Reminiscences of Sixty Years in Public Affairs Volume II Part 19

Mr. Fish was then Secretary of State, and to him was General Grant and the country largely indebted for the settlement of the Alabama controversy; but the settlement was in harmony with General Grant's inaugural address.

Before the final adjustment of the controversy, by the decision of the tribunal at Geneva, General Grant had occasion to consider whether the allegation against Great Britain, growing out of her recognition, in May, 1861, of the belligerent character of the Confederacy, could be maintained upon the principles of public law. Upon his own judgment he reached the conclusion that the act was an act of sovereignty within the discretion of the ruler, for which a claim in money could not be made. This opinion was accepted, finally, by his advisers, by the negotiators, and by the country.

General Grant was not a trained statesman. His methods of action were direct and clear. His conduct was free from duplicity, and artifice of every sort was foreign to his nature. In the first years of his administration he relied upon his Cabinet in all minor matters relating to the departments. Acting upon military ideas, he held the head of a department to his full responsibility, and he waited, consequently, until his opinion was sought or his instructions were solicited.

In his conferences with the members of his Cabinet he expressed his opinions with the greatest freedom, and, upon discussion, he often yielded to the suggestions or arguments of others. He was so great that it was not a humiliation to acknowledge a change in opinion, or to admit an error in policy or purpose.

In his intercourse with members of Congress upon the business of the Government, he gave his opinions without reserve when he had reached definite conclusions, but he often remained a silent listener to the discussion of topics which he had not considered maturely.

His politics were not narrow nor exclusive. He believed in the growth of the country, and in the power of republican ideas. He was free from race prejudice, and free from national jealousy, but he believed in the enlargement of our territory by peaceful means, in the spread of republican inst.i.tutions, and in the predominance of the English- speaking race in the affairs of the world.

The spirit of philanthropy animated his politics, and the doctrines of peace controlled his public policy.

[* This article was printed in Appleton's Cyclopedia for the year 1885.

Copyright, 1886, by D. Appleton & Co.]

x.x.xIX REMINISCENCES OF PUBLIC MEN

GENERAL BANKS

Of the men whom I have known in public affairs, General Banks was in his personality one of a small number who were always agreeable and permanently attractive. He was the possessor of an elastic spirit; he was always hopeful of the future and in adversity he saw or fancied that he saw, days of prosperity for himself, for his party, for the commonwealth and for the country. His interest in the fortunes of the laboring cla.s.ses was a permanent interest, and they are largely indebted to him for the pa.s.sage of the eight-hour law by the Congress of the United States. Not infrequently his thoughts and schemes were too vast for realization. While the contest in Kansas was going on, he suggested an organization of capitalists for the purchase of the low-priced lands in Delaware, then a sale to Northern farmers and the conversion of Delaware into a free State.

His studies in law had been fragmentary and superficial, and nature had not endowed him with all the qualities that are essential to the successful lawyer. His reading on the literary side was considerable, especially in the Spanish language. Early in life he accepted the idea that our relations with the Spanish race were to be intimate in a not far off future. He was a careful observer of character, and of conditions in affairs, and in a free debate he was never in peril of being overmatched. Of a mutual friend and an a.s.sociate in politics he said: "He has no serious side to his character--a defect that has been the bane of many otherwise able men."

When the coalition came into power Banks was made speaker of the Ma.s.sachusetts House of Representatives. Wilson was president of the Senate and I was in the office of Governor. In an evening stroll with Banks around Boston Common, engaged in a survey of public affairs, he changed the conversation suddenly with the remark: "It's almighty queer that the people of this commonwealth have put their government into the hands of men who have no last and usual place of abode." The pertinency of this remark is to be found in the facts to which it was applicable. There were some men of wealth in the Coalition Party but the three places that I have named were held by men who were dest.i.tute of even the means of well-to-do mechanics and tradespeople.

Mr. Banks had power in repartee which made him a formidable adversary in parliamentary debate. When he was a mechanic at Waltham he took an active part in temperance meetings. At one of the meetings a Unitarian clergyman of conservative leanings, made a speech in which he criticized the speeches and said finally: "I do not attend the meetings because I cannot approve of what I hear said." He then referred to Mr. Banks as a young man who was guilty of indiscretions in speech. He had seen him once only at his church. He had made inquiries of his brethren and he could not learn that Mr. Banks was a regular attendant at any church. Banks in reply admitted that he had been in the church of the reverend gentleman but once, and that he was not a regular attendant at any church. Said he: "I do not go to church because I hear things said there which I do not approve." The reverend gentleman was forced to join in the general laugh which was raised at his expense.

Two extracts from General Banks' letters, written to me during the war may give an idea of his characteristics in his maturer years.

HEADQUARTERS, CAMP AT DAMSTOWN, MD.

_October_ 15, 1861.

MY DEAR SIR:-- I received your letter of the 8th inst . . . and also one of an earlier date.

I am very glad to hear from you. I see few people and hear little news from home. Newspapers I have little relish for and scarcely time to read them, if I had.

I am glad to know that you contemplate the army for a pursuit. Our people will in the end surrender all business except that of the war, and that which pertains to the war. Our country is in a sad condition.

It is already clear that the influence of France and England is against us. How sadly all our antic.i.p.ations in regard to the war have failed us,--the insurrection of the blacks, the material deficiencies of the South, their want of men, and worst of all the friends.h.i.+p or the indifference of England. We have now, or shall have by and by to do what we should have done at the start, rely upon ourselves and prepare for our work upon a scale proportionate to its magnitude. It would amuse you to know how far the highest civil authority is subordinated to military direction. I do not doubt in the slightest degree the success of the Government in the end, but it grieves me to see how slow we have been and still are in comprehension and preparation.

This continent is just as important to England and France as it is to us. It is hardly to be doubted that they will postpone all international questions, and secure what has never before been offered to them--a controlling foothold here. How many times I have spoken to you in the old Executive Chamber of the importance to the whole world of the possession of Mexico--and of the power it would infallibly give to this continent, as in Europe to those who possessed it. And now Spain, France, and England are there. "Birnam Wood _has_ to great Dunsinane come." There is but one remedy for us. Every male creature born and unborn must become a soldier. Soldiers do not criticize, so you must consider this _Private_. And believe me very truly yours, etc.

N. P. BANKS.

HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE GULF.

_New Orleans, 27 Decr._ 1863.

MY DEAR SIR:-- I have written to the President upon the subject of a free State organization in Louisiana. It appears quite certain to me that the course pursued here by the officers to whom the matter is entrusted will not lead to an early or a certain result. It will not be accomplished sooner than August or September, and then will be involved in the struggles of the Presidential contest, and very likely share the fate of that struggle. It certainly ought not to be dependent upon that issue, and settled, not only independent of it, but before it opens. It can be easily done, in March. A Free State government upon the basis of immediate emanc.i.p.ation can be acquired as early as March with the general consent of the People, and without any material opposition, in such a manner as to draw after it _all_ the Southern States, on the same basis, and by the same general consent. But it cannot be done in the manner now proposed here. It is upon this subject that I have written the President. Three months ago I wrote him upon the same idea but did not send my letter. Subsequent reflection and inquiry have made the theory so clear to mind that I felt impelled to put my views before him. I write this as from the request of my previous letter you may have spoken to him upon the subject of the Depart't and the reorganization of the State. The election of next year does not seem as clear to me as it appears to you. I fancy it to be a struggle between the Democratic Party, backed by the entire power of the regular army and the People. It will be a contest of great violence.

The report of General Halleck is singularly incorrect, in its references to the Department--so much so that it is impossible to attribute them to anything else but misapprehension of facts. I refer to that which relates to Galveston, and the movement against Port Hudson in April.

If it were not so palpable, I shd think the Department hostile & shd be very glad to know if you see or hear anything to indicate such feeling towards me. General Wilson would probably know the facts.

The Austrian Consul here, said to me the other day that he was confident that Maximilian would not go to Mexico. He is a sensible and well informed man, and I have confidence in his opinion. I shall send you by Satds mail _three_ despatches from Europe of recent date.

Very truly yours, N. P. BANKS.

M. G. C.

HON. GEO. S. BOUTWELL.

As the conclusion of my remarks upon General Banks, I refer to my final and unexaggerated estimate of General Banks as given in the chapter on the Legislature of 1849 (Chapter XIV).

GENERAL SHERMAN, GENERAL SHERIDAN AND GENERAL GRANT.

The death of General Sherman removed the last member of the triumvirate of soldiers who achieved the highest distinction in the Civil War. In the Senate one speaker gave him the highest place, but on the contrary I cannot rank him above either Grant or Sheridan. When we consider the vastness of the command with which Grant was entrusted through a period of more than a year, the magnitude and success of his operations, and the tenacity with which he prosecuted all his varied undertakings, it must appear that neither Sherman nor Sheridan was ent.i.tled to the position of a rival. As to Sherman, I can say from a long and intimate acquaintance with him, and under circ.u.mstances when his real feeling would have been disclosed, that he never a.s.sumed an equality with Grant.

As between Sherman and Sheridan it is not easy to settle the question of pre-eminence. For myself the test would be this: a.s.sume that Grant had disappeared during the Battle of the Wilderness, would the fortunes of the country have been best promoted, probably, by the appointment of Sherman or Sheridan? I cannot now say what my opinion would have been in 1864, but I should now have p.r.o.nounced for Sheridan. He was more cool and careful in regard to the plan of operations and equally bold and vigorous in execution. General Grant expressed the opinion to me in conversation that Sheridan was the best officer in the army. He spoke of his care and coolness in the preparation of his plans and his celerity in execution. Of "the younger set of officers" he placed Ames (Adelbert) as the most promising.

In one of my last conversations with Sheridan he expressed the opinion that the improvement in the material of war was so great that nations could not make war, such would be the destruction of human life.

Upon his return from Germany at the end of the Franco-Prussian War, he spoke very disparagingly of the military movements and among several things he said that the French forces were placed where the Germans would have dictated had they had the power. He added the either of our armies at the close of the war could have marched over the country in defiance of both the French and German forces combined. This was a rash remark, probably; a remark which he could not justify upon the facts. Without intending to betray any confidence, the remark, as coming through me, got into the newspapers. Sheridan with a skill superior to that of politicians caused the announcement to be made that General Sheridan had never had any conversation with Governor Boutwell in regard to the Franco-Prussian war.

At the end it may be claimed justly, that they were three great soldiers--that they served the country with equal fidelity--that they lived and acted without the manifestation in either of a feeling of rivalry, and that they earned the public grat.i.tude.

The death of General Sherman was followed to two contradictory statements from his sons. The younger, Tec.u.mseh, is reported as saying that his father was never a Catholic, while the older, Thomas, who is a priest of the Order of Jesuits, had stated over his signature that his father was baptized as a Catholic, was married as a Catholic, and that he had heard him say often, "that if there was any true religion it was the Catholic."

All this may be true and yet General Sherman may not have been a Catholic. His baptism may have been without his consent or knowledge, his marriage by the Catholic Church may have been in deference to his wife's wishes, and because he was wholly indifferent to the matter, and the remark may have been made in the impression that there was no true religion, and that the Catholic was as likely, or even more likely to be true, than any other.

The statement made by Thomas puts an imputation upon General Sherman that he ought not to bear. Of the thousands that one may meet in a lifetime, General Sherman was among the freest from anything in the nature of hypocrisy or dissimulation. Of those who knew him intimately after the close of the war there are but few, probably, who did not hear him speak with hostility and bitterness of the Catholic Church.

For myself I can say that I heard him speak in terms of contempt of the church. On one occasion with reference to fasts and abstinence from meat of Friday, he said:

"I know better than these priests what I want to eat."

General Sherman was not a friend to the Catholic Church in the last years of his life and there is no honor in the attempt to enroll his name among its devotees now that he is dead and cannot speak for himself.

SECRETARY WINDOM

Funeral services were performed February 2, 1891, at the Church of the Covenant in Was.h.i.+ngton in honor of Mr. Windom, late Secretary of the Treasury. He made a good record, if not a distinguished one. As a member of the House of Representatives and of the Senate he was noted for fairness, for freedom from bitterness of opinion upon party questions, and for good sense in action.

He was indisposed to take responsibility and he went no farther than the case in hand seemed to require. As the head of the Treasury he was anxious to gather opinions upon matters of general public interest, and it was in his nature to strive to accommodate his action to the public opinion, if he could do so without serious consequences. He worked within narrow limits, the limits set by business and politics. Of enemies he had but few--of warm friends but few--the many had confidence in his integrity in the affairs of government, and in his ability to guide those affairs in ordinary times.

JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL

In a number of the _Edinburgh Review_ is an article on James Russell Lowell in which the writer errs widely in two particulars as to the effect of the "Biglow Papers." The writer's name is not given, but he is not an American and he is ignorant, probably, of America as it was from 1830 to 1850. When the "Biglow Papers" appeared, I was a Democrat, and I am quite sure that the publication produced no effect, not even the least, upon the opinions of Democrats or the action of the Democratic Party. Upon my knowledge of the Democratic Party I can say with confidence that the writer is in error when he says: "He (Lowell) converted many bigoted Northern Democrats to a course of action in conflict with their old party relations and apparent interests."

For this broad statement there is no evidence. The first break came in 1848 and it was due to rivalries in the Democratic Party. If the "Biglow Papers" played any part it was too unimportant to produce an appreciable result. They were treated as a fortunate _jeu d'esprit_ that everybody enjoyed, but the Democratic Party did not change its policy nor did it lose adherents. The Mexican War was prosecuted and bigotry political and religious continued to flourish. They may have contributed though, insensibly, to a public opinion that became formidable in the end but the effect was not as perceptible as was the effect of Garrison's legend that slavery was a covenant with h.e.l.l and a league with death, which had its place at the head of the _Liberator_ through successive years. Nor do I believe that "it revolutionized the tone of Northern society." Indeed, there is a "tone" of Northern society that has not been revolutionized to this day. The South is still the land of gentle birth. The slave-holder still lives as a man of breeding and the owner of estates. The negro is still of an inferior caste and in some circles the days of slavery were the great days of the Republic. When the "Biglow Papers" appeared Mr. Lowell had not achieved distinction. Society did not know him to follow him. It cared nothing for what he thought, and it was only amused by what he said. The Lowell of 1840 was not the Lowell of 1890.

Nor can any series of statements be more untruthful and absurd than the statements of the writer that "thenceforth it became creditable to advocate abolition in drawing rooms, and to preach it from fas.h.i.+onable city pulpits to congregations paying fancy prices for their pews. In the workshops, the barrooms and other popular resorts the laugh was turned against the slave-owners; the ground was prepared for the popular enthusiasm which recruited the armies that exhausted the South, and Lowell must share with Lincoln and Grant the glory of the crowning victories."