A Picture of the Desolated States, and the Work of Restoration. 1865-1868

by J. T. Trowbridge

“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.