Part 16

The Report adduces the authority of John Locke, the eminent philosopher, as declaring “the employment of ‘the force, treasure, and _offices of the society to corrupt the representatives, or openly to preëngage the electors, and prescribe what manner of persons shall be chosen_,’ as among those breaches of trust in the executive magistrate which amounts to a dissolution of the Government; for ‘what is it,’ he says, ‘but to cut up the Government by the roots, and poison the very fountains of public security?’”[194] But all this we witness here. The offices are employed to preëngage the electors, and prescribe the persons to be chosen. Nor do I see any corrective of this undoubted abuse, especially after the example now set in high quarters, so long as the President is a candidate for reëlection.

Therefore, to arrest a flagrant tyranny, and to secure purity in the Government, also to save the President from himself, should this Amendment be adopted; and since Horace Greeley is known to be its strenuous supporter, we have an unanswerable reason in his behalf.

RECONCILIATION.

From the practical question of Civil Service Reform I pass to Reconciliation, being the most important issue ever presented to the American people,--reconciliation not only between the two once warring sections, but also between the two races. This issue, so grand and beautiful, was distinctly presented, when Horace Greeley, in accepting the Republican nomination at Cincinnati, wrote these memorable words:--

“In this faith, and with the distinct understanding, that, if elected, I shall be the President, not of a party, but of the whole people, I accept your nomination,--in the confident trust that the masses of our countrymen, North and South, are eager to clasp hands across the bloody chasm which has too long divided them, forgetting that they have been enemies, in the joyful consciousness that they are, and must henceforth remain, brethren.”[195]

The issue was again presented, when thereafter the Democratic Party in National Convention, acting under an irresistible movement of the people, nominated the author of these words.

It is difficult to see how this noble aspiration can find other than a generous response. Nothing but a party spirit which forgets the obligations of Christian duty could treat it with indifference, much less make it the occasion of misrepresentation. By no effort of ingenuity or malignity can it be tortured into anything but an offer of reconciliation, while the very letter of acceptance, where it appears, declares the established supremacy of Equal Rights. Observe also that it is made only when the work of Reconstruction is ended. Here is the testimony of a Senator of South Carolina, in a speech in the Senate, January 22, 1872:--

“The last of the Southern States is admitted to its full privileges as a member of the brotherhood of States; the Constitutional Amendments intended to secure the principles established by the war and subsequent events have been accepted as valid. There can be no fear or danger of their being disturbed.”[196]

But these things are forgotten; the Sermon on the Mount is forgotten also; the Beatitudes are put aside. A great writer of the Middle Ages, after dwelling on what is best for us, says:--

“Hence it is that not riches, not pleasures, not honors, not length of life, not health, not strength, not comeliness, was sung to the shepherds from on high, but peace.”[197]

The supporters of reëlection will not hearken to this song, and the proffered hand is rejected. If not war, they would preserve at least the passions of war, and instead of peace would scatter distrust and defiance. The old fable is renewed:--

“Emboldened now on fresh attempt he goes, With serpent’s teeth the fertile furrows sows; The glebe fermenting with enchanted juice Makes the snake’s teeth a human crop produce.”[198]

For me there can be but one course on this issue, and the moment it was presented I seemed to behold, for the first time, the dawn of that better era in our country when the Equal Rights of All should be placed under the safeguard of assured Peace and Reconciliation. Had I failed to sympathize with this endeavor, I should have been false to the record of my life. My first public utterance, as far back as July 4, 1845, was to commend the cause of Peace, which from that early day, amidst the contentions of public duty and the terrible responsibilities of war, has never been absent from my mind. While insisting on the Abolition of Slavery, while urging Enfranchisement, while vindicating the Equal Rights of All, and while pressing Reconstruction, I have constantly declared that all these were for no purpose of vengeance or punishment, but only for the security of the citizen and the establishment of government on just foundations, and that when this was done nobody should outdo me in those generosities that become the conqueror more than his conquest.

PERSONAL RECORD.

Here the testimony is complete. If I open it now, it is less to show the obligations which constrain me personally than to make these witnesses plead again the cause which from the beginning I have had at heart. I follow the order of time, letting each speak in a few words.

There are some among us who may remember that early speech before the Republican State Convention at Worcester, October 1, 1861, which excited at the time so much discussion, when, after calling for Emancipation, I united this cause with Peace:--

“Two objects are before us, _Union and Peace_, each for the sake of the other, and both for the sake of the country; but without Emancipation how can we expect either?”[199]

Thus at the beginning was I mindful of Peace.

Then again, in the same strain, at the Cooper Institute, New York, November 27, 1861, after showing Slavery to be the origin and main-spring of the Rebellion, I pleaded for Emancipation, and at the same time first sounded the key-note of Reconciliation:--

“Perversely and pitifully do you postpone that sure period of _reconciliation, not only between the two sections, not only between the men of the North and the men of the South, but, more necessary still, between slave and master_, without which the true tranquillity we all seek cannot be permanently assured. Believe it, _only through such reconciliation_, under sanction of freedom, can you remove all occasions of conflict hereafter.”[200]

Thus early was reconciliation associated with my most earnest efforts; nor did I at any moment hesitate in this work.

The same spirit was manifest in opposition to perpetuating the memory of victories over fellow-citizens. The question arose on a dispatch of General McClellan, where, after announcing the capture of Williamsburg, he inquired whether he was “authorized to follow the example of other generals, and direct the names of battles to be placed on the colors of regiments.”[201] This being communicated to the Senate, I felt it my duty to move, May 8, 1862, the following resolution:--

“_Resolved_, That in the efforts now making for _the restoration of the Union and the establishment of peace throughout the country_, it is inexpedient that the names of victories obtained over our fellow-citizens should be placed on the regimental colors of the United States.”[202]

Here again was anxiety for peace. Mr. Wilson, my colleague, did not agree with me, and he made haste to introduce a counter-resolution;[203] but no further action was had upon it. The usage of civilized nations is against placing on regimental colors the names of victories gained over fellow-countrymen. In France, the most military country of the world, the principle was carefully discarded by King Louis Philippe, when, in preparing the Museum at Versailles, he excluded every picture or image of civil war. Everything to arouse and gratify the patriotic pride of Frenchmen, of all Frenchmen, is there, but nothing to exhibit Frenchmen warring with each other.

Then came the bills for Confiscation, which I supported chiefly with a view to Emancipation. While enforcing this object, May 19, 1862, I said:--

“People talk flippantly of the gallows as the certain doom of the Rebels. This is a mistake. For weal or woe, the gallows is out of the question. It is not possible as a punishment for this rebellion.”

Then declaring our supreme object to be Peace, I said:

“In this work it is needless to say _there is no place for any sentiment of hate or any suggestion of vengeance_. There can be no exaction and no punishment beyond the necessity of the case,--nothing harsh, nothing excessive. Lenity and pardon become the conqueror more even than victory. ‘Do in time of peace the most good, and in time of war the least evil possible: such is the Law of Nations.’ These are the admirable words of an eminent French magistrate and statesman. In this spirit it is our duty to assuage the calamities of war, and especially to spare an inoffensive population.”[204]

Shortly afterwards, June 27th, while the same subject was under consideration, I returned to it again:--

“But I confess frankly that I look with more hope and confidence to Liberation than to Confiscation. To give freedom is nobler than to take property, and on this occasion it cannot fail to be more efficacious, for in this way the rear-guard of the Rebellion will be changed into the advance-guard of the Union. There is in Confiscation, unless when directed against the criminal authors of the Rebellion, a harshness inconsistent with that mercy which it is always a sacred duty to cultivate, and which should be manifest in proportion to our triumphs, ‘mightiest in the mightiest.’ _But Liberation is not harsh; and it is certain, if properly conducted, to carry with it the smiles of a benignant Providence._”[205]

At last the country was gladdened by the Proclamation of Emancipation, which here in Faneuil Hall, October 6, 1862, I vindicated as a measure of peace; and then I said:--

“In the old war between King and Parliament, which rent England, the generous Falkland cried from his soul, _Peace! Peace!_--and History gratefully records his words. Never did he utter this cry with more earnestness than I do now. But how shall the blessing be secured?”[206]

_By Emancipation_, was my answer.

Then came the bill creating the Freedmen’s Bureau. In opening the debate on this interesting subject, June 8, 1864, I said:--

“It is for the Senate to determine, under the circumstances, what it will do. My earnest hope is that it will do something. The opportunity must not be lost of helping so many persons now helpless, and _of aiding the cause of Reconciliation, without which peace cannot be assured_.”[207]

Here again Reconciliation is announced as an ever-present object.

In the same spirit, I deemed it my duty to oppose the efforts made in the winter of 1865 to authorize Retaliation, differing from valued friends. The proposition for Retaliation was met by the following declaration, moved by me, January 24th:--

“The United States … call upon all to bear witness that in this necessary warfare with Barbarism they renounce all vengeance and every evil example, and plant themselves firmly on the sacred landmarks of Christian civilization, under the protection of that God who is present with every prisoner, and enables heroic souls to suffer for their country.”[208]

Then came the effort, favored by President Lincoln, to receive Louisiana with a Constitution which failed to recognize the equal rights of colored fellow-citizens. Here again, February 25th, I encountered the proposition by a resolution, where it is declared:--

“That such an oligarchical government is not competent at this moment to discharge the duties and execute the powers of a State; and that its recognition as a legitimate government will tend to enfeeble the Union, _to postpone the day of Reconciliation_, and to endanger the national tranquillity.”[209]

Mark, if you please, “_the day of Reconciliation_.”

Then came the question of perpetuating the memory of our victories. February 27th, the Senate having under consideration an appropriation for a picture in the National Capitol, I moved as an amendment,--

“That in the National Capitol, dedicated to the National Union, there shall be no picture of a victory in battle with our own fellow-citizens.”[210]

Mr. Wilson again made haste to announce that he “disagreed with his colleague altogether,”--saying, according to the “Congressional Globe,”[211] “I do not believe in that doctrine.”

In the eulogy on President Lincoln, pronounced before the municipal authorities of Boston, June 1, 1865, the great object of Reconciliation was presented as dependent on the establishment of our ideas. After insisting upon Emancipation and the Equal Suffrage, these words occur:--

“Such a vengeance will be a kiss of reconciliation, for it will remove every obstacle to peace and harmony. The people where Slavery once ruled will bless the blow that destroyed it. The people where the kindred tyranny of Caste once prevailed will rejoice that this fell under the same blow. They will yet confess that it was dealt in no harshness, in no unkindness, in no desire to humiliate, but simply and solemnly, in the name of the Republic and of Human Nature, for their good as well as ours,--ay, for their good more than ours.

“By ideas, more than by armies, we have conquered. The sword of the Archangel was less mighty than the mission he bore from the Lord. But if the ideas giving us the victory are now neglected, if the pledges of the Declaration, which the Rebellion openly assailed, are left unredeemed, then have blood and treasure been lavished for nought.”

Then I proceeded to ask:--

“How shall these ideas be saved? How shall the war waged by Abraham Lincoln be brought to an end, _so as to assure peace, tranquillity, and reconciliation_?”[212]

In the speech at Worcester, before the Republican State Convention, September 14, 1865, I insisted upon guaranties for the national freedman and the national creditor; and until these were accomplished, proposed to exclude the Rebel from political power:--

“I ask not his punishment. I would not be harsh. There is nothing humane that I would reject. Nothing in hate. Nothing in vengeance. Nothing in passion. I am for gentleness. I am for a velvet glove; but for a while I wish the hand of iron. I confess that I have little sympathy with those hypocrites of magnanimity whose appeal for the Rebel master is only a barbarous indifference towards the slave; _and yet they cannot more than I desire the day of Reconciliation_.”[213]

Thus constantly did this idea return.

And yet again, in a letter to the “Evening Post” of New York, dated September 28, 1865, after insisting upon “supplementary safeguards” for the protection of the freedman, I used these words:--

“Without this additional provision, I see small prospect of _that peace and reconciliation which are the objects so near our hearts_.”[214]

Again it appeared in a telegraphic dispatch to President Johnson, dated November 12, 1865, and afterwards published. Asking the President to suspend his “policy towards the Rebel States,” I said:--

“I should not present this prayer, if I were not painfully convinced that thus far it has failed to obtain any _reasonable guaranties for that security in the future which is essential to peace and reconciliation_.… The Declaration of Independence asserts the equality of all men, and that rightful government can be founded only on the consent of the governed. I see small chance of peace, unless these great principles are practically established. Without this, the house will continue divided against itself.”[215]

Here Reconciliation is associated with Reconstruction on the basis of the Equality of All Men.

Shortly afterwards, in the “Atlantic Monthly” for December, 1865, p. 758, I pleaded again:--

“The lesson of Clemency is of perpetual obligation.… Harshness is bad. Cruelty is detestable. Even Justice may relent at the prompting of Mercy. Fail not, then, to cultivate the grace of Clemency.…

“There must be no vengeance upon enemies; but there must be no sacrifice of friends. And here is the distinction never to be forgotten: _Nothing for vengeance; everything for justice_. Follow this rule, and the Republic will be safe and glorious.”[216]

Then again in the Senate speech, February 5 and 6, 1866, while dwelling at length upon Equal Suffrage without distinction of color, I thus spoke for the Southern people:--

“The people there are my fellow-citizens, and gladly would I hail them, if they would permit, as no longer _a section_, no longer _the South_, but an integral part of the Republic, under a Constitution which, knowing no North and no South, cannot tolerate _sectional_ pretension. Gladly, in all sincerity, do I offer my best effort for their welfare. But I see clearly that there is nothing in the compass of mortal power so important to them in every respect, morally, politically, and economically--that there is nothing with such certain promise to them of beneficent result--that there is nothing so sure to make their land smile with industry and fertility,--as the decree of Equal Rights I now invoke.… This is our retaliation. This is our only revenge.”[217]

In an address at the Music Hall, in Boston, October 2, 1866, entitled “The One-Man Power _vs._ Congress,” I declared that the Reconstruction I sought was one where “the Rebel region, no longer harassed by controversy and degraded by injustice, _will enjoy the richest fruits of security and reconciliation_,”--and then added, “_To labor for this cause may well tempt the young and rejoice the old_.”[218]

Then, in the same address, I said:--

“Our first duty is to provide safeguards for the future. This can be only by provisions, sure, fundamental, and irrepealable, fixing forever the results of the war, the obligations of the Government, and the equal rights of all. Such is the suggestion of common prudence and of self-defence, as well as of common honesty. To this end we must make haste slowly. States which precipitated themselves out of Congress must not be permitted to precipitate themselves back. They must not enter the Halls they treasonably deserted, until we have every reasonable assurance of future good conduct. We must not admit them, and then repent our folly.…

“But, while holding this ground of prudence, I desire to disclaim every sentiment of vengeance or punishment, and also every thought of delay or procrastination. Here I do not yield to the President, or to any other person. Nobody more anxious than I to see this chasm closed forever.

“_There is a long way and a short way. There is a long time and a short time._ If there be any whose policy is for the longest way or for the longest time, I am not of the number. _I am for the shortest way, and also for the shortest time._”[219]

Then in considering Reconstruction in the Senate, March 16, 1867, I said:--

“But I ask nothing in vengeance or unkindness. All that I propose is for their good, with which is intertwined the good of all. I would not impose any new penalty or bear hard upon an erring people. Oh, no! I simply ask a new safeguard for the future, that these States, through which so much trouble has come, may be a strength and a blessing to our common country, with prosperity and happiness everywhere within their borders. I would not impose any new burden; but I seek a new triumph for civilization. _For a military occupation bristling with bayonets I would substitute the smile of Peace._”

I then said:--

“But this cannot be without Education. As the soldier disappears, his place must be supplied by the schoolmaster. The muster-roll will be exchanged for the school-register, and our head-quarters will be in a school-house.”

And I accompanied this with a proposition to require in the reconstructed States “a system of public schools open to all, without distinction of race or color,” which was lost by a tie vote, being 20 to 20.[220]

The subject recurred again in the Senate July 13, 1867, when, after declaring regret at the inadequacy of the pending measure, especially in not securing a system of Public Education, and not excluding Rebel influence, I remarked:--

“In saying this, I desire to add, that, in my judgment, all exclusions belong to what I call _the transition period_. When Reconstruction is accomplished, the time will come for us to open the gates.”[221]

In these few words will be found the ruling principle which I have recognized in Reconstruction.

The address, “Are We a Nation?” made at the Cooper Institute, November 19, 1867, testifies again to Reconciliation. After showing how the national supremacy in the guardianship of equal rights is consistent with local self-government, and vindicating the two in their respective spheres, it says:--

“There will be a sphere alike for the States and Nation. Local self-government, which is the pride of our institutions, will be reconciled with the national supremacy in maintenance of human rights, and the two together will constitute the elemental principles of the Republic. The States will exercise a minute jurisdiction required for the convenience of all; the Nation will exercise that other paramount jurisdiction required for the protection of all. _The reconciliation--God bless the word!_--thus begun will embrace the people, who, forgetting past differences, will feel more than ever that they are one.”[222]

Then again, in addressing the Republican State Convention at Worcester, September 22, 1869, I said:--

“Do not think me harsh; do not think me austere. I am not. I will not be outdone by anybody in clemency; nor at the proper time will I be behind any one in opening all doors of office and trust.… Who can object, if men recently arrayed against their country are told to stand aside yet a little longer, until all are secure in their rights? Here is no fixed exclusion,--nothing of which there can be any just complaint,--nothing which is not practical, wise, humane,--nothing which is not born of justice rather than victory. In the establishment of Equal Rights conquest loses its character, and is no longer conquest,--

‘For then both parties nobly are subdued, And neither party loser.’”[223]

PERSONAL DUTY.

Here I suspend this testimony. Such is the simple and harmonious record, showing how from the beginning I was devoted to peace,--how constantly I longed for reconciliation,--how with every measure of Equal Rights this longing found utterance,--how it became an essential part of my life,--how I discarded all idea of vengeance or punishment,--how Reconstruction was to my mind a transition period,--and how earnestly I looked forward to the day, when, after the recognition of Equal Rights, the Republic should again be one in reality as in name. If there are any who ever maintained a policy of hate, I was never so minded; and now in protesting against any such policy, I only act in obedience to the irresistible promptings of my soul.