Stanton

by Benjamin P. Thomas

  “We were all under deep feeling at the time,” Grant recalled, and remarked that Stanton “required a man like Lincoln to manage him.”22

  Stanton did have a man able to manage him. His name was Ulysses Grant.

  1 Koerth, in New York Commercial Advertiser, March 24, 1903, describes this incident correctly except that he misdates it as of the preceding Saturday; see Benjamin P. Thomas’s note on Stanton’s letter to Ellen, dated Feb. 25.

  2 To Ellen, ca. March 2, 1868, owned by Gideon Townsend Stanton.

  3 Pile to Stanton, Feb. 25 (misdated Feb. 26), 1868, and Stanton to Sen. Howard, Feb. 25, 1868, Stanton MSS; Colfax to John Russell Young, March 11, 1868, Young Papers, LC. Note that Stanton’s concern was not with a possible court test of the tenure law, but with a criminal action against himself.

  4 Senate, Trial, I, 597–8, 605–9; DeWitt, Impeachment, 376–7; Morse, Welles Diary, III, 294; “Notes of Colonel W. G. Moore,” loc. cit., 122; Townsend, Anecdotes, 130.

  5 “Gideon” to Stanton, April 23, 1868, Sec. War Correspondence File, Box 333, RG 107, NA; Grant to Sheridan, March 1, 1868, Sheridan Papers, LC.

  6 Townsend, Anecdotes, 131; correspondence, Feb.-May 1868, HQA 109, RG 108, NA; Flower, Stanton, 342–3; Benjamin, “Secretary Stanton: The Man and His Work,” loc. cit., VII, 239–56.

  7 Grant to Stanton, May 6, and to Wade, May 7, 1868, CG Letterbook, Letters Sent, 1866–8, RG 108, NA; Stanton to Rogers, May 15, 1868, NYHS; same to Prof. N. W. Edwards, May 16, 1868, CHS; same to Hitchcock and reply, March 18, 1868, Hitchcock Papers, LC; Frank W. Klingberg, The Southern Claims Commission (Berkeley, 1955), 36.

  8 Howe, Portrait of an Independent, 81–2, on Storey; Grant to Bingham, April 1, 1868, HQA, Letters Received, Box 107, RG 108, NA, on records; Emily Edson Briggs, The Olivia Letters (New York, 1906), 50, on Mrs. Hutchison.

  9 Butler to Stanton, April 17, and Young to Stanton, May 6, 1868, Stanton MSS; April 23, 1868, Moore notebook, Johnson Papers, LC; DeWitt, Impeachment, 394–5; Bowers, op. cit., 191; E. L. Stanton to Butler, March 11, 1868, Butler Papers, LC.

  10 Sickles to Stanton, March 10, 1868, Stanton MSS; Colfax to John Russell Young, March 11, 1868, Young Papers, LC.

  11 Stanbery to Grant, Feb. 12, 1868, HQA, Letters Received, Box 107; Grant to Stanbery, Feb. 13, 1868, CG Letterbook, 1866–8, p. 335, RG 108; AGO, RP 670220, RG 94, NA; Stanton to Meade, March 23, 24, 1868, Stanton MSS; Morse, Welles Diary, III, 323–4.

  12 There is evidence that Evarts, changing his mind on the usefulness of the Schofield plan, did not press very hard to have the nomination acted on; see April 23, 1868, Moore notebook, Johnson Papers, LC; Gorham, Stanton, II, 450–3; Chester L. Barrows, William M. Evarts (Chapel Hill, 1941), 150–1. Chauncey M. Depew, in New York Herald, Oct. 24, 1885, claimed that Grant told him that he had proof of the President’s plan to revolutionize the government but withheld it for fear of initiating violence.

  13 Lieber to M. R. Thayer, Aug. 19, March 2, and to Sumner, May 4, 1868, HL; Thomas Sergeant Perry (ed.), Life and Letters of Francis Lieber (Boston, 1882), 381; Boutwell, op. cit., II, 89–90; Forney, op. cit., 189.

  14 See Charles A. Jellison, “Ross’s Impeachment Vote: Need for Reappraisal,” Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, XLI, 150–5; J. F. Oliver to Stanton, April 8, Pierrepont to same, April 15, Deming Duer to same, May 16, and resignation draft, May 11, 1868, Stanton MSS; Schuckers to John Russell Young, May 11, and Stanton to same, May 13, 1868, Young Papers, LC; April 25, 1868, Moore notebook, Johnson Papers, LC; Flower, Stanton, 341; DeWitt, Impeachment, 544; Bowers, op. cit., 195.

  15 Young, Men and Memories, I, 152; Benjamin P. Thomas’s notes on Stanton’s memo of war office scene, dated May 16, 1868; May 15, 16, 1868, Moore notebook, Johnson Papers, LC; Garfield to Prof. C. L. Loos, May 16, 1868, Garfield Papers, LC.

  16 Badeau, Grant, 144; Buckingham to Stanton, May 21, 1868, Stanton MSS; Grant to Sherman, June 21, 1868, W. T. Sherman Papers, LC; July 6, 9, 1868, Moore notebook, Johnson Papers, LC.

  17 Townsend, Anecdotes, 132–3; May 23, 26, 1868, Moore notebook, Johnson Papers, LC; Browning, Diary, II, 199. Recent scholarship on the causes of the impeachment’s failure and on the fate of the Republicans who voted not to convict the President is in Hans L. Trefousse, “Ben Wade and the Failure of the Impeachment of Johnson,” Bulletin of the Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio, XVIII, 241–52, and Ralph J. Roske, “The Seven Martyrs?” AHR, LXIV, 323–30.

  18 Townsend, Anecdotes, 134; S. Van Vleit to W. T. Sherman, May 29, 1868, Sherman Papers, LC; May 27, 29, 1868, Moore notebook, and Seward’s commission and memoranda, Johnson Papers, LC.

  19 Morse, Welles Diary, III, 371; May 27, 29, 1868, Moore notebook, Johnson Papers, LC; Townsend, Anecdotes, 135; Flower, Stanton, 344, has the resolution.

  20 May 29, Aug. 5, 7, 1868, Moore notebook, Johnson Papers, LC; Morse, Welles Diary, III, 370, 377; Townsend, Anecdotes, 135–6; Gorham, Stanton, II, 456–7; Ben. Perley Poore to E. W. Clapp, Nov. 17, 1868, Clapp Papers, LC, on annual reports.

  21 McKitrick, op. cit., 506–9, suggests that the impeachment was a psychological release for the nation. It would seem more logical to judge the trial as an institutional readjustment between the contending branches of the government.

  22 Young, Around the World, II, 358–9; Weigley, Meigs, 325.

  CHAPTER XXX

  CAMPAIGNING FOR GRANT

  STANTON CONDEMNED!” thundered Johnson’s spokesman, the Washington Intelligencer, setting the theme that the impeachment results not only vindicated the President, even if only by one vote, but proved all his opponents guilty. The fact is, however, that Stanton was far from being as isolated and unpopular as administration spokesmen asserted.

  It was only to be expected that Republicans publicly lauded him. More significant, and to Stanton far more warmly sustaining, were the private estimates of his government service that came to him from individuals whose opinions he treasured. Some of the Republican senators who had voted to acquit Johnson now sought to regain their former friendship with him. But Stanton was too hurt at first to forgive, although Fessenden, who had hated most “the necessity of grieving Mr. Stanton” by his vote in favor of Johnson, made what amends he could by going along with Grimes, Trumbull, and Van Winkle on the congressional resolution of thanks to the former War Secretary.1

  Stanton had more to worry over than his own hurt feelings. His secretary described him as “a wreck, not so much from the result of his ceaseless energy in the … war, as from his ceaseless watching of the doings at the White House under President Johnson.” Despite this, Stanton was determined to resume private law practice as soon as possible. First, however, he planned to rest and then visit his mother and sister in Ohio before commencing his new career.

  Packed and ready to start westward, Stanton abandoned the trip at the last minute, for the children came down with the measles and he would not leave Ellen, herself unwell, to bear the total weight of their care. Meanwhile he tutored young Eddie in the law. Soon, the father hoped, the two Stanton men would bring the family out of its financial difficulties.

  It would have to be soon. Stanton was almost without funds, and when the Riggs National Bank, whose president was a warm Johnson supporter, refused him a small loan though the Stanton family had banked there for a decade, his anger was understandable. Securing $500 from another bank, Stanton had only this and what remained of his salary to see him through until money came in from law work. It was not enough.

  Ellen began to dispose of her government bonds, their only wartime investment. They discharged their driver, whose salary had come from the family purse all through Stanton’s years in office though cabinet members usually placed such retainers on the government payroll.

  Still he would not consider politics. Pennsylvania Republicans and his friend Young, of the Tribune, offered to back him if he would seek a United States Senate seat from the Keystone State. It would have been a sweet morsel of revenge for Stanton to gain this expression of publi
c support had it been forthcoming, but that was not what he wanted. “I am not a candidate … under any circumstances,” he wrote Young. “No public or official station presents any temptation—I covet only rest, & the restoration of health to pursue my profession.”2

  Politics in this presidential year would not leave the Stanton family alone, however. His name kept appearing in the public press. When the Democratic nominating convention picked Seymour and Montgomery Blair to head its ticket, Stanton was delighted to see that Johnson had been passed over, and relished the rumors of the President’s fury at the slight. Still, Stanton feared that if the Democrats won the White House and Congress, then “the Rebels need no longer mourn about the ‘lost cause.’ ”

  The only direct political action Stanton felt inspired to take that summer involved a hang-over from his war office years. Early in July, Republican national committeeman and former Assistant Treasury Secretary William E. Chandler wrote to him telling of his fear that, with the failure of impeachment, many Southerners would claim damages for wartime property losses and again use the courts to harass the execution of the reconstruction acts. Stanton had always had intense feelings on this matter, and the Smithson damage suit was still hanging over his head. Chandler asserted to Stanton that “a quiet word from you to Edmunds, Conkling, Stewart, & any others will help very much & there is no knowing how soon after the Chief Justice’s Magnificent Apostasy … there may be need of it.” Of course Stanton gave his full support, and improved legislation went into effect within a year.

  Then, instead of father and son beginning law practice together as planned, Stanton permitted Eddie to tour with Congressman Bingham, who had so often sustained the War Secretary, to help win Ohio for Republican candidates. All the younger children except little Bessie went off to Ohio to visit their grandmother there, in anticipation that their parents would soon join them. Filling in the empty midsummer days working on the neglected lawns and garden, Stanton found the big house very lonely, especially at the dinner hour. In the eternal manner of parents, Ellen passed on her husband’s advice to the children, especially to read with care, and she demanded two letters a week from the children, who never managed to obey this injunction.3

  The political magnet soon reached out more strongly to attract Stanton to action, although he continued to be resentful because he had not received a word directly from Grant since the impeachment ended. In the first days of August, Stanton felt impelled to overcome his irritation and to become personally involved in furthering the Republican campaign. The wartime copperhead Vallandigham was announced as the Democratic candidate for a Senate seat from Ohio. His Republican opponent, Robert Schenck, asked Stanton to support him and the Republican ticket. Stanton could not resist a chance to strike again at men whom he still considered to be the nation’s foes. He sent Schenck a copy of an 1863 provost marshal’s report on the Democrat and promised that he would stump for Schenck and others in Ohio late in September.

  When the news got out, few persons thought that Stanton would add much weight to the Republican candidates, though the mere announcement helped to quiet rumors of discord in the Republican ranks which Democrats were spreading. Stanton planned to follow an itinerary that would include Ohio’s major cities, if his health permitted, and Sickles promised to join forces with him in Cleveland. He arranged with Young for a reliable reporter to accompany him, “as there will be great disposition to pervert … what I may say. I have not prepared any speech, & shall talk to the occasion & audience as may appear proper at the time.” Readying excitedly for the trip, Stanton wrote to the children at Gambier to expect him soon, and to check on the whereabouts of young Eddie, who, still campaigning with Bingham, was remiss about writing to his parents.4

  Eddie suddenly showed up in Washington, excited over his experiences as a stump speaker and by his admission to practice before the Supreme Court. Ironically, this brilliant young man’s first case was a claim against the War Department for the wartime services of an Ohio River bargemaster. Knowing that his father would not help him prepare his argument, the new lawyer worked it out alone, and after he submitted it to Secretary of War Schofield, the Stanton men set out for Pittsburgh.

  In the familiar surroundings of the Golden Triangle, Stanton offered a short testimonial on behalf of local Republicans. Immediately, Democratic spokesmen began to vilify him. Reminiscences of Union veterans were now popular, especially those which described the horrors of imprisonment in the Confederacy, and some resurrected the old assertion that Stanton was responsible for halting the prisoner exchanges. Again the charges were rung on his “atrocious inhumanity.” Ignoring these barbs, Stanton continued on to Steubenville.

  He arrived at his old home on September 23, and as soon as a furious rain lessened, visited the grave of his first wife, Mary, where he sat silently for a long hour on the sodden earth. He renewed acquaintance with old friends and with places he had known and loved as a youth; walked again along the swollen Ohio’s shore, and then climbed to the high ledge, already known as “Stanton’s Rock,” where he had often, years before, dreamed of the future he wanted. Now he was ailing in body if not old in years, almost completely without money, spending time and energy politicking though no rewards would come from it, when self-interest required him to be starting a new life as a private lawyer. He decided that he would make only this one Steubenville speech and then go home, for suddenly he was too tired to do more.

  The day for his address dawned bright and lovely, and Steubenville became so crowded with persons seeking admission to the auditorium where Stanton was to speak that the seats were removed to increase its capacity. As the autumn twilight deepened into night, Stanton made his way to the platform, was introduced, rose to speak, then sat again, too weary to remain on his feet.5 The chairman suggested that he continue while seated, and Stanton, though sometimes coughing painfully, spoke out clearly and effectively. Except when moved to excitement he seemed old and ill. But when he came to a point he wished to stress, his voice boomed out, so that it roared over the hall, and he briefly took on the characteristics of youthful vigor.

  It was a vote-as-you-shot speech, linking Grant with Lincoln and Democrats with disloyalty. A victory for Seymour, Stanton insisted, must overturn everything that had been gained from seven awful years of war and reconstruction, and let the country fall prey to wild, sinister schemes of debt repudiation and paper-money panaceas such as Democratic Senator Pendleton proposed. He never mentioned his own record, but when he spoke of Grant’s martial accomplishments, of Lincoln’s shrewd, tender, guiding hand, of Buchanan’s lame-duck panic and Sheridan’s Valley campaign, Stanton struck fire again and again. Dana was sure that he was appealing from the heart as well as asking for votes, and he and other editors noted that Stanton was the first Republican campaigner willing to take on the paper-money issue.

  Satisfied with the reception his speech received, and with the “closely packed attentive audience,” Stanton wrote Ellen that “my political labors are over. Scores of invitations and urgent entreaties still come every day.” But he intended only to go to Gambier to see his mother and Pamphila, then to return to Washington. “I … will make no more speeches.”6

  Unless Stanton’s letter to Ellen, showing his determination to give up all further activity in favor of Grant and to begin private law work, is taken into account, the Steubenville speech can be misconstrued as the first of a series of baited hooks cast into the turbulent pool of Ohio politics so that Grant might notice them and reward the angler with a government post after the election. This was the inference drawn by some commentators. But Stanton, wanting no government favors, intended to make no more speeches, and General Sherman’s hope that Grant “will shake himself free from the evil counsellors—Stanton, Wade & Co who led him astray”—was misdirected. Grant, far from being under Stanton’s counsel, had totally ignored him since May.

  Nevertheless, between September 27, when Stanton wrote Ellen of his intention to curtail further pol
itical activity, and October 1, Stanton changed his mind and embarked on a rigorous speaking tour on Grant’s behalf. This is even more remarkable considering that Stanton was suffering from an extraordinarily severe asthmatic paroxysm induced by his fatigue and by the effects of crossing the mountains. Yet he accepted further campaigning commitments in response to pleas for aid in Michigan and for assistance to other Republicans in Ohio. Though Stanton rejected the Michigan assignment as being beyond his strength, taking on more work in Ohio was an adequate testimony to his sense of duty.

  Two reasons serve to explain his change in plans. The first was his fear that the Democrats were winning; he felt that a Democratic victory would be a condemnation of all he had done in the war office. He was immensely gratified by the plaudits his Steubenville speech evoked, and Republican managers, impressed by the impact Stanton’s criticisms of Pendleton were making in Ohio, redoubled their efforts to keep him active.

  The second reason was probably more decisive. He received a letter from Conkling describing a meeting between the senator and Grant in which the general “asked where you were.” “He spoke of you,” Conkling reported, “with strong feeling of friendship, and said he wanted to write to you also.” Stanton also learned that Grant was refusing to aid the election campaign of any Republicans who had sustained Johnson in the impeachment controversy.7

  Thus encouraged, Stanton spoke at Carlisle, reiterating his praises of Grant and stressing the evils of war-debt repudiation. Stopping at Gambier, Stanton shocked Pamphila by his appearance. Later that day he attended a meeting of his college literary society, the Philomathesian, and spoke tenderly and optimistically to the young men who gathered to hear him of the grand future that was theirs. There was none of the imperious harshness about him which the youths had expected to observe. Instead, there was weariness and evident illness.