Thirty-Seventh Congress assembles.--Military Situation.--List of
Senators: Fessenden, Sumner, Collamer, Wade, Chandler, Hale,
Trumbull, Breckinridge, Baker of Oregon.--List of Members of the
House of Representatives: Thaddeus Stevens, Crittenden, Lovejoy,
Washburne, Bingham, Conkling, Shellabarger.--Mr. Grow elected
Speaker.--Message of President Lincoln.--Its Leading Recommendations.
--His Account of the Outbreak of the Rebellion.--Effect of the
Message on the Northern People.--Battle of Bull Run.--Its Effect
on Congress and the Country.--The Crittenden Resolution adopted.--
Its Significance.--Interesting Debate upon it in the Senate.--First
Action by Congress Adverse to Slavery.--Confiscation of Certain
Slaves.--Large Amount of Business dispatched by Congress.--Striking
and Important Debate between Baker and Breckinridge.--Expulsion of
Mr. Breckinridge from the Senate.--His Character.--Credit due to
Union Men of Kentucky.--Effect produced in the South of Confederate
Success at Bull Run.--Rigorous Policy adopted by the Confederate
Government.--Law respecting "Alien Enemies."--Law sequestrating
their Estates.--Rigidly enforced by Attorney-General Benjamin.--An
Injudicious Policy.
The Thirty-seventh Congress assembled according to the President's
proclamation, on the fourth day of July, 1861. There had been no
ebb in the tide of patriotic enthusiasm which overspread the loyal
States after the fall of Sumter. Mr. Lincoln's sagacity in fixing
the session so late had apparently been well approved. The temper
of the senators and representatives as they came together could
not have been better for the great work before them. Startling
events, following each other thick and fast, had kept the country
in a state of absorbing excitement, and Congress saw around it on
every side the indications of a sanguinary struggle to come. Even
after the firing on Sumter, anxious and thoughtful men had not
given up all hope of an adjustment. The very shock of arms in the
harbor of Charleston, it was believed by many, might upon sober
second thought induce Southern men to pause and consider and
negotiate before taking the fatal plunge. Such expectations were
vain. The South felt that their victory was pre-ordained. Jefferson
Davis answered Mr. Lincoln's call for seventy-five thousand men by
a proclamation ordering the enlistment of one hundred thousand.
The Confederacy was growing in strength daily. State after State
was joining it, and energy and confidence prevailed throughout all
its borders. The situation grew every day more embarrassing and
more critical. Without waiting for the action of Congress, Mr.
Lincoln had called for forty-two thousand additional volunteers,
and added eleven new regiments, numbering some twenty-two thousand
men, to the regular army. A blockade of the Southern ports had
been ordered on the 19th of April, and eighteen thousand men had
been added to the navy.
No battle of magnitude or decisive character had been fought when
Congress assembled; but there had been activity on the skirmish
line of the gathering and advances forces and, at many points,
blood collision. In Baltimore, on the historic 19th of April, the
mob had endeavored to stop the march of Massachusetts troops hurrying
to the protection of the National Capital. In Missouri General
Nathaniel Lyon had put to flight the disloyal governor, and
established the supremacy of National authority. In Western Virginia
General McClellan had met with success in some minor engagements,
and on the upper Potomac the forces under General Robert Patterson
had gained some advantages. A reverse of no very serious character
had been experienced at Big Bethel, near Hampton Roads, by the
troops under General Benjamin F. Butler. General Robert C. Schenck,
in command of a small force, had met with a repulse a few miles
from Washington, near Vienna in the State of Virginia. These
incidents were not in themselves of special importance, but they
indicated an aggressive energy on the part of the Confederates,
and foreshadowed the desperate character which the contest was
destined to assume. Congress found itself legislating in a fortified
city, with patrols of soldiers on the streets and with a military
administration which had practically superseded the civil police
in the duty of maintaining order and protecting life. The situation
was startling and serious, and for the first time people began to
realize that we were to have a war with bloody fighting and much
suffering, with limitless destruction of property, with costly
sacrifice of life.
UNITED-STATES SENATORS.
The spirit in both branches of Congress was a fair reflection of
that which prevailed in the North. Andrew Johnson of Tennessee
was the only senator who appeared from the eleven seceding States.
John C. Breckinridge was present from Kentucky, somewhat mortified
by the decisive rebuke which he had received in the vote of his
State. The first important act of the Senate was the seating of
James H. Lane and Samuel C. Pomeroy as senators from the new State
of Kansas, which had been admitted at the last session of Congress
as a free State,--in a bill which, with historic justice, Mr.
Buchanan was called upon to approve, after he had announced in
Congress, during the first year of his administration, that Kansas
was as much a slave State as South Carolina. The first question
of moment growing out of the Rebellion was the presentation of
credentials by Messrs. Willey and Carlile, who claimed seats as
senators from Virginia, the right to which was certified by the
seal of the State with the signature of Francis H. Pierpont as
governor. The credentials indicated that Mr. Willey was to take
the seat vacated by Mr. Mason, and Mr. Carlile that vacated by Mr.
Hunter. The loyal men of Virginia, especially from the western
counties, finding that the regularly organized government of the
State had joined the Rebellion, extemporized a government composed
of the Union men of the Legislature which had been in session the
preceding winter in Richmond. This body had met in Wheeling, and
elected two men as senators who had stood firmly for the Union in
the convention which had forced Virginia into secession. Their
admission to the Senate was resisted by Mr. James A. Bayard, then
senator from Delaware, and by the few other Democratic senators
who still held seats. But after discussion, Mr. Willey and Mr.
Carlile were sworn in, and thus the first step was taken which led
soon after to the partition of the Old Dominion and the creation
of the new State of West Virginia. The free States had a unanimous
representation of Republican senators, with the exception of John
R. Thompson from New Jersey, Jesse D. Bright from Indiana, James
W. Nesmith from Oregon, and the two senators from California, Milton
S. Latham and James A. McDougall, the latter of whom was sworn in
as the successor of William M. Gwin.
The Senate, though deprived by secession of many able men from the
South, presented an imposing array of talent, statesmanship, and
character. William Pitt Fessenden had already served one term with
distinction, and was now in the third year of his second term. He
possessed a combination of qualities which gave him just eminence
in his public career. He was brilliant from his youth upward; had
led the Maine Legislature when but a few years beyond his majority;
and, at a time when members of the legal profession are struggling
for a first foot-hold, he had stepped to the front rank in the bar
of Maine. He was elected a representative in Congress in 1840 at
thirty-four years of age. He never enjoyed popularity in the sense
in which that word is ordinarily used, but he had the absolute
confidence and admiration of his constituents. He possessed that
peculiar strength with the people--the most valuable and most
enduring a public man can have--which comes from a sense of pride
in the ability and character of the representative. Somewhat
reserved and distant in manner to the world at large, he was genial
and delightful to the intimate circle whom he called friends.
As a debater Mr. Fessenden was exceptionally able. He spoke without
apparent effort, in a quiet, impressive manner, with a complete
master of pure English. He preserved the _lucidus ordo_ in his
argument, was never confused, never hurried, never involved in
style. A friend once said to him that the only criticism to be
made of his speeches in the Senate was that he illustrated his
point too copiously, throwing light upon it after it was made plain
to the comprehension of all his hearers. "That fault," said he,
"I acquired in addressing juries, where I always tried to adapt my
argument to the understanding of the dullest man of the twelve."
It was a fault which Mr. Fessenden overcame, and in his later years
his speeches may be taken as models for clearness of statement,
accuracy of reasoning, felicity of expression, moderation of tone.
There have been members of the Senate who achieved greater distinction
than Mr. Fessenden, but it may well be doubted whether in the
qualities named he ever had a superior in that body. His personal
character was beyond reproach. He maintained the highest standard
of purity and honor. His patriotism was ardent and devoted. The
general character of his mind was conservative, and he had the
heartiest contempt of every thing that savored of the demagogue in
the conduct of public affairs. He was never swayed from his
conclusion by the passion of the hour, and he met the gravest
responsibilities with even mind. He had a lofty disregard of
personal danger, possessing both moral and physical courage in a
high degree. He was constant in his devotion to duty, and no doubt
shortened his life by his public labors.*
UNITED-STATES SENATORS.
Mr. Sumner, though five years the junior, was senior in senatorial
service to Mr. Fessenden, and had attained wider celebrity. Mr.
Sumner's labor was given almost exclusively to questions involving
our foreign relations, and to issues growing out of the slavery
agitation. To the latter he devoted himself, not merely with
unswerving fidelity but with all the power and ardor of his nature.
Upon general questions of business in the Senate he was not an
authority, and rarely participated in the debates which settled
them; but he did more than any other man to promote the anti-slavery
cause, and to uprear its standard in the Republican party. He had
earned, in an unexampled degree, the hatred of the South, and this
fact had increased the zeal for him among anti-slavery men throughout
the North. The assault, made upon him by Preston S. Brooks, a
South-Carolina representative, for his famous speech on Kansas,
had strengthened his hold upon his constituency, which was not
merely the State of Massachusetts but the radical and progressive
Republicans of the entire country.
Mr. Sumner was studious, learned, and ambitious. He prepared his
discussions of public questions with care, but was not ready as a
debater. He presented his arguments with power, but they were
laborious essays. He had no faculty for extempore speech. Like
Addison, he could draw his draft for a thousand pounds, but might
not have a shilling of change. This did not hinder his progress
or lessen his prestige in the Senate. His written arguments were
the anti-slavery classics of the day, and they were read more
eagerly than speeches which produced greater effect on the hearer.
Colonel Benton said that the eminent William Pinkney of Maryland
was always thinking of the few hundred who came to hear him in the
Senate Chamber, apparently forgetting the million who might read
him outside. Mr. Sumner never made that mistake. His arguments
went to the million. They produced a wide-spread and prodigious
effect on public opinion and left an indelible impression on the
history of the country.
Jacob Collamer of Vermont was a senator of eminent worth and ability.
He had earned honorable fame as a member of the House of Representatives,
and as a member of the Cabinet in the administration of General
Taylor. He had entered the Senate at a ripe age, and with every
qualification for distinguished service. To describe him in a
single word, he was a wise man. Conservative in his nature, he
was sure to advise against rashness. Sturdy in his principles, he
always counseled firmness. In the periods of excitement through
which the party was about to pass, his judgment was sure to prove
of highest value--influenced, as it always was, by patriotism, and
guided by conscience. Without power as an orator, he was listened
to in the Senate with profound attention, as one who never offered
counsel that was not needed. He carried into the Senate the gravity,
the dignity, the weight of character, which enabled him to control
more ardent natures; and he brought to a later generation the wisdom
and experience acquired in a long life devoted to the service of
his State and of his country.
UNITED-STATES SENATORS.
Zachariah Chandler had been the recognized leader of the Republican
party in Michigan from its formation. He had superseded General
Cass with a people in whose affections the latter had been strongly
intrenched before Chandler was born. He had been four years in
the Senate when the war broke out, and he was well established in
reputation and influence. He was educated in the common schools
of his native State of New Hampshire, but had not enjoyed the
advantage of collegiate training. He was not eloquent according
to the canons of oratory; but he was widely intelligent, had given
careful attention to public questions, and spoke with force and
clearness. He was a natural leader. He had abounding confidence
in himself, possessed moral courage of a high order, and did not
know the sensation of physical fear. He was zealous in the
performance of public duty, radical in all his convictions, patriotic
in every thought, an unrelenting foe to all forms of corruption.
He distinguished between a friend and an enemy. He was always
ready to help the one, and, though not lacking in magnanimity, he
seldom neglected an opportunity to cripple the other.
Lyman Trumbull had entered the Senate six years before, when Illinois
revolted against the course of Douglas in destroying the Missouri
Compromise. Mr. Lincoln had earnestly desired the place, but waived
his claims. The election of Trumbull was considered desirable for
the consolidation of the new party, and the Republicans of Whig
antecedents were taught a lesson of self-sacrifice by the promptness
with which Mr. Lincoln abandoned the contest. Judge Trumbull had
acquired a good reputation at the bar of his State, and at once
took high rank in the Senate. His mind was trained to logical
discussion, and as a debater he was able and incisive. His political
affiliations prior to 1854 were with the Democracy, and aside from
the issue in regard to the extension of slavery, he did not fully
sympathize with the principles and tendencies of the Republican
party. He differed from Mr. Lincoln just as Preston King, senator
from New York, differed from Mr. Seward. Lincoln and Seward believed
in Henry Clay and all the issues which he represented, while Trumbull
and King were devoted to the policies and measures which characterized
the administration of Jackson. The two classes of men composing
the Republican party were equally zealous in support of the principles
that led to the political revolution of 1860, but it was not easy
to see what would be the result of other issues which time and
necessity might develop.
Benjamin F. Wade of Ohio had been ten years in the Senate when the
war broke out. He entered in March, 1851--the immediate successor
of Thomas Ewing who had been transferred to the Senate from the
Cabinet of Taylor, to take the place of Thomas Corwin who left the
Senate to enter the Cabinet of Fillmore. Mr. Wade was elected as
a Whig--the last senator chosen by that party in Ohio. His triumph
was a rebuke to Mr. Corwin for his abandonment of the advanced
position which he had taken against the aggressions of the slave
power. It was rendered all the more significant by the defeat of
Mr. Ewing, who with his strong hold upon the confidence and regard
of the people of Ohio, was too conservative to embody the popular
resentment against the odious features of the Compromise of 1850.
Mr. Wade entered the Senate with Mr. Sumner. Their joint coming
imparted confidence and strength to the contest for free soil, and
was a powerful re-enforcement to Mr. Seward, Mr. Chase, and Mr.
Hale, who represented the distinctively anti-slavery sentiment in
the Senate. The fidelity, the courage, the ability of Mr. Wade
gave him prominence in the North, and were a constant surprise to
the South. He brought to the Senate the radicalism which Mr.
Giddings had so long upheld in the House, and was protected in his
audacious freedom of speech by his steadiness of nerve and his
known readiness to fight.
Henry B. Anthony entered the Senate on the 4th of March, 1859, at
forty-four years of age. He had been Governor of Rhode Island ten
years before. He received a liberal education at Brown University,
and was for a long period editor of the _Providence Journal_, a
position in which he established an enviable fame as a writer and
secured an enduring hold upon the esteem and confidence of his
State. In the Senate he soon acquired the rank to which his thorough
training and intelligence, his graceful speech, his ardent patriotism,
his stainless life entitled him. No man has ever enjoyed, among
his associates of all parties, a more profound confidence, a more
cordial respect, a warmer degree of affection.
UNITED-STATES SENATORS.
John P. Hale of New Hampshire was still pursuing the career which
he had begun as an early advocate of the anti-slavery cause, and
in which he had twice overthrown the power of the Democratic party
in New Hampshire.--Henry Wilson was the colleague of Mr. Sumner,
and was a man of strong parts, self-made, earnest, ardent, and
true.--Lot M. Morrill was the worthy associate of Mr. Fessenden,
prominent in his profession, and strong in the regard and confidence
of the people of his States.--The author of the Wilmot Proviso came
from Pennsylvania as the successor of Simon Cameron, and as the
colleague of Edgar Cowan, whose ability was far greater than his
ambition or his industry.--James W. Grimes, a native of New Hampshire,
who had gone to Iowa at the time of its organization as a Territory
and had been conspicuously influential in the affairs of the State,
entered the Senate in March, 1859. He possessed an iron will and
sound judgment. He was specially distinguished for independence
of party restraint in his modes of thought and action. He and
Judge Collamer of Vermont were the most intimate associates of Mr.
Fessenden, and the three were not often separated on public questions.
--The colleague of Mr. Grimes was James Harlan, one of Mr. Lincoln's
most valued and most confidential friends, and subsequently a member
of his Cabinet.--James R. Doolittle came from Wisconsin, a far more
radical Republican than his colleague, Timothy O. Howe, and both
were men of marked influence in the councils of their party.--John
Sherman filled the vacancy occasioned by the appointment of Mr.
Chase to the Treasury. Mr. Chase had been chosen as the successor
of George E. Pugh, and remained in the Senate but a single day.
Mr. Sherman had been six years in the House, and had risen rapidly
in public esteem. He had been the candidate of his party for
Speaker, and had served as chairman of Ways and Means in the Congress
preceding the war.--From the far-off Pacific came Edward Dickinson
Baker, a senator from Oregon, a man of extraordinary gifts of
eloquence; lawyer, soldier, frontiersman, leader of popular
assemblies, tribune of the people. In personal appearance he was
commanding, in manner most attractive, in speech irresistibly
charming. Perhaps in the history of the Senate no man ever left
so brilliant a reputation from so short a service. He was born in
England, and the earliest recollection of his life was the splendid
pageant attending the funeral of Lord Nelson.** He came with his
family to the United States when a child, lived for a time in
Philadelphia, and removed to Illinois, where he grew to manhood
and early attained distinction. He served his State with great
brilliancy in Congress, and commanded with conspicuous success one
of her regiments in the war with Mexico. The Whigs of the North-
West presented Colonel Baker for a seat in the Cabinet of President
Taylor. His failure to receive the appointment was a sore
mortification to him. He thought his political career in Illinois
was broken; and in 1852, after the close of his service in Congress,
he joined the throng who were seeking fortune and fame on the
Pacific slope. When leaving Washington he said to a friend that
he should never look on the Capitol again unless he could come
bearing his credentials as a senator of the United States. He
returned in eight years.
Among the opposition senators, some fourteen in number, the most
prominent was John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky, who had stepped
from the Vice-President's chair to the floor of the Senate as the
successor of Mr. Crittenden. Mr. Breckinridge at that time was
forty years of age, attractive in personal appearance, graceful,
and cordial in manner, by inheritance and by cultivation a gentleman.
He came from a section where family rank gave power and influence.
He united in his person the best blood of the South and the North,
--preserving and combining the most winning traits of each. His
lineage in Kentucky naturally brought to him the sympathy and
support of the State. He was born to success and authority among
his people. Originally he had anti-slavery convictions, as had
all the members of his eminent family. So strongly was this tendency
developed in his mind that, when he came to the bar, he removed to
the Territory of Iowa, intending to identify himself with the growth
of the free North-West. Circumstances overcame the determination,
and carried him back to Kentucky, where he was welcomed at the
hearth-stones and in the hearts of her people.
MR. CLAY AND MR. BRECKINRIDGE.
At twenty-five years of age Mr. Breckinridge was appointed major
in one of the Kentucky regiments, which served in the Mexican war.
After his return he entered upon the practice of his profession in
Lexington, and against all the traditions of his family identified
himself with the Democratic party. An apparently slight incident
had an important bearing upon his earlier political career. He
was selected to deliver the address of welcome to Mr. Clay on his
return to Kentucky in the autumn of 1850, from the field of his
senatorial triumph in securing the adoption of the celebrated
compromise of that year. Mr. Breckinridge's speech was graceful
and effective. He eulogized Mr. Clay's work with discrimination,
and paid the highest tribute to the illustrious statesman. Mr.
Clay was visibly touched by the whole scene. His old opponents
were present by the thousand to do him honor. The enmities and
antagonisms of earlier years were buried. He had none but friends
and supporters in Kentucky. He responded with earnestness, and
even with emotion: "My welcome," he said, "has been made all the
more grateful from being pronounced by my eloquent young friend,
the son of an eloquent father, the grandson of a still more eloquent
grandfather, both of whom were in days long gone my cherished
companions, my earnest supporters." Mr. Clay's words were so warm,
his manner was so cordial, that it seemed as if he intended to
confer upon Breckinridge the leadership in Kentucky, which, after
a half century's domination, he was about to surrender. Undoubtedly
the events of that day aided Breckinridge the next year in carrying
the Ashland District for Congress, and drew to him thereafter the
support of many influential Whigs. He entered Congress when the
slavery discussion was absorbing public attention, and by the
irresistible drift of events he was carried into an association
with extreme Southern men. It was by their friendly influence that
he was promoted to the Vice-Presidency as soon as he became eligible
under the Constitution. During the four stormy years of Buchanan's
administration, when the sectional contest approached its crisis,
Mr. Breckinridge became more and more the representative of Southern
opinion, and, though unequal to Douglas in the arena of debate, he
became the leader of those who opposed the "popular sovereignty"
dogma of the Illinois senator. He was thence drawn by influences
which he could not have controlled if he had desired, into the
prolonged and exciting controversy which disrupted the Democratic
party. Intellectually Mr. Breckinridge was not the equal of many
Southern men who deferred to him as a leader. His precedence was
due to his personal character, to his strong connections, to his
well-tempered judgment, and especially to a certain attractiveness
of manner which was felt by all who came in contact with him.
The prominence of New England in the Senate was exceptional. So
many positions of influence were assigned to her that it created
no small degree of jealously and ill-feeling in other sections.
The places were allotted according to the somewhat rigid rules of
precedence which obtain in that body, but this fact did not induce
senators from the Middle and Western States to acquiesce with grace.
The chairmanship of the Committee on Foreign Relations was given
to Mr. Sumner; Mr. Fessenden was placed at the head of the Finance
Committee, which then included Appropriations; Mr. Wilson was made
chairman of Military Affairs; Mr. John P. Hale, chairman of Naval
Affairs; Mr. Collamer, chairman of Post-office and Post-roads; Mr.
Foster of Connecticut, chairman of Pensions; Mr. Clark of New
Hampshire, chairman of Claims; Mr. Simmons of Rhode Island, chairman
of Patents; Mr. Foot of Vermont, chairman of Public Buildings and
Grounds; Mr. Anthony, chairman of Printing; Mr. Dixon of Connecticut,
chairman of Contingent Expenses. Mr. Lot M. Morrill, who had just
entered the public service from Maine, was the only New-England
senator left without a chairmanship. There were in all twenty-two
committees in the Senate. Eleven were given to New England. But
even this ratio does not exhibit the case in its full strength.
The Committees on Foreign Relations, Finance, Military Affairs,
and Naval Affairs shaped almost the entire legislation in time of
war, and thus New England occupied a most commanding position.
The retirement of Mr. Seward, Mr. Chase, and Mr. Cameron from the
Senate to enter the Cabinet undoubtedly increased the number of
important positions assigned to New England. Twenty-two States
were represented in the Senate, and it was impossible to make
sixteen of them, including the four leading States of the Union,
recognize the justice of placing the control of National legislation
in the hands of six States in the far North-East. It was not a
fortunate arrangement for New England, since it provoked prejudices
which proved injurious in many ways, and lasted for many years.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
The House of Representatives was promptly organized by the election
of Galusha A. Grow of Pennsylvania as Speaker. Mr. Grow came from
the Wilmot district, on the northern border of the State, where
the anti-slavery sentiment had taken earliest and deepest root.
As Connecticut had in the Colonial period claimed a large part of
the area of North Pennsylvania, her emigration tended in that
direction, and this fact had given a distinct and more radical type
to the population. Mr. Grow was himself a native of Connecticut.
He was chosen Speaker because of his activity in the anti-slavery
struggles of the House, and because of his aptitude for the duties
of the chair. Francis P. Blair, Jr., of Missouri was a rival
candidate, and was supported by strong influences. It was not
considered expedient to hold a party caucus, and the Democratic
minority declined to present a candidate. On the roll call, Mr.
Grow received 71 votes, Mr. Blair 40, while 48 votes, principally
of Democratic representatives, were cast for different gentlemen
who were in no sense candidates. Accepting Mr. Grow's plurality
as the best form of nomination to the office, a large number of
the friends of Mr. Blair changed their votes before the result was
authoritatively declared, and Mr. Grow was announced as receiving
90 votes,--a majority of all the members. Two members appeared
from Virginia. The other Confederate States were without
representation. Emerson Etheridge of Tennessee was chosen Clerk,
in compliment to his fidelity and courage as a Union man.
The House was filled with able men, many of whom had parliamentary
experience. The natural leader, who assumed his place by common
consent, was Thaddeus Stevens, a man of strong peculiarities of
character, able, trained, and fearless. Born in Vermont and educated
at Dartmouth, he had passed all his adult years in Pennsylvania,
and was thoroughly identified with the State which he had served
with distinction both in her own Legislature and in Congress. He
had the reputation of being somewhat unscrupulous as to political
methods, somewhat careless in personal conduct, somewhat lax in
personal morals; but to the one great object of his life, the
destruction of slavery and the elevation of the slave, he was
supremely devoted. From the pursuit of that object nothing could
deflect him. Upon no phase of it would he listen to compromise.
Any man who was truly anti-slavery was his friend. Whoever espoused
the cause and proved faithless in never so small a degree, became
his enemy, inevitably and irreconcilably. Towards his own race he
seemed often to be misanthropic. He was learned in the law, and
for a third of a century had held high rank at the bar of a State
distinguished for great lawyers. He was disposed to be taciturn.
A brilliant talker, he did not relish idle and aimless conversation.
He was much given to reading, study, and reflection, and to the
retirement which enabled him to gratify his tastes. As was said
of Mr. Emerson, Mr. Stevens loved solitude and understood its use.
Upon all political questions Mr. Stevens was an authority. He
spoke with ease and readiness, using a style somewhat resembling
the crisp, clear sententiousness of Dean Swift. Seldom, even in
the most careless moment, did a sentence escape his lips, that
would not bear the test of grammatical and rhetorical criticism.
He possessed the keenest wit, and was unmerciful in its use toward
those whom he did not like. He illustrated in concrete form the
difference between wit and humor. He did not indulge in the latter.
He did not enjoy a laugh. When his sharp sallies would set the
entire House in an uproar, he was as impassive, his visage as
solemn, as if he were pronouncing a funeral oration. His memory
of facts, dates, and figures was exact, and in argument he knew
the book and chapter and page for reference. He was fond of young
men, invited their society, encouraged and generously aided them.
He was easily moved by the distress of others. He was kind,
charitable, lavish of his money in the relief of poverty. He had
characteristics which seemed contradictory, but which combined to
make one of the memorable figures in the Parliamentary history of
the United States,--a man who had the courage to meet any opponent,
and who was never overmatched in intellectual conflict.
Mr. Stevens had efficient colleagues from Pennsylvania. The most
distinguished was John Hickman, who had been a Democrat until 1860,
and who in debate was skillful and acute. William D. Kelley entered
the House at this session for the first time, and was destined to
serve his State for a long series of years, with ability, fidelity,
and usefulness. James K. Moorhead, John Covode, Edward McPherson,
and John W. Killinger were active and influential members.***
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
New York sent Reuben E. Fenton, already prominent, popular, and
strong in the public service; Elbridge G. Spaulding, who became
useful and even eminent as an adviser in financial legislation;
William A. Wheeler, afterwards Vice-President of the United States;
Theodore Pomeroy, the neighbor and confidential friend of Mr.
Seward; Charles B. Sedgwick, of pronounced ability in the law;
Charles H. Van Wyck, who afterwards sought distinction in the West;
and Abraham Olin, subsequently well known in judicial life. The
ablest and most brilliant man of the delegation was Roscoe Conkling.
He had been elected to the preceding Congress when but twenty-nine
years of age, and had exhibited a readiness and eloquence in debate
that placed him at once in the first rank. His command of language
was remarkable. In affluent and exuberant diction Mr. Conkling
was never surpassed in either branch of Congress, unless, perhaps,
by Rufus Choate.
The Ohio delegation was especially strong. John A. Bingham, the
oldest in service on the Republican side, was an effective debater,
well informed, ready, and versatile. A man of high principle, of
strong faith, of zeal, enthusiasm, and eloquence, he could always
command the attention of the House. His colleague, Samuel
Shellabarger, was distinguished for the logical and analytical
character of his mind. Without the gift of oratory, paying little
heed to the graces of speech, Mr. Shellabarger conquered by the
intrinsic strength of his argument, which generally amounted to
demonstration. His mind possessed many of the qualities which
distinguished Mr. Lincoln. In fairness, lucidness, fullness of
statement, the two had a striking resemblance. Valentine B. Horton
was a valuable member on all questions of finance and business;
and on the issues touching slavery James M. Ashley followed the
radical example of Mr. Giddings. Among the Democrats, George H.
Pendleton, Clement L. Vallandigham, and Samuel S. Cox were especially
conspicuous. Mr. Pendleton was regarded as the leader of the
Democratic side of the House by a large section of his party, and
his assignment to the Committee of Ways and Means by the Speaker
was intended as a recognition of that fact. Mr. Cox gave much
attention to foreign affairs, to which his mind had been drawn by
a brief but fruitful participation in the diplomatic service of
the country. Mr. Vallandigham possessed ability, and a certain
form of dogged courage, combined with a love of notoriety, which
allured him to the assumption of extreme positions and the advocacy
of unpopular measures. No other State was in the aggregate so ably
represented as Ohio.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Indiana was influential in the House. Schuyler Colfax was at the
height of his successful career on the floor and destined to eminent
promotion in the public service. Among his Republican colleagues
were George W. Julian, long and creditably identified with the anti-
slavery cause, and especially esteemed for the conscientious
attention he had given to all questions relating to the public
lands; Albert G. Porter, in his second Congress, well trained for
debate, with ability and high character, rapidly winning public
favor, but cut off from his legislative career by a Democratic
majority in his district, although his strength with the people
has since been strikingly attested; William McKee Dunn, a man of
sound judgment, to be known and appreciated afterwards in other
fields of honorable duty. On the Democratic side, William S. Holman
already ranked as an old member. His efforts were steadily and
persistently directed to the enforcement of public economy; and
though he may have sometimes been unreasonable, and though he was
often accused of acting the part of a demagogue, the country owes
him a debt of gratitude for the integrity, intelligence, and
simplicity with which he has illustrated a most honorable career
as representative of the people. Daniel W. Voorhees, by nature a
fierce partisan, yet always filled with generous impulses, was in
his second Congress. His character was significantly illustrated
by his willingness to lend his attractive eloquence in the Virginia
courts in defense of one of John Brown's associates in the Harper's
Ferry tragedy,--a magnanimous act in view of the risk to his position
among the pro-slavery Democracy, with whom he was strongly identified
in party organization.
Illinois sent Elihu B. Washburne, already eight years a representative
in Congress, a man of courage, energy, and principle, devoted to
the Republican party, constant in attendance upon the sessions of
the House, expert in its rules, its most watchful and most careful
member, an economist by nature, a foe to every form of corruption.
Owen Lovejoy, though a native of Maine, springing from Puritan
ancestry, and educated to the Christian ministry in the faith taught
by Calvin, had the fiery eloquence of a French Revolutionist. Not
even the exasperating wit of Thaddeus Stevens, or the studied taunts
of John Quincy Adams, ever threw the Southern men into such rage
as the speeches of Lovejoy. He was recklessly bold. His brother
had been killed by a mob for preaching the doctrine of the
Abolitionists, and he seemed almost to court the same fate. He
was daring enough to say to the Southern Democrats, at a time of
great excitement in the House, in a speech delivered long before
the war, that the negroes were destined to walk to emancipation,
as the children of Israel had journeyed to the promised land,
"through the _Red_ Sea." Among the Democrats the most conspicuous
was William A. Richardson, who had been a devoted adherent of
Douglas, and had co-operated with in the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise. A younger adherent of Douglas was John A. Logan,
serving in his second term. He remained however but a short time
in the Thirty-seventh Congress. His ardent patriotism and ambitious
temperament carried him into the war, where his brilliant career
is known and read of all men.
The most distinguished accession to the House was John J. Crittenden
of Kentucky. He had never before served in that branch, but he
had been chosen to the Senate six times by the Legislature of his
State,--for five full terms and for the remainder of Mr. Clay's
term when he retired in 1842. Only one other man, William E. King
of Alabama, has ever been so many times elected to the Senate.
Mr. Crittenden, like Mr. Clay, entered the Senate at thirty years
of age. His service began the day that Madison left the Presidency,
and ended the day of Lincoln's inauguration. But in this long
period he had served only two full terms, and his total service in
the Senate was little more than twenty years. He resigned in 1819
"to get bread for his family," as he expressed it; the compensation
of a senator for the session of Congress not averaging at that time
more than nine hundred dollars per annum. He resigned in 1841 to
become Attorney-General in the Cabinet of Harrison. He resigned
in 1848 to run for Governor of Kentucky in aid of General Taylor's
candidacy, and he left the governorship in 1850, after the death
of Taylor, to accept his old position in the Cabinet. He was
appointed to the Supreme Bench by John Quincy Adams in the last
year of his administration; but the Senate, already under the
influence of the Jackson men, refused to confirm him. Mr. Clay
wrote to Mr. Crittenden in anticipation of his failure, bidding
him "cultivate calmness of mind and prepare for the worst event."
Mr. Crittenden's ability was of a high order. He stood at the head
of that class of statesmen who were next to the highest grade.
Like so many other eminent Whigs, he was excluded from the full
recognition of his power by the overshadowing prestige of Mr. Clay
and Mr. Webster. The appearance of Mr. Crittenden in the House in
his seventy-fourth year was his patriotic response to the roll-call
of duty. He loved his country and his whole country, and every
effort of his waning strength was put forth in behalf of the Union.
It was his influence, more than that of any other man, which saved
his State from the vortex of Rebellion. But for his strong hold
upon the sympathy and pride of Kentucky, the malign influence of
Breckinridge might have forced the State into the Confederacy.
Mr. Lincoln considered Mr. Crittenden's course entitled to the
admiration and gratitude of every man who was loyal to the Union.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Another Kentuckian gave noble aid to the National cause. Charles
A. Wickliffe was a contemporary of Mr. Crittenden, and had for many
years belonged to the same party. In the Whig dissensions which
followed the accession of Mr. Tyler to the Presidency, Mr. Wickliffe
supported the Administration. As an effective blow to Mr. Clay,
the President called Mr. Wickliffe to his Cabinet. He served as
Postmaster-General through Mr. Tyler's term, and with his chief
went over to the Democratic party, supporting Mr. Polk in 1844.
There was much anger over his course, on the part of the Kentucky
Whigs, resulting in personal estrangements. He was a man of ability,
of commanding appearance, of high character. His return to Congress,
where he had originally entered nearly forty years before, brought
a valuable support to the cause of the Union.
Associated with Crittenden and Wickliffe were three men of mark.
Robert Mallory, William H. Wadsworth, and James S. Jackson were
younger but not less devoted friends of the Union. Their example
was especially valuable in holding thousands of young Kentuckians
from following Breckinridge into the Confederate army. Jackson
gave his life to his country on one of the battle-fields of the war.
--Missouri sent Francis P. Blair, Jr., and James S. Rollins, who
had already been in the smoke and fire of civil conflict, and whose
loyalty to the Union, under every form of peril, entitled them to
the respect and confidence of patriotic men.
--Massachusetts sent Benjamin F. Thomas of rare eloquence; Alexander
H. Rice, afterwards the governor of his State; Thomas D. Elliott,
John B. Alley, the venerable William Appleton; and Henry L. Dawes,
whose long service attests his character, his ability, and the
confidence of his constituents.
--From New Hampshire came Gilman Marston, who soon after gained
credit in the field; from Vermont, Justin S. Morrill, one of the
most useful, industrious, and honorable members of the House; from
Maine, its distinguished ex-governor, Anson P. Morrill; and Frederick
A. Pike, of strong mind, keen and incisive in debate, but lacking
the ambition necessary to give him his proper rank in the House.
Samuel C. Fessenden and Thomas A. D. Fessenden, brothers of the
distinguished senator, were members of this House,--the only instance
in which three brothers were ever in Congress at the same time from
the same State. Three Washburns had served in the preceding
Congress, but they represented three States.
--The far North-West was well represented by young men. William
Windom came from Minnesota, and from Iowa James F. Wilson, a man
of positive strength, destined to take very prominent part in
legislative proceedings. Fernando C. Beaman came from Michigan,
and John F. Potter and A. Scott Sloan from Wisconsin. Martin F.
Conway came from the youngest State of the Union, fresh from the
contests which had made Kansas almost a field of war.
The organization of the House was so promptly effected that the
President's message was received on the same day. Throughout the
country there was an eagerness to hear Mr. Lincoln's views on the
painful situation. The people had read with deep sympathy the
tender plea to the South contained in his Inaugural address. The
next occasion on which they had heard from him officially was his
proclamation for troops after the fall of Sumter. Public opinion
in the North would undoubtedly be much influenced by what the
President should now say. Mr. Lincoln was keenly alive to the
importance of his message, and he weighed every word he wrote. He
maintained, as he always did, calmness of tone, moderation in
expression. He appealed to reason, not to prejudice. He spoke as
one who knew that he would be judged by the public opinion of the
world. It was his fortune to put his name to many state papers of
extraordinary weight, but never to one of graver import than his
first message to Congress.
PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S FIRST MESSAGE.
The President informed Congress that he would not call their
attention "to any ordinary subject of legislation." In fact there
were but two things for Congress to do in the national exigency--
provide for the enlistment of an army, and for the raising of money
necessary to the conduct of a great war. The President vividly
narrated the progressive steps in the South which had brought about
the existing status of affairs. He depicted in strong colors the
condition in which he found the government when he assumed office;
how "the forts, arsenals, dock-yards, and custom-houses" of the
National Government had been seized; how "the accumulations of
national revenue" had been appropriated; how "a disproportionate
share of Federal muskets and rifles" had found their way into the
Southern States, and had been seized to be used against the
government; how the navy had been "scattered in distant seas,
leaving but a small part of it within immediate reach of the
government;" how seven States had seceded from the Union, and formed
"a separate government, which is already invoking recognition, aid,
and intervention from foreign powers." With this critical situation
he was compelled to deal at once, and the policy which he had chosen
when he entered upon his office looked to the exhaustion of all
peaceful measures before a resort to stronger ones.
In pursuing the policy of peace, the President had "sought only to
hold the public places and property not already wrested from the
government, and to collect the revenue--relying for the rest on
time, discussion, and the ballot-box." He had even gone so far as
"to promise a continuance of the mails at government expense to
the very people who were resisting the government;" and he had
given "repeated pledges" that every thing should be "forborne
without which it was believed possible to keep the government on
foot;" that there should be no "disturbances to any of the people,
or to any of their rights." He had gone in the direction of
conciliation as far as it was possible to go, without consenting
to a disruption of the government.
The President gave in detail the events which led to the assault
on Sumter. He declared that the reduction of the fort "was in no
sense a matter of self-defense on the part of the assailants."
They well knew "that the garrison in the fort could by no possibility
commit an aggression upon them;" they were expressly notified that
"the giving of bread to the few brave and hungry men of the garrison
was all which would be attempted, unless themselves, by resisting
so much, should provoke more." They knew that the National Government
desired to keep the garrison in the fort, "not to assail them, but
merely to maintain visible possession, and thus to preserve the
Union from actual and immediate dissolution." The Confederate
Government had "assailed and reduced the fort for precisely the
reverse object--to drive out the visible authority of the Federal
Union, and thus force it to immediate dissolution."
"In this act," said Mr. Lincoln, "discarding all else, they have
forced upon the country the distinct issue--immediate dissolution
or blood; and this issue embraces more than the fate of these United
States. It presents to the whole family of man the question,
whether a Constitutional Republic, a government of the people by
the same people, can or cannot maintain its territorial integrity
against its own domestic foes." The President presented this point
with elaboration. The question really involved, was "whether
discontented individuals, too few in number to control the
administration according to the organic law, can always, upon the
pretenses made in this case, or any other pretenses, or arbitrarily
without pretenses, break up the government, and thus practically
put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask,
_Is there in all Republics this inherent and fatal weakness?_ Must
a government of necessity be too strong for the liberties of its
own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?"
The President was severe upon Virginia and Virginians. He had made
earnest effort to save the State from joining the Rebellion. He
had held conferences with her leading men, and had gone so far on
the 13th of April as to address a communication, for public use in
Virginia, to the State convention then in session at Richmond, in
answer to a resolution of the convention asking him to define the
policy he intended to pursue in regard to the Confederate States.
In this he re-asserted the position assumed in his Inaugural, and
added that "if, as now appears to be true, an unprovoked assault
has been made on Fort Sumter, I shall hold myself at liberty to
repossess it if I can, and the like places which had been seized
before the government was devolved upon me. I shall, to the best
of my ability, repel force by force." This letter was used to
inflame public sentiment in Virginia, and to hurl the State into
Secession through the agency of a Convention elected to maintain
the Union. Mr. Lincoln afterwards believed that the letter had
been obtained from him under disingenuous pretenses and for the
express purpose of using it, as it was used, against the Union and
in favor of the Confederacy.
PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S FIRST MESSAGE.
The President's resentment towards those who had thus, as he thought,
broken faith with him is visible in his message. Referring to the
Virginia convention, he observed that, "the people had chosen a
large majority of professed Union men" as delegates. "After the
fall of Sumter, many members of that majority went over to the
original Disunion minority, and with them adopted an ordinance
withdrawing the State from the Union." In his own peculiar style,
Mr. Lincoln made the stinging comment, "Whether this change was
wrought by their great approval of the assault upon Sumter, or by
their great resentment at the government's resistance to that
assault, is not definitely known." Though the Virginia convention
had submitted the ordinance of Secession to a vote of the people,
to be taken on a day nearly a month in the future, the President
informed Congress that "they immediately commenced acting as if
the State was already out of the Union." They seized the arsenal
at Harper's Ferry, and the navy-yard at Norfolk, and "received,
perhaps invited, large bodies of troops from the so-called seceding
States." They "sent members to their Congress at Montgomery, and
finally permitted the insurrectionary government to be transferred
to their Capitol at Richmond." Mr. Lincoln concluded with an
ominous sentence which might well have inspired Virginians with a
sense of impending peril; "The people of Virginia have thus allowed
his giant insurrection to make its nest within her borders, and
this government has no choice left but to deal with it where it
finds it." In that moment of passion these words, with all their
terrible significance, were heard by Southern men only to be jeered
at.
When the President came to specific recommendations he was brief
and pointed. He asked that Congress would place "at the control
of the government at least four hundred thousand men, and four
hundred millions of money." He said this number was about one-
tenth of those of proper age within the regions where all were
apparently willing to engage, and the sum was "less than a twenty-
third part of the money value owned by men who seem ready to devote
the whole." He argued that "a debt of six hundred millions of
dollars is now a less sum per head than the debt of the Revolution
when we came out of that struggle, and the money value in the
country bears even a greater proportion to what it was then than
does the population." "Surely," he added, "each man has as strong
a motive now to _preserve_ our liberties as each had then to
_establish_ them."
After arguing at length as to the utter fallacy of the right of
Secession, and showing how the public "mind of the South had been
drugged and insidiously debauched with the doctrine for thirty
years," the President closed his message "with the deepest regret
that he found the duty of employing the war power of the government
forced upon him;" but he "must perform his duty, or surrender the
existence of the government." Compromise had been urged upon the
President from every quarter. He answered all such requests frankly:
"No compromise by public servants could in this case be a cure;
not that compromises are not often proper, but that no popular
government can long survive a marked precedent that those who carry
an election can only save the government from immediate destruction
by giving up the main point upon which the people gave the election.
The people themselves, and not their servants, can safely reverse
their own deliberate decision."
Mr. Lincoln thus saw his duty clearly and met it boldly. In his
own person was centred, as he profoundly realized, the fate of
Republican government. He had been elected President of the United
States in strict accordance with all the requirements of the
Constitution. He had been chosen without bribe, without violence,
without undue pressure, by a majority of the electoral votes. If
there had been outrage upon the freedom of the ballot it was not
among his supporters; if there had been a terror of public opinion,
overawing the right of private judgment, it was not in the States
which had voted for him, but in those Southern communities where,
by threats of violence, the opportunity to cast a ballot was denied
to electors favorable to his cause. If he should now yield, he
evil results would be immeasurable and irremediable. "As a private
citizen," he said, "the Executive could not have consented that
Republican institutions shall perish; much less could he in betrayal
of so vast and so sacred a trust as these free people have confided
to him." He avowed that, in full view of his great responsibility,
he had so far done what he had deemed his duty. His words were
almost to foreshadow the great tragedy of after years when declaring
that _he felt he had no moral right to shirk, or even to count the
chances of his own life in what might follow_. In conclusion he
said to Congress, "having thus chosen our own course without guile,
and with pure purpose, let us renew our trust in God, and go forward
without fear, and with manly hearts."
The effect of this message upon the public opinion of the North
was very great. If there had been hesitation by any party or any
class upon the subsidence of the first glow of patriotism which
had animated the country after the assault on Sumter, Mr. Lincoln's
words arrested it, and restored enthusiasm and ardor to all hearts.
Indeed, men of thought and discretion everywhere saw that the course
of the President was fixed, and even if they differed from his
conclusions, they were persuaded that safety could be secured only
by following his counsels, and upholding his measures. Mr. Lincoln
had been throughout his life much given to reading, to argument,
to induction, to speculation, to reflection. He was now before
the world as a man of whom decision and action were required, with
the lives and fortunes of unborn millions depending upon his wisdom,
with the fate of Republican liberty and Constitutional government
at stake upon his success. The history of the world shows no
example of a man upon whom extraordinary public duties and perilous
responsibilities were so suddenly thrust. No antecedent training
had apparently fitted him for his work; no experience in affairs
had given assurance that he could master a situation which demanded
an unprecedented expenditure of treasure, which involved the control
of armies larger than the fabled host of Xerxes, which developed
questions of state-craft more delicate and more difficult than
those which had baffled the best minds in Europe.
Under the inspiration of the message, and in strict accordance with
its recommendations, Congress proceeded to its work. No legislation
was attempted, none was even seriously suggested, except measures
relating to the war. In no other session of Congress was so much
accomplished in so brief a time. Convening on the fourth day of
July, both Houses adjourned finally on the 6th of August. There
were in all but twenty-nine working-days, and every moment was
faithfully and energetically employed. Seventy-six public Acts
were passed. With the exception of four inconsiderable bills, the
entire number related to the war,--to the various modes of
strengthening the military and naval forces of the Union, to the
wisest methods of securing money for the public service, to the
effectual building up of the National credit. Many of these bills
were long and complex. The military establishment was re-organized,
the navy enlarged, the tariff revised, direct taxes were levied,
and loan-bills perfected. Two hundred and seven millions of dollars
were appropriated for the army, and fifty-six millions for the
navy. Some details of these measures are elsewhere presented under
appropriate heads. They are referred to here only to illustrate
the patriotic spirit which pervaded Congress, and the magnitude of
the work accomplished under the pressure of necessity.
DEFEAT OF THE UNION ARMY AT BULL RUN.
Seventeen days after the extra session began, and fifteen days
before it closed, the country was startled and profoundly moved by
a decisive defeat of the Union army at Bull Run in Virginia. The
National troops were commanded by General Irvin McDowell, and the
Confederates by General Beauregard. The battle is remarkable for
the large number of division and brigade commanders who afterwards
became widely known. Serving under General McDowell were General
William T. Sherman, General Hunter, General Burnside, General Miles,
General Heintzelman, General Fitz-John Porter, and General Howard.
Serving under General Beauregard were Stonewall Jackson, General
Longstreet, General Ewell, General J. E. B. Stuart. General Joseph
E. Johnston re-enforced Beauregard with another army during the
fight, and became the ranking-officer on the field. The defeat of
the Union army was complete; it was a _rout_, and on the retreat
became a panic. When the troops reached the protection of the
fortifications around Washington, a thorough demoralization pervaded
their ranks. The holiday illusion had been rudely dispelled, and
the young men who had enlisted for a summer excursion, suddenly
found that they were engaged in a bloody war in which comrades and
friends had been slain by their side, and in which they saw nothing
before them but privation, peril, loss of health, and possibly loss
of life. The North had been taught a lesson. The doubting were
at last convinced that the Confederates were equipped for a desperate
fight, and intended to make it. If the Union were to be saved, it
must be saved by the united loyalty and the unflinching resolution
of the people.
The special and immediate danger was an outbreak in the Border
slave States. Their people were seriously divided; but the Union
men, aided by the entire moral influence and in no small degree by
the military force of the Nation, had thus far triumphed. The
repulse of the National arms, with the consequent loss of prestige,
necessarily emboldened the enemies of the Union, who, by playing
upon the prejudices and fears of the slave-holders, might succeed
in seducing them from their allegiance. To prevent the success of
such appeal Mr. Crittenden, whose wise counsels were devoted with
sleepless patriotism to the preservation of loyalty in the Border
States, offered in the House a resolution defining the objects of
the National struggle. The resolution set forth that "the deplorable
civil war has been forced upon the country by the Disunionists of
the Southern States now in arms against the Constitutional Government;"
that "in this National emergency, Congress, banishing all feelings
of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the
whole country;" that "the war is not waged in any spirit of
oppression, or for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, or the
overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions
of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the
Constitution, and to preserve the Union with all the dignity,
equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired;" and that,
"as soon as these objects are accomplished, the war ought to cease."
The resolution was adopted by the House without debate, and with
only two negative votes.
THE CRITTENDEN RESOLUTION.
The same resolution was offered in the Senate by Andrew Johnson of
Tennessee two days after its adoption in the House. It led to a
somewhat acrimonious debate. Mr. Polk of Missouri desired an
amendment declaring that the war had been "forced upon the country
by the Disunionists of the Southern and Northern States." He was
asked by Mr. Collamer of Vermont, whether he had ever "heard of
any Northern Disunionists being in revolt against the government."
He replied by asserting his belief that there were Disunionists
North as well as South. He had "read Fourth of July speeches, in
which the country was congratulated that there was now to be a
dissolution of the Union." The amendment was rejected, receiving
only four votes.
--Mr. Collamer spoke ably for the resolution. He was not however
afraid of the word "subjugation." Its literal, classical meaning
was, to pass under the yoke, but in the popular acceptation it
meant that "all the people of the United States should submit to
the Constitution and laws."
--Mr. Harris of New York expressed his approval of the resolution
"precisely as it was offered. Every expression in it was apt and
appropriate." If slavery should be abolished as a result of the
war, he would not "shed a tear over that result; but yet it is not
the purpose of the government in prosecuting the war to overthrow
slavery."
--Mr. Fessenden of Maine agreed with Mr. Collamer as to the word
"subjugation." It expressed the idea clearly, and he was "satisfied
with it. The talk about subjugation is mere clap-trap."
--Mr. Doolittle of Wisconsin said the use of the word "subjugation"
in the resolution did not imply that it was not "the purpose of
the Government to compel the Disunionists to submit to the Constitution
and the laws."
--Mr. Willey of Virginia said that there was a great sensitiveness
in his section; that there was a fear among many that the object
of the war was subjugation; that "its design was to reduce the Old
Dominion to a province, and to make the people (in the language of
the senator from Vermont) pass under the yoke."
--Mr. Hale of New Hampshire favored the resolution. He said the
most radical abolitionists had "always disclaimed the idea or the
power of interfering with slavery in the States."
--Mr. Clark, the colleague of Mr. Hale, would support the resolution,
and would oppose any amendment offered to it, not because he liked
its phraseology, but because "it was drawn by the senator from
Tennessee, and suited him and the region from which he came."
--Mr. Breckinridge of Kentucky could not vote for the resolution,
because he did not "agree with the statement of facts contained in
it." He would not go into the antecedents of the unhappy difficulties.
He did not consider that "the rupture in the harbor of Charleston,
the firing on the _Star of the West_, and the collision at Fort
Sumter, justified those proceedings on the part of the President
which have made one blaze of war from the Atlantic to the western
borders of the Republic." He did not believe that "the President
had a right to take that step which produced the war, and to call
(under Presidential authority alone) the largest army into the
field ever assembled on the American continent, and the largest
fleet ever collected in American harbors." He believed that "the
responsibility for the war is to be charged, first, to the majority
in the two Houses last winter in rejecting amendments to the
Constitution; and, secondly, to the President, for calling out an
armed force."
--Mr. Sherman of Ohio replied with great spirit to Mr. Breckinridge.
He said Ohio and Kentucky stood side by side, and had always been
friends; but if the senator who had just spoken, spoke the voice
of his State, then he feared that Kentucky and Ohio would soon be
enemies. He felt confident however that "the views expressed do
not represent the sentiments of Kentucky's patriotic citizens."
On the contrary, no person with the authority of President Lincoln
"ever forbore so patiently." The people of the loyal States had
"forborne with the Disunionists of the Southern States too much
and too long." There was not a line, not a syllable, not a promise,
in the Constitution which the people of the loyal States did not
religiously obey. "The South has no right to demand any other
compromise. The Constitution was the bond of union; and it was
the South that sought to change it by amendments, or to subvert it
by force. The Disunionists of the Southern States are traitors to
their country, and must be, and will be, subdued."
--Mr. Breckinridge, replying to Mr. Sherman, believed that he truly
represented the sentiment of Kentucky, and would submit the matter
to the people of his State. "If they should decide that the
prosperity and peace of the country would be best promoted by an
unnatural and horrible fraternal war, and should throw their own
energies into the struggle," he would "acquiesce in sadness and
tears, but would no longer be the representative of Kentucky in
the American Senate." He characterized personal allusion which
had been made to himself as ungenerous and unjust, and declared
that he had "never uttered a word or cherished a thought that was
false to the Constitution and Union."
--Mr. Browning of Illinois, the successor of Stephen A. Douglas in
the Senate, closed the debate. He spoke of "the indulgence shown
to Mr. Breckinridge," and of his having used it to "assail the
President vehemently, almost vindictively, while he had not a single
word of condemnation for the atrocious conduct of the rebellious
States." Was the senator from Kentucky here to vindicate them,
and the hurl unceasing denunciations at the President, "who was
never surpassed by any ruler in patriotism, honor, integrity, and
devotion to the great cause of human rights?"
The resolution was adopted with only five dissenting votes,--
Breckinridge and Powell of Kentucky, Johnson and Polk of Missouri,
and Trumbull of Illinois. Mr. Trumbull voted in the negative,
because he did not like the form of expression.
The Crittenden Resolution, as it has always been termed, was thus
adopted respectively, not jointly, by the two Houses of Congress.
Its declarations, contained in the concluding clauses, though made
somewhat under the pressure of national adversity, were nevertheless
a fair reflection of the popular sentiment throughout the North.
The public mind had been absorbed with the one thought of restoring
the Union promptly and completely, and had not even contemplated
interference with slavery as an instrumentality to that end. Many
wise and far-seeing men were convinced from the first that the
Rebellion would result in the destruction of slavery, but for
various reasons deemed it inexpedient to make a premature declaration
of their belief. Indeed, the wisest of them saw that a premature
declaration would probably prove a hinderance and not a help to
the conclusion they most desired. In the Senate it was noted that
Mr. Sumner withheld his vote, as did Thaddeus Stevens and Owen
Lovejoy in the House. But almost the entire Republican vote,
including such men as Fessenden, Hale, Chandler, and Grimes,
sustained the resolution. It was the voice of the Republican party,
with no one openly opposing it in either branch of Congress.
ANTI-SLAVERY SENTIMENT DEVELOPED.
It was soon discovered, however, that if the National Government
did not interfere with slavery, slavery would seriously interfere
with the National Government. In other words, it was made apparent
that the slaves if undisturbed were to be a source of strength to
the Rebellion. Mr. Crittenden's resolution had hardly passed the
House when it was learned from the participants in the battle of
Bull Run that slaves by the thousand had been employed on the
Confederate side in the construction of earthworks, in driving
teams, in cooking, in the general work of the Quartermaster and
Commissary Departments, and in all forms of camp drudgery. To
permit this was simply adding four millions to the population from
which the Confederates could draw their quotas of men for military
service. It was no answer to say that they never intended to put
arms in the hands of negroes. Their use in the various forms of
work to which they were allotted, and for which they were admirably
qualified, released the same number of white men, who could at once
be mustered into the ranks. The slaves were therefore an effective
addition to the military strength of the Confederacy from the very
beginning of the war, and had seriously increased the available
force of fighting men at the first engagement between the two
armies.
As soon as this fact became well established, Congress proceeded
to enact the first law since the organization of the Federal
Government by which a slave could acquire his freedom. The "Act
to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes" was on
the calendar of the Senate when the disaster at Bull Run occurred,
and had been under consideration the day preceding the battle. As
originally framed, it only confiscated "any property used or employed
in aiding, abetting, or promoting insurrection, or resistance to
the laws." The word "property" would not include slaves, who, in
the contemplation of the Federal law, were always "persons." A
new section was now added, declaring that "whenever hereafter during
the present insurrection against the Government of the United
States, any person held to labor or service under the law of any
State shall be required or permitted by the person to whom such
labor or service is due to take up arms against the United States,
or to work in or upon any fort, dock, navy-yard, armory, intrenchment,
or in any military or naval service whatever against the Government
of the United States, the person to whom such service or labor is
due shall forfeit his claim thereto." The law further provided in
effect that "whenever any person shall seek to enforce his claim
to a slave, it shall be a sufficient answer to such claim, that
the slave had been employed in the military or naval service against
the United States contrary to the provisions of this Act."
ZEAL AND INDUSTRY OF CONGRESS.
The virtue of this law consisted mainly in the fact that it exhibited
a willingness on the part of Congress to strike very hard blows
and to trample the institution of slavery under foot whenever or
wherever it should be deemed advantageous to the cause of the Union
to do so. From that time onward the disposition to assail slavery
was rapidly developed, and the grounds on which the assurance
contained in the Crittenden Resolution was given, had so changed
in consequence of the use of slaves by the Confederate Government
that every Republican member of both Senate and House felt himself
absolved from any implied pledge therein to the slave-holders of
the Border States. Humiliating as was the Bull Run disaster to
the National arms, it carried with it many compensating considerations,
and taught many useful lessons. The nation had learned that war
must be conducted according to strict principles of military science,
and cannot be successfully carried on with banners and toasts and
stump speeches, or by the mere ardor of patriotism, or by boundless
confidence in a just cause. The Government learned that it is
lawful to strike at whatever gives strength to the enemy, and that
an insurgent against the National authority must, by the law of
common sense, be treated as beyond the protection of the National
Constitution, both as to himself and his possessions.
Though the Act thus conditionally confiscating slave property was
signed by Mr. Lincoln, it did not meet his entire approval. He
had no objection to the principle involved, but thought it ill-
timed and premature,--more likely to produce harm than good. He
believed that it would prove _brutum fulmen_ in the rebellious
States, and a source of injury to the Union cause in the Border
slave States. From the outbreak of hostilities, Mr. Lincoln regarded
the position of those States as the key to the situation, and every
thing which tended to weaken their loyalty as a blow struck directly
and with fearful power against the Union. He could not however
veto the bill, because that would be equivalent to declaring that
the Confederate army might have the full benefit of the slave
population as a military force. What he desired was that Congress
should wait on his recommendations in regard to the question of
Slavery. He felt assured that he could see the whole field more
clearly; that, above all, he knew the time and the method for that
form of intervention which would smite the States in rebellion and
not alienate the slave States which still adhered to the Union.
The rapidity with which business was dispatched at this session
gave little opportunity for any form of debate except that which
was absolutely necessary in the explanation of measures. Active
interest in the House centred around the obstructive and disloyal
course of Mr. Vallandigham of Ohio and Mr. Burnett of Kentucky.
Still greater interest attached to the course of Mr. Breckinridge
in the Senate. He had returned to Washington under a cloud of
suspicion. He was thoroughly distrusted by the Union men of
Kentucky, who had in the popular election won a noble victory over
the foes of the National Government, of whom Mr. Breckinridge had
been reckoned chief. No overt act of treason could be charged
against him, but the prevalent belief was that his sympathies were
wholly with the government at Richmond. He opposed every act
designed to strengthen the Union, and continually found fault with
the attitude and with the intentions of the National Government.
He was considered by many to be in Washington only that he might
the more efficiently aid the cause of the Confederacy. During the
consideration of "a bill to suppress insurrection and sedition,"
a debate arose between Mr. Breckinridge and Mr. Baker, the new
senator from Oregon, which fixed the attention of the country upon
the former, and subjected him to general condemnation in the Loyal
States.
BRECKINRIDGE AND BAKER DISCUSSION.
The Oregon senator, with his ardent nature, and his impulse to take
part in every conflict, had raised a regiment of volunteers
principally composed of men from the Pacific coast. It was known
as the California Regiment, and was encamped near Washington.**** On
the 1st of August, while performing the double and somewhat anomalous
duty of commanding his regiment and representing Oregon in the
Senate, Mr. Baker entered the chamber in the full uniform of a
Colonel in the United-States army. He laid his sword upon his desk
and sat for some time listening to the debate. He was evidently
impressed by the scene of which he was himself a conspicuous feature.
Breckinridge took the floor shortly after Baker appeared, and made
a speech, of which it is fair criticism to say that it reflected
in all respects the views held by the members of the Confederate
Congress then in session at Richmond. Colonel Baker evidently grew
restive under the words of Mr. Breckinridge. His face was aglow
with excitement, and he sprang to the floor when the senator from
Kentucky took his seat. His reply, abounding in denunciation and
invective, was not lacking in the more solid and convincing argument.
He rapidly reviewed the situation, depicted the character of the
Rebellion, described the position of Breckinridge, and passionately
asked, "What would have been thought, if, in another Capitol, in
a yet more martial age, a senator, with the Roman purple flowing
from his shoulders, had risen in his place, surrounded by all the
illustrations of Roman glory, and declared that advancing Hannibal
was just, and that Carthage should be dealt with on terms of peace?
What would have been thought, if, after the battle of Cannae, a
senator had denounced every levy of the Roman people, every
expenditure of its treasure, every appeal to the old recollections
and the old glories?"
Mr. Fessenden, who sat near Baker, responded in an undertone "He
would have been hurled from the Tarpeian Rock." Baker, with his
aptness and readiness, turned the interruption to still further
indictment of Breckinridge: "Are not the speeches of the senator
from Kentucky," he asked, "intended for disorganization? are they
not intended to destroy our zeal? are they not intended to animate
our enemies? Sir, are they not words of brilliant, polished
_treason_, even in the very Capitol of the Republic?"
It is impossible to realize the effect of the words so eloquently
pronounced by the Oregon senator. In the history of the Senate,
no more thrilling speech was ever delivered. The striking appearance
of the speaker in the uniform of a soldier, his superb voice, his
graceful manner, all united to give to the occasion an extraordinary
interest and attraction.
The reply of Mr. Breckinridge was tame and ineffective. He did
not repel the fierce characterizations with which Colonel Baker
had overwhelmed him. He did not stop to resent them, though he
was a man of unquestioned courage. One incident of his speech was
grotesquely amusing. He was under the impression that the suggestion
in regard to the Tarpeian Rock had been made by Mr. Sumner, and he
proceeded to denounce the senator from Massachusetts with bitter
indignation. Mr. Sumner looked surprised, but having become
accustomed to abuse from the South, said nothing. When next day
it was shown by the _Globe_ that Mr. Fessenden was the offender,
Mr. Breckinridge neither apologized to Mr. Sumner, nor attacked
the senator from Maine. The first was manifestly his duty. From
the second he excused himself for obvious reasons. After his
experience with Baker, Breckinridge evidently did not court a
conflict with Fessenden.
The course of Mr. Breckinridge was in direct hostility to the
prevailing opinion of his State. The Legislature of Kentucky passed
a resolution asking that he and his colleague, Lazarus W. Powell,
should resign their seats, and, in the event of refusal, that the
Senate would investigate their conduct, and, if it were found to
be disloyal, expel them. Mr. Breckinridge did not wait for such
an investigation. In the autumn of 1861 he joined the Rebellion,
and was welcomed by the leaders and the people of the Confederacy
with extravagant enthusiasm. His espousal of their cause was
considered by them to be as great an acquisition as if a fresh army
corps had been mustered into their service. His act called forth
the most bitter denunciation throughout the North, and among the
loyal people of Kentucky. He had not the excuse pleaded by so many
men of the South, that he must abide by the fortunes of his States,
and the worst interpretation was placed upon his presence at the
July session of Congress.
Among the earliest acts at the next session was the expulsion of
Mr. Breckinridge from the Senate. It was done in a manner which
marked the full strength of the popular disapprobation of his
course. The senators from the rebellious States had all been
expelled at the July session, but without the application of an
opprobrious epithet. There had also been a debate as to whether
expulsion of the persona, or a mere declaration that the seats were
vacant, were the proper course to be pursued by the Senate. Andrew
Johnson maintained the latter, and all the Democratic senators,
except McDougall of California, voted with him. But in the case
of Mr. Breckinridge there was not a negative vote--his own colleague
Powell remaining silent in his seat while five Democratic senators
joined in the vote for his expulsion. The resolution, draughted
by Mr. Trumbull, was made as offensive as possible, curtly declaring
that "John C. Breckinridge, the traitor, be and is hereby expelled
from the Senate."
The mutation of public opinion is striking. Mr. Breckinridge lived
to become a popular idol in Kentucky. Long before his death (which
occurred in 1875 in his fifty-fourth year) he could have had any
position in the gift of his State. If his political disabilities
could have been removed, he would undoubtedly have returned to the
Senate. His support did not come solely from those who had
sympathized with the South, but included thousands who had been
loyally devoted to the Union. He possessed a strange, fascinating
power over the people of Kentucky,--as great as that which had been
wielded by Mr. Clay, though he was far below Mr. Clay in intellectual
endowment. No man gave up more than he when he united his fortunes
with the seceding States. It was his sense of personal fidelity
to the Southern men who had been faithful to him, that blinded him
to the higher obligation of fidelity to country, and to the higher
appreciation of self-interest which is inseparably bound up with
duty. He wrecked a great career. He embittered and shortened a
life originally devoted to noble aims, and in its darkest shadows
filled with generous impulses.
The original aim of Kentucky was to preserve a position of neutrality
in the impending contest was found to be impracticable. The
Confederates were the first to violate it, by occupying that section
of the State bordering upon the Mississippi River with a considerable
force under the command of General Polk, the Episcopal Bishop of
Louisiana. This was on the 4th of September. Two days later the
Colonel of the Twenty-first Illinois Volunteers, who was in command
at Cairo, took possession of Paducah. It was the first important
step in a military career which fills the most brilliant pages in
the military annals of our country. The name of the Illinois
Colonel was Ulysses S. Grant.
EFFECT OF REBEL VICTORY AT BULL RUN.
The Confederate victory at Bull Run produced great effect throughout
the South. The fall of Sumter had been a signal encouragement to
those who had joined the revolt against the Union, but as no blood
had been spilled, and as the garrison had been starved out rather
than shelled out, there was a limit to enthusiasm over the result.
But now a pitched battle had been fought within cannon sound of
the National Capital, and the forces of the Union had been put to
flight. Jefferson Davis had come from Richmond during the battle,
and telegraphed to the Confederate Congress that the night had
"closed upon a hard-fought field," but that the enemy were routed,
and had "precipitately fled, abandoning a large amount of arms,
knapsacks, and baggage;" that "too high praise cannot be bestowed
upon the skill of the Confederate officers or the gallantry of all
their troops;" that "the Confederate force was fifteen thousand,
and the Union army was thirty-five thousand." He evidently knew
the effect which these figures would have upon the pride of the
South, and he did not at the moment stop to verify his statements.
The actual force under McDowell was much less, that under Beauregard
much greater, than Mr. Davis stated. McDowell was certainly
outnumbered after General Johnston's army arrived on the field.
If General Patterson, who was in command in the Shenandoah Valley,
had been able to engage or detain Johnston, the fate of the day
might have been different. But Johnston outgeneraled Patterson,
and achieved what military genius always does,--he had his force
in the right place at the right time.
The effect of the Rebel victory at Bull Run was at once visible in
the rigorous policy adopted by the Confederate Government. The
people of the Confederacy knew that their numbers were less than
those of the Union, but Jefferson Davis had in effect told them
that fifteen Southern men might be relied upon to put to flight
thirty-five Northern men, and on this ratio they felt equal to the
contest. The Congress at Richmond went to every extreme in their
legislation. A fortnight after the battle they passed "an Act
respecting alien enemies," "warning and requiring every male citizen
of the United States, fourteen years old and upwards, to depart
from the Confederate States within forty days from the date of the
President's Proclamation," which was issued on the 14th of August.
Those only could remain who intended to become citizens of the
Confederacy. With the obvious design of avoiding every thing which
could chill the sympathy with the Confederacy so largely prevailing
in the Border States, the Proclamation excepted from its operation
the States of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, the District
of Columbia, the Territories of New Mexico, Arizona, and the Indian
Territory. This was a manifest declaration of what they expected
to include in the Confederacy when the National Government should
finally surrender. Wherever a slave was held, the Confederate
leaders adjudged the people to be their friends and their future
allies.
CONFEDERATE CONFISCATION BILL.
This warning to alien enemies could not however be regarded as a
measure of special harshness, or one beyond the fair exercise of
the war power. But the next step was of a different nature. A
law was enacted sequestrating "the estates, property, and effects
of alien enemies." Mr. Judah P. Benjamin, who was at the time
Attorney-General of the Confederate Government, proceeded to enforce
the Act with utmost rigidity. The exception of the Border States
and Territories, already noted, was also made under this law, but
towards the citizens of States of unquestioned loyalty no mercy
was shown. A close search was instituted by Mr. Benjamin, in which
agents, former partners, attorneys, trustees, and all who might
have the slightest knowledge of a piece of property within the
limits of the Confederacy, belonging to a loyal citizen of the
United States, were compelled to give information under penalty of
a fine which might be as high as five thousand dollars, and
imprisonment which might last for six months. They were forced to
tell of any lands, chattels, rights, interests, an alien enemy
might have, and also of any debts which might be due to an alien
enemy. Mr. Benjamin's letter of instruction included among alien
enemies all "subjects of Great Britain, France, or other neutral
nations, who have a domicile or are carrying on business or traffic
within the States at war with the Confederacy." It was a scheme
of wholesale, cruel confiscation of the property of innocent persons,
and the most ingenious lawyer of the Confederacy was selected to
enforce it by inquisitorial processes which disregarded the confidence
of friendship, the ties of blood, and the loyalty of affection.
The National legislation had given no precedent or warrant for
proceedings so harsh. At the extra session there had been no
attempt at the confiscation of any property except that directly
used in aid of the insurrection. Slaves were added to his class
only after it was learned that they were thus employed by the
Confederates. Not only therefore did the Confederacy introduce
slaves as a component element of the military force, but it resorted
to confiscation of a cruel and rigorous type as one of the sources
of financial strength. If the Confederate authorities had not thus
set the example, it would have been difficult, perhaps impracticable,
to induce Congress to entertain such a line of policy. Many were
in favor of it from the first, but so many were against it that
the precedent thus established by the Confederacy was not only an
irresistible temptation but a justifying cause for lines of National
policy which were afterwards complained of as unusual and
oppressive.
[* NOTE.--The following is a complete list of the Senators who served
in the Thirty-seventh Congress. Republicans in Roman, Democrats
in Italic, American or Old-Line Whigs in small capitals.
CALIFORNIA.--_Milton S. Latham; James A. McDougall._
CONNECTICUT.--James Dixon; Lafayette S. Foster.
DELAWARE.--_James A. Bayard; Willard Saulsbury._
ILLINOIS.--_Stephen A. Douglas_, died June 3, 1861; Lyman Trumbull;
Orville H. Browning, appointed in place of Douglas; _William A.
Richardson_, elected in place of Douglas.
INDIANA.--_Jesse D. Bright_, expelled Feb. 5, 1862; Henry S. Lane;
Joseph A. Wright, appointed in place of Bright; _David Turpie_,
elected in place of Bright.
IOWA.--James W. Grimes; James Harlan.
KANSAS.--James H. Lane; Samuel C. Pomeroy.
KENTUCKY.--_Lazarus W. Powell; James C. Breckinridge_, expelled
Dec. 4, 1861; GARRETT DAVIS, elected in place of Breckinridge.
MAINE.--Lot M. Morrill; William Pitt Fessenden.
MARYLAND.--ANTHONY KENNEDY; JAMES A. PEARCE, died Dec. 30, 1862;
Thomas H. Hicks, elected in place of Pearce.
MASSACHUSETTS.--Charles Sumner; Henry Wilson.
MICHIGAN.--Zachariah Chandler; Kinsley S. Bingham, died Oct. 5,
1861; Jacob M. Howard, elected in place of Bingham.
MINNESOTA.--Morton S. Wilkinson; _Henry M. Rice_.
MISSOURI.--_Trusten Polk_, expelled Jan. 10, 1862; John B. Henderson,
appointed in place of Polk; _Waldo P. Johnson_, expelled Jan. 10,
1862; _Robert Wilson_, appointed in place of Johnson.
NEW HAMPSHIRE.--John P. Hale; Daniel Clark.
NEW JERSEY.--_John R. Thomson_, died Sept. 12, 1862; John C. Ten
Eyck; Richard S. Field, appointed in place of Thomson; _James W.
Wall_, elected in place of Thomson.
NEW YORK.--Preston King; Ira Harris.
OHIO.--Benjamin F. Wade; Salmon P. Chase, resigned March 5, 1861,
to become Secretary of Treasury; John Sherman, elected in place of
Chase.
PENNSYLVANIA.--David Wilmot, elected in place of Cameron; Edgar
Cowan; Simon Cameron, resigned March 5, 1861.
RHODE ISLAND.--James F. Simmons, resigned December, 1862; Henry B.
Anthony; Samuel G. Arnold, elected in place of Simmons.
TENNESSEE.--Andrew Johnson, resigned March 4, 1862, to be military
governor of Tennessee.
VERMONT.--Solomon Foot; Jacob Collamer.
VIRGINIA.--Waitman T. Willey; John S. Carlile.
WISCONSIN.--James R. Doolittle; Timothy O. Howe.]
[** An anachronism occurs in stating that Senator Baker of Oregon
had witnessed as a child the funeral pageant of Lord Nelson. He
was not born for five years after Lord Nelson fell. The error was
taken from a eulogy pronounced on Senator Baker after his death.
The occurrence referred to was doubtless some one of the many
military pageants in London at the close of the Napoleonic wars.]
[*** NOTE.--The following is a list of Representatives in the Thirty-
seventh Congress. Republicans are given in Roman, Democrats in
Italic, American or Old-Line Whigs in small capitals.
CALIFORNIA.--Aaron A. Sargent; Frederick F. Low; Timothy G. Phelps.
CONNECTICUT.--Dwight Loomis; _James E. English; George C. Woodruff_;
Alfred A. Burnham.
DELAWARE.--George P. Fisher.
ILLINOIS.--Eilhu B. Washburne; Isaac N. Arnold; Owen Lovejoy;
William Kellogg; _William A. Richardson_, elected Senator; _John
A. McClernand_, resigned 1861 to enter the army; _James C. Robinson;
Philip B. Fouke; John A. Logan_, resigned 1861 to enter the army;
_William J. Allen_, elected in place of Logan; _Anthony L. Knapp_,
elected in place of McClernand.
INDIANA.--_John Law; James A. Cravens; William S. Holman_; George
W. Julian; Albert G. Porter; _Daniel W. Voorhees_; Albert S. White;
Schuyler Colfax; William Mitchell; John P. C. Shanks; W. McKee Dunn.
IOWA.--Samuel R. Curtis, resigned Aug. 4, 1861, to enter the army;
William Vandever; James F. Wilson, elected in place of Curtis.
KANSAS.--Martin F. Conway.
KENTUCKY.--_Henry C. Burnett_, expelled Dec. 3, 1861; JAMES S.
JACKSON, died in 1862; HENRY GRIDER; _Aaron Harding; Charles A.
Wickliffe_; GEORGE W. DUNLAP; ROBERT MALLORY; _John W. Menzies_;
SAMUEL L. CASEY, elected in place of Burnett; WILLIAM H. WADSWORTH;
JOHN J. CRITTENDEN; GEORGE H. YEAMAN, elected in place of Jackson.
LOUISIANA.--BENJAMIN F. FLANDERS, seated in February, 1863; MICHAEL
HAHN, seated in February, 1863.
MAINE.--John N. Goodwin; Charles W. Walton, resigned May 26, 1862;
Samuel C. Fessenden; Anson P. Morrill; John H. Rice; Frederick A.
Pike; Thomas A. D. Fessenden, elected in place of Walton.
MARYLAND.--JOHN W. CRISFIELD; EDWIN H. WEBSTER; _Cornelius L. L.
Learly_; FRANCIS THOMAS; CHARLES B. CALVERT; _Henry May_.
MASSACHUSETTS.--Thomas D. Eliot; James Buffington; Benjamin F.
Thomas; Alexander H. Rice; William Appleton, resigned in 1861; John
B. Alley; Daniel W. Gooch; Charles R. Train; Goldsmith F. Bailey,
died May 8, 1862; Charles Delano; Henry L. Dawes; Samuel Hooper,
elected in place of Appleton; Amasa Walker, elected in place of
Bailey.
MICHIGAN.--Bradley F. Granger; Fernando C. Beaman; Francis W.
Kellogg; Rowland E. Trowbridge.
MINNESOTA.--Cyrus Aldrich; William Windom.
MISSOURI.--Francis P. Blair, Jr., resigned in 1862; JAMES S. ROLLINS;
_Elijah H. Norton; John W. Reid_, expelled Dec. 2, 1861; _John W.
Noell; John S. Phelps; William A. Hall; Thomas L. Price_, elected
in place of Reid.
NEW HAMPSHIRE.--Gilman Marston; Edward H. Rollins; Thomas M.
Edwards.
NEW JERSEY.--John T. Nixon; John L. N. Stratton; _William G. Steele;
George T. Cobb; Nehemiah Perry_.
NEW YORK.--E. Henry Smith; MOSES F. ODELL; _Benjamin Wood_; William
Wall; Frederick A. Conkling; _Elijah Ward; Edward Haight_; Charles
H. Van Wyck; _John B. Steele_; Stephen Baker; Abraham B. Olin;
James B. McKean; William A. Wheeler; Scorates N. Sherman; _Chauncey
Vibbard_; Richard Franchot; Roscoe Conkling; R. Holland Duell;
William E. Lansing; Ambrose W. Clark; Charles B. Sedgwick; Theodore
M. Pomeroy; John P. Chamberlain; Alexander S. Diven; Robert B. Van
Valkenburgh; Alfred Ely; Augustus Frank; Burt Van Horn; Elbridge
G. Spaulding; Reuben E. Fenton; _Erastus Corning; James E. Kerrigan_;
Isaac C. Delaplaine.
OHIO.--_George H. Pendleton_; John A. Gurley; _Clement L. Vallandigham;
William Allen_; James M. Ashley; _Chilton A. White_; Richard A.
Harrison; Samuel Shellabarger; _Warren P. Noble_; Carey A. Trimble;
Valentine B. Horton; _Samuel S. Cox_; Samuel T. Worcester; Harrison
G. Blake; William P. Cutler; _James R. Morris_; Sidney Edgerton;
Albert G. Riddle; John Hutchins; John A. Bingham; _R. H. Nugen_.
OREGON.--_George K. Shiel_.
PENNSYLVANIA.--_William E. Lehman_; John P. Verree; William D.
Kelley; William M. Davis; John Hickman; _Thomas B. Cooper_, died
April 4, 1862; _John D. Stiles_, elected in place of Cooper,
deceased; _Sydenham E. Ancona_; Thaddeus Stevens; John W. Killinger;
James H. Campbell; _Hendrick R. Wright_; Philip Johnson; Galusha
A. Grow, Speaker; James T. Hale; _Joseph Bailey_; Edward McPherson;
Samuel S. Blair; John Covode; _Jesse Lazear_; James K. Moorhead;
Robert McKnight; John W. Wallace; John Patton; Elijah Babbitt;
_Charles J. Biddle_.
RHODE ISLAND.--William P. Sheffield; George H. Browne.
TENNESSEE.--GEORGE W. BRIDGES; ANDREW J. CLEMENTS; HORACE MAYNARD.
VERMONT.--Portus Baxter; Justin S. Morrill; Ezekiel P. Walton.
VIRGINIA.--Jacob B. Blair, elected in place of Carlile; William G.
Brown, John S. Carlile, elected Senator July, 1861; Joseph E. Segar;
Charles H. Upton; Kililan V. Whaley.
WISCONSIN.--Luther Hanchett, died Nov. 24, 1862; Walter D. McIndoe,
elected in place of Hanchett; John F. Potter; A. Scott Sloan.
_Territorial Delegates_.--Colorado, Hiram P. Bennett; Dakota, John
B. S. Todd; Nebraska, Samuel G. Daily; Nevada, John Cradlebaugh;
New-Mexico, John S. Watts; Utah, John M. Bernhisel; Washington,
William H. Wallace.]
[**** It should be stated that the so-called "California" regiment
of Colonel Baker was recruited principally in Philadelphia from
the young men of that city.]