Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER LXXII.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE NATIONAL CONGRESS, JULY 17, 1862.

In a previous chapter we chronicled | the important communications made at the opening of the session by the President and heads of departments, representing the political, military, and financial condition of the country at the close of the year 1861. It was the turning point in the history of the war, when it was to be decided whether the nation, disappointed of its hopes of a speedy suppression of the rebellion, would gird itself, at whatever sacrifices it might cost, for a mighty and portentous struggle in the future in maintaining against half a continent in arms the cause of the Union, with all that it involves of moral and material well-being. The answer to this question was given in the affirmative. Of the necessity which led to it, of the method by which the problem was solved there can be no more instructive commentary than the debates of the second session of the 37th Congress. For nearly eight months in the Senate and the House, the war, in one or other of its aspects, was the main subject of discussion; how best to carry it on; the patriotic demands of the time upon public men; the new exigencies of statesmanship; the new demands upon generals in the field; the new relations of slavery to the government: these and other topics were continually debated; what could not be learned within doors, from argument, was taught by rapid experience in the great march of events in the field. When the Congress met there was considerable uncertainty on many important points; when it adjourned they were practically determined by its legislation. A glance at its debates, a few minutes spent in the Chapter L., ante pages 186-200.

*

perusal of its two hundred "Public Acts," will show the rapid progress the nation was making at this time in the formation of opinions, strengthened, on the instant, into resolutions, and corroborated by the performance of serious and onerous duties.

The sensitiveness of both houses was shown in the consideration, on several occasions, of the alleged disloyal acts or expressions of members. In the preceding extra session, it will be remembered, the expulsion of Mason, Hunter, and other absentee senators in open rebellion against the nation, had not passed without serious debate. An unwillingness was shown to wound the reputation of men compelled, perhaps, by State necessity, to take part against the government to which they had pledged allegiance.* There was less hesitation of this kind now. One of the earliest acts of the Senate, on the 4th of December, was to expel the "traitor," as he was branded in the resolution, John C Breckinridge, who, after the expiration of his term as Vice President, had been elected to that body, and occupied his seat in the previous session. The preamble stated that "he had joined the enemies of his country, and is now in arms against the government he had sworn to support." He had sent no resignation to the Senate, but in an address "to the people of Kentucky" in October, dated at Bowling Green, had, as he expressed it, "returned his trust into their hands," with the declaration that he "exchanged with proud satisfaction, a term of six years in the United States Senate for the musket of a sol

* Ante Vol. I., pp. 498-9.

[ocr errors]

BRIGHT OF INDIANA CALLED TO ACCOUNT IN THE SENATE. 507 dier." In other words, the late Vice to the United States Senate. An able President of the United States had open- member of his party, he was an ultra ly joined the Confederacy, and been ap- pro-slavery Democrat in his politics, and pointed a general in the rebel service. had supported Breckinridge in the recent In like manner, the two senators from presidential election. Missouri, Waldo P. Johnson, and Trusten Polk, having publicly taken part with the secession cause, and gone over to the enemy, were, on the 10th of January, also expelled. These men were open in their support of the rebellion. There were other cases brought forward of more nicety, in the effort to purge the Senate of disaffection. One, in particular, elicited no little discussion, and by the action which was taken became an important precedent.

On the 16th of December, the attention of the Senate was called, by Mr. Wilkinson (Republican), from Minnesota, to the fact that one of the members, Jesse D. Bright, of Indiana, had, on the 1st of March previous written a letter, addressed "To his Excellency, Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States," introducing a certain Mr. Thos. D. Lincoln, as having an improvement in fire arms. The letter had fallen into the hands of the government on the arrest of Mr. Lincoln in Ohio for treasonable communication with the enemy. It was set forth that such a letter was evidence of disloyalty, and it was moved that the writer be expelled. The resolution was met by a few remarks from Mr. Bright justifying and taking the responsibility of the act, in which he presented a letter which he had written, explanatory of the other, to a Mr. Fitch (Sept. 7, 1861), in which he remarked that he was opposed to the Abolitionists, but had always been for the preservation and integrity of the Union; moreover, that he was opposed to the coercive policy of the government. The resolution was then referred to the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Bright, a native of New York, had lived in Kentucky and afterwards removed to Indiana, where he was chosen Lieutenant-Governor, and whence he had thrice been sent

On the 13th of January, 1862, Mr. Cowan (Rep.), of Pennsylvania, reported on behalf of the Committeee that the facts were not sufficient, and that the resolution do not pass. It was then made a special order for debate. The subject was taken up on. the 20th. Wilkinson, in a few words, denounced the act as treason, and Bright as a sympathizer with the enemy. The Fitch letter. he said, only made the matter worse. Bayard, of Delaware, spoke in an apologetic way, going out of the record to assert "He did not believe that the war would effect the restoration of the Union." Morrill (Rep.), of Maine, contended that at the time the letter was written, we were actually in a state of civil war, in whicn he was sustained by Trumbull (Rep.), of Illinois, and opposed by Pearce (Am.), of Maryland. The debate was resumed the next day by Sumner, of Massachusetts, who urged the expulsion. Lane, of Indiana, also spoke in favor of the measure. Bright sought to defend himself. He reminded the Senate that he had been twenty-seven years in the public service of Indiana, and seventeen years in his present seat, and had done nothing inconsistent with his position as a Senator. Lincoln was an old friend to whom he was under obligations, he had given him the letter when he did not dream of war, and when arms were being sent to the South. Fessenden, of Maine, asked the pertinent question, why, if he thought there should be no war, what occasion he had to suppose Davis wanted an improvement in firearms. Davis, of Kentucky, the successor of the expelled Breckenridge, on the 22d made a stirring appeal for the expulsion, breaking off, however, on resuming the discussion the next day, into a defence of Kentuckian slavery, and a deprecation of interfering

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

not to be judged now for what he did then-an illogical argument, based on a true enough statement of facts. He cited the war speeches in the Senate, of Wigfall and Toombs, previous to their retirement, and the patient manner in which they were borne by their fellow members. Nobody, he said, believed in war at the date of Mr. Bright's alleged offence. If he was to be condemned other senators were guilty for not arresting the seceding traitors of their body. Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, also a democrat, talked of proscription and persecution, and violently assailed the administration. "The senator from Massachusetts" (Sumner), he said, "had assailed the senator from Indiana, and the names of Catiline and Arnold seemed less hateful now because they had received his (Sumner's) censure, and their future fame would shine more brightly because they had not received his praise." The Republicans, Howe, of Wisconsin, and Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, thought that if the particular offence was not treason, there was evidence of disloyalty, and that the Senate should be purged of all taint of it, a sentiment powerfully enforced the next day (31st) by Johnson, of Tennessee, who maintained the right and duty of the Senate to decide upon the fitness of its own members for their office. He dwelt upon Mr. Bright's assertion in the letter to Fitch, of his opposition to the whole policy of coercion. 'If the Senate," was the language of the indignant Johnson," had not moral, physical, and polit

with the institution in the conduct of the war, to which Harlan, of Iowa, firmly replied. Harris, of New York, on the 24th pronounced his opinion that it would be establishing a dangerous precedent to insist on the expulsion; he thought that there was a want of sufficient evidence of the treasonable offence charged. Ten Eyck (Rep.), of New Jersey, for a similar reason, would vote against the measure. Clark (Rep.), of New Hampshire, in an indignant speech, was resolute for condemnation. We owe it," said he, "to the country," and with a pertinent allusion to the battle of Somerset, in Kentucky, the details of which were just received, brought home by the reflection that the fallen victors were from Bright's own State, "we owe it, above all, to the patriotic State of Indiana. Even now the telegraph flashes the news that her 10th regiment has been nearly decimated. Her sons lie dead upon the ground, slain in defence of their country; and shall we retain here a senator who would aid to furnish the rebellion with arms that are to kill and destroy her own citizens?" Of the fact of war at the time the obnoxious letter was written, he said, "The 1st day of March, 1861, was an eventful day. On that day the Secretary of War struck the name of General Twiggs, who had surrendered the army in Texas, from the roll of the army. On that same day the gallant Anderson wrote that he could not hold out much longer, and on that same day the senator from Indiana wrote a letter to Jeff. Davis telling him that Mr. Lincoln had an im-ical courage enough to expel those who portant improvement in firearms to sell!"

are unsafe depositaries of the public trust and power, then they were not fit to reThe debate was resumed the next main there themselves. He did not say week-the topic apparently affording a these things in any spirit of unkindness, welcome stimulant for leisurely senatorial but for the sake of constitutional liberty, oratory, when no business of more im- and for the sake of his own wife and portance was on hand. Mr. Latham children. By the failure of the govern(Dem.), of California, contended that pub-ment to enforce the laws, his wife and lic opinion of March, 1861, was very dif- children had been turned into the street, ferent from the public opinion of Jan- and his house made into a barrack. He uary, 1862, and that the senator was had two sons-in-law-one was in prison,

SENATOR BRIGHT EXPELLED.

and the other was in the mountains, to evade the tyranny of the hell-born, and hell-hound spirit of disunion." This was the decisive speech of the debate. Still the vote was deferred.

509

epistle to Jefferson Davis was a simple letter of introduction-"only a mere courtesy, written when he believed there would be no war, which he was not convinced of till the fall of Sumter, when he On the resumption of the question a would not have given the letter. He few days after, Browning (Rep.), of Illi- professed his allegiance and attachment nois, pronounced the letter "moral trea- to the government, which he "would not son," for which the senator should be ex- exchange for any other on earth." If he pelled. Dixon (Rep.), of Connecticut, in were condemned he should attribute the reply to Senator Harris' position of sentence to the spirit of party, and " "go "treason or nothing" pointed out the in- forth and submit to the people of the vaded provisions of the Constitution, by State of Indiana the question of right or the Davis government, independently of wrong in the case." He avowed his opa state of war, which had been sanctioned position to "the principle of coercion." by the Bright letter. Doolittle, of Wis-"I believe," said he, "in the language consin (Republican), could not but consider it calculated "to give aid and comfort to the rebels," and would vote accordingly. Sumner, in a second speech, reviewed the defensive arguments and apologies which had been offered. "The guilt of the senator," said he, " in offering arms was complete. Call it treason or disloyalty; in vain you surround him with technical defences of the judicial tribunal. For the sake of the Senate he must be deprived of his place. The case is plain, and has taken too much time to consider it." In the course of his remarks he alluded to Senator Davis' practical exaltation of slavery above the Constitution." This was now denied by Davis with a significant comment-a compliment to the position to which the senator, in the whirligig of time, bringing about his revenges, had been raised in the house. "The senator shakes his imperial locks like Jove; but he was not the Jove of the Senate nor of the country." This questioning of Sumner's position, under the circumstances, was something of an assertion of it. The nod of Jupiter virtually ended the protracted debate. The next day, the 5th of February, the question was taken up and finally disposed of. Mr. Bright had the floor for a closing speech, in which he expressed his desire to place himself right on the page of history." He contended that his

66

66

of the present Secretary of State, that this Federal system is, of all forms of government, the most unfitted for this labor of coercion. Coercion is war, and war,' in the language of the late Senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglas), 'is disunion.' After war had arisen, he had sustained the government in its efforts to maintain the laws within constitutional limits, though he still doubted whether the line of policy of the last administration, as well as the present, was the best with regard to affairs at Charleston." In other words his peace policy would have abandoned the whole ground to the enemy. Having concluded his speech, Mr. Bright left the Senate Chamber. The vote was then taken, when thirty-two members, exactly the requisite number of two-thirds, gave their voices for the expulsion. Fourteen voted in the negative. There were two democratic votes with the majority, and four republicans, beside the vote of the senators from Western Virginia, with the minority. The Vice President having announced the result, which was received with cheering from the galleries, the Senate adjourned.

A less successful effort was made in opposition to Benjamin Stark, the newly elected senator from Oregon, as the successor of Colonel Baker, taking his seat on the ground that he had "openly defended the course of the South in se

ceding, had given utterance to sentiments over a Southern State Rights conventotally at war with the institutions and tion, held at Henderson, Ky., when, preservation of our country," and other among other resolutions, it was declared charges, of a like character, brought for- "that the war being now waged by the ward by Mr. Fessenden, of Maine. The Federal administration against the Southcredentials and papers were, after an im- ern States is in violation of the Constituportant debate, referred to the Commit- tion and laws, and has already been attee on the Judiciary. The committee, tended with such stupendous usurpations, without "expressing any opinion as to as to amaze the world, and endanger the effect of the papers before them upon every safeguard of constitutional liberty, any subsequent proceedings in the case," and that "the recall of the invading arfinding the credentials of the election suf- mies, and the recognition of the separate ficient, reported that he was entitled to independence of the Confederate States, take the oath of office. Mr. Stark was is the true policy to restore peace, and thus enabled "without prejudice to any preserve the relations of fraternal love further proceedings" to take his seat, and and. amity between the States." For his the charges against him were left as a participation in this convention, held to fertile subject of discussion to the mem- be treasonable, Mr. Powell was called to bers. He took his seat on the 27th of account. The resolution was referred to February, and the next day, on his own the Committee on the Judiciary, who motion, the investigation of the charges reported on the 12th of March "that it was referred to a select committee ap- do not pass." An attempt was then pointed by the Vice President,-Messrs. made by Mr. Powell's colleague, Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, Howard, of Garrett Davis, to reverse the report. Michigan, Wright, of Indiana, Willey, of The consideration of the subject was Virginia, Sherman, of Ohio, who report-pressed with some eagerness--the Legised, on the 22d of April, that for many lature of Kentucky being in session, and months prior to the 21st November, 1861, it being considered important that should Mr. Stark was an ardent advocate of the cause of the rebellious States, and that after the formation of the Constitution of the Confederate States, he openly declared his admiration for it, and advocated the absorption of the loyal States of the Union into the Southern Confederacy under that Constitution, as the only means of peace, warmly avowing his sympathies with the South, and that, in fact, the Senator from Oregon was disloyal to the government of the Union. On this report a new resolution of expulsion was introduced, which was finally disposed of on the 26th of June, when it was rejected by a vote of 21 to 16.

Mr. Powell be removed the choice of his successor should not fall into the hands of "a disloyal and traitorous" governor, as Magoffin was characterized by Senator Davis. The latter urged the expulsion of his colleague, but-after a short debate the principles of the question having been now fully explained in other cases, the Senate, on the 14th of March, decided against the resolution by a vote of 28 to 11.

Another case is deserving of mention for the notoriety subsequently attained by its subject. Clement L. Vallandigham, a Democratic member from Ohio, of the old pro-slavery tendencies, was overhauled by Hickman (Rep.), of Penn

One of the members from Kentucky, Lazarus W. Powell, was sharply arraign-sylvania, in a sharp skirmish in the ed in a biting resolution-quite a bill of indictment-offered by Mr. Wilkinson, of Minnesota, on the 20th of February. He was charged with having presided

House of Representatives, on the 19th of February. The latter, thinking "the House should be purged of unworthy members," brought up a newspaper par

« PreviousContinue »