of financial policies that were essentially immoral, such as the
"inflation craze" and the "silver craze," gaining an apparently almost
irresistible momentum among the people. But that was not owing to a
real and wide-spread demoralization of the popular conscience, but
rather to an artful presentation of the question which covered up and
disguised the moral element in it, and so deceived the unsophisticated
understanding, and also to the cowardice of politicians of high as
well as low rank, who, instead of courageously calling things by their
right names, would, against their better convictions, yield to what
they considered a strong current of opinion, for fear of jeopardizing
their personal popularity. I have seen men of great ability and high
standing in the official world do the most astonishing things in this
respect when they might, as far as their voices could be heard, have
easily arrested the vicious heresies by a bold utterance of their true
opinions. The moral cowardice of the politicians is one of the most
dangerous ailments of democracies.
_Missouri Retires Senator Henderson_
To me the Republican victory brought a promotion which I had not
anticipated while I was active in the campaign. One of the United
States Senators from Missouri, Mr. John B. Henderson, had voted in
the impeachment trial for the acquittal of President Johnson. He was
a gentleman of superior ability and of high character, but he had
voted for the acquittal of Andrew Johnson. He had done so for reasons
entirely honorable and entirely consistent with his principles and
convictions of right, but in disregard of the feelings prevalent among
his constituents and in spite of a strong pressure brought upon him by
hosts of Republicans in his own State; and as his term as a Senator
was just then expiring, this clash was fatal to his prospects of a
reëlection. The warmest of his friends frankly recognized the absolute
impossibility of keeping him in his place.
Indeed, all the Republican Senators who had voted for Johnson's
acquittal found themselves more or less at variance with their party
in their respective States; but Republicanism in Missouri was in one
respect somewhat different from Republicanism elsewhere. In Missouri a
large part of the population had joined the rebellion. The two parties
in the Civil War had not been geographically divided. The Civil War had
therefore had the character of a neighborhood war--in Missouri it was
not only State against State, or district against district, but house
against house. The bitter animosities of the civil conflict survived in
Missouri much longer than in the northern States, and any favor shown
to "the traitor" Andrew Johnson appeared to the great mass of Missouri
Republicans simply unpardonable.
The immediate consequence of Mr. Henderson's course was that his
colleague in the Senate, Mr. Charles D. Drake, obtained a directing
influence in the party which for the moment seemed to be undisputed.
Senator Drake was an able lawyer and an unquestionably honest man,
but narrow-minded, dogmatic, and intolerant to a degree. He aspired
to be the Republican "boss" of the State--not, indeed, as if he had
intended to organize a machine for the purpose of enriching himself or
his henchmen. Corrupt schemes were absolutely foreign to his mind. He
merely wished to be the recognized authority dictating the policies
of his party and controlling the federal offices in Missouri. This
ambition overruled with him all others.
Senator Drake was of small stature, but he planted his feet upon the
ground with demonstrative firmness. His face, framed with grey hair and
a short, stubby white beard and marked with heavy eyebrows, usually
wore a stern and often even a surly expression. His voice had a rasping
sound, and his speech, slow and peremptory, was constantly accompanied
with a vigorous shake of the forefinger which meant laying down the
law. I do not know to what religious denomination he belonged; but
he gave the impression that no religion would be satisfactory to him
that did not provide for a well-kept hell-fire to roast sinners and
heretics. Still, he was said to be very kind and genial in his family
and in the circle of his intimate friends. But in politics he was
inexorable. I doubt whether, as a leader, he was ever really popular
with the Republican rank and file in Missouri. But certain it is that
most of the members of his party, especially in the country districts,
stood much in awe of him.
_How Schurz Became a Candidate_
Mr. Drake, very naturally, wished to have at his side, in the place of
Mr. Henderson, a colleague sympathizing with him and likely to shape
his conduct according to Senator Drake's wishes. He chose General
Ben Loan of the western part of the State, a gentleman of excellent
character, and respectable but not uncommon abilities. Senator Drake
permitted it to go forth as a sort of decree of his that Mr. Loan
should be elected to the Senate, and, although the proposition did not
seem to meet with any hearty response in the State, he would have been
so elected, had not another candidacy intervened.
It happened in this wise: I was a member of a little club consisting
of a few gentlemen of the same way of thinking in politics, who
dined together and discussed current events once or twice a month.
At one of those dinners, soon after the presidential election of
1868, the conversation turned upon the impending election of Senator
Henderson's successor and the candidacy of Mr. Drake's favorite,
General Loan. We were all agreed in heartily disliking Mr. Drake's
kind of statesmanship. We likewise agreed in disliking the prospect of
seeing Mr. Drake duplicated in the Senate--indeed fully duplicated--by
the election of Mr. Loan. But how prevent it? We all recognized,
regretfully, the absolute impossibility of getting the Legislature to
reëlect Mr. Henderson. But what other candidate was there to oppose
to Mr. Loan? One of our table turned round to me and said: "You!" The
others instantly and warmly applauded.
The thought that I, a comparative newcomer in Missouri, should be
elected senator in preference to others, who had been among the
leaders in the great crisis of the State only a few years ago,
seemed to me extravagant, and I was by no means eager to expose
myself to what I considered almost certain defeat. But my companions
insisted, and I finally agreed that a "feeler" might be put out in the
_Globe-Democrat_, the leading Republican journal in St. Louis, of which
Colonel William M. Grosvenor, a member of our little table-company, was
the editor in chief. The number of Republican papers in the State which
responded approvingly was surprisingly large, and I soon found myself
in the situation of an acknowledged candidate for the senatorship "in
the hands of his friends." It seemed that when "stumping" the State in
the last campaign, I had won more favor with the country people than I
myself was aware of. Still, my chances of success would have been slim,
had not my principal adversary, Senator Drake, appeared in person upon
the scene.
When he learned that my candidacy was developing strength, he
hurried from Washington to Jefferson City, the capital of Missouri,
to throw the weight of his personal influence with the Legislature
into the scale against me. By his side appeared General Loan. There
was then perfect justification for me to be on the ground with some
of my friends. My manager was Colonel Grosvenor, the editor of the
_Globe-Democrat_, an uncommonly bright, genial, active, and energetic
young man. I could not have had a more efficient and more faithful
champion, or a more skilful tactician. In their talks with members
of the Legislature my opponents were reckless in the extreme. They
denounced me as a foreign intruder, as a professional revolutionist, as
a "German infidel," as a habitual drunkard, and what not.
Our plan of campaign was very simple: Not a word against my competitor,
General Loan; no champagne or whisky, nor even cigars; no noisy
demonstrations; no promises of offices or other pledges in case of my
election; but a challenge to General Loan and also to Senator Drake, if
he would accept it, to meet me in public debate before the day when the
caucus of the Republican majority for the nomination of a senatorial
candidate was to be held. The campaign attracted much attention
throughout the North and was commented upon in the newspapers, mostly
in my favor. There were some symptoms of friendly zeal in my behalf.
My friend Sigismund Kaufmann in New York telegraphed to me that if I
needed any money for my campaign he would put $10,000 at my disposal. I
telegraphed back my thanks, but declined the money, since I had no use
for it. My reliance was upon the public debate.
_A Joint Debate for a Senatorship_
Senator Drake accepted the challenge for himself and General Loan.
Arrangements were made for two meetings on two consecutive evenings. On
the first evening I was to open with a speech of a certain length, and
on the second evening Loan and Drake were to answer me, and I was to
close. The announcement, as it went over the State, attracted from the
country districts--as well as the cities--so many of the friends of
the two candidates who wished to witness what they considered a great
event, that the hotels of the State capital were crowded to the utmost.
Remembering the debate between Lincoln and Douglas at Quincy, Illinois,
to which I had listened ten years before, I kept my opening speech in
a calm, somewhat tame defensive tone, reserving my best ammunition
for my closing argument and putting forth in a somewhat challenging
manner only a few sharp points which I wished Drake to take up the next
evening. The effect of my speech was satisfactory in a double sense.
My supporters were well pleased with the courtesy and moderation with
which I had stated my position and repelled certain attacks, and Mr.
Drake was jubilant. He could not conceal his anticipation of triumph.
Before a large crowd he said in a loud voice: "That man was described
to me as a remarkable orator, something like Cicero and Demosthenes
combined. But what did we hear? A very ordinary talk. Gentlemen,
to-morrow night about this hour General Carl Schurz will be as dead as
Julius Cæsar!" When I heard this, I was sure that his speech would be
as bitter, overbearing, and dictatorial as I could wish, and that thus
he would deliver himself into my hands.
The next evening the great hall of the assembly was crowded to
suffocation. General Loan spoke first. His speech was entirely decent
in tone but quite insignificant in matter. Its only virtue was its
brevity. It received only that sort of applause which any audience will
grant to any respectable man's utterance which is not too long and not
offensive, even if uttered in a voice too low to be heard.
Senator Drake then mounted the rostrum with a defiant air, as of one
who would make short work of his antagonists. After a few remarks
concerning his attitude on the negro question, he took me in hand. Who
was I, to presume to be a candidate for the Senate? He would, indeed,
like to inquire a little into my past career, were it not that he
would have to travel too far--to Germany, and to various places in
this country, to find out whether there was not much to my discredit.
But he had no time for so long a journey, however instructive such a
search might be. This insinuation was received by the audience with
strong signs of displeasure, which, however, stirred up Mr. Drake to
greater energy. Then he launched into a violent attack on the Germans
of Missouri, for whose political character and conduct he made me
responsible. He denounced them as an ignorant crowd, who did not
understand English, read only their German newspapers, and were led
by corrupt and designing rings; as marplots and mischief-makers who
could never be counted upon, and whose presence in the Republican
party hurt that party more than it helped it. Finally, after having
expressed his contempt for the newspapers and the politicians who
supported my candidacy, he closed with an elaborate eulogy of General
Loan and of himself, the length of which seemed to tire the audience,
for it was interrupted by vociferous calls for me coming from all
parts of the house. The immediate effect of Mr. Drake's speech was
perceptibly unfavorable to him and his candidate--especially his bitter
denunciation of the Germans and of a large part of the Republican
party which advocated my election, for many members of the Legislature
remembered how important an element of their constituency those same
Germans formed, and how much their political standing depended on those
same newspapers.
When I rose, the audience received me with a round of uproarious
cheers. I succeeded in putting myself into relations of good humor
even with my opponents by introducing myself as "a young David who,
single-handed and without any weapon except his sling and a few pebbles
in his pouch, had to meet in combat two heavily armed Goliaths at
once." The audience laughed and cheered again. I next brushed away Mr.
Loan's "harmless" speech with a few polite phrases and "passed from the
second to the principal."
I then proceeded to take the offensive against Mr. Drake in good
earnest. To the great amusement of my hearers I punctured with irony
and ridicule the pompous pretence that he was the father of the new
constitution with which Missouri was blessed. I took up his assault
upon the Germans. I asked the question, "Who was it that at the
beginning of the war took prisoners the rebel force assembled in camp
Jackson and thus saved St. Louis and the State to the Union, and who
was foremost on all the bloody fields in Missouri?" The whole audience
shouted "The Germans! The Germans!" I asked where Mr. Drake was in
those critical days, and answered that having been a Democrat before
the war, pleading the cause of slavery, he sat quietly in his law
office, coolly calculating when it would be safe for him to pronounce
himself openly for the Union, while the Germans were shedding their
blood for that Union. This was a terrible thrust.
My unfortunate victim nervously jumped to his feet and called my
friend, General McNeil, who was present, to witness that the General
himself advised him to stay quietly at home, because he could do
better service there than twenty men in the field. Whereupon General
McNeil promptly answered: "Yes, but that was long after the beginning
of the war"--an answer which made Mr. Drake sink back into his chair,
while the meeting burst out in a peal of laughter. Soon he rose again
to say that I was wrong in imputing to him any hostility to the
Germans, for he was their friend. My reply instantly followed that
then we had to take what he had said of them to-night as a specimen of
Mr. Drake's characteristic friendship. The audience again roared with
laughter.
But the sharpest arrow was still to be shot. I reviewed the Senator's
career as a party leader--how he had hurled his anathema against every
Republican who would not take his word as law, thus disgusting and
alienating one man after another, and was now seeking to read out of
the party every man and every newspaper, among them the strongest
journal in the State, that supported me. Almost every sentence drew
applause. But when I reached my climax, picturing Mr. Drake as a party
leader so thinning out his following that he would finally stand
"lonesome and forlorn, surrounded by an immensity of solitude, in
desolate self-appreciation," the general hilarity became so boisterous
and the cheering so persistent, that I had to wait minutes for a chance
to proceed. I closed my speech in a pacific strain. There had been talk
that, if I were elected, the unseemly spectacle would be presented
of two Senators from the same State constantly quarrelling with one
another. I did not apprehend anything of the kind. I was sure that if
we ever differed, Senator Drake would respect my freedom of opinion,
and I certainly would respectfully recognize his. Our watchword would
be: "Let us have peace."
When I had finished there was another outbreak of tumultuous applause
and a rush for a handshake, the severest I have ever had to go through.
With great difficulty I had to work my way to my tavern and to bed,
where I lay long awake hearing the jubilant shouts of my friends on the
streets. The first report I received in the morning was that Mr. Drake
had quickly withdrawn from last night's meeting before its adjournment,
had hurried to his hotel, had asked for his bill and the washing he
had given out, and when told that his shirts and collars were not yet
dry, had insisted upon having them instantly whether wet or dry, and
then had hurried to the railroad station for the night train East. The
party-dictatorship was over, and its annihilation was proclaimed by the
flight of the dictator.
_The Republic's Crowning Honor to an Adopted Son_
That same day the caucus of the Republican members of the Legislature
took place. I was nominated for the senatorship on the first ballot,
and on motion the nomination was made unanimous. My election by the
Legislature followed in due course. No political victory was ever more
cleanly won. My whole election expenses amounted only to my board bill
at the hotel, and absolutely unencumbered by any promise of patronage
or other favor I took my seat in the Senate of the United States on the
4th of March, 1869. My colleague, Mr. Drake, courteously escorted me
to the chair of the president of the Senate where I took the oath of
office.
I remember vividly the feelings which almost oppressed me as I first
sat down in my chair in the Senate chamber. Now I had actually reached
the exalted public position to which my boldest dreams of ambition had
hardly dared to aspire. I was still a young man, just forty. Little
more than sixteen years had elapsed since I had landed on these shores,
a homeless waif saved from the wreck of a revolutionary movement in
Europe. Then I was enfolded in the generous hospitality of the American
people, opening to me, as freely as to its own children, the great
opportunities of the new world. And here I was now, a member of the
highest law-making body of the greatest of republics. Should I ever
be able fully to pay my debt of gratitude to this country, and to
justify the honors that had been heaped upon me? To accomplish this,
my conception of duty could not be pitched too high. I recorded a vow
in my own heart that I would at least honestly endeavor to fulfil that
duty; that I would conscientiously adhere to the principle "_Salus
populi, suprema lex_"; that I would never be a sycophant of power
nor a flatterer of the multitude; that, if need be, I would stand up
alone for my conviction of truth and right; and that there would be no
personal sacrifice too great for my devotion to the republic.
My first official duty was to witness, with the Senate, the
inauguration of General Grant as President of the United States.
I stood near the same spot from which, eight years before, I had
witnessed the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln. It was a remarkable
contrast--then the anxious patriot, in the hour of stress, with
pathetic tenderness appealing to the wayward children of the nation;
now the victorious soldier speaking in the name of the restored
national authority. General Grant's inaugural address, evidently his
own work, was somewhat crude in style, but breathed a rugged honesty
of purpose. With particular rigor it emphasized our obligations to
the national creditor--in striking contrast to Mr. Johnson's last
annual message, which had stopped little short of advising downright
repudiation.
On the whole, General Grant's accession to the presidency was welcomed
by almost everybody with a sense of relief. It put an end to the
unseemly, not to say scandalous brawl between the executive and the
legislative branches of the national government, which at times came
near threatening the peace of the country. It was justly expected
to restore the government to its proper dignity and to furnish, if
not a brilliant, at least a highly decent and efficient business
administration. As General Grant had really not owed his nomination
to any set of politicians, nor even, strictly speaking, to his
identification with a political party, he enjoyed an independence
of position which offered him peculiarly favorable possibilities
for emancipating the public service from the grasp of the spoils
politician, and the friends of civil service reform looked up to him
with great hope.
It was not unnatural that in the absolute absence of political
experience he should not only have had much to learn concerning the
nature and conduct of civil government, but that he should also have
had much to unlearn of the mental habits and the ways of thinking he
had acquired in the exercise of almost unlimited military command. This
was strikingly illustrated by some remarkable incidents.
_A. T. Stewart and the Law of the Treasury_
As usual, the nominations made by the President for Cabinet offices
were promptly ratified by the Senate without being referred to any
committee. But after this had been done, it was remembered and reported
to President Grant that one of the nominees so confirmed, Mr. A.
T. Stewart of New York, whom President Grant had selected for the
secretaryship of the treasury, as a person engaged in commerce, was
disqualified by one of the oldest laws on the statute-book--in fact,
the act of September 2, 1789, establishing the Treasury Department.
That this law, which provided that the Treasury Department, having the
administration of the custom houses under its control, should not have
at its head a merchant or importer in active business, was an entirely
proper, indeed, a necessary one, had never been questioned. The next
morning, March 6th, I had occasion to call upon President Grant for
the purpose of presenting to him a congratulatory message from certain
citizens of St. Louis. I found him alone, engaged in writing something
on a half-sheet of note-paper. "Mr. President," I said, "I see you are
busy, and I do not wish to interrupt you. My business can wait." "Never
mind," he answered, "I am only writing a message to the Senate." My
business was quickly disposed of, and I withdrew.
In the course of that day's session of the Senate a message from the
President was brought in, in which, after quoting the statute of
September 2, 1789, the President asked that Mr. Stewart be exempted
by joint resolution of the two Houses of Congress from the operation
of the law which stood in Mr. Stewart's way. There were some signs of
surprise among Senators when the message was read, but Mr. Sherman
at once asked unanimous consent to introduce a bill in accordance
with the President's wish. But Mr. Sumner objected to the immediate
consideration thereof because of its great importance. This stopped
further proceedings, and the bill was laid on the table never to be
heard of again. However, the President's message had evidently made
an impression, and there was forthwith a little council held in the
cloakroom, which agreed that some Senator should without delay go
to see Mr. Elihu B. Washburn, the new Secretary of State, who was
General Grant's intimate friend, and urgently ask him to suggest to the
President that, while there was now perfect good feeling all round,
it would be prudent for him to drop Mr. Stewart and to abstain from
demanding the suspension or the repeal of good laws which he found in
his way. Whether Mr. Washburn did carry this admonition to President
Grant, I do not know. Probably he did, for Mr. Stewart was promptly
dropped. Mr. Boutwell of Massachusetts was made Secretary of the
Treasury in Mr. Stewart's place, and the repeal or suspension of the
old law was never again heard of.
_A Governor's Right to His Staff_