Twenty Years of Congress, Volume 2 / From Lincoln to Garfield, with a Review of the Events Which Led to the Political Revolution of 1860

by James Gillespie Blaine

CHAPTER XXIII.

The friends of General Grant intended that his second inauguration (March 4, 1873) should be even more impressive than the first; but the skies were unpropitious, and the day will long be remembered, by those who witnessed the festivities, for the severity of the cold,—altogether exceptional in the climate of Washington. It destroyed the pleasure of an occasion which would otherwise have been given to unrestrained rejoicing over an event that was looked upon by the great majority of the people of the United States as peculiarly auspicious.

For a man who had always been singularly reticent concerning himself, both in public and private, the President gave free expression to what he regarded as the mistreatment and abuse he had received from political opponents. He looked forward, he said, "with the greatest anxiety for release from responsibilities which at times are almost overwhelming," and from which he had "scarcely had a respite since the eventful firing on Fort Sumter, in April, 1861, to the present day." "My services," said he, "were then tendered and accepted under the first call for troops growing out of the event. I did not ask for place or position, and was entirely without influence or the acquaintance of persons of influence, but was resolved to perform my part in a struggle threatening the very existence of the Nation. I performed a conscientious duty without asking promotion or command, and without a revengeful feeling towards any section or individual. Notwithstanding this, throughout the war and from my candidacy for my present office in 1868 to the close of the last Presidential campaign, I have been the subject of abuse and slander scarcely ever equaled in political history, which to-day I feel that I can afford to disregard in view of your verdict which I gratefully accept as my vindication."

Surprise was generally expressed at this manifestation of personal feeling on the part of the President. He had undoubtedly been called upon to confront many unpleasant things, as every incumbent of his office must; but General Grant was surely in error in considering himself defamed beyond the experience of his predecessors. The obloquy encountered by Mr. Jefferson in 1800, by both Adams and Jackson in 1828, and by Mr. Clay, as a candidate, for twenty years, far exceeded in recklessness that from which the President had suffered. A military education and an army life had not prepared General Grant for the abandoned form of vituperation to which he was necessarily subjected when he became a candidate for the Presidency. For this reason, perhaps, he endured it less patiently than his predecessors, who had been subjected to it in worse form and more intolerant spirit. But General Grant had the good fortune, in great degree denied to his predecessors, to see his political enemies withdraw their unfounded aspersions during his lifetime, to see his calumniators become his personal and official eulogists, practically retracting the slanders and imputations to which they had given loose tongue when the object at stake was his defeat for the Presidency.

The President made changes in his Cabinet and had lost the two Massachusetts members,—E. Rockwood Hoar, Attorney-General, and Mr. Boutwell, Secretary of the Treasury. The former resigned in 1870; the latter in 1873, to take the seat in the Senate made vacant by the election of Henry Wilson to the Vice-Presidency. These gentlemen were among the most valued of President Grant's advisers, and the retirement of each was deeply regretted. The changes in the Cabinet continued through President Grant's second term.(1)

The Forty-third Congress organized on the first Monday in December, 1873. Among the new senators were some men already well known, and others who subsequently became conspicuous in the public service:—

—William B. Allison of Iowa had served eight years in the House, closing with March 4, 1871, and was now promoted to the Senate by the people of his State, who appreciated his sterling qualities. For industry, good judgment, strong common sense, and fidelity to every trust, both personal and public, Mr. Allison has established an enviable reputation. He devoted himself to financial questions and soon acquired in the Senate the position of influence which he had long held in the House. In both branches of Congress his service has been attended with an exceptional degree of popularity among his associates of both parties.

—Aaron A. Sargent, a native of Massachusetts, had served six years in the House at two different periods (beginning in 1861) as a representative from California. He was originally a printer and editor, but turned his attention to the law and became a member of the bar in 1854. He enjoyed the distinction in California of being a pioneer of 1849, and was thoroughly acquainted with the development of the State at every step in her wonderful progress. No man ever kept more eager watch over the interests of his constituency or was more constant and indefatigable in his legislative duties.

—John J. Ingalls, a native of Massachusetts and a graduate of Williams College, sought a home in Kansas directly after the completion of his law studies in 1858. He at once took part in public affairs, holding various offices under the Territorial and State Governments in succession; was for some years editor of a prominent paper; and was engaged steadily in the practice of the law until his election to the Senate. His training and culture are far beyond that ordinarily implied by the possession of a college diploma. His mind has been enriched by the study of books and disciplined by controversy at the Bar and in the Senate. As a speaker he is fluent and eloquent, but perhaps too much given to severity of expression. He possesses in marked degree the dangerous power of sarcasm, and in any discussion which borders upon personal issues Mr. Ingalls is an antagonist to be avoided. But outside the arena of personal conflict he is a genial man. He devotes himself closely to his senatorial duties, and exhibits the steady growth which uniformly attends the superior mind.

—John P. Jones entered the Senate from Nevada in his forty-third year. Though born in Wales, he was reared from infancy in the northern part of Ohio. He went to California before he attained his majority, and subsequently became a citizen of Nevada. His Welsh blood, his life in the Western Reserve, and his long experience as a miner on the Pacific slope, combined to make a rare and somewhat remarkable character. His educational facilities embraced only the public schools of Cleveland, but he has by his own efforts acquired a great mass of curious and valuable information. A close observer of men, gifted with humor and appreciating humor in others, he is a genial companion and always welcome guest. He is a man of originality and works out his own conclusions. His views of financial and economical questions are often in conflict with current maxims and established precedents, but no one can listen to him without being impressed by his intellectual power.

—Richard J. Oglesby, who took the place of Lyman Trumbull as senator from Illinois, is a native of Kentucky, but went to Illinois when twelve years of age. He was admitted to the bar as soon as he attained his majority, in 1845. He was a soldier in the Mexican war, and spent two years as a miner in California. On returning to Illinois he took active part in politics, and was influential in promoting the nomination of Mr. Lincoln for the Presidency in 1860. He enlisted in the Union Army as soon as the civil war began, went to the field as a Colonel and retired from it as a Major-General. He was Governor of his State from 1865 to 1869, and was re-elected to the same office in 1872 but was immediately transferred to the Senate. Few men have enjoyed a greater degree of personal popularity among neighbors, acquaintances, and the people of an entire States, than General Oglesby. His frankness, his kindly disposition, his sympathy with the desires and the needs of the great mass of the people, his pride in Illinois and his devotion to her interests, all combined to give him not merely the political support but the strong personal attachment of his fellow-citizens.

—John H. Mitchell, a native of Pennsylvania who went to the Pacific coast before he had fairly passed from the period of boyhood, now returned as senator from Oregon at thirty-seven years of age. He had been diligent and successful as a lawyer, and had acquainted himself in a very thorough manner with the wants and the interests of his State, to which he devoted himself with assiduity and success. He was an accurate man and always discharged his senatorial duties with care and fidelity.

The new senators from the South were in themselves the proof that the Republicans still had control in several of the reconstructed States, and that in others the Democrats had regained complete ascendency.—Stephen W. Dorsey, who had been in the military service from Ohio and settled in Arkansas after the war, now appeared as senator from that State, at thirty-two years of age.—John J. Patterson, a native of Pennsylvania, came from South Carolina, and Simon B. Conover, a native of New Jersey, from Florida.—Georgia had been recovered by the Democrats, and now sent John B. Gordon as senator to succeed Joshua Hill. General Gordon had been conspicuous in the Confederate service, commanding a corps in the army of General Lee. He enjoyed at the time of his election great personal popularity in his State.—North Carolina, though carried on the popular vote for General Grant, had elected a Democratic Legislature; and A. S. Merrimon, prominent at the bar of his State and of long service on the bench, now appeared with credentials as senator to succeed John Pool.

The most conspicuous additions to the House of Representatives of the Forty-third Congress were E. Rockwood Hoar of Massachusetts, Lyman Tremaine of New York, L. Q. C. Lamar of Mississippi, William R. Morrison of Illinois, John A. Kasson of Iowa, and Hugh J. Jewett of Ohio. These gentlemen were already widely known to the country. Judge Hoar and Mr. Tremaine served but one term; Mr. Jewett resigned to take the Presidency of the Erie Railroad; Mr. Morrison, Mr. Kasson, and Mr. Lamar acquired additional distinction by subsequent service. Among those now entering who grew into prominence were Julius C. Burrows, George Willard, and Jay A. Hubbell of Michigan; Charles G. Williams of Wisconsin; Richard P. Bland (of "Bland dollar" fame), T. T. Crittenden, and Edwin O. Stanard of Missouri; Horace F. Page of California; Greenbury L. Fort of Illinois; James Wilson and James W. McDill of Iowa; William A. Phillips of Kansas; Lorenzo Danford, James W. Robinson, Milton I. Southard, and Richard C. Parsons from Ohio; Lemuel Todd, A. Herr Smith, and Hiester Clymer of Pennsylvania; Eppa Hunton and John T. Harris of Virginia; John M. Glover and Aylett H. Buckner of Missouri. Henry J. Scudder, a very intelligent gentleman whose service should have been longer, came from the Staten Island district, New York. Milton Sayler and Henry B. Banning entered from the Cincinnati districts, the latter with the distinction of having defeated Stanley Matthews. Stephen A. Hurlbut and Joseph G. Cannon entered from Illinois. Each soon acquired a prominent position in the House,—General Hurlbut as a ready debater, and Mr. Cannon as an earnest worker. Mr. Cannon, indeed, became an authority in the House on all matters pertaining to the Postal Service of the United States.

—Thomas C. Platt came from the Binghamton district of New York. He had been an active man of business and had gained personal popularity. He developed an aptitude for public affairs and soon acquired influence in his State. He was not a trained debater, nor had he, when he entered Congress, official experience of any kind. But he was gifted with strong common sense, and had that quick judgment of men which contributes so essentially to success in public life.

—William Walter Phelps came from the Passaic district of New Jersey. He is a member of the well-known Connecticut family of that name,—a family distinguished for integrity and independence of character, and for success in great financial enterprises. Mr. Phelps received a thorough intellectual training and graduated with distinction at Yale College in 1860. He was soon after admitted to the bar of New York, and took part in the management of various corporations. He has an admirable talent for extempore speech. The inheritance of a large fortune has perhaps in some degree hindered Mr. Phelps's success in a political career; but it has not robbed him of manly ambition, or lowered his estimate of a worthy and honorable life.

—Stewart L. Woodford entered from one of the Brooklyn districts. Graduating at Columbia College in 1854, he was soon after admitted to the bar, but left his practice to enlist in the Union service when the civil war began. He was a good solider, and reached the rank of Brigadier-General. He was elected Lieutenant-Governor of New York in 1866 at thirty-one years of age. He has acquired wide popularity as a platform speaker. He enjoys the unlimited confidence and respect of friends and neighbors,—the best attestation that can be given of a man's real character.

—Stephen B. Elkins was for four years a most efficient delegate in Congress from New Mexico. He was a distinguished graduate of Missouri University, and though reared in a community where Southern influences prevailed was an earnest Union man. He went to New Mexico soon after attaining his majority, served in the Legislative Assembly, became prominent at the bar, was Attorney-General of the Territory, and afterwards United-States District Attorney. He entered Congress in his thirty-second year.

—Two other delegates who were in Congress at the same time, Richard C. McCormick of Arizona, and Martin Maginnis of Montana,—the one a Republican and the other a Democrat,—became distinguished for the zeal and ability with which they guarded the interests of their constituents.

The long and honorable service of Edward McPherson as Clerk of the House, terminated with the close of the Forty-third Congress. He had held the position for twelve consecutive years—a period which followed directly after four years of service as representative in Congress from the Gettysburg district. When first elected to Congress he was but twenty-eight years of age. The Clerkship of the House is a highly responsible office, and no man could discharge its complex duties with greater intelligence, fidelity and discretion than did Mr. McPherson throughout the whole period of his service.(2) Beyond his official duties he rendered great service to the public by the compilation of political handbooks for Presidential and Congressional elections. The facts pertinent to political discussion were impartially presented and admirably arranged. Mr. McPherson's larger works, the histories of the Rebellion and of Reconstruction, are invaluable to the political student.

On Friday, the sixth day of March, 1874, Charles Sumner was in the Senate chamber for the last time. He took active part in the proceedings of the day, debating at some length the bill proposing an appropriation for the Centennial celebration at Philadelphia. On Monday, the 9th, to which day the Senate adjourned, his absence was noticed, but not commented on further than that one member remembered Mr. Sumner's complaining of a sense of great fatigue after his speech of Friday. The session of Monday lasted but a few minutes, as the Senate adjourned from respect to the memory of Ex-President Fillmore, who had died the day before at his home in Buffalo. On Tuesday there were rumors withing the circle of Mr. Sumner's intimate friends that he was ill, but no special anxiety was felt until near nightfall, when it was known that he was suffering from a sudden and violent attack of angina pectoris, and grave apprehensions were felt by his physicians. By a coincidence which did not escape observation, it was the anniversary of the day on which three years before he was removed from the chairmanship of the Committee on Foreign Relations. He died in the afternoon of the next day, Wednesday, March 11 (1874). On Thursday the funeral services were held in the Senate chamber, and were marked with a manifestation of personal sorrow on the part of multitudes of people, more profound than had attended the last rites of any statesman of the generation,—Abraham Lincoln alone excepted. Formal eulogies were pronounced upon his life and character on the 27th of April, his colleague Mr. Boutwell presenting the appropriate resolutions in the Senate, and his intimate friend of many years, E. Rockwood Hoar, in the House. The eulogies in both branches were numerous and touching. They were not confined to party, to section, or to race.

Whoever was first in other fields of statesmanship, the pre-eminence of Mr. Sumner on the slavery question must always be conceded. Profoundly conversant with all subject of legislation, he yet devoted himself absorbingly to the one issue which appealed to his judgment and his conscience. He held the Republican party to a high standard,—a standard which but for his courage and determination might have been lowered at several crises in the history of the struggle for Liberty. He did not live to see the accomplishment of all the measures to which he had dedicated his powers. He died without seeing his Civil Rights Bill enacted into law. For that only he desired to live. To his colleague and faithful friend, Henry Wilson, who followed him so soon, he said mournfully: "If the publication of my works were completed and my Civil Rights Bill passed, no visitor could enter the door that would be more welcome than Death." He was weary of life. He was solitary, without kindred, without domestic ties. He had been subjected at intervals for eighteen years to great suffering, which with the anxieties of public life and the solitude which had become burdensome wore away his energy. However much his wisdom may be questioned by those who were not his political friends, whatever criticism may be made of the zeal which not infrequently was assumed to be ill-timed and mis-judged, Mr. Sumner must ever be regarded as a scholar, an orator, a philanthropist, a philosopher, a statesman whose splendid and unsullied fame will always form part of the true glory of the Nation.

An incident related by Mr. Dawes in his eulogy of Mr. Sumner strikingly illustrates the shortsightedness and miscalculation of the Southern statesmen preceding the Rebellion. Mr. Sumner's first term in the Senate began just as the last term of Colonel Benton closed. Soon after his arrival in Washington the Massachusetts senator met the illustrious Missourian. They became well acquainted and friendly. In the ensuing year the two eminent men had a conversation on public affairs. The Compromise of 1850 had been approved by both the great parties in their National Conventions, and Franklin Pierce had just been chosen President. The power of the South seemed fixed, its control of public events irresistible. To the apprehension of the political historian the Slave power had not been so strong since the day of the Missouri Compromise, and its statesmen looked forward to policies which would still further enhance its strength. Colonel Benton said to Mr. Sumner: "You have come upon the stage too late, sir. All our great men have passed away. Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Clay and Mr. Webster are gone. Not only have the great men passed away, but the great issues, too, raised from our form of government and of deepest interest to its founders and their immediate descendants, have been settled, sir. The last of these was the National Bank, and that has been overthrown forever. Nothing is left you, sir, but puny sectional questions and petty strifes about slavery and fugitive-slave laws, involving no National issues."

It is instructive to remember that in little more than eight years after this conversation, and but three years after Colonel Benton's death, the civil war began, and opened to Mr. Sumner the opportunity of leading in a political and social revolution almost without parallel in modern times.

A singular interest was added to the moral eulogies of Mr. Sumner by the speech of Mr. Lamar of Mississippi, who had just returned to the House of Representatives which he left thirteen years before to join his State in secession. It was a mark of positive genius in a Southern representative to pronounce a fervid and discriminating eulogy upon Mr. Sumner, and skilfully to interweave with it a defense of that which Mr. Sumner like John Wesley believed to be the sum of all villainies. Only a man of Mr. Lamar's peculiar mental type could have accomplished the task. He pleased the radical anti-slavery sentiment of New England: he did not displease the radical pro-slavery sentiment of the South. There is a type of mind in the East that delights in refined fallacies, in the reconciling of apparent contradictions, in the tracing of distinction and resemblances where less subtle intellects fail to perceive their possibility. There is a certain Orientalism in the mind of Mr. Lamar, strangely admixed with typical Americanism. He is full of reflection, full of imagination; seemingly careless, yet closely observant; apparently dreamy, yet altogether practical.

It is the possession of these contradictory qualities which accounts for Mr. Lamar's political course. His reason, his faith, his hope, all led him to believe in the necessity of preserving the Union of States; but he persuaded himself that fidelity to a constituency which had honored him, personal ties with friends from whom he could not part, the maintenance of an institution which he was pledged to defend, called upon him to stand with the secession leaders in the revolt of 1861. He was thus ensnared in the toils of his own reasoning. His very strength became his weakness. He could not escape from his self-imposed thraldom and he ended by following a cause whose success could bring no peace, instead of sustaining a cause whose righteousness was the assurance of victory.

Alexander H. Stephens took his seat in the same Congress with Mr. Lamar. He had acquired a commanding reputation in the South by his sixteen years' service in the House from 1843 to 1859. He had been trained in the Whig school, and had early espoused the strong Federal principles which recognized the doctrine of secession as a heresy, and disunion as a crime. In joining the Rebellion he renounced a creed of Nationality in which the Democratic promoters of the Confederacy had never believed. He incurred thereby a heavier responsibility than those who, trained in the strict construction school, found sovereignty in the State and recognized no superior allegiance to the National Government; who in fact denied that there was any such power existing as a National Government. If Mr. Stephens had maintained his original devotion to the National idea, a noble course lay before him; but when he drifted from his moorings of loyalty to the Union he surrendered the position that could have given him fame. He was rewarded with the second office in the Confederacy—which may be taken as the measure of his importance to the Secession cause, according to the estimate of the original conspirators against the Union.

Mr. Stephens was physically a shattered man when he resumed his seat in Congress, but the activity of his mind was unabated. With all their disposition to look upon as an illustrious statesman, it must be frankly confessed that he made little impression upon the new generation of public men. Instead of the admiration which his speeches were once said to have elicited in the House, the wonder now grew that he ever could have been considered an oracle or a leader. He had been dominated in the crises of his career by the superior will and greater ability of Robert Toombs; and he now appeared merely as a relic of the past in a representative assembly in which his voice was said to have been once potential.

At the close of the Forty-first Congress in the month of February, 1871, an Act was passed providing a government for the District of Columbia. It repealed the charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown, destroyed the old Levy court which existed under the statutes of Maryland before the District was ceded, and placed over the entire territory a form of government totally differing from any which had theretofore existed. It consisted of a Governor, and a Legislative Assembly composed of a Council and a House of Delegates. The Governor and the Council were to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and the House of Delegates was to be elected by the people; thus making the government conform in essential respects to that which had been provided for the earlier Territories of the United States. Powers assimilating mainly with those granted to new Territories were conferred upon the government of the District, including the power to borrow money to an amount equivalent to "five per cent of the assessed value of property in said District;" and to borrow without charter limitations, "provided the law authorizing the same shall, at a general election, have been submitted to the people, and have received a majority of the votes cast for members of the Legislative Assembly at such election."

It was a radical change, and the powers were granted because of the necessity, which was generally felt, that something should be done for the improvement of the National Capital. Alexander R. Shepherd, a native of the District, engaged in business as a plumber and known to be a man of remarkable energy and enterprise, was appointed Governor of the District by President Grant and was confirmed by the Senate. He was a personal friend in whom the President reposed boundless confidence. In the course of little more than three years, which was the duration of the new government, an astonishing change was effected in the character and appearance of the city of Washington. From an ill-paved, ill-lighted, unattractive city, it became a model of regularity, cleanliness, and beauty. No similar transformation has ever been so speedily realized in an American city, the model being found only in certain European capitals where public money had been lavishly expended for adornment.

Of course so great an improvement involved the expenditure of large sums, and the District of Columbia found itself in debt to the amount of several millions. An agitation was aroused against what was alleged to be the corrupt extravagance of the government; the law authorizing it was repealed and the District placed under the direction of three Commissioners, who have since administered its affairs. Whatever fault may be found, whatever charges may be made, the fact remains that Governor Shepherd wrought a complete revolution in the appearance of the Capital. Perhaps a prudent and cautious man would not have ventured to go as fast and as far as he went, but there was no proof that selfish motives had inspired his action. He had not enriched himself, and when the government ended he was compelled to seek a new field of enterprise in the mineral region of Northern Mexico. The prejudice evoked towards Governor Shepherd has in large part died away, and he is justly entitled to be regarded as one who conferred inestimable benefits upon the city of Washington. The subsequent growth of population, the great number of new and handsome residences, the rapid and continuous rise in the value of real estate, the vastly increased number of annual visitors, have given a new life to the National Capital which dates distinctly from the changes and improvements which he inaugurated.

The Republican party naturally considered itself invested with a new lease of power. The victory in the Presidential election of 1872 had been so sweeping, both in the number of States and in the popular majorities, that it seemed as if no re-action were possible for years to come. The Liberal-Republican organization had been practically dissolved by the disastrous defeat of Mr. Greeley, and the Democracy had been left prostrate, discouraged and rent with personal feuds. But the financial panic of 1873 precipitated a new element into the political field, and led to a counter-revolution that threatened to be as irresistible as the Republican victory which it followed. The first warning came in the election of William Allen Governor of Ohio in 1873, over Edward F. Noyes, the Republican incumbent. It was followed by the defeat of General Dix and the election of Samuel J. Tilden Governor of New York the ensuing year, and by such a re-action throughout the country as gave to the Democratic party control of the House of Representatives for the first time since 1859.

The extent of the political revolution was made apparent in the vote of the House of Representatives on the 6th of March, 1875, when the Forty-fourth Congress was duly organized. Michael C. Kerr of Indiana, long and favorably known as one of the Democratic leaders of the House, was nominated by his party for Speaker, and the Republicans nominated Mr. Blaine, who for the past six years had occupied the Chair. Mr. Kerr received 173 votes; Mr. Blaine received 106. The relative strength of the two parties had therefore been reversed from the preceding Congress. It was a species of revolution which brought to the front many men not before known to the public.

—Among the Democrats, now the dominant party, the most prominent of the new members from the South was John Randolph Tucker of Virginia, a distinguished lawyer who had been the Attorney-General of his State and always a zealous adherent of the State-rights' school; Alfred M. Scales of North Carolina, a member of the House in 1857-59 and afterwards Governor of his State; Benjamin H. Hill of Georgia, who had become distinguished as a member of the Confederate Senate, and who as a popular orator and ready debater had attained high rank in the South; Joseph C. S. Blackburn and Milton J. Durham of Kentucky,—the former a fluent speaker, the latter an indefatigable worker; Washington C. Whittihorne and John D. C. Atkins of Tennessee,—the latter a member of the House in the Thirty-fifth Congress; John H. Reagan of Texas, Confederate Postmaster-General; Otho R. Singleton and Charles E. Hooker of Mississippi,—the former a member of the House as early as 1853; Charles J. Faulkner of West Virginia, a prominent Democrat before the war, and conspicuously identified with the rebellion; Thomas L. Jones of Kentucky, who had already served in the House; Randall L. Gibson and E. John Ellis, young and ambitious men from Louisiana; and John Goode, jun., of Virginia, who had been a member of the Confederate Congress. The growing strength of the South was noticeable in the House, and was the main reliance of the Democratic party.

—From the North the most distinguished Democrats were Abram S. Hewitt and Scott Lord from New York; Frank Jones of New Hampshire, a successful business man of great and deserved popularity; Charles P. Thompson, a well-known lawyer of Massachusetts; Chester W. Chaplin, a railroad magnate from the same State; George A. Jenks, a rising lawyer from Pennsylvania; John A. McMahon of Ohio, apt and ready in discussion; Alpheus S. Williams of Michigan, a West-Point graduate, a General in the civil war, and in his younger days an intimate friend and traveling-companion of the "Chevalier" Wikoff; William Pitt Lynde of Milwaukee, a noted member of the Wisconsin Bar.—From Illinois three Democrats entered who became active in the partisan arena in after years,—Carter H. Harrison, William M. Springer, and William A. J. Sparks. John V. LeMoyne, son of the eminent anti-slavery leader, Franics J. LeMoyne, entered as a Democratic member from Chicago.

—The most prominent Republicans among the new members were Martin I. Townsend of the Troy district, New York, not more distinguished for his knowledge of the law than for his rare gifts of wit and humor; Elbridge G. Lapham of Canandaigua and Lyman R. Bass of Buffalo, both well known at the bar of Western New York; Simeon B. Chittenden, a successful merchant of the city of New York; Winthrop W. Ketchum, for many years in the Legislature of Pennsylvania; Charles H. Joyce of Vermont, with a good war record; William M. Crapo, a lawyer with large practice at New Bedford, Massachusetts; Julius H. Seelye, the able and learned President of Amherst College; Henry L. Pierce, a well-known manufacturer of Massachusetts; and Thomas J. Henderson of Illinois, a Brigadier-General in the Union Army.—Henry W. Blair of New Hampshire was a member of the bar, enlisted early in the war, and attained the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel. He had been in both branches of the Legislature of his State, and was a leader in the Prohibition cause.

In the Senate, the Democratic gain, though it had not changed the control of the body, was very noticeable. William W. Eaton of Connecticut, an old-fashioned Democrat, honest, sincere, and outspoken in his sentiments, succeeded Governor Buckingham. Francis Kernan of New York, who had already served in the House of Representatives, took the seat of Governor Fenton. Joseph E. McDonald of Indiana, a man of strong parts, succeeded Daniel D. Pratt. William A. Wallace of Pennsylvania, an extreme partisan, but an agreeable gentleman and loyal friend, took the place of John Scott. Allen T. Caperton, an estimable man who had served in the Confederate Senate, now succeeded Arthur L. Boreman of West Virginia. Samuel B. Maxey of Texas, a graduate of West Point, succeeded J. W. Flanagan. Charles W. Jones of Florida succeeded Abijah Gilbert. Robert E. Withers of Virginia succeeded John F. Lewis. Last and most prominent of all, Ex-President Andrew Johnson succeeded William G. Brownlow from Tennessee.

These nine Democrats took the place of nine Republicans, making a net difference in the Senate of eighteen,—a difference somewhat increased by the fact that Francis M. Cockrell, a decided Democrat, took the place of Carl Schurz, who, as between political parties, was always undecided. Nor was this uniform series of Democratic gains balanced in any degree by Republican gains. The new Republican senators all took the places of Republican predecessors. The other new Democratic senators took the places of Democratic predecessors. The Republicans had lost the power to command two-thirds of the Senate, and had entered upon that struggle which led soon after to a contest for the mastery of the body. More and more it became evident that as the commissions of the present Republican senators from the South should expire, their places would be filled by Democrats; and that with thirty-two senators in a compact body from the recent slave States, it would require a strong Republican union in the North to maintain a majority.

Among the Republicans who now entered the Senate were General Burnside, who succeeded William Sprague from Rhode Island; Angus Cameron, who succeeded Matthew H. Carpenter from Wisconsin; Isaac P. Christiancy, who succeeded Zachariah Chandler from Michigan; Samuel J. R. McMillan, who succeeded William R. Washburn, who had served out the remnant of Mr. Sumner's term. Newton Booth, who had been Governor of California, now took his seat in the Senate as the colleague of Mr. Sargent. Governor Booth had suddenly come into prominence on the Pacific coast, and though professing a general allegiance to the Republican party, he had been and continued to be somewhat independent in his views and his votes, especially upon railroad questions.

Ex-President Johnson signalized his return by beginning in the Senate just where he had left off in the Presidency. Two weeks after the session convened he seized the occasion of a resolution relating to Louisiana affairs to recount some incidents in his own Administration, and gave to his whole speech the color of a vindictive attack upon President Grant. The motive was somewhat concealed under decorous language, but the attack was nevertheless personal and direct. He assailed Sheridan's military administration in Louisiana, defended that of General Hancock, accused President Grant of designing to seize a third term of his office, imputed evil motives to him for accepting gifts from friends, considered the liberties of the country in danger from his administration, and thought that his tyranny was not concealed by the gloved hand. He seemed to have nursed his wrath during the six years he had passed in private life, and to have aspired to the Senate simply for the revival of animosities and for the renewal of controversies with those for whom he cherished special hatred.

The impression made upon the Senate and upon the country by Mr. Johnson's speech was unpleasant. His anger, peculiarly unbecoming his years and his station, was directed especially against the men who would not follow him in his desertion of the party which had elevated him to power. At least twice before, in the history of the Federal Government, it had been demonstrated that a President who for any cause runs counter to the views and wishes of the party that elected him is doomed to disappointment, and is fortunate if he escape disgrace. Mr. Johnson had drunk the cup of humiliation to its dregs, and the remaining energies of his life seemed now devoted to the punishment, or least the denunciation, of those who had obstructed and defeated his policies while President. Revenge is always an ignoble motive, pardonable, if at all, when inspired by the hot blood of youth, but to be regarded as not only lamentable but pitiable in men who approach threescore and ten. The extra session closed on the 24th of March. Mr. Johnson did not live to resume his seat. On the last day of the ensuing July (1875) he died peacefully at his home in East Tennessee among friends who had watched his progress from poverty and illiteracy to the highest position in the Republic. He was in the sixty-seventh year of his age.

The annual message of the President contained no reference to the condition of the South. The stringent and persistent prosecution in the United States courts of members of the organized bands of Ku-Klux had tended to dissolve that organization and to restrain its members from the commission of such outrages as had distinguished the earlier period of their existence. There was hope in the minds of sanguine people of the North that an era of peace and harmony had begun in the South, which would be characterized by a fair recognition of the rights of all the population, that free suffrage would be protected, that the hand of violence would be stayed, and that the Centennial year would find every State of the Republic in the enjoyment of material prosperity, of the fair administration of the law, of the enforcement of equal rights.

No body of men rejoiced over this prospect more heartily than Republican senators and representatives, for if it should prove true they would have cause of gratulation both as patriots and partisans. The complete pacification of the country on the basis of equal and exact justice was the leading desire of all right-minded men, and the free suffrage which this implied would give to the Republicans the opportunity for a fair trial of strength in the advocacy of their principles before the Southern people. The picture was one which would well adorn the great National anniversary so near at hand, but many men feared that it was a picture only and not a reality.

An occasion arose four weeks after the delivery of the President's message, to test the real feelings of the House concerning the Southern question. Mr. Randall of Pennsylvania introduced a bill removing the political disabilities from every person in the United States. Since the broad Act of Amnesty in 1872, which excepted only a few classes from its operation, a considerable number of Southern gentlemen had been relieved upon individual application; but the mass of those excepted were still under the disability. The disposition of the Republicans was to grant without hesitation an amnesty almost universal, the exceptions, with a majority of the party probably, being limited to three persons,—Jefferson Davis, Robert Toombs, and Jacob Thompson. Mr. Randall brought his bill to a vote on the 10th of January, 1876. By the Constitution it required a vote of two-thirds, but fell short of the number, the ayes being 175, the noes 97. The negative vote was wholly Republican; while the affirmative vote included all the Democratic members together with a small number of Republicans.

Mr. Blaine moved to amend by excepting Jefferson Davis from the benefits of the bill. The situation was peculiar. Upon a direct vote, if the amendment were submitted, very few Republicans could be found who would include Mr. Davis by name in the amnesty; and there was a large number of Democrats who wished to be saved from the embarrassment implied in such a procedure. They appreciated the difference between voting for a bill of general amnesty which included Jefferson Davis without name, and voting for an amendment which named him and him only for restoration to eligibility to any office under the Government of the United States. No punishment was inflicted upon Mr. Davis; no confiscation of his property was attempted or desired; Congress did not wish to deny him the right of suffrage. He was simply deprived of the right to aspire to the honors of the Republic. The Democrats being a majority of the House could prevent the amendment of the bill, and the Republicans being more than one-third could prevent the passage of the bill. It was a singular case of playing at parliamentary cross-purposes, and afforded the ground, as it proved in the end, for a prolonged and somewhat exciting discussion.

The reason assigned for excepting Jefferson Davis was not that he had been a rebel, for rebels were restored by thousands; not that he had been in Congress, for Southern Congressmen were restored by scores if not by hundreds; not that he had been the chief of the revolutionary government, for that would only be a difference of degree in an offense in which all had shared. The point of objection was that Mr. Davis, with the supreme power of the Confederacy in his hands, both military and civil, had permitted extraordinary cruelties to be inflicted upon prisoners of war. He was held to be legally and morally responsible, in that, being able to prevent the horrors of Andersonville prison, he did not prevent them.

The debate took a somewhat wide range, engaging Mr. Blaine and General Garfield as the leading participants on the Republican side, and Benjamin H. Hill, Mr. Randall, and Mr. Cox on the Democratic side. Upon a second effort to pass the bill with an amendment requiring an oath of loyalty as a prerequisite to removal of disabilities, it failed to secure the necessary two-thirds, the ayes being 184, the noes 97. All that the Republicans demanded was a vote on the exclusion of Jefferson Davis, and this was steadily refused. Many gentlemen of the South are still under disability because of the parliamentary tactics pursued by the Democratic party of the House of Representatives at that time. If a vote had been allowed on Jefferson Davis, his name would have been rejected, and the bill, which included even Robert Toombs and Jacob Thompson, would have been passed without delay. If Mr. Davis though that he was ungenerously treated by the Republicans, he must have found ample compensation in the conduct of both Southern and Northern Democrats, who kept seven hundred prominent supporters of the rebellion under disability for the simple and only reason that the Ex-President of the Confederacy could not share in the clemency.

[(1) In the history of the Federal Government only one administration (that of Franklin Pierce) has completed its full term without a single change in the Cabinet announced at its beginning. The following are the members of General Grant's Cabinet, the changes in which were in the aggregate more numerous than in the Cabinet of any of his predecessors:—

Secretaries of State.—Elihu B. Washburne, Hamilton Fish.
Secretaries of the Treasury.—George S. Boutwell, William A.
Richardson, Benjamin H. Bristow, Lot M. Morrill.
Secretaries of War.—John A. Rawlins, William W. Belknap, Alphonso
Taft, James Donald Cameron.
Secretaries of the Navy.—Adolph E. Borie, George M. Robeson.
Postmasters-General.—John A. J. Creswell, James W. Marshall, Marshall
Jewell, James N. Tyner.
Attorneys-General.—E. Rockwood Hoar, Amos T. Akerman, George H.
Williams, Edwards Pierrepont, Alphonso Taft.
Secretaries of the Interior.—Jacob D. Cox, Columbus Delano, Zachariah
Chandler.

By this it will be seen that twenty-four Cabinet officers served under General Grant. But his number does not include Alexander T. Stewart, who though confirmed did not enter upon his duties as Secretary of the Treasury; or General Sherman, who was Secretary of War ad interim; or Eugene Hale, who was appointed Postmaster-General, but never entered upon service. Mr. Taft is counted only once, though he served in two Departments.]

[(2) Pennsylvanians have filled the Clerkship of the House for forty years in all. The best known, besides Mr. McPherson, are Matthew St. Clair Clarke, Walter S. Franklin and John W. Forney.]