If, however, there were to be terms of adjustment, then those terms must have a "continental basis founded upon the principles of mutual convenience and reciprocal advantage, and the recognition of the separate sovereignty of the States." He was ready for a conference or convention of all the States, but he did not admit the right of the successful party to dictate terms to the States that had been in rebellion. He expressed the personal, individual opinion, that tax laws pa.s.sed in the absence of representatives from the seceded States would be unconst.i.tutional. It was the opinion of Mr. Stephens that the people of Georgia by a large majority thought that the State was ent.i.tled to representation in the national Congress and without any conditions.
When he was invited to consider the alternative of universal suffrage or a loss of representation as a condition precedent to the restoration of the State, he said with confidence that neither branch of the alternative would be accepted. "If Georgia is a State in the Union her people feel that she is ent.i.tled to representation without conditions imposed by Congress; and if she is not a State in the Union then she could not be admitted as an equal with the others if her admission were trammeled with conditions that did not apply to all the rest alike."
It had been his expectation, and in his opinion such had been the expectation of the people generally that the State would a.s.sume its place in the Union whenever the cause of the Confederacy should be abandoned.
Such were the results of the State-Rights doctrines as announced by the most intellectual of the Southern leaders in the war of the Rebellion. In the opinion of Mr. Stephens a State could retire from the Union either for purposes of peace or of war and return at will, and all without loss of place or power.
At the close of his examination he made this declaration: "My convictions on the original abstract question have undergone no change."
As a sequel to the doctrines of Mr. Stephens, I mention the history of Andrew J. Lewis. When the Legislature of Ma.s.sachusetts a.s.sembled in January, 1851, Lewis took a seat in the House as the Democratic member from the town of Sandisfield. He acted with the Coalitionists, and he voted for Mr. Sumner as United States Senator. Lewis was returned for the year 1852, and in General Pierce"s administration he held an office in the Boston Customs House.
Upon the fall of Port Hudson I received a letter from General Banks.
In that letter he mentioned the fact that Lewis was among the prisoners, holding the office of captain in a South Carolina regiment.
His account of himself was this: "I was born in South Carolina. When my State seceded I thought I must go too, and so I left Ma.s.sachusetts and returned to South Carolina."
GENERAL ULYSSES S. GRANT
General Grant"s examination during the investigation embraced a variety of topics and the report is a volume of not less than twenty thousand words. His testimony is marked by the qualities for which he was known both on the civil and military side of his career. These qualities were clearness of thought, accuracy and readiness of memory, directness of expression and the absence of remarks in the nature of exaggeration or embellishment. The character of the man and the history of events may gain something from an examination of his testimony upon three important points to which it related: the opinion of President Lincoln in regard to the reconstruction of the government; the opinion of President Johnson upon the same subject, and his own view of the rights of General Lee and of the army under his command that had surrendered at Appomattox.
When President Johnson entered upon the work of reconstructing the government of North Carolina it was claimed that he was giving form and effect to the plan which President Lincoln had accepted as a wise policy.
There was some foundation for the claim as appears from the testimony of General Grant, Mr. Seward, Mr. Stanton, and others, but there is no ground for the claim that Mr. Lincoln had matured a plan or had accepted any scheme of reconstruction at the hands of any one. In an exigency, as in the case of the resignation of General Hooker, he could act immediately, but time and thought, and discussion with others were accepted as valuable aids, whenever there was not a pressure for instant action.
General Grant was examined in July, 1867, and the opening was conducted by Mr. Eldridge of Wisconsin. It related to the parole granted to General Lee and his army. The nature of the questions led General Grant to make this remark: "I will state here, that I am not quite certain whether I am being tried, or who is being tried, by the questions asked."
General Grant may have thought that Mr. Eldridge was endeavoring to secure from him an admission that he had exceeded his authority in the terms of the parole granted to General Lee. General Grant was able to state the terms with exactness and within his powers as commander of the conquering army. He claimed that General Lee surrendered his army "in consideration of the fact that they were to be exempt from trial so long as they conformed to the obligations which they had taken." President Johnson claimed that the leaders should be tried.
This position he abandoned previous to July, 1867. Of an interview with President Johnson, General Grant made this statement:
"He insisted on it that the leaders must be punished, and wanted to know, when the time would come when those persons could be tried. I told him when they violated their parole." In the opinion of General Grant the terms of the parole did not include Jefferson Davis, as he had been captured.
In the early part of the controversy President Johnson insisted that General Lee should be tried for treason. That purpose on the part of the President was resisted by General Grant. His position, in his own language, was this:
"I insisted on it that General Lee would not have surrendered his army and given up all their arms if he had supposed that after surrender, he was going to be tried for treason and hanged. I thought we got a very good equivalent for the lives of a few leaders in getting all those arms and getting themselves under control bound by the oaths to obey the laws. That was the consideration, which I insisted upon, we had received."
General Grant added:
"Afterwards he got to agreeing with me on that subject."
On the question of political rights as involved in the surrender and in the parole, General Grant said:
"I never claimed that the parole gave those prisoners any political right whatever. I thought that that was a matter entirely with Congress, over which I had no control, that simply as general-in-chief commanding the army, I had a right to stipulate for the surrender on terms which protected their lives. The parole gave them protection and exemption from punishment for all offences not in violation of the rules of civilized warfare."
The point of difference between General Grant and President Johnson in regard to the parole is very clear from General Grant"s answers to questions by Mr. Thomas and Mr. Eldridge.
"You have stated your opinion as to the rights and privileges of General Lee and his soldiers; do you mean that to include any political rights?"
"I have explained that I did not."
"Was there any difference of opinion on that point between yourself and President Johnson at any time?"
"On that point there was no difference of opinion; but there was as to whether the parole gave them any privileges or rights . . . He claiming that the time must come when they would be tried and punished, and I claiming that that time could not come except by a violation of their parole."
Grant claimed also that the army that had surrendered to Sherman came under the same rules.
These quotations give General Grant"s standing as an interpreter of public law and as a leader capable of applying the rules and principles of public law to practical affairs. His training at West Point may have given him a knowledge of principles and his good sense enabled him to apply the principles in the terms that he dictated at Appomattox.
General Grant"s natural qualities were such that with training he might have succeeded in great causes involving principles, but he was not adapted to the ordinary business of a county-court lawyer.
It is quite certain from the testimony of General Grant that Mr.
Lincoln had had in mind a scheme for the organization of the States that had been in rebellion and that Mr. Johnson"s proclamation for the government of North Carolina was not a wide departure from that scheme.
General Grant was present at two meetings of the Cabinet in Mr.
Lincoln"s time, when a proclamation was read and considered. In the language of General Grant, "after the a.s.sa.s.sination it continued right along and I was there with Mr. Johnson." General Grant"s interest was directed to two points: First, that civil government should be set up but subject to the final action of Congress, and second, that the parole should not be infringed. He states his position thus:
"I was always ready to originate matters pertaining to the army, but I was never willing to originate matters pertaining to the civil government of the United States. When I was asked my opinion about what had been done I was willing to give it. I originated no plans and suggested no plans for civil government."
The examination by Mr. Eldridge was in the nature of cross-examination and for the purpose of gaining an admission from General Grant that he had advised or sanctioned President Johnson"s plan of reconstruction.
Hence General Grant"s declarations that his part was limited to the military side of the measure and that in his view the entire plan was subject to Congressional action.
General Grant"s testimony is explicit upon these points: He advised President Johnson to grant a pardon to General Lee and a pardon to General Johnston. He was especially urgent in favor of a pardon to General Johnston in consideration of his speech to his army at the time of the surrender. He advised against the proclamation of amnesty upon the ground that the act was then premature.
General Grant"s testimony adds strength to the statement that President Johnson contemplated the recognition of a Congress composed of Democratic members from the North and of the representatives from the States that had been organized under the President"s proclamation.
"I have heard him say--and I think I have heard him say it twice in his speeches--that if the North carried the election by members enough to give them, with the Southern members, a majority why would they not be the Congress of the United States?"
In answer to this question: "Have you heard him make a remark kindred to that elsewhere?" General Grant said:
"Yes, I have heard him say that aside from his speeches, in conversation. I cannot say just when."
The North Carolina proclamation was read at an informal meeting at which only Grant and Stanton were with the President. General Grant did not criticise the paper. He said of it: "It was a civil matter and although I was anxious to have something done I did not intend to dictate any plan. I looked upon it simply as a temporary measure to establish a sort of government until Congress should meet and settle the whole question and that it did not make much difference how it was done so there was a form of government there. . . . I don"t suppose that there were any persons engaged in that consultation who thought of what was being done at that time as being lasting--any longer than Congress would meet and either ratify that or establish some other form of government."
General Grant understood that the North Carolina proclamation was in substance the paper which had been considered by Mr. Lincoln, but General Grant said also, that Mr. Lincoln"s plan was "temporary, to be either confirmed, or a new government set up by Congress."
General Grant"s testimony upon one point is supported by the testimony of Mr. Seward and the testimony of Mr. Stanton. They agree that Mr.
Johnson"s plan of reconstruction was in substance the plan that Mr.
Lincoln had had under consideration. Mr. Stanton regarded the plan as temporary.
If President Johnson intended to enforce the plan upon the country he concealed his purpose when the North Carolina proclamation was under consideration.
In the month of October, 1866, the police commissioners of the city of Baltimore were engaged in the work of registering voters for the November elections, and the authorities were engaged in the work of registering the voters in all parts of the State of Maryland. It was claimed that many thousands who had been engaged in the rebellion and who were excluded under a provision of the Const.i.tution had been registered by the connivance of the authorities and especially by the police commissioners of Baltimore. There were rumors of secret, hostile organizations, there were threats of disturbance, and Governor Swann became alarmed.
President Johnson became alarmed also and under date of October 25 he wrote a letter to General Grant in which these paragraphs may be found:
"From recent development serious troubles are apprehended from a conflict of authority between the executive of the State of Maryland and the police commissioners of the city of Baltimore." . . . "I therefore request that you inform me of the number of Federal troops at present stationed in the city of Baltimore and vicinity."
General Grant informed the President on the 27th, that the number of available and efficient troops was 1,550. Thereupon, on the first day of November the President issued the following instruction to Secretary Stanton:
"In view of the prevalence in various portions of the country of a revolutionary and turbulent disposition which might at any moment a.s.sume insurrectionary proportions and lead to serious disorders, and of the duty of the government to be at all times prepared to act with decision and effect this force is not deemed adequate for the protection and security of the seat of government."