July 31, 1872, Mr. Blaine addressed a letter to Mr. Sumner through the newspapers, arraigning him as recreant both to party and principle, in the position taken by him on the Presidential question in his recent Letter to Colored Citizens. Mr. Sumner responded as follows:—
Washington, August 5, 1872.
DEAR SIR,—I have seen the letter addressed to me by you through the public prints, and I notice especially, that, while animadverting upon my support of Horace Greeley, you say not one word in vindication of that compound of pretensions known as Grantism in contradistinction to Republicanism, which you would install anew in the Government.
You are greatly concerned about the company I keep. To quiet your solicitude, I beg leave to say, that, in joining the Republicans who brought forward an original Abolitionist, I find myself with so many others devoted to the cause I have always served that I had not missed you until you hastened to report absence; nor had I taken account of the “Southern Secessionists,” who, as you aver, are now coöperating with me in support of this original Abolitionist, except to rejoice, that, if among former associates some like yourself hesitate, their places are supplied from an unexpected quarter.
You entirely misunderstand me when you introduce an incident of the past, and build on it an argument why I should not support Horace Greeley. What has Preston Brooks to do with the Presidential election? Never, while a sufferer, did anybody hear me speak of him in unkindness; and now, after the lapse of more than half a generation, I will not unite with you in dragging him from the grave, where he sleeps, to aggravate the passions of a political conflict, and arrest the longing for concord. And here is the essential difference between you and me at this juncture. I seize the opportunity to make the equal rights of all secure through peace and reconciliation; but this infinite boon you would postpone.
Seven years have passed since the close of our Civil War; but, unhappily, during all this period a hostile spirit has continued to exist between the contending sections, while the rights of colored fellow-citizens have been in perpetual question. Seven years mark a natural period of human life. Should not the spirit be changed with the body? Can we not after seven years begin a new life, especially when those once our foes repeat the saying, “Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God”?
I declare my preference for an original Abolitionist as President, and you seek to create a diversion by crying out that Democrats will support him. To which I reply, So much the better. Their support is the assurance that the cause he has so constantly guarded, whether of Equal Rights or Reconciliation, is accepted by Democrats; and this is the pledge of a true union beyond anything in our history. It is a victory of ideas, without which all other victories must fail.
To intensify your allegation, you insist that I am ranged with Jefferson Davis and Robert Toombs; but, pardon me, nobody knows how the former will vote, while Robert Toombs is boisterous against Horace Greeley, and with him are Stephens, Wise, and Mosby. This is all very poor, and I mention it only to exhibit the character of your attempt.
In the same spirit you seek to avoid the real issue by holding up the possibility of what you call a Democratic Administration; and you have the courage to assert, as within my knowledge, that by the election of Horace Greeley “Congress is handed over to the control of the party who have persistently denied the rights of the black man.” You say that I know this. Mr. Speaker, I know no such thing, and you should be sufficiently thoughtful not to assert it. I am entirely satisfied that a canvass like the present, where the principles declared at Cincinnati are openly accepted on one side and not contested on the other, must result in a larger number of Congressional Representatives sincerely devoted to the rights of the colored citizen than ever before.
The Democrats will be pledged, as never before, to the ruling principle that All Men are Equal before the Law, and also to the three Constitutional Amendments, with the clause in each empowering Congress to enforce the same by appropriate legislation. But besides Democrats, there will be Liberal Republicans pledged likewise, and also your peculiar associates, who, I trust, will not betray the cause. Senators and Representatives calling themselves Republicans have been latterly in large majority in both Houses; but the final measure of Civil Rights, to which you refer, though urged by me almost daily, has failed to become a law, less, I fear, from Democratic opposition than from Republican lukewarmness and the want of support in the President.
The great issue which the people are called to decide in November is on the President, and nobody knows better than yourself that the House of Representatives, chosen at the same time, will naturally harmonize with him. So it has been in our history. Now harmony with Horace Greeley involves what I most desire. With such a President, Congress will be changed. For the first time since the war the Equal Rights of All will have a declared representative at the head of the Government, whose presence there will be of higher significance than that of any victor in war, being not only a testimony, but a constant motive-power in this great cause.
Opposition, whether open hostility or more subtle treachery, will yield to the steady influence of such a representative. Therefore in looking to the President I look also to Congress, which will take its character in large measure from him. In choosing Horace Greeley we do the best we can for the whole Government,—not only in the Executive, but in the Legislative branch,—while we decline to support nepotism, repayment of personal gifts by official patronage, seizure of the war powers, indignity to the Black Republic,—also, the various incapacity exhibited by the President, and the rings by which he governs,—none of which can you defend. You know well that the rings are already condemned by the American people.
For myself, I say plainly and without hesitation, that I prefer Horace Greeley, with any Congress possible on the Cincinnati Platform, to President Grant, with his personal government and his rings,—a vote for whom involves the support of this personal government, with prolonged power in all the rings. There must be another influence and another example. The Administration, in all its parts, is impressed by the President. Let his soul be enlarged with the sentiment of justice, quickened by industry, and not only the two Houses of Congress, but the whole country, will feel the irresistible authority, overspreading, pervading, permeating everywhere. Therefore, in proportion as you are earnest for the rights of the colored citizen, and place them above all partisan triumph, you will be glad to support the candidate whose heart has always throbbed for Humanity. The country needs such a motive-power in the White House; it needs a generous fountain there. In one word, it needs somebody different from the present incumbent; and nobody knows this better than Speaker Blaine.
The personal imputation you make upon me I repel with the indignation of an honest man. I was a faithful supporter of the President until somewhat tardily awakened by his painful conduct on the island of San Domingo, involving seizure of the war power in violation of the Constitution, and indignity to the Black Republic in violation of International Law; and when I remonstrated against these intolerable outrages, I was set upon by those acting in his behalf. Such is the origin of my opposition. I could not have done less without failure in that duty which is with me the rule of life. Nor can I doubt that when partisan sentiments are less active you will regret the wrong you have done me. Meanwhile I appeal confidently to the candid judgment of those who, amidst all present differences of opinion, unite in the great objects, far above Party or President, to which my life is devoted.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
Charles Sumner.
The Honorable Speaker Blaine.
RETROSPECT AND PROMISE.
Address at a Serenade before his House in Washington, August 9, 1872.
The serenade was given under the auspices of the colored men of the District, on the occasion of the Senator’s departure for Boston,—and the crowd in attendance is reported to have been “one of the largest ever gathered in Washington for a similar object.” On presentation by Dr. Augusta as “the tried and true friend of the African race,” Mr. Sumner said:—
Friends and Fellow-Citizens:—
I am touched by this voluntary expression of friendship, and beg to thank you from the heart.
In seeing you on this occasion I think of you only as personal friends among whom I have lived more than twenty years. During this considerable period changes have occurred of incalculable importance to the country, but especially to the colored people. When I entered upon my public duties here Slavery was in the ascendant, giving the law to all the usages of life. The colored man was degraded. He was not allowed to testify in court; he was shut out from the public schools; he was excluded from the public conveyances, and thrust away from the ballot-box. But here in the National Capital all these terrible wrongs have ceased. The court-room, the school-house, the horse-car, and the ballot-box are all open, never to be closed. Revolutions do not go backward. Therefore you may rest secure in what has been won. Of this be sure, Slavery will never be revived, nor will you be restrained or limited in any of these rights you now enjoy. [Applause, and three cheers for Mr. Sumner.]
Most sincerely do I congratulate you on these signal triumphs, so little to be expected when I first became acquainted with you. And when we consider the brief period in which they have been accomplished, I am sure you will unite with me in hope and trust for the future. [Cries, “We will!”]
It is my duty, however, to remind you that the work is not yet completed. This will be only by the enactment of a Civil Rights Bill which shall relieve the citizen, whoever he may be, from any exclusion or discrimination on account of his color. Only then will be established that Equality before the Law to which now, for the first time in our history, all political parties are distinctly pledged. Here there can be no question. [Applause.] It is in the platforms of all. Of the early passage of such a law I do not doubt. Then will you have all the assurance of your rights that can be found in the Constitution and law. But that law will be the cap-stone. [Applause.]
I shall not disguise from you that something more will be needed. There must be a constant, watchful, public opinion behind, to see that these are enforced in letter and spirit. Here there must be no failure in awakening and invigorating this public opinion. You can do much,—I would almost say you can do everything. How constantly have I urged, in public speech and in all my intercourse with you, that our colored fellow-citizens must insist upon their rights always, by petition, by speech, and by vote! Above all, never vote for any man who is not true to you. Make allegiance to you the measure of your support. [Cheers.] So doing, all parties will seek your vote. [Cheers.] You will be felt, and your cause will be irresistible.
Please accept these few words as my acknowledgment of your kindness this evening. [Cries, “Go on!”] From long acquaintance you know something of my sympathies. [A voice, “I do!”] Always from the beginning I have sought to serve you, and always to the end shall I seek to serve you. To your cause my life is dedicated, and nothing can turn me from it, nothing can tempt me or drive me from its support. [Loud applause.]
FREDERICK DOUGLASS AND PRESIDENT GRANT.
Letter to Hon. Andrew D. White, President of Cornell University, August 10, 1872.
Washington, August 10, 1872.
MY DEAR SIR,—I am surprised by a statement purporting to proceed from you, which I find under the telegraphic head, to the effect that I have misrepresented facts with regard to Frederick Douglass.
In making this allegation you defend the Commissioners to San Domingo, and allege that Mr. Douglass was well treated by them. I have never said the contrary, nor have I ever alluded to the treatment he received from them. Not a word or hint can be found on the subject in anything written or spoken by me.
My allusion was to the exclusion of Mr. Douglass from the common table of the mail-packet on the Potomac, almost within sight of the Executive Mansion, simply on account of color,—and I added, that the President, on whose invitation he had joined the Commission, never uttered a word in rebuke of this exclusion, and when entertaining the returned Commissioners at dinner carefully omitted Mr. Douglass, who was in Washington at the time, and thus repeated the indignity. On this you are represented as remarking, that General Sigel was also omitted, but that, in fact, Mr. Douglass and General Sigel had already left for their homes (forgetting that Mr. Douglass continued in Washington); and you do not allow yourself to doubt, that, had they been in town, they would have been included in the invitation. Your apology clearly shows your opinion that they ought to have been invited; but please not to forget that there was a reason for inviting Mr. Douglass that did not exist in the case of General Sigel. The General was white, and he had suffered no indignity on board a mail-packet which it was in the power of the President to rebuke by example.
But you are mistaken in the facts, as appears by the newspapers of the time. The Commissioners reached Washington on the evening of March 27th. They were entertained at dinner by the President March 30th. On the day before the dinner Mr. Douglass presided at the Convention to nominate a Delegate to Congress from the District of Columbia, and on taking the chair made a speech. Mr. Chipman was nominated against Mr. Douglass, who made another speech thanking his supporters for their votes. To gratify the friends of Mr. Douglass, there was an understanding that he should succeed Mr. Chipman as Secretary of the District. These things show that Mr. Douglass was not only in Washington, but conspicuously so, presiding at a public Convention, and being voted for as a candidate for Congress.
But we are not left to inference. Mr. A. M. Green, of Washington, who at the Convention nominated Mr. Douglass for Congress, assures us that he did not leave town till some days later. Mr. Green further states, in a note dated August 10th, now before me, that about this time he and another friend called on Mr. Douglass, in relation to his appointment by the President as Secretary of the District; that Mr. Douglass, while thanking them for their earnestness in his behalf, assured them that he had no hope of success; that he had “new evidence of the conservative character or tendency of the Administration, which warranted him in the opinion that we could not succeed”; and Mr. Green says that Mr. Douglass added these words: “I was not only neglected without any rebuke for the offence from the President, but the Commissioners have been invited to dine with the President, and the same spirit of neglect has been exhibited in that respect also.” Mr. Green adds, that recently, while on the way to the National Colored Convention at New Orleans, Mr. Douglass, in conversation with Mr. Downing and himself, “referred in a complaining spirit to this circumstance.”
I have also before me a note, dated August 10th, from Mr. Wormley, so well known for his excellent hotel in Washington, who says that he asked Mr. Douglass, shortly after his return, if he dined with the President and the Commissioners, to which he answered, “No, and for the good reason that I was not invited”; and then he added, “It is no use to deny it, but I feel it sorely.” This was at Mr. Douglass’s office. On another occasion, at his son’s house, referring to the same thing, he said to Mr. Wormley, “I felt it keenly.”
Mr. Gray, recently of the Legislative Council of the District, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, now a School Trustee, assures me that Mr. Douglass spoke to him of his omission by the President with the same feeling that he exhibited to Mr. Green and Mr. Wormley. These witnesses are all colored, but even without the new law nobody would question their testimony. I add my own acquaintance with the case. At my house, Mr. Douglass, while speaking not unkindly, said that he felt the President’s neglect in not inviting him to dine, which was more noticeable, as he had gone to San Domingo at the express invitation of the President, and on his return was insulted on board the Potomac mail-packet. He added, that an invitation from the President would have been a proper rebuke to those who had insulted him.
I will add, that it is a matter of common notoriety that Mr. Douglass did not disguise his feelings on account of this Presidential incident.
Such are the facts and the evidence. I think that you will see, my dear Sir, that, if there is any misstatement, or, as you express it, “perversion of facts,” it is not on my part.
Faithfully yours,
Charles Sumner.
GREELEY OR GRANT?
Speech intended to be delivered at Faneuil Hall, Boston, September 3, 1872.
Liberal Republican Head-Quarters,
Boston, August 24, 1872.
My Dear Sir,—I am directed by the Liberal Republican State Committee to communicate to you a vote of which the following is a copy:—
“Voted, That the Chairman, in the name of the Liberal Republican State Committee, invite the Hon. Charles Sumner to address his constituents on Public Affairs in Faneuil Hall, at the earliest day that may suit his convenience.”
Allow me to add my earnest personal wishes that you will be able to comply with the request. “The great soul of the world is just,” and the sober second thought of the people of Massachusetts will, I doubt not, sustain you in the position you have taken in favor of Reform and Reconciliation, and therefore of the election of Greeley and Brown.
Very faithfully yours,
F. W. Bird.
Hon. Charles Sumner.
Boston, August 30, 1872.
Dear Sir,—I have been honored by your communication of August 24th, inviting me in the name of the Liberal Republicans of Massachusetts, to speak in Faneuil Hall. It is with inexpressible pain and regret that I feel constrained to decline this flattering opportunity.
I had confidently hoped, on returning home, to meet my fellow-citizens in that venerable forum, so dear to us all, and to speak once more on great questions involving the welfare of our country; but recurring symptoms of a painful character warn me against any such attempt. My physician advises that I must not for the present make any public effort, and he prescribes rest. Valued friends, familiar with my condition, unite with the excellent physician.
In submitting most reluctantly to these admonitions, I cannot renounce the privilege of communicating with my fellow-citizens, and therefore hand you a copy of what, with the blessing of health, I hoped to say. In the House of Representatives undelivered speeches are sometimes ordered to be printed. You may follow this precedent with mine, or do with it as you please. Meanwhile accept my best wishes, and believe me, dear Sir,
Very faithfully yours,
Charles Sumner.
Hon. Francis W. Bird, Chairman, etc.
SPEECH.
FELLOW-CITIZENS,—It is on the invitation of the State Committee of Liberal Republicans that I have the honor of addressing you. I shall speak directly on the issue before us. If I am frank and plain, it will be only according to my nature and the requirement of duty at this time. But nothing can I say which is not prompted by a sincere desire to serve my country, and especially to promote that era of good-will, when the assent of all shall be assured to the equal rights of all.
THE TWO CANDIDATES.
At the approaching Presidential Election the people are to choose between two candidates. By the operation of our electoral system, and the superadded dictation of National Conventions, the choice is practically limited to President Grant and Horace Greeley; so that no preference for another can be made effective. One of these must be taken. Preferring Horace Greeley, I have no hesitation in assigning the reasons which lead me to this conclusion.
Believing the present incumbent unfit for the great office to which he aspires for a second time, and not doubting that a vote for him would be regarded as the sanction of abuses and pretensions unrepublican in character, I early saw the difficulty of taking any part for his reëlection. Long ago I declared, that, while recognizing party as an essential agency and convenience, I could not allow it to constrain my conscience against what seemed the requirements of public good. Regarding always substance rather than form, I have been indifferent to the name by which I might be called. Nor was I impressed by the way in which the candidate was urged. Supporters, while admitting his failure, and even the abuses and pretensions so notorious in his civil life, commended his reëlection as necessary to uphold the party with which I have been associated. But it is easy to see that a vote for such a candidate on such a reason was “to do evil that good might come,” which is forbidden in politics as in morals.
Two courses seemed open. One was to abstain from voting,—and I confess that this was my first inclination. But it is not easy for me to be neutral,—certainly where wrong-doing is in question; nor is it my habit to shrink from responsibility. But the doubt that beset me was removed when I saw the Democratic Party adopt the candidate opposed to President Grant, being an original Republican already nominated by a Republican Convention, and at the same time accept the Republican platform on which he was nominated. An old party, which had long stood out against the Republican cause, now placed itself on a Republican platform, the best ever adopted, with a Republican candidate, who was the most devoted Republican ever nominated,—thus completely accepting the results of the war, and offering the hand of reconciliation. At once the character of the contest changed. This was no common event. Pardon me, if I say that to me it was of peculiar interest. For years I have sought to establish in the National Government the great principles of the Declaration of Independence, avowing always that when this was done nobody should surpass me in generosity towards former Rebels. Not only by the logic of my life, but by constant speeches, was I bound to welcome those who placed themselves on this glorious platform. The extent of this obligation will appear before I close. And now its performance harmonizes with opposition to the prolonged misrule of the present incumbent.
TWO REASONS IN FAVOR OF GREELEY.
Evidently I am not at liberty to abstain from voting. In considering the reasons in favor of Horace Greeley, I find two, differing in character, but of chief importance: first, that he represents a reformed civil service, beginning with the One-Term principle, without which this reform is too much like a sham; and, secondly, that he represents reconciliation, not only between the two sections, but between the two races, which is essential to the repose of the country and the safeguard of Equal Rights.
To these must be added, that he does not represent those personal pretensions, so utterly inconsistent with Republican government, which are now known as Grantism. In voting for Horace Greeley you will not sustain nepotism, you will not sustain gift-taking and repayment by official favor, and you will not lend your sanction to the San Domingo machination, with its unconstitutional usurpations, its violations of International Law, and its indignity to the Black Republic. Elsewhere I have considered these fully,[177] and I am not aware of any answer to the undeniable facts. I shall only glance at them now.
NEPOTISM.
Nepotism is already condemned by history, and most justly; for it is obviously a form of self-seeking, hostile to purity of government, and strangely out of place in a Republic. Nothing for self, but all for country and mankind, should be the rule of our President. If the promptings of his inner nature fail, then must he feel the irresistible obligation of his position. As he does, so will others do; and therefore must his example be such as to elevate the public service. Nothing in Washington’s career has shone with more constant light than his refusal to confer office on his relations. Even at the time, it arrested attention not only at home but abroad, landing praise in England. Of this there is a striking illustration. The “Register of the Times,” published at London in 1795, in an article entitled “Interesting and Authentic Documents respecting the United States of America,” records its homage:—
“The execution of the office of the Chief Magistrate has been attended through a term of four years with a circumstance which to an admiring world requires no commentary. A native citizen of the United States, transferred from private life to that station, has not, during so long a term, appointed a single relation to any office of honor or emolument.”[178]
With such confession an admiring world looked on. Something would I do—something, I trust, the American people will do at the coming election—to secure this beautiful praise yet again for our country.
GIFT-TAKING.
Like nepotism, the taking of gifts by a public servant is condemned by history. No honest nature can uphold it. How well did our late General Thomas, so admirable in character, rebuke this abuse, when he replied to an offer of $100,000, as I am told, “Let it go to my men”! If not a form of bribery, it is kindred in nature,—and this has long been recognized, from the Bible down to our day. According to the old scriptures it is destructive: “The king by judgment stablisheth the land; but he that receiveth gifts overthroweth it.”[179] Here again is the example of Washington brightly lighting the true republican pathway. The same President who would not appoint a relation would not take a gift, even when out of office. His example was in harmony with the lesson of Colonial days. As long ago as April 20, 1703, Queen Anne, in a communication to Lord Cornbury, Governor of New York and New Jersey, laid down the following rule: that neither the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Commander-in-Chief, or President of the Council “do receive any gift or present from the Assembly or others on any account or in any manner whatsoever, upon pain of our highest displeasure, and of being recalled from that our Government.”[180] This rule is as good for our day as for that in which it was ordained by royal authority.
There is another instance, which should not be forgotten. It is that of Lord Wellesley, the accomplished brother of the Duke of Wellington. A work so common as that of Smiles on “Self-Help” records, that, while Governor-General of India, he positively refused a present of £100,000 from the Directors of the East India Company on the conquest of Mysore; and here the terms of his refusal are important:—
“It is not necessary for me to allude to the independence of my character and the proper dignity attaching to my office; other reasons besides these important considerations lead me to decline this testimony, which is not suitable to me. I think of nothing but our army. I should be much distressed to curtail the share of those brave soldiers.”[181]
His refusal remained unalterable. At a later period, when nearly eighty years of age, embarrassed by debts, and entirely withdrawn from public life, he allowed the Company to vote him a much smaller sum in consideration of his signal services.[182]
GIFT-MAKERS APPOINTED TO OFFICE.
The allowances voted by Parliament to Marlborough and Wellington on account of their victories can be no precedent for the acceptance of gifts from fellow-citizens. The distinction is clear. But the case against the present incumbent is not only that while holding high office he accepted gifts from fellow-citizens, but subsequently appointed the gift-makers to office,—thus using the Presidency to pay off his own personal obligations. Please bear this in mind; and when some apologist attempts to defend the taking of gifts, let him know that he must go still further, and show that the Presidency, with all its patronage, is a perquisite to be employed for the private advantage of the incumbent.
SAN DOMINGO.
Next in illustration of the prevailing misrule is the San Domingo business, with its eccentricities of wrong-doing; and this, too, is now in issue. At the thought of this unprecedented enormity, where wrong assumes such various forms, it is hard to be silent; but I shall be brief. The case is clear, and stands on documents which cannot be questioned. I keep within the line of moderate statement, when I say, that, from the beginning of our Government, nothing in our foreign relations has been so absolutely indefensible. It will not do to call it simply a fault and an insolence; it was an elaborate contrivance, conceived in lust of territory, pursued in ignorance, maintained in open violation of the National Constitution, pushed forward in similar violation of International Law in fundamental principles, and crowned by intolerable indignity to the Black Republic, even to the extent of menacing hostilities and the sinking of its ships,—all without authority of Congress, and by Presidential prerogative alone. In this drama the President, like a favorite actor, assumed every part. In negotiating the treaty he was President; in declaring war he was Congress; in sending ships and men he was Commander-in-Chief; and then in employing private influence with Senators to promote his scheme—according to the promise in the protocol with Baez, signed in his name by Orville E. Babcock, entitled therein “Aide-de-Camp to his Excellency General Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United States of America”—he was lobbyist. That such things can be done by a President without indignant condemnation, loud and universal, shows a painful demoralization in the country. That their author can be presented for reëlection to the Presidency, whose powers he has thus misused, shows a disheartening insensibility to public virtue.
Here I remark, that, so long as the President confined himself to negotiation, he was strictly within the line of the Constitution. Even if indiscreet in character and impolitic in object, it was not unconstitutional. But in seizing war powers without the authority of Congress, in upholding the usurper Baez that he might sell his country, in menacing the Black Republic, and then in playing the lobbyist to promote the contrivance, the President did what no other President ever did before, and what, for the sake of Republican Institutions, should be rebuked by the American people. It was the knowledge of these proceedings that changed essentially my relations to the question.
PERSONAL MISREPRESENTATIONS.
I allude with hesitation to personal misrepresentations on the matter. It has been said that I promised originally to support the treaty. This is a mistake. I knew nothing of the treaty, and had no suspicion of it, until several months after the protocol, and some time after the negotiation was completed; and then my simple promise was that it should have from me “the most careful and candid consideration”; and such I gave it most sincerely. At first my opposition was reserved and without allusion to the President. It was only when the strange business was fully disclosed in official documents communicated in confidence to the Senate, and it was still pressed, that I felt impelled to a sterner resistance. Especially was I constrained, when I found how much the people of Hayti suffered. It so happened that I had reported the bill acknowledging their independence and establishing diplomatic relations between our two countries, assuring that equality which had been violated. Not unmoved could I witness the wrong inflicted upon them. And has it come to this, that the President of the Great Republic, instead of carrying peace and good tidings to Africans commencing the experiment of self-government, should become to them an agent of terror?
It is difficult to see how I could have done otherwise. Anxious to excuse the anger towards me, it has been said that I opposed the treaty because Mr. Motley was unceremoniously removed from the mission at London; and here you will see the extent to which misrepresentation has gone. It so happens that Mr. Motley was removed on the day immediately following the rejection of the treaty. Evidently my opposition was not influenced by the removal: was the removal influenced by my opposition?
Equally absurd is the story that I am now influenced by personal feelings. I am a public servant, trained to duty; and now, as always before, I have yielded only to this irresistible mandate. With me there is no alternative. The misconduct of the President, so apparent in the San Domingo device, became more conspicuous in the light of illustrative facts, showing it to be part of a prevailing misrule, which, for the sake of our country, should not be prolonged. As a patriot citizen, anxious for the national welfare and renown, am I obliged to declare these convictions.
I am now brought to those two chief measures to be advanced by the election of Horace Greeley, each of controlling importance,—one looking directly to purity and efficiency in the government, and the other to the peace and welfare of our country.
ONE-TERM PRINCIPLE.
The principle of One Term for President is the corner-stone of a reformed civil service. So plain is this to my apprehension, that I am at a loss to understand how any one sincerely in favor of such reform can fail to insist upon this principle. All experience shows that the employment of the appointing power to promote the personal ends of the President is the great disturbing influence in our civil service. Here is the comprehensive abuse which envelops all the offices of the country, making them tributary to one man, and subordinate to his desires. Let this be changed, and you have the first stage of reform, without which all other measures are dilatory, if not feeble and inefficient. How futile to recommend, as is done by the Commissioners on Civil Service, “an honest competitive examination,” while the rules for this system are left to the discretion of a President seeking reëlection! “Lead us not into temptation” is part of the brief prayer we are all taught to repeat; nor are Presidents above the necessity of this prayer. The misuse of the appointing power to advance ambitious aims is a temptation to which a President must not be exposed. For his sake, and for the sake of the country, this must not be.
In attributing peril to this influence, I speak not only from my own careful observation, but from the testimony of others whose words are authoritative. You do not forget how Andrew Jackson declared that the limitation of the office to one term was required, in order to place the President “beyond the reach of any improper influences” and “uncommitted to any other course than the strict line of constitutional duty,”[183]—how William Henry Harrison announced, that, with the adoption of this principle, “the incumbent would devote all his time to the public interest, and there would be no cause to misrule the country,”[184]—how Henry Clay was satisfied, after much observation and reflection, “that too much of the time, the thoughts, and the exertions of the incumbent are occupied during his first term in securing his reëlection,”[185]—and how my senatorial associate of many years, Benjamin F. Wade, after denouncing the reëligibility of the President, said, “There are defects in the Constitution, and this is among the most glaring.”[186] According to this experienced Senator, the reëligibility of the President is not only a defect in the Constitution, but one of its most glaring defects.
And such also was the declared opinion of the present incumbent before his election and the temptation of a second term. It has been stated by one who conferred with him at the time, that immediately before his nomination General Grant said, in the spirit of Andrew Jackson, “The liberties of the country cannot be maintained without a One-Term Amendment of the Constitution”; and another writes me, that while on a walk between the White House and the Treasury, just at the head of the steps, near the fountain, the General paused a moment, and said, “I am in favor of restricting the President to a single term, and of abolishing the office of Vice-President.” By the authority of this declaration, the “Morning Chronicle,”[187] the organ of the Republican party at Washington, proclaimed of its Presidential candidate, “He is, moreover, an advocate of the One-Term principle, as conducing toward the proper administration of the law”; and then at a later date,[188] after calling for the adoption of this principle, the same Republican organ said, “General Grant is in favor of it.” Unquestionably at that time, while the canvass was proceeding, he allowed himself to be commended as a supporter of this principle. That he should now disregard it gives new reason for the prayer, “Lead us not into temptation.”
Never before was the necessity for this beneficent Amendment more apparent; for never before was the wide-spread abuse from the reëligibility of the President more grievously conspicuous. De Tocqueville, the illustrious Frenchman, who saw our institutions with a vision quickened by genius and chastened by friendly regard, discerned the peril, when he said:—
“Intrigue and corruption are the natural vices of elective government; but when the head of the State can be reëlected, these evils rise to a great height and compromise the very existence of the country. When a simple candidate seeks to rise by intrigue, his manœuvres must be limited to a very narrow sphere; but when the Chief Magistrate enters the lists, he borrows the strength of the Government for his own purposes.… If the representative of the Executive descends into the combat, the cares of Government dwindle for him into second-rate importance, and the success of his election is his first concern.”[189]
Nothing can be more true than these remarkable words, which are completely verified in what we now behold. The whole diversified machinery of the National Government in all its parts, operating in State, District, Town, and Village, is now at work to secure the reëlection of the President, as for some time before it worked to secure his renomination,—the whole being obedient to the central touch.
Look for a moment at this machinery, or, if you please, at this political hierarchy, beginning with Cabinet officers, and reaching to the pettiest postmaster, every one diligent to the single end of serving Presidential aspiration. The Jeffersonian rule was, “Is he honest? Is he capable? Is he faithful to the Constitution?” But this is now lost in the mightier law, “Is he faithful to reëlection?” This failing, all merit fails. Every office-holder, from highest to lowest, according to his influence, becomes propagandist, fugleman, whipper-in. Members of the Cabinet set the example, and perambulate the country, instructing the people to vote for reëlection. Heads of Bureaus do likewise. Then, in their respective localities, officers of the Customs, officers of the Internal Revenue, marshals with their deputies, and postmasters, each and all, inspired from the National Capitol, are all calling for reëlection. This organized power, variously estimated at from sixty to eighty thousand in number, all paid by the Government, and overspreading the whole country in one minute network, has unprecedented control at this moment, partly from increased facilities of communication, and partly from the military drill which still survives the war, but more, perhaps, from the determined will of the President, to which all these multitudinous wills are subjugated. This simple picture, which nobody can question, reveals a tyranny second only to that of the Slave Power itself,—which Jefferson seems to have foreseen, when, after portraying the Legislature as most to be feared in his day, he said, “The tyranny of the Executive will come in its turn.”[190] Even his prophetic vision did not enable him to foresee the mournful condition we now deplore, with the One-Man Power lording itself through all the offices of the country.
The recent election in North Carolina made this practically manifest. Even without a telescope, all could discern the operations of the field. Postmasters and officers of Internal Revenue were on hand, each in his place; then came the Marshal, with files of deputies, extemporized for the occasion; while, ranging over the extensive circuit, was the Supervisor of the Revenue; the whole instructed and animated by members of the Cabinet, who abandoned their responsible duties to help reëlection, which for the time was above all departments of Government and all exigencies of the public service. In the same way the chief Custom-Houses of the country have been enlisted. Each has become a political centre whose special object is reëlection. Authentic evidence before a Congressional Committee shows that Thomas Murphy, while Collector of New York, acting as Lieutenant of the President, sought to control the Republican State Convention by tendering office to four men, in consideration of the return of certain delegates, promising that “he would immediately send their names on to Washington and have them appointed”; and by way of enforcing the Presidential supremacy, he announced with startling effrontery that “President Grant was the representative and head of the Republican party, and all good Republicans should support him in all his measures and appointments, and any one who did not do it should be crushed out.”[191] If this were not authenticated under oath, it would be hard to believe. But the New Orleans Custom-House has a story much worse. Here Presidential pretension is mixed with unblushing corruption, in which the Collector, a brother-in-law, is a chief actor. And all for reëlection.[192]
This prostitution of the offices of the country to the Presidential will can be upheld only by unhesitating partisan zeal, discarding reason and patriotism. Already it has been condemned in an official Report made to the House of Representatives, November 25, 1867, by Mr. Boutwell, as Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and signed by him. His direct object was to arraign Andrew Johnson; but these words declare a rule applicable to all Presidents:—