"The department is managed by Admiral Porter, I am only a figure-head."
In a few months he resigned. His a.s.sociates were much attached to him.
He was a benevolent, genial, well informed man. His successor, Mr.
Robeson, was a man of singular ability, lacking only the habit of careful, continuous industry. This failing contributed to his misfortunes in administration and consequently he was the subject of many attacks in the newspapers and in Congress. After his retirement he became a member of the House of Representatives, and it was a noticeable fact, that from that day the attacks in Congress ceased.
As a debater he was well equipped, and in reference to his administration of the Navy Department, he was always prepared with an answer or an explanation in every exigency.
The appointment of Governor Fish to the Department of State, gave rise to considerable adverse comment. The chief grounds of complaint were that he was no longer young and that recently he had not been active in political contests. He had been a Whig when there was a Whig Party, and he became a Republican when the Republican Party was formed. As a Whig he had been a member of the House of Representatives and of the Senate of the United States, but he had not held office as a Republican, nor was he known generally as a speaker or writer in support of the policies or principles of the party. His age, then about sixty, was urged as a reason against his appointment. His selection as Secretary was extremely fortunate for General Grant and his administration. Governor Fish was painstaking in his office, exacting in his demands upon subordinates, without being harsh or unjust, diligent in his duties, and fully informed as to the traditions and usages of his department. Beyond these administrative qualities he had the capacity to place every question of a diplomatic character upon a foundation at once reasonable and legal. If the failure of Mr.
Stewart led to the appointment of Governor Fish the change was fortunate for General Grant and the country. After the failure of Mr.
Stewart, Mr. Washburne spoke of his appointment to the State Department, as only temporary, but for a few days he acted as though he expected to remain permanently. If his transfer to France was an afterthought, he and the President very carefully concealed that fact.
It is not probable that the President at the outset designed to take the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury from New York City. Hence I infer that the failure of Mr. Stewart worked a change in the headship of the State Department, and hence I am of the opinion that the failure of Mr. Stewart was of great advantage to the administration and to the country, and that without considering whether there was a gain or loss in the Treasury Department. There can be no doubt that Governor Fish was a much wiser man than Mr. Washburne for the management of foreign affairs and there can be as little doubt that Mr. Washburne could not have been excelled as Minister to Paris in the troublous period of the years 1870 and 1871.
Mr. Fish had no ambitions beyond the proper and successful administration of his own department. He did not aspire to the Presidency, and he remained in the State Department during General Grant"s second term, at the special request of the President.
Mr. Sumner"s removal from the chairmanship of the Committee on Foreign Relations was due to the fact that a time came when he did not recognize the President, and when he declined to have any intercourse with the Secretary of State outside of official business. Such a condition of affairs is always a hindrance in the way of good government, and it may become an obstacle to success. Good government can be secured only through conferences with those who are responsible, by conciliation, and not infrequently by concessions to the holders of adverse opinions. The time came when such a condition was no longer possible between Mr. Sumner and the Secretary of State.
The President and his Cabinet were in accord in regard to the controversy with Great Britain as to the Alabama Claims. Mr. Sumner advocated a more exacting policy. Mr. Motley appeared to be following Mr. Sumner"s lead, and the opposition to Mr. Sumner extended to Mr.
Motley. It had happened that the President had taken on a prejudice to Mr. Motley at their first interview. This I learned when I said something to the President in the line of conciliation. The President said: "Such was my impression of Motley when I saw him that I should have withheld his appointment if I had not made a promise to Sumner."
My acquaintance with Mr. Motley began in the year 1849, when we were members of the Ma.s.sachusetts House of Representatives, and I had a high regard for him, although it had been charged that I had had some part in driving him from politics into literature.
When we consider the natures and the training of the two men, it is not easy to imagine agreeable co-operation in public affairs by Mr.
Sumner and General Grant. Mr. Sumner never believed in General Grant"s fitness for the office of President, and General Grant did not recognize in Mr. Sumner a wise and safe leader in the business of government. General Grant"s notion of Mr. Sumner, on one side of his character, may be inferred from his answer when, being asked if he had heard Mr. Sumner converse, he said: "No, but I have heard him lecture."
As I am to speak of Mr. Sumner in our personal relations, which for thirteen years before his death were intimate, I shall use some words of preface. Never on more than two occasions did we have differences that caused any feeling on either side. Mr. Sumner was chairman in the Senate of the Committee on the Freedmen"s Bureau, and Mr. Eliot was chairman of the Committee of the House. A report was made in each House, and each bill contained not less than twenty sections. Each House pa.s.sed its own bill. A committee of conference was appointed.
Its report was rejected. I was appointed a member of the second committee.
I examined the bills, and I marked out every section that was not essential to the working of the measure. Four sections remained.
I then added a section which provided for the lease and ultimate sale of the confiscated lands to the freedmen and refugees. President Johnson"s restoration of those lands made that section non-operative.
The committee, upon the motion of General Schenck, transferred the jurisdiction of the Bureau from the Treasury to the War Department.
The bill was accepted by the committee, and pa.s.sed by the two Houses.
When within a few days I was in the Senate Chamber, Mr. Sumner came to me, and said in substance: "The Freedmen"s Bureau Bill as it pa.s.sed is of no value. I have spent six months upon the bill, and my work has gone for nothing. You and General Schenck cannot pretend to know as much as I know about the measure."
With some feeling, which was not justifiable, I said: "I have not spent six hours upon the measure, but after what you have said I will say that the fifth section is of more value than all the sections which you have written." I did not wait for a reply. The subject was not again mentioned; our friendly relations were not disturbed, and it is to Mr. Sumner"s credit on the score of toleration that he pa.s.sed over my rough remarks, even though he had given some reason for a retort.
My next difference from Mr. Sumner was a more serious difference, but it pa.s.sed without any break in our relations. He had not acquired the church-going habit, or he had renounced it, and my church-going was spasmodic rather than systematic. Thus it became possible and agreeable for me to spend some small portion of each Sunday in his rooms. The controversy over Mr. Motley and his removal from the post of minister to Great Britain excited Mr. Sumner to a point far beyond any excitement to which he yielded, arising from his own troubles or from the misfortunes of the country. To him it was the topic of conversation at all times and in all places. That habit I accepted at his house with as much complacency as I could command. Indeed, I was not much disturbed by what he said to me in private, and certainly not by what he said in his own house, where I went from choice, and without any obligation to remain resting upon me. In all his conversation he made General Grant responsible for the removal of Motley, accompanied, usually, with language of censure and condemnation. On two occasions that were in a measure public, one of which was at a dinner given to me by Mr. Franklin Haven, a personal friend of twenty years" standing, when he insisted upon holding the Motley incident as the topic of conversation. On one of these occasions, and in excitement, he turned to me and said: "Boutwell, you ought to have resigned when Motley was removed."
I said only in reply: "I am the custodian of my own duty."
This was the only personal remark that I ever made to Mr. Sumner in connection with the removal of Motley. The removal was the only reasonable solution of the difficulty in which Motley was involved; but I sympathized with him in the disaster which had overtaken him, and I was not disposed to discuss the subject. The incident at the dinner led me to make a resolution. I called upon Mr. Sumner, and without accepting a seat, I said: "Senator, if you ever mention General Grant"s name in my presence, I will never again cross your threshold."
Without the delay of half a minute he said: "Agreed."
There the matter ended, and the promise was kept. In 1872, and not many days before he left for Europe, he said: "I want to ask you a question about General Grant."
I said: "You know that that is a forbidden topic."
"Yes, but I am not going to speak controversially."
I said: "Say on."
He said: "What do you think of Grant"s election?"
I said: "I think he will be elected."
He held up his hands, and in a tone of grief said: "You and Wilson are the only ones who tell me that he has any chance."
Upon his return from Europe it was apparent that his feelings in regard to the Republican Party, and especially in regard to General Grant, had undergone a great change. Our conversations concerning General Grant were resumed free from all restrictions, and without any disturbance of feeling on my part. Not many months before his death Mr. Sumner made a speech in executive session that was conciliatory and just in a marked degree. I urged him to repeat it in public session. He seemed to regard the suggestion with favor, but the speech was not made.
For many years Mr. Sumner had been borne down under the resolutions of censure pa.s.sed by the State of Ma.s.sachusetts in disapproval of his position in regard to the return of Confederate flags. That resolution was rescinded at the winter session of 1874. The act brought to Mr.
Sumner the highest degree of satisfaction that it was possible for him to realize. Above all things else of a public nature, he cherished the good name of the commonwealth, and for himself there was nothing more precious than her approval. The blow was unexpected, its weight was great, and its weight was never lessened until it was wholly removed. The rescinding resolutions came to me the Sat.u.r.day next preceding the Wednesday when Mr. Sumner died. I was then in ill health, so ill that my attendance at the Senate did not exceed one half of each day"s session through many weeks. Mr. Sumner called upon me to inquire, and anxious to know, whether I could attend the session of Monday and present the resolutions. I gave him the best a.s.surance that my condition permitted. When the resolutions had been presented, and when I was leaving the chamber, Mr. Sumner came to me, and, putting his arm over my shoulder, he walked with me into the lobby, where, after many thanks by him, and with good wishes for my health, we parted, without a thought by me that he had not before him many years of rugged life. For several years previous to 1874, Mr. Sumner had been accustomed to speak of himself as an old man, and on more than one occasion he spoke of life as a burden. To these utterances I gave but little heed.
The chief a.s.surance for any considerable well-doing in the world is to be found in good purposes and in fixedness of purpose when a purpose has been formed. These characteristics were Mr. Sumner"s possession, but in him they were subject to very important limitations as powers in practical affairs. He did not exhibit respect or deference for the opinions of others even when the parties were upon a plane of equality, as is the usual situation in legislative bodies. He could not concede small points for the sake of a great result. Hence it was that measures in which he had an interest took on a form at the end that was not agreeable to him. Hence it is that he has left only one piece of legislation that is distinctly the work of his hand. When the bill was under consideration which denied to colored persons the privilege of naturalization in the United States, he secured an amendment by which the exclusion was limited to the Mongolian race. His declaration as to the status of the States that had been in rebellion was not far away from the policy that was adopted finally, but he did not accept as wise and necessary measures the amendments to the Const.i.tution which were designed to make that policy permanent.
Indeed, it was his opinion, at one period of the controversy over the question of negro suffrage, that a legislative declaration would be sufficient. The field of his success is to be found in the argumentative power that he possessed and in its use for the overthrow of slavery. Of the anti-slavery advocates who entered the Senate previous to the opening of the war, he was the best equipped in learning, and his influence in the country was not surpa.s.sed by the influence of any one of his a.s.sociates. In his knowledge of diplomacy, he had the first rank in the Senate for the larger part of his career.
His influence in the Senate was measured, however, by his influence in the country. His speeches, especially in the period of national controversy, were addressed _to_ the country. He relied upon authorities and precedents. His powers as a debater were limited, and it followed inevitably that in purely parliamentary contests he was not a match for such masters as Fessenden and Conkling, who in learning were his inferiors.
My means for information are so limited that I do not express an opinion upon the question whether Mr. Sumner"s ambitions in public life were or were not gratified. On one or two occasions he let fall remarks which indicated a willingness to be transferred to the Department of State. Major Ben. Perley Poore had received the impression that there was a time when Mr. Sumner looked to the Presidency as a possibility. At an accidental meeting with Major Poore, he said to me: "I have dined with Sumner, and he gave me an account of the conversation he had with you this morning, in which you consoled him for not gaining the Presidency."
I recalled the conversation. It was a Sunday-morning talk, and there was no special purpose on my part, however my remarks may have been received by Mr. Sumner. He spoke of the opportunity furnished to Mr.
Jefferson for the exposition of his views in his first inaugural address. I then proceeded to say that, omitting the inc.u.mbent of the office, of whom nothing could then be said, not more than three or four men had gained in standing by their elevation to the Presidency, beyond the fact that their names were upon the roll. The exceptions were, first of all, Lincoln, who had gained most. Then Jackson, who had gained something--indeed, a good deal by his defence of the Union when compared with what he might have lost by neglect of duty in the days of nullification. Washington had gained much by demonstrating his capacity for civil affairs, by the legacy of his farewell address, and by the shaping of the new government under the Const.i.tution in a manner calculated to strengthen the quality of perpetuity. At the end, I claimed that the other occupants of the Presidential office had not gained appreciably by their promotion.
In two important particulars, Samuel Adams and Charles Sumner are parallel characters in American history. Mr. Adams was a leader in the contest that the colonies carried on against Great Britain. Our legal standing in the controversy with the mother country has never elsewhere been presented as forcibly and logically as it was stated by Mr. Adams in his letters to the royal governors in the name of the Ma.s.sachusetts House of Representatives, between the years 1764 and 1775. When the contest of words and of arms was over he was not only not an aid in the organization of the new Government, but he was an obstacle to its success. He accepted the Const.i.tution with hesitation and under constraint. After the overthrow of slavery and the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Const.i.tution, Mr.
Sumner gave no wise aid to the work of reconstructing the government upon the basis of the new conditions that had been created by the war and by the abolition of slavery. As every guarantee for freedom contains some element of enslavement over or against some who are not within the guarantee, men sometimes hesitate as to the wisdom of accepting guarantees of rights in one direction which work a limitation of rights or privileges in other directions. The Const.i.tution of the United States, while it gave power to the body of States and guaranteed security to each yet deprived the individual States of many of the privileges and powers that they had enjoyed as colonies. Every amendment to the Const.i.tution, from the first to the last, has limited the application of the doctrine of home rule in government.
Upon the election of Mr. Wilson to the office of Vice-President, I was chosen by the Legislature of Ma.s.sachusetts as his successor in the Senate. I left the Treasury and General Grant"s Cabinet with reluctance, but my experience in both branches of the government had led me to prefer the legislative branch, where there is at least more freedom of action than can be had in the executive department. This opinion is in no sense due to the nature of my relations with General Grant. His military habits led him to put responsibility upon subordinates and this habit he carried into civil affairs.
Moreover, in my own case, he recognized that fact that I had accepted the place upon his urgent request, command indeed, and not to gratify any ambition of my own. And further, I think I may a.s.sume, that his confidence was such that he was content to leave the department in my hands. During my time he put only one person--General Pleasanton-- into the department, and he never commanded or required the removal of any one. On a few occasions he named persons whom he said he would be glad to have employed if places could be found. They were always soldiers, or widows or children of soldiers, and he never forgot his suggestions, nor allowed the pa.s.sage of time to diminish his interest in such cases.
The important places in New York, Chicago, St. Louis, Cincinnati, New Orleans and Philadelphia were filled by him, usually upon consultation, but upon his judgment. He gave very little attention to others beyond signing the commissions. I often called his attention to the more important ones, but it was his practice to send applicants and their friends to me with the remark that the business was in my hands.
By this course the President avoided much labor, and escaped some responsibility. The disappointed ones charged their misfortunes to the Secretary, and the President was able to say that he knew nothing of the case, etc., etc.
I have reason to believe that the President did not exhibit equal confidence in my successors, especially in Mr. Bristow. The President received the impression very early, that Bristow was engaged in a scheme to secure the nomination by an alliance with the enemies of General Grant. In my time three Secretaries of the Treasury attempted in turn to secure a nomination for the Presidency through the influence and patronage of that department. All were failures, and failures well deserved.
Such a policy breeds corruption inevitably. Venal men aspiring to place, avow themselves the friends of the Secretary, and if through such avowals they secure appointments, the offices will be used for improper purposes.
My successor, Judge Richardson, had been a.s.sistant Secretary for three years and more, and no one could have surpa.s.sed him in industry, fidelity and knowledge of the business. I recommended his appointment.
The President hesitated, but he finally nominated him to the Senate, and the nomination was confirmed.
CORRESPONDENCE WITH GENERAL GRANT UPON MY RESIGNATION OF THE OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
WASHINGTON, _March_ 17, 1873.
SIR: Having been elected to the Senate of the United States by the Legislature of Ma.s.sachusetts, I tender my resignation of the office of Secretary of the Treasury.
In severing my official relations with you it is a great satisfaction to me that on all occasions you have given me full confidence and support in the discharge of my public duties.
In these four years my earlier acquaintance with you has ripened into earnest personal friendship, which, I am confident, will remain unbroken. I am Yours very truly, GEO. S. BOUTWELL.
TO THE PRESIDENT.