The Project Gutenberg EBook of Recollections of Forty Years in the House,
Senate and Cabinet, by John  Sherman

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org


Title: Recollections of Forty Years in the House, Senate and Cabinet
       An Autobiography.

Author: John  Sherman

Release Date: July 10, 2007 [EBook #22036]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK JOHN SHERMAN'S RECOLLECTIONS ***




Produced by Ed Ferris




Transcriber's note:

  The dieresis is transcribed by a preceding hyphen.  "Employe" is
  replaced by "employee".  The author's capitalization and spelling
  are followed when consistent, but probable mistakes of the typesetter
  have been corrected.

  The right brackets (}) in the heading of quoted letters
  represent a single bracket grouping those lines in the book, which
  indicates a typeset heading on the stationery used.

  LoC call number:  E664.S57 1968


JOHN SHERMAN'S
RECOLLECTIONS
OF
FORTY YEARS
IN
THE HOUSE, SENATE AND CABINET.
AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY.

VOLUME I.

ILLUSTRATED
WITH PORTRAITS, FAC-SIMILE LETTERS, SCENES, ETC.

GREENWOOD PRESS, PUBLISHERS
NEW YORK  1968


Copyright, 1895, By John Sherman

SHERMAN BOOK.

First Greenwood reprinting, 1968

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS catalogue card number:  68-28647

Printed in the United States of America


PREFACE

These Recollections grew out of a long deferred purpose to publish
a selection of my speeches on public questions, but in collecting
them it became manifest that they should be accompanied or preceded
by a statement of the circumstances that attended their delivery.
The attempt to furnish such a statement led to a review of the
chief events of my public life, which covers the period extending
from 1854 to the present time.  The sectional trouble that preceded
the Civil War, the war itself with all its attendant horrors and
sacrifices, the abolition of slavery, the reconstruction measures,
and the vast and unexampled progress of the republic in growth and
development since the war, presented a topic worthy of a better
historian than I am.  Still, as my life was interwoven with these
events, I concluded that it was better that I state my recollection
of what I saw or heard or did in those stirring times rather than
what I said.  Whether this conclusion was a wise one the reader must
judge.  Egotism is a natural trait of mankind.  If it is exhibited
in a moderate degree we pardon it with a smile; if it is excessive
we condemn it as a weakness.  The life of one man is but an atom,
but if it is connected with great events it shares in their dignity
and importance.  Influenced by this reasoning I concluded to postpone
the publication of my speeches except so far as they are quoted or
described in these memoirs.

When I entered upon their preparation the question arose whether
the book to be written was to be of my life, including ancestry
and boyhood, or to be confined to the financial history of the
United States with which I was mainly identified.  This was settled
by the publishers, who were more interested in the number of copies
they could sell than in the finances of the United States.

Every man has a theory of finance of his own, and is indifferent
to any other.  At best the subject is a dry one.  Still, the problem
of providing money to carry on the expensive operations of a great
war, and to provide for the payment of the vast debt created during
the war, was next in importance to the conduct of armies, and those
who were engaged in solving this problem were as much soldiers as
the men who were carrying muskets or commanding armies.  As one of
these I feel it my duty to present the measures adopted and to
claim for them such merit as they deserve.

These volumes do contain the true history of the chief financial
measures of the United States government during the past forty
years.  My hope is that those who read them will be able to correct
the wild delusions of many honest citizens who became infected with
the "greenback craze," or the "free coinage of silver."

My chief regret is that the limit of these volumes did not permit
me to extend my narrative to the memorable battles and marches of
the Civil War, nor to a more general notice of my associates who
distinguished themselves in civil life.  The omission of military
narrative is admirably compensated by the memoirs of the great
commanders on either side, and better yet by the vast collection
and publication, by the United States, of the "Records of the
Rebellion."  The attempt to include in these volumes my estimate
of distinguished men still living who participated in the events
narrated would greatly extend them and might lead to injustice.

One of the fortunate results of the Civil War has been to diminish
the sectional prejudice that previously existed both in the north
and in the south.  I would not check this tendency, but will gladly
contribute in every way possible to a hearty union of the people
in all sections of our country, not only in matters of government,
but also in ties of good will, mutual respect and fraternity.  The
existence of slavery in some of the states was the cause of the
war, and its abolition was the most important result of the war.
So great a change naturally led to disorder and violence where
slavery had existed, but this condition, it is believed, is passing
away.  Therefore I have not entered in detail into the measures
adopted as the result of the abolition of slavery.

This preface is hardly necessary, but I comply with the general
custom of adding at the beginning, instead of the end, an apology
for writing a book.  This seems to me to be the chief object of a
preface, and I add to it an appeal for the kindly consideration of
the readers of these volumes.

  John Sherman.
  Mansfield, Ohio, August 30, 1895.


ILLUSTRATIONS
VOLUME I.

John Sherman
Dedham Street, Dedham, Essex County, England
Birthplace of John Sherman at Lancaster, Ohio
Mr. Sherman at the Age of Nineteen
Charles T. Sherman
First Court House at Mansfield, Ohio
Mr. Sherman's First Home in Mansfield, Ohio
Kansas Investigating Committee
Mr. Sherman at the Age of Thirty-five
Mr. Sherman's First Residence in Washington, D. C.
Senator Justin S. Morrill
Abraham Lincoln
General W. T. Sherman
Three Ohio Governors--Dennison, Tod, Brough
Colfax, Douglas, Fessenden, Ewing (Group.)
Edwin M. Stanton
U. S. Grant
United States Senators--43rd Congress
Mr. Sherman's Present Residence at Mansfield, Ohio
Library of Mr. Sherman's Mansfield Residence


AUTOGRAPH LETTERS
VOLUME I.

Certificate of Admission to Practice in Supreme Court, January 21,
  1852
T. Ewing, December 31, 1848
Wm. H. Seward, September 20, 1852
Certificate of Election as United States Representative, December
  9, 1854
Justin S. Morrill, April 1, 1861
W. B. Allison, March 23, 1861
John A. Dix, February 6, 1861
Simon Cameron, November 14, 1861
Edwin M. Stanton, December 7, 1862
Horace Greeley, February 7, 1865
Thurlow Weed, February 28, 1866
Schuyler Colfax, February 17, 1868
Vote on the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, May 16, and 26, 1868
U. S. Grant, June 14, 1871
M. H. Carpenter, July 20, 1871
Roscoe Conkling, October 13, 1871
J. A. Garfield, September 25, 1874
R. B. Hayes, June 19, 1876
R. B. Hayes, February 19, 1877
Cyrus W. Field, March 6, 1877
Wm. M. Evarts, August 30, 1877


TABLE OF CONTENTS.
VOLUME I.

CHAPTER I.
ANCESTRY OF THE SHERMAN FAMILY.
Family Name is of Saxon Origin--"Conquer Death by Virtue"--Arrival
of Rev. John Sherman at Boston in 1634--General Sherman's Reply to
an English Sexton--Career of Daniel Sherman--My First Visit to
Woodbury--"Sherman's Tannery"--Anecdote of "Uncle Dan"--Sketch of
My Father and Mother--Address to Enlisting Soldiers--General Reese's
Account of My Father's Career--Religion of the Sherman Family--My
Belief.

CHAPTER II.
MY BOYHOOD DAYS AND EARLY LIFE.
Born at Lancaster, Ohio, May 10, 1823--Death of My Father and Its
Effect on Our Family--Early Days at School--A Dead Sheep in the
Schoolroom--Lesson in Sunday Sport--Some of My Characteristics--My
Attack on the Schoolmaster--Robbing an Orchard--A Rodman at Fourteen
and My Experiences While Surveying--Debates at Beverly--Early Use
of Liquor--First Visit to Mansfield in 1839--The Famous Campaign
of 1840--I Begin the Study of Law.

CHAPTER III.
OHIO, ITS HISTORY AND RESOURCES.
Occupation by the Indians--Washington's Expedition to the Head of
the Ohio River--Commencement of the History of the State--Topography,
Characteristics, etc., in 1787--Arrival of the First Pioneers--The
Treaty of Greenville--Census of 1802 Showed a Population of 45,028
Persons--Occupation of the "Connecticut Reserve"--Era of Internal
Improvement--Value of Manufactures in 1890--Vast Resources of the
Buckeye State--Love of the "Ohio Man" for His Native State.

CHAPTER IV.
ADMISSION TO THE BAR AND EARLY POLITICAL LIFE.
Law Partnership with my Brother Charles--Change in Methods of Court
Practice--Obtaining the Right of Way for a Railroad--Excitement of
the Mexican War and its Effect on the Country--My First Visit to
Washington--At a Banquet with Daniel Webster--New York Fifty Years
Ago--Marriage with Margaret Cecilia Stewart--Beginning of My
Political Life--Belief in the Doctrine of Protection--Democratic
and Whig Conventions of 1852--The Slavery Question--My Election to
Congress in 1854.

CHAPTER V.
EARLY DAYS IN CONGRESS.
My First Speech in the House--Struggle for the Possession of Kansas
--Appointed as a Member of the Kansas Investigating Committee--The
Invasion of March 30, 1855--Exciting Scenes in the Second District
of Kansas--Similar Violence in Other Territorial Districts--Return
and Report of the Committee--No Relief Afforded the People of Kansas
--Men of Distinction in the 34th Congress--Long Intimacy with
Schuyler Colfax.

CHAPTER VI.
BIRTH OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
The Name Formally Adopted at Jackson, Michigan, in 1854--Nomination
of John C. Fremont at Philadelphia--Democratic Convention Nominates
James Buchanan--Effect of the Latter's Election on the North--My
Views Concerning President Pierce and His Administration--French
Spoilation Claims--First Year of Buchanan's Administration--Dred
Scott Case Decision by Supreme Court--The Slavery Question Once
More an Issue in Congress--Douglas' Opposition to the Lecompton
Scheme--Turning Point of the Slavery Controversy.

CHAPTER VII.
RECOLLECTIONS OF THE FINANCIAL PANIC OF 1857.
Its Effect on the State Banks--My Maiden Speech in Congress on
National Finances--Appointed a Member of the Committee on Naval
Affairs--Investigation of the Navy Department and its Results--Trip
to Europe with Mrs. Sherman--We Visit Bracklin's Bridge, Made Famous
by Sir Walter Scott--Ireland and the Irish--I Pay a Visit to
Parliament and Obtain Ready Admission--Notable Places in Paris
Viewed With Senator Sumner--The Battlefield of Magenta--Return Home.

CHAPTER VIII.
EXCITING SCENES IN CONGRESS.
I am Elected for the Third Term--Invasion of Virginia by John Brown
--His Trial and Execution--Spirited Contest for the Speakership--
Discussion over Helper's "Impending Crisis"--Angry Controversies
and Threats of Violence in the House--Within Three Votes of Election
as Speaker--My Reply to Clark's Attack--Withdrawal of my Name and
Election of Mr. Pennington--Made Chairman of the Committee of Ways
and Means--President Buchanan Objects to Being "Investigated"--
Adoption of the Morrill Tariff Act--Views Upon the Tariff Question
--My Colleagues.

CHAPTER IX.
LAST DAYS OF THE BUCHANAN ADMINISTRATION.
My First Appearance Before a New York Audience--Lincoln's Nomination
at the Chicago Convention--I Engage Actively in the Presidential
Canvass--Making Speeches for Lincoln--My Letter to Philadelphia
Citizens--Acts of Secession by the Southern States--How the South
was Equipped by the Secretary of the Navy--Buchanan's Strange
Doctrine Regarding State Control by the General Government--Schemes
"To Save the Country"--My Reply to Mr. Pendleton on the Condition
of the Impending Revolution--The Ohio Delegation in the 36th Congress
--Retrospection.

CHAPTER X.
THE BEGINNING OF LINCOLN'S FIRST ADMINISTRATION.
Arrival of the President-Elect at Washington--Impressiveness of
His Inaugural Address--I am Elected Senator from Ohio to Succeed
Salmon P. Chase--Letters Written to and Received from My Brother
William Tecumseh--His Arrival at Washington--A Dark Period in the
History of the Country--Letter to General Sherman on the Attack
Upon Fort Sumter--Departure for Mansfield to Encourage Enlistments
--Ohio Regiments Reviewed by the President--General McLaughlin
Complimented--My Visit to Ex-President Buchanan--Meeting Between
My Brother and Colonel George H. Thomas.

CHAPTER XI.
SPECIAL SESSION OF CONGRESS TO PROVIDE FOR THE WAR.
Condition of the Treasury Immediately Preceding the War--Not Enough
Money on Hand to Pay Members of Congress--Value of Fractional Silver
of Earlier Coinage--Largely Increased Revenues an Urgent Necessity
--Lincoln's Message and Appeal to the People--Issue of New Treasury
Notes and Bonds--Union Troops on the Potomac--Battle of Bull Run--
Organization of the "Sherman Brigade"--The President's Timely Aid
--Personnel of the Brigade.

CHAPTER XII.
PASSAGE OF THE LEGAL TENDER ACT IN 1862.
My Interview with Lincoln About Ohio Appointments--Governmental
Expenses Now Aggregating Nearly $2,000,000 Daily--Secretary Chase's
Annual Report to Congress in December, 1861--Treasury Notes a Legal
Tender in Payment of Public and Private Debts--Beneficial Results
from the Passage of the Bill--The War Not a Question of Men, but
of Money--Proposed Organization of National Banks--Bank Bills Not
Taxed--Local Banks and Their Absorption by the Government--The 1862
Issue of $150,000,000 in "Greenbacks"--Legal Tender Act a Turning
Point in Our Financial History--Compensation of Officers of the
Government.

CHAPTER XIII.
ABOLISHMENT OF THE STATE BANKS.
Measures Introduced to Tax Them out of Existence--Arguments That
Induced Congress to Deprive Them of the Power to Issue Their Bills
as Money--Bill to Provide a National Currency--Why Congress Authorized
an Issue of $400,000,000, of United States Notes--Issue of 5-20
and 10-40 Bonds to Help to Carry on the War--High Rates of Interest
Paid--Secretary Chase's Able Management of the Public Debt--Our
Internal Revenue System--Repeal of the Income Tax Law--My Views on
the Taxability of Incomes.

CHAPTER XIV.
LINCOLN'S EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION.
Slavery in the District of Columbia Abolished--Law Goes Into Effect
on April 10, 1862--Beginning of the End of Slavery--Military Measures
in Congress to Carry on the War--Response to the President's Call
--Beneficial Effects of the Confiscation Act--Visits to Soldiers'
Camps--Robert S. Granger as a Cook--How I Came to Purchase a
Washington Residence--Increase of Compensation to Senators and
Members and Its Effect--Excitement in Ohio over Vallandigham's
Arrest--News of the Fall of Vicksburg and Defeat of Lee at Gettysburg
--John Brough Elected Governor of Ohio--Its Effect on the State.

CHAPTER XV.
A MEMORABLE SESSION OF CONGRESS.
Dark Period of the War--Effect of the President's Proclamation--
Revenue Bill Enacted Increasing Internal Taxes and Adding Many New
Objects of Taxation--Additional Bonds Issued--General Prosperity
in the North Following the Passage of New Financial Measures--Aid
for the Union Pacific Railroad Company--Land Grants to the Northern
Pacific--13th Amendment to the Constitution--Resignation of Secretary
Chase--Anecdote of Governor Tod of Ohio--Nomination of William P.
Fessenden to Succeed Chase--The Latter Made Chief Justice--Lincoln's
Second Nomination--Effect of Vallandigham's Resolution--General
Sherman's March to the Sea--Second Session of the 38th Congress.

CHAPTER XVI.
ASSASSINATION OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
Johnson's Maudlin Stump Speech in the Senate--Inauguration of
Lincoln for the Second Term--My Trip to the South--Paying off a
Church Debt--Meetings to Celebrate the Success of the Union Army--
News of the Death of Lincoln--I Attend the Funeral Services--General
Johnston's Surrender to General Sherman--Controversy with Secretary
Stanton Over the Event--Review of 65,000 Troops in Washington--Care
of the Old Soldiers--Annual Pension List of $150,000,000--I am Re-
elected to the Senate--The Wade-Davis Bill--Johnson's Treatment of
Public Men--His Veto of the Civil Rights Bill--Reorganization of
the Rebel States and Their Final Restoration to the Union.

CHAPTER XVII.
INDEBTEDNESS OF THE UNITED STATES IN 1865.
Organization of the Greenback Party--Total Debt on October 31st
amounts to $2,805,549,437.55--Secretary McCulloch's Desire to
Convert All United States Notes into Interest Bearing Bonds--My
Discussion with Senator Fessenden Over the Finance Committee's Bill
--Too Great Powers Conferred on the Secretary of the Treasury--His
Desire to Retire $10,000,000 of United States Notes Each Month--
Growth of the Greenback Party--The Secretary's Powers to Reduce
the Currency by Retiring or Canceling United States Notes is
Suspended--Bill to Reduce Taxes and Provide Internal Revenue--My
Trip to Laramie and Other Western Forts with General Sherman--
Beginning of the Department of Agriculture.

CHAPTER XVIII.
THREE MONTHS IN EUROPE.
Short Session of Congress Convened March 4, 1867--I Become Chairman
of the Committee on Finance, Succeeding Senator Fessenden--Departure
for Europe--Winning a Wager from a Sea Captain--Congressman Kasson's
Pistol--Under Surveillance by English Officers--Impressions of John
Bright, Disraeli and Other Prominent Englishmen--Visit to France,
Belgium, Holland and Germany--An Audience with Bismarck--His Sympathy
with the Union Cause--Wonders of the Paris Exposition--Life in
Paris--Presented to the Emperor Napoleon III and the Empress Eugenie
--A Dinner at the Tuileries--My Return Home--International Money
Commission in Session at Paris--Correspondence with Commissioner
Ruggles--His Report--Failure to Unify the Coinage of Nations--
Relative Value of Gold and Silver.

CHAPTER XIX.
IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON.
Judiciary Committee's Resolution Fails of Adoption by a Vote of 57
Yeas to 108 Nays--Johnson's Attempt to Remove Secretary Stanton
and Create a New Office for General Sherman--Correspondence on the
Subject--Report of the Committee on Impeachment, and Other Matters
Pertaining to the Appointment of Lorenzo Thomas--Impeachment
Resolution Passed by the House by a Vote of 126 Yeas to 47 Nays--
Johnson's Trial by the Senate--Acquittal of the President by a Vote
of 35 Guilty to 19 Not Guilty--Why I Favored Conviction--General
Schofield Becomes Secretary of War--"Tenure of Office Act."

CHAPTER XX.
THE FORTIETH CONGRESS.
Legislation During the Two Years--Further Reduction of the Currency
by the Secretary Prohibited--Report of the Committee of Conference
--Bill for Refunding the National Debt--Amounted to $2,639,382,572.68
on December 1, 1867--Resumption of Specie Payments Recommended--
Refunding Bill in the Senate--Change in My Views--Debate Participated
in by Nearly Every Senator--Why the Bill Failed to Become a Law--
Breach Between Congress and the President Paralyzes Legislation--
Nomination and Election of Grant for President--His Correspondence
with General Sherman.

CHAPTER XXI.
BEGINNING OF GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION.
His Arrival at Washington in 1864 to Take Command of the Armies of
the United States--Inaugural Address as President--"An Act to
Strengthen the Public Credit"--Becomes a Law on March 19, 1869--
Formation of the President's Cabinet--Fifteenth Amendment to the
Constitution--Bill to Fund the Public Debt and Aid in the Resumption
of Specie Payments--Bill Finally Agreed to by the House and Senate
--A Redemption Stipulation Omitted--Reduction of the Public Debt--
Problem of Advancing United States Notes to Par with Coin.

CHAPTER XXII.
OUR COINAGE BEFORE AND AFTER THE WAR.
But Little Coin in Circulation in 1869--General Use of Spanish
Pieces--No Mention of the Dollar Piece in the Act of 1853--Free
Circulation of Gold After the 1853 Act--No Truth in the "Demonetization"
Charge--Account of the Bill Revising the Laws Relative to the Mint,
Assay Offices and Coinage of the United States--Why the Dollar was
Dropped from the Coins--Then Known Only as a Coin for the Foreign
Market--Establishment of the "Trade Dollar"--A Legal Tender for
Only Five Dollars--Repeated Attempts to Have Congress Pass a Free
Coinage Act--How It Would Affect Us--Controversy Between Senator
Sumner and Secretary Fish.

CHAPTER XXIII.
SOME EVENTS IN MY PRIVATE LIFE.
Feuds and Jealousies During Grant's Administration--Attack on Me
by the Cincinnati "Enquirer"--Reply and Statement Regarding My
Worldly Possessions--I Am Elected to the Senate for the Third Term
--Trip to the Pacific with Colonel Scott and Party--Visit to the
Yosemite Valley--San Diego in 1872--Return via Carson City and Salt
Lake--We call on Brigham Young--Arrival Home to Enter Into the
Greeley-Grant Canvass--Election of General Grant for the Second
Term.

CHAPTER XXIV.
THE PANIC OF 1873 AND ITS RESULTS.
Failure of Jay Cooke and Co.--Wild Schemes "for the Relief of the
People"--Congress Called Upon for Help--Finance Committee's Report
for the Redemption of United States Notes in Coin--Extracts from
my Speech in Favor of the Report--Bill to Fix the Amount of United
States Notes--Finally Passed by the Senate and House--Vetoed by
President Grant and Failure to Pass Over His Objection--General
Effect Throughout the Country of the Struggle for Resumption--
Imperative Necessity for Providing Some Measure of Relief.

CHAPTER XXV.
BILL FOR THE RESUMPTION OF SPECIE PAYMENTS.
Decline in Value of Paper Money--Meeting of Congress in December,
1874--Senate Committee of Eleven to Formulate a Bill to Advance
United States Notes to Par in Coin--Widely Differing Views of the
Members--Redemption of Fractional Currency Readily Agreed to--Other
Sections Finally Adopted--Means to Prepare for and Maintain Resumption
--Report of the Bill by the Committee on Finance--Its Passage by
the Senate by a Vote of 32 to 14--Full Text of the Measure and an
Explanation of What It Was Expected to Accomplish--Approval by the
House and the President.

CHAPTER XXVI.
RESUMPTION ACT RECEIVED WITH DISFAVOR.
It Is Not Well Received by Those Who Wished Immediate Resumption
of Specie Payments--Letter to "The Financier" in Reply to a Charge
That It Was a "Political Trick," etc.--The Ohio Canvass of 1875--
Finance Resolutions in the Democratic and Republican Platforms--R.
B. Hayes and Myself Talk in Favor of Resumption--My Recommendation
of Him for President--A Democrat Elected as Speaker of the House--
The Senate Still Republican--My Speech in Support of Specie Payments
Made March 6, 1876--What the Financial Policy of the Government
Should Be.

CHAPTER XXVII.
MY CONFIDENCE IN THE SUCCESS OF RESUMPTION.
Tendency of Democratic Members of Both Houses to Exaggerate the
Evil Times--Debate Over the Bill to Provide for Issuing Silver Coin
in Place of Fractional Currency--The Coinage Laws of the United
States and Other Countries--Joint Resolution for the Issue of Silver
Coins--The "Trade Dollar" Declared Not to Be a Legal Tender--My
Views on the Free Coinage of Silver--Bill to Provide for the
Completion of the Washington Monument--Resolution Written by Me on
the 100th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence--Unanimously
Passed in a Day by Both Houses--Completion of the Structure Under
the Act.

CHAPTER XXVIII.
THE HAYES-TILDEN PRESIDENTIAL CONTEST.
Nomination of R. B. Hayes for President--His Fitness for the
Responsible Office--Political Shrewdness of Samuel J. Tilden, His
Opponent--I Enter Actively Into the Canvass in Ohio and Other States
--Frauds in the South--Requested by General Grant to Go to New
Orleans and Witness the Canvassing of the Vote of Louisiana--
Departure for the South--Personnel of the Republican and Democratic
"Visitors"--Report of the Returning Board--My Letter to Governor
Hayes from New Orleans--President Grant's Last Message to Congress
--Letter from President Hayes--Request to Become his Secretary of
the Treasury.

CHAPTER XXIX.
I BEGIN MY DUTIES AS SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Legislative Training of Great Advantage to Me in My New Position--
Loan Contract in Force When I Took the Portfolio--Appointment of
Charles F. Conant as Funding Agent of the Treasury Department in
London--Redeeming Called Bonds--Sale of Four Per Cent. Bonds Instead
of Four and a Half Per Cents.--Popularity of the New Loan--Great
Saving in Interest--On a Tour of Inspection Along the Northern
Atlantic Coast--Value of Information Received on This Trip--Effect
of the Baltimore and Pittsburg Railroad Strikes in 1877 Upon Our
Public Credit.

CHAPTER XXX.
POLICY OF THE HAYES ADMINISTRATION.
Reception at My Home in Mansfield--Given by Friends Irrespective
of Party--Introduced by My Old Friend and Partner, Henry C. Hedges
--I Reply by Giving a Résumé of the Contests in South Carolina and
Louisiana to Decide Who Was Governor--Positions Taken by Presidents
Grant and Hayes in These Contests--My Plans to Secure the Resumption
of Specie Payments--Effects of a Depreciated Currency--Duties of
the Secretary of the Treasury--Two Modes of Resuming--My Mansfield
Speech Printed Throughout the Country and in England--Letters to
Stanley Matthews and General Robinson--Our Defeat in Ohio--An Extra
Session of Congress--Bills Introduced to Repeal the Act Providing
for the Resumption of Specie Payments--They All Fail of Passage--
Popular Subscription of Bonds All Paid for.


CHAPTER I.
ANCESTRY OF THE SHERMAN FAMILY.
Family Name is of Saxon Origin--"Conquer Death by Virtue"--Arrival
of Rev. John Sherman at Boston in 1634--General Sherman's Reply to
an English Sexton--Career of Daniel Sherman--My First Visit to
Woodbury--"Sherman's Tannery"--Anecdote of "Uncle Dan"--Sketch of
My Father and Mother--Address to Enlisting Soldiers--General Reese's
Account of My Father's Career--Religion of the Sherman Family--My
Belief.

The family name of Sherman is, no doubt, of Saxon origin.  It is
very common along the Rhine, and in different parts of the German
Empire.  It is there written Shearmann or Schurmann.  I found it
in Frankfort and Berlin.  The English Shermans lived chiefly in
Essex and Suffolk counties near the east coast, and in London.
The name appears frequently in local records.  One Sherman was
executed for taking the unsuccessful side in a civil war.  It was
not until the beginning of the 16th century that any of the name
assumed the arms, crest, and motto justified by their pride, property
or standing.  The motto taken, "Conquer Death by Virtue," is a
rather meaningless phrase.  It is modest enough, and indicates a
religious turn of mind.  Nearly every family of the name furnished
a preacher.  A few members of it attained the dignity of knighthood.
A greater number became landed property-holders, and more were
engaged in trade in London.  Sir Henry Sherman was one of the
executors of the will of Lord Stanley, Earl of Derby, May 23, 1521.
William Sherman, Esq., purchased Knightston in the time of Henry
VIII; and a monument to him is in Ottery St. Mary, dated 1542.  As
a rule the family belonged to the middle class and were engaged in
active occupations, earning their own bread, with a strong sense of
their rights and liberties as Englishmen.

The principal family of the name in the 16th century were the
Shermans of Yaxley in the county of Suffolk, a full detail of which
is given in Davy's Collections of that county.  Edmond Sherman,
my ancestor, was a member of this family.  He was born in 1585 and
was married to Judith Angier, May 26, 1611.  He resided at Dedham,
Essex county, England, then a place of some importance.  He was a
manufacturer of cloth, a man of means and high standing.  He was
a Puritan, with all the faults and virtues of a sectary.  He resisted
ship-money and the tax unlawfully imposed on tonnage and poundage.
He had the misfortune to live at the time when Charles I undertook
to dispense with Parliament, and to impose unlawful taxes and
burdens upon the people of England, and when the privileges of the
nobility were enforced with great severity by judges dependent upon
the crown.  He had three sons, John, baptized on the 4th of January,
1614; Edmond, baptized June 18, 1616, and Samuel, baptized July
12, 1618.  He had a nephew, known as "Captain John," somewhat older
than his sons, who was an active man in 1634.

At this time the migration to Boston, caused chiefly by the tyranny
of Charles I, was in active operation.  Hume, in his history, says:

"The Puritans, restrained in England, shipped themselves off for
America, and laid there the foundations of a government which
possessed all the liberty, both civil and religious, of which they
found themselves bereaved in their native country.  But their
enemies, unwilling that they should anywhere enjoy ease and
contentment, and dreading, perhaps, the dangerous consequences of
so disaffected a colony, prevailed on the king to issue a proclamation,
debarring those devotees access, even into those inhospitable
deserts.  Eight ships, lying in the Thames, and ready to sail, were
detained by order of the council; and in there were embarked Sir
Arthur Hazelrig, John Hampden, John Pym, and Oliver Cromwell, who
had resolved, forever, to abandon their native country, and fly to
the other extremity of the globe; where they might enjoy lectures
and discourses, of any length or form, which pleased them.  The
king had afterward full leisure to repent this exercise of
authority."

It appears that, influenced the same motives, Edmond Sherman
determined to remove his family, with his nephew, "Captain John,"
to Boston.  In one statement made in respect to them it is said
that the father and his three sons and nephew embarked for Boston,
but this is doubtful.  It is certain, however, that his son, Rev.
John Sherman and his son Samuel, and his nephew "Captain John,"
did go to Boston in 1634.  It is quite as certain that if they were
accompanied by their father and their brother Edmond, that the two
latter returned again to Dedham in 1636.  Edmond Sherman, senior,
lived and died at Dedham.  One of his descendants, Rev. Henry Beers
Sherman, a few years ago visited Dedham and there found one of the
church windows of stained glass bearing the initials of Edmond
Sherman as having been his gift, and the record shows that one of
the buttresses of the church was erected at his expense.  Mr. Henry
Beers Sherman there saw the pupils of a free school, endowed by
Edmond Sherman and still in operation, attending the church in
procession.

When in London, in the summer of 1889, I concluded to make a visit
to "the graves of my ancestors."  I examined Black's Universal
Atlas to locate Dedham, but it was not to be found.  I made inquiries,
but could discover no one who knew anything about Dedham, and
concluded there was no such place, although I had often read of
it.  I was compelled, therefore, to give up my visit.

Senator Hoar, a descendant, through his mother, of Roger Sherman
of Revolutionary fame, was more fortunate or more persistent than
I, for he subsequently found Dedham and verified the accounts we
had of our common ancestor, and procured photographs, copies of
which I have, of the monument of Edmond Sherman, of the church near
which he was buried, and of the handsome school building, still
called "the Sherman Library," that he had left by his will for the
youth of Dedham, with a sufficient annuity to support it.  Dedham
is but two or three miles from Manningtree, a more modern town on
the line of railroad, which has substantially obscured the ancient
and decayed village of Dedham.

The sexton of this church wrote General Sherman soon after he had
become distinguished as a military leader, calling his attention
to the neglected monument of his ancestor, Edmond Sherman, in the
churchyard, and asking a contribution for its repair.  The general
sent a reply to the effect that, as his ancestor in England had
reposed in peace under a monument for more than two centuries,
while some of his more recent ancestors lay in unmarked graves, he
thought it better to contribute to monuments for them here and
leave to his English cousins the care of the monuments of their
common ancestors in England.  This letter is highly prized by the
sexton and has been shown to visitors, among others to Senator
Hoar, as a characteristic memento of General Sherman.

Captain John Sherman, "Captain John," soon after his arrival in
Boston, settled in Watertown, Mass., where he married and had a
large family of children.  Among his descendants was Roger Sherman
of the Revolution, by far the most distinguished man of the name.
He had the good fortune to contribute to and sign the three most
important papers of American history, the "Address to the King,"
the "Declaration of Independence" and the "Constitution of the
United States."  Among other descendants of Captain John Sherman
were Hon. Roger Minot Sherman, of New Haven, a nephew of Roger
Sherman, a distinguished lawyer and a leading participant in the
Hartford Convention.  William M. Evarts, George F. Hoar and Chauncey
M. Depew are descendants of Roger Sherman or of his brother.

Rev. John Sherman, the eldest son of Edmond Sherman, was born on
the 26th of December, 1613, at Dedham, England.  He graduated at
Immanuel College, Cambridge, left college a Puritan and came over
to America in 1634, as above stated.  He preached his first sermon
at Watertown, Massachusetts, under a tree, soon after his arrival
in this country.  In a few weeks he went to New Haven, Connecticut,
and preached in several places, but finally settled at Watertown,
where he had a large family of children.  His numerous descendants
are well distributed throughout the United States, but most of them
in the State of New York.

Samuel Sherman, the youngest son of Edmond Sherman, is the ancestor
of the family to which I belong.  At the age of sixteen years he
came with his brother, Rev. John and his cousin "Captain John," in
April, 1634, in the ship "Elizabeth" from Ipswich, and arrived in
Boston in June, and for a time settled in Watertown, Massachusetts.
He afterward moved to Weathersfield, Connecticut, thence to Stamford
and thence to Stratford.

In Cothron's "History of Ancient Woodbury" there are found full
details of the life of Samuel Sherman and his numerous descendants
to the present generation.  Of Samuel Sherman Mr. Cothron says:

"He was from Dedham, Essex county, England, came to this country
in 1634, and previous to the date of the new plantation, at Woodbury,
had been a leading man in the colony of Connecticut.  He had assisted
in the settlement of several other towns in the colony, and now
undertook the same for Woodbury.  He had been a member of the Court
of Assistants, or Upper House of the General Court, and Supreme
Judicial Tribunal, for five or six years from 1663, and held various
offices and appointments of honor and trust.  He is referred to in
ancient deeds and documents as the 'Worshipful Mr. Sherman.'  In
1676 he was one of the commission for Stratford and Woodbury."

The order of succession of the descendants of Samuel Sherman, the
ancestor of the family to which I belong, is as follows:

1.  John Sherman, the fifth child of Samuel Sherman, was born at
Stratford, Conn., February 8, 1650.  He early moved to Woodbury.
He died December 13, 1730.

2.  John Sherman 2nd, the fifth child of John, was baptized June,
1687.  He married Hachaliah Preston, July 22, 1714.  He died 1727.

3.  Daniel Sherman, the third child of John 2nd, was born August
14, 1721, and died July 2, 1799.

4.  Taylor Sherman, the sixth child of Daniel, was born in 1758.
He married Elizabeth Stoddard in 1787, and died in Connecticut May
15, 1815.  His widow died at Mansfield, Ohio, August 1, 1848.

5.  Charles Robert Sherman, the eldest child of Taylor, was born
September 26, 1788, married Mary Hoyt, of Norwalk, Conn., May 8,
1810.  He died on the 24th of June, 1829.  His widow died at
Mansfield, Ohio, September 23, 1852.  The had eleven children, six
sons and five daughters, all of whom lived to maturity.  I am the
eighth child of this family.

The names and dates of the birth of the children of my parents are
as follows:

  Charles Taylor Sherman . . . . . February 3, 1811.
  Mary Elizabeth Sherman . . . . . April 21, 1812.
  James Sherman  . . . . . . . . . December 10, 1814.
  Amelia Sherman . . . . . . . . . February 11, 1816.
  Julia Ann Sherman  . . . . . . . July 24, 1818.
  William Tecumseh Sherman . . . . February 8, 1820.
  Lampson Parker Sherman . . . . . October 31, 1821.
  John Sherman . . . . . . . . . . May 10, 1823.
  Susan Denman Sherman . . . . . . October 10, 1825.
  Hoyt Sherman . . . . . . . . . . November 1, 1827.
  Fanny Beecher Sherman  . . . . . May 3, 1829.

Mr. Cothron, in his "History of Ancient Woodbury," after referring
to Samuel Sherman, makes this reference to his son John:

"The fame of his son John is particularly the property of the town.
He was distinguished, not only at home, but also in the colony.
He was Justice of the Quorum, or Associate County Judge, for forty-
four years from 1684; a Representative of the town for seventeen
sessions, and Speaker of the Lower House in May and October, 1711,
and Captain in the Militia, a high honor in those days.  He was
the first Judge of Probate for the District of Woodbury, from its
organization in 1719, for nine years.  The District them comprised
all of Litchfield county, and Woodbury in New Haven county.  He
was an assistant, or member of the Upper House, for ten years from
1713."

John Sherman 2nd, does not seem to have taken any active part in
public affairs, and died before his father, at the age of forty.
His son Daniel, who lived to the age of eighty, covering the period
of the Indian wars, the French Canadian war, and the war of the
Revolution, took an active part in all the great events of that
period.  Mr. Cothron says of him:

"Judge Daniel Sherman was perhaps the most distinguished man that
had arisen in the town previous to his day.  He was a descendant
of Samuel Sherman, of Stratford, Connecticut, who emigrated to this
country from England, in company with his brother, Rev. John Sherman,
and his nephew, Captain John Sherman, ancestor of Hon. Roger Sherman.
He was a Justice of the Quorum for twenty-five years, and Judge of
the Litchfield County Court five years from 1786.  For sixteen
years he was Probate Clerk for the District of Woodbury, and Judge
of that District thirty-seven years.  He represented his native
town in the General Assembly sixty-five semi-annual sessions,
retaining the unbounded confidence of his fellow citizens.  This
was by far the longest period of time anyone has ever represented
the town.  He was a man of commanding powers of mind, of sterling
integrity, and every way qualified for the various public trusts
confided to this care.  He died at a good old age, full of honor,
and was followed by the affectionate recollections of the inhabitants
of the town, among whom he had so long lived."

No portion of the people of the United States took a more decisive
part in the Revolutionary contest of 1775 than those of Connecticut.
The people of Woodbury caught the prevailing spirit, and, as early
as September 20, 1774, had a public meeting and made patriotic
resolves, and entered into associations for defense.  Daniel Sherman,
then fifty-four years old, presided at this meeting and was appointed
president of the association of the delegates.  Among other duties
they were to perform, was to ascertain whether any persons within
the limits of the town were hostile to the objects of the association,
and in that case they, using the spelling of the time, were to

"Cause the truth of the case to be published in the Gazette, to
the End that all such foes to ye Rights of British americai may be
publikly known and universially Comtemned as enemies to american
Liberty and thensforth we Do bind ourselves to break off all Dealings
With Such Persons and also will all Persons in other Towns and
Citys who shall be found Guilty as above Expressed, and that it
shall be ye Duty and Business of the sd Comtee to Receive and
Communicate all Such intelligence as they shall judge to be conducive
to ye Peace and Tranquility of this and the Neighboring Colonies;
this meeting presents their most thankfull acknowledgments to those
truly Honourable and Worthy Gentlemen members of ye Congress who
have Shewn themselves able advocates of the civil and Religious
liberty of the american Colonys.

"Voated, that the doings of this meeting be Recorded by the Town
Clerk, and a Copy thereof be forthwith sent to one of the printers
of the Connecticut Journal to be published accordingly.  The Whole
of the above Written as voated in said Meeting."

He was a member of the "Committee of Inspection" of thirty, appointed
at the beginning of the war.  On the 12th of April, 1784, they
resolved as follows:

"Voted, that those persons who joined the enemies of the United
States in the course of the late Civil war of what description
soever are denyed a residence in this Town from this date until
the Genll Assembly shall grant them full liberty for that purpose."

At a meeting held on the 3d of April, 1777, at which Daniel Sherman
was the Moderator, it was:

"Voated, that Each Able Bodied Effective man, who hath or shall
voluntarily Inlist into the Continental Army in such way and Manner
toward makeing the Quota of this Town for the space of Three years,
or during the war shall be Intitled to Receive out of the publick
Treasury of the Town the sum of Twenty Shillings Lawful money, as
an Addition to Each month's Wages he shall continue in the service,
to be paid to him, or to his order, at the End of Each six month's
service."

This was kept up during the war.  Provision was made for a Council
of Safety, appointed annually by the Assembly, of from nine to
fourteen of the most distinguished men in the state, to aid the
governor in the organization and conduct of troops, of which Daniel
Sherman, his cousin Roger Sherman, Benjamin Huntington, and other
distinguished men were members.  This committee was frequently in
session and the most responsible, arduous and difficult details of
the service were confided to its care.  It was shown that during
the war Daniel Sherman contributed provisions to soldier's families
to the value of 2,718 pounds, 7 shillings and 8 pence.  It would
seem from the following anecdote told of Daniel Sherman, that some
of his neighbors thought he had enjoyed his full share of honor:

"Mr. Sherman was a representative at the May session of the General
Assembly in 1791, and, it is related, desired to be elected to the
October session of the same year, in order to make the full number
of thirty-three years that he would have then represented the town.
But at the time of the election for the October session, the
Moderator of the meeting happened to think that he had his share
of honors, and when he made proclamation that the ballot-box was
open for the reception of votes, remarked in a loud tone of voice,
'Gentlemen, the box is now open; you will please to bring in your
ballots for him whom you _will have_ for your first representative
--_Honorable Daniel Sherman, of course!_  This simple incident gave
a change to the popular current, and on counting the votes it was
found that Honorable Nathaniel Smith was elected, instead of Mr.
Sherman."

Taylor Sherman, my grandfather, the son of Judge Daniel Sherman,
was born in 1758.  He was married in 1787 to Elizabeth Stoddard
and removed to Norwalk, Connecticut, where he lived during the
remainder of his life.  He died on the 15th of May, 1815.

My grandmother was born at Woodbury, Connecticut, on the 14th of
June, 1767.  She lived to a good old age and died at Mansfield,
Ohio, on the 1st of August, 1848.  She was a remarkable woman in
many respects, a Puritan of the strictest faith, of large mold,
being nearly six feet tall, and well proportioned.  She was a
granddaughter of Rev. Anthony Stoddard, a man whose history strikingly
presents the peculiar characteristics of life in Connecticut during
the 18th century.  The contract between the church and town of
Woodbury and Mr. Stoddard, for employment as pastor, commences as
follows:

"At a lawfull Towns-meeting ye 13th of August, 1700, in ordr to ye
settling of ye Reverend mr. Anthony Stoddard amongst us, in ye work
of ye ministry.  And for his encouragement so to do;

"It was voted and agreed to allow him, as Maytenance in ye Work of
ye Ministry, seventy pounds per Anuu, in provision pay, or to his
Satisfaction, in Case of Faylure of provision pay.  By provision
pay, is intended, whet, pease, indian corn & pork, proportionally:
Also fire wood:

"We do also promise, to build him an house here in Woodberry of
known Demensions; yt is to say, the Carpetners work & Masons work;
hee providing nayles and glass; by building ye sd house is intended,
doors, floures, fitting up and playstering and partitions, finishing
it, as also a well."

Then follow many other mutual stipulations, to which was added a
supplemental agreement as follows:

"Since wch time at a Lawfull Towns-meeting ye 25th of Novembr,
1700, It was Voted and agreedyt ye abovesd specices for mr Stoddard's
yearly maytenance bee levyed at ye prices following:  Wheat at 4s
6d per Bush: pork at 3d pr lb:  Indian Corn 2s 6d per Bush:  Pease
three shillings per Bushll:  And these prices for this yeare ye
Town will not vary from for ye future Exterordinary providences
interposing being exceapted.

"Recorded from ye originalls pr Jon Minor, Recorder, March, 1700-
1701."

Under this contract Mr. Stoddard served his congregation for sixty
years, and died September 7, 1760, in his eighty-third year, and
the sixty-first of his ministry.  He was educated at Harvard College
and graduated in 1679.  Mr. Cothron, in 1872, says of him:

"He was at the same time minister, lawyer and physician.  Like many
of the early ministers of the colony, he prepared himself for the
practice of physic, that he might administer to the wants of the
body, as well as those of the mind.  In this capacity he was often
called.  The only person the author has found who ever saw him,
was Deacon Amos Squire, of Roxbury, who died two or three years
ago, aged ninety-nine, and who recollected having seen him when a
lad about eight years of age, while on a visit in this capacity to
his father, who had received a severe wound from an ax.  He had
also done what other ministers did not, and that was to perfect
himself in legal knowledge."

It must be remembered that the pastor of a church in those days
was in quite a different position than one now, when the constitution
guarantees to every one liberty to worship God according to the
dictates of his conscience.  The Congregational mode of worship
was then adopted and established by law in Connecticut, but it was
provided that all sober orthodox persons dissenting therefrom
should, on representing it to the General Court, be allowed to
worship in their own way.  Such a privilege, however, was regarded
with distrust.  Our fathers who desired religious freedom and
periled all for it in the wilderness, had not anticipated that they
would speedily have an opportunity to extend that toleration to
others which in the fatherland they had in vain sought for themselves.
The town church was, therefore, in substance, the only church, and
the preacher was the autocrat of the place.

Mr. Stoddard was not only a preacher, lawyer and doctor, but he
was also a fighter.  In 1707 an expedition was made by the French
and Indians against New England, which created general alarm
throughout the country.  Woodbury was exposed to the raids made by
the Indians, and suspicions were entertained that the neighboring
tribes would join the French and Indians in their foray.  During
the continuance of this war, on one Sabbath evening, after the
conclusion of the services at church, while he was walking in his
garden, he discovered an Indian skulking among the surrounding
trees and bushes.  Apparently without noticing the movements of
the Indian, he contrived to re-enter his house, and obtained his
gun.  After playing the same game of skulking with his adversary
for a while, Mr. Stoddard got a fair view of him, discharged his
piece, and the Indian fell among the bushes.  He dared not investigate
farther that night, but having quietly given the alarm, the
inhabitants sought their palisaded houses for the night.  Early in
the morning he discovered another red foe, in the vicinity of his
companion, and whom he also laid low with his musket.  By this time
the people had assembled, and after the country was scoured in all
directions for several hours, and no other savages were found, the
alarm subsided.

Before leaving my Woodbury ancestors, who resided there nearly one
hundred and fifty years, I wish to relate my first visit to Woodbury.
I was at West Point, as one of the Board of Visitors, one Saturday
in June, 1873, when I concluded to respond to an invitation I had
received, and go to Woodbury and spend the Sabbath there.  I did
so and found, as I had anticipated, beautiful valleys with picturesque
hills, a rural air and a quiet, peaceful, Sunday outlook.  I knew
no one except Hon. William Cothron, and him only by correspondence.
I believe he was superintendent of the Sunday school; but, at all
events, upon my presenting myself, and stating my desire to explore
Woodbury, he kindly consented, and went with me.  I located many
of the most interesting objects in the town.  The large, well-built
stone house of Daniel Sherman was still standing, made after the
usual pattern, two stories high with a lean-to roof in the rear,
and with low ceilings.  He had lived there during most of his active
life, and had entertained Washington and Lafayette, when they at
different times visited the French vessels at Newport.  The fortified
house of Rev. Anthony Stoddard was in a good state of preservation,
with its projecting eaves and loop holes for defense.  We visited
the old church and graveyard, and drove southward to what were
called the "Sherman settlements."  Evidently the comparatively few
families in Woodbury were in a state of comfort as they were found
to be living in good houses and drawing, no doubt, an income from
investments in the great and growing West.

On that quiet Sabbath day the village of Woodbury recalled to me
Mr. John H. Bryant's description of his native village:

  "There lies a village in a peaceful vale,
   With sloping hills and waving woods around,
   Fenced from the blasts.  There never ruder gale
   Bows the tall grass that covers all the ground;
   And planted shrubs are there, and cherish'd flowers,
   And a bright verdure born of gentle showers."

Subsequently I again visited Woodbury with General Sherman.  Mr.
Cothron was still there and was very kind to us.  It seemed to me
that the old place had run down a little, that the walks were not
so clean, the grass was not as fresh in the fields, and evidently
the graveyards had lost some of their monuments, but a prominent
one had been erected in the churchyard to Rev. Anthony Stoddard,
to which General Sherman had contributed.  We heard of no one of
our name in Woodbury, but when General Sherman saw an old sign,
"Sherman's Tannery," he said that he believed he had at last found
some tangible evidence of the residence of our fathers in Woodbury;
that Sherman had been a good honest tanner no doubt, and that was
the most that could be said of any one.

As I have said, my grandfather, Taylor Sherman, and his wife,
Elizabeth Stoddard, moved from Woodbury to Norwalk, where he
practiced his profession as a lawyer.  He attained a good position
as such, and for many years he was a Judge of Probate.  He became
early associated with the proprietors of the half million acres of
land lying in the western part of the Western Reserve in Ohio,
called "Sufferers' Land."

In the period immediately before and after the adoption of the
constitution several of the states laid claim to western lands,
founded upon grants by James I, the chief of which were the claims
of Virginia to the region north and west of the Ohio River, and
the claim of Connecticut to all the land lying west of Pennsylvania
to the South Seas and north of the 41st parallel of latitude.
These claims were finally compromised by Congress granting to
Virginia all the land lying between the Scioto and the Miami Rivers
in Ohio, and to Connecticut the land in Ohio north of the 41st
parallel, extending westward of Pennsylvania one hundred and twenty
miles.

During the Revolutionary War the coasts of Connecticut had been
subjected to several raids by the British and Tories, and several
towns, including Norwalk, Greenwich, Fairfield, Danbury, New Haven
and New London, had been burned.  Indemnity had been proposed, but
the state was in no condition to pay such losses.

In the year 1800, the State of Connecticut granted to her citizens,
who were sufferers by fire during the Revolutionary War, a half
million acres of land, lying within the State of Ohio, which was
to be taken off the west part of what was called the "Western
Connecticut Reserve," now embraced in the counties of Huron and
Erie.  By an act of the legislature of the State of Ohio, passed
in 1803, the sufferers were incorporated under the name of "The
proprietors of the half million acres of land, lying south of Lake
Erie, called 'Sufferers' Land.'"  The affairs of this company, by
that act, were to be managed by a Board of Directors which, among
other things, was authorized to locate and survey said half million
acres of land, and partition it among the different claimants.

On the first day of November, 1805, Taylor Sherman was appointed
by the Board of Directors an agent to survey the above tract of
land, and, on the 16th day of December, of the same year, he entered
into a contract with John McLane and James Clarke, Jr., to survey,
or have surveyed, said tract.  Taylor Sherman visited the fire
lands, and fully performed the duty imposed upon him.  He also
purchased a considerable tract of this land in Sherman township,
Huron county, which was the foundation of the little fortune which
he left to his widow and children.

The whole of the Western Reserve, especially the western part of
it, was at that time in the possession of the Indians, who soon
afterwards engaged in open warfare with the white settlers.  Surveys,
especially along the shores of Lake Erie, were extremely difficult,
owing to extensive bayous and swamps, but the surveys were made
where practicable, and where lines could not be run, straight lines
were drawn on the map, and the contents estimated.  This gave rise
to long litigation, one case being reported in the 13th Volume of
Ohio Supreme Court Reports.

The gift of Connecticut to the sufferers was a wise and liberal
one, and after the War of 1812 it led to the migration to the
counties of Huron and Erie of a great number of persons from the
towns of Norwalk, Greenwich, Danbury, New Haven and New London.
The losses of the sufferers in these different towns had been
carefully examined and stated, and the sufferers were allowed land
in proportion to their losses.  The formidable list of these
sufferers is a striking proof of the savage and destructive manner
in which the Revolutionary War was conducted by the British troops.
The whole Western Reserve at the beginning of the 19th century was
a wilderness, with not a single white inhabitant.  The census of
1820, however, showed that it then contained a population of 58,608,
while that of 1890 showed a population of 678,561.  Of these a
larger number and proportion were descendants of Connecticut parents
than are most inhabitants of that state.  The industries, commerce,
wealth and intelligence of this region are not excelled by any
community of the same size anywhere else in the country.

As an illustration of the condition of this region in 1812, it may
be worth while to here record a truthful anecdote of Daniel Sherman,
the son of Taylor Sherman, and whom we knew as "Uncle Dan."  In
the spring of 1812, when twenty-two years of age, he was sent by
his father to make improvements on his land in Huron county, by
building a log cabin and opening a clearing.  He had with him a
hired man of the name of John Chapman, who was sent to Milan, twelve
miles away, to get a grist of corn ground, it being the nearest
and only mill in the county.  Either on the way there, or while
returning, Chapman was killed by the Indians.  Uncle Dan did not
hear of this until the next day, when, with a knapsack on his back,
he started for Mansfield, forty miles away.  For thirty miles there
was a dense and unbroken forest without a settler.  He arrived at
a blockhouse, six miles from Mansfield, but concluded that was not
strong enough to protect him.  He then went to Mansfield, where
they had a better blockhouse, but he heard so many stories of
Indians that he did not feel safe there, and walked thence to his
brother's house in Lancaster, about seventy-five miles away, through
an almost continuous forest.

In November, 1813, Taylor Sherman was appointed, by President
Madison, Collector of Internal Revenue for the Second District of
Connecticut.  He enjoyed the office but a short time and died, as
already stated, on the 15th day of May, 1815.

A sketch of my mother and father will throw some light upon the
lives of their children, but it is a delicate task to write of
one's parents.  As I was but six years old when my father died I
have only a dim recollection of him, but materials for an interesting
sketch of his brief but active career are abundant.  I know of no
citizen of Ohio of whom more anecdotes have been told, or whose
general and social life has been more highly appreciated, or whose
popularity has been more marked, than that of my father.  During
the early years of my life at the bar I met many of the older
lawyers, contemporary with my father, and they all spoke of him in
the highest praise, and generally had some incident to tell of him
that happened in the days of the "Stirrup Court."

Charles Robert Sherman, my father, was born in Norwalk, Connecticut,
September 26, 1788, the eldest son of Judge Taylor Sherman and
Elizabeth Stoddard.  He received the best educational advantages
of his day, and, when fully prepared, commenced the study of law
in the associated offices of his father and the Hon. Judge Chapman.
He was admitted to the bar in 1810, and on May 8, of that year,
married Mary Hoyt, also of Norwalk, who had grown up with him from
childhood.  He could not go into the northern part where his father's
land lay, as it was then roamed over by hostile Indians, but followed
the usual route to Ohio by Pittsburg and Wheeling to Zanesville.
He located at Lancaster, but returned to Norwalk, Connecticut, in
the fall of 1810.  In 1811 he returned to Lancaster, accompanied
by his wife.  Ohio was then a frontier state, and in large portions
of its territory an unbroken wilderness.  The way to it from their
New England home was far and weary, beset with many hardships and
exposed to great dangers.  My father and mother were obliged to
journey the greater part of this distance on horseback, alternately
carrying their infant child upon a pillow before them.  I only
advert to these incidents as they illustrate the self-reliant
character of the man, and the brave, confiding trust of his wife.
The little boy they carried upon the pillow, then their only son,
was Charles Taylor Sherman.

Soon after their arrival in Lancaster my father took a leading part
in the measures of defense against the British and Indians.  I find
in an old and weather-beaten newspaper of Lancaster, Ohio, called
the "Independent Press," that on the 16th of April, 1812, at a
meeting of the first regiment of the first brigade of the third
division of the militia of Ohio, assembled at Lancaster for the
purpose of raising a company of volunteers to march immediately to
Detroit, my father, then major of that regiment, made a very
effective address to the regiment, the result of which was the
voluntary enlistment of the company required from Fairfield county.
He was then twenty-four years of age, and as this address is short,
and is the best evidence of his mental qualities, and of the standing
he had so early attained among the hardy settlers of that section,
mostly from Pennsylvania, I here insert a portion of it:

"_Fellow Soldiers:_--The crisis has arrived in which your country
calls upon you, her constitutional guardians, to rally round her
standard and to defend her rights and liberties--you are this day
assembled to declare whether you will voluntarily answer this call
or not.  Fellow soldiers, the general of brigade and at whose
command and in whose name I now address you, cannot help but believe
that in this regiment which he once had the honor, personally, to
command, those choice spirits are to be found, that will not for
a moment hesitate to come forward and give the answer to their
country's call.

"You are not called upon to guard a tyrant's throne, or to enslave
a nation of freemen, neither are your exertions required to redress
a fancied wrong, or to revenge a supposed insult; but you are called
upon to preserve your own dwellings from the flames--your families
from destruction.  Neither are you requested to go unprotected nor
unprovided;--everything that the patriot soldier could possibly
wish will be furnished you by the government--food complete and
sufficient for the necessities or conveniences of life--compensation
for your clothing,--arms of the best quality will be placed in your
hands, which will be generously given you if you do, as I know you
will, your duty.

"Should you chance to be disabled in the service, a pension will
be given you that will enable you to live in comfort and in ease;
or should the fortune of war number you with those brave and gallant
patriots that fearlessly poured out their life's blood upon the
heights of Bunker, the plains of Saratoga, or at the siege of
Yorktown--your families shall not be left unprotected or unprovided;
a generous and faithful government has promised that one hundred
and sixty acres of land shall be given to your heirs, the more than
means of existence, the means of every comfort that can render that
existence desirable.

"These, then, fellow soldiers, are the terms upon which sixty-four
of you are requested to draw your swords, shoulder your arms and
march to Detroit to defend the frontiers of your own territory.
And from these columns are there not more than this small number
that would rush upon even certain death at their country's call?

"The services required of you will not be arduous--'tis not that
you should invade the territory of a distant enemy--'tis not that
you should march far from your homes to fight battles in which you
are not, and which you do not feel yourselves, interested; but it
is to prevent the hostile foot of a foe from invading your territory
--it is to guard the sacred altar of your liberties, cemented by
the blood of your fathers, from the profanation of a tyrant's
polluting touch--it is to guard your dwellings, your friends, your
families, your all, from the desolating warfare of a fell savage
foe--it is that the midnight and sleeping couch of our infants may
not be awakened to death by the tremendous yell of an Indian warwhoop
--it is that the gray hairs of our fathers may not become the bloody
trophies of a cruel and insidious foe.  Cruelty and a thirst for
blood are the inmates of an Indian's bosom, and in the neighborhood
of two contending powers they are never peaceful.  If the strong
hand of power does not bend them down they will raise the tomahawk
and bare the scalping knife for deeds of blood and horror:  The
purity of female innocence, the decrepitude of age, the tenderness
of infancy afford no security against the murderous steel of a
hostile Indian: to guard against the probable incursions of bands
of these murderers, I will not call them by the dignified name of
warriors, are you called upon to arm: and who in such a cause would
refuse to march or to bleed?  And who would refuse to protect the
scattered settlements on our frontiers--the humble cottage and its
peaceful inhabitants?--Who would refuse to guard our fields from
desolation, our villages from destruction, or our towns from ruin?
--None, in whom there is a spark of patriot valor.

"But, fellow soldiers, you may be called upon the meet the legions
of Great Britain; every appearance indicates a state of approaching
hostilities--year after year has insult been added to insult--injury
has followed injury with rapid strides, and every breeze comes
laden with its tale of wrongs, and while we have borne their injuries
and their insults our government has endeavored, but in vain, to
reconcile our differences by amicable negotiation.

"The cup of our wrongs is full, and the voice of an indignant people
demands redress and revenge by every means in our power; 'tis that
voice that calls upon you to arm and meet the hosts of England.

"Do you fear the event of the contest?  Call but to mind the period
of '76, without a government, without friends, without armies,
without men, without money, our fathers dared to resist her
aggressions upon our liberties; she determined to enslave us, and
a hardy band of freemen resolved on death rather than slavery,
encountered and conquered her boasted legions, established our
independence and left it as their richest legacy for us to maintain:
and do we, their sons, possessing all the advantages that we could
wish, all that they were deprived of, do we fear the contest when
half the world is confederate against her?  Where is the spirit of
our fathers that urged them to battle and to victory?  Is there no
latent spark of patriot ardor that the wrongs and indignities of
our country will kindle into a flame?  Is there no thirst in our
bosoms for glory?  Is it nothing for your names to be enrolled on
the list of fame?  Does it rouse no generous and noble feelings in
your breasts to be a guardian shield and avenging sword to your
country?  Are the grateful thanks of your countrymen and posterity
no inducement to valorous acts?

"Go then, fellow soldiers, assist to shield your country from the
destruction of an internal warfare, awake to honor and to glory,
rouse the native courage of an American freeman and march to deeds
of valor!

"Let the wings of fame come laden with the tale of your honors,
and bring joy to your mothers' hearts, and the pride of valorous
deeds to your fathers' bosoms; then shall your country reward and
bless you--posterity shall venerate your names, the world shall
own you as the constituent guardians of liberty and the bulwark of
your nation's freedom!"

I presume the soldiers enlisted at Lancaster were a part of the
army infamously surrendered by General Hull on the 16th of August,
1812.  This event opened up the whole of the then western states
and territories to the inroads of the British and Indians, but was
brilliantly compensated by the splendid victory of Commodore Perry
at the battle of Lake Erie, on the 10th of September, 1813, in
which he destroyed the British fleet and announced his victory in
the stirring words, "We have met the enemy, and they are ours!"
This was followed by the complete triumph of General Harrison in
the battle of the Thames, October 5, 1813, in which Tecumseh was
killed, and the power of the British and Indians in that portion
of the field of operations practically destroyed.

My father was appointed by Mr. Madison, on the 9th of November,
1813, as Collector of Internal Revenue for the Third District of
Ohio.  He was then engaged in the active practice of his profession.
He was required to employ deputies in each of the counties of
Fairfield, Pickaway, Madison, Franklin, Delaware, and Knox to
collect internal revenue taxes, when assessed.  He took great care
in the selection of his deputies, and in all cases required bonds,
with security, from each deputy.  At this period the only money in
Ohio was local bank paper money.  No silver or gold coins could be
had, and the purchasing power of notes varied with the success or
defeat of our armies in the field.  Internal taxes were imposed on
distilled spirits, on the retailing of spirits, on salt, sugar,
carriages, sales at auction, a stamp duty of one per cent. on bank
notes, on all notes discounted by a bank, and on inland bills of
exchange.

It is clearly shown by the papers on file in the treasury department
that Mr. Sherman exercised the utmost care in the collection of
these taxes through his deputies.  No difficulty seems to have
occurred until July, 1817, when the government, without previous
notice, refused to take the paper then in circulation in Ohio, but
demanded notes of the Bank of the United States, or its branches,
one of which was located at Chillicothe.  This left upon the hands
of his deputies a large amount of money that soon became utterly
worthless.  The system of local banking failed and the loss fell
upon the holders of notes, and, largely, upon the collectors of
internal revenue and their deputies.  Among my father's deputies
the principal one seems to have been Peter Apple, of Pickaway
county, who at the time of his appointment held a county office,
was postmaster, and a justice of the peace.  He was a leading man,
of high character and standing, and supposed to be of considerable
wealth.  In 1817 he became embarrassed and insolvent, and was
removed from his position as deputy.  His bonds proved worthless,
and the whole loss and liability fell upon my father.  This, with
other losses occurring through the failure of other deputies, was
the most unfortunate event of his life.  His correspondence with
the Internal Revenue Bureau shows that he exercised the utmost care
in keeping and reporting his accounts, and the difficulties and
losses he sustained in converting local bills into such notes as
the government would receive in payment of taxes.  It is clearly
shown that the loss was not caused by any failure or neglect on
his part.  In like circumstances, under the existing law, Congress
has, in all cases where due diligence on the part of the collector
has been proven, relieved the collector.  My father declined to
make any appeal for such relief, but applied the proceeds of all
his property, and a large part of his earnings, to make good, as
far as he could, the defalcations of his deputies.  This loss was
a great embarrassment for him and his family during his life.  It
did not affect his standing, either at home or with the government,
but it deprived him of many comforts, and his family of advantages
and opportunities for education which they otherwise would have had.

In the spring of 1815 my father was notified of the illness of his
father in Norwalk, and immediately went to Connecticut, but, owing
to the nature of the long journey, did not arrive until after his
father's death.  The will of Taylor Sherman gave to his wife, and
daughter Elizabeth, all his real and personal estate in the State
of Connecticut, subject to the payment of his debts, which were
very small.  He bequeathed to his two sons, Charles Sherman and
Daniel Sherman, ceratin lands in the town of Sherman, county of
Huron, Ohio, being part of the "Sufferers' Lands."  The remainder
of his property lying in the State of Ohio he gave equally to his
wife and children.  The estate was soon settled, and in the following
year, 1816, my grandmother and her daughter, Elizabeth, moved to
Ohio and became a part of the family of my father.

Under the old constitution of Ohio prior to 1850, the Supreme Court
was composed of four judges.  They met at Columbus in the winter
to hold the court of last resort, but at other seasons they divided
into circuit courts composed of two judges, and went from county
to county attended by a bevy of the leading lawyers of the state,
all mounted on horseback and always ready for fun or frolic.  I
gladly acknowledge that I have received many a kindness, and much
aid in business as well as political and social life, from the
kindly memory of my father.  I shrink from writing of his personal
traits and genial nature, but insert, instead, brief extracts from
a sketch of him written, in 1872, as a part of a local history of
Fairfield county, Ohio, by General William J. Reese, who knew him
intimately.  General Reese says:

"Established permanently at Lancaster in the prosecution of his
profession, the subject of this sketch rapidly rose to eminence as
a polished and eloquent advocate, and as a judicious, reliable
counsellor at law--indeed, in the elements of mind necessary to
build up and sustain such a reputation, few men were his equals,
and fewer still his superiors, in the State of Ohio or out of it.
But it was not only in the higher region of legal attainments that
he gained superiority; his mind was enriched with choice classic
cultivation also.

"Judge Sherman not only mastered the intricacies of Coke and
Littleton, but, as I have stated, he made himself familiar with
whatever was worthy of reading outside the books of law, and was
therefore fitted to shine in the domain of general literature as
well as in the realm of technical jurisprudence.

"During the pioneer years of Ohio its lawyers were obliged to
perform extensive circuits to practice their profession; they were
accustomed to accompany the courts from county to county, and in
this way to traverse an extent of country which, being uncalled
for at present, would appear fabulous in statement and difficult
to realize.

"Those early days also commemorated the warmest personal friendships
in the profession, and, indeed, this could hardly have been otherwise,
as they compelled its members into the closest habitual companionship.
They rode together in the same primitive style, their saddle-bags
stuffed with papers, documents, briefs, law-books, clothing, and,
peradventure, some creature delectation also.  They were exposed
in common to the same inclemencies and impediments of travel, they
lodged together at the same inns or taverns, messed at the same
table, slept in the same rooms, and were not unfrequently coerced
by twos into the same bed.  Free, jovial, genial, manly, and happy
times they were, when, after a hard-fought field-day of professional
antagonisms in court, the evening hours were crowded with social
amenities, and winged with wit and merriment, with pathos, sentiment
and song.

"If the sayings and doings at the festive evenings of the early
Ohio bar could be collected, there would be materials in rich
abundance from which a sympathetic and facile pen could compile a
volume of equal piquancy and sentimental refinement of patriotic
detail and humor, that alternate the pages of Sir Jonah Barrington,
or any other winsome work of the kind.  This will not be questioned
for a moment when it is remembered that Henry Clay, Lewis Cass,
Philip Doddridge, Willis Silliman, David K. Este, and Charles
Hammond were frequent participants; that Philoman Beecher, William
W. Irvin, Thomas Ewing, William Stanberry, Benjamin Tappan, John
M. Goodenow, Jacob Parker, Orris Parrish, and Charles Goddard
habitually contributed to their entertainment, and that these were
often signalized with the hilarious fun of Creighton and the quaint
drolleries of Douglas.  At these symposiums of recreation, and they
were held whenever the courts used to meet, Charles R. Sherman was
always the most welcome of companions, and contributed his full
share even to the ambrosial feasts,

  'When all such clustering portions had
   As made their frolic wild, not mad.'

"Thus endowed and so associated, he became a leading and a popular
people's lawyer, from the Ohio River to our northern lake.

"In 1823 he was elected by the legislature to the bench of the
Supreme Court of Ohio, and perhaps the only man in the state who
doubted his ability for this high position was himself.  He told
the writer of these lines when speaking on the subject of his
appointment, that he assumed its duties with great personal diffidence
and apprehension.  He feared that he lacked the ripe experience of
years necessary to hear and determine cases of magnitude in a court
of the last resort.  His official associates were Calvin Pease,
Jacob Burnet, and Peter Hitchcock, and these are names of renown
in the judicial history of Ohio.

"Judge Sherman upon the bench fully realized the large expectations
of his professional friends and the public.

"His written opinions, published in 'Hammond's Reports of the
Supreme Court,' demonstrate a mind of the choicest legal capabilities.
They are clear, compact, yet comprehensive, intuitive, logical,
complete, and conclusive, and are respected by the bar and courts
in this and other states as judicial _dicta_ of the highest authority.
He won upon the bench, as he did at the bar, the affection and
confidence of his associates.  They esteemed him for his gentle
and genial nature, for the brilliant flashes of his mind and the
solid strength of his judgment; above all, for the stainless
integrity of his character, as a judge and as a man.

"Under the provisions of our old constitution, the Supreme Court
was required to hold an annual term or sitting in each county of
the state, two of the judges officiating.  In every court-room in
Ohio where Judge Sherman presided he made friends.  His official
robes were worn by him as the customary habiliments of the man.
He was never distant, haughty, morose, austere, or overbearing on
the bench.  It was not in his nature to be so anywhere, and it was
therefore always a personal pleasure to practice in his courts.
The younger members of the profession idolized him in every part
of the state; for them and their early efforts he systematically
sympathized, and he uniformly bestowed upon them the most gracious
compliment that any judge upon the bench can render to the oldest
practitioner at the bar--he gave them his interested and undivided
attention.

"He had entered upon the sixth year of his official term, was in
his manly meridian of life, in the full fruition of his matured
intellectual powers, in the plenitude of his public usefulness,
and in the enjoyment of apparent robust physical health, out upon
his circuit, and about to hold a session of the Supreme Court at
Lebanon, in Warren county, when suddenly, without any premonition,
he was struck down with a fatal malady, that was frightfully rapid
in its termination.  The best medical aid was summoned from
Cincinnati; it was in vain.  An express messenger was hurried to
Lancaster for Mrs. Sherman, but before she reached him her lamented
husband was dead.

"He died in Lebanon, June 24, 1829, in the 41st year of his age.

"I will not attempt to describe the outburst of public sorrow that
prevailed over this event.  It was general and sincere, touching
and outspoken; but it was in Lancaster, it was here in his happy
home, which he made the home always of genial and open-hearted
hospitality--here among his neighbors and fellow-citizens of every
class and description, all of whom knew him and all of whom loved
him--that the intelligence of his death came with the most painful
and startling abruptness.  They could not comprehend it.  But
yesterday he was among them in perfect health, and now he is dead.
Men wept in our public streets.  I do not believe he had a single
personal enemy on earth.

"Had Judge Sherman lived, higher and broader spheres of public
usefulness would have opened before him.  There is no doubt whatever
that the same spontaneity of opinion that placed him upon the
supreme bench would have again united, when the vacancy happened,
to have sent him to the Senate of the United States, and those who
know him knew full well that his first prepared public utterance
in that chamber upon any pending matter of national importance
would have secured to him a brilliant national name.  This is no
fancy penciling.  It was conviction with his contemporaries, and
it would have been the record of history had he lived.  As it is,
he has left to his children the heritage of his spotless public
reputation--of his loved and honored name.

"This fragmentary sketch would be more incomplete did I not mention
that Judge Sherman was a zealous and prominent member of the Masonic
fraternity, and that he filled its highest offices of honor in the
several grand bodies of Ohio."

General Reese, the author of this sketch, was born in Philadelphia,
Pa., on the 5th of August, 1804.  He was a graduate of the University
of Pennsylvania, studied law and was admitted to practice in
Philadelphia.  He then came to Ohio and was admitted to the bar in
Cincinnati and soon after settled in Lancaster.  In 1829, soon
after the death of my father, he married my eldest sister, Mary
Elizabeth.  He did not long pursue his profession but became a
merchant.  He was prominent as a member of the board of public
works.  In old militia times he was in command of the forces of
the state as its only major-general.  He was grand master of the
Grand Lodge of Masons in Ohio for a series of years, and at the
same time held high rank in the Grand Lodge of the United States.
He was a handsome and accomplished gentleman, of pleasing manners
and liberal to a fault.  He died on the 17th of December, 1883, at
Lancaster, in his eightieth year.

Of my mother I can scarcely write without emotion, though she died
more than forty years ago.  Her maiden name was Mary Hoyt.  She
was a member of a family, mostly merchants and sailors, who had
lived in Norwalk, Connecticut, since its first settlement.  At the
period of the American Revolution the Hoyt family, composed of
several brothers, was divided in their allegiance, some as Tories,
some as Whigs.  My mother's grandfather was a Whig.  It is a
tradition in the family that one of the Tory brothers pointed out
the house of his brother, at the capture of Norwalk by the British
and Tories, as the nest of a rebel, and it was burned to the ground.
In this it shared the fate of the greater part of the town.  The
Tories of the family went to St. Johns, but years after the war
was over they and their descendants returned to Connecticut and
New York, and many of them became prominent and respected citizens.
Isaac Hoyt, my grandfather, was a prominent citizen of Norwalk,
possessing considerable wealth for those days.

My mother was carefully educated at the then famous female seminary
at Poughkeepsie, New York.  I remember the many embroidered pictures,
made with the needle and silk thread by the handicraft of my mother,
as a school girl, carefully framed, that decorated the old house
in Lancaster.  The women of that day were trained more for the
culture and ornament of the house, more to knit stockings and weave
home spun than to make speeches on woman's rights.  Soon after her
graduation she married Charles Robert Sherman, as before stated,
and their lives were blended.  She sometimes rode with him when on
the circuit, and always on horseback.  It was an adage in the
family, even to her grandchildren, that she was always ready for
a visit.  I never knew her to scold, much less to strike, her
children.  She was our sure refuge against grandmother, between
whom and my mother there was, however, the warmest affection.  When
Aunt Elizabeth married Mr. Parker, grandmother followed her daughter
to their home in Mansfield.

When my mother, by the death of her husband, was left a widow with
eleven children and spare means of support, she received the sympathy
of all her neighbors and the kindly encouragement of everyone in
Lancaster.  As her children scattered her resources increased, so
that after one year of widowhood she was quite independent.  Like
Goldsmith's Vicar of Wakefield she was "passing rich" on four
hundred dollars a year.  Soon the houses of her children were open
to her, but she clung to Lancaster until all her children had taken
flight, when, in the summer of 1844, she accepted the invitation
of her sons to make her home in Mansfield and removed there.  She
had there her house and home.  Her two youngest daughters, and the
writer of this, were her family, but in a very brief period all
around her were married.  She still continued to occupy her home,
and always with some of her numerous grandchildren as guests.  She
often visited her children, and her coming was always regarded by
them as a favor conferred by her.  And so her tranquil life flowed
on until 1852, when she attended the state fair at Cleveland and
contracted a bad cold.  She returned to Mansfield only to die on
the 23rd day of September, 1852, at the residence of her daughter,
Mrs. Bartley.

Before closing this sketch of my ancestors, it seems proper that
I refer to their religious beliefs and modes of worship.  In England
they were classed as Puritans, and were members of the Presbyterian
church.  In Connecticut they followed the doctrine and faith of
the Congregational church of Anthony Stoddard.  Daniel Sherman had
his father were deacons of the congregation of Mr. Stoddard, and
his granddaughter, the wife of Taylor Sherman, carried her faith
and practice into her family, and maintained to her death the strict
morals, and close observance of the Sabbath day, that was the
established rule and practice of the Connecticut Congregationalist.

My mother's family, the Hoyts, were, with scarcely an exception,
members of the Episcopal church.  My mother was reared in that
faith and practice from infancy, and was a member of that church
at the time of her marriage.  When she emigrated to Lancaster she
found there no church of that denomination, and, therefore, joined
the Presbyterian church under the pastorage of Rev. John Wright,
who baptized all her children.  At a later period, perhaps about
1840, when an Episcopal church was established in Lancaster, she
resumed her attendance and worship in that church.  When she removed
to Mansfield she attended the Episcopal church at that place,
partook of its sacraments and usages, and died in that faith and
worship.  All her living children and their families recognized
and supported the Episcopal church as their church, except the
children of General Sherman, who followed their mother and her
maternal ancestors in the faith and worship of the Catholic church.

The writer of this has a firm belief in the Bible as the only creed
of religious faith and duty, and willingly accords to every human
being the right to choose his form of worship according to his
judgment, but in case of doubt it is best to follow the teachings
of his mother.

With this, the sketch of my ancestors closes.  Many will think it
is not part of my life, and that I have given too much space and
importance to it.  If so, I hope they will pass it over without
reading.  Each individual life is molded by one's ancestry, by the
incidents of his childhood, the training he receives in the family
and the school and the conditions and surroundings of his early
days.  The boy is father to the man.  It is difficult for one in
advanced age to recall or to measure the influence of each of these
in forming his character, but a statement of them is a necessary
preface to a history of his later life.  My information as to my
ancestry is chiefly derived from the admirable local histories of
Connecticut, and, especially, from "Cothron's History of Ancient
Woodbury," "Hutchinson's History of Connecticut," and the local
records and traditions of Essex and Sussex counties in England.

I cannot claim for my ancestors superior rank, wealth or ability.
They were not specially distinguished for any of these, but they
were men of useful and honorable lives, of untarnished reputation,
highly esteemed by their contemporaries, thorough republicans in
the broad sense of that word, always for their country in any
contest for the right, and willing to yield equal political and
civil rights to all their countrymen of every creed and color.


CHAPTER II.
MY BOYHOOD DAYS AND EARLY LIFE.
Born at Lancaster, Ohio, May 10, 1823--Death of My Father and Its
Effect on Our Family--Early Days at School--A Dead Sheep in the
Schoolroom--Lesson in Sunday Sport--Some of My Characteristics--My
Attack on the Schoolmaster--Robbing an Orchard--A Rodman at Fourteen
and My Experiences While Surveying--Debates at Beverly--Early Use
of Liquor--First Visit to Mansfield in 1839--The Famous Campaign
of 1840--I Begin the Study of Law.

I was born at Lancaster, Ohio, on the 10th day of May, 1823, the
eighth child of Charles and Mary Sherman.  My first distinct
recollection of events is connected with the scenes and incidents
that followed the death of my father on the 24th day of June, 1829.
I have a dim recollection before that time of being sent to school
with my elder brothers to keep me out of mischief, and of my father
praising me for learning the alphabet, but all other impressions
of my infancy were absorbed in the great family tragedy.  We were
warned to keep quiet, and to remain out of doors, so as not to
disturb mother, who was critically ill, and, as our grandmother
was then supreme in the household, we knew that her will was law,
and that punishment invariably followed an offense.  During these
enforced absences many were the wise resolves, or, rather, the
conceits, that the boys discussed for "helping mother."

But time, which mellows every misfortune, brought so many changes.
My sister, Elizabeth, was soon married to General William J. Reese.
My brother, Charles, came home a full-fledged graduate, and, as we
thought, very learned.  Everybody was kind.  The affairs of my
father were settled.  The homestead and garden were secured to my
mother, and she had, in addition, a settled income from her father's
estate of $400 a year, while grandmother had her "fire lands," and
an assured but small income besides.  In those days a little money
went a great way; but there were eleven children of us to be cared
for,--from Charles, aged eighteen, to Fanny, aged three months.
The separation of this family was imperative, but the friends of
my father were numerous, and their offerings were generous and
urgent.  Charles entered the family of our cousin, Mr. Stoddard,
an old and leading lawyer in Dayton, Ohio, studied law, and in two
years was admitted to the bar.  James, the next eldest brother,
accepted a clerkship in a store in Cincinnati, and from that time
paid his own way, becoming a merchant, first in Lancaster, and
later in Des Moines, Iowa.  William Tecumseh was adopted into the
family of Hon. Thomas Ewing, who lived in the same square with us
in Lancaster.  The two families were bound by ties and mutual aid
which were highly creditable to both.  My father, Judge Sherman,
had been able to help Mr. Ewing in the beginning of his professional
career, and Mr. Ewing gratefully and generously responded.  They
maintained the most intimate and cordial relations during their
lives and their families have since continued them, the bond being
strengthened by the marriage of William Tecumseh to Mr. Ewing's
daughter, Ellen.  Lampson P., the fourth son, was adopted into the
family of Charles Hammond, of Cincinnati, a distinguished lawyer
of marked ability, the reporter of the Supreme Court of Ohio, and
editor and chief proprietor of the "Gazette," the leading newspaper
published in his day in Cincinnati.

While the reduction of our family was thus taking place I was kept
at school at Lancaster, where I made considerable advance in such
studies as a lad from six to eight years of age can pursue.  I have
forgotten the names of my tutors.  The present admirable system of
common schools in Ohio had not then been adopted, but the private
schools in Lancaster were considered very good, and most of the
boys of school age were able at little cost to get the rudiments
of an education.

In the spring of 1831, my father's cousin, John Sherman, a prosperous
merchant of Mt. Vernon, Ohio, accompanied by his bride, visited my
mother, and proposed to take me into his family and to keep me at
school until I was prepared to enter Kenyon College, five miles
from Mt. Vernon.  This was a kindly offer and was gratefully
accepted.  But I remember well the sadness I felt, and the tears
I shed, over the departure from home into the midst of strangers.
The old-fashioned stage coach was then the only medium of travel
and the fifty miles between Lancaster and Mt. Vernon were to me a
wearisome journey.  For days after I arrived at Mt. Vernon I was
moping either at the house or at the store, but ere long became
accustomed to the change, and commenced my studies in the schools,
which, as I remember them, were admirably conducted by teachers of
marked ability, among whom were some who became distinguished in
professional and business life.  One of the families that I became
intimate with was that of Mr. Norton, one of whose sons, J. Banning
Norton, who lately died in Dallas, Texas, was my constant companion.
We studied our lessons together, but frequently had quarrels and
fights.  It was a "fad" of his to wear his finger-nails very long.
On one occasion I pummeled him well, but he scratched my face in
the contest.  When I went home, marked in this way, I was asked
how I came to be so badly scratched and the best answer I could
make was that I had fallen on a "splintery log," and this got to
be a by-word in the school.

According to the usages of the time I was put early to the study
of Latin, which then seemed to be regarded as the necessary foundation
for an education.  I must confess that during my stay in Mt. Vernon
I was rather a troublesome boy, frequently involved in controversies
with the teachers, and sometimes punished in the old-fashioned way
with the ferule and the switch, which habit I then regarded as
tyrannical and now regard as impolitic.  I do not believe that the
policy of punishment adopted in the schools of those times would
be expedient to-day.  It tended to foster a constant irritation
between the teacher and the pupil.

Among my school adventures at Mt. Vernon was one I heartily regret.
We had a teacher by the name of Lord.  He was a small man, and not
able to cope with several of the boys in the school.  We called
him "Bunty Lord."  One evening after school four boys, of whom I
was one, while playing on the commons, found a dead sheep.  It was
suggested that we carry the sheep into the schoolroom and place it
on Lord's seat.  This was promptly done and I wrote a Latin couplet,
purporting that this was a very worthy sacrifice to a very poor
Lord, and placed it on the head of the sheep.  The next morning
Lord found the sheep and made a great outcry against the indignity.
Efforts were made at once to ascertain the actors in this farce,
and proof was soon obtained.  My handwriting disclosed my part in
the case, and the result was a prompt discharge of the culprits
from school; but poor Lord lost his place, because of his manifest
inability to govern his unruly pupils.

Another teacher I remember was of a very different type.  This was
Matthew H. Mitchell.  He was severe and dogmatic, allowing no
foolishness in his school.  He was strict and impartial in his
treatment of the boys, and, though we did not like him, we respected
his power.

I had one adventure during these early boyhood days which nearly
cost me my life, and which Uncle John (as I called Mr. Sherman)
converted into a religious warning.  One Sunday there was a freshet
in Owl Creek, on the south side of the town, and many people went
to see it, I among the rest.  I was reckless, and, against the
advice of others, went out on a temporary foot-bridge which fell
and I dropped into the raging waters.  How I escaped I hardly know,
but it was by the assistance of others.  Uncle John said that I
was punished by the Almighty for violating the Sabbath.  Ever after
that I was careful about Sunday sport.

I remember, while living at Uncle John's, witnessing the wedding
of his niece, Miss Leavenworth, to Columbus Delano.  I sat upon
the stair steps during the ceremony, the first of the kind I ever
saw.  I mention this because of my long acquaintance with Mr. Delano
and his family.  He became a great lawyer and filled many offices
of high public trust, and is now (1895) living in vigorous health,
eighty-six years old.  I also remember very well Henry B. Curtis
and his family.  He married a sister of Mrs. Sherman of Mt. Vernon,
and had a number of children.  He was a brother of Colonel Samuel
R. Curtis, distinguished in the Civil War, was an accomplished
lawyer, a careful business man, and a gentleman in every sense of
the word.

On the whole I regard my four years at Mount Vernon as well spent.
I advanced in my studies so that I could translate Latin fairly
well, I went through the primary studies, and obtained some
comprehension of algebra, geometry and kindred studies.  In the
meantime the condition of our family had greatly changed and
generally improved.  My sister Amelia was happily married to Robert
McComb, a merchant of Mansfield.  My father's only sister was
married to Judge Parker, of Mansfield, to which place my grandmother
had followed her daughter, and my brother Charles had entered upon
his career as a lawyer in the same town.

Uncle John had a family of small children growing up and I felt I
was in the way.  My mother was anxious for me to return home as
all her boys were away.  I wanted to go.  Uncle John, however,
expressed his desire for me to stay and enter Kenyon College, but
I knew that Mrs. Sherman preferred that I should leave as she had
her young children to care for.  The result was my return to
Lancaster at the age of twelve.  Mrs. Sherman is now living at
Washington, D. C., at the age of eighty-seven, with her son John.
I shall always remember with sincere gratitude her care and
forbearance manifested toward a rather wild and reckless boy at
the disagreeable age of from eight to twelve years.  Affection may
make a mother bear with the torment of her own child at that age,
but will rarely induce an equal leniency toward that of another.

My return to Lancaster was a happy event in my life.  I renewed my
old acquaintance with boys of my age, and was on intimate terms
with Philemon Ewing, Charles Garaghty, Frederick Reese, W. P. Rice,
W. Winthrop Sifford and others.  My brother, William Tecumseh, was
three years my senior, and he and his associates of his own age
rather looked down upon their juniors.  Still, I had a good deal
of intercourse with him, mainly in the way of advice on his part.
At that time he was a steady student, quiet in his manners and
easily moved by sympathy or affection.  I was regarded as a wild,
reckless lad, eager in controversy and ready to fight.  No one
could then anticipate that he was to be a great warrior and I a
plodding lawyer and politician.  I fired my first gun over his
shoulder.  He took me with him to carry the game, mostly squirrels
and pigeons.  He was then destined to West Point, and was preparing
for it.  To me the future was all unknown.

I entered, with all the boys referred to and many others, the
Academy of Mark and Matthew Howe, then well established, and of
great reputation,--and deservedly so.  The schoolrooms were large,
and furnished with desks and chairs, an improvement upon the old
benches with boards in front.  The course of studies mapped out
for me was much the same as I pursued at Mount Vernon, with a
specialty of the first six books of Euclid, and of algebra.  Latin
was taught but little.  From the first, arithmetic, algebra and
surveying were my favorite studies, and in those I became proficient.
We had an improvised theatre in which we acted plays and made
speeches.

When I entered the school Matthew Howe was the regulator, teacher
and dominie.  He was the supreme autocrat, from whom there was no
appeal.  All the boys respected him, for he certainly was a good
teacher, but they did not like his domineering way.  I got along
with him pretty well for some months, but one day after I had
mastered my lessons I rested my head on my desk when I was sharply
reproved by him.  I said that I did not feel very well and had
learned my lessons.  He called me to the black-board and directed
me to demonstrate some problem in my lesson of Euclid.  I went,
and, as I believed, had made the drawing and demonstrated the
problem.  He said I had not, that I had failed to refer to a
corollary.  I answered that he had not required this in previous
lessons.  Some discussion arose, when, with the ferule in his hand,
he directed me to hold out mine.  I did so, but as he struck my
right hand, I hit him with all the force I could command with my
left.  This created great excitement in the school, all the students
being present, my brother Tecumseh among them.  It was said at the
time that the boys were disposed to take sides with me, but I saw
no signs of it.  The result was that I was expelled from the school,
but, by the intercession of my mother, and Mrs. Reese, after
explanations, I was restored, and during my two years with Mr. Howe
I had no other contention with him.  He moved some years later to
Iowa, where he established another academy, and lived a long and
useful life.  We had friendly correspondence with each other, but
neither alluded to our skirmish over a corollary in Euclid.

The pupils had the usual disposition among boys to play tricks on
each other.  The academy was in a large square, the greater part
of which was an orchard of apple trees.  Mr. Howe lived on the
corner of the square, some distance from the academy.  The boys
were forbidden to climb the trees to shake down the fruit, but were
quite welcome to the fruit on the ground.  One fall, when the apples
were ripe, the boys conspired to play a trick upon some of the
students and outsiders,--among them my brother Lampson, then on a
visit home from Cincinnati,--who were easily persuaded to rob the
orchard, none more willing than "Lamp."  Those in the plot were to
watch and prevent interference.  When the time came we had detailed
two or three boys in the academy to fire off muskets, well loaded
with powder and nothing else, when the signal was given.  Everything
moved on according to programme.  The boys detailed to shake down
the apples were in the trees, when, all at once, the firing of
musketry commenced.  The boys dropped from the trees and scattered
in every direction.  Some of them were caught in the pea vines of
Mr. Howe's garden, but most of them, with great labor, climbed over
the high fence around the ground and dropped on the outside "with
a thud," safe from powder!  The dogs in the neighborhood lent their
aid to the outcry, and everybody was convinced that ruffians had
robbed Howe's orchard.

I suppose it will never occur that a generation of boys will not
do these things.  At seventy-two I know it was wrong.  At thirteen
I thought it was fun.

I now recall many pleasing memories of what occurred in the two
years "at home" at that period when the life of a boy is beginning
to open to the future.  It is the period of greatest danger and
highest hope.  At that time, 1835 to 1837, everybody was prosperous.
The development created by our system of canals had opened markets
for our produce.  The public national debt had been paid.  The pet
banks chartered after the destruction of the Bank of the United
States started upon a wild scheme of inflation.  A craze to purchase
public land created an overflowing revenue.  All causes combining
created a deceptive prosperity that could end only in one way.
All this was Greek to me.  All I wanted, and the controlling wish
of my life, was to help mother.  She was always kind, loving and
forbearing.  No word of reproach ever fell from her lips to me.
She was the same to all her children, but if there was any difference,
or favor, it was for me.  Even at that early age I had day dreams
for the future, and mother was the central picture.  If fortunes
could be made by others why could I not make one!  I wished I was
a man.  It began to appear to me that I could not wait to go through
college.  What were Latin and Greek to me, when they would delay
me in making my fortune!

Near the close of 1836 I wrote to my brother Charles at Mansfield,
asking him to get me employment.  He discouraged me and said I
should stick to my studies, but I insisted that I was strong and
could make my own living.  At this time Ohio had decided upon the
improvement of the Muskingum River from Zanesville to Marietta,
and the Board of Public Works had selected Colonel Samuel R. Curtis,
a graduate of West Point, as chief engineer.  He was a brother of
Mr. Curtis, of Mount Vernon, and a friend of our family.

Charles had no difficulty in securing me employment as junior rodman
if, at the age of fourteen, I could perform the duties requed,--
which Colonel Curtis doubted.  The work was not to commence until
the spring, when I was to be given a trial.  I worked hard that
winter, for hard work, I thought, was the way to fortune.  I studied
the mode of leveling.  I saw a man on the Hocking canal operate
his instrument, take the rear sight from the level of the water in
the canal, then by a succession of levels backwards and forwards
carry his level to the objective point.  Then the man was kind
enough to show me how, by simple addition and subtraction, the
result wanted could be obtained.  I was well advanced in arithmetic
and in mathematics generally, and was confident, even if I was
hardly fourteen years old, that I could do the work of a junior
rodman.

About the first of May, 1837, the day of deliverance came.  I was
to be my own master and make my own living!  A fortune gilded with
hope was before me.  I was to go in the stage thirty-six miles to
Zanesville, and thence by stage-route down the Muskingum River,
twenty-eight miles to McConnelsville.  When the stage arrived at
my mother's house it was rather full, but there was still room
enough for me.  All the family, and my comrades, had gathered to
see me off.  My baggage, all new, was thrown into the boot, and I
took my seat in the stage.  My heart sank a little as the stage
rolled over the hill and down the valley beyond, but the passengers
wanted to know who I was, where I was going, and what I was going
to do, and I think they got all the information they wanted, for
why should I not tell them of my visions of hope, sometimes called
plans!  Oh! the golden dreams of childhood, the splendid anticipations
of boyhood, the fields of conquest to be won, the fortunes to be
made, all to vanish into thin air by the touch of reality.

I arrived at Zanesville long after dark, and very weary.  I had
never been in so large a town before.  The hotel was full of people,
but no one noticed me.  I was hungry, but could only get the scraps
left, as the supper hour was past.  I was to leave in the morning
at daylight without breakfast.  I was shown into a small dark room,
on the third floor, and was to be called in the morning.  I did
not like the place and was alone and in fear.  I had more money
than ever before.  Might I not be robbed?  I took the precaution
to deposit my jack-knife on a chair within reach, to defend myself
in case of attack!  My fears were soon lost in sleep.  In the
morning I was aroused to take by place in the stage, but forgot my
knife, my only weapon of defense, and it was lost to me forever.
The bright morning revived my spirits.  A hearty breakfast at
Taylorsville revived all my hopes and plans.

I arrived at McConnelsville about noon and stopped at the only
tavern in the place.  I called at the headquarters of Colonel Curtis
and introduced myself to him.  He received me very kindly and
introduced me to the office clerks, and to James M. Love, who, I
was told, would take me within a week to the engineer corps, then
running their levels at Beverly, sixteen miles away.  I spent the
week pleasantly with him, and was intimately associated with him
during my service of two years.  He subsequently studied law and
practiced his profession at Coshocton.  When the Mexican War was
progressing he enlisted in one of the Ohio regiments, became a
captain, and, I think, a major, and rendered good service.  He
subsequently migrated to Iowa and was appointed judge of the District
Court of the United States for that state.  This position he held
for many years with distinction and honor.  He died July 2, 1891.

When the time came for joining the corps Love proposed that we
start in the morning for Beverly, but I insisted that, as it was
only sixteen miles to Beverly, we could easily make the trip after
dinner.  I had never walked so far as sixteen miles in my life,
but had walked or run three or four miles in an hour, and, by the
rules of arithmetic, we could easily go sixteen miles in five or
six hours.  He yielded to my wishes, and, as our baggage had been
sent by the stage, we started about one o'clock, light of heart
and foot.  When we had climbed the long hill south of McConnelsville,
about a mile and a half, I was a little tired, and I asked how far
we had gone; he said, "a mile and a half!"  I began then to appreciate
my folly in not starting in the morning.  He said nothing, but kept
at my slower pace, giving me a rest occasionally.  It was sun-down
when we were six miles from Beverly, and I was completely tired
out.  Still neither of us proposed to stop, as we could have done
at a farmer's house on the roadside.  We reached the town of Beverly
about ten o'clock, weary and hungry.  This tramp taught me a lesson
I never forgot,--not to insist upon anything I knew nothing about.
We found the corps the next day in camp in one large tent on the
east bank of the Muskingum River.

I had another experience, equally unpleasant, during our first
evening in camp.  The members of our corps, five or six in number,
had been invited by Mr. Lindsley to attend a party at his house
near by.  They accepted, and, as Love and I had no invitations, we
were left on guard in the tent containing the instruments and
supplies.  When we were alone there came up suddenly a storm of
wind and rain,--not uncommon along the valley,--which flattened
the tent and flooded the ground on which it stood.  We were thoroughly
soaked and utterly helpless, and, for a time, in real danger.  I
remember my utter collapse at this new misfortune, but all we could
do was to wait and hope for the return of the corps.  I must confess
that I quietly mingled my tears with the rain, but I did not tell
this to the boys when they returned after the storm was over.  No
great damage was done.  The tent was soon raised and secured in
place.  The next morning I was given a rod and instructed how to
use it.  I noticed that my associates did not have much confidence
in my ability to perform the duties, and, especially the senior
rodman, John Burwell.  I followed instructions, however, and reported
my rod correctly.  After a day or two they gave me a book in which
I was to enter the levels.  In a very short time they were satisfied
that I could perform my duties, and I was soon trusted to make up
the record of levels, and the necessary additions and subtractions
in my book.

This little corps was composed of men, some of whom afterwards
became proficient as engineers, lawyers or preachers.  Among them
were John B. Straughn, Wright Coffinberry, John Scott, John Burwell,
and James M. Love.  The line of surveys were soon completed to
Marietta, the locks and dams were located, estimates of cost were
carefully made, the materials to be used were purchased and the
excavations and embankments to be made were computed.  My associates
soon found that I could do the work assigned me, and in this way
I won their respect and forbearance.

After the surveys were completed, the members of the corps were
located at different places to take charge of the work.  Mr.
Coffinberry was assigned to Lowell, and I was attached to him as
an assistant.  John Scott, who had been at West Point, and, I think,
was a graduate, was assigned to Beverly, where a dam, lock and a
short canal were to be constructed.  In the fall of 1837 he was
dismissed, I think, for intemperance.  I was detailed, not exactly
to take his place, for which I was unfitted, but to look after some
details, and to keep the headquarters advised of the progress of
the work.  It was soon found that I was able to measure embankments,
excavations, stone and other materials.  The result was that I was
continued, at my early age, practically in charge of the work I
have mentioned.  All plans came from headquarters and I was carefully
instructed from there what to do and how to do it.  This was a
great and useful experience for me, and it continued until the
summer of 1839.

During most of that time I lived in the family of Mr. Paul Fearing,
an old and respected citizen of Beverly, who had long been engaged
in what was called the river trade.  He transported the produce of
the country, chiefly pork, apples, wheat, and corn, from the
neighboring region on flats and scows down the Muskingum, Ohio and
Mississippi to New Orleans, stopping at the riverside towns, selling
his commodities and buying others.  The boats were sold at New
Orleans for lumber.  The captain and crew, generally consisting of
two men, would return by steamer with the proceeds of their traffic
in sugar, molasses and other productions of the south.  This was
the early mode of traffic, but it had largely been broken up by
steamboats, so that at the time I refer to, Mr. Fearing's occupation
was gone; but he had a comfortable little fortune, and, with his
wife and only daughter, lived in a neat cottage on the banks of
the river at Beverly, where I became practically a member of his
family.

The community at Beverly was a very intelligent one, composed mainly
of settlers from Massachusetts on the Ohio Company's purchase.
The valley of the Muskingum is exceedingly fertile, but it is
comparatively narrow and confined by picturesque hills and ridges,
broken by water courses.  The settlements were mostly in the valley,
for the hill lands were rough, covered by poor soil, and were
occupied chiefly for grazing.  The portion of the valley at Beverly,
and south of it, was singularly fertile and pleasing, and very
valuable.  Its owners and occupants were mostly of New England
birth and descent.  Their productions had a ready market down the
river, and in that age, before railroads, the valley had a great
advantage in transportation and supplies over the interior parts
of the state.  The people were, as a rule, educated in good schools,
and they had a college at Marietta and a female college at Zanesville.
The proposed improvement of the Muskingum, they believed, would
give them another advantage, by securing them water of a depth
sufficient for boats in the dry seasons of the year, as well as
during the "freshets," which they then had to depend upon, but
which at best were not very reliable in their habits, as I found
to my cost.  This was to be corrected by the "improvement," which,
in their delusive hope, was to give them cheap water transportation
all the year around.

At that time railroads were in their infancy.  They have since
practically destroyed or crippled all internal navigation on inland
rivers, reaching their iron arms over the United States, traversing
north and south, east and west--a vast gridiron of roads, in value
greater than the market value of all the land in the United States
in 1837.  Before the first railroad was built in Ohio the Muskingum
improvement was completed, but it proved to be a bad investment.
The canals of Ohio and this improvement were, perhaps, the necessary
forerunner of the railroads to come, but the money expended on them
was practically lost.  And I believe that the experiment now being
made by the United States in the improvement of the Ohio, Missouri
and Mississippi Rivers will end in a like result on a grander scale.
By the demolition of the forests which covered this great valley,
the supply and distribution of the waters and rivers in this region
will be so diminished at certain seasons as to render these water-
ways worthless for navigation.  Engineers may make dams that will
hold water and locks that may lift a steamboat, but if the clearing
away of forests prevents the usual fall of rain and causes its
absorption into the earth, and if the dispersion of water by its
use and waste in cities, are to continue, the dam will not be
filled, and the lock will be like a stranded vessel, fit only as
a quarry for cut stone, or for a railway arch over a street of
asphalt in a growing city.  Captain Fearing railed against the
steamboats as many now inveigh against the railroads, but these
two great agencies will divide the commerce of the world between
them.  The railroads will possess the land, the steamboats the
ocean and the great fresh waters of the world.  Possibly steamboats
may be utilized on short stretches of rivers, but even on these
they will have to compete with railroads having wide-reaching
connections which they do not possess.  The money expended to levee
the Mississippi may be lost by the United States, but the planters
will receive some benefit from it in the protection given to their
crops.  The steamboats in interior waters will be exchanged for
iron whalebacks, and new forces of a new nature, as yet only partly
developed, such a electricity, will contest with steam as a motive
power.

During the period of my stay on the Muskingum improvements I had
very excellent opportunities for study, of which I regret to say
I did not avail myself as well as I might have done.  Still, I
occupied my leisure in reading novels, histories, and such books
as I could readily get.  Many books were sent to me from Lancaster.
I purchased a number, and found some in Beverly which were kindly
lent to me.  I read most of the British classics, as they are
called, the Spectator, Shakespeare, Byron, and Scott.  I read all
I could find of the history of America.  I tried to brush up my
Latin, but without much success.  I had the frequent company of my
associates on the corps, all of whom were bright, able men, several
years in advance of me in age.  We were frequently called to
headquarters at McConnelsville, a trip usually made on horseback,
and where we always had not only a cheerful, but a very instructive
time.  Colonel Curtis was highly esteemed by us all, and his
treatment of me was kind and fatherly.  He frequently complimented
me upon my work, and when he came through Beverly he visited me.

Among the diversions at Beverly we had occasional debates.  One of
these was upon the dangerous subject of temperance, a topic not
then much discussed, for drinking of something stronger than water
was almost as universal as eating, and considered equally necessary.
However, there sprang up about this time a movement in favor of
temperance.  It was thought best to discuss the subject at a public
meeting, a school teacher and I taking the side of temperance, and
two other young men opposing us.  The meeting was well attended,
largely by the men employed on the public work who habitually
received a certain number of "jiggers" of whisky a day, at regular
hours.  Whisky, not being taxed, was worth from fifteen to twenty-
five cents a gallon.  It was not an expensive luxury, and was
regarded by all the workingmen on the improvement as a necessity.
At the end of the debate, which I do not remember to have been a
very notable one, the audience decided that we had the best of the
argument.  The discussion created a great excitement.  The workingmen
took up the cry that the Cumberland Presbyterians, the prevailing
sect there, and other Christians, were interfering with their habits
and comforts, and when the young schoolmaster appeared the next
day, they raised a shout and pursued him with sticks and stones.
He escaped with difficulty across the river, thus getting out of
the way.  I heard of the trouble, but went up to the canal and made
my usual measurements.  Not a word was said to me and no unkindness
shown.  I understood afterwards that this was caused by a warning
given them by the contractor, who, hearing of the assault upon the
schoolmaster, told them that I was a part of the government and it
would not do to attack me; that to disturb me would have a very
bad effect upon them all.  So, I was forgiven, and, indeed, I never
had any controversy during my time there with anyone connected with
the work, from John McCune, the contractor, to the humblest water
carrier about the works.

Early in the winter of 1838, I think in November, I had made up my
mind to go to Cincinnati on the usual leave after the close of
the works.  As an excuse, and to procure means of paying for the
trip, I purchased, partly on credit, a barge and loaded it with
barreled salt, apples and other commodities, intending before the
freeze-up to avail myself of the usual rise in the river to float
to the Ohio and thence to Cincinnati.  All went smoothly, the boat
was loaded and floated as far as Luke Shute, when the river was
found to be too low to proceed.  Consequently the boat was tied up
and placed under the care of a man who slept aboard.  We waited
for the river to rise, but it did not come.  Both the Muskingum
and Ohio Rivers were very low that season and finally froze up
before the freshet came.  This closing of navigation created a
great demand for salt in Cincinnati, as that article could not be
obtained from the up-river country, and it advanced to a price that
would have yielded me a little fortune had my boat not been among
those thus detained.  I undertook to carry some of the salt by
flatboats, but they were frozen up.  The packing season in Cincinnati
was going forward and salt bore a high price, but I knew it would
fall the moment the river opened.  It was apparent that I would
lose on the salt, but I still clung to my purpose to go down the
river.  Finally the freshet came, some time in January, I think,
and then, with three men on the barge, I floated down the river,
tying up at nights for safety, and stopping occasionally to sell
apples to the Kentucky farmers, I arrived at last in Cincinnati
and soon found that salt had greatly fallen in value, so I sold
the salt, boat and cargo upon the best terms I could get.  The
result was a loss of about one hundred dollars.  However, I had a
very pleasant visit in Cincinnati with my brother Lampson, who was
connected with the "Cincinnati Gazette."  He was a member of the
family of Mr. Charles Hammond, his daughter, and son-in-law Mr.
L'Hommedieu.  Mr. Hammond had been a warm friend of my father's
and was certainly one of the ablest writers of his day and generation,
as well as an accomplished lawyer.  He was much pleased at my
adventure and especially with my rough shoes and warm Kentucky
jeans.  He told me not to be discouraged, and flattered me with
the statement that a young fellow who could, at fifteen years of
age, do what I had done would make his way in the world.

At that time I saw Judge Burnett at his residence.  He had been a
colleague of my father on the supreme bench, and during all his
manhood had been distinguished as a lawyer and a man of marked
ability.  He wore a long queue, preserved the habits of the gentleman
of the old school, and was proud of being a Federalist.  His book
called "Burnett's Notes" is perhaps the most valuable collection
of historical data pertaining to the early history of Ohio now
extant.

At this time I visited what was called Powers' "Hell."  My brother
Lampson and I took the boatmen with us, and "Lamp," who was fond
of playing practical jokes, and knew the place better than I did,
took care to warn one of the roughest of my boatmen to seize hold
of a bar which was before him, and which "Lamp" knew would be
charged later with electricity, and to hold on to it for dear life.
We heard a rumbling sound inside, and finally saw flashes resembling
lightning, and we naturally seized on whatever was before us to
await the opening of "Hell."  After more sheet lightning the veil
was drawn aside and there were before us representations of human
beings in every attitude of agony.  At the same moment the electric
current was passed through certain bars before us, on one of which
the boatman held a firm grip, but no sooner was he charged with
electricity than his hair flew on end, he looked the picture of
terror, shouted in a loud voice, "O, hell!" and broke for the door.
Soon after we followed also, and that, to us, was the end of a
scene that ought never to have been exhibited.

I returned to Beverly in a steamboat and soon settled all the bills
of the salt speculation, but had to call upon Mr. McComb and my
brother, Charles, for a small sum to make up the deficit.  I repaid
this sum later on, but Mr. McComb never failed, whenever I made a
business proposition that seemed hazardous, to say, with a great
haw-haw:  "Well, John, that is one of your salt speculations."

The election in the fall of 1838 resulted in the choice of a
Democratic governor and state legislature, which, according to the
politics of the time, involved an entire change of state officials
and employees.  Mr. Wall became a member of the Board of Public
Works, and was assigned, among other works, to the charge of the
Muskingum improvement.  In the course of a few months, I think
about the last of June, 1839, Col. Curtis was removed, and Mr.
Macaboy was appointed superintendent in his place.  At first it
was uncertain whether changes would be made in the subordinates of
the corps.  Some of its members had become so much attached to Col.
Curtis that they thought it right and proper to send him a letter
expressing in substance their regret at his removal, their high
estimate of his services, and thanks for his kindness to them.
This was signed by Mr. Coffinberry, Mr. Burwell, Mr. Love and
myself.  I am not certain that the others did not express the same
friendly feelings, but, at all events, the four whose names I have
mentioned were summarily dropped from the service.

Thus, after two years of faithful work with small pay, I was, at
the age of sixteen, turned adrift on account of politics.

I find among my papers, dingy with age, the correspondence with
Col. Curtis, and also the subsequent correspondence between Mr.
Wall and myself, in respect to my removal.  My letter to Mr. Wall
was a disclaimer of any intention of disrespect to him in our letter
to Col. Curtis, and his reply was that we alleged that Col. Curtis
was removed without a cause, which he denied.  I have no doubt,
from a present reading of the papers, but that he would have retained
me as a juvenile offender if I had made a suitable apology, but
the instinct of a boy to stand up for his party was strong.  I was
a Whig of sixteen, and it was glorious to be a victim of
persecution.

I also find among my papers of that time, which I thought worthy
of preservation, a multitude of essays on as many different subjects,
and some efforts at poetry, all of which I consign to flames.  Most
boys have had the same experience.  The only benefit I derived was
the habit I formed of writing upon such subjects as attracted my
attention by reading, a habit I continued when studying law, in
preparing a case for trial, and in preparation for a debate in
Congress.

I returned at once to Lancaster.  The great financial depression,
commencing in 1837, was now at its height.  It was said that Ohio
State six per cent. bonds had been sold at fifty cents on the
dollar.  Many banks were embarrassed and refused to discount notes,
while several failed, and their circulating notes became worthless.
I found that Lancaster had especially suffered, that many of its
leading business firms had suspended or were on the brink of failure.
I was then in excellent health, tall and slender and willing to
work.  I received temporary employment from Dr. Kreider, who was
either Clerk of the Court or Recorder of Deeds, I do not remember
which.  He gave me a dollar and a half a day, which I regarded as
a great favor, but the records were soon made up and I had nothing
to do.

It was at this period of my life that I fell into very bad habits.
Many of the boys about my age who were with me in Howe's school
were still about Lancaster, and were out of employment like myself.
We would meet on the street, or at the post office, or some place
of resort, to talk over old times, and got into the habit of drinking
poor wine, mostly made of diluted whiskey and drugs.  The general
habit of drinking spirits was more common than now, but I had not
been subject to this temptation, as Col. Curtis was very strict in
prohibiting all such drinking.  With the jolly good fellows I met
at Lancaster who had nothing to do, I could not refuse to join in
drinking the health of each other, and thus I was conscious frequently
of being more or less intoxicated.  On one occasion, in the fall
of 1839, I went home very sick from drinking.  My mother received
me with much surprise and sorrow, but neither complained nor scolded,
and, with the utmost kindness, put me to bed and watched over and
cared for me.  I was not stupid enough to be unconscious of my
degradation and her affection, and then and there resolved never
to be in such a condition again, and from that time to this I am
not conscious of having been under the influence of liquor.  I have
partaken of wine and spirits at weddings, feasts and dinners, I
have used it as a medicine, and in response to toasts and compliments,
but never to an extent to addle my brain or disturb my walk.

At that time intemperance was a common vice.  Of the young men who
were my contemporaries a very large proportion became habitual
drunkards and died prematurely.  No reform in my time has been so
general and beneficial as that of the disuse of drinking intoxicating
liquors, commencing in 1841.  Formerly liquors were put on the
sideboard or table, and the invitation "take a drink" was as common
then as "take a seat" is now.  This method of treating was shared
in by preachers of the Gospel, and by all who observed the courtesies
of social life.  Now these conditions have greatly changed.  Whisky
is banished to the drug store, the grocery and the saloon, and even
there it is under surveillance and so highly taxed as to furnish
a large proportion of the national revenue.

Some time in the autumn of 1839 I visited Mansfield for the first
time, on some business for General Reese, and it was then arranged
that early in the next spring I should return to study law with my
brother Charles.  Mansfield was then a very unattractive village,
badly located on parallel ridges and valleys, but precisely in the
center of the very large county of Richland, then containing 900
square miles.  The county covered a part of the high table-land
that separated the waters of Lake Erie and the Ohio River.  It was
an almost unbroken forest during the War of 1812, with a few families
living in log houses, protected by block houses of logs from the
incursions of Indians, many of whom lived in the county.  After
the war it was rapidly settled, chiefly from Pennsylvania, and
divided into farms of 160 acres or less, according to the new
congressional plan of townships six miles square, sections one mile
square, and subdivisions of forty, eight, and one hundred and sixty
acres.  The topography of the country was high and rolling, from
900 to 1,350 feet above the sea, with innumerable springs of the
purest water, and small streams and creeks, all rising in the county
and flowing north or south into the Muskingum or Sandusky rivers.
The timber was oak, sugar, elm, hickory and other deciduous trees.
This valuable timber was the chief obstruction to the farmers.  It
had to be deadened or cut away to open up a clearing for the cabin
and the field.  The labor of two or three generations was required
to convert it into the picturesque, beautiful and healthy region
it now is.

The village of Mansfield has been converted into a flourishing city
of more than 15,000 inhabitants, with extensive manufacturing
establishments and a network of railroads reaching out to Cleveland,
Chicago, Pittsburg, Columbus, Cincinnati and Indianapolis.  There
was no sign of this development when I first visited the place.

On my return to Lancaster I applied myself closely to study and
reading, mainly of history.  I read Hume, Smollett and Miller's
histories of England, Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire," and such histories of the United States as I could procure.
It was at this time that the memorable "Log Cabin and Hard Cider
Campaign" of 1840 commenced.  General Harrison had been nominated
in December, 1839, at Harrisburg, by the Whig party.  He was a
distinguished general in the War of 1812, but had lived mainly a
quiet, modest life on his farm at South Bend, near Cincinnati.
The Democratic papers ridiculed him as a feeble old man, living in
a cabin and drinking hard cider.  The Whigs turned these sarcasms
with great effect upon their adversaries.  They compared the old
soldier and his excellent war record, living in a cabin with the
latch string out and eating corn bread, with "Matty Van, the used
up man," living in a palace, with roast beef every day, eating from
silver plate, with gold spoons, and drawing a salary of $25,000 a
year.  This was no doubt demagoguism, but there was back of it the
great questions of protection to American industries, sound and
stable currency, and the necessity of economy in public expenditures.
A great meeting was held in Columbus in February, 1840.  In the
procession were log cabins, filled with farmers and hauled by a
number of horses and oxen, and hard cider was on tap for all who
chose to drink.  Songs were improvised, especially by Greiner, the
poet of the canvass.  One of these songs, with the refrain, "The
Log Cabin Candidate will March to Washington," became famous and
prophetic.

Some time in March, 1840, taking the stage for Mansfield, I saw
signs of political excitement all along the way, even at that early
period of the canvass.  My sister Susan, two years younger than I,
was with me.  We met with no adventure worthy of notice until we
arrived at our destination, when, in ascending the hill to the
public square, the coach slipped and fell over on its side.  This
we considered a bad omen.  It was not, however, an unusual accident,
as the roads were always bad in March, and the coaches of the day
not worthy of the name.  We were heartily welcomed into the family
of Robert McComb, who had married my sister, Amelia.

I was to study law, but under the laws of Ohio I could not be
admitted to practice until I arrived at the age of twenty-one years.
Our liberal laws presumed that a man of ordinary capacity could
master this profession in two years.  What was I to do during the
two spare years?  This question was left to the decision of my
uncle, Judge Parker, husband of my father's only sister.  He was
a peculiar character, and, as I will have occasion to refer to him
again, I will give of him a brief biography.  He was born in Nova
Scotia.  His father was a merchant of some wealth who early decided
that his son should be educated in Ohio, and chose for him the
college at Athens.  There young Parker not only received his
collegiate diploma, but became thoroughly attached to western habits
and opinions.  He studied law with my father at Lancaster, and,
when admitted to the bar, went to Mansfield, where he practiced
law.  He was genial, social, and especially fond of the society of
young people.  I have often seen him stop on the streets of Mansfield
to watch boys playing marbles.  He was conceded to be an able
lawyer, perhaps the best land lawyer and special pleader in that
part of Ohio.  But he was not an advocate, partly owing to occasional
stuttering, but in jury cases employed my father until the latter
became a judge of the Supreme Court.

Mr. Parker had for some years before 1840 retired from active
practice, and was engaged with Robert McComb as a general merchant.
During, or about 1842, he was elected by the legislature of Ohio
presiding judge of the Court of Common Pleas, and became eminently
popular, and deservedly so.  He was to be my guide and counselor.

A few words in regard to my brother, Charles Taylor, will explain
our relations, the confidence he reposed in me, and my deep
obligations to him.  He was then a bachelor thirty years old, with
quite a lucrative practice, mainly in collecting debts due to New
York and other eastern merchants.  Our banking system was then as
bad as it could be, exchange on New York was always at a premium,
and there was no confidence in our local banks.  Charles was
substantially the banker in Mansfield and surrounding counties for
eastern merchants.  He was a good speaker when he addressed a judge,
and his briefs were clear statements of the law of the case, but
when forced to speak to a jury he was exceedingly shy and sensitive.
He avoided jury trials.  He was a fair speaker on popular topics,
and took great interest in current politics as a Whig.  He was a
member of the Harrisburg convention that nominated General Harrison
for President, and made several creditable speeches in that canvass.
He was married in the fall of 1840 to Miss Elizabeth Williams, of
Dayton, Ohio, and I became a member of his family soon after.

The influence of the special traits and tendencies of Judge Parker
and my brother Charles upon my life was soon manifest.  My course
of study, outlined by Judge Parker, commenced with Blackstone,
followed soon after by Coke on Littleton.  As a compromise I was
allowed to read Kent's Commentaries, but Chitty's Pleadings had to
go along with Kent.  The disinclination of Charles to have anything
to do with contested litigation became more marked, and I was
compelled, long before my admission to the bar, to look after such
cases as grew out of his practice.  The pleadings then in vogue
were the declarations, pleas and replications of the English common
law.  These I prepared after I had been a student for a year, and,
in cases within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, I
habitually appeared either in prosecution or defense.

As a matter of course, I was often outwitted and defeated, much to
my chagrin.  In one case submitted to arbitration, a pettifogger
of bad repute by the name of Baldwin secured an award palpably
unjust.  I felt more keenly than my client the injustice done him,
and never forgave Baldwin until he was indicted for perjury and
driven out of the county in disgrace.

While pursuing my studies, I was able in various ways to make enough
money to support myself.  I wrote deeds and agreements, and drew
the first map of Richland county, showing subdivisions in farms,
the course of creeks and rivulets, and roads.  I was also employed
to collect small debts, and, toward the close of my probation, I
was intrusted with large collections, one of which was in closing
the business of an old firm with outstanding credits of more than
$20,000.

In those days of primitive barter the merchant was the banker of
all the farmers dealing with him.  The farmer sold to the merchant
most of his surplus products, including live stock and pork, and
purchased his supplies, mainly of clothing, tea, coffee, and the
like, and the merchant made advances on the growing crop.  At the
close of the year the account was settled, generally with a balance
in favor of the merchant.  Little money was used.  It was a traffic
in commodities.  It was not unusual for the merchant to drive horses
and cattle to Pittsburg or further east, and send the proceeds to
the eastern merchant.

In the fall of the year it was quite common for the farmer to load
upon his wagon his surplus wheat and haul it fifty miles to Sandusky
and Milan, receiving in return salt and farming implements, and
the balance in money.  Wheat was then the only article that would
command cash.  At this season the highway was often blocked with
long trains of wagons that would not give way for other vehicles.
At night the wagons would be parked on the roadside near a creek,
and the farmers and their boys would have a regular joyous picnic
on provisions brought from home.  This was the life of a farmer
before the days of railroads, and I am not sure but it was a more
happy one than now.  Then the village blacksmith or shoemaker, the
tinker, the carpenter and the mechanic of every trade had his shop
and was a far more important and independent citizen than now, when
grouped into large manufacturing and machine works.

While a student, I was frequently sent by my brother to Wooster,
the nearest bank, with large sums of money to purchase exchange on
New York for his clients.  These trips I always made on horseback.
Once, as I was to start quite early in the morning, I received
nearly $2,000 in bills the night before, in two packages, and placed
them in my overcoat.  In the morning I threw my overcoat over my
arm and went for my horse.  Before mounting I felt for the money
and found it was gone.  I started in alarm for the house and on my
way found one package of $1,000 lying on the sidewalk at the corner
of the street where I had passed, but the other was nowhere to be
seen.  I felt sure it was picked up by some one.  I at once gave
notice to my brother, and he took immediate measures to trace the
finder.  I cannot express the chagrin and anxiety which I suffered
on account of my carelessness, but Charles uttered no reproach,
but prepared to replace the loss.  Fortunately within a month the
lost money was traced to an "early drunkard," who found the package
on the pavement while going for his morning grog.  He was watched
and at night was seen to take some money from his trunk.  A search
warrant soon led to the restoration of the money, except a small
sum he had spent.  This incident attached me the more to my brother.

The social life in Mansfield, while I was a student, was very
pleasant and instructive.  The freedom, and yet propriety of
intercourse among the young people, was notable.  We had social
meetings, parties, dances, and an occasional ball during the winter,
but in summer, riding in carriages and on horseback was the recreation
of the day.  Fleming's Ravine, about five miles from Mansfield,
was the general gathering place for young and old.  A small stream
had cut a deep ravine with rocky banks on either side.  An old mill
with its overshot wheel spanned the ravine and filled it with noisy
rattle.  The adjacent woods, where the fire was lit and the coffee
made, and the farm lands stretching beyond, made a picturesque
scene often described and always admired.  Here we had dances,
frolics, speeches and fun, with healthy exercise in the open air.
These frolics were often made the subject of description in the
newspapers.  On a notable occasion of one of these visits to
Fleming's Ravine, Mr. Franklin Barker, a law student, wrote for
one of the local papers a pleasing description of the scene under
the name of "The Fairy's Tale."  He paraphrased Byron as follows:

  "There was a sound of revelry by _day_
   And Richland's capital gathered then
   Her beauty and her chivalry and fair eyes
   Looked love to eyes that spoke again."

Many of the persons present were named, or so described as to be
recognized.  There was a good deal of egotism and assumption in
the narrative which created much feeling among those who had not
the good fortune to attend.  Though I was present, and greatly
enjoyed the picnic, I thought it was a good opportunity to prick
the bubble of self esteem assumed by Barker, and wrote for the
rival newspaper a counter description signed "A Looker On."  This
excited a good deal of interest at the time, but it has probably
faded, after half a century, from the memory of the few who survive;
it then created a rivalry and left its mark upon the future.  The
destruction of the mill by a flood, the cutting away of the wood
and other causes, have changed this, so that the gathering place
of the young of my day is a thing of the past.

During my study of law, the bar at Mansfield was considered a very
able one, including among its members James Stewart, Thomas W.
Bartley, Jacob Brinkerhoff, Charles Sherman and others.  All of
those named became judges, either of the courts of Ohio or of the
United States.  During the same period there were also many law
students in the offices of these gentlemen, among them Samuel J.
Kirkwood, George W. Geddes, Thomas H. Ford, Henry C. Hedges, Willard
Slocum, Joseph Newman, Patrick Hull and others, who afterwards
became distinguished in civil or military life.  These students,
myself among the number, organized a moot court, presided over by
Joseph Newman, then in active practice as a partner of Mr. Stewart.
We held famous moot courts in which cases were tried with all the
earnestness, industry and skill that could have been evoked by real
cases.  In these trials Mr. Kirkwood and I were usually pitted
against each other, although he studied late in life, and was then
more than thirty years old.  He was then a Democrat, but moved to
Iowa in 1856, became a Republican war governor of that state and
United States Senator.  I have always regarded our contests in this
moot court as the most important part of my legal training.

The course of study pursued under the direction of Judge Parker
continued until my admission to the bar, though much interrupted
by the variety and nature of my employment.  I read, in addition
to the routine works prescribed by Judge Parker, a great variety
of literary and historical works, and had substantially practiced
my profession a year or more in advance of my admission to the bar.

I arrived at the age of twenty-one on the 10th day of May, 1844,
and promptly on time on that day I was presented to the Supreme
Court "on the circuit," then sitting at Springfield, Ohio, for
admission to the bar.  Several other students were presented, and,
according to the custom of that time, we were all referred to a
committee composed of General Samson Mason, Hon. Charles Anthony,
and one other lawyer whose name I do not recall.  All were leading
lawyers of that place, and had been busily occupied in the court.
We met that evening at the office of one of these gentlemen to pass
the ordeal for which we had been preparing for years.  A few
questions were put to us which were answered, when some question
was asked, the answer to which led to a decided difference of
opinion among the examiners, and a practical suspension of our
examination.  It soon occurred to them that they were more interested
in the cases coming on "to-morrow" than in our efficiency as
incipient lawyers.  I was asked under whom I studied.  I answered
Judge Parker, and they all agreed that anyone who was certified by
him ought to be admitted.

My old and dearest friend, and boon companion, Dr. J. C. Buckingham,
of Springfield, was then entering upon his profession.  He was an
admirable penman.  He obtained leave of the clerk of the court, to
write out my certificate of admission as a member of the bar, and
this he did in beautiful form, handsomely illustrated.  He attached
to it an enormous seal, and it was duly signed by the clerk of the
court.  I have kept it as a memento of him, but have never had
occasion to present it to anyone.  He, poor fellow, died prematurely
at Springfield, when in the full employment of his duties as a
physician, and with the most hopeful prospects of success in his
profession.

I must not forget that in my boyhood days I had a strong penchant
for military parade.  I remember well the respect always shown to
Revolutionary veterans, who survived to the period of my boyhood.
At every meeting, political or otherwise, where these soldiers
appeared to share in the assemblage of citizens, they were received
with profound respect.  Hats came off.  They were given the best
seats, and every mark of honor was shown them.  What boy did not
feel the gushings of patriotic emotion when one of these old veterans
appeared upon the stage.  To a less degree, similar marks of respect
were shown to the soldiers of the War of 1812; but, though this
was as great and important an event in our history, it did not
light the spark of patriotic fire like the Revolutionary War.

Before the war for the Union broke out, military spirit died away,
especially in Ohio.  Military organizations had fallen into disuse
and popular contempt.  We had, it is true, in times far apart, what
were called militia musters, but Jack Falstaff's regiment was
nothing to our militia.  I had the honor to be a member of the
staff of Colonel Urie, of Ashland, when the venerable General Wilson
was the Commander-in-Chief of the militia of that part of Ohio.
He was a hero of the War of 1812, and, as I remember, a gallant
and fine-looking old gentleman.  The regiment--so called--without
guns, uniform, or anything proper for a soldier, was with some
difficulty formed into line, but a wavering line, across the public
square at Mansfield and along East and West Market streets, when,
by some misunderstanding of orders, the right of the regiment
marched to the right, and the left to the left.  With some difficulty,
and a good deal of swearing, they were brought back into line and
dismissed.  Militia day was a day of drunkenness and fighting.  No
wonder that years passed without muster.  Such was the military
condition of the United States when the War of the Rebellion sounded
the tocsin of alarm, and our generation was called upon to meet
the gravest struggle in American history.


CHAPTER III.
OHIO, ITS HISTORY AND RESOURCES.
Occupation by the Indians--Washington's Expedition to the Head of
the Ohio River--Commencement of the History of the State--Topography,
Characteristics, etc., in 1787--Arrival of the First Pioneers--The
Treaty of Greenville--Census of 1802 Showed a Population of 45,028
Persons--Occupation of the "Connecticut Reserve"--Era of Internal
Improvement--Value of Manufactures in 1890--Vast Resources of the
Buckeye State--Love of the "Ohio Man" for His Native State.

The life of a man is greatly influenced by the place of his birth,
the surroundings of his boyhood, and the habits and customs of the
community in which he lived.  As I have been all my life a resident
of Ohio, and for more than forty years have been one of its
representatives in Congress, or the Cabinet, I feel that a brief
sketch of the history and resources of the state may not be out of
place in this biography.  No adequate history of the state has been
written, though many works have given general outlines.  The
materials are copious, but I can only state a few events that mark
the changes in its civilization.  That it was once occupied by a
race now entirely extinct is evidenced by numerous mounds, earthworks
and lines of fortifications so extensive as to have required to
construct them a dense population with a knowledge of mathematics
far beyond that of any tribe or race existing on the American
continent, when discovered by Columbus.  The works of the mound
builders can be seen, and have been described, but no ray of light
has been cast upon, or plausible suggestion made to account for,
the origin, existence or disappearance of this race.

Long after the settlement on the Atlantic Coast of the Thirteen
Colonies, the territory now included in the State of Ohio was part
of a vast unknown region north and west of the Ohio River.  It was
roamed over by numerous tribes of Indians living in tents of bark
or skins, whose residence was generally as transitory as that of
the wandering tribes of Arabia.  Many of these Indian tribes were
composed of a few families under the domination of a chief who went
out from his kindred as Abraham did, and planted his tents where
fancy led him, and moved at his whim or with his game.  Every one
of the Indian tribes that had been driven by the white man from
the east and the south chose his camping and hunting grounds in
the region of the O-hi-o, often driving away a weaker tribe.  Their
contests with white men had given them some knowledge of fire-arms,
and some of them had been marshaled under arms in the wars between
the English and the French, but, as a rule, the Indians encountered
by our race since the landing at Jamestown were all of the same
type of wandering savages.  The difference between these tribes
can be accounted for by their location, whether on the seashore or
in the forest or plain, and by the strength of the tribe, from the
powerful Six Nations to the feeble band in possession of some chosen
valley.

Whatever may be said of the irrepressible conflicts between the
white man and the Indians, waged often with savage and relentless
cruelties on both sides, it may as truly be said that the same
savage conflicts have been carried on between the different tribes
of Indians, which often ended by the extermination of the weaker
tribe, or the absorption of the feeble remnant with the stronger
tribe.  This was certainly the case with the Indian tribes of the
northwest territory.  Ohio was the battleground for destructive
warfare between the Indian tribes long before the white man gained
a foothold on its soil.

In 1755, when the war with France commenced, the English settlements
covered the Atlantic Coast, but did not extend across the Alleghany
Mountains, though a few hardy pioneers may have wandered into the
wilderness beyond.  But French missionaries, inspired with religious
zeal, had penetrated all the northwest territory, including the
great lakes.  In 1673 Marquette and Joliet, two of these missionaries,
after years spent with the Indians on the shores of the lakes,
winning their confidence by humility and care, followed the lines
of the Fox and Wisconsin Rivers from the shores of Lake Michigan,
and discovered the great river "with a joy that could not be
expressed," and floated upon its waters to the mouth of the
Arkansas.

It is impossible to read the interesting narratives of these
missionaries, of their life among the Indians of the northwest,
and their enthusiastic description of the new and wonderful land
they had discovered, without a feeling of admiration and reverence.
The adventures and trials of these zealous priests read like romance;
but their description of natural scenes, of great rivers, mountains
and plains, now familiar to fifteen million of people, attest the
accuracy of their statements and the courage and zeal with which
they pursued their task.

The discovery of Marquette was diligently followed by Chevalier de
la Salle, a knight of fortune, of wonderful endurance, who, after
overcoming incredible difficulties, conducted an expedition by the
way of the lakes and the Mississippi River to its mouth.  Thus the
King of France, by the piety and zeal of a priest and the courage
of an adventurer, was able to base his claims to fully half the
continent of North America upon grounds recognized as valid by
European law, namely, the discovery of the St. Lawrence, the
occupation of Canada, and the discovery of the Mississippi from
its source to its mouth.  The great body of the continent is drained
by these two rivers.  Their discovery and occupation was sufficient
at that time to give to France the right of exclusive possession
of that vast territory, for the title of the Indian tribes was not
considered valid by Christian powers.  While the priests of France
were seeking to save the souls of the Indians, the Kings of France
were seeking to rob them of their property.

The French, during this period, erected a line of posts from the
mouth of the Mississippi, by way of the Wabash, Maumee and the
lakes, to Montreal, and finally, in 1733, established a line of
posts from Lake Erie to the junction of the Monongahela and Alleghany
Rivers, where Pittsburg now stands, and claimed the whole country
north of the Ohio from its source to its mouth.

And here, for the first time, comes into view the majestic form of
George Washington, then a young man of twenty-two.  He was sent by
Governor Dinwiddie, of Virginia, to visit the several Indian tribes
at the head of the Ohio River and the French forces at Venango.
In the dead of winter he made his trip into the wilderness, and
soon ascertained that it was the fixed purpose of the French
authorities to occupy all the country to the sources of the Ohio,
including a large section of what is now a part of Pennsylvania
and New York.  The commander, St. Pierre, declared his purpose of
seizing every Englishman within the Ohio valley.  The result of
the expedition of Washington left no choice to the English government,
except to abandon their claim to the northwest territory, or to
declare war.  The English title was based upon their occupation of
the shores of the Atlantic coast from Massachusetts to Georgia.
It was claimed that this occupation carried the right to possession
westward from sea to sea.

In the earliest grants to the colonies, especially to Virginia and
Connecticut, their western boundaries extended to the South Sea.
Where the South Sea lay, and what was the breadth of the continent,
was not defined by these kingly grants.  James I and his councilors
then knew but little about America.  There was no way to settle
this disputed title between the two powers but by war.  A Virginia
company had built a fort on the south side of the Ohio, below the
site of the present city of Pittsburg.  In 1754 the French troops
occupied the point at the junction of the Monongahela and Alleghany,
where the city of Pittsburg now is, and erected a fort.

Then followed the well-known war of the French and English, Braddock's
defeat, the heroism of Washington, the capture of Quebec and the
cession of Canada and the northwestern territory to Great Britain.
It is impossible to overrate the importance of these events upon
the future of America.  The result was that the region east of the
Mississippi River and north of the Ohio River was the property of
Great Britain and the inheritance of the English race.  The great
northwest was theirs, and fairly won.

The extinction of the French title to the Ohio territory was at
once followed by the claims of several colonies to parts of this
territory under grants from the British crown; but the English
government declared all the land west of the sources of the Atlantic
rivers as under the dominion of the king for the use of the Indians,
and all persons were forbidden to settle or remain within it.  This
dispute was postponed by the War of the Revolution.  An event during
the war, apparently of small importance, had a controlling influence
in securing to the United States the northwestern territory.

The State of Virginia, claiming title under a grant from the British
crown to the regions west of the Alleghanies, in 1778, organized
an expedition, under Colonel George Rogers Clark, to punish and
repel incursions of Indians, and capture the old French posts then
held by the English.  This he accomplished, so that when negotiations
for peace were entered upon in 1782 our plenipotentiaries could
maintain the title of the United States to the northwestern territory,
not only by grants to the English colonies, but by conquest in war,
and actual possession at the time of the negotiations.  The British
insisted on making the Ohio River a boundary of the United States.
Mr. Adams said that sooner than yield the western territory he
would exhort his countrymen to continue the war as long as they
could keep a soldier in the field.  Mr. Jay was equally determined,
and finally the line of the lakes was agreed to.

The treaty of peace recognized the St. Lawrence, the lakes and the
49th parallel of latitude as the dividing line between the United
States and Canada.  But the question arose whether the western
territory was the property of the United States as the result of
their joint struggle for independence, or of the several states
under the grants of the English crown.  This dangerous controversy
delayed the formation of the federal government; but it was happily
settled by the cession of the territory to the United States, with
or without conditions and reservations, by the several states
claiming western lands.

As a part of this cession and settlement, and almost equal in
importance to the constitution of the United States, was the
celebrated ordinance organizing the northwestern territory.  This
ordinance guaranteed the subdivision of the territory into states,
and secured to them, by a perpetual compact, the forms and substance
of a republican government, a proper disposition of the public
lands, and the formal prohibition of slavery in the territories,
and may be properly considered the commencement of the history of
the State of Ohio.

We may here pause to consider the condition, topography and
characteristics of the Territory, now the State, of Ohio in 1787,
when the first territorial government was organized by Congress.
It was bounded on the south and east by the Ohio River, touching
on its northeast border the States of Pennsylvania and New York;
on the north by Lake Erie, and on the west by an arbitrary line
not then defined, and contained about 40,000 square miles.  Its
topography may be described as an elevated plain, its highest
elevation being 1,540 feet above the sea, its lowest depression
being 440 feet above the sea, and its mean altitude about 800 feet
above the sea.  It is traversed by the comb of a watershed between
the river and the lakes, running from northeast to southwest across
the state, much nearer the lake than the river, at an elevation
above the sea of from 1,000 to 1,300 feet.  The shed on either side
is penetrated by rivers of clear, pure water, in valleys of great
fertility, and usually with hillsides of a gentle slope and fertile
soil.

In 1787 it was an unbroken wilderness covered with great forests
and sparsely inhabited by savage tribes of Indians, only here and
there tempered by the civilizing teachings of the missionary.  One
of the earliest descriptions I find of the famous Miami Valley is
as follows:

"The land beyond the Scioto, except the first twenty miles, is rich
and level, bearing walnut trees of huge size, the maple, the wild
cherry and the ash; full of little streams and rivulets; variegated
by beautiful natural prairies, covered with wild rye, blue grass
and white clover.  Turkeys abounded, and deer and elks, and most
sorts of game; of buffaloes, thirty or forty were frequently seen
feeding in one meadow.  Nothing is wanting but cultivation to make
this a most delightful country."

This favored land was thrown open for settlement at a time when
the people of the states had been impoverished by the war, when
there was neither money, credit nor commerce, when the government
of the Continental Congress had fallen into contempt, and the new
government was passing the ordeal of a vote in states jealous of
each other.  It was the only land subject to sale by the United
States, for Kentucky was covered by Virginia grants, Western New
York was the property of land companies, and all beyond was a _terra
incognita_.  There was a struggle for Ohio land among all the
northern states, including Virginia and Maryland.  Companies were
formed, composed mostly of officers and soldiers of the Revolutionary
War, to secure from Congress favorable land grants.  Virginia and
Connecticut had their ample reserves, New York had a large unoccupied
region in her territory, and the other northern states demanded
their shares in the common property of the United States.  The
result was that all the states established settlements in Ohio,
and, for the first time in our history, the descendants of the
Puritans of New England, the Dutch of New York, the Germans and
Scotch-Irish of Pennsylvania, the Jersey Blues, the Catholics of
Maryland, the Cavaliers of Virginia and the loyal refugees of Canada
united their blood and fortunes in establishing a purely American
state on the soil of Ohio.

Among these early settlers were the foremost men of all the states,
the Revolutionary stock that won independence, who carried their
love of liberty and the principles and instincts of their localities
to a soil more fertile than any of the old states, and with natural
resources, climate and facilities for settlement and civilization
as favorable as any within their reach.  The limits of this sketch
will not permit details of the progress of this migration.  The
first difficulty it encountered was the toilsome way to the promised
land.  All roads, such as they were, crossed the Alleghany Mountains,
or followed the longer route by the lakes.  A voyage now easily
made in a day then occupied sixty days on foot or on horseback,
and every article of civilized life had to be transported with
painful labor over rude paths and roads, relieved sometimes by
barges and canoes on creeks and rivers.

When the first pioneers reached their destination, their land was
already occupied.  Every part of Ohio was then in the possession
of Indians.  The war they had maintained with the pioneers of
Kentucky only prepared them for the desperate struggle with new
invaders.  The first settlement of the New England colony was made
in Marietta, April, 1788.  From that day to the close of the war
with Great Britain in 1815 there were hostilities in some part of
Ohio with the Indians.  There is not a county in Ohio that was not
at some time the scene of a battle with the Indians, or a skirmish,
or a massacre.

The interesting "Historical Collections," recently published by
Henry Howe, give many details of this local warfare.  But, aside
from the danger that lurked at all times over the cabin of the
pioneer, there were more regular battles with the Indians fought
on the soil of Ohio than in any other state of the Union.  The
defeat of General Harmer with 1,300 men, in 1790, in two battles
in the Scioto valley, laid open to predatory warfare all the
settlements in Ohio, and some in Kentucky.  Every attempt at
negotiations was defeated by British interference.

In the following year, 1791, a force of over 2,000 men was organized
at Cincinnati under General St. Clair, and marched against the
Indians at the head waters of the Maumee.  While encamped they were
attacked by the Indians and ignominiously defeated, losing a large
number of officers and men.  They retreated in disorder, abandoning
their baggage and artillery, and throwing away their arms and
accoutrements.  The loss in this disastrous campaign was more than
900 men, of whom 600 were killed.  This calamity spread terror
throughout all the settlements as far as Pittsburg, and arrested
for a time the migration to Ohio.

The successive defeats of Harmer and St. Clair greatly impressed
General Washington with the necessity of marching an overwhelming
force against the Indians, and he appealed to Congress for the
necessary aid; but there was a manifest reluctance in Congress to
vote supplies, even if the failure to do so involved the abandonment
to the Indians of all the territory northwest of the Ohio.  The
supplies, however, were granted, and General Wayne, a Revolutionary
hero, was placed in command.

In August, 1794, with a force of over 3,000 men, he advanced to
the confluence of the Maumee and the Auglaize, and there destroyed
the Indian villages and their abundant crops.

Following the Indians down the Maumee to a fort recently built by
the British, the forces of General Wayne attacked the Indians and
inflicted upon them a disastrous defeat.  This victory settled
forever the occupancy of this territory by the white man, and the
irreversible fate of the poor Indian, though, as it will appear
hereafter, he struggled for this, his favorite region, for twenty
years more.

In looking back over a period of one hundred years it is impossible
to suppress a sense of injustice, and a feeling of sympathy for
the Indian in his unequal struggle.  After their defeat by General
Wayne, a general conference of all the Indian tribes in the northwest
was proposed, and agreed upon, to be held during the following year
at Greenville.  The full details of this conference are given by
Judge Burnet, in his "Notes on the Northwestern Territory."  General
Wayne, in many "council fires," explained to the chiefs of the
numerous tribes the terms of the treaties made at Forts McIntosh
and Harmer, and demanded that they be ratified with additional
concessions and grants.  Many of the replies, in the figurative
language of the Indians, are eloquent appeals to their "Great
Father" and their "Elder Brothers" to allow them to possess in
peace the land of their fathers; that they were not represented
when these treaties were made, and that their terms had not been
observed by their white brethren.

It was the same old story of injustice and wrong, of might against
right.  They were compelled to accept the terms offered them.  The
result was the cession by the Indians to the United States of 25,000
square miles of southern and eastern Ohio and many other tracts
west of Ohio.  The Indians were to receive in return $20,000 in
presents, and an annuity of $9,500, to be distributed among the
tribes.  By this treaty confidence was restored to the settlements,
and the tide of migration was renewed, and continued until the
breaking out of the War of 1812.  But the treaty of Greenville did
not put an end to Indian hostilities.  They still occupied northwestern
Ohio, and that part of the reserve west of the Cuyahoga River.
Occasional aggressions by both races led to outrages and murder,
usually followed by encroachments on Indian territory.  In 1805
the remainder of the Western Reserve was ceded by treaty.  In 1818
the northwestern part of Ohio was purchased by the United States
by treaty, subject to certain reservations, all of which were
subsequently ceded to the United States, the last by the Wyandots
in 1842, when the remnant, about 700 souls, moved to Kansas.

The most important, and by far the most dangerous, conspiracy of
Indians since the treaty of Greenville was organized by the "Prophet,"
a crazy enthusiast denounced as an impostor and accused of witchcraft,
and his brother, Tecumseh, a warrior of approved courage, possessed
of all the craft of the Indian, with remarkable intelligence and
comprehensive views.  They united most of the tribes who had
participated in that treaty, and threatened with death all the
chiefs who were concerned in the subsequent treaties.  This excited
the attention of General Harrison, then Governor of the Territory
of Indiana, who, in 1811, after many ineffectual conferences with
Tecumseh and the "Prophet," organized a force of 800 men and marched
against the "Prophet's" town, in what is now Cass county, Indiana.
The battle of Tippecanoe ensued, in which the Indians were totally
defeated and the town burned.  The loss of the troops was so great
that General Harrison made a speedy retreat.  The war with Great
Britain soon followed, and Tecumseh entered the British service.
He participated in most of the battles in Ohio and Michigan during
that war, and was killed at the battle of the Thames on the 5th of
October, 1813.  With him ended all organized Indian hostilities in
Ohio.

Prior to 1798 all the laws governing the northwestern territory
were selected from the laws of the states by the territorial judges
appointed by the President.  In that year it was ascertained that
the territory contained 5,000 white male inhabitants, when they
were authorized, as a matter of right, to organize and elect
representatives to a general assembly, who, with a legislative
council, were authorized to pass laws, subject to the veto of the
governor.  The general assembly was duly organized on the 16th of
September, 1799, and was remarkable for the ability and distinction
of its members, most of whom had been soldiers in the Revolutionary
War.  This was the beginning of home rule in Ohio.  The life of
the territorial legislature was brief.  Early in January, 1802, a
census was taken of the inhabitants in the eastern division of the
Territory, now the State of Ohio, by which it was found that it
contained 45,028 persons.  Congress promptly authorized the people
to form a constitution and state government.  This authority was
speedily acted upon, a convention of thirty-five members was elected,
and a constitution adopted November, 1802, without being submitted
to the people.

This constitution remained unaltered in a single particular for
fifty years.  It was regarded at the time, and ever since, as a
model framework of state government, clear and brief in its
provisions, but comprehensive enough to meet the necessities of a
people growing in population from 45,000 to 1,980,329 in 1850.
The present constitution of Ohio was framed by a convention, which
met at Columbus, on the 6th of May, 1850, and adjourned on the 10th
of March, 1851.  This constitution was ratified by a majority of
the people, and is still in force.

The decennial growth of the population of Ohio is here shown:

  1802 . . . .    45,028
  1810  . . .    230,760
  1820 . . . .   381,295
  1830  . . .    937,903
  1840 . . . . 1,519,467
  1850  . . .  1,980,329
  1860 . . . . 2,339,511
  1870  . . .  2,665,260
  1880 . . . . 3,198,062
  1890  . . .  3,672,316

In 1802 Ohio was eighteenth in rank among her sister states; in
1810 the thirteenth; in 1820 the fifth; in 1830 the fourth; in 1840
the third, and so continued until the recent census when the
marvelous growth of Chicago placed Illinois in advance of Ohio.
This remarkable growth was accompanied by rapid changes in the
habits and conditions of the people.  Within a century they had
their struggle with the Indians; then their contest with nature in
a new country covered by forests--the "age of the pioneers;" then
the period of internal improvements, when roads and canals and
means of transportation were the great objects of desire; then the
marvelous development of railroads, followed by manufactures.
These changes, following in succession, are the most striking
features of the history of Ohio.  I have already referred to the
pioneers who planted the first settlement, who bore the brunt of
Indian warfare, and firmly founded free institutions in Ohio.

After this period, and the organization of the state government,
the great migration to Ohio commenced which, within a century, was
destined to extend across the continent.  The settler was generally
poor, bringing all his earthly possessions, with wife and children,
in a covered wagon, slowly traversing difficult roads to the new
and only land, then open to settlement.  But the land was cheap,
the title clear, the soil good, and all were on the same footing,
willing to help each other.  The task before him was discouraging.
He found his quarter-section in the unbroken forest, its boundary
blazed on the trees by the surveyor, and all around him a wilderness.
His first work was to erect a rough cabin of logs for a shelter;
his next to clear an opening for a crop.  Every new settler was a
welcome neighbor, though miles away.  The mail, the newspaper, the
doctor and the preacher were long in coming.  In this solitary
contest with nature the settler had often to rely upon his gun for
food, upon simple remedies for new and strange diseases, and upon
the hope that his crop would be spared from destruction by wild
beasts.

This was the life of the early settler in every county in Ohio, as
each in its turn was organized and opened to settlement.  A life
so hard, was yet so attractive that many pioneers, when a few
neighbors gathered around them, preferred to sell their clearings
and push further into the wilderness.  In the meantime the older
settlements attracted newcomers.  Mechanics and tradesmen came
along them.  Then towns sprang up, and incipient cities, with corner
lots and hopeful speculators, tempted eastern capitalists to invest
their money in Ohio.

Ohio, in these early days, was the only outlet of the population
of the northern and middle states.  Emigrants from the south,
following lines of latitude, went into Kentucky and Tennessee.
The great west, with its vast prairies and plains, was not then
accessible.  Had it been so, the forests of Ohio might have been
left in solitude for many years to come.  During all this period,
which we may properly call the pioneer stage, the settlers had no
market for their produce, except to supply the demand of incoming
immigrants.  Grain and fruit would not bear the expense of
transportation.  The only way to obtain ready money was to convert
corn and grain into hogs, horses and cattle, which were driven on
the hoof to Pittsburg and eastern cities.  But little money
circulated, and that was chiefly irredeemable bank notes.  The
clothing of the people was mainly of linsey-woolsey, home-made.
The spinning wheel, big and little, was to be found in every
household.  Settlers near the banks of the Ohio River, and its
tributaries, had the advantage of floating their surplus products
in rough barges down the Ohio to New Orleans for a market, so that
the southern part of the state advanced rapidly, while the northern
part was still in the possession of the Indians.

When the Indian title was extinguished settlers came from Pennsylvania
into the counties immediately west of it, which are still, in the
habits of the people, in the location of houses and barns and the
cultivation of the soil, the precise counterpart of the region from
which the settlers came.  The "Connecticut Reserve" was slowly
filled by the northern route of the lakes, almost exclusively from
New England, and the habits and customs of that region were
transported to their new homes, so that the "Western Reserve" to-
day is a striking type of old Connecticut in habits, and with the
same ideas.  The lakes became the highway of commerce, and the
inhabitants of the interior carried their surplus grain and produce
in long lines of wagons to the new towns along the lake shore,
where it was exchanged for the necessaries of life and enough money
to pay taxes.  All trade in the interior was by barter with merchants,
who became the bankers of the people.

The construction of the Erie Canal, and the introduction of steamboats
on the rivers and lakes, was the beginning of a great revolution.
Then followed in Ohio the era of internal improvement by the
construction of two lines of canal across the state, one from
Cleveland, on Lake Erie, to Portsmouth, on the Ohio River, and the
other from Toledo, on Maumee Bay, to the city of Cincinnati, with
the lateral canal to Pittsburg, and the improvement of the Muskingum
River by locks and canals.

Salmon P. Chase, then a young attorney at Cincinnati, in his
introduction to his compilation of the laws of the state, published
in 1833, thus describes the effect of these improvements upon the
prosperity of Ohio:

"They have afforded to the farmer of the interior an easy access
to market, and have enhanced the value of his farm and his productions.
They have facilitated intercourse between different sections of
the state, and have thus tended to make the people more united, as
well as more prosperous.  They have furnished to the people a common
object of generous interest and satisfaction.  They have attracted
a large accession of population and capital.  And they have made
the name and character of Ohio well-known throughout the civilized
world, as a name and character of which her sons may be justly
proud."

This period of prosperity continued for twenty years, when, in
1846, a still greater revolution was introduced by the building of
railroads.  The first object of this was to furnish cheaper
transportation of the produce of the farmer to the Ohio River and
Lake Erie.  The first railroads were from the interior, north and
south.  They were little better than tramways, supported by cross-
ties with longitudinal stringpieces covered with thin strips of
iron.  The carriages were propelled by feeble engines, and it was
thought a matter of great importance when, by this new motive power,
a bushel of wheat could be transported from the interior to distances
of from fifty to a hundred miles for from six to ten cents.  While
a young attorney, I thought it a grievous injustice that my client,
one of the new railroad companies, was compelled by a jury to pay
$2,000 for the right-of-way over twenty miles of farm land.  It
was soon discovered that railroads were to be so successful that
they would supersede for the transportation of persons and passengers
all kinds of water transportation, and that lines running long
distances east and west would have the benefit of the through travel
and traffic.  In rapid succession several lines of railroad were
built from the eastern cities across the state to the northwest,
west and southwest.  Within twenty years from the first construction
of railways they had almost superseded all former modes of
communication, and had reduced the rates of travel and transportation
to less than one-half the former rates.

After the close of the Civil War the construction of railroads
rapidly increased, so that in 1890 the total miles of railway track
in Ohio was 10,464, and the valuation for taxes was $102,950,642,
a development in a single branch of industry far greater than in
any other.  This improvement led to the adoption of a system of
free turnpikes in most of the counties in Ohio, constructed by
local taxation, so that now Ohio is as well supplied with well-
constructed turnpikes and railroads as any state in the Union, and
perhaps, as well as many European states.

Another great change in the industry of the people of Ohio rapidly
followed the construction of railroads.  Manufacturing establishments
of almost every kind were rapidly constructed, mostly since the war.

It appears by census, prior to 1890, that in 1850 the total value
of manufactures of Ohio was $62,692,279; in 1860 it was $121,000,000;
in 1870 it was $269,713,610; in 1880 it was $348,298,300.  In 1890
it was over $500,000,000.  During the single year 1889 there were
incorporated over 400 new companies with a capital stock of
$25,584,500.  Almost every article needed for use by the people is
thus produced at home, and great quantities of machinery, especially
of farming machines of every variety, are exported to every state
of the Union and to many foreign countries.  The manufacturing
industry has thus become second only to that of agriculture, and
it is believed that, under the great impetus given by our protective
laws, the time is not far distant when the value of manufactured
products will be equal to, or greater than, the productions of the
farm.

The most striking result of the change in the industries of Ohio
is the rapid increase of city population, compared with farming
population.  The following table will show the population of twenty
cities, by the censuses of 1850 and 1890:

                       1850.      1890.
  Akron . . . . . . .   3,266     27,601
  Canton . . . . . .    2,603     26,189
  Chillicothe . . . .   7,100     11,288
  Cincinnati . . . .  115,435    296,908
  Columbus  . . . . .  17,882     88,150
  Cleveland  . . . .   17,034    261,353
  Dayton  . . . . . .  10,977     61,220
  Findlay  . . . . .    1,256     18,553
  Hamilton  . . . . .   3,210     17,565
  Ironton  . . . . .    ----      10,939
  Lima  . . . . . . .     757     15,987
  Mansfield  . . . .    3,557     13,473
  Newark  . . . . . .   3,654     15,286
  Portsmouth . . . .    4,011     12,394
  Sandusky  . . . . .   5,087     18,471
  Springfield  . . .    5,108     31,895
  Steubenville  . . .   6,140     13,394
  Tiffin . . . . . .    2,718     10,801
  Toledo  . . . . . .   3,829     81,434
  Zanesville . . . .    7,929     21,009
                      221,553  1,053,910

While the aggregate population of Ohio has increased 185 per cent.
since 1850, that of the cities named has increased 475 per cent.

The growth of cities and manufactures has been accompanied by the
discovery and development of a diversity of mineral resources of
great and increasing value.

The mining of coal was insignificant in 1850, while the product of
coal in 1890 is estimated at exceeding 12,000,000 tons.

Recently petroleum was discovered near Marietta and Lima, places
in Ohio remote from each other, thus supplying a new element for
commerce and a new agent for manufactures.  Its properties and
innumerable uses have already been tested in Pennsylvania.  The
annual supply by the census of 1890 was 12,471,466 barrels, second
only to that of Pennsylvania, and has not yet reached its maximum.

About the same period came the discovery of natural gas at Findlay,
in Hancock and surrounding counties.  This subtle and mysterious
creation of nature has been applied locally as fuel for manufacture,
and as light and heat in many cities and towns.  The duration of
its supply, however, cannot be determined.

The lakes on the north and the river on the south secure to the
people of Ohio cheap water transportation for the importation and
exportation of raw materials and finished products, while the
physical features of the country north and south of Ohio, in a
measure, compelled the construction of the great routes of railway
over its soil.

From the beginning Ohio has taken a leading part in furnishing
facilities for education to the rising generation.  In early days,
when the population was sparse and scattered, day schools were
established, by voluntary effort, in counties, towns and neighborhoods
where the population was sufficient to justify it.  At an early
period the State of Ohio established the common-school system, by
which every child between the ages of seven and fourteen years is
furnished with the rudiments of a good education.  Some of these
schools have been so far advanced that in them any child showing
proficiency can secure, without cost, an education fully equal to
that furnished by the colleges of the country forty years ago.
The amount expended in 1890 for the support of public schools was
$11,407,499.  The number of teachers employed was 19,526.  The number
of persons enrolled between the ages of six and twenty-one was
1,123,985.  The number of scholars who attended was 797,439.  The
average attendance was 549,269.  The excellence of the system of
common schools in Ohio is admitted on all hands to be equal to that
of any other state or section.

The charitable institutions of the state, including children's
homes, are equal to the best in any country in the world.

The building of churches and places of public worship commenced
with the first settlement in Ohio, and has kept pace fully with
the growth of population.  In every community, great or small,
churches are open for the worship of the Almighty God.  The broadest
toleration is not only permitted, but favored, by a universal public
sentiment.  Every denomination of Christians who number enough to
make a congregation can readily secure a house of worship, not only
by gifts from its members, but by contributions made by other
professing Christians.  The same charity is extended to Jews and
Gentiles professing any creed or having any form of worship.

The standing, ability and influence of the men engaged in the
professions in Ohio will compare favorably with any in the Union,
and especially is this true of the lawyers of the state.  Many of
the lawyers who engaged in the fervent discussion which led to the
Revolution and then participated in the war, thrown upon their own
resources after the war, were among the early founders of the new
settlements in Ohio.  They chiefly framed the first laws of the
state.  Judge Burnet, one of them, had intrusted to him the
preparation of most of the laws of the territorial government.
The principal lawyers appeared in the constitutional convention
and in the legislatures subsequent, and contributed more than their
share in ingrafting upon our statutes the republican principles
and ideas found in the first constitution and laws of the state.
They shared with other settlers in all the hardships of pioneer
life.  Innumerable anecdotes of their voyages through the forests
of southern and eastern Ohio, and the swamps of northwestern Ohio,
are preserved among the traditions of the bar.

It was the habit in those early days for the principal lawyers of
the state to follow the judges in their rounds from county to
county, attending the courts and aiding local attorneys in the
trial of important causes.  They rode on horseback, with their
clothing and books in their saddlebags, and, where a better lodging
could not be found, camped in the woods by the roadside.  The early
judges of the Supreme Court, some of whom were transferred to the
Supreme Court of the United States, rode in the same manner on
their circuit, administering justice impartially, but firmly, for
the salary of $1,000 a year, only raised to $100 a month about the
year 1820.  The doctors and preachers shared the general life and
condition and the same homely fare as their patients and hearers.

A life like this developed individual character and produced many
men of odd characteristics, strange manners and peculiar dress and
conversation.  The almost universal use of whisky during the pioneer
period in the family circle and in social life, and the habit of
treating and drinking, led to many wild scenes and fights, but,
unlike their brethren of the south, the contestants commonly were
content with the weapons nature gave them.  It was not unusual,
when a quarrel arose, to gather around them, form a circle and give
them fair play and a free fight.  There can be no doubt that in
those early days many rude scenes and fights and violence of many
kinds occurred, and such crimes were indulged with more charity
than now prevails.  But it is equally true that thefts and the
meaner crimes were more rare than now, and when disclosed were
punished with greater severity than acts of violence.  The stealing
of a horse was considered a greater crime than manslaughter without
malice or premeditation.

But all these habits and ideas have been greatly changed for at
least fifty years.  The habit of drinking spirituous liquor at the
homestead, in the family circle, or on the farm, has almost entirely
ceased.  As a rule, it is confined to saloons and bar-rooms, mostly
in the cities and large towns, and a "free fight" in the presence
of spectators could not now occur in any community in the state.
The enforcement of the criminal laws is as certain as in any other
community.  The discipline of penitentiaries and reformatories and
houses of correction is founded upon the best examples of such
institutions in the older states, and the most civilized countries
of Europe.

There is one other quality developed by the people of Ohio which
will be readily conceded by all.  The people from the earliest days
were born politicians, vigorous in the defense of their opinions
and firm in the maintenance of all their rights.  The events in
their history developed a military instinct which led them to take
an active part whenever their country became involved in war.  In
the pioneer age nearly every able-bodied man served either in the
Indian wars or in the War of 1812.  In the Mexican war the State
of Ohio furnished her full quota of soldiers, and tendered thousands
more.  In the political contests that preceded the Civil War the
lines between the two parties were sharply drawn, though when war
was commenced by the firing upon Fort Sumter the people were
practically united for its prosecution until the Union was restored
by the unconditional surrender of the Confederate armies.  Questions
arose involving individual rights upon which the Democratic party
was divided, but it is due to history to say that in the great
struggle for national life the people of Ohio, without distinction
of party, with few individual exceptions, were on the side of the
Union.

The share taken by the several states in the Civil War is familiar
to all.  Invidious comparisons ought not to be made.  It will be
conceded that Ohio did its full part in this supreme contest.  She
furnished to the Union army 319,659 soldiers, or more than one-
tenth of the national armies, out of a then population of 2,339,000,
some of whom served in every considerable battle of the war.  She
furnished from among her sons the leading commanders of the Union
army, and a long list of distinguished officers who were conspicuous
in every battle of the war.  The war Governors of Ohio were
conspicuous in their zeal and ability in organizing recruits, and
in care and attention to their comfort and wants.  The people of
Ohio, both men and women, contributed freely in many ways for the
relief of the sick and wounded during the war, and after its close
provided homes for needy soldiers, and for the children of those
who fell.

I have carefully refrained from mentioning the names of the many
illustrious citizens of Ohio who contributed most to the organization,
growth and development of that state and of the United States, lest
I omit others equally worthy of honorable mention.  The Governors
of Ohio have been selected for conspicuous service to the state,
or to the United States, and, though the powers of that officer,
under the constitution of Ohio, are not so great as in many of the
states, they were distinguished for ability, integrity and high
personal character.  The roll of statesmen who have served Ohio in
the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States includes
many of commanding influence in the national councils, two of whom
have been Presidents of the United States, two Chief Justices of
the Supreme Court of the United States, and many others have occupied
seats as Justices of the Supreme Court, as heads of departments of
the executive branch of government, and representatives of the
highest rank in our diplomatic service.

It is not intended to make a comparison of the merits of individuals
or parties, nor of Ohio with other states, old or new.  I concede
that all the states, old or new, have contributed to the strength
of the republic, the common hope and pride of all American citizens.
Local or state pride is entirely consistent with the most devoted
loyalty to the Union.  All I have sought is to present truthfully
a mere outline of the history and resources of a state carved within
a century out of a wilderness, having at the beginning no inhabitants
but savage men and wild beasts, no mark of civilization except that
made by an extinct race leaving no name or date or history, and
now converted into the peaceful home of four millions of human
beings, possessed of a full share of property and wealth, a soil
rich and fertile, well cultivated by independent farmers, yielding
more than the entire production of all the colonies that rebelled
against Great Britain, and producing by varied industries and
developed resources more than all the states produced when the
constitution was adopted.

In intelligence, means of education, temperance, order and religious
observance, Ohio may fairly take its place among the most favored
communities in the world.  It is a type of what can be accomplished
under favorable circumstances by a free people under a free
government, where each citizen enjoys the full and undisputed
possession of equal rights and opportunities.  Ohio commenced its
existence on the western border line of civilization on the continent.
The center of population has already passed its borders, so that
it now takes its place, not in the west, but in the east.  The new
communities that have been founded in the west are largely composed
of the sons and daughters of Ohio, who, following the example of
their ancestors, seek new fields for enterprise and industry.  I
have observed that whenever I traveled in the west, however remote
the place, I found the "Ohio man" well advanced among his fellow
citizens, and actively contributing his full share to the growth
and prosperity of the community in which he lived, but retaining
his love for his native state, and always proud to say he was born
in Ohio.


CHAPTER IV.
ADMISSION TO THE BAR AND EARLY POLITICAL LIFE.
Law Partnership with my Brother Charles--Change in Methods of Court
Practice--Obtaining the Right of Way for a Railroad--Excitement of
the Mexican War and its Effect on the Country--My First Visit to
Washington--At a Banquet with Daniel Webster--New York Fifty Years
Ago--Marriage with Margaret Cecilia Stewart--Beginning of My
Political Life--Belief in the Doctrine of Protection--Democratic
and Whig Conventions of 1852--The Slavery Question--My Election to
Congress in 1854.

After I was admitted to the bar I felt the natural elation of one
who had reached the end of a long journey after weary waiting.  I
spent two or three weeks in visiting my relatives in Dayton and
Cincinnati, attending the courts in those cities, where I observed
closely the conduct of judges and lawyers in the trial of cases,
and returned to Mansfield full of confidence, and with a better
opinion of myself than I have entertained since.

The first object I sought to accomplish was the removal of my mother
and her two unmarried daughters, Susan and Fannie, from Lancaster
to Mansfield.  At this time all her sons were settled at homes
distant from Lancaster, and her other daughters were married and
scattered.  By an arrangement between my brothers, Charles and
Tecumseh, and myself, I was to keep house with mother in charge,
Susan and Fannie as guests.  This family arrangement was continued
until Susan and I were married and mother died.

To return to my admission to the bar.  I felt that I was now a man.
I had heretofore banked mainly on the treasures of hope.  My brother,
Charles Sherman, admitted me as an equal partner in his lucrative
practice, and thus I gained a foot-hold in the profession.
Fortunately for me, his timidity required me to attend stoutly
contested cases brought to us.  The old distinction between law
and equity proceedings was then preserved, and Charles was a very
good equity counselor.  With this line of distinction between us
we never had any difficulty in arranging our business, or in dividing
our labor.  He was then agent and attorney for New York and eastern
creditors, the confidential adviser of our leading business men,
and the counselor of a very interesting sect, then quite numerous
in Richland county, called Quakers, or Friends, who could not
conscientiously take the usual oath, but in witnessing all necessary
legal papers, and in contests, made their affirmations.  There was,
therefore, left to me the pleadings, oral or written, and the
struggle of debate and trial.  The practice of the bar in Ohio had
greatly changed from that of the early decades of this century.
As I have stated, the judges, in the earlier decades, accompanied
by leading lawyers, mounted on horses, went from county to county
and disposed of the docket.  The local lawyers had but little to
do.  Now all this is changed.  Each county has its bar and its
leading lawyers, and only when the case is of great importance a
"foreign" lawyer is called in.  The change has been caused by the
abnormal growth of population.  In 1830 the total population of
the state was only 938,000, that of many of the counties being very
small.  In 1850 the population had more than doubled, amounting to
1,980,000.  In 1890 it was 3,672,000, well distributed among the
counties according to their capacity for supporting this increase.

Other remarkable changes have also taken place during the same
period.  The entire mode of conducting business in early days has
been abandoned.  Cash payments and short accounts have taken the
place of barter and credit.  The Ohio banking law of 1846, followed
and superseded by the national banking act of 1863, produced a
radical change in the forms, credit and solvency of paper money,
and, more than any other cause, has encouraged the holding of small
savings of money in savings banks and like institutions.  These
favorable conditions tended to limit credits, to encourage savings,
and to change the vocation and habits of lawyers.

Changes in methods have also affected the legal profession.  The
adoption of a code of laws, and of new and simple pleadings, rendered
useless half the learning of the old lawyers, driving some of them
out of practice.  I knew one in Mansfield who swore that the new
code was made by fools, for fools, and that he never would resort
to it.  I believe he kept his word, except when in person he was
plaintiff or defendant.  Yet, the code and pleadings adopted in
New York have been adopted in nearly all the states, and will not
be changed except in the line of extension and improvement.

These reforms, and the many changes made in the organization of
our state and federal courts, have to a considerable extent lessened
the fees and restricted the occupation of lawyers.  But it can be
said that the leading members of the legal profession proposed and
adopted these reforms, and always advocated any legislation that
tended to simplify and cheapen litigation and at the same time
protect life, property or reputation.

While these causes were operating against lawyers, agents of nature,
hitherto unknown, undiscovered, and wonderful, were being developed,
which were to completely revolutionize the methods of travel, the
transportation of goods, and the modes of production, thus opening
new fields for the employment of lawyers.  Instead of assault and
battery cases, suits for slander and the collection of debts, the
attention of lawyers was directed to the development of railroads,
banking institutions and other corporations.

The construction of railroads caused a most remarkable revolution
in the habits and industries of our people.  The first built in
Ohio ran from Lake Erie or the Ohio River, north or south into the
center of the state.  Among them was the Sandusky & Mansfield road,
originally a short line from Sandusky to Monroeville, intended to
be run by horse power.  It was soon changed to a steam road, the
power being furnished by a feeble, wheezing engine, not to be
compared with the locomotive of to-day.  It was then extended to
Mansfield, and subsequently to Newark, but was not completed until
1846.  It was built of cross-ties three feet apart, connected by
string pieces of timber about six by eight inches in dimensions,
and a flat iron bar two and one-half inches wide and five-eighths
of an inch thick.  The worthlessness and danger of such a railroad
was soon demonstrated by innumerable accidents caused by the spreading
of rails, the "snaking" of the flat bars of iron through the cars,
and the feebleness of the engines.  Both road and engines soon had
to be replaced.  In every case which I recall the original investment
in the early railroads was lost.

It was thought when the first railroad from Sandusky to Mansfield
was completed that the road would save the farmer five or six cents
a bushel on his wheat in its transit to the lake, and yield a
handsome profit to the stockholders of the railroad.  That was the
great benefit anticipated.  No one then thought of the movement by
railroad, over vast distances, of grain, stock, and merchandise,
but regarded the innovation as a substitute for the old wagon trains
to the lake.

The construction of this railroad was considered at that time a
great undertaking.  It was accomplished mainly by the leading
business men of Mansfield, but the road turned out to be a very
bad investment, bankrupting some and crippling others.  I was
employed by the company to collect the stock and to secure by
condemnation the right-of-way from Plymouth to Mansfield.  Much of
the right-of-way was freely granted without cost by the owners of
the land.  As the chief benefit was to inure to the farmers, it
was thought to be very mean and stingy for one of them to demand
money for the right-of-way through his farm.  I went over the road
from Mansfield to Plymouth with a company of five appraisers, all
farmers, who carefully examined the line of the railroad, and much
to my mortification, assessed in the aggregate for twenty miles of
railway track, damages to the amount of $2,000.  I honestly thought
this an exorbitant award, but the same distance could not be
traversed now at a cost for right-of-way of ten times that sum.

The present admirable roads in Ohio have been built mainly by the
proceeds of bonds based upon a right-of-way.

In the meantime other railroads of much greater importance were
being built, and the direction of the roads, instead of being north
and south was from east to west, to reach a business rapidly
developing west of Ohio of far greater importance than the local
traffic of that state.

Among the most valuable of these railroads was the Pittsburg, Ft.
Wayne & Chicago, now a part of the system of the Pennsylvania
Railroad Company, by which it is leased.  This road was built in
sections by three different corporations, subsequently combined by
authority of the legislatures of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and
Illinois.  The first section was the Pittsburg & Ohio railroad from
Pittsburg to Crestline, twelve miles west of Mansfield.

There is perhaps no more remarkable material development in the
history of mankind than that of railroads in the United States
since 1845.  The number of miles of such roads is now 171,804.72,
the actual cost of which with equipment amounting to $9,293,052,143.
The value of these railroads and their dependent warehouses and
stations is probably greater to-day than the value of the entire
property of the United States in 1840.

Contemporaneous with railroads came the telegraph, the cable, and
the telephone.  The first telegraph wire was strung between Baltimore
and Washington in 1844.  The first telegraph line through the State
of Ohio was from Cleveland via Mansfield to Columbus and Cincinnati,
and was established in 1848.  At the close of the session of the
Supreme Court at Mansfield in that year, Judge Hitchcock, who
presided, asked me the road to Mt. Gilead, in Morrow county, a
county then recently created.  I pointed to the telegraph wire
stretched on poles, and told him to follow that.  The old Judge,
who had been on the supreme bench for over twenty years was quite
amused at the directions given.  He laughed and said he had been
mislead by guideboards all his life, and now he was glad to be
guided by a wire.

The development and changes, soon after my admission to the bar,
turned somewhat the tide of my hopes and expectations.  Our firm
soon lost the business of collecting debts for eastern merchants
by the establishment of numerous and safe banks under the state
act of 1846.  Several of the old banks, especially those at Wooster,
Norwalk, and Massillon had utterly failed, and, I believe, paid no
part of their outstanding notes.  The new banks, founded upon a
better system, one of which was at Mansfield, rapidly absorbed the
collections of eastern merchants from the part of Ohio in which we
lived.  This loss was, however, more than made good by our employment
as attorneys for the several railroads through Richland county.
My brother gradually withdrew from his business in Mansfield, and
became the general attorney for the Pittsburg, Ft. Wayne & Chicago
Railroad.

In the meantime I had taken a junior part in the trial of several
cases in which I was greatly favored by Mr. Stewart, the most
eminent member of his profession at Mansfield.  He gave me several
opportunities for testing my qualities before a jury, so that I
gradually gained confidence in myself as a speaker.

My Uncle Parker was then judge of the Court of Common Pleas.  So
far from favoring me on account of my relation to him, he seemed
to wish to demonstrate his impartiality by overruling my pleadings
or instructing the jury against me.  I am quite sure now that this
was fanciful on my part, for he was universally regarded as being
an excellent example of a just judge without favor or partiality.

During the early period of practice at the bar I studied my cases
carefully and had fair success.  I settled more cases by compromises,
however, than I tried before a jury.  I got the reputation of being
successful by full preparation and a thorough knowledge of the
facts and law of the case.  In addressing a jury I rarely attempted
flights of oratory, and when I did attempt them I failed.  I soon
learned that it was better to gain the confidence of a jury by
plain talk than by rhetoric.  Subsequently in public life I preserved
a like course, and once, though I was advised by Governor Chase to
add a peroration to my argument, I did not follow his advice.
While I defended many persons for alleged crimes I never but once
prosecuted a criminal.  My old friend, Mr. Kirkwood, was the
prosecuting attorney of the county, and I renewed with him my "moot
court" experience in frequent contests between real parties.

During this period I became a member of the order of Odd Fellows
in Mansfield.  I took an active interest in the order, and was at
one time Noble Grand of the lodge.  I have continued every since
to pay my dues, but have not been able to attend the meetings
regularly for some years.  I have always thought, without any
reference to its supposed secrecy, that it is an association of
great value, especially in bringing young men under good social
influences with men of respectable character and standing.

Among the political incidents of this period I recall the excitement
that grew out of the Mexican War.  The general feeling among all
classes, and the universal feeling among the Whigs was, that the
Mexican War was purposely and unjustly entered upon to extend the
institution of slavery.  There is, now, no doubt that such was the
object of the war.  After the battles at Palo Alto and Resaca de
la Palma a call was made upon the people of Ohio for two regiments
of volunteers.  These were raised without much difficulty, one
being placed under the command of Col. Thomas L. Hamer, the other
under my old commander, Col. Samuel R. Curtis.  I was somewhat
tempted to enter the service, though I did not believe in the
justice of the war.  My old friend, Gen. McLaughlin, raised a
company in Mansfield, and my comrade on the Muskingum Improvement,
James M. Love, raised one in Coschocton, and Col. Curtis was to
command the regiment.  My brother, William Tecumseh, then captain
in the regular army, was eager to go into the war.  He had been
stationed at Pittsburg, on recruiting service, but during the
excitement visited us at Mansfield, and chafed over the delay of
orders to join the troops, then under General Taylor.  No doubt
his impatience led him to be assigned to the expedition around Cape
Horn to occupy California, this, greatly to his regret, keeping
him out of the war with Mexico.

Whatever may have been the merits of this war in the beginning,
its fruits were undoubtedly of immense value to this country.
Without this war California might, like other provinces of Mexico,
have remained undeveloped.  In the possession of the United States
its gold and silver have been discovered and mined, and, together
with all the vast interior country west of the Mississippi, it has
been developed with a rapidity unexampled in history.

In the winter of 1846-7, I for the first time visited the cities
of Washington, New York and Boston.  I rode in a stage coach from
Mansfield to the national road south of Newark, and thence over
that road by stages to Cumberland, the railroads not having yet
crossed the mountains.  From Cumberland I rode in cars to Baltimore,
occupying nearly a day.  From Baltimore I proceeded to Washington.

On my arrival I went to the National Hotel, then the most popular
hotel in Washington, where many Senators and Members lodged.  I
found there, also, a number of charming young ladies whose company
was much more agreeable to me than that of the most distinguished
statesmen.  We had hops, balls and receptions, but I recall very
few public men I met at that time.  Mr. Vinton, then the veteran
Member from Ohio, invited me to join for a few days his mess; he
was then boarding in a house nearly opposite the hotel, kept by an
Italian whose name I cannot recall.  He was a famous cook.  The
mess was composed entirely of Senators and Members, one of the
former being Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky.  I was delighted and
instructed by the free and easy talk that prevailed, a mixture of
funny jokes, well-told stories and gay and grave discussions of
politics and law.

My stay at the capital was brief as I wished to go to New York and
Boston.  In New York I received from a relative a letter of
introduction to Benj. R. Curtis, then an eminent lawyer, and latterly
a more eminent justice of the Supreme Court.  When I presented my
letter I was received very kindly and after a brief conversation
he said he was able to do me a favor, that he had a ticket to a
grand banquet to be attended by the leading men of Boston at Plymouth
Rock, on the anniversary of the landing of the Pilgrim Fathers,
and that Daniel Webster would preside.  I heartily thanked him,
and on the next day, prompt on time, I entered the train at Boston
for Plymouth.  When I arrived at the hotel, which is also a station-
house of the railway, I did not know a single person in the great
assemblage.  In due time we were ushered into the dining hall where
the banquet was spread.  There was no mistaking Webster.  He sat
at the center of a cross table with the British minister on his
right and Jeremiah Mason on his left.  At the other end of the room
sat Abbott Lawrence and other distinguished men.  The residue of
the guests, merchants, poets, and orators of Massachusetts, filled
every seat at the tables.  I sat some way down on the side and
introduced myself to my neighbors on the right and left, but my
eye was on Webster, from whom I expected such lofty eloquence as
he alone could utter.

Much to my surprise, when the time came for the oratory to commence,
Mr. Lawrence acted as toast master.  We had stories, songs, poetry
and oratory, generally good and appropriate, but not from Webster.
And so the evening waned.  Webster had been talking freely with
those about him.  He displayed none of the loftiness associated
with his name.  He drank freely.  That was manifest to everyone.
His favorite bottle was one labeled "Brandy."  We heard of it as
being "more than a hundred years old."  It did not travel down to
us.  Webster was plainly hilarious.  At this time the conductor
appeared at a side door and announced that in fifteen minutes the
cars would start for Boston.  Then Webster arose--with difficulty
--he rested his hands firmly on the table and with an effort assumed
an erect position.  Every voice was hushed.  He said that in fifteen
minutes we would separate, nevermore to meet again, and then, with
glowing force and eloquence, he contrasted the brevity and vanity
of human life with the immortality of the events they were celebrating,
which century after century would be celebrated by your children
and your children's children to the latest generation.

I cannot recall the words of his short but eloquent speech, but it
made an impress on my mind.  If his body was affected by the liquor,
his head was clear and his utterance perfect.  I met Mr. Webster
afterwards on the cars and in Washington.  I admired him for his
great intellectual qualities, but I do not wonder that the people
of the United States did not choose him for President.

Soon after the national Whig convention of 1852, of which I was a
member, I heard this story told by his secretary.  In the evening,
when Mr. Webster was at his well-known residence on Louisiana
Avenue, near Sixth street, he was awaiting the ballots in the
convention.  When it came by the telegraph, "Scott 159, Fillmore
112, Webster 21," he repeated it in his deep tones and said:  "How
will this read in history?"  He did not like either Scott or
Fillmore, and was disappointed in the votes of southern members.
To be third in such a contest wounded his pride.  He died before
the year closed.  He was, perhaps, the greatest man of intellectual
force of his time, but he had faults which the people could not
overlook.  Another incident about Mr. Webster, and the house in
which he lived, may not be without interest.  On New Year's day of
1860, Mr. Corwin, Mr. Colfax and myself made the usual calls
together.  Among the many visits we made, was one on a gentleman
then living in that house.  As we entered, Mr. Corwin met an old
well-trained negro servant who had been a servant of Mr. Webster
in this house.  I noticed that Mr. Corwin lost his usual gayety,
and as we left the house he turned to us, and, with deep emotion,
asked that we leave him at his lodgings, that his long associations
with Mr. Webster, especially his meetings with him in that house
during their association as members of the cabinet of Fillmore,
unfitted him to enjoy the usual greetings of the day.  I felt that
the emotion of such a man as Corwin was the highest possible
compliment to the memory of Daniel Webster.

From Boston I returned to New York.  There, in the families of two
brothers of my mother, both then living, I had a glimpse of New
York society.  With Mr. Scott, the son-in-law of my uncle, James
Hoyt, I made nearly one hundred of the usual New Years' visits, then
customary in New York.  This custom I am told has been abandoned,
but the New York of to-day is quite different from the New York of
1847.  It still retained some of the knickerbocker customs of the
olden time.  The site of the Fifth Avenue Hotel was then a stone-
yard where grave stones were cut.  All north of Twenty-third street,
now the seat of plutocracy, was then sparsely occupied by poor
houses and miserable shanties, and the site of Central Park was a
rough, but picturesque body of woodland, glens and rocky hills,
with a few clearings partly cultivated.  Even then the population
of New York was about 400,000, or more than three-fold that of any
city in the United States, and twenty-fold that of Chicago.  Now
New York contains 2,000,000 inhabitants, and Chicago, according to
recent reports, about 1,700,000.  Many cities now exist containing
over 100,000 inhabitants, the sites of which, in that year, were
within the limits of Indian reservations.

From New York I returned to Washington.  Many incidents recur to
me but they were of persons now dead and gone, the memory of whom
will not be recalled by the present generation.  Mr. Polk was then
President.  He was a plain man, of ordinary ability and more
distinguished for the great events that happened during his presidency
than for anything he did himself.  I attended one of his receptions.
His wife appeared to better advantage than he.  I then saw Mr.
Douglas for the first time.  I think he was still a Member of the
House of Representatives, but had attained a prominent position
and was regarded as a rising man.  I wished very much to see Henry
Clay, the great favorite of the Whigs of that day, but he was not
then in public life.

There was nothing in Washington at that time to excite interest,
except the men and women in public or social life.  The city itself
had no attractions except the broad Potomac River and the rim of
hills that surrounded the city.  It then contained about 30,000
inhabitants.  Pennsylvania avenue was a broad, badly paved,
unattractive street, while all the other streets were unpaved and
unimproved.  All that part of the city lying north of K street and
west of Fourteenth street, now the most fashionable part of the
city, was then a dreary waste open, like all the rest of the city,
as free pasturage for cows, pigs, and goats.  It was a city in
name, but a village in fact.  The contrast between Washington then
and now may be referred to hereafter.

Upon my return from the east in February, 1847, I actively resumed
the practice of the law.  I was engaged in several important trials,
but notably one at Mount Vernon, Ohio, where the contesting parties
were brothers, the matter in dispute a valuable farm, and the chief
witness in the case the mother of both the plaintiff and defendant.
It was, as such trials are apt to be, vigorously contested with
great bitterness between the parties.  Columbus Delano was the
chief counsel for the plaintiff, and I was his assistant.  I remember
the case more especially because during its progress I was attacked
by typhoid fever.  I returned home after the trial, completely
exhausted, and on the Fourth of July, 1847, found myself in a raging
fever, which continued more than two months before I was able to
rise from the bed, and then I was as helpless as a child.  I was
unable to walk, and was lifted from the house into the carriage to
get the fresh air, and continued under disability until October,
when I was again able to renew my business.

During my practice thus far, I had been able to accumulate in
property and money more than ten thousand dollars.  I had, in
addition to my practice, engaged in a profitable business with
Jacob Emminger, a practical mechanic, in the manufacture of doors,
blinds and other building materials.  We acquired valuable pine-
lands in Michigan and transported the lumber to our works at
Mansfield.  We continued this business until I was appointed
Secretary of the Treasury, in March, 1877, when I sold out my
interest and also abandoned the practice of the law.

I spent the winter of 1847-8 at Columbus, where I made many
acquaintances who were of great service to me in after life, and
had a happy time also with the young ladies I met there.  Columbus
was then the headquarters of social life for Ohio.  It had a
population of about fifteen thousand, with few or no manufactures.
It has now a population of more than one hundred thousand, the
increase being largely caused by the great development of the
numerous railroads centering there, and of the coal and iron mines
of the Hocking Valley.  It was also the natural headquarters of
the legal profession, the Supreme Court of Ohio, then under the
old constitution, and the District Court of the United States
holding their sessions there.

On the first day of August, 1848, my grandmother, Elizabeth Stoddard
Sherman, died at Mansfield at the residence of her daughter, Mrs.
Parker.  Her history and characteristics have already been referred
to.  She was to our family the connecting link between the
Revolutionary period and our times.  She had a vivid recollection
of the burning of the principal towns of Connecticut by the British
and Tories, of the trials and poverty that followed the War of the
Revolution, of the early political contests between the Federalists
and Republicans, of the events of the War of 1812, and of her
journey to Ohio in 1816.  She maintained a masterly care of her
children and grandchildren.  She was the best type I have known of
the strong-willed, religious Puritan of the Connecticut school,
and was respected, not only by her numerous grandchildren, but by
all who knew her.

My brother-in-law, Thomas W. Bartley, was District Attorney of the
United States during the administration of Mr. Polk, and, as he
expected a change would be made by the incoming administration of
Taylor, he advised me to become a candidate for his place, as that
was in the line of my profession.  I told him I doubted if my
experience of the bar would justify me in making such an application,
but he thought differently.  I wrote to Mr. Ewing upon the subject
and he answered as follows:

  "Washington, D. C., Dec. 31, 1848.
"John Sherman, Esq., Mansfield, Ohio.

"My Dear Sir:--I believe you would be able to perform the duties
of District Attorney, but your youth would be an objection to your
appointment, and in competition with one so long known, and so
highly esteemed, as Mr. Goddard is both professionally and politically,
would probably make your prospects but little encouraging.  If you
conclude to withdraw your name, signify the fact and the reason by
letter to Mr. Goddard and it may be of use to you hereafter.  I
am, with great regard,

  "Yours, T. Ewing."

I complied with his advice, though Mr. Goddard, I think, declined
and Mr. Mason was accepted.

On the thirty-first of the same month I was married to Margaret
Ceclia Stewart, the only child of Judge Stewart, whom I had known
since my removal to Mansfield.  She had been carefully educated at
the Female College at Granville, Ohio, and at the Patapsco Institute,
near Baltimore, Maryland.  After the usual wedding tour to Niagara
Falls, Montreal and Saratoga, we settled in Mansfield, and I returned
to my profession, actively pursuing it until elected a member of
Congress.

It is not worth while to follow my professional life into further
detail.  I shall not have occasion to mention that subject again.
Sufficient to say that I was reasonably successful therein.  During
this period Henry C. Hedges studied law with my brother and myself,
and when admitted to the bar became my partner.  Mr. Stewart was
elected by the legislature a judge of the Court of Common Pleas,
and after the adoption of the new constitution of 1851, he was
elected by the people to the same office.

I had determined in the fall of 1853 to abandon Mansfield and settle
in Cleveland, then rapidly growing in importance as the leading
city in the northern part of the state.  I went so far as to
establish an office there and place in it two young lawyers,
nominally my partners, but the great political currents of that
time soon diverted me from the practice of the law into the political
contests that grew out of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

  "The direful spring of woes unnumbered."

Before entering upon an account of my political life it seems
appropriate for me to state my political bias and position.  I was
by inheritance and association a Whig boy, without much care for
or knowledge of parties or political principles.  No doubt my
discharge from the engineer corps by a Democratic Board of Public
Works strengthened this bias.  I shouted for Harrison in the campaign
of 1840.  In 1842 I was enthusiastic for "Tom Corwin, the wagon-
boy," the Whig candidate for Governor of Ohio.  In that canvass
Governor Corwin addressed a great meeting at Mansfield.  I heard
his speech, and was full of enthusiasm.  Mr. Corwin was certainly
the greatest popular orator of his time.  His face was eloquent,
changeable at his will.  With a look he could cause a laugh or a
tear.  He would move his audience at his pleasure.  I vividly
remember the impression he made upon me, though I cannot recall
anything he said.  At the close of the meeting I was requested by
the committee in charge to take Mr. Corwin in a buggy to Bucyrus.
This I cheerfully did.  I noticed that Mr. Corwin was very glum
and silent, and to cheer him up I spoke of his speech and of the
meeting.  He turned upon me, and with some show of feeling, said
that all the people who heard him would remember only his jokes,
and warned me to keep out of politics and attend to my law.  He
told me that he knew my father, and was present at his death at
Lebanon, where he, Mr. Corwin, lived.  And then, brightening up,
he gave me an interesting account of the early settlement of Ohio,
and of the bar and bench, and of his early life as a wagon boy in
Harrison's army.  His sudden fit of gloom had passed away.  I do
not recall any circumstance that created a deeper impression on my
mind than this interview with Mr. Corwin.  His advice to keep out
of politics was easy to follow, as no one could then dream of the
possibility of a Whig being elected to office in Richland county,
then called "the Berks of Ohio."  Mr. Corwin was defeated at that
election.

I took but little part in the campaign of 1844, when Mr. Clay was
a candidate for President, but I then made my first political speech
to a popular audience and cast my first vote.  The meeting was held
at Plymouth, and Honorable Joseph M. Root, the Whig candidate for
Congress, was to be the orator.  For some reason Mr. Root was
delayed, and I was pressed into service.  Of what I said I have
not the remotest recollection, but my audience was satisfied, and
I was doubly so, especially when Mr. Root came in sight.  After
that I made a few neighborhood speeches in support of the Whig
candidate for governor, Mr. Mordecai Partley, a gentleman who for
several years had lived in Mansfield, but had long since retired
from public office after eight years' service in the United States
House of Representatives.  Mr. Bartley received 147,378 votes, Mr.
Tod, Democrat, 146,461 votes and Mr. King, Third Party, 8,411 votes;
so close were parties divided in Ohio in 1844.

At this time I had but two definite ideas in respect to the public
policy of the United States.  One was a hearty belief in the doctrine
of protection to American industries, as advocated by Mr. Clay,
and, second, a strong prejudice against the Democratic party, which
was more or less committed to the annexation of Texas, and the
extension of slavery.  I shared in the general regret at the defeat
of Mr. Clay and the election of Mr. Polk.  I took some part in the
local canvasses in Ohio prior to 1848, but this did not in the
least commit me to active political life.  I was appointed a delegate
to the national Whig convention, held in Philadelphia, in 1848, to
nominate a presidential candidate.  I accepted this the more readily
as it gave me an opportunity to see my future wife at her school
at Patapsco, and to fix our engagement for marriage upon her return
home.  The chief incident of the convention was the struggle between
the friends of General Scott and General Taylor.

When the convention was being organized, Colonel Collyer, chairman
of the Ohio delegation, said there was a young gentleman in that
convention who could never hope to get an office unless that
convention gave him one, and nominated me for secretary of the
convention.  Mr. Defrees said there was a delegate from Indiana in
the same condition and moved that Schuyler Colfax be made assistant
secretary.  We then marched together to the platform and commenced
our political life, in which we were to be closely associated for
many years.

The nomination of General Taylor, cordially supported by me, was
not acceptable to all the Whigs of Ohio.  The hostility to slavery
had grown chiefly out of the acquisition of Texas as a slave state.
An anti-slavery party headed in Ohio by Salmon P. Chase cast 35,354
votes for Van Buren.  General Taylor was defeated in Ohio mainly
by this defection, receiving 138,360 votes.  General Cass received
154,755 votes.  General Cass received the vote of Ohio, but General
Taylor was elected President, having received a majority of the
electoral vote.

General Taylor proved a very conscientious and acceptable President.
His death, on the ninth day of July, 1850, preceded the passage of
the compromise measures of Henry Clay, commonly known by his name.
They became laws with the approval of Millard Fillmore.

It was my habit during this period to attend the annual state
conventions of the Whig party, not so much to influence nominations
as to keep up an acquaintance with the principal members of the
party.  I had not the slightest desire for public office and never
became a candidate until 1854.  In the state convention of 1850 I
heartily supported the nomination of General Scott for President,
at the approaching election of 1852.  In this convention an effort
was made to nominate me for Attorney-General in opposition to Henry
Stanbery.  I promptly declined to be a candidate, but received a
number of votes from personal friends, who, as they said, wanted
to introduce some young blood into the Whig party.

I then began seriously to study the political topics of the day.
I was classed as a conservative Whig, and heartily supported the
compromise measures of 1850, not upon their merits, but as the best
solution of dangerous sectional divisions.  Prior to this time I
do not remember to have given any study, except through the newspapers
of the day, to the great national questions that divided the
political parties.

In the spring of 1852 I was designated by the state convention as
a delegate at large in association with Honorable Samuel F. Vinton
to the national Whig convention of that year.  I was an earnest
advocate of General Scott, and rejoiced in his nomination.  Here,
again, the slavery question was obtruded into national politics.
The clear and specific indorsement of the compromise measures,
though supported by a great majority, divided the Whig party and
led to the election of Franklin Pierce.  In this canvass I took
for the first time an active part.  I was designated as an elector
on the Scott ticket.  I made speeches in several counties and
cities, but was recalled to Wooster by a telegram stating that my
mother was dangerously ill.  Before I could reach home she died.
This event was wholly unexpected, as she seemed, when I left home,
to be in the best of health.  She had accompanied her daughter,
Mrs. Bartley, to Cleveland to attend the state fair, and there, no
doubt, she was attacked with the disease of which she died.  I took
no further part in the canvass.

I wish here to call special attention to the attitude of the two
great parties in respect to the compromise measures.

The Democratic national convention at Baltimore was held in the
first of June, 1852.  The resolutions of that convention in reference
to slavery were as follows:

"12.  _Resolved_, That Congress has no power under the constitution
to interfere with, or control, the domestic institutions of the
several states, and that such states are the sole and proper judges
of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by
the constitution; that all efforts of the Abolitionists or others,
made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or
to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead
to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such
efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of
the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union,
and ought not to be countenanced by any friends of our political
institutions.

"13.  _Resolved_, That the foregoing proposition covers, and is
intended to embrace, the whole subject of slavery agitation in
Congress, and, therefore, _the Democratic party of the Union,
standing on this national platform, will abide by, and adhere to,
a faithful execution of the acts known as the compromise measures
settled by the last Congress, 'the act for reclaiming fugitives
from service labor' included; which act, being designed to carry
out an express provision of the constitution, cannot, with fidelity
thereto, be repealed, nor so changed as to destroy or impair its
efficiency_.

"14.  _Resolved, That the Democratic party will resist all attempts
at renewing in Congress, or out of it, the agitation of the slavery
question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made_."

The Whig convention, which met at Baltimore on the 16th of June,
1852, declared as follows:--

"8.  _That the series of acts of the 32nd Congress, the act known
as The Fugitive Slave Law included, are received and acquiesced in
by the Whig party of the United States as a settlement in principle
and substance of the dangerous and exciting questions which they
embrace, and so far as they are concerned, we will maintain them,
and insist upon their strict enforcement_, until time and experience
shall demonstrate the necessity of further legislation to guard
against the evasion of the laws on the one hand, and the abuse of
their powers on the other--not impairing their present efficiency;
and we _deprecate all further agitation of the question thus settled
as dangerous to our peace, and will discountenance all efforts to
continue or renew such agitation whenever, wherever or however the
attempt may be made_, and we will maintain the system as essential
to the nationality of the Whig party and the integrity of the
Union."

It will be noticed that these platforms do not essentialy differ
from each other.  Both declare in favor of acquiescence in the
compromise measures of 1850.  The Democratic party more emphatically
denounces any renewal in Congress, or out of it, of the agitation
of the slavery question under whatever name, shape or color, the
attempt may be made.  The Whig platform, equally positive in its
acquiescence in the settlement made, known as the compromise
measures, declared its purpose to:  "Maintain them, and to insist
upon their strict enforcement until time and experience shall
demonstrate the necessity of further legislation to guard against
the evasion of the laws."

It would seem that under these platforms both parties were committed
to acquiescence in existing laws upon the subject of slavery, and
to a resistance of all measures to change or modify them.

I took quite an active part in this canvass and wrote to Mr. Seward,
then the great leader of the Whig party, inviting him to attend a
mass meeting in Richland county, to which I received the following
reply:

  "Auburn, Sept. 20, 1852.
"John Sherman, Esq., Mansfield, Ohio.

"Dear Sir:--I have the honor of receiving your letter urging me to
accept the invitation of the Whig central committee to address a
mass meeting in Richland county, Ohio, on the second of October.
I appreciate fully the importance of the canvass in which we are
engaged, and I have some conception of the responsibilities of the
Whigs of Ohio.  I wish, therefore, that it was in my power to comply
with the wishes, expressed in several quarters, by going among them
to attempt to encourage them in their noble and patriotic efforts,
but it is impossible.  Public and professional engagements have
withdrawn me from my private affairs during the past two years,
and the few weeks of interval between the last and the next session
of Congress are equally insufficient for the attention my business
requires and for the relaxation of public labors which impaired
health demands.  I am, dear sir, with great respect, you friend
and humble servant,

  "William H. Seward."

The election of 1852 resulted in the overwhelming defeat of General
Scott, and the practical annihilation of the Whig party.  Franklin
Pierce received 244 electoral votes, and General Scott but 42.

The triumphant election of Mr. Pierce, on the platform stated,
justified the expectation that during his term there would be no
opening of the slavery controversy by the Democratic party.  If
that party had been content with the compromise of 1850, and had
faithfully observed the pledges in its platform, there would have
been no Civil War.  Conservative Whigs, north and south, would have
united with conservative Democrats in maintaining and enforcing
existing laws.  The efforts of the opponents of slavery and of
aggressive pro-slavery propagandists would have been alike ineffective.
The irrepressible conflict would have been indefinitely postponed.
Yet, as will appear hereafter, the leaders of the 33rd Congress of
both parties, and mainly on sectional lines, openly and flagrantly
violated the pledges of their party, and renewed a contest that
was only closed by the most destructive Civil War of modern times,
and by the abolition of slavery.  As this legislation brought me
into public life, I wish to justify my statement by the public
records, with all charity to the authors of the measures who no
doubt did not anticipate the baleful events that would spring from
them, nor the expanded and strengthened republic which was the
final result.  "Man proposes, but God disposes."

When the 33rd Congress met, on the 6th day of December, 1853, the
tariff issue was practically in abeyance.  The net ordinary receipts
of the government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1853, were
$61,587,031.68.  The net ordinary expenditures of the government
for the same year were $47,743,989.09, leaving a surplus of revenue
over expenditures of $13,843,042.59, of which, $6,833,072.65 was
applied to the payment of the public debt, leaving in the treasury,
unexpended, about $7,000,000.00.  The financial and political
condition of the United States was never more prosperous than when
this Congress met.  The disturbance of this condition can be
attributed only to the passage of the act to organize the territories
of Nebraska and Kansas approved by President Franklin Pierce, May
30, 1854.  The 32nd section of that act contained this provision:--

"That the constitution and all laws of the United States which are
locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within
the said Territory of Kansas as elsewhere within the United States,
except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission
of Missouri into the Union, approved March sixth, eighteen hundred
and twenty, which, being inconsistent with the principle of non-
intervention by Congress with slavery in the states and territories,
as recognized by the legislation of eighteen hundred and fifty,
commonly called the compromise measures, is hereby declared
inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this
act not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to
exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly
free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own
way, subject only to the constitution of the United States:
_Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to
revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed
prior to the act of March sixth, eighteen hundred and twenty, either
protecting, establishing, prohibiting or abolishing slavery."

This act contained a similar clause relating to Nebraska.

To understand the effect of this provision it is necessary to review
the status of slavery in the United States under the constitution
and existing laws.

The articles of Confederation make no mention of slavery or slaves.
During and after the Revolution the general feeling was that slavery
would be gradually abolished by the several states.  In the Ordinance
of 1787 for the government of the territories of the United States,
northwest of the Ohio River, it was expressly provided that:

"There shall be no slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said
territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the
parties shall have been duly convicted; provided, always, that any
person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully
claimed in any of the original states, such fugitive may be lawfully
reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or
service as aforesaid."

This provision applied to all the territory of the United States
that was subject to the jurisdiction of the Continental Congress.

The constitution of the United States did not mention either slaves
or slavery.  Its two provisions relating to the subject were the
following:

"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states
now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited
by the Congress prior to the year one thousand, eight hundred and
eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not
exceeding ten dollars for each person. . . .

"No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws
thereof, escaping into another shall, in consequence of any law or
regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but
shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service
or labor may be due."

The first clause quoted was intended to enable Congress to prohibit
the introduction of slaves after the year 1808, and this was promptly
done.  The second provision was intended to authorize the recapture
of slaves escaping from their owners to another state.  It was the
general expectation of the framers of the constitution that under
its provisions slavery would be gradually abolished by the acts of
the several states where it was recognized.

The first great controversy that grew out of slavery was whether
Missouri should be admitted into the Union as a slave state, and
whether slavery should exist in the western territories.

The following provision became part of the law of March 6, 1820,
approved by President James Monroe, and known as the compromise
measure of that year:

"That, in all that territory ceded by France to the United States
under the name of 'Louisiana,' which lies north of 36 deg. 30 min.
north latitude, not included within the limits of the state
contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude,
otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall
have been duly conviced, shall be and is hereby, forever prohibited:
_Provided, always_, That any person escaping into the same, from
whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any other state of
territory of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully
reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or
service, as aforesaid."

This compromise measure fixed the boundary line between free and
slave states in all the territories then belonging to the United
States.  Slavery was thus forever prohibited within the Territories
of Kansas and Nebraska.  This happy solution was regarded as
something more than a mere enactment of Congress.  It was a
territorial division between the two great sections of our country,
acquiesced in by both without question or disturbance for thirty-
four years.  The memorable controversy that arose in the 31st
Congress in 1850 in respect to the territory acquired from Mexico
did not in the least affect or relate to the Territories of Nebraska
and Kansas.  The subject-matter of the several bills originally
embraced in Mr. Clay's report of the committee of thirteen, defined
the northern boundary of the State of Texas on the line of 36 deg.
30 min. north latitude, provided for the addition of the State of
California, for territorial governments for New Mexico and Utah,
and for the surrender of fugitive slaves.

In the resolution annexing Texas to the United States there is this
express recognition of the Missouri Compromise line:

"New states of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in
addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population,
may hereafter, by the consent of the said state, be formed out of
the territory thereof, which shall be _entitled to admission_ under
the provisions of the Federal constitution; and such states as may
be formed out of that portion of said territory lying _south_ of
36 deg. 30 min. north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri
Compromise line, _shall be_ admitted into the Union with or without
slavery, as the people of each state asking admission may desire."

The convention providing for the admission of California expressly
stipulated by a unanimous vote that slavery should be forever
prohibited in that state.  The bill providing for a territorial
government for New Mexico, the great body of the territory which
lay south of the parallel of latitude 36 deg. 30 min., provided,
"That, when admitted as a state, the said territory, or any portion
of the same, shall be received into the Union, with or without
slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their
admission."

The act organizing the Territory of Utah, lying entirely north of
the 37th degree of latitude, contains no provision recognizing the
right of the people of that territory to permit slavery within its
borders.  The situation of the state and its population precluded
the possibility of establishing slavery within its borders.

It will be perceived by the compromise measures of 1820 and 1850,
the existence or prohibition of slavery was fixed by express laws,
or by conditions which it was fondly believed defined the limits
of slavery, and thus set at rest the only question that threatened
the union of the states.  This settlement was indorsed and ratified
by the two great parties in their national platforms of 1852, with
the solemn pledge of both parties that they would resist the re-
opening of these questions.

The Senate of the 33rd Congress was composed of 36 Democrats, 20
Whigs and 2 Free Soilers.  The House was composed of 159 Democrats,
71 Whigs, and 4 Free Soilers, with Franklin Pierce as President of
the United States.

I need not narrate the long struggle in both Houses over the bill
to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas.  It was a direct
invitation for a physical struggle between the north and south for
the control of these territories, but it finally passed on the 30th
of May, 1854.

This act repealed in express terms the Missouri Compromise of 1820,
and falsely stated the terms of the compromise of 1850, which, as
I have shown, had no reference whatever to the Territories of
Nebraska and Kansas.  It re-opened, in the most dangerous form,
the struggle between freedom and slavery in the western territories,
and was the congressional beginning of the contest which culminated
in the War of the Rebellion.

It is difficult, at this distance of time, to describe the effect
of the act of 1854 upon popular opinion in the northern states.
The repeal was met in Ohio by an overwhelming sentiment of opposition.
All who voted for the bill were either refused a nomination or were
defeated by the people at the polls.  Party lines were obliterated.
In every congressional district a fusion was formed of Democrats,
Whigs and Free Soilers, and candidates for Congress were nominated
solely upon the issues made by the Kansas and Nebraska bill.

I had carefully observed the progress of the bill, had read the
arguments for and against it, and was strongly convinced that it
was the duty of every patriotic citizen to oppose its provisions.
The firm resolve was declared by the state convention of Ohio,
composed of men of all parties, that the institution of slavery
should gain no advantage by this act of perfidy.  It was denounced
as a violation of a plain specific pledge of the public faith made
by acts of Congress in 1820 and in 1850.  With this feeling there
ran current a conviction that the measure adopted was forced by
southern domination, and yielded to by ambitious northern dough-
faces anxious to obtain southern support.

Unfortunately the drift of parties was on sectional lines.  The
whole south had become Democratic, so that a united south, acting
in concert with a few members from the north, could control the
action of Congress.  I believe that a feeling did then prevail with
many in the south, that they were superior to men of the north,
that one southern man could whip four Yankees, that their institution
of slavery naturally produced among the masters, men of superior
courage, gentlemen who could command and make others obey.  Whether
such a feeling did exist or not, it was apparent that the political
leaders in the south were, as a rule, men of greater experience,
were longer retained in the service of their constituents, and held
higher public positions than their associates from the north.
Besides, they had in slavery a bond of union that did not tolerate
any difference of opinion when its interests were involved.  This
compact power needed the assistance only of a few scattered members
from the north to give it absolute control.  But now the south was
to meet a different class of opponents.  There had been growing
all over the north, especially in the minds of religious people,
a conviction that slavery was wrong.  The literature of the day
promoted this tendency.  The repeal of the Missouri Compromise
aroused the combative feeling of the north until it became general
among all parties and sects.  Still, the north recognized the legal
existence of slavery in the south, and did not propose to interfere
with it, and was entirely content to faithfully observe the
obligations of the constitution and the laws, including those for
the return of fugitive slaves.  A smaller, but very noisy body of
men and women denounced the constitution as "a covenant with hell
and a contract with the devil."  A much large number of conservative
voters formed themselves into a party called the Free Soil party,
who, professing to be restrained within constitutional limits, yet
favored the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.  They
invoked the moral influence and aid of the government for the
gradual prohibition of slavery in the states.  "Liberty is National,
Slavery is Sectional," was their motto.

The strong controlling feeling of the great body of the Whigs and
of the Democrats of the north, who opposed the Nebraska and Kansas
law was that the law was a violation of existing compromises,
designed to extend slavery over free territory, that it ought to
be repealed, but, if repeal was impracticable, organized effort
should be made to make both territories free states.  "Slavery
shall gain no advantage over freedom by violating compromises,"
was the cry of a new party, as yet without a name.

It was on this basis in the summer of 1854, I became a candidate
for Congress.  Jacob Brinkerhoff and Thomas H. Ford, both residents
of Richland county, Ohio, and gentlemen of experience and ability,
were also candidates, but we agreed to submit our pretensions to
a convention in that county, and I was selected by a very large
majority.  A district convention was held at Shelby, in July.  Mr.
James M. Root, for several terms a Member of Congress, was my chief
competitor, but I was nominated, chiefly because I had been less
connected with old parties and would encounter less prejudice with
the discordant element of a new party.

I made a thorough canvass through the district, composed of the
counties of Huron, Erie, Richland and Morrow.  I visited and spoke
in every town and township in the district.  William D. Linsley,
a Member of the 33rd Congress, was my competitor.  He was a farmer,
of popular manners, but defective education.  When first a candidate
a letter of his was published in which he spelled the word "corn"
"korne."  The Whig newspapers ridiculed him for his faulty spelling,
but Democrats, who were offended at this criticism, said they would
show the Whigs how to plant corn, and the incident proved a benefit
rather than an injury to Lindsley.  He had been elected to Congress
in 1852 against a popular Whig by a majority of 754.  He had voted
against the Nebraska bill, but had cast one vote that opened the
way to the consideration of that bill, which action was made the
subject of criticism.  This did not enter as a national element in
the canvass.  The real issue was whether the Democrats and Free
Soilers would vote for a Whig.  Among the Free Soilers I was regarded
as too conservative on the slavery question.  They were not content
with the repeal of the offensive provisions of the Nebraska act,
but demanded the prohibition of slavery in all the territories and
in the District of Columbia.  This feeling was very strong in the
important county of Huron.

When I spoke in North Fairfield I was interrupted by the distinct
question put to me by the pastor of the church in which I spoke,
and whose name I do not recall, whether I would vote for the
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.  I knew this was
a turning point, but made up my mind to be frank and honest, whatever
might be the result.  I answered that I would not, that the great
issue was the extension of slavery over the territories.  I fortified
myself by the opinions of John Q. Adams, but what I said fell like
a wet blanket on the audience.  I understood that afterwards, in
a church meeting, the preacher commended my frankness and advised
his people to vote for me.

This canvass, more than any other, assumed a religious tone, not
on sectarian, but on moral grounds.  Our meetings were frequently
held in churches, and the speaker was invited to the pulpit, with
the Bible and hymn-book before him, and frequently with an audience
of men, women and children, arranged as for religious worship.

The probable course of Democrats opposed to the Nebraska bill was
more than a matter of doubt.  They were in the main content with
Mr. Lindsley and voted for him.  But out of the general confusion
of parties there arose what was known as the "Know-nothing" order,
or American party, opposed to the Catholics, and to free immigration.
It was a secret organization, with signs and grips.  There were
perhaps one thousand of them in my district, composed about equally
of Democrats and Whigs.  They were indifferent, or neutral, on the
political issue of the day.

The result of the election in October was against the Democratic
party in Ohio.  Every Democratic candidate for Congress was defeated.
Twenty-one Members, all opposed to the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise, but differing in opinion upon other questions, were
elected to Congress.  The composition of the delegation was somewhat
peculiar, as the party had no name, and no defined principles except
upon the one question of the extension of slavery.  On the day of
the election everyone was in doubt.  Mr. Kirkwood, who supported
Mr. Lindsley, told me it was the strangest election he had ever
seen, that everyone brought his ticket in his vest pocket, and
there was no electioneering at the polls.  He expressed his opinion,
but not with much confidence, that Mr. Lindsley was elected.  When
the votes were counted, it was found that I had 2,823 majority,
having carried every county in the district.  Richland county, in
which I lived, for the first time cast a majority adverse to the
Democratic party, I receiving a majority of over 300 votes.

During the summer of 1855, the elements of opposition to the
administration of President Pierce organized as the Republican
party.  County conventions were generally held and largely attended.
The state convention met at Columbus on the 13th day of July, 1855.
It was composed of heterogenous elements, every shade of political
opinion being represented.  Such antipodes as Giddings, Leiter,
Chase, Brinkerhoff, and Lew Campbell met in concert.  The first
question that troubled the convention was the selection of a
president.  It was thought impolitic to take one who had been
offensively conspicuous in one of the old parties.  The result was
that I was selected, much to my surprise, and, for a time, much to
my chagrin.  Mr. Allison, since a distinguished Member of the United
States Senate, was elected secretary of the convention.  I had
never presided over any assembly excepting an Odd Fellows' lodge.
When I assumed the chair I no doubt soon exposed my ignorance.  A
declaration of principles was formulated as follows:

"1.  _Resolved_, That the people who constitute the supreme power
in the United States, should guard with jealous care the rights of
the several states, as independent governments.  No encroachment
upon their legislative or judicial prerogatives should be permitted
from any quarter.

"2.  _Resolved_, That the people of the State of Ohio, mindful of
the blessings conferred upon them by the 'Ordinance of Freedom,'
whose anniversary our convention this day commemorates, should
establish for their political guidance the following cardinal rules:

"(1).  We will resent the spread of slavery under whatever shape
or color it may be attempted.

"(2).  To this end we will labor incessantly to render inoperative
and void that portion of the Kansas and Nebraska bill which abolishes
freedom in the territory withdrawn from the influence of slavery
by the Missouri Compromise of 1820; and we will oppose by every
lawful and constitutional means, the extension of slavery in any
national territory, and the further increase of slavery territory
or slave states in this republican confederacy.

"3.  _Resolved_, That the recent acts of violence and Civil War in
Kansas, incited by the late Vice President of the United States,
and tacitly encouraged by the Executive, command the emphatic
condemnation of every citizen.

"4.  _Resolved_, That a proper retrenchment in all public expenditures,
a thoroughly economical administration of our state government, a
just and equal basis of taxation, and single districts for the
election of members of the legislature, are reforms called for by
a wise state policy and justly demanded by the people.

"5.  _Resolved_, That a state central committee, consisting of
five, be appointed by this convention, and the said committee, in
addition to its usual duties, be authorized to correspond with
committees of other states for the purpose of agreeing upon a time
and place for holding a national convention of the Republican party
for the nomination of President and Vice President."

Joshua R. Giddings was the solitary member of the committee opposed
to the resolutions, not, he said, because he objected to the
resolutions themselves, but he thought they were a little too
tender.  They were not strong enough for the old guard and still
they were better than none.  If it offended his brother to eat meat
he would eat no more while time lasted.  He was opposed to this
milk for babes.  He disagreed with his colleagues, but had had the
misfortune to disagree with people before.  He was used to disagreement
and hoped everybody would vote for the platform.

Lewis D. Campbell said his friend from Ashtabula wanted to make an
issue with Frank Pierce.  He did not wish to raise an issue with
the dead.  He hoped everybody would vote for the platform.  He did
not consider the resolutions milk for babes, but strong meat.

The platform was adopted by a unanimous vote.

The real contention was upon the nomination of governor.  Salmon
P. Chase was nominated, but there was difference of opinion concerning
his somewhat varied political associations and some criticism of
them.  In 1845 he had projected what was called a liberty convention.
In 1848 he had been a member of the Free Soil convention held at
Buffalo and since 1849 had been a Senator of the United States.
Thomas H. Ford, my townsman, was nominated as lieutenant governor,
as the representative of the Whig party.  Jacob Brinkerhoff, also
of Mansfield, was nominated as judge of the Supreme Court.  He had
been a Member of Congress from 1843 to 1847 as a Democrat, but
early took decided ground against the extension of slavery.  He
was the reputed author of what is known as the "Wilmot Proviso."

On the 8th day of August this famous proviso was offered as an
amendment to a bill authorizing the President of the United States
to employ $3,000,000 in negotiations for a peace with Mexico, by
purchase of territory, by David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, a Member
of the House.  "That, as an express fundamental condition to the
acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the
United States, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should
ever exist in any part of said territory."  This proviso was adopted
by the House, but was rejected by the Senate.  It was the basis of
the organization known as the Free Soil party of 1848, and of the
Republican party in 1856.

The other candidates on the ticket were fairly distributed.

The canvass of 1855 was conducted mainly by Senator Chase and
Colonel Ford.  I participated in it to some extent, but was chiefly
engaged in closing my business in preparation for the approaching
session of Congress.  The result of the election was as follows:
Chase, 146,770 votes; Medill, 131,019; Allen Trimble, 24,276.

The election of Senator Chase, upon a distinctly Republican platform,
established the fact that the majority of the voters of Ohio were
Republicans as defined by the creed of that party.

In the summer of 1855 I made my first trip to Iowa, accompanied by
Amos Townsend and James Cobean.  At that time Iowa was a far-off
state, thinly populated, but being rapidly settled.  We passed
through Chicago, which at that time contained a population of about
50,000.  The line of railroad extended to the Mississippi River.
From thence we traveled in a stage to Des Moines, now the capital
of Iowa, but then a small village with about 1,000 inhabitants.
The northern and western parts of the state were mostly unsold
public lands, open to entry.  My three brothers, James, Lampson,
and Hoyt, were living in Des Moines.  James was a merchant in
business.  Lampson was the editor and proprietor of a newspaper,
and Hoyt was actively engaged in the purchase and sale of land.
With Hoyt for a guide we drove in a carriage as far north as Fort
Dodge, where a new land office had been recently established.  The
whole country was an open plain with here and there a cabin, with
no fences and but little timber.  We arrived at Fort Dodge on
Saturday evening, intending to spend some time there in locating
land.  The tavern at which we stopped was an unfinished frame
building with no plastering, and sash without glass in the windows.
On the next day, Sunday, Cobean invited us to join him in drinking
some choice whisky he had brought with him.  We did so in the dining
room.  While thus engaged the landlady came to us and told Cobean
that she was not very well, and would be glad if he would give her
some whisky.  He handed her the bottle, and she went to the other
end of the room and there poured out nearly a glass full and drank
it.  Cobean was so much alarmed lest the woman should become drunk
that he insisted upon leaving the town immediately, and we acquiesced
and left.  Afterwards we learned that she became very drunk, and
the landlord was very violent in denouncing us for giving her
whisky, but we got outside the county before the sun went down.
I had frequent occasion to be in Fort Dodge afterwards, but heard
nothing more of the landlord or his wife.

The road to Council Bluffs from Des Moines was over a high rolling
prairie with scarcely any inhabitants.  The village of Omaha,
opposite Council Bluffs, contained but a few frame houses of little
value.  The settlement of Iowa and Nebraska after this period is
almost marvelous.  Iowa now (1895), contains over 2,000,000 and
Nebraska over 1,200,000 people.  The twelve states composing the
north central division of the United States contained 5,403,595
inhabitants in 1850, and now number over 24,000,000, or more than
quadruple the number in 1850, and more than the entire population
of the United States in that year.  I have frequently visited these
states since, and am not surprised at their wonderful growth.  I
believe there is no portion of the earth's surface of equal area
which is susceptible of a larger population than that portion of
the United States lying north of the Ohio River, and between the
Alleghany Mountains and the Missouri River.


CHAPTER V.
EARLY DAYS IN CONGRESS.
My First Speech in the House--Struggle for the Possession of Kansas
--Appointed as a Member of the Kansas Investigating Committee--The
Invasion of March 30, 1855--Exciting Scenes in the Second District
of Kansas--Similar Violence in Other Territorial Districts--Return
and Report of the Committee--No Relief Afforded the People of Kansas
--Men of Distinction in the 34th Congress--Long Intimacy with
Schuyler Colfax.

In 1854 the Whig party had disappeared from the roll of parties in
the United States.  It was a bad name for a good party.  English
in its origin, it had no significance in American politics.  The
word "Democratic," as applied to the opposing party, was equally
a misnomer.  The word "Democracy," from which it is derived, means
a government of the people, but the controlling power of the
Democratic party resided in the southern states, where a large
portion of the people were slaves, and the ruling class were
slaveholders, and the name was not applicable to such a people.
The Republican party then represented the progressive tendency of
the age, the development of the country, the opposition to slavery
and the preservation of the Union.  It was about to engage in a
political contest for the administration of the government.  It
was in the minority in the Senate, and had but a bare plurality in
the House.  It had to contest with an adverse Executive and Supreme
Court, with a well-organized party in possession of all the patronage
of the government, in absolute control of the slaveholding states,
and supported by strong minorities in each of the free states.

This was the condition of parties when the 34th Congress met in
the old halls of the Senate and House of Representatives on the
3rd of December, 1855.  The Senate was composed of 43 Democrats
and 17 Republicans.  There were four vacancies.  The House was
composed of 97 Republicans, 82 Democrats, and 45 classed as Third
Party men, mostly as Americans.  Eight Members were absent, and
not yet classified.  An unusual proportion of the Members were new
in public life, the result of the revolution of parties caused by
the Nebraska bill.  The Senate was already organized with Mr.
Bright, of Indiana, as president _pro tempore_.

The first duty of the House was to elect a speaker, a majority of
the Members present being necessary to a choice.  The balloting
for speaker continued until February 2, 1856, when Nathaniel P.
Banks was elected under the plurality rule.  During these two months
the House was without a speaker, and also without rules except the
general principles of parliamentary law.  The clerk of the last
House of Representatives presided.  Innumerable speeches were made,
some of them very long, but many brief ones were made by the new
Members who took the occasion to air their oratory.  Timothy Day,
one of my colleagues, a cynical bachelor and proprietor of the
Cincinnati "Commercial," who sat by my side, was constantly employed
in writing for his paper.  When a new voice was heard he would put
his hand to his ear, listen awhile and then, turning impatiently
to his writing, would say to me:  "Another dead cock in the pit."
This cynical suppression of a new Member rather alarmed me, but on
the 9th of January, as appears from the "Globe," I ventured to make
a few remarks.  When I sat down I turned to Mr. Day and said:
"Another dead cock in the pit."  He relieved me by saying:  "Not
quite so bad as that."  The first speech I made in the House
contained my political creed at the time.  I here insert a paragraph
or two:

"I desire to say a few words; and I would preface them with the
remark, that I do not intend, while I have a seat in this House,
to occupy much of its time in speaking.  But I wish to state now
why I have voted, and shall continue to vote, for Mr. Banks.  I
care not whether he is a member of the American party or not.  I
have been informed that he is, and I believe that he is.  But I
repeat I care not to what party he belongs.  I understood him to
take this position,--that the repeal of the Missouri Compromise
was an act of great dishonor, and that under no circumstances
whatever will he--if he have the power--allow the institution of
human slavery to derive any benefit from that repeal.  That is my
position.  I have been a Whig, but I will yield all party preferences,
and will act in concert with men of all parties and opinions who
will steadily aid in preserving our western territories for free
labor; and I say now, that I never will vote for a man for speaker
of this house, unless he convinces me, by his conduct and by his
voice, that he never will, if he has the power to prevent it, allow
the institution of slavery to derive any advantage from repealing
the compromise of 1820.

"I believe Mr. Banks will be true to that principle, and, therefore,
I vote for him without regard to his previous political associations,
or to his adherence to the American party.  I vote for him simply
because he has had the manliness to say here, that, having the
power, he will resist the encroachments of slavery, even by opposing
the admission of any slave state that may be formed out of the
territory north and west of Missouri."

Notwithstanding the promise I made not to occupy much of the time
of the House in speaking, and the cynicism of my friend Day, I did
partake frequently in the debate on the organization of the House.
I became involved in a contest with Mr. Dunn, of Indiana, who had
steadily refused to vote for Mr. Banks for speaker, to which I
deemed proper to refer.  He said he was not to be deterred from
performing his duty, as he understood it, by the criticisms of the
"neophyte" from Ohio.  I replied at considerable length and with
some feeling.  In my reply I repeated my position in respect to
the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, declaring:  "If the repeal
was wrong all northern and southern men alike ought to help to
reinstate that restriction.  Nothing less than that will satisfy
the country; and if it is not done, as it probably will not be, we
will maintain our position of resisting the admission of Kansas as
a slave state, under all possible circumstances."

Later on in the debate I declared:

"I am no Abolitionist in the sense in which the term is used; I
have always been a conservative Whig.  I was willing to stand by
the compromises of 1820 and 1850; but, when our Whig brethren of
the south allow this administration to lead them off from their
principles, when they abandon the position which Henry Clay would
have taken, forget his name and achievements, and decline any longer
to carry his banner--they lose all their claims on me.  And I say
now, that until this wrong is righted, until Kansas is admitted as
a free state, I cannot act in party association with them.  Whenever
that question is settled rightly I will have no disposition to
disturb the harmony which ought to exist between the north and
south.  I do not propose to continue agitation; I only appear here
to demand justice,--to demand compliance with compromises fully
agreed upon and declared by law.  I ask no more, and I will submit
to no less."

This was a narrow platform, but it was the one supported by public
opinion.  I believed that a majority of the Members called Americans,
especially those from the south, were quite willing that Kansas
should be admitted as a free state, but local pride prevented such
a declaration.  It is easy to perceive now that if this had been
promptly done the slavery question would have been settled for many
years.  But that opportunity was permitted to pass unused.  The
people, both north and south, were thoroughly aroused.  No compromise
was possible.  The contest could only be settled by the force of
superior numbers.  That was the logic of the Nebraska bill, which
was an appeal to the people of both sections, already greatly
excited, to struggle for, and, if necessary, to fight for the
possession of a large and beautiful territory.  It forced the
irrepressible conflict in the most dangerous form.

On the one side were the border ruffians of Missouri, hereafter
described, backed by the general sentiment of the south, and actively
supported by the administration and by leading Democrats who had
held high positions in the public service.  On the other side were
a large number of free state men in the western states, who looked
forward to the opening of Nebraska and Kansas as a new field of
enterprise.  They were quite ready to fight for their opinions
against slavery.  They were supported by a general feeling of
resentment in the north, caused by the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise.

Long before the meeting of Congress the actual struggle for the
possession of Kansas commenced.  After the passage of the Kansas
bill we had reports in the newspapers of gross frauds at pretended
elections of rival legislatures, of murder and other crimes, in
short, of actual civil war in Kansas; but the accounts were
contradictory.  It was plainly the first duty of Congress to
ascertain the exact condition of affairs in that territory.  This
could not be done until a speaker was elected.

On the 24th day of January, 1856, President Pierce sent to the
House of Representatives, still unorganized, a message upon the
condition of affairs in Kansas.  A question was made whether a
message from the President could be received before a speaker had
been elected, but it was decided that the message should be read.
The first paragraph is as follows;

"Circumstances have occurred to disturb the course of governmental
organization in the Territory of Kansas, and produce there a
condition of things which renders it incumbent on me to call your
attention to the subject, and urgently to recommend the adoption
by you of such measures of legislation as the grave exigencies of
the case appear to require."

The President then gave his exposition of the condition of affairs
in that territory.  This exposition was regarded as a partisan one
in favor of the so-called pro-slavery legislative assembly, which
met the 2d day of July, 1855.  He recommended "that a special
appropriation be made to defray any expense which may become
requisite in the execution of the laws or the maintenance of public
order in the Territory of Kansas."

This was regarded as a threat of the employment of the army to
enforce the enactments of a usurping legislature.  Congress took
no action upon the message until after the organization of the
House.  On the 14th of January, 1856, a motion was made by Mr.
Houston that the message of the President, in reference to the
Territory of Kansas, be referred to the committee of the whole on
the state of the Union.  This motion was agreed to.  No further
action was taken upon the message, but it remained in abeyance.
Congress was not prepared to act without full information of the
actual condition of affairs in that territory.

On the 19th of March, 1856, the House of Representatives adopted
a series of resolutions offered by Mr. Dunn, of Indiana, as follows:

"_Resolved_, That a committee of three of the Members of this House,
to be appointed by the speaker, shall proceed to inquire into and
collect evidence in regard to the troubles in Kansas generally,
and particularly in regard to any fraud or force attempted, or
practiced, in reference to any of the elections which have taken
place in said territory, either under the law organizing said
territory, or under any pretended law which may be alleged to have
taken effect since.  That they shall fully investigate and take
proof of all violent and tumultuous proceedings in said territory
at any time since the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act, whether
engaged in by residents of said territory, or by any person or
persons from elsewhere going into said territory and doing, or
encouraging others to do, any act of violence or public disturbance
against the laws of the United States, or the rights, peace, and
safety of the residents of said territory; and for that purpose
said committee shall have full power to send for and examine and
take copies of all such papers, public records, and proceedings,
as in their judgment will be useful in the premises; and also, to
send for persons and examine them on oath, or affirmation, as to
matters within their knowledge touching the matters of said
investigation; and said committee, by their chairman, shall have
the power to administer all necessary oaths or affirmations connected
with their aforesaid duties.

"_Resolved, further_, That said committee may hold their investigations
at such places and times as to them may seem advisable, and that
they may have leave of absence from the duties of this House until
they shall have completed such investigation.  That they be authorized
to employ one or more clerks, and one or more assistant sergeants-
at-arms, to aid them in their investigation; and may administer to
them an oath or affirmation faithfully to perform the duties assigned
to them respectively, and to keep secret all matters, which may
come to their knowledge touching such investigation as said committee
shall direct, until the report of the same shall be submitted to
this House; and said committee may discharge any such clerk or
assistant sergeant-at-arms for neglect of duty or disregard of
instructions in the premises, and employ others under like
regulations.

"_Resolved, further_, That if any persons shall in any manner
obstruct or hinder said committee, or attempt so to do, in their
investigation, or shall refuse to attend on said committee, and to
give evidence when summoned for that purpose, or shall refuse to
produce any papers, book, public record, or other proceeding in
their possession or control, to said committee, when so required,
or shall make any disturbance where said committee are holding
their sittings, said committee may, if they see fit, cause any and
every such person to be arrested by said assistant sergeant-at-
arms, and brought before this House, to be dealt with as for a
contempt.

"_Resolved, further_, That for the purpose of defraying the expenses
of said commission, there be and hereby is appropriated the sum of
ten thousand ($10,000) dollars, to be paid out of the contingent
fund of this House.

"_Resolved, further_, That the President of the United States be
and is hereby requested to furnish to said committee, should they
be met with any serious opposition by bodies of lawless men in the
discharge of their duties aforesaid, such aid from any military
force as may, at the time, be convenient to them, as may be necessary
to remove such opposition, and enable said committee, without
molestation, to proceed with their labors.

"_Resolved, further_, That when said committee shall have completed
said investigation, they report all the evidence so collected to
this House."

On the 25th of March, 1856, the speaker appointed Lewis D. Campbell,
of Ohio, William A. Howard, of Michigan, and Mordecai Oliver, of
Missouri, as the special committee of the House under the above
resolution.  On the same day Mr. Campbell requested to be excused
from the committee referred to, and I was appointed by the speaker
in his place, leaving Mr. Howard as chairman.

I accepted the position assigned me with much diffidence.  I knew
it was a laborious one, that it would take me away from my duties
in the House, expose me to a great deal of fatigue and some danger,
yet I felt that the appointment on so important a committee was a
high compliment when given to a new Member, and at once made
preparations for the task before me.

The committee organized at the city of Washington, on the 27th of
March, 1856.

Mrs. Sherman expressed a strong desire to accompany me.  I tried
to frighten her from going, but this made her more resolute, and
I consented.  She remained with or near us during our stay in Kansas
and Missouri, and for a time was accompanied by Mrs. Oliver, a
charming lady, to whom we were much indebted for kindness and
civility where most of her sex were unfriendly.

The investigation continued from our arrival at St. Louis, on the
12th day of April, 1856, until our arrival at Detroit, on the 17th
day of June following, and was conducted in all respects like a
judicial trial.  The testimony taken filled an octavo volume of
1,188 pages.

Mr. Howard, during our stay in Kansas, was not in very good health,
but he never relaxed in his labor until the testimony closed.  He
was a man of marked ability, a good lawyer, conservative in all
his ideas and tendencies, and throughly fair and impartial.  At
his request I accompanied him, with our excellent corps of assistants,
to his home in Detroit, where his health so failed that he was
confined to his bed for a week.  This threw upon me the preparation
of the report.  The resolutions, under which we were acting, did
not require a report from the committee, but only required a report
of all the evidence collected, to the House of Representatives,
but we felt that such a report without a summary of the evidence
and principal facts proven would not be satisfactory to the House.

The majority and minority reports contained 109 pages of printed
matter and entered into full details as to the condition of affairs
in that territory, and of every election held therein.  When the
act to organize the Territory of Kansas was passed, May 30, 1854,
the greater portion of the eastern border of the territory was
included in Indian reservations not open for settlements, and in
no portion were there more than a few white settlers.  The Indian
population of the territory was rapidly decreasing, while many
emigrants from different parts of the country, were anxiously
waiting the extinction of the Indian title, and the establishment
of a territorial government, to seek new homes on the fertile
prairies which would be opened to settlement.  It cannot be doubted
that if the free condition of Kansas had been left undisturbed by
Congress, that territory would have had a rapid, peaceful, and
prosperous settlement.  Its climate, its soil, and its easy access
to the older settlements, would have made it the favored course
for the tide of emigration constantly flowing to the west, and in
a brief period it would have been admitted to the Union as a free
state, without sectional excitement.  If so organized, none but
the kindest feelings would have existed between its citizens and
those of the adjoining State of Missouri.  Their mutual interests
and intercourse, instead of endangering the harmony of the Union,
would have strengthened the ties of national brotherhood.

The testimony taken by the committee clearly showed that before
the proposition to repeal the Missouri Compromise was introduced
into Congress, the people of western Missouri were indifferent to
the prohibition of slavery in the territory, and neither asked nor
desired its repeal.

When, however, the prohibition was removed by the action of Congress,
the aspect of affairs entirely charged.  The whole country was
agitated by the reopening of a controversy which conservative men
in different sections believed had been settled in every state and
territory by some law beyond the danger of repeal.  The excitement
which always accompanied the discussion of the slavery question
was greatly increased by the hope, on the one hand, of extending
slavery into a region from which it had been excluded by law; and,
on the other, by a sense of wrong done by what was regarded as a
breach of public faith.  This excitement was naturally transferred
into the border counties of Missouri and the territory, as settlers
favoring free or slave institutions moved into them.

Within a few days after the organic law passed, and as soon as its
passage could be known on the border, leading citizens of Missouri
crossed into the territory, held "squatter meetings," voted at
elections, committed crimes of violence, and then returned to their
homes.  This unlawful interference was continued in every important
stage in the history of the territory; _every election_ was
controlled, not by the actual settlers, but by the citizens of
Missouri; and, as a consequence, every officer in the territory,
from constable to legislator, except those appointed by the President,
owed his position to non-resident voters.  None were elected by
the settlers, and no political power whatever, however important,
was exercised by the people of the territory.

In October, 1854, the Governor of Kansas, A. H. Reeder, and other
officers appointed by the President, arrived in the territory.
Settlers from all parts of the country came in great number, entering
their claims and building their cabins.  The first election was
for delegate to Congress and was held on the 29th of November,
1854.  The governor divided the territory into seventeen election
districts, appointed judges, and prescribed proper rules for the
election.  The report of the committee enters into full details as
to this election and all subsequent thereto in each district.  The
conduct of the election in the second district, held at the village
of Douglas, nearly fifty miles from the Missouri line, is a fair
specimen of all the elections in Kansas.  The report says:

"On the second day before the election large companies of men came
into the district in wagons and on horseback, and declared that
they were from the State of Missouri, and were going to Douglas to
vote.  On the morning of the election they gathered around the
house where the election was to be held.  Two of the judges appointed
by the governor did not appear, and other judges were selected by
the crowd; all then voted.  In order to make a pretense of right
to vote, some persons of the company kept a pretended register of
squatter claims, on which anyone could enter his name, and then
assert he had a claim in the territory.  A citizen of the district,
who was himself a candidate for delegate to Congress was told by
one of the strangers that he would be abused, and probably killed,
if he challenged a vote.  He was seized by the collar, called a
damned Abolitionist, and was compelled to seek protection in the
room with the judges.  About the time the polls were closed these
strangers mounted their horses and got into their wagons and cried
out, 'All aboard for Westport.'  A number were recognized as
residents of Missouri, and among them was Samuel H. Woodson, a
leading lawyer of Independence.  Of those whose names are on the
poll-books, 35 were resident settlers and 226 were non-residents."

In January and February, 1855, the governor, A. H. Reeder, caused
a census to be taken of the inhabitants and qualified voters in
Kansas.  On the day the census was completed he issued his proclamation
for an election to be held March 30, 1855, for members of the
legislative assembly of the territory.  The proclamation prescribed
the boundaries of the districts, the places for polls, the names
of judges, the apportionment of members, and the qualification of
voters.  Had it been observed, a just and fair election would have
reflected the will of the people of Kansas.  Before the election,
however, false and inflammatory rumors were busily circulated among
the people of western Missouri.  They grossly exaggerated and
misrepresented the number and character of the emigration then
passing into the territory.  By the active exertions of many of
the leading citizens, the passions and prejudices of the people of
that state were greatly excited.  Several residents of Missouri
testified to the character of the reports circulated among and
credited by the people.  These efforts were successful.  By an
organized movement, which extended from Andrew county, in the north,
to Jasper county, in the south, and as far eastward as Boone and
Cole counties (Missouri), companies of men were collected in
irregular parties and sent into every council district in the
territory, and into every representative district but one.  The
men were so distributed as to control the election in every district.
They went to vote, and with the avowed design to make Kansas a
slave state.  They were generally armed and equipped, carrying with
them their own provisions and tents, and so marched into the
territory.

As this election was for a legislature, the validity of which was
contested, the committee took great pains to procure testimony as
to the election in each election district.  The election in the
second district is a fair specimen.  In that district, on the
morning of the election, the judges appointed by the governor
appeared and opened the polls.  Their names were Harrison Burson,
Nathaniel Ramsay and Mr. Ellison.  The Missourians began to arrive
early in the morning, some 500 or 600 of them in wagons and carriages
and on horseback, and under the lead of Samuel J. Jones, then
postmaster of Westport, Missouri; Claiborne F. Jackson and a Mr.
Steeley, of Independence, Missouri.  They were armed with double-
barreled guns, rifles, bowie-knives and pistols, and had flags
hoisted.  They held a sort of informal election off at one side,
at first for governor of Kansas Territory, and shortly afterwards
announced Thomas Johnson, of Shawnee Mission, elected governor.
The polls had been opened but a short time when Mr. Jones marched
with the crowd up to the window and demanded that they be allowed
to vote, without swearing as to their residence.  After some noisy
and threatening talk, Claiborne F. Jackson addressed the crowd,
saying that they had come there to vote; that they had a right to
vote if they had been there but five minutes, and he was not willing
to go home without voting; this was received with cheers.  Jackson
then called upon them to form into little bands of fifteen or
twenty, which they did, and went to an ox-wagon filled with guns,
which were distributed among them, and proceeded to load some of
them on the ground.  In pursuance of Jackson's request, they tied
white tape or ribbons in their button holes, so as to distinguish
them from the "Abolitionists."  They again demanded that the judges
resign.  Upon their refusing to do so they smashed in the window,
sash and all, presented their pistols and guns, and at the same
time threatened to shoot.  Some one on the outside cried out not
to shoot, as there were pro-slavery men in the house with the
judges.  They then put a pry under the corner of the house, which
was built of logs, lifted it up a few inches, and let it fall again,
but desisted upon being again told that there were pro-slavery men
in the house.  During this time the crowd repeatedly demanded to
be allowed to vote without being sworn, and Mr. Ellison, one of
the judges, expressed himself willing, but the other two judges
refused; thereupon a body of men, headed by Sheriff Jones, rushed
into the judges' room with cocked pistols and drawn bowie-knives
in their hands, and approached Burson and Ramsay.  Jones pulled
out his watch and said he would given them five minutes to resign
in, or die.  When the five minutes had expired and the judges had
not resigned, Jones now said he would given them another minute
and no more.  Ellison told his associates that if they did not
resign there would be one hundred shots fired in the room in less
than fifteen minutes, and then snatching up the ballot-box ran out
into the crowd, holding up the ballot-box and hurrahing for Missouri.
About that time Burson and Ramsay were called out by their friends,
and not suffered to return.  As Mr. Burson went out he put the
ballot poll-books in his pocket and took them with him, and as he
was going out Jones snatched some papers away from him, and shortly
afterwards came out himself, holding them up, crying, "Hurrah for
Missouri!"  After he discovered they were not the poll-books he
took a party of men with him and captured the books from a Mr.
Umberger, to whom Burson had given them.  They then chose two new
judges and proceeded with the election.  They also threatened to
kill the judges if they did not receive their votes, or resign.
They said no man should vote who would submit to be sworn; that
they would kill any man who would offer to do so.  Some of the
citizens who were about the window, but had not voted when the
crowd of Missourians marched up, upon attempting to vote were driven
back by the mob, or driven off.  One of them, Mr. I. M. Mace, was
asked if he would take the oath, and upon his replying that he
would if the judges required it, he was dragged through the crowd
away from the polls, amid cries of "kill the damned nigger-thief,"
"cut his throat," "tear his heart out," etc.  After they got into
the outside of the crowd they stood around him with cocked revolvers
and drawn bowie-knives, one man putting a knife to his breast to
that it touched him, another holding a cocked pistol to his ear,
while another struck at him with a club.

The Missourians declared that they had a right to vote, if they
had been in the territory but five minutes.  Some said they had
been hired to come there and vote, and got a dollar a day, "and by
God they would vote or die there."  They said the 30th day of March
was an important day, as Kansas would be made a slave state on that
day.  They began to leave in the direction of Missouri in the
afternoon, after they had voted, leaving some thirty or forty around
the house where the election was held, to guard the polls till
after the election was over.  The citizens of the territory were
not armed, except those who took part in the mob, and a large
portion of them did not vote.  Three hundred and forty-one votes
were polled there that day, of which but some thirty were citizens.
A protest against the election was prepared and sent to the
governor.

A similarly organized and conducted election was held in each of
the other districts of the territory, varying only in degrees of
fraud and violence.  In the fifteenth district it was proven that
several hundred Missourians appeared and voted.  Several speeches
were made at the polls, and among those who spoke was Major Oliver,
one of our committee.  He urged all persons to use no harsh words
and expressed a hope that nothing would be said or done to wound
the feelings of the most sensitive on the other side, giving some
reasons, based on the Missouri Compromise, why they should vote,
but he himself did not vote.  The whole number of votes cast in
that district was 417.  The number of legal voters was about 80.
Of the names on the poll-book but 62 were on the census roll.  But
a small portion, estimated at one-fourth of the legal voters, voted.

The validity of the so called pro-slavery legislature rested upon
this election.  It is hardly necessary at this late day to say that
such a legislative body could not rightly assume or lawfully exercise
legislative functions over any law-abiding community.  Their
enactments were, by every principle of law and right, null and
void.  The existence of fraud at the election was admitted by every
one, but it was defended on the ground that the New England Emigrant
Aid Society had imported a great number of emigrants into Kansas
for the sole purpose of making that territory a free state.  This
claim was thoroughly investigated and the organization and history
of the society examined.  The only persons who emigrated into the
territory under the auspices of this company in 1855, prior to the
election in March, was a party of 169 persons who came under the
charge of Charles Robinson, and of whom sixty-seven were women and
children.  They came as actual settlers, intending to make their
homes in the territory, and for no other purpose.  Some of them
returned, but most of them became settlers.  A few voted at the
election in Lawrence but the number was small.  The names of these
emigrants were ascertained and thirty-seven of them were found upon
the poll-books.  This company of peaceful emigrants, moving with
their household goods, was distorted into an invading horde of
pauper Abolitionists, who were, with others of a similar character,
to control the domestic institutions of the territory, and then
overturn those of a neighboring state.

The invasion of March 30 left both parties in a state of excitement,
tending directly to produce violence.  The successful party was
lawless and reckless, while assuming the name of the "Law and Order"
party.  The Free State party, at first surprised and confounded,
was greatly irritated, but soon resolved to prevent the success of
the invasion.  In some districts, protests were sent to the governor;
in others such action was prevented by threats, in others by want
of time, and in others by the belief that a new election would
bring a new invasion.  About the same time, all classes of men
commenced carrying deadly weapons about their persons.  Under these
circumstances, a slight or accidental quarrel produced unusual
violence.  Lawless acts became frequent and passed unpunished.
This unhappy condition of the public mind was further increased by
acts of violence in western Missouri, where, in April, a newspaper,
called the "Parkville Luminary," was destroyed by a mob, and numerous
acts of violence and homicides committed.  Some innocent persons
were unlawfully arrested and others ordered to leave the territory.
The first one notified to leave was William Phillips, a lawyer of
Leavenworth, and upon his refusal the mob forcibly seized him, took
him across the river, carried him several miles into Missouri, and
then tarred and feathered him, shaving one side of his head and
committing other gross indignities upon his person.  Judge Lecompte,
chief justice of the territory, Colonel L. N. Burns, of Weston,
Missouri, and others, took part in and made speeches at a bitterly
partisan meeting, the tendency of which was to produce violence
and disorder.

After the most careful examination of the poll-books and the
testimony taken, we were convinced beyond all doubt that the election
of the 30th of March, 1855, was utterly void.  It was the result
of an organized invasion from the State of Missouri, a lawless
seizure of the conduct of the election, and the open voting by
thousands of persons who neither resided in nor pretended to be
residents of Kansas.  Not content with voting they made false
returns of votes never cast, and excluded legal voters because they
were "Abolitionists."

A more wanton and shameless overthrow of popular rights cannot be
found in history.

The so-called legislative assembly, thus elected, met at Pawnee,
on the 2nd of July, 1855.  It attempted to make laws for Kansas,
and to that end adopted, in substance, the laws of the State of
Missouri in gross as the laws for the territory, but, to retain
its power, it provided that every officer of the territory, executive
and judicial, was to be appointed by the legislature, or by some
officer appointed by it.

The legality of this legislature was denied by the great majority
of the people who never acquiesced in or obeyed its enactments,
thus taking the only course open to them to secure a lawful
government.

While the alleged legislative assembly was in session, a movement
was instituted to form a state government, and apply for admission
into the Union as a state.  The first step taken by the people of
the territory, in consequence of the invasion of March 30, 1855,
was the circulation, for signature, of a graphic and truthful
memorial to Congress.  Every allegation in this memorial was
sustained by the testimony.  No further step was taken, as it was
hoped that some action by the general government would protect them
in their rights.  When the alleged legislative assembly proceeded
to construct the series of enactments referred to, the settlers
were of the opinion that submission to them would result in entirely
depriving them of the rights secured to them by the organic law.

Their political condition was freely discussed in the territory
during the summer of 1855.  Several meetings were held in reference
to holding a convention to form a state government, and to apply
for admission into the Union as a state.  Public opinion gradually
settled in favor of such an application to the Congress to meet in
December, 1855.  The first general meeting was held at Lawrence,
on the 15th of August, 1855.  Other meetings were held in various
parts of the territory, which indorsed the action of the Lawrence
meeting, and delegates were selected in compliance with its
recommendation.  An election was called by a proclamation addressed
to the legal voters of Kansas, requesting them to meet at their
several precincts at the time and places named in the proclamation,
then and there to cast their ballots for members of a constitutional
convention, to meet at Topeka, on the fourth Tuesday of October.

Elections were held at the time and places designated, and the
returns were sent to the executive committee.

The result of the election was proclaimed by the executive committee,
and the members elect were required to meet on the 23rd of October,
1855, at Topeka.  In pursuance of this proclamation and direction
the constitutional convention met at the time and place appointed,
and framed a state constitution.  A memorial to Congress was also
prepared, praying the admission of Kansas into the Union as a state
under that constitution.  The convention also provided that the
question of the adoption of the constitution, and other questions,
be submitted to the people, and required the executive committee
to take the necessary steps for that purpose.

Accordingly, an election was held on the 15th day of December,
1855, in compliance with the proclamation issued by the executive
committee who then issued a proclamation reciting the results of
the election of the 15th of December, and at the same time provided
for an election, to be held on the 11th day of January, 1856, for
state officers and members of the general assembly of the State of
Kansas.  The election was accordingly held in several election
precincts, the returns of which were sent to the executive committee
who announced the result by a proclamation.

Thus, when we arrived in Kansas, two rival governments were in
existence, one the result of fraud and force, the other confessedly
incomplete, being without executive power or recognition.  Congress
alone could settle the controversy by recognizing one or the other.
Its action and its failure to act will be stated further on.

A brief narrative of incidents while the committee was in Kansas
may be of interest.

We arrived by steamer at a place called Westport Landing, near the
mouth of the Kansas River.  As I remember the place it was a mere
hamlet, composed of three dwellings, a store, a tavern, and a
blacksmith shop.  We passed over the high rolling prairie, where
but a few and scattered cabins then existed, but which is now the
site of Kansas City, a beautiful city of 90,000 inhabitants.  About
six miles from the landing we entered Westport, the headquarters
of the Santa Fé trade.  This important trade in 1854 was conducted
with "prairie schooners," wagons of great dimensions rudely but
strongly built, each hauled by four or six mules or Indian ponies,
and all driven by as rough a set of men of mixed color, tribe and
nativity as could be found anywhere in the world.  Their usual
dress was a broad brimmed felt hat, a flannel shirt, home-spun
trousers, without suspenders, and heavy cowhide boots outside of
their trousers, with a knife or pistols, or both, in their belts
or boots.  They were properly classed as border ruffians, and as
a rule were whisky soaked.

The contrast of this region between then and now is a marked evidence
of the wonderful change that has been made within a single generation.
I have several times visited Kansas City and its environs since
1856.  I have noted the change at each visit!  The rolling prairie
has been checkered with streets and avenues, and the squares and
suburbs are dotted all over with residences, stores and workshops.
The landing, once a single pier, now extends miles along the Missouri
River.  The border ruffians have disappeared with the Indians and
"greasers," and have been replaced by an active, intelligent and
prosperous community.

Mrs. Sherman and myself started in advance for Lawrence in an open
buggy drawn by one horse, and were told to follow the trail, and
this we had no difficulty in doing.  We passed through one or more
Indian reservations, over as beautiful a country as the sun shines
upon, but without house or habitation, except Indian huts.  We
arrived at Lawrence, a town less than two years old, and were
cordially received.  The people there were fearing a raid by the
"border ruffians," but this was fortunately postponed until our
departure for Leavenworth.

The committee proceeded immediately to take testimony.  Governor
Reeder acted in behalf of the Free State side, and General Whitfield
in behalf of the pro-slavery side, this being the conceded line of
demarcation between the opposing factions.  The town was in embryo,
nothing finished, and my wife and I were glad to have a cot in a
room in the unfinished and unoccupied "Free State Hotel," soon
after burned to the ground by Jones, the marshal of Kansas, or his
deputies.  There was no difficulty in obtaining witnesses or
testimony, but, as a rule, the witnesses on one side would only
testify in Lawrence, and those on the other in Lecompton or
Leavenworth.  They were like soldiers in hostile armies, careful
to keep outside of the enemy's camp.

Dr. Robinson, afterwards Governor Robinson, was then by far the
ablest and bravest leader of the Free State cause.  His history of
the Kansas conflict is the most interesting yet published.  When
the committee visited Lecompton to take testimony, it was a surprise
to us that he not only offered, but insisted upon going to that
place, the headquarters and capital of the pro-slavery party.  It
was then scarcely a hamlet, and its existence depended entirely
upon the success of that party.  Dr. Robinson and I rode together
into the place.  It was easy to see that he was not a welcome
visitor.  Everyone but the committee carried arms.  Several murders
and affrays had recently occurred, in regard to which we had taken
evidence.  Here we had access to the poll-books of the contested
elections, and met on friendly terms with the officers of the
territory, the chief of whom were Judge Lecompte, chief justice of
the territory, after whom the town had been named, and Jones, the
marshal of the United States.  Governor Shannon was, I think, also
there for a time.  The quarters for lodging were even more limited
here than in Lawrence.  I slept in a cot side by side with the one
occupied by Judge Lecompte, who, though a terror to the Free State
men, seemed to me to be a good humored gentleman, more violent in
his words than in his acts.  We had no unpleasant incident while
there, though such had been prophesied at Lawrence.

From Lecompton the committee went to Topeka, then quite a small
village, now a city of 33,000 inhabitants.  It was already ambitious
to become the Free State capital of Kansas, by reason of its central
position.  There was then no settlement of any importance west of
Topeka.  Some testimony was taken, but we soon returned to Lawrence,
and from thence went to Leavenworth.  A large part of the distance
between these places was an Indian reservation.  Mrs. Sherman and
I rode over it in a buggy, and found no white man's habitation on
the way.  Its great value and fertility was easily perceived, and
it is now well settled by an active and prosperous population of
white men.  On the road we met an Indian seated near his wigwam,
with a gun in his hand, and for a moment I feared he might use it.
He uttered some Indian gibberish, which we construed as an invitation
to enter his hut.  We tied our horse, entered, and found no one
there but an old squaw.  I gave the Indian some silver which he
greedily took, but indicated by his motions that he wanted a drink
of whisky, but this I was not able to give him.

Leavenworth was a new town near Fort Leavenworth, the then western
military post of the army of the United States.  We placed ourselves
in communication with Colonel Sumner, then in command, but we had
no occasion to summon his official aid, though authorized by the
resolutions under which we were acting to call for such assistance
from any military force which was at the time convenient to us.
However, our meetings there were more disturbed than at any other
place.  The trouble commenced at Lawrence shortly after our arrival
at Leavenworth.  A company of about 700 armed men, the great body
of whom were not citizens of the territory, were marched into the
town of Lawrence under Marshal Donaldson and Sheriff Jones, officers
claiming to act under the law, and they then bombarded and burned
to the ground a valuable hotel and one private house, and destroying
two printing presses and material.  The posse, being released by
the officers, proceeded to sack, pillage, and rob houses, stores,
trunks, even taking the clothing of women and children.  The people
of Leavenworth were much alarmed, as threats were made to clean
out the "Black Republican Committee" at Leavenworth.  No attempt
of that kind was made.  Later on, Dr. Robinson was arrested on a
steamboat on the way with his wife to St. Louis.  We had confided
to him a copy of the testimony taken, to be delivered to Mr. Banks,
speaker of the House.  We believe that a knowledge of that fact
caused the arrest, but, fortunately, Mrs. Robinson, who had the
testimony safely secured in her clothing, was allowed to proceed
to Washington.  Dr. Robinson was taken back to Leavenworth and
placed in prison, where I called upon him, but was rudely threatened,
and was only allowed to speak to him in the presence of the jailer.

We were frequently threatened through anonymous letters.  On one
occasion, upon going in the morning to the committee room, I found
tacked upon the door a notice to the "Black Republican Committee"
to leave Kansas "upon penalty of death."  I cut it from the door
and called upon a bystander to testify to the contents and the
place from which it was taken.

On one Sunday morning, while sitting in my lodging, a very rough
looking man entered, and I indicated to Mr. W. Blair Lord, our
stenographer, to take down what was said.  With many oaths and
imprecations he told us that he had been robbed by ruffians of his
horses and wagon a few miles from Leavenworth; that he had offered
to fight them, but they were cowards; that he was born in Richland
county, Ohio, near Mansfield, and he wanted me to help him get his
traps.  I knew his family as famous fighters.  I asked him if he
would swear to his story.  He said he would, and Mr. Lord read it
to him, oaths and all, from his stenographic notes.  He stared at
Lord and demanded "Where in hell did you get that?"  He was handed
the stenographic notes and, after looking at them, he exclaimed:
"Snakes, by God; but it is all true!"  Whether he got his outfit
and traps I never knew.

The evidence at Leavenworth being closed the committee returned to
Westport, Missouri.  While we were there we saw an armed and
organized body of residents of Missouri march across the line into
Kansas to retaliate, as we were told, the murder of five pro-slavery
men at Osawatamie.  While they were marching into Westport from
the east, Governor Shannon, in obedience to the summons of the
committee, came into Westport from the territory, and in his presence
they filed off in regular array into the territory.  It was difficult
to ascertain the precise causes of these murders, but it was shown
that they were in retaliation for those of certain Free State men,
one of whom was the son of John Brown, later the famous leader of
the attack on the fort at Harper's Ferry, and who had acted for
the committee in summoning witnesses to Lawrence.  The testimony
in respect to these murders was vague, and the murderers were not
identified.  Two years afterwards I met John Brown in Chicago, and
asked him about the murder of the pro-slavery men at Osawatamie;
he replied with spirit that they were not murdered, but that they
had been arrested, tried by a jury, convicted and executed.  The
arrest, trial and execution must have been done during one night.
He did not disclose the names of the executioners, but his cool
statement was a striking picture of the scenes then enacted in
Kansas by both sides; both appealed to the law of force and crime,
and crime was justified by crime.

The evidence taken at Westport closed the investigation and Mr.
Howard and I returned to Detroit, as already stated.

The report was approved by Mr. Howard, and presented by him to the
House of Representatives, July 1, 1856, as a question of privilege.
The reception of it gave rise to much debate, but in the end I was
permitted on the same day to read it.  The minority report of Mr.
Oliver was presented July 11 of that year.  No action was taken on
the reports, but they were widely published.

On July 31, 1856, I made a speech on the Kansas contested election
between General Whitfield and Governor Reeder, during which I was
drawn into a discussion with Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia,
and Mr. Oliver, of Missouri, in which the general questions involved
in the Kansas controversy were fully debated.  I closed with this
language:

"The worst evil that could befall our country is civil war, but
the outrages in Kansas cannot be continued much longer without
producing it.  To our southern brethren I especially appeal.  In
the name of southern rights, crimes have been committed, and are
being committed, which I know you cannot and do not approve.  These
have excited a feeling in the northern states that is deepening
and strengthening daily.  It may produce acts of retaliation.  You
are in a minority and, from the nature of your institutions, your
relative power is yearly decreasing.  In excusing this invasion
from Missouri--in attempting to hold on to an advantage obtained
by force and fraud--you are setting an example which, in its
ultimate consequences, may trample your rights under foot.  Until
these wrongs are righted, you must expect northern men to unite to
redress them.  It may not be this year, but, as sure as there is
a God in heaven, such a union will be effected; and you will gain
nothing by sustaining northern agitators in violating the compromise
of your fathers."

On July 28, 1856, I offered, as an amendment to the army appropriation
bill, the following proviso:

"_Provided, nevertheless_, That no part of a military force of the
United States herein provided for, shall be employed in aid of the
enforcement of the enactments of the alleged legislative assembly
of the Territory of Kansas, recently assembled at Shawnee Mission,
until Congress shall have enacted either that it was or was not a
valid legislative assembly, chosen in conformity with the organic
law, by the people of said territory.  And _Provided_, That until
Congress shall have passed on the validity of the said legislative
assembly of Kansas, it shall be the duty of the President to use
the military force in said territory to preserve the peace, suppress
insurrection, repel invasion, and protect persons and property
therein, and upon the national highways in the State of Missouri,
from unlawful seizures and searches.  And _be it further provided_,
That the President is required to disarm the present organized
militia of the Territory of Kansas and recall all the United States
arms therein distributed, and to prevent armed men from going into
said territory to disturb the public peace, or aid in the enforcement
or resistance of real or pretended laws."

After long debate, this was agreed to by a vote of 80 yeas to 47
nays.  The deliberate purpose of a majority of the House was to
prevent any further support of the Lecompton territorial legislature.
This amendment, however, was disagreed to by the Senate and referred
to a committee of conference.  On the 18th of August, the last day
of the session, the disagreement continued and the conference report
was taken up for action.  A motion was made that the House insist
upon its amendments and agree to another committee of conference.
This was defeated, but no definite action was taken, as a majority
of the House was opposed to a further conference, and so the army
bill failed.

On the same day the President, by proclamation, convened the two
Houses in extra session to meet on the 21st day of August, three
days later.  The President, in his message, urged Congress to recede
from the Kansas proviso in the army bill.  The Republicans of the
House were determined to insist upon that proviso, and, by repeated
votes, refused to withdraw it or to reconsider it, but, after a
session of nine days, the House finally yielded, but only after
the Senate had agreed to an amendment, which contained the substance
of the proviso offered by me, as follows;

"_Provided_, That no part of the military force of the United
States, for the support of which appropriations are made by this
act, shall be employed in aid of the enforcement of any enactment
heretofore passed by the bodies claiming to be the territorial
legislature of Kansas."

This amendment was agreed to and thus, in the final struggle, while
no effective measures to relieve the people of Kansas from the
tyranny imposed upon them were adopted, the declaration was made
that the military force of the United States should not be used to
aid in the enforcement of any enactment theretofore passed by bodies
claiming to be the territorial legislature of Kansas.

Thus it appears that during this long and wearisome session (for
in fact the two were but one), I was almost exclusively occupied
in a futile effort to restore the prohibition of slavery in Kansas,
according to the Missouri Compromise, but the struggle made was
fruitful in good.  It strengthened the Free State sentiment in
Kansas, it aroused public sentiment in the north, and drove the
south to adopt new and strange theories which led to divisions in
the Democratic party and its disruption and overthrow in 1860.
The compromise made was understood to be the work of Mr. Seward,
and, though not satisfactory to the Republicans of the House, it
was at least a drawn battle, and, like Bunker Hill to Yorktown,
was the prelude to the Revolution that ended at Appomattox.

Among the many who attained distinction in the 34th Congress I can
only refer to a few, the chief of whom was Nathaniel P. Banks, who,
after a long struggle, was elected speaker.  He was born in Waltham,
Massachusetts, January 30, 1816.  He had risen into prominence
without any aid or advantage of early education or training.  He
was the son of an overseer in a cotton factory at Waltham, where
he was for a time employed.  He improved his leisure hours by the
study of history, political economy and the science of government.
He learned the trade of a machinist.  He early acquired the habit
of speaking well on various subjects, and was elected as a Democratic
member of the legislature from his native town.  In 1852 he was
elected to Congress, running upon the ticket with General Pierce,
the Democratic candidate for President.  He took a decided stand
against the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.  He was a man of
striking presence, with a fine voice and engaging manners.  He
filled the difficult position of speaker with great credit, and is
still remembered by his associates as perhaps the best fitted for
the special duties of speaker of the House of any Member since the
time of Henry Clay.  He was afterward elected Governor of Massachusetts
and continued in that position for several years.  When the war
broke out he was appointed major-general of volunteers, but his
service in the army was not marked.  After the war was over he was
re-elected to Congress, but seemed to have lost his power and
influence.  In later years his memory was impaired and he "lagged
superfluous on the stage."  He died September 1, 1894.

Lewis D. Campbell, of Ohio, was elected to Congress in 1848 as a
Whig, and re-elected to each successive Congress down to 1856, when
his seat was contested and the House of Representatives decided
against him.  He and Banks were the leading candidates for the
speakership of the 34th Congress, but the majority of the anti-
Nebraska Members voted for Banks, and upon his election Campbell
was made chairman of the committee of ways and means, and had
substantial control of the business of that Congress.  He never
was in hearty sympathy with the Republican party.  He was subsequently
elected to the 42nd Congress in 1870 as a Democrat, but had lost,
in a great measure, his influence.  He served for a time as colonel
of a regiment in the war.  He was a man of marked ability but was
too erratic to be a successful leader in any cause or party.

In 1850, at the early age of twenty-seven, Galusha A. Grow was
elected a Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania.  He was an
active and very useful Member.  He took strong ground against the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and in 1859 was a competitor
with me for the position of speaker, but withdrew in my favor after
the first ballot.  In the following Congress he was chosen speaker
and rendered very valuable service as such.  After a continuous
service in Congress for fourteen years, he retired from active
political life and engaged in important business enterprises, but
always took an interest in political affairs.  He was elected by
an overwhelming majority as a Member of the 53rd Congress at large
from his state.

Schuyler Colfax was a conspicuous Member of Congress from 1855
until he was nominated for the office of Vice President, in 1868,
on the ticket with General Grant.  During this long period he
represented one district, and served for six years as speaker.  He
was a very industrious, active Member.  As we were of about the
same age, and our lives ran in parallel lines, we were often thrown
together.  We and our families in Washington messed together in a
household for several years, and our intercourse was always friendly
and intimate.  When he became Vice President he remarked to me that
I was first to enter the Senate, but he was first to become Vice
President.  After his service as Vice President, he retired from
public life and delivered lectures upon many topics.

Many other Members of Congress, equally worthy of note, have passed
away from the scenes of life, and some few survive.  I would gladly
recall their memory if my space would allow.


CHAPTER VI.
BIRTH OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
The Name Formally Adopted at Jackson, Michigan, in 1854--Nomination
of John C. Fremont at Philadelphia--Democratic Convention Nominates
James Buchanan--Effect of the Latter's Election on the North--My
Views Concerning President Pierce and His Administration--French
Spoilation Claims--First Year of Buchanan's Administration--Dred
Scott Case Decision by Supreme Court--The Slavery Question Once
More an Issue in Congress--Douglas' Opposition to the Lecompton
Scheme--Turning Point of the Slavery Controversy.

During the first session of the 34th Congress, the opponents of
slavery were without a party name or organization.  They agreed
only in the one demand, that slavery should not be established in
Kansas.  On other questions they voted on old party lines.  The
Members elected in 1854 in the northern states were Democrats,
Whigs or Free Soilers.  Many of the Democrats still supported the
administration of President Pierce, and acquiesced in the doctrine
of popular sovereignty in the territories.  A few of the Whigs, of
conservative leanings, acted with the Americans, or "Know-Nothings,"
of the south.  A strong popular movement was initiated in some of
the western states as early as 1854 in favor of a new party.  This
was especially the case in Wisconsin and Michigan.  On the 6th of
July, 1854, a popular convention was held at Jackson, Michigan,
composed of hundreds of men of all parties, who denounced slavery
as a great moral, social and political evil, and resolved that,
postponing and suspending all differences with regard to political
economy or administrative policy, they would act cordially and
faithfully in unison to oppose the extension of slavery, and be
known as Republicans until the contest was terminated.  This name
was assumed in other states of the north.

The state convention held in Ohio on July 13, 1855, formally declared
itself a convention of the Republican party.  The long struggle in
Kansas, the elections in 1855, and the contest for the speakership
of the House, added strength to this movement, and the name
"Republican" was formally given to the new party by the national
convention held at Philadelphia, June 17, 1856, as the best expression
of its views and principles.

It appeared for the time that the new party would carry the country
in a blaze of enthusiasm.  And, looking over the past, I am clearly
of the opinion that this would have been the result but for the
faulty nomination of Colonel John C. Fremont as the Republican
candidate for President, and the sagacious nomination of James
Buchanan as the Democratic candidate.  The Republican party, still
composed of uncertain elements, sought only for a candidate that
was available.  Seward or Chase was the natural candidate.  They
were fully identified with the principles and purposes of their
party.  They were men of marked ability, strong in their respective
states, each elected governor of his state and sure of its support,
but Chase was opposed on account of his advanced opinions on the
slavery question, and Seward was actively opposed by the so-called
American party, for his open hostility to its principles and policy.
All these sought for a new man, and public opinion gradually, but
strongly, turned to John C. Fremont.  He had no experience in public
life, but he attracted attention by his bold explorations in the
west and, especially, by his marching to California, and occupation
of this Mexican territory.  A strong effort was made to secure the
nomination of Justice McLean of the United States Supreme Court.
He had been long in public life, had been a cabinet officer in two
administrations, had been appointed to the supreme bench by Jackson,
had held this position for twenty-six years, and was a man of
spotless integrity.  His nomination was strongly urged by conservative
Republicans in all the northern states, and by the delegates from
Pennsylvania, especially by Thaddeus Stevens, who asserted that the
nomination of Fremont would not only lose the State of Pennsylvania,
to the Republicans, but that the party would be defeated at the
presidential election.  But the current of opinion in the west, in
New England and New York, was too strong in favor of Fremont, and
he was nominated.

The Democratic national convention met at Cincinnati, June 2, 1856,
for the nomination of candidates for President and Vice President.
Popular feeling was then strongly aroused against that party by
the assault of Brooks on Sumner, the removal of Reeder, the
appointment of Shannon, the crimes in Kansas, and the recent sacking
of Lawrence.  A large proportion of northern Democrats, who still
adhered to their party, were restless under the violence of their
southern associates.  It was this feeling, no doubt recognized by
both northern and southern Democrats, that prevented the nomination
of either Pierce or Douglas.  Buchanan was regarded as a conservative
man of great experience, who, being absent from the country during
the entire period of the Kansas contest, would, it was believed,
and as his supporters affirmed, pursue a quieting policy that would
arrest and prevent further outrages and would secure fair elections
in that territory.  He was popular in Pennsylvania, had served for
many years in each House of Congress, had creditably represented
the United States as minister to Russia and Great Britain, had been
Secretary of State and the head of the cabinet of President Polk.
He was unanimously supported by the delegation from Pennsylvania,
then a doubtful state, and, after many ballots and the defeat of
Pierce, was nominated with the acquiescence of Douglas.  This
nomination greatly strengthened the Democratic party.  It held in
that party the protection Democrats, and a large proportion of
those who in 1854 voted for anti-Nebraska Members of Congress.
The appointment of Colonel Geary of Pennsylvania as Governor of
Kansas, in the place of Governor Shannon, and his firm and impartial
administration, greatly aided the Democratic party.  It was regarded
as evidence of a change of policy in Kansas, made at the request
of Mr. Buchanan.

The American party met at the city of Philadelphia soon after the
election of Banks as speaker, and nominated Millard Fillmore for
President and Donelson for Vice President.  This movement did not
at first excite much attention, as it was known in the north it
would draw equally from the two great parties, and in the south
could only affect injuriously the Democratic party.  Its platform
of principles was condemned by both the Republican and Democratic
conventions.

Mr. Fillmore took strong ground against what he called a sectional
ticket presenting both candidates from the free states, with the
avowed purpose of one part of the Union ruling over the whole United
States.

The nomination of Fremont, however, greatly strengthened the movement
in favor of Fillmore.  There was a large element of the old Whig
party in the north, which, though friendly to Republican principles
and willing to support Seward or McLean, yet would not vote for
Fremont, who had none of the qualities that commanded their respect.
Such men as Ewing, Everett, Winthrop and Hilliard, conspicuous
leaders and eminent statesmen, announced their purpose to vote for
Fillmore.  Mr. Choate, the eminent lawyer and statesman of
Massachusetts, declared his purpose to vote for Buchanan, upon the
plausible ground that, as the choice was between Buchanan and
Fremont, he was compelled, by a sense of duty, to vote for Buchanan.

At the same time leading Democrats in the south declared that if
Fremont was elected the Union could not and ought not to be preserved.
The Whigs of the south, with scarce an exception, were committed
to the support of Fillmore and Donelson, and joined in an outcry
of danger to the Union.

As the canvass progressed this feeling increased, and before its
close it became apparent that some of the older and more populous
Republican states would be lost by the Republican party.  I shared
in this feeling of distrust of Fremont, but gave him my support.

I was nominated without any opposition for re-election to Congress
by a convention held at Shelby on the 12th day of August, 1856,
and was elected in October by a majority of 2,861.

I took an active part in the canvass, after the adjournment of
Congress, mainly in southern Ohio, where it was apparent that the
nomination of Buchanan was popular.  In Pennsylvania, especially
in Philadelphia, the cry was for "Buck, Breck and free Kansas."
John G. Forney, the chairman of the Democratic state committee,
promised that if Buchanan was elected there would be no interference
with the efforts of the people of Kansas to make that territory a
free state.  The result of the canvass was that Buchanan carried
the states of Pennsylvnia, New Jersey, Indiana, Illinois and
California at the November election and was elected.

In reviewing the past it is apparent that the election of Buchanan
was necessary to convince the people of the north that no successful
opposition to the extension of slavery could be made except by a
party distinctly pledged to that policy.  Mr. Buchanan encountered
difficulties which no human wisdom could overcome.  Whatever may
have been his desire he was compelled, by the prevailing sentiment
in his party, to adopt measures that made a conflict between the
sections inevitable.  The election of Fremont would probably have
precipitated this conflict before the north was ripe for it.  His
conduct during the early period of the war proves that he would
have been unequal to such an emergency.  His defeat was the
postponement of the irrepressible conflict until it became apparent
to all that our country must be all free or all slave territory.
This was the lesson taught by the administration of Buchanan, and
Lincoln was best fitted to carry it into execution.

Pierce was still President, but after his defeat for the nomination
he changed his policy materially.  Events were allowed to develop
in Kansas with a growing tendency in favor of the Free State party.
Judge Lecompte was removed from an office the duties of which he
was totally unfit to perform.  A large number of emigrants from
many of the northern states were preparing to move in the spring
to Kansas.  Governor Geary of that territory, who had taken a
decided stand in favor of equal and exact justice to all men, was
met by opposition from the pro-slavery faction.  His life was
threatened and strong demands were made for his removal.  He became
satisfied that he would not be sustained by the administration,
and on the 4th of March, 1857, resigned his position.

Immediately upon the assembling of Congress in December, 1856, and
before the usual message had been sent to the President, notifying
him that the House of Representatives was prepared to enter upon
the duties of the session, a contest sprang up over the question
of administering the oath of office to Mr. Whitfield as a delegate
from the Territory of Kansas, and a struggle resulted which continued
until the 9th of December, when the oath of office was administered
to him and he took his seat.

President Pierce sent to the House of Representatives, December 2,
1856, his last message.  He commenced it with a careful review of
the Kansas question and this led to a debate which continued during
the entire session.  On the 8th of December I undertook to answer
as much of the message as related to the slavery question.  He had,
in the message, defended the repeal of the restriction of slavery
contained in the Missouri Compromise, asserting that this compromise
was unconstitutional and abortive, but I showed that it had been
recognized as in full force by every administration since and
including that of Monroe, that it did not extend to the territory
acquired from Mexico, and that it was consistent with the compromise
acts of 1850.  He asserted that the purpose was not only to exclude
slavery from Kansas, but also from places where it then existed.
I showed this to be inaccurate by the express denial of such purpose
in every platform of the Republican party.  I then declared that
"If I had my voice, I would not have one single political Abolitionist
in the northern states.  I am opposed to any interference by the
northern people with slavery in the slave states; I act with the
Republican party, with hundreds of thousands of others, simply
because the Republican party resists the extension, but does not
seek the abolition, of slavery."

My speech, as reported, expresses, as I believe, the limit and
extent of the aims of the Republican party at that time.  The only
regret I feel is that the tone and temper of my remarks were not
such as should be addressed to the President of the United States
by a Member of Congress.

What I say of myself can be truthfully said of many other Members.
The feeling against the President was embittered by the firm stand
taken by him in support of a policy which we regarded as unpatriotic,
and dangerous in the highest degree to the public peace and the
national Union.  In his last message he defended or excused the
lawless efforts made by residents of Missouri to establish slavery
in Kansas.  He made no effort to prevent the invasion of Kansas or
the crimes committed against its citizens.  He appointed many
governors for this territory, and in every instance where they
sought to protect the rights of its people, he either removed them
or denied them his support.  This was the case with Reeder and
Shannon.  Even Governor Geary, whom he praised in his message, and
whom Buchanan had lauded during the canvass, was abandoned by both,
and compelled to resign because he sought to protect all citizens
alike.

President Pierce was properly, according to usage, a candidate for
re-election when the convention met to nominate his successor, but
he was defeated by Buchanan.  Mr. Douglas, the chief instrument in
the passage of the Nebraska bill, met a like fate.  Buchanan was
saved only by the popular cry of "Buchanan, Breckenridge and Free
Kansas," and the confident belief, founded upon his declaration,
that his election would secure freedom to Kansas.

The political excitement existing during the whole of President
Pierce's term entered into social life in Washington.  The President
was not brought into contact with those who differed with him in
opinion.  His family afflictions were, no doubt, the partial cause
of this.  The sincere friendship that often exists between political
adversaries in public life were not possible during this period.
Social lines were drawn on sectional lines, and in the north party
lines became hostile lines.  Such causes, no doubt, led to unjust
criticism of the President, and, in turn, caused him to regard his
political adversaries as enemies to their country and disturbers
of the public peace.  I scarcely remember seeing him during this
Congress, and was strongly prejudiced against him.  A more careful
study of the motives and conduct of public men during this period
has changed my opinion of many of them, and, especially, of President
Pierce.  That he was a genial, social and agreeable companion is
affirmed by all who were familiar with him.  That his opinions were
honestly entertained, and firmly supported, is shown by his adherence
to them without change or shadow of turning.  In this respect he
compares favorable with many leading men of his party, who stifled
their opinions to meet the currents of the day.  He had been a
general of distinction in the Mexican War and a Member of both the
Senate and House of Representatives.  He was a leading lawyer in
his state.  His messages to Congress, considered in a literary
view, were able state papers, clearly and strongly expressed.  It
was his great misfortune to have to deal with a controversy that
he did not commence, but he did not shrink from the responsibility.
He believed in the policy of non-intervention in the territories,
and so did not prevent the "border ruffians" of Missouri crossing
the line and voting at every election in Kansas, setting up a bogus
legislature, adopting the laws of Missouri as the laws of Kansas,
and establishing negro slavery in that territory.  Fortunately a
more numerous, courageous and intelligent population reversed all
this, and led, not only to the exclusion of slavery in Kansas, but
also to its abolition in the United States.

With the kindly biography of President Pierce, written by his
friend, Nathaniel Hawthorne, before me, I can appreciate his ability,
integrity and agreeable social qualities, and only regret that he
was President of the United States at a time when the sagacity of
a Jefferson, the determined courage of a Jackson, or the shrewdness
and wisdom of a Lincoln, were needed to meet the difficulties and
dangers which he had to encounter.

There is but one more personal incident of the 34th Congress I care
to mention.  Mr. Banks designated me as a member of the committee
on foreign affairs.  Mr. Alexander C. M. Pennington, as chairman
of that committee, handed me the voluminous papers in reference to
the French Spoilation Claims.  They covered an interesting period
of American history, embracing all that between 1793 and 1801, in
which were involved important negotiations both in England and
France, and outrages committed upon our, then, infant government
by the government of France and Great Britain.  I had all the
feeling of natural indignation against those great powers who sought
to draw the United States into their controversies, and practice
upon us enormities and outrages that we would not submit to for a
moment in our day.  Yet, after a full and careful examination of
all the papers in the case, I became thoroughly satisfied that
these claimants, whatever might be said as to their claims against
the French government, had absolutely no foundation for a claim
against the United States.

I wrote an adverse report, but it was suppressed in the committee.
Bills for the payment of these claims were presented from time to
time.  In 1870 Senator Sumner reported favorably to the Senate a
bill for the purpose from the committee on foreign relations.  It
was opposed by Senator Thurman and myself and again laid aside.
On the 14th of December, 1882, the bill was again pressed, the
debate which ensued clearly showing that the United States pressed
these claims against France to the verge of war.

The whole case is this:  Certain depredations were committed by
the French government and by the citizens of France, upon the
citizens of the United States, previous to the beginning of the
present century.  The government of the United States did all it
could to secure payment and compensation to its citizens for these
depredations.  The French government denied the validity of the
claims, holding, on the other hand, that the government of the
United States had violated the treaties made with it under
circumstances of sacred obligation, that its citizens therefore
were justified in doing what they had done in seizing upon American
vessels, and taking from them goods called contraband of war, and
in committing these depredations.  It uniformly justified and
maintained the action of its cruisers in doing these things.  In
other words, our claims were repudiated by France, their payment
being refused, and, as we could not force their payment, we simply
abandoned them.  Recently they have been referred to the court of
claims, without regard to the lapse of time, and large sums of
money are now being paid by the United States for the depredations
committed by the French nearly one hundred years ago, to descendants,
three generations removed, of merchants and ship owners, who, with
all their losses, enjoyed the most profitable commerce in the
history of our mercantile marine.  Their payment is, perhaps, the
most striking evidence of the improvidence of Congress in dealing
with antiquated claims against the government.

The first year of Buchanan's administration, 1857, will always be
noted as one of great political excitement, of sudden changes and
unexpected results.  At its beginning the Democratic party was in
complete possession of all branches of the government.  The House
of Representatives, elected in the fall of 1856, had a strong
Democratic majority.  The Senate was composed of 37 Democrats, 20
Republicans and 4 Americans.  The Supreme Court was composed of 5
Democrats from the slave states, and 2 Democrats and 2 Whigs from
the free states.  The cabinet of Buchanan had four members from
the southern states and three from the northern.  The south had
full control of all departments of the government, with the President
in hearty sympathy with the policy of that section.  The condition
of Kansas alone caused it trouble.  The firm and impartial course
of Governor Geary had imparted confidence and strength to the Free
State citizens of that territory, who were now in an unquestioned
majority through the large emigration from the north during the
spring of 1857.  The doctrine of popular sovereignty could not,
therefore, be relied upon to establish slavery in Kansas, and it
was abandoned.  New theories had to be improvised and new agencies
called into action.

I was present when the oath of office was administered to Mr.
Buchanan, on the 4th of March, 1857.  With my strong sympathy for
the Free State people of Kansas, I hoped and believed that he would
give some assurance that the pledges made for him in the canvass
would be carried out, but the statement in his inaugural address,
that the difference of opinion in respect to the power of the people
of a territory to decide the question of slavery for themselves
would be speedily and finally settled, as a judicial question, by
the Supreme Court of the United States, in a case then pending
before it, naturally, excited suspicion and distrust.  It was
regarded as a change of position, a new device in the interest of
slavery.  In two days after the inauguration, Chief Justice Taney
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case,
as to the status of negroes in the United States.  He said:

"They had, for more than a century before, been regarded as beings
of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the
white race, either in social or political relations; and so far
inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to
respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced
to slavery for his benefit."

He said negroes "were not intended to be included in the word
'citizens' in the constitution, and therefore could claim none of
the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and
secures to the citizens of the United States;" and announced as
the opinion of the court that the Missouri Compromise act was not
warranted by the constitution and was therefore void.

These declarations were in no sense necessary to the decision of
the case before the court, as it was held that Dred Scott was a
resident of Missouri and subject as a slave to the laws of that
state.

Justices McLean and Curtis dissented from the decision of the court,
and in elaborate opinions refuted, as I think, every position of
the Chief Justice.

Thus the Kansas question became a political question in the Supreme
Court.  At once the south rejected the doctrine of popular sovereignty,
and demanded, as a constitutional right, that slaves moved into a
territory must be protected like other property, whether the people
of the territory wish it or not.  This was the first time in our
history when this great tribunal entered into the political arena.
Its action encouraged the south, but produced a strong feeling of
resentment in the north, and widened the breach between the two
great sections of the country.

Mr. Buchanan, early in his administration, found it necessary to
appoint a Governor of Kansas.  He selected Robert J. Walker, of
Mississippi, who had held high positions in the national government,
having been Secretary of the Treasury and Senator of the United
States.  He appointed Fred. P. Stanton, of Tennessee, as secretary
of the territory.  Mr. Stanton had long been a Member of high
standing of the House of Representatives.  Both were southern men
and both wished to see Kansas a slave state, but both were honorable
men who would not seek to gain their ends by dishonest means.
After a careful estimate, made by them, it was believed that there
were, in the territory, 9,000 Free State Democrats, 8,000 Republicans,
6,000 pro-slavery Democrats, and 500 pro-slavery Americans.  A
strong effort was made by Governor Walker to induce these elements
to join in a movement for a convention to frame a constitution,
with a view to admit Kansas as a state in the Union.  The Free
State men, while anxious for such a result, were not willing to
trust their adversaries with the conduct of such an election,
without some safeguards against the repetition of the frauds and
violence of the previous elections.  The result was that only 2,200
persons took part in choosing delegates to what became the notorious
Lecompton convention.

Both before and after this so-called election Governor Walker
promised that the constitution, when adopted, should be submitted
to a vote of the people, and he added his assurance that the
President of the United States would insist upon this condition.
On the 12th of July Mr. Buchanan wrote to Governor Walker:

"On the question of submitting the constitution to the _bona fide_
resident settlers of Kansas, I am willing to stand or fall.  In
sustaining such a principle we cannot fail.  It is the principle
of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the principle of popular sovereignty,
and the principle at the foundation of all popular government.
The more it is discussed, the stronger it will become.  Should the
convention of Kansas adopt this principle, all will be settled
harmoniously."

This promise was soon after violated, and the President declared
in an open letter:

"At the time of the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act slavery
existed, and still exists, in Kansas, under the constitution of
the United States.  This point has at last been finally decided by
the highest tribunal known to our laws.  How it could ever have
been seriously doubted is a mystery."

It was known that the delegates elected would adopt a pro-slavery
constitution and ask for admission to the Union.  It was equally
well known that no such constitution would be adopted by the people
of Kansas.  Under these circumstances the President, pressed by
his cabinet, yielded to the demands of the south, violated his
pledges, and supported the convention in the extreme measures
adopted by it.

In the meantime the Free State party in Kansas, composed of nearly
equal proportions of Republicans and Democrats, was persuaded by
Governor Walker to take part in the regular election for the
territorial legislature.  The result was, the Free State party
elected nine of the thirteen councilmen, and twenty-four of the
thirty-nine representatives.  This should have settled the Kansas
controversy, and it would have done so on the principle of popular
sovereignty, but a broader constituency in the south demanded that
the doctrine of the Dred Scott case should be applied to and
enforced, not only in Kansas, but in all the states.  Henceforth
the Lecompton constitution must be considered, not as a local
question, but as a national one.  The imperative issue, as pithily
stated by Lincoln, was, all slave or all free states.  The battle
was to commence in Kansas, but was to become national in its scope.

The constitutional convention met on the 19th of October, 1857,
within two weeks after the election of the legislature, but in its
action little interest was taken, a quorum being preserved with
difficulty.  It adopted a pro-slavery constitution, which, it was
well known, if submitted to the people, would be rejected by an
overwhelming majority, and if not submitted would be resisted, if
necessary, by open force.  The President, Governor Walker, and all
parties, had promised that the constitution, when framed, would be
submitted to a popular vote.  How not to do it, and yet appear to
do it, was a problem worthy of a gang of swindlers, and yet the
feeling was so strong in administration circles, that the plan
devised as below given was cordially approved by the cabinet and
acquiesced in by the President.

The constitution adopted by the convention provided:  "The right
of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction,
and the right of the owner of a slave to such slave and its increase
is the same and as inviolable as the right of the owner of any
property whatever."  Another provision of the constitution was that
it could not be amended until after the year 1864, and even then
no alteration should "be made to affect the rights of property in
the ownership of slaves."

The election was to be held on December 21, 1857.  The people might
vote for the "constitution with slavery" or the "constitution with
no slavery."  In either event, by the express terms of the
constitution, slavery was established for a time in Kansas and the
doctrine of the Dred Scott case was to be embodied in our laws.
No opportunity was offered to the people to vote against the
constitution.

It is difficult to characterize in proper terms the infamy of these
proceedings.  The Free State party would take no part in the proposed
election on December 21, and it resulted, for the constitution with
slavery, 6,226 votes, of which 2,720 were proven to be fraudulent;
for the constitution without slavery, 589.  Governor Walker promptly
denounced the outrage.  He said:  "I consider such a submission of
the question a vile fraud, a base counterfeit, and a wretched device
to prevent the people voting even on the slavery question."  "I
will not support it," he continued, "but I will denounce it, no
matter whether the administration sustains it or not."

Mr. Buchanan supported the scheme after the constitution had been
adopted by the convention.  The elections in the fall preceding
were favorable to the Democrats, and Mr. Buchanan was naturally
encouraged to hope that his party had regained popular ascendancy,
but the Lecompton juggle created a profound impression in the north,
and divided the Democratic party to a greater extent than did the
Kansas-Nebraska bill, especially in the northwest and in Ohio,
where the feeling of resentment was almost universal.  Mr. Douglas,
the great leader for the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, took
immediate ground against the pro-slavery plan, and protested to
the President against it.  An open breach occurred between them.

When Congress assembled, the Lecompton scheme became the supreme
subject for debate.  Mr. Douglas assumed at once the leadership of
the opposition to that measure.  He said:  "Up to the time of
meeting of the convention, in October last, the pretense was kept
up, the profession was openly made, and believed by me, and I
thought believed by them, that the convention intended to submit
a constitution to the people, and not to attempt to put a government
into operation without such a submission."  But instead of that,
"All men must vote for the constitution, whether they like it or
not, in order to be permitted to vote for or against slavery."
Again he said:  "I have asked a very large number of the gentlemen
who framed the constitution, quite a number of delegates, and still
a larger number of persons who are their friends, and I have received
the same answer from every one of them. . . . They say if they
allowed a negative vote the constitution would have been voted down
by an overwhelming majority, and hence the fellows should not be
allowed to vote at all."  He denounced it as "a trick, a fraud upon
the rights of the people."

Governor Walker declared:  "I state it as a fact, based on a long
and intimate association with the people of Kansas, that an
overwhelming majority of that people are opposed" to the Lecompton
constitution, "and my letters state that but one out of twenty of
the press of Kansas sustains it. . . . Any attempt by Congress to
force this constitution upon the people of Kansas will be an effort
to substitute the will of a small minority for that of an overwhelming
majority of the people."

On the 28th of January, 1858, during the debate on the Lecompton
constitution, I made an elaborate speech, entering fully into the
history of that constitution and the events that preceded it, and
closed as follows:

"In conclusion, allow me to impress the south with two important
warnings she has received in her struggle for Kansas.  One is, that
though her able and disciplined leaders on this floor, aided by
executive patronage, may give her the power to overthrow legislative
compacts, yet, while the sturdy integrity of the northern masses
stands in her way, she can gain no practical advantage by her well-
laid schemes.  The other is, that while she may indulge with impunity
the spirit of filibusterism, or lawless and violent adventure, upon
a feeble and distracted people in Mexico and Central American, she
must not come in contact with that cool, determined courage and
resolution which forms the striking characteristic of the Anglo-
Saxon race.  In such a contest, her hasty and impetuous violence
may succeed for a time, but the victory will be short-lived and
transient, and leave nothing but bitterness behind.  Let us not
war with each other; but with the grasp of fellowship and friendship,
regarding to the full each other's rights, and kind to each other's
faults, let us go hand in hand in securing to every portion of our
people their constitutional rights."

I may as well here briefly follow the progress and end of the Kansas
controversy.  Mr. Stanton, the acting governor in the absence of
Governor Walker, convened an extra session of the territorial
legislature, in which the Free State men had a majority.  The
legislature provided for an election to be held January 4, 1858,
at which a fair vote might be taken on the constitution.  At this
election the vote stood:  For the constitution with slavery, 138;
for the constitution without slavery, 24; against the constitution,
10,226.

Notwithstanding this decisive evidence of the opposition to the
Lecompton constitution by the people of Kansas, Mr. Buchanan sent
a copy of it to Congress, and, recommending the admission of Kansas
under that organic act, said:

"It has been solemnly adjudged, by the highest judicial tribunal
known to our laws, that slavery exists in Kansas by virtue of the
constitution of the United States.  Kansas is therefore at this
moment as much a slave state as Georgia or South Carolina."

During the controversy Gen. Denver, a conservative Democrat, a
native of Virginia, long a resident of Ohio and a representative
from California in the 34th Congress, was appointed Governor of
Kansas.  His predecessors, four of his own party, Reeder, Shannon,
Walker and Stanton, had been either removed or compelled to resign,
every one refusing to execute the extreme pro-slavery policy of
the President.  His efforts to secure justice to the citizens of
Kansas would in all probability have led to his removal, but the
march of events withdrew the question involved from the people of
Kansas to the halls of Congress.  The policy of the administration
was driving a wedge into the Democratic party.  The bill for the
admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution passed the
Senate by a vote of 33 yeas to 25 nays, four northern Democrats
and two southern Americans voting with the Republicans against it.

In the House of Representatives, composed of 128 Democrats, 92
Republicans and 14 Americans, the bill was defeated by the adoption
of an amendment which provided that the Lecompton constitution
should be submitted to a vote of the people of Kansas, but this
amendment was disagreed to by the Senate, and the disagreement was
referred to a committee of conference.  The result was the adoption
of a substitute known as the English bill.  This bill, though
faulty, and partisan, provided for the admission of Kansas under
the Lecompton constitution, but provided also for a submission of
the English bill to a vote of the people of Kansas.  On the 2nd of
August a vote was taken in Kansas, and 11,300, out of a total vote
of 13,088, were cast against the English proposition.  Thus the
Lecompton constitution and the English bill were defeated, the
exclusion of slavery made absolute, and the State of Kansas admitted
into the Union as a free state, under a constitution approved by
the people, but not until January 29, 1861.

This memorable result was the turning point of the slavery controversy.
The people of the south hastened preparations for a dissolution of
the Union and a civil war.  The Confederate congress, meeting four
days later, on February 9, elected Jefferson Davis as its president,
he having resigned as United States Senator, January 21, 1861,
eight days before Kansas was admitted to the Union.

I have given much space to this Kansas controversy, for I wish to
impress upon the readers of this volume that the war was not caused
by agitation for the abolition of slavery, but by aggressive measures
for the extension of slavery over free territory.  A large and
influential class of southern men were born politicians, and were
mainly slaveholders.  They had, from the beginning of the government,
a large influence, and held more public offices of chief importance
than their northern associates.  They were constantly complaining
of opinions expressed by a comparatively few Abolitionists against
slavery, while the great body of the north were either indifferent
to or sympathized with them in their opposition to the Abolitionists.


CHAPTER VII.
RECOLLECTIONS OF THE FINANCIAL PANIC OF 1857.
Its Effect on the State Banks--My Maiden Speech in Congress on
National Finances--Appointed a Member of the Committee on Naval
Affairs--Investigation of the Navy Department and its Results--Trip
to Europe with Mrs. Sherman--We Visit Bracklin's Bridge, Made Famous
by Sir Walter Scott--Ireland and the Irish--I Pay a Visit to
Parliament and Obtain Ready Admission--Notable Places in Paris
Viewed With Senator Sumner--The Battlefield of Magenta--Return Home.

In the summer of 1857 there occurred one of those periodical
revulsions which seem to come after a term of apparent prosperity.
On the 24th of August the Ohio Life Insurance & Trust Company
failed.  That single event, in itself unimportant, indicated an
unhealthy condition of trade, caused by reckless speculation, high
prices, the construction of railroads in advance of their need, a
great increase of imports, and the excessive development of cities
and towns.  All credits were expanded.  The immediate results of
the panic were the suspension of credits, the diminution of imports,
the failure of banks, and the general or partial suspension or
lessening of all industries.  The revenues of the government were
greatly diminished.

On the 1st of July, 1857, the balance in the treasury was $17,710,000.
On the 1st of July, 1858, the balance was reduced to $6,398,000,
and during the year preceding, the United States borrowed $10,000,000.
On the 1st of July, 1859, the surplus was reduced to $4,320,000,
and during the year preceding the United States borrowed $20,774,000.
This sudden change in the financial condition of the treasury was
an indication of a like or greater change in the condition of every
person engaged in productive industries.

The panic especially affected the state banks.  These banks were
authorized by the laws of several states to issue notes as money
payable on demand, with no common system or methods of redemption,
and varying in value according to the solvency of the banks issuing
them.  The banks in a few of the states maintained their notes at
par, or at a small discount, but the great body of the notes could
circulate only in the states where issued, and then only because
their people could get no other money in exchange for their products.
The necessities created by the Civil War compelled the United States
to borrow large sums, and to aid in this a national currency was
provided, concerning which a statement of the measures adopted will
be made hereafter.  It is sufficient here to state that the national
currency adopted proved one of the most beneficial results of the
war.

The financial stringency of 1857 led to a careful scrutiny of
appropriations for the support of the government.

On the 27th of May, 1858, I expressed my views in respect to the
expenditures of the United States.  This speech was the first effort
I made in Congress to deal with the finances of the national
government.  In the previous Congresses I had devoted my time to
the struggle in Kansas.  At the meeting of the 35th Congress, I
naturally turned to the condition of the finances, then the paramount
subject of interest in the country, and, especially in Ohio, devoting
most of my time to a careful study thereof.  The speech referred
to on national finances was the result of much labor, and I believe
it will bear favorable scrutiny even at this late day.  It certainly
attracted the attention of my colleagues, and no doubt led to my
transfer, at the next Congress, to the committee of ways and means.

In this speech I state fully the increase of expenditures and the
diminution of the revenues, and the then condition of the treasury.
I quote as follows:

"And yet, sir, for this alarming condition of the public finances,
the administration has no measures of relief except loan bills and
paper money in the form of treasury notes.  No provision is made
for their payment; no measure of retrenchment and reform; but these
accumulated difficulties are thrust upon the future, with the
improvidence of a young spendthrift.  While the secretary is waiting
to foresee contingencies, we are prevented by a party majority from
instituting reform.  If we indicate even the commencement of
retrenchment, or point out abuses, on this side of the House, we
are at once assailed by members of the committee of ways and means."

I cited the abuses and usurpations of the executive departments in
diverting specific appropriations to purposes not authorized by
law.  I said:  "The theory of our government is, that a specific
sum shall be appropriated by a _law_ originating in this House,
for a specific purpose, and within a given fiscal year.  It is the
duty of the executive to use that sum, and no more, especially for
that purpose, and no other, and within the time fixed."

I pointed out cases where the departments assumed the power to
transfer appropriations made for one purpose, to other purposes in
the same department.  Another abuse by the executive departments
was the habit of making contracts in advance of appropriations,
thus, without law, compelling Congress to sanction them or violate
the public faith.  All these evils have since been remedied by
restrictive legislation.  The habit of the Senate to load down
appropriation bills with amendments already refused by the House
of Representatives, and then insist that, if not agreed to, the
bill would fail, was more frequent then than now, but under the
practice now established an amendment finally disagreed to by either
House is abandoned.

An illustration of the former practice in the Senate occurred in
the 36th Congress, when I was chairman of the committee on ways
and means.  An appropriation bill was loaded down with amendments,
among them an appropriation of $500,000 each for the construction
of public buildings in Charleston and New Orleans.  The amendments
were disagreed to and referred to a committee of conference, of
which Senator Toombs was a member.  His first expression in the
committee was that the House must agree to the items for Charleston
and New Orleans or the bill would fail.  I promptly answered that
I would report what he said to the House, and _the bill would fail_.
He said nothing further, the conference agreed, and the bill passed
without any mention of Charleston or New Orleans.  Even now the
abuse I refer to sometimes occurs, but the general rule and practice
is to exclude any item of an appropriation bill not freely agreed
to by both Houses.

It was generally agreed that the views expressed by me on the 27th
of May were sound in principle, but the strong partisan feeling
that ran through the speech weakened its effect.  I insert the last
two paragraphs:

"But, sir, I have no hope, while this House is constituted as it
is now, of instituting any radical reform.  I believe that the
House of Representatives should be in opposition to the President.
We know the intimate relations made by party ties and party feelings.
We know that with a party House, a House a majority of whose Members
are friends of the President, it is impossible to bring about a
reform.  It is only by a firm, able, and determined opposition--
not yielding to every friendly request, not yielding to every urgent
demand, not yielding to every appeal--that we can expect to reform
the abuse in the administration of the government.

"At the beginning of this session, I did hope that a majority of
this House would compose such an opposition; and while on the one
hand it crushed the unholy attempt to impose an odious constitution
--by force, or with threats or bribes--upon a free people, it would
be prepared to check the reckless extravagance of the administration
in the disbursement of the public funds.  But the power of party
ties and the executive influence were too potent.  We can only look
now to the virtue and intelligence of the people, whose potent will
can overthrow Presidents, Senators, and majorities.  I have an
abiding hope that the next House of Representatives will do what
this should have done, and become, like its great prototype, the
guardian of the rights and liberties of the people."

At the beginning of the 35th Congress I was appointed by Speaker
Orr a member of the committee on naval affairs, with Mr. Bocock as
chairman.  Among the subjects referred to the committee was the
capture, by Commodore Paulding of the United States navy, of William
Walker, engaged in an armed foray against Nicaragua.  It was fully
considered, and on the 3rd of February, 1858, the majority of the
committee, through Mr. Bocock, made a full report, accompanied by
the following resolutions:

"_Resolved_, That the act of Hiram Paulding, a captain of the United
States navy, in arresting General William Walker, was not authorized
by the instructions which had been given him from the navy
department.

"_Resolved_, That while we have no reason to believe that the said
Paulding acted form any improper motives or intention, yet we regard
the act in question as a grave error, and deserving, for the reason
already given, the disapproval of the American Congress."

By direction of the minority of the committee I submitted a minority
report as a substitute, as follows:

"_Resolved_, That Commodore Hiram Paulding, in arresting William
Walker and his associates, and returning them to the jurisdiction
of the United States, acted within the spirit of his orders, and
deserves the approbation of his country."

It appeared, from the documents submitted, that in September, 1857,
Walker was fitting out, within the limits of the United States, a
military expedition against the Republic of Nicaragua, that on the
18th of September, Lewis Cass, Secretary of State, issued a circular
letter, warning all persons against setting on foot such expeditions,
and urging all officers of the United States to enforce the provisions
of the law cited by him, to prevent such expeditions "so manifestly
prejudicial to the national character and so injurious to the
national interests."

A copy of this circular was transmitted to Commodore Paulding, for
his guidance, by the Secretary of the Navy, and he was required to
regard the instruction contained in it as addressed to himself.
Commodore Chatard was suspended for failing to arrest Walker within
the port of San Juan.  Commodore Paulding arrived at San Juan on
the 6th day of December.  Walker and his men were in sight on shore,
at Punta Arenas, opposite San Juan.  This point, though within the
limits of Nicaragua, has been successively claimed and occupied by
Costa Rica, Nicaragua and the so-called Mosquito Kingdom, under
British protection.  It was an almost deserted point, to which a
British subject had set up a doubtful title, founded upon a purchase
from a pilot of the port of San Juan.  Its occupants were engaged
as a military force, and were then waging war against the existing
government of Nicaragua--a government with which ours was at peace,
and one so weak that it was inhuman to fight it.  Although freshly
landed from our shores, in violation of our laws, and controlling
no spot except that they occupied--receiving, so far as we know,
no accession or aid from the natives of the country, they issued
orders and manifestoes headed;

  "Headquarters Army of Nicaragua,
   Punta Arenas, December 2, 1857."

Their leader signed these orders:

  "William Walker,
   Commander-in-Chief, Army of Nicaragua."

There was no doubt that the expedition was the very one denounced
by the Secretary of State in the circular, and by the Secretary of
the Navy in his orders, for Walker and his men sought no disguise.

Under these circumstances, Commodore Paulding arrested Walker and
his men and returned them to the jurisdiction of the United States.
This brief and imperfect sketch of the voluminous majority and
minority reports of the committee will convey but a faint idea of
the excitement created by this arrest.  An attempt was made to
censure Commodore Paulding, but it utterly failed.  The purpose of
Walker was to seize Nicaragua, adopt slavery and convert the Central
American states into slaveholding communities, and thus strengthen
slavery in the United States.  It was the counterpart of the
movements in Kansas, and was supported by powerful influence in
the southern states.

Another investigation of great importance was ordered by the House
of Representatives, upon the following resolution introduced by me
on the 18th of January, 1859:

"Whereas, D. B. Allen, a citizen of the State of New York, specifically
charges that certain officers in the navy department, in awarding
contracts for the construction of vessels of war of the United
States, have been guilty of partiality, and of violation of law
and their public duty: and whereas, grave charges have been made
that money appropriated for navy yards and for the repair of vessels
of the United States, has been expended for partisan purposes, and
not for the purposes prescribed by law:  Therefore,

"_Resolved_, That a committee of five members be appointed to
examine, 1.  Into the specifications and bids for, and the terms
of, the contracts for the work and labor done, or materials furnished
for the vessels of the United States, constructed, or in process
of construction or repair, by the United States, since the 4th day
of March, 1857, and the mode and manner of awarding said contracts,
and the inducements and recommendations influencing such awards.
2.  Into the mode and manner, and the purpose, in which the money
appropriated for the navy and dock yards, and for the repair and
increase of vessels, has been expended.  That said committee have
power to send for persons and papers, and have leave to report by
bill or otherwise."

This investigation occupied most of the remaining session of that
Congress.  The committee of five was composed of Messrs. Sherman,
Bocock, Ritchie, Groesbeck and Ready, three Democrats and two
Republicans, of which I was chairman.  The committee took a mass
of testimony, disclosing abuses and frauds of a startling character,
covering over 1,000 printed pages.  The majority of the committee,
Messrs. Bocock, Groesbeck and Ready, submitted a report condemning
the glaring abuses proven, and, while reporting the inefficiency
and incompetency of subordinate officers and employees, yet declared
that nothing had been proven which impeached the personal or official
integrity of the Secretary of the Navy.  They proposed the following
resolutions:

"1.  _Resolved_, That the testimony taken in this investigation
proves the existence of glaring abuses in the Brooklyn navy yard,
and such as require the interposition of legislative reform; but
it is due to justice to declare that these abuses have been slowly
and gradually growing up during a long course of years, and that
no particular administration should bear the entire blame therefor.

"2.  _Resolved_, That it is disclosed, by the testimony in this
case, that the agency for the purchase of anthracite coal for the
use of the navy has been, for some time past, in the hands of a
person wholly inefficient and grossly incompetent, and that reform
is needed in the regulations which exist on that subject; but there
is no proof which traces any knowledge of such inefficiency and
incompetency to the responsible authorities in Washington, nor any
which shows that the need of reform grows especially out of any
act of theirs; but, on the contrary, it is expressly proven that
the supply of coal for the naval service has been purchased during
this administration upon terms relatively as favorable as ever
heretofore.

"3.  _Resolved_, That while we could never sanction or approve any
arrangement, on the part of an officer of the government, which,
under pretense of making contracts for supplies, was designed to
confer especial and exclusive favor upon individuals, yet, in the
contract entered into in September, 1858, between the navy department
and W. C. N. Swift, for the supply of live oak to said department,
it is clearly proven by the testimony that, if the Secretary of
the Navy did contemplate any favor to said Swift, he did not design
to bestow it to the detriment of the government, but that in all
he did in this matter he kept always in view the good of the public
and the interests of the service.

"4.  _Resolved_, That in the letting of the contracts for the
construction of the steam machinery for the vessels of the navy
during the present administration, nothing has been shown which
calls for the interposition of the Congress of the United States;
but it is manifest that the present head of the navy department
has displayed a very laudable zeal to secure the greatest amount
of speed and efficiency attainable for said vessels.

"5.  _Resolved_, That nothing has been proven in this investigation
which impeaches, in any way, the personal or official integrity of
the Secretary of the Navy."

The minority report was made by Ritchie and myself on the 24th of
February, 1859, in which we recommended the following resolutions:

"_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Navy has, with the sanction
of the President, abused his discretionary power in the selection
of a coal agent and in the purchase of fuel for the government.

"_Resolved_, That the contract made by the Secretary of the Navy,
under date of September 23, 1858, with W. C. N. Swift, for the
delivery of live oak timber, was made in violation of the law, and
in a manner unusual, improper, and injurious to the public service.

"_Resolved_, That the distribution, by the Secretary of the Navy,
of the patronage in the navy yard among Members of Congress was
destructive of discipline, corrupting in its influence, and highly
injurious to the public service.

"_Resolved_, That the President and Secretary of the Navy, by
receiving and considering the party relations of bidders for
contracts with the United States, and the effect of awarding
contracts upon pending elections, have set an example dangerous to
the public safety and deserving the reproof of the House.

"_Resolved_, That the appointment, by the Secretary of the Navy,
of Daniel B. Martin, chief engineer, as a member of the board of
engineers, to report upon proposals for constructing machinery for
the United States, the said Martin at the same time being pecuniarily
interested in some of said proposals, is hereby censured by this
House."

No action was taken on these reports during that session, which
terminated on the 4th of March; but in the succeeding Congress the
resolutions of the minority were reported favorably from the
committee on the expenditures of the navy department, and, after
debate, were adopted, a separate yea and nay vote being taken on
each resolution, and the vote generally being 119 in favor of the
resolution and 60 against, a large number of Democrats voting for
each resolution.

This investigation, and the action of the House of Representatives
upon it, led to radical reforms in the purchase of supplies in the
navy department, and stamped with deserved censure the Secretary
of the Navy, and his subordinates, who participated in his action.

In the spring of 1859, Mrs. Sherman and I started on my first trip
to Europe, on the steamer "Vanderbilt," without any definite route
or plan.  Fortunately, we formed on shipboard some pleasant
acquaintances, among others Judge Harris of the Supreme Court of
New York, afterwards Senator of the United States, and his wife.
Each had children by a former marriage, who had arrived at or near
manhood or womanhood, and all were pleasant traveling companions.
Mr. Platt and his wife, of New York, a young married couple, were
of the party.  We were fortunate in the weather and the sea.  I
had often encountered the waves of Lake Erie, but the ocean was to
me the great unknown, and I imagined that from its magnitude, its
waves would be in proportion to its size, but, instead, the waves
of the Atlantic were a gentle cradle compared with the short and
chopping movement of the lake.  Since then I have crossed the ocean
many times, but never was sea sick.  We thought the voyage of eleven
days a brief one, but now it is reduced to six or seven days, on
vessels much greater and stronger.  We landed safely at Southampton
late in the evening.  Many of the passengers left immediately for
London, but our party, with others, went to the hotel.  We seemed
to overcrowd the capacity of the place.  One of our passengers, a
young gentleman from Baltimore, said to me he would drive out those
Englishmen, who were quietly enjoying themselves in the waiting
room.  He had been a quiet gentlemanly passenger, but he changed
his tone and manner, was boisterous in his talk and rather rude.
One by one the Englishmen departed, slamming the door after them,
casting a sour look at their persecutor, but he was not disturbed
until "the coast was clear," and then quieting down in his usual
manner he said he knew these Englishmen, and thought he would give
them a chance to abuse the d----d Americans.  After long waiting
we had a good supper.

On the next day, or the day following, we visited the Isle of Wight,
and what is misnamed the "New Forest"--which is very old instead
of new, and is an open park instead of a forest--in the neighborhood.
Like most travelers we soon went to London.  This great city
impressed me more by the association of great men and women who
had lived and died in it than by the grandeur of its buildings and
public works.  Every street and many houses in it recalled the
names of persons whose writings I had read, and of others whose
deeds made them immortal.  As Parliament was not in session we
shortened our visit in London until our return.  My trip to Scotland
was especially interesting.  Mrs. Sherman, a daughter of Judge
Stewart, was in her face and affinities a thorough Scotch woman,
though her ancestors for several generations were born in America.
She was familiar with Scottish history, and with the geography of
Scotland.  Our visit to Edinburgh and its environs was to her like
a return to familiar scenes.  In our slow progress towards the
lakes we stopped at Callender over Sunday.  After looking into the
well-filled church we started for Bracklinn bridge, made famous in
Scott's "Lady of the Lake."  "Bracklinn's thundering wave" is a
beautiful cascade made at a place called the Bridge of Bracklinn,
by a mountain stream called the Keltie, about a mile from the
village of Callender, in Mentieth.  Above a chasm where the brook
precipitates itself from a height of at least 50 feet, there is
thrown, for the convenience of the neighborhood, a rustic foot
bridge, of about three feet in breadth, and without ledges, which
is scarcely to be crossed by a stranger without awe and apprehension.
We were told it was but a short walk, a mile or two, but we soon
found that Scottish miles were very long.  On the way we encountered
an old woman, dressed in Scotch plaid, of whom we inquired the way
to Bracklinn bridge.  She pointed out the way, and in return asked
us where we lived.  We told her the United States.  She replied,
in language we could hardly understand, "Ah, ye maun come a lang
way to spay it."  She then told us where to leave the road and how
to find the bridge.  There was nothing remarkable at the bridge,
nothing to justify "But wild as Bracklinn's thundering roar," but
the genius of Sir Walter invested it with his glamour.

  "It had much of glamour might
   To make a lady seem a knight."

The lakes of Scotland we would call bays.  The waters of the ocean
fill these deep depressions between high hills.  A boat ride over
these interlocked waters was pleasing, but the views did not impress
me like the lakes in Switzerland in the midst of high mountains,
nor did they compare with the grandeur of the Yellowstone Lake,
6,000 feet above the sea, with surrounding mountains rising to the
height of 12,000 feet, and covered with snow.  We were much pleased
with Scotland and its people until we arrived at Glasgow.  Here we
walked about the city.  It seemed to be crowded with discontented,
unhappy people, with sad faces and poorly clad.  We were told not
to go into certain portions of the city, as we might be insulted.

We soon left Glasgow for Belfast and visited different parts of
Ireland, and especially the city of Cork, and Lake Killarney.  The
southern part of Ireland was very beautiful, the herbage was fresh
and green, and the land productive.  The great drawback was the
crowds of beggars, who would surround us wherever we went, soliciting
alms, but they were generally good humored.  I saw little of the
disposition to fight attributed to them.  At a subsequent visit I
saw much more of Ireland and the Irish people, but on this, my
first visit, I left with a very kindly impression of the country
and the people.  We have more people of Irish descent in the United
States than now live in Ireland, and they have done their full part
in our development, not only as laborers, but in all the walks and
professions of life.  They are heartily welcomed in our midst.  If
all the discontented people of Ireland would migrate to the United
States we would welcome them if they would leave their Irish vs.
English politics behind them.  We have enough possible points of
controversy on this continent with Great Britain, without importing
from that country old controversies that have been the occasion of
wars and rumors of war for centuries.

We made but a short stay in Dublin and crossed the channel to
Caernarvon.  Here we took the old tally-ho coach.  Despite all that
is said about railroads and steamboats, I believe in the old-
fashioned stage coach, and especially in the one in which we crossed
the hills of Wales, in full view of Mount Snowdon.  We remained
over Sunday in a village on the way, inquired for the church, and
were shown to a very pretty church building near by.  When we
entered we found perhaps ten or fifteen persons, mostly women.
The pastor, with an assistant, soon entered, and services commenced.
The pastor read his part, and the assistant led, and practically
made, the responses.  The singing was led by the assistant and
shared in by the few women present.  The sermon was short and
lifeless and the entire service--though read from the Book of Common
Prayer, as fine a model of impressive English as exists--was
spiritless.  When we left the church we met lines of well-dressed,
but plain, proper men, women and children in Sunday garb.  I inquired
where these people came from, and was informed they were Methodists
on the way home from their meeting house.  This settled the question
with me.  The church I attended was the "established church,"
supported by taxes on all the people, and the Methodist meeting
was the church of the people, supported by their voluntary
contributions.  How such a policy could have been sustained so long
was beyond my comprehension.  Our policy of respect and toleration
for all religious sects, but taxes for none, is a better one.

Our party, still consisting of Judge Harris and family, Mr. Platt
and wife, and Mrs. Sherman and myself, visited several of the
central counties and towns of England, chiefly the towns of Warwick,
Stratford, Kenilworth and Leamington.  This is well trodden ground
for tourists, and I need not repeat the many descriptions of
interesting places and the historic names and events attached to
them.

When we returned to London, I visited the courts of law, Westminster
Abbey, and the new Parliament House.  I had no difficulty in gaining
free access to the gallery of the House of Commons by stating that
I was a Member of the House of Representatives.  Though I had
letters of introduction to members of Parliament I did not present
them.  Judge Harris was greatly interested in the proceedings of
the courts of London, while I wandered through every part of the
great city.  We attended, by invitation, a dinner given by the
Goldsmith's Guild, and accepted some invitations, among them that
of Mr. Morgan, the leading American banker in London.

Our congenial party then separated with mutual regret, Judge Harris
going to the Rhine and Mrs. Sherman and I to Paris.  Here we remained
some time.  Senator Sumner, not yet recovered from the blows of
Brooks, had been some time in Paris and accompanied us to many of
the noted places in that city--among them I remember the grave of
Lafayette.

Our visit was during the Franco-Italian-Austrian War.  I was anxious
to reach the seat of war.  On the way we made hurried visits to
Geneva, and Lake Leman.  After traversing this lake we took the
coach over the Alps, on the road to Milan, stopping several times
on the way.  We passed over the battle field at Magenta but a few
days after the battle was fought.  We saw there the signs of
destructive war.  The killed had been buried and the wounded were
in hospitals, but the smell of dead horses poisoned the air, and
the marks of the battle were on almost every house.  We pushed on
to Milan and were comfortably quartered.  The city was full of
soldiers on the way to the army to the eastward.  It was then known
that a battle was about to be fought at Solferino.  I was very
anxious to witness a battle.  General Crittenden, of the United
States army, was attached as an aid to the French army, and I sought
the same facility, but the authorities would not permit it.  I was
assured that my horse would be taken from me, especially as I could
not speak French, and that I would be treated as a spy unless I
was formally attached to a particular command.  I therefore gave
up my contemplated trip and awaited the battle, which occurred in
a day or two.  I then returned to Switzerland by the Simplon Pass,
and visited Berne, Luzerne, and Neuchâtel.  From thence I returned
to London and soon after embarked on the "Vanderbilt" for home.


CHAPTER VIII.
EXCITING SCENES IN CONGRESS.
I am Elected for the Third Term--Invasion of Virginia by John Brown
--His Trial and Execution--Spirited Contest for the Speakership--
Discussion over Helper's "Impending Crisis"--Angry Controversies
and Threats of Violence in the House--Within Three Votes of Election
as Speaker--My Reply to Clark's Attack--Withdrawal of my Name and
Election of Mr. Pennington--Made Chairman of the Committee of Ways
and Means--President Buchanan Objects to Being "Investigated"--
Adoption of the Morrill Tariff Act--Views Upon the Tariff Question
--My Colleagues.

On the 29th of July, 1858, I received the congressional nomination
for my third term without opposition, and, in October following,
was elected as a Member of the 36th Congress, by a majority of
2,331 over S. J. Patrick, Democrat.

The memorable campaign in Illinois in that year excited profound
interest throughout the United States, the debate between Douglas
and Lincoln attracting universal attention.  The result was favorable
to Douglas, and the legislature re-elected him Senator, but Mr.
Lincoln attained such distinction and prominence as to place him
at once in the position of a formidable candidate for the presidency
in 1860.  This debate made it clear that the struggle between free
and slave institutions was to be continued and to become the
controlling issue of the future.

The murder of Broderick by Terry, in California, on the 13th of
September, 1859, under color of a duel, excited profound interest
and made that state Republican.  The election of a governor in
Ohio, in the fall of that year, preceded by a debate of much interest
between William Dennison, the Republican candidate, and Judge
Ranney, the Democratic candidate, added greatly to the political
excitement then existing, and ended in the election of Mr. Dennison.
A few days after this election--on the 17th of October--the invasion
of the State of Virginia by John Brown startled the country, and,
more than all other causes, aroused the southern people to a state
of great excitement, amounting to frenzy.  Brown, with a few
followers of no distinction, captured the United States arsenal at
Harper's Ferry, took possession of the bridge which crosses the
Potomac, fortifying it with cannon, stopped trains, cut telegraph
wires, killed several men, and seized many prominent citizens,
holding them as hostages.  Wild reports were circulated of a rise
of the negroes in the neighborhood, the uprising accompanied by
all the horrors of a servile war, and a general alarm prevailed
throughout the State of Virginia and the south.  The insurrection
was, however, speedily suppressed, mainly by the state militia,
and the few insurgents not killed were captured by United States
marines under Colonel Robert E. Lee, soon afterwards to be commander-
in-chief of the rebel forces in the Civil War.

Brown was tried for murder and executed.  This foolish and criminal
invasion was the work of a fanatic who all his lifetime had been
a violent opposer of slavery, and who while in Kansas had participated
more or less in the Osawatamie murders.  His son was killed by the
"border ruffians" near his home in Kansas, for which a fearful
revenge was taken upon the murderers.  Brown, having always been
an Abolitionist, and being crazed by these events, believed it his
duty to wage a relentless war against slavery, and, with the courage
but shortsightedness of a fanatic, and with the hope of the resistance
of the slaves of the south, undertook this wild scheme to secure
their freedom.

Under such exciting conditions Congress convened on the 5th day of
December, 1859, divided politically into 109 Republicans, 101
Democrats and 27 Americans.  No party having a majority, it was
feared by some that the scenes of 1855, when Banks was elected
speaker only after a long struggle, would be repeated.  That contest
was ended by the adoption of the plurality rule, but in this case
a majority could not agree upon such a rule, and the only possible
way of electing a speaker was by a fusing of Members until a majority
voted for one person.

It was well understood that the Republican vote would be divided
between Galusha A. Grow and myself, and it was agreed between us
that whichever received a majority of the Republican vote should
be considered as the nominee of that party.  On the first vote for
speaker, Thomas S. Bocock, of Virginia, the Democratic candidate,
received 86 votes, I received 66, Galusha A. Grow 43, and 21
scattering.  Mr. Grow then withdrew his name.  On the same day John
B. Clark, of Missouri, offered this resolution:

"Whereas certain Members of this House, now in nomination for
speaker, did indorse and recommend the book hereinafter mentioned,

"_Resolved_, That the doctrine and sentiments of a certain book,
called 'The Impending Crisis of the South--How to meet it,' purporting
to have been written by one Hinton R. Helper, are insurrectionary
and hostile to the domestic peace and tranquility of the country,
and that no Member of this House who has indorsed and recommended
it, or the compend from it, is fit to be speaker of this House."

In the absence of rules, Mr. Clark was allowed to speak without
limit and he continued that day and the next, reading and speaking
about the Helper book.  John A. Gilmer, of North Carolina, offered
as a substitute for the resolution of Mr. Clark a long preamble
closing with this resolution:

"_Therefore resolved_, That, fully indorsing these national
sentiments, it is the duty of every good citizen of this Union to
resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the
slavery agitation, under whatever shape and color the attempt may
be made."

A motion was made to lay both resolutions on the table, and was
lost by a tie vote of 116 yeas and 116 nays.  In the absence of
rules a general debate followed, in which southern Members threatened
that their constituents would go out of the Union.  The excitement
over the proposition to compile a political pamphlet, by F. P.
Blair, an eminent Democrat and slaveholder, from a book called "The
Impending Crisis" written and printed by a southern man, seemed so
ludicrous that we regarded it as manufactured frenzy.  After John
S. Millson, of Virginia, a conservative Democrat, who was opposed
to the introduction of the Clark resolution, had exhibited unusual
feeling, I said:

"I have until this moment regarded this debate with indifference,
because I presumed it was indulged in for the purpose of preventing
an organization.  But the manner of the gentleman from Virginia,
my respect for his long experience in this House, my respect for
his character, and the serious impression which this matter seems
to have made upon his mind, induce me to say a few words.  I ask
that the letter which I send up may be read."

The following letter was thereupon read from the clerk's desk:

  "Washington City, December 6, 1859.
"Dear Sir:--I perceive that a debate has arisen in Congress in
which Mr. Helper's book, the 'Impending Crisis,' is brought up as
an exponent of Republican principles.  As the names of many leading
Republicans are presented as recommending a compendium of the
volume, it is proper that I should explain how those names were
obtained in advance of the publication.  Mr. Helper brought his
book to me at Silver Spring to examine and recommend, if I thought
well of it, as a work to be encouraged by Republicans.  I had never
seen it before.  After its perusal, I either wrote to Mr. Helper,
or told him that it was objectionable in many particulars, to which
I adverted; and he promised me, in writing, that he would obviate
the objections by omitting entirely or altering the matter objected
to.  I understand that it was in consequence of his assurance to
me that the obnoxious matter in the original publication would be
expurgated, that Members of Congress and other influential men
among the Republicans were induced to give their countenance to
the circulation of the edition so to be expurgated.

  "F. P. Blair,
  "Silver Spring.
"Hon. John Sherman."

I then continued:

"I do not recollect signing the paper referred to; but I presume,
from my name appearing in the printed list, that I did sign it.
I therefore make no excuse of that kind.  I never read Mr. Helper's
book, or the compendium founded upon it.  I have never seen a copy
of either.  And here, Mr. Clerk, I might leave the matter; but as
many harsh things have been said about me, I desire to say that
since I have been a Member of this House, I have always endeavored
to cultivate the courtesies and kind relations that are due from
one gentleman to another.  I never addressed to any Member such
language as I have heard to-day.  I never desire such language to
be addressed to me, if I can avoid it.  I appeal to my public
record, during a period of four years, in this body; and I say not
that there is not a single question agitating the public mind, not
a single topic on which there can be sectional jealousy or sectional
controversy, unless gentlemen on the other side of the House thrust
such subjects upon us.  I repeat, not a single question.  We have
pursued a course of studied silence.  It is our intention to organize
the House quietly, decently, in order, without vituperations; and
we trust to show to Members on all sides of the House that the
party with which I have the honor to act can administer this House
and administer this government without trespassing upon the rights
of any."

Soon after, in answer to an inquiry from Shelton F. Leake, of
Virginia, I said:

"Allow me to say, once for all, and I have said it five times on
this floor, that I am opposed to any interference whatever of the
people of the free states, with the relation of master and slave
in the slave states."

This was followed by a heated debate, the manifest purpose of which
was to excite sectional animosity, and to compel southern Americans
to co-operate with the Democratic Members in the election of a
Democrat for speaker.  The second ballot, taken on the close of
the session of December 8, exhibited no material change except that
the Republican vote concentrated on me.  I received 107 votes, Mr.
Bocock 88, Mr. Gilmer 22, and 14 scattering.

The debate continued and was participated in by my colleague, S.
S. Cox, who asked me about the fugitive slave law.  I declined, as
I had before, to answer any interrogatories and said:  "I will
state to him, and to gentlemen on the other side of the House, that
I stand upon my public record.  I do not expect the support of
gentlemen on that side of the House, who have, for the last four
years, been engaged in a series of measures--none of which I approve.
I have no answers to give to them."

The third ballot produced no material change.  I received 110,
Bocock 88, Gilmer 20, and 13 scattering.

In the meantime, the invasion of Harper's Ferry was debated in the
Senate at great length and with extreme violence, producing in both
houses intense irritation and excitement.  Keitt, of South Carolina,
charged upon the Republicans the responsibility of Helper's book
and John Brown's foray, exclaiming:  "The south here asks nothing
but its right. . . . I would have no more; but, as God is my judge,
as one of its Representatives, I would shatter this republic from
turret to foundation-stone before I would take one tittle less."
Lamar, of Mississippi, declared that the Republicans were not
"guiltless of the blood of John Brown and his co-conspirators, and
the innocent men, the victims of his ruthless vengeance."  Pryor,
of Virginia, said Helper's book riots "in rebellion, treason, and
insurrection, and is precisely in the spirit of the act which
startled us a few weeks since at Harper's ferry."  Crawford, of
Georgia, declared:  "We will never submit to the inauguration of
a black Republican President."

The Republicans generally remained silent and demanded a vote.

Mr. Corwin, then a Representative from Ohio, elected after a long
absence from public life, endeavored to quiet the storm.  Frequent
threats of violence were uttered.  Angry controversies sprang up
between Members, and personal collisions were repeatedly threatened
by Members, armed and ready for conflict.  No such scenes had ever
before occurred in the Congress of the United States.  It appeared
many times that the threatened war would commence on the floor of
the House of Representatives.  The House remained in session the
week between Christmas and New Year's Day.  During this excitement
my vote steadily increased until on the 4th day of January, 1860,
on the 25th ballot, I came within three votes of election; the
whole number of votes cast being 207; necessary to a choice 104,
of which I received 101.  John A. McClernand, of Illinois, received
33, Gilmer 14, Clement L. Vallandigham, of Ohio, 12, and the
remainder were scattering.

At this time Henry Winter Davis, of Maryland, an American, said to
me, and to others, that whenever his vote would elect me it should
be cast for me.  J. Morrison Harris, also an American from the same
state, was understood to occupy the same position.  Garnett B.
Adrain, of New Jersey, an anti-Lecompton Democrat, who had been
elected by Republicans, it was hoped would do the same.  Horace F.
Clark, of New York, also an anti-Lecompton Democrat who had been
elected by Republicans, could at any moment have settled the
controversy in my favor.  It was well known that I stood ready to
withdraw whenever the requisite number of votes could be concentrated
upon any Republican Member.  The deadlock continued.

On the 20th of January, 1860, Mr. Clark, who had introduced the
Helper resolution, said:

"I wish to make a personal explanation with regard to my personal
feelings in the matter of this resolution.  I never read the letter
of which the gentleman from Georgia speaks, and do not take to
myself articles that appear in newspapers, unless they make
imputations against my moral integrity.  That resolution was
introduced by me, as I have frequently remarked, with no personal
ill-feeling towards Mr. Sherman, the Republican candidate for
speaker, apart from what I considered to be an improper act of his
--namely, the recommendation of that book.  So far as that affects
his political or social character, he must of course bear it."

I replied as follows:

"The gentleman from Missouri, for the first time, I believe, has
announced that it was his purpose, in introducing this resolution,
to give gentlemen an opportunity to explain their relations to the
Helper book.  I ask him now whether he is willing to withdraw the
resolution for the purpose he has indicated, temporarily, or for
any time?"

Mr. Clark said:

"I will endeavor to answer the gentleman.  I avowed my purpose
frankly at the time I introduced the resolution, in the remarks
with which I accompanied its introduction.  The gentleman from Ohio
propounds the question more directly whether I am willing to withdraw
the resolution for the purpose which I avow?  Sir, at the very
instant it was offered, I gave the gentleman that opportunity and
I have given it to him since.  I say to the gentleman that he has
had two opportunities to make that explanation; but he has failed
to relieve himself of the responsibility he took when he signed
that book and recommended its circulation."

I replied:

"I will say that that opportunity has never been rendered to me.
When the gentleman introduced his resolution, offensive in its
character, at an improper time, in an improper manner, he cut off
--what he says now he desires to give--an opportunity for explanation.
It is true that three days afterward, when the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Millson) appealed to me, I stated to him frankly how
may name became connected with that paper.  I did not sign the
paper; but it seems that the Hon. E. D. Morgan, a Member of the
last Congress, and a friend of mine, came to me when I was in my
place, and asked me to sign a recommendation for the circulation
of a political pamphlet, to be compiled by a committee, of which
Mr. Blair, a slaveholder of Missouri, was one, from a large book
by Helper, a North Carolinian.  I said to him that I had not time
to examine the book; but if there was nothing offensive in it, he
might use my name.  Thereupon, this gentleman attached my name to
that paper.  This information I did not have at the time the
gentleman from Virginia addressed me, but I said to him I had no
recollection of having signed the paper, but presumed I had, from
my name appearing in the printed list.  I subsequently acquired it
from Mr. Morgan, whose letter was published.  That I believe was
sufficient under the circumstances.  I know there are Members on
that side of the House who have considered it as satisfactory; and
my friends so regard it.  At the time I stated that I had not read
the book, that I did not know what was in it.

"The gentleman alludes to another time.  The other day, when this
subject was again brought before the House by him, in language
which, although he claims to be courteous, I could not regard as
such, when I was, by implication, but with a disclaimer of personal
offense, charged with disseminating treason, with lighting the
torch in the dwelling of my southern brethren, and of crimes of
which, if I was guilty, I should not be entitled to a seat upon
this floor, I then rose in my place and told the gentleman from
Missouri that if he would withdraw that resolution I would answer
this book page by page, or those extracts one by one, and tell him
whether I approved them or not.  The gentleman refused to withdraw
the resolution.  Long ago he was notified by me, and my friend from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Morris) announced on the floor, that this resolution
was regarded by me as a menace, and, if withdrawn, would lead to
a frank avowal, or disavowal.

"I say now that I do not believe it is the desire of the gentleman
to give me that opportunity.  If he does desire it, I am willing
to do now what I said I would have done then.  And I say, with
equal emphasis, that never, so help me God, whether or not the
speaker's chair is to be occupied by me, will I do so while that
resolution is before this body, undisposed of.  I regard it as
offensive in its tone, unprecedented, unparliamentary, and an
invasion of the rights of representation.  Under the menace clearly
contained in it, I never will explain a single word contained in
those extracts.

"If the gentleman will withdraw his resolution, even for a moment,
to relieve me from the menace--he may reinstate it afterwards if
he chooses--I will then say what I have to say in regard to those
extracts.  But while it stands before the House, intended as a
stigma upon me, and sustained by an argument without precedent in
parliamentary history, he cannot expect me to say more than I have
done.  I believe not only my friends, but the gentlemen on the
other side of the House, who have a sense of honor, believe that
my position is correct.  I know that some of them regard my statement
made on the third day of the session as full and satisfactory, and
all that, under the circumstances, it was proper for me to indicate.

"For gentlemen now to press this matter; to agitate the country;
to spread these extracts all over the south, and to charge the
sentiments of this book upon me, and my associates here; to proclaim,
day after day, that the Republicans entertain these sentiments and
indorse them, is not that ingenuous, candid and manly course which
a great party like the Democratic party ought to pursue.  While we
may conduct our political quarrels with heat, and discuss matters
with zeal and determination, it ought to be done with fairness and
frankness.  The mode in which this resolution has been pressed
before the country, and I, with my hands tied and my lips sealed
as a candidate, have been arraigned day by day, is without a
precedent, not only in history but in party caucuses, in state
legislatures, in state conventions or anywhere else.

"I said when I rose the other day that my public opinions were on
record.  I say so now.  Gentlemen upon the other side have said
that they have examined that record to ascertain what my political
opinions were.  They will look in vain for anything to excite
insurrection, to disturb the peace, to invade the rights of states,
to alienate the north and south from each other, or to loosen the
ties of fraternal fellowship by which our people have been and
should be bound together.  I am for the Union and the constitution,
with all the compromises under which it was formed, and all the
obligations which it imposes.  This has always been my position;
and these opinions have been avowed by me on this floor and stand
now upon your records.  Who has brought anything from that record
against me that is worthy of answer? . . .

"I have never sought to invade the rights of the southern states.
I have never sought to trample upon the rights of citizens of the
southern states.  I have my idea about slavery in the territories,
and at the proper time and in the proper way I am willing to discuss
the question.  I never made but one speech on the subject of slavery,
and that was in reference to what I regarded as an improper remark
made by President Pierce in 1856.  I then spread upon the record
my opinions on the subject; and I have found no man to call them
into question.  They are the opinions of the body of the Republicans.
They are the opinions which I now entertain.  Gentlemen are at
liberty to discuss these questions as much as they choose, and I
will bear my share of the responsibility for entertaining those
opinions.  But I now speak to my personal record. . . .

"Again these gentlemen, while publishing in their speeches all over
the country that I am in effect a traitor, etc., by implication,
it is true, disavowing, as I am glad to say each of them have done,
any design to be personally offensive, but in a way which answers
the same purpose; yet when called upon to show proof or specifications,
they fail to do so; and the only act for which I have been arraigned
before the American people is that, in a moment when I was sitting
here, busy at my desk, and one of my friends, and late a Member of
this House, came to me and asked me to sign a paper recommending
the publication of a political tract; that, when I authorized my
name to be put to that recommendation, by that very act I became
a traitor and would place the torch in the hands of the incendiary.
I say this is not fair argument.  And I again repeat that if the
Member from Missouri (Mr. Clark) desires to know what my sentiments
are in regard to the extracts read at the clerk's table, the only
portion of the Helper book I have seen or read, I will give them
if he will remove a menace from me.  I never did do anything under
menace.  I never will.  It is not in my blood and these gentlemen
cannot put it there."

Mr. Clark rose to speak, but I continued:

"The gentleman will excuse me, I have, so far as I am concerned in
this contest, been quiet and patient.  I desire to see an organization
of the House opposed to the administration.  I think it is our
highest duty to investigate, to examine and analyze the mode in
which the executive powers of this government have been administered
for a few years past.  That is my desire.  Yes sir, I said here,
in the first remark I made, that I did not believe the slavery
question would come up at all during this session.  I came here
with the expectation that we would have a business session, that
we would analyze the causes of the increased expenditures of the
government and the proper measures of redress and retrenchment.
I did not believe that the slavery question would come up, and but
for the unfortunate affair of Brown at Harper's Ferry, I did not
believe there would be any feeling on the subject.  Northern Members
came here with kindly feelings, no man approving the foray of John
Brown and every man willing to say so; every man willing to admit
it as an act of lawless violence.  We came here hoping that, at
this time of peace and quiet, we might examine, inquire into, and
pass upon, practical measures of legislation tending to harmonize
the conflicting elements of the government and strengthen the bonds
of Union.  The interests of a great and growing people present
political questions enough to tax the ability and patriotism of us
all.

"Such was our duty; but the moment we arrived here--before, sir,
we even had a formal vote,--this question of slavery was raised by
the introduction of the resolution of the gentleman from Missouri.
It has had the effect of exciting the public mind with an irritating
controversy.  It has impaired the public credit and retarded the
public business.  The debate founded upon it has been unjust,
offensive, wrong, not only to the Republicans here, not only to
those with whom I act, but to all our common constituents, north
and south.  The gentlemen who have advocated that resolution have
stirred up bad blood, and all because certain gentlemen have
recommended that a compilation be made of a book.  Even yet we may
retrieve the loss of valuable time.  We could now go to work,
organize the House and administer the powers of this House with
fairness and impartiality.

"In conclusion, let me say that by no act or effort have I sought
the position I now occupy before the House.  The honor was tendered
me by the generous confidence and partiality of those with whom it
has been my pride to act, politically.  Their conduct in this
irritating controversy has justified my attachment.

"If I shall ever reach the speaker's chair, it will be with
untrammeled hands and with an honest purpose to discharge every
duty in the spirit which the oath of office enjoins; and to organize
the House with reference to the rights and interests of every
section, the peace and prosperity of the whole Union, and the
efficient discharge of all the business of the government.  And
whenever friends who have so gallantly and liberally sustained me
thus far believe that my name in any way presents an obstacle to
success, it is my sincere wish that they should adopt some other.
Whenever any one of my political friends can combine a greater
number of votes than I have been honored with, or sufficient to
elect him by a majority or plurality rule, I will not stand in this
position one hour; I will retire from the field, and yield to any
other gentleman with whom I act, the barren honors of the speaker's
chair; and I promise my friends a grateful recognition of the
unsolicited honor conferred upon me, and a zealous and earnest co-
operation."

Pending the vote on the 39th ballot and before it was announced,
Robert Mallory, of Kentucky, an American, appealed to the Democrats
to vote for William N. H. Smith, of North Carolina, also an American,
which would elect him.  The Democrats thereupon changed their votes
to Mr. Smith, making many speeches in explanation of their action.
Perceiving that this would elect Mr. Smith I arose and for the
first time cast my ballot for speaker, voting for Mr. Corwin.
Three other Members who had voted for Mr. Smith changed their votes,
which defeated the election on that ballot.

After this vote I conferred with Davis and George Briggs, of New
York, Americans, and Adrain.  I had the positive assurance of these
three gentlemen that if I would withdraw they would vote for William
Pennington, of New Jersey, and thus secure a Republican organization
of the House.  I referred this proposition to my Republican
associates, and a majority of them were opposed to any change.
Francis E. Spinner, of New York, said he would never change his
vote from me, and Thaddeus Stevens said he never would do so until
the crack of doom.  When afterwards reminded of this Mr. Stevens
said he thought he "heard it cracking."

I felt the responsibility, but on the 30th of January, 1860, I
determined to withdraw.  In doing so I made the following remarks,
as printed in the "Congressional Globe:"

"Mr. clerk--[Loud cries of 'Down,' 'Down,' 'Order,' 'Order,' 'Let
us have the question,' etc.]  Eight weeks ago, I was honored by
the votes of a large plurality of my fellow Members for the high
office of speaker of this House.  Since that time they have adhered
to their choice with a fidelity that has won my devotion and respect;
and, as I believe, the approbation of their constituents.  They
have stood undismayed amidst threats of disunion and disorganization;
conscious of the rectitude of their purposes; warm in their attachment
to the constitution and Union, and obedient to the rules of order
and the laws.  They have been silent, firm, manly.  On the other
hand, they have seen their ancient adversary and their only natural
adversary, reviving anew the fires of sectional discord, and broken
into fragments.  They have seen some of them shielding themselves
behind a written combination to prevent the majority of the House
from prescribing rules for its organization.  They have heard others
openly pronounce threats of disunion; proclaim that if a Republican
be duly elected President of the United States, they would tear
down this fair fabric of our rights and liberties, and break up
the union of these states.  And now we have seen our ancient
adversary, broken, dispersed and disorganized, unite in supporting
a gentleman who was elected to Congress as an American, in open,
avowed opposition to the Democratic organization.

"I should regret exceedingly, and believe it would be a national
calamity, to have anyone who is a supporter, directly or indirectly,
of this administration, or who owes it any allegiance, favor or
affection, occupying a position of importance or prominence in this
House.  I would regard it as a public calamity to have the power
of this House placed, directly or indirectly, under the control of
this administration.  It would be, it seems to me, a fatal policy
to trust the power of this House to the control of gentlemen who
have proclaimed that under any circumstances, or in any event, they
would dissolve the union of these states.  For this reason we would
be wanting in our duty to our God and our country, if we did not
avert such a result of this contest.  I regard it as the highest
duty of patriotism to submerge personal feelings, to sacrifice all
personal preferences and all private interests, to the good of our
common country.  I said here a few days ago, and I always stood in
the position, that when I became convinced that any of my political
friends or associates could receive further support outside of the
Republican organization, I would retire from the field and yield
to him the honor of the position that the partiality of friends
has assigned to me.  I believe that time has now arrived.  I believe
that a greater concentration can now be made on another gentleman,
who, from the beginning, has acted with me.

"Therefore, I respectfully withdraw my name as a candidate.  And
in doing so, allow me to return my heartfelt thanks for the generous
and hearty support of all my political friends, and especially to
those gentlemen with whom I have not the tie of a party name, but
the higher one of a common purpose and sympathy.  And if I can ask
of them one more favor, it would be that in an unbroken column,
with an unfaltering front and unwavering line, each of them will
cast his vote in favor of any one of our number who can command
the highest vote, or who can be elected speaker of this House."

A ballot was immediately taken, but, much to my chagrin, the
gentlemen named did not change their votes, and Mr. Pennington
still lacked three votes of an election.  I again appealed to Davis
and Briggs, and finally, on the 1st of February, Mr. Pennington
received their votes.  The result was announced; Pennington, 117
votes; McClernand, 85; Gilmer, 16; 15 scattering; giving Pennington
a majority of one, and thus, after a long and violent contest, a
Republican was elected speaker of the House of Representatives.

I was entirely satisfied with the result.  I had received every
Republican vote and the votes of a large number of anti-Nebraska
Democrats and Americans.  No cloud rested upon me, no allegation
of misconduct or unfitness was made against me.  I would have been
easily and quickly elevated but for the abnormal excitement created
by Brown's invasion and the bitterness of political antagonism
existing at that time.  Many Members who felt it their duty to oppose
my election, subsequently expressed their regret that I was not
elected.  I had voted for Mr. Pennington during the contest, had
a high respect for him as a gentleman of character and influence,
long a chancellor of his state, and a good Republican.

When the canvass was over, I felt a sense of relief.  During its
continuance, I had remained, with rare exceptions, silent, though
strongly tempted, by political criticism, to engage in the debate.
I had, during the struggle, full opportunity to estimate the capacity
and qualifications of different Members for committee positions,
and had the committees substantially framed, when Pennington was
elected.  I handed the list to him, for which he thanked me kindly,
saying that he had but little knowledge of the personal qualifications
of the Members.  With some modifications, made necessary by my
defeat and his election as speaker, he adopted the list as his own.
He designated me as chairman of the committee of ways and means,
of which I had not previously been a member.

The organization of the House was not completed until the 9th day
of February, 1860.  The officers designated by the Republicans were
generally elected.  Congress seemed to appreciate the necessity of
prompt and vigorous action on the business of the session.  Still,
whatever question was pending, political topics were the object of
debate, but were rarely acted upon, as the condition of the House
prevented anything like political action.  Nearly all the measures
adopted were of a non-political character.  The chief work of the
session was devoted to appropriations, and the preparation and
enactment of a tariff bill.  At that time, the great body of
legislation was referred to the committee of ways and means, which
then had charge of all appropriations and of all tax laws, and
whose chairman was recognized as the leader of the House, practically
controlling the order of its business.

By the 13th of March, I was able to say, in behalf of the committee,
that all the annual appropriation bills were ready for the
consideration of the House, and promised that if the House would
sustain the committee, all these bills could be passed before the
meeting of the Charleston convention.  Notwithstanding the partisan
bitterness which was exhibited against me while I was a candidate
for speaker, I had no cause to complain of a want of support by
the House, in the measures reported from that committee.  Since
then the work of that committee has been distributed among a number
of committees.

The first political contest was caused by a message of President
Buchanan, protesting against action under a resolution by the House
of Representatives, passed on the 5th of March, providing for a
committee of five members, to be appointed by the speaker, for the
purpose of investigating "whether the President of the United
States, or any other officer of the government, has, by money,
patronage, or other improper means, sought to influence the action
of Congress for or against the passage of any law pertaining to
the rights of any state or territory."  The committee appointed
came to be commonly known as the Covode committee.

This message was regarded as a plain interference with the
unquestionable power of the House to investigate the conduct of
any officer of the government, a process absolutely necessary to
enable the House to exercise the power of impeachment.  Upon the
reception of the message I immediately replied to it, and a general
debate arose upon a motion to refer it to the committee on the
judiciary.  That motion was adopted and the committee reported a
resolution in the following words, which was finally adopted after
debate, by a vote of 88 yeas and 40 nays:

"_Resolved_, That the House dissents from the doctrines of the
special message of the President of the United States of March 28,
1860;

"That the extent of power contemplated in the adoption of the
resolutions of inquiry of March 5, 1860, is necessary to the proper
discharge of the constitutional duties devolved upon Congress;

"That judicial determinations, the opinions of former Presidents
and uniform usage, sanction its exercise; and

"That to abandon it would leave the executive department of the
government without supervision or responsibility, and would be
likely to lead to a concentration of power in the hands of the
President, dangerous to the rights of a free people."

This resolution was regarded as a severe reproach to the President,
who was not content to let the matter rest there, but on the 25th
of June sent to the House of Representatives, a message restating
the position in his former message.  He denounced the proceedings
of that committee as a violation of the letter and spirit of the
constitution.  But for the lateness of the session the message
would have been the subject of severe animadversion.  Late as it
was Benjamin Stanton, of Ohio, entered his protest and moved that
the message be referred to a select committee of five, with power
to report at the next session.  This, after a brief debate, was
adopted.

During the entire session, while the current business was progressing
rapidly, the political questions involved in the pending presidential
canvass, the topics of Kansas and slavery, were frequently obtruded
into the debate.  On the 23rd of April, William T. Avery, a Democratic
Member from Tennessee charged that "an overwhelming majority of
the Republican party in this House, headed by Mr. Sherman--in fact,
every member of that party present when the vote was taken, excepting
some fourteen or fifteen--indorsed the doctrine of the abolition
of slavery everywhere."

In the course of a reply to this charge I said:

"I think there is not a Member on this side of the House who is
not now willing to make the declaration broadly, openly, that he
is opposed to any interference whatever with the relations of master
and slave in the slave states.  We do believe that Congress has
the power to prohibit slavery in the territories; and whenever the
occasion offers, whenever the proper time arrives, whenever the
question arises, we are in favor of exercising that power, if
necessary, to prevent the extension of slavery into free territory.
We are frank and open upon this subject.  But we never did propose,
and do not now propose, to interfere with slavery in the slave
states.  I hope the gentleman will put these observations in his
speech, so that the gentleman's constituents may see that we 'black
Republicans' are not so very desirous of interfering with their
interests or rights, but only desirous of preserving our own."

Mr. Ashmore inquired:  "Are you not in favor of abolishing slavery
in the District of Columbia?"

I replied:

"I have stated to my constituents, over and over again, that I am
opposed to interference with slavery in the District of Columbia.
That is my individual position.  The Republican party never took
a position on the subject.  Some are for it, and some against it.
I have declared to my constituents, over and over again, that I
did not think it proper to agitate the question of the abolition
of slavery in the District of Columbia; because I believe that this
is the very paradise of the free negro.  I believe that practically,
though not legally, he is better off in the District than in any
portion of the United States.  There are but few slaves here, and
the number is decreasing daily.  As an institution, slavery scarcely
exists here, and I am willing to leave it to the effect of time."

On the 12th of March, 1860, Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont, by
instruction of the committee of ways and means, reported a bill
"to provide for the payment of outstanding treasury notes, to
authorize a loan, to regulate and fix duties on imports, and for
other purposes."  This became the law commonly known as the Morrill
tariff act, which, from the time of its introduction to this day,
had been the subject of debate, amendment, criticism and praise.
It was referred to the committee of the whole on the state of the
Union, and its consideration occupied a large proportion of the
remainder of the session.  Nearly one hundred Members entered into
the debate and some of them made several speeches upon the subject.
Being at the time much occupied with the appropriation bills, I
did not give much attention to the debate, but had taken part in
the preparation of the bill in the committee of ways and means,
and concurred, with rare exceptions, in the principles and details
of the measure.

Mr. Morrill was eminently fitted to prepare a tariff bill.  He had
been engaged in trade and commerce, was a man of sound judgment,
perfectly impartial and honest.  Representing a small agricultural
state, he was not biased by sectional feeling or the interests of
his constituents.  He regarded the tariff as not only a method of
taxation, but as a mode of protection to existing industries in
the United States with a view to encourage and increase domestic
production.  He was moderate in his opinions, kind and fair in
expressing them, and willing to listen with patience to any
proposition of amendment.  He still lives at the venerable age of
eighty-five, and has been, during all the long period since the
report of the bill named after him, to this time, in public life,
and still retains the confidence and affection of his constituents
and colleagues.

I did not participate in the debate until the time came when, in
the judgment of the committee of ways and means, it was necessary
to dispose of the bill, either by its passage or defeat.  On the
7th of May, 1860, the bill being before the House, I moved that
all debate on it should cease at one o'clock the next day.  Some
opposition was evinced, but the motion was adopted.  I then made
my first speech upon the subject of the tariff.  The introductory
paragraphs state the then condition of the treasury as follows:

"The revenue act of March 3, 1857, which it is now proposed to
repeal, has proved to be a crude, ill-advised, and ill-digested
measure.  It was never acted upon in detail in either branch of
Congress, but was the result of a committee of conference in the
last days of the session, and was finally passed by a combination
of hostile interests and sentiments.  It was adopted at a time of
inflated prices, when the treasury was overflowing with revenue.
When that condition of affairs ceased, it failed to furnish ordinary
revenue, and by its incidental effects operated injuriously to
nearly every branch of industry.

"It went into operation on the 1st of July, 1857.  At that time
there was in the treasury of the United States a balance of
$17,710,114.  The amount of the public debt then remaining unpaid,
none of which was then due, was a little over $29,000,000.  So that
there was in the treasury of the United States, when the tariff
act of 1857 went into operation, nearly enough to have paid two-
thirds of the public debt.  Within one year from that time, the
public debt was increased to $44,910,777.

"On the 1st of July, 1859, the public debt had increased to
$58,754,699.  On the 1st of May, 1860, as nearly as I can ascertain,
the public debt had risen to $65,681,099.  The balance in the
treasury on the first of July next, as estimated by me, will be
$1,919,349.

* * * * *

"Under the operation of the tariff of 1857, the deficit in the
revenue is over $52,000,000.  It may be stated thus:

  Balance in the treasury, July 1, 1857 . . . . . . . . . $17,710,114
  Balance in the treasury, July 1, 1860, estimated  . . .   1,919,349
                                                          $15,790,765
  Amount of public debt May 1, 1860 . . . $65,681,199
  Amount of public debt July 1, 1857  . .  29,060,386      36,620,813
                                                          $52,411,578"

It was manifest from these statements that there was an imperative
necessity for the passage of some measure to increase the revenues.
We could hardly hope that, in the excited state of the public mind
and the known position of the Senate, the bill could pass at that
session.  The government had been conducted for three years by
borrowing money in time of peace.  The appropriations had been
reduced during that session by the committee of ways and means
below the estimate of the treasury, as stated by me to the House.
I then said:

"I desire now to say that the committee of ways and means, who have
had charge of appropriation bills, have endeavored, faithfully and
honestly, without regard to party divisions--and all parties in
this House are represented in that committee--to cut down the
appropriations to the lowest practicable point; and thus to reduce
the expenses of the government.  I have before me a table showing
that, upon the estimates submitted to us, by the Secretary of the
Treasury, for the ordinary expenses of the government, we have been
able to reduce the amount about $1,230,000."

After a careful statement of the condition of the treasury and the
necessity for further supplies, I expressed this opinion of the
pending bill:

"In my judgment Mr. Morrill's bill is a great improvement on the
tariff of 1857.  It is more certain.  It is more definite.  It
gives specific duties.  There is another reason why it is better
than the tariff of 1857.  That tariff is made up of complex and
inconvenient tables.  The number of tables is too great; and in
some cases the same article is in two tables.  Thus, flaxseed comes
in with a duty of ten per cent.; and yet linseed, the same thing,
yielding the same product, the same oil, is admitted duty free.
The bill of Mr. Morrill, on the other hand, fixes three _ad valorem_
tables; one at ten per cent., one at twenty, and the other at
thirty.  There is a number of specific duties, and then there is
a free list.  It conforms to our decimal currency, and the duties
under it are easily calculated.  There can be but little dispute
about home and foreign valuation under it.  It will yield a revenue
sufficient to pay the expenses of the government.  It is more simple
and more certain.  It substitutes specific for _ad valorem_ duties
whenever practicable.  For these reasons, it is obvious Mr. Morrill's
bill ought to receive the sanction of Congress."

The bill not only provided for a sufficient revenue, but was
distinctively a bill for incidental protection to all American
industries, impartially and fairly applied.  I said I desired to
have this bill passed,

"Because it is framed upon the idea that it is the duty of the
government, in imposing taxes, to do as little injury to the industry
of the country as possible; that they are to be levied so as to
extend a reasonable protection to all branches of American industry.
I think that is right.  Every President of the United States, from
Washington to this time, has recognized that principle, including
Mr. Buchanan.

"We may make a tariff to raise the sum of $40,000,000, and injure
every industrial interest of the country.  The committee of ways
and means report a tariff bill which will produce $65,000,000, and
will do no injury to any industrial interest.  I believe that it
will give a reasonable fair protection for the great industries of
agriculture, manufacture, and commerce, which lie at the basis of
the prosperity of this country."

Mr. Morrill participated in this debate by brief but clear statements
in respect to the details of the bill.  On the 8th of May, 1860,
he said, in the course of some remarks upon the bill:

"I think if the gentleman will examine this bill, he will find that
the average rates of duties upon manufactured articles are not
higher, but rather lower, than they are now; but being to a large
extent specific, they will prove of great value to the country, in
giving steadiness to our markets, as well as to the revenue; and
because frauds will be to a very great extent obviated, which are
now practiced under our _ad valorem_ system, and which have made
our government almost equal in infamy to that of Mexico and other
countries, where their revenue laws are a mere farce."

The bill, despite its merits, was assailed with all forms of
amendments from all parts of the House.  Many of the amendments
were adopted, until the bill became so mottled that Mr. Morrill,
discouraged and strongly inclined against the bill as changed, was
disposed to abandon it to its fate.  He was not familiar with the
rules, and, for this reason, labored under a disadvantage in the
conduct of the bill.  I believed not only in the merits of the
measure, but that by a process strictly in accordance with the
rules, it might be restored substantially as it was reported by
the committee.  To secure that effect Mr. Morrill offered an
amendment in the nature of a substitute for the bill.  To that I
offered as an amendment a bill which embodied nearly all of the
original bill as reported, with such modifications as were evidently
favored by the House, without affecting the general principles of
the measure.

The vote, upon my substitute being adopted in place of the substitute
offered by Mr. Morrill, prevented any amendment to my amendment
except by adding to it.  The result of it was that the House, tired
with the long struggle, and believing that the measure thus amended
was in substance the same as the original bill reported, finally
passed the bill on the 10th day of May, 1860, by the vote of 105
yeas to 64 nays.

As this was my birthday, I remember to have celebrated it, not only
as my birthday, but as the day on which the Morrill tariff bill
passed the House of Representatives.

We knew upon the passage of this bill that it could not pass the
Senate during that session.  It was taken up in that body, debated
at length, and finally, on the 20th of June, it was, in effect,
postponed until the next session.

I might as well here follow the Morrill tariff bill to its final
passage at the next session of this Congress.

On the 20th of December, 1860, Mr. Hunter, from the committee on
finance, to whom was referred the tariff bill, reported it back
with a recommendation that it be postponed until the 4th day of
March following.  This was, in effect, to reject the bill, as
Congress terminated on that day.  The committee on finance, and a
majority of the Senate as then constituted, was opposed to the
passage of the bill, but the secession movements, then openly
threatened, soon changed the political complexion of the Senate,
by the resignation of Senators on account of the secession of their
states.  On the 18th of January, 1861, Mr. Cameron, of Pennsylvania,
moved to take up the bill, and, upon his motion, it was made a
special order for the following Wednesday.  On the 23rd of January
it was referred to a committee of five members, consisting of Mr.
Simmons, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Bigler, Mr. Fessenden, and Mr. Gwin.  This
was done on the same day when the committees of the Senate were
reorganized on account of the withdrawal of Senators.  The special
committee appointed by the Vice President was friendly to the bill.
Then for the first time it became possible to secure favorable
action in the Senate.  Many amendments were proposed and adopted
by the Senate, but they did not materially affect the general
principles upon which the bill was founded.  It passed the Senate
with these amendments by the decided vote of 25 yeas to 14 nays.
All of the amendments of the Senate but one were promptly agreed
to by the House, and a conference between the two Houses was ordered.
Messrs. Simmons, Bigler and Hunter were the managers on the part
of the Senate and Messrs. Sherman, Phelps and Moorhead on the part
of the House.

On the 27th day of February, five days before the close of the
session, the conferees reported to the Senate their agreement and
the report of the committee was adopted without objection or division
of that body, and also by the House of Representatives, and the
bill was signed by President Buchanan.

This law, passed in the throes of a revolution, and only possible
as the result of the withdrawal of Senators to engage in the war
of secession, met all the expectations of its friends.  It was
fair, just and conservative, and would, in peaceful times, yield
about $50,000,000 a year, the amount of national expenditures in
1860, and, at the same time, protect and strengthen all existing
home industries, and lay the foundation for great increase in
production.  It was destined, however, to begin its existence at
a period of revolution.  The secession of eleven states precipitated
the war, involving enormous expenditures, in the face of which all
revenue laws were inadequate and powerless.  The credit of the
government, its resources and capacity for taxation, had to be
appealed to.  Resort was had to every possible mode of taxation
that could be devised by the ingenuity of man, to supply the
requirements of the war, and to maintain the public credit.  The
Morrill tariff act was, therefore, greatly modified by subsequent
laws, the duties doubled and in some cases trebled.  Internal taxes,
yielding twofold the amount collected from customs, were levied,
and cheerfully paid, and duties on imported goods were quickly
increased.  The details of this act became the victim of the war,
but the general principles upon which it was founded, the application
of specific duties where possible, and the careful protection
extended to the products of the soil and the mine, as well as of
the workshop, have been maintained to a greater or less extent
until the present time.

I have participated in framing many tariff bills, but have never
succeeded in securing one that I entirely approved.  The Morrill
tariff bill came nearer than any other to meeting the double
requirement of providing ample revenue for the support of the
government and of rendering the proper protection to home industries.
No national taxes, except duties on imported goods, were imposed
at the time of its passage.  The Civil War changed all this, reducing
importations and adding tenfold to the revenue required.  The
government was justified in increasing existing rates of duty, and
in adding to the dutiable list all articles imported, thus including
articles of prime necessity and universal use.  In addition to
these duties, it was compelled to add taxes on all articles of home
production, on incomes not required for the supply of actual wants,
and, especially, on articles of doubtful necessity, such as sprits,
tobacco and beer.  These taxes were absolutely required to meet
expenditures for the army and navy, for the interest on the war
debts and just pensions to those who were disabled by the war, and
to their widows and orphans.

These conditions have, in a measure, been fulfilled.  The war is
over; the public debt has been diminished to one-third of the amount
due at the close of the war.  The pension list is the chief and
almost only outstanding obligation growing out of the war, but this
is fully met by internal taxes on spirits, tobacco and beer.  What
is needed now is a tariff or tax on imported goods sufficient in
amount to meet the current expenditures of the government, and
which at the same time will tend to encourage the production in
this country of all articles, whether of the farm, the mine or the
workshop, that can be readily and at reasonable cost produced in
this country.

And here we meet the difficulty that the mode, extent, manner and
objects of tariff taxation are unhappily mixed up in our party
politics.  This should not be so.  Whether the mode of taxation
should be by a percentage on the _value_ of goods imported, or by
a duty imposed on the weight or quantity, depends upon the nature
of the article.  If the article is sold in the market by weight or
quantity, the duty should be specific, _i. e._, a certain rate on
the unit of weight or quantity.  If it is of such a nature that
its value cannot be measured by weight or quantity the duty should
be _ad valorem, i. e._ a percentage of its value.  This is matter
of detail to be fixed by the custom of merchants.  As a rule it is
better to fix the duty upon weight or measure, rather than upon
value, for by the former mode the amount is easily ascertained by
the scale or yard stick, while to base the duty upon value, changing
from day to day, is to invite fraud and litigation.

The extent or rate of duty to be imposed should depend entirely
upon the pecuniary wants of the government, and the nature of the
article imported.  If the article is one of luxury, mainly consumed
by the rich, the duty should be at a higher rate than upon an
article in general use.  This principle is sometimes disputed, but
it would seem that in a republic a just discrimination ought to be
made in favor of the many rather than of the few.  On this principle
all political parties have acted.  The rates have been higher on
silks, satins, furs and the like than on goods made of cotton,
wool, flax or hemp.  To meet the changing wants of the government
all articles should be classified in schedules, so that the rate
of duty on a single schedule, or on many schedules, could be advanced
or lowered without disturbing the general scheme of taxation.

As to the manner of taxation and the places where duties should be
collected, all will agree that they should be paid as nearly as
possible where the goods are to be consumed.  The concentration of
importations at any one port on the coast, or at several ports,
gives to the people residing at or near such favored ports an
advantage over the people living in the interior of the country.
The system of interior ports, or places of delivery to which goods
may be consigned, has been adopted and generally approved.  The
object is that all parts of the country shall have equal facilities
and bear equally the burdens of taxation.

The method of importations should be so simplified that any person,
in any part of the United States, may order from any commercial
port or country any article desired and be able to receive it and
pay the prescribed duty, at any considerable port or city in the
United States that he may designate.

As to the objects of tariff taxation there is and always will be
an honest difference of opinion.  The main purpose is to secure
the revenue from foreigners seeking our market to dispose of their
products.  The United States has the right, exercised by every
nation, to determine upon what terms the productions of foreign
nations shall be admitted into its markets, and those terms will
be such as its interests may demand.  Great Britain may admit nearly
all commodities free of duty, but even that country is guided by
her interests in all her commercial regulations.  All other nations
classified as civilized seek, like the United States, by tariff
laws, not only to secure revenue, but to protect and foster domestic
industries.  Japan has won its entrance among civilized nations by
securing treaties with European countries and the United States,
by which she has been relieved from restrictions as to her duties
on imports, and now has the right to regulate and fix her import
duties as her interest dictates.

The United States has from the beginning of its government declared
that one object of duties on imports is the encouragement of
manufactures in the United States, and, whatever may be the dogma
inserted in a political party platform, tariff legislation will
continue to have a double object, _revenue and protection_.  This
was strikingly exemplified by the recent action of Congress in the
passage of the tariff law now in force.

The real difficulty in our tariff laws is to avoid unequal and
unjust discrimination in the objects of protection, made with a
view to favor the productions of one state or section at the cost
of another state or section.  The dogma of some manufacturers, that
raw materials should be admitted free of duty, is far more dangerous
to the protective policy than the opposition of free traders.  The
latter contend that no duties should be levied to protect domestic
industry, but for revenue only, while the former demand protection
for their industries, but refuse to give to the farmer and miner
the benefit of even revenue duties.  A denial of protection on
coal, iron, wool and other so-called raw materials, will lead to
the denial of protection to machinery, to textiles, to pottery and
other industries.  The labor of one class must not be sacrificed
to secure higher protection for another class.  The earth and all
that is within it is the work of God.  The labor of man that tends
to develop the resources buried in the earth is entitled to the
same favor and protection as skilled labor in the highest branch
of industry, and if this is not granted impartially the doctrine
of protection proclaimed by the founders of our government, supported
for more than a hundred years of wonderful progress, will be
sacrificed by the hungry greed of selfish corporations, who ask
protection for great establishments and refuse to grant it to the
miner, the laborer and the farmer.

Another principle must be ingrafted into our tariff laws, growing
out of new modes of production by corporations and combinations.
Until recently each miner, each artisan, and each manufacturer,
had to compete in the open market with everyone engaged in the same
industry.  The general public had the benefit of free competition.
This tended to lower prices on many commodities, to increase the
quantity produced, and to supply the home market, thus excluding
importations.  The tendency since the Civil War in every branch of
industry has been to consolidate operations.  To effect this,
corporations have been created in most of the states and granted
such liberal corporate powers, without respect to the nature of
the business to be conducted, and with terms and privileges so
favorable, that private enterprise without large capital cannot
compete with them.  Instead of small or moderate workshops, with
a few hands, we now have great establishments with hundreds of
employees, and all the capital of scores of stockholders under the
control of a few men, and often of one man.  This may be of benefit
by reducing the cost of production, but it also involves two dangers,
one the irrepressible conflict of labor with capital, and the other
the combination of corporations engaged in the same business to
advance prices and prevent competition, thus constituting a monopoly
commanding business and controlling the market.

This power in the hands of a few is at this moment the disturbing
element in many of our great industries.  It is especially dangerous
when it is promoted by rates of duty on imported goods higher than
are necessary to cover the difference in the cost of labor here
and abroad.  When such conditions occur, the monopoly becomes
offensive.  Such combinations are denounced and punished by the
laws of almost every civilized government and by the laws of many
of our states.  They should be denounced and punished by the laws
of the United States whenever they affect any matter within the
jurisdiction of the United States.  Whenever the tendency of a
monopoly is to prevent mutual competition, and to advance prices
for any articles embraced in our tariff laws, the duty on the
article should be at once reduced or repealed.

As Members of Congress, divided by party lines and crude platforms,
must in the main, care for and protect local interests, I do not
believe any fair, impartial and business tariff can be framed by
them.  It would be better for Congress, the law-making power, after
determining the amount to be raised, to sanction and adopt a careful
tariff bill, framed by an impartial commission, large enough to
represent all sections and parties, all employers and employees.
Hitherto, the tariffs framed by Congress have been rejected by the
people.  Each party, in its turn, has undertaken the task with a
like result.  Let us try the experiment of a tariff framed, not by
a party upon a party platform, but by the selected representatives
of the commercial, industrial, farming and laboring classes.  Let
Congress place upon the statute book such a law, and the tariff
question will cease to be the foot ball of partisan legislation.

The remainder of the session was occupied chiefly in the consideration
of appropriation bills.  These were carefully scrutinized; many
estimates of the departments were reduced.  As usual, appropriations
were increased in the Senate, but most of the amendments were
rejected in conference.

The bill authorizing a loan for the redemption of treasury notes
was passed on the 22nd day of June.  Congress adjourned at noon
June 25, 1860.

This memorable Congress, commencing with a contest which threatened
violence on the floor of the House of Representatives, was held
unorganized for sixty days by a defeated party upon a flimsy pretext,
and during all that time we had to listen to open threats of
secession and disunion made by its members.  No previous Congress
had exhibited such violence of speech and action.  When fully
organized it quieted down, and, with occasional exceptions, proceeded
rapidly to the discharge of its public duties.  A greater number
of contested bills were passed at this Congress than usual.  Most
of these measures came from the committee of ways and means.  The
members of that committee were Messrs. John Sherman, of Ohio, Henry
Winter Davis, of Maryland, John S. Phelps, of Missouri, Thaddeus
Stevens, of Pennsylvania, Israel Washburn, Jr., of Maine, John S.
Millson, of Virginia, Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont, Martin J.
Crawford, of Georgia, and Elbridge G. Spaulding, of New York.  Of
these but two, Mr. Morrill and myself, survive.  A brief notice of
those who are numbered with the dead may not be out of place.

Henry Winter Davis was the most accomplished orator in the House
while he was a Member.  Well educated in college, well trained as
a lawyer, an accomplished writer and eloquent speaker, yet he was
a poor parliamentarian, a careless member in committee, and utterly
unfit to conduct an appropriation or tariff bill in the House.  He
was impatient of details, querulous when questioned or interrupted,
but in social life and in intercourse with his fellow Members he
was genial, kind and courteous.  On one occasion, when I was called
home, I requested him to take charge of an appropriation bill and
secure its passage.  He did as I requested, but he was soon
embarrassed by questions he could not answer, and had the bill
postponed until my return.  I felt for Mr. Davis a personal
attachment, and I believe this kindly feeling was reciprocated.
He served in the House of Representatives during most of the war,
and joined with Senator Wade in opposition to Mr. Lincoln's re-
election in 1864.  He died at Baltimore on the 20th of December,
1865, when in the full vigor of matured manhood.

John S. Phelps in 1860 was an old and experienced Member.  Born in
Connecticut he removed to Missouri as early as 1837.  In 1844 he
was elected to Congress as a Democrat, and continued as a Member
sixteen years, being chairman of the committee of ways and means
during the 35th Congress.  He was a valuable Member, patient,
careful, industrious, and had the confidence of the House.  He was
moderate in his political opinions, and, though a resident of
Missouri, he took the Union side in the Civil War.

Thaddeus Stevens, one of the most remarkable men of the last
generation, was born in Vermont near the close of the last century;
and was well educated.  He taught school and studied law.  He
removed to Pennsylvania and there engaged in turbulent politics;
served several years as a member of the state legislature; was
elected to Congress in 1848 and served four years.  He was known
to be an aggressive Whig and a dangerous opponent in debate; was
re-elected in 1858 as a Republican and at once took the lead in
the speakership contest.  His sarcasm was keen and merciless.  He
was not a very useful member of the committee.  He was better in
the field of battle than in the seclusion of the committee.  Still,
when any contest arose in the House over bills reported by the
committee, he was always ready to defend its action.  Though a
cynical old bachelor, with a deformed foot and with a bitter tongue
for those he disliked, he was always charitable and kind to the
poor.  He was quiet and impartial in his charity, recognizing no
distinction on account of color, but usually preferring to aid
women rather than men.  I was often the witness of his charities.
He continued in active public life until his death on the 11th of
August, 1868.  For some time before his death he was unable to walk
up the marble steps of the capitol and two stout negroes were
detailed to carry him up in a chair.  On one occasion when safely
seated he grimly said to them, "Who will carry me when you die?"
Mr. Stevens was a brave man.  He always fought his fights to a
finish and never asked or gave quarter.

Israel Washburn, Jr., of Maine, was one of three brothers, Members
of this Congress.  Israel was the eldest, and, perhaps, the most
active, of the three.  He received a classical education, studied
law and was admitted to the bar in 1830.  He was a good debater
and a useful member of the committee.  He had been in Congress ten
years, including the 36th.  He subsequently became governor of
Maine, and collector of customs at Portland.

John S. Millson, of Virginia, had long been a Member of Congress,
was fifty-two years old, and regarded as a safe, conservative man
of fair abilities.

Martin J. Crawford, of Georgia, was a lawyer of good standing.  He
was elected a Member of Congress in 1854, and continued as such
until the rebellion, in which he took an active part.  When Georgia
seceded, he, with his colleagues, formally withdrew from Congress.
Crawford and I had been friendly, and somewhat intimate.  He was
a frank man, openly avowing his opinions, but with respectful
toleration of those of others.  After he withdrew we met in the
lobby; he bade me good-bye, saying that his next appearance in
Washington would be as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary
of the Confederate States.  I told him that he was more likely to
appear as a prisoner of war.  I then warned him that the struggle
would be to the death, and that the Union would triumph.  Long
afterwards, when I visited the fair at Atlanta, he recalled our
conversation and admitted I was the best prophet.  We spent the
evening and far into the night talking about the past and the
future.  He evinced no regret for the result of the war, but quietly
acquiesced, and was then a judge in one of the courts in that state.

Elbridge G. Spaulding, of New York, was an excellent Member.  He
had a taste for financial problems and contributed a good deal to
the measures adopted, in this and the 37th Congress, to establish
a national currency and to build up the public credit.  These
Members, with Mr. Morrill and myself, were charged with the most
important legislation in the 36th Congress, and I believe that the
general opinion of the House was that we did our duty well.


CHAPTER IX.
LAST DAYS OF THE BUCHANAN ADMINISTRATION.
My First Appearance Before a New York Audience--Lincoln's Nomination
at the Chicago Convention--I Engage Actively in the Presidential
Canvass--Making Speeches for Lincoln--My Letter to Philadelphia
Citizens--Acts of Secession by the Southern States--How the South
was Equipped by the Secretary of the Navy--Buchanan's Strange
Doctrine Regarding State Control by the General Government--Schemes
"To Save the Country"--My Reply to Mr. Pendleton on the Condition
of the Impending Revolution--The Ohio Delegation in the 36th Congress
--Retrospection.

I have followed this important session of Congress to its close,
but while the debate continued in Congress a greater debate was
being conducted by the people.  Never before was such interest felt
in the political questions of the day.  In many of the cities of
the country clubs were organized for political discussions, and
persons in public life were pressed to make speeches or lectures
on the topics of the day.  The Young Men's Central Republican Union,
of New York, arranged a series of lectures, the first of which was
delivered by Frank P. Blair, the second by Cassius M. Clay, and
the third by Abraham Lincoln.  The remarkable address of the last
named had great influence in securing his nomination for President.
It was the first time Mr. Lincoln had spoken in New York, where he
was then personally almost unknown.  His debate with Douglas had
excited general attention.  Using the language of his biographers:

"When, on the evening of February 27, 1860, he stood before his
audience, he saw not only a well-filled house, but an assemblage
of listeners in which were many whom, by reason of his own modest
estimate of himself, he would have been rather inclined to ask
advice from than to offer instruction to.  William Cullen Bryant
presided over the meeting.

* * * * *

"The representative men of New York were naturally eager to see
and hear one who, by whatever force of eloquence or argument, had
attracted so large a share of the public attention.  We may also
fairly infer that, on his part, Lincoln was no less curious to test
the effect of his words on an audience more learned and critical
than those collected in the open air meetings of his western
campaigns.  This mutual interest was an evident advantage to both;
it secured a close attention from the house, and insured deliberation
and emphasis by the speaker, enabling him to develop his argument
with perfect precision and unity, reaching perhaps the happiest
general effect ever attained in any one of his long addresses."

His speech was printed by the leading papers of the city, and, in
pamphlet form, was widely distributed and read.

I was invited by the Republican Union to make one of these addresses,
and, though very much occupied and having little time for preparation,
I accepted the invitation, and spoke at Cooper Institute in the
city of New York on the 30th of April, 1860.  It was my first
appearance before a New York audience, and I confess that I was
not satisfied with the address.  I undertook, what I never attempted
before, to read a political speech to a popular audience.  While
I was treated kindly I felt quite sure my speech was a disappointment.
A recent reading of it confirms my opinion that it was not equal
to the occasion or the audience.

I was also invited by the Republican Club of Philadelphia to make
a speech ratifying the nomination of Lincoln and Hamlin and spoke
at a meeting held May 28, 1860.  My address was entirely impromptu,
and was far better, both in manner and matter, than the speech in
New York, and was received with great applause.  Since that time,
I have never attempted to make a popular address from manuscript.
Every speaker should know the substance of what he intends to say,
but ought to rely for his words upon the spirit and temper of the
audience.

The summer of 1860 was ominous of domestic discord and civil war.
The success of the Republicans in the House of Representatives,
the violent scenes in the House, notably those between Potter,
Pryor, Barksdale, and Lovejoy, were indications that the south was
aggressive, and that the north would fight.  The meeting of the
Democratic convention at Charleston, on the 23rd of April, soon
disclosed an almost equal division of its members as to slavery in
the territories.  The southern platform was adopted by a majority
of one in its committee on resolutions, but rejected by a majority
of the convention.  This was the vital issue between the followers
of Davis and Douglas, and Douglas won.  A majority of the delegates
from six of the southern states thereupon withdrew from the convention
and adjourned to Richmond.  Thus, the first secession was from a
Democratic convention.  The remainder of that convention adjourned
to Baltimore, at which city Douglas was nominated for President.
The seceding delegates nominated Breckenridge.  Thus, the Democratic
party, which, in every stage of the slavery controversy, had taken
sides with the south, was itself broken on the rock of slavery,
and condemned to certain defeat.

The Republican convention met at Chicago on the 16th of May, with
a defined line of public policy which was adopted unanimously by
the convention.  The only question to be determined was, who should
be the candidate for President, who would best represent the
principles agreed upon.  Seward, Chase and Bates were laid aside,
and Abraham Lincoln, one stronger than any of these, was unanimously
nominated.  The nomination of a candidate by a third party, ignoring
the slavery question, did not change the issue.  The conflict was
now between freedom and slavery, an issue carefully avoided by the
two great parties prior to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

Thus Douglas, as a consequence of his own act, was destined to
defeat, and the irrepressible conflict was to be finally determined
by the people in the choice between Lincoln and Breckenridge, with
the distinct declaration, made by the delegates seceding from the
Charleston convention, that if Lincoln was elected their states
would secede from the Union, and establish an independent government
founded upon slavery.  This was the momentous issue involved in
the election.

Congress adjourned on the 28th of June, 1860.  On the 17th of July,
I was unanimously renominated at Shelby.  John Shauck, a venerable
Quaker, 80 years of age, claimed to right to nominate me as he had
done in previous conventions.  He was absent at the moment, but
the convention, in deference to his known wishes, awaited his
coming.  From that time until the election, I was actively engaged
in the presidential canvass.  I spent but little time in my district,
as there was but a nominal opposition to my election.  The Democratic
candidate, Barnabus Burns, was a personal friend, and sympathized
with me on many subjects.  Scarcely a week day passed that I did
not speak at least once.

Of the many speeches made by me in that canvass, I recall but very
few.  I have already referred to my debate with Cox, if it can
properly be called a debate.  It was friendly badinage.  He charged
me with pulling the Morrill tariff bill through by a trick.  I
answered that if it was a trick, it was a trick well played, as
the bill passed by a vote of 105 to 64, many Democrats voting for
it.  He complained of the duties on wool, declaring that the farmers
were sacrificed.  I showed that the duties on wool had been advanced.
He said I was president of a Know Nothing Lodge in Mansfield.  I
said this was simply a lie, and that there were plenty of Douglas
Democrats before me who knew it.  He said that I initiated therein,
Sam Richey in a stable.  I asked who told him that story, when the
audience called out loudly for Burns.  Mr. Burns rose and said he
did not tell Mr. Cox so.  I said I was glad to hear it, that it
was a silly lie made up out of whole cloth, and asked if Richey
was present.  Richey was in the crowd, and rose amid great laughter
and applause and said:  "Here I am."  I said:  "Well, friends, you
see my friend, Richey, is a genuine Irishman, but he knows, as I
know, that Cox's story is a falsification.  Mr. Cox says I am a
political thief; don't think he charges me with stealing sheep, he
only means to say I stole squatter sovereignty.  It is petty larceny
at best.  But I did not steal Douglas squatter sovereignty."

I then proceeded to define the difference between the only two
parties with definite principles.  The real contest was, not between
Lincoln and Douglas, or between Cox and me, but between Breckenridge
and Lincoln, between free institutions and slave institutions,
between union and disunion.  I refer to this debate with Cox to
show how local prejudices obscured the problem then involved.  The
people of Ohio were divided on parallel lines, for Cox and I agreed
on Kansas, but he was for Douglas and I for Lincoln, while the
south was brooding over secession, if either Lincoln or Douglas
should be elected.

I went into most of the congressional districts of Ohio and perceived
a strong leaning in favor of Lincoln, but Douglas also had many
supporters.  The Democratic party of Ohio was satisfied with Douglas'
popular sovereignty, especially as it, as they alleged, had secured
freedom for Kansas.  Breckenridge had no great following in Ohio,
and Bell and Everett less.

I spent several days in the canvass in Pennsylvania, Indiana, New
Jersey and Delaware, all warmly contested states, the votes of
which would determine the election.  It soon became apparent that
Lincoln was the only candidate who could secure a majority of the
electoral vote.  This fact, and the known difficulty of securing
an election by the House in case of failure of an election by the
Electoral College, greatly aided Mr. Lincoln.  I presented this
argument with care and fullness in a speech delivered at Philadelphia
on the 12th of September, 1860.  It was printed at the time and
largely circulated.  I quote a paragraph, which contains the one
fact upon which my argument rested:

"Owing to the division of the Democratic party, the Republican
party is the only one that can hope to succeed by a direct vote of
the people.  This is a fact I need not discuss, for it was written
at the threshold of the contest by the conventions of Charleston
and Baltimore.  If the election were to be determined by the rule
of plurality--a rule now adopted in every state in the Union--
intelligent men would consider it already decided; but the rule of
the majority is fixed by the constitution, and if Pennsylvania does
not vote for Lincoln, then the election devolves upon the House of
Representatives.  In that event the constitution requires the House
to choose immediately, by ballot, a President from the persons,
not exceeding three, having the highest number of electoral votes.
The vote must be taken by states, and not by Representatives.  The
three millions of people of Pennsylvania will have only the same
political power as the one hundred thousand people of Delaware."

I recently read this speech, and, in view of the events that followed
I can say that every prophecy made, and every argument stated, has
been verified and sustained by the march of events.  My opening
criticism of Mr. Buchanan's administration may seem to be partisan
and unjust, but the general opinion now is that his fault was
feebleness of will, not intentional wrong.  Mr. Buchanan was
surrounded by men who had already made up their minds to destroy
the Union, one of whom had already committed acts of treachery in
the distribution of arms and military supplies, and all of whom
avowed the legality and rightfulness of secession.  I think what
I said was justified by the conditions existing when the speech
was made.  The residue of my speech was certainly moderate enough
to satisfy the most conservative mind.  I give the closing
paragraphs:

"These are, so far as I know, the leading ideas of the Republican
party.  I appeal to your candor if they do not commend themselves
to the judgment of reasonable men.  Is this the party which you
would combine and conspire against, and to defeat which you would
unite hostile elements?  Is it to defeat these ideas that you would
risk scenes of violence in the House, or the subversion of the
constitution by the Senate of the United States?  Is it to defeat
this noble policy that you would longer trust a broken-down, corrupt
and demoralized administration?  Is it for this that you would
continue in power a party that, by a long enjoyment of the patronage
of the government, has become reckless and corrupt?

"If you will take the responsibility of preventing the triumph of
the Republican party, you may do so, but it will require a close
fusion of all the elements to defeat it.  It is young and vigorous.
It has all the unity and discipline of the old Democratic party.
It holds most of the opinions, modified by experience, of the old
Whig party.  It has the conservative moderation of the People's
party, which has influenced its nominations.  It adheres to every
principle proclaimed by the old Republican party of Jefferson.  We
have confidence in the integrity and patriotism, and wisdom of our
standard bearers--Lincoln and Hamlin.  If Mr. Lincoln cannot be
recommended as a parlor President, like General Pierce, and is not
familiar with the etiquette of foreign courts, as is Mr. Buchanan,
we know that he is honest, faithful, courageous and capable.  No
man can read his celebrated debates with Mr. Douglas, without
forming a high opinion of his capacity.  He is better for having
lived but a short time in Washington, for that city of politicians
is not particularly celebrated for sound principles or right morals.
Born in Kentucky, descended from a Pennsylvania stock, the son and
grandson of Virginians, raised in Indiana and Illinois, familiar
by his own experience with the wants and interests and aspirations
of the people, he possesses the same traits of character which made
Jackson and Clay, in their day and generation, leaders of parties
and of men.  Let us, my friends, unite in electing him President
of the United States."

Lincoln was elected.  He received 180 electoral votes; Breckenridge
72; Douglas 12; Bell 39.  The question then was whether the people
of the seceding states would try to carry into effect their
declaration.  I had no doubt they would try, but I was equally
confident they would fail.

As events progressed in the south, citizens of the north held
popular meetings in nearly all our cities and in many rural
communities.  I was invited by leading citizens of Philadelphia to
attend a public dinner in that city in December, 1860.  I could
not attend in person, but wrote them a letter which defined clearly
my convictions and my conception of the duties of our people in
view of passing events.  I insert it here:

  "Washington, December 22, 1860.
"Gentlemen:--Your note of the 15th inst., inviting me to attend a
public dinner in your city, on Friday evening next, was duly
received.

"I remember with pleasure the kindness shown me during the recent
canvass by our political friends in Philadelphia, and would gladly
avail myself of the proposed celebration, to mingle my personal
thanks with your rejoicings, over the recent triumph of our political
principles.  Other engagements and duties, however, will not allow
me that pleasure.

"No state can dispute with Pennsylvania the honor of this triumph.
Her own son was upon trial, and her voice of condemnation was
emphatic and decisive.  The election of Governor Curtin foreshadowed
her decision, and strengthened our cause in every state where
freedom of election is allowed to the people.  Her verdict in
November reconsidered and reaffirmed her verdict in October.  And
now, since the victory is won, let us not lose the fruits of it.

"Fidelity to principle is demanded by the highest patriotism.  The
question is not whether this or that policy should prevail; but
whether we shall allow the government to be broken into fragments,
by disappointed partisans, condemned by four-fifths of the people.
It is the same question answered by General Jackson in his proclamation
of 1833.  It is the same question answered by Henry Clay in the
Senate in 1850.  It is the same question answered by Madison and
Jefferson, and recently by Wade and Johnson.  It is a question
which, I feel assured, every one of you will answer, in the patriotic
language of General Jackson--'_The Union, it must be preserved_.'

"Such would be the voice of the whole country, if the government
was not now administered by those who not only threaten treason,
but actually commit it, by turning the powers of the government
against itself.  They kill the government they have sworn to maintain
and defend, because the people, whose agents they are, have condemned
them.  In this spirit we have seen a Secretary of the Treasury,
charged with the financial credit of the government, offering for
sale the bonds of the government, and at the same moment declaring
that it will be overthrown, and that he would aid in overthrowing
it.  We see other high officers receiving _pay_ for services to
the government, and yet, at the same moment, plotting its destruction.
We see the treasury robbed by subordinate officers amid the general
ruin.  Stranger still, we see the President of the United States
acknowledging his duty to execute the laws, but refusing to execute
them.  He admits that the constitution is the supreme law; that
neither a state nor the citizens of a state can disregard it; and
yet, armed as he is with all the executive power, he refuses even
to protect the property of the United States against armed violence.
He will not heed General Cass, the head of his cabinet.  He will
not heed General Scott, the head of the army.  He has transferred
to southern states more than one hundred thousand arms, of the
newest pattern and most effective calibre, to be turned against
the government.

"The American people are now trembling with apprehension lest the
President allow our officers and soldiers to be slaughtered at
their posts, for want of the aid which he has refused, or, what is
far more disgraceful, shall order the flag of the Union to be
lowered, without resistance to lawless force.

"Treason sits in the councils, and timidity controls the executive
power.  The President listens to, and is controlled by, threats.
He theorizes about coercing a state when he should be enforcing
the laws against rebellious citizens.  He admits that the states
have surrendered the power to make treaties, coin money, and regulate
commerce, and yet we will probably have the novel and ridiculous
farce of a negotiation between the President and a state, for the
surrender of forts, and arsenals, and sovereignty.  Congress can
do nothing, for the laws now are sufficient, if executed.  Impeachment
is too slow a remedy.  The constitution provided against every
probable vacancy in the office of President, but did not provide
for utter imbecility.

"The people, alarmed, excited, yet true to the Union and the
constitution, are watching with eager fear, lest the noble government,
baptized in the blood of the Revolution, shall be broken into
fragments, before the President elect shall assume the functions
of his office.

"What pretext is given for this alarming condition of affairs?--
for every treasonable act has its pretext.  We are told that the
people of the southern states _apprehend_ that Mr. Lincoln will
deprive them of their constitutional rights.  It is not claimed
that, as yet, their rights have been invaded, but upon an _apprehension_
of evil, they will break up the most prosperous government the
providence of God ever allowed to man.

"We know very well how groundless are their apprehensions, but we
are not even allowed to say so to our fellow-citizens of the south.
So wild is their apprehension, that even such statesmen as Stephens,
Johnson, Hill, Botts and Pettigrew, when they say, 'wait, wait,
till we see what this Republican party will attempt,' are denounced
as Abolitionists--Submissionists.  You know very well that we do
not propose to interfere in the slightest degree with slavery in
the states.  We know that our leader, for whose election you rejoice
has, over and over again, affirmed his opposition to the abolition
of slavery in the District of Columbia, except upon conditions that
are not likely to occur; or to any interference with the inter-
state slave trade, and that he will enforce the constitutional
right of the citizens of the slave states to recapture their fugitive
slaves when they escape from service into the free states.  We know
very well that the great objects which those who elected Mr. Lincoln
expect him to accomplish will be to secure to free labor its just
right to the territories of the United States; to protect, as far
as practicable, by wise revenue laws, the labor of our people; to
secure the public lands to actual settlers, instead of non-resident
speculators; to develop the internal resources of the country, by
opening new means of communication between the Atlantic and the
Pacific, and to purify the administration of the government from
the pernicious influences of jobs, contracts, and unreasoning party
warfare.

"But some of you may say, all this is very well, but what will you
do to save the Union?  Why don't you compromise?

"Gentlemen, remember that we are just recovering from the dishonor
of breaking a legislative compromise.  We have been struggling,
against all the powers of the government, for six years, to secure
practically what was expressly granted by a compromise.  We have
succeeded.  Kansas is now free.  The Missouri restriction is now
practically restored by the incipient constitution of Kansas, and
safer yet, by the will of her people.  The baptism of strife through
which she has passed has only strengthened the prohibition.  There
let it stand.

"But our political opponents, who have dishonored the word compromise,
who trampled, without a moment's hesitation, upon a compromise,
when they expected to gain by it, now ask us to again compromise,
by securing slavery south of a geographical line.  To this we might
fairly say:  There is no occasion for compromise.  We have done no
wrong; we have no apologies to make, and no concessions to offer.
You chose your ground, and we accepted your issue.  We have beaten
you, and you must submit, as we have done in the past, and as we
would have done if the voice of the people had been against us.
As good citizens, you must obey the laws, and respect the constituted
authorities.  But we will meet new questions of administration with
a liberal spirit.  Without surrendering our convictions in the
least, we may now dispose of the whole territorial controversy by
the exercise of unquestioned congressional power.

"The only territory south of the line, except that which, by treaty
with Indian tribes, cannot be included within the jurisdiction of
a state, is New Mexico.  She has now population enough for admission
as a state.  Let Congress admit her as a state, and then she has
the acknowledged right to form, regulate, change, or modify her
domestic institutions.  She has now a nominal slave code, framed
and urged upon her by territorial officers.  Practically, slavery
does not exist there.  It never can be established there.  In a
region where the earth yields her increase only by the practice of
irrigation, slave labor will not be employed.  At any rate, it is
better to settle all questions about slavery there, by admitting
the territory as a state.  While a territory, it is insisted that
slavery shall be protected in it.  We insist that Congress may
prohibit it, and that the people have an undisputed right to exclude
slaves.  Why not, by terminating their territorial condition,
determine this controversy?  The same course might now properly be
adopted with all the territories of the United States.

"In each of the territories there are, now, small settlements
scattered along the lines of transit.  Within five years, the least
populous will contain sufficient population for a Representative
in Congress.  Dakota, Washington, Nevada, and Jefferson are destined
soon to be as familiar to us as Kansas and Nebraska.  It is well
worthy the consideration of the old states, whether it is not better
to dispense with all territorial organizations--always expensive
and turbulent--and, at once, to carve the whole into states of
convenient size, for admission.  This was the Jeffersonian plan,
which did not contemplate territories, but states.  It was also
sanctioned by General Taylor, and, but for his death, would have
been adopted.

This is an easy, effectual remedy, within the power of Congress,
and in its nature an irrevocable act.  There is no necessity of an
amendment to the constitution.  It is not at all probable that two-
thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states
can agree to any amendments.  Why attempt it, unless to invite new
contests, to again arouse sectional animosities?  We know that if
Mexico is acquired the south will demand it for slavery, and the
north for free institutions.  We must forego, for the present, new
conquests, unless the love of acquisition is stronger than the love
of domestic peace.

"Suppose it to be conceded that the constitution should be amended,
what amendment will satisfy the south?  Nothing less than the
protection of slavery in the territories.  But our people have
pronounced against it.  All who voted for Mr. Lincoln or Mr. Douglas
--over three million three hundred thousand citizens--voted against
this claim.  Less than a million voted for it.  Should the great
majority yield to a meagre minority, especially under threats of
disunion?  This minority demand that slavery be protected by the
constitution.  Our fathers would not allow the word 'slave' or
'slavery' in the constitution, when all the states but one were
slaveholding.  Shall we introduce these words when a majority of
the states are free, and when the progress of civilization has
arrayed the world against slavery?  If the love of peace and ease,
and office, should tempt politicians and merchants to do it, the
people will rebel.  I assure you, whatever may be the consequence,
they will not yield their moral convictions by strengthening the
influence of slavery in this country.  Recent events have only
deepened this feeling.

"The struggle to establish slavery in Kansas; the frequent murders
and mobbings, in the south, of northern citizens; the present
turbulence and violence of southern society; the manifest fear of
the freedom of speech and of the press; the danger of insurrection;
and now the attempt to subvert the government rather than submit
to a constitutional election--these events, disguise it as you may,
have aroused a counter irritation in the north that will not allow
its representatives to yield merely for peace, more than is prescribed
by the letter and spirit of the constitution.  Every guarantee of
this instrument ought to be faithfully and religiously observed.
But when it is proposed to change it, to secure new guarantees to
slavery, to extend and protect it, you invoke and arouse the anti-
slavery feeling of the north to war against slavery everywhere.

"I am, therefore, opposed to any change in the constitution, and
to any compromise that will surrender any of the principles sanctioned
by the people in the recent contest.  If the personal-liberty bills
of any state infringe upon the constitution, they should at once
be repealed.  Most of them have slumbered upon the statute book
for years.  They are now seized upon, by those who are plotting
disunion, as a pretext.  We should give them no pretext.  It is
always right and proper for each state to apply to state laws the
test of the constitution.

"It is a remarkable fact that neither of the border free states--
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, nor Iowa--have
any such upon their statute books.  The laws of these states,
against kidnapping, are similar to those of Virginia and Kentucky.
The laws of other states, so-called, have never operated to release
a single fugitive slave, and may be regarded simply as a protest
of those states against the harsh features of the fugitive slave
law.  So far as they infringe upon the constitution, or impair, in
the least, a constitutional right, they are void and ought to be
repealed.

"I venture the assertion that there have been more cases of kidnapping
of free negroes in Ohio, than of peaceable or unlawful rescue of
fugitive slaves in the whole United States.  It has been shown that
the law of recapture and the penalties of rescue have been almost
invariably executed.  Count up all the cases of rescue of negroes
in the north, and you can find in your newspapers more cases of
unlawful lynching and murder of white men in the south.  These
cases have now become so frequent and atrocious, as to demand the
attention of the general government.  The same article of the
constitution that secures the recapture of fugitives from service
and justice, also secures the rights of citizens of Pennsylvania
and Ohio to all the immunities and privileges of citizens of the
several states.  No law has been passed by Congress to secure this
constitutional right.  No executive authority interposes to protect
our citizens, and yet we hear no threats of retaliation or rebellion
from northern citizens or northern states.  So, I trust, it ever
may be.

"The great danger that now overshadows us does not arise from real
grievances.  Plotters for disunion avail themselves of the weakness
of the executive to precipitate revolution.  South Carolina has
taken the lead.  The movement would be utterly insignificant if
confined to that state.  She is still in the Union, and neither
the President nor Congress has the power to consent to her withdrawal.
This can only be by a change in the constitution or the acquiescence
of the people of the other states.  The defense of the property of
the United States and the collection of the revenues need not cause
the shedding of blood, unless she commences a contest of physical
force.  The increase, in one year, of our population is greater
than her entire population, white and black.  Either one of several
congressional districts in the west has more white inhabitants than
she has.  Her military power is crippled by the preponderance of
her slaves.  However brave, and gallant, and spirited her people
may be, and no one disputes these traits, yet it is manifest she
is weak in physical force.  This great government might well treat
with indulgence paper secession, or the resolves of her convention
and legislature, without invoking physical force to enforce the
laws among her citizens.

"Without disrespect to South Carolina, it would be easy to show
that Shay's rebellion and the whisky insurrection involved the
government in greater danger than the solitary secession of South
Carolina.  But the movement becomes imposing when we are assured
that several powerful states will very soon follow in the lead of
South Carolina; and when we know that other states, still more
powerful, sympathize with the seceding states, to the extent of
opposing, and perhaps resisting, the execution of the laws in the
seceding states.

"In this view of the present condition of public affairs, it becomes
the people of the United States seriously to consider whether the
government shall be arrested, in the execution of its undisputed
powers, by the citizens of one or more states, or whether we shall
test the power of the government to defend itself against dissolution.
Can a separation take place without war?  If so, where will be the
line?  Who shall possess this magnificent capital, with all its
evidences of progress and civilization?  Shall the mouth of the
Mississippi be separated from its sources?  Who shall possess the
territories?  Suppose these difficulties to be overcome; suppose
that in peace we should huckster and divide up our nationality,
our flag, our history, all the recollections of the past; suppose
all these difficulties overcome, how can two rival republics of
the same race of men, divided only by a line of a river for thousands
of miles, and with all the present difficulties aggravated by
separation, avoid forays, disputes, and war?  How can we travel on
our future march of progress in Mexico, or on the high seas, or on
the Pacific slope, without collision?  It is impossible.  To
peacefully accomplish such results we must change the nature of
man.  Disunion is war!  God knows, I do not threaten it, for I will
seek to prevent it in every way possible.  I speak but the logic
of facts, which we should not conceal from each other.  It is either
hostilities between the government and the seceding states; or, if
separation is yielded peaceably, it is a war of factions--a rivalry
of insignificant communities, hating each other, and contemned by
the civilized world.  If war results, what a war it will be!
Contemplate the north and south, in hostile array against each
other.  If these sections do not know each other _now_ they will
_then_.

"We are a nation of miliary men, naturally turbulent because we
are free, accustomed to arms, ingenious, energetic, brave and
strong.  The same qualities that have enabled a single generation
of men to develop the resources of a continent, would enable us to
destroy more rapidly than we have constructed.  It is idle for
individuals of either section to suppose themselves superior in
military power.  The French and English tried that question for a
thousand years.  We ought to know it now.  The result of the contest
would not depend upon the first blow of the first year, but blood
shed in civil war will yield its baleful fruit for generations.

"How can we avert a calamity at which humanity and civilization
shudder?  I know no way but to cling to the government framed by
our fathers, to administer it in a spirit of kindness, but in all
cases, without partiality, to enforce the laws.  No state can
release us from the duty of obeying the laws.  The ordinance or
act of a state is no defense for treason, nor does it lessen the
moral guilt of that crime.  Let us cling to each other in the hope
that our differences will pass away, as they often have in times
past.  For the sake of peace, for the love of civil liberty, for
the honor of our name, our race, our religion, let us preserve the
Union, loving it better as the clouds grow darker.  I am willing
to unite with any man, whatever may have been his party relations,
whatever may be his views of the existing differences, who is
willing to rely on the constitution, as it is, for his rights; and
who is willing to maintain and defend the Union under all circumstances,
against all enemies, at home or abroad.

"Pardon me, gentlemen, for writing you so fully.  I feel restrained,
by the custom of the House of Representatives, from engaging there
in political debate; and yet I feel it is the duty of every citizen
to prepare his countrymen for grave events, that will test the
strength and integrity of the government.

"Believing that our only safety is in a firm enforcement of the
laws, and that Mr. Lincoln will execute that duty without partiality,
I join my hearty congratulation with yours that he is so soon to
be President of the United States.  With great respect, I remain,
very truly,

  "Your obedient servant,
  "John Sherman.
"Messrs. Wm. Reid, D. J. Cochran, L. S. Fletcher, H. E. Wallace,
Chas. O'Neill, _Committee_."

The leading events in the progressive secession may be briefly
stated.  The States of South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Florida,
Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, North Carolina, Tennessee,
and Virginia, severally in the order named, adopted ordinances of
secession.  Each of them committed acts of war against the United
States.  They seized forts, navy yards, arsenals, customhouses,
post offices and other public buildings of the United States.
South Carolina, on the 27th of December, 1860, seized Fort Moultrie
and Castle Pinckney, a light-house tender, and a schooner.  On the
31st, she took possession of the United States arsenal, post office,
and customhouse in Charleston, the arsenal containing seventy
thousand stand of arms and other stores.  On the 9th of January,
1861, she took possession of the steamer "Marion" at Charleston,
and on that day the "Star of the West" was fired upon.

Georgia, on the second day of January, 1861, took possession of
Forts Pulaski and Jackson and the United States arsenal.  On the
12th of January, she took possession of the arsenal at Augusta,
containing howitzers, cannon, muskets and large stores of powder,
ball and grape.  On the same day she seized the United States
steamer "Ida."  On the 8th of February, she took possession of all
the money received from customs.  On the 21st, she seized three
New York vessels at Savannah.  Florida, on the 12th of January,
1861, took possession of the navy yards at Forts Barrancas and
McRae; also the Chattahoochie arsenal, containing 800,000 cartridges
of different patterns and 50,000 pounds of gunpowder.

Alabama took possession of Fort Morgan, the Mount Vernon arsenal,
some pieces of cannon, and large amounts of munitions of war.  She
took possession also of the revenue cutter "Lewis Cass."

Mississippi, on the 20th of January, seized the fort at Ship Island
and the United States hospital on the Mississippi River.

On the 11th of January, Louisiana took possession of Forts Jackson,
St. Philip, and Pike, and the arsenal at Baton Rouge containing
fifty thousand small arms, twenty heavy pieces of ordnance, three
hundred barrels of powder and other military supplies.  On the
28th, she took possession of all commissary and quartermaster stores
in the possession of the United States officials within her borders.
On the first of February, she seized the mint and customhouse
containing $599,303 in gold and silver.

Texas, on the 20th of February, took Forts Chadbourne and Belknap
with all the property of the Overland Mail Company.  On the 25th,
General Twiggs, an officer of the army of the United States,
traitorously surrendered all government stores in his command,
estimated at $1,300,000 in value, including money and specie, thirty-
five thousand stand of arms, twenty-six pieces of mountain artillery,
and other military stores.

On the 2nd of March, she seized the revenue cutter "Dodge" and Fort
Brown.

Arkansas seized the arsenal at Little Rock, containing nine thousand
small arms, forty cannon, and a quantity of ammunition.

Virginia, according to the statement of Governor Letcher, would
have seized Fortress Monroe, but that it was firmly held by national
troops.

These were some of the acts of war committed by the seceding states
before the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln.

What was done by the administration of James Buchanan to meet these
acts of war?  The answer to this question is a most painful confession
of feebleness, vacillation and dishonor.  It was shown conclusively
that Floyd, the Secretary of War, during 1860 transferred from
Springfield and other armories to southern arsenals 65,000 percussion
muskets, 40,000 altered muskets and 10,000 rifles.  On the 20th of
October, he ordered 40 columbiads and four 32 pounders to be sent
from the arsenal to the Fort, at Galveston in Texas, the building
of which had hardly been commenced.  It was shown by a report of
a committee of the House that the vessels of the United States were
dispersed by the Secretary of the Navy to distant ports, for the
purpose of preventing their use in the defense of the property of
the United States.

The Mobile "Advertiser" said:

"During the past year, 135,430 muskets have been quietly transferred
from the northern arsenal at Springfield alone, to those in the
southern states.  We are much obliged to Secretary Floyd for the
foresight he has thus displayed in disarming the north and _equipping
the south for this emergency_."

Jefferson Davis, on January 9, 1860, in introducing into the Senate
a bill to authorize the sale of public arms to the several states
and territories, significantly said:  "There are a number of
volunteer companies wanting to purchase arms, but the states have
not a sufficient supply."

This bill was agreed to by the Senate by a party vote, yeas 28,
nays 18.  In the House the bill was never reported.

Mr. Buchanan, in his annual message at the beginning of the 2nd
session of the 36th Congress, announced the startling doctrine that
a state could not be coerced by the general government, and said:

"After much serious reflection, I have arrived at the conclusion
that no such power has been delegated to Congress nor to any other
department of the federal government.  It is manifest, upon an
inspection of the constitution, that this is not among the specific
and enumerated powers granted to Congress; and it is equally apparent
that its exercise is not 'necessary and proper for carrying into
execution' any one of these powers."

Again he says:

"Without descending to particulars, it may be safely asserted that
the power to make war against a state is at variance with the whole
spirit and intent of the constitution. . . .

"The fact is, that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can
never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war.
If it cannot live in the affections of the people it must one day
perish.  Congress possesses many means of preserving it by
conciliation; but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve
it by force."

This doctrine, if acquiesced in, would leave the United States
utterly powerless to preserve its own life, whatever might be the
exigencies, even against the most insignificant state in the Union.
It was manifest that while Buchanan remained President, and Commander-
in-Chief of the army and navy, it was utterly futile to resist the
secession of the least of these states, or even to protect the
public property in them.

On the 4th of December, 1860, the House of Representatives organized
what is known as the "committee of thirty-three," of which Mr.
Corwin, of Ohio, was chairman.  So much of the President's message
as related to the perilous condition of the country was referred
to it.  Propositions of all kinds were sent to the committee, but
the final result was, as anticipated, a disagreement upon all the
measures proposed.

On the 16th of January, 1861, Mr. Crittenden offered his celebrated
resolutions, proposing certain amendments to the constitution of
the United States, in relation to slavery, but they were rejected
in the Senate and were not acted upon in the House.

A peace conference was held at Washington, at the request of the
legislature of Virginia, composed of delegates from the several
states appointed by the governors thereof.  John Tyler was president
and Thomas Ewing, of Ohio, was one of the most active and influential
members of the conference.  It sat during nearly all the month of
February and recommended seven articles of amendment to the
constitution.  These propositions were adopted by the conference
and reported to the Senate on the 2nd of March, and were rejected
by a vote of 3 yeas and 34 nays.  Subsequently they were again
offered by Mr. Crittenden and rejected by a vote of 7 yeas and 28
nays.  They were presented to the House on the 1st of March, 1861,
and were there rejected.

A Senate committee of 13 was organized on the 18th of December,
1860, to consider the condition of the country, but its report was
disagreed to by the Senate.  Many other propositions of adjustment
were made both in the Senate and House, but none of them were agreed
to.  Not only were no measures adopted to prevent secession, but
it was proposed by Mr. Mason, that, to avoid the possibility of a
conflict between the forces of the army and navy and of the seceding
states, all the laws providing for the use of the army in aid of
the civil authorities in executing the laws of the United States,
should be suspended and made inoperative in those states.  These
were the laws passed during the term of President Jackson and, at
his earnest request, to enable the government to enforce the laws
of the United States against the opposition of the State of South
Carolina.  It was a striking presentation of the difference between
General Jackson and James Buchanan.

Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, proposed to retrocede to the seceding
states, the property of the United States.  The last act of Jefferson
Davis was to offer a joint resolution providing:

"That upon the application of a state, either through a convention
or legislature thereof, asking that the federal forces of the army
and navy may be withdrawn from its limits, the President of the
United States shall order the withdrawal of the federal garrisons,
and take the needful security for the safety of the public property
which may remain in said state.

"That whenever a state convention, duly and lawfully assembled,
shall enact that the safety of the state requires it to keep troops
and ships of war, the President of the United States be, and he is
hereby authorized and directed to recognize the exercise of that
power by the state, and by proclamation to give notice of the fact
for the information and government of all parties concerned."

On the 11th of February, 1861, Burton Craige, of North Carolina,
offered a joint resolution:

"That the President of the United States be, and is hereby required
to acknowledge the independence of said government (The Confederacy
of the United States South) as soon as he is informed officially
of its establishment; and that he receive such envoy, ambassador,
or commissioner as may or shall be appointed by said government
for the purpose of amicably adjusting the matters in dispute with
said government."

Such was the hopeless condition of the United States in the last
months of the administration of James Buchanan.  It would appear
from the resolute action of the seceding states, their union as
Confederate States, the hopeless imbecility of the President of
the United States, the presence of the seceded traitors in both
houses of Congress, the weakness and feebleness of that body, left
but little hope for the preservation of the Union.  The future
presaged a civil war, and opened up a dark prospect, a discouraging
example for future republics, but the 4th of March came, and a new
life was infused into the national councils.

The second session of the 36th Congress commenced on the 3rd day
of December.  The message of the President I have already commented
upon.  It was regarded as a feeble wail of despair, an absolute
abnegation of the powers of the general government.  No expectation
or hope was indulged in that the President would do any act or say
any word to arrest or delay the flagrant treason, then being
committed in South Carolina.  "After me the deluge" was written on
every page of his message.  Our only hope was in the good time
coming, when, at the close of his term, he would retire to private
life.

Having charge of the appropriation bills as chairman of the committee
of ways and means, of the 36th Congress, I was only solicitous to
secure the passage of these bills, so that the new administration
would have money to meet the current wants of the government.
Within a few days, all these bills were reported, and were pushed
forward and passed at an early period of the session.,

I purposely postpone consideration of the financial condition of
the United States during this session so as to consider it in
connection with the measures adopted at the called session in July,
1861.

The House of Representatives was almost constantly occupied in
considering and rejecting the many schemes "to save the country,"
already referred to.  The only political speech I made was in reply
to an ingenious speech of my colleague, George H. Pendleton, made
on the 18th day of January, 1861.  I replied on the same day without
preparation, but with a lively appreciation of the dangers before
us.  As I believe that it states fully and fairly the then condition
of the impending revolution, I insert extracts from it here:

"I have listened with respect and attention to all that has fallen
from my colleague.  Much that he has said I approve; but it seems
to me that instead of appealing to this side of the House for
conciliation, kindness and forbearance, he should appeal to those
around him, who alone, provoke the excitement now prevailing in
this country.

"He says the army should not be used to coerce a state.  If by this
he means that the army should not be used to conquer a state, to
compel her to be represented, to maintain the courts or post offices
within her limits, to burn her cities or desolate her fields, he
is entirely correct.  I do not believe any administration will
pursue such a policy.  But, sir, we have a government, a great
government, to maintain.  It is supreme within the powers delegated
to it; and it is provided with ample authority to protect itself
against foreign or domestic enemies.  It has the exclusive right
to collect duties on imports.  It is the exclusive owners of forts,
arsenals, navy yards, vessels, and munitions of war.  It has a
flag, the symbol of its nationality, the emblem of its power and
determination, to protect all those who may of right gather under
its folds.  It is our duty, as the representatives of this government,
to maintain and defend it in the exercise of its just powers.  Has
it trespassed upon th