The "influence almost if not quite controlling" meant Seward. Secretary Cameron went to St. Louis to investigate Fremont and found him guilty.
Two months later he followed Fremont"s example.[54] In his report as Secretary of War he inserted an argument in favor of the emanc.i.p.ation and arming of slaves. This he sent to the newspapers in advance of its delivery to the President and without his knowledge. The latter discovered it in time to expunge the objectionable part and to prevent its delivery to Congress, but not soon enough to recall it from the press. The expunged part was published by some of the newspapers that had received it and was reproduced in the _Congressional Globe_ (December 12), by Representative Eliot, of Ma.s.sachusetts.
The next man to take upon himself the responsibility of declaring the nation"s policy on this momentous question was General David Hunter, who then held sway over a small strip of ground on the coast of South Carolina. In the month of May, 1862, he issued an order granting freedom to all slaves in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Hunter"s order was promptly revoked by the President.
Trumbull had been the pioneer, at the July session, in the way of legislation for freeing the slaves. On the first day of the regular session he took another step forward, by introducing a bill for the confiscation of the property of the rebels and for giving freedom to persons held as slaves by them. This came to be known as the Confiscation Act.
On the 5th of December, 1861, he reported the bill from the Committee on the Judiciary and made a brief speech on it. It provided that all the property, real and personal, situated within the limits of the United States, belonging to persons who should bear arms against the Government, or give aid and comfort to those in rebellion, which persons should not be reachable by the ordinary process of law, should be forfeited and confiscated to the United States and that the forfeiture should take immediate effect; and that the slaves of all such persons should be free. Also that no slaves escaping from servitude should be delivered up unless the person claiming them should prove that he had been at all times loyal to the Government. Also that no officer in the military or naval service should a.s.sume to decide whether a claim made by a master to an escaping slave was valid or not.
This bill was the _piece de resistance_ of senatorial debate for the whole session. Its confiscatory features were attacked on the 4th of March by Senator Cowan, in a speech of great force. Cowan was a new Senator from Pennsylvania, a Republican of conservative leanings, and a great debater. He opposed the bill on grounds of both const.i.tutionality and expediency. On the 24th of April, Collamer, of Vermont, expressed the sound opinions that private property could not be confiscated except by judicial process, and that even if it could be done it would be bad policy, since it would tend to prolong the war and would const.i.tute a barrier against future peace.
The Confederate Government had led the way by pa.s.sing a law (May 21, 1861) sequestrating all debts due to Northern individuals or corporations and authorizing the payment of the same to the Confederate Treasury. The whole subject was extremely complex. "There was commonly,"
says a recent writer in the _American Historical Review_, "a failure in the debates to discriminate between a general confiscation of property within the jurisdiction of the confiscating government and the treatment accorded by victorious armies to private property found within the limits of military occupation. Thus the general rule exempting private property on land from the sort of capture property must suffer at sea, was erroneously appealed to as an inhibition upon the right of judicial confiscation. That a military capture on land a.n.a.logous to prize at sea was not regarded as a legitimate war measure was so obvious and well recognized a principle that it would hardly require a continual reaffirmation. It was a very different matter, however, so far as the law and practice of nations was concerned, for a belligerent to attack through its courts whatever enemy"s property might be available within its limits."[55]
Collamer offered an amendment to strike out the first section of the bill and insert a clause providing that every person adjudged guilty of the crime of treason should suffer death, or, at the discretion of the court, be imprisoned not less than five years and fined not less than ten thousand dollars, which fine should be levied on any property, real or personal, of which he might be possessed. The fine was to be in lieu of confiscation. The aim of the amendment was to subst.i.tute due process of law in place of legislative forfeiture. Various other amendments were offered. On the 6th of May, the Senate voted by 24 to 14 to refer the bill and amendments to a select committee of nine. The House, which had been waiting for the Senate bill, decided on the 14th of May to take up a measure of its own, which it pa.s.sed on the 26th. The select committee of the Senate framed a measure regarding the emanc.i.p.ation of escaping slaves. This and the House bill were sent to a conference committee, which reported the bill which became a law July 17, 1862.
This was not the end of it, however. Provision had been made in the bill for the forfeiture, by judicial process, of the property, both real and personal, of rebels, regardless of the clause of the Const.i.tution which declares that "no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted." No such exception was made in the bill. The President considered it unconst.i.tutional in this particular, and he wrote a short message giving his reasons for withholding his approval of the measure. A rumor of his intention reached Senator Fessenden, who called at the White House to inquire whether it was true. He had a frank conversation with the President, the result of which was that both houses pa.s.sed a joint resolution providing that no punishment or proceedings under the Confiscation Act should be so construed as to work a forfeiture of the real estate of the offender beyond his natural life. Lincoln"s intended veto of the Confiscation Bill is printed on page 3406 of the _Congressional Globe_. Touching confiscation in general he expressed the golden opinion that "the severest justice may not always be the best policy." But he would not have vetoed the bill on grounds of expediency merely. The forfeiture of real estate in perpetuity was the insuperable objection in his mind. And he here seems to me to have been entirely right. Yet Trumbull had the support of Judge Harris, Seward"s successor in the Senate, than whom n.o.body stood higher as a lawyer at that day.
The President then signed both the bill and the joint resolution. The Confiscation Act remained, however, practically a dead letter, except as to the freeing of the slaves. In the latter particular it was the first great step toward complete emanc.i.p.ation, since it took effect upon slaves within our lines, who could be reached and made free _de facto_.
It provided that all slaves of persons who should be thereafter engaged in rebellion, escaping and taking refuge in the lines of the Union forces, and all such slaves found in places captured by such forces, should be declared free; that no slaves escaping should be delivered up unless the owner should swear that he had not aided the rebellion; that no officer of the United States should a.s.sume to decide on the validity of the claim of any person to an escaping slave; that the President should be authorized to employ negroes for the suppression of the rebellion in any capacity he saw fit; and that he might colonize negroes with their own consent and the consent of the foreign Government receiving them.
According to a report of the Solicitor of the Treasury dated Dec. 27, 1867, the total proceeds of confiscation actually paid into the Treasury up to that time amounted to the insignificant sum of $129,680.
The enforcement of the confiscation act was placed under the charge of the Attorney-General. Practically, however, it was performed by officers of the army, so far as it was enforced at all. General Lew Wallace, while in command of the Middle Department at Baltimore, in 1864, issued two orders declaring his intention to confiscate the property of certain persons who were either serving in the rebel army or giving aid to the Confederate cause. These orders, which were published in the newspapers, came to the notice of Attorney-General Bates, who at once wrote to Wallace to remind him that the execution of the confiscation act devolved upon the Attorney-General, and that he (Bates) had not given any orders which would warrant the Commander of the Middle Department in seizing private property, and requesting him to withdraw the orders. Wallace replied that his construction of the law differed from that of the Attorney-General and that he should execute it according to his own understanding of it. Thereupon Bates took the orders, and the correspondence, to the President and declared his intention to resign his office if his functions were usurped by military men in the field, or by the War Department. Lincoln took the papers, and directed Secretary Stanton to require Wallace to withdraw the two orders and to desist from confiscation altogether. This was done by Stanton, but the orders were never publicly withdrawn although action under them was discontinued.
FOOTNOTES:
[54] Gideon Welles quotes Montgomery Blair as saying in conversation (September 12, 1862): "Bedeviled with the belief that he might be a candidate for the Presidency, Cameron was beguiled and led to mount the n.i.g.g.e.r hobby, alarmed the President with his notions, and at the right moment (B. says) he plainly and promptly told the President he ought to get rid of C. at once, that he was not fit to remain in the Cabinet, and was incompetent to manage the War Department, which he had undertaken to run by the aid of Tom A. Scott, a corrupt lobby jobber from Philadelphia." (_Diary_, I, 127.)
[55] Article on "Some Legal Aspects of the Confiscation Acts of the Civil War," by J. G. Randall. _Am. Hist. Review_, October, 1912.
CHAPTER XI
THE EXPULSION OF CAMERON
Early in the year 1862, it was found that the national credit was sinking in consequence of frauds in the War Department. A Committee on Government Contracts was appointed by the House, and the first man to fall under its censure was Alexander c.u.mmings, one of the two Pennsylvania politicians with whom David Davis had made his bargain for votes at the Chicago convention.
The War Department was represented at New York by General Wool with a suitable staff, Major Eaton being the commissary. There was also a Union Defense Committee consisting of eminent citizens who had volunteered to serve the Government in whatever capacity they might be needed.
Nevertheless, Secretary Cameron placed a fund of two million dollars in the hands of General Dix, Mr. Opdycke, and Mr. Blatchford, to be disbursed by E. D. Morgan and Alexander c.u.mmings, or either of them, for the purpose of forwarding troops and supplies to Washington. As E. D.
Morgan was Governor of the State and was busy at Albany, this arrangement would be likely to devolve most of the purchases on c.u.mmings alone. Cameron wrote on April 2, to c.u.mmings:
The Department needs at this moment an intelligent, experienced, and energetic man on whom it can rely, to a.s.sist in pushing forward troops, munitions, and supplies. I am aware that your private affairs may demand your time. I am sure your patriotism will induce you to aid me even at some loss to yourself.
Major Eaton, the army commissary, distinctly informed c.u.mmings that his services were not needed in the purchase of supplies. Nevertheless, c.u.mmings drew $160,000 out of the two-million fund and proceeded to disburse the same. He first appointed a certain Captain Comstock to charter or purchase vessels. Captain Comstock went to Brooklyn, accompanied by a friend, and inspected a steamer appropriately named the Catiline, which he found could be bought for $18,000. Before he made his report to c.u.mmings, the friend who accompanied him suggested to another friend named John E. Develin that there was a chance to make some money "by good management." Comstock at the same time a.s.sured Colonel D. D.
Tompkins, of the Quartermaster"s Department, that the ship was worth $50,000. Comstock testified that he was sent for by Thurlow Weed to come to the Astor House at the outbreak of the troubles, and that Weed stated to him that he (Weed) was an agent of the Government to send troops and munitions of war to Washington by way of the Chesapeake, and that he wished to charter vessels for that purpose. Afterwards c.u.mmings called upon Comstock and showed him the same authority that Weed had shown.
The Catiline was bought by Develin for $18,000. The seller of the ship testified that he received, as security for the purchase money, four notes of $4500 each executed by Thurlow Weed, John E. Develin, G. C.
Davidson, and O. B. Matteson. Matteson had been a member of a previous Congress from Utica, New York, but had been expelled from the House. The Catiline was chartered for the Government at the rate of $10,000 per month for three months, with an agreement that if she were lost in the service the owners should be paid $50,000. The t.i.tle to the Catiline was, for convenience, placed in the name of a Mr. Stetson.
c.u.mmings was examined by the Committee on Government Contracts. He testified that he had formerly been the publisher of the Philadelphia _Evening Bulletin_, and later publisher of the New York _World_, and that he had resided in the latter city about eighteen months; his family still residing in Philadelphia. The purchases made by him to be shipped on the Catiline consisted mainly of groceries and provisions, including twenty-five casks of Scotch ale, and twenty-five casks of London porter; but he testified that he did not see any of the articles bought, nor did he have any knowledge of their quality, nor did he see any of them put on board the ship. The purchases, he said, were made from the firm of E.
Corning & Co., of Albany, through a member of the firm named Davidson, whom c.u.mmings met at the Astor House. c.u.mmings a.s.sumed that Davidson was a member of the firm because Davidson told him so; he had no other evidence of the fact. He a.s.sumed also that Corning & Co. were dealers in provisions, but had no absolute knowledge on that point.[56] He supposed that the goods were shipped from Albany to be loaded on the Catiline, but did not know that such was the fact. All these details he left to his clerk, James Humphrey, who had been recommended as clerk by Thurlow Weed. c.u.mmings testified that he did not know Humphrey before; did not know whether he had ever been in business in Albany or in New York; took him on Weed"s recommendation; made no bargain with him as to salary; did not know where he could be found now. Bought a lot of hard bread from a house in Boston. Questioned to whom he made payment for this bread, he answered: "Directly to the party selling it, I suppose." "By you?" "By my clerk, I suppose." Did not recollect who first suggested the purchase of bread. Had no directions from the Government to purchase any particular articles. Bought a quant.i.ty of straw hats and linen pantaloons, thinking they would be needed by the troops in warm weather.
Did not personally know that any of the goods had been loaded on the steamer or by whom they should have been so loaded. The cargo was certified by c.u.mmings to Cameron as shipped for the Government. Mr.
Barney, Collector of the Port, refused to give a clearance to the Catiline to sail. Mr. Stetson, the owner, produced a letter from Thurlow Weed requesting a clearance, but Barney still refused. Finally General Wool gave a "pa.s.s" on which the Catiline sailed without a clearance.
General Wool revoked the pa.s.s on the following day, but the ship had already departed.[57]
The report says: "The Committee have no occasion to call in question the integrity of Mr. c.u.mmings." We must infer, therefore, that he was chosen by Cameron to disburse Government money in this emergency because he was an extraordinary simpleton, and likely to be guided by Thurlow Weed in buying army supplies from a hardware firm in Albany, and an unknown Boston house that furnished hard bread.
Congressman Van Wyck of New York, a member of the Committee, said that Mr. Weed"s absence from home had prevented an examination into the nature and extent of his agency in the matter of the Catiline.[58] At the time when Weed"s testimony was wanted he was in Europe acting as a volunteer diplomat "a.s.sisting to counteract the machinations of the agents of treason against the United States in that quarter," as appears by a letter of Secretary Seward to Minister Adams, dated November 7, 1861.
The Committee on Government Contracts were unable to determine whether the cargo of the Catiline was a private speculation or a _bona-fide_ purchase for the Government. The character of the goods purchased and the mode of purchase pointed to the former conclusion. Scotch ale and London porter were not embraced in any list of authorized rations, nor were straw hats and linen pantaloons included in quartermaster"s stores.
Congressman Van Wyck conjectured that it was a private speculation until Collector Barney refused to grant a clearance, and that then it was turned over to the Government. Mr. Stetson, who applied for the clearance, first told the Collector that the ship was loaded with flour and provisions belonging to several of his friends. When he called the second time he testified that the cargo consisted of supplies for the troops. The ship was destroyed by fire before the three months" charter expired.
On the 13th of January, Henry L. Dawes, of Ma.s.sachusetts, another member of the committee, alluded to certain purchases of cavalry horses, saying:
A regiment of cavalry has just reached Louisville one thousand strong, and a board of army officers has condemned four hundred and eighty-five of the one thousand horses as utterly worthless. The man who examined those horses declared, upon his oath, that there is not one of them worth twenty dollars. They are blind, spavined, ring-boned, with the heaves, with the glanders, and with every disease that horseflesh is heir to.
Those four hundred and eighty-five horses cost the Government, before they were mustered into the service, $58,200, and it cost the Government to transport them from Pennsylvania to Louisville, $10,000 more before they were condemned and cast off.
There are, sir, eighty-three regiments of cavalry one thousand strong now in or roundabout the army. It costs $250,000 to put one of those regiments upon its feet before it marches a step.
Twenty millions of dollars have thus far been expended upon these cavalry regiments before they left the encampments in which they were gathered and mustered into the service. They have come here and then some of them have been sent back to Elmira; they have been sent back to Annapolis; they have been sent here and they have been sent there to spend the winter; and many of the horses that were sent back have been tied to posts and to trees within the District of Columbia and there left to starve to death. A guide can take you around the District of Columbia to-day to hundreds of carca.s.ses of horses chained to trees where they have pined away, living on bark and limbs till they starve and die; and the Committee for the District of Columbia have been compelled to call for legislation here to prevent the city wherein we are a.s.sembled from becoming an equine Golgotha.[59]
Horse contracts of this sort had been so plentiful that Government officials had gone about the streets of Washington with their pockets full of them. Some of these contracts had been used to pay Cameron"s political debts and to cure old political feuds, and banquets had been given with the proceeds, "where the hatchet of political animosity,"
said Dawes, "was buried in the grave of public confidence and the national credit was crucified between malefactors."
Dawes said also that there was "indubitable evidence that somebody has plundered the public treasury well-nigh in a single year as much as the entire current yearly expenses of the Government which the people hurled from power because of its corruption"--meaning Buchanan"s Administration.[60]
In the Senate on the 14th, Trumbull, quoting from the testimony of the House Committee, said that Hall"s carbines, originally owned by the Government, but condemned and sold as useless at about $2 each, were purchased back for the Government, in April or May, at $15 each. In June, the Government sold them again at $3.50 each. Afterwards in August, they were purchased by an agent of the Government at $12.50 each and turned over to the Government at $22 each, and the Committee of the House was then trying to prevent this last payment from being made, and eventually succeeded in doing so. The beneficiary in this case was one Simon Stevens, not a relative of Thaddeus Stevens, but a protege of his, and an occupant of his law office. He operated through General Fremont, not through Cameron.
"Sir," said Dawes, "amid all these things is it strange that the public treasury trembles and staggers like a strong man with a great burden upon him? Sir, the man beneath an exhausted receiver gasping for breath is not more helpless to-day than is the treasury of this Government beneath the exhausting process to which it is subjected."
Somewhat later Congressman Van Wyck showed, among other things, that Thurlow Weed, by the favor of Cameron, had established himself between the Government and the powder manufacturers in such a way as to pocket a commission of five per cent on purchases of ammunition.[61]
The committee visited severe censure on Thomas A. Scott, for acting as a.s.sistant Secretary of War, while holding the office of vice-president of the Pennsylvania Central Railroad. Scott said that he ceased to draw salary from the railroad when he became a.s.sistant Secretary, but that he had retained his railroad connection because he considered it of more value to himself than the other position. The committee considered it highly improper for him to hold the power to award large Government contracts for transportation and to fix prices therefor while he had personal railroad interests, and while Secretary Cameron, to whom he owed his appointment, was interested in the Northern Central Railroad.
The latter was commonly called "Cameron"s road." An order had been issued by Scott, without consultation with the Quartermaster-General of the army, fixing the rates to be paid for the transportation of troops, baggage, and supplies. The Quartermaster-General testified that Scott"s order as to prices was addressed to one of his own subordinates and that he first saw it in the hands of that subordinate. He construed it, however, as an order from his superior officer and therefore as governing himself. Officers of other railroads testified that the rates fixed by Scott were much too high considering the magnitude and kind of work to be done. Thus, the rate for transporting troops was fixed at two cents per mile per man, whether carried in pa.s.senger cars or in box cars, and whether taken as single pa.s.sengers or by regiments.
Nicolay and Hay tell us that Cameron"s departure from the Cabinet was in consequence of his disagreement with the President as to that part of his report relating to the arming of slaves; that although nothing more was said by either himself or Lincoln on that subject, "each of them realized that the circ.u.mstance had created a situation of difficulty and embarra.s.sment which could not be indefinitely prolonged." Cameron, they say, began to signify his weariness of the onerous labors of the War Department, and hinted to the President that he would prefer the less responsible duties of a foreign mission. To outsiders this affair seemed to have completely blown over when, on January 11, 1862, Lincoln wrote the following short note:
MY DEAR SIR: As you have more than once expressed a desire for a change of position, I can now gratify you consistently with my view of the public interest. I, therefore, propose nominating you to the Senate next Monday as Minister to Russia.
Very sincerely your friend, A. LINCOLN.
The real facts were given to the world by A. K. McClure somewhat later in his book on "Lincoln and Men of War-Time." He says that Cameron"s dismissal was due to the severe strain put upon the national credit, which led to the severest criticisms of all manner of public profligacy, culminating in a formal appeal to the President from leading financial men of the country for an immediate change of the Secretary of War; that Lincoln"s letter of dismissal was sent to Cameron by the hand of Secretary Chase, and that it was extremely curt, being almost, if not quite, literally as follows: "I have this day nominated Hon. Edwin M.
Stanton to be Secretary of War and you to be Minister Plenipotentiary to Russia"; that Cameron in great agitation brought this missive to the room of Thomas A. Scott, a.s.sistant Secretary of War, where Mr. McClure happened to be dining and showed it to them; that he wept bitterly, and said that it meant his personal degradation and political ruin. Scott and McClure volunteered to see Lincoln and ask him to withdraw the offensive letter and to permit Cameron to antedate a letter of resignation, to which Lincoln consented. "The letter conveyed by Chase was recalled; a new correspondence was prepared, and a month later given to the public."[62]
McClure palliates Cameron"s conduct by saying that "contracts had to be made with such haste as to forbid the exercise of sound discretion in obtaining what the country needed; and Cameron, with his peculiar political surroundings and a horde of partisans clamoring for spoils, was compelled either to reject the confident expectation of his friends or to submit to imminent peril from the grossest abuse of his delegated authority." This is another way of saying that he was compelled either to pay his political debts out of his own pocket, or give his henchmen access to the public treasury, and that he chose the latter alternative.
The House of Representatives pa.s.sed a resolution of censure upon Cameron for investing Alexander c.u.mmings with the control of large sums of the public money and authorizing him to purchase military supplies without restriction when the services of competent public officers were available. A few days later the President sent to the House a special message, a.s.suming for himself and the entire Cabinet the responsibility for adopting that irregular mode of procuring supplies in the then existing emergency, a message which, when read in the light of c.u.mmings"s testimony, adds nothing to Lincoln"s fame.