Reminiscences of Sixty Years in Public Affairs, Vol. 2

G >> George S. Boutwell >> Reminiscences of Sixty Years in Public Affairs, Vol. 2

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25

A Voice--"You have left out Mr. Harris of Maryland."

Mr. Boutwell--"According to the reports, etc., we have had from
Chicago, he conducts negotiations upon his own account."

Voice--"How are you, Mr. Harris?"

Mr. Boutwell--"What does the cessation of hostilities mean? It means
that the blockade is to be removed, and the South be allowed to
furnish itself with materials and munitions of war. What does that
mean on the land? What does it mean on the sea? That you are to furl
your flag at Fortress Monroe on the Petersburg line; that you are to
remove your gunboats from the Mississippi River; that you are to
abandon Fort Jackson and Fort St. Philip at its mouth; that you are to
undo the work which the gallant Farragut has already done in Mobile
Bay, and so along the coast and upon the line from the Atlantic beyond
the Mississippi River. You, people of the North, who have been
victorious upon the whole through three years of war--you are to
disgrace your ancestry--you are to render yourselves infamous in all
future time, by furling your flag and submitting anew to rebel
authority upon this continent. Are you prepared for it? (Voices--
"No!" "never!") I ask these men here, who cheered the resolution
adopted at Chicago, whether they, men of Massachusetts, and in Faneuil
Hall, will say, one of them, with his face to the patriots of the
Revolution--will say that he asks for peace through any craven spirit
that is within him? Is there a man among them all, from whatsoever
quarter of this city, renowned in history--is there a man of them all
who will stand here and say he is for the cessation of hostilities? If
so, let him speak, and let him, if he dare, come upon this platform and
face his patriotic fellow-citizens. (A call was made for cheers for
McClellan in the rear of the hall, but nobody seemed disposed to
respond. The speaker continued.) I am willing a cheer should be given
for any man who has been in the service of the country, however little
he may have done. Is there any man in Faneuil Hall for peace? (Voices
--"No!") I intended, so far as was in my power, to give to this
meeting a political aspect (voices--"Good!") in favor of the country
and against traitors. (Cheers.) If there are no peace men in this
assembly, then that object, as far as we are concerned, is
accomplished. (Prolonged cheering.)

MR. CHASE AND THE CHIEF JUSTICESHIP

Upon the death of Chief Justice Taney the general public favored the
appointment of Mr. Chase as his successor. In that view I concurred,
but I had heard Mr. Chase make so many unjust criticisms upon Mr.
Lincoln that I resolved to say nothing. I was willing to have Mr.
Chase appointed, but I was not willing to ask the President to confer
so great a place upon a man who had been so unjust to him. When the
nomination had been made, I said to Mr. Lincoln that I was very glad
that he had decided to appoint Mr. Chase. He then said: "There are
three reasons in favor of his appointment, and one very strong reason
against it. First, he occupies the largest place in the public mind
in connection with the office, then we wish for a Chief Justice who
will sustain what has been done in regard to emancipation and the legal
tenders. We cannot ask a man what he will do, and if we should and he
should answer us, we should despise him for it. Therefore we must take
a man whose opinions are known. But there is one very strong reason
against his appointment. He is a candidate for the Presidency, and if
he does not give up that idea it will be very bad for him and very bad
for me." At that time Mr. Lincoln had been re-elected to the
Presidency.

Mr. Chase continued to be a candidate for the Presidency. He abandoned
the Republican Party in 1868 and as Chief Justice he abandoned his own
policy or the policy that he had adopted in regard to the legal tender
currency.

It was said that Mr. Sumner, who was very earnest for Chase's
appointment, gave strong pledges to Mr. Lincoln that Mr. Chase would
abandon his ambition for the Presidency.

RIGHTS OF STATES

In 1864 I introduced a series of resolutions in the House of
Representatives in the form of a Declaration of Opinion in regard to
the legal status of the States in rebellion. At that time the country
and Congress had no doubt of our ability to crush the rebellion, and
the public mind was occupied with various theories of reconstruction.

The resolutions had been already adopted by the National Union League.
I prepared them at the instance of Governor Claflin and their
adoption by the League had made the policy known to a large body of
active Republicans. I did not seek to secure their adoption by the
House of Representatives. The resolutions were in this form:

_"Resolved,_ That the Committee on the Rebellious States be instructed
to consider and report upon the expediency of recommending to this
House the adoption of the following

_Declaration of Opinions:_

"In view of the present condition of the country, and especially in
regard to the recent signal successes of the national arms promising
a speedy overthrow of the rebellion, this House makes the following
declaration of opinion concerning the institution of slavery in the
States and parts of States engaged in the rebellion, and embraced in
the proclamation of emancipation issued by the President on the first
day of January, A. D. 1863: and also concerning the relations now
subsisting between the people of such States and parts of States on
the one side, and the American Union on the other.

_"It is therefore declared_ (as the opinion of the House of
Representatives), that the institution of slavery was the cause of the
present rebellion, and that the destruction of slavery in the
rebellious States is an efficient means of weakening the power of the
rebels; that the President's proclamation whereby all persons
heretofore held as slaves in such States and parts of States have been
declared free, has had the effect to increase the power of the Union,
and to diminish the power of its enemies; that the freedom of such
persons was desirable and just in itself, and an efficient means by
which the Government was to be maintained, and its authority re-
established in all the territory and over all the people within the
legal jurisdiction of the United States; that it is the duty of the
Government and of loyal men everywhere to do what may be practicable
for the enforcement of the proclamation, in order to secure in fact,
as well as by the forms of law, the extinction of slavery in such
States and parts of States; and, finally, that it is the paramount
duty of the Government and of all loyal men to labor for the
restoration of the American Union upon the basis of freedom.

_"And this House does further declare,_ That a State can exist or cease
to exist only by the will of the people within its limits, and that it
cannot be created or destroyed by the external force or opinion of
other States, or even by the judgment or action of the nation itself;
that a State, when created by the will of its people, can become a
member of the American Union only by its own organized action and the
concurrent action of the existing National Government, that, when a
State has been admitted to the Union, no vote, resolution, ordinance,
or proceeding on its part, however formal in character or vigorously
sustained, can deprive the National Government of the legal
jurisdiction and sovereignty over the territory and people of such
State which existed previous to the act of admission, or which were
acquired thereby; that the effect of the so-called acts, resolutions
and ordinances of secession adopted by the eleven States engaged in
the present rebellion is, and can only be, to destroy those political
organizations as States, while the legal and constitutional
jurisdiction and authority of the National Government over the people
and territory remain unimpaired; that these several communities can be
organized into States only by the will of the loyal people, expressed
freely and in the absence of all coercion; that States so organized can
become States of the American Union only when they shall have applied
for admission, and their admission shall have been authorized by the
existing National Government; that, when a people have organized a
State upon basis of allegiance to the Union and applied for admission,
the character of the institutions of such proposed State may constitute
a sufficient justification for granting or rejecting such application;
and, inasmuch as experience has shown that the existence of human
slavery is incompatible with a republican form of government, in the
several States or in the United States, and inconsistent with the
peace, prosperity and unity of the nation, it is the duty of the people
and of all men in authority, to resist the admission of slave States
wherever organized within the jurisdiction of the National Government."

The logical consequence of these positions was that upon the conquest
of the States engaged in the rebellion the National Government could
govern the people as seemed expedient and readmit them into the Union
at such times and upon such terms as the Government should dictate.
They antagonized the doctrine then accepted by many Republicans--
"Once a State always a State"--a doctrine that would have transferred
the government at once into the hands of the men who had been engaged
in an effort to destroy it.

Mr. Sumner was wiser in this respect. His theory that the
rebellious States should be reduced to a Territorial condition was in
harmony with the views that were embodied in the resolutions. At the
time, however, they did not receive the support of all the members of
the Republican Party.

Mr. Stevens maintained the doctrine that the rebel States were
conquered States and wholly subject to the power of the conqueror.
In his view their previous condition as States in the Union had no
value. But Mr. Stevens was never troubled by the absence of logic or
argument. In the case of the rebel States he intended to assert power
enough to meet the exigency and he was free of all fear as to the
judgement of posterity. When he had formed a purpose he looked only
to the end. If he could command the adequate means he left all
questions of logic and ethics to other minds and to future times.

Other maintained that the theory that the States were in a Territorial
condition or that they had ceased to exist as States, was an admission
of the doctrine of secession. Mr. Lincoln in his last public address
cut clear of all theories and resolved the situation into a simple
statement of a fact to which all were compelled to assent: "We all
agree, that the seceded States so-called, are out of their proper
practical relations with the Union." On this basis Congress finally
acted, but during the process and progress of reconstruction the
military authority was absolute, and local and individual powers were
completely subordinated to the authority of the General Government.

COUNTING THE ELECTORAL VOTES

In 1865 and 1869, questions were raised when the electoral votes were
counted, that gave rise to debates in the House of Representatives and
on one occasion subsequently in the Senate. In the House, Francis
Thomas of Maryland and Samuel Shellabarger of Ohio took part. Both
were able men. Thomas had the qualities of an orator but he spoke so
infrequently that his power was not generally appreciated. On that
occasion he spoke exceedingly well, but the attendance was small, an
evening session having been assigned for debate upon that subject.
Mr. Shellabarger was logical and effective but he was destitute of
imagination utterly. At the bar since his retirement from politics he
has enjoyed a large practice, but, unfortunately, as it appears to me,
he has preserved the style of speaking which he acquired upon the
stump and in Congress. A skillful speaker must adapt himself to the
circumstance and to his audience. A stump speech, a speech in the
House of Representatives, a speech in the Senate, an argument to a
court, an argument to a jury, should each be framed on a model of its
own. Neither style will answer for any other. The degree of variance
may not be considerable and with a well disciplined person the change
may not be apparent. Mr. Webster adapted himself to every audience,
but the changes were slight. Yet there were changes. He was not over
solemn in the Supreme Court, and he was never boisterous when he
addressed the multitude.

As far as I recollect my positions and arguments in the debates upon
the counting of the electoral votes, I now discard all I said then.
My present conclusion is that upon a reasonable construction of the
Constitution there is no occasion for legislation or for an amendment
to the fundamental law. The Vice-President or the President of the
Senate is the president of the convention. He carries into the chair
the ordinary powers of a presiding officer. He rules upon all
questions that arise. He may and should rule upon the various
certificates that are sent up by the several States. If, in any case,
his ruling is objected to, the two Houses separate, and each House
votes upon the question:--"Shall the ruling of the Chair stand, etc."
If the Houses divide, the ruling is sustained. The president and one
House are a majority. The decision is in accordance with our system of
government. The suggestion that the president or that the Houses may
act under the influence of personal or political prejudice, may, with
equal force, be urged against any scheme that can be devised. The
counting of the electoral votes must be left in the hands of men, and
the Constitution has given us all the security that can be had that the
decision will be honestly made. The president of the convention and
the members of the Houses are bound by oath as solemnly as are the
judicial tribunals of the country. A judge is only a man, and he is
subject to like infirmities with other men. It is a wise feature of
our system that the courts have no voice in the political department
of our Government. The presidential office should never be in the
control of the judicial branch of the Government.

[* Letter of the Honorable Thomas B. Bryan.]

XXX
THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

I had no part in the preparation of the Thirteenth Amendment to the
Constitution, nor any part in its passage through the House other than
to give my vote in its favor. The Amendment resolution was passed by
the Thirty-eighth Congress at its last session and by the aid of
Democrats. The elections of 1864 had resulted in a two-thirds majority
and it was therefore certain that the resolution would be agreed to by
the next House. Hence there was less inducement for the Democrats to
resist its passage by the Thirty-eighth Congress. A small number of
Democrats favored the measure. English of Connecticut and Ganson of
New York were of the number. There were others also whose names I do
not recall. At the time of the contest a rumor was abroad that James
M. Ashley, of Ohio, was engaged in making arrangements with certain
Democrats to absent themselves from the House when the vote was taken.
Several were absent--some were reported in ill health. Mr. Ashley was
deeply interested in the passage of the resolution and it was believed
that he made pledges which no one but the President could keep. Such
was the exigency for the passage of the resolution that the means were
not subjected to any rigid rule of ethics.

The Fourteenth Amendment had its origin in a joint committee of fifteen
of which Mr. Fessenden of Maine was chairman. A record of its
proceedings was kept which was printed recently by order of the
Senate. From that report it appears that I proposed an amendment for
conferring the right to vote upon the freedmen of the State of
Tennessee. As far as I know that was the first time the proposition
was made in connection with the proceedings of Congress. The
committee did not concur in the proposition. Indeed the time had not
come for decisive action in that direction. The motion was made in
the committee the 19th day of February, 1866, when the admission of
the State of Tennessee into the Union was under consideration. The
motion was in these words: "Said State shall make no distinction in
the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race or color."
The motion was lost by the following vote:

Yeas: Howard, Stevens, Washburne, Morrill, Boutwell.
Nays: Harris, Williams, Grider, Bingham, Conkling, Rogers.
Absent: Fessenden, Grimes, Johnson, Blow.

The 16th day of April Senator Stewart, of Nevada, came before the
committee in support of a similar proposition that he had introduced
in the Senate April 7.

In January, 1866, a bill was under discussion in the House of
Representatives for the establishment of a government in the District
of Columbia. Mr. Hale of New York moved amendments by which the right
of suffrage by negroes would be limited to those who could read and
write, to those who had performed service in the army or navy or who
possessed property qualifications. The amendment was defeated. My
views were thus stated in one of the very small number of my speeches
that have had immediate influence upon an audience or an assembly:

"I am opposed to the instructions moved by the gentleman from New
York, because I see in them no advantage to anybody, and I apprehend
from their adoption much evil to the country. It should be borne in
mind, that, when we emancipated the black people we not only relieved
ourselves from the institution of slavery, we not only conferred upon
them their freedom, but we did more; we recognized their manhood,
which, by the old Constitution and the general policy and usage of the
country, had been, from the organization of the Government until the
Emancipation Proclamation, denied to all the enslaved colored people.
As a consequence of the recognition of their manhood, certain results
follow, in accordance with the principles of the Government; and they
who believe in this Government are, by necessity, forced to accept
those results as a consequence of the policy of emancipation which they
have inaugurated, and for which they are responsible.

"But to say now, having given freedom to the blacks, that they shall
not enjoy the essential rights and privileges of men, is to abandon
the principle of the Proclamation of Emancipation, and tacitly to admit
that the whole emancipation policy is erroneous.

* * * "What are the qualifications suggested? They are three. First
and most attractive, service in the army or navy of the United States.
I shall have occasion to say, if I discuss, as I hope to discuss, the
nature and origin of the right of voting, that there is not the least
possible connection between service in the army and navy and the
exercise of the elective franchise,--none whatever. These men have
performed service, and I am for dealing justly with them because they
have performed service. But I am more anxious to deal justly by them
because they are men. And when it is remembered, that, for months and
almost for years after the opening of the rebellion, we refused to
accept the services of colored persons in the armies of the country,
it is with ill grace that we now decline to allow the vote of any man
because he has not performed that service.

"The second is the property qualification. I hope it is not necessary
in this day and this hour of the Republic to argue anywhere that a
property qualification is not only unjust in itself, but that it is
odious to the people of the country to a degree which cannot be
expressed. Everywhere, I believe, for half a century, it has been
repudiated by the people. Does anybody contemplate such a
qualification to the elective franchise, in the case of black people
or white?

"And next, reading and writing, or reading as a qualification, is
demanded; and an appeal is made to the example of Massachusetts. I
wish gentlemen who now appeal to Massachusetts would often appeal to
her in other matters where I can more conscientiously approve her
policy. But it is a different proposition in Massachusetts as a
practical measure.

"When, ten years ago, this qualification was imposed upon the citizens
of Massachusetts, it excluded no person who was then a voter. For two
centuries, we have had in Massachusetts a system of public instruction,
open to the children of the whole people without money and without
price. Therefore all the people there had had opportunities for
education. Why should the example of such a State be quoted to
justify refusing suffrage to men who have been denied the privilege
of education, and whom it has been a crime to teach?

* * * "The negro has everywhere the same right to vote as the white
man, and I maintain still further, that, when you proceed one step
from this line, you admit that your government is a failure. What is
the essential quality of monarchical and aristocratic governments?
Simply that by conventionalities, by arrangements of conventions, some
persons have been deprived of the right of voting. We have attempted
to set up and maintain a government upon the doctrine of the equality
of men, the universal right of all men, to participate in the
government. In accordance with that theory, we must accept the ballot
upon the principle of equality. It is enjoyed by the learned and un-
learned, the wise and the ignorant, the virtuous and the vicious.

"The great experiment is going on. If, before the war, any man in
this country was disposed to undervalue a government thus conducted, he
should have learned by this time the wisdom and strength of a
government which embraces and embodies the judgment and the will of the
whole people. If the negroes of the South, four million strong, had
been endowed with the elective franchise, and had united with the
white people of that region in the work of rebellion, your armies would
have been powerless to subdue that rebellion, and you would to-day have
seen your territory limited by the Potomac and the Ohio.

* * * "We are to answer for our treatment of the colored people of this
country; and it will prove in the end impracticable to secure to men
of color civil rights, unless the persons who claim those rights are
fortified by the political right of voting. With the right of voting,
everything that a man ought to have or enjoy of civil rights comes to
him. Without the right to vote he is secure in nothing. I cannot
consent, after all the guards and safeguards which may be prepared for
the defence of the colored men in the enjoyment of their rights,--I
cannot consent that they shall be deprived of the right to protect
themselves. One hundred and eighty-six thousand of them have been in
the army of the United States. They have stood in the places of our
sons and brothers and friends. Many of them have fallen in the defence
of the country. They have earned the right to share in the government;
and, if you deny them the elective franchise, I know not how they are
to be protected. Otherwise you furnish the protection which is given
to the lamb when he is commended to the wolf.

"There is an ancient history that a sparrow pursued by a hawk took
refuge in the chief Assembly of Athens, in the bosom of a member of
that illustrious body, and that the senator in anger hurled it
violently from him. It fell to the ground dead; and such was the
horror and indignation of that ancient but not Christianized body,--
men living in the light of nature, of reason,--that they immediately
expelled the brutal Areopagite from his seat, and from the association
of humane legislators.

"What will be said of us, not by Christian, but by heathen nations
even, if, after accepting the blood and sacrifices of these men, we
hurl them from us, and allow them to become the victims of those who
have tyrannized over them for centuries? I know of no crime that
exceeds this; I know of none that is its parallel; and, if this country
is true to itself, it will rise in the majesty of its strength, and
maintain a policy, here and everywhere, by which the right of the
colored people shall be secure through their own power,--in peace,
the ballot; in war, the bayonet.

"It is a maxim of another language, which we may well apply to
ourselves, that, where the voting-register ends, the military roster of
rebellion begins; and, if you leave these four million people to the
care and custody of the men who have inaugurated and carried on this
rebellion, then you treasure up, for untold years, the elements of
social and civil war, which must not only desolate and paralyze the
South, but shake this government to its very foundation."

It was impossible in 1866 to go farther than the provisions of the
Fourteenth Amendment. That amendment was prepared in form by Senators
Conkling and Williams and myself. We were a select committee on
Tennessee. The propositions were not ours, but we gave form to the
amendment. The part relating to "privileges and immunities" came from
Mr. Bingham of Ohio. Its euphony and indefiniteness of meaning were
a charm to him. When the measure came before the Senate Mr. Sumner
opposed its passage and alleged that we proposed to barter the right
of the negroes to vote for diminished representation on the part of
the old slave States in the House and in the electoral college; while
in truth the loss of representation was imposed as a penalty upon any
State that should deprive any class of its adult male citizens of the
right to vote. Upon this allegation of Mr. Sumner the resolution was
defeated in the Senate. There were then in that body a number of
Republicans from the old slave States and over them Mr. Sumner had
large influence. The defeat of the amendment was followed by bitter
criticisms by the Republican press and by Republicans. These
criticisms affected Mr. Sumner deeply and he then devoted himself to
the preparation of an amendment which he could approve. While he was
engaged in that work I called upon him and he read seventeen drafts of
a proposition not one of which was entirely satisfactory to himself,
and not one of which would have been accepted by Congress or the
country. The difficulty was in the situation. Upon the return of the
seceded States their representation would be increased nearly forty
votes in the House and in the electoral colleges while the voting force
would remain in the white population. The injustice of such a
condition was apparent, and there were only two possible remedies.
One was to extend the franchise to the blacks. The country--the loyal
States--were not then ready for the measure. The alternative was to
cut off the representation from States that denied the elective
franchise to any class of adult male citizens. Finally Mr. Sumner was
compelled to accept the alternative. Some change of phraseology was
made, and Mr. Sumner gave a reluctant vote for the resolution.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25