General Grant was inaugurated on Thursday, the 4th of March, 1869, amid
a great display of popular enthusiasm. All parties joined in it. The
Republicans, who had been embarrassed by President Johnson's conduct
for the preceding four years, felt that they had overcome a political
enemy rather than a man whom they had themselves placed in power; and
the Democrats, who had supported Johnson so far as was necessary to
embarrass and distract the Republicans, were glad to be released from
an entangling alliance which had brought them neither profit or honor.
Contrary to the etiquette of the occasion, the incoming President was
not escorted to the Capitol by his predecessor. The exceptions to this
usage have been few. John Adams was so chagrined by the circumstances
attending his defeat that he would not remain in Washington to see Mr.
Jefferson installed in power; and the long-established hatred which
General Jackson and John Quincy Adams so heartily sustained for each
other forbade any personal intercourse between them. General Grant
had conceived so intense a dislike of Johnson, by reason of the effort
to place him in a false position in connection with the removal of
Stanton, that he would not officially recognize his predecessor, even
so far as to drive from the White House to the Capitol in the same
carriage.
The Inaugural Address of the President was brief and characteristic.
"I have," said he, "taken the oath of office without mental
reservation, and with the determination to do to the best of my
ability all that it requires of me. The responsibilities of the
position I feel, but accept them without fear. The office has come to
me unsought. I commence its duties untrammeled. I bring to it a
conscientious desire and determination to fill it to the best of my
ability, and to the satisfaction of the people." He declared that on
all subjects he should have "a policy to recommend, but none to
enforce against the will of the people. Laws are to govern all alike,
--those opposed as well as those who favor them. I know of no method
to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their
stringent execution." He was very emphatic upon the duty and necessity
of upholding the public credit and paying the public debt. "Let it be
understood," said he, "that no repudiator of one farthing of our public
debt will be trusted in public place, and it will go far to strengthen
our public credit, which ought to be the best in the world." "The
question of suffrage," he said, "is one which is likely to agitate the
public so long as a portion of the citizens of the Nation are excluded
from its privileges in any State. It seems to me very desirable that
this question should be settled now; and I entertain the hope and
express the desire that it may be by the ratification of the Fifteenth
Amendment to the Constitution."
General Grant had never been in any way connected with the civil
administration of Nation or State. The charge of being a mere military
chieftain had been in vain preferred against some of his most
illustrious predecessors; but with the possible exception of General
Taylor, no President ever came to the office with so little previous
experience in civil affairs. Washington's fame, prior to his accession
to the Presidency, rested mainly on his victorious leadership of the
Revolutionary army; but he had, as a young man, served in the
Provincial Assembly of Virginia, had been a member of the Continental
Congress, and had, after the close of his miliary career, presided
over the convention that framed the Constitution. Jackson was chosen
President on account of his campaign in the South-West, ending in his
brilliant triumph at New Orleans; but his experience in civil life had
already been long and varied. He entered Congress as a representative
from Tennessee when Washington was President, took his seat in the
Senate of the United States the day John Adams was inaugurated, and
afterwards served as a judge of the Supreme Court of Tennessee. All
these civil duties had been performed before he received a military
commission. After his stormy career in the army had ended, he was
again sent to the Senate during the second term of President Monroe.
President Taylor, like General Grant, had been simply a soldier; but
the people remembered that his service in the Executive Chair was
faithful, resolute, and intelligent; and they remembered also that some
of the greatest military heroes of the world had been equally
distinguished as civil rulers. Cromwell, William III., Frederick the
Great, the First Napoleon, left behind them records of civil
administration which for executive force and personal energy
established a fame as great as they had acquired on the field of
battle. The inexperience of General Grant had not therefore hindered
his election, and left no ground for apprehension as to the successful
conduct of his administration.
The President had so well kept his own counsels in regard to the
members of his Cabinet that not a single name was anticipated with
certainty. Five of the appointments were genuine surprises.
--Elihu B. Washburne, long the faithful friend of General Grant, was
nominated for Secretary of State. He had just entered upon his ninth
term as representative in Congress from Illinois, and resigned
immediately after swearing in Mr. Blaine as Speaker,--a duty assigned
to him as the oldest member of the House in consecutive service. He
was elected to Congress in 1852, from the Galena district, and his
first term began on the day Franklin Pierce was inaugurated President.
His period of service was crowded with events of great magnitude,
commencing with the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and ending with
the elevation to the Presidency of the chief hero in the great civil
war, to which that repeal proximately led. During all these years Mr.
Washburne was an aggressive, courageous, faithful representative,
intelligent in all his actions, loyal to the Nation, devoted to the
interests of his State.
--Jacob D. Cox, of Ohio, who had acquired credit in the war, and added
to it by his service as Governor of his State, was nominated for
Secretary of the Interior, and was universally considered to be an
admirable selection. His thorough training and his intellectual
strength fitted him for any station.
--E. Rockwood Hoar of Massachusetts was named for Attorney-General.
His learning as a lawyer had been previously recognized by his
appointment to the Supreme Bench of his State,--a bench always eminent
for the legal ability and personal character of its members, and for
the value of its decisions. Outside of his mere professional sphere,
Judge Hoar was known as a man of generous culture, varied knowledge,
and the keenest wit. In party relations he had originally been an
anti-slavery Whig, and was prominent and influential in organizing the
Republican party.
--John A. J. Creswell of Maryland was nominated for Postmaster-General.
He was the best living representative of those loyal men of the Border
States who had proved a tower of strength to the Union cause. He was
the confidential friend, the eloquent eulogist, of Henry Winter Davis,
and had by service in both House and Senate won general recognition
as a man of ability and great moral courage.
These four appointments met with general approbation. If their names
had not all been anticipated, they were nevertheless welcome to the
great mass of the Republican party. Two other nominations created
general astonishment. Alexander T. Stewart, the well-known merchant
of New York, was named for Secretary of the Treasury; and Adolph E.
Borie of Philadelphia, long known in that city as a man of probity
and wealth, was named for Secretary of the Navy. No new nomination
was made for Secretary of War, and the hope with many was that General
Schofield might be continued in a place whose duties he had so
faithfully and so successfully discharged.
The President was very anxious to have Mr. Stewart in his Cabinet, and
was therefore surprised and chagrined to find, after he had been
nominated, that under the law he was not eligible to the office of
Secretary of the Treasury. In the Act establishing the Treasury
department, passed at the first session of the First Congress under the
Federal Government, it was provided that no person could be appointed
secretary, assistant secretary, comptroller, auditor, treasurer, or
registrar, who was "directly or indirectly concerned or interested in
carrying on the business of trade or commerce." It was further
provided that any person violating this Act should be deemed guilty
of a high misdemeanor, and upon conviction, fined three thousand
dollars, removed from office, and forever thereafter rendered incapable
of holding any position under the Government of the United States.
General Grant frankly informed the Senate that he had ascertained Mr.
Stewart's disability after the nomination, and suggested that "in view
of these provisions of law and the fact that Mr. Stewart has been
unanimously confirmed by the Senate, he be exempted, by joint
resolution of the two Houses of Congress, from the operation of this
law."
As soon as the President's message was read, Mr. Sherman of Ohio asked
"unanimous consent to introduce a bill repealing as much of the Act
of September 2, 1789, as prohibits the Secretary of the Treasury from
being concerned in carrying on the business of trade or commerce; and
providing instead that in no case shall he act on any matter, claim,
or account in which he is personally interested." Mr. Sumner objected
to the introduction of the bill, suggesting that it ought to be "most
profoundly considered before it is acted upon by the Senate." These
proceedings were on Saturday, March 6th. On Monday Mr. Sherman did not
call up the bill, it having been ascertained in private conferences
that the Senate was unwilling to pass it. On Tuesday General Grant
withdrew the request, Mr. Stewart resigned, and Hon. George S. Boutwell
was nominated and confirmed as Secretary of the Treasury.
Mr. Boutwell was at that time fifty-one years of age. He had enjoyed
a large experience in public affairs. He had served seven years in
the Massachusetts Legislature, had been Bank Commissioner, Secretary
of the Board of Education, a member of the Constitutional Convention of
1853, and Governor of the Commonwealth. Under the National Government
he had been Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and six years a
representative in Congress. He was an industrious student, a strong
debater, possessed of great capacity for work, and had always
maintained a spotless reputation.
The surprises in connection with General Grant's cabinet were not yet
ended. A week after the inauguration Secretary Washburne resigned, and
a few days later was appointed Minister to France. He was succeeded
in the State Department by Mr. Hamilton Fish of New York. Mr. Fish was
a member of one of the old Knickerbocker families. He had inherited
wealth, was of the highest social rank, and enjoyed in a marked degree
the confidence and respect of his fellow-citizens. He was bred to the
law, and as a young man took deep interest in political affairs,
earnestly attaching himself to the fortunes of Mr. Clay in his contest
against General Jackson, and having the great advantage of Mr.
Webster's personal friendship. He had served in both branches of the
New-York Legislature, was a representative from New-York City in the
Twenty-eighth Congress, was chosen Governor of his State in 1848, and
in 1851 succeeded Daniel S. Dickinson in the United-States Senate,
where he served for a full term as the colleague of Mr. Seward. At
the close of his senatorial service he was but forty-eight years of
age, and by his own wish retired from all participation in political
affairs, thought he heartily united with his fellow Republicans of
New York in the effort to nominate Mr. Seward for the Presidency in
1860. It was therefore an almost equal surprise to the country that
General Grant should call Mr. Fish from his retirement, and that Mr.
Fish, at sixty years of age, should again be willing to enter the
political field. His career as Secretary of State was fruitful in
good works. He was throughout the eight years of his service devoted
to his official duties, and it was his good fortune to be connected
with public events of exceptional importance. He brought great
strength to the Cabinet of General Grant, and added in many ways to
the prestige and power of the administration.
The changes in the Cabinet continued. Immediately after Mr.
Washburne's resignation as Secretary of State, General Schofield
retired from the War Department, and was succeeded by General John A.
Rawlins, who had been chief of staff to General Grant during some of
his most important campaigns. General Rawlins was born in Galena,
and was a personal friend of General Grant before the outbreak of the
war. He was a lawyer, but had held no civil position, and entered the
Cabinet with only a military experience. He was in ill health, and
died in the following September, when General Sherman succeeded him as
Secretary _ad interim_, and administered the affairs of the War
Department until the appointment of General Belknap at the close of
October.
Mr. Borie, though gratified with the compliment of being called to the
Cabinet, had no aptitude or desire for public affairs. He urgently
requested General Grant to accept his resignation, and in June, three
months after his appointment, he was succeeded by Mr. George M.
Robeson. Mr. Robeson was connected with some of the old families of
New Jersey that became especially distinguished in the Revolutionary
war. He received a thorough intellectual training in his youth, and
graduated at Princeton College in 1847. He studied law in the office
of the Chief Justice of his State, and came to the bar under the most
favorable auspices. He began practice as soon as he had attained his
majority, and rapidly advanced in his profession. At thirty-six years
of age he was appointed Attorney-General of his State, and discharged
the duties of that important office with an ability which justly
added to his legal reputation. He has displayed great power in
arguing questions of Constitutional Law. While engaged in the
Attorney-Generalship he was appointed Secretary of the Navy by President
Grant. He was then thirty-nine years of age, and beyond his legal
learning was a man of literary taste and general knowledge of affairs.
Mr. Fish and Mr. Robeson were the only members of General Grant's
Cabinet appointed the first year of his administration who served
throughout his Presidency.
General Grant would not resign his military commission in season for
President Johnson to control the Army changes which would follow.
There was no dispute about his immediate successor. Not only the rank,
but the illustrious services, the high personal character, and the
popular estimate of Lieutenant-General Sherman established his right to
the promotion. But discussion arose in army circles and among the
people as to the Lieutenant-Generalship. Those holding the rank of
Major-General were five in number,--Henry W. Halleck, whose commission
bore date August 19, 1861; George G. Meade, August 18, 1864; Philip H.
Sheridan, November 8, 1864; George H. Thomas, December 15, 1864; and
Winfield S. Hancock, July 26, 1866. The President had the right under
the law to fill the office of Lieutenant-General by selection, and he
was not bound even by usage to regard any claim based only upon
seniority of commission.
General Halleck's distinction had not been won by service in the field.
He was a graduate of West Point with a good record in the Mexican war.
He was appointed Major-General at the outbreak of the Rebellion on
account of his well-known ability and the presumption of his fitness
for high command--a presumption which proved to be not well founded.
Meade had gained his commission by the splendid victory of Gettysburg.
Sheridan, besides earning his commission by his brilliant success in
the valley of Virginia, had been personally and most impressively
commended by President Lincoln: his success was in fact political as
well as military, for it totally destroyed General McClellan as a
candidate for the Presidency. Thomas had received his promotion on
account of the great victory at Nashville, without which Sherman might
have been seriously embarrassed in his march to the sea. General
Hancock was commissioned after the war for general efficiency as a
soldier and for heroism on many battle-fields. No task could be more
invidious than to decide between officers of merit so marked. If Mr.
Johnson could have had the opportunity, it was well known that he would
appoint Thomas to succeed General Sherman; not so much from love as
Thomas as from hatred of Sheridan,--a hatred which did honor to
Sheridan. It was the fixed purpose of General Grant to defeat this;
not from unfriendliness towards Thomas, but from a profound admiration
of the military genius of Sheridan, quickened by a very strong personal
attachment to him.
There was little discussion as to the relative claims of Sheridan and
Thomas. Sheridan undoubtedly ranked Thomas in command, while Meade
outranked both. General Meade however was not put in rivalry with
these two distinguished officers. Not rated so high in military skill
as at least four other commanders of the Army, it had happened to
General Meade to meet the chief commander of the rebel army on the most
critical battle-field of the war, and to win a victory which may well
be termed the turning-point in the civil struggle. The only battle
fought on the soil of a Northern State, it was quite natural that an
extraneous interest should attach to Gettysburg, and it is almost the
only field of the war which steadily attracts the visits of tourists
and patriots alike.
In the end there was no doubt complete satisfaction in the Army and
among the people at large with the promotion of Sheridan, which was
ordered by President Grant the very day of his inauguration, directly
after Sherman had been gazetted as General. There was at the same time
a strong popular desire that the heroic achievements of Meade and
Thomas should be marked by some form of National recognition; not,
however, in any way to interfere with the just reward of Sheridan.
The proposition to make three Lieutenant-Generals was canvassed in
military and Congressional circles; but the general aversion to a large
military establishment in time of peace prevented its favorable
consideration, and these eminent soldiers received no attention or
favor from Congress after their work had been crowned with success by
the suppression of the Rebellion and the complete restoration of the
Union. Thomas left Washington soon after President Grant's
inauguration to take command of the Department of the Pacific. He was
disappointed in his expectations and depressed in feeling. He died
suddenly a year later (March 28, 1870) at the age of fifty-four. His
death was noticed in a peculiarly impressive manner by a meeting of the
two branches of Congress in the Hall of Representatives, to hear
addresses commemorative of his character. General Meade, born a year
earlier, survived him for a brief period,--dying November 6, 1872. He
had evinced no dissatisfaction with the measure of his reward, and had
been especially gratified by the privilege of maintaining his
headquarters in Philadelphia (from which city he was originally
appointed to the Army) and of passing his closing years on the soil of
the noble State with which his fame is inseparably associated.
Peculiar circumstances surrounded the career of Thomas, imparting great
interest and enlisting on his behalf a strong affection among the loyal
people of the Nation. The popular regret that he had not been
appropriately recognized by the National Government for his great
services, was deepened by his untimely death. The regard usually felt
by soldiers for their successful leader was exceptionally strong in
his case, and manifested itself in many acts of personal devotion. He
was commended to popular favor by his steadfast loyalty to the Union,
when he was subjected to all the temptations and all the inducements
which had led Lee and Johnston into the rebellion. He, like them, was
born in Virginia, was reared in Virginia, was appointed to the army
from Virginia; but in the hour of peril to the Government he remembered
that he was a citizen and soldier of the United States, and had sworn
to uphold the Constitution. How well he maintained his faith to his
country is written in the history of great battles and great victories!
The grade of General of the Army, originally provided for Washington
in 1799, was revived for the avowed purpose of honoring General Grant.
As originally reported, the Act was to be exhausted with one
appointment; but his provision was struck out and the grade was left
open for General Sherman. It was then abolished, leaving to Sheridan
the command of the Army as Lieutenant-General (after the retirement of
General Sherman), and to his successor with the rank of Major-General,
--thus ultimately establishing the command as it had existed before the
war. The Act under which General Grant received his highest rank
authorized the President "whenever he shall deem it expedient, to
appoint a General of the Army of the United States." This Act passed
July 25, 1866, and General Grant was immediately promoted. A year and
a half later, when General Grant had broken all personal relations with
President Johnson, there is little doubt that the latter would have
interposed his discretion and failed to "deem it expedient to appoint
a General of the Army of the United States." Fortunately his
disposition at the time was friendly to General Grant, and led him to
do with gladness what the loyal people so unanimously desired for the
first soldier of the Nation.
The Forty-first Congress was the second to organize under the new law
--March 4th 1869.(1) In the House James G. Blaine of Maine was elected
Speaker, receiving 135 votes to 57 cast for Michael C. Kerr of Indiana.
Of the two hundred and forty-three representatives on the roll, only
ninety-eight had served in the preceding Congress. Among the one
hundred and forty-five new members were some men who afterwards became
widely and favorably known to the country.
--William A. Wheeler, who had been a member of the Thirty-seventh
Congress, now returned from his native district, the most northerly of
New York. He possessed admirable traits for a legislator; being a
conscientious worker, intelligent in the business of the House, and
implicitly trusted by his fellow-members. He was a lawyer and a man of
affairs,--engaged at one time in banking, and for many years president
of an important railroad company. He was well trained for legislative
duty,--having served with distinction in both branches of the New-York
Legislature and having been a member of the State Constitutional
Convention of 1867. Not prominent as a debater, he yet spoke with
directness and fluency, and was always listened to by the House. In
all respects he was an admirable representative, watchfully caring
for the public interests.
--His Democratic colleague, Clarkson Nott Potter, from the Westchester
district, entered the House at forty-four years of age. The son of
bishop Alonzo Potter and grandson of Peter Nott of Union College, he
had the right by inheritance to the talents with which he was
endowed. After leaving college he devoted himself to civil
engineering, intending to adopt it as his profession, but his tastes
soon inclined him to the law. He was admitted to the bar of New York
in 1847 and in a few years acquired a practice from which he derived a
handsome fortune. He was well adapted to Parliamentary life and
promptly acquired high rank in the House. So unfailing were his
courtesy and kindliness that his personal influence was as great with
the Republicans as with the Democrats, among whom almost from the day
of his entrance he was accorded a leading position.
--Noah Davis took his seat as representative from the strong Republican
district of Monroe and Orleans in Western New York. He early attained
distinction at the bar and had just left the Supreme Bench of his
State, where he had served for eleven years with eminent credit. That
high dignity had been conferred upon him before he was forty years of
age. He did not find service in the House congenial and promptly
abandoned all thought of a legislative career. This was sincerely
regretted by his personal friends, who had knowledge of his ability
and foresaw brilliant success for him should his ambition lead him to
remain in Congress. His subsequent service on the Supreme Bench of
New York has added to an already exalted reputation.
--Henry W. Slocum, who now came as a Democratic representative from
the city of Brooklyn, was a graduate of West Point in the class of
1852, but remained in the Regular Army only about four years. After
his resignation he studied law and was admitted to the bar in
Syracuse. When the civil war broke out he joined the Volunteers and
rose to high rank. He was appointed a Major-General and placed in
command of a corps. His record as an officer was without blemish.
Though allied with the Democrats, he was not a bitter partisan, and
his course in the House was that of an enlightened and liberal man.
--Eugene Hale entered the House from Maine in his thirty-third year.
He began the practice of law as soon as he attained his majority, and
was almost immediately appointed county attorney,--a position which he
held for nine years. His success at the bar was very marked.
Preceding his election to Congress he served in the State Legislature
and took a leading position in a body of able men. In the House of
Representatives he rose rapidly in the estimation of his associates
and was recognized as a sound and careful legislator, of great
industry in the committee-room, and of decided ability as a debater.
He exhibited an exceptional clearness of statement and power of
analysis. He possesses the peculiar tact and aptitude which insure
a successful career in a Parliamentary body. He has always been fond
of books, and has constantly grown in knowledge and in mental discipline.
The Pennsylvania delegation received some valuable accessions.
Washington Townsend of the Chester district brought to his public
duties a large experience in affairs, a good standing at the bar, with
the common sense, integrity, and trustworthiness found so generally
in the Society of Friends.--John B. Packer, a man of steady character
and strong parts, came from the Dauphin district.--John Cessna of the
Bedford district had served many years in the Legislature of
Pennsylvania, had been twice Speaker of the House of Representatives
in that State, and had given much attention to Parliamentary
law.--William H. Armstrong from the Lycoming district, was a graduate
of Princeton, a lawyer, and extensively engaged in business.--James S.
Negley, from one of the Pittsburg districts, had served in the Mexican
war when only twenty years of age, and at the outbreak of the Rebellion
was appointed a Brigadier-General in the Volunteer service. He joined
General Sherman in the South-West in the autumn of 1861 and fought
through the war, attaining an excellent reputation, and being rewarded
with the rank of Major-General.--Daniel J. Morrell of the Johnstown
district, who entered the preceding Congress, had grown rapidly in his
standing in the House, and, next to Judge Kelley, was quoted as an
authority upon all industrial questions.
George W. McCrary and F. W. Palmer of Iowa, Jacob A. Ambler and
William H. Upson of Ohio, Horatio C. Burchard and John B. Hawley of
Illinois, and Stephen W. Kellogg of Connecticut, were among the members
who rose to rank and usefulness in the House.--Gustavus A. Finkelnburg,
a young German who spoke English without the slightest accent, came
from one of the St. Louis districts and rapidly gained the respect
and confidence of all who were associated with him.--S. S. Burdette,
a man of force and readiness as a debater, was one of his colleagues,
as was also Erastus Wells, a Democrat of character and personality.
--Omar D. Conger of Michigan was a well-trained debater before he
entered the House, and at once took a prominent position in its
deliberations. He illustrated the virtue of persistence in its highest
degree, and had the art of annoying his opponent in discussion to the
point of torture.--John Beatty of Ohio, who had served a brief period
in the preceding Congress, now appeared for a full term. He had an
excellent record as a soldier, was a successful man of affairs, and
was endowed with a firmness of purpose which could not be overcome or
changed.--James N. Tyner of Indiana, before entering the House, had
been an official of the Post-Office Department, and possessed a
thorough acquaintance with the details of the postal system of the
United States. His knowledge game him prominence at once in an
important field of legislation, and aided him in promptly securing the
attention and respect of the House.
--Thomas Fitch of Nevada was one of the noticeable figures on the
Republican side of the House. Born and educated in New York, he was
an editor in Wisconsin, a merchant in Missouri, a miner on the Pacific
slope, an editor in San Francisco, a member of the California
Legislature, a delegate in the Constitutional Convention of Nevada,
reporter of the Supreme Court of that State, elected to Congress--all
before he was thirty years of age. The singular variety of his career
could hardly be paralleled outside of the United States. If his
industry had been equal to his natural gifts he would have been one
of the first orators in the country.
--Samuel S. Cox had served eight years in the House from Ohio (1857 to
1865) as the representative of the Columbus district. At the close of
his last term he went to New York and engaged in the practice of law in
company with Mr. Charlton Lewis, a man of brilliant attainments and one
of the most accomplished graduates of Yale. But it was not possible
for Mr. Cox to keep out of the political field. His talent for the
stump, his ready wit, and, above all, his good nature and good sense,
commended him to the New York Democrats, and he appeared in the
Forty-first Congress from one of the city districts. He had been a model
of industry. In all the pressure of Congressional life, to the duties of
which he has given assiduous attention, he has devoted much time to
literature and has published several original and entertaining books.
The Republican representatives from the South were in part natives of
the States which sent them to Congress. Of this class Oliver H.
Dockery of North Carolina was the leading man. Of those who had gone
to the South after the war the most conspicuous were Lionel A. Sheldon
of Louisiana, George C. McKee of Mississippi, Alfred E. Buck and
Charles W. Buckley of Alabama. Horace Maynard fairly represented both
classes, for although a native of Massachusetts he had lived in
Tennessee for nearly a quarter of a century before the war, and was in
all respects identified with the interests of the South, and to a large
extent shared its prejudices. But he would not join in secession and
turned from a supporter of slavery to be a radical Republican. He was
a man of considerable ability and great moral worth. He was a valuable
representative of his State after the war.
--The Worcester District of Massachusetts sent George Frisbie Hoar as
its representative. He is the son of Samuel Hoar, who was honorably
conspicuous in the early days of the anti-slavery struggle. His mother
was a daughter of the illustrious Roger Sherman, a signer of the
Declaration of Independence. Mr. Hoar is a graduate of Harvard College
and of the Dane Law School. For twenty years after admission to the
bar he gave his time and his energy to professional pursuits,
uninterrupted by any political engagements, except a single term in
each branch of the Massachusetts Legislature. He began service in the
House of Representatives in the full vigor of manhood in the forty-third
year of his age, keenly alive to the great interests at stake in the
Nation, admirably equipped and disciplined for his duties.
Eminent in his profession, successful in his political career, Mr. Hoar
superadds accomplishments which neither the practice of law nor
participation in public affairs can give. He has been a student of
history, has cultivated a taste for literature, and has acquired a mass
of information which proves that his superb private library has not
been gathered in vain. In certain fields of learning Mr. Hoar has
few peers. It may, indeed, be questioned whether his knowledge of our
Colonial and Revolutionary history does not surpass that of any
contemporary. Nor has he been content with the mere mastery of
details, with the collection of facts and incidents. He has studied
their relations and their interdependence, has analyzed their causes
and comprehended their effects. Of New England in its Provincial
period he could narrate "the rise of religious sects, the manners of
successive generations, the revolutions in dress, in furniture, in
repasts, in public amusements," even more accurately than Macaulay
presented the same features of the same time in Old England. Mr. Hoar
has studied the era with a devout enthusiasm for the character of the
people,--a people from whom he is proud to claim his own descent, and
whose positive virtues (even with the spice of acridness which
distinguished them) are faithfully reproduced in his own person.
In truth Mr. Hoar is a Puritan, modified by the religious progress of
two centuries, but still a Puritan--in manners, in morals, in deep
earnestness, in untiring energy. He is independent without
self-assertion, courageous without bravado, conscientious without
Pharisaism. In intellectual power, amply developed and thoroughly
trained, in force as a debater, both forensic and Parliamentary, Mr.
Hoar is entitled to high rank. And his rank will steadily increase,
for his mind is of that type which broadens and strengthens by conflict
in the arena of discussion.
There was a feeling common to both sides of the House that a new
political era had begun with the inauguration of President Grant.
Perhaps no one could have accurately defined what was expected, but
every one knew that the peculiar conflicts and troubles which had
distinguished the years of Mr. Johnson's administration would not be
repeated. General Grant's tendencies were liberal and non-partisan,
though he recognized an honorable allegiance to the Republican party,
which had placed him in power. Many of his personal friends were among
the Democrats, and the first few months of his administration promised
peace and harmony throughout the country. General Grant had never
engaged in a partisan contention, had cast no vote since the outbreak
of the war, and was therefore free from the exasperating influence of
political controversy. The Democratic members of the House shared
fully in the kindly feeling towards the new President. They were in
a minority, but among them was a large proportion of able men--men of
experience and great skill in debate. It is seldom that the opposition
party has such a list of champions as appeared on the Democratic side
of the House in the Forty-first Congress. Beck of Kentucky, Randall
and Woodward of Pennsylvania, Marshall of Illinois, Brooks, Wood,
Potter, Slocum, and Cox, of New York, Kerr, Niblack, Voorhees, and
Holman of Indiana, Eldridge of Wisconsin, Van Trump and Morgan of Ohio,
unitedly presented a strong array of Parliamentary ability. In
different degrees they were all partisans, but of a manly type.
Earnest discussion and political antagonism were not allowed by them to
destroy friendly relations.
[(1) For complete membership of Forty-first Congress, see Appendix D.]