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

This record, though not concealed, was not understood by the members
of the convention that placed him in nomination for the second office
in the country.

This analysis prepares the way for an extract from the testimony of Mr.
Stanley Matthews, who was afterwards a justice of the Supreme Court,
and who was examined by the Judiciary Committee of the House of
Representatives when engaged in investigating the doings of the
President previous to his impeachment. Mr. Johnson was appointed
Military Governor of Tennessee the third day of March, 1862. Colonel
Matthews was provost-marshal at Nashville, where Johnson resided during
his term as Governor. In that term Matthews and Johnson became
acquainted. When Johnson was on his way to Washington to take the oath
of office, he stopped at the Burnet House in Cincinnati. Matthews
called upon him. Matthews had been a Democrat until the troubles in
Kansas. In the conversation at the Burnet House Mr. Johnson made these
remarks, after some personal matters had been disposed of. I quote
from the testimony of Judge Matthews:

"I inquired as to the state of public feeling on political matters in
Tennessee at that time. He remarked that very great changes had
taken place since I had been there, that many of those who at first
were the best Union men had turned to be the worst rebels, and that
many of those who had originally been the worst rebels were now the
best Union men. I expressed surprise and regret at what he said in
reference to the matter.

"We were sitting near each other on the sofa. He then turned to me and
said, 'You and I were old Democrats.' I said, 'Yes.' He then said,
_'I will tell you what it is, if the country is ever to be saved, it is
to be done through the old Democratic Party.'_

"I do not know whether I made any reply to that, or, if I did, what it
was; and immediately afterwards I took my leave."

The larger part of this quotation is only important as leading up to
the phrase that is emphasized, and which may throw light upon Mr.
Johnson's policy and conduct when he came to the Presidency.

This conversation occurred in the month of February, 1865, and it must
be accepted as evidence, quite conclusive, that Mr. Johnson was then
opposed to the policy of the Republican Party, whose honors he had
accepted. In a party sense Mr. Johnson was not a Republican: he was a
Union Democrat. He was opposed to the dissolution of the Union, but
not necessarily upon the ground that the Union had a supreme right to
exist in defiance of what is called "State sovereignty." This with
the Republican Party was a fundamental principle. Under the influence
of the principles of the old Democratic Party Mr. Johnson advanced to
the Vice-Presidency, and while under the influence of the same idea he
became President.

When the Republican Party came to power, the State of Maryland, that
portion of Virginia now known as West Virginia, the State of Kentucky,
and the State of Missouri were largely under the influence of
sympathizers with the eleven seceding States of the South. It was
necessary in Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri to maintain the
ascendency of the National Government by the exhibition of physical
force, and in some instances by its actual exercise. Mr. Lincoln's
policy in regard to the question of slavery was controlled, up to the
month of July, 1862, by the purpose to conciliate Union slave-holders
in the States mentioned. Of his measures I refer to the proposition
to transfer the free negroes to Central America, for which an
appropriation of $25,000 was made by Congress. Next, Congress passed
an act for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia upon
the payment of three hundred dollars for each slave emancipated.

Without representing in his history or in his person the slave-holding
interests of the South, Mr. Johnson was yet a Southern man with Union
sentiments. The impression was received therefrom that his influence
would be considerable in restraining, if not in conciliating slave-
holders in what were called the "border States." These facts tended
to his nomination for the Vice-Presidency. I have no means for
forming an opinion that is trustworthy as to the position of Mr.
Lincoln in reference to the nomination of Mr. Johnson. His nomination
may justify the impression that the Republican Party was in doubt as to
its ability to re-elect Mr. Lincoln in 1864. From the month of July,
1862, to the nomination in 1864, I had frequent interviews with Mr.
Lincoln, and I can only say that, during the period when the result of
the election was a subject of thought, he gave no intimation in the
conversations that I had with him that the element of doubt as to the
result existed in his mind.

From what has been said, the inference may be drawn that Mr. Johnson
came to the Vice-Presidency in the absence of any considerable degree
of confidence on the part of the Republican Party, although there were
no manifestations of serious doubt as to his fitness for the place, or
as to his fidelity to the principles of the party.

The incidents of the inauguration of Mr. Johnson in the Senate Chamber,
and especially his speech on the occasion, which was directed,
apparently, to the diplomatic corps, excited apprehensions in those
who were present, and the confidence of the country was diminished
materially concerning his qualifications for the office to which he had
been elected. Without delay these apprehensions circulated widely, and
they were deepened in the public mind by the assassination of Mr.
Lincoln and the elevation of Mr. Johnson to the Presidency.

The public confidence received a further serious shock by his
proclamation of May 29, 1865, for the organization of a State
government in North Carolina. That proclamation contained provisions
in harmony with what has been set forth in this paper concerning the
political principles of Mr. Johnson. First of all, he limited the
franchise to persons "qualified as prescribed by the constitution and
laws of the State of North Carolina in force immediately before the
20th day of May, 1861, the date of the so-called Ordinance of
Secession." This provision was a limitation of the suffrage, and it
excluded necessarily the negro population of the State. It was also a
recognition of the right of the State to reappear as a State in the
Union. It was, indeed, an early assertion of the phrase which
afterwards became controlling with many persons--"Once a State, always
a State." He further recognized the right of the State to reappear as
a State in the organization and powers of the convention which was to
be called under the proclamation. As to that he said: "The convention
when convened, or the legislature which may be thereafter assembled,
will prescribe the qualification of electors and the eligibility of
persons to hold office under the constitution and laws of the State,
a power the people of the several States composing the Union have
rightfully exercised from the origin of the Government to the present
time." There were further instructions given in the proclamation as to
the duties of various officers of the United States to aid Governor
Holden, who, by the same proclamation, was appointed "Provisional
Governor of the State of North Carolina."

Upon the publication of this proclamation I was so much disturbed that
I proceeded at once to Washington, but without any definite idea as to
what could be done to arrest the step which seemed to me a dangerous
step towards the re-organization of the Government upon an unsound
basis. At that time I had had no conversation with Mr. Johnson, either
before or after he came to the Presidency, upon any subject whatever.
The interview which I secured upon that visit was the sole personal
interview that ever occurred between us. I called upon Senator Morrill
of Vermont, and together we made a visit to the President. I spoke of
the features of the proclamation that seemed to be objectionable. He
said that "the measure was tentative" only, and that until the
experiment had been tried no other proclamation would be issued. Upon
that I said in substance that the Republican Party might accept the
proclamation as an experiment, but that it was contrary to the ideas
of the party, and that a continuance of the policy would work a
disruption of the party. He assured us that nothing further would be
done until the experiment had been tested. With that assurance we left
the Executive Mansion.

On the 13th day of June, 1865, a similar proclamation was issued in
reference to the State of Mississippi, and on the 17th of June,
corresponding proclamations were issued in reference to the States of
Georgia, Texas, Alabama, South Carolina, and Florida. In each State a
person was named as Provisional Governor. This action led to a
division of the party and to its subsequent reorganization against the
President's policy.

In his letter of acceptance of the nomination made by the Union
Convention, Mr. Johnson endorsed, without reserve, the platform that
had been adopted. The declarations of the platform did not contain a
reference to the reorganization of the Government in the event of the
success of the Union arms. The declarations were enumerated in this
order: the Union was to be maintained; the war was to be prosecuted
upon the basis of an unconditional surrender of the rebels; and
slavery, as the cause of the war, was to be abolished. The added
resolutions related to the services of the soldiers and sailors, and to
the policy of Abraham Lincoln as President. It was further declared
that the public credit should be maintained, that there should be a
vigorous and just system of taxes, and that the people would view with
"extreme jealousy," and as enemies to the peace and independence of
the country, the efforts of any power to obtain new footholds for
monarchical government on this continent. Such being the character of
the platform, it cannot be said that Mr. Johnson challenged its
declarations in the policy on which he entered for the reorganization
of the Government. In Mr. Johnson's letter of acceptance he preserved
his relations to the Democrats by the use of this phrase: "I cannot
forego the opportunity of saying to my old friends of the Democratic
Party proper, with whom I have so long and pleasantly been associated,
that the hour has come when that great party can justly indicate its
devotion to the Democratic policy in measures of expediency."

The controversy with Mr. Johnson had its origin in the difference of
opinion as to the nature of the Government. That difference led him to
the conclusion that the rebellion had not worked any change in the
legal relations of the seceding States to the National Government. His
motto was this: "Once a State, always a State," whatever might be its
conduct either of peace or war. There were, however, differences of
opinion among those who adhered to the Republican Party. Mr. Stevens,
who was a recognized, if not the recognized, leader of the Republican
Party, advocated the doctrine that the eleven States were to be treated
as enemy's territory, and to be governed upon whatever system might be
acceptable to the States that had remained true to the Union. Mr.
Sumner maintained the doctrine that the eleven States were Territories,
and that they were to be subject to the General Government until
Congress should admit the several Territories as State organizations.
The fourth day of May, 1864, I presented a series of resolutions in
the House of Representatives, in which I asserted this doctrine: The
communities that have been in rebellion 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. A small number of persons who were identified with the
Republican Party sustained the policy of Mr. Johnson. Others were of
the opinion that the eleven States were out of their proper relation to
the Union, as was declared by Mr. Lincoln in his last speech, and that
they could become members of the American Union only by the organized
action of each, and the concurrent action of the existing National
Government. The Government was reorganized without any distinct
declaration upon the question whether the States that had been in
rebellion were to be treated as enemy's territory, or as Territories
according to the usage of former times. The difference of opinion was
a vital one with Mr. Johnson. Whatever view may be taken of his moral
qualities, it is to be said that he was not deficient in intellectual
ability, that his courage passed far beyond the line of obstinacy, and
that from the first to last he was prepared to resist the claims of
the large majority of the Republican Party. The issue began with his
proclamation of May, 1865, and the contest continued to the end of his
term. The nature of the issue explains the character and violence of
his speeches, especially that of the twenty-second day of February,
1866, when he spoke of Congress as a "body hanging on the verge of the
Government."

In the many speeches which he delivered in his trip through the West,
he made distinct charges against Congress. He was accompanied by Mr.
Seward, General Grant, Admiral Farragut, and some others. In a speech
at Cleveland, Ohio, he said, among other things, "I have called upon
your Congress, which has tried to break up the Government." Again, in
the same speech he said, "I tell you my countrymen, that although the
powers of Thad Stevens and his gang were by, they could not turn me
from my purpose. There is no power that can turn me, except you and
the God who put me into existence." He charged, also, that Congress
had taken great pains to poison their constituents against him. "What
had Congress done? Had they done anything to restore the Union in
those States? No; on the contrary, they had done everything to prevent
it."

In a speech made at St. Louis, Missouri, September 8, 1866, Mr. Johnson
discussed the riot at New Orleans.* In that speech he said, "If you
will take up the riot in New Orleans, and trace it back to its source,
or its immediate cause, you will find out who was responsible for the
blood that was shed there. If you will take up the riot at New
Orleans and trace it back to the radical Congress, you will find that
the riot at New Orleans was substantially planned." After some
further observations, he says: "Yes, you will find that another
rebellion was commenced, having its origin in the radical Congress."

These extracts from Mr. Johnson's speeches should be considered in
connection with his proclamations of May, June, and July, 1865. They
are conclusive to this point: that he had determined to reconstruct
the Government upon the basis of the return of the States that had been
engaged in the rebellion without the imposition of any conditions
whatsoever, except such as he had imposed upon them in his
proclamations. In fine, that the Government was to be re-established
without the authority or even the assent of the Congress of the United
States. In his proclamations he made provision for the framing of
constitutions in the respective States, their ratification by the
people, excluding all those who were not voters in April, 1861, and for
the election of Senators and Representatives to the Congress of the
United States without the assent of the Representatives of the existing
States.

When I arrived in Washington to attend the meeting of Congress at the
December session, 1866, I received a note from Mr. Stanton asking me to
meet him at the War Office with as little delay as might be
practicable. When I called at the War Office, he beckoned me to retire
to his private room, where he soon met me. He then said that he had
been more disturbed by the condition of affairs in the preceding weeks
and months than he had been at any time during the war. He gave me to
understand that orders had been issued to the army of which neither he
nor General Grant had any knowledge. He further gave me to understand
also that he apprehended an attempt by the President to re-organize the
Government by the assembling of a Congress in which the members from
the seceding States and the Democratic members from the North might
obtain control through the aid of the Executive. He then said that he
thought it necessary that some act should be passed by which the power
of the President might be limited. Under his dictation, and after such
consultation as seemed to be required, I drafted amendments to the
Appropriation Bill for the Support of the Army, which contained the
following provisions: The headquarters of the General of the Army were
fixed at Washington, where he was to remain unless transferred to duty
elsewhere by his own consent or by the consent of the Senate. Next, it
was made a misdemeanor for the President to transmit orders to any
officer of the army except through the General of the Army. It was
also made a misdemeanor for any officer to obey orders issued in any
other way than through the General of the Army, knowing that the same
had been so issued. These provisions were taken by me to Mr. Stevens,
the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. After some
explanation, the measure was accepted by the committee and incorporated
in the Army Appropriation Bill. The bill was approved by the President
the second day of March, 1867. His approval was accompanied by a
protest on his part that the provision was unconstitutional, and by the
statement that he approved the bill only because it was necessary for
the support of the army.

At the time of my interview with Mr. Stanton, I was not informed fully
as to the events that had transpired in the preceding months, nor can
I say now that everything which had transpired of importance was then
known to Mr. Stanton. The statement that I am now to make was derived
from conversations with General Grant. At a time previous to the
December session of 1866, the President said to General Grant, "I may
wish to send you on a mission to Mexico." General Grant replied, "It
may not be convenient for me to go to Mexico." Little, if anything,
further was said between the President and General Grant. At a
subsequent time General Grant was invited to a Cabinet meeting. At
that meeting Mr. Seward read a paper of instruction to General Grant
as Minister of some degree to Mexico. The contents of the paper did
not impress General Grant very seriously, for in the communication that
he made to me he said that "the instructions came out very near where
they went in." At the end of the reading General Grant said, "You
recollect, Mr. President, I said it would not be convenient for me to
go to Mexico." Upon that a conversation followed, when the President
became heated, and rising from his seat, and striking the table with
some force, he said "Is there an officer of the army who will not
obey my instructions?" General Grant took his hat in his hand, and
said, "I am an officer of the army, but I am a citizen also; and this
is a civil service that you require of me. I decline it." He then
left the meeting. It happened also that previous to this conversation
the President had ordered General Sherman, who was in command at Fort
Leavenworth, to report at Washington. General Sherman obeyed the
order, came to Washington, and had a conference with General Grant
before he reported to the President. In that situation of affairs
General Sherman was sent to Mexico upon the mission which had been
prepared for General Grant.

The suggestion that Mr. Johnson contemplated the re-organization of the
Government by the admission of the States that had been in rebellion,
and by the recognition of Senators and Representatives that might be
assigned from those States, received support from the testimony given
by Major-General William H. Emory, and also from the testimony of
General Grant. In the latter part of the year 1867 and the first part
of the year 1868, General Emory was in command of the Department of
Washington. When he entered upon the command, he called upon the
President. A conversation, apparently not very important, occurred
between them, as to the military forces then in that department. In
February, 1868, the President directed his secretary to ask General
Emory to call upon him as early as practicable. In obedience to that
request General Emory called on the twenty-second day of February. The
President referred to the former conversation, and then inquired
whether any changes had been made, and especially within the recent
days, in the military forces under Emory's command. In the course of
the conversation growing out of these requests for information, General
Emory referred to an order which had then been recently issued which
embodied the provisions of the act of March, 1867, in regard to the
command of the army and the transmission of orders. The President
then said to Emory:

"What order do you refer to?"

In reply Emory said: "Order No. 17 of the Series of 1867."

The order was produced and read by the President, who said:

"This is not in conformity with the Constitution of the United States,
that makes me commander-in-chief, or with the terms of your commission."

General Emory said: "That is the order which you have approved and
issued to the army for our government."

The President then said: "Am I to understand that the President of the
United States cannot give an order except through the head of the army,
or General Grant?"

In the course of the conversation, General Emory informed the President
that eminent lawyers had been consulted, that he had consulted Robert
J. Walker, and that all of the lawyers consulted had expressed the
opinion that the officers of the army were bound by the order whether
the statute was constitutional or unconstitutional.

When General Grant was before the Judiciary Committee of the House of
Representatives during the impeachment investigation, this question
was put to him:

"Have you at any time heard the President make any remark in regard
to the admission of members of Congress from rebel States in either
House?"

"I cannot say positively what I have heard him say. I have heard him
say as much in his public speeches as anywhere else. I have heard him
say twice in his speeches that if the North carried the election by
members enough to give them, with the Southern members, the majority,
why should they not be the Congress of the United States? I have
heard him say that several times."

That answer was followed by this question:

"When you say the North, you mean the Democratic Party of the North,
or, in other words, the party advocating his policy?"

General Grant replied:

"I meant if the North carried enough members in favor of the admission
of the South. I did not hear him say that he would recognize them as
the Congress, I merely heard him ask the question, 'Why would they not
be the Congress?'"

At this point, and without further discussion of the purpose of Mr.
Johnson in regard to the reorganization of the Government, I think it
may be stated without injustice to him, that while he was opposed to
secession at the time the Confederate Government was organized, and
thenceforward and always without change of opinion, yet he was also
of opinion that the act of secession by the several States had not
disturbed their legal relations to the National Government. Acting
upon that opinion, he proceeded to reorganize the State governments,
and with the purpose of securing the admission of their Senators and
Representatives without seeking or accepting the judgment of Congress
upon the questions involved in the proceeding. On one vital point he
erred seriously and fundamentally as to the authority of the President
in the matter. From the nature of our Government there could be no
escape in a legal point of view from the conclusion that, whatever the
relations were of the seceding States to the General Government, the
method of restoration was to be ascertained and determined by Congress,
and not by the President acting as the chief executive authority of the
nation. In a legal and constitutional view, that act on his part,
although resting upon opinions which he had long entertained, and which
were entertained by many others, must be treated as an act of usurpation.

The facts embodied in the charges on which Mr. Johnson was impeached
by the House and arraigned before the Senate were not open to doubt,
but legal proof was wanting in regard to the exact language of his
speeches. The charges were in substance these: That he had attacked
the integrity and the lawful authority of the Congress of the United
States in public speeches made in the presence of the country. The
second charge was that he had attempted the removal of Mr. Stanton
from the office of Secretary of War, and that, without the concurrence
of the Senate, he had so removed him, contrary to the act of Congress,
known as the Tenure of Office Act. In the first investigation into
the conduct of Andrew Johnson, he was described in the resolution as
"Vice-President of the United States, discharging at present the duties
of President of the United States." The resolution was adopted by the
House of Representatives the seventh day of March, 1867. A large
amount of testimony was taken, and the report of the committee, in
three parts, by the different members, was submitted to the House the
fourth day of the following December. The majority of the committee,
consisting of George S. Boutwell, Francis Thomas, Thomas Williams,
William Lawrence, and John C. Churchill, reported a resolution
providing for the impeachment of the President of the United States,
in these words: "Resolved, that Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States, be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors." It will
be observed that in the resolution for his impeachment he is described
as "President of the United States," while in the resolution
authorizing the inquiry into his conduct he is described as "Vice-
President, discharging at present the duties of the President of the
United States." This question received very careful consideration by
the committee, and the conclusion was reached that he was the President
of the United States, although he had been elected only to the office
of Vice-President. As that question was not raised at the trial by
demurrer or motion, it may now be accepted as the established doctrine
that the Vice-President, when he enters upon the duties of President,
becomes President of the United States. The extended report that was
made by the majority of the committee was written by Mr. Williams.
The summary, which was in the nature of charges, was written by myself.
That summary set forth twenty-eight specifications of misconduct on the
part of the President, many of which, however, where abandoned when the
articles of impeachment were prepared in February, 1868.

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