As between Sherman and Sheridan it is not easy to settle the question of pre-eminence. For myself the test would be this: Assume that Grant had disappeared during the Battle of the Wilderness, would the fortunes of the country have been best promoted, probably, by the appointment of Sherman or Sheridan? I cannot now say what my opinion would have been in 1864, but I should now have pronounced for Sheridan. He was more cool and careful in regard to the plan of operations and equally bold and vigorous in execution. General Grant expressed the opinion to me in conversation that Sheridan was the best officer in the army. He spoke of his care and coolness in the preparation of his plans and his celerity in execution. Of "the younger set of officers" he placed Ames (Adelbert) as the most promising.
In one of my last conversations with Sheridan he expressed the opinion that the improvement in the material of war was so great that nations could not make war, such would be the destruction of human life.
Upon his return from Germany at the end of the Franco-Prussian War, he spoke very disparagingly of the military movements and among several things he said that the French forces were placed where the Germans would have dictated had they had the power. He added the either of our armies at the close of the war could have marched over the country in defiance of both the French and German forces combined. This was a rash remark, probably; a remark which he could not justify upon the facts. Without intending to betray any confidence, the remark, as coming through me, got into the newspapers. Sheridan with a skill superior to that of politicians caused the announcement to be made that General Sheridan had never had any conversation with Governor Boutwell in regard to the Franco-Prussian war.
At the end it may be claimed justly, that they were three great soldiers—that they served the country with equal fidelity—that they lived and acted without the manifestation in either of a feeling of rivalry, and that they earned the public gratitude.
The death of General Sherman was followed to two contradictory statements from his sons. The younger, Tecumseh, is reported as saying that his father was never a Catholic, while the older, Thomas, who is a priest of the Order of Jesuits, had stated over his signature that his father was baptized as a Catholic, was married as a Catholic, and that he had heard him say often, "that if there was any true religion it was the Catholic."
All this may be true and yet General Sherman may not have been a Catholic. His baptism may have been without his consent or knowledge, his marriage by the Catholic Church may have been in deference to his wife's wishes, and because he was wholly indifferent to the matter, and the remark may have been made in the impression that there was no true religion, and that the Catholic was as likely, or even more likely to be true, than any other.
The statement made by Thomas puts an imputation upon General Sherman that he ought not to bear. Of the thousands that one may meet in a lifetime, General Sherman was among the freest from anything in the nature of hypocrisy or dissimulation. Of those who knew him intimately after the close of the war there are but few, probably, who did not hear him speak with hostility and bitterness of the Catholic Church. For myself I can say that I heard him speak in terms of contempt of the church. On one occasion with reference to fasts and abstinence from meat of Friday, he said:
"I know better than these priests what I want to eat."
General Sherman was not a friend to the Catholic Church in the last years of his life and there is no honor in the attempt to enroll his name among its devotees now that he is dead and cannot speak for himself.
Funeral services were performed February 2, 1891, at the Church of the Covenant in Washington in honor of Mr. Windom, late Secretary of the Treasury. He made a good record, if not a distinguished one. As a member of the House of Representatives and of the Senate he was noted for fairness, for freedom from bitterness of opinion upon party questions, and for good sense in action.
He was indisposed to take responsibility and he went no farther than the case in hand seemed to require. As the head of the Treasury he was anxious to gather opinions upon matters of general public interest, and it was in his nature to strive to accommodate his action to the public opinion, if he could do so without serious consequences. He worked within narrow limits, the limits set by business and politics. Of enemies he had but few—of warm friends but few—the many had confidence in his integrity in the affairs of government, and in his ability to guide those affairs in ordinary times.
In a number of theEdinburgh Reviewis an article on James Russell Lowell in which the writer errs widely in two particulars as to the effect of the "Biglow Papers." The writer's name is not given, but he is not an American and he is ignorant, probably, of America as it was from 1830 to 1850. When the "Biglow Papers" appeared, I was a Democrat, and I am quite sure that the publication produced no effect, not even the least, upon the opinions of Democrats or the action of the Democratic Party. Upon my knowledge of the Democratic Party I can say with confidence that the writer is in error when he says: "He (Lowell) converted many bigoted Northern Democrats to a course of action in conflict with their old party relations and apparent interests."
For this broad statement there is no evidence. The first break came in 1848 and it was due to rivalries in the Democratic Party. If the "Biglow Papers" played any part it was too unimportant to produce an appreciable result. They were treated as a fortunatejeu d'espritthat everybody enjoyed, but the Democratic Party did not change its policy nor did it lose adherents. The Mexican War was prosecuted and bigotry political and religious continued to flourish. They may have contributed though, insensibly, to a public opinion that became formidable in the end but the effect was not as perceptible as was the effect of Garrison's legend that slavery was a covenant with hell and a league with death, which had its place at the head of theLiberatorthrough successive years. Nor do I believe that "it revolutionized the tone of Northern society." Indeed, there is a "tone" of Northern society that has not been revolutionized to this day. The South is still the land of gentle birth. The slave-holder still lives as a man of breeding and the owner of estates. The negro is still of an inferior caste and in some circles the days of slavery were the great days of the Republic. When the "Biglow Papers" appeared Mr. Lowell had not achieved distinction. Society did not know him to follow him. It cared nothing for what he thought, and it was only amused by what he said. The Lowell of 1840 was not the Lowell of 1890. Nor can any series of statements be more untruthful and absurd than the statements of the writer that "thenceforth it became creditable to advocate abolition in drawing rooms, and to preach it from fashionable city pulpits to congregations paying fancy prices for their pews. In the workshops, the barrooms and other popular resorts the laugh was turned against the slave-owners; the ground was prepared for the popular enthusiasm which recruited the armies that exhausted the South, and Lowell must share with Lincoln and Grant the glory of the crowning victories."
If any work of romance contains more fiction in the same space, it is my fortune not to have seen that work. The circulation of theBoston Courierin which the papers were printed was very limited. It did not go into barrooms nor into workshops. It was read chiefly by the converted and semi-converted abolitionists. As to fashionable pulpits thenceforth preaching abolition it is to be said that there was only one leading pulpit, Theodore Parker's pulpit, in which abolitionism was tolerated until years after the appearance of the "Biglow Papers." As to society, it is to be said that in the Fifties Charles Sumner, a Senator, was ostracized for his opinions upon slavery.
It is nearer the truth to say that what passes for society in NewEngland never tolerated abolitionists nor encouraged abolitionism.
The one writing which in an historical point of view contributed most largely to recruit the armies of the Republic during the Rebellion was Webster's speech in reply to Hayne. The closing paragraph of the speech was in the schoolbooks of the free States, and it had been declaimed from many a schoolhouse stage.
Lowell deserves credit for what he did. He chose his place early and firmly on the anti-slavery side, but it is absurd and false to say that thenceforward and therefor abolitionism became popular and abolitionists the sought for or the accepted by society. Mr. Lowell was the son of a Boston Unitarian clergyman. In the Forties he had not gained standing ground for himself, to omit all thought of his ability to carry an unpopular cause.
Indeed, up to the time of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise the whole array of anti-slavery writers and speakers had not accomplished the results which the reviewer attributes to the "Biglow Papers."
Indeed, should there be a signal reform in the fashion and cost of ladies' dresses it might with equal propriety be attributed to Butler's poem "Nothing to Wear."
The statement is revived that General Garfield, when chief of the staff of General Rosecrans in the campaign which ended at Chickamauga was false to Rosecrans. The allegation and the fact are that he wrote to Mr. Chase, then in Mr. Lincoln's Cabinet, that Rosecrans was incompetent to the command. Garfield's statements, as I recall the letters, were free from malice and the professional and ethical question is, "Was Garfield justified as a citizen and soldier, in giving his opinion to the Administration?" His view of Rosecrans was confirmed by events, and it may be assumed that the opinion was free from any improper influence when the letters were written. On this assured basis of facts I cannot doubt that Garfield did only what was his duty. Neither the President nor the War Department could obtain specific knowledge of the officers in command except through associates and subordinates unless they trusted to newspapers and casual visitors to the army. The struggle was a desperate one and the volunteer army was composed of men who were citizens before they were soldiers and they remained citizens when they became soldiers. Garfield was of the citizen soldiery and to him and to the country the etiquette of the army and the etiquette of society were subordinate to the fortunes of the nation. Of General Rosecrans' unfitness for any important command there can be no doubt. After the disaster of Chickamauga, Rosecrans was relieved and General Thomas was put in command and General Grant was ordered to the field. He met Rosecrans at Nashville where they had an interview. From General Grant I received the statement that Rosecrans had sound views as to the means of relieving the army; "And," said General Grant, "my wonder was that he had not put them in execution."
This one fact expresses enough of the weak side of Rosecrans as a military leader to warrant the opinion given to Chase by Garfield, and that opinion having been formed upon a knowledge of facts and of Rosecrans as a military man and not from prejudice or rivalry, Garfield should be honored for his course, rather than condemned.
The death of Mr. Bancroft at the age of more than ninety years removes one of the few men in private life who can be ranked as personages. He was, perhaps, the only person in private life whose death would have received a semi-public recognition from any of the rulers of Europe. Such a recognition was accorded by the Emperor of Germany, and chiefly, as it is understood, on account of the friendship which existed between Mr. Bancroft and the grandfather of the present Emperor.
Mr. Bancroft's long and successful career as a writer and diplomatist would seem to be evidence of the presence of qualities of a high order, and yet no one who was near him accepted that opinion. His conversation was not instructive, certainly not in later years, nor was he an original thinker upon any subject. He was an enthusiast in politics in early and middle life, and while his mental faculties remained unimpaired his interest in political movements was great—and usually it was in sympathy with the Democratic Party. He was an adhesive man in politics, capable of appearing to be reconciled to the success of his opponents and ready to accept favors from them in the way of office and honors and yet without in fact committing himself to their policy.
He was a laborious student, and he had access to standard and in many particulars to original authorities. At the commencement of his history he erred in denying with much confidence the claim of the visits of the Northmen to this continent in the ninth and tenth centuries.
That early claim seems to be supported by evidence which is nearly, if not absolutely, conclusive. Of all his chapters that on Washington was most attractive to me and it is quite the equal of Mr. Everett's oration, that yielded a large sum of money, that the orator applied to the purchase of Mount Vernon. Mr. Bancroft aimed to illustrate his history by an exhibition of philosophy. This feat in literature can be accomplished successfully only by a great mind. First the events, then the reasons for or sources of, then the consequences, then the wisdom or unwisdom of the human agencies that have had part in weaving the web, are all to be considered. Examples are Gibbon and Buckle.
The simplicity of General Grant's nature, his frankness in all his intercourse with his fellow men, his freedom from duplicity were not touched unfavorably in any degree by his rapid advancement from the ordinary pursuits of ordinary men to the highest places in military and civil life. There was never in his career any ostentatious display of power, never any exercise of wanton or unnecessary authority.
He disliked controversy even in conversation, and his reticence when not in the company of habitual companions and trusted friends was due in part to his rule of life on this subject.
From the many years of my acquaintance with General Grant I cannot recall an instance of a reference to theological opinions upon controverted topics of faith.
The humanitarian side of his nature was strong, but it was not ostentatiously exhibited—indeed it was concealed rather than proclaimed. It was made known to me by his interest and by his lack of interest in appointments in the Treasury Department.
Of salaried places he controlled the appointment of General Pleasanton as commissioner of internal revenue, and of that only.
On several occasions he suggested the designation of a person named for employment in some menial and non-salaried service. The person named was in every instance the widow or daughter of some soldier of the war. At intervals, not widely separated, he would bring the subject to my notice. Thus, without a command, I was forced to follow his suggestion.
The purity of his conversation might have been a worthy example for the most carefully trained person in etiquette and morals. My intercourse with General Grant was intimate through many years, and never on any occasion did he repeat a story or a phrase that contained a profane remark or carried a vulgar allusion. He had a relish for untainted wit and for genial humor, and for humor he had some capacity. He was not an admirer of Mr. Sumner and a trace of irony may be found in a remark attributed to him: When some one said: "Mr. Sumner does not believe in the Bible," General Grant said: "No, I suppose not, he didn't write it."
General Grant was attracted by a horse driven by a butcher. He purchased the animal at the cost of five hundred dollars. He invited Senator Conkling to a drive behind the new horse. The Senator criticised the animal, and said: "I think I should prefer the five hundred dollars to the horse." "That is what the butcher thought," said General Grant.
He was sincere and devoted in his friendships, but when he discovered that his confidence had been misplaced, a reconciliation became impossible. With him there could be no genuine forgiveness, and his nature could not tolerate any degree of hypocrisy. All voluntary intercourse on his part had come to an end.
There was a time when a demand for my removal from office was made by some Republican Senators and by the New YorkHerald, to which he gave no attention.
The imperturbability of spirit which was indicated in his conversation and movements was deep-seated in his nature. I was with him in a night trip to New York; when the train was derailed in part. As the wheels of the car struck the sleepers, he grasped the back of the seat in front of him and remained motionless, while many of the passengers added to their peril by abandoning their seats.
On a time General Grant received a pair of large roan horses from his farm in Missouri. He invited me to take one of the horses and join him in a ride on the saddle. I declined the invitation. I was then invited to take a seat with him in an open wagon. When we were descending a slight declivity one of the horses laid his weight on the pole and broke it, although the parts did not separate. General Grant placed his foot upon the wheel, thus making a brake and saving us from a disaster. General Grant's faculties were at command on the instant and under all circumstances.
When the Ku Klux organizations were active in the South, the President gave members of Congress to understand that he would send a message with a recommendation for punitive legislation. Upon reflection he came to doubt the wisdom of the measure, especially as the use of the military forces at New Orleans and elsewhere had been criticised in the country. While the subject was thus undisposed of, I received a message from the President which ended with a request that I should accompany him to the Capitol. On the way he informed me that he doubted the wisdom of a message and that he intended to so inform those to whom he had given encouragement. At the interview which followed several members who were present urged adherence to the original policy. While the discussion was going on, the President returned to his original opinion and wrote a message which was transmitted to the Congress after one or two verbal changes that may have been suggested by Secretary Fish or Secretary Robeson.
General Grant's sense of justice was exact and he did not spare himself in his criticism. He said to me in conversation, what is indicated in his Memoirs, that he assumed some responsibility upon himself for the removal of General Warren at Five Forks. He had known that General Warren was disqualified by natural defects from command in the field, and hence that it was an error on his part that he had not assigned Warren to duty at a station.
Again he said to me that his final campaign against Vicksburg was the only one of his campaigns that he could not criticise adversely when tested by reflection and experience.
During my term of service an appointment of some importance was made by the collector of New York. The appointment was approved by me. In the meantime some opponents of the appointee approached the President. Upon his suggestion the appointment was suspended. After a delay I received a letter from the President dated June 28th, 1869, in which he says: "If it should still be the pleasure of Mr. Grinnell to confer the appointment before tendered, let it be so, so far as I am concerned. I am not willing knowingly to do anyone injustice as I now am led to believe I may have done in the case of General Egan."
In the month of December, 1884, there were paragraphs in the newspapers which justified the apprehension that General Grant was suffering from a cancer. In the late days of the month, I called upon him at his house in New York. He was then in good health, apparently. I found him in his library engaged in the preparation of articles for theCentury Magazine. In the days of our more intimate acquaintance he had said to me that it was his purpose to leave the history of his campaigns to others. He referred to that remark and said that his financial embarrassments had forced him to change his purpose. As I was about to leave, he referred to a difficulty in his throat that he had noticed for about six months. He expressed the fear that he had neglected it too long. I avoided any serious remark in reply. Soon after my return to Groton my daughter received a letter from him, which, in photographic copy, I here give. It contains his parting words to me and my family. It is a precious souvenir of my acquaintance and service with a man who was great and good above any estimate that the world has placed upon him.
I called upon him in the month of June. He rose to receive me. His power of speech was much impaired, and our interview was brief. The final parting was a sad event to me.
[Facsimile]New York City,January 3d, 1884;
My dear Miss Boutwell:
Many thanks for your New Year welcome, just received. There is no family that I have ever known whose friendship I prize more highly than that of your father. I wish for him and his family many returns of new years, and that all of them may find him and his in the enjoyment of good health and peace of mind.
Very truly yours,U. S. Grant
When General Grant came before the public, and into a position that compelled notice, he was called to meet a difficulty that his predecessor in the office of President had encountered and overcome successfully.
An opinion existed in the cultivated classes, an opinion that was especially local in the East, that a great place could not be filled wisely and honorably, unless the occupant had had the benefit of a university training.
Of such training Mr. Lincoln was destitute, utterly, and the training which General Grant had received at West Point, where it was his fortune to attain only to advanced standing in the lower half of his class, was at the best the training thought to be necessary for the vocation of a soldier. That minority of critics overlooked the fact that the world had set the seal of its favorable judgment upon Cromwell, Washington, Franklin, Napoleon, Hamilton and others who had not the advantages of university training. Napoleon in a military school and Hamilton in Columbia College for the term of a year, more or less, did not rank among university men.
That minority of critics did not realize the fact that colleges and universities cannot make great men. Great men are independent of colleges and universities. In truth, a really great man is supreme over college and universities.
Lincoln was such a man in speech, in power of argument, in practical wisdom, by which he was enabled to act fearlessly and with success in the great affairs of administration.
Such a man was General Grant on the military side of his career. With great military capacity, he was destitute of the military spirit. During the period of his retirement from the army after the close of the Mexican War he gave no attention to military affairs. When he came to Washington in 1865 as General of the Army, he was not the owner of a work on war nor on the military art or science.
His military capacity was an endowment. It might have been impaired or crippled by the training of a university; but it is doubtful whether it could have been improved thereby, and it is certain that it was, in its quality, quite outside of the possibilities of university training.
As General Grant approached the end of his career the voice of the critics, who judged men by the testimony of college catalogues and the decorations of learned societies, was heard less frequently; and his death, followed by the publication of his memoirs, written when the hand of death was upon him, silenced the literary critics at once and forever.
Since the month of July, 1885, there has appeared on the other side of the Atlantic a set of military critics, of whom General Wolseley, Commander of the British Army, must be treated as the chief, who deny to General Grant the possession of superior military qualities, and who assert that General Lee was his superior in the contest which they carried on from February, 1864, to April, 1865. On this side of the Atlantic there is toleration, if not active and open support of General Wolseley's opinion.
General Wolseley is entitled to an opinion and to the expression of his opinion; but his authority cannot be admitted. On the practical side of military affairs his experience is a limited experience only.
It is not known that General Wolseley ever, in any capacity, engaged in any battle that can be named in comparison with the battles of the Wilderness, with Spottsylvania, with Cold Harbor, or the battle of Five Forks; and it is certain that it was never his fortune to put one hundred thousand men, or even fifty thousand men, into the wage of battle and thus assume the responsibility of the contest.
It was never the necessity of the situation that General Lee should assume the offensive, and in the two instances where he did assume the offensive his campaigns were failures; and can any one doubt that if General Grant had been in command either at Antietam or Gettysburg, the war would than have come to an end of the left bank of the Potomac River by the capture of Lee's army? If this be so, then Lee's undertaking was a hazard for which there could have been no justifying reason, and his escape from destruction was due to the inadequacy of the men in command of the Northern armies. Following this remark I ought to say that General Meade was a brave and patriotic officer, but he lacked the qualities which enable a man to act promptly and wisely in great exigencies. While General Lee was acting on the defensive did he engage in and successfully execute any strategic movement that can be compared with Grant's campaign of May, 1863, through Mississippi and to the rear of Vicksburg? Or can General Wolseley cite an instance of individual genius and power more conspicuous than the relief of our besieged army at Chattanooga, the capture of six thousand prisoners, forty pieces of artillery, seven thousand stands of small arms and large quantities of other material of war?
During the period of reconstruction Alexander H. Stephens was examined by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives as to the condition and purposes of the South. When the examination was over I asked him when he came to the conclusion that the South was to be defeated. He said: "In the year 1862." I then said: "In that year you had your successes. What were the grounds of your conclusions?" In reply he said: "It was then that I first realized that the North was putting its whole force into the contest, and I knew that in such a contest we were to be destroyed."
If I were to imagine a reason, or to suggest an excuse for General Lee's two unsuccessful aggressive campaigns, I should assume that, simultaneously with Mr. Stephens, he had reached the conclusion that time was on the side of the North, and that the Fabian policy must fail in the end.
In an aggressive movement there was one chance of success. A victory and capture of Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington might lead to an arrangement by which the Confederacy would be recognized, or a restoration of the Union secured upon a basis acceptable to the South. A desperate undertaking, no doubt, but it is difficult to suggest a more adequate reason for the conduct of General Lee.
I cannot, as a civilian, assume to give a judgment which shall be accepted by any one, upon the relative standing of military men; but I cannot accept, without question, the decision of a military man who never won a great victory in a great battle, upon a chieftain who fought many great battles and never lost one.
I end my observations upon General Grant as a soldier by the relation of an incident in my acquaintance with General Sherman, which was intimate during the four years that I was at the head of the Treasury Department.
It was my custom in those years to spend evenings at General Sherman's, where we indulged ourselves in conversation and in the enjoyment of the game of billiards. Our conversations were chiefly upon the war. In those conversations General Grant's name and doings were the topics often. General Sherman never instituted a comparison between General Grant and any one else, nor did he ever express an opinion of General Grant as a military leader; but his conversation always assumed that General Grant was superior to every other officer, himself, General Sherman, included.
In concurrence with the opinion of General Sherman the friends of General Grant may call an array of witnesses who, both from numbers and character, are entitled to large confidence.
During the four years of the Civil War more than two million men served in the Northern Army. Many of them, more than a majority of them, probably, served for at least three years each. With an unanimity that was never disturbed by an audible voice of dissent, the two million veterans gave to General Grant supremacy over all the other officers under whom they had served. With like unanimity the chief officers of the army assigned the first place to General Grant, and never in any other war of modern times has there been equal opportunity for the applications of a satisfactory test to leaders. In all the wars which England has been engaged since the fall of Napoleon, except, possibly, the Crimean War, the opposing forces have been composed of inferior races of men. The fields of contest have been in India, Egypt and South Africa. From such contests no satisfactory opinion can be formed as to the qualities of the leaders of the victorious forces.
In our Civil War the men and the officers were of the same race in the main, and the educated officers had been alike trained at West Point. Except in numbers, the armies of the North and the South were upon an equality, and in all the great contests, the numbers engaged were equal substantially. The quality of the man and officers may be gauged and measured with accuracy from the fact that at Shiloh, in the Wilderness and at Gettysburg the same fields were contested for two and three continuous days. It has been said of Mr. Adams that when an English sympathizer with the South lauded the bravery of the Southern Army, Mr. Adams replied: "Yes, they are brave men; they are my country- men."
The Southern Army was composed of brave men and its officers were qualified by training and experience to command any army and to contest for supremacy on any field.
My readers should not assume that I have avoided a discussion of the characteristics of General Grant in his personality and as a civil magistrate.
The voice of those who in 1872 denied his ability and questioned his integrity is no longer heard; but there are those at home and abroad who either teach or accept the notion that General Grant has become great historically by having been the favorite of fortune.
[* From the New YorkIndependent.]
The controversy between Mr. Blaine and Mr. Conkling on the floor of the House of Representatives in the Thirty-ninth Congress was fraught with serious consequences to the contestants, and it may have changed the fortunes of the Republican Party.
Mr. Conkling was a member of the Thirty-seventh Congress, but he was defeated as a candidate for the Thirty-eighth. He was returned for the Thirty-ninth Congress. During the term of the Thirty-eighth Congress he was commissioned by the Department of War as judge-advocate, and assigned for duty to the prosecution of Major Haddock and the trial of certain soldiers known as "bounty jumpers." That duty he performed.
When the army bill was before the House in April, 1866, Mr. Conkling moved to strike out the section which made an appropriation for the support of the provost-marshal general. General Grant, then in command of the army, had given an opinion, in a letter dated March 19, 1866, that that office in the War Department was an unnecessary office. Mr. Conkling supported his motion in a speech in which he said: "My objection to this section is that is creates an unnecessary office for an undeserving public servant; it fastens, as an incubus upon the country, a hateful instrument of war, which deserves no place in a free government in a time of peace."
Thus Mr. Conkling not only assailed the office, he assailed the officer, and in a manner calculated to kindle resentment, especially in an officer of high rank. General James B. Fry was provost-marshal-general. He was able to command the friendship of Mr. Blaine, and on the thirtieth day of April, Mr. Blaine read from his seat in the House a letter from General Fry addressed to himself. Thus Mr. Blaine endorsed the contents of the letter.
In that letter General Fry made three specific charges against Mr.Conkling, but he made no answer to the arraignment that Mr. Conklinghad made of him and his office. Thus he avoided the issue that Mr.Conkling had raised. His charges were these:
1. That Mr. Conkling had received a fee for the prosecution of Major Haddock, and that the same had been received improperly, if not illegally.
2. That in the discharge of his duties he had not acted in good faith, and that he had been zealous in preventing the prosecution of deserters at Utica.
3. That he had notified the War Department that the Provost-Marshal in Western New York needed legal advice, and that thereupon he received an appointment.
The fourth charge was an inference, and it fell with the allegation.
Upon the reading of the letter a debate arose which fell below any recognized standard of Congressional controversy and which rendered a reconciliation impossible.
At that time my relations to Mr. Conkling were not intimate, and I am now puzzled when I ask myself the question: "Why did Mr. Conkling invite my opinion as to his further action in the matter?" That he did, however; and I advised him to ask for a committee. A committee of five was appointed, three Republicans and two Democrats. Mr. Shellabarger was chairman, and Mr. Windom was a member.
The report was a unanimous report. The committee criticised the practice of reading letters in the House, which reflected upon the House, or upon the acts or speeches of any member.
At considerable length of statement and remarks, the committee exonerated Mr. Conkling from each and every one of the charges, and, with emphasis, the proceedings on the part of General Fry were condemned. The most important of the resolutions reported by the committee was in these words:
Resolved,That all the statements contained in the letter of General James B. Fry to Hon. James G. Blaine, a member of this House, bearing date the 27th of April, A. D. 1866, and which was read in this House the 30th day of April, A. D. 1866, in so far as such statements impute to the Hon. Roscoe Conkling, a member of this House, any criminal, illegal, unpatriotic, or otherwise improper conduct, or motives, either as to the matter of his procuring himself to be employed by the Government of the United States in the prosecution of military offences in the State of New York, in the management of such prosecutions, in taking compensation therefor, or in any other charge, are wholly without foundation truth, and for their publication there were, in the judgment of the House, no facts connected with said prosecutions furnishing either a palliative or an excuse.
The controversy thus opened came to an end only with Mr. Conkling's death. It is not known to me that Mr. Conkling and Mr. Blaine were unfriendly previous to the encounter of April, 1866. That they could have lived on terms of intimacy, or even of ordinary friendship, is not probable. Yet it may not be easy to assign a reason for such an estrangement unless it may be found in the word incompatibility. My relations with Mr. Blaine were friendly, reserved, and as to his aspirations for the Presidency, it was well understood by him that I could not be counted among his original supporters.
Only on one occasion was the subject ever mentioned. About two weeks before the Republican Convention of 1884, I met Mr. Blaine in Lafayette Square. He beckoned me to a seat on a bench. He opened the conversation by saying that he was glad to have some votes in the convention, but that he did not wish for the nomination. He expressed a wish to defeat the nomination of President Arthur, and he then said the ticket should be General Sherman and Robert Lincoln. Most assuredly the nomination of that ticket would have been followed by an election. To me General Sherman had one answer to the suggestion: "I am not a statesman; my brother John is. If any Sherman is to be nominated, he is the man."
I did not then question, nor do I now question, the sincerity of the statement that Mr. Blaine then made. My acquaintance with Mr. Blaine began with our election to the Thirty-eighth Congress, and it continued on terms of reserved friendship to the end of his life. That reserve was not due to any defect in his character of which I had knowledge, nor to the statements concerning him that were made by others, but to an opinion that he was not a person whose candidacy I was willing to espouse in advance of his nomination. I ought to say that in my intercourse with Mr. Blaine he was frank and free from dissimulation.
I was on terms of intimacy with Mr. Conkling from the disastrous April, 1866, to the end of his life. Hence it was that I ventured upon an experiment which a less well-assured friend would have avoided. I assumed that Mr. Blaine would close the controversy at the first opportunity. It may be said of Mr. Blaine that, while he had great facility for getting into difficulties, he had also a strong desire to get out of difficulties, and great capacity for the accomplishment of his purposes in that direction.
On a time, and years previous to 1880, I put the matter before Mr. Conkling, briefly, upon personal grounds, and upon public grounds in a party sense. He received the suggestion without any manifestation of feeling, and with great candor he said: "That attack was made without any provocation by me as against Mr. Blaine, and when I was suffering more from other causes than I ever suffered at any other time, and I shall never overlook it."
General Grant's strength was so overmastering in 1868 and 1872 that the controversy between Blaine and Conkling was of no importance to the Republican Party. The disappearance of the political influence of General Grant in 1876 revived the controversy within the Republican Party, and made the nomination of either Blaine or Conkling an impossibility. Its evil influence extended to the election, and it put in jeopardy the success of General Hayes. At the end, Mr. Conkling did not accept the judgment of the Electoral Commission as a just judgment, and he declined to vote for its affirmation.
I urged Mr. Conkling to sustain the action of the commission, and upon the ground that we had taken full responsibility when we agreed to the reference and that there was then no alternative open to us. I did not attempt to solve the problem of the election of 1876 either upon ethical or political grounds. The evidence was more conclusive than satisfactory that there had been wrong-doing in New York, in Oregon, in New Orleans, and not unlikely in many other places. As a measure of peace, when ascertained justice had become an impossibility, I was ready to accept the report of the commission, whether it gave the Presidency to General Hayes or to Mr. Tilden. The circumstances were such that success before the commission did not promise any advantage to the successful party.
For the moment, I pass by the Convention of 1880 and the events of the following year. In the year 1884 Mr. Conkling was in the practice of his profession and enjoying therefrom larger emoluments, through a series of years, than ever were enjoyed by any other member of the American bar. He once said to me: "My father would denounce me if he knew what charges I am making." That conjecture may have been well founded, for the father would not have been the outcome of the period in which the son was living. The father was an austere county judge, largely destitute of the rich equipment for the profession for which the son was distinguished. After the year 1881, when Mr. Conkling gave himself wholly to the profession, Mr. Justice Miller made this remark to me: "For the discussion of the law and the facts of a case Mr. Conkling is the best lawyer who comes into our court."
If this estimate was trustworthy, then Mr. Conkling's misgivings as to his charges may have been groundless. If a rich man, whose property is put in peril, whose liberty is assailed, or whose reputation is threatened, will seek the advice and aid of the leading advocate of the city, state, or country, shall not the compensation be commensurate with the stake that has been set up? Is it to be measured by theper diemtime pay of ordinary men?
Whatever may have been Mr. Conkling's pecuniary interests or professional engagements in the year 1884, he found time to take a quiet part in the contest of that year, and to contribute to Mr. Blaine's defeat.
In the month of November, and after the election, I had occasion to pass a Sunday in New York. It happened, and by accident, that I met Mr. Conkling on Fifth Avenue. After the formalities, he invited me to call with him upon Mr. William K. Vanderbilt. Mr. Vanderbilt was absent when we called. Upon his return, the election was the topic of conversation. Mr. Vanderbilt said that he voted for Garfield in 1880, but that he had not voted for Blaine. Mr. Conkling expressed his regret that Mr. Blaine had come so near a success, and he attributed it to the fact that he had not anticipated the support which had been given to Blaine by the Democratic Party.
On a time in the conversation Mr. Conkling said: "Mr. Vanderbilt, why did you sell Maud S.?"
Mr. Vanderbilt proceeded to give reasons. He had received letters from strangers inquiring about her pedigree, care, age, treatment, etc., which he could not answer without more labor than he was willing to perform. As a final reason, he said: "When I drive up Broadway, people do not say, 'There goes Vanderbilt,' but they say, 'There goes Maud S.'"
When General Grant was on his journey around the world I wrote him a letter occasionally, and occasionally I received a letter in reply. In two of my letters I mentioned as a fact what I then thought to be the truth, that there was a very considerable public opinion in favor of his nomination for President in 1880, and that upon his return to the country some definite action on his part might be required. Upon a recent examination of his letters, I find that they are free from any reference to the Presidency. If Mr. Conkling, General Logan, Mr. Cameron, and myself came to be considered the special representatives of General Grant at the Chicago Convention of 1880, the circumstance was not due to any designation by him prior to the Galena letter, of which I am to speak and which was written while the convention was in session, and when the contest between the contending parties was far advanced.
Our title was derived from the constant support that we had given him through many years and from his constant friendship for us through the same many years. We were of the opinion then, and in that belief we never faltered, that the nomination and election of General Grant were the best security that could be had for the peace and prosperity of the country. That opinion was supported by an expressed public sentiment in the conventions of New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois, and in other parts of the country there were evidences of a disposition in the body of the people to support General Grant in numbers far in excess of the strength of the Republican Party.
The mass of the people were not disturbed by the thought that General Grant might become President a third time. They did not accept the absurd notion that experience, successful experience, disqualified a man for further service. Nor did that apprehension influence any considerable number of the leaders. They demanded a transfer of power into new hands. This, unquestionably, was their right, and as a majority of the convention, as the convention was constituted finally, they were able to assert and to maintain their supremacy.
It is too late for complaints, and complaints were vain when the causes were transpiring, but there were delegates who appeared in the convention as opponents of General Grant who had been elected upon the understanding that they were his friends. Upon this fact I hang a single observation. If there is a trust in human affairs that should be treated as a sacred trust it is to be found in the duty that arises from the acceptance of a representative office in matters of government. When a public opinion has been formed, either in regard to men or to measures, whoever undertakes to represent that opinion should do so in good faith.
To this rule there were many exceptions in the Republican Convention of 1880, and it was no slight evidence of devotion to the party and to the country when General Grant and Mr. Conkling entered actively into the contest after the fortunes of the party had been prostrated, apparently, by the disaster in the State of Maine.
Of the many incidents of the convention no one is more worthy of notice than the speech of Mr. Conkling when he placed General Grant in nomination. Whatever he said that was in support of his cause, affirmatively, was of the highest order of dramatic eloquence. When he dealt with his opponents, his speech was not advanced in quality and its influence was diminished. His reference in his opening sentence to his associates who had deserted General Grant: "In obedience to instructions which I should never dare to disregard," was tolerated even by his enemies; but his allusion to Mr. Blaine in these words: "without patronage, without emissaries, without committees, without bureaus, without telegraph wires running from his house to this convention, or running from his house anywhere," intensified the opposition to General Grant.
In many particulars his speech is an unequaled analysis of General Grant's character and career, presented in a most attractive form. An extract may be tolerated from a speech that can be read with interest even by those who are ignorant of the doings, or it may be, by those who have no knowledge of the existence, of the convention:
"Standing on the highest eminence of human distinction, modest, firm, simple, and self-poised, having filled all lands with his renown, he has seen not only the high-born and the titled, but the poor and the lowly, in the uttermost ends of the earth, rise and uncover before him."
Mr. Conkling was the recognized leader of the three hundred and six who constituted the compact body of the supporters of General Grant.
Suggestions were made that the substitution of Mr. Conkling's name for General Grant's name would give the nomination to Mr. Conkling, and there was a moment of time when General Garfield anticipated or apprehended such a result. There was, however, never a moment of time when such a result was possible. The three hundred and six would never have consented to the use of any name in place of General Grant's name unless General Grant's name were first withdrawn by his authority.
A firmer obstacle even would have been found in Mr. Conkling's sturdy refusal to allow the use of his name under such circumstances. Among the friends of General Grant the thought of such a proceeding was never entertained, although the suggestion was made, but without authority, probably, from those charged with the management of the organizations engaged in the struggle.
After many years had passed, and the proceedings of the convention were well-nigh forgotten, Mr. John Russell Young printed a letter in which he made the charge that Conkling, Cameron, Boutwell, and Lincoln had concealed the contents of a letter from General Grant in which he directed them as his representatives to withdraw his name from the convention. Mr. Young was in error in two particulars. Lincoln was not named in the letter. General Logan was the fourth person to whom the letter was addressed.
Young brought the letter from Galena, where Grant then was, and he claims that the letter was addressed to himself. General Frederick D. Grant, who was then at Chicago, claims that the letter was addressed to him, and that, after reading it, he handed it to Mr. Conkling.
As late as the first half of the year 1897, Mr. Conkling's papers had not been examined carefully. The contents of the letter are important, and for the present the evidence is circumstantial; but to me it is conclusive against Mr. Young's statement that Conkling, Cameron, Logan, and Boutwell were directed by General Grant to withdraw his name from the convention. I cannot now say that I read the letter, but of its receipt and the contents I had full knowledge, and I referred to it in these words in a letter to my daughter dated May 31, 1880:
"Grant sent for Young to visit him at Galena. Young returned to-day, and says that Grant directed him to say to Cameron, Logan, Conkling, and Boutwell that he should be satisfied with whatever they may do."
Without any special recollection upon the point, the conclusion of reason is that my letter was written from a conversation with Young, and before I had knowledge of the contents of Grant's letter. I may add, however, that his letter produced no change in my opinion as to our authority and duty in regard to Grant's candidacy. My mind never departed for a moment from the idea that we were free, entirely free, to continue the contest in behalf of General Grant upon our own judgment.
Upon the views and facts already presented and with even greater certainty upon the correspondence with General Frederick D. Grant, I submit as the necessary conclusion of the whole matter that the letter of General Grant of May, 1880, did not contain any specific instructions, and especially that it did not contain instructions for the withdrawal of his name from the convention; in fine, that the further conduct of the contest was left to the discretion and judgment of the four men whom he had recognized as his representatives.
I annex the correspondence with General Frederick D. Grant:
BOSTON, MASS.,May28, 1897.COL. FRED. D. GRANT, NEW YORK, N. Y.
Dear Sir:You will of course recall the fact that John Russell Young, some months ago, made a public statement in which he declared that he brought from Galena to Chicago, during the session of the Republican Convention of 1880, a letter from General Grant in which he gave specific directions to Conkling, Cameron, and Boutwell to withdraw his name as a candidate from the convention. Some months ago I had some correspondence with A. R. Conkling, and also with yourself, in regard to the contents of the letter written by General Grant. Mr. A. R. Conkling sent me a copy of a portion of a letter which, as he advised me, he had received from you. A copy of that extract I herewith enclose. As one of the friends of General Grant and as one of the persons to whom bad faith was imputed by Mr. Young, it is my purpose to place the matter before the public with such evidence as I can command, for the purpose of showing the character of the letter.
I wish to obtain from you such a statement as you are willing to make, with the understanding that whenever the case shall be presented to the public your letter may be used.
Aside from actual evidence tending to show that Young's statement is erroneous, I cannot believe that General Grant would have recognized as a friend either one of the persons named, if his explicit instructions for the withdrawal of his name had been made by him and disregarded by them.
Yours very truly,GEO S. BOUTWELL.
25 EAST 62D STREET, NEW YORK,May30, 1897.
My Dear Senator:I received yesterday your letter of May 28th, in which you asked me what I remember about a letter which my father, General Grant, wrote to his four leading friends during the session of the Republican National Convention at Chicago in 1880.
With reference to this matter my recollection is, that Mr. John Russell Young, who had been visiting father in Galena, brought from him a large sealed envelope, which he delivered to me at my home in Chicago, with directions from my father that I should read the letter contained therein, and then see that it was received safely by his four friends, Senators Conkling, Boutwell, Cameron, and Logan.
The substance of General Grant's letter was, that the personal feelings of partisans of the leading candidates had grown to be so bitter, that it might become advisable for the good of the Republican Party to select as their candidate some one whose name had not yet been prominently before the convention, and that he therefore wrote to say to those who represented his interest in the convention, that it would be quite satisfactory to him if they would confer with those who represented the interests of Mr. Blaine and decided to have both his name and Mr. Blaine's withdrawn from before the convention.
I delivered in person this letter from my father, to Senator Conkling—I do not know what disposition he made of it.
With highest regards, my dear Senator, for your family and yourself, believe me, as ever,
Faithfully yours,FREDERICK D. GRANT.
Following the visit of General Grant and Mr. Conkling to Mentor in the autumn of 1880, I was informed by Mr. Conkling that he had not been alone one minute with General Garfield, intending by that care-taking to avoid the suggestion that his visit was designed to afford an opportunity for any personal or party arrangement. Further, it was the wish of General Grant, as it was his wish, that the effort which they were then making should be treated as a service due to the party and to the country, and that General Garfield should be left free from any obligation to them whatsoever.
After the election and after Mr. Blaine became Secretary of State, he volunteered to speak of the situation of the party in New York and of Mr. Conkling's standing in the State. Among other things, he said that Mr. Conkling was the only man who had had three elections to the Senate, and that Mr. Conkling and his friends would be considered fairly in the appointments that might be made in that State.
When in a conversation with Conkling, I mentioned Blaine's remark, he said, "Do you believe one word of that?"
I said, "Yes, I believe Mr. Blaine."
He said with emphasis, "I don't."
Subsequent events strengthened Mr. Conkling in his opinion, but those events did not change my opinion of Mr. Blaine's integrity of purpose in the conversations of which I have spoken.
My knowledge of the events, not important in themselves, but which seem to have the relation of a prelude to the great tragedy, was derived from three persons, Mr. Conkling, Mr. Blaine, and Mr. Marshall Jewell. At the request of the President, Mr. Conkling called upon him the Sunday preceding the day of catastrophe. The President gave Mr. Conkling the names of persons that he was considering favorably for certain places. To several of these Mr. Conkling made objections, and in some cases other persons were named. As Mr. Conkling was leaving he said, "Mr. President, what do you propose about the collectorship of New York?" The President said, "We will leave that for another time." These statements I received from Mr. Conkling.
From Mr. Jewell I received the following statement as coming from the President: When the New York nominations were sent to the Senate, the President was forthwith in the receipt of letters and despatches in protest, coupled with the suggestion that everything had been surrendered to Conkling. Without delay and without consultation with any one, the President nominated Judge Robertson to the office of collector of New York. Further, the President said, as reported by Mr. Jewell, Mr. Blaine heard of the nomination, and he came in very pale and much astonished.
From Mr. Blaine I received the specific statement that he had no knowledge of the nomination of Judge Robertson until it had been made.
These statements are reconcilable with each other, and they place the responsibility for the sudden and fatal rupture of the relations between Mr. Conkling and the President upon the President. Mr. Conkling could not fail to regard the nomination of Robertson as a wilful and premeditated violation of the pledge given at the Sunday conference. It was, however, only an instance of General Garfield's impulsive and unreasoning submission to an expression of public opinion, without waiting for evidence of the nature and value of that opinion. That weakness had been observed by his associates in the House of Representatives, and on that weakness his administration was wrecked.
Mr. Conkling was much misrepresented and of course he was much misunderstood. As a Senator from New York he claimed a right to be consulted in regard to the principal appointments in the State. His recommendations were few and they were made with great care. He confined himself to the chief appointments. It was quite difficult to secure his name or his favorable word in behalf of applicants for the subordinate places.
In my experience with him, which was considerable in the Internal Revenue Office and in the Treasury, I found him ready to concede to the opinions of the Executive Department. He was one of those who held to the opinion that it was the duty of Representatives and Senators to give advice in regard to appointments and to give it upon their responsibility as members of the Government. Senators and Representatives are not officers of the Government, they are members of the Government, and the duty of giving aid to the administration rests upon them.
When a man is chosen to represent a State or a district, a presumption should arise that he will act for the good of the country to the best of his ability. Advice in regard to appointments is a part of his duty, and in the main the Senators and Representatives are worthy of confidence. The present Civil Service system rests upon the theory that they are not to be trusted and that three men without a constituency are safer custodians of power.
Upon the death of Garfield and the accession of Arthur, Mr. Conkling looked for one thing, and one thing only—the removal of Robertson. When this was not done he separated from Arthur. I have no knowledge of the reasons which governed the President, but I think his career would have been more agreeable to himself if he had so far vindicated his own course and the course of his friends as to have removed from office the man who had contributed so largely to the defeat of the wing of the Republican Party with which Mr. Arthur was identified.
When General Garfield died, the Republican Party was broken, and it seemed to be without hope. President Arthur's conciliatory policy did much to restore harmony of all the elements except the wing represented by Mr. Conkling.
It is probable, however, that a better result might have been secured by the early removal of Robertson. That course of action would have been satisfactory to Conkling, and given strength to the party in New York, where strength was most needed. With Mr. Conkling's aid in 1884, Mr. Arthur might have been nominated, and if nominated it is probable that he might have been elected with Mr. Conkling's aid. Arthur's error was that he offended two important factions of the party. By retaining Robertson he alienated Conkling, and by the removal of Blaine he alienated him and his friends. Hence in 1884 two elements of the party that were bitterly opposed to each other harmonized in their opposition to Arthur.
In January, 1875, Mr. Fish negotiated a treaty with the representatives of the Hawaiian Islands by which there was to be a free exchange of specified products and manufactures.
By the fourth article the King agreed not to dispose of any port or harbor in his dominions or create a lien thereon in favor of any other government. When the treaty came to the Senate it had no original friends, and it met with determined opposition, especially from Sherman of Ohio, and Morrill and Edmunds of Vermont. The reciprocity feature annoyed them, they fearing that it might be used as a precedent for reciprocity with Canada.
I was early impressed with the importance of securing a foothold in the islands and I considered the exclusion of other nations as a step in the right direction. The trustworthy estimates showed that the reciprocity feature would work a loss to the Treasury of the United States of more than half a million dollars a year. This the supporters of the treaty were compelled to admit, but after argument the requisite majority ratified the treaty and upon the theory that the political, naval and commercial advantages were an adequate compensation. Upon the renewal of the treaty the King ceded Pearl River Harbor to the United States. After the expiration of the fixed period of seven years during which the two nations were bound mutually, there was a class of men who were anxious to abrogate the treaty, and at each session of Congress for several years a proposition was introduced for that purpose. By something of argument and something of art, the scheme was defeated. The opposition, led usually by Holman, of Indiana, consisted largely of Democrats. Their reason was loss of revenue. That fact was always admitted by the friends of the treaty. It was claimed also that there was no advantage gained by the country from the introduction of rice and sugar from the islands duty-free. It was asserted by the combinations the prices were as high on the Pacific Coast as on the Atlantic. On the other hand the Louisiana sugar planters opposed the treaty on the ground that they were unfavorably affected. As the importations from the islands never exceeded four per cent of the consumption of the country, the treaty had no perceptible effect upon prices. The sugar and rice interests were reinforced by the delegations from Michigan, Ohio and Vermont, who opposed the treaty under an apprehension that it would operate as a precedent for a revival of the system of reciprocity with Canada.
The fact of the annexation of Canada to the United States, whether the event shall occur in a time near or be postponed to a time remote, depends probably on our action upon the subject of reciprocity.
Canada needs our markets and our facilities for ocean transportation, and, as long as these advantages are denied to her, she can never attain to a high degree of prosperity. England may furnish capital for railways, but railways are profitable only where there is business and production on the one hand, and markets on the other. The system of qualified intercourse tends to make the Canadian farmer dissatisfied with his condition, and as long as there are cheap lands in the United States he will find relief in emigration.
The time, however, is not far distant, when the Canadian farmer will be unable to sell his lands in the Dominion and with the proceeds purchase a home in the States. When that time arrives he will favor annexation as a means of raising his own possessions to a value corresponding to the value of land in the States. The body of farmers, laborers, and trading people will favor annexation, ultimately, should the policy of non-intercourse be adhered to on our part, and they will outnumber the office-holding class, and thus the union of the two countries will be secured. It is apparent also that a policy of free intercourse would postpone annexation for a long time, if not indefinitely. Give to the Canadian farmer and fisherman free access to our markets and there will remain only a political motive in favor of annexation. The English government is pursuing a liberal policy in its dealings with the Dominion, and there is no reason for anticipating a retrograde course of conduct on the part of the home government.
In 1876 I was made chairman of a committee of the Senate charged withthe duty of investigating the election of 1875 in the State ofMississippi. My associates were Cameron of Wisconsin, McMillan ofMissouri, Bayard of Delaware, and McDonald of Missouri.
By the election of 1875 the Republican Party had been overthrown and the power of the Democratic Party established upon a basis which has continued firm, until the present time. The question for investigation was this: Was the election of 1875 an honest election? There was an agreement of opinion that there were riots, shootings and massacres. On the side of the Democrats it was contended that these outrages had no political significance, that they were due to personal quarrels, and to uprisings of negroes for the purpose of murdering the whites. The testimony was of the same character and the conclusions of the two branches of the committee followed the lead of these conflicting theories and statements. For myself I had no doubt that the election of 1875 was carried by the Democrats by a preconcerted plan of riots and assassinations. To me the evidence seemed conclusive.
The town of Aberdeen was the scene of murderous intimidation on the day of election, and at about eleven o'clock the Republicans left the polling place and abandoned the contest.
One of the principal witnesses for the Democrats was General Reuben Davis, a cousin of Jefferson Davis. He had been a member of the Thirty-sixth Congress, and he had resigned his seat to take part in the Rebellion. He was a Brigadier-General in the service, but without distinction. He explained and excused all the transactions at Aberdeen and with emphasis and adroitness he laid the responsibility upon the Republicans. Of certain things there was uncontradicted testimony. 1. That the Democrats placed a cannon near the voting-place and trained it upon the window where the Republicans, mostly negroes, were to vote, and that there was a caisson at the same place. 2. That there was a company of mounted men and armed cavalry upon the ground. 3. That guns were discharged in the vicinity of the voting place. 4. That at about eleven o'clock the sheriff of the county, a white man and a Republican, who had been a colonel in the rebel army, made a brief address to the Republican voters in which he said that there could be no election and advised them to go to their homes. This they did without delay. The sheriff locked himself in the jail where he remained until the events of the day were ended. General Davis insisted that all these demonstrations of apparent hostility had no significance— that the artillery men had no ammunition—that the cavalry men were assembled for sport only—and that the discharge of muskets was made by boys and lawless persons, but without malice.
In many parts of the State the canvass previous to the election was characterized by assassinations and midnight murders. But all were explained upon non-political grounds.
In 1878 General Davis offered himself to the electors as a Democratic candidate for Congress. The convention nominated another person. He then entered the field as an independent candidate. He was defeated, or rather the Democrat was declared to have been elected. The Republicans had voted for Davis, and when the contest was decided by the returning board Davis published a letter in which he charged upon the Democratic leaders the conduct which in 1876, he had explained and defended. After the election of General Harrison in 1888, General Davis appeared at Indianapolis as a Republican, and as such he had an interview with the President-elect.
While I was conducting the investigation at Jackson, a stout negro from the plantation sought an interview with me after he had been examined by the committee. He was a mulatto of unusual sense, but he was under a strong feeling in regard to the outrages that had been perpetrated upon the negro race.
Finally he said: "Had we not better take off the leaders? We can do it in a night."
I said: "No. It would end in the sacrifice of the black population.It would be as wrong on your part as is their conduct towards you.Moreover, we intend to protect you, and in the end you will be placedon good ground."
There is, however, a lesson and a warning in what that negro said. If the wrongs continue, some "John Brown" black or white, may appear in Mississippi or South Carolina or in several states at once, and engage in a vain attempt to regain the rights of the negro race by brutal crimes. The negroes are seven million to-day, and they are increasing in numbers and gaining in wealth and intelligence. The South, and indeed the whole country were not more blind to impending perils in the days of slavery than we now are to the perils of the usurpation in which the South is engaged. With such examples as this country furnishes and with the traditions under whose influence all classes are living, there will always be peril as long as large bodies of citizens are deprived of their legal rights.
Should such a contest arise, there will be wide spread sympathy in the North, which might convert a servile or social war into a sectional civil war.
One of my last acts as Secretary was to advise the President to nominate a Mr. Hitchcock for collector of the port of San Diego, California. Hitchcock was a lawyer by profession, a graduate of Harvard and a man of good standing in San Diego. Mr. Houghton, the member for the San Diego district, had recommended a man who was a saloon-keeper and a Democrat in politics, but he had supported Houghton in the canvass. Houghton's request was supported by Senator Sargent. Upon the facts as then understood the President nominated Hitchcock and one of the first questions of interest to me was the action of the Senate upon the nomination of Hitchcock which I supported.
Sargent appealed to what was known as the courtesy of the Senate a rule or custom which required Senators of the same party to follow the lead of Senators in the matter of nominations from the respective States. To this rule I objected. I refused to recognize it, and I said that I would never appeal to the "courtesy" of the Senate in any matter concerning the State of Massachusetts. Hitchcock was rejected. The President nominated Houghton's candidate.