'•, '1'
tell

¦*~ll

*::L,/f-^'5

rn

i;

m

y:mm

mm

m

4

'¦' .. .' , .'

1 / i..l. 1^'
'V1''I I.!
;4t-,
-¦J-'JM
¦i*.;s?i^i'V---^-
M
«in;.;;;5v;S«vit'';
^/^

T'nK >\i^t^\'\H \N'( l.f-.(.\>l>

.^ .-

') 0[

/f

TjIKE BTLTBXiIWttTOJir

'y^,

2-

"¦I give the/e Books
for thtfavndXng df a CoUege in. tht^ Colony'

»*«««^MWWWW»W*>-'*'»'*«*^

Gift of

19ti

M . v¦vj.^^^l;^^ff^^^!.^;;^w^ysw^;l^^^^;;-^|^M *Wv^-V.!--t -tCT^-jP-

' My. M/iMlO'VU^

From the Brady photograph in the group of portraits of members
of the Thirtj-^-eighth Congress, on page 4S0

The
Life and Speeches
OF
Thomas WilHams
Orator, Statesman and Jurist
1806-1872
A Founder of the Whig and Republican Parties
By
BURTON ALVA KONKLE

Author of
"The Life and Times of Thomas Smith, ly^^-iSog"
Formerly associated with the Historical Work of the Pennsylvania
Bar Association, and Member of the Pennsylvania Historical
Society and American Historical Association

With an Introduction by
HON. PHILANDER CHASE KNOX, LL. D.
United States Senator from Pennsylvania

Volume II

CAMPION & COMPANY
PHILADELPHIA 19 0 5

Copyrighted, 1905
Burton Alva Konkle

Cti69S44

to

Contents

Chapter XIV. His Speech on the Negro in Politics and His
Election as Union Member of the State
House of Representatives, i860  394
Chapter XV. At Harrisburg. His Notable Speech on the
Maintenance of the Constitution and the
Union and the Climax in His Fight
Against the Pennsylvania Railroad. He
Is One of the Escorts of Lincoln's Family
to Washington and Attended the Inau
guration. 1861  '  433
Chapter XVI. His Election to the Thirty-eighth Congress.
"The Sumner of the Lower House." His
Notable Eulogy on President Lincoln.
1862  478
Chapter XVII. The Thirty-ninth Congress. His Brilliant
Speech on "Reconstruction."' His Ten-
ure-of-OfEce Bill Determines Line of
Attack on President Johnson. 1865 .... 5S3
Chapter XVIII. The Fortieth Congress. A Leader of the
Judiciary Committee. He Writes the
Impeachment Report Against President
Johnson and Makes the Great Final
Argument as one of the Board of Man
agers. 1867  648
Chapter XIX. Closing Years. 1869-72  731

Illustrations
XXXIX. Frontispiece of Volume Two, Mr. Williams
While in the Thirty-eighth Congress. From
the Brady photograph in the group of por
traits of that Congress on page 480.
XL. The Second Pittsburgh Court House  430
XLI. Map Showing the Presidential Vote of Penn
sylvania in i860, by Counties  432
XLII. The Capitol at Harrisburg in 1861. From the
first photograph of it, namely, that by Lemer 434
XLIII. President-elect Lincoln. From a contemporary
photograph by Brady  458
XLIV. Inaugural Ball Program of 1861  460
XLV. Mrs. Thomas Williams. From a painting by
Lambdin about 1854  464
XLVT. The National Capitol After Completion of the
Wings and Dome. From a contemporary
engraving by Sartain  478
XLVII. Members of the Thirty-eighth Congress Who
Voted for the Amendment to the Constitu
tion Abolishing Slavery, with Key Diagram.
From a group of photographs by Brady  480
XL VIII. President Abraham Lincoln. From a photograph
by Brady  524
XLIX. President Andrew Johnson. From a photograph
by Brady  554
L. View of the National House of Representatives
in 1866. From a Bohn lithograph of the
same date  622
LI. "The Situation," a cartoon in Harper's Weekly
in 1868, at the time impeachment was decided
upon  670

LII. The Managers of Impeachment of President
Johnson. From a photograph by Brady. . . . 672
LIII. The Managers of Impeachment. From a cut in
Harper's Weekly  674
LIV. The House in Procession to the Senate as a
Court of Impeachment. From a cut in Har
per's Weekly  676
LV. Card of Admission to the Impeachment Trial.
From card No. 831  678
LVI. The Senate as a Court of Impeachment. From
a view in Harper's Weekly  680
LVII. William M. Evarts, Chief Counsel for the Presi
dent. From a photograph by Brady .... 682
LVIII. Benjamin Franklin Wade, Who Would Have
Succeeded Andrew Johnson Had the Latter
Been Removed. From a photograph by Brady 730
LIX. Resolutions of the Pittsburgh Bar on the Death
of Mr. Williams  734
LX. A Bust of Mr. Williams, by Clarke Mills.
From the original in the Pennsylvania His
torical Society  738

CHAPTER XIV
His Speech on the Negro in Politics and His
Election as Union Member of the State
House of Representatives i860
In the campaign which followed the nomination of
Lincoln and Hamlin in June, i860, at Chicago, Mr.
Williams took a leading part for many reasons. It is
not the purpose here to enter into the details of this teem
ing period, either in national life or in Mr. Williams'
personal life. Let it suffice to say that he became
spokesman for two movements, in Pittsburgh and the
State, which may be described as follows: he was made
the candidate of the people to fight the proposed repeal
of the tonnage tax, which had been imposed on the Penn
sylvania Railroad and was still unpaid, and was also
selected as the Union or Republican or People's candi
date to go to the Lower House of the Legislature, for, it
may be explained, recent events and the policy of the
national executive committee of the Republican party
caused a very effective union of all the elements of oppo
sition under the term the Union or People's ticket.
Among the numerous speeches and addresses he made
during the campaign probably the most notable was that
delivered at Lafayette Hall, in Pittsburgh, on the even
ing of September 29th, on "The Negro in American Poli
tics," just before the State election.^ This was at once
published and widely used, and it still carries the very
breath and heart-beats of that great contest. Let it lell
its own story :
Fellow Citizens: — I trust it will not be supposed that my
appearance here to-night has anything to do with the accidental
^ Copy among the Williams papers. 395

396 THOMAS WILLIAMS
fact that I am myself a candidate for an office which I have not
sought— which I do not want— which involves great labor, and
a responsibility which you have never before cast upon the
shoulders of a representative— which is moreover without reward
—and which it will cost me more than the wages of a Congress
man to accept. If there is any body here who feels any difficulty in
regard to myself, all I have to say to him is, that he can render
me no greater personal service than by voting against me. If I
had desired to advance my own cause, I should rather have
avoided, than sought an occasion like the present. Your com
mittee of arrangements was pleased to request me to address
the great Convention which assembled on the Allegheny Com
mon on Thursday last. The condition of my voice, as indicated
by one or two previous experiments, compelled me to decline the
invitation. Feeling, however, that it was my duty as a citizen
to contribute my quota of service, as heretofore, to a cause
which has interested me so greatly, and very naturally desirous,
as I had labored in the preparation, to have some share in the
triumph, I signified my willingness to address the people, at some
length, in such a place as I could make myself heard without
injury, and I am accordingly before you this evening for that
purpose. And yet I may be allowed to say, that on no past occasion
have I felt the weight of a temporary infirmity more strongly,
than in view of the stirring exhibition which I witnessed on
Thursday last. As I cast my eye over the mustering squadrons
of that bannered host, my heart beat exultingly at the evidence
it furnished of the thorough awakening of the North. I thought
I saw in it the omen, as well as the instrument of a great deliv
erance — and the exclamation rose involuntarily to my lips,
"Thank God ! there is a North !" Yes ! the granite hills of
Maine have just proclaimed it in the roll of twice ten thousand
thunders, and the hills and valleys of Pennsylvania are about to
echo back with a redoubled peal, the joyful shout — "There is a
North." The years of our captivity are numbered. Our long
and weary pilgrimage is about to terminate. Mount Pisgah is
before us. In ten days more we scale its summit, and the prom
ised land, which has so long fled before us, is at our feet.
Well, I knew that this would come at the appointed time.
When I abandoned the field of politics, as I did, after the disas
trous campaign of 1844, it was with the feeling that it was vain to
struggle against the prestige of the successful party, and that
the surest road to relief, although perhaps a very long and pain
ful one, was through the excesses of unbridled power, and the
full development and exposure of the principle which was so

A NOTABLE ADDRESS IN THE LINCOLN CAMPAIGN 397
obviously animating the victors. For this result I waited with
the faith and patience of the aged Simeon. It came at last in
the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and culminated in the
mortal struggle, which, commencing on the plains of Kansas,
was transferred to the Federal Capitol, and there shook the
Representative Hall of the people with treason, and dyed the
floor of the Senate chamber with blood. The hour had then
struck. The field of politics was flooded with a new light
from the blazing dwelling of the inhabitant of the prairies.
The veil had dropped from the faces of the combatants. The
two great antagonistic interests which had been so long
wrestling for empire under arbitrary names, had now come
face to face, with visors up, in mortal embrace. The problem
of American politics was now solved. The issue was at last
directly made, and it brought along with it the inducement to
renewed exertion, in the assurance which it furnished of a great
deliverance. The time had now come to strike once more for
freedom. We failed, it is true, in the first of our struggles, because
we were a raw militia, without organization, without discipline,
without the knowledge of our strength, and under the influence
of an unmanly terror, inspired amongst the timid by the bloody
menaces of our foes. It was such a failure, however, as taught
them to respect our strength and courage, and taught us con
fidence in our ability to achieve our deliverance whenever we
chose to will it. We are now about to strike again, with the
assurance that the victory will be ours; and I propose to stim
ulate your zeal by pointing out the issues, as I understand
them, and awakening you to a proper sense of the importance
of the struggle which is before you.
The territorial question, then, which stands out in such bold
relief, which has divided the Democratic party itself, and
around which no less than three embattled hosts are now con
tending, is in itself but the efflorescence — ^the out-cropping of a
disease which has been lurking and fermenting in the bowels
of the state, and was bound to find its way to the surface in
some violent eruption like this. That disease is human slavery
— the property of man in man — of one man in the labor, the
bones, the sinews, and the muscles of another. Our ancestors
found it here. They saw and knew that its existence was at
war with the very fundamental principles of the Government
which they were constructing, that slavery was no question of
complexion, and that the same logic which made a slave of the
black man, would be equally fatal to the freedom of the white.
They were, however, practical men, and while they were studi-

395 THOMAS WILLIAMS
ous to avoid the monstrous inconsistency of engraving the term
"slave" upon the tables of their fundamental law, they endeav
ored to deal with the question in such a manner as would secure
the conventional rights of the master during the brief period
for which this anomaly was expected to endure. There was not
one, I think, of all that illustrious band of patriots and sages
that framed the Constitution who looked forward to its per
petuation, or regarded it otherwise than as a great and
unmitigated evil — a standing reproach to our institutions —
and a lasting impeachment of the sincerity of the men who
framed them. That it should ever come to be regarded as a
national blessing — as a great instrument of civilization — or as
a missionary agent in the Christianization of a heathen people,
was the buried thought of a superstitious age, with the mould
of more than three hundred years upon it, which was reserved
for resurrection at the progressive era that has just dawned
upon ourselves. They supposed, however, that they could recon
cile the two great antagonistic conditions of humanity, and so
blend them together as to avoid a conflict. They were mistaken.
The task was one which exceeded their powers. The great law
of liberty was not to be thus compromised with impunity. There
was an avenging Nemesis on the trail of this unnatural union.
The result has shown that William Pinckney was right, when
he lifted up his voice, half a century ago, in the Legislature of
Maryland, in bitter reprobation of the unholy alliance, and
uttered those memorable words which are still so familiar to the
ear of boyhood — "The rose and the bramble may grow in mutual
contact, but liberty and slavery delight in separation."
I do not say that the institution of slavery is not consistent
with the love of liberty, and with a high development of that
lofty and chivalrous spirit, which is the best guarantee for the
independence of nations. The lessons of history teach us, on
the contrary, that the proudest and most jealous of governments
were precisely those, where the people were divided into the two
great classes of masters and slaves. Those governments, how
ever, though republican in name, were but oligarchies in effect,
with obvious and irresistible tendencies in the direction of the
establishments which broke up the power of the monarchies of
mediffival Europe, and depopulated their territories, and impov
erished their soil, by the forced labor of serfdom or villenage.
And such, I undertake to say, are precisely the fruits of this
patriarchal institution in all those parts of our confederacy
where it prevails. It has produced a race of men of great
wealth, of high culture, of indomitable pride, and of undoubted
courage, who are the aristocracy of the State. It has produced

A NOTABLE ADDRESS IN THE LINCOLN CAMPAIGN 399
another, however, which is only fitted for a condition of thral
dom; and that is not a black race, but a white one. Where
labor is done by slaves, it is not considered honorable for free
men — just as trade itself involved a forfeiture of rank among
the French noblesse two hundred years ago — and, as a conse
quence, the distinction between the poorer classes and the slave
himself, is one of color only, which is slowly and impercepti
bly fading away under that process of amalgamation, which is
falsely charged on us, and true only as to our accusers. If
there be any difference, it is in favor of the black man. There
is no portion of our slaveholding communities, which is so ready
to \ynch a Yankee schoolmaster, as the very "poor trash," whom
the negroes themselves despise.
But this is not all. Although a domestic and peculiar insti
tution, as they are wont to call it, until it aimed to become an
extra-territorial and general one, its efifects have not been con
fined to the communities in which it exists. While we are
denied the privilege of meddling with it, it has never ceased to act
upon ourselves. The very sense of antagonism to liberty which
it has produced, has been ever present in the mind of the slave
owner, from the foundation of this Government. A commu
nity of interest has held them together upon all occasions, and
operated as a flux to fuse down the most discordant elements
into the most perfect harmony. If we, of the Free States, have
sometimes forgotten that there was a common bond to unite us,
because we have no institution that has the advantage of being
peculiar, it has not been so with them. Democrat, and Whig, and
American, they have been ever one as against us. Scarcely a
Free State has been allowed to come into this Union, without a
black duenna at her side — without being covered by the dark
shadow of another, which recognized a property in slaves. No
matter how rapidly we might grow under the benign influences of
free institutions, it has always been the policy of the slave owner
to countercheck our weight in the Senate, and to neutralize our
enormous, but healthful development, by the sort of Polish veto,
which enabled him to tie the hands of the majority, and deprive
it of all powers of legislation. The consequence has been, that
they have controlled the policy of the Government throughout,
and kept it oscillating and fluctuating from one system to another,
just as the interests of slavery were supposed to lean, whether
for or against a tariff — for or against internal improvements — or
for or against a bank — but always true to this one magnetic pole.
By the same power of combination, they have seized upon all
the important places in the Government, and made the question
"is he in favor of slavery?" the test of official qualification, as

400 THOMAS WILLIAMS
well as of party orthodoxy. They swarm at the Federal capi
tal. They control all the departments. They hold the Supreme
Court, and with it, the power of moulding the Constitution
itself to suit their views. They fill the army and the navy.
They manage every thing, and have managed every thing so
long, that they have come to think that they have a divine right
to govern us, and to declare openly, that if they cannot be
allowed to rule the Democratic party, and through it the nation,
they have a right to secede, and break up both. They may be
excused, perhaps. It is a fault inherent in the false relation
which they maintain. We know that it is productive of bad
habits of thought. We have the testimony of Jefferson himself,
that it engenders arrogance, and fosters a spirit which is
fatal to the education of the young. The man who is accus
tomed to rule black men, will soon come, by a very natural proc
ess, to the conclusion that he has a right to rule white ones. It
is, of course, galling to the pride of a man so educated, that he
should be compelled to submit to the rule of a class which he
despises. If the association of compulsory labor with a black
skin has degraded the black man here, it has reacted equally
upon labor itself, so as to degrade it in their estimation; and
every concession made by the North to the threats of disunion —
every expression of unmanly fear on our parts — ^has only served
to confirm the slaveholder in the opinion, that we are but sneak
ing poltroons, who may be bullied into submission, whenever we
cannot be bought or bribed. I am free to confess, as a Northern
man, that we have done all we could to encourage the formation
of this opinion, and the result has been the scenes of violence
we have witnessed, and the scorn and contumely, to which so
large an expression has been given by Southern presses and
Southern orators. If we had stood up on all occasions like men,
they would have respected at least, if they did not fear us, and
we should have heard no whisper of revolt, no loud and treasona
ble menaces of disunion. Our repeated submissions have only
increased their arrogance, and enhanced the extravagance of
their demands. Our attempts to purchase peace by pusillanimous
concessions, have been but the bait thrown by the Siberian
mother to the hungry wolf, which was no sooner devoured than
he was again upon her heels. The spirit of slavery is not to be
satisfied or appeased by any amount of sacrifices. The Demo
cratic party of the North has bankrupted itself for this pur
pose, and the return is — what it deserved to be — ingratitude
and ruin. Its leaders have sounded the very base string of
servility, and what has been the result to themselves? It may
be read in the fates of Buchanan and Douglas both. They have

A NOTABLE ADDRESS IN THE LINCOLN CAMPAIGN 4OI
failed to satisfy this exacting and insatiable interest, by the
humblest of services and the deepest of humiliations, and have
only drawn upon themselves the contempt and hatred of their
task masters. With these men on their knees before them, they
look in amazement upon the present condition of political parties
in the North. It is, in their eyes, no better than a servile insur
rection. The first impulse, of course, was to correct it with the
lash, or the bludgeon. The Northern overseers had failed to
crush out the revolt. The master then took the matter into his
own hands, and the blood of Sumner flowed upon the pavement
of the capitol, and the whole South approved and cried, "Well
done !"
And now let me inquire how far this issue has entered into
the present struggle. Mr. Douglas complains that it is the negro
who stands in the way of all beneficent legislation, and of every
meastwe of relief which the interests of Pennsylvania demand.
I agree with him there. It is the everlasting negro who thrusts
himself, on all occasions, in the way of progress, and hangs like
a drag upon the wheels of the national machine ; and it is on the
question of his place in the Government, that the Democratic
party is divided, and Judge Douglas is himself a candidate. It
is on that question, too, that his speeches are exclusively made.
I respond cordially to his sentiment, that we must get rid of the
negro. Tlie only difference between us is, whether this shall be
done by shutting him out entirely, or allowing him to have his
own way, and to go where he pleases. We have tried the latter
expedient without success. Judge Douglas thinks like the
"unjust judge," that it is the only way of escaping the annoy
ance. Upon the question as to his range, he affects a sublime
indifference here, while he boasts in the South, of having added
to it a degree and a half of latitude. He does not care whether
the negro is voted up or voted down in the territories, so long as
he is the lord of the ascendant in the States. He claims only
that he shall be allowed to have his chance, and that he shall be
let alone by the Government, while he stands himself upon a
platforrri, whose four corners are borne up on the shoulders of
the slave. It is not Democracy that he represents. That had
lofty aspirations. It was never indifferent upon a question of
slavery or freedom. This is but the monstrous birth, engen
dered of the worse than incestuous connection between the
virgin daughter of the Revolution and the slave. It has rent
the entrails of the parent in the conception, and the mother that
bore it might well start back at the apparition, like Sin in the
sublime allegory of Milton, and shriek out — death. It shows
fair above —

402 THOMAS WILLIAMS
"What seems its head the likeness of a kingly crown has on;
It ends below in many a scaly fold, voluminous and vast."
There is no feature of that offspring, variant from our own,
which does not disclose the monstrous parentage. There is not
a plank peculiar to that platform that has not a negro under it.
There is not even a sound timber in its construction, which does
not give way when the negro sets his heavy heel upon it. Let
us rip up a few of them, and see whether we cannot detect, and
drag him to the light.
The Republican confession of faith reiterates, in the first
place, the terms of the great Declaration, and proclaims that
"the Constitution, the rights of the States, and the Union itself,
must and shall be preserved." This is the great cardinal prin
ciple, which flames in its forehead like the meteor light of an
advancing railway train.
The Democratic platform, ignoring the Declaration and the
Union both — the one, of course, as heterodox, and the other, I
suppose, as of doubtful value — asserts its trust in the people,
and declares that the Government is one of limited powers, that
the grants made therein are to be strictly construed, and that it
is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise any powers that are
doubtful. To the doctrine that this is a Government of limited powers,
there is no objection. That they are to be strictly construed,
however, is a principle which is only invoked when any truly
national object is proposed. It has never been found to stand
in the way of any measure which was intended to advance the
interests of slavery. There, the interpretation has always been
latitudinarian to a fault. When Louisiana and Florida were
acquired, the constitutional barrier gave way. When Texas
was annexed, the same drama was rehearsed. And now, when
Cuba and a route over the isthmus are to be secured, we find
these very consistent gentlemen again knocking in the head,
in this very platform, the cardinal principle on which they
profess to stand. How well do they realize the creed and pol
itics of that old Federalism, which, as they so eloquently enun
ciate, "conceives no imposture too monstrous for the popular
credulity !" They invent the sin, which the proud old Federal
party would have scorned to commit, and then father it upon
them. This plank is a sound one, if it were not so elastic. It
is too weak for the tread of the ponderous African.
The next point in the Republican platform, is a denuncia
tion of the extravagance and corruption of the Administration,
with a declaration that while providing revenue for the Govern
ment, by a duty on imports, sound policy requires such an adjust-

A NOTABLE ADDRESS IN THE LINCOLN CAMPAIGN 4O3
ment of these duties, as shall encourage the industrial interests
of the whole country.
The Democratic platform declares, on the other hand, that
sound policy forbids the general Government from fostering
one branch of industry to the detriment of another, or from
cherishing the interests of one portion of our confederacy at the
expense of another — with a recommendation of the most rigid
economy, and a limitation of the revenues to the necessary
expenses of the Government.
To understand these dark sayings — this ambiguous outgiv
ing of the two-faced, and now two-headed oracle, we must have
recourse to the political philosophers — the cotton doctors — of
the South, who frame all the platforms for the faithful — for
the interpretation. The idea is, that the encouragement given
to manufacturers, and through them, as well as more directly,
to the free labor and agriculture of the Northern States, is a tax
upon those whose labor is done by slaves, and who grow no
grain for their own consumption. They insist that they pay
all the duties, because, as they allege, they have to pay you a
higher price for all that you sell them, while their staple, cotton,
is the principal export of the country, and they wish to buy
your grain and pork at their own prices, while they purchase
their goods from their British customers. They want no pro
tection themselves, and insist that if you are protected, it must
be necessarily at their expense. To impose a duty, therefore,
for the protection of any branch of industry, is, in their view,
to foster one branch to the detriment of another, and to cherish
the interests of one portion of the country at the expense of the
residue. They once thought differently, and then protection
was the order of the day. When they changed their minds, the
Democracy of the North changed with' them, and the American
system became unpopular and obsolete. And this is the doctrine
which Northern Democrats are made to indorse at the bidding
of the men, who own their laborers, and think that capital ought
always to own them ! If they do not already own their patient
followers in the North, who shoulder such burdens as this, and
do their work even more cheerfully at public conventions and
in Congress, than it is done by their slaves in the cotton field, it
is not for the reason that they are not quite as faithfully served
by them. I beg those who hear me, to remember that slavery
is not merely a question of color, or of menial or predial — domes
tic or agricultural — service. The slave may be a white man, and
the labor may be done in the newspaper, in the convention, on
the stump, or at the ballot-box. The only difference is — and it
is an important one — that while the white slave is never so

404 THOMAS WILLIAMS
much respected by his master as the black one — because his
condition is a voluntary one, while that of the negro is not — he
enjoys, at least, the privilege of asserting his freedom, and reas-
suming his abdicated manhood, whenever he thinks proper, with
out borrowing the aid of an underground rail road. The tariff
is a question of free and slave labor only. The right to protect
our own industry was one of the first privileges asserted upon
our emancipation from the yoke of the mother country. It con
tinued to be our policy until it came to be regarded as at variance
with the interests of the slave owner. It was, at one time, the
almost unanimous sentiment of the Democracy of the North.
There was no difference of opinion on that subject here, at all
events. The right won for the freeman in the war of Inde
pendence, went down, however, in the conflict with the labor
of the slave — and this plank, which is a central one, is resting
directly upon his shoulders.
The very grave recommendation, however, of "a most rigid
economy" in the face of an expenditure of some eighty millions
of dollars per annum, and with an administration of the same
party, the most extravagant, corrupt and profligate that this
nation, or the world itself, has ever seen, is not the least amusing
feature of the anti-tariff platform. Its explanation is to be found,
however, in the suggestion of a limitation of the revenue to the
strictest necessities of the Government. The idea is to avoid,
by all means, the necessity for a tariff, by expending nothing
upon our rivers or our lakes — ^nothing to settle up and improve
the boundless territories committed to our charge, as the future
home of countless millions of freemen — nothing for any other
purpose under heaven, except to acquire new territories for
slavery, as though it was the mission of this Government, not
"to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,"
but to forge chains for unborn generations, and to hang the
black cloud of human bondage over half a continent ! The most
rigid parsimony to avoid a tariff, unless the interests of slavery
can be best promoted by the most profuse expenditure. Then
money is no object. An expensive war in Florida — another in
Mexico — assumption of debts in the case of Texas — a hundred
millions, or a stupendous act of piracy, if necessary, to secure
the gem of the Antilles, which is supposed, like another dragon,
to guard the entrance to the garden of the Hesperides— all this,
purchased by the blood, and levied upon the labor, and taken
from the pockets of the Northern freemen — as is the support
of the army, which is kept up at our expense to overawe the
slaves, and to furnish an asylum for the cadets of the aristocratic
and labor-hating families of the South— is nothing with these

A NOTABLE ADDRESS IN THE LINCOLN CAMPAIGN 405
rigid economists, who are so solicitous to limit the revenues to
the absolute necessities of the Government. All these are neces
saries amongst those strict constructionists, who cannot afford
the money, or find the power in the Constitution, to deepen a
shoal upon your lakes, or clear out a bar or a snag from your
great rivers, though the lives of all the boatmen, and the mer
chandise and produce of all the North, were to depend on it.
What is the value of a free white laboring man in the North, in
comparison with the black chattels which sell for $1,500 apiece?
Why, there was no difficulty in finding authority in the Con
stitution for paying for a whole cargo of negroes in the Amis-
tad ! We shall have a bill, I suppose, to foot by and by for the
ebony chattel that was shot or drowned in the Potomac on the
occasion of the John Brown raid. As to a boatman, however —
one of your Northern mud-sills — a piece of the stuff out of
which we propose to fashion a President — he is worth nothing
unless he is owned by somebody, on the principle of the Demo
cratic candidate for the Vice Presidency, that capital should
always own labor. Well, if a working man must have an owner
to give him value, we will even play the master ourselves for
once, and admit that "honest old Abe" belongs to us. I trust,
however, that nobody will be tempted by what I say, to go over
to the enemy, in order that he may have a price set upon his
head. The next point I shall consider, is that which relates to the
public lands. On this, the platform of the Republican party
embodies a declaration in favor of settlers' rights, and of the
passage of the homestead bill, with an emphatic protest against
the haughy assumption of the Southern oligarchs, that these
settlers are no better than paupers. The Democratic platform,
ignoring this question entirely, proclaims that the proceeds of
the sales are to be sacredly applied to the national objects speci
fied in the Constitution, and protests vigorously against any dis
tribution amongst the States, as impolitic and unconstitutional.
There is nothing, of course, in favor of a homestead bill.
The provision of homes for the settlers, is one of those objects
which have not been "specified in the Constitution." That is
a provision for the multiplication of freemen only, and is, of
course, in their judgment, entirely sectional. If the object had
been to provide slave homes, instead of free ones — not lands
for the landless, but "niggers for the niggerless," that would have
been indisputably national. To distribute the proceeds among
the States for purposes of education or internal improvement, or
to apportion out the lands themselves for the endowment of
agricultural colleges, is equally objectionable, for the same rea-

406 THOMAS WILLIAMS
sons. Schools are for freemen, and highways an inconvenient
facility for negroes. For any purpose, however, it would impair
the revenues, and increase the necessity for a tariff.
But why is it that the Democratic party is so extremely
averse to the distribution of the public lands, even among the
States themselves? It was not always so. Is it because there
is anything unjust in doing again, what was done before under
the administration of General Jackson? The thing seems
equitable enough, even without reference to the terms of the
cessions themselves. Can any Northern man imagine any pos
sible objection to it? Here is a fund sufficient for the education
of our posterity for all future time, as well as for the improve
ment of all those natural highways, and the construction
of all those artificial means of communication, which are
so essential to develop our resources, and to bind this Union
together with "hooks of steel." The doctrine of their platform
is alike hostile to the grants made to the new States for rail
roads and schools, as it is to the endowment of agricultural col
leges for the old ones. Are these objects which are worthy of the
fostering care of the Government? Nobody here will venture
to deny that they are. How is it, then, that this language has
found its way into the Democratic platform? It is nothing but
the shadow of the everlasting negro which falls again across
our path, and darkens the fairest prospect that Providence has
ever opened to the vision of man. To give away the lands to
actual settlers, is to make Free States. To educate the people,
is to make free men. To provide them with commercial facili
ties, is to stimulate their growth. To divert these revenues from
the Federal treasury, would be to create a necessity for additional
duties, or, perhaps, to make it necessary to tax the negro him
self. It is, therefore, another tariff question, and the negro
again thrusts forward his woolly muzzle to frighten us from our
propriety, or pops up through the platform floor, like the ghost
of Banquo, "to push us from our stools."
The next noteworthy point in the Republican platform, is
an affirmance of the right of Congress to make appropriations
for river and harbor improvements, to accommodate an existing
commerce, and to protect the lives and property of those that
are engaged in it. The Democratic platform in its corresponding
clause, asserts that the Constitution does not confer on Con
gress the power to commence and carry on a general system of
internal improvements.
The Republican doctrine was intended only to place the
interior and the Great West, which have been so long neglected
by the Government, upon a footing of equality with the seaboard

A NOTABLE ADDRESS IN THE LINCOLN CAMPAIGN 407
States; and to make all this sure, they have singled out a
Western boatman, whose business it will be to see that their
interests shall not be ridden down hereafter, by affected consti
tutional scruples in regard to the power of Congress in the
premises. The Democratic doctrine involves a condemnation of the
whole practice of the Government from the beginning. A truly
national man, imbued with the right spirit, proud of his coun
try, as every American ought to be, and keenly alive to all its
susceptibilities, would be inclined to spare no means which
might be required, to develop its great resources, and to make
it what a beneficent Providence, obviously intended it to be
when the basins of its great inland seas were hollowed out, and
its mighty rivers showered down upon its plains. These were
the views of the Fathers, whose bones are now reposing under
Southern soil. These were the sentiments of that liberal,
broad-minded, and truly American statesman — the last of the
race of mighty men of the South — who now reposes beneath the
oaks of Ashland, rejected of his own, because his heart was too
big to be circumscribed by State lines, and his vision too far-
reaching, to encourage either the perpetuation of the curse of
human bondage at home, or its diffusion over the free territories
of the republic. But the Fathers are dead and well nigh forgot
ten, or remembered only to be condemned, while the party which
claims to be exclusively national, and to follow them by a sort
of apostolic succession — but which its reputed fathers would not
even know — has come to enter its solemn protest against all
expenditures which look to the good of the whole Union. And
why is this ? Is it because Northern men are of the opinion that
these objects are not truly national? It is the negro again who
lays his hand upon the shoulders of the nation, and bids it stop.
These things cost money, and do not help slavery. They will
deplete the treasury, and it must be replenished by additional
duties. It is a tariff question again. The negro must have his
way, as usual, and the Northern Democratic leader bows his
head, and whispers softly, "As you please."
The next point upon which the platforms differ, is that of a
rail road to the Pacific; and this is, of course, an internal
improvement question also. On this question, while it seems to
be admitted on all hands that the interests of the country require
its construction, the Republicans say, that the Government ought
to render immediate and efficient aid to it ; the Douglas Demo
crats pledge such constitutional government aid as will insure it
at the earliest practicable period; and the Breckinridge Demo
crats undertake to use every means in their power to secure the

408 THOMAS WILLIAMS
passage of some bill, to the extent of the constitutional authority
of Congress, for the same purpose.
Now here is a virtual surrender of the position previously
assumed by them, under the pressure of a strong public opinion
in the North, and by way of bid for the votes of the Pacific
slope. JBut mark the caution with which these Democratic
conclaves dispose of this great question ! See how gingerly
they deal with it. The Douglas men are willing to pledge "such
constitutional aid as will secure it." They have already declared,
however, that the Government has no constitutional power to
commence and carry on a general system of internal improve
ments, and that the proceeds of the public lands ought to be
sacredly applied to "the national objects specified in the Constitu
tion." The Breckinridge men, more cautious still, are only
willing to pledge their efforts to secure the passage of some bill,
to the extent of the constitutional authority of Congress, for the
same purpose. What is the meaning of all this reserve ? Is the
whole thing intended as a cheat and a juggle, or have they felt
the utter incompatibility of this pledge with the whole spirit Of
their platform? They made it solemnly, but reluctantly, at
Cincinnati. As soon as they had secured the vote of California,
upon the faith of it, it was consigned to the limbo of vanities —
sometimes called "the paradise of fools" — to be drawn forth
again, and again violated, as it was before. The idea that the
South will ever consent to so large an expenditure as it would
involve, unless it was for an exclusively Southern road, is at war
alike with their practice and their principles. Their subsequent
declaration in regard to a free passage across the Isthmus,
shows that they do not seriously think of an internal communica
tion by rail road between the Atlantic and the Pacific States. If
it was a question as to the acquisition of Cuba, or the purchase
of another slice of Mexico, they have shown us already that the
expense would be no consideration. To span the continent with
an iron highway would be a new phase in their history. It would
be as fatal to the negro, in their view, as it is likely to prove to
the Indian, and the grizzly bear, and the buffalo. It will bleed
the treasury, at all events, and the negro who sits upon the strong
box, again shakes his ambrosial locks, and thunders, "No."
The next plank over which we stumble has relation to our
foreign policy. On this, the Democratic conventions agree in
affirming what they call the Monroe doctrine; asserting the
right to control the inter-oceanic passage across the Isthmus —
the duty of maintaining an ascendancy in the Gulf — and the policy
of acquiring the island of Cuba, on such terms as shall be honor-

A NOTABLE ADDRESS IN THE LINCOLN CAMPAIGN 4O9
able to ourselves, and just to Spain — an improvement, by the
way, upon the morality of the Ostend Circular.
This plank is all ebony. No one can fail to see the negro
here. It points all southward. Newfoundland, Nova Scotia,
New Brunswick, the Canadas, the Hudson's Bay territories,
Vancouver's Island, all British America, can find no place in it.
Instead of enlarging in that direction, and seeking an alHance
with men of our o-wn race, lineage and faith, the Democracy falls
back on the Aroostook and the St. Johns, or subsides amiably
from "54° 40' or fight," down to 49°, and free trade with our
ancient enemy, while it turns lovingly to the embrace of the
cruel Spaniard and the unhappy slave. All that is wanted to
round this plank into perfect fullness, is a declaration in favor
of the opening of the slave-trade. That will come, however, in
the train of Cuba. It has come already upon the coast of Flor
ida. The South defends and a Democratic administration winks
at it. Cuba will furnish an outpost — an intermediate missionary
station, in the great process of evangelizing the African tribes.
Her harbors have always been the cruising grounds of the slaver
and the buccaneer. The sullen plunge of the dark-skinned Afri
can mother, victim of the horrors of the middle passage, and the
bubbling cry of the strong swimmer, who was hurled from the
corsair's deck, have alike sent many a tell-tale ripple to her
accursed shores. What fitter entrepot for the commerce in
human flesh? But do the Democrats of the Free States desire
all this ? No, God forbid ! There is not a right-minded man
amongst them, who would not shrink from the naked proposition
with undissembled horror. How, then, has it found its way into
their platform? It is because the slave owner was its architect,
and their own representatives have betrayed them.
The next point on which the platforms differ is that which
relates to the extension of slavery into the territories. This is
the complement of the declaration in regard to the public lands.
And here the negro himself, who has been skulking underneath
the platform, steps boldly and squarely upon it, and claims his
share of them. His share, however, is always a monopoly. If
he takes any, he appropriates the whole, because he excludes
the freeman. As in the case of Abraham and Lot : "The land is
not able to bear us both, that we may dwell together." The
Republicans, standing upon the doctrines and practice of the
Fathers, and claiming, like the Samaritan woman, that they have
also "Abraham" for their father, say that he has range enough.
The Democrats insist that he is a privileged traveler, a sort of
cosmopolitan, who must be allowed to choose his own domicile.
His right to do so I shall examine hereafter.

410 THOMAS WILLIAMS
Here, then, is the platform of the party, with a negro under
every plank of it, which differs essentially from our own. Distil
it, and evaporate it, and there is nothing left in the bottom of
the alembic, except the negro, who calls us "black," just because
we will have nothing to do with him. The time was when every
principle which the Republican party now proclaims, was held
and maintained by the Democratic party itself, from the tariff
down through the whole chapter of variations. The reiterated
declarations of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, on the subject
of the tariff and internal improvements by the general Govern
ment—the unanimous protest of the same Legislature against
the admission of Missouri as a slave State in 1819 — and the
equally unanimous declaration of the Democratic convention
assembled at Pittsburgh, in July, 1849 — are some of the evidences
of it here. The Democrats of the North have carried these
opinions, one by one, and laid them down, along with the great
majority principle itself, at the feet of the slave power. Upon
that shrine of abominations — upon the polluted altars of that
horrid Moloch — they have offered up every thing that was
demanded, until they were called upon to pass their own children
through the fire, upon the plains of Kansas. It made no differ
ence to the Northern leaders what was the demand. They never
complained that it was too large. They looked for personal
rewards in proportion to the extent of the submission. The
people were patient and docile, and accustomed to submit to
every thing, because they were honest, and suspected no fraud in
others. It was not until they had come near flinging their riders,
in 1856, that the inquiry came to be made. How much will they
bear ? It was in the Charleston Convention, that was first heard
the unusual language, "We have no objection individually to
this or that doctrine, but we fear our people will not submit to
it." It was the same feeling precisely, which checked up the fiery
Douglas on the Lecompton issue. He had bidden high for
Southern votes. It had cost his party many States. He found
that he could bid no higher, without the sacrifice of all the
Northern ones. He now endeavors to emulate the feat of the
circus rider, by bestriding two horses of very different mettle
and action, at the same time. To span the gulf which lies
between them, would require the legs of a Colossus, and his are
said to be none of the longest. It is too late, however — "too
late" — as a sepulchral voice exclaimed from the galleries of the
French Chamber of Deputies, when it was proposed to proclaim
the Duke of Berri as their king. The wedge which he drove
through the Missouri Compromise, has rent these two interests
in twain, as by an earthquake shock. Kansas, bathed in blood,

A NOTABLE ADDRESS IN THE LINCOLN CAMPAIGN 4II
and smoking with the embers of burning dwellings, has drifted
North, while the architect of all this ruin — the great tempter,
who plucked the forbidden fruit, and in an evil hour persuaded
the South to eat at the expense of faith and honor — is floating,
like a polar bear, between the separating floes. It was his destiny,
apparently, under Providence, to precipitate this crisis — which
was sure to come, at all events — by an act of transcendent per
fidy. \\'ithout taking any thing, even a "barren sceptre," by
the act, he has been but the unconscious instrument of a great
deliverance. I am inclined to thank him, therefore — not for the
motive, but for the act. It disenchanted the North. It showed
them what Democracy had now come to signify. It severed the
invisible chain which bound the Northern Democrat to the car
of this Juggernaut. It sealed the doom of the slave power. The
blood which smoked to heaven from the face of the broad prairie,
had not been shed in vain. Nor was it in vain that the heart of
that old man, whom God Almighty seems to have raised up for
this especial purpose, was hardened, like that of Pharoah, to the
cries of a suffering people. The whilom great Democratic party
now lies wounded, bleeding, distracted, wrecked, upon that very
question to which it had sacrificed its whole hereditary wealth
of principle. By a sort of poetic justice, it dies of the negfo, and
by its own right hand. The strong man perishes in agonies and
convulsions, clutching at the falling rein, despairing, blasphem
ing, cursing the day in which the nation was born, and calling
down the red lightning of heaven upon this once glorious Union,
which he is no longer to rule. And now, the apostate President,
if he ever hated the party which has taken him to its bosom, as
he is said to have done, may exult in a glorious revenge. He
will see it in its grave on the fourth of March next, helped
thither by his own hand, and covered and overwhelmed by the
double damnation of the traitor and the parricide.
And yet we are told, that it is we only who are always thrust
ing the negro into the foreground, and interfering with the
property and the social rights of our Southern brethren. For my
own part, revolting and unjust as is the condition of slavery,
I am free to own that its prevalence here, and the habitual asso
ciation of the black man with the idea of dependence and sub
jection, had blunted my own perceptions of the wrong which he
was suffering. I was educated, like other Americans, not to
look upon him in his humanitarian aspect, but in his political and
economical relations, as a working machine, and an element of
political power. I had made up my mind that if the South
loved slavery — if it was satisfied that its material interests were
advanced by it — it was not our business to interfere, even in the

412 THOMAS WILLIAMS
way of advice. Although dissatisfied with the unequal bargain
which gave to the Slave States a representation on the basis of
property, without any practical equivalent to us — if it were pos
sible to imagine an equivalent — and by a singular anomaly,
erected that which was a source of physical and moral weakness,
into an element of political power, I was not unwilling to com
promise, upon the understanding that if the negro would let me
alone, I would not disturb him. The experience of this country
has, however, shown that the negro is not to be disposed of in
this way. He is essentially aggressive. From the foundation
of this Government, he has never been lost sight of by his owner.
I have already shown you that there was a principle of cohesion
there so strong, that, however divided upon all other questions,
those questions were all sure to be subordinated to this, and that,
by these means, a little oligarchy of some 350,000 men had been
enabled to take and hold the possession of this Government, and
to control its policy, in the face of more than twenty millions of
freemen. It is idle, therefore, to say that the negro is a staple
commodity of ours, when it is through him, and by him only, that
the South has governed us. It is only because we have igfnored
him that they have succeeded so effectually in doing it. When
he encroaches on our territories, and we resist, we are denounced
as sectional, because it is the Free States only that unite with us
— although it is well known that they will not allow our opinions
to be even promulgated amongst them — while the fact that the
Slave States are united under this iron rule of unconstitutional
exclusion, is taken as the evidence that they are national ! The
debates in the last Congress, and the schism at Charleston, will
show that the everlasting negro has become an apple of discord
at home, and broken the peace and harmony of the great Demo
cratic family throughout the nation — and now they are section-
alized like ourselves.
But this is not all. The events of the last few years have
shown that we have an abiding political interest in the question
of negro slavery. So far as it may affect the future of this great
Republic — so far as it is likely to require the power of the nation
for its protection — it is our question as well as theirs. The slave
holders have spared no pains within the last few years, to show us
that the slavery of the black man is inconsistent with the freedom
of the white man. In its infancy its evils were not so apparent,
although it is known to have disabled some of the Southern
States from furnishing their proper contingents to the war of the
Revolution. It stands confessed now by the unanimous voice of
the South, that there is no security for the master except in the

A NOTABLE ADDRESS IN THE LINCOLN CAMPAIGN 4I3
ignorance of the slave — in the suppression of all knowledge — and
in the denial to the citizens of other States of all freedom of
speech on that question. It may be that the apprehensions of the
master are well grounded. I am willing to admit, if necessary,
that large allowances are to be made for the panic terror occa
sioned by the mad foray of John Brown, as well as for that
which is now prevailing so extensively in Texas. They are per
haps authorized by the condition of society in both those States.
If it be true, however, what a state of things is that which we
are asked to extend? It seems to me, that these facts admon
ish us of the necessity of laying our hands upon this dangerous
institution, and preventing its further diffusion throughout this
nation. To allow it to spread, and to admit other States into the
Union upon the same terms, is to render ourselves responsible
as a people for its encouragement — as the people of the North,
who assisted in the original importation, are already claimed to
be. It has taken possession already of the fairest portion of our
continent. It cannot endure forever. Those who think it can
have no end, because it seems to have no beginning within the
historic period, forget that the slavery of the black man, except
perhaps so far as it is attested by Egyptian monuments, is com
paratively modem, and that it is only a few centuries — ^the
briefest span in the history of our race — that have witnessed the
emancipation of the great families of men who now govern the
earth. The half of England would be in bondage yet, if its
courts had been animated by the spirit which now rules the
Supreme Court of the United States. It must have an end,
imless there is something peculiar in the complexion of the negro
to render it impossible — and that is indeed the grand difficulty.
God forbid, however, that we should be instrumental in its
propagation !
But how is this great question to be settled ? It is even now
like one of the plagues of Egypt. It overflows our land, and
finds its way into our kneading troughs. It interferes with our
labor — it spurns the right of petition — it denies to us the privi
leges of citizens in the States where it prevails. While it com
bines itself, it threatens us with Sedition Laws, to be adminis
tered by slaveholding judges, for the purpose of repressing all
combinations amongst freemen, to arrest its progress, and pro
tect themselves. It looms up in the dim and shadowy future
with dimensions still more gigantic. This pitchy cloud warping
up on the Southern wind, at first no bigger than a man's hand,
already hangs over our subject realms, like night, and darkens
all the land :

414 THOMAS WILLIAMS
"A multitude like which the populous North
Poured never from her frozen loins, to pass
Rhene or the Danaw, when her barbarous sons
Came like a deluge on the South, and spread
Beneath Gibraltar to the Lybian sands."
A tempest is in its sulphurous womb. What a problem does
it make, to be solved by our posterity ! At the present rate of
increase, another century's sun will look down on sixty-four
millions of negroes in the United States. What is to become of
them and us? Re-open the slave-trade — as you may do, if
slavery is right, and will if it is not checked — and what an addi
tional deluge will be upon us? And what is to be the result?
What sort of government will it require to hold all these slaves
in subjection, if it can be done at all? Certainly not a Repub
lican one. But they cannot be so held. There will be an exodus
sooner or later, over the rivers, and through the savannahs of
the South- West, marked, it may be, with scenes before which
the puny exploits of the border ruffians of Missouri will pale.
The bleaching process which has been been going on in Vir
ginia, "Mother of States and of Statesmen," now descended
from her original rank, and converted with elements of wealth
unequaled in this Union, into a mere breeder of slaves — that proc
ess which drew the attention of La Fayette, when he returned
here in 1824 — will not answer. If the efforts of man could
succeed in establishing a permanent intermediate variety, the
product of that union, violating a law of nature, would be on
hand to lead their hosts, and avenge the wrongs of the black
man. The infusion of white blood, without conveying the
privileges of white men, will be fatal to all subordination. And
this is, perhaps, the process by which the great question is to be
solved. There is always an avenging Nemesis upon the foot
steps of a great wrong. Providence works by processes, which,
though sure, are always so slow as to blind the observer to the
laws by which they are effected. The slave has already blasted
the soil wherever he has set his foot. It was the boast of the
destroying Hun, that no blade of grass ever grew beneath the
feet of his war horse. So it is with the slave. The verdure
perishes where he treads, and the earth refuses to give forth its
increase. His march is like that of the army worm, in search
of new pastures to devastate and destroy. And this is the result
of the law, that man will not work as he ought, unless he is
allowed to work for himself. He changes the face of society
also as he moves along. The patrol — the police — the army-
general espionage— domiciliary visitation — the suppression of the
book and the newspaper— the interdict upon speech and thought

A NOTABLE ADDRESS IN THE LINCOLN CAMPAIGN 415
— the destruction of all social intercourse — the banishment of
the stranger — the exile of the citizen — the weakness and inse
curity of the social state — laws that would shame the bloodiest
of the Code of Draco — nay, barbarism itself — all these compose
the grand cortege which follows in the train of Slavery. And
this is no fancy picture. Look at the consequences in the reck
less adventure of the madman Brown and his half dozen con
federates. Martial law became the order of the day. No man
could go outside of his door, without giving the pass-word to the
sentinel, who paced along the adjoining street. Turn your
eyes to Texas, and behold the scenes which are now being
enacted there. Look in the direction of the Southern ports. You
find them closed against Northern vessels, except on condi
tion that their crews shall be compelled to lie in jail; and when
a distinguished citizen of Massachusetts is sent to South Caro
lina, in the quality of an ambassador, to remonstrate, he is
invited to leave the State. Remember the exile of Underwood
from Virginia, and the expulsion of a whole body of quiet,
unoffending colonists from Kentucky. Turn to the laws enacted
in Kansas and New Mexico, and the slave codes of the several
States, from which they were mainly copied, and compare them
¦with the alien and sedition laws, against which Virginia and
Kentucky so loudly protested. And then cast your eyes over
the whole vast field, and observe the general terror — the insecur
ity — the lynch law- — the burning at the stake — the utter inhu
manity and barbarism which attend it every where. Why, the
chivalry of Virginia — brave enough, no doubt, if they were
called upon, to meet an open foe — were unsexed, and their very
knees smote together, as though the earth were yawning beneath
them, at the bare idea of an uprising amongst their slaves.
Well might they have said with the stout-hearted tyrant, when
he awoke from his fearful dream on Bosworth Field:
"Shadows to-night have struck more terror to the soul of Richard
Than could the substance of ten thousand soldiers."
One man might have chased a thousand, and two put ten thou
sand to flight. Who would be willing to live in a community sur
rounded by such horrors? What would be its capacity to resist
a foreign invasion, with this element of weakness in its midst?
The war of the Revolution tells the story. And who is there now
to lend his aid to its extension, or to say that we are not inter
ested in arresting it ? If the Union is assailed, is it not a part of
our duty to defend it? If the slave should revolt against his
master, is it not our sons and brothers that must go up to his
deliverance? Is it not, then, our right and our duty to say.

4l6 THOMAS WILLIAMS
"Thus far shalt thou go and no further, and here shall thy proud
waves be stayed?"
The whole question between us now is one of political power.
Our Southern brethren are of the opinion, that if we of the
Free States get into the ascendant, the interests of slavery
would be unsafe. It is essential, therefore, in their view, to
their peculiar property, that the reins of government should con
tinue in their hands. This cannot be, however, without yield
ing to the control of the minority, and that is precisely what they
have enjoyed through their representation in the Senate, and
what they have claimed and asserted in the adoption of the two-
third rule, by which the nomination was wrested from the North
ern candidate, who complains of its operation precisely when
it does the work for which it was intended, and the cup of
humiliation is carried to his own lips, by the men to whom the
Democratic majority had sacrificed its power. It is a confes
sion, however, that the institution of slavery is not reconcilable
with the majority principle, and is, therefore, necessarily anti-
republican. To save their power then, it is essential that they
should preserve an equality in the Senate, which shall neutralize
the numerical majority in the Free States; and this is the whole
secret of the struggle in relation to the territories.
By what right is it, however, that they seek to take posses
sion of them ? The argument is, that they are the common prop
erty of the Union, and that they are as well authorized to carry
their property there as we are. We do not deny this. We claim
no rights in the territories which we are not willing to accord
to them. We admit that we have no more authority to take a
slave there than we have to import a contagious disease. But
we do insist that our rights there are equal to theirs, and that
the admission of the slave will have the effect of excluding the
settlement of the freeman ; and we point to the experience of all
countries, and the condition of the Slave States in particular,
as contrasted with our own, to prove it. Why, it is an old
story. Five hundred years ago, the Lords of Coucy and Cler
mont, in France, following the general example of the time,
emancipated whole villages of serfs, for the express reason,
that "for hatred of such servitude," the stranger declined to
settle in their territories, and their lands remained uncultivated
and unpeopled, and comparatively worthless to themselves.
We do not admit that slaves are property except by virtue of
the local law. There is nothing in the natural law to warrant
such a relation. The great Declaration proclaims this truth.
The Repiiblican platform reiterates it. The Democratic plat
form is silent, because the interests of slavery require that it

A NOTABLE ADDRESS IN THE LINCOLN CAMPAIGN 417
should be ignored, as but "a glittering generality," or "a fan
faronade of nonsense." The Fathers knew, however, what they
were saying. They were quite as wise as we are. The sentiment
was nothing new to them. If the great law of Christianity,
promulgated as it was so often by the Roman pontiffs them
selves, did not settle that question, the voice even of an abso
lute king, thundering out of the darkness of the fourteenth
century, might have been heard proclaiming, in the name of the
law of Nature, the. right of liberty to every human creature
framed in the image of God, and declaring the anxious wish that
the realm of France might become, in fact, what it was in name —
the Kingdom of the Free — (Le Royaume des Francs). When
God gave dominion to man over all created things, we do not
find that he invested him with any such authority over his fel
lows. No contract can establish it. It has its foundation either
in force or fraud, and is in' effect no more than the law of the
stronger. If it is good as to the black man, it is equally so as
to the white. And this was the idea that the signers of the
Declaration and the framers of the Constitution obviously enter
tained. There is no doubt that slavery has existed from the
earliest times, and it may be admitted that it was perhaps a
step taken in the direction of humanity, when it came to be
thought that a better use might be made of a 'captive taken in
war than to burn him at the stake — as these apostles of the new
humanity are said to deal sometimes with their own negroes.
However originating, our Fathers found it here, when they were
laying the foundations of our Government. When they refer
to it, however, it is only as the creature of the local law. The
provision in the Constitution, which is supposed to recognize
its present claims, while it shrinks from the utterance of the
odious word, describes the slaves as "persons held to service or
labor in one State" — not by the general law, but "by the laws
thereof." And this, too, was in precise accordance with the
common law, as settled in England, and always recognized here,
until the decision of the Dred Scott case. To insist, however,
that what is property by the law of a State, becomes so by the
law of the Union, and is entitled to protection every where, is
to say in effect, that the laws of every State may be transported
into the territories, and engrafted on the general law. Thus,
because dogs are property here, as they are now by statute, they
are property every where, and by the same logic, slavery may
be imported into Pennsylvania, and exist here in spite of us.
Our ancestors, or rather the Southern States themselves,
thought that it required a constitutional provision to secure the

4l8 THOMAS WILLIAMS
right of recaption, even in the case of an escape — a thing which
was not dreamed of in regard to any other chattel — and they
inserted it in this form.
Taking their own language, therefore, and the fact of its
supposed necessity, as the guide, it is by the law of the State
only that this relation can exist. While there is nothing in
that instrument to make it the law of the nation, the implication
is precisely in the opposite direction. If it is not made so, how
ever, by the Constitution, it is clear that it cannot be made so
by the authority of Congress. Assuming it to be true, as
announced in the first article of the Democratic platform, that
the construction of this instrument is to be a strict one, and
that no doubtful power is ever to be exercised, or — as General
Foster has just asserted in his Philadelphia speech — that where
there is no express grant of power, there is no right to legis
late at all, it would be curious to know where the authority is to
be found on the part of that body to alter the common law,
and to depart from the declared purpose of the instrument —
which is "to secure the blessings of liberty" — ^by nationalizing
slavery. If the Congress of the United States can do this, it
can do any thing. Those who • insist that it may, and yet pro
fess to adhere on all occasions to the letter, are but cheats and
impostors, unless they choose to take refuge in the idea, that they
are "to be pardoned their bad hearts for their worse brains."
The argument admits, however, in effect, that it cannot be
legislated in.
The idea of. one branch of the Democracy, however, is that
the Constitution itself has done this work — that it has adopted
human slavery as the general law of this confederacy, with
freedom only as the exception — and that it carries it propria
vigore, by its own inherent force, to the very limits of our
dominions, and wherever our flag is found to wave. This is the
view of a Democratic President, as embodied in the declara
tion that Kansas was already, as much a slave territory as Geor
gia, and this is the new doctrine propounded for the occasion
by a slaveholding judiciary. If there is any difference in the
opinion of the arch agitator, Douglas, and his retainers, I am
at a loss to discover what it is. I do not think, at all events,
that there is enough to quarrel about. I confess that I am
bewildered and befogged in the labyrinthine contradictions of
his political metaphysics. He reminds me, as he pilgrimizes
on his pious errand throughout the country, discoursing on this
theme, of the fallen, spirits of Milton, who sat upon a hill
apart, and

A NOTABLE ADDRESS IN THE LINCOLN CAMP.\IGN 4I9
"reasoned high
Of Providence, foreknowledge, will and fate —
Fixed fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute.
And found no end in wandering mazes lost."
I do not profess to be very sharp, but if there is any thing
left of his doctrine of popular sovereignty, it has faded out, in
my view, to the tenuity of one of Ossian's ghosts, looming up
in the midst, with the stars twinkling through its sides. It has
tapered down, I believe, into non-intervention by Congress, a
doctrine expressly repudiated by the Baltimore Convention of
1848, by a vote of 246 to 36, when it was proposed by the vol
canic Yancey, who is now belching smoke and flame, and
threatened to smash up the national machine, "and break things
generally." That is now the unvarying refrain — the everlasting
burden of his song. It seems to me, however, that the whole
logic of the case is with his antagonist. When he admits that
the question is a judicial one, and declares his acquiescence in
the doctrines of the court — as he does in that delicate piece of
joinery, which was dove-tailed into his platform, or perhaps
rather superadded, like the tail to a boy's kite, to steady its
motion and' help it in its ascent — by the cunning hand of
Wickliffe — not him, by any means, who first tried his hand on
the Saxon Bible — he surrenders the whole question, and goes
over to Breckinridge, and they both go down together. The
court has already decided that the Constitution of the United
States carries slavery into the territories ; that Congress
cannot exclude it; that it cannot confer on the territorial
government a power which it cannot exercise itself; and that
the territorial governments cannot, of course, meddle with it
themselves. If all this be true, the obligation to intervene, if
necessary, for its protection, follows ^ as irresistibly from the
premises, as the re-opening of the slave-trade is sure to tread
upon the heels of the doctrine that slavery is national, and
liberal and just. If it be true, however, that he has kicked down
the Wickliffe plank, in his late speech at Clifton Springs, he is
now, as the lawyers say, in nubibus — suspended in mid-air, like
many an unfortunate wight before him, without any platform at
all, upon the doctrine that the territories are without a master,
and are law unto themselves, whether the Supreme Court decide
one way or the other. And this is squatter sovereignty, in
excelsis, although he has come to dislike the word.
The doctrine of squatter sovereignty, a recent invention,
attributed to the genius of Cass, and first ventilated, I believe,
in the famous Nicholson letter — equally unpalatable to the
Southern Democrats as to ourselves — so far as it conveys the

420 THOMAS WILLIAMS
idea of the right of a people to regulate their own institutions,
domestic or otherwise, is not to be questioned by any body,
The fact, however, that the territories are the property of the
Union, and that the question is, whether they are to come into
the general partnership as States, presents a very different issue.
Admitting the right to acquire them by either cession or con
quest, the Government stands, of course, in the relation of a
proprietor, with all the usual incidents of ownership, and sub
ject even to the right of re-sale as one of those incidents. If
the Democratic party is right, however, in its principle of strict
construction, we have no valid title at all, because there is
nothing whatever in the Constitution to authorize the acquisition,
as was admitted in the cases of Louisiana and Florida. In that
case, there is an end, of course, of the whole question; the
domain and empire become alike derelict, and squatter sover
eignty must reign supreme. If, on- the other hand, they are
wrong — and the assertion of title admits it — then the power to
make all needful rules and regulations in respect to it, is denied
to the lawful proprietor, in the face of a clear constitutional pro
vision, and the well-settled law in regard to ceded or conquered
territory ; and the settler, either with or without title, may estab
lish just such form of government as he thinks proper. The
answer to this is, that the rights of the proprietor, though gener
ally absolute, must be exercised in this case within the limits of
the Constitution. That instrument, however, is assumed to be
entirely silent in regard to it, and to contain nothing to authorize
any legislation on the subject at all, while it is not questioned
that Congress may and does exercise the law-making power,
and authorize the appointment of executive and judicial officers,
without reference to the supposed rights, or wishes, or opinions,
of any or all of the sovereigns, who may have emigrated from
other States into the common territory. It is not intended, how
ever, by this argument, that the settler shall do just as he pleases,
even in regard to what are called pre-eminently the domes
tic relations. The practical notion is, that he is a sovereign
- only for the purpose of legalizing slavery. When the people of
Kansas decided in favor of a free constitution, it was found that
they could not be admitted, even though they counted nearly a
hundred thousand souls. With slavery, they might have come
in at any time, and pocketed a bonus for doing so. When Brig-
ham Young and his followers, however, by a logic that was
unanswerable, undertook to carry out this doctrine, and to pro
vide help-mates for the saints, by the adoption of the fairer of
the "twin relics of barbarism," it did not seem quite so clear,
and the saints of the Douglas congregation allowed their piety

A NOTABLE ADDRESS IN THE LINCOLN CAMPAIGN 42I
for once to overrule their politics, and voted in favor of inter
vention to destroy.
But this question has another aspect, which seems to have
been overlooked in all the discussions upon it. It seems to
be agreed on all hands, that there is nothing in the Constitu
tion to authorise directly the acquisition of new territory, and
that, of course, the provision in regard to public lands, as well
as that which relates to the admission of new States, has ref
erence exclusively to the then existing territories, and not to
any others which might be subsequently acquired. The Demo
cratic rule of strict construction, applied to this case, involves,
of necessity, an entire denial of all these rights. It follows,
therefore, that there is no right on the part of the people of
these territories to come in at all as States, and certainly none to
come in on any other terms than such as the Government in
its discretion may think proper to impose. In any view, more
over, the power to acquire is merely an implied and incidental
one. When, we come, however,^ to the question of admission,
there are other considerations which enter into it. Shall they be
permitted to come in as Slave States? If they do, they bring
with them a representation on the basis of property. That is an
anomalous feature, involving in the preference which it gives to
a peculiar species of property, which the common law does not
recognize at all, over that which is property by the universal law,
a gross inequality of privileges between the States. So far as it
regards the old States, or, if you choose, the old territories, it is
our bargain, and although a hard one, looking to the circum
stances under which it was made, and the advantages which we
have realized from it, we are willing to stand up to it, and to
shame the violators of the Missouri Compromise, by a faith that
has not been observed in regard to ourselves. W^hen we are
asked, however, to go not merely beyond the letter, but beyond
the very spirit of the contract, by extending, in favor of after
acquired property, a privilege which is against common right,
because it is in derogation of the great fundamental Republican
rule of equality, we may well answer — "non in hcBc fcedera
venimus" — we made no such bargain. While we do not, like our
Democratic friends, insist upon the letter, in the construction of
the fundamental law of a State, as we would in that of a penal
statute, because we know that "the letter kills," we do insist
that the instrument is to be construed with reference to the terri
tories then owned, and that it is a rule of common sense, as well
as of the common law, that no provision in a contract, which
derogates from natural right — and equality in such right — is ever
to be extended by construction. Because we chose to accord

422 THOMAS WILLIAMS
the right of representation to an old partner, upon a considera
tion which has never been exacted by us in the imposition of
direct taxes, and has, of course, thus far practically failed, it
does not follow that we are to admit all creation to the same
privileges, and that, too, upon the vote of a bare majority of
States. Strictly speaking, the admission of a new State outside
of the Constitution, if consistent at all with the idea of a Gov
ernment limited like ours, is an act of sovereignty, which ought
to have the consent of all, precisely as the admission of a new
partner into a mercantile firm. The practice has settled it other
wise, in analogy to the constitutional provision, but no practice
can incorporate a principle which interferes with our rights, or'
our equality as a State. And these are doctrines that no man who
stands upon either of the Democratic platforms, can with any
show of consistency controvert. If their notions are sound, there
is nothing clearer than the postulate, that there is no other condi
tion on the part of the territories in their provincial state than
that of entire dependence upon the will of their proprietor, and
the right to govern them by the law-making power of the parent
State is as unquestionable as the right to dispose of the land
itself. If the condition of wardship and tutelage should happen
in any case to be perpetuated by the persistent refusal of the
people to take the oath of allegiance or to come into the Union
at all, it would make a curious problem for the Supreme Court
and the political philosophers of the Democratic school.
Nor is it any answer to say, that we are free to exercise the
same privileges by the re-establishment of slavery amongst us,
or that the black man is reckoned as a unit in the apportionment
of the representation, while he is counted only as a fraction in
the Slave States. The necessities of our social condition, a
proper respect for the right of others, and an intelligent sense of
our own interest, absolutely forbid the return to a system which
degrades the white man, and impoverishes and weakens the
State. If we do count the negro as a unit, when he is free, we
enjoy no advantage in that particular over our brethren of the
South. It is a representation on both sides on the basis of men.
When it comes to the slav0, it is a representation of property
only. Though nominally persons, with a representation as such,
they are substantially things, because they have no will of their
own. If their emancipation should raise them to the political
value of an integer, it would be accomplished by reconverting
them into men, with a will of their own, and a disposition per
haps to travel northward, and add still more to the ever increas
ing preponderance of our federal numbers. It is not admitted by
the South, and is denied by the Supreme Court, that they are

A NOTABLE ADDRESS IN THE LINCOLN CAMPAIGN 423
citizens, whether bond or free, although it has been generally
supposed that the right of representation enjoyed by both of
them implies it, and it seems difficult to understand how a man
is to be represented without being a citizen, or how it is that
those who have no less than twenty-one representatives in Con
gress, should have no standing in the Federal courts as citizens.
If there be any conclusive test, it would seem to be this, and yet
they deny the title with their usual logic, even to the freeman,
who is treated as a whole man in adjusting the representation on
the basis of numbers.
And this leads me to speak of the decision of the Supreme
Court upon this question, which, as Mr. Douglas thinks — or did
at least before his speech at Clifton Springs — no honest man
can dispute. I am free to say, I am not one of those who carry
their respect for the judiciary so far as to hold myself concluded
by any opinion of theirs upon a question of state, or one which
involves the liberties of a people. There is nothing in the Con
stitution itself to invest them with any such power. It has never
been the usage even in England, where the rights of the people
are dependent on ancient charters, and acts of Parliament, and the
unwritten customs of the realm, to acquiesce in any decision that
was felt to traverse the popular instincts, or to disturb any of the
old maxims or landmarks of liberty. If they had yielded on such
occasions, they would have been slaves now, and so would we.
The experience of that people had demonstrated that judges
were no further to be trusted than other men, and that in all the
struggles between prerogative and privilege, they had been inva
riably the supplest and most tractable of all the instruments of
tyranny. The lesson was not lost upon the statesmen of the
Revolutionary era. The danger of intrusting the public liberties
to a guardianship so practically irresponsible, was felt and
pointed out by the sagacious Jefferson in the Declaration, that to
commit a power so great to any seven or nine men, perhaps no
wiser and no better than ourselves, would be to make them the
absolute masters of the State, and to erect the Government into
a judicial oligarchy. The same doctrine, overlaid by the rever
ence inspired by the high character, the eminent patriotism, and
the distinguished learning of such men as John Marshall and his
associates — was reiterated by Jackson in a case involving an
economical question only, was indorsed by Buchanan as a Sena
tor in the same case, and is now canonized as an article of Demo
cratic faith in the Cincinnati platform. The decision in the
Dred Scott case, with others which have touched not only the
anomalous property in slaves, but all property whatever, has
made it the sentiment of all parties in the nation. There was

424 THOMAS WILLIAMS
something providential, as it seems to me, in the time and manner
of its occurrence. It was a decision volunteered by slaveholding
judges, and foreshadowed by the President in the very crisis of
the Kansas struggle, with the obvious purpose of casting the
balance against the Free States. It was judicial intervention,
following upon the heels of executive intervention, to secure
legislative intervention, and approved even by those who profess
to be opposed to any intervention at all. It has awakened the
nation to a full sense of the wisdom of Jefferson, and the reason
ableness of that jealousy which was once condemned as inordi
nate. I should be glad to examine it, if the time would allow
me. I dismiss it, however, to the owls and the bats, to that
oblivion which is sure to overtake it. It has failed to do the
work for which it was intended, and will soon die out, leaving
behind it only the valuable lesson which it has taught us.
And yet humbly as the negro is rated in this Government,
we are told that although we meet him at every corner, we
must not agitate, if he insists on taking the wall, but must lift
our hats respectfully, and pass by quietly on the other side. On
terms of unconditional submission, we can have peace — so can
anybody in the worst of governments — ^but not otherwise. If
we petition, we are insulted; if we remonstrate, we are taxed
with insubordination; if we assert the right to rule, because we
are the majority, we are threatened with a secession.
Well, we have endeavored to be quiet, and for the sake of
peace, have borne and forborne for a very long time, but we
cannot exorcise this juggling fiend, or bid this imquiet spirit
down, by putting a padlock upon our lips. Turn your eyes to
the last session of Congress. The Republican members adopted,
as you know, the policy of almost unbroken silence, but what
a storm of vituperation was poured upon their heads ! For six
long weeks the thunder bellowed, and the lightning flashed
around that hall, but there they sat like "Patience on a monu
ment," without reply, until the tempest had spent its fury and
growled itself to rest. Nor did the Democrats or the Union
savers of the North themselves escape the dire anathema. The
former, or perhaps more properly the anti-Lecompton portion of
them, were but a shade paler than the Black Republicans them
selves. The latter — there was no quarter for them — were but
the veriest Swiss, who wanted to secure the custom of the
South, and were willing to pawn their principles and dishonor
their fathers, if necessary, for the merest dross. And the same
spirit transmigrated into the Charleston Convention, and blew
the whole concern to atoms.

A NOTABLE ADDRESS IN THE LINCOLN CAMPAIGN 425
And now as to the risks of a secession. This has been often
talked about of late, and has, on earlier occasions, been treated
by such men as Clay and Webster as something serious. If
it be so, the sooner we know it the better. With all proper
respect, however, for the sagacity of those distinguished patriots,
I am constrained to say, that I have never been able to listen,
with any measure of patience, to threats of this sort. I have
never entertained a fear in regard to the Union of these States,
and would treat the very imagination of a dissolution as the
highest of treasons, if I did not regard it is the wildest of
chimeras. The man who thinks that these States, which have
been joined in holy matrimony by a bond of liberty, are to be
ruptured and divorced upon a question like this, is, I think,
no statesman, and has a very imperfect understanding of the ties
which hold us together. If he supposes that it is only a paper
Constitution, which may be one thing to-day and another to-mor
row, according to the mere shifting will of a bench of nine
Federal judges — he is greatly mistaken. That would be but a
rope of sand. No. It is the community of interest and of origin
— the means of intercommunication — the family tie — a common
history — the sense of a common struggle — and above all, the
intense, overpowering sentiment of nationality which follows
our flag every where, which travels as we travel, and away
beyond the seas, amid the tumbling icebergs of the Arctic
ocean, and down under the burning line, is ever present in the
American heart, flinging off in the dim distance all recollec
tion of State lines, and comprehending in one affectionate
embrace the whole vast circle, the almost limitless expanse,
that proclaims the present and prospective power of the great
American Republic, the queen among the nations, "our own,
our native land" — these, these are the threads, light and delicate
as the gossamer, but strong as cables of adamant, that anchor
us by the rock where our Fathers left us, and guarantee our
lasting unity as a people. Why, the rustle of the star-spangled
banner, or a quaver of Yankee Doodle, would disperse a whole
legion of secessionists.
But if the exercise of a constitutional power in the resump
tion of the long abdicated rule of the majority, and the election
of a candidate who is not agreeable to the slave owner, are to
result in a convulsion of this sort, it is high time that the
experiment were made, and the conservative powers of this
Government put to the proof. If it cannot survive the shock of
a change of dynasty like this, it is hardly worth saving. The
idea that it can be overthrown in this way, is one which will
be only strengthened and confirmed by the maintenance of the

426 THOMAS WILLIAMS
present order of things. The time to settle that question, if it
is to be settled at all, is now. The insolent menaces of the
Southern leaders amount to a challenge, which we cannot
decline, without a confession of our weakness or our fear, which
will only aggravate the evil hereafter. It is our duty to defeat
them now, if it were for no other purpose than to teach them
modesty, and to show the world how utterly hollow and ridicu
lous is all this clamor, which has shaken the nerves of the
weak and impaired the confidence of the ignorant, in the stability
of this Government. It is the sovereign remedy, and the only
one, for all this agitation, which it is thought so desirable to
repress. To suppose that it will go down by a new submission,
or upon a new covenant of peace, in view of our past experience
of the exactions and the perfidy of the slave power, is about as
reasonable as to expect that the strong man shall not struggle
while the night-mare sits upon his chest, smothering his respira
tion, and damming up the very curren+s of his life.
All these threats, however, are but an insidious appeal to
our affections or our interests. They involve one argument
for the generous and the patriotic, and another for the mean
and the sordid. They suppose among us either a love for the
Union of these States as strong as the affection of the mother,
and with a little of her weakness, too, or a base and ignoble
spirit, which would sacrifice every thing, even to self-respect
itself, upon the altar of Mammon — "the least erect spirit that
fell." They find both classes, unfortunately, amongst us. For
the first, we can respect the motive, while we deplore the weak
ness. For the second, there can be no feeling but the deepest
scorn and the most unmitigated contempt. The man who has
no sense but of his pecuniary interests — who is ready to make
merchandise of his principles and independence, and is silly
enough to be alarmed. At the threats of non-intercourse and loss
of trade — it would be base flattery to call such a creature a man.
Does any one suppose that the cotton planter comes here, and
deals with us upon the principle of personal affection, and from a
disinterested desire to favor us? He forgets that trade has its
laws, which are as regular in their operation as those of physics.
The slaveholder will go precisely wherever his interests or neces
sities lead him. He is as dependent as any body. He must buy
his bread, his horses and mules, and his implements of husbandry,
from the North. He must come to the Northern cities, to realize
the product of his crops, and to find carriers for them. He
wants advances, or in other words credit, and he can only find it
there. He must go there to purchase the silks, the jewelry, the
pianos, the fine carriages, the expensive furniture, all the luxuries

A NOTABLE ADDRESS IN THE LINCOLN CAMPAIGN 427
— nay even the necessities of civilized life, which surround and
embellish his home. He must go there, too, to parade the beauty
of his daughters, and the magnificence of their attire, as well as
to recruit his own shattered frame, at some fashionable watering
place, where he can purge off the miasma of the rice field, by
inhaling the pure and health-giving breezes of our more favored
clime. He cannot make any of these articles at home. There is
no skill, no machinery, no commercial activity, no marts of trade,
no great cities, where slavery flaps its heavy wing over the soil.
The very genius of that institution forbids it. He cannot even
educate his sons to manhood, without sending them to a Northern
university. To refuse all connection with us, and to decline the
indulgences which it supplies, would be to take a long stride
backward in the direction of barbarism. If the Union were
divided to-morrow, and peace could be maintained between us,
there would be precisely the same relations of connection and
dependence as now. The North would carry and sell their cot
ton, purchase their bills, provide them with their bread, and
educate their children. There can be no commerce where trade
is made a question of color, where its free wings are clipped by
police regulations, and where sailors have to be thrown into jail,
because their skins happen to be a little darker than ours. There
can be no universities where there is an embargo on speech and
even thought — no education where books are burned in the
market places by the common , hangman, and professors are
exiled for daring to be men. The merchants of the North, who
advertise opinions for the Southern market, and cringe, with the
suppleness of the Asiatic eunuch, to these cotton lords, are not
only derided for their folly, but despised for their servility.
There is not a high-spirited Southern maiden, fitted to be the
mother of a race of freemen — and there are many such — who
would not scorn to mate herself with a creature so abject as the
man who would endeavor to recommend himself by artifices such
as these. It is the North that produces the vigorous progeny
that takes the lead in every department of industry, even in the
Southern States. I have heard Mr. Douglas himself remark,
that in every leading city of the country, its supplies of intellect
and enterprise were drawn from the regions North of it. It is
not, however, from such a degenerate stock as this that any
thing manly is to be propagated. It is only the man who will
respect himself that will be respected by others, and it is only
with such a man that a truly elevated Southern gentleman would
choose to deal. He sees slaves enough at home. His confidence
is only for freemen.

428 THOMAS WILLIAMS
But what is to be gained by secession ? Secession is revolu
tion. There is no such thing as a quiet separation. The Union
is something more than a confederacy, which will divide by its
line of cleavage, like a stratified rock or a lump of stone coal.
If it be rent asunder, it will be by a blow like that which shat
ters the granite rock. Is it to advance the interests of the slave
owner that this thing is to be done ? Why, Wendell Phillips and
his party are better logicians than this. They look upon secession
as the direct highway which leads to the utter extinction of
slavery. And they are unquestionably right. The lapse of two
years would not see a Slave State upon our Southern border. As
the chasm widened and deepened, the black cloud, whose edges
are now fringed with flame, would roll back upon the Gulf, to
accumulate its horrors, and concentrate and intensify its aggra
vated thunders there. And the process would go on, until the
Border States, unwilling as they would be to bear the burthens,
and encounter the dangers of that institution, would wheel round
into line with us again, section by section, and tier after tier, as
they respectively became free. The ingenious expedient of the
western farmer, who proposed to save his corn from the depre
dations of the vermin, by planting no border row at all, would be
about the only feasible provision against a general stampede.
All this, however, supposes that the separation is a peaceful
one — as it cannot be. It would be more or less violent ; and
what are their means of defense, with an army of freemen in
front, and a savage, relentless, unpitying foe, stung to madness
by oppression — with a long arrear of injuries to wipe out, and
freedom, God's best gift, before him — in their dwellings, at their
firesides, and hanging menacingly upon their rear? The thing
is not to be talked of by sane men. They would prove inade
quate to defend themselves from the knife, and the torch, and
the poison in the hands of their own slaves, and would come
back, like the prodigal son, to beg re-admission under the
paternal roof. And yet, with all these elements of weakness in
their midst, and a white population impoverished and degraded
by the contact, they presume to threaten ns, with all our
material and moral power — our great resources in men and
money— our universal freedom — and our unrivaled means of
concentration! Do they hope to enlist others in this struggle?
They have more than once insinuated as much. If they could
succeed, however, in securing the support or sympathy of any
portion of the civilized world, in such a cause, and upon such
an issue as this, what is to be the return which they are to make
for it? Are they to sink again into a condition of worse than
colonial dependence upon the monarchical governments of the

A NOTABLE ADDRESS IN THE LINCOLN CAMPAIGN 429
Old World? Do they prefer the condition of subject provinces
to that of independent States? If they do, it is more, however,
than we can suffer. We cannot permit any European power
to hold colonies here, located as they are. We shall be con
strained to borrow for the occasion the Monroe doctrine of
"no foreign intervention here," from the Democratic platform
itself. If our Southern brethren are not content to live in peace
and harmony, under the broad shadow of our national flag, they
must go somewhere else. The land is ours. We cannot afford
to part with an acre of it. We have an interest in its battle
fields. Eutaw, and Camden, and Guilford Court House, are his
toric names. The blood of our ancestors has mingled with theic
soil. It was at Yorktown that the curtain fell upon the drama
which opened at Lexington, and Concord, and Bunker Hill. The
bones of the mighty dead of our heroic age are still resting in
their midst. Mount Vernon is still there. So, too, is Monticello.
^^'e cannot consent, however, that, after the custom of the
aboriginal tribes, they shall disinter these precious relics and
carry them away in their Hegira. We will gather them up with
pious hands, and build a mausoleum over them, which shall be a
shrine for the patriotic pilgrims of future times, and a standing
reproach to the degeneracy of their sons.
The Democratic party has not deemed it worth while to
give a thought in its platform to the question of the preservation
of the Union. Its leaders have again and again threatened it
with destruction. The Republican party stands pledged to main
tain its integrity under all circumstances. It was in the very
midst of the tempest and fury of denunciation on the floor of
Congress, and while the Council Chamber of the Nation was
ringing with the treason, which the galleries were applauding to
the echo, that the invocation to the friends of the Union, which
is to be found in the call that gathered the people together at
Chicago, was penned by my own hand. It was the dominating
thought with me, as it was, I believe, with every member of the
committee. It re-appears in the sublime declaration of the
Convention, that "the Union of these States must and shall be
preserved." It is a vow registered in heaven — an oath sworn
upon the altar of our common country, to which every good
patriot in the nation will respond with a thundering amen! The
idea of a dissolution of this great confederacy — the last hope of
liberty to man — set as it were upon a hill, to flood this continent
with light and to send its rays over the uttermost isles — and that,
too, upon a question of property in man — is one which must find
no utterance here to make it familiar to our ears, and is not even
to be whispered to the winds that waft our commerce beyond the

430 THOMAS WILLIAMS
seas. What ! the youngest-born of liberty, with its red baptism
of steel and fire— the Union, consecrated by so many glorious
memories and cemented by so many rivers of blood — to die of
Slavery and for Slavery ! The thought is treason, and we but
misbegotten slips of a once noble stock, if we do not rebuke it
wherever uttered — if we do not on all occasions rally around that
Union as the ark of our salvation, and smite down the sacri
legious hand that is laid irreverently upon it. If that Union
itself could speak to the dark spirit which menaces its existence,
its answer would be, as it pointed up the ascent which we have
been climbing for more than eighty years :
"Whence and what art thou, execrable shape!
That dares, though grim and terrible, advance
Thy miscreated , front athwart my way
To yonder gates? Through them I mean to pass.
That be assured, without leave asked of thee:
Retire, or taste thy folly, and learn by proof.
Hell-born! not to contend with spirits of Heaven!"
No: the great American Republic, the Queen of the New
World, the asylum of the oppressed of all nations — ^whose canvas
now whitens every sea, and whose flag is known and respected
on every shore — is not thus to perish by an unfilial hand. It
has a destiny to work out in the ages that are to come. What
glimpses of glory flash out upon our dazzled vision, as we roll
up the curtain of the future, and look down through the long
vista which is before us ! There is nothing there to blast the
vision of the seer, or to cast a shadow over the wide field of
view, except the one dark stain, the one "damned spot," which
blots our escutcheon and even now threatens our existence as a
nation. It will fade out, however, by degrees, under the glorious
sunlight of an advancing civilization. Yes, fellow-citizens ! it
is written on earth and registered in heaven, that "the Union
of these States must and shall be preserved" in its totalitv. with
out loss and without diminution ! There is no star in that glorious
galaxy that shall perish, but planet after planet, won from chaos
by the indomitable energies of free labor, shall wheel into. our
system, until our shield is powdered with stars, and the loftiest
of the Cordilleras, seated on his throne of rocks, and soaring,
with his snow-crowned diadem, away into the summer heavens,
shall, in the language of the poet,
" — o'er earth, ocean, wave.
Glare, with his Titan eye, and see no slave!"
And now, fellow-citizens, but one word more and I have
done. In regard to the personal merits of the several candidates

-:!?*«^^-i ^0'f

wj: ".

THE SECOND PITTSBURGH COURT HOUSE
Halftone of a cut in "Pittsburgh and Allegheny in the Centennial Year," by George H. Thurston

A NOTABLE ADDRESS IN THE LINCOLN CAMPAIGN 43I
who are before you, I have nothing to say. I agree that they
are all respectable. I take them all, as selected and accredited
by their respective parties, to be representative men, and pledged
to administer the Government, if elected, in accordance with the
spirit of their respective platforms. If you are of the opinion
that slavery is the law of this nation, and the Union itself of no
value, when weighed in the balance against it, you will vote
of course for Breckinridge and Lane. If you think it makes no
difference whether slavery is voted up or voted down, and that
the service of enlarging its dominion over a territory five times
as large as the State of New York, is a recommendation to a can
didate here, you will vote for Douglas and his associate, who
think that capital ought to own those of you who are con
demned to labor. If you think it is wise to ignore the negro,
and to leave the Government to be administered on the principle,
that everything is to be sacrificed, as heretofore, for the sake of
quiet and repose, you will support the ticket of the very respect
able, but nervous old gentlemen, who have such a salutary horror
of everything like agitation. If you think with me, on the other
hand, that we want free thought and free speech — protection for
free labor, and homes for free men — and a system of internal
improvements which shall clear out our harbors and our rivers,
and build a rail road to the Pacific, you will vote with me for Lin
coln and Hamlin — and for Andrew G. Curtin in the first place, in
order to secure them both. As you shall vote on the second
Tuesday in October, so will be almost assuredly the result in
the following month. Pennsylvania is admitted to be the battle
ground. Your defeat on that day will put everything to hazard.
Your success will make everything sure. The Presidential
question is staked on that day's struggle. If you are beaten
then, and beaten in November, the case will pass over to a
tribunal where the smallest of the Slave States will be your peer.
That is all that is now aimed at by the combinations which are
arrayed against you. See that you disconcert their arrange
ments, by asserting your own power, and disposing of this
question for yourselves.
And Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania responded to these
eloquent appeals! A few days later and Allegheny
County had announced the splendid majority of 6,689!
A week or so later (October 20th), Governor Gideon
Welles of Hartford, who had just read this Lafayette
Hall speech, wrote Mr. Williams :

432 THOMAS WILLIAMS
"I have just finished the perusal of your very excellent
speech, delivered on the 29th ulto— in Lafayette Hall, and
thank you most sincerely for the interest and instruction I have
derived from it. The issues in controversy are _ clearly and
forcibly presented and the convictions and conclusions inevita
ble. I am not surprised that, under such opinions and such
teachings, your county rolled up that magnificent majority in
the late election, which cheered and gladdened every Repub
lican heart. I was with the National Executive Committee at the
Astor House in New York when that intelligence reached us by
Telegraph at nearly 11 P. M. Our room was full of earnest,
gallant, generous Republicans when the Dispatch was brought
in, and it would have done your heart good to have heard the
thundering cheers that went up for glorious old Allegheny, and
which were caught up and echoed in Broadway.
"I congratulate you, my friend, most cordially on the
triumph you have achieved in Pennsylvania. It has settled the
Presidential election, I think, for in all human probability
Lincoln will be our next President, and I have confidence that
his administration will prove a great success.
"The overthrow of the existing dynasty had become a
necessity for our well-being as a people. It has become chronic
with many, that the so-called Democratic party is the country,
and that they alone can administer the Government. Under this
delusion, the slavery propaganda have considered themselves as
holding us in subjection, as well as their bond-men, and — their
threats of secession and disunion if the Republicans obtain the
ascendency. It is almost as if their slaves rose to govern them.
Republican success, and that alone can dissipate the errors into
which many of our opponents have fallen. They will, in a
year from this time be wiser, and I hope better men from lessons
learned in the school of experience.
"There never has been a more favorable opportunity for an
administration to acquire name and fame than that which shall
succeed the one now in power. To those of us who through
many trials and tribulations, and long periods of darkness and
gloom have fought on, faithful and hopeful, the present pros
pect is most cheering, and we may well interchange sympathy
and congratulation. * * *.
"Very respectfully, "Gideon Welles."
The Governor's predictions were, as is well known,
verified in November. Pennsylvania went nearly a
hundred thousand strong for "Father Abraham" — 268,030

vote:
lincoln, z70.i70.
(fusion) BRECKINRIDGE). 176.435.
MAJORITY ON ALL. 63.735.

THE
PRESIDENTI^AL VOTE
PENNSYLVANIA I860

Prepared by the author from official returns

A NOTABLE ADDRESS IN THE LINCOLN CAMPAIGN 433
to 178,871 for Breckinridge. Mr. Williams was, of course,
sent to the Legislature — there to stand for two great
questions — one local and one national, and the way the
national one sprang into vivid reality in Pittsburgh at
this time is well illustrated by an incident noted a few
years ago in an address by the well-known orator, Con
gressman John Dalzell. "In years gone by," said he,
"I have many times wandered in the Arsenal grounds,
but it will always be associated with a boyish recollec
tion. The year was i860. James Buchanan was Presi
dent of the United States. John B. Floyd was his Secre
tary of War. The Secretary sent an order that would
have stripped the Arsenal of its guns and sent them
South. Secession was in the air. The order created the
most intense indignation amongst the citizens of Pitts
burgh. While the guns were on their way down Wood
street to the Monongahela wharf to be shipped on boats
there awaiting them, the citizens rose in arms. They
sent a protest to Washington. They held an indignation
meeting and on the steps of the old Court House I
listened to the impassioned eloquence of Thomas
Williams, then or afterwards a member of Congress from
this district, arguing against violence and appealing to
a reverence for law. The Secretary's order was with
drawn, and the guns remained where they belonged, with
us. Grand old Thomas Williams !"^
^ Copy among the Williams papers. Address at Carnegie Music Hall, on
May 23, 1902. The event itself occurred on December 30, i860. Mr. Williams
was chairman of the committee on resolutions. See the Gazette of December
25th to 31st.

CHAPTER XV
At Harrisburg
His Notable Speech on the Maintenance of the
Constitution and the Union and the Climax
in His Fight Against the Pennsyl
vania Railroad
He is One of the Escorts of Lincoln's Family
TO Washington and Attends the Inauguration
1861
When the Legislature convened at Harrisburg on
New Year's Day, 1861, Mr. Williams, who had been in
the Senate a score of years before, now appeared in the
Lower House as one of five members from Allegheny
County. This body, while it was elected, like Lincoln,
to insure that "the Union must and shall be preserved,"
by a careful conciliation of all parties, and a judicious
selection of War Democrats by State Chairman A. K.
McClure, of the Republican committee, was with equal
care managed to carry out two financial measures, in
behalf of the interests of the dominant element in the
political oval of the State, represented by President
Thomas A. Scott of the Pennsylvania Railroad and the
Philadelphia interests in the old Sunbury and Erie Rail
road.^ Or, to state this latter fact in another way, the
Bismarckian unifiers of industrial Pennsylvania, the chief
feature of whose creed was the absolute necessity of a
transportation system binding the State together and to
Philadelphia, now required these two financial measures
^ Colonel A. K. McClure has most interestingly told the writer the inside
history of this campaign, as well as that in the Legislature after it was organ
ized, and granted the privilege of using any of it that may contribute to the
aims of this narrative.
434

THE CAPITOI. AT HARRISBURG IN 1861
Halftone of a photograph by I.emer, in 1861, the first made, now in possession of the author

harrisburg and WASHINGTON

435

in support of these two parts in that prospective system
— and they took the necessary steps to get them. There
was no civil war yet, and few believed there would be,
even amongst the leaders ; so that these measures occu
pied the public consciousness to a degree that can hardly
be understood now. "To the leaders even," said Colonel
McClure in a recent conversation with the author, "the
possibility of civil war, when it did come later, was
appalling— almost paralyzing." So that at the organiza
tion of the Legislature both elements were alert for
advantage on these financial measures. Governor Pack
er's message on the 2d drew attention to the fact that the
State debt was over $38,500,000; that the State held
mortgage bonds of the Pennsylvania Railroad, the Sun-
bury and Erie and the Wyoming Canal Company to the
amount of $10,981,000 ;i that since July, 1858, the Penn
sylvania road had refused to pay its tonnage tax, claim
ing it unconstitutional, and that the debt amounted then
to about $700,000; and that although the Sunbury and
Erie road had 148 of its 288 miles finished and 115 miles
graded they were unable to negotiate their mortgage
bonds in the present condition of the bonds, and he rec
ommended these questions to careful consideration. He
also drew attention at length to the critical action of the
South Carolina convention, which assembled on Decem
ber 20th and was still in session.^ On the 3d nomina
tions for the vacancy in the United States Senate were
made and among the names presented were Edgar
Cowan, an old neighbor of Mr. Williams' at Greens-
burgh; Henry D.Foster, Mr. Williams himself, Thaddeus
Stevens, Daniel Agnew, David Wilmot and others, and
Cowan was the final choice. On the same day, Mr.
Williams offered resolutions on the secession question in
the highest statesmanlike tone and temper, the final par
agraph of which was : "Resolved, That secession is revo
lution, and its inevitable consequence, war; that the
integrity of the Union must be maintained and defended
at all hazards and under all circumstances; and that
^$7,200,000 of the first corporation; $3,500,000 of the second, and $281,000 of
the third. Legislative Record of 1861, p. 5.
2 He gives a very interesting outline of the Commonwealth's relation to
slaves from 1705 down.

436 THOMAS WILLIAMS
upon this question the people of Pennsylvania will be,
as they have ever been, a united people."^ When an
effort was made to lay it on the table, Mr. Williams asked
for information as to the course that would follow, saying :
"I am not very familiar with parliamentary law, not hav
ing had a very enlarged experience." It was laid over, as
a joint resolution. This point is significant as showing
his weak point in the fight that was to follow— at least in
part. On the 7th he was placed on the general judiciary
committee. Both Houses found themselves compelled to
discuss the South Carolina question, all the more so be
cause of the Governor's manner of presenting it, namely,
that there was a possibility that the State had laws that
were contrary to the national Constitution on the slave
question. A strong effort was made to put Pennsylvania
on the defensive in this matter and to conciliate the South,
but on the 14th — the day before Governor Curtin's inau
guration — everything gave way to the special order on the
state of the Union. Mr. Williams first secured the floor
of the House with his own resolution, which, in sub
stance, demanded that the United States take immediate
measures against rebellion and that Pennsylvania should
at once do likewise and put her militia on a war footing.
He supported his contention in an address that did more
to bring him national fame, probably, than anything he
had previously done. It brought him letters of congratu
lation from far and near. It was reprinted and spread
even more widely, probably, than his other speeches. It
voiced the spirit of Pennsylvania in the Civil War, and it
was no small power in hastening her action.^
"Mr. Speaker," he began, "on the only occasion on which
it has ever been my privilege to speak in this Hall, the nation
was sitting in gloom, and these walls were shrouded in the
drapery of woe. The Chief of this great Republic had just
bowed his venerable head before the arrows of the Destroyer, and
^ Legislative Record, 1861, p. 21.
2 It was noised about that he was to speak and almost the entire Senate
was present, among other attendants. Letter of January 15, 1861. A letter of
January 7th shows that he had tried to make this address before, but the
friends of the other senatorial candidates combined to prevent it, fearing the
result on their candidates' chances. A letter of January ist indicates his pur
pose to speak on the next day. The address was published in full in the
Harrisburg Telegraph on the 17th.

HARRISBURG AND W'ASHINGTON 437
the Representatives of the people were gathered here, to testify
their sense of the great calamity which had befallen us. Nearly
twenty years have passed away, and the providence of God has
sent me back, on an occasion of deeper gloom by far than the
mere transient eclipse which then shed a temporary twilight over
the land. My errand here, like yours, was to attend to the
domestic interests of the great State that owns our sway. I am
met, like you, upon the threshold of this capitol, by a higher
summons. I find my sphere of duties unexpectedly enlarged. It
is not Pennsylvania that calls to-day, it is the great Ameri
can Republic that demands the counsels of her children. The
temple which our fathers built — the altar around which we
worshiped in infancy, and under whose shadow we have ripened
into strength and manhood — the Union of these States — the
ark of our salvation — the sanctuary of our peace — the tower of
our strength — the pearl of our pride — constructed with so much
labor — glorified by so many recollections — and fraught with so
many hopes to man — that mighty Union, which, almost within
the memory of man, has clasped a continent in its embrace, and
which, as we all fondly believed, was destined to live forever — is
threatened with destruction. It is no foreign foe that summons
us to its deliverance. In that direction, we know and feel that
it can safely defy the world in arms. No ! it is an enemy within
our gates, and worse than all, it is a parricidal hand that now
swings the incendiary torch over the fairest fabric that ever
crowned the labors, or blessed the hopes or the prayers of man.
"And what is the cause that menaces this great structure
with overthrow? Has it failed to accomplish the objects for
which it was erected ? Has it laid a heavy hand upon any of its
people? Has it confiscated their property? Has it stripped the
laborer of his rewards by the severity of its exactions? Has it
trodden down the rights of a minority with an armed heel?
Has it visited any portion of its dominions with fire and sword?
No, nothing of the sort. It has been felt only in the blessings
which have descended from it, like the early dew upon the
tender herb. Peace and security have reposed beneath the
shadow of its flag; plenty and prosperity have reigned through
out all its borders. What is it, then, that menaces its existence ?
Why, nothing but the simple exercise of a constitutional right
never before questioned; nothing but the partial enthronement
of an idea, not yet realized in act, in the election of a Presi
dent. Never was provocation so inadequate assigned for an act
so momentous in its character and consequences. On its face,
it is but a pretext — the hollowest and the shallowest — for a pre
meditated parricide. The world will so judge it. If mischief

438 THOMAS WILLIAMS
should ensue, we shall stand excused, unless we fail to put forth
our hands to prevent it.
"The State of South Carolina— one of the old thirteen— torn
by the valor of his sister States from the arms of the mother
country— always turbulent, disaffected, rebellious— never loyal
but to the British Crown— has run up the flag of rebellion, and
publicly abjured her allegiance to that Government of which she
has been a member for more than seventy years. The Gulf
States — purchased with our money, nurtured by our care, and
raised to the dignity of brotherhood by our indulgence— and if
not States, then Territories still— have given tokens of a dispo
sition to take leave of us in the same cool and quiet way. We
have met this danger before, as regards the former, and have
outlived it. In itself there is nothing, I think, to inspire extra
ordinary alarm. We can afford to laugh these threats to scorn,
while we deplore the alienation which begets them, if we are but
true to ourselves. The danger resides exclusively in the idea —
and I admit it is a great one — that we are to stand by, and
allow this great ruin to be accomplished without even a struggle,
either because we cannot, or because we ought not, or because
we do not desire to prevent it. The Press, and to some extent
the Pulpit — powers equal to the sword, and perhaps even greater
— have given currency to the idea that coercion is impracticable,
that its exercise would not be in conformity with the spirit of
our institutions, and that it would be a good riddance to be
relieved of so turbulent a confederate at any price. The Presi
dent of the United States, profiting by the hint, while he
denounces secession as revolution, invites and encourages the
experiment, by declaring that he has no power to prevent it.
He breaks his sword, like his Secretary, in the eyes of the nation,
and with the spirit of a craven, abdicates his high trust as the
executioner of the laws. And this it is that has made me feel,
for the first time, that we are drifting rapidly and helplessly
upon the breakers of disunion, with imminent peril of ship
wreck, not to one State only, but to all.
"Allow me to say, that these are fearful heresies. Those
who indulge in them have not, I think, duly reflected upon the
consequences to which they lead. It is not even true, that we
should be better off without these States than with them. This
Government is a unit. Better even a diseased limb, which is
not incurable, than the doubtful remedy of amputation. Seces
sion is revolution. That is a right which nobody disputes, where
the provocation is an adequate one. It must be asserted, how
ever, at the point of the sword. If unsuccessful, it is relDellion
— no more and no less. There can be no peaceable secession

HARRISBURG AND WASHINGTON

439

without treason on the part of our rulers, who are only our
trustees. They have no alternative but to enforce the laws, so
far as the powers lodged with them are available for that pur
pose. The act threatened here, which aims at the very life of
the Government, is treason against it, by virtue of its organic
law, and no authority of Congress can make it otherwise. The
very attempt to legalize it would be something like treason on
the part of Congress itself. The Constitution is a covenant of
life, and not of death. This Government was intended to be
perpetual. It contains no provision for its own dissolution. To
rupture it, would be to dissolve it. It will not divide like the
polypus. If South Carolina is out of it, so are we. When it
dissolves, it will be like some wandering aerolite, which comes
within the range of our atmosphere, and scatters its meteoric
shower in every direction. We shall then cease to be a nation,
and fall into an ill-assorted and ill-compacted league of jarring,
discordant, belligerent, and heterogenous republics, ready to fly
off upon the slightest provocation, and take each other by the
throats. We shall come together again, no doubt, in process of
time, but it will be by the power of the sword, and under the
rule of the standing army and the bayonet; it will be by the
repelling force of anarchy.
"And all this is to be risked in order to avoid coercion,
either because we have not the power, or because it would be
inconsistent with the genius of a Republican government, to
compel its own citizens to obey its rule. No government has
ever yet parted with any portion of its territories to a rebellious
member, without at least a struggle to maintain them. When
we shall have tried the experiment, and failed, it will be time
enough to retire from the field, and confess that we are not
adequate to the task of self-preservation, which would involve
the humiliating confession, that Republican government is itself
a failure. I, for one, am not prepared to make this admission,
without, at least, an effort to preserve what our Fathers have
left us. Our past experience proves the contrary. The disaf
fected States are weak — so weak, as we know, that they could
not stand alone. That which is with them an element of political
power, is equally an element of moral and physical weakness.
The North is the insurer of the slave. The South is the only
vulnerable point of our Republic. It is the heel of Achilles.
The Government, badly administered as it has been, is still
strong in the affections of the people. They will rally around
it to a man in the Free States, at all events, where the power
of the Government mainly resides. The moment it becomes a
question of self-preservation, there will be no two parties here.

440 THOMAS WILLIAMS
Secession, if practicable, would make us one. In the Union, the
Slave States might have friends among us— out of the Union,
they are the enemies of us all, and can look for no aid or
sympathy in this direction. We shall be all agreed— then, if not
now— to treat them as we do the rest of mankind, as enemies
in war, in peace, friends.'
"But what is there in the genius of our institutions, or the
voluntary character of our Government, to forbid the use of
force to compel obedience to the laws? The idea is as absurd
as it is dangerous. No government ever did, or ever can stand
upon the mere bond of love, while human nature continues to
be what it is. We are told that the angels rebelled; but they
were cast out for their disobedience. Even the family govern
ment itself recognizes the law of coercion. There is nothing in
the exertion of force which is inconsistent with the law of
kindness. The master corrects his servant, and the father his
erring child, without violating that law. No government has
ever yet been administered without the aid of a magistracy and
a police. They enter largely into our own. We have our
jails and our penitentiaries, our sheriffs and our marshals. We
maintain our armies. There is the array of the posse comitatus
to aid the former. If the civil magistracy is too weak, we call
in the arm of the military. The General Government has never
before hesitated to employ it, when required. It suppressed an
insurrection in this State, against its own laws. It has unloosed
its dragoons upon the Territories. Why should it falter now?
The admission of the novel principle that coercion is not to be
employed, is a signal for revolt — an act of self-destruction.
Concede it, and we are no longer a Government. The States,
even the smallest of them, will laugh at your acts of Congress,
whenever they do not like them, and pluck your holiday soldiers
contemptuously by the beard. Nay, more. You must disband
your armies, because they will have ceased to be of any practical
use. No longer needed to overawe the negro, their onl}^ mission
will be to hunt down and massacre the unhappy Indian.
"It will be said, however, that it is only where the popular
sentiment of a State is apparently unanimous, that the Federal
Government must yield. I know no State, as distinguished from
, this Union. It is a Government of the people, and acts only
upon individuals. If it cannot seize and hang the State of South
Carolina, it can at least lay its hands upon the rebel Governor,
and all the traitors who are compassing our destruction. But
how are we to know that the people of a State are universally
agreed? Are we to take the newspapers, or the noisy dema
gogues, as our guide? Is no allowance to be made for the

HARRISBURG AND WASHINGTON 44I
quiet, reflecting conservatism, which may be overawed and
silenced by the clamors of the mob? The present state of
alarm in the South is death to the actual proprietor of the soil
and the slave. Who knows but that the mere exhibition of force
on the part of the General Government, would develop a senti
ment that is now smothered? Shall we allow the men who
entertain it to be ruined, because we will not give them an
opportunity to speak out ? Shall we abandon them to the hands
of a few madmen, without even an effort to save them?
"But we are told that it will not do to draw blood — that the
first drop spilled, will be the signal for perpetual war. I agree
that the necessity of shedding blood, particularly a brother's,
is always to be deplored. We must not play the woman, how
ever, in such a crisis as this. Our ancestors were men who did
not faint at the sight of blood. Torrents of it have flowed in
the conquest and preservation of these States. We keep up
armies to shed it, if necessary, in no greater cause. The scaf
fold has been the meed of treason everywhere. General Jackson
has somewhere said, that secession is treason, and its penalty
death. But how much blood will it cost? The way to save its
effusion is to show that we are ready always to shed it, if neces
sary, in a righteous cause. How do we know that it will cost
any more than a few heads in the present case? Does anybody
think to save it, by allowing these States to secede peaceably?
If they do, they are greatly mistaken. For drops, we shall have
oceans. For a few traitorous heads, we shall have hecatombs
of unoffending victims. For a war of a single campaign — for
the blockade of a port — we shall have bloody feuds along all
our borders — ^the whole country a camp, and the whole Union
a battle-ground. How long shall we maintain peace on the
border, with our present causes of quarrel greatly exasperated?
The negro will run away more frequently than before, and there
will be no fugitive slave law to reclaim him. If the owner
follows, he will be dealt with as an invader. The South will
make reprisals. If it attempts to close or embarrass the outlet
of the Mississippi, the stalwart boatmen of the West will hew
their way to the Gulf with fire and sword. If the feeling of
insecurity — intensified as it will be — should prompt the seizure
of the Northern trader, or the confiscation of his goods, we
shall not then bear in silence with the indignities which are put
upon us now, and tolerated, because these men are our brethren.
By such a lawless course, they will put themselves beyond the
pale of civihzation — outside of the family of nations. New
York, and Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, and Ohio, will
demand an instant and ample reparation for every wrong, and

442 THOMAS WILLIAMS
our fleets will thunder at the gates of Charleston, and Savannah,
and Pensacola, and Mobile, and New Orleans, while our land
armies will unbind the shackles of the slave, and put the weapons
of destruction into his hands. And the result will be, that after
a fierce and bloody struggle, they will come back again, as
Provinces, if not as States, to be re-admitted, if we shall so long
hold together, with the root of bitterness extirpated, and slavery
extinguished forever. And this is the peace which is promised
us as the reward of our connivance in an act of treason ! Men
who profess to be conservative, and call themselves statesmen,
may go about the streets crying 'Peace ! peace !' — but there will
be no peace here, but the peace of Pandemonium. God grant
that our eyes may never open upon such a scene of devastated
harvests and desolated homes, as is foreshadowed here !
"Is there any thing in the use of coercion, by way of preven
tion and correction only, to foreshadow such a state of things
as this ? There never was a time, and never will be, when force
could be applied more properly, more easily, more successfully,
or at a less expenditure of blood, than now. The provocation is
absolutely nothing. Our sin is, that we have chosen to exercise
an undoubted constitutional right, by defeating them in a fair
contest, and electing the man of our own choice. That man is
not yet inaugurated. If he were, it would be impossible for him
to harm them. The slave power is intrenched in every depart
ment of our Government. There is no offense in act. The
grievance is, that the people of the Free States have indorsed
the Republican idea that slavery is an evil, and ought not to be
extended. The crime is, that we do not think as they do. It
is the idea only, according to a Northern apologist, that amounts
to a declaration of war, and severs the golden thread that binds
these States together. It is for a difference of opinion only, that
the South proposes to secede from the Union. We know that
it is but a pretext. The very fact, however, of its flimsiness,
is a Providential one for us, if we are prepared to improve the
advantage which it gives us. It will be impossible for the mal
contents to find defenders any where upon such an issue as this,
and the hands of the Government will be strengthened by the
co-operation of the Border States, and certainly by the unani
mous sentiment of the North, and the equally unanimous judg
ment of the civilized world. The time has come to crush at a
single blow the serpent of sedition, whilst it is yet weak and
without sympathizers. I should despair of the Republic, if we
hesitated. Instead of furnishing excuses to a weak and unfaith
ful Executive, for skulking from the performance of his duty,
we ought rather to strengthen his feeble knees, and encourage

HARRISBURG AND WASHINGTON 443
him to profit by the signal fortune, which has put into his hands,
at the close of a disgraceful administration, the opportunity of
redeeming his past errors, and retiring amid the plaudits of the
nation, in the character of a deliverer from the great peril into
which he has himself conducted it.
"Is there any other course still left to us ? Yes, we are told
there is another. While the people of Pennsylvania are on tip
toe, straining their ears in the direction of the South, and wait
ing to hear the first boom of the cannon, and the roar and the
shout of the opening conflict, a soft whisper of peace comes up
to us on the Eastern breeze, and ten thousand citizens of Phila
delphia, — whether men or women I know not, — instead of
putting on their armor, and taking down their rifles from the
wall, as did our Fathers, when the first blast of the war-bugle
rent the quiet air upon the plains of Lexington — are thronging
our Halls, and, on their knees before us, with the beseeching
cry, that we shall lay down our arms, and surrender at discre
tion. "Well, this is an easy remedy in most cases of dispute, but
one which it is not usual for the weak to dictate to the strong,
or the vanquished to the victors. It is, however, the commercial
nostrum. Those, whose business it is to buy and sell, and deal in
stocks and public securities, are apt to think that everything —
even to liberty, and manhood, and self-respect itself — is a legiti
mate article of traSic, and to be rated at just so much current
money of the merchant. The device which we, of Western
Pennsylvania, bore upon our banners, was 'Union and Liberty.'
'Concession before Secession' was the pithy, but somewhat hum
ble sentiment, that streamed from the windows of the great
caravanserai on Chestnut street, and found expression on the
lips of orators at Independence Square. It was not the
language which our Fathers held at the same place. It was not,
I think, the great heart of Philadelphia that spoke out there.
It was not, surely, the great bell of liberty, with its glorious
device — ^the brazen metal which rang out the tocsin of the
Revolution — that gathered that assemblage together. Judging
from its tone, and some things that preceded it, I should rather
suspect it was something more resembling the fire-alarm that
starts the sleeper from his bed and sends him half-naked and
shivering into the street. That meeting was a sacrifice of burnt
offerings for imputed and acknowledged sins. Its high priests
were official dignitaries. It was heralded by the immolation of
a propitiatory victim — a ram caught in the thicket — in the person
of a gifted Republican orator and scholar who had been invited
there to lecture on the very delicate and somewhat questionable

444 THOMAS WILLIAMS
topic of honesty. Its cry was for peace on any terms. It
brought judges there, fresh from scenes of domestic confisca
tion—their hands red with the slaug:hter of the innocents— to
disturb the peace of the nation, by misrepresenting the aims of
the Republican party, and weeping crocodile tears over imagi
nary confiscations of property in slaves. It lamented over the
irrepressible conflict as a Northern sin. It apologized most
humbly for our Pennsylvania vote, and protested that we meant
nothing more than a Tariff— in happy unconsciousness of the
fact, that the protection of free labor was the very expression of
that conflict, if it exists at all. It could see nothing right on the
sunny side of Mason and Dixon's line, and nothing wrong on the
shady one. It had no thought for the dark-skinned African
sailor, who is thrown into prison, and sold into slavery in
Southern ports, for the payment of fines unconstitutionally
imposed. It had no bowels for the Northern freeman, whose
claim to the sacred title of American citizen — unlike that of
Paul in the remotest province of the Roman Empire — is vainly
invoked to stay the uplifted scourge. It pledged itself for a strict
scrutiny, and thorough expurgation of our statute books, and
a liberal indemnity for every runaway negro who might take
refuge amongst us. If the people had gone there in solemn pro
cession, barefooted and bareheaded, with ropes around their
necks, and girdles of hair cloth about their loins, they could not
have exhibited a more edifying spectacle of penitential sorrow.
"Well, I am as much a lover peace as any man, and
would go as far as most men to preserve it. It is not to be pur
chased, however, by such sacrifices as these. If it were, I would
not buy it by an act of self-abasement. I could not smite my
chest, and bow down my face in the dust, and cry aloud, that
we are miserable sinners. I do not admit that we have sinned.
I find nothing in our statute books, that I would be willing to
sacrifice as a peace offering to this insatiable spirit. We have
no concessions to make, unless we are ready to confess that we
have sinned in giving the vote of this State to the man of our
own choice. As a sovereign member of this Union, we have
stood faithfully by our contract, although in some respects an
unequal one, and will expect all others to do the same. We
have borne the rule of the Slave States from the beginning,
without a murmur. When we were defeated, we acquiesced
as good citizens. We should have done so now, if we had been
beaten. Because we have succeeded, and the sceptre has passed
into other hands, it is now insisted that we shall not rule this
nation, and that it shall be dismembered, unless we will con
sent to make a new Constitution. It cost great labor, and many

HARRISBURG AND WASHINGTON 445
sacrifices, to make the present one. We cannot make a better.
If it were to be done anew, I doubt much whether we could
make any at all. The Cotton States are estranged from us.
They have come to love slavery better than liberty. They have
pulled down our glorious emblem, and run up in its place the
miserable palmetto branch, with the trail of the serpent over
it. They have blotted out our National holiday from their
calendar. They have hissed our National anthems on their
stage. They have ceased even to pray for the President of
their own choice, who, in an evil hour for himself, has listened,
and fallen a victim to their wiles and their seductions. They
think that the rule of the majority is inconsistent with the
safety of their idol. It is they, and not we, who insist thait
there is an irrepressible conflict between our two great systems
of labor — that the one wants protection, while the other is
injured by it. They are jealous of the growth of the Free
States, and alarmed by the revelations of the recent census.
They want to get away into a government, where the minority
shall bear rule. We may purchase peace by allowing them to
govern us, but on no other terms. To secure it, we must abandon
the idea of a Tariff. No concessions short of this will satisfy
them. I know that trade is timid, and not always as proud or
conscientious as it ought to be. It must be remembered, how
ever, that it can purchase no solid privileges at the price of
liberty. Nothing better than a hollow truce was ever patched up
at the expense of manhood. They think meanly of us now, or
they would not insult us by their menaces. We shall give them
new reason to despise us, if we yield to their demands. The
Dutch merchants paid a high price to the Japanese, when they
agreed to spit and trample upon the cross, in order to secure
their trade, and the Japanese paid them back with the con
tempt which they deserved. How will the little sovereignty
of South Carolina strut and swell in vain-glorious pride, when
she finds a great community, of twice her size, and a hundred
times her wealth, on its knees before her, begging for mercy
and for trade, on any terms ! It was not thus that the old
Dutch Republic acquired her renown and wealth, when Van
Tromp and De Ruyter swept the Channel with the broom at
their mast-heads. It was not thus that lordly Tyre, whose
merchants were princes, gathered the riches of the world into
her lap. It was not in that spirit, that proud Genoa manned
her galleys for the empire of the seas. It was not in that
spirit, that her still prouder rival, the Queen and the Bride ,of
the Adriatic, exacted the homage of the passing cruiser, and
reared the Lion of St. Marc at the gates of the Imperial City

446 THOMAS WILLIAMS
of the East. It was not thus that Philadelphia shone, when
the spirit of her merchants was incarnate in her Morris, and
the nerve of her Press illustrated in her Franklin. It is not
thus that her stout-hearted mechanics, and her strong-armed
working men — that turbulent class, who are expected to do so
much mischief — think and feel now. I would trust the honor
of the State, and the safety of the Republic, to their keeping.
"But what is it that these States demand of us ? They have
asked for nothing. Why should we hasten to prepare unsolic
ited offerings ? Why should we wreathe our garlands, and offer
voluntary oblations upon their altars, in the vain hope of appeas
ing them ? Are these men to be reasoned with ? Will anything
satisfy them? Is there anything in our laws that is wrong?
That is not pretended. Is there anything that looks unfriendly ?
If there be, I should be willing to rectify it — but not now. We
can afford to be magnanimous ; we cannot afford to be misunder
stood. They would misconstrue the motive, and the act. It
would be taken as a confession of guilt, and an evidence of
cowardice. Have our past concessions brought us any permanent
peace ? How was it with the Missouri Compromise ? How
was it with the Compromise Bill of 1833 ? These are the bitter
fountains, whose waters we are now drinking. These are the
dragon's teeth, from which a harvest of armed men has sprung
up. The question could have been settled in 1820. It was only
postponed, and rendered more difficult by these concessions.
They have taken an undue advantage of our love for the Union.
They have been encouraged by our concessions to rise in their
demands. It is our hesitation — our want of firmness — that has
given birth to the existing rebellion. If we had put forth our
strength at its first appearance, it would have subsided at once.
It has gathered head from our delay. It will go down as soon
as the lion of the North shall awaken from his sleep, and startle
the country by his roar. New York and Ohio have already
girded themselves for the battle. Pennsylvania is still sleeping.
All that is now wanted is the expression of her potent voice.
Every drop of blood shed in this contest will be on the heads and
the consciences of the timid advisers, who have counseled peace
and advised concession. It was a philosophic remark of the cele
brated Junius, 'that fear admitted into public counsels betrays
like treason.' I do not impute a treasonable intention to the
President himself. It is to his pusillanimity, his weakness, and
his cowardice, however, that we are indebted for the mischiefs
which now threaten us. The effect is as fatal as treason itself.
Instead of talking of concessions, the cry, 'To arms,' should ring
out from this point, through every valley, and along every moun-

HARRISBURG AND WASHINGTON 447
tain top in Peniisylvania. If we hesitate much longer, the
programme of the traitors will be extended from Washington,
to Philadelphia and Harrisburg. They will expect the former
to surrender at discretion. What kind of a defense ' we shall
make here, is more than I can say.
"And now, as to the duties of our own great State in this
extremity. No petty province is this, which we represent here
this day. Pennsylvania — second in rank, and first, as I think,
in position and power, in this great family of nations — stand
ing abreast of the whole advancing column of the Slave States,
with one foot on the Atlantic sea-board, and the other on the
tributaries of the Mississippi — leaning upon the shoulder of
her first-bom offspring, the young giant of the West, and sup
ported in her rear by the powerful State of New York— holds
a place in our chart, which has justly earned for her the proud
distinction of the Keystone of the Federal Arch. Nor is this
any mere idle party designation. It has a higher significance.
It is her place in history. It was here that Great Britain struck,
to reach the heart and centre of the great confederacy which
rebelled against her rule. It was around Philadelphia, as the
pivotal point, that the tide of battle rolled, while the scales
hung doubtful, in the darkest hour of that arduous and pro
tracted struggle. It was to save Philadelphia, that the blood of
our Fathers crimsoned the green herbage, on the pastoral banks
of the Brandywine. It was to save Philadelphia, that the same
blood flowed anew, amid the darkness and confusion of that
disastrous morning, in the streets of Germantown. I have a
right to speak of it; an ancestor of my own was there. It was
to relieve Philadelphia, that the American army wintered on the
frozen ground at Valley Forge. It was to relieve Philadelphia,
that the same army, under the lead of its great chief, turned
upon its pursuers, like a hunted stag, on that wintry night, when
it laimched itself amongst the ice drifts of the Delaware, and
lighted up the streets of Trenton, and the hearts of the Colonists,
with the blaze of its artillery. Pennsylvania, with her Western
and Northern frontiers a wilderness, was the Keystone then.
Pennsylvania, with her Western and Northern sons — a mighty
host, made rugged by toil, trained alike to the use of the rifle and
axe, and instinct with that love of liberty, which animated their
Revolutionary sires — Pennsylvania, comprising within herself
the population, and more than the power, of the old thirteen —
is the Keystone still, in war as well as in peace. While she
maintains her place, that arch will never fall. She was one of
the first to put her name to that solemn league and covenant
which made us one people. The smoke of battle was then upon

448 THOMAS WILLIAMS
her hands. Those hands will be darker yet, and redder yet,
before she will permit that covenant to be torn, or a single signa
ture erased.
"Aside, however, from these responsibilities, there are pecu
liar reasons, which make it her duty to speak out now — not in
the language of boastfulness, for that would not become her —
but of stern and solemn admonition. The administration of
the affairs of this great nation has been confided to the keeping
of her sons. Pennsylvania is now on guard at the Federal Cap
ital. She will be expected to stand sponsor for their loyalty.
It is but too apparent now, that they have brought reproach
upon the mother that bore them, by the betrayal of the trust that
was committed to their hands. The President of the United
States, or at least the constitutional advisers whom he has
assembled around him, have been openly plotting the ruin of
this Republic. The denial of the right to coerce — the deposit
of enormous quantities of the munitions of war in the hands
of the public authorities of South Carolina — ^the refusal to
strengthen the defenses of the National fortresses — the exposure
of a mere handful of men, to the risk of butchery by an excited
mob, in the face of a community which had given public notice
of its intention to throw oft' its allegiance — followed by the dis
graceful necessity of a backward movement in the face of a
rebellious subject, so contemptible in its resources — and the out
givings of the traitors themselves, as to the complicity of the
President, have settled this question beyond a controversy. But
this is not all. The opinion of the President and his Attorney
General (now Secretary of State) are supposed to be a reflex of
the opinions of the people here. It has been confidently asserted,
and believed at Washington, that our own great State will
follow the malcontents in their Hegira, and haul down that
glorious banner, upon which her own star is one of the fairest
and the brightest. With the estimate formed by these madmen
of the free laboring men of the North, it is as confidently
expected, that the suspension of commercial intercourse with
them, will beggar our mechanics and operatives — that famine
and destitution, gaunt and haggard, will stalk naked but armed,
through our streets, clamoring for bread — that our warehouses
will be sacked, and our printing presses destroyed, and that we
shall be driven again into their arms to escape a still greater
calamity ; and the tone of the late Philadelphia meeting, and the
obvious terror and self-abasement which pervaded it, are taken
as the evidences that we are all trembling in apprehension of
these results. And these, it seems, are the motives to rebellion —
these, the hopes that animate the madmen, who would fire the

HARRISBURG AND WASHINGTON 449
temple of our liberties, and reduce it to a ruin. If this be so, it
is time to undeceive them for their own sakes, by teaching them
that Pennsylvania will stand, as she has ever stood, by the Union
of these States — that upon this question, we shall be, as we have
ever been, a united people — and that the laboring men of Penn
sylvania, instead of being the white slaves — the hungry mob —
which they suppose, are men and freemen — intelligent, self-
reliant and independent, and able, not only to earn their bread
and vindicate their rights, but to resent and punish, if necessary,
the insult and contumely to which they have been thus sub
jected, with the strong arms which God Almighty has given
them. On such a question as this, I would not insult my auditors
by any party appeal. I sink all party distinctions, in the presence
of the great overshadowing issue which involves the preserva
tion of that Union, which is our common safeguard and our
common inheritance. It is our Democratic brethren of this State,
who are insulted by these suspicions of disloyalty. I do not
entertain them. I assume that every honest, true-hearted mem
ber of that party, is as much attached to the Union as I am. The
recent excitement in Pittsburgh, has furnished the proof of it
there. If disunion purposes were charged in the call of the
Chicago Convention, it was not upon any voter of the North.
It was to the Southern leaders of that party only, that such
treasonable sentiments were imputed. They affirmed the charge,
by refusing to co-operate with their Northern brethren, and rent
their party in twain, to accomplish their traitorous purpose of
dismembering the Union. It was that conviction that palsied the
arm of the Northern Democrat. It was his unfortunate associa
tion with the apostles of secession, that broke up the power of
that once formidable organization in the Free States. The Repub
licans took advantage of it, and went into the battle with the
device emblazoned on the standard, 'The Union of these States
must and shall be preserved.' That was their tower of strength.
That was their labarum. It was by that sign they conquered. It
was by the magnetic force of that appeal to the strongest instinct
of the American heart, that they drew the very bohs and rivets
which held that organization together. I trust the Democratic
party here will profit by this experience. The award of the
ballot-box was but the declaration of the people, that this Union
must be preserved, and woe to him who shall undertake to gain
say it, or to make it void.
"But it will not be made void. It is not in the order of Prov
idence that this great nation shall perish on the very threshold
of its high career. It has just expanded its wing for a flight of
centuries. No man can read the story of its birth, without seeing

450 THOMAS WILLIAMS
the finger of a superintending Providence, directing its path
through darkness and disaster, as distinctly as the beacon light
which flamed in the midnight heavens in advance of the armies
of Israel. No man can look back upon its progress, and realize
the blessings which it has already conferred upon man, and the
still greater blessings which it foreshadows, and then sit down in
gloomy skepticism as to its future without a doubt whether the
same Providence still continues to govern the affairs of this
world. It may have its vicissitudes of fortune, like all things
human. The flag of our Union may plunge behind the storm-
cloud, and bury itself occasionally in the bosom of the tempest,
but it will emerge again — that glorious emblem of our power
— it will emerge again — that constellation of our hope — from
the darkness that may overshadow it — refulgent as with the
splendors of a new dawn — flinging off the vapors which have
hung about its folds, and hanging out, as of old, its signal of
hope, ana freedom, and deliverance to the nations. A hundred
generations shall yet sit down under its shadow, and bless the
hands that reared and the hands that have defended it."
When he finished even one of his opponents, who
bore a distinguished Philadelphia name, described his
remarks as an "elegant, refined and eloquent exordium,"
and himself as "so overwhelmingly powerful in oratory."
The Philadelphian had, himself, proposed resolutions
looking to the repeal of the Pennsylvania law against
fugitive slave hunting, claimed to be unconstitutional
by the South and a violation of the Federal compact.
It was believed that if this was repealed the seceding
States would return. The effort to secure this result was
the one Mr. Williams' oration aimed to defeat, and
as the movement had its most influential leadership,
probably, in Philadelphia, Mr. Williams made this special
attack on that element, and another member from
the metropolis, in return, on the 2ist of January, twitted
the Pittsburgh orator on leading that city in repudiation
of some of the bonds held by the speaker's own constitu
ents. The reference struck as fine fire from the Alleghe-
nian's flint as it ever gave off probably, at least in retort.
"In the Philadelphia Ledger of Saturday," said an
editorial in the Pittsburgh Evening Chronicle, "we find a
report of the speech of Mr. WiHiams, in reply to an

HARRISBURG AND WASHINGTON 45 1
attack made on the people of Allegheny county by Mr.
 of Philadelphia, which seems to have made a deep
impression on our Eastern friends. We subjoin a passage or
two. Alluding to the charge of being repudiators, made against
our people, Mr. W. argued to show that they were right in their
opposition to the railroad tax, and then said: 'But let us see
how Philadelphia acted in these cases herself. She has obliga
tions herself. She has two millions and a quarter in the Sunbury
and Erie Railroad. It is a bad investment. What does she do ?
The Board of Trade meet and pass resolutions, (I gleaned the
facts from the public newspapers, and may not state them with
entire accuracy, but I can give their substances), declaring that
the investment will be lost unless they can obtain relief from the
State ; and the means devised was the appropriation of one-half
of your public works to that purpose, after the other half had
been given to the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, of which
that city was the largest proprietor — one-half of whose capital
stock she herself owned. Well, sir, she votes these public
improvements into her own pocket. She commands some seven
teen votes in the House ; and I do not undertake to say how many
in the Senate ; she has made a bad investment ; she comes to the
State for relief ; she plunges her hand into the treasury and helps
herself. Now, when my Philadelphia friends talk to me of "repu
diation,'' may I not well remind them of the fact that they make
good their own bad investments and pay their own debts, by plun
dering the treasury ? May I not say to them with regard to their
votes, as Falstaff said to Prince Henry on a memorable occa
sion, "When you are King, Hal, rob me the exchequer." With
the same means and appliances we could pay our debts too. Have
they a right, however, to reproach us?'
"The Ledger seems greatly pleased with Mr. W.'s remarks,
and alludes to them in complimentary terms. Referring to the
discussion, it says Mr. W. made a 'reply which, for power, elo
quence and able reasoning, is seldom excelled in any legislative
body. The bold stand he takes for the right and authority of the
people over their own property, and against unconstitutional
enactments, which would deprive them of it, is worthy of Patrick
Henry himself. It is rare that such speeches are heard in the
Legislature of this State. If there were more of the same spirit,
and the same recurrence to fundamental principles of popular
rights, which underlie all constitutions, we should not have the
Legislature so frequently usurping power not delegated to it by
the Constitution, nor Courts coming in conflict with public senti
ment founded upon common sense, common honesty and common
liberty. Hitherto we have differed from Mr. Williams in regard

452 THOMAS WILLIAMS
to the obligation upon Allegheny to pay the bonds it issued,
because they were issued under the forms of law by legally
authorized persons. But there is no logic like the logic of facts,
and the most certain way of seeing the force and bearing of a
principle is to have it applied to oneself. The city of Philadel
phia would this day have had three millions of dollars added to
its present debt by the act of its County Commissioners, in lend
ing out of the county treasury that amount to the Sunbury and
Erie Railroad, if the timely interposition of the people in town
meeting had not stopped this usurped authority. In fact, radical
and fundamental principles of right, when wrested by power
from the people, are always stolen from them under the forms of
law, and, for the peace and security of society, there ought to be
some remedy short of revolution to arrest acts of unauthorized
power."^ Mr. Williams voted against the Virginia convention,
as an unconstitutional thing — that no State could make
a compact with any other State — and on February ist
raised his voice for offering a prepared militia to the
government at once, as the South was preparing for war.
To realize the standing Mr. Williams had won by this
time needs but a glance at a paragraph of the report of
the correspondent of the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin
on February 8th :
^ The entire speech, which, because of the exigencies of space, must be
omitted, may be seen in the Legislative Record for l86l on pp. 156-7-8. The
whole address is broad, high-minded and conciliatory, and it is unfortunate that,
for the sake of showing the Ledger^s attitude, only a small part can be quoted.
The quotation does not do justice to its statesmanlike poise. It was in this
that he referred to the bond question as "that greatest of questions, which
constitutes my mission here."
The Harrisburg correspondent of the North American and United States
Gazette of January i8th says; "Copies of the London American, [December i8th]
brought over by the last steamer, have been passing about the House and
have been very eagerly read. They contain a letter written by Thomas Wil
liams of Pittsburgh, to Captain Schenley, of the English army. It has been
very generally read and commanded high encomiums for the remarkable clear
ness of style and the force of its statements. It is a resume of the history of the
leading events, both military and civil, which have occurred since the breaking
out of the rebellion up to just before the meeting of Congress. He was most
heartily congratulated upon all sides by his fellow members of the House."
A copy of the article, which occupies a page and a quarter, is among the
WilHams papers, and abundantly warrants the above expressions about it.
Even at this distance of time it is remarkable for its judicial, impartial tone.
In a letter of December 10, 1861, Captain Schenley says the London Times
wanted the letter, "but that paper has to my mind behaved so shamefully
throughout the American diiliculty that I flatly refused a document at once
so valuable and so convincing." In another letter he states tliat he showed
the letter to Lord Palmerston and Sir John Russell, who were much impressed
by it.
A letter of January 26, 1861, shows that Lincoln, through his law partner,
who came on to Harrisburg to discuss the matter of a place in the Cabinet
for Cameron, sought Mr. Williams' advice, urging him to express himself in a
private letter. Williams said he didn't know Lincoln; the reply was: "He
knows you very well."

HARRISBURG AND WASHINGTON 453
"I shall begin with Williams, of Allegheny," he wrote, "called
popularly in your city, the 'Great Repudiator.' As all know, who
have heard of him, he is a lawyer by profession, and has been
at the bar about thirty years. Born in Westmoreland County, he
long since removed to Pittsburgh. Standing at the bar of that
city as one of its prominent lawyers, and devoting himself
earnestly to his profession, he has never until now held any pub
lic position, save a three years' term he served in the Senate full
twenty years ago. In that body he held a leading position, when
Judge Pearson, Charles Sullivan, Frederick Fraley, 'Harry'
Spackman, Charles Brown, and men of that class led in its
debates. "In person he is of medium height, with no particular indica
tion of muscular power, although he must be possessed of a very
good constitution. He is fifty-three or four years of age, and
though his hair and beard are tinged with gray, he would pass
anywhere for forty-five. His eyes are of bluish gray, large and
full; his face round, and surmounted with a protuberant nose,
decidedly inclined to point to the left. The forehead is fuller in
the region of ideality and marvellousness than it is in the locale
of the perceptive and reflective faculties. The head is not very
large, and in this particular is a contradiction to the phrenolog
ical theory that minds of large powers must have a large devel
opment of brain.
'"As a speaker his elocution is not graceful, and his voice,
though powerful, is not musical. To wonderful command of
language he adds great beauty and choice of diction ; his phrases
abounding with classical allusions, seeming to bubble up to the
surface; his argument is compact and tersely logical, seldom
wandering aside to indulge in rhetorical episodes when he enters
upon his themes ; they seem to form a necessary illustration of
the point he is endeavoring to make. Such is one of the most
powerful of the men now leading our State Councils."
This is followed by accounts of Ball of Erie, Arm
strong of Lycoming and Gordon of Jefferson, of whom
Ball was the chief parliamentarian of the House.^
^ The North American and United States Gazette correspondent on February
ist said of Mr. Williams that: "His recent exhibitions as a forensic gladiator
have left more than one black eye right and left, and his enemies will punish
him severely wlien they get him across the rope." This was in regard to a
general desire to have him on the investigating committee. He says the
judiciary committee is where the real battle will be fought, and that it
embraced the very first talent in that body — Scott, Williams, Smith of Chester,
Sliannon, Strang, Banks, Vincent, Brown of Northumberland and Dennis.
He said if Campbell or Cuyler, the railway counsel, came up they would, no
doubt, "prepare for death, solemnly, religiously, for if Williams should put on
his leonine mood they will vanish from earth and leave not a wreck behind."
In a letter dated February 10, 1861, Mr. Williams says of Governor Curtin:
"He does not pull with the Republican wing of our party & has lost their

454

THOMAS WILLIAMS

The real fight of the session began on February 15th
with consideration of the two railway measures. It is
not the purpose here to enter into details of the contest.
The railway interests secured their votes early and
rushed the measure through — as was evident it was to be
done— early in the session. The question, as well as the
means taken to accomplish this result, aroused Mr.
Williams to the utmost, especially the points at issue
in the repeal or "commutation" of the tonnage tax
imposed on the Pennsylvania Railroad. "My friend from
Philadelphia," said Mr. Williams, "* * * even goes
so far as to complain of the persecution with which this
unfortunate company, receiving a revenue greater than
that of the whole Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has
been followed ! This company which sits here at Harris
burg enthroned in State with its agents and its emis
saries filling your public houses and your lobbies to dic
tate to this Legislature what they shall do and when they
shall do it and how they shall do it, is certainly not by
any means an object of sympathy." "I was amazed," he
says again, "when I saw this bill reported by a Committee
of this House, proposing upon its face, amongst other
things, to donate to a mammoth corporation eight
hundred thousand dollars of your money, already
sacredly appropriated to the purposes of the sinking fund,
to the payment of the public debt of this State. And then
this money is to be lent out by this grand monopoly to
this railroad and that railroad by way of securing the
votes of members from the counties through which these
railroads pass — a tub thrown to the whale." Again he
says : "You may do this thing and you may do it in a
hurry. Perhaps it is policy that you should do it thus.
Put this bill upon the files, wait a few days, and there will
be a storm of indignation burst up from every quarter of
this Commonwealth that will shake the Capitol to its
foundation."^
confidence because he has taken counsel entirely with the peopWs party — which
votes generally with the Democrats." In the same letter he tells of invitations
from various parts of the State to address them, the leader of one deputation
attempting to reach Mr. Williams' heart by repeating the entire exordium of
his eulogy on President Harrison!
^ Legislative Record, 1861, p. 375.

HARRISBURG AND WASHINGTON 455
"This case has a history," said he in the same speech, "with
which my worthy friend [from Philadelphia] is not perhaps
familiar. I recollect something about it, although my memory
is not a good one. When the Pennsylvania Railroad made its
application for this charter that application arose out of a
feeling of rivalry and competition between the two cities of
Philadelphia and Baltimore. Philadelphia had no idea of
building such a road; but Bakimore came here to obtain a
renewal of the charter of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
Company, which would have furnished another and independent
means of communication, giving to the city of Baltimore, how
ever, some advantage over Philadelphia. Philadelphia resisted;
she oft'ered to build a railroad of this description herself. She
offered in addition thereto, looking to the probable rivalry and
the injury that might be sustained by the Public Works in con
sequence thereof — she offered to pay a revenue of five mills
upon the dollar, upon all tonnage carried over that road for
ever. I think I am not mistaken in saying it was five mills; it
is now three. It was her own offer, and she succeeded by these
means in procuring the charter, and in defeating the applica
tion of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company to obtain a
right of way through this State. The jealousy of Philadelphia
defeated that application. She obtained all she desired upon
those grounds. We were shut out ; we were denied the privilege
of taking any other means of transmit to the eastern sea-board,
except those to be furnished by the Pennsylvania Railroad
Company. There was a provision, if I recollect aright, in the
charter of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, enacted in
1846, that if they would put under contract in good faith, so
many miles of their road adjacent to the city of Pittsburgh, (I
do not recollect the number of miles,) then all the privileges
granted by an Act passed at the same session, should cease.
They did put their road under contract for that purpose."
"Sir," said he farther on, after he had shown how these
funds had been pledged to the pubHc debt, "I dread the power of
this corporation. I was in public life when the Bank of the
United States was described as a monster, an anaconda — when
our Democratic brethren were in the habit of expressing the
opinion that it was winding its snaky coils around us, strangling
us to death as the serpent strangled Laocoon.' Now, what have
we here? Why, this immense corporation overshadowing the
whole State — binding with an iron chain, the city of Phila
delphia and the city of Pittsburgh — with all its ramifications, and
' Legislative Record, 1861, p. 376.

456 THOMAS WILLIAMS
its proposed execution of ramifications — dwarfs that monster
bank into nothingness. It can bring enough of its troops here
to invade the Capitol, and I was almost disposed to say, to
defend this State in a case of invasion from the South. If we
are helpless this company is not.
"I dread this irresponsible power, which overshadows this
State and dwarfs everything beneath it. I think our liberties
are not safe under such influences. I think the time has come
to summon the people of Pennsylvania to the rescue, to pro
claim the alarm from the top of this Capitol in such a way that
it shall reach every hill and valley in this Commonwealth. The
people will respond to that call — my hfe on it."
Again he says:
"The learned gentleman is pleased to charge me with hos
tility to this company. Why, sir, I entertain no feeling of that
sort; but if the Pennsylvania Railroad Company or any other
railroad company in this State embarks upon a grand scheme
of public robbery — so long as I am here, as the representative
of the people, though I stand in the breach alone, as Horatius
stood in the breach at Rome, I shall be at all times ready to
defend the people — not the people whom I immediately repre
sent, but the people of the State at large. But from the
language in which the gentleman indulges, I suppose it is to
be considered that an offense against that company is something
like what lawyers call the crimen loesis magistatis — ^that is, the
offense of treason. It is the majesty of the Pennsylvania Rail
road Company which overshadows this Commonwealth, against
which I, an humble individual, have ventured to rebel. That
is my crime. Therefore, it is that my worthy friend from
Schuylkill thinks I am not quite so wise a man as I ought to
be, or not quite so wise as himself.
"Well, sir, I owe no favors to the Pennsylvania Railroad
Company. I have tried causes for them occasionally, and they
have paid me, and the account was squared. I do not travel
upon their free tickets — not because they do not offer them to
me, but because as a member of the Legislature of Pennsyl
vania, I feel that I cannot do it so long as they are knocking
at your doors and begging for favors, however small they may
be. This refusal on my part is no evidence of hostility; but
it is evidence of a desire simply to keep myself in such a
position as to enable me to do them justice without the suspicion
of bias.'"

¦ Ibid., p. 381.

HARRISBURG AND WASHINGTON 457
At the close of a long and able speech, to which
extracts cannot do justice, he exclaimed : "My own hands
shall not be stained with it." The bill was passed by a
vote of 60 to 38. "The great fight over the passage of the
two great financial measures of the session is over in the
House," wrote the correspondent of the North American
and United States Gazette of Philadelphia on February
i6th. "The debate was, at many of its stages, very excit
ing and very interesting. Williams of Allegheny was
the chief debater in opposition to both, but his opposition
to the Sunbury and Erie bill was less marked and bitter
than it was to the tonnage tax. Against the latter he
showed a virulence that was remarkable for its intensity.
There is no use in denying his ability as a speaker. He is
beyond all question the most accomplished intellectual
athlete in either House. Had he possessed half the skill
'to filibuster,' under the rules, which he evinced in argu
ment, he would have held those two bills at bay for a
week. But he is either too high-minded to condescend
to parliamentary strategy for mere purposes of delay, or
he does not understand very well legislative maneuver
ing. Had Ball been assisting him the Sunbury and Erie
would yet have been hanging fire in Committee of the
Whole." The arguments on the other side have not been given,
because no reader of to-day, in Pennsylvania at least,
needs them, any more than a citizen of Germany needs
arguments for favoring their army, "or an Englishman
needs them to warrant his vote to favor their navy. The
dominant elements in all three lands are determined to
have these things andto care for their welfare, at anycost.^
The tonnage tax was, of course, considered a menace to
the entry of outside freight into the State. The dominant
forces in the Senate, led by McClure within and President
Scott of the Pennsylvania Railroad without, with all the
measures known to the politics of that day — as well as
some other days — soon secured its passage there.
^ Colonel McClure himself has given the general tenor of the arguments
used on the railway side in his interesting series of articles on Pennsylvania
politics, at this writing current in the Philadelphia Press and Pittsburgh Gazette.
He shows Senator Penny of Pittsburgh, who was to the Senate on this question
what Williams was to the House, to have been a powerful leader.

458 THOMAS WILLIAMS
Scott was one of the "men who do things," and it was
well known, as Colonel McClure has stated in a recent
conversation, that persuadable men were secured by the
railway interests by the means that would secure them
whenever it was necessary. It was political warfare.
These events and the contemporary railroad bond cases
in the Supreme Court led to petitions from the people
over the State in protest against this action, and some
petitions even went so far as to call for the removal of
the judges of the Supreme Court. "Mountains," the
correspondent of the North American and United States
Gazette, said, on the i6th, that there would be something
interesting on in a few days. "I refer," said he, "to the
presentation of an address by Mr. Williams of Allegheny,
for removal of the Supreme Judges." One of the
petitions, namely, from Washington County, called the
doctrines of the judges "immoral, incendiary and revolu
tionary." The public feeling was so great that many a
legislator grew apprehensive when he thought of his first
meeting with his constituents. It was plain that the
battle was only begun.
National affairs, meanwhile, produced a cessation of
hostilities. The new President-elect was on his way
East, and by the 13th a committee of twelve, six from
each House, Mr. WilHams among them, had been
appointed to go West and meet Mr. Lincoln to extend an
invitation to visit the Legislature. They met him at
Rochester, about thirty miles below Pittsburgh, and
escorted him into the latter city, which they reached at
8 P. M. on the 14th. The committee returned and
announced a visit for the 22d, Washington's Birthday.
"The members speak of him," wrote a correspondent for a
Philadelphia paper, "as a man of the most frank and open
, character, as having no pretension to style in dress or
elegance of manner, though he does not lack refinement
or courtesy. A member of the committee declares that he
is a most diffident man."^ About a week later he arrived
and participated in the ceremonies of the first President's
birthday. It was in the Hall of Representatives. After
^ "Mountains," in the North American and United States Gazette of February
16, 1861. Philadelphia Library.

PRESIDENT-ELECT LINCOLN
Halftone of a contemporary photograph by Brady,
negative In possession of L. C. Handy,
Washington, D. C.

HARRISBURG AND WASHINGTON 459
official greetings the tall westerner arose and, after refer
ence to his visit in Philadelphia, said :
"Under the kind conduct of gentlemen there, I was, for the
first time, allowed the privilege of standing in old Independence
Hall [enthusiastic cheering], and to have a few words addressed
to me there, affording me an opportunity of expressing myself.
I regret that I had not more time to express something of
my own feelings, excited by the occasion — something to har
monize and give shape to the sentiments that had really been
the sentiments of my whole life. Besides this our friends there
had provided a magnificent flag of our country, and had
arranged it so that I was given the honor of raising it to the
head of the staff. [Applause.] And when it went up I was
pleased that it went to its place by the strength of my own
feeble arm when, according to the arrangement, the cord was
pulled, and it flaunted gloriously to the wind, without an acci
dent, in the light-glowing sunshine of the morning. I could
not help hoping that there was in the entire success of that
beautiful ceremony at least something of an omen of what is
to come. [Loud applause.] Nor could I help feeling then, as
I often have felt, in the whole of that proceeding I was a very
humble instrument. I had not provided the flag; I had not
made the arrangement for elevating it to its place ; I had
applied a very small portion even of my feeble strength in
raising it. In the whole transaction I was in the hands of the
people who had arranged it, and if I can have the same gener
ous co-operation of the people of the entire nation, I think the
flag of our country may yet be kept flaunting gloriously."
[Enthusiastic and prolonged cheering.]^
It was well known that Mr. Lincoln's party and repre
sentatives of the committee were to leave for Washington
the next morning, and never perhaps were greater precau
tions taken by the Pennsylvania Railroad and connect
ing lines ; but some sudden developments of a threatening
nature at Baltimore became known and Mr. Lincoln was
taken by another route during the night, while Mrs.
Lincoln, Mr. Williams' two daughters. General Sumner,
Judge Davis, Captain Pope and the four young men,
"Bob" Lincoln, John Hay, John G. Nicolai and Colonel
Ellsworth, with Mr. Williams and other members of
iThe same evening a reception was held at the hotel in Harrisburg by
Mr. Lincoln, where the two daughters of Mr. Williams, met Mrs Lincoln who
requested him to allow the young ladies to accompany the party to Washing
ton.

460 THOMAS WILLIAMS
the committee, went on the regularly arranged tram
the next morning.^ The few days to March 4th
sped rapidly and there came the inauguration. Mr.
Williams and his daughters, as Mr. Lincoln's personal
guests, enjoyed intimate views of it. They heard the
famous inaugural address, and it must have been an
interesting moment to Mr. Williams when the venerable
Chief Justice Taney— an old Dickinson College alumnus
—arose in evident agitation to administer the oath of
office to the first Republican President, and might have
recalled how since he was raised to eminence by
Jackson he had sworn in a long line of Democratic Chief
Executives— Van Buren, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fillmore,
Pierce and Buchanan— and this last oath was to be one
which should not only sound the death-knell of the Chief
Justice's party's supremacy for many a long day to come,
but assure a fearful civil war in the very words of the
oath itself.
The inaugural ball brought out an amusing incident
that illustrates the absentmindedness of Mr. Williams as
well as his dependence upon his wife in matters of dress.
The President's set, in the opening quadrille, was com
posed of Mr. and Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Williams and his
daughter. Miss M. D. Williams, "Bob" Lincoln and Mr.
Williams' other daughter, and John Hay and a lady
whose name cannot now be recalled. While they were
waiting for other sets to form Mr. Williams looked down
at his feet somewhat ruefully and whispered in mock
alarm that he had forgotten to put on his shoes! The
inaugural ball, so far as he was concerned, therefore, had
to be danced in his morocco slippers.
^ Miss M. D. Williams, one of these daughters, recalls being frightened
at the faces of the mob at Baltimore and admiring the bravery of the boy,
"Bob" Lincoln, in presenting himself on the platform at the mob's call. At
Washington Mr. Seward met Mrs. Lincoln and party and took her and the
Misses \^'ilHams in his carriage to Williard's, where Mr. Lincoln was already
established. Mrs. Lincoln proved a good conversationalist, but Mr. Seward
was so unresponsive or absentminded that the young girl beside Mrs.
Lincoln voted him a "bore." Later she realized his responsibilities and more
than forgave liim. When they reached Mr. Lincoln's rooms, "there he sat,"
said Miss Williams, "iiu an armchair with Tad and Willie climbing all over
him — a beautiful picture in my memory. That night Mr. Lincoln held another
reception and, at Mrs. Lincoln's request, the Misses Williams assisted her.
Later, in his own apartments, when Mr. Lincoln a.sked Miss Williams to sing,
and she questioned him as to what kind of music he liked, he replied: "Sing
me something sad." In relating these incidents Miss Williams said: "His
lace was indeed the saddest I ever saw, but when he smiled it was one of the
most attractive."

;;^^^^'^"^^^^VV\\\V\\\\\\\\\\\\\v\\\\X\.\\\V\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\v\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\>)-

F t ?

J _£ < C
•J. -i ~- 7

^ ": -^ ^

V

V\>,V \' > -.V,',V,V.V..>.\V,\V\\VW\V\V>.\\^

\W.V\\V.\V\\>AV\V>.V.v\\\V.'

\

H

s

^

V

. $

S'

*>

:,_^
^
S
/2?
¦ :>
->
: 5
%
: 5
C
H
^
ci:=iv
^^^¦G^-
%
HARRISBURG AND WASHINGTON 461
This friendship of Mr. Lincoln had no doubt much
to do with the rumors that at once arose in the press
especially in Pennsylvania, that Mr. Williams was to
receive some national appointment. The Harrisburg
correspondent of the Pittsburgh Gazette, under date of
March 14th (1861), said: "Mr. Williams, as has already
been stated in the Gazette, occupies a very enviable and
distinguished position here. His speeches have been the
speeches of the session, and have given him a national
reputation. * * * It is a matter of conversation here
that the Administration are about to confer upon Mr.
Williams an appointment. It is stated by some that he
will be nominated by the President to the vacancy on the
Supreme Court bench. For this distinguished position
Mr. \A'illiams is peculiarly qualified by his profound
knowledge of law, and brilliant attainments. By others
it is said he will be offered a foreign appointment." The
selection of Senator Simon Cameron for a Cabinet posi
tion left a vacancy in the United States Senate that at
this time brought forward the names of Wilmot,
AA'illiams, Curtin and others to fill it. Pittsburgh claimed
the right to name this man. A leading paper^ of that city
said editorially:
"We want from Pennsylvania, a man with the ability and
power to do something for our divided and distracted
country. * * * The moment for action has come. The
question of slavery has been swallowed up in the question of the
Union. Let Pennsylvania send to the Senate a man of mark.
She has such men, and although it is not for us to dictate, we
may as a Pittsburgher, be allowed to suggest the nomination
and election of Hon. Thomas Williams, of this city, now one
of our representatives in the Lower House, as eminently fit to
be made.  Mr. Williams is an educated statesman — a
lawyer of great ability — an orator who has few peers in any
of our forums — a well-advised, large-thinking, patriotic citizen.
He might with great propriety have been called to Mr. Lincoln's
cabinet, but Mr. Cameron occupying the position from Penn
sylvania, we know no man more fit to succeed him than Thomas
Williams. He is a man whom difficulty and danger neither
appalls nor deters. His perseverance is only equalled by his
calm judgment and his powers of argument.  Coming from
^ Probably the Post — the clipping is not identified.

462 THOMAS WILLIAMS
us, some may suppose these high encomiums ironical. We have
had our battles with this gentleman, but they were upon local
questions. * * * He was a brave and skillful opponent,
and fought for what he believed to be right. He yielded no
inch of ground while it was tenable, and omitted no argument
to sustain his cause. But now a nobler and more important
field of action presents itself, than the contest between bond
holders and taxpayers. A Nation is divided against itself, and
needs its strongest and most powerful minds to arrange its
difficulties. Thomas Wilhams is the man for Pennsylvania to
send to the United States Senate, in the present crisis, if he
will consent to accept the position."
A big petition, signed by scores of eminent names in
Pittsburgh, was presented to the other Allegheny mem
bers of the Legislature urging them to support Mr. Wil
liams. Mr. Wilmot was chosen, however, and no 'one,
perhaps, at this distance, could doubt his prior claim to
it, even if the dominant element in the Legislature had
been less intensely pitted in battle against Mr. Williams.^
On the evening of April 12th news of an engagement
at Charleston was announced, amidst great sensation.
The session was to close on the i8th and there were great
questions yet to be cared for. It is not possible to go
into details of such a legislative body's proceedings, inter
esting as they are. The most important was undoubtedly
the relief of the banks who, it was alleged, had forfeited
their charters because of suspension of specie payments.
In all these questions Mr. Williams took a conservative
attitude. The session closed on the i8th with the singing
of the national anthem, "The Star Spangled Banner."
Two days later an extra session was called by the
Governor for the 30th instant, and on that occasion
he announced in his message that he had already raised
twenty-three regiments, and Pennsylvania's volunteers
had been the first to reach Washington. He also called
for provision for more troops. The message was re
ferred to a special committee of seven, Ball being chair
man and Williams one of the members. Army organiza-
^ A letter of March 15, 1861, shows that Mr. Williams had enough votes to
have prevented the election of Mr. Wilmot, or assured it, and he chose the lat
ter and withdrew in favor of Wilmot. It also shows that his friends demanded
that he should be recommended for the Supreme Bench or given a foreign
mission, and explains the efforts of Wilmot and Cowan in his behalf.

HARRISBURG AND WASHINGTON 463
tion was taken up, and, incidentally, of course the Govern
or's relation to it was discussed. This led to a telegram
m a Philadelphia paper saying there was a breach
between the Executive and Legislature, which created
great indignation in the latter body. Some wished an
investigation. "I look upon these things, entirely
irresponsible in their character," said Mr. Williams, "as
matters which are not worthy of the consideration of' this
Legislature. * * * Sir, I have been something of a
politician in my time. I think that there is perhaps no
man in this Commonwealth who has been more largely
abused than myself. I am, however, perfectly willing,
and have been on all occasions, to allow these presses a
charter free as the mind. I have felt that they could do
me no harm. Why, Sir, at the outset of this session the
opinions I expressed in regard to the importance of
maintaining at all hazards the integrity of this Union and
using the strong arm of the government for that pur
pose, were denounced in the press of the city of Philadel
phia as execrable. Now, those newspapers (* * *)
are emulous in the endeavor to show who shall be fore
most in advocating the same doctrines. I care nothing
about these things. * * * i t^ust that we can live
down calumnies of malice and the judgment of ignorance.
Let our acts here answer for us, I desire nothing
further."^ The point which was the cause of this was
largely due to the efforts of Mr. Williams to establish a
system of accountability in regard to expenditures, that
system to include the Governor, of course, as well as all
others in power. This was construed as opposition to the
Governor. On May 9th the question of accountability
came up again in some able debates as one may often
hear. In response to some member who touched upon it,
Mr. Williams replied :
"He says I consult nobody — that I am my own adviser. In
that particular he is a little mistaken. If he meant to say that
I do not consult many of the politicians, or many of the living
of whatever class, he is right. I know nothing about politics
as a trade. I have none of the arts of the politician, and never
^ Legislative Record, 1861, p. 1040.

464 THOMAS WILLIAMS
had. Therefore it is, perhaps, that I have, during my life time,
been almost invariably in the minority! Why, sir, I came into
this body for the first time (except for a short period in 1840)
in the ascendancy, with seventy-two men, I believe, elected
upon the same basis, upon the same principles as myself; and
lo ! before I had been here two weeks, I found myself in my
old place — in a minority ! It has seemed to me as if that was
my destiny — as if I had been born to it. However, it suits me
very well. * * * — Well, sir, I know nothing about politics
as a trade. I think I know something of it as a science. If I
do not choose to consult the politicians around me, some of whom
may be younger perhaps than myself, there are other sources
of information that may be consulted. If I choose not to consult
with the living, I can talk with the dead. I can go to the
shelves of my library, and learn wisdom there. History is
said to be philosophy teaching by example. If I want to know
anything about the effect of this or that system of Government,
I find my sources of knowledge there. * * * j JqqJ^ (-q ^jjg
Constitution of England, from which we have derived all our
best advices and our largest experience. I look to the history
of a Government of which our own is almost a literal copy, and
which has borne the blasts of time, as I hope our own will, for a
thousand years. These are the authorities that I consult when
I want light. I do not speak of my own knowledge. I speak
from the experience, from the information which I have derived
from sources such as these. The man who will not be made
wise by them will never become wise."'
On May 15th he made a plea for more conservative
financial methods. One of his objections to the com
mutation bill was its attack upon the sinking fund, and
now when a new loan was to be made he urged that pro
vision be made to pay it. "It is not a question," said he,
"of the ability of the State of Pennsylvania to pay;
nobody doubts that; it is a question of the disposition
to pay." The then high credit of the State, he said, was
due to the constitutional amendments of 1857, which
provided a fund to pay her enormous debt. "From that
day," he continued, "light began to dawn in Pennsylva
nia." Again, "What have we done at the present session
of the Legislature? We have thrown away $400,000 of
our yearly revenue in the passage of a misnamed,
delusive, monstrous 'commutation' bill. We have thrown
' Legislative Record, 1861, p. 1064.

MRS. THOMAS WILLIAMS
Halftone of a painting by Lambdin, about 1854, in possession of the
Misses Williams, Philadelphia

HARRISBURG AND WASHINGTON 465
away another fund of three million and a half of dollars,
the interest of which at five per cent, would amount to
some $175,000 a year. All this has been withdrawn, I
may say, from our present revenue. And now, when we
are called upon to provide for a loan of three and a half
millions to meet the exigencies of this great national
crisis, we are told that the loan can be readily negotiated
because Pennsylvania is able to pay !" He showed how
State stocks in 1842 had sunk so low as 34 cents on the
dollar because the State did not make provision for pay
ment of her enormous debt, and the moment she did her
credit rose to par or nearly so. He favored a tax of one
mill to accompany or follow the loan. This incident
shows the solidity of the principles upon which he based
his actions. It was not the Pennsylvania Railroad's plans
and desires that he disliked so much as the unsound
finance that he believed they represented in this instance
— with him it was the right at any cost, not a system of
transportation at any cost. And this did not preclude
the possibility of his opponents believing, in all sincerity,
that transportation welfare and the right were one and
the same. The bill was amended with a half-mill tax and
passed. 'Sir. Williams was a doughty champion and withal
a genial gladiator in his arena, who won the admiration
and often the affection of his ablest opponents.^ "Tom
Williams," as he was known among intimates, notwith
standing his innate dignity, was a general favorite, so
that when, on May i6th, the Speaker adjourned the
House with a few words, there were loud calls for "Wil
liams" from all parts of the room, and, at the Speaker's
suggestion, he took the stand amid cheers.
"Gentlemen of the House of Representatives," he began,
"I feel deeply honored by this unexpected call. I wish I were
^ He was fortunate in having such rare advice as the following: On
February 22d his daughter Maggie, who was with him, received a letter from
her mother. "You must try," said she, "and not let your father carry his
feelings outside of the Legislative halls — he must throw everything unpleasant
off as he quits the door, & be friendly with all. Whatever measures of the
Governor he opposes let it be in a moderate manner & then lay it aside for
social enjoyment and friendly intercourse. He will accomplish more in that
way (take my word for it) than any other." Mrs. Williams was a woman of
rare tact and insight into character. She was also a woman of distinction, of
bearing and manner. The accompanying portrait from a painting by Lambdin,
about 1854, carries its own evidence of her strength of character.

466 THOMAS WILLIAMS
in a condition to respond to it as it deserves. I should, however,
be either more or less than man, if, under the influence of the
feelings which have pervaded this hall and to which so loud an
expression has been given this day, I could sit silent, making
no response. "We are about to separate — perhaps forever. We have, I
trust, done our duty, and our whole duty; that is for others to
pass upon. We have put the sword into the hands of our
mighty men and sent them forth on a mission of patriotism, to
fight, and, if need be, to die under the shadow of that flag
whose glories have been so well enunciated and proclaimed this
day in our great national hymn.
"We met, gentlemen, four or five months ago, in gloom; we
part, I trust, in hope. The thunder of the ordnance in the harbor
of Charleston — the rattling of the musketry upon the streets of
Baltimore, when the blood of our own citizens and of the men
who derived their lineage from the Pilgrims, dyed the streets
of that rebel city — the electric summons of our Chief — all these
coming together, have lifted a mountain from the heart of this
people, and that great heart of the free and mighty north has
gone out in one overwhelming burst of patriotism and wild
enthusiasm that no nation has ever yet exhibited. [Applause.]
Why, sirs, I thanked God — although the sound of battle is not
music to me — I thanked God when the reverberations of those
guns came up upon our ears. I felt that now the curtain was
up, and the drama was about to open. I felt once more that
we had a country. [Loud cheers.]
"The events of the last few weeks have developed in the
eyes of the astonished world the amazing powers of a govern-
m.ent that rests upon the will of a free and intelligent people.
[Cheers.] Never since the preaching of Peter the Hermit, when
all Europe was lifted from its foundation and precipitated
upon Asia, has the world witnessed such a spectacle as we
have just given forth. Never was such a response to the call
of country witnessed in any nation. It has made me feel as
if I were once more a man and had once more a country. It
was the star that beckoned the wise men of the East, a mighty
host of devotees, to the cradle of our Lord upon the plains of
Bethlehem. It is the starry banner of our Republic, with all
the associations of glory and renown and past heroism clustered
around it, that has gathered the heart of this nation under its
folds. [Loud applause.] That banner waves and it will continue
to wave. "I said at the outset of this session (and I feel proud that
I am able to reiterate it now) that it was not in the providence

HARRISBURG AND WASHINGTON 467
of God that this great nation should perish — that it had just
expanded its wings for a flight of centuries. We now have the
evidence of it in the facts we have witnessed around us. Why,
look at' our State. At the summons of our Chiefs, as at the
horn of Poland, every mountain, every valley in the Common
wealth has poured out its rill in the way of contribution to this
immense flood of patriotism — which absolutely requires Execu
tive interposition, to check it. Did the world ever witness such
a spectacle? Here are great strong men weeping like children
that are denied the privilege of perilling their lives and perhaps
spilling their blood in the defence of their country. [Applause.]
I am, however, glad to learn from the communication read
this morning, that the Secretary of War, a citizen of our State,
suggests to the Executive of this Commonwealth, 'Let the
county of Allegheny and let the "wild cat district" send a few
more of their men.' [Cheers.] And we have them in numbers
almost numberless. Three hundred thousand men, I am sure,
could have been brought into the field from our single State. I
think we should have taken upon our hands the job of disposing
of this whole question. [Applause.] But it is in the way of
being settled. Massachusetts is already avenged. The blood
which dyed the stones of the streets of Baltimore has gone up
calling for vengeance; and now a retribution is at hand. 
'Send them home tenderly,' said the valiant and kind-hearted Gov
ernor of that gallant State. 'Massachusetts desires once more to
look upon the faces, the unmangled, undisfigured faces of her
courageous sons.' She saw them; she gave them a soldier's
farewell and a soldier's burial. Then she rose and put off her
robes of mourning as King David did when he was told that the
child of his affections had ceased to live. And now — mark it ! —
the guns of the men of Massachusetts — the descendants of the
Pilgrims — ^the men who derived their lineage from Lexington
and Concord and Bunker's Hill are frowning destruction over
that rebel city. [Cheers.]
"This is the first act in the drama, which, with a proper
exertion of energy on the part of the General Government,
will soon come to a conclusion, which will result, not in mischief
to this nation, but in the assurance to the world that we are
what we have ever claimed to be — the greatest power upon the
earth, [cheers] and that that flag, so well discoursed of to-day,
and the adoration of which has become a species of religion
amongst us, (if it has not always been so) will continue to
wave as it has heretofore waived. Why should it not be so?
There is a history in that flag. There is an epic in every star
of it; there is a story of romance and heroism arid loyalty and

468 THOMAS WILLIAMS
courage in every fold. It tells of the bloody deck on which
fought Decatur and Perry and McDonough and other heroes
equally gallant who were identified with our history, and on
which Lawrence fell. It tells too of the triumphs of our Revolu
tion; it points to the victory of Yorktown as well as of New
Orleans. It points again to the field at the Thames; where the
lion-standard of England, described by one of her poets as
having 'faced a thousand years the battle and the breeze,' went
down before our glorious banner, the emblem of our power the
world over. This is a part of its history. It will continue to
wave. Aye, there is no man can assign a limit to the duration
of this Republic. It has a destiny which it has only begun to
work out. It is upon the threshold of its high career. This is
but a temporary interruption; it will all pass over without
injury, and will only result in strengthening and fortifying the
conviction that we are a people the greatest the world has
seen. Yes, gentlemen. Representatives, that banner will still
continue to wave; and a hundred generations shall yet sit down
and sing hosannas to the name of Washington." [Mr. Williams
concluded amid enthusiastic, long-continued cheering.]^
The remainder of the year 1861 was crowded with
events of the greatest significance, but the people of
Pennsylvania, in great numbers, while providing for the
great national concerns lavishly — one might almost say —
were still tenacious in holding more firmly than ever to
their opposition to the railway measures. So great was
their resentment over the recent commutation or ton
nage tax bill that when, in a private conversation, one
day Senator Clymer of Berks County told Senator A. K.
McClure of the overwhelming landslide in the new mem
bership of the Legislature against the railway measures,
saying, "It looks as if we had you now," Senator McClure
replied with significant precision: "Speaking mathe
matically, I think you have."^ And it was true enough,
both in the House and Senate. Mr. Williams was
returned at the head of the Allegheny County delegation
and his party elected the Speaker, John Rowe of Franklin
County.^ Mr. Williams himself was placed second on
^ Legislative Record, lS6i, p. 1149.
^ From a conversation between Colonel McClure and the author in the
spring of 1904, with permission to use. In a Senate of 33 members the rail
way people had but n against the opposition's 22 votes.
' On January 7th (1862) the Harrisburg correspondent of the North Ameri-
can and United States Gazette said; "It is evident from the debate of this

HARRISBURG AND WASHINGTON 469
the judiciary (general) committee, and made chairman
of those on Federal relations and State library.^ By
January 17, 1862, the tonnage tax battle was on again,
fiercer than ever.^ Mr. Hopkins asked for an investiga
tion of corruption in the passage of the repeal bill of last
session. Three days before the House had ordered the
judiciary (general) committee to bring in a bill to repeal
the tonnage tax commutation bill, and this was a com
panion measure, at which some objection was raised,
Representative W. L. Dennis of Philadelphia raising
the question whether this was not an investigation of a
"dead body." This brought Williams to his feet.
"Now if it be true," said he, "as suggested by the gentleman
from Philadelphia [Mr. Dennis] that there is no remedy here
for the acts of past Legislatures, then our condition is a woeful
one indeed. The House of Representatives of last session,
the learned gentleman is pleased to say, is dead. Yes, it is
dead, thank God ! and more than that, I think it is in the con
dition of the body of Lazarus — it is tainted. Why, sir, I sug
gested, I think, in the last remarks I had occasion to make on
this question at the late session — standing almost alone in this
House, resisting what I regarded as a torrent of corruption
sweeping wide over the Legislature — I said then that although
I was not a prophet or the son of a prophet — although the Penn
sylvania railroad company, with the revenues of a principality
and with a power which no corporation in this Union has ever
matched, might subsidize the press, might spike and muzzle the
organs of public opinion — it was too vast a transaction to be
kept from the people of this State — that it would find its way
morning, short as it was, that there is more aggregate talent, ability and power
for discussion than there has been found in this Hall for many years. I have
never seen such a house assembled here. Should any occasion arise which
would call out its whole powers it will compare favorably with an equal number
of the members of the Federal Congress." He recalls how Jefferson said any
great cause would bring out men of great powers.
^ Legislative Record, 1862, pp. 2? and 37.
2 Ibid., p. S4-
It should be noted at this point that Mr. Williams was one of the most
intimate legal advisers of the new Secretary of War, Mr. Stanton, who called
him to Washington for advice "upon certain judicial matters connected with
the advance of our armies," within eight days after his appointment. (Telegram
of January 23, 1862, among the Williams papers.) It was, in this case, for the
purpose of asking Mr. Williams to draft a law for the construction of judicial
tribunals for the territory recaptured and for maritime prizes. Mr. Williams
made a trip to Fortress Monroe in consultation with General Wool on its rela
tion to the colored people. A copy of a letter of January i6th of Simon Cam
eron's to President Lincoln shows that he, too, had thought of Mr. WilHams in
this connection and had suggested him to President Lincoln while he was head
of the War Department. A letter of January 29, 1862, shows that Senators
Wilmot and Cowan were interested in an effort to place Mr. Williams on the
United States Supreme Bench.

47°

THOMAS WILLIAMS

to the public mind and would ferment there, and that however
innocently gentlemen might vote upon the arguments then
furnished upon a measure such as that, taking some ten mil
lions of dollars out of your treasury and bestowing it upon a
private corporation, those gentlemen would go home, I thought,
with the mark of Cain upon their brows, and that these halls,
which then knew them, would know them no more forever.
How near is that prophecy to its fulfillment in what we see here
now! If I had expected it to be otherwise, I should not have
thought of being here myself.'"
He then goes on to show that these bills are designed
to show fraud in contract, if the railway interests made
the contract claim regarding the commutation and other
bills of the series, which were designed to create the
Pennsylvania Railroad system, or "merger," as it was
then called. The test vote on postponement, taken
on January 21st, showed vividly what a change there was,
namely, 71 in Messrs. Williams' and Hopkins' party to
24 in the railway party, whose chief spokesman in this
House was Mr. Dennis. Between Mr. Dennis, who was a
Philadelphia lawyer, and Mr. Williams there were some
of the most interesting tilts of the session. "I am certain,
Mr. Speaker, of one thing," said the former on this occa
sion, "that no gentleman on this floor can listen with
more pleasure or unmixed admiration to anything that
falls from the lips of the gentleman from Allegheny,
[Mr. Williams] than myself. The only fault which I
have to find with him at any time is, first, that he has an
exceedingly winning and senatorial way, by the nod of
his head, of seeming to carry a question at once ; and in
the second place, I think his logic is at times — very rarely
— a little faulty."^ The investigation and the repeal of
the commutation bill were the great points at issue. It
is not possible in limited space to follow the complicated
fight that was made. Mr. Williams' own opinion of the
importance of the investigation was that "it is one of
gigantic interest; it dwarfs into nothingness any other
^ Legislative Record, 1862, p. 54. Farther on he says he excepted Phila
delphia representatives.
2 Legislative Record, 1862, p. 69. In a reply to this speech Mr. Williams
stated that he had never been a practitioner in criminal courts — "always de
clined that sort of business." P. 112.

HARRISBURG AND WASHINGTON 471
that has ever commanded the attention of this Legisla
ture. If we do no more than lift up the curtain and
expose to the public eye the means by which this great
iniquity was consummated, I take it we shall render to
the people of this Commonwealth the best service that
has ever been rendered by any Legislature. With the
cloud of war now over and around us, the people seem
to have no wishes beyond the salvation of the country,
the protection of the great general interests of the repub
lic, outside of the particular subject of inquiry which now
engages the attention of this House." He described the
railway "monopoly" as a "colossus that bestrides this
Commonwealth with one foot on the Ohio and the other
on the Atlantic seaboard." He told in a speech teeming
with beauty and forcefulness of illustration of how
Charles V tried to make a number of watches run
together and failed, even as he had failed to make men
think alike in religion; but, at the last session, "the
Pennsylvania railroad company was able to achieve a
miracle greater than that! It could make sixty men
think alike upon every line, every syllable and every letter
of that bill, and no man here, even with the wisdom of
Solomon and the eloquence of Cicero, could have effected
an alteration even in the crossing of a t or the dotting of
an i. This looked miraculous. It was a miracle — very
short of a miracle."^
The investigation went on with all but unanimous
consent of the House.^ It showed great corruption. The
main effort, however, was to get President Scott of the
Pennsylvania Railroad on the stand, but Senator McClure
told Mr. Hopkins privately that the investigation should
not touch two or three men, one of whom was Scott, who
was in charge of the government's transportation, and
the way that McClure kept his word is an interesting tale.
Mr. Williams had secured the order of the House to go
and get Mr. Scott. The officer sent was "seen" by the
Republican leader in the Senate, and with the result that
^ On p. 525 he plainly says that were it not for the tonnage tax restoration
he would not have been m the House, and "when it is disposed of I shall con
sider my work done."
* Legislative Record, 1862, p. 135. Mr. Dennis was the only one voting in
the negative to 92 for the Hopkins resolution.

472 THOMAS WILLIAMS
he would always, after an interview in which Mr. Scott
was kept fully informed of the situation, return
announcing his inability to "find" Mr. Scott. After a few
experiences of this kind Mr. Williams' suspicions were
aroused, and he determined to have a new officer and go
with him himself. Senator McClure, hearing of this,
sent a sealed letter by messenger to the Willard Hotel,
Washington, and then telegraphed Senator David
Wilmot to go there and get the letter. It informed the
latter gentleman that Mr. Scott must be got out of the
way, as Williams was after him in person ; that he must
lay the matter before President Lincoln and effect it in
some way, as Scott's services were too vital to the Union
cause now to be interrupted. Senator Wilmot called at
the White House ; Mr. Lincoln called in Secretary Stan
ton and showed him the letter, asking him what should
be done. The Secretary promptly stated to the President
that he had just ordered Mr. Scott to Kentucky to give
much needed aid in the transportation service there and
that he would be gone several months. "And," said
Colonel McClure in recounting the incident, "Stanton
forthwith ordered Scott to start, and that night, while
Williams was asleep, Scott's train was, standing on a sid
ing at Harrisburg and I was having an interview with
him. The next morning, when Mr. Williams started for
Washington, Scott's train was passing out of the western
edge of the State for Kentucky !"^
On March 14th the bill restoring the tonnage tax was
passed in the House by a vote of 70 to 25.^ In the
Senate the territory which had sent Senators to restore
the tonnage tax had a comfortable majority, "mathe
matically speaking," as Senator McClure had told Mr.
Clymer. "Many of these Senators, however," said
^ From an interview by the author with Colonel A. K. McClure in Philadel
phia in IQ04, with permission to use.
" Legislative Record, 1862, p. 558. These are such fine debates along here
that it is unfortunate that space will not permit reproduction. A letter of Mr.
Williams of February 15, 1862, says: "I have just achieved a great triumph in
effecting the Repeal of the Tonnage Tax infamy of last Session — so far as the
House IS concerned— by a vote of 72 to 28. Of this lean minority no less than
17 are Philadelphia members, leaving only 11 outside of that city & two of
these salaried attorneys of the Company." This was undoubtedly a slip in the
name of the month, which should be March. His totals also conflict with those
of the Legislative Record, but he may have included absentees whose sentiments
were known to him. The letter shows him to have been on a joint Penn
sylvania-New Jersey commission on defenses of the Delaware.

HARRISBURG AND WASHINGTON 473
Colonel McClure in describing the event, "did not person
ally believe that the tax should be restored." He knew
who these gentlemen were and forthwith called them to a
secret caucus one night, and told them that he knew they
did not believe that the tax should be again put on the
Pennsylvania Railroad, but that, if they would stand by
him, he would construct a substitute bill for which they
could vote and satisfy their constituents but which would
sustain a defeat at the hands of the House itself. They
agreed. His bill proposed to restore it to the Pennsyl
vania, but also to put a tax on other roads, a measure that
would raise an opposition in the House fatal to the bill
from the constituency of those roads. It worked, and
thereupon the great fight of the session was over. The
railway measures were shrewdly won even against
"mathematical" majorities in both Houses!^ The ton
nage tax, which was the railway's indemnity to the State
for the depreciation of her canal system, or "public
works," and, in a sense, the compensation for keeping the
Baltimore and Ohio road out of the State, was sur
rendered by the State to the new railway system.^
It is unfortunate that his various legal arguments in
the entire debate cannot be given. They show high
lawyer-like treatment of the subject and evince a tem
per thoroughly conciliatory and without malice. "I can
assure all who hear me that I have no quarrel with
Philadelphia. I greatly admire her," said he, and added,
"but, sir, there is no question of that kind here." His
eye was not on places or persons, but on the just opera
tion of great general laws — his was, as he believed, the
statesman's purview. He beheld the looming shadow
of the modern giant — corporate power — and was trying
to find and keep it in its legitimate sphere, as many
another statesman has been doing ever since and shall
^ Interview by the author with Colonel A. K. McClure in 1904, with permis
sion to use. See the Senate substitute bill in Legislative Record, 1862, p. 987.
When the bill was returned to the House Mr. Williams said; "Now, I am
responsible to some extent for the paternity of the original measure which
passed this house by a large majority, but I disclaim any responsibility for
the beggar's brat, the miserable foundling, that has been thrust into the cradle
of the rightful heir. Sir, the purpose was not to amend, but to destroy by
indirection." And, of course, he stated the fact. The House refused to pass
the bill, by a vote of &j to 24, on the single speech of Mr. Williams.
^ In a speech on p. 552, Legislative Record, 1862, Mr. Williams gives an
excellent resume of the history of the whole question.

474 THOMAS WILLIAMS
continue to do until the political and legal province of
corporate power is as fully defined as are individual or
municipal and State powers. His viewpoint was pecul
iarly judicial ; this was recognized by his fellow-members
in his assignment to the judiciary (general) committee. If
he used powerful rhetorical weapons, they were wielded
upon the basis of legal a,rgument, and it was because this
was intuitively and almost universally recognized
among those who disagreed with him that he won their
admiration, if not affection, even while dealing his
doughtiest blows. There were many genial descriptive
names given him, "Old Man Eloquent," "the Walking
Library," and the like.^ One of his colleagues referred
to him as "the engineer in the cause of honesty," and
even the brilliant Dennis confessed that "My friend from
Allegheny and myself, whatever may have been our
seeming contentions and disputes, have cherished towards
each other all this session a love that was not excelled by
the love of David and Jonathan."^ So when the session
closed on April ii, 1862, the House, this time by motion,
requested him to make its farewell address.
He spoke of the inactivity of the army in the past
year and the wisdom of the choice of Stanton as the
head of the War Department in eloquent periods.
"It was my fortune to know, and know well, the man whom
he [the President] had thus selected. He was a lawyer and
no politician, in the ordinary sense of the term. He had not
sought or intrigued for the position. A lawyer myself and no
politician either, I had practiced in the same courts with him
for many years. I knew that he was able, active, patriotic,
correct and bold — that he was endowed with high intellectual
powers, and a herculean energy, which was a guaranty that
things must move. I thought I understood his opinions, and
that he was the man above all others whom Providence had
indicated for the place at the crisis. I hurried to Washington
for the purpose of seeing him. I portrayed in language as strong
as I could utter the calamitous condition of the country. I
insisted that we were losing caste among the nations— that the
very unmolested presence of a rebel army beyond the Potomac
and in view of our very capital, was a standing menace which
^ Legislative Record, 1862, p. 933.
^ Ibid., 950,

HARRISBURG AND WASHINGTON 475
was worse than a dozen defeats-that no government could
sately stop to inquire whether it was strong enough to put
down a rebellion— that it were better for us to lose a battle or
even an army, than to endure this reproach and humiliation;
that we could not afford to stand this throughout the winter,
and that our armies tnust move, and the Republic at once fight
Its way back to the high position which it had lost, without
regard either to rough weather or hesitating generals His
answer was : I realize fully the force of all you say. I agree
with you that the army must move. If my counsel can avail.
It must and shall move — and it did move— and now behold!
The telegraphic wires flash upon us from day to day almost
with the rapidity of minute guns, the announcement of victories
on victories, multipled and multiplying, that our memory fails
to rehearse the catalogue."
"The time is not distant," says another gem of that
eloquent farewell, — "I see it with the eye of faith— when
our glorious eagle, the proud emblem of our nationality,
which stoops over your head, shall be seen perching over
the blackened battlements of every fortress that treason
has rent from our hands, and when the stars and stripes
shall float again from ocean to ocean over every State of
this now apparently dismembered Union."^
A company of young people were spending an evening
at his home about a year later, and some one present,
having a copy of the Confederate song, "The Bonny Blue
Flag That Bears a Single Star," one of his daughters led
in trying it. Mr. Williams, in his study heard it, and,
roused by its sentiments, dashed off the following, sug
gesting to the young people that these were fitter senti
ments for them to sing. The song soon found its way
into the press and the army and finally in a "Moore's
National Songs :"
"HURRAH FOR THE UNION FLAG !"
"Brothers of free descent are we, and native to the soil.
Knit soul to soul, in one great whole, fruit of our Fathers' toil ;
But when that bond of love was rent, the cry rose near and far.
To arms ! To arms ! Long live the stripes ! We know no
'single star.'
» Legislative Record, 1862, pp. 1030-1.

476 THOMAS WILLIAMS
CHORUS.
"Hurrah ! Hurrah for the Union Flag, Hurrah !
Hurrah for the Union Flag, that knows no 'single star.'
"So long as Southern arrogance forbore to touch that flag.
Full many a taunt we meekly bore, and many an idle brag;
But when on Sumter's battlements, the traitors did it mar.
We flung abroad the Union Flag, that ne'er shall lose a star.
"Hurrah ! Hurrah," etc.
"And first the gallant Keystone State, from every mountain glen.
From hill and valley, lake and town, sent down her stalwart
men;
And all New England rose amain, as blew the trump of war.
And raised on high their Fathers' Flag that knows no 'single
star.' "Hurrah I Hurrah," etc.
"From Saratoga's ten-crowned heights, from Monmouth's bloody
plain,
The men of York and Jersey too, both swelled the mustering
train ;
As onward — onward — fierce it rush'd o'er all opposing bars.
To punish those who dared insult our glorious stripes and stars.
"Hurrah ! Hurrah," etc.
"Missouri, too, her garments red, and little Delaware,
With heart as big as when of old she bo're a lion's share.
Have burst the chain, which cramps the soul, and all that's noble
mars,
And wheeled in line, come weal or woe, beneath the stripes and
stars. "Hurrah ! Hurrah," etc.
"And 'Maryland, our Maryland,' though called with 'fife and
drum,'
And 'old-line bugle' too, to fight 'gainst the 'Northern scum,'
Has thought of Camden's bloody field, and Eutaw's iron scars.
And lo ! she stands, where erst she stood, beneath the stripes
and stars.
"Hurrah ! Hurrah," etc.

HARRISBURG AND WASHINGTON 477
"Would we could say the same of thee, thou dark and bloody
ground !
Whose sexless sages, false of heart, a way of peace have found !
Shame on you ! No half faith would we ! Up, gird ye for the
wars.
And take your place as men once more, beneath the stripes and
stars. "Hurrah ! Hurrah," etc.

"From thy Medusa glance we turn, with hearts of cheer and
pride.
To West Virginia, virgin rib, torn from false mother's side.
Daughter of strife! Fair Freedom's child! Thy mountains
ring afar.
With echoing shouts, for that blest Flag, that counts another
star. "Hurrah ! Hurrah," etc.
"And next the hardy pioneers, the dauntless and the brave.
From those domains by Freedom won, that never knew a slave.
Their trusty rifles all in hand, with eye and port like Mars,
Grasped once again with iron hand, the staff that bears our
stars. "Hurrah ! Hurrah,'' etc.
"And from the bison's prairie haunts, o'er Mississippi's flood.
From Minnehaha's sparkling Falls, from Kansas' land of blood.
New England's youngest scions there, have heard the din of
wars.
And grasped their Fathers' ancient brand, and rear'd their
stripes and stars.
"Hurrah ! Hurrah," etc.
"And farther still, where sunset seas, bathe California's shore.
And grim Sierras darkly frown its golden treasures o'er.
Our Western Twins have heard the call, and answered from
afar.
We come ! We come ! Rear high the Flag, that knows no single
star. "Hurrah ! Hurrah," etc.

478 THOMAS WILLIAMS
"And more 'twill count, no Pleiad lost, of all that shining host,
Though dim eclipse have veiled their fires, and traitors loudly
boast;
But one by one those wand'ring lights shall gem our heavens,
like Mars,
And all the nations bless our stripes and coronet of stars.
"Hurrah ! Hurrah,'' etc.
"No other flag shall ever float above our homes or graves.
Save yonder blazing oriflamme, that flutters o'er our braves ;
It's rainbow stripes, our Northern lights — with no sinister bars ;
Our ancient flag! Our Fathers' flag! Our glorious stripes and
stars !
"Hurrah ! Hurrah," etc.
"Then bear that banner proudly up, young warriors of our land.
With hearts of love, and arms of faith, and more than iron
hand!
Down with the Northern renegade ! and join our gallant tars.
In rearing high, in victory, our deathless stripes and stars !
"Hurrah ! Hurrah for the Union Flag, Hurrah !
Hurrah for the Union Flag, that knows no 'single star.' "

KIM ! i I I)

THE NATIONAL CAPITOL AFTER COMPLETION OF THE NEW WINGS AND DOME
Halftone of a contemporary engraviug by John Sartain, from artist's proof in the Congressional Library

CHAPTER XVI
His Election to the Thirty-eighth Congress
"The Sumner of the Lower House"
His Notable Eulogy on President Lincoln
1862
In the autumn elections of that year, 1862, in keeping
with the new, aggressive spirit represented by the appoint
ment of Stanton as head of the War Department, the
constituents of Mr. Williams determined that his good
work in the Legislature should be recognized and that
another aggressive force should be contributed to the
Lower House of Congress at least, since the Legislature
had not sent him to the Senate.^ The Thirty-eighth
Congress met for organization a year later, namely, on the
7th of December, 1863.^ There upon the floor he found
his old-time anti-Mason antagonist, the venerable though
none the less fiery Thaddeus Stevens, then seventy years
• His was the Butler-Armstrong district. Moorehead was retained for Pitts
burgh. A confidential letter from Stanton at this time throws ligbt on the
feeling in some quarters on the Curtin controversy. It was dated October 31,
1862, and reads as follows: "Governor Curtin is acting very strangely in
regard to the draft & tlie Government generally.  1 wish j;ou would go to
Harrisburgh and look into things & come on here. It is said he expects to
be elected to the Senate by the Anti-War Republicans & Democrats. They
would pay that price to prevent the Government from getting troops in Penn
sylvania. It behooves loyal men to be vigilant and active. Yours Truly, Edwin
M. Stanton." Williams papers. A letter from Simon Cameron of July 28,
1863, from Harrisburg is very positive and emphatic in the same vein. A
Stanton letter of March 13, 1863, shows the darkness and gloom of that
period also.
'^ A letter of Williams', dated that day, says: "On my arrival I was called
on at once to attend a caucus at the Capitol. We sat till nearly 12 o'clock
discussing the possibilities of a disturbance in the organization through the
treachery of Emerson Etheridge, the Tennessee clerk of the last House. From
the facts stated by a dozen members it seemed obvious that the scoundrel was
seriously meditating to throw the organization into the hands of the Copper
heads, by refusing to put the names of the members from the strong Republican
States in the Roll, for an alleged want of verbal accuracy in the returns. It
was equally obvious, however, that any attempt at Revolution like this would
probably cost him his life, before he left the hall, & he has been since waited
on by some of the Western members & personally warned that such an attempt
on his part would be fatal to himself."
479

480 THOMAS WILLIAMS
old. Williams, who was fifty-six years old, came in with
what might be called the next generation, with such men
as Lovejoy, then fifty-one years old; Morrill, fifty-two;
Boutwell, forty-four ; Dawes, forty-six; E. B. Washburne,
also forty-six; and the now venerable Judge M, Russell
Thayer of Philadelphia, then forty-three. Among the
younger men were Blaine, at thirty-two; Randall at
thirty-four; Garfield at thirty-one; "Sunset" Cox at
twenty-eight ; the now venerable Allison at thirty-three ;
and Windom at thirty-five, while the Speaker, Colfax,
ranged on the borderland between at thirty-nine. The
aggressive war party were in the ascendant and the great
key-victories in July at Gettysburg and Vicksburg
brought forth the first real visions of final success. The
awfulness of the tragedy appalled the timid, but the gov
ernment and the dominant party proposed more troops
and even greater vigor to bring the mighty contest more
quickly and certainly to a close. Consequently the whole
question of preparation for reconstruction — ^which had
even been foreshadowed in Cameron's and Stanton's
desire to have Mr. Williams not only draft a law for
courts over conquered territory but to have him a presid
ing judge in those courts — was precipitated upon Con
gress. Mr. Williams found the aged radical, Stevens, the
acknowledged leader in the House — the man whom since
his first entry into politics some thirty years before he
had either refused to join or, if he did, only with discrim
inating qualification. "Williams a radical !" exclaimed
his now venerable and beloved colleague. Judge M. Rus
sell Thayer, in a recent conversation, in which the author
raised the question. "In the same class with such men
as Stevens ! No, indeed, he was no radical, if that is the
conception of the term. Williams was pre-eminently
judicial. "'^ This estimate is confirmed by his assignment
to the committee on judiciary, along with James F. Wil
son of Iowa (chairman), George S. Boutwell of Massa
chusetts, Francis Kernan of New York, Francis Thomas
of Maryland (Williams' name is next in order), Austin
^ From a conversation with Judge Thayer, had by the author at his home
in Philadelphia, in the spring of 1904, with permission to use such as would
answer the purposes of this work. Only the Judge's advanced years prevented
him from reducing the substance of his conversation to writing.

KigBPi'

^to^*^* ,l,„lisMn«. slavery. ""^Wtutio^

A

i SJLltoam»
i SVhtOiP
S JF.VilMm.
e SPrw
7 Rfro<wiM
8 jCCHOJo'
9 GWJiiiuxy*-
il Thsu WHbarndt
IS J.aBLdtLc-
13 JSBoUuLt
Ii WSBanduIL
IS FAPik^
17 BMorrU
18 XJ-fOvutrfM
13 WBiffby
So S.S>Of/€f
3 ECDoTung

23 JlSfUnValixnliii^ JfT

if £(^Aenek.
27 J D Baldwin,
SS nWepoiJi.
SO StTTtacy
11 AS Rice
it S£.WaAhlnim*-
i3 FWKeUoqg
3k JKRUx
35 AA.?an^
5S A C Saldiriti-
37 JSanion.
3S JB.JBty
J5 TIXEUot
io OSOHK
41 Kl: Wholly
te ASCoffh>tK
43 PBaxter
ii TStjrvu
is Z,Andtr.ron,

n'ertVa.

is D C ZiUltjtiTai. XT
i7 CColt, GU-
49 JWFotUrsan. XS
SO J.B£laxr WoiiVa.-
3 O-Amcs Mxa
SS JoWoriitn. UU
S3 JKUoTrJiea^
Si fiWSrJmfit^d-
SS FEWoodhiHJfi»
SS AFr-anJc
S7 MliMelndoe,
SS Ai^AlhtiBf
S$ JT-tloan,

Fa.,

2nr

60 AWBulbard,
SI JEShylicK
€i JVUcCbtts
ej WA.«aUhina
Si ASrandei/te.
6S TMPomeiyy
^S JiFOddl
e? JsJi/m-rtlL
SS XA.Jai^Jof
69 .^X. Kaaran.
^ GB ffeatiuLn-
V ilRThayer
7S J.A.OrtMwold.
73 BAyeUoTi-

3X

JinnU "lot
CtTrutr. 20S
M>. lee
bhu> i07
arir. Jos
yy 'J30

m

FOar-ic
.T.B.SJuttinati, J.BaiUy -.*
A2fytfs S.PefTiam,
' TTF-Oisien,-
,VJUIU>gif'SMBord.'- SFEoanKTBUrt A-Oibb
- SMtoza
Jtj! spmilda<ig
VGB^m. '
JIF.Starr
AWOarle. r7f.Jmd>ld. WU-KdUx
£Jt.BScUr
y.CBtamait. ZHonMtZr CUpMOTl"
SFMiVtr '

ST-'

JiLdA M.I
STJT- FoM Bit.
JfiL MaMd~
Md. RU.
JITJlLt Ma.
Ohio. Oh*a.JifZ.
jcj-
JO- XT
jvr Mis Fa^ Fu..
Oku>-
JT.

h Vr' PfvdiMr intent 'vtti'C-c-'

THE THIRTY-KIGHTH CONGRESS
Halftone ot a contemporary photograph by Brady in possession of the Misses Williams,
Philadelphia

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 481
A. King of Missouri, Frederick E. Woodbridge of Ver
mont, Daniel Morris of New York and George Bliss of
Ohio.i And yet Mr. Williams believed there was a time
and place for radical action, and after about two months
of careful study of the situation he began his congres
sional career by supporting some measures, at least.'^that
at that time were classed as "radical." His grounds for
it, however, were, as shall be seen, thoroughly judicial in
scope and spirit.
On February 3d (1864), when Congress was in com
mittee of the whole on the state of the Union, and was
discussing the enrollment act, he expressed himself on
conditions at that time."
"Mr. Chairman," said he, "if this had been a new question,
I should have felt greatly embarrassed as to the policy or pro
priety of commuting military service for money. This is a war
measure, and hot a revenue measure. The Government wants
men and not money. The latter has been furnished by the people
with unstinted and ungrudging liberality ; nay, with a prodigality
which has surprised ourselves, and at which the world stands
amazed. I do not know how to value the stout heart or the
strong arm of the American freeman in the current money of
the merchant. I do not like the traffic in men and muscle and
sinew, whether it be white or black. Looking to the experience
of other republics, I ^should greatly deprecate the conversion of
the soldier of ours info a mercenary. Between men of American
growth and training, and the richest of the metals, I know no
common standard of comparison. With me they are quantities
incommensurable. When the Republic demands the services
of her children, I know no answer they can make, except that
of Isaac, that they are ready for the sacrifice. It is the answer
which their uncalculating instincts prompted when the echoes
of the guns in Charleston harbor thrilled along their nerves, and
half a million of them sprang to their arms at the first summons
of the President to avenge the insult to our flag; when the very
yearnings of maternity were hushed, and the American, like the
Spartan mother, arrayed her youngest born as though it had been
for the bridal, put the musket in his hands, and sent him out
with the invocation of God's blessing upon his errand, and the
injunction to do his duty and come back upon his shield, if such
^ On the 22d of January, 1864, Mr. Williams was also placed on the com
mittee on uniform system of coinage, weights and measures. Congressional
Globe, Thirty-eighth Congress, ist Session, Part i, p. 310,
^ Congressional Globe, Thirty-eighth Congress, ist Session, Part 1, p. 475.

482 THOMAS WILLIAMS
were the fortunes of war, but not without it. It is the
answer which they would still make, if their ardor were not
chilled by the fatal and inglorious inaction, the wearisome
delays, the inadequate results, and the want of earnestness,
which have distinguished so many of our commanders ; or, what
is worse still, if their love of country was not overlaid and
smothered by the devilish suggestion of wicked counsellors,
who have squatted at their ears, and distilled into them the
subtle venom of party.
"They have ceased, however, to make that answer. Enthusi
asm was too weak to survive rebuffs and disappointments, while
treason at home was but too ready to make them the occasion
for denunciations against the Government and questions as to
the rightfulness and the successful results of the war. It has
become, of course, a necessity to remind the backward of their
duty, and to 'insist that it shall be performed. These arguments
have prevailed, however, with many of the people who had
been accustomed to take counsel from the malcontents. They
have held back, accordingly, until it has become indispensable
to awaken them to a sense of the obligations which they owe to
their country. Their advisers do not, however, deny the duty;
so far as lip-service is concerned, there is an abundance of it.
But they insist that the performance shall be a voluntary one,
or, in other words, that it shall rest in their own discretion.
Like Falstaff, they would do nothing on compulsion. To com
pel a Democrat to fight would be anti-republican, or if there is
to be compulsion, it must be, upon the authority of a great
casuist of the Romish Church, who has not read Bellarmine in
vain, and knows how to turn a corner as adroitly as the original
and inimitable Jack himself, a voluntary one, a sort of compul
sion in the Pickwickian sense. To compel him in any other
way would be a violation of his prerogative as a freeman. A
perfect liberty is the right of doing what we please, but never
anything on compulsion.
"And now a word or two in sober earnest on the objection
taken seriously here, and urged throughout the country, in rela
tion to the legitimacy of the draft. I need not apologize for
speaking on that point. It is always important to satisfy the
people not only that a thing is law, but that it is right. It is
always well to add the sanctions of conscience and the sense of
duty to the mandates of the lawgiver. Without this, laws are
practicahy impotent. The 'sic volo, sic jubeo, stat pro ration e
voluntas' of an imperial rescript is not the argument for an
American citizen. He wants more than this, and he wants it
here because immense pains have been taken to cloud his
perceptions and pervert his moral sense by representing the

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 483
compulsory performance of the highest of his duties as a viola
tion of his liberties. The oracles of the Opposition have pro
claimed-— their highest legal authorities in Pennsylvania, in the
exercise of a jurisdiction heretofore unknown, have decided 
that the act of the last session was unconstitutional. Men equally
trusted by them here have insisted that its principle was anti-
republican. It is important, therefore, to inquire whether these
things are so — whether there is anything here to authorize these
imputations or to excuse even a reluctant submission to a
measure which is essential to the safety of the. nation and has
been made necessary by the counsels of the very men who now
complain of it.
"I do not propose to enter into objections of detail arising
out of the peculiar features of the law or to argue the question
upon merely technical or professional grounds. These are for
the courts. This is a higher forum, and the objection made to
the principle — radical as it is — an appeal from the lawyer to
the publicist, from the courts to the people. It is the statesman
who must decide it, and not the judge.
"Is it true, then, that a compulsory levy of troops — a con
scription, if you please — in the extremity of a State is anti-
republican in principle, or in other words, at war with the
spirit of our institutions and the genius and character of this
Government? It has been so announced on this floor, on
authority supposed to be conclusive, and has gone to the
country without contradiction. It was a challenge of the law
from a higher point than the Constitution. It was not the
assertion in terms that the law was r.t variance with the Con
stitution, but in effect that the Constitution itself was not
republican, and did not conform to the fundamental idea on
which it rested. It was the proclamation of a higher law which
the authority "to raise and support armies" had impinged upon.
"Well, I am no higher-law man, except so far as the consid
eration of the public safety or the nation's life may make me so,
I am not ashamed or afraid to recognize thus publicly the maxim
of the salus populi suprema lex. It was a provision of consum
mate wisdom in the constitution of republican Rome, and one
which in the judgment of one of the acutest and profoundest
statesmen of any age was the source of all its grandeur as well
as the guarantee of its stability, which created a dictatorship
for times of great public peril, for the reason that such a
power must be invoked in the extremities to which every State
is subject, and that where it is wanting it becomes necessary to
violate the constitution — which is always of bad example — in
order to the salvation of the State.

484 THOMAS WILLIAMS
"For the sake of greater clearness, I quote the passage
itself, translated by me from the French version in default of
an English one, of the Treatise on the Republic,' by Machiavelli :
" 'This part of the constitution of Rome deserves to be
remarked, and ranked in the number of those which contributed
the most to the greatness of its empire. Without an institution of
this nature, a State cannot escape but with great difficulty from
extraordinary convulsions.'
********* " 'It follows from this that all republics must have in their
constitutions a like estabhshment. When it is wanting it becomes
necessary, by pursuing the ordinary track, to see the constitution
perish, or rather to depart from it for the purpose of saving it.
But in a State well constituted no event must happen for which
there shall be occasion to resort to extraordinary ways; for if
extraordinary means do good for the moment, their example con
stitutes a real evil. The habit of violating the constitution to do
good afterwards authorizes its violation to color evil. A Republic,
therefore, is never perfect if its laws have not provided for every
thing, held the remedy always in readiness, and furnished the
means of employing it. And I conclude by saying that republics
which in imminent dangers have no recourse either to a dictator or
to like magistrates must inevitably perish therein.'
'The war power of our Constitution is the equivalent of
the Roman dictatorship. It is, however, here as well as there,
the extreme medicine of the Constitution, and not its daily
bread. The mission of a republic is peace; war is a state of
violence. To conduct an army upon the principles of republican
equality would be fatal to all subordination and discipline. For
such an exigency as this, the normal condition of a republic
will not serye. Its very organization would forbid it. War is
anti-republican in its effects, and can only be successfully waged
on anti-republican principles. While it prevails the law itself
must almost necessarily be silent. Its code of laws is necessarily
anti-republican. With such a Government, therefore, it is an
unnatural condition, and the thirst for territorial aggrandize
ment through the agency of the sword does violence to its
nature and its life. But while wars of conquest are anti-repub
lican, a war of self-defense to preserve the nation's life is a
legitimate because it is a necessary one. The doctrine of non-
resistance would be fatal to any Government. When there is
no mode left of supporting the Constitution, except by suspend
ing the enjoyment of an individual right, that right must yield
to the occasion. It is not the Constitution that authorizes the
suspension of the habeas corpus. Recognizing, as its framers

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 485
did, the necessity of putting the highest privilege of the citizen
in abeyance, they do not grant but only qualify or abridge its
exercises, by providing that it shall not be suspended e.vccpt in
the cases indicated. Every attribute of sovereignty which per
tains to any Government that is supreme may be exercised when
necessary, unless it is expressly forbidden. Thus the right of
eminent domain, as it is called by the pubhcists, or that which
authorizes the seizure or destruction of private property for
public uses, and the kindred power of taxation which seizes it
without other equivalent than the protection which the Govern
ment affords, are not the subjects of special grant, but only of
special limitation. Establish a government that is independent
and sovereign, and they belong to it of course because they are
essential attributes, inseparable from its very being. If a
Government can, however, take private property, which is the
mere product of labor, without compensation, for a public use,
it is but a step further, and an easy one, to take the producer
himself, as it does when it compels him to work on the high
way on the ground of public necessity.
"It is not disputed, as I understand, by anybody here, that
the Government is entitled to the military services of all its
citizens when they are needed for its defense. The objection
is only that a compulsory levy is anti-republican. If this be
true, then the idea of such a thing as a republican Government
is the wildest of chimeras. Admitting the duty, the right to
enforce it is a corollary, a necessary consequence, in this case
as in all others. The notion of any Government at all pre
supposes supremacy, subordination, and constraint. No Govern
ment ever did or ever can rest upon the mere voluntary princi
ple. All the duties of the citizen, except those merely moral
ones that are said to be of imperfect obligation — all that are
political at least — rest upon the idea of coercion. That is the
principle of every law. That is the import of the whole judicial
machinery with which we are surrounded. The posse copiitatus
itself is nothing more nor less than a compulsory levy, an army
improvised to execute the laws. When the time arrives — which
will not be until the millenium foreshadowed by the prophets,
and several years after the modern Democracy shall have died
out like the extinct monsters of the earlier geological epochs —
when men shall perform their duties voluntarily, there will be
no further occasion for either Government or laws. The notion
that the mob of New York, and the unnatural sympathizers with
the rebellion everywhere, shall not be compelled to defend the
Government that protects them in all their rights and endows
them with the unwonted privilege of governing other people, is
but the extension of the argument of the late Attorney General

486 THOMAS WILLIAMS
of the United States, and now reporter of its Supreme Court,
that there could be no coercion of States, and that this great
Government was without even the power of self-defense, was
helpless against the parricide, and must uncover its bosom or
wrap its robes around it and submit to death without a struggle
whenever the murderous blow was aimed by the hands of its own
children. That was according to programme. Both have the
same purpose and meaning. That would have crowned the
work of the traitors with immediate success. This is a slower
poison, which would leave the defense of the nation to the loyal
Unionists in the field, and transfer the direction of the Govern
ment to the hands of the auxiliaries of the rebellion, who choose
'to kiss my lady peace at home;' who know that they can serve
the cause they love, with more effect and greater safety here
by affecting loyalty, misrepresenting the designs of the Govern
ment, discouraging volunteering, and denouncing compulsory
levies of men, than by taking their places openly in the armies
of the confederacy. I do not know a man of them who is not
now an 'unconditional Unionist' provided he can have 'the Union
as it was,' which he knows to be impossible, whether we suc
ceed or fail, or treat as he desires us to do, and hopes to bring
about by cherishing the disease, preserving the cause of the
disunion, and declining to employ the most necessary and
effective weapon which Providence has placed in our hands for
compelling the eventual restoration of the Union itself. Thank
God ! the instincts of the people, the loyal army at home, have
revolted at the special plea of the attorney, and even converted
him at the late elections into the noisiest of patriots and the
professed advocate of the vigorous prosecution of the war ; that
is to say on peace principles, and provided you will refuse to
allow the willing negro or cofnpel the reluctant and recalcitrant
Democrat to fight. The fear is, in view of the well-known Army
sentiment, that it would change the very nature of the latter by
showing him the realities of war and making him a radical, or,
in other words, an earnest man.
"We have the authority of one of the apostles of the new
Democracy now holding a seat on this floor, if the newspapers
have not misrepresented him, for the opinion publicly expressed
in the great peace convention at New York, that a war Demo
crat is an impossible thing; and that any man who would draw
a sword here in such a quarrel— I mean on this side of it— is no
better than a Black Republican. And so it is that, while all
the Democracy of Butler and Burnside and Hooker' and other
fighting generals of that stamp, who have proved that they were
in earnest, has failed to shelter them from the denunciations of

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 487
the rebel papers in Richmond and New York, the non-combatant
qualities of the grave-digger of the Chickahominy and the
loiterer at Bull Run have made him the idol of the Democracy
in both those capitals. If the gentleman from Kentucky, who
was taxed a few days ago by his colleagues, with infidelity to
his pledges to vote for a war Democrat, had adverted to the
sentiment to which I have just referred, he might have answered
that a war Democrat was a myth — a person even more apocry
phal than Prester John or the man with the iron mask.
"If it be true, however, that a compulsory levy of men for
the protection of the Government or the enforcement of its
laws is anti-republican, then I say again that republican govern
ment is just as impossible a thing as a war Democrat. The
nation which cannot command the military services of its people
has no guarantee of life, and must inevitably perish in its first
formidable convulsion. To presume that they will all rush to
its standard at the first summons, and that they will adhere to it
alike through good and ill fortune, alike through sunshine and
through storm, is to suppose in the face of our present experience
that it contains no bold traitors who will lift their hands against
it in battle, no cowardly miscreants who, with professions of
loyalty on their lips, will adopt the safe policy of skulking from
its defense, or aiding and encouraging those who are endeavoring
to overthrow it. The time was when this service was a privilege
of rank or fortune ; when the soldier served without wages,
although he derives his name from the idea of pay, and when
the craven who refused to respond to the summons of his
country was visited with the dire anathema which is so well
paraphrased by the genius of the immortal Scott, and finds its
climacteric in the imprecation 'Woe to the traitor, woe!' A
greater than he has remarked that 'the age of chivalry is gone,
and the age of sophisters and economists has succeeded.' It was
not so at the commencement of this rebellion.
"I happened to be at the seat of government of Pennsyl
vania when the news of the bombardment of Sumter came over
the electric wires, and shook its capitol as with an earthquake
throe, and then sped on its fiery errand along the Susquehanna
and the Delaware and the limpid Allegheny, until it reached
,the distant shore of the great lake which bathes her north
western confines. The fiery cross that passed from hand to
hand and gathered the clansmen of the hill around the banner
of their chief never so traveled, never lighted such a conflagra
tion as was kindled by that message. Before the setting of
another sun a hundred thousand Pennsylvania men were begging
for the privilege of laying down their lives in the defense of

488 THOMAS WILLIAMS
the insulted flag of their fathers. The political managers of
the Democratic party who had bargained against coercion and
pledged themselves that Pennsylvania would take sides with
the rebellious States were appalled by the demonstration, and
slunk away from the public gaze which would have blasted
them. It was only when reverses overtook our arms — reverses
which were the consequence of the unsuccessful effort to
propitiate themselves by taking counsel with and employing
men of the same type of thought — that they ventured to reappear,
and managed to seduce the loyal men of the Democratic party
into the belief that a Republican Administration was unfit to
conduct the war, which they reinforced by the argument that
it was obliged to borrow its generals almost exclusively from
the Democratic party. If a draft was made necessary after
such a demonstration it was through their agency. If it has
proved ineffective or unpopular it is because they have endeav
ored to make it so.
"The country knows how the question was dealt with by the
Democratic authorities of New York. It knows, too, the proc
ess by which the Democratic judges of the supreme court of
Pennsylvania undertook, with indecent precipitancy, and in the
exercise of a jurisdiction entirely new, to restrain the execution
of the law which authorized it. And we are reminded here
from day to day that there are men among us who apparently
do not intend that the country shall find soldiers, either white
or black, if they can prevent it; who insist that we shall not
enlist the negro because it is a privilege which belongs only to
the white man; who say to the white man that he ought not to
volunteer because it is an abolition war; and that the conscrip
tion is unlawful and unnecessary because we ought to depend
on volunteers; and who, after doing everything in their power
to render the law ineffective, come here and, with a coolness
that would be absolutely refreshing if the times were not so
much out of joint, demand its repeal on the ground that they
have succeeded ! I have heard it stated that the district of the
gentleman from New York who is most importunate on this
point has yielded — under his patriotic auspices, no doubt — about
three hundred and fifty soldiers, leaving his voters, of course,
most comfortably intact, and in a condition to govern the nation
at least, if they will not fight for it. If he favors the war, how
ever, as he says he does, why does he not endeavor to amend
the law? If the commutation clause is the difficulty with his
constituents, and he thinks that a poor man can pay $i,ooo for a
substitute more easily than he can pay $300, why does he not
move to strike it out?

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 489
"I fear it cannot be made to suit gentlemen of that cast of
mind and heart unless it can be so framed as to defeat the object
entirely. Their constitutional scruples will not allow them to do
anything for the salvation of this nation. They have found no
difficulty heretofore in discovering in that instrument every
power that was required to further the interests of the divine
institution. They had no difficulty in regard to the Louisiana or
Florida purchases; none as to the annexation of Texas; none
as to the assumption of its debts; none as to the purchase or
seizure, at the expense of another war like the Mexican if
necessary, of the gem of the Antilles. When the attempt is
made, however, to extract anything valuable from that instru
ment for the interests of humanity or the preservation of the
nation's life, it is no better than a caput mortuuyn — without
vitality, full of obstructions, impotent for good, but alive all
over, in all its members, and actively omnipotent, too, for mis
chief. These constitutional expounders who strain at a gnat
make no account of taking in a camel at a breakfast. I should
despair of making anything out of them by a constitutional
argument." After this vigorous opening he took active part in the
debates and on March 14th precipitated the readmission
problem by offering resolutions on that subject.^ It was
not until April 28th, however, that he fully expressed
himself on the subject of the restoration of the Union, in
a speech that attracted widespread attention and was
his great speech of the session. It shows him seeking
the structural and strategical truth of the situation and is
worthy the interest it aroused.^
"Mr. Speaker," he began, "I have some thoughts on the
state of the Union, and the process of bringing back to our
system the wandering stars which have shot so madly from their
orbits, that I would have desii-ed to ventilate on the occasion of
' "The Struggle Between President Johnson and Congress Over Reconstruc
tion," by Charles Ernest Chadsey, Ph. D., Columbia University Studies, Vol. 8,
No. I, p. ig. Also Congressional Globe of that date.
^ About this time some of his opponents in his own district attempted to
get Josiah Copley of Allegheny City to stand for Congress in his place. Mr.
Copley, in a letter of April i8th (1864), refused, saying among other things,
that Mr. Williams "is, as you well know, a man of brilliant and highly cul
tivated talents and unimpeachable integrity" and that they would deprive
their district of the honor of the great services they might reasonably expect
from him. He reminded them how they had kept, during the existence of the
old district, Mr. Covode in office for four successive terms in which his great
service had won him and them great honor.
This speech appears at p. 1974, of the Congressional Globe, Thirty-eighth
Congress, ist Session, Part 3.

490 THOMAS WILLIAMS
the discussion here of the resolution for the amendment of the
joint resolution of July, 1862, in relation to the extent of the for
feiture for treason against the Government. I was not so fortu
nate as to agree with a majority of my colleagues on the Judici
ary Committee, either as to the meaning of the Constitution or
the curative virtues of the amendment. I would have preferred to
vote for the absolute repeal of that disabling feature, on grounds
outside of the constitutional provision in regard to cases of
judicial attainder, and upon considerations looking to the final
settlement of the great internecine struggle which has cast us
loose from our ordinary moorings, and suggested so many new
and dark problems of State for our solution. I thought the
question of the times was involved in that discussion, as it
widened, and deepened, and swept within its current — and that
too by an inevitable and inexorable logic — the great considera
tions of the status of the rebel States, and the means whereby
the broken column and the crumbling arch were to be restored,
and the fragments of the shattered urn gathered up and re-united,
so as to give back, if possible, its original strength along with its
original perfume. It struck me that these were questions which
must be first settled before we could legislate understandingly
or safely upon almost any others. They were not to be post
poned or evaded. We could escape or ignore them by burying
our heads in the sand like the ostrich. They met us on the
very threshold at the organization of this House. They have
confronted us from day to day, at every turn, in the reports of
committees, where sound conclusions have been sometimes
reached — by a very indifferent logic, of course — from unsound
premises, and erroneous conclusions sustained here, almost
without discussion, in apparent unconsciousness of the dangers
with which they were pregnant. It seemed to me that we were
at sea, drifting without rudder or compass at the mercy of
the winds and currents. I wished a reckoning of our position.
I desired some landmarks — some safe anchorage to which we
might grapple — some common center, at least, about which we
might gravitate in orbits 'centric or eccentric,' as our several
idiosyncracies might prompt. I proposed, therefore, to try the
experiment in a modest and suggestive way only, as becomes
any man who is called upon to deal with such questions as
these, of indicating a star by which we might possibly navigate
in safety. While I waited, however — as I always prefer to do-
to hear what others might have to say, the doors were closed
upon me, and debate arrested by the operation of the previous
question. It occurred to me then that I might possibly general
ize my notions in such a way as to render them acceptable to a

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 49I
majority of this House, as I have accordingly attempted to do
in a series of resolutions which I have had the honor to spread
upon your records. This bill, with the amendment offered this
evening by my colleague [Mr. Stevens] by way of substitute
therefor, comes in opportunely as a practical measure, resting,
as I think, upon the same general principles, and enabling me to
develop the leading ideas of those resolutions in the remarks
which I propose to make, in a somewhat desultory way, and
without reference to its details, upon the relations established
by the war, and the rights and duties bearing upon the question
of reconstruction, that have grown out of it.
'And first, as to the status of the rebel States, and the law
which is to govern our relations and intercourse, and sit as
umpire in the progress and adjustment of the pending contro
versy. "These States are either in the Union, or they are not.
Some people may think it makes no practical difference how
we conclude on this point while the war is flagrant. That is
not my judgment. It has seemed to me that all the irresolution,
all the unsteadiness in our counsels, all the doubt and hesitation
and delay, all the apparent obtuseness and obliquity of the moral
sense, and many of the differences between good and loyal
men here, were mainly referable to the fact of the failure to settle
this great question, and settle it correctly in advance. The war
was inaugurated on the theory that they were in, when the great
fact of war, which individuals cannot wage in the social state,
and peoples do not wage upon themselves, was a proclamation
that they were out. The Democrats of the North were wihing
to accept the fact that they were out, without war; to adopt the
principle of the laisses-nous faire — the 'let us alone' — of the
rebel authorities; and to treat with them upon the idea of a
reconstruction upon that kind of compromise which involves
generally a traffic in principles, and that sort of mutuality where
all is demand on the one side and concession on the other;
where everything is surrendered and nothing obtained, or even
stipulated for in the way of equivalent — to treat, in short, either
for their return, or for the privilege of going out along with
them, and leaving New England in the cold. They were willing
to waive the right and the treason absolutely, and declined the
alternative of war on the ground that the obligation was an
imperfect one, whose performance depended upon the mere
will of the contracting parties, and could not be enforced. With
them it was peaceable secession, with reconstruction by treaty.
The ruling thought was, of course, to spare, to save, to do as
little harm as possible to those who were not our enemies, but

492 THOMAS WILLIAMS
our brethren — sisters, perhaps, I should say, albeit a little 'way
ward' — whose anger was to be kissed away — or sweethearts,
rather, who were to be mollified into tenderness by dulcet
phrases and costly love tokens, or hugged into quietude by the
anaconda process of compression, or the sublime mysteries of
strategy. The rebels were Democrats, whom it would be a
sin to kill, and a greater sin to rob of their sacred property in
slaves. Better a hundred thousand free white northern youth
should die, than one negro slave should be lost to his proprietor,
or employed in arms against him. To carry out this policy we
wanted conservative generals who would be sure to hurt nobody,
and saw men made heroes — by newspaper process, as great men
are now made since that manufacture seems to have passed out
of the hands of Providence — not because they fought, and
fought successfully, but because they would not fight at all.
We wanted generals who had constitutional scruples about the
right of invading the sacred soil of a sovereign State; who had
'kind regards' for the worst and meanest of felons; and were
ready to grant paroles of honor to men who, by an act of treason
intensified by ingratitude and perjury, had basely deserted the
flag they were sworn to defend, as no mere Swiss, no soldier
of fortune who hired out his steel, could have done without a
deep stain upon his escutcheon. But while we were dealing
with the heresies and subtleties of the Virginia and Kentucky
resolutions of 1798 — those fruitful sources of our present woes —
instead oi striking at once at the heart of the rebellion, that
rebellion, thus nursed and cherished and rocked and dandled
by ourselves, was swelling in volume, and organizing and
hardening into consistence behind the storm-cloud, which was
gathering and blackening and muttering its thunders within
sight and hearing of this very Capitol, where an American
Congress was legislating under its shadow. But the light which
was struck out by the collision of hostile bayonets, struggling
up through the haze in which we were enveloped, began to
dawn slowly upon the country. It was soon reflected back upon
these Chambers, and statesmen began to feel that they were in
the presence of a great fact, that could not be conjured down
by empiricism, or reasoned down except by the logic of artillery.
But still they hesitated to accept the fact, and the law of the
last session, baking between the two opinions— beginning with
the idea of treason, and ending in the alternative of war—
although right in itself, was but the expression of the yet linger
ing doubt whether these States were stiU in the Union or out
of it.

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 493
"How does the case then stand upon the facts ? It cannot be
questioned, I think, that in this view the severance is or has
been as complete — the spes recupcrandi, the mere hope of
recovery, excepted — as if our forces had been withdrawn, and
their independence recognized. They have seized our property,
and expelled us from their territories. They have declined the
Federal jurisdiction, and ceased to live under the Federal law.
They have altered their constitutions of government, and trans
ferred their allegiance to a foreign power. They have invaded our
soil. They have claimed and exercised, with the consent of the
great Powers of Europe, the rights of belligerents upon the ocean.
Under the stem logic of facts we have assented to all this, by
releasing the crews of their privateers, instead of dealing with
them as pirates, and exchanging prisoners captured on land,
instead of hanging them as traitors. We have distinguished
between the mere guerrilla and the commissioned soldier of the
confederacy. We have blockaded their ports. Treating them as
a government de facto, and therefore entitled to the allegiance
of all its citizens, we have allowed them to shoot as deserters,
without retaliation, the unwilling conscripts who have fled to our
arms for the protection which we were bound to give them;
we have interdicted commercial intercourse with them on the
part of the citizens of the loyal States; and we have put them
by our legislation, one and all, without distinction as to loyalty,
under the ban of the Union, as alien enemies. Nor have we
been guilty of any inconsistency herein. The revolt was not of
individuals, to be dealt with by the ordinary process of law,
like the whiskey insurrection, with which it has been improperly
compared. It rose at once to the dimensions of a civil war. It
was the result of the corporate, political action of organized
communities, sweeping the reluctant and the innocent into its
impetuous current, and then merging the individuality-— dissolv
ing, as I think, the very life — of these communities, in the revo
lutionary act of compounding them into a separate and inde
pendent nationality. As such we have treated with it in the
matter of exchanges, and ignored accordingly the members of
which it was composed. We could not do otherwise under
the law to which the insurgents successfully appealed, when
they repudiated the authority of any common superior, and
carried their case before that dread tribunal of nations, where
the sword is the arbiter, and the voice of God and humanity,
thundering out of the smoke and carnage of the battle-field, is
the only one that can be listened to in the adjustment of the
controversy.

494 THOMAS WILLIAMS
"And now let us inquire for a moment how the public law
of Christendom, as declared in the opinions of the publicists, and
the practice of enlightened nations, squares with the great
facts to which I have referred.
"It will be found, I think, that the most eminent of these
writers are agreed in the opinion, that the parties to a civil
war, having no common judge, or common superior on earth,
'must necessarily be considered as constituting, at least for a
time, two separate bodies, two distinct societies,' and that 'when
a nation becomes divided into two parties absolutely independent,
and no longer acknowledging a common superior, the State is
dissolved, and the war between the two parties stands on the
same ground, in every respect, as a public war between two
different nations.' This is the language of Vattel, (pp. 425,
427,) and the'learned Barbeyrac, in his notes on the treatise of
Grotius, (Book 3, cap. 6, sec. 27,) affirms the doctrine by the
remark that 'in case of the rising of a considerable part of the
State against the sovereign, as for an alleged violation of the
fundamental law of the nation, the Government is dissolved,
and the State divided into two distinct, independent bodies; and
much more does that take place in the civil wars of a republican
State, in which the war immediately, . of itself, dissolves the
sovereignty that subsists solely in the union of its members.'
It is in direct antagonism therefore to the law which governs
now, as to the facts, to say that these States are still in the
Union as they were before. The theory that this Union was
indissoluble refers only to the right, to its organic law, and to
the purposes of the men who welded these States together; but
never was intended to imply that it could not be ruptured by
violence — as it has unquestionably been — leaving to the wronged
and adhering States their remedy for the breach, not by enfor
cing a specific performance — which is impossible — but by the
recovery of the territory which is ours by the contract, and the
expulsion of the delinquents, with the forfeiture of all their
rights in and under the Union, from which they have with
drawn. To say with a gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. Wads-
wokth] that this is an admission of the right to secede, is to
confound the fact, which is one thing, with the right, which is
another. To assert with the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr.
Blair] that this is a concession of their independence, which
would authorize their recognition by foreign Powers, is to forget
that we have rights which no violation of the contract by the
other party can destroy. It would be just as sensible to insist
that a judgment of outlawry was a release of the traitor from

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 495
his allegiance, and authorized the Government to which he fled,
to espouse his quarrel and adopt him as its citizen.
"Upon this question of the forfeiture of poHtical rights,
some further light may be borrowed from the practice of nations
in the application of the jus postliminii, which refers, according
to Grotius and Bynkershoek, as well as to cases of territorial
recapture where a whole community is involved, as to those
where the goods of a subject, once seized as prize of war, are
afterwards retaken from the hands of the captors. And here,
I think it will be found that even the provinces of a confedera
tion which have been wrested from it by an enemy, have not
always been reinstated in their original privileges — as reason
would seem to adjudge that they ought to be.
'Thus, the inhabitants of the district of Drenthe were in
1580 admitted into the confederation of Utrecht, but their
country was afterwards invaded and occupied by the Spaniards.
After the enemy had withdrawn and evacuated their territory,
although it seemed clear to Bynkershoek that they had recovered
all their former rights by virtue of the law of postliminy, never
theless, although they several times petitioned the States
General to be readmitted into the Union, no order was taken,
and afterwards, in 1650, when their deputies attended at a' meet
ing of the States, they were refused admittance.
"Again, the provinces of Guelderland, Utrecht, and
Overyssel, were taken by the French and afterwards recovered.
Bynkershoek remarks thereupon, that while they were in the
power of the enemy they certainly were not entitled to their
former rights as confederates, and on that account their dele
gates were very properly ordered not to attend any longer at
the meetings of the States General; but when they came again
into the possession of the States, they were readmitted by a
decree of that body, restoring them to their former municipal
and confederate rights, except that Guelderland was deprived
of one vote in the assembly, and several other conditions were
imposed, one of which was that they should swear anew to the
articles of the confederation as if they were admitted for the
first time.
"These, however, were cases of seizure and occupation by
an enemy; ours, of a voluntary abdication of Federal rights,
and an organized resistance by governmental action to the
Federal law. There is no case here, therefore, for the applica
tion of the law of postliminy. Some of these States, on the
contrary, constructed out of Territories purchased by this Gov
ernment, were lifted from the posture of subject and dependent
provinces upon the platform of the Union, on the condition of

496 THOMAS WILLIAMS
obedience to its laws, and by their voluntary abdication of the
privileges so conferred, have, as it seems to me, by an inevitable
logic, lapsed back again into the territorial condition. There
is no ground upon which it can be claimed that any of them
have been the victims of a public enemy, who has wrested them
from the possession of their local governments. The action was
corporate and social. It was the local governments themselves
that sinned. Where they have been recaptured, the local Gov
ernors have fled, the local organizations have been dissolved,
and their Territories are now under military occupation by the
armies of the Union, or under provisional governors
appointed by the Executive. This fact alone, as it seems to me,
involves the admission that they are no longer in the Union.
It they are, that occupation is unlawful. If their governments
are dissolved, however, they must, of course, be reconstructed
under the auspices of the conquering power, and that not by
the Executive, but by the Legislature of the Union, whose
sword he bears, and which only, consistently with the genius of
our institutions, the past practice of the Government, and the
letter as well as spirit of the Constitution, can venture to deter
mine what use shall be made of the Territories conquered by it,
and when and upon what terms they shall be readmitted into full
communion as members of this Government. It is not certainly
the military power that is to reorganize, and modify, and
breathe new life into their defunct constitutions. Until the end
of subjugation is achieved and the resistance entirely overcome,
so as to give place safely to the re-establishment of the civil
authority, a military occupation is indispensable, of course.
When that period arrives, the sword must be sheathed, and the
Territory return to the direction of the law-making power,
which will prescribe the rule for its government, and allow to
its people the privilege of reorganizing under republican forms.
I call it Territory and invoke the law that governs there, because
I know of no intermediate condition. To permit any executive
officer to declare its law, and set it in motion, and place it under
the control of a minority — a mere tithe of its citizens — with
power to send delegates to Congress with representation unim
paired and unaffected — even though he should re-enact a part of
its abrogated constitution — would be, as I think, a monstrous
anomaly, a violation of fundamental principles, and a precedent
fraught with great danger to republican liberty. Here is the
dilemma. To come back into the Union, it must either be born
anew or come back with all its rights unimpaired, except those
material ones which have been destroyed in the progress of the
war. There is, I think, no middle ground, as there is no power

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 497
either here or elsewhere to prescribe terms, which shall abridge
the rights or privileges of a State that has not been out of the
Union, or returns to it in virtue of its original title.
"When I suggest, however, that these States are out, it is
with this important qualification, that they are out in point of fact,
with a forfeiture of all their frrnchises as members thereof, when
ever the issue of battle shall have been decided against them ; but
subjects of it still — members, if you choose — in legal contempla
tion, so far as regards their obligations and duties under the
Constitution, and our right to visit them with punishment for the
delinquency, proportioned to the magnitude of their offense.
They are in for correction, but not for heirship; just like the
unnatural child who has attempted the crime of parricide, and
only succeeded in dyeing his murderous hands in the blood of his
loyal brethren. It is bad logic to infer that because they are
out without our consent, and have forfeited their rights thereby,
that fact must be attended with a like forfeiture of our own.
Nor would I, as already intimated, be understood as admitting
that they are out as to foreign Powers, who must respect our
title, although our possession may be ousted, and treat the con
test in all respects as a domestic one. No American of the right
spirit would allow even a question of this sort to enter our diplo
matic correspondence with foreign powers, or consent to com
promise our dignity and self-respect — which are at last the best
security of nations — ^by uncovering the maternal bosom to the
rude and insulting gaze of the stranger, and inviting his inter
ference, either by misrepresenting the aims of our loyal citizens,
or beseechingly deprecating his displeasure. I trust that our
just pride as a people will not be again wounded by the produc
tion of another book like the diplomatic confessions of 1862.
"It is suggested, however, by a gentleman from New York,
on the other side of the House, (Mr. Fernando Wood,) that
while we on this side are claiming to be for the Union, the
enunciation of these doctrines by my able colleague (Mr.
Stevens) amounts to a declaration that we are no longer a
Union party. The meaning of this — if it means anything — is,
that because the rebel States are out, without any agency of
ours, but with a large share of the responsibility on the
heads of those, who, like the gentleman himself, encouraged the
defection by their servility, or by the assurance that they were
opposed to coercion — as they oppose it now — and taught them to
believe that they could go out with perfect impunity, and that
New York and Pennsylvania would go out along with them — the
mere statement of the fact that they were out, is evidence that
the party of the Administration on this floor is not in favor of

498 THOMAS WILLIAMS
the preservation of the Union! Well, we are in favor, at all
events, of preserving all that is left of it, and intend, with the
blessing of God, to win back the residue, and pass it through the
fire until it shall come out purged of the malignant element that
has unfitted it for freedom. But what does the honorable gentle
man himself — what do those who vote with him really think on
this subject? Does he — do they believe that the rebel States
are not out? If he does not look upon them as a new and inde
pendent power in the commonwealth of nations, why does he
propose to treat with them — not with the revolting States singly,
but with 'the authorities at Richmond.' How is it that in his
own resolution he proposes, in totidem verbis, the 'offer to the
insurgents of an opportunity to return to the Union ?' Who are
the 'authorities at Richmond?' Will he inform us whether they
are a people known to our Constitution, or how these States are
to return to the Union, if they were never out of it ? His tongue
confesses it unwittingly — I will not say like Balaam's, who
blessed when he intended to curse — but just as did that of the
Louisiana claimant who, professing to rest on the same doctrine,
stood before this House unconsciously testifying in the same
way. He stands, therefore, self-condemned by his own logic,
as no Union man. I will allow him, however, the advantage of
the admission that it is but a slipshod logic that cannot dis
tinguish between the law and the fact. But that is true of him
self and his party which he unjustly charges upon my colleague.
The difference is just this, that although the rebels have spurned
and spit upon their northern auxiliaries, rejected all their over
tures, and declared that they will no longer associate with them
upon any terms, and are not willing that they should even come
'betwixt the wind and their nobility,' he wishes to treat for the
privilege of serving them, while we propose to tight for the pur
pose of chastising them into submission. This may be the
result only of a difference of taste; but all history attests that
there always are, and there always will be, men who love to
wear the livery of a master, and are uncomfortable without it;
who regard the collar as a badge of distinction, and would at all
events, rather carry it, than quarrel with it. No wonder, there
fore, at the opinion so often expressed by men of this 'sort in
relation to the black man, that he would neither run away, nor
bear arms against his master, or anybody else. They did' him
injustice in supposing that he was like themselves. Pompey,
who was an involuntary slave, is tending toward the North
star with a musket in his hand, while his white non-combatant
substitute— a voluntary slave— is rushing southward with the
olive-branch in his hand, into the patriarchal arms.

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 499
"The objection rests, however, as I suppose, upon the remark
that our right to deal with the rebel States after they shall
have been reduced to submission by force of arras, is not a
question under the Constitution, but outside of it. I desire to
say, once for all, that I do not concur in this opinion, because
I find the war power in the Constitution with all its incidental
consequences. If it is not there, the case is without remedy.
"The doctrine of my colleague, that these States are out of
the Union, may seem at first blush extreme. Some people may
think it radical, but it is none the less palatable to me on that
account. War is a radical disease, and radical diseases are
only to be treated by radical means. One earnest and decided
man is worth, in times like these, a regiment of temporizers;
and that is precisely the reason why the inherent weakness and
poverty of the insurgents have been able to match the over
whelming numbers and resources of the North. These are no
times for what are falsely called conservative men, just because
they are wedded to old abuses, and only hug them the closer when
they have proved most destructive. I like bold thinkers and
operators. Timid counsels have ruined many a State ; they have
never saved one, and never will. It may be a paradox, but if
conservatism has ever operated to save a nation in such a crisis
as ours, it has only been, as here, by acting as the dead-weight
upon the ploughshare, which has retarded its progress, but made
it run so deep into the virgin soil as to make its work a radical
one. The man who is ahead of his contemporaries is always
denounced as a daring and dangerous innovator, and happy if
he is not martyred, as the apostle of a new faith, for the singu
larity of his opinions. I beg gentlemen to reflect, however,
whether there is any solid ground short of this on which they
can put down their feet with safety. The 'middle passage' — it
was the same, I believe, in which the negro was heaved over
board — the 'medio tutissimus ibis' — the path of traffic and of
compromise — is not the one which we can hold safely in a
storm like this. If these States are in the Union, with all their
rights and privileges unimpaired, they may return to-morrow,
even without submission, after being conquered in the field, to
conquer their conquerors in the councils of the nation. The
most accomplished of the Roman poets remarks that 'conquered
Greece subdued her barbarian conqueror, and introduced the arts
into unpolished Latium.' The contrary will be the case here.
The barbarian will come back into your Halls. The northern
Democrat will rush into his arms. The two elements, like
kindred drops, by an attraction a good deal stronger than that
of miscegenation, will melt incontinently into one. The old bar-

500 THOMAS WILLIAMS
gain will be renewed — 'Give us the spoils, and you may take
the honors and the power, and rob the northern soldier, the
sick, and the maimed, the widows and the orphans of the gallant
dead, of the miserable pittance which this Government is pledged
to provide for them.' The proclarnation of freedom will be
revoked; your acts of Congress repealed; your debt repudiated
unless you will assume theirs; and yourselves, perhaps, ejected
from these Halls. The result is already foreshadowed in the
events of the present Congress, wherein — not to speak of other
of your past experiments in dealing with that element — a signer
of the secession ordinance of Louisiana, permitted to walk the
streets of this capital, and enter this Hall, as others were per
mitted, less than three years ago, to go out of it, unquestioned —
was allowed to vote upon a bogus certificate of a bogus governor,
and to vote negatively with the Democracy upon the qualifica
tions of the members of Congress now representing the loyal
State of Maryland. And the effect will be, that for all your
great expenditures, and all your bloody sacrifices, you will have
won back, not peace, but a master — the 'old master,' in negro
phraseology — who governed you before — as turbulent, as vin
dictive, and as ferocious as ever. If they had chosen to remain
with us, under the idea that they were not out, they mightj by
their superior tact and address, and their habitual control of
the northern Democrats, have so embarrassed us, as to render
it utterly impossible to carry on a war against them. If they
had consented to return in answer to the prayers of their
bereaved friends, or to the message sent through Count Mercier,
to Richmond — about which an adjourned question of veracity is
still, I believe, depending between very friendly belligerents,
who exchange hostile messages in the improved shape of invi
tations to State dinners — we should have been lost. I have
always regarded it as a special providence that the arrogance
engendered by their ownership of men, both white and black,
and the contempt with which they looked upon their vassels
here, should have prevented them from retaining or returning
to their places in Congress, or even holding out the idea that
a compromise was possible. Say that they are in the Union
as before and all your sacrifices have been idle, and all the
blood spilled by you has sunk into the earth in vain. Bring
them back, and you cannot even bind them by gratitude, or
purge them by oaths, of which they make no account, as the
whole history of the rebellion, which began in perjury, abun
dantly shows — which are like the ribbons that were insultingly
stretched by the Pi.risian mob in front of the Tuileries to pro
tect the ill-fated king and queen of France — and which grave

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 501
Senators have so recently denied your power to prescribe. The
President has dealt kindly with the neutrals. Has he propitiated
any of them? Our predecessors here have followed the exam
ple. Look at the facts attending our organization, and say
whether even confidence and charity are followed by either
gratitude or loyalty. No, you must throw the dissevered frag
ments — the 'disjecta membra' — of this great Government, into
the caldron, with a hot fire beneath, and you may evaporate the
virus, but not otherwise.
"Taking them, however, to be out, or that the case has
passed from under the municipal, into the domain of public law,
what is the authority which that law gives us over the rights
and property of an enemy ?
"Before entering on this question, however, I desire to say
a few words in relation to the supplementary resolution which
we have been endeavoring to amend. I would have been glad,
as I have already stated, to vote for its unconditional repeal,
for the reason that the confiscation and distribution of the great
baronial possessions of the rebel leaders were, in my judgment,
an essential element in any feasible plan of reconstruction, and
that there were other means under the Constitution than the
very inadequate one of the judicial attainder, to reach the
estates of those who had broken the covenant between the
Government and people. That, as it seems to me, was the
opinion of the men who framed the original act of 1862. It is
tolerably clear, I think, from the history of the resolution by
which it was unfortunately supplemented, that it was not in
accordance with the sentiments of that Congress — as I think it
is not with the opinion of the present one, or of a majority of the
people whom it represents. It was thrown in only, as I under
stand it, to remove the scruples of the Executive, and to make
the best bargain that could be had at that time. That was
eighteen months ago. But nothing was ever said more truly
than that 'times change, and we along with them,' even to our
material framework, which we shift off as well as our opinions.
The world does move — as Galileo still insisted even when he was
obliged to recant his astronomical heresies — although it some
times moves slowly. The President moves too — and slowly also
— as he needs must, who is called upon 'to bear upon the shoul
ders the weight of mightiest monarchies.' Everything moves —
except some of our generals — because war is a great teacher,
and thought quickens and ripens rapidly under the fires of revo
lution. Even our reluctant and unsympathizing friends on the
other side, are hurried along by the resistless current that
sweeps our statesmen like straws upon its surface. Nay, even

502 THOMAS WILLIAMS
some of my own Republican auxiliaries on this side, have been
drifting with the tide into waters too deep to have been ever
searched by the plummet of conservatism. But a little over
three years ago, as I can testify, he was a bold man — as he was
sure to be a sadly abused one — who would have invoked coercion
by force of arms, and ventured to hint at the possibility of the
negro, as the soldier who was to be thrown at last, like the
sword of Brennus, as the make-weight into the scale. Two
years ago, there was scarcely a Republican in this House who
would have voted for the latter proposition. One year ago
every gentleman on the other side would have revolted at it, as
they had done before the bombardment of Sumter against
coercion. Ten months ago, the unarmed and defenseless negro
was flying like a hunted stag, and flying for his life, before a
cowardly and brutal mob, in the streets of the very metropolis
of the western hemisphere. Two years ago, the dark-skinned
child of the tropics was struggling slowly up to the unwonted
privilege of cracking his whip over a Federal mule-team, to the
horror of all political ethnologists and unbelieving conservatives,
who howled denunciations at the Pathfinder of the West, and
shouted hosannas to the loiterer at Manassas, and the author
and promulgator of Order 'No. 3.' Now Scipio (Africanus)
has a musket in his hand, and stands revealed as a soldier and
a man, of higher physical and moral type than his persecutors
themselves, in the light of the fiery surge that swept the
trenches of Fort Wagner, and under the iron storm that flashed
from the blazing ramparts of Port Hudson. The flesh that fed
and crisped and crackled in the flames of a metropolitan auto da
fe, has turned out to be human, and the blood that was licked
up by the devouring element, to be as red and warm as our own,
the physiologists and philosophers to the contrary notwithstand
ing. And now behold the miracle ! But yesterday, as it were,
only forty-one members of the negro-hating, and negro-dis
paraging party on this floor — hating him in the name of Democ
racy as a freeman, but loving him too much as a slave to peril
his valuable life — could be brought to vote against buckling the
harness of ' the Union on his back, and anointing him as the
soldier of the great Republic. Yes, the world does move, and
the Executive along with it. Looking, as he does now, from a
different stand-point from that occupied by him eighteen months
ago, I would not despair of his approval of a bill to repeal abso
lutely the unfortunate, emasculating, and, as I think, ill-advised
joint resolution of 1862. With all his habitual caution — yield
ing slowly to his strong convictions of duty and taking no
step backward — he has made even greater strides than this.

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 503
I have confidence in his judgment, as the nation has in his
integrity. I have sometimes thought that he was a little slow, in
a case where promptitude was worth armies; although I could
well appreciate the sense of responsibility that must necessarily
weigh upon the man who holds a trust the most responsible and
novel that has been cast upon any man in the world's history.
I dread nothing but the excess of that conservative element
which is so ill-suited to occasions like the present. These are
times when men cannot afford to doubt, and fear cannot be
safely allowed a place in pubhc counsels. The aphorism of
Junius is but the translation of the thought of a greater than
himself : " 'Our doubts are traitors.
That make us lose the good we oft might win.
By fearing to attempt.'
'"While I would have voted, however, for the repeal of the
supplementary resolution, it was not to that portion of the act
providing the punishment of treason in the ordinary forums,
that I would have looked for such a remedy as the case seemed
to me to demand. With every disposition to allow the fullest
effect to the argument that looks in what might be called the
radical direction, and claims that the forfeiture may be, in
cases of attainder under the Constitution, of the whole estate
in lands, and with the knowledge that a controlling reason for
the change in the English law, which we had copied, was to be
found in the tendency of the earlier practice to break up the
estates and families of the great nobility and accumulate their
possessions in the hands of the Crown, I could not permit myself
to be beguiled by my wishes into the belief that the framers of
the Constitution intended anything but what they httve so
obviously said. Taking as my guide the plain language of that
instrument, the state of the law in England, and of the prevail
ing public opinion there and here at the time of its adoption,
together with the contemporaneous exposition which it received
at the hands of the men who shared so largely in its preparation
and advocacy, and the construction given to the disputed clause
by all the commentators — without a single exception, so far as
I am advised — I cannot bring myself to doubt at this late day
as to its meaning and purpose, however much they may run
counter to my own inclinations. To yield to them, with my
strong convictions, would be to involve me in an act of infidelity
as well to my profession as to my legislative trust, by making
the wish and not the judgment 'father to the thought.' I must
take the Constitution as I find it written, in spite of the sup
posed absurdity of authorizing a forfeiture for life in the case

504 THOMAS WILLIAMS
of a crime whose usual penalty is death, and where the very
attainder, which is a legal and social death, determines that
part of the punishment at the very point where it begins. If
ingenious gentlemen here had adverted to the process of out
lawry, so familiar to British jurisprudence in precisely such
cases, and not entirely unknown to our own, or to the possibility
of annexing a punishment less than that of death to the highest
of crimes, they would not, perhaps, have considered the reductio
ad absurdum as quite so complete as they seemed to think it.
If we are to punish those who flee from justice into other
lands by judicial process, we shall have to draw from the lumber
rooms of the profession the old machinery of the exigent. That
we may come to treat the highest of crimes as worthy only of
the lightest of punishments is not improbable when we find it
not only dealt with as eminently chivalrous and respectable,
but absolutely rewarded, by allowing its perpetrators to vote
with the minority in the organization of the great council of the
nation itself, and granting funeral honors to their families, with
out even a rebuke.
"With this reading of the disputed clause of the Constitu
tion reluctantly conceded, and even under the opposite hypothesis
— supposing it to be the true one — I can see nothing practical
in the attainder by judicial process, and no remedy therein for
present or prospective evils, in the infliction of punishment upon
the guilty. The Constitution provides that 'the trial of all crimes
except in cases of impeachment shall be by jury, and such trial
shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been
committed;' and again, that 'no person shall be held to answer
for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a present
ment or indictment by a grand jury;' and further, that 'in all
criminal prosecutions the offender shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed.' How,
then, are you to try, how convict under such limitations as
these, where your jurisdiction is ousted, where you are without
courts, and where the jury of the vicinage — the peers of the
delinquent — are the very partners of his guilt? It would be
the merest of mockeries to attempt it. If the arch-apostate
himself were to stalk again to-morrow into the Senate Chamber
of this nation, reasserting his rights, and reclaiming his abdicated
seat in that body, you might arrest him, it is true, but there is
no jurisdiction this side of the Potomac — that river of oblivion
which sweeps around your capital walls — that could take
recognizance of his manifold crimes. The salutary guards which
have been borrowed from Magna Charta, and throvm around

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 505
the person of the criminal, were not intended for a condition of
things like the present. They suppose a state of universal
peace, where the law shall speak its potential voice in all its
forums, and through all its accredited organs, and not a condi
tion of things where its oracles are silenced, and its priests
driven from their very altars. The maxims of peace are not
suited to a condition of war. It has run into a proverb that the
laws are silent amid the tumult of arms. Where the ordinary
jurisdiction has been declined, and no common superior is recog
nized, the case has passed, ex necessitate, into a higher tribunal
by the election of the recusant himself, and must be left to the
arbitrament which he has chosen, with all the consequences of
a judgment there. It has not passed, however, beyond the
domain of the Constitution, as the language of my learned and
able colleague [Mr. Stevens] would seen to import. The men
who framed that instrument foresaw the exigency with their
usual perspicacity, and with their usual wisdom have provided
for it, as I think, abundantly. If they have not, then the late
Attorney General was right in declaring that there was no war
rant for waging this war against the rebellious States, and
wrong in presenting himself and his party at the recent elec
tions in Pennsylvania as the advocates of its vigorous prose
cution; and then there is no authority for shooting down a
rebel on the battle-field. Those who insist that there shall
be no punishment for the traitor except by the process of judicial
attainder, intend that he shall not be punished at all — mean, if
they know whereof they speak, entire immunity, as well to him
as to his wife and children, for all his crimes.
"I make no account, therefore, of the first four sections of
the act of 1862, which, by the way, involve no forfeiture except
of property in slaves. True, they impose fines which may result
— as it was no doubt intended they should do — in the divestiture
of the fee, but whether those fines are in conflict or not with
that provision of the Constitution which declares 'that excessive
fines shall not be imposed or cruel and unusual punishments
inflicted,' I shall not stop to inquire, for the reason already
suggested, of the utter impracticability of making that portion
of the law effective in its application to the guilty parties.
"Upon the remaining sections of that act, however — always
excepting its expatriation clause, whose wisdom at a time when
the country so much wants soldiers for its armies and laborers
for its fields is not any more obvious to me than that of the
repeal of the edict of Nantes, or the expulsion of the Moors
from Spain — I could have planted myself with assured con
fidence. I find nothing there that looks to an attainder — nothing

5o6 THOMAS WILLIAMS
that even touches the person — nothing but authority to seize
enemies' property, and carry it into court for condemnation by
a proceeding in rem — against the thing itself — as lawful prize
of war. The question of treason is practically adjourned,
although not absolutely waived by the posture of the belligerents.
The framers of that law have obviously looked to this as the
alternative, well knowing that, although it is a maxim of the
common law that there is no wrong without a remedy, there
was no remedy here if this one failed.
"And this leads me back to the question. What is the
authority that the public law, which is the law of the case, and
pro hac vice the law of the Constitution, gives us over the
rights and property of an enemy? And on this point Bynkers
hoek, of whom Chancellor Kent remarks in Griswold vs. Wad-
dington, (i6 Johnston, 438,) that he is 'one of the most dis
tinguished writers on public law, and that his treatise on the
law of war has been more quoted and relied upon as authority
in Europe and America than that of any other writer,' says that
'if we take for our guide nature, that great teacher of the law
of nations, we shall find that anything is lawful against an
enemy,' (p. 2;) and further, that a nation that has injured
another is considered, with everything that belongs to it, as
being confiscated to the nation that receives the injury, (p. 4;)
and also that 'if we follow the strict law of war, even immovables
may be sold and their proceeds lodged in the public treasury, as
is done with movables, though throughout almost all Europe
immovables are only registered, that the treasury may receive
during the war their rents and profits, and at the termination of
the war, the immovables themselves are by treaty restored to
their former owners.' The same doctrine is laid down by Wild-
man, (vol. 2, p. 9;) and in the case of Brown vs. The United
States, (8 Cranch, no,) the broad principle was assumed that
war gave the sovereign full right to take the property of the
enemy wherever found, and that the mitigations of this rigid
rule, which the wise and humane policy of modern times
has brought into practice, may more or less affect the exercise
of the right, but cannot impair the right itself. It has never
been disputed, however, that the property of the sovereign may
be confiscated, and this on the ground that public wars are wars
only between sovereigns.
"And now let us look at the practice.
"On the 2d of April, 1599, the States General issued an edict
with regard to all kinds of property, wherever found, which is
in these words : 'We declare lawful prize all persons and goods'
— the word bona in the civil law including every kind of prop-

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 507
erty, but chiefly applicable to real estate — 'situate or being under
the jurisdiction of the King of Spain, wherever the same may
be taken.' "And again, the States General, on the 14th of July, 1584,
declared the people of Bruges and Vrye, who had gone over to
the Spaniards, to be their enemies, and ordered all their goods,
actions, and credits, public as well as private, to be confiscated.
And afterwards, when the people of Venloo had also gone over
to the Spaniards, the Earl of Leicester, by his edict of July 9,
1586, declared them guilty of the crime of high treason, and
ordered all their goods, movable and immovable, and all their
actions and credits, to be confiscated. 'Nor must it be believed,'
says Bynkershoek, 'that these things were decreed concerning
those of Bruges, Vrye, and Venloo, merely because they were
not so much enemies, as traitors.'
"It seems, then, that though the strict law which authorizes
the seizure of everything, has been modified by the usages of
nearly all Europe, so as to restore it by treaty in the cases
cited — which by the way are more than five hundred years after
the Norman conquest — the practice was otherwise in one of
the most liberal, enlightened, and republican nations of that
continent, as it certainly was during the earlier ages of repub
lican Rome. There is as much difference, however, between
usage and law, as there is between generosity and justice, in
dealing with the affairs of nations.
"In the conquests of ancient times, however, even individ
uals lost their lands. 'Nor is it a matter of surprise,' remarks
Vattel, 'that in the early ages of Rome such a custom should
have prevailed. The wars of that era were carried on between
popular republics and communities. The State possessed very
little, and the quarrel was in reality the common cause of all
the citizens. But at present one sovereign wars against another
sovereign, and not against unarmed citizens.' (P. 388.)
"The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Wadsworth] states
the rule which rests upon this idea, and distinguishes between
the sovereign and the subject, without reference, however, to
the question whether the citizen is armed or not, as he is
unquestionably in the present quarrel. He does not deny, if I
have correctly understood him, that the property of the sovereign
himself may be lawfully taken. In the same speech, however,
he declares, and rightly, too, that the sovereignty here is in the
people. By his ovra logic, therefore, the property of individuals
may be lawfully taken in a war between republican States,
which, as Vattel remarks, is in reality the common cause of all
the citizens.

508 THOMAS WILLIAMS
"But we are not yet done with Vattel. He says further :
" 'But a conqueror who has taken up arms not only against
the sovereign but against the nation herself, and whose intention it
is to subdue a fierce and savage people, and once for all to reduce
an obstinate enemy, may with justice lay burdens on the conquered
nation, both as a compensation for the expenses of the war and as
a punishment.' (/6»rf., 389.) 'He may, according to the degree
of indocility apparent in their disposition, govern them with a
tighter rein, so as to curb and subdue their impetuous spirit; he
may even, if necessary, keep them for some time in a kind of
slavery.' "And again : 'Although,' as he suggests, 'towns and countries
should not be deprived by their conqueror of their liberties,
privileges, and immunities on account of his quarrel with their
sovereign,' he adds :
"'Nevertheless, if the inhabitants have been personally guilty
of any crime against him, he may, by way of punishment, deprive
them of their rights and privileges. This he may also do if the
inhabitants have taken up arms against him and have thus directly
become his enemies. In that case he owes them no more than
what is due from a humane and equitable conqueror to his van
quished foes. Should he merely and simply incorporate them with
his former State, they will have no cause of complaint' {Ibid., 387.)
"And further:
" 'The whole right of the conqueror is derived from justifiable
self-defense, which comprehends the support and prosecution of his
rights. When therefore he has totally subdued a hostile nation, he
undoubtedly may in the first place do himself justice respecting
the object which had given rise to the war, and indemnify himself
for the expenses and dangers he has sustained by it. He may,
according to the exigency of the case, subject the nation to punish
ment by way of example. He may even, if prudence requires,
render her incapable of doing mischief with the same ease in future.
Some princes have contented themselves with imposing a tribute
on the conquered nation, others with depriving her of some of
her rights — taking from her a province, or erecting fortresses to
keep her in awe.' ilbid., 388.)
" 'But if he has to do with a perfidious, restless, and dangerous
enemy, he may by way of punishment, deprive him of some of his
towns or provinces, and keep them to serve as a barrier to his own
dominions. Nothing is more allowable than to weaken an enemy
who has rendered himself suspected and formidable. The lawful
end of punishment is future security.' {Ibid., 384.)

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 509
"Grotius remarks, however, that 'in civil wars, be they great
or small, there is no change of property but by the sentence of
a judge;' but the learned Barbeyrac, in a note on this passage,
says that the civilian Ulpian distinguishes between a real war
and a civil war, on the ground that the former is made between
those who are enemies, and animated by the spirit of enemies,
which prompts them to endeavor the ruin of each other's States ;
whereas, in a civil war, however pernicious it often proves to
a State, both parties are supposed to intend the preservation of
the State. The one is only for saving it in one manner, and the
other in another. So that they are not enemies, {inter quos
jura captivitatium aut postliminium, or postliminiorum, fuerunt,
&c.,) and every person of the two parties continues always a
citizen of the State so divided.
"The result of all these authorities, then, is that the present
is not a civil war only, but a real war ; that by the law of nature
and of nations in such cases, the treatment of the conquered
depends on t"he particular circumstances of the case ; that every
thing is lawful; that everything belonging to the offending
party is confiscated; that the practice of nations has authorized
the forfeiture even of the real estate of individuals; that this
was more especially authorized in quarrels between republics;
that where the quarrel is not with the sovereign, but with the
nation, and the intention is to subdue a fierce and savage people,
the conqueror may lay burdens on them, not only by way of
compensation but of punishment ; that if they have been person
ally guilty of any crime, and have taken up arms against him, he
may deprive them of their rights, and owes them no more than
what humanity and equity require; that he may do himself
justice respecting the object which has given rise to the war,
and indemnify himself for the expense and damage he has
sustained; that he may subject his enemies to punishment; and
that he may render them incapable of further mischief. Indem
nity, security, and punishment, are all, therefore, means of self-
defense which may be legitimately used.
"And now let us inquire whether the forfeiture of the
estates and property of the traitors — of those who have been
actually in arms against us — whether they consist of lands or
slaves, is required for these purposes. If it be, there is an end
of the question. I have no desire, individually, that anything
shall be done for the purposes of vengeance only. 'Va victis' is
not the maxim of a humane conqueror. 'Parcere subjectis,
debellare superbos' is the rule by which I would be governed.
I would not exclude the idea of mercy. I agree with the great
poet of human nature, that

5IO THOMAS WILLIAMS " 'It becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
And earthly power then shows likest God's,
When mercy seasons justice.'
"I am not clear, however, as to the wisdom of a proclama
tion of amnesty in advance, as a measure of pacification, without
limits as to time, and where submission after conquest, and when
it is no longer a virtue but a necessity, is to be rewarded with
the same impunity as a voluntary return to duty before that
time. But what is the offense, how much have we suffered from
it, and how is its recurrence to be prevented?
"I think I may safely say that human history presents no
parallel to this rebellion. Since the revolt of the rebel angels
there has been no example of an insurrection so wanton, so
wicked, so utterly causeless, and so indescribably ferocious and
demoniac as the present. It was not the case of the oppression
of a Government, whose weight had borne heavily upon the
people. It was none of a violation of the fundamental law.
The object was not redress, like that of our Revolution, but
destruction. It was a rebellion against the majority rule for
the purpose not of reforming, but of overthrowing the Govern
ment, and erecting upon its ruins another of an oligarchic cast,
whose corner-stone was property in man. It was the product of
a system which threw all the lands of the South into the hands
of a few men. It involved an act of aggravated treason against
a humane, paternal, and unoffending Government. It has been
conducted with a degree of inhumanity that has no example
except in barbarian wars. It has involved to us an enormous
expenditure of money and of blood. Its suppression has become
impossible without removing the cause of strife, and disabling
our enemy by liberating his slaves, and arming them against
him. It cannot be repaired. There is no reparation possible
that would be commensurate with the injury. Can you breathe
new life into the bones that ornament the necks and fingers of
southern dames, or bleach unburied, without even the humble
privilege of a grave, on southern battle-fields ? Can you reclothe
them with the comely vesture that has been given to the vultures
of the southern skies ? Who shall restore the shattered limb ; who
fill the vacant chair at the family fireside; who give back the
husband and the father, or dry the tears of the widow and the
orphan? What trump, but that of the dread archangel, who
gathers the tribes of the earth for the last solemn judgment, shall
awaken the gallant dead who sleep in bloody garments in their
beds of glory, from their deep repose ? Mock not the grief that
is unutterable by the suggestion of indemnity or reparation.

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 5II
'Give me back my legions !' was the passionate exclamation of
the Roman Augustus, when a swift messenger brought to him
the tidings of the slaughter of Varus and his brave companions
in the forests of Germany. 'Give me back my children !' is the
wailing cry that will burst from the bosom of the American
mother, who weeps like Rachel for her first-born, by the waters
of the Merrimac and the Ohio — or mock me not with the idea
of reparation. There is no reparation for it, as there can be
no punishment, except in the divestiture of the rights, and the
seizure of the estates of the guilty leaders. There is no security
except in the distribution of the latter, and the complete
exorcism of the hell-born and hell-deserving spirit that has
wrought all this world-wide ruin.
"These things are necessary. Is there anything in the law
of nature to prevent them? Gentlemen object that to seize the
inheritance would be to visit the sins of the guilty upon the
innocent. They plead for the wife whose counsels have driven
the husband into rebellion. They weep crocodile tears for the
offspring who have been taught to spit upon the flag of their
country, who are without title until the decease of a parent who
may happen to die intestate, and upon whom no law of nature,
but only the law which he has violated, would in that case have
devolved the succession. The widow and the children of those,
however, who have fallen in the effort to suppress this unholy
rebellion, have no share in their sympathies. The chances of
war may strip them of their inheritance, but that makes no
difference with them. They take no account of the fact that
nature and Providence have ahke decreed that the sins 01 the
fathers, and even their misfortunes, shall be visited upon theif
children, and that the law which authorizes the sale of the
estate for the debts of the former has everywhere affirmed its
justice. The misfortunes of a northern man and his death in
righteous battle at the hands of a Southern assassin, may reduce
his offspring to beggary. All this is right; but to allow the
family of the traitor who has dealt a foul blow at the social
state, and stricken down all the securities of property, to suffer,
is regarded as a great injustice. The felon-brood may run its
plowshare over the bones of the loyal martyr, while his children
are perhaps eating the bread of charity in their northern homes,
and it is all right, because the former are the salt of the earth,
and a just punishment would only exasperate them into a new
rebellion. Let them rebel. A just poverty will render their
efforts harmless, and, by teaching them the value and respecta
bility of labor, make them only wiser and better men. With
my consent they shall never trample upon the relics of a northern

512 THOMAS WILLIAMS
soldier. I would carve out inheritances for his children upon
the soil that his sword has ransomed, and his blood baptized
and fertilized. God's justice demands it, and the heart and
conscience of the American people will say. Amen.
"But gentlemen here insist that we cannot subdue the
revolted States, and ask triumphantly where there is an inde
pendent Government with ten millions of people, maintaining
itself for three years, that has ever been conquered? What do
they mean by this language ? Do they intend that we shall not
conquer them if they can prevent it? Why do they insist on
exaggerating the numbers, and prowess, and resources of the
enemy, and ignoring the facts of history, to show that subjuga
tion is impossible ? Do they participate in the feeling which
they have done so much to inspire, that one of this barbarian
rabble which claims to belong to the master race, and rejoices
to hear itself called a nation of Cavaliers by degenerate spirits
on this floor, is equal to at least six northern freemen, with all
the advantages of an unbounded credit and a high civilization?
When they say here, and say to the country, that twenty-three
millions of white men, with four millions of blacks — all battling
for liberty, and with these great advantages in the struggle — are
unable to subdue less than four millions of their own race,
without credit or resources, and with no higher inspiration than
slavery, they libel the people of the North, by declaring in effect
that they are not worthy to be free. But what do they propose,
in view of these opinions, supposing them to be true? They
say that they wish to preserve the Union, but that is not to be
accomplished by fighting for it. They desire to treat for its
restoration. Their nostrums are, in the language of a gentleman
from Indiana, 'conciliation and concession.' Well, the former
has been tried under border State counsels. We carried on the
war for eighteen months on the principle of doing as little harm
as possible to our enemy. They have declared, however, again
and again, that they will only treat on the footing of their entire
independence. Negotiation admits the fact of secession, if
not the right, and involves only the alternatives of recognition,
or reconstruction on such terms as they may choose to dictate.
Do gentlemen here propose to avoid dismemberment, and pre
serve the Union, by going into the confederacy? Is this the
concession that is to be the peacemaker? Is this the errand on
which we are to send ambassadors to pass under the Caudine
yoke? No. Gentlemen here may humble themselves to the
dust, and confess their unworthiness in the presence of this
superior race, but they have mistaken their masters, the people,
if they suppose that they have any idea of falling into the bare-

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 513
footed procession of mendicants, which is endeavoring to find
its way South, in order to kiss the black stone at the Mecca of
treason, to which they turn so reverentially in their speeches
here. The people are high-spirited, if their servants are not.
They know that if we have not whipped the rebels, it is only
because we have taken counsel from the men who thought we
could not. They intend to clear up this aspersion on their
manhood, by showing that they can not only subjugate the rebels
in the South, but that they can do the same, if necessary, with
their sympathizers in the North. They have made up their
minds to chastise the self-abasing thought out of those who have
entertained it, and to preserve this Union at every sacrifice, and
woe to him who ventures to gainsay their decision.
"But then there is a difference of blood, which renders con
quest, and would, by the same logic, render a harmonious
reunion, impossible ! Gentlemen on the other side insist upon
distinguishing, to their own disadvantage, between the North
and South in this particular. They tell us that the latter are a
nation of Cavaliers, while we are only Puritans, or Quakers, or
Pennsylvania Dutch. Well, if it were true, and they were twice
as numerous as they are, there is nothing in the facts of history
to warrant the servile reiteration here, of the Richmond vaunt
that they cannot be conquered, and will die in the last ditch, if
necessary. The little Island of Great Britain holds in bondage
the Celt of Ireland and the hundred millions of India, while the
Mantchou Tartar dominates over three hundred and fifty
millions of Chinese. Alexander left the world as a legacy to
his generals, and the Ottoman still sits upon the Bosphorus, and
sways his scepter over the imperial city of the East. But it is
not true. Gentlemen on the other side are as much out, I think,
in their ethnology as in their history. There is no distinction
of blood, and none of habit or opinion, except that which must
prevail between a higher civilization and a lower one. If they
mean that the men who colonized the South were a superior
variety of the same stock, they speak in ignorance of the fact
that the New England Pilgrims were the very highest and
purest type of the genuine Englishman, abandoning high social
positions and comfortable homes, in the quest of liberty in the
New World, while the colonists of the South were, with a few
exceptions, a motley and miscellaneous herd of mere adventurers,
some flying from their creditors at home, and others rejected by
the stomach of the Old World, and vomited per force upon our
shores. If they mean that they are of the class which believes
in the divine right of kings, in the idea of an exclusive caste,
and that free society is a failure, then they are, perhaps, right.

514 THOMAS WILLIAMS
But these opinions were not imported by them. They are of
indigenous growth. They are the legitimate offspring of the
institution which turns man into a chattel, and makes him the
property of his fellow. They are the results of a social system
that ignores the idea of republican equality, and cannot possibly
exist — as it never yet has existed — in any other than an essen
tially aristocratic State, which it must necessarily engender, if
it does not find it ready-made. In this sense of the word they
are indeed a sort of bastard Cavaliers— with this difference
however— that the type of the class was a pattern of knightly
faith, who honored and worshipped his God, his lady, and his
king; while this — the counterfeit presentment — is a sort of
Jonathan Wild — half highwayman and half footpad — rejoicing
in treason, murder, perjury, and robbery, and signalizing his
faith and gallantry by lynching Methodist preachers, seUing or
burning negroes, or hunting them with bloodhounds, and perse
cuting helpless and unoffending Yankee schoolm'ams. And yet
there is not a miserable sandhiller in the Carolinas who does not
claim, upon northern testimony, such as we listen to here, a
lineal descent from the companions of the Conqueror, and strut
and swagger with an air even more lordly than the sans-culotte
Mosquito king, or the equally ambitious and pretentious native
of the Gold Coast, who, in complete destitution of all nether
integuments, buttons up his superior man, and treads the deck
of a man of war in the regimental coat of a British officer.
"There is one fact I admit, and it is the only one that does
seem to indicate an ethnological difference, and that is that the
newly invented Cavalier, like the Frenchman, and the Spaniard,
and the other dark-skinned races of southern Europe, crosses
readily with the black man-^as the Teuton rarely does, with
either the black man or any of the Celtic tribes, whose politics,
ignoring generally the individual man, know no Government
without a king, as their religion knows no Church without a
pope. The blood of these two great families of man, flowing side
by side in parallel currents for more than a thousand years in
France, has never intermingled, and the example of the French
and Spanish settlements in Louisiana, Florida, and the Canadas,
is evidence that they do not intermingle here, but that the Latin
races, like the Indian, are dying out under the shadow of the
paler Northman. I leave the negro, however, and his place in
nature and the social scale, to the ethnologists, like the gentle
man from Ohio, only, advising further researches in this new
and interesting branch of political science. I am not personally
averse to these speculations. I do not know whether the question
of politics may not turn out at last to be no more than a ques-

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 515
tion of ethnology. Setting the darker races aside, I have been
sometimes tempted to think that I could almost determine i priori
from the physiognomies around me here, the political com
plexions of the men to whom they respectively belonged. On
this hypothesis I should have put the gentleman from Ohio just
where I find him.
"I do not, however, insist upon the fact just mentioned as
conclusive upon the point of consanguinity, and am willing to
confess, if their friends here will consider it no disparagement
to the chivalry, that we belong to the same family. I would not
underrate the stock either in its courage or capabilities. They
are just as good in that respect as ourselves, and no better. That
we do not harmonize is only attributable to the institution that
makes them fierce and proud and barbarous, and haters of every
thing that savors of democracy. Take that away, and we shall
run together again like two globules of mercury. Take that
away, and there never was a people more homogeneous than
ourselves, with the exception of the one disturbing element, the
Celtic Irishman, who, with high courage and quick and generous
impulses, if he cannot be absorbed — or, if gentlemen on the other
side prefer the etymological hybrid, miscegenated — will probably
be subdued into habits of republican obedience under the instruc
tion of the Yankee schoolmaster. Take that away, and we shall
have no one cause of discord left.
"Rather, however, than do this simple thing — demanded as
well on grounds of consistency as of security — gentlemen on
the other side, who admire the Cavalier and dislike the Puritan,
would prefer to treat with the former at the expense of the
latter. In the Cincinnati convention of 1856, a delegate from
Pennsylvania declared that in case of a separation, that State
would go with the South. New York was expected to take the
same direction, and upon these assurances the south went out.
The programme was that the pestilent Puritan, who would
think and talk at all hazards, because he claimed it as his
birthright, must be excluded. There was no place in any plan
of reconstruction for him. New England was to be left out in
the cold.
"Leave out New England in the cold! Well, I am no
Yankee. No drop of my blood was ever filtered through that
stratum of humanity. I claim, however, to be a man. I think
I love liberty above all things. I know that I can respect and
admire courage, and constancy, and high thought, and heroic
achievement, wherever I may find them. I would not quarrel
even with an overstrung philanthropy. I can always excuse
the errors that lean on the side of virtue, and find fanaticism

5l6 THOMAS WILLIAMS
much more readily in that devil-worship of slavery, that would
be willing to sacrifice not only all New England but even the
Union itself, upon its horrid altars, than in those noble spirits
whose sin is only their excessive love for man. I may speak,
therefore, without prejudice.
"Leave out New England in the cold ! I doubt whether even
this would chill her brave heart, or quiet its tumultuous throb- f
bings for humanity. Though no ardent southern sun has
quickened her pulses, or kindled her blood into lava, no frigid
neutrality has ever frozen her into stone, when the interests of
liberty appealed to her for protection. She has been ever faithful
to the memory of the great idea, which brought her founders
across the ocean, as the only colony that landed in this newly
discovered hemisphere upon any other errand than the search
for gold. I cannot forget that it was this proscribed race that
inaugurated the Revolution, by forging in their capital the
thunderbolts that smote the tyranny of England, and dyeing
their garments with its first blood upon the commons of Lexing
ton. Leave out New England in the cold ! You may look
unkindly upon her, but you cannot freeze her into apathy, any
more than you can put out the light of her eyes, or arrest the
missionary thoughts which she has launched over a continent.
It was not New England that stood shivering in cold indiffer
ence when the boom of the first rebel gun in Charleston harbor
thrilled along her rock-bound coast. Taking no thought of cost
or consequences, she rushed down like an avalanche to avenge
the insulted flag of our fathers, and Massachusetts was glorified
by a second baptism when the blood of her sons dyed the paving-
stones of the city of Baltimore. I would it had been my own
great State, whose drum-beat was the first that waked an echo
in these Halls, which had won the honor of that sacrifice. But
it was not so ordained. Leave out Massachusetts in the cold !
What matters it that no tropical sun has fevered her northern
blood into the delirium of treason? I know no trait of tender
ness more touching and more human, than that with which she
received back to her arms the bodies of her lifeless children.
'Handle them tenderly,' was the message of her loyal Governor.
Massachusetts desired to look once more upon the faces of her
martyred sons, 'marred as they were by traitors.' She lifted
gently the sable pall that covered them. She gave them a
soldier's burial and a soldier's farewell ; and then, like David of
old when he was informed that the child of his affections had
ceased to live, she rose to her feet, dashed the tear-drop from her
eye, and in twenty days her iron-clad battalions were crowning
the heights, and her guns frowning destruction over the streets

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 517
of the rebel city. Shut out Massachusetts in the cold ! Yes. You
may blot her out from the map of the continent: you may bring
back the glacial epoch, when the Arctic ice-drift, that has
deposited so many monuments on her soil, swept over her buried
surface — when the polar bear, perhaps, paced the driving floes,
and the walrus frolicked among the tumbling icebergs — but you
cannot sink her deep enough to drown the memory of Lexington
and Concord, or bury the summit of the tall column that lifts
its head over the first of our battle-fields. 'With her,' in the
language of her great son, 'the past at least is secure.' The
muse of history has flung her story upon the world's canvas, in
tints that will not fade, and cannot die.
"But while we are told by gentlemen on the other side that
we cannot conquer the South, we are somewhat inconsistently
charged, in almost the same breath, with a desire to protract
the war for the purpose of perpetuating our own power, and
asked imperiously how long it is to continue, and when and
how it is to end. Allow me to say, in the first place, that the
prolongation of the war is not the means which a rational man
would adopt to secure the ascendancy of the Republican party.
No administration in any free country has ever been strong
enough to stand up successfully in the face of a long and
expensive war, where results have proved incommensurate with
means, and enormous armies that wanted to fight, were
compelled to stagnate in inglorious repose. None has been strong
enough to carry on its shoulders many such generals as the
unready captain who is the idol of the Democracy, or him
who was just half an hour too late at Williamsport. No
rebellion was ever put down by heroes of the Fabian type, or
instrumentalities like the spade. No country is rich enough
to hold such masses of men inactive for indefinite periods
of time, and under the command of generals who fortify
when they ought to attack, and turn away whenever the
enemy turns upon them. If there is anything I dread and deplore,
it is the tenacity with which such men are retained after
repeated failures. If there is anything which gentlemen on the
opposite side desire, it is to see this struggle protracted under
the auspices of just such leaders— who have invariably been their
especial favorites — until the patience of the country is exhausted,
and its credit entirely ruined. I think I understand them. They
want no Grants or Butlers ; but they know that another McClel-
lan will arm them with the argument that a Republican Admin
istration is inadequate to the times. They do not want this war
to terminate until the next presidential election.

5l8 THOMAS WILLIAMS
"To the question, however, how long it is to continue, an apt
response might readily be found in the stormy exordium of the
Roman orator when he drove the infamous Catiline from the
hall of its august Senate: 'How long, O Catiline, wilt thou
abuse our patience? How long will thy unbridled audacity
parade itself insultingly here?' That, however, would savor
too much of the Yankee, by answering one question with another.
Allow me then to respond a little more directly, that it will con
tinue just so long as the interrogator and his confederates here
an'd elsewhere, shall continue successfully to embarrass the
Government in its prosecution, and to encourage protracted
resistance by assurances so often repeated on this floor, and so
eagerly caught up and reiterated by the rebel presses, that we
cannot conquer the insurgents. The last hope of the rebels is
confessedly in the success of their sympathizers here.
"But these gentlemen, the neutrals of the border and the
conservatives of the North — Arcadians all — have, I think, about
performed their mission. They have done, not the work they
intended, but the one they have been put upon by the great Ruler
of nations. It was a bloody work, but it was, perhaps, a neces
sary one. A blow struck at the heart of the rebellion at its
outset, in the spirit of the proclamation of Fremont, would
probably have made an end of it for the time being, while it
preserved its cause. The conservative statesmen were wanted
to make the remedy radical and sure, by prolonging and exasper
ating the strife, and intensifying and universalizing the very
narrow abolition feeling of the North. It was the voice of
Jehovah that spake from the iron throats of those engines that
hurled their defiant missiles against our flag at Sumter, just as
the same voice thundered from the clouds and darkness of
Sinai, when it promulgated to the world the great law of
humanity. It was the great proclamation of freedom to the
oppressed — anteceding that of the President by nearly two years
— that pealed in the ears of the lordly chivalry who held high
carnival on that memorable day on the boulevards of Charles
ton. The light that blazed from the muzzles of those guns
flashed over the American firmament with a radiance like that
which flooded chaos, at the fiat of Omnipotence, on the first
morning of creation. Thinking people saw it and rejoiced. It
was 'the beginning of the end' of the long agony under which
the nation had been sweating, as it were, great drops of blood.
The war had become a necessity, which politicians were power
less either to postpone or avert. Though no abolitionist — till
then — I saw it and rejoiced along with them. I thanked God —
as I do now — that by an act of sublime justice, such as the pen

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 519
of inspiration had never recorded, and the genius of the drama
never imagined. He had put out the eyes of the slave-owner and
guided his ovwi hands to the pillars of the temple which protected
him; that He had made him drunk with arrogance, and decreed
a transcendent suicide, by making himself the Nemesis — the
instrument of the great work, which no merely human agencies
could have accomplished. But that work would have been
imperfect without more; and, by an act of justice equally sub
lime. He called into counsel the statesmen of the border, along
with the advocates of human bondage in the North, and neu
trality and conservatism stood hand in hand by the bedside of
the sufferer, helping it into eternity, and mistaking all the
while — like the lachrymose and lugubrious gentleman from
Indiana — in the sepulchral gloom of that chamber of mortality,
the unburied and offensive corpse over which they still sob, for
the image of a dead or dying Union. If the border States — if
Kentucky especially has suffered, as she is claimed to have done
— if her dwellings have been desolated and her soil drenched
with the blood of her people — she has to thank her statesmen,
as we of the free States do, for all the sacrifices it has cost us to
save the negro, while we were throwing away the priceless
jewels of the North. If, instead of a neutrality which was only
another name for treason — which the law of Solon would have
denounced as the worst of crimes, and the fierce genius of
Dante would have gibbeted in immortal and withering verse — if,
instead of denying to the General Government, and even to her
own citizens, the privilege of organizing troops upon her soil,
she had but opened her arms to a deliverer, a hundred thousand
Northern bayonets would have belted her round as with a wall of
fire, and no hostile foot would ever have left a mark upon her
soil. She chose the other part. Neutrality flushed slowly into
the sickly and livid hue, the pale, disastrous twilight of con
servatism, and sat upon her chest and ours until its pulses were
almost hushed ; and, as a consequence of all this, the bravest of
her sons have died ignobly in the effort to destroy the Union of
their fathers, and the most honored of her names have gone
down in darkness among the nameless and undistinguished dead,
and found, and now sleep in felons' graves, unknelled, uncoffined
— 'unwept, unh'onored and unsung.'
"But what is to be the end? Who doubts it that trusts in
Providence and knows that God is just? In the darkest hour of
our trial, when the gallant bark that bears our fortunes had
disappeared among the mountain billows that threatened to
ingulf it, and the lowering clouds shrouded in temporary dark
ness the glorious constellation of our fathers— when all mon-

520 THOMAS WILLIAMS
archical Europe clapped its hands, and sang peans of joy as the
great Republic reeled and staggered under the felon blows that
were so treacherously aimed at her life by the hands of her own
unnatural children — I, for one, never doubted or faltered. I
knew that its timbers might be strained, and its prow dip deeply
in the trough of the sea, but I read 'resurgam' on its keel. I
had a faith that it must come up again, with the old flag — that
God-blessed banner of our fathers — type of regenerated humanity
—symbol of hope to the nations — still flying at its peak — its only
stain washed out— like the star that guided the magi over the
plains of Bethlehem, to light the oppressed of the Old World
to a knowledge of their rights and capabilities. If it might be
permitted to the great captain, who conquered the liberties of
Rome, to say to the trembling pilot, 'Why fear you ? You carry
Caesar,' how much more may we — with such a freight as no
vessel ever bore since the ark of the patriarch rocked upon the
heaving tides of the deluge, or grounded upon the lofty summits
of Arrarat — say to the trembling cowards who despair of the
Republic, and even yet sit down and wring their hands like
women over the impossibility of saving it, 'O ye of little faith!
Up, if ye are men ! A world's hopes are staked upon your man
hood !' Yes, there is no throb of this great heart that does not
pulsate through the nations, as they stand at gaze, looking with
suspended breath, upon the swaying fortunes of this Titanic
struggle. It is the great battle of the ages. It is universal human
ity in its last death-wrestle with the powers of depotism. It is
a narrow view of this controversy to suppose it a question of
freedom to the negro only. The chain that binds four millions
of black men, and as many white, both North and South, reaches
not only to far-distant Africa, but grasps in its iron links the
men of all climes and complexions, from the green island that
hangs at the belt of Britain, to the gorges of the snow Caucasus
— from the Hindoo who bathes in the Ganges, to the Kalmuck
who pastures his flocks upon the steppes of Tartary.
"I trust we shall not either ignore or underrate our mission.
We are in the midst of a new experiment upon the grandest
theater that the world ever saw. God has so fashioned this
country as to make it an indissoluble unit. What He has so joined
together, all the powers of the earth and hell cannot rend
asunder. The man who would consent to divide it upon any
terms, is like the false mother who was willing to take the
mutilated half of the child. The individual who would treat
for its severance, or even send an embassy to those who insist
that nothing short of this will satisfy them — if an American — is
a man I cannot comprehend. I do not claim any more natural

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 52 1
sensibility than other men, but when the dome of this Capitol
first rose before me in the spring-time of life, I looked upon it
with a feeling to which no words of mine could give expression.
It was not the colossal pile of masonry — it was not the Doric
column — or the storied architrave — or the frescoed wall — or the
tessellated floor — or any of the wonders of Grecian or Italian
art, which the last few years have so multiplied around us. It
was the great thought of the Union, embodied — it was the great
fact of the Union, idealized in stone; it was the starry ensign
that fluttered over these Halls where the nation's Representa
tives were assembled ; it was the reflection that there — under that
banner — in these seats — and hanging in these galleries — were
congregated the representative men of half a continent — from
the icy lakes of the North to the orange groves of Louisiana —
from the men who hunted the moose on the hills of the Aroos
took, to those who chased the buffalo over the great prairies of
the West — men who never met elsewhere, but were here com
mingled in common brotherhood, in devotion to the one great
idea, for the development of which this vast continent seems
to have been specially reserved. Away with the jargon of art
in such a presence as this ! Blood, pulse, and heart confessed
the power of that overmastering thought. It was a part of the
education of the boy; and as I come back now, in the
maturity of years, to take my seat in these Halls — enlarged and
beautified as they have been — as one of the Representatives of
a domain which dwarfs the empire of the Macedonian ; to
realize that yonder imgerial bird, which stoops over your head
— the sea-eagle of the Vikings — a little rapacious perhaps at
times — has swept within almost a generation — with a pinion
stronger than that of the eagle of the Csesars — over a region
almost as wide as any that ever owned their sway, while the estab
lishments of the Old World have paled with affright at the rush
of its mighty plumes — blood, pulse, and heart still recognize
the sublime idea that was responded to by the bounding pulse
of boyhood. God of our fathers ! what an inheritance for
humanity, and what a theater for the sublimest of its develop
ments; and what a trust too for us who have been summoned
here in the hour of the nation's agony, to witness the new birth
that is to be the resurrection to a new and better life ! And
who is the degenerate American in this great assemblage that
would even hold counsel with those that would imagine its
dismemberment? Who is it that, in view of the past fate of all
who have faltered in the hour of the nation's trial, and of the
resistless current that is now drifting the feeble and the faint
hearted into oblivion, will be foolhardy enough to attempt to

522

THOMAS WILLIAMS

Stem that avalanche of opinion which has just swept down from
the White Mountains of New Hampshire, and will strew all the
other States with monuments of the public wrath in the wreck
that it is making of the anti-war party of the North? Thank
God! the dark hour has passed. The skirts of this mighty
storm are drawing off. The fields that have been watered by
its bloody shower will soon be green again. We shall come out
of this war with a development of muscle and manhood, that
will shame our former degeneracy and make the world tremble
at our power. We shall have passed the ordeal that was to try us
as a nation, when we shall have walked the burning plowshare
of revolution— as we shall walk it— with our garments unsinged,
and demonstrated — as we shall demonstrate — under trials that
would have shaken down the proudest monarchies of Europe,
the intelligent, affectionate, and unwavering loyalty of a self-
governing people, and the sublime energy and indestructible
vitality of the republican idea. Our Government will be no
longer an experiment, but a fact of history ; and we shall resume
our no longer questionable rank among the great Powers of
the earth, as first among our peers — the great Republic of the
Western Hemisphere, one and indivisible.
About a month before Congress adjourned on July
4th, namely, on June 2d (1864), Justice Robert C. Grier,
his long-time friend, wrote him that he had received his
speech. "And what is very unusual with me," he continued, "/ read
it — While it confirmed my high opinion of your talents, it failed
to convince my judgment — either as to the policy of dividing
the bear's skin, or quarreling about it before the bear is killed.
My opinion is he ought to be killed & my prayer is that he may
be killed. But I fear much that these discussions, as to the divi
sion of his skin, will tend only to make the killing of him more
difficult or possibly render it impossible. — Your speech as written
is the best of the season or that has ever been made on the subject
with a spice perhaps too much of spread eagleism. I would
concur with most of the propositions and views so ably &
eloquently stated. The heathen made slaves of the conquered
people, as better than killing them. But Christians do not arro
gate the sovereign power of the Almighty, to 'visit the sins of
the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation.'
I consider neither Romans nor Jews so very fit examples. David
might be quoted for saws. Our constitution was made in a
different spirit & with more enlarged views — and without

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 523
giving an opinion on what may become a judicial question, I
think it may well be doubted, whether you will find a court
sworn to obey that constitution as the higher law, who will
carry out the wrathful views of angry politicians. You have
made the best argument which could be made in support of
Stevens' motion— better than he even made himself— Tho' a man
of great ability I think him a dangerous leader in these most
difficult times & new & difficult questions. He has ability, but
is reckless and injudicious — a good lawyer, but with only
sufficient conscience & subtilty to be a party politician, without
the expanded views of a statesman or the moral instincts of a
Christian.' — The times call for the cool, candid wisdom of states
men, not the revengeful passions which a demagogue may
excite for a temporary popularity with factious extremists.
Every day changes the standpoint from which all these difficult
questions must be viewed — and a wise decision of them can
only be made when the evidence in the case is closed & both
parties heard. — I would desire to see you exercise your acknowl
edged talents in a way beneficial to the country, and not follow
ing en suite of any leader of faction. — The liberty I take, in this
matter, of talking to you plainly is the best evidence of my
high appreciation of your good sense & that you will take no
offense from my remarks.
"Very respectfully & truly yours, &c.
"R. C. Grier."'
While Mr. Williams was by no means following any
party or party leader, and did not follow Stevens, as
Judge Thayer has intimated, but was voicing his own
matured sentiments, as a legislator who faces responsibil
ity of action, instead of as the quiet critic of action by
others, the sentiments expressed by Justice Grier repre
sent a certain kind of public feeling which it is well to
have expressed by so able a pen at this point. Whether
this letter influenced the course of Mr. Williams during
the next session, which closed with the second inaugura
tion of President Lincoln and Vice-President Andrew
^ Of course. Justice Grier is speaking of him politically.
^ Letter among the Williams papers. Simon Cameron wrote Mr. Wil
liams on June 3d (1864), that "the National Com. should make it a cam
paign document." Williams papers. Charles Sumner said of it to General
Morehead that "there was more law, more logic, more learning, more classic
taste and elegance, and more statesmanship by far" in it "than in any other that
had been delivered in Congress." Conversation reported in a letter of June
12, 1864, among the Williams papers.
A bust of Mr. Williams was made by Clarke Mills at the latter's request at
this time.

524

THOMAS WILLIAMS

Johnson— the first that the Goddess of Liberty upon the
dome ever witnessed^ — cannot be known. The victories
of '64-65 and the shortness of the session, which closed on
March 3d, for some reason led him to confine himself
largely to the work of the judiciary committee during
the rest of the Thirty-eighth Congress— a Congress ever
famous as the one in whose existence emancipation be
came a law and the greatest rebellion in history was
brought all but to an end.^
Scarcely forty days had passed, when in the midst of
rejoicing over the end at Appomattox five days before —
but a little over four years from the day at Philadelphia
when he said that rather than surrender a great principle
he would be assassinated — the great President fell, on
the night of April 14th, in the manner intimated in the
Independence Hall address, but he had upheld all the
principles of both the Declaration and the Constitution.
The nation from end to end was torn, in their rejoicings,
with mingled feelings of grief and hot indignation which
had much to do with the course of the next Congress.
At Pittsburgh a public meeting was arranged, as was
done in nearly all other places in the Union, for a funeral
address, and by common consent Mr. Williams was
acknowledged to be the fitting orator for the occasion.
The people assembled at Christ Methodist Episcopal
Church, in Penn Street, on Thursday, June 1st, and he
again delivered a eulogy over a second President to fall
before the echoes of his inaugural were scarcely silent
over the land.^
"We meet in gloom," he began. "But yesterday our streets
were jubilant, and the very heavens ablaze with the bright pomp
of a rejoicing multitude. But yesterday our temples were vocal
with songs of rapturous thanksgiving for the great victories that
^ Speaker Colfax's closing address. Congressional Globe, Thirty-eighth Con
gress, 2d Session, Part 2, p. 1424. The statue was finally placed in position
December 2, 1863. It is a curious fact that it would have been crowned by a
Liberty cap, instead of eagle's feathers, had not Jefferson Davis, Secretary of
War, when the point came up, objected that it might look as if this image of
Americans might once have been enslaved. Todd's "Story of the City of
Washington," p. 207. It may be recalled, also, that it was only in 1857 that the
House of Representatives left their old-time home, the present Hall of
Statuary, for the one they have since occupied.
2 In a letter of March 13, 1865, Mr. Williams tells of a trip to the front and
pleasant experiences as a guest of Generals Grant and Meade.
* Copies among the Williams papers.

PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN
Halftone of a contemporary photograph by Brady, negative in possession ol
L- C. Handy, Washington, D. C.

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 525
had been vouchsafed to our arms. To-day no jubilee solicits us.
No loud huzzas — no 'aves vehement' — no hurrying feet — no
hymns of triumph salute our ears. It is the hour of darkness, as
these sad emblems indicate. A nation mourns. A mighty people
throngs its wide-spread sanctuaries, to lament its martyred
Chief, but just returned from the overthrow of the armed array
that menaced its own life, to die in the very hour of his triumph
— in the fancied security of its own capital — under the blaze of
a thousand lights, and a thousand admiring eyes — and in the
midst of the brave hearts that belted him around, and would have
spilled their life's best blood to shelter him from harm — and to
die, oh God of Justice ! by the stealthy and felonious blow of an
assassin. In such a presence, and with such surroundings, the
chosen Ruler of this great Republic — the kind, the generous,
the parental magistrate, who knew no resentments, and had
never done aught to deserve an enemy — has bowed his venerable
head upon his bosom, and laid down the high commission with
which he had been so lately reinvested by the popular acclaim.
'!Most sacrilegious murder hath broke ope the temple of the
Lord's anointed, and stolen out the life of the building.' The
pulse of the world has stood almost suspended by the earthquake
jar that shook its continents and isles, as no event of modern
times has done. A multitudinous people — 'in numbers number
less' almost as the stars of heaven — thrilled with horror, and
smitten dumb by the fearful atrocity which flashed upon them,
unheralded by any note of warning, over the electric wires, have
uncovered their heads and wept, as no people ever wept before,
as the funeral cortege swept by, with its precious but uncon
scious burthen, over mountain and plain, and along the rivers
and the lakes, in its long and melancholy journey to the far
Western home which he was to see in the body no more. The
earth has opened to receive all that the nation could give back
to that now desolated home, and we are here to-day, by the
appointment of his successor, to bow in reverential submission
and acknowledgment before the Hand that has smitten us, and
to draw such consolations as are possible, from the consideration
that the chastisements of God are sometimes mercies in disguise,
while we water with our tears the fresh grave of the heroic
martyr, who has crowned his great work by the offering of his
own life upon the same altar where the blood of so many victims
had already smoked to heaven.
"Yes ! Abraham Lincoln is no more. All that could die
of him who has defended and rebuih the tottering structure of
our fathers, has passed from earthly view, by a transition as
abrupt as his who laid the foundations of the Eternal City, and

526 THOMAS WILLIAMS
then, according to the legendary epic of the Roman State, was
wrapt from mortal vision in a chariot of fire. The shadow of
the destroyer has mounted behind the trooper, and the grim
spectre of the grisly king followed close upon the pageant of the
avenue. The wise and prudent ruler who was commissioned of
God to lead this people through the fiery trials from which they
have just emerged — the chief who had just been lifted on their
bucklers for a second time to the supreme command — ^the idol of
the popular heart, who had so recently been crowned anew at
the Capitol with the symbols of a nation's power, the insignia of
a nation's trust, and the rewards of a nation's gratitude, amidst
the thundering salvos of artillery, and the responsive voices of
an innumerable throng, has ceased to listen to the applauding
shout, and passed from the regards of men, into the serener
light of an abode beyond the stars, where the banner of war is
furled, and the hoarse summons of the trumpet, and the roll of
the stirring drum, no longer awaken either to the battle or the
triumph. "On two occasions only in our brief but eventful history, the
hand of death has fallen upon the head of this great Republic.
On both, however, it descended in a period of public tranquility,
by the quiet and gentle ministration of nature, without shock
and without disturbance. The fruit fell when it was ripe, and
the nation grieved, but not as those who are without hope. It
paused but for a moment to cast its tribute of affection on the
tomb, and then hurried onward in its high and prosperous
career. For the first time now, in the very hurricane of civil
strife, a bloody tragedy, of fearful aspect, and more than
mediseval horror, forestalling the dissolving processes that are
interwoven with the law of life, has snatched away the man who,
above all others, was most dear to us, almost in the twinkling
of an eye, in high health, and in the very crisis of his great
work, when the regards of the world were most intently fixed
upon him, and the destinies of a nation were trembling in his
hands. It is as though an apparation had stalked, in the midst
of our rejoicings, into the very presence of the festal board,
and it is under the projecting shadow with which that ghastly
shape has darkened the whole land as with a general eclipse,
that I am asked to discourse to you of the merits and services
of the extraordinary man, who has thus disappeared from
amongst us after having enacted so large a part in the greatest
and most important era of the world's history. It is a task
which is never easy in the performance, and cannot be faithfully
executed until the lapse of years shall withdraw the observer
from a proximity that is always unfavorable to the clearest

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 527
vision, and the work is consigned to the pen of impartial his
tory. It is one, however, which I have not felt at liberty to
decline. "Of Abraham Lincoln there is little to be said, until the voice
of the people called him from the comparative obscurity of a
provincial tovm in the remote West, to preside over the
destinies of this Repubhc. The story of his life, antecedent to
his appearance on that broader stage, where he was destined to
command more of the observation of the world than any other
man either of ancient or modern times, is soon told. Born in
a frontier settlement in Kentucky, of humble parentage, and
with no prospective inheritance but that of the coarsest toil, it
was not his hard fate to wear out his life in the hopeless struggle
for success, to which that nativity would have consigned him.
At the age of six years, his parents, warned by no vision, but
by the stern necessities of life, removed from the house of
bondage, taking the young child with them, to grow up in the
freer air of that great Territory, whose fundamental ordinance
had insured the respectability of labor, by forbidding any
bondsman from ever setting his foot upon its soil. There, in the
vigorous young State of Indiana, without even the aid of a
mother's care beyond his infant years, he shot up — we know
not how — into the lofty stature and robust manhood which have
since become so familiar to us all, diversifying his labors, and
indulging that spirit of adventure that is so common to the
pioneer, by embarking, at the age of nineteen years, as a work
ing hand, at the scanty wages of ten dollars a month, on one of
those primitive flat-boats on which the western farmer of those
times was wont to launch his produce on the bosom of the Ohio,
to find its only market at New Orleans. At the age of twenty-
one years, without any better prospects in life, and inheriting
apparently the migratory instincts of his father, who had per
haps grown weary of his Indiana home, he plunged with him
into the further West, and sought and found a new settlement
on an unreclaimed quarter-section of the public lands in Cen
tral Illinois. That he must have shared the humble labors of
that parent in winning his new acquisition from a state of
nature into a habitable abode for man, is obvious from the
fact that so limited an area, on the extremest frontier of civili
zation, could have afforded no great scope for employment but
with the axe or plow, and no means whatever for mental culture
or development, except those powers of thought and observa
tion, which the solitudes of nature, and the communion of the
forest and the field, have sometimes awakened in those gifted
spirits that seem to be immediately inspired of God. Within a

528 THOMAS WILLIAMS
year or two, however, the occurrence of what was called the
'Black Hawk War,' drew him from a seclusion which must
have been extremely irksome to a youth of lively temperament,
and overflowing health, by offering the temptation which the
pursuit of arms almost invariably presents to the young and
ambitious spirits of the land. He enlisted in a company of
volunteers, who forthwith selected him as their captain, but
his aspirations for military renown were soon cut short by the
unexpected termination of the war. His next appearance is as
a candidate for the Legislature of the State, to which he was
repeatedly elected, and about the same time he turned his atten
tion to the study of the law, and was duly admitted to the Bar.
What preparation he may have made for this transition to
another and a higher field of labor, is unknown to us. He has
the credit of confessing, with that simplicity which drew from
him the acknowledgment that he had never read the works of
the great master of the drama, that he had enjoyed the advantage
of but six months' schooling in the whole course of his life.
That he had read such books as were accessible to him, is not
to be doubted. Report says that he had picked up in some way
a little knowledge of surveying, which may have served to train
and discipline his reasoning faculty, and was, as will be remem
bered, the youthful employment of the great Washington him
self. Beyond this, however, little was required in the infant
condition of a frontier settlement, which would have few
attractions for men of such acquirements as only an old com
munity could afford; although it is not to be questioned that
some of the robustest intellects in the land have been nurtured
in those primitive and truly republican schools, where no hot
bed culture was admissible, and every sickly plant was doomed
to die. Whether he succeeded in attaining any great distinction
in his new profession, where success is dependent generally on
a peculiarity of taste or mental structure, and where industry
is so often an over-match for talent, is by no means clear. We
do know, however, that his abilities and worth were duly
recognized at home by his triumphant election in 1846 to the
Congress of the United States — where he served, however, but
for a single term — as well as by the award to him, by common
consent, of the championship of the Free State party, on the
occasion of the controversy which grew out of the Kansas-
Nebraska Bill. In 1856 he was presented by his State, and
supported largely, as a candidate for the office of Vice President
on the Republican ticket of that year ; and in the canvass of 1858,
as the accepted candidate for Senator, he discussed before the
people of Illinois the question of the extension of slavery into

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 529
the Territories, in a series of debates which riveted the attention
of the nation, by the clearness of their statements, and the
immense logical power which they displayed. It was perhaps to
the publicity of these efforts that he was mainly indebted for
the great distinction conferred on him by the Convention of
i860, in singling him out. above all competitors, as the standard-
bearer of the army of freedom in that memorable campaign.
"And this brief narrative — compiled from unauthentic
sources, and making no pretension to the accuracy of biography
— is a summary of his career until called by Providence to enact
a part that has been assigned to few men in history. How he
performed his duty is perhaps best evidenced by the difficulties
he had to meet, and the final result of the war which pervaded
his whole administration. He bargained only for a peaceful
rule, like that of his predecessors. If he could have foreseen
the magnitude of the task that was before him, he might well
have shrunk from the trial. He would have been a bold man,
who, with such fore-knowledge, would willingly have taken the
helm in such a storm as howled around him on his advent, and
strained the timbers of the ship of state for so many long and
weary years. To him the place, however exalted and honorable,
was one of anxious and unsleeping care. No man can tell how
much of agony it cost a heart like his. It is to that point of
his career, however, that our inquiries are to be directed, if we
would know the man. The history of the great rebellion, com
prehending all or nearly all of his public life, is emphatically
his history. It began and ended with his administration of the
government. He succeeded to a divided sceptre. He lived just
long enough to re-unite the broken fragments — to re-plant the
starry banner of our fathers on the battlements whence treason
had expelled it — to see the arch-apostate who had seduced a
third part of the States from their allegiance, a wanderer and a
fugitive — and to leave to his successor a once more undivided
Union. "With this slender preparation, however, and with no
previous training in the mysteries of government, he was
translated to the Federal capital in the most eventful crisis of
our history, to take upon his shoulders such a burthen of respon
sibility as no President had ever been called upon to bear. The
assassin lurked upon his path. Already the Southern horizon
was red with the fires of incipient rebellion. Already State after
State, encouraged either by the premeditated treason, or the
helpless pusillanimity of the miserable imbecile who stood pale
and trembling at the capital, had shot madly from its orbit. The
strongholds of the Union, constructed at great expense for the

530

THOMAS WILLIAMS

protection of the South, had been either seized by violence, or
basely surrendered by their garrisons. The seat of our National
Government was reeking with disloyalty. While treason was
the badge of respectability there. Republicanism was tabooed as
something that was only vulgar and vile. The Bureaus of the
several Departments were swarming with malignants, who
were looking anxiously in the direction of the South for an
irruption of the rebel hordes, and ready to surrender the
keys of their offices on the first summons of the public enemy.
There was no direction in which the President could turn for
support, in the contingency of any concerted movement to pre
vent his inauguration. The army, inconsiderable in itself, had
been detached to distant cantonments, where it could afford no
aid, and was sure to become an easy prey. Its officers — the
Sieves of our military school- — the most of Southern birth, but
some of Northern origin, debauched by their associations, or
with naturally slavish instincts and unbounded admiration for
Southern institutions and Southern men, were generally dis
affected to the Union, whose bread they ate, and whose flag they
were sworn to defend. Not a ship of war was to be found
upon our coast ; not a soldier at the capital to defend the person
of the Chief Magistrate of the country, except, perhaps, a slender
escort, of more than doubtful loyalty, improvised for the occa
sion by the Lieutenant General, upon the urgent importunity
of men who realized the danger of a coup d'etat, as the new
President himself did not. There was nothing, in fact, but the
mere prestige of the office, the habitual respect for the person of
the Chief Magistrate, and the probable re-action that would
ensue upon any demonstration of violence, and, above all, the
well-understood determination of the thousands of brave men
who were assembled there from the free States, secretly armed
and ready for such an emergency, to prevent or punish any
attempt that might be made on the life of the President. And
yet he did not shrink from the ordeal, but there, on the steps
of the capitol, under the blazing sunlight, in the presence of all
that innumerable concourse, and in the hearing of a listening
world, in terms of kindness, and not of menace, but with a
seriousness and solemnity that were not to be mistaken, he
proclaimed his firm and unalterable determination to employ
all the powers vested in him by the Constitution in maintaining
the integrity and inviolability of the Union, from sea to sea, and
from the lakes to the gulf, and restoring to its authority every
State and fortress that had been wrested from it by the hands
of treason. Rebellion, already organized and armed, and con
fident of its superior prowess, received the announcement with

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN S3 1
derisive laughter, as but an idle vaunt on the part of a President
who was without a soldier or a ship to batter down the very
feeblest of its strongholds. He knew that there was an army in
the fields and workshops of the North, which only awaited his
call to do this work. A million of stalwart men sprung to their
arms upon his summons, and the pledge was redeemed. The
boastful chivalry went down before the sturdy arms and stormy
valor of the men they had so foolishly despised; and where are
they now who laughed to scorn the admonitions of that day, and
arrogantly proclaimed to their deluded followers that the capital
of the nation, and the rich spoils of the opulent and crowded
cities of the North, should be given to their victorious arms?
They have found only a grave, where they meditated an easy
conquest. But Abraham Lincoln lived to see his pledge ful
filled. His work was done, and he too sleeps with his fathers.
It had cost many priceless lives to do that work. It was to be
consummated by the sacrifice of his own — the most priceless,
perhaps, of all. The demon which he exorcised was to collect
all his remaining strength into one expiring blow at the head of
his destroyer, as he fled howling, and in despair, from the seat
of his long cherished but now forever lost dominion upon earth.
The final catastrophe was in precise keeping with the whole spirit
of the bloody drama which it concluded. Beginning in treason,
with perjury, and robbery, and starvation, and murder, as its
handmaids, it could not have ended more fittingly than in the
cruel, and cowardly, and revengeful assassination of the heroic
leader who had stricken down the sacrilegious hand that was
lifted against the nation's life. Miserable and short-sighted
revenge ! The blow which prostrated our honored chief, while
it made no interregnum, and paralyzed no nerve of the govern
ment, has been his apotheosis. The hand of the assassin is
already cold. A swift retribution has overtaken the miscreant
who was put upon this work, while the hands of justice are
already laid upon the highest of its guilty authors, and the
avenger of blood is tracking his accomplices to their last
retreat. But they, too, will not altogether die. The obscurity
that they might well pray for, is not for such as them. There
can be no oblivion for such a parricide. The flash of that
fatal pistol in the theatre at Washington, which sent its leaden
contents crashing through the brain of our honored magistrate,
will blaze around them like the gleam of the assassins' daggers
that sought the great hearts of Henry of Navarre and the
heroic Prince of Orange, and light their memories down, from
age to age, through the long corridors of history.

532 THOMAS WILLIAMS
"It was a disadvantage, too, of no small moment to an
untried man, to find himself surrounded by counselors of fair
repute, who had either nothing to propose, or doubted the power
or rightfulness of coercion in a government like this, or thought
that even separation itself was better than war, or hoped to patch
up an ignoble truce, by compromising the questions in dispute,
and furnishing additional and perpetual guarantees to the
insatiable interest which had come to despise even the privilege
of ruling this nation, as it had done before. It will scarcely be
believed in future times, how many there were, enjoying the
reputations of statesmen, who were committed to one or other
of these opinions. But while the question hung suspended
between these conflicting views, although every concession had
been proposed, and every effort toward compromise had failed,
and while the nation was sweating in mortal agony with seven
States defying its authority, and formidable batteries rising
from day to day under the shadow of our own guns, around
our fortresses in Charleston harbor, the knot was happily untied
by the impatient hands of the conspirators themselves. To
secure the co-operation of the States that still stood hesitating,
it was deemed necessary 'to fire the Southern heart' by some
stupendous act of violence, that should dig an impassable gulf
between them and us; and their guns were accordingly trained,
amid the sounds of revelry and the exultant huzzas of an intoxi
cated populace, upon the old flag that was still floating over
the feeble garrison of Sumter. It was a gay tourney for fair
ladies and gallant knights — an easy victory, but a short lived
triumph. The walls of Sumter crumbled under the terrific
storm that burst upon them from the hundred iron throats that
girdled them around as with a cataract of fire, and its garrison
succumbed. But the echoes of those guns lighted up a flame in
the colder North, that melted down all party ties with more than
furnace heat, and was only to be extinguished in the blood of
the fools and madmen who had been taught by their Northern
auxiliaries to look for no such answer to their defiant challenge.
The President could hesitate no longer. Menace and insult had
had developed into open war, and the time had now come to
redeem the pledge that he had made, by summoning the free
men of America to defend their flag. He called, and such an
answer was returned as no people had ever before given to the
summons of its chief. From town and country, from the lum
bermen of the pine woods of the Madawaska to the trappers
of the upper Missouri, and the gold hunters of the more distant
Sierras, as the reverberations of that trumpet-blast leaped from
mountain to mountain, and pealed over the great plains and

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 533
along the mighty rivers of the land, the old, the middle-aged,
and the young, with one common impulse, and without distinc
tion of party or of creed, with but a hurried farewell to wife,
and children, and home, were seen thronging the iron highways
to their respective capitals, and begging for the privilege of
enrolling themselves among the defenders of their country, and
dying, if need be, under the shadow of its flag. It was no
monarch's battle. It was their own honored and glorious banner,
the symbol alike of their power and their privileges, that had
been insulted and defied. Away with the idea of caution and
slow resolve, when such huge interests are at stake. That is
for diplomatists and strategists. Men do not stop to calculate
the odds, the chances, or the dangers, when it is a question of
resenting contumely, or defending the object of their love. They
did not wait to be schooled to a sense of their interests, or
duties, or the necessities of the times, any more than to the
knowledge of the use of arms. To affirm, as has not been unusual
in high places, that they require to be educated by their rulers
up to the level of such an occasion, is to ignore the whole
experience of that memorable day, whose manifestations took
the doubting by surprise, and so utterly confounded all the
calculations of the few amongst ourselves who looked for, and
had promised a divided North. The call itself was but a
response to the popular desire, which had anticipated it. The
answer was an assurance to the Government that it would be
sustained in every measure of severity that the crisis might
demand. "But it was a still greater disadvantage to the new Execu
tive, that the full import of this rebellion was not even compre
hended by many of those to whom he was expected to look for
advice, in a crisis where the ordinary responsibilities of the
office were so much enlarged. Although its causes, its history,
and its objects were obviously such as to render a compromise
impossible — although the leaders of the revolt had voluntarily
abdicated their places in the government, and gone out from us,
when they might have dictated their own terms — and although
they had contemptuously spurned every overture for negotia
tion, and affected no concealment of their deep-seated and
implacable hatred not only of ourselves, but of our very form of
government — there were still sanguine and credulous men in
eminent positions, who believed that the rebellion could be sup
pressed in ninety days — not by war, but by diplomacy — not by
striking at its causes, but by ignoring them — not by punishing
its authors, but by indulging them — not by a change of measures,
but by a persistence in the very policy that had brought it on.

534 THOMAS WILLIAMS
In the view of men like these, every forward step was fraught
with danger. Even the simple and obvious proposition to repeal
the law that made the capital of a free nation the home and
market of the slave, and the fruitful nursery of the rebellion
itself, was represented as so full of mischief, at such a time,
that the President himself was almost staggered by the shadowy
forms of terror that were evoked to stay his hand. If he had
yielded to them, we should not have reached the great measure
of the proclamation for at least another year, if ever. It met
the same resistance as the other, but the practical good sense
of the President, backed up and fortified by the high courage
and unanswerable logic of at least one member of his Cabinet, at
length overmastered all these influences, and the great charter
of the black man was produced before them as a measure upon
which he had already privately determined, upon his own
responsibility to the nation. It is due to the just fame of
Abraham Lincoln, that the world, instead of dividing the honor
of the act with other possible claimants in future times, should
know how little he was aided in the task — how much of opposi
tion he was called upon to meet — and how much of moral
heroism that act involved. It was no trifling disadvantage, cer
tainly, to a new and unpracticed statesman, in a position of such
unusual responsibility, to be surrounded with men of weak
nerves, who had not the courage to face the exigency which their
own counsels had precipitated. The occasion called for intrepid
statesmen, as well as generals, who, with a just confidence in the
people, instead of stopping to calculate the possible odds, and
betraying a hesitation that at least resembled fear, and thereby
throwing away all the advantages which the possession of the
government gave them, would have struck at once, and with
lightning-like rapidity, at the very heart of the rebellion. The
sublime response which the people had already made, was an
assurance that they could be trusted. It was a sore trial, too,
for them to see their fiery legions condemned to stagnate in
inglorious repose, until, in some instances, their terms of service
were about expiring, while their very capital was beleaguered
by an insolent banditti, whom they could have swept like chaff
before them. No government in the world could have survived
it but our own, and it is no marvel, therefore, that some of
the most enlightened statesmen of Europe, educated in the
traditional notion that the democratic idea was a delusion, and
that a government like ours, though formidable in external war,
was helpless for self-conservation, and must fall a prey to the
first intestine convulsion, and reasoning from the abject condi
tion and low intelligence of the people around them, should have

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 535
hurried to recognize the rebels as belligerents, and staked their
reputations on the opinion that the great American Republic,
the wonder and terror of the world, and the standing reproach of
all its monarchies, was rent irreparably in twain. I do not speak
of this now as a thing to be regretted. It seems as though, in
the providence of God, it had been intended not only to cleanse
this land of its great sin, but to confound the unbelievers in
the high capabilities and lofty destinies of our race, by passing
us through the fiercest fire, and contriving every possible test —
even to the final catastrophe of the assassination of our Federal
Head — to establish the great fact of the ability of man to govern
himself, and to dispense, under all circumstances, with the
machinery of hereditary rule. A different policy, by rendering
the task an easier and a speedier one, would have left the world
and ourselves much to learn of our resources and capabilities,
and much of the barbarism of that institution which it would
have left substantially intact, to breed new rebellions, and
exact new sacrifices from our posterity.
"It was under these influences, strengthened as they were
by an apprehension not apparently removed by the enthusiasm
with which they responded to the call of the President, that the
people were not yet up to the real level of the crisis, and not
prepared for the adoption of such earnest measures of repres
sion as a state of war demanded, that the armies of the Union
were brought into the field. It was not for the Chief Magis
trate, of course, to direct their operations in person. But his
generals were unfortunately either men of Southern birth, or
men who had been educated in a feeling of profound reverence
for Southern institutions. With them it was almost profanation
to invade the sacred soil of a sovereign State. With them the
treason of their ancient comrades, if not a chivalrous virtue, was
only the infirmity of a noble mind. Perjury and ingratitude the
blackest and most damning — rebellion and treachery the most
wanton and unprovoked — implied no stain upon the personal
honor of their enemy. Longstreet and Jackson were models of
Christian virtue — Lee and Beauregard unblemished specimens
of elegant and well-bred gentlemen — every ingrate especially,
who had betrayed the Government that reared him, an honorable
man. No 'kind regard' was forfeited by their base defection;
no hand refused in friendly greeting, though red with a brother's
blood; no fervent 'God bless you,' left unuttered because the
recipient had blackened his soul with the foulest and basest
crime that history records. To have opened their camps to a
loyal negro, would have been a violation of the constitutional
rights of his rebel master. Knightly courtesy required his

536 THOMAS WILLIAMS
return. To have barkened to the evidence he brought of the
strength and position of the enemy, would have been a violation
of the rule which disqualified him as a witness against his
master. Rebel exaggerations for purposes of effect, were more
acceptable than the simple, unvarnished truth from the lips of
a runaway contraband. What success was to be hoped for,
with such instruments ? The President himself both saw and felt
the difficulty. His patience was severely tried, but what was he
to do? If he ordered a movement in advance, the weather was
either too cold or too hot — the mud was axle-deep or the dust
intolerable. If made, it was done reluctantly, or with a protest,
and the responsibility of a failure was with him. If refused,
and he threatened to displace the officer, it was perhaps sug
gested to him, that the army or the people would revolt, while
they were actually chafing with impatience — the rebellion grow
ing in strength— and the friends of the Government beginning
to despair. In this dilemma, it became necessary for him to
take up the question of an entire change of policy. The struggle
was a long and painful one. If he had felt at liberty to consult
the promptings of his own mind and heart, in a case where the
life of a nation was depending on his decision, it would have
ended as soon as it was begun. But his habitual caution, inten
sified by a just sense of his great responsibility as an officer, held
his judgment in abeyance. His own good sense, however,
triumphed at the last. Unaided but by the counsels of a faithful
few, he took up the case, calculated all the elements that entered
into it, and arrived, by a strictly logical process, of which the
steps are now obvious, at the conclusion that the rebellion could
only be conquered by the emancipation of the slave. He put
that result in the shape of a Proclamation, and then summoned
his Cabinet together, not to advised, but to hear what he had
determined. The picture of the consultation over this important
document, is the merest fancy-piece. The point was decided by
him before they met, and there was no demur, because there was
no further room for objection.
"Nothing, however, is clearer than the fact that it was not
the original purpose of Mr. Lincoln to interfere with slavery in
the States. With all his strong convictions that it was a crime —
that, in his own terse language, 'if slavery was not wrong, there
was nothing wrong' — his respect for the constitutional rights of
the South was such as to over-ride his own private sympathies
for the bondsman. With him, the leading, over-ruling thought
— the idea nearest to his heart — was the preservation of our
glorious Union, as God's chosen instrument on earth, and the
one best fitted, with all its defects, to secure the peace and happi-

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 537
ness of man. The other question was entirely subordinate to
this. He was willing— to quote from him again— 'to save the
Union, with slavery if he could, or without it, if he could.' His
first idea, encouraged, if not inspired by the men who had then
his confidence, was, that it could only be saved by tenderness to
that interest, whose extreme sensibility to danger — to say no
worse of it— had brought all these troubles— these almost
apocalyptic woes upon the land. Under these impressions, the
war was waged for eighteen months, in such a way as to do
as little harm as possible to that institution in the hope that the
rebels might be conciliated — as they had never been before —
by the forbearance of the Government. It was only the current
of events — the failure of this policy — the fuel furnished by the
great expense, the tardy progress, and the inadequate results of
the war, to the growing discontent of the friends of the Govern
ment in the North — and the conviction that the policy of saving
the Union with slavery ipust give way to the opposite policy, if it
was to be saved at all — that drifted him into the position assumed
for the first time in the Proclamation, and maintained with
unwavering constancy until the last hour of his life. That he
should ever have been persuaded to believe it possible to con
ciliate the men who had voluntarily abdicated their places in
the government, only because it was obvious that they could no
longer hope to rule it permanently, is to be set down more to
the account of his habitual caution, his strong conservative
temperament, his deference to older heads, and his desire to give
full scope to an experiment of an apparently innocuous character,
enforced by the counsels of almost every man around him, than
to the convictions of his own unbiased judgment. The case
was one of conflicting systems and ideas, that might admit of a
truce, but of no compromise. It would have been but an adjourn
ment of the question until the antagonistic forces had taken
breath for a fresh struggle, while the rebel element was strength
ening itself in the meanwhile for new aggressions. The enforced
connection between Liberty and Slavery was worse than
incestuous. God and nature had decreed an eternal divorce
between them. Our fathers, it is true, had made the experiment
of reconciling these hostile elements — not, however, under the
modern hallucination that they would permanently combine, or
coalesce, but only to keep the peace between them, until the
weaker should disappear. The President had apprehended this,
when he declared that this government could not be 'half free
and half slave.' Mr. Seward himself had comprehended it, when
he characterized the war between the two systems as 'an irre
pressible conflict.' As well attempt to blend darkness with light.

538 THOMAS WILLIAMS
The intermingled elements would produce only a disastrous
twilight with perpetual jars, or, as the one or other interest
predominated, either deepen into the chaotic gloom where the
lost spirits are supposed to dwell, or flush into the rosy light of
liberty. The Union could not have been saved with slavery,
any more than a man could be made immortal with the seeds
of death in his constitution. The inherent vices of the system
were sure to bring about a conflict at last, by engendering and
fostering the spirit that inaugurated it here, as they were
equally sure to give to the contest itself a character of fierce
ness and atrocity which has appertained to no modern war. It
was but a new phase of the old quarrel — as old as government
itself — which has shaken the kingdoms and hierarchies of the
world, and was destined to be fought out here, upon a wider
arena than any that the Old World could offer. If it was not
comprehended, however, by ourselves, the governing classes in
Europe, and the advocates of unlimited power everywhere, had
not failed to understand it from the beginning.
"The proclamation of freedom was the first decisive measure
of the war. It inaugurated a new era, and proclaimed the pur
pose of the Government to wrest from the rebels their most
effective weapon, if not to turn it against their own bosoms. The
menace of it was at first derided as a mere brutum fulmen, by
those who knew what was to be its effect, and dreaded it accord
ingly. As soon as it became obvious that this mode of attack
was about to fail, the policy of the auxiliary rebel presses of
the North was changed. Dire were their denunciations then of
a measure represented to be fraught with woe to helpless
womanhood and feeble infancy, and big with the unutterable
horrors of a servile war. Its promulgation was soon after
followed by the elections of 1862, whose unfavorable results —
attributable only to the public weariness of the inaction of our
armies — were adroitly placed to the account of this threatened
measure. By those who did not understand the temper of the
President, or the process of reasoning by which he had
reached that point, it was greatly feared that he would falter,
when the hour of trial came. But alike regardless of the gloomy
auguries of the timid, and the storm of obloquy and denuncia
tion that burst upon him from the sympathizers with the rebellion
here, he stood unmoved, and the bolt sped at the appointed hour,
and shook the rebel capital to its foundations, as it lodged in the
very heart of the Confederacy. Dismay sat on every face at
Richmond. If a shell had exploded in that pandemonium, where
those dark conspirators against the rights of man were then
assembled, a greater consternation could not have followed. In

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 539
the midst of 'a universal hubbub wild, of stunning sounds, and
voices all confused,' like that of chaos, which 'assailed the ear
with loudest vehemence,' a dozen members were on their feet at
once, with retaliatory propositions of the wildest and most
atrocious character. But if there was gloom there, there was
joy elsewhere. The great heart of humanity dilated at the
tidings. The wearied soldier stretched by his camp-fire, and
joined till then in unequal battle, was lifted up and comforted.
Four millions of bondsmen raised their unfettered hands to
Heaven to call down blessings on the head of the deliverer who
had broken their chains. The patriot felt that the arm of the
country was strengthened at home and abroad by the act that
had at last vindicated the solemn truths of our immortal Declara
tion, and placed our Government once more in harmony with
its own fundamental principles. Instead of any further necessity
of humbling ourselves, by holding out to foreign powers a menace
of emancipation, as the signal for a servile war, in order to
deter them from an intervention which they never would have
ventured on — and never could, without the risk of ruin to them
selves — it was no longer possible for any Christian nation to take
sides against us. It was the turning point of our great struggle,
and the death warrant of the rebellion itself. And it was just
because they felt and knew it, that it roused among its ruling
spirits all the devilish passions that flamed out most fiercely
during the latter period of the war. It foreshadowed the appear
ance of the black man himself, at no distant day, with the har
ness of the Union on his back, as a combatant in the arena on
the side of liberty. From that day forward, with only the
occasional vicissitudes to which all wars are subject, the banner
of the Republic, with its new blazonry of Freedom, never
drooped or went backward in battle. God was on our side. The
holiday generals, great on the parade— the strategic imbeciles—
the half-hearted martinets — who were more solicitous to protect
the chattel than to punish the treason of the master, gave place
to a race of earnest men — heroes of the Cromwellian type—
who felt the inspiration of their work, and with a faith that
no reverses could shake, and no disaster disturb, were ever
ready to second or anticipate the fiery ardor of their legions, by
giving a full rein to the spirit that had chafed and fretted under
inglorious restraint, whether it was to plunge into the fastnesses
of the Rapidan, to scale the Alpine passes of the Tennessee, or
to sweep with resistless force across the sunny plains of Georgia.
The rebellion was doomed, and the baleful star that had rushed
up with the velocity of a meteor into the forehead of the sky,
and shed its portentous glare for a moment upon the nations,

540 THOMAS WILLIAMS
plunged down again into eternal night, to be remembered here
after only as one of those scourges of humanity, that are some
times let loose upon the earth for high and inscrutable purposes.
"But it is not for me to follow the history of this long and
bloody struggle through all its varying fortunes to the period
of its final consummation. That is a task which belongs to the
historian. It has some points of interest, however, that are not
unworthy of commemoration, and not unsuited to the occasion
that has brought us here.
"The scene that has just passed before our vision, was such
as_ has been presented to no other generation of men. Few
of us have perhaps fully realized the importance of the part that
has been assigned to us in history. The records of our race
have nothing to offer so grand and imposing as this bloody
conflict, in its magnitude, its causes, its theatre, and its details.
A peaceful nation, schooled only in the arts of quiet industry,
entirely unfamiliar with the use of arms, holding itself aloof
from the political complications of the old world, and but thinly
diffused over half a continent — imagining no evil, and fearing
none from others — is suddenly startled from its repose by the
blare of the trumpet, and the roll of the martial drum, and
summoned to the defense of its institutions, its liberties, its very
life, against a wicked conspiracy, organized in its own bosom
for the purpose of destroying it. It not only responds to the call,
but astonishes the world by an exhibition of unanimity, and zeal.
and high religious fervor, which have had no example since the
era of the Crusades. In utter forgetfulness of self, of danger,
and of the comforts and endearments of home, it covers the
earth with its living tides, as it rushes to the rescue of the
object of love. Over a region almost as wide as the united
kingdoms of Europe, a million of brave hearts are marshaled in
armed array, with implements of destruction such as no age
hath seen. Along the Atlantic coast, across the great rivers,
and the boundless prairies of the mighty West, over the swamps
and savannas of the distant South, through forest, brake and
wilderness, through bayou and morass, over rugged mountains,
and along the cultivated plains that laugh with the abundance
with which industry has covered them — the earth shakes with
the tread of embattled hosts, while bay and gulf swarm with
innumerable prows, and the shores against which the tides of
two oceans break, are belted around with those leviathans of the
deep, which bear our thunders, and are destined hereafter to
proclaim our power in the remotest seas. It is the battle of the
Titans, with fitting accessories, with lists scarce less ample, with
enginery as complete, and upon a theatre almost as stupendous.

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 54I
as that which the genius of Milton has assigned to the armies of
angel and archangel joined in battle for the supremacy of
Heaven. The Old World, till now ignorant of the power that
had been sleeping here, stands amazed at an exhibition which
its united kingdoms would in vain essay to match. It com
prehends at once the whole significance of the struggle. It is
the world's battle — the same that has been fought so often with
other watch-words, and on other fields — the old conflict between
antagonistic social forms — between the people and the kings —
between the privileges of caste and the Republican idea of
equality. It feels that the interest of all its ancient, and hoary,
and moss-grown establishments — ^its thrones and hierarchies
alike — resting on the prescription of a thousand years, and but
tressed by the still older traditional idea, that man is unfit to
govern himself, are staked on the issue of this contest. It
sees, or thinks it sees, in the martial array of the disciplined
legions of the Confederacy, inflated with pride, and sneering at
the base-bom hinds and greasy mechanics of the Free States,
the impersonation of the mailed chivalry who rode down the
miserable acquerie of France five hundred years ago. Forget
ful of its treaties of commerce and amity — oblivious even of
its own apparent interests, in the maintenance of due authority
and subordination between government and subject — ignoring
alike the usages, and customs, and comity of nations — it does
not find patience even to await the issue of a battle. The
disruption of this great Republic — the standing reproach and
menace of royalty in all its forms — is assumed as a fact
accomplished, upon this mistaken view, and the additional
postulate of its statesmen, that a structure like our own, how
ever prosperous or formidable against external violence, is
without the power of self-preservation, and must inevitabl)'
perish on the first internal convulsion. It does not even stop to
inquire into the special provocations, if any, for this wanton
and wicked rebellion against authority and humanity. Pro
fessing to make war against the slave trade, denouncing it as
piracy, and employing fleets for its suppression, it does not even
revolt at the unexampled, and atrocious, and anti-christian idea
of a government, boldly and shamelessly declaring its only
purpose to be the perpetuation of human bondage — an organized
piracy, and a systematic attack upon the rights of man. In
its anxiety to aid the cause on which its own institutions are
depending, it hurries with an indecent precipitancy into the
recognition of a belligerency, that will enable it to serve the
interest in which it dares not venture openly to draw its sword,
by throwing wide its ports to the privateers of the enemy, and

542 THOMAS WILLIAMS
fitting out its own cruisers to prey upon our commerce on the
seas. Its govermental press, aided by its hireling scribblers here,
is prostituted to the base employment of showing the inevitable
failure of our great experiment, by maligning our brave defend
ers, and libeling our sainted President. Its Ministers at our
own capital, prompted by the same instincts, and sympathizing
openly with our enemies, and equally ignorant of the people to
whom they are accredited, advise their sovereigns, and are
allowed to proclaim here openly without rebuke, that our
career as a nation is at an end; and inwardly rejoice with them,
that a power declared by themselves to be too formidable for
the world's peace, and too formidable to be safely met either
upon the sea or upon the land, by their united strength, has
perished miserably by intestine strife— the supposed inherent
and unavoidable disease of the republics of all times.
"How great has been its error ! How disappointed all its
flattering prognostications ! How utterly has all its boasted
wisdom been counfounded by events ! How deeply does it now
tremble in the presence of the great fact, which it is yet reluctant
to acknowledge, that this nation, with all the sympathies of the
governments of the world against it, has proved its indestructi
bility, by a trial which no European State could have outlived!
But how inexpressibly grand and sublime — what a spectacle for
men and angels, has been the attitude of this people throughout
the fiery trials of these four eventful years ! What a theme
for an epic such as Milton or Tasso might have written — the
great Republic of the Western Hemisphere — the world's last
champion — charged with the loftiest interests that ever were
committed to the guardianship of man — ^belted around by
enemies, open and secret, who were thirsting for its destruction
— torn by intestine strife, and bleeding at every pore — without
the sympathy of any one of the ruling powers of earth, and
with no help but the prayers of the faithful few in all lands,
who looked upon its star as the last hope of the oppressed —
standing alone, like a solitary rock in the ocean, with the
tempests howling wildly around it, but flinging off the angry
surges which dash and break against its sides, and bearing aloft
with intrepid and unfaltering hand, amid the wild uproar of
elemental war, the broad ensign of our Fathers — the pledge of
freedom to universal man! If the enemies of liberty now
tremble in our presence, it is not more from the dread of a
resentment, which they feel to have been justly merited, than
from an apprehension of the consequences of the sublime lesson
of constancy, and faith, and self-sacrifice, and persevering
courage, which we have given to the world, throughout a con-

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 543
test commenced under circumstances the most adverse, and
prosecuted by the people themselves, with a more than royal
munificence, as essentially their war, and the first in history that
has been so recognized.
"In no aspect of the whole case were the eminent prudence
and lofty patriotism of our great leader more strongly exempli
fied, than in the forbearance and moderation with which he
ignored these transparent evidences of unfriendliness on the
part of foreign governments, aggravated, as they were,
by the most indecent personal attacks upon himself. Without
personal resentments, and great enough to despise abuse, even
if he had felt it, he knew that the success of our struggle was
the best answer that could be made to those who wished us
ill. He is already avenged in the only way in which his great
heart would have desired it. The bloody catastrophe that
hurried him from our sight, has flashed upon the European
world with a suddenness which has swept down the barriers
of prejudice, and extorted even from his enemies the confession,
that in him a truly great man — of the pure American type —
of far-reaching sagacity — of unexampled modesty and modera
tion — has fallen. The powers of language almost fail to convey
their now exalted sense of the high-souled magnanimity with
which he has forborne to respond in kind to the many provoca
tions that have been offered. He is pronounced by great
authority in England 'a king of men' — not in the Homeric sense,
as used in reference to the Argive chief — not because, like the
wrathful Achilles, whose ire was fruitful of unnumbered woes,
he was " 'Impiger, iracundus, inexorabilis, acer,' —
but because he was precisely the opposite of all these — peace-
loving and placable, even to a fault. It stands admitted, that
no word of his can now be found in all his foreign intercourse,
to convey a menace or reproach. And then his exalted benevo
lence of heart — his moderation in the hour of victory the
greatest — the entire absence of all natural exultation over a
fallen foe — these, these are confessed to be so rare, as to take
him out of the roll of vulgar conquerors, and lift him high
above the ordinary level of humanity. It cost him nothing,
however, to forgive, or even to compassionate an enemy. He
was indeed much better fitted for the office of a mediator, than
the function of a judge. It would have wrung his more than
woman's heart to have been compelled even to do execution
upon the guiltiest of the conspirators, as it did to put his name
to the warrant that consigned the spy or the deserter to eternity.
In thus according to him the palm of magnanimity — which is

544 THOMAS WILLIAMS
only another word for greatness of soul, as its etymology impUes
— the highest eulogy has been pronounced on him that human
lips could utter. His moderation in victory was but part and
parcel of the same high attribute.
"Nor is it to be forgotten, while making these admissions,
that there were other circumstances connected with this rebel
lion, that put this high quality to the severest proof, and rendered
it impossible to indulge a sentiment so elevated and ennobling,
without great peril to the general cause. Though war is, in all
its aspects, even the most favorable, the direst scourge that
Providence has ever permitted to afflict the earth, it has no
form so hideous as the intestine strife that arrays brother
against brother, and arms the father against the son in murder
ous conflict, and doubly intensifies, by its very unnaturalness,
all the brutal and ferocious passions of our fallen nature. The
family quarrel is proverbial for its bitterness, while the odium
theologicum is the stereotyped, but feeble expression, of the
rancor which has sometimes crept into the controversies of
even Christian men. In the present case, however, there was
a feature superadded on the one side, that lent ten-fold additional
horror to the contest. The institution of human slavery — the
prolific source of all our woes — tracked into the palatial man
sions of the lordly proprietors, by a Nemesis which always
follows upon the heels of a great wrong — as though Providence
intended that Nature violated should alwa}'s vindicate herself —
had expelled from them every broad fraternal feeling — all that
recognized the common brotherhood of humanity — and ended
by unsexing the women, and making wolves and tigers of the
men. All that was said of that institution, sometimes blas
phemously mis-named divine, by the author of the great Decla
ration himself, had been already realized in the temper and con
dition of Southern society. To speak of these as barbarous,
in the language of a learned and eloquent New England Sen
ator, was, in the judgment of the more charitable and
fastidious here, an offense against good taste and truth, that
was thought by them to have deserved the felon blow that
proved it to be true. The picture drawn by him was supposed
by many to be greatly over-charged. How inadequately he
portrayed its hideous aspect, is now seen in its conduct of this
devastating war, which it has forced upon the country, and
under which it has buried itself, thank God ! so deep that it can
produce no future eruption, even by turning uneasily in its
grave. Hell never engendered such a monster, though 'woman
to the waist and fair' as her who sat as portress at its gates.
There is no page of history so dark and damning as that which

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 545
will record the fiendish atrocities of which it has been guilty, in
an age of light. The manufacture of the bones of Union
soldiers, left to bleach unburied on the soil where they fell,
into personal ornaments for the delicate fingers of high-born
Southern dames, or drinking cups for their chivalrous braves —
the mutilation of the corpses of the uncoffined dead — the cold
blooded and systematic starvation and butchery of prisoners of
war — the efforts to destroy, by wholesale, rail road trains, filled
with innocent women and children — the employment of hired
incendiaries to swing the midnight torch over the spires of
sleeping cities — ^the invocation of the pestilential agencies of the
miasma of the Southern swamps — and the diabolical, though
unsuccessful attempt to inoculate our seaboard towns with the
deadly virus of the plague — all are but episodes in the bloody
drama that culminated in the assassination of the President. The
cannibal of the South Sea Islands, and the savage of the Ameri
can forests, who dances around the blazing fagots that encircle
and consume his victim, have been over-matched in cold-blooded
ingenuity of torture, by the refined barbarians — the Davises
and Lees, and other 'honorable and Christian' gentlemen — who
have inspired and conducted this revolt. God will witness for
the North, that with all these inhuman provocations, and with
a necessity that seemed almost inevitable, of putting an end to
horrors such as these, by a system of just and exemplary
retaliation, it has dealt with these great criminals with a
degree of forbearance that has no example, and has but too
often been mistaken by them for want of spirit, and a whole
some fear of their great prowess. When they went out, they
were but wayward children, and we entreated them kindly. To
spare their blood, we permitted them to envelope our defenses
at Sumter, without resistance, when we could easily have pre
vented it. To keep the peace with them, we hesitated even to
victual its starving garrison. When we were smitten, we did
not even smite them in return. It was only when they flung
insult and defiance at our country's flag, that we felt our pulses
quicken, and our blood kindling into flame. But even then, we
could not fully realize that they were indeed our enemies. Our
camps were closed against their slaves. Their officers, when
captured, were treated with a distinction that made them feel
that they had done no wrong, and dismissed on their paroles of
honor, although they had been guilty of a base desertion of our
flag. Their men were fed and clothed, and afterward exchanged
as prisoners of war. And for much of this feeling they were
indebted to the temper of the President, who held in check the
impetuous ardor of the North, and incurred the risk of aliena-

546 THOMAS WILLIAMS
ting his most steadfast friends, by a moderation so unusual in
stormy times. There was no period, indeed, in which he would
not have opened his arms to receive them back, without humilia
tion to themselves, and with the welcome that was accorded to
the repentant and returning prodigal. His last expressions in
regard to them were kind; his last measures intended to smooth
the way for their return. And in recompense for all this, 'with
wicked hands they slew him' — their best friend — ^just when his
heart was overflowing with mercy and forgiveness for them
selves. He had not learned — because his was not a nature to
believe — that no kindness could soften or reclaim the leaders of
this unholy rebellion. It was not a crime only, but a blunder the
most serious on their part. Whether actuated by private malice,
or stimulated by public ends, there was no time at which the
blow that struck him down could have been dealt with less
advantage to their cause, and so little personal detriment to him.
If he had survived, he could not, in the course of nature, have
looked for many years of life, and might have lived to disappoint
the expectations of his friends, in what would probably have
proved the most difficult part of his task, by a policy of mercy
that would have brought no peace. The suppression of the
rebellion was but the first step in the process of restoration.
With the odds so largely in our favor, there could not at any
time have existed any rational doubt as to the result of the
contest, under any rational direction. It was not so much the
war, as the peace which was to follow, that was dreaded by the
wise. To suppress an armed rebellion was one thing; to recon
struct a government, resting, not on force, but on co-operative
wills, was another and a higher task. The one called only for
material agents; the other demanded the ripest wisdom of the
statesman. The sword was the instrument of the former; a
keener, subtler, and mightier instrument was required for the
latter. It is not impossible that President Lincoln, with all his
great qualities, might have failed at this point. If stern rigor
and exemplary justice— if the confiscation of the property, or
the exile or disfranchisement of the leaders of this wicked revolt,
the dark assassins of our peace— if an absolute refusal to treat
with those miscreants at all— were essential to the permanent
restoration of peace and harmony in the land— as they are
believed by many men to be— there was at least room for appre
hension, that the kind and gentle spirit, the broad, catholic
charity of our dead President, would have unfitted him for the
task. It was a remark of one of the Greeks, that no man was
happy, or sure of posthumous renown, until the grave had closed
upon him. Abraham Lincoln's work was done, and done sue-

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 547
cessfully. He had disappointed nobody in the Free States,
except the enemies who had hoped to rob him of the glory, and
the country of the advantage of finishing up a task, which they
had prematurely denounced as a failure. He is now beyond the
reach of censure, or unfriendly criticism, with his record made
up for history — honored and lamented as no man ever was
before him ; embalmed in the heart of a nation that has followed
him to his tomb ; doubly endeared to them by the cause in which
he died — by his death as well as by his life ; and surrounded by
a halo that has invested him with a world-wide fame. Grieve
not, then, for him. The blow that took him from our arms was
but his passport for immortality. The nation has lost a Presi
dent, but Abraham Lincoln has won an imperishable crown.
"The time is not now to subject the minute details of his
administration to searching criticism. That men should differ
in regard to this or the other measure of his policy, is not
unreasonable. It was his fortune, as might have been expected
of a cautious man, in a revolutionary era, to find himself occa
sionally at variance with his friends, as well as with his enemies.
If he was sometimes too conservative for the former, he was
always too radical for the latter, and was sure, therefore, to
secure the good will of neither; but he yielded slowly to the
indications of public opinion — which he followed only, and did
not lead — and was generally sure in the end to bring the extremes
into harmony, by disappointing both, and to find the public
mind prepared to approve his acts. He explored his ground with
care, and having reached his conclusion at last by long and
patient thought, he stood upon it with a firmness that nothing
could shake. With him there was no step backward. Having
once planted himself on the ground of emancipation, as a neces
sity of state, by a process of laborious induction, he never after
ward lost sight of that object, and never faltered in the execu
tion of his plans. Adopted only as a means, because the restora
tion of the Union was his only end, it became at last so far an
end, that he refused even to treat for that restoration upon any
other condition than the absolute extinction of slavery, to
which he now stood pledged before the world. It was partly
because he then occupied a stand-point that opened to him a
wider and more comprehensive field of vision, and enabled him
to see that the Union could really be saved upon no other
terms than those of absolute justice to the black man. The
public mind had ripened with his own under the torrid atmos
phere of revolution. The acts of his administration are, how
ever, to be estimated in the light of the exceeding novelty, and
the great responsibilities of his position. It is no fault of his.

548 THOMAS WILLIAMS
even if a bolder policy might have resulted in earlier success.
Men are always wise after the fact, but in his position, with the
fate of a nation in his hands, there was no place for rash
experiments, and he might well decline to take the risks, which
others, without responsibility themselves, might have insisted
on, in opposition to the opinions of advisers who were supposed
to be better schooled in the affairs of nations than himself.
"And yet few men have understood the people better than
Abraham Lincoln. With no advantages of education whatever,
his associations had been more with men than books. His
thoughts and style of expression all bear the impress of that
early school. His ideas flowed in the same channels as theirs.
No man was more at home with them, or better understood
the art of winning their confidence, just because they recog
nized the relationship, and felt that his heart pulsated in
unison with their own. His mind and character were indeed
the natural growth of our free institutions, and he was so
eminently a representative of them, that no other country could
have produced his counterpart. A higher culture would only
have disguised the man, by paring down the rough edges, and
wearing away the individuality that so much distinguished him.
Condemned to wrestle with poverty from the outset, he was
indebted, no doubt, for a large share of the robust vigor of his
genius, to that healthy development which results from a suc
cessful struggle with the accidents of fortune. Thus educated,
he owed nothing of his success in life to the cultivated manners,
or the bland and insinuating address — the ready coin of society
— which the people are so often willing to accept as substitutes
for learning and ability, and to which so many of our public
men are indebted for their personal popularity, and their great
success in the arena of politics. It would be difficult to find a
man more unsymmetrically put together, or more essentially
awkward and ungainly in his personal presence. It would be
still more difficult to find a man so free from all pretension, so
plain, and simple, and artless in his manner, and with so little
apparent consciousness of the important part that he was enact
ing, or the great power that he had been called upon to wield.
The necessities of state ceremonial — the ordeal of a public
reception — were obviously the things that he most dreaded and
disliked. It was impossible for one who knew him well, to look
upon him there, or in a scene like that which attended his last
inauguration at the Capitol, surrounded as he was by the
ambassadors of all the crowned heads of Christendom, glittering
in the gay tinsel and the heraldic insignia of their several
orders, with a thousand bright eyes directed from the galleries

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 549
upon that unassuming man — himself the central figure of the
group — without feeling that he was under a constraint of posture
that did violence to his nature, and was as painful as it was
embarrassing. The expression of his countenance, on such
occasions, was one of sadness and abstraction from the scene
around him — except when some familiar face was recognized,
and greeted in the throng that crowded to take him by the
hand. It was only in the retirement of his own private audience-
chamber that the whole man shone out, and that he could be
said to be truly himself. And there, with a perfect abandon of
manner, surrendering himself, without constraint, to just such
posture, however grotesque or inelegant, as was most agreeable
to himself, feeling that the eye of the world was no longer on
him, and forgetting that he was the ruler of a mighty nation,
at a time of unexampled anxiety and peril, his eye and lip would
light up with an expression of sweetness that was ineffable,
while he interested and amused his auditor, by the ease and
freedom of his conversation, and the inexhaustible fund of
anecdote with which he enriched his discourse, and so aptly and
strikingly illustrated the topics that he discussed. They err
greatly, however, who suppose in him any undue levity of
manner, or assign to him the credit of having been a habitual
joker. If he told a story — and it was perhaps of his early life
and experience — it either pointed a moral, or winged a thought
to the mark at which it was aimed — and left it there. He was
not long in divining the true characters of his visitors, and if
he indulged in pleasantries, it was either to gratify their tastes,
or to parry the impertinences to which he was so frequently
subjected. Peculiarities so striking as those of Abraham
Lincoln, are always singled out for broad caricature. A com
mon face or character is altogether unfitted for the purpose.
But like many men who have acquired a reputation for sprightli-
ness and humor, the cast of his mind was deeply serious. With
the grave and earnest, who came to discourse with him on
important matters of state, he was always up to the height
of that great argument; and there are few men living, with his
imperfect training, and so little acquaintance with books, who
can express their thoughts with more clearness, or force, or
propriety of speech, than himself. He talked as he wrote, and
the world knows with what originality, and precision, and
felicity of phrase — without a model or a master — he dealt with
the many perplexing questions that were presented to him. His
style was indeed sui generis. Everything he wrote has the
marks of its paternity so strongly impressed upon it, that the
authorship cannot possibly be mistaken. Nobody could imitate

550 THOMAS WILLIAMS
him ; 'nobody but himself could be his parallel.' He had much of
the genius of Swift, without any of his cynicism. Without
polish or elegance, there was, however, an elevation of tone —
a vein of deep faith, and of high religious trust, pervading some
of his state papers, and especially his last inaugural address,
that have placed the latter, in the judgment of some of the best
European scholars, far above the range of criticism.
"But his crowning attribute — the one that won for him so
large a place in the hearts of the people — so much more of true
affection than has been ever inspired by the exploits of the suc
cessful warrior — was the large humanity that dwelt in that gen
tle bosom, which knew no resentments, and was ever open to
the appeals of suffering. No feeling of vengeance ever found
a lodgment there. No stormy passion ever stirred the quiet
depths, or swept the even surface of his tranquil temperament.
No wife or mother, who had begged her way to Washington,
to ask the pardon of an erring husband, or the discharge of a
wounded or dying son, was ever refused an audience, or ever
retired from that presence without invoking Heaven's choicest
blessings on the head of the good President, who could refuse
nothing to a woman's tears. The wives and mothers of America
have just paid back the tribute of their overflowing hearts,
in the floods of sorrow with which they have deluged his grave.
If he had a weakness, it was here, but it was such a weakness
as angels might confess, and history will not care to extenuate.
That his good nature was sometimes imposed upon is not
improbable. For times and places such as his, a man of sterner
mould is sometimes absolutely necessary. It is greatly to be
doubted whether that gentle heart could ever have been per
suaded to pronounce the deserved doom upon the guiltiest of the
traitors. The crushing appeal of the wife and mother would
have melted down his stoicism, like wax before the fire. His
last Cabinet conversation, as officially reported to us, was full
of tenderness and charity even for the rebel general who had
abandoned our flag, and connived at the butchery of our prison
ers. The word was scarcely uttered, before the gates of mercy
were closed with impetuous recoil, and the gentle minister, who
would have flung them wide, was removed forever, to give
place to the inexorable judge. The awful form of Justice now
appears upon the scene, to deal with those whom mercy could
not mollify, while a world does homage to the great heart that
is forever at rest.
"Yes ! Abraham Lincoln rests. 'After life's fitful fever he
sleeps well.' His work on earth is done. No couch of roses,
no bed of luxurious down was that which pillowed his aching

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 551
head, during the four eventful years of his public ministry. No
doubt his worn and jaded spirit panted for repose. He must
have felt, as the clouds lifted around him, and the horizon of
the future was all aglow with the splendors of the coming day,
that he was about to enter on the full fruition of his long
cherished hopes of a ransomed and reunited land. He had
scaled a height, from which the eye of faith might sweep the
boundless panorama of a happy continent, lapt in the repose
of universal brotherhood — its brown forests and gold-bearing
mountains bathed in the tranquil sunshine, and sleeping in the
quiet solitude of nature — its lakes and rivers alive with the
glancing keels of an abundant and industrious commerce — its
plains dimpling with golden harvests — and the tall spires of its
multitudinous cities, the resorts of traffic, and the homes of
learning and the mechanic arts, pointing to the skies. But it
was not his fate to enter into that rest which such a vision might
have foreshadowed. Another and a more enduring, was to
receive him into its cold embrace. He dies unconscious — with
out warning, and without a struggle — in the very hour of his
triumph — in no darkened chamber — tossed by no agonies on an
uneasy couch — with no lamentations and no wail of woe — no
harrowing, heart-breaking farewells — to disturb his spirit in its
heavenward flight; but by an unseen hand — in a moment of
respite from corroding care — and in the presence of the people
whom he loved. With so little to fear, he could not have made
a happier exodus. How marked the contrast between his own
last hours, and the last of the public life of the rebel chief,
whose wicked counsels have either inspired the blow, or
strengthened the hand that reached his life: Abraham Lincoln,
who never injured a human being, dying at the capital, in the
hour of his triumph, with no rancor in his heart, and nothing
but charity and forgiveness for his enemies upon his lips — and
Jefferson Davis, with the blood of half a million of people on
his hands, flying like a thief in the night through the swamps
of Georgia, and captured in the disguise of a woman, without
even one manly effort at resistance ! It had been better for his
fame, if he had died too, even as he had lived. The genius of
Milton almost flags under the sublime story of the flight and
fall of the apostate archangel, when conquered but not dis
mayed, he plunged over the crystal battlements of heaven, 'with
hideous ruin and combustion down,' till startled Chaos shook
through his wild anarchy. It was reserved for the guilty leader
of this not less infamous revolt, to find even a lower deep,
where the dignity of the epic muse can never reach him.

552 THOMAS WILLIAMS
"Rest then, honored shade ! spirit of the gentle Lincoln,
rest ! No stain of innocent blood is on thy hand. No widow's
tear — no orphan's wail shall ever trouble thy repose. No agoni
zing struggle, between the conflicting claims of mercy and of
justice, shall afflict thee more. Thou hast but gone to swell the
long procession of that noble army of martyrs, who left their
places vacant at the family board, to perish for the faith in
Southern dungeons, or to leave their bones unburied, or ridge
with countless graves the soil that they have won and watered
with their blood. Though lost to us, thou are not lost to memory.
The benefactors of mankind live on beyond the grave. For thee,
death ushers in the life that will not die. Thy deeds shall not
die with thee, nor the cause or nation, which was aimed at in
the mortal blow that laid thee low. What though no sculptured
column shall arise to mark thy sepulchre, and proclaim to future
times the broad humanity — the true nobility of soul — the modera
tion in success — that, by the confession of his harshest critics,
have crowned the untutored and unpretending child of the
prairies, as the 'King of men?' What though the quiet wood
land cemetery that shelters thy remains, and woos the pilgrim
to its leafy shades, shall show no costly cenotaph — no offerings
save those which the hand of affection plants, or that of nature
sheds upon the hallowed mound that marks thy resting place?
What though the muse of history, who registers thy acts, and
inscribes thee high among the favored few, to whom God has
given the privilege of promoting the happiness of their kind,
should fail to record the quiet and unobtrusive virtues that
cluster round the hearth and heart, and shrink from the glare
of day? There is a chronicler more faithful, that will take thy
story up where history may leave it. The pen of the Recording
Angel will write it in the chancery of Heaven, while the lips
of childhood will be taught to repeat the tragic tale, until memory
shall mellow into the golden light of tradition, and poesy shall
claim thy story for its theme. But long ere this — even now in
our own day and generation — the cotton fields and the rice
swamps of the South will be vocal with thy praise, while the
voice of the emancipated white man shall swell the choral har
mony that ascends from the lips of the dusky child of the
tropics, as he lightens his daily toil — now sweet because no
longer unrequited — by extemporizing his simple gratitude in
unpremeditated lays, in honor of the good President who died
to make him free. The mightiest potentates of earth have
labored vainly to secure a place in the memories and the regards
of men, by dazzling exhibitions of their power to enslave. Both
Memphian and Assyrian kings, whose very names had perished

CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES AND EULOGY ON LINCOLN 553
but for the researches of the learned, have sought to perpetuate
their deeds and glory in the rock tombs of the Nile, and the
unburied bas-reliefs of Nineveh and Babylon, covered with long
trains of sorrowing captives, manacled and bound, and dragged
along to swell the victors' triumphs, or, perhaps, as votive offer
ings to the temples of their bestial gods. It was reserved for
thee to find a surer road to fame, by no parade of conquest. No
mournful train of miserable thralls either graces or degrades
thy triumph. The subjugated are made free, and the hereditary
bondsman drops his galling chain, and feels that he is once more
a man. If the genius of sculpture should seek to preserve thy
name, it will present thee, lifting from their abject posture, and
leading by the hand, with gentle solicitation, the enfranchised
millions of a subject race, and laying down their fetters, as a
free-will offering, upon the altars of that God who is the com
mon Father of mankind."
This "eloquent and truthful eulogy" was published by
the leading citizens of Pittsburgh, and Captain Schenley
of London had it reprinted over there with a short vindi
cation of the services of General Meade.^ "I read the last
two columns (I confess it) amidst blinding tears," wrote
the Hon. Isaac N. Arnold, one cf Lincoln's most intimate
and trusted advisers and author of a posthumously issued
"Life of Lincoln." "Your eulogy is a grand lyric to
Liberty and Lincoln and the closing parts of it among the
most eloquent things I ever read."^
^ Captain Schenley's letters of July 16 and September 11, 1865, among the
Williams papers.
2 Letter of Representative Arnold of June 12, 1865, from Washington,
among the Williams papers. He says: "I am trying to write a history of his
administration and there is much that is suggestive in what you say." This
developed into the "Life," which was issued after his death by Jansen, Mc-
Clurg & Co. in 1885.

CHAPTER XVII
The Thirty-ninth Congress
His Brilliant Speech on "Reconstruction"
His Tenure-of-Office Bill Determines Line of
Attack on President Johnson
1865
Neither the American people nor their representatives
were in a very conciliatory mood during the closing
months of the year 1865. When the Thirty-ninth Con
gress assembled on December 4th Mr. Williams was
among those returned, and he was retained on the- same
committees ; indeed, the judiciary committee, as a whole,
embraced almost the same membership as before.^ He
took a more active part in all that came before the House
this time, almost from the first, and so early as February
loth (1866), made another great speech, this time on
"Reconstruction," and it serves to show how he antici
pated its questions in his first speech on this subject,
and also how far toward the position he then took the
country and Congress itself had moved. It also shows the
first premonitions of the contest that was to rage with
such bitterness between the legislative and executive
departments.^ "Mr. Speaker," he began, "nearly two years ago, and while
the war was flagrant, I felt it my duty as a member of this body
^ Congressional Globe, Thirty-ninth Congress, ist Session, Part t, p. 21.
^ Congressional Globe, Thirty-nintn Congress, ist Session, Part i, p. 784.
The congressional executive committee valued it so highly that after the
regular issue was exhausted they ordered 100,000 more. Letter of March 15,
1866, among the Williams papers.
Mr. Williams led action against the President's course early in the ses
sion by offering two resolutions, one directing that no troops should be re
moved from the South without the direction of Congress and the other
directing the trial of Davis and Lee by a military commission. Letter of
January 27, 1866. 554

PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON
Halftone of a contemporary photograph by Brady, negative in possession of
L. C. Handy, Washington, D. C.

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 555
to look into the question of the relations that had been produced
by it, the privileges that have been forfeited on the one hand, and
the rights and powers that had been acquired on the other, with
a view to the readjustment of the whole machine by the resto
ration of those parts that had been sundered from it by the dis
turbance. With some— the infirm of faith— the inquiry was
thought to be premature. This, however, was not the judgment
of the last Congress. It passed a bill which did not meet the
approval of the Executive, because it interfered with a plan
of his own that had not proved acceptable to it, and the question
was adjourned without advice from that body, and in such a
way as to leave the field open for experiments with which it was
not in a condition to interfere.
"The people are here again in the persons of their repre
sentatives, who are the law-making power of the nation, not on
invitation, but by constitutional mandate, to inquire what has
been attempted, and to decide for themselves what shall be done
with the Territories that have been conquered by their arms.
It is agreed on all hands that they shall be eventually readmitted
as members of the common family. It is not pretended by any
body that they can resume their places here of their own mere
volition, and without any consent of ours. It is not insisted,
I think, by any well-read statesman, that our power to exclude
depends only on our right to determine upon the qualifications of
our own members. It is confessed that there is an organic
lesion that forbids their return, and can only be supplied by a
new organization which no act of spontaneous generation can
produce. It will scarcely be contended now, I suppose, as it was
by an eccentric committee of the last House, that our victory
was crowned only with a lapse of sovereignty, or that the juris
diction to restore a lost member is anywhere but here. I shall
be excused, of course, for returning to this subject under circum
stances that not only invite, but compel its discussion. If it was
not proper for Congress to prescribe in advance the law that
was to govern this question in the last resort, at ah events,
while other agencies, mistaking perhaps its backwardness for
an abdication of its rightful powers, were industriously employed
in forestalling its own action, it is no longer possible, in view
of what has occurred since the last adjournment, and of the
forces that have been mustered to overbear our deliberations
here to avoid a conflict that has been so long foreshadowed.
"To determine this great question, the greatest by far that
has ever challenged the deliberations of an American Congress,
it is important to inquire, in the first place, what is the posture
of these Territories, as it has been affected by the progress and

556 THOMAS WILLIAMS
results of the war, which has just been determined by their
enforced submission to the authority of the nation?
"So far, at least, as armed resistance is concerned, it may
be assumed that the war is at an end. The deluded communities
that have so wantonly insulted this Government and defied its
power, now lie conquered, and helpless, and in social ruin at our
feet, deprived, by their own act — I will not say, in the language
of the proclamations that have been addressed to them, of 'all
civil government whatever' — but certainly of all the organism
that was essential to the maintenance of their old relations to
the Union. To claim any more than this, would be to assume a
condition of anarchy, where there is still a 'supreme law' under
the Constitution, and where, even in the absence of such a rule,
the territory reclaimed must necessarily pass under the jurisdic
tion and law of the conqueror. Taking it, however, to be true,
as stated, then, by necessary inference, the civil law of the Union
is dethroned, and its military power is all that remains to hold
these States in subjection to our authority. In point of fact, we
do so hold them now — except so far as they have been sur
rendered to the enemy — without other law than our own sov
ereign will. The supreme executive functionary of this nation,
who, by virtue of his office, is the Commander-in-Chief of its
armies, feeling that they were not in a condition to be trusted
to themselves, instead of sheathing the sword, convoking the
representatives of the people, advising them that these provinces
were tranquillized, and submitting to them, as the law-making
power, the grave question, what is to be done with them? has
preferred to await the usual period of our assemblage, and
appointed his lieutenants and proconsuls to govern them in the
meanwhile, with the aid of armies, and the terrors of that
arbitrary code which is known by the name of martial law.
We are here now, however, and it becomes our first duty to
relieve that officer from this unusual and inappropriate task,
and to furnish some security to the conquered people by the
substitution of another and a gentler rule.
"I would not be understood, however, as questioning the
exercise of a sovereignty like this, so long as it was necessitated
by the absence of a legislative power, since that is but a logical
consequence of the position previously maintained by me on
this floor, that these States had ceased to be members of the
Union, and passed into the condition of Territories. If they
continued to be States, within the meaning of the Constitution,
the moment the resistance ceased it would have been the duty
of the Executive to withdraw the armies, and they would have
at once resumed their status quo ante, with all their constitu-

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 557
tional rights and privileges unimpaired. If they were still
States, all that has been done since, even though the power of
Congress had been invoked to authorize it, would have been the
clearest of usurpations. Taking them, however, to have been
'deprived,' in the language of the proclamations, 'of all civil
government whatever,' it was but a legitimate inference of the
Executive, that they had not only forfeited their elective fran
chise, and lost their property in slaves, but placed themselves
in a condition where they were no longer entitled even to the
benefit of the constitutional guaranty without a new birth.
The idea of any State, except that of nature, without any 'civil
government whatever,' is as incomprehensible to me as that of
a State being in the Union, or indeed anywhere, that is admitted
to have no existence whatever.
"No more would I be inclined to quarrel with those who,
starting from these premises, are still disposed to insist that
these States were never out. The difference is perhaps only the
result of a want of precision in the use of terms, or a diversity
of opinion in regard to their meaning. Mr. Burke has furnished
us with a distinction here that meets the case precisely. 'The
word State,' he remarks in his letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe,
on the subject of the extension of the elective franchise to the
Irish Catholics, 'is one of much ambiguity. Sometimes it is
used to signify the whole commonwealth, comprehending all
its orders, with the several privileges belonging to each. Some
times it signifies only the higher, and ruling part of the com
monwealth, which is commonly called the government.' In the
former of these senses, it is not to be doubted that these com
munities still exist, and are in the Union, or of the Union,
because their territories belong to it, and their people owe it
allegiance. In the latter, however — and that is the one that
connects them with our political system, as the proclamations
concede — ^they are admitted by the same proclamations to have
been destroyed, and can, of course, be nowhere. And this will
be found to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the
language of the proclamations, and the accordant practice of the
Government on the one hand, and the theory of those who are
supposed to speak its opinions, and infer from some unhappy
phraseology of the former, as well as from the more recent
utterances of the message, the repugnant idea that there was a
constitution of government left existing amid the general wreck,
in a case where it had been previously declared in terms that
there was 'no civil government whatever.'
"There can be no real dispute, therefore, between the
Executive and his northern friends as to the posture of these

558 THOMAS WILLIAMS
dilapidated members. Their entire treatment by him shows that
they have only been regarded practically as conquered provinces.
I deprecate, however, the encouragement that has been given
to the enemies of the Government, by the promulgation of the
fallacious doctrine, which has found so ready a currency among
the disaffected of the North, and has proved so welcome to the
unrepentant rebels of the South, that these disorganized States
have never ceased to be members of the Federal Union. That
is the present theory of every traitor. North or South, who has
been insisting for four long years of war on the right, as well
as the fact of secession. With strong assurances of pardon,
they can well afford to risk the consequences of treason, by
repudiating the belligerency upon which they have heretofore
claimed immunity for their crime, if it will restore them to their
original rights, and serve them as an argument against the
legality of the proclamation that has stripped them of their
property in slaves. Grant them the postulate that all their acts
of secession were not a fact, but a nullity — that the crime which
they committed was impossible, because it was forbidden — and
if they cannot invalidate the war, and the debt that was made
by it, they will at least stagger your courts with the question,
by what authority under the Constitution, you have presumed
to deprive the people of a State within the Union, by procla
mation and without judgment of law, of any of their franchises
or property. They will admit it now as an incident of the war
— if there was a war, or could be, where there was no secession,
and therefore no belligerent — so far as the thing was consum
mated by an actual seizure, just as they are now ready to con
fess that the right of secession has been disproved by the logic
of the sword — which means only by their present inability to
maintain it by that argument — while their northern brethren
still assert the very heresy upon which it rests. But once in,
they will take you at your word, and insist that all your inter
mediate acts were nullities as well as theirs.
"Agreeing, however, as we all do, that these States, without
any local law or governments of their own, have passed under
the law of the conqueror — and the attempt to reorganize them by
Federal authority is an admission of it — the next question, into
the discussion of which we are now prematurely hurried, is
not how they are to be governed until they shall be in a condi
tion to return — because that seems to have been assumed to be
no business of ours — but whether that condition has been
reached, and what are to be the agencies and terms, through
and upon which this consummation is to be effected.

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 559
"If there be any one question that more than another falls
within the exclusive cognizance of the people of the loyal States,
and deserves and demands the thoughtful consideration of their
Representatives, it is just this. Eleven of the columnar sup
ports of our political edifice are now lying around us, like the
giant columns of Tadmor and Palmyra, with shaft, and capital,
and architrave alike shattered by the mighty convulsion that has
laid them all in ruins. Where is the hand that is to lift these
columns to their place? Who is it that shall reunite the dis
severed fragments, and wreathe the ivy over the towers that have
been rent from turret to foundation? What are to be the proc
ess and the conditions, on which these great criminals, who,
'like the base Judean,' have wantonly flung away "a pearl richer
than all their tribe,', are to be readmitted into the enjoyment of
the privileges they have rejected and despised, and received again
into the fellowship of the men they hated, and the confidence
and honors of the Government they have only failed to destroy,
because it has proved too strong even for a degree of treachery
that has no parallel in history ? How far are these baffled parri
cides to be trusted again, now that they are vanquished, and
without power of resistance, after such an experience, after so
bloody a lesson as they have taught us — and what are the guards
that will be required to prevent a recurrence of any of the evils
from which we have just escaped? All these are problems
which, however simple they may have been considered in some
quarters, might well embarrass the profoundest of our statesmen,
and which all the collective wisdom of the nation will not be
more than sufficient to solve. The war itself, stupendous as it
has proved, was nothing in the comparison. There never was a
reasonable doubt as to the suppression of the rebellion, provided
the loyal States should prove true to themselves. It was a purely
arithmetical problem, of which the elements were within the
reach of everybody. If all the slave States had been united,
eighteen millions of the northern freemen, with the credit, and
resources, and prestige of this great Government on their side,
and man for man the peers of their enemy, were sure to subdue
less than one half their number, with four millions of a disaf
fected population in their midst, as soon as they were allowed
to strike at the heart of the rebellion, and it came to be under
stood that it was to be a war a I'outrance. The only real danger
was in the prospective and inevitable process of reconstruction.
It was a question only whether there would be wisdom enough
in the councils of the nation to profit by the heroism of our
soldiers in the field, or folly enough to throw away the
fruits of the many sacrifices that this long and bloody

560 THOMAS WILLIAMS
war had cost us, by ignoring our past experience, and
rushing with headlong precipitation, and immature resolve, into
measures of restoration, resting on no system or principle, and
reserving no guarantees for the future. We have just reached
that point. The rebellion, so far, at all events, as armed resist
ance is concerned, is over. We still tread, however, on the
ashes of an unextinguished volcano — 'supposito cinere doloso.'
'An earthquake's spoils are sepulchered below.' The ground still
heaves and trembles; the fiery flood still surges and pulsates
beneath our feet; and already, almost before the thunders of
our artillery have rolled into the distance, and while the smoke
of battle is still upon the plain — without a moment's pause to
survey the wide field of ruin, and reach forward, if possible,
with telescopic vision into all the bearings, and all the remotest
possible consequences of the act which we are called upon to
do — a childish impatience is urging us upon a path where angels
might fear to tread, and expecting us to crowd the structure of
an empire — the ordinary work of centuries — into the delibera
tions of an hour.
"Upon considerations such as these, I would have preferred
to wait until the two Houses, acting in their legislative capacities,
and in the spirit of statesmen who are charged with the interests
of half a continent, had matured some plan which would secure
uniformity in our proceedings here, while it furnished to the
whole country — to the loyal people of the returning States, as
well as to ourselves — all the safeguards which the circumstances
of the case required. My judgment is that you can proceed
lawfully in no other way. If restoration is the object; if these
State governments have been destroyed and must be organized
anew; if the people of these States must be enabled to restore
them to their old relations, and put them in a way to entitle them
to claim the benefits of the constitutional guaranty through the
agency of the Federal authorities; if they must be readmitted;
if the guaranty is to be fulfilled — all which things are conceded
by the proclamations — then it is as clear as sunlight that nothing
short of an act of Congress — a law in all its constitutional
forms can accomplish this work. But I am in no hurry even
as to this. Pestina lentk is the motto for a statesman. States
are of slow growth. A century is but a day in the life of a
nation. The great poet has said —
" 'A thousand years scarce serve to form a State;
An hour may lay it in the dust.'
"To heal the wounds inflicted by a four years' civil war is
not the work of a day. If we would do it well, we must imitate

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 561
the processes of nature, beginning at the bottom and working
slowly to the surface. Sound statesmanship would declare in
favor of this course in any case. It would tolerate no other
where there is so little excuse for precipitancy, where there is
no real pressure except that which is invited by ourselves, and
where a mistake once made, however disastrous in its effects,
would be absolutely irremediable. That privilege is, however^
denied to us. Though we had declined to court this issue by
going out to meet it, it has come to seek us here, and if we have
not been allowed to provide by law, in advance of the occasion,
a rule which shall govern all cases, we must at least meet it in
the more questionable shape in which it presents itself, though
under disadvantages not unlike those we had to encounter with
the same parties at the beginning of the war.
"The present Executive of the nation, acting upon the preva
lent idea that it is the duty of the Government to take the
initiative step in the process of restoration, instead of awaiting
any spontaneous action, or the expression of any desire on the
part of the people of the rebel States to return to their original
relations in the Union — which could be only properly con
veyed by an appeal to Congress — has, in the recess of this body,
and on the cessation of active hostilities in these States, con
cluded it to be his duty to direct their organization, along with
the process by which it is to be effected, in order to entitle them
to the benefit of the constitutional guaranty, and has accordingly
indicated his plan in a series of proclamations, which are all
of the like tenor, though differing in some respects from the
plan of his predecessor. The presumption was that they would
in all instances conform to the law that he had prescribed for
them. Having so complied, they would naturally expect that
their immediate lawgiver, although then understood to admit
the ultimate decision to rest with Congress alone, would recom
mend their admission, and enforce that recommendation with
all the influence that he could lawfully exert. It becomes
important, therefore, to look into that process, and ascertain
whether it was consistent with the spirit of our institutions;
whether it rested on any correct view of the relations with
which it had to deal; and how far it was calculated to secure
the object for which it was professedly contrived.
"A. careful analysis of these instruments will be found to
result in the development of the following leading propositions :
"i. They admit the continuing existence of a state of war,
and profess to rest in the two-fold authority of the President, as
Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United

562 THOMAS WILLIAMS
States, as well as supreme civil executive magistrate of the
Union. "2. They declare the people of these States to have been
deprived by their own acts of all civil government whatever.
"3. They confess the necessity of a new organization, for
the purpose of restoring their constitutional relations with the
Federal Government, and presenting such form of government
as will entitle them to the benefit of its guaranties, and therein
admit that they are not so entitled in their present condition.
"4. They concede that the new organization must receive
its impulse and direction from without, and be assisted by the
co-operative action of the Federal authorities.
"5. Confessing, however, that these States are not now enti
tled to the benefit of the constitutional guaranty, they assert, in
effect, that under it, the Federal Government is bound to place
them in a position which will enable them to claim it, and assume
that the fulfillment of that guaranty is a purely executive func
tion, to be performed in such a way as the judgment of the
President may determine.
"6. They direct, accordingly, the assemblage of conventions
at the earliest practicable day, and define and ascertain the
qualifications of the voters.
"7. In fixing those qualifications they adopt a standard that
is entirely new, by limiting the franchise, not to the white men
generally, but to such only of the people who were invested with
that prerogative under the government that is admitted to have
been destroyed, as are loyal, and will swear to support, not the
Constitution only, but all laws and proclamations during the
rebellion having reference to the emancipation of slaves.
"8. Admitting, moreover, that these States are without any
civil government whatever, and that they must necessarily
organize anew, they insist that it shall be done upon the partial
recognition of a government that has been destroyed, by a proc
ess, not of organization at all, but of amendment and alteration
only, that shall work simply on that part of the defunct corpus
which was left untouched by the ordinances of secession, and
whose continued existence would involve a denial of the right
of Federal interference, and is in direct contradiction of the
premises on which these proclamations rest.
"9. They look, moreover, to the employment of the military
arm in the execution and enforcement of the scheme of restora
tion which they involve.
"With all proper respect for the Executive, I am con
strained to say that there are evidences here, either that these
proclamations could not have been considered or digested with

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 563
the care which so great an occasion would seem to have
demanded, or that the case might not unprofitably have been
transferred from the other end of the Avenue, to its appropriate
forum in the great council of the nation, assembled here to
deliberate upon its interests, and vested exclusively with the
high power of legislating in regard to its Territories, of admit
ting new States, and of fulfilling all constitutional guarantees.
My reasons for so thinking will, however, be better understood
from the remarks I have to offer on the several propositions
which I have extracted from them.
"It may be safely affirmed, I think, that the existence of a
state of war, whether that war be openly aggressive and demon
strative in its character, or exhibiting itself only in sullen dis
content, or disaffection, or hatred of the Government, such as
to necessitate the presence of a military force to compel obedi
ence to the national authority, or to prevent a seizure of the
local power, is utterly irreconcilable with the idea of such an
organization, as the genius of our institutions, and the very
texture of our Government would demand. Without the spon
taneous and unrestrained volition of the majority of the people,
I cannot conceive the idea of the existence, or constitution of a
republican State. A form of government erected by or for a
minority of the people, and depending upon armies for its
existence or support, would be the merest mockery of a repub
lic, and could not be recognized here consistently with the terms
of the constitutional guaranty. It is a self-evident proposition
that so long as it requires an army, or a Federal legate — whether
called by the name of provisional governor, lieutenant, comman
dant, proconsul, or pretorian prefect — ^to govern it, it is not in
a condition to perform that task itself ; and the very appointment,
which would be otherwise unlawful, is a confession of it. While
the Executive holds the Territory within his grasp as the Com
mander-in-Chief of our armies, he holds it under military law —
which is the only law he can administer — and by a power that
is absolute; and it is idle to talk about the restoration of the
civil authority by the voluntary act of the people themselves,
because he is essentially supreme. The power he wields is
above the law, and silences the law. There can be no two
codes — no divided imperium here. The man who so rules is
essentially a dictator; and it makes no difference in principle
whether he prescribes the law for a good purpose, or a bad
one. It is impossible that the people should act freely under
such a domination. It is only when it ceases that they can
truly be regarded as their own masters. The jealousy of our
fathers has guarded against the very presence of the military

564 THOMAS WILLIAMS
on the election ground, even where the civil law reigned, and the
subordination of the military was unquestioned. Where it
knows no law, however, except its own will, and stands by to
direct and execute that will, the acts done, which would be
clearly invalidated thereby in the States, are its own. If it
assembles conventions and names the voters, they are its
creatures. If it elects Congressmen, they represent it only. If
the product of its imperial rescript is a republic in form, it is
a republic engendered from the decomposing remains of the
dead sovereignty, under the fierce embrace of the military
power — a republic hatched into life by the spirit of despotism
brooding over a chaos of ruin. To say that a monstrous birth
like this, tearing its way through the entrails of the State — a
delivery by the sword — assisted by the matronly offices of a
provisional governor, and graced by a more than royal attend
ance in the high functionaries of State, 'the military comman
dant of the department, and all officers and persons in the military
and naval service,' who are expressly summoned to be present
on the august occasion — is the legitimate offspring of a free
people, or has any of the features of a republic within the
meaning of the Constitution, is to draw largely on the imagina
tion. Freedom recoils aghast at such an apparition, and
shrieks out 'death !' Nor will it be sufficient to assert that these
sword-bearers were not actually present in the body, and that
therefore no control was exercised over these provincial
councils by their creator and lawgiver. We know that when
the fiat went forth publicly to the hesitating synod of North
Carolina, that the debt of the rebellion must be repudiated, every
knee went down in humble submission to tlie orders of the
Commander-in-Chief. We know, too, from the very recent
message of the rebel general and Governor of Mississippi,
(Humphreys,) who was pardoned specially to qualify him for
the place, that it was 'under the pressure of Federal bayonets'
that the people of that State 'have abolished the institution of
slavery ;' and it is not uncharitable to infer that the members of
all those bodies knew precisely how much would be expected of
them, and were prepared to do the will of the Executive, even
though it had extended to suffrage for the black man. Dis
guise it as we may, these so-called constitutions of government
are but articles of capitulation after the fact; treaties between
that officer, dealing with these questions as an absolute sover
eign, and the chiefs of the rebellion; terms dictated by the
President as a conqueror, in accordance with his own individual
and imperial will; agreements reluctantly conceded by them, as
the condition not only of pardon, but of restoration to power.

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 565
but almost invariably repudiated by their followers, in the
refusal to ratify them by sending men here who were qualified
under the law of Congress to take their places amongst us.
That they are so considered, even by themselves, is shown by
the recent correspondence between the high contracting powers,
represented by our Minister of Foreign Relations on the one
hand and Governor Orr of South Carolina on the other, in
which it is declared by the latter that the State convention,
which he admits to be a revolutionary body, had been dissolved
'after having done all that the President requested to be done.' It
is shown, too, more strongly, in the letter of the rebel General
Hampton to the people of South Carolina, declining to be a
candidate for Governor, on the ground that it might embarrass
the Executive in his benevolent designs in favor of the South.
Though not approving all that was conceded by the convention,
he recommends their acquiescence in what he treats as the
demands of the conqueror, on the ground of necessity, and for
the special reason that the President 'had exhibited a strong
disposition not only to protect the South from the radicalism of
the North, but to reinstate them in their civil and political rights,'
'It may be assumed,' he adds, 'that when the forms of government
are restored, and freedom of speech allowed to us, your late con
vention will be subjected to harsh criticism, and its action
impugned. Should such unhappily be the case, remember that
you, the people of South Carolina, accepted the convention as part
and parcel of the terms of your surrender. The President had no
shadow of authority, I admit, under the Constitution of the
United States to order a convention in this or any other
State; but as a conqueror he had the right to offer, if not to
dictate, terms. The terms offered by him you have accepted. I
do not myself fully concur in all the measures adopted by the
convention, but I shall cheerfully acquiesce in the action it took
to carry out faithfully the terms agreed on. Entertaining these
views, I think it our duty to sustain the President of the United
States so long as he manifests a disposition to restore all our
rights as a sovereign State. Above all, let us stand by our
State. Her record is honorable, her escutcheon untarnished.'
When a man like Hampton speaks of 'the radicalism of the
North,' we know that he intends the Union party of the free
States, who favored the prosecution of the war and elected the
President himself, and the men whom they have sent here to
declare their will; and it is on the disposition of the President
to protect them from his own friends in the country, and in these
Halls — the feeling that they could make a better bargain with
him, and were safer in his hands than in those of the people

566 THOMAS WILLIAMS
and their Congress — that, without one word in favor of the
Union, but with an earnest invocation to the people to stand,
above all things, by their own honorable and untarnished State,
he urges them to support, not the Union, but the President, and
him only 'so long as he manifests a disposition to restore all
their rights as a sovereign State,' including, of course, the
transcendent and inalienable right of secession. And the
Executive responds to this presentation of the case, by inform
ing us in his late message that we have nothing to do with the
terms of settlement, while the gentleman from New York, [Mr.
Raymond,] who is supposed to reflect his opinions, is candid
enough to put his vindication of the special requirements of that
functionary on the same grounds, and in language almost identi
cal with that of the traitor Hampton. It is a waste of time,
however, to labor a point like this. If the orders of the Com
manding General, as enunciated through the proclamations
themselves, were in point of fact obeyed, it is sufficient for the
purposes of this argument. To deny his control over the
creatures of his own will, because his subordinates did not
stand over their deliberations with a drawn sword, would be
the merest of subterfuges. As well might it be said that the
Maker of all things, who launched the circumambient orbs
through the immensity of space, and prescribed the law of
gravitation for their government, was exercising no control,
because He was not on sleepless watch at the center of the
system, and telegraphing his special orders to Neptune and
Uranus, by way of keeping them on the track as they sped their
unerring way through the mazy labyrinth of the stellar worlds.
"It will be urged, however, as it has been, that this was a
measure of peace; an instrumentality essential to the tranquilli-
zation of those States ; a part of the process for the restora
tion of order that must precede the withdrawal of the
national authority, and would enable the loyal people there
to dispense with the further presence of its armies. The answer
is, that if it was intended to place the reins in the hands of the
loyal minority of white men, while it confesses a condition of
things where a republic is impracticable, and tn election would
be an absurdity, it could insure no peace and no permanent
ascendency to that element, without continued protection,
because it required a military power to inaugurate it — just as
is now admitted by Governor Brownlow to be the case in Ten
nessee; and if it was intended merely to restore the disloyal
majority who governed before the rebellion, and hurried these
States into it, then it was unnecessary. The idea is, in plain Eng
lish, if not to make them our masters, at least to free them from

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 567
our authority in the first place, in the hope that it will secure
peace and submission in the future. I cannot consent to any
such arrangement. I do, not comprehend the value of that tran-
quilhty which is only to be purchased by the abdication of our
power, whether it be by the withdrawal of our troops, the res
toration to the enemy of the arms that he was compelled to
lay down on the last of his battle-fields, or the invitation — I
should rather say command — to him to share our counsels in
the adjustment of the results and the responsibilities of the
war. If this be peace, it might have been secured at any
time, with only the waiver of our right to insist that they
shall sit down on the judgment seat, and divide the empire with
us. It may be secured now by allowing them to resume their
power and places here, upon the cheap consideration of a tem
porary acknowledgment that the negro is no longer an article
of merchandise, because all their chances of success in this
rebellion now depend on a change of weapons, and the retrans-
fer of the theater of war to the arena where it began. I say in
this rebellion, because I am not sanguine enough to consider it
at an end — as a very recent opinion of the Attorney General
transmitted by the President, admits it is not. There are those,
I know, who cannot comprehend a state of war, unless it comes
home to their grosser senses in the rude shock of battalions and
the groans of the wounded and the dying, and think, therefore,
when the standard drops from the nerveless grasp, that this is
peace. It is to form a very inadequate conception of a kind of
arbitrament that depends as much on skillful tactics as on hard
knocks. Resistance does not always cease when its arms are
stricken from its hands. The victory is not always to the strong.
It is as often the guerdon of the wise. True, we have conquered
these people in battle, but what of that? No man was ever
converted from an enemy into a friend by the summary logic
of shot and shell. " 'Who overcomes
By force, hath overcome but half his foe.'
The demoniac spirit that animated this rebellion — the same that
mutilated and starved and butchered our martyred heroes, that
inoculated the veins, and rotted off the strong arm of the
northern warrior with the deadly venom of the lazar-house, that
baled the yellow fever as merchandise for this capital, and that
ended by assassinating our President — still lives, unrepentant,
unsubdued, ferocious, and devilish as ever. The battle still
rages, as it did in these Halls long before the outbreak of the
rebellion, though under a new phase.

568 THOMAS WILLIAMS
" 'What though the field be lost?
All is not lost.'
If arms have failed, there are other weapons, rejected by the
South in its blind and unreasoning arrogance, which have
proved in other times more potent in its hands than the puny
sword that has just been shattered like a potsherd in its collision
with the iron muscle of the sinewy laboring man of the free
States. A bloody experience has taught them their mistake in
crossing swords with the soldiers of the North instead of fighting
the battle in the Union, and relying on the folly of its statesmen,
and the superior address that harnessed its fierce democracy to
their triumphal car, and made them the masters of the nation
until the period of their revolt. Hurled to the earth like their
great prototypes in crime, how natural to find the like consola
tion in the reflection :
" 'Henceforth their might we know, and know our own;
So as not either to provoke,, or dread
New war provoked; our better part remains
To work in close design, by fraud or guile.
What force effected not.'
"But this is not the peace that we have been endeavoring
to secure. This is not victory, but defeat — just such defeat as
that which follows the astounding paradox that our supposed
triumph on the Appomattox, that made every heart leap with
joy, has only purged the guilt of our enemies and reinstated them
here with no right impaired, to 'beard us in our hall,' and 'push
us from our stools.' There is nothing, therefore, in the argu
ment to drive us into such an inversion of the natural and logical
order as would be involved in the imposition of State govern
ments by the military arm, any more than there is to hurry us
into a premature and ill-adjusted scheme of restoration, when
there is abundant leisure to arrange our plans, and a false step
would be irrevocable. I want a real peace before reorganization
and readmission here. Invert the order, and we shall have no
peace. It will only amount, as I have before hinted, to a change
of weapons, and a retransf er of the seat of war to these Chambers,
whence they went out four years ago to try the bloody issue
that has* been determined against them, just as they had before
gone out in couples to seek the blood of some northern Repre
sentative. "And now, as to the admission that the people of the seced
ing States have been deprived of all civil government whatever.
"During the last Congress, as I have already remarked, I
took some pains to show that these States were, by construction

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 569
of law as well as in point of fact, outside of the Union, because
it was apparent that the whole question of our power to deal
with them in such a way as to realize the legitimate results of
the war, and exact the necessary securities for our future peace,
must depend on the relation in which the war had left them.
The phraseology, though sufficiently precise, was not perhaps
as well chosen as it might have been, to exclude the idea either
that they were out rightfully as States, or out in point of fact
territorially. The 'rari nantcs,' the few citizens of those States
who, though outlawed by the belligerent relation recognized by
our courts, as well as by the whole conduct of the war, and
positively established by our legislation here, still remained
'faithful among the faithless' would naturally protest against a
form of expression that seemed to shut them out from the rela
tion of citizens, and to give them the character of alien enemies ;
and it is perhaps, therefore, no great matter of surprise that the
doctrine should have found so little favor in high places.
I do not care to reargue that question now, because it is perhaps
not material. Taking the word State as contradistinguished
from that of Government — for which there is unquestionably an
example and a warrant in the language of the constitutional
clause of guaranty — to mean, as it has been defined by so great
an authority as Mr. Burke, 'the commonwealth at large, with
all its orders, and all the rights belonging to each,' and not 'the
ruling or governing power,' it may be admitted without damage
to the argument that they are still in. In that aspect of the
case it must signify the territory, or the people, whether black
or white, loyal or disloyal, or both. It cannot be the territory
only, because it would then continue to be a State, although
deprived of its inhabitants as well as of its government, in which
case it was never pretended that it was out. It cannot mean the
people only, because that would make them a State, though all
disclaiming their allegiance, or all alien enemies, and owing
none except such as was qualified, and temporary, and purely
domiciliary. In this sense it is a compound idea, of which one
of the elements is necessarily a loyal people, and a perception of
which is discernible in the fact, that under the plan of the procla
mations the voters are to be confined to the loyal, or at least
that portion of them which has the accidental advantage of
having straighter hair or somewhat whiter skins than the
residue. "It is enough for my purpose, however, that their political
organizations, through which only they can maintain their appro
priate relations to our governmental system, have been — as it is
admitted they are — entirely destroyed; a point which could not

570 THOMAS WILLIAMS
be well contested in view of the common-law rules that govern
in cases of public or municipal, as of merely private corpora
tions. The proclamations go further in affirming that they have
been 'deprived of all civil government whatever,' which would
imply a state of anarchy, and ignore alike the law of conquest,
and 'the supreme law' under the Constitution, and thus extrude
them from the Union by a strict logical necessity. By this, how
ever, the President intends, no doubt, the local governments
alone. He cannot affirm a condition of anarchy, as this would
be, so long as he maintains that they are still in the Union and
subject to its laws, or in even asserting, as he does by the
proclamations themselves, the continuing jurisdiction and
authority of the national Government over them. Without any
government whatever there can be no social state except that of
nature. It is as impossible to conceive the existence of a civil
or political State without an organism, as it would be that of
an animal or vegetable body in like predicament. Stripped,
however, of all the political organizations that held them
together as members of this Union, they must of necessity have
lapsed into a condition where everything was lost except their
territorial relations and identity. In this condition, however,
of local dissolution, it is admitted on all hands that they
are without powers of self-resurrection, that without gov
ernments themselves they must receive their impulse
from without — from their only remaining sovereign; and that
these dry bones — ^these festering, decomposing elements — must
at least be breathed upon in order that they may live ; and there
fore it is that the Executive Magistrate, in the exercise of
what he conceives to be his duty, undertakes to impart the
required movement by preparing and adjusting the whole
machinery, setting it in motion with his own hand, and even
prescribing the law by which that motion was to be governed.
Whether these States are in or out, is no longer a question, when
the rupture of their connections, and their own incapacity to
restore them without the direction of the ultimate sovereign,
are admitted elements in the case. All that remains is to decide
where this transcendent power is lodged, how it is to be exer
cised, and who it is that is to speak this chaos into order, and
to recreate from this admitted anarchy, the future organism
that is to claim its place in our system.
"The proclamations assume that this high and imperial
function is a purely executive one, and that on the ground of the
constitutional obligation on the part of the United States to
guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of gov
ernment, and the duty of the President to see that the laws are

"reconstruction'' versus "restoration" 571
faithfully executed. It. is only on the hypothesis either that this
officer is — not in the modest language of Louis XIV, the State
— but the United States, or that this executory agreement is in
the nature of a law, which may be enforced by the instrumen
tality of the sword, and without the exercise of any discretion
on the part of its minister, that the case can be claimed to fall
within the province of the executive department. The former
of these views, which seems to find support in the argument of
the gentleman from New York, I shall not trouble myself to
answer. If the latter were true, and the duty itself a purely
ministerial one, the claim would be unquestionable. It is so
far from being true, however, that it would have been impossible
even for Congress itself to provide in advance by any general
enactment, for the many different cases that might arise to
demand its fulfillment. They have not even yet decided what
is to be considered a republican form of government, within the
meaning of the clause, or how it is to be erected in case of the
overthrow of any of the existing State governments. They
have endeavored, it is true, to provide for these cases, but have
been met by the argument that it would be time enough to cook
their hare when it was caught, or the objection that the Execu
tive had a better 'plan' than their own, which was in itself a
confession that it was a matter of doubt and discretion, and
anything but the performance of a ministerial duty. That plan,
like the present one, involved no less a task than the recon
struction of a State from its very foundations, and the declara
tion of the law that was to govern in the prosecution of that
work. In the former case, the power was conferred on a tithe
of the voters who might take the oath of allegiance, and for
swear the institution of slavery. In the latter, it is confined to
the loyal men who had voted before, without reference to their
numbers, and without any definition of the term, although it
was clear that there was scarcely a loyal man in those States
except those who were excluded. But will anybody say that
the proclamation of the fundamental law of a State is an execu
tive function? If there be any higher act of sovereignty than
that which founds, or reconstructs a State, and gives or denies
the elective franchise to any of its citizens, I do not know what
it is. The man who makes the elector makes the laws and the
magistrates, and is practically in the enjoyment of a dictatorial
power. There are occasions, in the extremity of a State, when
such a pQwer may be necessary for its safety. Nobody has
questioned the right of the Executive to govern the conquered
territories — and that by the rigors of martial law — in the recess
of Congress, and the absence of any other rule. No man has

572 THOMAS WILLIAMS
gone further than myself in the support of measures which were
necessitated by considerations connected with the public safety.
I can very well recollect the time when gentlemen upon the
other side were startled by the boldness of my claims in favor
of a quasi dictatorial power in the Executive, and Democratic
presses held me up as the champion of absolutism. Then, how
ever, it was claimed but as the extreme medicine of the State,
and not its daily bread; not to found an empire, but to save one.
Thank God ! the occasion for these things has passed away. It
is not longer permissible to resort to the war power for apolo
gies for extreme measures, and particularly such as are obviously
unnecessary. But there never was anything in that power to
warrant the erection of a State by executive proclamation.
That is an act of legislation that goes far beyond any example
in British history, even in the complying times of Henry VIII,
when a servile Parliament made itself alike memorable and
infamous by giving to royal proclamations the force of law. I
trust we are not yet ready to emulate and even improve upon
this example. I do not relish the exhumation from the reposi
tories of the dead past of such engines of arbitrary power as
these. I would as soon think of going to the Tower of London,
to borrow the material appliances that are still there to testify
of the tyranny and barbarism of the buried centuries of England.
There is a flavor about them that is neither pleasant nor whole
some. If the work done thrpugh such instrumentalities had
been in all respects what my own judgment would have
approved, I should have hesitated long, on grounds of principle,
even in the absence of any intended interference with the rights
of this body, before I would have given my sanction to a prec
edent so fraught with mischief for future times. I would not
even mar the pedigree of the returning States by allowing a
bar sinister in the escutcheon of any of them, and do not care
to be associated in history as a member of the Thirty-Ninth
Congress of the United States along with the dishonored council
of the sixteenth century, that betrayed the rights of Englishmen
by abdicating its powers in favor of such claims as these.
Crown lawyers have only defended them in high prerogative
times, as an expedient made necessary by the unfrequency of
Parliaments. There is no such apology in these cases. The
very object, as confessed by the undisguised hurry to bring these
new governments to our doors at the opening of the session in
full panoply and compact array, was to anticipate the action of
Congress in the premises. The present Executive, like his pred
ecessor, has his plan of organization. The proclamations dis
close it. He had a right, of course, to his opinions. He was.

reconstruction versus restoration 573
however, a Southern man, and a citizen of one of the offending
States. He was not likely, therefore, to think in the same way
precisely as the twenty millions of the loyal States who had
fought this great battle. He had never, if I mistake not, declared
himself very strongly against slavery, except so far as it was
in antagonism with the Union. His local associations and
prejudices of education were a priori almost sure to arrest him
at that point where a guaranty of the civil rights of the enfran
chised class should be demanded. He had been loyal and faith
ful under great trials. That fidelity had made him the
choice of the Union party of the North for the second office in
the Republic. The bloody hand of treason opened the way for
his succession to the first. It had become his right to advise,
and his opinions were entitled at all events to the highest possi
ble respect, but the mode of enforcing them was pointed out in
the Constitution. It was only through Congress that he could
properly make them known, and the very relation in which he
stood toward the loyal States seemed to make it peculiarly appro
priate that he should take no step without at least conferring
with their representatives. He has not chosen to follow this
course. He has preferred to treat directly with the rebels them
selves, or to dictate as a conqueror, such terms of restoration as
were agreeable to himself. I will not say that this was done
because he apprehended the existence of a different opinion here,
but the effect is, that the opinion of the Executive, hurried into
act in advance of our assemblage — supposing such a difference
not impossible — is thus staked against the will of the representa
tive body. It is the sword of Brennus flung into the scale. It
looks to me — nay, in the light of the message it is — a chal
lenge to Congress and the free North, upon a question of juris
diction in a case where their exclusive cognizance is not even
open to dispute, which we cannot afford to decline, and upon
the acceptance or refusal of which will depend the determina
tion of the point whether, in the face of an executive edict, an
opposing legislative will is possible.
"If a claim of this sort was stoutly and successfully resisted
by our ancestors, when asserted by the Tudors and the Stuarts,
how are we to excuse ourselves to posterity for surrendering
it now to a mere temporary Executive of our own choice, with
powers so limited and so accurately defined? I trust we have
not become so habituated to the exercise of a prerogative like
this, as to have forgotten that there are boundaries, which in a
state of peace no department of the Government can safely be
allowed to pass. The danger throughout — the one prefigured
by some of the leading spirits of the Revolution; the one fore-

574 THOMAS WILLIAMS
shadowed when Patrick Henry declared, 'Your President will
be a King' — has been in this direction only. The vast discretion
necessarily lodged in the Commander-in-Chief in times like
those through which we have just passed, the extreme promi
nence of his position, and the enormous influence arising from
the control of an immense expenditure, were almost sure to
give to that officer a greatly prepondering weight, and to make
the world — accustomed only to royal wars and royal rule —
believe that it was the President alone, and not the Congress or
the people, who had saved this nation, and whose business it was
to restore it in all its parts. And therefore it was that the same
claim of power in the proclamation of December, 1863, provoked
no animadversion here, while the details of the Presidential plan
were subjected to the severest criticism; and no special com
plaint was made when the will of the law-making power was dis
regarded and overruled. And therefore it was, too, that the
House bill failed on a second trial. And for the same reason,
it is now, that the press and politicians of the nation, instead of
controverting the power of the Executive altogether to meddle
with the reorganization of these States, and denouncing the
attempt on his part as a clear usurpation, have only complained
in whispers and with 'bated breath,' that he did not extend the
right of suffrage to the black man, while even so intelligent a
personage as Robert Dale Owen, has referred to this work of
reconstruction as the greatest of the many difficult and responsi
ble duties which the termination of the war has devolved on
the new President; and even the fierce Democracy itself, which
made the night of the rebellion hideous with its ululations about
arbitrary power, is either smitten dumb with admiration, or
swells the peans of triumphant treason with a chorus of halle
lujahs, in honor of the wisdom that surprises and anticipates
its wildest hopes. It seems, indeed, to have been well-nigh for
gotten throughout the country, as well as at the other end of the
Avenue, that we have a Congress, which is, under the Consti
tution, the law-making power of this nation. People inquire
only what does the President intend; while the Associated
Press ministers to their curiosity by daily bulletins, reporting
every phase of the imperial pulse, as though it were watching
by the bedside of royalty, and kindly informing us all of the
precise terms on which the President has determined to readmit
the traitors on this floor. The time has now come, however, to
rectify these errors, and to assert and maintain the rightful
jurisdiction and powers of this body, if they are ever to be
asserted again. With the highest admiration of the constancy
and heroism of the present Executive under the severest trials.

reconstruction" versus "restoration" 575
and with every disposition to support his Administration so
far as fidelity to my own high trust will allow, I cannot consent
that a question like this, in which the interests of so many gen
erations are involved, shall be withdrawn from the people of the
loyal States, who have suffered and sacrificed so largely, and
settled by the decision of any one or even seven men, no matter
whence they come, or what positions they may hold. No more
can I allow myself to be instructed here, that while the power
of settling the terms of readmission is with the President, I
have no jurisdiction as an American legislator, except to regis
ter the acts that he has done, and then humbly inquire as a
member of this House only, whether the candidates who present
themselves for admission here have complied with the mere
formalities which his Legislatures have prescribed. It is here
only — in these Halls — that American liberty can live. They are
her inner sanctuary — her holy of holies — her strong tower of
defense — her last refuge and abiding place. Here are her altars,
and here her priesthood. It is only here, too, that my own
great State, whose blood has been poured out like rain, and
whose canonized dead are now sleeping on every battle-field of
freedom, has been called into counsel during the last four years.
She has no voice elsewhere. On the theory of the President,
and the results of his experiments, she has given out no uncer
tain sound. She bids her sons whom she has placed on guard
at the Capitol in this hour of the nation's trial, stand faithfully
—as did her heroes in the bloody trench — by their trusts as
Representatives, and resist with jealous watchfulness every
attempt from whatever quarter, to encroach upon the just pow
ers which she has delegated to them. If the performance of
this duty should involve a difference with the Executive of her
own choice, while she would deplore the necessity, she will
expect her Representatives to take counsel from those who sent
them here, alike unawed by the frowns and unseduced by the
blandishments of power. I dread the conflict, which is not a
new one in the world's history, but I cannot choose but meet
it when it comes; and I have a trust that we shall yet be able
to discuss the great question of the times, and to settle it, too,
without prejudice, and in utter oblivion of the fact that the
Executive has any theory on the subject.
"It has been said, however, by way of quieting the public
fears, that these plans were merely experimental, and that no
harm could come of them, because, under the Constitution, Con
gress must be the judge at last of the qualifications and eligi
bility of those who might present themselves for admission to
seats in that body. The work accomplished, we are now

576 THOMAS WILLIAMS
awakened to the fact, that the power referred to here is only
that of each House acting separately upon the qualifications of
its own members. While the Executive assumes the right him
self of founding new governments, by a new law declaring who
shall vote, and settling by telegraph the terms of their consti
tutions, he is pleased to claim, in his recent message, for these
creatures of his own — other but still the same — with their vitali
ties repaired at that fountain only — the right to resume, of course,
and without inquiry into his work or theirs, the places which,
by an ingenious fiction, they are supposed to have before held
in both branches of the national Legislature, making, as he
says, 'the work of restoration thereby complete;' while we are
instructed in terms of unusual emphasis, that then it will be
for us, 'each of us for ourselves,' to proceed to judge of the
smaller matters of the law in regard to 'the elections, returns,
and qualifications of our own members.' These instructions are,
perhaps, somewhat unusual, and possibly not that kind of infor
mation precisely to which the Constitution refers, but I do not
quarrel with them on grounds of etiquette, even though the
advice may seem gratuitous, and the jealousy of a British Par
liament might have regarded it as a breach of privilege. They
are not, it is true, exactly in accordance with the tenor of the
authorized report of Mr. Stearns, which did convey the
opinion that we might 'check these new governments at any
stage, and oblige them to confess their errors,' unless it was
intended to affirm that power only as the special prerogative of
the Executive himself. They are, however, the official utter
ances, and the apology assumes, of course, that there is no ques
tion of legislation involved. With this interpretation of its
meaning, there is nothing left to Congress, but to register the
edicts and ratify the work of the Executive. Taking it, however,
to be otherwise, they are still not less obnoxious to objection.
It may be conceded that States have been admitted here with
out any precedent legislation though none, I think, where they
were organized under the direction of the military power, and
none, certainly, without the concurrent vote of the two Houses.
By those, moreover, who think that these States were never out,
it will be insisted, in accordance with the executive idea, that
they want no recognition, and the refusal of Congress to
admit their members will be only regarded as a denial of right.
But the mere negative of either House upon the question of
their admission, is a power greatly inferior to that which pre
sides over their organization, and prescribes the law by which
the formative process is to be regulated — just as inferior as the
veto lodged by the Constitution in the hands of the Executive,

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 577
is to the initiative of the Legislature. The builders will work
according to that law, and as it prescribes, so will the structure
be. As we sow, we must expect to reap. 'Men do not gather
grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles.' Thus, if a privileged
class is to elect the delegates, their work will be in accordance
with the principle of their origin, and will be submitted — if sub
mitted at all — for approval or rejection to the same parties who
inspired it; and if the government so framed is to be recog
nized because it professes to be a representative one, the right
of declaring its whole fundamental law might as well be
accorded to the Executive, as that of declaring a part of it, and
assembling a convention to alter or amend that part. There
was no occasion, however, for experiments of this sort, whose
only tendency is to forestall the action of the legislative power,
or to bring about a mischievous conflict between the two
branches of the Government. If this is properly a legislative
— and not an executive function — as nobody can successfully
deny — the President has his veto, at all events, upon the action of
Congress. He cannot invert the order, and change the constitu
tional relation, by initiating an act of legislation, and leaving to
Congress only a negative voice thereon, particularly in a case
where the voters named by himself are expressly endowed with
the power to restore the State to its constitutional relations with
the Federal Government, and to present such form of govern
ment as will entitle it to the guaranty of the United States, and
where, of course, it is expected that their work shall be con
clusive. "It will be said, perhaps, in reply to all this, that the object
here was not to found a State government, but to allow the
legal voters of the old rigime the privilege of altering and
amending their original forms of government, so as to restore
them to their constitutional relations, and entitle them to the
benefit of the guaranty.
"It is not to be disputed that these are a part of the objects
stated in the proclamations. I will not say that this was done
by way of protest against the logical conclusion from their
premises, from the whole character of the act itself, and the
assumption of power which it involved, that the measure was a
revolutionary one — as Governor Orr admits it to have been. I
shall be excused, however, for suggesting that it was unfortu
nate that the law adviser of the Government — perhaps its politi
cal Nestor — should have overlooked in this a departure from his
own premises, that could scarcely have been excused in a junior
pleader in the Northern States. He had obviously forgotten the
recital on which these proclamations rest — the postulate that

578 THOMAS WILLIAMS
'the revolutionary progress of the rebellion had deprived these
States of all civil government whatever,' and the declaration
that the purpose of these conventions was to enable the loyal
people of these Territories, not 'to alter or amend' their consti
tutions, but 'to organize,' or construct anew, where the original
government was admitted to have perished. Whenever he shall
be able to explain how a constitution can exist in a Government
that has been altogether destroyed, or why he should have
treated the process of organisation as a mere process of repair,
I shall be glad to hear from him. The man who reaches this
conclusion from his premises, will have 'no narrow frith to
cross.' I hope I shall not be considered uncharitable, however,
in suggesting that all this inconsequential logic looks to me as if
it was the effect of an unhappy struggle to escape the conse
quences of a doctrine, which was felt to be necessary in order to
raise the power in the President, and is then discarded, after
having served that use, in order to remove the case from the
jurisdiction of Congress. It will require something more, I
think, than either the subtlety of a northern placeman, or the
exploded metaphysics of a Kentucky statesman, to reconcile any
one step in the action of the Government, with the idea of the
continuing existence of the States.
"In the same spirit, however, apparently, that prompted the
softening down of an organization into a mere question of alter
ation and amendment, there is a studied avoidance of a phrase
ology that has found acceptance here, without even provokiiig
criticism. We called this heretofore, in our simplicity, by the
harmless name of 'reconstruction.' The Attorney General pro
tests, like Bardolph, 'by this light I know not the phrase,' and
straightway our nomenclature falls into disrepute. Well, I am
ready to maintain, if necessary, in the language of the same
dramatic personage, that it is 'a very soldier-like word, and of
exceeding good command.' It is the merest hypercriticism to
object its application to the adjustment of our relations with
the revolting States ; but whatever difference there may be here,
it is impossible that there can be any dispute among scholars in
regard to its precise aptitude in describing the reorganization
of a State. The question is too big, however, to be settled in
this way. If anybody prefers the word 'restoration,' I have no
objection apart from its historical significance. It was the
phrase used on the return of the Stuarts. I hope it is not
ominous. Charles II came back without conditions, notwith
standing the efforts of Hale, who endeavored to secure them,
but was put down by the assurances of General Monk. (I hope
we are to have no General Monk in this case.) Bishop Burnet

RECONSTRUCTION" versus "restoration" 579
says that this omission was the cause of all the errors of his
reign, which it required the Revolution to cure. I know that
there is a confidence here, and a longing in some quarters, not
unlike that of the Jacobites of England, for the return of the
self-exiled royal family of the South, but I trust we are not
about to lay the foundation for another revolution by the same
mistake. Apart from this, I repeat that I am indifferent as to
the word. It is sufficient for me that it implies, if not destruc
tion, at least derangement — disturbance — displacement. The
revolting States have, by a new law, deflected from their orbits,
gathered round a new center, and ceased to compose a part of
our system, or to be obedient to its law. They want renewal or
regeneration. They require to be brought back by an interior
adjustment that will reinstate the law that has been broken.
They are in the system, and compose a part of it only de jure.
Nobody can say that they are there in point of fact, because that
would contradict not only our knowledge, but our senses. Some
thing, it -is admitted on all hands, must be done to re-establish
their relations with the Union. They cannot do it themselves.
Nobody pretends that by the mere repeal of their secession
ordinances they can resume their places here — as they might do
if they have not withdrawn — in virtue of their original title, and
with all their rights and privileges unabridged. Their Legisla
tures have been even forbidden to assemble. The Executive
thinks that by their act of treason the citizens consenting thereto
have forfeited their highest political right — that of self-govern
ment — and that to this extent their constitutions — not as they
stand now, but as they stood before the rebellion — are practically
abrogated. He thinks, too, obviously, that by their abdication or
dereliction — as in the case of James II — the sovereignty has
lapsed — but not to us. A committee of the last House insisted
that it returned to the conquered people. He claims it for him
self, and accordingly sets aside their Legislatures, Governors,
and judges, reconstitutes the body-politic, declares who shall be
its members, and appoints a provisional governor to keep the
peace, and call the privileged parties together to organize a
new government. And all this is called amendment, upon the
ingenious suggestion that they are to build on the substratum
of their dead constitutions ! No cunning phraseology — no arti
fice of words — however, can change the nature of a thing. The
re-enactment of a part of an abrogated law, either with or with
out addition, is no amendment. They might as well have taken
the constitution of Pennsylvania to work upon, and in either
case the product would have been a new constitution.

580 THOMAS WILLIAMS
"But why so studiously insist on the avoidance of other
phraseology than this? Because, as it is urged, although the
people of a State may destroy their government, it still subsists
in gremio legis, or, in the language of the message, following that
of an ingenious southern Governor, 'in abeyance,' or, as lawyers
would phrase it, in the clouds — on the charitable hypothesis that
suicide is impossible, because it is forbidden, and, therefore, by
a pleasant fiction, all those pregnant acts that have scarred a
continent with fire, and covered it with ruins, are simply void,
and to be ignored as nullities. And this we are now informed
by the Executive is 'the true theory.' It is undoubtedly the
convenient one — for the traitors — because it furnishes no solu
tion of the great problem of the times, except in the surrender
of all control over the rebellious States, and the restoration of
their people, without conditions, and with absolute immunity
for all their crimes. Why it is the true one, he has not vouch
safed to show. I know, of course, that the high functionary who
dispenses the patronage of such an empire as this is not always
expected to render a reason when he chooses to dogmatize, and
that, in the view of but too many of the leaders of public opinion,
it is impossible for such a man to err. With a practice, how
ever, so entirely at variance with this theory, and an admission,
too, in the same breath, that 'the policy of military rule over a
conquered territory' — the very rule under which all that region
has been governed, and all these States reconstructed during
the recess of Congress — 'would have implied that, by the act
of their inhabitants, they had ceased to exist,' it would not have
been unreasonable to expect an explanation of the course that
has been actually pursued within the jurisdiction of independent
States, that enjoyed the rare advantage — unhappily denied to our
race — of being incapable of sin, and equally unobnoxious to the
penalty of death. The only answer that he could have made
would have been that the doctrine, although good as a theory,
was good for nothing else, because it would not work, and was
utterly inadmissible in practice. The State, however, in the
judgment of the President, still lives, with only an 'impaired
vitality,' although its government has been destroyed. It is dead,
to be sure, as Lazarus ; in no mere trance, where the vital forces
are still holding the organization together, but with all its ele
ments putrescent or decomposed; but then there is a power in
the Executive, beyond the kingly touch that purged the leprous
taint from the blood of the believing, that can awaken it from
the sleep of death, lead it forth in its grave-clothes, tide it safely
over the frith of a four years' rebellion, and bridge over the
unfathomable gulf that during all this time has divided it from

"reconstruction" versus "'restoration" 581
the living! Yes, while it is admitted again and again that the
old State governments were lost beyond even the means of self-
resurrection, this modern Phoenix is supposed by some mysteri
ous conveyance, by some metempsychosis unknown to the
philosophers of Greece or the priesthood of the Nile, and only
rivaled by the imposture of the Grand Lama himself, to have
inherited the vital breath of the defunct State government,
though that State government — dead to us, if not dead altogether
— has transmigrated into the confederacy, and now lies buried
among its ruins. But let us examine this new revelation.
"If the acts done by these States had involved only a ques
tion of excess of power, as in the case of a law enacted by a
State Legislature in violation of the fundamental law, this view
of the case might have derived support from the doctrine that
prevails in such cases. Here, however, the fundamental law
itself was changed by the very power that enacted it. Whether
rightfully or not, in view of their Federal relations, is not now
the question. It is sufficient that they did, in point of fact,
erect new governments upon the ruins of the old. And this,
although it had been expressly forbidden, could not, in the nature
of things, be prevented. There was nothing in the Constitution
of the United States that could hinder the perpetration of an act
either of treason or suicide. They might have allowed their
governments to perish by omitting to supply their integral
members, or they might have withdrawn — as they did — from the
Federal connection by entering into other alliances, disclaiming
its authority, and refusing to obey its law, or take any part in
the administration of its affairs. All this they did, and more.
It was the act of the people themselves. There was no inter
regnum. They carried their constitutions into their new rela
tions — changed, it is true, in this particular, but still republican
in form. They might have changed them into monarchies. Their
new establishments are now overthrown. But how is this to
revive others that are admitted to have previously perished?
Nobody pretends that it could. The proclamations themselves
admit that they have been left without governments, and without
means of recovery except at the hands of the Executive. Can
it be truly said, then, that any portion of the original structure
was rescued from the general wreck? If there was, then how
much, and who shall declare it? True, one of the objects stated
is to enable them to restore themselves. But does anybody
insist that they can do it ? Is this consistent with the grounds on
which the proclamations rest ? If they can, what is to be said in
apology for executive interference? If they can, what is to be
said of the other object declared in these instruments, which is

582 THOMAS WILLIAMS
'to enable the people of those States to present such forms of
government as will entitle them to the benefit of the constitu
tional guaranty, by restoring them to their constitutional rela
tions, and their people, therefore, to protection from invasion,
insurrection, and domestic violence ?' What does all this mean ?
If they were States in the Union, it required no process of
organization or restoration, to confer on them the advantage of
these rights, because they were entitled to them already by the
very letter of the Constitution. It is because they are not—
because they have been 'deprived of all civil government what
ever'— that the President proposes to make them so, and to
endow them with these rights anew, by reannexing and bringing
them again into the Federal connection — from which they have
been confessedly detached — upon a new title, by his own act, and
without any agency of ours. It is a confession of outlawry,
which no legal acumen, no ingenuity of phrase, can explain
away, and it is worse than idle to quibble upon forms of expres
sion in the face of such an admission.
"But supposing these State constitutions to be still in force,
as they existed antecedently to the passage of the several ordi
nances of secession, on the ground that all that has been enacted
since in violation of the Federal law was simply void, what
then was the occasion for any amendment, and whence does the
President derive his authority to interfere at all, and to change
the law as it stood before, even on the subject of amendments?
In that case they may return, of course, whenever they think
proper, without any legislation whatever. Why await the repeal
of an act that is absolutely void ? What is to prevent them from
coming back with their constitutions as they are ? Taking it to
be a question of amendment only, it is clearly in their discre
tion to amend or not; and if they are still in the Union, there
is no power here or elsewhere to say what amendments they
shall make, or that they shall not resume their places here with
out alteration of any sort. The executive branch of the Govern
ment admits, however, that something must be done to restore
these outlaws to their original status in the Union. The war
has resulted, as we agree in thinking, in the emancipation of the
slave, and the destruction of the elective franchise along with
the government ; and these things must be in some way acknowl
edged. They are unquestionably forfeitures; but should they
refuse to recognize them, that refusal would, on his hypothesis,
constitute no sufficient reason for excluding them. The ques
tion of the effect of the proclamation of freedom is one that
belongs to the courts, and you cannot draw it within the juris
diction of Congress or the President, except by assuming that

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 583
these States are out and must be formally readmitted. In that
case you may prescribe terms. Without that you must open
when they knock, without inquiry as to their constitutions, with
which you will then have nothing to do. To stipulate for the
acknowledgment of these things, is but to treat for their read-
mission on that basis, and amounts to no more or less than a
compromise with a belligerent; and they may reject the condi
tions, because you can impose no terms of amendment upon
them. "Taking it, however, that their constitutions do require to
be amended for these purposes, how is this work to be done?
Not by executive direction certainly. The President has no
more power to set up a new class of electors in South Carolina
than in Massachusetts. There is but one way, and that is in
accordance with the law which they prescribe themselves, which
must have survived if any part of their constitutions did. The
process which ignores that law, as the proclamations do, is
radical and revolutionary, and is no less in effect than absolute
reconstruction. The sovereign power of the people may act in
this way undoubtedly, but when it does there is an end of the
existing government.
"A word now as to the answer that all this was intended
only to allow to the people the privilege of doing this work
themselves. "If the object had been only to keep the peace for the pur
pose of allowing these people to decide whether they would
erect a new government, and apply for readmission into the
Union, nobody would have complained, although the necessity
for interfering in this way was conclusive that they were not
in a condition to exercise these rights, and that the act was not
a voluntary one. But they were not asking the privilege of
coming back again. It was not essential that they should come,
until they were ready for it. It was essential that when they
did, it should be of their own pure volition. To compel it, was
as impracticable as it was undesirable. And yet the essence of
the proclamations is a command. They are not permissive but
imperative. The people might not be ready, but that made no
difference. If any of them failed, it was a default. The right
to vote was not a privilege, but a duty. The white men, who
were loyal and would take the oath, must reconstruct their
governments at all events. It is idle to say, therefore, that this
was a mere indulgence to their prayers. It went in advance of
the wishes of the people, and this is the construction placed upon
it by the highest intelligences of the South.

584 THOMAS WILLIAMS
"And now as to the way in which the power claimed by the
Executive has been exercised.
"If the function were a purely executive one, it could not
go, of course, beyond the mere permission for the assemblage
of conventions, and the pledge of protection to the citizen in the
exercise of this privilege. To favor classes — to proclaim that
this or that citizen should not be allowed to vote — was some
thing more than an executive act. In the case of a civil disso
lution and the absence of all government, such as the proclama
tions admit, all were, of course, remitted to that natural
equality which is recognized in the Declaration of Independ
ence, and had only been suspended by force of the civil institu
tions which had then ceased to exist. The right of the negro,
whether previously bond or free, was in that condition of things,
as perfect as that of the white man, and the latter had no more
right to say to the former that he should not vote, than the
former had to hold the same language to him. All privileges
of caste or complexion that existed under their old constitutions
were gone along with the constitutions themselves. And this is
in accordance with the doctrine everywhere received throughout
this nation, where all limitations upon this right, except those
which depend on condition only, are the results of express
enactment. It was no question, therefore, of grace or favor
or indulgence, and it cannot, of course, be said in excuse for the
prohibition, that it was not competent for the Executive to con
fer the privilege on this particular class. It was not his to
confer on anybody, either white or black. If he had left the
election to the citizens who owed allegiance, paid taxes, and
were subject to bear arms, they must have voted without dis
tinction of color. The only question was — not whether he could
confer it — ^but whether he could take it away. He has taken it
away from others— from all who were not qualified under the
old constitutions, and from all who are disloyal, or refuse the
oath to support the laws and proclamations in regard to slavery.
The old governments with their black codes, which were the
Iruitful nurseries of treasonable sentiment, and have destroyed
themselves by hurrying their people into the rebellion, are
allowed to furnish the rule and standard of electoral fitness, on
the hypothesis that there is something left of them that still
lives, like the tail of a defunct reptile after the very life has
been crushed out of its body, and are only to undergo alteration
and repair at the hands of the same cunning workman who had
destroyed their machinery altogether. It is the same class pre
cisely that is to renovate the work. True, it is with the condi
tion of loyalty, and a new oath, superadded. But what are

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 585
these ? Who are the loyal ? Not certainly those who committed
treason against the nation by waging war against it, or giving
aid and counsel to its enemies? But if they are excluded, who
are to be the voters, when the only class that proved true to its
allegiance, is precisely the one which was excluded under the
old regime that it is now sought to restore? How many of the
original voters, beyond those who were driven into exile, have
stood by the old flag in the hour of our trial? Was it a rnajority
— was it even a tithe ? Can there be as many such men found as
would have saved Sodom from destruction ? We know that there
cannot, because we know that they would not have been toler
ated on southern soil. We know it, too, from the declaration
of the Governor of Virginia, that unless the law that disfranchised
the traitors only from January, 1864, was repealed, there would
not be men enought left to organize the State. And is it seri
ously proposed that the power of erecting governments, in order
to enable these States to resume their places in the Union, shall
be vested in a score of men out of a population counting by
millions? But how is the question of loyalty to be determined?
Not by the oath, because that is merely cumulative, and is not
offered either as a test, or by way of purgation for past offenses.
If as a test, the word might as well have been omitted altogether.
How then? Is there a virtue in the amnesty which works not
only oblivion for the past, but converts a pardoned traitor into
a loyal man? Is it by judgment of law on conviction of crime?
Is it by attainder on proclamation by the Executive ? Is it
by a trial in pais or by compurgators at the hustings? If the
old constitutions are still in force, either by construction of law
or by virtue of the proclamations, the exclusion even of those
who may be impeached of disloyalty, looks amazingly like the
forfeiture of a legal franchise, without judgment and without
law, and is too high a power to be exercised by any other than
the sovereign.
"But there is another condition superadded, by way of
abridgment of the right; and that is the exaction, even from
the loyal, of the oath to support the proclamations and laws
relating to slavery. No friend of the country will of course
object to any wholesome limitations upon the privilege; but if it
was not competent to the President — not to confer, but only to
permit it — to the black man, what authority was there to limit
it in this way to the white man? Neither the Constitution of
the United States, nor that of any of the States, has ever
required an oath of this sort from the voter. If he could
impose this, what was there to prevent him from swearing them
to the observance of all acts of Congress and all proclamations.

586 THOMAS WILLIAMS
or requiring them to swear that they had never given any aid
or countenance to the rebellion? If he could disfranchise the
unconvicted traitor, what was there to prevent him from enfran
chising the loyal man who has become free? But what is the
security which it furnishes? How long is the obligation to
endure? Did it bind the members of the conventions? And
if these bodies have defined the qualification in a different way,
are the voters now free?
"The programme is in effect to recommit these governments
to the hands of the very men who hurried them into the rebel
lion, upon the sole condition of a new obligation of fealty, after
having just broken a previous one, and to abandon the field to
the conquered as soon as it is won ! Was ever such a denouement
to such a drama ? But is there anybody in the loyal States, who
is willing to release all the securities, all the rights and advan
tages acquired by the war, and prescribe no terms to those
whose lips have just been dyed with perjury, and whose
hands are still dripping with the blood of our butchered sons,
except a renewal of their already broken vows, which they will
make voluntarily, and then claim to have no binding force
because they have been made under a sort of duress, on the
ethics taught by a distinguished casuist of Maryland? What
kind of a test is this for a statesman? Would any rational
Government on earth be content with such a caution ? Who does
not know its utter worthlessness ? What is it but the flaxen tie
that bound the wrists of the Hebrew champion? What is its
value, in view of the events of the rebellion that have now passed
into history? How is our past experience? Have these people
ever kept faith with us? Did it hold any of the rebel leaders
who filled employments either civil or military under the Fed
eral Government, or under those of the revolting States? Was
not perjury exalted into honor of the highest chivalric type;
children taught by their own Southern mothers, that they were
under no obligation to keep faith with Yankees, and that
they might swear and forswear themselves again and again, to
save their persons or their property ; and the very highest species
of the crimen falsi canonized even by the tender and admiring
regards of Northern generals and Northern statesmen? It may
be safely assumed, as a general proposition, that those who were
most forward to abjure their sworn allegiance here, will be the
first to violate their new-made vows, by swearing themselves
back again into legislative honors and governmental favors. But
will you consent to turn over the few Union white men, and your
thousands of faithful allies among the blacks, to the tender
mercies of these unconverted and unrepentant rebels, and bring

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 587
them back again into these Halls, on pledges of fidelity that
amount at last to no more than an engagement not to repeat an
experiment, against which you will now want no other security
than the recollection of your power? If you are wise you will
not be content with any assurances that are either purchased
by interest, or extorted by necessity. You will render it impos
sible for them, to deceive you again, by refusing to trust them,
until they shall have re-established their title to your confidence.
Security is more important to you than punishment, ay, even
than the demands of justice. Others may do as they please,
but as for me, I must beg to be excused from giving my faith
to these new-fledged neophytes — these unbaptized renegades —
until they have stripped to the skin, and bathed themselves
thoroughly in the waters of regeneration.
"But, supposing this guarantee be a merely executive func
tion, how does the manner of performance square with the
object sought to be attained? The obligation is to assure a
government that shall be republican. The meaning of this is
that it shall be a government of the people. The process
adopted, in direct contravention of the principles of the mes
sage, is to lodge the power in the hands of a privileged class —
the same that held it before — distinguishable only by the acci
dent of color, along with a disloyalty to the Union that was
almost universal, and composing, in some instances, a minority
of the whole population. Does this look like a fulfillment of
the obligation, or even squint in that direction? The form, it
is true, may be republican, because it looks to representation by
election. But that is not the test. If it were, every constitu
tional monarchy in Europe might be brought within the cate
gory. It is the distinction of classes — the permanent limita
tion of the right of suffrage to a favored few — that makes the
difference between the aristocratic and republican forms, and
there is none other. In this case, the right is confined to the
loyal white man who will take the oath. This, however, if not
an oligarchy or government of the few, is at least an aristocracy
or government of classes, and furnishes a perfect exemplifica
tion of just that species of legislation, which is so earnestly
reprobated in those passages of the message, where the Presi
dent informs us that 'this Government springs from and was
made for the people;' that 'it should, from the very considera
tion of its origin, be strong in its power of resistance against
the estabhshment of inequalities;' that 'monopolies, perpetuities,
and class legislation are contrary to the genius of a free Gov
ernment, and ought not to be allowed;' that 'here there is no
room for favored classes or monopolies;' and that 'we shall

588 THOMAS WILLIAMS
fulfill our duties as legislators, by according equal and exact
justice to all men, special privileges to none.' If I have found
occasion to commend his practice, at the expense of his theory,
upon the question of State sinlessness and State immortality,
subscribing as I do most heartily to these axioms of political
science, I shall feel myself compelled to adjust the account, by
following his advice in opposition to his practice here. 'Class
legislation,' and 'special privileges' of a sovereign character,
are the distinguishing features of his plan, and it is, therefore, by
the erection of an aristocracy, that the guarantee of a republic
is to be made good !
"Whether these States be in the Union or riot, it is conceded
by the Executive, in the effort to provide them with republican
governments, that they are now without them; and this, I sup
pose, for the reason that they have no governments at all. The
same result, however, would have followed from the change
in the condition of the slave. A Government that not only
denies to a majority, or even a large portion of its free citi
zens, the privilege of any share in its administration, but rejects
their testimony as witnesses, interdicts to them the acquisition
of knowledge, or refuses the advantages of the marital relation,
is not republican, and the men who have made these laws, and
insist on maintaining them now, will never make it so. Mr.
Burke remarks that, taking the State to mean 'the whole com
monwealth, with all its orders, and all the rights appertaining
to each,' 'to be under the State, but not the ^tate itself, or any
part of it — that is, to be nothing at all in the^ commonwealth —
is a condition of civil servitude by the very force of the defini
tion. Servorum non est respublica is a very old and a very true
maxim. The servitude that makes men subject to a State,
without being citizens, may be more or less tolerable from many
circumstances, but these circumstances do not alter the nature
of the thing.' And this he regards as a modified form of
slavery; while 'the exclusion of whole classes of men from the
higher or ruling part of the commonwealth, as in the case
where a hereditary nobility possesses the exclusive rule, is only
held to imply a lower and degraded state of citizenship. But
even there it is only the office, and not the franchise, that is
denied to the subject.'
" 'Our constitution,' he continues, 'was not made for great,
general, or proscriptive exclusions. Sooner or later it will
destroy them, or they will destroy the constitution. In our con
stitution there has always been a difference between a franchise
and an office, and between the capacity for the one and for the
other. Franchises are supposed to belong to the subject as a

"reconstruction" vcrsiis "restoration" 589
subject, and not as a member of the governing part of the State.
The policy of the Government has considered them as things
very different; for when Parliament excluded by the test acts
Protestant dissenters from all civil and military employment,
they never touched their right of voting for members of Parlia
ment, or sitting in either House' — both these being treated by
him as franchises of which the subject could not be deprived. In
a republic, however, there is no proper distinction between
the governing part and the subject, and the office, of course,
would stand on the same ground as the franchise.
''An American statesman of the present day would say, per
haps, that the elective franchise, the most important of them all,
is not the property of the citizen, because it is not a natural
right, but a political one. I have heard such language here,
even on this side of the House, again and again. I am too dull
to comprehend the distinction. I take it that all governmental
agencies, all political contrivances and privileges, are but the
machinery for the protection of the great natural rights of
humanity, which protection is admitted by the Declaration itself
to be the only legitimate object of all government. Why are
our institutions free? Because they allow to you and me the
privilege of governing ourselves. Why am I a freeman? For
no other reason than because I am armed with the ballot for
my own protection as a citizen. Strip me of that and I am at
your mercy. You may deal gently with me, it is true — and so
might the Sultan of Turkey — but that makes no difference. I am
still the slave of your caprice, and my rights and happiness may
depend, like your temper, on the state of your digestion. You
may designate this franchise by what name you please, but you
cannot refine it away by verbal distinctions or scholastic subtle
ties — by calling it political or giving to it any other nomencla
ture. You might as well deny me all the rights of a citizen,
because they are all political, as deny me that one — the most
important of them all — which is essential to the protection of the
residue. Nor can you pilfer it from me by the jugglery of
assigning to it the distinction of a prerogative or privilege. I
know no prerogatives here, and no privileges that are not, or at
least ought not to be common to us all. The message itself
reprobates a subterfuge like this, when it asserts the great
repubhcan idea of 'equal rights for all, special privileges to
none.' No : you must either settle the principle that this is a
white man's Government alone, or you must share all your
political rights with men of all complexions who inhabit among
you. The Democrats, par excellence, who love slavery for its
own sake, and do not of course favor the doctrines of either

590 THOMAS WILLIAMS
liberty or equality as to the black man, accept the alternative
that this is a white man's Government — as does the President
himself in his one-sided argument with the dusky committee
that waited on him a day or two ago, in declining to answer as
to South Carolina, assuming that they are not a portion of the
people, and advising them to emigrate from the country which
he had previously declared to be their own — and are therefore
consistent and logical in denying the suffrage to the negro, as
they are in favoring the policy that ignores the war, and seeks
to rehabilitate the aristocracy of the South. I wish I could say
as much for the Union party as a whole on this floor. Gentle
men of that faith are without apology when they agree with
them in either.
"The proclamation has made the negro nominally free. He
counts in the representation. He pays taxes, and must bear
arms if necessary, and he has done it. No sensible man now
pretends to doubt that he is a citizen, or can doubt it in view
of these considerations. The interference of the Executive is put
expressly on the ground of the obligation of the national author
ity to secure a republican form of government to each of the
States. To effect this, it is essential that a majority should be
allowed to enjoy the political right of governing, and that all
should share alike in its direction. To put any class under the
State, would be to deprive them of the rights of citizens, and
to reduce them, in the words of the authority just cited, to a
state of civil servitude. It is essential, moreover, that it should
rest, in the language of the Declaration, on 'the consent of the
governed.' An establishment that does not conform to these
principles is not republican, whether the power be lodged with
the oligoi or the aristoi. No matter as to its forms. We are not
to be cheated by appearances or names. It was something more
than the mere form that the Constitution intended to secure.
And yet the process here ignores all these things, and rests
either upon the dimmest perceptions of free government, or
upon the southern theory that the negro is not a man, or that
this Government was only intended for white men. If the
proposition were to exclude all men of Celtic blood, what a
sensation would it not produce among the Democracy? If the
difference, however, is only against the African, consistency
would require that he should also be excluded from the enumer
ation hereafter. With the end of the 'divine institution,' the
three-fifths clause, which stipulated for a representation — not
of or for him, who was not then a man — ^but for his master, has
ceased to operate. If the freed slave is now a citizen, he has
a right to all the privileges, as he is confessedly subject to all

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 591
the duties which that relation involves. If instead of rising
from the fractional value to that of an integer, he is no longer
a member of the State, he must cease to owe any other than
a domiciliary allegiance, and the idea of a representation founded
on his existence here, must be exploded forever. And from this
dilemma there is no escape. If he is a citizen, the elective fran
chise is his right. If he is not, representation on that basis is
logically inadmissible.
"The effect of the oligarchic process is to reinstate the
governing class as it was before, without any check upon it.
This we cannot afford to do. There is, fortunately for us, a
loyal element among them, that has helped us to bring them
back, and may be used to keep the peace — not by either arming
or disarming it — but by the restoration of a mere right, which
is essential to its protection as well as our own. It is a happy
circumstance that the measure of security required by the people
of the loyal States, is precisely that which the Constitution has
imposed on us as a duty. The obligation is to guaranty to every
State in this Union a republican form of government. If 'the
whole commonwealth, comprehending all its orders, with the
privileges belonging to each,' is not republican, we are bound to
make it so, and are endowed by the Constitution with all the
powers necessary for that purpose. But how are these powers
to be exercised? Not by the President, because he cannot pre
scribe the terms. Not by a mere refusal on the part of Con
gress to admit, because that would be a refusal to perform —
but by an act of legislation, which it will be only the duty of
the President to enforce. It is a, narrow view of this duty which
gives to it a merely negative character, such as to put down a
usurpation, or drive out a tyrannical majority. There is a posi
tive obligation to warrant or make sure to all the people, a
republican form of government; and here is the power that has
been sought for so diligently under the law of war, to deal with
the conquered territories in such a way as to secure to all their
loyal people the rights to which they would be entitled under a
republican form of government, and to protect the Union itself
from all future disturbance. These States are without govern
ments of any sort — those which existed and were disloyal having
been overthrown. It is our constitutional duty to supply them
with new ones of a republican character, and to provide that
none other shall be erected. If their black population— if a
majority of their loyal inhabitants— nay, if a mere minority
demand the fulfillment of this guaranty, by insisting that we
shall provide them with a government that shall admit them to
the rights of citizenship, and be at least partly within their

592 THOMAS WILLIAMS
own control, we cannot evade the performance by the plea of
a want of constitutional power. The declaration of the duty
gives it to us, with all the incidental means. That duty
is not denied; but we have wielded the sword so long to
enforce the law, that many people have come to the con
clusion that there is no other weapon for such a case, when in
point of fact it is clearly inadequate to this part of the work,
and the power of the Legislature is the only one that can suc
cessfully accomplish it. It is undoubtedly in accordance with
our practice, as it is with the spirit of our institutions, that it
should be left to the people themselves, in the first place, to
be performed by them in that condition of freedom which our
arms have given them. But if they will not do this of their own
accord — if the class that has been accustomed to rule, will insist
on holding the rein and denying to their fellows, even to a
respectable minority of them, the rightful privilege of citizens
under a republic — I know no possible way of meeting the case,
but by interposing ourselves and prescribing a fundamental law
for the occasion. It will not be enough, as I have already
remarked, to refuse the Congressmen who may apply on terms
that are inadmissible to us. That would be only a denial of
justice to the disfranchised which might prove indefinite,
instead of the fulfillment of an admitted obligation. If there be
any limitation of the right of suffrage it must come from the
supreme authority, which is here. There is no power elsewhere,
and certainly none in a society that is yet in a state of chaos,
formless and void, and with nothing but darkness brooding over
it. That authority, it is true, might well disfranchise individuals,
such as the traitors themselves, for an enormous crime which
showed that they could not be safely trusted with so important
a function. It could not, however, proscribe a whole class, com
prising a majority of the loyal people, all native to the soil and
impeached of no crime, merely because they had black skins or
woolly hair, without violating the essential principles of repub
licanism, and laying the foundations of an aristocratic govern
ment. No argument could defend it, except on the judicial
hypothesis that the race so excluded had no rights at all that a
white man was bound to respect ; which would be fatal of course,
as already shown, to the whole principle of representation as
applied to it. But this hypothesis has no foundation in our early
history of practice. The founders of this Government never
dreamed of such a distinction. The great charter of our fathers
had before affirmed the equality of all men. It was not race or
color, but condition, that created the constitutional disability.
The slave, of course, could not, in the nature of things, be

"reconstruction" versus '"restoration" 593
admitted to the privileges of a citizen, because that would have
been inconsistent with his condition. Everybody else was
counted, except the Indian who paid no taxes — an incarnation,
by the way, of the revolutionary formula, stereotyped on the
hearts of the colonists, that condensed the causes of their
struggle into two memorable and mighty words. The notion
that a taint of African blood, or any diversity of complexion,
was a disqualifying feature, is a purely modern invention, which
is but the growth of that barbarous and unnatural system that
has debauched the moral sentiment, and left in many minds only
the feeblest conceptions of rational freedom. The free negro
voted originally almost everywhere. It was a consequence only
of his unquestioned citizenship. To admit him, it did not require
a special grant, by the insertion of the word 'black' in any
republican constitution. To exclude him it did require the
insertion of the word 'white.' The only color that the framers
of the Constitution seem to have ostracised is the red. But even
here, it excepted the tax-payer, and was by a designation of
race. They had sense enough to know that a principle of exclu
sion resting on so uncertain a basis as color, would be unfitted
for any constitution.
"Apart, however, from the considerations already stated,
there are special reasons in the present case for insisting that
the guaranty shall be fulfilled in good faith; and these are, to
recompense the black man for his unwavering loyalty in the hour
of trial, to afford him the means of self -protection in the enjoy
ment of the rights he has so richly earned, and if these are not
enough, to protect ourselves against any future disturbance from
the same arrogant and presumptuous class which has just been
chastised into a decent respect for ourselves, and a reluctant
submission to our laws.
"We began the war by repelling the black man and return
ing him to his master; by doing everything, in short, to alienate
him from ourselves, and prove to him that he had nothing to
expect from us; and this was called statesmanship! If ever a
people deserved to be chastised, it was ourselves, for the ineffa
ble baseness and fatuity which refused the aid of the negro, and
sent a hundred thousand white men to die, rather than wound
the pride, or harm the property of an enemy! We failed to
drive him from our support even by the unkindest usage. When
we plunged within the storm-cloud that overhung the South,
and concealed everything from outside view, we were not long
in discovering that the white skin was everywhere synonymous
with the traitor heart, and that wherever we could meet a black
man we were sure to find a friend. He took our soldier by the

594 THOMAS WILLIAMS
hand, led him through the outposts, pointed out the secret path,
traveled with him by night, shared his last crust with him, and
baffled the bloodhounds that were on his track. As the war pro
gressed, we began to find that with such an auxiliary against
us, success was impossible. We made him free. But still we
could not lift him into the position of a soldier, which was a
privilege of caste in ancient times. People who foresaw that
the step was an easy one from the soldier to the citizen — them
selves of craven hearts and more slaves than he — insisted that
he was like his detractors, loved his chains, and was a coward
by instinct, and that the white soldier was a fool, who would
throw down his arms if you sent him an auxiliary whose skin
was not quite as fair as his own. You listened and believed.
But by and by, impelled by necessity, you allowed your brave
and right-thinking Secretary of War to arm him quietly. You
rather winked at, than encouraged it; and before long the truth
blazed upon you from the trenches of Port Hudson that the
black man was in your ranks. He has now added to the title
that God Almighty gave him, a claim upon your gratitude. How
do you propose to pay it?
"Nothing is clearer than that you have made the privilege
of the ballot necessary for his protection, by making him
nominally free, and using him to put down the rebellion of his
master. That master will not soon forget the infidelity of the slave
on whom he relied, or the humiliation that the proud chivalry
has suffered at the hands of its own born thralls. Even the
bond of interest that compelled him to treat that slave with
kindness, because he was his money, is now broken. Unable
to wreak his baffled vengeance upon you, he longs to pay back
the debt he owes you, by visiting his impotent malice upon the
humble instrument of your triumph, and proving to the world
the truth of what he has so often told it, that you have only
made his condition worse by elevating him to freedom. He begs
you to withdraw your black troops. He wishes to be relieved
from your authority, by being allowed to resume his place in
the Union which he hates. For this, he is willing to recognize
the results of the war in the nominal emancipation of the slave,
if you will leave him subject to his authority, without rights of
citizenship, and without any security for the practical enjoy
ment of the liberty you have given him. He can afford to make
this offer, and others, which the Executive hails as unexpected
evidence of progress — because he cannot help it. The only sur
prise to me is, that on such an invitation the whole South did
not rush incontinently into the executive embrace. But will you
accept it? If you do, what is your gift of freedom to the black

' reconstruction" versus "restoration" 595
man? It is but 'the Dead sea fruit, that tempts the eye but
turns to ashes on the lips.' What will you have done for 'the ward
of the Republic,' as he was characterized by our generous and
noble-minded martyr President, if he is to pass into the condi
tion of a Pariah, and to accept such terms as his humbled and
exasperated master may impose on him? You will only have
mocked him with the mirage of liberty to make his condition
tenfold worse than it was before. Is this the fulfillment of your
plighted faith ? Was it your purpose only 'to keep the word of
promise to the ear, and break it to the hope ?' It was the very
refinement of cruelty to have inspired such hopes, only to disap
point them. Better, far better, have left the miserable victim
of your guile to the slavery in which you found him, content,
perhaps, with his condition, and dreaming of no change, than
thus to lift him from the earth, only to dash him down again
under the feet of his oppressor. Better for yourselves, too — for
your present credit and your future fame — if you had declined
his services altogether. The world, in that case, would only
have regarded us as fools. It will now justly point its finger of
scorn at the Government which was capable of the meanness of
turning its back on the benefactor to whom it appealed, and
appealed successfully, in the hour of its sore distress. What is
this but trusting the lamb to the vulture? Will the governing
class, to whose tender mercies you are expected to turn him
over, because they understand his nature and his interests better
than you do, ever suffer him to rise from his degraded condi
tion? What is your experience already on this point? What
earnest, what foretaste, what assurances do these men give you
of future reformation, even now that the motives for good
behavior are so exigent and overwhelming? The condition of
the black man as a slave disqualified him as a witness against
the master race, who were thus practically in the exercise of a
power that placed his person and his life at the mercy of his
paler brother. He is now free. Without this privilege, he has
no rights that a white man can be compelled to respect. It is
essential to his security. No court within the wide area of
civilization would exclude him, or any other man, from the wit
ness stand on the ground of race or color. If admitted, and
untruthful, as they insist he is, his credibility is still a question
for a jury of white men. And yet with this advantage, this
badge of servitude is still insisted on, and instead of closing the
courts of justice — if they deserve that name, where evidence is
excluded on system, and the tribunal of a Turkish cadi would
be ashamed — the Federal Government submits to the humiliating
necessity of withdrawing all controversies, wherever the rights

596 THOMAS WILLIAMS
of a negro are involved — ignoring those wherein his testimony
might be required between white men — within a special jurisdic
tion of its own, while it allows these people to make constitu
tions, just to enable them to escape its power, and do their own
will in such particulars as these, as though they were really
free of our rule, and could be safely trusted with the perform
ance of such a work! But how is it in regard to the marital
relation, with all its incidents ? How as to education and prep
aration for the ballot? Have the schools been thrown open to
him ? Is he free to work on his own terms, to acquire property,
to go about wherever his interests or inclination may lead him,
and to seek employment at such wages as he can fairly earn —
or IS he still subject to condemnation as a vagrant, and sale or
apprenticeship for fines and jail fees? What says the official
report of General Schurz, the result of a long and extended tour,
which is so mysteriously ignored, while in the face of its authen
tic and overwhelming testimony, the President is relinquishing
our blood-bought conquests to the enemy, without even taking
the advice of Congress, though now sitting at the capital, and
proving the tranquillity of the South by the result of a five
days' sojourn in three of its principal towns, which developed
the fact that black troops could not be employed to advantage
because it would be necessary to accumulate them in large
bodies for their own protection ? How is it in Mississippi, where
the local militia are already stripping the negro of the arms
purchased from you as cherished heir-looms — dear memorials —
consecrated by the war of liberty, and stained, perhaps, with
their own blood, spilt in your own defense, or with the blood
of the discomfited barbarians who are now so valorously dis
arming them? How is it in Tennessee ? How in Virginia? It
is not the overthrow of the rebellion, but of the abolitionists
of the North, that constitutes the inspiring and exultant theme
of the Speaker of its House of Delegates. He thanks God that
Virginia can still trample on the rights of the black man,
because, as he thinks — and as the Executive thinks of all these
States — she has never been out of the Union. How, then, 'is the
condition of the negro improved by emancipation, under a
policy that cuts him off from the enjoyment of all protection in
person or property, and is intended obviously to keep him in the
bonds of servitude, and to prove to the world that the real
victory is theirs, and that your boon of freedom was only a
cheat and a delusion? What is there to prevent the re-enact
ment of the whole black code in any of these States as soon as
they shall have been relieved from our control by readmission
into the Union upon the terms of the Executive? If you object

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 597
—ay, even to the imprisonment of a northern seaman— you will
be told as formerly, that these are matters of State regulation
only. Will you appeal to the courts or send embassadors to
Charleston to negotiate an amicable submission? They will
set your courts at defiance, and drive you out with scorn and
contumely, as they did before, and the Democracy of the North
will clap their hands and exult over your discomfiture. Is the
peace of the country to be secured in this way? You have
carried the cup of freedom to the lips of the black man and he
has drunk of it. If you would make of him a peaceful citizen,
and an obedient member of the State, you must protect him in
the enjoyment of the liberty you have given him. To do this,
it is only necessary to invest him with the defensive armor of
the ballot. That will secure to him the consideration of the
white man. That will make it the interest of the superior
classes to cultivate him. That will educate him into an intelli
gent acquaintance with his duties. That will secure peace and
harmony to the land. The black man has shown himself to be
as docile, gentle, and humane, as he has approved himself loyal
and brave. He will make a valuable citizen if fairly dealt with.
But remember ! he is a man, who has tasted liberty, and felt the
glow of an unaccustomed manhood, as his pulse danced with a
new inspiration, when he looked up at the folds of your starry
banner on the perilous edge of the battle. Beware how you
allow these men, who have never yet learned, and never will
learn anything, to trample on him now. The policy fore
shadowed in the proclamations will make only a discontented
people. It is the slogan of battle — the herald's denouncement
of that war of races, which is so strangely apprehended by those
who urge the very opposite policy to heal up a war of sections.
It is the preparation for these deluded people of a future, before
which even the savage horrors of their own revolt may pale.
The kindred policy that ruled our councils in the same interest
for two long years — as it seems to rule them now — proved
fatal to the system it was intended to serve, by making its
preservation impossible. It may be that God Almighty intends
to finish His great work, by giving a further rein to the infernal
spirit that precipitated these madmen into the revolt that melted
the chains of their slaves. Let us see to it that we be not called
upon to repress the outbreak of nature, by drawing our own
swords hereafter upon our faithful allies in the war of freedom.
We can prevent this now — and will if we are wise — by a mere
act of justice that is simple and reasonable, and will trench on
no man's rights, while it will extend the area of freedom by pop
ularizing these governments, and bringing them at once to the

598 THOMAS WILLIAMS
republican standard of the Constitution. That act is demanded
by considerations of the highest wisdom, as well as of the
strictest justice. It were a foul shame to refuse it, and a fouler
still to add to that refusal the future possible infamy, of turning
our own arms, at the call of these delinquents, upon the trusty
auxiliaries who have assisted in subduing them, when the
tyranny of their oppressors, and the instinctive yearnings of
humanity, may drive them to resistance. I should blush for
my country — and weep for it too — if it was capable of an atrocity
so unutterably base.
"But though we were even insensible to the claims of jus
tice and the emotions of gratitude, and entirely indifferent to
the elevation of the negro race for its own sake, we want their
vote for our own protection. Our best security is to erect a
breakwater against the encroachments of the disaffected white
man, by enlisting the counteracting influence — the cheap support
in peace — of the loyal black man, to whom we have so success
fully appealed in war. We need his suffrage now to assist us in
keeping that peace which he had so large a share in mak
ing. Take away his musket, if you please, but do not disarm
him entirely. The question with me is not whether you can
trust him, but whether you can trust the man who asks
you to give him the rule again over his rescued bonds
man. There are two classes of white men in the seced
ing States. The higher and more intelligent is essentially
anti-republican in habit and sentiment, while the inferior and
ignorant is even more abject and servile than the slave himself.
He may be educated, however, into a just self-respect, and a
sense of his own interests. The governing class never can. To
make them republican, you must change their whole social sys
tem and their natures along with it. Until you do, and they are
thoroughly regenerated, they will be unsafe depositaries of
power in a Government like this. If you will not disfranchise
the man who has already shown that he is unworthy of trust,
you must at least render him powerless for mischief, by placing
a sentinel over him, with the bloodless but potent weapon of the
ballot, to keep him in order. I do not insist that you shall dis
franchise the rebel who professes to have repented, because
without him you will have no white element in the case. I have
no objection that you should pardon his crime, and even restore
to him his lands, if you think that the interests of justice require
no indemnity, and no examples. My object is not vengeance.
I do not thirst for his blood, even with all his barbarities. Give
him back everything else. But for the power which he has
shown himself unworthy to hold, and which he has so justly

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 599
forfeited, restore not that, I adjure and beseech you, by the
recollection of the bloody trial through which you have passed;
by the respect you owe to the bereaved, the widowed, the
orphaned, the maimed who yet live; and above all, by the
memory of your martyred, butchered, starved, and mutilated
dead. Insult them not by the declaration that the earth has
drunk their blood in vain. Expose not yourselves to the bitter
reproach, that before their bones have been gathered by pious
hands from the fields where they have been left to bleach
unburied, their very murderers have been hurried back into your
embrace like returning conquerors. If this reunion is to be
solemnized on terms like these, wait at least until you have put
off your mourning, and stripped your public places of the
habiliments of woe. Bury your murdered President out of sight.
Cover up the graves of Andersonville, with all their horrid
secrets, and then — then celebrate these unholy nuptials — if you
can. Let it not be said, at all events, to your discredit, that 'the
funeral-baked meats have coldly furnished forth the marriage
table.' Open no hall of Valhalla, where the returning braves
of the South shall quaff their foaming ale, and pledge you from
the grinning skulls of your own dead and forgotten heroes.
"But there is another consideration that gives us the right,
and makes it an imperative necessity, for our own protection, to
insist that the negro shall be allowed to share the rights of
citizenship in their highest sense, and that is the fact that the
conversion of the chattel into a freeman will greatly enlarge the
representation of those States, and bring into Congress some
thirty votes on the basis of this peculiar population, while the
loyal States must suffer from the increase. If they come, it
must be in a representative capacity of course. But whose rep
resentatives will they be, if the whole class in whose names they
come, and for whom they profess to speak, is to have no voice
in their election? To call them representatives of any other
than the ruling class, would be a gross abuse of language. The
benefit of your act of emancipation then is to inure to the master
who has endeavored to break up your Government, while the
black man still holds substantially the relation of a slave, and
is only used to count for the benefit of his oppressors! And
whom will they send to manage the affairs of the Union in the
name of the slave? Will it be the man whom he would select
himself? Will it be an advocate of his interests? Will it be
those who will provide for the payment of the debt of the war,
or the pension pledged to the families of the brave soldiers whose
very bones will be spurned aside with contumely by the rebel
plowman? What is our experience thus far? Among the first

600 THOMAS WILLIAMS
men sent here from Louisiana, was a signer of the secession
ordinance, and all three gravitated at once, as by a natural law,
into the ranks of the party that opposed the war. The first
offering from Arkansas to the other end of the Capitol was a
graduate of the same school. But will the holders of our pubhc
debt — will our brave volunteers agree to this? No! Ask the
men here, however, who sympathized with the rebellion through
out, and denounced the war, and the debt made by it, as alike
unlawful, and though professing to be Democrats, they will
answer with one voice that this representation by proxy is right
and proper, although they do not even admit the negro to be a
citizen, and hardly confess him to be a man. While he con
tinued a slave, there was nothing unreasonable in the agreement
that the master should speak for him, if he was to be heard at
all, because he could have no will of his own. It was at all
events the bargain, and we stood by it. That slave is now,
however, a freeman. He has a will of his own, and the man
who owned him no longer represents it, but the contrary. Look
ing to his present relations to the late slave, his assumption of
the right to speak for him, is a double outrage on the black
man. It is not only to deny him a representative, but to give
that office to his enemy. It is in effect to re-enslave him.
"If the white man of the South is of the opinion that the
negro is not fit to vote at home, he decides at the same time that
he is not worthy to be represented here; and in claiming that
right, asks for himself a power in the Government that will make
one unrepentant traitor the equal, in many instances, of two or
three loyal northern men. He admits the injustice, too, while he
preserves his consistency, by rejecting the negro himself in the
interior apportionment of some of his own States. But is it just
to the loyal States that he should exercise this power in the
Federal Government ? Will they consent to this inequality, now
that the remedy is in their own hands? Are these people to be
rated, in their condition of subjugation, at their own estimate
before putting their armor on, as having vindicated their claim
to be considered the master race, and so outweigh twice or thrice
their number of northern mudsills? Speaking for myself, I do
not choose to have my delegated powers, as the Representative
of one hundred and thirty thousand northern freemen, neutral
ized by a representative of this sort, whether he come here by
the conge d' Hire of a military commander, or is puffed in this
direction by the arrogant breath of a feeble but aristocratic con
stituency. If the white men of the South will insist that the
negro shall have no political rights in the States, while he is to
appear here to claim a recognition at our hands, only to add to

RECONSTRUCTION" versus "restoration" 6oi
the power of the oligarchy in this Government, then I would
insist that he shall appear here either in person, or by his attor
ney, or curator, or next friend, and not by a guardian or trustee
under the appointment of his quondam master, which would be
the sublimest of farces. If they are not content with this, then
I would say to them, wait until by a constitutional amendment
we can offer you the fairer basis of suffrage, which will enable
you to swell your numbers as soon as you shall be prepared to do
justice to the black man.
"It is insisted, however, and most especially by those who
profit most by the laws of naturalization, and the principle of
universal suffrage, of which they have therefore been the unvary
ing champions, that the negro is ignorant, and must be educated
before he can be allowed to enjoy the privileges necessary for
his own protection as a citizen — which is to say, in effect, that
ignorance disqualifies for freedom, and ought to make a man a
slave. It may be a question whether it were not well if that had
been made a condition with all men. But why demand that of
the indigenous black man who has been reared under our insti
tutions, and has perhaps shouldered his musket in their defense,
which is not asked of the foreigner whose vote and sympathies
have been against us ? Is he inferior in these respects to the
Celtic Irishman who holds the destinies of your great metropolis
in his hands ? His instincts at all events — supposing them to be
his highest faculty — have taught him to take the side of liberty,
when the savage who burned him was exerting himself in the
interests of the governing classes of Europe, from whose oppres
sions he had sought an asylum here, to overthrow the very
Government which had so generously opened its arms to receive
him, and lifted him from the dust into the privileges of a citizen.
I would take that instinct, and use it as a counterpoise against
the crude, uninstructed element that comes to us from abroad.
I do not fear that it will fall under the influence of the aristo
cratic class any more than it did during the war. The negro
will be sure to look with jealousy and suspicion upon the task
master from whose arms he has been torn, and who will still
continue to regard him as his rightful property. That aristoc
racy, moreover, landless as it is soon destined to be, under
another and a better social system, is sure to be swallowed up
ere long by the upheaval of the lower stratum, when labor, now
become respectable, shall assert its rightful supremacy, and the
strong sinews of toil shall reclaim their lost inheritance by
seizing upon the soil.
"But who are they that make this objection? Only the
master himself and his northern friends. If they think so.

602 THOMAS WILLIAMS
however, why do they object? What harm can come to the
lords from the maintenance of the patriarchal relation, by turn
ing it into a bond of kinship and good offices that will rival the
constitution of the Highland clan? But they do not think so.
They affirmed with equal confidence that the negro would cleave
to his master, and fight for him, if he would fight at all; but it
turned out to be a mistake, as every man of common sense knew
very well it would. If the power of the master had been equal
to that of the northern demagogue, he might possibly have taken
sides against the Government with the same unanimity as the
imported Caucasian who was led as an ox to the shambles, and
made, like a blind Samson, to lay his hands upon the pillars of
our Constitution, in that dark hour when all the powers of earth
and hell seemed leagued together for its destruction. The negro
has already solved that question in a way that shames even the
poor white man of the South, who is indeed obnoxious to this
imputation, and from whose example it might have been plausi
bly inferred, but for the experience of this war, that he would
have yielded to the same influences. But what authority is there
for the assertion that the black man is more ignorant than the
poor whites of the South who delight in shooting, or the
imported patriots of the North who gratify their equally savage
tastes by burning him? Look at the revelations of the census
and see what they declare. I venture to say that, considering
the difference of condition and opportunity, the black man is no
way the inferior. It is sufficient, however, that he has
proved intelligent enough to be loyal, when his highly
educated master was not saved from treason by his
superior instruction. But who shall say that this loyalty was the
fruit of ignorance? Not those, certainly, who prize the repub
lican State, and think that knowledge is essential to its preserva
tion. Its chief advantage is, perhaps, its felicitous adaptation
to the general standard of humanity, in its extreme simplicity of
form, and the fact that it requires so little of the learning of
the schools to govern it. It would have perished in the recent
trial, if it had been left to the wisdom of its statesmen. It
was the uneducated common sense — the reasoning instinct only
— of its own people, that saved it. God defend us from the
statesmen and diplomatist whom this revolution has evolved !
"But if the negro is ignorant, whose fault is it, and what
is the remedy ? Has he not been studiously denied the privilege
which his white and jealous Democratic rival has so largely
neglected, of learning even to read? And is the slave-owner,
who is responsible for this, to meet us with the confession that
he has purposely kept this man in darkness, because he feared

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 603
that a spark might fall upon his intellect that would kindle into
flame and melt his chains, and then convert his own inexpiable
wrong into an argument against his freedom, and ask us to wait
upon the education of the man who has just shown that he is
better fitted for its enjoyment than himself? Thank Heaven!
it does not require an education in the schools to make a man
love liberty. The whole infernal system of black laws is founded
on the dread of human instinct, and the fear that the natural
struggles of humanity, if aided even by such feeble lights as
might be accessible to him in his condition of servitude, would
result in making him a freeman. They are themselves a preg
nant confession that the slave is gifted with powers and suscep
tibilities that might be awakened into mischievous activity, and
cultivated for the highest duties of citizenship in a free State.
WTiether the ignorance of the inferior class, either imported
from abroad or thus diligently cultivated at home, ought to
constitute a disqualification, it is perhaps too late to inquire,
since the policy of the country, shaped and fashioned by the
Democratic party, has settled it as a principle, that the right of
self-government cannot be justly made to depend upon the edu
cation or intelligence of the voter. It may be right, for the
twofold reason that the love of liberty is heaven-born, and the
right to vote the best educator of the freeman. If gentlemen on
the other side have come now to think differently, I have no objec
tion to go back and trust the suffrage only to those who can
read and write, and have been long enough among us to under
stand our institutions — ^to shake themselves loose from all for
eign domination — to unlearn the Old World ideas in which they
have been reared — and to appreciate the freedom which we
enjoy. I cannot consent, however, that one rule shall be applied
to the imported Celt, and another to the home-bred African.
The right to freedom is not a question of either race or color,
but the common inheritance of humanity. There are no aris
tocracies in God's providence but that of understanding, which
is not transmissible by descent, and is the appanage of no par
ticular race or class of men. I do not mean to say — for I am no
fanatic — that the negro race is, upon the whole, the equal of the
white one in this particular, any more than I would affirm that
any one white race is equal to any other, or that all the white
races are equally fitted for the task of self-government. That is
a proposition which no man can confidently affirm, in view of
the past history and present condition of the world, but yet it
involves no question as to the natural aspirations — which are
only inspirations— of man for freedom, or his right to its enjoy
ment. If I am to choose, however, between these two elements.

604 THOMAS WILLIAMS
I would take the black man, upon the evidence of the last few
years, and reject the equally ignorant white, who is so debauched
as even to love slavery — who allows his very instincts to be
smothered — and who submits his conscience and his understand
ing to a direction whose dominion rests upon the same profound
and sagacious policy that has locked up the treasures of knowl
edge from the bbck man. Everybody must have been struck
with the marvelous unanimity with which both these elements
arranged themselves, though on opposite sides, in the late con
test. When men begin to reason for themselves they are
almost sure to differ. 'Instinct,' says Mr. Burke, 'when under
the guidance of reason is always right.' If it was instinct, how
ever, that led the black man in the one direction, it was some
thing other than reason that herded his jealous rivals into one
solid mass in the other.
"But it has been objected in some quarters, that if the negro
is endowed with the power of the ballot, he will, under the
guidance of the same instinct, combine with his fellows to seize
the governments of the rebel States into his own hands. This
argument is the very opposite of the one which I have just exam
ined, and while the other has only been invented as an apology
for refusing the ballot by those who had no fears of the master's
influence, has not perhaps been without its weight upon both the
northern and the southern mind. Nobody can doubt that in this
latitude at least, there is a morbid apprehension of what is called
negro equality, but really means negro superiority; and it is
perhaps not unnatural, that now that the negro has shown that he
will fight, the men who flinched from that ordeal in the hour of
our danger, or even those who have been driven like cattle into
the armies of the oligarchy, should dread the comparison, and
feel that there was nothing now but the denial of the ballot to
prevent the black man from asserting his natural superiority
over themselves. This apprehension supposes, however, a power
of combination and forecast, without even the stimulus of
oppression on his part, which is anything but consistent with
the idea so studiously inculcated of his incorrigible inferiority,
and surrenders all that has been affirmed by philosophers and
divines in regard to his normal condition, while it admits that
even the higher culture of the white man would give him no
advantage in the contest. But in the few cases where the
blacks are in a majority the difference in numbers is small. If
h cannot be overcome by the superior training of the white man,
then the ability of the negro and his consequent title to com
mand, are established by the highest possible test. But in a
quarrel of races what is to become of the mulatto ? If the least

"reconstruction" z'crsus "restor-^vtion" 605
perceptible infusion of negro blood, the very faintest suspicion
of a twist in the hair, is sufficient to authorize us to deprive our
unfortunate hybrid cousin of all participation in the Govern
ment, what assurance is there that the Caucasian flush will not
prove equally fatal on the other side? History teaches us that
this distinction is as likely to prevail as the other. But surely
the chivalry, which has held in subordination by its superior
address the turbulent but submissive Democracy of the North,
would not shrink from the encounter in the same field with the
despised and degraded African. But the idea of such a combi
nation, as the result only of the most generous treatment, is
the most extraordinary of paradoxes, if it does not deserve to
be characterized as the wildest of chimeras. The people of the
South will divide, as before, upon the policy of the Government,
and struggle, as before, for the possession of its offices. Both
sides, of course, will seek to propitiate the black man, because
he has become a power in the State, and that one which will
secure his confidence, and go farthest in its professions of regard
for his interests, will be sure to secure the majority of his
votes. If he be a child — as he perhaps in some sense truly is —
he will be won by kindness, and ask nothing more than freedom
of locomotion, protection to his person, and the means of enjoy
ing, without molestation, the rewards of his own labor. Make
it the interest of his late master to cultivate him. Give him a
vote, and the 'poor white trash' who despised him because he was
a slave, will respect him because he is a sovereign. If it is
necessary to educate him, because he is ignorant, give him an
interest in the Government. It is the only school for the adult,
and perhaps the best for all ages. The ripest thinkers of the
times are agreed that it is a nursery of instruction that develops
the man with wonderful rapidity, and it is this compensatory
power that has perhaps served more than anything else to
neutralize the evils of the prevailing system. To insist on a
preliminary education is to begin at the wrong end. Leave him
for instruction in the hands of his old master, and you offer a
premium for the continuance of the old system, which kept him
in ignorance of his rights and of his power. Knowledge will
make him more formidable than ever. So long as he is kept
under the State, and feels that he is no part of it, he is sure
never to rise by this process. The men who control the Govern
ment will have the same interest in keeping him down as here
tofore, re-enforced as it will be by phantoms of terror that will
haunt their pillows, along with the new feeling of resentment
and jealousy, which his compulsory enfranchisement has engen
dered. Cherish not the delusion that any good behavior on his

6o6 THOMAS WILLIAMS
part will ever secure for him an admission to the rights of
citizenship. It is now or never. There is no case, I think, in
history, where a privileged class has ever surrendered its pre
rogatives to those that were beneath it. Indulge not the hope
that you will ever make of him a contented subject. It is as
impossible with a people so numerous, to maintain an intermedi
ate grade between the slave and citizen, as it is to establish an
intermediate variety in nature, or an intermediate condition here
between the State and Territory. The black man knows that he
is free. If he asserts his right to meet his fellows in council for
purposes which touch the interests of his race, either in this
world or the next, the rumors of insurrection will load the
atmosphere. The white man will restrain his liberty by biting
statutes and relentless cruelty. The black man will rebel, and
the result will be a chronic war, which will repel the emigrant,
and end in the extermination of the weaker race. The ground
less panic that pervaded the South so recently foreshadows the
evil that is to come. Has the kindred policy of the British
Government toward the Celtic Irishman succeeded in conciliating
his affection for the English race or nation ? If those who favor
it here had taken the trouble to look into the cause of that exodus
that is unpeopling his ancient home, and flooding our shores
with its living tides, they would have discovered that there was
something more than a war of races to explain the undying
hatred with which the Irish exile looks upon the Saxon English
man, and they would have found its solution in the very policy
which it is now proposed to inaugurate in order to prevent a
war of races in the South. It is unnecessary, however, to go so
far. The recent bloody disturbances in the island of Jamaica
are but a type of the social horrors which a mistaken deference
to its prejudices is preparing for that deluded people.
"But it is objected by the President that this is a question
for the States under the Constitution, and that the concession of
the elective franchise by himself to the freedmen of the South,
must have been extended to all colored men wherever found,
and so must have established a change of suffrage in the North
as well as in the South, and would have been an assumption
of power which nothing in the Constitution or laws of the
United States would have warranted.
"This argument assumes, in the first place, that the default
ing States are already in the Union, free from the penalties of
crime, and with all their rights and privileges as intact as those
of their loyal sisters. If this be true, it is not to be questioned
that the right of fixing the qualifications of their own voters
has been left, sub modo, with themselves. But how then, it

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 607
will be naturally asked, did the President himself acquire the
power of defining the qualifications of the voters in the first
instance? If he could do this — if he could either abridge or
enlarge the privilege — and he could as well do one as the other
— so, a multo fortiori, could the law-making power of this Gov
ernment, in which the sovereignty resides. If he could do
either, he might as well have conferred the privilege on the black
man as on anybody else. But then he objects that this must
have extended it to all the loyal States, as well as those that
have rebelled, which is an assertion that his jurisdiction has
attached, by virtue of the rebellion of the delinquents, to the
States that are without sin. I am constrained to say that this
is an argument which I have not been able to comprehend.
Taking it, however, to be true, as claimed, it must have equally
followed from his summary disfranchisement of the voters,
whether loyal or disloyal, who might decline to take the oath to
support all proclamations and laws having reference to the
emancipation of the slave, that we of the loyal States were
all disfranchised, too, unless we submitted to the same condi
tions. "Taking it, however, only in the milder sense of a sugges
tion, not uncommon in the South, that the loyal States which
now deny the suffrage to the black man, would be either
expected — ^to save their own consistency — or might be com
pelled by Congress to conform to the same rule, there is a word
more to be said in the way of answer.
"^^'hether these States could be regarded as strictly repub
lican, with such a limitation of the elective franchise, if the
necessities of the country or the protection of a numerous class
of citizens required the presentation of the question to the con
sideration of Congress, is more than doubtful. The paucity of
the blacks, however, in the northern States, where there is no
disposition to oppress them, and their uniform enjoyment, with
out molestation, of every social and civil right, without the pro
tection of the political privilege of the ballot, has made it a
question of no practical importance to the country, and led to
no formal complaint, although the overshadowing influence of
the slave power has robbed them, in many of the States, of that
privilege which the overthrow of slavery will sooner or later
restore to them. Whether their inherent right as citizens to
vote could be enforced by an appeal to the judicial tribunals of
the country, upon the footing of the constitutional guaranty, is
a question which I am not prepared to answer, and do not care
to discuss. There is no issue now as to the loyal States, to
demand the consideration of Congress. There is none pending

6o8 THOMAS WILLIAMS
as to their admission here. It is only the criminals that are
at your bar — not asking pardon, but demanding to be restored
to power. They went out to found a slave empire. They still
think that God and nature intended the negro only for that condi
tion. He counts by millions in the rebel States. He is a freeman
now. His master is his enemy. He obviously intends to re-enslave
him if he can. He wants power to enable him to do it. The
negro wants protection, and has earned the right to it, if it was
not his before. We want peace and security, if not indemnity
for the past, and we are sure that they can be only secured by
making these governments republican. They have placed them
selves by their own act in a condition in which, by the con
fession of the President himself, it becomes our duty to execute
the guaranties of the Constitution. When we shall have done
this work, it will be time enough to enter upon another that will
be purely voluntary ; and if the reconstructed States shall insist,
when they are in a condition to do so, that we shall deal with
the negro ourselves, as we have compelled them to deal with
him, I doubt not that the justice of the North, with its vision
purged by the rising beams of universal liberty, will anticipate
any action here, by undoing what nothing but a base servility
to the perished feudalism of the South could ever have accom
plished. "But why hurry the return of these States? Why under
take the hopeless and preposterous task of resorting not only
to temptation, but compulsion, for the purpose of bringing about
a reunion which can only subsist where it is spontaneous, and
can rest securely on no other foundation than mutual respect
and good will? It is a great problem, and a difficult one. Is
there any immediate overshadowing necessity for their reappear
ance here? Is there any adequate inducement to indemnify us
for the admitted risks we must incur from immature and ill-
considered action ? What would be thought of the sanity of the
man in private life, who would insist on hurrying back to his
embrace and confidence the unfaithful partner who had violated
a sworn engagement of fidelity, purloined his goods, fired his
dwelling, and murdered a part of its defenders; who instead
of yielding had only been surrendered by his slaves, or overtaken
and disarmed by the officers of justice, and had never even
admitted his crime, or given one token of repentance? Is there
not danger enough already in the rapid process of disbandment
and surrender, that has been going on under our own eyes, to
the terror of our only loyal friends, both white and black, in the
South, without reference to the wishes or opinions of the people
or their Representatives here, and in defiance of official infor-

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 609
mation collected by the Government itself that the spirit which
inaugurated and directed this hellish revolt was as rife as ever
in the land, that we should insist on strewing palm-branches in
their way, and inviting them to the honors of a triumph at the
Capitol? The President admits that his policy is attended with
some risk,' but excuses it by the suggestion that 'it is a risk that
must be taken.' This, I humbly think, is a non sequitur. It
was not necessary that he should have a policy, and a perilous
one, or that we should take the risks that are admitted to be
incidental to it. However it may be with the soldier, it is not
out of 'the nettle danger' that the statesman would 'pluck the
flower safety.' He will take no risks if he can help it, and with
only a rational treatment of this question, I think they are
imnecessary here. The people of the loyal States, who fought
this battle, are now in the possession of the Government. They
may — and if they are wise they vnll — take their own time to
determine how they will readjust its machinery, and heal over
the wounds that the war has made. It is in their power now to
exact every possible security for the future.
"Why, then, this inexplicable eagerness to surrender all the
advantage of our victory without any security at all? Why
insist that the overthrow of these rebels in the bloody arbitra
ment to which they have appealed, is to be only the signal for
their restoration to their former estate ? Is it necessary that we
should constrain the reluctant condescension of these haughty
masters, who so lately spurned us as slaves, to the renewal of the
domination which they had come to loathe from a very feeling
of satiety ? Has the attempt improved or mollified them ? Gen
eral Schurz is the witness, that the policy of not only pardoning,
but inviting the traitors themselves to reconstruct their States,
has had the worst possible effect upon them. And it was but
natural that it should. If they do not despise us for our weak
ness and our voluntary self-abasement, they will be at least
prepared to conclude that they are more necessary to us than
we are to them. TTiey were not long out themselves, before
they began to yearn for the scion of some royal house beyond
the seas. Shall we furnish them reason to think that we are
pining for the return of our natural lords, along with our
Democratic brethren, who have been wandering like sheep with
out a shepherd, and lamenting the desolation of the Capitol
with more than the tenderness of the Moor, who wept the
exile of the last of the Abencerrages under the deserted towers
of the Alhambra ? What reason, beyond their mere repugnance
to the association with the northern mudsills, will they have to
lament their failure in the battle-field, when they are once more

6l0 THOMAS WILLIAMS
reinstated in their original dominion here? Are these the
means by which a statesman expects to improve the lessons of
the war? If kindness and submission could have won their
hearts, they never would have left us. Is anybody weak enough
now to think that they are so chastened and humbled by defeat,
that a restoration to power, instead of intoxicating, would only
disarm them? That would not be in accordance with human
nature or historical example. Did the catastrophe of Charles I
result in any improvement of the family? Their restoration
was but the prelude to another revolution that drove them
from the throne. It is the same blind confidence in the reforma
tion of these men that is now menacing this Government with
ruin. "But is there any evidence that they are changed, or that
they are yet in a proper frame of mind to come back, and per
form faithfully their duties here? We all know better. The
special commissioner of the Executive says not, and his testi
mony is supported by all the presumptions in the case. It would
be unreasonable to look for anything else. They are but men,
like ourselves. Alienated in affection by a systematic educa
tion of thirty years, they went out with the determination never
to return. The Southern heart went with them. Inflated with
pride and vainglory, they threw down the gage of battle, and
defied us in the presence of a world that sympathized with
them. We took it up, and they are at our feet, deeply wounded
in their most sensitive point, smarting under the humiliation of
a defeat at the hands of their own slaves, and realizing more
than the bitterness of death in the depth of their fall, and the
painful recollections that it suggests. How unreasonable to
expect that hatred, the deepest and most undying — doubly inten
sified by such humiliations — could be converted into love by such
a process, and the lessons of a generation unlearned in the
twinkling of an eye ! But they do not even affect it ; and I am
rather inclined to respect the pride that, under the greatest of
temptations, has prevented them from condescending to the
meanness of the hyprocrite. They confess that they are sub
dued, but only, as they tell us, by the power of numbers — the
mere brute superiority of the North. They do not profess con
trition for their great crime. They do not even admit that they
have sinned. Nay, they glory in the act, treat fidelity to their
infamous confederacy as the most heroic of virtues, award
public honors under the very Government that has crushed them
— and which that Government ratifies, in recompense for treason
against it, and visit the social ban, if not the bullet or the knife,
upon such of their people as have fought valiantly in its defense.

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 6ii
It is but reasonable, I say, that, coming as they do, out of the
fires of the rebellion, they should feel thus. But that they should
act thus under our own eye, is evidence either that they do not
wish to return, or that the dejection that followed their defeat,
has given place to the assurance, that they are not only to be
pardoned their offense, but to return as conquerors. Their
leaders certainly do desire to get back again, because they are
overthrown in battle, and it is but to exchange the place of a
subject for that of a ruler, or at least an equal. To accomplish
this, they would have been glad to ransom their lives and prop
erty for the cheap consideration of negro suffrage. They
expected probably no terms more favorable. The lenity of the
Government has assured them that treason is no crime, and that
there is to be no atonement for the past. The tone of the procla
mations and the tenor of the diplomatic negotiations have taught
them that nothing was expected or desired by the President but
the recognition of the freedom of the slave, and the repudiation of
the debt incurred in carrying on the war, and that there was to
be no other security for the future. The outgivings of public
functionaries have instructed them that they were wrong in
claiming the rights of belligerents, and that they have a right
to resume their places here upon such conditions as they can
make with the Executive. They care nothing about you or
your laws. They look only to the Chief Magistrate, while they
defy the opinions of your constituents, and regard you only as
the mere executors of his will. There is a Providence in these
manifestations that warns us of our danger, if we would give
heed to it. Ignoring them, we shall not have even the poor
apology of saying that we were deceived in a case where even
the largest professions — if they had vouchsafed to make them,
as they have not — ought not to have been allowed to put us off
our guard. I know that confidence is a generous plant, and that
there are natures so unsophisticated as to be above suspicion or
distrust. There are men certainly whose boundless charity
would not only forgive offenses, however frequently repeated,
but even persuade them to give their faith anew to those who
have deah treacherously with them — as these men have with us
— while they would reject the counsels of the wise and prudent,
on the ground that their suspicions were ungenerous, and the
resuhs apprehended by them improbable. These men may be
good Christians, but they are poor statesmen, and they miscon
strue the spirit of the Christian maxim which teaches forgive
ness, if they suppose that it inculcates trust. The thing that
has once happened may happen again. It is not sufficient that
it is improbable. It is the business of the statesman to see

6l2 THOMAS WILLIAMS
that it is made impossible. No blind confidence — no false sense
of security on his own part — will excuse him for hazarding the
peace and welfare of a nation, by giving his trust a second time
where it has once been disastrously betrayed. He has no right
to sport in this way with the life of a people. He cannot afford
to be thus generous with other people's goods. It is not enough
to tell us that the present Executive of this nation — with a
strong feeling, of course, for the desolation of the South — is
magnanimous enough to forgive and generous enough to con
fide in the honor and loyalty of his old neighbors and associates
in council, although they have so cruelly persecuted him — as
they will do again as soon as the opportunity occurs. The
twenty millions of the loyal States who have seen so little good
come out of that Nazareth, must have something surer to
rest upon than his oblivious charity. I think otherwise, and so
do my constituents. I have great respect for his opinions, but
the facts and the presumptions are all against him, and I must
be governed by them. If we are wrong, the error may be cor
rected hereafter. If he is wrong, it is irremediable. True wis
dom demands that we should 'make assurance doubly sure, and
take a bond of fate,' while there is yet time to do it, by pro
viding against all possible contingencies, where the interests
involved are so vast and inappreciable. If the terms seem
harsh, that is the fault of those who are precipitating the solu
tion. A reasonable probation would enable us to make them
easier. I would rather, for my own part, trust to the mellow
ing influences of time. If you desire a reunion that will be
permanent and real, you must wait till their hearts are changed
— wait until the bitterness of defeat is past, and until they are
prepared to confess their errors, and ask forgiveness, and res
toration, in the spirit of the returning prodigal. Without repent
ance forgiveness is idle, and restoration worse. Philosophy and
religion alike approve the soundness of this doctrine. You
cannot accomplish a task of this sort by any forcing process.
No wise Government would think of it. No sound or judicious
statesman would advise it. If they cannot come back now in
the right spirit, and will not come with such securities as we
have a right to demand, it were better they should not come at
all. I would hold them as they are — and with black troops too
— until their territories are peopled by men who will recognize
the value of the Union — ay, hold them forever, if necessary, as
subject provinces. But it will not be necessary. They will be
glad to return in a very few years, on just such conditions as
you may impose, and will be grateful for the privilege. Admit
them now, and withdraw your armies, and you leave your few

"reconstruction" versus "restoration' 613
white friends, and your multitudinous black ones, to an ostra
cism as merciless as the bloody proscription upon which they
can no longer venture with safety. They tell you so themselves.
While the President informs you that these States, or some of
them, are ready to return — in the face of the admitted fact that
their people, in almost every instance, have refused to ratify even
the advantageous bargain made with him by their leaders, by
sending loyal men to represent them here — every breeze from
the South is laden with the earnest remonstrances of the loyal
people of those States, telling you that the withdrawal of your
power will be the signal for their flight and exile from their
homes, and altars, from the graves of their kindred, and their
household gods, and beseeching you, in piteous accents of despair
and agony, not to abandon them to their remorseless enemies.
"But before they do come in — whether by the door or win
dow — there are duties to be performed to others, dangers
against which we must provide, arising out of the obligations of
the war that these men have forced upon us. We have incurred
an enormous debt that is mainly owing to our own people.
We must provide for the payment of its interest, as well as the
redemption of all the pledges we have made to the disabled
soldier, and to the widows and orphans of those who have
perished in the field. Is it expected that these men will assist
us in redeeming these obligations, that some persons are so
anxious to associate them with us in the performance of this
work of justice and mercy? Do you propose to summon these
great criminals here, and translate them from the dock to the
bench, as joint assessors with yourselves, and those who have
poured out their money or their blood in ocean streams in
bringing them to justice, in the resettlement of the nation, in
perfecting its securities, and in fulfilling the obligations you
have incurred to the public creditor, and to the families of those
brave men who have gone down to death upon so many southern
battle-fields ? Will you insist that they shall come into council
with you on such a question as this? The ordeal would be too
severe. They have denounced the war as not only unrighteous,
but unlawful; and they are not alone in this particular. It is
not the rebels militant only — the men who so cheerfully staked
their lives on their opinions — who think so. Their old associates
in the North, who want them back on the terms of the President,
have taught their followers here upon the same argument, that
the public securities were worthless, and would be repudiated.
Is there no risk of a new coalition on this basis? I venture to
predict that the next phase of the reunited Democracy of the
North and South, (for it will be a reunion of the party and not

6l4 THOMAS WILLIAMS
of the States,) will be opposition to the payment of this debt.
It may not discover itself at once in the shape of absolute repu
diation in the North, but this new alliance will find other means,
not less effective, to accomplish its work. The South, with all its
prejudices and pride, would rather consent even to negro
suffrage, than allow itself to be taxed for such a purpose, and
you cannot compel it, without the aid of the black man. The
North will insist, at least, on scaling your securities down by the
actual money value in the world's market of the paper that was
invested in them. It will damage your credit by quarreling
with your schemes of revenue. Knowing that taxation is always
unpopular, and particularly among a people so unused to it as
ourselves, it will at least flatter and delude the multitude with
illusory promises of relief, and with the aid of a united South,
will, at the next turn of the cards, win its way back to power,
and enter once more upon the possession of the Government.
"But the mischief will not end here. There is another debt
that numbers cannot compute, incurred in the baffled attempt
to overthrow this Union, and diffused throughout the entire
South. There is, besides, a claim yet dormant for the value
of the slaves made free by the proclamation. It may seem to
some extravagant to talk of these, but it is no more extravagant
than many other things that we have witnessed, and among
them the assertion of a right to return to these Halls as though
they had not sinned, and the presumptuous arrogance that has
already taken our Constitution in charge, and undertaken to
arraign our acts of self-defense against their treason, as viola
tions of that instrument. Admit these men — ignore their
crimes by your votes here — give them your confidence and the
eventual mastery — as before, and your public credit will deserv
edly receive a shock that will tumble it into ruins. Readmit
them here, and every prudent man will endeavor to get rid of
your securities. No sharp-sighted money-lender will trust a
Government so administered. It will be in vain for you to
profess in joint resolutions, that you do not intend to pay any
of the debt of the dead confederacy, or of the claims of the hving
slaveholder. The world will not believe it. It will say you
mock it, when the makers of that debt, and the disloyal slave
holder himself, shall be exalted by your votes into legislators,
to co-operate with the party here that has decried your obliga
tions, and declared them to be worthless. The assumption by
you of the one, and the payment of the other, would be but a
logical sequence. If the makers of that debt are decided to be
worthy of honor and trust in this Government, it will be an
estoppel against the assertion that there was anything essentially

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 615
immoral in hiring assassins to take our lives, or anything in
reason to prevent the payment of the wages of their iniquity.
It will be taken for granted that when you make a legislator of
the criminal, you intend to pay his debts of honor at home. You
may protest that you do not, but it will point you to these acts,
and scoff — ay, it will scoff — at your empty protestations, as no
more than sounding brass and tinkling cymbals.
"But before I have done, allow me to come back once
more to the great conflict of power — the gigantic and over
shadowing issue — which has been forced on us and on the
country, by the process of restoration which it has pleased the
President in the exercise of his own judgment to adopt. There
are other considerations that demand our care beyond the mere
rehabilitation of the conquered States. It is for us to see that,
in the execution of the guaranty, the Federal Republic itself
shall receive no detriment, and undergo no change. There are
symptoms, unquestionably of an alarming nature — developed, of
course, by the high stimulus under which it has just been
working — that forebode a serious disturbance of its balances — a
revolution equivalent to a change in its organic structure, if not
watched narrowly before it is too late. The time has now come
to check those tendencies, which a condition so unnatural has
so largely encouraged. With a Union newly and doubly imperiled
by a policy that, ignoring the sentiment of the loyal States, has
thrust us an immeasurable distance back from the position
which we occupied when the camp-fires of our legions were
blazing along the heights of the Appomattox, by not only leav
ing treason and murder to go unpunished, but warming the
former into life and hope and strength, by withdrawing our
troops, and endowing it with the power of reorganizing its
broken columns for a fresh assault, and with the great problem
of the restoration of its dissevered members complicated with
another and perhaps a greater, in the tremendous question
whether all these heterogeneous elements are to be flung into
the crucible, and fused down under the fierce flames of war into
an elective monarchy, it seems to me, with all due respect to the
President, that we have reached a crisis in our affairs, when it
behooves the people to look to their securities, and their Repre
sentatives here to resume the government of this nation, and to
say to the advancing tide 'thus far and no further.'
"Standing, as I do, upon the traditions of the fathers —
upon the radical but conservative maxims of republican liberty
— upon the great principles that have been consecrated by the
struggles of more than two hundred years — I cannot but tremble
for my country when, in addition to all this, I hear the national

6l6 THOMAS WILLIAMS
Representatives instructed by other than their lawful masters
in regard to their duties here ; when I find myself semi-officially
advised by the executive head of the nation, who has just been
thanked by a rebel Legislature for the act, that amendments to
its fundamental law, proposed by its delegates here for its
security, are unnecessary, or inadmissible, or entitled to no more
respect than the resolutions of a town meeting, while bills that
have passed this House, and are now actually depending in the
Senate, are made the subject of public discourse and animadver
sion at the other end of the Avenue ; when I hear a high officer
of that department confessing and justifying the exercise of a
dispensing power over our laws, in the employment of traitors,
and the payment to them of moneys wrung from the sweat of
the toiling millions of the loyal North; when I see members of
both these Houses ready and anxious at such a time to abdicate
their rightful powers — as a Legislature, not by a harmless refer
ence to a committee of their own bodies — but by championing
their own disability, and flinging dovra their crowns at the foot
stool of executive power; when I hear on this floor, from men
who opposed the war throughout, and now, by a logic which I
do not question, support the policy that gives the victory to the
enemy, the appeal of the people to their o-wn Congress com
pared to the howls of a drunken populace at the doors of the
revolutionary Assembly of France, that in the name of liberty
flooded its capital with blood, and in the name of religion
dethroned the monarch of the world ; when I read in newspapers
controlled by gentlemen of this House who have discovered
no sensibility to attacks upon its own privileges, the mere asser
tion of a right on its part to express an opinion in regard to the
disposition of our troops, with no organized enemy in the field,
denounced as an invasion of the prerogative ; when I hear even
the suggestion of the nation's sentiment in regard to the appro
priate doom of the traitor chiefs, who now stand impeached
before the world of a connivance in the starvation of our
soldiers, and the butchery of our President, reprobated in the
same way by public journals in the confidence of the Govern
ment; and when, to crown all, my very vision is blasted by
appeals to the Executive from the disloyal papers of the North,
to employ that patronage which the loyal people have alone
bestowed on him, to coerce their Representatives into sub
mission to his views, and, failing that, to enact the role of
another Cromwell or Napoleon in this Capitol, while an answer
ing shout comes back upon the southern breeze, that the bayonets
of the soldiery, who flung that despotism to the earth must be
invoked to reinstate it here. I think I am no alarmist. I am

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 617
not apt to indulge in gloomy auguries in regard to the future
of a nation that has outlived so many blunders, and been so often
ransomed by an Almighty arm. The proverbial honors of a
prophet of evil have no attractions for me. Poesy has told us
the story of Cassandra. History has vouchsafed to hand down
to us the name and fate of the madman who ran up and down
the streets of Jerusalem crying 'Woe ! woe !' while the armies
of Titus were encamped about its walls. But if I stood alone
on this floor, and it were my last utterance, holding the high
trust which God has given me, with a nation in travail, and in
view of the dark portents that cloud the horizon, and shake the
very atmosphere around us, I would say to the people, 'Awake
from your false security, or prepare yourselves for another
holocaust. Your enemy still lives. His "impaired vitality" has
been restored. Red-handed treason rears its head as proudly and
defiantly and insultingly as before. It menaces your capital.
It claims to dictate to your President. It presumes to use the
very organs of your Government to denounce your attitude as a
revolutionary one, and to arraign your servants here as though
they were in rebellion against the South. It moves upon
the citadel where your defenders are entrenched. See that no
warder sleeps, no port is left unguarded. Look to it that no
sentinel unbars your gates. Steel the hearts of your defenders
against the weakness that would betray like treason. See that
their mail is proof — no joint agape, no rivet out of place. See
that no Trojan horse, filled with armed men — no Tennessee with
fair outside, but big with "pestilence and war" — shall win its
way within your walls. When these great criminals do return,
if ever, let it be only through the door that you shall indicate,
and with such infrangible and irreversible securities as you only
have the right to demand.' This is my position. Here I have
taken my stand, and by the help of God I will maintain it to the
end. Others may falter in the trial, but through me no right
shall be abridged — no privilege surrendered — no single leaf
plucked — no jewel torn from the crown of the representative
body." This address produced one of the greatest impressions
ever made upon the House. The correspondent of the
Pittsburgh Gazette, under date of February i6th, gave a
column to it. Among other things he said :
"To say that this brilliant, bold and remarkable oration
created, and continues to excite a profound sensation, is but
poorly to depict its telling and thrilling effects. In beauty of

6l8 THOMAS WILLIAMS
diction, appropriateness of style and scholarly elucidation, it
charmed those of the finest taste. If it has a fault at all, it is
the opulence of its ideas, and in the golden exuberance of its
imagery. There are many passages in it which remind us of
Burke ; others again which recall the best effusions of Sheridan.
If, however, Mr. Williams has ever adopted a favorite or a model,
it is most unquestionably the former.  That I may express
my meaning more clearly, I shall take the liberty of introducing
a comparison. It is this: What Mr. Sumner's great oration
was in the Senate, Mr. Williams' — though more successfully —
was in the House. It was my good fortune to hear them both.
Aiming, in the main, at the same objects, agreeing, if not fully,
yet so in sentiment, and glowing with the same ardor, born of
deep-rooted conviction — they yet approach the goal from differ
ent starting places, and by widely separate courses. Mr. Sum
ner has the regular order, the studied method, the lucid argu
ment, and the flowing silvery cadences of the great Tully. Mr.
Williams, at first view, seems to lack order and method in the
arrangement of his theme ; yet, upon close examination, the pro
cession of his thoughts will be found to be lucid and natural.
In a number of his impassioned bursts, he resembles, in point of
daring, dash and vehemence, some of the finest periods of
Demosthenes. As an instance I refer to his defense of the rights
and powers of Congress, in which he exclaims — 'It is here only, in
these Halls, that Liberty can live.' And again, in reference to
Pennsylvania, his own great state, he utters these truthful
words — 'She bids her sons, whom, she has placed on guard at the
Capitol in this hour of the nation's trial, stand faithfully, as did
her heroes in the bloody trench, by their trusts as Representa
tives, and resist with jealous watchfulness, every attempt from
whatever quarter to encroach upon the just powers which she
has delegated them.' * * *.  Favorably known and highly
prized as has been Mr. Williams in the comparatively limited
circle in which he has moved, this speech will prove for him a
leap into the fore-front in the gallery of our most illustrious
orators. Even gentlemen disagreeing with him — persons, how
ever, of excellent culture and taste — have been heard to declare
that — 'if he should make no other effort, this one will render
him famous.' This contribution to American eloquence will
certainly cause his name to become a household word. Without
any exaggeration, Messrs. Editors, the praise bestowed upon it
is really wonderful. In the generations to come, the young men
of the Republic will fondly recite his charming sentences to
enraptured listeners. * * * For two hours and a half he
held the House and galleries spell-bound. Twice was his time

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 619
extended without a grumbling whisper. On the floor clustering
around him, were prominent Senators and distinguished officials ;
whilst men of the House, celebrated for their intellectual
ability — such as Boutwell, Bingham, Shellabarger, Stevens,
Schofield, Kelley and Conkling — lingered on his majestic utter
ances with a delighted attention, which, never for an instant,
flagged. And when he concluded, with a peroration of rare and
magical force, the applause was such as those walls had never
before given an echo to. It was renewed from floor and galleries
again — a dozen times — with a heartiness and emphasis that
cannot be mistaken nor forgotten. As he finished, members
rushed forward to grasp his hand, strangers hurried from the
galleries to be introduced to him, a buzz of admiration filled the
hall and the corridors, and floated along with the dispersing
crowds wherever they went." He adds in closing that Mr.
Williams' speech had won him "a name, fame, and repu
tation as an orator and statesman, more splendid than that of
any man in Washington, and which will eventually become as
broad, expansive and perpetual as the cause of loyalty, equality
and justice in this Republic."^
''No [such] outburst of enthusiastic approval," said another
reporter, "has ever been awarded to a member, and nothing but
the passage of the amendment abolishing slavery, produced any
thing like it. Speaker Colfax had placed Mr. Thaddeus Stevens
in the chair, and when Mr. Williams closed, and the cheering
began, he used his mallet to assist, and adjourned the House
without a vote, exclaiming: 'This House stands adjourned!
Cheer as much as you please !' I fought my way to the orator,
and, after congratulating him, passed over to Mr. Stevens, whom
I accompanied home. On my way I asked him what he thought
of the speech we had just heard. His answer was : 'I do not think
I ever heard a better speech,' and after a moment added : 'I have
never heard so good a speech.' * * * But the old statesman
was not alone in his opinion. Governor Boutwellj one of the
ablest men of the nation, came to Mr. Stevens during the
delivery of the speech and said : 'This speech is as long as Sum
ner's, and abler ; it contains all its learning without its pedantry ;'
and Gen. Butler, whom I visited this morning, told me that the
same remark had been made to him by the Governor, with the
advice to him to 'get a copy of that speech and read it often.' '"
' A letter of February ii, 1866, indicates that either this report or the next
one following was written fiy Judge Shannon, who was in Washington at the
time. ' Unfortunately this clipping cannot be identified in source, although it is
seen to be a Pittsburgh paper, probably the Gazette, and the context shows it to
refer to this speech. Williams papers.
The friends of the President had a public meeting on the 22d of February
(1866), at which Montgomery Blair described Mr. Williams' speech as the signal

620 THOMAS WILLIAMS
If it produced this impression upon those who favored
his position, it aroused equal feeling among his opponents
and made him the man of the hour in the rising tide
against the course of President Johnson. He became a
dominant factor in the operations of the judiciary com
mittee, and when, on June nth, he reported from that
committee a bill for the regulation of appointments to
and removals from office the event was a blow at the
President in his relations with his Cabinet, particularly
his Secretary of War, Mr. Stanton. This was because, it
need hardly be said. Congress was operating the Freed-
men's Bureau through the Secretary of War to neutralize
the action of the forced-labor features of the new State
governments organized under the "restoration" policy
of President Johnson; and also because Congress pro
posed to replace "restoration" with a "reconstruction"
policy of its own. Furthermore, with a two-thirds major
ity in each House, irritated by not only Johnson's course
itself, but even more by his invective against that body,
Congress had both the purpose and ability to carry them
out over the President's veto. In March, Congress passed
a Civil Rights Bill over his veto, as it had the extended
Freedmen's Bureau Bill, and in June re-enforced this with
the Fourteenth Amendment, which not only gave citizen
ship to the negro, but made citizenship of all white people
lately in secession depend upon removal of disabilities
by Congress. This latter removed the question of the
unconstitutionality of the Civil Rights Bill which the
President raised, but as no Southern State, save Tennes
see, accepted this product of the first session of the
Thirty-ninth Congress, the second session, which met
December 3, 1866, found itself in open war with both
President Johnson and his newly organized State govern
ments in the South.
About the time this session began there was great
interest throughout Pennsylvania as to who should be
successor to Senator Edgar Cowan. On December 3,
for assault on the Chief Executive. Letter of February 25, 1866, from Mr. Wil
liams to his wife.
A letter of March 6, 1866, says: "The President is lost to us. He is de
termined to have his own way, which Congress will not permit. What mad
ness he may be guilty of next I don't know. Nothing would surprise
me. * * *."

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 621
1866, the Pittsburgh Gazette, in an editorial, stated that
no one but Mr. Williams had been prominently spoken
of in that section. "Confessedly of superior intellectual
ability and training, and of sterling honesty, he excites
admiration, rather than friendship," it continued, and
further added that although Stevens was superior in
"ability to manage men and affairs," he was not so in
capacity to deal with ideas. It seemed to think Cameron
would be tlie successful name. An editorial in another
paper said : "He [Williams] is one of the ablest and most
sagacious statesmen in the country; he has proved to be
a faithful Representative of his district; on all the great
questions, which the loyal people of our own State and
other States desire to be rightly and safely adjusted, he
is reliable; the people know and can trust him; his
increased majority at the last election indicates his
increasing popularity; his extensive and varied knowl
edge of our national affairs, his unfaltering devotion to
the Right, his masterly powers in debate, and his clear,
strong, grasping intellect and sterling integrity would be
highly beneficial to, and would not fail to shed luster
upon, our State."^ A correspondent, referring to this
edii;orial, added: "Follow the course of Mr. Williams
from the organization of the Republican party, and we
find him always in the front ranks, advocating those
principles of Justice and Humanity which carried us safely
thro' a four years' bloody war. Although a Radical in the
true sense of the word, yet his radicalism never
approached ultraism, but has been of such a character as
to make him always right ; and indeed sentiments uttered
by him since the outbreak of the rebellion, and which
were looked upon with distrust by many, seem now to
have been uttered with a spirit of prophecy, as every
word then uttered by him has become a matter of his
tory. By his elevation to the position of Senator, the
people of Pennsylvania would point to their Senator as
the compeer of Webster and Clay. And we doubt
' Unfortunately this clipping and the next one cannot be identified as to
paper and date, though it is plainly nearly contemporary with the Gazette.
Mr. Williams wrote a scathing rejoinder to Secretary of the Interior
Browning's defense of President Johnson in the Gazette of the ist of Novem
ber, 1866, which attracted great attention.

622 THOMAS WILLIAMS
whether any speech delivered by either Webster or
Clay, was received with such enthusiasm by Congress
or more highly eulogized by the press, than was the
speech of Mr. Williams on the subject of Reconstruc
tion at the first session of the present Congress." As
the Gazette intimated, however, Cameron was chosen.
When the members assembled Mr. Williams might
have been seen in his seat, the sixth one back on the next
aisle west of the central one — to the Speaker's left and
the side of the aisle at his left also, — with Blaine in the
second seat ahead, Garfield in the third seat to his right
in the row in front of him, Boutwell in the same relation
in the row back of him, Allison between him and Gar
field, Wilson beside Boutwell, Kelley on the middle aisle
in a seat corresponding to that of Williams, and Stevens
in the fourth seat to Blaine's right — not to mention more
of this distinguished body. He called up his bill on
Removals from Office immediately on the 5th instant and
made another speech of great force, which illustrates
some phases of his power at its best estate.^ It undoubt
edly contributed as much to his scholarly reputation as
any address of his before that body, and without doubt
secured the passage of this strategic measure. He
believed the bill would make impeachment unnecessary,
although, in a letter of the 8th instant, he says : "There
is a strong disposition, I think, to impeach & remove
the President. Nobody has any respect for, and nobody
goes to see him. If we could feel sure of the Senate there
would be no hesitation about the matter."
"Mr. Speaker," he began, "with the indulgence of the House
I will now proceed to state the objects of the bill reported by
your committee, along with some of the considerations which
have commended it to their judgment as a measure of great
national concern, and one which falls within the constitutional
powers of this Congress.
"The first section enacts that no officer who has been
appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall
be removable except by the same agencies, with the proviso,
however, that in case of disability or misconduct in office
during the recess of that body, the President may, with the

' Congressional Globe, Thirty-ninth Congress, 2d Session, Part i, p. 22.

THE NATIO.N'AL HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Halftoue of a Bohn lithograph of iS66 in the Congressional Library

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 623
-advice of the Attorney General, suspend the incumbent and
commission another until the next session, at which it shall be
his duty to report the fact, along with the causes of removal,
and the name of the officer so appointed, or such other person
as he shall choose to nominate; and that in case of the refusal
of the Senate to approve the act, the officer so suspended shall
resume his functions, without any allowance, however, of com
pensation in the meanwhile.
"The second section provides that no officer renominated
shall continue to hold after his rejection, and that the party so
rejected shall not be again appointed.
"The third section I propose, with the approbation of the
committee, to strike out, and insert two others — one to the effect
that where a vacancy happening during the recess may have been
filled by the President, it shall be his duty to make a nomination
before the end of the next session, and in case of the nomination
of any other person or persons than the one so commissioned,
and the refusal of the Senate to advise and consent thereto, the
office shall not be considered as vacant upon its adjournment,
but the person so commissioned shall continue to hold and
enjoy the same during the recess, and until he shall be either
nominated and rejected, or duly superseded by a new appoint
ment; and the other providing that the heads of Departments
shall hold their offices for the term of four years unless removed
with the concurrence of the Senate; and shall moreover nomi
nate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate
appoint, all their assistants and subordinates, to hold for the like
period, unless removed in the same manner.
"The bill rests, therefore, on the hypothesis that the power
of removal does not rightfully belong to the President alone —
even if he can be properly claimed to have any share of it, under
the Constitution — and cannot be safely left with that officer
without any restraint upon its exercise; and this as a general
principle, and without any reference to the merits or demerits
of the existing functionary. It proposes to improve the rare
advantage of a dissociation between the party in power here
and the President of its own choice, for the correction of a great
evil, by a surrender and dedication of the spoil which that party
may be supposed to have won, upon the public altar, and for the
nation's benefit, through all coming time.
"It aims at the reformation of a giant vice in the adminis
tration of this Government, by bringing its practice back from
a rule of its infancy and inexperience, resting mainly, perhaps,
on its unbounded confidence in the personal virtues of its first

624 THOMAS WILLIAMS
Chief Magistrate, to what are believed to be the true spirit
and meaning of its fundamental law.
"To accomplish this object it disturbs no title, and attacks
no judicial precedent. It strikes not even at any prescription
with 'the hoar of innumerable ages' upon it. It contemplates
but the review of a legislative opinion of yesterday, under the
lights that a miraculous growth and an era of revolution have
shed upon it, along with the resumption of a constitutional power
that has been heretofore surrendered.
"Nor is this the first occasion on which that opinion has been
questioned. It was anticipated by a denial of an authoritative
character. It was the opinion of a divided court. There has
been no time, I think, at which its soundness has not been
disputed. It has been subjected again and again to the most
damaging criticism by the best professional minds of the nation.
It has found no favor anywhere, I think, upon the score of rea
son. It is not even old enough to be venerable. There is noth
ing irreverent, therefore, in its impeachment, even though time
might be supposed to consecrate error, or a prescription to run
against truth or reason in the forum of the statesman.
"To estimate justly, however, the weight to which it is
entitled, it is necessary to show its precise extent, the circum
stances by which it was attended, and the argument on which
it was sustained, before proceeding to discuss the question on
original grounds and with a sole reference to the Constitution
itself, on the hypothesis that it is still an open one.
"It is to be noted, then, that while it was objected widely in
advance of the adoption of the Constitution, by those who were
opposed to it, that it would give to the Executive the powers of a
King, it does not seem even to have occurred to those who were
the most ingenious in exploring and exaggerating its defaults,
that there was anything in it which could be construed to bestow
on the President the eminently regal power of displacing the
officers of the Government at his own individual will. It does
appear, however, to have been argued by its friends, in answer
to the objection of instability through frequent changes
of administration, that inasmuch as the Senate was to co-operate
in the business of appointments, and 'its consent would there
fore be necessary to displace as well as to appoint, a change of
the Chief Magistrate would not occasion so violent or so general
a revolution as might be expected if he were the sole disposer
of the offices.' (Federahst, No. yy.) The undisputed assump
tion, therefore, that the President could not remove, was one of
the arguments on which the briefness of his tenure and the
frequency of elections were defended, and the instrument itself

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 625
commended to the support of the people of the States by the
leading spirits who presided at its formation.
"When the first Congress met, however, to inaugurate the
Government then newly formed, the question arose at once, on
the establishment of the Department of Foreign Affairs,
whether the head of that bureau should be made, in terms,
removable by the President; one party claiming that the power
of removal was included in the power to appoint, and could,
therefore, be exercised only in connection with the Senate, and
the other, with Madison at its head, asserting with equal con
fidence, that it was a strictly executive function, and as such,
conferred on the President by the first section of the second
article of the Constitution. The result was, not a decision, but
what better deserves to be characterized as a compromise or
evasion of the question, by the substitution for the words, 'to
be removable by the President,' of the phraseology, 'whenever
the said principal officer shall be removed by the President, or
in any other case of vacancy, the chief clerk shall take charge
of the papers,' &c. ; a result which by no necessary inference
imported anything more than an implied or permissive authority,
which the Opposition was ready to accord to the President on
personal grounds, but which the friends of that officer, claiming
it under the Constitution as his right, were not willing to accept
as a grant. In this shape, however, after a protracted contest
and a close division in the House, the bill was passed through
committee in the Senate by the casting vote of the Vice Presi
dent, and finally by one majority. It is worthy of remembrance,
however, that the Vice President was John Adams, and the
President himself a man without 'that sin by which the angels
fell,' who had never betrayed a trust, or abused a power; and
that, moreover, the weight of the argument turned on the
improbability of future degeneracy, and the liability to impeach
ment in case of possible corruption or profligacy in future times.
But succeeding Congresses went still further, in making the
tenure of offices, over which the Constitution had endowed them
with exclusive and unquestionable control, dependent on the
pleasure of the Executive, and the nation acquiesced under an
experience of forty years, which seemed to justify the confidence
that the virtues of its first Chief Magistrate had inspired. It
was not until it was startled from its security in 1829 by the
new and atrocious doctrine, that the public offices were but the
lawful plunder of contending factions, and the profligate cry
that 'to the victors belong the spoils,' that it began seriously
to inquire into the wisdom and lawfulness of a practice that had
grown up sub silentio, and apparently fastened itself upon the

626 THOMAS WILLIAMS
Government. The result of that inquiry, however, was a gen
eral conviction that there was no warrant for it in the Consti
tution, and no more of force in the argument that had been
allowed to prevail, than there was of the prophetic spirit in the
statesmen who were so prodigal of their assurances that no evil
could flow from it, and that the corrective would be an easy
one. That conviction was shared by the very ablest men of the
nation, who had been trained in the study of its Constitution
under the light of nearly half a century's experience, and were
agreed upon the necessity of such a reform as would bring the
Government back to its true principles. Mr. Webster, in a
speech made by him in the Senate in 1835, holds this emphatic
language :
" 'After considering the question again and again within the
last six years, 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 interpretation was given to the Constitution in
this respect by the decision of the First Congress.'
"And again:
" 'I have the clearest conviction that they [the Convention]
looked to no other mode of displacing an officer than by impeach
ment. Or the regular appointment of another person to the same
place.' "And further :
" '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 upon that question as the safety of the Government and of
the Constitution may require.'
"The like opinion was obviously held by both Kent and
Story, and the same is inferable from the report made by Mr.
Calhoun to the Senate, on the subject of removals from office,
in 1835. If earlier authority were necessary, however, it may
be found, not only in the Federalist but in a letter of Alexander
Hamilton to James McHenry, then Secretary of War, written in
1799, and about ten years after the debate in Congress that is
supposed to have settled this question.
"It was in vain, however, that the statesmen of a later
period, in view of the enormous abuses that threatened to over
throw the just balances of this Government, and to dwarf all
its other departments under the overshadowing growth of the

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 627
executive, pointed out the error into which we had fallen, and
the rocks upon which the ship of state was driving with such
headlong impetuosity. A triumphant party, supported, as it was
almost sure to be, by an unscrupulous majority in both Houses,
and looking to the offices of the Government as its lawful spoil,
was sure to resist, and resist successfully, every attempt to get
back to the true reading of the Constitution; while this power
of resistance was equally sure to be strengthened by the increase
of the means of corruption in the multiplication of the Federal
offices. That increase was, even in ordinary times, but a natural
and necessary result of our marvelous growth as a nation. The
exigencies of the war through which we have just passed, and
the new and heavy responsibilities it has left behind it, swelling
our armies beyond example, and necessitating the establishment
of a new department of the public service, that permeates the
land, and enters the castle and unlocks and inspects the cup
board and the strong-box of every citizen, have administered to
it an impulse that has carried it beyond the remotest point it
was likely to have reached in the course of another century.
The Executive of this nation, with its own tacit consent, now
wields a power over the fortunes of its people, that would, in
ambitious hands, and if adroitly used, be sufficient, not only to
buttress and sustain a throne, but to make him the envy of the
proudest potentates of Christendom. He has not hesitated to
proclaim aloud that he intends to use it to enforce his will ; and
upon this hint I now propose to strip him of the ability to make
good his menaces, by reasserting the authority of Congress, and
taking back into its own custody, and tor its own defense, the
jewel with which it has so generously and improvidently parted
in the honeymoon of its existence, when all was confidence and
love. "And now as to the extent of the decision, the length and
breadth of the swaddling-cloths that are supposed to fit us now,
and cramp the movements of a giant State in the direction of
reform. Confounded as it has been with a practice that has only
followed out its spirit, its effect, I think, has been greatly
magnified in the general estimation. In itself, and apart from
the debate to which it gave rise, it decides absolutely nothing,
except that in the absence of all legislation, the power of
removal, in cases of appointments confided to the Executive by
the Constitution, belongs to him alone. It rules nothing as to
cases where the term is fixed, or as to inferior officers, where the
mode of appointment is left entirely with Congress. The ques
tion involved was as to the heads of the Departments only, and
although the line of demarkation has never yet been authori-

628 THOMAS WILLIAMS
tatively drawn between the superior and inferior officers of the
Government, it may be safely assumed that as the head — which is
the constitutional phraseology — is superior to all the other mem
bers of the body,^so these functionaries are to be classed among
the superior officers whose appointment is vested by the Con
stitution, though only sub modo, in the President. There was no
question, however, as to the power to regulate the duration of
the office. It stood indefinite on the bill. In that condition it
was not disputed that the tenure must be either at pleasure, or
during good behavior. The Constitution had assigned the latter
to no other officers except the judges, and the inference was
irresistible that all others must hold their places by the former,
unless Congress should give some other duration to their
offices. (2 Story's Commentaries, sec. 1537; i Lloyd's Debates,
511, 512.) The point in dispute was only at whose pleasure
they were to be held; whether at that of the appointing power,
or of the President alone. And this accords precisely with the
statements of both Kent and Story, the two leading commen
tators on the Constitution, and unquestionably the highest
authorities in the country. The former describes it as 'a ques
tion whether the power of removal in case of officers appointed
to hold at pleasure, or where the duration is not specially declared,
resided anywhere but in the body that appointed.' (i Kent's
Commentaries, sec. 14, pages 308-11.) The latter puts it in
the same way, by condensing the whole issue into the two great
questions : first, to whom, in the absence of all legislation regu
lating the duration of the oMce, does the power of removal
belong? And second, if to the Executive, in cases confided to
him by the Constitution, can Congress give any duration to the
office not subject to the exercise of such power? (2 Story's
Commentaries, sec. 1537, citing i Lloyd's Debates, 511, 12.)
The latter of these two questions has not, he says, been raised,
because all our legislation has recognized the executive power
of removal as in full force, and the case here rests, of course,
only on a silent practice, which had the recommendation of
convenience, and was maintained by the harmonious co-opera
tion of the several departments of the Government, and a well-
authorized confidence in the Executive, which is now greatly
disturbed, if not altogether destroyed. As regards, however, the
former of these questions, they are equally agreed that the deci
sion was an anomalous one. Judge Story speaks of it as 'con
stituting the most extraordinary case, in the history of the
Government, of a power conferred by implication on the Execu
tive, by the assent of a bare majority in Congress, which has
not been questioned on many other occasions.' (2 Commentaries,

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 629
1 543-) Chancellor Kent, referring to the fact that it had never
been made the subject of judicial discussion, and that the con
struction given in 1789 had continued to rest on 'this loose, inci
dental, and declaratory opinion of Congress,' and although sug
gesting that it might now be considered 'firmly and definitely
settled,' is constrained to speak of it, as 'a striking fact in the
constitutional history of our Government, that a power so
transcendent as that which places at the disposal of the Presi
dent alone, the tenure of every executive officer appointed by
the President and Senate, should depend on inference merely,
and should have been gratuitously declared by the First Con
gress in opposition to the high authority of the Federalist, and
supported, or acquiesced in, by some of those distinguished men
who questioned or denied the power of Congress to incorporate a
national bank.' (i Kent's Commentaries, sec. 14, pages 308-11.)
The Chancellor does not speak with the precision of the lawyer,
and forgets his own statement, when he describes it as a power
which places at the disposal of the President alone the tenure of
every executive officer appointed by the President and Senate.
He does show, however, the training of the judge, in his remark
that the construction based on such foundations might now be
considered as 'firmly and definitely settled.' Nobody but a man
with a religious reverence for precedents, could have supposed
that an ephemeral practice of forty years' continuance, upon a
question of governmental power so important as this, could
settle forever the meaning of the fundamental law of a great
State. It required six centuries of struggle to settle down the
constitution of England on the basis of the Great Charter, and
no parliamentary precedent of the reigns even of the Plantage-
nets or the Tudors, was allowed to stand in the way of the pro
gressive movement that culminated in the Revolution of 1688.
"It is worthy of remark, moreover, that neither of these
justly distinguished jurists has intimated a doubt as to the
power of Congress to regulate the duration of the inferior
offices in such a way as to take them entirely out of the control
of the Executive. Judge Story, on the contrary, observes that
'as far as Congress has the power to regulate and delegate the
appointment of inferior officers, so far they may prescribe the
term of office, the manner in which and the persons by whom
the removal as well as the appointment to office shall be made.'
(2 Story's Commentaries sec. 1537, citing Marbury vs. Madi
son, I Cranch, 137, 155.) And again: 'If there has been any
aberration it will be difficult, perhaps impracticable, now to
recall the practice to the correct theory. But at all events it will
be a consolation to those who love the Union, and honor a

630 THOMAS WILLIAMS
devotion to the patriotic discharge of duty, that in regard to
inferidr offices, which probably include ninety-nine out of the
hundred, the remedy for any permanent abuse is still within the
power of Congress by the simple expedient of requiring the
consent of the Senate in such cases.' (Ibid., sec. I544-) And
Chancellor Kent indorses this in a note, referring to the fre
quency of the exercise of his power by President Jackson, as
having created serious doubts as to the propriety of the con
cession by the First Congress, and remarking that a high
authority had declared it to be in the power of Congress to
correct this by placing the appointment of inferior officers in
other hands, (i Kent's Commentaries, 309-11, citing 3 Story,
394-7-) "And this is in accordance also with the legislation of the
Government on more than one occasion, although it is assumed
by those who rest upon the practice, that it has been invariably
the other way. The early case of Marbury vi. Madison proves
this beyond dispute. Marbury was a justice of the peace for
this District, appointed by John Adams just before his retire
ment, under the authority of an act of Congress of 1801, fixing
the term at five years. President Jefferson withheld the com
mission after it had been signed and registered. If he could
have removed the officer, it would have been idle to stand upon
the delivery of the commission, but it was assumed by the court,
and conceded on all hands, that he was not removable, except
for cause, until the expiration of his term.
"But even in the case of an office determinable at pleasure,
as that of deputy marshal, an act passed by the very Congress
of 1789 itself, not only recognizes and asserts the right to take
the power of removal from the President, but to sever it from
the appointing power itself, by vesting it in the judges of the
circuit and district courts. (Act of 24th September, 1789.)
And in a still later case, (act of March 3, 1865, section twelve,)
it has been provided that where an officer in the military or
naval service, who may be dismissed by the authority of the
President, shall demand a trial, he shall convene a court-mar
tial, and if they shall not award the punishment of dismissal or
death, or the court shall not be convened within six months,
the order of dismissal shall be void; and this notwithstanding
the fact, that the punishment by impeachment is confined by the
Constitution to civil officers, and therefore, by necessary infer
ence, all others are removable in a different way, and although,
too, the President is, by virtue of his office, the Commander-in-
Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 631
"To show, moreover, that this v^ras the interpretation given
to the legislative action of 1789, and is in accordance with
judicial opinion in the States, upon analogous provisions in their
own constitutions, it is only necessary to refer to a decision of
the supreme court of Pennsylvania, made as early as 1820, and
when its judges were unusually eminent, to the effect that the
tenure of ministerial offices in general is during pleasure, unless
the law establishing the office orders it otherwise. (Com. ex
relatione vs. Bassier, &c., 5 S. & R., 457.)
"And now, having, as I think, ascertained and defined the
precise extent of the decision supposed to have been made in
1789, let us proceed to look into the argument by which it was
sustained, and ascertain what the Constitution itself has to say
on this subject.
"It is agreed, then, on all hands, that the power of removal
must reside somewhere, when the term is indefinite. This bill
denies it to the President alone, in all cases where the Senate
has shared in the appointment; or, in other words, declares that
nothing short of the power that makes shall unmake — -which is
but the logical result of the doctrine of the minority in 1789,
that the power to remove is included in or but an incident to the
power to appoint; a doctrine, which is now sustained, as I shall
show hereafter, by the authority of the Supreme Court of the
United States.
"On this point, however, the Constitution is silent, except
so far as it is made a part of the judgment in cases of conviction
on impeachment for 'treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors.' Nobody has ever pretended that it was any
where expressly conferred but in this single case, where it is
lodged exclusively with Congress. If it exists, therefore, at all,
it is only by implication or inference.
"Taking it, however, to rest, as claimed, either upon the
power to appoint, as an inseparable incident thereof, or on the
general assignment of executive powers to the President alone,
it becomes important to look into the provisions of that instru
ment which bear upon these two subjects.
"And first, it is to be observed, that the Constitution nowhere
vests the appointing power in the President alone. It authorizes
him to nominate, but only by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate to appoint, the officers therein described, and 'all
others that might be established by law.' This, therefore, is the
general rule.
"The exceptions, if they can be so termed, are first, that
'in cases of vacancy happening during the recess of the Senate,'
and when that body is, of course, in no condition to be con-

632 THOMAS WILLIAMS
suited, and to co-operate; or, in other words, where an appoint
ment is impracticable, for the time being, under the rule, the
President shall, not appoint, but merely supply the interregnum,
or 'fill up the vacancy' by a commission which shall only endure
'until the end of the next session,' or until they shall be in a
condition to exercise their power of concurrence in or rejection
of an appointment: and secondly, that in cases of inferior
officers, the Congress may bestow on 'the President alone,' or
the heads of Departments, or the courts, the privilege of appoint
ing without the advice or consent of the Senate, which is a
recognition of the rule, and makes a solemn act of the Legisla
ture necessary to dispense with it even in inferior cases.
"It would seem, therefore, too clear for dispute, if it has
not the force of a self-evident proposition, that the framers of
the Constitution intended to place an effective check upon the
President in this important matter, by denying to him in all
cases the right to wield this formidable power alone, except
where the accidents of administration might render it tem
porarily necessary, or the insignificance of the place might make
it safe, in the judgment of the Legislature, to intrust it to him
from time to time.
"It is claimed, however, in the absence of any direct author
ity to appoint, and in the face of the strongest implications to
the contrary, that the President may practically defeat the
obvious purpose of the framers of the instrument, by the exercise
of the power to remove in the recess, and thereby create a
vacancy, which he may fill up without the concurrence of the
Senate, or by appointing to an office already full, and thus
accomplishing by indirection the very same thing.
"But what does the Constitution say on the subject? Why,
only that 'the President shall have the power to fill up all
vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by
granting commissions that shall expire at the end of their next
session.' "The power, then, is not to appoint, but to 'fill up.' The
vacancy is not one that may be created, but one that may
'happen.' And the commission is not one that is indefinite, but
one that shall expire, by its own limitation, at the end of the next
session, so as to give the President the whole of that session to
nominate. "Upon this transparent phraseology one would think that
there could be no ground left for dispute. The case provided
for is that of 'all vacancies that may happen.' Hap is but
another word for chance. Ex vi termini, it imports accident or
casualty, without any agency on the part of the President in

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 633
bringing it about. And such is the construction which it has
received from the best intellects of the nation. Mr. Hamilton,
in his remarks in No. 77 of the Federalist, in the same language
precisely, as applied to Senators, describes it as 'an express
power given in clear and unambiguous terms to fill casual
vacancies.' And again in his letter to James McHenry, ten
years afterward, he asserts that they imply casualty, and denote
'such offices as, having been once filled, become vacant by
accidental circumstances.'
"And in accordance with this idea, when Mr. Madison,
during the recess of 1813, appointed ministers to negotiate the
treaty at Ghent, upon a question made whether it was the case
of a vacancy or a new creation, the Senate is reported as having
entered its protest against it.
"Again, on the 20th April, 1822, it was held by the same
body, that the President could not create the office of a minister,
and make appointments during the recess, it being their under
standing that the vacancies provided for were such as occurred
from death, resignation, promotion, or removal; that the word
'happen' had relation to some casualty not provided for by law,
and that if the Senate was in session when the office was created
and no nomination then made, he could not appoint during the
recess, because it was not a vacancy, happening at that time.
In many instances where new offices were created a special
power had been conferred on this account to fill them during
the recess, and it was then said that in no other instances had
the President filled such vacant offices without special authority
of law. (2 Story's Commentaries, 1559, citing Sergeant on the
Constitution; 2 Executive Journal, 515, 500; 3 Executive Jour
nal, 297.)
"And this opinion is affirmed by the second section of the
act of 9th February, 1863, which provides that no money shall
be paid out of the Treasury as salary to any person appointed,
during the recess of the Senate, to fill any vacancy in any
existing office, which vacancy existed while the Senate was in
session, and is required by law to be filled by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, until such appointee shall
have been confirmed.
"And to show, moreover, that the earlier practice had
conformed to this theory, may be added the remark of Mr.
Calhoun in his report to the Senate in 1835, on the corrupting
influence of the President's power of removal, that 'so long as
it was the practice to continue in office those who had faithfully
performed their duties, this patronage, in point of fact, was

634 THOMAS WILLIAMS
limited to the mere power of nominating to accidental vacancies,
or newly created offices.'
"It is perfectly obvious, moreover, from the tenure of the
commissions required in such cases, that this exceptional pro
vision was only intended to meet the case of an accident occur
ring at a time when the Senate was not at hand to be consulted.
To supply a vacancy is one thing, and a thing easily understood;
to create a vacancy is a thing so different, as must have necessi
tated a different phraseology, and suggested a more stringent
rule. Nobody would pretend that a removal, by the usual
process, by the President, while the Senate was in session, was
a case of vacancy happening at that time, or indeed any case of
vacancy at all. A new nomination approved by it, in a case
where the term was not fixed, would operate, no doubt, as a
supersedeas, by determining the office, but without making any
vacancy whatever ; and this I believe is the way in which the thing
has been generally done. I do not know that there are any
instances wherein a removal has been made in the first place,
except, it may be, where the office was made expressly determina
ble at the will of the President. If he may make a vacancy in
any case, he may do it in all, divest the Senate of its advisory
power, and make the exception the rule. All he has to do is to
withhold the appointments so made until the expiration of the
session, or, upon rejection of any of his creatures, recommission
them after the adjournment, and thus perpetuate the power in
himself, in defiance of the clear intention of the framers of the
Constitution. And this he has actually done to such an extent,
that if not seasonably checked, the Senate itself will soon have
practically ceased to share all that part of the appointing power
which it may not already have substantially surrendered by its
complaisance. "Nor does it seem improbable that this has been the studied
purpose in high quarters, in view of the imputed illegitimacy of
the body which is now supposed to be 'hanging, as it were, on
the verge of the Constitution.' The law officer of the Govern
ment has just been asked, with special reference, perhaps, to
the act of 1863, whether a vacancy happening during the session,
is not a vacancy happening during the recess; and he answers
in the traditional spirit of an Attorney General, with an opinion
that blots out of the Constitution the words 'that may happen
during the recess of the Senate,' ,by making it entirely indiffer
ent what may be the causes by which that vacancy is produced,
or at what time it may occur. Nay, more. The very commis
sions now issued will be found to run, not only at 'the pleasure
of the President,' where the tenure is indefinite, but even in

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 635
cases of appointments made during the recess, where the very
terms are prescribed by the Constitution itself, are interpolated
with the same anti-republican phraseology, in utter disregard
of the express provisions of that instrument.
"To the whole claim, however, of so formidable a preroga
tive, it ought to be sufficient answer : first, that the Constitution
nowhere confers any such power, except in the cases already
stated, and that from this exception, by well-settled rules of con
struction, the inference is a legitimate one, that it was not
intended to be exercised in any other way, in civil cases at all
events; and second, that the exception which gives to Congress
the authority to vest the appointments to inferior offices in the
President alone, is as utterly irreconcilable with the idea that he
can remove alone, and vsdthout cause, in the case of superior
offices, as is the provision for impeachment and trial, with the
notion of a summary ejection without any hearing at all.
"But, then, it is insisted that this mode of removal would be
inconvenient, because the machinery is too elaborate for ordinary
use, and would be entirely inadequate to meet the exigencies of
a vast and multiplied service, and the many unforeseen con
tingencies that might necessitate the existence of a jurisdiction
more summary and extended; and hence the illogical inference
of a power in the President to remove where the Constitution
itself has not spoken.
"I will not stop to examine the argument ab inconvenienti,
even though so great a name as that of Coke may be invoked
to show that it prevails in law, where one construction would be
more mischievous than another. It may be inconvenient to
impeach in all cases. It was hardly expected, perhaps, that it
would be necessary. It may be inconvenient to the President
and his southern friends, that he is not endowed with dictatorial
powers, such as he has been claiming and exercising. It may
be inconvenient to him that he cannot indulge the parasites who
swarm around him, by the unrestricted use of the guillotine
under which so many heads have already fallen. It would be
certainly very convenient to him and his southern friends, but
very inconvenient to the nation, that he should be allowed to do
all the things that this bill is intended to prevent. But all this
is only an argument in favor of a change in the law, or an
amendment of the Constitution, which, in the view of the Presi
dent, is not now amendable, for reasons that would dethrone
Congress, and unseat himself.
"Is it, then, a necessary power ? And if so, why ? Because,
it is said, the officer may prove incompetent or unfaithful, and
the public interests may therefore require his dismissal. Granted

636 THOMAS WILLIAMS
that they may. What follows? That he may remove him?
That is a non sequitur. The result of an admitted necessity,
without any constitutional provision to meet it, it would seem
rather to be that the case was left to be provided for by law,
than that a power so dangerous should be raised by implication
in the President. If there be a necessity. Congress can provide
for it, under its authority 'to make all laws which shall be neces
sary or proper for carrying into execution all powers vested in
the Government, or in any department thereof.' It is a capital
error to suppose that the Executive is endowed with the inci
dental power to legislate for constitutional defects which touch
his office. To claim that it belongs to him, in virtue thereof, is
no more or less than the assertion of a dictatorial power to the
extent of the very terms used by the Romans in conferring it.
If the President is to do everything which in his opinion the
public interests may require, then every defect in the Constitu
tion or laws is to be supplied, and every disproportion sym
metrized by him. And this, it seems, is the opinion of the
present law adviser of the Government, as expressed in his
recent answer to the inquiry as to the power of the President to
fill vacancies occurring during the session of the Senate. It is
with him a necessary power, and though it may be so wielded, as
he admits, as to oust the jurisdiction of the Senate entirely,
he marches up to the reductio ad absurdum with a courage that
might have graced a better cause, and thinks to put us off with
the answer, that it is no objection to a power that it may be
abused. If it had been an express power, the argument would
have been a good one. Where, however, it is only implied, as
here, a well-trained lawyer, who could forget his office in his
profession, would have said at once that the possibility of such
an abuse was a conclusive argument against the existence of the
power. It would be asking, perhaps, too much, to expect that
an officer who holds his life at the pleasure of the President
should be found standing in the way of the prerogative in times
like these. When was it ever heard that an Attorney General
in High Prerogative times had faltered in the support of the
most extravagant of the pretensions of the Crown? How many
judges have proved capable of emulating the sturdy virtue of
Sir Edward Coke, before the Act of Settlement that made their
tenure independent of the royal will? Possibly there are men
here who are prepared to indorse such slavish views. Every
traitor in the South, and every Democrat in the North who
sympathized with him, would doubtless agree to them, as they
have agreed so generally, that the President might organize
State governments, and ordain State constitutions, while we are

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 637
denied the humble privilege of suggesting amendments in the
interests of liberty, and denounced as no better than 'tinkers' —
I was going to say tailors — ^by the minions and upstarts, the
pampered and insolent menials, who lick the royal hand, and
look up beseechingly for the 'bread and butter' that are flung
contemptuously into their hungry jaws.
"In default, however, of the arguments from inconvenience
and necessity, is there anything in the suggestion that this power
of removal is a part or incident of the power of appointment?
If there were, it would not help the case, because the appoint
ing power is nowhere lodged in the President alone — the
power to act during the recess being a mere authority to fill up
vacancies ad interim — and the power to remove, on this argu
ment, could only be exercisable in conjunction with the Senate.
"But the Supreme Court of the United States has solemnly
decided that there is, and has on this point affirmed the opinion
of the minority in the Congress of 1789. The case Ex relatione
Heenan (13 Peters, 230,) which was that of the removal, by
the presiding judge, of a clerk of the district court of Louisiana,
distinctly rules that, in the absence of all constitutional pro
vision, or statutory regulation, it is a sound and necessary rule
to consider the power of removal as incident to the power of
appointment. The removal there was by the judge who
appointed. Upon the theory of the majority the power would
have resulted to the President.
"And here I might rest the argument with those who stand
upon authority, and are willing to accept a judicial opinion in
the place of a legislative precedent.
"But assuming that this power is but an incident, and so
belonging to the Senate, in conjunction with the President, it is
not only insisted that where no tenure is prescribed, the officer
must necessarily hold at the will of the appointing power, but
assumed that no other tenure is admissible.
"It is not necessary, however, that the tenure should be
indefinite ; and it is perhaps not safe, and not strictly in harmony
with the spirit of our institutions, to leave it so, if the power
claimed resides with the President, and may be exercised with
out cause, or without other reason than the want of personal
subserviency to himself.
"The Constitution looks to the creation and establishment
of all offices under it by the act of the law-making power, and
in no case but that of the judges, and appointments made to fill
up vacancies ad interim, undertakes to prescribe the tenure by
which they are to be held. But the power to create an office
involves, of course, the power to determine upon its duration and

638 THOMAS WILLIAMS
duties, to say what it shall be and when it shall expire; the
power, in short, to make all laws which may, in the judgment of
Congress, be necessary and proper for its regulation, including
the period of service and the causes of removal. I know no
limitation on the power of Congress here, except in the assign
ment to the President, in all cases but those of inferior offices,
of the right to nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate, to appoint. Whenever an office is created of the
superior class, that power devolves, under the Constitution, upon
him, and cannot, of course, be taken away. But with this excep
tion only, and the cases of judges, and of appointments to fill
vacancies, their jurisdiction over the subject is absolute. If
there be anything to restrain or limit it beyond this, it behooves
those who so assert to show where it is to be found.
"It is a fair inference from the provisions just recited,
that the framers of the Constitution intended to leave the ques
tion of official tenure in all other than the excepted cases to
congressional regulation. To suppose that they designed it to
be indefinite, and therefore determinable at the mere will of the
appointing power, and without responsibility for abuse, even
though that power were understood to comprehend the Senate,
would be a violent presumption indeed. To conclude that they
intended to make it determinable at the mere will of the Presi
dent, either with or without cause, in view of the extreme jeal
ousy with which that department was regarded, is absolutely
incredible. "I take it, therefore, that Congress may dispose of this
question, even in the case of the superior offices, by defining
the tenure and changing the character of the estate, so as, in
effect, to substitute its own will for that of the President, by
giving to it the form of law, in accordance with the principles
on which this Government is founded. An executive will is only
admissible in the case of a despotic Government, of which it is
the very essence and expression. The 'sic volo, sic jubeo; stet
pro ratione voluntas,' is not the maxim for a republican State.
"But there is another ground — the one assumed by Madison,
and perhaps the only one on which these royal pretensions have
ever been plausibly defended — and that is, that the exercise
of the power of removal, the same being in its very nature an
executive function, falls necessarily within the meaning of that
clause of the Constitution which declares that 'the executive
power shall be vested in a President of the United States ;' that
all executive powers not denied or lodged elsewhere, are thereby
vested in the President ; and that every participation of the Sen-

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 639
ate is an exception to a general principle, and ought to be
taken strictly.
"This argument assumes, in the first place, that the power
of removal is essentially an executive power, as I understand it
to be just now asserted by the Attorney General to be. I know
no reason to warrant the assumption. Whether it be so or not,
will depend, I suppose, on what the Constitution makes it.
There is nothing in the act itself, that decides it to be a minis
terial function only. It involves the exercise of a discretion that
does not belong to ministerial officers. So far as the Constitu
tion makes provision for its exercise, it gives it a judicial char
acter entirely. True to the idea on which our institutions rest,
it leaves nothing here to the mere will of the Executive. No
man's fortune is made dependent on a caprice that would make
him a slave. If an officer is to be removed, it declares in what
manner it shall be done, and that it shall be only on sufficient
cause, and with the privilege of an impartial hearing, which this
bill is intended to secure. To infer, as seems to be imported
by the argument, that it is an executive function, merely because
the officer who is the subject of it may happen to be an execu
tive officer, would be the most inconsequent of conclusions. If
it were true, then the election or removal of a President, or a
Congressman, or a judge, would be an executive, legislative, or
judicial act, according to the quality of the subject with which
it had to deal, and without reference to the manner in which
the act might be performed. It is the manner of performance,
however, that is to determine the character of the act. It is a
possible case, I suppose, that a man may be legislated out of
office, by repealing the law creating it, or making the tenure
dependent on the will of Congress. Clearly a circuit or a
district judge may remove the clerk whom he has appointed,
because that power is held to be an incident of the power to
appoint, wherever the tenure is indefinite; but nobody has ever
claimed that the President can do it, or would think of calling
the act an executive one. If Mr. Madison and the Attorney
General were right, however, in claiming it as an essentially
executive function, the decision in ex parte Heenan was errone
ous, and the power belonged to the President alone.
"If, however, the assumption, that the power of appointment
or removal was a purely executive one, was without warrant, as
I think it was, there is an end, of course, to the argument based
upon it, that the participation of the Senate was an exception to
a general principle, and ought, therefore, to be strictly con
strued.

640 THOMAS WILLIAMS
"But even though the function were, in its essence, an
executive one, it does not then follow that it was conferred on
the President, by the clause which vests the executive power
in him, unless it can be held that all power that would be
regarded as executive in England, passed by the general grant
— as it is claimed to be — whether it was embraced within the
scope and purview of the Constitution or not. Mr. Madison
insisted that the clause in question carried everything that was
not either expressly denied, or lodged in other hands. If it did,
there is no prerogative of the British Crown that might not be
claimed for him, because there are no negative words to restrain
his powers. We must look, however, to the Constitution itself
in order to interpret the intent of the grant — if it is to be so
considered. It is bad logic to infer that anything passes by
it that is not to be found in the Constitution at all, because that
would enlarge the grant beyond the purview of the instrument.
If he had qualified his statement, by saying that it carried every
thing within the scope and spirit of the Constitution, that was
purely executive, and not denied expressly or by implication, he
would have conformed to a rule of construction, that in the
search for truth is universally recognized, and absolutely essen
tial to light up the devious passages and darkened chambers, that
so often perplex the inquirer in the exploration of the meaning
of the lawgiver. There was no more reason for excepting an
express denial than an implied one, and no excuse for the omis
sion when he was arguing the case of an implied or inferential
power. But to infer the existence of that power from language
so general, without reference to the context, or the subject-mat
ter, and in the face of an express provision pointing out the
method of impeachment, is something in the way of argument,
that not even the deservedly great reputation of Mr. Madison
himself can commend to the favorable judgment of a disciplined
logician of the present day.
"It seems to have been considered, however, that the power
of removal was conferred by a sort of necessary implication,
because the President is the responsible head to whom all
others are subordinate, and bound by his oath for the faithful
execution of the law, and that the power was incidental to the
duty, and hiight be requisite for its fulfillment.
"Whether this much-talked of responsibility of the Presi
dent amounts to anything in practice, or can be held to go
beyond an honest endeavor on his .part to see that the laws are
faithfully executed, so far as he is endowed with the means of
enforcing them, is more than can be safely assumed, and more,
I think, than any friend of the Executive would care to affirm.

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 641
It does not, however, follow, ex necessitate, that although there
were a failure of duty on the part of the officer, the power of
removal would then belong to him either qua Executive, or 'as
general residuary legatee or trustee under the Constitution. It
is neither essential nor desirable that the officer should be
responsible to him, or subject to his will. This would be to turn
the faces of the public servants in the direction of the President,
just as the fire worshipper salutes the opening glories of the king
of day, or the sun-flower is supposed to 'swing the circle' of the
horizon in adoration of its God. There is a responsibility to
the law, as there is a way of removal indicated by it, which is
in nowise dependent on the executive will, that holds the officer
to the performance of his duties, and is the only practical security
for those who are interested in it. Any other is more imaginary
than real, so long as it is enough for the President himself to say
that he is irresponsible because he is without power in the
premises. He would be equally so in effect with all the power
that he claims. He may say that he wants more than the Con
stitution intended to give him, that it is our interest that he
should be be gratified, and our necessity that he should be
enabled to do our work ; and a facile Attorney General, holding
his own place by what he regards as the necessary tenure of
executive pleasure, will be always found to attribute to him all
he covets, upon the convenient plea of an overruling public
necessity. He will do this naturally, because he sees no power
in the state, except the one under whose shadow he reposes. If
he cannot torture the Constitution into a grant of it, he will
raise an incidental authority out of a supposed necessity, for the
fulfillment of a general duty. The framers of the Constitution
supposed that it might require an express grant even to the legis
lative department, to make such laws as might be necessary and
proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the
Government. But they did not stop here. They looked to
legislation only to supply the needs of the other departments,
and provided them an auxiliary in Congress to aid them in the
execution of their duties. They have done away, therefore, with
the necessity of a resort to incidental powers in the Executive.
If there is a casus omissus in the law it is for Congress to apply
the remedy. But it required no constitutional provision for this
purpose. Every Government has the inherent, because neces
sary, power of regulating the tenure and conduct of its own
officers, and displacing them at its own will, except where it is
expressly forbidden by its fundamental law. If the law is silent
or defective it imports no surrender of so important a function,
and no lapse to the executive magistrate.

642 THOMAS WILLIAMS
"But what is there at last in the clause that vests the
executive power in the President? Nothing more than in the
corresponding clauses that vest the legislative power in Con
gress, and the judicial in the courts. In any sense, it is but a
distribution or assignment to each of these departments, of its
appropriate share of the powers actually conferred on the
Government by the Constitution. To say that this is in the
nature of a grant that passes all power that may in any sense
be regarded as executive, whether conferred by that instrument
or not, is something in the way of construction, that can find
no more favor with the statesman than with the lawyer. In an
absolute monarchy, where everything depends upon a single will,
all powers may be said to be executive, because there is no law
but that will, which judges and executes itself. It will hardly be
contended that the clause in question was intended to make the
will of the Executive so large a part of the administration of
this Government.
"Is it true, then, that upon such a case as this, a mere
acquiescence, or even a vicious practice of three quarters of a
century, is to canonize a doctrine that is so manifestly in con
flict with the spirit of our Government, and the very letter of
our Constitution? I have asked on another occasion — I now
repeat the question — what is a century in the life of a State?
What would be thought, moreover, of a constitutional amend
ment, or a declaratory law, broadly enunciating and establishing
the doctrine, that the President may appoint and remove all offi
cers whose tenure is not made by the Constitution dependent on
good behavior, of his own unassisted volition, and without
regard to the merits or defaults of the objects of his bounty or
his displeasure? Would Congress or the people agree to such
a proposition? And yet this is precisely what is now claimed
for him, and what he is now actually doing, on the hypothesis
of a Cabinet minister, that the offices of the Government, as the
rightful appanage of the Crown, are his property, and those who
fill them were intended to be the mere creatures of his will.
"When it was suggested in the debate of 1789, that this
enormous power might be thus abused to the destruction of our
liberties, the answer was, that this was impossible, and would
constitute a clearly impeachable offense, if done, and upon this
point there was apparently no divided sentiment. Since that
time, and especially after the lapse of the first forty years, it is
not to be denied that the patronage of the Government has
more than once been brought in conflict with the freedom, not
only of elections, but of opinion. It was reserved for us to
hear it publicly and defiantly declared, for the first time in our

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 643
history, to be the settled intention of the Executive to use the
patronage we gave him— ay, to foot the objects of his prede
cessor's trust, as he 'would spurn a stranger cur, over his thresh
old' — for the purpose of overruling the judgment of Congress,
and bending the whole nation to his will; and the results of
the elections in Philadelphia and New York, so happily overruled
by the healthful influences of the country, show that it was no
idle menace on his part.
"But what avails either the supervisory power of the Sen
ate, or the remedy by impeachment, which was relied on by the
Congress of 1789, as against a high delinquent who holds the
spoils of a nation in his hands? Has the constitutional brake
been put down even where it might have been ? And if it were,
how is it to help us, when the jurisdiction of the Senate is
ousted by the many ingenious devices of tyranny, that have
found a ready support in the opinions of the law officers of the
Government? May it not be said with truth, and without
oft'ense, that the Senate itself has tacitly countenanced, if not
approved, removals for opinion's sake — the very offense that
would have warranted an impeachment, in the judgment of the
Congress of 1789 — ^by confirming nominations made obviously
on no other grounds ? What, then, are we to hope from the slow
and doubtful and, perhaps, obnoxious process of impeachment,
where the criminal is a President, and a vote of two thirds is
required to convict? If you would impeach successfully, you
must strip him of his power over the fortunes of the citizen.
No glittering bauble must be allowed to dazzle the vision, or
tempt the cupidity or the ambition of either the prosecutor or
the judge. No army of stipendiaries must be allowed to sur
round his person and depend upon his will. Invested with all
these imperial prerogatives, and backed by the power of the
sword, another President, with more discretion and wiser coun
selors, may threaten the public peace, and threaten.it more
successfully, by flinging himself into the arena, with an array
more formidable than either the Household Swiss or the incip
ient Praetorian guard who lately mustered on the royal summons,
and disputing with you the mastery of the empire.
"Have not the people been already told by the Executive
himself that we were too lavish of our confidence, and that
they owed it to his forbearance and humility alone that he
had not accepted the crown, and endued himself in the purple
that we had offered him? Have they not been asked by his
chief adviser whether they would have him for President or
King? Reduced to his constitutional nakedness, he is still
formidable enough, but not so formidable as to endanger

644 THOMAS WILLIAMS
our liberties. What is he without the use of the unre
stricted patronage that he commands? But for that, is it
within the range of probability than any Executive would
have ventured to insuh and defy the loyal people of the
nation, by denouncing its high legislative council — the constitu
tional depositary of its will — as a body of usurpers — 'traitors on
the other end of the line' — in actual rebellion against the South,
and proclaiming that it was to his self-denial only that they
were indebted for the preservation of their liberties? But for
the prestige which it gives him, who would have thought it
necessary to inquire whether the President would recognize the
next Congress, or submit to the public will, or favor the adop
tion of the constitutional amendment by the rebel States? If
he were indeed the 'humble individual' we have so often heard
of, who would send, or who would listen to the daily bulletins
announcing royal conferences upon the settlement of the nation,
or imperial resolves upon the great questions of war and peace
with neighboring States? Without the power to reward his
favorites, by putting a gold chain about their necks, and lifting
them to the highest places in the kingdom, where was that
spoil-engendered and spoil-inspired array— that formidable
shape —
" 'If shape it might be called that shape had none
Distinguishable in member, joint, or limb.
Or substance might be called that shadow seemed' —
'the National Union party?' Who is there, in that case, of all
the menials who have re-echoed the classic objurgations with
which the representative body of this nation has been assailed,
that would have been so poor to do their author reverence ?
What else than the abject servility that flatters and intoxicates
— unless it were the Providence that sent out Pharoah with his
captains in the pursuit of the fugitives of Israel — could have
inspired the royal progress and the royal speech, and launched its
victim on that crusade which ended so unhappily for himself?
May I not ask, 'Upon what other meat has this our Cassar fed
that he is grown so great?' Pass this bill, and the bloated and
exaggerated power that now 'bestrides this land like a Colossus,'
and bids us all 'to hide between its legs and find ourselves dis
honorable graves,' will sink down at once into its constitutional
and healthful proportions. Pass this bill, and you may dispense
with the dead letter of the impeaching power, because no future
President will then presume either to depose, or ignore the
legislative authority of this nation, or to refuse obedience to the
high behests of the people, as expressed through their Repre
sentatives. Heed not a vicious precedent, as big with ruin as

"reconstruction" z'crsiis "restoration" 645
the pr.mal fault, the plucking of the fruit 'whose mortal taste
brought death into the world.' What though the Fathers may
have erred, as did the first? Their fault may be repaired. It
is of no consequence to us what the Congress of 1789 may have
decided, or what any of their successors may have acquiesced
in, if they were wrong, and the life of the nation has been
imperiled by their error. The public interests, the safety of the
State, the sentiments of the people, all demand some measure
of the kind which this bill proposes; and this Congress
will fail in its duty, and disappoint the just expecta
tions of its constituents, if it adjourns without providing it.
Reject it, and the golden opportunity— the ebb of the tide that
has gone back under the earthquake shock of the ballot-box, and
now invites you to build up a dike that the returning waters
shall never overleap — is gone, perhaps, forever. It is not often
that a President comes in with that kind of courage which is
required for the betrayal of his party and his country, or the
abandonment of the principles and pledges on which he was
elected. It has never happened before — and perhaps never will
again — that the party so betrayed has been honest enough, to
fling the offices of the Government behind it, like the temptation
in the wilderness, and strong enough, and courageous enough, to
grapple successfully with the hydra it had unwittingly engen
dered. "The people are now here in their unclouded power. They
have taken the Government into their own hands. They have
rebuked and trodden down the arrogant pretensions of the
Executive. They have stricken the veto dead in his hands.
They have declared that he shall not stand at your doors to
arrest your legislation, as he has publicly threatened that he
would do. They have degraded him, for the time being, from
your associate in council, to the mere minister of your will. It
is their high and irreversible decree, that the public servant who
presumed to deny their jurisdiction and yours, over the most
momentous question of your history, shall stand aside until you
have disposed of it, and then execute your judgment in good
faith, whether it be agreeable to him or not. They have now
reviewed and reaffirmed their decision of 1864, and again
instructed you to enact such laws as you may think proper, and
to see that they are honestly enforced, or that the impediment is
removed. Pass this bill, as the first in the order of necessity,
and the residue of the work will be of easy accomplishment.
Reject it, and posterity will grieve that the courage which had
conquered treason twice was not seconded by the spirit that
might have shorn its locks, and bound it in everlasting chains.

646 THOMAS WILLIAMS
"We make history to-day. The classic Muse who looks
down from her pedestal on this Chamber, stands ready,
with uplifted style, to write the chapter that is to record the
doings of this Session. It behooves us to see that the judgment
of a nation is not made void by the faint-heartedness of its
Representatives. There is no time now for dalhance with the
power that we have conquered. No gentle speech, 'no candy
courtesies,' no dull oblivion of the pregnant past, befits the crisis
that is on us now. We have just trodden the winepress of Revo
lution, to encounter at its closing doors the bloodier form of
Anarchy, while the untamed fiends of the rebellion, their appe
tites inflamed and their hands dripping with the blood of the
martyrs, laughed — as none but the damned could laugh — at the
rising vision, but dimly foreshadowed by the St. Bartholomews
of Memphis and New Orleans, of the opening of another seal,
which should turn our rivers into blood, 'and visit upon us and
our children more than apocalyptic woes.
"Over that precipice of ruin this nation has hung trembling
for the last few months. The virtue and intelligence of a free
people, inspired and directed by the providence of God, have
bridged the fathomless abyss that yawned before us, and saved
us from the horrors of this second death. We can now look back
and measure the danger, and detect its source. We know its
cause. Executive usurpation — despotic will — encouraged and
re-enforced by the unlimited command of all the offices of the
Republic, and all the corrupting influences which they can
employ, is written in flaming characters upon every rock that has
threatened us with shipwreck. This giant power must be
abridged if our peace is to be maintained, and our liberties made
sure. The time is now to put a hook in the jaws of this leviathan
that has tempested the waters, and moor him to his proper place
under the Constitution. If we fail, the evil will go on swelling
in volume, and accumulating a resistless momentum as it
flows, until the one-man power — ^become all in all — enthroned
in solitary state, like some volcanic peak, shall tower aloft,
uncontrollable and supreme, over a nation of slaves."
The Tenure-of-Office Act was passed over the veto of
the President, who regarded it as unconstitutional, and
likewise the Reconstruction Act became a law on March
2, 1867, thus operating a complete system of reconstruc
tion through the Secretary of War, Mr. Stanton. While
this latter act would, if the Southern white people had
responded to it, have given them a chance to exercise
their natural influence as citizens, it was well known

"reconstruction" versus "restoration" 647
that they would not, and it did practically operate to dis
franchise them.i These measures were undoubtedly the
expression of the will of the majority of those then vot
ing in the United States, and that will was due chiefly to
suspicion of the Tennesseean President's sympathizers
and the course of the Southern white population under
Johnson's "restoration" poHcy. That it was also due to
what is now generally accepted as the unwise policy of
universal suffrage where there was such a mass of igno
rance controlled by the dominant element, cannot be
doubted ; at least it cannot be by those far enough away
from personal experience in those trying times to view
it historically. On the other hand, is it not an error
to suppose this great convulsion of '61-65 closed with
its mere physical end? Was it possible that the
industrial, political, social and mental phases of so
great a convulsion should not continue wrecking with
their great billows long after the storm proper had
subsided? Indeed, is not that part of the storm often
the worst in its effects — and naturally so — because
the waves are still dealing blows upon the exhausted,
after a vision of peace has appeared? There are always
pain and increased wreckage in the reconstruction of a
wreck, and is it not assuming on an entirely unhistorical
scale to say that the so-called "restoration" policy
of even President Lincoln — so far as it could be
known what it would be when the actual operation began
— could have, while securing the final settlement of con
tested questions for which the war was fought, been
operated with less pain to all concerned? Pain and time
are both concomitants of the healing of a wound or a
disease, and it is not an uncommon experience in life that
the pain and time both should be charged to the physician
and nurse who happened to be called to the unpleasant
duty. The time will come, if it is not already here, when
this period of reconstruction will be looked upon as the
most critical period of this civil upheaval, as the years
^ Congressional Globe, Thirty-ninth Congress, 2d Session, Part i, p. 22.
Any one who wishes to see a legislative phenomenon, full of startling sug
gestion, has but to see a volume of the reports of the State Executive or
minutes of a Legislature under these reconstruction acts, e. g., those of
Mississippi, when the members of the latter body were almost entirely colored.

648 THOMAS WILLIAMS
following 1781 have long been considered in our first
one, and when the Thirty-ninth Congress passed out of
existence on March 2, 1867, there is no manner of doubt
that it was so considered by Mr. Williams.

CHAPTER XVIII
The Fortieth Congress
A Leader of the Judiciary Committee, He Writes
the Impeachment Report Against President
Johnson and Makes the Great Final Argu
ment as One of the Board of Managers
1867
The Fortieth Congress assembled immediately on
Monday following the close of the late Congress on Satur
day. Mr. Williams drew the seat immediately back of
his former one; Garfield was in the fourth seat to his
right; Blaine two seats farther west; AlHson in front
of Garfield; General Logan was a seat or so across the
aisle, and General Butler in front of Allison, with Kelley
at Butler's right and Stevens in front of Kelley; Wilson
sat at Butler's left and Boutwell was two aisles farther
west.^ Colfax was still Speaker. On the 7th of March
the judiciary committee was announced. Chairman
James F. Wilson of Iowa, George S. Boutwell of Massa
chusetts, Francis Thomas of Maryland, Mr. Williams,
Frederick E. Woodbridge of Vermont, William Lawrence
of Ohio, John C. Churchill of New York, Samuel S. Mar
shall of Illinois and Charles A. Eldridge of Wisconsin.
In the previous January (7th) an investigation of the
President had been ordered and the judiciary committee
of the late Congress had been unable to complete the
work. It was now ordered to take it up again and con
tinue its investigations during a recess which lasted from
March 30th to July 3d (i867).'' On July loth the matter
^ Plan of the House, facing p. 9, in Congressional Globe, Fortieth Congress,
1st Session. ^ In a letter of March 9, 1867, Mr. Williams tells his wife of an invitation
to dine with the President which he "most respectfully declined." He added
that he "did not care about sitting down at the table of any man for whom I
649

650 THOMAS WILLIAMS
came up and Chairman Wilson intimated, in reporting,
that the committee were still not ready, that they were
now five to four against the existence of grounds for
impeachment, but Mr. Williams promptly spoke for the
minority, stating that he and his three colleagues on the
committee were satisfied to report now in favor of the exist
ence of grounds for impeachment.^ Boutwell was of the
minority, too. It was the course of the President since the
passage of the Tenure-of-Office Act, of which law Mr.
Williams was the author, that converted him to impeach
ment.^ He expected the President to continue his war
fare, and had already endeavored to make still further
secure all the aims of Congress by the introduction, both
at the last Congress and the first session of the present
one, of a bill to require a full bench of the Supreme Court
and a unanimous opinion on the constitutionality of con
gressional measures, but as his main defense of it came
up later, it need not be anticipated.^ He was drawn into
an expression of his relation to investigation and
impeachment, however, on July 20th (1867), in a parliamen
tary skirmish between the majority and minority of the
judiciary committee, under the form of "personal expla
nation." He said, "the place which has been assigned me in
this investigation was not one of my seeking. The duty
which it involved has been to me a very painful one — it
has been a very laborious one. * * * i have had no
end in view but to serve my country, in a case where I
thought its highest and dearest interests, its safety, and
its life were involved." He said a gentleman had stated
"that it was a mere question of President-making."*
"Allow me to say in reply," Mr. Williams continued, "that
my humble ambition has never tended in the direction of
have no personal respect — who has betrayed the friends that have been so
confiding & generous & taken to his bosom the worst & vilest of our country's
enemies.'* ^ Congressional Globe, Fortieth Congress, ist Session, pp. 566-7,
2 Dewitt, in his "Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson" (p. 182'),
treats Williams as the representative voice for the Tenure of Office Bill, and
(p. 195) notes that he, Schenck and Wilson were the committee to confer on it
with a similar Senate committee, composed of Senators Williams (of Oregon),
Sherman and Buckalew.
* Congressional Globe, Fortieth Congress, ist Session, p. 59.
* He referred to the desire of some who, by impeaching President John.
son, would put Senator Wade of Ohio, presiding officer of the Senate, in the
White House and make him the logical candidate for the next term.

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 65 1
either making presidents or kings," and after intimating
that there was no honor in making either, he added
"when I find a President of these United States asserting
kingly powers, claiming the force df statutes for his proc
lamations, living in habitual contempt and violation of
your laws, suspending their powers or trampling them
under foot, bartering away untold millions of your prop
erty for rebel use, claiming to rule without a Congress,
insulting the legislative power and defying its authority,
and ruling this nation as if he were its master, so help me
God I will uncrown him if I can."
The investigation was continued, and while it was still
in progress — although Congress itself had adjourned July
20th to November 21st — on August 5th (1867), the Pres
ident suggested the resignation of Secretary Stanton, and
Stanton refused, at least before the next meeting of Con
gress. On the I2th he was suspended by the President
and General Grant placed in charge temporarily. This
was known, of course, on November 25th, when Mr.
Boutwell presented the judiciary committee's majority
report, recommending impeachment, adding "that all that
part of the report which relates to the testimony taken,
and to the consideration of the law involved in the case,
was prepared by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Williams], a member of the Committee. It has fallen to
my lot to present the report to the House, for the reason
that it was the pleasure of the Speaker to place me second
upon the Committee on the Judiciary ; and the Chairman
of the Committee [Mr. Wilson of Iowa], dissenting from
the report of the majority, it was, by general consent of
the members forming the majority, agreed that I should
present the report to the House. "^ It was ordered printed.
The majority which signed it were Boutwell, Thomas,
Williams, Lawrence and Churchill. It covered over fifty-
eight pages of printed matter, all of which was the work
of Mr. Williams except less than four pages of summary
by Mr. Boutwell.^
To quote only one paragraph from this report: "It
will be observed, then," he adds, after his introduction,
^ Congressional Globe, Fortieth Congress, ist Session, p. 791.
2 See Boutwell's "Reminiscences," Vol. II, p. 113.

652 THOMAS WILLIAMS
"that the great salient point of accusation, standing out in
the foreground, and challenging the attention of the
country, is usiirpation of power, which involves, of course,
a violation of law. And here it may be remarked that per
haps every great abuse, every flagrant departure from the
well-settled principles of the government, which has been
brought home to its present administration, whether dis
covering itself in special infractions of its statutes, or in
the profligate use of the high powers conferred by the
Constitution on the President, or revealing itself more
manifestly in the systematic attempt to seize upon its
sovereignty, and disparage and supersede the great
council to which that sovereignty has been intrusted, is
referable to the one great overshadowing purpose of
reconstructing the shattered governments of the rebel
States in accordance with his own will, in the interests
of the great criminals who carried them into rebellion,
and in such a way as to deprive the people of the loyal
States of all chances of indemnity for the past or security
for the future, by pardoning their offenses, restoring their
lands, and hurrying them back — their hearts unrepentant,
and their hands yet red with the blood of our people — into
a condition where they could once more embarrass and
defy, if not absolutely rule the government which
they had vainly endeavored to destroy. It is around this
point, and as auxiliary to this great central idea, that all
the special acts of mal-administration we have wit
nessed, will be found to gravitate and revolve, and it is
to this point, therefore, as the great master-key which
unlocks and interprets all of them, that the attention of
the House will be first directed."
The report states that from Mr. Lincoln's well-known
and "habitual deference to the public will," there was no
doubt, even he, who was from a loyal State, would have
lain down his sword before the Congress after the sur
render, and let Law resume her sway; that it would be
an easv task to show that congressional action would have
been and had already been of a moderation, forbearance,
and magnanimity "that has no example in history ;" but
at any rate the committee were of one voice in that the
task left by the war was no business of the Executive.

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 653
"Never," reads one sentence, "in the history of this or any
other State have questions more numerous and vital,
more delicate or difficult, requiring graver deliberation, or
involving the exercise of higher governmental powers,
presented themselves for the consideration of a people;
and never was a Congress convoked in a more serious
crisis of a State." Nothing further of the report need be
anticipated, as the parts emphasized by Mr. WilHams
when the impeachment, which was finally recommended,
came to trial will be seen in full
On December 7th (1867), by a test vote for impeach
ment, the recommendation was rejected by 108 to 57, but
events soon modified this. The Senate, in executive ses
sion, on January 13, 1868, carrying out the spirit of the
Tenure-of-OflSce Act, refused to consent to Mr. Stanton's
removal.^ On the same day Mr. Williams brought for
ward his previous bill, in the form of an amendment to
the Senate bill, providing for a full bench of the Supreme
Court and unanimity of decision on great constitutional
measures of Congress, and he made a short defense of it
of such significance — especially in its closing paragraphs,
that it is quoted entire as giving his vital relations to this
whole contest with the President, in what may be called
the "Second Civil War of the Sixties." Nowhere else
does he describe his attitude to public questions more
accurately than in this short address ;-
The object of the amendment reported by the committee to
the Senate bill is to preserve this Government in its original
spirit, and protect its people in the enjoyment of the rights
intended to be secured to them by its fundamental law, by pro
tecting that law as well against the encroachments of the States
as from the ambition or infirmities of its accredited expounders,
acting through the more insidious and alarming process of
judicial construction, which is so often but another name for
judicial legislation.
The purpose of the amendment just offered by me, which is
' McPherson's "Political Manual of Reconstruction," p. 262 (1875). A
collection of miscellany, a squib apparently taken from the National Intelligencer.
It is not in the Globe, of course.
2 Congressional Globe, 2d Session, Fortieth Congress, p. 479, and appendix,
p. 85. Mr. Marshall referred to Mr. Williams as "The distinguished gentle
man from Pennsylvania, a member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentle
man who first brought this question before the country."

654 THOMAS WILLIAMS
no other than a copy of the bill that, under a feeling of profound
alarm for the tranquility of the nation and the preservation of
the just balances of the Constitution, was introduced by me
into the last Congress, and again renewed and referred upon
the inauguration of the present one, is to make that protection
sure by exacting the highest security that the authority of Con
gress can demand and the nature of the circumstances will
admit. To this end it provides that not less than a full bench shall
sit in judgment upon the will of the people as declared through
their Representatives, and that nothing short of the consentane
ous agreement of the favored few, holding their places by
appointment of the Executive, shall nullify that will, by break
ing the scepter of the law-giver, and striking his ordinances
dead at his feet.
The amendment of the committee, while it accepts and
incorporates the principle enunciated in my bill, and so far
challenges my approval, reduces the security provided for it by
compromising on a two-third vote, which, under the present
constitution of the Supreme Court, would add one voice only
to the number now required to undo the work of Congress, and
give, perhaps, a new law to the people ; and in this, I think, falls
short of the necessities of the case and the high requirements of
public duty.
The difference, then, is only one of measure or degree — a
mere question of more or less — between the highest possible
security and an inferior or lower one. And here, I think, it
may be affirmed with confidence that the legislator, holding, as
he does, a public trust, and not dealing upon his own account or
for his own private interests alone, has no absolute discretion,
no choice, indeed, but to take the higher and superior. Assuming
the need of a guarantee for the public safety, he cannot, in my
judgment, demand too much; his only question is what is within
the range of the possible. When the great interests — perhaps
the life — of a nation are involved, I take it to be his clear duty
to waive no security, but to
"Make assurance doubly sure.
And take a bond of fate."
The point once admitted, as it is here, that we may require
any more than a majority, the whole question is surrendered.
If we may exact two thirds it is transparent that we may exact
the whole. And who shall say, if we may do this, that the lowest
security which the country shall enjoy shall be less than the

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 655
unanimity of the jury box? If that is practicable, why not insist
upon it.
To these questions there can be no answer except that it
is unreasonable, or inexpedient and unnecessary. But is this so ?
Let us examine.
It is not certainly unreasonable to insist that if the judg
ments of perhaps two hundred representative men, of the elite
of the nation, drawn mainly from the legal profession, and
embodying a large portion of its wisdom and experience, are to
be overruled by a little conclave of some seven or eight not
chosen by the people at all, and no wiser or better than them
selves, the oracle whose nod is claimed to be equal to the stamp
of fate shall give out no discordant utterances. The wisdom
of that common law which was claimed by our ancestors as their
birth-right has ordained that the life, and liberty, and property,
even of the humblest citizen, shall not be taken away without
the unanimous verdict of a jury of his peers. Who shall say
that the life of a great State, the liberties of a great people, are
not entitled to the same protection, and that four or five men out
of a body so constituted — nay, even a bare majority of those
four or five — shall determine in the last resort, and without any
appeal whatever, the extent of its own charter of freedom, in
defiance of the sense of the millions who, under all the forms of
the Constitution, have declared their sovereign will?
I did not regard it as unlikely that the proposition, which
I had the honor to introduce nearly a year ago, would startle the
profession at first sight as an alarming innovation, and I am not
sure that this expectation has been entirely disappointed. It
could scarcely in the nature of things be otherwise. Lawyers,
who run in grooves, and are educated into a superstitious rever
ence for precedents, and so often — I may say so proverbially —
fail as statesmen, because they lack the bold, original, and pro
gressive spirit of a Mansfield, are alway averse to untried ways,
and always ready to denounce the idea of reform or change,
whenever it goes to matter of substance and beyond any mere
question of form, as a pernicious novelty. Men of this sort
will say, perhaps, that there is no case where unanimity of
sentiment has ever been demanded at the hands of any tribunal
on a question as to the meaning or effect of a covenant or a
law, and taking their position there, maintain that the thing is
improper only because there is no precedent to warrant it.
And yet if the law, as claimed by its professors, is only
reason and the very perfection of it, and if what is not reason is
not law, it will be found, on the application of this test, that
there is nothing in the requirement of unanimity to conflict with

656 THOMAS WILLIAMS
that idea. Whatever weight considerations of mere convenience
may be entitled to in ordinary cases upon questions of merely
private right between man and man, it cannot certainly be
affirmed that there is anything unreasonable in the proposition
that unanimity of opinion shall be required where the tribunal
is a small one, and it is sought to overthrow the judgment of the
millions, speaking through another and greater organ, on a
matter that concerns the well-being of the whole, and perhaps
the very existence of the State. The lawyer who cherishes
the old and favorite hypothesis, that what we every day realize
to be the most uncertain of all things is always absolutely cer
tain, cannot very consistently complain that the meagre priest
hood, which ministers at the shrine of an oracle that claims to
be infallible, should be expected to give out no divided responses,
and scatter no ambiguous voices among the worshippers, but,
on the contrary, on all vital questions at least, should blend all
its outgivings into one sublime chorus of universal harmony. In
matters of faith, where the idea of infallibility is the rule, such
consentaneity is indispensable. If the successors of the fisher
man, along with the triple crown had worn a triple head, the
prestige of infallibility must soon have disappeared. With seven
or eight heads the faith must necessarily have perished under
any other other rule than that which is proposed to be enacted
here. It is only necessary to remind the lawyer himself that there
is an analogy to this in that time-honored institution, the trial
by jury, which, although generally referred to the great charter
of English liberty, antedates the records of our race, and is
imbedded in all our constitutions as the palladium of all our
rights — the one great pre-eminent defense of private and public
liberty. It was not enough that the person and property of the
citizen should be walled round by the protection of his peers.
Even that security was treated as inadequate without the una
nimity that constitutes its excellence. It was still possible that
seven men out of twelve might be warped by prejudice, misled
by ignorance, imposed on by cunning, corrupted by money, or
seduced or overawed by power. The life and liberty and prop
erty of the citizen were not to be trusted to the keeping of the
majority, or taken away except by the unanimous accord of all
his judges, passing in criminal cases as well upon the law as upon
the facts. It is the glory of England, as it is the boast of
America, that not one of the great natural rights, whose protec
tion is the only legitimate object of all government, shall be dis
turbed, even in the smallest particular, without the unanimous
judgment of a larger bench than that which claims to pass, by a

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 657
divided vote, upon the fundamental law of a great nation, and in
effect to nullify that law, or to make it speak in accordance with
its own imperial behests. Who, then, shall say that there is in
this amendment anything unreasonable or unprecedented, or any
departure from the analogies of our Constitution; or that a
nation may not borrow in its extremity, for the preservation of
its life, the securities it has already thrown around the humblest
individual and the lowliest home ?
If there is anything that is transcendently and indefensibly
unreasonable, it is in the idea that it should be competent for
even any seven or eight men, however exalted, and with like
passions £ind infirmities as ourselves, either to legislate away
by construction the great charter of our liberties, or to set aside
the decrees of the high council of the nation, embodying, as it
always does, a large share of the intelligence and all of the
majesty of a great people, and in effect to bind everybody but
itself. That is an anomaly necessary, necessitated, perhaps, by
the fact of a written Constitution, but still an anomaly that
may well startle us, in view of the possibilities that are so
strongly suggested by the present condition of the nation, wherein
its highest judicial tribunal is invoked and depended upon,
as a powerful, nay, a resistless auxiliary in the war waged by
the Executive against the power that is entrusted under the
Constitution with the making of its laws. There was a time
when it was seriously doubted whether there was any authority
in the States or the United States that could declare an act of
the law-making power to be invalid because it conflicted with
the constitutions of either. That question has been settled
affirmatively on grounds that may be, perhaps, conceded to be
unanswerable, and which I will not, at all events, attempt to
controvert. It was apparently the logical and necessary result
of an antagonism between a superior law and an inferior one,
which could not be reconciled without the surrender of one or
other of them. If the fundamental, and of course the higher
law was not to prevail in such a strife, the Constitution became
valueless as a limitation, which it was intended to be. It was
not without reason, however, as we have occasion from very
recent experience to know, that the jealous and watchful and
sagacious Jefferson referred again and again to the power
claimed for that tribunal, as involving the establishment of a
judicial oligarchy in the land.
We look in vain to the country from which our institutions
are derived for any example of such a power as this over its
constitution and laws. The royal negative, it is true, may sus
pend the action of the legislative body, although in point of fact

658 THOMAS WILLIAMS
that prerogative has slept for nearly two hundred years, but it
settles nothing in regard to the powers of that arm of the Gov
ernment, and only stays its operation until the might of public
opinion comes back to bend even royalty itself before it. No
British court, even the most ancient and venerable, with all its
historic prestige and all its array of learning, has ever ventured
to set limits to the authority of the law-giver. The appeal is
not there from Parliament to the courts, but practically from the
courts themselves to Parliament, as the highest of them all. And
well and faithfully has that great depository of the unwritten
laws and customs of England, which constitute the safeguard of
the liberties of its people, observed and performed that responsi
ble and exalted trust. In the custody of the courts they would
have sickened and died under the withering influence of royal
favor. The history of that nation proves abundantly that in all
the struggles between prerogative and privilege the supplest
instruments of tyranny have been the judges. But to the honor
of the Legislature be it said, that no decision has ever been
made by them which violated the instincts of the Saxon race,
by breaking down its landmarks, or traversing its great maxims
of liberty, by impinging upon the natural rights of the subject,
that has not been eventually reversed by the Commons of Eng
land in Parhament assembled. And thus, without a written
constitution, with no guides but those high instincts, those hoary
and venerable customs, and those hallowed traditions of the
past, which, handed down, as they have been, from sire to son
from prehistoric times, make up the body of their common or
customary law, the liberties of Englishmen, so wisely reserved
for their own keeping, have been perpetuated from generation
to generation, not only unimpaired, but enlarged, improved,
developed, and strengthened by the flow of centuries. They have
not learned the royal lesson of the last presidential campaign,
which is still rehearsed and reiterated even here, that the danger
of tyranny is from the many, or, in other words, from them
selves, and that they required the vetoes of a king, or the super
visory power of a court, to instruct them as to their rights, and
protect them from themselves. There have been none among their
representatives so deficient in self-respect as to abase themselves
in the presence of any court; none so unappreciative of their
own high trusts, or so forgetful of their official dignity, as to
insist, or even to concede, that there was more wisdom and
learning, and virtue concentrated in any body of seven, or eight,
or even twelve men in Westminster Hall, selected by the Crown,'
than was to be found in the multitude of counselors that repre
sent the people of a great empire. The Parliament of England

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 659
is the guardian of the liberties of England, and cannot betray
those liberties without surrendering its own. And so, too, with
our Constitution and all of value that it contains. When it
ceases to be safe in the hands of all the people, who have a
common inheritance in its provisions, it is idle to hope that it can
be locked up securely under the custody of any seven or eight
men outside, as so many doctors of the Sanhedrim, with the
high prerogative of reading and interpreting it to the people, as
the imperfect judgment or the mere caprice of a majority of
them may determine. The statesman who holds that we cannot
safely trust ourselves, and that our only security is in such a
guardianship, surrenders the idea of self-government as a vision
ary and impracticable thing, and confesses that a political State
cannot exist without a master. That is an ancient superstition.
Wise men of old and some of modern times have entertained
it. The world has generally been governed under it, often by a
hierarchy. It was supposed for a long time to have been
exploded here. It is now revived under the auspices of the
Democratic party — once so hostile to this regime — in the idea
that a sort of hieratic college — a priesthood of a new religion —
a little oligarchy of lawyers — is the only safe depository of the
supreme power of the State. The difference is only between an
octarchy and a monarchy — between eight sacerdotal masters — a
sort of conclave of superannuated cardinals — in wigs and gowns,
and a single royal one in purple. Without disparagement to
either of these high professions, and certainly with none to
that to which nearly forty years of my own life have been
devoted, and which is now sought by some to be enthroned at
this Capitol as the absolute master of the State, I must be
excused for thinking that, however flattering may be the offer
of the crown to us, many people would, perhaps, prefer the pur
ple, with all its attendant splendors, to the sable regalia of either
the priest or the pedagogue.
If it has been found, however, that the liberties of English
men could not be safely trusted to their courts, how much less
likely is it that ours, as a people, can be confided securely to
the same hands here. It may be truly said of the judiciary of the
mother-land, that since the era of the great Revolution, for a
period now of near two hundred years, there have been no
tribunals among men that have been more exempt from the
frailties of humanity, and have more nearly approximated to the
ideal of unerring wisdom and perfect justice; and it is to the
fact that the highest honors of the profession are only accessi
ble to the highest excellence, that there are no loftier rewards
to tempt ambition, even the most restless and insatiable, and that

66o THOMAS WILLIAMS
there is a homogeneity among its people which frees it from
the adulteration of foreign and inferior ethnic elements, that it
is indebted for these exalted qualities. No favoritism rules in
the selection of its judges. The leader in the forum steps by an
admitted right of succession into the first vacancy on the bench.
It is scarcely within the power of the Crown itself to disregard
this rule in its appointments. To pass by the trained athletes,
and single out even the greatest of the parliamentary leaders
for such a place, would shock the moral sense of the whole
realm. Not so, unfortunately, with us.
There is, perhaps, scarce a Congressman or Cabinet officer,
who has been long enough in public life to unlearn all of law
that he ever knew, whose modesty would prevent him from
seeking or accepting the mantle that has fallen from the
shoulders of a Marshall or a Story. It is not to the leaders of
the bar in this country that the honors of the profession are
awarded, as their undisputed right; and they are, perhaps, not
sought by them, for the reason that the rewards are not com
mensurate with the earnings of the higher class of professional
men. And therefore it is that the bar is in most cases superior
to the bench, as it cannot be where the usage prevails of select
ing the judges from the ablest of its members; and therefore it
is, too, that the spectacle of a divided court is, of late years
especially, so common a thing, that unanimity is the exception
rather than the rule, and lawyers themselves are startled at the
idea of prescribing a condition that to them seems impossible. I
take leave to say that it is no more impossible than the harmoni
ous agreement of a jury. It is questions of fact alone that are
the most fruitful sources of difference among men. In matters
of pure science, as the law is sometimes claimed to be, there is
no great room for controversy. High culture and thorough
discipline will go far to secure accordance in opinion. The
best lawyers will be seldom found to differ where they are
agreed upon the facts. It is only the pretenders, the mere
sciolists, that convert what ought to be the temple of concord
into an arena of perpetual strife, on the bench as well as at
the bar. In the long term of thirty-two years, during which
Lord Mansfield presided over the Court of King's Bench, there
were, if my recollection serves me right, but two cases of divi
sion among the judges of that court — one the case of Millar vs.
Taylor, upon the great question of literary property, and the
other that of Perrin vs. Blake, upon the application of the rule
in Shelley's case — and no reversals in the Exchequer Chamber or
in the House of Lords, except in those two cases, wherein the
dissenting judge was Yates, who was decided to be right in

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 66l
both. Another Yates might save the Constitution here against
even the errors of another Mansfield by the adoption of the
proposed amendment. And what is there, in view of this strik
ing chapter of judicial history, which is only singled out by
way of illustration of the general harmony that prevails in
England, to prevent the achievement of the same result with us ;
and who is there that will consent, until it is accomplished, to
trust the welfare and the very existence of this nation to such
an arbitrament. But it is not the want of professional training only that
makes the difficulty and the danger here. The judge, with us,
is not so much a lawyer as a politician. The chances are that
his politics and not his knowledge of the law, have made him
what he is ; and the place he has sought and won is, perhaps,
but the stepping-stone to a higher one — which he covets more —
whenever he shall have recommended himself sufficiently by his
conduct there, either to the President or to the party to which
he owes his exaltation. Without any of the esprit du corps, the
devotion to his proper calling, the high professional pride that
always results from high professional training, he sinks the
lawyer in the politician, and carries into the temple of Themis,
where no divided worship is admissible, all the prejudice of
party, and all the spirit of the local and sectional demagogue.
It is idle to talk of our courts of justice as merely judicial
institutions. Disclaiming ostensibly all jurisdiction over political
questions, they are as thoroughly political in their texture and
spirit as the two Houses of Congress themselves, over whose
atmosphere of mists and storms they are supposed to float, like
disembodied spirits, in the celestial light of an unclouded and
unbiased reason. Turn to the history of our jurisprudence.
State and national, and what do you see but the reflection of the
opinions of the party which happens for the time being to have
the ascendant in the courts? Fortunately, perhaps, for the
welfare of this nation, before it was well hardened into the
consistency of an organized State, the plastic hand of the party
that favored the covenant of Union was invoked to put its
impress on the work and launch it on its high career. If the
old Federalist, however, carried to the bench one set of opinions,
the old Republican brought with him another. With the growth
of slavery the State rights Democrat, drawing his inspiration
mainly from that unhallowed institution, took possession of the
State and Federal courts, stealing away, even in the free Com
monwealth of Pennsylvania, the chartered rights of the black
man, under the miserable juggle that the word "freeman" did
not mean a free man, but a white man, and maintaining its

662 THOMAS WILLIAMS
power here and in the States until that power culminated and
carried the country down into rebellion and ruin, in the mon
strous paradox that slavery and not freedom was the law of
this Republic, and that four millions of its native inhabitants
were but aliens and outlaws, with no rights that a white man
was bound to respect.
When the echo of these opinions came back in the roll of
the war drum, and the thunders of the artillery that shook this
Capitol, the Supreme Court of the United States, startled, as it
no doubt was, by the unexpected results of its own work, with
one defection only, maintained its faith to the Union by
adhering to the Government, affirming its powers of self-con
servation ; and recognizing the belligerent relations created by
the war. It could not well have been otherwise. Its dignity, its
power, its very existence, were involved in the preservation of
that Union whose integrity was menaced by the revolt. Not so,
however, with the party judges of the States. While it was no
longer safe to question the power to coerce, wherever a Demo
cratic judge was found, he was almost sure to cast his vote
into the southern scale by a denial of the means, while the
Republican judges of the loyal States were ever ready to enforce
the legislation of the governments, both Federal and State, in
aid of the war. Thus in Pennsylvania, when it was proposed to
arm the soldier with suffrage in the field, in order to enable him
to protect himself from "a fire in the rear," the constitution
ality of the law enacted for that purpose was denied by a Demo
cratic court. If the right of the General Government to com
pel the military service of its citizens in its darkest hour was
sustained even upon the anomalous and extraordinary proceeding
of a bill in equity to enjoin the draft, hurried to an argument
against all rule before a full bench, in midsummer and out of
term, while the rebel armies were thundering at our very gates,
and pressing in serried columns upon the fatal field of Gettys
burg, by the Supreme Court of the same State, it was only
through a popular election which deposed one Democratic judge,
and the defection of another, who preferred his country to his
party. If the legal-tender act, which provided in the nation's
extremity the sinews of war, and fed and clothed the gallant
volunteers who so freely offered their young lives to the sacred
cause of liberty, was saved from judicial condemnation in the
same court, it was in the same way. And now it may be added,
since the danger has apparently passed away, and the judges of
the Supreme Court of the United States, lately united and
cemented together under a feeling of common danger, have
come to feel that the Federal judiciary is saved along with the

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 663
Union on which it depends, they are found to divide again
according to their original political connections and proclivities,
upon the validity of the test-oath, the military commissions, and
perhaps others of the important measures of self-preservation
and defense that contributed so largely to carry us successfully
through the war, while it is not to be denied, that if the authority
of Congress is not absolutely menaced at this very moment from
the same direction, this body at least, if not the whole country,
is affected with the deepest alarm by rumors of a combination
between the Executive and the courts for the overthrow of the
legislative power.
Allow me to remark, however, that in what I have just
said in relation to the decisions of the courts I have not intended
to inquire who of the judges involved were right and who were
wrong, because it is not necessary to the argument, and gentle
men on the other side, to whom it is equally addressed, might
differ with me as to that. The object I have in view just here
is only to piake good the allegation that the decisions of the
courts, on constitutional questions especially, are almost invaria
bly governed by the party affiliations of the members, and there
fore not so much the judgments of lawyers as of politicians. If
the fact be so, it is, of course, and must forever be, in the
mutations of party and with the ever-changing kaleidoscope of
politics, entirely fatal to the idea of uniformity of decision, and
nothing is ever to be settled, as nothing apparently has been
settled incontrovertibly heretofore. Assuming it to be true,
moreover, there is an end of all argument in support of the
judgment of a divided court, if there is not an end of all apology
for treating even its unanimous decisions on questions of con
stitutional law as conclusive upon Congress and the people when
they are not even conclusive upon themselves.
It was a grave error, therefore, as I honestly think, on the
part of the founders of this Republic, when they departed from
the example of our British ancestors in giving place to such an
anomaly, instead of reserving the ultimate judgment in all such
cases to their own Representatives, or at least preserving their
control over the judiciary, by the method of address by two-
thirds of both Houses, which was provided in the statute of 9
William III, and has been copied by some of the State constitu
tions, instead of relying only on the inadequate remedy of
impeachment, which corrects no error, however vital, and leaves
the defaulting judge to shelter himself under the plea that he
erred from ignorance only, or without corrupt intent. To meet
this difficulty, however, I have had the honor to submit^ a
constitutional amendment to the same effect, in order to main-

664 THOMAS WILLIAMS
tain the just authority of the law-making power, by bringing the
Federal judiciary within the reasonable control of Congress,
with such qualifications as will guard it sufficiently against
abuse, which I propose to bring to the notice of the House at
some more favorable opportunity.
Assuming, however, that the power of review is properly
lodged with the Supreme Court, the question is whether the
limitation proposed would be a proper one. That it is so is, I
think, demonstrable from well settled principles, and as a
logical result of the decisions of the court itself.
It is admitted on all hands that questions of this sort are
of great delicacy, and ought not to be even heard, except in the
presence of a full bench. This is the rule in Pennsylvania, and
perhaps everywhere else, and the practice of the Supreme Court
of the United States is shown by the Reports to be made in strict
accordance with it. (6 Wheaton.) There can be no possible
objection, therefore, to so much of the bill as merely imparts the
sanction of law to what is already recognized as a rule of the
court. But the rulings of the courts do not stop short with the con
cession of the principle, that cases of this nature ought not to
be heard except before a full bench. It is still further admitted,
as well by the Supreme Court of the United States as by the
judicial tribunals of all the States, so far as I am acquainted
with them, that no act of the law-making power ought to be
declared invalid on the ground of conflict with the Constitution,
except in a very clear case. (Fletcher vs. Peck, 6 Cranch, 128;
Resp. vs. Duquet, 3 Yates, 493; Eakin vs. Rob, 12 S & R.) In
the first named case Judge Marshall says, in delivering the
opinion of the court:
"The question whether a law be void for its repugnancy to the
Constitution is at all times a question of much delicacy, which ought
seldom, if ever, to be decided in the affirmative in a doubtful case.
It is not on slight implication or vague conjecture that the Legis-
ture is to be presumed to have transcended its powers and its acts
to be considered void. The opposition between the Constitution
and the law should be such that the judge feels a clear and strong
conviction of their incompatibility with each other."
And this is reason. When we look to the fact that every
law enacted by the Congress of the United States must pass
the ordeal of a bench of judges in the Judiciary Committee of
each House; undergo public discussion and scrutiny on the
floors of both; be affirmed by the votes of at least one hundred
and twenty men, comprising among them a large number of

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 665
lawyers of great experience and ability, and many of them at
least the peers of the judges of the Supreme Court themselves,
and then either approved by the President, or reviewed and
reaffirmed upon objections made by a two-third vote, it would
have been surprising, indeed, if the court could have held any
other language in regard to it. When they say, however, that
the case must be a clear one, they affirm by an inevitable logic
the principle of my amendment. No case can be said to be a
clear one where even one out of eight judges dissents, as no
decision is regarded as an unimpeachable authority, even in an
ordinary case, where there has been a division on the bench;
and none a fortiori ought to be considered in a case of that sort
as of any weight or value whatever. It may be that the dissent
ing judge is, as in the case of Yates, the ablest lawyer of the
number, and therefore it is no unusual thing to find, as in that
of Curtis in the Dred Scott case, that the dissenting opinion is
the more thoroughly considered and satisfactory of the two. It
is not mere brute numbers that ought to prevail in the forum of
reason, or in other words, of law, which is supposed to be the
perfection of it. The vulgar idea of a majority in numbers,
which is only properly admissible on grounds of convenience if
not necessity, because in the case of conflicting wills it is impos
sible that both can prevail, (i Tucker's Black Commentaries,
Appendix, 168-172; 9 Dan Abridgt 37-43 i Story's Commen
taries, section 330) has no proper place in the comparison of
opinions, which are not to be tested, as Tacitus, I think,
expresses it in regard to the great councils of the Germanic
tribes, by numeration, but by weight. It follows, however,
from the theory of the court itself, that the law, which is but the
voice of the people speaking through their Representatives, is
entitled to the benefit of every doubt, and ought not to be pro
nounced unconstitutional where there is any dissent whatever;
and so they must decide if they would be consistent with them
selves. The effect of this amendment therefore is only to hold
them to the logical consequences of a doctrine which has been
distinctly, emphatically, and repeatedly enunciated by them
selves. We are so much accustomed in this country to the idea of
a majority, as the fundamental one on which all republican
government must practically rest, that we are apt to suppose
that it has its own foundation in the very nature of things, and
that every departure from it must do violence to the spirit of our
institutions. Allow me to say that this is a great mistake. The
idea is exclusively a social and political one. There is no such
thing in nature as the right of superior numbers to govern the

666 THOMAS WILLIAMS
inferior. Mr. Burke, whose richly furnished, comprehensive,
and philosophic mind was brought by the leading events of his
time to the exploration and analysis of the great principles that
lie at the foundation of all government, holds this language in
his "appeal from the new to the old Whigs :"
"We are so little affected by things which are habitual that we
consider this idea of a majority as if it were a law of our original
nature; but such constructive whole, residing in a part only, is
one of the most violent fictions of positive law that has ever been
or can be made on the principles of artificial incorporation. Out
of civil society nature knows nothing of it : nor are men, even when
arranged according to civil order, otherwise than by a very long
training, brought at all to submit to it."
"This mode of decision where wills may be so nearly equal,
where according to circumstances the smaller number may be the
stronger force, and where apparent reason may be all on one side,
and on the other little else than impetuous appetite; all this must
be the result of a very special convention, confirmed afterward by
long habits of obedience, by a sort of discipline in society, and by a
strong hand vested with stationary, permanent power to enforce
this sort of constructive general will. What organ is it that shall
declare the corporate mind is so much a matter of positive arrange
ment that several States, for the validity of several of their acts,
have required a proportion of voices much greater than that of a
mere majority. Those proportions are so entirely governed by
convention that in some cases the minority decides. The laws, in
many countries, to condemn require more than a mere majority;
less than an equal number to acquit. In our judicial trials we
require unanimity either to condemn or absolve. In some incor
porations one man speaks for the whole; in others a few. Until the
other day in the constitution of Poland unanimity was required to
give validity to any act of their great national council or diet. This
approaches much more nearly to rude nature' than the institutions
of any other country. Such, indeed, every commonwealth must be
without a positive law to recognize in a certain number the will
of the entire body."
Now, a reference to the structure of our own political machine
will show, that while the majority principle, which is but the
common law, is generally recognized in public affairs as the
governing one, it is not by any means the universal rule of our
Constitution, and that the framers of our Government have
deviated from it largely by way of check or limitation upon the
possible and probable abuse of such a power, I have already
referred to the trial by jury, where unanimity, which is of its
very essence, is the rule. The trial by impeachment, where

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 667
two-thirds are required to convict, is another case where the
majority idea is departed from. Again, in the enactment of our
laws, the power of the majority in either House is controlled
by the dissent of the other, while both are bridled by the one-
man power residing in the President, and a two-third vote of
each, although comprising of themselves, by the very terms of
the Constitution, the entire legislative power, is required to
enable them to act effectively alone ; so that it may be truly said
that the rule of legislation is a two-third vote. The like majori
ties are required for the alteration of the fundamental law itself,
along with the consent of at least three-fourths of all the States.
In all these cases the majority rule is not permitted to apply,
and that for the transparent reason that the great vital interests
of the State and people demand a higher measure of security.
So little regard, indeed, is had for this cabalistic number, which
is supposed to be so full of preternatural virtue, that a depar
ture may be witnessed even in the opposite direction, in the rule
which prevails in nearly all the States in the choice of Presi
dents and Congressmen, at Federal as well as State elections,
that a mere plurality, which is only another name for a minority,
may elect to the most important offices.
If the majority principle is the rule in the courts, and gener
ally at the ballot-box, it rests only on the same grounds of
convenience that have tolerated and recommended the rule
of a plurality. It is a necessity that wherever there is a diver
sity of opinion the larger number shall prevail if there is to be
any decision at all; and therefore it is, that by the rule of the
common law, which is the growth of a nation that never recog
nized the rule of a majority in affairs of state, a power dele
gated to three or more persons for a public purpose, is exercisa
ble by a majority of the persons named, while a merely private
authority cannot be executed by any number less than the whole.
(6 Johnson's Report, 38.) The consequence in the latter case
is, that it must fail altogether in the event of a difference of
opinion, which in affairs of state would be entirely inadmissi
ble, wherever any positive act is to be done. In the ordinary
course of judicial proceedings it way be admitted that the rule
of unanimity would be, if not absolutely impracticable, as I
think it is, a source of endless and infinite embarrassment, and
result unquestionably in the great delay, if not the absolute
denial, of justice. In the case, however, of a question as to the
constitutionality of an act of Congress there is no such exigency.
The requirement of unanimity will only give to the law-making
power the benefit of the favorable presumption to which no
lawyer will dispute that it is entitled, and fortify that presump-

668 THOMAS WILLIAMS
tion with the advantage of any doubt, by treating its own decis
ions as the rule that is to govern the courts until, at least, they
shall have been reversed by the united and concurring voices of
the whole of that judicatory which claims to hold a delegated
power to sit in judgment upon its authority. There will be no
such inconvenience as a failure to decide. When the judges
differ they will have already decided that the law is constitu
tional by failing to agree that it is otherwise, and the law of
Congress will prevail, as it ought to do, whenever they cannot be
brought to agree that it is wrong.
Having thus shown, as I think, the entire reasonableness and
propriety of the change proposed, the next and last question is
as to our power to effect it. And here, I think, there is no doubt
or difficulty. In the first place, then, the Constitution provides that —
"The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and
such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain
and establish." There is nothing here, however, as to the number of judges
who shall compose it; nothing as to the number who shall be
competent to pass upon such questions as may come before it.
It is unquestionable that Congress may fix the number of the
court at its own discretion, and it has always done so. It is
equally clear that it may determine how many of them shall be
required to constitute a court for business purposes, and this it
has also done by declaring how many shall be necessary to make
a quorum. As the law now stands it requires more than two-
thirds of that tribunal, as at present organized, for this purpose.
The constitutionality of that law has never been doubted by
anybody. If it was valid when enacted, it is certainly not made
otherwise by the reduction that has since taken place in the
number of the judges. If it is still the law, then, by a further
reduction of the number, the now existing quorum might become
the whole, and upon this argument the constitutionality of so
much of the amendment at least as requires a hearing before a
full bench is clearly demonstrated.
And now, in the second place, as to the power of Congress
to require the concurring opinions of the whole of what it may
choose to declare a quorum, upon any decision which they may
propose to make against the validity of any of its laws.
It is to be remembered always that the authority of the
court is a purely delegated one. It does not follow, therefore,
as a conclusion of reason, from the doctrine that a majority of
several joint owners may dispose of the joint property, or

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 669
because a corporate body may act in the same way in relation
to a matter which concerns themselves, that the same rule shall
apply to a public trust, except, perhaps, in cases where it
is incapable of execution in any other way. The people are
entitled to the benefit of the aggregate wisdom of the bench,
in the concurring judgments of all those who compose it.
The Supreme Court might have been constituted of a single
judge, and ought to, and perhaps would have been so consti
tuted but for the proverbial and generally received hypoth
esis, that wisdom is to be found rather in "the multitude of
counsellors" than in the few — not, however, in view of their
ultimate disagreement, but to the end that, by comparison and
even the possible shock and conflict of opinions, the truth may
be evolved and harmony secured, just as in the system of the
universe, it is said by the poet, that "all nature's difference
makes all nature's peace." It can hardly be supposed that, in
the constitution of a bench of eight or nine judges, it was
intended that five only of the number should decide, or expected
that a sound conclusion could be reached by any result so near
an equipoise. To claim for this larger fraction the power of
a constructive whole is not too strongly characterized by Mr.
Burke, in the passage already cited, as "one of the most violent
fictions of positive law that have ever been or can be made on
the principles of artificial incorporation," and "cannot be so
made, in a Commonwealth, without a positive law to recognize
it." There is no law, however, in the present case, except the
common law, resting on the reason of the thing, which is only
its supposed necessity in ordinary cases ; and this, as a mere rule
of procedure, not entering into the constitution of the tribunal,
and only prescribing a law for its government. If it inhered nec
essarily in that constitution — if it were of the essence of a court
that it should act in all cases by mere majorities — if, in other
words, it were strictly definable as a machine whose principle of
motion was of that sort only, it might be objected, perhaps, that
the Constitution had settled it. But this, I suppose, will hardly
be pretended by anybody. In any other aspect of the question,
however, it is but a rule of the common law for the regulation
and more effective working of these tribunals; in which case
there is nothing, of course, to prevent its abrogation by the
power that makes and unmakes the law, in accordance with its
own sovereign will, which is only the will of the people declaring
itself through their representatives. So long as the authority
to decide is still left and still exercisable by the courts, at their
own discretion, and upon their own judgments, they have no
more right to complain that they are all required to agree in

670 THOMAS WILLIAMS
order to nullify the law than that they are not now permitted to
do the same thing, as a quasi-corporate body, without the con
currence of a majority of such a quorum as it has pleased the
Congress of the United States to indicate.
It is not necessary, however, to either of the pending amend
ments, to borrow the aid of the general principle that Congress
may alter and modify the rule of the common law. The power
is to be found in the Constitution itself, so far at least as regards
the appellate jurisdiction of the court, which is the whole extent
of this bill. That jurisdiction which extends to all cases, except
those "affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,
and those in which a State is a party," is conferred only with
the express reservation that it shall be exercised and enjoyed
"with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Con
gress shall make." What is the meaning of this language?
The word "regulations" imports . no more than rules or laws.
That it carries with it any power to change the rule of decision,
so as to impose another law upon the court than the action of its
own judicial mind, or to do anything further than prescribe the
mode of decision, I do not claim. It will not be disputed, at
least, that under this provision it may limit the jurisdiction to
such cases as it thinks proper, and settle in its own way the
whole process of removal to, and treatment in the appellate
court. If it shall think proper, then, to accord that jurisdiction
only on the condition that none of its own acts shall be over
ruled on constitutional grounds without the judgment of an undi
vided court, who shall gainsay its right so to do, when it may
even refuse the jurisdiction altogether where the court below
may have affirmed the validity of its enactments?
And now, having fully vindicated, as I trust I have done,
the principles of the amendment I have had the honor to submit,
covering, as it does, as well the modification on which the Judici
ary Committee has agreed, and which in default of the higher
security will not be unacceptable to me, I must be allowed a word
in conclusion on the reasons which have prompted the introduc
tion and agitation at the present moment of a question that seems,
in some measure, to have taken the press and country and even
the profession by surprise, as a very novel if not a very bold
experiment. It will be said, perhaps, as it has already been more than
whispered in some quarters of the Union, that this alarming
proposition is only a mere expedient for the time, intended to
serve the purposes of the moment, and with a view only to a
particular case; just as the important provision of the tenure-
of-office law extending its operation to the heads of Depart-

lIAKPEH'y \VREKL^.

THE SITUATION.

Halftone of cartoon in Harper's Il'eeklr of March 7, 1868, in the Philadelphia Library

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 67I
ments, which without much active sympathy or support from any
quarter, and only by persevering and persistent effort, and after
repeated defeats, I was happily enabled to see engrafted upon
this law, against the apparent sense of the Senate and the
unyielding opposition of a large portion of the Republican
members of this House, has been published to the world through
all the organs of public opinion, until it has persuaded everybody
here and the echo of it has come back even from the other side
of the Atlantic, as a mere party contrivance to save a particular
officer — who was known by me at the time to be himself opposed
to it — instead of a great measure of state, prompted by a con
viction of the absolute necessity of securing the independence
of a set of functionaries who had come to look upon the master
of their fortunes as the rightful master of their wills, and
intended for all heads of Departments and all time. The
impatient urgency with which the pending measure is just now
pressed, even in its imperfect shape, after having slept so long
undisturbed, may seem to give an air of plausibility to this sug
gestion. If the fact of its introduction nearly a year ago
is not a sufficient answer, I may be allowed to say, at
least for myself, that I have never belonged to that timid
school of practitioners, which deals only in palliatives,
when great public evils which threaten the safety of the
State are to be remedied. When I beheld the law obstructed on
system, and arrived at the conviction — shared with me by a
majority of this House — that the supreme Executive Magistrate
of this nation, the officer intrusted under the Constitution with
the execution of its laws, instead of performing that duty had
disclosed a settled purpose to thwart your measures and defy
your will, I was at once prepared to meet that exigency by the
complete and obvious and radical measure of relief, which I
thought the Constitution had placed in our hands, instead of
resorting to any evasive or circuitous process, any mere experi
ments of doubtful validity or dangerous example, to accomplish
the same object. When I saw again the rare chance, the golden
opportunity, of correcting a capital error, canonized in some sort
by a practice coeval with the Cjovernment, in the concession of
the absolute power of removal to the President, which had been
so fatally used and abused, I was equally ready to take advan
tage of the feeling of peril engendered by the usurpations of
that officer, for the purpose of accomplishing a long desiderated
object, which would have been proper at all times, but had
never been possible till now. So when the wild vagaries of
the courts, the obvious political leanings of the judges in great
affairs of State, and the atrocious and abominable doctrines to

672 THOMAS WILLIAMS
which the highest of them was not ashamed to give utterance,
had stripped them of the awful prestige — the more than Druid-
ical sanctity — that had surrounded and covered them from the
rude gaze of the people — when the very priesthood of the altar
itself had drawn aside the curtain of the sanctuary before the
eyes of the nation, in a revelation that surpassed in hideousness
and horror all that the poet's conception had imagined of the
impostor prophet, when he lifted his veil in the presence of his
deluded followers and proclaimed in their ears in thunder tones :
"Here, ye wise saints, behold your light, your star!
Ye would be fools and victims, and ye are !"
I was equally prepared to improve the occasion, by striking
boldly at the dangerous anomaly of a power in this nation that
was higher than its Constitution and its laws. The time had
not yet come to do this thing, until the red harvest of death had
been gathered from the seed thus sown, in so many battle-fields ;
but revolutions are the opportunities of statesmen, and he is no
statesman who hesitates when the way is providentially leveled
before him, and he is thus invited to enter upon it ; as he, too, is
none, who dreads the idle and unmeaning taunt that he is merely
legislating for the evil that is imminent, just as though it were
not the business of the statesman to meet the danger that is
exigent. In quiet times the chances for reform are rare. The
measure now proposed was a proper one at all times. The
present condition of the country only demonstrates, through an
imminent peril, its absolute necessity.
The amendment of Mr. Williams was rejected, but, as
General Grant at once restored the Secretaryship to Mr.
Stanton upon the action of the Senate regarding him, the
way was open for the President to make a new move,
boldly ignoring the Tenure-of-Office Act by transferring
all the property of Stanton's office to the Adjutant Gen
eral, and attempting to make the latter the subject of the
legal battle. This it was which at once determined the
House upon impeachment proceedings and removed the
contest from the field of the courts, because of the viola
tion of the Tenure-of-Office Act. The vote was taken on
February 24th, and stood 126 to 47.^ Meanwhile, the
testimony taken by the judiciary committee had been
transferred to the committee on reconstruction, of which
Mr. Stevens was chairman. At the latter gentleman's
' Congressional Globe, Fortieth Congress, 2d Session, Part 2, p. 1400.

Wilson Boutwell Log-an
Butler .Stevens vvilliams Bingham

THE MANAGERS OF IMPEACHMENT
Halftone of a Brady photograph in possession of the
Misses WiUiams, Philadelphia

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 673
motion, a committee to prepare articles of impeachment,
based on the Stanton incident, was appointed, with Mr.
Boutwell as chairman. The articles finally adopted were
a few direct charges of conspiracy with the Adjutant
General in the removal of Stanton. On March 2d (1868)
the House elected the managers of impeachment, the
vote resulting as follows : John A. Bingham of Ohio, 114
(out of 118) ; George S. Boutwell of Massachusetts, 113;
James F. Wilson of Iowa, 112; Benjamin F. Butler of
Massachusetts, 108 ; Mr. Williams, 107 ; John A. Logan of
Illinois, 106; and Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania,
105 — very nearly a reversal of the order in which they
were nominated, the gentleman who nominated evidently
intending Mr. Stevens for chairman. There were nine
others who received a few votes, ranging from i to 22.
This list had been determined in a caucus of the Repub
licans, and it is significant that when the. managers them
selves came to elect their chairman, Stevens, Logan and
Butler voted for Boutwell, while Williams and Wilson
preferred Bingham. The latter's dissatisfaction with the
outcome — for Bingham and Wilson had opposed impeach
ment at first — led Boutwell to resign in favor of Bing
ham, so that the latter became chairman of the board.^
To enter into all the details of the trial — or even to take
note of all of Mr. Williams' own varied activities in Con
gress, which were by no means confined to this question —
is not possible in limited space. The trial opened on
March 13th (1868) before the Senate with the Chief Jus
tice presiding.^ What with all the preparation of pro
cedure and examination of witnesses it was some days be
fore the arguments began, and these were so numerous
and extended that it was April 27th before the argument
of Mr. Williams — the final one of the prosecution, except
the closing one by their chairman — even began. It occu
pied two sessions of one day and a part of the next. "Of
all the addresses made in this trial," says a late writer on
the proceedings who does not favor Mr. Williams' side
^ "Reminiscences of Sixty Years in Public Affairs," by George S. Bout
well, Vol. II, p. 119.
^ The first session of the court was on this date. See supplement to
Congressional Globe, "Trial of the President," 2d Session, Fortieth Congress,
1868.

674 THOMAS WILLIAMS
of the case, "his was the most ornate in diction and meta
phorical in style, and, in its description of the enormity
of the defendant's guilt and its personal assaults upon
Andrew Johnson, it was more hyperbolical and more
bitter than even Mr. Boutwell's."^ He adds, farther on,
also, in reference to Chairman Bingham's closing
address, "it does not rise to the heights of feeling we
still detect beneath the ornate periods of Williams."^
"Mr. President and Senators of the United States," Mr.
Williams began," "not unused to the conflicts of the forum I
appear in your presence to-day in obedience to the command of
the Representatives of the American people, under a sense of
responsibility which I have never felt before. This august
tribunal whose judges are the elect of mighty provinces — ^the
presence at your bar of the Representatives of a domain that
rivals in extent the dominion of the Caesars, and of a civilization
that transcends any that the world has ever seen, to demand
judgment upon the high delinquent whom they have arraigned
in the name of the American people for high crimes and misde
meanors against the State, the dignity of the delinquent himself,
a king in everything but the name and paraphernalia and inheri
tance of royalty, these crowded galleries, and, more than all,
that greater world outside which stands on tiptoe as it strains
its ears to catch from the electric messenger the first tidings of a
verdict which is either to send a thrill of joy through an
afflicted land, or to rack it anew with the throes of anarchy and
the convulsions of despair, all remind me of the colossal pro
portions of the issue you are assembled to try. I cannot but
remember, too, that the scene before me is without example or
parallel in human history. Kings, it is true, have been
uncrowned, and royal heads have fallen upon the scaffold; but
in two single instances only, as I think, have the formalities of
law been ostensibly invoked to give a coloring of order and of
justice to the bloody tragedy. It is only in this free land that
a constitutional tribunal has been charged for the first time
with the sublime task of vindicating an outraged law against the
highest of its ministers, and passing judgment upon the question
whether the ruler of a nation shall be stripped, under the law
1 "The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson," by David Miller
Dewitt, 1903, p. 483.
' "The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson," by David Miller
Dewitt, 1903, p. 512.
' Supplement to Congressional Globe, "Trial of the President," Fortieth
Congress, 2d Session, 1868, p. 324.

HARPERS^^WEEKLY ,OFemm^¦f\o^f^

THE MANAGERS OF IMPEACHMENT
Halftone of first page of Harper's Weekly of March 21, 1868, in the Philadelphia Library

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 675
and without shock or violence, of the power which he has
abused. "This great occasion was not sought by us. The world will
bear the Representatives of the people witness that they have
not come here for light and transient causes, but for the reason
only that this issue has been forced upon them by a long series
of bold assumptions of power on the part of the Executive, fol
lowing each other with almost the blazing and blinding con
tinuity of the lightning of the tropics, and culminating at last
in a mortal challenge, which in the defense of their constitutional
power as a branch of the American Congress, and as faithful
sentinels over the liberties of the people, it was impossible for
them to decline. With the first, open defiance of the legislative
will they were left, of course, with no alternative but to abdicate
their rule or to vindicate their right to make the law and see
that it was obeyed. To this imperious necessity the people, in
whose name they speak — a branch of that race whose quick
sensibility to public danger has ever kept a sleepless vigil over
its liberties — have yielded at last with a reluctance which noth
ing but the weariness of civil strife, the natural longing for
repose, the apprehensive sense that it was 'better, perhaps, to
bear the ills we had than fly to others that we knew not of —
the reflection that this Administration must have an end, and
above all, perhaps, the delusive hope that its law-defying head
himself would ultimately submit to a necessity which was as
strong as fate, could have brought about, or would have, per
haps, excused. He has misunderstood their reasons, as his
counsel show that they do now, mistaken their temper, and
presumed upon their forbearance. He has forgotten that there
was a point at which the conflict must end in the shock of two
opposing forces, and the overthrow of one or other of the antag
onistic elements. It was necessary, perhaps, in the order of
Providence that he should reach that point by striking such a
blow at the public liberties as should awaken the people as with
an earthquake shock to the consciousness that the toleration of
usurpation brings no security to nations.
"To show, however, how much they have borne and for
borne, perhaps forgiven, for the sake of peace, and how much
they now pass over for the sake of a speedy solution of the
impending trouble which has impeded the onward and upward
movement of this great Government, and spread confusion and
disorder through many of its Departments, and what, moreover,
is the true import and significance of the acts for which the Pres
ident is now arraigned, I must be allowed, with your indulgence,
to take up for a moment the key which is required to unlock the

676 THOMAS WILLIAMS
mysteries of the position. The man who supposes that this is but
a question of the removal of an obnoxious officer, a mere private
quarrel between two belligerents at the other end of the avenue,
wherein it is of no great national consequence which of the
opposing parties shall prevail, has no adequate apprehension of
the gravity of the case, and greatly disparages the position and
the motives of the high accusers. The House of Representa
tives espouses no man's quarrel, however considerable he may
be. It has but singled out from many others of equal weight the
facts now charged, as facts for the most part of recent occur
rence, of great notoriety, and of easy proof, by way of testing a
much greater question without loss of time. The issue here is
between two mightier antagonists, one the Chief Executive Magis
trate of this nation and the other the people of the United States,
for whom the Secretary of War now holds almost the only
strong position of which they have not been dispossessed. It
is but a renewal on American soil of the old battle between the
royal prerogative and the privileges of the Commons, which was
closed in England with the reigns of the Stuarts — a struggle for
the mastery between a temporary Executive and the legislative
power of a free State over the most momentous question that
has ever challenged the attention of a people. The counsel for
the President, reflecting, of course, the views of their employer,
would have you to believe that the removal of a departmental
head is an affair of State too small to be worthy of such an
avenger as this which we propose. Standing alone, stripped of
all the attendant circumstances that explain the act and show the
deadly animus by which it was inspired, it is not improbable that
there are some who might have been induced to think, with
them, that a remedy so extreme as this was more than adequate.
It is only under the light shed upon the particular issue by ante
cedent facts which have now passed into history that the giant
proportions of this controversy can be fully seen, if they are not
made sufficiently apparent now by the defiant tone of the Presi
dent and the formidable pretensions set up by him in his thought
fully considered and painfully elaborated plea.
"The not irrelevant question 'Who is Andrew Johnson ?' has
been asked by one of his counsel, as it has often been by him
self, and answered in the same way, by showing who he zvas
and what he had done before the people of the loyal States so
generously intrusted him with that contingent power which was
made absolute only for the advantage of defeated and discom
forted treason by the murderous pistol of an assassin. I will
not stop now to inquire as to scenes enacted on this floor so
eloquently rehearsed by the counsel for the President, with two

Stevens, Bingham, Butler, Logan, Williams and Wilson heading the procession. Halftone of a cut in
Harper's Weekly of April 7, 1868, in the Philadelphia Library

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 677
pictures of so opposite a character before me, or even to inquire
whether his resistance to the hegira of the southern Senators
was not merely a question, himself being the witness, as to the
propriety and wisdom of such a step at that particular time. The
opportunity occurs just here to answer it as it is put, by showing
who Andrew Johnson is, and what he has been since the unhappy
hour of that improvident and unreflecting gift. Eheu! quantum
inutatus ab illo ! Alas, how changed, how fallen from that high
estate that won for him the support of a too confiding people !
Would that it could have been said of him as of that apostate
spirit who was hurled in hideous ruin and combustion down from
Heaven's crystal battlements, that even in his fall he 'had not
yet lost all his original brightness nor appeared less than Arch
angel ruined.'
"The master-key to the whole history of his administration,
which has involved not a mere harmless difference of opinion, as
One of his counsel seems to think, on a question where gentle
men might afford to disagree without a quarrel, but one long and
unseemly struggle by the Executive against the legislative
power, is to be found in the fact of an early and persistent pur
pose of forcing the rebel States into the Union by means of his
executive authority, in the interests of the men who had lifted
their parricidal hands against it, on terms dictated by himself,
and in defiance of the will of the loyal people of the United States
as declared through their Representatives. To accomplish this
object, how much has he not done and how much has a long-
suffering people not passed over without punishment and almost
without rebuke ? Let history, let your public records, which are
the only authentic materials of history, answer, and they will say
that— "For this, instead of convening the Congress in the most
momentous crisis of the State, he had issued his royal proclama
tions for the assembling of conventions and the erection of State
governments, prescribing the qualifications of the voters, and
settling the conditions of their admission into the Union.
"For this he had created offices unknown to the law, and
filled them with men notoriously disqualified by law, at salaries
fixed by his own mere will.
"For this he had paid those officers in contemptuous disre
gard of law, and paid them, too, out of the contingent fund of
one of the Departments of the Government.
"For this he had supplied the expenses of his new govern
ments by turning over to them the spoils of the dead confederacy,
and authorizing his satraps to levy taxes from the conquered
people.

678 THOMAS WILLIAMS
"For this he had passed away unnumbered millions of the
public property to rebel railroad companies without considera
tion, or sold it to them in clear violation of law, on long credits,
at a valuation of his own and without any security whatever.
"For this he had stripped the Bureau of Freedmen and
Refugees of its munificent endowment, by tearing from it the
lands appropriated by Congress to the loyal wards of the Repub
lic, and restoring to the rebels their justly forfeited estates after
the same had been vested by law in the Government of the
United States.
"For this he had invaded with a ruthless hand the very pen
etralia of the Treasury, and plundered its contents for the
benefit of favored rebels by ordering the restoration of the
proceeds of sales of captured and abandoned property which had
been placed in its custody by law.
"For this he had grossly abused the pardoning power con
ferred on him by the Constitution in releasing the most active
and formidable of the leaders of the rebellion with a view to
their service in the furtherance of his policy, and even delegated
that power for the same objects to men who were indebted to
its exercise for their own escape from punishment.
"For this he had obstructed the course of public justice not
only by refusing to enforce the laws enacted for the suppression
of the rebellion and the punishment of treason, but by going into
the courts and turning the greatest of the public malefactors
loose, and surrendering all control over them by the restoration
of their estates.
"For this he had abused the appointing power by the removal
on system of meritorious public officers for no other reason than
because they would not assist him in his attempt to overthrow
the Constitution and usurp the legislative power of the Govern
ment. "For this he had invaded the rightful privileges of the Sen
ate by refusing to sent in nominations of officers appointed by
him during the recess of that body, and after their adjournment
reappointing others who had been rejected by them as unfit for
the places for which they had been appointed.
"For this he had broken the privileges of, and insulted the
Congress of the United States by instructing them that the work
of reconstruction belonged to him only, and that they had no
legislative right or duty in the premises, but only to register his
will by throwing open their doors to such claimants as might
come there with commissions from his pretended governments,
that were substantially his own.

CARD OF ADMISSION TO THE IMPEACHMENT
Halftoue of original in possession of the Misses Williams, Philadelphia

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 679
"For this, on their refusal to obey his imperial rescript, he
had arraigned them publicly as a revolutionary assembly and not
a Congress, without the power to legislate for the States
excluded, and as 'traitors, at the other end of the Hue,' in
actual rebellion against the people they had subdued.
"For this he had grossly abused the veto power, by disap
proving every important measure of legislation that concerned
the rebel States, in accordance with his public declaration that
he would veto all the measures of the law-making power when
ever they came to him.
"For this he had deliberately and confessedly exercised a
dispensing power over the test-oath law, by appointing notorious
rebels to important places in the revenue service, on the avowed
ground that the policy of Congress, in that regard, was not in
accordance with his opinions.
"For this he had obstructed the settlement of the nation, by
exerting all his influence to prevent the people of the rebel
States from accepting the constitutional amendment or organiz
ing under the laws of Congress, and impressing them with the
opinion that Congress was blood thirsty and implacable, and that
their only refuge was with him.
"For this he had brought the patronage of his office into
conflict with the freedom of elections, by allowing and encourag
ing his official retainers to travel over the country, attending
political conventions and addressing the people in support of his
policy. "For this, if he did not enact the part of a Cromwell, by
striding into the Halls of the Representatives of the people and
saying to one man, 'You are a hyprocrite ;' to another, 'You are
a whoremonger;' to a third, 'You are an adulterer;' and to the
whole, 'You are no longer a Parliament;' he had rehearsed the
same part substantially outside, by traveling over the country,
and, in indecent harangues, assailing the conduct and impeaching
the motives of its Congress, inculcating disobedience to its
authority by endeavoring to bring it into disrepute, declaring
publicly of one of its members that he was a traitor, of another
that he was an assassin, and of the whole that they were no
longer a Congress.
"For this, in addition to the oppression and bloodshed that
had everywhere resulted from his known partiality for traitors,
he had winked at, if not encouraged, the murder of loyal
citizens in New Orleans by a confederate mob by holding corre
spondence with its leaders, denouncing the exercise of the right
of a political convention to assemble peacefully in that city as
an act of treason proper to be suppressed by violence, and com-

680 THOMAS WILLIAMS
manding the military to assist, instead of preventing, the execu
tion of the avowed purpose of dispersing them.
"For this, it is not too much to say, in view of the wrong
and outrage and the cry of suffering that have come up to us
upon every southern breeze, that he had in effect reopened the
war, inaugurated anarchy, turned loose once more the incarnate
devil of baffled treason and unappeasable hate, whom, as we
fondly thought, our victories had overthrown and bound in
chains, ordained rapine and murder from the Potomac to the
Gulf, and deluged the streets of Memphis as well as of New
Orleans, and the green fields of the South, already dotted with
so many patriot graves, with the blood of martyred citizens.
"And because for all he has not been called to render an
account, for the reasons that have been already named, it is now
assumed and argued by his counsel that he stands acquitted by
a judgment which disapproves its truth, although it rests for
the most part on record evidence, importing that 'absolute
verity' which is, of course, not open to dispute. This extraordi
nary assumption is but another instance of that incorrigible
blindness on the part of the President in regard to the feelings
and motives of Congress that has helped to hurry him into his
present humiliating predicament as a criminal at your bar.
"But all these things were not enough. It wanted one drop
more to make the cup of forbearance overflow — one other act
that should reach the sensorium of the nation, and make even
those who might be slow to comprehend a principle, to under
stand that further forbearance was ruin to us all; and that act
was done in the attempt to seize by force or stratagem on that
Department of the Government through which its armies were
controlled. It was but a logical sequence of what had gone
before — the last of a series of usurpations, all looking to the
same great object. It did not rise, perhaps, beyond the height
of many of the crimes by which it was ushered in. But its mean
ing could not be mistaken. It was an act that smote upon the
nerve of the nation in such a way as to render it impossible that
it could be either concealed, disparaged, or excused, as were the
muffled blows of the pick-ax that had been so long silently
undermining the bastions of the Republic. It has been heard
and felt through all our wide domain like the reverberation of
the guns that opened their iron throats upon our flag at Sumter ;
and it has stirred the loyal heart of the people again with the
electric power that lifted it to the height of the sublimest issue
that ever led a martyr to the stake or a patriot to the battle
field. That people is here to-day, through its Representatives
on your floor and in your galleries, in the persons ahke of the vet-

THE SENATE AS COURT OF IMPEACHMENT
Halftone of a drawing by Davis in Harper's Il'eeklr of April il, 1868, page 732, in the Philadelphia Library

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 68l
erans who have been scarred by the iron hail of battle, and of the
mothers and wives and daughters of those who have died that
the Republic might live, as well as of the commissioned expo
nents of the public will, to demand the rewards of their sacri
fices and the consummation of their triumph in the award of a
nation's justice upon this high offender.
"And now as to the immediate issue, which I propose to
discuss only in its constitutional and legal aspects.
"The great crime of Andrew Johnson, as already remarked,
running through all his administration, is that he has violated
his oath of office and his constitutional duties by the obstruction
and infraction of the Constitution and the laws, and an endeavor
to set up his own will against that of the law-making power,
with a view to a settled and persistent purpose of forcing the
rebel States into Congress on his own terms, in the interests of
the traitors, and in defiance of the will of the loyal people of
the United States.
"The specific offenses charged here, which are but the cul
minating facts, and only the last of a long series of usurpations,
are an unlawful attempt to remove the rightful Secretary of
W'ar and to substitute in his place a creature of his own, without
the advice and consent of the Senate, although then in session;
a conspiracy to hinder and prevent him from resuming or hold
ing the said office after the refusal of the Senate to concur in his
suspension, and to seize, take, and possess the property of the
United States in said Department; an attempt to debauch an
officer of the Army from his allegiance by inculcating insubordi
nation to the law in furtherance of the same object; the attempt
to set aside the rightful authority of Congress and to bring it
into public odium and contempt, and to encourage resistance to
its laws by the open and public delivery of indecent harangues,
impeaching its acts and purposes and full of threats and
menaces against it and the laws enacted by it, to the great
scandal and degradation of his own high office as President ; and
the devising and contriving of unlawful means to prevent the
execution of the tenure-of-office. Army appropriation, and
reconstruction acts of March 2, 1867.
"To all of these which relate to the attempted removal of
the Secretary of War the answer is :
"i. That the case of Mr. Stanton is not within the meaning
of the first section of the tenure-of-office act.
"Second. That if it be, the act is unconstitutional and void
so far as it undertakes to abridge the power claimed by him of
'removing at any and all times all executive officers for causes

682 THOMAS WILLIAMS
to be judged of by himself alone,' as well as of suspending them
indefinitely at his sovereign will and pleasure ; and,
"Third, That whether the act be constitutional or otherwise,
it was his right, as he claims it to have been his purpose, to
disobey and violate it with a view to the settlement of the ques
tion of its validity by the judiciary of the United States.
"And first, as to the question whether the present Secretary
of War was intended to be comprehended within the first sec
tion of the act referred to.
"The defendant insists that he was not, for the reason that
he derived his commission from Mr. Lincoln, and not being
removed on his accession, continued by reason thereof to hold
the office and administer its duties at his pleaure only, without
having at any time received any appointment from himself;
assuming, as I understand, either that under the proviso to
the first section of this act the case was not provided for, or that
by force of its express language, his office was determined by
the expiration of the first term of the President who appointed
him. "The body, or enacting clause of this section, provides that
every person then holding any civil office who had been appointed
thereto by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, or
who should be thereafter appointed to any such office, should be
entitled to hold until a successor is appointed in the like manner.
"It is clear, therefore, that its general object was to provide
for all cases, either then existing or to happen in the future.
"It is objected, however, that so much of this clause as
refers to the heads of Departments is substantially repealed by
the saving clause, which is in the following words :
" '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.'
"This proviso was the result of a conference on the dis
agreeing votes on the amendment of the House striking out the
exception in favor of the heads of Departments, and was sug
gested — if he may be excused the egotism — ^by the individual
who now addresses you, and to whom, as the mover and advocate
of the amendment, was very naturally assigned the duty of con
ducting the negotiation on the part of the House, for the pur
pose of obviating the objection taken in debate on this floor by
one of the Senate managers, that the effect of the amendment

WILLIAiM M. EVARTS
Halftone of a contemporary photograph by Brady, negative in possession
of L. C. Handy, Washington, D. C.

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 683
would be to impose on an incoming President a Cabinet that was
not of his own selection. I may be excused for speaking of its
actual history, because that has been made the subject of com
ment by the learned counsel who opened this case in behalf of
the President. If it was intended or expected that it should so
operate as to create exceptions in favor of an officer whose
notorious abuse of power was the proximate cause, if not the
impelling motive for the enactment of the law, I did not know it.
It will be judged, however, by itself, without reference either
to the particular intent of him who may have penned it, or to
any hasty opinion that may have been expressed in either House
as to the construction of which it might be possibly susceptible.
"The argument of the defendant rests upon the meaning of
the word 'appointed.' That word has both a technical and a
popular one. In the former, which involves the idea of a nomi
nation and confirmation in the constitutional way, there was no
appointment certainly by Mr. Johnson. In the latter, which is
the sense in which the people will read it, there unquestionably
was. ^^'hat, then, was meant by the employment of this word?
"It is a sound and well-accepted rule in all the courts, in
exploring the meaning of the law-giver, especially in cases of
remedial statutes, as I think this is, if it is not rather to be
considered as only a declaratory one in this particular, to look
to the old law, the mischief and the remedy, and to give a liberal
construction to the language in favorem libertatis, in order to
repress the mischief and advance the remedy; taking the words
used in their ordinary and familiar sense, and varying the
meaning as the intent, which is always the polar star, may
require. Testing the case by this rule what is to be the con
struction here?
"The old law was — not the Constitution — but a vicious
practice that had grown out of a precedent involving an early
and erroneous construction of that instrument, if it was intended
so to operate. The mischief was that this practice had rendered
the officers of the Government, and among them the heads of
Departments, the most powerful and dangerous of them all,
from their assumed position of advisers of the President, by
the very dependency of their tenure, the mere ministers of his
pleasure, and the slaves of his imperial will, that could at any
moment, and as the reward of an honest and independent
opinion, strip them of their employments, and send them back
into the ranks of the people. The remedy was to change them
from minions and flatterers into men, by making them free, and
to secure their loyalty to the law by protecting them from the
power that might constrain their assent to its violation. To

684 THOMAS WILLIAMS
accomphsh this object it was necessary that the law should cover
all of them, high and low, present and prospective. That it
could have been intended to except the most important and
formidable of these functionaries, either with a view to favor
the present Executive, or for the purpose of subjecting the
only head of a Department who had the confidence of Congress
to his arbitrary will, is as unreasonable and improbable, as it is
at variance with the truth of the fact and with the obvious
general purposes of the act.
"For the President of the United States to say, however, now,
after having voluntarily retained Mr. Stanton for more than two
years of his administration, that he was there only by sufferance,
or as a mere movable, or heirloom, or incumbrance that had
passed to him with the estate, and not by virtue of his own
special appointment, if not 'paltering with the people in a
double sense,' has very much the appearance of a not very
respectable quibble. The unlearned man who reads the proviso
— as they for whose perusal it is intended will read it — and
who is not accustomed to handle the metaphysic scissors of the
professional casuists who are able 'to divide a hair 'twixt north
and northwest side,' while he admits the ingenuity of the advo
cate, will stand amazed, if he does not scorn the officer who
would stoop to the use of such a subterfuge.
"Assuming, however, for the sake of argument, that the
technical sense is to prevail, what is to be its effect ? Why only
to make the law-giver enact a very unreasonable and impossible
thing, by providing in words of the future tense, that the com
mission of the officer shall expire nearly two years before the
passage of the law, which is a construction that the general rule
of law forbids! To test this let us substitute for the general
denominational phrases of 'Secretary of War, of State, and of the
Navy,' the names of Messrs. Seward, Stanton, and Welles, and
for that of the President who appointed them, the name of
Lincoln, and the clause will read: 'Provided, That Messrs.
Seward, Stanton, and Welles, shall hold their offices respectively
for and during the term of Abraham Lincoln, and for one month
thereafter.' The effect will then be to put you in the position
of having enacted not only an absurdity, but an impossibility.
But on this there are at least two rules of interpretation that
start up in the way of the solution. The first is that it is not
respectful to the Legislature to presume that it ever intended to
enact an absurdity, if the case is susceptible of any other con
struction; and the second that —
"'Acts of Parliament that are impossible to be performed are
of no validity ; and if there arise out of them collaterally any absurd

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 685
consequences manifestly contradictory to common reason, they are,
with regard to these collateral consequences, void.' — i Black-
stone's Commentaries, 91.
"If the effect of the proviso, however, upon something
analogous to the doctrine of cy pres, or, in other words, of
getting as near to its meaning as possible, was to determine the
office at the time of the passage of the law, then, on the other
hand, the retention of the officer by the President for five months
afterward, and tfirough an intervening Congress, without a
commission or even a nomination, was a breach of the law, and
therefore a misdemeanor in itself; which he could hardly plead,
and would scarcely ask you to affirm, against the general pre
sumption of the faithful performance of official duty for the
purpose of sheltering him from the consequences of still another
violation of the law.
"Assuming again, however, that, as is claimed by the
defense, the case of Mr. Stanton does not fall within the proviso,
what, then, is the result? Is it the predicament of a casus
omissus altogether? Is he to be hung up, like Mahomet's coffin,
between the body of the act and the proviso, the latter nullifying
the former on the pretext of an exception, and then repudiating
fhe exception itself as to the particular case; or is the obvious
and indisputable purpose of providing for all cases whatever, to
be carried out by falling back on the general enacting clause
which would make him irremovable by the President alone, and
leaving him outside of the provision as to tenure, which was the
sole object of the exception? There is nothing in the saving
clause which is at all inconsistent with what goes before. The
provision that takes every officer out of the power of the President
is not departed from in that clause. All it enacts is that the
tenure shall be a determinate one in cases that fall within it.
If Mr. Stanton was appointed by President Johnson within the
meaning of the proviso, he holds, of course, until the expiration
of his term. If not, he holds subject to removal like other
officers under the enacting clause. It has been so often asserted
publicly as to have become a generally accredited truth, that the
special purpose of the act was to protect him. I do not affirm
this, and do not consider it necessary that I should, or important
to the case whether he favored the passage of the law or not.
It will be hardly pretended, however, by anybody, that he was
intended to be excluded entirely from its operation.
"Nor is the case helped by the reference to the fourth sec
tion of the act, which provides that nothing therein contained
shall be construed to extend the term of any office the duration
of which is limited by law. The office in question was one of

686 THOMAS WILLIAMS
those of which the tenure was indefinite. The construction
insisted on by me does not extend it. The only effect is to take
away the power of removal from the President alone and
restore it to the parties by whom the Constitution intended that
it should be exercised.
"Assuming, then, that the case of Mr. Stanton is within
the law, the next question is as to the validity of the law itself.
And here we are met, for the first time in our history as a nation,
by the assertion, on the part of the President, of the illimitable
and uncontrollable power under the Constitution, in accordance,
as he insists, with the judicial opinion, the professional senti
ment, and the settled practice under the Government of remov
ing at any and all times all executive officers whatever, without
responsibility to anybody, and as included therein the equally
uncontrollable power of suspending them indefinitely and sup
plying their places from time to time by appointments made by
himself ad interim. If there be any case where the claim has
heretofore extended, even in theory, beyond the mere power to
create a vacancy by removal during the recess of the Senate, I
do not know it. If there be any wherein the power to suspend
indefinitely, which goes even beyond this, has been asserted, it
is equally new to me. This truly regal pretension has been fitly
reserved for the first President who has ever claimed the
imperial prerogative of founding governments by proclamation,
of taxing without a Congress, of disposing of the public property
by millions at his own will, and of exercising a dispensing power
over the laws. It is but a logical sequence of what he has been
already permitted to do with absolute impunity and almost with
out complaint. If he could be tolerated thus far, why not
consummate the work which was to render him supreme, and
crown his victory over the legislative power by setting this body
aside as an advisory council, and claiming himself to be the
rightful interpreter of the laws? The defense made here is a
defiance, a challenge to the Senate and the nation, that must be
met and answered just now in such a way as shall determine
which, if any, is to be to the master. If the claim asserted is to
be maintained by your decision, all that will remain for you will
be only the formal abdication of your high trust as part of the
appointing power, because there will be then absolutely nothing
left of it that is worth preserving.
"But let us see what there is in the Constitution to warrant
these extravagant pretensions, or to prevent the passage of a
law to restore the practice of this Government to the true theory
of that instrument.

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 687
"I do not propose to weary you with a protracted examina
tion of this question. I could not add to what I have already
said on the same subject in the discussion in the House of the
bill relating to removals from office in December, 1866, to which
I would have ventured to invite your attention, if the same point
had not been so fully elaborated here. You have already passed
upon it in the enactment of the present law by a vote so decisive
and overwhelming, and there is so little objection on the part
of the counsel for the President to the validity of that law, that
I may content myself with condensing the arguments on both
sides into a few general propositions which will comprehend
their capital features.
'The case may be stated, as I think, analytically and
synoptically thus :
"The first fact to be observed is, that while the Constitu
tion enumerates sundry offices, and provides the manner of
appointment in those cases, as well as in 'all others to be created
by law,' it prescribes no tenure except that of good behavior in
the case of the judges, and is entirely silent on the subject of
removal by any other process than that of impeachment.
"From this the inferences are :
"i. That the tenure of good behavior, being substantially
equivalent to that for life, the office must in all other cases be
determinable at the will of some department of the Government,
unless limited by law; which is, however, but another name for
the will of the law-maker himself. And this is settled by
authority. "2. That the power of removal at will, being an implied
one only, is to be confined to those cases where the tenure is not
ascertained by law ; the right of removal in any other form than
by the process of impeachment depending entirely on the
hypothesis of a will of which the essential condition always is
that it is free to act without reason and without responsibility.
"3. That the power of removal, being implied as a necessity
of state to secure the dependence of the officer on the Govern
ment, is not to be extended by construction so as to take him
out of the control of the Legislature, and make him dependent on
the will of the Executive.
"The next point is that the President is by the terms of the
Constitution to 'nominate, and by and with the advice and con
sent of the Senate appoint,' to all offices, and that without this
concurrence he appoints to none except when authorized by
Congress. And this may be described as the rule of the Con
stitution. "The exceptions are :

688 THOMAS WILLIAMS
"I. That in the cases of inferior offices the Congress may
lodge this power with the President alone or with the courts
or the heads of Departments ; and
"2. That in cases of vacancy happening during the recess
of the Senate he may— not appoint — but Ml them up by grant
ing commissions to expire at the end of the next session of that
body. "From which it appears —
"i. That the President cannot, as already stated, in any
case, appoint alone without the express authority of Congress,
and then only in the case of inferior offices.
"2. That the power to supply even an accidental vacancy
was only to continue until the Senate was in a condition to be
consulted and to advise and act upon the case ; and
"3. As a corollary from these two propositions, that if the
power to remove in cases where the tenure is indefinite be, as it
is solemnly conceded by the Supreme Court of the United States
in re Heenan (13 Peters) an incident to the power to appoint,
it belongs to the President and Senate, and not to the President
alone, as it was held in that case to be in the judge who made
the appointment."The argument upon which this implied and merely infer
ential power, not of 'filling up,' but of making a vacancy during
the recess — which is now claimed to extend to the making of a
vacancy at any time — has been defended, is —
"First. The possible necessity for the exercise 'of such
a power during the recess of the Senate, or, in other words, the
argument ab inconvenienti.
"Second. That the power of removal is a purely executive
function, which, passed by the general grant in the first section
of the second article of the Constitution, would have carried the
power to appoint, if unprovided for, and is to be considered in
him in all cases wherein it has not been expressly denied or
lodged in other hands ; while the association of the Senate, the
same not being an executive body, is an exception to the general
principle, and must be taken strictly so as not to extend thereto.
"Third. That it is essential to the President as the responsi
ble head of the Government, charged by his oath with the execu
tion of the laws, that he should control his own subordinates, by
making their tenure of office to depend upon his will, so as to
make a unit of the Administration.
'The answer to the first of these propositions is that there
is no necessity for the exercise of the power during the recess,
because the case supposed may be provided for by Congress —
as it has been by the act now in question — under its express

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 689
constitutional authority 'to make all laws which shall be neces
sary or proper for carrying into execution all powers vested in
the Government, or in any Department thereof,' a power which,
by the way, is very strangely claimed by one of the President's
counsel to be an implied one.
"To the second the answer is that whether an executive
power or not depends on the structure of the Government, or,
in other words, on what the Constitution makes it; that the
clause in question is but a distributive one; that if all executive
power is in the President, then by parity of reason all legislative
power is in Congress without reference to the Constitution ; that
the Senate is not only associated with the President in the gen
eral appointing power, but that the power itself may be with
drawn by Congress almost entirely from both, under the pro
vision in regard to inferior offices, which would involve a repug
nancy to the general grant relied on, if the power be an executive
one; that if no provision had been made for appointment in the
Constitution the power to supply the omission would have
resulted to the law-maker under the authority just quoted, to
make 'all laws that might be necessary or proper for carrying
into execution all powers vested in the Government or any
department thereof,' which carries with it the power to create
all offices; and that, moreover, this power of removal, in the
only case wherein it is referred to, is made a judicial one.
"To the third the answer is —
"i. That however natural it may be for the President, after
an unchecked career of usurpation for three long years, during
which he has used his subordinates generally as the slavish
ministers of his will, and dealt with the affairs of this nation
as if he had been its master also as well as theirs, he greatly
mistakes and magnifies his office, as has been already shown in
the fact that under the Constitution he may be stripped at any
time by Congress of nearly the whole of the appointing power;
and, "2. That the responsibility of the President is to be gradu
ated by, and can only be commensurate with, the power that is
assigned to him; that the obligation imposed on him is to take
care that the laws are faithfully executed, and not his will,
which is so strangely assumed to be the only law of the exalted
functionaries who surround him; and that it is not only not
essential to the performance of their duty under the law that
the heads of Departments should be the mere passive instruments
of his will, but the very contrary.
"Upon this brief statement of the argument it would seem as
if there could be no reasonable doubt as to the meaning of the

690 THOMAS WILLIAMS
Constitution. But the high delinquent who is now on trial,
feeling that he cannot safely rest his case here, and shrinking
from the inexorable logic that rules it against him, takes refuge
in the past, and claims to have found a new Constitution that
suits him better than the old one, in the judicial authorities, in
the opinion of the commentators, in the enlightened professional
and public sentiment of the nation, and in a legislative practice
and construction that are coeval with the Government, and have
continued without interruption until the present time. A little
inquiry, however, will show that there is no altar or sanctuary,
no city of refuge here, to shelter the greatest of the nation's
malefactors from the just vengeance of a betrayed and indignant
people. "And first, as to judicial authority. There are but three
cases, I think, wherein these questions have ever come up for
adjudication before the Supreme Court of the United States,
and in all of them the decisions have been directly in conflict
with the theory and pretensions of the President.
"The first was the familiar one of Marbury vs. Madison, i
Cranch, 256, made doubly memorable by the fact that it arose
out of one of the so-called midnight appointments made by the
elder Adams — the same, by the way, whose casting vote as an
executive officer turned the scale in favor of the power to which
he was destined to succeed in the First Congress of 1789, on
the eve of his retirement — under a law which had been approved
only the day before, authorizing the appointment of five justices
of the peace for the District of Columbia, to serve respectively
for the term of five years. The commission in question had
been duly signed and registered, but was withheld by his succes
sor (Jefferson) on the ground that the act was incomplete with
out a delivery. It was not claimed by him that the appointment
was revocable if once consummated. If it had been, the resist
ance would have been unnecessary, and the assertion of the right
to the office an idle one. Chief Justice Marshall, in delivering
the opinion of the court, holds this language :
" 'Where an officer is removable at the will of the Executive,
the circumstance which completed his appointment is of no con
sequence, because the act is at any time revocable. But where the
officer is not removable at the will of the Executive, the appoint
ment is not revocable and cannot be annulled. Having once made
the appointment his power over the office is terminated in all cases
where by law the officer is not removable by him. Then, as the
law creating the office gave the right to hold for five years inde
pendent of the Executive, the appointment was not revocable, but
vested in the officer legal rights that are protected by the laws
of his country.'

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 69I
"The point ruled here is precisely the same as that involved
in the tenure-of-office act, to wit: that Congress may define the
tenure of any office it creates, and that once fixed by law it is no
longer determinable at the will of anybody — the act being a
mere substitution of the will of the nation for that of the Execu
tive, by giving that will the form of law, which is, indeed, the
only form that is consistently admissible in a government of
law. The present Executive insists — as Jefferson did not — that
he has the power under the Constitution to remove or suspend
at any and all times any executive officer whatever for causes
to be judged of by himself alone; and that, in the opinion of his
advisers, this power cannot be lawfully restrained; which is in
eft"ect to claim the power to appoint without the advice and con
sent of the Senate, as he has just now done, as well as to
remove. "The next case in order is that of ex parte Heenan, reported
in 13 Peters, which involved a question as to the right of the
judge of the district court of Louisiana to remove, at his dis
cretion, a clerk appointed by him indefinitely under the law.
The court say there — Thompson, Justice, delivering the opinion
— that— " 'All offices, the tenure of which is not fixed by the Constitu
tion or limited by law, must be held either during good behavior
or at the will and discretion of some department of the Government,
and subject to removal at pleasure.'
"And again that —
" 'In the absence of all constitutional provisions or statutory
regulation it would seem to be a sound and necessary rule to con
sider the power of removal as an incident to the power to appoint.'
"They add, however —
" 'But it was very early adopted as the practical construction
that the power was vested in the President alone, and that such
would appear to have been the legislative construction, because in
establishing the three principal Departments of State, War, and
Treasury, they recognized the power of removal in the President,
although by the act of 1798, establishing the Navy Department,
the reference was not by name to him.'
"The result was that upon the principles this enunciated,
involving the exception as to cases where the tenure was
limited by law, as laid down in Marbury vs. Madison, they
declared the power of removal to have been well exercised by

692 THOMAS WILLIAMS
the judge who made the appointment under the law, for the
reason only that it was an incident thereto.
"It is well worthy of remark, however, in this connection,
that although what is thus gratuitously said as to the practical
construction in opposition to the rule there recognized does not
conflict in any way with the doctrine of Marbury vs. Madison,
it is entirely at variance, as seems to be confessed, with the
decision itself, which, on the doctrine of Mr. Madison in the
debate of 1789, that the power of removal was a strictly execu
tive one, and passed by the general grant of the Constitution,
unless expressly denied or elsewhere lodged, must have been
inevitably the other way, because in that case it must have
resulted, not to the judge, but to the President. Whether a
mere permissive, sub silentio, exercise of a power like this, or
even a temporary surrender on grounds of personal confidence
or party favor, where it perhaps violated no constitutional
interdict, and was, in point of fact, authorized as to all but the
superior offices, can raise a prescription against a constitutional
right, or how many laws it will require to abrogate the funda
mental law, I will not stop now to inquire. It is sufficient for
my purpose that the case decides that the power of removal is
but an incident to the power of appointment, and that, of course,
it can be exercised only by the same agencies, as the tenure-of-
office act exactly provides.
"The next and last case is that of the United States ex rela
tione vs. Guthrie, reported in 17 Howard, 284, which was an
application for a mandamus to the Secretary of the Treasury to
compel him to pay the salary of a territorial judge in Minnesota,
who had been removed by the President before the expiration of
his term, which was fixed by law at four years. The case was
dismissed upon the doctrine that the proceeding was not a proper
one to try the title to an office, and therefore the question of the
power to remove was not disposed of or discussed, except by
Justice McLain, who dissented on the main point and felt called
upon, of course, to pass upon the other. I refer to his opinion
mainly for the purpose of borrowing, with a part of the argu
ment, an important statement in relation to the views of the
bench that was almost coeval with the Constitution itself on this
question. He says, on page 306:
" 'There was great contrariety of opinion in Congress on this
power. With the experience we now have in regard to its exercise
there is great doubt whether the most enlightened statesman would
not come to a different conclusion.'

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 693
"The power referred to was that of the removal by the
President of the heads of the principal Departments of the
Government, as conceded by the acts of 1789.
" 'The Attorney General calls this a constitutional power.
There is no such power given in the Constitution. It is presumed
to be in the President from the power of appointment. This
presumption, I think, is unwise and illogical. The reasoning is:
The President and Senate appoint to office; therefore the President
may remove from office. Now, the argument would be legitimate if
the power to remove were inferred to be the same that appoints.
" 'It was supposed that the exercise of this power by the
President was necessary for the efficient discharge of executive
duties; that to consult the Senate in making removals the same
as making appointments would be too tardy for the correction of
abuses. By a temporary appointment the public service is now pro
vided for in case of death; and the same provision could be made
where immediate removals are necessary. The Senate, when
called upon to fill the vacancy, would pass upon the demerits of the
late incumbent.
" 'This, I have never doubted, was the true construction of the
Constitution; and I am able to say it was the opinion of the late
Supreme Court with Marshall at its head.'
"And again:
" 'If the power to remove from office may be inferred from
the power to appoint, both the elements of the appointing power
are necessarily included. The Constitution has declared what shall
be the executive power to appoint, and, by consequence, the same
power should be exercised in a removal.'
"It will be said, perhaps, that all this is qualified by the
remark that 'this power of removal has been, perhaps, too long
established and exercised to be now questioned.' It is enough,
however, to refer to the observation which follows, that 'the
voluntary action of the Senate and the President would be
necessary to change the practice,' to show what was meant by
him. Such events as our eyes have witnessed, and such a con
juncture of affairs following fast upon their heels as would
leave the Executive with all his formidable patronage and all
the prestige of his place, without even the meager support of a
third in either House, were scarcely within the range of human
probability. When he remarks, therefore, that it was 'perhaps
too late to question it,' he means, of course, 'to question it suc
cessfully,' as the context shows. If he had meant otherwise he
would not have referred to a voluntary change of practice as
operating a corresponding change of the Constitution. He was

694 THOMAS WILLIAMS
too good a lawyer and too large a statesman to affirm that the
fundamental law of a great State could be wrested from its
true construction either by the errors of the Legislature, or the
toleration of a mischievous practice and a monster vice for less
than eighty years.
"It is apparent, then, from all the cases, that the judicial
opinion, so far from sustaining the view of the President, settles
at least two points which are fatal to his pretensions : first, that
Congress may so limit the tenure of an office as to render the
incumbent irremovable except by the process of impeachment;
and second, that the power to remove, so far as it exists, is but
an incident to the power to appoint.
"Nor is it any answer to say, as has been claimed in debate
on this floor, that these were cases of inferior offices where,
under the Constitution, it was within the power of Congress to
regulate them at its discretion. There is nothing in the pro
vision as to inferior offices to distinguish them from others
beyond the mere article of appointment. This is a question of
tenure, and that is equally undefined as to both, except in the
few cases specially enumerated therein. It was equally within
the power of Congress to regulate in one case as in the other.
The right to regulate is a necessary result of the right to create.
When it establishes an office, as it has established the depart
mental bureaus, by law, it has, of necessity, the right to pre
scribe its duties and say how long it shall be held and when it
shall determine. When it does say so, it can hardly be main
tained with any show of reason that a power which is only
implied from the fact that the tenure of office has been left
indefinite in the Constitution which has vested the establishment
of offices in Congress, shall be held to operate to defeat its will
and shorten the life of its own creature in cases where its
legislation is express.
"And so, too, as to the doctrine that the power of removal
is but an incident to the power to appoint. That is settled upon
grounds of reason, as a general principle, which has no more
application to inferior offices than to superior ones. The idea
is that the power of removal wherever it exists is in the very
nature of things but part and parcel of the power to appoint, and
that as a consequence the power that makes, and none other,
must unmake; and on this idea it was ruled in the particular
case that the power to remove was in the judge, because the
authority to appoint was there. It equally rules, however, that
where the appointment is in the head of a Department the
power of removal belongs to him; that where it is lodged by
Congress in the President alone it is in him only; and where

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 695
it is in the President and Senate conjointly there it is in both;
which is precisely the doctrine maintained by the minority in the
Congress of 1789. It ought to be a sufficient answer, however,
that no such distinction was taken by Justice Thompson in the
Heenan case, although he referred to the departure from this
rule in the practical construction which had assigned the power
to the President alone.
"The judicial opinion having thus signally failed to support
the dangerous heresies of the President, the next resort is to that
of the statesmen, lawyers, and publicists who have from time
to time illustrated our history. And here, too, it will be found
that the great criminal who is at your bar has no better support
than he has found in higher quarters.
"I am not here to question the doctrine which has been so
strongly urged, upon the authority of Lord Coke, that contem
poraneous exposition is entitled to great weight in law. Taking
it to be sound, however, it will hardly be pretended, I suppose,
that there is anything of this description which will compare in
value with the authoritative, and I might almost say, oracular
utterances of the Federalist, which was the main agent, under
Providence, in securing for the Constitution the support of the
people of the several States, and has since occupied the rank of
a classic in the political literature of America. And yet, in the
seventy-seventh number of that series, which is ascribed to the
pen of Alexander Hamilton, himself perhaps 'the first among
his peers' in the Convention which framed that instrument, it is
assumed as an unquestionable proposition and that, too, in the
way of answer to the objection of instability arising from
frequent changes of administration, that inasmuch 'as the Senate
was to participate in the business of appointments, its consent
would therefore be necessary to displace as well as to appoint.'
Nor was it considered even necessary to reason out a conclusion
that was so obvious and inevitable. It does not seem to have
been supposed by anybody that a power so eminently regal could
ever be raised in the executive of a limited Government out of
the mere fact of the silence of the Constitution on that subject
and the failure to provide any other mode of removal than by
the process of impeachment. If the conclusion, however, was
not a sound one, then it was no better than a false pretense,
which those at least who concurred in its presentation were
morally estopped from controverting. And yet it is one of the
distinguished authors of these papers, in his quality of a legis
lator, that the nation is mainly indebted for the vote which
inaugurated and fastened so long upon it the mischievous and
anti-republican doctrine and practice which it has cost a revolu-

696 THOMAS WILLIAMS
tion to overthrow. It does not seem, however, to have effected
any change in the opinions of the distinguished author, as we
find him insisting in a letter written ten years afterward to
James McHenry, then Secretary of War, that even the power
to fill vacancies happening during the recess of the Senate is to
be confined to 'such offices as having been once filled have
become vacant by accidental circumstances.'
"From the time of the settlement of the policy of the Gov
ernment on this subject by its first Congress down till the acces
sion of the younger Adams in 1826, a period of nearly forty
years, the question does not seem to have been agitated, for the
very satisfactory reason that the patronage was so inconsidera
ble, and the cases of abuse so rare, as to attract no attention on
the part of public men. In the last named year, however,
a committee was raised by the Senate, headed by Mr. Benton,
and composed of nine of the most eminent statesmen of that
day, to consider the subject of restraining this power by legisla
tion. That committee agreed in the opinion that the practice of
dismissing from office was a dangerous violation of the Con
stitution, which had in their view been 'changed in this regard
by construction and legislation,' which were only another name
for legislative construction, and reported sundry bills for its
correction not unlike in some respects to the present law.
Those bills failed of course, but with the public recognition of
the new and alarming doctrine which followed the accession of
the next Administration, that the public offices, like the plunder
of a camp, were the legitimate spoils of the victorious party, the
subject was revived in 1835 by the appointment of another com
mittee, embracing the great names of Calhoun, Webster, and
Benton, for the same object. The result of their labors was the
introduction of a bill requiring the President in all cases of
removal to state the reasons thereof, which passed the Senate
by a vote of 31 to 16, or nearly two thirds of that body. In the
course of the debate on that bill, Mr. Webster, whose unsur
passed, and, as I think, unequaled ability as a constitutional
lawyer will be contested by nobody, held this emphatic language.
" 'After considering the question again and again within the
last six years 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 interpretation was given to the Constitution in
this respect by the decision of the First Congress.'
"And again:

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 697
" 'I have the clearest conviction that they (the Convention)
looked to no other mode of displacing an officer than by impeach
ment or the regular appointment of another person to the same
place.' "And further:
" '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 upon that question as the safety of the Govern
ment and of the Constitution may require.'
"Mr. Calhoun was equally emphatic in his condemnation of
the power and speaks of previous cases of removal as 'rather
exceptions than constituting a practice.'
"The like opinion was obviously entertained by both Kent and
Story, the two most distinguished of the commentators on the
Constitution, and certainly among the highest authorities in the
country. The former, after referring to the construction of 1789
as but 'a loose, incidental, and declaratory opinion of Congress,'
is constrained to speak of it as 'a striking fact in the constitu
tional history of our Government that a power so transcendent
as that which places at the disposal of the President alone the
tenure of every executive officer appointed by the President and
Senate, should depend on inference merely, and should have been
gratuitously declared by the First Congress in opposition to the
high authority of the Federalist, and supported or acquiesced in
by some of those distinguished men who questioned or denied
the power of Congress to incorporate a national bank.' (i
Kent's Commentaries, sec. 16, p. 308.) The latter speaks of it
with equal emphasis as 'constituting the most extraordinary case
in the history of the Government of a power conferred by impli
cation on the Executive by the assent of a bare majority in
Congress which has not been questioned on many other occa
sions.' (2 Commentaries, sec. 1543.)
"The same opinion, too, is already shown upon the testi
mony of Judge McLain, as cited above, to have been shared by
'the old Supreme Court, with Marshall at its head.' It seems,
indeed,^ as though there had been an unbroken current of senti
ment from sources such as these through all our history against
the existence of this power. If there be any apparently excep
tional cases of any note but the equivocal one of Mr. Madison,
they will be found to rest only, as I think, upon the legislation
of 1789 and the long practice that is supposed to have followed
it. I make no account of the opinions of Attorneys General,
although I might have quoted that of Mr. Wirt, in 181 8, to the
effect that it was only when Congress had not undertaken to fix

698 THOMAS WILLIAMS
the tenure of the office that the commission could run during the
pleasure of the President. They belong to the same category as
those of Cabinet officers. It may not be amiss, however, to add
just here that although this question was elaborately argued by
myself upon the introduction of the bill to regulate removals
from office in the House of Representatives, which was substan
tially the same as the present law, which was depending at that
time, no voice but one was lifted up in the course of a pro
tracted debate against the constitutionality of the measure
itself. "What, then, is there in the legislation of 1789, which is
claimed to be not only a contemporary but an authoritative
exposition of the meaning of the Constitution, and has no value
whatever except as the expression of an opinion as to the policy
of making the heads of Departments dependent on the President,
unless the acts of that small and inexperienced Congress are
to be taken as of binding force upon their successors and as a
sort of oracular outgiving upon the meaning of the Constitution ?
"Whatever may have been the material provisions of the
several acts passed at that session, for the establishment of these
Departments, it is not to be supposed that it was intended to
accomplish a result so clearly not within the province of the
law-maker as the binding settlement of the sense of that instru
ment on so grave a question. The effect of these acts has, I
think, been greatly misunderstood by those who rely on them
for such a purpose. All that they amount to is the concession
to the President, in such a form as was agreeable to his friends,
of a power of removal which the majority was disposed to
accord to him in cases where the tenure of the officer was left
indefinite, and the office was therefore determinable at will, but
which those friends declined to accept as a grant, because they
claimed it as a right. The result was but a compromise, which
evaded the issue by substituting an implied grant for an express
one, and left the question in dispute just where it found it. The
record shows, however, that even in this shape the bill finally
passed the House by a vote of only 29 to 22. In the Senate,
however, where the debate does not appear, it was carried only
by the casting vote of the Vice President, not properly himself
a legislative but an executive officer, who had a very direct
interest in the decision.
"The case shows, moreover, as already suggested, that there
was no question involved as to the duration of the office.
Whether it could be so limited, as has been done in the tenure-
of-office law, was not a point in controversy, and is not, of
course, decided. That it might be so, is not disputed as to the

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 699
'inferior' offices. The thing itself was done, and the right to do
it acquiesced in and affirmed, as shown already in the case of
Marbury vs. Madison, as early as 1801. It cannot be shown,
however, that there is any difference between the cases of
inferior and superior offices in this respect. There is no word
in the Constitution to require that the latter shall hold only at
pleasure. Both are created by law, and Mr. Madison himself
admits, in the debate of 1789, that 'the legislative power creates
the office, defines the power, limits its duration, and annexes the
compensation.' All that the Constitution contains is the excep
tion from the general power of appointment in the authority to
Congress to vest that power in inferior cases in the President
alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of Departments.
But there is nothing here as to the power of removal — nothing
but as to the privilege of dispensing with the Senate in the
matter of appointments, and no limitation whatever upon its
power over the office itself in the one case more than in the
other. "And now let me ask what did the decision amount to,
supposing it had even ruled the question at issue, but the act
of a mere Legislature with no greater powers than ourselves?
Is there anything in the proceedings of the Congress of 1789 to
indicate that it ever assumed to itself the prerogative of setting
itself up as an interpreter of the fundamental law? The men
who composed it understood their functions better than to sup
pose that it had any jurisdiction over questions of this sort. If
it had, so have we, and judgments may be reversed on a rehear
ing, as constitutions cannot be. But if it did exist whence was it
derived? How was the Congress to bind the people by altering
the law to which it owed its own existence, and all its powers?
It could not bind its successors by making even its own enact
ments irrepealable. If it had a right to give an opinion upon the
meaning of the Constitution, why may we not do the same thing ?
The President obviously assumes that they were both wiser and
better than ourselves. If the respect which he professes for
their opinions had animated him in regard to the Congresses
which have sat under his administration, the nation would have
been spared much tribulation and we relieved of the painful
necessity of arraigning the Chief Magistrate of the Republic at
your bar for his crimes against order, and liberty, and his open
defiance of law.
"However it may be with others, I am not one of those who
think that all wisdom and virtue have perished with our fathers,
or that they were better able to comprehend the import of an
instrument with whose practical workings they were unfamiliar

700 THOMAS WILLIAMS
than we who are sitting under the light of an experience of
eighty years, and suffering from the mistakes which they made
in regard to the future. They made none greater than the
illusion of supposing that it was impossible for our institutions
to throw up to the surface a man like Andrew Johnson ; and yet
it was this mistake — ^perhaps no other — that settled the first
precedent, which was so likely to be followed, in regard to the
mischievous power of removal from office. But if twenty-nine
votes in the House at that day, making a meager majority of
only seven, and nine only in a Senate that was equally divided,
in the first hours of constitutional life, and with such a Presi
dent as Washington, to fling a rose-colored light over the future
of the Republic, had even intended to give, and did give, a
construction to our great charter of freedom, what is to be
said of 133 votes to 37, constituting more than three fourths of
one House, and of 35 to 11, or nearly a like proportion of the
other, in the maturity of our strength, with a population of
nearly forty millions, and under the light of an experience which
has proved that even the short period of eighty years was capable
of producing what our progenitors supposed to be impossible
even in the long tract of time ?
"But there is one other consideration that presents itself
just here, and it is this: it does not strike me by any means as
clear that there was anything in the act of 1789, aside from any
supposed attempt to give it the force of an authoritative exposi
tion of the Constitution, that was necessarily inconsistent with
the view of that instrument which I have been endeavoring to
maintain. Taking the authority lodged by it with the President
as a mere general grant of power, there was nothing certainly in
its terms to prevent it. So far at least as regarded the inferior
officers, it resulted from the express authority of Congress to
vest the power of appointment in the President alone, that they
might have even left the power of removal in the same hands also
as an incident. And so, too, as to the superior ones. The power
to remove in any case was but an implied one. If it was neces
sary, as claimed, to enable the Executive to perform his proper
functions under the Constitution, instead of raising the power in
him.self by the illogical inference, that it must belong to him
qua Executive, it presented one of the very cases for which it is
provided expressly that Congress shall 'make all laws that shall
be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all power
vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United
States, or in any Department or officer thereof.' To infer in the
face of such a provision as this, that any or all powers necessary
to either department of the Government belong to them, of

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 70I
course, because they are necessary, is a reflection on the under
standings of the framers of the Constitution, and its effect to
nullify the provision itself, by enabling the other Departments
of the Government to dispense entirely with the action of the
law-maker. "But, admitting the act of 1789 to import, in its full extent,
all that it is claimed to have decided, it is further insisted that this
untoward precedent has been ripened into unalterable law by a
long and uninterrupted practice in conformity with it. If it
were even true, as stated, there would be nothing marvelous in
the fact that it has been followed up by other legislation of a
kindred character. It is not to be doubted that a general opinion
did prevail for many years that all the offices of the Government
not otherwise provided for in the Constitution ought to be held
at will, for the obvious reason, among others, that it rendered
the process of removal easy by making an impeachment unneces
sary. The only question in dispute was in whose hands this
power could be most appropriately lodged. It so happened, how
ever, that the first of our Presidents brought with him into the
office an elevation of character that placed him above all sus
picion, and assured to him a confidence so unbounded that it
would have been considered entirely safe to vest him with
unlimited command; and it was but natural, as it was certainly
highly convenient, that the exercise of that will, which was to
determine the life of the officer, should be lodged with him. It
was so lodged.
"But is there anything remarkable in the fact that the
precedent thus set should have been followed up in the practice
of the Government? It would have been still more remarkable
if it had been otherwise. It was a question of patronage and
power — of rewarding friends, and punishing enemies. A suc
cessful candidate for the Presidency was always sure to bring
in with him a majority in the popular branch at least, along
with a host of hungry followers flushed with their victory and
hungering after the spoils. Was it expected that they should
abridge his power to reward his friends, or air their own virtue
by self-denying ordinances? That would have been too much
for men, and politicians, too. No. Though the wisest states
men of the country had realized and deplored for forty years at
least the giant vice which had been gnawing into the very
entrails of the state, and threatened to corrupt it in all its mem
bers, there was no remedy left, but the intervention of that
Providence which has purified the heart of the nation through
the blood of its children, and cast down the man who 'but yester
day might have stood against the world,' so low, that with all

702 THOMAS WILLIAMS
his royal patronage there are none left — no, I think not one —
'so poor as to do him reverence.'
"It is not even true, however, that the precedent of the
Congress of 1789 has been followed invariably and without
interruption since that time. The history of our legislation
shows not only repeated instances wherein the tenure of office
has been so precisely defined as to take the case entirely out of
the control of the Executive, but some in which even the power
of removal itself has been substantially exercised by Congress,
as one would suppose it might reasonably be, where it creates
and may destroy, makes and may unmake, even the subject of
controversy itself.
"The act of 1801, already referred to in connection with
the case of Marbury and Madison, assigning a tenure of five
years absolutely to the officer, involves a manifest departure
from it.
"The five several acts of August 14, 1848, March 3, 1849,
September, 1850, and May 3, 1854, providing for the appointment
of judges in the Territories of Oregon, Minnesota, New Mexico,
Kansas, and Nebraska, and fixing their terms of office at four
years absolutely, are all within the same category.
"The act of 25th February, 1863, followed by that of June
3, 1864, establishing the office of Comptroller of the Currency,
defining his term and making him irremovable except by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate, and upon reasons to
be shown, is another of the same description.
"The act of March 3, 1865, which authorizes any military
or naval officer who has been dismissed by the authority of the
President to demand a trial by court-martial, and in default of
its allowance within six months, or of a sentence of dismissal
or death thereby, avoids the order of the Executive; and the
act of July 13, 1866, which provides that no officer in time of
peace shall be dismissed except in pursuance of a sentence of a
court-martial, are both examples of like deviation of the strong
est kind, for the double reason that the President is, under the
Constitution, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy
of the United States, and none but civil officers are amenable
to the process of impeachment, and that the officer dismissed is
absolutely restored, awakened into new life, and raised to his
feet by the omnipotent fiat of the legislative power.
"And, lastly, the act of 15th May, 1820, (3 Statutes, 582,)
which dismisses by wholesale a very large and important class
of officers at periods specially indicated therein, not only fixes
the tenure prospectively, but involves a clear exercise of the
power of removal itself on the part of the Legislature.

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 703
"Further developments in the same direction would no doubt
reward the diligence of the more pains-taking inquirer. That,
however, would only be a work of supererogation. Enough have
been shown to demonstrate beyond denial that the practice
relied on has been anything but uniform.
"To establish even a local custom or prescription the ele
ment of continuity is as important as that of time. Any break
in that continuity by an adverse entry or even a continual claim,
would arrest the flow of a statute of limitations against the right
ful owner of a tenement. An interruption of the enjoyment
would be equally fatal to a prescription. But are we to be told
that a case which in this view would not even be sufficient to
establish a composition for tithes, or a trifling easement as
between individuals, is sufficient to raise a prescription against
a constitutional right or to abrogate the fundamental law of a
nation and bar the inappreciable inheritance of its people ? The
very statement of the proposition would seem to furnish its own
refutation. "But this is not all. If the case had even been one of unin
terrupted continuity, how is it as to the element of time? To
settle a custom, either public or private, it must have the hoar
of antiquity upon it; its origin must be traced far back into the
night of time, so far that no living memory can measure it, and
no man can say that he has drunk at its head-springs or stood
beside its cradle. What is the case here ? It is a question of the
fundamental law of a people whose dominions embrace a con
tinent, and whose numbers are multitudinous as the stars of
heaven. A little more than three quarters of a century will
measure the career that they have thus far run. What a mere
span is this ? Why I have seen on this floor, a not uninterested
spectator of this great drama, a veteran statesman, known by fame,
and perhaps personally, to all of you, whose years go back behind
your Constitution itself. But what is a century but the briefest
hour in the life of a State ? How is a mere non-user for seventy-
five of its infant years to be set up either to bar a fundamental
right, or to prove that it never existed ? It required six centuries
of struggle with the prerogative to settle the British constitution
firmly upon the foundations of Magna Charta, and no hostile
precedent of the reigns of either the Plantagenets or Tudors was
allowed to stand in the way of the onward movement that cul
minated in the revolution of 1688. And yet it is gravely urged
on us, that the conduct of our national life is to be regulated by
the mistakes of its childhood, and that the grand patrimony of
the Revolution has been squandered beyond recovery by the

704

THOMAS WILLIAMS

thoughtless improvidence, or too generous and trustful prodi
gality of an earlier heir who had just come to his estate.
"And now I may venture to say, I think, that it has been
shown abundantly that all the resources of the President on this
point have failed him. The awards of reason, the judgments of
the courts, the opinions of statesmen, lawyers, and publicists,
the precedent of 1789, and the practice of the Government, are
all against him."
At this point the eflfect of an illness showed itself
so strongly that Manager Butler requested an adjourn
ment on account of it. He was ready, however, the next
day, and proceeded.
"Mr. President and Senators," he continued, "I have to
thank you for the indulgence which you were kind enough to
extend to me yesterday at a time when I very much wanted it.
I shall endeavor, however, to testify my gratitude by not abus
ing it.
"Before I closed yesterday I was referring to the position
taken by me, and, as I thought, sufficiently demonstrated, that
the President had failed in ah his supports; that the reason of
the thing, the natural reason, the cultivated reason of the law,
the judicial sentiment, the opinions of commentators, the pre
cedent of 1789, and even the practice, were all against him; but
then I suggested that there was one resource still left, and to
that I now come, and that is in the opinion of what is sometimes
called his Cabinet, the trusted counselors whom he is pleased to
quote as the advisers whom the Constitution and the practice of
the Government have assigned to him. If all the world has for
saken him, they, at least, are still faithful to the chief whom
they have so long accompanied, and so largely comforted and
encouraged through all his manifold usurpations.
'Tt is true that these gentlemen have not been allowed to
prove, as they would have desired to do, that maugre all the
reasoning of judges, lawyers, and publicists, they were implicitly
of the opinion, and so advised the President, that the tenure-of-
office law, not being in accordance with his will, was, of course,
unconstitutional. It may be guessed, I suppose, without damage
to our case, that if allowed they would have proved it. With
large opportunities for information I have not heard of any
occasion wherein they have ever given any opinion to the Presi
dent, except the one that was wanted by him, or known to be
agreeable to his will. If there had been time I should have
been glad to hear from some of these functionaries on that

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 705
question. It would have been pleasant to hear the witness on
the stand at least, discourse of constitutional law. If the pubhc
interest has not suffered, the public curiosity has at least been
balked by the denial of the high privilege of listening to the
luminous expositions which some of these learned Thebans,
whose training has been so high as to warrant them in denoun
cing us all — the legislators of the nation — as no better than 'Con
stitution tinkers,' would have been able to help us with.
"It is a large part of the defense of the President, as set forth
in his voluminous special plea, and elaborated in the argument
of the opening counsel, not only that his Cabinet agreed with
him in his views as to the law, but that if he has erred, it was
under the advice received from those whom the law had placed
around him. It is not shown, however, and was not attempted
to be shown, that in regard to the particular offense for which
he is now arraigned before you they were ever consulted by him.
But to clear this part of the case of all possible cavil or excep
tion, I feel that it will not be amiss to ask your attention to a
few remarks upon the relations of the President with this ille
gitimate body, this excrescence, this mere fungus, born of decay,
which has been compounded in process of time out of the heads
of the Departments, and has shot up within the last few years
into the formidable proportions of a directory for the general
government of the State.
"The first observation that suggests itself is that this refer
ence to the advice of others proceeds on the hypothesis
that the President himself is not responsible, and is there
fore at war with the principal theory of the defense, which
is that he is the sole responsible head of the executive
department, and must therefore, ex necessitate, in order
to the performance of his appropriate duties, have the
undisputed right to control and govern and remove them at
his own mere will — as he has just done in the case of Mr. Stan
ton — a theory which precludes the idea of advice in the fact that
it makes the adviser a slave. What, then, does the President
intend? Does he propose to abandon this hue of defense? He
cannot do it without surrendering his case.
"Is it his purpose, then, to divert us from the track by
doubling on his pursuers, and leading them off on a false scent,
or does he intend the offer of a vicarious sacrifice? Does he
think to make mere scapegoats of his counselors by laying all
his multitudinous sins upon their backs ? Does he propose to
enact the part of another Charles, by surrendering another
Strafford to the vengeance of the Commons ? We must decline
to accept the offer. We want no ministerial heads. We do not

706 THOMAS WILLIAMS
choose in the pursuit of higher game to stoop to any ignobler
quarry either on the land or on the sea. It would be anything
but magnanimous in us to take, as it would be base in him to
offer, the heads of those whom our own past legislation has
degraded into slaves. When Cassar falls his counselors will
disappear along with him. Perhaps he thinks, however, that
nobody is responsible. But shall we allow him to justify in one
breath the removal of Mr. Stanton on the ground that under
the law he was his master, and then in another, when arraigned
for this, to say that he is not responsible because he took advice
from those who are but mere automata — only his 'hands and
voice,' in the language of his counsel — and no more than the
mere creatures of his imperial will? This would be a sad con
dition, indeed, for the people of a Republic claiming to be free.
We can all understand the theory of the British constitution.
The king can do no wrong. The person of majesty is sacred.
But then the irresponsibility of the sovereign is beautifully
reconciled with the liberty of the subject, by holding the ministry
responsible, and thus taking care that he shall get no bad advice
from them. But what is to be our condition, with no recourse
between the two, to either king or minister? It will be not
unlike what is said in the touching plaint of the Britons, 'The
barbarians drive us to the sea, and the sea drives us back again
on the barbarians.'
"But who made these men the advisers of the President?
Not the Constitution, certainly ; not the laws, or they would have
made them free. The Constitution has given to him no advisers
but the Senate, whose opinion he scouts at and defies, because
he cannot get from it the advice he wants, and would obtain,
no doubt, if it were reduced to the condition of that of imperial
Rome. All it provides in regard to the heads of Departments
is that he may require the opinion in writing of each of them
upon any subject relating to the duties of his own special office,
and no more. He cannot require it as to other matters, and by
the strongest implication it was not intended that he should take
it on any matter outside of their own respective offices and
duties. He has undoubtedly the privilege which belongs to other
men, of seeking for advice wherever he may want it; but if he
is wise, and would be honestly advised— as he does not appar
ently wish to be — he will go to those who are in a condition to
tell him the truth without the risk of being turned out of office,
as Mr. Stanton has been, for doing so. No tyrant who has held
the lives of those around him in his hands, has ever enjoyed the
counsels of any but minions and sycophants. If it had been the
purpose of the framers of the Constitution to provide a council

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 707
for the President, they would have looked to it that he was not
to be surrounded with creatures such as these.
"But then it is said that the practice of holding Cabinet
councils was inaugurated by President Washington, and has
since continued without interruption. It is unquestionable that
he did take the opinions in writing of all the heads of Depart
ments, on bills that were submitted to him in the constitutional
way, and not unlikely that he may have consulted them as to
appointments, and other matters of executive duty that involved
anything like discretion. They may ^lave met occasionally in
after times upon the special invitation df the President. It was
not, however, as I think, until the period of the war, when the
responsibilities of the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the
armies, were so largely magnified as to make it necessary that he
should take counsel from day to day, that they crystallized into
their present form, as a sort of institution of state; and not till
the accession of Andrew Johnson, that they began to do the work
of Congress, in a condition of peace, by legislating for the res
toration of the rebel States. From that time forward, through
all that long and unhappy interregnum of the law-making power,
while the telegraph was waiting upon the action of those myste
rious councils, that dark tribunal which was erecting States by
proclamation, taxing the people, and surrendering up the public
property to keep them on their feet, and exercising a dis
pensing power over the laws, had apparently taken the place of
the Congress of the nation, with powers quite as great as any
that the true Congress has ever claimed. To say that the acts
of this mere cabal, which looked for all the world, like some dark
conclave of conspirators plotting against the liberties of the
people, were the results of free consultation and comparison of
views, is to speak without knowledge. I for one mistrusted them
from the beginning, and, if I may be excused the egotism again,
it was under the inspiration of the conviction that they could
not have held together so long under an imperious, self-willed
man like the present Executive, without a thorough submission
to all his views, that I was moved to introduce and urge, as I
did, through great discouragements, but, thank God, successfully,
the amendment to the tenure-of-office bill, that brings about this
conflict. It has come sooner than I expected, but not too soon
to vindicate, by its timely rescue of the most important of the
Departments of the Government from the grasp of the President,
the wisdom of a measure which, if it had been the law at the
time of Mr. Johnson's accession, would, in my humble judgment,
have set his policy aside, and made his resistance to the will of
the loyal people, and his project of governing the nation without

708 THOMAS WILLIAMS
a Congress, impossible. The veil has been lifted since the pas
sage of this law, and those who wish, may now read in letters
of living light the great fact, that during the progress of all this
usurpation that has convulsed the nation, and kept the South in
anarchy for three long years, there was scarce a ripple of dis
sent to ruffle the stagnant surface of those law-making and law-
breaking cabals, those mere beds of justice, where, in accord
ance with the theory of the President himself, there was but one
will that reigned undisputed and supreme.
"To insist, then, that any apology is to be found for the
delinquencies of the President, in the advice of a Cabinet, where
a difference of opinion was considered treason to the head, and
loyalty to the law, instead of to the will of the President, pun
ished by dismissal, is, as it seems to me, on his part, the very
climax of effrontery. What adequate cause does the President
now assign for the removal of Mr. Stanton? His counsel prom
ised us in their opening, that they would exhibit reasons to show
that it was impossible to allow him to continue to hold the office.
They have failed to do it. They have not even attempted it.
Was it because he had failed to perform his duties, or had in
any way offended against the law? The President alleges
nothing of the kind. Was it even a personal quarrel ? Nothing
of this sort is pretended either. All that we can hear of, is that
there was a 'want of mutual confidence;' that 'his relations to
Mr. Stanton were such as to preclude him from resorting to him
for advice,' (Heaven save the mark !) and that he did not think
he could be any longer safely responsible for him. His counsel
say that Mr. Stanton is a thorn in his side. Well a thorn in the
flesh is sometimes good for the spirit. But so are Grant and
Sherman and Sheridan, and so is Congress, and so is every loyal
man in the country who questions or resists his will. The trouble
is, as everybody knows, that Mr. Stanton does not indorse his
policy, and cannot be relied on to assist him in obstructing the
laws of Congress ; and that is just the reason why you want this
thorn to 'stick,' and, if need be, prick and fester a little there,
and must maintain it there, if you would be faithful to the nation
and to yourselves. You cannot let Mr. Stanton go, by an
acquittal of the President, without surrendering into his hands
the very last fortress that you still hold, and are now holding
only at the point of the bayonet.
"But there is a point just here that seems to have been
entirely overlooked by the counsel for the President, to which
I desire especially to invite your attention. It seems to have
been assumed by them throughout — if it is not, indeed, distinctly
asserted in the defendant's plea — that if they shall be able to

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 709
succeed in estabhshing a power of removal in the President,
either under the Constitution or the act of 1789, erecting the
Department now in question, he may exercise that power at his
mere will and pleasure, without reason and without responsi
bility ; and having failed to show any adequate cause, or indeed
any cause whatever for the act done here, he stands, of course,
on this hypothesis. But is this the law ? Is there no such thing
as an abuse of power, and a just responsibility as its attendant?
Was it intended in either case — whether the power flowed from
one source, or from the other — that it should be exercisable
without restraint? That doctrine would be proper in a mon
archy, perhaps, but is ill suited to the genius of institutions like
our own. Nor was it the opinion of Mr. Madison, or those who
voted and acted with him in the Congress of 1789. No man
there who asserted the power of removal to be in the Presi
dent, or concurred in bestowing it on him for the occasion, ever
supposed that its exercise was to be a question of mere caprice,
or whim, or will. To the objection that this would be the effect
of the doctrine of removal, it was answered by Mr. Madison
himself in these words :
" The danger consists merely in this: that the President can
displace from office a man whose merits require that he should be
continued in it. What will be the motive which the President can
feel for such abuse of his power, and the restraints that operate
to prevent it? In the first place he will be impeached by the House
before the Senate for such an act of maladministration; for I con
tend that the wanton removal of meritorious officers would subject
him to impeachment and removal from his own high trust.'
"And it was, no doubt, mainly on this argument that the
power of removal was embodied in the law.
"What, then, have the President and his counsel to say in
answer to this? Is the President impeachable on his own case,
or does he expect to realize the fruits of the argument, and then
repudiate the very grounds on which the alleged construction
rests? Was Mr. Stanton a meritorious officer? Did his merits
require that he should be continued in the place ? No loyal man,
I think, disputes that they did, and this Senate has already
solemnly adjudged it, in their decision that, upon the reasons
stated by the President, there was no sufficient cause for his
removal, while none other have been since shown by the accused
himself. What then, was the motive for this act of maladmin
istration, as Mr. Madison denominates it? Nothing that we
are aware of, except the fact that the President cannot control
the War Office in the interests of his policy, so long as he is

710 THOMAS WILLIAMS
there. Was this, then, a wanton removal? It was something
more — it was a wicked one. And are we to be told now that
he is bound to show no reasons, and cannot be compelled to
answer for it to the nation, by those who claim the power of
removal for him on the very footing that its abuse would be
impeachable ?
"But it is further strenuously argued, that although the law
may be constitutional, and the case of Mr. Stanton within it,
as it has been already held to be by this Senate, the case was
not so clear a one as to authorize a charge of crime against the
President, unless it can be shown that he has willfully miscon
strued it ; and that although wherever a law is passed through the
forms of legislation, it is his duty to see that it is faithfully exe
cuted so long as it requires no more than ministerial action on
his part, yet, where it is a question of cutting off a power con
fided to him by the Constitution, and he alone can bring about a
judicial decision for its settlement, if, on due deliberation and
advice, he should be of the opinion that the law was unconsti
tutional, it would be no violation of duty to take the needful
steps to raise that question, so as to have it peacefully decided.
"Allow me to say in answer, that if even ignorance of the
law, which excuses nobody else, can be held to excuse the very
last man in the nation who ought to be allowed to plead it, the
testimony shows, I think, that he did not misunderstand its
meaning. His suspension of Mr. Stanton, which was an entirely
new procedure, followed, as it was, by his report of the case to
the Senate within twenty days after its next meeting, is evidence
that he did understand the law as comprehending that case,
and did not intend to violate it, if he could get rid of the obnox
ious officer without resorting to so extreme and hazardous a
remedy. "But the question here is not so much whether he ignorantly
and innocently mistook the law, as whether in the case referred
to of an interference with the power claimed by him under the
Constitution, he may suspend the operation of a law by assuming
it to be unconstitutional, and setting it aside until the courts
shall have decided that it is a constitutional and valid one. In
the case at issue, it was not necessary to violate the law, either
by contriving to prevent the incumbent from resuming his place
under it, or turning him out by violence after he had been duly
reinstated by the Senate, if be honestly desired to test its validity
in the judicial forum. All that it was necessary for him to do,
was to issue his order of removal, and give the officer a notice
of that order, and its object. If he refused to obey, the next
and obvious step would have been to direct the Attorney General

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 71I
to sue out a writ of quo warranto, on his own relation. This
was not his course. The remedy was not summary enough for
his uses, as his special counsel, employed only after the arrest
of his pseudo Secretary Thomas, testifies, because it would have
allowed the law to reign in the meanwhile, instead of creating an
interregnum of mere will by which he hoped to supersede it. His
project was to seize the place; by craft, if possible; by force, if
necessary. For this purpose he claims to have made an arrange
ment with General Grant for its surrender to himself, in case
the judgment of the Senate should testore the officer, and now
taxes that distinguished officer with bad faith to him individually,
for his obedience to the law.
"It stands, therefore, upon his own confession, that he
intended to prevent Mr. Stanton from resuming his position, in
which case — as he well knew, and as his Attorney Gen
eral knew, and must have informed him, there was no
remedy at law for the ejected officer. Foiled and baffled
by the integrity of Grant, after full deliberation he issues
his order of removal on the 21st of February, and sends it
by his lieutenant, Thomas, with a commission to himself to act
as Secretary ad interim, and enter upon the duties of the office.
He does not fail to suggest to him at the same time, that Stanton
is a coward, and may be easily frightened out of the place with
a proper show of energy on his part. He tells him also that he
expects him to support the Constitution and the laws — as he
understands them, of course. Thomas is a martinet. He knows
no law, as he confesses, but the order of his Commander-in-Chief.
He has been taught no argument but arms — no logic but the
dialectics of hard knocks. Instructed by the President, he hopes
to frighten Stanton by his big looks and horrent arms. He pro
ceeds upon his warlike errand in all the panoply of a brigadier,
and loftily demands the keys of the fortress from the stern warder,
who only stipulates for twenty-four hours to remove his camp
equipage and baggage. The conquest is apparently an easy one.
He reports forthwith to his chief with the brevity of a Caesar:
'Veni, vidi, vici.' They rejoice, no doubt, together over the
pusillanimity of the Secretary; and the puissant Adjutant then
unbends, and flies for relaxation, after his heroic and successful
feat, to the delights and mysteries of the masquerade ; not, how
ever, until he has 'fought his battle o'er again,' and invited his
friends to be present at the surrender on the following morning,
which he advises them that he intends to compel by force, if
necessary. "The masquerade opens. 'Fair women and brave men' are
there, and —

712 THOMAS WILLIAMS
" 'Music ascends with its voluptuous swell,
And eyes look love to eyes that speak again;
And all goes merry as a marriage bell.'
"The Adjutant himself is there. The epaulette has modestly
retired behind the domino. The gentleman from Tennessee at
least will excuse me, if after his own example, I borrow from the
celestial armory, on which he draws so copiously, a little of that
light artillery, with which he blazes along his track, like a
November midnight sky with all its flaming asteroids. The
Adjutant, I repeat, is there.
" 'Grim-visaged war hath smoothed his wrinkled front.
And now, instead of mounting barbed steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries.
He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.'
"But lo! a hand is laid upon his shoulder, which startles
him in the midst of the festivities, like the summons to 'Bruns
wick's fated chieftain' at the ball in Brussels, on the night
before the battle in which he fell. It is the messenger of the
Senate, who comes to warn him that his enterprise is an unlaw
ful one. On the following morning he is waited upon again by
another officer, with a warrant for his arrest for threats which
looked to a disturbance of the peace. This double warning chills
his martial ardor. Visions of impending trouble pass before his
eyes. He sees, or thinks he sees, the return of civil strife, the
floors of the Department dabbled, perhaps, like those of the
royal palace at Holyrood, with red spots of blood. But, above
all, he feels that the hand of the law-maker and of the law
itself, which is stronger than the sword, is on him, and he puts
up his weapon, and repairs, in peaceful guise, to take possession
of his conquest. I do not propose, however, to describe the
interview which followed. That will be the task of the future
dramatist. It will be sufficient for us to accompany him back to
the White House, where he receives the order to 'Go on and take
possession,' which he was so unhappily called back to contra
dict, and which it was then well understood, of course, that he
could not obtain except by force ; and he continues to be recog
nized as Secretary of War, without a portfolio or a cure, while
he waits under the direction of the President, not upon the law,
but only to see, like Micawber, what may turn up here, and to be
inducted and installed in proper form, as soon as your previous
decision shall have been reversed, and his title affirmed, by your
votes in favor of an acquittal. The idea of a suit, in which
direction no single step was ever taken, is now abandoned, if
it was ever seriously entertained.

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 713
"The conversation, however, with General Sherman, who
was called as a witness by the President himself, settles the fact
conclusively, if not already demonstrated by all the attendant
circumstances, that it was not his purpose at any time to bring
the case into the courts for adjudication. He preferred the dex
terous finesse, or the strong hand, to a reference which every
sensible lawyer would have told him could be attended with only
one result, and that a judgment in favor of the law.
"But in this great strait, instead of a resort to the Attorney
General himself, his special counsel Cox, employed only after
the arrest of Thomas, is called to prove that he advised against
the writ of quo warranto, because of 'the law's delay,' and
endeavored to seek a remedy more summary through a habeas
corpus, in the event of the commitment of the Secretary ad
interim. Supposing it all true, however, the movement came too
late to help his employer's case, by showing a desire to put the
issue in the way of a judicial decision upon the law. Nor is it
clear by any means that such a process could have achieved the
desired results. With a warrant good upon its face, and charg
ing a threatened disturbance of the peace, or an offense against
a statute of the United States, I doubt whether any court would
venture to declare the warrant void, or to discharge upon such
a hearing, on the footing of the unconstitutionality of the
law, which had received nearly three fourths of the votes of
both Houses, or, indeed, of any law whatever; while I do not
see how even a decision against it, could have had either the
effect of ousting Stanton or putting Thomas in his place. It is
enough, however, for the present purpose that the prisoner was
discharged on the motion of his own attorney.
"The counsel for the President admits that he cannot in
ordinary cases erect himself into a judicial tribunal, and decide
that a law is unconstitutional, because the effect would be that
there could never be any judicial decision upon it; but insists, as
already stated, that where a particular law has cut off a power
confided to him by the Constitution, he alone has the power to
raise the question for the courts, and there is no objection to
his doing it; and instances the cases of a law to prevent the
making of a treaty, or one to declare that he shall not exercise
the functions of Commander-in-Chief.
"It has been already very fully answered that there is no
evidence here to show that there was any honest purpose what
ever to bring this case into the courts, but that, on the con
trary, there is very conclusive testimony to prove that he
intended to keep it out of them. But had he a right to hold this
law a nullity until it was affirmed by another tribunal, whether

714 THOMAS WILLIAMS
it was constitutional or not? The Constitution gives to him the
power of passing upon the acts of the two Houses, by returning
a bill with his objections thereto, but if it is afterwards enacted
by two thirds of both it is provided that 'it shall become a law.'
What is a law? It is a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the
supreme power of a State. Is there any higher power than the
Legislature? Is it essential to the operation of a law that it
should have the approval of the judiciary, as well as of the
President? It is as obligatory on the President as upon the
humblest citizen. Nay, it is, if possible, more so. He is its
minister. The Constitution requires that he shall take care that
it be faithfully executed. It is for others to controvert it, if
aggrieved, in a legal way, but not for him. If they do, however,
it is at their peril, as it would be at his, even in the cases put,
where it is asked, with great emphasis, whether he would be
bound to obey? Those cases are extreme ones. But if hard
cases are said to make bad precedents, it may be equally
remarked that extreme cases make bad illustrations. They are,
moreover, of express powers, as this is not. But it will be time
enough to answer them when they arise. It is not a supposable
contingency, that two thirds of both Houses of Congress will
flatly violate their oaths in a clear case. Thus far in their
history, they have passed no law, I believe, that has been
adjudged invalid. Whenever they shall be prepared to do what
is now supposed, constitutions will be useless, faith will have
perished among men, and limited representative government
become impossible. When it comes to this, we shall have revo
lution, with bloody conflicts in our streets, with a Congress
legislating behind bayonets, and that anarchy prevailing every
where, which is already foreshadowed by the aspect of a
Department of this great Government beleaguered by the
minions of despotism, with its head a prisoner, and armed senti
nels pacing before its doors. Who shall say that the President
shall be permitted to disobey even a doubtful law, in the asser
tion of a power that is only implied? If he may, why not also
set aside the obnoxious section of the appropriation bill, upon
which he has endeavored unsuccessfully to debauch the officers
of the Army by teaching them insubordination to the law? Why
not openly disregard your reconstruction acts, as he will assur
edly do, if you shall teach him by your verdict here that he can
do it with impunity? The legal rule is that the presumption is
in every case in favor of the law, and that is a violent one,
where none has ever been reversed. The President claims that
this presumption shall not stand as against him. If it may not
here, it cannot elsewhere. To allow this revolutionary preten-

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 715
sion, is to dethrone the law and substitute his will. To say
that he may hold his office, and disregard the law, is to pro
claim either anarchy or despotism. It is but a short step from
one extreme to the other. To be without law, and to leave the
law dependent on a single will, are in effect but one and the
same thing. The man who can declare what is law, and what is
not, is already the absolute master of the State.
"But who is to try this case? The President insists that
it belongs to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, where, as he
untruly says, he endeavored to carry it. So it would, if the
question involved were one of merely private right. But in his
eccentric eft'orts to get into one court, by turning his back upon
it, he has stumbled very unexpectedly into another. It is not
the one he sought, but it is the one the Constitution has provided
for just such delinquencies as his, and he cannot decline its
cognizance. I beg pardon. He has sent you word, through the
special counsel whom he sends here with his personal protest,
that he might have declined it, on the opinion still entertained
by both of them, that this is no Congress, and you are no
court of competent jurisdiction to bring before you and try a
President of the United States, by the logic of which argu
ment he proves equally, of course, that he is no President. To
avoid a bloody conflict, however, although he has been tendered
the necessary aid in men, and inasmuch, I suppose, as you have
been so indulgent as not to put him to the humiliation of appear
ing in person at your bar, he waives his sufficient plea to the
jurisdiction, and condescends, only out of the abundance of his
grace, and in a spirit of forbearance, for which he claims due
credit at your hands, to make answer before a tribunal which
he might rightfully have defied.
"But he is here now by attorney, in what his other counsel
have taken great pains to prove to you to be a court indeed,
although they insist, not very consistently, in almost the same
breath, that it has only the functions of a jury. I shall not
dispute that question with them. I am willing to agree that
the Senate, pro hac vice, is a court, and that, too, of exclusive
jurisdiction over the subject-matter in dispute, from which it
follows by a necessary logic, as I think, that it is fully compe
tent to try and decide the whole case for itself, taking such
advice as it thinks proper as to the law, and then rejecting it
if it is not satisfactory. If it cannot do this, it is but the shadow
and mockery of what the defendant's counsel claim it to be in
force and fact. But by what name soever it may be called, it
will solve for the President the problem which he has desired
to carry into another tribunal, without waiting for any

7l6 THOMAS WILLIAMS
extraneous opinion. It has already determined upon the con
stitutionality of the tenure-of-office law, by enacting it over his
objections, as it has already passed upon its meaning, by its
condemnation of the act for which he is now to answer at its
bar. It will say, too, if I mistake not, that whether constitu
tional or not, it will allow no executive officer, and much less
the Chief Magistrate of the nation, to assume that it is not so,
and set up his own opinion in its place, until its previous and
well-considered judgment upon the same opinion has been judi
cially affirmed.
"But does it make any difference whether Mr. Stanton's
case is within the tenure-of-office act or not. Had the Execu
tive the power at any time, either during the session or the
recess, to create a vacancy to be filled up by an appointment ad
interim, to continue during his own pleasure; or if he had,
could he prolong a vacancy so created beyond the period of six
months ?
"The Constitution provides- — and it required such a pro
vision, in view of the general clause which associates the
Senate with the President, and makes their advice and consent
necessary in all cases of appointment, to authorize it— that he
shall have power to fill up all vacancies happening during the
recess, by temporary commissions to expire at the end of the
next session; and by a necessary implication of course he
cannot do it in the same way, or without their advice and con
sent while the Senate is at hand to afford it. The word happen,
as used here, imports accident or casualty only, according to the
best authorities. If this is the correct interpretation he cannot,
of course, create a vacancy for that purpose during the recess,
under the Constitution, although he may claim to do so under
the law establishing the Department, which places the power
of removal in his hands. If he does, however, the case then
falls within the constitutional provision, and the vacancy thus
created must be filled by a commission to expire at the end of
the next session.
"He did create a vacancy in this case by the suspension
during the recess, which he proceeded to supply by the appoint
ment of General Grant as Secretary of War ad interim at his
pleasure. And this he now defends, not under the provisions
of the tenure-of-office law, which would have authorized it,
but which he expressly repudiates, but upon the footing, in the
first place, of his constitutional power.
"Nothing is clearer, however, than the proposition, that
there was no authority to do this thing except what is to be
found in the act which he repudiates. There are no laws and

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 717
no precedents, so far as I am advised, to justify or excuse it.
If he may suspend indefinitely, and appoint at pleasure a Sec
retary ad interim, he may not only change the terms of the
commission, but strip the Senate of all participation in the
appointing power.
"But then he says, again, that he did this under the author
ity, also, of the act of 13th February, 1795, for filling temporary
vacancies. The tenor of that act is, that in a case of vacancy
it shall be lawful for the President, if he deem it necessary, to
authorize any person or persons to perform the duties until a
successor is appointed or such vacancy is filled : with the pro
viso, however, that no one vacancy shall be supplied in that
manner for a longer term than six months; which proves, of
course, that the exigency provided for was only to be a tempo
rary one.
"We maintain that this act has been repealed by the more
recent one of 13th February, 1863, which confines the choice of
the President to the heads of the other Departments. It is insisted,
however, that while the former covers all cases of vacancy, the
latter is confined to some particular instances, not including
those of removal, or such as may be brought about by efflux of
time, and does not, therefore, operate as a repeal to that extent.
Granting this, for the sake of the argument, to be true, how is
it to apply to a vacancy occurring during the recess, without a
repeal of the constitutional provision which is intended expressly
for just such cases? Was it intended to supersede it, and is it
to be so interpreted? This will hardly be pretended, if it were
even clear that the Legislature had such a power. The intent
and meaning of the act are so transparent from the context,
from the words of tenure, and from the six months' limitation,
that it is impossible to mistake them, or even to doubt, that it
was designed for merely accidental and transient cases, that
were left improvided for in the Constitution. The President's
claim would perpetuate the vacancy by enabling him to refuse
to fill it, or to nominate a successor.
"If it be even true, however, that he might have appointed
General Grant during the recess, under the law of 1795, it is
equally clear that he could not continue him in office, or pro
tract the vacancy beyond six months; and yet he insists, in his
special plea in answer to the averment of the absence of the
condition of vacancy on the 21st of February, when he appointed
General Thomas — which was more than six months after the
appointment of General Grant — that there was a continuing
vacancy at that time; intending, of course, that the act of the
Senate in refusing to approve his suspension, and his resump-

7l8 THOMAS WILLIAMS
tion of the duties of the office, were to be treated as of no
account whatever. From the premises of the President, that
the civil-tenure act was invalid on constitutional grounds, and
did not, at all events, embrace that case, his inference of a
continuing vacancy is undeniable, and his appointment of Gen
eral Thomas, therefore, entirely unauthorized by the act on
which he rehes.
"But there is more in this aspect of the case than the mere
failure of the authority. Taking it that, although he might
possibly remove during the recess, he could not suspend and
appoint a Secretary ad interim except by virtue of the tenure-of-
office law, and that it may be well pleaded in his defense, even
though he may have insisted that he did not refer to, or follow,
or recognize it, I think it cannot be a question among lawyers,
that all the acts of a public officer are to be conclusively pre
sumed to have been done under the law which authorized them.
But then it will be said, as it has been in regard to the proof of
changes made in the forms of commissions to make them har
monize with the novv disputed law, and of other evidence of a
kindred character, that this is only to set up the doctrine of
estoppel, which, though not unreasonable, has been so often
characterized as odious in the civil courts, against a defendant
in a criminal proceeding.
"I am ready to admit that estoppels are odious, because they
exclude the truth, but have never supposed that they were so,
when their effect was only to shut out falsehood. It was not for
this purpose, however, in my view at least, that such evidence
was offered ; but only to contradict the President's assertions by
his acts, and to show that when he pleads through his counsel,
that if the law was valid he honestly believed the contrary, and
that if it embraced the case of Mr. Stanton he innocently mis
took its meaning, and did not intend willfully to misconstrue it,
he stated what was not true.
"And now, a few words only upon the general question of
intent itself, which has been made to figure so largely in this
cause, under the shadow of the multiplied averments in regard
to it. I do not look upon those averments as at all material ; and
if not material, they are, as every lawyer knows, but mere
surplusage which never vitiates, and it is never necessary to
prove. I do not speak as a criminal lawyer, but there is no
professional man, I think, who reads these charges, that wih not
detect in them something more, perhaps by way of abundant
caution, than even the technical nicety of the criminal pleader.
I do not know that even in the criminal courts, where an act
is charged in clear violation of a law forbidding it, and

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 719
especiahy if it involve the case of a public officer, that it is
any more necessary to allege that he violated the law, with
the intent to violate it, than to aver that he was not ignorant
of the law, which every man is bound to know. The law
presumes the intent from the act itself, which is a necessary
inference, if the law is to be observed and its infraction pun
ished ; and the party committing it, is responsible for all the
consequences, whether he intended Ihem or not. It makes no
difference about the motive, for wherever a statute forbids the
doing of a thing, the doing it willfully, although without any
corrupt motive, is indictable. (2 Dwarris, 677; 4 Term Rep,,
457.) So when the President is solemnly arraigned to answer
here to the charge that he infringed the Constitution, or dis
obeyed the commands or violated any of the provisions of the
tenure of office or any other law, he cannot plead either that
he did it ignorantly or by mistake, because ignorance of the
law excuses nobody, or that he did it only from the best of
motives, and for the purpose of bringing the question of its
efficacy, or his obligation to conform to it, to a legal test, even
though he could prove the fact, as he has most signally failed
to do in the case before you. The motives of men, which are
hidden away in their own breasts, cannot generally be scruti
nized, or taken into the account, where there is a violation of
the law. An old Spanish proverb says, that there is a place —
not to be named to ears polite — which is 'paved with good
intentions.' If they, or even bad advice can be pleaded here
after, in excuse for either neglect or violation of duty here, it
will be something comfortable to die upon at least, and few tyrants
will ever suffer for their crimes. If Andrew Johnson could
plead, as he has actually done, in apology for his own dispensa
tion with the test-oath law, or any other feature of his law-
defying policy, that his only aim was to conciliate the rebels
and facilitate the work of restoration, his great exemplar,
whom he has so closely copied — the ill-advised and headstrong
James II — might equally have pleaded that he did the very
same thing in the interests of universal tolerance. The English
monarch forfeited his throne, and disinherited his heirs upon
that cast. It remains to be seen whether our king is to run out
the parallel.
"I beg to say, however, in this connection, that I do not by
any means admit, that a case like this is to be tried or judged
by the rigid rules and narrow interpretations of the criminal
courts. There is no question here of the life or liberty or
property of the delinquent ; it is a question only of official delin
quency, involving, however, the life of a great State, and with

720 THOMAS WILLIAMS
it the liberties of a great people. If the defendant is convicted,
he forfeits only his official place, and is, perhaps, disqualified
from taking upon himself any other, which will be no very
severe infliction, I suppose, unless the rebels themselves should
be so fortunate as to come once more into the possession of the
Government, and so weak as to trust a man who had been
untrue to those who had honored him so generously before.
The accusers here are forty millions of freemen, the accused
but one, who claims to be their master; the issue, whether he
shall be allowed to defy their will, under the pretext that he can
govern them more wisely than their Congress, and to take the
sword, and, in effect, the purse of the nation into his own hands.
"On such an issue, and before such a tribunal, I should not
have hesitated to stand upon the plain, unvarnished, untechnical
narration of the facts, leaving the question as to their effect
upon the interests of the nation, and their bearing upon the
fitness of Andrew Johnson to hold the helm of this great State,
to be decided by statesm,en, instead of turning it over either to
the quibbles of the lawyer, or the subtleties of the casuist. I
have no patience for the disquisitions of the special pleader in
a case like this. I take a broader view, one that, I think, is
fully sustained by the authorities, and that is, that in cases such
as this, the safety of the people, which is the supreme law, is
the true rule, and the only rule that ought to govern. I do not
propose to reargue that question now, because it seems to me
something very like a self-evident proposition. If Andrew
Johnson, in the performance of the duties of his high office,
has so demeaned himself as to show that he is no respecter of
the laws; that he defies the will of those who make them; and
has encouraged disobedience to their behests; that he has fos
tered disaffection and discontent throughout the lately revolting
States; that he is a standing obstacle to the restoration of the
peace and tranquillity of this nation ; that he claims and asserts
the power of a dictator, by holding one of your great depart
ments in abeyance, and arrogating to himself the absolute and
uncontrollable right to remove, or suspend at his mere will,
every executive officer of the Government, on the land and on
the seas, and to supply their places without your agency, if,
for any or all of these reasons, the Republic is no longer safe
in his hands; then before heaven and earth, as the conservators
of the nation's weal, as the trusted guardians of its most invab
uable rights, as the depositaries of the most sacred and exalted
trust that has ever been placed in the hands of man, it becomes
your high and solemn and imperious duty, to see that the
Republic shall take no detriment, and to speak peace to a dis-

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 72 1
turbed and suffering land, by removing him from the trust he
has abused, and the office that he has disgraced.
"There are other points in this case on which I would have
desired to comment if time and strength had been allowed to me
for that purpose. It is only within the last few days that I
have entertained the hope that the Senate would so far relax
its rule as to enable me to obtain what, under the circumstances,
is at best but an imperfect hearing, and I have felt it necessary,
therefore, to confine myself to the leading arguments connected
with the removal of the Secretary of War. I wish it to be
understood, however, that I do not underrate the value of such
of the articles as I have been obliged to pretermit. There is
nothing in the whole case, I think, of graver import to the
nation than the means adopted by the President for overthrow
ing the legislative power by fostering disobedience to its enact
ments and bringing its accepted organ into disrepute.
"To this charge there are three answers. The first is the
supposed constitutional right to the use of an unbridled tongue,
which knows no difference between licentiousness and liberty.
The second is the provocation supposed to have been offered in
the language used by members of Congress in debate, in what
seems to be forgotten to be their constitutional right, which not
only protects them from challenge anywhere, but gives to them
the right freely to criticise the public conduct of the President,
over whom the law has placed them, by making him amenable
to them for all his errors, as they are not to him. The third is
the harmless jest, in the suggestion of a law to regulate the
speech and manners of the President. If his counsel can find
food for mirth in such a picture as the evidence has shown,
I have no quarrel with their taste. The President may enjoy
the joke, perhaps, himself. I do not think he can afford it, but
history informs us that Nero fiddled while Rome was burning.
Whether he does or not, however, I trust that he will find a
censor moritm here as stern as Cato, in the judicial opinion of
this body, that the man who so outrages public decency, either
in his public or private character, in the pursuit of an object
so treasonable as his, has demonstrated his unfitness longer to
hold the high place of a Chief Magistrate of a free, intelligent,
and moral people. I take leave of this unpalatable theme by
remarking only that even the advocate of the people must feel,
as a child of the Republic himself, while he is compelled to
say thus much, that he would rather have turned his back, if it
had been possible, on such a spectacle, and thrown a mantle over
the nakedness that shames us all.

722 THOMAS WILLIAMS
"And now, American Senators, Representatives, and judges
upon this mighty issue — joint heirs yourselves of that great
inheritance of liberty that has descended to us all, and has just
been ransomed and repurchased by a second baptism of blood —
a few words more, and I have done.
"If the responsibilities of the lawyer are such as to oppress
him with their weight how immeasurably greater are your own !
The House of Representatives has done its duty. The rest is
now with you. While I have a trust in that God who went
before our hosts, as He did before the armies of Israel, through
the fiery trials that led so many of the flower of our youth to
distant graves on southern battle-fields, which has never failed
me in the darkest hour of the nation's agony, I cannot but
realize that He has placed the destinies of this nation in your
hands. Your decision here will either fall upon the public heart
like a genial sunbeam, or fling a disastrous twilight, full of the
gloomiest portents of coming evil, over the land. Say not that
I exaggerate the issue or overcolor the picture. This, if it
were true, would be but an error of much smaller consequence
than the perilous mistake of underrating its importance. It is,
indeed, but the catastrophe of the great drama which began
three years ago with murder — the denouerrient of the mortal
struggle between the power that makes the law and that which
executes it — between the people themselves, and the chief of
their own servants, who now undertakes to defy their will.
What is your verdict to decide? Go to the evidence, to the
plea of the President himself, and to the defiant answer that he
sends by his Tennessee counsel, and they will give you the true
measure of the interests involved. It is not a question only
whether or not Andrew Johnson is to be allowed to serve as
President of the United States for the remainder of his term.
It is the greater question whether you shall hold so long your
selves the power that the Constitution gives you by surrender
ing the higher one to him of suspending, dismissing, and
appointing at his will and pleasure every executive officer in
the Government from the highest to the lowest without your
consent, and if possible the still higher one of disregarding your
laws for the purpose of putting those laws on trial before they
can be recognized. He has made this issue with you voluntarily
and defiantly. If you acquit him upon it, you affirm all his
imperial pretensions, and decide that no amount of usurpation
will ever bring a Chief Magistrate to justice, because you will
have laid down at his feet your own high dignity, along v.'ith
your double function of legislators and advisers, which will be
followed of course by that of your other, I will not say greater.

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 723
office as judges. It will be a victory over you and us which
will stir the heart of rebeldom with joy, while your dead
soldiers will turn uneasily in their graves; a victory to be
celebrated by the exultant ascent of Andrew Johnson to the
Capitol, like the conqueror in a Roman triumph, dragging not
captive kings, but a captive Senate at his chariot wheels, and to
be crowned by his re-entry into the possession of that Depart
ment of the Government over which this great battle has been
fought. It is shown in evidence that he has already intimated
that he would wait on your action here for that purpose. But is
this all? Hug not to your bosoms, I entreat you, the fond
illusion that it is all to end there. It is but the beginning of
the end. If his pretensions are sustained, the next head that
will fall as a propitiatory offering to the conquered South, will
be that of the great chief who humbled the pride of the
chivalry by beating down its serried battalions in the field, and
dragging its traitor standard in the dust; to be followed by the
return of the rebel officeholders, and a general convulsion of
the State which shall cast loose your reconstruction laws, and
deliver over the whole theater of past disturbances to anarchy
and ruin. Is this an exaggerated picture ? Look to the history
of the past and judge.
"And, now, let me ask you, in conclusion, to turn your eyes
but for a moment to the other side of the question, and see
what are to be the consequences of a conviction — of such a
verdict as, I think, the loyal people of this nation, with one
united voice, demand at your hands. Do you shrink from the
consequences ? Are your minds disturbed by visions of impend
ing trouble ? The nation has already, within a few short years,
been called to mourn the loss of a great Chief Magistrate,
through the bloody catastrophe by which a rebel hand has been,
unfortunately, enabled to lift this man into his place, and the jar
has not been felt as the mighty machine of State, freighted with
all the hopes of humanity, moved onward in its high career.
This nation is too great to be affected seriously by the loss of
any one man. Are your hearts softened by the touching appeals
of the defendant's counsel, who say to you that you are asked
to punish this man only for his divine mercy, his exalted charity
to others? Mercy to whom? To the murdered Dostie and his
fellows? To the loyal men whose carcases were piled in carts
like those of swine, with the gore dripping from the wheels, in
that holocaust of blood, that carnival of murder which was
enacted in New Orleans ? To those who perished in that second
St. Bartholomew at Memphis, where the streets were reddened
with the lurid light of burning dwellings, and the loyal occu-

724 THOMAS WILLIAMS
pants, who would have escaped, were cast back into the flames?
The divine mercy itself is seasoned by justice, and waits only
on contrition. This is no place for such emotions. If it be,
it is mercy to loyalty and innocence, that cries aloud for the
removal of this bold, bad man. If it be, remember, that while
your loyal brethren are falling from day to day in southern
cities by the assassin's knife, and the reports of the Freedmen's
Bureau are replete with horrors at which the very cheek turns
pale, your judgment here stains no scaffold with the blood of the
victim. No lictor waits at your doors to execute your stern
decree. It is but the crown that falls, while none but the his
torian stands by to gibbet the delinquent for the ages that are
to come. No wail of woe will disturb your slumbers, unless it
comes up from the disaffected and disappointed South, which
will have lost the foremost of its friends. Your act will be a
spectacle and an example to the nations, that will eclipse even
the triumph of your arms, in the vindication of the public jus
tice in the sublimer and more peaceful triumph of the law. The
eyes of an expectant people are upon you. You have but to do
your duty, and the patriot will realize that the good genius of
the nation, the angel of our deliverance, is still about us and
around us, as in the darkest hour of the nation's trial."
The address was listened to with the closest attention,
and at its close, amid all the congratulations showered
upon him, none were more cordial and sincere than those
from his chief opponent, William M. Evarts of New York.
The Philadelphia Press, in reprinting it the next day, said,
editorially: "Mr. Williams has long been recognized as
one of the leading lawyers of the House, and this reputa
tion has been fully sustained. His argument is rigidly
analytical, and seems to be a compend of crushing truths
rather than an elaborate discourse. A single axiom of
law, a line from a decision, a clause from the Constitu
tion, is often made to turn into vapor an extended argu
ment of the defense, by a simple antithesis. There are
no points of the speech stronger or more convincing than
when he takes hold of the positions of the President, and
argues directly from them, thus showing their fallacy by
the principle of reductio ad absurdum. The avalanche of
precedents and interpretations that he rolls down upon
the illogical mole-hills of the defense crushes them into
fragments. His peroration is beautiful, rising, as it does,
into a sublimity that rivals the masterly efforts of our

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 725
greatest orators." In quoting from it the Pittsburgh
Daily Commercial said: "The argument of Manager
WilHams, in breadth, compactness and eloquence is sur
passed by no effort of the occasion." The Washington
correspondent of the Cincinnati Gazette, writing just
after Mr. Bingham's opening address, admits that Mr.
Williams "is probably the best legal scholar on the board
of managers," but adds, "it is undeniable that the weight
of legal reputation is against the managers, and in
favor of the President's counsel. No lawyer in the United
States can be named, with the approval of the profession,
before Judge Curtis of Boston. Wm. M. Evarts ranks
with Chas. O'Conor, James T. Brady and David Dudley
Field, the four being held by common consent, the foremost
lavvyers of New York. Intense, and in some sense just
as are the prejudices against Jer. Black, we cannot, in'
fairness, deny that he stands with the foremost, if not
himself, the foremost, in Pennsylvania. Of Henry Stan-
berry's legal reputation, no Ohioan, most of all no Cin-
cinnatian, needs to be informed. There are^ no men
among the managers — there are no men even in the
court — that can be compared with these four for reputa
tion as great lawyers before the country." Another
Washington correspondent — namely, of the New York
Times — writing on May 2d, naturally thinks Mr. Evarts'
speech the one most prominent, as many others did.
"But," said he, "those who desire to read all that is truly
interesting and truly valuable in this trial, should not
omit a careful perusal of the speech of Manager Williams.
It was probably prepared with more care than any other
that has been delivered, and while it abounds in strong
legal positions, it also abounds more in the literature of
the law than any other. Owing to an unpleasant voice,
Mr. Williams' delivery really detracted from the merit
of his speech; but it will stand the test of the highest
criticism, as a literary as well as a legal production.
* * * By the time Mr. Bingham concludes, the
country will be convinced that the degeneracy of our
orators is not so great as has been supposed." And
nearly thirty-five years later, referring to this event, Con
gressman John Dalzell, in a public address, exclaimed:

726 THOMAS WILLIAMS
"Grand old Thomas Williams 1 Allegheny County never
had an abler or a more faithful representative in the
National Congress. He was one of the committee from
the House of Representatives to prosecute on its part
President Johnson in the impeachment proceedings
against him, and, in my judgment, his argument was the
ablest of all made on his side of the case in that remark
able trial."^
On Saturday, May i6th (1868), a test vote was made
on Article XI, which really contained nearly the sub
stance of the whole charge against the President. There
were 54 Senators voting, and the result was a majority
of 16 in favor of impeachment, i. e., 35 to 19.^ To secure
impeachment, however, on this article required 36, i. e.,
a two-thirds vote of the Senate. Therefore, although the
Senate was overwhelmingly in favor of impeachment, it
lacked just one vote of the required two-thirds. And
who were some of the Senators who voted for impeach
ment? Conkling, Cameron, Edmunds, Ferry, Chandler,
Freylinghuysen, Harlan, Morgan, the Morrills, Morton,
Sherman, Sumner and men of that class. "Upon this
review of the law and the testimony," said Senator John
Sherman, in his filed opinion, "I find that the President is
guilty of a high misdemeanor as charged in the first
article of impeachment. — It is a necessary result of this
opinion that I also find him guilty of high misdemeanors as
charged in the second, third, eighth and eleventh articles
of impeachment."^ This vote made further action
unnecessary, and on May 26th the Court of Impeach
ment adjourned. Andrew Johnson was not impeached,
but the nature of the verdict made it plain that Congress
had won a moral victory in their contention that, with
the fall of the Confederate armies, the re-formation of the
wrecked States was the business of the legislative and
not the executive branch of government.
At this distance of time, surely the younger genera
tion, at least, should be able to preserve the historical
attitude in viewing that great contest ; and does that atti-
' Address at Carnegie Music Hall, Pittsburgh, on May 23, igoa.
^ Supplement to Congressional Globe, "Trial of the President," 2d Session,
Fortieth Congress, p. 412.
* Ibid., p. 452.

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 727
tude consist altogether in speculating on what might
have been? Who knows what might have been? Is it
important what might have been, even if it could be
known? The fact remains that there was a great mili
tary conflict, covering four years, before one of the con
tending hosts was exhausted; that there was another
great conflict, this time civil, covering at least an equal
period — and both conflicts were, in their ultimate aim,
practically the same — namely, preserving the Constitu
tion and liberty under it for a great mass of human
beings, and arose from various causes ; for probably no one
would deny that however President Lincoln might hold
before himself the single aim of preserving the Consti
tution, zc'ith or zvithout slavery, his armies were in the
first instance and his people in the second instance,
through their representatives, fighting for the Consti
tution without slavery alone. "Without slavery," to the
victorious side, came to mean alsO' "with suffrage;"
although why it should have, in this particular instance,
when it did not mean so for the Indian, nor for that
highly intelligent half of population — women, might not
be clear to the observer, unless he recalled that Indians
were considered a savage people, and the "rights" of women
had not found its place in the civilized consciousness as
had the rights of man.^ The negro was considered a
man of peace, accustomed to our form of civilization;
ergo, fit for suffrage, because the great mass of the north
ern States had practically unqualified manhood suffrage
at that time. If the element especially peculiar to the
negro situation then, if not now, namely, the vast relative
proportions and ignorance of the newly liberated race,
gained entrance into the northern consciousness and
made them hesitate as to the applicability of universal
manhood suffrage then, the course of some of the South
in the forced-labor laws, the alarms raised by the
contest and the fall of Lincoln drove it out. The result
was conflict — war, civil war, in a very true sense. Let it
be admitted that Johnson was following Lincoln's one-
^ The "savagery" of the Indian was no doubt due in part to his objection
to being dispossessed of his country by a foreign civilized race who wanted to
cultivate it — but, however that may be, the conflict of ideas and civilizations is
an established fact of history.

728 THOMAS WILLIAMS
time proposed plans, had not Lincoln changed his plans
more than once at the demands of the Northern people?
And, in the temper of the Northern people at that time,
is there any doubt he would have been compelled to, if
he had not anticipated, change them again? The dom
inant half of the American people, whose political life had
been so long scourged by the negro question, were
undoubtedly determined to settle it once for all, if that
were possible. Whether they used greater wisdom in
the operation than did the southern people or than would
a generation who did not have the responsibility, is a
speculative question that could only be settled by allow
ing either one to experiment with the same problem.
The first half of the great War of the Sixties was a war
of military forces, the second half a conflict of ideas —
and the latter is always attended with the greater bitter
ness — and were not the problems of those on both sides,
in this second half, immeasurably greater and more deli
cate, in some respects, than those in the first? That they
were, one can instantly see by merely recalling that the
questions of the first were physical ones and were settled ;
and also by merely intimating that no small element,
either North or South, count the problems of the second
half settled, even yet ; and the efforts of the South to abide
by the Constitution and still eliminate the mass of igno
rant vote, and the ill-concealed resentment in the rest of
the country at the existence of unequal representation,
abundantly testify to it. And when a whole generation
has been unable to settle a question, would it not well
become that generation to glow with warmest apprecia
tion of the courageous statesmen who attacked the prob
lem and did their part toward its solution at its most
critical period? Will any historian say other than that
it is idle to treat the impeachment alone and separate
from the great problems of which it was a mere part —
mere incident in what was essentially civil war? Mr.
Williams and his colleagues so looked upon it. They
undoubtedly represented the majority of the American
people at the time, both as to what was proposed and, per
haps, as to the limitations of American knowledge as to
the operation of a great mass of ignorant suffrage. That

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 729
their aims were in line, however, with the best thought
and general conviction of the American people, if not,
indeed, of the world itself, is it possible for one, with a
truly historical spirit, to doubt ? He now again held one
of those permanent principles which are not of hasty
fruitage — that require time for maturity and realization.
After a leave of absence, beginning May 29th, and due
to the condition of his health before mentioned, he
returned, and on July 7th, on his own initiative, presented
additional articles of impeachment. "Although agreeing
that the case presented to the Senate, made up as it was
of facts that were not open to dispute, was so entirely
adequate as to have insured a conviction before any bench
of judges learned in the law, it did not strike me as wise to
leave the impeachment of the House against so high
an officer, with all the power and all the prestige of his
place, to rest before a tribunal, compounded of such
heterogeneous elements, upon any questions of law that
afforded so large a scope for the ingenuity of professional
men, when there was, as I think, another case in reserve,
in which the offense was at least equally heinous, and the
facts equally unquestionable, and where the law was so trans
parent that no false logic could darken counsel, or run
away with the understanding of the judge, and no man,
whether lawyer or layman, could frame an apology for
mistake. If it was important to this nation to convict and
remove a President who is admitted even by his apolo
gists in the Senate to be utterly unfit for the high place
which he occupies, it was equally important that no
material part of his manifold offenses should be over
looked." The articles all had to do with the usurpation
of power over various kinds of southern property, which,
it was contended, should be only in the power of Congress
to dispose of, and other infractions of the law as con
tended by Congress : "Usurpation of power in every pos
sible form that tyranny could have invented or imagined.
Usurpation in legislating without the consent of Con
gress for the erection of governments by proclamation,
and claiming for those proclamations the force of law;
usurpation in raising moneys to a vast amount, without
the consent of Congress, for the purpose of maintaining

730 THOMAS WILLIAMS
those governments by the appropriation of the public
property and the exercise of the taxing power; usurpation
in creating offices unknown to the law, and filling them
with the enemies of the government, and paying those
enemies out of appropriations made by law for other pur
poses ; usurpation in returning millions of captured prop
erty belonging to the Government to the original pro
prietors, without the consent or even the knowledge of
Congress, and without any consideration whatever ; usur
pation and fraud in transferring, by a pretended private
sale to the same individuals, other millions of Govern
ment property on long terms of credit and without
security, and then postponing the payment for the pur
pose of securing his own private debt; usurpation in
refunding to rebels large sums of money arising from
sales of captured and abandoned property directed by law
to be paid into the Treasury; usurpation in misusing and
abusing the pardoning power to purchase the co-opera
tion of the leading rebels in his unlawful plans of recon
struction ; usurpation in not only refusing to enforce the
laws enacted to put down the rebellion, but absolutely
preventing their execution by arresting the process of the
courts, and turning public malefactors loose without
even a pardon ; usurpation in the abuse of the appointing
power by the removal of meritorious officers, and filling
their places, without the consent of the Senate, with his
own minions in aid of his unlawful purpose of maintain
ing his own governments and forcing them into the
Union against the will of the loyal people ; and to crown
all, usurpation the most insolent and high-handed in the
exercise of a dispensing power over the laws enacted to
carry out the policy of Congress, by appointing rebels to
office in open defiance thereof, and substituting his own
will for that of the law-maker himself I" He said he did
not intend to say that the friends of various candidates
had feared the temporary elevation of Mr. Wade; "it
would not be, perhaps, considered exactly parliamen
tary." He said it was not too late, for he claimed that the
cause was still depending on an indefinite adjournment.
"If it were the last day of that term," and here one may
see the propagandist in the advocate, "the example alone

BENJAMIN FRANKIvIN WADE
Of Ohio, who, as President of the Senate, would have succeeded Andrew
Johnson had the impeachment been successful. Halftone of a con
temporary photograph by Brady, negative in posses
sion of L. C. Handy, Washington, D. C.

A MANAGER OF THE IMPEACHMENT 73 1
would be of inestimable value to the nation, in the mere
vindication of public justice, and the admonition it will
furnish to those who are to come after him." He finished
by saying : "My duty is thus performed. I leave the case
with this house and Providence."^
The Republicans had nominated General Grant and
declared for the reconstruction policy; the Fourteenth
Amendment was declared in force during this month of
July, and, Mr. Williams' health growing constantly worse,
he was granted indefinite leave of absence on account of
it on July 22d, three days before Congress adjourned.^
That condition made it necessary for a further leave of
absence on December i6th, after the assembling of the
third session, and although he was present occasionally,
and was present on the last day of the session, March 3d
(1869), his work in Congress had practically come to a
close during the previous session. With the close of the
Fortieth Congress, Mr. Williams retired from official life,
and even gave up a large share of his professional activi
ties. The policies for which he stood while in Congress
had again been upheld by the people, and the inaugura
tion of General Grant removed the difficulties due to the
conflicts with the policy of his predecessor, Andrew
Johnson of Tennessee.^
^ Congressional Globe, Part 5 and appendix, 2d Session, Fortieth Congress,
p. 418. 2 In Boutwell's "Reminiscences of Sixty Years in Public Affairs," Vol. II,
p. 41, he says the Fourteenth Amendment was prepared by Conkling, Williams
and liimself. * Many of his friends pressed his name for a foreign mission at some
European capital late in 1869, and he was even mentioned for the Court of St.
James, but the condition of his health no doubt prevented aggressive effort.
Letters among the Williams papers.
Letters of Judge Bufiington, who was chairman of the Republican Execu
tive Committee in 1868, show that they greatly desired Mr. Williams to con
tinue in Congress. Other letters also show that some opponents of the impeach
ment sought to prevent Mr. Williams' candidacy again.

CHAPTER XIX
CLOSING YEARS
1869-72
With the summer days of 1869, Mr. Williams had
reached the age of three-score-and-three years, and
whether his recent illnesses and that always threatening
organ, his heart, warned him that the years of greater
leisure had arrived, or whether his well-known inclina
tion to the joys of the study and the library led him to
deliberately choose these closing years chiefly for that
lofty reflection and research for which this ripe period is
so truly fitting, cannot be known. That these three
remaining years were thus increasingly occupied, how
ever, with only an occasional public utterance, either by
pen or voice, on vital questions of the hour in which he
took so much interest, and with only an occasional
appearance at the bar, even down to his final farewell to
it in the Huidekoper case, is well known to all who were
accustomed to the sight of his -venerable figure upon the
streets of Pittsburgh, or his beloved Allegheny City,
which was his home in these closing years. ^ It is signifi
cant that the most notable instance of emergence from
this retirement was his long account of the municipal
railway contest, heretofore noticed, which appeared almost
exactly a year before his death. ^
The end came after a short illness from neuralgia of
the heart on Thursday morning, June 6, 1872, in his
' No. II Stockton avenue, Allegheny, was his home at this time. It is
interesting to note, in a letter of November 26, 1871, from Mr. Williams while
visiting William Axon Stokes, at Philadelphia, that he seriously considered
making his home in the latter city. It is also characteristic of his love for
Cicero that for some years before he went to Congress he was working out
his plans for a country seat at Hazelwood, to be known as "Tusculum," the
seat of the great Latin orator's villa, "Tusculanum." He never completed
more than the lodge at the gateway, however.
^ The Pittsburgh Commercial of September 7, 1871, which is given entire
at p. 375.

CLOSING YEARS 733
sixty-sixth year.^ That evening the Chronicle said :
"Thus another of the splendid list of names which gave
the bar of Pittsburgh such a wide reputation in the last
thirty years, and which included such distinguished men
as Walter Forward, Samuel Black, Edwin M. Stanton,
and William Wilkins, is gone from among us, a towering
land-mark in the history of our city, and a beacon light
to the emulous young lawyers of generations to come."
The next morning the Gazette said, with great warmth of
feeling : "This man of deep and varied learning, of great
professional eminence, distinguished in the Councils of
the State and of the United States, whose speeches in
Congress during and since the war were spoken of by
Senators, Representatives and Judges, as Websterian in
diction, power and statesmanship; this man of almost
matchless intellect, of incorruptible integrity, faithful to
all trusts whether of client or constitution, is no more."
The Dispatch, in a sketch appearing at the same time,
voiced the following — to quote a single paragraph : "Mr.
Williams served two sessions in Congress, and while
there obtained national distinction as one of the prose
cutors of President Johnson during the impeachment
trial. His speech on that occasion was a remarkable
effort, and though characterized by many of its critics as
turgid and ineffective, was nevertheless a production dis
tinguished by masterly language and argumentative
vigor. Deceased was a man learned in literature. He
was a fine linguist, a great reader, a ready and elegant
writer. Few men leave such extensive or judiciously
^ Mrs. \A^i]liams and the following children survived him, her death
occurring in Philadelphia, March 9, 1887: Major Thomas, Jr., Alexander
Reynolds, Margaret Donaldson, Agnes (Pemberton), Sarah D., Mary and
Captain Richard Algernon. Major Thomas Williams, who died November
II, 1884, was a graduate of Miami University at Oxford, Ohio, and was admit
ted to the bar. At the opening of the war he was made First Lieutenant of
the Fiftli United .States Artillery and assigned to the staff of General McDow
ell. He was promoted Captain and at the battle of Bull Run he was brevetted
Major for gallant conduct. Captain Richard A. Williams, who died in New
York, January 19, 1890, was a West Point graduate in the Eighth United
States Cavalry. He won his promotion in the Indian campaigns. Mrs. Pem
berton, wliose death occurred January 25, 1900, was the wife of Henry Pem
berton, a distinguished chemist of Philadelphia, member of the American
Philosophical Society and author of "The Path of Evolution Through Ancient
Thought and Modern Science" (1903). Mr. Pemberton is a brother of the
late Confederate General John C. Pemberton. The surviving children of Mr.
and Mrs. Pemberton, Mrs. Quincy A. Shaw, Jr., who is the wife of a grandson
of the late distinguished scientist, Louis Agassiz, and Dr. Ralph Pemberton,
together with Miss Virginia S., daughter of Alexander R. Williams, are the
only remaining grandchildren of Mr. Williams.

734

THOMAS WILLIAMS

selected libraries as that which is numbered among the
assets of deceased. He delighted in books of travel, but
abhorred novels, or fiction in any form.^ Mr. Williams'
last professional engagement was as counsel in the Stitt-
Huidekoper case, less than a year ago before the United
States Circuit Court. To the last he was identified more
or less with politics, being one of the candidates before
the late Republican Convention for delegate to the Con
stitutional Convention, in which contest he was defeated
— to the end that party drummers with no knowledge of
law or pretensions to it, be provided with a place. Though
the course of deceased was betimes at variance with pub
lic opinion, and not infrequently adverse to the public
interests [as the Dispatch writer, who was evidently a
writer of briefs also, no doubt believed] he was recog
nized as an able man, and his death will be sincerely
regretted." The courts had all adjourned out of respect, and on
the same day (Friday) all the leading members of the
legal profession had a meeting, presided over by Hon.
Moses Hampton, with Hon. James P. Sterrett, Hon. E.
H. Stowe, Hon. F. H. Collier, Hon. John W. Kirkpatrick,
James I. Kuhn, Robert Woods, Thomas MacConnell and
B. M. Smith as vice-presidents. Mr. Kuhn, who had once
been a partner of Mr. Williams, officially announced his
death, and "gave a short but graphic sketch of his life,
his career as a lawyer and services as a public man.^ He
referred. to his extensive and varied learning; rating him
not only as a leading lawyer, just and upright in the dis
charge of his duties, but a scholar of profound learning —
well versed in polite literature, an accomplished Latin,
Greek and French hnguist. He paid a glowing tribute to
his purity of life, kindness of heart, and zeal in the pur-
^ Mr. ^^^illiams* love for history is indicated in some degree by the fact that
his library contained about 400 volumes on that subject alone. It is also
suggestive to know that there were over 20a volumes on voyages and travels,
nearly the same on religion and theology, while it might readily be sur
mised that he would have above 100 on poetry and the drama and a like number
on rhetoric and belles lettres, or nearly that number on ethics and politics,
which he classes together. The possession of about 200 volumes of the best
fiction, wit and humor would not indicate that he "abhorred" fiction in any
form hardly. The number of volumes do not, however, make the impression
on one that their high character do, of course, and the really significant fact
about it all is that he made great books his companions.
- In the November number of the New Jersey Law Journal, 1904, p. 351, a
sketch of General Samuel D. Oliphant of Trenton, 1824-1904, states that he
also was at one time a partner of Mr. Williams.

-X- — X-

::^\c^\

«rOJ\^-, ;raM3AM.h.-s WmiLtF.it.AM.'^ , '¦ ^'

¦'v:z.

¦'"¦ "¦ ¦¦' 'y ¦¦ '"' ¦ v-^ •-  ¦' • '/¦ ¦'

¦'¦'¦/ ' ¦//"'¦¦'-'

^sVcvuVii.''
f?^^ ""wn. NS.vNVi,rv^&ji.i« , *
./X-'-'W^fi^"-
RESOLUTirtXS OF THE PITTSBURGH BAR
Halftone of original in possession of the Misses WiUiams, Philadelphia
CLOSING YEARS

735

suit of his profession. In conclusion he moved that a
committee on resolutions be appointed."^ Those chosen
were John H. Hampton, Thomas M. Marshall, M. W.
Acheson, George Shiras, Jr. and A. M. Brown— some of
the most distinguished names known to the profession.
The resolutions adopted were as follows:
"Where.\s, The Pittsburgh Bar have learned with sincere
sorrow of the sudden demise of the Hon. Thomas Williams, and
are desirous as a body to pay a proper tribute to his memory as
one of its most worthy and distinguished members, therefore,
in token of its purpose publicly to honor his name as an eminent
lawyer, a good citizen and a cherished friend.
"Resolved, That his purity in all the relations of private
life, his unsulhed reputation as a lawyer, his unassailed integrity
as a pubhc servant for many years in the discharge of responsi
ble duties, alike entitle him to the commendation of his brethren
of the Bar, the grateful recollection of the community and a
place in history among the statesmen of his native State and
this Xation.
''Resolved, That his long and successful career at the bar
was full of honor, shedding lustre upon the profession he
adorned by his great and varied learning, his untiring study,
and a scrupulous regard for its high and ennobling duties.
"Resolved, That in him were united an exact knowledge of
the law, scholarly acquirements and literary tastes of a high
order, and a conceded ability to both write and speak with a
rare beauty and masterly power seldom falling to the lot of any
man, all combining to make him greatly to be admired and long
remembered. "Resolved, That whether considered as a lawyer, a states
man, or a citizen, his life, now closed, is worthy of emulation ;
and may hereafter be fitly spoken of by his kindred and friends
as full of honor, goodness and truth, and his tomb as holding
imperishably even in death, one of Fame's noblest sons.
"Resolved, That we deeply sympathize with his bereaved
family in this the hour of their sore affliction, and kindly tender
them our condolence in the loss of an affectionate husband, an
indulgent father, and a beloved brother.
"Resolved, That the Bar in a body proceed from the Court
House to the family residence, to attend the funeral on Satur-
1 The Gazette of July 8, 1872.

736 THOMAS WILLIAMS
day, and that a committee of three be appointed to present a
copy of these resolutions to the family.
"Resolved, That the several courts of this county be
requested by the same committee to order the proceedings of this
meeting to be spread at length on their minutes. '"^
On Saturday morning the Grand Jury adjourned out
of respect, after passing resolutions, in which they said:
"In the death of this estimable citizen we have lost a
valued friend." In the United States District Court,
George Shiras, Esq., announced his decease, and, after a
review of his life and also an address by Judge McCand-
less, who spoke at length upon the virtues of Mr. Wil
liams, of both head and heart, the court also adjourned
out of respect to his memory. At three o'clock in the
afternoon, after services conducted by Rev. Dr. Jacobus,
at the residence, his remains, accompanied by Messrs.
John Morrison, Thomas M. Howe, Judge McCandless,
Judge Hampton, Judge Veech, Thomas MacConnell, Jas.
I. Kuhn, Wm. M. Darlington, S. H. Geyer, A. S. Bell,
James O'Hara and Josiah King, as pallbearers, and the
judges and attorneys of the several courts in a body on
foot, accompanied the carriages to the intersections
of Penn and Sixth streets, where they stood uncov
ered while the procession passed, and then retired.
The services at the tomb in Allegheny County, Pitts
burgh, were conducted by Rev. Dr. Preston, and all that
was mortal of Thomas Williams was laid to rest.^
On Monday (June 10, 1872) there appeared in the
Pittsburgh Post, probably the most notable and most
widely copied editorial on Mr. Williams that appeared.
It was all the more notable, because the Post had been
one of his most distinguished opponents in public life.
"Not less sincerely," it began, "than those who during
his life were his personal and political friends, do we
deplore the calamity which this community has sus
tained in the death of Mr. Williams. — He was the last of
the class of thoroughbred old fashioned lawyers, who
^ A photographic reproduction of the engrossed resolutions appears here.
with. = Their pastor, the Rev. Dr. S. F. Scovel, of the First Presbyterian
Church, was abroad at the time.

CLOSING YEARS 737
early gave to the Bar of Western Pennsylva;nia the lus
tre of powerful intellect, deep learning, unflinching
fidelity and boundless devotion. And it may truly be said
that INIr. Williams was at least the equal of the brightest
and best of this class. — For many years he was the lead
ing counsel in the most important causes, especially in
the Supreme Court. And the published reports of many
of his arguments exhibit legal learning and powerful
reasoning which will long command the respect of the
profession. But forensic fame is in its nature evanescent.
The voice of the advocate, of immense importance at the
moment, soon becomes, (in the popular mind) but the
vague traditions of indefinite power. — Mr. Williams, in
another sphere has left a permanent impress upon his
country. He was a leader amongst those who nearly
forty years ago established as the permanent policy of
Pennsylvania protection to American industry. His
numerous speeches on the tariff, especially when a candi
date in 1838 for the State Senate were recognized at the
time as the most luminous and convincing, and although
these speeches may have been generally forgotten, their
effect remains, and it is apparent in subsequent legislation.
—He was the author of the Tenure-of-Office bill, and the
argument by which he supported it, is conclusive evi
dence that he was a great constitutional lawyer. — The
amendment to the Constitution of Pennsylvania prohibit
ing municipal subscriptions to corporations was the sole
work of Williams. From the beginning he had opposed
all such subscriptions as illegal and impolitic, and subse
quently disputed their validity. Throughout all the con
troversies on this subject Mr. Williams proved his con
sistency and integrity. He alone could have raised these
questions and conducted this contest, for he alone could
have brought to it such aid of personal purity, intellectual
power and unflinching courage. The constitutional
amendment may fairly be considered the popular
approval of his policy.
"At the commencement of the rebellion," the Post
continues, "Mr. Williams instantly and ardently advo
cated the most vigorous measures. His voice helped to
arouse the people of Pennsylvania to the magnitude of

738 THOMAS WILLIAMS
the danger and the immense efforts necessary to repel
it, and its effect was soon apparent in the men and money
placed at the disposal of the Federal Government. — The
impeachment of President Johnson placed Mr. Williams
as one of the managers in a conspicuous National posi
tion where he maintained and enhanced the reputation
which he had already obtained in a more limited sphere —
of his effort in that case — it is enough to say that the
leading counsel of the President pronounced it the ablest
argument of the ablest lawyer concerned against him. —
In municipal affairs Mr. Williams always took a deep
interest and an active part. His tendencies were decidedly
conservative, and he vigorously resisted all schemes
which involved needless expenditures, and especially
those in which there was a suspicion of public plunder. —
He was an accomplished scholar. His studies embraced
almost the entire range of human knowledge. His intel
lectual thirst was such that, only the year before his death
he acquired a new language, that he might read German
works in the original. His pen was prolific, and we yet
hope that his miscellaneous writings may be collected
and placed in permanent form. We can refer but to one
of them — the eulogium delivered before the Senate and
House of Representatives of Pennsylvania on President
Harrison, which is justly placed by the side of Lee's
eulogium on Washington. Mr. Williams' character was
remarkable in this, that with immense intellectual power,
he often exhibited a child-like credulity and simplicity.
Perfectly pure himself he was liable to be the victim of
misplaced confidence. The consequence was that his
political position was sometimes successfully assailed by
men infinitely his inferiors. His sensitive honor, disdain
of subterfuge and abhorrence of meanness, really unfitted
him for such contests with the vulgar. If he had lived in
the early days of the Republic, when virtue held just
sway, he would have been among the great lights and
leaders of the nation.
"The mournful tribute to the private virtues and
graces of Mr. Williams," the Post concludes, "is universal
and unfeigned among all who knew him. Gentle, genial
and tender, he infused happiness in every circle into

^--^™-2^^

BUST OF MR. WILLIAMS, BY MILLS
Halftone of original in possession of the
Pennsylvania Historical Society

CLOSING YEARS 739
which he entered. Amongst those who followed him to
the gr^ve were many, especially of his own profession,
who will cherish his memory in grateful remembrance for
spontaneous kindness and invaluable aid in their early
struggles. If propriety would permit us to raise the veil
and exhibit his domestic life, it would present a touch
ing and beautiful picture. But we forbear. The sanctity
of family sorrow is not to be invaded even in the case of
the most tender husband, affectional father and faithful
friend. — This brief and imperfect notice we have felt to
be due to the memory of an eminent citizen, whose death
is a public loss."^
Nearly forty years of public life were ended, covering
that great period from Jackson to Grant, in which were
grown to maturity most of the far-reaching and dominant
policies of to-day. Viewed now, through the vista of over
thirty more years, in which these principles have had
opportunity to develop and prove their permanence;
viewed in the light of Pennsylvania's transformation
from a Democratic stronghold into the very keystone of
the tariff and Republican policies that arch America
to-day; viewed from the battlefield where corporate
industrial and financial power is being subordinated to
public law; and viewed in the presence of that sensitive
popular jealousy of the delicate balance that must always
exist between the great national functions of lawmak
ing and the executive, as well as that of the high inter
preters between them — ^Williams' lifework looms up with
all the significance that attaches to what is based upon
great, vital and permanent principles. He was a maker
of those great constructive policies which are now known
to history as Whig and Republican, and he was a maker
with power in a strategic place. He was also one of the
first and most effective of the fighters on the field where
even now is raging the contest to control corporate giants
and make them a blessing and not a curse to the land.
In this, as in most other thought, he had the instinct for
the eternal; he scented the permanent afar off; his intui
tions reached beyond his times. He was not infrequently

1 This sketch was the one usually reprinted in most of the eastern papers.
The Daily Post was "The Only Democratic Daily Paper in Western Pennsyl
vania."

740 THOMAS WILLIAMS
in the minority in order that he might become a prophet
of the great permanent majority. His thought, opposed
for the moment as radical and unwise, was, in due time,
placed in constitutions. Therefore, although he was a
jurist and a statesman, he v/as, first of all, the poet-
orator, a voice of those higher thoughts and inspirations
of men, which remain after the clouds and darkness have
cleared away.

INDEX

Index

Abolition Movement, 94; 174.
Acheson, M. W., 735.
Adams, Charles Francis, 297.
Addresses and Speeches of
Thomas Williams (see
Speeches and Addresses of
same).
Adjutant-General (see Thom
as, Adj. -Gen.).
Advocate, The, of Pittsburgh,
53-4; becomes a daily, 54;
55; 62; 65; 71; 72; 73-4; 75-
6; 78; 91; 96; 102.
Agassiz, Louis, 733.
Agnew, Daniel, 38; 435.
Allegheny County, II ; (see
Pittsburgh) ; commissioners
of, authorized to subscribe
for stock, 225; goes for
Fremont, 300 ; 301 ; war of,
on municipal subscription,
302-91 ; commissioners of,
report, 302.
Allegheny Valley Railroad
Company, 303.
Allison, John, 296; nominates
Lincoln, 298.
Allison, Congressman Wm. B.,
622; 649.
Amendments to National Con
stitution (see Constitution,
The National).
American Party (see Know-
Nothing Party).
Anti-Masonic Party, 46; 53;
organ, 53; 69; 71; 78; 91;
93; 95; 96; 99; 107-08; 108-
20; 129; 142; 297.
Anti-Slavery, Convention of,
loi ; party, 294; (see Aboli
tion Movement) ; (see Re
publican Party).
Archer, 298.
Armies of the U. S. and
Slavery, 727.
Arnold, Isaac N., on his Life
of Lincoln, 553.

Articles of Impeachment (see
Impeachment).
Articles, Papers and Pam
phlets by Thos. Williams
(see Pamphlets, Papers and
Articles by same).
Avery, C, 98.
Bakewell, Benjamin, 56; first
President of Historical So
ciety, 58; 65; 66.
Bakewell, Thomas, 69 ; 81 ; 93.
Baldwin, Henry, 37; 38; sketch
of, 57; referred to by Clay,
178.
Ball, Representative, 462.
Baltimore, Lord, i ; 2.
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad,
96; (see Transportation) ;
103; origin of, 127-28; 223.
Banks and Politics in Penn
sylvania, 131 ; 133-35 ; 462.
Banks, Nathaniel P., 299.
Barclay, Senator, 131.
Barnes, Rev. Albert, 296.
Bell, A. S., 736.
Bell, Thomas S., in; 116.
Biddle, Nicholas, 59.
Biddle, Richard, 37; 38; 58.
Bigler, Governor, 225; 292.
Bingham, Congressman John
A., 619; chosen to the Board
of Managers of Impeach
ment, 6';2.
Binney, Horace, on municipal
subscription, 302.
Black, Jeremiah S., 227-28;
228-89; 725.
Black, Samuel, 733.
Blaine, Congressman James G.,
622; 649.
Bliss, George, 481.
"Bonny Blue Flag that Bears
a Single Star, The" a Con
federate song, noted, 475.
Boutwell, George S., 480; 619;
622; 649; 650; says Williams
wrote all but four pages of

743

744

INDEX

summary of the Impeach
ment Report, 651 ; made
chairman of committee to
prepare articles of impeach
ment, 673 ; chosen a manager,
673.
Brackenridge, Alexander, 98.
Brackenridge, Judge Hugh
Henry, description by, 9; 10-
II.
Brackenridge, Judge H. M.,
62 ; 65 ; 81 ; 91.
Brady, James T., 725.
Breckinridge, vote for, in
Pennsylvania, 433.
Brewster, Benj. H., 225.
Brown, A. M., 735.
Brown, Charles, iii; 114; 122.
Browning, Secretary of In
terior, 621.
Buchanan, 97; remark of, 294;
referred to ("Buck &
Breck"), 299; 300; 433; 460.
"Buckshot War," The, 108-20;
origin of name of, 114;
causes of, 119-20.
Burke, Robert, 38; 62; 65.
Burrowes, Thomas H., 109;
no; 112; 115; 136.
Butler, Congressman B. F.,
619 ; 649 ; chosen a manager
of impeachment, 673.
Caldwell, Ann, 39.
Calhoun, John C, 57-8.
Cameron, Simon, 469; 479-80;
becomes National Senator,
622; 726.
Canals (see Transportation).
Carbsle, 23.
Cassatt, Senator, death of, 119.
Chandler, Senator, 726.
Charlestown, Md., 4.
Chartiers Valley Railroad, 303.
Chase, Governor Salmon P.,
297.
Chesapeake Bay, I.
Chicago, 80.
Chicago Convention (see Re
publican Party).
Chief Executive, The, power of,
in reconstruction, 652; (see
Johnson, Andrew).
Churchill, John C, 649.
Civil Rights Bill, 620.
Civil War, The, 435 ; speech on
beginning of, 436-50; song
on, by Mr. Williams, 475-78;

480; 524; divided into two
periods, military and civil
proper, 647; conclusions on,
726-27-28.
Clay, Henry, 46 ; 58 ; 135 ; 142 ;
retirement of, from the Sen
ate, 17s; candidacy for Pres
idency, 175; invited to Pitts
burgh, 176; letter by, on
Presidential candidacy, 177-
78; anecdote of, 177; chosen
by Whig Convention, 178;
(see Tariff Speech by Wil
liams, 179-219) ; 219.
Clay Clubs, 175.
Cleveland and Pittsburgh Rail
road, 303.
Clymer, Senator, 468; 472.
Colfax, Speaker, 619; 649.
College of New Jersey (see
Princeton University).
Collier, F. H., 734.
Conkling, Congressman, 619 ;
726.
Congress, Lower House of,
in 1863-64, described, 480;
(see Thirty-eighth Congress,
The) ; (see Thirty-ninth
Congress, The) ; (see For
tieth Congress, The) ; and
President Johnson, 650-51.
Constitution of 1791, revision
of, 91; 94; 108; 115; Gover
nor Porter on, 120; and mu
nicipal subscription to rail
ways, 227; 228-89; amend
ment to, 300-01 ; amendments
carried, 331 ; municipal sub
scription amendments to,
carried into the Constitution
of 1873.
Constitution, The National,
fourteenth amendment to,
620; with or witlioiit slavery,
727.
Copley, Josiah, letter of, 489.
Corporate Power, 473.
Coulter, Richard, 34; 35; 37.
Court House (see Pittsburgh).
Cowan, Edgar, 435 ; 469 ; 620.
Covode, Congressman, 489.
Craig, Neville B., 4; 38; 53;
54; 55; 60; 62; 66; watchful
of the Whigs, 69; 71; 95;
96 ; 99 ; 103 ; 105 ; 296.
Cumberland County, 294; 300.

INDEX

745

Curtin, Governor, inaugura-
tion of, 436 ; 463.
Curtis, Judge, 725.
Dallas, George M., 59.
DalzeH, John, extract of ad
dress of, 433.
Darlington, S. P., 62.
Darlington, Wm. M., 736.
Darragh, Cornelius, 38 ; 60 ; 80 ;
103.
Darsie, George, 58; 69.
Davis, Jefferson, 295 ; and God
dess of Liberty, 524.
Davis, Judge, 459.
Dayton, William L., 298; 299.
De La Roche, Dr. Percy (see
Stokes, Maj.-Gen. Wm. Ax
on).
Delaware, State line, i.
Dennis, W. L., 469.
Denny, Harmar, 38; 53; 56;
57; 6S; 69; 95; 98; 137.
Democratic Party (see Jack
son Democrats); 174; 175;
460.
Dick, John, 296.
Dickinson College, 22 ; 23 ;
Williams' orations in, 35 ;
460.
Donaldson, Ann, 40.
Douglas, Stephen A., 392.
Drum House, 12.
Edmunds, Senator, 726.
Education, early methods in,
15-
Elder, Dr. William, 296.
Eldridge, Chas. A., 649.
Ellsworth, Colonel, 459.
Ewing, Rev. Dr. John, 3.
Ewing, John H., in; 117; 141;
142; 143.
Evarts, Wm. M., 724.
Fearon, sketch by, 12.
Ferry, Senator, 726.
Fetterman, W. W., 58; 60; 66.
Field, David Dudley, 725.
Fillmore, 296; 299; 300; 460.
Findlay, Jonathan, 15.
Finley, Rev. Samuel, 2; 3.
Fisher, S. George, 26; 33; let
ter of, 35-
Floyd, John B., 433.
Fort Du Quesne, 9.
Fortieth Congress, The, 649;
some members of, 649; Ju
diciary Committee of, 649;
Judiciary Committee of, rec

ommends impeachment, 651 ;
Judiciary Committee testi
mony transferred to Recon
struction Committee, 672 ;
(see Impeachment) ; close
of, 73L
Fort Pitt (see Pittsburgh).
"Fort Williams" (see Williams,
Richard) ; 6.
Forward, Walter, 38; 62; 98;
72Z.
Foster, A. W., 98.
Foster, Henry D., 435.
Fourteenth Amendment to Na
tional Constitution, 620; de
clared in force, 731.
Fraley, Frederick, no; 122.
Francis, Tench, 7.
Freedmen's Bureau, The, 620.
Fremont, John C, 296; 297;
298; 299; 300.
Frelinghuysen, Senator F. T.,
726.
Frelinghuysen, T., 59.
Garfield, Congressman James
A., 622; 649.
Gazette, The Pittsburgh, 8; files
of, 52; 53; 54; 62; 71; 72;
7,^-4; on canals, 75; 78; 96;
98; 103; 104; 131.
Gazette, The United States, 91 ;
172.
Gerhard, Wm. W., 26; 175.
Geyer, S. H., 736.
Gibbons, 297.
Gibson, John B., 34; 38.
Giddings, 295 ; 296.
Goddess of Liberty on dome of
National Capitol, anecdote
of, 524.
Grant, General U. S., and the
War Office, 651 ; restores
War Office to Stanton, 672;
73L
Gray Family, 40.
Greeley, Horace, 294-95; 296;
notable letter of, 299.
Greensburgh, n ; travel
through, 12; schools of, 14.
Grier, Judge Robert C, opinion
of, 374; letter of, on Wil
liams' speech on restoration,
522-23.
Hampton, John H., 735.
Hampton, Moses, 734.
Hanna, James, no; in; 115.
Harding, 332.

746

INDEX

Harlan, Senator, 726.
Harrisburg, riot at (see "Buck
shot War").
Harrison, Gen. Wm. Henry,
91 ; 95 ; and the Presidency
in 1835, 96; and Anti-Ma
sons, 96; nomination of,
129; 132; 134; songs about,
138; election, 139; described,
141 ; cabinet of, 142 ; letters
on illness and death of, 143-
44; eulogy on, by Williams,
14s, Chapter X.
Hay, John, 459; 460.
Hays, Wm., 98.
Helper, book by (see "Impend
ing Crisis").
Hempfield Railroad, The, 225.
Historical Society, at Pitts
burgh, organized, 58.
Hopkins, Wm. H., 118; 469.
House of Representatives, The
National (see Congress,
Lower House of, 480).
Houston, Samuel R., 26.
Howe, Thomas M., 736.
"Hurrah for the Union Flag,''
national air by Mr. Williams,
475-78.
Impeachment of President
Johnson, 622 ; recommended
by Judiciary Committee, re
port written by Williams,
650; report signed by Bout
well, Thomas, Williams,
Lawrence and Churchill,
651 ; quotation from report
of, 651-52; importance of,
653 ; rejected, 653 ; speech on
preliminary measure of, 653-
72 ; and transfer of War
Office, immediate cause
of, determination on, re
moved from the field of the
courts, vote on, 672; com
mittee to prepare articles of,
673; articles of, nature of,
673; election of managers of,
vote on same, 673; managers'
list determined in caucus,
673; and how Bingham be
came chairman, 673 ; trial of,
opens, 673 ; speech in trial of,
by Williams, 674-724; com
ments on speeches in, 724-25-
26 ; test vote on, 726 ; how far
unsuccessful, votes favorable

to, and who they were, 726;
conclusions on, 726-27; not
to be treated alone, 728.
"Impending Crisis," by Helper,
392.
Improvements, Internal (see
Pennsylvania) .
Independence Hall, 459.
Indian, The, 727.
Ingersoll, Charles J., 108.
Irwin, Wm. W., 98.
Jackson, Andrew, 52; 53; 55;
interview with, 57; report of
same, 59; Clay on, 177-78;
460.
"Jackson Democrats,'' 46 ; 91 ;
93-
Jacobus, Rev. Dr., 736.
Johnson, Andrew, 523-24; sig
nal for attack on, 619; and
"restoration," 620; letter on,
620; impeachment of, pro
posed, 622 ; regards Tenure-
of-Office Bill as unconstitu
tional, 646; 647; investiga
tion of, ordered, 649; Wil
liams on, 650-51 ; asks resig
nation of Stanton, suspends
Stanton, appoints Gen. Grant,
651 ; power of, as Chief
Executive, 652 ; transfers
War Office to Adj.-Gen.
Thomas, 672; speech by
Williams in trial of, 674-
724; conclusions on impeach
ment of, 726-27; and Lin
coln's reconstruction plans,
727-28; 731.
Johnston, Ex-Gov. W. F.,
296; 298; (see Know-Noth-
ing Party) ; 299.
Judiciary Committee, of the
Thirty-eighth Congress, 480-
81; (see also Thirty-ninth
and Fortieth Congresses).
Kelley, Congressman, 619; 620;
649.
Kennedy, John, 37; sketch of,
38 ; on political studies, 38-9 ;
43.
Kernan, Francis, 480.
King, Austin A., 481.
King, Josiah, 736.
Kirkpatrick, Major Abraham,
4; letter from, 6-7; 8.
Kirkpatrick, John W., 734.
Kirkpatrick, Mary, 4.

INDEX

747

Know-Nothing Party, 295; 296;
297; 299; (see Johnston, Ex-
Gov. W. F.) ; 300.
Knox, John C, 227.
Kuhn, Dr. Adam, 40.
Kuhn, James I., 734.
Lane, Col. Henry S., 297.
Lawrence, William, 649.
Lee, Arthur, 5.
Legislation, 'The, power of,
227; 228-89; 300; 302-91.
Lewis, Ellis, 227.
Library, State, (of Pennsyl
vania) 140.
Lincoln, Abraham, 298; elec
tion of, 395; Pennsylvania
for, 432-33; 452; at Harris
burg, 458-59; described, 458;
address by, 459; and family
go by different routes to
Washington, 459-60; the in
auguration of, 460; oath of
office of, 460; and first quad
rille party, 460; home inci
dent of, 460; 472; second in
auguration of, 523-24; death
of, 524; eulogy on, by Wil
liams, 524-53; and recon
struction, 652; and the North
ern people, 727; and his
change of plans, 728.
Lincoln, Mrs. Abraham, 459;
460.
Lincoln, "Bob" (Robert T.),
459; 460.
"Loco Focos," origin of name
of, 119; 120; 130-31; and
banks, 131; 132-33-
Logan, Congressman John A.,
649.
Log College (see Princeton
University).
Lovejoy, Rev. Owen, 295 ; 297.
Lowrie, Walter H., 38; 227.
Macbeth, Alexander, 24; 26;
32-3 ; 35 ; 36 ; death of, 121.
MacConnell, Thomas, 734.
Maday, Samuel, 26.
Managers of Impeachment,
673; (see Impeachment, etc.).
Manufactures (see Tariff).
Marks, General, 62; 71.
Marshall, Chief Justice, 57.
Marshall, Samuel S., 649.
Marshall, Thomas M., 735.
Maxwell, H. D., 296.
Maryland, State line, I.

Mason and Dixon, 2.
Mason, Dr. John M., 24.
McCandless, Wilson, 58; 66;
Judge, 736.
McClure, A. K., as Republican
State Chairman, 434 ; 435 ;
457; 458; 468; keeps Presi
dent Scott from investigation
by the Legislature, 471-72;
and the repeal measure in the
Senate, 473.
McClure, W. B., 38.
McLean, Judge, of Ohio, 46;
296; 297.
Meade, General, 553.
Meek, Esther, 4.
Mercury, The, of Pittsburgh,
65.
Meredith, 332.
Morgan, E. D., 296; 299.
Morrill, the Senators, 726.
Morrison, John, 736.
Morton, Senator, 726.
Muhlenburg, 91.
Municipal Subscription to
Railways, 222-23; history of,
224; 225; address on, in the
Sharpless Case, 225-26-27 ; re
view on, by Williams, 229-89;
300-01 ; war on, in Allegheny
County, 302-91 ; Judge J. W.
F. White on, 391.
Musical Fund Hall, Philadel
phia, 296.
National Hall, Philadelphia,
296.
"National Republicans," 46; of
Pittsburgh, 56.
Negro, The, in American Poli
tics, speech on, 395-431 ; 726-
27-28.
Neil, Dr. Wm., 24; 30.
New York Times, The, recom
mends Williams' speech on
the impeachment in highest
praise, 725.
Nicolai, John G., 459.
Neville, Colonel John, 4; 7.
Northern People, The, and the
Reconstruction Acts, 647 ;
and slavery, 727.
Nottingham lots, 2; churches,
2-4; academy, 2; 3.
O'Conor, Chas., 725.
O'Hara, James, 736.
Ohio Company, i.

748

INDEX

Oliphant, General S. D., a
partner of Mr. Williams, 734.
Orations (see Speeches).
Packer, Governor, 435.
Palmer, Judge, 298.
Pamphlets, Papers and Arti
cles of Thos. Williams (see
Speeches and Addresses) ;
"Review of the Opinion of
the Three Judges (Black,
Woodward and Knox) of
the Supreme Court of Penn
sylvania, Affirming the Va
lidity of Acts of Assembly
Authorizing Subscriptions by
Municipal Corporations to
the Stock of Railroad Com
panies," 228-89; article on
charge of so-called "repudi
ation," 304-05; address of
Taxpayers' Convention Com
mittee, 306-31 ; his "Review
of the Opinion of the Three
Judges," etc., again issued,
332; "Review" of manda
mus opinion of Supreme
Court, signed "Junius,"
332-73; final defense of his
course in an article in the
Pittsburgh Commercial, 375-
91 ; article by, in London
American, 452.
Papers, Pamphlets and Articles
by Thomas Williams (see
Pamphlets, Papers and Ar
ticles by same).
Parsons, A. V., 122.
Patterson, Major-General R.,
114
Pearson, Senator, 122; 131;
140.
Pemberton, Agnes (Williams),
733-
Pemberton, Henry, 733.
Pemberton, General John C,
733.
Pemberton, Dr. Ralph, 733.
Perm, William, 2.
Pennsylvania, State line, i ;
travel through, 12; studies
for citizenship in, 38; jour
ney through, 41; (see Pitts
burgh) ; remarks on, by Web
ster, 69-70-1; politics in,
91, 93, 94; internal improve
ments in, 94; public schools
in, 94; abolition movement

in, 94; election of 1837, 102;
finances and transportation,
100; 103; politics in, 107-08;
election contest of 1838, 108-
20; 129; 130; banks and pol
itics in, 131 ; Harrison Na
tional Convention in, 132;
banks, etc., 133-35; improve
ment bill for, 136; finances
of, 136; State Library of,
140; notable speeches in Sen
ate of, 140 ; politics in, 142-43 ;
lost to Whigs, 174; and Clay
and Jackson, 177-78; and
transportation, 222-24 ; Sidney
Smith on, 223; politics
and causes of, 223-24; (see
Municipal Subscription to
Railways); politics of, 294;
Buchanan on, 294; 296; 297;
298, 299; goes for Buchanan
against Fremont, 300; views
in, on transportation, 302;
division of, suggested, 302;
and municipal subscription,
302-91 ; speech on politics at
Pittsburgh, 395-431 ; for Lin
coln, 432-33; Legislature of,
and politics in, in 1861, 434;
debt of, 435 ; railway mort
gage bonds held by, 43s; and
slavery, 435-36; and Union,
436; 450; and the Pennsyl
vania Railroad, 454; and
transportation, 457-58; Sena-
torship, 461-62; soldiers first
at Washington, 462; credit
of, 464; 465; 465-68; investi
gation of corruption in leg
islation of, 469; great change
in political character of the
Legislature of, 470.
Pennsylvania Canal andi Co
lumbia Railroad, 97; (see
Transportation).
Pennsylvania Railroad (see
Transportation, and Penn
sylvania Canal and Columbia
Railroad) ; 128 ; 302 ; 395 ;
434; 435; 451; 454; 455-56-
57 ; and Lincoln, 459 ; 465 ;
468; 470; described by Wil
liams, 471 ; and the tonnage
tax, 473.
Penny, Senator, 457.
Penrose, Charles B., no; 115;
122; 131; 132; 134; 135; 136;

INDEX

749

letter of, 139; 140; letter of,
142; resigns and goes to
Washington, 142; letter of, on
illness of President Harri
son, 143; on President Har
rison and a White House Bi
ble, 144.
Philadelphia, authorized to
take stock in railroad, 225;
and Pittsburgh, 289-90; 298;
and transportation, 434; 451;
and Mr. Williams, 473.
Philadelphia County, politics
in, 108-09; no; 114; 117.
Philadelphia, Easton and Wa
ter Gap Railroad, 225.
Pierce, President, 460.
Pittsburgh, origin and descrip
tion, 5,6; early letter about,
7; Gazette, 8; description by
Brackenridge, 9, 10, n;
travel to, 12; bar of, 38; sit
uation of, and politics of, in
the '30' s, 45, 47, 48; first
court house in, 48, 49; hu
morous description of, 49-50-
I ; transportation interests
of, 52; campaign in 1832, 53;
Gazette, 53; (see Gazette, The
Pittsburgh); Advocate, 53;
(see Advocate, The, of Pitts
burgh) ; court house of, 54;
(see Transportation) ; Anti-
Jackson meeting in, 55-6;
Historical Society organized,
58 ; Whig Party organized in,
60; (see Whig Party) ; Mer
cury, 65 ; Whig campaign in,
69; remarks on, by Webster,
70; Whig success in, 74;
campaign of '35 in, 78 ; Whig
meeting in, 81 ; ticket in, 91 ;
and transportation, 97; pol
itics in, 98; 102; 103; fierce
campaign in, 105; and rail
ways, 127-28; 175; 176; and
Clay, 177; and transporta
tion, 223-24; (see Reviews,
Pamphlets, etc., by Thos.
Williams);, preliminary or
ganization of the Republican
Taxpayers' Convention in,
305 ; address of Taxpayers'
Convention Committee, 306-
31 ; commissioners block tax
ing for disputed purposes,
331; test case in, 332; addi

tional test cases in, 374; com
missioners at, in prison, 375;
Judge J. W. F. Wliite on,
391 ; speech of Williams at,
on "The Negro," 395-431;
county goes for Lincoln, 431 ;
letter on, 432 ; removing can
non from arsenal in, 433 ; and
"repudiation," so called, 450-
5L
Pittsburgh and Connellsville
Railroad, 303.
Pittsburgh and Steubenville
Railroad, 225; 303.
Politics, National, in the '30's,
46 ; 5.^ ; 55 ; 60 ; 96 ; 129 ; 132 ;
133; 141; 142; 293; 295; 300;
391-92-93 ; speech on negro
iu> 395-431 ; speech on "Main
tenance of the Constitution
and the Union," by Williams,
436-50; 458-59; (see Lincoln,
Abraham) ; 479-80.
Politics, Pennsylvania (sea
Pennsylvania).
Politics, Pittsburgh (see Pitts
burgh).
Polk, President, 460.
Porter, Governor, inauguration
described, 120.
Porter, Margaret, 39; family,
40.
Pope, Captain, 459.
Portraits, Views and Maps (see
Table of Illustrations, fol
lowing Contents ) .
Post, The Pittsburgh, 173 ; nota
ble eulogy of Williams in,
736-39.
Presbyterian Settlement, 2 ; ed
ucation, 2.
Press, The Philadelphia, on
WiJliams' impeachment
speech, 724.
Preston of South Carolina, 58.
Preston, Rev. Dr., 736.
Princeton University, "Log
College," 3.
Protection (see Tariff).
Public Debt, 301; (see Consti
tution of 1791).
Public Ledger, The, on "Buck
shot War," 114; on Mr. Wil
liams and repudiation, 450.
Public School System (see
Pennsylvania).

750

INDEX

Public Works in Pennsylvania
(see Transportation).
Purviance, 297.
Railways (see Transportation) ;
(see Municipal Subscription
to) ; bond cases of, 458.
Reconstruction, 480 ; 481-89 ;
489-522; letter on, by Justice
Grier, 522-23 ; speech on, by
Williams, 554-617; 622; act
for, becomes law, 646; oper
ated through the Secretary
of War, Stanton, 646; na
ture and effects of, 647; as
seen in Mississippi, 647; (see
Impeachment of President
Johnson) ; committee on, re
ceived testimony of Judiciary
Committee, 672 ; some con
clusions on, 726-27 ; and its
legacy of problems, 728; and
the statesmen who attempted
it, 728.
Republican National Conven
tion (see Republican Party).
Republican Party, National,
preliminary organization of,
at Pittsburgh, 294; first Na
tional Convention of, 295 ;
299; 300; call for Chicago
Convention of 1860,391-92-93;
speech on principles of, 395-
431 ; letter on, by Gideon
Welles, 432 ; 479-80 ; 621 ; and
the Civil War, 726-27-28;
nominates Grant and de
clares for reconstruction pol
icy, 731.
Resolutions on Williams' death,
by bar of Pittsburgh, 735.
"Restoration" vs. Reconstruc
tion, 620.
Reynolds, Alexander, 39; 40.
Reynolds, Henry, 2.
Reynolds, Miss Sarah D., 24;
poem to, 25 ; 36 ; sketch of,
39; 40; (see Williams, Mrs.
Thomas, Jr.).
Reynolds, William, 39; 40.
Reynolds, Dr. Wm., 39; 40.
Rising Sun, 2; 3.
Ritner, 53; 80; 81; 94; 95;
107.
Rodgers Family, 40.
Ross, James, 37, 38.
Rovvfe, John, 468.
Rush, Dr. Benjamin, 3.

Rush, Richard, 59.
Schofield, Congressman, 619.
Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, 2.
Scott, Thomas A., 434; 457-58;
471-72.
Scovel, Rev. Dr. S. F., 736.
Senate, The National, 622; re
fuses to consent to Stanton's
removal, 653; 672; as Court
of Impeachment, 673 ; vote on
impeachment given, 726; as
Court of Impeachment ad
journed, 726.
Sergeant, John, 69.
Seward, 297.
Singer, Agnes (see Williams,
Mrs. Robert, Jr.).
Singer, Simon, 12.
Shaler, Charles, 38; 374
Shannon, Judge, 619.
Sharpless Case, The, 225 ; (see
Williams, Thos., Jr.), 227;
(see Municipal Subscription
to Railways) ; (see Supreme
Court, The) ; (see Speeches
and Addresses of Thos. Wil
liams).
Shaw, Mrs. Quincy A., 733.
Sherman, John, 392; on the
guilt of Andrew Johnson,
726.
Shields, David, 98.
Shiras, George, Jr., 735-36.
Shultz, .Governor John An
drew, 24.
Slave Labor, 219; (see Slavery
and Anti-Slavery).
Slavery (see Anti-Slavery,
Slave Labor, and Abolition
ism) ; 295 ; 435 ; and the Con
stitution, 726-27-28.
Smith, B. M., 734
Smith, Sidney, remark of, on
Pennsylvania credit, 223.
Soderini, Count D. Eduardo
(see Stokes, Maj.-Gen. Wm.
Axon).
South Carolina, Convention of,
435 ; 436.
Southern States, The, forced-
labor features in new govern
ments of, 620; citizenship
qualifications in, 620; (see
Southern White People) ;
and reconstruction, 647.
Southern White People, The,
and the Reconstruction Act,

INDEX

751

646-47 ; and forced-labor
laws, 727; 728.
Spaulding, Judge, 298.
Speeches and Addresses (see
Williams, Thomas, Jr.) ;
Whig address of July 4,
1835, 81-90; "Buckshot War"
investigation, 122-26 ; eulo
gy on President Harrison,
145, Chapter X ; the press on
his eulogy, 172-73 ; on tariff,
179-219; legal address of,
in the Sharpless Case, intro
duction of, 225-26-27; (see
Pamphlets, Papers and Ar
ticles by Thos. Williams) ;
speech on "The Negro in
American Politics" in i860,
395-431 ; on "Maintenance of
the Constitution and the
Union," 436-50 ; closing
speech of the session of Leg
islature, by request, 465-68;
extract from debate on rail
way legislation, 470; House
farewell address by Williams,
requested, 474-75; on the
state of the Union, 481-89;
on restoration of the Union,
489-522; eulogy on Lincoln,
524-53; on "reconstruction,"
5^4-617; on Tenure-of-Office
Bill, 622-46; on bill provid
ing for full bench and
unanimous opinion of Su
preme Court on Congression
al measures, 653-72 ; speeches
in impeachment trial, 674-
724- ^ „
Sprague. Peleg, sketch of, 58.
Stanberry, Henry, 725.
Stanton, Edwin M., 304; 374;
472; 479; letter of, to Wil
liams, on Governor Curtin's
course, 479-80; and the Ten
ure-of-Office Bill, 620; the
organ of operation of recon
struction by Congress, 646;
resignation of, asked for by
the President, refusal, and
suspension, 651 ; removal of,
not consented to, by Senate,
653; 673; 733-
State Banks, 59.
St. Clair, General, 7.
Sterrett, James P., 734-

Stevens, Thaddeus, 80 ; 81 ; 95 ;
96; n2; ns; 119; 131; 132;
136; 138; 142; 297; 435; 479;
619; 621; 622; 649; chairman
of Reconstruction Committee,
672 ; recommends special
committee to prepare articles
of impeachment, 673; chosen
a manager of impeachment,
vote reverses order of nomi
nation of, 673.
Stokes, Maj.-Gen. Wm. Axon,
and family, 13 ; 732.
Suffrage, and the Negro, 727;
and women, 727.
Sumner, Senator Charles, 726.
Sumner, General, 459.
Sunbury and Erie Railroad,
434; 435; 451 ; 452.
Supreme Court, The National,
changes in, proposed by Wil
liams, 653-72.
Supreme Court, The, of Penn
sylvania, 227 ; and mandamus
on Allegheny County Com
missioners, 332; 458.
Taney, Roger B., 64; Chief
Justice, and Lincoln, 460.
Tariff, 46; loi ; 174; I7S ; 176;
Clay on the, 177 ; 178 ; speech
on, 179-219; 219.
Taxes, levy for disputed pur
poses resisted, 331.
Taylor, President, 460.
Tenure-of-Office Bill, 622 ;
speech on, 622-46; passed,
646; and impeachment, 650;
672.
Texan Revolution, 98.
Tennessee, 620.
Thirty-eighth Congress, The,
described, 480; Judiciary
Committee in, 480-81; and
emancipation, 524.
Thirty-ninth Congress, The,
524 ; 554 ; notable scene _ in,
619; 620; second session,
members described, 622 ;
closes, 648.
Thomas, Adj.-Gen., and the
War Office, 672; 673-
Thomas, Francis, 480; 649.
Thomas, Joseph T., bond case
of, 332. ,^ .r , r
Times, The New York (see
New York Times, The).
Times, The Pittsburgh, 78.

752

INDEX

Tonnage Tax, The, 435; 454-
55-56-57 ; commutation of,
passed, 457; 464-65; public
outcry against its commuta
tion, 468; 469; vote on repeal
of commutation measure in
House on, 470; the repeal
measure in the Senate and
how it fails, 472.
Transportation, 52; 55; 61; 75;
79; 80; 93; 96; 97; 99; 100;
103 ; 127-28 ; 222-25 ; laws au
thorizing municipal aid of,
224-25 ; and the Sharpless
Case, 225-26-27 ; 229-89 ;
views of, in Pennsylvania,
301-02; and municipal sub
scription, 302-91; 434; 451-
52; in the Legislature, 454;
465.
True Press, The Weekly, 306.
"Tusculum," 732.
Tyler, President, 174; 17S; 460,
United States Bank, 46; 53;
55; Jackson on, 59; 107; of
Pennsylvania, 131.
Van Buren, 58 ; 91 ; 460.
Veech, Judge, 736.
Veree, James P., 296.
Virginia Convention of, 452.
Wabash Railroad, 128.
Wade, Senator Benj. F., as a
successor to President John
son, 650.
Wagner, William, no; in;
116; 118.
"War Democrats," 434.
War Office, transferred, 672.
War, Secretary of (see Stan
ton, Edwin M.).
Washington County, 458.
Washington, D. C-, descrip
tion of, 56.
Washington, George, i.
Watts, H. M., 80.
Webb, General, 297.
Webster, 58; address on Penn
sylvania by, 69-70-1 ; 81 ; 91 ;
93; letter of, on Presidency,
94-5; loi; 174-
Welles, Governor Gideon, let
ter of, 432.
Welsh, tract, 2 ; Presbyterians,
2.
West, The, in 1827-32, 47; 95;
treated in Harrison eulogy,
izt5, Chapter X.

West College (see Dickinson
College).
Whig Party, The, 53; organ
ized in Pittsburgh, 60; jubi
lee in Pittsburgh, 62;
ticket in Pittsburgh, 65 ; State
Convention announced, 66 ;
City Convention announced,
66 ; nucleus of, in Western
Pennsylvania, 67; address of,
at Pittsburgh, 67-8; State Con
vention of, 69 ; 71 ; leaders
in Pittsburgh, 72; campaign,
74-S ; State Convention, 80 ;
meeting at Pittsburgh, 81 ;
ticket in Pittsburgh, 91 ; 93 ;
convention of, 95-6; 98; 99;
reorganization, loi ; reconcil
iation in Pittsburgh, 103;
107-08; (see "Buckshot
War"); 108-20; in Legisla
ture, 129; 133-36; success of,
139; and "Tyler, 174; (see
Tariff Speech by Williams,
,179-219) ; 220.
White, Judge J. W. F., on
municipal subscription and
"repudiation," 391.
Whitefield, the preacher, 2; 4
Whitehill, George S., 30.
White House, The, 56; Bible
for, by President Harrison,
144.
Wilkins, William, 38; sketch
of, 57; 58; 98; 733-
Williams, Agnes (see Pember
ton, Agnes (Williams)).
Williams, Alexander Reynolds,
733.
Williams, Catherine, 4.
Williams, Esther, 4.
Williams, Miss Margaret Don
aldson, describes trip to
Washington, 460; 733.
Williams, Mary C, 733.
Williams, Nancy J. (see
Stokes, Maj.-Gen. Wm. Ax
on).
Williams, Richard 1st, 3-7;
Richard 2d, 4.
Williams, Captain Richard Al
gernon, 733.
Williams, Robert, Jr., 4; 11;
marriage, 11-2; home, 12;
family of, 13 ; 18 ; death of,
36.

INDEX

753

Williams, Mrs. Robert, Jr., 12;
character and death of, 42.
Williams, Robert, Sr., 3 ; 4 ; 5 :
6; 7; 8; n.
Williams, Sarah D., 733.
Williams, Thomas, birth of,
13; early education of, 14;
IS ; sketch by, 16, 17 ; early
reading, 18; poem by, 19, 20;
at Dickinson College, 22;
letters of, 23 ; scholarship
standing of, 24; meets future
wife, 24; poem by, 25; presi
dent of college society, 26;
address by, 26 ; essay by, 27 ;
oration by, 28; essay by, 28;
critique by, 29 : oration by,
29; in a "college rebellion,"
30 ; receives third honors, 30 ;
oration by, 31 ; poem by, 31-
2 ; description of, by Mac
beth, 32-3; studies law under
Coulter, 35; popularity of
orations of, at college, 35 ;
courtship of, 35 ; visits Mary
land, 36; love for Milton,
36; death of fadier of, 36;
studies law under Kennedy,
37; admission of, to bar, 38;
ideas of preceptor of, 38; en
gagement of, 39; residence at
both Greensburgh and Pitts
burgh, letters of, 40-1 ; con
siders settling in Pittsburgh,
41-2; first cases of, 42-3;
private reading of, 43 ;
studies French, 43; marriage
of, 43-4; miniature portrait
of, 44 ; enters politics, 45-6-7 ;
law office of, 48; political
principles of (foot-note),
52 ; looks for home, 53 ; se
cretly becomes editorial writ
er for The Advocate, 53-4;
settlement, 54; (see Advo
cate, The) ; first appearance
of name in press in Anti-
Jackson meeting, 56; a dele
gate of protest to Washing
ton, 56; describes Washing
ton, 56-7; (organizes Nation
al Republican Association,
foot-note, 56) ; describes
statesmen, 57-8; an organ
izer of Historical Society of
Pittsburgh, 58; at Philadel
phia, 59; writes report of

delegation and recommends
Anti-Jackson organization,
60; chief organizer of Whigs,
60-1 ; writes and offers Whig
resolutions, with first public
address, 62; writes account
of Whig jubilee to his wife,
65-6; writes address of
Whigs, 67-8; attends State
Convention, 69; goes to
Washington, 69-70-1 ; also
edits The Whig, 71 ; editorial
pleasantries, 71-2 ; recog
nized Whig leader 72 ;
charged with leading the
break with Anti-Masons, 72;
publicly acknowledges editor
ship of Advocate, y^; success
of his campaign, 74; chosen
committeeman on canal agi
tation, 75; character of, 77; at
titude of, in campaign of 1835,
and canal transnortation, 79;
proposes Whig State Con
vention, 80; first notable ora
tion of, 81-90; popularity of
the speech of, 90-1 ; leader of
independent Whigs, 91 ; pre
serves Whig organization,
91-2; writes Daniel Webster,
93 ; and transportation, 94 ;
receives letter from Webster,
94-5; favors Harrison, 96;
and transportation, at Balti
more Canal Convention, 97;
and municipal railway bonds,
97; mentioned for Constitu
tional Convention, 98; and
Whig defection, 98; and
Whig gains, 99; and the
Anti-Masons, 99; at Harris
burg, 100-01 ; reorganizes
Whigs, 101-02; elected to
Select Council, 102; nomi
nated for State Senator, 103 ;
and the Senatorial campaign,
104-05 ; election as Senator,
105; and "Buckshot War,"
112; letter of, 112-13; letter
of, 1 14-15 ; member of Commit
tee on Accounts, Judiciary,
and Estates and Escheats,
115; letter of, 116-17; votes
on Whig House recogni-
> tion, 118; letter of, 118; first
speech of, in the Senate,
noted, 118; opinion of, on

754

INDEX

"war," 119; describes Por
ter's inauguration, 120; first
"regular" speech of, in the
Senate, noted, 121 ; becomes
one of committee of investi
gation, 121 ; speech by, 122-
26; press eulogy of, 128; re
election and membership of
Committee on Corporations,
in Whig minority, 129 ; let
ters of, 129-30-31 ; feared by
"Loco Focos," 131 ; anecdote
of, 131-32; letter on Harri
son Convention, 132; letter
of, 133-34; letters on cam
paign, 134-36; and finance of
the State, 136; speech on
Governor's course, noted,
137; and Congressional as
pirations, 137; and Harrison
songs, 138; letter of, 138-39;
goes to Washington, prepares
Legislative address to peo
ple, 138; Whig leader, 139;
describes journey to Har
risburg in winter, 139-40;
chairman of Judiciary Com
mittee, 140; speaker pro tem
pore, 140; speeches of, at
tract attention, 140; letter on
President Harrison and cabi
net, 141-42; letter on Penn
sylvania politics, 142; chosen
to deliver eulogy on Harri
son before Legislature, 143;
eulogy on President Harri
son by, 145, Chapter X; re
tires from the Senate, 174;
"occasional addresses" by,
174; development of heart
trouble, 175 ; invites Clay to
Pittsburgh, 176 ; receives pri
vate letter from Clay, 177-78 ;
called on for keynote tariff
speech by Clay Clubs, 178;
speech by, on tariff, 180-219;
tariff leadership of, 219;
abandons politics, and rea
sons for, 220; and private
practice, and relation to pub
lic life, 220-21-22 ; and muni
cipal subscription to rail
ways, 222-24; admission to
bar of National Supreme
Court noted, 222; and Penn
sylvania politics, 223-24 ;
speech of, in the Sharpless

Case, extract of, 225-26-27;
review of decision in Sharp
less Case, 228-89; review
makes Williams leader
against municipal s u b-
scription validity, 289; urged
for National Senate, 290-91;
C. R. Buckalew on, 292;
return of, to politics, 293;
why he was not in the pre
liminary Republican Con
vention at Pittsburgh, first
case in National Supreme
Court, 294; chosen first Re
publican National Commit
teeman for Pennsylvania,
295-96-97; State delegate-at-
large, 296; makes speech in
National Convention, 298 ;
writes Greeley and receives
notable letter, 299 ; on failure
of campaign of '56, 300;
makes war on municipal sub
scription, as leader, 301 ; and
"repudiation," so called, 304;
defense of course, as "A 'Tax
payer," 304-05; leads fight in
"Taxpayers' Convention,"
305; becomes chairman of
committee and founds The
Weekly True Press as an or
gan, 306; writes address
of Taxpayers' Convention
Committee, 307-31 ; and his
party elects new commission
ers and resists tax levy, as
counsel for them, 331 ; his
"Review of the Opinion of
the Three Judges," etc., re
issued, 332 ; writes "Review,"
signed "Junius," on man
damus opinion of Su
preme Court, 332-73; chal
lenge of the Supreme Court,
37Z; brings additional test
cases before Judge Grier,
and wins that Judge's person
al judgment, although bound
by precedent, 374; advises
commissioners to go to pris
on and secures compromise,
375; final defense of his
course, 375-91 ; leads great
Legislative movement, 391 ;
\yrites the call to the Repub
lican National Convention of
i860, 391-92-93; letter by.

INDEX

755

392 ; becomes candidate for
the Legislature on two issues,
no repeal of tonnage tax of
the Pennsylvania Railroad
and Union, 395 ; speech by,
on "The Negro in American
Politics," 395-431; letter to,
by Gov. Welles, on election,
432; DalzelTs address and
reference to, 433 ; elected to
the Lower House at Harris
burg, 434; a candidate for
U. S. Senate, offers a Union
resolution, 435 ; and parlia
mentary law, 436; on Gen
eral Judiciary Committee,
436; great speech of, on
maintenance of the Consti
tution and the Union, 436-50 ;
aim of speech of, 450; and
Philadelphia and "repudia
tion," Ledger editorial on,
450-51-52; votes against Vir
ginia Convention, 452 ; article
by, in London American, 452;
and Lincoln, 452 ; The Phila
delphia Bulletin on, descrip
tion of, 453 ; The U. S. Ga
zette on, 453 ; and Gov. Cur
tin, 453-54; on the tonnage
tax, 454 ; warning to Legisla
ture by, 454; extracts from
remarks on tonnage tax by,
755-56-57; The U. S. Gazette
on, 457; and the Supreme
Court again, 458; on a com
mittee to meet President
elect Lincoln, 458; and two
daughters accompany the
President's family to Wash
ington, 459-60; guests of the
President at the inaugura
tion, 460; and daughters are
in the President's set in
opening quadrille, and amus
ing incident happens, 460;
friendship of Lincoln starts
rumors regarding notable
appointments for, 461 ; de
sired for National Senate by
many, 461-62; withdraws in
favor of Wilmot for the Sen
ate, 462; member of Com
mittee on Troops and Prepa
rations for War, 462; and
the press 463 ; and Governor
Curtin, 463 ; expresses

the source of his po
litical knowledge, 463-64 ;
and State finances, 465 ; ad
vice of wife of, 465; makes
closing speech of session by
request, 465-68; returned to
the Legislature, 468; made
second on/ Judiciary General
Committee and chairman of
those on Federal Relations
and State Library, 469;
called to Washington as one
of Stanton's most intimate
advisers, and asked to draft
judiciary law for conquered
territory and maritime prizes,
as well as Federal relations
to negroes, urged for Na
tional Supreme bench by
Senators, 469; makes keen
retort to Philadelphia repre
sentative, 469 ; aim of attack
on Pennsylvania Railway
legislation, 470; always de
clined criminal practice, 470;
describes Pennsylvania Rail
road, 471 ; and efforts at in
vestigation of President
Scott, 471-72; letter of, 472;
on the Senate's amendment,
473 ; and Philadelphia, 473 ;
and modern corporate power,
473 ; point ' of view of and
character of debate of, 474;
popular names or titles given
him, and affection for, 474;
requested by House to make
its farewell address, 474-75 ;
writes a national air, "Hur
rah for the Union Flag!",
475-78; elected to Congress,
479; describes excited cau
cus on House organization,
479; desired for judge in
conquered territory, 480; de
scribed by his colleague, M.
Russell "Thayer, as "not a
radical," 480; assignment to
Committee on Judiciary, 480-
81 ; speech by, on the state
of the Union, 481-89; pre
cipitates readmission prob
lem, 489; speech by, on res
toration of the Union, 489-
522 ; receives letter of Justice
Robert C. Grier, on his
speech, 522-23; comments on

756

INDEX

speech by Cameron and Sum
ner, 523 ; bust of, made by
Clarke Mills, 523; and Ju
diciary Committee, 524; eu
logy by, on Lincoln, 524-53 ;
eulogy published in Pitts
burgh and London, 553 ; eu
logy praised by Arnold, Lin
coln's biographer, 553; re
turned to the Thirty-ninth
Congress, and similar com
mittees, 554; active in new
Congress from the first, and
delivers brilliant speech on
reconstruction, 554-617; press
accounts of the speech by,
and exciting scenes over, 617-
19; speech of, considered the
signal for assault on the
President, said Montgomery
Blair, 619-20; a dominant
factor in the Judiciary Com
mittee, he reports a Tenure-of-
Office Bill, 620; letter by, on
President Johnson, 620;
urged as successor to Sena-
ton Cowan, 621 ; course of,
described, 621 ; on Secretary
Browning, 621 ; compared to
Webster and Clay, 621-22;
colleagues of, in Thirty-
ninth Congress, 622; calls up
his Tenure-of-Office Bill,
622 ; believes impeachment
unnecessary, because of bill, •
622; speaks on Tenure-of-
Office Bill, 622-46 ; views of,
on the reconstruction period,
6^7-48; colleagues of, in the
Fortieth Congress, 649; lo
cation of seat of, 649; mem
ber of Judiciary Committee,
649; declines to dine with
President Johnson, 649 ;
speaks for minority of Judi
ciary Committee in advocacy
of impeachment, and cause of
change, 650; introduces a bill
to require full bench of the
Supreme Court and unani
mous opinion on Congression
al measures. 650; explains his
relations to impeachment,
650-51 ; refers to Senator B.
F. Wade's position as suc
cessor to President John
son, 650; writes report of

Judiciary Committee recom
mending impeachment, 651 ;
introduces and speaks on his
Supreme Court Bill, 653-72;
referred to as "the gentle
man who first brought this
question before the country,"
653 ; Supreme Court Bill con
sidered by, rejected, 672;
chosen a manager of im
peachment, 673; speech in
impeachment trial described,
and compared with others,
673-74; the speech itself,
674-724; congratulations by
Evarts, 724; comments on
by The Philadelphia Press,
724; by The Pittsburgh Daily
Commercial, 725; by The Cin
cinnati Gazette, 725 ; consid
ered best legal scholar on the
Board, 725; high praise of
impeachment speech of, by
New York Times, 725; Dal
zell on same, 726; and the
impeachment, 728 ; voiced
American contemporay opin
ion, 728; and permanent prin
ciples, 729; after leave of
absence, returns and presents
additional articles of im
peachment, nature of articles,
729; refers to Wade's rela
tions to the impeachment,
730; granted indefinite leave
of absence on account of con
tinued ill-health, 731 ; and
the Fourteenth Amendment,
731 ; retires from official life,
731 ; mentioned for a foreign
mission, 731 ; in retirement,
732; last appearance before
the bar, 732 ; his home in Al
legheny City and his pro
posed homes, "Tusculum,"
et al, 732; death of, 732-33;
eulogy on, by The Chronicle,
733 ; compared with For
ward, Black, Stanton, Wil
kins, et al., 733; The Gazette
on the death of, "Websterian"
as an orator, 733 ; The Dis
patch on death of, 733-34;
library of, 734; a partner of,
734; family of, 733; memo
rial meeting by the bar of
Pittsburgh on, 734; a Latin,

INDEX

757

Greek and French linguist,
character of, 734-35 ; "Reso
lutions" on, and committee,
735-36; funeral of, 736; most
notable eulogy on, in Tlic
Post, 736-39; last of "thor
oughbred, old-fashioned law
yers," 736; '"equal of the
brightest and best," 737 ;
ability, 737 ; a great tariff in
fluence, 737; author of the
Tenure-of-Office Bill, 737;
responsible for municipal
subscription amendment to
the Constitution of Penn
sylvania, 737 ; a power for
tiie Union, 737-38; Evarts
describes his speech as the
ablest argument of the
ablest lawyer against him,
738; conservative, a scholar,
student of German, able pen,
purity of, able orator, sense
of honor, beautiful private
life, 738-39; conclusion, 739-
40.
Williams, ilajor Thomas, Jr.,
733-

Williams, Mrs. Thomas (see
Reynolds, Miss Sarah D.) ;
character of, 465 ; death of,
733-
Williams, Thomas, Sr., 4 ; 36 ;
letter of, 37.
Williams, Miss Virginia S.,
733-
Wilmarth, 298.
Wilmot, David, 296; 297;
298 ; 299 ; 435 ; elected to
Senate, 462 ; 469 ; 472.
Wilson, Henry D., 297.
Wilson, James F., 480 ; 622 ;
649 ; chairman of Judiciary
Committee, 650; absence of,
651 ; chosen a manager of
impeachment, 673.
Wolf, 80; 9L
Woodbridge, Fred'k E., 481 ;
649.
Wood vs. Allegheny County,
case of, 374.
Woods, Robert, 734.
Woodward, George W., 227 ;
I 332.
Wyoming Canal Co., 435.

08725 8662