the opening of the third day Mr. Conkling offered a resolu
tion that " as the sense of the Convention every member is bound in
honor to support its nominee, whoever the nominee may be ; and that
no man should hold a seat here who is not ready to so agree." On a
call of the roll the resolution was adopted with but three dissenting
votes, which came from West Virginia. Thereupon Mr. Conkling
offered a resolution, declaring in effect that the delegates who voted
that they would not obey the action of the majority "have for
feited their votes in the Convention." Mr. Campbell, editor of the
Wheeling Intelligencer, the most prominent of the three who had
voted no, defended their action. He expected to support the nom
inee of the Convention, but would not agree in advance that what
ever it might do should have his endorsement. The discussion was
becoming very animated, when General Garfield, in an unimpassioned
speech, recalled the Convention to the real question and warned dele
gates against committing an error. He said that those who voted in
the negative had indicated their purpose to support the candidate,
but did not think it wise to pass the resolution. " Are they," he
asked, " to be disfranchised because they thought it was not the time
to make such an expression? That is the question and that is the
whole question. We come here as Republicans and we are entitled
to take part in the proceedings of this Convention ; and as one of
our rights we can vote on every resolution, aye or no. We are re
sponsible for these votes to our constituents, and to them alone.
There never was a convention, there never can be a convention, of
which I am one delegate, equal in rights to every other delegate, that
shall bind my vote against my will on any question whatever."
General Garfield insisted that the delegates had acted within their
rights, and appealed to Mr. Conkling to withdraw his resolution,
which he finally consented to do. This brief and earnest speech
made a deep impression upon the Convention.

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION. 663
The report on contested States was now presented by Senator
Conger, and led to a debate and a struggle lasting through the larger
part of two days. The Committee had examined cases involving the
seats of fifty delegates and alternates. After eliminating those about
which there could be no reasonable dispute and upon which a unani
mous conclusion was reached, the final issue involved three delegates
from Alabama, eighteen from Illinois, two from West Virginia, and
four from Kansas. In all of these cases the decision rested upon the
principle of district representation. The majority of the Committee
accepted that principle as the established law of Republican Conven
tions, and reported in favor of the delegates chosen under it. The
minority of the Committee, representing fourteen States and led by
Mr. Tracy of New York, reported against the delegates elected on
the district plan, and sustained the authority of the State Conven
tions to overrule the choice of the district representatives. The
issue of district representation was thus clearly and sharply presented.
The first case in order was that of Alabama, and after full debate a
motion to substitute the report of the minority for that of the major
ity was defeated, the ayes being 306, the noes 449. The Convention
thus re-affirmed the cardinal doctrine of district representation.
The case of Illinois, which had excited more interest than all others,
next came up. The discussion was prolonged and animated, and
the result was not reached until nearly two o'clock in the morning.
Nine districts were at stake, but the vote was taken on each sep
arately, and the delegates chosen in the districts were admitted by
a vote of 387 to 353. In the cases of West Virginia and Kansas
there was some dispute as to the facts, but they were decided upon
the same principle according to the best understanding of the Con
vention. The report of the Committee on Rules, which had already been
submitted by General Garfield, was now taken up. The proposed
rules embraced simply verbal changes from those of 1876, and only
one change of substance. This was an addition to rule eight, relat
ing to cases where the vote of a State is divided. The old rule pre
scribed that where the vote was divided the chairman of the delega
tion should announce the number of votes cast for any candidate or
for or against any proposition. The Committee reported in favor of
adding the following : " but if exception is taken by any delegate to
the correctness of such announcement by the chairman of his delega
tion, the President of the Convention shall direct the roll of mem-

664 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
bers of such delegation to be called, and the result shall be recorded
in accordance with the votes individually given." This amendment
was designed to protect the vote of the individual delegate. It was
a final blow at the Unit Rule, and aimed to reduce the precedents
and decisions of former conventions to plain and unambiguous
language. .
The minority of the Committee, representing eleven States,
reported against any change of rule. As soon, however, as the two
reports were submitted to the Convention, and before they were dis
cussed, General Sharpe of New York, who led the minority, moved
that the Convention proceed at once to ballot for candidates for Pres
ident and Vice-President. This was urged upon the plea of saving
time, and upon the ground that nothing else remained to be done ;
but General Garfield pointed out, with his habitual clearness, that
such action would leave the Convention without any regulations to
determine the method of procedure or to decide controversies. Under
the influence of his forcible argument General Sharpe's proposition
was lost by a vote of 479 to 276. The rules, as reported by the
majority, were then adopted, with an amendment that " the National
Committee shall prescribe the method or methods for the election of
delegates to the National Convention to be held in 1884, provided
that nothing in the method or rules so prescribed shall be construed
to prevent the several districts of the United States from selecting
their own delegates to the National Convention." The overthrow
of the Unit Rule and the establishment of district representation
were thus finally secured.
Mr. Pierrepont of New York reported the platform. It recounted
the achievements of the party and re-affirmed its accepted prin
ciples. No one issue was treated as overmastering. Protection,
which became the controlling question of the campaign, was pre
sented only by repeating the avowal of 1876. The restriction of
Chinese immigration was approved. The Democratic party was
charged with sustaining fraudulent elections, with unseating mem
bers of Congress who had been lawfully chosen, with viciously
attaching partisan legislation to Appropriation Bills, and with seek
ing to obliterate the sacred memories of the war. " The solid South,"
it was declared, "must be divided by the peaceful agencies of the
ballot; and all honest opinions must there find free expression."
The platform, as reported, was silent on the subject of Civil-Service
Reform; and Mr. Barker of Massachusetts offered an amendment

NOMINATION OF GENERAL GARFIELD. 665
" that the Republican party adopts the declaration of President
Hayes, that the reform in the civil service shall be thorough, radical,
and complete, and to that end demands the co-operation of the
Legislative with the Executive Departments of the Government."
The amendment was carried, and the platform adopted.
It was now late Saturday afternoon, and the Convention had
already extended through four days. The session of Saturday even
ing, devoted to the presentation of Presidential candidates, was
dramatic and stirring. The vast Exposition Hall was packed with
ten thousand interested and eager observers. The contending parti
sans were alert for every advantage and enthusiastic in every demon
stration. — Mr. Blaine was first placed in nomination by Mr. Joy
of Michigan, seconded by Mr. Pixley of California and Mr. Frye of
Maine. — When Mr. Conkling rose to present the name of General
Grant, the vast audience gave him an enthusiastic welcome : and his
powerful and eloquent speech was followed by prolonged and gener
ous applause. — As General Garfield moved forward to nominate
John Sherman, he was the object of general and hearty admira
tion. His dignified bearing, his commanding ability, his persuasive
eloquence, and his manifest spirit of fairness had made a profound
impression on the Convention. His present speech deepened that
feeling. It was a dispassionate appeal from the swelling tumult of
the moment "to the calm level of public opinion." — The name
of Senator Edmunds was presented by Mr. Frederick Billings of
Vermont. — Elihu B. Washburne was presented by Mr. Cassoday
of Wisconsin, and William Windom by Mr. Drake of Minnesota.
The speakers had not been the only actors of the evening. The
audience took full part. The scenes of tumultuous and prolonged
applause when the two leading candidates were named has never
been equaled in any similar assemblage. It was nearly midnight of
Saturday when the Convention adjourned.
With the opening of Monday's session the voting began. The
first ballot gave Grant 304, Blaine 284, Sherman 93, Edmunds 34,
Washburne 30, Windom 10, Garfield 1. Twenty-seven ballots fol
lowed without material change, when the Convention adjourned
until the next day. On Tuesday morning the twenty-ninth ballot
exhibited no variation, except that Massachusetts transferred the
majority of its votes from Edmunds to Sherman, reducing the former
to 12 and raising the latter to 116. On the thirtieth ballot Sherman
advanced to 120 and Windom fell to 4. The next three ballots

666 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
were substantially the same. On the thirty-fourth baljot Wisconsin
cast 16 votes for General Garfield, and the great bod}' of delegates
at once saw that the result was foreshadowed. On the thirty-fifth
ballot Indiana, following Wisconsin, cast 27 votes for Garfield, and
scattering votes carried his aggregate to 50. The culmination was
now reached. As the thirty-sixth ballot opened, the delegations
which had been voting for Blaine and Sherman changed to Garfield.
The banners of the States were caught up and massed in a waving
circle around the head of the predestined and now chosen candidate,
who sat pale and motionless in his seat with the Ohio delegation.
The scene of enthusiasm and exultation long delayed the final an
nouncement, which gave Garfield 399 votes, Grant 306, Blaine 42,
Washburne 5, Sherman 3. The nomination was immediately made
unanimous on motion of Mr. Conkling. For Vice-President Elihu
B. Washburne, Marshall Jewell, Thomas Settle, Horace Maynard,
Chester A. Arthur, and Edmund J. Davis were placed in nomina
tion, and General Arthur was chosen on the first ballot by a vote
of 468 to 193 for Mr. Washburne and some scattering votes for other
candidates. The result of the Convention was generally accepted as a happy
issue of the long contest. The nomination of General Garfield was
unexpected but it was not unwelcome. It was not an escape from
the clash of positive purposes by a resort to a negative and feeble
expedient. General Garfield Avas neither an unknown nor an un
tried man. For twenty years he had been prominent in the public
service, both civil and military, and for ten years he had ranked
among the foremost Republican leaders. No statesman of the times
surpassed him in thorough acquaintance with the principles of free
government, in knowledge of the legislative and administrative his
tory of our own country, and in intelligent grasp of the great ques
tions still at issue. In eloquence, culture, and resources he had few
peers. His ascendency in the Convention was so marked as to turn
all eyes towards him. His conspicuous part in the debates of Con
gress, his numerous popular addresses, had made him familiar to all
the people. He represented the liberal and progressive spirit of Re
publicanism without being visionary and impractical, and his nomi
nation was accepted as placing the party on advanced ground.
General Arthur was a graduate of Union College and a member
of the New- York Bar. He was prominently connected with Gov
ernor Morgan's Administration during the Avar and gained great

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION. 667
credit for the manner in which he discharged his important duties as
Quartermaster-General of the State. He subsequently held for sev
eral years the responsible and influential position of Collector of
Customs for the port of NeAV York. During the period of his ser
vice he collected and paid into the Treasury more than a thousand
millions of dollars in gold coin. He had Avide acquaintance Avith
the public men of the country and had long enjoyed personal popu
larity. As a citizen of NeAv York and a conspicuous advocate of
President Grant's nomination his selection met Avith general favor.

The Democratic Convention met at Cincinnati on the 22d of
June (1880). The preliminary canvass and discussion had not in
dicated a prevailing choice. The only definite policy anywhere sug
gested was that the position of the Democratic party demanded the
renomination of Mr. Tilden for the Presidency, and that a failure to
present him as a candidate Avould be equivalent to withdrawing the
allegation and argument of the Electoral fraud. But to this plea
the forcible ansAver Avas made that the discreditable attempts of Mr.
Tilden's immediate circle upon the returning boards of the disputed
States had compromised his candidacy and injured his party; and
on this ground a strong opposition was made to his nomination.
Mr. Tilden himself settled the question by writing an extended and
ingenious letter a few days before the Convention, declining to be a
candidate. Their immediate choice being unavailable, his New-York
followers made a strenuous effort to control the nomination, first for
Henry B. Payne of Ohio, and next for Samuel J. Randall of Penn
sylvania. The candidates were numerous, but the leading places
were held by General Hancock and Senator Bayard.
The Convention Avas promptly organized with Judge Hoadly of
Ohio as temporary chairman, and Senator Stevenson of Kentucky as
permanent President. A ballot was reached on the second day.
The South was almost evenly divided between Bayard and Hancock.
New England preferred Hancock to Bayard. The West showed no
preponderance for either, and was broken among many candidates.
New York Avas solidly for Payne, but made little impression because
Payne's own State of Ohio stood for Senator Thurman. Judge Field
of California and William R. Morrison of Illinois had the support of
their own States, with a few scattering votes. The multiplicity of

TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
candidates indicated the lack of a definite sentiment and a clear
policy. The first ballot gave Hancock 171, Bayard 1534, Payne 81,
Thurman 68£, Field 65, Morrison 62, Hendricks 494, Tilden 38, with
a few votes to minor candidates. On this test the Convention
adjourned for the day, and during the night combinations already
inaugurated were fully completed, by which Hancock's nomination
was made certain. The next day opened Avith the announcement that
New York had withdrawn Payne and fixed upon Randall as its
choice, but it was too late. The second roll-call ended without a
decision, but before the result Avas declared Wisconsin changed to
Hancock. This was followed by a similar move from New Jersey,
and immediately State after State joined in his support until he had
705 votes, — leaving of the whole Convention but 30 for Hendricks
and 2 for Bayard. William H. English of Indiana, Avho had served
in Congress during Mr. Buchanan's administration, was nominated
for Vice-President. The platform, in marked contrast with the elab
orate document of the preceding campaign, was a compact and ener
getic statement of the Democratic creed. It embodied a fatal
declaration in favor of a tariff for revenue only, made vehement utter
ance on the alleged election fraud of 1876, demanded honest money
of coin or paper convertible into coin, and gave a strong pledge
against permitting Chinese immigration.
General Hancock's nomination was greeted with heartiness
amounting to enthusiasm. He had received a military education at
West Point ; he had been brevetted in the Mexican war for gallant
conduct at Contreras and Cherubusco. In the war for the Union he
had acquired high rank as a commander. He distinguished himself
throughout the Peninsular campaign and at Antietam. He added to
his fame on the decisive field of Gettysburg. He Avas Avith Grant
during most of the campaign which was croAvned Avith final triumph
at Appomattox, and bore a conspicuous part on its bloody fields.
Brave, gallant, and patriotic, a true soldier and a chivalrous gentle
man, he was a Avorthy representative of that faithful and honorable
class of " War Democrats," Avho in the time of the Nation's peril
stood for the flag and for the integrity of their country. There Avere
many of that type, who alloAved no political differences to restrain
them from doing their full share towards the preservation of the
Union ; and no duty is more grateful than that of recognizing their
loyal services. General Hancock Avas at their head, and no partisan
distinctions or subsequent political differences can diminish the re-

PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1880. 669
spect in which he is deservedly held by every loyal lover of the
Union of the States.
The campaign did not open altogether auspiciously for the Re
publicans. The September election for Governor and members of
the Legislature in Maine had resulted adversely. The Republican
party in that State, OAving to a large defection on the greenback issue
and a coalition of all its opponents, had been defeated in 1878 by
more than 13,000 majority. In 1879 the lost ground was in large
part regained, but the party, while electing the Legislature, Avas again
outnumbered on the popular vote. In 1880 the re-action in favor
of the Republicans had not begun in any State as early as September.
The issue on the Protective Tariff had not yet been debated, and
Maine, though giving a majority of 6,000 in the Presidential election,
lost the Governorship in September by 164 votes. As a victory had
been confidently expected by the country at large, the failure to
secure it had a depressing effect upon the Republican party.
The discouragement however Avas but for a day. Re-action
speedily came, and the party was spurred to greater efforts. There
was also a change in the issues presented, and from that time the
industrial question monopolized public attention. The necessity
of special exertion in the October States led to a very earnest and
spirited canvass in Ohio and Indiana. The Democratic declaration
in favor of a tariff for revenue only was turned with tremendous
force against that party. A marked feature of what may be termed
the October campaign Avas the visit of General Grant to Ohio and
Indiana, accompanied by Senator Conkling. The speeches of the
two undoubtedly exerted a strong influence, and aided in large part
to carry those States for the Republicans.
From this day forward the contest was regarded as very close,
but with the chances inclining in favor of the Republicans. In the
hope of counteracting the effect of the argument for a Protective
Tariff in Avinning the industrial element of the country to Republi
can support, the Democratic managers concocted one of the most
detestable and wicked devices ever conceived in political Avarfare.
A letter, purporting to have been written by General Garfield, and
designed to represent him as approving Chinese immigration to com
pete with home labor, Avas cunningly forged. This so-called " Morey
letter," in which the handwriting and signature of the Republican
candidate were imitated Avith some skill, Avas lithographed and spread
broadcast about two weeks before the election.

670 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
General Garfield promptly branded the letter as a forgery and
the evidences of its character Avere speedily made clear. Neverthe
less active Democratic leaders continued to assert its genuineness,
and Mr. Abram S. Hewitt Avas conspicuous in giving the Aveight of
his name to this calumny, until the force of the accumulating proof
constrained him to admit in a public speech, that the text of the
letter was spurious, while still maintaining, against General Garfield's
solemn denial, that the signature Avas genuine. The prompt action
of General Garfield and his friends did much to render this crafty
and dangerous trick abortive, but there was not sufficient time to
destroy altogether the effect of its instant and wide dissemination.
The forgery cost General Garfield the electoral votes of NeAv Jersey
and Nevada and five of the six votes of California. He carried every
other Northern State, while General Hancock carried every Southern
State. The final result gave to Garfield 214 electoral votes against
155 for Hancock.

The salient and most serious fact of the Presidential election was
the absolute consolidation of the Electoral vote of the South; not
merely of the eleven States that composed the Confederacy, but of
the five others in which slaves were held at the beginning of the
civil struggle. The leading Democrats of the South had been stead
ily aiming at this result from the moment that they found themselves
compelled by the fortunes of war to remain citizens of the United
States. The Reconstruction laws had held them in check in 1868 ;
the re-action against Mr. Greeley had destroyed Southern unity in
1872 ; it had been assumed Avith boastful confidence, but at the last
miscarried, in 1876 ; and iioav, in 1880, it Avas finally and fully ac
complished. The result betokened thenceforth a struggle within
the Union far more radical than that Avhich had been carried on
from the formation of the Constitution until the secession of the
South. During the first half of this century Southern statesmen had de
manded and secured equality of representation in the Senate. Its
loss in 1850 Avas among the causes Avhich led them to revolt against
National authority. But even the equality of representation Avas
for a section and not for a party, and its existence did not prevent
the free play of •contests on other issues. Partisan divisions in the
South upon tariff, upon bank, upon internal improvement, between

THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 671
Whig on the one side and Democrat on the other, Avere as marked as
in the North. Southern men of all parties would unite against the
admission of a Northern State until a Southern State Avas ready to
offset its vote in the Senate, but they never sought to compel unity
of opinion throughout all Southern States upon partisan candidates
or upon public measures. The evident policy in tlie South since the
close of the civil Avar has been, therefore, of a more engrossing and
more serious character. It comprehends nothing less than the abso
lute consolidation of sixteen States, — not by liberty of speech, or
public discussion, or freedom of suffrage, but by a tyranny of opinion
which threatens timid dissentients Avith social ostracism and sup
presses the bolder form of opposition by force.
The struggle which this policy invites, nay Avhich it enforces, is
as much a moral as a political struggle. It is not a contention over
measures. It is a contest for equal rights under the Constitution,
for simple justice betAveen citizens of the same Republic. Nor
is the struggle hopeless. Re-action will come in the South itself.
The passion and prejudice which influence men avIio were defeated
in the war cannot be transmitted to succeeding generations. Prin
ciple Avill re-assert itself; local and state interest will command a
change. The signs even now are hopeful. The personal relations
between men of the South and men of the North are more amicable
than they haA'e been for sixty years. Diversity of employment, the
spirit of industrial enterprise, the unification of financial interests,
will tend more and more to assimilate the populations, more and
more to enforce an agreement, if not as to measures, yet assuredly
as to methods. No man in the North, valuing the freedom for
which a great Avar was waged, desires to control tlie vote of a single
individual in the South. He only desires that every individual in
the South, as in the North, shall control his oavii vote, and when
that is clone the result, whatever it may be, will always be cheerfully
accepted. Contention between sections, divided by a fixed line, is
the most undesirable form of political controversy. It is also the
most illogical. But consolidation on one side tends naturally and
always to consolidation on the other side. The growth of the coun
try will ultimately effect an adjustment, but the reason of men should
not wait for the mere poAver of numbers to settle questions which
properly belong in the domain of reason alone.
Nor do the Southern leaders seem ever to have correctly esti
mated the political force that is to come from the predestined in-

672 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
crease of numbers. Aside from the vast growth of population in
the new States and Territories of the North-West, the increase of the
colored race in the South must arrest attention. In the lifetime of
those now living, that class of the population will reach the enor
mous aggregate of five and twenty millions. As this increase con
tinues, no policy could possibly be devised so fatal to Southern
prosperity as that Avhich Southern leaders have pursued since the
close of the Avar. Ceasing to be a slave the colored man must be
a citizen. He cannot be permanently held in a condition between
the two. He cannot be remanded to slavery. His numbers will
ultimately command Avhat should now be yielded on the ground of
simple justice and wise policy.

The twenty years between 1861 and 1881 are memorable in the
history of the Congress of the United States. Senators and Repre
sentatives were called upon to deal with neAv problems from the hour
in which they were summoned by President Lincoln to provide for
the exigencies of a great war. They confronted enormous difficulties
at every step ; and if they had failed in their duty, if they had not
comprehended the gravity and peril of the situation, if they had
faltered in courage, or had been obscured in vision, the Union of
the States might have been lost, the progress of civilization on the
American Continent checked for generations. With the National
arms triumphant, with the Union of the States made strong, the '
American people, in the quiet of domestic peace, in the enjoyment
of Avide-spread prosperity, should not forget the dangers and sacrifices
which secured to them their great blessings.
— The first demand of war is money. So great Avas the amount re
quired that Congress provided and the Executive expended a larger
sum in each year of the civil struggle than the total revenues of the
Government had been for the seventy-two years elapsing betAveen
the inauguration of Washington and the inauguration of Lincoln.
— When the power of the Nation Avas challenged, the Army Avas. so
small as scarcely to provide an efficient guard for the residence of the
Chief Magistrate against a hostile movement of the disloyal popula
tion that surrounded him. Congress provided for the assembling of
a host that grew in magnitude until it surpassed in numbers the
largest military force ever put in the field by a European power.

Engf by AT. Wells cood &. C°

au^^C.

PROGRESS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 673
— A domestic institution Avhose existence had menaced the peace of
the country for forty years, and now threatened the National life,
was either to receive reneAved strength by another compromise, or Avas
to be utterly overthroAvn and destroyed. Congress had the foresight,
the philanthropy, the courage to choose the latter course, and to
transform four millions of slaves into four millions of citizens.
— Triumphant in the struggle of arms, Congress had the statesman
ship and persistence to bind up in the Organic Law of the Republic
the rights which victory had secured, and to provide against the
recurrence of a rebellion which imperiled the existence of free
institutions. The action of Congress and the spirit that inspired it were but
the action and spirit of the loyal people. A common danger awak
ened them to a sense of their aggregate strength, and that awakening
proved to be the beginning of a neAv progress. Prolonged peace and
quiet in a country, even of our large resources, had engendered the
habit of caution, of economy, of extreme conservatism. The dom
inance of the State-rights' school had created in the minds of the
people a distrust of the power of the General Government, — a fact
Avhich no doubt was taken into the calculations of those who re
volted against its authority. As an illustration of the weakness of
administration under their lead, it may be recalled that during the
years of Mr. Buchanan's Presidency, — and indeed during a part
of the Presidency of Franklin Pierce, — the project of a Pacific Rail
road had been considered, and year after year abandoned, because
of the argument, first, that the National Government had no power
to contribute to its construction ; and, second, that the hundred mil
lions of dollars required to complete it was a sum beyond the poAver
of the Government to expend. In contrast with the chronic irreso
lution and timidity Avhich delayed an enterprise that would strengthen
the bonds of the Union, the administration of Mr. Lincoln, in the
midst of gigantic outlays for the Avar, authorized the building of
the Pacific Railroad, and successfully used the Government credit
to complete it in less time than the State-rights' leaders had been
abortively debating the question in Congress.
— It is difficult to estimate the progress of the people of the United
States in intelligence and in wealth since the close of the civil strug
gle. When evidence is so voluminous it is not easy to select a unit
of comparison that shall succinctly present the truth. Perhaps the
extension of postal facilities is the most significant measure of the
Vol. II. 43

674 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
intellectual activity of a people. From the formation of the National
Government in 1789 to the beginning of the Avar in 1861, the total
receipts from postages amounted to $182,000,000. From 1861 to
1881 the total receipts from postages amounted to $433,000,000.
But even these figures do not exhibit the full contrast of the popular
use of the post-office for transmission of papers and letters, — because
the whole of the latter period was on the basis of low postage, and
the larger part of the former period was on the basis of high postage.
— Comparisons in industrial development are so numerous as not to
be readily and compactly stated. Economists consider that the
material advance of a people is measured more accurately by the con
sumption of iron than by any other single article. Assuming this
to be a test, the progress of the American people in wealth is beyond
precedent. The production and use of iron between the years 1861
and 1881 were many fold greater than during the entire preceding
century.
— The increased ratio in the construction of railroads gives some
conception of the progress of wealth. The miles of rail in 1861
within the United States Avere 31,286, while in 1881 they were 103,-
334. It is no exaggeration to say that the construction and repair
of railway lines in the twenty years preceding 1881 involved an
expenditure of money larger than the total National debt at the close
of the war.
— Nor have these twenty years been distinguished only by the ac
quisition of Avealth. No period of history has been more marked by
generous expenditure for Avorthy ends. The provision made for
those who suffered in the civil Avar has perhaps no parallel at home
or abroad. The comparative poverty of the country after the close
of the Revolutionary Avar may account for the inadequate assistance
to those who had suffered in the struggle for independence. The
same cause, though in less degree, existed after the war of 1812.
The pensions paid to the sufferers in both Avars, including those of
the Mexican war (Avhen the country had made great advance in
wealth), amounted in all, from 1789 to 1861, to the sum of $80,000,-
000 ; whereas from 1861 to 1881 the sum of $516,000,000 was paid
to those who had claim upon the bounty, rather upon the justice, of
the Government.
— The tAventy years form indeed an incomparable era in the history of
the United States. Despite the loss of life on the part of both North
and South the Republic steadily gained in population for the entire

NUMBER SERVING IN HOUSE AND SENATE. 675
period, at the rate of nearly a million each year ; and each year there
was added to the permanent Avealth of the people $1,500,000,000 ; —
a fact made all the more surprising when it is remembered that they
were at the same time burdened Avith the interest on the National
debt, of Avhich they discharged more than eleven hundred millions of
dollars of the principal within the period named.
Such progress is not only unprecedented but phenomenal. It
could not have been made except under wise laAvs, honestly and im
partially administered. It could not have been made except under
an industrial system Avhich stimulated enterprise, quickened capital,
assured to labor its just reAvard. It could not have been made under
the narrowing policy which assumes the sovereignty of the State. It
required the broad measures, the expanding functions, which belong
to a free Nation. Not simply to the leading statesmen of the Senate
and the House, but to Congress as a whole, in its aggregate wisdom,
— always greater than the wisdom of any one man, — credit and
honor are due ; due for intelligence, for courage, for zeal in the
service of an endangered but now triumphant and prosperous
Republic. During the twenty years, the representatives serving in the
House exceeded fifteen hundred in number. As an illustration of
the rapidity of change in elective officers Avhere suffrage is absolutely
free, each succeeding House in the ten Congresses, with a single
exception, contained a majority of new members. Only one repre
sentative in all this number served continuously from 1861 to
1881, — the Honorable William D. Kelley, eminent in his advocacy
of the Protective system, steadily growing throughout the entire
period in the respect of his associates and in the confidence of the
constituency that has so frequently honored him. In the Senate
the ratio of change, OAving to the longer term of office, has been less ;
but, even in that more conservative body, rotation in membership
has been rapid. In the twenty years nearly tAvo hundred and fifty
senators occupied seats- in the chamber. Of the whole number,
Henry B. Anthony of Rhode Island, warmly remembered by both
political parties, was the only senator whose service Avas unbroken
from the opening to the close of the period. Tavo others were in
Congress for the whole time, but not continuously in either House.
Justin S. Morrill served six years in the House and fourteen in the
Senate ; Henry L. Dawes served fourteen years in the House and six
in the Senate. For the entire period both Avere consistent upholders

676 TWENTY YEARS OF CONGRESS.
of Republican ideas and Republican policies. — James A. Garfield
who was a member of the House for eighteen of the twenty years
was, in November, 1880, by a singular concurrence of circumstances
placed in an official position altogether without precedent. He was
at the same time Representative in Congress, Senator-elect from the
State of Ohio, President-elect of the United States.
The National Government has in these twenty years proved its
strength in war, its conservatism in peace. The self-restraint which
the citizens of the Republic exhibited in the hour of need, the great
burdens which they bore under the inspiration of patriotic duty, the
public order which they maintained by their instinctive obedience to
the command of law, all attest the good government of a self-govern
ing people. Full liberty to criticise the acts of persons in official
station, free agitation of all political questions, frequent elections
that give opportunity for prompt settlement of all issues, tend to
insure popular content and public safety. No Government of mod
ern times has encountered the dangers that beset the United States,
or achieved the triumphs whereAvith the Nation is crowned.
The assassination of two Presidents, one inaugurated at the begin
ning, the other at the close of this period, while a cause of profound
National grief, reflects no dishonor upon popular government. The
murder of Lincoln was the maddened and aimless blow of an expir
ing rebellion. The murder of Garfield was the fatuous impulse of
a debauched conscience if not a disordered brain. Neither crime
had its origin in the political institutions or its growth in the social
organization of the country. Both crimes received the execration of
all parties and all sections. In the universal horror which they in
spired, in the majestic supremacy of law, which they failed to disturb,
may be read the strongest proof of the stability of a Government
which is founded upon the rights, fortified by the intelligence, in
wrought with the virtues of the people. For as it was said of old,
wisdom and knowledge shall be stability, and the work of right
eousness shall be peace !

ADDENDUM.

HON. GALUSHA A. GROW, who filled the important post of Chairman of the
Committee on Territories in the Thirty-sixth Congress, criticises the statements
made on pages 269-272 of Volume I. The anomaly was there pointed out that the
men who had been most active in condemning Mr. Webster for consenting to the organiza
tion of the Territories of New Mexico and Utah in 1850 without a prohibition of slavery,
consented in 1861 to the organization of the Territories of Colorado, Dakota, and Nevada
without a prohibition. Mr. Grow as a zealous anti-slavery mau writes in defense of the
course adopted in 1861. The wisdom of the course was not criticised. Its consistency
only was challenged. After giving a history of the various steps in organizing the three
Territories in 1861, and of the great need, by reason of the pressure of thousands of emi
grants, of providing a government therefor, and the impracticability of passing a Terri
torial bill with an anti-slavery proviso, Mr. Grow, in a letter to the author, says, —
" The Republican party, about to be entrusted for the first time with the administra
tion of the Government, must show, in addition to sound principles, that it possessed suffi
cient practical statesmanship to solve wisely any question relative to the development of
the material resources of the country, or it would prove itself incompetent to the trust
imposed by the people.
" There was this difference in the condition of the public affairs then, from what it
was when Mr. Webster made his celebrated speech of March 7th. The great battle be
tween Freedom and Slavery for supremacy in the Territories had been fought and won
in Kansas, and the people had elected a Chief Magistrate on Freedom's side, so that the
influences of National Administration would no longer be wielded for the extension of
human bondage. Besides, Kansas, a free State, and New Mexico, a Territory already
organized, would lie between these new Territories and slave institutions, so that by no
possibility could they in the ordinary course of events become slave States.
" On the 7th of March, 1850, when Mr. Webster from the Senate chamber appealed to
the North to ' conquer its prejudices ' and rely on the laws of God and Nature to prevent
the extension of the institution of human bondage, the two great forces of Liberty and
Slavery were in deadly and irrepressible conflict, — with all the powers of the Govern
ment on the side of Slavery. That struggle reached its last peaceable stage in the tri
umph of Freedom in Kansas and the election of Lincoln to the Presidency."
Mr. Grow mistakes the relative positions of the slavery question in 1850 and 1861.
When Mr. Webster was willing to waive the anti-slavery clause in the bill organizing
the Territories of New Mexico and Utah, all the Territories to the North were already
protected from slavery by the general prohibition of the Missouri Compromise in 1820,
and by the specific prohibition in the Oregon bill of 1848. To Mr. Webster's view, in
1850 Kansas was as secure against the introduction of slavery as it was to Mr. Grow's
view in 1861 after Mr. Lincoln was chosen President and the Free State men had won
their victory on the soil of the Territory lUr Webster saw before him therefore a long
procession of States in the North-AVest whose free institutions were assured by the abso-
677

678 ADDENDUM.
lute inhibition of Slavery. He was in the midst of a heated and hated controversy over
two Territories adapted only to mining and grazing and never likely to attract slave
labor. Neither he nor any other person at that time imagined the possibility of repeal
ing the Missouri Compromise; aud therefore when all the territory north of 36° 30' was
secured by a prohibition as absolute as Congress could make it, Mr. Webster did not
consider it necessary to wage a bitter contest and possibly endanger the Union of the
States merely to secure a prohibition of slavery in two Territories where he believed
the institution could not go. Precisely in the same way Mr. Grow did not believe that
slavery would go into Colorado, Dakota, and Nevada, and he was therefore willing to
waive the anti-slavery clause rather than add to the danger of disunion by insisting on it.
The same motives that inspired Mr. Webster in 1850, inspired Mr. Seward, Mr.
Wade, and Mr. Grow in 1861. It is seldom that history so exactly repeats itself ; but the
mention of the coincidence was not designed as a criticism, much less a condemnation
of the course of the statesmen who wisely and bravely met their responsibilities in 1861.
It was simply a protest against the injustice that had been visited upon Mr. Webster for
a like patriotic course in 1850.
If the Southern agitators had resorted to secession and brought on civil war in 1850
the efforts of Mr. Webster to avert the calamity would have received unstinted praise
from all classes in the North. If no secession had been attempted and no civil war had
followed in 1861, and the South remaining in the Union had resumed the old contest for
the rights of Slavery in the Territories, Mr. Seward, Mr. Grow and their associates would
have received unlimited censure as " dough faces " who had yielded to Southern threats
and consented to organize three Territories without an anti-slavery proviso. In each in
stance the subsequent course of events determined the popularity or unpopularity of
similar acts performed with similar motives, — acts altogether honorable, motives alto
gether patriotic in both cases.

OMISSION.

The names of the distinguished counsel on both sides who appeared before the
International Tribunal at Geneva in 1871, were accidentally omitted from the foot-note
on page 498, Volume II. Sir Roundell Palmer, afterwards Lord Chancellor (known as
Lord Selborne), was sole counsel for the British cause, but was assisted throughout the
hearing by Professor Montagu Bernard and by Mr. Cohen. The American counsel, as
eminent as could be selected from the American bar, were William M. Evarts, Caleb
Cushing, and Morrison R. Waite.

Note. —An error of statement occurs on page 72, Volume I., in regard to the action
of the Whig caucus for Speaker in December, 1847. Mr. AYinthrop was chosen after Mr.
Vinton had declined, and was warmly supported by Mr. Vinton. The error came from
an incorrect account of the caucus in a newspaper of that time.

ERRATA.

Vol.1, p. 90. Line 6. " Arthur " should read " Andrew."
" "146. Line 2. " Absolute " should read " ultimate."
" " 171. Close of first paragraph should read thus : "Breckinridge
carried every slave State except four, — Virginia, Ken
tucky and Tennessee voting for Bell, and Missouri
voting for Douglas.
" " 197. Line 5 of second paragraph. " McKee Dunn" should
read " George G. Dunn."
" " 301. Baillie Peyton is erroneously described as uniting with the
South. He remained true to the Union throughout the
contest.
" " 321. An anachronism occurs in stating that Senator Baker of
Oregon had witnessed as a child the funeral pageant
of Lord Nelson. He was not born for five years after
Lord Nelson fell. The error was taken from a eulogy
pronounced on Senator Baker after his death. The
occurrence referred to was doubtless some one of the
many military pageants in London at the close of
the Napoleonic wars.
" " 344. It should be stated that the so-called " California " regi
ment of Colonel Baker was recruited principally in
Philadelphia from the young men of that city.
" "375. Line 11, second paragraph. "Edward" should read
" Edwin H."
" " 452. Line 7. " 16th" should read " 13th."
" " 542. Fourth line from bottom. For " Chicago " read " Balti
more."
Vol. II. p. 118. There should be a foot-note to the name of William Pitt
Fessenden, thus: "Resigned. Succeeded by Nathan
A. Farwell."
" "224. " Fincklenberg " should be '_' Finkelnburg."
" " 257. " Dodge of Iowa " should read " Dodge of New York."
679

THE APPENDICES.

APPENDIX A.
RECONSTRUCTION ACT OF THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS.
An Act to provide for the moke efficient government of the rebel
STATES.
Whereas no legal State governments or adequate protection for life or property now
exist in the rebel States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Missis
sippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Texas, and Arkansas; and whereas it is necessary
that peace and good order should be enforced in said States until loyal and republican
State governments can be legally established : Therefore
Be it enacted, &c, That said rebel States shall be divided into military districts and
made subject to the military authority of the United States, as hereinafter prescribed,
and for that purpose Virginia shall constitute the first district; North Carolina and
South Carolina the second district; Georgia, Alabama, and Florida the third district;
Mississippi and Arkansas the fourth district; and Louisiana and Texas the fifth
district. Sec. 2. That it shall be the duty of the President to assign to the command of each
of said districts an officer of the army, not below the rank of brigadier-general, and to
detail a sufficient military force to enable such officer to perform his duties and enforce
his authority within the district to which he is assigned.
Sec. 3. That it shall be the duty of each officer assigned as aforesaid to protect all
persons in their rights of person and property, to suppress insurrection, disorder, and
violence, and to punish, or cause to be punished, all disturbers of the public peace and
criminals, and to this end he may allow local civil tribunals to take jurisdiction of
and to try offenders, or, when in his judgment it may be necessary for the trial of
offenders, he shall have power to organize military commissions or tribunals for that
purpose; and all interference under color of State authority with the exercise of mili
tary authority under this act shall be null and void.
Sec. 4. That all persons put under military arrest by virtue of this act shall be
tried without unnecessary delay, and no cruel or unusual punishment shall be inflicted;
and no sentence of any military commission or tribunal hereby authorized, affecting
the life or liberty of any person, shall be executed until it is approved by the officer in
command of the district, and the laws and regulations for the government of the army
shall not be affected by this act, except in so far as they conflict with its provisions:
Provided, That no sentence of death under the provisions of this act shall be carried
into effect without the approval of the President.
Sec. 5. That when the people of any one of said rebel States shall have formed a
681

682 APPENDIX.
constitution of government in conformity with the Constitution of the United States
in all respects, framed by a convention of delegates elected by the male citizens of said
State twenty-one years old and upward, of whatever race, color, or previous condition,
who have been resident in said State for one year previous to the day of such election,
except such as may be disfranchised for participation in the rebellion, or for felony at
common law, and when such constitution shall provide that the elective franchise shall
be enjoyed by all such persons as have the qualifications herein stated for electors of
delegates, and when such constitution shall be ratified by a majority of the persons
voting on the question of ratification who are qualified as electors for delegates, and
when such constitution shall have been submitted to Congress for examination and
approval, and Congress shall have approved the same, and when said State, by a vote
of its legislature elected under said constitution, shall have adopted the amendment to
the Constitution of the United States, proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and
known as article fourteen, and when said article shall have become a part of the Con
stitution of the United States, said State shall be declared entitled to representation in
Congress, and Senators and Representatives shall be admitted therefrom on their
taking the oaths prescribed by law, and then and thereafter the preceding sections of
this act shall be inoperative in said State: Provided, That no person excluded from
the privilege of holding office by said proposed amendment to the Constitution of the
United States shall be eligible to election as a member of the convention to frame a
constitution for any of said rebel States, nor shall any such person vote for members
of such convention.
Sec. 6. That until the people of said rebel States shall be by law admitted to repre
sentation in the Congress of the United States, any civil governments which may exist
therein shall be deemed provisional only, and in all respects subject to the paramount
authority of the United States at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede the
same ; and in all elections to any office under such provisional governments all persons
shall be entitled to vote, and none others, who are entitled to vote under the provisions
of the fifth section of this act; and no person shall be eligible to any office under any
such provisional governments who would be disqualified from holding office under the
provisions of the third article of said constitutional amendment.
SUPPLEMENTARY RECONSTRUCTION ACT OF FORTIETH CONGRESS.
An Act supplementary to an act entitled "An act to provide for the
more efficient government of the rebel states," passed march sec
ond, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, and to facilitate restora
tion.
Be it enacted, &c, That before the first day of September, eighteen hundred and
sixty-seven, the commanding general in each district defined by an act entitled " An
act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States," passed March
second, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, shall cause a registration to be made of the
male citizens of the United States, twenty-one years of age and upwards, resident in
each county or parish in the State or States included in his district, which registration
shall include only those persons who are qualified to vote for delegates by the act afore
said, and who shall have taken and subscribed the following oath or affirmation: "I,
 , do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) in the presence of Almighty God, that I am a
citizen of the State of  ; that I have resided in said State for  months next
preceding this day, and now reside in the county of  , or the parish of  , in
said State, (as the case may be;) that I am twenty-one years old; that I have not been
disfranchised for participation in any rebellion or civil war against the United States,

APPENDIX. 683
nor for felony committed against the laws of any State or of the United States; that I
have never been a member of any State legislature, nor held any executive or judicial
office in any State and afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the
United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof; that I have never taken
an oath as a member of Congress of the United States, or as an officer of the United
States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of
any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, and afterwards engaged
in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or given aid or comfort to the
enemies thereof; that I will faithfully support the Constitution and obey the laws of
the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, encourage others so to do, so
help me God;" which oath or affirmation may be administered by any registering
officer. Sec. 2. That after the completion of the registration hereby provided for in any
State, at such time and places therein as the commanding general shall appoint and
direct, of which at least thirty days' public notice shall be given, an election shall be
held of delegates to a convention for the purpose of establishing a constitution and
civil government for such State loyal to the Union, said convention in each State, ex
cept Virginia, to consist of the same number of members as the most numerous branch
of the State legislature of such State in the year eighteen hundred and sixty, to be
apportioned among the several districts, counties, or parishes of such State by the
commanding general, giving to each representation in the ratio of voters registered as
aforesaid, as nearly as may be. The convention in Virginia shall consist of the same
number of members as represented the territory now constituting Virginia in the most
numerous branch of the legislature of said State in the year eighteen hundred and
sixty, to be apportioned as aforesaid.
Sec. 3. That at said election the registered voters of each State shall vote for or
against a convention to form a constitution therefor under this act. Those voting in
favor of such a convention shall have written or printed on the ballots by which they
vote for delegates, as aforesaid, the words "For a convention," and those voting
against such a convention shall have written or printed on such ballots the words
" Against a convention." The person appointed to superintend said election, and to
make return of the votes given thereat, as herein provided, shall count and make
return of the votes given for and against a convention; and the commanding general
to whom the same shall have been returned shall ascertain and declare the total vote
in each State for and against a convention. If a majority of the votes given on that
question shall be for a convention, then such convention shall be held as hereinafter
provided ; but if a, majority of said votes shall be against a convention, then no such
convention shall be held under this act: Provided, That such convention shall not be
held unless a majority of all such registered voters shall have voted on the question of
holding such convention.
Sec. 4. That the commanding general of each district shall appoint as many
boards of registration as may be necessary, consisting of three loyal officers or persons,
to make and complete the registration, superintend the election, and make return to
him of the votes, lists of voters, and of the persons elected as delegates by a plurality
of the votes cast at said election ; and upon receiving said returns he shall open the
same, ascertain the persons elected as delegates according to the returns of the officers
who conducted said election, and make proclamation thereof; and if a majority of the
votes given on that question shall be for a convention, the commanding general, within
sixty days from the date of election, shall notify the delegates to assemble in conven
tion at a time and place to be mentioned in the notification, and said convention,
when organized, shall proceed to frame a constitution and civil government according

684 APPENDIX.
to the provisions of this act and the act to which it is supplementary; and when the
same shall have been so framed, said constitution shall be submitted by the convention
for ratification to the persons registered under the provisions of this act at an' election
to be conducted by the officers or persons appointed or to be appointed by the com
manding general, as hereinbefore provided, and to be held after the expiration of thirty
days from the date of notice thereof, to be given by said convention; and the returns
thereof shall be made to the commanding general of the district.
Sec. 5. That if, according to said returns, the constitution shall be ratified by a
majority of the votes of the registered electors qualified as herein specified, cast at said
election, (at least one half of all the registered voters voting upon the question of such
ratification,) the president of the convention shall transmit a copy of the same, duly
certified, to the President of the United States, who shall forthwith transmit the same
to Congress, if then in session, and if not in session, then immediately upon its next
assembling; and if it shall, moreover, appear to Congress that the election was one at
which all the registered and qualified electors in the State had an opportunity to vote
freely and without restraint, fear, or the influence of fraud, and if the Congress shall
be satisfied that such constitution meets the approval of a majority of all the qualified
electors in the State, and if the said constitution shall be declared by Congress to be in
conformity with the provisions of the act to which this is supplementary, and the other
provisions of said act shall have been complied with, and the said constitution shall be
approved by Congress, the State shall be declared entitled to representation, and Sena
tors and Representatives shall be admitted therefrom as therein provided.
Sec. 6. That all elections in the States mentioned in the said " Act to provide for
the more efficient government of the rebel States," shall, during the operation of said
act, be by ballot; and all officers making the said registration of voters and conducting
said elections shall, before entering upon the discharge of their duties, take and sub
scribe the oath prescribed by the act approved July second, eighteen hundred and
sixty-two, entitled "An act to prescribe an oath of office:"1 Provided, That if any
person shall knowingly and falsely take and subscribe any oath in this act prescribed,
such person so offending and being thereof duly convicted, shall be subject to the
pains, penalties, and disabilities which by law are provided for the punishment of
the crime of wilful and corrupt perjury.
Sec. 7. That all expenses incurred by the several commanding generals, or by
1 This act is in these words : —
Be it enacted, &c. That hereafter every person elected or appointed to any office of honor or profit
under the Government of the United States either in the civil, military, or naval departments of the
public service, excepting the President of the United States, shall, before entering upon the duties of such
office, and before being entitled to any of the salary or other emoluments thereof, take and subscribe the
following oath or affirmation : "I, A B, do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have never voluntarily
borne arms against the United States since 1 have been a citizen thereof ; that I have voluntarily given no
aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto ; that I have
never sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any
authority or pretended authority, in hostility to the United States ; that I have not yielded a voluntary
support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within the United States, hostile
or inimical thereto ; and I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I
will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic ;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any
mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the
office on which I am about to enter ; so help me God ; " which said oath, so taken and signed, shall be
preserved among the files of the Court, House of Congress, or Department to which the said office may
appertain. And any person who shall falsely take the said oath shall be guilty of perjury, and on con
viction, in addition to the penalties now prescribed for that offense, shall be deprived of hiB office, and
rendered incapable forever after, of holding any office or place under the United States.

APPENDIX. 685
virtue of any orders issued, or appointments made, by them, under or by virtue of this
act, shall be paid out of any moneys in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Sec. 8. That the convention for each State shall prescribe the fees, salary, and
compensation to be paid to all delegates and other officers and agents herein author
ized or necessary to carry into effect the purposes of this act not herein otherwise pro
vided for, and shall provide for the levy and collection of such taxes on the property
in such State as may be necessary to pay the same.
Sec. 9. That the word article, in the sixth section of the act to which this is
supplementary, shall be construed to mean section.
SUPPLEMENTARY RECONSTRUCTION ACT OF JULY 19, 1867.
An Act supplementary to an act entitled " An act to provide for the
more efficient government of the rebel states," passed on the
second day of march, 1867, and the act supplementary thereto.
passed on the 23d day of march, 1867.
Be it enacted, &c, That it is hereby declared to have been the true intent and
meaning of the act of the 2d day of March, 1867, entitled "An act to provide for the
more efficient government of the rebel States," and of the act supplementary thereto,
passed on the 23d day of March, 1867, that the governments then existing in the rebel
States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama,
Louisiana, Florida, Texas, and Arkansas, were not legal State governments; and that
thereafter said governments, if continued, were to be continued subject in all respects
to the military commanders of the respective districts, and to the paramount authority
of Congress. Sec 2. That the commander of any district named in said act shall have power,
subject to the disapproval of the General of the army of the United States, and to have
effect till disapproved, whenever in the opinion of such commander the proper admin
istration of said act shall require it, to suspend or remove from office, or from the per
formance of official duties and the exercise of official powers, any officer or person
holding or exercising, or professing to hold or exercise, any civil or military office or
duty in such district under any power, election, appointment, or authority derived from,
or granted by, or claimed under, any so-called State or the government thereof, or any
municipal or other division thereof; and upon such suspension or removal such com
mander, subject to the disapproval of the General as aforesaid, shall have power to
provide from time to time for the performance of the said duties of such officer or
person so suspended or removed, by the detail of some competent officer or soldier of
the army, or by the appointment of some other person to perform the same, and to fill
vacancies occasioned by death, resignation, or otherwise.
Sec. 3. That the General of the army of the United States shall be invested with
all the powers of suspension, removal, appointment, and detail granted in the preced
ing section to district commanders.
Sec 4. That the acts of the officers of the army already done in removing in said
districts persons exercising the functions of civil officers, and appointing others in their
stead, are hereby confirmed: Provided, That any person heretofore or hereafter ap
pointed by any district commander to exercise the functions of any civil office, may be
removed either by the military officer in command of the district, or by the General of
the army. And it shall be the duty of such commander to remove from office, as afore
said, all persons who are disloyal to the Government of the United States, or who use
their official influence in any manner to hinder, delay, prevent, or obstruct the due and
proper administration of this act and the acts to which it is supplementary.

686 APPENDIX.
Sec. 5. That the boards of registration provided for in the act entitled " An act
supplementary to an act entitled ' An act to provide for the more efficient government
of the rebel States,' passed March 2, 1867, and to facilitate restoration," passed March
23, 1867, shall have power, and it shall be their duty, before allowing the registration
of any person, to ascertain, upon such facts or information as they can obtain, whether
such person is entitled to be registered under said act, and the oath required by said
act shall not be conclusive on such question, and no person shall be registered unless
such board shall decide that he is entitled thereto ; and such board shall also have power
to examine, under oath, (to be administered by any member of such board,) anyone
touching the qualification of any person claiming registration; but in every case of
refusal by the board to register an applicant, and in every case of striking his name
from the list as hereinafter provided, the board shall make a note or memorandum,
whieh shall be returned with the registration list to the commanding general of the dis
trict, setting forth the grounds of such refusal or such striking from the list: Provided,
That no person shall be disqualified as member of any board of registration by reason
of race or color.
Sec. 6. That the true intent and meaning of the oath prescribed in said supple
mentary act is, (among other things,) that no person who has been a member of the
Legislature of any State, or who has held any executive or judicial office in any State,
whether he has taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States or not,
and whether he was holding such office at the commencement of the rebellion, or had
held it before, and who has afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the
United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, is entitled to be registered
or to vote ; and the words ' ' executive or judicial office in any State ' ' in said oath
mentioned shall be construed to include all civil offices created by law for the adminis
tration of any general law of a State, or for the administration of justice.
Sec. 7. That the time for completing the original registration provided for in said
act may, in the discretion of the commander of any district, be extended to the 1st day
of October, 1867; and the boards of registration shall have power, and it shall be their
duty, commencing fourteen days prior to any election under said act, and upon reason
able public notice of the time and place thereof, to revise, for a period of five days, the
registration lists, and, upon being satisfied that any person not entitled thereto has
been registered, to strike the name of such person from the list, and such person shall
not be allowed to vote. And such board shall also, during the same period, add to such
registry the names of all persons who at that time possess the qualifications required by
said act who have not been already registered; and no person shall, at any time, be
entitled to be registered or to vote, by reason of any executive pardon or amnesty, for
any act or thing which, without such pardon or amnesty, would disqualify him from
registration or voting.
Sec. 8. That section four of said last-named act shall be construed to authorize
the commanding general named therein, whenever he shall deem it needful, to remove
any member of a board of registration and to appoint another in his stead, and to fill
any vacancy in such board.
Sec. 9. That all members of said boards of registration, and all persons hereafter
elected or appointed to office in said military districts, under any so-called State or
municipal authority, or by detail or appointment of the district commanders, shall be
required to take and to subscribe the oath of office prescribed by law for officers of the
United States.
Sec. 10. That no district commander or member of the board of registration, or
any of the officers or appointees acting under them, shall be bound in his action by any
opinion of any civil officer of the United States.

APPENDIX. 687
Sec 11. That all the provisions of this act and of the acts to which this is supple
mentary shall be construed liberally, to the end that all the intents thereof may be fully
and perfectly carried out.
AMENDATORY RECONSTRUCTION ACT OF MARCH 11, 1868.
An Act to amend the act passed march 23, 1S67, entitled "An act sup
plementary" to ' An act to provide for the more efficient govern
ment of the rebel states,' passed march 2, 1867, AND to facilitate
their restoration."
Be it enacted, &e., That hereafter any election authorized by the act passed March
23, 1867, entitled " An act supplementary to ' An act to provide for the more efficient
government of the rebel States,' passed March 2, 1867, and to facilitate their restora
tion," shall be decided by a majority of the votes actually cast; and at the election in
which the question of the adoption or rejection of any constitution is submitted, any
person duly registered in the State may vote in the election district where he offers to
vote when he has resided therein for ten days next preceding such election, upon pre
sentation of his certificate of registration, his affidavit, or other satisfactory evidence,
under such regulations as the district commanders may prescribe.
Sec. 2. That the constitutional convention of any of the States mentioned in the
acts to which this is amendatory may provide that at the time of voting upon the rati
fication of the constitution, the registered voters may vote also for members of the
House of Representatives of the United States, and for all elective officers provided for
by the said constitution; and the same election officers, who shall make the return of
the votes cast on the ratification or rejection of the constitution, shall enumerate and
certify the votes cast for members of Congress.

APPENDIX B.
An Act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, That every person holding any civil office to which
he has been appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and every
person who shall hereafter be appointed to any such office, and shall become duly
qualified to act therein, is, and shall be, entitled to hold such office until a successor
shall have been in like manner appointed and duly qualified, except as herein other
wise provided : Provided, That the Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of War, of
the Navy, and of the Interior, the Postmaster General, and the Attorney General
shall hold their offices respectively for and during the term of the President by whom
they may have been appointed, and for one month thereafter, subject to removal by
and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Sec. 2. That when any officer appointed as aforesaid, excepting judges of the
United States courts, shall, during the recess of the Senate, be shown, by evidence
satisfactory to the President, to be guilty of misconduct in office, or crime, or for any
reason shall become incapable or legally disqualified to perform its duties, in such case,
and in no other, the President may suspend such officer, and designate some suitable
person to perform temporarily the duties of such office until the next meeting of the
Senate and until the case shall be acted upon by the Senate; and such person, so

APPENDIX.
designated, shall take the oaths and give the bonds required by law to be taken and
given by the person duly appointed to fill such office; and in such case it shall be the
duty of the President, within twenty days after the first day of such next meeting of
the Senate, to report to the Senate such suspension, with the evidence and reasons
for his action in the case and the name of the person so designated to perform the
duties of such office. And if the Senate shall concur in such suspension, and advise
and consent to the removal of such officer, they shall so certify to the President, who
may thereupon remove such officer, and, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, appoint another person to such office. But if the Senate shall refuse to con
cur in such suspension, such officer so suspended shall forthwith resume the functions
of his office, and the powers of the person so performing its duties in his stead shall
cease, and the official salary and emoluments of such officer shall, during such suspen
sion, belong to the person so performing the duties thereof, and not to the officer so
suspended: Provided, however, That the President, in case he shall become satisfied
that such suspension was made on insufficient grounds, shall be authorized, at any
time before reporting such suspension to the Senate as above provided, to revoke such
suspension and reinstate such officer in the performance of the duties of his office.
Sec. 3. That the President shall have power to fill all vacancies which may happen
during the recess of the Senate, by reason of death or resignation, by granting com
missions which shall expire at the end of their next session thereafter. And if no
appointment, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall be made to such
office so vacant or temporarily filled as aforesaid during such next session of the Sen
ate, such office shall remain in abeyance without any salary, fees, or emoluments
attached thereto, until the same shall be filled by appointment thereto, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate; and during such time all the powers and duties
belonging to such office shall be exercised by such other officer as may by law exercise
such powers and duties in case of a vacancy in such office.
Sec. 4. That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to extend the term
of any office the duration of which is limited by law.
Sec. 5. That if any person shall, contrary to the provisions of this act, accept any
appointment to or employment in any office, or shall hold or exercise, or attempt to
hold or exercise, any such office or employment, he shall be deemed, and is hereby
declared to be, guilty of a high misdemeanor, and, upon trial and conviction thereof,
he shall be punished therefor by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, or by impris
onment not exceeding five years, or both said punishments, in the discretion of the
court. Sec 6. That every removal, appointment, or employment made, had, or exer
cised, contrary to the provisions of this act, and the making, signing, sealing, counter
signing, or issuing of any commission or letter of authority for or in respect to any
such appointment or employment, shall be deemed, and are hereby declared to be, high
misdemeanors, and, upon trial and conviction thereof, every person guilty thereof shall
be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not
exceeding five years, or both said punishments, in the discretion of the court: Pro
vided, That the President shall have power to make out and deliver, after the adjourn
ment of the Senate, commissions for all officers whose appointment shall have been
advised and consented to by the Senate.
Sec. 7. That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Senate, at the close of
each session thereof, to deliver to the Secretary of the Treasury, and to each of his
assistants, and to each of the Auditors, and to each of the Comptrollers in the Treas
ury, and to the Treasurer, and to the Register of the Treasury, a full and complete
list, duly certified, of all persons who shall have been nominated to and rejected by

APPENDIX. 689
the Senate during such session, and a like list of all the offices to which nominations
shall have been made and not confirmed and filled at such session.
Sec 8. That whenever the President shall, without the advice and consent of
the Senate, designate, authorize, or employ any person to perform the duties of any
office, he shall forthwith notify the Secretary of the Treasury thereof, and it shall be
the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury thereupon to communicate such notice to all
the proper accounting and disbursing officers of his Department.
Sec. 9. That no money shall be paid or received from the Treasury, or paid or
received from or retained out of any public moneys or funds of the United States,
whether in the Treasury or not, to or by or for the benefit of any person appointed to
or authorized to act in or holding or exercising the duties or functions of any office
contrary to the provisions of this act ; nor shall any claim, account, voucher, order,
certificate, warrant, or other instrument providing for or relating to such payment,
receipt, or retention, be presented, passed, allowed, approved, certified, or paid by any
officer of the United States, or by any person exercising the functions or performing
the duties of any office or place of trust under the United States, for or in respect to
such office, or the exercising or performing the functions or duties thereof ; and every
person who shall violate any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of
a high misdemeanor, and, upon trial and conviction thereof, shall be punished there
for by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding ten
years, or both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
An Act to amend "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil
OFFICES."
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Bepresentatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That the first and second sections of an act entitled
"An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," passed March 2, 1867, be, and
the same are hereby, repealed, and in lieu of said repealed sections the following are
hereby enacted :
That every person holding any civil office to which he has been or hereafter may
be appointed, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and who shall have
become duly qualified to act therein, shall be entitled to hold such office during the
term for which he shall have been appointed, unless sooner removed by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate, or by the appointment, with the like advice
and consent, of a successor in his place, except as herein otherwise provided.
Sec 2. And be it further enacted, That during any recess of the Senate the
President is hereby empowered, in his discretion, to suspend any civil officer appointed
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, except judges of the United States
courts, until the end of the next session of the Senate, and to designate some suitable
person, subject to be removed in his discretion by the designation of another, to per
form the duties of such suspended officer in the meantime; and such person so desig
nated shall take the oaths and give the bonds required by law to be taken and given by
the suspended officer, and shall, during the time he performs his duties, be entitled to
the salary and emoluments of such office, no part of which shall belong to the officer
suspended; and it shall be the duty of the President within thirty days after the com
mencement of each session of the Senate, except for any office which in his opinion
ought not to be filled, to nominate persons to fill all vacancies in office which existed
at the meeting of the Senate, whether temporarily filled or not, and also in the place of
all officers suspended; and if the Senate during such session shall refuse to advise and
consent to an appointment in the place of any suspended officer, then, and not other-
Vol. II. 44

690 APPENDIX.
wise, the President shall nominate another person as soon as practicable to said session
of the Senate for said office.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That section three of the act to which this is
an amendment be amended by inserting after the word "resignation," in line three of
said section, the following: " or expiration of term of office."

APPENDIX C.
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT VOTED UPON BY THE SENATE.
Article XI.
That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high
duties of his office and of his oath of office, and in disregard of the Constitution and
laws of the United States, did heretofore, to wit : on the 18th day of August, 1866, at
the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, by public speech, declare and
affirm in substance that the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States was not a
Congress of the United States authorized by the Constitution to exercise legislative
power under the same; but, on the contrary, was a Congress of only part of the States,
thereby denying and intending to deny that the legislation of said Congress was valid
or obligatory upon him, the said Andrew Johnson, except in so far as he saw fit to
approve the same, and also thereby denying and intending to deny the power of the
said Thirty-Ninth Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United
States ; and, in pursuance of said declaration, the said Andrew Johnson, President of
the United States, afterward, to wit: on the 21st day of February, 1868, at the city
of Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully and in disregard of the
requirements of the Constitution, that he should take care that the laws be faithfully
executed, attempt to prevent the execution of an act entitled " An act regulating the
•..tenure of certain civil offices," passed March 2, 1867, by unlawfully devising and con-
.triving, and attempting to devise and contrive, means by which he should prevent
:Edwin M. Stanton from forthwith resuming the functions of the office of Secretary for
¦the Department of War, notwithstanding the refusal of the Senate to concur in the
suspension therefore made by said Andrew Johnson of said Edwin M. Stanton from
said office of Secretary for the Department of War, and also by further unlawfully
devising and contriving, and attempting to devise and contrive, means then and there
to prevent the execution of an act entitled "An act making appropriations for the
support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes,"
approved March 2, 1867, and also to prevent the execution of an act entitled " An act
ito provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States," passed March 2,
J.867; whereby the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then, to
•wit: on the 21st day of February, 1868, at the city of Washington, commit and was
.guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.
And the House of Representatives, by protestation, saving to themselves the lib
erty of exhibiting at any time hereafter any further articles or other accusation or
impeachment against the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, and
also of replying to his answers which he shall make unto the articles herein preferred
against him, and of offering proof to the same and every part thereof, and to all and
every other article, accusation, or impeachment which shall be exhibited by them, as
the case shall require, do demand that the said Andrew Johnson may be put to answer
the high crimes and misdemeanors in office herein charged against him, and that such

APPENDIX. 691
proceedings, examinations, trials, and judgments may be thereupon had and given as
may be agreeable to law and justice. Article II.
That on said 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington,
in the District of Columbia, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States,
unmindful of the high duties of his office, of his oath of office, and in violation of the
Constitution of the United States, and contrary to the provisions of an act entitled
"An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," passed March 2, 1867, without
the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, said Senate then and there
being in session, and without authority of law, did, with intent to violate the Consti
tution of the United States and the act aforesaid, issue and deliver to one Lorenzo
Thomas a letter of authority in substance as follows, that is to say :
Executive Mansion, Washington, D.C.,
February 21, 1868.
Sir: Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having this day been removed from office as Secretary
for the Department of War, you are hereby authorized and empowered to act as Secre
tary of War ad interim, and will immediately enter upon the discharge of the duties
pertaining to that office.
Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records, books, papers,
and other public property now in his custody and charge.
Respectfully yours, ANDREW JOHNSON.
To Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant General United States Army,
Washington, D.C.
then and there being no vacancy in said office of Secretary for the Department of War;
whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there
commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.
Article III.
That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 21st day of
February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia,
did commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office, in this, that, without
authority of law, while the Senate of the United States was then and there in session,
he did appoint one Lorenzo Thomas to be Secretary for the Department of War ad
interim, without the advice and consent of the Senate, and with intent to violate the
Constitution of the United States, no vacancy having happened in said office of Secre
tary for the Department of War during the recess of the Senate, and no vacancy exist
ing in said office at the time, and which said appointment, so made by said Andrew
Johnson, of said Lorenzo Thomas, is in substance as follows, that is to say:
Executive Mansion, "Washington, D.C,
February 21, 1868.
Sir- Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day removed from office as Secretary
for the Department of War, you are hereby authorized and empowered to act as Secre-
tarv of War ad interim, and will immediately enter upon the discharge of the duties
VMtTi^:T been instructed to transfer to you all the records, books, papers,
and other public property now in his custody and charge.
Respectfully yours, ANDREW j0HNSON.
To Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant General United States Army,
Washington, D.C.

692 APPENDIX.

APPENDIX D.
FORTY-FIRST CONGRESS.
republicans in roman; democrats in italic
senate.
Schuyler Colfax of Indiana, President.
George C. Gorham of California, Secretary.
Maine. —William Pitt Fessenden,1 Hannibal Hamlin.
New Hampshire.— Aaron H. Cragin, James W. Patterson.
Vermont. — George F. Edmunds, Justin S. Morrill.
Massachusetts. — Charles Sumner, Henry Wilson.
Rhode Island. —Henry B. Anthony, William Sprague.
Connecticut. —Orris S. Ferry, William A. Buckingham.
New York. — Roscoe Conkling, Reuben E. Fenton.
New Jersey. —Alexander G. Cattell, John P. Stockton.
Pennsylvania. — Simon Cameron, John Scott.
Delaware. — Willard Saulsbury, Thomas F. Bayard.
Maryland. — George Vickers, William T. Hamilton.
Virginia. — John W. Johnston, John F. Lewis.
North Carolina. — Joseph C. Abbott, John Pool.
South Carolina. — Thomas J. Robertson, Frederick A. Sawyer.
Georgia. — H. V. M. Miller, Joshua Hill.
Alabama. — Willard Warner, George E. Spencer.
Mississippi. — Hiram R. Revels, Adelbert Ames.
Louisiana. — John S. Harris, William P. Kellogg.
Ohio. — John Sherman, Allen G. Thurman.
Kentucky. — Garrett Davis, Thomas C. McCreery.
Tennessee. — Joseph S. Fowler, William G. Brownlow.
Indiana. — Oliver P. Morton, Daniel D. Pratt.
Illinois. — Lyman Trumbull, Richard Yates.
Missouri. — Charles D. Drake,2 Carl Schurz.
Arkansas. — Alexander McDonald, Benjamin F. Rice.
Michigan. — Zachariah Chandler, Jacob M. Howard.
Florida. — Thomas W. Osborn, Abijah Gilbert.
Texas. — Morgan C. Hamilton, James W. Flanagan.
Iowa. — James W. Grimes,3 James Harlan.
Wisconsin. — Timothy O. Howe, Matthew H. Carpenter.
California. — Cornelius Cole, Eugene Casserly,
Minnesota. — Alexander Ramsey, Daniel S. Norton.*
Oregon. — George H. Williams, Henry W. Corbett.
Kansas. — Edmund G. Ross, Samuel C. Pomeroy.
West Virginia. — Waitman T. Willey, Arthur I. Boreman.
Nevada. — James W. Nye, William M. Stewart."
Nebraska. — John M. Thayer, Thomas W. Tipton.
1 Died. Succeeded by Lot M. Morrill.
2 Resigned. Daniel T. Jewett appointed ; Francis P. Blair, jun., elected.
8 Resigned. Succeeded by James B. Howell.
* Died. William Windom appointed ; Ozora P. Stearns elected.

APPENDIX. 693
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
James G. Blaine of Maine, Speaker.
Edward McPherson of Pennsylvania, Clerk.
MAIN Ha7eJ°hn LynCh' SamUel P" MOrrU1' JameS G- Blain6' J°hn A' Peters' EuSene
New Hampshire. -Jacob H. Ela, Aaron F. Stevens, Jacob Benton.
Vermont. -Charles W. Willard, Luke P. Poland, Worthington C. Smith
Massachusetts. -James Buffinton, Oakes Ames, Ginery Twichell, Samuel Hooper
Benjamin F. Butler, Nathaniel P. Banks, George S. Boutwell.i George F. Hoar'
William B. Washburn, Henry L. Dawes.
Rhode Island. — Thomas A. Jenckes, Nathan F. Dixon.
Connecticut. -Julius Strong, Stephen W. Kellogg, Henry H. Starkweather, William
H. Bamum.
New York.— Henry A. Reeves, John G. Schumaker, Henry W. Slocum, John Fox,
John Morrisey, Samuel S. Cox, Hervey C. Calkin, James Brooks, Fernando
Wood, Clarkson N. Potter, George W. Greene,2 John H. Ketcham, John A.
Griswold, Stephen L. Mayham, Adolphus H.Tanner, Orange Ferriss, William A.
Wheeler, Stephen Sanford, Charles Knapp, Addison H. Laflin, Alexander H.
Bailey, John C. Churchill, Dennis McCarthy, George W. Cowles, William H.
Kelsey, Giles W. Hotchkiss, Hamilton Ward, Noah Davis,8 John Fisher, David
S. Bennett, Porter Sheldon.
New Jersey-.— William Moore, Charles Haight, John T. Bird, John Hill, Orestes
Cleveland.
Pennsylvania. — Samuel J. Randall, Charles O'Neill, John Moffet* William D.
Kelley, John R. Reading? John D. Stiles, Washington Townsend, J. Lawrence
Getz, Oliver J. Dickey, Henry L. Cake, Daniel M. Van Auken, George W.
Woodward, Ulysses Mercur, John B. Packer, Richard J. Haldeman, John
Cessna, Daniel J. Morrell, William H. Armstrong, Glenni W. Scofield, Calvin
W. Gilfillan, John Covode,0 James S. Negley, Darwin Phelps, Joseph B. Donley.
Delaware. — Benjamin T. Biggs.
Maryland. — Samuel Hambleton, Stevenson Archer, Thomas Swann, Patrick
Hamill, Frederick Stone.
Virginia. —Richard S. Ayer, James H. Piatt, jun., Charles H. Porter, George W. Booker,
Robert S. Ridgway,7 William Milnes,jun., Lewis McKenzie, James K. Gibson.
North Carolina. — Clinton L. Cobb, David Heaton,8 Oliver H. Dockery, John T.
Deweese,9 Israel G. Lash, Francis E. Shober, Alexander H. Jones.
South Carolina. — B. F. Whittemore,10 Christopher C. Bowen, Solomon L. Hoge,
Alexander S. Wallace.
Georgia. — William W. Paine, Richard H. Whiteley, Marion Bethune, Jefferson F.
Long, Stephen A. Corker, William P. Price, Pierce M. B. Young.
Alabama. — Alfred E. Buck, Charles W. Buckley, Robert S. Heflin, Charles Hays,
Peter M. Dox, William C. Sherrod.
Mississippi. — George E. Harris, Joseph L. Morphis, Henry W. Barry, George C.
McKee, Legrande W. Perce.
Louisiana. — J. Hale Sypher, Lionel A. Sheldon, C. B. Darrall, Michael Ryan,11 Frank
Morey.
1 Resigned. Succeeded by George M. Brooks. fl Died Januaiy 11, 1871.
s Unseated. Charles H. Van Wyck admitted. ' Died. Succeeded by Richard T. W. Duke.
8 Resigned. Succeeded by Charles H. Holmes. 8 Died. Succeeded by Joseph Dixon.
• Unseated. Leonard Myers admitted. » Resigned. Succeeded by John Manning.
1 Unseated. Caleb N. Taylor admitted. " Resigned. Succeeded by Joseph H. Rainey.
11 Unseated. Joseph P. Newsham admitted.

694 APPENDIX.
Ohio. —Peter W. Strader, Job E. Stevenson, Robert C. Schenck,1 William Lawrence,
William Mungen, John A. Smith, James J. Winans, John Beatty, Edward F.
Dickinson, Truman H. Hoag,2 John T. Wilson, Philadelph Van Trump, George
W. Morgan, Martin Welker, Eliakim H. Moore, John A. Bingham, Jacob A.
Ambler, William H. Upson, James A. Garfield.
Kentucky. — Lawrence S. Trimble, William N. Sweeney, Jacob S. Golladay,3 J.
Proctor Knott, Boyd Winchester, Thomas L. Jones, James B. Beck, George M.
Adams, John M. Rice.
Tennessee. — Roderick R. Butler, Horace Maynard, William B. Stokes, Lewis Till
man, William F. Prosser, Samuel M. Arnell, Isaac R. Hawkins, William J.
Smith.
Indiana. — William E. Niblack, Michael C. Kerr, William S. Holman, George W.
Julian, John Coburn, Daniel W. Voorhees, Godlove S. Orth, James N. Tyner,
John P. C. Shanks, William Williams, Jasper Packard.
Illinois. — Norman B. Judd, John F. Farnsworth, Elihu B. Washburne,4 John B.
Hawley, Ebon C. IngersoU, Burton C. Cook, Jesse H. Moore, Shelby M. Cullom,
Thompson W. McNeely, Albert G. Burr, Samuel S. Marshall, John B. Hay,
John M. Crebs, John A. Logan.
Missouri. — Erastus Wells, Gustavus A. Finkelnburg, James R. McCormick, Sempro-
nius H. Boyd, Samuel S. Burdett, Robert T. Van Horn, Joel F. Asper, John F.
Benjamin, David P. Dyer.
Arkansas. — Logan H. Roots, A. A. C. Rogers, Thomas Boles.
Michigan. — Fernando C. Beaman, William L. Stoughton, Austin Blair, Thomas W.
Ferry, Omar D. Conger, Randolph Strickland.
Florida. — Charles M. Hamilton.
Texas. — George W. Whitmore, John C. Conner, W. T. Clark, Edward Degener.
Iowa. — George W. McCrary, William Smyth,6 William B. Allison, William Lough-
ridge, Frank W. Palmer, Charles Pomeroy.
Wisconsin. — Halbert E. Paine, Benjamin F. Hopkins,6 Amasa Cobb, Charles A.
Eldridge, Philetus Sawyer, Cadwalader C. Washburn.
California. — Samuel B. Axtell, Aaron A. Sargent, James A. Johnson.
Minnesota. — Morton S. Wilkinson, Eugene M. Wilson.
Oregon. — Joseph S. Smith.
Kansas. — Sidney Clarke.
West Virginia. — Isaac H. Duval, James C. McGrew, John S. Witcher.
Nevada. — Thomas Fitch.
Nebraska. — John Taffe. DELEGATES.
Arizona. — Richard C. McCormick.
Colorado. — Allen A. Bradford.
Dakota. — S. L. Spink.
Idaho. — Jacob K. Shafer.
Montana. — James M. Cavanaugh.
New Mexico. — J. Francisco Chaves.
Utah. — William H. Hooper.
Washington. — Selucius Garfielde.
Wyoming. — Stephen F. Nuckolls.
1 Resigned January 5, 1871. * Resigned. Succeeded by Horatio C. Burchard,
2 Died. Succeeded by Erasmus D. Peck. » Died. Succeeded by William P. Wolf.
8 Resigned. Succeeded by Joseph E. Lewis. 6 Died. Succeeded by David Atwood.

APPENDIX. 695

APPENDIX E.
FORTY-SECOND CONGRESS.
republicans in roman; democrats in italic
SENATE.
Schuyler Colfax of Indiana, President.
George C. Gorham of California, Secretary.
Maine. — Hannibal Hamlin, Lot M. Morrill.
New Hampshire. —Aaron H. Cragin, James W. Patterson.
Vermont. — George F. Edmunds, Justin S. Morrill.
Massachusetts. — Charles Sumner, Henry Wilson.
Rhode Island. — Henry B. Anthony, William Sprague.
Connecticut. — Orris S. Ferry, William A. Buckingham.
New York. —Roscoe Conkling, Reuben E. Fenton.
New Jersey. —John P. Stockton, Frederick T. Frelinghuysen.
Pennsy-lvania. —Simon Cameron, John Scott.
Delaware. — Thomas Francis Bayard, Eli Saulsbury.
Mary-land. — George Vickers, William T. Hamilton.
Virginia. — John W. Johnston, John F. Lewis.
North Carolina. — John Pool, Matt W. Ransom.
South Carolina. — Thomas J. Robertson, Frederick A. Sawyer.
Georgia. — Joshua Hill, Thomas Manson Norwood.
Alabama. — George E. Spencer, George Goldthwaite.
Mississippi. — Adelbert Ames, James L. Alcorn.
Louisiana. — AVilliam Pitt Kellogg,1 J. Rodman West.
Ohio. — John Sherman, Allen G. Thurman.
Kentucky. — Garrett Davis,2 John W. Stevenson.
Tennessee. — William Gannaway Brownlow, Henry Cooper.
Indiana. — Oliver P. Morton, Daniel D. Pratt.
Illinois. — Lyman Trumbull, John A. Logan.
Missouri. — Carl Schurz, Francis P. Blair, jun.
Arkansas. — Benjamin F. Rice, Powell Clayton.
Michigan. — Zachariah Chandler, Thomas W. Ferry.
Florida. — Thomas W. Osborn, Abijah Gilbert.
Texas. — Morgan C. Hamilton, J. W. Flanagan.
Iowa. — James Harlan, George G. Wright.
Wisconsin. — Timothy O. Howe, Matthew H. Carpenter.
California. — Cornelius Cole, Eugene Casserly.
Minnesota. — Alexander Ramsey, William Windom.
Oregon. — Henry W. Corbett, James K. Kelly.
Kansas. — Samuel C. Pomeroy, Alexander Caldwell.
West Virginia. — Arthur I. Boreman, Henry G. Davis.
Nevada. — James W. Nye, William M. Stewart.
Nebraska. — Thomas W. Tipton, Phineas W. Hitchcock.
1 Resigned. 2 Died. Succeeded by Willis B. Machen.

696 APPENDIX.
HOUSE OE REPRESENTATIVES.
James G. Blaine of Maine, Speaker.
Edward McPherson of Pennsylvania, Clerk.
Maine. — John Lynch, William P. Frye, James G. Blaine, John A. Peters, Eugene Hale.
New Hampshire. — Ellery A. Hibbard, Samuel N. Bell, Hosea W. Parker.
Vermont. —Charles W. Willard, Luke P. Poland, Worthington C. Smith.
Massachusetts. — James Buffinton, Oakes Ames, Ginery Twichell, Samnel Hooper,
Benjamin F. Butler, Nathaniel P. Banks, George M. Brooks,1 George F. Hoar,
William B. Washburn,2 Henry L. Dawes.
Rhode Island. — Benjamin T. Eames, James M. Pendleton.
Connecticut. — Julius L. Strong,3 Stephen W. Kellogg, Henry H. Starkweather,
William H. Barnum.
New York. — Dwight Townsend, Thomas Kinsella, Henry W. Slocum, Robert B.
Roosevelt, William R. Roberts, Samuel Sullivan Cox, Smith Ely, jun., James
Brooks, Fernando Wood, Clarkson Nott Potter, Charles St. John, John H.
Ketcham, Joseph H. Tuthill, Eli Perry, Joseph M. Warren, John Rogers,
William A. Wheeler, John M. Carroll, Elizur H. Prindle, Clinton L. Merriam,
Ellis H. Roberts, William E. Lansing, R. Holland Duell, John E. Seeley,
William H. Lamport, Milo Goodrich, H. Boardman Smith, Freeman Clarke,
Seth Wakeman, William Williams, Walter L. Sessions.
New Jersey. — John W. Hazelton, Samuel C. Forker, John T. Bird, John Hill,
George A. Halsey.
Pennsylvania. — Samuel J. Randall, John V. Creely, Leonard Myers, William D.
Kelley, Alfred C. Harmer, Ephraim L. Acker, Washington Townsend, J. Law
rence Getz, Oliver J. Dickey, John W. Killinger, John B. Storm, L. D. Shoe
maker, Ulysses Mercur,4 John B. Packer, Richard J. Haldeman, Benjamin F.
Meyers, Robert Milton Speer, Henry Sherwood, Glenni W. Scofield, Samuel
Griffith, Henry Donnell Foster, James S. Negley, Ebenezer McJunkin, William
McClelland.
Delaware. — Benjamin T. Biggs.
Maryland. — Samuel Hambleton, Stevenson Archer, Thomas Swann, John Ritchie,
William M. Merrick.
Virginia. — John Critcher, James H. Piatt, jun., Charles H. Porter, William H. H.
Stowell, Richard T. W. Duke, John T. Harris, Elliott M. Braxton, William
Terry.
North Carolina. — Clinton L. Cobb, Charles R. Thomas, Alfred M. Waddell, Sion
II. Rogers, James M. Leach, Francis E. Shober, James C. Harper.
South Carolina. — Joseph H. Rainey, Robert C. De Large,5 Robert Brown Elliott,
Alexander S. Wallace.
Georgia. — Archibald T. Mclntyre, Richard H. Whiteley, John S. Bigby, Thomas
J. Speer,6 Dudley M. DuBose, William P. Price, Pierce M. B. Young.
Alabama. — Benjamin Sterling Turner, Charles W. Buckley, William A. Handley,
Charles Hays, Peter M. Dox, Joseph H. Sloss.
Mississippi. — George E. Harris, Joseph L. Morphis, Henry W. Barry, George C.
McKee, Legrande W. Perce.
Louisiana. — Jay Hale Sypher, Lionel A. Sheldon, Chester B. Darrall, James Mc-
Cleary," Frank Morey.
•Resigned. Succeeded by Constantine C. Esty. « Resigned. Succeeded by Frank C. Bunnell.
2 Resigned. Succeeded by Alvah Crocker. " Unseated January 24, 1873.
8 Died. Succeeded by Joseph R. Hawley. e Died. Succeeded by Erasmus W. Beck.
7 Died. Succeeded by Aleck Boarman.

APPENDIX. 697
Ohio.— Aaron F. Perry,1 Job E. Stevenson, Lewis D. Campbell, John F. McKinney,
Charles N. Lamison, John A. Smith, Samuel Shellabarger, John Beatty, Charles
Foster, Erasmus D. Peck, John T. Wilson, Philadelph Van Trump, George
W. Morgan, James Monroe, William P. Sprague, John A. Bingham, Jacob A.
Ambler, William H. Upson, James A. Garfield.
Kentucky.— .Edward Crossland, Henry D. McHenry, Joseph H. Lewis, William B.
Bead, Boyd Winchester, William E. Arthur, James B. Beck, George M. Adams,
John M. Rice.
Tennessee. — Roderick R. Butler, Horace Maynard, Abraham E. Garrett, John
Morgan Bright, Edward I. Golladay, Washington Curran Whitthorne, Robert
P. Caldwell, Williarn W. Vaughan.
Indiana. — William E. Niblack, Michael C. Kerr, William S. Holman, Jeremiah M.
Wilson, John Coburn, Daniel W. Voorhees, Mahlon D. Manson, James N.
Tyner, John P. C. Shanks, William Williams, Jasper Packard.
Illinois. — Charles B. Farwell, John F. Farnsworth, Horatio C. Burchard, John B.
Hawley, Bradford N. Stevens, Burton C. Cook,2 Jesse H. Moore, James C.
Robinson, Thompson W. McNeely, Edward Y. Rice, Samuel S. Marshall, John
B. Hay, John M. Crebs, John L. Beveridge.3
Missouri. — Erastus Wells, Gustavus A. Finkelnburg, James R. McCormick, Harri
son E. Havens, Samuel S. Burdett, Abram Comingo, Isaac C. Parker, James G.
Blair, Andrew King.
Arkansas. — James M. Hanks, Oliver P. Snyder, John Edwards.*
Michigan. — Henry Waldron, William L. Stoughton, Austin Blair, Wilder D. Foster,
Omar D. Conger, Jabez G. Sutherland.
Florida. — Josiah T. Walls.5
Texas. — yVilliam S. Herndon, John C. Conner, William T. Clark,6 John Hancock.
Iowa. — George W. McCrary, Aylett R. Cotton, William G. Donnan, Madison M.
Walden, Frank W. Palmer, Jackson Orr.
Wisconsin. — Alexander Mitchell, Gerry W. Hazelton, J. Allen Barber, Charles A.
Eldridge, Philetus Sawyer, Jeremiah M. Rusk.
California. — Sherman O. Houghton, Aaron A. Sargent, John M. Coghlan.
Minnesota. — Mark H. Dunnell, John T. AverilL
Oregon. — James H. Slater.
Kansas. — David P. Lowe.
West Virginia.— John J. Davis, James C McGrew, Frank Hereford.
Nevada. — Charles West Kendall.
Nebraska. — John Taffe. DELEGATES.
Arizona. — Richard C. McCormick.
Colorado. — Jerome B. Chaffee.
Dakota. — Moses K. Armstrong.
District of Columbia. — Norton P. Chipman.
Idaho. — Samuel A. Merrilt.
Montana. —William H. Clagett.
New Mexico. — Jose M. Gallegas.
Utah. — William H. Hooper.
Washington. — Selucius Garfielde.
Wyoming. — William T. Jones.

» Resigned. Succeeded by Ozro J. Bodds. ' Unseated. Thomas Boles admitted.
' Resigned. Succeeded by H. Snap. "Unseated. S. L. Niblack admitted.
8 Resigned January 4, 1873. ' Unseated. D. C. Giddings admitted.

698 APPENDIX.
APPENDIX F.
FORTY-THIRD CONGRESS.
REPUBLICANS IN ROMAN ; DEMOCRATS IN ITALIC.
SENATE.
Henry Wilson of Massachusetts, President.
George C. Gorham of California, Secretary.
Maine. — Hannibal Hamlin, Lot M. Morrill.
New Hampshire. —Aaron H. Cragin, Bainbridge Wadleigh.
Vermont. — George F. Edmunds, Justin S. Morrill.
Massachusetts. — Henry Wilson,1 Charles Sumner.3
Rhode Island. —Henry B. Anthony, William Sprague.
Connecticut. — Orris S. Ferry, William A. Buckingham.3
New York. — Roscoe Conkling, Reuben E. Fenton.
New Jersey. — John P. Stockton, Frederick T. Frelinghuysen.
Pennsylvania. — Simon Cameron, John Scott.
Delaware. — Thomas Francis Bayard, Eli Saulsbury.
Maryland. — William T. Hamilton, George R. Dennis.
Virginia. — John W. Johnston, John F. Lewis.
North Carolina. — Matt W. Ransom, Augustus S. Merrimon.
South Carolina. — Thomas J. Robertson, John J. Patterson.
Georgia. — Thomas Manson Norwood, John B. Gordon.
Alabama. — George E. Spencer, George Goldthwaite.
Mississippi. — James Lusk Alcorn, Adelbert Ames.4
Louisiana. — J. R. West, (vacancy contested).
Ohio. — John Sherman, Allen G. Thurman.
Kentucky. — John W. Stevenson,Thomas C. McCreery.
Tennessee. — William G. Brownlow, Henry Cooper.
Indiana. — Oliver P. Morton, Daniel D. Pratt.
Illinois. — John A. Logan, Richard J. Oglesby.
Missouri. — Carl Schurz, Lewis V. Bogy.
Arkansas. — Powell Clayton, Stephen W. Dorsey.
Michigan. — Zachariah Chandler, Thomas W. Ferry.
Florida. — Abijah Gilbert, Simon B. Conover.
Texas. — Morgan C. Hamilton, James W. Flanagan.
Iowa. — George G. Wright, William B. Allison.
Wisconsin. — Timothy O. Howe, Matthew H. Carpenter.
California. — Aaron A. Sargent, Eugene Casserlyfi
Minnesota. — Alexander Ramsey, William Windom.
Oregon. — James K. Kelly, John H. Mitchell.
Kansas. — John James Ingalls, Alexander Caldwell.6
West Virginia. — Arthur I. Boreman, Henry G. Davis.
Nevada. — William M. Stewart, John P. Jones.
Nebraska. — Thomas W. Tipton, Phineas W. Hitchcock.
1 Died. Succeeded by George S. Boutwell. * Resigned. Succeeded by Henry R. Pease.
2 Died. Succeeded by "William B. Washburn. B Resigned. Succeeded by John S. Hager.
8 Died. Succeeded by William W. Eaton.
0 Resigned. Robert Crozier appointed ; James M. Harvey elected.

APPENDIX. 699
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
James G. Blaine of Maine, Speaker.
Edward McPherson of Pennsylvania, Clerk.
Maine. — John H. Burleigh, William P. Frye, James G. Blaine, Samuel F. Hersey,1
Eugene Hale.
New Hampshire. -William B. Small, Austin F. Pike, Hosea W. Parker.
Vermont. — Charles W. Willard, Luke P. Poland, George Whitman Hendee.
Massachusetts. —James Buffinton, Benjamin W. Harris, William Whiting,* Samuel
Hooper,3 Daniel W. Gooch, Benjamin F. Butler, E. Rockwood Hoar, John M. S.
Williams, George F. Hoar, Alvah Crocker,4 Henry L. Dawes.
Rhode Island. — Benjamin T. Eames, James M. Pendleton.
Connecticut. — Joseph Roswell Hawley, Stephen W. Kellogg, Henry H. Stark
weather, William H. Barnum.
New York. — Henry J. Scudder, John G. Schumaker, Stewart L. Woodford,5 Philip
S. Crooke, William Randal Roberts, James Brooks,6 Thomas J. Creamer,
John D. Lawson, David B. Mellish,7 Fernando Wood, Clarkson Nott Potter,
Charles St. John, Jofoi O. Whitehouse, David Miller De Witt, Eli Perry, James
S. Smart, Robert S. Hale, William A. Wheeler, Henry H. Hathorn, David Wil-
ber, Clinton L. Merriam, Ellis H. Roberts, William E. Lansing, R. Holland
Duell, Clinton Dugald MacDougall, William H. Lamport, Thomas C. Piatt, H.
Boardman Smith, Freeman Clarke, George G. Hoskins, Lyman K. Bass, Walter
L. Sessions, Lyman Tremaine.
New Jersey. — John W. Hazelton, Samuel A. Dobbins, Amos Clark, jun., Robert
Hamilton, William Walter Phelps, Marcus L. Ward, Isaac W. Scudder.
Pennsylvania. —Samuel J. Randall, Charles O'Neill, Leonard Myers, William D.
Kelley, Alfred C. Harmer, James S. Biery, Washington Townsend, Hiester
Clymer, A. Herr Smith, John W. Killinger, John B. Storm, Lazarus D. Shoe
maker, James D. Strawbridge, John B. Packer, John A. Magee, John Cessna,
Robert Milton Speer, Sobieski Ross, Carlton B. Curtis, Hiram L. Richmond,
Alexander Wilson Taylor, James S. Negley, Ebenezer McJunkin,8 William S.
Moore, Lemuel Todd, Glenni W. Scofield, Charles Albright.
Delaware. — James R. Lofland.
Maryland. — Ephraim K. Wilson, Stevenson Archer, William J. O'Brien, Thomas
Swann, William J. Albert, Lloyd Lowndes, jun.
Virginia. — James B. Sener, James H. Piatt, jun., John Ambler Smith, William H. H.
Stowell, Alexander M. Davis,'3 Thomas Whitehead, John T. Harris, Eppa
Hunton, Rees T. Bowen.
North Carolina. — Clinton L. Cobb, Charles R. Thomas, Alfred Moore Waddell,
William Alexander Smith, James M. Leach, Thomas S. Ashe, William M. Rob-
bins, Robert Brank Vance.
South Carolina. — Joseph H. Rainey, Alonzo J. Ransier, Robert Brown Elliott,10
Alexander S. Wallace, Richard H. Cain.
Georgia. — Morgan Rawls,11 Richard Henry Whiteley, Philip Cook, Henry R. Harris,
James C. Freeman, James H. Blount, Pierce M. B. Young, Ambrose R. Wright,12
Hiram P. Bell.
1 Died February 3, 1875. 7 Died. Succeeded by Richard Schell.
2 Died. Succeeded by Henry Lillie Pierce. " Resigned. Succeeded by John M. Thompson.
8 Died February 14, 1875. ' Unseated. Christopher T. Thomas admitted.
4 Died. Succeeded by Charles A. Stevens. 10 Resigned. Succeeded by Lewis Cass Carpenter.
« Resigned. Succeeded by Simeon B. Chittenden. » Unseated. Andrew Sloan admitted.
« Died. Succeeded by Samuel S. Cox. 12 Died. Succeeded by Alexander if. Stephens.

700 APPENDIX.
Alabama. — Frederick G. Bromberg, James T. Rapier, Charles Pelham, Charles
Hays, John H. Caldwell, Joseph H. Sloss, Alexander White, Charles C.
Sheats.
Mississippi. —Lucius Q. C. Lamar, Albert R. Howe, Henry W. Barry, Jason Niles,
George C. McKee, John R. Lynch.
Louisiana. — Jay Hale Sypher,1 Lionel A. Sheldon, Chester B. Darrall, Samuel
Peters,2 Frank Morey, George A. Sheridan.
Ohio. —Milton Sayler, Henry B. Banning, John Q. Smith, Lewis B. Gunckel,
Charles N. Lamison, Isaac R. Sherwood, Lawrence Talbott Neal, William Law
rence, James W. Robinson, Charles Foster, Hezekiah S. Uundy, Hugh J. Jewett,3
Milton I. Southard, John Berry, Wiiliam P. Sprague, Lorenzo Danford, Laurin
D. Woodworth, James Monroe, James A. Garfield, Richard C. Parsons.
Kentucky. — Edward Crossland, John Young Brown, Charles W. Millikin, William
B. Read, Elisha D. Standeford, William E. Arthur, James B. Beck, Milton
J. Durham, George M. Adams, John D. Young.
Tennessee. — Roderick R. Butler, Jacob M. Thornburgh, William Crutchfield, John
Morgan Bright, Horace H. Harrison, Washington C. Whitthorne, John D. C.
Atkins, David A. Nunn, Barbour Lewis, Horace Maynard.
Indiana. — William E. Niblack, Simeon K. Wolfe, William S. Holman, Jeremiah
M. Wilson, John Coburn, Morton C. Hunter, Thomas J. Cason, James N.
Tyner, John P. C. Shanks, Henry B. Sayler, Jasper Packard, William Williams,
Godlove S. Orth.
Illinois. — John B. Rice,4 Jasper D. Ward, Charles B. Farwell, Stephen A. Hurlbut,
Horatio C. Burchard, John B. Hawley, Franklin Corwin, Greenbury L. Fort,
Granville Barrere, William H. Ray, Robert M. Knapp, James C. Robinson,
John McNulta, Joseph G. Cannon, John R. Eden, James S. Martin, William R.
Morrison, Isaac Clements, Samuel S. Marshall.
Missouri. — Edwin O. Stannard, Erastus Wells, William H. Stone, Robert A.
Hatcher, Richard Parks Bland, Harrison E. Havens, Thomas T. Crittenden,
Abram Comingo, Isaac C. Parker, Ira B. Hyde, John B. Clark, jun., John
Montgomery Glover, Aylett Hawes Buckner.
Arkansas. — Asa Hodges, Oliver P. Snyder, William W. Wilshire,5 William J.
Hynes.
Michigan. — Moses W. Field, Henry Waldron, George Willard, Julius C. Burrows,
Wilder D. Foster,6 Josiah W. Begole, Omar D. Conger, Nathan B. Bradley, Jay
A. Hubbell.
Florida. — Josiah T. Walls, William J. Purman.7
Texas. — William S. Herndon, William P. McLean, De Witt C. Giddings, John
Hancock, Roger Q. Mills, Asa H. Willie.
Iowa. — George W. McCrary, Aylett R. Cotton, William G. Donnan, Henry O. Pratt,
James Wilson, William Loughridge, John A. Kasson, James Wilson McDill,
Jackson Orr.
Wisconsin. — Charles G. Williams, Gerry W. Hazelton, J. Allen Barber, Alexander
Mitchell, Charles A. Eldridge, Philetus Sawyer, Jeremiah M. Rusk, Alexander
S. McDill.
California. — Charles Clayton, Horace Francis Page, John K. Luttrell, Sherman
O. Houghton.
1 Unseated. Effingham Laiorence admitted. « Died. Succeeded by Bernard G. Cauljield.
2 Died. Succeeded by George L. Smith. » Unseated. Thomas M. Gunter admitted.
" Resigned. Succeeded by William E. Finck. 6 Died. Succeeded by William B. Williams.
' Resigned January 25, 1875.

APPENDIX. 701
Minnesota. -Mark H. Dunnell, Horace B. Strait, John T. Averlll.
Oregon. — J. G. Wilson.1
Kansas. —David P. Lowe, Stephen A. Cobb, William A. Phillips.
West Virginia. - John J. Davis, John M. Hagans, Frank Hereford.
Nevada. — Charles West Kendall.
Nebraska. —Lorenzo Crounse. DELEGATES.
Arizona. —Richard C. McCormick.
Colorado. —Jerome B. Chaffee.
Dakota. — 3Ioses K. Armstrong.
District of Columbia. — Norton P. Chipman.
Idaho. — John Hailey.
Montana. —Martin Maginnis.
New Mexico. — Stephen B. Elkins.
Utah. — George Q. Cannon.
Washington. — Obadiah B.McFadden.
Wyoming. — William R. Steele.

APPENDIX G.
FORTY-FOURTH CONGRESS.
republicans in roman; democrats in italic.
SENATE.
Thomas W. Ferry of Michigan, President.
George C Gorham of California, Secretary.
Alabama. — George E. Spencer, George Goldthwaite.
Aekansas. — Powell Clayton, Stephen W. Dorsey.
California. — Aaron A. Sargent, Newton Booth.
Colorado. — Jerome B. Chaffee, Henry M. Teller.
Connecticut. — William W. Eaton, Orris S. Ferry.2
Delaware. — Thomas Francis Bayard, Eli Saulsbury.
Florida. — Simon B. Conover, Charles W. Jones.
Georgia. — Thomas Manson Norwood, John B. Gordon.
Illinois. — John A. Logan, Richard J. Oglesby.
Indiana. — Oliver P. Morton, Joseph E. McDonald.
Iowa. — George G. Wright, William B. Allison.
Kansas. — John James Ingalls, James M. Harvey.
Kentucky. — John W. Stevenson, Thomas C. McCreery.
Louisiana. — J. R. West; (vacancy contested.)
Maine. — Hannibal Hamlin, Lot M. Morrill.3
Maryland. — George R. Dennis, W. Pinkney Whyte.
Massachusetts. — George S. Boutwell, Henry L. Dawes.
Michigan. — Thomas W. Ferry, Isaac P. Christiancy.
Minnesota. — William Windom, Samuel J. R. McMillan.
Mississippi. — James Lusk Alcorn, Blanche K. Bruce.
• Died. Succeeded by James W. Mesmlth.
2 Died. James E. English appointed ; William H. Barnum elected.
8 Resigned. Succeeded by James G. Blaine.

702 APPENDIX.
Missouri. — Lewis V. Bogy, Francis Marion Cockrell.
Nebraska. — Phineas W. Hitchcock, Algernon S. Paddock.
Nevada. — John P. Jones, William Sharon.
New Hampshire. — Aaron H. Cragin, Bainbridge Wadleigh.
New Jersey. —Frederick T. Frelinghuysen, Theodore F. Randolph.
New York. — Roscoe Conkling, Francis Kernan.
North Carolina. — Matt W. Ransom, Augustus S. Merrimon.
Ohio. — John Sherman, Allen G. Thurman.
Oregon. —James K. Kelly, John H. Mitchell.
Pennsylvania. — Simon Cameron, William A. Wallace.
Rhode Island. — Henry B. Anthony, Ambrose E. Burnside.
South Carolina. — Thomas J. Robertson, John J. Patterson.
Tennessee. — Henry Cooper, Andrew Johnson.1
Texas. — Morgan C. Hamilton, Sam Bell Maxey.
Vermont. — George F. Edmunds, Justin S. Morrill.
Virginia. — John W. Johnston, Robert E. Withers.
West Virginia. —Henry G. Davis, Allen T. Caperton.2
Wisconsin. — Timothy O. Howe, Angus Cameron.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Samuel J. Randall of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
George M. Adams of Kentucky, Clerk.
Alabama. — Jere Haralson, Jeremiah N. Williams, Taul Bradford, Charles Hays,
John H. Caldwell, Goldsmith W. Hewitt, William Henry Forney, Burwell
Boykin Lewis.
Arkansas. — Lucien C. Gause, William F. Slemons, William W. Wilshire, Thomas
Monticue Gunter.
California. — William A. Piper, Horace Francis Page, John K. Luttrell, Peter
Dinwiddle Wigginton.
Colorado. — James B. Belford.
Connecticut. — George M. Landers, James Phelps, Henry H. Starkweather,3 Wil
liam H. Barnum.*
Delaware. — James Williams.
Florida. — William J. Purman, Josiah T. Walls.6
Georgia. — Julian Hartridge, William E. Smith, Philip Cook, Henry R. Harris,
Milton A. Candler, James H. Blount, William H. Felton, Alexander Hamilton
Stephens, Garrett McMillan.6
Illinois. — Bernard G. Caulfield, Carter H. Harrison, Charles B. Farwell,7 Stephen
A. Hurlbut, Horatio C. Burchard, Thomas J. Henderson, Alexander Campbell,
Greenbury L. Fort, Richard H. Whiting, John C. Bagby, Scott Wike, William
M. Springer, Adlai E. Stevenson, Joseph G. Cannon, John R. Eden, William
A. J. Sparks, William R. Morrison, William Hartzell, William B. Anderson.
Indiana. — Benoni S. Fuller, James D. Williams,3 Michael C. Kerr? Jeptha D. New,
William S. Holman, Milton S. Robinson, Franklin Landers, Morton C. Hunter,
Thomas J. Cason, William S. Haymond, James L. Evans, Andrew H. Hamil
ton, John H. Baker.
'Died. DavidM. Key appointed ; James E. Bailey 'Resigned. Succeeded by Levi Warner.
elected. E Unseated. Jesse J. Finley admitted.
2 Died. Samuel Price appointed ; Fr ank Hereford 6 Died. Succeeded by Benjamin IT. JBill.
elected. » Unseated. J. V. LeMoyne admitted.
8 Died. Succeeded by John T. Wait. 8 Resigned. Succeeded by Andrew Humphreys.
» Died. Succeeded by Nathan T. Carr.

APPENDIX. 703
Iowa. — George W. McCrary, John Q. Tufts, Lucien Lester Ainsworth, Henry O.
Pratt, James Wilson, Ezekiel S. Sampson, John A. Kasson, James Wilson
McDill, Addison Oliver.
Kansas. — William A. Phillips, John R. Goodin, William R. Brown.
Kentucky.— Andrew R. Boone, John Young Broion, Charles W. Millilcen, J. Proc- '
tor Knott, Edward Young Parsons,1 Thomas L. Jones, Joseph C. S. Blackburn,
Milton J. Durham, John D. White, John B. Clarke.
Louisiana. — Randall Lee Gibson, E. John Ellis, Chester B. Darrall, William M.
Levy, Frank Morey,2 Charles E. Nash.
Maine. — John H. Burleigh, William P. Frye, James G. Blaine,3 Harris M. Plaisted,
Eugene Hale.
Maryland. — Philip Francis Thomas, Charles B. Roberts, William J. O'Brien,
Thomas Swann, Eli Jones Henkle, William Walsh.
Massachusetts. — James Buffinton,4 Benjamin W. Harris, Henry Lillie Pierce,
Rufus S. Frost,5 Nathaniel P. Banks, Charles P. Thompson, John Kemble
Tarbox, William Wirt Warren, George F. Hoar, Julius H. Seelye, Chester W.
Chapin.
Micm.GA.N.— Alpheus S. Williams, Henry Waldron, George Willard, Allen Potter,
William B. Williams, George H. Durand, Omar D. Conger, Nathan B. Bradley,
Jay A. Hubbell.
Minnesota. — Mark H. Dunnell, Horace B. Strait, William S. King.
Mississippi. — Lucius Q. C. Lamar, Guilford Wiley Wells, Hernando D. Money, Otho
R. Singleton, Charles E. Hooker, John R. Lynch.
Missouri. — Edward C. Kehr, Erastus Wells, William H. Stone, Robert A. Hatcher,
Richard Parks Bland, Charles Henry Morgan, John F. Philips, Benjamin J.
Franklin, David Rea, Rezin A. De Bolt, John B. Clark, jun., John Montgomery
Glover, Aylett Hawes Buckner.
Nebraska. — LorenzoCrounse.
Nevada. — William Woodburn.
New Hampshire. — Frank Jones, Samuel N. Bell, Henry W. Blair.
New Jersey. — Clement H. Sinnickson, Samuel A. Dobbins, Miles Ross, Robert
Hamilton, Augustus W. Cutler, Frederick H. Teese, Augustus A. Hardenbergh.
New York. — Henry B. Metcalfe, John G. Schumaker, Simeon B. Chittenden,
Archibald M. Bliss, Edwin Ruthven Meade, Samuel Sullivan Cox, Smith Ely,
jun.,3 Elijah Ward, Fernando Wood, Abram Stevens Hewitt, Benjamin A.
Willis, N. Holmes Odell, John 0. Whitehouse, George M. Beebe, John H. Bag-
ley, jun., Charles H. Adams, Martin I. Townsend, Andrew Williams, William
A. Wheeler, Henry H. Hathorn, Samuel F. Miller, George A. Bagley, Scott
Lord, William H. Baker, Elias Warren Leavenworth, Clinton Dugald MacDou-
gall, Elbridge G. Lapham, Thomas C. Piatt, Charles C. B. Walker, John M.
Davy, George G. Hoskins, Lyman K. Bass, Augustus F. Allen.7
North Carolina. — Jesse J. Yeates, John Adams Hyman, Alfred Moore Waddell,
Joseph J. Davis, Alfred Moore Scales, Thomas Samuel Ashe, William M. Rob-
bins, Robert Brank Vance.
Ohio. —Milton Sayler, Henry B. Banning, John Simpson Savage, John A. McMa
hon, Americus V. Rice, Frank H. Hurd, Lawrence Talbott Neal, William
Lawrence, Earley F. Poppleton, Charles Foster, John L. Vance, Ansel T.

i Died. Succeeded by Henry Watterson. * Died. Succeeded by William W. Ciapo.
2 Unseated. William B. Spencer admitted and « Unseated. Josiah G. Abbott admitted.
subsequently resigned. 6 Resigned. Succeeded by David Dudley Field.
8 Resigned. Succeeded by Edwin Flye. 7 Died. Succeeded by Nelson 1. Norton.

704 APPENDIX.
Walling, Milton I. Southard, Jacob P. Cowan, Nelson H. Van Vorhes, Lorenzo
Danford, Laurin D. Woodworth, James Monroe, James A. Garfield, Henry B.
Payne.
Oregon. — George A. LaDow.1
Pennsylvania. — Chapman Freeman, Charles O'Neill, Samuel J. Randall, William
D. Kelley, John Robbins, Washington Townsend, Alan Wood, jun., Hiester
Clymer, A. Herr Smith, William Mutchler, Francis D. Collins, Winthrop W.
Ketchum,2 James B. Reilly, John B. Packer, Joseph Powell, Sobieski Ross,
John Reilly, William S. Stenger, Levi Maish, L. A. Mackey, Jacob Turney,
James H. Hopkins, Alexander G. Cochrane, John W. Wallace, George A. Jenlcs,
James Sheakley, Albert G. Egbert.
Rhode Island. — Benjamin T. Eames, Latimer W. Ballon.
South Carolina. — Joseph H. Rainey, Edmund W. M. Mackey,3 Solomon La
Fayette Hoge, Alexander S. Wallace, Robert Smalls.
Tennessee. — William McFarland, Jacob M. Thornburgh, George Gibbs Dibrell,
Samuel M. Flte* John Morgan Bright, John F. House, Washington Curran
Whitthorne, John D. C. Atkins, William P. Caldwell, Casey Young.
Texas. — John H. Reagan, David B. Culberson, James W. Throckmorton, Roger Q.
Mills, John Hancock, Gustave Schleicher.
Vermont. — Charles H. Joyce, Dudley Chase Denison, George Whitman Hendee.
Virginia. — Beverly B. Douglas, John Goode, jun., Gilbert Carlton Walker, William
H. H. Stowell, George C. Cabell, John Randolph Tucker, John T. Harris, Eppa
Hunton, William Terry.
West Virginia. — Benjamin Wilson, Charles James Faulkner, Frank Hereford.5
Wisconsin. — Charles G. Williams, Lucien B. Caswell, Henry S. Magoon, William
P. Lynde, Samuel D. Burchard, Alanson M. Kimball, Jeremiah M. Rusk,
George W. Gate. DELEGATES.
Arizona. — H. S. Stevens.
Colorado. — Thomas M. Patterson.
Dakota. — Jefferson P. Kidder.
Idaho. — Thomas W. Bennett.6
Montana. — Martin Maginnis.
New Mexico. — Stephen B. Elkins.
Utah. — George Q. Cannon.
Washington. — Orange Jacobs.
Wyoming. — William R. Steele.
1 Died. Succeeded by Lafayette Lane. * Died. Succeeded by Haywood Y. Riddle.
2 Resigned. Succeeded by William H. Stanton. B Resigned January 31, 1877.
8 Unseated. Charles W. Buttz admitted. « Unseated. Stephen S. Fenn admitted.

APPENDIX. 705
APPENDIX H.
FORTY-FIFTH CONGRESS.
republicans in Roman; democrats in italic.
senate.
William A. Wheeler of New York, President.
George C. Gorham of California, Secretary.
Alabama. — George E. Spencer, John T. Morgan.
Arkansas. — Stephen W. Dorsey, Augustus H. Garland.
California. — Aaron A. Sargent, Newton Booth.
Colorado. — Jerome B. Chaffee, Henry M. Teller.
Connecticut. — William W. Eaton, William H. Barnum.
Delaware. — Thomas F. Bayard, Eli Saulsbury.
Florida.— Simon B. Conover, Charles W. Jones.
Georgia.— John B. Gordon, Benjamin H. Hill.
Illinois.— Richard J. Oglesby, David Davis.
Indiana. — Oliver P. Morton,1 Joseph E. McDonald.
Iowa. — William B. Allison, Samuel J. Kirkwood.
Kansas. — John J. Ingalls, Preston B. Plumb.
Kentucky. — Thomas C. McCreery, James B. Beck.
Louisiana. — William P. Kellogg, James B. Eustis.
Maine. —Hannibal Hamlin, James G. Blaine.
Maryland. — George R. Dennis, W. Pinkney Whyte.
Massachusetts. —Henry L. Dawes, George F. Hoar.
Michigan. — Thomas W. Ferry, Isaac P. Christiancy.2
Minnesota. —William Windom, Samuel J. R. McMillan.
Mississippi.— Blanche K. Bruce, Lucius Q. C. Lamar.
Missouri. — Francis M. Cockrell, Lewis V. Bogy.3
Nebraska. —Algernon S. Paddock, Alvin Saunders.
Nevada. — John P. Jones, William Sharon.
New Hampshire. —Bainbridge Wadleigh, E. H. Rollins.
New Jersey. — Theodore F. Randolph, John R. MacPherson.
New York. — Roscoe Conkling, Francis Kernan.
North Carolina. — Matt W. Ransom, Augustus S. Merrimon.
Ohio. — John Sherman,4 Allen G. Thurman.
Oregon. — John H. Mitchell, La Fayette Grover.
Pennsylvania. — William A. Wallace, Simon Cameron.6
Rhode Island. — Henry B. Anthony, Ambrose E. Burnside.
South Carolina. — John J. Patterson, Manning C. Butler.
Tennessee. — James E. Bailey, Isham G. Harris.
Texas. — Sam B. Maxey, Richard Coke.
Vermont. — George F. Edmunds, Justin S. Morrill.
Virginia. — John W. Johnston, Robert E. Withers.
West Virginia. — Henry G. Davis, Frank Hereford.
Wisconsin. — Timothy O. Howe, Angus Cameron.
1 Died. Succeeded by Daniel W. Voorhees. 4 Resigned. Succeeded by Stanley Matthews.
2 Resigned. Succeeded by Zachariah Chandler. 5 Resigned. Succeeded by J. Donald Cameron.
3 Died. David H. Armstrong appointed ', James Shields elected.
Vol. II. 4S

706 APPENDIX.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Samuel J. Randall of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
George M. Adams of Kentucky, Clerk.
Alabama. — James T. Jones, Hilary A. Herbert, Jeremiah N. Williams, Charles M.
Shelley, Robert F. Ligon, Goldsmith W. Hewitt, William H. Forney, William
W. Garth.
Arkansas. — Lucien C. Gause, William F. Slemons, Jordan E. Cravens, Thomas M.
Gunter.
California. — Horace Davis, Horace F. Page, John K. Luttrell, Romualdo Pacheco.1
Colorado. — T. M. Patterson.
Connecticut. — George M. Landers, James Phelps, John T. Wait, Levi Warner.
Delaware. — James Williams.
Florida. — Robert H. M. Davidson, Horatio Bisbee, jun.2
Georgia. — Julian Hartridge,3 William E. Smith, Philip Cook, Henry R. Harris,
Milton A. Candler, James H. Blount, William H. Felton, Alexander H.
Stephens, Hiram P. Bell.
Illinois. — William Aldrich, Carter H. Harrison, Lorenzo Brentano, William La-
throp, Horatio C. Burchard, Thomas J. Henderson, Philip C. Hayes, Greenbury
L. Fort, Thomas A. Boyd, B. F. Marsh, Robert M. Knapp, William M. Springer,
Thomas F. Tipton, Joseph G. Cannon, John R. Eden, William A. J. Sparks,
William R. Morrison, William Hartzell, Richard W. Townshend.
Indiana. — Benoni S. Fuller, Thomas R. Cobb, George A. Bicknell, Leonidas Sexton,
Thomas M. Browne, Milton S. Robinson, John Hanna, Morton C. Hunter, M.
D. White, William H. Calkins, James L. Evans, Andrew H. Hamilton, John H.
Baker.
Iowa. — Joseph C. Stone, Hiram Price, Theodore W. Burdick, Nathaniel C. Deering,
Rush Clark, Ezekiel S. Sampson, Henry J. B. Cummings, William F. Sapp,
Addison Oliver.
Kansas. — William A. Phillips, Dudley C. Haskell, Thomas Ryan.
Kentucky. — Andrew R. Boone, James A. McKenzie, John W. Caldwell, J. Proctor
Knott, Albert S. Willis, John G. Carlisle, Joseph C. S. Blackburn, Milton J.
Durham, Thomas Turner, John B. Clarke.
Louisiana. — Randall L. Gibson, E. John Ellis, Chester B. Darrall,4 Joseph B. Elam,
John E. Leonard,5 Edward W. Robertson.
Maine. — Thomas B. Reed, William P. Frye, Stephen D. Lindsey, Llewellyn Powers,
Eugene Hale.
Maryland. — Daniel M. Henry, Charles B. Roberts, William Kimmell, Thomas
Swann, Eli J. Henkle, William Walsh.
Massachusetts. — William W. Crapo, Benjamin W. Harris, Walbridge A. Field,6
Leopold Morse, Nathaniel P. Banks, George B. Loring, Benjamin F. Butler,
William Claflin, William W. Rice, Amasa Norcross, George D. Robinson.
Michigan. — Alpheus S. Williams,7 Edwin Willits, Jonas H. McGowan, Edwin W.
Keightley, John W. Stone, Mark S. Brewer, Omar D. Conger, Charles C. Ells
worth, Jay A. Hubbell.
Minnesota. — Mark H. Dunnell, Horace B. Strait, Jacob H. Stewart.
Mississippi. — Henry L. Muldrow, Van H. Manning, Hernando D. Money, Otho R.
Singleton, Charles E. Hooker, James R. Chalmers.
1 Unseated. Peter D. Wigginton admitted. i Unseated. Joseph H. Acklen admitted.
2 Unseated. Jesse J. Finley admitted. B Died. Succeeded by John 8. Young.
8 Died. Succeeded by William B. Fleming. e Unseated. Benjamin Dean admitted.
' Died December 20, 1878.

APPENDIX. 707
Missouri. — Anthony Ittner, Nathan Cole, Lyne S. Metcalf, Robert A. Hatcher,
Richard P. Bland, Charles II. Morgan, Thomas T. Crittenden, Benjamin J.
Franklin, David Rea, Henry M. Pollard, John B. Clark, jun., John M. Glover,
Aylett H. Buckner.
Nebraska. — Frank Welch.1
Nevada. — Thomas Wren.
New Hampshire. — Frank Jones, James F. Briggs, Henry W. Blair.
New Jersey. — Clement H. Sinnickson, John H. Pugh, Miles Ross, Alvah A. Clark,
Augustus W. Cutler, Thomas B. Peddie, Augustus A. Hardenbergh.
New York. — James W. Covert, William D. Veeder, Simeon B. Chittenden, Archi
bald M. Bliss, Nicolas Midler, Samuel S. Cox, Anthony Eickhoff, Anson G.
McCook, Fernando Wood, Abram S. Hewitt, Benjamin A. Willis, Clarkson
N. Potter, John H. Ketcham, George M. Beebe, Stephen L. Mayham, Terence
J. Quinn,2 Martin I. Townsend, Andrew Williams, Amaziah B. James, John
H. Starin, Solomon Bundy, 'George A. Bagley, William J. Bacon, William H.
Baker, Frank Hiscock, John H. Camp, Elbridge G. Lapham, Jeremiah W.
Dwight, John N. Hungerford, E. Kirke Hart, Charles B. Benedict, David N.
Lockwood, George W. Patterson.
North Carolina. — Jes.se J. Yeates, Curtis H. Brogden, Alfred M. Waddell, Joseph J.
Davis, Alfred M. Scales, Walter L. Steele, William M. Bobbins, Robert B. Vance.
Ohio. — Milton Sayler, Henry B. Banning, Mills Gardner, John A. McMahon,
Americus V. Rice, Jacob D. Cox, Henry L. Dickey, Joseph W. Keifer, John
S. Jones, Charles Foster, Henry S. Neal, Thomas Ewing, Milton I. Southard,
Ebenezer R. Flnley, Nelson H. Van Vorhes, Lorenzo Danford, William McKin-
ley, jun. , James Monroe, James A. Garfield, Amos Townsend.
Oregon. — Richard Williams.
Pennsylvania. — Chapman Freeman, Charles O'Neill, Samuel J. Randall, William
D. Kelley, Alfred C. Harmer, William Ward, I. Newton Evans, Hiester Clymer,
A. Herr Smith, Samuel A. Bridges, Francis D. Collins, Hendrick B. Wright,
James B. Reilly, John W. Killinger, Edward Overton, jun., John T. Mitchell,
Jacob M. Campbell, William S. Stenger, Levi Maish, L. A. Mackey, Jacob
Turney, Russell Errett, Thomas M. Bayne, William S. Shallenberger, Harry
White, John M. Thompson, Lewis F. Watson.
Rhode Island. — Benjamin T. Eames, Latimer W. Ballou.
South Carolina. — Joseph H. Rainey, Richard H. Cain, D. Wyatt Aiken, John H.
Evins, Robert Smalls.
Tennessee. — James H. Randolph, Jacob M. Thornburgh, George G. Dibrell, Hay
wood Y. Riddle, John M. Bright, John F. House, Washington C. Whitthorne,
John D. C. Atkins, William P. Caldwell, Casey Young.
Texas. —John H. Reagan, David B. Culberson, James W. Throckmorton, Roger Q.
Mills, DeWitt C. Giddings, Gustave Schleicher.3
Vermont. — Charles H. Joyce, Dudley C. Denison, George W. Hendee.
Virginia. —Beverly B. Douglas * John Goode, jun., Gilbert C. Walker, Joseph Jor-
gensen, George C. Cabell, John R. Tucker, John T. Harris, Eppa Hunton,
Auburn L. Pridemore.
West Virginia. — Benjamin Wilson, Benjamin F. Martin, John E. Kenna.
Wisconsin.— Charles G. Williams, Lucien B. Caswell, George C. Hazelton, William
P. Lynde, Edward S. Bragg, Gabriel Bouck, Herman L. Humphrey, Thaddeus
C. Pound. 

1 Died. Succeeded by Thomas J. Majors. 3 Died January 10, 1879.
•Died. Succeeded by John M.Bailey. ' Died. Succeeded by R. L. T. Beale.

708 APPENDIX. DELEGATES.
Arizona. — 3. S. Stevens.
Dakota. — Jefferson P. Kidder.
Idaho. — Stephen S. Fenn.
Montana. — Martin Maginnis.
New Mexico. — Trinidad Romero.
Utah. — George Q. Cannon.
Washington. — Orange Jacobs.
Wyoming. — William W. Corlett.

APPENDIX I.
FORTY-SIXTH CONGRESS.
republicans in roman; democrats in italics; greenbackers ln
small capitals.
SENATE.
William A. Wheeler of New York, President.
John C. Burch of Tennessee, Secretary.
Alabama. — John T. Morgan, George S. Houston.1
Arkansas. — Augustus H. Garland, James D. Walker.
California. — Newton Booth, James T. Farley.
Colorado. — Henry M. Teller, Nathaniel P. Hill.
Connecticut. — William W. Eaton, Orville H. Piatt.
Delaware. — Thomas F. Bayard, Eli Saulsbury.
Florida. — Charles W. Jones, Wilkinson Call.
Georgia. — Benjamin II. Hill, John B. Gordon.2
Illinois. — David Davis, John A. Logan.
Indiana. — Joseph E. McDonald, Daniel W. Voorhees.
Iowa. — Samuel J. Kirkwood, AVilliam B. Allison.
Kansas. — Preston B. Plumb, John James Ingalls.
Kentucky. — James B. Beck, John S. Williams.
Louisiana. — William Pitt Kellogg, Benjamin F. Jonas.
Maine. — Hannibal Hamlin, James G. Blaine.
Maryland. — William Pinkney Whyte, James B. Groome.
Massachusetts. — Henry L. Dawes, George F. Hoar.
Michigan. — Zachariah Chandler,3 Thomas W. Ferry.
Minnesota. — Samuel J. R. McMillan, William Windom.
Mississippi. — Blanche K. Bruce, Lucius Q. C. Lamar.
Missouri. — Francis M. Cockrell, James Shields.*
Nebraska. — Algernon S. Paddock, Alvin Saunders.
Nevada. — William Sharon, John P. Jones.
New Hampshire. — Edward H. Rollins, Henry W. Blair.6
New Jersey. — Theodore F. Randolph, John R. McPherson.
New York. — Francis Kernan, Roscoe Conkling.
North Carolina. — Matt W. Ransom, Zebulon B. Vance.
Ohio. — Allen G. Thurman, George H. Pendleton.
Died. Luke Pryor appointed ; James L. Pugh 4 Died. Succeeded by George G. Vest.
elected. B Charles H. Bell served under appointment to
Resigned. Succeeded by Joseph E. Brown. June 20, 1879.
Died. Succeeded by Henry P. Baldwin.

APPENDIX. 709
Oregon. —Lafayette Grover, James H. Slater
Pennsylvania. - William A. Wallace, J. Donald Cameron
Rhode Island. - Ambrose E. Burnside, Henry B. Anthony'
South Carolina. - Manning C. Butler, Wade Hampton.
Tennessee. — James E. Bailey, Isham G. Harris.
Texas. — Sam Bell Maxey, Richard Coke.
Vermont. — George F. Edmunds, Justin S. Morrill.
Virginia. —Robert E. Withers, John W. Johnston.
West Virginia. — Frank Hereford, Henry G. Davis.
Wisconsin. —Angus Cameron, Matthew H. Carpenter.1
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Samuel J. Randall of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
George M. Adams of Kentucky, Clerk.
Alabama - Thomas H. Herndon, Hilary A. Herbert, William J. Samford, Charles
M. Shelley, Thomas Williams, Burwell B. Lewis,2 William H. Forney
William M. Lowe.
Arkansas. -Poindexter Dunn, William F. Siemens, Jordan E. Cravens, Thomas M.
Gunter.
California. -Horace Davis, Horace F. Page, Campbell P. Berry, Romualdo
Pacheco.
Colorado. —James B. Belford.
Connecticut. — Joseph R. Hawley, James PJielps, John T. Wait, Frederick Miles.
Delaware. — Edward L. Martin.
Florida. —Robert H. M. Davidson, Noble A. Hull.3
Georgia. — John C. Nicholls, William E. Smith, Philip Cook, Henry Persons, Neil
J. Hammond, James H. Blount, William H. Felton, Alexander H. Stephens,
Emory Speer.
Illinois.— William Aldrich, George R. Davis, Hiram Barber, John C. Sherwin,
Robert M. A. Hawk, Thomas J. Henderson, Philip C. Hayes, Greenbury L.
Fort, Thomas A. Boyd, Benjamin F. Marsh, James W. Singleton, William M.
Springer, Adlai E. Stevenson, Joseph G. Cannon, Albert P. Forsythe,
William A. J. Sparks, William R. Morrison, John R. Thomas, Richard W.
Townshend.
Indiana. —William Heilman, Thomas R. Cobb, George A. Bicknell, Jeptha D. New,
Thomas M. Browne, William R. Myers, Gilbert De La Matyr, Abram J.
Hostetler, Godlove S. Orth, William H. Calkins, Calvin Cowgill, Walpole G.
Colerick, John H. Baker.
Iowa. —Moses A. McCoid, Hiram Price, Thomas Updegraff, Nathaniel C. Deering,
William G. Thompson, James B. Weaver, Edward H. Gillette, William
F. Sapp, Cyrus C. Carpenter.
Kansas. — John A. Anderson, Dudley C. Haskell, Thomas Ryan.
Kentucky. — Oscar Turner, James A. McKenzie, John W. Caldwell, J. Proctor
Knott, Albert S. Willis, John G. Carlisle, Joseph G. S. Blackburn, Philip B.
Thompson, jun., Thomas Turner, Elijah C. Phister.
Louisiana. — Randall L. Gibson, E. John Ellis, Joseph H. Acklen, Joseph B. Elam,
J. Floyd King, Edward W. Robertson.
Maine. — Thomas B. Reed, William P. Frye, Stephen D. Lindsey, George W. Ladd,
Thompson H. Murch.
1 Died February 24, 1881. 2 Resigned. Succeeded by Newton N. Clements.
3 Unseated. Horatio Bisbee, jun., admitted.

710 APPENDIX.
Maryland. — Daniel M. Henry, J. Frederick C. Talbott, William Kimmel, Robert
M. McLane, Eli J. Henkle, Milton G. Urner.
Massachusetts. —William W. Crapo, Benjamin W. Harris, Walbridge A. Field,
Leopold Morse, Selwyn Z. Bowman, George B. Loring, William A. Russell,
William Claflin, William W. Rice, Amasa Norcross, George D. Robinson.
Michigan. — John S. Newberry, Edwin Willits, Jonas H. McGowan, Julius C. Bur
rows, John W. Stone, Mark S. Brewer, Omar D. Conger, Roswell G. Horr, Jay
A. Hubbell.
Minnesota. — Mark H. Dunnell, Henry Poehler, William D. Washburn.
Mississippi. —Henry L. Muldroiv, Van H. Manning, Hernando D. Money, Otho R.
Singleton, Charles E. Hooker, James R. Chalmers.
Missouri. — Martin L. Clardy, Erastus Wells, R. Graham Frost, Lowndes H. Davis,
Richard P. Bland, James R. Waddill, Alfred M. Lay,1 Samuel L. Sawyer,
Nicholas Ford, Gideon F. Rothwell, John B. Clark, jun., William H. Hatch,
Aylett II. Buclcner.
Nebraska. —Edward K. Valentine.
Nevada. — Rollin M. Daggett.
New Hampshire. — Joshua G. Hall, James F. Briggs, Evarts W. Farr.2
New Jersey. —George M. Robeson, Hezekiah B. Smith, Miles Ross, Alvah A. Clark,
Charles H. Voorhis, John L. Blake, Lewis A. Brigham.
New York. — James W. Covert, Daniel O'Reilly, Simeon B. Chittenden, Archibald
M. Bliss, Nicholas Midler, Samuel S. Cox, Edwin Einstein, Anson G. McCook,
Fernando Wood,3 James O'Brien, Levi P. Morton, Waldo Hutchins, John H.
Ketcham, John W. Ferdon, William Lounsbery, John M. Bailey, Walter A.
Wood, John Hammond, Amaziah B. James, John H. Starin, David Wilber,
Warner Miller, Cyrus D. Prescott, Joseph Mason, Frank Hiscock, John H.
Camp, Elbridge G. Lapham, Jeremiah W. Dwight, David P. Richardson, John
Van Voorhis, Richard Crowley, Ray V. Pierce,4 Henry Van Aernam.
North Carolina. — Joseph J. Martin,5 William H. Kitchin, Daniel L. Russell,
Joseph J. Davis, Alfred M. Scales, Walter L. Steele, Robert F. Armfield,
Robert B. Vance.
Ohio. — Benjamin Butterworth, Thomas L. Young, John A. McMahon, J. Warren
Keifer, Benjamin Le Fevre, William D. Hill, Frank H. Hurd, Ebenezer B.
Finley, George L. Converse, Thomas Ewing, Henry L. Dickey, Henry S. Neal,
Adoniram J. Warner, Gibson Atherton, George W. Geddes, William McKinley,
jun., James Monroe, Jonathan T. Updegraff, James A. Garfield,6 Amos Town-
send.
Oregon. — John Whiteaker.
Pennsylvania. — Henry H. Bingham, Charles O'Neill, Samuel J. Randall, William
D. Kelley, Alfred C. Harmer, William Ward, William Godshalk, Hiester
Clymer, A. Herr Smith, Reuben K. Bachman, Robert Klolz, Hendrick B.
Wright, John W. Ryon, John W. Killinger, Edward Overton, jun., John I.
Mitchell, Alexander H. Coffroth, Horatio G. Fisher, Frank E. Beltzhoover,
Seth H. Yocum, Morgan R. Wise, Russell Errett, Thomas M. Bayne, William
S. Shallenberger, Harry White, Samuel B. Dick, James H. Osmer.
Rhode Island. — Nelson W. Aldrich, Latimer W. Ballou.
South Carolina. — John S. Richardson, Michael P. O'Connor, D. Wyatt Aiken,
John H. Evins, George D. Tillman.
i Died. Succeeded by John F. Philips. * Resigned. Succeeded by Jonathan Scoville.
2 Died. Succeeded by Ossian Ray. B Unseated. Jesw J. Yeates admitted.
5 Dijd February 13, 1881. 6 Resigued. Succeeded by Ezra B. Taylor.

APPENDIX. 711
Tennessee. —Robert L. Taylor, Leonidas C. Houk, George G. Dibrell, Benton
McMillin, John M. Bright, John F. House, Washington C. Whitthome, John
D. C. Atkins, Charles B. Simonton, Casey Young.
Texas. — John H. Reagan, David B. Culberson, Olin Wellborn, Roger Q. Mills,
George W. Jones, Columbus Upson.
Vermont. — Charles H. Joyce, James M. Tyler, Bradley Barlow.
Virginia. — Richard L. T. Beale, John Goode, Joseph E. Johnston, Joseph Jorgen-
sen, George C. Cabell, John Randolph Tucker, John T. Harris, Eppa Hunton,
James B. Richmond.
West Virginia. — Benjamin Wilson, Benjamin F. Martin, John E. Kenna.
Wisconsin. — Charles G. Williams, Lucien B. Caswell, George C. Hazelton, Peter V.
Deuster, Edward S. Bragg, Gabriel Bouck, Herman L. Humphrey, Thaddeus
C. Pound. DELEGATES.
Arizona. — John G. Campbell.
Dakota. — Granville G. Bennett.
Idaho. — George Ainslie.
Montana. — Martin Maginnis.
New Mexico. — Mariano S. Otero.
Utah. — George Q. Cannon.
Washington. — Thomas H. Brents.
Wyoming. — Stephen W. Downey.

INDEX OF NAMES.

Abbott, Joseph C, ii. 447,
506.
Abbott, Josiah G., i. 524; ii.
221, 397, 577, 585.
Abbott, Leon, ii. 577.
Adams, Charles Francis, i.
77, 82, 101, 260, 261, 263-266,
571, 572, 577 ; ii. 269, 478, 488,
489, 498, 523, 525.
Adams, Green, i. 278.
Adams, James H., i. 175.
Adams, John, i. 20, 106, 185,
204, 252, 431, 540-542; ii. 55,
155, 307, 422, 424, 456, 644.
Adams, John Quincy, i. 13,
14, 23, 24, 38, 39, 42, 48, 51,
52, 57, 59, 60, 64, 60, 68-71,
106, 191, 193, 207, 283, 329,
330, 522, 541 ; ii. 65, 307, 309,
422, 538, 618, 646.
Adams, John Quincy (2d), ii.
534.
Aiken, William, i. 122; ii.
212, 529.
Akerman, Amos T., ii. 526,
539.
Aldrich, Nelson TV., ii. 569,
655.
Allen, Elisha H., ii. 437.
Allen, Philip, i. 197.
Allen, William, i. 53, 524; ii
549, 568, 577, 578.
Alley, John B., i. 331, 420
ii. 320.
Allison, William B., i. 501
ii. 256, 322, 539, 605, 607.
Ambler, Jacob A., ii. 433.
Ames, Adelbert, ii. 30, 447.
Ames, Fisher, i. 183.
Ames, Oakes, i. 509.
Ames, Oliver, i. 509.
Anderson, Nicholas L., ii. 31.
Anderson, Robert, i. 295, 296,
300.
Anderson, William C, i. 278.
Andrew, John A., i. 164, 238,
305, 365, 444, 517; ii. 224.
Andrews, Charles, ii. 386.
Angell, James B., ii. 655.
Anthonv, Henry B., i. 266,
320, 323, 425, 452; ii. 126,
374, 457, 514, 675.
Appleton, William, i. 331.
Argyll, Duke of, ii. 477.
Armstrong, William H., ii.
433.

Arnell, Samuel, ii. 225.
Arnold, Isaac N., i. 505, 506.
Arthur, Chester A., ii. 660,
666, 667.
Ashburn, G. W., ii. 224.
Ashe, Thomas S., ii. 212.
Ashley, Chester, i. 174.
Ashley, James M., i. 328, 504,
505, 507, 536; ii. 342, 343, 357.
Ashmun, George, i. 164.
Astor, John Jacob, i. 8.
Astor, John Jacob (2d), ii.
224.
Atchison, David R., i. 115.
Atherton, Charles G., i. 24.
Atkins, J. D. C, ii. 212, 550,
607.
Atkinson, Edward, ii. 521,
525
Augur, C. O, ii. 581.
Averill, John T., ii. 511.
Babcock, O. E., ii. 458, 459,
463.
Badger, George E., i. 76, 90,
117, 131, 311.
Bagley, George A., ii. 601.
Bailey, Gamaliel, i. 22.
Baird, Absalom, ii. 234.
Baker, Conrad, ii. 405, 526.
Baker, Edward D., i. 141,
266, 287, 321, 344, 345, 350,
382, 383; ii. 679.
Baker, Jehu, ii. 122, 123, 196,
257.
Baker, John H., ii. 601.
Baldwin, Abraham, i. 183.
Baldwin, Augustus C, i. 538.
Baldwin, Henry, i. 58, 196.
Baldwin, Henry P., ii. 569.
Baldwin, John, i. 311.
Baldy, George, ii. 235.
Bancroft, George, i. 360; ii.
16, 501, 502.
Banks, Nathaniel P., i. 122,
197, 365, 368, 386, 448, 497;
ii. 30, 39, 46, 117, 118, 224,
231, 255, 257, 334, 335.
Banning, Henry B., ii. 542.
Barker, James M., ii. 664.
Barlow, Francis C, ii. 231.
Barnum, Henry A., ii. 231.
Barnum, William H., ii. 528,
640.
Bartholomew, Lynn, ii. 571.
Bass, Lyman K., ii. 550.

Bates, Edward, i. 167, 168,
284, 285; ii. 62.
Bates, Isaac C, i. 191.
Baxter, Elisha, ii. 40, 41.
Bayard, James A., i. 105, 162,
315, 424; ii. 375, 397, 530.
Bayard, Thomas F., ii. 443-.
446, 528, 557, 563, 578, 583,
585, 588, 609, 667, 668.
Bayne, Thomas M., ii, 602.
Beaman, Fernando C., i. 332.
Beatty, John, ii. 31, 433.
Beauregard, P. G. T., i. 296,
337, 348, 363.
Beaver, James A., ii. 31, 660.
Beck, James B., ii. 290, 291,
415, 436, 597, 605.
Belknap, William W., ii. 427,
539.
Bell, James, i. 197.
Bell, John, i. 60, 61, 72, 89,
108, 117, 142, 163, 164, 170,
171, 197, 215, 216, 229, 268,
301, 309-311, 438, 498; ii. 6,
411, 443.
Belmont, August, i. 525, 526;
ii. 394, 397, 398, 529.
Benjamin, Judah P., i. 117,
119, 151, 160, 233, 248-253,
348, 349, 377, 554; ii. 14, 22-
24, 311.
Bennett, James, ii. 531.
Benton, Jacob, ii. 288.
Benton, Thomas H. (Mo.),
i. 14, 31, 33, 44, 50, 04, 70,
75, 76, 89, 95, 97, 115, 119,
127, 191, 200, 273, 318; ii.
439, 545. 599.
Benton, Thomas H. (Tenn.),
ii. 225.
Bernard, Montagu, i. 577; ii.
496, 678.
Berrien, John McPherson,
i. 53, 70, 89, 108, 193.
Bidwell, John, ii. 123.
Bigler, William, i. 524, 526;
ii. 221, 397.
Billings, Frederick, ii. 665.
Bingham, D. H., ii. 224.
Bingham, Henry H., ii. 569,
638, 639.
Bingham, John A., i. 266,
328, 419, 464, 465, 498; ii.
121, 127, 133, 137, 175, 215,
252, 259, 347, 356, 361-363,
373, 386, 453, 454, 464.
713

714

INDEX OF NAMES.

Bird, Frank W., ii. 521.
Birney, James G., i. 22, 25,
37.
Black, Jeremiah S., i. 223,
229-233, 235, 236, 241, 603-
605; ii. 60, 365, 438, 530, 585.
Blackburn, J. C. S., ii. 550,
589.
Blaine, James G., i. 502; ii.
194-196, 205, 206, 256-258,
262, 424, 431, 508, 533, 549,
554, 555, 569-571, 588, 597,
606, 607, 632, 654, 665, 666.
Blair, Austin, i. 307, 517; ii.
288.
Blair, Francis P., i. 127, 167,
542.
Blair, Francis P., jun., i. 167,
285, 286, 324, 331, 372; ii. 30,
397, 403-406, 507, 517, 524.
Blair, Henry W., ii. 551, 640,
655.
Blair, Montgomery, i. 167,
284, 285, 286, 530; ii. 61, 220,
397, 528, 585.
Bland, Richard P., ii. 542,
603, 605, 607.
Bland, Theodorick, i. 183.
Blount, William, ii. 381.
Blow, Henry T., ii. 127.
Bocock, Thomas S., ii. 397,
529.
Bogy, Louis V., ii. 603.
Bonham, Milledge L., i. 75.
Booth, John Wilkes, ii. 63.
Booth, Newton, ii. 552, 609,
654.
Borden, Rev. Dr., ii. 11.
Boreman, Arthur I., ii. 224,
551.
Borie', Adolph E., ii. 425, 427,
539.
Boteler, Alexander R., ii.
212.
Botts, John Minor, i. 101,
311 ; ii. 225.
Bouck, William C, i. 521.
Boudinot, Elias, i. 183.
Boutelle, Charles A., ii. 569.
Boutwell, George S., i. 73,
164, 439, 502, 507, 537; ii.
127, 215, 224, 255, 258, 295,
322, 344-347, 359, 361, 362,
370, 371, 414, 415, 426, 538,
539, 544, 559, 603, 660.
Bowen, Francis, ii. 603.
Boyer, Benjamin M., ii. 207,
235, 236, 262.
Bradbury, James W., i. 89.
Bradley, Joseph P., ii. 585,
588, 656.
Bragg, Braxton, i. 449, 454.
Bramlette, Thomas E., ii. 229.
Branch, Lawrence O'B., i.
278, 280.
Brandegee, Augustus, ii. 252.
Brandon, W. L., ii. 151.
Breckinridge. John C, i. 119,
125, 126, 147, 162, 163, 170,
171, 207, 215, 216, 245, 265,
281, 287, 289, 309-311, 314,
322, 323, 331, 340, 341, 344-
347, 373, 387, 562; ii. 290, 291,
311, 411, 679.

Breckinridge, Robert J., i.
517, 518; ii. 224.
Briggs, James F., ii. 601.
Bright, Jesse D., i. 108, 315,
502.
Bristow, Benjamin H., ii.
539, 563, 568, 570, 571.
Bristow, Francis M., i. 278.
Broderick, David C, i. 141,
142.
Brodhead, James O., ii. 403.
Brooks, James, i. 480, 481; ii.
Ill, 221, 291, 292, 343, 356,
436.
Brooks, Preston S., i. 129,
318.
Broomall, JohnM., i. 510; ii.
119, 120, 198.
Brown, Aaron V., i. 223, 235.
Brown, B., Gratz, i. 502; ii.
287, 517, 523, 530, 647.
Brown, John, i. 155, 156, 329,
606.
Brown, John C, ii. 596.
Brown, Joseph E., ii. 212.
Brown, William G., i. 463.
Browne, Thomas M., ii. 535,
601.
Browning, Orville H.,i. 168,
341, 375, 388, 443; ii. 219, 220,
230.
Brownlow, William G., ii.
51, 52, 79, 225, 442, 443, 473,
551.
Bruce, Blanche K., ii. 515,
660.
Bryant, William Cullen, ii.
16, 525, 531, 532.
Buchanan, James, 1. 27, 47,
54, 56-59, 79, 99, 125, 126,
128-130, 132, 133, 139, 147,
149, 151, 180, 191-195, 205,
207, 222-229, 231-241, 243,
253, 256, 259, 270, 274, 275,
277, 280, 283, 284, 286, 287,
290, 292, 295, 297, 309, 315,
323, 401, 562, 565-567, 603;
ii. 110, 125, 177, 308, 309, 456,
461, 462, 504, 631, 640-642,
668, 673.
Buck, Alfred E., ii. 434.
Buckalew, Charles R., i.
503; ii. 258, 374, 375, 416,
446.
Buckingham, William A., i.
305; ii. 446, 551.
Buckley, Charles W., ii. 434.
Buckner, Aylett H., ii. 542.
Buckner, S. B., i. 356.
Buell, D. C, i. 361, 454; ii. 29.
Bullett, Cuthbert, ii. 36.
Bullock, Alexander H., ii,
224.
Burchard, Horatio C, ii. 433.
Burdette, Samuel S., ii. 433.
Burke, Edanus, i. 184.
Burke, Edmund, i. 107, 173,
185; ii. 382, 383.
Burke, Edmund (N.H.), i.
221.
Burlingame, Anson, i. 266;
ii. 651.
Burnett, Henry C, i. 310,
344.

Burnside, Ambrose E., i. 337,
357, 360, 448-450, 452, 453,
489, 490; ii. 29, 526, 552.
Burr, Aaron, i. 141; ii. 12.
Burrows, Julius C, ii. 542.
Burton, William, i. 304.
Butler, Andrew P., i. 90, 91.
Butler, Benjamin F. (Mass.),
i. 100, 162, 314, 359, 368,
369, 522, 528; ii. 30, 231, 232,
289, 290, 335, 337, 358, 361,
365-367, 369, 372, 380, 449,
450, 453, 454, 478, 513, 514,
556, 589, 607, 609.
Butler, Benjamin F. (N.Y.),
i. 79.
Butler, M. C, ii. 212, 600, 609.
Butler, Roderick R., ii. 512.
Butler, William O., i. 36, 74,
75, 80.
Bynum, Jesse A., i. 70.
Cadwalader, George, i. 75.
Cadwalader, Lambert, i. 183.
Cake, Henry L., ii. 288.
Calhoun, John C, i. 13, 27-
34, 38, 39. 43, 50, 54, 55, 64,
70, 89, 91, 92, 97, 115, 127,
152, 189-192, 199, 200, 245,
256, 264, 276, 522; ii. 315,
545, 646, 647.
Calkins, William H., ii. 601.
Cambreleng, C. C, i. 84.
Cameron, Angus, i. 517; ii.
552, 607.
Cameron, J. Donald, ii. 390,
539, 569, 599, 657, 660, 661.
Cameron, Simon, i. 67, 167,
168, 195, 196, 284, 285, 321,
324, 354, 355, 371, 378, 379,
381, 517, 520; ii. 13, 59, 224,
242, 285, 374, 375, 390, 409,
503, 588, 599.
Campbell, A. W., ii. 224, 662.
Campbell, James, ii. 221.
Campbell, James H., i. 197.
Campbell, John A., i. 293,
542; ii. 314-316, 585.
Campbell, Lewis D., ii. 229,
351.
Canby, E. R. S., ii. 298.
Cannon, Joseph G., ii. 542.
Caperton, Allen T. ii. 212,
551.
Carey, Henry C, i. 204.
Carlile, John S., i. 315, 373,
375, 379, 425, 440, 476.
Carlisle, John G., ii. 397.
Carmichael, R. B., ii. 221.
Carpenter, Matthew H., ii.
437, 438, 464, 552, 585.
Carr, Joseph B., ii. 31.
Carroll, Charles, i. 183.
Cartter, David K., i. 42.
Casey, Samuel L., i. 440.
Cass, George W., i. 529.
Cass, Lewis, i. 27, 32-34, 53,
57, 58, 80-86, 89, 97, 99, 105,
108, 123, 125, 130, 195, 205,
207, 223, 229, 230, 232, 234,
284, 319, 566, 567; ii. 109,
110.
Casserley, Eugene, ii. 528.
Cassidy, Lewis, ii. 528.

INDEX OE NAMES.

715

Cassoday, J. B., ii. 665.
Castlereagh, Lord, i. 586.
Catron, John, ii. 314-316.
Cattell, Alexander G., ii. 160,
161, 374, 386, 526, (548.
Cecil, Lord Robert, ii. 478,
479,481,482,635,636.
Cessna, John, ii. 433, 569.
Chaffee, Jerome B., ii. 276,
565. 566, 569, 607, 640.
Chamberlain, Daniel H., ii.
570.
Chamberlain, Joshua L., ii.
31, 231.
Chandler, John, i. IS.
Chandler, Lucius H., ii. 225
Chandler, William E., ii. 333,
386, 660.
Chandler, Zachariah, i. 130,
270, 318, 319, 341, 374, 375,
378, 379, 443, 462, 477; ii.
185, 224, 243, 2S1, 2S2, 324,
374, 409, 539, 551, 579, 580,
587, 642.
Chapin, Chester W., ii. 550.
Chapman, Henry, i. 143.
Chase, Salmon P., i. 42, 82,
89. 97, 126, 137. 167, 168, 284,
285, 287, 307, 3.20, 321, 324,
401-407, 413, 414, 426-428,
433, 434, 440, 470, 471, 474,
480, 514, 515, 540, 542, 543;
ii. 1, 59, 66, 146, 265, 363,
369, 370, 374. 389, 391-395,
400-403, 517, 523, 656.
Chase, Samnel, i. 432; ii. 381.
Chestnut, James, jun., i. 219.
Chittenden, Simeon B., ii.
550.
Choate, Rufus, i. 70, 101, 104,
132, 328; ii. 438.
Christiancv, Isaac P., ii. 551,
585, 607, 642.
Church, Sanford E., i. 84,
524; ii. 221, 401, 402, 577.
Churchill, John C, ii. 288,
345.
Cilley, Jonathan, i. 141.
Claflin, Horace B., ii. 526.
Claflin, William, ii. 386, 526,
601.
Clarendon, Lord, ii. 489, 490.
Clark, Daniel, i. 268, 323, 339,
476, 506; ii. 156, 159, 210,
287.
Clarke, Freeman, ii. 323.
Clarke, George Rogers, i. 12.
Clarke, Horace F., i. 143.
Clarke, John B., ii. 212.
Clarke, Matthew St. Clair,
ii. 543.
Clarke, William, i. 12, 13.
Clarkson, J. S., ii. 660.
Clarkson, William, i. 173.
Clay, Cassius M., ii. 521.
Clay, Clement C, jun., i. 244,
245
Clay,' Henry, i. 13, 14, 16-19,
25-28, 30, 34-39, 43, 50, 70-
72, 75-79, 89-92, 94-97, 101,
102, 105-108, 113, 119, 124,
131, 152, 158, 159, 180, 189,
191-193, 198, 200-202, 204,
207, 284, 300, 309, 319, 322,

323, 330, 331, 347, 502, 524;
ii. 58, 147, 291, 426, 440, 443,
457, 532, 538, 545, 599, 633,
647, 660.
Clay, Henrv, jun., i. 75.
Clayton, John M., i. 67, 70,
87, 105, 117, 193.
Clayton, Powell, ii. 508.
Clayton, Thomas, i. 64, 105.
Clemens, Jere, i. 75.
Clements, A. J., i. 440.
Clifford, John H., ii. 224.
Clifford, Nathan, i. 32, 89;
ii. 584, 585, 588.
Clingman, Thomas L., i. 287,
288.
Clinton, DeWitt C, i. 19, 85,
106.
Clinton, George, i. 484.
Clymer, George, i. 183.
Clymer, Hiester, ii. 239,542.
Co'bb, Howell, i. 54, 72, 88,
223, 234, 240, 396, 400, 401,
40S ; ii. 14, 404.
Coburn, Abner, i. 441.
Coburn, John, ii. 288.
Cochrane, Alexander G., ii.
585.
Cochrane, John, i. 453, 516 ;
ii. 231, 232, 521.
Cockburn, Sir Alexander, ii.
498.
Cockrell, F. M„ ii. 212, 551.
Coffroth, Alexander H., i.
538.
Coke, Richard, ii. 598.
Cole, Cornelius, ii. 287, 374.
Coles, Edward, ii. 269.
Colfax, Schuyler, i. 197, 266,
328, 463, 497, 498; ii. Ill,
112, 179, 262, 292, 361, 390,
391, 462, 527.
Collamer, Jacob, i. 87, 167,
168, 197, 266, 318, 321, 323,
339, 375, 423, 425, 461, 477,
481; ii. 117.
Collis, Charles H. F., ii. 231.
Colquitt, Alfred H., ii. 529.
Conger, Omar D., i. 517 ; ii.
433, 660, 661.
Conkling, Frederick A., i.
421.
Conkling, Roscoe, i. 266, 328,
372, 378-381, 393, 394, 415,
417, 418, 421, 465, 498, 502 ;
ii. 118, 127, 195, 197, 242,
286, 323, 374, 409, 518, 519,
533, 5(58, 571, 583, 604, 654,
657, 660, 662, 665, 669.
Conness, John, i. 308, 502;
ii. 374.
Connor, Selden, ii. 31.
Conover, Simon B., ii. 541,
585.
Conway, Martin F., i. 332,
462, 463, 465.
Cook, Burton C, i. 168 ; ii.
122 357.
Cooper, Edward, ii. 593, 594.
Cooper, Henry, ii. 585, 598,
653.
Cooper, James, i. 108.
Corbett, Henry W., ii. 287,
374.

Cornell, Alonzo B., ii. 569.
Corning, Erastus, i. 491 ; ii.
577. r
Corse, John M., ii. 31.
Corti, Count Louis, ii. 500.
Corwin, Thomas, i. 60, 89,
96-98, 165, 259, 260, 263, 265,
320.
Couch, Darius N., ii. 223.
Covode, John, i. 197, 327,
379 ; ii. 148, 355.
Cowan, Edgar, i. 321, 375,
425, 462 ; ii. 126, 145, 147,
156, 162, 167, 173, 174, 178,
179, 220, 221, 285.
Cowley, Lord, i. 574.
Cox, Jacob D., ii. 31, 231,
350, 424, 539, 589, 601.
Cox, Samuel S., i. 328, 497,
537 ; ii. 434, 436, 528, 555,
588.
Coyle, John F., ii. 591.
Cragin, Aaron H., r. 117,
374, 598.
Crapo, William W., i.. 551.
Crawford, George W., i. 87.
Crawford, Martin J., i. 292,
293.
Crawford, Samuel W., ii. 31.
Crawford, William H., i. 72,
87, 256; ii. 646.
Creswell, John A. J., i. 502 ;
ii. 117, 224, 228, 386, 425,
539, 660, 661.
Crittenden, John J., i. 31, 53,
64, 70, 76, 131, 142, 259, 267,
268, 269, 277, 310, 311, 322,
330, 331, 338, 341, 342, 370,
372, 375, 380, 381, 447, 463.
Crittenden, T. T., ii. 542.
Cronin, E. A., ii. 586, 593.
Crosswell, Edwin, ii. 532.
Crowley, Richard, ii. 638.
Cullen, Elisha D., i. 122.
Cullom, Shelby M., ii. 122,
526.
Curry, John, i. 309.
Curtin, Andrew G., i. 167,
206, 207, 306, 307, 497 ; ii.
224, 225, 242, 390, 391, 523.
Curtis, Benjamin R., i. 132,
541 ; ii. 364-369, 378, 381.
Curtis, George W., i. 273,
274 ; ii. 569, 570, 648.
Curtis, Samuel R., i. 358.
Cushing, Caleb, i. 27, 42, 75,
100, 158, 159, 162; ii. 651,
678.
Custer, George A., ii. 30, 229.
Dallas, Alexander J., i. 484.
Dallas, George M., i. 27, 33,
195.
Dana, Richard H., jun., ii.
569, 570, 631.
Danford, Lorenzo, ii. 542.
Darling, William A., ii. 137.
Davis, David, i. 165, 16S, 540;
ii. 523, 525, 584, 597, 598, 656.
Davis, Edmund J., ii. 527,
666.
Davis, Garrett, i. 310, 369,
373-375, 425, 477, 505, 506 ;
ii. 374, 375, 414, 457, 557.

716

INDEX OF NAMES.

Davis, Henry G., ii. 507, 528,
606.
Davis, Henry Winter, i. 117,
122, 259, 260, 285, 498, 499,
510, 551; ii. 43-45, 48, 225,
425.
Davis, Horace, ii. 601.
Davis, Jefferson, i. 89, 96, 97,
117, 119, 151, 159, 175, 221,
233, 245, 246, 253, 255, 256,
294-296, 302, 308, 313, 347,
348, 357, 362, 542, 557, 570,
575, 577 ; ii. 14, 21, 26, 79,
181, 227, 311, 315, 448, 485,
525, 554, 555, 641.
Davis, J. C. B., ii. 496, 498,
624.
Davis, John, i. 64, 68, 71, 116,
191; ii. 601.
Davis, Noah, ii. 432.
Davis, Thomas T., ii. 257,
260.
Dawes, Henry L., i. 331, 354,
463 ; ii. 253, 347, 508, 545,
552, 559, 605, 675.
Dawson, John L., ii. 112.
Dayton, William L., i. 127,
167, 168, 590, 591.
Decatur, Stephen, i. 434.
Defrees, John D., ii. 521.
Defrees, Joseph H., ii. 257.
Delano, Columbus, ii. 121,
539, 642.
Delfosse, Maurice, ii. 624-633,
636, 637.
Deming, Henry C, ii. 118.
Dennison, William, i. 307,
517, 518; ii. 61, 62, 218, 219,
660.
Denver, J. W., ii. 229.
Depew, Chauncey M., i. 497 ;
ii. 386.
Derby, Earl, ii. 478, 485.
Devens, Charles, i. 384, 444 ;
ii. 596, 597.
Dexter, Samuel, ii. 67.
Dickinson, Daniel S., i. 32,
108,517, 520-522; ii. 427.
Dillingham, Paul, i. 442.
Dingley, Nelson, jun., ii. 569,
570.
Disraeli, ii. 440, 487, 635.
Dix, John A., i. 79, 84, 235,
236, 240, 285, 397, 401; ii.
220, 534, 535, 549.
Dixon, Archibald, i. 113, 114.
Dixon, James, i. 266, 323; ii.
126, 167, 170, 174, 178, 179,
183, 220, 375, 413.
Dockery, Oliver H., ii. 434.
Dodge, Augustus C, i. 90.
Dodge, Grenville M., ii. 31,
287, 679.
Dodge, Henry, i. 90.
Dodge, William E., ii. 257,
526, 679.
Dom Pedro, ii. 612.
Donelson, Andrew Jackson,
i. 126.
Donnelly, Ignatius, ii. 167,
168, 196.
Doolittle, James R., i. 321,
339, 388, 477, 481; ii. 126,
149, 162, 167, 170, 174, 179,

207, 210, 211, 220, 261, 374,
375, 437, 529, 577.
Dorsey, Stephen W., ii. 541.
Dorsheimer, William, ii. 521,
577, 578.
Douglas, Stephen A., i. 54,
89, 97, 99, 112, 114, 115, 118,
123-125, 128, 133, 140-153,
158, 160-164, 168, 170, 171,
176, 180, 207, 215, 216, 245,
271-273, 276, 277, 287-289,
309, 310, 319, 323, 329, 330,
341, 387,443,502; ii. 110, 117,
125, 186, 220, 237, 403, 411,
438, 440, 441, 504, 506, 640.
Douglass, Frederick, i. 22.
Downey, John G., i. 308.
Downs, S. W., i. 108.
Drake, Charles D., ii. 287,
369, 374, 507.
Drake, E. F., ii. 665.
Dromgoole, George C, i. 70.
Dudley, L. Edwin, ii. 231.
Dufferin, Lord, ii. 626.
Dumont, Ebenezer, ii. 122.
Duncan, Thomas, ii. 231.
Dunn, George G.,i. 197; ii. 679.
Dunn, William McKee, i.
197, 329,381,498; ii. 679.
Dunnell, Mark H., ii. 511,
585.
Durant, Thomas J., ii. 36, 37,
224, 225.
Durham, Milton J., ii. 550.
Dwight, J. W., ii. 608.
Eads, James B., i. 553.
Early, Jubal A., i. 524.
Eaton, John, ii. 225.
Eaton, William W., i. 524;
ii. 397, 551, 587, 607.
Edmunds, George F., ii. 117,
270, 271, 280, 352, 374, 375,
450-453, 505, 583, 585, 604,
607, 6:34, 665.
Eggleston, Benjamin, ii. 121.
Ela, Jacob H., ii. 288.
Eldridge, Charles A., i. 502,
510; ii. 112, 175, 259, 345,
409, 415, 436.
Elgin, Lord, ii. 619.
Eliot, Thomas D., i. 331; ii.
167, 197, 235, 237.
Elkins, Stephen B., ii. 543.
Elliott, Robert B., ii. 527.
Ellis, E. John, ii. 550.
Ellis, John W., i. 304.
Ellsworth, Oliver, i. 183; ii.
598.
Emerson, Ralph W., i. 325.
Emory, William H., ii. 378.
English, Charles R., ii. 528.
English, James E., i. 538; ii.
221,240,401,509.
English, William H., i. 142;
ii. 668.
Ericsson, John, i. 359.
Errett, Russell, ii. 602.
Etheridge, Emerson, i. 117,
325.
Eustis, James B., ii. 397.
Eustis, William, i. 19.
Evans, George, i. 60, 70, 71,
72, 193.

Evans, John, ii. 276.
Evarts, William M., i. 164,
166; ii. 364, 365, 368, 369, 372,
384, 585, 596, 636, 636, 678.
Everett, Edward, i. 50, 116,
163, 191, 311.
Ewell, Richard S., i. 338.
Ewing, Charles, ii. 32.
Ewing, Hugh, ii. 32.
Ewing, Thomas, i. 70, 87, 320;
ii. 32, 362, 363.
Ewing. Thomas, jun., ii. 32,
229, 230, 577, 578, 602.
Fairbanks, Erastus, i. 305.
Fairchild, Lucius, ii. 224, 526.
Fairfield, John, ii. 437.
Farnsworth, John F., i. 510;
ii. 231, 356.
Farquhar, John H., ii. 272.
Farragut, David G., i. 359,
361,531; ii. 36, 238.
Farwell, Charles B., ii. 510,
511, 569.
Farwell, Nathan A., ii. 59,
679.
Faulkner, Charles J., ii. 212,
550.
Fenton, Reuben E., i. 266,
327, 478, 531; ii. 119, 239,
240, 242, 387, 389-391, 446,
518, 519, 551, 608.
Ferriss, Orange, ii. 288.
Ferry, Orris S., ii. 287, 374,
375.
Ferry, Thomas W., ii. 123,
583.
Fessenden, Francis, ii. 32.
Fessenden, James D., ii. 32.
Fessenden, Samuel, ii. 32.
Fessenden, Samuel (Conn.),
ii. 569.
Fessenden, Samuel C, i. 331.
Fessenden, Thomas A. D.,
i. 331.
Fessenden, William Pitt, i.
42, 98, 132, 142, 197, 266, 272,
315-317, 320, 321, 323, 331,
339, 341, 345, 374, 375, 421-
423, 425, 427, 481, 543; ii.
32, 59, 90, 127, 147, 156-158,
168, 198, 200-202, 208, 209,
215, 280, 324, 353, 374, 375,
379, 381, 456, 457, 679.
Field, David Dudley, ii. 521,
585.
Field, J. W., ii. 225.
Field, Stephen J., i. 540; ii.
393, 584, 585, 588, 667, 668.
Fillmore, Millard, i. 42, 73,
77, 79, 95-97, 101-103, 105,
108, 112, 126, 128, 129, 130,
132, 276, 320, 499, 541 ; ii. 58,
109, 308, 309, 396, 544, 631.
Finck, "William E., ii. 131,
132, 252, 262.
Finkelnburg, Gustavus A.,
ii. 224, 433, 679.
Fish, Hamilton, i. 84, 197; ii.
426, 427, 428, 458, 465, 492,
493, 495, 496, 504, 539, 601,
624-631.
Fishback, William M., ii. 40,
41.

INDEX OF NAMES.

717

Fisher, George P., i. 440.
Fitch, Thomas, ii. 434.
Fitzpatrick, Benjamin, i. 245.
Fitzsimmons, Thomas, i. 183.
Flagg, Azariah C, i. 79.
Flanagan, James W., ii. 44S,
551.
Flanders, Benjamin F., ii.
36, 37, 39.
Fletcher, Thomas C, ii. 224,
386.
Floyd, John B., i. 223, 234,
240, 280, 356, 357 ; ii. 554, 555.
Foot, Solomon, i. 197, 323,
425,461,517; ii. 117.
Foote, A. H, i. 355, 360.
Foote, Henry S., i. 89, 108.
Ford, Sir Richard, ii. 631.
Fornev, John W., ii. 181, 224,
386, 535, 543.
Forrest, N. B. , ii. 230, 396, 397.
Forsythe, John, i. 175, 292,
293.
Fort, Greenbury L., ii. 542.
Foster, Charles, ii. 510, 660.
Foster, Dwight, ii. 631.
Foster, LaFayette S., i. 197,
266, 288, 323, 425; ii. 280,
287.
Fowler, Joseph S., ii. 52, 225,
375.
Fox, Charles James, i. 107,
312, 599.
Fox, E. W., ii. 224.
Franklin, Benjamin, i. 145,
252; ii. 199.
Franklin, Walter S., ii. 543.
Franklin, W'illiam B., i. 453.
Fraser, James S., ii. 500.
Frelinghuysen, Frederick, ii.
161.
Frelinghuysen, Frederick
T., ii. 161, 374, 375, 572, 583,
585.
Frelinghuysen, Theodore, ii.
161.
Fre'mont, John C, i. 90, 127-
130, 133, 167, 207, 358, 368,
371, 448, 516, 530; ii. 61, 438.
Frye, William P., ii. 510, 569,
571, 588, 660, 665.
Fulton, C. C, ii. 224.
Gadsden, James, ii. 340.
Gallatin, Albert, i. 72, 484;
ii. 618, 619.
Gallatin, James, i. 423, 480,
481.
Gait, Sir Alexander T., ii.
631, 633.
Ganson, John, i. 538.
Garfield, James A., i. 500,
510, 537; ii. 30, 206, 207, 224,
254, 259, 323, 33,7, 347, 555,
585, 588, 600, 638, 656, 660-
666, 669, 670, 676.
Garland, A. H., ii. 209, 393,
397, 598.
Garrison, William Lloyd, i.
22, 157, 173.
Geary, John W., i. 138; ii.
224, 231, 239.
Gentry, Meredith P., ii. 4.
Gerry^ Elbridge, i. 183.

Geyer, Henry S., i. 197.
Gibson, John Bannister, i.
230.
Gibson, Randall L., ii. 212,
397,550,588,60:',.
Giddings, Joshua R., i. 42,
84, 165, 320, 328.
Gilbert, Abijah, ii. 447, 551.
Gilmer, John A., i. 278, 284.
Gilpin, William, ii. 276.
Gladstone, W. E., i. 602; ii.
440, 484, 489.
Glover, John M., ii. 542.
Goff, Nathan, ii. 224.
Goff, Nathan, jun., ii. 569.
Gooc-h, Daniel W., i. 379.
Goode, John, jun., ii. 550.
Goodwin, Ichabod, i. 305.
Gordon, John B., ii. 397, 529,
541.
Gorman, Willis A., ii. 229.
Goschen, ii. 608.
Gottschalk, Louis, ii. 224.
Goldsborough, Louis M., i.
357, 360.
Graham, William A., i. 103.
Granger, Gordon, ii. 229.
Grant, Ulysses S., i. 347, 355,
356, 357, 360-363, 454, 489,
494, 496, 510, 511, 516, 517,
520, 523, 531, 544-546, 558;
ii. 8, 19, 21,26, 29, 31,32,37,
148-154, 238, 257, 265, 296,
297, 299, 343-345, 348-352,
354, 359, 362, 379, 383, 384,
386, 389, 391, 393, 398, 399,
404-408, 410^13, 417, 422-
431, 430, 449, 451-455, 458-
463, 465, 466, 468, 470, 491-
496, 502, 507, 518, 520, 525-
527, 531, 533, 535, 537-539,
541, 548, 552, 556-558, 501-
565, 567, 568, 570, 581, 582,
597, 599, 014, 642, 648, 652,
• 656-658,660,061,665-669.
Granville, Earl, ii. 477, 495,
502, 624-628, 630.
Graves, William J., i. 141.
Gray, William H., ii. 527.
Greeley, Horace, i. 82, 86,
104, 106, 167, 204; ii. 131,
224, 517-519, 521-526, 529-
536, 549, 579, 641, 670.
Green, Ashbel, ii. 585.
Green, James Stephens, i.
270-273.
Greene, Nathaniel, ii. 28.
Gregg, J. Irvin, ii. 235.
Gregory, William H., ii. 478,
482.
Gresham, Walter Q., ii. 31.
Grey, Earl de, ii. 496, 626.
Grider, Henry, i. 67; ii. 127.
Grier. Robert C, i. 134, 196;
ii. 656.
Griffin, Charles, ii. 297.
Grimes, James W.,i. 266, 321,
341, 378; ii. 127, 280, 374,
375. 379, 450, 453.
Grinnell, Moses H , ii. 386.
Griswold, John A., i. 497;
ii. 253, 526.
Groesbeck, William S., ii.
365, 371, 530, 603, 608.

Grosvenor, William M., ii.
521, 590.
Grover, LaFayette, ii. 586,
593, 598.
Grow, Galusha A., i. 266,
271, 824, 498, 517; ii. 389,
677, 678.
Gurne.v, Russell, ii. 500.
Guthrie, James, i. 472, 524,
529; ii. 117, 167, 173, 178,
212, 324.
Gwin, William M., i. 90, 120,
141, 266, 308, 315; ii. 528.
Hahn, Michael, ii. 36, 37, 39,
77, 79.
Hale, Eugene, ii. 386, 432,
433, 457, 512, 539, 569, 588,
660.
Hale, John P., i. 42, 89, 90,
105, 109. 136, 320, 323, 339,
341, 369, 481; ii. 9, 117, 389.
Hale, Robert S„ ii. 118, 220,
500.
Hall, William A., i. 446.
Halleck, Henry W., i. 358,
363, 366, 391-393, 449, 450,
452,546; ii. 428.
Halsey, George A., ii. 288,
569.
Hamilton, Alexander, i. 20,
106, 141, 180, 186-188, 211,
212, 430-432, 434, 483; ii. 55,
199, 269, 440, 456.
Hamilton, Andrew J., ii. 78,
225, 226.
Hamilton, Morgan C, ii. 448.
Hamlin, Hannibal, i. 42, 67,
89, 169, 170, 285, 520, 522,
523; ii. 32, 242, 437, 457, 588,
633, 634, 654.
Hamlin, Charles, ii. 32.
Hamlin, Cyrus, ii. 32.
Hammond, James H, i. 219,
552, 553.
Hampton, Wade, ii. 641.
Hampton, Wade, jun., ii.
397, 400, 401, 404, 640, 641.
Hancock, John (Texas), ii.
511.
Hancock, Winfield S., ii. 29,
297, 299, 401-40:'., 428-430,
552, 577, 578, 667, 668, 670.
Hannegan, Edward A., i. 53.
Hardeman, Thomas, jun., ii.
529.
Harding, Benjamin F., i. 478;
ii. 117.
Harlan, James, i. 266, 321;
ii. 61, 62, 117, 219, 287, 374,
375.
Harlan, John M., ii. 569, 570.
590, 656.
Harmer, Alfred C, ii. 511.
Harriman, Walter, ii. 2 51.
Harris, Benjamin G., i. 528,
538.
Harris, Hamilton, ii. 387.
Harris, Ira, i. 389, 476; ii. 32,
33, 127, 224, 280, 286.
Harris, Ishatn G., i. 304; ii.
598.
Harris, John S., ii. 447.
Harris, John T., ii. 542.

718

INDEX OF NAMES.

Harris, William H., ii. 32.
Harrison, Benjamin H, ii.
33, 580, 660.
Harrison, Carter H., ii. 550.
Harrison, William H, i. 25,
26, 30, 105, 152, 158, 192,
205, 284, 330, 541; ii 6, 55,
57, 362, 457, 524, 647, 651.
Hartranft, John F., ii. 31,
231, 535, 568, 571.
Harvev, James M., ii. 598.
Haskell, Dudley C, ii. 601.
Haskin, John B., i. 143.
Hassaurek, Frederick, ii. 224.
Hastings, Warren, ii. 382, 383.
Havermeyer, Henry, ii. 591,
592.
Hawkins, A. W., ii. 225.
Hawley, John B., ii. 433.
Hawley, Joseph R., ii.' 31,
240, 381), 387, 508, 509, 526,
527, 564, 569, 570, 572, 596.
Hayes, Rutherford B., I. 68;
ii. 121, 122, 224, 440, 441,
526, 527, 568, 571, 572, 579,
580, 582-587, 589, 595-597,
600, 603, 604, 608, 633, 614,
638-640, 648, 649, 653, 655,
656.
Hayne, Robert Y., i. 70, 90;
ii. 446.
Hazen, William B., ii. 30.
Hazleton, Gerry W., ii. 511.
Heintzelman, Samuel P., i.
337.
Hemphill, John, i. 287.
Henderson, D. B.,ii. 660, 661.
Henderson, John B., i. 372,
374, 375, 446, 475, 476, 481,
505; ii. 202, 203, 257, 374,
375, 379, 413, 526.
Henderson, Thomas J., ii.
551.
Hendricks, Thomas A., i.
502, 503, 506; ii. 167, 178,
185, 208-210, 212, 258, 332,
374, 375, 392, 401, 402, 403,
405, 413, 446, 535, 577-579,
582, 586, 667, 668.
Henry, Gustavus A., ii. 4.
Herrick, Anson, i. 538.
Hewitt, Abram S., ii. 550,
583, 584, 586, 588, 593, 608,
655, 670.
Hickman, John, i. 143, 326,
420; ii. 521.
Hicks, Thomas H., i. 304.
Higby, William, ii. 123, 336.
Hill, Benjamin H., ii. 397,
404, 550, 555, 597.
Hill, Joshua, ii. 447, 541.
Hill, Nathaniel P., ii. 640.
Hilliard, Henry W., ii. 212.
Hiscock, Frank, ii. 386, 569,
589, 601.
Hise, Elijah, ii. 260.
Hoadly, George, ii. 521, 524,
585, 667.
Hoar, E. Rockwood, i. 77;
ii. 424, 425, 496, 538, 539,
541, 544, 564, 569.
Hoar, George F., ii. 435, 436,
454, 564, 569, 583, 585, 597,
654, 660, 661.

Hoar, Samuel, ii. 435.
Hobart, Garrett A., ii. 569.
Hoffman, John T., ii. 239,
240, 390, 528.
Hogan, John, ii. 123.
Hoge, Daniel H., ii. 225.
Holcombe, James P., i. 302.
Holden, William W., ii. 77.
Holman, William S., i. 329,
354, 403, 505, 506, 508; ii.
357, 436.
Holmes, John, i. 16, 18.
Holt, Joseph, i. 233, 235, 240,
241, 280, 281, 285.
Hood, John B., i. 544.
Hooker, Charles E., ii. 550.
Hooker, Joseph E., i. 453,
489, 493-495; ii. 17, 29, 32.
Hooper, Samuel, i. 418, 471,
480,481; ii. 321.
Hopkins, George W., i. 32.
Hopping, Enos D., i. 75.
Horr, Roswell G., ii. 639.
Horton, S. Dana, ii. 608.
Horton, Valentine B., i. 328,
416, 420, 421, 425.
Houck, Leonidas C, ii. 639.
Houston, George S., i. 260.
Houston, Samuel, i. 26, 40,
90, 124, 125.
Howard, Henry, ii. 500.
Howard, Jacob M., i. 266,
375, 462, 477; ii. 127, 173,
207, 208, 210, 258, 296, 369,
374, 375.
Howard, Oliver O., i. 337;
ii. 29, 164.
Howard, William A., ii. 526,
569.
Howe, James H., ii. 570.
Howe, Samuel G., ii. 460.
Howe, Timothy O., i. 137,
287, 321, 461; ii. 209, 224,
271, 324, 374, 375, 503-504,.
585.
Hoyt, Henry M., ii. 569.
Hubbard, Chester D., ii. 123.
Hubbell, Jay A., ii. 542.
Hughes, Francis W., ii. 221.
Hughes, John, Archbishop,
i. 549.
Hulburd, Calvin T., ii. 321.
Humphries, West W., ii. 381.
Hunt, Theodore G., i. 117.
Hunt, Ward, ii. 656.
Hunt, Washington, i. 67,
524 526
Hunter, David, i. 337, 371; ii.
30.
Hunter, Morton C, ii. 288.
Hunter, Robert M. T., i. 72,
90, 266, 275-278, 315, 542; ii.
22
Huntington, C. P., i. 509.
Hunton, Eppa, ii. 542, 583,
585, 589.
Hurd, Frank H., ii. 585, 639.
Hurlbut, Stephen A., ii. 542,
585.
Hutchins, Waldo, ii. 521.
Hutchins, Wells A., l. 538.
Ingalls, John J., ii. 539, 540,

IngersoU, Ebon C, i. 506,
538; ii. 196, 357.
IngersoU, Jared, i. 432.
IngersoU, Joseph R., i. 67.
IngersoU, Robert G., ii. 569,
570
d'ltajuba, Baron, ii. 498.
Iverson, Alfred, i. 247.
Jackson, Andrew, i. 13, 28,
29, 31, 34, 36, 38, 39, 59, 61,
70, 79-81, 91, 105, 106, 115,
124, 127, 135, 152, 170, 180,
192, 201, 204, 230, 238, 241,
245, 319, 330, 482, 485, 486,
522, 540, 541; ii. 6, 28, 32, 65,
124, 125, 186, 187, 241, 268,
307-309, 315, 379, 380, 422^
426, 440, 443, 538, 573, 575,
646, 647.
Jackson, Claiborne F., i.
304.
Jackson, James S., i. 331.
Jackson, Stonewall, i. 337,
338, 364-368, 494.
James, A. B., ii. 601.
Jay, John, i. 252; ii. 338,598.
Jefferson, Thomas, i. 4, 5, 7,
8, 11, 12, 19-21, 39, 45, 66,
105, 106, 108, 152, 180, 204,
230, 255, 283, 431, 482, 484,
547, 586; ii. 66, 307, 315, 339,
422, 440, 538, 575, 644, 645.
Jenckes, Thomas A., ii. 133,
196, 647.
Jenks, George A., ii. 550.
Jewell, Marshall, ii. 539, 571,
572, 666.
Jewett, Hugh J., ii. 541.
Johnson, Andrew, i. 54, 68,
72, 278, 314, 339, 346, 379,
446, 520-522, 541; ii. 1-14,
34, 35, 50-52, 54-71, 73-77,
79-86, 89, 93, 105-109, 112,
113, 115, 116, 124-127, 129,
130, 132, 136, 137-139, 143-
154, 162-166, 168-171, 175-
179, 181-190, 192, 193, 204-
206, 211-213, 216, 218-220,
222, 223, 226, 227, 229, 230,
232, 233, 236-239, 241-243,
246, 247, 249, 250, 253, 255,
257, 259, 261-264, 267, 270,
272, 273, 276, 277, 279, 280,
282, 283, 292-296, 298-309,
318, 319, 324, 331-333, 337,
339, 341-352, 354-386, 388,
389, 391, 396, 401, 422, 428,
429, 431, 436, 449-455, 462,
473, 507, 551-553, 565, 597,
614, 656.
Johnson, Bradley T., ii. 529.
Johnson, Herschel V., i. 162.
Johnson, James, ii. 78.
Johnson, Reverdy, i. 87, 135,
136, 502; ii. 127, 143, 174,
208-210, 212, 221, 257, 258,
281, 282, 374, 375, 379, 489,
490, 492. 598
Johnson, Waldo P., i. 341.
Johnson, William Cost, i. 60.
Johnston, Albert Sidney, i.
75, 235, 357, 361, 362.
Johnston, John W., ii. 447.

INDEX OF NAMES.

719

Johnston, Joseph E., i. 235,
338, 348, 497, 544, 558; ii. 30,
430, 641, 642.
Johnston, Josiah Stoddard,
i. 75.
Johnston, William Preston,
i. 362.
Jones, Charles W., ii. 551,
585.
Jones, Frank, ii. 550.
Jones, James C, i. 117.
Jones, John P., ii. 540, 569,
603, 606.
Jones, Samuel, i. 558.
Jones, Thomas L., ii. 550.
Jorgensen, Joseph, ii. 639.
Joyi James F., ii. 665.
Joyce, Charles H., ii. 551.
Juarez, ii. 351, 625.
Judd, Norman B., i. 165; ii.
287.
Julian, George W., ii. 122,
357, 361, 521, 524.
Kasson, John A., i. 501, 537;
ii. 255, 541, 585, 5S8.
Keifer, Joseph W., ii. 601.
Kelley, William D., i. 326,
327; ii. 133, 255, 347, 356,
433, 564, 675.
Kellogg, Ensign H., ii. 631.
Kellogg, Stephen W. ii. 433,
571.
Kellogg, William, i. 261.
Kellogg, William Pitt, i. 357;
ii. 447, 569, 660.
Kelly, James K., ii. 593.
Kelly, John, ii. 528, 577.
Kelso, John R., ii. 342.
Kennedy, Anthony, i. 268,
277,425; ii. 117.
Kernan, Francis, i. 502; ii.
397, 534, 551, 577, 578, 606.
Kerr, Michael C, ii. 122, 359,
431, 436, 549, 566.
Ketcham, John H., ii. 119.
Ketchum, Morris, i. 423.
Ketchum, Winthrop W., ii.
Key, David M., ii. 597.
Killinger, John W., i. 327,
Kilpatrick, Judson, ii. 30.
King, Horatio, i. 235.
King, Preston, i. 42, 54, 67,
85, 165, 319, 425, 502, 518.
519; ii. 11, 186, 187.
King, Rufus (Me.), i. 183.
King, Rufus (N.Y.), i. 448.
King, Thomas Starr, i. 308.
King, William R., i. 29, 89,
100, 108, 330.
Kirkwood, Samuel J., i. 307:
ii. 117, 598.
Knott, J. Proctor, ii. 583.
Knox, John Jay, i. 486.
Koerner, Gustavus,i. 168; ii.
521.
Koontz, William H, ii. 526.
Kuykendall, Andrew J., ii.
257.
Laflin, Addison H., ii. 288.
Lamar, L. Q. C, i. 243; ii
541, 546, 606, 609.

Lander, F. W., i. 383.
Landers, Franklin, ii. 655.
Lane, Amos, ii. 186.
Lane, Henrv S., i. 167; ii.
185, 287, 386, 526.
Lane, James H., i. 315; ii.
179, 185, 186.
Lane, Joseph, i. 75, 162, 277,
308.
Lapham, Elbridge G., ii.
550.
Latham, Milton S., i. 277,
309, 315, 379, 387.
Laurens, Henry, i. 252.
Lawrence, Abbott, i. 77.
Lawrence, Charles B., ii. 596.
Lawrence, George V., ii. 120.
Lawrence, Joseph, ii. 120.
Lawrence, William, ii. 121,
196, 252, 323, 345, 347, 366,
585.
Lawrence, William Beach,
ii. 221.
Lazear, Jesse, i. 538.
Leavett, Humphrey H., i.
490.
Le Blond, Francis C, i. 538;
ii. 252, 262.
Ledyard, John, i. 12.
Lee, Charles, i. 432.
Lee, Fitz-Hugh, ii. 529.
Lee, Richard Henry, i. 183.
Lee, Robert E., i. 235, 302,
303, 364-367, 439, 448-452,
454, 493-496, 531, 544-546,
557, 558, 606; ii. 8, 21, 227,
243, 430, 506, 541.
Leigh, Watkins, i. 70.
Le Moyne, Francis J., i. 25;
ii. 550.
Le Moyne, John V., ii. 550.
Leopold I., ii. 625.
Leopold II., ii. 625.
Letcher, John, i. 304; ii. 79.
Lewis, Barbour, ii. 225.
Lewis, Charlton, ii. 434.
Lewis, Dixon H., i. 70.
Lewis, John F., ii. 447, 527,
551.
Lewis, Meriwether, i. 12, 13.
Lincoln, Abraham, i. 72, 117,
122, 123, 127, 133, 137, 138,
140, 141, 144-150, 152, 153,
157, 160, 168-172, 174, 176,
177, 180, 198, 206, 207, 215-
220, 225, 238, 253, 254, 270,
272-274, 276, 279-299, 301,
304, 306-311, 313, 314, 319,
321, 328, 330-337, 340, 343,
351-353, 355, 356, 358, 362,
364-367, 370-372, 376, 377,
382, 387, 389, 390, 392, 393,
394, 400, 401, 403, 405, 427,
433, 435, 436, 438-448, 450,
451, 453-457, 463, 467, 474,
488-496, 503, 504, 507, 510,
511, 514-517, 520, 523-526,
528-536, 540-549, 552, 560,
562-564, 566-572, 583, 595;
ii, 1-3, 7-12, 15-18, 22, 31,
35-56, 59-63, 68, 73-75, 77,
79, 83, 108, 146, 182, 186, 206,
216, 219-221, 227, 230, 240,
264, 274-276, 280, 287, 305,

308, 309, 314, 315, 356, 362,
366-369, 371, 372, 379, 384,
393, 398, 407. 421, 428, 439,
440, 466, 478, 482, 511, 523,
535, 540, 544, 567, 598, 640,
647, 672, 673, 676, 677.
Lincoln, Levi, ii. 224, 364.
Livingston, Robert R., i. 4,
6, 7, 10.
Loan, Benjamin F., ii. 257,
342.
Lodge, Henry Cabot, ii. 660.
Logan, John A., i. 330, 357,
497 ; ii. 30, 231, 287, 356, 361,
370, 386, 389, 453, 504, 506,
526, 583, 597, 639, 640, 660.
Long, Alexander, i. 526, 529.
Longstreet, James, i. 338.
Lord, Scott, ii. 550.
Loring, George B., ii. 386,
600.
Lovejoy, Elijah P., i. 22, 329,
Lovejoy, Owen, i. 22, 266,
270, 285, 3^9, 341, 372, 380,
381, 416, 417, 421, 441.
Lowell, James Russell, ii.
569.
Lundy, Benjamin, i. 22.
Lunt, George, i. 524.
Lynch, John, ii. 457.
Lynch, John R. ii. 515, 526,
527.
Lynde, William Pitt, ii. 550.
Lyon, Nathaniel, i. 314.
Lyons, Lord, i. 565, 568, 573,
575, 577, 578, 580, 584, 587.
Macdonald, Sir John, ii. 496.
Machen, W. B., ii. 212.
Macomb, Alexander, ii. 28.
Macon, Nathaniel, i. 45, 115.
Madison, James, i. 4, 19, 39,
45, 57, 69, 92, 105, 106, 152,
183, 184, 186, 283, 330, 465,
484, 584; ii. 55, 199, 268,
269, 270, 307, 575, 645.
Maginnis, Martin, ii. 543.
Magoffin, Beriah, i. 304.
Mallory, Robert, i. 310, 331,
375, 381, 507.
Mallory, Stephen R., i. 244.
Maney, George, ii. 212.
Mangum, Willie P., i. 90,
108, 193.
Marble, Manton, ii. 578, 586,
589, 590, 591, 593.
Marcy, Daniel, i. 538.
Marcy, William L., i. 47, 58,
75, 79, 80, 84, 99, 104, 123,
194, 284, 521, 579; ii. 108,
110, 124, 619, 647.
Marshall, Humphrey, i. 117,
197.
Marshall, James W., ii. 539.
Marshall, John, i. 135, 542;
ii. 269, 270, 281.
Marshall, Samuel S., ii. 292,
345 436.
Marshall,' Thomas F., i. 70.
Marston, Gilman, i. 266, 331;
ii. 117.
Martin, John A., ii. 660.
Marvin, William E., ii. 78.
Mason, George, i. 45.

720

INDEX OF NAMES.

Mason, James M., i. 90, 91,
108, 119, 155, 241, 288, 303,
311, 315, 351, 406, 554, 580,
582,585; ii. 14, 506.
Matthews, James N., ii. 527,
569.
Matthews, Stanley, ii. 224,
521, 524, 542, 585, 599, 604,
605, 640, 654, 656.
Maxey, Samuel B., ii. 551.
Maynard, Horace, i. 117, 440,
463; ii. 434, 435, 527, 666.
McAllister, Archibald, i. 538.
McCall, George A., i. 379,
380.
McCarthy, Dennis, ii. 287,
336.
McCauley, Daniel, ii. 231.
McClellan, George B., i.
314, 350, 363-368, 379, 382,
384-386, 388, 391-394, 439,
447^51, 453, 454, 496, 510,
525, 527-532; ii. 29, 32, 240,
428, 640.
McClelland, Robert, i. 67.
McClernand, John A., ii.
229, 441, 577, 578.
McClure, Alexander K., i.
167; ii. 386, 521.
McConnell, J. R., i. 308, 309.
McCook, Alexander McD.,
ii. 31.
McCook, Anson G., ii. 31,
601.
McCook, Daniel, ii. 31.
McCook, Edward M., ii. 31.
McCook, Edwin S., ii. 31.
McCook, Robert L., ii. 31.
McCormick, Richard C, ii.
543.
McCrary, George W., i. 517;
ii. 433, 583, 585, 596.
McCreery, Thomas C, ii
375, 447, 641.
McCulloch, Hugh, i. 478, 479;
ii. 59, 62, 320-323, 328-333.
McDill, James W., ii. 542.
McD^-slA. Alexander, ii.
S08
McDonald, Joseph E., i. 524;
ii. 397, 551, 585, 588, 606.
McDougal, James A., i. 136,
315, 346, 378, 387 389, 425,
506; ii. 178,212.
McDowell, Irvin, i. 337, 348,
364-368,448; ii. 29.
McDowell, James F., i. 538.
McKay, James J., i. 66.
McKee, George C, ii. 434.
McKee, William R., i. 75.
McKennan, Thomas M. T.,
i. 60, 193.
McKenzie, Lewis, ii. 225.
McKenzie, Ranald S., ii. 30.
McKinley, William, jun., ii.
602.
McKinney, John F., i. 538.
McLane, Robert M., ii. 577.
McLaws, Lafayette, ii. 212.
McLean, John, i. 126, 132,
167, 168,541; ii. 338,339.
McLean, Washington, ii. 403.
McMahon, John A., ii. 550,
589.

McManes, James, ii. 659.
McMichael, Morton, ii. 526.
McMillan, Samuel J. R., ii.
552.
McPherson, Edward, i. 266,
327; ii. 543, 569.
McPherson, James B., i. 524;
ii. 30.
McPherson, John R., ii. 598,
606.
McRuer, Donald C, ii. 123.
McVeagh, Wayne, ii. 596.
Meade, Edwin R., ii. 653.
Meade, George G., i. 495, 496,
510; ii. 19, 29, 32, 37, 298,
428-130.
Medill, Joseph, ii. 648.
Meigs, Montgomery C, i.
450; ii. 30.
Menifee, Richard H., i. 60.
Mercur, Ulysses, ii. 120.
Meredith, William M., i. 87.
Merriam, Clinton L., ii. 561.
Merrick, Richard T., ii. 585.
Merrick, William D., i. 193.
Merrimon, Augustus S., ii.
541.
Middleton, George, i. 538.
Miles, D. S., i. 337.
Miles, Nelson A., ii. 31.
Miller, George L., ii. 593.
Miller, Samuel F., i. 540; ii.
584, 585, 588.
Miller, Stephen, i. 30.
Miller, Warner, ii. 638.
Milliken, Seth L., ii. 569.
Millson, John S., i. 115, 263.
Milroy, Robert H., i. 495.
Mitchell, Alexander, ii. 510,
511.
Mitchell, John H, ii. 541,
585, 654.
Mitchell, John I., ii. 602.
Monroe, James, i. 4-7, 10, 17,
19,28,39,57,69, 91,92, 105,
110, 197, 283; ii. 307, 339,
424, 535, 045, 646.
Monroe, James (Ohio), ii.
511.
Moore, Laban T., i. 278.
Moorhead, James K., i. 266,
327.
Morgan, Edwin D., i. 306,
502,517; ii. 11, 170,224,242,
280, 324, 375, 409, 446.
Morgan, George W., i. 528;
ii. 397, 436, 5118.
Morgan, John T., ii. 212, 605.
Morrell, Daniel J., ii. 433.
Morrill, Anson P., i. 331.
Morrill, Justin S., i. 197, 260,
275-278, 331, 400, 418, 421,
425; ii. ]27, 280, 288, 321,
323, 326, 374, 375, 409, 604,
605, 607, 675.
Morrill, Lot M., i. 266, 320,
324, 369; ii. 158, 374, 375
456, 539, 597.
Morris, Daniel, i. 506.
Morris, Gouverneur, i. 4.
Morris, Robert, i. 483.
Morrison, William R., i. 357,
502, 510; ii. 397, 541, 589,
667, 668.

Morse, Alexander P., ii. 585.
Morton, Marcus, i. 32.
Morton, Levi P., ii. 494, 495,
638.
Morton, Oliver P., i. 167, 307;
ii. 224, 243, 287, 375, 409, 416,
450, 460, 526, 551, 567, 568,
570, 571, 583-585, 588, 599,
600, 653.
Motley, John Lothrop, ii.
492.
Mower, Joseph A., ii. 235,
297.
Muhlenberg, Frederic A., i.
183.
Muhlenberg, Peter, i. 183.
Murphy, Henry C, ii. 397.
Murphy, Isaac, ii. 40, 79.
Myers, Leonard, ii. 336.
Napoleon I., i. 3, 7, 9, 10, 13,
251, 412, 428, 496, 550, 551;
ii. 17, 28, 68, 424.
Napoleon, Louis, i. 590, 596,
598; ii. 484.
Nasby, Petroleum V., ii. 238.
Negley, James S., ii. 31, 231,
433.
Nelson, Homer A., i. 538.
Nelson, Lord, i. 236, 321; ii.
679.
Nelson, Samuel, i. 134; ii.
496, 656.
Nelson, Thomas A. R., i.
278; ii. 365, 370.
Nesmith, James W., i. 315,
478; ii. 170.
Newberry, John S., ii. 639.
Newcomb, Carman A., ii.
289.
Newell, William A., i. 517.
Newton, John, i. 453.
Niblack, William E., ii. 112,
122, 133, 260, 436, 455.
Nicholls, Francis T., ii. 596.
Nicholson, A. O. P., i. 266.
Niles, John M., i. 42, 285.
Noell, John W., i. 440, 446.
Northcote, Sir Stafford, ii.
470.
Norton, Elijah H., i. 446.
Norton, Daniel S., ii. 127,
167, 170, 174, 179, 375.
Norwood, Thomas M., ii.
447.
Nott, Eliphalet, ii. 431.
Nourse, Amos, i. 197.
Noyes, Edward F., ii. 549,
569, 571.
Nye, James W., ii. 375, 514.
O'Connor, Charles, ii. 534,
585.
Odell, Moses F., i. 379, 497.
Oglesby, Richard J., i. 168,
357; ii. 9, 357,526,540,541,
639.
Olden, Charles, i. 306.
Olin, Abraham B„ i. 327,498.
Ord, E. O. C, ii. 297, 298.
Orr, James L., ii. 212, 223,
526.
Orth, Godlove S , ii. 122.
Orton, William, n. 526.

INDEX OF NAMES.

721

Osborn, Thomas W., ii. 447.
Otis, Harrison Grav, i. 19.
Overton, Edward, ii. 602.
Owsley, William, i. 36.
Packard, S. B., ii. 569, 596.
Packer, Asa, ii. 221, 401.
Packer, John B., ii. 433.
Packer, William F., i. 205.
Page, Horace F., ii. 512.
Paine, Halbert E., ii. 123.
Palmer, F. W., ii. 483.
Palmer, Henry M., ii. 398.
Palmer, John M., ii. 231.
Palmer, Sir Round ell, ii. 678.
Palmerston, Lord, i. 598-600;
ii. 477, 480, 483, 485.
Parke, JohnG.,ii. 30.
Parker, Cortlandt, ii. 386,
526.
Parker, Henry Melville, i.
389.
Parker, Isaac C, ii. 511.
Parker, Joel, i. 495; ii. 221,
401, 578.
Parsons, Lewis E., ii. 78, 249.
Parsons, Richard C, ii. 542.
Paschal, George W., ii. 225.
Patrick, J. N. H., ii. 593.
Patterson, David T., ii. 52,
375.
Patterson, George W., ii. 601.
Patterson, James W., ii. 287,
374, 375.
Patterson, John J., ii. 541.
Patterson, Robert, i. 314, 348.
Payne, Henry B., i. 162; ii.
528, 583, 585, 588, 667, 668.
Pearce, James Alfred, i. 117,
425, 502.
Peck, James, ii. 381.
Peel, sir Robert, i. 419; ii. 502.
Pelton, William T., ii. 591-
594
Pemlierton, J. C, i. 489, 496.
Pendleton, George H., i. 328,
413, 492, 507, 524, 529, 537;
ii. 391, 392, 394, 395, 397,
399, 401-403, 517, 640.
Pennington, William, i. 242.
Perry, Benjamin F., ii. 78.
Peters, John A., ii. 290, 335,
457.
Pettit, John, ii. 441.
Pevt&n, Baillie, i. 301 ; ii. 679.
Phelps, Edward J., ii. 221.
Phelps, John S., i. 427.
Phelps, Samuel S., i. 108.
Phelps, William Walter, ii.
542, 660.
Phillips, Wendell, i. 22, 157,
273; ii. 69, 181.
Phillips, William A., ii. 542,
601, 607.
Pickens, Francis W., i. 219,
232, 296.
"Pickering, John, ii. 381.
Pierce, Franklin, i. 75, 89,
90, 99, 100, 104, 105, 109,
110, 112, 117, 122, 123, 125,
130, 132, 133, 138, 159, 196,
284; ii. 108, 110, 117, 149,
308 309, 315, 324, 424, 462,
535, 538, 545, 673.
Vol. II.

Pierce, Henry L., ii. 551.
Pierpont, Francis H, i. 315,
458,464; ii. 79.
Pierrepont, Edwards, ii. 539,
660, 664.
Pike, Frederick A., i. 331,
419, 420; ii. 197, 322.
Pile, William A.,ii. 289.
Pillow, Gideon J., i. 75, 355-
357.
Pinckney, Henry L., i. 70.
Pinkney", William, i. 318: ii.
598.
Piper, William A., ii. 653.
Pixley, F. M., ii. 665.
Piatt, Orville H., ii. 640.
Piatt, Thomas C, ii. 542,
569.
Plumb, Preston B., ii. 598,
660.
Poland, Luke P., ii. 117, 158,
159.
Polk,' James K., i. 24, 32-41,
44, 47, 50, 51, 53, 57-61, 63-
66, 72, 78-81, 88, 101, 104,
105, 127, 159, 192-196, 270,
284, 331, 360, 521; ii. 6, 60,
125, 308, 501.
Polk, Leonidas, i. 347.
Polk, Trusten, i. 339, 341,
374.
Pollock, James, i. 67, 205.
Pomerov, Samuel C, i. 315,
476, 515; ii. 374, 375.
Pomeroy, Theodore M., i.
327, 421, 425; ii. 509.
Pool, John, ii. 447, 541.
Pope, John, i. 448, 449, 451;
ii. 29, 297, 298.
Porter, Albert G., i. 329, 421,
498.
Porter, Andrew, i. 385.
Porter, David, i. 4:54.
Porter, David D., i. 361.
Porter, David R., ii. 221.
Porter, Fitz-John, i. 337.
Potter, Alonzo, Bishop, ii.
431.
Potter, Clarkson N., ii. 431,
432, 436, 528, 588-590, 593.
Potter, John F., i. 332.
Potter, Robert B., i. 490; ii.
31.
Potts, Frederick, ii. 569.
Powell, Lazarus W., i. 259,
341, 346, 425, 462, 465, 476,
506,524,529; ii. 117.
Pratt, Daniel D., ii. 446, 551.
Prentiss, Sergeant S., i. 60.
Preston, William, ii. 397,
404.
Preston, William Ballard, i.
87, 302.
Price, Hiram, i. 501; ii. 322,
336, 601.
Price, Sterling, i. 75, 357,
358.
Price, Thomas L., i. 446.
Pryor, Roger A., i. 295.
Pugh, George E., i. 142, 150,
321; ii. 397.
Pugh, James L., ii. 212.
Puleston, J. Henry, i. 269.
I Pulitzer, Joseph, ii. 521.
46

Quay, Matthew S., ii. 660.
Quincy, Josiah, i. 14, 15, 264.
Quincy, S. M., ii. 235.
Quitman, John A., i. 75.
Radford, William, i. 538.
Rainey, Joseph H., ii. 513,
515.
Ramsey, Alexander, i. 68,
307, 502; ii. 375, 552, 569.
Randall, Alexander W., i.
307; ii. 219, 220, 238.
Randall, Samuel J , i. 502,
506, 510; ii. 295, 436, 528,
554, 555, 566, 577, 600, 638,
667, 668.
Randall, William H., ii. 257.
Randolph, Edmund, i. 484.
Randolph, John, ii. 289.
Randolph, Theodore F., ii.
528.
Randolph, Thomas J., ii. 529.
Ransom, Matthew W., ii. 212,
506, 583.
Rapier, James T., ii. 515.
Raum, Green B., ii. 288.
Rawlins, John A., ii. 31, 427,
539.
Raymond, Henry J., i. 517,
519; ii. 118, 131-140, 162,
175, 207, 220, 221, 222, 223,
254, 531.
Reagan, John H., ii. 529, 550.
Rector, Henry M., i. 304.
Reed, Thomas B., ii. 589, 594,
600.
Reed, William B., ii. 651.
Reeder, Andrew H., i. 122,
138, 165.
Revels, Hiram R., ii. 447-449,
515.
Reynolds, John F., ii. 29.
Reynolds, Joseph J., ii. 30.
Rhett, R. Barnwell, i. 219;
ii. 397.
Rice, Alexander H., i. 331;
ii. 520.
Rice, Henry M., i. 277, 379,
425, 462.
Rice, John H., ii. 277.
Rice, William W., ii. 600.
Richardson, William A.
(Ill ), i. 329, 330, 362, 380,
443; ii. 117, 397.
Richardson, William A.
(Mass.), ii. 539.
Richmond, Dean, i. 84, 524;
ii. 221, 573.
Riddle, George Read, i. 506;
ii. 159.
Riley, Bennett, i. 88.
Ritchie, Thomas, i. 127.
Ritner, Joseph, i. 204, 205.
Rives, William C, i. 70, 193.
Roach, John, ii. 612, 613.
Roberts, Ellis H., ii. 386, 509,
510, 559, 562.
Roberts, Marshall O., ii. 220.
Robertson, Thomas J., ii. 447,
512.
Robertson, William H., ii.
287, 288, 569, 659.
Robeson, George M., ii. 427,
428, 539, 638.

722

INDEX OF NAMES.

Robinson, George D., ii. 600.
Robinson, Henry C, ii. 660.
Robinson, James W., ii. 542.
Roebuck, J. A., ii. 479, 480,
482, 484.
Rogers, A. J., i. 538, ii. 127,
175 342.
Rollins, Edward A., ii. 333.
Rollins, Edward H., i. 421;
ii. 598.
Rollins, James S., i. 331, 375,
537, 538.
Rose, Sir John, ii. 494, 495.
Rosecrans, William S., i. 454,
510; ii. 29.
Roselius, C, ii. 39.
Ross, Edmund G., ii. 375.
Ross, James, i. 4.
Rothery, ii. 629.
Rousseau, Lovell H., i. 522;
ii. 167, 229.
> Ruger, Thomas H., ii. 581.
Rush, Richard, i. 522; ii. 618,
619.
Rusk, Jeremiah, ii. 511.
Rusk, Thomas J., i. 40, 90.
Russell, Daniel L., ii. 639.
Russell, Earl, i. 568, 569, 574,
575, 577, 578, 580, 581, 584,
598, 599; ii. 477, 481, 483,
488, 497.
Rutledge, John, ii. 597.
Ryan, Thomas H., ii. 601.
Sabin, Dwight M., ii. 569,
660.
Safford, M. J., ii. 224.
Salisbury, see Cecil.
Samuels, Benjamin, i. 162.
Sanders, Romulus M., i. 32.
Sargent, Aaron A., i. 387; ii.
539, 552, 585, 606, 609, 653,
654.
Saulsbury, Willard, i. 425,
506; ii. 144, 211, 212, 258,
375.
Saunders, Alvin, ii. 598.
Sawyer, Frederick A., ii. 447.
Sawyer, Philetus, ii. 123, 569,
660.
Sayler, Milton, ii. 542.
Scales, Alfred M., ii. 212, 550.
Schell, Augustus, ii. 397, 577.
Schenck, Robert C, i. 67, 314,
499, 510; ii. 133, 198, 224, 231,
256, 259, 330, 336, 347, 353,
354, 409, 496, 556, 558.
Schofield, John M., ii. 29, 297,
298, 384, 425, 427.
Schurz, Carl, ii. 148-152, 154,
224, 386, 387, 438, 440, 450-
452, 461, 504, 505, 517, 521,
551, 563, 596.
Sclopis, Count Frederic, ii.
498.
Scofield, Glenni W., i. 502,
537; ii. 322, 526,527.
Scott, John, i. 16.
Scott, John (Penn.), ii. 446,
447 551.
Scott, Wi'nfield, i. 64, 74-76,
101-106, 109, 116, 280, 350,
382; ii. 28, 29, 32, 58.
Scndder, Henry J., ii. 542.

Sebastian, William K. , i. 266.
Sedgwick, Charles B., i. 327,
425, 498.
Seelye, Julius H., ii. 551, 660.
Segar, Joseph E., i. 465.
Selden, Henry R., ii. 521.
Sessions, Walter L., ii. 511.
Settle, Thomas, ii. 526, 527,
666.
Sewall, William J., ii. 569,
660.
Seward, Clarence A., ii. 569.
Seward, Frederick A. ii. 63.
Seward, William H., i. 42, 77,
79, 82, 86, 89, 96-98, 102, 104,
126, 142, 150, 157, 165-169,
180, 197, 266, 271, 284, 285,
293, 294, 296, 319, 320, 324,
327, 514, 522, 531, 539, 542,
548, 568, 573, 577, 579, 581-
585, 587, 594, 595; ii. 1, 11,
55, 56, 58, 62-68, 70, 71, 73-
76, 81-86, 93, 107-110, 115,
131, 132, 146, 152, 162, 170,
184, 186, 192, 238, 242, 265,
267, 273, 309, 333, 334, 339,
340, 351, 369, 389, 427, 445,
478, 488, 489, 512, 533, 651,
678.
Seward, William H., jun., ii.
32.
Seymour, Horatio, i. 438, 442,
443, 490, 491, 495, 497, 524,
526, 527, 529, 532; ii. 390,
397-399, 403-412, 579.
Seymour, Thomas H., i. 75,
529.
Shanks, John P. C, ii. 409.
Shannon, Wilson, i. 29, 122,
138.
Sharkey, William L., ii. 78,
81.
Sharpe, George H., ii. 661,
664.
Shaw, Lemuel, ii. 364.
Sheffield, William P., i. 419.
Sheldon, Lionel A., ii. 434.
Shellabarger, Samuel, i. 328,
354, 420, 498; ii. 121, 134-
136, 138, 197, 235, 237, 253,
260, 336, 585.
Shepherd, Alexander R., ii.
548.
Shepley, George F., ii. 36.
Sheridan, Philip H., i. 531;
ii. 29, 235, 265, 297-299, 428-
430, 552.
Sherman, John, i. 266, 287,
321, 340, 362, 369, 400, 401,
423-425, 427, 471, 475; ii.
209, 258, 324, 331, 353, 374,
375, 426, 505, 533, 563, 585,
588, 596, 599, 603, 610, 665,
666.
Sherman, Roger, i. 183; ii.
435.
Sherman, William T., i. 337,
454, 497, 511, 512, 531, 533,
544, 558; ii. 18, 19, 21, 29, 32,
265, 288, 351, 362, 378, 427-
430, 433, 539, 581.
Sherwood, Lorenzo, ii. 225.
Shields, James, i. 75, 89.
Shunk, Francis R., i. 195.

Sickles, Daniel E., ii. 31, 297,
298, 386, 387.
Sigel, Franz, i. 448; ii. 31.
Silsbee, Nathaniel, i. 191.
Simmons, James F., i. 323.
Simpson, Bishop, ii. 17.
Sinclair, John G., ii. 221.
Singleton, Otho R., ii. 212,
550.
Slidell, John, i. 47, 233, 248,
249, 253, 351, 406, 580, 582,
585; ii. 14, 181, 506.
Sloan, A. Scott, i. 332.
Sloan, Ithamar C, ii. 196,
322.
Slocum, Henry W., ii. 30,
432, 436, 528.
Smith, Adam, i. 181.
Smith, A. Herr, ii. 542.
Smith, Caleb B., i. 284, 285;
ii. 61.
Smith, Charles Emory, ii.
569, 570.
Smith, E. Kirby, i. 558.
Smith, Gerritt, i. 22, 157; ii.
526.
Smith, H. Boardman, ii. 511.
Smith, Sidney, i. 433, 434.
Smith, Truman, i. 67.
Smith, William, ii. 79.
Smith, William F., i. 453; ii.
30.
Smith, Worthington C, ii.
288.
Smithers, N. B., ii. 224.
Snowden, A. Loudon, ii. 610.
Somers, George W, ii. 225.
Soule, Pierre, i. 90, 241.
Southard, Milton I., ii. 542
Spalding, Rufus P., ii. 133,
194, 335, 356, 521.
Sparks, William A. J., ii. 550.
Spaulding, Elbridge G., i.
327, 411, 412, 414, 425-427,
471, 478, 498.
Speed, James, ii. 62, 219, 224-
226, 526, 527, 569, 570.
Speed, Joshua, ii. 62.
Spencer, George E., ii. 447.
Sprague, Peleg, i. 191.
Sprague, William, i. 305, 502;
ii. 375, 552, 563.
Springer, William M., ii. 550,
583, 589.
Staempfli, Jacob, ii. 498.
Stanbery, Henry, ii. 219, 282,
294, 298, 299, 363, 364, 373,
384.
Stanford, Leland, i. 308, 309,
509.
Stannard, Edwin O., ii. 542.
Stanley, Lord, ii. 488, 489, 497.
Stanton, Edwin M., i. 233,
235, 240, 24l, 285, 355, 364-
368, 385, 387, 388, 390=394,
450, 545,562-564; ii. 18, 59,
60, 62, 66, 164, 265, 348-352,
354, 355, 362, 363, 366, 367,
369-372, 378, 379, 383, 384,
422, 438.
Stanton, Frederick P., i. 139.
Starin, John H., ii. 601.
Steadman, James B., ii. 31,
229.

INDEX OF NAMES.

723

Stebbins, Henry G. , i. 497.
Steele, John B.,i. 538.
Stenger, William S., ii. 589.
Stephens, Alexander H., i.
103, 104, 117, 119, 174, 175,
221, 302, 542; ii. 88, 89, 546,
547.
Stevens, Aaron F., ii. 288.
Stevens, Thaddeus, i. 42, 98,
165, 266, 270, 286, 325, 326,
329, 341, 354, 381, 400, 403,
414-416, 425, 427. 441, 456,
464, 479, 499, 510, 517, 518,
542; ii. 79, 112, 113, 127,
128-133, 135, 137, 138, 140,
147, 181, 192, 193, 195, 198,
203-20(5, 212, 213, 215, 250-
252, 256, 257, 258, 264, 295,
301, 321, 327, 336, 347, 356,
359-361, 372, 380.
Stevenson, John W., i. 137;
ii. 580, 667.
Stewart, Alexander T., ii.
425, 426, 589.
Stewart, James M., ii. 225.
Stewart, William M., ii. 257,
374, 375, 413.
Stockton, John P., ii. 117,
155-161, 178, 179, 183, 221,
447, 528.
Stockton, Richard, ii. 155.
Stockton, Richard, jun., ii.
155.,
Stockton, Robert F., ii. 155.
Stoeckl, Baron, ii. 333.
Stokes, William B., i. 278.
Stone, Charles P., i. 380-395,
563.
Storrs, Emory A., ii. 386, 660.
Stoughton, E. W., ii. 585.
Strong, William, ii. 584, 585,
588, 656.
Stuart, Alexander H. H., i.
311.
Stuart, Charles E., i. 142.
Stuart, J. E. B., i. 338.
Sturgis, Samuel D., i. 453.
Sumner, Charles, i. 73, 84,
129, 135-137, 142, 197, 270,
271, 317, 318, 320, 323, 341,
345, 369, 374, 388, 389, 424,
425, 440, 441, 461, 462, 585,
586; ii. 40, 41, 113, 114, 117,
140, 143-145, 147, 149, 152,
158, 159, 168, 181, 185, 198-
202, 224, 296, 374, 375, 389,
409, 426, 456, 461-463, 491,
493, 503-506, 513, 514, 518,
533, 544-546, 552.
Swayne, Noah, i. 540; ii. 656.
Sweat, L.D.M.,i. 441.
Swett, Leonard, ii. 521.
Swift, John %, ii. 655.
Swope, Samuel F., i. 197.
Sykes, George, i. 385.
Taft, Alphonso, ii. 539.
Tallmadge, James, jun., i.
15, 16.
Taney, Roger B., i. 132-137,
485, 543; ii. 130, 315.
Tappan, Arthur, i. 22.
Tappan, Mason W., i. 261,
265, 266, 268.

Taylor, Miles, i. 260.
Taylor, Richard, i. 558.
Taylor, Zacharj, i. 62-65, 74-
77, 81-84, 86-88, 90, 95, 97,
102, 105, 152, 195, 196, 205,
241, 318, 320, 321, 330, 502,
541; ii. 29, 32, 58, 308, 309,
362, 364, 423, 424, 602.
Teller, Henry M., ii. 565, 566,
569.
Ten Eyck, John C, i. 266,
509; ii. 117, 154, 155.
Tenterden, Lord, ii. 496, 498.
Terry, Alfred H, ii. 30.
Terry, David S., i. 141.
Thayer, John M., ii. 375.
Thayer, M. Russell, ii. 175,
253, 259.
Thomas, Benjamin S., i. 331,
417, 421.
Thomas, Francis, i. 375, 465;
ii. 120, 224, 257, 345.
Thomas, George H., i. 355,
544; ii. 29, 428-430.
Thomas, Jesse B., i. 17.
Thomas, John L., jun., ii.
120, 257.
Thomas, Lorenzo, ii. 355, 362,
378.
Thomas, Philip Francis, i.
234, 397.
Thompson, Charles P., ii.
550, 585.
Thompson, Jacob, i. 223, 234,
240; ii. 554, 555.
Thompson, John B., i. 197.
Thompson, M. Jeff, i. 558.
Thompson, Richard W., ii.
386, 569, 570, 596.
Thomson, John R., i. 315.
Thornton, Sir Edward, ii.
495, 496, 502, 624-630.
Thurman, Allen G., i. 54, 67,
524; ii. 397, 440-442, 450, 557,
563, 583, 585, 588, 605, 654,
667, 668.
Tibbatts, John W., i. 75.
Tilden, Samuel J., i. 84, 524;
ii. 221, 397, 521, 549, 572-584,
586-592, 594, 595, 667, 668.
Tilton, Theodore, ii. 521.
Tipton, Thomas W., ii. 374,
375, 504, 563.
Tod, David, i. 517.
Todd, Lemuel, ii. 542.
Toombs, Robert, i. 117, 119,
233, 246, 247, 251-253, 261;
ii. 14, 110, 181, 311, 404, 547,
554 555.
Toucey, Isaac, i. 197, 223.
Tourgee, Albion W., ii. 225.
Townsend, Amos, ii. 601,
655.
Townsend, Dwight, ii. 654.
Townsend, Martin I., ii. 550,
588.
Townsend, Washington, ii.
433.
Tracy, B. F., ii. 661, 663.
Tremaine, Lyman, i. 442, 517;
ii. 386, 541.
Trescot, William H., i. 566,
567; ii. 631, 655.
Trist, Nicholas P., i. 74.

Trowbridge, Roland E., ii.
123.
Trumbull, Jonathan, i. 183.
Trumbull, Lyman, i. 123, 135,
137, 319, 341, 346, 373, 374,
462, 481, 505, 506; ii. 156,
158, 1(54, 166, 172-174, 177-
179, 224, 281, 282, 374, 375,
379, 416, 450, 452-454, 457,
504, 523-525, 540, 585.
Tucker, John Randolph, ii.
549, 585.
Tucker, Thomas Tudor, i.
183.
Turner, Henry M., ii. 571.
Twiggs, David E., i. 286.
Tyler, John, i. 26-28, 39, 40,
49, 101, 158, 159, 192, 268,
269,280, 302,331; ii. 55, 57,
58, 147, 183, 308, 309, 396,
457, 524.
Tyner, James N., ii. 434, 639,
597.
Upham, William, i. 64.
Upson, William H„ ii. 433.
Upshur, Abel P., i. 26, 27*29,
30, 49, 50.
Urner, Milton G,, ii. 639.
Usher, John P., ii. 61.
Vallandigham, Clement L-,
i. 328, 344, 370, 400, 403, 415,
489-493, 497, 499, 524-526,
547; ii. 131, 221, 395, 397, 441.
Van Allen, James H., i. 384.
Van Buren, John, i. 84.
Van Buren, Martin, i. 14,
24, 27-35, 38, 39, 50, 59, 61,
78-85, 101, 104, 105, 127, 152,
191, 192, 200, 205, 275, 285,
443, 541, 548; ii. 4, 6, 55, 109,
125, 186, 308, 315, 531, 573,
575, 646, 647.
Van Trump, ii. 436.
Vance, Zebulon B., ii. 397,
404, 529, 531, 588, 641.
Van Horn, Robert T., ii. 123,
224.
Van Rensselaer, Jeremiah,
i. 183.
Van Winkle, Peter G., ii.
170, 179, 209, 374, 375.
Van Wyck, Charles H, i. 327.
Van Zandt, Charles O., ii.
386, 569.
Vest, George G., ii. 212, 529,
641.
Vickers, George, ii. 374, 375.
Vilas, William F.,ii. 577.
Vinton, Samuel F., i. 68, 72;
ii. 678.
Voorhees, Daniel W., i. 329,
510, 538; ii. 136-138, 397,
436, 577, 600.
Wade, Benjamin F., i. 42, 98,
136, 142, 167, 270, 285, 319,
320, 374, 379, 384, 385, 388,
461; ii. 14, 43-45, 48, 178,
179, 185, 278, 357, 375, 382,
389-391, 460, 569, 571, 678.
Wadsworth, James S., i»J31,
85, 442, 443; ii. 31.

724

INDEX OF NAMES.

Wadsworth, William H., i.
310, 331, 372, 421.
Wait, John T., ii. 601.
Waite, Morrison R., ii. 595,
656, 678.
Waldron, Henry, ii. 511.
Walker, Francis A., ii. 608.
Walker, Gilbert C, ii. 524.
Walker, Robert J., i. 32, 33,
39, 58, 79, 138, 139, 194, 195.
Wallace, Lewis, i. 357.
Wallace, William A., i. 524;
ii. 405, 528, 551, 577, 605,
607.
Walton, Charles W., i. 420.
Walworth, Chancellor, i. 84.
Ward, Hamilton, ii. 119, 361.
Ward, Marcus L., i. 517; ii.
387
Warmoth, H. C, ii. 224, 660.
Warner, A. J., ii. 639.
Warner, Willard, ii. 447.
Washburn, Cadwalader C,
i. 197, 261, 265, 266, 268, 270,
332; ii. 31, 287, 335, 347,453,
639.
Washburn, Henry D., ii. 347.
Washburn, Israel, jun., i.
305, 332; ii. 639.
Washburn, William B., ii.
347, 552.
Washburn, William D., ii.
639.
Washburne, Elihu B., i. 197,
266, 270, 329, 332, 358, 362,
508-510; ii. 127, 347, 358,
424, 426, 427, 507, 539, 639,
665, 666.
Washington, George, i. 93,
182, 185, 224, 432, 483, 540,
541, 586; ii. 28, 32, 49, 68,
155, 161, 199, 269, 282, 307,
308, 315, 357, 423, 644, 658,
672.
Waters, C. C, ii. 570.
Watterson, Henry, ii. 577,
578.
Watts, John W., ii. 586.
Wayne, James M., ii. 314-316.
Webb, Watson, ii. 531.
Webster, Daniel, i. 26, 27, 38,
45, 49, 50, 53, 59, 68, 70-73,
77, 83, 89-94, 96, 97, 101-104,
106-108, 111, 132, 152, 158,
159, 189-192, 199, 263, 264,
271, 284, 300, 330, 413, 434,
524; ii. 33, 109,110,268,307,
308, 364, 379, 426, 446, 456,
457, 545, 647, 677, 678.

Webster, Edwin H., i. 375.
Webster, Fletcher, ii. 33.
Weed, Smith M., ii. 591-593.
Weed, Thurlow, i. 82, 126,
166, 167; ii. 11, 220, 242,
389, 390, 532-534.
Welker, Martin, ii. 121.
Welles, Gideon, i. 284, 285,
552, 581; ii. 238, 370.
Wellington, Duke of, ii. 17,
28.
Wells, Calvin, ii. 659.
Wells, David A., ii. 521, 525.
Wells, Erastus, ii. 433.
Wentworth, John, i. 42, 67;
ii. 122, 322, 511, 521.
Wheeler, William A., i. 327;
ii. 431, 571, 572, 582, 585,
586, 589.
Whitaker, John, i. 308.
White, Andrew D., ii. 460.
White, Harry, ii. 386, 602.
White, Horace, ii. 521.
White, Hugh L., ii. 6.
Whitfield, John W., i. 122.
Whitney, William C, ii. 585.
Whitthorne, SVashingtonC,
ii. 550.
Whittier, John G., i. 22.
Whyte, William Pinkney, ii.
397, 588, 598, 599, 609.
Wickham, W. C, i. 311.
Wickliffe, Charles A., i. 331,
380,381,524,526.
Wigfall, Louis T., i. 287-289.
Wilkes, Charles, i. 580, 581,
583, 586, 587.
Willard, George, ii. 542, 583,
603.
Willey, Waitman T., i. 315,
339, 370, 372, 375, 425, 460-
462; ii. 170, 375.
Williams, Alpheus S., ii. 550.
Williams, Charles G., ii. 542.
Williams, George H., ii. 117,
127, 210, 257, 270, 352, 374,
375, 457, 496, 539, 660.
Williams, James D., ii. 577.
Williams, John S., ii. 529,
641, 642.
Williams, Seth, i. 385.
Williams, Thomas, ii. 272,
344, 345, 361, 372.
Williamson, Hugh, i. 183.
Willis, Albert S., ii. 653.
Willitts, Edwin, ii. 601.
Wilmot, David, i. 42, 66, 67,
164, 205, 206, 320, 321, 503;
ii. 4, 441.

Wilson, Henry, i. 77, 135, 137,
197, 320, 323, 369, 379, 388-
390, 423, 452, 4(52, 477; ii.
102, 142-145, 224, 374, 375,
390, 391, 414, 416, 504, 505,
527, 538, 544.
Wilson, James, i. 432.
Wilson, James (Iowa), ii.
542.
Wilson, James F., i. 332, 505;
ii. 113, 174, 175, 258, 260,
342, 344-346, 358, 361, 362.
Wilson, Jeremiah M., ii. 511.
Wilson, Robert, i. 425.
Windom, William, i. 266, 332,
ii. 665.
Winthrop, Robert C, i. 66,
67, 72,73,88; ii. 221,t>78.
Wise, Henry A., i. 27, 59, 70,
125, 155.
Wistar, Isaac J., i. 383.
Withers, Robert E., ii. 551.
Wood, Benjamin, ii. 221.
Wood, Fernando, i. 502, 506;
ii. 221, 343, 409, 436.
Woodbridge, Frederic, ii.
345.
Woodburn, William, ii. 585.
Woodford, Stewart L., ii.
519,526,543,569, 571,572.
Woods, William, ii. 656.
Woodward, George W., i. 58,
195, 196, 497; ii. 221, 358,
359, 397, 436.
Wool, John E., ii. 228, 229.
Woolley, C. W., ii. 591.
Worden, John L., i. 359,
361.
Wren, Thomas, ii. 653.
Wright, George G., ii. 561.
Wright, Hendrick B., ii. 638.
Wright, Joseph A., i. 427.
Wright, Silas, i. 27, 33, 34,
70, 78-81, 104, 170, 191, 193,
285, 442, 521 ; ii. 187.
Wright, William, ii. 158, 159,
161, 178.

Vancey, William L., i. 175.
Yates, Richard, i. 307; ii. 117,
374, 375, 506.
Young, John, i. 79, 84.
Young, Thomas L., ii. 639.
Yulee, David L., i. 244, 250-
252.

Zollicoffer, Felix K., i". 355.