CONCLUDING NOTES.
Party changes caused by the slavery issue--Notable men in Congress
during the war--Sketches of prominent men in the Senate and House
--Scenes and incidents--Butler and Bingham--Cox and Butler--Judge
Kelley and Van Wyck--Lovejoy and Wickliffe--Washburne and Donnelly
--Oakes Ames--Abolitionism in Washington early in the war--Life at
the capital--The new dispensation and its problems.
In the early part of the period covered by the preceding chapters
our political parties were divided on mere questions of policy and
methods of administration. Trade, Currency, Internal Improvements,
and the Public Lands were the absorbing issues, while both parties
took their stand against the humanitarian movement which subsequently
put those issues completely in abeyance, and compelled the country
to face a question involving not merely the policy of governing,
but the existence of the Government itself. When the slavery
question finally forced its way into recognition it naturally
brought to the front a new class of public men, and their numbers,
as I have shown, steadily increased in each Congress from the year
1845 till the outbreak of the Rebellion in 1861. The Congress
which came into power with Mr. Lincoln did not fully represent the
anti-slavery spirit of the Northern States, but it was a decided
improvement upon its predecessors. In the Senate were such men as
Collamer, Fessenden, Doolittle, Baker, Browning, Anthony, Grimes,
Hale, Harlan, Sherman, Trumbull, Sumner, Wade, Henry Wilson,
Chandler, Lane of Indiana, Harris of New York, Andrew Johnson, B.
Gratz Brown and Howard. In the House were Conkling, Bingham,
Colfax, Dawes, Grow, Hickman, Kelley, Potter, Lovejoy, Pike of
Maine, Ashley, Rollins of Missouri, Shellabarger, Thaddeus Stevens,
Elihu B. Washburne, Isaac N. Arnold and James F. Wilson.
During the Rebellion and the years immediately following, Ferry of
Connecticut, Creswell, Edmonds, Conkling, Morgan, Morton, Yates,
Carpenter, Hamlin, Henderson, Morrill of Maine, and Schurz, were
added to the prominent men of the Senate and Boutwell, Blair, Henry
Winter Davis, Deming, Jenckes, Garfield, Schenck, Banks, Orth,
Raymond, Butler, Hoar, McCrary, to the list in the House. During
this period the Democrats had in the Senate such men as Bayard,
Garrett Davis, Hicks, Saulsbury, Buckalew, Hendricks, Bright, Reverdy
Johnson, Thurman, and F. P. Blair; and in the House, S. S. Cox,
Crittenden, Holman, Kerr, Pendleton, Richardson, Vallandigham,
Niblack, Voorhees, Brooks, Randall, and Woodward. The men who
controlled Congress during these years of trial were not the
intellectual equals of the famous leaders who figured in the great
crisis of 1850, but they were a different and generally a better
type. They were summoned to the public service to deal with
tremendous problems, and lifted up and ennobled by the great cause
they were commissioned to serve. It did more for them than it was
possible for them to do for it. It took hold on the very foundations
of the Government, and electrified all the springs of our national
life; and although great mistakes were made, and the fervor of this
period was followed by a sickening dispensation of demoralized
politics, it was a great privilege to be permitted to share in the
grand battle for the Nation's life, and the work of radical re-
adjustment which followed.
I have already referred to several of the conspicuous characters
whose names I have grouped. Such men as Collamer, Fessenden,
Browning and Trumbull, were among the famous lawyers and conservatives
on the Republican side of the Senate. They were conscientious and
unflinching partisans, but were studiously anxious to save the
Union according to the Constitution, and deprecated all extreme
and doubtful measures. Opposed to them stood Sumner, Wade, Chandler,
and their radical associates, who believed in saving the Union at
all hazards, and that not even the Constitution should be allowed
to stay the arm of the Government in blasting the power of the
Rebels. It was perhaps fortunate for the country that these
divisions existed, and held each other in check. Mr. Collamer was
the impersonation of logical force and the beau ideal of a lawyer
and judge. There was a sort of majesty in the figure and brow of
Fessenden when addressing the Senate, and his sarcasm was as keen
as it was inimitable; but his nature was kindly, and his integrity
perfect. Trumbull was a less commanding figure, but he greatly
honored his position as chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the
Senate, and his memory will be held in perpetual remembrance as
the author of the Civil Rights Bill and of the XIII Amendment to
the Constitution. Sumner, I think, was the purest man in the
Senate, if not the ablest. He was pre-eminently the hero of duty,
and the servant of what he believed to be the truth. No man could
have made a more absolute surrender of himself to his country in
the great conflict which threatened its life. His weary and jaded
look always excited my sympathy, for he seemed to be sacrificing
all the joys of life, and life itself, in his zeal for the public
service. I knew Wade more intimately than any man in the Senate,
through my association with him as a member of the same Committee
for successive years, and was always interested in his personal
traits and peculiarities. He was "a man of uncommon downrightness."
There was even a sort of fascination about his profanity. It had
in it a spontaniety and heartiness which made it almost seem the
echo of a virtue. It was unlike the profane words of Thaddeus
Stevens, which were frequently carried on the shafts of his wit
and lost in the laughter it provoked. Edmunds, now so famous as
a lawyer, and leader in the Senate, and so well known by his reputed
resemblance to St. Jerome, was simply respectable on his first
appearance; but his ability, industry, and constant devotion to
his duties soon gave him rank among the prominent men in that body.
Grimes of Iowa was one of the really strong men of this period,
while Harlan, his colleague, possessed a vigor and grasp of mind
which I think the public never fully accorded him. Lane of Indiana
was full of patriotic ardor, and like Baker of Oregon, had the rare
gift of eloquent impromptu speech. Henry Wilson earned the gratitude
of his country by his unswerving loyalty to freedom, and his great
labors and invaluable services as chairman of the Military Committee.
Howard ranked among the first lawyers and most faithful men in the
body, and no man had a clearer grasp of the issues of the war.
Henderson was a strong man, whose integrity and political independence
were afterward abundantly proved. Doolittle was a man of vigor,
and made a good record as a Republican, but he naturally belonged
to the other side of the Senate, and finally found his way to it,
through the quarrel with Johnson.
Garrett Davis was always an interesting figure. His volubility of
talk bordered on the miraculous; and whenever he began to swathe
the Senate in his interminable rhetoric it awakened the laughter
or the despair of everybody on the floor or in the galleries.
Bayard and Thurman were recognized as the strong men on their side
of the Senate in the Forty-first Congress. Buckalew was one of
the really sterling men of his party, but he was a modest man, and
only appreciated by those who knew him intimately. As a leading
Democrat, Hendricks stood well in the Senate. He was so cautious
and diplomatic in temper and so genial and conciliatory in his
manner that he glided smoothly through the rugged conflict of
opinions in which his side of the chamber was unavoidably involved.
B. Gratz Brown was known as an intense radical, but he made little
mark in this crisis. He wrote out elaborate and scholarly essays
which he read to the Senate, but they received slight attention
from members, and seemed to bear little fruit. Carpenter, Schurz
and Morton took their seats after the war, and were not long in
finding honorable recognition. Carpenter was as brilliant and
versatile in intellect as he was naturally eloquent in speech and
wayward in morals. Carl Schurz displayed ability in the famous
debate with Morton and Conkling on the sale of arms to the French,
and his political independence in 1872 gave him great prominence
as a Liberal Republican leader; but that virtue has been less
conspicuously illustrated in later years. Morton became famous
soon after he entered the Senate. The "logic of events" had
revolutionized the opinions so vigorously espoused by him only a
few months before, and his great speech on reconstruction, in which
he avowed and defended his change of base, brought him into great
prominence, and multiplied his friends in every section of the
country.
In the House, Roscoe Conkling was recognized as a man of considerable
talent and great self-esteem. I have elsewhere referred to his
passage at arms with Blaine. He never linked his name with any
important principle or policy, and was singularly wanting in the
qualities of a party leader. No one questioned his personal
integrity, but in later years he was prompt and zealous in the
defense of the worst abuses which found shelter in his party. Mr.
Sherman was shrewd, wiry and diplomatic, but gave little promise
of the career he has since achieved through ambition, industry and
favoring conditions. Shellabarger was one of the ablest men in
the House, and was so rated. He was always faithful and vigilant,
and I have before given an instance of this in his timely action
on the question of reconstruction. Mr. Blaine, during the first
years of his service, showed little activity. He spoke but seldom
and briefly, but always with vigor and effect. He steadily grew
into favor with his party in the House as a man of force, but
without seeming to strive for it. I think his abilities were never
fully appreciated till he became speaker. His personal magnetism
was as remarkable as his readiness to serve a friend was unfailing;
but, like Mr. Conkling, he never identified himself with any great
legislative measure.
Henry Winter Davis was the most formidable debater in the House.
He was full of resources, while the rapidity of his utterance and
the impetuosity of his speech bore down every thing before it.
The fire and force of his personality seemed to make him irresistible,
and can only be likened to the power displayed by Mr. Blaine in
the House, in his later and palmier years. When Gen. Garfield
entered the Thirty-eighth Congress there was a winning modesty in
his demeanor. I was interested in his first effort on the floor,
which was brief, and marked by evident diffidence. He was not
long, however, in recovering his self-possession, and soon engaged
actively in general debate. His oratory, at first, was the reverse
of winning, owing to the peculiar intonation of his voice, but
gradually improved, while his hunger for knowledge, unflagging
industry, and ambition for distinction, gradually revealed themselves
as very clearly defined traits. During the first years of his
service the singular grasp of his mind was not appreciated, but it
was easy to see that he was growing, and that a man of his political
ambition and great industry could not be satisfied with any position
of political mediocrity. His situation as a Representative of the
Nineteenth Ohio District was exceedingly favorable to his aspirations,
as it was the custom of that district to continue a man in its
service when once installed, and its overwhelming majority relieved
him of all concern about the result. He could thus give his whole
time and thought to the study of politics, and the mastery of those
historical and literary pursuits which he afterward made so available
in the finish and embellishment of his speeches.
As a parliamentary leader, Mr. Stevens, of course, was always the
central figure in the House. No possible emergency could disconcert
him. Whether the attack came from friend or foe, or in whatever
form, he was ready, on the instant, to repel it and turn the tables
completely upon his assailant. He exercised the most absolute
freedom of speech, making his thrusts with the same coolness at
"unrighteous copperheads and self-righteous Republicans." In
referring to the moderate and deprecatory views of Colfax and Olin,
in January, 1863, he said he had always been fifteen years in
advance of his party, but never so far ahead that its members did
not overtake him. His keenest thrusts were frequently made in such
a tone and manner as to disarm them of their sting, and create
universal merriment. When Whaley of West Virginia begged him,
importunately, to yield the floor a moment for a brief statement,
while Mr. Stevens was much engrossed with an important discussion,
he finally gave way, saying, "Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman
from West Virginia for a few feeble remarks." When he lost his
temper and waged war in earnest his invective was absolutely
remorseless, as in the example I have given of it in a previous
chapter.
I have before referred to the oratory of Bingham. He was a reader
of books and a master of English. He loved poetry, and was one of
the most genial and companionable of men, but he was irritable and
crispy in temper, and a formidable customer in debate. He had
several angry bouts with Butler, in one of which he spoke sneeringly
of the "hero of Fort Fisher," to which Butler replied that the
gentleman from Ohio had shown his prowess in the hanging of Mrs.
Surratt, an innocent woman, upon the scaffold. Bingham retorted
that such a charge was "only fit to come from a man who lives in
a bottle, and is fed with a spoon." He was often dogmatic and
lacking in coolness and balance, but in later years he showed
uncommon tact in extricating himself from the odium threatened by
his connection with the Credit Mobilier scheme.
One of the really strong men in the House was John Hickman, of
Pennsylvania, who had been a prominent figure in Congress during
Buchanan's administration. He was a man of brains, courage, and
worth. Potter was a true and brave man, whose acceptance of a
challenge from Roger A. Pryor, and choice of butcher knives as the
weapons of warfare, had made him very popular at the North. Rollins
of Missouri was an eloquent man, of superior ability and attainments,
and large political experience. Pike of Maine was one of the first
men in the House, but too honest and independent to sacrifice his
convictions for the sake of success. Deming of Connecticut was a
man of real calibre, and on rare occasions electrified the House
by his speeches, but he lacked industry. One of the finest debaters
in the House was Henry J. Raymond. He displayed very decided power
in the debate on Reconstruction, and very effectively exposed the
weakness of the Republicans in practically dealing with the Rebel
States as if they were at once in and out of the Union. Among the
most striking figures in the House were Butler and Cox, whose
contests were greatly relished. They were well matched, and
alternately carried off the prize of victory. Butler, in the first
onset, achieved a decided triumph in his reply to a very personal
assault by Cox. "As to the vituperation of the member from New
York," said he, "he will hear my answer to him by every boy that
whistles it on the street, and every hand-organ, 'Shoo, fly, don't
bodder me'!" Cox, for the time, was extinguished, but patiently
watched his opportunity till he found his revenge, which Butler
afterward frankly acknowledged. For a time there was bad blood
between them, but they finally became friends, and I think so
continued.
General Banks was always a notable personality. His erect figure,
military eye, and splendid voice secured for him the admiring
attention of the galleries whenever he addressed the House. Ashley
of Ohio who took the lead in the impeachment movement, in which he
was so zealous that he became known as "Impeachment Ashley," was
another picturesque figure. His fine _physique,_ frolicsome face,
and luxuriant suit of curly brown hair singled him out among the
bald heads of the body as one of its most attractive members.
Boutwell impressed the House as a man of solid qualities, and a
formidable debater. He acquitted himself admirably in his defense
of Butler against a savage attack by Brooks. Blair was a man of
ability, independence, and courage, of which his record in the
House gave ample proof. Wilson of Iowa was a young man when he
entered Congress, but soon gave proof of his ability, and took rank
as one of the best lawyers on the Judiciary Committee. Judge
Kelley, since known as the "Father of the House," and one of the
fathers of the Greenback movement, first attracted attention by
the wonderful volume and power of his voice. It filled the entire
Hall, and subdued all rival sounds; but to the surprise of everybody,
he met with more than his match when he was followed, one day, by
Van Wyck, of New York, who triumphantly carried off the palm.
Kelley's voice was little more than a zephyr, in comparison with
the roar and thunder that followed it and called forth shouts of
laughter, while Kelley quietly occupied his seat as if in dumb
amazement at what had happened.
James Brooks was always a conspicuous figure on the Democratic side
of the House. I first knew him in the log cabin days of 1840, and
afterward served with him in the Congress of 1849. He was a man
of ability, a genuine hater of the negro, and a bitter partisan;
but I never saw any reason to doubt his personal integrity, and I
think the affair which threw so dark a cloud over his reputation
in later years was a surprise to all who knew him. Michael C. Kerr
was one of the very first men in the House, and a man of rare purity
and worth. Randall, like Garfield, was a growing man during the
war, and through his ambition, natural abilities, and Congressional
training, he became one of the chief magnates of his party.
Pendleton was counted an able man, and made his mark as a Bourbon
Democrat and the champion of hard money; but he subsequently spoiled
his financial record by his scheme for flooding the country with
greenbacks. Vallandigham was conspicuous for his intellectual
vigor, passionate earnestness, and hatred of Abolitionism. He had
the courage of his opinions. The Republicans hated him consumedly.
He was a member of the House Committee on Public Lands, which
reported the Homestead Bill, and I remember that no Republican
member, except the chairman, showed the slightest disposition to
recognize him. After the war was ended, however, and the work of
reconstruction was accomplished, his temper and qualities seemed
to have spent much of their force. He was among the very first to
plead for acquiescence and the policy of reconciliation; and if
his life had been spared I believe his catholic spirit and active
leadership in the "New Departure" would have re-instated him in
the sincere regard of men of all parties. Lovejoy was the most
impassioned orator in the House. His speeches were remarkable for
their pungency and wit, and when the question of slavery was under
discussion his soul took fire. He hated slavery with the animosity
of a regular Puritan, and when he talked about it everybody listened.
Wickliffe of Kentucky was one of the most offensive representatives
of the Border State policy, and whenever he spoke Lovejoy was sure
to follow. As often as Wickliffe got the floor it was noticed that
Lovejoy's brow was immediately darkened in token of the impending
strife, while his friends and enemies prepared themselves for the
scene. Wickliffe was a large, fierce-looking man, with a shrill
voice, and quite as belligerent as Lovejoy; and their contests were
frequent, and always enjoyed by the House, and for some time became
a regular feature of its business.
Elihu B. Washburne was conspicuous as the champion of economy. He
rivaled Holman as the "watch-dog of the treasury" and the enemy of
land-grants. He was a man of force, and rendered valuable service
to the country, but he assumed such airs of superior virtue, and
frequently lectured the House in so magisterial a tone as to make
himself a little unpopular with members. This was strikingly
illustrated in 1868, in his controversy with Donnelly of Minnesota
against whom he had made some dishonorable charges through a
Minnesota newspaper. Donnelly was an Irishman, a wit, and an
exceedingly versatile genius, and when it became known that he was
to defend himself in the House against Washburne's charges, and make
a counter attack, every member was in his seat, although the weather
was intensely hot and no legislative business was to be transacted.
Donnelly had fully prepared himself, and such a castigation as he
administered, has rarely, if ever, been witnessed in a legislative
body. He kept a ceaseless and overwhelming fire of wit, irony,
and ridicule, for nearly two hours, during which the members
frequently laughed and sometimes applauded, while Washburne sat pale
and mute under the infliction. The tables were turned upon him,
although portions of Donnelly's tirade were unparliamentary, and
indefensible on the score of coarseness and bad taste. No member,
however, raised any point of order; but the friends of Mr. Washburne
afterward surrounded Donnelly, and by artful appeals to his good
nature prevailed upon him to suppress a portion of the speech, and
to proffer statements which tended to destroy its effect and to
restore to Washburne the ground he had lost. The House had its fun,
while Washburne deigned no reply except to re-affirm his charges,
and Donnelly's friends were vexed at his needless surrender of his
vantage-ground. It was an odd and unexpected _denouement_ of a
very remarkable exhibition.
Oakes Ames was one of the members of the House with whom I was best
acquainted. I thought I knew him well, and I never had the slightest
reason to suspect his public or private integrity. Personally and
socially he was one of the kindliest men I ever knew, and I was
greatly surprised when I learned of his connection with the Credit
Mobilier project. It first found its way into politics through a
speech of Horace Greeley near the close of the canvass of 1872,
but it had been fully exposed by Washburn of Wisconsin in a speech
in Congress in the year 1868. The history of its connection with
American politics and politicians forms an exceedingly interesting
and curious chapter. The fate of the men involved in it seems like
a perfect travesty of justice and fair play. Some of them have
gone down under the waves of popular condemnation. Others, occupying
substantially the same position, according to the evidence, have
made their escape and even been honored and trusted by the public,
while still others are quietly whiling away their lives under the
shadow of suspicion. The case affords a strange commentary upon
the principle of historic justice.
One of the most remarkable facts connected with the first years of
the war was the descent of the Abolitionists upon Washington. They
secured the hall of the Smithsonian Institute for their meetings,
which they held weekly, and at which the Rev. John Pierpont presided.
It was with much difficulty that the hall was procured, and one of
the conditions of granting it was that it should be distinctly
understood and announced that the Smithsonian Institute was to be
in no way responsible for anything that might be said by the
speakers. This was very emphatically insisted on by Professor
Henry, and was duly announced at the first meeting. At the following,
and each succeeding lecture, Mr. Pierpont regularly made the same
announcement. These gatherings were largely attended and very
enthusiastic; and as the anti-slavery tide constantly grew stronger,
the weekly announcement that "the Smithsonian Institute desires it
to be distinctly understood that it is not to be held responsible
for the utterances of the speakers," awakened the sense of the
ludicrous, and called forth rounds of applause and explosions of
laughter by the audience, in front of which Professor Henry was
seated. Each meeting thus began with a frolic of good humor, which
Mr. Pierpont evidently enjoyed, for he made his announcement with
a gravity which naturally provoked the mirth which followed. These
meetings were addressed by Wendell Phillips, Gerrit Smith, Ralph
Waldo Emerson, Dr. Brownson, and other notable men, and were enjoyed
as a sort of jubilee by the men and women who attended them.
The services in the Hall of Representatives each Sabbath formed
the fitting counterpart of these proceedings. The crowds in
attendance filled every part of the floor and galleries, and were
full of enthusiasm. The most terrific arraignment of slavery I
ever listened to was by Rev. Dr. George B. Cheever, in the course
of these services. He was a man of great ability, unquenchable
zeal, fervid eloquence, and an Old Testament Christian who was
sometimes called the Prophet Isaiah of the anti-slavery cause. He
carried his religion courageously into politics, and while arraigning
slavery as the grand rebel, he also severely criticised the management
of the war and the Border State policy of the President. The most
pronounced anti-slavery sermons were also preached in the Capital
by Dr. Boynton, Mr. Channing and others, while the Hutchinson family
occasionally entertained the public with their anti-slavery songs.
All this must have been sufficiently shocking to the slave-holding
politics and theology of the city, whose slumbers were thus rudely
disturbed.
There was a peculiar fascination about life in Washington during
the war. The city itself was unattractive. Its ragged appearance,
wretched streets, and sanitary condition were the reproach of its
citizens, who could have had no dream of the Washington of to-day;
but it was a great military as well as political center. Our troops
were pouring in from every loyal State, and the drum-beat was heard
night and day, while the political and social element hitherto in
the ascendant, was completely submerged by the great flood from
the North. The city was surrounded, and in part occupied by
hospitals, and for a time many of the principal churches were
surrendered to the use of our sick and wounded soldiers, whose
numbers were fearfully swelled after each great battle. The imminent
peril to which the Capital was repeatedly exposed, and the constantly
changing fortunes of the war, added greatly to the interest of the
crisis, and marked the alternations of hope and fear among the
friends and enemies of the Union. But notwithstanding the seriousness
of the times, there was a goodly measure of real social life.
Human nature demanded some relaxation from the dreadful strain and
burden of the great conflict, and this was partially found in the
levees of the President and Cabinet ministers, and the receptions
of the Speaker, which were largely attended and greatly enjoyed;
and this enjoyment was doubtless much enhanced by the peculiar bond
of union and feeling of brotherhood which the state of the country
awakened among its friends. The most pleasant of these occasions,
however, were the weekly receptions of the Speaker. Those of
Speaker Grow were somewhat marred, and sometimes interrupted, by
his failing health, but the receptions of Mr. Colfax were singularly
delightful. He discharged the duties of his great office with
marked ability and fairness, and was personally very popular; and
there always gathered about him on these occasions an assemblage
of charming and congenial people, whose genuine cordiality was a
rebuke to the insincerity so often witnessed in social life.
But I need not further pursue these personal details, nor linger
over the by-gones of a grand epoch. We have entered upon a new
dispensation. The withdrawal of the slavery question from the
strife of parties has changed the face of our politics as completely
as did its introduction. The transition from an abnormal and
revolutionary period to the regular and orderly administration of
affairs, has been as remarkable as the intervention of the great
question which eclipsed every other till it compelled its own
solution. Although this transition has given birth to an era of
"slack-water politics," it has gradually brought the country face
to face with new problems, some of which are quite as vital to the
existence and welfare of the Republic as those which have taxed
the statesmanship of the past. The tyranny of industrial domination,
which borrows its life from the alliance of concentrated capital
with labor-saving machinery, must be overthrown. Commercial
feudalism, wielding its power through the machinery of great
corporations which are practically endowed with life officers and
the right of hereditary succession and control the makers and
expounders of our laws, must be subordinated to the will of the
people. The system of agricultural serfdom called Land Monopoly,
which is now putting on new forms of danger in the rapid multiplication
of great estates and the purchase of vast bodies of lands by foreign
capitalists, must be resisted as a still more formidable foe of
democratic Government. The legalized robbery now carried on in
the name of Protection to American labor must be overthrown. The
system of spoils and plunder must also be destroyed, in order that
freedom itself may be rescued from the perilous activities quickened
into life by its own spirit, and the conduct of public affairs
inspired by the great moralities which dignify public life.
These are the problems which appeal to the present generation, and
especially to the honorable ambition of young men now entering upon
public life. Their solution is certain, because they are directly
in the path of progress, and progress is a law; but whether it
shall be heralded by the kindly agencies of peace or the harsh
power of war, must depend upon the wise and timely use of opportunities.
The result is certain, since justice can not finally be defeated;
but the circumstances of the struggle and the cost of its triumph
are committed to the people, who can scarcely fail to find both
instruction and warning in the story of the anti-slavery conflict.
INDEX. [omitted]
End of Project Gutenberg's Political Recollections, by George W. Julian