fictional preservation?

Posted on May 5, 2018 by SUMPTER
768px-Confederates_marching_through_Frederick,_MD_in_1862 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Confederates_marching_through_Frederick,_MD_in_1862.jpg)

real Confederate troops (marching west on E. Patrick St. in Frederick September 12 1862)

An editorial in the April 25, 1868 issue of Harper’s Weekly lamented all the historic Revolutionary War era structures that were being left to deteriorate and hoped that three other “sacred” buildings could be preserved. One of those structures related to the Antietam campaign of September 1862, particularly as the Confederate army was marching through the streets of Frederick, Maryland. (from the Internet Archive Harper’s pages 269-270):

HISTORIC HOUSES.

All over the country there are going up every year numerous monuments, like that which we illustrate on the preceding page, designed to commemorate the names of those who fell in the war for the suppression of the rebellion, and which in time will become hallowed and historic structures. There are also extant in various parts of the country a few historic structures of a past ago. Unfortunately they are not numerous now, and it is our shame that these few are badly preserved and illy cared for. Each year sees the demolition of or changes in some one or more of these buildings, and it is to be feared that many of them will soon entirely disappear. We give in this issue of the Weekly engravings of three houses which have an historic interest, and which ought to become more sacred as they decay, but which will doubtless – at least we fear will – share the fate of the Revolutionary houses and monuments whose neglect we [depre?nt?] in vain, and many of which are already past recovery. The first of these which we notice is the

bfhomehw4-25-1868p269 (https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv12bonn hw page 269)

real Barbara Fritchie home (on West Patrick Street)

ANCIENT FRIENDS’ MEETING-HOUSE. …

HOUSE OF BARBARA FRIETCHIE.

The story of BARBARA FRIETCHIE has been made familiar, by the stirring poem of WHITTIER, to every school-boy in the land. It will be remembered that from the house of this fearless old lady the only Union flag in Frederic, Maryland, was found flying by STONEWALL JACKSON on his entry into that city in the invasion of 1862. The poem by WHITTIER has been published in full in the Weekly, and is now declaimed in every school at the North, but there are lines in the following passage from it which will be interesting in this connection:

Forty flags with their silver stars,
Forty flags with their crimson bars,

Flapped in the morning wind: the sun
Of noon looked down, and saw not one.

Up rose old Barbara Frietchie then,
Bowed with her fourscore years and ten;

Bravest of all in Frederick town,
She took up the flag the men hauled down;

In her attic window the staff she set,
To show that one heart was loyal yet.

Up the street came the rebel tread,
Stonewall Jackson riding ahead.

Under his slouched hat left and right
He glanced: the old flag met his sight.

“Halt!”— the dust-brown ranks stood fast.
“Fire!”— out blazed the rifle-blast.

It shivered the window, pane and sash;
It rent the banner with seam and gash.

Barbara Frietchie / photographed by Brady & Co., 352 Penna. Ave., Washington, for the Great National Fair. ([1862?, printed 1863 or 1864] ; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2005677232/)

real old gray head

Quick, as it fell, from the broken staff
Dame Barbara snatched the silken scarf;

She leaned far out on the window-sill,
And shook it forth with a royal will.

“Shoot, if you must, this old gray head,
But spare your country’s flag,” she said.

A shade of sadness, a blush of shame,
Over the face of the leader came;

The nobler nature within him stirred
To life at that woman’s deed and word:

“Who touches a hair of yon gray head
Dies like a dog! March on!” he said.

All day long through Frederick street
Sounded the tread of marching feet:

All day long that free flag tost
Over the heads of the rebel host.

THADDEUS STEVENS’S DWELLING. …

[Barbara Fritchie waving tattered U.S. flag from window. Frederick, Md., Sept. 1862] (c.1922; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2005678040/)

Frederick fiction?

150 years later we know that Barbara Fritchie was undoubtedly a Unionist who lived in Frederick but probably didn’t confront the rebels with the Union flag. A couple interesting newspaper articles published during the the Civil War Sesquicentennial discussed the poem’s authenticity. According to The Frederick News-Post John Greenleaf Whittier probably based his poem on a letter he received from Eden Southworth, a fiction writer from Georgetown. Even if Barbara didn’t do it, there were three other women who might have waved the Union flag in view of the Confederates. The Washington Post mentioned only one of the three – Mary Quantrell, who “held up the Stars and Stripes on her porch while Confederate soldiers tramped down Patrick Street, according to seven witnesses cited in a book by a Frederick resident who respected Fritchie but wanted to get the story right. Quantrell had a verbal altercation with a Confederate officer, who was probably Gen. A.P. Hill rather than the better-known Jackson.” Barbara Friethcie also lived on Patrick Street. One difficulty with fact-checking the poem was that both Mrs. Frietchie and Stonewall Jackson had died by the time the poem was published in the October 1863 issue of The Atlantic Monthly

Preservation of the original house didn’t work out too well, but apparently not because it gracefully deteriorated into shambles. It was possibly damaged by a flood in 1868. According to the Barbara Fritchie House website, “The tidy Cape Cod house from which she is said to have raised the flag was torn down in 1869 and reconstructed in 1927 from photos and documents of the original early 1800’s home.” The reconstructed house still stands. For some time it served as a museum; recently the home was purchased to be remodeled and converted to an Airbnb.

Barbara Fritchie's home, Frederick, Md. / J. Davis Byerly, successor to Jacob Byerly, photographer, 29 N. Market St., Frederick, Md. (ca.1870; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2015650834/)

her home (ca.1870)

Barbara Frietchie House in Frederick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Barbara_Frietchie_House.jpg)

reconstruction in Frederick

Barbara Frietchie relics ([1885]; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2017650452/)

her relics

At least one school boy declaimed “Barbara Frietchie” over a century later. My memory is that I presented the poem, which I think I found in an old blue book, to my 8th grade English class and included background music. I think I recorded an appropriate Henry Mancini tune over the air from the family hi-fi to my cassette tape recorder. Thanks to a little more modern technology and some investigation with Google, Amazon, and Youtube, I’m pretty sure the album was Debut! Henry Mancini Conducting the First Recording of the Philadelphia Orchestra Pops and the song might have been “Drummers’ Delight.” I’m not 100% sure about that, but I doubt even I would have picked “The Ballerina’s Dream.”
I dug a little deeper. Now I’m quite certain I found the poem in Prose and Poetry for the Seventh Year published in 1925. According to the book John Greenleaf Whittier explained at one time how he understood the actual facts on the ground in Frederick:
Whittier issued a statement concerning the incident told in the poem. “It is admitted by all that Barbara Frietchie was no myth, but a worthy and highly esteemed gentle woman, intensely loyal and a hater of the Slavery Rebellion, holding her Union flag sacred, and keeping it with her Bible; that when the Confederates halted before her house and entered her door yard, she denounced them in vigorous language, shook her cane in their faces, and drove them out; and when General Burnside’s troops followed close upon Jackson’s, she waved her flag and cheered them. It is stated that May [sic] Quantrell, a brave and loyal lady in another part of the city, did wave her flag in sight of the Confederates. It is possible that there has been a blending of the two incidents.”[1]
Thanks to a preservation and dissemination effort at the Library of Congress you can listen to a professional declaimer almost 50 years after the Frederick incident. Frank Burbeck recorded the poem on May 3, 1912. There isn’t any background music, but there is a good deal of reassuringly authentic sounding scratches and crackles. I’m pretty sure it’s OK to listen to it here, but you can always visit the
Library to hear it.

From the perspective of 150 years later Harper’s didn’t seem very curious about the accuracy of the story told in the poem. Of course, there were certainly many Unionists in the border state of Maryland; Barbara Frietchie and her house were real. Apparently Mr. Whittier, a well-known poet and abolitionist, believed his correspondent’s story, at least at first.
And also from the perspective of 150 years, does the poem’s content seem a bit dated? Standing up for the American flag? Sympathizing with a slave-owning rebel general? That would be one thing the general and the widow had in common – at least as late as the 1860 census Mrs. Frietchie also owned one or two slaves (see the link to the Frederick newspaper article above).
3 grandnieces of Barbara Fritchie, 4/27/25 (LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2016839705/)

grandnieces at her grave

Grave of American poet John Greenleaf Whittier in the Union Cemetery, Amesbury, MA. (October 2009; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Whittier_John_Greenleaf_grave.jpg)

patriotic poet at rest

"Stonewall" Jackson statue by Edward Valentine in Jackson Memorial Cemetary, Lexington, Va. (2002; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JacksonMemorial.jpg)

a tear on his bier?

__________________________________________________

I’ve read that war technology is often adapted for beneficial civilian use. A photo from 100 years ago suggests that World War I’s trench warfare was also a boon to archaeology as soldiers uncovered an example of some real long term historic preservation. I don’t know anything about this particular mosaic, but I wouldn’t want to have bet that it survived the last six or seven months of the war.

NY Trib May 12 1918 (https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn83030214/1918-05-12/ed-1/?st=gallery image 2)

NY Tribune May 12 1918

__________________________________________________
Getting back to Mrs. Fritchie, you can read another explanation by John Greenleaf Wittier at CivilWarHome, but there is mention of one of his writings on the topic being on March 7, 1862, which would be absolutely amazing if true.
Is there anything at all straightforward about the Barbara Fritchie story? It doesn’t surprise me that John Greenleaf Whittier assumed a 95 year old would have gray hair, but her hair in the photograph from the Library of Congress sure doesn’t look that gray, unless it’s a real dark gray. Somebody wanted her picture taken a year before the poem made her famous. Also from the Library: a grayer head; her home ca.1870; her relics dated 1885; her grave in 1925; the mosaic published in the “Graphic” section (image 2) of the May 12, 1918 issue of the New York Tribune; the tableau probably from 1896.
According to Wikipedia the photo of the Confederate troops in Frederick is from Historical Society of Frederick County, Maryland. Photographs licensed under Creative Commons: the reconstructed house by Muhranoff from 2015; Mr. Whittier’s grave in the Union Cemetery, Amesbury, MA by Midnightdreary from 2009; Stonewall’s statue at his current grave site at Jackson Memorial Cemetary, Lexington, Va. by Edward Valentine from possibly 2002.
Here’s a definition by Alexis de Toqueville from a translation by Henry Reeve at Project Gutenberg:
In my opinion, poetry is the search and the delineation of the ideal. The poet is he who, by suppressing a part of what exists, by adding some imaginary touches to the picture, and by combining certain real circumstances, but which do not in fact concurrently happen, completes and extends the work of nature. Thus the object of poetry is not to represent what is true, but to adorn it, and to present to the mind some loftier imagery.
I’ll try to keep that in mind
Barbara Frietchie (https://www.loc.gov/item/2003673035/)

poetic license

  1. [1]Avery, Fannie, L., Mary M. Van Arsdale, and D. Emma Wilber, editors. Prose and Poetry for the Seventh Year. Syracuse, New York: The L.W. Singer Company, 1925. Print. page 458.↩
Posted in 150 Years Ago, Aftermath, American Culture, American History, Monuments and Statues, Postbellum Society | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

the long march

Posted on April 14, 2018 by SUMPTER
432px-Sergeant_Gilbert_Bates_&_flag (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sergeant_Gilbert_Bates_%26_flag.jpg)

parade at rest

April 14, 1865 was something of a banner day in Washington, D.C. Gilbert Bates, who had served as a sergeant in the 1st Wisconsin Heavy Artillery during the war, arrived on foot in the nation’s capital carrying the Stars and Stripes. Sergeant Bates wagered with a neighbor in Wisconsin that he could safely walk through the South with the national flag in full display. He left Vicksburg on January 28th and, although Mark Twain reportedly wrote that he would show up in D.C. pretty much maimed, Sergeant Bates arrived in one piece 150 years ago today, after having walked about 1400 miles through six Southern states with the flag unfurled. He had won his bet, but a Northern periodical was unimpressed.

From the May 2, 1868 issue of Harper’s Weekly (page 276) (at the Internet Archive):

SERGEANT BATES’S PILGRIMAGE.

SERGEANT GILBERT H. BATES, who was formerly a soldier in a Wisconsin regiment, partly in emulation of WESTON, but principally because he seems to have had nothing better to do, lately made a wager that he would walk in 78 days from Vicksburg to Washington city, carrying the United States flag, and depending entirely on the hospitality of the people of the South for support. The wager has been won. Sergeant BATES triumphantly ended his pilgrimage on April 14. There is no reason why he should not have won the wager if he had any endurance as a pedestrian. The distance is not great; the flag is not heavy; and it has been carried as triumphantly through the same region against greater obstacles than Sergeant BATES appears to have encountered.

bates in richmond hw 5-2 (https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv12bonn page 276)

safe walking in the South

The people of the South have made use of the incident to display their enthusiasm and patriotism; but, if we are to credit the story of the Sergeant, the demonstrations seem to have been confined almost exclusively to praises of course of President JOHNSON and to prayers for their rights.

Our illustration represents the Sergeant passing through Richmond, Virginia. He was received there with much enthusiasm – how genuine it is difficult to determine. The exhibition of loyalty on the part of the Southern people is desirable under any and all circumstances, but their demonstrations in this instance have evidently been the result of a little exuberance of feeling at the presence of this man. We can not forget that WESTON created just as much excitement on a trip of the same nature. And, moreover, it cannot but be remembered that, while this stranger was not molested or interrupted on his way, peaceable and worthy men of undoubted and undaunted loyalty, living at the South, were foully and cruelly murdered for their sentiments.

Washington Monument as it stood for 25 years (ca. 1860; LOC: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/brh2003004928/PP/)

last leg’s destination

Sergeant Bates wrote a pamphlet describing his walk (at Hathi Trust). The whites were mostly kind; many blacks seemed to be very idle, possibly because the Freedmen’s Bureau fed them when necessary. He was only attacked by a bunch of dogs but used his flagstaff to fend them off. Sergeant Bates felt threatened by a group of blacks in Augusta but believed unscrupulous whites had put them up to it. A crowd of hundreds cheered him when he arrived in Washington on the 14th; he was welcomed by a Committee from the Conservative Army and Navy Union and later by a Committee of the Citizens of Washington. A procession with band escorted him to the White House; President Johnson didn’t have a speech to make but wanted to welcome the marcher and his flag. Speeches were delivered at the Metropolitan Hotel. Reportedly on orders of some Radical Republican members of Congress, a policeman refused to allow Sergeant Bates to enter the Capitol with his flag and fly it from the dome. Rebuffed by Congress, the sergeant marched to the uncompleted Washington Monument, where E.O. Perrin delivered a speech critical of Northern radicals: “that reckless Congress that squanders millions of the people’s money on Freedmen’s Bureaus and sable cemeteries, but cannot spare a dollar to the memory of George Washington, whose sacred ashes slumber to-day “in a conquered province” outside of the Union he created and loved so well, and in sight of the very Capitol that bears his honored name.”

At the end of the pamphlet Sergeant Bates summarized his findings – Southerners (white) loved their country and its flag but did not want to be governed by negroes.

BatesinMontgomeryp12 (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=loc.ark:/13960/t4nk3kr15 page 12)

at the first rebel capital

augustatheatermarch14p15 (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=loc.ark:/13960/t4nk3kr15 page 15)

Augusta theater scare

SergeantBatesp33 (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=loc.ark:/13960/t8cf9tq0n)

Union and Constitution good; military domination and negro
suffrage bad

According to Wikipedia, Edward Payson Weston (1839-1929) was “was a notable pedestrian, who was largely responsible for the rise in popularity of the sport in the 1860s and 1870s.” Mr. Weston first gained notoriety when he backed the wrong horse in the 1860 presidential election. Since he bet against Abraham Lincoln he had to walk from Boston to Washington, D.C. and attended the inaugural ball on the evening of March 4, 1861; President Lincoln shook hands with him. Mr. Weston never walked again after he was hit by a New York City taxicab in 1927.
Reconstruction, manufactured of the best vuelta abajo tobacco (1868; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/96515985/)

reconstruction sells?

Edward Payson Weston, 1839-1929 (c1909 March 3; LOC: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2003678165/)

those boots were made for walking

The photo of Gilbert Bates is licensed by Creative Commons and looks like it might have been taken in 1872, the same year he walked 400 miles in England as part of a bet that he wouldn’t be insulted by any pro-Confederate British during his long hike. From the Library of Congress: Washinton Monument sometime between 1854 and 1879, when no work was done on it; Edward Payson Weston; tobacco label.
Posted in 150 Years Ago This Week, Aftermath, Postbellum Society, Reconstruction, Southern Society | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

“a secret organization, for no good purpose”

Posted on April 4, 2018 by SUMPTER
NY Times April 9, 1868

NY Times
April 9, 1868

According to Wikipedia George W. Ashburn was born in North Carolina and later moved to Georgia. He opposed the secession of Georgia and was commissioned a Colonel in the Union army. In 1867 Mr. Ashburn called to order the Georgia Constitutional Convention and “was the author of the provisions in the new Constitution that assured civil rights to blacks. At the Convention, Ashburn suggested that the new Constitution should be implemented even if the people of Georgia don’t concur.” He worked with the Freedmen’s Bureau and with African American leaders where he lived in Columbus, Georgia. Mr. Ashburn “lived amongst the African American population and garnered attention from the Ku Klux Klan, which established their Columbus chapter on March 21, 1868 after a visit from Nathan Bedford Forrest. … On the night of March 30, 1868, Ashburn participated at a huge gathering of blacks and Republicans at Temperance Hall in Columbus, Georgia. One of the featured speakers was Henry McNeal Turner. Just after midnight, Ashburn was murdered at a house on the corner of 13th Avenue and 1st Street by a group of five well-dressed men wearing masks.”

749px-George_W._Ashburn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:George_W._Ashburn.jpg)

the end of a Radical Republican scalawag

On April 4, 1868 General George Meade, commander of the Third Military District (Georgia, Alabama, Florida) issued an order directed at suppressing the activities of the Ku Klux Klan. Although the order didn’t mention the organization by name, The New-York Times on April 9, 1868 seemed to know exactly who the general was targeting.

General Meade included this order in his report on operations in the Third District for 1868 (at HathiTrust):

meadeorder1(https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=loc.ark:/13960/t79s1wm52;view=1up;seq=7)

warning “evil organizations”

meadeorder2(meadeorder1(https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=loc.ark:/13960/t79s1wm52;view=1up;seq=7))

in “the secresy of the night”

_____________________________________
_____________________________________

I think I remember that after seeing the news report about the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. 50 years ago tonight I went to bed on a very warm night for early April with the windows open and the strong wind blowing the curtains.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Born January 15, 1929, died April 4, 1968. (https://www.loc.gov/item/2015651821/)

a century later

I’m not trying to say that I think the Klan killed Martin Luther King, but just more political violence against upsetting the racial applecart.
The Ku Klux Klan began in Tennessee sometime between December 1865 and August 1866. When I searched for Klan at The New York Times Archive from January 1866, I got a few possibilities in 1866 and 1867. The Northern press became much more aware of the Klan’s activities in early 1868. I was a little surprised that the first search result I clicked on was General Meade’s reaction to the murder of a white man, but according to the cartoon below the Klan wasn’t afraid to publicize its animosity to whites who stood with blacks.
The cartoon was republished in Ku Klux Klan Its Origin, Growth and Disbandment at Project Gutenberg and said to be “Cartoon by Ryland Randolph in Independent Monitor, September 1, 1868.”
The image of Martin Luther King, Jr. is from the Library of Congress
The Fate of the Carpetbagger and the Scalawag (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/31819/31819-h/31819-h.htm#imagep192)

“The fate of the carpetbagger and the scalawag”

Posted in 150 Years Ago This Week, Aftermath, Postbellum Politics, Postbellum Society, Reconstruction, Southern Society | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

foolishness?

Posted on March 31, 2018 by SUMPTER

From the New York Tribune (image 8):

nytrib3-31-1918(https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn83030214/1918-03-31/ed-1/?st=gallery image 8)

in the rubble of war

Posted in 100 Years Ago, World War I | Tagged | Leave a comment

Butler for the prosecution

Posted on March 30, 2018 by SUMPTER
hw4-11p225 (https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv12bonn)

March 23 and/or March 30, 1868
at the U.S. Capitol

On March 23, 1868 President Andrew Johnson’s defense lawyers answered impeachment charges in the United States Senate – the trial court. The next day “the replication of the House was filed by the Managers of Impeachment. The House simply reasserted the charges, and announced that it stood ready to prove them true. … [on March 30th] the trial really began in earnest, and has been continued to the present writing in a quiet, but intensely interesting manner.” [from the April 11, 1868 issue of Harper’s Weekly – see image to the left]

As Hans L. Trefousse wrote, spectators weren’t expecting the first day to be quiet:

When proceedings opened on March 30, 1868, another large crowd had assembled on Capitol Hill. Ben Butler was to make the opening argument; his histrionics were notorious, and the audience undoubtedly was hoping to be entertained. The newspapers remarked upon the brilliant appearance of the Senate galleries: ladies in their finery, foreign diplomats, distinguished guests – all were there. At 12:30 Chief justice Chase took his chair. The defense entered. Then came the House of representatives, led by Stevens and Bingham arm in arm. When Butler, with a pile of manuscripts before him, standing with his back to the chief justice and facing the Senate, began to speak, all were expectant.

Gen. Ben Butler (between 1855 and 1865; LOC: LC-DIG-cwpbh-00896)

new role fighting the
buffoon/jester/tyrant
in the White House

At first they were disappointed. A long, dry legal argument against the contention that the high crimes and misdemeanors for which the president could be impeached had to be statutory crimes was not very interesting. Nor did the attempt to deny Johnson’s right to test the constitutionality of a law or the theory that the Senate was not a real court of law bound by ordinary rules of evidence cause much excitement. Butler sought to prove not only that Stanton, though appointed by Lincoln, was covered by the Tenure of Office Act, but that the appointment of Thomas, as charged in the first eight articles, was a serious offense. Only toward the end of his plea, when he reached the tenth article, his own, did Butler live up to his reputation. “By murder most foul,” he thundered in his attack upon the president, “did he succeed to the Presidency and is the elect of an assassin to that high office, and not of the people.” It was not very dignified, but as expected, radical journals praised his performance, while the opposition thought it was below par.[1]

Thanks to the Library of Congress you can read all of Mr. Butler’s opening argument as reported in the Congressional Globe. I didn’t read too much of it, but I did cut out the last part of Benjamin Butler’s discourse on his Article 10, which was aimed at all the egregious things Andrew Johnson uttered during his 1866 Swing Around the Circle.

article10_1

Andy dissing Lincoln?

article10_2

J.W. Booth as
presidential elector

article10_3

removing buffoons
the American way

hw4-18p248(https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv12bonn)

impeachment from the Ladies Gallery

  1. [1]Trefousse, Hans L. Andrew Johnson: A Biography. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1997. Print. pages 318-319.↩
Posted in 150 Years Ago This Week, Aftermath, Impeachment, Postbellum Politics, Reconstruction | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Where’s Andy?

Posted on March 13, 2018 by SUMPTER
NY Times March 14 1868

New York Times
March 14 1868

Friday, March the 13th in 1868 was a dramatic day in Washington, D.C. Having been summoned by the impeachment court on March 8th, President Andrew Johnson was expected to appear in the United States Senate 150 years ago today. Things didn’t turn out exactly as anticipated, but onlookers saw some humor in the events. Although he didn’t use the term, a correspondent viewed the lawful and orderly proceedings as an example of American exceptionalism.

From The New-York Times March 14, 1868:

Special Dispatch to the New-York Times.
WASHINGTON, Friday, March 13.

The supreme majesty of the law and the power of this republican government was illustrated anew to-day by the fresh scenes and proceedings in the great trial of impeachment. The business-like, almost matter-of-fact manner in which the Congress of the United States proceeds with this grave work is the most striking illustration of the innate love and reverence for law and order that characterize the American people. The numerous intelligent representatives of foreign nations who looked upon the proceedings of to-day must have been again impressed with the feeling that a nation that can without the ruffling of a single temper, or the trembling of a single interest, calmly address itself to so great an event as the trial of its Chief Executive, must be well-entitled to the proudest position upon the face of the earth.

The proceedings to-day were characterized by deeper interest, increased importance and greater solemnity than usual. The preparations for the formal opening largely balanced the general effect of the scene, and it is well at the outset to say that the arrangements for admission were all successfully carried out by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and a very disagreeable matter made as agreeable as possible. The audience began to gather in the Senate galleries as soon as the cordon of Police received word to let ticket-holders pass, and by 12 o’clock the seats were comfortably filled. …

impeachment3-13 hwpape212 (https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv12bonn)

ticket for titters

At 1:10 o’clock the Managers on the part of the House appeared and were duly announced. The Senators who had not yet been sworn … then advanced to the bar and were sworn by the Chief Justice. The return of the Sergeant-at-Arms to the summons, as sworn to by that officer, was then read, and the Chief Justice then ordered him to call upon the accused to appear and answer. In a loud voice, and amid the stillness of the whole Chamber, he called three times, “ANDREW JOHNSON, ANDREW JOHNSON, ANDREW JOHNSON!” There were hundreds among that intelligent audience, who bent forward and eagerly strained their eyes, expecting the President to appear in response to that stentorian behest. But instead of the President, who should come in at the precise moment of the last call, like his very evil genius, but BENJAMIN F. BUTLER, all alone, stopping in a half-startled way at the first tier of seats, and looking up at the presiding officer as if to say “Here I am.” There was a singularity about this coincidence, which was marked by a titter around the whole hall. The President’s room, in the rear of the Senate, had been assigned for the use of his counsel, and the door in the rear corridor of the Senate lobby soon opened, and [members of Mr. Johnson’s team of attorneys] Ex-Attorney-General STANBERY, Judge B.R. CURTIS, of Boston, and Hon. THOMAS A.R. NELSON, of Tennessee, then appeared and took their seats. …

As Hans L. Trefousse explains:

image1_full (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13761/13761-h/13761-h.htm)

surprise

From the very start, Johnson’s attorneys decided that he should not appear at the trial in person, and when, on March 13, the crier loudly summoned the president, the expectant crowd waited in vain. To the great amusement of onlookers, only Ben Butler walked in, looking up at the presiding officer in startled disbelief. Johnson was to speak only through counsel; his lawyers, and particularly Stanbery, told him that under no circumstances was he to give any further interviews to the press. And they were right. …

Nevertheless, it was difficult for the president to take this advice. Several times he criticized his lawyers for what he deemed an inadequate demurrer or reply to various charges, especially after Alexander H. Stephens on March 16 urged him to conduct his own defense. Drawing on his experience with Johnson during ten years in Congress, the former vice president of the Confederacy maintained nobody could do it better, and Johnson was more convinced than ever of his own skill.[1]

AJconsulting https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv12bonn)

who’s counseling whom?

  1. [1]Trefousse, Hans L. Andrew Johnson: A Biography. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1997. Print. pages 317-318.↩
Posted in 150 Years Ago This Week, Aftermath, Impeachment, Postbellum Politics, Reconstruction | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

summons served

Posted on March 7, 2018 by SUMPTER
Office of the Secretary of the Senate, Washington, D.C. - preparing the summons for President Johnson to appear before the court of impeachment ( Illus. in: Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, 1868 March 28, p. 28. ; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2003655357/)

summons prepared

On March 6, 1868 Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase completed organizing the impeachment court by swearing in the rest of the United States senators, including President Pro Tempore Benjamin F. Wade. The Senate notified the House of Representatives and it was agreed that President Andrew Johnson would be summoned to appear before the impeachment court on Friday, March 13th. 150 years ago today the summons was served.

From The New-York Times March 8, 1868:

Dispatches to the Associated Press.
WASHINGTON, Saturday, March 7.

THE IMPEACHMENT WRIT SERVED ON THE PRESIDENT.

Mr. GEORGE T. BROWN, the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate, waited upon President JOHNSON at 4 o’clock this afternoon, and served upon him the summons to appear before the Court of Impeachment.

The President replied that he would attend to the matter.

Order to Senate Sergeant of Arms George Brown to serve a "Writ of Summons" on Andrew Johnson, signed by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, March 7, 1868 (https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/treasures_of_congress/Images/page_14/49a.html)

George T. Brown ordered
to deliver the summons

George T. Brown, sergeant-at-arms, serving the summons on President Johnson / sketched by T.R. Davis. ( Illus. in: Harper's weekly, 1868 March 28, p. 193. ; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/92520335/)

summons presented

You can find the order to George T. Brown at the National Archives. From the Library of Congress: preparation, presentation
Posted in 150 Years Ago This Week, Aftermath, Impeachment, Postbellum Politics, Reconstruction | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

cannonball express

Posted on March 5, 2018 by SUMPTER
The situation (Illus. in: Harper's weekly, v. 12, no. 584 (1868 March 7), p. 160.; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/resource/cph.3c27515/)

taking aim

On March 2, 1868 the United States House of Representatives agreed to nine Articles of Impeachment against President Andrew Johnson. The next day it added two more. You can read a summary of the charges at Wikipedia. Article One was Mr. Johnson’s attempted ouster of Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton on February 21, 1868, when the president sort of intentionally tripped over the trip wire that was the Tenure of Office Act. The tenth charge recounts some of the president’s most egregious utterances during his Swing Around the Circle in the fall of 1866. On March 5 the trial began with the swearing in of Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase (the judge) and the first U.S. Senators (the jury). From The New-York Times March 6, 1868:

NY Times March 6, 1868

NY Times
March 6, 1868

… Special Dispatch to the New-York Times.
WASHINGTON, Thursday, March 5.

The trial of the Impeachment of the President has begun. The first step in the organization of the Court was begun to-day, and but for the irrepressible penchant for talking in the Senate would have been fully completed. The hour of [1?] o’clock found the galleries all crowded; those for the ladies being radiant with all the bright colors of brilliant toilettes, brought out by the first fair weather for well nigh a month. Interest and expectancy were great, and were increased by the doubt arising from the rumor that the Chief Justice could not attend to-day, then that he had refused to come at all. But at 1 o’clock, just as Messrs. SHERMAN and CONKLING were demonstrating in a mathematical manner just how many people could be stowed away in the galleries, the committee to notify the Chief Justice appeared below the bar, escorting that officer, who, clad in the black official robes of his high office, as soon as received, ascended to the chair of President [pro tempore] WADE and announced himself present in his official character to try the impeachment against ANDREW JOHNSON, President of the United States.

Mr. Justice NELSON, the oldest judge on the Supreme Bench, then administered the oath to the Chief Justice, and he in turn announced his readiness to administer the oath to Senators. The roll was called in alphabetical order, and the rather monotonous process of taking the oath separately by each member was proceeded with until the name of Mr. WADE was reached. [A debate about whether the President Pro Tempore should sit in judgment because he would become U.S. President if Andrew Johnson was convicted and removed. No final determination on the 5th.]

If the organization is completed tomorrow, the summons citing the President to appear will be issued at once, and made returnable on Tuesday next. It will then be determined how much time he shall be allowed to prepare his defence. During the proceedings of the Senate to-day nearly all the members of the House were present, and the Managers were in the lobby, awaiting the completion of the organization of the Court.

The Last speech on impeachment--Thaddeus Stevens closing the debate in the House, March 2 / sketched by T.R. Davis. ( Illus. in: Harper's weekly, 1868 March 21, p. 180.; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/92520334/)

Thaddeus Stevens in House March 2 1868

Posted in 150 Years Ago This Week, Aftermath, Postbellum Society, Reconstruction | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

first time for “last resort”

Posted on February 24, 2018 by SUMPTER
The House of Representatives (1868; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2017652609/)

Sunday-like in the “sacred precincts”

On February 22, 1868 the United States House of Representatives began debating its Reconstruction Committee’s report recommending the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson. After a Sabbath Day’s rest the debate resumed on Monday the 24th. By 6:00 PM the full House had voted to impeach the United States president for the first time since the Constitution had come into effect almost four score years before. A correspondent touched on the historical significance and detailed the change in the Republican majority.

NY Times February 25, 1868

New York Times
February 24, 1868

From The New-York Times February 25, 1868:

Special Dispatches to the New-York Times.
WASHINGTON, Monday, Feb.24.

The first act in the great civil drama of the nineteenth century is concluded. ANDREW JOHNSON, President of the United States, stands impeached of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” It is of no use to argue whether his acts were right or wrong, whether the law he violated is constitutional or otherwise, or whether it is good or bad policy to proceed to this extreme. The House of Representatives, with a full realization of all the possible consequences, has solemnly decided that he shall be held to account in the manner prescribed by the Constitution for his alleged misdemeanors, and, be the result what it may, the issue is made. It must be met without delay, and the first step is already complete.

That the feeling here continues profoundly deep is evidenced by the grave character and solemn dignity of the proceedings of the House to-day. The unanimity of the Republican strength on this subject is one of the most surprising developments. Heretofore, there has been a majority of the Republicans in the House strongly opposed to appealing to the last resort, and it has been twice defeated. But the feeling now is that twice have they desisted, and thrice has the President accepted it as a special immunity from punishment on which he could rely. And now, regretting its necessity as much as ever, they accept the last resort as a stern but disagreeable duty, simply because magnanimity is no longer a virtue, and conciliation no longer a policy with a man who not only betrayed his party, but stops not even before his country’s peril. Such is their feeling; and they are ready not only to carry the issue through the Senate, but to that tribunal which is to give the final verdict – the American people.

THE SCENE IN THE HOUSE.

The reporters' gallery of the House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. / sketched by Theodore R. Davis. ( Illus. in: Harper's weekly, v. 12, no. 584 (1868 March 7), p. 145.; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2004671453/)

reporting history in the making

That the events now transpiring here are without precedent in many respects, and that such scenes are not likely to occur again in the lifetime of any, seems to be fully appreciated by the people, resident and transient, of this city. AS early as 8 o’clock this morning, two hours before the House met, spectators began to wend their way to the galleries, and in an hour they were full to overflowing; and if three thousand were seated, at least ten thousand were turned away, unable to obtain admission. This was owing in a great measure to that fact that on Saturday there had been so much overcrowding that complaints had gone to the Speaker from the privileged classes, and some cold-blooded members insisted on the rigid enforcement of the rules, which was done, without fear or favor, or distinction of any kind, and without relaxation, until the last hour of the day, when the great crush of snow-bound femininity – for it snowed all day – overflowed just the least on to the sacred precincts of the chamber of the House. The crowd in all parts of the Capitol was immense, and the early comers stood and sat their ground, eating their lunches during some dull speaker’s tirade, and never leaving until the great final vote was announced. The best of order prevailed, however, enforced by the regular Capitol police. A squad of fifty of the city Metropolitans were on hand in the rotunda, to aid, if necessary, it having been telegraphed from Philadelphia that several hundred armed roughs, under the lead of a notorious rowdy and Alderman, had left that city for the purpose of intimidating Congress. But they did not come, and there was neither violence, passion nor anger exhibited anywhere. …

HW3-7-1868page168 (https://archive.org/stream/harpersweeklyv12bonn#page/n5/mode/2up/search/page+168 page 368)

House in session (1)

hw3-7-1868page369(https://archive.org/stream/harpersweeklyv12bonn#page/n5/mode/2up/search/page+168) page 369)

House in session (2)

________________________________________________

[The debate lasted from about 10:00 in the morning until just before 5:00 PM with the conclusion of a speech by Thaddeus Stevens.]

His voice failed him before he had uttered his first sentence, and he tremblingly asked that the Clerk might be allowed to read the manuscript copy of his speech, which request was acceded to. At two minutes before five the reading of the speech was concluded, and the vote was at once taken on the passage of the impeachment resolution. The call of the yeas and nays proceeded amid profound stillness, and nearly every member of the House responded to his name. But twelve members being absent the result was announced. Yeas 126, nays 47. …

While these dramatic events kept the spectators at Capitol Hill spellbound, the president was quietly taking dinner with Colonel Moore [Andrew Johnson’s confidential secretary]. When news of the House vote was brought to the White House, he took it very calmly, simply remarking that he thought many of those who had voted for impeachment felt more uneasy over the position in which they had put themselves than he did in the one in which they had put him. As he had already told the reporter of the Washington Express earlier in the day, he was confident that “God and the American people would make all right and save our institutions.” After all, he had merely wanted to bring the matter of the Tenure of Office Act before the Supreme Court. If this argument was somewhat disingenuous – he was really interested in deciding a political question as well – it made for good reading.[1]

You can read the February 24th speech by Thaddeus Stevens at Furman University. Here’s the closing portion:

… By the sixth section of the act referred to [Tenure of Office], it is provided

“That ever removal, appointment, or employment made, had, of exercised contrary to the provisions of this act, and making, signing, sealing, countersigning, or issuing of any commission or letter of authority for or in respect to any such appointment of employment shall be deemed , and are hereby declared to be high misdemeanors and upon trial and conviction thereof every person guilty thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $10,000 or by imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.”

NY Times February 26, 1868

New York Times
February 26, 1868

Now, in defiance of this law, Andrew Johnson, on the 21st day of February, 1868, issued his commission or latter of authority to one Lorenzo Thomas, appointing him Secretary of War ad interim, and commanded him to take possession of the Department of War and to eject the incumbent, E. M. Stanton, the in lawful possession of said office. Here if this act stood alone, would be an undeniable official misdemeanor-not only a misdemeanor per se, but declared to be so by the act itself, and the party made indictable and punishable in a criminal proceeding. If Andrew Johnson escapes with bare removal from office, it he be not fined and incarcerated in the penitentiary afterward under criminal proceedings, he may thank the weakness or the clemency of Congress and not his own innocence.

We shall propose to prove on trial that Andrew Johnson was guilty of misprision of bribery by offering to General Grant, if he would unite with him in his lawless violence, to assume in his stead the penalties and to endure the imprisonment denounced by the law. Bribery is one of the offenses specifically enumerated for which the President may be impeached and removed from office. By the Constitution, article two, section two, the President has power to nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint all officers of the United States whose appointments are not therein otherwise provided for and which shall be established by law, during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session. Nowhere, either in the Constitution or by statute, has the President power to create a vacancy during the session of the Senate and fill it without the advice and consent of the Senate, any yet, on the 21st day of February , 1868, while the Senate was in session, he notified the head of the War Department that he was removed from office and his successor ad interim appointed. Here is a plain, recorded violation of the Constitution and laws, which, if it stood alone, would make every honest and intelligent man give his vote for impeachment, The President has persevered in his lawless course through a long series of unjustifiable acts. When the so-called confederate States of America were conquered and had laid down their arms and surrendered their territory to the victorious Union the government and final disposition of the conquered country belonged to Congress alone, according to every principle of the law of nations.

Impeachment - Thaddeus Stevens and John A. Bingham before the Senate / sketched by Theodore R. Davis. ( Illus. in: Harper's weekly, v. 12, no. 585 (1868 March 14), p. 161; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/resource/cph.3c27615/)

Republican Reps. Bingham and Stevens
at the Senate probably on
February 25, 1868

Neither the Executive nor the judiciary had any right to interfere with it except so far as was necessary to control it be military rule until the sovereign power of the nation had provided for its civil administration. No power but Congress had any right to say whether ever or when they should be admitted to the Union as States and entitles to the privileges of the Constitution of the United States. And yet Andrew Johnson, with unblushing hardihood, undertook to rule them by his own power alone, to lead them into full communion with the Union; direct them what governments to erect and what constitution to adopt, and to send Representatives and Senators to Congress according to his instructions. Where admonished by express act of Congress, more than once repeated, he disregarded the warning and continued his lawless usurpation. He is since known to have obstructed the reestablishment of those governments by the authority of Congress, and has advised the inhabitants to resist the legislation Congress. In my judgment his conduct with regard to that transaction was a high-handed usurpation of power which ought long ago to have brought him to impeachment and trial and to have removed him from his position of great mischief. He has been lucky in thus far escaping through false logic and false law. But his then acts, which will on the trial be shown to be atrocious, are open to evidence of his wicked determination to subvert the laws of his country.

I trust that when we come to vote upon this question we shall remember that although it is the duty of the President to see that the laws be executed the sovereign power of the nation rests in Congress, who have been placed around the Executive as muniments to defend his rights, and as watchmen to enforce his obedience to the law and the Constitution. His oath to obey the Constitution and our duty to compel him to do it are tremendous obligation, heavier than was ever assumed by mortal rulers. We are to protect or to destroy the liberty and happiness of a mighty people, and to take care that they progress in civilization and defend themselves against every kind of tyranny. As we deal with the first great political malefactor so will be the result of our efforts to perpetuate the happiness and good government of the human race. The God of our fathers, who inspired them with the though of universal freedom, will hold up responsible for the noble institutions which they projected and expected us to carry out, This is not to by the temporary triumph of a political party, but it is to endure in its consequence until this whole continent shall be filled with a free and untrammeled people or shall be a nest of shrinking, cowardly slaves.

The next day Thaddeus Stevens and John A. Bingham officially informed the Senate of the House’s action.

Formal notice of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, by the House Committee, Thaddeus Stevens and John A. Bingham, at the bar of the Senate, Washington, D.C., on the 25th Feb. ( Illus. in: Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, 14 March 1868.; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2002697737/)

telling the Senate

The split image of the House in session was published in the March 7, 1868 issue of Harper’s Weekly and is available at the Internet Archive (Harper’s pages 168-169). From the Library of Congress: House chamber with more information below; reporters’ gallery from the March 7, 1868 issue of Harper’s Weekly; Stevens and Bingham from the March 14, 1868 issue of Harper’s Weekly; Stevens and Bingham from the March 14, 1868 issue of Frank Leslie’s.
The House of Representatives (1868; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2017652609/)

3,000 might have squeezed in on the 24th

  1. [1]Trefousse, Hans L. Andrew Johnson: A Biography. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1997. Print. page 315.↩
Posted in 150 Years Ago This Week, Aftermath, Postbellum Society, Reconstruction | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

“kill the beast”

Posted on February 22, 2018 by SUMPTER

During Washington Birthday remarks in 1866 President Andrew Johnson identified Northerners Wendell Phillips, Senator Charles Sumner, and Congressman Thaddeus Stevens as being just as much traitors to their country as the rebels who fought against the Union for four bloody years. Two years later Thaddeus Stevens, as chairman of the House Reconstruction Committee, reported to the full House that his committee recommended the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.

committee1(https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo1.ark:/13960/t3902q433;view=1up;seq=9%20p345)

committee2 (committee1(https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo1.ark:/13960/t3902q433;view=1up;seq=9%20p345))

_____________________________________

The trigger for the February 22nd report in favor of impeachment was President Johnson’s attempt to replace War secretary Edwin M. Stanton with General Lorenzo Thomas the day before. When word of the president’s action reached the House,

Thaddeus Stevens, 1792-1868, half length portrait, seated, facing left; hand under chin (c.1898; LOC: http://www.loc.gov/item/2005686648/)

Thaddeus Stevens

“the reaction was even more impassioned [than the Senate]. When the Speaker received notification from Stanton that the secretary had been ousted, he informed the House. Clusters of excited members formed. Stevens, leaning on Bingham’s arm, moved around from group to group, constantly repeating, “Didn’t I tell you so? What good did our moderation do you? If you don’t kill the beast, it will kill you.” John Covode of Pennsylvania offered a motion to impeach the president of high crimes and misdemeanors, and the proposal was referred to the Reconstruction Committee.[1]

You can read more about the events of February 22, 1868 at The New-York Times. Mr. Stevens looked better than usual as he took his seat in the House chamber before his report.

Mr. Trefousse mentioned another of the “traitors” on the same page of his book. When the news that Johnson was again trying to oust Stanton from the War Office reached the Senate, “Sumner sent his famous one-word telegram, ‘Stick.'”
  1. [1]Trefousse, Hans L. Andrew Johnson: A Biography. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1997. Print. page 313.↩
Posted in 150 Years Ago This Week, Aftermath, Postbellum Politics, Reconstruction | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment