VOTES OF STATE LEGISLATURES ON THE FOURTEENTH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
LOYAL STATES.
RATIFIED—TWENTY-ONE STATES.
Maine.—Senate, January 16, 1867, yeas 31, nays 0. House, January 11, 1867, yeas 126, nays 12.
New Hampshire.—Senate. July 6, 1866, yeas 9, nays 3. House, June 28, 1866, yeas 207, nays 112.
Vermont.—Senate, October 23, 1866, yeas 28, nays 0. House, October 30, 1866, yeas 199, nays 11.
Massachusetts.—Senate, March 20, 1867, yeas 27, nays 6. House, March 14, 1867, yeas 120, nays 20.
Rhode Island.—Senate, February 5, 1867, yeas 26, nays 2. House, February 7, 1867, yeas 60, nays 9.
Connecticut.—Senate, June 25, 1866, yeas 11, nays 6. House, June 29, 1866, yeas 131, nays 92.
New York.—Senate, January 3, 1867, yeas 23, nays 3. House, January 10, 1867, yeas 76, nays 40.
New Jersey.—Senate, September 11, 1866, yeas 11, nays 10. House, September 11, 1866, yeas 34, nays 24.
Pennsylvania.—Senate, January 17, 1867, yeas 20, nays 9. House, February 6, 1867, yeas 58, nays 29.
West Virginia.—Senate, January 15, 1867, yeas 15, nays 3. House, January 16, 1867, yeas 43, nays 11.
Ohio.—Senate, January 3, 1867, yeas 21, nays 12. House, January 4, 1867, yeas 54, nays 25.
Tennessee.—Senate, July 11, 1866, yeas 15, nays 6. House, July 12, 1866, yeas 43, nays 11.
Indiana.—Senate, January 16, 1867, yeas 29, nays 18. House, January 23, 1867, yeas—, nays—.
Illinois.—Senate, January 10, 1867, yeas 17, nays 7. House, January 15, 1867, yeas 59, nays 25.
Michigan.—Senate, January, 1867, yeas 25, nays 1. House, January, 1867, yeas 77, nays 15.
Missouri.—Senate, January 5, 1867, yeas 26, nays 6. House, January 8, 1867, yeas 85, nays 34.
Minnesota.—Senate, January 16, 1867, yeas 16, nays 5. House, January 15, 1867, yeas 40, nays 6.
Kansas.—Senate, January 11, 1867, unanimously. House, January 10, 1867, yeas 75, nays 7.
Wisconsin.—Senate, January 23, 1867, yeas 22, nays 10. House, February 7, 1867, yeas 72, nays 12.
Oregon.—[[25]]Senate, September, 1866, yeas 13, nays 7. House, September 19, 1866, yeas 25, nays 22.
Nevada.—[[25]]Senate, January 22, 1867, yeas 14, nays 2. House, January 11, 1867, yeas 34, nays 4.
REJECTED—THREE STATES.
Delaware.—Senate, February. House, February 6, 1867, yeas 6, nays 15.
Maryland.—Senate, March 23, 1867, yeas 4, nays 13. House, March 23, 1867, yeas 12, nays 45.
Kentucky.—Senate, January 8, 1867, yeas 7, nays 24. House, January 8, 1867, yeas 26, nays 62.
NOT ACTED—THREE STATES.
Iowa, California, Nebraska.
INSURRECTIONARY STATES.
REJECTED—TEN STATES.
Virginia.—Senate, January 9, 1867, unanimously. House, January 9, 1867, 1 for amendment.
North Carolina.—Senate, December 13, 1866, yeas 1, nays 44. House, December 13, 1866, yeas 10, nays 93.
South Carolina.—Senate, —— ——. House, December 20, 1866, yeas 1, nays 95.
Georgia.—Senate, November 9, 1866, yeas 0, nays 36. House, November 9, 1866, yeas 2, nays 131.
Florida.—Senate, December 3, 1866, yeas 0, nays 20. House, December 1, 1866, yeas 0, nays 49.
Alabama.—Senate, December 7, 1866, yeas 2, nays 27. House, December 7, 1866, yeas 8, nays 69.
Mississippi.—Senate, January 30, 1867, yeas 0, nays 27. House, January 25, 1867, yeas 0, nays 88.
Louisiana.—Senate, February 5, 1867, unanimously. House, February 6, 1867, unanimously.
Texas.—Senate, —— ——. House, October 13, 1866, yeas 5, nays 67.
Arkansas.—Senate, December 15, 1866, yeas 1, nays 24. House, December 17, 1866, yeas 2, nays 68.
Of these States North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and possibly some of the other desolated States, will reverse their decision the present summer, and Nebraska, Iowa, and Colorado will also vote for it. On the other hand, New Jersey and Ohio, which have now Democratic Legislatures, have attempted, but in vain, to reverse their decisions and reject the Amendment. The votes of the reconstructed States will undoubtedly be sufficient to secure its adoption by the affirmative vote of the constitutional number (three fourths) of the States.
The commanders of the five military districts, Generals Meade, Sickles, Pope, Thomas, and Sheridan, after the passage of the Reconstruction Act, and its first supplement, issued their orders, insisting on obedience to its provisions, as according to the law they were required to do, but manifesting at the same time a disposition to interfere as little as possible with the existing civil government until the question of a constitutional convention could be voted on, and if called, a new constitution prepared and adopted, and the machinery of government set in motion under the new regime. Many leading citizens of the South, who had been prominent in the Rebellion, advised acquiescence in the Congressional plan, and while strong opposition was manifested in many quarters, it was hoped that there would be a general participation in the work of reorganization. The opposition was violent, and most strongly marked in the cities, where many of the leading papers, of Rebel antecedents, took an active part in abusing and berating Congress. The action of the military commander of the Fifth District, General Sheridan, in suppressing the violence of the Rebel opposition, was early and decided, as, indeed, was necessary. On the 27th of March, 1867, he removed from office Andrew S. Herron, Attorney-General of Louisiana, John T. Monroe, Mayor of New Orleans, and Edmund Abell, Judge of the first District Court of the city, and appointed in their places B. L. Lynch, Edward Heath, and W. W. Howe. In a note to General Grant, soon after, he assigned the following reasons for this action:—
“I did not deem it necessary to give any reason for the removal of these men, especially after the investigation made by the Military Board on the massacre of July 30, 1866, and the report of the Congressional Committee on the same massacre; but as some inquiry has been made for the cause of removal, I would respectfully state as follows: The court over which Judge Abell presided is the only Criminal Court in the city of New Orleans, and for a period of at least nine months previous to July 30, he had been educating a large portion of the community to the perpetration of this outrage, by almost promising no prosecution in his court against the offenders, in case such an event occurred. The records of this court will show that he fulfilled his promise, as not one of the guilty ones has been prosecuted. In reference to Andrew S. Herron, Attorney-General of the State of Louisiana, I considered it his duty to indict these men before this criminal court. This he failed to do, but went so far as to attempt to impose on the good sense of the whole nation by indicting the victims of the riot instead of the rioters—in other words, making the innocent guilty and the guilty innocent. He was, therefore, an abettor of and coadjutor with Judge Abell in bringing on the massacre of July 30. Mayor Monroe controlled the element engaged in this riot, and when backed by an attorney-general who would not prosecute the guilty, and a judge who advised the grand jury to find the innocent guilty and let the murderers go free, felt secure in engaging his police force in the riot and massacre. With these three men exercising a large influence on the worst elements of this city, giving to these elements an immunity for riot and bloodshed, the General-in-chief will see how insecure I felt in letting them occupy their present positions in the troubles which might occur in registration and voting in the reorganization.”
Monroe was mayor when New Orleans was captured by Farragut and Butler. He had been pardoned by the President and reëlected mayor.
Early in April, General Griffin, who was in command in Texas, wrote to General Sheridan, stating that, under the Military Bill, both the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor of that State were disqualified to act, and that he desired the immediate removal of Governor Throckmorton. General Sheridan forwarded the letter to General Grant, with his favorable recommendation indorsed thereon, and added that he feared he would be compelled to remove Governor Wells, of Louisiana, who was impeding him all he could. To this General Grant responded, April 3, advising him not to remove the governors at present, the question of the powers of military commanders being under consideration in the Cabinet. This ended the matter for the time being. On the 6th of April, General Sheridan telegraphed General Grant that he was nearly ready to proceed with the work of registration, and that “an authoritative decision, as to what classes are disfranchised, is very important.” General Grant replied, that the questions had been submitted to the Attorney-General, and that no answer had been received, adding, “Go on giving your interpretation of the law until answer is given.” Breaches in the Mississippi levees were very disastrous in March and April, and there had been a serious conflict in regard to Levee Commissioners. General Sheridan removed those officers May 2, and appointed others in their places. June 3, General Sheridan removed Governor Wells, and appointed Thomas J. Durant in his stead. June 4, he informed General Grant of his action, saying, “He has embarrassed me very much since I came in command, by his subterfuge and political chicanery. This necessary act will be approved here by every class and shade of political opinion. He has not a friend who is an honest man. Nothing will answer here but a bold and strong course, and in taking it, I am supported by every class and all parties.” Mr. Durant declining the office, General Sheridan, on the 6th, appointed Benjamin F. Flanders in his stead. Governor Wells declining to vacate the office, General Sheridan, on the 7th, addressed a note to him, stating that he had been informed that he disputed his right to remove him from office, which right he had previously acknowledged and urged. He concluded his note as follows: “I therefore send Brevet Brigadier-General James W. Forsyth, of my staff, to notify you that he is sent by me to eject you from the Governor’s room forcibly, unless you consider this notification as equivalent to ejection.” General Forsyth presented the communication on the 8th, when Governor Wells vacated, responding, “I surrender the office I hold only to the sword.” Governor Flanders went to New Orleans in 1842, was driven out of the city in 1861, by a body of Rebels, styling themselves a Vigilance Committee, for his devotion to the Union. He made his way to Cairo and Columbus, barely saving his life, and returned with Butler in 1862. In the fall of the same year he was elected a member of Congress. Upon his return, he was appointed City Treasurer, and shortly afterward was selected, by Secretary Chase, as supervising special agent for the Treasury Department for the District. He was connected with the Treasury Department from that time until his appointment as Governor. It having been reported that General Grant favored reprimanding Sheridan for the removal, the former telegraphed the latter, June 7, denying the report, saying, “There is not one word of truth in the story.” The bold action of General Sheridan caused great excitement, and rumors of his having been removed by the President were constantly set afloat.
In the Second District, Charleston was the scene of one or two interesting incidents in the earlier days of the enforcement of the Reconstruction Act. During the last ten days in March, the freedmen, who had been denied equal privileges in the cars, undertook to secure them by force, and several of them were arrested. Commissioner R. K. Scott, of the Freedmen’s Bureau, issued a circular, warning them that such attempts would only retard the acknowledgment of their rights, and that their only remedy was through legal process. The question was finally settled May 3, by the directors resolving to admit all classes alike. The arrested persons were released.
An annual parade of the Charleston fire department was to have taken place at ten o’clock on the morning of the 27th of April. As it was about starting, it was observed that it did not bear the American flag. General Sickles thereupon addressed the chief engineer a note, stating that, at the previous parade, regrets had been expressed at the absence of the national emblem, and ordering that the Stars and Stripes be borne at the head of the column; that an escort of honor be detailed to escort it, and that each person in the procession salute it. The order was obeyed, the procession being delayed until the ensign was procured.
General Sickles issued an order, April 10, known as General Order No. 10, designed to relieve the destitute, which attracted considerable attention. It prohibited imprisonment for debt, except for fraud; directed that judgments on actions arising during the Rebellion should not be enforced; sheriffs’ sales on process prior to December 19, 1860, were suspended for a year; allowed process to continue judgments entered since May 15, 1865; suspended all proceedings for the recovery of money in the purchase of negroes; protected advances of moneys and materials for agricultural purposes, and made wages a lien; provided a homestead exemption of $500; declared United States currency legal tenders; property of an absent debtor should not be taken under foreign attachment, but aliens should not be disturbed; other provisions relative to criminal proceedings were set aside; the carrying of deadly weapons was prohibited; corporeal punishment was abrogated; the punishment of death in cases of burglary and larceny was abolished, and terms of imprisonment substituted; the governors of North and South Carolina were authorized to reprieve or pardon criminals sentenced by civil courts. The order closed with these words: “Any law or ordinance heretofore in force in North Carolina or South Carolina, inconsistent with the provisions of this general order, are hereby suspended and declared inoperative.” It gave great satisfaction in South Carolina, on account of the features staying executions in civil cases.
In an opinion addressed to the President, June 12, Attorney-General Stanbery strongly objected to the issuing of this and other orders, which he said began to assume the dimensions of a Code. He said that under it the commanding general assumed, “not only a power to suspend the laws, but to declare them generally inoperative, and assuming full powers of legislation by the military authority.” The Attorney-General proceeded: “The ground upon which these extraordinary powers are based is thus set forth in military order No. 1, issued in this district: ‘The civil government now existing in North Carolina and South Carolina is provisional only, and in all respects subject to the paramount authority of the United States at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede the same.’ Thus far the provisions of the Act of Congress are well recited. What follows is in these words: ‘Local laws and municipal regulations not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or the proclamations of the President, or with such regulations as are or may be prescribed in the orders of the commanding general, are hereby declared to be in force, and, in conformity therewith, civil officers are hereby authorized to continue the exercise of their proper functions, and will be respected and obeyed by the inhabitants.’ This construction of his powers under the act of Congress places military commanders on the same footing as the Congress of the United States. It assumes that ‘the paramount authority of the United States at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede,’ is invested in him as fully as it is reserved to Congress.”
The Attorney-General conceded that the orders were issued under an honest belief they were necessary or expedient, and warranted by the act of Congress, but he protested against the assumption of such powers, as full of evil and mischief.
General Sickles issued an order, April 18, establishing a Provost Court in the military post of Aiken, S. C., in consequence of “it having become apparent that justice to freedmen cannot be obtained in the civil courts within that post.” The court was given jurisdiction of any case to which a person of color was a party, except murder, arson, and rape. On the 23d of April, he issued an order prohibiting the sale or gift of liquors to United States soldiers, sailors, or marines, and giving post commanders supervision over all sheriffs and police within their commands, and directing them, “whenever necessary for the preservation of order, and the efficient discharge of their duties, to assume command of the police force.” It having been alleged that the supply of food had been greatly diminished by distillation; that distillers defrauded the revenue, and maltreated the collectors when endeavoring to collect the tax; and that the practice of distillation tended to increase poverty, disorder, and crime, he issued an order May 30, prohibiting the distillation of grain.
The strictures of the Attorney-General were received in Charleston June 19, and the same day General Sickles forwarded a request to Washington to be relieved from duty, and demanded a court of inquiry on his official actions. He was subsequently relieved, but the court of inquiry was not granted.
Third District.—Early in April, movements were instituted in Washington to enjoin the enforcement of the Reconstruction Act, in the name of the State of Georgia. (A similar movement was made on the part of Mississippi). On the 10th of April, Governor Jenkins, of Georgia, issued an address to the people of the State, dated at Washington, advising them to take no action under the Reconstruction law until its constitutionality could be tested. On the 24th, General Pope addressed him a note, reminding him that it was his duty, under the law, to place no impediment in the way of reconstruction, and that if he did, he was liable to removal. General Pope likewise addressed General Grant on the subject. His letter contained the following paragraph:—
“The ill effects of permitting the whole power of the provisional State government, through all its civil departments and in all its ramifications, to be used to frustrate the acts of Congress, and to keep up the disturbed condition of the public mind, cannot be overstated. No reconstruction is possible, and it will be next to impossible to secure faithful administration of the laws, while such influences are allowed to go on unchecked, unless the entire civil government is overthrown and the military substituted. I deem it of the last importance to arrest it now, in the person of Provisional Governor Jenkins. If he is permitted to set authority at defiance, it will be useless to notice such offenses committed by the minor officers.”
General Grant forwarded the letter to the War Department, indorsed as follows:—
“Respectfully forwarded to the Secretary of War for his information. The telegraphic despatch herein inclosed shows that Governor Jenkins, of Georgia, has given such pledges to the commander of the Third District as to induce him to withhold, for the present, his order suspending the Governor.
“The conduct of Governor Jenkins demonstrates, however, how possible it is for discontented civil officers of the reconstructed States to defeat the laws of Congress, if the power does not exist with the district commanders to suspend their functions for cause in some way. It seems clear to me that the power is given in the bill ‘for the more efficient Government of the Rebel States,’ to use or not, at the pleasure of district commanders, the provisional machinery set up without the authority of Congress, in the States to which the Reconstruction Act applies. There being doubt, however, on this point, I would respectfully ask an early opinion on the subject.
“If the power of removal does not exist with district commanders, then it will become necessary for them to take refuge under that section of the Bill which authorizes military commissions.
“U. S. GRANT, General.
“Head-quarters, Armies United States, April 22, 1867.”
A riot occurred in Mobile, May 14, on the occasion of a speech made by Judge Kelley, of Pennsylvania, who had been speaking in the South in favor of reorganizing under Congressional law. Four persons were killed and twenty wounded. A citizens’ meeting was held, composed of all parties, which denounced the outrage. The Mayor and Chief of Police were censured, on an investigation into the affair, and, on the 22d of May, were removed, and others appointed in their stead.
A negro riot took place in Richmond, May 9, on the occasion of an engine trial, when a thousand negroes were dispersed at the point of the bayonet.
No events worthy of special notice occurred in the First and Fourth Districts, except the registration proceedings.
Registration, and the Powers of Military Commanders.—The military commanders had scarcely begun the work of registration before questions involving the construction of the law were originated. Different commanders construed the act differently, and of course conflicting instructions were given. Some were very stringent, and others more moderate. The one most widely variant from those generally issued, was issued by General Ord, June 10. The views of Secretary Stanbery and General Grant, respectively, are set forth in the following note, signed by General Grant, June 23:—
“I entirely dissent from the views contained in Paragraph IV. Your view as to the duty of registrars to register every man who will take the required oath, though they know the applicant perjures himself, is sustained by the views of the Attorney-General. My opinion is, that it is the duty of the Board of Registration to see, so far as it lies in their power, that no unauthorized person is allowed to register. To secure this end, registrars should be allowed to administer oaths and examine witnesses. The law, however, makes district commanders their own interpreters of their power and duty under it: and, in my opinion, the Attorney-General or myself can no more than give our opinion as to the meaning of the law; neither can enforce their views against the judgment of those made responsible for the faithful execution of the law,—the district commanders.”
The Attorney-General had addressed an opinion to the President, May 24, giving his interpretation of the law, so far as relates to registration, at length. Under it there were comparatively few who were not entitled to register. This opinion was forwarded to the various commanders by the President, with a note, directing attention to it. General Pope, June 27, telegraphed General Grant to learn whether the note of the President was mandatory or not, and received the following response:—
“Enforce your own construction of the Military Bill until ordered to do otherwise. The opinion of the Attorney-General has not been distributed to district commanders in language or manner entitling it to the force of an order, nor can I suppose that the President intended it to have such force.
“U. S. GRANT, General.”
A similar despatch was sent to General Sheridan the same day, in answer to a telegram. The latter officer, June 22, wrote to General Grant, that the opinion of the Attorney-General opened a “broad, macadamized road to perjury,” and that its effects were beginning to show themselves in organized opposition to all the acts of the military commanders. “Every civil officer in the State will administer justice according to his own views: many of them, denouncing the Military Bill as unconstitutional, will throw every impediment in the way of its execution.”
The Attorney-General gave a lengthy opinion, June 12, to the effect that military commanders did not possess the power to remove State officers; that they could not take cognizance of past offenses; and generally confining their powers within limits more contracted than it had been supposed was the scope of the law.
Under the supplementary Reconstruction Act of July 23, the military commanders proceeded in the discharge of their duties. General Sheridan, on the 30th of July, issued an order in these words: “A careful consideration of the reports of Brevet Major-General Charles Griffin, U. S. A., shows that J. W. Throckmorton, Governor of Texas, is an impediment to the reconstruction of that State under the law. He is, therefore, removed from that office. E. M. Pease is hereby appointed Governor of Texas, in place of J. W. Throckmorton, removed. He will be obeyed and respected accordingly.” Governor Pease took the oath of office, August 7, and Governor Throckmorton vacated the following day. On the 3d of August, General Sheridan informed General Grant that the work of registration in Louisiana was complete, and that “the State will, in all probability, come in as a Union State. In accomplishing this registration, I have had no opposition from the masses of the people; on the contrary, much assistance and encouragement; but from the public press, especially that of the city of New Orleans, and from office-holders and office-seekers disfranchised, I have met with bitterness and opposition. I have, as I have heretofore stated to you, permitted no political influence nor political machinery to help or influence me in this work. Receiving the law as an order, it was so executed. I regret that I have to make the charge against Brigadier-General L. H. Rousseau, U. S. A., of visiting my command recently, and without exhibiting any authority, interfering with my duties and suggesting my removal.”
President Johnson had long been dissatisfied with Secretary Stanton, who was friendly to the Congressional plan of reconstruction, and had aided so far as was in his power, in the faithful execution of the laws pertaining to that subject. The President was desirous of having his Cabinet composed wholly of men who would reflect his views and support him in the violation or careless and incomplete execution of the measures which he hated, and Stanton, whom he could not use or control, was to him a Mordecai sitting in the king’s gate, who would do him no reverence. He determined, therefore, to rid himself of him. Accordingly, on the 5th of August, he addressed a note to the Secretary, saying that public considerations of high character constrained him to say that his resignation as Secretary of War would be accepted. Secretary Stanton replied the same day in the following terms: “In reply, I have the honor to say, that public considerations of a high character, which alone have induced me to continue at the head of this department, constrain me not to resign the office of Secretary of War before the next meeting of Congress.” To this, the President made no direct reply. But his determination to drive Stanton from the War Department had been too long cherished to be relinquished, especially by a man of such a tenacious and wilful disposition as the President. He had intimated in the latter part of July, to General Grant, his intention of removing both Secretary Stanton and General Sheridan, the commander of the Fifth District, from their positions, and the General-in-chief, who well knew the value of the two men, in executing promptly and fairly the laws, had remonstrated in the following manly letter, which was only made public on the subsequent demand of Congress:—
“Head-quarters Armies of the U. S., }
Washington, D. C., August 1, 1867. }
“[Private.]
“His Excellency, A. Johnson, President of the United States:
“Sir: I take the liberty of addressing you privately on the subject of the conversation we had this morning, feeling as I do the great danger to the welfare of our country, should you carry out the designs then expressed.
“1. On the subject of the displacement of the Secretary of War. His removal cannot be effected against his will without the consent of the Senate. It is but a short time since the United States Senate was in session, and why not then have asked for his removal, if it was desired? It certainly was the intention of the legislative branch of the Government to place the Cabinet Ministers beyond the power of Executive removal, and it is pretty well understood that, so far as Cabinet Ministers are affected by the Tenure of Office Bill, it was intended especially to protect the Secretary of War, whom the country felt great confidence in. The meaning of the law may be explained away by an astute lawyer, but common sense and the views of loyal people will give to it the effect intended by its framers.
PRESIDENT JOHNSON TRIES TO GET GEN. GRANT TO ASSIST HIM IN PREVENTING THE SENATE FROM REINSTATING STANTON AS SECRETARY OF WAR.
“2. On the subject of the removal of the very able commander of the Fifth Military District, let me ask you to consider the effect it would have upon the public. He is unusually and deservedly beloved by the people who sustained this Government through its trials, and feared by those who would still be enemies of the Government.
“It fell to the lot of but few men to do as much against our armed enemy as General Sheridan did during the Rebellion; and it is within the scope of the ability of few, in this or other countries, to do what he has. His civil administration has given equal satisfaction. He has had difficulties to contend with which no other district commander has encountered. Almost, if not quite, from the day he was appointed district commander to the present time, the press has given out that he was to be removed; that the administration was dissatisfied with him, etc.
“This has emboldened the opponents to the laws of Congress within his command to oppose him in every way in their power, and has rendered necessary, measures which otherwise might never have been necessary.
“In conclusion, allow me to say, as a friend desiring peace and quiet, the welfare of the whole country, North and South, that it is, in my opinion, more than the loyal people of this country (I mean those who supported the Government during the great Rebellion) will quietly submit to, to see the very men of all others whom they have expressed confidence in, removed.
“I would not have taken the liberty of addressing the Executive of the United States thus, but for the conversation on the subject alluded to in this letter, and from a sense of duty, feeling that I know I am right in this matter.
“With great respect, your obedient servant,
“U. S. GRANT, General.”
The President was not, as we have said, to be turned from his purpose. On the 12th of August, he notified Secretary Stanton that he was suspended from office from that date, and on the same day addressed a note to General Grant authorizing and requiring him to act as Secretary of War ad interim. General Grant informed Secretary Stanton of his assignment and acceptance, assuring him at the same time of his appreciation of the zeal, patriotism, firmness, and ability with which he had ever discharged his duties as Secretary of War. Mr. Stanton replied to both the President and the General; denying the power of the former to suspend him from office, without the consent of the Senate, and saying that he yielded under protest to superior force; and repeating the protest to the latter, while at the same time he assured him of his personal appreciation of his sentiments and patriotism.
Having thus, for the time (though not permanently, as he hoped), disposed of Secretary Stanton, Mr. Johnson next proceeded to issue an order, assigning General George H. Thomas to the command of the Fifth District, General Hancock to the Department of the Cumberland, and General Sheridan to the Department of Missouri, and directing the Secretary of War ad interim to issue the necessary instructions to carry the order into effect. A note from the President accompanied the order, that, before he issued the instructions, he would be pleased to receive any suggestions respecting the assignments. General Grant replied the same day in a note, from which the following is an extract:—
“I am pleased to avail myself of this invitation to urge, earnestly urge—urge in the name of a patriotic people, who have sacrificed hundreds of thousands of loyal lives, and thousands of millions of treasure, to preserve the integrity and union of this country—that this order be not insisted on. It is unmistakably the expressed wish of the country that General Sheridan should not be removed from his present command. This is a Republic, where the will of the people is the law of the land. I beg that their voice may be heard.
“General Sheridan has performed his civil duties faithfully and intelligently. His removal will only be regarded as an effort to defeat the laws of Congress. It will be interpreted by the unreconstructed element in the South—those who did all they could to break up this Government by arms, and now wish to be the only element consulted as to the method of restoring order—as a triumph. It will embolden them to renewed opposition to the will of the loyal masses, believing that they have the Executive with them.
“There are military reasons, pecuniary reasons, and, above all, patriotic reasons, why this order should not be insisted on.
“I beg to refer to a letter, marked private,[[26]] which I wrote to the President when first consulted on the subject of the change in the War Department. It bears upon the subject of this removal, and I had hoped would have prevented it.”
The President responded in a lengthy letter, dated the 19th. He had not intended to invite a formal report, but only a verbal statement of General Grant’s views. He was not aware that this question of removal of General Sheridan had been submitted to the people for their determination. He commended General Thomas’s abilities, and complained of the results of General Sheridan’s administration as producing a bitter spirit of antagonism. He had rendered himself exceedingly obnoxious, and his rule had been one of absolute tyranny. In his opinion, he should be removed.
General Grant issued the instructions required, August 19, attaching a clause, directing General Thomas to “continue to execute all orders he may find in force in the Fifth Military District at the time of his assuming command of it, unless authorized by the General of the Army to annul, alter, or modify them.” In consequence of the unfavorable condition of General Thomas’s health, the President issued an order, August 26, assigning General Hancock to the Fifth District, directing him to “proceed directly to New Orleans, Louisiana, and, assuming the command to which he is hereby assigned, he will, when necessary to a faithful execution of the laws, exercise any and all powers conferred by acts of Congress upon district commanders, and all authority pertaining to officers in command of military departments.” General Grant issued the necessary instructions. General Sheridan was directed to turn over his command to Major-General Charles Griffin, which he at once proceeded to do. He then came North, visited many of the principal cities, in all of which he was enthusiastically received. General Griffin assumed command, September 7, and issued an order, in which he directed that “all existing orders should remain in full.” General Griffin soon died, of yellow fever, and Brevet Major-General Joseph A. Mower assuming command, reiterated the same order.
The President issued an order, August 26, relieving Major-General Daniel E. Sickles, and assigning Brevet Major-General Edward R. S. Canby to the command, of the Second District. General Canby assumed command, September 5, and in his order adopted and confirmed all existing orders and regulations.
General Canby issued an order, September 14, declaring tax-payers registered as voters, qualified to serve as jurors. General Mower issued an order, September 28, declaring all persons registered in Texas qualified to act as jurymen.
General Grant issued an order, August 29, as General of the Army, directing that commanders of the military districts created under the Act of March 2, 1867, should make no appointments to civil office of persons who have been removed, by themselves or their predecessors in command.
On the 3d of September, apparently in vindication of his previous acts, President Johnson issued a proclamation declaring the supremacy of the Constitution, the Laws, and the decisions of the Civil Courts, warning all persons against obstructing them, and enjoining all civil and military officers to enforce them.
On the 8th of September, 1867, the President issued another amnesty proclamation, in which he declared the people of the unreconstructed States loyally disposed, deprecated a vindictive policy, and extended the benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation of May 29, 1865, to all persons except the following:—
First. The chief, or pretended chief executive officers, including the President, Vice-President, and all heads of departments of the pretended Confederate or Rebel Government, and all who were agents thereof in foreign states and countries, and all who held, or pretended to hold, in the service of the said pretended Confederate Government, a military rank or title above the grade of Brigadier-General, or naval rank or title above that of Captain, and all who were, or pretended to be, governors of States while maintaining, abetting, submitting to, or acquiescing in, the Rebellion.
Second. All persons who, in any way, treated otherwise than as lawful prisoners of war, persons who, in any capacity, were employed or engaged in the military or naval service of the United States.
Third. All persons who, at the time they may seek to obtain the benefits of this proclamation, are actually in civil, military, or naval confinement or custody, or legally held to bail either before or after conviction; and all persons who were engaged directly or indirectly in the assassination of the late President of the United States, or in any plot or conspiracy in any manner therewith connected.
This proclamation further declared the amnestied persons restored to all privileges, immunities, and rights of property, except as to property with regard to slaves, and except in cases of legal proceedings under the laws of the United States.
This proclamation amnestied a very large number of Rebels, and left very few to be excepted from pardon, and the greater part of these received special pardons from the President upon application, without any professions of repentance being required. Other cases also received the Executive clemency, greatly to the prejudice of all efforts to bring offenders to justice. Every counterfeiter or forger of the national currency or bonds, every man who had defrauded the Government during the war, by means of spurious claims, and every one who was detected in the attempt to cheat the Government of its dues in the way of internal revenue, was promptly pardoned by the Executive, generally on the first application.
General Hancock assumed command of the Fifth Military District on the 29th of November, 1867, and issued a special order on taking command, of which the second item was the most important, as containing an exposition of his intentions in regard to the military and civil government of the district. It was as follows:—
“Second. The General commanding is gratified to learn that peace and quiet reign in this department. It will be his purpose to preserve this condition of things. As a means to this great end, he regards the maintenance of the civil authorities in the faithful execution of the laws, as the most efficient under existing circumstances. In war it is indispensable to repel force by force, and overthrow and destroy opposition to authority; but when insurrectionary force has been overthrown and peace established, and the civil authorities are ready and willing to perform their duties, the military power should cease to lead, and the civil administration resume its natural and rightful dominion. Solemnly impressed with these views, the General announces that the great principles of American liberty still are the lawful inheritance of this people, and ever should be. The right of trial by jury, the habeas corpus, the liberty of the press, the freedom of speech, and the natural rights of persons and the rights of property must be preserved. Free institutions, while they are essential to the prosperity and happiness of the people, always furnish the strongest inducements to peace and order. Crimes and offenses committed in the district must be referred to the consideration and judgment of the regular civil authorities, and these tribunals will be supported in their lawful jurisdiction. Should there be violations of existing laws, which are not inquired into by the civil magistrates, or should failures in the administration of justice by the courts be complained of, the cases will be reported to these Head-quarters, when such orders will be made as may be deemed necessary. While the General thus indicates his purpose to respect the liberties of the people, he wishes all to understand that armed insurrections or forcible resistance to law, will be instantly suppressed by arms.”
President Johnson had at last, after much tribulation, found a district commander after his own heart; and though it was soon found that General Hancock removed loyal men from office, and, so far as he could, put disloyal ones in their place, and that he was winning the praise of every rebel in his district and the hearty dislike of every loyal citizen, yet the President was so delighted with his course and his proclamations, that on the 18th of December, 1867, he sent a message to Congress, in which, after the most fulsome commendation of the General, comparing him to Washington, and saying that to him belonged the distinguished honor of being the first officer in high command south of the Potomac, since the close of the civil war, who had given utterance to these noble sentiments in the form of a military order, he suggested to Congress, that some public recognition of General Hancock’s patriotic conduct was due, if not to him, to the friends of law and justice throughout the country. “Of such an act as his at such a time,” he continued, “it is best fitting that the dignity should be vindicated and the virtue proclaimed, so that its value as an example may not be lost to the nation.” Congress could not view General Hancock’s conduct in so praiseworthy a light, and they accordingly declined to make any public recognition of it.
On assuming command, General Hancock found in force an order issued by General Mower, who had been in temporary command, dated November 21, removing several State and other officers. These orders were revoked in different orders, and on the 3d of December, General Mower was relieved from duty as Commander of the District of Louisiana and Commissioner of Freedmen, and returned to his regiment. General Hancock also issued an order, December 5, revoking an order issued August 24, requiring persons to be sworn for registered voters, and restoring the State laws.
An order was issued from the Freedmen’s Bureau for the District of Louisiana, December 19, which provided that all differences between whites and freedmen, or between freedmen themselves, should first be referred to the civil courts for adjudication. The Bureau agents were to seek, in the first place, an amicable adjustment of difficulties, but if they failed in that, then resort was to be had to the courts, to which, also, all legal questions must be referred. They were likewise to act on behalf of the freedmen as attorneys, and in case planters refuse or neglect to pay their wages, if the courts fail to award justice, then the agents are to enforce it.
In January, General Hancock proceeded to remove the colored members of the Council of Education in New Orleans, on the alleged ground that they had transcended their powers and duties, and to put Rebels in their places. General Grant, on investigation, ordered him to reinstate the members he had removed. He complied with the order, but requested to be relieved from his command, and after some delay his request was granted, and the President created a new Military Department of Washington, including Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia, and after trying several other officers, placed Major-General Hancock in command of it. Meantime, the voting for the constitutional conventions, under the Reconstruction Act, had resulted in the decision to hold conventions in all the desolated States, and the conventions had begun to assemble. The first to convene was that of Alabama, November 5. It consisted of one hundred delegates, sixty-one of whom signed the new Constitution, and sixteen protested against it. Its provisions were substantially the same with those of the other States, which followed in its train, and we therefore quote them as examples of the general character of these constitutions.
It declared all men created equal; persons born in the United States or naturalized, to be citizens of the State of Alabama, possessing equal civil and political rights and public privileges, and prohibiting slavery. The following is the article in regard to suffrage:—
“In all elections by the people, the electors shall vote by ballot. Every male person born in the United States, and every person who has been naturalized, or who has legally declared his intentions to become a citizen of the United States, twenty-one years old or upwards, who shall have resided in this State six months next preceding the election, and three months in the county in which he offers to vote, except as hereinafter provided, shall be deemed an elector.
“Soldiers, sailors, and marines in the United States service are not permitted to vote by reason of being stationed in the State on duty. Registration must be provided for by the General Assembly, and the following persons are not permitted to register.
“First. Those who during the late Rebellion inflicted or caused to be inflicted any cruel or unusual punishment upon any soldier, sailor, or marine, employee, or citizen of the United States, or who in any other way violated the rules of civilized warfare.
“Second. Those who may be disqualified from holding office by the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States, known as Article XIV., and those who have been disqualified from registering to vote for delegates to the Convention to frame a Constitution for the State of Alabama, under the act of Congress ‘to provide for the more efficient Government of the Rebel States,’ passed by Congress March 2, 1867, and the acts supplementary thereto, except such persons as aided in the reconstruction proposed by Congress, and accept the political equality of all men before the law: Provided, That the General Assembly shall have power to remove the disabilities incurred under this clause.
“Third. Those who shall have been convicted of treason, embezzlement of public funds, malfeasance in office, crime punishable by law with imprisonment in the penitentiary, or bribery.
“Fourth. Those who are idiots or insane.
“All persons, before registering, must take and subscribe the following oath: ‘I, ——, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of the State of Alabama; that I am not excluded from registering by any of the clauses in section 8, article 7, of the Constitution of the State of Alabama; that I will never countenance or aid in the secession of this State from the United States; that I accept the civil and political equality of all men, and agree not to attempt to deprive any person or persons, on account of race, color, or previous condition, of any political or civil right, privilege, or immunity, enjoyed by any other class of men; and furthermore, that I will not in any way injure, or countenance in others any attempt to injure, any person or persons, on account of past or present support of the Government of the United States, the laws of the United States, or the principle of the political and civil equality of all men, or for affiliation with any political party.’”
The Convention adjourned December 6, and the Constitution was submitted to the people on the 4th and 5th of February, 1868. The Rebels and those opposed to the Constitution, and to the Congressional policy of reconstruction, used every device to defeat it. The provisions of the Reconstruction Act required that for the adoption of the Constitution, there must be a majority of the whole number of registered voters, and taking advantage of this, the Rebels registered as many names as possible (many, it was believed, fraudulently), and then, when the time came for voting, they not only kept away from the polls themselves, but by threats, by discharging from their employ every colored man who would vote, and by a general system of terrorism, sought to prevent as many as possible from voting. The registration was 170,631 voters, but the registry of four counties was illegal and fraudulent. This reduced the whole number of registered voters to 156,945; and the lowest number required for ratification of the Constitution was 78,473. The actual legal vote, under these adverse influences, was 70,359, or 8,114 short of the vote required. Of these 70,359 votes, 62,089 were for the Constitution. Under the existing law, therefore, the Constitution failed of ratification.
The Louisiana Convention met November 23. It adopted for its first article, that all men were born free and equal, and on the 28th of December, enacted the following as its second article: “All persons, without regard to race, color, or previous condition, born and naturalized in the United States, and residents of this State for one year, are citizens of this State. They shall enjoy the same civil, political, and public rights and privileges, and be subject to the same pains and penalties.”
This Constitution was voted upon in April, and was ratified by a majority of over 17,000 votes.
The Georgia Convention met on the 12th of December, and sat through nearly the whole of January. The Constitution formed by it was adopted in April, by about 18,000 majority.
“I SHALL DISCHARGE EVERY NIGGER WHO VOTES TO ADOPT THIS RADICAL YANKEE CONSTITUTION.”
The Florida Convention met January 20, 1868. At first there was considerable difficulty—two factions existing in the Convention, which seemed determined to divide and ruin its councils; but through the friendly interference of General Meade, who had succeeded to General Pope in command of the district on the 28th of December, 1867, the two parties were reconciled, and the Convention perfected its Constitution, which was ratified by the people early in May, by about 3,000 majority.
In South Carolina the Convention was called by a large majority, and met on —— ——. Its Constitution was ratified in April, by a majority of over 36,000, in a registry of 127,550, and a vote of 85,843.
North Carolina adopted her new Constitution also in April, by nearly 30,000 majority.
Arkansas voted on her new Constitution in May, and ratified it by about 2,000 majority.
Virginia, Mississippi, and Texas have each held their conventions and framed constitutions, but they have not yet been submitted to the people.[[27]]
[25]. Unofficial.
[26]. See this letter on a preceding page.
[27]. According to the most complete returns now available, the vote of the registration and for a convention to form a constitution in all the desolated States, except Texas, was substantially as follows:—
| STATES. | REGISTRATION.[[28]] | CONVENTION. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| White. | Colored. | Total. | For. | Against. | Not Voting. | |
| Alabama | 74,450 | 90,350 | 166,289 | 87,672 | 5,683 | 72,934 |
| Arkansas | 33,047 | 21,207 | 66,805 | 27,576 | 13,558 | 25,671 |
| Florida | 10,804 | 15,234 | 27,521 | 13,882 | 111 | 13,528 |
| Georgia | 95,214 | 93,458 | 188,672 | 102,282 | 4,127 | 82,263 |
| Louisiana | 45,199 | 84,431 | 129,630 | 75,083 | 4,006 | 50,541 |
| Mississippi | 46,636 | 60,167 | 139,327 | 69,739 | 6,277 | 63,311 |
| North Carolina | 103,060 | 71,657 | 174,717 | 57,359 | 18,635 | [[29]] |
| South Carolina | 45,751 | 79,535 | 125,286 | 60,278 | 1,480 | 63,528 |
| Texas | 59,666 | 47,430 | 107,096 | |||
| Virginia | 116,982 | 104,772 | 221,754 | 107,342 | 61,887 | 52,525 |
| Total | 630,809 | 668,241 | 1,347,097 | 601,213 | 115,764 | 424,301 |
The latest available reports in regard to the adoption of the constitutions and the election of legislatures in these States are as follows:—
| Total vote. | For Constitution. | Against. | White for. | Against. | Colored for. | Against. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 71,817 | 70,812 | 1,005 | 5,802 | 900 | 62,089 | 105 |
| South Carolina[[28]] | 98,046 | 70,758 | 27,288 | ||||
| Arkansas[[29]] | 19,978 | 10,985 | 8,993 | ||||
| North Carolina— | Majority for Constitution over 25,000 | ||||||
| Georgia | Majority for Constitution over 17,923 | ||||||
| Louisiana | Majority for Constitution over 17,000 | ||||||
| Florida | Majority for Constitution over 3,000 | ||||||
The Governors elected in these States were, South Carolina, —— ——; Arkansas, —— ——; North Carolina, W. W. Holden; Georgia, —— Bullock; Louisiana, H. C. Warmoth; Florida, —— Reed. The Governors were all Republicans. The Legislatures had also in every case a Republican majority, in some cases a very large one. In Georgia, the Senate stood 27 Republicans to 16 Democrats, and 1 doubtful; the House, 96 Republicans to 24 Democrats, and 6 doubtful. In North Carolina, the Republicans had 32 out of the 50 Senators, and 68 of the 122 Representatives. In Louisiana, the Republicans had 21 out of 36 Senators, and 56 out of 101 Representatives. The other States had generally large majorities on the Republican side.
The Senators from all these States were Republicans, and the Representatives in Congress were of the same party, except three from Georgia, and one from Louisiana, whose seat was to be contested.
[28]. In a number of the States, a discrepancy will be observed between the white and colored registries and the total. It arises from the fact that we have used official totals where we could obtain them, giving incomplete divisions of the races when we could obtain nothing better.
[29]. The returns of the vote in this State are so incomplete that the number not voting cannot be given.
CHAPTER LXXXV.
SOCIAL CONDITION.
Suffering at the South among the Freedmen and Loyal Whites.—Causes.—The Discharge of the Freedmen by their Employers for Voting.—Good Conduct of the Freedmen.—Description of the Scenes at the Polls in Montgomery, Ala.—Negro Suffrage, North and South.—Reasons why it was indispensable that the Freedmen should have the Ballot.—Testimony to the Good Conduct of the Negroes at the South.—Southern White Loyalty.—The Competency of the Negro for the Exercise of Suffrage equal to that of the Poor Whites.—Eloquence of a Negro in Arkansas, a recent Slave.—The Destitution at the South.—Wrongs Inflicted on the Freedmen.—Laziness of the Rebel Whites.—The Advance in Education at the South.—Benevolent Associations.—Freedmen’s Bureau.—Mr. Peabody’s Munificent Gift.—Higher Education.—The Educational Provisions in the New Constitutions.—The Results which must flow from this in the Future.
While the desolated States were thus striving to get into line, and henceforth keep step to the music of loyalty and Union, and, despite the bitter and ingenious opposition of the disloyal and rebellious portion of the population, and the hostility of President Johnson, were meeting with remarkable success, their social condition had, as yet, improved very little. The winter of 1867–68 was one of extensive suffering, especially among the freedmen and the poor whites, from several causes: The crops of the year 1867 had been, for the most part, poor; there had not been a sufficiency of corn or other grain grown in the South for the consumption of the population, and where cotton, sugar, and rice were cultivated, in a majority of cases the crop had not been sufficient to pay the expense incurred by the still thriftless managers, and, as somebody must suffer, they preferred that it should be the freedmen, whom they drove away, without pay, in the depth of winter, alleging that the advances already made to them covered, or more than covered, their entire earnings. In most of the States the freedmen were not, as yet, permitted to either hire or buy land. Where they could do so, and could in any way procure the means of cultivating it, they were industrious and economical, and managed to live comfortably.
One of the measures to which the Rebel planters resorted, most generally, to prevent, if possible, the calling of a constitutional convention, or later, the adoption of a constitution, was to discharge, at once, all in their employ who should dare to vote for either. Their papers openly advocated this outrageous despotism, and their advice was followed very widely.
Under these circumstances, it was certainly remarkable that no larger number of the colored people fell into a condition of dependence and pauperism, and that, ignorant as most of them were, and, as yet, indisposed to extra exertion from the life-long enervating influence of slavery, with the old fear of the lash still lingering in their minds, they should have braved all the threats and persecution of their old masters, and dared to contend so earnestly for their rights.
The polls, in these States, both at the time of voting for the Convention and for the Constitution, presented scenes of mingled pathos and humor, which could not fail to impress deeply every thoughtful mind.
The correspondent of the “Cincinnati Commercial,” himself somewhat inclined to sympathize with the President’s policy, was at Montgomery, Alabama, when the vote was taken on the adoption of the new Constitution, and his account of what he witnessed is so graphic, and tallies so exactly with what was observed in other States, that we cannot do better than to reproduce a portion of it:—
“The influences brought to bear to induce them to coöperate with the late master class have been ingenious and manifold. If good-humoredly reasoned with, they would only nod in reply. Scolding fell on their impassive heads as uselessly as a spitball. Expostulation was of no avail. Threats of proscription have been less fruitless, but many thousands disregarded every motive save the one that spurred them to vote for the political elevation of their race. It is universally asserted by the Conservatives, that the poor negroes are the dupes of designing white ‘carpet-baggers,’ who desire to be floated into office and emolument. That such designing persons exist is not to be doubted, but the black man, at this election, is trying to pull out of the fire the largest and most succulent chestnuts for himself and his own people. Read the proposed Constitution, and judge for yourself if he be snapping for more shadow than substance. Though often credulous, and by nature always confiding, he has a just apprehension of the stake played for in this deal of the political cards.
“For four days the election has been quietly proceeding. To-day is the last of the term allowed. If ratification fail, it will not be because time enough was not given to muster all who desired to vote. Originally but two days were named, then four. The voting commenced in a raw rain-storm, the creeks became swollen, and it was feared that many negroes would be kept at home by the wretched weather and roads. So another day was added by General Meade, making five in all. The first two days were exceedingly chilly, wet, and gloomy. The second two were mild and sunny. To-day promises to be a lovely one. But, rain or shine, the streets of Montgomery have been thronged with negroes. The curbstone restaurants (ranging in size from a hand-basket to a rickety table) have continued operations on a scale adapted to the crisis. Ebony cobblers on back streets have been pegging away, day and night, at the shocking bad foot-gear of tramping voters from distant plantations. Wooden awnings have sheltered a nightly bivouac. Every hospitable hut has lodged enough darkies to give it a double claim to be called a black hole. The warm sides of the avenues have had their ebony procession lengthened and widened to the election standard; and philanthropic auctioneers have about closed out their stock of goods and stock of conscience, at a fearful sacrifice, of course.
“If the reader now will come with me, and watch for a while how the voting proceeds, I promise him a novel experience. We will not take the first day of the voting, for then it was painful to see the crowd of ragged colored men standing for hours in the pitiless storm, waiting to slip in their tickets, and so fearful of losing their turns, that one who had deposited his vote found no avenue of egress, save that paved with the heads of those behind. Let us choose the third day, for the air is bland and the sky cloudless. There stand the black pilgrims, you see, ranged (for better order prevails to-day) in a double queue. At the side of the window, where the vote is handed in, are two policemen—one to admit the voter, the other to point the way out. In front of the window is the Conservative challenging committee of four. One of the four keeps tally of the vote; another scans the registration list as the name of each voter is announced; the third writes down the names not found registered, and the fourth makes himself generally watchful. Behind the window three judges are seated around a table, bearing in its centre a large pine ballot-box.
“The column of negroes waiting to vote is jammed together as if by some uncontrollable muscular impulse, but it surges back whenever the barrier of the first policeman threatens to give way. They do not talk to each other, deeming silence, perhaps, to be due to the sacred importance of the occasion. If their eye catches yours (you are a Caucasian, remember), it falls with an expression of embarrassment, as if they felt that you, being white, looked with keen disfavor on the act they had drawn up to perform. Falstaff’s recruits were not greater ragamuffins. Look at the garb of these negroes, and I defy you to point out one unpatched garment in fifty. Gray coats and blue coats, worn out three years ago, still are forced to serve in a tattered sartorial invalid corps. One coat (doubtless for Sunday and elections) is made of cheap ingrain carpeting. The pantaloons are more shred-like than the coats; the hats advanced to all degrees of organic decay. Not one in twenty wears boots, and few shoes retain much of their original homely integrity. In shape, they might inclose either a small ham, or the foot of any human being deformed by toil among the clods of cotton-fields. If you study the heads and the faces, you will find more indications of a gentle, submissive, ease-loving heart, than of active intelligence or ambitious disposition.
“Whatever the natural aptitudes of the African may be, a hundred years of slavery in Alabama have not added anything attractive to his phrenological development. That many of them are very ignorant of the scope and meaning of citizenship, is as plain as their determination to learn more about it. The hunger to have the same chances as the white man, they feel and comprehend as clearly as they understand a physical craving. That is what brings them here, and not the expectation of getting free lands, free rations, and free mules. Your Conservative friend may tell you that they look for such windfalls; but talk to as many on the subject as I have, and you will accumulate the strongest sort of rebutting evidence. The last one I sounded looked at me with a shade of rebuke, and said: ‘No, sah. I spect to git nuffin but what I works hard for, and when I’se sick I’ll get docked.’
“Enter the first voter. He takes off his hat, and nervously gives his name to the judges. They run over the registration list. So do the Conservative challengers, who, as you see, are afforded every facility to contest and analyze. If the negro has a smooth face they demand that he swear to his age, and he is accordingly sworn. If his name be found, the judges announce the column in which it stands, and the challengers check it off. In vain the voter, seeing his vote glide into the box, and making his own way out, strives to choke down the delight that fills him. If ever you saw an amateur gamester win a heavy stake (which I trust you never have unless it was at charming Baden-Baden, or some place in New York where they go with a clergyman to study vice the better to preach against it—ahem), you watched the same sort of a smile on his face, as on the homely countenance of this happy freedman.
“Enter the second. This middle-aged negro deliberately takes off his mittens, removes his hat, runs one hand under his vest, produces a little package, unwraps the rag around it, and at last hands in the paper treasure.
“’Oh, the devil! be quick,’ says the Judge, rapping irately on the window. ‘Put on your hat, uncle—that humility’s played out,’ says one of the challengers, with a laugh. But the voter has his own views as to the hat. Perhaps he stands uncovered to the ballot and not to men. His ticket drops into the box, and he stumps off, irradiated. The third! ‘Another George Washington.’ Another vote, too, and another chuckle. The fourth! The name of this one cannot be found. ‘Go to head-quarters of registration,’ says the Judge; ‘if your name is there, they will give you a certificate enabling you to vote.’ ‘I’ve been thar,’ sorrowfully rejoins the applicant. ‘’Taint thar.’ ‘Sorry,’ says the Judge; ‘make room, make room.’ Now I ask you to watch this poor fellow. He comes out looking sick at heart. A bright mulatto takes him aside, and inquires into his case. It is hopeless—name not registered at all. The disappointed darkey wanders around for ten minutes, then he quietly falls again into the rear of the line, to be repulsed again and again when he reaches the window. Hope that his name may have been overlooked dies out at last, and not without the sharpest pang his simple, but emotional nature can feel.
“Enter the fifth. ‘My name is Henry Clay.’ ‘All right, Henry, you can vote; you’re registered. But, Henry, where were you born?’ ‘In Kentucky, sir; Henry Clay, of Ashland, was my father.’ And the tall, handsome mulatto, bows and makes his way out. The sixth! This is another of the persevering kind. He gives his name. ‘Be off,’ says the Judge. ‘You have been here already half a dozen times. You say you are not registered.’ ‘Well, sah,’ replies the sorrowful negro, ‘I’se been hyah evah since Tuesday trying to vote at one place or nuther, and I hasn’t had a bite to eat, and I can’t vote, and I’se got to walk twelve miles to git home.’ The red-nosed, cross-looking Judge takes a biscuit from his pocket and hands it to the negro, with ‘Here, make room, now.’ One of the challengers says: ‘Boys, the Conservatives have the name of being generous. Let’s give this hungry nigger a dinner.’ The speaker draws his pocket-book and transfers some currency to the object of this kindly impulse, who takes it with a ‘tankee,’ but a vacant look. It is a vote he wants, not a meal.
“So the strange procession moves slowly on. If you wish to determine how much the negro’s heart is in this election, watch his face as he comes away from that little window. His vote once in, every feature blazes with joy; but his vote rejected, sorrow and dismay are expressed even in his attitudes. Watch the anxious but resolute sooty faces in those waiting their turns. Is all this emotion due to the duplicity of Yankee adventurers? Can the ‘carpet-bagger’ thus sway the very soul of the black man to reach his own selfish ends? Is it for a possible mule and forty acres of land that the negro is thus profoundly stirred; that he braves hardship, the ill-will of his employers, and, may be, starvation itself? No, friend Conservative. The slave you once owned, ignorant as he is still, and lowly in social rank, feels, as he casts that ballot, the throes that liberty awakened, and which, unchecked by renewed oppression, will give his manhood a rapid and generous growth. I do not seek to conceal his ignorance about the technical duties of citizenship. An old black fellow came, as I stood near one of the polls, and proffered me his vote, asking: ‘Are you de boss?’ The question is, Does the lack of such technical knowledge unfit him for useful and honest citizenship? There have been periods in the history of our country when a loyal heart, an honest, incorruptible nature, were worth more than ten thousand of the most choicely cultivated intellects on the national roll of the rich, the powerful, and the gifted.”
The question has been often asked, and sometimes in a tone of triumph, as if it were unanswerable, Is it not tyrannical, on the part of the majority in Congress, to insist on giving the ballot to the negro in the desolated States, when the party which they represent refuses to permit the negro to vote in the Northern States? Is it not a positive violation of the golden rule—a placing of burdens upon the South which they themselves will not bear?
We answer both inquiries with a decided negative. Without stopping to discuss the question of negro suffrage at the North, farther than to say, that a large majority of the Republican party throughout the North are in favor of it, and have carried it in some of the States, and have been defeated in others only by the coalition of Democrats and weak-kneed Republicans, we take the ground that the condition of the two sections is entirely different. At the North the negro citizens had no special claims on us; they had manifested an interest in the war, and some of them had volunteered to serve in the ranks against the South, though hardly so many in proportion to their number as the whites. We should prefer to have them vote, for we do not believe in taxation without representation; but, at the South, the negroes had been our friends throughout the war; they had been steadily and persistently loyal, when very few of the whites were so, and many thousands of them had laid down their lives for the national cause. We had emancipated them, both as a military necessity, and as an act of justice to an oppressed race. But the close of the war, and the reinstating of their former disloyal masters in power, as was done often by the pardons of the President, left them like sheep in the midst of wolves. Their old masters hated them for their loyalty, and proceeded at once, under Mr. Johnson’s provisional governments, to oppress them, to refuse them land, education, or employment, except at wages which would not sustain life, and to endeavor to reduce them back to slavery.
To obviate this gross injustice, and to protect these wards of the nation, to whom its honor was solemnly pledged, it was necessary that they should be permitted to share in the government, that loyalty might, at least, have equal rights with disloyalty, the oppressed an equal voice with the oppressor. This must be done, or the other alternative adopted,—that of arming the negro and bringing on a war of races, which would not have ceased till those States should have, indeed, become desolate and without inhabitants.
Congress had no ambition to reënact the bloody scenes of St. Domingo, and they felt that with the kindly and placable nature of the African, peace, quiet, and good order would be sooner secured by giving him the ballot than in any other way, and the event is even now demonstrating the wisdom of their decision.
The same able writer from whom we have already quoted, after spending some months in the South, says:—
“The freedmen have surprised me by their native shrewdness and good sense, their cautious and submissive behavior, and the keen, intelligent interest they take in their new political privileges. If they were one tenth as vindictive and contemptuous in their manner toward the whites as the whites toward them, a war of races would have ensued long ago. From close observation, I believe them to be humbler in deportment than before emancipation. As a class they are anxious to work and get on in the world. They are more industrious than their late masters. And though the word has been abused, they are as loyal to the government as it is possible for men of their capacities to be. They would respond to a national summons to arms with alacrity and enthusiasm. By their votes in their conventions they have shown that they feel no hatred toward their old oppressors, and ask nothing beyond security for the future.
“Scratch a Southerner, and you find an intolerant. He is not willing to have you vote as your conscience dictates. Defy his local despotisms, and you will be socially ostracized; your name will be published in a black-list; you will be sneered at and insulted. If you are a Northern man, acquire citizenship by the legal period of residence, and get nominated to office, you will be ridiculed as a Yankee adventurer—a ‘carpet-bagger.’ Witness the Alabama election in February: witness the Southern newspaper treatment of all the constitutional conventions.
“How about Southern loyalty?
“About three fourths of the Southern white people are passively disloyal. Could it be otherwise? For four years they rained death on the National flag and the National uniform. They shot at and cursed them. In every church in the Confederacy they prayed and supplicated with fervor and with tears, to have them go down in disgrace. Can it be that their gorge does not rise now at their sight?
“On the boat coming up the Potomac from Aquia Creek, I heard a Southerner confess that though he tried to subdue the emotion, he still felt a hatred of the Stars and Stripes. He had fought under Lee from first to last, and during that time had seen the flag so often in battle when the army of the Potomac swept down upon him and his companions in arms, that he feared he would never again be able to look upon it as his flag.
“The dominant class in the South never was republican in traits, tastes, or habits. The revolution now going on in its industries and system of labor tend to make it so, but as long as this generation lives the change cannot be complete. The Southern man and woman still deem themselves a better order of beings than the Yankees. They will die in that faith. The vanity is ingrain.
“I have been astonished to find how generally the Southerners believe the North to be on the verge of civil convulsion. Reading only their own newspapers and the most violent Copperhead journals in the North, they are firmly convinced that nothing is more likely to happen than the embroilment of the Western with the Middle and New England States. This delusion is shared by thousands of the most intelligent men in the South. That they would delight in such a calamity is as certain as the fact that the next gale that sweeps from the North will not take to them ‘the clash of resounding arms.’ They cannot understand the elastic temper and wholesome tolerance of the North, where elections come and go, crises ripen and decline, with no thought of bloodshed, nor black-lists, nor social disdain, contempt, and persecution.
“The Southerner is generous in some things, and honorable in many; but he is not yet a good citizen for a republic. That is the whole trouble. He must be made so, or stand back for his children. He needs a firm, resolute guidance—not unkindly unless he will have it so—but firm, always firm. The moment we waver, he wavers. When he fully and finally understands that his old undue political importance is irrevocably a thing of the past, he will take the first step on the road to valuable citizenship. But between Andrew Johnson and the ‘Great Democratic Reaction,’ he has come to believe in the speedy overthrow of the Republican party, and in the restoration of the slave dynasty to reign over a dominant party, composed of Southern extremists and Northern doughfaces.”
That among these freedmen till lately slaves, there are many who have very inadequate notions of the value and importance of the ballot, and whose knowledge of our political institutions, is very limited, is undoubtedly true; but they hardly suffer even in these respects by comparison with the ignorant poor whites of the South; a class much slower to learn on these subjects than the most stupid of the negroes, and among the latter there are men who in intellect and eloquence are the peers of any of the white legislators of the South, brilliant as some of them have been. In the report of the debates of the Constitutional Convention in Arkansas, which adjourned in March last, we find a speech of W. H. Gray, a full-blooded negro, and till recently a slave, but at that time a member of the Convention, on this very subject, which may safely be placed by the side of any speech of any white Senator or Representative from that State in either House of Congress. We have read carefully the debates of the fathers of the American Republic on the Declaration of Independence, and we can find in them nothing more manly or statesmanlike in tone, or more logical in argument, than the speech of this negro orator. It is a defense of the right of his people to suffrage which it would be very difficult for any white man to gainsay or refute. The question of Impartial Suffrage was before the Convention, and Mr. Gray said:—
“Now, sir, having stood by the government and the old flag in times of trouble, when the Republic trembled with the throes of civil war, from centre to circumference, from base to cope, for this and other considerations we are here not to ask charity at the hands of the honorable body, but to receive, at the hands of the people of Arkansas in convention assembled, the apportionment of our rights, as assigned by the Reconstruction Acts of Congress. I am here, sir, to see those rights of citizenship engrafted in the organic law of this State. The gentleman from White County does not seem to recognize the fact that the present constitution is not in accordance with the Constitution of the United States, guaranteeing to each State a republican form of government. The gentleman from White says the negro cannot become a citizen. The fact is patent that we have exercised those rights under the constitution in all the States except South Carolina, and voted for that time-honored instrument—the Federal Constitution—by voting for the men that ratified it. As free men, we were not denied the right of suffrage under the State laws on account of color. It seems as though the gentleman had read the history of our country to little purpose, or at least not as I have.... Again the gentleman denies us the right of suffrage on the ground of our ignorance. Why, sir, for every negro vote registered in this State I can duplicate it with the vote of a white man that can neither read or write; and still we are charged with ignorance. I do not deny it, but we are not isolated. If these men can vote, I see no injustice in permitting me to vote also. And in this connection I would say that the colored people of this State met in convention in this city, in 1865, for the purpose of considering their condition and prospects, and then asked simply for the most remote recognition of their rights, but it was unheeded. I then said that I had an unshaken confidence in the eventual justice of the American. Since then we have crossed the Rubicon, as a nation, and cannot recede if we would.... We are told a republican form of government must rest upon the intelligence and virtue of the masses, and that we have not these qualifications; they are qualities that are at least susceptible of improvement. In other races of men—and they were not largely displayed when the Huns, Vandals, and other tribes were laying waste the fair fields of Italy, or when the Danes and Normans were making sad havoc of your ancestral estates—our condition would compare favorably with that of England, as described by Macaulay, at the time of the conquest of the island by the legions of Cæsar, when he says the condition of the people was little better than that of the Sandwich Islanders. We were not far behind those who sold civilized women along the banks of the James for 200 pounds of tobacco, or less. Nor has our intelligence, even in a barbarous state, been much below the level of those who ate the acorns falling from the lofty oak of Dodona, and worshipped the tree from which they fell. The civilization of the nineteenth century is the product of 800 years; and with this start ahead, with all the wealth, intelligence, and power and prestige of a great government, men pretend to believe that they are afraid of negro domination, afraid that 4,000,000 of negroes, scattered over this vast country, will rule 30,000,000 of intelligent white people. They cannot believe it. But they are endeavoring to work on the prejudices of the masses, to produce outrage and bloodshed; and, if possible, what they pretend to deprecate, a war of races. But, sir, this I do not fear, so long as we are led by the best minds of the nation, and count in our ranks those distinguished men of both sections, whose gleaming swords were seen flashing on many a skirmish line and in the smoke of battle. The gentleman says we are not citizens, by the highest judicial decision. That decision, sir, travelled outside of American History, outside of the presence of the courts; and hence I regard Chief Justice Taney as the American Jeffries. Could I afford to trust my dearest rights in the hands of men who hold up such a decision as the measure of my rights, and at the same time profess to be my best friends? I beg respectfully to decline such friendship—men who are willing to consign us to a system of peonage worse than slavery, a system that strips us of every right or privilege, and turns us bound hand and foot over to the tender mercies of mob law....
“Man cannot prevent it, for God has written it in burning characters across the pages of American History—emblazoned it as upon a sign-board, and hung it on the brows of the Rocky Mountains—‘This is the asylum for the oppressed of all nations, and all people.’ This is according to the original contract, drawn up by those patriotic men of the Revolution, and I believe they were honest when they declared that ‘All men are created equal.’ I believe the hand of an angel guided the pen that wrote those words, and that they were recorded in heaven. God intends you shall keep the original contract. The acting in bad faith by the children of those good men, has cost the country a million lives—the flower of the land—and untold sums of wealth. I believe He intends to demand its fulfillment now, and I plant myself upon the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, as defined by the framers of those documents, and expounded by the leading men of that period, and claim that they secure me my rights, if honestly and faithfully executed. Settle at once and forever the question of human rights by giving us equality before the law. Then, and not till then, will peace come to our borders. Until that is done, capital will not seek investment within our limits, nor will immigration flow to a State that continues to oppress and crush the laborer. Arkansas has tried it for thirty years, and she is still comparatively a vast forest. With an extent of territory sufficient for an empire,—stretching from Missouri on the north to Louisiana and Texas on the south, from the Cherokee territory on the west to where her eastern front looks out on the Father of Waters; with internal streams sufficiently navigable to bear the commerce of an empire to the sea,—thirty years a State and not a railroad worth the name, no means of inter-communication, except that employed in a by-gone age. Not a respectable school-house, and her primeval forests still keeping silent guard along her watercourses: and why? because her soil was desecrated by Slavery. It was here this Moloch of the nineteenth century reared his altars and sacrificed his human victims. God has removed the idol and shattered the altars, and those that opposed it, like the devotees that cast themselves before the Hindoo car of Juggernaut, will be crushed beneath the progress of the age.”
The pictures of the condition of the South in the beginning of the present year were gloomy in the extreme. We have taken in preference the testimony of moderate men who have spent some months in the South during the early part of the present year. One of these, a Mr. D., for a long time, and we believe still, connected with the “Cincinnati Gazette,” gives in January, 1868, the following summary of the condition of affairs from his own personal observation:—
“There is literally ‘no show’ for an outspoken Union man. He is socially ostracized; nobody will trade with him. If he be a farmer, his horses are stolen, his stock dies suddenly, his fences mysteriously disappear, ‘spontaneous combustion’ destroys his out-houses; and if he is still foolish enough to misunderstand these ‘manifestations of Providence,’ he is accidentally shot, or some equally broad hint is given him to leave. To learn these facts, leave the railroad towns and live in the interior for a few months, and you will get your fill. I believe that even Andrew Johnson himself might be reformed, provided he could visit Mississippi incog., and stay at the house of a Union man even a fortnight.
“But to know Rebeldom in its truest character, you must leave its dealings with white men, and view its dealings with the negro. It could not be expected that the relations existing between the whites and their late chattels would be very decidedly cordial, for it will be years ere former owners can calmly view what was once their property and source of wealth now toiling for themselves; but still common humanity would dictate a treatment toward the negroes fully as generous as that usually extended to brutes. Villainy of the whites is the cause of three fourths of the destitution among the negroes. In four cases in five where he has worked for a white man, either on shares or wages, the negro has been defrauded out of his earnings. If a crop has been raised on shares, it is disposed of by the land-owner, and if the laborer receives one half his dues he is most fortunate; if he is employed by the year, he is turned adrift as soon as crops are gathered, and he is given but a moiety of his wages; when he asks for the balance due, he is cursed and threatened, and, if he persists in his demand, he is knocked down, or, more often, shot; if he resents the blow, his death is certain, for no negro dare strike a white man here, unless there be a company of soldiers present. To kill a negro is no crime here, and I have heard men talk of their exploits in this line with the utmost complacency. The only protection that the colored man now has in the South is the Freedmen’s Bureau, backed up by Federal bayonets. Break up the Bureau before reconstruction is effected, and the colored race will be exterminated in ten years, unless a ‘war of races’ ensues, and the whites be brought to their senses thereby. It appears to be the policy of not a few leaders to bring about such a conflict. The excessive tyranny practiced upon the poor blacks, and the appeals to the prejudices and baser passions of the whites, tend to that end, and certainly must have that object.
“Great destitution prevails in the interior of Alabama and Mississippi, but it is by no means so severe as has been represented. Here again is another fiendish device of the opponents of reconstruction. The colored laborer is defrauded out of most of his earnings. As a consequence, he is in want, and his family are nigh to starvation. This is heralded forth to the world as an evidence of the negro’s natural laziness and disability to take care of himself. If the whites had dealt justly and generously by their colored laborers, they would not now be asking alms of the North, nor begging relief of government. It makes me mourn for the white race when I witness their oppression of the negro. A just Providence cannot permit such iniquities to be perpetrated.
“The prime cause of Southern want is the laziness of the whites. The Southern climate is notoriously enervating, and is made the excuse for not working by the ‘privileged classes.’ At every cross-roads doggery, every shop, and every store in every town and village, is to be found a crowd of long-haired, stalwart fellows engaged in whittling sticks, chewing tobacco, and cursing the negro—three things which they do well and industriously follow up. Without a dollar, save what they make or defraud their laborers out of, they spend their time, week in and week out, in idleness, regretting ‘old times,’ instead of turning to work and industriously striving to retrieve their fallen fortunes. They have land in abundance, but this few only will sell, lest the negroes get a foothold and become property owners. The South is by no means as impoverished as has been represented. The Southern people still have in abundance all the elements of wealth, and it only requires industry among the whites, and encouragement and fair dealing toward the colored laborers, to raise the late Rebel States to even a higher state of prosperity than they ever before enjoyed.”
Still amid all this gloom and darkness there were some gleams of light. Education is and has been, for the past two years, advancing in the South with a rapidity hitherto unknown. Heretofore in most of the Southern States, everywhere except in the large towns, education was only the boon of the wealthy, and the poor white had almost as little chance of learning to read and write as the slave, to whom all knowledge of books was prohibited by law under the severest penalties. But now, thanks to the efforts of the philanthropic citizens of the North, the Missionary Associations, Home Missionary Societies, Freedmen’s Aid Societies and Commissions, and to the Freedmen’s Bureau, there were thousands of schools where the negro and the child of the poor white were taught the elements of knowledge, and an intense rivalry, in which truth compels us to say the negro child oftenest came out winner, ensued between the two in regard to the rapid acquisition of knowledge.
This laudable enterprise for the general diffusion of education in the South was powerfully aided and will continue to be so by the munificent gift by George Peabody, Esq., of the sum of more than two millions of dollars, the income of which is to be distributed annually to southern schools and institutions of learning, without distinction of color or race. Several institutions have been founded in Washington, D. C., Wilmington, N. C., New Orleans, and Pittsburgh for the higher education of colored young men, with a view to qualify them for teachers and preachers among their own people.
The constitutional conventions of the desolated States have wisely incorporated into their bills of rights and their constitutions the right and the provision for universal education, and the legislatures elected are manifesting a willingness to tax themselves for this purpose, to an extent which, in their present impoverished condition, is highly creditable to them.
The result of this will be that in a few years the mass of voters in the Southern States will be equal in intelligence to the people of any other section of the country, or to any nation in the world, and with that intelligence they may safely be trusted to govern themselves. In all countries and states, and at all times, ignorance, which brings in its train all other vices, has been the worst foe of good government. But with an intelligent and enterprising people no form of despotism, neither autocracy, oligarchy, or mob law, can prevail. Hence dark as may be the clouds which now overhang the South, we look confidently for a brighter future, when its despotic aristocracy shall no longer hold sway.
CHAPTER LXXXVI.
IMPEACHMENT.
The determination of the President to proceed with his own plan of restoring the states lately in insurrection to their former status, in violation of all law, and of the rights of the Legislative branch of the Government, to whom this work had been confided by the constitution, as well as the defiant and hostile spirit he manifested toward all who opposed his course, led many of the members of both houses of Congress to feel that it would be necessary to check his career by impeachment.
Still there was a very great reluctance to resort to such an extreme measure, except under circumstances of extraordinarily aggravated offence. Many of the Republican members believed for months that Mr. Johnson’s course was merely experimental, and that he would ere long return to harmony and co-operation with the party which had elected him to the Vice-Presidency; and entertaining this view, they were unwilling to resort to any measures which should alienate him still more.
The more advanced Republicans were convinced that these views were erroneous; that Mr. Johnson really sought a breach with the Republicans; that he was at heart a Democrat, and in sympathy with the Rebel leaders; that his violations of the laws and of the rights of Congress had been deliberate and intentional, and that he intended to continue his course so long as he could do it with impunity.
The first positive movement looking toward impeachment, was made on the 17th of December, 1866, when the Hon. James M. Ashley, of Ohio, moved a suspension of the rules to enable him to report, from the Committee on Territories, a resolution for the appointment of a select committee of seven by the Speaker, to inquire whether any acts had been done by any officer of the Government of the United States, which in contemplation of the constitution, were high crimes, or misdemeanors, &c. The suspension of the rules was refused, (two-thirds being necessary). Yeas, 90; nays, 49.
On the 7th of January, 1867, Hon. Ben. F. Loan, of Missouri, moved a resolution, (which was referred to the Committee on Reconstruction), declaring it the imperative duty of the Thirty-Ninth Congress, (among other things), to take, without delay, such action as would accomplish the impeachment of the officer now exercising the functions pertaining to the office of President of the United States of America, and his removal from said office upon his conviction, in due form of law, of the high crimes and misdemeanors of which he is manifestly and notoriously guilty, and which render it unsafe longer to permit him to exercise the powers he has unlawfully assumed.
On the same day, Hon. John R. Kelso, of Missouri, offered a resolution of nearly similar tenor, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
On the same day, Hon. James M. Ashley, of Ohio, offered, as a question of privilege, the following:
“I do impeach Andrew Johnson, Vice-President and acting President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.
“I charge him with a usurpation of power and violation of law;
“In that he has corruptly used the appointing power;
“In that he has corruptly used the pardoning power;
“In that he has corruptly used the veto power;
“In that he has corruptly disposed of public property of the United States;
“In that he has corruptly interfered in elections, and committed acts which, in contemplation of the Constitution, are high crimes and misdemeanors; Therefore,
Be it resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be, and they are hereby authorized to inquire into the official conduct of Andrew Johnson, Vice-President of the United States, discharging the powers and duties of the office of President of the United States, and to report to this House whether, in their opinion, the said Andrew Johnson, while in said office, has been guilty of acts which are designed or calculated to overthrow, subvert, or corrupt the Government of the United States, or any department or office thereof; and whether the said Andrew Johnson has been guilty of any act, or has conspired with others to do acts, which, in contemplation of the Constitution, are high crimes and misdemeanors, requiring the interposition of the constitutional power of this House; and that said committee have power to send for persons and papers, and to administer the customary oath to witnesses.”
This resolution was adopted by a vote of 108 to 39. The subject was frequently discussed during the session.
The Judiciary Committee, on the 3d of March, reported that it had not concluded its investigation, but that, in the opinion of the majority, eight to one, “sufficient testimony had been brought to the notice of the Committee to justify and demand a further prosecution of the investigation.” The Judiciary Committee of the XLth Congress was empowered to continue the investigation, by action had on the 7th of March.
The Judiciary Committee reported November 25th, 1867. The majority, consisting of Messrs. George S. Boutwell, Francis Thomas, Thomas Williams, William Lawrence, and John C. Churchill, favored impeachment. Messrs. James F. Wilson and Frederick E. Woodbridge united in a report opposed thereto, and Marshall and Eldridge signed another minority report. Debate on these reports began in the House December 5th, and closed the 7th. The impeachment resolution was then lost, 57 to 108. The affirmative were all Republicans. In the negative were 67 Republicans and 41 Democrats; there were 20 absentees, 16 Republicans and 4 Democrats. The following is the vote in detail:
Yeas.—Anderson, of Missouri; Arnell, of Tenn.; Ashley, of Ohio; Boutwell, of Mass; Bromwell, of Illinois; Broomall, of Penn; Butler, of Mass; Churchill of N. Y.; Clarke, of Ohio; Clarke, of Kansas; Cobb, of Wisconsin; Coburn, of Indiana; Covode, of Penn.; Collum, of Illinois; Donnelly, of Minn.; Eckley, of Ohio; Ela, of New Hampshire; Farnsworth, of Illinois; Gravelly, of Missouri; Harding, of Illinois; Higby, of California; Hopkins, of Wisconsin; Hunter, of Indiana; Judd, of Illinois; Julian, of Indiana; Kelley, of Penn.; Kelsey, of New York; Lawrence of Ohio; Loan, of Missouri; Logan, of Illinois; Lynch, of Maine; Maynard, of Tenn.; McClurg, of Missouri; Mercer, of Penn.; Mullins, of Tenn.; Myers, of Penn.; Newcomb, of Missouri; Nunn, of Tenn.; O’Neil, of Penn; Orth, of Indiana; Paine, of Wisconsin; Pile, of Missouri; Price, of Iowa; Schenck, of Ohio; Shanks, of Indiana; Stevens, of New Hampshire; Stevens, of Penn.; Stokes, of Tenn.; Thomas, of Maryland; Trimble, of Tenn.; Trowbridge, of Michigan; Van Horn, of Missouri; Ward, of New York; Williams, of Penn.; Williams, of Indiana; Wilson, of Pennsylvania.—57.
Nays.—Republicans in Roman, Democrats in italic.
Adams, of Kentucky; Allison, of Iowa; Ames, of Mass.; Archer, of Maryland; Ashley, of Nevada; Axtell, of California; Bailey, of New York; Baker, of Illinois; Baldwin, of Mass; Banks, of Mass; Barnum of Conn.; Beaman, of Michigan; Beck, of Kentucky; Benjamin, of Missouri; Benton, of N. H.; Bingham, of Ohio; Blaine, of Maine; Boyer, of Penn.; Brooks, of New York; Buckland, of Ohio; Burr, of Illinois; Carey, of Ohio; Chanler, of New York; Cook, of Illinois; Dawes, of Mass; Dixon, of R. I.; Dodge, of Iowa; Driggs, of Michigan; Eggleston, of Ohio; Eldridge, of Wisconsin; Eliot, of Mass; Ferris, of New York; Ferry, of Michigan; Fields, of New York; Garfield, of Ohio; Getz, of Penn.; Glossbrenner, of Penn.; Golladay, of Kentucky; Griswold, of New York; Grover, of Kentucky; Haight, of New Jersey; Halsey, of New Jersey; Hamilton, of Ohio; Hawkins, of Tenn.; Hill, of New Jersey; Holman, of Indiana; Hooper, of Mass; Hotchkiss, of Conn; Hubbard, of Iowa; Hubbard, of West Va.; Hubbard, of Conn; Hubbard, of New York; Humphrey, of New York; Ingersoll, of Illinois; Johnson, of Cal.; Jones, of Kentucky; Kerr, of Indiana; Ketchum, of New York; Knott, of Kentucky; Koontz, of Penn.; Laflin, of New York; Lawrence, of Penn.; Lincoln, of New York; Marshall, of Illinois; Marvin, of New York; McCarty, of New York; McCullough, of Maryland; Miller, of Penn.; Morehead, of Penn.; Morgan, of Ohio; Mungen, of Ohio; Niblack, of Indiana; Nicholson, of Delaware; Perham, of Maine; Peters, of Maine; Phelps, of Maryland; Pike, of Maine; Plants, of Ohio; Poland, of Vermont; Polsley, of West Va.; Pruyn, of New York; Randall, of Penn.; Robertson, of New York; Robinson, of New York; Ross, of Illinois; Sawyer, of Wisconsin; Sitgreaves, of New Jersey; Smith, of Vermont; Spalding, of Ohio; Starkweather, of Conn.; Stewart, of New York; Stone, of Maryland; Taber, of New York; Taylor, of Penn.; Upson, of Michigan; Van Aernam, of New York; Van Auken, of Penn.; Van Trump, of Ohio; Van Wyck, of New York; Washburne, of Wisconsin; Washburne, of Indiana; Washburne, of Illinois; Washburn, of Mass.; Welker, of Ohio; Wilson, of Iowa; Wilson, of Ohio; Woodbridge, of Vermont; Woodward, of Pennsylvania.—108.
Absentees.—Messrs. Blair, Michigan; Cornell, New York; Finney, Penn.; Jenckes, Rhode Island; Kitchen, West Va.; Mallory, Oregon; Morrell, Penn.; Pomeroy, New York; Raum, Illinois; Selye, New York; Scofield, Penn.; Shellabarger, Ohio; Taffe, Neb.; Twitchell, Mass; Van Horn, New York; Windom, Minn.; all Republicans: and Barnes, Fox, and Morrissey, all of New York, and Democrats.
It was conceded on all hands that this was the end of impeachment for that time at least, and it was thought that, the President, feeling that his conduct had brought down upon him the censure of a large body of the Members of Congress, who though they were not willing to proceed to extremities, still disapproved of his course, would, for the future, act more wisely, and refrain from those overt acts which might bring him into further collision with Congress.
But those who reasoned thus with regard to Andrew Johnson, knew nothing of his character. Elated with his victory, he could not conceal his disposition to show his defiance to Congress by further and more considerable acts of aggression. He interfered in several of the desolated states which were about voting upon the question of calling a convention, and electing delegates to prepare a new constitution, suggesting to them ways and means of thwarting the reconstruction measures; continued so far as possible his systematic removals of loyal and incorruptible officers, and nominated to their places corrupt men, whom the Senate could not confirm without becoming partners in corruption; and in every way possible made known his determination to defy Congress, which he believed he could now do, with impunity.
On the 13th of January, 1868, Congress having decided that his suspension of Secretary Stanton was illegal, and that he must be reinstated, General Grant, who had been Secretary ad interim, quietly relinquished the War Office to Secretary Stanton, and notified the President that he had done so.
A very bitter correspondence ensued between the President and General Grant, (the General, however, keeping his temper), in which the President charged Grant with duplicity, treachery and inveracity because he had not given him previous notice of his intention of surrendering the office to Secretary Stanton, so that he (Johnson) might have put some one in possession who would have prevented Secretary Stanton’s reinstatement. The whole issue between the President and the General was, in fact, that the President had intended to violate the Tenure of Office Act and defy the Senate, and General Grant by his judicious course, had prevented him from doing so.
The excitement growing out of this correspondence, and of the attempts of Mr. Johnson to compel General Grant not to issue his orders through the War Department, had not died out, when Mr. Johnson prepared, by a new act of aggression, to show his defiance of Congress.
On the 21st of February, 1868, he sent the following order to Secretary Stanton, by Brevet Major-General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant-General of the Army, a subordinate of the Secretary:
Executive Mansion,
Washington, D. C., Feb. 21, 1868.
Sir: By virture of the power and authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States, you are hereby removed from office as Secretary of War, and your functions as such will terminate upon receipt of this communication.
You will transfer to Brevet Major-Gen. Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant-General of the Army, who has this day been authorized to act as Secretary of War ad interim, all records, books, papers, and other public property now in your custody and charge.
Respectfully yours,
Andrew Johnson, President.
To the Hon. Edwin M. Stanton, Washington, D. C.
Secretary Stanton being satisfied that under the Tenure of Office Act, the President had no power to remove him, refused obedience, and ordered Gen. Thomas to his own office. The General refused to go, and expressed his determination to obtain possession by force, if necessary. That he understood at the time that the President had authorized him to use force if necessary, there can be no doubt; whether he understood Mr. Johnson correctly, may be a question.
Mr. Stanton continued in possession, and notified Congress of the action of the President, and of what he had done.
This act was so plainly a violation both of the Tenure of Office Act, and the rights of the Senate, that it produced at once the most intense excitement, and convinced those who had hitherto doubts, that impeachment was necessary.
On the same day, February 21st, Mr. Covode, of Pennsylvania, offered a resolution that the President be impeached, which was referred to the Committee on Reconstruction. On the 22d of February, (Saturday,) Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on Reconstruction, made the following report:
That, in addition to the papers referred to, the Committee find that the President, on the 21st day of February, 1868, signed and ordered a commission or letter of authority to one Lorenzo Thomas, directing and authorizing said Thomas to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and to take possession of the books, records, papers, and other public property in the War Department, of which the following is a copy:
Executive Mansion, }
Washington, D. C., Feb. 21, 1868. }
Sir: The Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been removed from office as Secretary of the Department of War, you are hereby authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and will immediately enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that office. Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all records, books, papers, and other public property intrusted to his charge.
Respectfully yours,
Andrew Johnson.
To Brevet Major-Gen. Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant-General U. S. A.
(Official copy.)—Respectfully furnished to Hon. Edwin M. Stanton.
L. Thomas, Secretary of War ad interim.
Upon the evidence collected by the Committee, which is hereafter presented, and in virtue of the powers with which they have been invested by the House, they are of the opinion that Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors. They, therefore, recommend to the House the adoption of the accompanying resolution:
THADDEUS STEVENS,
GEORGE A. BOUTWELL,
JOHN A. BINGHAM,
F. C. BEAMAN,
C. T. HULBURD,
JOHN F. FARNSWORTH,
H. E. PAINE.
Resolved, That Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors.
On the 24th of February, (Monday), this resolution passed the House by 126 yeas to 47 nays; the yeas being all Republicans, and the nays all Democrats, except Mr. Cary, of Ohio, who was elected as an Independent. The names of those who voted on the question were as follows:
Yeas.—Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnell, Ashley (Nev.), Ashley (Ohio), Bailey, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Beaman, Beatty, Benton, Bingham, Blaine, Blair, Boutwell, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Butler, Cake, Churchill, Clarke (Kan.), Clark (Ohio), Cobb, Coburn, Cook, Cornell, Covode, Cullum, Dawes, Dodge, Driggs, Eckley, Eggleston, Eliot, Farnsworth, Ferris, Ferry, Fields, Gravelly, Griswold, Halsey, Harding, Higby, Hill, Hooper, Hopkins, Hubbard (Iowa), Hubbard (W. V.), Hulburd, Hunter, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Judd, Julian, Kelley, Kelsey, Ketcham, Kitchen, Laflin, Lawrence (Pa.), Lawrence (Ohio), Lincoln, Loan, Logan, Loughridge, Lynch, Mallory, Marvin, McCarthy, McClurg, Mercer, Miller, Moore, Moorhead, Morrill, Mullins, Myers, Newcomb, Nunn, Orth, O’Neill, Paine, Perham, Peters, Pike, Pile, Plants, Poland, Polsley, Price, Raum, Robertson, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Selye, Shanks, Smith, Spalding, Starkweather, Stevens (N. H.), Stevens (Pa.), Stokes, Taffe, Taylor, Trowbridge, Twitchell, Upson, Van Aernam, Van Horn (N. Y.), Van Wyck, Ward, Washburn (Wis.), Washburne (Ill.), Washburn (Mass.), Welker, Williams (Pa.), Wilson (Iowa), Wilson (Ohio), Wilson (Pa.), Windom, Woodbridge, The Speaker—126.
Nays.—Adams, Archer, Axtell, Barnes, Barnum, Beck, Boyer, Brooks, Burr, Cary (Ind.), Chanler, Eldridge, Fox, Getz, Glossbrenner, Golladay, Grover, Haight, Holman, Hotchkiss, Hubbard (Conn.), Humphrey, Johnson, Jones, Kerr, Knott, Marshall, McCormick, McCullough, Morgan, Morrissey, Mungen, Niblack, Nicholson, Phelps, Pruyn, Randall, Ross, Sitgreaves, Stewart, Stone, Taber, Trimble (Ky.), Van Auken, Van Trump, Wood, Woodward—47.
Mr. Stevens of Pennsylvania, then moved that a committee of two be appointed to go to the Senate and at the bar thereof, in the name of the House of Representatives, and of all the people of the United States, impeach Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors. This motion prevailed, and on the 25th of February, Messrs. Thaddeus Stevens and John A. Bingham, of the House of Representatives, appeared before the bar of the Senate, and read the following announcement:
“Mr. President: In obedience to the order of the House of Representatives, we have appeared before you, and in the name of the House of Representatives and of all the people of the United States, we do impeach Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors in office; and we further inform the Senate that the House of Representatives will in due time exhibit particular articles of impeachment against him, and make good the same; and in their name we demand that the Senate take due order for the appearance of the said Andrew Johnson, to answer to the said Impeachment.”
The President pro tem. replied: The Senate will take order in the premises.
A committee of seven, appointed by the President, and consisting of Messrs. Howard, Trumbull, Conkling, Edmunds, Morton, Pomeroy, and Johnson, were on motion of Mr. Howard, directed to consider and report upon this announcement.
Between this date and the 4th of March, the action of the House was mainly confined to the preparation of the Articles of Impeachment, their adoption, and the election of Managers of the Impeachment. The Managers elected were Mr. Stevens of Pennsylvania, Mr. Butler of Massachusetts, Mr. Bingham of Ohio, Mr. Boutwell of Massachusetts, Mr. Wilson of Iowa, Mr. Williams of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Logan of Illinois.
On Wednesday, March 4th, the series of Articles of Impeachment which had passed the House, were presented to the Senate by a House Committee. They were as follows:
Article 1. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, unmindful of the high duties of his office, his oath of office, and of the requirement of the Constitution that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, did unlawfully and in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, issue an order in writing for the removal of Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War, said Edwin M. Stanton having been, theretofore, duly appointed and commissioned by and with the consent of the Senate of the United States as such Secretary; and said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 12th day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-seven, and during the recess of the said Senate, having suspended by his order Edwin M. Stanton from said office, and within twenty days after the first day of the next meeting of the Senate, on the 12th day of December, in the year of our Lord aforesaid, having reported to said Senate such suspension, with the evidence and reasons for his action in the case, and the name of the person designated to perform the duties of such office temporarily until the next meeting of the Senate, and said Senate there-afterward on the 13th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1868, having duly considered the evidence and reasons reported by said Andrew Johnson for said suspension, did refuse to concur in said suspension, whereby, and by force of provision of an act entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices,” passed March 2, 1867, said Edwin M. Stanton did forthwith resume the functions of his office, whereof the said Andrew Johnson had then and there due notice, and said Edwin M. Stanton, by reason of the premises on said 21st day of February, was lawfully entitled to hold said office of Secretary for the Department of War, which said order for the removal of said Edwin M. Stanton is, in substance, as follows, that is to say:
Executive Mansion, }
Washington, D. C., Feb. 21, 1868, }
Sir: By virtue of the power and authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States, you are hereby removed from office as Secretary for the Department of War, and your functions as such will terminate upon receipt of this communication. You will transfer to Brevet Major-Gen. Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant-General of the Army, who has this day been authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, all records, books, papers, and other public property now in your custody and charge.
Respectfully yours,
Andrew Johnson.
To the Hon. Edwin M. Stanton, Washington, D. C.
Which order was unlawfully issued, with intent then and there to violate an act entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices,” passed March 21, 1867, and contrary to the provisions of said act and in violation thereof, and contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, the said Senate then and there being in session, to remove said Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.
Art. 2. That on the said 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, of his oath of office, and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and contrary to the provisions of an act entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices,” passed March 2, 1867, without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, said Senate then and there being in session, and without authority of law, did appoint one Lorenzo Thomas to be Secretary of War ad interim, by issuing to the said Lorenzo Thomas a letter of authority in substance as follows, that is to say:
Executive Mansion, }
Washington, D. C., Feb. 21, 1868. }
Sir: The Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day removed from office as Secretary for the Department of War, you are hereby authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and will immediately enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that office.
Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records, books, papers, and other public property now in his custody and charge.
Respectfully yours,
Andrew Johnson.
To Brevet Major-Gen. Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant-General U. S. A., Washington, D. C.
Whereby the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.
Art. 3. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office, in this: That, without authority of law, while the Senate of the United States was then and there in session, he did appoint one Lorenzo Thomas to be Secretary for the Department of War ad interim, without the advice and consent of the Senate, and in violation of the Constitution of the United States; no vacancy having happened in said office of Secretary for the Department of War during the recess of the Senate, and no vacancy existing in said office at the time, and which said appointment, so made by the said Andrew Johnson, of the said Lorenzo Thomas, is in substance as follows: (See Art. 2.)
Art. 4. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, and of his oath of office, in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, on the twenty-first day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, and with other persons to the House of Representatives unknown, with intent by intimidation and threats to hinder and prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and there the Secretary for the Department of War, duly appointed under the laws of the United States, from holding said office for Secretary of the Department of War, contrary to and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and of the provision of an act, entitled “An act to define and punish certain conspiracies,” approved July 21, 1861, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of a high crime in office.
Art. 5. That the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, and of his oath of office, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, and on divers other days and times in said year, before the 28th day of said February, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, and with other persons to the House of Representatives unknown, by force to prevent and hinder the execution of an act entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices,” passed March 2, 1867, and in pursuance of said conspiracy did attempt to prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and there being Secretary for the Department of War, duly appointed and commissioned under the laws of the United States, from holding such office, whereby the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.
Art. 6. That the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the duties of his high office, and of his oath of office, on the twenty-first day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas by force, to seize and take possession of property of the United States in the War Department, contrary to the provisions of an act entitled “An act to define and punish certain conspiracies,” approved July 21, 1861, and with intent to violate and disregard an act entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices,” passed March 2, 1867, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit a high crime in office.
Art. 7. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, and of his oath of office, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, and on divers other days in said year, before the 28th day of February, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas to prevent and hinder the execution of an act of the United States, entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices,” passed March 5, 1867, and in pursuance of said conspiracy did unlawfully attempt to prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and there being Secretary for the Department of War, under the laws of the United States, from holding said office, to which he had been duly appointed and commissioned, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit, and was guilty of high misdemeanor in office.
Art. 8. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, and of his oath of office, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty, eight, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas to seize and take possession of the property of the United States in the War Department with intent to violate and disregard the act entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices,” passed March 2, 1867, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit a high misdemeanor in office.
Art. 9. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, and of his oath of office, with intent unlawfully to control the disbursement of the moneys appropriated for the military service and for the Department of War, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully and contrary to the provisions of an act entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices,” passed March 2, 1867, and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, and while the Senate was then and there in session, there being no vacancy in the office of Secretary for the Department of War, appoint Lorenzo Thomas Secretary of War ad interim, and then and there deliver to said Lorenzo Thomas letter of authority, in writing, in substance as follows, that is to say:
(See Art. 2.)
Whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit, and was guilty of high misdemeanor in office.
Art. 10. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 22d day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, in disregard of the Constitution and the laws of Congress duly enacted, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army of the United States, did bring before him then and there, William H. Emory, a Major-General by brevet in the Army of the United States, actually in command of the Department of Washington, and the military forces thereof, and did then and there, as such Commander-in-Chief, declare to and instruct said Emory, that part of a law of the United States, passed March 2, 1867, entitled “An act making appropriations for the support of the army for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes,” especially the second section thereof, which provides among other things, that “all orders in instructions relating to military operations issued by the President or Secretary of War shall be issued through the General of the Army, and in case of his inability, through the next in rank,” was unconstitutional and in contravention of the commission of said Emory, and therefore not binding on him as an officer in the Army of the United States, which said provision of law had been theretofore duly and legally promulgated by general order for the government and direction of the Army of the United States, as the said Andrew Johnson then and there well knew, with intent thereby to induce said Emory in his official capacity as Commander of the Department of Washington to violate the provisions of said act, and to take and receive, act upon, and obey such orders as he, the said Andrew Johnson, might make and give, and which should not be issued through the General of the Army of the United States, according to the provisions of said act, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office; and the House of Representatives, by protestation, saving to themselves the liberty of exhibiting at any time hereafter any further articles or other accusation or impeachment against the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, and also of replying to his answer which he shall make to the articles herein preferred against him, and of offering proof to the same and every part thereof, and to all and every other article, accusation or impeachment which shall be exhibited by them as the case shall require, do demand that the said Andrew Johnson may be put to answer the high crimes and misdemeanors in office herein charged against him, and that such proceedings, examinations, trials and judgments may be thereupon had and given as may be agreeable to law and justice.
To these Articles was afterward added:
Art. 11. That the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and of the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, designing and intending to set aside the rightful authority and powers of Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt, and reproach, the Congress of the United States and the several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and legislative power thereof, which all officers of the Government ought inviolately to preserve and maintain, and to excite the odium and resentment of all the good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted; and in pursuance of his said design and intent, openly and publicly, and before divers assemblages of the citizens of the United States convened in divers parts thereof, to meet and receive said Andrew Johnson as the Chief Magistrate of the United States, did on the 18th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1866, and on divers other days and times, as well before as afterward, make and deliver, with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory and scandalous harangues, and did therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces, as well against Congress as the laws of the United States, duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeers, and laughter of the multitude then assembled and in hearing, which are set forth in the several specifications hereinafter written, in substance and effect; that is to say:
Specification 1.—In this, that at Washington, in the District of Columbia, in the Executive Mansion, to a committee of citizens who called upon the President of the United States, speaking of and concerning the Congress of the United States, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, heretofore, to wit: on the 18th day of August, in the year of our Lord, 1866, did in a loud voice declare, in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say:
“So far as the Executive Department of the Government is concerned, the effort has been made to restore the Union, to heal the breach, to pour oil into the wounds which were consequent upon the struggle, and to speak in a common phrase, to prepare, as the learned and wise physician would, a plaster healing in character, and coextensive with the wound. We thought, and we think, that we had partially succeeded, but as the work progresses, as reconstruction seemed to be taking place, and the country was becoming reunited, we found a disturbing and marring element opposing us. In alluding to that element I shall go no further than your Convention, and the distinguished gentleman who has delivered to me the report of the proceedings. I shall make no reference to it that I do not believe the time and the occasion justify. We have witnessed in one department of the Government every endeavor to prevent the restoration of peace, harmony and union. We have seen hanging upon the verge of the Government, as it were, a body called, or which assumes to be the Congress of the United States, while in fact it is a Congress of only part of the States. We have seen this Congress pretend to be for the Union, when its every step and act tended to perpetuate disunion, and make a disruption of the States inevitable. We have seen Congress gradually encroach, step by step, upon Constitutional rights, and violate day after day, and month after month, fundamental principles of the Government. We have seen a Congress that seemed to forget that there was a limit to the sphere and scope of legislation. We have seen a Congress in a minority assume to exercise power, which if allowed to be consummated, would result in despotism, in monarchy itself.”
Specification 2.—In this, that at Cleveland, in the State of Ohio, heretofore, to wit: on the 3d day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, before a public assemblage of citizens and others, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, speaking of and concerning the Congress of the United States, did in a loud voice declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say:
“I will tell you what I did do. I called upon your Congress, that is trying to break up the Government. In conclusion, besides, that Congress had taken much pains to poison their constituents against him. But what has Congress done? Have they done anything to restore the Union of these States? No! On the contrary, they had done everything to prevent it, and, because he stood now where he did when the Rebellion commenced, he had been denounced as a traitor. Who had run greater risks or made greater sacrifices than himself? But Congress, factious and domineering, had undertaken to poison the minds of the American people.”
Specification 3.—In this, that at St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, heretofore, to wit, on the 8th day of September, in the year of our Lord, 1866, before a public assemblage of citizens and others, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, speaking of and concerning the Congress of the United States, did in a loud voice declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say:
“Go on; perhaps if you had a word or two on the subject of New Orleans you might understand more about it than you do, and if you will go back and ascertain the cause of the riot at New Orleans, perhaps you will not be so prompt in calling out ‘New Orleans.’ If you will take up the riot of New Orleans and trace it back to its source or its immediate cause, you will find out who was responsible for the blood that was shed there. If you will take up the riot at New Orleans and trace it back to the Radical Congress, you will find that the riot at New Orleans was substantially planned. If you will take up the proceedings in their caucuses, you will understand that they there knew that a Convention was to be called, which was extinct, by its power having expired; that it was said that the intention was that a new government was to be organized, and on the organization of that government the intention was to enfranchise one portion of the population, called the colored population, who had just been emancipated, and at the same time disfranchise white men. When you design to talk about New Orleans you ought to understand what you are talking about. When you read the speeches that were made, and take up the facts on the Friday and Saturday before that Convention sat, you will find that speeches were made, incendiary in their character, exciting that portion of the population—the black population—to arm themselves and prepare for the shedding of blood. You will also find that that Convention did assemble in violation of law, and the intention of that Convention was to supersede the organized authorities in the State government of Louisiana, which had been organized by the Government of the United States, and every man engaged in that rebellion, in that Convention, with the intention of superseding and upturning the civil government which had been recognized by the United States, I say that he was a traitor to the Constitution of the United States, and hence you find that another rebellion was commenced, having its origin in the Radical Congress. So much for the New Orleans riot; and there was the cause and the origin of the blood that was shed, and every drop of blood that was shed is upon their skirts, and they are responsible for it. I could test this thing a little closer, but will not do it here to-night; but when you talk about the causes and consequences that resulted from proceedings of that kind, perhaps as I have been introduced here and you have provoked questions of this kind, though it does not provoke me, I will tell you a few wholesome things that have been done by this Radical Congress, in connection with New Orleans, and the extension of elective franchise. I know that I have been traduced and abused. I know that it has come in advance of me here as elsewhere. That I have attempted to exercise an arbitrary power in resisting laws that were intended to be forced upon the Government, that I had exercised that power, that I had abandoned the party that elected me, and that I was a traitor, because I exercised the veto power in attempting, and I did arrest for a time the bill that was called a Freedman’s Bureau Bill. Yes, I was a traitor, and I have been traduced, I have been slandered, I have been maligned, I have been called Judas Iscariot, and all that. Now my countrymen here to-night, it is very easy to indulge in epithets. It is easy to call a man Judas and cry out traitor; but when he is called upon to give arguments and facts he is very often found wanting. Judas Iscariot; Judas! There was a Judas and he was one of the twelve Apostles. Oh yes, the twelve Apostles had a Christ, and he never could have had a Judas unless he had had twelve Apostles. If I have played the Judas, who has been my Christ that I have played the Judas with? Was it Thad. Stevens? Was it Wendell Phillips? Was it Charles Sumner? These are the men that stop and compare themselves with the Saviour, and every body that differs with them in opinion, and who try to stay and arrest their diabolical and nefarious policy, is to be denounced as a Judas. Well, let me say to you, if you will stand by me in this action; if you will stand by me in trying to give the people a fair chance, soldiers and citizens, to participate in these offices, God being willing I will kick them out. I will kick them out just as fast as I can. Let me say to you, in conclusion, that what I have said, I intended to say. I was not provoked into this, and I care not for their menaces, the taunts and the jeers. I care not for threats, I do not intend to be bullied by my enemies nor overawed by my friends; but, God willing, with your help, I will veto their measures, whenever any of them come to me.”
Which said utterances, declarations, threats, and harangues, highly censurable in any, are peculiarly indecent and unbecoming in the Chief Magistrate of the United States, by means whereof said Andrew Johnson has brought the high office of President of the United States into contempt, ridicule, and disgrace, to the great scandal of all good citizens, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did commit, and was then and there guilty of high misdemeanor in office.
THE HIGH COURT OF IMPEACHMENT.
(THE ARTIST MADE A JOURNEY TO WASHINGTON ON PURPOSE TO MAKE THE DRAWING—IT IS RELIABLE.)
The Senate having adopted rules for the trial, reported by its committee, proceeded on Thursday, March 5th, to organize as a Court of Impeachment, Chief Justice Chase presiding. On Saturday, March 7th, the summons requiring the President to appear and answer the Articles of Impeachment was served on him, with a copy of the articles. On Friday, March 13th, the President appeared by his counsel before the Senate and requested forty days’ time in which to prepare and serve his answers to the articles. His counsel, as first named, consisted of Messrs. Evarts, Stanbery, Curtis, Nelson, and Black. Subsequently, Mr. Black withdrew, and Mr. Groesbeck was added to the number. The Senate did not comply with the President’s request, but designated Monday, March 23d, as the day for the presentation of his answers to the charges, and they were read before the Senate on that day. On the following day the Managers of the House presented their replication to the President’s answers, and it was read before the Senate. On Monday, March 30th, the great trial began, Mr. Butler making the opening speech on behalf of the Managers. The latter at once introduced their testimony, which consumed six days, until Saturday, April 4th. On Thursday, April 9th, the President’s counsel began his defense, Mr. Curtis delivering the opening speech. Nine days were consumed by them in presenting their testimony, until Saturday, April 18th. Two days later, April 20th, additional testimony was offered by both sides. On Wednesday, April 22d, Mr. Boutwell of the Managers began to sum up the case in a protracted speech. Messrs. Stevens and Bingham likewise spoke for the prosecution, and Messrs. Nelson, Groesbeck, Evarts, and Stanbery for the President. Mr. Bingham’s speech, the closing speech of the trial, was concluded on Wednesday, May 6th. On Thursday, May 7th, the Senate, as the Court of Impeachment, sat in secret session six hours, during which it was decided to take the final vote on Tuesday, May 12th. May 11th, the Court deliberated on impeachment in secret session, and on the 12th of May, Senator Howard being unable to take his seat, the final vote was postponed until Saturday, May 16th.
Meantime, painful rumors had been current of the defection of some of those Republican Senators who had at first appeared to be earnest and zealous for the President’s impeachment. These rumors gained strength throughout the week, and when the vote was taken on Saturday, May 16th, on the Eleventh Article, which it was thought best to have voted upon first, the vote stood thirty-five for conviction to nineteen for acquittal, and as the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote for conviction, Mr. Johnson was technically acquitted on this article.
The Votes for Conviction were:—Anthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill, (Me.) Morrill, (Vt.) Morton, Nye, Patterson, (N. H.) Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, Yates—35.
For Acquittal:—Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Norton, Patterson, (Tenn.) Ross, Saulsbury, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers—19.
Messrs. Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Ross, Trumbull, and Van Winkle, all hitherto regarded as stanch Republicans, voted with the Democrats, and by their votes prevented the conviction of the President of the high crimes and misdemeanors of which he was accused. Other Senators, the peers of any of these in legal attainment and judicial ability, were fully convinced that the Managers had made out their case conclusively, and some of these also have admitted their belief in his guilt, but professed to find objections to the phraseology of the Articles of Impeachment. That the course of these seven Senators disappointed their friends, and gave encouragement to the enemies of reconstruction, can not be gainsaid. That it caused painful surmisings in regard to their motives, is equally true.
In the case of almost any other man, an escape from conviction and deposition from his high station by the lack of one vote to make up two-thirds, and this not without strong suspicion of the purchase of that vote on his part, would be a lesson sufficiently severe to secure the most decorous behavior for the remainder of his term, if for no other reason than that he might avert the judgment still hanging over him by a slender hair; but as we have already shown, there is no reason from Mr. Johnson’s past conduct, to expect anything more than an aggravation of his previous offences, and a determination to vent upon the nation all the malignity of his bitter and vindictive nature.
But to proceed with the record. After the vote on the Eleventh Article, further action was postponed till the 26th of May. On that day the second and third articles were voted upon, with precisely the same result as before, and as it was evident that a conviction could not be secured, the record of technical acquittal on the second, third and eleventh articles was entered, and the High Court of Impeachment adjourned sine die. On the same day, Mr. Stanton sent his relinquishment of the office of Secretary of War to the President, feeling that as Impeachment had failed, it was best for him to withdraw.
A few days later, General J. M. Schofield, who had previously been nominated, was confirmed by the Senate as Secretary of War, the Senate declaring that it was in the place of Edwin M. Stanton, unlawfully removed.
In the interim between the two votes on the question of Impeachment, the National Republican Union Convention was held at Chicago, and Ulysses S. Grant nominated for the Presidency by the unanimous vote of all the delegates, 650 in number, on the first ballot. Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, was nominated for Vice-President on the fifth ballot, receiving by the change of votes of State delegations, 522 out of 650 votes. The balloting previous to these changes which were incident to the conviction that he had the majority, was as follows:
| 1st Ballot. | 2d. | 3d. | 4th. | 5th. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benjamin F. Wade, | 149 | 170 | 178 | 204 | 199 |
| Reuben E. Fenton, | 132 | 140 | 130 | 144 | 137 |
| Henry Wilson, | 119 | 113 | 101 | 87 | 61 |
| Schuyler Colfax, | 118 | 149 | 164 | 186 | 224 |
| Andrew G. Curtin, | 52 | 45 | 30 | ||
| Hannibal Hamlin, | 30 | 30 | 25 | 25 | 19 |
| James Speed, | 22 | ||||
| James Harlan, | 16 | ||||
| John A. J. Cresswell, | 14 | ||||
| William D. Kelley, | 6 |
The canvass for Mr. Colfax at the Convention was conducted on strictly temperance principles, Mr. Colfax having expressly requested his friend, Mr. Defrees, who conducted it, to permit no intoxicating liquor on the premises.
The platform on which the Convention have placed these candidates, whose names win all hearts, is worthy of the men. It is as follows:
The National Republican Party of the United States, assembled in National Convention in the City of Chicago, on the 21st day of May, 1868, make the following Declaration of Principles:
1. We congratulate the country on the assured success of the Reconstruction policy of Congress, as evinced by the adoption, in the majority of the States lately in rebellion, of Constitutions securing Equal Civil and Political Rights to all, and it is the duty of the Government to sustain those institutions, and to prevent the people of such States from being remitted to a state of anarchy.
II. The guaranty by Congress, of Equal Suffrage to all loyal men at the South, was demanded by every consideration of public safety, of gratitude, and of justice, and must be maintained; while the question of Suffrage in all the loyal States properly belongs to the people of those States.
III. We denounce all forms of Repudiation as a national crime; and the national honor requires the payment of the public indebtedness in the uttermost good faith to all creditors at home and abroad, not only according to the letter but the spirit of the laws under which it was contracted.
IV. It is due to the Labor of the Nation that taxation should be equalized, and reduced as rapidly as the national faith will permit.
V. The National debt, contracted, as it has been, for the preservation of the Union for all time to come, should be extended over a fair period for redemption; and it is the duty of Congress to reduce the rate of interest thereon whenever it can be honestly done.
VI. That the best policy to diminish our burden of debt is to so improve our credit that capitalists will seek to loan us money at lower rates of interest than we now pay, so long as repudiation, partial or total, open or covert, is threatened or suspected.
VII. The Government of the United States should be administered with the strictest economy; and the corruptions which have been so shamefully nursed and fostered by Andrew Johnson call loudly for radical reform.
VIII. We profoundly deplore the untimely and tragic death of Abraham Lincoln, and regret the accession to the Presidency, of Andrew Johnson, who has acted treacherously to the people who elected him and the cause he was pledged to support; who has usurped high legislative and judicial functions; who has refused to execute the laws; who has used his high office to induce other officers to ignore and violate the laws; who has employed his executive powers to render insecure the property, the peace, liberty and life, of the citizen; who has abused the pardoning power; who has denounced the National Legislature as unconstitutional; who has persistently and corruptly resisted, by every means in his power, every proper attempt at the reconstruction of the States lately in rebellion; who has perverted the public patronage into an engine of wholesale corruption; and who has been justly impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and properly pronounced guilty thereof by the vote of thirty-five Senators.
IX. The doctrine of Great Britain and other European powers that, because a man is once a subject he is always so, must be resisted at every hazard by the United States, as a relic of feudal times not authorized by the laws of nations, and at war with our national honor and independence. Naturalized citizens are entitled to protection in all their rights of citizenship, as though they were native-born; and no citizen of the United States, native or naturalized, must be liable to arrest and imprisonment by any foreign power for acts done or words spoken in this country; and, if so arrested and imprisoned, it is the duty of the Government to interfere in his behalf.
X. Of all who were faithful in the trials of the late war, there were none entitled to more especial honor than the brave soldiers and seamen who endured the hardships of campaign and cruise, and imperilled their lives in the service of the country; the bounties and pensions provided by the laws for these brave defenders of the nation, are obligations never to be forgotten; the widows and orphans of the gallant dead are the wards of the people—a sacred legacy bequeathed to the nation’s protecting care.
XI. Foreign immigration, which in the past has added so much to the wealth, development and resources and increase of power to this republic, the asylum of the oppressed of all nations, should be fostered and encouraged by a liberal and just policy.
XII. This Convention declares itself in sympathy with all oppressed peoples struggling for their rights.
Unanimously added, on motion of Gen. Schurz:
Resolved, That we highly commend the spirit of magnanimity and forbearance with which men who have served in the Rebellion, but who now frankly and honestly coöperate with us in restoring the peace of the country and reconstructing the Southern State governments upon the basis of Impartial Justice and Equal Rights, are received back into the communion of the loyal people; and we favor the removal of the disqualifications and restrictions imposed upon the late Rebels in the same measure as their spirit of loyalty will direct, and as may be consistent with the safety of the loyal people.
Resolved, That we recognize the great principles laid down in the immortal Declaration of Independence, as the true foundation of democratic government; and we hail with gladness every effort toward making these principles a living reality on every inch of American soil.
With such a platform, and such candidates, there should be, there can be, no question of the success of the Republican Party in the coming election. The only question should be, whether any States, except Kentucky and Maryland, can be allowed to the Democratic Party, and whether the candidate of that party, whoever he may be, may not need a certificate after the election, testifying to the fact of his candidacy.
With Reconstruction, Retrenchment, Reform, Equal Rights, Impartial Suffrage, and No Repudiation, for its cardinal principles, the great party of Freedom stands firm as the everlasting hills. It can afford to let traitors and renegades strut out their brief hour, for the eternal years of God belong to the party of Freedom and Right, and it may well say in the grand words of Whittier:
“God’s ways seem dark, but soon or late
They touch the shining hills of day.
The evil can not brook delay;
The good can well afford to wait.
Give ermined knaves their hour of crime;
We have the future grand and great,
The safe appeal of Truth to Time!”
U. S. Grant