a,
is one; I say Mr. Sumner, of the Senate, is another; and Wendell
Phillips is another."
The violence of language, so unlike that of Abraham Lincoln, added
to the hostility to Mr. Johnson in Congress, and, I think, more
than any other cause, led to his impeachment by the House of
Representatives.
In the beginning of the controversy between Congress and the
President, I tried to act as a peacemaker. I knew Mr. Johnson
personally, his good and his bad qualities. I sat by his side in
the Senate chamber during the first two years of the war. I was
with him in his canvass in 1864. I sympathized with him in his
struggles with the leaders of the Rebellion and admired his courage
during the war, when, as Governor of Tennessee, he reorganized that
state upon a loyal basis. The defect of his character was his
unreasoning pugnacity. He early became involved in wordy warfare
with Sumner, Wade, Stevens and others. In his high position he
could have disregarded criticism, but this was not the habit of
Johnson. When assailed he fought, and could be as violent and
insulting in language and acts as anyone.
Under these circumstances I made a long and carefully considered
speech in the Senate on the 26th of February, 1866, in which I
stated the position of Congress on the reconstruction measures,
and the policy adopted by Johnson from Lincoln. Either of these
plans would have accomplished the provisional restoration of these
states to the Union, while all agreed that, when admitted, they
would be armed with all the powers of states, subject only to the
constitution of the United States. I believed then, and believe
now, that the quarrel with Johnson did much to weaken the Republican
party. In consequence of it several Republican Senators and Members
severed their connection with that party and joined the Democratic
party. Johnson, irritated by this antagonism, drifted away from
the measures he had himself advocated and soon after was in open
opposition to the party that elected him. I here insert passages
from my speech, which expressed my views at the time, and which I
now feel were justified by the then existing opinions and conditions
of political life:
"Sir, I can imagine no calamity more disgraceful than for us by
our divisions to surrender, to men who to their country were enemies
in war, any or all of the powers of this government. He, who
contributes in any way to this result, deserves the execrations of
|