Our visit was during the Franco-Italian-Austrian War. I was anxious to reach the seat of war. On the way we made hurried visits to Geneva, and Lake Leman. After traversing this lake we took the coach over the Alps, on the road to Milan, stopping several times on the way. We pa.s.sed over the battle field at Magenta but a few days after the battle was fought. We saw there the signs of destructive war. The killed had been buried and the wounded were in hospitals, but the smell of dead horses poisoned the air, and the marks of the battle were on almost every house. We pushed on to Milan and were comfortably quartered. The city was full of soldiers on the way to the army to the eastward. It was then known that a battle was about to be fought at Solferino. I was very anxious to witness a battle. General Crittenden, of the United States army, was attached as an aid to the French army, and I sought the same facility, but the authorities would not permit it. I was a.s.sured that my horse would be taken from me, especially as I could not speak French, and that I would be treated as a spy unless I was formally attached to a particular command. I therefore gave up my contemplated trip and awaited the battle, which occurred in a day or two. I then returned to Switzerland by the Simplon Pa.s.s, and visited Berne, Luzerne, and Neuchatel. From thence I returned to London and soon after embarked on the "Vanderbilt" for home.
CHAPTER VIII.
EXCITING SCENES IN CONGRESS.
I am Elected for the Third Term--Invasion of Virginia by John Brown --His Trial and Execution--Spirited Contest for the Speakership-- Discussion over Helper"s "Impending Crisis"--Angry Controversies and Threats of Violence in the House--Within Three Votes of Election as Speaker--My Reply to Clark"s Attack--Withdrawal of my Name and Election of Mr. Pennington--Made Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means--President Buchanan Objects to Being "Investigated"-- Adoption of the Morrill Tariff Act--Views Upon the Tariff Question --My Colleagues.
On the 29th of July, 1858, I received the congressional nomination for my third term without opposition, and, in October following, was elected as a Member of the 36th Congress, by a majority of 2,331 over S. J. Patrick, Democrat.
The memorable campaign in Illinois in that year excited profound interest throughout the United States, the debate between Douglas and Lincoln attracting universal attention. The result was favorable to Douglas, and the legislature re-elected him Senator, but Mr.
Lincoln attained such distinction and prominence as to place him at once in the position of a formidable candidate for the presidency in 1860. This debate made it clear that the struggle between free and slave inst.i.tutions was to be continued and to become the controlling issue of the future.
The murder of Broderick by Terry, in California, on the 13th of September, 1859, under color of a duel, excited profound interest and made that state Republican. The election of a governor in Ohio, in the fall of that year, preceded by a debate of much interest between William Dennison, the Republican candidate, and Judge Ranney, the Democratic candidate, added greatly to the political excitement then existing, and ended in the election of Mr. Dennison.
A few days after this election--on the 17th of October--the invasion of the State of Virginia by John Brown startled the country, and, more than all other causes, aroused the southern people to a state of great excitement, amounting to frenzy. Brown, with a few followers of no distinction, captured the United States a.r.s.enal at Harper"s Ferry, took possession of the bridge which crosses the Potomac, fortifying it with cannon, stopped trains, cut telegraph wires, killed several men, and seized many prominent citizens, holding them as hostages. Wild reports were circulated of a rise of the negroes in the neighborhood, the uprising accompanied by all the horrors of a servile war, and a general alarm prevailed throughout the State of Virginia and the south. The insurrection was, however, speedily suppressed, mainly by the state militia, and the few insurgents not killed were captured by United States marines under Colonel Robert E. Lee, soon afterwards to be commander- in-chief of the rebel forces in the Civil War.
Brown was tried for murder and executed. This foolish and criminal invasion was the work of a fanatic who all his lifetime had been a violent opposer of slavery, and who while in Kansas had partic.i.p.ated more or less in the Osawatamie murders. His son was killed by the "border ruffians" near his home in Kansas, for which a fearful revenge was taken upon the murderers. Brown, having always been an Abolitionist, and being crazed by these events, believed it his duty to wage a relentless war against slavery, and, with the courage but shortsightedness of a fanatic, and with the hope of the resistance of the slaves of the south, undertook this wild scheme to secure their freedom.
Under such exciting conditions Congress convened on the 5th day of December, 1859, divided politically into 109 Republicans, 101 Democrats and 27 Americans. No party having a majority, it was feared by some that the scenes of 1855, when Banks was elected speaker only after a long struggle, would be repeated. That contest was ended by the adoption of the plurality rule, but in this case a majority could not agree upon such a rule, and the only possible way of electing a speaker was by a fusing of Members until a majority voted for one person.
It was well understood that the Republican vote would be divided between Galusha A. Grow and myself, and it was agreed between us that whichever received a majority of the Republican vote should be considered as the nominee of that party. On the first vote for speaker, Thomas S. Boc.o.c.k, of Virginia, the Democratic candidate, received 86 votes, I received 66, Galusha A. Grow 43, and 21 scattering. Mr. Grow then withdrew his name. On the same day John B. Clark, of Missouri, offered this resolution:
"Whereas certain Members of this House, now in nomination for speaker, did indorse and recommend the book hereinafter mentioned,
"_Resolved_, That the doctrine and sentiments of a certain book, called "The Impending Crisis of the South--How to meet it," purporting to have been written by one Hinton R. Helper, are insurrectionary and hostile to the domestic peace and tranquility of the country, and that no Member of this House who has indorsed and recommended it, or the compend from it, is fit to be speaker of this House."
In the absence of rules, Mr. Clark was allowed to speak without limit and he continued that day and the next, reading and speaking about the Helper book. John A. Gilmer, of North Carolina, offered as a subst.i.tute for the resolution of Mr. Clark a long preamble closing with this resolution:
"_Therefore resolved_, That, fully indorsing these national sentiments, it is the duty of every good citizen of this Union to resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the slavery agitation, under whatever shape and color the attempt may be made."
A motion was made to lay both resolutions on the table, and was lost by a tie vote of 116 yeas and 116 nays. In the absence of rules a general debate followed, in which southern Members threatened that their const.i.tuents would go out of the Union. The excitement over the proposition to compile a political pamphlet, by F. P.
Blair, an eminent Democrat and slaveholder, from a book called "The Impending Crisis" written and printed by a southern man, seemed so ludicrous that we regarded it as manufactured frenzy. After John S. Millson, of Virginia, a conservative Democrat, who was opposed to the introduction of the Clark resolution, had exhibited unusual feeling, I said:
"I have until this moment regarded this debate with indifference, because I presumed it was indulged in for the purpose of preventing an organization. But the manner of the gentleman from Virginia, my respect for his long experience in this House, my respect for his character, and the serious impression which this matter seems to have made upon his mind, induce me to say a few words. I ask that the letter which I send up may be read."
The following letter was thereupon read from the clerk"s desk:
"Washington City, December 6, 1859.
"Dear Sir:--I perceive that a debate has arisen in Congress in which Mr. Helper"s book, the "Impending Crisis," is brought up as an exponent of Republican principles. As the names of many leading Republicans are presented as recommending a compendium of the volume, it is proper that I should explain how those names were obtained in advance of the publication. Mr. Helper brought his book to me at Silver Spring to examine and recommend, if I thought well of it, as a work to be encouraged by Republicans. I had never seen it before. After its perusal, I either wrote to Mr. Helper, or told him that it was objectionable in many particulars, to which I adverted; and he promised me, in writing, that he would obviate the objections by omitting entirely or altering the matter objected to. I understand that it was in consequence of his a.s.surance to me that the obnoxious matter in the original publication would be expurgated, that Members of Congress and other influential men among the Republicans were induced to give their countenance to the circulation of the edition so to be expurgated.
"F. P. Blair, "Silver Spring.
"Hon. John Sherman."
I then continued:
"I do not recollect signing the paper referred to; but I presume, from my name appearing in the printed list, that I did sign it.
I therefore make no excuse of that kind. I never read Mr. Helper"s book, or the compendium founded upon it. I have never seen a copy of either. And here, Mr. Clerk, I might leave the matter; but as many harsh things have been said about me, I desire to say that since I have been a Member of this House, I have always endeavored to cultivate the courtesies and kind relations that are due from one gentleman to another. I never addressed to any Member such language as I have heard to-day. I never desire such language to be addressed to me, if I can avoid it. I appeal to my public record, during a period of four years, in this body; and I say not that there is not a single question agitating the public mind, not a single topic on which there can be sectional jealousy or sectional controversy, unless gentlemen on the other side of the House thrust such subjects upon us. I repeat, not a single question. We have pursued a course of studied silence. It is our intention to organize the House quietly, decently, in order, without vituperations; and we trust to show to Members on all sides of the House that the party with which I have the honor to act can administer this House and administer this government without trespa.s.sing upon the rights of any."
Soon after, in answer to an inquiry from Shelton F. Leake, of Virginia, I said:
"Allow me to say, once for all, and I have said it five times on this floor, that I am opposed to any interference whatever of the people of the free states, with the relation of master and slave in the slave states."
This was followed by a heated debate, the manifest purpose of which was to excite sectional animosity, and to compel southern Americans to co-operate with the Democratic Members in the election of a Democrat for speaker. The second ballot, taken on the close of the session of December 8, exhibited no material change except that the Republican vote concentrated on me. I received 107 votes, Mr.
Boc.o.c.k 88, Mr. Gilmer 22, and 14 scattering.
The debate continued and was partic.i.p.ated in by my colleague, S.
S. c.o.x, who asked me about the fugitive slave law. I declined, as I had before, to answer any interrogatories and said: "I will state to him, and to gentlemen on the other side of the House, that I stand upon my public record. I do not expect the support of gentlemen on that side of the House, who have, for the last four years, been engaged in a series of measures--none of which I approve.
I have no answers to give to them."
The third ballot produced no material change. I received 110, Boc.o.c.k 88, Gilmer 20, and 13 scattering.
In the meantime, the invasion of Harper"s Ferry was debated in the Senate at great length and with extreme violence, producing in both houses intense irritation and excitement. Keitt, of South Carolina, charged upon the Republicans the responsibility of Helper"s book and John Brown"s foray, exclaiming: "The south here asks nothing but its right. . . . I would have no more; but, as G.o.d is my judge, as one of its Representatives, I would shatter this republic from turret to foundation-stone before I would take one t.i.ttle less."
Lamar, of Mississippi, declared that the Republicans were not "guiltless of the blood of John Brown and his co-conspirators, and the innocent men, the victims of his ruthless vengeance." Pryor, of Virginia, said Helper"s book riots "in rebellion, treason, and insurrection, and is precisely in the spirit of the act which startled us a few weeks since at Harper"s ferry." Crawford, of Georgia, declared: "We will never submit to the inauguration of a black Republican President."
The Republicans generally remained silent and demanded a vote.
Mr. Corwin, then a Representative from Ohio, elected after a long absence from public life, endeavored to quiet the storm. Frequent threats of violence were uttered. Angry controversies sprang up between Members, and personal collisions were repeatedly threatened by Members, armed and ready for conflict. No such scenes had ever before occurred in the Congress of the United States. It appeared many times that the threatened war would commence on the floor of the House of Representatives. The House remained in session the week between Christmas and New Year"s Day. During this excitement my vote steadily increased until on the 4th day of January, 1860, on the 25th ballot, I came within three votes of election; the whole number of votes cast being 207; necessary to a choice 104, of which I received 101. John A. McClernand, of Illinois, received 33, Gilmer 14, Clement L. Vallandigham, of Ohio, 12, and the remainder were scattering.
At this time Henry Winter Davis, of Maryland, an American, said to me, and to others, that whenever his vote would elect me it should be cast for me. J. Morrison Harris, also an American from the same state, was understood to occupy the same position. Garnett B.
Adrain, of New Jersey, an anti-Lecompton Democrat, who had been elected by Republicans, it was hoped would do the same. Horace F.
Clark, of New York, also an anti-Lecompton Democrat who had been elected by Republicans, could at any moment have settled the controversy in my favor. It was well known that I stood ready to withdraw whenever the requisite number of votes could be concentrated upon any Republican Member. The deadlock continued.
On the 20th of January, 1860, Mr. Clark, who had introduced the Helper resolution, said:
"I wish to make a personal explanation with regard to my personal feelings in the matter of this resolution. I never read the letter of which the gentleman from Georgia speaks, and do not take to myself articles that appear in newspapers, unless they make imputations against my moral integrity. That resolution was introduced by me, as I have frequently remarked, with no personal ill-feeling towards Mr. Sherman, the Republican candidate for speaker, apart from what I considered to be an improper act of his --namely, the recommendation of that book. So far as that affects his political or social character, he must of course bear it."
I replied as follows:
"The gentleman from Missouri, for the first time, I believe, has announced that it was his purpose, in introducing this resolution, to give gentlemen an opportunity to explain their relations to the Helper book. I ask him now whether he is willing to withdraw the resolution for the purpose he has indicated, temporarily, or for any time?"
Mr. Clark said:
"I will endeavor to answer the gentleman. I avowed my purpose frankly at the time I introduced the resolution, in the remarks with which I accompanied its introduction. The gentleman from Ohio propounds the question more directly whether I am willing to withdraw the resolution for the purpose which I avow? Sir, at the very instant it was offered, I gave the gentleman that opportunity and I have given it to him since. I say to the gentleman that he has had two opportunities to make that explanation; but he has failed to relieve himself of the responsibility he took when he signed that book and recommended its circulation."
I replied:
"I will say that that opportunity has never been rendered to me.
When the gentleman introduced his resolution, offensive in its character, at an improper time, in an improper manner, he cut off --what he says now he desires to give--an opportunity for explanation.
It is true that three days afterward, when the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Millson) appealed to me, I stated to him frankly how may name became connected with that paper. I did not sign the paper; but it seems that the Hon. E. D. Morgan, a Member of the last Congress, and a friend of mine, came to me when I was in my place, and asked me to sign a recommendation for the circulation of a political pamphlet, to be compiled by a committee, of which Mr. Blair, a slaveholder of Missouri, was one, from a large book by Helper, a North Carolinian. I said to him that I had not time to examine the book; but if there was nothing offensive in it, he might use my name. Thereupon, this gentleman attached my name to that paper. This information I did not have at the time the gentleman from Virginia addressed me, but I said to him I had no recollection of having signed the paper, but presumed I had, from my name appearing in the printed list. I subsequently acquired it from Mr. Morgan, whose letter was published. That I believe was sufficient under the circ.u.mstances. I know there are Members on that side of the House who have considered it as satisfactory; and my friends so regard it. At the time I stated that I had not read the book, that I did not know what was in it.
"The gentleman alludes to another time. The other day, when this subject was again brought before the House by him, in language which, although he claims to be courteous, I could not regard as such, when I was, by implication, but with a disclaimer of personal offense, charged with disseminating treason, with lighting the torch in the dwelling of my southern brethren, and of crimes of which, if I was guilty, I should not be ent.i.tled to a seat upon this floor, I then rose in my place and told the gentleman from Missouri that if he would withdraw that resolution I would answer this book page by page, or those extracts one by one, and tell him whether I approved them or not. The gentleman refused to withdraw the resolution. Long ago he was notified by me, and my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Morris) announced on the floor, that this resolution was regarded by me as a menace, and, if withdrawn, would lead to a frank avowal, or disavowal.
"I say now that I do not believe it is the desire of the gentleman to give me that opportunity. If he does desire it, I am willing to do now what I said I would have done then. And I say, with equal emphasis, that never, so help me G.o.d, whether or not the speaker"s chair is to be occupied by me, will I do so while that resolution is before this body, undisposed of. I regard it as offensive in its tone, unprecedented, unparliamentary, and an invasion of the rights of representation. Under the menace clearly contained in it, I never will explain a single word contained in those extracts.
"If the gentleman will withdraw his resolution, even for a moment, to relieve me from the menace--he may reinstate it afterwards if he chooses--I will then say what I have to say in regard to those extracts. But while it stands before the House, intended as a stigma upon me, and sustained by an argument without precedent in parliamentary history, he cannot expect me to say more than I have done. I believe not only my friends, but the gentlemen on the other side of the House, who have a sense of honor, believe that my position is correct. I know that some of them regard my statement made on the third day of the session as full and satisfactory, and all that, under the circ.u.mstances, it was proper for me to indicate.
"For gentlemen now to press this matter; to agitate the country; to spread these extracts all over the south, and to charge the sentiments of this book upon me, and my a.s.sociates here; to proclaim, day after day, that the Republicans entertain these sentiments and indorse them, is not that ingenuous, candid and manly course which a great party like the Democratic party ought to pursue. While we may conduct our political quarrels with heat, and discuss matters with zeal and determination, it ought to be done with fairness and frankness. The mode in which this resolution has been pressed before the country, and I, with my hands tied and my lips sealed as a candidate, have been arraigned day by day, is without a precedent, not only in history but in party caucuses, in state legislatures, in state conventions or anywhere else.
"I said when I rose the other day that my public opinions were on record. I say so now. Gentlemen upon the other side have said that they have examined that record to ascertain what my political opinions were. They will look in vain for anything to excite insurrection, to disturb the peace, to invade the rights of states, to alienate the north and south from each other, or to loosen the ties of fraternal fellowship by which our people have been and should be bound together. I am for the Union and the const.i.tution, with all the compromises under which it was formed, and all the obligations which it imposes. This has always been my position; and these opinions have been avowed by me on this floor and stand now upon your records. Who has brought anything from that record against me that is worthy of answer? . . .
"I have never sought to invade the rights of the southern states.