Edith M. Thomas
— — THE IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON — THE CAUSES OF IMPEACHMENT — THE SAVING OF THE UNION — AN ELECTION ON THE MARCH — CIVIC AND MATERIAL DESOLATION — INCIDENTS OF PROVOST-MARSHAL RULE — OPPOSITION TO THE EDICT OF FREEDOM — THE MILITARY STATE GOVERNMENTS — LINCOLN’S RECONSTRUCTION POLICY IN WAR AND JOHNSON’S IN PEACE — NEGRO SUFFRAGE — KU-KLUX OUTRAGES — PUBLIC SENTIMENT AGAINST JOHNSON’S POLICIES — THE FAILURE TO DISLODGE THE PRESIDENT — TWO CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS — EMANCIPATION AND IMPEACHMENT — THE “RECALL” FOR PRESIDENTS — BORDER-STATE INFLUENCE AND WARFARE — THE TREND TOWARD EMANCIPATION — THE FAILURE OF PLANS TO PURCHASE EMANCIPATION — THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT — LINCOLN AND THE LIQUOR HABIT — LINCOLN’S CLEMENCY — THE DISCONTENT WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON — PREPARING FOR IMPEACHMENT — GENERAL GRANT’S CHANGE OF VIEWS — THE SEVEN REPUBLICAN SENATORS — HOW TIME VINDICATED THE RIGHT
BY VIRGINIA YEAMAN REMNITZ]
Drawn by Joseph Clement Coll
LIZETTE
AMBOISE sat beside the window making lace. The lovely line
of her profile caught the light; the clear white of cap and kerchief
enriched the olive of her skin. Seen thus from within the room, she was
so beautiful that the old eyes of Pierre’s mother brightened as they
looked at her.
Pierre himself was working in the woolen mills at Lisieux. Soon after
he went his house had caught fire, and Lizette, rushing through the
flames, had led his mother out to safety. Since then the old woman had
remembered only in flashes.
So there she sat in Lizette’s cottage, her eyes brightening as they
rested on the girl. But all at once they clouded; she had remembered.
“If it was as it used to be,” she broke out in a quavering voice, “you
might be restored for Pierre’s coming home.”
At the words Lizette turned, and the old woman began to cry.
“For him to come back at Christmas,” she wailed, “to see that!”
The girl looked quickly away. The rich olive of her cheek had faded to
a dead pallor; her hands lay idle in her lap. “For him to come back
to see that!” She used to rejoice in Pierre’s love of beauty. He was
different from the other young men of the village, who cared more for a
woman’s strength than for her face, and who looked always at the earth
they tilled and never at the sky. Pierre could be keen and shrewd as
any other Norman peasant; but Lizette knew his dreams, his delight in
beauty, the thoughts he hid from his neighbors.
Once Lizette had said to him:
“Perhaps I can serve you as well making my lace as though I were strong
to work in the fields.”
And Pierre, his dark eyes glowing, had answered:
“It is not your service I want, my Lizette. I want only to have you
near me, to be able to look into your face.”
The words had pleased her when he spoke them; now they stabbed her to
the heart. And so did these lines of the letter Pierre had written
after he heard from the curé about the burning of his house, and how
Lizette had saved his mother: “My beautiful, brave Lizette! How shall I
wait to see you! Your face is always before me.”
“Mère Bernay,”—Lizette had turned again to the old woman,—“listen to
me, Mère Bernay. What did you mean when you said I could be restored
for Pierre’s return if it was as it used to be?”
“By a miracle of Little Noël. You would make the nine-days’ prayer
before Christmas mass. Many are the cures were made so at our church in
the old days. But that was long ago; they are made no more.”
The miracles of Little Noël! Lizette had heard of them ever since she
was a child, but they had seemed merely a tradition. Suppose—her eyes
widened and she drew her breath in quickly.
If the miracles had ceased, it must be because the faith of the people
had died. Had not the curé often bewailed the worldliness of the times,
the love of pleasure that had replaced piety? If she had faith, if she
prayed with her whole heart, it might be that a miracle of Little
Noël would be wrought even now for her!
Drawn by W. T. Benda.
Half-tone plate engraved by C. W. Chadwick
“THE STARRY EYES, UPRAISED, OVERFLOWED WITH TEARS; THE LIPS
QUIVERED IN THEIR SUPPLICATIONS: ‘GRANT TO ME FAITH, THAT A MIRACLE OF LITTLE
NOËL MAY BE WROUGHT UPON ME’”
It was only two weeks before Christmas. Soon she could begin the nine
days of special fasting and prayer; and there was time before that for
preparation. Lizette rose, took down her long cloak, bent over Pierre’s
mother, kissed her withered cheeks, and then went out into the golden
light of the sunset.
She pulled the hood of her cloak far over her face, and walked rapidly.
She saw no one until Mère Fouchard came to her door, calling shrilly to
the little Henri. Mère Fouchard stopped shrilling when she saw Lizette.
“How the girl keeps the hood over her face!” she said to herself. And
then, “Does she think she can hide it thus from Pierre Bernay when he
comes back!”
She called a greeting, hoping Lizette would turn; but she was
disappointed. The girl answered without looking around.
The church was in the middle of the wood in which the village was
built. In Normandy these little villages try to hide themselves among
the trees; but the gleam of their white-walled cottages betrays them.
When Lizette reached the church, twilight was gathering, and the
branches of the trees wove delicate traceries against a sky of pale
amethyst and rose. The old stone church, with its square tower, made a
picture amid that setting which Lizette was quick to note. Pierre had
taught her to see such things.
But she noted also, and with a sorrow she had never felt before, the
dilapidated condition of the church. In the days when the miracles of
Little Noël made the village famous, it had been different. Then, as
Lizette knew, not a crumbling bit of mortar had gone untended or a
candlestick unpolished. And the women of the village had woven finest
cloth for the altars, and bordered them with lace of their own making.
Lizette resolved that she would begin such an altar-cloth on the morrow.
Now she pushed the door open and looked shrinkingly about. There was
only stillness and peace within, and the Virgin with the Child in her
arms. It seemed she was waiting for Lizette. With a little sob, swept
by a wave of emotion that laid bare all her heart, the girl went
forward and fell on her knees, throwing back the hood from her head.
Her face was now revealed, as though for the pitiful eyes of the Virgin
to see. On one side it was the beautiful face Pierre Bernay hungered
for day and night: on the other it was furrowed across by the crimson
scars the fire had made.
The starry eyes, upraised, overflowed with tears; the lips quivered in
their supplications: “Grant to me faith, that a miracle of Little Noël
may be wrought upon me! Have pity upon me and restore me for Pierre’s
return!”
How often she had pictured that return—the leap of her lover’s eyes to
her face, their horrified turning away; for she had begged the curé to
write no hint of her disfigurement. She would have no pretense, she who
had throbbed and glowed under the long caress of Pierre’s gaze. If he
could not bear to look upon her, she must know it. It would be better
than finding out little by little. If it should be as she feared,
she would go away. She had a cousin who worked on a farm in the rich
country to the east. Perhaps she could find the place; it did not much
matter.
Suddenly Lizette realized that these thoughts were intruding themselves
upon her devotions; that fear and foreboding were driving out the faith
she longed for. She began to pray again, and little by little her heart
grew still within her. It was as though a light broke softly and grew;
there was no room left for fear.
In the church, meantime, the dusk had been gathering. Lizette, when she
rose to her feet, could just see the face of the Child. It was in honor
of his birthday the cures had been made; for the sake of the little
Jesus, who had come to heal the sicknesses and sorrows of all the world.
For some minutes Lizette stood there. Then she remembered the Mère
Bernay, sitting all alone, with the fire dying on the hearth; and
she hurried away. But the crushing weight was gone from her heart.
She walked with light steps, and looked up at the stars, which were
beginning to come out in the sky.
Every day now Lizette prayed in the church, but no one who saw her pass
guessed at what was in her heart. It may be, however, that Pierre’s
mother knew; she knew many things that no one ever told her. Sometimes
when Lizette came in with that light on her face the old woman would
look at her with eyes which seemed to understand.
When the time came for her to make the nine-days’ prayer, Lizette went
to her devotions both morning and evening, and so absorbed was she that
the fire often died on the hearth, and Pierre’s mother shivered as she
sat beside it. But it was on the last day of her waiting that the girl
knelt longest in the little church. When she came again it would be
for the midnight mass; she hardly dared to think further than that.
The old fear seemed to be hovering near, threatening to seize her.
She sought shelter from it in her prayers: she even tried to forget a
certain resolve she had made, lest it argue lack of faith. This resolve
was that Pierre’s eyes should be the first to rest upon her after the
midnight mass. She would neither look in her glass nor touch her face
with her fingers. His eyes, and his alone, should tell her whether the
miracle had been performed.
Pierre had written again, saying that he would come early on Christmas
morning. In a few hours he would be on his way, walking from Lisieux to
a little inn where he slept. But long before dawn he would start again,
and be with her soon after the sun was up. She was glad that Mère
Bernay lay in bed until late. She wished to watch for Pierre alone.
That evening she told the old woman that they would eat the réveillon
before mass. “You would be too weary if you waited for my return,” she
said; but the true reason lay in her resolve that Pierre should be the
first to see her face after the midnight mass.
The réveillon may be spread either before or after that mass. Lizette
brought out the roasted chestnuts soaked in wine and the little cakes.
Her heart was suddenly light and gay. She made Mère Bernay put her
shoes on the hearth, ready for gifts; then Lizette put one of her own
beside them, and next to that she put the other of the pair for her
lover.
The gifts were in readiness; the cottage wore a festive air. Branches
of laurel and pine were fastened over the fireplace, and the vessels of
copper and brass twinkled in the light of the yule log. Père Fouchard
had brought the log in that morning. He was as kind as his wife was
shrewish.
When the feast was eaten and Pierre’s mother was in bed, Lizette made
herself ready to go to the church. With greater care than ever she hid
her face in the hood of her cloak; then she lighted her lantern and
stepped out into a white mist, which seemed to open to receive her. The
frosty road crackled beneath her feet, and the branches of the trees
waved ghostly arms on each side.
The mist was like a delicate veil, entwining everything. Lizette knew
that the little procession of village folk had already passed on its
way to the church. She had heard them singing a few minutes before as
they went; but she had not wished to join them.
Now that she was on her way, she realized that her gaiety had deserted
her, that she felt frightened. But she must not be frightened; she must
have faith. It was faith that would make the miracle possible.
So Lizette came to the church after the others, and slipped into a dim
corner. Nevertheless, several saw her and peered curiously. Among these
was Mère Fouchard. Like all the rest, she had heard that Pierre Bernay
returned on the morrow.
Lizette scarcely heard the hymns or the sermon. She sat like one
tranced, waiting. Her rosary slipped through her fingers, and her pale
lips moved. She tried to think of the words of the prayers, and she
tried not to see Pierre’s eyes as they leaped to her face. Beyond her
meeting with Pierre everything was a blank.
The mass was over, and Lizette was on her way home. The others had
lingered to sing the Christmas carols and to exchange greetings; but
Lizette had slipped out quickly, and went alone through the fog. She
held her cloak tight about her with both hands. At first it had been
all she could do not to touch her face, but that temptation had passed.
She did not even think of it; she knew she would wait for Pierre’s
coming.
But the reaction after the long strain had set in. She felt a great
weariness; she would have liked to creep away into the wood and cry
like a little child. But she stumbled on through the fog, came to the
cottage, and lay down on her bed.
Then it was morning, and the mist was lifting and drifting away. It
drifted away in trailing veils, clinging to everything it passed. But
Lizette looked at the mist only a few moments; she had to make herself
ready for Pierre’s coming.
She watched for him from the window where she sat when she made her
lace, and the mist rose as though to let her see as far down the road
as possible. She could not have said whether she believed herself
healed. There was a sort of blankness in her head. Yet she knew she was
suffering supreme suspense. Now and again the anguish of it pierced
through the blankness; but it was only for a moment, or she could not
have borne it.
Then a figure came into sight at the farthest point of the road she
could see. She rose instantly; she knew it was Pierre. His tall figure,
his eager gait—how often she had seen him coming thus to the cottage!
But now her heart seemed to stop, and she felt she would never get to
the door; never put on her cloak, and pull her hood over her head. She
held the hood tight about her face as she went.
When Pierre saw her coming he stood perfectly still, his head lifted
up. It was as though his very longing, the piercing delight of her
nearness, had fixed him there. And Lizette, her knees trembling beneath
her, went on toward him. Then stopping suddenly, she lifted her hands
and threw back the hood from her face.
Ah, the leap of Pierre’s eyes! But before Lizette’s there came a
swimming blackness; the earth seemed to rise up and the trees to
rush past her. She tried to speak, she tried to see; then the deadly
struggling ceased.
She found herself in Pierre’s arms. His eyes were on her face. Their
love enveloped her and drew her close—closer than ever before. It was
like something in which she lost herself. She lay still, looking up at
him.
“Lizette,” he whispered brokenly. He put his face down against hers.
“My brave, beautiful Lizette!”
Tears sprang to her eyes; an incredible happiness flooded her being.
“It is the miracle of Little Noël,” she whispered.
Pierre paid no heed. He seemed not to care about her meaning; he cared
only for her. Raising her to her feet, he supported her with his
arm. He gazed in her face as though his hunger for it could never be
appeased; and at last he put one hand beneath her chin and turned her
head gently to one side.
“This is the Lizette I left,” he said—“the Lizette whose beautiful
face made me forget her soul. I loved her as a man loves a woman when
both are young.”
He stopped, and then he turned Lizette’s face so that his eyes rested
upon the side which had been burned.
“And this—” He broke off; when he could speak again, his voice had a
hushed, exquisite note—“and this,” he said, “is the Lizette I never
knew. It is the wonderful, beautiful soul of Lizette. When we are old
and our bodies have changed, still I shall always see your brave,
tender, beautiful soul.”
But Lizette, with a low cry, had pushed him from her. She put a hand to
her face.
“The burns!” she gasped. “I feel the burns!”
Pierre seized her hands in his. He drew her to him, kissing the scars
again and again.
“My Lizette,” he whispered, “I did not know before what love was—this
love of soul and body!”
And Lizette, raising her head, clasped her hands together.
“It is the miracle of Little Noël,” she said.
INTRODUCTION
No period of our history better repays perusal by thoughtful readers
and good citizens than the political happenings of the three years
following the Civil War, culminating in the attempt to “recall”
President Johnson. But the subject is so vast that no magazine article
can more than suggest its outlines, or sketch the personalities
involved in the first efforts to reëstablish civil order in the South.
Probably no actor in that series of passionate events could write of
them without some bias; nor would any picture be quite true without the
perspective due to individual experience.
Considered in the large, the long fight between Congress and President
Johnson must be regarded as a wrestling of political forces, a struggle
for major influence in reconstruction, between the executive and
legislative branches of the Government.
In the Civil War the Democratic party, which for many years had been
dominated by the slave-holding interests of the South, had been
dethroned by the new Republican party, which, however, could not have
achieved its purpose to save the Union and abolish slavery without the
aid of the large body of War Democrats who had been rallied to the
support of Lincoln by his defeated rival, Senator Douglas.
At the end of the war, the Republican party was dominated by its
Radical wing, whose extreme aims were almost as offensive to the War
Democrats as to their old allies of the South; and the latter were not
slow to grasp at the political advantage of a reunion which promised
Democratic control of the National Government.
A fourth great factor in the war had been the Union men of the South,
formerly Democrats, of whom Andrew Johnson had been the forceful
leader. It was this prominence which dictated his nomination for
Vice-President in 1864. When, at the close of the war, by the
assassination of Lincoln he became President, his utterances gave the
Republicans hope that as a convert his zeal would equal if not exceed
that of the Radicals in their purpose to subject the South to a period
of political probation. But it was soon manifest that he would steer
the course of conciliation which Lincoln, before the end of battle, had
already charted and begun. The tendency of Johnson’s policy was to draw
to him men imbued with the old Democratic sentiment. In a little while,
the Republican leaders perceived that as soon as the Democrats of the
South should be allowed to vote they would unite with the Democrats of
the North, and thus Republican ascendancy might come to a sudden end,
and some of the results achieved by battle might be reversed at the
ballot-box.
The black man had been freed, and, to protect him against the political
power of his former masters, the Republicans decided to give him the
ballot. This, it was expected, would also offset Democratic votes
in the South, and help to perpetuate Republican rule. President
Johnson had championed emancipation, but was opposed to immediate
Negro suffrage. In the minds of the Radicals that attitude not only
stamped him as a traitor to the party which elected him, but also
incited an obstinate South. When the efforts to thwart the President
by obstructive laws had failed, the Radicals sought to remove him by
impeachment.
Each side had abundant legal and moral grounds for its actions, and
each believed that the other was reaching for selfish political
advantage. Outbreaks of lawlessness in the South, peculiar to the
extraordinary conditions, and chargeable to both sides, convinced each
that its worst fears were justified.
In the pages which follow, the main motives for impeachment are
sketched by General Otis, who fought through the Civil War as a
Union soldier, then entered the long political contest as a militant
journalist, and finally resumed his place by the flag in the war
with Spain. A more conservative view is taken by General Henderson,
a War Democrat high in Lincoln’s confidence, and a slaveholder who
yet proposed the final edict of freedom in the Senate. He is the only
survivor of the seven Republican senators who thwarted impeachment,
ex-Senator George F. Edmunds, of Vermont, being the only other
surviving member of the court. Out of his personal recollection
General Henderson describes his intercourse with Lincoln in securing
emancipation, and his part in the impeachment fiasco.
Papers to follow, in the January CENTURY, will include an
account of the impeachment trial, largely based on the President’s
notes and letters, and an anecdotal sketch of Andrew Johnson, one of
the most peculiar characters in American history.
In subsequent papers, after an interval, the later aspects of
“Reconstruction” will be treated from the Southern point of
view.—THE EDITOR.
BY HARRISON GRAY OTIS
Editor of the “Los Angeles Times”; veteran of the war for the Union;
Brevet Major-General in the war with Spain
THE
War of the Rebellion was the offspring of a desire on the part of
the South to secure exemption from laws that its people believed would
be enacted by a great Northern party, following the election of Abraham
Lincoln, and which would put an end to the extension of slavery, and
menace its safety in the States where it existed. In vain Republican
statesmen protested that slavery would not be interfered with south of
the Potomac. Behind Lincoln and Seward the South beheld Garrison and
Lovejoy and Phillips. It was the belief of Davis and Breckinridge and
Benjamin and Toombs that to exclude slavery from Kansas and Nebraska
would be to sound the prelude of its abolition in Virginia and the
Carolinas, and that those who commended the raid of John Brown and
indorsed Helper’s “Impending Crisis” would sooner or later dominate the
Republican party and commit it to universal abolition of the system of
servile labor, upon the perpetuation of which depended the industrial
life of the South.
It was believed by Southern publicists that the Dred Scott decision
would be reversed by a reorganized Supreme Court, and that a
Republican Congress would enact laws denying the slaveholders the right
to carry their slaves into the territories, and to be protected there
by Federal power. As a matter of fact, slave labor could not have been
employed profitably in the corn-fields of Kansas and Nebraska, and the
cotton States had no slaves to spare. As was wittily said by Charles
Francis Adams, “The South seceded because she couldn’t get protection
for a thing she hadn’t got, in a place where she didn’t want it.”
In the months between the election and inauguration of Lincoln,
during which the Southern Confederacy was organized, members of the
Thirty-sixth Congress made futile efforts to avert the coming struggle.
Senator Mason of Virginia sneeringly characterized the Crittenden
compromise resolutions as “a bread pill.” Senator Douglas rejoined
that “hypochondriacs were sometimes best cured of imaginary disorders
by the use of bread pills.” Compromise was impossible. The South was
determined on separation. Her press and her orators cherished the
delusion that Northern men would not fight to preserve the Union. They
fired the Southern heart and precipitated the cotton States into a
revolution.
The uprising in the North that followed the assault on Sumter amazed
the South and astonished the world; but it was not until nearly two
years after Sumter that the nation became fully aroused to a sense of
its power, its duty, and its destiny. The Emancipation Proclamation of
President Lincoln struck swift and sure at the cause of the war, which
was the Southern determination to perpetuate slavery. It enlisted the
sympathies of Christian civilization. By the late summer of 1864 it
became apparent that the sacrifices, the generalship, and the desperate
valor of the Confederates could not much longer hold out against the
superiority of the Union forces in numbers and arms, and the financial
resources of the Federal government. The one hope of the Confederacy
was that, at the ensuing election, the people of the loyal States might
decree to end the contest. But the soul went out of the Confederacy
on the sixth of November, 1864, when the ballots cast for Abraham
Lincoln settled the issue of continuing the war for the Union. Victory
succeeded victory, until the old banner, hallowed by the new motive,
floated over every Southern stronghold.
MANY
of the volunteer troops had been authorized by the laws of
their respective States to vote in the field for President of the
United States. In the case of my command, this voting was done in the
Shenandoah Valley on November 6, about a fortnight after the famous
battle of Cedar Creek, the scene of “Sheridan’s Ride.” My brigade was
then on the march from Cedar Creek to Martinsburg as guard to a long
supply-train. The usual practice on infantry marches was to march
fifty minutes and rest ten minutes. Our troops availed themselves of
the opportunity offered by these ten-minute rests to go to the polls
and cast their ballots. Polling-places had been provided in every
regimental line, proper election blanks supplied by the State, and the
voting was done not “early and often,” but with honesty and a fair
degree of regularity. In my own regiment the care of the rolls fell
to me and my associate election judges, who had charge of the polling
throughout the day. A bullet through the leg, received in the battle
of Kernstown three months before, had deprived me of my full “hiking”
powers, compelling me to resort to the “hurricane-deck” of a mule for
transportation throughout the march; but I “arrived” all right, and on
the following day, in the midst of a snow-storm, I was able to collect
the rolls, certify to the results, and officially transmit the papers
to the Ohio Secretary of State. The votes cast were almost entirely
for Abraham Lincoln’s reëlection, General George B. McClellan, his
Democratic, anti-war opponent, securing scarcely more than a “look in”
at the hands of this steadfast Ohio brigade. McClellan fared little
better at the hands of those Ohio volunteers than had Clement L.
Vallandigham when he was a candidate for governor of the Buckeye State.
THE
surrender of Lee and Johnston left the South in a deplorable
condition. Its people were without money or credit, and their labor
system was destroyed. Its legislators and judges were fleeing or hiding
from Federal soldiers. The organic and statutory laws of the South that
were in existence before the war had been changed by State conventions
and legislatures during the war. Twelve millions of people, white and
black, were not only without representation at Washington, but they
were without local law, without civil government of any kind, without
other protection than the bayonets of Federal troops. Somewhere there
must exist the power to create, to adjust, to set the machinery of
government again in motion. Clearly the creative power was in the
people of each State capable of giving their consent to be governed,
and not in a few, or in a class who should assume to govern the others.
The adjusting power was in Congress under Section 8 of Article I of
the Federal Constitution, which provides that Congress “shall have the
power to provide for the general welfare of the United States.”
The national statesmen of those days were confronted with a perplexing
problem. They desired to remove the blight from the fair face of the
South, to open her seaports to the ships of the world, to restore her
marts to commerce, her fields to plenty, her people to prosperity,
to citizenship, to equality, and to a place in the councils of the
Government. Nothing less than this was intended by those who undertook
the task of reconstruction. There was no vengeful outbreak of passion,
no proscription of the Southern people, no spirit of retaliation in the
hearts of Union men.
The new nation which was to issue from the war began to take form
before the surrender of Lee or the assassination of President Lincoln.
The Thirteenth Amendment, validating the Emancipation Proclamation and
abolishing slavery, had been ratified by eleven of the States which had
joined the Confederacy, also by Maryland and Missouri of the border
States, and by all the Northern States. Delaware and Kentucky alone had
refused to ratify. But it was unfortunate for the Southern people that
their leaders in the fighting did not participate in the public affairs
of the South and advise the politicians that they could not expect
to win from Union statesmen what their armies had failed to gain on
the battle-field. Southern soldiers, as a whole, showed the spirit of
men who had fought bravely and lost fairly, and recognized the duty,
not less than the patriotism, of submitting to the inevitable. Almost
without exception, Union soldiers of the line and their officers stood
ready to reflect in their acts, attitude, and feelings the sentiments
of their great commander General Grant, who had said to the vanquished
at Appomattox: “Take your horses home with you; you will need them to
put in your crops.” Had the Southern people, the non-combatants among
them, taken the attitude of the mass of the Confederate soldiers,
the difficulties of reconstruction would have been lessened. But in
the first year after the close of the war the country, as already
described, was convulsed by disturbing political events, in which the
rebellious spirit shown by the Southern people caused deep anxiety and
created marked revulsion in the North. There were strong exhibitions
of aroused and indignant sentiment in Union conventions and other
public assemblies, and there was a tremendous outpouring of protest and
warning. At the same time the South was aflame with claims of Southern
rights denied and of wrongs suffered.
TWO
incidents within my personal knowledge illustrate the inconvenience
caused by the total absence of civil law in the South at that
juncture. In June, 1865, I was serving as provost-marshal at the town
of Harrisonburg, in the Valley of the Shenandoah, with instructions
to preserve order, gather up various sorts of United States military
property scattered through the country, arrest outlaws and marauders,
and receive the surrender of, and give paroles to, bands of scattered
Confederate soldiers who had not been “in” at the all-compelling
surrender at Appomattox Court House two months before. The country was
honeycombed with stragglers, and I was burdened with my unique tasks.
Civil government being non-existent, there was not even authority for
the issuance of marriage-licenses and for the performance of like civic
duties. One day, in this emergency, I received a personal application
from an ardent Virginia swain, who announced that he wished to get
married, and appealed to me for instructions as to how to go about the
tender though untimely task. Rising to the occasion, I told him that
I would issue him a license, and accordingly did so in my capacity
as a captain of United States Volunteers, and for the time being
provost-marshal of that district. I wrote out the necessary authority,
observing no forms, empowering any minister of the gospel, or any
former justice of the peace under the Confederacy, to perform the
ceremony. Then I sent the happy lover on his way rejoicing, and assumed
that the knot was tied with due solemnity, that the couple would live
happily ever after, and rear a family of Virginia children.
As provost-marshal I imposed a fine on a portly Negro saloon-keeper for
violating a military order commanding the closing of all liquor shops
in the town. The amount of the fine was fifty dollars in greenbacks,
which was promptly, albeit ungraciously, paid by the aggrieved
dispenser of firewater. Then, not knowing what to do legally with the
money, I transmitted it to the regimental and post commander. He,
also, not knowing how to dispose of this exceptional collection under
any section of the army regulations, sent it to the Treasury of the
United States at Washington, accompanied by an explanatory letter. The
treasury officials, likewise “stumped” by the unusual problem, sent
the fifty dollars back to the colonel commanding. He in turn threw the
money back upon me, with a hint that in the unique dilemma the colored
man’s unwilling contribution might not inappropriately be covered into
the treasury of a certain regimental fund which was then being raised
to promote a permanent, patriotic, and reverent object. Without delay I
proceeded to act upon the hint, and to this day I hold among my private
military archives the receipt of the regimental quartermaster for the
money thus forcibly extorted from that Negro at Harrisonburg who had
undertaken to sell Virginia apple-jack without a military license.
THE
Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery, which
was pending when Lee surrendered, was not acceptable to the South.
Almost the first acts of the Southern legislatures which assembled
under President Johnson’s proclamation of amnesty, and the provisional
organizations provided for by these agencies, breathed antagonism to
the abolition of slavery. In November, 1865, Mississippi provided
by legislative enactment that any Negro over eighteen years of age
found in that State with no lawful employment or business should be
deemed a vagrant. Conviction of vagrancy was punished by fine, and for
non-payment of fine for five days it was made the duty of the sheriff
to hire out the “vagrant” to any person who for the shortest period
of service would pay the fine. In March, 1865, three months after the
Thirteenth Amendment was declared in force, Georgia enacted a vagrant
law authorizing the sale of the black man’s time for a year. The same
law provided for the return and punishment by fine and imprisonment
of runaway black employees, and authorized the employer to pay the
fine and deduct it from the servant’s wages. Alabama, South Carolina,
and Virginia had vagrant laws similar to those of Mississippi, and
Louisiana had an additional provision requiring employers to pay only
half-wages, and giving them the right to keep the remainder if the
laborer quit before his time was out; and also the right to complain of
a laborer who might quit work, and cause him to be put on the public
works, without pay, until he returned to his employer.
Union men who had left their Southern homes during the war came back to
find their property, real and personal, in the hands of Confederates,
who refused to surrender it. Returning Unionists encountered such
persecution as compelled them to leave again. There was, under “the
black law,” a virtual reënslavement of Negroes. Confederate sentiment
was nearly as dominant from the Potomac to the Gulf as when the Stars
and Bars floated from every flagstaff. Georgia elected, or tried to
elect, Alexander H. Stephens a United States Senator. Mobile made
Raphael Semmes, the captain of the Alabama, a probate judge.
Monroe was elected mayor of New Orleans, and Robert E. Lee was offered
the nomination for Governor of Virginia. National airs were hissed
in the theaters, and the national flag was insulted in the streets.
The local press extolled the “Lost Cause” and flouted those who had
overthrown it. Former Confederate officers were the chosen leaders of
public sentiment. Taxation was levied to pay municipal indebtedness
contracted to fit out Confederate regiments. The generally expressed
Southern opinion was that, if reconstruction was necessary, it was the
Confederates who should do the reconstructing.
Northern representatives in Congress, under the leadership of Thaddeus
Stevens and Henry Winter Davis, were not hospitable to the Southern
claims for immediate and unconditional representation in Congress. In
substance they said: The alleged “right” of secession has been trampled
under the feet of the Union armies; the Confederate claims of exemption
from the consequences of their action is not allowed. The North does
not demand punishment of Confederates, nor indemnity for the past, but
it will have security for the future. Taxation is a consequence of war
which the South must bear with the North. Representation—participation
in public rule—is a privilege which, except under satisfactory
conditions and guarantees, will not be extended to the people of the
cotton States.
A LAW
of Congress was enacted authorizing an officer not below the
rank of brigadier-general of the United States army to make a list
of all the voters in a State which might be under his command as
a military district. In making this list, residence and manhood
were the only qualifications.[3] The general was authorized and
directed to issue a proclamation inviting the listed voters to
assemble at the polls and elect delegates to a convention to draft a
State constitution to be submitted to a vote of the people, and if
ratified and approved by Congress, the State to be placed at once in
practical political relations with the other States, and accorded her
proper representation in Congress. The only persons excluded from
participation in reconstruction were those who before the war had
taken an official oath to support the Government and Constitution
of the United States, and who had afterward violated that oath by
voluntarily bearing arms against the Government of the United States.
The class thus excluded from suffrage was perhaps 30,000 in number. The
conventions were required to perpetuate the basis of suffrage set forth
in the Reconstruction Act and to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. That
amendment provided that Federal indebtedness should be paid, and that
Confederate indebtedness should not be paid; that those who were under
disabilities should not be eligible to office until Congress should
remove their disabilities; that representation in Congress and in the
Electoral College should not be accorded to those to whom the right of
suffrage had been or might be denied, and that all persons should be
protected in their rights of liberty and property.
The Fourteenth Amendment was opposed both South and North by those who
asserted that the Union armies had fought to establish the doctrine
that no State could secede from the Union; that the Union victories had
established such doctrine; that as no State could secede, therefore no
State did secede, and, so being in the Union, every Southern State was
entitled to representation without conditions.
To such reasoning it was answered that no statesman and no party had
ever claimed that a State might not destroy herself, even as a city
might disincorporate, or a county merge itself with another. No State
could absolve its citizens from their allegiance to the United States
or release them from their obligation to obey Federal laws and their
liability for Federal taxes, or deprive them of their right to Federal
protection. No State could withdraw her territory or her people from
the dominant jurisdiction of the United States. But, nevertheless, a
State might destroy her internal government, repeal her local laws, and
discontinue her political relations with the other States. She might
commit state suicide. If she sent no senators or representatives to the
Federal Congress; if through her officers she emptied her treasury,
abrogated her courts, disrobed herself of sovereignty, dissolved her
legislature, smote her constitution to pieces with anarchic blows,
and submitted to military rule or to the sway of a revolutionary
central power, she did not take her territory or her people out of
the Union, but she took herself out of existence as a State, leaving
only her territorial boundaries to mark her place on the map. In such
circumstances it became the duty of the Government of the United
States to treat such disorganized Federal territory as it would treat
unorganized Federal territory acquired by purchase or by conquest.
BETWEEN
the assassination of President Lincoln and the meeting of
Congress in December, 1865, an interval of over seven months, there
was no authoritative Republican declaration of the party policy as to
reconstruction. The murder of Lincoln, hastily and unjustly charged by
some Union men against the entire South, was received with an outburst
of rage that encouraged Thaddeus Stevens and other leading Radicals to
propose that the South should be reconstructed by treating the eleven
late Confederate States as conquered territory, wiping out State lines,
and organizing the Territory of Grant, the Territory of Lincoln, the
Territory of Sherman, the Territory of Sheridan, and other territories
to be named after Union officers, which should be governed like the
Territories of Idaho, Montana, and Colorado, and in due time admitted
to the Union on a satisfactory showing in each case.
President Johnson opposed the program of Thad. Stevens. He called
attention to the fact that before the surrender of Lee at Appomattox
the white men of Tennessee elected two United States senators and a
full complement of congressmen, made Brownlow governor, and gave a
majority for Lincoln and Johnson. He reasoned that if Tennessee was
in the Union sufficiently to provide a Vice-President who had become
President, she was in the Union absolutely, and entitled to have her
senators and representatives admitted to seats in Congress. Johnson’s
policy was to ignore everything in the past; to readmit senators and
representatives from the late Confederate States without guarantees
and without delay; to withdraw our armies, and permit the Confederates
to reëstablish their local governments to suit themselves. He proposed,
in effect, that the Confederates, after four years of fighting, having
surrendered to the Union, Union men in turn should, after four weeks of
rejoicing, surrender to the Confederacy.
In assuming this position, Johnson claimed that he was carrying out
Lincoln’s plan of reconstruction, for Lincoln had said long before
the surrender of Lee that his purpose was to save the Union, whether
such saving was accomplished by abolishing slavery or by preserving
it. But Lincoln was a progressive and constructive statesman, and a
policy which he might have favored to obtain peace conditioned on the
disbandment of the Confederate armies, while they were still in the
field as a mighty force, might not have been his policy after the
enforced surrender of Lee and Johnston.
There was no time between the collapse of the Confederacy and the
assassination of Lincoln for him to formulate any policy. It may be
said, however, that he was not in favor of the plan of Thad. Stevens
and Ben. Wade to blot out lines and names in eleven States, and deal
with them as conquered territory. Lincoln’s plan was not to destroy
the Southern States as existing entities, but to recognize the fact
that, as far as government in those entities was concerned, “chaos
had come again,” and it was the duty of Congress to provide for a
reëstablishment of government there, and to prescribe the conditions
on which the people of those States should be accorded national
representation.
CONGRESS
was determined that one of the conditions of reconstruction
should be the admission of colored men to the right of suffrage. Most
of those who advised this were influenced by politico-economic rather
than moral or sentimental considerations. They said to the South, the
action of your legislatures and the utterances of your public men and
newspapers all evince your determination virtually to restore slavery
by establishing peonage. We must either garrison every school district
in the South with soldiers at enormous cost in order to protect the
Negro, or else we must give him the ballot and enable him to protect
himself. If he is made a voter, the struggle of candidates to obtain
his vote may protect him.
Congress, as subsequently appeared, was determined to make Negro
suffrage an essential part of any plan of reconstruction. Johnson was
equally determined to refuse the franchise to the black man, and he had
the power to do it.
ONE
of the most potent instrumentalities in discrediting Andrew
Johnson was the Ku-Klux Klan. It would be impossible within the
limits of this article to give even a brief synopsis of the outrages
of this remarkable band of outlaws. The report of the “Congressional
Committee on Affairs in the Insurrectionary States,” made to the
Forty-second Congress, fills thirteen large volumes. The Ku-Klux
organization extended over eleven States. It was estimated that
its membership exceeded one hundred thousand, and included men who
otherwise were reputable and respected citizens. Its avowed purpose
was to exclude from participation in public affairs, either as voters
or office-holders, all Negroes, all “carpet-baggers,” as incomers from
the North were called, and all “scallywags,” as Southern Union men were
designated.
The purpose of the Ku-Klux Klan was not primarily to depredate private
property, but for a long period they were merciless in dealing
with those who came under their ban. A white man obnoxious to them
was ordered to leave the vicinage. If he failed to obey, the torch
was applied to his home, and he was openly assaulted or secretly
assassinated. If he offered armed resistance, he was murdered. The
colored man who attempted to exercise the right of suffrage was called
from his cabin at midnight, tied to a tree, and whipped, and his house
was burned to the ground. Prosecutions of the members of the Ku-Klux
instituted in the Federal courts in North Carolina, in South Carolina,
and in other States almost invariably resulted in failure for want of
proof, hard to get; and not until the second administration of General
Grant were these outlaws finally disbanded and dispersed.
TWO
great national conventions were held in the year 1866, one at
Pittsburg and the other at Philadelphia. The latter, beginning on
September 3, was made up in large measure of Southern loyalists and
other civilians, among whom the tide of patriotism ran high. It made
a tremendous impression upon the country and upon the recalcitrant
and dissatisfied South. Among the delegates were Ralph Waldo Emerson,
James Russell Lowell, Oliver Wendell Holmes, John G. Whittier, eleven
governors, and eight United States senators. Among the thousands of
Unionists whom I met there was James A. Garfield, who had won his spurs
as a major-general in the field, who subsequently served in the House
of Representatives, became President, and died that tragic death which
history has sadly recorded. In his joyousness and geniality he seemed
to me like a great overgrown boy. While masses of shouting, cheering,
and singing men were parading through Independence Square, within the
sound of the Liberty Bell, that big man passed his arms affectionately
about the shoulders of a young soldier, whom he did not know, and
strode proudly along as though the latter had been his lifelong friend.
It was enough for Garfield to know that the other was a comrade. I was
the obscure young soldier.
The object of the convention was to devise means for the protection of
the imperiled lives and property of loyal Southerners. The chairman,
the Hon. Charles Gibbons, voiced the purpose of the convention when he
said: “It is the honest sentiment of the North, held and uttered in the
interests of union, of peace, and of Christianity, that when the South
returns to her duty she must come in new robes, with new covenants for
liberty, equality, and justice, led by her own loyal Unionists, who are
free from the guilt of treason.”
The Union Soldiers’ and Sailors’ convention, at Pittsburg, followed
the other in the same month. It was equally large, equally serious and
determined in its character and utterances. It was attended by hosts
of soldiers of all grades, from private to major-general. The speeches
and resolutions breathed a sentiment of deep devotion to the restored
Union, expressed a fearless determination to prevent the fruits of the
nation’s sacrifices from being snatched away or diluted. Revolt against
the tendencies in the White House and the South was general among the
friends of the Union.
IN
1867 an act of Congress was passed depriving the President of
the power to issue an amnesty proclamation, which he overrode. His
disposition and his plans to defy Congress and pursue his own method of
reconstructing the South caused Congress to deprive him of the command
of the army, a bold act, the constitutionality of which might well
be disputed at any stage, but which illustrates the almost desperate
frame of mind in which Congress then was. Johnson’s continued defiance
was met by the enactment into law of the Tenure-of-Office bill, which
prevented him from making a change in his cabinet, his own official
household.
These strained relations between the President and Congress, which had
existed for more than two years, reached an open rupture on February
21, 1868, when the President informed the Senate that he had removed
Edwin M. Stanton as Secretary of War, contrary to the Tenure-of-Office
act. The House at once adopted a resolution, by a vote of 122 to 47
(not voting 17) to “impeach Andrew Johnson, President of the United
States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.” James G. Blaine, in his
“Twenty Years of Congress,” says that, in adopting this resolution of
impeachment, Congress acted hastily; but it is the opinion of many
still living that he did not consider the precedent circumstances,
which, as much as the removal of Stanton, led 122 congressmen to cast
their votes for impeachment. Still, it was probably fortunate for the
nation that Johnson was saved from impeachment by one senatorial vote.
If Johnson had been impeached, Ben. Wade of Ohio, a fearless Republican
statesman, would have become President. Wade was a Radical of the
Radicals, who always had the courage of his convictions. He probably
would have given the whole force of his administration to the plan of
Thad. Stevens to organize the South into territories and govern it
as such, yet granting the States readmission to the Union gradually
and on stipulated terms. The people of the North were so enraged over
the assassination of Lincoln and the continued efforts of the Southern
States to nullify the Thirteenth Amendment that they might then have
approved the Stevens plan of reconstruction. At this day, nearly half a
century after Appomattox, it seems best that neither the Johnson plan
nor the Stevens plan did prevail.
THE
failure to impeach Johnson accentuated the need of further
constitutional amendment. As early as June 13, 1866, the Fourteenth
Amendment, declaring that no State may abridge the rights of citizens
of the United States, was proposed in Congress, but it was not finally
ratified and declared to be in force until July 28, 1868. California
never took final action on this amendment. It was rejected by
Delaware, Maryland, and Kentucky. New Jersey and Ohio rescinded their
ratification of it. Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia at first rejected the
amendment, but afterward ratified it.
Notwithstanding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, feud,
anarchy, and devastation continued in the Southern country, and the
failure to impeach Johnson was an incentive to continued disorder. How
to secure peace, justice, and prosperity was the pressing question of
the hour. Congress had tried constitutional amendments, and the South
ignored them. It had tried civil-rights bills, which were useless
without military power to enforce them. Then Congress said in effect
to the Southern people: “If you have not a loyal white majority
which can be trusted with the administration of civil government, we
will enfranchise the black man. We must either garrison every school
district with Union troops in order to protect the Negro from a peonage
that is practical reënslavement, or we must give him the ballot and let
him protect himself.” It was believed that the contending ambitions of
office-seekers to obtain the colored man’s vote would cause them to
treat him justly.
It was such conditions that produced the Fifteenth Amendment, providing
that no State might deprive a citizen of his vote “on account of
race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The first draft
contained the word “nativity,” which was obnoxious to the Pacific
coast because of the apprehension of Chinese suffrage, so the word
was eliminated. Nevada was the first State to ratify the Fifteenth
Amendment. California, Oregon, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and New
Jersey rejected it. Georgia and Ohio at first rejected it, but finally
ratified it. New York rescinded her ratification. The amendment was
proposed February 26, 1869, and declared in force March 30, 1870.
Half a century ago human slavery had been banished from every civilized
nation in the world except the United States. Here it was intrenched
behind apparently impregnable fortifications composed of cotton-bales,
pulpits, and counting-rooms, of bank vaults and political conventions.
The reverberations of Sumter’s guns changed a majority of the people
of the Northern States from conservative indifference to toleration
of antislavery sentiments, and, as the war progressed, into active
abolitionists; and thus the Emancipation Proclamation was acclaimed
by millions who three years before would have scouted such a measure.
It is more than forty-seven years since the last gun was fired in
the Civil War; it is more than forty years since the last measure of
reconstruction was enacted. The generals and statesmen of that historic
era have journeyed on. The veterans in the soldiers’ homes grow rapidly
fewer in number, and it will not be many years until the last of them
will have joined the great majority. The acerbities and rancors of the
war have been submerged in Lethean waters, and the Southern States,
once desolated, have become prosperous and powerful supporters of the
Old Flag.
Drawn by Joseph Pennell
THE CAPITOL, FROM PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
RECOLLECTIONS OF THE SENATOR WHO PROPOSED THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND
WAS ONE OF THE SEVEN REPUBLICANS WHO THWARTED THE ATTEMPT TO IMPEACH
PRESIDENT JOHNSON
BY GENERAL JOHN B. HENDERSON
ARTICLE
II, Sec. 4, of the Constitution provides that “The President,
Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be
removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason,
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Thus the principle
of the “recall,” in very broad terms, has been written into our
fundamental law. Human nature is such that the idea of resorting to
this remedy originates first in the minds of political opponents. As
applicable to Presidents, the recall was probably much desired by the
enemies of John Adams, the second President, and of Andrew Jackson,
the seventh. Fortunately it has actually been invoked only against
the seventeenth President, Andrew Johnson, who owed his position to
the recall by assassination of Abraham Lincoln. His impeachment, I
believe, was due mainly to a counter-tide of passion, prejudice, and
political revenge. His trial formed a crisis in the life of the nation,
the dangerous import of which may not yet be fully understood. His
rescue from conviction by the narrow margin of one vote was followed
by demands for the recall of the seven Republican senators who voted
with the Democrats. I happened to be the youngest of the seven, though
not the least berated. By the refusal of a reëlection, all of the seven
were retired to private life. Then out of several years of bitterness
came the wisdom of reflection. Those who had reviled began to praise
and finally to utter words of thankfulness. Even some of the leaders
of impeachment, in the calm of reason, have put on record frank
confessions of error. Thus it has been my happiness to live to see the
keenest disappointment of my public life transformed into its chief
honor.
IN
his great wisdom Lincoln early perceived that unless antislavery
sentiment could be sustained in the border States, the Federal cause
was likely to fail. With that belief he sought information and
counsel from those men in Congress who, like myself, had been bred
in the shadow of slavery and who yet desired the extinction of the
institution. Though born in Danville, Virginia, most of my early life
was spent at Louisiana, a town north of St. Louis, on the Missouri side
of the Mississippi. There I began to practise law in 1848 and to hear
of a lawyer, Abraham Lincoln, located at Springfield, seventy-five
miles to the northeast. In that year he was serving his only term in
Congress, while I was beginning public life as a member of the Missouri
legislature, to which I returned in 1856. Though a member of the
Electoral College in 1856 which made Buchanan President, I was strongly
opposed to his Kansas policy. In 1860 I was an elector on the Stephen
A. Douglas ticket. I had inherited slave property, but was convinced
that slavery was an economic drawback in Missouri. On her borders, east
and north, white settlers were founding prosperous communities, and
avoiding us because white labor would not compete with slave labor.
My only purchase of slaves was made on the appeal of a black man who
had built the fires in my office. He and his wife and son were sold at
auction to pay the debts of their master. I bought them in for about
$1400. Thereafter they never served me; but as the law required that
they should be in regular employ, I hired them out, they taking the
wages.
Civil war was an actual fact in Missouri before the sword and the torch
were at work in the other border States. Early in 1861 our legislature,
which was secessionist in sentiment, provided for a state convention
to join, as they hoped, the other seceding States; but, to their great
surprise, a majority of Union delegates were chosen at the special
election, I being among that majority. Ex-Governor Sterling Price,
then classed with the opponents of secession, became president of the
convention which assembled soon after Lincoln’s first inaugural made
it plain that a conflict was inevitable. As Jackson, our governor at
that time, was disloyal, the life of the convention was prolonged by
adjournment, during which the secession element ranged itself under
Jackson and Price, and the Union element, with the continuing authority
of the convention, grew strong enough to organize and to elect Governor
Gamble. Under the arrangements for home defense, I organized a brigade,
and in General Schofield’s command operated against the raiders who
burned bridges and disturbed northeastern Missouri during the first
year of the war. The conditions were such that no man could safely
remain neutral. Unless he was openly for one side or the other, he was
suspected by both, and doubly liable to pillage and arrest.
FROM
the field I was sent to the United States Senate in January, 1862,
to fill the unexpired term of Trusten Polk, who had joined the South.
In March, President Lincoln sent to Congress his message asking for
a joint resolution favoring the gradual abolishment of slavery with
compensation. A few days later he asked the border States delegations
to a conference at the White House in which he urged that policy
without gaining much encouragement. On July 12 he made a second direct
appeal to the same delegations, in conference, and urged that if the
border States would adopt measures of compensated emancipation, the
war must shortly end, since then, and not till then, would the South
realize that slavery was doomed. Twenty of them signed a written
qualified refusal to urge his recommendation; seven assented in a
prepared address; and Horace Maynard and I wrote individual replies.
I had been absent from the conference on business relating to my
duties as senator, but I gave the President my view that, while I
had supported the measure when first introduced, I did not share his
belief that it alone would bring the war to an early termination. But
I added that in such a period of national distress I knew of “no human
institution too sacred for discussion, no material interest belonging
to the citizen that he should not willingly place upon the altar of
his country, if demanded by the public good. The man who cannot now
sacrifice party and put aside selfish considerations is more than half
disloyal. Pride of opinion, based upon sectional jealousies, should not
be permitted to control the decision of any political question. These
remarks are general, but apply with peculiar force to the people of the
border States at present.”
THESE
sentiments indicated that I was drifting toward Lincoln’s
position that emancipation was indispensable to the saving of the
Union. After the July conference at the White House, a general bill
offering aid to the border States if they would adopt compensated
emancipation was introduced in Congress, but not brought to final
action. In the autumn, at Mr. Lincoln’s request, I went to Missouri
to take part in the agitation of the question, and the reversal of
sentiment shown at the November election seemed altogether favorable.
So, on December 10, I introduced a bill in the Senate appropriating
twenty millions of dollars to aid Missouri if her people would adopt
compensated emancipation. At the same time Congressman Noell, in the
House, gave notice of a similar bill, but reducing the aid to ten
millions. His bill passed the House on January 6, 1863, and was sent
to the Senate, where, on February 7, a compromise of fifteen millions
was adopted; but the pro-slavery members from Missouri gathered
enough strength to prevent action by the House. Meantime Lincoln’s
proclamation of freedom to all slaves in rebellious territory had gone
into effect on the first of January.
The idea of compensated emancipation for the border States made no
further progress in Congress, and probably lost ground in the North,
for a reason humorously stated by Senator Jacob Collamer of Vermont.
During the recess he addressed a meeting of several hundred neighbors
and stated that the measure would call for the payment of about $300
each for four million slaves. He asked them to go home and consider
what they would advise their representatives to do. An old leader
in the town waxed eloquent over the fact that the North shared the
responsibility for slavery and ought to help settle the bill, and,
though poor, he declared himself willing to pay his share. But in a day
or two he was back again with a different opinion.
“Senator,” he exclaimed, “me and wife and the boys figure that our
share would be just about all we’ve got; so I guess you might as well
let that damned Negro question alone.”
A YEAR
later the distress of the nation had enforced a more united
sentiment, and on January 11, 1864, I offered in the Senate a joint
resolution to abolish slavery in the United States. After a good deal
of discussion over the wording of the resolution, Senator Sumner
offering one form, and Senator Trumbull suggesting the terms of the
ordinance of 1787, which prohibited slavery in all the Northwest, the
latter was favored. Though the requisite two-thirds vote was obtained
in the Senate, the House did not acquiesce until after a whole year of
discussion. The bill became a law on January 31, 1865. A hundred guns
announced the event, and the rejoicing was great and spontaneous.
AT
the second inauguration of Lincoln I was chairman of the committee
which escorted the President to the Capitol, and sat by his side while
Andrew Johnson, after taking the oath as Vice-President, harangued
the crowded senate chamber. During the painful ordeal, Mr. Lincoln’s
head drooped in the deepest humiliation. As I offered him my arm for
the procession to the steps of the Capitol, where he delivered the
Inaugural, he turned to the marshal and said, “Don’t let Johnson speak
outside.”
Senator Doolittle, who had escorted the Vice-President elect to the
Capitol, told me that when they went into Mr. Hamlin’s room Johnson
said to the retiring Vice-President:
“Mr. Hamlin, I have been feeling very ill. Can you give me some good
brandy?”
A bottle of French brandy was found, and to brace his nerves for
the task before him, he poured out the full glass that wrought the
mischief. His reputation was that of a temperate man; and this was his
only show of inebriety; but the scene was so deeply humiliating that
a caucus of senators a few days afterward seriously considered the
propriety of asking him to resign as their presiding officer.
Mr. Lincoln’s aversion to liquor and tobacco was well known. He
once told me with relish of a rebuke for his abstinence given by a
friendly stage-driver. During the time that he was a circuit lawyer,
he sometimes walked from one county court to another. While on such a
tramp a stage overtook him and the driver invited him to take a seat
on the box. After they had chatted for a while the driver produced a
whisky-flask, saying:
“Stranger, won’t you take a drink?”
“No, thank you,” Lincoln replied; “I never drink.”
A little later the driver drew some tobacco from his pocket and said:
“Stranger, won’t you have a chew?”
Lincoln answered:
“No, thank you, I never chew.”
After a period of reflection the driver said:
“Stranger, do you smoke?”
Lincoln replied:
“No, I never smoke.”
Looking at him quizzically, the driver exclaimed:
“So you’re one of those men I’ve heard of who have no small vices.”
To which Lincoln answered:
“It is true that I don’t use liquor or tobacco.”
Then the driver turned on him with the conclusive remark:
“Stranger, I’ll tell you what I think: those men who have no small
vices seldom have any large virtues.”
I once heard Mr. Lincoln tell of another liquor experience, this time
at the expense of Senator David Davis, who was present and enjoyed
it as much as the rest of the company. While attending a session of
court presided over by Judge Davis, the latter overtook him one morning
on the road, and asked him to get into the Davis carriage, which was
drawn by a pair of spirited horses, driven by a trusted coachman. They
traveled at a rate which made Lincoln uneasy, and soon entered on a
piece of new road abounding in ruts and stumps. As the carriage bumped
and swayed, Lincoln, in much alarm, turned to the judge and asked:
“Mr. Davis, isn’t your driver drunk?”
From a photograph by Prince, taken in 1908. Half-tone
plate engraved by H. Davidson
GENERAL JOHN B. HENDERSON
“No,” replied the judge, “Michael is a sober man and never takes
anything.”
After a jar which nearly upset them, Lincoln asked that the carriage
should be stopped, so that he could get out. The judge expostulated,
but when they struck another stump, Lincoln exclaimed:
“Mr. Davis, your driver is drunk!”
Thereupon Davis loudly demanded of the coachman that he should stop,
and, observing him closely, saw the whole truth in the wild gleam of
his eyes. The judge indignantly exclaimed:
“Michael, you are drunk!”
And Michael, with an approving leer, answered:
“Judge Davis, that’s the correctest decision you’ve rendered in the
last twelve months.”
MY
last interview with Mr. Lincoln occurred after the adjournment of
the extra session of the Senate about the middle of March, 1865. I went
to the White House to ask the President to pardon a number of the men
who had been languishing in Missouri prisons for various offenses, all
political. Some of them had been my schoolmates, and their mothers,
sisters, and sweethearts had persisted in appeals that I should use
my influence for their release. Since it was evident to me that the
Confederacy was in its last throes, I felt that the pardon of most of
these prisoners would do more good than harm. I had separated them
according to the gravity of the offense into three classes, and handing
the first list to him, I said:
“Mr. President, the session is closed, and I am about to start for
home. The war is virtually over. Grant is pretty certain to get Lee
and his army, and Sherman is plainly able to take care of Johnston.
In my opinion, the best way to prevent guerrilla warfare at the end
of organized resistance will be to show clemency to these rebel
sympathizers.”
Lincoln shook his head and said:
“Henderson, I am deeply indebted to you and I want to show it, but
don’t ask me at this time to pardon rebels.”
Then I offered new arguments, but he replied in a grieved tone:
“I can’t do it! People are continually blaming me for being too
lenient. Don’t encourage such fellows by inducing me to turn loose a
lot of men who, perhaps, ought to be hanged.”
I answered:
“Mr. President, these prisoners and their friends tell me that for them
the Rebellion is over, and it will surely have a good influence now to
let them go.”
He answered:
“Henderson, my conscience tells me that I must not do it.”
But I persisted:
“Mr. President, you should do it. It is necessary for good
feeling in Missouri that these people should be released.”
“If I sign this list as a whole, will you be responsible for the future
good behavior of the men?” he asked.
“Yes,” I said.
“Then I will take the risk and sign it.” He wrote the word “pardoned,”
signed the general order of release, and returned the paper to me.
“Thank you, Mr. President,” I said, “but that is not all; I have
another list here.”
“You are not going to make me let loose another lot!” he exclaimed.
“Yes,” I answered, “but I am not quite so sure of the merits of this
list. However, I believe the men are not dangerous, and it will be good
policy to let them go. My argument for this list is the same as for the
other. The war is virtually over; the guilt of these men is at least
doubtful; mercy must be the policy of peace.”
With the only word approaching profanity I ever heard him utter, he
exclaimed:
“I’ll be durned if I don’t sign it!” and he signed the second list like
the first. “Now, Henderson,” he said, as he handed the list back to me,
“remember that you are responsible to me for these men; and if they
don’t behave, I shall have to put you in prison for their sins.”
ON
December 18, 1865, eight months after the death of Lincoln, the
Thirteenth Amendment was proclaimed by Secretary Seward, it having
received the indorsement of two thirds of all the States in the
Union. Partly through my solicitation, President Johnson had used
his great influence with the border States to gain their approval of
emancipation. During the fight for the Thirteenth Amendment it was no
secret that some of the leading Radicals in Congress were indifferent
toward the abolishment of slavery at that time, as well as toward
Mr. Lincoln’s scheme of reconstruction, out of the belief that those
measures would make inevitable his renomination and election, which
they did not favor. The Radicals had been sympathetic toward Andrew
Johnson as senator and as military governor of Tennessee, on account
of his vigorous antislavery views, but when he became President,
and, as he believed, took up the work of reconstruction on the lines
that Lincoln had begun, they at once realized that his success would
frustrate their plans for the political domination of the South.
Half-tone plate engraved by H. Davidson
ANDREW JOHNSON
This portrait is from a photograph taken not long
before his death.
Senator Sumner’s theory of “State suicide” and Thad. Stevens’s idea
of “conquered provinces,” became the basis of the Radical scheme of
territorializing the South by keeping the States that had seceded
under semi-military rule, and condemning them to a period of probation
before they should be allowed to come back into the Union on terms of
self-government.
Those of us in Congress who believed that Johnson’s policy was in
the main in line with the right principles were nevertheless not in
entire agreement with him. He felt that he was following precedent as
far as Lincoln had established it, and that he was entitled to the
confidence of the conservative Union element of the country; but he was
hot-headed, and as the controversy with the Radicals in Congress grew,
his attitude became more and more aggressive and irritating to the
majority.
Early in 1866, Congress passed a bill enlarging the powers of the
Freedmen’s Bureau. Johnson vetoed it, as well as a revised bill that
followed, and the latter was enacted over his head. Congress soon after
enacted a measure to fortify the rights of the Negroes, known as the
Civil-Rights Bill, which he promptly vetoed, and which was as promptly
passed over his head. Then, to prevent the President, who was now in
open conflict with the Radical Republicans, from dispossessing the
office-holders who were their friends, Congress passed the Tenure of
Office Act in a form which most of the Radicals interpreted to mean
that the President might not supplant even a member of his own Cabinet.
As another weapon against the administration, Congress passed the
Reconstruction Act, which designated as illegal the State governments
which had been set up by Johnson in the South, and provided that
those States should be ruled by military governors appointed by the
President, but really under control of the head of the army. Both these
bills were vetoed by the President and Congress promptly enacted them
over his head.
The President’s official advisers, who, it should not be forgotten,
were those who had formed Lincoln’s Cabinet, themselves strongly
objected to the Tenure of Office Act, the President’s veto being drawn
up by Seward and Stanton. The latter was most emphatic in declaring
that the act was unconstitutional; but it was part of the irony of
the situation that Stanton was the first to feel its effects, and
thereafter to become active in maintaining its validity. With Stanton’s
suspension and the appointment, first of General Grant, and then of
General Lorenzo Thomas, as Secretary of War ad interim, the
first practical move for impeachment may be said to have begun.
THUS
the impeachment of Andrew Johnson was the culmination of political
differences which had become increasingly strained in the disturbed
conditions which followed the death of Lincoln. The trial has been
wrongly described as a great judicial event, but in the strict sense
it was not a judicial event, since it was without sound basis in law.
It was the culmination of a struggle for political advantage. Still
the Radicals who brought it about were intensely in earnest. They felt
that the tendency of Johnson’s reconstruction policy was toward the
return of the Democratic party to power, which would have the effect of
neutralizing the political results of the Civil War.
The very nature of the so-called Court of Impeachment was a
monstrosity, as several of the lawyers in that body perceived, for the
Senate was to act both as judge and as jury. I made several motions
or orders to separate the jurisdiction of the jury from that of the
judge, but in vain. I wanted a judge, preferably Chief-Justice Chase,
to decide the judicial points, as the Senate was like a mob, deciding
everything for themselves.
SENATOR PETER G. VAN WINKLE
OF WEST VIRGINIA
SENATOR LYMAN TRUMBULL
OF ILLINOIS
SENATOR JAMES W. GRIMES
OF IOWA
SENATOR EDMUND G.
ROSS OF KANSAS
SENATOR JOSEPH F. FOWLER
OF TENNESSEE
From a photograph by Brady
SENATOR WILLIAM PITT FESSENDEN OF MAINE
Impeachment was of course a matter in which personalities and personal
ambitions played a large part. Without Benjamin F. Butler and Thad.
Stevens, there never would have been an impeachment trial, for
impeachment was chiefly a scheme to get place and power for themselves
and their friends. Like many other politicians of selfish aims, they
flourished under the peculiar conditions following the war—conditions
in which the sole inquiry was, “Is he loyal?” and not, “Is he honest?”
Butler was able to push the impeachment scheme on the claim that
Johnson was not loyal. It was even charged that Johnson was conspiring
to form a new secession, despite the fact that he had been instrumental
in securing the adhesion of a number of the Southern States to the
Thirteenth Amendment. And this charge was fomented by Butler, the man
whom I had heard vote fifty-seven times in the Charleston convention
for Jeff Davis as President, and whom I heard address a group of
Southern delegates in support of a declaration for the protection of
slavery in all territories. On that occasion he declared that if the
North undertook to raise troops to “coerce the South,” the bones of the
Northern soldiers would rot upon the mountains before they reached the
South. Yet this same man was the leader of one of the first regiments
to march through Baltimore to “coerce the South.”
Feeling ran high in all parts of the country, and whenever a Republican
senator showed a disinclination to join in impeachment he was bombarded
by excited constituents. I was not slow to make my attitude known,
for I would as soon have voted to condemn an innocent man to death
as to vote to impeach Johnson on the articles that were presented.
The Republicans in Missouri were, if possible, more aroused than in
other parts of the country. Even the legislature passed a resolution
requesting me to resign. I replied finally that I would hold my seat
until impeachment was defeated. That position carried a great deal of
significance, since the alinement of forces indicated clearly that the
change of a single vote would result in the President’s condemnation.
From a photograph by Brady, taken in 1867
SENATOR JOHN B. HENDERSON OF MISSOURI
All of the articles of impeachment were based on some phase of the
quarrel with Stanton. The eleventh article, which accused him of
violating an act of Congress in suspending the Secretary of War was the
strongest, though in my view of the law, as I declared in the Senate,
he had legally suspended Stanton and had undoubted authority to fill
the vacancy by an ad interim appointment. When the Tenure
of Office Act was before the Committee of Conference, Senator John
Sherman, chairman of the committee, was asked if the bill was intended
to take away the power of the President to remove his own Cabinet, and
he answered, “No, it is not to interfere with his power to remove or to
retain his Cabinet.” During the impeachment trial, when it was reported
that Senator Sherman was in favor of convicting Johnson on the eleventh
article, I had a talk with him, and asked:
“Do you remember your attitude in the Committee of Conference on the
question of the power of the President to remove his Cabinet?”
He said:
“I remember it very well.”
Then I asked bluntly:
“You are not going to stultify yourself by voting for the eleventh
article?”
He replied:
“No.”
That conversation convinced me that the advocates of impeachment could
not depend, as they hoped, on Sherman to vote guilty on the eleventh
article, and in fact, when the crucial moment came, he voted against it.
DURING
most of the period of agitation for impeachment General Grant
had ranged himself with those who stood by the President. Everybody
believed in the honesty of his purpose, and owing to his great fame,
his influence was paramount. The Radical leaders understood the
difficult task of carrying out their plans without Grant’s coöperation,
and they shaped their course so that he would profit by the overturn
of the administration. Grant’s quarrel with the President, over the
question of his relations as head of the army to the Secretary of
War, afforded them a line of approach, and the talk of making Grant a
Presidential candidate in the coming election suggested the reward.
About the last of April, 1868, I received an invitation to a ten
o’clock breakfast at General Grant’s house, which had recently been
presented to him. Commodore Porter and other guests were present. Our
host asked me to remain, and after the other guests had departed, he
lighted a cigar—I did not smoke—and proposed a walk.
He shortly broached the question of impeachment, and asked for my
opinion as to the result, saying that there were personal reasons why
he should like to know definitely what might be expected.
I said:
“General Grant, you may rest assured that impeachment will fail.”
He answered:
“Senator, I have reason to believe, from good authority, that the
managers of impeachment are confident of success.”
“They have no substantial grounds for such confidence,” I replied.
“I may tell you in confidence,” he then said, “that not only is it
expected that Ben. Wade will become President, but the members of his
Cabinet have already been selected.”
“Can you tell me, General, who they are to be?” I asked.
“Perhaps I ought not to say,” he replied, “but I will tell you, at
least, that General Butler has been designated as Secretary of State.”
I reiterated my belief that the program never would be carried out,
whereupon General Grant said:
“You know that people are talking of me for the Presidency at the
coming election. I have not had political ambition, but I begin to
think that possibly I might be of great service to the country in
bringing peace to the disturbed sections of the Union. These men who
are counting on the success of impeachment offer me their influence as
the nominee to succeed Wade in case he becomes President by the removal
of Johnson.”
“What are the conditions?” I asked.
“That I shall agree to take over Wade’s Cabinet.”
“Good God, General!” I exclaimed, in astonishment, “you didn’t consent
to that, did you?”
“No,” he replied; “I did not give them any answer.”
He expressed distrust of Butler; yet I thought he seemed to lean toward
the bargain. Then I said:
“General Grant, you may feel confident of the nomination whether these
men support you or not; and you may rest assured that the succession
will not occur as they promise.”
Drawn by Jay Hambidge, on the basis of a woodcut in
“Leslie’s Weekly,” April 11, 1868
THE HIGH COURT OF IMPEACHMENT IN SESSION IN THE SENATE
CHAMBER, MONDAY, MARCH 23, 1868
Benjamin R. Curtis of the counsel for the President is
reading the answer to the articles of impeachment. At the table in the
middleground are seated the Committee of Managers of the House of
Representatives.
About a week later, as I was coming from the Capitol in a street-car,
General Grant got in. The car was well filled, and the General came
over and sat beside me. He asked whether I had changed my opinion about
the impeachment.
“No, General,” I answered, “I am of the same mind about it.”
“Do you think you can defeat it?” he asked.
“Well, I can’t warrant that,” I replied. “We have friends enough
against it to defeat it, but I cannot give a pledge that we shall
actually defeat it.”
“Well,” he said, “I hope you won’t.”
“Why, General,” I exclaimed, “you wouldn’t impeach Johnson?”
“Yes I would,” he answered bruskly.
“Then you have changed your mind,” I said, “and I am sorry to hear it.”
“Yes,” he repeated, “I would impeach him if for nothing else than
because he is such an infernal liar.”
“I very much regret to hear you say it,” I answered, looking at him
earnestly, for his language and manner aroused my indignation. “I
regret it because on such terms it would be nearly impossible to find
the right sort of man to serve as President.”
He seemed annoyed, but made no further remark, and in a few minutes
left the car. We never had any further conversation on the subject. I
inferred that the Radicals hoped to influence me through Grant, since
they knew I was ready to support him for President. When I saw how and
why he had changed about, I lost respect for his opinion.
From that time a coolness entered into our relations; but during his
Presidency I was paid the compliment of being asked to take charge of
the Whisky Ring prosecution in St. Louis.
ALL
of the Democratic senators were ranged on the side of President
Johnson, and the division of the voting power was such that seven
Republican senators voting with the Democrats could defeat impeachment.
We senators who were opposed to the scheme held several informal
conferences. At first we numbered at least eight, since Senator William
Sprague of Rhode Island joined in the talks and was frankly on our
side. He was the son-in-law of the Chief-Justice who would preside at
the trial, and it was no secret that Chase looked upon the articles
of impeachment as flimsy. But after the opposing senators began to
be deluged with appeals and threats from their constituents, Sprague
evidently decided that the good of the country required that he should
return to the Senate, and he absented himself from further conference.
It was rumored that Senator Edwin D. Morgan, formerly Governor of New
York, would have voted with us in case of the defection of one of
the seven. For political reasons he finally alined himself with the
Radicals.
The tension in the senate chamber during the first vote, which was on
the last, or eleventh, article, was tremendous, for at least two of the
seven Republicans were claimed by both sides. William P. Fessenden of
Maine was the first of the seven to rise on roll-call and be questioned
by the Chief-Justice, saying:
“Mr. Senator Fessenden, how say you? Is the respondent, Andrew Johnson,
President of the United States, guilty or not guilty of a high
misdemeanor as charged in this article?”
Fessenden responded in a clear voice, “Not guilty.” In a written
opinion filed later he disposed of the suggestion that “popular
opinion” demanded the conviction of the President, by saying that the
people had not heard the evidence as the Senate had heard it, and that
the responsibility was not on the people, but on the senators who had
taken an oath “to do impartial justice according to the Constitution
and the laws.”
When the name of Senator James W. Grimes of Iowa was called, Fessenden
asked for a moment’s delay, in order that the senator, who was ill,
might be brought into the chamber. He was carried in and placed in his
seat. Before the Chief-Justice summoned him to answer he suggested that
Grimes might answer from his seat; but the ill senator rose with the
aid of friends and, after the summons, in a feeble voice answered, “Not
guilty.” Perhaps no one of the seven was afterward so roundly abused by
newspapers and politicians who had formerly been his friends.
Senator Joseph F. Fowler of Tennessee had been claimed by both sides,
since he had voted on some questions favorable to the Radicals and
on others favorable to the President. Though not a man of conspicuous
ability, he was regarded as level-headed. After his vote of “Not
guilty” he received a despatch congratulating him on the position he
had taken, to which he answered, “I acted for my country and posterity,
in obedience to the voice of God.”
After my vote of “Not guilty,” which created no surprise, Senator
Edmund G. Ross of Kansas was the next Republican to disappoint his
party friends. He had begun political life as an Abolitionist and
had been appointed to fill the unexpired term of the noted senator,
“Jim” Lane. He had voted with the Radicals on some questions, and the
reticence he had maintained with regard to his position on impeachment
subjected him to enormous pressure. Still he maintained silence, and
the audience held its breath until, in a clear voice he unhesitatingly
answered, “Not guilty.” As Ross had been the main hope of the Radicals,
his vote made a sensation. It was claimed that a sum of money had
been subscribed to reward him for taking the stand he did contrary to
the sentiment of the people of Kansas, who had threatened him with
expulsion from the State if he voted for the President. He was made
to suffer heavily for his adherence to principle, and his immediate
hardships and poverty indicated that he was not bribed. After the trial
was over, he stated in the Senate that he had entertained doubts on
some of the articles until a few days before the vote, but had settled
the matter in his own mind, as he said, “by giving his country the
benefit of his doubts.”
Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, though he had voted for the
resolution censuring Stanton, had been outspoken against impeachment;
consequently his vote of “Not guilty” awakened no surprise. His
position was based on the harm which would be done to the country by
setting the example of impeaching a President, and he expressed the
opinion that if Johnson were removed on such partizan grounds, “no
future President will be safe who happens to differ with a majority of
the House and two thirds of the Senate on any measure desired by them,
particularly if of a political character.” In other words, his action
was based on antagonism to the principle of the “recall” as it is
being urged to-day.
Senator Peter G. Van Winkle of West Virginia was a substantial,
fair-minded man, who on some questions had favored the President and
on others had voted with the Radicals. Still, his vote of “Not guilty”
occasioned no surprise.
During the clamor from Missouri to induce me to change my attitude, I
was appealed to by the Missouri delegation in Congress, who, as a body,
besought me to vote for impeachment. Under the stress of their urging
I entertained momentarily the question of resigning, but as that would
have brought victory to the side of the impeachers, I resolved to stay.
On May 13 I received from St. Louis a despatch making a final appeal,
which read:
There is intense excitement here. Meeting called for to-morrow night.
Can your friends hope that you will vote for the eleventh article? If
so, all will be well.
To this I immediately replied:
Say to my friends that I am sworn to do impartial justice according
to law and conscience and I will try to do it like an honest man.
Every one of the seven Republican senators who voted against
impeachment was relegated to private life at the expiration of his
term. In addition to all kinds of printed and written abuse, I was
burned in effigy at Macon, Missouri.
MY
part in this crisis strained some of my friendships, particularly
that with Sumner. At first he had been rather opposed to impeachment,
especially to the eleventh article, remarking that no one but a
Pennsylvania justice of the peace (alluding to Thad. Stevens) could
have drawn that article; but he and Stevens were “thick as thieves”
before the trial terminated. Meantime, as Sumner’s enthusiasm for
impeachment grew, his regard for those of us who opposed it lessened.
After the trial he directed a personal remark at me in the senate
chamber that rankled. I was denouncing the course of the managers of
impeachment for converting themselves into a committee to investigate
and punish the seven senators. They sent telegrams and spies over the
country. Butler was the most active in using the spy system, and it
became an acute annoyance. Mr. Fessenden complained of it to me. He
said, “I cannot go out at night without being pursued by spies who
come behind me at every cross street.” Others told me the same. I
had nothing to fear, for there was nothing they might not know about
me. While I was denouncing the conduct of this committee as that of
traitors, Sumner in a taunting voice exclaimed, “It is only the wounded
bird that flutters.”
The coldness between us lasted for several years. In fact, it was not
until the controversy over the treaty for annexing Santo Domingo arose
that I had any further relations with him. At that time I had gone to
Washington to argue a case before the Supreme Court, and Mr. Sumner
asked me to dinner. I was a little surprised, but I went to his dinner,
where I found a very good company. When I was ready to bid him good
night, he insisted on my staying, as he wished to talk with me; but
I was reluctant, as I wanted to do some work before I went to sleep.
Still he insisted, and after Senator Thurman, who lingered enjoying his
cigar, had gone, Sumner said that he had desired for several years to
have a private talk with me over the impeachment of Johnson. He then
said impressively:
“I want to say that in that matter you were right and I was wrong.”
“Mr. Senator,” I answered, “I am very glad to hear you say so for my
own satisfaction, and also on your own account, because your course
was a disappointment. I believed that you would take ground against
impeachment.”
“That was my original impression,” he replied, “but Johnson talked so
foolishly, and was so abusive, I came to believe it would be just as
well to turn him out.” After a pause he repeated earnestly: “I didn’t
want to die without making this confession, that in the matter of
impeachment you were right and I was wrong. But,” he added, “if it is
just as convenient to you, I would rather you would say nothing about
it until I am dead—and I won’t live many years.”
In his “Recollections of Forty Years in the House, Senate, and Cabinet”
John Sherman says:
I felt bound, with much regret, to vote “guilty” in response to my
name, but I was entirely satisfied with the result of the vote,
brought about by the action of several Republican senators.
James G. Blaine in “Twenty Years of Congress” is less apologetic and
more candid. He says:
The sober reflection of later years has persuaded many who favored
impeachment that it was not justifiable on the charges made, and
that its success would have resulted in greater injury to free
institutions than Andrew Johnson in his utmost endeavor was able to
inflict.
It would be well if those who are urging the “recall” as a general
panacea for mistakes and dissatisfaction in the working of elections,
would study the personal motives and partizan manœuverings which were
the soul and body of this enormity of injustice in American history.
INCLUDING A MASQUE IN THE MUIR WOODS
BY LOUISE HERRICK WALL
WITH PICTURES BY W. T. BENDA
EARLY
in December the Angel of Peace on earth came to us, saying:
“How would you like a Christmas day deep in the woods, with no
tissue-paper parcels or tinsel ribbon, with the people that you know
best and like best and their children, with old English carols and
games and wassail-songs and morris-dances, and stockings, and a huge
bowl of innocent punch, and presents that cost fifteen cents, and no
more, on pain of death? Now, how would you?”
Then we cried with one accord:
“Hath eye seen or ear heard? Can the cords of custom be loosened?”
“They can,” said the Angel, snapping her glove-clasp into its socket.
She rose.
We turned questioningly to our Valiant One.
“I should like that,” she said. “I remember seventy Christmases, but
none like that.”
“If I go,” said the Objector, “my Christmas-tree shall be a living
tree. No cut-down, mutilated trees in a forest for me.”
The Angel frowned. Commentators spring up to amend the text almost
before a miraculous visitant can catch a ferry-boat back to town. “We
will see,” she said with the asperity common to women and angels.
MANY were called before our party of foresters was chosen. We were
told that a little inn on a mountain-side, in a redwood grove, even in
California, is a drafty place for aged parents and young children to be
laid. And who would be separated from his own on Christmas day?
We found, too, that when Heaven had made the marriages between
our friends, that no trouble had been taken to pair them for like
qualities. Initiative and energy lay in streaks in families: the woman
would, and the man would not, or the other way around, which, alas!
was no way around at all, but just an impasse. Then there were
aged parents-in-law who purposed to eat their turkey in the immemorial,
family way or to perish forthwith of reproachful old age; others
frankly confessed themselves caught in the Christmas mill: it was
not that they enjoyed shopping for Christmas, or even the effects of
Christmas-shopping, but to stop seemed perilous. Had it been tried?
At length forty freed spirits agreed. Muir Inn, part way up the shaggy
flank of Mount Tamalpais, was to be the place; December 24 was to be
the time; and sixteen young people were to do what they could toward
supplying the action.
“THE GREAT FIRE WAS FED AGAIN, AND BY ITS LIGHT
CHRISTMAS STORIES, IN SOBER PANTOMIME, WERE ENACTED”
On the day before Christmas seven of us, tucked in a touring-car, were
climbing the foot-hills opposite the purple bulk of the mountain. A
soft drizzle hung its drops on the fronds of the redwoods and made the
leaves of the dwarf manzanita look ashen on their twisted, wine-red
stems. As we beat up the grade, the world behind and below began to
unroll, the inlets of the bay and the light-lying islands flattened to
a map, while across and beyond we lifted San Francisco on her hills.
The broken gray of the city houses laid washes of color, one above
another, dove against rose-gray, against fawn, against pearl, and all
cut by the sharper tones of the dark buildings.
At the crest of the foot-hills the car plunged down into the
green-black shade of Muir Woods. Autumn and winter had touched the
interior of the forest, and left sparse, lantern-like leaves of
pale yellow on the bushes along the stream that gave to the wide,
dim evergreen space an air of delicate and transient mortality.
We ran beside the stream, the huge, shifting columns and the red,
needle-silenced ground flowing past us, and on our eyelashes clung the
caressing mist. Then our good cylinders labored hard to lift us by a
winding, slippery grade up the abrupt side of the mountain to the inn.
At a turn, without warning, we came out on a little plateau and up to
the weather-stained building itself.
“AT THAT MOMENT FROM THE HOLLOW TRUNK OF A REDWOOD
ANOTHER FIGURE STEPPED OUT”
As we stopped, the inn doors flew open, and out on the porches came
friends, and friends, children, young girls, and men called our names,
tossing us greetings and laughing. Something tightened in the throat,
and we knew, before we tore the rugs off our knees, that the Muir Woods
Christmas was going to be—different.
The inn was chiefly one big room of seventy feet or so smelling of
evergreens. The fireplace, built for a sleigh-and-six, held a red
mound of fire that just now gnawed, half-sated, at the carcass of
a tree. Evergreens hung from the rafters, and all the tangle of
California winter woods—wild huckleberry, manzanita, sallol, Oregon
grape, rose-haws, Woodwardia fern, as tall as the tallest child, and
swordfern—branched forth from jars in the corners.
We were busy at once. There were costumes to arrange for the charades,
and costumes to trim in secrecy for the Christmas masque in the woods;
there were stockings—each family had brought characteristic ones for
its group—to make ready to be strung on the wire in front of the fire;
there were derisive jingles to be written and affixed to fifteen-cent
presents for one’s dearest friend; ferns, evergreens, and candies had
to be tied to things; there were packages with disguised contours to be
hidden. Concealment, like a worm, preyed everywhere, and people talked
muffledly because of twine and tacks between the teeth. Busy, efficient
men nailed things, to the envy of wives who had brought ruminative,
pocket-handed men of the smoking variety. The children romped and
peeped at forbidden things, and the people who were not their mothers
said they were wonderfully good, and what the mothers said was not
recorded. About the whole place there was such a smell of evergreens
and such a mood of noisy fellowship, climbing, nailing, upsetting,
and standing about, that one suddenly realized that Dickens was not a
caricaturist, just a merrymaker.
When the lights were lighted and things at their busiest, so that they
could not possibly be moved from the tables, the waiters came to lay
the cloth for Christmas-eve dinner. This sent us all to the fire. Laps
were made, two-child deep; the very little people were fed hygienic
pulp and simmered into drowsiness, so that they could be put to bed;
and the women, and especially the girls, went and dressed in chilly
little bedrooms smelling of matting.
We got back to the warm room again, to find that the tables had been
laid in the form of a great cross, red berries at every place. All
seemed sweet and familiar as we seated ourselves, for every face was
the face of a friend. Food came and went, songs, stories, laughter;
toasts were drunk and answered, and we wagged our heads and said the
inevitable thing, “There used to be a time when people had families the
size of this!” and were half sad and half glad for the decline of the
good old times of abundance.
After dinner, chairs and tables were pushed aside, the great fire was
fed again, and by its light Christmas stories, in sober pantomime,
were enacted: Joseph and Mary, foot-sore and weary, knocked at the
door of the inn at Bethlehem, and found not where to lay their heads;
the shepherds fed their flocks by night, and a voice sang of peace on
earth, good-will to men; then came the Magi, following the star, to
the manger where the Child was laid and offered gifts of frankincense
and myrrh, and all the simple, reverent scenes spelled adoration for
those who watched. The absence of footlights and formal costumes made
the little plays seem a part of some humble worship in memory of
the hallowed and gracious time. The familiar faces, with a thousand
every-day associations, perhaps, under veil or turban took on a new
suggestion, a shade of mystery from a time and thought not wholly ours,
yet wrought with ours by centuries of faith.
“Mirth is also of Heaven’s making,” and this soberness melted into
laughter with the tramping of feet as the big circle formed to play the
old English ring-games that have been sung and played where children
have gathered, in merrymaking times, since our speech broke into
rugged, rhythmic verse. As the older children and most of the grown
people played,—for only trundle-bed trash had been put to bed,—the
rope in front of the fire was putting forth a grotesque fruitage of
harlequin stockings, stuffed with ten-cent surprises. One giant, pink
sock, decorated with carnations, was for some one’s big, red-haired
nephew, and the St. Patrick green one, bound with serpents, was
marked “For Rattlesnake Pete, the Sierra Snake-Destroyer.” And so
all down the line the stockings mocked their owners with intimate
audacities. There were genuine baby stockings, too, to melt one’s
heart, so little, woolly, and shrunken from the wash.
“GIVING AN ALMOST INTOLERABLE BEAUTY TO THE AGE-OLD
TRUNKS”
It grew late; the piano, which had been beating its life out all the
evening over, “Oats, Pease, Beans, and Barley Grows” and “London Bridge
is Falling Down, O My Lady!” began whispering a strange, old air, a
marching tune with a pulse of marching feet, more and more loudly,
until suddenly we all sang in lusty unison:
“Here we come a-wassailing
Among the leaves so green,
Here we come a-wandering
So fair to be seen.
Love and joy come to you—”
when in came the large and paunchy punch-bowl, borne by the stoutest
of the waiters. All in line, singing and marching, old and young, we
circled in a wide detour about the room, coming to a stand, our glasses
high, about the wassail-bowl.
“Christmas! God bless us!” We drank the toast, and even the lip of the
abstainer was touched with the foam of egg-nog.
When at last all was quiet for the night, the big room dark and empty,
and the heavy line of forty stockings sagged and bulged in front of the
fire, several sober rioters stole back for a few last words.
“The only thing that could spoil Christmas now,” said an anxious
Martha, stooping to pick up a string from the floor, “would be that
some of the younger children who have been sending letters to Santa
Claus for automobiles and hill-coasters may be disappointed by ten-cent
toys.”
“I know children,” said the Chief Emancipator. “They are not half as
mercenary as we think. Play is what they love. They will never think
of hill-coasters on the happy day when the grown people come to their
senses and give themselves up to fun.”
Noël, Noël, Noël, Noël,
Born was the King of Israel!
Did you ever wake on a Christmas morning to the sound of fresh voices
singing at your door and the soft swish of a redwood bough across your
window-pane—eyes opening upon walls as bare as the walls of a stable,
and the smell and feel of Christmas in the air of your naked little
room?
The first Noël, the angels did say,
Was to certain poor shepherds, in fields as they lay,
In fields as they lay, keeping their sheep,
On a cold winter’s night that was so deep.
Noël, Noël, Noël, Noël,
Born was the King of Israel!
The carolers were down from the little cabins on the hillside where
they had slept with a figment of roof between them and the stars, and
the cries of Merry Christmas beat upon our doors until we all came
together, in noisy collision; on the porches, and swept in to strip the
line of stockings. The babies dropped on the floor with their pouches,
dumping their toys frankly between their outspread legs, laughing,
crooning, and picking, with tiny, pointed fingers, at the mystery of
things. It was with them, as the wise woman had said, all bubbling
contentment and delight. Little tin wagons bounded over the floor, any
side up, two babies abreast, and every mouth blew upon squeakers and
trumpets the blasts of which were mercifully tempered to the short wind
of the little lambs. Our own gifts unmasked, with even-handed justice,
our inner foibles, but the children’s came to the breakfast table
with them in a spirit of peace. Live stock surrounded every plate,
and cattle fed from porcelain mangers, and became entangled in patent
breakfast foods.
As breakfast ended, a call came from the doorway, “Who wants to come
with me to the woods and pick out a Christmas tree?” It was she of the
Yerba Buena wreath and shoe-top skirt. We all wanted to come. This
finding of the tree was to be a ceremony. Though a faint mist was still
a-drift, no one cared, and a few wraps made the children snug.
A dozen tangled little paths lead down among the chaparral to the
redwoods, and here the children gathered from everywhere, laughing and
calling among the undergrowth, scattering, breaking, and running down
the steep paths exactly as a brood of quail run and call and scatter
through the mesquite under the convoy of their crested leader.
“The Woodsman! The Woodsman! First we must find a woodsman with an ax
to cut the Christmas-tree,” called the leader. “He used to live over
here. Who can find him?”
Her brood scurried here and there, unconsciously led where she would,
beating up the brush, when suddenly, shouting with delight, they came
full upon a man with an ax—a flannel-shirted man with a kind face and
a great, broad, shining ax.
“Yes, I am the Woodsman,” he called. “May I cut a Christmas-tree for
you this morning?” He came forward, and jumped straight into the story,
without preliminaries. The whole flock surged down upon him and off to
find the tree, accepting his being there with his ax as children do
accept pleasant things. We all went down into the winding wood road,
almost roofed over by redwood plumes, the little children stopping
to consult gravely with the Woodsman about the suitability of trees
two hundred feet high or saplings of a century’s growth, squinting
up trunks, considering, rejecting, earnestly intent, each one, upon
finding the perfect tree. The older conspirators, half lost in brake
and fern, kept close behind.
“This one I think will do,” cried the Woodsman at last, and he lifted
his ax.
At that moment from the hollow trunk of a redwood another figure
stepped out, and all the children started, he was so strange.
“I am the Spirit of the Woods,” he said in a deep voice; “I come to
plead with you for the life of this tree.”
He wore a mantle bordered with fern and moss. Instead of hair, his head
was closely covered with the greenish lichen that grows on the north
side of trees in winter, and his beard was of long, gray moss. He spoke
very earnestly, and told the children how sweet it is to live, as a
tree, in the forest. They were not exactly frightened; they even drew
a step nearer: in that beautiful, solemn place strange things might
happen. Then the Woodsman once more lifted his ax, when a very little
boy, quite unprompted, and to every one’s surprise, suddenly broke from
his father, and ran to the Woodsman, clasping his arms about him,
crying out for the life of the tree.
“Don’t cut it down!” he sobbed. “It wants to be a tree; it doesn’t want
to be logs.”
We were quite still for a moment, then the Spirit of the Woods said:
“The tree has another friend. I thought I was the only one who really
loved it.” Then turning to us all, he said with authority: “Do as
the child bids. Come with me, for I have something to show you.” He
moved with a long stride in his long mantle, the moss wagged from his
sleeves like the beard of a goat, and the children crowded nearer to
the Woodsman; but at a turn of the road they all cried out and ran
forward. Growing beside the road, with its branches full of gold and
silver ornaments, snow and cranberries and gifts, was a lovely living
Christmas-tree, bearing its shining fruitage in the thick forest.
Then all took hands and danced about the tree, and sang to it, and
praised it, and called it beautiful. From the thick branches, which
were not so very high in that high place, grown people took packages
marked with names. There were little Robin Hood costumes for several
of the children, with feathered caps and feathered bows, and a Cupid’s
dress of white gauze and filmy wings for the four-year-old cherub, and
green mantles for every one, that slipped over the head, and wreaths of
fresh green vines for the hair. The living tree gave up toys and tinsel
and everything, as other trees, that have given up their lives, have
never been known to do. The children starred themselves over with its
ornaments, and everybody dressed at the same moment. The pretty girls
wrapped tinsel and cranberry ropes in their hair, and looked prettier
than ever. It was so deep in the forest that for mirrors each must
inquire of the eyes that loved her for news of how she looked.
By the time that the tree was stripped quite bare, with only a spangle
here or a fleece of snow there, the whole party was peacocking in its
finery down the wood road, two by two, and two by two: the Woodsman
with his boy on his shoulder; the green-mantled, vine-wreathed folk;
the lonely Spirit of the Woods, a hesitating child peeping up at
him; the little Robin Hoods, a-chase for sparrows; and, straggling
behind the rest, the Cupid-baby, like a new-born butterfly, not
quite able either to run or to fly. And so, winding with the winding
red road, all our brightness subdued to the dim atmosphere in which
we moved,—that impalpable violet that floats about the stems of the
trees in these vast groves, giving an almost intolerable beauty to
the age-old trunks,—we came to recognize that about us were the real
Christmas-trees; for they were fast-rooted here when homeless Mary was
with child in Bethlehem.
What broke the spell was the old Edenic curse. Some one spoke of
food. I think it was a man. He said, in effect, that he wished to be
comforted with apples; that he was sick of love; he described a cold
Christmas dinner; then a dinner burned to a crisp and served to forty
empty chairs. It was a moving tale, and had that effect upon our
procession.
The dinner-hour had been set early that every child might come; and
one or two little heads, with their first thistle-down thatch, beside
the old white ones, made the Christmas dinner seem more than ever a
gracious family feast. We did not come dressed as people dining on
Christmas day, but all still in our mantles of forest green and wreaths
of vine. Down the tables, formed like a cross, shone the red of toyon
berries, in the folds of the girls’ coiled hair and in the chains about
children’s necks.
If there, was a moment of disillusionment, it was the one in which
it was discovered that the Spirit of the Woods did not subsist on
wood-alcohol, as had been rumored, but contrived large pieces of turkey
between the fringes of moss about his lips. But this, too, had a happy
influence, because it loosened some rather silent tongues, and the
children’s talk burst out fluent and simultaneous.
Housed intimately in by the evergreen-hung walls, the fire-light and
soft lamps bringing us into one warm group, the sense of comradeship,
up there on the big, misty mountain, and the gracious presence of
little children and our own, dear people, brought us to our feet to
sing again the wassail-song.
“Here we come a-wassailing
Among the leaves so green,
Here we come a-wandering
So fair to be seen.”
And as we stood, glasses lifted, we looked from the faces that had made
our own first Christmases bright to the little ones, just above the
cloth, and pledged the birth of this good, new way of being glad on
Christmas day.