poses and its condemnation in a Federal district or circuit court or in admiralty, and for an amendment specifically including slave property and providing for the forfeiture and emancipation of all slaves used in aiding or promoting insurrection; 16 and for a bill providing for the forfeiture of vessels belonging to persons in insurrection against the United States, the closing of ports in sections where insurrection was in progress, the removal of custom houses to and collection of duties at other ports or on public vessels, and the interdiction of intercourse with citizens of rebellious States.17 He opposed an amendment to the engineer corps bill, offered by Johnson, of Missouri, providing that Congress should recommend to the governors of the several States that they convene their legislatures and appoint delegates to a general convention, to meet at Louisville and discuss measures to restore peace.18 This had been Wilmot's own disposition at the time of the Peace Convention, six months before; but evidently he felt that the time for such procedure had gone by. He voted earnestly and steadily to advance the passage of the bill to suppress insurrection and sedition; voted to expel the senators from the States whose people, in whole or in part, were in arms against the Government-Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas and Texas-refusing to favor an amendment which would have softened the terms of the resolution of expulsion; 19 but he voted to receive and seat the senators elect sent by the loyal element of Virginia, Carlile and Willey.20 He is not recorded as voting on the bill authorizing the President to call for 500,000 volunteers; but when the bill for increase of the Army was on its passage, he voted for an amendment which left the time and rate of disbandment of the forces, after the authority of the Government of the United States was 16 Cong. Globe, p. 219. 17 Cong. Globe, p. 84. 18 Cong. Globe, p. 435. 19 Cong. Globe, p. 64. 21 recognized and organized resistance had ceased to exist, to the direction of Congress. The bill was passed without any record of the yeas and nays. Much of Wilmot's work at this time was done in spite of a struggle against illness grave enough to cause widespread comment. September 12, 1861, a few weeks after he had returned to his home, the Bradford Reporter said: We observe that some of the newspapers are publishing very discouraging accounts of the state of health of Mr. Wilmot, causing much apprehension among his friends throughout the country. We are happy in being able to say that these statements are very much exaggerated, and that Mr. Wilmot's health is not such as to excite the apprehension of his neighbors. During the last session of Congress, his health was much impaired, but since his return home, he has speedily recovered, and is regaining his strength, and will be able, by the next session of Congress, to take his seat, with health and strength to perform all his senatorial labors. He had, indeed, been well enough to take a prominent part in public meetings at home, and he is recorded as among the leading speakers at the East Genesee annual conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, held at Towanda, August 21, 1861 (Congress had adjourned on the 6th), in a tent on North Main Street near the present Cox greenhouse. It is said that his remarks on that occasion strongly influenced the resolutions of the "Committee on the Present Crisis in National Affairs" -resolutions which in their turn were an important step in the separation of that church into "North" and "South." But later in the year—just after the opening of the second session of the Thirty-seventh Congress-his illness returned in a form which aroused the gravest apprehensions, as evidenced by his own letter published in the New York Tribune, December 20, 1861: 21 Cong. Globe, p. 127. Editor of the Tribune, Sir: I see in the paper of the 12th instant the following: "Senator Wilmot went home to-day very ill. His friends apprehend that his disease is cancer of the stomach." The latter part of this paragraph is utterly idle and without foundation. No friend or enemy ever suggested to me cancer as connected with my illness. I have consulted Dr. Gerhard, of Philadelphia, and Dr. Hall, of Washington, and have received the voluntary advice of scores, but never one intimated the existence of a cancer or cancerous affection. I left Washington because I did not like to run the hazards of being down sick, where no proper care is given to the sick. I hope to be able to return in a few weeks. The story of a cancer is utter nonsense, and neither myself or friends ever heard of it except through the press. Towanda, Dec. 16, 1861. Yours, &c., D. WILMOT. He did return toward the end of January, in time to take part, and even an active part, in the remaining sessions of the Thirty-seventh Congress, and after that, on the bench of the Court of Claims. The cancer rumor was disproved by the result. But the attack which suggested it was a step in the gradual decline which ended his activities prematurely; and the record, from a medical point of view, suggests the existence of some serious organic lesion which provoked the abnormal appetite of his earlier years and hastened his death, in 1868. CHAPTER XXXV THE PURGING OF THE SENATE A peculiar feature of the second session of the Thirtyseventh Congress in which Wilmot participated conspicuously, was the Senate's activity in expelling, or seeking to expel, nearly one-fifth of its members. The first session had disposed of the senators from the seceded States en masse. The second directed its attention to individual cases, beginning with John C. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, who was expelled with one swift stroke, on December 4, 1861, almost before the organization had been completed by the announcement of the standing committees. The resolution of expulsion, offered by Zachariah Chandler, of Michigan, declared that the offending senator had joined the enemies of his country and was in arms against the Government he had sworn to support. Wilmot's vote was one of the 36 by which the resolution was unanimously carried.1 Next to fall were the two senators from Missouri. Waldo P. Johnson was arraigned first, by Foot, of Vermont; and Trusten Polk, on the motion of Charles Sumner, so soon thereafter that both cases were reported back from the judiciary committee on the same day, January 9, 1862, and both were condemned on the day following, on the general charge of sympathizing with and participating in the rebellion. Wilmot does not appear to have been present on either of these days. He had not yet recovered sufficiently to resume his seat after the illness referred to in the preceding chapter. The three cases preceding had been judged in absentia; the next to come up was that of Jesse D. Bright, of Indiana, who had taken his seat and voted with the majority in some, at least, of the preceding expulsions. The accusation against 1 Cong. Globe, Thirty-seventh Congress, 2nd session, p. 10. him, made by Morton S. Wilkinson, of Minnesota, was that he had written a letter to Jefferson Davis (whom he addressed as "His Excellency," and as president of the Confederation of States) introducing and recommending one Thomas B. Lincoln, who sought to dispose of a great improvement in firearms—naturally, as was pointed out, for use against the armies of the United States. Wilkinson's resolution alleged that this letter was evidence of disloyalty and was calculated to give aid and comfort to the public enemies. The judiciary committee (who seemed in most cases to be very lenient in their views) after deliberating on the matter as referred to them, reported that the facts submitted were not, in their opinion, sufficient to warrant expulsion, and they recommended that the resolution should not pass. Wilmot spoke on the question, January 30, 1862, following an arraignment of Bright's action by Charles Sumner, and another by Henry S. Lane, of Indiana. He began by admitting the pain it would give him to vote for the expulsion, recalling, as he did, that the senator from Indiana and he had met in Congress seventeen years before, both then young men and members of the dominant political party. A sense of public duty alone constrained him to the action he should take now. The facts were plain and undisputed; the senator from Indiana even said that under the same circumstances he would do the same thing again. The senator's views of loyalty differed widely from the speaker's own. What Bright regarded as a proper courtesy to a friend, Wilmot thought was disloyalty, not to give it the harsher name of treason. What, sir, are the facts and circumstances of this case? The slaveholders of the nation, relying on human slavery as the bond of their unity and strength, unwilling that the freemen of the Republic should assume the management of Government affairs, set on foot a rebellion in the southern and slaveholding States of the Union. When this letter was written, it had been carried for 2 Cong. Globe, Thirty-seventh Congress, 2nd session, pp. 563-564. |