Autobiography of Mark Twain: The Complete and Authoritative Edition, Volume 1

by Mark Twain

  74.12–13 The speech . . . was worth four times the sum] Richard D. Hubbard (1818–84) was a Yale graduate and lawyer who served as governor of Connecticut from 1877 to 1879. On 28 March 1883 he addressed the state legislature in Hartford proposing that a statue of Nathan Hale be commissioned for the exterior of the capitol building. A brief sample will explain Clemens’s sarcasm:

  Nathan Hale perished more than a century ago, a bloody sacrifice on a bloody altar. . . . In the lonely watches of that prison night whose early dawn was to end his days—yes, in that night’s thickest gloom and still more in that morning’s horror of great darkness that was to deliver his body from the power of hell, it pleased God—this also I dare affirm—it pleased God to come nigh unto his waiting servant; to uncurtain the future for a space of time, and to let down to his watching eyes a prophetic vision of his country’s coming independence. (“Connecticut’s Martyr Spy,” Hartford Courant, 29 Mar 1883, 1)

  74.14–21 The committee . . . Mr. Coit . . . Barnard . . . Waller] Robert Coit (1830–1904), president of the New London Northern Railroad Company since 1881, served as a Connecticut state senator from 1880 to 1883 (“Robert Coit Dead,” Hartford Courant, 20 June 1904, 1; Biographical Review 1898, 276–77). Henry Barnard (1811–1900) was an educator and editor who devoted his career to the improvement of public schools and held a number of government positions. He acquired a reputation, however, as an inept administrator who failed to complete his obligations. He was appointed to the committee to replace Hubbard, who died in February 1884. Thomas M. Waller (1840–1924) practiced law and entered politics in 1867, serving as a state legislator, secretary of state, mayor of New London, and governor from 1883 to 1885.

  74.23–24 A salaried artist . . . Mrs. Colt’s private church] The “salaried artist” has not been identified. James G. Batterson (1823–1901), a prominent Hartford businessman and founder of the Travelers Insurance Company, was the president of the New England Granite Works, which specialized in producing “artistic memorials” in granite, marble, and bronze. Enoch S. Woods, a sculptor with a studio in Hartford, was the sexton of the Church of the Good Shepherd. This Episcopal church had been built in 1866 by Elizabeth Jarvis Colt (1826–1905), the widow of Samuel Colt (the founder of Colt’s Patent Fire-Arms Manufacturing Company), as a memorial to her late husband and the three children she had lost in infancy (Geer 1886, 42, 207, 245, 297, 521). Woods created a model of Hale “as he had prepared himself for the hangman’s rope, standing bare-headed and with his hands pinioned” (“A Sculptor’s Model of Nathan Hale,” Hartford Courant, 12 July 1883, 2).

  74.31 William C. Prime] Clemens had satirized Tent Life in the Holy Land (1857), an idealized travel narrative by journalist and author William C. Prime (1825–1905), in chapters 46 and 48 of The Innocents Abroad—calling him “Grimes”—and in 1908 still considered him a “gushing pietist” (AD, 31 Oct 1908). In late 1885 and early 1886, however, Clemens was negotiating with Prime for the right to publish McClellan’s Own Story, a work that Prime edited on behalf of General George B. McClellan’s widow. The book was issued in 1887 by Webster and Company (31 Jan 1886 to Prime, DLC; N&J3, 218).

  74.31 Charles D. Warner] Charles Dudley Warner (1829–1900), an essayist, travel writer, and editor of the Hartford Courant, was a central figure in the Hartford Nook Farm community. With Clemens he coauthored The Gilded Age (1873–74), a satirical novel that lent its name to the materialism and political corruption in American society after the Civil War. Warner had met Gerhardt at the same time as Clemens and continued to take an interest in his career (link note following 20–22 Dec 1872 to Twichell, L5, 259–60; 21 Feb 1881 to Howells [1st], NN-BGC, in MTHL, 1:350–55; 5 Apr 1884 to the Gerhardts, CtHMTH).

  75.26 the prospects . . . seemed to be as far away as ever] In December the committee—which by then consisted of Coit, Barnard, and Governor Henry B. Harrison (Waller’s successor)—at last awarded the contract to Gerhardt. Olin L. Warner, a sculptor who had studied with the same Paris mentor as Gerhardt (François Jouffroy), persuaded the committee that his sketch was superior to the full-sized model that Woods submitted. A year later Gerhardt’s clay model, a figure of “heroic size . . . standing with his arms partly outstretched,” was approved, and was cast in bronze. Both Clemens and Gerhardt attended the unveiling ceremony in June 1887; the Reverend Joseph Twichell gave the invocation, and Charles Dudley Warner (a new committee member) made the presentation address (Hartford Courant: “The Nathan Hale Statue,” 22 Dec 1885, 2; 22 Dec 1886, 1; “The Hale Statue Unveiled,” 15 June 1887, 5; “The Hale Statue,” 15 June 1887, 1).

  About General Grant’s Memoirs

  75.28 a history of General Grant’s memoirs] See the Autobiographical Dictations of 6 February, 28 May, 29 May, 31 May, 1 June, and 2 June 1906 for Clemens’s later recollections of the events he describes below. See also N&J3, 122–25, for an overview of the circumstances surrounding the publication of Grant’s Personal Memoirs (1885–86).

  75.30–31 During the Garfield campaign . . . Republican Party] Grant himself had been a potential candidate for a third term as president at the June 1880 Republican convention. Although he did not actively campaign for the nomination, he indicated his willingness to run if drafted. Although many of his supporters backed him through thirty-six ballots, the nomination finally went to James A. Garfield. Grant pledged his support, and at Garfield’s invitation, joined his campaign (Jean Edward Smith 2001, 614–17). Garfield defeated Democrat Winfield Hancock, but was in office only six months before his assassination, in July 1881. He was succeeded by his vice-president, Chester A. Arthur.

  76.1 Grant’s eldest son, Colonel Fred Grant] Ulysses S. Grant married Julia Dent (1826–1902), the daughter of a Missouri farmer, in 1848. Frederick Dent (1850–1912) was their first child, followed by Ulysses S., Jr. (1852–1929), Ellen Wrenshall (1855–1922), and Jesse Root, Jr. (1858–1934). As a youth Frederick spent much of the Civil War at his father’s side, serving with distinction. After graduating from West Point in 1871, he joined a cavalry regiment, and later served on the staffs of several generals, attaining the rank of lieutenant colonel. In 1877–79 he joined his father and mother on their world tour. He resumed his military career during the Spanish-American War, reaching the rank of major general. Ulysses S. Grant, Jr. (called “Buck”), a graduate of Harvard and Columbia Law School, became a stockbroker. After the failure of his firm, he recovered with the help of his father-in-law, Jerome B. Chaffee, a former state senator (see the note at 83.30). Jesse Grant studied at Cornell, but left to accompany his parents on the early part of their world tour. He attended Columbia Law School for only a year (McFeely 1981, 22, 489–90, 521).

  76.5–8 the General left the White House . . . live in either of them] No evidence has been found that Grant was in debt after either term as president. After leaving the White House in March 1877, he spent $85,000 of his own money (earned from investments) on his world tour. After their return the Grants still had $100,000 invested, which provided an annual income of less than $6,000. This amount was not sufficient to maintain their standard of living (it barely covered the cost of their rooms at the Fifth Avenue Hotel). The Grants also owned a house in Philadelphia, given to them in 1865, and “four or five little houses” they had purchased in Washington (Julia Dent Grant 1975, 161, 322). Grant had resigned from the army in 1869—giving up his unique title of General of the Army, awarded by an act of Congress in July 1866—and was therefore ineligible to be placed on the retired list; nor did he qualify for a pension by virtue of his political office: former presidents received no government support until 1958 (Badeau 1887, 316, 418; Jean Edward Smith 2001, 419–20, 607–8; Stephanie Smith 2006).

  76.15–20 in introducing the General, I referred to the dignities and emoluments . . . he was well satisfied] Clemens accompanied the Grant party from Boston to Hartford on the morning of 16 October 1880, and introduced the general at a gathering in Bushnell Park that afternoon. His speech included the following remarks:


  When Wellington won Waterloo—a battle about on a level with some dozen of your victories—sordid England tried to pay him for that service—with wealth and grandeurs! She made him a duke, and gave him $4,000,000. If you had done and suffered for any other country what you have done and suffered for your own, you would have been affronted in the same sordid way. (Laughter.) But thank God this vast and rich and mighty republic is imbued to the core with a delicacy which will forever preserve her from so degrading you. (Renewed laughter.) Your country loves you, your country is proud of you, your country is grateful to you. (Applause.) Her applauses, which have been thundering in your ears all these weeks and months, will never cease while the flag you saved continues to wave. (Great applause.)

  Your country stands ready, from this day forth[,] to testify her measureless love, and pride, and gratitude towards you in every conceivable—inexpensive way. (Roars of laughter.) (“Grant. His Reception in Hartford,” Hartford Courant, 18 Oct 1880, 1)

  Clemens sent Howells a clipping of his speech, with the remark that “Gen. Grant came near laughing his entire head off” (19 Oct 1880 to Howells, Letters 1876–1880). Grant replied that what the American people had given him was “of more value than gold and silver. No amount of the latter could compensate for the respect and kind feelings of my fellow-citizens” (“Grant. His Reception in Hartford,” Hartford Courant, 18 Oct 1880, 1).

  76.22–25 certain wealthy citizens . . . rascality of other people] At the end of 1880 George Jones of the New York Times and other friends came to the Grants’ rescue by raising a trust fund of $250,000, which was invested in railroad bonds to provide a guaranteed income of $15,000 a year (Goldhurst 1975, 12–13, 21).

  76.26–30 Grant and Ward, brokers and stock-dealers . . . business of the house] The principals in the firm, established in mid-1880, were Ulysses S. Grant, Jr., and Ferdinand Ward. Ward, the son of a minister, grew up in Geneseo, New York. He went to New York in 1875, and worked as a clerk in the produce exchange. He began building his fortune by “speculating in memberships” on the exchange, and later inherited a fortune upon the death of his father-in-law, an officer of the Marine National Bank (“Wall Street Startled,” New York Times, 7 May 1884, 5). By the early 1880s he was reputed to be worth $750,000, and was known as the “Young Napoleon” of the financial world. Grant and Ward invested $100,000 each. In November 1880 General Grant and James D. Fish, president of the Marine National Bank, each added $100,000, and became “special” partners. The Grants put in cash, while the other two men pledged securities. Frederick Grant and, to a lesser extent, Jesse Grant also invested with the firm (McFeely 1981, 489–90; Jean Edward Smith 2001, 619; New York Times: “The Fish-Grant Letters,” 28 May 1884, 5; advertisement for “Grant & Ward, Bankers,” 8 Dec 1881, 7; Goldhurst 1975, 13–14).

  76.37–38 5th of May . . . penniless] The firm collapsed on 6 May 1884 and simultaneously caused the closure of the Marine National Bank. For several years, investors had made unrealistic profits, collecting annual dividends sometimes as high as 40 percent. Grant and his son had left everything in Ward’s hands, and believed themselves millionaires. Ward’s scheme was to induce investors to buy securities, retain them on deposit as collateral on multiple loans from the Marine Bank (with the collusion of Fish), and then pay out the borrowed funds in large dividends to other investors. The scheme collapsed when Ward finally could not repay the loans. The securities he had pledged to the bank did not cover the loss, which in turn caused the bank to fail. The estimated liabilities of the firm of Grant and Ward totaled nearly $17 million, with actual assets of about $67,000 (Goldhurst 1975, 13–19; Jean Edward Smith 2001, 619–21; McFeely 1981, 490; New York Times: “Wall Street Startled,” 7 May 1884, 1; “Ward’s Curious Methods,” 13 May 1884, 1; “Debts of Grant & Ward,” 8 July 1884, 8; “Ferdinand Ward Arraigned,” 5 June 1885, 8).

  76.42–77.7 Ward had spared no one . . . connected with the Grant family] The New York house, purchased with money from a $100,000 fund raised by wealthy friends, belonged to Mrs. Grant. The Grants assumed an existing mortgage and gave the balance of the gift—$52,000—to Ward, who falsely claimed that it was invested in bonds. The $65,000 was most likely from the sale of the Philadelphia house (Badeau 1887, 420; Julia Dent Grant 1975, 161, 323–24). According to Badeau, Grant

  was ruined; one son was a partner in the wreck and the liabilities; another[,] the agent of the firm, was bankrupt for half a million; his youngest son on the 3d of May had deposited all his means, about $80,000, in the bank of his father and brother, and the bank suspended payment on the 6th; his daughter had made a little investment of $12,000 with the firm; one sister had put in $5,000, another $25,000; a nephew had invested a few thousands, the savings of a clerkship; and other personal friends had been induced by Grant’s name and advice to invest still more largely. (Badeau 1887, 421)

  In one sense it cannot be claimed that Grant lost his initial investment, because he and his son had each been drawing as much as $3,000 a month from the firm for living expenses. So between late 1880 and early 1884, they probably received an amount equal to their original investment, plus a reasonable return. What Grant had lost, however, was a putative fortune: he believed that his withdrawals did not affect his principal, which was now alleged to be about a million dollars. In addition, he was now responsible for the liabilities of the firm. (Mrs. Grant eventually paid out about $190,000 from the proceeds of Grant’s Memoirs to settle these business debts.) And, finally, he had borrowed $150,000 from William H. Vanderbilt in a last-minute effort to avert the disaster, in the belief that Ward would return the money immediately. To repay the debt, Grant made over all his assets to Vanderbilt, including deeds to his real estate. (When Vanderbilt offered to return the property to Mrs. Grant and forgive the debt, the Grants refused.) Mrs. Grant—whose property was considered separate—still owned two houses in Washington, which she sold to raise money; loans from friends provided additional funds for living expenses (Goldhurst 1975, 3–5, 13, 22–25, 250; “Gen. Grant’s Testimony,” New York Tribune, 28 Mar 1885, 1; Badeau 1887, 419–20, 423, 432–33).

  77.9–13 bill to restore to General Grant . . . Fitz-John Porter Bill by President Arthur] Major General Fitz-John Porter (1822–1901) was convicted by a court martial in January 1863 of disobeying orders at the second battle of Bull Run. Many believed he was innocent of the charges, arguing that the orders were based on false information, and would have resulted in a doomed assault. In 1879 Porter was exonerated by a board of inquiry, and in early 1880 his supporters began a long campaign to restore him to his army rank on the retired list, either by legislation or by executive action. Late in 1880 a bill authorizing the president to similarly reinstate Grant was introduced in Congress. These were the first of a series of “relief” bills for both men that were debated in Congress over the next several years. When at last a bill for Porter passed both houses, President Arthur vetoed it in July 1884, claiming that it was unconstitutional because it named a specific person, a power not granted to Congress. Meanwhile, after the failure of Grant and Ward in May 1884, a second bill to reinstate Grant had been introduced in Congress. President Arthur, who wanted to avoid contradicting his earlier position in the Porter case, asked Congress to confer a pension upon Grant without presidential action—a form of charity that Grant “indignantly declined to receive” (Badeau 1887, 432). In January 1885 a final bill was proposed, authorizing the president to place one former general on the army retired list with the corresponding “rank and full pay.” The Porter bill and the Grant bill both passed the Senate, but were stalled in the House, in part because some congressmen wanted to retaliate against Arthur by forcing a veto. Finally, less than half an hour before Congress was to adjourn sine die at noon on 4 March, the last bill was passed. The timing was so close that at 11:45 the assistant doorkeeper “stood upon a chair and pushed the hands of the Senate clock back six minutes, while everybody laughed at the cheating of time.” The bill was signed at once, and at “11:53 by the correc
ted time” the president proffered Grant’s nomination, which was unanimously approved. Clemens, who was present when Grant heard the news, sent a telegram to his wife: “We were at General Grants at noon and a telegram arrived that the last act of the expiring congress late this morning retired him with full Generals rank and accompanying emoluments. The effect upon him was like raising the dead” (“Gen. Grant’s Retirement,” New York Times, 5 Mar 1885, 1; 4 Mar 1885 to OLC, CU-MARK). Unfortunately, the result of these efforts was essentially honorary. Grant died less than five months later, and his pay, $13,600 a year, was not continued to his widow. In December 1885, however, Congress awarded Mrs. Grant her own pension of $5,000 a year. Porter’s case was not resolved until July 1886, when he was restored to his former rank by a special act of Congress and awarded an annual pension of $3,375 (New York Times: “Fitz John Porter Whitewashed,” 29 Mar 1879, 2; “Gen. Grant’s Former Salaries,” 14 Dec 1880, 1; “Fitz John Porter’s Case,” 12 Jan 1880, 1; “In Vindication of Porter,” 3 Jan 1882, 5; “Porter’s Last Hope Gone,” 16 Apr 1882, 1; “Still Seeking a Pardon,” 1 Jan 1884, 1; “The Fitz John Porter Bill Killed,” 4 July 1884, 1; “For Gen. Grant’s Benefit,” 8 May 1884, 1; “Mrs. Grant’s Pension Approved,” 27 Dec 1885, 1; “Army and Navy News,” 7 July 1886, 3; Annual Cyclopaedia 1883, 236–48; Annual Cyclopaedia 1884, 207–8; Annual Cyclopaedia 1885, 203–4, 225–27; Badeau 1887, 340–41, 432, 443; Jean Edward Smith 2001, 624–25; Los Angeles Times: “The Retired List,” 22 Oct 1893, 9; “Current Notes,” 22 May 1885, 2; “Will Mrs. Grant Have a Pension?” Utica Observer, undated clipping in Scrapbook 22:59, CU-MARK).