30 4-
Presented to the
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
LIBRARY
by the
ONTARIO LEGISLATIVE
LIBRARY
1980
SPEECHES, CORRESPONDENCE
AND POLITICAL PAPERS OF
CARL SCHURZ
IN SIX VOLUMES
AND POLITICAL PAPERS OF
CARL SCHURZ
•• &%*• ' "fa DELECTED AND EDITED BY
**
BANCROFT
ON BEHALF OF
THE CARL SCHURZ MEMORIAL COMMITTEE
VOLUME III.
MARCH 4, i874-JuNE 28, 1880
G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
NEW YORK LONDON
fmfcfeerbocfiet iPrees
1913
^cr-
LIBRAPY
NOV
24
COPYRIGHT, 1913
BY
SCHURZ MEMORIAL COMMITTEE
5
f 1 /
Ube ftnicfietbocker press, -Rew Borb
CONTENTS OF VOLUME III
1874.
PAGE
To Charles Francis Adams, Jr., March 4th . . i
Comments on his recent speech and his opponents —
Hard-money league should be on large scale and ostensibly
a Western movement.
Eulogy on Charles Sumner, April 29th ... 2
To James S. Rollins, August 4th .... 72
Attitude toward reelection as Senator — Farmers' move-
ment— Hopes Rollins will some time represent Missouri.
Speech: The Issues of 1874, Especially in Missouri,
September 24th ....... 74
To Samuel Bowles, November 27th . . . .113
Contemplates writing a political history of the United
States — Wants a good publisher — Thinks of removing to
Boston.
From Samuel Bowles, December 3d . . . .115
Political history much needed — Publishers suggested —
Western vs. eastern Massachusetts as a place in which to
live while writing history.
1875.
Speech: Military Interference in Louisiana, January
nth . . . . . . . . .115
To James S. Rollins, April 2d . . . . . 152
Congressional duties and lecturing have interfered with
his correspondence — Gratified by the good opinion of men
of a high class — Regrets narrow-minded partisanship that
defeated his reelection — Hopes for a reform movement in
1876.
iii
iv Contents of Volume III
PAGE
To Henry Armitt Brown, April i6th . . 153
Desires meeting of prominent independents — Congratu-
lates Brown on recent oration.
To G. Washington Warren, May 2oth . . .154
Comments on centennial celebration of Battle of Bunker
Hill.
To W. M. Grosvenor, July i6th . . . 155
Suggests conference of independents — Charles Francis
Adams, ST., as Presidential candidate — Qualifications,
"absolute independence of party dictation and entire
absence of ulterior ambitions."
From Charles Francis Adams, Jr., July i6th . . 156
Nomination of William Allen — Can be defeated by Ger-
man vote — Schurz must shape Presidential issues of 1876.
To Charles Francis Adams, Jr., July 226. . . .157
Immediate return to United States not expedient —
Inflation element fatal to Democratic party — Republican
leaders will change their Southern policy rather than risk
defeat — Independents to reserve their influence for Presi-
dential campaign of 1876 — Funds needed to organize the
reform movement for the next year.
To Charles Francis Adams, Jr., August i8th . . 160
Persuaded to return to the United States in September,
but wishes plans to be kept secret.
Speech: Honest Money, September 2yth . . . 161
From Charles Francis Adams, Jr., October I3th . 215
Rejoices over the defeat of "old Bill" Allen.
To Charles Francis Adams, Jr., October I5th . . 216
Ohio inflationists defeated — Independent voters getting
ready for next year.
From Alphonso Taft, October i6th . . . .216
Thanks and congratulates Schurz on the victory in Ohio.
From A. T. Wickoff, October 26th . . . .217
Thanks Schurz for valuable services in Ohio, and desires
to reimburse him for his expenses.
To A. T. Wickoff, November 2d . . . .217
Declines to accept reimbursement.
Contents of Volume III v
1876.
PAGE
To Samuel Bowles, January 4th . . . .217
Organizing for Presidential campaign work — Elaine,
Bristow and Charles Francis Adams, ST., candidates for
nomination.
To Samuel Bowles, January i6th . . .219
Campaign of 1876 to be kept free from spoils politicians —
Elaine injuring his own cause — Adams to be kept in back-
ground— Schurz desires conference with Bowles.
To Benjamin H. Bristow, February I5th . . . 220
Advises Bristow not to resign from the Secretaryship of
of the Treasury.
From Benjamin H. Bristow, February i8th . . 221
Grateful for Schurz's counsel — Difficulty of performing
his official duties.
To B. B. Gaboon, March 3d 222
Corruption in the Republican party — Presidential can-
didate must be man of unimpeachable principles — Adams
and Bristow, Schurz's choice.
To Samuel Bowles, March 7th .... 224
Political aspect changed by Belknap affair — Schurz satis-
fied with Bristow in first or second place.
To Samuel Bowles, March 27th .... 224
Conference at Cincinnati — Invitation signed by promi-
nent independents.
To Thomas F. Bayard, March 3Oth . . . 225
Gratefully acknowledges letter of condolence — Wishes
Bayard an unbroken family circle.
To Benjamin H. Bristow, March 3ist . . . 226
Obstacles to nomination of true reformer — Hopes of
cooperating with friends of reform in the Union League —
Republican party disgraced by corruption in the public
service — Regeneration through defeat.
To Francis A. Walker, April 6th .... 228
Circular call of the Fifth Avenue Hotel conference.
vi Contents of Volume III
PAGE
To F. W. Bird, April I3th ..... 229
Acknowledges letter of condolence.
To L. A. Sherman, April isth ..... 230
Nomination of Bristow favored by Michigan Republi-
cans — Reasons for calling the Fifth Avenue Hotel confer-
ence — Many Republicans in the reform movement.
To Francis A. Walker, April i;th . . . 232
Prominent New Englanders mentioned as desired at the
conference — Considers Elaine "one of the most dangerous
enemies of genuine reform " — The West favoring the reform
movement.
To a Republican, April 22d ..... 233
Answers objections to Fifth Avenue conference.
To L. A. Sherman, May 3d ..... 239
Bristow movement growing in Michigan — Why Blaine
would not be a desirable candidate.
Address to the People, May i6th .... 240
To Rutherford B. Hayes, June 2ist . . . . 248
Urges Hayes, in his letter of acceptance, to state "in
language bold and ringing," his position on the financial
question, civil rights, local self-government and civil service
reform.
To Rutherford B. Hayes, June 23d .... 252
The language of Hayes's letter of acceptance cannot be
too strong in favor of a specie-payment policy, purification
of Government and non-partisan civil service.
From Rutherford B. Hayes, June 2yth . . . 253
Welcomes Schurz's suggestions — Wishes to remain
uncommitted until time for issuing letter of acceptance —
Consults Schurz about the expediency of limiting himself
to one term.
To Rutherford B. Hayes, July 5th .... 255
Paragraphs suggested for letter of acceptance — Schurz
desires personal interview with Hayes.
To Charles Francis Adams, Jr., July 9th . . . 258
Considers Hayes a more satisfactory Presidential can-
didate than Tilden — National Civil Service Reform League
to be organized.
Contents of Volume III vii
PAGE
To Rutherford B. Hayes, July I4th . . . . 260
Letter of acceptance has had good effect — Grant un-
sympathetic with Hayes — Impropriety of Secretary
Chandler's being Chairman of Republican National
Committee.
To Oswald Ottendorfer, July 22d . . . .261
Defends himself against newspaper criticism — Justifies
the calling of the Fifth Avenue Hotel conference — Gives
reasons for preferring Hayes to Tilden.
To Rutherford B. Hayes, August 7th ... 280
Heavy odds against Hayes in Presidential campaign —
Hayes urged to reaffirm the promises of his letter of accept-
ance— "Grant is doing his very worst" — Schurz ready to
work for Hayes — Schurz accused of writing Hayes's letter
of acceptance.
From Rutherford B. Hayes, August gth . . . 284
Usually gives little attention to the prospects in a can-
vass— Impression prevalent in Ohio that a "Democratic
victory would bring the Rebellion into power" — Thanks
Schurz for Ottendorfer letter.
To Rutherford B. Hayes, August I4th . . . 285
Urges Hayes to protest against levying assessments on
Government clerks for campaign funds — Having "no ax to
grind," Schurz feels freer to make suggestions — Plans for
activities in the campaign.
From Rutherford B. Hayes, August 25th . . . 289
Urges Schurz to take optimistic view — Hayes fears to be
explicit because his mail has been tampered with.
To Rutherford B. Hayes, August 2yth . . . 289
Hayes's letter of acceptance to be the text of a campaign
speech — Schurz would like Hayes's opinion.
From Rutherford B. Hayes, August 3Oth . . . 290
An early meeting impossible — Urges cheerfulness.
Speech: Hayes versus Tilden, August 3ist . . 290
From Rutherford B. Hayes, September I5th . . 338
Efforts to suppress political assessments — No hostility
to naturalized foreigners as officeholders — Objects to sec-
tarian interference in politics or in the schools — Never
belonged to Know-Nothing party.
viii Contents of Volume III
PAGE
From Rutherford B. Hayes, November 3d. . ; 339
If defeated, will find "many things to console" him —
Satisfied with his letter of acceptance — Grateful to Schurz
for his work in the campaign.
To T. W. Ferry, December 3d .... 339
Stating the need of a Constitutional amendment for
deciding contested Presidential elections.
From Rutherford B. Hayes, December 6th . . 345
Commends letter to Ferry — Wants suggestion put in
concrete form — Republicans "justly and legally entitled
to the Presidency. "
To Henry Cabot Lodge, December I3th . . . 346
Had faith in Hayes but no confidence in Tilden — Ballot-
boxes tampered with — Probable appointment of a joint
Committee to devise a plan for deciding as to contested
votes.
To Charles Francis Adams, Jr., December 2ist . . 348
Asks for more definite information concerning plan for
deciding contested votes — Schurz promises aid.
To B. B. Cahoon, December 23d .... 350
Urging Congress to settle upon some "tribunal standing
above party interest and ambition" to decide contested
elections.
To Jacob D. Cox, December 28th .... 351
Cox urged to advise Hayes to express himself publicly
in favor of contested-election tribunal outside of party
influence.
1877.
To Rutherford B. Hayes, January 1st . . . 354
Election frauds have demonstrated the necessity of
abolishing the spoils system and reforming the civil
From Rutherford B. Hayes, January 4th . . . 355
Looks for nothing of value from Southern conservative
tendencies in Congress — Present House ruled by Tilden's
caucus.
Contents of Volume III ix
PAGE
To Rutherford B. Hayes, January I2th . . . 355
Rumor that Hayes does not favor a special method of
settling the electoral dispute — Influence of action of Louis-
iana returning-board — Theory that it will suffice to assume
ourselves right and then go ahead — Power of President of
the Senate — Importance of both merits and appearances —
Hayes should be advised of public opinion.
From Rutherford B. Hayes, January i/th . . 361
Will abide by result but thinks it proper to write an in-
augural and select a Cabinet.
To Charles Francis Adams, Jr., January 2ist . . 362
Bill reported by Conference Committee is a "makeshift,
to be sure, but a good one. "
To Rutherford B. Hayes, January 2ist . . . 363
What the passage of the Conference bill would mean to
Hayes — Why Schurz favors it, and what its failure would
entail.
To Rutherford B. Hayes, January 25th . . . 366
Advises Hayes to write his inaugural on the same lines as
his letter of acceptance, only in stronger terms — Various
suggestions.
From Rutherford B. Hayes, January 2Qth . . 376
Approves Schurz's suggestions for inaugural, with certain
additions.
To Rutherford B. Hayes, January 3Oth . . . 376
Suggestions about Cabinet appointments: fundamental
principles and suitable men.
To Jacob D. Cox, January 3Oth .... 383
Has advised Hayes as to his inaugural and his Cabinet
and urges Cox to do the same.
To Rutherford B. Hayes, February 2d 384
Comments on Hayes's thoughts about National aid to
education and internal improvements in the South and a
Constitutional amendment providing for a single six-year
Presidential term — Advises that inaugural address be short,
terse and pointed.
From Rutherford B. Hayes, February 4th . . 387
Anxious to promote welfare of the South.
x Contents of Volume III
PAGE
From Murat Halstead, February i6th . . . 388
Halstead's impressions as to Hayes's ideas about his
Cabinet — Halstead desires to see Schurz in it.
To Rutherford B. Hayes, February I7th . . . 389
Suggests inviting prominent ex-Confederate into his
Cabinet — Why he opposes Don Cameron and favors Bris-
tow for a Cabinet position — Elements of strength that
Hayes should seek.
To Murat Halstead, February igth .... 397
Does not seek but would accept Cabinet position, yet
would be satisfied if Hayes carried out the policy promised
in his letter of acceptance — Schurz's studies and tastes
suggest the Department of State or the Treasury, but he
is willing to serve wherever he can be really useful.
To Rutherford B. Hayes, February 2Oth . . . 399
Conditions in and advice about Louisiana.
To Jacob D. Cox, February 2Oth .... 401
Disquieting Cabinet rumors — Cox urged to use his in-
fluence with Hayes for a wise selection.
From Murat Halstead, February 2Oth . . . 402
Hayes's supposed plans and ideas as to Cabinet — Oppor-
tunities that the Department of the Interior would offer
Schurz — Bristow urged for vacancy on the Supreme Bench.
From Rutherford B. Hayes, February 25th . . 403
In event of being President, desires to invite Schurz to
place in Cabinet, preferably Interior Department.
To Rutherford B. Hayes, February 26th . . . 403
Sincere appreciation of Cabinet honor offered him —
Communicates scheme of Chandler's to have himself re-
turned to the Senate.
From Rutherford B. Hayes, February 27th . . 405
Gratified that Schurz would accept the Secretaryship
of the Interior — Desires to leave several Cabinet positions
unfilled for the present.
To Rutherford B. Hayes, March ist . . . 406
Information received that the late Presidential aspirants
will urge "their confidential agents and tools for Cabinet
places" — Governor Jewell's reappointment as Postmaster-
General advocated.
Contents of Volume III xi
PAGE
From Samuel Bowles, March 6th .... 408
Jubilant congratulations on Schurz's appointment as
Secretary of the Interior.
From Frederick Billings, March yth .... 408
Congratulates Schurz but "much more the country."
From Benjamin H. Bristow, March 8th . . . 409
Congratulations on Cabinet appointment — Spoils politi-
cians will fight fiercely to retain official patronage — Popu-
lar heart won by high courage.
To Charles Francis Adams, Jr., March iQth . . 409
Principles of Fifth Avenue conference to be carried out —
Glad to receive suggestions.
To W. M. Grosvenor, March 29th .... 410
Business methods reduce printing bill to less than one-
tenth — Suggestions desired — "Interior Department no
joke. "
From Benjamin H. Bristow, April I4th . . . 410
Recounts at length his efforts for reform when in Grant's
Cabinet — Praises President's inaugural and Southern
policy.
To Thomas Wentworth Higginson, June i6th . . 413
Dismissals in Interior Department for cause only.
From Samuel Bowles, July 3d . . . .413
Opposition of politicians to Hayes — Regret that Lodge
is not assistant secretary to Schurz.
To Samuel Bowles, July 4th, 5th .... 414
Apologizes for unanswered letters — Desires Bowles to
write unreservedly.
To Charles Francis Adams, Jr., July 4th . . .415
Unimpeachable legality of the Hayes Administration —
Commendable reform measures should be supported.
To Benjamin H. Bristow, July igth .... 416
Regrets inability to visit Louisville, Ky. — Departmental
work very engrossing.
To Samuel Bowles, September 3Oth . . . .416
Attacks of New York Tribune may be owing to Union
Pacific investigation.
xii Contents of Volume III
PAGE
To Benjamin H. Bristow, October 29th . . . 417
Assures Bristow of the President's regard for him —
Desires Bristow's criticisms and suggestions.
1878.
From Benjamin H. Bristow, February 6th . . .418
Schurz's good work in the cause of reform winning recog-
nition— Bristow urges him not to resign.
To Benjamin H. Bristow, February 8th . . . 419
Schurz trying to do his duty with no thought of resigning.
To Benjamin H. Bristow, March i6th . . . 419
President's veto has crushed the inflation and repudiation
movement.
To — [unknown], June I2th ..... 420
Schurz comments on the Congressional Committee's
circular soliciting campaign contributions from a Govern-
ment official — "Your official standing or prospects in this
Department" wholly independent of compliance with the
request.
From James Freeman Clarke, July ist . . .421
Rather pleased that the New York Tribune and Gail
Hamilton attack him as well as Schurz — Elaine both like
and unlike Achilles.
From Benjamin H. Bristow, September 24th . . 422
Pleased that Schurz is to speak on the currency question.
Speech : The Currency Question, September 28th . 422
From Hugh McCulloch, October 2d . . . . 480
Thanks Schurz for his speech on the money question.
From Horace White, October 8th .... 480
Schurz's Cincinnati speech the first attack on the silver
bill.
1879-
To Edward Atkinson, November 28th . . .481
Schurz's attitude toward Boston critics of his treatment
of Indian affairs — His plans explained — The Ponca case —
Suggestions as to making sympathy with Indians useful.
To E. L. Godkin, December 7th .... 490
Detailed reply to criticism about the treatment of pen-
sion claims.
Contents of Volume III xiii
PAGE
To George William Curtis, December 29th . . 494
Suggestions for preventing Grant's nomination for a
third term.
I880.
To Henry Cabot Lodge, January 3d ... 495
Lacks time to write article against Grant's nomination
for a third term — All citizens averse to voting for Grant
should declare themselves before the meeting of the Na-
tional Convention.
To Mrs. Helen Jackson, January iyth . . . 496
Advises Mrs. Jackson that Indian tribes cannot sue the
Government — Money being collected for that purpose in
the interest of the Poncas might well be used instead to
help educate Indian children.
From Mrs. Helen Jackson, January 22d . . . 499
Able lawyers ready to undertake the case of the Poncas
and ample funds easily raised — Money could not be di-
verted to another purpose — Has there ever been any bill
before Congress to secure to the Indians their lands in
severalty and to give legal protection for their rights and
property?
To Miss Emma Allison, January 24th . . . 501
Satisfactory interview with Indian delegation — Hopes
to secure legislation giving Indians title in severalty to
their land — Asks further information as to Indians on
Pacific coast.
To Mrs. Helen Jackson, January 26th . . . 501
The Secretary's objection is that because an Indian
tribe cannot maintain action in a United States court, to
collect money for such a purpose can benefit only lawyers,
not the Indians — Again suggests that consent be obtained
to use for Indian schools the money collected — Several
bills to give Indians needed rights and protection are before
Congress.
To E. Dunbar Lockwood, April ist . . . . 503
An unfounded and unwarranted newspaper attack — Ex-
termination of Utes in retaliation, prevented by Schurz —
Particulars of agreement with Utes and Secretary's attitude
toward them.
xiv Contents of Volume III
PAGE
To Henry Cabot Lodge, May 23d .... 506
Emphasizes need of harmonious cooperation of all
delegates to the National Convention opposed to Grant's
nomination — Schurz considers Elaine's nomination im-
possible.
To Thomas F. Bayard, June 15th .... 507
Offers condolence on death of Bayard's father.
To Henry Cabot Lodge, June 226. .... 507
Charges against Garfield soon to be refuted — Conkling
should have been put down when he offered resolution
binding all delegates to support the nominee whoever he
might be — Praises results of Convention — Hopes Lodge will
be nominated for Congress.
From Thomas F. Bayard, June 28th . . . 508
Acknowledges letter of condolence — Return to Wash-
ington.
THE WRITINGS OF CARL SCHURZ
The Writings of Carl Schurz
TO CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, JR.
WASHINGTON, March 4, 1874.
Thanks for your kind letter. True, my first speech1
was a rather dry exposition of elementary truths. But
we have to go through an A B C course on such matters
in this Senate of ours. Morton, Ferry etc., are going to
reply to me, and I am confident they are going to repeat
the same absurdities to which they have been treating
us for two months, and, in replying, we shall have to
commence from the beginning again.
I think your idea of forming a "hard money league" is
a very good one; Mr. Forbes, I believe, has already
organized a committee for the dissemination of documents,
and it would, perhaps, be well to aid him in that and to
extend the operations of that committee. But I think
a league on a large scale, a conspicuous organization,
should be started at some other point than Boston. It
ought not to be an Eastern movement if its influence in
the West is to be unobstructed by sectional prejudice.
I have already written to some gentlemen at Cincinnati
about the same matter and I hope they will soon move
forward. It would then be ostensibly a Western move-
ment. . . .
1 On Currency and National Banks, in the Senate, Feb. 27, 1874.
VOL. III. — I I
2 The Writings of [1874
EULOGY ON CHARLES SUMNER1
When the news went forth, "Charles Stunner is dead,"
a tremor of strange emotion was felt all over the land. It
was as if a magnificent star, a star unlike all others, which
the living generation had been wont to behold fixed and
immovable above their heads, had all at once disappeared
from the sky, and the people stared into the great void
darkened by the sudden absence of the familiar light.
On the 1 6th of March a funeral procession passed
through the streets of Boston. Uncounted thousands of
men, women and children had assembled to see it pass.
No uncommon pageant had attracted them; no military
parade with glittering uniforms and gay banners; no
pompous array of dignitaries in official robes; nothing
but carriages and a hearse with a coffin, and in it the
corpse of Charles Sumner. But there they stood, — a
multitude immeasurable to the eye, rich and poor, white
and black, old and young, — in grave and mournful silence,
to bid a last sad farewell to him who was being borne to
his grave. And every breeze from every point of the
compass came loaded with a sigh of sorrow. Indeed,
there was not a city or town in this great Republic which
would not have surrounded that funeral procession with
the same spectacle of a profound and universal sense of
great bereavement.
Was it love; was it gratitude for the services rendered
to the people; was it the baffled expectation of greater
service still to come; was it admiration of his talents or
his virtues that inspired so general an emotion of sorrow?
He had stood aloof from the multitude; the friendship
of his heart had been given to but few; to the many he
had appeared distant, self-satisfied and cold. His public
1 Delivered before the city government and citizens of Boston in Music
Hall, April 29, 1874.
1874] Carl Schurz 3
life had been full of bitter conflicts. No man had aroused
against himself fiercer animosities. Although warmly
recognized by many, the public services of no man had
been more acrimoniously questioned by opponents. No
statesman's motives, qualities of heart and mind, wisdom
and character, except his integrity, had been the subject
of more heated controversy ; and yet, when sudden death
snatched him from us, friend and foe bowed their heads
alike.
Every patriotic citizen felt poorer than the day before.
Every true American heart trembled with the apprehen-
sion that the Republic had lost something it could ill
spare.
Even from far distant lands, across the ocean, voices
came, mingling their sympathetic grief with our own.
When you, Mr. Mayor, in the name of the City Gov-
ernment of Boston, invited me to interpret that which
millions think and feel, I thanked you for the proud
privilege you had conferred upon me, and the invitation
appealed so irresistibly to my friendship for the man we
had lost, that I could not decline it.
And yet, the thought struck me that you might have
prepared a greater triumph to his memory, had you sum-
moned, not me, his friend, but one of those who had stood
against him in the struggles of his life, to bear testimony
to Charles Sumner's virtues.
There are many among them to-day, to whose sense
of justice you might have safely confided the office, which
to me is a task of love.
Here I see his friends around me, the friends of his
youth, of his manhood, of his advancing age; among
them, men whose illustrious names are household words
as far as the English tongue is spoken, and far beyond.
I saw them standing round his open grave, when it re-
ceived the flower-decked coffin, mute sadness heavily
4 The Writings of [1874
clouding their brows. I understood their grief, for
nobody could share it more than I.
In such a presence, the temptation is great to seek
that consolation for our loss which bereaved friendship
finds in the exaltation of its bereavement. But not to
you or me belonged this man while he lived; not to you
or me belongs his memory now that he is gone. His
deeds, his example and his fame, he left as a legacy to
the American people and to mankind; and it is my office
to speak of this inheritance. I cannot speak of it without
affection. I shall endeavor to do it with justice.
Among the public characters of America, Charles
Sumner stands peculiar and unique. His senatorial
career is a conspicuous part of our political history. But
in order to appreciate the man in the career, we must look
at the story of his life.
The American people take pride in saying that almost
all their great historic characters were self-made men,
who, without the advantages of wealth and early oppor-
tunities, won their education, raised themselves to use-
fulness and distinction, and achieved their greatness
through a rugged hand-to-hand struggle with adverse
fortune. It is indeed so. A log cabin; a ragged little
boy walking barefooted to a lowly country school-house,
or sometimes no school-house at all; — a lad, after a day's
hard toil on the farm, or in the workshop, poring greedily,
sometimes stealthily, over a volume of poetry, or history,
or travels; — a forlorn-looking youth, with elbows out, ap-
plying at a lawyer's office for an opportunity to study ;
— then the young man a successful practitioner attracting
the notice of his neighbors; — then a member of a State
legislature, a Representative in Congress, a Senator, may
be a Cabinet Minister, or even President. Such are the
pictures presented by many a proud American biography.
And it is natural that the American people should be
1874] Carl Schurz 5
proud of it, for such a biography condenses in the compass
of a single life the great story of the American Nation,
as from the feebleness and misery of early settlements
in the bleak solitude it advanced to the subjugation of
the hostile forces of nature; plunged into an arduous
struggle with dangers and difficulties only known to
itself, gathering strength from every conflict and experi-
ence from every trial ; with undaunted pluck widening the
range of its experiments and creative action, until at last
it stands there as one of the greatest powers of the earth.
The people are fond of seeing their image reflected in the
lives of their foremost representative men.
But not such a life was that of Charles Sumner. He
was descended from good old Kentish yeomanry stock,
men stalwart of frame, stout of heart, who used to stand
in the front of the fierce battles of Old England; and the
first of the name who came to America had certainly not
been exempt from the rough struggles of the early settle-
ments. But already from the year 1723 a long line of
Sumners appears on the records of Harvard College, and
it is evident that the love of study had long been heredi-
tary in the family. Charles Pinckney Sumner, the Sena-
tor's father, was a graduate of Harvard, a lawyer by
profession, for fourteen years high sheriff of Suffolk
county. His literary tastes and acquirements and his
stately politeness are still remembered. He was alto-
gether a man of high respectability.
He was not rich, but in good circumstances; and well
able to give his children the best opportunities to study,
without working for their daily bread.
Charles Sumner was born in Boston, on the 6th of
January, 1811. At the age of ten he had received his
rudimentary training ; at fifteen, after having gone through
the Boston Latin School, he entered Harvard College,
and plunged at once with fervor into the classics, polite
6 The Writings of [1874
literature and history. Graduated in 1830, he entered
the Cambridge Law School. Now life began to open to
him. Judge Story, his most distinguished teacher, soon
recognized in him a young man of uncommon stamp ; and
an intimate friendship sprang up between teacher and
pupil, which was severed only by death.
He began to distinguish himself, not only by the most
arduous industry and application, pushing his researches
far beyond the text-books, — indeed, text-books never
satisfied him, — but by a striking eagerness and faculty
to master the original principles of the science, and to
trace them through its development.
His productive labor began, and I find it stated that
already then, while he was yet a pupil, his essays, pub-
lished in the American Jurist, were "always characterized
by breadth of view and accuracy of learning, and some-
times by remarkably subtle and ingenious investigations."
Leaving the Law School, he entered the office of a
lawyer in Boston, to acquire a knowledge of practice,
never much to his taste. Then he visited Washington
for the first time, little dreaming what a theatre of action,
struggle, triumph and suffering the National city was to
become for him; for then he came only as a studious,
deeply interested looker-on, who merely desired to form
the acquaintance of the justices and practising lawyers at
the bar of the Supreme Court. He was received with
marked kindness by Chief Justice Marshall, and in later
years he loved to tell his friends how he had sat at the
feet of that great magistrate, and learned there what a
judge should be.
Having been admitted to the bar in Worcester in 1834,
when twenty-three years old, he opened an office in
Boston, was soon appointed reporter of the United States
Circuit Court, published three volumes containing Judge
Story's decisions, known as Sumner's Reports, took Judge
1874] Carl Schurz 7
Story's place from time to time as lecturer in the Harvard
Law School; also Professor Greenleaf's, who was absent,
and edited during the years 1835 and 1836 Andrew
Dunlap's Treatise on Admiralty Practice. Beyond this,
his studies, arduous, incessant and thorough, ranged far
and wide.
Truly a studious and laborious young man, who took
the business of life earnestly in hand, determined to know
something, and to be useful to his time and country.
But what he had learned and could learn at home did
not satisfy his craving. In 1837 he went to Europe,
armed with a letter from Judge Story's hand to the law
magnates of England, to whom his patron introduced
him as "a young lawyer, giving promise of the most
eminent distinction in his profession, with truly extra-
ordinary attainments, literary and judicial, and a gentle-
man of the highest purity and propriety of character."
That was not a mere complimentary introduction; it
was the conscientious testimony of a great judge, who
well knew his responsibility, and who afterwards, when
his death approached, adding to that testimony, was fre-
quently heard to say, "I shall die content, as far as my
professorship is concerned, if Charles Sumner is to succeed
me."
In England, young Sumner, only feeling himself stand-
ing on the threshold of life, was received like a man of
already achieved distinction. Every circle of a society
ordinarily so exclusive was open to him. Often, by invi-
tation, he sat with the judges in Westminster Hall. Re-
nowned statesmen introduced him on the floor of the
Houses of Parliament. Eagerly he followed the debates,
and studied the principles and practice of parliamentary
law on its maternal soil, where from the first seed corn it
had grown up into a magnificent tree, in whose shadow
a great people can dwell in secure enjoyment of their
8 The Writings of [1874
rights. Scientific associations received him as a welcome
guest, and the learned and great willingly opened to his
winning presence their stores of knowledge and states-
manship.
In France he listened to the eminent men of the Law
School in Paris, at the Sorbonne and the College de France,
and with many of the statesmen of that country he
maintained instructive intercourse. In Italy he gave
himself up to the charms of art, poetry, history and
classical literature. In Germany he enjoyed the con-
versation of Humboldt, of Ranke the historian, of Ritter
the geographer and of the great jurists, Savigny, Thibaut
and Mittermaier.
Two years after his return, the London Quarterly Review
said of his visit to England: "He presents in his own
person a decisive proof that an American gentleman,
without official rank or wide-spread reputation, by mere
dint of courtesy, candor, an entire absence of pretension,
an appreciating spirit and a cultured mind, may be
received on a perfect footing of equality in the best circles,
social, political and intellectual."
It must have been true, for it came from a quarter not
given to the habit of flattering Americans beyond their
deserts. And Charles Sumner was not then the Senator of
power and fame ; he was only the young son of a late sheriff
of Suffolk county in Massachusetts, who had neither
riches nor station, but who possessed that most winning
charm of youth, — purity of soul, modesty of conduct,
culture of mind, an earnest thirst for knowledge, and a
brow bearing the stamp of noble manhood and the promise
of future achievements.
He returned to his native shores in 1840, himself like a
heavily freighted ship, bearing a rich cargo of treasures
collected in foreign lands.
He resumed the practice of law in Boston; but as I
1874] Carl Schurz 9
find it stated, "not with remarkable success in a financial
point of view." That I readily believe. The financial
point of view was never to him a fruitful source of in-
spiration. Again he devoted himself to the more congenial
task of teaching at the Cambridge Law School, and of
editing an American edition of Vesey's Reports, in twenty
volumes, with elaborate notes contributed by himself.
But now the time had come when a new field of action
was to open itself to him. On the 4th of July, 1845, he
delivered before the city authorities of Boston an address
on " The True Grandeur of Nations." So far he had
been only a student — a deep and arduous one, and a
writer and a teacher, but nothing more. On that day
his public career commenced. And his first public address
disclosed at once the peculiar impulse and inspirations
of his heart, and the tendencies of his mind. It was
a plea for universal peace, — a poetic rhapsody on the
wrongs and horrors of war, and the beauties of concord ;
not, indeed, without solid argument, but that argument
clothed in all the gorgeousness of historical illustration,
classic imagery and fervid effusion, rising high above
the level of existing conditions, and picturing an ideal
future — the universal reign of justice and charity — not
far off to his own imagination, but far beyond the con-
ceptions of living society ; but to that society he addressed
the urgent summons, to go forth at once in pursuit of
this ideal consummation; to transform all swords into
ploughshares, and all warships into peaceful merchant-
men, without delay; believing that thus the Nation would
rise to a greatness never known before, which it could
accomplish if it only willed it.
And this speech he delivered while the citizen soldiery
of Boston in festive array were standing before him, and
while the very air was stirred by the premonitory mutter-
ings of an approaching war.
io The Writings of [1874
The whole man revealed himself in that utterance: a
soul full of the native instinct of justice ; an overpowering
sense of right and wrong, which made him look at the
problems of human society from the lofty plane of an ideal
morality, which fixed for him, high beyond the existing
condition of things, the aims for which he must strive,
and inspired and fired his ardent nature for the struggle.
His education had singularly favored and developed that
ideal tendency. It was not that of the self-made man in
the common acceptation of the word. The distracting
struggles for existence, the small, harassing cares of every-
day life had remained foreign to him. His education was
that of the favored few. He found all the avenues of
knowledge wide open to him. All that his country could
give, he had: the most renowned schools; the living in-
struction of the most elevating personal associations. It
was the education of the typical young English gentleman.
Like the English gentleman, also, he travelled abroad to
widen his mental horizon. And again, all that foreign
countries could give, he had: the instruction of great
lawyers and men of science, the teachings and example of
statesmen, the charming atmosphere of poetry and art
which graces and elevates the soul. He had also learned
to work, to work hard and with a purpose, and at thirty-
four, when he first appeared conspicuously before the
people, he could already point to many results of his labor.
But his principal work had been an eager accumula-
tion of knowledge in his own mind, an accumulation
most extraordinary in its scope and variety. His natural
inclination to search for fundamental principles and truths
had been favored by his opportunities, and all his industry
in collecting knowledge became subservient to the build-
ing up of his ideals. Having not been tossed and jostled
through the school of want and adversity, he lacked,
what that school is best apt to develop, — keen practical,
1874] Carl Schurz n
instincts, sharpened by early struggles, and that sober
appreciation of the realities and possibilities of the times
which is forced upon men by a hard contact with the
world. He judged life from the stillness of the student's
closet and from his intercourse with the refined and
elevated, and he acquired little of those experiences which
might have dampened his zeal in working for his ideal
aims, and staggered his faith in their realization. His
mind loved to move and operate in the realm of ideas,
not of things; in fact, it could scarcely have done other-
wise. Thus nature and education made him an idealist
— and, indeed, he stands as the most pronounced idealist
among the public men of America.
He was an ardent friend of liberty, not like one of those
who have themselves suffered oppression and felt the gall-
ing weight of chains; nor like those who in the common
walks of life have experienced the comfort of wide elbow-
room and the quickening and encouraging influence of
free institutions for the practical work of society. But to
him liberty was the ideal goddess clothed in sublime
attributes of surpassing beauty and beneficence, giving
to every human being his eternal rights, showering
around her the treasures of her blessings, and lifting up
the lowly to an ideal existence.
In the same ethereal light stood in his mind the Repub-
lic, his country, the law, the future organization of the
great family of peoples.
That idealism was sustained and quickened, not merely
by his vast learning and classical inspirations, but by that
rare and exquisite purity of life, and high moral sensitive-
ness, which he had preserved intact and fresh through all
the temptations of his youth, and which remained intact
and fresh down to his last day.
Such was the man, when, in the exuberant vigor of
manhood, he entered public life. Until that time he had
12 The Writings of [1874
entertained no aspirations for a political career. When
discussing with a friend of his youth — now a man of fame
— what the future might have in store for them, he said:
"You may be a Senator of the United States some day;
but nothing would make me happier than to be President
of Harvard College."
And in later years he publicly declared: "With the
ample opportunities of private life I was content. No
tombstone for me could bear a fairer inscription than this :
'Here lies one who, without the honors or emoluments of
public station, did something for his fellow-men. ' ' It was
the scholar who spoke, and no doubt he spoke sincerely.
But he found the slavery question in his path; or, rather,
the slavery question seized upon him. The advocate of
universal peace, of the eternal reign of justice and charity,
could not fail to see in slavery the embodiment of universal
war, of man against man, of absolute injustice and oppres-
sion. Little knowing where the first word would carry
him, he soon found himself in the midst of the struggle.
The idealist found a living question to deal with, which,
like a flash of lightning, struck into the very depth of his
soul, and set it on fire. The whole ardor of his nature
broke out in the enthusiasm of the anti-slavery man. In
a series of glowing addresses and letters he attacked the
great wrong. He protested against the Mexican war;
he assailed with powerful strokes the fugitive- slave law;
he attempted to draw the Whig party into a decided anti-
slavery policy; and when that failed, he broke through
his party affiliations, and joined the small band of Free-
Soilers. He was an abolitionist by nature, but not one of
those who rejected the Constitution as a covenant with
slavery. His legal mind found in the Constitution no
express recognition of slavery, and he consistently con-
strued it as a warrant of freedom. This placed him in
the ranks of those who were called "political abolitionists."
1874] Carl Schurz 13
He did not think of the sacrifices which this obedience
to his moral impulses might cost him. For, at that time,
abolitionism was by no means a fashionable thing. An
anti-slavery man was then, even in Boston, positively the
horror of a large portion of polite society. To make
anti-slavery speeches was looked upon, not only as an
incendiary, but a vulgar occupation. And that the highly
refined Sumner, who was so learned and able, who had
seen the world and mixed with the highest social circles
in Europe; who knew the classics by heart, and could
deliver judgment on a picture or a statue like a veteran
connoisseur; who was a favorite with the wealthy and
powerful, and could in his aspirations for an easy and
fitting position in life count *ipon their whole influence, if
he only would not do anything foolish, — that such a man
should go among the abolitionists, and not only sympathize
with them, but work with them, and expose himself to the
chance of being dragged through the streets by vulgar
hands with a rope round his neck, like William Lloyd
Garrison, — that was a thing at which the polite society of
that day would revolt, and which no man could undertake
without danger of being severely dropped. But that was
the thing which the refined Sumner actually did, proba-
bly without giving a moment's thought to the possible
consequences.
He went even so far as openly to defy that dictatorship
which Daniel Webster had for so many years been ex-
ercising over the political mind of Massachusetts, and
which then was about to exert its power in favor of a
compromise with slavery.
But times were changing, and only six years after the
delivery of his first popular address he was elected to the
Senate of the United States by a combination of Democrats
and Free-Soilers.
Charles Sumner entered the Senate on the ist day of
14 The Writings of [1874
December, 1851. He entered as the successor of Daniel
Webster, who had been appointed Secretary of State.
On that same 1st of December Henry Clay spoke his last
word in the Senate, and then left the chamber, never to
return.
A striking and most significant coincidence: Henry
Clay disappeared from public life; Daniel Webster left
the Senate, drawing near his end ; Charles Sumner stepped
upon the scene. The close of one and the setting in of
another epoch in the history of the American Republic
were portrayed in the exit and entry of these men.
Clay and Webster had appeared in the councils of the
Nation in the early part of this century. The Republic
was then still in its childhood, in almost every respect still
an untested experiment, an unsolved problem. Slowly
and painfully had it struggled through the first conflicts
of Constitutional theories, and acquired only an uncertain
degree of National consistency. There were the some-
what unruly democracies of the States, with their fresh
revolutionary reminiscences, their instincts of entirely in-
dependent sovereignty, and their now and then seem-
ingly divergent interests; and the task of binding them
firmly together in the bonds of common aspirations, of
National spirit and the authority of National law, had,
indeed, fairly progressed, but was far from being entirely
accomplished. The United States, not yet compacted
by the means of rapid locomotion which to-day make every
inhabitant of the land a neighbor of the National capital,
were then still a straggling confederacy; and the members
of that confederacy had, since the triumphant issue of
the Revolution, more common memories of severe trials,
sufferings, embarrassments, dangers, and anxieties to-
gether, than of cheering successes and of assured prosperity
and well-being.
The great powers of the old world, fiercely contending
1874] Carl Schurz 15
among themselves for the mastery, trampled, without
remorse, upon the neutral rights of the young and feeble
Republic. A war was impending with one of them, bring-
ing on disastrous reverses and spreading alarm and dis-
content over the land. A dark cloud of financial difficulty
hung over the Nation. And the danger from abroad and
embarrassments at home were heightened by a restless
party spirit, which former disagreements had left behind
them, and which every newly-arising question seemed
to embitter. The outlook was dark and uncertain. It
was under such circumstances that Henry Clay first,
and Daniel Webster shortly after him, stepped upon the
scene, and at once took their station in the foremost
rank of public men.
The problems to be solved by the statesmen of that
period were of an eminently practical nature. They
had to establish the position of the young Republic among
the powers of the earth; to make her rights as a neutral
respected; to secure the safety of her maritime interests.
They had to provide for National defense. They had
to set the interior household of the Republic in working
order.
They had to find remedies for a burdensome public debt
and a disordered currency. They had to invent and
originate policies, to bring to light the resources of the
land, sleeping unknown in the virgin soil; to open and
make accessible to the husbandman the wild acres yet
untouched; to protect the frontier settler against the in-
roads of the savage; to call into full activity the agricul-
tural, commercial and industrial energies of the people;
to develop and extend the prosperity of the Nation so as
to make even the discontented cease to doubt that the
National Union was, and should be maintained as, a
blessing to all.
Thus we find the statesmanship of those times busily
1 6 The Writings of [1874
occupied with practical detail of foreign policy, National
defense, financial policy, tariffs, banks, organization of
governmental departments, land policy, Indian policy,
internal improvements, settlements of disputes and diffi-
culties among the States, contrivances of expediency of all
sorts, to put the Government firmly upon its feet, and to
set and keep in orderly motion the working of the political
machinery, to build up and strengthen and secure the
framework in which the mighty developments of the
future were to take place.
Such a task, sometimes small in its details, but difficult
and grand in its comprehensiveness, required that creative,
organizing, building kind of statesmanship, which to large
and enlightened views of the aims and ends of political
organization and of the wants of society must add a
practical knowledge of details, a skilful handling of exist-
ing material, a just understanding of causes and effects,
the ability to compose distracting conflicts and to bring
the social forces into fruitful cooperation.
On this field of action Clay and Webster stood in the
front rank of an illustrious array of contemporaries:
Clay, the originator of measures and policies, with his
inventive and organizing mind, not rich in profound ideas
or in knowledge gathered by book study, but learning as
he went; quick in the perception of existing wants and
difficulties and of the means within reach to satisfy the
one and overcome the other; and a born captain also, a
commander of men, who appeared as if riding through the
struggles of those days mounted on a splendidly capari-
soned charger, sword in hand, and with helmet and wav-
ing plume, leading the front; a fiery and truly magnetic
soul, overawing with his frown, enchanting with his smile,
flourishing the weapon of eloquence like a wizard's wand,
overwhelming opposition and kindling and fanning the
flame of enthusiasm ; a marshaller of parties, whose very
1874] Carl Schurz 17
presence and voice like a signal blast created and wielded
organization.
And by his side Daniel Webster, with that awful vast-
ness of brain, a tremendous storehouse of thought and
knowledge, which gave forth its treasures with ponderous
majesty of utterance; he not an originator of measures
and policies, but a mighty advocate, the greatest advocate
this country ever knew, — a king in the realm of intellect,
and the solemn embodiment of authority, — a huge Atlas,
who carried the Constitution on his shoulders. He could
have carried there the whole moral grandeur of the Nation,
had he never compromised his own.
Such men filled the stage during that period of con-
struction and conservative National organization, devoting
the best efforts of their statesmanship, the statesmanship
of the political mind, to the purpose of raising their
country to greatness in wealth and power, of making the
people proud of their common nationality and of imbed-
ding the Union in the contentment of prosperity, in
enlightened patriotism, National law and Constitutional
principle.
And when they drew near their end, they could boast
of many a grand achievement, not indeed exclusively their
own, for other powerful minds had their share in the work.
The United States stood there among the great powers
of the earth, strong and respected. The Republic had no
foreign foe to fear; its growth in population and wealth,
in popular intelligence and progressive civilization, the
wonder of the world. There was no visible limit to its
development ; there seemed to be no danger to its integrity.
But among the problems which the statesmen of that
period had grappled with, there was one which had eluded
their grasp. Many a conflict of opinion and interest they
had succeeded in settling, either by positive decision, or by
judicious composition. But one conflict had stubbornly
VOL. in. — a
1 8 The Writings of [1874
baffled the statesmanship of expedients, for it was more
than a mere conflict of opinion and interest. It was a
conflict grounded deep in the moral nature of men — the
slavery question.
Many a time had it appeared on the surface during the
period I have described, threatening to overthrow all
that had been ingeniously built up, and to break asunder
all that had been laboriously cemented together. In
their anxiety to avert every danger threatening the Union,
they attempted to repress the slavery question by com-
promise, and, apparently, with success, at least for a
while.
But however firmly those compromises seemed to
stand, there was a force of nature at work which, like a
restless flood, silently but unceasingly and irresistibly
washed their foundation away, until at last the towering
structure toppled down.
The anti-slavery movement is now one of the great
chapters of our past history. The passions of the struggle
having been buried in thousands of graves, and the
victory of Universal Freedom standing as firm and un-
questionable as the eternal hills, we may now look back
upon that history with an impartial eye. It may be
hoped that even the people of the South, if they do not
yet appreciate the spirit which created and guided the
anti-slavery movement, will not much longer misunder-
stand it. Indeed, they grievously misunderstood it at
the time. They looked upon it as the offspring of a
wanton desire to meddle with other people's affairs, or
as the product of hypocritical selfishness assuming the
mask and cant of philanthropy, merely to rob the South
and to enrich New England ; or as an insidious contrivance
of criminally reckless political ambition, striving to grasp
and monopolize power at the risk of destroying a part of
the country or even the whole.
1874] Carl Schurz 19
It was, perhaps, not unnatural that those interested in
slavery should have thought so; but from this great error
arose their fatal miscalculation as to the peculiar strength
of the anti-slavery cause.
No idea ever agitated the popular mind to whose origin
calculating selfishness was more foreign. Even the great
uprising which brought about the War of Independence
was less free from selfish motives, for it sprang from resist-
ance to a tyrannical abuse of the taxing power. Then
the people rose against that oppression which touched
their property; the anti-slavery movement originated in
an impulse only moral.
It was the irresistible breaking out of a trouble of con-
science,— a trouble of conscience which had already dis-
turbed the men who made the American Republic. It
found a voice in their anxious admonitions, their gloomy
prophecies, their scrupulous care to exclude from the
Constitution all forms of expression which might have
appeared to sanction the idea of property in man.
It found a voice in the fierce struggles which resulted
in the Missouri compromise. It was repressed for a time
by material interest, by the greed of gain, when the pe-
culiar product of slave labor became one of the principal
staples of the country and a mine of wealth. But the
trouble of conscience raised its voice again, shrill and
defiant as when your own John Quincy Adams stood in
the halls of Congress, and when devoted advocates of the
rights of man began and carried on, in the face of ridicule
and brutal persecution, an agitation seemingly hopeless.
It cried out again and again, until at last its tones and
echoes grew louder than all the noises that were to drown
it.
The anti-slavery movement found arrayed against
itself all the influences, all the agencies, all the arguments
which ordinarily control the actions of men.
2o The Writings of [1874
Commerce said, — Do not disturb slavery, for its prod-
ucts fill our ships and are one of the principal means of
our exchanges. Industry said, — Do not disturb slavery,
for it feeds our machinery and gives us markets. The
greed of wealth said, — Do not disturb slavery, for it is
an inexhaustible fountain of riches. Political ambition
said, — Do not disturb slavery, for it furnishes us com-
binations and compromises to keep parties alive and
to make power the price of shrewd management. An
anxious statesmanship said, — Do not disturb slavery,
for you might break to pieces the Union of these States.
There never was a more formidable combination of
interests and influences than that which confronted the
anti-slavery movement in its earlier stages. And what
was its answer? "Whether all you say be true or false, it
matters not, but slavery is wrong."
Slavery is wrong! That one word was enough. It
stood there like a huge rock in the sea, shivering to spray
the waves dashing upon it. Interest, greed, argument,
vituperation, calumny, ridicule, persecution, patriotic
appeal, — it was all in vain. Amidst all the storm and
assault that one word stood there unmoved, intact and
impregnable: Slavery is wrong!
Such was the vital spirit of the anti-slavery movement
it its early development. Such a spirit alone could in-
spire that religious devotion which gave to the believer
all the stubborn energy of fanaticism; it alone could
kindle that deep enthusiasm which made men willing to
risk and sacrifice everything for a great cause; it alone
could keep alive that unconquerable faith in the certainty
of ultimate success which boldly attempted to overcome
seeming impossibilities.
It was indeed a great spirit, as, against difficulties which
threw pusillanimity into despair, it painfully struggled
into light, often baffled and as often pressing forward
1874] Carl Schurz 21
with devotion always fresh; nourished by nothing but a
profound sense of right; encouraged by nothing but the
cheering sympathy of liberty-loving mankind the world
over, and by the hope that some day the conscience of the
American people would be quickened by a full under-
standing of the dangers which the existence of the great
wrong would bring upon the Republic. No scramble for
the spoils of office then, no expectation of a speedy con-
quest of power, — nothing but that conviction, that en-
thusiasm, that faith in the breasts of a small band of
men, and the prospect of new uncertain struggles and
trials.
At the time when Mr. Sumner entered the Senate, the
hope of final victory appeared as distant as ever; but it
only appeared so. The statesmen of the past period had
just succeeded in building up that compromise which
admitted California as a free State, and imposed upon the
Republic the fugitive- slave law. That compromise, like
all its predecessors, was considered and called a final set-
tlement. The two great political parties accepted it as
such. In whatever they might differ, as to this they
solemnly proclaimed their agreement. Fidelity to it was
looked upon as a test of true patriotism, and as a quali-
fication necessary for the possession of political power.
Opposition to it was denounced as factious, unpatriotic,
revolutionary demagogism, little short of treason. An
overwhelming majority of the American people acquiesced
in it. Material interest looked upon it with satisfaction,
as a promise of repose; timid and sanguine patriots greeted
it as a new bond of union; politicians hailed it as an
assurance that the fight for the public plunder might be
carried on without the disturbing intrusion of a moral
principle in politics. But, deep down, man's conscience
like a volcanic fire was restless, ready for a new outbreak
as soon as the thin crust of compromise should crack.
22 The Writings of [1874
And just then the day was fast approaching when the
moral idea, which so far had broken out only sporadically,
and moved small numbers of men to open action, should
receive a reinforcement strong enough to transform a
forlorn hope into an army of irresistible strength. One of
those eternal laws which govern the development of
human affairs asserted itself, — the law that a great wrong,
which has been maintained in defiance of the moral sense
of mankind, must finally, by the very means and measures
necessary for its sustenance, render itself so insupportable
as to insure its downfall and destruction.
So it was with slavery. I candidly acquit the American
slave-power of wilful and wanton aggression upon the
liberties and general interests of the American people.
If slavery was to be kept alive at all, its supporters could
not act otherwise than they did.
Slavery could not live and thrive in an atmosphere
of free inquiry and untrammeled discussion. Therefore
free inquiry and discussion touching slavery had to be
suppressed.
Slavery could not be secure, if slaves, escaping merely
across a State line, thereby escaped the grasp of their
masters. Hence an effective fugitive-slave law was
imperatively demanded.
Slavery could not protect its interests in the Union
unless its power balanced that of the free States in the
National councils. Therefore by colonization or conquest
the number of slave States had to be augmented. Hence
the annexation of Texas, the Mexican War and intrigues
for the acquisition of Cuba.
Slavery could not maintain the equilibrium of power,
if it permitted itself to be excluded from the National
territories. Hence the breaking down of the Missouri
compromise and the usurpation in Kansas.
Thus slavery was pushed on and on by the inexorable
1874] Carl Schurz 23
logic of its existence ; the slave masters were only the slaves
of the necessities of slavery and all their seeming exactions
and usurpations were merely a struggle for its life.
Many of their demands had been satisfied, on the part
of the North, by submission or compromise. The North-
ern people, although with reluctant conscience, had
acquiesced in the contrivances of politicians, for the sake
of peace. But when the slave-power went so far as to
demand for slavery the great domain of the Nation which
had been held sacred for freedom forever, then the people
of the North suddenly understood that the necessities of
slavery demanded what they could not yield. Then the
conscience of the masses was relieved of the doubts and
fears which had held it so long in check; their moral
impulses were quickened by practical perceptions; the
moral idea became a practical force, and the final struggle
began. It was made inevitable by the necessities of
slavery; it was indeed an irrepressible conflict.
These things were impending when Henry Clay and
Daniel Webster, the architects of the last compromise,
left the Senate. Had they, with all their far-seeing
statesmanship, never understood this logic of things?
When they made their compromises, did they desire only
to postpone the final struggle until they should be gone,
so that they might not witness the terrible concussion?
Or had their great and manifold achievements with the
statesmanship of organization and expediency so deluded
their minds that they really hoped a compromise which
only ignored, but did not settle, the great moral question,
could furnish an enduring basis for future developments?
One thing they and their contemporaries had indeed
accomplished: under their care the Republic had grown
so great and strong, its vitality had become so tough,
that it could endure the final struggle without falling to
pieces under its shocks.
24 The Writings of [1874
Whatever their errors, their delusions and, perhaps,
their misgivings may have been, this they had accom-
plished; and then they left the last compromise tottering
behind them, and turned their faces to the wall and died.
And with them stepped into the background the states-
manship of organization, expedients and compromises;
and to the front came, ready for action, the moral idea
which was to fight out the great conflict, and to open a
new epoch of American history.
That was the historic significance of the remarkable
scene which showed us Henry Clay walking out of the
Senate-chamber never to return, when Charles Sumner
sat down there as the successor of Daniel Webster.
No man could, in his whole being, have more strikingly
portrayed that contrast. When Charles Sumner had
been elected to the Senate, Theodore Parker said to him,
in a letter of congratulation: " You told me once that
you were in morals, not in politics. Now I hope you will
show that you are still in morals, although in politics.
I hope you will be the Senator with a conscience." That
hope was gratified. He always remained in morals while
in politics. He never was anything else but the Senator
with a conscience. Charles Sumner entered the Senate
not as a mere advocate, but as the very embodiment of
the moral idea. From this fountain flowed his highest
aspirations. There had been great anti-slavery men in
the Senate before him; they were there with him, men
like Seward and Chase. But they had been trained in a
different school. Their minds had ranged over other
political fields. They understood politics. He did not.
He knew but one political object, — to combat and over-
throw the great wrong of slavery; to serve the ideal of
the liberty and equality of men; and to establish the
universal reign of "peace, justice and charity." He
brought to the Senate a studious mind, vast learning,
1874] Carl Schurz 25
great legal attainments, a powerful eloquence, a strong
and ardent nature; and all this he vowed to one service.
With all this he was not a mere expounder of a policy;
he was a worshipper, sincere and devout at the shrine of
his ideal. In no public man had the moral idea of the
anti-slavery movement more overruling strength. He
made everything yield to it. He did not possess it; it
possessed him. That was the secret of his peculiar power.
He introduced himself into the debates of the Senate,
the slavery question having been silenced forever, as
politicians then thought, by several speeches on other
subjects, — the Reception of Kossuth, the Land Policy,
Ocean Postage; but they were not remarkable, and at-
tracted but little attention.
At last he availed himself of an appropriation bill to
attack the fugitive-slave law, and at once a spirit broke
forth in that first word on the great question which
startled every listener.
Thus he opened the argument:
Painfully convinced of the unutterable wrong and woe of
slavery, — profoundly believing that, according to the true
spirit of the Constitution and the sentiments of the Fathers,
it can find no place under our National Government, I
could not allow this session to reach its close without making
or seizing an opportunity to declare myself openly against
the usurpation, injustice and cruelty of the late intolerant
enactment for the recovery of fugitive slaves.
Then this significant declaration:
Whatever I am or may be, I freely offer to this cause. I
have never been a politician. The slave of principles, I call
no party master. By sentiment, education and conviction,
a friend of Human Rights in their utmost expansion, I have
ever most sincerely embraced the democratic idea — not,
26 The Writings of [1874
indeed, as represented or professed by any party, but accord-
ing to its real significance, as transfigured in the Declaration
of Independence, and in the injunctions of Christianity. In
this idea I see no narrow advantage merely for individuals
or classes, but the sovereignty of the people, and the greatest
happiness of all secured by equal laws.
A vast array of historical research and of legal argu-
ment was then called up to prove the sectionalism of
slavery, the nationalism of freedom, and the unconstitu-
tionality of the fugitive-slave act, followed by this bold
declaration: "By the Supreme Law, which commands me
to do no injustice, by the comprehensive Christian Law
of Brotherhood, by the Constitution I have sworn to
support, I am bound to disobey this law." And the speech
closed with this solemn quotation: "Beware of the groans
of wounded souls, since the inward sore will at length
break out. Oppress not to the utmost a single heart;
for a solitary sigh has power to overturn a whole world."
The amendment to the appropriation bill moved by
Mr. Sumner received only four votes of fifty-one. But
every hearer had been struck by the words spoken as
something different from the tone of other anti-slavery
speeches delivered in those halls. Southern Senators,
startled at the peculiarity of the speech, called it, in reply,
the most extraordinary language they had ever listened
to. Mr. Chase, supporting Sumner in debate, spoke
of it, "as marking a new era in American history, when
the anti-slavery idea ceased to stand on the defensive
and was boldly advancing to the attack."
Indeed, it had that significance. There stood up in
the Senate a man who was no politician; but who, on the
highest field of politics, with a concentrated intensity of
feeling and purpose never before witnessed there, gave
expression to a moral impulse, which, although sleeping
perhaps for a time, certainly existed in the popular con-
1874] Carl Schurz 27
science, and which, once become a political force, could
not fail to produce a great revolution.
Charles Sumner possessed all the instincts, the courage,
the firmness and the faith of the devotee of a great idea.
In the Senate he was a member of a feeble minority, so
feeble, indeed, as to be to the ruling power a mere subject
of derision; and for the first three years of his service
without organized popular support. The slaveholders
had been accustomed to put the metal of their Northern
opponents to a variety of tests. Many a hot anti-slavery
zeal had cooled under the social blandishments with which
the South knew so well how to impregnate the atmosphere
of the National capital, and many a high courage had
given way before the haughty assumption and fierce
menace of Southern men in Congress. Mr. Sumner had
to pass that ordeal. He was at first petted and flattered
by Southern society, but, fond as he was of the charms of
social intercourse, and accessible to demonstrative ap-
preciation, no blandishments could touch his convictions
of duty.
And when the advocates of slavery turned upon him
with anger and menace, he hurled at them with prouder
defiance his answer, repeating itself in endless variations:
"You must yield, for you are wrong."
The slave-power had so frequently succeeded in making
the North yield to its demands, even after the most for-
midable demonstrations of reluctance, that it had become
a serious question whether there existed any such thing
as Northern firmness. But it did exist, and in Charles
Sumner it had developed its severest political type. The
stronger the assault, the higher rose in him the power of
resistance. In him lived that spirit which not only would
not yield, but would turn upon the assailant. The South-
ern force, which believed itself irresistible, found itself
striking against a body which was immovable. To think
28 The Writings of [1874
of yielding to any demand of slavery, of making a com-
promise with it, in however tempting a form, was, to
his nature, an absolute impossibility.
Mr. Sumner's courage was of a peculiar kind. He
attacked the slave-power in the most unsparing manner,
when its supporters were most violent in resenting oppo-
sition, and when that violence was always apt to proceed
from words to blows. One day, while Sumner was de-
livering one of his severest speeches, Stephen A. Douglas,
walking up and down behind the President's chair in the
old Senate-chamber, and listening to him, remarked to
a friend: "Do you hear that man? He may be a fool,
but I tell you that man has pluck. I wonder whether he
knows himself what he is doing. I am not sure whether
I should have the courage to say those things to the men
who are scowling around him."
Of all men in the Senate-chamber, Sumner was prob-
ably least aware that the thing he did, required pluck.
He simply did what he felt it his duty to his cause to do.
It was to him a matter of course. He was like a soldier
who, when he has to march upon the enemy's batteries,
does not say to himself, "Now I am going to perform
an act of heroism," but who simply obeys an impulse of
duty, and marches forward without thinking of the bullets
that fly around his head. A thought of the boldness of what
he has done may occur to him afterwards, when he is told
of it. This was one of the striking peculiarities of Mr.
Sumner's character, as all those know who knew him well.
Neither was he conscious of the stinging force of the
language he frequently employed. He simply uttered
what he felt to be true, in language fitting the strength of
his convictions. The indignation of his moral sense at
what he felt to be wrong was so deep and sincere that he
thought everybody must find the extreme severity of his
expressions as natural as they came to his own mind.
1874] Carl Schurz 29
And he was not unfrequently surprised, greatly surprised,
when others found his language offensive.
As he possessed the firmness and courage, so he pos-
sessed the faith, of the devotee. From the beginning, and
through all the vicissitudes of the anti-slavery movement,
his heart was profoundly assured that his generation
would see slavery entirely extinguished.
While travelling in France to restore his health, after
having been beaten down on the floor of the Senate, he
visited Alexis de Tocqueville, the celebrated author of
Democracy in America. Tocqueville expressed his anxiety
about the issue of the anti-slavery movement, which
then had suffered defeat by the election of Buchanan.
"There can be no doubt about the result," said Sumner.
"Slavery will soon succumb and disappear." "Disap-
pear! in what way, and how soon?" asked Tocqueville.
"In what manner I cannot say," replied Sumner. "How
soon I cannot say. But it will be soon ; I feel it ; I know it.
It cannot be otherwise." . That was all the reason he gave.
"Mr. Sumner is a remarkable man," said de Tocqueville
afterwards to a friend of mine. "He says that slavery
will soon entirely disappear in the United States. He
does not know how, he does not know when, but he feels
it, he is perfectly sure of it. The man speaks like a
prophet." And so it was.
What appeared a perplexing puzzle to other men's
minds was perfectly clear to him. His method of reason-
ing was simple; it was the reasoning of religious faith.
Slavery is wrong — therefore it must and will perish;
freedom is right — therefore it must and will prevail.
And by no power of resistance, by no difficulty, by no
disappointment, by no defeat, could that faith be shaken.
For his cause, so great and just, he thought nothing im-
possible, everything certain. And he was unable to
understand how others could fail to share his faith.
3O The Writings of [1874
In one sense he was no party leader. He possessed
none of the instinct or experience of the politician, nor
that sagacity of mind which appreciates and measures
the importance of changing circumstances, or the possi-
bilities and opportunities of the day. He lacked, entirely,
the genius of organization. He never understood, nor
did he value, the art of strengthening his following by
timely concession, or prudent reticence, or advantageous
combination and alliance. He knew nothing of manage-
ment and party maneuver. Indeed, not unfrequently
he alarmed many devoted friends of his cause by bold
declarations, for which, they thought, the public mind
was not prepared, and by the unreserved avowal and
straightforward advocacy of ultimate objects, which,
they thought, might safely be left to the natural develop-
ment of events. He was not seldom accused of doing
things calculated to frighten the people and to disorganize
the anti-slavery forces.
Such was his unequivocal declaration in his first great
anti-slavery speech in the Senate, that he held himself
bound by every conviction of justice, right and duty to
disobey the fugitive-slave law, and his ringing answer to
the question put by Senator Butler of South Carolina,
whether, without the fugitive- slave law, he would, under
the Constitution, consider it his duty to aid the surrender
of fugitive slaves, "Is thy servant a dog, that he should
do this thing?"
Such was his speech on the "Barbarism of Slavery,"
delivered on a bill to admit Kansas immediately under a
free-State Constitution; a speech so unsparing and vehe-
ment in the denunciation of slavery in all its political,
moral and social aspects, and so direct in its prediction
of the complete annihilation of slavery, that it was said
such a speech would scarcely aid the admission of Kansas.
Such was his unbending and open resistance to any
1874] Carl Schurz 31
plan of compromise calculated to preserve slavery, when
after Mr. Lincoln's election the rebellion first raised its
head, and a large number of Northern people, even anti-
slavery men, frightened by the threatening prospect of
civil war, cast blindly about for a plan of adjustment,
while really no adjustment was possible.
Such was, early in the war, and during its most doubt-
ful hours, his declaration, laid before the Senate in a series
of resolutions, that the States in rebellion had destroyed
themselves as such by the very act of rebellion; that
slavery, as a creation of State law, had perished with the
States, and that general emancipation must immediately
follow, thus putting the program of emancipation boldly
in the foreground, at a time when many thought that
the cry of union alone, union with or without slavery, could
hold together the Union forces.
Such was his declaration, demanding negro suffrage
even before the close of the war, while the public opinion
at the North, whose aid the Government needed, still
recoiled from such a measure.
Thus he was apt to go rough-shod over the considera-
tions of management deemed important by his co-workers.
I believe he never consulted with his friends around him,
before doing those things, and when they afterwards
remonstrated with him, he ingenuously asked: "Is it
not right and true, what I have said? And if it is right
and true, must I not say it?"
And yet, although he had no organizing mind and
despised management, he was a leader. He was a leader
as the embodiment of the moral idea, with all its uncom-
promising firmness, its unflagging faith, its daring devo-
tion. And in this sense he could be a leader only because
he was no politician. He forced others to follow, because
he was himself impracticable. Simply obeying his moral
impulse, he dared to say things which in the highest
32 The Writings of [1874
legislative body of the Republic nobody else would say;
and he proved that they could be said, and yet the world
would move on. With his wealth of learning and his
legal ability, he furnished an arsenal of arguments, con-
vincing more timid souls that what he said could be
sustained in repeating. And presently the politicians
felt encouraged to follow in the direction where the idealist
had driven a stake ahead. Nay, he forced them to follow,
for they knew that the idealist, whom they could not
venture to disown, would not fall back at their bidding.
Such was his leadership in the struggle with slavery.
Nor was that leadership interrupted when on the 22d
of May, 1856, Preston Brooks of South Carolina, mad-
dened by an arraignment of his State and its Senator,
came upon Charles Sumner in the Senate, struck him
down with heavy blows and left him on the floor bleed-
ing and insensible. For three years Sumner's voice was
not heard, but his blood marked the vantage ground
from which his party could not recede; and his senatorial
chair, kept empty for him by the noble people of Mas-
sachusetts, stood there in most eloquent silence, confirming,
sealing, inflaming all he had said with terrible illustration,
— a guide-post to the onward march of freedom.
When, in 1861, the Republican party had taken the reins
of government in hand, his peculiar leadership entered
upon a new field of action. No sooner was the victory
of the anti-slavery cause in the election ascertained, than
the Rebellion raised its head. South Carolina opened
the secession movement. The portentous shadow of an
approaching civil war spread over the land. A tremor
fluttered through the hearts even of strong men in the
North, — a vague fear such as is produced by the first
rumbling of an earthquake. Could not a bloody conflict
be averted? A fresh clamor for compromise arose. Even
Republicans in Congress began to waver. The proposed
1874] Carl Schurz 33
compromise involved new and express Constitutional
recognitions of the existence and rights of slavery, and
guarantees against interference with it by Constitutional
amendment or National law. The pressure from the
country, even from Massachusetts, in favor of the scheme,
was extraordinary, but a majority of the anti-slavery
men in the Senate, in their front Mr. Sumner, stood firm,
feeling that a compromise, giving express Constitutional
sanction and an indefinite lease of life to slavery, would be
a surrender, and knowing, also, that, even by the offer
of such a surrender, secession and civil war would still
be insisted on by the Southern leaders. The history of
those days, as we now know it, confirms the accuracy of
that judgment. The war was inevitable. Thus the anti-
slavery cause escaped a useless humiliation, and retained
intact its moral force for future action.
But now the time had come when the anti-slavery
movement, no longer a mere opposition to the demands of
the slave-power, was to proceed to positive action. The
war had scarcely commenced in earnest, when Mr. Sum-
ner urged general emancipation. Only the great ideal
object of the liberty of all men could give sanction to a
war in the eyes of the devotee of universal peace. To
the end of stamping upon the war the character of a war
of emancipation all his energies were bent. His unre-
served and emphatic utterances alarmed the politicians.
Our armies suffered disaster upon disaster in the field.
The managing mind insisted that care must be taken, by
nourishing the popular enthusiasm for the integrity of the
Union, — the strictly National idea alone, — to unite all
the social and political elements of the North for the
struggle ; and that so bold a measure as immediate emanci-
pation might reanimate old dissensions, and put hearty
cooperation in jeopardy.
But Mr. Sumner's convictions could not be repressed.
VOL. III. — 3
34 The Writings of [1874
In a bold decree of universal liberty he saw only a new
source of inspiration and strength. Nor was his impulsive
instinct unsupported by good reason. The distraction
produced in the North by an emancipation measure
could only be of short duration. The moral spirit was
certain, ultimately, to gain the upper hand.
But in another direction a bold and unequivocal anti-
slavery policy could not fail to produce most salutary
effects. One of the dangers threatening us was foreign
interference. No European powers gave us their ex-
pressed sympathy except Germany and Russia. The
governing classes of England, with conspicuous individual
exceptions, always gratefully to be remembered, were ill-
disposed towards the Union cause. The permanent dis-
ruption of the Republic was loudly predicted, as if it
were desired, and intervention — an intervention which
could be only in favor of the South — was openly spoken
of. The Emperor of the French, who availed himself of
our embarrassments to execute his ambitious designs in
Mexico, was animated by sentiments no less hostile. It
appeared as if only a plausible opportunity had been
wanting, to bring foreign intervention upon our heads.
A threatening spirit, disarmed only by timely prudence,
had manifested itself in the Trent case. It seemed
doubtful whether the most skilful diplomacy, unaided
by a stronger force, would be able to avert the danger.
But the greatest strength of the anti-slavery cause had
always been in the conscience of mankind. There was
our natural ally. The cause of slavery as such could
have no open sympathy among the nations of Europe.
It stood condemned by the moral sentiment of the civilized
world. How could any European Government, in the
face of that universal sentiment, undertake openly to in-
terfere against a power waging war against slavery?
Surely, that could not be thought of.
1874] Carl Schurz 35
But had the Government of the United States distinctly
professed that it was waging war against slavery, and for
freedom? Had it not been officially declared that the
war for the Union would not alter the condition of a
single human being in America? Why then not arrest
the useless effusion of blood; why not, by intervention,
stop a destructive war, in which, confessedly, slavery
and freedom were not at stake? Such were the arguments
of our enemies in Europe; and they were not without
color.
It was obvious that nothing but a measure impressing
beyond dispute upon our war a decided anti-slavery
character, making it in profession what it was inevitably
destined to be in fact, a war of emancipation, could enlist
on our side the enlightened public opinion of the old
world so strongly as to restrain the hostile spirit of foreign
governments. No European Government could well
venture to interfere against those who had convinced
the world that they were fighting to give freedom to the
slaves of North America.
Thus the moral instinct did not err. The emancipation
policy was not only the policy of principle, but also the
policy of safety. Mr. Sumner urged it with impetuous
and unflagging zeal. In the Senate he found but little
encouragement. The resolutions he introduced in Febru-
ary, 1862, declaring State suicide as the consequence of
rebellion, and the extinction of slavery in the insurrec-
tionary States as the consequence of State suicide, were
looked upon as an ill-timed and hazardous demonstration,
disturbing all ideas of management.
To the President, then, he devoted his efforts. Nothing
could be more interesting, nay, touching, than the peculiar
relations that sprang up between Abraham Lincoln and
Charles Sumner. No two men could be more alike as to
their moral impulses and ultimate aims; no two men more
36 The Writings of [1874
unlike in their methods of reasoning and their judgment
of means.
Abraham Lincoln was a true child of the people.
There was in his heart an inexhaustible fountain of ten-
derness, and from it sprang that longing to be true, just
and merciful to all, which made the people love him. In
the deep, large humanity of his soul had grown his moral
and political principles, to which he clung with the fidelity
of an honest nature, and which he defended with the
strength of a vigorous mind.
But he had not grown great in any high school of states-
manship. He had, from the humblest beginnings, slowly
and laboriously worked himself up, or rather he had
gradually risen up without being aware of it, and sud-
denly he found himself in the foremost rank of the distin-
guished men of the land. In his youth and early manhood
he had achieved no striking successes that might have
imparted to him that overweening self -appreciation which
so frequently leads self-made men to overestimate their
faculties and to ignore the limits of their strength. He
was not a learned man, but he had learned and meditated
enough to feel how much there was still for him to learn.
His marvelous success in his riper years left intact
the inborn modesty of his nature. He was absolutely
without pretension. His simplicity, which by its genu-
ineness extorted respect and affection, was wonderfully
persuasive, and sometimes deeply pathetic and strikingly
brilliant.
His natural gifts were great; he possessed a clear and
penetrating mind, but in forming his opinions on subjects
of importance, he was so careful, conscientious and diffi-
dent, that he would always hear and probe what opponents
had to say, before he became firmly satisfied of the just-
ness of his own conclusions, — not as if he had been easily
controlled and led by other men, for he had a will of his
Carl Schurz 37
own ; — but his mental operations were slow and hesitating,
and inapt to conceive quick resolutions. He lacked self-
reliance. Nobody felt more than he the awful weight
of his responsibilities. He was not one of those bold
reformers who will defy the opposition of the world and
undertake to impose their opinions and will upon a reluc-
tant age. With careful consideration of the possibilities
of the hour he advanced slowly, but when he had so
advanced, he planted his foot with firmness, and no power
was strong enough to force him to a backward step. And
every day of great responsibility enlarged the horizon of
his mind, and every day he grasped the helm of affairs
with a steadier hand.
It was to such a man that Sumner, during the most
doubtful days at the beginning of the war, addressed his
appeals for immediate emancipation, — appeals impetuous
and impatient as they could spring only from his ardent
and overruling convictions.
The President at first passively resisted the vehement
counsel of the Senator, but he bade the counselor wel-
come. It was Mr. Lincoln's constant endeavor to sur-
round himself with the best and ablest men of the country.
Not only did the first names of the Republican party
appear in his Cabinet, but every able man in Congress was
always invited as an adviser, whether his views agreed
with those of the President or not. But Mr. Sumner he
treated as a favorite counselor, almost like a Minister of
State, outside of the Cabinet.
There were statesmen around the President who were
also politicians, understanding the art of management.
Mr. Lincoln appreciated the value of their advice as to
what was prudent and practicable. But he knew also
how to discriminate. In Mr. Sumner he saw a counselor
who was no politician, but who stood before him as the
true representative of the moral earnestness, of the great
38 The Writings of [1874
inspirations of their common cause. From him he heard
what was right and necessary and inevitable. By the
former he was told what, in their opinion, could prudently
and safely be done. Having heard them both, Abraham
Lincoln counseled with himself, and formed his resolu-
tion. Thus Mr. Lincoln, while scarcely ever fully and
speedily following Sumner's advice, never ceased to ask
for it, for he knew its significance. And Sumner, while
almost always dissatisfied with Lincoln's cautious hesi-
tation, never grew weary in giving his advice, for he never
distrusted Lincoln's fidelity. Always agreed as to the
ultimate end, they almost always differed as to times and
means; but, while differing, they firmly trusted, for they
understood one another.
And thus their mutual respect grew into an affectionate
friendship, which no clash of disagreeing opinions could
break. Sumner loved to tell his friends, after Lincoln's
death, — and I heard him relate it often, never without
an expression of tenderness, — how at one time those who
disliked and feared his intimacy with the President, and
desired to see it disrupted, thought it was irreparably
broken. It was at the close of Lincoln's first Administra-
tion, in 1865 when the President had proposed certain
measures of reconstruction touching the State of Louisiana.
The end of the session of Congress was near at hand,
and the success of the bill depended on a vote of the
Senate before the hour of adjournment on the 4th of
March. Mr. Lincoln had the measure very much at
heart. But Sumner opposed it, because it did not contain
sufficient guarantees for the rights of the colored people,
and by a parliamentary maneuver, simply consuming
time until the adjournment came, he with two or three
other Senators succeeded in defeating it. Lincoln was
reported to be deeply chagrined at Sumner's action, and
the newspapers already announced that the breach be-
1874] Carl Schurz 39
tween Lincoln and Sumner was complete, and could not
be healed. But those who said so did not know the men.
On the night of the 6th of March, two days after Lincoln's
second inauguration, the customary inauguration ball
was to take place. Sumner did not think of attending it.
But towards evening he received a card from the President,
which read thus: "Dear Mr. Sumner, unless you send me
word to the contrary, I shall this evening call with my
carriage at your house, to take you with me to the in-
auguration ball. Sincerely yours, ABRAHAM LINCOLN."
Mr. Sumner deeply touched, at once made up his mind
to go to an inauguration ball for the first time. Soon the
carriage arrived, the President invited Sumner to take a
seat in it with him, and Sumner found there Mrs. Lincoln
and Mr. Coif ax, the Speaker of the House of Representa-
tives. Arrived at the ball-room, the President asked
Mr. Sumner, to offer his arm to Mrs. Lincoln; and the
astonished spectators, who had been made to believe that
the breach between Lincoln and Sumner was irreparable,
beheld the President's wife on the arm of the Senator,
and the Senator, on that occasion of state, invited to take
the seat of honor by the President's side. Not a word
passed between them about their disagreement.
The world became convinced that such a friendship
between such men could not be broken by a mere honest
difference of opinion. Abraham Lincoln, a man of sincere
and profound convictions himself, esteemed and honored
sincere and profound convictions in others. It was thus
that Abraham Lincoln, composed his quarrels with his
friends, and at his bedside, when he died, there was no
mourner more deeply afflicted than Charles Sumner.
Let me return to the year 1862. Long, incessant and
arduous was Sumner's labor for emancipation. At last
the great Proclamation, which sealed the fate of slavery,
came, and no man had done more to bring it forth than he.
40 The Writings of [1874
Still, Charles Sumner thought his work far from accom-
plished. During the three years of war that followed, so
full of vicissitudes, alarms and anxieties, he stood in the
Senate and in the President's closet as the ever-watchful
sentinel of freedom and equal rights. No occasion eluded
his grasp to push on the destruction of slavery, not only
by sweeping decrees, but in detail, by pursuing it, as with
a probing-iron, into every nook and corner of its existence.
It was his sleepless care that every blow struck at the
rebellion should surely and heavily tell against slavery,
and that every drop of American blood that was shed
should surely be consecrated to human freedom. He
could not rest until assurance was made doubly sure, and
I doubt whether our legislative history shows an example
of equal watchfulness, fidelity and devotion to a great
object. Such was the character of Mr. Stunner's legis-
lative activity during the war.
As the rebellion succumbed, new problems arose. To
set upon their feet again States disorganized by insurrec-
tion and civil war; to remodel a society which had been
lifted out of its ancient hinges by the sudden change of
its system of labor; to protect the emancipated slaves
against the old pretension of absolute control on the part
of their former masters; to guard society against the
possible transgressions of a large multitude long held in
slavery and ignorance and now suddenly set free; so to
lodge political power in this inflammable state of things
as to prevent violent reactions and hostile collisions; to
lead social forces so discordant into orderly and fruitful
cooperation, and to infuse into communities, but recently
rent by the most violent passions, a new spirit of loyal
attachment to a common nationality, — this was certainly
one of the most perplexing tasks ever imposed upon the
statesmanship of any time and any country.
But to Mr. Stunner's mind the problem of reconstruc-
1874] Carl Schurz 41
tion did not appear perplexing at all. Believing, as he
always did, that the democratic idea, as he found it
defined in the Declaration of Independence, "Human
rights in their utmost expansion," contained an ultimately
certain solution of all difficulties, he saw the principal
aim to be reached by any reconstruction policy, in the
investment of the emancipated slaves with all the rights
and privileges of American citizenship. The complexity
of the problem, the hazardous character of the experiment,
never troubled him. And as, early in the war, he had
for himself laid down the theory that, by the very act
of rebellion, the insurrectionary States had destroyed
themselves as such, so he argued now, with assured con-
sistency, that those States had relapsed into a territorial
condition; that the National Government had to fill the
void by creations of its own, and that in doing so the
establishment of universal suffrage there was an unavoid-
able necessity. Thus he marched forward to the realiza-
tion of his ideal, on the straightest line, and with the
firmness of profound conviction.
In the discussions which followed, he had the advantage
of a man who knows exactly what he wants, and who is
imperturbably, religiously convinced that he is right.
But his Constitutional theory, as well as the measures he
proposed, found little favor in Congress. The public
mind struggled long against the results he had pointed
out as inevitable. The whole power of President Johnson's
Administration was employed to lead the development
of things in another direction. But through all the
vacillations of public opinion, through all the perplexities
in which Congress entangled itself, the very necessity of
things seemed to press toward the ends which Sumner
and those who thought like him had advocated from the
beginning.
At last, Mr. Sumner saw the fondest dreams of his life
42 The Writings of [1874
soon realized. Slavery was forever blotted out in this
Republic by the thirteenth amendment to the Constitu-
tion. By the fourteenth the emancipated slaves were
secured in their rights of citizenship before the law, and
the fifteenth guaranteed to them the right to vote.
It was, indeed, a most astonishing, a marvelous con-
summation. What ten years before not even the most
sanguine would have ventured to anticipate, what only
the profound faith of the devotee could believe possible,
was done. And no man had a better right than Charles
Sumner to claim for himself a preeminent share in that
great consummation. He had, indeed, not been the
originator of most of the practical measures of legislation
by which such results were reached. He had even com-
bated some of them as in conflict with his theories. He
did not possess the peculiar ability of constructing poli-
cies in detail, of taking account of existing circumstances
and advantage of opportunities. But he had resolutely
marched ahead of public opinion in marking the ends
to be reached. Nobody had done more to inspire and
strengthen the moral spirit of the anti-slavery cause. He
stood foremost among the propelling, driving forces
which pushed on the great work with undaunted courage,
untiring effort, irresistible energy and religious devotion.
No man's singleness of purpose, fidelity and faith sur-
passed his, and when by future generations the names are
called which are inseparably united with the deliverance
of the American Republic from slavery, no name will be
called before his own.
While the championship of human rights is his first
title to fame, I should be unjust to his merit did I omit
to mention the services he rendered on another field of
action. When, in 1861, the secession of the Southern
States left the anti-slavery party in the majority in the
Senate of the United States, Charles Sumner was placed
1874] Carl Schurz 43
as chairman at the head of the Committee on Foreign
Relations. It was a high distinction, and no selection
could have been more fortunate. Without belittling
others, it may be said that of the many able men then
and since in the Senate, Mr. Sumner was by far the fittest
for that responsible position. He had ever since his col-
lege days made international law a special and favorite
study, and was perfectly familiar with its principles, the
history of its development and its literature. Nothing
of importance had ever been published on that subject
in any language that had escaped his attention. His
knowledge of history was uncommonly extensive and
accurate; all the leading international law cases, with
their incidents in detail, their theories and settlements,
he had at his fingers' ends ; and to his last day he remained
indefatigable in inquiry. Moreover, he had seen the
world ; he had studied the institutions and policies of foreign
countries, on their own soil, aided by his personal inter-
course with many of their leading statesmen, not a few
of whom remained in friendly correspondence with him
ever since their first acquaintance.
No public man had a higher appreciation of the position,
dignity and interests of his own country, and no one was
less liable than he to be carried away or driven to hasty
and ill-considered steps by excited popular clamor. He
was ever strenuous in asserting our own rights, while his
sense of justice did not permit him to be regardless of the
rights of other nations. Kis abhorrence of the barbarities
of war, and his ardent love of peace, led him earnestly
to seek for every international difference a peaceable
solution; and where no settlement could be reached by
the direct negotiations of diplomacy, the idea of arbitra-
tion was always uppermost in his mind. He desired to
raise the Republic to the high office of a missionary of
peace and civilization in the world. He was, therefore,
44 The Writings of (1874
not only an uncommonly well-informed, enlightened and
experienced, but also an eminently conservative, cautious
and safe counselor; and the few instances in which he
appeared more impulsive than prudent will, upon candid
investigation, not impugn this statement. I am far
from claiming for him absolute correctness of view, and
infallibility of judgment in every case; but taking his
whole career together, it may well be doubted whether,
in the whole history of the Republic, the Senate of
the United States ever possessed a chairman of the
Committee on Foreign Relations who united in himself,
in such completeness, the qualifications necessary and
desirable for the important and delicate duties of that
position. This may sound like the extravagant praise
of a personal friend ; but it is the sober opinion of men
most competent to judge, that it does not go beyond his
merits.
His qualities were soon put to the test. Early in the
war one of the gallant captains of our Navy arrested the
British mail steamer Trent, running from one neutral
port to another, on the high seas, and took from her by
force Mason and Slidell, two emissaries of the Confederate
Government, and their despatches. The people of the
North loudly applauded the act. The Secretary of the
Navy approved it. The House of Representatives com-
mended it in resolutions. Even in the Senate a majority
seemed inclined to stand by it. The British Government,
in a threatening tone, demanded the instant restitution
of the prisoners, and an apology. The people of the North
responded with a shout of indignation at British insolence.
The excitement seemed irrepressible. Those in quest of
popularity saw a chance to win it easily by bellicose
declamation.
But among those who felt the weight of responsibility
more moderate counsels prevailed. The Government
1874] Carl Schurz 45
wisely resolved to surrender the prisoners, and peace with
Great Britain was preserved.
It was Mr. Sumner who threw himself into the breach
against the violent drift of public opinion. In a speech
in the Senate, no less remarkable for patriotic spirit than
legal learning and ingenious and irresistible argument, he
justified the surrender of the prisoners, not on the ground
that during our struggle with the rebellion we were not
in a condition to go to war with Great Britain, but on the
higher ground that the surrender, demanded by Great
Britain in violation of her own traditional pretensions as
to the rights of belligerents, was in perfect accord with
American precedent, and the advanced principles of our
Government concerning the rights of neutrals, and that
this very act, therefore, would for all time constitute an
additional and most conspicuous precedent to aid in the
establishment of more humane rules for the protection
of the rights of neutrals and the mitigation of the injustice
and barbarity attending maritime war.
The success of this argument was complete. It turned
the tide of public opinion. It convinced the American
people that this was not an act of pusillanimity, but of
justice; not a humiliation of the Republic, but a noble
vindication of her time-honored principles, and a service
rendered to the cause of progress.
Other complications followed. The interference of
European Powers in Mexico came. Excited demands
for intervention on our part were made in the Senate, and
Mr. Sumner, trusting that the victory of the Union over
the rebellion would bring on the deliverance of Mexico
in its train, with signal moderation and tact prevented
the agitation of so dangerous a policy. It is needless to
mention the many subsequent instances in which his
wisdom and skill rendered the Republic similar service.
Only one of his acts provoked comment in foreign
46 The Writings of [1874
countries calculated to impair the high esteem in which
his name was universally held there. It was his speech
on the Alabama case, preceding the rejection by the
Senate of the Clarendon- Johnson treaty. He was accused
of having yielded to a vulgar impulse of demagogism,
in flattering and exciting, by unfair statements and ex-
travagant demands, the grudge the American people might
bear to England. No accusation could possibly be more
unjust, and I know whereof I speak. Mr. Sumner loved
England — had loved her as long as he lived — from a
feeling of consanguinity, for the treasures of literature she
had given to the world, for the services she had rendered
to human freedom, for the blows she had struck at slavery,
for the sturdy work she had done for the cause of progress
and civilization, for the many dear friends he had among
her citizens. Such was his impulse, and no man was more
incapable of pandering to a vulgar prejudice.
I will not deny that as to our differences with Great
Britain he was not entirely free from personal feeling.
That the England he loved so well — the England of
Clarkson and Wilberforce, of Cobden and Bright; the
England to whom he had looked as the champion of the
anti-slavery cause in the world — should make such hot
haste to recognize — nay, as he termed it, to set up, on the
seas, as a belligerent — that rebellion, whose avowed object
it was to found an empire of slavery, and to aid that
rebellion by every means short of open war against the
Union, — that was a shock to his feelings which he felt
like a betrayal of friendship. And yet while that feeling
appeared in the warmth of his language, it did not dictate
his policy. I will not discuss here the correctness of his
opinions as to what he styled the precipitate and unjusti-
fiable recognition of Southern belligerency, or his theory
of consequential damages. What he desired to accom-
plish was, not to extort from England a large sum of
1874] Carl Schurz 47
money, but to put our grievance in the strongest light;
to convince England of the great wrong she had inflicted
upon us, and thus to prepare a composition which, con-
sisting more in the settlement of great principles and rules
of international law to govern the future intercourse of
nations, than in the payment of large damages, would
remove all questions of difference, and serve to restore
and confirm a friendship which ought never to have been
interrupted.
When, finally, the Treaty of Washington was nego-
tiated by the Joint High Commission, Mr. Sumner,
although thinking that more might have been accom-
plished, did not only not oppose that treaty, but actively
aided in securing for it the consent of the Senate. Nothing
would have been more painful to him than a continuance
of unfriendly relations with Great Britain. Had there
been danger of war, no man's voice would have pleaded
with more fervor to avert such a calamity. He gave
ample proof that he did not desire any personal opinions
to stand in the way of a settlement, and if that settlement,
which he willingly supported, did not in every respect
satisfy him, it was because he desired to put the future
relations of the two countries upon a still safer and more
enduring basis.
No statesman ever took part in the direction of our
foreign affairs who so completely identified himself with
the most advanced, humane and progressive principles.
Ever jealous of the honor of his country, he sought to
elevate that honor by a policy scrupulously just to the
strong and generous to the weak. A profound lover of
peace, he faithfully advocated arbitration as a substitute
for war. The barbarities of war he constantly labored to
mitigate. In the hottest days of our civil conflict he
protested against the issue of letters of marque and re-
prisal ; he never lost an opportunity to condemn privateer-
48 The Writings of [1874
ing as a barbarous practice, and he even went so far as
to designate the system of prize-money as inconsistent
with our enlightened civilization. In some respects,
his principles were in advance of our time ; but surely the
day will come when this Republic, marching in the front
of progress, will adopt them as her own, and remember
their champion with pride.
I now approach the last period of his life, which brought
to him new and bitter struggles.
The work of reconstruction completed, he felt that three
objects still demanded new efforts. One was, that the
colored race should be protected by National legislation
against degrading discrimination, in the enjoyment of
facilities of education, travel and pleasure, such as stand
under the control of law; and this object he embodied in
his civil-rights bill, of which he was the mover and es-
pecial champion. The second was, that generous recon-
ciliation should wipe out the lingering animosities of past
conflicts and reunite in new bonds of brotherhood all those
who had been divided. And the third was, that the
Government should be restored to the purity and high
tone of its earlier days, and that from its new birth the
Republic should issue with a new lustre of moral greatness,
to lead its children to a higher perfection of manhood, and
to be a shining example and beacon-light to all the nations
of the earth.
This accomplished, he often said to his friends he would
be content to lie down and die; but death overtook him
before he was thus content, and before death came he was
destined to taste more of the bitterness of life.
His civil-rights bill he pressed with unflagging persever-
ance, against an opposition which stood upon the ground
that the objects his measure contemplated, belonged,
under the Constitution, to the jurisdiction of the States;
that the colored people, armed with the ballot, possessed
1874] Carl Schurz 49
the necessary means to provide for their own security,
and that the progressive development of public senti-
ment would afford to them greater protection than could
be given by National legislation of questionable consti-
tutionality.
The pursuit of the other objects brought upon him
experiences of a painful nature. I have to speak of his
disagreement with the Administration of President Grant
and with his party. Nothing could be farther from my
desire than to reopen, on a solemn occasion like this, those
bitter conflicts which are still so fresh in our minds, and
to assail any living man in the name of the dead. Were
it my purpose to attack, I should do so in my own name
and choose the place where I can be answered, — not this.
But I have a duty to perform ; it is to set forth in the light
of truth the motives of the dead before the living. I
knew Charles Sumner's motives well. We stood together
shoulder to shoulder in many a hard contest. We were
friends, and between us passed those confidences which
only intimate friendship knows. Therefore I can truly
say that I knew his motives well.
The civil war had greatly changed the country, and
left many problems behind it, requiring again that building,
organizing, constructive kind of statesmanship which I
described as presiding over the Republic in its earlier
history. For a solution of many of those problems Mr.
Sumner's mind was little fitted, and he naturally turned
to those which appealed to his moral nature. No great
civil war has ever passed over any country, especially a
republic, without producing wide-spread and dangerous
demoralization and corruption, not only in the Govern-
ment, but among the people. In such times the sordid
instincts of human nature develop themselves to unusual
recklessness under the guise of patriotism. The ascend-
ancy of no political party in a republic has ever been long
VOL. III. — 4
50 The Writings of [1874
maintained without tempting many of its members to
avail themselves for their selfish advantage of the oppor-
tunities of power and party protection, and without at-
tracting a horde of camp followers, professing principle,
but meaning spoil. It has always been so, and the
American Republic has not escaped the experience.
Neither Mr. Sumner nor many others could in our
circumstances close their eyes to this fact. He recog-
nized the danger early, and already, in 1864, he intro-
duced in the Senate a bill for the reform of the civil service,
crude in its detail, but embodying correct principles.
Thus he may be said to have been the earliest pioneer
of the Civil Service Reform movement.
The evil grew under President Johnson's Administra-
tion, and ever since it has been cropping out, not only
drawn to light by the efforts of the opposition, but, volun-
tarily and involuntarily, by members of the ruling party
itself. There were in it many men who confessed to
themselves the urgent necessity of meeting the growing
danger.
Mr. Sumner could not be silent. He cherished in his
mind a high ideal of what this Republic and its Govern-
ment should be : a Government composed of the best and
wisest of the land ; animated by none but the highest and
most patriotic aspirations; yielding to no selfish impulse;
noble in its tone and character; setting its face sternly
against all wrong and injustice; presenting in its whole
being to the American people a shining example of purity
and lofty public spirit. Mr. Sumner was proud of his
country; there was no prouder American in the land.
He felt in himself the whole dignity of the Republic.
And when he saw anything that lowered the dignity of the
Republic and the character of its Government, he felt it
as he would have felt a personal offense. He criticized it,
he denounced it, he remonstrated against it, for he could
1874] Carl Schurz 51
not do otherwise. He did so, frequently and without
hesitation and reserve, when Mr. Lincoln was President.
He continued to do so ever since, the more loudly, the
more difficult it was to make himself heard. It was his
nature; he felt it to be his right as a citizen; he esteemed
it his duty as a Senator.
That, and no other was the motive which impelled
him. The rupture with the Administration was brought
on by his opposition to the Santo Domingo treaty. In
the reasons upon which that opposition was based, I know
that personal feeling had no share. They were patriotic
reasons, publicly and candidly expressed, and it seems
they were appreciated by a very large portion of the
American people. It has been said that he provoked the
resentment of the President by first promising to support
that treaty and then opposing it, thus rendering himself
guilty of an act of duplicity. He has publicly denied the
justice of the charge and stated the facts as they stood in
his memory. I am willing to make the fullest allowance
for the possibility of a misapprehension of words. But I
affirm, also, that no living man who knew Mr. Sumner well
will hesitate a moment to pronounce the charge of du-
plicity as founded on the most radical of misapprehensions.
An act of duplicity on his part was simply a moral im-
possibility. It was absolutely foreign to his nature. What-
ever may have been the defects of his character, he never
knowingly deceived a human being. There was in him
not the faintest shadow of dissimulation, disguise or
trickery. Not one of his words ever had the purpose of
a double meaning, not one of his acts a hidden aim. His
likes and dislikes, his approval and disapproval, as soon
as they were clear to his own consciousness, appeared
before the world in the open light of noonday. His
frankness was so unbounded, his candor so entire, his
ingenuousness so childlike, that he lacked even the
52 The Writings of [1874
discretion of ordinary prudence. He was almost incapable
of moderating his feelings, of toning down his meaning in
the expression. When he might have gained a point by
indirection, he would not have done so, because he could
not. He was one of those who, when they attack, attack
always in front and in broad daylight. The night sur-
prise and the flank march were absolutely foreign to his
tactics, because they were incompatible with his nature.
I have known many men in my life, but never one who
was less capable of a perfidious act or an artful profession.
Call him a vain, an impracticable, an imperious man,
if you will, but American history does not mention the
name of one, of whom with greater justice it can be said
that he was a true man.
The same candor and purity of motives which prompted
and characterized his opposition to the Santo Domingo
scheme, prompted and characterized the attacks upon
the Administration which followed. The charges he
made, and the arguments with which he supported them,
I feel not called upon to enumerate. Whether and how
far they were correct or erroneous, just or unjust, im-
portant or unimportant, the judgment of history will
determine. May that judgment be just and fair to us
all. But this I can affirm to-day, for I know it: Charles
Sumner never made a charge which he did not himself
firmly, religiously believe to be true. Neither did he
condemn those he attacked for anything he did not firmly,
religiously believe to be wrong. And while attacking
those in power for what he considered wrong, he was
always ready to support them in all he considered right.
After all he has said of the President, he would to-day, if he
lived, conscientiously, cordially, joyously aid in sustaining
the President's recent veto on an act of financial legisla-
tion which threatened to inflict a deep injury on the char-
acter as well as the true interests of the American people.
1874] Carl Schurz 53
But at the time of which I speak, all he said was so
deeply grounded in his feelings and conscience, that it was
for him difficult to understand how others could form
different conclusions. When, shortly before the National
Republican Convention of 1872, he had delivered in the
Senate that fierce philippic for which he has been censured
so much, he turned to me with the question, whether I
did not think that the statements and arguments he had
produced would certainly exercise a decisive influence
on the action of that convention. I replied that I thought
it would not. He was greatly astonished, — not as if he
indulged in the delusion that his personal word would have
such authoritative weight, but it seemed impossible
to him that opinions which in him had risen to the full
strength of overruling conviction, that a feeling of duty
which in him had grown so solemn and irresistible as to
inspire him to any risk and sacrifice, ever so painful,
should fall powerless at the feet of a party which so long
had followed inspirations kindred to his own. Such was
the ingenuousness of his nature; such his faith in the
rectitude of his own cause. The result of his effort is a
matter of history. After the Philadelphia Convention,
and not until then, he resolved to oppose his party, and
to join a movement which was doomed to defeat. He
obeyed his sense of right and duty at a terrible sacrifice.
He had been one of the great chiefs of his party, by
many regarded as the greatest. He had stood in the
Senate as a mighty monument of the struggles and victo-
ries of the anti-slavery cause. He had been a martyr to
his earnestness. By all Republicans he had been looked
up to with respect, by many with veneration. He had
been the idol of the people of his State. All this was
suddenly changed. Already, at the time of his opposition
to the Santo Domingo scheme, he had been deprived of
his place at the head of the Senate Committee on Foreign
54 The Writings of [1874
Relations, which he had held so long, and with so much
honor to the Republic and to himself. But few know
how sharp a pang it gave to his heart, this removal, which
he felt as the wanton degradation of a faithful servant who
was conscious of doing only his duty.
But, when he had pronounced against the candidates
of his party, worse experiences were for him in store.
Journals which for years had been full of his praise now
assailed him with remorseless ridicule and vituperation,
questioning even his past services and calling him a traitor.
Men who had been proud of his acquaintance turned
away their heads when they met him in the street. Former
flatterers eagerly covered his name with slander. Many
of those who had been his associates in the struggle
for freedom sullenly withdrew from him their friendship.
Even some men of the colored race, for whose elevation
he had labored with a fidelity and devotion equalled by
few and surpassed by none, joined in the chorus of denun-
ciation. Oh, how keenly he felt it! And, as if the cruel
malice of ingratitude and the unsparing persecution of
infuriated partisanship had not been enough, another
enemy came upon him, threatening his very life. It was
a new attack of that disease which, for many years, from
time to time, had prostrated him with the acutest suffering,
and which shortly should lay him low. It admonished
him that every word he spoke might be his last. He
found himself forced to leave the field of a contest in which
not only his principles of right, but even his good name,
earned by so many years of faithful effort, was at stake.
He possessed no longer the elastic spirit of youth, and the
prospect of new struggles had ceased to charm him. His
hair had grown gray with years, and he had reached that
age when a statesman begins to love the thought of re-
posing his head upon the pillow of assured public esteem.
Even the sweet comfort of that sanctuary was denied him,
1874] Carl Schurz 55
in which the voice of wife and child would have said:
Rest here, for, whatever the world may say, we know that
you are good and faithful and noble. Only the friends of
his youth, who knew him best, surrounded him with never-
flagging confidence and love, and those of his companions-
in-arms, who knew him also, and who were true to him
as they were true to their common cause. Thus he stood
in the Presidential campaign of 1872.
It is at such a moment of bitter ordeal that an honest
public man feels the impulse of retiring within himself;
to examine with scrupulous care the quality of his own
motives; anxiously to inquire whether he is really right
in his opinions and objects when so many old friends say
that he is wrong; and then, after such a review at the hand
of conscience and duty, to form anew his conclusions
without bias, and to proclaim them without fear. This
he did.
He had desired, and as he wrote, "he had confidently
hoped, on returning home from Washington, to meet his
fellow-citizens in Faneuil Hall, that venerable forum, and
to speak once more on great questions involving the
welfare of the country, but recurring symptoms of a
painful character warned him against such an attempt."
The speech he had intended to pronounce, but could not,
he left in a written form for publication, and went to
Europe, seeking rest, uncertain whether he would ever
return alive. In it he reiterated all the reasons which
had forced him to oppose the Administration and the
candidates of his party. They were unchanged. Then
followed an earnest and pathetic plea for universal peace
and reconciliation. He showed how necessary the revival
of fraternal feeling was, not only for the prosperity and
physical well-being, but for the moral elevation of the
American people and for the safety and greatness of the
Republic. He gave words to his profound sympathy with
56 The Writings of (*&74
the Southern States in their misfortunes. Indignantly
he declared, that
second only to the wide-spread devastations of war were the
robberies to which those States had been subjected, under
an Administration calling itself Republican, and with local
governments deriving their animating impulse from the party
in power; and that the people in these communities would
have been less than men, if, sinking under the intolerable
burden, they did not turn for help to a new party, promising
honesty and reform.
He recalled the reiterated expression he had given to his
sentiments, ever since the breaking out of the war; and
closed the recital with these words:
Such is the simple and harmonious record, showing how from
the beginning I was devoted to peace, how constantly I
longed for reconciliation; how, with every measure of equal
rights, this longing found utterance; how it became an essen-
tial part of my life; how I discarded all idea of vengeance
and punishment; how reconstruction was, to my mind, a
transition period, and how earnestly I looked forward to the
day when, after the recognition of equal rights, the Republic
should again be one in reality as in name. If there are any
who ever maintained a policy of hate, I never was so minded ;
and now in protesting against any such policy, I act only in
obedience to the irresistible promptings of my soul.
And well might he speak thus. Let the people of the
South hear what I say. They were wont to see in him
only the implacable assailant of that peculiar institution,
which was so closely interwoven with all their traditions
and habits of life, that they regarded it as the very basis
of their social and moral existence, as the source of their
prosperity and greatness; the unsparing enemy of the re-
bellion, whose success was to realize the fondest dreams
of their ambition ; the never-resting advocate of the grant
1874] Carl Schurz 57
of suffrage to the colored people, which they thought to
be designed for their own degradation. Thus they had
persuaded themselves that Charles Sumner was to them
a relentless foe.
They did not know, as others knew, that he whom they
cursed as their persecutor had a heart beating warmly
and tenderly for all the human kind; that the efforts of
his life were unceasingly devoted to those whom he
thought most in need of aid; that in the slave he saw
only the human soul, with its eternal title to the same
right and dignity which he himself enjoyed; that he as-
sailed the slavemaster only as the oppressor who denied
that right; and that the former oppressor ceasing to be
such, and being oppressed himself, could surely count
upon the fullness of his active sympathy freely given in
the spirit of equal justice; that it was the religion of his
life to protect the weak and oppressed against the strong,
no matter who were the weak and oppressed, no matter
who were the strong. They knew not that, while fiercely
combating a wrong, there was not in his heart a spark of
hatred even for the wrongdoer who hated him. They
knew not how well he deserved the high homage in-
voluntarily paid to him by a cartoon during the late Presi-
dential campaign, — a cartoon, designed to be malicious,
which represented Charles Sumner strewing flowers on
the grave of Preston Brooks. They foresaw not, that to
welcome them back to the full brotherhood of the Ameri-
can people, he would expose himself to a blow, wounding
him as cruelly as that which years ago levelled him to the
ground in the Senate chamber. And this new blow he
received for them. The people of the South ignored this
long. Now that he is gone, let them never forget it.
From Europe Mr. Sumner returned late in the fall of
1872, much strengthened, but far from being well. At
the opening of the session he reintroduced two measures
58 The Writings of [1874
which, as he thought, should complete the record of his
political life. One was his civil-rights bill, which had
failed in the last Congress, and the other, a resolution
providing that the names of the battles won over fellow-
citizens in the war of the rebellion should be removed
from the regimental colors of the army and from the
army register. It was in substance only a repetition of a
resolution which he had introduced ten years before, in
1862, during the war, when the first names of victories
were put on American battle-flags. This resolution called
forth a new storm against him. It was denounced as an
insult to the heroic soldiers of the Union, and a degra-
dation of their victories and well-earned laurels. It was
condemned as an unpatriotic act.
Charles Sumner insult the soldiers who had spilled
their blood in a war for human rights! Charles Sumner
degrade victories and depreciate laurels won for the cause
of universal freedom! How strange an imputation!
Let the dead man have a hearing. This was his
thought: No civilized nation, from the republics of an-
tiquity down to our days, ever thought it wise or patriotic
to preserve in conspicuous and durable form the mementos
of victories won over fellow-citizens in civil war. Why
not? Because every citizen should feel himself with all
others as the child of a common country, and not as a
defeated foe. All civilized Governments of our days have
instinctively followed the same dictate of wisdom and
patriotism. The Irishman, when fighting for old England
at Waterloo, was not to behold on the red cross floating
above him the name of the Boyne. The Scotch High-
lander, when standing in the trenches of Sebastopol, was
not by the colors of his regiment to be reminded of Cul-
loden. No French soldier at Austerlitz or Solferino had
to read upon the tricolor any reminiscence of the Vendee.
No Hungarian at Sadowa was taunted by any Austrian
1874] Carl Schurz 59
banner with the surrender of Villages. No German
regiment, from Saxony or Hanover, charging under the
iron hail of Gravelotte, was made to remember by words
written on a Prussian standard that the black eagle had
conquered them at Koniggratz and Langensalza. Should
the son of South Carolina, when at some future day
defending the Republic against some foreign foe, be re-
minded by an inscription on the colors floating over him,
that under this flag the gun was fired that killed his father
at Gettysburg? Should this great and enlightened Re-
public, proud of standing in the front of human progress,
be less wise, less large-hearted, than the ancients were two
thousand years ago, and the kingly Governments of Europe
are to-day? Let the battle-flags of the brave volunteers,
which they brought home from the war with the glorious
record of their victories, be preserved intact as a proud
ornament of our State-houses and armories. But let
the colors of the army, under which the sons of all the
States are to meet and mingle in common patriotism,
speak of nothing but union, — not a union of conquerors
and conquered, but a union which is the mother of all,
equally tender to all, knowing of nothing but equality,
peace and love among her children. Do you want con-
spicuous mementos of your victories? They are written
upon the dusky brow of every freeman who was once a
slave; they are written on the gate-posts of a restored
Union ; and the most glorious of all will be written on the
faces of a contented people, reunited in common national
pride.
Such were the sentiments which inspired that resolu-
tion. Such were the sentiments which called forth a
storm of obloquy. Such were the sentiments for which
the legislature of Massachusetts passed a solemn resolu-
tion of censure upon Charles Sumner, — Massachusetts,
his own Massachusetts, whom he loved so ardently with
60 The Writings of [1874
a filial love, — of whom he was so proud, who had honored
him so much in days gone by, and whom he had so long
and so faithfully labored to serve and to honor! Oh,
those were evil days, that winter; days sad and dark,
when he sat there in his lonesome chamber, unable to
leave it, the world moving around him, and in it so much
that was hostile, — and he prostrated by the tormenting
disease, which had returned with fresh violence, — unable
to defend himself, — and with this bitter arrow in his heart!
Why was not that resolution held up to scorn and vitu-
peration as an insult to the brave, and an unpatriotic act
—why was he not attacked and condemned for it when he
first offered it, ten years before, and when he was in the
fullness of manhood and power? If not then, why now?
Why now? I shall never forget the melancholy hours I
sat with him, seeking to lift him up with cheering words,
and he — his frame for hours racked with excruciating
pain, and then exhausted with suffering — gloomily brood-
ing over the thought that he might die so!
How thankful I am, how thankful every human soul
in Massachusetts, how thankful every American must be,
that he did not die then! — and, indeed, more than once,
death seemed to be knocking at his door. How thankful
that he was spared to see the day, when the people by
striking developments were convinced that those who had
acted as he did, had after all not been impelled by mere
whims of vanity, or reckless ambition, or sinister designs,
but had good and patriotic reasons for what they did; —
when the heart of Massachusetts came back to him full
of the old love and confidence, assuring him that he would
again be her chosen son for her representative seat in the
House of States, — when the lawgivers of the old Common-
wealth, obeying an irresistible impulse of justice, wiped
away from the records of the legislature, and from the
fair name of the State, that resolution of censure which
1874] Carl Schurz 61
had stung him so deeply, — and when returning vigor lifted
him up, and a new sunburst of hope illumined his life!
How thankful we all are that he lived that one year longer !
And yet, have you thought of it ? if he had died in those
dark days, when so many clouds hung over him, — would
not then the much vilified man have been the same
Charles Summer, whose death but one year later afflicted
millions of hearts with a pang of bereavement, whose
praise is now on every lip for the purity of his life, for
his fidelity to great principles, and for the loftiness of his
patriotism? Was he not a year ago the same, the same
in purpose, the same in principle, the same in character?
What had he done then that so many who praise him to-
day should have then disowned him? See what he had
done. He had simply been true to his convictions of duty.
He had approved and urged what he thought right, he
had attacked and opposed what he thought wrong. To
his convictions of duty he had sacrificed political associa-
tions most dear to him, the security of his position of which
he was proud. For his convictions of duty he had stood
up against those more powerful than he; he had exposed
himself to reproach, obloquy and persecution. Had he
not done so, he would not have been the man you praise
to-day; and yet for doing so he was cried down but yes-
terday. He had lived up to the great word he spoke
when he entered the Senate: " The slave of principle, I
call no party master." That declaration was greeted with
applause, and when, true to his word, he refused to call
a party master, the act was covered with reproach.
The spirit impelling him to do so was the same con-
science which urged him to break away from the powerful
party which controlled his State in the days of Daniel
Webster, and to join a feeble minority, which stood up
for freedom ; to throw away the favor and defy the power
of the wealthy and refined, in order to plead the cause of
62 The Writings of (1874
the downtrodden and degraded; to stand up against the
slave-power in Congress with a courage never surpassed;
to attack the prejudice of birth and religion, and to plead
fearlessly for the rights of the foreign-born citizen at a
time when the Know-nothing movement was controlling
his State and might have defeated his own reelection
to the Senate; to advocate emancipation when others
trembled with fear; to march ahead of his followers, when
they were afraid to follow; to rise up alone for what he
thought right, when others would not rise with him. It
was that brave spirit which does everything, defies every-
thing, risks everything, sacrifices everything, — comfort,
society, party, popular support, station of honor, prospects,
— for sense of right and conviction of duty. That it is for
which you honored him long, for which you reproached
him yesterday, and for which you honor him again to-day,
and will honor him forever.
Ah, what a lesson is this for the American people, — a
lesson learned so often, and, alas! forgotten almost as
often as it is learned! Is it well to discourage, to pro-
scribe in your public men that independent spirit which
will boldly assert a conscientious sense of duty, even
against the behests of power or party? Is it well to teach
them that they must serve the command and interest of
party, even at the price of conscience, or they must be
crushed under its heel, whatever their past service, what-
ever their ability, whatever their character may be? Is
it well to make them believe that he who dares to be
himself must be hunted as a political outlaw, who will
find justice only when he is dead? That would have been
the sad moral of his death, had Charles Sumner died a
year ago.
Let the American people never forget that it has always
been the independent spirit, the all-defying sense of duty,
which broke the way for every great progressive move-
1874] Carl Schurz 63
ment since mankind has a history ; which gave the Ameri-
can colonies their sovereignty and made this great
Republic; which defied the power of slavery, and made
this a Republic of freemen; and which — who knows? —
may again be needed some day to defy the power of
ignorance, to arrest the inroads of corruption, or to break
the subtle tyranny of organization in order to preserve
this as a Republic ! And therefore let no man understand
me as offering what I have said about Mr. Sumner's
course, during the last period of his life, as an apology for
what he did. He was right before his own conscience,
and needs no apology. Woe to the Republic when it
looks in vain for the men who seek the truth without
prejudice and speak the truth without fear, as they
understand it, no matter whether the world be willing to
listen or not! Alas for the generation that would put
such men into their graves with the poor boon of an
apology for what was in them noblest and best! Who
will not agree that, had power or partisan spirit, which
persecuted him because he followed higher aims than
party interest, ever succeeded in subjugating and mould-
ing him after its fashion, against his conscience, against
his conviction of duty, against his sense of right, he would
have sunk into his grave a miserable ruin of his great self,
wrecked in his moral nature, deserving only a tear of pity?
For he was great and useful only because he dared to be
himself all the days of his life; and for this you have,
when he died, put the laurel upon his brow!
From the coffin which hides his body, Charles Sumner
now rises up before our eyes an historic character. Let
us look at him once more. His life lies before us like an
open book which contains no double meanings, no crooked
passages, no mysteries, no concealments. It is clear as
crystal.
Even his warmest friend will not see in it the model
64 The Writings of [1874
of perfect statesmanship; not that eagle glance which,
from a lofty eminence, at one sweep surveys the whole
field on which by labor, thought, strife, accommodation,
impulse, restraint, slow and rapid movement, the destinies
of a nation are worked out, — and which, while surveying
the whole, yet observes and penetrates the fitness and
working of every detail of the great machinery ; — not that
ever calm and steady and self-controlling good sense,
which judges existing things just as they are, and existing
forces just as to what they can accomplish, and while
instructing, conciliating, persuading and moulding those
forces, and guiding them On toward an ideal end, correctly
estimates comparative good and comparative evil, and
impels or restrains as that estimate may command.
That is the true genius of statesmanship, fitting all
times, all circumstances, and all great objects to be
reached by political action.
Mr. Sumner's natural abilities were not of the very first
order; but they were supplemented by acquired abilities
of most remarkable power. His mind was not apt to
invent and create by inspiration; it produced by study
and work. Neither had his mind superior constructive
capacity. When he desired to originate a measure of
legislation, he scarcely ever elaborated its practical detail ;
he usually threw his idea into the form of a resolution, or
a bill giving in the main his purpose only, and then he
advanced to the discussion of the principles involved.
It was difficult for him to look at a question or problem
from more than one point of view, and to comprehend its
different bearings, its complex relations with other ques-
tions or problems; and to that one point of view he was
apt to subject all other considerations. He not only
thought, but he did not hesitate to say, that all construc-
tion of the Constitution must be subservient to the
supreme duty of giving the amplest protection to the
1874] Carl Schurz 65
natural rights of man by direct National legislation. He
was not free from that dangerous tendency to forget the
limits which bound the legitimate range of legislative
and governmental action. On economic questions his
views were enlightened and thoroughly consistent. He
had studied such subjects more than is commonly sup-
posed. It was one of his last regrets that his health
did not permit him to make a speech in favor of an early
resumption of specie payments. On matters of inter-
national law and foreign affairs he was the recognized
authority of the Senate.
But some of his very shortcomings served to increase
that peculiar power which he exerted in his time. His
public life was thrown into a period of a revolutionary
character, when one great end was the self-imposed sub-
ject of a universal struggle, a struggle which was not
made, not manufactured by the design of men, but had
grown from the natural conflict of existing things, and
grew irresistibly on and on, until it enveloped all the
thought of the nation; and that one great end appealing
more than to the practical sense, to the moral impulses of
men, making of them the fighting force. There Mr.
Sumner found his place and there he grew great, for that
moral impulse was stronger in him than in most of the
world around him; and it was in him not a mere crude,
untutored force of nature, but educated and elevated by
thought and study ; and it found in his brain and heart an
armory of strong weapons given to but few: vast infor-
mation, legal learning, industry, eloquence, undaunted
courage, an independent and iron will, profound convic-
tions, unbounded devotion and sublime faith. It found
there also a keen and just instinct as to the objects which
must be reached and the forces which must be set in
motion and driven on to reach them. Thus keeping the
end steadily, obstinately, intensely in view, he marched
VOL. III. — 5
66 The Writings of [1874
ahead of his followers, never disturbed by their anxieties
and fears, showing them that what was necessary was
possible, and forcing them to follow him, — a great moving
power, such as the struggle required.
Nor can it be said that this impatient, irrepressible
propulsion was against all prudence and sound judgment,
for it must not be forgotten that, when Mr. Sumner
stepped into the front, the policy of compromise was
exhausted; the time of composition and expedient was
past. Things had gone so far, that the idea of reaching
the end, which ultimately must be reached, by mutual
concession and a gradual and peaceable process, was
utterly hopeless. The conflicting forces could not be
reconciled; the final struggle was indeed irrepressible and
inevitable, and all that could then be done was to gather
up all the existing forces for one supreme effort, and to
take care that the final struggle should bring forth the
necessary results.
Thus the instinct and the obstinate, concentrated,
irresistible moving power which Mr. Sumner possessed
was an essential part of the true statesmanship of the
revolutionary period. Had he lived before or after this
great period, in quiet, ordinary times, he would perhaps
never have gone into public life, or never risen in it to
conspicuous significance. But all he was by nature, by
acquirement, by ability, by moral impulse, made him one
of the heroes of that great struggle against slavery, and
in some respects the first. And then when the victory
was won, the same moral nature, the same sense of justice,
the same enlightened mind, impelled him to plead the
cause of peace, reconciliation and brotherhood, through
equal rights and even justice, thus completing the fullness
of his ideal. On the pedestal of his time he stands one
of the greatest of Americans.
What a peculiar power of fascination there was in him
1874] Carl Schurz 67
as a public man! It acted much through his eloquence,
but not through his eloquence alone. His speech was not
a graceful flow of melodious periods, now drawing on the
listener with the persuasive tone of confidential conver-
sation, then carrying him along with a more rapid rush
of thought and language, and at last lifting him up with
the peals of reason in passion. His arguments marched
forth at once in grave and stately array ; his sentences like
rows of massive Doric columns, unrelieved by pleasing
variety, severe and imposing. His orations, especially
those pronounced in the Senate before the war, contain
many passages of grandest beauty. There was nothing
kindly persuasive in his utterance ; his reasoning appeared
in the form of consecutive assertion, not seldom strictly
logical and irresistibly strong. His mighty appeals were
always addressed to the noblest instincts of human nature.
His speech was never enlivened by anything like wit or
humor. They were foreign to his nature. He has never
been guilty of a flash of irony or sarcasm. His weapon
was not the foil, but the battle-axe.
He has often been accused of being uncharitable to
opponents in debate, and of wounding their feelings with
uncalled-for harshness of language. He was guilty of
that, but no man was less conscious of the stinging force
of his language than he. He was often sorry for the
effect his thrusts had produced, but being always so
firmly and honestly persuaded of the correctness of his
own opinions, that he could scarcely ever appreciate the
position of an opponent, he fell into the same fault again.
Not seldom he appeared haughty in his assumptions of
authority; but it was the imperiousness of profound con-
viction, which, while sometimes exasperating his hearers,
yet scarcely ever failed to exercise over them a certain
sway. His fancy was not fertile, his figures mostly
labored and stiff. In his later years his vast learning
68 The Writings of [1874
began to become an encumbering burden to his eloquence.
The mass of quoted sayings and historical illustrations,
not seldom accumulated beyond measure and grotesquely
grouped, sometimes threatened to suffocate the original
thought and to oppress the hearer. But even then his
words scarcely ever failed to chain the attention of the
audience, and I have more than once seen the Senate
attentively listening while he read from printed slips the
most elaborate disquisition, which, if attempted by any
one of his colleagues, would at once have emptied the
floor and galleries. But there were always moments
recalling to our mind the days of his freshest vigor, when
he stood in the midst of the great struggle, lifting up the
youth of the country with heart-stirring appeals, and with
the lion-like thunder of his voice shaking the Senate
chamber.
Still there was another source from which that fascina-
tion sprang. Behind all he said and did there stood a
grand manhood, which never failed to make itself felt.
What a figure he was, with his tall and stalwart frame,
his manly face, topped with his shaggy locks, his noble
bearing, the finest type of American Senatorship, the
tallest oak of the forest! And how small they appeared
by his side, the common run of politicians, who spend
their days with the laying of pipe, and the setting up of
pins, and the pulling of wires; who barter an office to
secure this vote, and procure a contract to get that; who
stand always with their ears to the wind to hear how the
Administration sneezes, and what their constituents
whisper, in mortal trepidation lest they fail in being all
things to everybody! How he towered above them, he
whose aims were always the highest and noblest; whose
very presence made you forget the vulgarities of political
life; who dared to differ with any man ever so powerful,
any multitude ever so numerous; who regarded party
1874] Carl Schurz 69
as nothing but a means for great ends, and for those ends
defied its power; to whom the arts of demagogism were
so contemptible that he would rather have sunk into
obscurity and oblivion than descend to them; to whom
the dignity of his office was so sacred that he would not
even ask for it for fear of darkening its lustre !
Honor to the people of Massachusetts who, for twenty-
three years, kept in the Senate, and would have kept him
there even longer, had he lived — a man who never, even
to them, conceded a single iota of his convictions in order
to remain there! And what a life was his! A life so
wholly devoted to what was good and pure! There he
stood in the midst of the grasping materialism of our
times, around him the eager chase for the almighty dollar,
no thought of opportunity ever entering the smallest
corner of his mind, and disturbing his high endeavors;
with a virtue which the possession of power could not
even tempt, much less debauch; from whose presence the
very thought of corruption instinctively shrank back; a
life so spotless, an integrity so intact, a character so high,
that the most daring eagerness of calumny, the most
wanton audacity of insinuation, standing on tiptoe, could
not touch the soles of his shoes!
They say that he indulged in overweening self-ap-
preciation. Ay, he did have a magnificent pride, a lofty
self-esteem. Why should he not? Let wretches despise
themselves, for they have good reason to do so; not he.
But in his self-esteem there was nothing small and mean ;
no man lived to whose very nature envy and petty jealousy
were more foreign. Conscious of his own merit, he never
depreciated the merit of others ; nay, he not only recog-
nized it, but he expressed that recognition with that
cordial spontaneity which can flow only from a sincere
and generous heart. His pride of self was like his pride
of country. He was the proudest American; he was the
70 The Writings of [1874
proudest New Englander; and yet he was the most cos-
mopolitan American I have ever seen. There was in him
not the faintest shadow of that narrow prejudice which
looks askance at what has grown in foreign lands. His
generous heart and his enlightened mind were too generous
and too enlightened not to give the fullest measure of
appreciation to all that was good and worthy, from what-
ever quarter of the globe it came.
And now his home! There are those around me who
have breathed the air of his house in Washington, that
atmosphere of refinement, taste, scholarship, art, friend-
ship and warm-hearted hospitality; who have seen those
rooms covered and filled with his pictures, his engravings,
his statues, his bronzes, his books and rare manuscripts —
the collections of a lifetime — the image of the richness of
his mind, the comfort and consolation of his solitude.
They have beheld his childlike smile of satisfaction when
he unlocked the most precious of his treasures and told
their stories.
They remember the conversations at his hospitable
board, genially inspired and directed by him, on art and
books and inventions and great times and great men, —
when suddenly sometimes, by accident, a new mine of
curious knowledge disclosed itself in him, which his friends
had never known he possessed ; or when a sunburst of the
affectionate gentleness of his soul warmed all hearts
around him. They remember his craving for friendship,
as it spoke through the far outstretched hand when you
arrived, and the glad exclamation, "I am so happy you
came," — and the beseeching, almost despondent tone
when you departed: "Do not leave me yet; do stay a
while longer, I want so much to speak with you!" — It is
all gone now. He could not stay himself, and he has left
his friends behind, feeling more deeply than ever that
no man could know him well but to love him.
1874] Carl Schurz 71
Now we have laid him into his grave, in the motherly
soil of Massachusetts, which was so dear to him. He is
at rest now, the stalwart, brave old champion, whose face
and bearing were so austere, and whose heart was so full
of tenderness; who began his career with a pathetic plea
for universal peace and charity, and whose whole life was
an arduous, incessant, never-resting struggle, which left
him all covered with scars. And we can do nothing for
him but commemorate his lofty ideals of Liberty and
Equality and Justice and Reconciliation and Purity, and
the earnestness and courage and touching fidelity with
which he fought for them ; so genuine in his sincerity, so
single-minded in his zeal, so heroic in his devotion !
Oh, that we could but for one short hour call him up
from his coffin, to let him see with the same eyes which
saw so much hostility, that those who stood against him
in the struggles of his life are his enemies no longer!
That we could show him the fruit of the conflicts and
sufferings of his last three years, and that he had not
struggled and suffered in vain! We would bring before
him, not only those who from offended partisan zeal as-
sailed him, and who now with sorrowful hearts praise the
purity of his patriotism; but we would bring to him that
man of the South, a slaveholder and a leader of secession
in his time, the echo of whose words spoken in the name
of the South in the halls of the National Capitol we heard
but yesterday; words of respect, of gratitude, of tender-
ness. That man of the South should then do what he
deplored not to have done while he lived, — he should
lay his hand upon the shoulder of the old friend of the
humankind and say to him: "Is it you whom I hated,
and who, as I thought, hated me? I have learned now
the greatness and magnanimity of your soul, and here
I offer you my hand and heart."
Could he but see this with those eyes, so weary of con-
72 The Writings of [1874
tention and strife, how contentedly would he close them
again, having beheld the greatness of his victories !
People of Massachusetts! he was the son of your soil,
in which he now sleeps; but he is not all your own. He
belongs to all of us in the North and in the South. — to the
blacks he helped to make free, and to the whites he strove
to make brothers again. Let, on the grave of him whom
so many thought to be their enemy, and found to be their
friend, the hands be clasped which so bitterly warred
against each other! Let upon that grave the youth of
America be taught, by the story of his life, that not only
genius, power and success, but more than these, patriotic
devotion and virtue, make the greatness of the citizen!
If this lesson be understood and followed, more than
Charles Sumner's living word could have done for the
glory of America will then be done by the inspiration of
his great example. And it will truly be said that, although
his body lie mouldering in the earth, yet in the assured
rights of all, in the brotherhood of a reunited people and
in a purified Republic, he stills lives and will live forever.
TO JAMES S. ROLLINS1
ST. Louis, Aug. 4, 1874.
... I need not tell you how highly I appreciate your
friendly wishes with regard to my own fortunes. It is
no affectation when I say that my own desire for a re-
election is not very strong. There are many reasons of a
private nature why I should not wish it, and whatever
the result of the impending campaign with regard to the
Senatorship may be, there will be in it no disappointment
of personal ambition as far as I am concerned.
1 A Mo. lawyer and politician of much ability and independence, who
was long president of the board of curators of Missouri University, at
Columbia. See ante II, 26, 27, for Schurz's references to him.
1874] Carl Schurz 73
The opinions you express on the present condition of
affairs in this State coincide entirely with my own.
What shall I say of the attitude of the Confederates?
Of course, no man of experience will look for anything
like gratitude in politics. I never indulged in any delusion
in that respect, even in 1870, when they grasped me by
the hand and fairly smothered me with assurances of
friendship and devotion. I remember many interesting
scenes. Their present attitude is simply pitiable. You
say that they hate me. They would, perhaps, not hate
me so much, had I never shown myself their friend at
my own expense. Thus the world runs.
The movement inaugurated by the farmers seems to
promise well, and if the convention called on the 2d of
September acts judiciously, the chances will be decidedly
good. Of course I shall support the movement to the best
of my ability unless the convention make a platform and
nominate candidates to render such support impossible.
I was painfully surprised to be informed by Mr. Pree-
torius that it was suspected by some of your friends some-
where in the State that I was unfriendly to you and hostile
to any political aspirations you might entertain. Mr.
Emory S. Foster told him so. I hope I need not tell you
that just the reverse is true, and it is a great satisfaction
to me to conclude from your letter that, if ever any such
rumor reached your ear, you dismissed it as unworthy
of consideration. It would have been particularly grati-
fying to me to give testimony of my esteem for you, and
I sincerely regret to learn that you have grave reasons
for not desiring public position at present. Your name
has frequently and very prominently been mentioned
in connection with the independent convention, and it
seems to me that nothing short of the reasons you state
would justify the withdrawal of your name. Let us
hope that those reasons will not exist much longer. . . .
74 The Writings of [1874
THE ISSUES OF 1874, ESPECIALLY IN MISSOURI1
FELLOW-CITIZENS: — As one of the representatives of
Missouri in the Senate of the United States, I deem it
my duty to submit to you a candid statement of my views
on the present posture of public affairs, and in doing so I
shall not confine myself to the questions at issue in our
impending State election. It is well known to you that
in the expression of my opinions I have not permitted
myself to be controlled by the requirements of party
service, but, according to my sense of duty, have treated
questions of public interest upon their own merits. In
the same spirit I shall speak to you to-night — in plain
language, without any desire or attempt to appeal to
political prejudice or passion. More than ever do I
consider this the duty of a public man under the peculiar
circumstances which at present surround us. You cannot
look at the present condition of the public mind in this
Republic, without discovering that a wide-spread and
deep distrust and skepticism have taken the place of the
confident assurance and sanguine expectation formerly
prevailing. The grave disorders constantly occurring in
many of the States; the usurpations of government ac-
complished or attempted here and there, reminding one
of Mexican pronunciamientos; the insecurity of life and
property, and the impotency of the law in some parts of
the country ; the anarchy of power and the unsettled state
of Constitutional principles; the influence of reckless
demagogism and ignorance in the conduct of public
affairs; the discovery of corrupt practices in public office
of an alarming nature and extent, and the suspicion that
there are other depths of corruption yet hidden from day-
light; the sinking confidence in the character of public
men; the growing power of great moneyed corporations,
1 Speech at the Temple, St. Louis, Sept. 24, 1874.
1874] Carl Schurz 75
bearing hard upon the people and believed to control by
corrupt means courts and legislatures; the existence and
power of political rings, working for ends purely selfish
by taking advantage of a blind and reckless partisan
spirit; and finally, the occasional disclosure of alarming
rottenness in social life; all these things — exaggerated as
the darkness of the picture may be — have cooperated
in overcasting the minds of many men with grave doubt
and apprehension as to what is to come out of all this.
I am sure your experience coincides with mine that every
day you can meet, on the streets, and in counting-
houses, and on farms, men — not chronic grumblers and
fault-finders, nor disappointed politicians — but quiet, un-
ostentatious and unambitious citizens, with no public
aspiration but a patriotic interest in the welfare of the
country, who earnestly ask and discuss the question : If
this mischief be not stopped what will become of the
Republic and its democratic institutions, and where are
the means to stop it?
This feeling of doubt and apprehension is not the pro-
duct of artificial agitation. It has been quietly growing
and spreading for a long time among the most solid
classes of our population, and is gradually affecting the
whole tone of society. It shows itself in symptoms which
cannot fail to have been noticed by every observing man.
The very American eagle refuses to soar on the Fourth of
July. The National birthday, barring the firecrackers
of the children and the fine clothes of the militia men,
has become an excessively sober and commonplace affair.
The flaming Fourth of July speech, which formerly was
listened to with real delight and enthusiasm, is now apt
to meet rather ridicule than applause, and those who
consent to serve as Fourth of July orators prefer, for their
own credit, critical reviews of the situation, admonitions
and warnings, to the self-glorification which formerly
76 The Writings of [1874
was so honest, exuberant and confiding. This state of
mind, however much or little justified, exists as a fact,
and it will in some way exercise an influence upon our
political life. In a multitude of cases it has taken a form
which is greatly to be deplored; and entire loss of faith
in the efficiency of democratic institutions. I heard a
gentleman, not a politician, recently express himself:
"Why should I not be for a third Presidential term? I
am for a third, a fourth, a fifth term and as many terms
as possible, for I want by some means to get rid of this
democratic form of government."
Such utterances are becoming quite frequent, in the
South perhaps more than in the North, but altogether too
frequent in the North also. It would seem needless to
say that such talk is utterly senseless, for with the social
elements and political traditions of this country, any sort
of monarchy or imperialism is absolutely impossible, and
if any attempt in that direction were seriously contem-
plated by anybody, which I do not believe, it would,
instead of producing stability and order, result only in
confused, furious and endless civil conflicts, aggravating
all the evils now complained of an hundredfold. But
utterances of this kind have a demoralizing effect, for
they divert the minds of men from the true problem,
which is not how to get rid of democratic government,
but how to restore and develop what is good in it and how
to suppress or reform what is bad. Thus they cultivate
that barren, inert, imbecile despondency which, seeking
escape from an evil, is always apt to choose the worst —
a state of mind utterly unworthy of an American. But
while the present condition of things, and the feeling of
anxiety and doubt springing from it, has thrown some
minds into so morbid a despair, it has produced upon
others, and, I am happy to say, a much larger number,
a healthier effect full of encouragement and promise.
1874] Carl Schurz 77
It has stirred up their sense of duty and responsibility.
It has quickened their public spirit. Seldom has public
opinion been more vigilant in watching the conduct of
the representatives and servants of the people; seldom
has it been more powerful in enforcing the condemnation
of malefactors and the correction of abuses. But a
few years ago, any public man, who, against the wishes
and pretended interests of his party, insisted upon the
investigation and exposure of malpractice, could be
trampled down and ostracized as a traitor. And now,
immediately after a sweeping victory, the dominant party
finds itself forced by an irresistible pressure of public
opinion to put its own hands to a work but recently so
detested, and the scandals of the Credit Mobilier, of the
Sanborn contracts, of the moiety business and of the
government of the District of Columbia, were ripped
open; and, in the treatment of these things, the people
were still more in earnest than some of the official in-
vestigators. For many years we have not had a session
of Congress that was so free from job-legislation as the
last, so much so indeed that the lobby men could not pay
for their dinners, and the restaurant-keepers were dis-
consolate. Public opinion hung like a thunder cloud
over Washington, charged with dangerous electricity,
and some of those who tried to construct the famous
press-gag law as a lightning rod wish to-day they had
never made the attempt while the people in conventions,
and still more, at elections, are sitting sternly in judgment
over those of their servants who cannot present a clean
bill of health.
But more than that. While but a few years ago a man
who refused to obey the behests of his party was not only
ostracized as a traitor, but laughed at as a fool uselessly
sacrificing himself in a windmill fight, we behold to-day
all over the country countless thousands asserting their
78 The Writings of [1874
independence from party dictation, doing their own think-
ing for themselves, and following only their convictions
of duty. And still more. While but recently very
valuable classes of society kept aloof from all active par-
ticipation in political movements, either from fastidious-
ness or modesty, or because they gave themselves wholly
to private pursuits, they are now asking themselves:
" Is not our apathy in great part to blame for the evils
we are suffering? If we want good government, is it not
time that we should take our share in the struggle to
secure it?" And hence that fresh political activity, that
freedom of criticism, that breaking of party lines, that
movement of independence all over the field, which makes
political ringmasters tremble and patriotic citizens rejoice
in new hope.
I hail this effect of the doubt and anxiety which pervade
the public mind as a sign of promise. It is doubt, turn-
ing into an incentive for independent thought. It is
anxiety, becoming a stimulus for fresh exertion. In such
a mood many errors may be committed, many mistaken
notions may be entertained, many false movements may
be made. But the intelligence of the American people
is more than ordinarily active, the old dingdong of party
cant begins to fall stale upon the ear, and the number of
men who are sincerely anxious to know and to do what is
right is growing every day. There are signs of the times
which inspire the hope that a political revival has com-
menced, which, if directed with wisdom and energy, may
regenerate and put upon a firmer footing than ever the
free institutions of this Republic. But if it fails, then
greater than ever will be the danger — not of monarchy
or imperialism, but that by a sort of dry-rot our institu-
tions may gradually lose their vitality; that our time-
honored Constitutional principles may be obliterated by
abuses of power establishing themselves as precedents;
1874] Carl Schurz 79
that the machinery of administration may become more
and more a mere instrument of ring-rule, a tool to manu-
facture majorities and to organize plunder; and that, in
the hollow shell of republican forms, the Government will
become the football of rapacious and despotic factions.
With such opportunities and such dangers before us,
it is our duty to examine the problems to be solved with
candor and impartiality. It will be impossible for me to
discuss in the narrow compass of a single speech all ques-
tions of importance. I am obliged to confine myself to-
night to those which are at this hour the most prominent,
leaving others to future occasions. It is one of the great
misfortunes of our situation that we can scarcely attempt
to engage the attention of the people in other subjects
of legislation without being disturbed again and again
by what may be called the Southern problem, reinflaming
party spirit and distracting the popular mind. When the
project of annexing Santo Domingo was before the Senate,
I asked, in the course of my argument opposing it:
"Have we not enough with one South as an element of
disturbance? Do you want to purchase another one?"
No prudent man will deny to-day that that question was
very pertinent.
Last week the whole country was ablaze with excite-
ment over the revolution in Louisiana. My opinion on
the Louisiana case I expressed when it first came up in the
Senate, in February of last year. That opinion was
based upon a conscientious and candid study of the very
elaborate report of our investigating committee. It was
this: That the Kellogg government in that State had
been set up by an act of gross and indefensible usurpation
on the part of a United States District Judge, aided by
United States troops, without the least evidence of an
election by the people; that all the evidence there was of
an election by the people, in the shape of returns, was
8o The Writings of [1874
decidedly in favor of McEnery; that McEnery was prima
facie entitled to the office of governor, subject to subse-
quent contest if any of the returns were fraudulent, and
that the only duty of the National Government in the
case then was simply to undo the usurpation effected
and sustained by its own officers, to restore as much as
possible the condition of things which had existed before
the usurpation, and to leave the final settlement of the
matter to the competent State authorities. The same
views were entertained and expressed by prominent
Republican Senators, especially Senator Edmunds, who is
now chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate.
I hold to that opinion still.
But, while the act of gross usurpation was not denied,
others formed different conclusions. The President had
recognized the Kellogg government when it was first set
up. In a subsequent message to Congress he confessed
his doubts as to Kellogg's title, and asked Congress to
direct him what to do, stating at the same time that, if
Congress failed to act, he would continue to recognize
Kellogg. Congress permitted two sessions to pass with-
out doing anything. Thus Kellogg, in spite of the uni-
versally admitted usurpation, remained de facto governor
of Louisiana, recognized by the National Executive ; while
the McEnery government maintained a show of organiza-
tion, without such recognition.
The time for the election of a new legislature ap-
proached. The opponents of the Kellogg government,
apprehending that no chance for a fair election would be
given to them, organized; an uprising followed, and an
hour's struggle drove Kellogg, with his adherents, to flight ;
whereupon McEnery and his associates possessed them-
selves of the State government.
Then Kellogg called upon the President for military
aid in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. He was
1874] Carl Schurz 81
the only governor of Louisiana recognized by the President,
who also in the manner prescribed by the Constitution,
granted that aid. The troops of the United States re-
instated Kellogg, and the McEnery party, the success-
ful revolutionists, submitted to the National authority
promptly, without the least attempt at resistance. This
was the end of what is called the Louisiana revolution.
But it is not the end of the disease, neither is it the
final remedy. A great wrong has been committed. That
wrong does not consist in the intervention of the President
against those who, by force of arms, had driven Kellogg to
flight ; for the President acted in the exercise of his Consti-
tutional authority. Neither can, in a republic, the right
of self-help by force be admitted, for such an admission
would encourage every party, every individual that has
a grievance, either real or imaginary, to resort to force for
redress, and a state of anarchy would ensue which no
political or social organization could withstand. We
have too much of that self-help already, and too little
patient reliance upon the slow but orderly and peaceable
ways of the law.
But the great wrong was committed before. It was
when a Federal Judge, palpably overstepping the limits
of his jurisdiction and perpetrating an outrage without
precedent in our history, was supported by the power of
the National Government in the act of virtually creating
a State government which had not the least evidence
of an election by the people. It was when the creature
of such an unheard of usurpation was by the same National
Government permitted to stand as a lawful authority, and
to lord it over the people of a State. It was when, even
after the President had confessed his doubt, Congress neg-
lected to undo the usurpation and to make room for those
who had prima facie evidence of an election by the people.
The wrong was committed even before that, and in
VOL. m. — 6
82 The Writings of [1874
more States than Louisiana. It was when Federal
officeholders in the South were permitted to use their
authority and prestige as a power in partisan conflicts,
and for the support and perpetuation of partisan State
governments the most rapacious and corrupt that ever
disgraced a republican country. It was when the counte-
nance of the dominant party was not promptly with-
drawn from the thieves who buried the Southern States
under mountains of debt, and, filling their own pockets,
robbed the people of their substance. It was when the
keeping of the Southern States in the party traces was
deemed more important than that they should have
honest and constitutional government. That wrong is
not remedied by military interference and the subjection
of revolutionists.
Nor was that the only wrong committed in the South.
There was another, and on the other side. It was when
bands of lawless ruffians infested the Southern country,
spreading terror by cruel persecution and murder. It
was when helpless prisoners were slaughtered in cold
blood. It was when neither officers nor volunteers
could be found to arrest the perpetrators of such bloody
deeds, or no juries to convict them. It was when the
better classes of society contented themselves with con-
demnatory resolutions and pious wishes, instead of
straining every nerve to bring the malefactors to justice.
I know it is said that many of the bloody stories which
reach us from the South are inventions or exaggerations.
That may have been, and, undoubtedly, in some cases
was so; but we know also that very many of them were
but too true, and that they cannot be explained as a mere
defense against official robbery, for the murdered victims
were mostly poor negroes, while the real plunderers went
free and safe. We know also that there is a ruffianly
element in the South which, unless vigorously restrained
1874] Carl Schurz 83
by all the power of society, will resort to bloody violence as
a pastime, especially when it is permitted to believe itself
engaged in partisan service, and to be safe under the
protection of public opinion.
And such wrongs and evils cannot be remedied
by mere complaints, however just, of oppression and
usurpation.
This is the state of things we have to deal with. Is
there no remedy for all this except the employment of
force? There must be, if our republican institutions
are to stand ; and it will not be difficult to find and apply
it, if the Government as well as the people will only forget
their partisan interests and think of nothing but the
common welfare.
Louisiana is quiet. Kellogg sits in the governor's
chair — trembling, perhaps, but safe. Nobody harms him.
There is no further attempt at an anarchical movement
on the part of the people. Order reigns. But there is
another kind of anarchy, which is just as dangerous to
republican institutions and to the welfare of the Nation
as the lawless self-help by force of individuals and parties.
It is the anarchy of power. It is the lawlessness of author-
ity. If you want the people to respect and obey the laws,
convince them that those in power do not wilfully dis-
regard them. If you want republican government to
stand, let the government be one emanating from the
people and moving strictly within constitutional forms.
When the citizens of Louisiana, after a successful
revolution, promptly and unconditionally submitted to
the Constitutional authority of the President, they did
their duty. They demonstrated to the world that their
uprising was not a revival of the rebellion of 1861, for
many thousands in arms yielded instantly to a corporal's
guard under the National flag. Their duty to the National
authority was completely performed. They gave up to
84 The Writings of [1874
it even their sense of right. Now it is time that the
National Government should candidly consider what is
its duty toward them.
The President is not expected to reverse his recognition
of the Kellogg government without further action by
Congress. But the election of a new legislature in Louisi-
ana is impending, and at the request of Kellogg a force of
United States soldiers is at hand, professedly to secure
the enforcement of the laws in that election. That
military force may be used impartially, and it may not.
That will depend upon the man who controls it. It will
be in a great measure under the control of United States
Marshal Packard. And who is Packard? Besides being
United States Marshal, he was one of the principal
accomplices of Judge Durell and Kellogg in the usurpa-
tion of two years ago, and he is now the managing spirit
of the State central committee of the Kellogg party.
I venture to suggest that such an accomplice in previous
usurpation and present manager of a political party in a
sharply contested election, such as this, is not a fit person
to manage at the same time the United States troops to
be used in that election. It is of the highest importance
that, especially under existing circumstances, the people
of Louisiana should not only have a fair election, but also
that they should be made to feel that they have one.
And it will be admitted that the irregular and striking
combination of past performances and present functions
in Mr. Packard is not calculated to inspire confidence.
I am sure the whole country would applaud an order of
the President relieving Mr. Packard of his official duties,
and the substitution of a man of such character that
everybody will believe him incapable of abusing his
power for partisan ends.
This is a candid and respectful suggestion which might
be enlarged upon. Indeed, if ever, now is the time to
18741 Carl Schurz 85
call away not only from Louisiana, but from South
Carolina and all the Southern States, or to strip of their
official power, the multitude of Federal officeholders,
who have looked upon themselves as mere party agents,
using all their influence to sustain and strengthen the
bloodsuckers desolating that country, and probably not
in many cases oblivious of their own profit. And I was
sincerely rejoiced when a few days ago I read in the papers
that the President was seriously thinking of holding a
terrible muster of Federal placemen in the South. It is a
timely resolution. Never was it more necessary. Let
us hope that not a single one of those who have made
the Federal authority a symbol of selfish partisan power
and greedy oppression may escape him, and that the
beginning be made with Packard and his associates,
whose partisan appeals led the President to recognize
the Kellogg government two years ago, and brought him
into a position in which he now could not perform the
duty of enforcing the Federal authority without at the
same time sustaining a flagrant wrong.
But there the duty of the National Government does
not end. It will not have been fully performed as long
as the usurpation set on foot by a Federal Judge and
supported by the Federal power is not undone. No
longer than the period of its next meeting should the
Congress of the United States permit any citizen of
Louisiana to believe that the highest legislative power
of the Republic can so far yield to partisan spirit as to
sustain a palpable, an undoubted usurpation, even after
that usurpation has most ignominiously demonstrated
its inability to sustain itself. That duty remains unful-
filled until that precedent is wiped out, which is as dan-
gerous as that of a successful revolution would have been ;
the precedent of a successful coup d'etat, creating a
State government and a legislature without the evidence
86 The Writings of [1874
of election, by the mere fiat of a Federal Judge, supported
by a United States Marshal and Federal bayonets, and
a band of reckless partisan adventurers. Let the highest
powers in the land once more make every citizen under-
stand and feel that, while preserving intact the lawful
authority of the government, they are ready to throw
aside all selfish considerations of party interest when
the rights and the welfare of the people and the integrity
of republican institutions are in question. Let this be
done — let it be done by those who stand at the head of
the dominant party, as a proof of good faith and patriotic
spirit, and the lessons taught by the events in Louisiana
will be of inestimable benefit to the whole American people.
On the other hand, the citizens of the South must not
be permitted to forget that they, too, have a duty to
perform. The people of the North sincerely desire that
they should have honest and Constitutional government.
Even a large majority of the Republicans in the North
have long been heartily disgusted with the government
of thieving adventurers which plundered the South. But
when that public opinion was on the point of becoming
so strong that no partisan spirit in power could have long
resisted it, what happened? The bloody riot in New
Orleans in 1866; the organization of the Ku-Klux all over
the South; the butchery of Grant Parish, in 1873; the
murders of Coushatta ; the slaughter of the helpless negro
prisoners in Trenton, Tennessee, not to speak of minor
atrocities ! What was the effect ? The growing sympathy
with the victims of plunder was turned into sympathy
with the victims of murder.
When the Ku-Klux bill was before the Senate I opposed
it, by argument and vote, on Constitutional grounds. But
knowing, as I did, that the Ku-Klux bill was not only
supported by partisan schemers, anxious for the preserva-
tion of party ascendancy, but also by unselfish and fair-
1874] Carl Schurz 87
minded men, impelled beyond the limits of their Consti-
tutional powers by a generous impulse, I then expressed
the opinion that unless such deeds of bloody violence
were suppressed by the Southern people themselves,
Federal interference in any form, with all its consequences,
would be demanded and sustained by an overpowering
public opinion, and no Constitutional argument would
be strong enough to prevent or stop it. It is to be hoped
that by this time the people of the South have learned
that those who disgrace them by deeds of bloody violence
are their worst enemies. Let them act upon that lesson.
Let them dissolve their white men's leagues; for every
organization based upon a distinction of color is not only
wrong in itself, but harmful to both races. Let them
make the poor negro feel that he has not only a willing,
but an active, protector in every good citizen. Let them
understand that the most efficient method to fight the
thieves who rule them is by relentlessly suppressing the
murderous ruffians among themselves, who strip them
of the sympathy of the country. Silent disapproval is
nothing. Good intentions are nothing. Mere public
resolutions are nothing. Only vigorous action will avail.
Only the practical punishment of malefactors will serve.
They justly demand that no thief shall find grace because
he is a Republican. Let them show that no murderer
will find grace with them because he is a Democrat. Let
party spirit cease to be a shelter to the criminal. No
white man's league will do them any good. An anti-
ruffian league, of which every good citizen is an active
member, is the thing the South wants.
I say this as a true friend of the Southern people, who
has more than once raised his voice against the wrongs they
have suffered. And I hail with gladness the spirit animat-
ing the governor of Tennessee, who does not rest until
all the murderers of Trenton are in the clutches of the
88 The Writings of U8?4
law; and the charge of that Kentucky judge, who tells
his grand jury that if they fail to indict, not only the man
who committed a murder, but also the sheriff who wil-
fully neglected to arrest that murderer, he will find grand
jurymen in another county who will do their duty. In
that spirit, which will relentlessly pursue the lawless
elements of society as the common enemy, there is salva-
tion for the Southern people. Let that spirit prevail in
the South, and no partisanship in the North will be strong
enough to baffle the sympathy which their misfortunes
deserve. The South will again enjoy the largest Consti-
tutional measure of self-government, and one of the
greatest of those dangers will disappear which at present
threaten the most vital part of our republican institutions.
The strongest ground upon which the men, whose
rapacity has been so terrible a curse to the South, have
their claim on public sympathy, is that they are the pro-
tectors of the colored people. Dreadful indeed would be
the fate of the negro, were the protection of thieves their
only safety. When we contemplate the part the colored
people have played in the recent history of the Southern
States, we find them rather to be pitied than to be con-
demned. That they should have fallen under the control
of reckless and designing men, when, ignorant as centuries
of slavery had left them, they entered upon the exercise
of political rights, is by no means astonishing, especially
when we consider that the Southern whites, their late
masters, at first maintained an attitude of hostility to
their new rights, while some of those designing friends
appeared in the character of Federal officeholders, a
character carrying with it an authority which the colored
people were wont to look upon as the very source of their
liberty. Neither is it surprising that the bad example
of such leaders should have had a corrupting influence
upon so impressionable a class of followers.
1874] Carl Schurz 89
While thus every fairminded man will judge the doings
of the colored people themselves with charity, no measure
of condemnation can be too severe for those who made
of the ignorant and credulous multitude a tool in their
schemes of rapacity. What the colored people need above
all things for their own security and welfare is a good
understanding with their white neighbors. Had they,
when they became a power in the political field, been led
by conscientious and wise men, to cast their votes for
good government, and thus to promote the common
interests of both races, that good understanding with
their white neighbors would not long have been wanting.
But what characters did assume the leadership? Men
who assiduously persuaded the negroes that their only
safety was in a strict organization as a race against the
Southern whites, and in blind obedience to the behests
of their commanders; men who used that organization
only to raise themselves to power, and who used that power
for the spoliation of the people ; men, who, in many cases,
after having filled their pockets with spoil, sneaked off
to a place of safety, leaving behind the poor tools of their
iniquity as victims to the exasperation of plundered and
outraged communities.
Truly, there never were professions of affection and
solicitude more damnably treacherous than those lavished
by such men upon the negroes of the South. To place
the negroes of the South in the attitude of organized
partisan supporters of corruption and robbery against
the whites was the blackest crime that could be commit-
ted against the colored race. And I affirm that the men
who did it, the carpet-baggers and plunderers, have been
and are the cruelest, the most treacherous, the most das-
tardly enemies the colored people ever had since their
emancipation.
The mischief is done and we see its consequences. The
90 The Writings of [1874
situation of the colored people has been seriously damaged
by their false friends, and no device of legislation can
furnish an adequate remedy. In this connection a word
on the supplementary civil rights bill. That measure
was brought forward and pressed by the dearest friend
I ever had among the public men of America — a man whose
memory I shall never cease to cherish and revere. This
measure, however, I could not give my support. Nobody
knows better than I do that it sprung from the purest
motives, a rare sincerity of generous impulse and high
patriotic aspirations. But it was based upon a theory of
Constitutional power and upon views of policy upon
which my friend and I had for years been agreed to
disagree.
In a few words I will state my opinions on the bill.
Those who have observed my utterances on questions of
Constitutional power, such as were involved, for instance,
in the Ku-Klux act, need not be told that I must consider
the civil rights bill as transgressing the limits with which
the Constitution hedges in the competency of the National
Government, and as encroaching upon the sphere of State
authority. I will not to-night tire you with a restatement
of principles which I have frequently discussed.
But the civil rights bill, if made a law, would have
other effects which its originator did certainly not design
it to have — effects injuriously touching the interests of
the colored people themselves. It has been said that
the enactment of that bill would be calculated to break
up the whole system of public schools in several of the
Southern States. My observation and reflection con-
vinces me that this apprehension is well grounded. And
nobody would be a greater sufferer than the colored people;
for nothing can be more important to them than that,
issuing as they do from a state of degradation and igno-
rance, an efficient system of public instruction should put
18741 Carl Schurz 91
them on the road of progressive improvement. Any-
thing injuriously affecting such a system must therefore
be gravely injurious to them.
Now, it is a well-known fact that in the States contain-
ing the bulk of the colored population there existed, if
not a general, still a widespread and powerful prejudice
against the introduction of a system of common schools,
to be supported at the public expense. We know some-
thing of that even in Missouri. That prejudice, although
now overborne by a superior public opinion, is far from
being entirely extinct. It requires only a new and strong
impetus to impart to it new strength enough seriously
to disturb what has with difficulty been built up.
It is equally well known that a large majority of the
white people of those States, even a large majority of
those who are sincerely anxious to secure to the colored
children the largest possible advantages of education in
separate establishments, still are very strongly, nay,
violently, opposed to any law which, like the civil rights
bill, would force the admission of colored children together
with white children, in the same schoolrooms. That op-
position exists, and we have to deal with it as a fact.
Try to enforce, under such circumstances, the system of
mixed schools, and what will be the result? The old
prejudice against a system of public instruction to be
supported by taxation, as it still exists in the States in
question, will at once find itself powerfully reinforced,
and to an attack so strengthened, against a defense in
the same measure weakened, it is most probable that
the systems of instruction, laboriously built up, will
succumb. At any rate they will be interrupted for a
disastrously long period.
There is scarcely a greater misfortune conceivable
that could befall those communities. But what would
especially the colored people have gained? Now they
92 The Writings of [1874
have at least their separate schools at the public expense,
as a part of the general system. Destroy that system,
and they will have no mixed schools, while their separate
schools will perish also. Would the law, then, benefit
the colored race at all? A colored man might indeed
then enforce his rights to ride all over the country in a
Pullman palace car, to board at a first-class hotel and to
sit in the dress circle of a theater. But such things can
be enjoyed under any circumstances only by the very
small number of wealthier people among them. And
these pleasures and conveniences of their few men of
means would be purchased at a dreadful price; the inter-
ruption of the public-school system, the advantages of
which they now extensively enjoy in separate establish-
ments, would deprive the children of the poor of a thing
which is as necessary to them as their daily bread. I
happen to know very sensible colored men, who have the
interests of their race sincerely at heart, and who, looking
over the whole field, and recognizing facts as facts, are
not willing to pay the price of their poor children's educa-
tion for their rich men's convenience and pleasure.
At the same time I take this occasion to say that the
facilities of education furnished to the colored people in
separate schools are, in some parts of the country, and
also in several counties of this State, far from sufficient;
and I cannot impress it too strongly upon my fellow-
citizens that it is not only their duty, but their interest,
as it is the general interest of society, to place within the
reach of the poorest and lowliest of them every possible
means by which they can raise themselves to the highest
attainable degree of perfection. I trust, therefore, the
just claims of the colored people will not fail to meet
with full satisfaction.
But in still other respects the enactment of such a law
would not be beneficent to the colored man. Their
1874] Carl Schurz 93
situation as freemen was surrounded with extraordinary
difficulties and dangers from the beginning. They were
confronted by an inveterate prejudice and by that spirit
of reckless violence which is doing so much harm to the
Southern people. Their false friends in the South, using
them for selfish and iniquitous ends, have succeeded in
increasing again the difficulties which the influence of
time and habit was calculated to diminish. It would be
a dangerous venture, dangerous to the colored people, if
their social position were made the objective point of new
strife, under circumstances so unfavorable. Now that
they have the political rights of citizenship it is much
wiser and safer for them to trust to the means they already
possess to make themselves respected, and to leave all
else to the gradual progress of public opinion, which has
already outgrown many a prejudice that a few years ago
still seemed invincible. As their sincere friend, I should
certainly not consider it a favor to them to precipitate
them headlong into numberless and endless personal
conflicts, in which they inevitably would be the sufferers.
But the National Government and the dominating
party can do something far better for the colored man
than pass laws of doubtful Constitutionality or send
troops for their protection. Let them openly and severely
discountenance those corrupt partisans in the South who
have misled the colored people into an organized support
of robbery and misgovernment, and done all they could to
make them believe that in the matured opinion of white
men the science of politics consists in stealing as much of
the public money as you can lay your hands on. Let
them punish, at least with removal, those officeholders
who have prostituted the authority of the Republic by
using their official power to work into the hands of the
plunderers. Let in their places be put men of wisdom,
conscience and honor, who will set them an example of
94 The Writings of [1874
high official integrity and public spirit, and disabuse them
of the idea that whatever they may do as partisans of
those in power, the aid of the National Government will
always stand behind them.
Still more can the colored people themselves do for their
own protection ; and here, I think, is the way to solve the
most difficult part of the problem: They cannot too soon
give up the delusion that they will be safe only as long
as they remain together in the same political organization.
Instead of exercising over one another a system of ter-
rorism, in order to enforce party discipline, they should
encourage among themselves individual independence.
Not in union is their safety, but in division. They have
before them the example of another body of men, who,
although from the beginning far stronger in their social
position and influence, were also, under certain circum-
stances, threatened with an invasion of their political
rights; I mean the adopted citizens. As long as they,
in an almost solid body, stood together on the side of one
party, the other thought of taking their rights from them ;
but no sooner did they break their ranks, and divide,
than both sides stood up for them with equal zeal. It is
a lesson easily understood. As soon as the colored citizens
in the South shake off the odium which arises from their
having, as a solid, organized mass, been the main support
of the worst kind of partisan rule, as soon as every one of
them casts his vote on this side or the other, as his opinions
or inclination may dictate, each party will make their
protection a special object in order to attract a majority
of those votes. And I am rejoiced to learn that the
number of colored citizens who emancipate themselves
from the serfdom of party discipline, and who counsel
with their white neighbors on their political action in order
to secure good government, is growing larger from year
to year. When it will have grown so large that the colored
1874] Carl Schurz 95
voters become an important element, not only in one, but
in both parties, under an impulse of self-interest, each party
will rival in affording them the fullest measure of protection.
That will do more to stop bloody excesses in the South
than any military interference, and more to establish just
and beneficent relations between the two races than any
Congressional legislation. This view of the case may not
be palatable to the managers of the party which so far
has had the almost unanimous support of the colored vote.
Governor Kellogg of Louisiana and Governor Moses of
South Carolina, I apprehend, may not like it. They will
call this the advice of a dangerous disorganizer, as I am
accustomed to be called a dangerous disorganizer when-
ever I advocate a policy which crosses the selfish schemes of
politicians. Well, the advice I give may not be good for
the Kelloggs and Moseses, but I maintain that it is good
for the safety and future welfare of the colored people,
as well as for the cause of honest government in the South.
And I declare myself in favor of honest government and
of the security of every human being in the South in his
life, property and rights, even if it should cost Kellogg
and Moses every particle of political power they possess.
And I hope the time is not far [distant] when every good
citizen in the country, to whatever party he may belong,
will be of the same opinion.
I am not sanguine enough to expect that, even if such
a policy be followed, all elements of disorder will at once
disappear from Southern society; but its most feverish
distemper, at least, may thus be allayed. How much
easier would it be to solve problems, now appearing so
intricate if we could once deal with them on their own
merits, in the light of a broad statesmanship, candid
enough to face and recognize the whole truth, instead of
every moment turning round to ask how this or that
measure, however good in itself, may affect the chances
96 The Writings of [1874
of the Republican or of the Democratic party! How
much error would then be dispelled ! How many dangers
would then be averted! You, honest Republicans, who,
as sincerely as I, desire the protection of the poor negro
and the suppression of violence, would then readily admit
a fact which is as clear as sunlight, that the government of
the Republican carpet-bagger and plunderer in the South,
as a protection to the negro and the Union man, has been
a most glaring and disastrous failure, and that in the very
nature of things it must be so. You would no longer
permit yourselves to be deceived about another fact
equally clear and notorious, that in those Southern States,
where the carpet-baggers and plunderers have ceased to
rule — such as Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Tennes-
see— the poor negro is far better protected and acts
of violence are far less frequent than they were when
that rule still existed, and than they now are in those
States where that rule still exists, as in Louisiana, South
Carolina, Alabama. And you would further understand
that, in directly or indirectly sustaining that iniquitous
rule for partisan advantage, you deprived your own party
of the opportunity of carrying out beneficent and neces-
sary reforms, and drove those States into the arms of
your opponents.
On the other hand, you, honest Democrats, who have
the cause of local self-government as sincerely at heart as
I have, if you could but throw away the same blind par-
tisan spirit, you would at once understand that nothing
in the world can injure and imperil the cause of local
self-government more than those bloody excesses and
violent upheavings, apt to raise a doubt as to the fitness
of the people for its exercise, and that nothing can benefit
that cause more than the practical demonstration that the
self-government of the people in every part of the country
can, even under trying circumstances, be depended upon
1874] Carl Schurz 97
to secure the amplest protection to every man's life,
property and rights. I repeat, how much easier would it
be to solve such problems, how much easier to avert the
dangers to our republican institutions they bring with
them, if but for a short period that partisan spirit could
be dispelled which blinds our eyes against the truth and
cripples our patriotic impulse to do what is right and just
and wise.
It is, indeed, time that this should end. Let the up-
rising of independent thought which we now behold, at
last, break through that strange and dangerous infatua-
tion. Let the American people once more remember that
it is the duty of every citizen first to be a patriot before
being a partisan. Then we shall cease to stumble from
blunder into blunder, and that enlightened statesmanship
will not fail to appear, which by courageous action will
scatter the clouds now hanging with threatening gloom
over the Republic.
i
I ask your pardon for having dwelt so long upon this
subject, but I consider it one of the most important ques-
tions of the day. I am informed that the position I have
taken with regard to it has not had the approval of many
of my constituents. I ask them only to believe that I have
been acting upon convictions which are very sincere and
very strong ; so sincere and so strong indeed that I should
continue to hold them did I stand with them quite alone.
I have been asked by political and personal friends, for
my own sake, either to abstain entirely from expressing
my opinions on the financial question in this campaign,
or at least to compromise a little by declaring myself, for
instance, for specie payments in an indefinite future, but
for some expansion at present. I cannot do that. It is
1 About one-third of this speech was devoted to a discussion of National
finances, more fully treated in other speeches published in these volumes.
VOL. III. — 7
98 The Writings of [1874
against my sense of duty. Did I not consider my con-
victions correct I should not entertain them. Did I not
deem them in accordance with the best interests of the
people, I should not urge them. The fact that some of
my constituents have so far not approved my opinions is
all the more a reason to argue the matter with those who
differ with me. No personal considerations are admissi-
ble. I know that two and two make four. No personal
consideration can make me say that two and two make
five, and no expediency can induce me to compromise the
matter by saying that two and two make about four and
a half. I am absolutely against inflation of any kind.
I am in favor of the immediate adoption of a policy which
will lead us by gradual but decided, direct and irrevocable
steps to the resumption of specie payments. This I
consider right, and for the best interests of the country.
By this I shall stand as long as I stand at all.
Permit me now a few remarks on the issues of the State
campaign in which we are now engaged. I am one of
those who, in 1870, went out of the convention of the party
in whose ranks I had served for fifteen years, for the
purpose of doing an act of justice to a large number of
our fellow-citizens in a manner calculated to produce the
best possible effect upon the future development of the
State. The motives which led me to take a step so ven-
turesome for a public man I have never since seen any
reason to be ashamed or to repent of. Many thousands
of our citizens were then disfranchised in consequence of
their attitude during the civil war. For five years after
the close of the great conflict they had been paying taxes,
and a large majority of them had been bearing all the
burdens and performing all the duties of citizenship
without enjoying any of its political privileges. While
such exceptional restrictions were dictated by the policy
of self-preservation, as war measures, at a time when the
1874] Carl Schurz 99
issues and results of the conflict were still trembling in the
scale, I thought their continuation an unjustifiable wrong
and hardship after those issues and results were firmly
secured. Moreover, those restrictive laws had put into
the hands of the party to which I belonged means to per-
petuate its power, which could not fail to lead, and indeed
had led, to most grievous, tyrannical and demoralizing
abuses. It appeared to me, as it did to thousands of
Republicans, that it was time to make an end of this. I
thought also that if a large number of Republicans
stepped before those who had been deprived of their
political rights, saying: " We, members of the dominant
party, which might, by maintaining disfranchisement,
perpetuate its ascendancy ever so long, actuated as we
are by a sense of justice and the impulse of fraternal
feeling, restore to you, freely and voluntarily, all the rights
and political privileges of which you have been deprived"
— such an act would go far to wipe out forever all the old
passions and animosities of past conflicts, and unite the
whole people of the State in the bonds of mutual confidence
and good understanding. I thought also that such an
act of justice, voluntarily performed at the risk of our
political fortunes, would, as an example of political inde-
pendence, be well calculated to disarm for the future that
partisan spirit which so frequently has stood, and now
stands, in the way of good government.
That was my motive and purpose. Neither can it be
said that any desire or expectation of personal reward
inspired that step. Had it been so, then I should have
improved my advantage by joining the Democratic party,
when that turned up as a majority in this State, to make
good my claim on their gratitude, if there be such a thing.
But I declared in 1870, and in 1872 again, that I had sepa-
rated from the Republican majority with no such in-
tention. Doubts were expressed at the time as to the
ioo The Writings of [1874
sincerity of that declaration; but I think I have proved
that sincerity by maintaining ever since an attitude of
absolute independence, acting on the field of National
politics upon the same motives and principles which de-
termined my course in the State of Missouri. And I am
gratified to know that a large majority of those with whom
I stood in 1870 have been governed by the same spirit.
It is my duty to say that the purposes for which the
movement of 1870 was undertaken, have met with some
disappointment. I do not lay any stress on the fact that
a certain class of the same men for whose political rights
and privileges we rose up in 1870, and who then pressed
our hands, called us their saviors and deliverers, and
extolled to the skies the virtue of our moral courage for the
right and our political independence, now, when we act
upon the same principles, find no insinuation too mean and
no abuse too gross to vilify us before the people in press
and speech. Such obloquy, although intended to hurt,
does but little if any injury to those against whom it is
directed; but what may we think of the gentlemanly
spirit of the men who descend to it? As for myself I
cannot restrain a feeling of profound pity when beholding
the spectacle of such conduct, and I turn with a sense of
relief to the honorable men amongst them who have
remained true to the nobler instincts of human nature.
But, while attaching little consequence to these personal
matters, leaving everybody to be as much of a gentleman
as he pleases — the welfare of the State is entitled to more
serious consideration. We have a right to ask those of
the Democratic party who for some years have controlled
the government of Missouri, What have you done with
that power which you derived from the unselfish and
generous movement of 1870? How have you cultivated
that fraternal feeling between the late enemies in war,
now to be friends again ; that feeling which prompted the
1874] Carl Schurz 101
movement of 1870, and from which you derived your
profit? What has become, under your rule, of that gener-
ous non-partisan spirit which in 1870 showed itself on our
side ready to renounce party ascendancy that none of you
might continue to suffer under the injustice of disfranchise-
ment? What has become of good government in Missouri
under your control?
Fraternal feeling! What spirit is it that now again
boisterously appeals through the organ of your leading
men to ceaseless yearnings for revenge? What spirit is
it that thus sedulously strives to revive the bitterest pas-
sions of the civil war to new acrimony, after so generous
a gage of reconciliation and friendship had been freely
given you by men who held power and might have kept
it? What spirit is it that in some counties of the State
uses every means of private and official annoyance to
make it uncomfortable for old Union men to live there,
and to deter other Union men from coming there?
Mitigation of partisan spirit ! What spirit is it which
loudly proclaims through the organs of the same leading
men that slavish obedience is the order of the day, and
that the Democratic party will "slay" every man who
has moral courage enough to utter an opinion of his own
at variance with the despotic behests of party rule ? What
spirit is it that vociferously threatens St. Louis with deadly
legislation if her citizens should dare to turn out any other
than a Democratic majority — the same citizens of St.
Louis whose political independence you praised when, in
1870, they gave an almost unprecedented majority against
disfranchisement? What spirit is it which, in the first
platform the Democratic party of Missouri has made alone
since 1868, commits itself to the principle of repudiation,
and thus seeks to ruin the credit and to tarnish the good
name of the people of Missouri ?
Good government! What has become of the reputa-
102 The Writings of [1874
tion of the State under your rule, when the newspapers
of the country East and West, as well as our own, are
alive with accounts of highway robbery and murder in
Missouri, which the government showed itself utterly
impotent to repress and punish?
And here you will pardon me for taking notice of that
somewhat amusing attempt made recently by partisan
papers to charge me with defaming the State, and fright-
ening away immigration, because I had in public speech
called those occurrences disgraceful to Missouri, and had
demanded that the people give themselves a government
which will honestly and rigorously enforce the laws. I
have been accused of having called Missouri the "robber
State. " I have to pronounce that utterly false. What
I did say is this : The good citizens of Missouri have risen
up to demand "that the scandalous and alarming brigand-
age and ruffianism which so long a time have been per-
mitted to disgrace the fair name of this State shall at last
be rooted out by the strong hand of power honestly wielded ;
that the farmer shall feel safe in the solitude of his forest
or prairie home, and that the traveller on every high- and
by-way of the State shall be without fear of assault and
robbery ; that the laws be enforced rigorously and impar-
tially, without regard to person, to local prejudice or feel-
ing, or to political influence — enforced not only in hollow
profession but in honest fact. " That is what I said, and
that is all; and therefore a defamer of the State! Ah, it
is rather a stale trick of demagogism to accuse those who
denounce existing evils, and insist upon redress, of de-
faming the Commonwealth — a stale trick, I say, as old
as demagogism itself. Already the Greeks and Romans
knew it and buried it under contemptuous ridicule. What
we see now is only a feeble posthumous imitation.
Why did you not tell us in 1870 not to expose the
wrongs of disfranchisement lest we defame the State and
1874] Carl Schurz 103
frighten Southern immigrants from our borders? Why
do you not tell those who expose corruption in the
National Government to stop lest they defame the United
States and frighten away European immigration? Who
defamed the State when to me in my seat in the Senate
more than once some of my associates came with news-
papers in their hands containing lengthy accounts of the
shameless brigandage here, and when I was asked the
question: "Have you no laws and no government in
Missouri?"
Who was defaming the State, when even European
journals printed accounts of the Gad's Hill robbery as a
racy anecdote, to show their readers what things can be
done in this commonwealth with impunity?
And now, accuse those of wronging the community
who insist that such scandals be stopped! As the irony
of accident would have it, one of the Democratic papers
of this city, which had called me a slanderer in one issue,
published in the very next two articles, one telling the
story of a murderous assault and robbery committed by a
band of masked brigands upon an emigrant camp in the
western part of this State, and the other giving the details
of two street broils in Lexington, in which two men were
mortally and one slightly wounded. And these interest-
ing pieces of information are now making the round of the
American press. This was only last week. Who defamed
the State? Who frightened away immigrants? And the
same Democratic paper but recently spoke with a sort
of approving and encouraging tenderness of the chivalrous
habit of the "ruddy young fellows" to settle their diffi-
culties by lustily pulling out their pistols or knives, and
shooting or stabbing one another dead on the public
streets.
This is not a matter to be trifled with, or to be slurred
over by sneering at those who demand a remedy.
104 The Writings of [1874
The question is, Have not these murders and highway
robberies happened? Not I, but every man in the land
who reads newspapers will answer that they have hap-
pened— not once, but time and time again. Have the
perpetrators been arrested and punished? Not I, but
every man in the land who keeps the run of current news
answers that the perpetrators are at large, and are turning
up every moment to do the same thing without being
arrested, tried and punished. Has the power of the
government been rigorously exerted to arrest this dis-
graceful scandal? The reading public all over the country
remembers that the friends of the governor excused him
for not acting efficiently, on the ground that he could not
obtain the necessary aid from a legislature of his own
party.
Has every political party in the State pronounced itself
emphatically for a relentless suppression of these out-
rages and a vigorous enforcement of the laws? The whole
country, reading the Democratic platform of Missouri, has
learned that the Democratic party in State convention
forgot all about it.
Is there not, in spite of this strange case of forgetful-
ness, at least a unanimous sentiment among the ruling
party hostile to such disorders? The country learns that
a leading organ of that party finds the young men who are
"handy with knife and pistol," and shoot and stab to
their hearts' content, rather a nice and desirable set of
fellows, and almost the whole Democratic press lustily
chimes in, calling a public slanderer and unworthy of
regard every man who denounces those scandals and
insists upon their repression.
Who defames the State now? Who frightens away
immigration? In the first place, the men who committed
the murders and robberies. In the second place, those
wielding power, who so long suffered these things to be
1874] Carl Schurz 105
done and repeated again and again with impunity. In
the third place, the so far dominant party which deemed
this crying evil so trifling, and its suppression so unim-
portant, that when it defined its policy it forgot all about
it. And in the fourth place the newspapers and the men
who denounce those as enemies of the State who acknow-
ledge the evil and demand a remedy.
It avails you little to say that murders and robberies
happen in other States and countries also, and in some of
them still more than here. True there are more homicides
in some of the Southern States and more brigandage in
Italy. But I insist that whatever may be the condition
of other States and countries, here in Missouri there is
altogether too much of it ; that it has prevented the immi-
gration of farmers to our prairies ; that it has discouraged
orderly people who like the rule of law better than knives
and revolvers from settling in our country towns ; that it
has depreciated the value of our lands; that it has hin-
dered the progress and prosperity of the State, and that
it is a dishonor to the whole Commonwealth.
This is a hard, undeniable fact, and if the Democratic
party, as an organization, have no stomach to face it and
provide a remedy, it is fortunate for the State of Missouri
that there are other people, and among them many thou-
sands of Democrats, who care more for the State than for
the party.
And here, fellow-citizens, I can point with satisfaction
to the redeeming feature of that condition of things in
Missouri, which issued from the movement of 1870.
That movement could not be destined to end in a revival
of those animosities of past conflicts which it was designed
to change into fraternal accord; in a partisan rule more
intolerant and overbearing than that which preceded it;
in a government recklessly unmindful of public peace and
security. It could not end there, and I am happy and
106 The Writings of [1874
proud to say it has not ended there. In spite of the reac-
tion of the last few years that spirit of independent thought
and courageous action which broke loose from radical
party control to give their rights to the disfranchised, to
the people friendly conciliation and to the Commonwealth
good and impartial government, that spirit has after all
borne most excellent fruit ; for to-day we see it rising with
fresh strength in the many thousands of men who on their
part have broken loose from Democratic party control to
preserve those blessings which the movement of 1870 did
bring forth, and to secure those which it attempted but
failed to secure. I never despaired of its ultimate success.
It was natural, perhaps, that after having broken an
overstrained partisan rule on one side, it should at first
produce too great a rebound to the other. But I always
trusted that at last it would bring us to a just equilibrium.
Thus the work of 1874 *s *° De the completion of the work
of 1870. All the good which was then accomplished will
remain, and the evil consequences which then ensued shall
now be remedied. That is the meaning of this campaign.
And to carry this work to a successful issue, the farmer
is leaving his plow and the merchant his counting-room;
the old Republican and the old Democrat are laying aside
their differences of opinion to join hands as good citizens
in a common effort. Hundreds and thousands of men,
who, for many years, had devoted themselves exclusively
to their pursuits or to the quiet enjoyments of private life,
are stepping forward, once more exposing themselves to the
buffets of political strife to give to our State the blessings
of good government. Surely, no unworthy cause could
have produced so inspiring an effect. And with the ut-
most candor I ask every patriotic citizen of Missouri, who
has the welfare of our State sincerely at heart, can he
find a better way to serve that welfare than by joining in
this effort?
1874! Carl Schurz 107
Is it not well, is it not absolutely necessary that the
attempt be emphatically rebuked, which the Democratic
organization is making, and which will succeed, if their
candidates are elected, to commit the people of Missouri
for the principle of repudiation as it stands in the Demo-
cratic platform — a commitment which cannot fail most
grievously to injure us by creating general distrust in our
honesty, to drive capital away from our borders, and
to blacken the character of our Commonwealth? This
most important consideration alone should decide the
mind of every citizen who has any conception of his true
interests.
Is it not necessary that we should put the power of the
Government in the hands of men who will vigorously
wield that power to punish and suppress brigandage and
murder with a relentless hand, men who, unmoved by
local sentiment or partisan bias, will lift up the authority
of the law from its disgraceful impotency, and will make
the officers of the law do their whole duty without fear
or favor? Men who will never permit themselves to
forget, nor be surrounded with influences which will make
them forget, that the protection of life and property is one
of the first duties of the Government, as the Democratic
organization seem to have forgotten it?
Is it not well and necessary, especially in times of busi-
ness stagnation and distress like these, to lighten the bur-
dens weighing heavily upon the people by strict economy,
to turn every dollar raised by taxation or derived as in-
terest on public moneys to the benefit of the community,
instead of making public officers rich, or even enabling
political favorites to fatten still more upon the substance
of the people, by increasing, as has been done, their already
exorbitant perquisites?
Is it not well and necessary to break the despotic
partisan rule which vociferously pronounces the sentence
io8 The Writings of ll8™
of political death upon every man who dares to have an
independent opinion; which insolently threatens the first
commercial city of the State with injurious legislation,
if the people of that city, true to their honest and patriotic
impulses, refuse to work into the hands of partisan rings ;
and which, if permitted to continue in power, bids fair
to spread a network of organization over the State which
will make the government, with its power and emolu-
ments, the monopoly of a few ring-masters, and against
which the people then will struggle in vain?
Is it not well and necessary that those who still speak
of "ceaseless yearnings for revenge" should be emphati-
cally informed by our votes that, in the opinion of the
people of Missouri, the war is over; that the people want
those who once were enemies to be friends again, that in
such a spirit they mean to enforce peace, order and im-
partial justice, and that they look upon every one who now,
by insidious appeals, attempts to revive the old passions
and resentments of the civil conflict as a reckless dis-
turber, as an enemy of society?
And here I wish to address a word directly to the late
Confederates among us. There is not one of you who can
say that I, or those who thought and acted as I did, have
been controlled by any prejudice or motive of hostility to
you. You will scarcely deny that we have shown a very dif-
ferent spirit, and we did it, exposing ourselves to ill-will and
vituperation on the part of many of those who had been
our friends, and at the risk of our political fortunes. You
were reinstated in the full exercise of your political rights,
not by your own exertions, for you were powerless; nor
by the Democratic party, for the Democratic party alone
was powerless. You were so reinstated because there
were Union men, Republicans, enough in Missouri, who,
with the earnest determination to be just to you, defied
all the prejudices still existing and all the political inter-
1874] Carl Schurz 109
ests that were against you. The spirit of justice, and
nothing else, made it possible for you to acquire the in-
fluence which you now possess. This is a matter of
history.
I remind you of these things not in order to establish
any personal claim on your gratitude. I have had too
much experience in public life to ignore what such claims
are worth, and on that score I hereby absolve every one of
what, in a moment of sentimental emotion, he might have
thought a personal obligation. But you cannot be ab-
solved from your obligations to the welfare of the State.
I remind you of it for your own sakes, because it ought
not to be lost sight of when you form your own opinion
as to the attitude you should assume.
After all this has happened; after your former antago-
nists have given you the most conclusive proof, not only
that they desired to bury forever all the animosities of
the past, but also that they wanted you to enjoy all the
rights and privileges they enjoyed, and that in no conceiv-
able sense any discrimination should be made against you
— after all this, and while there is not a Union man in
Missouri who, in any competition of political or business
life, attempts to make your position during the war a
point against you — do you think it is quite right and quite
wise that so many of you should make past service in the
Union or the Confederate cause an issue against or for any
man in private or political life? Is it quite right and
wise, for instance, that your organs should excite preju-
dice and inflame animosity against such a man as Major
Gentry, whom every one of you knows to be a gentleman
of unspotted integrity, high character, an able mind and
generous instincts, on the ground that as a Union man he
performed the duties of an officer in a regiment of home
guards? Is it quite right and wise, since the People's
party have shown their spirit by nominating two Confed-
i io The Writings of fl874
erates among their candidates for public position, you
should make an issue against others which nobody makes
against you, and you should be the first to rekindle again
the old spirit of resentment?
I may be told that such are not the sentiments animat-
ing a majority of the Confederates in Missouri. I hope
so, and nobody will be happier than I to acknowledge the
fact. But if it be so, is it quite wise to permit your organs
thus to misrepresent the majority and to carry on that
most mischievous sort of agitation without an emphatic
rebuke?
My action with regard to your rights may entitle me at
least to speak a word of candid advice without appearing
impertinent. A revival of the passions of the war, in-
stigated by Confederates for their advantage, may turn
out to be a two-edged weapon. It might in the course of
time array all the old Union men on one side and the
Confederates on the other. Certainly the old Union men
would not be the weaker party, and the spirit animating
that party would be according to the provocation.
I need not say, for I have given sufficient proof of my
sentiments, that I should most heartily deplore such a
division of elements as a great misfortune to all classes of
our people, and I earnestly entreat the late Confederates
to do nothing which might lead to it. As their friend I
appeal to them to frown down among themselves every
demagogue who urges them on in so mischievous, so
suicidal a course.
You, Confederates, wanted to be received back in the
body of citizens with the full rights of citizenship. We
forgot the war. We gave you a welcome with open arms,
without reserve, to be citizens with us — no less, no more.
With your disfranchisement removed in such a man-
ner as it was, ceased your right to regard yourselves as
a separate class. Nobody threatens your rights. You
1874] Carl Schurz in
have no separate interests to bind you together in political
action. The memories you have in common you may
cultivate, as we cultivate ours, but you should not make
them a political element, as we do not. You have no
true interests of your own which are not the interests of
every other citizen. Does not every patriotic instinct tell
you it is time, and indeed, it is best for you, as it is best
for all of us, that at last you should sink the Confederate
in the citizen ; that you should not keep alive distinctions
which cannot be cultivated without injury to yourselves
and to the common good ; that as citizens you should make
the public welfare your only object in political life, and
at last throw off those partisan shackles which hinder you
in doing so? That is a nobler, and surely a more useful
ambition, than to wrangle among yourselves as to whose
war record entitles him to the best office, or to make a point
against an honorable man because he was an officer in the
home guards.
What is there that can prevent any sincere man among
you from joining our effort to give this State good govern-
ment, when your own consciences must tell you that the
partisan rule against which we have risen was an injury
to the best interests of the State, and certainly no honor
to those who supported it? What prevents you from
doing what your own best instincts must prompt you to do?
Do you want to do something that will serve your
friends in the South? Let me say to you that, better than
by stubbornly perpetuating the evils under which this
State suffers, will you serve them by giving them an ex-
ample of wise discrimination, of courageous independence
and of an enlightened public spirit. Show them that in
your opinion the late Confederate should not be the last
but the very first to seize with zeal and earnestness every
opportunity to work for the common good, resolutely
turning his back upon the past and throwing aside all the
ii2 The Writings of [1874
small spite and petty ambitions of partisanship. Set
them this example in such a manner that your Southern
brethren cannot fail to see, to admire and to imitate it, and
you will have rendered them a service of inestimable and
lasting value. As we offered to the Confederates our hands
in the work of 1870, so we offer them our hands once more
for the completion of that work. It is not disfranchise-
ment from which they are to be delivered, but they are to
deliver themselves from a sinister party servitude, which
stifles their noblest ambition and impairs their useful-
ness as citizens. Whether this advice be taken kindly
or not, whether it be followed by many or few, the time
will come when even those who now reject it will recognize
it as the counsel of a true friend who was just to them
when they needed it, and who now only calls upon them to
be just to themselves.
But we, at least, my fellow-citizens, conscious of serv-
ing a good cause, will go forward with unfaltering courage
and determination. Let the little tricks and squirmings
of partisan spite or speculation, filling with noise the air
around you, not disturb your equanimity. They have
not repressed the People's movement in its rise, they will
not hamper it in its progress. Every blow of intrigue or
malice that was aimed at it has brought to its ranks scores
of honest men whom we welcome with pride. Let not
one of you be deterred from taking his stand boldly ac-
cording to his sense of duty by the little arrows of abuse
which may be shot at him. I have now been well-nigh
twenty years more or less active in public life, and so
often have I seen the same men cover me with obloquy
one day and with lavish praise the next, so often have I
been killed stone-dead politically and risen up again fully
alive, that I can speak from experience : He who walks
his path with unswerving fidelity to his convictions of
right has nothing to fear. Malice always dies of its own
1874] Carl Schurz 113
poison. Every unjust aspersion upon you will raise you
in the esteem of a just community, as every mean attack
upon a good cause will strengthen it by the disgust it
excites.
I candidly believe the independent men of Missouri are
strong enough to carry to a successful end the great task
which they have undertaken, the task of completing the
work of 1870. They will inscribe upon the annals of this
State a lesson which the politicians of this generation will
remember as long as they live: That no political party,
whatever its name or fame, however strong in numbers
or compact in organization, can in this State abuse its
power, without provoking an uprising of patriotic and
independent men that will overthrow it. Such a lesson
vigorously taught will be for all the future an inestimable
blessing. This blessing alone is worth all the exertion
to which this hour summons you. And when that victory
is achieved, which can scarcely fail us, if every true man
does his duty, then it may well be said again that the peo-
ple of Missouri are governing themselves. We shall by
the honest independence of our public spirit have set to
the country an example how without partisanship the
welfare of all may be served. And Missouri will stand
before the world with lawlessness suppressed, and re-
pudiation repudiated, a Commonwealth proud of its in-
tegrity, hopeful in its assured progress and strong in the
courageous patriotism of its citizens.
TO SAMUEL BOWLES
OSWEGO, N. Y., Nov. 27, 1874.
Friend Bowles: Thanks for your kind letter. I re-
gret to say that it will be impossible for me to call on
you at Springfield before the meeting of Congress, although
I should be no less glad than you say you would be if we
VOL. III. — 8
ii4 The Writings of [1874
could have a good hard-pan talk. The nearest I shall get
to you will be on Thursday, Dec. 3rd, when I shall lec-
ture at Albany, arriving there at 2.20 P.M. from Batavia;
and after that two more appointments on my way to
Washington.
I should like to consult you on something which is
occupying my mind very much. After the close of my
Senatorial career I intend to devote myself wholly to
literary work, and, if I am able, to do something that will
last. A publisher in Philadelphia recently made a prop-
osition to me to write a "Political History of the United
States," which he wanted to have in the market in the
year '76, — a sort of Centennial business. That, of course,
cannot be done, but in thinking the matter over, I have
become convinced that there is room for such a work,
and I have pretty well made up my mind to undertake
it. Can you inform me, which is the best publishing
firm in Boston that can be depended upon not only to put
out such a work in good shape, but also to "make it go"?
I should prefer to have a publisher in Boston, because
it is quite probable that much of the work, which will
require several years of steady labor, will be done in the
literary atmosphere and near the great libraries of Boston,
and it is a great convenience to be in close and constant
communication with the publisher. In fact, my family
like St. Louis so little and Boston so much — and the latter
predilection I share with them — that it would not be sur-
prising at all, if my exit from public life and my entrance
upon serious literary pursuits should eventually, and per-
haps very soon, result in a permanent residence under the
shadow of the pine tree, since political considerations will
be no longer of importance, and I think I can arrange my
affairs accordingly. Of course, there is nothing certain
about it, and I speak of this only in strict confidence be-
tween you and me. What do you say to that? . . .
1874] Carl Schurz 115
FROM SAMUEL BOWLES
SPRINGFIELD, MASS., Dec. 3, 1874.
My dear Schurz : A political history of the United States
is really greatly needed. Only a week ago we talked of it at
the Bird Club dinner — the lack of such a book, the great need
of one for young men. You are the best man I know of to
write it. At Boston, Osgood & Co., or Lee & Shepard would
perhaps be the best publishers; at New York, Appleton & Co.,
or, possibly, the Harpers.
I cannot bear to think of your retiring from public life.
I don't believe you will. If you do, we shall be delighted to
have you come to Massachusetts to live. If you were here
now we could elect you Senator, just as easy !
I think it might well be a question, coming here, whether you
would live in Cambridge or Concord or Boston, or whether you
would n't select one of our provincial cities, like Springfield,
or towns like Northampton. In the latter, you would have,
in many respects, a more individual, independent position.
In Boston and its vicinity, it is somehow very provincial and
narrowing. All the clever fellows who settle down and around
there are very apt to get into narrowing grooves. I believe
it is a fact that Western Massachusetts is broader, more liberal,
more individual and independent in thought, than the larger
population and greater apparent activity of the eastern part of
the State. However, all this is a nice question, hardly worth
your bothering yourself about. Only come to us, if you can,
and be assured of a most hearty welcome. . . .
MILITARY INTERFERENCE IN LOUISIANA1
MR. PRESIDENT : — I beg the Senate to believe me when
I say that I approach this subject in no partisan spirit.
1 Speech in the U. S. Senate, Jan. n, 1875. The Senate had just agreed
to take up the following resolution which Schurz had offered a few days
before: " Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to
inquire what legislation by Congress is necessary to secure to the people
of the State of Louisiana their rights of self-government under the Consti-
tution, and to report with the least possible delay by bill or otherwise."
n6 The Writings of [1875
About to retire to private station, the success of no party
can benefit and the defeat of no party can injure me,
except in those interests which I have in common with
all American citizens, whose own and whose children's
fortunes are bound up in the fortunes of the Republic. I
have formed my opinions with deliberation and impar-
tiality, and I shall endeavor to express them in the calmest
and most temperate language at my command. The
subject is so great that passion or prejudice should cer-
tainly have no share in our judgment.
I must confess that the news that came from Louisiana
a few days ago has profoundly alarmed me. A thing has
happened which never happened in this country before,
and which nobody, I trust, ever thought possible.
In the debates of last week it was frequently said that
no expression of opinion upon that occurrence would be
quite legitimate until an official report setting forth all the
details of fact should be before us. I do not quite think so.
All the important circumstances of the case have come to
our knowledge through a multitude of concurrent state-
ments, among them an elaborate dispatch of General
Sheridan, statements from Mr. Kellogg and Mr. Wiltz,
and numerous reports in the newspapers of the country, all
agreeing upon the essential points. I believe the addi-
tional details which still can be furnished will not change
the aspect of the case as to its real significance. The
facts as they appear are the following:
On the 4th of January the legislature of Louisiana was
to assemble and organize in the statehouse of that State.
It did so assemble at the time and in the place fixed by law.
The statehouse was surrounded by armed forces, among
them troops of the United States. The legislature assem-
bled "without any disturbance of the public peace," in
the language of General Sheridan. The clerk of the late
house of representatives called it to order, he called the
Carl Schurz 117
roll of its members according to the list furnished by the
returning board fixed by law. A legal quorum answered
to their names. While the result was being announced, a
motion was made by a member, Mr. Bellew, to appoint
L. A. Wiltz temporary speaker. That motion was put
and declared carried; not, however, by the clerk of the
late house. Mr. Wiltz took possession of the chair; the
oath of office was administered to him by Justice Houston,
and he then administered the oath to the members
returned. A motion was made to appoint a certain gentle-
man clerk and another sergeant-at-arms of the assembly.
The motion was put and declared carried. A resolution
was then offered to admit the following persons to seats
in the legislature: Charles Schuyler and John Scales, of
De Soto Parish; James Brice, Jr., of Bienville Parish;
C. C. Dunn, of Grant Parish, and George A. Kelly, of the
parish of Winn.
The status of these persons was the following: The
returning board of Louisiana had declined to pass judg-
ment upon the elections in the parishes named and ex-
pressly referred the claims of the five persons whose names
I have mentioned to the legislature itself for adjudication,
thus distinctly recognizing the possibility of their being
legally elected members.- of that legislature. The ques-
tion on the resolution to seat them was put and declared
carried, thus admitting them to seats subject to further
contest. They were sworn in.
A motion was made to proceed to the election of perma-
nent officers. L. A. Wiltz was nominated for the speaker-
ship by the conservatives, and M. Hahn and C. W. Lowell
by the Republicans. Mr. Lowell declined. The motion
was declared carried. The roll was called, and 55 votes
were cast for Mr. Wiltz as speaker, 2 votes for Mr. Hahn, a
legal quorum voting, and 14 members, as is reported, not
voting at all. Mr. Wiltz was sworn in, and the roll being
n8 The Writings of [1875
called the members were sworn in by him at the speaker's
stand, among them 5 Republican members, Hahn, Baker,
Drury, Murrell and Thomas, who participated in the
proceedings. A permanent clerk and sergeant-at-arms
were likewise declared elected upon motion. Mr. Wiltz as
speaker then announced the house permanently organized
and ready for business. Upon the motion of Mr. Dupre, a
committee of seven on elections and returns was appointed.
In the meantime considerable disturbance and confu-
sion had arisen in the lobby which the sergeant-at-arms
seemed unable to suppress. Mr. Wiltz, the speaker, then
sent for General De Trobriand, of the United States Army,
who some time previous had occupied the statehouse
with his soldiers, and requested him to speak to the dis-
orderly persons in the lobby that a conflict might be pre-
vented. The General did so, and order was restored.
The house proceeded then with its business. The com-
mittee on elections and returns reported, and upon their
report the following persons were seated as members and
sworn in: John A. Quinn, of the parish of Avoyelles; J. J.
Horan, A. D. Land and James R. Vaughan, of the parish
of Caddo; J. Jeffries, R. L. Luckett and G. W. Stafford,
of the parish of Rapides ; and William H. Schwing, of the
parish of Iberia. Then, at three o'clock in the afternoon,
General De Trobriand, of the United States Army, en-
tered the legislative hall of Louisiana in full uniform, with
his sword by his side, and accompanied by two members
of his staff and Mr. Vigers, clerk of the late house of rep-
resentatives; and he exhibited to the gentleman presid-
ing over the house the following documents :
STATE OF LOUISIANA, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
NEW ORLEANS, Jan. 4.
GENERAL DE TROBRIAND, Commanding:
An illegal assembly of men having taken possession of the
hall of the house of representatives, and the police not being
Carl Schurz 119
able to dislodge them, I respectfully request that you will
immediately clear the hall and statehouse of all persons not
returned as legal members of the house of representatives by
the returning board of the State.
WM. P. KELLOGG,
Governor of the State of Louisiana.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
NEW ORLEANS, Jan. 4.
GENERAL DE TROBRIAND:
The clerk of the house, who has in his possession the roll
issued by the secretary of state of legal members of the house
of representatives, will point out to you those persons now
in the hall of the house of representatives returned by the
legal returning board of the State.
WM. P. KELLOGG,
Governor of the State.
When these documents were exhibited to him, the chair
refused to allow Mr. Vigers to read them to the house and
to call the roll of members, so that those designated in
Governor Kellogg's letter might be discovered; where-
upon General De Trobriand, of the United States Army,
had pointed out to him by one Hugh J. Campbell and one
T. C. Anderson the persons holding seats to be ejected;
and those persons refusing to go out, a file of United States
soldiers was brought into action, who with fixed bayonets
stood in that legislative hall, seized the persons pointed
out to them and against their protest ejected them by
force from their seats in the legislature of that State.
And who were those persons?
When the legislature convened — and, I repeat, it con-
vened according to law, at the time and in the place fixed
by law, called to order by the very officer designated by
law — those persons were claimants for seats on the ground
of the votes they had received; some of them presenting
120 The Writings of [1875
claims so strong, on the ground of majorities so large,
that even such a returning board as Louisiana had, did
not dare to decide against them ; and when they had been
seated in the legislature, organized as I have described,
United States soldiers with fixed bayonets decided the
case against them and took them out of the legislative
hall by force. When that had been done the conserva-
tive members left that hall in a body with a solemn pro-
test. The United States soldiery kept possession of it ; and
then, under their protection, the Republicans organized
the legislature to suit themselves.
This is what happened in the statehouse of Louisiana
on the 4th day of January.
Sir, there is one thing which every free people living
under a constitutional government watches with peculiar
jealousy as the most essential safeguard of representative
institutions. It is the absolute freedom of legislative
bodies from interference on the part of executive power,
especially by force. Therefore, in a truly constitutional
government, may the proceedings of the legislature be
good or ever so bad, is such interference, especially as
concerns the admission of its own members, most emphati-
cally condemned and most carefully guarded against,
whether it proceed from a governor or from a president or
from a king, under whatever circumstances, on whatever
pretexts. And whenever such interference is successfully
carried out, it is always, and justly, looked upon as a
sure sign of the decline of free institutions.
There is another thing which especially the American
people hold sacred as the life element of their republican
freedom: It is the right to govern and administer their
local affairs independently through the exercise of that
self-government which lives and has its being in the
organism of the States; and therefore we find in the
Constitution of the Republic the power of the National
i87sl Carl Schurz 121
Government to interfere in State affairs most scrupulously
limited to certain well-defined cases and the observance of
certain strictly-prescribed forms; and if these limitations
be arbitrarily disregarded by the National authority, and
if such violation be permitted by the Congress of the
United States, we shall surely have reason to say that our
system of republican government is in danger.
We are by the recent events in Louisiana forced to
inquire how the cause of local self-government and of
legislative privilege stands in the United States to-day.
Before laying their hands upon things so important, so
sacred, the authorities should certainly have well assured
themselves that they have the clearest, the most obvious,
the most unequivocal, the most unquestionable warrant
of law. Where, I ask, is that warrant? In the Con-
stitution of the United States we find but one sentence
referring to the subject. It says in the fourth section of the
fourth article:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this
Union a republican form of government, and shall protect
each of them against invasion; and on application of the
legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be
convened) against domestic violence.
So far the Constitution. There are two statutes pre-
scribing the mode in which this is to be done, one passed
in 1795 and the other in 1807. The former provides that
"in case of insurrection in any State against the govern-
ment thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the
United States, on application of the legislature of such
State or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be
convened) to call upon the militia of other States to sup-
press the insurrection." The statute of 1807 authorizes
the President to employ the regular Army and Navy for
122 The Writings of [1875
the same purpose, provided, however, that he "has first
observed all the prerequisites of the law. "
Had in this case the circumstances so described occurred,
and were "all the prerequisites of the law" observed?
There had been an insurrection in Louisiana on the I4th
of September, 1874, a11 insurrection against the State
government recognized by the President of the United
States. That State government had been overthrown
by the insurgents. The President, having been called
upon by Acting Governor Kellogg, issued his procla-
mation commanding the insurgents to desist. They did
so desist at once, and the Kellogg government was re-
stored without a struggle, and has not been attacked
since. The insurrection, as such, was totally ended.
On the 4th of January nobody pretends that there was
any insurrection. The State of Louisiana was quiet.
The statehouse was surrounded by the armed forces of
Governor Kellogg. Those forces were not resisted; their
services were not even called into requisition. There was
certainly no demand upon the President for military
interference by the legislature; neither was there by the
Governor "in case the legislature could not be convened, "
for the legislature did convene without any obstruction
at the time and in the place fixed by law, and was called
to order by the officer designated by law. And yet, there
being neither insurrection nor domestic violence, there
being neither a call for military interference upon the
President by the legislature nor by the governor "in case
the legislature could not be convened, " there being, there-
fore, not the faintest shadow of an observance of "all the
prerequisites of the law" as defined in the statute, the
troops of the United States proceeded, not against an
insurrection, not against a body of men committing
domestic violence, but against a legislative body sitting
in the statehouse; and the soldiers of the United States
1875] Carl Schurz 123
were used to execute an order from the governor deter-
mining what persons should sit in that legislature as its
members and what persons should be ejected. I solemnly
ask what provision is there in the Constitution, what law
is there on the statute-book furnishing a warrant for such
a proceeding?
It is said in extenuation of the interference of the mili-
tary power of the United States in Louisiana that the
persons ejected from that legislature by the Federal
soldiers were not legally-elected members of that body.
Suppose that had been so; but that is not the question.
The question is, where is the Constitutional principle,
where is the law authorizing United States soldiers, with
muskets in their hands, to determine who is a legally-
elected member of a State legislature and who is not?
It is said that the mode of organizing that legislature was
not in accordance with the statutes of the State. Suppose
that had been so; but that is not the question. The
question is, where is the Constitutional or legal warrant for
the bayonets of the Federal soldiery to interpret the stat-
utes of a State as against the legislature of that State, and
to decide in and for the legislature a point of parliamentary
law?
It is said that the governor requested the aid of United
States soldiers to purge the legislature of members he
styled illegal. That may be so; but that is not the
question. The question is, where is the law authorizing
United States soldiers to do the bidding of a State
governor who presumes to decide what members sitting
in a legislature regularly convened at the time and place
fixed by law are legally elected members ?
It is said the trouble was threatening between contend-
ing parties in Louisiana. Suppose that had been so ; but
that is not the question. The question is, where is the
law from which the National Government, in case of
124 The Writings of [1875
threatening trouble in a State, derives its power to invade
the legislative body of the State by armed force, and to
drag out persons seated there as members, that others
may take their places? Where is that law, I ask? You
will search the Constitution, you will search the statutes
in vain.
I cannot, therefore, escape from the deliberate convic-
tion, a conviction conscientiously formed, that the deed
done on the 4th January in the statehouse of the State of
Louisiana by the military forces of the United States
constitutes a gross and manifest violation of the Con-
stitution and the laws of this Republic. We have an act
before us indicating a spirit in our Government which
either ignores the Constitution and the laws or so interprets
them that they cease to be the safeguard of the independ-
ence of legislation and of the rights and liberties of our
people. And that spirit shows itself in a shape more
alarming still in the instrument the Executive has chosen
to execute his behests.
Sir, no American citizen can have read without pro-
found regret and equally profound apprehension the re-
cent despatch of General Sheridan to the Secretary of
War, in which he suggests that a numerous class of citi-
zens should by the wholesale be outlawed as banditti by
a mere proclamation of the President, to be turned over
to him as a military chief, to meet at his hands swift
justice by the verdict of a military commission. No-
body respects General Sheridan more than I do for the
brilliancy of his deeds on the field of battle; the nation
has delighted to honor his name. But the same nation
would sincerely deplore to see the hero of the ride to Win-
chester and of the charge at the Five Forks stain that
name by an attempt to ride over the laws and the Con-
stitution of the country, and to charge upon the liberties
of his fellow-citizens. The policy he has proposed is so
1875] Carl Schurz 125
appalling, that every American citizen who loves his
liberty stands aghast at the mere possibility of such a
suggestion being addressed to the President of the United
States by a high official of the Government. It is another
illustration how great a man may be as a soldier, and how
conspicuously unable to understand what civil law and
what a constitution mean; how glorious in fighting for
you, and how little fit to govern you! And yet General
Sheridan is not only kept in Louisiana as the instrument
of the Executive will, but after all that has happened,
encouraged by the emphatic approval of the Executive
branch of this Government.
I repeat, sir, all these things have alarmed me, and it
seems not me alone. In all parts of the country the press
is giving voice to the same feeling, and what I learn by
private information convinces me that the press is by no
means exaggerating the alarm of the people. On all
sides you can hear the question asked, "If this can be
done in Louisiana, and if such things be sustained by Con-
gress, how long will it be before it can be done in Massachu-
setts and in Ohio? How long before the Constitutional
rights of all the States and the self-government of all the
people may be trampled under foot? How long before a
general of the Army may sit in the chair you occupy, sir,
to decide contested-election cases for the purpose of manu-
facturing a majority in the Senate? How long before a
soldier may stalk into the National House of Representa-
tives, and, pointing to the Speaker's mace, say, 'Take away
that bauble ' ? "
Mr. President, these fears may appear wild and exag-
gerated, and perhaps they are; and yet these are the
feelings you will hear expressed when the voice of the
people penetrates to you. But I ask you, my associates
in this body, in all soberness, can you tell me what will
be impossible to-morrow if this was possible yesterday?
126 The Writings of [1875
Who is there among us who but three years ago would
have expected to be called upon to justify the most gross
and unjustifiable usurpation of Judge Durell and the
President's enforcement of it as the legitimate and law-
ful origin of a State government? And who of you,
when permitting that to be done, would have expected to
see the United States soldiery marched into the hall of a
State legislature to decide its organization? Permit that
to-day, and who of you can tell me what we shall be called
upon, nay, what we may be forced to permit to-morrow?
You cannot but feel that we have arrived at a crisis in
our affairs, and I will not conceal from you that I cannot
contemplate that crisis without grave apprehension; for
what has happened already makes me look forward with
anxiety to what may be still in store for us. We are
evidently — and I say it with calmness and deliberation —
on the downward slope, and the question is, where shall
we land. It is not, indeed, the success of any Napoleonic
ambitions in this country that I fear, for if such ambitions
existed they would still have an American and not a
French people to encounter. But what I do see reason to
fear if we continue on our course is this: that our time-
honored Constitutional principles will be gradually obliter-
ated by repeated abuses of power establishing themselves
as precedents ; that the machinery of administration may
become more and more a mere instrument of "ring" rule,
a tool to manufacture majorities and to organize plunder;
and that finally, in the hollow shell of republican forms,
this Government will become the mere foot-ball of rapa-
cious and despotic factions. That, sir, is what I do fear.
Let us see how the drift of things has carried us on in
that direction. I must confess I have long considered
our policy concerning the South as one fraught with great
danger, not only danger to the South but danger to the
whole Republic. I have therefore opposed it step by
1875] Carl Schurz 127
step and warned you of its inevitable consequences.
I know full well that Southern society has been, and
in a measure is, disturbed by violent tendencies and by
deplorable, sometimes bloody disorders. I have never
denied it, and nobody has more earnestly condemned and
denounced those disorders than I. Time and again have
I appealed to all patriotic men in the South to use their
utmost efforts to secure peace, order and public safety
among their people. Those disorders I would be the last
man to palliate or excuse ; but I also believe that they were
in a great measure the offspring of circumstances and to
be expected.
When the war closed a great revolution had suddenly
transformed, among general distress and confusion, the
whole organism of Southern society. Not only was that
system of labor uprooted with which the Southern people
had for centuries considered their whole productive wealth
and prosperity identified, but by the enfranchisement of
the colored people, that class of society which had just
emerged from slavery, with all its ignorance, (and let me
say for that ignorance they were by no means themselves
responsible,) was suddenly clothed with political power,
and in some States with overruling political power. That
power was called into play at a time when, after the
sweeping destruction and desolation of the war, the South
was most in need of a wise cooperation of all its social
forces to heal its wounds and to lift it up from its terrible
prostration.
Surely, sir, the justice of the Constitutional amendments,
designed to secure to the slave his freedom and to enable
the colored people to maintain their rights through active
participation in the functions of self-government, I shall
be the last man to question, for I aided in passing them.
Neither is that the legitimate subject of this debate. But
as all these tremendous transformations came at a time
128 The Writings of [1875
when the turbulence of armed conflicts had scarcely sub-
sided, when ancient prejudices had not yet cooled, when
the bitterness of the war was still fresh and when the
hope of other solutions was still lingering among the
Southern people, it was most deplorable indeed, but not
at all surprising, that great disorders should have occurred.
No such changes have ever been made in any free country
without such disorders; and it was the business of states-
manship to deal with them. It was a great problem and
perhaps the most critical in the history of this country,
for it was to overcome resistance and disturbance by
means sufficiently effectual without at the same time
developing an arbitrary spirit of power dangerous to our
free institutions.
When the Constitutional amendments fixing the results
of the war and the status of the different classes of society
had become assured, there were two methods presenting
themselves to you to accomplish that end. One was
suggested by the very nature of republican institutions.
It was to trust the discovery and the development of the
remedies for existing evils, as soon as the nature of cir-
cumstances would permit, to that agency upon which,
after all, our republican Government must depend for
its vitality, namely, the self-government of the people
in the States. It was to inspire that local self-government
with healthy tendencies by doing all within your power
to make the Southern people, not only those who had
profited by the great revolution in acquiring their free-
dom, but also those who had suffered from it, reasonably
contented in their new situation. Such a policy required
an early and complete removal of all those political dis-
abilities which restrained a large and influential number
of white people from a direct participation in the govern-
ment of their local affairs, while the colored people were
exercising it. That policy did, indeed, not preclude the
1875] Carl Schurz 129
vigorous execution of Constitutional and just laws; and
you will not understand me as thus designating all the
laws that were made ; but it did preclude the employment
of the powers conferred by such laws for purposes of a
partisan color calculated to impeach the impartiality of
the National Government and thus to injure its moral
authority. It did preclude, above all things, every un-
constitutional stretch of interference, which by its insid-
ious example is always calculated to encourage and excite
a lawless and revolutionary spirit among all classes of
society. That policy required that the National Govern-
ment in all its branches should have sternly discounte-
nanced the adventurers and bloodsuckers who preyed upon
the Southern people, so as not to appear as their ally and
protector. It required a conscientious employment of
all those moral influences which the National Govern-
ment had at its command. It was natural, in the distress
and confusion which followed the war, that the Southern
people, white as well as black, should have turned their
eyes to the National Government for aid and guidance;
and that aid and guidance might have been given, not in
impeding and baffling, but in encouraging self-govern-
ment to fulfil its highest aims and duties. Every Federal
office in the South should have been carefully filled with
the very wisest and the very best man that could be dis-
covered for it. Nowhere in the vast boundaries of this
Republic was the personal character of the Federal officer
of higher importance, for being clothed by his very con-
nection with the National Government with extraordinary
moral authority, every one of them could without undue
interference with local concerns, by the very power of
his advice and example, make that moral influence
most beneficially felt among all his surroundings.
Sir, I am not sanguine enough to believe that if such a
policy had been followed local self-government would
VOL. III. — 9
130 The Writings of [1875
at once have made every Southern State a perfect model
of peace and order. I know it would not; but it is my
solemn conviction that it would have been infinitely more
productive of good, it would have been infinitely more
effective in gradually developing a satisfactory state of
things than all your force laws, all the efforts of Govern-
ment officers to maintain their party ascendancy, all the
usurpations and military interferences in the same direc-
tion. And above all things, such a policy would have
left those principles intact which are the life of Consti-
tutional government. It would have spared us such a
painful spectacle as that which we are to-day behold-
ing in Louisiana. It would have relieved the American
people of the anxious inquiry you hear on all sides to-
day, "What is now to become of the character of our
republican Government." It was the policy naturally
suggested by the teachings of our institutions ; it was the
true republican, American policy.
But there presented itself to you also another method of
dealing with the violent and disorderly tendencies in the
South. It was, whenever and wherever a disturbance oc-
curred, to use at once brute force in sufficient strength to
repress it ; to employ every means to keep in every State
your partisans in place, and to trample down all opposition,
no matter what stretch of power it might require, no
matter what Constitutional restriction of authority might
have to be broken through. Such a method, if supported
by a military force sufficiently strong, may also be made
quite effective, for a time at least. Thus you might have
brought every malefactor in the South to swift justice.
Wherever three of your opponents met, you might have
styled them an unlawful combination of banditti, and had
the offenders promptly punished. You might have main-
tained in governmental power in the South whomsoever
of your party you liked. You might have made every
1875] Carl Schurz 131
colored man perfectly safe, not only in the exercise of his
franchise but in everything else. You might have struck
with terror not only the evil-doers but honest persons also,
all over the land. You might have made the National
Government so strong that, right or wrong, nobody could
resist it.
This is also an effective method to keep peace and order,
and it works admirably well as long as it lasts. It is
employed with singular success in Russia, and may be in
other countries. But, sir, if you by such means had
secured the safety of those who were disturbed or consid-
ered in danger, would you not, after all, have asked your-
selves what has in the meantime become of the liberties
and rights of all of us? That method would have been
effective for its purpose, but it would have been a cruel
stroke of irony after all this to call this still a republic.
I do not mean to insinuate to you, Republican Senators,
that you wanted to do that. I know you did not. You
did not intend to employ such means, and you would have
recoiled from such a result. You tried a middle course.
You respected the self-government of the States in point
of form ; but while you and the Executive omitted to use
all those moral influences which would have inspired that
self-government with the healthy tendencies I spoke of,
you did make laws conferring upon the National Govern-
ment dangerous powers and of very doubtful Constitution-
ality; at least that was my conviction, and I opposed
them. The effect was very deplorable in several ways.
Look around you and contemplate what followed.
Your partisans in the Southern States and among them
the greediest and corruptest of the kind, began to look
up to Congress and the National Executive as their
natural allies and sworn protectors, bound to sustain them
in power under whatever circumstances. Every vaga-
bond in the South calling himself a Republican thought
132 The Writings of [1875
himself entitled to aid from you when rushing up to Con-
gress with an outrage story. The colored people began
to think that you were bound to aid them in whatever
they might do, instead of depending upon a prudent and
honest use of their own political rights to establish their
own position. The Federal officeholders in the South
became more than ever the center of partisan intrigue
and trickery. The Caseys and Packards carried off
State senators in United States revenue-cutters, and held
Republican conventions in United States customhouses,
guarded by United States soldiers to prevent other
Republican factions from interfering. Nay, more than
that, the same Packard, during the last election campaign
in Louisiana, being at the same time United States mar-
shal and chairman of Kellogg's campaign committee,
managed not only the political campaign but also the
movements of the United States dragoons to enforce the
laws and to keep his political opponents from "intimidat-
ing" his political friends. More than that, in one State
after another in the South we saw enterprising politicians
start rival legislatures and rival governments, much in the
way of Mexican pronunciamientos, calculating on the aid
to be obtained from the National Government ; the Attor-
ney-General of the United States called upon to make or
unmake governors of States by the mere wave of his hand,
and the Department of Justice almost appearing like the
central bureau for the regulation of State elections. And
still more than that, we saw a Federal judge in Louisiana,
by a midnight order, universally recognized as a gross and
most unjustifiable usurpation, virtually making a State
government and legislature, and the National Executive
with the Army sustaining that usurpation and Congress
permitting it to be done.
And now the culminating glory to-day — I do not know
whether it will be the culminating glory to-morrow:
1875] Carl Schurz 133
Federal soldiers with fixed bayonets marching into the
legislative hall of a State and invading the legislature
assembled in the place and at the time fixed by law, drag-
ging out of the body by force men universally recognized
as claimants for membership, and having been seated;
soldiers deciding contested-election cases and organizing
a legislative body; the Lieutenant-General suggesting to
the President to outlaw by proclamation a numerous class
of people by the wholesale that he may try them by drum-
head court-martial, and then the Secretary of War in-
forming the Lieutenant-General by telegraph that "all
of us, " the whole Government, have full confidence in his
judgment and wisdom. And after all this the whites of
the South gradually driven to look upon the National
Government as their implacable and unscrupulous enemy,
and the people of the whole country full of alarm and
anxiety about the safety of republican institutions and
the rights of every man in the land.
Ah, Senators, you did not mean this, I trust ; but there
it is. Not a single one of these things has happened
without exciting in your hearts an emotion of regret and
anxiety, and the wish that nothing similar should come
again; but you followed step by step, reluctantly, very
reluctantly, perhaps, but you followed, and you know not
where you may have to go unless now at last you make a
stand. You did not mean this. You meant only to pro-
tect colored men in their rights and to this end to keep your
friends in power. You did not mean to do it by the Rus-
sian method, but from small beginnings something has
grown up, something that is of near kin to it. A few steps
further and you may have the whole. Senators, if you
do not mean to go on, then I say to you it is the highest
time to turn back. It will not do to permit such things
to be done as we now behold, without rebuke and resist-
ance, for to permit them is to urge them on.
134 The Writings of [1875
I have heard it said here that he who justifies murders
in the South is the accomplice of the murderer. Be it so ;
but consider also that he who in a place like ours fails to
stop, or even justifies a blow at the fundamental laws of the
land, makes himself the accomplice of those who strike
at the life of the Republic and at the liberties of the people.
Above all things, gentlemen, indulge in no delusions as
to the consequences of your doings. Be bold enough to
look this great question for one moment squarely in the
face. If you really think that the peace and order of so-
ciety in this country can no longer be maintained through
the self-government of the people under the Constitution
and the impartial enforcement of Constitutional laws;
if you really think that this old machinery of free govern-
ment can no longer be trusted with its most important
functions, and that such transgressions on the part of
those in power as now pass before us are right and neces-
sary for the public welfare, then, gentlemen, admit that
this Government of the people, for the people and by
the people is a miscarriage. Admit that the hundredth
anniversary of this Republic must be the confession of its
failure, and make up your minds to change the form as
well as the nature of our institutions; for to play at
republic longer would then be a cruel mockery. But I
entreat you, do not delude yourselves and others with the
thought that by following the fatal road upon which we
now are marching you can still preserve those institutions ;
for I tell you, and the history of struggling mankind bears
me out, where the forms of constitutional government can
be violated with impunity, there the spirit of constitu-
tional government will soon be dead. Who does not know
that republics will be sometimes the theater of confusion,
disturbance and violent transgressions ; more frequently,
perhaps, than monarchies governed by strong despotic
rule. The citizens of a republic have to pay some price
1875] Carl Schurz 135
for the great boon of their common liberty. But do we
not know, also,, or have we despaired of it, that in a repub-
lic remedies for such evils can be found in entire conso-
nance with the spirit and form of republican institutions
and of constitutional government ? Let nobody suspect me
of favoring or excusing disorder or violent transgressions ;
nothing could be farther from me. But I have not de-
spaired of the efficiency of our republican institutions. I
insist that they do furnish effective remedies for existing
evils.
But, sir, pusillanimous indeed and dangerous to republi-
can institutions is that statesmanship which, to repress
transgressions and secure the safety of some, can devise
only such means as by violating constitutional principles
will endanger the liberty of all. You say that it is one of
the first duties of the Government to protect the lives, the
property and the rights of the citizen, and so it is; but it
is also the first duty of a constitutional government
carefully to abstain from employing for that protection
such means as will in the end place the lives and property
and rights of the citizens at the mercy of arbitrary power.
Let a policy forgetting this great obligation be adopted
and followed, and free institutions will soon be on the
downward road in this country, as they have been before
to-day in so many others. Have we read the history of
the downfall of republics in vain? It teaches us a most
intelligible and a fearful lesson. It is this: usurpers or
blunderers in power pretend that the safety and order of
society cannot be maintained by measures within the form
of constitution and law, and lawyers employ their wits to
justify usurpation by quibbling on technicalities or by
pleading the necessities of the case. What first appears as
an isolated and comparatively harmless fact is by repeti-
tion developed into a system, and there is the end of
constitutional government.
136 The Writings of [1875
Let us not close our ears to the teachings of centuries,
for if we do a repentance of centuries may be in vain.
I repeat, republican institutions and self-government
have remedies to right the wrongs occurring, and if left
to their legitimate action, they will prove far more efficient
to that end than the arbitrary measures we are now wit-
nessing. What is it, I ask Republican Senators, that you
desire to accomplish in the South? Being honest patriots,
having only the welfare of the people and not selfish parti-
san advantage at heart, you will desire this: that in the
South peace and order should prevail and that every
citizen may be protected and his life and property and
rights, and that to this end a patriotic and enlightened
public sentiment should develop itself strong enough to
prevent or repress violence and crime through the ordi-
nary ways of legal self-government; and if this be ac-
complished, no matter under what partisan auspices it be,
then every good citizen, every patriot, will have reason to
rejoice.
Look at the condition of the Southern States. I well
remember the time, not a great many years ago, when the
State of Virginia was said to be in so alarming a condi-
tion— and I remember prominent Republicans of the State
hanging around this body to convince us of it — that in
case the conservatives should obtain control of the State
government the streets and fields of Virginia would run
with blood. So it was predicted of North Carolina, and
so of Georgia ; and, indeed, I deny it not, there were very
lamentable disorders in many of those States during the
first years after the war. Now, sir, what was the remedy?
You remember what policy was urged with regard to
Georgia. It was to prolong the existence of Governor
Bullock's legislature for two years beyond its constitutional
term, to strengthen the power of that Governor Bullock,
that champion plunderer of Georgia, who not long after-
1875] Carl Schurz 137
ward had to run from the clutches of justice; and unless
that were done it was loudly predicted upon this floor
there would be a carnival of crime and a sea of blood !
Well, sir, it was not done. The people of those States
gradually recovered the free exercise of their self-govern-
ment, and what has been the result? Virginia is to-day
as quiet and orderly a State as she ever was, I think fully
as quiet and orderly as most other States, and every
citizen is securely enjoying his rights. And who will
deny that in North Carolina and Georgia an improvement
has taken place, standing in most glaring contrast with
the fearful predictions made by the advocates of Federal
interference? And that most healthy improvement is
sustained in those States under and by the self-govern-
ment of the people thereof. This is a matter of history,
unquestioned and unquestionable. And that improve-
ment will proceed further under the same self-government
of the people as society becomes more firmly settled in its
new conditions and as it is by necessity led to recognize
more clearly the dependence of its dearest interests on
the maintenance of public order and safety. That is the
natural development of things.
It will help the Senator from Indiana [Mr. MORTON]
little to say that, with all this, the Republican vote has
greatly fallen off in Georgia, and that this fact is conclusive
proof of a general system of intimidation practiced upon
the negroes there. It is scarcely worth while that I
should repeat here the unquestionably truthful state-
ment which has been made, that the falling off of the
negro vote is in a great measure accounted for by the non-
payment of the colored people of the school tax upon which
their right to vote depended. I might add that perhaps
the same causes wliich brought forth a considerable falling
off in the Republican vote in a great many other States,
such as Indiana and Massachusetts and New York, pro-
138 The Writings of [1875
duced the same result in Georgia also, and that the same
motives which produced a change in the political attitude
of whites may have acted also upon the blacks. Is not
this possible? Why not? But I ask you, sir, what kind
of logic, what statesmanship is it we witness so frequently
on this floor, which takes the statistics of population of a
State in hand and then proceeds to reason thus : So many
colored people, so man}'- white, therefore so many colored
votes and so many white votes; and therefore so many
Republican votes and so many Democratic votes; and if
an election does not show this exact proposition, it must
be necessarily the result of fraud and intimidation and the
National Government must interfere. When we have
established the rule that election returns must be made or
corrected according to the statistics of population, then
we may decide elections beforehand by the United States
Census and last year's Tribune Almanac, and save our-
selves the trouble of voting.
Intimidation of voters! I doubt not, sir, there has
been much of it, very much. There has been much of it
by terrorism, physical and moral, much by the discharge
of employes from employment for political cause, but, I
apprehend, not all on one side. I shall be the last man on
earth to say a word of excuse for the Southern ruffian who
threatens a negro voter with violence to make him vote
the conservative ticket. I know no language too severe
to condemn his act. But I cannot forget, and it stands
vividly in my recollection, that the only act of terrorism
and intimidation I ever happened to witness with my own
eyes was the cruel clubbing and stoning of a colored man
in North Carolina in 1872 by men of his own race, because
he had declared himself in favor of the conservatives;
and if the whole story of the South were told it would be
discovered that such a practice has by no means been
infrequent.
1875] Carl Schurz 139
But there was intimidation of another kind.
I cannot forget the spectacle of Marshal Packard, with
the dragoons of the United States at the disposition of the
chairman of the Kellogg campaign committee at the late
election in Louisiana, riding through the State with a full
assortment of warrants in his hands arresting whomsoever
he listed. I cannot forget that as to the discharge of
laborers from employment for political cause a most seduc-
tive and demoralizing example is set by the very highest
authority in the land. While we have a law on our
statute-book declaring the intimidation of voters by threat-
ened or actual discharge from employment a punishable
offense, it is the notorious practice of the Government of
the United States to discharge every one of its employes
who dares to vote against the Administration party ; and
that is done North and South, East and West, as far as
the arm of that Government reaches. I have always
condemned the intimidation of voters in every shape,
and therefore I have been in favor of a genuine civil
service reform. But while your National Government
is the chief intimidator in the land, you must not be
surprised if partisans on both sides profit a little from
its example.
Nor do I think that the intimidation which deters a
colored man from voting with the opposition against the
Republican party is less detestable or less harmful to the
colored men themselves than that which threatens him as
a Republican. I declare I shall hail the day as a most
auspicious one for the colored race in the South, when they
cease to stand as a solid mass under the control and dis-
cipline of one political organization, thus being arrayed
as a race against another race; when they throw off the
scandalous leadership of those adventurers who, taking ad-
vantage of their ignorance, make them the tools of their
rapacity, and thus throw upon them the odium for their
140 The Writings of [1875
misdeeds ; when they begin to see the identity of their own
true interests with the interests of the white people among
whom they have to live ; when they begin to understand
that they greatly injure those common interests by using
the political power they possess for the elevation to office
of men, black or white, whose ignorance or unscrupulousness
unfits them for responsible trust; when freely, according
to the best individual judgment of each man, they divide
their votes between the different political parties and when
thus giving to each party a chance to obtain their votes,
they make it the interest and the natural policy of each
party to protect their safety and respect their rights in
order to win their votes. I repeat what I once said in
another place : not in Union is there safety, but in division.
Whenever the colored voters shall have become an im-
portant element, not only in one, but in both political
parties, then both parties under an impulse of self-interest
will rival in according them the fullest protection. I may
speak here of my own peculiar experience, for they may
learn a lesson from the history of the adopted citizens of
this country. I remember the time when they stood in
solid mass on the side of one party, and schemes dangerous
to their rights were hatched upon the side of the other.
When both parties obtained an important share of their
votes, both hoping for more, both became equally their
friends. This will be the development in the South, and
a most fortunate one for the colored people. It has
commenced in the States I have already mentioned, where
self-government goes its way unimpeded, and I fervently
hope the frantic partisan efforts to prevent it in others
will not much longer prevail. I hope this as a sincere and
devoted friend of the colored race.
But the Senator from Indiana may say that will bring
about a still greater falling-off in the Republican vote.
Ah, sir, it may; but do you not profess to be sincerely
1875] Carl Schurz 141
solicitous for the safety and rights of the colored man?
Are not some of you even willing to see the most essential
principles of constitutional government invaded, to see
State governments set up by judicial usurpation and State
legislatures organized by Federal bayonets only that the
colored man may be safe? Gentlemen, you can have that
much cheaper if you let the colored man protect himself
by the method I advise. The colored people will then
be far safer than under a broken Constitution ; the peace
and order of society will be far more naturally and securely
established than under the fitful interference of military
force. And that can be accomplished by permitting the
self-government of the people to have its course. But
the Republican vote may thus fall off. That is true.
The party may suffer. Indeed it may. But, Senators, I
for my part, know of no party, whatever its name or fame,
so sacred that its selfish advantage should be considered
superior to the peace and order of society and good under-
standing among the people. I do not hesitate to say that
I prefer the conservative government of Virginia to the
Republican government of Louisiana; and, if I mistake
not, an overwhelming majority of the American people
are of the same opinion.
I ask you what would you have made of Georgia had
you forced upon its neck, as seemed to be desired by some,
the yoke of the Bullocks and the Foster Blodgetts? What
would have become of Virginia and North Carolina if a
Federal judge, by an act of usurpation like Durell's, had
set up Republican State governments for them, and the
President had enforced the usurpation with the bayonets
of the Army? Where now you observe the steady growth
of peace and order and a fruitful cooperation of the social
elements there would be bloody conflicts of infuriated
factions, a society torn to pieces by deadly feuds, a pros-
perity utterly prostrate. That would have been the result
142 The Writings of [1875
but then you might have had Republican government in
those States !
I ask you in all candor, Republican Senators, is that
what you want? If you do, I am sure the patriotism of
the American people is not with you.
O, it is indeed time we should understand that in this
Republic we cannot serve the cause of law and order if
we in our representative place do not respect the law and
if we permit the Government to violate it without hin-
drance. Every lawless act of those in power, professedly
intended to preserve peace and order, will most surely pro-
duce to the cause of peace and order its greatest danger.
You want all the people of the South, and especially of
Louisiana, to become law-abiding citizens; and yet, to
make them so, the National authority has imposed upon
them a government which is the offspring confessedly of
gross judicial usurpation and revolutionary proceedings.
How can you expect them to refrain from revolutionary
acts after the Government itself has set them this revolu-
tionary example? How can you fill them with reverence
for the sanctity of the laws, if you show them that the
laws have no sanctity for you?
The people of the South are not a people of murderers
and banditti. Only the most morbid fanaticism of parti-
sanship will call them so. There are, I know, bad ele-
ments among them, and you blame the better classes of
society for not putting down these bad elements by their
own efforts. But is not the National Government itself, by
resorting to usurpation and unconstitutional proceedings,
giving to those bad elements in Southern society a strength
which otherwise they never would possess, enabling even
the ruffian to throw himself into the attitude of a de-
fender of Constitutional government against revolutionary
usurpation?
You speak of protecting the negro. Woe to the negroes
1875] Carl Schurz 143
of the South if, after their unscrupulous leaders have done
so much already to identify them with organized corruption
and rapacity, you now, by employing or sanctioning un-
constitutional means for their protection, identify them
also with the overthrow of Constitutional principles and
contempt for the laws of the land! Such measures to
protect them will by their very effects put them in the
greatest jeopardy. Their most cruel enemies could not
inflict on them an injury more cruel than this.
Let me warn you, Senators, that you stand upon danger-
ous ground ; for if such things as have been done in Louisi-
ana are sustained by the Republican majority in Congress,
and as one evil deed always gives birth to another, if so
high-handed a course be continued, you are taking upon
yourselves a responsibility the extent of which it is
difficult to measure. Do not treat with contempt, I
beseech you, what is now going on in the public mind.
I hold here in my hand an extract which I clipped from
one of the Republican papers of the North, and I will
read to you its language :
Unless the Republican party is content to be swept out of
existence by the storm of indignant protest arising against the
wrongs of Louisiana from all portions of the country, it will
see that this most shameful outrage is redressed wholly and at
once ; for if it is right for the Federal soldiery to pack the legis-
lature of one State in the manner the Attorney- General de-
clares it shall be packed, or if it can be done, it is right and
can be done in any other State. It is a matter that concerns
Massachusetts, California and Pennsylvania equally with
Louisiana; for it is an act of Federal usurpation which, if not
revoked and condemned by Congress, will lead inevitably to
the destruction of the whole fabric of our government.
What adds to the common indignation against the per-
petrators of the wrong is the moral heroism exhibited by
the disfranchised people of Louisiana, who have borne with
H4 The Writings of [1875
sublime patience and peace that which was excuse sufficient
for revolution; for the doctrine is as old as wrong itself that
usurpation of the people's rights makes revolution not only
a privilege, but makes it a duty.
MR. SARGENT. What paper does the Senator read from?
MR. SCHURZ. The Philadelphia Inquirer of the 6th of
this month.
MR. SARGENT. A Republican paper?
MR. SCHURZ. It is about as Republican as most Re-
publican papers are nowadays all over the country.
When such sentiments, appealing directly to the right of
revolution, are expressed by loyal Republican journals in
the North, they are not unlikely to be put forth in stronger
language by opposition journals in the South. The
growth of such feelings I cannot look upon without grave
apprehension, not as to the spirit of justice and freedom
which they demonstrate, but as to the dreadful conse-
quences which they might produce if rashly acted upon.
And if my voice could reach so far as to be heard by the
people of Louisiana, I would say to them, "Take good
care not a single moment to permit any impulse of passion
to run away with your judgment. Whatever injustice
you may have to suffer, let not a hand of yours be lifted,
let no provocation of insolent power nor any tempting
opportunity seduce you into the least demonstration of
violence; for if you do, no human foresight can tell what
advantage may be taken of your rashness and in what
dangers and disasters it may involve, not only you, but
the whole Republic. As your cause is just, trust to its
justice, for surely the time cannot be far when every
American who truly loves his liberty will recognize the
cause of his own rights and liberties in the cause of Con-
stitutional government in Louisiana, and that rising spirit,
by a peaceful victory, will bury the usurpers under a
1875] Carl Schurz 145
crushing load of universal condemnation. " That I would
say to them.
Indeed, Senators, that prediction cannot fail to become
true. Do not indulge in vain delusions; do not lay the
flattering unction to your souls that the cry of blood and
murder or new budgets of atrocities in official reports,
such as General Sheridan promises, will divert the public
mind from the true question at issue. That cry and such
reports begin to fall stale upon the ear of the people ; not
as if the people had become indifferent as to the wrongs
perpetrated in any part of the country upon any class of
citizens, but because the people have lost their former
confidence in the sincerity and truthfulness of those who
parade the bloody stories with the greatest ostentation.
And why has that confidence declined? Because too
many exaggerations have been discovered in the state-
ments so frequently made, and because in many instances
it became somewhat too glaringly apparent that the blood
and murder cry was used as convenient partisan stage-
thunder merely to catch votes. The people have begun
shrewdly to suspect that when some men pretend they
must remain in power to protect the lives of the negroes,
the cry about murdered negroes must be raised simply to
keep them in power.
But there is another and more important reason why this
cry will be distrusted now. The people are asking them-
selves— and well they may — whether the very policy which
is followed professedly to prevent such outrages is not in
itself well calculated to serve as the cause for more. They
look at Virginia, at North Carolina, at Georgia, and they
find that the self-government of the people, unobstructed,
is gradually but steadily advancing those States in peace,
order, good feeling and prosperity. They look at Louisi-
ana and find the self-government of the people obstructed
and hear of turmoil and conflict. They do not fail to
VOL. III. — IO.
146 The Writings of [1875
conclude that the forcing of Bullock and Foster Blodgett
upon Georgia would have reduced that State to the same
unhappy condition which in Louisiana the usurpation of
Kellogg had brought forth. Looking, then, at that pic-
ture and at this, they begin wisely to make up their minds
to the fact that after all the Southern States can now give
to themselves better government than Federal inter-
ference can impose upon them.
But, still more, the people have begun to understand,
and it is indeed high time they should understand, that the
means professedly used to prevent and suppress outrages
are producing far worse fruit than the outrages themselves;
that — and hear what I say — the lawlessness of power is
becoming far more dangerous to all than the lawlessness
of the mob. Therefore, I think Senators most seriously
deceive themselves if they think the blood and murder cry
can deceive the people about the nature of the usurpations
of power we have now to deal with.
Neither do I think that you can convince an intelligent
public opinion that the Kellogg party did carry the State
of Louisiana by a bona fide vote at the last election, and
that the unconstitutional employment of the Federal
bayonets was merely to vindicate the true will of the people
of Louisiana lawfully expressed at the polls. No intelli-
gent man can have escaped the impression that those
who executed the barefaced usurpation of 1872 would not
shrink from any device, ever so foul, to preserve the fruits
of that usurpation by repeating the game in 1874. It was
noticed with general astonishment (and I have to refer
to that case once more, for it stands out as one of the
most repulsive things in the history of our politics) that a
Federal officer, United States Marshal Packard, was per-
mitted to manage the political campaign as the chairman
of the Kellogg State central committee and at the same time
the operations of United States soldiers in arresting his
1875] Carl Schurz 147
opponents, a combination of functions so strikingly sus-
picious, so glaringly unfair, that when I publicly called
attention to it even a large number of Republican journals
protested against it as an outrage upon public decency.
It has not been overlooked that when, after the insur-
rection of the 1 4th of September, arrangements were
attempted in Louisiana to divest the returning board of
its suspicious partisan character, the leading members of
the Kellogg party most strenuously objected to the ad-
mission of an equal number of conservatives and Republi-
cans, with one man of unimpeachable character to be
chosen by them jointly to act as umpire in the return of
the votes, thus insisting for themselves upon the privi-
lege to count the votes as they might choose. It has
been well observed that the returning board, having pur-
posely preserved its partisan character when the election
showed a considerable conservative majority, manipulated
the returns for weeks and weeks, until, by hook or crook,
that conservative majority was transformed into a Repub-
lican one. It has not escaped public attention that the
Attorney-General of the United States, with ostentatious
publicity, declared his purpose to stand by that returning
board whatever it might do, thus encouraging it boldly
to go on; and when the thing was done, declared himself
for a "heroic policy" to enforce its edicts, and thereupon
followed the military interference.
In view of all these things and of other information
that has come within my reach, I declare it here as my
solemn conviction, that the conservatives of Louisiana
did fairly carry the late election by a considerable majority
of votes; that they were defrauded by the returning board
of the result of that election ; and that the soldiers of the
United States, when they invaded the legislature of Louisi-
ana, did not vindicate but trampled under the heel of
lawless force the true will of the people, lawfully expressed
148 The Writings of [1875
at the polls. That is my honest conviction, and if common
report speaks truly — and I may mention that common
report without transgressing parliamentary rules — the
members of the Congressional committee who were sent
down to Louisiana to make investigation, as they are
honorable and truthful men — a majority of them Republi-
cans but no abject tools of party dictation — will tell
Congress and the country, perhaps this very day, as the
result of their conscientious investigation, that the con-
servatives of Louisiana did fairly carry that election ; that
the returning board did defraud them of its result; and
that the will of the people of Louisiana lawfully expressed
has been crushed out under the heel of a lawless military
invasion. That, gentlemen, the country will hear, and
that the American people will believe as the honest truth
told by honest men.
No, Senators, do not deceive yourselves; no man will
be permitted to obscure the great Constitutional question
before us with flimsy side issues ; for from whatever point
of view you may contemplate it, every consideration of law,
of moral right, of justice, of public policy, of the common
welfare, puts the deed done in Louisiana only into a
stronger light as a lawless transgression of arbitrary
power pregnant with wrong and disaster. We must face
that question, and as we are men with the responsibility
of guardians of the Constitution and laws upon us, we
must face it boldly. This, it seems to me, if ever, is the
time when the patriot should rise above the partisan.
I have heard it whispered that some of the eminent
lawyers of this body will still endeavor to find some
technical plea by which to show that the intrusion of the
soldier in organizing the legislative body of Louisiana was
in some way justifiable under the Constitution and laws
of this Republic. If it be so, then I appeal to them to
consider well what they are attempting to do. Surely I
1875] Carl Schurz 149
desire no injustice to be done to any man, high or low.
If there be a clear justification of such an act, which I
have not seen — and I solemnly declare I am not able to
see one — let it be brought forward. If there be one, then
I shall deplore that the Constitution and laws of this
Republic are so defective in their most essential aims as
to sanction an exercise of arbitrary power which in no
free country on the face of the globe would be admitted a
single moment. If there be such a justification, then I
shall think it high time to urge such a change of the laws
that they may effectually protect the independence of
legislatures and the liberty of the citizen, for otherwise
neither will be safe. But, sir, if there be no such justi-
fication, clear as sunlight, and palpably springing from the
sacred spirit of the law interpreted in the strictest accord-
ance with the time-honored principles of constitutional
government, then, gentlemen, let us not have one artfully
made by the lawyers' ingenuity of technical construction.
What glory will it be to the American jurist to show the
highest keenness of wit in defending such an act and in
establishing it as a precedent which, through its disastrous
consequences, may oblige the American people to shed as
much blood and as many tears to restore their free institu-
tions as it had cost to build them up.
I heard the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. HOWE]
exclaim the other day, that he was glad not to find in the
history of this country any such case as this, and he hoped
to see none in the future. Truly, I felt with him; but
he will see another one, and more than one, if as a lawyer
he tries and succeeds in making this generation believe
that this can be rightfully done under the Constitution and
the laws of the Republic. Ah, gentlemen, the lawyer's
technical ingenuity has not seldom done more harm to free
government than even the arbitrary spirit of the soldier,
for the latter would frequently have been impotent but
150 The Writings of [1875
for the aid of the former. It may be the lawyer's ambi-
tion successfully to defend even the most obvious guilt
of his client, but it is the lawyer's highest glory to stand
fearlessly before the frowns of power, defending the sanc-
tity of the law and the rights and liberties of his country-
men; and of such are the names that are handed down
with imperishable honor from generation to generation.
I trust, therefore, we shall have in this debate only the
purest and loftiest spirit of that jurisprudence which is
nursed among a people proud of their liberties.
Let us above all things be spared such miserable subter-
fuges as these: That because the speaker of the legis-
lature invited an officer of the Army to persuade a dis-
orderly crowd in the lobby to remain quiet, he had thereby
given him the right or recognized his right to drag from
their seats men seated as members in that legislature;
or that, as the insurgents of September had not surrendered
all the guns belonging to the State, the insurrection con-
tinued, and with it the right of the Federal Army to organ-
ize the legislature of Louisiana! Let not so pitiable a
plea be heard when the fundamental principles of con-
stitutional government are in jeopardy. If there be an
argument in its defense, let it at least be one on a level
with the dignity of the cause.
I have moved that the Judiciary Committee be instruc-
ted to report a bill to secure to the people of Louisiana
their right of self-government under the Constitution. I
hope that motion will prevail. I hope also it will not
result in the production of a bill providing for a new
election there with General Sheridan, who, with all the
brilliancy of his military valor, is so conspicuously un-
suited for the delicate task of a conciliatory mission, as
supreme ruler of that State; with a Packard as manager
at the same time of the political campaign and of the
United States dragoons to arrest opponents, and with that
Carl Schurz 151
returning board to canvass the votes which has given already
so much evidence of its unscrupulous skill. Let it not be
another mockery to lead to another disgrace. I trust the
Committee will discover a method to undo the usurpations
that have been perpetrated, in full, and to restore their
rights and powers to those whom the people of Louisiana
by their votes have lawfully designated to wield them.
No measure will avail, either to the cause of peace and
order or to the safety of our institutions or to the charac-
ter of the Government, which does not boldly vindicate
the constitutional principles of the land, the privileges of
legislative bodies and that self-government of the people
without which our republican institutions cannot live.
I have spoken earnestly, sir, for my feelings and con-
victions on this great subject are strong and sincere. I
cannot forget that this Republic, which it has cost so
much strife and so much blood to establish and to pre-
serve, stands in the world to prove to struggling mankind
that the self-government of the people under wise laws
is able to evolve all necessary remedies for existing evils
without violating popular liberty or constitutional rights.
I cannot forget that, if we fail in solving this vital problem,
this Republic will become not a guiding star of liberty,
but only another warning example. I cannot close my
eyes to the fact that the generation which has grown up to
political activity during and since the war, a generation
constituting more than one-third of the voting body in
the land, soon to constitute the whole, has but too much
been accustomed to witness the bold display of arbitrary
assumptions of authority, and that habits have grown
up threatening to become destructive to all that the
patriot holds dear. Knowing this, I have for years stood
upon this floor raising my voice for the imperilled princi-
ples of constitutional government, and endeavoring to
warn you and the country of the insidious advance of
152 The Writings of [1875
irresponsible power; and with all the anxiety of an honest
heart — and it may be my last opportunity upon this great
forum — I cry out to you once more : Turn back, turn back
in your dangerous course while it is yet time. In the name
of that inheritance of peace and freedom which you desire
to leave to your children, in the name of the pride with
which the American lifts up his head among the nations
of the world, do not trifle with the Constitution of your
country, do not put in jeopardy that which is the dearest
glory of the American name. Let not the representatives
of the people falter and fail in the supreme hour when the
liberties of the people are at stake.
TO JAMES S. ROLLINS
OBERLIN, O., April 2, 1875.
Your last very kind letter I ought to have answered
long ago; but you know what the last expiring agonies
of Congress are. And immediately afterwards I had to
set out on a lecturing trip to fill some gaps, in other words,
to avoid running into debt.
I thank you sincerely for the warm sympathy you
express concerning my fortunes as a public man. It is
certainly a great satisfaction to me to see so many evi-
dences of my having won the good opinion of that class of
men whose esteem one may well be proud of. As to the
influences which controlled the Senatorial election in
Missouri, I think those things must work themselves
out. Unless I am greatly mistaken, the Democratic
party begins already to feel the consequences of its narrow-
minded partisan course in those States of which it had
control. But would it not be a sad thing to see the Presi-
dential campaign of next year run again in the old party-
ruts and turn upon the question not which party is the
Carl Schurz 153
best in its policy and character, but which can make out
the other the worst?
I still have some hope that something may be done to
avert such a lamentable condition of affairs, and surely
the memories which the centennial year calls up should
inspire the American people with higher and nobler im-
pulses of patriotism.
I shall be in St. Louis from the i6th of this month to
the 2 ist, and then I shall go to Europe for a few months,
to return to Missouri late in the fall. Will you not be in
St. Louis about the time mentioned? I should be very-
glad indeed to see you and have a good quiet talk with you.
TO HENRY ARMITT BROWN1
ST. Louis, April 16, 1875.
I have just arrived here and found your kind letter
of the loth. I hasten to say a few words in reply. The
purpose is to assemble a number of men whose standing in
the country is such that their utterances will find attention
and respect. It is not important that there should be a
great many, but that those present should be, in the truest
sense of the term, respectable and respected. The genus
"politician," in the common acceptation of the term,
should therefore be excluded.
I trust you will not fail to come yourself; and if you
can bring half a dozen men with you, such as you would
like to see your name associated with, it will fully answer
the purpose. Of course, the more the better, but quality
is of far greater consequence than quantity.
I have visited several States since I saw you, and my
experience has been such as to raise my hope that we may
1 A Philadelphia orator and reformer.
154 The Writings of [1875
be able to accomplish something useful and honorable to
the country if we start right.
P. S. I have in the meantime read your oration on the
Congress of 1774 and can only say that I am delighted with
it.
TO G. WASHINGTON WARREN
HAMBURG, GERMANY, May 20, 1875.
Your kind letter inviting me to participate in the
celebration of the first centennial anniversary of the Battle
of Bunker Hill reached me on the eve of my departure
for Europe. From these distant shores I can only offer
you my cordial thanks for the distinction you have con-
ferred upon me by that invitation which, I regret to say,
circumstances render me unable to follow.
The event you are going to celebrate does not, in the
military annals of the world, by the side of other armed
conflicts, appear remarkable either for the number of men
arrayed in battle, or for the professional skill displayed.
But in the history of those struggles which mark the epochs
of human progress, it stands as an achievement of inspir-
ing significance, a shining illustration of that simplicity
of patriotic spirit which then was and always will be the
mainspring of true greatness in a free people. We can-
not too reverently commemorate that spirit as, a hundred
years ago, it led the men of the American Revolution,
plain and modest citizens, without the coercion of estab-
lished authority, without the ambition of fame, without
ostentatious proclamation, poor, feeble and at first unaided,
to bid defiance to the most formidable power of their
times, in their devotion to the duty of asserting their
sacred rights as freemen and of securing the liberties
of their children. Painfully struggling through disaster
and discouragements, sorely distracted sometimes by
1875] Carl Schurz 155
the meaner impulses of human selfishness, but bravely
overcoming them, and, in the darkest hours of failure,
disappointment and threatening ruin, lifted up by the
consciousness of a just cause and illumined by the pro-
phetic presentiment of a great destiny, that simple-
minded spirit of patriotic duty gave birth to the Republic
of the New World, the grandest creation of this age.
Doing honor to the memory of the Revolutionary
Fathers, the American people will surely not permit the
splendor of later successes to make them forget that
the same dutiful spirit of patriotism which victoriously
struggled through the agonies of their first contest will
also in our days have to overcome the dangers brought
forth by the very power and greatness of the Republic;
and it will be the greatest glory of the men who founded
the great Commonwealth by their dutiful heroism for the
right that they still continue to aid in preserving its in-
tegrity, guiding its progress and developing its blessings
by the inspiration of their example.
TO W. M. GROSVENOR
THUSIS, ORISONS, SWITZERLAND,
July 16, 1875.
It seems quite likely, from the turn things have taken,
that we shall be able to do substantially in '76 what we
ought to have done in '72. The fall elections will prob-
ably improve our possibilities. The main thing will be
to get a machinery of action sufficiently strong and suffi-
ciently safe. What we ought to have, in my opinion, is
a meeting of notables — men whose names will be of weight
with the country and who can be depended upon to
agree to an independent course. Such a meeting ought
to be held some time in January or February, and I have
156 The Writings of Il8?s
an impression that it may possibly be in a situation to do
the whole work usually done by conventions. This, how-
ever, will depend upon circumstances. At any rate, the
meeting should be of the best sort of respectability in point
of character, and not altogether composed of politicians.
To make the necessary preparations for such a meeting,
so that it can be called without danger of failure at the
appropriate time, should, in my opinion, be the principal
object of the committee of correspondence, and I am
sure, with your knowledge of men and things, you can
accomplish it. I wish I could have an hour's talk with
you now, but I hope I shall be back in the United States
in time for a sufficient exchange of views before any open
steps are taken. I have an impression that we already
agree on the main points.
I think we have already talked together on the subject
of candidates. Adams is not too old yet for another trial,
and the more you think of it the clearer it will become to
you, that of all the men who may be considered available
in our sense, he is the only one who can be entirely de-
pended upon to fill the bill in the main points : absolute
independence of party dictation and entire absence of
ulterior ambitions. Moreover, Adams is the name for
1876. Still, I would not talk too much about it just
now. Some little injury may already have been done by
indiscreet talk in the newspapers, but not enough to
compromise anything.
FROM CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, JR.
31 PEMBERTON SQUARE, BOSTON,
July 1 6, 1875.
Enclosed is a note from Halstead of some interest. Its
views seem to me crisp and sound. Allen's election will be
Carl Schurz 157
our destruction; his renomination on the rag-money issue
was a defiance and insult to us, and his success would render
us contemptible. If we don't kill him, he will kill us.
The weapon with which to kill him is the German vote, —
it is the only effective weapon at hand, and you are its holder.
You must come back in time to strike in just at the close with
all the freshness and prestige of your recent German reception.
If you could so carry the day, our tide will set, — if not, it is
a long and low ebb with us.
I hope you will consider this matter carefully. For myself,
I am strongly persuaded that this year it may be well in your
power to give the whole shape to next year's Presidential issue,
while next year you will at most be only remotely able to in-
fluence it. I hope, therefore, you will feel disposed to sacrifice
much that you may go in and smash "old Bill Allen."
TO CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, JR.
THUSIS, ORISONS, SWITZERLAND,
July 22, 1875.
I have just received your letter of June 28th and hasten
to reply. Many of the reasons you give for my immediate
return to the United States, I debated with myself before
my departure. It seems you and I do not quite agree on
an important question of tactics. If I were on the ground
to-day, I doubt very much whether I would feel inclined
to go to Ohio to take an active part in the campaign in
the name of "the Independents." It is true that the
Democrats should not be permitted to have it all their
own way. But there is no danger of that. The inflation-
ists in the Democratic convention of Ohio have struck
a terrible blow at the chances of their party. If they suc-
ceed in their State election, it will be such an encourage-
ment to the inflation element in the Democratic party
as to make that element insist upon controlling their
National Convention next year, which will hopelessly
158 The Writings of [1875
demoralize the party. If they fail in Ohio, it will be a terri-
ble damper upon their spirits and thus have a similar effect.
On the other hand, it appears to me by no means as
certain as it seems to you, that the "force-bill and out-
rage" Republicans will lose the control of the Republican
organization. Public sentiment is indeed likely to force
them to give up their Southern policy — and they, or at
least most of them, will make that sacrifice, for that
policy has always been to them merely a means for parti-
san ends — but they will still hold the leading-strings of
the Republican organization. In point of sentiment we
Liberals have had a majority of the rank and file of the
party with us for a considerable period, but the organiza-
tion was controlled by the ringmasters all the same. It
is so to-day, and the abandonment of the force policy
alone will not change this. I admit that the power of
those ringmasters is not as absolute now as it was a short
time ago, but it was only the defeat of the party at the
State elections that weakened it, and it is as yet far from
being wholly destroyed. And as long as that power exists,
no platform or profession or promise will have much
value. Although the Republicans of Ohio have made a
decent platform, yet, unless I am greatly mistaken, the
controlling spirits are still the old set ; and how they will
use their success, and what effect it will have on the
Republican party — who can tell?
Under ordinary circumstances I might feel inclined to
go to Ohio and help the Republicans, because the Demo-
crats are so much worse. But at present we have to keep
the more important issues of the Presidential election in
view, and I think all the effect the Ohio election can pro-
duce with regard to that matter has already been pro-
duced by the action of the Democratic convention; and
I think further it is our policy as Independents to let it
stand there.
1875] Carl Schurz 159
There are two ways in which we may expect to exercise
a decisive influence upon the Presidential election of '76:
either by appealing from the old parties directly to the
people, or by imposing our terms as to men and policies
upon one of those parties.
Whether we shall be in a situation to do the first, I am
not able to predict. But I am not without hope; as
you know, I attach some importance to the sentimental
character of the campaign of '76, and there may be
extraordinary possibilities. In this case I deem it sound
policy that the Independents should not, as such, demon-
stratively attach themselves to either party in the local
contests of this year.
But in the other contingency the necessary thing is
that one of the parties should be profoundly sensible of
needing our aid, and that this feeling should be strong
enough to induce them to accept our terms, not only as to
platform, but also as to candidates. To that end we must
not permit the impression to grow up that we are ready
to resign ourselves to a choice of evils, the bad conduct
of one party being sufficient reason to us to support the
other. As soon as we do that, the ringmasters will laugh
at us and do what they please.
I see, therefore, no urgent reason for going into the Ohio
campaign. Individually, the Independents will find their
way there. But it seems to me best to keep the firm aloof
until the time for serious work comes, and I do not see
how I could take part in that campaign without, to some
extent at least, compromising the firm in it.
So much for the question of tactics. Just now, the
working of natural causes will do our business as well
and probably better than we could do it by putting our
hands in. These were my opinions when I left the United
States, and I find nothing in the information I get from
there to change them.
160 The Writings of [1875
Why should I hurry home then? The preparatory
work of organization can, I should think, just as well be
done without me. All that is needed is some money
to keep [W. M.] Grosvenor at work. I have written
about this to Cyrus W. Field, but you ought to be able
to raise some at Boston. I entirely agree with you that
you, and no member of your family, should become
conspicuous in this matter, exactly for the reasons you
give; but will it not be possible to push forward things
in your immediate reach without attracting public atten-
tion? If money enough is raised to pay Grosvenor's way
this summer and next winter, we shall, I doubt not, have
the necessary machinery of organization in good season.
I wrote him my views in extenso some time ago. I hope
means will be found to keep him at work. It is perhaps
the most useful thing to be done just now.
I trust you will believe me when I say that I am not
kept away from the United States by a mere desire to en-
joy myself in Europe. Far from that; I cannot endure
pleasure and inactivity very long, and I would rather
start for home to-day than to-morrow. But I have a
strong feeling that, as I should not take part in any of
the local contests this fall, I had better be away so as
not to be obliged to refuse aid when asked to give it. I
think I am not mistaken in this. I hope to be in the
United States about the middle of October and to see
you soon after my arrival.
TO CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, JR.
GRINDELWALD, SWITZERLAND,
Aug. 18, 1875.
Since I wrote you last I have been in that doubtful
state of mind not uncommon with those who have a
high respect for the opinions of their friends even when
1875] Carl Schurz 161
they disagree with them. I received your second letter
enclosing one from Halstead to you; then one from
Halstead to myself, one from Nordhoff, one from Field,
one from Lodge, etc. Finally I concluded that, although
I was by no means certain that it would not be best to
let the Ohio campaign work itself out without much of an
effort on our part, I ought to go and see whether my
friends were not, after all, right in calling me to that field
of action. I dislike to lose a chance for doing something
that ought to be done. So I have resolved to return
home as soon as possible. I shall leave Switzerland to-
morrow although Mrs. Schurz, who was obliged to keep in
bed yesterday, is scarcely able to travel. I have telegraphed
for passage, and hope to be able to sail on September 8th,
possibly on the 1st. In short, I shall try my best to get
away as soon as possible. I may say by the way that
my urgent friends in America are not at all in favor with
my family here, for I have had to break up very rudely
and suddenly a most pleasant circle.
Now, I do not want to have my hurried return talked
about at all until I am there. If the papers should get
hold of it, there would be all sorts of paragraphs about
combinations, etc., which it is best to avoid, — especially
as I may, in spite of all effort, be delayed, finding the
steamers crowded or something like that. You know,
it is not the easiest thing in the world to transport a family,
so I should be glad to have the thing kept quiet.
HONEST MONEY1
MR. CHAIRMAN AND FELLOW-CITIZENS : — The merchants
and business men of Cincinnati have greatly honored me
1 Speech at Turner Hall, Cincinnati, Sept. 27, 1875.
VOL. in. — i
1 62 The Writings of [1873
by inviting me to address the people of Ohio as an ad-
vocate of honest money. For that honor I offer them my
sincere thanks. In obedience to my own sense of duty
I have accepted that invitation, deeply sensible of the
magnitude of the question and the far-reaching impor-
tance of the declaration of sentiment which the people of
Ohio will soon be called upon to make at the ballot-
box.
But before proceeding to discuss the issues of this
contest, I owe you a preliminary statement of a personal
nature. I am told that my appearance in this campaign
has been represented as part of a concerted plan to lead
the independent voters of the country into the ranks of
the Republican party, and to commit them to the support
of its candidates in the Presidential election of 1876.
That story is an idle invention. I know of no such plan.
If it existed, I would not be a party to it. The indepen-
dent voters have minds of their own, and I respect them
too much to believe that they can be transferred to this
or that side by any individual or combination of indi-
viduals. Besides, I not only do not seek to commit any-
body else as to the Presidential election of 1876, but I
do not mean to commit myself. I reserve to myself entire
freedom of judgment on that matter, to be exercised when
the exigency will arise, and I advise everybody else to do
the same. My relations to the Republican party are
no secret. I have deemed it my duty, as a Senator and
as a citizen, to combat the errors and transgressions
of the set of politicians that controlled it and to at-
tack the abuses grown up under its rule. I was in ear-
nest. I thought I was right when I did so, and it is
no mere stubbornness of opinion when I say I think so now.
Not only have I nothing to retract, but I am sure re-
cent developments have convinced many good, conscien-
tious Republicans, that, had our appeals been heeded in
1875] Carl Schurz 163
time, that organization would have saved itself many
humiliations.
It is, therefore, no sentimental partiality for the Re-
publican party that brings me here. Whether the Repub-
lican party will put itself in a position to deserve support
in the Presidential election of 1876 remains to be seen.
Whether the Democrats will do so, remains to be seen also.
My opinion has long been, and I have not concealed it,
that the patriotic men of the Republic might do better
than depend upon either. That well meaning citizens
should so frequently have found themselves compelled
to support one party, not because it had their approval
and confidence, but because the other party appeared
still worse, is not only a condition of politics unworthy of
a free, intelligent and high-minded people, but one of the
most prolific sources of the corruption and demoralization
of our political life. In that situation we have been for
years ; and there is now something going on in Ohio which
threatens to continue that state of things for the year
1876 only in an aggravated form.
Proclamation has been made by the Democratic leaders
of Ohio that this State campaign is to be of decisive effect
as to the issues of the Presidential election of 1876, and
in the very front of these issues, conspicuous before all
others, they have placed one which involves not only the
material interests, but the character, the good name, the
whole moral being of the American people. An attempt
is being made to secure the endorsement by the people of
the greatest State of the West, one of the greatest States
in the Union, of a financial policy which, if followed by the
National Government, would discredit republican insti-
tutions the world over, expose the American people to the
ridicule and contempt of civilized mankind, make our
political as well as business life more than ever the hot-
bed of gambling and corruption and plunge the country
164 The Writings of [1875
into all those depths of moral and material bankruptcy and
ruin, which, as all history demonstrates, never, NEVER fail
to follow a course so utterly demented in its wickedness.
The advocates of inflation in this State, as they them-
selves give us to understand, expect, if the people of Ohio
by the election of the Democratic candidates declare their
approbation of that financial policy, that the inflation
fever will, under the stimulus of such success, sweep
like wildfire over the Western and Southern States, over-
whelm and subjugate the Democratic National Conven-
tion next year, dictate its policy and its candidates, and
in 1876 put an inflation party into the field strong enough
to defy opposition. I candidly confess I see good rea-
son to apprehend such consequences. I do indeed not
undervalue the importance of the manly, honorable and
patriotic condemnation pronounced by the Democratic
convention of New York upon the doctrines preached by
their Democratic brethren here. It was an act deserving
the grateful applause of every good citizen. But I doubt
very seriously whether that act will stem the flood, if
the inflationists in Ohio are successful. Pennsylvania
has already followed them. It is but too probable that
the sectional feeling which the inflation movement strives
to excite in the West and South against the Northeast
will be inflamed to more intense bitterness, and that the
financial question will be used as a new agency to revive
the curse of sectional warfare in our politics.
Let us indulge in no delusion. The success of the
inflation party in Ohio will be the signal for a general
charge along the whole line to submerge the best principles
and leave helpless in the rear the best leaders of the
Democratic party, and, spurred on by a reckless demagog-
ism, to capture the national power by a tumultuous rush.
This is no matter of mere local concern as some weakly
pretend to believe. It is a national danger, which all
Carl Schurz 165
good citizens should unite to avert, and which can surely
be averted only by the defeat of the inflation party here.
I repeat, therefore, I have not come here to whitewash the
faults of the Republican party, to apologize for its short-
comings, or to serve its ambitions. But here is an in-
calculable mischief, threatened by the other side, to be
prevented, and I simply try to do my duty, as I under-
stand it.
I beg leave to address my remarks directly to the
Democrats of Ohio. In view of our former relations, I
trust they will not for this direct appeal accuse me of any
impropriety. When I, as an independent man, in the
Senate and before the people, advocated a policy of
conciliation and justice with regard to the South; when I
attacked official corruption and transgressions of those in
power; when I denounced violations of the principles of
the Constitution perpetrated by Republican officers of
State, you, my Democratic fellow-citizens, lavished upon
me expressions of applause and confidence, for which I
was duly grateful.
But Democratic inflationists seek to discredit my good
faith by the accusation that I have changed sides. Let us
see: In 1872 I stood before you as an advocate of the
"Liberal" ticket, which had also been adopted and was
supported by the Democrats. That ticket was nominated
upon a platform containing, as an essential part of its
political faith, the following resolutions:
The public credit must be sacredly maintained, and we
denounce repudiation in every form and guise.
A speedy return to specie payment is demanded alike by
the highest considerations of commercial morality and honest
government.
That platform was solemnly indorsed and adopted as
the political faith of the Democratic party by their Na-
1 66 The Writings of [1875
tional Convention at Baltimore. Upon that platform I
stood then, and upon it I faithfully stand to-day. Demo-
crats, where are you? In making that declaration of
principles, I was in earnest. If your leaders betrayed
their declared faith, what right have they to accuse me
of deserting my cause, when I resist its betrayal by them?
Again, they pretend that from opposition to President
Grant I have turned round to speak for him and promote
his reelection. Let us see. In the verbatim report of a
speech made by Governor Allen at Mansfield I find the
following language:
I have some reason to believe, and not a small reason
either, that Grant, in his secret heart, wants the Democracy
to carry Ohio, in order that it may be said by his partisans :
Now, no other man can rescue the country but Grant; there-
fore, we must have Grant."
You, Democrats, will certainly not accuse your candi-
date for the governorship of telling a deliberate untruth.
If he says he has good reason to believe that President
Grant desires the Democracy to carry Ohio, then, of
course, his reasons must be good. We have Governor
Allen's word for it. Now I, for my part, do not wish to
see President Grant's secret desires gratified on this point.
I am as honestly and earnestly as ever opposed to Presi-
dent Grant's renomination, and, therefore, I am honestly
and earnestly opposed to the furtherance of that renomina-
tion by the success of the inflation Democracy in Ohio.
If there are any Grant men in this campaign, they are
those who advocate Governor Allen's election, not I.
The truth is, there were a set of Republican politicians
who thought they could permit themselves any iniquity
if they only raised the cry of "rebel. " There seem to be
now a set of Democratic politicians who think they can
permit themselves any iniquity if they only raise the cry
1875] Carl Schurz 167
of "Grant." I opposed the former as false pretenders,
and upon the same principle I oppose the latter. For it
is my sincere conviction that there is just as little danger
of the reelection of President Grant as there is of a new
rebellion, while there is real and great danger in the tricks
of wily politicians, who strive to hide their mischievous
schemes behind what they believe a popular cry.
No, my Democratic fellow-citizens, I have not changed
sides. I stand upon the same ground which I occupied
when you cheered my utterances. I advocate the same
principles and serve the same ends. To the same senti-
ments which then you so loudly applauded I ask you now
to give a patient and candid hearing.
As Democrats, you profess to be above all in favor of
two things: First, the strictest maintenance of the limita-
tions of governmental power as an indispensable safe-
guard of free institutions; and second, an honest and
economical conduct of our public affairs. Its fidelity to
these two things is the particular boast of the Democratic
party, and upon this fidelity it bases its claims on popular
confidence and support. As to the necessity of these two
things we fully agree. In fact it was while contending
for the maintenance of the Constitutional limitations of
governmental power, and for the restoration of honest
and economical government, that the Independents broke
with the controlling influences of the Republican party,
for which you applauded us so loudly.
Now, I protest that we were in earnest and in good
faith in that struggle, actuated, not by any motives of
small personal spite, but by a sincere solicitude for the
integrity of republican institutions and the public good.
And being in earnest and in good faith, we must recognize
our duty to defend that cause against whatever power,
whatever party may imperil it — against Democrats no
less than against Republicans.
168 The Writings of [1875
Were you, Democrats of Ohio, in earnest and in good
faith also, when you represented the strictest limitation
of governmental powers and hostility to corruption and
extravagance as your pet principles? Examine your
present attitude. You adopted in your State convention
a platform insisting upon an augmentation by the General
Government of its irredeemable paper currency. And
now I assert that those who advocate an inflation of our
irredeemable paper currency, although calling themselves
Democrats, are advocating an assumption and exercise of
power by the Government far more overreaching and
dangerous, and a corruption and profligacy far more
demoralizing and oppressive than any we have so far
experienced. If I make good that assertion, you will not
be able to deny that your Ohio platform is a reckless and
barefaced abandonment of the very principles the Demo-
cratic party pretends to be proudest of.
But, before proceeding to this demonstration, I must
notice an evasion resorted to by some Democratic leaders,
who seem to feel the soreness of that point. Here and
there the pretense is put forth that the Ohio platform does
not mean an inflation of our irredeemable paper currency
at all, but merely an adaptation of it to the wants of trade.
This argument is used to calm the apprehensions of those
who recoil from naked inflation and the prospect of ruin
it opens. Never was a deception more insidious.
Democrats, let us be candid as serious men, and have
at least the courage of our opinions and purposes. Let us
throw aside the art of the juggler when the highest in-
terests of the people are at stake. What does the Demo-
cratic platform say? It states that the contraction of the
currency wrought by the Republican party — which con-
traction, by the way, is only imaginary, as every well-
informed man in the country knows — has brought about
the present depression of business; and having made this
Carl Schurz 169
statement the platform proceeds to propose "to make and
keep the volume of the currency equal to the wants of
trade."
What does this mean? If anything, it means that the
volume of the currency has been reduced so much as to
fall short of the wants of trade; that it must be "made"
equal to those wants, and that can be done by issuing
more of it ; and that it must be ' ' kept ' ' equal to those wants,
and that can be done only by issuing still more of it from
time to time, as the volume put out may not have effected
the purpose.
Every child in the country can understand the meaning
of such language, and I wonder with what faces "honorable
gentlemen" can stand up before an intelligent people
feebly quibbling about a turn of phrase which has no
meaning at all if it does not mean inflation. But it means
not only inflation by a single act and to a fixed amount —
it means inflation continuous and indefinite.
The volume of the currency is to be "made and kept
equal to the wants of trade. " Is not the volume of the
currency equal to the wants of trade now? It is a fact
as notorious as daylight that the banks of the country,
especially in the centers of trade, are full of money that
lies idle for want of employment. No intelligent man
questions this fact. To any candid mind this would
conclusively prove, not that the volume of currency is
unequal to the wants of business, but that the business
of the country is unequal to the volume of the currency.
But no! say the inflationists. It does not prove that
the volume of currency is equal to the wants of trade ; for,
although there may be a superabundance of money in the
banks, there are a great many people who want money
and cannot get it.
To candid common-sense, this again would prove, not
that there is a lack of currency, but that there is a want
170 The Writings of [1875
of confidence which deters those who have money from
embarking in business, and from lending money to those
who need it.
This want of confidence is to be overcome. How do
the inflationists propose to accomplish this?
On this point we obtain some information from their
chief, Governor Allen, who is by the Democratic party
of Ohio charged with the great office of leading the country
out of all its financial difficulties. I have studied some
of the speeches of that venerable gentleman, which, I
must confess, filled me with wonder and amazement.
No words can do him justice but his own. In a verbatim
report of his speech delivered some time ago at Marietta,
I find the following language:
These men [meaning his opponents] go about and cry
there is too much money in this country. I wish to God we
could find some of it. [Laughter.] They say it is in the
banks. Is it? It might just as well, for the purposes of
money and currency, be in the bottom of the Pacific Ocean,
for if it is not in circulation, it is no more money than so
many cornstalks would be. To be money it must circulate
as a medium for carrying on the exchange of the country.
This, then, is Governor Allen's doctrine. I do not wish
to speak harshly of the venerable gentleman, who, no
doubt, possesses many estimable qualities, and far be it
from me to cast any slur upon his character as a man.
But standing there as one of the great leaders whose
wisdom the people are called upon to trust for the manage-
ment of their most important interests, his expressed
opinions challenge scrutiny. Now, I must confess, among
all the glaring absurdities with which the inflation school
of financiers has been flooding the land, I find none equal
to this theory of Governor Allen's in brilliancy of nonsense.
It deserves to be recorded and transmitted to posterity
1875] Carl Schurz 171
as one of the immortal utterances of the financial states-
manship of this period.
Only think of it. Money in bank is no money at all
for business purposes, because it is in bank! The great
leader of the Democratic party of Ohio, which asks the
people to vote for him on the very ground of his financial
principles, does not know yet that in this civilized country
only about seven per cent, of the business transactions
are accomplished by an actual transfer and delivery of
currency from hand to hand and that fully ninety-three
per cent, of those transactions are effected by the transfer
of bank accounts through checks, notes and bills of ex-
change. He does not know that ninety-three per cent, of
the circulation of money in this country is effected through
those very banks, which he likens to the bottom of the
Pacific Ocean ! He does not know yet that, in the progress
of civilization, we have passed that ancient period of
barbarism when a business man carried his treasury in his
wallet and his counting-room in his hat !
It seems almost incredible in this nineteenth century,
and yet this very absurdity is the basis of all the reasoning
of the inflationists, and Governor Allen is only the blunt
but the true representative of the ideas of his followers.
Believing, or pretending to believe, that money in bank is
lost to circulation and no longer performs the office of
money, they strive either to force that money out of the
banks, or to issue more which will not go into the banks.
They decide at once for the latter course.
Now, suppose more of our irredeemable greenbacks be
issued. No matter who gets them, the first thing the
people who receive them will do is to go straightway
and deposit them in banks — all except Governor Allen.
"Hold on!" cries he, "that will never do! You are de-
stroying your greenbacks for all purposes of money and
currency! You are throwing them into the bottom of
172 The Writings of [1875
the Pacific Ocean. " And he sagely proceeds to stow his
away in an old stocking or an earthen pot under the bed,
for circulation; for, if he lends his money to anybody, or
pays it out in a business transaction, the man who gets it,
if it is a considerable quantity, will forthwith deposit it
in a bank, and even if paid out in small sums, it will
eventually get there.
Yes, this is a perverse age when people will insist upon
depositing their money in banks. ' ' Now, ' ' Governor Allen
will say, "this experiment not having answered, the great
mass of this new issue of greenbacks having gone into the
banks, or which is the same thing, into the bottom of the
Pacific Ocean, of course, we must issue more greenbacks,
and more and more, until the money stays out of the
banks." And, finally, Governor Allen would accomplish
his purpose — that is, when the greenbacks will have be-
come so utterly worthless that it will no longer be of any
use to deposit them in banks at all. Then, I suppose,
the greenbacks would, in his sense, be "better than corn-
stalks" ; they would, at last, "serve the purposes of money
and currency," and really "circulate as a medium," ac-
cording to Governor Allen's enlightened financial con-
ception.
This would, as Governor Allen gives us to understand,
be "making and keeping the volume of the currency equal
to the wants of trade, " in pursuance of the Ohio platform.
I desired to prove that the Ohio platform means inflation.
Will any follower of Governor Allen deny it yet?
But, O citizens of Ohio, I ask you now in all soberness,
would it not be a burning shame for the people of so great
a State, an intelligent, educated people, at a critical
moment, when so much depends upon their decision, to
designate a man, who claims their votes just because he
is the exponent of such a policy, as their chosen chief,
thus putting the seal of their approbation upon financial
1875] Carl Schurz 173
theories so utterly absurd and childish as to become the
laughing-stock of the world wherever they are mentioned !
I earnestly hope the people of Ohio will think better of
themselves.
Some Democratic speakers pretend that the policy of
"making and keeping the volume of the currency equal
to the wants of trade" may, in the sense of the Ohio
platform, under certain circumstances mean, instead of
inflation, a reduction of the currency, namely, when it
appears that the volume of currency is in excess of the
wants of trade.
When will the excess be admitted if it is not admitted
now, while large quantities of money lie in the banks idle
for want of employment, and that paper money at a heavy
discount as to gold? If now the wants of trade are con-
sidered to require still more currency, under what cir-
cumstances will they be considered to require less? It is
easy to show that as you go on increasing the currency the
demand will not be satisfied, but it will be still more
excited.
One thing is universally admitted : If the volume of our
irredeemable paper money is increased, it will further
depreciate. The paper dollar, which is worth 85 cents in
gold now, will be worth 80, or 70, or 60, or 50 cents, then,
and what you can buy for one dollar in paper now will
cost $1.25, or $1.30, or $1.40, or $1.50 then.
As the paper money depreciates and loses in purchasing
power, its power of effecting exchanges will decrease in
a corresponding measure. A transaction requiring the
use of $100 now will require $125, or $130, or $150, then.
What follows? The increased quantity of the currency
bringing with it no increased power of effecting ex-
changes, in consequence of corresponding depreciation,
you are, after the increase, just as far from satisfying
the supposed wants of trade as you were before. You
174 The Writings of [1875
try further expansion, and the result will be exactly the
same. You go on trying in that way "to make the vol-
ume of currency equal to the wants of trade," and the
inflation will be indefinite, until finally the currency be-
comes so worthless as to effect no exchanges at all, and
the whole edifice tumbles down in universal repudiation,
bankruptcy and ruin.
Is there any advocate of the Democratic platform who
can gainsay this? If not, then let us hear no more about
that platform not meaning inflation. It means inflation
indefinite, unlimited, until the currency is utterly worthless.
Besides, you need only listen, not to the trimming
apologizers, but to the real makers and exponents of the
Democratic platform, and you hear nothing but the roar
for "more money! more money!" If it did not mean in-
flation, it would have no value at all to them. To quibble
about it is not only a useless, it is simply a ridiculous
attempt at evasion. The inflationists of Ohio themselves
will laugh at you, did you tell them that the platform does
not mean "more money; much, very much more money!"
Now let me return to the point from which this was a
digression. I affirmed that those who advocated an in-
flation of our irredeemable paper currency, pretending to
be Democrats, are advocating an assumption and exer-
cise of power by the Government far more overreaching
and dangerous, and a corruption and profligacy far more
demoralizing and oppressive than any we have yet ex-
perienced, thus betraying the very principles the Demo-
cratic party puts in the foreground in soliciting the
confidence and support of the people.
First, then, as to the limitation of governmental power.
You, my Democratic friends, insist that a strict limita-
tion of the powers of government, according to Constitu-
tional principles, is the most essential and indispensable
safeguard of popular liberty and free institutions. I con-
1875] Carl Schurz 175
tend for the same doctrine. But you insist, also, that
our irredeemable paper currency shall be augmented
according to the supposed wants of trade. And who is to
determine what the wants of trade are and to what extent
the volume of currency shall be augmented? Of course,
the Government. Have you considered what that means?
In specie-paying times the amount of coin circulating
in a country is regulated by the circumstances of business.
If there is more than finds profitable employment, it will
flow out and go where it finds a better market. If there is
less than the wants of trade require, it will become dear
and flow in from countries where it is cheaper.
The issues of a well regulated banking system, based
upon specie, will conform to the same rule. Temporary
disturbances, brought on by panics or artificial operations,
may arise, but on the whole the rule holds good. The
Government has no arbitrary control whatever over the
value of the currency. It sees to it that the coin struck in
the mint be of the prescribed standard value; it punishes
counterfeiting; it regulates the banking system so as to
make it safe. And then it lets currency and trade in their
relations take care of themselves. That is sound Demo-
cratic and also sound financial principle and practice in
the true sense of the word. There the Government is
reduced to its proper functions.
But how is it where an irredeemable paper money pre-
vails? There the volume of currency is not regulated by
the circumstances of trade. The paper money not having
outside of the country that value which specie possesses,
it does not flow out and in as the needs of business may
require; the quantity the country shall have is deter-
mined by the arbitrary will of the Government.
This is a power of awful extent and significance. It is
not disputed that the value, the purchasing power of an
irredeemable paper currency is affected by the quantity
176 The Writings of [1875
in circulation, and that other circumstances, such as the
confidence of the people and solvency of the Government,
remaining the same, an appreciable expansion of the
currency will result in its depreciation, and vice versa.
But as the currency changes in purchasing power, so the
money value of all you possess, and all you have to buy or
to sell, changes also ; so that the power of the Government
to determine the quantity of currency that shall be in
circulation is virtually equivalent to the power, by its
own arbitrary act, to increase or decrease the money value
of all private property in the land; in other words, the
private fortune of every citizen is placed at the mercy of
the Government's arbitrary pleasure. You cannot ven-
ture upon any business enterprise, you cannot sell or
buy a lot of merchandise on time or even for cash, you can-
not make a contract involving the outlay or payment of
money, but the Government will have the power to deter-
mine whether it will be to your profit or loss, and perhaps
in extreme cases whether it will make you rich or bankrupt.
This, then, is the awful power of a government intrusted
with the office of "making and keeping the volume of
currency equal to the wants of trade." You may ask
me: Cannot the Congress of the United States be de-
pended upon to exercise such a power with wisdom and
discretion? The Lord preserve us! The wisest assembly
of financiers in the world would be unable to discover any
other means to make and keep the volume of currency
equal to the wants of trade, than by a return to a specie
basis where trade and currency may adjust themselves.
But Congress! Give us the most honest and intelligent
Congress we can ever expect to be blessed with, and the
adaptation of the volume of an irredeemable paper cur-
rency to the ever-changing wants of trade by annual
legislation will be found an utter impossibility. But now
imagine a Congress controlled by statesmen like Governor
1875] Carl Schurz 177
Allen, who think that more and more currency must be
issued until the money of the country stays out of the
banks; or imagine a Congress manipulated by a ring of
unscrupulous and adroit financial sharpers, and such a
Congress wielding the tremendous power of changing at
pleasure the current value of every dollar and every
dollar's worth of property you have — does not your head
swim at the prospect? And yet that is the power wielded
by any government, intelligent or idiotic, honest or
rascally, which is charged with the office of "making and
keeping the volume of irredeemable paper money equal
to the wants of trade. "
You, my Democratic friends, say that it was not you
who conferred such a power upon the Government by the
creation of the irredeemable paper money. That is true
enough. It was done under the pressure of the extreme
necessities of the civil war by Republicans. But does
that change the question? Previous to that civil war you
would have found among the great statesmen of the
Republic scarcely a single one who would have admitted
the Constitutionality of an act of Congress making any-
thing but gold and silver coin a legal tender. I know well
that the Supreme Court, after the war, did consider such
an act justified by the extremity of National danger.
But now the National danger is over. We are at peace.
The North and the South have shaken hands in renewed
friendship. No foreign enemy threatens our shores. All
National danger, with what justification it might afford
of exceptional measures, has vanished.
And now you, Democrats of Ohio, propose to continue
that awful power of the Government inseparable from an
irredeemable paper money system — nay, you propose to
perpetuate it,— for what purpose? Not to defend the
life of the Republic against armed aggression, but to
produce certain effects upon the business of the country.
VOL. III. — 12
178 The Writings of [1875
You not only admit that power of the National Govern-
ment to change at will all current values in the country, to
dispose of the private fortune of every citizen at its arbi-
trary pleasure — nay, in the face of the efforts of others to
strip the Government of a discretion so despotic, you insist
that that power shall be exercised by what you euphoni-
ously call "making and keeping the currency equal to
the wants of trade," by the interference of Government.
And you still call yourselves Democrats, and claim the
confidence of the people by your fidelity to the great
principle that popular liberty and free institutions must be
secured by a strict limitation of the powers of government !
When President Grant trifled with the war-making
power in the San Domingo case, I with others denounced
his action as a transgression of his Constitutional authority,
and you applauded. When the Ku-Klux act was passed,
when an act of usurpation setting up an illegal govern-
ment in Louisiana was countenanced and aided by the
Administration, when the Federal military invaded the
legislative hall of that State, I was among those who
protested against such unconstitutional assumptions of
authority. Step by step we fought against what ap-
peared as an advance of dangerous centralization. And
you applauded.
But now I declare, those unconstitutional assumptions
and those centralizing attempts appear as mere trifles
compared with the arbitrary, despotic character of that
power to kick the fortune of every citizen about as the
football of its whims, which you, Democrats of Ohio, ac-
cording to your platform, not only recognize as belonging
to the Government, but attempt to fix upon the Govern-
ment as a permanent system, by making its abolition
simply impossible. Nay, you insist that such power
SHALL be actively exercised. If that is Democracy, then,
I entreat you, trifle no longer with the intelligence of the
1875] Carl Schurz 179
people by pretending that a strict limitation of the powers
of government as the indispensable safeguard of popular
liberty and republican institutions is an article of your
creed. If the great men of the past, whom you delight
in calling the founders and apostles of your party, the
men whose recorded opinions on this momentous question
are plainly before you, if Jefferson, Jackson, Silas Wright,
Benton could rise from their graves and hear the Ohio
platform called a true exposition of Democratic faith, ah,
how their eyes would kindle with scorn at the barefaced
imposition, and how they would spurn with their heels the
bastard offspring! — So much for inflation as the source
of an arbitrary, despotic power, incompatible with free
government. So much for the betrayal of the cardinal
principle of Democracy by the Democrats who advocate it.
Now, a word about inflation as the source of corruption
and profligacy. You, my Democratic friends, profess to
contend for frugal, economical, honest, pure government.
So do I. Is there a single candid man among you who
sincerely believes that frugality, economy, honesty, purity
of government can be promoted by an expansion of our
irredeemable currency, or is even in any way compatible
with it?
Let us look at a plain, practical side of the question. It
has frequently been asked : How are you going to get your
additional greenbacks afloat? The query seems to have
caused some embarrassment, and the answer has usually
been: Oh, we shall get it out somehow. But there is no
need of indefmiteness. The matter is capable of precise
statement. Obviously, there are two ways to set addi-
tional currency afloat. One is by buying up United States
gold-bearing bonds in the market, or by buying gold to
pay off bonds as they fall due.
But it is certain that this method will answer only in a
very limited measure, for this simple reason : As you put
i8o The Writings of 11875
out new greenbacks, with the prospect of a large emission,
the greenbacks will rapidly depreciate as to gold; and as
the bonds are payable principal and interest in gold, they
will maintain their gold value, and their price in paper
money will thereby become so high that the method of
putting out greenbacks by purchasing bonds will soon
become very unpopular and be dropped. Or, if you
mean to repudiate the bonds, of which, as I understand,
there is at present no declared purpose, then, of course,
you will simply repudiate them, and not buy them up at
all
But there is another way to put afloat new issues of
greenbacks ; it is by carrying the expenses of the Govern-
ment beyond its revenues, and this, I have no doubt, will
be resorted to as the favorite method. Do you know what
that means? Imagine a Congress making appropriations
of money for the avowed purpose of getting out, putting
afloat, spending, as much money as possible, adopting
systematic extravagance in expenditures as a necessary
measure of financial policy to the end of "making and
keeping the volume of currency equal to the wants of
trade." What a day of jubilee there will be among the
thieves and rascals, who think they can gain not only
wealth, but respectability, by stealing as much as possible
of the public money ! Let it be known that ditches must
be dug, that embankments must be thrown up, that
mountains must be tunneled, that railroads and steam-
boat lines must be subsidized, for the very purpose of
spending money that "the volume of the currency be
made and kept equal to the wants of trade," — what a
harvest of jobs, what a crop of rings this blessed country
will bear! What a glorious time for enterprising contrac-
tors, what a seductive season for Congressmen to help a
friend for a little share in the profits, what a carnival of
fraud, what a flying about of stray millions! For, mind
1875] Carl Schurz 181
you, money will be no object; on the contrary, it must
be .spent, and the more spent the better, for the greenbacks
must be got out, in obedience to the mandate, "to make
and keep the volume of the currency equal to the wants of
trade. "
No, fellow-citizens, this is no jest. This is no exaggera-
tion. You adopt a financial policy making it the duty of
the National Government to put out new issues of currency
in any way that will serve the object quickest, and un-
limited extravagance will be the necessary, the inevitable
consequence. There never was a state ever so well
administered, there never was a people ever so frugal,
there never was a government ever so careful, which did
not, by the emission of large quantities of irredeemable
paper money, run in the vortex of profligacy and corrup-
tion. It has never been, it will never be, otherwise. It is
in the very nature of things. When you manufacture
this so-called money by merely printing a few words on a
slip of paper, it apparently costs nothing. You are de-
luding yourselves with the idea that you are creating
wealth, without stopping to think of the ultimate day of
reckoning which demands the settlement of accounts.
When you spend such money for the very purpose of
getting it out, the wildest extravagance is unavoidable,
and the extravagance of a government always is the very
hot-bed of peculation and corruption. The rings will
thrive, and the honest men will pay the cost. But not
only the Government and its officers does it corrupt; still
more grievously will it demoralize the people. When,
by the fluctuations of so vicious a monetary system, the
possessions of everybody become uncertain from day to
day, every man of business will, by the very force of
circumstances, be made a gambler. What is worth some-
thing to-day and may be worth nothing to-morrow is
lightly made the football of chance, and when everybody,
1 82 The Writings of [1875
to save himself, sees himself forced to overreach everybody
else, the principles of honesty are easily forgotten. The
sting of necessity stimulates unscrupulous greed, and the
general example silences the voice of conscience. Honest
labor appears as fruitless drudgery, and to live upon one's
wits becomes the order of the day. The history of nations
is full of pertinent warnings. American society can escape
such a fate just as little as any other, if we flood this
country with that kind of money which in its very nature
carries the poison of false pretense and seduction.
My Democratic friends, we have seen in our days many
startling cases of embezzlement, peculation and fraud.
We have seen Credit Mobilier rings, whisky rings, mail-
contract rings, Indian rings and what not. I have
denounced these things no less earnestly than you. But
I tell you, all these things will appear insignificant com-
pared with the corruption and profligacy which must
inevitably ensue when you put in operation a financial
policy which, in order to "make and keep our irredeemable
currency equal to the wants of trade," will oblige the
Government to spend money in streams for the very
purpose of getting it out; for then reckless extravagance
with all the wastefulness and corruption inseparable from
it will no longer appear as a mere incident, it will become
the systematic practice of your Government, the very
basis of your scheme of finance.
Democrats, do you ask for the confidence of the people
on the ground that you are enemies of corruption and
friends of economical, honest and pure government ? If
so, then make haste to mark with the stigma of your
condemnation those of your leaders who attempt to in-
veigle you into the approbation of a financial policy
which by the force of necessity will make the Govern-
ment more corrupt and profligate than ever.
I ventured to affirm that while the Democratic party
1875] Carl Schurz 183
puts forth strict limitation of the powers of government
and the suppression of corruption and extravagance as
its first objects, those Democrats who advocate an in-
flation of our currency are advocating a more despotic
and dangerous exercise of governmental powers, and a
more demoralizing and oppressive extravagance and
corruption, than we ever experienced, thus betraying the
very principles which the Democracy most loudly pro-
fesses. I trust no candid man will deny that I have made
good my assertion. The interested partisan may quibble,
but no patriotic man will close his eyes to the truth.
What excuse, then, can be presented for such a betrayal
of professed principles? What advantages can so baneful
a policy offer to compensate for such curses?
The excuses put forth shine by their flimsiness. Here is
a very curious one from Governor Allen himself. In one
of his first speeches he said substantially this: Not the
Democrats, but the Republicans, forced the greenback
currency upon the people. The Republicans are re-
sponsible for it. They, therefore, ought not to vilify their
own child. And since they have forced the greenbacks
upon us, they must not find fault with us, if we accept the
situation and give them more than they bargained for.
Ah, Governor Allen, this will hardly do, not even in a
pinch. You may not be satisfied with the past financial
policy of the Republican party. Neither am I. But do
you not call yourself a reformer? Do you not ask the
people to vote for you on the ground that you are a
reformer? Is it not the office of a true reformer to remove
bad things and put better things in their place? And
now you come and say, that your opponents have forced
upon us a bad thing, and you propose to reform by giving
us more of it ! You are opposed to all dangerous assump-
tions of power by the Government, and now you propose
to reform by giving us more of that ! You are opposed to
1 84 The Writings of [1875
corruption and profligacy, and propose to reform by giving
us more of that also! Indeed, a fine assortment of refor-
matory sweets in that inflation pill. No, Governor Allen,
that will never do. If you propose to reform the evils you
so loudly denounce by giving us more of them, you and
your friends are not the sort of reformers sensible men will
take to. If, indeed, that should turn out to be the real
reformatory spirit of the Democracy, then prudent and
patriotic men must feel in duty bound to turn round
and look for salvation somewhere else. But, surely, even
were I a lifelong Democrat, that kind of reformatory
spirit I should, as a friend of the party as well as of my
country, feel bound to aid in putting down to prevent
it from doing fatal mischief to both. For this kind of
reformatory spirit might at last reform Congress into an
insane asylum, the public service, the machinery of the
Government into the elements of a penitentiary and the
party into a terror to all honest and civilized men.
But there is another excuse which at first sight appears
more respectable. It is said the times are hard ; business
is languishing; our industries are depressed; thousands of
laborers are without work; the poor are growing poorer;
the country is full of distress; something must be done
to afford relief. All this is true, and there are many well
meaning men who, troubled by their difficulties, grope
about for a remedy.
Yes, it is indeed necessary that something be done to
afford relief. The question is what that something should
be.
As wise men, we must first ascertain the nature of the
disease before determining upon the method of cure.
The Democratic platform of Ohio affirms that the
business depression was caused by the contraction of the
currency wrought by the Republican party. Time and
again it has been shown that this statement is false on its
Carl Schurz 185
very face. But the inflationists, driven by the necessity
of throwing dust in the eyes of the people, exhibit such
an able-bodied perseverance in misstatement that I shall
once more take the trouble to give the figures from an
authentic statement before me.
From that statement it appears that in 1873, when the
business crash occurred, there were in the aggregate more
legal-tenders and bank-notes out than ever before; in-
cluding the fractional currency, there were $9,000,000
more than in 1872, over $29,000,000 more than in 1871,
over $52,000,000 more than in 1870, over $58,000,000
more than in 1869, over $56,000,000 more than in 1868,
over $46,000,000 more than in 1867 ; and even if we count
the compound interest notes into the volume of circulating
currency we find that we had in 1873, the year of the crash,
a general aggregate of $9,000,000 more than in 1872,
over $29,000,000 more than in 1871, over $51,000,000
more than in 1870, over $56,000,000 more than in 1869,
over $2,000,000 more than in 1868. And yet, just the
years last mentioned have generally been called years of
unexampled prosperity; and when during all those years
the currency had reached its greatest volume, that collapse
came, which the inflationists will have us believe was
caused by contraction. There is the record. There was
expansion, and no contraction; and if there was no con-
traction, then contraction cannot have caused the collapse
in business. That is so simple a demonstration that I
think Governor Allen should understand it. And yet I
shall not be surprised to see to-morrow an inflationist
come before you who, in the face of these facts and figures,
will affirm that it was the contraction of the currency
which did all the mischief.
What was, then, the cause of the crisis of 1873, the
consequences of which are still upon us? I wonder why
political economists of the inflation school will never
1 86 The Writings of [1875
remember that similar disturbances occurred in the
business life of other countries; but two years ago a
collapse of speculation in Austria and Germany, a succes-
sion of failures in England, and similar things in almost
all European countries, France being a notable exception.
And it so happens that in the countries thus afflicted,
especially Germany, not only no contraction of the
currency had taken place, but rather an increase of its
volume, partly by the influx of coin through the war
indemnities, partly by an increase of bank currency;
while in France business appears prosperous, although not
only heavy drafts were made on the national resources
for the payment of the German war indemnity, but —
and I invite you to mark this — a steady contraction of the
paper currency has been going on all the time for the last
three years, for the purpose of returning to specie payments,
which had been suspended during the German war.
And when you study the condition of things preceding
the collapses in European countries and in ours, you will
find that agencies of a kindred nature were at work there
and here; no contraction of the currency whatever,
rather an expansion of it; but industrial enterprise over-
leaping itself; an extensive production of things for which
there was no immediate demand ; the sinking of capital
in great undertakings which could yield no immediate
return; windy schemes, stock gambling, wild speculation
in all possible directions and the creation of imaginary
values; wasteful extravagance in private expenditures
and high living extraordinary; a morbid desire to get rich
without labor ; an excessive straining of the credit system —
until finally the bubble burst, and people found that they
were by no means as rich as they had believed themselves.
So it was there, and so it was here. France, on the other
hand, had gone through a disastrous and destructive war;
she had to pay heavy sums of money — 5,000,000,000
Carl Schurz 187
francs — as a war indemnity, and largely increased her
debt. She was apparently prostrated. What was to be
done ? ' ' Issue more paper currency to restore prosperity, ' '
our inflationists would have said. But no; a wise finan-
cial policy determined otherwise. Not believing that the
country could recuperate by deceiving itself, they issued
no more irredeemable paper money. They reduced the
volume of that which was in circulation, they worked
sturdily and steadily toward resumption, so that a franc
not only pretends to be, but is a franc, and he that has
one knows what he has. The people set to work again
in a frugal and laborious way, their industries producing
things for which there was demand in the market; no
capital sunk in useless enterprises; no wild speculation;
no self-deception by the creation of fictitious values —
and thus you find France to-day, in spite of her disasters,
economically in a more satisfactory condition than the
countries around her. There is a striking lesson before
us. No wise man will study it without profit.
Now, it being conclusively shown that the depression of
business was not brought on by a contraction of the cur-
rency, but by causes which always produce such results,
the question recurs whether an inflation of the currency
will furnish the relief we need. Our inflation doctors
seem to me just as wise as a physician who would treat a
case of overloaded stomach as a case of starvation.
Sometimes you will observe when a man is ill, and some
medical tyro tries to cure in the wrong direction, that
nature makes an effort to right itself. So it is also with
the diseases of the body economic.
You say that, although the banks in the business centers
are full of money, lying idle for want of employment, we
want more currency. I tell you, business can have more
currency; it can have as much as it likes without any
further act of Government. According to law, every one
1 88 The Writings of [1875
of you, or any association you may form, having the
necessary capital, can start a bank of issue. A general
license to that effect, through the free-banking act, was
given by Congress last winter. We heard so much of the
West and the South wanting more local circulation and
starving for greater banking facilities. Now you can
make yourselves comfortable. All legal impediments are
removed. You can issue any amount of currency. But
behold! the currency will not inflate one cent's worth.
And you, worthy patriots, who clamor for more currency,
do not lift a finger to create more. Why not: Here is a
reason given by the Cincinnati Enquirer: "There is not
currency enough in circulation to buy the bonds to deposit
with the National Government and obtain from it Na-
tional currency in exchange. " This is genius. It ranks
with the most brilliant financial utterances of Governor
Allen himself.
But I appeal to you, business men, laborers, farmers, who
honestly desire to do right, and look up to your party
leaders for instruction, if you want an instance of the
impudent, insulting assurance with which these men de-
pend upon your being too ignorant and stupid to tell
obvious fact from obvious falsehood, look at this : Here is
the great representative organ of the inflation Democracy,
the tabernacle of its brains, the feeding-pipe of its wisdom;
and now, while everybody knows that millions and millions
of money are lying unemployed in the business centers of the
country, East and West, looking for investment sufficiently
safe; while everybody knows that in every large city in
the land there are dozens of capitalists with abundant
means which they might devote to the creation of bank-
paper issues if it were profitable; while everybody knows
that there is scarcely a town of respectable size without
men of means fully able to form a combination for that
purpose, that organ, fighting the truth as its personal
1875] Carl Schurz 189
enemy, coolly asks you to believe that there is not currency
enough in the country to permit the purchase of bonds as
a basis for further national-bank issues. When I read
such things I do not know what to admire most: the
audacity of the inventors or the pitiable weakness of the
invention.
But the absurdity of that statement appears in its full
glory when we look at all the circumstances of the case.
Not only did the business of the country not show that it
needed more, when it refused to issue more in spite of its
opportunities, but it proved that it had more than it
needed by surrendering a large portion of the bank
currency in circulation. On the 1st of July of this year
new currency had been issued to new and old banks,
amounting to $7,780,000; but, according to a letter ad-
dressed to me by the Comptroller of the Currency, $23,-
579,134 of legal-tender notes have been deposited with
the Treasurer for the purpose of retiring national-bank
notes under the act of June 20, 1874, while under the
redemption system created by the same act over $4,000,-
ooo of national-bank notes have been retired — by far the
largest part of this reduction taking place in the West
and South, which, we are told, were starving for more
circulation. By the I5th of September that figure had
risen to nearly twenty-nine millions. How is this? The
business of the country, as they tell us, suffering most ter-
ribly for want of currency, and that same business of
the country not only not accommodating itself by issuing
more when it has an opportunity, but voluntarily surren-
dering many millions of what it has.
Let the Enquirer explain. Perhaps that exponent of
inflation wisdom will say now that we have not currency
enough, to keep us from giving up that which we have
got.
But there are the facts. There is contraction; not
190 The Writings of [1875
contraction by the Government, not contraction by the
Republican party, not contraction forced upon the
business of the country, but a contraction of the currency
voluntarily set on foot by the business of the country
when that business was at perfect liberty to choose
expansion as well. To carry out the somewhat homely
figure, the diseased body economic refuses to take the
medicine administered by quacks; nature makes an effort
to right itself; the overcharged stomach begins to give
up its undigested food, and disgorges currency for which
there is no legitimate employment. That state of things
would seem well calculated to convince any candid man
of the true state of things. But the inflation doctors,
nothing daunted, still, in spite of all this, insist upon
treating the case as one of starvation, and propose, if the
patient refuses to take it willingly, to ram down by force
still more of the indigestible stuff. They evidently belong
to that class of doctors to whom the sale of the medicine
is more important than the cure of the patient.
And what good do you promise us your inflation medi-
cine will do? A patent-elixir advertisement could not
be richer than the declamations of its advocates. Pros-
perity is to revive at once; every man, woman and child
is to have plenty of money ; all debts are to be paid by a
sort of self-acting process ; every mine, every factory, every
mill in the land is to be at once in full blast, and thousands
of new establishments will spring up on all sides ; they will
produce an infinite quantity of goods, and for all they can
produce there will be a ready market; everybody will
want to buy everything, and have plenty of money to do
it; the laboring man will command the situation; he will
have to work less and get higher wages for it than ever;
and in an incredibly short time we shall all be rich; or
rather, while now the rich get richer and the poor get
poorer, then the rich will get poor and the poor get rich, the
1875] Carl Schurz 191
"money power" will be broken, for money will be cheap
money, it will be "the people's money, " and the more of it
the better. This sort of talk, and even wilder than this,
you can hear nowadays, not only in the lunatic asylums,
but on the public platforms of Ohio, put forth by men
pretending to be the spokesmen and leaders of a great
party, who, on the strength of these very promises, attempt
to take control of the destinies not only of Ohio, but of
the great American Republic.
Is it not a sad spectacle indeed to see, not only public
men reckless enough thus cruelly to mock the credulity
of the poor and needy, but multitudes patiently listening
to such raving absurdities, instead of repelling the insult
thus wantonly offered to their good sense? An irredeem-
able paper money, cheap money, the people's money!
Inflation the relief of the poor! I entreat you, laboring
men, poor men, give me your candid attention one moment.
Let your minds for once cast aside prejudice and party
passion, and look soberly at the facts.
Suppose we issue more currency, as the Ohio platform
euphoniously calls it, "to make and keep the volume of
the currency equal to the wants of trade"; in other words
we embark in a course of inflation. I will not argue here
the Constitutional point, whether Congress has the power
to increase the volume of greenbacks beyond four hundred
millions, and whether the Supreme Court, as I expect it
would, might declare such an act void and of no force.
Suppose it can be done without any legal impediment.
How will it operate? Here is a capitalist, a rich man, a
merchant of abundant means, or a wealthy speculator.
In the morning he takes up his paper and reads : "Congress
has passed an act to issue another hundred or two hundred
millions of legal-tenders, with a prospect of more." He
knows, as a matter of course, that thereupon the premium
on gold will rise; the purchasing power of the greenback
192 The Writings of [1875
dollar will decrease. The next piece of news he gets in
or from Wall Street is: Gold is going up and likely to rise
steadily. What does he do? He begins at once to trim
his sail to the wind. He seeks a way to take advantage
of the fluctuations going on or still in prospect, and being
a man of means, commanding hundreds of thousands or
even millions, he easily finds that way. If he is a cautious
man, he has, of course, lent out money or given credit
only on short time, and he at once calls in the money due
him with rigorous severity, to save himself from the effects
of depreciation. The debtor may groan, but he will have
to pay or go into bankruptcy, for the rich man saves him-
self before the storm, and puts his money into investments
not apt to be unfavorably affected by the fluctuations of
the currency. If he be a merchant, he will at once put
up his prices to provide against the depreciation of the
currency, and sell only at large profits and for cash, for he
is not anxious to sell, and being a wealthy man, not obliged
to sell, knowing as he does that his goods will rise in current
money value on his hands, while his credits would de-
preciate. So, by taking advantage of the fluctuations
going on, which, as a man of means, he is able to do, he
not only saves himself but makes a handsome profit by
shrewd calculation. Or, if he be a speculator, and a
somewhat venturesome man, he will speculate on the rise
in the price of stocks or goods, in the true gambling style,
and perhaps contrive to run into large liabilities, expecting
to pay them off in a money of less value than that in
which he contracted them. Happily, the latter species of
operators will sometimes be caught, but not unfrequently
they succeed. And so on through the whole chapter.
Thus the rich man, having the means to play fast and
loose, standing upon that eminence in the business world
where he can feel the drift of every breeze and watch the
appearance of every cloud on the horizon, enjoys the
1875] Carl Schurz 193
fullest opportunity and all the facilities which wealth
furnishes, amidst the fluctuations of the currency and of
prices, to lend out or to draw in money, to give up one
investment and to make another, to buy or to sell, to
speculate upon a rise or a fall — in one word, to take
advantage of every chance, not only for his safety, but for
his profit, as his good judgment may suggest; and in the
end he will, if he was a shrewd calculator, have grown
richer than ever before, by those very fluctuations. And
if you had your eyes open, you could not fail to observe
that the time when an irredeemable currency, with its
ever fluctuating changes of values, prevailed in this
country was just the time when the rich men grew rapidly
richer, and enormous accumulations of wealth fell into
single hands.
But now look at the other side of the picture. Here is
a laboring man who works for wages. He is honestly
toiling to support himself and his family, and may be has
succeeded in saving a few hundred dollars, and deposited
them in a savings-bank. Now Congress resolves to issue
more money in abundance, and inflation commences in
good earnest. The laboring man, who has listened to
Governor Allen or General Gary, thinks the millennium is
coming. The "people's money" will be plenty. The
gold premium rises, and the prices of commodities also.
The worthy laborer does not, like the rich man, read the
financial articles and the market reports in the metropoli-
tan journals, and if he did it would be of no benefit to him.
The rise of the gold premium troubles his mind very little,
for the "people's money" is to be cheap and plenty. But
some day he goes to the store, to buy things for his house-
hold and his family. To his surprise he finds that the
prices of groceries and shoes and clothing and so on,
have become much higher than before. "How is this?"
he asks. "Well," says the dealer, "gold has gone up, I
VOL. III. — 13
194 The Writings of [1875
have to pay much more for the goods I buy of the whole-
sale merchant. Therefore I am obliged to charge more. "
So the worthy laborer has to pay those higher prices,
for he cannot wait for a better chance, like the rich man ;
he must buy shoes and clothes, or he himself and his wife
and children will have to go barefooted or naked ; he must
buy provisions, for his family must eat. He consoles
himself with the idea that the "people's money" will
make it all right. After a while he discovers that with the
high prices he has to pay for all his necessaries, his wages
are no longer sufficient to support him and his. So he
goes to his employer and says: "Everything has become
very dear, and I can no longer live on the wages you give
me. You must give me more." What is the answer?
"Well, " says the employer, "things have gone up because
gold has gone up so much. Wait a little, it will come all
right again. The currency will fluctuate, and, you see,
in my large business I cannot change my scale of wages
every time gold goes up or down. " He omits, however, to
add that he has been very quick in marking up the prices
of all he had to sell as soon as the upward movement
commenced. The laborer shakes his head, but submits
for the time being, hoping for a favorable change. But
things do not come all right again. Prices rise still higher,
while his wages remain the same. At last he finds his
situation unendurable, and, combining with his fellow-
laborers, he loudly demands higher pay. The employer
yields, or rather seems to yield. Gold and prices have gone
up thirty or forty per cent., and he grudgingly consents
to increase wages about fifteen or twenty per cent. That
is all he can do, he says, for "things are so uncertain."
In the meantime, more "people's money," more green-
backs, are issued, to "make and keep the volume of the
currency equal to the wants of trade, " gold and the prices
of commodities rise still higher, while wages creep slowly
1875] Carl Schurz 195
after them at a respectful distance. Meantime, the lease
of the dwelling of our worthy laborer has expired, and he
wants to renew it. The landlord demands a much higher
rent. "Higher rent!" exclaims the laborer; "am I not
fleeced enough already?" "Cannot help it," says the
landlord; "gold and general prices have gone up so much,
and our money is worth so little, that I must have higher
rent to get along myself. You must pay or move. " The
laborer has to submit, but resolves to emancipate himself
with "the people's money" from the greedy tyranny of
the bloated landlord. He has something like two or three
hundred dollars of old savings, in the savings-bank, and
makes up his mind to build a home for himself and his
family, the simplest kind of a little wooden house of two or
three rooms and a kitchen, on a cheap little lot in the out-
skirts. Formerly his reserve of money would have gone
far toward accomplishing that end, but, upon inquiry as
to the present prices of ground and building material, he
finds that, since "the people's money" has been issued in
abundance, his own money will not go half as far as for-
merly toward giving him a home. In other words, about
half of the purchasing power of the real value of his savings
has disappeared. But, determined to escape from the
tyranny of the landlord, he resolves to try whether he
cannot, in addition to his own, borrow money enough to
accomplish his purpose, for, of course, "the people's
money" must be easy to obtain at low interest, being
"the people's money. " He applies to a money-lender for
a couple of hundred at low interest, on two or three years'
time, to be secured by mortgage on the house and lot.
"Low interest and three years' time ! " exclaims the money-
lender. "My dear man, you do not understand the
period. Since more and more greenbacks are issued the
value of the dollar decreases rapidly, and if I lend you
money now on three years' time, how do I know what that
196 The Writings of [1875
money may be worth at the end of the three years?
Perhaps ten cents in gold or nothing, and you cannot
pay me interest enough to cover that risk. "
The worthy laborer is surprised. He thought "the
people's money would be cheap money. " " But, " he asks,
"is no money lent out at all?" "Certainly," says the
money-lender; "it is lent out, if good security is offered,
on call, so that I can at any moment of fluctuation dan-
gerous to my interests put my hand upon it and take it
back again. " "Then, " pursues the laborer, "you would
be able to seize at any moment upon the security I give
if I cannot pay at once when you happen to want your
money back? That will never do for me." "Just so,"
says the money-lender; "such loans can be used only by
rich men, who can make sufficient means available at
any time. Of course, it 's nothing for the poor. " The
laborer grows more and more thoughtful. "But," he
asks at last, despondingly, "is there no way at all to help
me and to secure you in this thing?" "Well," replies
the money-lender, "there may perhaps be one way.
Suppose we figure out what the amount of money you
want would be in gold, and I lend it to you in gold and you
secure to me by a mortgage on your property the repay-
ment of that sum in gold at the end of three years. That
would do for me, and you might have the money at reason-
able interest." The laborer ponders. "But," says he,
at last, "how do I know how many greenback dollars I
shall have to pay for a gold dollar at the end of three
years? Perhaps five or ten to one." "That's true again,"
says the money-lender, coolly, and there the negotiation
ends. The worthy laborer begins strongly to suspect
that there must be something wrong about "the people's
money, " which is to be so cheap for the poor man.
But there are more curious experiences in store for him.
The policy of "making and keeping the volume of the
Carl Schurz 197
currency equal to the wants of trade" requires the issue
of larger and larger quantities of "the people's money,"
for the wants of trade, instead of being satisfied, demand
more with every new issue. The prices of the necessaries
of life rise higher and higher as the value of the paper
money goes down and down. The speculators and gam-
blers of the country do a roaring business. Prosperity
develops to such a point that a bushel of coal costs twenty
dollars, and a jackknife its weight in greenbacks. The
worthy laborer's deposit in the savings-bank, once suffi-
cient to build a little house, will no longer buy a decent
pair of boots, and as the rise of the prices of necessaries
always runs far ahead of the rise of his wages, he has been
rather consuming what he had than laying up new savings.
Finally the inevitable crash approaches. The prudent
rich man has anticipated its coming and taken his pre-
cautions. He can do so, for he had the knowledge and
the means. But the poor man is the victim of his ne-
cessities. To take precautions is not possible for him.
He is swept along by the tide. A feeling of distrust
creeps over the business community. One day our
worthy laborer goes to his place of work as usual. " I am
sorry," says the employer who sniffs the breeze, — "there
is an overstocked market and a downward tendency; I
am obliged to take in sail. I have but little work for you
at low wages, or no work at all." At last the shipwreck
is complete. The rich man is in the lifeboat, the poor
man in the breakers. And nothing to float him.
About that time I hope Governor Allen and General
Gary will come along and repeat their speeches about "the
people's money." What will then the poor laborer say
in response? "Talk to me about your people's money!
It is the gambler's money, the bloodsucker's money, the
sharper's money, the devil's money!" And it may then
perhaps be wise for Governor Allen and General Gary
198 The Writings of [1875
and the other apostles of "the people's money" to stay
away from the streets where their robbed and outraged
victims congregate. I apprehend the vengeance of the
poor, which Mr. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, in this campaign
so loudly threatened against the advocates of resumption,
might turn the other way.
Have I exaggerated? Who that has ever studied the
history of countries where an irredeemable paper currency
prevailed, will deny that every word I have said is borne
out by the universal experience of mankind? Who will
deny that, when the depreciation of such a currency drives
up prices, the laboring man's wages rise last and least?
Who will deny that, when the bubbles of paper speculation
burst, the laboring man's earnings are cut down first and
lowest? Is our country an exception to the rule? The
statistics compiled by the Labor Bureau of Massachu-
setts, corresponding with those of the United States
census, show that the cost of living had risen sixty-one
per cent, between 1860 and 1870-72, while the average
increase in wages was but thirty. The greater the infla-
tion, the greater the distance between prices and wages.
And who does not know, when the crisis in 1873 came,
that work stopped and wages went down a good while
before the cost of living did? And who had to lose the
difference? The laboring man. What follows? Of all
agencies which human ingenuity can invent, there is none
that so insidiously robs human labor of its earnings and
makes the fortunes of the poor man the football of the
rich, as a currency of fluctuating value. To call it the
people's money is as cruel a mockery as to call loaded
dice the honest man's chance against a sharper. It is
the most insidious agency to make the rich richer and
the poor poorer.
We are told that an expansion of the currency and its
consequent depreciation will benefit the poor, inasmuch as
i87sl Carl Schurz 199
it will benefit the debtor as against the creditor by enabling
the former to pay off his debts in a less value than that
in which they were contracted. The morality of that
argument I will not discuss; I prefer to leave it to the
conscience of the people. But let us look at the pretended
facts upon which it is based.
Is it true, then, the poor men are the debtors of the
country? To contract a debt requires credit, and credit
is based upon means with which to pay. Men of very
small means are seldom in debt, because they have no
opportunity for being so. If we had the statistics of
private indebtedness in the United States before us they
would unquestionably show that more than seventy-
five per cent, of it is owing by men commanding com-
paratively large means, and that the laborers for wages
are the least indebted class of society, even in propor-
tion to their earnings and savings, and next to them the
farmers and the small business men. But the laboring
people are, to a very heavy amount, among the creditors
of the country. I venture to say that there is neither a
manufacturer, nor a merchant, nor a professional man of
means in this assembly who is not a debtor, and among
his creditors are, in ninety-nine cases of a hundred, his
workmen or his servants, to whom he owes wages for part
of a week or a month. It has been calculated by good
authority that the wages thus constantly owing for an
average of half a month's service or work amount, in the
whole country, to $120,000,000. And who is it that owns
the deposits in the savings-banks, amounting to about
$760,000,000? Not the rich, but the laboring people and
persons of small means, who put their surplus earnings
there for safe keeping. It is estimated that the same
class has, in national and private banks and in trust com-
panies, another $200,000,000 and that nearly $130,000,-
ooo is owing them in other kinds of debts. There is, then,
200 The Writings of [1875
a sum of about $1,200,000,000 owing to the laboring people
and men of small means, constituting their savings. To
that amount that class are creditors. And you pretend
that for their benefit you will expand the currency. Gold
being at fifteen per cent, premium, those savings have a
value of $ i ,020,000, ooo in gold. Expand the currency until
the gold premium is thirty, and you have robbed those
people of $180,000,000 of their savings; expand it until
the gold premium is fifty, and you have stripped them
of $420,000,000 of hard-earned money. There are the
pensioners of the United States, the disabled soldiers of
the war, and the widows and orphans of those who died
for all of us. They receive thirty millions a year, at
present representing a gold value of $25,500,000. Expand
the currency until the gold premium is thirty, and you
have filched away $4,500,000 a year from what the Re-
public considers a debt of honor, and robbed the wounded
and the widows and orphans of so much of their sus-
tenance. Precious friends of the people those are who,
under pretense of protecting the debtor against the credi-
tor, rob the laborers of hundreds of millions of their hard-
earned savings and despoil even those who have suffered
for their country.
But is not a large portion of the middle class, small
business men and farmers, in debt, and would they not be
relieved by an expansion and depreciation of the currency?
No doubt there are many of that class burdened with
liabilities, although the number of mortgaged farms is
much smaller than generally supposed. I find that here
in Ohio scarcely one farm out of ten has any incumbrance.
But however that may be, would that expansion of the
currency benefit those debtors? I say, No! for a very
simple reason. No sooner will expansion become the de-
clared policy of the Government than capitalists, money-
lenders and business men having money due them will be
1875] Carl Schurz 201
upon their guard. Knowing that the expansion of the
currency will subject their outstandings to progressive
depreciation they will at once seek to anticipate that
event. They will use every means in their power to get
hold of their money, or, without mercy, clutch the property
that secures it, and foreclosures, executions, sheriff's
sales will be the order of the day. The creditor, to save
himself, will appear in his most relentless temper, and in
thousands of cases the debtor, thus getting rid of his
indebtedness, together with his property, in the manner
most disastrous to him, will have reason to curse those
who pretended to relieve him by " making and keeping
the volume of the currency equal to the wants of trade. "
But I am sure that it is not from that class of honest
debtors that the cry for inflation comes. It is another
set of men of different character. I know them, for I have
seen them haunting the lobbies of Congress and the
avenues of the Capital when the financial question was
under discussion and I am sure you have seen them here
among the most clamorous advocates of inflation. I do
not point to the political demagogue alone, who seeks
to make some capital for himself by joining what he
believes a popular cry. But I mean the disappointed
speculators, who, instead of following the path of frugal
and steady industry, tried quickly to get rich on their wits,
by getting up large financial operations on a small capital
of their own or on borrowed money, and who finding them-
selves baffled by an unfavorable turn of things, and
involved in heavy liabilities, now want "the people's
money" to help them out of the lurch and to pay their
bills. Here it is a speculation in city lots; there a paper
town at a river mouth or a railroad junction; then again
a large operation in coal lands, or silver mines, or fancy
stock or what not. What they desire, is by a large
expansion of the currency, to plunge the country once
202 The Writings of [1875
more into the fever of wild speculation, so that they may
have an opportunity to palm off their elephants upon other
people, and then, when they themselves have secured their
prize, let "the devil take the hindmost. " And men of this
class are the most vociferous apostles of "the people's
money. "
Suppose they succeed in their scheme; suppose by in-
flation, the speculating fever be revived, and they not
only get rid of their liabilities, but make millions of profit
on their gambling enterprises, who will lose the millions
they gain ? Who will pay the cost ? Not the victims alone
who are foolish enough to take the speculating enterprises
off their hands, and then are caught by the final crash
inevitably to come. Such victims would, perhaps, de-
serve their fate. No, the cost would be paid by the
laboring men of the country, whom the depreciation of the
currency would plunder of the difference between the rise
of the prices of necessaries and the rise of wages. The
cost would be paid by the industrious and frugal, whose
deposited savings would be robbed of their value ; by the
pensioners, the disabled soldiers, the widows and orphans
of the slain, whose slender incomes would be despoiled of
their power to buy bread; by every honest man in the
land, who would suffer in the game of overreaching which
the inflated currency would bring with it. It is the
"people's money" they call it.
But I tell the speculators they will not succeed in their
scheme. They are making a very serious mistake in their
calculation. They believe if we now inflate the currency
things will go on as swimmingly as they did when, during
the war, the legal-tenders were first issued and gradually
augmented. They will soon perceive a very essential differ-
ence. When the legal-tenders were first issued our people
had to gain their first experiences with an irredeemable
Government currenc}^ since the Revolutionary War.
Carl Schurz 203
The greenback appeared, not as a trick of scheming
financiers, but as the creature of public necessity. The
people had full confidence in the integrity and good faith
of the Government as to the fulfilment of its promises.
When the events of the war went disastrously against us,
doubts arose as to the ability of the Government to re-
deem its pledges, but not as to the honesty of its inten-
tions. Those doubts affected the value of the paper
money. But when the chances of war turned in our favor
and at last the arms of the Union triumphed, there was
scarcely a man in the land who did not believe that what
the Government had promised would, as a sacred obliga-
tion, be faithfully performed. And the same confidence
which the legal-tender commanded at home was com-
manded by our bonds abroad.
But if you inflate the currency under present circum-
stances, what will be the condition of things then? The
additional greenback will not appear as the creature of an
imperative public necessity, to save the life of the Republic
in the extremity of peril. It will appear as the product of
a scheme the purposes of which are dark. The world
will begin to suspect that when a government, in the
face of the disastrous experiences of mankind, resorts to so
extraordinary and dangerous a measure without necessity,
its integrity cannot longer be depended upon. Doubts
will arise, and very serious doubts, not as to the ability,
but as to the honest intentions of the Government to
redeem its promises. And those doubts will fall upon our
business life like a deadening blight. The last remnant
of confidence will be paralyzed. The world will see the
specter of repudiation looming up behind so reckless a
financial policy. The faith of mankind in the integrity
of our Government giving way, our credit will be shaken
to its very foundations, and, as you sometimes see the
depositors of a bank, excited by the rumor that the cashier
204 The Writings of [1875
is making away with the cash, instinctively unite in a
feverish run upon the counter, so you must not be sur-
prised if, in the general alarm about threatening dishonesty,
you see the securities, not only of the Government, but of
our private corporations also, flung by the hundreds of
millions into the market, producing a crash more fearful
and destructive, and a paralysis more deadly to all our
economic interests than any people on earth can remember
for generations past.
That, fellow-citizens, is the feast to which the advocates
of inflation invite you so blandly. That is the revival of
business, that is the wonderful development of prosperity
which they promise you in such glowing colors. That is
the drift of the policy which is to set our factories whirling,
to make our farmers rich, to give our laborers abundance
of work and unprecedented wages, to put bread into the
mouths of the needy. Open your eyes to the truth, and
you find nothing but a prospect of bankruptcy more
general, and paralysis more fatal, than ever before-^-
although it may be a small consolation to the honest men
of the country to see the reckless speculators, who, at
the expense of all, sought to enrich themselves, engulfed
with them in the same ruin.
But I ask you, with all candor and soberness, business
men, farmers, laborers, honest and patriotic citizens of
all classes, is it not time to stop such wanton schemes of
mischief? Can we be so blind as not to see its tendency,
or, seeing it, so reckless as to run so terrible a risk? I
know as well as anybody that business is depressed and
that many are grievously suffering. But does not the
common-sense of mankind, does not the accumulated
experience of history, does not our own recollection of
past events clearly point out the road of improvement and
relief?
There being an abundance of money in the banks that
Carl Schurz 205
lies unemployed, it is evidently not more money we need.
What do we need, then? Confidence, confidence which
will induce timid capital to venture into enterprise. And
what is the first requirement to restore confidence? It
is stability, above all things the stability of current
values, which renders possible business calculations of
reasonable certainty. When the capitalist is assured that
the dollar of to-morrow will be the same as the dollar of
to-day, and that this stability of value finds full security
in a rational and fixed monetary system, then, and no
sooner, will he liberally trust his money to those who want
actively to employ it and promise a fair return. But
confidence will not grow as long as the prospect that the
wild schemes of demagogues or visionaries may obtain
control of our National finances hangs over the business
world like a threatening storm-cloud. Confidence will
not grow as long as every business man in the country
looks with trepidation for the meeting of the National
Congress, and does not cease to tremble until the welcome
day of its adjournment, for fear lest the counsels of folly
might prevail and cross even the most sensible calculation
and baffle the acutest foresight. Confidence will not
return until a financial policy is unalterably determined
upon, which will give us, not more money, but HONEST,
SAFE money. For honest, safe money is, of all founda-
tions of sound business, the most indispensable.
Let us understand the teachings of our own history.
There are many among us who remember the great crises
of 1837 and J857 in the United States. In both cases the
country was flooded with an ill-secured, unsafe bank
currency, and feverish speculation prevailed. Then the
crash came. Speculation collapsed, the bubble of ficti-
tious values burst, the rotten banks broke, and their
currency was swept away. Business was paralyzed; the
people were in distress as they are now. What remedy
206 The Writings of [1875
was applied? The natural, the only efficient remedy, and
it applied itself. No fresh infusion of more unsafe money ;
no, just the reverse. By the breaking of the rotten banks
and the disappearance of their note issues the volume of
the currency contracted itself violently. There was, at
the end of the process, far less money in circulation than
before, but that which remained was sound money.
People came to their senses. Profiting by the teachings
of misfortune, they began to recognize once more that not
wild speculation, not the creation of imaginary values,
but honest, sturdy, frugal industry is the source of real
wealth and prosperity. When the first effects of the great
shock were over, when the lies and deceptions in the shape
of rotten bank issues and fancy values had disappeared,
when the self-acting contraction of currency and credit
had done its work, business enterprise began once more to
feel firm ground under its feet. Business men had less
of that which called itself money, but they were sure
that every dollar they did have not only called itself a
dollar, but was a dollar and would remain a dollar. Upon
the stability of its value they could unhesitatingly base
their calculations. Thus confidence gradually returned;
the gaps in the volume of the currency were presently
filled, not by act of Congress creating paper issues, but
by gold flowing in from abroad in obedience to the laws
of trade, and notes based upon gold; business enterprise
revived, and soon the country was again in the course of
prosperous development. To be sure, the fancy stocks
and speculative values, which had perished in the crash,
did not recover, but the production of real wealth was
more active than before.
Look at these historic events, and then ask yourselves:
What would have been the effect if Congress had tried to
relieve distress and to revive business by making the notes
of the broken banks a legal-tender, or by creating an irre-
1875] Carl Schurz 207
deemable Government paper currency? A new element
of fluctuation and uncertainty would have been thrown
into the general confusion; the stock gamblers and
speculators might perhaps have succeeded in loading
their rotten ventures upon the shoulders of new victims;
but the stagnation of legitimate business would unques-
tionably have continued, capital would surely not have
ventured out, confidence would not have returned, the
general distress would certainly have lingered on, until at
last that element of unsafety and deception — an irredeem-
able and fluctuating currency — had been wiped out, and
the business of the country had been placed again on the
sound basis of the stability of current values.
Can we fail to understand that lesson? Examine the
crisis which broke out two years ago, in September, 1873.
That crash did not contract our currency ; on the contrary,
what there was remained, and shortly after the volume of
greenbacks was increased twenty-five millions by succes-
sive issues from the so-called reserve. Money did not
disappear, as it did in 1837 and 1857. There was more of
it than before, and yet the general stagnation and suffering
continue, and the future appears to us dark and gloomy,
without any sign of improvement. Yes, we have more
money than before; but who of you can tell me what that
money will be worth twenty days after the opening of the
next session of Congress? Who of you can tell me what
wild antics that money may play with the fortunes of all
of us, if those who clamor for inflation now should obtain
control of the National Government a year hence? And
now, feeling as we do with every step, instead of firm
ground, a treacherous quicksand under our feet, is there
still anybody who asks why confidence does not revive,
why capital timidly shrinks back, why the mass of money
idly accumulated in the banks does not trust itself into
the hands of enterprise, why prosperity does not return,
208 The Writings of [1875
and why the horizon is still without a visible ray of
hope?
My fellow-citizens, all sane men agree that, of the great
problem which oppresses us, there is but one ultimate
solution. It is the return to a specie basis. Whatever
other schemes may be devised, they do not even pretend
to have a permanent, final settlement of the question in
view. The resumption of specie payments is the only
rational one, for no other system will remove current
values from the reach of the arbitrary power of Govern-
ment; no other can give to current values that stability
without which no safe business calculations can be made;
no other can restore that confidence which is the first
prerequisite of a new period of prosperity. But the re-
sumption of specie payments is also the only possible
solution. It must at last come. Even the inflationists,
while wildly seeking to throw difficulties in its way, still
admit that finally it must come. It is as inevitable as
fate. Is it not the part of prudent men, then, to move
resolutely and with unflagging firmness in the direction
of an end so desirable and also so inevitable?
I shall certainly not attempt to deceive you by denying
that when a country is once cursed with an irredeemable
paper money, the resumption of specie payments is not
an easy process. Like the cutting out of a cancer, it is an
unpleasant and difficult operation. But if health is to
be restored, the cancer must be cut out. It is one of
those evils which cannot be cured without pain and can-
not be permitted to linger without peril. Delay will only
prolong the suffering and increase the danger.
This is neither the time nor the place for a discussion
of the different methods to bring on resumption. What
we have at present to do is to stem a mischievous move-
ment which threatens to make it impossible. But any of
those methods, even the most painful, will be far less so
1875] Carl Schurz 209
than a continuance of the present diseased condition of
uncertainty and distrust, which wastes the working
energies of the people in desolate stagnation, and, like
a dry rot, eats up our prosperity. And surely, even the
severest cramp to which resumption might subject the
economic body will be nothing compared with the univer-
sal disaster, ruin and disgrace with which the madness
of inflation would inevitably overwhelm us.
Indeed, is there any choice? We shall inevitably have
a resumption of specie payment sometime; if not by a
careful method, embodied in well considered legislation,
then surely in another way. Then we shall drift on until
our present system bears its legitimate fruit; until by a
destructive convulsion our paper money is swept out of
existence, and, suddenly finding ourselves without any
currency, except what little specie there is left in the
country, we commence business again on a very small
scale. But will you not then, sitting upon the wrecks of
your fortunes, wistfully look back to these days and say :
"Then we should have been resolute enough to do what
was necessary, and all would be better now"?
I appeal once more to the farmers, the small traders, the
laboring men of the land : Will you really permit the world
to think you so weak-minded as to believe that the increase
of paper money would be equivalent to a Government
officer going round the country with a large bag full of
greenbacks to put some into the hands of every one who
wants them? Or that, when you have a mortgage which
troubles you, or a note to pay, or desire a loan, the Govern-
ment will step in and hand you the funds? Or that the
Government will, by issuing more paper money, constitute
itself a sort of a rich uncle, whose business and pleasure
it is to keep the pockets of the boys full of cash? Surely
you are too sensible to believe in so glaring an absurdity.
And yet, such are the impressions those seek to create
VOL. III. — 14
2io The Writings of [1875
who, as advocates of inflation, call themselves the special
champions of the laboring man and the poor.
The least reflection will certainly convince you that,
whatever our financial policy may be, whether there be
much or little money, he who wants to get it must earn it.
The capitalist will gain it by profitable investments, the
trader by buying and selling, the farmer by raising crops,
the laborer by the work of his hand. Nobody will get it
for nothing. But, if, under all circumstances, you must
gain it by hard work, must you not see that it is mani-
festly for your interest to have money the value of which
is certain? Must it not be clear to you that, while the
capitalist may operate with money of changing value to his
advantage, you with money whose purchasing power may
dwindle in your hands to less and less and, maybe, finally
to nothing must alwrays be the losers in the game? Are
there not many among you who remember that in the
times of wild-cat banks, in working for such money, they
worked not unfrequently for nothing? And does it not
occur to you that if the inflation scheme prevails, the same
thing may, nay, surely will, happen to you also? For do
not indulge in any delusion about it, the gambling in
which an irredeemable currency, a paper money of ever-
changing value, is the principal element, is not a game for
the laboring man, the poor man, to play. In that game
only those win who deal.
An attempt is made to deceive you with a well sounding
catchword. They call gold the bondholders' money, and
our irredeemable paper money "the people's money."
Can that be "the people's money" whose value in the
people's hands is apt to vanish into nothing, and is sure to
vanish into nothing if much more of it is issued? I, too,
am in favor of a people's money, but it is of another kind.
No, it is not right that the people should have a money
of less value than the bondholder. It should be equal-
1875] Carl Schurz 211
ized. But how? You cannot take from the bondholder
his gold, unless you repudiate our National obligations,
which, as honest and patriotic Americans, who have the
honor of the country at heart, you will not do. Neither
can you bring the bondholder's gold down to the level of
your paper money as long as that paper money remains
what it now is, or is made even worse. But what you can
do is to lift your paper money up to the level of the bond-
holder's gold, so that you can get gold in exchange for it.
That can be done only by a return to specie payments.
Then it will indeed be the people's money, and the bond-
holders will have no better. It will be true people's money,
for then your dollar will be and remain a real dollar, no
longer a lying piece of paper, whose value depends upon
the tricks of demagogues, and about which you have to
inquire every morning what it is worth.
But I would go farther to make the people's money
secure. If, after the restoration of specie payments, my
opinion could be made to prevail, no bank in the United
States, nor the Government itself, should be permitted
to issue a note of a denomination less than five dollars.
"What!" I hear the inflationists exclaim, "you would
take the convenience of small notes from the people?"
Yes, I would let them have something better. They
should handle gold and silver. It is the small currency
that most circulates among the people of small means,
and it is of vital importance to them that that small
currency be most secure in its value. It is a wise policy
in pursuance of which the Bank of England does not issue
a note under five pounds. The effect is not only that more
gold and silver circulate and remain in the country, but
even the great Bank of England may break, and yet
every shilling in the pockets of the people is safe. That is
the true "people's money," which I want the laboring
men of America to have.
212 The Writings of [1875
Does not your good sense tell you that thus your
interests would be infinitely better secured, than by a
currency which, by its treacherous fluctuations, makes
you the helpless victim of chance?
But are you ever to have that true people's money again?
Yes, if by a wise policy we resolutely work toward specie
resumption. Then in a few years. But surely not for a
long while, if the schemes of the inflationists prevail.
In that case you will get it only when, after years of
struggle and suffering, by an excessive increase of the
currency— in a universal crash — the whole system will have
broken down, when every paper dollar will have become
worthless, when all you now possess will have been swept
away, and when you are then called upon to begin again
with nothing, and earn once more your first dollar. Do
you like that prospect?
Indeed, while I can understand how the gambling
speculator, who finds it profitable to fish in troubled waters
and who makes his gains from other people's losses, should
be in favor of inflation, it is utterly amazing to me how the
working man, all of whose material interests are bound up
in honest money, could ever be prevailed upon to listen
a single moment to the treacherous doctrines that would
deliver him bound hand and foot into the meshes of a
system which in its very nature is robbery itself. Let me
tell the laboring men that they have no more heartless
enemies than those pretended friends, who, with artful
catchwords playing upon their credulity, seek to make
them believe that they possess the secret of alchemy with
which to create wealth out of nothing, and with that
nothing to make those happy who serve their purposes.
If their schemes, unfortunately, should prevail, then the
time will surely come for their poor victims to curse the
day when they foolishly followed such treacherous counsel
and curse the men who administered it.
1875! Carl Schurz 213
A word, now, to those Democrats who, in their hearts,
still adhere to their old, good creed, and would spurn the
false doctrines of their present leaders did they not con-
sider themselves by supposed party interest bound to
submit. I do not speak to you as a partisan, for I am
none. I am in earnest when I say that all I desire for this
country and myself is Constitutional, honest, just and wise
government, and little does it matter to me at the hands
of what party the country receives it, provided it be in
truth Constitutional, honest, just and wise. Neither do I
conceal from you my opinion that the old parties, as now
constituted, are ill-fitted to solve that problem, and that
an active union of the best elements of the two would
better serve the purpose. But if the two old parties are
to continue to divide the field, then, for the sake of the
public interest, I want each of them to be as good, and not
as bad as possible ; for it is certain that in the derelictions
and vices of one the bad elements in the other will find
a license for wrongdoing on their part, without forfeiting
their chance of success. I might appeal to you as patriots
to whom the best interests of the Republic should stand
above all other considerations. But since you seem to be-
lieve that the interests of the Republic are to be served by
your party alone, I speak to you as partisans who desire to
promote the efficiency of their organization for good ends.
Have you considered what consequences the success of
the inflation Democracy of Ohio will bring on? Imagine
that its candidates be elected and its policy be indorsed
by the people of this State ; imagine the movement spread-
ing and imposing its doctrines upon the Democratic
National Convention next year. What then? All of
you, hard-money Democrats, will be remorselessly sent
to the rear; your influence will be utterly crushed out, for
the men who will then rule your party want none of you.
Why do I say this? Not to appeal to a selfish impulse,
214 The Writings of [1875
but because it is true, and I sincerely regret it, for I deem
it most desirable for the public good that each party be
guided by its best men.
But more than that. Suppose the inflation Democracy,
having taken possession of the national organization of
your party, do succeed in their rush for the National
power, and, having one of their own in the Presidential
chair, and a majority in Congress, proceed to carry out
their program. What then? Then unlimited inflation,
and, as an inevitable consequence, universal bankruptcy
and ruin more destructive than ever. And then? Re-
member, the attitude of your party on the slavery issue, and
questions connected with the civil war, has cost you sixteen
years' exile from power. Let your party become respon-
sible now for the disasters which inflation will bring with
it, and it will be looked upon as the common enemy, and
any organization that in four years may rise up against it
will be able to wipe it out of existence, however rotten
in morals that organization may be itself. What is, then,
the true dictate of your party allegiance in its nobler sense?
To preserve in your party the power of doing good service
by defeating those who seek to make it only an engine of
mischief and of suicide. And how are you to defeat
them? I remember the time when I received high com-
pliments at your hands for having shown independent
spirit enough to oppose my own party by voting against
it when I considered it in the wrong. This is a great
emergency, in which a signal service is to be done for
the best interests of the country; and you, hard-money
Democrats of Ohio, can find no better opportunity to
enable me to return your compliments for the patriotic
spirit of independent action.
Indeed, it is a great emergency. I solemnly appeal to
every good citizen of this State to be mindful of his re-
sponsibility. Upon your action on the I2th of October
1875] Carl Schurz 215
hangs a great decision. If the people of Ohio strike down
the inflation movement in their midst, that will be its
final overthrow. It may linger on, but the power of its
onset will be broken. If Ohio fail and the advocates of
barbarism and ruin rush victoriously into the field of
next year's greater contest, then who knows? Future
generations may have to look back upon the one hundredth
anniversary of American independence — the year which,
before all others, should fill the National heart with
the noblest aspirations — as one of the blackest years
in the history of the Republic. To meet the danger here
is, therefore, the first thing needful. Upon the honest
men of all parties I call to unite in a common effort. Let
no one fear that the defeat of an opposition party which
uses the advantages of its position to promote such ne-
farious schemes will be interpreted as an approval of
wrongs on the other side, for, I assure you, when this
great danger which threatens to engulf us all in a whirlpool
of corruption, ruin and dishonor is successfully averted,
you will find the men who combated the wrongs of either
side as true as ever to their principles.
Citizens of Ohio, you are charged with a great office.
You have to give the world the assurance that the people
of the great American Republic are an honest and an
enlightened people; that their integrity and intelligence
may be trusted alike, and that mankind may count upon
them in the forward march of civilization. I entreat you,
do not fail in so glorious a duty.
FROM CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, JR.
31 PEMBERTON SQUARE,
BOSTON, Oct. 13, 1875.
I got home this morning, serene in the knowledge that
"old Bill Allen's" grey and gory scalp was safely dangling
2i6 The Writings of [1875
at your girdle. The world will never know it, but J was a
leading factor in yesterday's result, for it was I who first
agitated your return as the one helve which could com-
plete the German axe necessary to the braining of that aged
barbarian.
Be so good as to present my respects to Mrs. Schurz, and
tell her that I am thoroughly impenitent and shall be glad to
do it again.
TO CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, JR.
NEW YORK, Oct. 15, 1875.
Yes, the scalp is there. The majority is large enough,
but nothing to spare.
I suppose the result will pacify Mrs. Schurz, and you
may approach with fear. But as to doing it again, well,
it will depend on circumstances.
Looking over the whole field, I find that the Independ-
ent voter is doing well and getting ready for the more
important work of next year.
Give my best regards to all the Adamses.
FROM ALPHONSO TAFT
CINCINNATI, Oct. 16, 1875.
I cannot deny myself the pleasure of writing to you, both
thanking and congratulating you for the splendid and effec-
tual work done by you in Ohio, in the cause of a sound currency.
Your speech in Cincinnati, I read, but did not hear, because
I found all the approaches to Turner Hall so solidly packed,
that any entrance was impossible. I hope that your assist-
ance, so opportunely rendered, may not only save the country
from further paper inflation, and hasten the return to specie
payments, but may so far liberalize the Republican party
that our German Liberals may feel at home in it.
1875] Carl Schurz 217
FROM A. T. WICKOFF1
COLUMBUS, O., Oct. 26, 1875.
On behalf of the Republicans of Ohio we thank you for
the very valuable aid you gave the cause of honest money
during the recent canvass in this State. Much of the credit
for the victory gained at the late election is due to you for
the very able and convincing manner in which you presented
to the people the questions at issue. You deserve and have
the thanks of the people of this country for your effective
services in opposition to the ruinous fallacy of inflation and
irredeemable paper money.
We owe you an apology for not having paid the expenses
incurred by you, and earnestly request you to indicate the
amount and we will remit.
TO A. T. WICKOFF
NEW YORK, Nov. 2, 1875.
Yesterday I received your letter of Oct. 26th which
was sent after me to this city. I sincerely thank you for
the very kind things you say of my efforts to aid the cause
of honest money in the Ohio election.
As to your request that I should indicate the amount
of the personal expenses incurred by me, which you
express your desire to remit, permit me to say that I
prefer not to make any demands or accept any such
compensation. I was glad to have an opportunity to do
what I did do and feel amply compensated by the result.
TO SAMUEL BOWLES
40 WEST 32ND ST., NEW YORK,
Jan. 4, 1876.
My dear Bowles : A happy New Year to you and yours !
Is it not about time you should set out on your Southern
1 Chairman State Republican committee.
218 The Writings of [1876
tour? You will have to look up there men fit to cooperate
with us. I have written letters to my friends in the West
and think we shall have from that quarter what we desire.
But in the South my acquaintance is limited and it will
be for you to make the necessary discoveries. Here in
New York we can have what we want. Strong efforts
are made here for Elaine and Bristow. Our friend Phelps
has again succumbed under the "personal magnetism"
of the former, and Nordhoff also. It seems they have so
far engaged themselves that the chances of recovery are
slim. I do my very best, but with little hope. I fear
we must make up our minds to get along without them.
The Bristow movement is so right in principle that it
deserves encouragement, and I think a large number of
the men engaged in it will finally act with us, and we have
this with them in common, that Bristow is our second
choice anyhow, and right heartily too. I should like
to see you very much to have a full exchange of opinions
on the present condition of things. If you go to the
South soon you might stop over here long enough for
that purpose. I shall be here all of this week and until
Wednesday of next, and then two or three days of every
week until the time for action comes. Lodge wrote me
some time ago that you wanted a demonstration in Boston
for Adams now. They are afraid there that it might
fail, and any such failure at the present moment would
be fatal. My impression is that no such risk should be
taken at present. I suggested to Lodge that it would be
well to have a committee of Republicans organized there,
consisting of such men as W. Gray, Allen etc., to work
"inside the party" to secure a Republican delegation
for Adams. Would not such a movement in the interior
of the State also do good? It could be carried on openly
and "demonstrate" in its way. There are undoubtedly
good men enough to take part in it.
1876] Carl Schurz 219
A rumor comes here from Boston, apparently from
circles in which Mr. Adams moves, that he is failing in
his mental faculties etc. Can this be so? I have seen
him several times of late and found him uncommonly
bright and mentally active, in fact, more so than I had
expected, or than I had ever seen him.
TO SAMUEL BOWLES
NEW YORK, Jan. 16, 1876.
I have been corresponding with a number of my friends
in the West and I find that the idea of a meeting to be
called "to devise measures to prevent the campaign of
the Centennial year from becoming a mere scramble of
politicians for the spoils" etc. etc., is taking very well.
My correspondence has been entirely confidential so far.
I am confident now we can have a respectable meeting
as soon as it is time to issue the invitations.
I agree with you in thinking that circumstances are grow-
ing more and more propitious. It seems almost as if Elaine
had virtually killed himself as a candidate,1 as I always
thought he would. He may seemingly revive, but I am
sure he will die of too much smartness at last. The
effect produced by the revival of the war feeling in Con-
gress is a very hopeful sign. It shows how strong the
Centennial current is, and I begin to hope that Pennsyl-
vania, which of all the States but recently appeared the
least promising, may fall into our hands if the Centennial
idea be well worked up in the progress of the independent
movement. I have drawn up an address which I want
to submit to you as soon as it is finished. The Republican
National Committee has put off the Convention later
1 By his passionate speech of Jan. 10, 1876, in the House, against ex-
Confederates. See 3 Reminiscences, 365.
220 The Writings of [1876
than I expected, but it is well. We have now plenty of
time for preparatory work, and of all places in the country
Cincinnati is the one where we can organize the strongest
pressure.
The two parties are evidently busy using up one another
in Congress. They are doing our work splendidly, and it
is quite likely that in about two months they will be
sufficiently disgusted, not only with one another, but
each one with itself.
In the meantime I think we ought to keep Adams in the
background, except in private conversation. I not only
considered him the best, but in the Centennial year also by
far the strongest candidate. All that should be done for
him directly is to secure for him the Massachusetts delega-
tion in the Republican National Convention. At present,
I think, he had better not appear in the press at all. Elaine
will, I expect, put forth a very strong effort to secure the
Massachusetts delegation for himself, but that can prob-
ably be counteracted now without much difficulty.
Do you know Governor Chamberlain of South Carolina?
Can you get into correspondence with him? We ought
to have him with us.
. . . We, i. e., you and I, ought to meet about a fort-
night from to-morrow and establish thorough concert of ac-
tion. I shall by that time have elaborated a complete plan
of operations and ought to have your judgment upon it.
My whole house asks to be kindly remembered.
TO BENJAMIN H. BRISTOW1
NEW YORK, Feb. 15, 1876.
General [James H.] Wilson and General Burnett are
just discussing with me the propriety of your offering
your resignation, and have also stated to me the reasons
1 Secretary of the Treasury from June, 1874, to June, 1876.
1876] Carl Schurz 221
which are thought to justify such a course. They give
me to understand that my opinion on that matter would
be of some interest to you, and presuming upon that as-
surance I take the liberty of giving it with entire frankness.
The American people consider you their agent and
representative in the present Administration. You are
expected to do their work without regard to the influences
that may be arrayed against you. As long as any of that
work is to be done and you are permitted to do it, I do
not think that public opinion would approve of your
throwing up your commission. I can readily understand
that your position may be made very uncomfortable by
the influences most potent with the President; but as
long as you can hold the fort, which seems the only one
left to the people in this Administration, I do not think
you should surrender it as long as there is a shot in the
magazine. And when your position has become alto-
gether untenable, it appears to me that it would be better
for the public interest, not to retire voluntarily but to
force upon the Administration the responsibility of remov-
ing you and stopping your work. You may be more and
more isolated in Washington, but you may be sure, also,
that the people will gather round you the more strongly
and earnestly, the greater the difficulties you have to
face and the more resolution you show in fighting them.
Of course, I do not want to obtrude my opinion upon
you, but you may look upon it as the candid advice of a
sincere friend.
FROM BENJAMIN H. BRISTOW
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON,
Feb. 18, 1876.
I thank you sincerely for your kind letter of the i6th [i5th]
inst. Such an act of kindness just now is peculiarly gratifying.
I am not able to say that your suggestions are in any respect
222 The Writings of [1876
open to doubt, and yet the difficulties in the way of adopting
and acting upon them are very great — I mean not only the
personal discomfort, but also the impossibility of performing
my official duties creditably or satisfactorily so long as matters
remain in statu quo. However, I suppose it is my duty to do
the best I can and act on emergencies as they arise.
It will afford me great pleasure to receive suggestions from
you from time to time as they may occur to you, and I hope
you will feel no hesitancy in giving them.
Please accept my thanks for the kindness already done me
and believe me
Gratefully and faithfully yours.
TO B. B. CAHOON1
NEW YORK, March 3, 1876.
I have received your kind note of February 25th and
thank you most sincerely for it. Your letter to a member
of the Republican committee I have also read in the
papers, and I agree with every word you say concerning
the condition of the Republican party in Missouri and
the process it has to go through in order to save, or rather
restore, its vitality. Recent developments, and espe-
cially the terrible disclosures in the Belknap case, must
have made it painfully apparent to every candid man, who
did not know it before, that the same reasoning would
apply with equal force to the national organization of the
party. We have to face the fact that the machinery of
the Government is fairly honeycombed with corruption.
The Republic stands before the world in an attitude
of unprecedented humiliation and shame. In order to
save the honor of the Nation and the confidence of the
American people in their Government, no ordinary party
claptrap will avail. We must elect a man to the Presi-
1 A lawyer of distinction, living at Fredericktown, Mo.
1876] Carl Schurz 223
dency who is not only known to be honest himself, but
who by his character and antecedents gives the strongest
guarantees that he will be strong enough to keep the
Government honest. If neither of the two parties gives
us such a candidate, then I hope there will be independent
men enough to put up one for themselves, even if they
should cast for him only a conscience vote.
Believing you my friend and trusting you as such, I
speak to you without reserve. I will not conceal from
you that I should be glad to cooperate with the Republican
party if I can do so consistently with my notions of duty.
This is my natural inclination. But I shall not do so at
the risk of continuing anything like the present condition
of things. If the Republicans nominate a mere partisan,
then I think it would be better for the country to have
that party pass for four years through the discipline of
defeat. I feel naturally drawn to that party because it
contains in its ranks, as I think, a vast preponderance of
the intelligence and virtue of the country; but that virtue
and intelligence have been of little use to the Republic
since they were controlled by the worse elements of the
organization. Unless their emancipation can be accom-
plished now, it may be accomplished by defeat.
I hope, however, such a necessity may still be averted.
If I could nominate a ticket, it would be Adams and
Bristow. But Bristow at the head of the ticket would
completely satisfy me. He has shown that he possesses
the courage necessary for a policy of reform. But I
must say that of all the men who have been mentioned
as the possible Republican candidates, Adams and Bristow
are the only ones I would trust and accept. If the Repub-
lican Convention rejects these, it shows that it obeys the
behest of the machine politicians to whom the most
valuable qualities of a candidate are the most serious
objection, and I shall, as an independent American citizen,
224 The Writings of [1876
govern my course accordingly. I know a good many
who will do likewise.
I write you this, not for publication, but confidentially,
so that we may understand one another. I shall always
be sincerely glad to hear from you. Can you send a good
delegation to Cincinnati? Spare no effort.
TO SAMUEL BOWLES
NEW YORK, Mar. 7, 1876.
The Belknap case has changed the whole aspect of
things. I agree with you that the Adams idea will
naturally come into the foreground again. I would be
well satisfied with Bristow, — as my second choice, but as
such an exceedingly satisfactory one. I deem it quite
possible, however, that Bristow may not turn out sufficient
for the situation, especially if he sticks to the party. But
I would advise you — and especially you — to go on talking
Bristow.
I am meditating a sort of pronunciamento to come out
one of these days, in which I mean to declare that I shall
not support any candidate who does not come up to the
Bristow standard, and that the people owe it to them-
selves to take the matter out of the hands of the old
parties etc.
What do you think of it? Let me hear from you and
send me the Republican sometimes.
NEW YORK, Mar. 27, 1876.
I have tried to gather myself up and do something.1
The enclosed is a draft of an invitation to a conference
1 Mrs. Schurz had recently died.
1876] Carl Schurz 225
which has already been submitted for signature to Mr.
Wm. Cullen Bryant, President Woolsey, Governor
Bullock, and Governor Koerner of Illinois.1 I desire
Governor Booth's signature and should have written to
him, did I know what his position on these things is.
Not knowing this I would ask you, his most intimate
friend, to request him in my name to sign it, if you think
it ought to be done. I would then sign the paper myself
and address it with those signatures to about 2[oo] or 300
persons. Lodge and Brooks Adams are here, helping
me — for I must confess, I am not fit for much work yet.
They want to see you concerning the list of men to be
invited from New England. The intention is to hold the
Conference at Cincinnati on April 27th, but that point
is open and I have requested the opinion of the gentlemen
who are to sign the invitation.
Now, will you be kind enough to take the necessary
steps to have Booth sign that paper? I thought you
could prevail upon him if anybody could. Of course,
the whole affair ought to be kept strictly confidential until
the proper time comes to let it out. About that, more
hereafter.
P.S. As there is no time to be lost I would ask you
to get Booth's signature as speedily as possible, and let
me hear whatever suggestions you may desire to make.
TO THOMAS F. BAYARD
NEW YORK, Mar. 30, 1876.
My dear Senator: I certainly do not deem the words
of sympathy you have so kindly sent me, intrusive.
They have done my heart good, for I know they are sincere,
and sincerely do I thank you for them.
1 See Circular of Apr. 6, 1876.
VOL. III. — IS
226 The Writings of [1876
May you long enjoy the inestimable blessing of an
unbroken family circle. This is the best wish I have for
you as a true friend. — Ever yours.
TO BENJAMIN H. BRISTOW
NEW YORK, Mar. 31, 1876.
General [Jarnes H.] Wilson informed me yesterday of
what you had written to him in reply to a communica-
tion from him to you. It appears that the impression
he received from a conversation between him and myself
and a few friends, was not altogether correct. What we,
and especially I, desired to impress upon him, was that
the party machine men would surely prevent the nomina-
tion of a true reformer for the Presidency, unless they
were made very clearly to understand that they cannot
do so with impunity. That class of politicians will control
the Republican Convention, and they will do the worst
they dare. All indications on the political field point
that way. Nothing but the alternative of the nomination
of a true reformer, or defeat, will induce them to permit
the former. How that alternative can be placed before
them in a way best calculated to lead to the desired re-
sult, it is as yet too early to determine. It will depend
on the circumstances surrounding us when the time for
action arrives.
I write these lines mainly to remove a misapprehension
from your mind. You may rest assured that your name
will not be trifled or made free with, and that you will
in no manner be compromised or embarrassed by me and
those under my influence. I think I understand and
appreciate your position perfectly, and I need scarcely
add that I respect your feelings with regard to it. Neither
will the success of the good cause be hazarded by any
1876] Carl Schurz 227
rash or ill-considered proceedings. You have not been
consulted about the movements now in preparation
simply because it is best — and I am sure it appears so to
you as it does to me — that you should have no personal
connection with anything of the kind. I had to-day a
long conversation with a prominent member of the Union
League of this city, Judge [James] Emott, and there is
some hope that we may find a mode of cooperating with
the friends of reform in that association.
There can be no harm, however, in my stating to you
my own individual view of the exigencies of our present
situation, and I have good reason to think that it is shared
by many good citizens. While after the great domestic
sorrow that has befallen me it would be more in accord-
ance with my feelings to abstain from all participation
in public affairs, yet I shall obey the call of duty. I should
be happy to cooperate with my old Republican friends
in the impending canvass, and ardently desire that this
be made consistent with my convictions. Now, we have
been so deeply disgraced in the estimation of mankind
by the exposures of corruption in our public service, and
the faith of many of our people in our institutions has
been so dangerously shaken, that the selection of men
universally known to be of our very best, for the highest
offices of the Republic, is the most imperative duty of these
times. The country cannot afford anything else. Sub-
mission to a mere choice of evils, or the election of men
who would be likely to be mere tools in the hands of greedy
party managers, would only deepen the disgrace of the
American people ; and if the political parties present to us
nothing else, then I shall deem it my duty to my country
to be one of those, however large or small their number,
who will take an appeal from the existing organizations
and put forward candidates such as ought to be presented
to the people at a time like this. The main value the
228 The Writings of [1876
Republican party has in my eyes, consists in the fact that
it contains more of the intelligence and virtue of the
people, than any other. But if that intelligence and
virtue are subjugated and made a tool of by corrupt
interests, then the good of the country will in the long
run be better served, if the party is purged of its bad
elements in the crucible of defeat.
TO FRANCIS A. WALKER1
NEW YORK, April 6, 1876.
Dear Sir: The widespread corruption in our public
service which has disgraced the Republic in the eyes of
the world and threatens to poison the vitality of our
institutions, — the uncertainty of the public mind and of
party-counsels as to grave economical questions involving
in a great measure the honor of the Government, the
morality of our business life and the general well-being of
the people, — and the danger that an inordinate party
spirit may through the organized actions of a compara-
tively small number of men who live by politics, succeed
in overriding the most patriotic impulses of the people
and in monopolizing political power for selfish ends —
seem to render it most desirable that no effort should be
spared to secure to the popular desire for genuine reform
a decisive influence in the impending National election.
Mindful of the fact that this patriotic desire is honestly
struggling for effective expression inside of existing po-
litical organizations, as it is also strong outside of them,
and believing that by all proper means it should be
encouraged and made to prevail, the undersigned invite
you to meet them and others of like purpose, who have
1 Circular call of the Fifth Avenue Hotel conference. See letter of
Apr. 15, 1876, to L. A. Sherman.
1876] Carl Schurz 229
been invited in the same manner, in a free conference
to consider what may be done to prevent the National
Election of the Centennial year from becoming a mere
choice of evils, and to secure the election of men to the
highest offices of the Republic, whose character and ability
will satisfy the exigencies of our present situation and
protect the honor of the American name.
The conference will be held in the city of New York
on the 1 5th of May. You are respectfully and urgently
requested to be present, and to communicate your accept-
ance of this invitation to H. C. Lodge, Esq., 31 Beacon St.,
Boston.
Very truly yours,
WILLIAM CULLEN BRYANT, New York.
THEODORE D. WOOLSEY, Connecticut.
ALEXANDER H. BULLOCK, Massachusetts.
HORACE WHITE, Illinois.
CARL SCHURZ, Missouri.
TO F. W. BIRD
NEW YORK, April 13, 1876.
I knew I had your hearty sympathy in my great sorrow,
and I need not assure you that I prize it. You know very
well that for a grief like this there is no real consolation.
It must be lived out. The loss of the wife of one's youth
is unlike any other bereavement. It is the loss of the
best part of one's life. The joys of the past are darkened
with mourning, and the future this side of the grave
seems aimless and hollow. I shall learn to endure it, I
think, and meanwhile fix my eyes upon the duties of life
and try to perform them as best I can. I have commenced
work again and shall gradually get hardened to it.
I thank you once more for the warm sympathy and
230 The Writings of [1876
friendship your letter expresses. Remember me kindly
to Mrs. Bird and your children and believe me
T7 n-f+T-ffl-illlT T Tf\1 * **O
Faithfully yours
TO L. A. SHERMAN1
NEW YORK, April 15, 1876.
Private.
Thanks for your kind letter. Let me say that I re-
member you very well and am sincerely glad to hear from
you. I am also happy to learn that the movement in
favor of a strong reform candidate like Mr. Bristow is
growing in favor with the Republicans of Michigan.
Be assured that all I desire is, not to embarrass, but to
strengthen it. By the time this reaches you, you will
have seen in the papers the full text of an invitation to a
Conference to be held in the City of New York, signed by
five citizens, of whom I am one. The terms of that
invitation must have convinced you that due regard is
paid to the friends of genuine reform inside of the Repub-
lican party. With regard to this movement I desire to
bring to your notice a few points :
1. It is not confined to the Liberals of 1872. There
are a good many men of influence connected with it
who so far have been counted as Republicans in good
standing.
2. It is not intended to assume any attitude hostile
to the Republican party, provided that party nominates
men of known character and ability as thorough reformers ;
and it is thought that a strong but at the same time
inoffensive expression of the sentiments of the indepen-
dent element will very materially strengthen the friends
of reform inside of the party, and make the machine
1 Editor of The Times, Port Huron, Mich.
1876] Carl Schurz 231
men appreciate the alternative of good nominations or
defeat.
3. There is at present, as far as I can learn, no inten-
tion of making independent nominations at the meeting
we contemplate. But we do desire to make our sentiments
and opinions with regard to the requirements of our
present situation clearly understood, so that there be no
mistake about them, reserving to ourselves the right of
acting according to our convictions of duty when the
Cincinnati Convention shall have taken place.
To this only those Republicans will object who desire
to continue the existing abuses of party government and
who find us as a stumbling-block in their way. But the
friends of reform in the Republican party will welcome
us as their friends and natural allies, as we shall be glad
to consider them; and it gives me great pleasure to say
that many prominent Republicans in this region, as also
in the Western States, are already taking that view of
the matter. That I, personally, am not "hostile" to
the Republican party when it promotes the best in-
terests of the country, I have shown, I think, last fall in
Ohio.
While I know that the reform sentiment in the Repub-
lican party is growing, I do not think, I regret to say, that
it will be strong enough in the National Convention to
beat the "machine-men," without outside aid. That aid
we hope to furnish, and I believe, therefore, that the
movement we are engaged in, is entitled to commendation
and encouragement on your part.
I shall be obliged to you if you will furnish me further
information concerning the state of things in your region,
and hope to hear from you soon again. Of course, you
will please regard this letter a private one, not to be
publicly used.
232 The Writings of [1876
TO FRANCIS A. WALKER
NEW YORK, April 17, 1876.
It is thought quite important that Mr. Robinson, the
late candidate for governor in your State [Connecticut],
should join our movement and be present at the confer-
ence. Mr. Frederick Billings of Vermont, whom you
probably know, informs me that Judge Shipman is very
warmly interested in the subject and will do all he can to
secure Mr. Robinson's aid. I have no doubt that your
influence will be very potent with that gentleman. I can
very well understand what considerations may work upon
Mr. Robinson's mind, but the situation of our public
affairs is such that men who want to do service to their
country can not afford to stand on ceremony.
Will it be possible to induce President Porter [of Yale]
to join us openly? It would be of great value to us.
Mr. [Parke] Godwin tells me that some of the most
prominent clergymen of this city are ready to speak out
and to take part in our conference, such as Dr. Osgood, Dr.
Adams, Dr. Tyng and others. This is very important aid,
and I think President Porter might add his name to such
company. Would not also Dr. Bacon do the same thing?
Our call has created considerable stir among Elaine's
friends here, some of whom thought that they could
obtain the countenance of President Woolsey for their
favorite. I am informed that they think of sending
somebody to New Haven to make an effort to that end.
I hope there is no danger of its success. I must confess
that I look upon Blaine as one of the most dangerous
enemies of genuine reform, the more dangerous as he is
shrewd enough to cover his manipulations of the machine
with the fairest pretenses. I would not support him
under any circumstances. I suppose you might easily
ascertain whether President Woolsey has any leanings
1876] Carl Schurz 233
that way, and, if necessary, caution him. I am almost
sure, however, that Blaine cannot be nominated, or, if
he were nominated, that he would not be elected.
I have very favorable reports from the West. Public
sentiment is rapidly turning in our favor. Some time
ago I could not think of a single man in Indiana who might
be invited; but a few days ago a prominent Republican
of that State called upon me and gave me a list of out-
spoken reformers that astonished me.
I fear I have never thanked you for the trouble you
took to obtain President Woolsey's signature. Let me
do so now.
If you should desire any further information about the
progress of affairs I shall be happy to give it as far as [is]
in my power.
When you visit New York it will give me the greatest
pleasure to see you at my house.
TO A REPUBLICAN *
NEW YORK, April 22, 1876.
My dear Sir: Knowing you as a patriotic man and a
sincere friend of reform, I am gratified, but by no means
surprised, to learn that you cordially approve of the
objects which the signers of the call for the conference on
the 1 5th of May have in view. But you are in doubt
as to the policy of such a movement outside of the Repub-
lican party, as I understand your letter, because the ex-
pression of any desire by the independents as to what the
party should do would be apt to be taken as an attempt
at dictation and provoke antagonistic feelings, and also
because your party friends look with great distrust and
disfavor upon anything like a third-party movement.
1 In answer to objections to Fifth Avenue conference.
234 The Writings of (1876
In my opinion, when a thing is right in itself, it will be
very apt to turn out, in the end, as the best policy. But
as you address me from the standpoint of a Republican,
I will, for the sake of argument, in my answer waive
higher considerations and ask you to look at this matter
from a partisan point of view. I think even the most
sanguine Republicans will scarcely question the following
facts: The Republican party, in order to succeed in the
National election, cannot afford to lose the votes of many
of the Northern States. New York is so far in the hands
of the Democrats; likewise Connecticut; Ohio was last
fall carried by a majority of 5000 in a poll of 500,000,
and that majority included the whole independent vote;
Indiana is strongly inclined to be Democratic; of Illinois
neither party is sure; in Wisconsin the Republicans last
fall lost their whole State ticket with the exception of the
governor who was elected by a very small majority, owing
to his personal popularity with certain classes of Democrats
in Milwaukee; California and Oregon you cannot count
upon with certainty. Probably not one of these States
can the Republicans expect to carry without the support
of all, or at least a large majority, of those who of late
years have acted independently of party control.
Now, suppose this independent element, through some
organ of opinion, informs you that such support can be
secured to the Republican party only by a quite satis-
factory assurance of a genuine and thorough reform of the
Government, in the shape of nominations of a certain
character, and that, if such satisfactory assurance be
given, the support and cooperation will be hearty and
active; would it be quite wise or patriotic on the part of
Republicans to say: "It cannot be denied that the thing
they ask for is in itself most just and desirable; but their
asking for it is a piece of impudence and an attempt at
dictation which must be resented, and therefore it shall
1876] Carl Schurz 235
not be done"? Would not that be like little children's
play with the great interests of the Republic, and a folly
suicidal in its consequences? You tell me there are many
good men in the Republican party earnestly in favor of
thorough reform, which is certainly true. You express
a hope that they may be strong enough to carry the
necessary reforms by efforts "inside of the Republican
party," which I fervently wish may become true. But
what should we think of the sincerity of that reform spirit
inside of the Republican party, if it could be suddenly
moved to turn against its very objects by the mere fact
that other people, not inside the party, seek to accomplish
the same ends, and say so? If such a thing could happen,
then you will admit, it would in itself be conclusive proof
that such a reform spirit is of too fickle a temper to deserve
confidence, and that a party controlled by such a temper
in its most important action has no claim on the support
of any sincere friend of reform. And the result as to
party success, under present circumstances, would be
obvious.
No ; I trust, if the friends of reform inside of the Repub-
lican party are strong enough in the Cincinnati Conven-
tion to control it, they will not permit themselves to be
seduced by a mere childish whim to do a bad thing,
simply because the independents want them to do a good
one, and then lose the election. But if the reform element
inside of the Republican party is not strongly enough
represented in the Cincinnati Convention to control it,
then it has good reason to be glad of any encouragement
and aid it can get from public opinion outside. Indeed,
the alliance between the sincere reform element inside
and the independent element outside appears so natural
and necessary that many patriotic men, hitherto strongly
attached to their party, and considered as members in
good standing, have expressed to me their hearty approval
236 The Writings of [1876
of the course the callers of the conference are pursuing,
and have promised their active aid and cooperation.
As to the second point of objection, I may say to you
candidly that we are not at all ambitious to organize and
lead a third-party movement. On the contrary, I feel
authorized to say, in the name of all my friends, that we
shall be heartily glad if you and others succeed in evolv-
ing from the Cincinnati Convention so good a result that
we can conscientiously follow you. I fervently hope
you will succeed; and, if such nominations as you tell me
you desire are made, I pledge you our active efforts in
their favor. For the sake of the country, I wish both
parties to do the very best they can, believing with you
that the Republicans have the safest shot in their locker.
At the same time I do not conceal from you that, if
nothing but a choice of evils should be presented to us,
I should not feel bound to content myself with such a
choice, and I am glad to know that a large number of
men who have so far been faithful partisans are now of
the same way of thinking. It is time for the moral sense
of the people to revolt against that kind of degradation,
to which we have too long been subjected, and I am
confident, strong partisan as you may be, you too feel
that there is something more precious than mere party
association and fealty. In such an emergency, therefore,
there will undoubtedly be an effort, outside of the old
parties, for that which honest endeavor inside failed to
accomplish.
I sincerely trust that such an emergency will be averted,
and you and I, each in his way, should make our best
possible efforts to avert it. I am sure our conference will
render a most valuable service in that respect. It will
furnish an opportunity to the independents and the party
men to deal fairly with each other. If you and your
friends, as Republicans, want the support of the independ-
1876] Carl Schurz 237
ents, you ought not to be left in doubt as to the things
which will secure and those which would repel that sup-
port. I notice here and there statements in the newspapers
assuming that a nomination of this or that character would
command the whole vote of the independent friends of re-
form, some of which assumptions I have good reason to
think erroneous. Such mistakes ought to be avoided by a
candid declaration of views and purposes, so that if the nomi-
nation you make does not receive the support you desire,
you shall have no reason to say to us, "Why did you not
tell us of your objections before? " It is fair we should do
so in time, and the conference will furnish an excellent
opportunity, especially as there will be so large a number
of party men in it that a full exchange of views from
different standpoints may take place. It will be neither
an attempt to coerce, nor to dictate to, nor to assume
any authority over the Republican or any other party.
It will, as I expect, be simply the exercise of the right of
American citizens openly to state their opinions on public
affairs and to declare what course they may think it
their duty to pursue under certain circumstances, so
that their subsequent conduct may not be a surprise to
anybody, every one taking part in it being bound only
by the dictates of his own conscience, and not by the
verdict of a majority if he does not agree with it. This
can and will be done not only by no-party men, but also,
with perfect consistency, by men who have not forsaken
their party, but are willing to employ every legitimate
means to advance a good end. And so you might join
us as well as others who will be present.
I must confess I have been somewhat surprised at the
ill-temper with which some Republican papers have de-
nounced the proposed conference as a sort of gunpowder
plot, gotten up for revolutionary purposes, by a set of
reckless idealists, as they call us when they want to make
238 The Writings of [1876
the moral superiority of the "practical politician" strik-
ingly apparent. It might, perhaps, be well for them to
remember that some of those "idealists" four or five
years ago strongly denounced the abuses of the Govern-
ment which then and since came to light, and warned the
party in power of the consequences which inevitably
would follow if the iniquitous agencies then at work were
not sternly resisted. If the "idealists" had been listened
to, McDonald would not have been permitted to organize
the whisky ring in St. Louis, the Belknaps and Babcocks
would not have remained great and powerful men in the
Government and the Republican party would not now
be obliged to struggle under that load of disgrace which
to-day is its greatest element of weakness. We were
then told by the "practical politicians" that if such
abuses existed they would be corrected, and everything
put right "inside." The "idealists" were put outside,
and the "practical politicians" had their way "inside."
You know the result. The "idealists" do not appear
to have been quite wrong, after all. Now I find some
newspapers exercising their wit at the notion that the
"idealists" insist upon "a perfect angel" for the Presi-
dency, and will not be satisfied with anything less. As
the "idealists" were not quite wrong four or five years ago,
so I apprehend they are not quite wrong now. They
think that, in its present situation, the country needs
a man for the Presidency who can be depended upon to
possess the moral courage and ability required for as
great an effort as human energy is capable of to crush
corruption and to make this a pure government once
more, whatever opposition he may have to encounter,
even if it should come from his own part}'' friends. This
may be called an ideal notion, but it is also an eminently
practical one; so much, indeed, that it must be carried
out if the honor of the country is to be saved and repub-
1876] Carl Schurz 239
lican institutions preserved. If, to use an expression
employed by Governor Allen of Ohio with regard to specie
payments, honest government can be laughed down as a
"barren ideality," then we may tremble for the future
of the Republic. It seems to me the papers referred to
are not quite prudent in scoffing at the "idealists," for,
unless I am greatly mistaken, "idealists" will be in great
demand as soon as the Presidential campaign is opened,
as they were last summer in Ohio and many times before.
As your letter embodies suggestions which have ap-
peared in some journals not unfriendly, I deem it proper
to give this reply to the Public. I shall also send you an
invitation to our conference, and hope you will accept.
TO L. A. SHERMAN
NEW YORK, May 3, 1876.
Private.
I should have replied to your letter before this, had I
not been overburdened with correspondence. I am glad
to learn that the Bristow movement in Michigan is
vigorously progressing, and I hope it will bring forth
a strong delegation to the Cincinnati Convention. Let
no effort be spared.
You ask me whether Mr. Elaine would be a desirable
candidate. Let me ask you whether a man who for years
has wielded great power and influence and has never used
it to uncover and put down corruption, and never ad-
vanced any measure to reform the abuses of the Govern-
ment, can be an acceptable candidate when it is the very
first duty of the American people to reestablish the moral
character of their Government, and when this must be
done against the opposition which comes from the "ma-
chine"? On this question there can scarcely be two
opinions among sincere and earnest friends of reform.
240 The Writings of [1876
ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE1
FELLOW-CITIZENS: — A conference of citizens assembled
in New York, sincerely desiring to serve the best interests
of the American people, beg leave to submit to your
candid consideration the following appeal :
A National election is approaching under circumstances
of peculiar significance. Never before in our history has
the public mind been so profoundly agitated by an ap-
prehension of the dangers arising from the prevalence
of corrupt tendencies and practices in our political life,
and never has there been greater reason for it. We will
not display here in detail the distressing catalogue of the
disclosures which for several years have followed one
another in rapid succession, and seem to have left scarcely
a single sphere of our political life untouched. The
records of courts, of State legislatures and of the National
Congress speak with terrible plainness, and still they are
adding to the scandalous exhibition. While such a
state of things would under any circumstances appear
most deplorable, it is peculiarly so at the present moment.
We are about to celebrate the one hundredth birthday
of our National existence. We have invited the nations
of the earth on this great anniversary to visit our land
and to witness the evidences of our material progress, as
well as the working and effects of that republican govern-
ment which a century ago our Fathers founded. Thus
the most inspiring memories of our past history are rising
up before us in a new glow of life, forcing upon us the
comparison of what this Republic once was, what it was
intended to be and what it now is ; and upon this we have
challenged the judgment of civilized mankind conjointly
with our own. There is much of which every American
1 Adopted at the Reform conference held at Fifth Avenue Hotel, New
York City, May 16, 1876, President T. D. Woolsey, presiding.
1876] Carl Schurz 241
citizen has just reason to be proud ; and energy and thrift,
a power of thought and action, a progressive spirit, which
in magnificence of result have outstripped all precedent
and anticipation; a history abounding in illustrations
of heroic patriotism, fortitude and wisdom; a greater
freedom from foreign wars and revolutionary changes of
government than most other nations can boast of; our
Republic, but a century old, and just issued from the only
great civil conflict we have had to deplore, so strong in
resources and organization that it stands in the foremost
rank of the great Powers of the earth; and yet, with all
these splendid results on record, it cannot be denied that
at no period during the century now behind us the Ameri-
can people have been less satisfied with themselves; and
that the centennial anniversary of the Declaration of
Independence, in so many respects to all Americans a day
of sincerest pride and rejoicing, is felt to be in other
respects not without self-reproach and humiliation. Of
this the corruption revealed in our political life is the cause.
To the honor of the American people be it said, every
patriotic citizen feels the burning shame of the spectacle
presented in this centennial year; there the mementoes
and monuments of the virtues of the past, and here the
shocking evidence of the demoralization and corruption
of the present; there the glowing eulogies pronounced on
the wisdom and purity of the Fathers, and here in mocking
contrast the verdict of courts and the records of legislative
bodies illustrating the political morals of to-day ; and this
before all mankind solemnly summoned as a witness to
the exhibition and a guest to the feast. Never was there
cause for keener mortification, and keenly does it strike
every patriotic heart. How can we avert such dangers
and wipe off such shame? By proving that, although the
government machinery has become corrupt, the great
body of the people are sound and strong at the core and
VOL. III. — 1 6
242 The Writings of [1876
that they are honestly determined to reform the abuses
of our political life, and to overthrow at any cost the
agencies of evil that stand in the way. Only such an
effort, well directed and sternly persevered in until success
is assured, will save the good name of the Nation, prevent
the prevailing disease from becoming fatal and restore
to its old strength the faith of our own people in their
institutions.
At the impending National election various questions
of great importance will be submitted to our judgment.
The settlements of the civil war as Constitutionally fixed
must be conscientiously maintained, and at the same time
the Government strengthened in general confidence by
the strict observance of Constitutional principles, and the
old brotherhood of the people revived by a policy of
mutual justice and conciliation.
Our solemn and often repeated pledge faithfully to
discharge all National obligations must be fulfilled, not
only by the payment of the principal and interest of our
bonded debt when due, but also the removal, not later
than the time provided by existing law, of the curse of
our redundant irredeemable paper currency, which not
only impedes the return of true prosperity but has largely
contributed to the existing demoralization.
These are grave questions, and there are more we might
touch, were it our purpose to lay down a complete political
platform. But grave as they are, still, in our present
situation, we must, as American citizens, recognize it
as our pressing duty to reestablish the moral character
of our Government and to elevate the tone of our political
life. Honest government is the first condition of endur-
ing National prosperity, power and freedom. Without
the elementary virtues of political as well as social life
decay will outstrip our progress. Our discussion and
struggles about other great questions and principles will
1876] Carl Schurz 243
appear like a mockery and farce if we permit our public
concerns to drift into that ruinous anarchy which cor-
ruption must necessarily bring in its train, because it
destroys the confidence of the people in their self-govern-
ment, the greatest evil that can befall a republic. It is a
simple question of life or death. A corrupt monarchy
may last by the rule of force; a corrupt republic cannot
endure.
It is useless to console ourselves with the idea that the
corruption amongst us must be ascribed solely to the
immediate effects of the civil war, and will, without an
effort at reform, soon pass away. There is another cause
which is not transitory, but threatens to become perma-
nent. It is that system which has made the offices of the
Government the mere spoils of party victory; the system
which distributes the places of trust and responsibility
as the reward of party service and the bounty of favor-
itism; the system which appeals to the mean impulses
of selfishness and greed as a controlling motive of political
action; the system which degrades the civil service to
the level of a mere party agency, and, treating the officer
as the hired servant of the party and taxing him for
party support stimulates corruption and places it under
party protection ; the system which brings the organization
of parties under the control of their most selfishly inter-
ested, and therefore most active element — the place-
holders and the place-hunters — thus tending to organize
a standing army of political mercenaries to be paid out
of the treasury of the Government, who by organized
action endeavor to subjugate the will of the people to
their ends through the cultivation of a tyrannical party
spirit.
Every student of our political history knows that since
the spoils system was inaugurated, corruption has steadily
grown from year to year, and so long as this system
244 The Writings of [1876
lasts, with all its seductions and demoralizing tendencies,
corruption will continue to grow in extent and power,
for patriotism and true merit will more and more be
crowded out of political life by unscrupulous selfishness.
The war has only given a sudden stimulus to this tendency ;
but without the war it would have grown up and will
not cease to grow as long as the hot-bed of corruption,
the spoils system, lasts. The skill in corrupt practices
acquired by one generation of spoilsmen will only be
improved upon by the next. The result we know. We
have already reaped so great a harvest of disaster and
shame that, we repeat, it has now become the first duty
of the American people to reestablish the moral character
of the Government by a thorough reform. What can we
do toward this end in the impending National election?
In this respect, fellow-citizens, we consider it our duty
to speak very plainly. Never were the cause of good
government and the honor of the American name more
immediately dependent on the character, ability and
reputation of the men to be selected for the highest offices.
In view of the grave circumstances at present surrounding
us, we declare the country cannot now afford to have
any man elected to the Presidency whose very name is
not conclusive evidence of the most uncompromising
determination of the American people to make this a
pure Government once more.
Our duty in this respect is plain and imperious. It
suffers no trifling or equivocation. The worn-out clap-
traps of fair promises in party platforms will not satisfy
it; neither will mere fine professions on the part of can-
didates; not mere words are needed, but acts; not mere
platforms, but men.
We therefore declare, and call upon all good citizens
to join us, that at the coming Presidential election we
shall support no candidate who in public position ever
1876] Carl Schurz 245
countenanced corrupt practices or combinations, or im-
peded their exposure and punishment, or opposed neces-
sary measures of reform.
We shall support no candidate who, while possessing
official influence and power, has failed to use his oppor-
tunities in exposing and correcting abuses coming within
the reach of his observation, but for personal reasons and
party ends has permitted them to fester on; not striving
to uncover and crush corruption, but for the party's sake
ready to conceal it.
We shall support no candidate, however conspicuous his
position or brilliant his ability, in whom the impulses of the
party manager have shown themselves predominant over
those of the reformer; for he will be inclined to continue
that fundamental abuse, the employment of the Govern-
ment service as a machinery for personal or party ends.
We shall support no candidate who, however favorably
judged by his nearest friends, is not publicly known to
possess those qualities of mind and character which the
stern task of genuine reform requires; for the American
people cannot now afford to risk the future of the Re-
public in experiments on merely supposed virtue or
rumored ability to be trusted on the strength of private
recommendations.
In one word, at present no candidate should be held
entitled to the support of patriotic citizens of whom the
questions may fairly be asked: "Is he really the man to
carry through a thoroughgoing reform of the Govern-
ment? Can he with certainty be depended upon to
possess the moral courage and sturdy resolution to grapple
with abuses which have acquired the strength of estab-
lished custom, and to this end firmly to resist the pressure
even of his party friends?" Whenever there is room for
such a question, and doubt as to the answer, the candidate
should be considered unfit for this emergency.
246 The Writings of [1876
This is no time for so-called availability springing
from distinction gained on fields of action foreign to the
duties of government; nor for that far more dangerous
sort of availability which consists in this, that the can-
didate be neither so bad as to repel good citizens, nor so
good as to discourage the bad ones.
Passive virtue in the highest place has too often been
known to permit the growth of active vice below. The
man to be intrusted with the Presidency this year must
have deserved not only the confidence of honest men,
but also the fear and hatred of the thieves. He who
manages to conciliate the thieves cannot be the candidate
for honest men.
Every American citizen who has the future of the
Republic and the National honor sincerely at heart should
solemnly resolve that the country must have a President
"whose name is already a watchword of reform; whose
capacity and courage for the work are matters of record
rather than of promise, who will restore the simplicity,
independence and rectitude of the early Administrations,
and whose life will be a guarantee of his fidelity and
fitness"; a man at the mere sound of whose name even
the most disheartened will take new courage, and all
mankind will say: " The Americans are indeed in earnest
to restore the ancient purity of their Government."
Fellow-citizens, the undersigned, in addressing you, are
not animated by the ambition to form or lead a new
political party. Most have long been and are warmly
attached to their party associations. It would be most
gratifying to us to see, by party action, candidates put
forward whose character and record answer those require-
ments which present circumstances render imperative.
We earnestly hope and trust it will be so. We shall
gladly follow such a lead and make every effort in our
power to render it successful. But while we are ready
1876] Carl Schurz 247
to accept any and every good result of party action, we
affirm that the moral reform of our public concerns is
infinitely superior in importance to the interests of any
political party. Glad to promote that reform through
party action, we shall insist upon it at all events, should
party action fail. Experience teaches us that the habitual
submission of good citizens to a choice of evils presented
to them by party organizations is one of the most prolific
causes of corruption in our politics. The acceptance by
the people of the argument that one party may be bad
a.nd still be entitled to the support of good men, because
the other party is still worse, will induce each to consider
how bad it may safely be. It will strengthen in each
the power of the most unscrupulous element and subject
the will of the people to the subtle tyranny of organiza-
tion wielded by those who live by politics. To break
that tyranny by a stern refusal to submit to such a choice
of evils is the first beginning in the reform of our political
life. Without this all other steps will prove unavailing.
We shall sincerely rejoice to see the necessity of in-
dependent action avoided. We earnestly hope that the
efforts to this end being made by the friends of reform
within party lines will be crowned with success, and that
the just expectations of the people may not be doomed
to disappointment. Indeed, we are confident if all
those of our fellow-citizens who in their hearts agree with
what we have said will only take the courage openly to
proclaim their conviction and purposes, such a manifesta-
tion alone would produce an effect sufficient to secure
nominations and an election inaugurating a better order
of things.
We therefore appeal to all good citizens who find their
own sentiments expressed in this address (be they inside
or outside of party lines) to organize in their respective
districts, and communicate with the Executive Committee
248 The Writings of (1876
appointed at this meeting, so that efficient cooperation
may become possible. Let no effort be spared in bring-
ing the influence of a patriotic public opinion to bear
upon those who in the customary way are soon to nomi-
nate the party candidates; and then, in any event, let
us be ready to do what the best interests of the Republic
demand.
Our generation has to open the second century of our
National life, as the Fathers opened the first. Theirs was
the work of independence, ours is the work of reforma-
tion. The one is as vital now as the other was then.
Now, as then, every true American must have the courage
to do his duty.
CARL SCHURZ, Missouri, Chairman.
MARTIN BRIMMER, Massachusetts.
L. F. S. FOSTER, Connecticut.
PARKE GODWIN, New York.
JOHN W. HOYT, Wisconsin.
TO RUTHERFORD B. HAYES1
FORT WASHINGTON, PA., June 21, 1876.
I regret now more than ever that I did not have the
pleasure of becoming personally acquainted with you
last fall in the Ohio campaign, but I hope you will not
consider it an intrusion if I address you with that confi-
dence and frankness with which one gentleman may speak
to another. I desire to submit to you some suggestions
concerning the coming contest. Here and there the
opinion is expressed that your victory is already won. I
am sure your own political experience does not permit
you to regard as certain what is still subject to the chances
of war. When examining the relative conditions of
1 Then governor of Ohio and Republican candidate for the Presidency.
1876] Carl Schurz 249
parties in the different States one by one, I cannot but
conclude that the issue will be very uncertain if the
Republican party depends upon its record and its own
regular strength.
It will find it impossible to conduct the campaign on the
old war issues. Neither does my understanding of your
own opinions lead me to believe that you would have it
so. There is at present far more strength, as there is
more wisdom and patriotism in the advocacy of a policy
of justice and conciliation, than in an attempt to rake up
old animosities and in a mere repetition of old cries.
The Republican party, in order to be successful, must
show itself strongest on the living questions which, of
necessity, will press to the foreground.
Of these the questions of finance and of administrative
reform will prove the most unavoidable. With regard
to the former your own publicly expressed opinions are
stronger and inspire more confidence than the Republican
platform. But the struggle is likely to become an arduous
one. There are in our present economic condition many
indications which render an extremely stringent money-
market probable in September and October. Such a state
of things attended with an accumulation of commercial
failures will be apt, as it always is, to tell against the
party in power. Still, the evil effects of that circumstance
may be overcome by a vigorous fight and the development
of strength in that direction in which the Republican
party is at present weakest.
The question of administrative reform is the really
and seriously sore point of the party. There the attacks
of its opponents will be most incessant and unsparing,
and, unfortunately, they may be terribly severe without
being unjust. It was the corruption in the public service
grown to alarming proportions after the war, and, con-
nected with it, the reckless partisanship disregarding
250 The Writings of [1876
Constitutional as well as moral principles, which drove
the independents into opposition ; and I will frankly con-
fess to you that my own personal observations during
my service in the Senate, as well as the terrible disclosures
made since, from the whisky trials down to the jobbery
revealed in recent investigations, have not seldom made
me seriously doubt whether a thorough cleaning out of
the influences now in power, by any means and at any
cost, should not be considered the first thing necessary.
I know that thousands of old Republicans arrived at such
a conclusion.
The new Cincinnati platform promises civil service
reform, but the platform of 1872 did the same, and it
cannot be denied that public confidence in the mere paper
promises of political parties is fatally shaken. The Re-
publican reformers as well as the independents favored
the nomination of Mr. Bristow, not on account of any
personal attachment — for most of them were not at all,
or like myself, but slightly acquainted with him — but
because Mr. Bristow, in his official position, had vigor-
ously used his opportunities for practical reform, thereby
giving guarantees of honest government far more valu-
able than ever so many platforms. The platform alone
will leave the party in a defensive position. It would be
interpreted by the recent record of the party, and there
is but too much in that record which cannot be explained
away or defended by honest men. But the candidate
can give life and certain meaning to it and thus revive
all that ardor, part of which the defeat of Mr. Bristow
threatened to transform into silent indifference. And
here is the suggestion I desire to submit. In your letter
of acceptance you can, if you choose, give your own
construction of the platform and your own understanding
of your duties if elected. You can substitute for the
vague and discredited promises of a platform the frank
1876] Carl Schurz 251
and vigorous pledge of a man known to be a man of
honor. You can make this your campaign and relieve
it of all vulnerable points of the party record. Yoii
can accomplish this by reiterating your own position
on the financial question, and then by declaring: that
the equality of rights without distinction of color accord-
ing to the Constitutional amendments must be sacredly
maintained by all the lawful power of the Govern-
ment; but that also the Constitutional rights of local
self-government must be respected; and that a policy
must be followed which will lead this Nation into the
second century of its existence, not as a nation divided
into conquerors and conquered, but a nation of equal
citizens united in common self-respect and patriotism;
that dishonest practices in the administration of public
affairs shall be prosecuted and punished with impartial
and relentless rigor; that the offices of the Government
shall cease to be the spoils of party victory ; that the civil
service shall be made again what the founders of the
Government made it and designed it to remain, organized
with sole regard to ascertained fitness and honesty, and
not as a party agency or a system of rewards, favoritism
and patronage ; that to the accomplishment of this object
you will, if elected, devote the whole energy of your
Administration and by all Constitutional means endeavor
to secure the permanency of the reform.
Such a declaration, put forth not as a mere customary
endorsement of the platform but as an expression of your
own views of public necessity, a proclamation of your
own resolution and purpose in language bold and ringing,
would electrify the country and call to your banner the
best elements of the people from far beyond the lines of
the party. It would make you stronger than the party,
which seems necessary to render success sure. It
would supply the manifest need of these times, and make
252 The Writings of [1876
this one of the greatest and most salutary campaigns in
our history, a campaign worthy of the centennial year.
It would give back to the party under your leadership
the aggressive moral force which it possessed in its best
days. I may add that it would rally to your support as
a strong working power a large majority of the independent
element, especially also of the independent Germans,
who, while having little faith in party professions, would
believe in you upon your word.
I hope you will pardon the length and urgency of this
letter. I feel that I have taken a great liberty by volun-
teering this suggestion, but I could not refrain, for the
more I think of it the more I am impressed with its
importance. I trust you will take it as coming from a
man who speaks frankly because he means well.
You will oblige me by an acknowledgment of the receipt
of this note, which will reach me here at Fort Washington,
Montgomery county, Penna., until the 30th inst. On the
3Oth I shall take the night train on the Penna. R.R. for
St. Louis.
TO RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
FORT WASHINGTON, PA., June 23, 1876.
I hope the letter I mailed to you yesterday morning
has reached you. I have since received information
from different quarters, especially concerning the Germans
East and West, their influential men and papers and the
prevailing current of sentiment among them, which im-
presses me more than ever with the extreme importance
of a broad, bold and striking declaration in your letter
of acceptance of your own opinions and determined
purpose in favor of a straightforward strong specie-
payment policy, the purification of the Government and
a non-partisan civil service with tenure of office on good
1876] Carl Schurz 253
behavior. Whatever the party press may say of the
present state of public feeling, I know from the very best
sources of information that there is among a very nu-
merous class of citizens, naturally desiring to cooperate
with the Republican party, so strong a distrust not only
of the present Administration, but also of the influences
which for years have controlled party politics on the
Republican side, that only the strongest personal assur-
ances of reform will keep them from looking for a change
through a temporary success of the opposite party.
There is no doubt your opponents will be shrewd enough
to take advantage of this condition of things; and I
believe your language in expressing your own true senti-
ments cannot possibly be too strong, direct and emphatic.
I pray you, do not consider me presumptuous in urging
this matter so persistently upon your attention; for the
public interest as well as your own appears to me so
vitally concerned in it, that I should feel as if I failed in
my duty did I remain silent. So I hope you will pardon
me.
In pursuance of a resolution adopted by the independ-
ent conference of May last, I have called the executive
committee appointed by that body to meet on the 3Oth
inst., and your letter of acceptance will, I trust, furnish
the text for an address to our constituents.
FROM RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
COLUMBUS, June 27, 1876.
Confidential,
I am very glad to get your letters of the 2ist and 23d. I
will give your suggestions my best consideration. I do not
expect to write my acceptance for ten days or two weeks.
In the meantime I wish to give you with entire frankness how
the matter lies in my mind now, hoping to hear from you again
254 The Writings of [1876
before I write for the public. I wish to remain entirely
uncommitted until the time for issuing the letter.
I now think as you do — probably precisely as you do, on
the civil service reform part of our platform. I want to make
that the issue of the canvass — to be perfectly explicit, decided
and square, but brief in regard to it. I will therefore be glad
to have your views in form, or to be referred to the document
(speech or letter) which gives the best statement of the true
thing.
I do not expect to say anything on the specie resumption
plank. I am so pronounced and well known on that question
that I feel like saying that the man who wants other interpre-
tation of our platform than the fact of my candidacy, is
pretty likely to vote against me even if he has to support
Governor Allen or General Carey.
I now feel like saying something as to the South not essen-
tially different from your suggestions, but am not decided
about it. I don't like the phrase by reason of its Democratic
associations, which you use — "local self-government," in
that connection. It seems to me to smack of the bowie knife
and revolver. "Local self-government" has nullified the
1 5th amendment in several States, and is in a fair way to
nullify the I4th and I3th. But I do favor a policy based on
the observance of all parts of the Constitution — the new as
well as the old, and therefore I suppose you and I are substan-
tially agreed on the topic.
One other suggestion let me now submit to you. I really
think that a President could do more good in one term if
untrammelled by the belief that he was fixing things for his
election to a second term, than with the best intentions could
be done in two terms with his power embarrassed by that sus-
picion or temptation during his first four years. Our platform
says nothing on that subject. I am averse to adding topics,
but could I not properly avow my own view and purpose on
this head?
And now you will excuse me for writing so hurriedly and
inconsiderately. I returned late last night from my home in
Fremont. I am thronged with callers, and in the midst of a
i876j Carl Schurz 255
shower of letters and dispatches. Whether you can support
me or not you will treat this as confidential, and, I hope, let
me hear from you further.
TO RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
ST. Louis, Mo., July 5, 1876.
Your kind letter of June 2yth has been forwarded to
me. I can only thank you for the confidential frankness
with which you speak to me and may assure you that this
confidence is not misplaced. I am exceedingly glad to
know that your views on civil service reform agree so
well with those I ventured to submit, and that you de-
sire to make that reform "the issue of the canvass."
In compliance with the desire you expressed at our
interview last Saturday, I submit the following draft of
a paragraph for your letter of acceptance :
"I have long been convinced of the necessity of a
thorough and permanent reform of the civil service.
Dishonest officers will have to expect from me only the
most rigorous execution of the law and the strictest
enforcement of personal accountability. But the reform
must not confine itself to mere changes of persons, it re-
quires a change of system. The Constitutional relations
of the Executive and the Legislative branches of the
Government with regard to appointments to office, as
correctly defined in the Republican platform, shall be
inflexibly observed. The principles acted upon by the
wise founders of this Government must be our rules of
conduct. They did not mean the civil service to become
a system of political rewards, spoils, patronage and
favoritism. They regarded not party services, but abil-
ity, honesty and fidelity as the only true qualifications
for appointment and promotion. They meant that the
officer should be secure in his tenure as long as his per-
256 The Writings of [1876
sonal character remained untarnished, and performance
of his official duties satisfactory. They meant that the
public officer should owe his whole duty to the Government
and the people. They neither expected nor desired
from him any partisan service. The growth of the
government machinery may have rendered a judicious
selection of officers all over the country by the Executive
more difficult, but this difficulty is to be obviated by
well regulated and fixed methods of ascertaining the
fitness of candidates, and the permanency of this system
may be insured by legal enactment. Upon these prin-
ciples I shall, if elected, organize and conduct my Ad-
ministration, and its whole energy will be devoted to
the task of establishing and perpetuating this reform."
This paragraph may at first sight appear somewhat
longer than you desire to have it, but the subject is of
such paramount importance and it is so necessary to
show a clear and complete understanding of the question
and to avoid the least appearance of equivocation, that,
as I think, not a single point should be sacrificed to the
mere charm of brevity. Its fearless straightforwardness
and completeness will undoubtedly with great effect
appeal to the best impulses of the popular heart. To
fight for such a program would, even in case of defeat,
be glorious enough. But to succeed with it in the elec-
tion, as I trust you will, and then faithfully to carry out
such a reform, will place him who does it in the first rank
of the best names in American history.
You ask me about the propriety of introducing the one-
term principle. My impression is that it might appear
well at the close of the above paragraph and with direct
reference to it. It would be calculated to strengthen the
earnestness of the reform pledge.
Now another matter. You say that you do not deem
it necessary to refer to the currency question again.
1876] Carl Schurz 257
There I venture to differ with you. The equivocal
position in which the Democrats have placed themselves
by demanding the repeal of the resumption clause fur-
nishes us one of our main weapons of attack. I have
already assailed that point in my paper. But neither is
the Republican platform clear enough in that respect.
It is indeed important that you should strengthen our
position. Permit me to propose to you the following
paragraph :
" On the currency question I have frequently expounded
my views in public and stand by my record. I regard
every law of the United States concerning the payment
of any form of our public indebtedness, the legal-tenders
included, as constituting a pledge and moral obligation
of the Government which must in good faith be adhered
to. Moreover, I am convinced that the feeling of uncer-
tainty inseparable from the existence of an irredeemable
paper currency with its incidental fluctuations of value
and the restless agitation it causes is one of the great
obstacles standing in the way of a revival of business
confidence and the return of prosperity. That uncer-
tainty can be put an end to only in one way: by the
resumption of specie payments, restoring to the business
of the country a safe basis ; and the sooner this is accom-
plished the greater will be the benefit to all our economic
interests and all classes of society."
This, I think, would place you on an unassailable ground
and give us a great advantage of position, especially in
the State of New York. It may appear again a little
long, but I would ask you to consider that never in
American history was there a letter of acceptance written
of such exceeding importance, and for which the people
looked with so much anxious interest.
Day after to-morrow, Friday, I shall pass through Col-
umbus at noon and can stay until 6:30. I should be
VOL. III. — 17
258 The Writings of [1876
very glad to have a conversation with you on these and
some other points in your letter of acceptance before it
comes out. If this be agreeable to you, may I suggest
that you be kind enough to ask Captain Lee to meet me
at the depot and to take me where I may see you?
TO CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, JR.
PORT WASHINGTON, PA., July 9, 1876.
I have just got back from the West and find here your
note of the 29th of June addressed to Mr. Lodge and
communicated by him to me. You are perfectly right
in saying that we should go one way or the other. I have
in the meantime been anxiously endeavoring to ascertain
how I for my part could render the best service to the
cause we have at heart, and I have come to a very clear
conclusion.
The result of the Cincinnati Convention appeared at
first as the triumph of a respectable compromise candidate;
the result of the St. Louis Convention as the triumph of a
great name with the attachment of an ambiguous plat-
form and the most objectionable man imaginable as a
candidate for the Vice-Presidency. Neither side satis-
factory and yet a third movement out of the question.
In order to ascertain what could be done I put myself
in correspondence with Hayes, volunteering certain sug-
gestions with regard to his letter of acceptance. I had
from him a most satisfactory response. I have since
met him twice and discussed all sorts of things with him.
His letter of acceptance, containing his political program,
will be an agreeable surprise to you, if it comes out as it
was determined upon Friday evening. It is our platform
in every word with the pledge of an honest man as a
candidate for the Presidency attached to it. Unless I
1876] Carl Schurz 259
am very much mistaken, the Cincinnati Convention has
nominated our man without knowing it. He is a man
of more than average ability and decidedly unspoiled as
a politician. It will be our fault, I think, if we do not
gain a decisive influence in his Administration. I shall
support him heartily on his letter and earnestly hope
you will see your way clear in the same direction. Let
me confess that I never entertained as high an opinion
of Mr. Tilden as a reformer as you did. He has been too
much of a demagogue and is too much of a wirepuller
and machine politician now to be depended upon as a
man of principle.
We had a meeting of the executive committee of the
conference on June 3Oth. It was deemed best, as the
situation was then still undefined, Hayes's letter not yet
being out, not to do anything with regard to the candi-
dates. Indeed, I do not see the necessity of united action
on the part of the independents. It may truly be said
that the choice of positive evils is avoided, and a certain
measure of reform is promised on either side. The
question is where we can get most. Moreover, I think
it would be difficult to get the conference together again.
We did, however, resolve to invite all those who signed
our address, about 1500, to join in the organization of a
National Civil Service Reform League, for the purpose
of exercising upon public opinion as well as future
Administrations whatever influence may be at our com-
mand. That, I think, is a good idea and may be made
useful.
I am here with my children to spend part of the summer
at this quiet country place. Let me hear from you. Is
it true that your father has pronounced for Tilden?
26o The Writings of 11876
TO RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
FORT WASHINGTON, PA., July 14, 1876.
As I expected, your letter of acceptance has had an
excellent effect, and it deserves it all and more. The
number of independent voters who have left the fence
in consequence of it is not inconsiderable. The Nation
also, in its cool way, has declared for you, and its influence
with the thinking men of the country is very strong.
At the same time we must not underestimate the
difficulties we have to contend with. You are made to
bear the sins of others. You can read in Republican
papers that President Grant is acting like Tilden's best
friend, and indeed, if he goes on much longer "pleasing
himself," nobody knows to what extent he may injure
you. Still, I suppose, there is nothing to be done except
to show on every possible occasion that Governor Haj'-es
and President Grant are two very different men. I am
inclined to think he would hurt you less by coming out
openly against you.
But one of the worst things done yet is the election of
Secretary [Zachariah] Chandler to the chairmanship of the
National Committee. It is in the highest degree improper
on principle that a man who wields the patronage and
influence of one of the Departments of the Government,
should also be the manager of a party in a campaign;
and it seems utterly impossible that a member of General
Grant's Administration, who is a notorious advocate of
the vicious civil service system, which we want to abolish,
should be the manager of a campaign in which the reform
of the civil service is one of the principal issues. Several
Republican papers, seeing the absolute incongruity of
this arrangement, have already taken up the matter
and are urging him to decline the appointment. This,
I suppose, he will not heed, unless some extraordinary
influences be brought to bear upon him. What those
1876] Carl Schurz 261
influences should be, I confess, I do not know. I feel
that it would be a delicate matter for you to interfere
directly; but something should be done, or the manage-
ment of the campaign will be the most glaring satire on
civil service reform imaginable. In 1872 he was the
chairman of the Republican Congressional Committee;
at any rate, he had the "laboring oar," and he gave us
then a specimen of his way to conduct a canvass. One
of the first things, I presume, will be the levying of assess-
ments on officeholders under the name of "voluntary
contributions." As soon as the first symptoms of a
revival of that abuse appear, I would suggest to you to
protest against it in a letter to the Committee, saying
that you do not want to be elected by means so repugnant
to your principles, and to have your protest made public.
It would not only be right in itself and place you in the
right position, but it would give you ten times more votes
than any amount of money raised in that way.
But far better would it be to get Chandler out of his
chairmanship, if there is a way to do it; no effort should
be spared in that respect.
I am hard at work preparing my first campaign speech
and think it will have good effect. But it is so terribly
hot that mental labor becomes almost impossible, and I
do not get on as fast as I should like. Still, it will come.
TO OSWALD OTTENDORFER *
FORT WASHINGTON, PA., July 22, 1876.*
Although I read the Staats-Zeitung with tolerable regu-
larity, yet several numbers, the contents of which have
1 Editor of the N. Y. Staats-Zeitung.
* This letter was written in German. The translation, taken from one
of the New York newspapers, was probably made hastily and not by
Mr. Schurz.
262 The Writings of [1876
only now been communicated to me, escaped my notice
during a recent journey. In them I find the accusation
directed against me that I have "turned back" upon the
path which I have been travelling for years; that my
"present course is absolutely irreconcilable with all that
I have advocated and commended until within the last
few weeks"; that I am "treading under foot my own
convictions," etc., etc.
Wherefore these charges? Because I prefer Mr. Hayes
to the Democratic ticket. You will admit, on calm
reflection, that the accusations hurled against me are
very serious, and your sense of justice will not deny to me
an examination of them in the same journal which made
them. I request of you, therefore, the publication of
this letter in the Staats-Zeitung, not merely by means of
extracted passages, but entire.
What convictions, then, are those which you so care-
lessly accuse me of having "trodden under foot"? Of
course you can only refer to those which touch the most
important questions of our political life. Can you, your-
self, really believe that I must have become false to my
own convictions in regard to the financial question,
because I prefer the Republican to the Democratic candi-
dates? Let us see who has changed his views!
You know fully as well as I do, and have often enough
admitted the fact in your paper, that, with reference to
the financial question, the Republican party is assuredly
not all that it should be, but that it is much "sounder"
on the whole than the Democratic party. The history
of the last few years, the votes in Congress, the elections
in single States, the party organs, furnish indisputable
evidence that a heavy majority of the "soft-money"
element, and about all the lust of repudiation that exists,
are to be found on the Democratic side. Now, if such
a party — which still almost daily, as I write, shows it-
1876] Carl Schurz 263
self through its majority in the House of Representatives
hostile to hard-money — would nevertheless have us be-
lieve that the hard-money interest would be safe in its
hands, it must of necessity give us, both by explanations
and by acts, stronger guarantees than we should require
of a party with better antecedents. In order to deserve
confidence, the Democratic Convention should at least
have adopted a hard-money platform, free from all
stipulations and compromises, and then have nominated
for the Presidency — and no less for the Vice-Presidency—
candidates whose principles in regard to the hard-money
question stood beyond the reach of doubt. Less than
this could not have been demanded. And what has the
Democratic party done in its Convention? After ar-
raigning the Republicans for great sins of omission,
chiefly to raise a dust for the concealment of its own far
worse record, it proposes as the only specific measure
the repeal of the resumption bill of January, 1875!
You and I have been of the same opinion, that the
resumption bill of 1875 was insufficient in its details,
but of value as the distinct promise of the acceptance of
specie payments on the side of the Government. You
and I during the session of this Congress have condemned
every attempt to repeal the resumption bill as a maneuver
of the inflationists. With perfect truth you have declared
in the Staats-Zeitung that "such a repeal without at
the same time accepting some practical measure for
specie payments would be a moral victory of the infla-
tionists." You and I know that for two years past the
battlecry of the inflationists has been the repeal of the
resumption act, and if now the Democratic platform
in acting upon the finance question presents as its only
specific demand that the resumption bill shall be repealed,
every honest hard-money man who seriously considers
the question will ask what does this mean? The reason
264 The Writings of [1876
can certainly not be that -which the platform itself puts
forth, that the promise to resume is in itself the hin-
drance to resumption, for among rational people it is an
unheard of thing that a man was unable to pay his debt
simply because he had promised to do so. No, that
demand was incorporated into the platform for the simple
purpose of pacifying the inflationists and binding them
to the party by concession. This is no mere conjecture.
The chairman of the Platform Committee openly declared
in the Convention that this platform was a compromise,
against which the hard-money party of the Eastern
States had already strongly protested. And they have
justly protested, because, as you yourself admit, this was
a "moral victory of the inflationists." The extreme
inflationists in the Convention were not satisfied with
this compromise; naturally so, for a compromise never
satisfies, because it only gives a part of what is desired.
And what was the argument whereby the chairman of
the Committee endeavored to move them to accept a
compromise? That in this question the Convention
could not retrograde further without ruining every chance
of success for the Democratic party in the State of New
York. This had its effect, and the compromise was
accepted by a large majority. Thus, for the sake of
victory, the inflationists refrained from further demands.
But what follows a party victory? Must not every
hard-money man, who is faithful to his convictions, first
of all ask this question?
Still this was not the only concession which was made
to the inflationists. The Convention with singular una-
nimity nominated Mr. Hendricks as candidate for the
Vice- Presidency. Who is Mr. Hendricks? You name
him in your journal "a politician without character,
who has no views of his own concerning the question of
finance." But you know just as well as I that he was
1876] Carl Schurz 265
one of the favorite candidates of the inflationists, and
that characterizes his position in regard to the question
of finance. And this man is candidate for Vice-President
with Mr. Tilden! It is true that men have been nomi-
nated on the same ticket heretofore who were unequal in
ability and strength of character, but for the first time
in the history of the country the Democratic Convention
has furnished an unheard of example of placing two
candidates together, who on the chief question, repre-
sented exactly opposite principles. Why was this done?
To pacify the hard-money men by giving them a chance.
And what chance? The chance that in case Mr. Tilden,
who is no more immortal than you or I, should be over-
taken by the fate of mortals, the favorite candidate of
the soft-money party would possess the Executive power
of the Nation. What is therefore the meaning of the
compromise made with the soft-money party in the
Democratic Convention? In case of a Democratic
victory the soft-money Democrats would in all prob-
ability, as at present, control the majority of the party
in the House of Representatives. We may accept this
as very nearly certain. The hard-money Democrats
would then, in accordance with the platform, help them
to repeal the resumption act, as the most of them already
do. An unfortunate casualty, affecting a single human
life, might then deliver the Executive power into the
hands of the soft-money party, and, so far as the Senate
is concerned, a hard-money majority there is so precarious
that a few Democratic successes in the Western States
where the inflationists have the upper hand might turn
that body in the same direction. What effect will such
a compromise have on the inflationists in the Democratic
party? Will it convert them to the hard-money side?
Exactly the opposite; it will encourage them to perse-
vere boldly in their policy, since it gives them a chance
266 The Writings of [1876
eventually to get a part if not the whole power of the Gov-
ernment in their hands. I am convinced that but a little
while ago you would have repelled with indignation the
thought of such a game of chance with the fortunes of
the country; and you have no right to be surprised if
others who feel the gravity of the question do the same
thing now. You cannot deny that you are running the
risk of immeasurable misfortune. There is no use in
lightly ignoring the possibilities of the situation, for in
case of a Democratic victory, neither you nor all the
hard-money men together could effect the least toward
preventing such a disaster. In my opinion we have no
right to stake the welfare of the country upon a card.
I do not deny that the Republican platform might have
been more pronounced in this respect; but since I am
compelled to choose between a party which by the most
enticing forms of speech and a compromise in its platform
and candidates stretches out a finger with a hope of the
whole hand to the paper-money party, and another which,
in regard to this question, has nominated two equally
reliable candidates through whom we hazard no possible
disaster, and whose success makes at least probable a
corresponding majority in Congress, I cannot without
violating my hard-money convictions accept other than
the latter. I ask you only who in this respect has trodden
under foot his convictions ?
So much in regard to the question of finance. As to
the question of reform I most willingly acknowledge the
services of Mr. Tilden in his war with the canal rings;
but however important and necessary such services may
be, the reform question, even when it is transferred to a
greater field of action, is therewith by no means exhausted.
In reality this is the least part of it. Furthermore, one
thing seems to me assured in any case. However the
election may result, the sweeping out of the corrupt
1876] Carl Schurz 267
officials and combinations which now dishonor our
public service will be sure to take place. If it is said
that the election of Mr. Hayes would lead to a mere
continuation of the Grant Administration, it is the chatter
of party, no less absurd than if his letter of acceptance
were [called] a glorification of Grantism. Mr. Grant him-
self has a better understanding of the matter. The news
from Washington cannot have escaped you, that Presi-
dent Grant has found Mr. Hayes's letter of acceptance
"very inappropriate," and has taken it almost as a
personal affront. He will no doubt express his feelings
to a further extent in the course of the campaign. It
does not occur to me to elevate Mr. Hayes to a demigod
because he is a candidate for the Presidency, but he is
universally recognized as a man of scrupulous integrity,
of a strong feeling of honor, of a quiet energy — a man who
has fulfilled all public duties, which have ever devolved
upon him, with success, and in every respect without
reproach ; a man in whom the desire to restore and preserve
honor to the Government springs from the natural ten-
dency of his nature, and not from artifice or affected
feeling. It is quite as well known that in his official
capacity he has repelled the bad elements of party and
surrounded himself with those most deserving of respect.
In the Presidency he would therein not be less successful,
especially as through his decided rejection of a second
term he would withdraw from the influences which
would surround him all opportunity to excite in him any
other emotion than that of making a single term honor-
able. This is no extravagant praise, but it has the ad-
vantage of being true. The realization of this feature
of reform seems to me therefore as thoroughly secure
through Hayes as through Tilden.
But it has always been a very important matter to
me, not only that corrupt officials should be brought to
268 The Writings of [1876
punishment, but that the most profitable source of
corruption — a system of plunder — should be checked
by a permanent and thorough reform of the civil service.
The question, and the most important question is, How
may this end be attained? Now, if I am convinced
that Mr. Hayes will undertake with honest will and carry
out with all energy exactly such a thorough reform of
the civil service as that for which I have striven, what
right have you to assert that by supporting Mr. Hayes
I tread my convictions under foot? Have I reasons for
these convictions? Let us see. In his letter of accept-
ance, which in this respect leaves far behind the Repub-
lican as well as the Democratic platform, Mr. Hayes,
has presented the clearest and completest program of
civil service reform with which I am acquainted. Untir-
ing and impartial prosecutions and punishment of dis-
honorable officials; no more appointments by the request
of Members of Congress ; no removals except for deficient
service; the official no longer the tool of party; honesty,
capacity and fidelity the only claim to official promotion,
thereby total abolition of the system of plunder; the
reform secured by legislative means. Do you know a
better program? Would not its realization fulfil all which
I have advocated in accordance with my convictions?
But you may say Mr. Hayes is not the man to carry
out such a program. Is this based upon anything more
than mere conjecture? Would you not have said three
weeks ago that Mr. Hayes was not the man to present
such a program? It has been said that Mr. Hayes has
suddenly transformed himself into a civil service reformer
for the sake of effect, and in order to secure the votes of
the independents. But he has expressed the same views
of reform in the canal service, and even to some extent
with the same words, in speeches and inaugural addresses
delivered years ago. This may have escaped you, even
1876] Carl Schurz 269
as it did me, but it is nevertheless true. No one, not
even yourself, doubts that Mr. Hayes is a thoroughly
honorable man, who honestly intends to practice what
he preaches. He has shown that the substance of civil
service reform is completely clear to his mind, but you
deny him the courage and the energy which are necessary
in order successfully to meet strong opposing influences.
Moral courage in one thing implies moral courage in
others. Have you considered, perhaps, how much
moral courage must be inferred of a candidate for the
Presidency who opposes the most powerful official influ-
ences of his party by such a program? He stands at the
beginning of the campaign in which the policy of the
candidate would dictate to him necessity of keeping
favor with all strong influences of party, especially those
already organized. Yet this candidate issues a manifesto
which, in its comprehensive and sharply-defined require-
ments, is in itself the severest criticism of the existing
misrule. Is this want of courage? This candidate says
'to the Members of Congress that in case of his election
they must expect from him no concessions of patronage;
to the officials, that no party services will be desired
from them; to the politicians, that electioneering work
will no longer be valid as claim to an office ; to the Presi-
dent who has been twice chosen, and was "willing" for
a third term, that whoever would undertake such reforms
must deny himself the ambition of a second term. The
man who in the critical period before election has sufficient
courage and fidelity to his convictions to issue such a
manifesto, will also have the courage after election to
resist whatever hostile influences may surround him.
With these influences with which Mr. Hayes will have
to battle I am well acquainted; probably few know them
better. I undervalue their force by no means, but in
this relation another element must be considered. In
270 The Writings of [1876
the last few years a serious movement in favor of a
thorough reform in the civil service has taken place
within the Republican party; this movement has been
fruitless. Why? Hardly so much because the politicians
who go for spoils in Congress have not been willing to give
up their patronage and the party leaders their " machine,'*
but especially because the President, who is called upon
to play the leading part in this reform, never properly
knew what civil service reform meant; and since his
personal friends and associates, as well as other interests,
lay so much nearer to his heart, was glad to conceal
himself behind the opposition in Congress in order to
defeat the reform. I have always been convinced that
if the President had been sincere the opposition might
have been overcome, and the reform have been carried
out within the entire scope of the Executive power. If
he had done so much, Congress, under the pressure of a
public opinion invoked by the President, would finally
have accommodated itself to legislative measures in the
same direction. The better wing of the party would
therein have actively seconded the President, and Mr.
Hayes in his struggle for the fulfilment of his program,
would have found a powerful support in the same element ;
for this element will be particularly effective, when it
finds itself naturally advocated in the first Executive
officer. I have no recollection of any similar effort on
the Democratic side, with the exception of a single speech
of Senator Gordon on the revenue service, and a letter of
Mr. Clarkson Potter, which however, contained propo-
sitions of very dubious value. What is understood as
civil service reform in the Democratic camp has been
shown by the Democratic majority of the present House
of Representatives, which, without provoking an expres-
sion of dissatisfaction from a single one of its members,
simply replaced all Republican officials without distinc-
1876] Carl Schurz 271
tion by Democratic ones. You know as well as I do
what scandals arose from this change. People may say
that this was the usage of party. True; but such a
usage of party must cease before civil service reform can
begin. I am sure that I do not venture too far when I
assert that you equally with myself await nothing else
from a Democratic Administration than a universal ex-
pulsion of all Republican officials, good as well as bad,
and the appointment of Democrats in the manner of a
"new deal," according to the traditional rule of the
system of spoils. You know also, just as well as I, that
even now a hundred thousand Democratic patriots
stand ready to hurl themselves upon the long-desired
booty. It does not trouble me particularly if this or that
postmaster or collector is a Democrat or a Republican,
but it must be clear to every one that such a procedure
only makes permanent the system of spoils, and keeps
open the most prolific source of corruption.
Now, what do you look for in this particular from Mr.
Tilden? Will he oppose this great and covetous assault
upon the booty, which is coming not only from the North,
but more especially from the South, and which will
surpass everything which up to this time our history
can point to in this line? Will he brave it, and at the
cost of his personal popularity in his own party send
back home the officeseekers that he may retain in office
good men and remove only bad ones? Allow me to tell
you, sir, that you do not believe this. The carrying out
of such a reform, more than any other political task,
requires, first of all, an unselfish and undeviating devo-
tion to purpose, that which is called "singleness of pur-
pose," a freedom from demagogic bias and from the
grasping after popularity, a contempt for all wirepulling
and political machine management. Is it your opinion
that Mr. Tilden corresponds to this picture? As for
272 The Writings of [1876
myself, it is known to you that I never, like certain
other independents, placed the name of Tilden beside
that of Bristow that I might recommend the candidacy
of the former in case the latter should not be nominated.
While I acknowledge the excellence of some of Mr.
Tilden's actions, I, notwithstanding, could never, even in
the most favorable moments, feel quite easy and comfort-
able in respect to the reform mission of a man who had
grown old in the peculiar school of New York politicians,
and who had developed himself into a most perfect
master of the political machine before he began his
reform work. And I could not refuse to listen to the
opinion of other persons whose fairness I could not doubt,
and who had known Mr. Tilden longer and better than I
— shall I say whose opinion in the matter was of especial
weight with me? It was your own. This would seem
like an unbecoming allusion to private conversation if
you had not yourself given up to public possession your
judgment of Mr. Tilden. Whoever read your paper
last winter and spring had the opportunity of seeing Mr.
Tilden, when occasion offered, very forcibly unmasked
as "a demagogue and a grasper after popularity," as a
man unworthy of confidence, and an unsuitable candidate
for the Presidency. You even found fault with that
part of his annual message which had reference to the
financial question, as a "suspicious step backward,"
adopted as a means of opening a bargain with Western
inflationists in the National Convention for the advance-
ment of private aims. You strongly suspected even the
business honesty of Mr. Tilden, for you found so unsub-
stantial his published defense of the complaints of embez-
zlement of large sums in railroad bonds that you felt
obliged to express your doubts about it in the Staats-
Zeitung. To be just to you I ought to add that your
opinions of Mr. Tilden spoken in private agreed perfectly
1876] Carl Schurz 273
with those which you expressed in public, and both were
unquestionably correct. Such was your judgment in
the matter, and you will yourself find rather laughable,
after all this, your complaint that "I am trampling my
convictions under foot," because I prefer to Mr. Tilden
as a reform candidate another man who is "not a dema-
gogue and popularity-seeker," and whose motives and
character are universally recognized as elevated high
above all suspicion.
Now you will allow that, in accordance with your own
openly expressed opinions, Mr. Tilden is not the man of
fidelity to conviction and unselfish devotion who, as
President, will surely turn aside the assault upon the
spoils if any danger to the party peace or to his personal
popularity is thereby incurred. Perhaps in his letter of
acceptance he will make the same promises, but out
of respect for your own estimate of Mr. Tilden, you
must not be surprised if I place greater reliance in those
of Mr. Hayes.
Just as little would Mr. Tilden be urged to a systematic
reform of the civil service, through the influence of a
strong element in the Democratic party, for such an
element has never hitherto at least existed there. Among
even the best on the Democratic side, the word "reform"
has meant only the prosecution and dismissal of dishonest
officeholders, and in case of a Democratic victory it will
doubtless stop with the substitution of a new class of
officeholders for the old class of officeholders, especially
since, in that way, the claims of the victors upon the
spoils can be satisfied. The retention of the spoils system,
however, leaves undisturbed the most productive source
of corruption. I am, therefore, quite of the same opinion
as The Nation, a journal which has brought itself into
prominence through the acutest and most unpartisan
reviews of public matters. The Nation says:
VOL. III.— 18
274 The Writings of [1876
After all which we learn of Mr. Hayes, he is a man who will
hold to what he says. We do not conceal from ourselves the
possibility that he may underrate the difficulties of his posi-
tion. But as things stand, we must trust somebody, and we
are forced to the conclusion that Mr. Hayes rather than Mr.
Tilden is the man to walk in the path which to the reformers
seems the right one.
That is also my conviction. I shall not, in spite of all the
clamor, trample it under foot.
Some persons have found a cheap amusement in
holding up before those men who took part in the May
Conference in New York, and are now supporting Mr.
Hayes, the address issued by the Conference, and pointing
out the inconsistency of their action. Let us look at this
matter more closely. The men who arranged the Confer-
ence and carried it through had for their first object a
true civil service reform and a sound position on the
financial question. They had all sorts of candidates in
mind, but their candidates represented certain principles,
and were not pressed simply on their own account. They
wanted to promote the nomination of proper men in
order to give their prime object the greatest possible
push forward; but they had no notion of swearing un-
qualified fidelity to such men, whether or no then* candi-
dacy, by its attending conditions, made doubtful the
attainment of the great end in view. Whoever thinks
that the Conference was devoted to the service of partic-
ular persons has entirely mistaken its spirit. Had any
one there asked the question: " Shall we support a
candidate on a platform which, as a compromise with the
inflationists, calls for the repeal of the resumption act,
and requires the nomination of a Vice-President who will
represent the soft-money party?" what would you have
answered then? Your answer would have been a strong
" Yes"; mine, and that, I believe, of the whole assembly,
1876] Carl Schurz . 275
would have been a distinct " No!" This case is now
presented to us, and I should be trampling on my honest
convictions were I now to say " Yes."
Had any one asked us the further question: " Shall a
candidate be nominated who is not now numbered among
the desirable ones, but who, being known as a thoroughly
honorable man, takes a lofty view of his nomination and
proposes to mark out for himself a program above the
party platforms, which not only is satisfactory on the
financial question but also seizes corruption in its very
stronghold — the spoils system, — throws down the gauntlet
to the political machine managers, robs the Congressman
of his patronage and, by decisive measures of reform,
puts an end to the prevailing abuses; and who then,
unembarrassed by his following, overrides, by the force
of his own will, the strongest partisan influences that can
be brought to bear upon him — can we support such a
candidate?" I do not believe that the Conference would
have said, " No"; I doubt, indeed, whether you would
have said so yourself. It is true that neither the one nor
the other exigency was foreseen when the address of the
Conference was drawn up ; but both now present them-
selves, and we are compelled to choose between them.
Shall we signers of the address now argue, like little
children, that because the present state of things was not
contemplated in the address, therefore it does not exist
for us? Shall we not act the more consistent part by
carrying out the spirit of the Conference, instead of
shutting our eyes to the altered circumstances and fol-
lowing a simple name? Faithfulness to a higher duty is
the true consistency which marks the man of convictions.
It is better to be thus consistent in spirit than merely to
appear consistent in externals.
It is true, affairs have not shaped themselves as I
would have had them, and your desires are quite as poorly
276 The Writings of [1876
gratified. Of my relations to the old parties I make no
secret. I regard them exactly as I used to, and I take
nothing back of what I have said as well of the one as of
the other. Now, as formerly, I believe that the sweeping
away of the old party management, with its organized
self-seeking, and the rebuilding upon the foundation of
the present order of things, would be a great blessing
to our political life. My independent standpoint remains
the same. Neither do I agree with you when you point
out that the independent movements of the past years
have been without result. Who that has studied history,
even with a partial understanding, does not know that
great purposes have been seldom accomplished in the
way which at the outset seemed the shortest and the
safest? Those who would accomplish good should not
suffer themselves to be discouraged, even though their
patience and endurance are sometimes by temporary
failures put to a hard test. The independent movements,
it is true, have not succeeded in establishing on the
foundations of the old parties new and better ones, but
they have not remained without influence upon the old
ones. On both sides progress has been made and new
opportunities have arisen, and it must be our endeavor
with our best powers to hold them fast and develop them
further. We must thoughtfully inquire upon which
side the most can be won for our good purposes, and
the least endangered and lost.
You have said of me to my credit in the Staats-Zeitung
that I have done much to awaken the conscience of the
people. That has been my intention, and that is my
intention to-day. Whatever words the excitement of
the moment may have put in your mouth, you cannot
believe in earnest that I would lightly throw away the
fruit of long years of labor and strife, and he who attri-
butes to me motives of self-interest has but little know-
1876] Carl Schurz 277
ledge of me. What I am now striving for is to guard the
spirit which has been awakened from entering upon a
course in which, as I believe, it is in the greatest danger of
wearing itself out in a mere exchange of officeholders,
and of thereby satisfying itself without winning, through
thorough and systematic civil service reform, deep-
reaching and permanent results.
I repeat, one branch of reform — the cleansing of the
Government service from those officers who have dis-
graced it — seems to me in any event secured.
The question is whether or not we shall, before the
general zeal for reform dies away, through an abolition
of the spoils system and the permanent establishment of
a sensible civil service, win the other branch of reform,
which is of still greater importance for the future of our
political life. After no hasty resolve, but after a calm
and earnest consideration of all the circumstances, I
have come to the conclusion that this end will be best
attained by the election of Mr. Hayes, and in this con-
viction I am willing to subject myself to all suspicions
and assaults. That there are in the Republican party
influential persons who, in the event of Mr. Hayes's elec-
tion, will strive to hinder the carrying out of his re-
form program, and to make use of him for other purposes,
I know as well as you do. But I believe that these persons
will find that they have mistaken their man. I have
full confidence that the future will furnish the proof.
It is scarcely necessary for me to speak at length of
other reasons which make a triumph of the Democratic
party undesirable. I refer, among other things, to the
strength which it would give to the ultramontane element,
and to the false hopes which it would arouse in the lawless
members of Southern communities, giving a fresh impulse
to the commission of those excesses which make us shudder
and for which the better part of our Southern people have
278 The Writings of 11876
as great a horror as we. I have frequently expressed my
opinion on this point, and according to an observation,
which I first saw in the Staats-Zeitung not long ago, you
agree with me that a liberal, just, Republican Government,
in view of the moral effect of its identification with the
results of the war, is, for the peace and welfare of the
South, far preferable to a Democratic Government. I
have therefore never intended, notwithstanding my
separation from the Republican party, to unite myself
to the Democratic party.
One would, it is true, have had to reckon a good deal
into the bargain, if one had been obliged to regard this
as a last resort in bringing to an end the all-destroying
government system which we designate by the name of
Grantism. This, however, as I have shown, can now be
accomplished in a better way. In other respects, I be-
lieve that the peculiar elements of which the Democratic
party is composed, however good some of them indi-
vidually may be, are not capable of bringing about an
enduring moral reform of the Government.
You have frequently, during some time past, felt it
necessary to inform the readers of the Staats-Zeitung that
I, owing to my position in this campaign, have lost the
confidence of many of my friends. If that were the case,
I should, as I have often done, console myself with the
thought that an honest effort for the public good never
loses for any length of time the confidence of patriotic
citizens. While I have been pursuing the path of honest
conviction, I have been obliged to accustom myself to
bear to-day the blame of those who yesterday praised
me, and who will acknowledge me again to-morrow. In
the present case I feel myself perfectly sure of the latter.
I will hazard a prophecy as to what the future has in
store for us. I should not dare to promise the people an
ideal political situation if Mr. Hayes be elected; but as
1876] Carl Schurz 279
regards the three points which are mentioned in this
letter and which the address of the May Conference
touched upon, the following appear to me as sure as
anything one can ever count upon in the future: (i)
The application of the whole Constitutional power of the
Executive to secure a prompt resumption of specie pay-
ments, and apparently a supporting majority in Congress.
(2) A weeding out of bad officers, and a consequent
carrying through of his program of civil service reform
on the part of the President, as far as his Constitutional
powers will permit him; the employment in the public
service of not one more party agent; the abolition of the
spoils system; opposition to these reforms on the part of
the spoils politicians in Congress; the overthrow of this
opposition at the next Congressional elections. (3) An
intelligent execution of the laws, joined with a just, con-
ciliatory and honorable policy toward the people of the
South.
In the event of a Democratic victory: (i) A soft-
money majority in the House of Representatives; efforts
on the part of the President in behalf of a resumption of
specie payments, which are ruined by the majority in the
House of Representatives ; a continuance of our uncertain
financial position for an indefinite length of time; in case
of the succession of Mr. Hendricks to the Presidency,
universal confusion, and a revival of the inflationists'
plans. (2) The weeding out of the bad officers, but
also of the good ones; a tremendous, irresistible rush of
officeseekers from South and North to divide the booty;
a substantial continuance of the spoils system and the
civil service as party machinery and all the demoraliza-
tion which would flow from that; sundry efforts in the
right direction, borne down by the pressure of partisan
interests from all sides. (3) The rousing of false hopes
among the lawless element in the South by their party
280 The Writings of 11876
victory, and the increase of terrible excesses and reac-
tionary efforts, in spite of the desire of the Government and
of the better part of the Southern people to suppress such
disorders.
This is my view of what would result from the triumph
of the one or the other party. You may hold a different
view; time will tell which of us is right. May the sequel
not prove injurious to the public weal.
TO RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
FORT WASHINGTON, Aug. 7. 1876.
I do not know whether you received my last letter
written about twenty days ago ; but I have to write again,
believing that the interests of our common cause require
it. I do not know your views of the present condition of
the campaign, but I will give you mine. I have corre-
spondence all over the country and know pretty well what
is going on in the minds of that class of people on whose
votes the result of this contest depends. In speaking to
you with entire frankness I want you to understand that I
do so as your sincere friend who has your success as the
representative of a good cause warmly at heart, and who
at the same time has in this campaign all his reputation
and standing in the public opinion of this country at stake.
It is my deliberate opinion, based upon the best kind
of information, that the campaign not only does not stand
well, but that, if the election were to take place now, it
would go heavily against us. I see it denied by the Re-
publican papers what the Democrats claim, that a large
majority of the German voters, and among them very
many who always went with the Republicans, are now
inclined toward Tilden. I can assure you that I know this
to be so. I know also that a large number of that class
1876] Carl Schurz 281
who may be called reform Republicans are to-day the
same way. But for your letter of acceptance the defection
would be very much larger and irremediable. But even
now it is considerable enough, as I am very strongly
convinced, to turn the election against us if it were to
come off to-morrow.
What is the cause of this? You have probably followed
the run of Democratic argument in the papers : "Governor
Hayes's Administration will be but a continuation of
Grant's. He owes his nomination to Conkling, Morton
and Cameron, and they, of course, will remain the powerful
men in the Government," etc. That is the talk repeated
in endless variations, and that sort of argument is not
only believed by many outside of the Democratic party,
so as to turn them that way, but it keeps a great many
others in serious doubt as to what they will do. Grant
is doing his very worst. He is making well-meaning people
so angry that they say, this concern must be cleaned out
at any cost. As things now stand, I think the best thing
he could do for your success would be to come out straight
against you. Then there are such things as the appoint-
ment of Chandler to the chairmanship of the National
Committee, the acquittal of Belknap, the attempt of the
Republican members of the House Committee to white-
wash Robeson etc. You are loaded down with the dis-
credit incurred by the Administration and the old party
leaders, and unless that burden be removed, so that you
can rest your case upon your own merits, you cannot win
the election. The current which is now running against
you cannot otherwise be turned. It has been very pain-
ful to me to come to such a conclusion, but I have actively
participated in all the Presidential campaigns since the
organization of the Republican party and have learned to
read the signs of the times. But for your letter of accept-
ance the campaign would have become a complete rout.
282 The Writings of [1876
I do not want you to understand me as if these prospects
could influence my conduct in this campaign. Not at all.
I shall go to work as earnestly as if our chances were ever
so good. I think also that they can be greatly improved.
But it requires something which nobody can do for you;
something which you can only do yourself. The artfully
cultivated impression that "Governor Hayes, although an
upright, able and well-meaning gentleman, has always
sympathized with Grant in all his doings, and is under
such obligations to the old party leaders that they will
inevitably control his Administration," is what hurts you
most.
Your letter of acceptance is sneezed at as a bundle of
well-meant promises which the opposition of the old party
leaders will prevent you from carrying out. This impres-
sion must be destroyed. In my opinion some opportunity
should be made use of by yourself to express your senti-
ments in that respect, — if you do not like the form of a
letter addressed to some friend, it might be in a little
speech to a serenading party or something of that kind —
and it can be done in language which will not offend any-
body but appear as a simple sequel to your letter of
acceptance.
But in some way the country should be made to under-
stand that you do not consider yourself under obligations
to anybody, either for a vote in the Convention or support
in the election ; that people who support you have to do so
for the country's sake and not your own; that in your
opinion the duties of Government stand above all personal
obligations; that those who inquire about your opinions
concerning public measures and current events (an allu-
sion to Grant's recent performances) should read your
letter of acceptance; that those who indulge in specula-
tions as to what influences will be powerful in your
Administration should also study that document; that
1876] Carl Schurz 283
your letter of acceptance contains your program of policy,
which was not only put forth in good faith but will in every
point be strictly adhered to; that you were aware of
difficulties to be overcome in that respect; that only such
men and influences will be powerful with you in your
Administration as will aid you in good faith in carrying
out that plan of policy and all the reforms included in it ;
that you had promised this to the American people, and
that nobody had ever had reason to think R. B. Hayes
capable of breaking his word, etc.
Such an expression of sentiment, giving proof of your
earnestness in strong and unmistakable language, would
go very far to remove the apprehensions which are now
working so strongly against us. And, I repeat, nobody
can do that for you. If the prominent leaders of the
party, Morton, Conkling, Chandler, Cameron or Elaine,
did it in your name, it would be laughed at as a mockery
and farce, and justly so. If I do it, as I did to some extent
in my letter to Mr. Ottendorfer, which you have probably
seen, the answer is, that I am being deceived or am de-
ceiving myself and others.
Pardon me for writing thus plainly. The urgency of
our necessities demands it. I have the fullest confidence
in your good faith; it is therefore no distrust on my part
that speaks. But I want to be able to overcome the
distrust of others, and I know that I cannot do that alone
and unaided to such an extent as to make it tell decisively.
Something of this kind must be done to stop the demoraliz-
ing distrust which now pervades the Republican ranks,
and I think it ought to be done very soon. We have no
more time to lose.
While I am writing I receive the inclosed from Horace
White and communicate it to you confidentially. Good
heavens, what a campaign this is ! This is the second can-
didate for governor we shall have to drop for corruption.
284 The Writings of [1876
You see how necessary it is that the ground under our
feet be strengthened, and I believe only you can do it
yourself.
Above all things, I pray you, do not permit yourself to
be deceived by the flattering reports about the condition
of things which are apt to be presented to the candidates.
This is the most deceptive campaign we ever had.
P. S. Some Democratic papers have ascribed your
letter of acceptance, part of it at least, to me. I hope you
have never thought me capable of giving rise to such a
rumor. It was merely a Democratic trick.
FROM RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
COLUMBUS, O., Aug. 9, 1876.
Private.
My dear General : I am in receipt of your esteemed favor
as to the prospects of the campaign and making important
suggestions. I also received and replied to your former letter.
Let me assure you that nothing of the sort contained in your
letter will shake, or tend to shake, my faith in your hearty
zeal in the cause. To be frank is the best proof of it. I do
not usually give much thought to the prospects of a canvass.
So far as they indicate something to be done I try to consider
them. But having fired my shot, and supposing I would
remain passive hereafter, I have preferred not to know much
that would either depress or elate. I will, however, think
seriously of your suggestions. It is to be hoped that as my
past and my letters and speeches, a few of which are published
in Howard's Life, are examined, the people will find that I am
likely to be one of the last men in the world to back out of a
good work, deliberately entered upon. I send you a speech
by Judge Johnston, a shrewd observer. I wonder if you see
what I am discovering beyond all question in Ohio. A vast
majority of the "plain people" think of this as the main
interest in the canvass. A Democratic victory will bring the
1876] Carl Schurz 285
Rebellion into power. They point to a host of facts and are
greatly moved by them.
But in any event we are to fight it out. If the prospect is
good it will be a pleasanter task. But if it is against odds the
work will be nobler.
I do not hear where you go earliest. You can do great good,
I learn, in Wisconsin after you are through with New York,
or rather the opening in New York.
You do not send the whole of Mr. Ws letter, but from what
you send it looks as if Mr. W. supposed that North Carolina
had a State election this year in August. This is an error.
No election there until November.
With very hearty confidence in our cause, believe me,
Sincerely,
R. B. HAYES.
P. S. Aug. loth. The foregoing was written at my office
in the midst of interruptions. I wish to add my thanks for
your letter and to congratulate you on its success. It is doing
good. We had the best convention, and it gave us the best
ticket Cincinnati has had for years. The good elements of
the party were uppermost at all points. We have a fair
fighting chance to win, and this with the goodness of our
cause ought to keep us in good heart.
TO RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
FORT WASHINGTON, PA., Aug. 14, 1876.
My dear Governor: I have received your kind note of
the 8th [Qth] inst. In it you say that you replied to my
letter addressed to you some time ago, but I have received
no such reply. Can it have been lost on the way to this
place? It would not surprise me since the postal service
here is not very regular. You remember I made some
suggestion to you concerning the levying of assessments
on Department clerks and other Government officers.
286 The Writings of [1876
The matter is now being discussed in the newspapers.
It appears the Senate amended a provision in a House
bill touching this subject so as to make the prohibition
to levy such assessments apply only to persons connected
with the Government, but not to "other persons" as the
House bill provided. If this amendment is agreed to,
the Government clerks, etc., will receive circulars asking
for campaign contributions, from party committees,
which, in effect, leaves the matter just where it was before.
The papers report that assessments are actually being
levied now under the name of voluntary contributions.
But we know from experience how voluntary they are.
Not having received your letter in answer to mine I do
not know what your reply may have been. But I venture
to repeat my suggestion that you protest in some way
against the collection of money for the canvass from
Department clerks and other Government officers. A
civil service reform campaign in which one of the principles
we profess is, that Government officers are neither expected
nor desired to render any partisan service — such a cam-
paign run on money collected from Government officers,
very many of whom would not pay "voluntary contri-
butions" did they not know that there is danger in refusing,
is a contradiction in itself. A protest from you, which
would come as a perfectly natural thing, would be tangible
proof that we mean what we say, and would have a most
excellent effect. In fact it would be the honest thing to do.
I must recur also once more to the subject of my last
letter. It grows every day more important that something
of the kind suggested there be done. To the ' ' plain people ' '
who think that a Democratic victory would bring the
Rebellion into power no other argument need be addressed.
But there are vast numbers of Republicans or men who
used to vote the Republican ticket who have lost their
fear of the return of the Rebellion to power. They
1876] Carl Schurz 287
want a change in the conduct of Government, not only a
change of persons in the Presidential chair, but a radical
change in the influences directing the Government. The
only way to prevent that class of citizens from seeking
that change outside of the Republican party is to make
them quite sure that they will find it inside. At present
there is a quiet migration going on from one side to the
other. But I assure you I know what I am speaking of
when I say that this migration is almost all going the other
way. Unless that movement be arrested and, if possible,
turned back, the election will be lost. I tell you here what
I know to be true. The cry for a " change " is immensely
powerful. People say, Governor Hayes is an honest man,
but what good will it do to elect him, if his Administration
is controlled by Morton, Conkling, Cameron, Chandler,
Elaine, etc. — and off they go where they are sure of "a
change. " I could show you a number of letters from men
of Republican sympathies, of cool judgment and more or
less prominence and influence who have taken, or are
inclined to take, that course. To some extent that
movement is showing itself on the surface, but more of it
is going on in a very quiet way unobserved by the party
leaders. And, of course, the Democratic managers are
using every possible means to stimulate that tendency.
How easy it is for them to make an impression in that
respect I know from my own convictions of the absolute
necessity of a thorough reform, and of the removal of the
most powerful influences at present controlling the conduct
of Government. I cannot refrain therefore from urging
the importance of the suggestion.
I feel that the subject I am discussing with you is a
delicate one. But I can speak about it with entire
frankness and candor, because I have no ax of my own to
grind. If you are elected you will not find me among those
who ask for or expect place or favor. I have been long
288 The Writings of [1876
enough in public positions to become sensible of their
worthlessness as an element of human happiness and
especially since my recent bereavement I have absolutely
no ambition in that line. Being so minded and having no
friends to push forward nor enemies to punish, I feel
that I can afford to speak to you about everything con-
nected with our common cause without reserve and in
perfect confidence. The only thing that I want is to
promote certain objects of public importance and to that
end to preserve, as a private citizen, my influence on
public opinion and the esteem of those whose respect is
worth something. I can do that only by telling the
people what I honestly believe to be true and what I can
reasonably prove to be true. What I believe as to the
consequences of your election, especially with regard to
the work of reform, I have stated in my letter to Mr.
Ottendorfer, and I shall repeat it in every speech. It is a
draft on the future, and it is in the interest of our common
cause as well as your own as a candidate, that this draft
be as well endorsed as possible. The strongest endorse-
ment is your own.
I have not been well of late but am now in a condition
to go into the campaign. I have given up the idea of
opening in New York. It is just now a bad time for
public meetings there, a large number of people being out
of town and public assemblages in closed halls not being
very comfortable in this warm weather. Moreover, the
main speech I wish to deliver is not yet in that shape in
which I want to have it. Perhaps I shall divide it into
two, one on the reform question and the other on the
currency. In a day or two I shall appoint a day for a
meeting of the Germans in Cleveland, and then I may go
for the same purpose to Chicago and Milwaukee, to return
immediately to Ohio. I shall write to Mr. Wikoff about
it. After Ohio I may go into Indiana. In New York, the
i876] Carl Schurz 289
campaign will not become warm until after the nomina-
tion of the State tickets. More depends on the wisdom
of the Republican convention in their nominations than
on any speeches that can be made. As soon as I am once
in the campaign I shall stay in with the exception of a
few days which I shall have to devote to my children.
FROM RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
COLUMBUS, O., Aug. 25, 1876.
Private.
I hear from two friends that you feel "gloomy" as to the
prospects. Your influence is large. You can influence many
minds. It is too early to make figures. Let me urge you to
great caution in this regard.
I have stopped all the practices you complain of within my
reach. Some are denied. Some are explained. I would
write more fully, but money has corrupted one P. O. clerk,
and I do not feel safe.
TO RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
SANDUSKY, O., Aug. 27, 1876.
Next Thursday night I am going to make a speech
at Cincinnati which I expect to have some influence on
the tone of the campaign. I shall have it ready to print
on Tuesday evening, so that it may be mailed in slips to
the members of the Associated Press East and West on
Wednesday. In that speech I take up the Democratic
gauntlet and devote myself exclusively to the reform
question. Your letter of acceptance with its reform pro-
gram is, of course, the principal theme of discussion, and
I should be glad to submit at least a part of the speech to
you before it is printed. I do not find it possible, how-
ever, to run over to Columbus from Dayton, where I am
VOL. III. — IQ
290 The Writings of 11876
to speak to-morrow night, and yet be in Cincinnati in
time to superintend the publication, proofreading, etc.,
on Tuesday. Have you, perhaps, any official or other
business calling you to Cincinnati on that day? You
would meet also Mr. Friedley, the chairman of the Indi-
ana State committee, who will see me about my ap-
pointment in that State. I expect at the same time
Mr. Wikoff.
I merely suggest this to you, as it might be well to have
your opinion on the propriety of this and that, but, of
course, I do not desire to cause you any inconvenience.
FROM RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
COLUMBUS, O., Aug. 30, 1876.
I am sorry not to be able to meet you at Cincinnati. Can't
we meet here before you return? Your speeches do great good.
We should cultivate a hopeful tone. Men in the right can
afford to be cheerful even if the outlook is gloomy. Since
New York we are surely bound to gain.
HAYES VERSUS TILDEN*
FELLOW-CITIZENS : — We may congratulate the American
people upon the steady growth of a public sentiment which
demands the correction of existing abuses and the conduct
of Government upon honest principles and enlightened
methods of statesmanship. That sentiment has become
powerful enough to extort respect from both political
parties, and on both sides have its demands become more
or less the battlecries of the contest. This is in itself a
hopeful sign, and if this drift of public opinion be kept
alive and wisely directed as the propelling force in our
1 Speech in Cincinnati, Aug. 31, 1876.
1876] Carl Schurz 291
politics, it may accomplish a lasting reformation of our
public concerns. But just such a situation, while full of
promise, is also full of deception. We are naturally eager
to achieve the desired result; but in that eagerness we
may be in danger of sacrificing real and lasting reform to
mere apparent or temporary change, leading only to a
repetition of the same conflicts, but then under the dis-
advantage of disappointed zeal and an exhausted energy
of popular movement. Under such circumstances it is
therefore especially necessary that all good citizens, who
have the welfare of the country sincerely at heart, should
determine their political course with more than ordinary
calmness and judgment and circumspection. Indeed, I
do not remember a single Presidential campaign in which
so many patriotic men seemed inclined to take sides
only after the maturest reflection, and to despise the
ordinary cant of party. To that class — in other words, to
the independent voters — I shall particularly address my
remarks, and I can do so with all the more propriety, as
I am one of them.
In my opinion it would have been a fortunate thing for
this Republic could the reformatory spirit now alive have
been embodied in a new party organization strictly
devoted to its purposes. Why this appeared impossible,
I will not now consume your time in discussing. The
fact is, we have no other choice than between the candi-
dates of the two old parties, and that choice we are com-
pelled to make. We find ourselves confronted with a
confusion of issues, but it turns out that two problems
are uppermost in the minds of most intelligent citizens:
the problem of administrative reform is one, and the
currency problem the other. You could not repress them
if you would, and you ought not to repress them if you
could. I, for one, am glad that we have at last reached
the point when living questions claim and maintain their
292 The Writings of [1876
just right to public attention. With regard to the success-
ful solution of both those problems, it is my deliberate
opinion that the true interests of the American people
demand the election of Rutherford B. Hayes to the Presi-
dency of the United States. That conclusion I have
formed, after careful consideration of all the circumstances
surrounding us, as an entirely independent man, who is
neither governed by party discipline, nor biased by party
prejudice. In giving you my reasons for it I shall address
myself in the simplest possible language, not to your
passions or predilections or resentments, but to your
sober judgment; and if I should be fortunate enough to
bring any one of a different way of thinking over to my
own, it shall not be said that it was done by any artifice
of oratory. This is a time for calm reasoning and very
plain speech. That plain speech I shall give you, no
matter whom it may please or displease.
My remarks to-night will be devoted exclusively to the
subject of administrative reform. The financial question,
as it appears in this canvass, I intend to discuss in another
speech at an early day.
Not long ago civil service reform was treated by many
as an idle fancy of theorists; to-day every sensible and
patriotic man in the country will recognize it as a necessity.
Extreme partisans may still attempt to belittle the evils
that have befallen us and to whitewash the present con-
dition of things. It is in vain. The people understand the
truth, and it is well that they do. Only then can they
act wisely. The truth is that our political machinery,
irrespective of party, has grown very corrupt. Scarcely
a single sphere of our political life has remained untouched
by the disease. Listen to what an eminent member of
the Republican party said when opening the case for the
House of Representatives in the impeachment of a member
of the President's Cabinet:
1876] Carl Schurz 293
My own public life has been a very brief and insignificant
one, extending little beyond the duration of a single term of
Senatorial office, but in that brief period I have seen five Judges
of a high Court of the United States driven from office by
threats of impeachment for corruption or maladministration.
I have heard the taunt from friendliest lips that, when the
United States presented herself in the East to take part with
the civilized world in generous competition in the arts of life,
the only product of her institutions in which she surpassed all
others beyond question was her corruption. I have seen in
the State in the Union foremost in power and wealth four
judges of her courts impeached for corruption, and the political
administration of her chief city become a disgrace and a by-
word throughout the world. I have seen the chairman of the
Committee on Military Affairs in the House, now a distin-
guished member of this Court, rise in his place and demand the
expulsion of four of his associates for making sale of their
official privilege of selecting the youths to be educated at our
great military school. When the greatest railroad of the world,
binding together the continent and uniting the two great seas
which wash our shores, was finished, I have seen our National
triumph and exaltation turned to bitterness and shame by the
unanimous reports of three Committees of Congress, two of the
House and one here, that every step of that mighty enterprise
had been taken in fraud. I have heard in highest places the
shameless doctrine avowed by men grown old in public office,
that the true way in which power should be gained in the
Republic is to bribe the people with the offices created for their
service, and the true end for which it should be used when
gained is the promotion of selfish ambition and the gratifica-
tion of personal revenge. I have heard that suspicion haunts
the footsteps of the trusted companions of the President.
These things have passed into history. The Hallam or the
Tacitus or the Sismondi or the Macaulay who writes the
annals of our time will record them with his inexorable pen.
The man who spoke thus (Mr. George F. Hoar, of
Massachusetts) was not a political opponent of those
294 The Writings of 11876
in power, not a constitutional grumbler and faultfinder,
ventilating his spleen. He is a man who would have been
always ready and glad to repel any unjust aspersion upon
the Government of his country; but he spoke as he did
speak impelled by his sense of duty to speak the truth.
And he might have said much more. He might have
pointed to the penitentiaries inhabited by revenue officers,
who with one hand robbed the Government and with the
other the business men whom they ruined by tempting
their avarice, or sometimes even forcing them into fraudu-
lent practices; have mentioned the host of defaulters and
embezzlers, not only officers of the National Government,
but in all possible public positions, and of both political
parties, who have run away with the people's money.
But why elaborate this picture? It would be difficult to
tell you more than you already know, and those deceive
themselves who attempt to deceive you by telling you less.
It is useless and unwise to mince matters. The actual
condition of things is so bad that the people have become
justly alarmed, and the cry has risen that there must be a
change. Yes, I want a change, you want a change, as
every honest and patriotic man in the country wants it.
But what every honest and patriotic man in the country
ought also to insist upon and be careful to bring about,
is a change that will be an improvement, a real reform, as
thorough and genuine and lasting as possible. Let us see
what we stand in need of.
In the first place we want to get rid of the corrupt men
and the incapables who still infest the public service.
Every officer who has done dishonest things must be held
to a strict account. Every officer who has abused his
powers or been lax in the performance of his duties, or has
permitted his subordinates to be so, must be removed.
Every corrupt ring must be broken up, and its members
prosecuted and punished without mercy. "Let no guilty
1876] Carl Schurz 295
man escape" is a good word of command, and it must be
carried out. It indicates a duty so plain that only those
who in high place fail to understand their responsibility
will fail to appreciate and fulfil it.
This is undoubtedly a serious task, the importance of
which will not be underestimated. But there is one more
important still. It is that by an organization of the civil
service upon honest and rational principles, not only the
punishment of corrupt men be secured, but a higher moral
spirit be infused into our public concerns, and thus
corruption be prevented. It is a word of wisdom that an
ounce of prevention is worth ten pounds of cure. There is
an ever-flowing fountain of corruption in our public life,
and, if we are to have a change that means lasting reform,
that fountain must be stopped. We are frequently told
that no Government has ever been entirely pure in all
the details of administration. That is undoubtedly true.
There have been some dishonest men in public employ
and some dishonest practices under the best Governments,
in all countries and at all times. That may be unavoid-
able. But where corruption develops itself during a long
period of time and on an extensive scale, we may be sure
that it must be the fault of the existing political system.
Let me tell you an anecdote. One day Abraham
Lincoln, while overwhelmed with the cares which the
rising tide of the rebellion was loading upon him, pointed
out to a friend the eager throng of officeseekers and of
Congressmen accompanying them in his ante-room, and
spoke these words: "Do you observe this? The rebellion
is hard enough to overcome, but there you see something
which, in the course of time, will become a greater danger
to this Republic than the rebellion itself." Abraham
Lincoln was not only a good, but also a wise man, and with
the instinctive anticipation of genius, he foresaw that the
poison of demoralization working through a vicious civil
296 The Writings of (1876
service system would at last bring more serious peril to the
Republic than all the hostile guns then threatening the
National capital. He was right. Have you ever calmly
thought of it what our civil service system really is? It is
one of the wonders of the world. Had it not gradually
grown up among us, little by little, in the course of many
years, so that we have become accustomed to the unique
spectacle, we should scarcely be capable of believing in
the possibility of its existence among people endowed with
ordinary common-sense. I am sure, if, in the early days
of this Republic, a public man had proposed to introduce
it as a system, just as we now witness it, there would have
been a universal cry to shut him up in a mad-house for the
rest of his life.
Imagine, in this year of the great Centennial anniver-
sary some of the wise Fathers of this Republic — Washing-
ton, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton — rising from their
graves in order to ascertain by a tour of inspection what
has become of their work in these hundred years. Of
course, we would have to show them our civil service —
and would it not make them stare? We would have to
explain to them how, nowadays, things are managed ; how,
on the accession of a new President, the whole machinery
of our Government is taken to pieces all at once, to be
rebuilt again out of green material in a hurry ; how sixty
or seventy or eighty thousand officers are dismissed,
without the least regard to their official merits or useful-
ness, simply because they do not belong to the party, to
make room for a "new deal" ; how several hundred thou-
sand hungry patriots make a desperate rush for public
place, to get their reward for party service; how the new
President and the new Cabinet Ministers, still unused to
their complicated duties, and needing time and composure
to study them, are fairly swept off their feet by the storm-
tide of applications for office; how our Congressmen, the
1876] Carl Schurz 297
National legislators, are transformed into office-peddlers,
and forget everything else in their frantic run from De-
partment to Department, to see their local supporters
and tools provided with official bread and butter, thus
paying off their political debts at the public expense;
how hundreds and thousands of individuals, without the
least possibility of sufficient inquiry into their morals or
capacity, are fairly thrust into places of responsibility in a
mad hurry, merely because they have "claims" on the
party, or only on a Congressman, as adroit packers of
caucuses or manipulators of votes; how, then, when the
Administration is going at last, men of meritorious
character and conduct are arbitrarily removed because
they do not belong to the dominant faction of the party,
or do not dance nimbly enough to the whistle of some
powerful favorite; how others, notoriously unfit, or even
corrupt, are protected in their places by their "friends" in
power, because they are useful political tools; how thus
the civil service is transformed into avast party machinery,
a standing army of political mercenaries, paid out of the
Government treasury; how officers, by the insecurity of
their tenure and .by party taxes levied upon them, are
tempted to make hay while the sun shines, in whatever
way they can ; how corrupt practices of the most alarming
kind are not seldom anxiously covered up or "white-
washed" by men appointed as the guardians of the public
interest and virtue lest the exposure injure the party and
disturb the efficiency of the "machine"; how thus, now
and then, corruption is placed under the protection of
party spirit and influence ; how, finally, the civil service as
a party agency is, even during the term of an Administra-
tion, continually organized and reorganized, modeled and
remodeled, at the request of Congressmen or according
to the changing political exigencies of the times, to control
conventions, to govern State politics, to elect this man or
298 The Writings of [1876
to defeat that man, and how in all this an honest and
efficient transaction of the public business is treated as a
matter of only secondary consideration, if of any con-
sideration at all. This we would have to show the Fathers
of the Republic, could they now appear among us — and
what would they say ? Would they not stand fairly aghast
at the aspect of the monstrous abortion, and exclaim with
scornful disgust: "Is it this you have made of the fair
fabric of government which we formed and transmitted
to your hands to be the embodiment of true liberty, wis-
dom, honesty and justice — is it this you have made of it"?
And well might they say so, for never was there a civil
service system invented so utterly absurd and barbarous
in conception, so ruinous in operation and so universally
demoralizing in effect.
Is there a sensible man who believes that the corrupting
influence of such a system can be remedied by merely
sweeping out one set of officers and putting in another
set in the same way? Every honest citizen cordially
applauds and honors the efforts made by brave men of
either party to expose corrupt officials and to bring them
to justice. But do not deceive yourselves. As long as
the smell of "party spoils" is attached to public office,
as long as the civil service remains a partisan agency, as
long as officeholders understand that they receive their
places for party services already rendered or still to be
rendered, and not on account of their fitness for public
trust, as long as they have reason to believe that usefulness
to the party entitles them to party protection as officers
of the Government, just so long will they be under the
strongest temptation "to milk the cow" as long as they
are in the stable, no matter what may become of the
animal, and just so long you may send one set of thieves
to jail and the system will inevitably raise up another.
Now, do not understand me as meaning that there are
1876] Carl Schurz 299
not many honest men left in our civil service. Thank
heaven, there are very many, and for having kept their
integrity intact we should honor them. They deserve
more than ordinary credit, for, considering how well the
spoils system is calculated to deaden official conscience,
the thing which should surprise us most in our civil service
is not that among its officers it should have developed so
many rascals, but that it should have left among them so
many honest men. But, while this circumstance is ever
so honorable to those concerned, we must not forget that
since the day when the principle "to the victors belong
the spoils" was proclaimed, the number of rascals in the
service as well as the extent of their rascalities have grown
constantly and in most promising progression.
: There are people who console themselves with the idea
,that the corruption we now deplore is simply to be ac-
counted for as one of the natural consequences of our
great civil war. Undoubtedly the war, with its confu-
sion and seductive opportunities offered to the rogues a
rich field of plunder, and thus stimulated all the thieving
instinct there was in the country to extraordinary en-
terprise. But as to the civil service, the war only gave
strong impulse to the vicious tendencies existing in it.
Had not the spoils system already demoralized the ser-
vice, the war would have developed far less corruption.
Moreover, there was plenty of corruption before our
civil conflict, and neither party was exempt from it, least
of all that to which the spoils system owed its origin and
development. I dislike very much to hurt the feelings of
our Democratic friends, since they treat me with such
distinguished consideration, but my respect for historical
truth compels me to say that it was a Democratic Presi-
dent who, for the golden rule that ability, honesty and
fidelity should be the only decisive qualifications for pub-
lic employment, first substituted the whims of arbitrary
3OO The Writings of [1875
favoritism; first used the places of trust and responsibility
as a means of partisan reward, and the power of removal
as a weapon of punishment ; first made the civil service a
partisan engine, and thus left to us that terrible Pandora-
box of evil from which so much demoralization, disaster
and disgrace has come upon us. It was a Democratic
baby, that spoils system, and it must be admitted that the
Democratic party has very faithfully nursed it. It grew
under that maternal care with all its peculiar virtues, until
the last Democratic Administration just before the civil
war became more arbitrary and despotic in the- use of
appointments and removals, as a means of partisan reward
and punishment, and also more corrupt than any that had
preceded it.
But my respect for historical truth compels me also to
say, that the terrible legacy which in such a development
of the spoils system the last Democratic Administration
left behind it, has, under Republican rule, borne abundant
fruit. I have deemed it my duty, on every proper occa-
sion, unsparingly to denounce the abuses which have
grown and spread under the last two Administrations.
That duty remains the same. Of what I have said on this
subject I have nothing to retract. Those abuses have
injured the country in the opinion of mankind and alarmed
the American people. Neither can those who were guilty
of corrupt practices, or those who, in high places, permitted
them to grow up, be excused as the mere victims of a
vicious system. If the plea of temptation were always
held valid as a justification of sin, there would soon be
scarcely a temptation without a victim and such victims
would have a pleasant time of it. No. I believe in personal
responsibility. I have to admit that at no period in our
history the conduct of some of those highest in power has
exercised a more demoralizing and degrading influence
upon all the spheres of public life below than it has within
1876] Carl Schurz 301
the last few years. I doubt whether the arbitrary use of
the power of appointment and removal as a means of
favoritism and reward and punishment has ever been
carried to a more alarming extent. I said so years ago,
and when I repeat it to-day, I do so with the assurance that
a large majority of the Republican party have in the
meantime come to the conclusion that I was right. I go
further in saying that the resolution in the National
Republican platform expressing indiscriminate approval
of General Grant's Administration was a weak concession
to the established party usage of courtesy at the expense
of truth, and misrepresentation of public sentiment, felt to
be such by a large majority of those who assented to it.
While General Grant's great services in the civil war will
always be held in the grateful remembrance to which they
are justly entitled, I can tell my Republican friends that
they can scarcely afford to equivocate about such things
in the pending campaign. Let them have the manhood
to say what they think ; let them call things by their right
names, and they will not only relieve their own souls, but
stand in a better attitude before this generation as well as
posterity.
And yet, in spite of all the unfortunate peculiarities
of General Grant's character, which fitted him so little for
the complex duties and responsibilities of civil govern-
ment, even under his Administration not half of the mis-
chief would have occurred which now stands recorded
had not the vicious traditions of the spoils system fur-
nished the means and pointed out the opportunities.
If, when he came into power, nothing had been known
with regard to the conduct of the civil service than the
principles and practice of the early Administrations, even
his arbitrary impulses might have accommodated them-
selves to the wholesome restraints of established usage.
His Administration might, indeed, not have been as pure
302 The Writings of [1876
nor as wise as those of Washington, Adams or Jefferson,
but how much misfortune would have been averted, and
what crop of scandal remained unsown!
One great merit General Grant's Administration may
claim. It has demonstrated the vicious tendencies of our
present civil service system so strongly that even the
dullest mind must perceive them. We have clearly seen
how that system will endanger the integrity of good men
by its temptations, and stimulate bad men only to become
worse. We have been forcibly made aware of the neces-
sity not only of a change, but of a thorough and lasting
change, and that such a thorough change cannot be put
off much longer without danger.
We have been in the habit of speaking with pride and
exultation of the vitality and recuperative power of the
American people; and justly so, for a people who can
endure such a civil service system as we have had for the
last forty years without utter ruin, moral and National,
must, indeed, have a wonderfully tough constitution or
amazing good luck. As a young people, and under extra-
ordinarily favored circumstances, we have endured it so
far. But it will scarcely do to test the robustness even of
the American people too severely. The most vigorous
constitutions must at last sink under constant debauch.
There will be one of two things : either thorough reforma-
tion, or inevitable and perhaps rapid decay. What, then,
is to be done ? If it is true, and I am profoundly convinced
of that truth, that under the spoils system it is simply
impossible to keep up a reasonably efficient and honest
civil service, and that the service will grow the more
corrupt the longer the spoils system exists, then nothing
can be clearer than that we must have a change which
is genuine — thorough reform, including the abolition of
that system. What is civil service reform? Let me tell
you first what civil service reform does not consist in:
1876] Carl Schurz 303
It does not consist in the removal of all the officers be-
longing to one party, and the filling of the offices with
members of the other party, according to the old methods
of a "clean sweep" and a "new deal." For instance,
almost from time immemorial New York merchants
have complained of bad practices in the customhouse
of that city — a few years ago more than now. The de-
mand for a change was always in order. To what cause
were those bad practices assigned? That the custom-
house is "run" as a political machine; and that a great
many of the places are filled by low political hacks, who
are kept there, not to secure an honest collection of duties,
but to serve as party tools, and were put there for that
purpose by the influence of party politicians. Now let
me tell the merchants of New York that they may indeed
get rid of those identical political hacks now in office by a
change in party and a "new deal" ; but that they will not
get rid of the bad practices they complain of, if in the
new deal the same customhouse offices are filled with
party hacks of the Democratic persuasion to build up
another political machine under the influence of "Boss"
Kelly or the Hon. John Morrissey. That would be a
change, but it would not be reform. It might turn out
to be jumping out of the frying-pan into the fire. And
this applies not only to the customhouse of New York,
but to the whole civil service throughout the country.
What, then, is necessary? Let your common-sense
speak. When a merchant wants a bookkeeper, he will
select a man whom he has ascertained to be honest, and
to understand bookkeeping; he will not take one on the
ground that he can play the flute, or that he is a good
hand at poker. If you want a good customhouse officer,
or postmaster, or revenue collector, you must select a
man of whom you have ascertained that he is honest
and possesses that capacity and those business habits
304 The Writings of [1876
which will enable him to perform the duties of custom-
house officer, or postmaster, or revenue collector satis-
factorily ; but you must not prefer a man irrespective of his
character and business qualifications, on the ground that
he has "claims" for party service rendered, or as a good
political wirepuller who knows how to pack primaries.
Secondly, if you want your postmaster, or custom-
house officer, or revenue collector to remain honest and
to do his whole duty, you must make him understand that
the performance of his official duties is the only thing he is
paid for ; that he is the servant of the Government and the
people, and not the agent of a political party; that he is
required to stick to his official business, and will be liable
to removal if he uses his official power or influence for
partisan purposes; that as long as he performs his official
duties honestly and efficiently he will stay in his place and
no longer; that continued good service or extraordinary
efficiency will entitle him to promotion; but that if he
indulges in dishonest practices he will be severely held to
account, and that no consideration of party service
rendered, or to be rendered, and no party influence can
save him. This is the way to keep men in office efficient
and honest.
Now, how are you to insure the selection of fit persons
for office? Let me tell you first how you will not insure
the selection of fit men. You will not do it by turning
out all, or nearly all, the officers, good as well as bad, at the
incoming of a new Administration, in the way of a "new
deal," rendering necessary some 60,000 or 70,000 new
appointments in a hurly-burly, when the President and
heads of Departments have just dropped into their places,
and are still bewildered by the variety and complication
of new duties suddenly overwhelming them; it is simply
impossible to use the necessary care under such circum-
stances. You will not insure the selection of fit men if
1876] Carl Schurz 305
the appointments are governed by the recommendation or
dictation of party leaders, and particularly of Congressmen,
who, in many, if not in most, cases care less for the interests
of the service than for the building up of their own home
influence or party machine, by which to keep themselves
in place, and who, to that end, use the offices to reward
their political agents and tools with pay out of the Govern-
ment treasury, or to secure the services of useful political
workers for the future, thus turning the offices into means
of bribery. In that way you will not only fail to insure
the selection of honest and efficient men for office, but
you will keep in the halls of Congress itself a class of men
who have neither superior character nor ability to com-
mend them, relying only upon a shrewd management of
the patronage to carry their nominations and elections.
That, then, is the way how not to do it.
But you can insure the selection of fit persons for office
if, in the first place, the rule is established that officers
shall not be liable to removal for party reasons, but only
upon grounds connected with the discharge of their
official duties, as it was under the early Administrations.
This will prevent the occurrence of a very large number of
vacancies at the same time, and enable the Executive
Department in filling those vacancies to proceed with
care and deliberate circumspection. Secondly, the Execu-
tive Department, which is responsible for the adminis-
tration of public business, must, in making appointments
or nominations to the Senate, remain independent of the
dictation of Congressmen, many if not most of whom want
to use the offices for the promotion of their own political
ends. Thirdly, the qualifications of candidates for office
must, whenever possible, be ascertained according to well
regulated public methods, either by officers of the Depart-
ments themselves, or through competent men appointed
for that purpose.
VOL. III. — 2O
306 The Writings of 11876
The establishment of such principles and the regulation
and perpetuation of the corresponding practices, wherever
possible, by legal enactment, that is the civil service
reform, which will not only purge the service of corrupt
and incompetent officials, but which will take from it its
partisan character, remove from the offices of trust and
responsibility the odious attribute of spoils, stop the most
prolific source of corruption and demoralization in our
political system, take away from the public officer the
most dangerous temptations now surrounding him and
inspire him with an honorable ambition; relieve our po-
litical life of the regular army of paid party mercenaries,
which threatens to subjugate all the movements of public
opinion, and eliminate also that numerous class of National
legislators who rely for their election and influence merely
on a shrewd manipulation of the public plunder. That,
then, is genuine civil service reform.
What patriotic man is there who will not recognize that
the evils from which the body-politic suffers absolutely re-
quire so thorough a measure of change, and who will not
eagerly embrace every opportunity to secure it? Now,
let us see what prospects the two parties which ask for
our votes open to us with regard to this most important
subject.
The platforms, as well as the candidates of each, promise
what they call "reform." I will confess at once that I
have lost my faith in the professions and promises made
in party platforms. They have at last become, on either
side, one of the cheapest articles of manufacture in this
country, and that industry continues to flourish even
without a protective tariff and in spite of the general
depression of business. But civil service reform is not
produced in that way. If we desire to ascertain by the
success of which party that reform is most likely to be
promoted, we must look to the character and principles
1876] Carl Schurz 307
of the candidates as well as to the component elements
and general tendencies of the parties behind them. I am
firmly convinced that one part of the necessary change,
the driving from the public service of the corrupt officials
who now pollute it, will be amply secured by the election
of either of the two candidates for the Presidency. Gover-
nor Tilden has won his reputation as a reformer mainly
by the prosecution of the canal ring in the State of New
York. I will not follow others in questioning his motives,
but readily admit that prosecution to have been an enter-
prise requiring considerable courage, circumspection and
perseverance, for which he should have full credit. Should
he be elected President, he will undoubtedly eject from
their places, and, if possible, otherwise punish, all the
dishonest officers now in the service; making a "clean
sweep," he will eject them, together with the good ones.
Nor have we any reason to expect, with regard to the
cleaning process, less from Governor Hayes, should he be
elected to the Presidency. It is well known that Governor
Hayes was not my favorite candidate for the Presidential
nomination, and I am not in the least inclined to extol
him with extravagant praise. What I shall say of him
will be simple justice to his character and record. You,
citizens of Ohio, have had the best opportunity to form
your judgment of him, from a near observation of his
official and private conduct, and as far as I know, that
judgment, whether expressed by friend or foe, is absolutely
unanimous. Three times he has been elected Governor of
your State, against the strongest candidates of the opposi-
tion. True, he has had no occasion to break up canal
rings, or other extensive and powerful corrupt combina-
tions, for the simple reason that in Ohio they did not
exist. But it is universally recognized not only that
Governor Hayes is a man whose personal integrity stands
above the reach of suspicion, a man of a high sense of
308 The Writings of [1876
honor, but that his administrations were singularly pure,
irreproachable and efficient in every respect. If he
had no existing corruption to fight, he certainly did not
permit any to grow up. Nobody suspects him of being
capable of tolerating a thief within the reach of his power,
much less to protect one by favor or even by negligence.
It is also well known that, while a party man, he always
surrounded himself with the best and most high-toned
elements of the organization, and kept doubtful characters
at a distance. He is esteemed as a man of a very strong
and high sense of duty and that quiet energy which does
not rest until the whole duty is faithfully performed. The
endeavor to purify the Government and to keep it pure
will, therefore, with him not be a matter of artificial
policy, but of instinctive desire, one of the necessities of
his nature. He is honest and enforces honesty around him
simply because he cannot be and do otherwise. In saying
this I have only given the verdict of his opponents, and
when here and there the assertion is put forth that Gover-
nor Hayes's Administration of the National Government
would only be a continuance of the present way of doing
things, it is one of those empty and contemptible partisan
flings which prove only to what ridiculous extremities
those are reduced who are bent upon inventing some
charge against a man of unblemished character and a
most honorable and pure record of public service.
The first cleaning-out process, then, seems well enough
assured in any event. But the more important question
occurs, in what manner that cleaning-out process is to
be accomplished, and what is to follow. Where have we
to look for that greater and lasting reform which is to
insure an honest and efficient public service and a higher
moral tone in our political life for the future? On this
point both candidates have spoken in their letters of
acceptance, and their utterances are entitled to far greater
1876] Carl Schurz 309
consideration than the party platforms. Look at the
letter of Governor Hayes first. It is explicit, and re-
markable for the clearness and straightforwardness of its
expressions. Here are his words:
More than forty years ago a system of making appointments
to office grew up, based upon the maxim "to the victors
belong the spoils. " The old rule, the true rule, that honesty,
capacity and fidelity constitute the only real qualifications
for office, and that there is no other claim, gave place to the
idea that party services were to be chiefly considered. All
parties in practice have adopted this system. It has been
essentially modified since its first introduction. It has not,
however, been improved. At first the President, either di-
rectly or through the heads of Department, made all the
appointments, but gradually the appointing power, in many
cases, passed into the control of Members of Congress. The
offices in these cases have become not merely the rewards for
party services, but rewards for services to party leaders. The
system destroys the independence of the separate depart-
ments of the Government. It tends directly to extravagance
and official incapacity. It is a temptation to dishonesty; it
hinders and impairs that careful supervision and strict account-
ability by which alone faithful and efficient public service can
be secured ; it obstructs the prompt removal and sure punish-
ment of the unworthy ; in every way it degrades the civil service
and the character of the Government. It is felt, I am con-
fident, by a large majority of the Members of Congress to be
an intolerable burden and an unwarrantable hindrance to the
proper discharge of their legitimate duties. It ought to be
abolished. The reform should be thorough, radical and
complete. We should return to the principles and practices
of the founders of the Government — supplying by legislation,
when needed, that which was formerly the established custom.
They neither expected nor desired from the public officers any
partisan service. They meant that public officers should give
their whole service to the Government and to the people.
They meant that the officer should be secure in his tenure as
3io The Writings of [1876
long as his personal character remained untarnished, and the
performance of his duties satisfactory. If elected, I shall
conduct the administration of the Government upon these
principles, and all Constitutional powers vested in the Execu-
tive will be employed to establish this reform.
Then he pledges himself to the "speedy, thorough
and unsparing prosecution and punishment of all public
officers who betray official trusts." And finally, "be-
lieving that the restoration of the civil service to the
system established by Washington and followed by the
early Presidents can be best accomplished by an Execu-
tive who is under no temptation to use the patronage of
his office to promote his own reelection," he "performs
what he regards as a duty in stating his inflexible purpose,
if elected, not to be a candidate for election to a second
term."
I This is the clearest and completest program of civil
service reform ever put forth by a public man in this
Republic. Not a single essential point is forgotten, —
and what is more, there is in it no vagueness or equivoca-
tion of statement or promise. No back door is left for
escape. Each point is distinct, precise, specific and
unmistakable. It covers the whole ground with well-
defined propositions. If this program is carried out, the
reform of the civil service will be thorough and genuine;
and if the reform is permanently established, the main
source of the corruption and demoralization of our politi-
cal concerns, the spoils system, will be effectually stopped.
It will be the organization of the service on business
principles. Even the opponents of Governor Hayes will
be compelled to admit this. Some of them have indeed
attempted to find fault with one or the other of his proposi-
tions, but their objections are easily disposed of. A few
Democratic papers argue that if officers are kept in their
1876] Carl Schurz 311
places as long as their personal character remains un-
tarnished and the performance of their duties satisfactory,
the result will be "a permanent aristocracy of office-
holders. " Is this so? Look back into the history of the
Republic and you will find that under the early Adminis-
trations down to John Quincy Adams, public officers
were kept in place as long as their character remained
untarnished and the performance of their duty satisfac-
tory. Where was the "aristocracy of officeholders"
during that period? The officers of the Government
were then a set of quiet, industrious, modest and un-
obtrusive gentlemen who did not try to control party
politics, and did not steal, but did, as a general rule,
studiously endeavor, by strict attention to their official
business, to win the approval of the Government which
employed them, and an honorable name for themselves.
But no sooner was the good old custom supplanted by the
system which transformed the offices of the Government
into the spoils of party warfare, and made appointments
and removals depend not upon the question of integrity
and competence, but upon party service and claims to
party reward, than a remarkable change occurred in the
character as well as the pretensions of the officeholding
class. No longer did they remain the quiet, unobtrusive
and dutiful public servants they had been before, but they
gradually attempted to control party politics in the differ-
ent States, and transformed themselves into a regularly
organized force of political praetorians employed by ambi-
tious leaders to override the public opinion of the country.
If there ever was anything that might be called an office-
holding aristocracy in the worst sense of the term, it did
not exist under the early Administrations when good
official conduct was considered a valid title to continu-
ance in place, but it was created by the spoils system which
stripped the officer of his simple character of a servant of
312 The Writings of [1876
the Government, and made him a party agent, or in case
of those of higher grade, a party satrap, obsequious to
those above him and insolent to the people, over whom
they thenceforth considered themselves appointed to ex-
ercise power and influence. If the civil service reform
proposed by Governor Hayes reduces them to their proper
level as servants of the people again, it will not be the
creation, it will be the destruction of that odious sort of
an officeholding aristocracy. Besides, the idea that a
letter-carrier, or a customhouse officer, or a revenue
agent, or a Department clerk, will become a member of
an aristocracy, if left in office as long as he behaves him-
self well, has something so intensely ludicrous that it
need scarcely be discussed. We might as well speak of
an aristocracy of railroad conductors or hotel waiters.
Another very curious objection to Governor Hayes's
reform plan is put forth by my esteemed friend Mr.
Godwin in his recently published letter in favor of Gover-
nor Tilden, which has deservedly attracted much atten-
tion. He thinks that if officers are to be secure in their
tenure as long as their character remains untarnished and
the performance of their duties satisfactory, this principle
will "give all the present incumbents an indefinite tenure,
perpetuate their hold of the trusts they have so many of
them abused" and be "in its practical operation an act
of indemnity for all the felons and rogues who now infest
and pollute the public offices. " The critics of Governor
Hayes's letter of acceptance seem indeed to be in terrible
stress for an objection. When the principle is laid down
that the tenure of an officer shall be secure as long "as his
character remains untarnished and the performance of his
duties satisfactory" — can that be interpreted as meaning
that the tenure of an officer shall also be secure, when he
has become a bad fellow, so that his character is tarnished
and the performance of his duties unsatisfactory? When
1876] Carl Schurz 313
Governor Hayes pledges himself to a "speedy, thorough
and unsparing prosecution and punishment of all public
officers who betray public trusts," does that mean that
those who have betrayed official trusts shall go unprose-
cuted and unpunished? Is that an act of indemnity
to all felons and rogues who now infest and pollute the
public service? Oh, Mr. Godwin, lifelong friendship for
Governor Tilden may carry even a man of ability and
great attainments beyond the point of safety in criti-
cizing his opponents. The most charitable explanation of
Mr. Godwin's objection is, perhaps, that he never read
Governor Hayes's letter of acceptance. He can now, even
after his criticism, read it with profit as a study on true
civil service reform. No, the plan put forth by Governor
Hayes is nothing more, and nothing less, than the revival
of the principle and practice which prevailed under the
early Administrations, whose elevated tone and purity
are still the pride of American history; the principles and
practice of the men whose wisdom and virtues we have
exalted in the Centennial year with glowing eulogies ; the
men who, could they now appear among us, would say:
"If you want truly to honor our names, do it a little less
by praising our virtues, and a little more by following our
example. "
Now, let us see what promise of civil service reform the
Democratic candidate, Governor Tilden, holds out to us.
In order to be perfectly fair to him I will quote the whole
text of that part of his letter which refers to that subject :
The Convention justly affirms that reform is necessary
in the civil service, necessary to its purification, necessary to
its economy and efficiency, necessary in order that the or-
dinary employment of the public business may not be "a
prize fought for at the ballot-box, a brief reward of party zeal,
instead of posts of honor assigned for proven competency, and
314 The Writings of [1876
held for fidelity in the public employ." The Convention
wisely added that "reform is necessary even more in the higher
grades of the public service. President, Vice-President,
Judges, Senators, Representatives, Cabinet officers, these and
all others in authority are the people's servants. Their
offices are not a private perquisite; they are a public trust."
Two evils infest the official service of the Federal Government:
One is the prevalent and demoralizing notion that the public
service exists not for the business and benefit of the whole
people, but for the interest of the officeholders, who are in
truth but the servants of the people. Under the influence of
this pernicious error public employments have been multiplied;
the numbers of those gathered into the ranks of officeholders
have been steadily increased beyond any possible requirement
of the public business, while inefficiency, peculation, fraud and
malversation of the public funds, from the high places of
power to the lowest, have overspread the whole service like a
leprosy. The other evil is the organization of the official class
into a body of political mercenaries, governing the caucuses
and dictating the nominations of their own party, and attempt-
ing to carry the elections of the people by undue influence, and
by immense corruption-funds systematically collected from
the salaries or fees of officeholders. The official class in other
countries, sometimes by its own weight and sometimes in
alliance with the army, has been able to rule the unorganized
masses even under universal suffrage. Here it has already
grown into a gigantic power capable of stifling the inspirations
of a sound public opinion, and of resisting an easy change of
Administration, until misgovernment becomes intolerable and
public spirit has been stung to the pitch of a civic revolution.
The first step in reform is the elevation of the standard by
which the appointing power selects agents to execute official
trusts. Next in importance is a conscientious fidelity in the
exercise of the authority to hold to account and displace un-
trustworthy or incapable subordinates. The public interest
in an honest, skilful performance of official trust must not be
sacrificed to the usufruct of the incumbents. After these
immediate steps, which will insure the exhibition of better
J876J Carl Schurz 315
examples, we may wisely go on to the abolition of unnecessary
offices, and, finally, to the patient, careful organization of a
better civil service system, under the tests, wherever prac-
ticable, of proved competency and fidelity.
When you have read this somewhat elaborate paragraph
and pondered over it a while, you still ask yourselves:
How far does he mean to go and where does he mean to
stop? There is plenty of well-expressed criticism; but
what is the tangible, specific thing he means to do? The
difference between these utterances and those contained
in Governor Hayes's letter is striking and significant.
There are none of the precise, clean-cut, sharply-defined
propositions put forth by Governor Hayes, indicating
how the spoils system with its demoralizing influences is
to be eradicated and what is to be put in its place. When
we try to evolve from this mountain of words the practical
things which Governor Tilden promises to do, we find
that they consist simply in the appointment of new men,
according to an "elevated standard," whatever that may
be, and in holding officers to account for their doings, of
course. When the offices are filled with new men super-
fluous offices are "wisely" to be cut off, and finally the
"patient and careful organization of a better civil service
system" is to be proceeded with "under the tests, when-
ever practicable, of proved competency and fidelity." It
seems, then, when we boil it all down — and I think I am
doing Governor Tilden's language no violence in saying
so — that, first, the offices are to be filled with good Demo-
crats in the way of a "clean sweep" and a "new deal of
the spoils, " and that afterwards it shall be "patiently and
carefully" considered how and where "tests of proven
competency and fidelity" can be established, so as to fill
the offices with good men. But, first of all things, "the
offices for the Democrats, the spoils for the victors."
316 The Writings of [1876
Does any candid man pretend that it means anything
else? Governor Tilden is a profuse writer, having an
infinite assortment of words at his command. If he meant
anything else, would he not have been able to say so in
a precise form of expression? For the short allusion
to subsequent systematic reform, to be "patiently and
carefully" approached, is even more studiously vague
and shadowy than the many paragraphs in party plat-
forms, with the valuelessness of which we have in the
course of time become so justly disgusted.
Or is there any sensible man in the land, even among
Governor Tilden's independent friends, who expects any-
thing else than simply a new distribution of the spoils?
If there is, let him read the Democratic newspapers, let
him look round among the leaders as well as the rank and
file, and he will soon become aware of his mistake. Who
does not know that the principle, "To the victors belong
the spoils," was first inaugurated by the Democratic
party; that the spoils system of the civil service was
developed by that party in all its characteristic features;
that for the last forty years it has been its traditional and
constant policy and practice, and at this moment their
struggle for success is in a great measure inspired by the
hope of an opportunity to precipitate themselves upon the
public plunder? Is Governor Tilden the man, in case of
his election, to constitute himself a breakwater against
the universal tendency, the unanimous, impatient will of
his party? Or is there, I ask you candidly, and especially
those of my independent friends who, although animated
with the desire of genuine reform, are inclined to aid the
Democrats, is there in the Democratic party any influen-
tial element that would urge a Democratic President to
advance thorough measures of civil service reform in a
non-partisan sense, or that would earnestly support him
if he did? If there exists such an influential element,
1876] Carl Schurz 317
where is it? Is it in the rich men's Manhattan Club, or in
Tammany Hall or anti-Tammany in New York, among
the ' ' swallow-tails ' ' or the ' ' short-hairs " ? Or is it among
the old State-rights Democrats, East and West? Or
among the Confederates in the South? Or among the
Irish population or the Roman Catholic Democrats
generally? If there is in any section of the Democratic
party any desire for a genuine reform of the civil service,
anything but a demand for a new deal of the spoils, show
it to me. I shall certainly be the last man to deny that
there are many good, honest, patriotic, well-meaning and
able citizens in the Democratic organization and among
its leaders. I count among them not a few valued and
trusted personal friends. But where are the advocates
of genuine civil service reform among them? As far as
I know, we have heard only the solitary voice of Senator
Gordon, who submitted in the last session of Congress
a commendable proposition for the reform of the revenue
service; but the commendation it received in the organs
of public opinion came almost exclusively from the Re-
publican or independent side. And now will Governor
Tilden, if elected, without support in his own party, at the
risk of his popularity with his own friends, brace himself
up against the furious onset of hungry patriots, and say:
"The interests of the service, the cause of reform, demand
that the offices of the Government be no longer looked
upon as the spoils of party victory; I shall, therefore,
keep in office all faithful and efficient officers no matter
whether they are Republicans, and turn out only the
unworthy ones; go home, my Democratic friends, that
I may judiciously discriminate at leisure"? Or will he
tell Democratic Congressmen: "The principles on which
the civil service is to be reformed demand that I
should not permit any Congressional interference with
the responsibilities of the appointing power; therefore
3i8 The Writings of [1876
put your recommendations of your friends in your pockets
and let me alone, my good fellow-Democrats"? What
man in his five senses expects Governor Tilden to do this?
Has he ever promised anything of the kind? Certainly
he has not. Is he not too inveterate a Democrat and too
closely wedded to the traditions of his party to think of
it?
Well, then, what sort of reform will be brought about by
a Democratic victory? I assume even that Governor
Tilden and the men he may put into his Cabinet will
sincerely desire to put only the best available Democrats
into office, and will employ every honest effort to that end.
But what will be the result? The accession of the Demo-
crats to power will be signalized by the most furious rush
for office ever witnessed in the history of this Republic.
For years and years hundreds of thousands have been
lying in wait, eagerly watching for the opportunity. You
find them not only in the North, East and West, but still
more in the South. The Southern people have many good
qualities, but it is a notorious fact that among them the
number of men thinking themselves peculiarly entitled
to public place has always been conspicuously numerous.
Now they have been on short fare for many years, and
long waiting has sharpened their appetite. They will
also be quick to remember that Democratic success could
be brought about only by a united Southern vote, and
that above all others they have claims to reward. Our
brave Confederate friends have won renown by many a
gallant charge during the war, but all their warlike feats
will be left in the shade by the tremendous momentum
of the charge they will execute upon the offices of the
Government. It will be a rush of such eagerness, tur-
bulence and confusion that men of this generation will in
vain seek for a parallel. And now amidst all this, urged
on by a universal cry of impatience from all sections of
1876] Carl Schurz 319
the Democratic party that every radical must be driven
from place at once, do you think it for a moment possible
that the President and the members of the Cabinet will
breast that storm and sit down with cool deliberation, to
gather evidence about the character and qualifications of
every applicant for the seventy or eighty thousand places
to be filled, so as to keep improper men out of office? Is
it not absolutely certain that the offices will be filled helter-
skelter, as so often before, and that of the applicants those,
as a rule, will be the most successful who are the most
intrusive and persistent in elbowing their way to the
front? Can it in the nature of things be otherwise? And
what will become of the cause of reform?
We have had a specimen of that on a small scale when
the Democratic party took possession of the House of
Representatives, and had to dispose of a number of more
or less desirable places. What happened? A score of
applicants for every position; a "clean sweep"; a "new
deal"; neither honesty, nor indispensable experience,
nor usefulness, nor character was spared; the offices for
the Democrats! And what Democrats! Do you remem-
ber the Fitzhughs and Hambledons and the general ridicule
and indignation that followed their prompt exposure?
Do you remember the hasty endeavors on the part of some
new dignitaries to make out of their opportunities what
could be made? Do you remember the expressions of
alarm and disgust coming even from the better class of
Democrats? Do you remember the haste with which
some of the newly-appointed officers had to be dismissed
again, that the scandal might not become too great and
damaging? And such things happened when, in view of
the coming Presidential election, the Democratic party
was on its good behavior, and had every reason for an
effort to make a favorable impression on the country.
What would happen if it should succeed in grasping the
320 The Writings of [1876
National power and then act without such restraint?
What a glorious time it will be for the Fitzhughs and
Hambledons when places are thrown open to them by the
tens of thousands! What wonders of reform they would
accomplish! True, together with the good officers now
in the service, the rogues polluting it will be driven out.
But may the Lord protect us against those which the
general rush for the spoils will bring in.
But it is not only in obedience to the universal clamor
of the party — there is still another reason why under
Democratic rule the spoils system, with all its character-
istic features, will be continued. That party is seriously
divided in itself with regard to some of the most vital and
pressing problems of the day; for instance, the financial
question, especially since Governor Tilden, by the dark
and equivocal utterances in his letter of acceptance,
gave so much new encouragement to the soft-money wing
of the party, and thus caused a fresh and vigorous effort
and advance along the whole soft-money line. Why,
even Tom Ewing is happy in his belligerence, and Old
Bill Allen beings to smile, believing to have found in
Tilden the Moses to lead them out of the wilderness.
This you observe all over the West and South. By all
sorts of deceits the managers succeed in holding the
party together, in spite of this division of sentiment, for
the pending campaign at least, in order to render success
possible. But suppose that success achieved, the war of
conflicting tendencies will break out inside of the organ-
ization with new virulence. Then, the party, once in
possession of the Government, will naturally strive to
fortify itself in that possession so as to remain in power.
And what means will there be to hold together the war-
ring elements? Then oracular utterances and equivocal
promises as we find in Governor Tilden 's letter of accept-
ance, offering on paper all things to all men, will no longer
1876] Carl Schurz 321
avail. Practical measures of unification, a tangible bond
of cohesion, will be required. And what will, what can
they be? Governor Tilden is now exhibited to us in the
character of a reformer, and I have already said that I
shall not deny to him in that respect what credit he
deserves. But it must not be forgotten that Governor
Tilderi, long before he disclosed himself as a reformer, had
become, in the not altogether virtuous school of Demo-
cratic New York politics, the adroitest manager, the most
accomplished political machine-master of our days. He
is that now, and I think I do not wrong him when I say
that to this accomplishment his nomination for the
Presidency is largely due. Now suppose him President,
and under him the broil of conflicting factions in his own
party, threatening to disrupt the organization and en-
dangering the continued possession of power so long
worked and hoped for — will not, necessarily, the arts of
the manager, the party machinist, so well understood,
and so long and successfully practiced, be again resorted
to, in order to avert the disaster of a rupture? Let me
say to you that, in my whole political experience, I have
never known a man who was profoundly versed in the
tricks of machine management, and had grown strong
through their employment, that was willing to throw
them aside when by them he could carry an important
point. And what means will present itself to the man at
the head of the machine in such a case? One but too
well in accordance with the traditions, instincts and
constant practice of the Democratic party — "the cohesive
power of the public plunder." Ask yourselves whether
that will not be necessarily so. Is it not inevitable that
a party so torn by internal dissensions will demand that
cohesive paste so as not to fall to pieces? Will not the
memories of the Douglas and Buchanan feud, with its
disastrous consequences, stare the managers in the face
VOL. III. — 21
322 The Writings of [1876
as a warning example? Is it not certain that they will
eagerly use the means already at hand? This office will
be used to silence the opposition of this man, that office
to purchase the support of another, and bread and butter
generally to stop the clamor of factions by filling their
mouths. As the war between Tammany and anti-Tam-
many, between Boss Kelly and John Morrissey, in New
York, will be pacified by giving the adherents of one the
customhouse to reform and permitting the adherents of
the other to infuse virtue into the post-office or the reve-
nue service, much to the relief and delight of the business
community, will not in the same way, by a skillful dis-
tribution of the Government plunder, the soft-money and
the hard-money Democrats East and West be made to
understand that they belong together, and that the table
will be spread for them all only as long as they live together
like good boys! And the result? In spite of all the
pious wishes now entertained and expressed by some
Democratic leaders and some independents who follow
them, "the cohesive power of public plunder" will rule
the hour ; the spoils system, that most dangerous fountain
of demoralization and corruption, will flow more richly
than ever — and then farewell, a long farewell, to the great
reform that is to make and keep the public service once
more honest and pure. Is that what you, my independ-
ent friends, desire and strive to accomplish? Nay, we
shall be in a more deplorable condition than ever, for the
spoils system naturally grows worse and worse in its
effects the longer it is permitted to exist. That will be
the inevitable consequence of Democratic success as I
foresee it. A change, yes; but a change making the
necessity of a wiser change more pressing than ever.
Let me return to the other side. No sensible man will
deny that the reform which the exigencies of our condition
demand can be accomplished only if the program be
1876] Carl Schurz 323
carried out which we find in Governor Hayes's letter of
acceptance. But is Governor Hayes the man to put
through such a program? Will he possess courage and
persistence enough to withstand and overcome the adverse
influences in his own party which have shown themselves
so powerful? This is a legitimate and important question.
I shall endeavor conscientiously to answer it. That
Governor Hayes has a very clear conception of what
genuine civil service reform means, he has abundantly
demonstrated by the specific propositions in his manifesto.
Neither are these ideas new with him, or put forth merely
to produce a momentary effect. You will find the same
views stated, partly in the same language, in inaugural
addresses and speeches delivered by him years ago, long
before he was thought of as a candidate for the Presidency.
They are, therefore, the offspring of deliberate and well-
matured conviction. But has he the courage necessary
for such a task? Courage as a candidate entitles him to
the presumption that he will have courage as a President.
It would seem to be the natural interest and desire of a
candidate to keep at least all the organized and strong
influences in his own party in the best possible humor with
him, by creating the impression that he will be all things
to all men, so as to insure the hearty cooperation of all.
Mr. Tilden seems to understand that. Now, have you
considered how much strength of conviction, how much
honest courage in a candidate it requires at the opening
of a canvass to go before the people with a manifesto like
Governor Hayes's letter of acceptance, which, in its
comprehensive and sharply defined demands for reform,
contains the most unsparing criticism of abuses tainting
his own party? This candidate tells Congressmen that
if he is elected President they must expect no patronage
from him. He tells the officers of the Government that
from them no party service is desired. He tells party
324 The Writings of [1876
workers that party service will not be regarded by him as
a claim to reward ; and in the face of the fact that the Presi-
dent of the United States now in office had himself elected
twice, and would not have recoiled from a third term had
it been within reach, he frankly declares his inflexible
purpose not to be a candidate for reelection, on the ground
that a sincere reformer should not expose himself to the
temptation of using the patronage for the promotion of
his personal interests. Is not that courage, — the honest
courage of true conviction? Show me in the whole history
of this Republic a single candidate for the Presidency who,
in the face of uncertain chances, had the courage to
issue so defiant a manifesto as this? You will find
none. I ask you, my independent friends, to compare
the manly, straightforward, unequivocal declarations of
this manifesto with that artfully constructed tangle of
words, Governor Tilden's letter of acceptance. Hard
money appears soft, and soft money hard, presenting a
full dish of spoils for the Democrats, with a reform sauce
for the independents, so that Judge Stallo is pleased.
General Tom Ewing is pleased still more, and John Mor-
rissey's manly bosom swells with pride at the profound
statesmanship of his candidate. Compare the two, and
then tell me on which side you find true moral courage!
Let it not be said that Governor Hayes was fearless only
because he did not see the bearing of his utterances.
Before his letter of acceptance was published he read it to
a friend, and that friend observed: "It is not unlikely,
Governor, that what you say there may very much dis-
please some very powerful men in your own party."
And what was the answer? "Yes, that may be so; but
this is RIGHT. " And the letter came out as it was written.
I think I can support a reformer who has the courage
thus to feel and thus to speak.
I have gone into this campaign advocating the election
1876] Carl Schurz 325
of Governor Hayes with my eyes open. I have certainly
not forgotten or thought lightly of the duty I owe to the
cause of reform which I have served so long; and thus,
standing as I do here before you, mindful of my respon-
sibility, I declare this to be my sincere conviction, and
predict with as much assurance as things still to come can
be predicted, that Governor Hayes, if elected to the
Presidency, will employ every Constitutional power of that
great office to its fullest extent to carry into practice his
program of civil service reform to the very letter. He will
organize his Administration with unswerving devotion to
this great end. He will, whatever influences he may have
to encounter, pursue with untiring watchfulness all
officers of the Government who have betrayed official
trust or failed to perform their duties according to the
best standard of efficiency. He will keep faithful public
servants in their offices, against all attempts to have them
replaced by the political tools or the personal favorites
of party leaders. He will tell those who claim office on the
ground of mere party service that "honesty, competency
and fidelity" will be regarded by him as the only deci-
sive qualifications for public employment. He will tell
Congressmen who attempt to dictate appointments that
such interference with the appointing power is destructive
of the independence of the separate departments of the
Government, degrading the character of the service, and
will no longer be permitted. He will make all Govern-
ment officers understand that the civil service must cease
to be a party machinery, that from them partisan service
is "neither expected nor desired, " and that they will have
to confine themselves to their official duties as servants
of the Government and the people. He will establish
well regulated and public methods, in every practicable
way, to ascertain the fitness of candidates for places.
He will employ every legitimate means in his power to
326 The Writings of [1876
induce Congress to perpetuate this reform by legislation in
whatever way it may be possible and necessary.
This is what I am sincerely convinced Governor Hayes
will do if elected to the Presidency.
I do not pretend to call Governor Hayes, as Mr. Tilden
is called by some of his over-poetic friends, "the wisest
man in the world. " I do not put him in point of courage
above all the heroes of antiquity and modern times. I do
not predict that, if elected President, he will cure in three
months all the ills human society is heir to, and plunge us
straight into the millennium of ideal existence. But he is
a man who has nobody to fear, because he has nothing to
cover up. He has nobody to reward, because he did not
seek the Presidency, and promised nothing. And he has
no future favors to ask for, because he has no ambition to
serve except to make, as President, his one Administra-
tion a blessing to the country and an honor to himself.
His reform plan is the product of experience wisely
turned to account, of mature reflection and of an unselfish
desire to benefit the people. Behind that plan stands a
clear, solid, cultivated intellect, the unostentatious but
firm force of quiet, persistent energy and the inviolable
pledge of a born gentleman. And I repeat, that plan, as far
as the power of the Presidential office goes, he will carry
out. I speak with confidence, for that confidence I
possess. I have his word for it, you have his word for
it, the whole American people have his word for it, and,
as Governor Hayes is a man of honor, that word will be
kept.
But you may say, "Granting all this, will he be able to
carry out his good intentions, in the face of the adverse
interests and influences in the Republican party which will
combine to defeat the contemplated reform?" This also
is a legitimate question. Let us fairly examine it.
All those who understand our Constitutional system will
1876] Carl Schurz 327
admit that the President, himself and alone, can do many
things toward that end by a simple exercise of the powers
of his office. He can, for himself and for the heads of
Departments, establish the rule that not party service,
but honesty, competency and fidelity shall be regarded
as the only qualifications for nomination or appointment
to be considered. He can keep every officer in place who
has performed his duties with integrity and efficiency. He
can make the officers of the Government understand that
the civil service is not to be a party agency, and that they
will have to conduct themselves accordingly. He can
refuse to be governed by the recommendations of Con-
gressmen who come to him, or to the heads of Depart-
ments, to dictate appointments. He can, if need be,
even without appropriations from Congress, adopt certain
methods for ascertaining the fitness of candidates for office,
and have them carried out through competent officers
in the Departments. All this the President can do in the
exercise of the Constitutional powers of his office. The
only effective resistance possible, but only with regard
to new appointments of a certain class, may be offered by
the Senate in refusing to confirm his nominations. But
whether a systematic opposition of that kind can long con-
tinue will in a great measure depend upon the spirit
animating the elements composing the Administration
party, as well as the drift of public opinion generally.
Of that, more hereafter.
It is evident, then, that in the work of inaugurating a
genuine reform of the civil service the President is the
natural leader, and that much of it he can accomplish,
for the time being at least, without the aid, and even
against the opposition, of Congress. It may be objected
that General Grant once desired to reform the civil service
in this wise, but that he had to succumb to the opposition
of his own party in Congress.
328 The Writings of [1876
I answer, no; he had not to succumb. If President
Grant had strongly desired to reform the civil service
within the reach of his Constitutional powers, he could have
done it. I go further, and say, had he insisted upon that
reform, in good faith, he would have found a strong force
in Congress to support him, and, if that had been insuf-
ficient, he could have appealed to the intelligent masses
of the Republican party and the patriotic opinion of the
country generally, and they would have sustained him.
The true cause of his failure was that he never seems to
have appreciated what a genuine reform of the civil service
consists in; that he had other things far more warmly
at heart than that reform, and that with no small degree
of alacrity he availed himself of the opposition of the
politicians in Congress to drop the whole scheme. That is
the truth of history and I venture to say there is scarcely
a well-informed man in the country who questions it.
Do not understand me, however, as underestimating
the strength of the influences inside of the Republican
party, which, in case of the election of Governor Hayes,
will conspire and cooperate to defeat the success of
genuine reform. I know them well, and indulge in no
delusion with regard to them. No sooner will the new
President begin his work than many of those who used
the spoils, either for their own support or as a means of
political management, will rally in force to hamper and
cripple him. The force will be strong and very deter-
mined. The pressure brought to bear upon the President
to swerve him from his purpose will be tremendous. It
will be represented to him that no party can live without
public plunder, and that the abolition of the spoils system
will lead to the downfall of the Republic. From flattery
to threats, from private appeals to open demonstrations
of hostility in Congress, every means will be employed
to induce him to break his word. And that opposition
1876] Carl Schurz 329
will be directed by able leaders, experienced in all the
resources of political warfare. No, I do not underestimate
it, for I know it but too well.
And what will the new President have to oppose to such
an onset ? In the first place, the good faith and firm resolu-
tion of an honest purpose. To the politicians, high and low,
who will come to cajole or to coerce him, he can present
his letter of acceptance, and say: "This I have solemnly
promised to the American people, and as a man of patriot-
ism and honor, who is mindful of his duty to render his
best service to his country, and who will not leave a dis-
graced name to his children, this promise I can and shall
not break. It will be fulfilled to the letter." And this,
fellow-citizens, is what I am convinced that Rutherford
B. Hayes will do. But his own good faith will not be his
only bulwark of resistance. No sooner will he have pro-
nounced the word of honest resolution, than it will become
evident that the President does not stand alone. The
very conflict surrounding him will raise up for him a host
of friends. The best elements, the intelligent and patriotic
masses of his party, will at once be at his side. Do you
doubt it? Let me address a question of some importance
to you, and especially to my independent friends, and ask
you to answer it candidly : When you think of a great
effort like this, which runs straight against the lower
instincts of the politician and appeals to the enlightened
intelligence and moral sentiment of the people for aid, to
which side will you look for the men of that enlightened in-
telligence and moral sentiment to fight for such a reform
in good faith and with unselfish devotion ? Let your own ex-
perience speak. You, my independent friends, most justly
condemn the abuses that have crept into the Republican
party, as I certainly have very frankly and unsparingly
condemned them heretofore and mean to do so hereafter.
And yet, looking calmly at things as they are, you will
330 The Writings of [1876
be obliged to admit that an overwhelming majority of the
men who with head and heart would aid in the establish-
ment of such reforms are in the Republican and not in the
Democratic ranks. It was that element in the Republican
party which first put forth the demand of civil service
reform, and obliged even the present Administration to
make an apparent attempt in that direction. It is true,
that element has been overshadowed in the party by
official influence and the despotic power of mercenary
organization. But it is there now, as it was there in the
old anti-slavery days. Will not that element at once
rally with renewed strength around the President, as soon
as he lifts his hand for the work of reform, to support him
with its whole power? Aye, and it will be stronger than
ever, not only as the advocate of a good cause before the
patriotic public opinion of the country, but stronger also
in working efficiency, because it will march under the
open, honest and powerful leadership of the Executive
head of the Republic. But still more. Not only will the
President have the strong aid and support of that great
element in his party, but his very effort to establish
thorough reform will strip the opposing forces of their
most dangerous influence.
Let the word go forth from the Executive chair that the
civil service shall and will no longer be a party machine;
that the officers of the Government are desired by the
President to attend to their official duties only, and not to
serve as party tools; that the tenure of the officer will
depend upon his official conduct alone, and no longer
be at the mercy of this or that Congressman or party
leader; that the offices in this or that district or State will
no longer be wielded by this or that party satrap, to rule
local politics as with an iron rod, but that they will be
given or taken away by the Government itself for the sole
benefit of the public interest — let that word go forth from
1876] Carl Schurz 331
the highest place, so that all the people, including the
postmasters and customhouse men and revenue officers,
and all who want to become such, can well understand it—
and I ask you soberly to consider what the effect will be.
What will become of that power of local leaders whose
greatness consisted only in their possession of the Govern-
ment patronage; whose influence was formidable only
because at their very frown every placeman within their
reach had to tremble; because their very nod could make
the head of every officer not subservient to their will fly
into the basket; because every applicant for place, every
seeker of favor, had to inquire about their very whims with
fawning anxiety? The terror of their thunderbolts will
quickly pass away. Every honest public servant will
remember that he has a conscience, a manhood of his
own; that he is no man's man, and that his honor, as
well as his prosperity, will be best promoted by being
no man's man, but a faithful and efficient servant of
the Government and the people. It will be like a
second emancipation of the slaves. The civil service
will no longer be what it now is in many places, an or-
ganization of obsequious courtiers and trembling syco-
phants, but of men who dare to respect themselves, and
whose moral aspirations will be lifted up by that very
self-respect. Every honest and efficient officer will, in his
own interest, become an ardent friend of the reformed
system himself. Then those party influences which op-
pose true reform will be stripped of their most dangerous
sting. Congressmen and party leaders, no longer able to
use the patronage to build up their power, will have to
fall back upon their character, their principles and their
ability to sustain themselves in public life, which, on the
whole, will vastly improve the breed; and it will turn out,
also, that political parties can live without the spoils, and
be all the better for it.
332 The Writings of [1876
That such a policy will displease many Republican
politicians, I have no doubt; so much better will it please
the honest Republican masses. That it will be bitterly
opposed in the Congress to be elected this year is not
improbable; but that will not defeat the reform. Let the
first Congress under the new Administration ever so
insidiously endeavor to hamper it, let it ever so stubbornly
refuse all friendly legislation, yet there is not the end.
I have already shown how much the President alone can
accomplish by the exercise of his Constitutional powers.
And if then Congress refuses to aid and perpetuate the
reform by such legislative measures as may be necessary,
let the President appeal to the good sense and patriotism
of the people. In an election held without the civil service
as a party agency, such an appeal will scarcely remain
without a response.
I, therefore, declare this to be my honest conviction, not
only that Governor Hayes, as a man of patriotism and
integrity, will, if elected to the Presidency, be true to his
word, in using all the Constitutional powers of his office to
carry out to the letter the program put forth by himself,
but that, powerful as the opposition he will have to en-
counter may be, the chances will be strongly in favor of
the success and lasting establishment of the reformed
system, sustained as it will be by the best elements of
the Republican party and a patriotic public opinion.
Indeed, when examining the relative positions taken by
the two candidates for the Presidency, and the prospects
they open to us, the opponents of Governor Hayes seem
to be utterly at a loss to discover a flaw in the systematic
reform he proposes to establish. They find themselves
forced back upon the small expedient of discrediting his
intentions. "Governor Hayes," they say, "cannot be
in earnest with this plan, for if he were believed to be in
earnest there would be a multitude of Republican politi-
1876] Carl Schurz 333
cians who would rather see their candidate defeated than
such a reform succeed. " There may be such Republican
politicians. But Governor Hayes's own word, publicly
spoken, warrants me in telling you that he is in earnest, and
uncompromisingly in earnest. If there were Republicans
who would try to defeat him for that reason, I am con-
fident it would not change his position. Governor Hayes
will ever be proud to have stood up for so good a cause, and
would rather be defeated as its faithful champion, than
succeed by betraying it. But now I ask you, my inde-
pendent friends, if that cause is so good that the spoils poli-
tician would fear its success more even than the failure
of his party, is not there, for you, as sincere friends of re-
form, every reason to desire and work for its triumph?
Considering with candor every circumstance surrounding
us, carefully weighing every probability and feeling the
necessity of thorough and lasting reform, is it possible
that you should hesitate in your choice? Can you fail to
see that here is a battlefield worthy of your efforts, here
the line of advance towards the objects which, as true
reformers, you must hold highest? A change! is your cry.
Yes, a change! is mine. But do you not, with me, insist
upon a change that opens the prospect of lasting improve-
ment? Is a change of parties all you want, whatever the
consequence? If you are in earnest, you will want more;
you will want a change in the very being, in the nature of
parties.
That is the great thing needful. But in the success of
Hayes, not that of Tilden, will you find it. Can you doubt,
then, that a change to Hayes will be a greater and much
more wholesome change than that to Tilden? What is a
change to Tilden? A change from Republican to Demo-
cratic spoils in politics. What is a change to Hayes? A
change from the spoils system to a true reform of the
civil service and the overthrow of machine politics. That
334 The Writings of 11876
is the prediction I make, and with confidence I look into
the future to see it verified. Can the duty of sincere
friends of reform be doubtful? I at least see mine as
clearly as ever, and to the last will I perform it.
An effort is being made to convict these independents,
and especially the members of the May conference in
New York, who think and act as I do, of inconsistency
because we support Governor Hayes, although that
conference did at that time not consider him a desirable
candidate. Those efforts trouble me little. I do not
belong to that class of great minds who think that the
cosmic order will relapse into chaos if they are damaged
in their appearance of personal consistency. In my poor
opinion, the most important question is, not whether I
appear strictly consistent, but the question is, How are we
to act in order to render the best service we can to the
country? But it so happens in this case that neither
myself nor that overwhelming majority of the May con-
ference who to-day support Governor Hayes will be called
inconsistent by candid men. I speak with perfect frank-
ness to you. Things have not developed themselves as I
and many others desired three months ago. We hoped
for the nomination of Mr. Bristow, who stood before the
country as the recognized leader of the reform movement.
And I may say here, if other gentlemen, with whom in
many things I agreed, proclaimed the alternative, "Bris-
tow, or Tilden, " I never agreed with them on that. Some
of the reasons I have already given. I may add that
Governor Tilden's untiring, extensive and complicated
efforts to obtain the nomination for the Presidency were
not calculated to increase my confidence in his mission as
a reformer, and in the results which would develop them-
selves after his election. Well, our hope for the nomination
of Mr. Bristow was disappointed. Why had we desired it?
Not because of personal friendship for Mr. Bristow, but
1876] Carl Schurz 335
because his nomination itself would have been a triumph
of the reform idea, and because his public conduct guar-
anteed a policy in accordance with it. Of the policy
represented by him a thorough reform of the civil service
and a speedy return to specie payments formed the
principal features. These were after all the true ends we
had in view, and their realization the real object of our
endeavors. And now, when a candidate stands before us
whose nomination was indeed not in itself a conspicuous
triumph of our ideas, but who opens to us in the most
courageous and positive manner a clear prospect of the
attainment of the same great ends of which Mr. Bristow
had appeared as the representative, — shall we then refuse
him our support? Would it be consistent to run away
from the cause of true reform, merely because the name
of its representative is not Bristow? Are we little children
to abandon our great ends in the most serious struggles of
life as soon as their accomplishment appears, although the
same in essence, in a garb different from that which we
had imagined?
But you say Governor Hayes was included in a class
of candidates whom the conference pronounced in its
address unfit for support. Aye, and what now? I have
more than once addressed to the conscience of dissatisfied
independents, without ever receiving an answer, this
question, Had the May conference been asked, Can we
support a candidate who, known as an honorable man,
will show after his nomination the courage to issue a
manifesto which in its demands for reform contains the
sharpest criticism of existing abuses, solemnly pledges the
candidate to the best reform program that can be devised
and defies by its precise propositions all the vicious
party influences we condemn, in every way giving the
surest guarantee of good faith — if that question had been
put to the conference, what member of it would have
336 The Writings of [1876
said: "We can not support him?" Probably not one.
Certainly not I. True, that case was not foreseen, but it
has happened. There it is, and we have to deal with it.
Shall we now again, like little children, say, because that
case was not foreseen, therefore it does not concern us,
although it may offer an opportunity to attain our real
objects? What consistency is that?
I appeal to your consciences, my independent friends
who have gone to the other side. If you should succeed,
by combining with the Democrats, in defeating Governor
Hayes and true reform, and after the triumph of your
combination, that fountain of evil, the spoils system, con-
tinues to send forth its stream of demoralization and
corruption, and a strengthened soft-money majority in
the House of Representatives subjects the country to more
years of harassing uncertainty and distress — what then?
This is sad, indeed, you will say, — but we have been con-
sistent! Oh, how great you will feel in your glory of
consistency! But no, gentlemen, you will NOT have been
consistent. As independents, you professed devotion to
great objects, among which stood first true reform and a
sound financial policy.
You will have abandoned those great objects when
you had an opportunity effectively to serve them. True
consistency it is, always to will the right, zealously to
seek the right and under any name and any change of
circumstances, faithfully to stand by the right. Here we
have a candidate at last who openly before all the world
and with defiant courage occupies the platform we have so
long, and almost hopelessly, been struggling for; and now
should we turn our backs upon him, should we now betray
our cause when a faithful, united effort can make it
triumph?
I speak with feeling, for I have been long and with
earnest sincerity in this struggle. It has been said of me
1876] Carl Schurz 337
that I have done something to wake up the popular
conscience against the prevailing demoralization. If
that be so, I am proud of it.
It was the object of my endeavors. But that duty is
not all fulfilled. Now is the time to lift up our judgment
to the level of the awakened conscience. Let us take care
that the reformatory spirit now alive and capable of
greater achievement does not run out in a mere change of
parties and persons, to stand still before the citadel of the
evils which have so long afflicted and degraded us. Who
knows when it will rise again from the gloom of a new
discouragement if now it exhausts itself in misdirected
and fruitless efforts! We have, indeed, a great oppor-
tunity before us, an opportunity to shake off the disgrace-
ful abuses which the demoralizing habits of forty years
have loaded upon our political life ; an opportunity to lead
our Government back to the noble principles and practice
of the great and wise founders of the Republic, whose
virtues we are so eloquent in praising, and whose example
we have been so slow to follow.
This is the year of great memories. In magnificent
palaces we have laid before the world the wonders of our
wealth, the fruits of our inventive genius and the astound-
ing results of our skill and industry. And certainly we
have gained the admiration of all beholders. But, great
and lasting as the admiration thus gained may be, far
greater still in the esteem of mankind, and far more lasting
in the gratitude of our own prosperity, will be an honest
and decisive blow now struck for the restoration of that
virtue and purity of Government which, after all, is the
only security and the highest glory of a free people. The
year of the great anniversary cannot be more truly honored
than by the triumph of so noble an effort.
VOL. III. — 22
338 The Writings of [1876
FROM RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
COLUMBUS, O., Sept. 15, 1876.
Private.
I was pained to hear of your accident. I trust it will not
prove a serious injury, and that you will soon be well.
Touching the assessments, I am clear it is not for me to call
attention to the acts of the officials except as they are induced
by the committee appointed by the National Convention.
I wrote a private note to my only correspondent on the com-
mittee, and talked to Governor Noyes. I send you Governor
McCormick's reply, which please return. I send also a copy
of my note,1 for private use only as matters now stand, and
until I give consent to its publication.
Your speech on "hard times" was exceedingly happy. It
is the best handling of that dangerous topic I have yet seen,
by great odds. The canvass daily brings to the front, more
and more, as the two leading topics, the danger of a "United
South" victory, and Tilden's record as a Reformer.
You can denounce all charges of hostility to foreigners as
voters and officeholders as utterly unfounded. They are the
merest roorbacks. I have always voted for naturalized
citizens, have often appointed them to office and shall always
hold to the same opinions on that subject which I presume you
do. I of course don't like Catholic interference or any sec-
tarian interference with politics or the schools. All of this
paragraph is public and always openly avowed by me. I was
COLUMBUS, O., Sept. 8, 1876.
Private.
My dear Sir: I send you a slip cut from an Eastern newspaper on the
subject of assessments upon official salaries for political purposes. It is
charged that this is done by authority of the National Committee.
My views as to what ought to be required of officeholders are set forth
in my letter of acceptance and are no doubt sufficiently well known. But
I think it is proper to say to the Committee that if assessments are made
as charged it is a plain departure from correct principles, and ought not
to be allowed. I trust the Committee will have nothing to do with it.
Sincerely,
R. B. HAYES.
Hon. R. C. McCoRMicK.
1876] Carl Schurz 339
not a Know-Nothing when my political associates generally
ran off after that ephemeral party.
P.S. I need hardly assure you that if I ever have charge of
an Administration this whole assessment business will go up,
"hook, line and sinker."
FROM RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
COLUMBUS, O., Nov. 3, 1876.
I meant to meet you at the depot yesterday, but was
prevented. It is now too late to speculate on results. I shall
find many things to console me if defeated. I feel more than
ever satisfied with having written a square letter. Very little
occurs to me that I could have changed during the canvass.
The hard times with the consequent desire for change, and the
opportunity which such times give for the corrupt use of
money by our adversaries have greatly affected the strength
of parties.
In any event I am exceedingly gratified by what you have
done in the canvass, and shall always remember it with thank-
fulness and satisfaction.
TO T. W. FERRY '
ST. Louis, Dec. 3, 1876.
The complications in which we find ourselves involved
at present are well calculated to impress two facts upon
every candid mind :
1 . That the result of Presidential elections may depend
upon a very small number of electoral votes, these votes
to come from States in a disturbed and abnormal
condition; and
2. That the Constitutional method of counting the
electoral vote, of deciding questions of legality connected
1 President of the U. S. Senate.
34° The Writings of [^76
with them and of determining the final result, has become
a matter of dispute between interested parties. No doubt
all patriotic citizens desire only to have the offices of
President and Vice-President awarded to those who have
been rightfully elected to them, no matter to what political
party they may belong. As for ourselves, we have heartily
and actively supported Governor Hayes for the Presi-
dency, believing that his election would best serve the true
interests of the Republic. But we deem it of far greater
importance that the future President of the United States
should have a clear title to his office than that he should
be the man of our choice. We hope every patriotic Demo-
crat reciprocates that sentiment. But how is that title
to be established so clearly that it may stand above all
doubt and cavil? We hear of charges of fraud, intimida-
tion and terrorism with regard to the election in several
States, as well as charges of sharp practice and illegal
proceedings in the operation of canvassing boards, and
there is reason to anticipate acrimonious party contests
in the final counting of the electoral votes and the
determination of the result.
The Constitution provides only that "the President of
the Senate shall, in presence of the Senate and House of
Representatives, open the certificate and the votes shall be
counted." As to the meaning of that clause there are
grave conflicts of opinion. It is held by some that the
President of the Senate alone is invested with the power
to count the votes and declare the result, the two houses
of Congress being mere witnesses to the act, without any
authority to interfere. It is held by others that the two
houses of Congress have power to direct the counting, and,
if they see fit, to throw out the electoral votes of a State,
but only by concurrent action. By others still it is asserted
that an objection sustained by either of the two houses
is sufficient to exclude the electoral votes of a State from
1876] Carl Schurz 341
the count. We have repeatedly expressed our opinions on
these points and will not now restate them. But we desire
to invite attention to the important fact, that the conflict
of these theories is degenerating more and more every day
into a struggle of party interests, and this at a time when
the election of the Chief Magistrate of the Republic may
depend upon a single electoral vote, and when the two
contending parties are each in control of one house of
Congress.
Already do we find active and influential politicians
speculating upon the manner in which the power of either
house of Congress can be utilized to promote or prevent
the success of this or that Presidential candidate. Elabo-
rate schemes are published by men of standing, setting
forth how a condition of things may be brought about in
which the country is to have two Presidents contending for
the possession of the Government. By reckless characters
the ear of the people is familiarized with the cry of forcible
resistance and civil war. The alarm of capital and the
stagnation of business are growing more distressing every
day. Neither is the end of this harassing uncertainty to
be foreseen. The counting of the electoral vote in Congress
may bring us, instead of a speedy and conclusive settle-
ment of all difficulties, only a more exciting struggle of
party interests and ambitions, and instead of an election
result universally accepted as legal and just, a National
Government appearing as the offspring of terrorism or of
party chicanery, a Government the rightfulness of whose
authority may therefore be questioned, and whose very
existence may give rise to long and dangerous quarrels.
Certainly no greater misfortune could befall the country.
It is evident that, in order to avoid consequences so
grave, the determination of the result of this Presidential
election should be confided to a tribunal whose verdict
will command universal confidence, and in order to
342 The Writings of [1876
command universal confidence in times of excited party
feeling the tribunal should be as far as possible re-
moved from party strife, party interest and party am-
bition. Only then will the impartiality of its judgment
be generally and unreservedly believed in. Unquestion-
ably Congress is not such a tribunal. There are, no doubt,
men in the Senate and in the House of Representatives
who in the discharge of important duties endeavor to
divest their rnincls of all party bias. But on the whole
inasmuch as the members of the National Legislature owe
their places to the instrumentality of party organization, it
is not unnatural that in many respects party interest and
spirit should have a strong influence in shaping their
opinions as well as their actions. It can scarcely be other-
wise; and even supposing members to act upon motives
ever so conscientious, their impartiality will not have
general credit when in a matter involving party interests
of such magnitude as the result of a Presidential election
their judgment favors the candidate of their organization.
But in a crisis like this the final verdict should not only
be impartial ; it should also appear so.
When looking for a tribunal fitted by its character and
recognized authority to act as the great umpire of political
parties in determining the result of a disputed Presiden-
tial election we find only one — it is the Supreme Court of
the United States. In the debates which some time ago
occurred in the Senate on a bill to regulate the counting
of the electoral vote the idea was frequently put forth that,
when the two houses disagreed on the reception of the
electoral vote of a State or in case of the presentation of
two sets of certificates from one State, on the question
which of the two should be received, that question should be
referred for decision to the Supreme Court or to one or more
members of it. The only strong argument urged against
this proposition was that the jurisdiction of the Supreme
1876] Carl Schurz 343
Court is defined by the Constitution and cannot be en-
larged by a mere legislative enactment. The force of that
objection cannot be denied. But there is still another way
open. If both political parties agree that it would serve
the great interest to remove this counting of the electoral
votes from the theater of party strife and to entrust that
important office, with power to decide incidental questions,
to the highest judicial authority in the land, there is still
time to secure the adoption of a Constitutional amendment
to that effect before the day fixed by law for the counting
of the electoral vote arrives. There are nearly three weeks
before Christmas, during which a resolution to submit such
an amendment to the legislatures of the several States
may be discussed and determined upon by both houses of
Congress. In January most of the legislatures are in
session, and those that are not may be convened for the
special purpose of considering the ratification of the
amendment. To accomplish this great object action must
indeed be prompt, but action may be prompt if both
political parties cooperate in good faith to that end.
There is probably no more powerful influence to bring
about such cooperation than that of the two Presidential
candidates themselves. If Governor Hayes and Governor
Tilden both make their respective supporters understand
that such is their sincere and urgent wish for the political
good, that kind of opposition at least which may spring
from party spirit will quickly yield in Congress as well
as in the State legislatures. Thus the most formidable
and dangerous obstacle would be removed and the two
parties might harmoniously unite upon a measure most
important for the peace of the country and the stability
of our institutions. It may be said that it would be unwise,
in haste and merely for the purpose of averting a tempo-
rary danger, to engraft upon the Constitution of the Repub-
lic a permanent provision which could not again be got
344 The Writings of [1876
rid of without great difficulty. But we are not here
providing against a mere temporary danger. Unfor-
tunately it is but too probable that from the condition of
the country, as the civil war has left it, similar complica-
tions will arise in the future, not indeed at every Presi-
dential election, but from time to time. Moreover every
thinking man will admit that the makers of the Constitu-
tion, when framing that vague provision concerning
the counting of the electoral votes, did certainly not
foresee and contemplate the case of disputed electoral
votes, and of a Presidential election depending upon dis-
puted votes. Had they foreseen it, no doubt they would
have provided for it more clearly and carefully. Even in
more peaceful times when the result of a Presidential
election did not turn upon a single State, the indefiniteness
of the Constitutional clause caused now and then much
embarrassment and perplexity. It is evidently not ade-
quate to the more difficult circumstances at present sur-
rounding us. A change is therefore decidedly and urgently
needed, and if that change must be recognized as necessary
why should it not be taken in hand at once to help us
through the threatening dangers of the present crisis?
Neither can it be denied that such a change would fail
of its object if it did not withdraw the counting of the
electoral votes, and the determination of the result from
the struggle of political parties, and that this can be accom-
plished only by selecting for this office a tribunal standing
above all party strife. Thus the Supreme Court seems
clearly pointed out by the necessities of the case. There
is only one other question requiring answer: Will not the
discharge of such duties draw the Supreme Court itself
into the struggle of parties? We believe not. Only once
every four years are the electoral votes to be counted. In
most cases the result is beyond all question decided, and
the figures universally recognized before the counting
1876] Carl Schurz 345
begins. Doubtful cases of great importance may and
probably will henceforth occur more frequently than
formerly, but even then they are not likely to occur more
than once or twice during the average official life of a
judge of the Supreme Bench. The exercise of great power
in connection with that duty will, therefore, be of rare
occurrence; so rare, indeed, as not seriously to affect the
character of the tribunal while the possibility of packing
the Supreme Court for special occasions may be prevented
by suitable provisions in the Constitutional amendment.
We commend this proposition, which is by no means
new and has already been discussed in the public press,
to the attention of those who may exercise an influence in
favor of its accomplishment. The end we have in view
appeals to the patriotic feelings of every good citizen.
It is the preservation of peace and of the moral authority
of our National Government. That both are in jeopardy,
nobody will question. To avert this danger now and also
in the future the plan here discussed appears to us a good
one. But its speedy execution depends upon the prompt
cooperation of the two political parties, each of which
would prove by its acceptance of this proposition that
it has confidence in the rightfulness of its cause or that
it esteems the public welfare above all else.
CARL SCHURZ,
JOHN B. HENDERSON and others.
FROM RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
COLUMBUS, O., Dec. 6, 1876.
Private.
I have read your article on the mode you suggest for deter-
mining contested Presidential elections. Its general tone and
purpose strike me favorably. What is wanted is an article
which shall practically embody the views you maintain. The
346 The Writings of [1876
suggestion is not in a condition for presentation — we can't say
yea or nay to it until we see it in form for a place in the
Constitution.
I am overwhelmed with calls congratulating me on the
results declared in Florida and Louisiana. I have no doubt
that we are justly and legally entitled to the Presidency. My
conversations with Sherman, Garfield, Stoughton and others
settled the question in my mind as to Louisiana.
TO HENRY CABOT LODGE
ST. Louis, Dec. 13, 1876.
You want to know what I think of the present condition
of things? I scarcely know it myself. We are completely
out of our reckoning. There is so much wrong on each
side that many conscientious men hesitate to attack one
for fear of playing into the hands of the other. Before the
election some of our friends opposed the Republican candi-
dates on the ground that a party must be held responsible
for the misdoings of its agents and representatives, and
because the campaign on the Republican side had to a
great extent been taken possession of by the very men
against whom a reform movement should have been di-
rected. That was correct as far as it went ; but those who
acted upon that principle did not see what was going on
on the Democratic side. The reason why I made as good
a fight as I could for Hayes was, in the first place, that I
had very good reason to trust the honesty of his purpose to
eliminate, in case of his success, from our politics that
most dangerous element of selfishness and corruption, the
spoils, and that he would not fall under the control of the
men who pushed themselves in the canvass, — and secondly
because I had equally good reason to distrust the character
and purposes of the leading men on the Democratic side
1876] Carl Schurz 347
and to believe that the pretense of "reform" there was the
hollowest sham in the world. Enough of their way of
doing things had come to my knowledge to convince me
in the strongest possible manner that this accession to
power would take us from the frying pan into the fire.
I never had any confidence in Tilden but now I have less
than ever.
The election itself and what has followed is only a fair
illustration of what preceded it. There are two things
essential to the existence of republican Government:
i, that there should be a free expression of the popular
will at the ballot-box, and 2, that the votes cast there
should be honestly counted and carried into effect. Both
those things have given way not only the latter but, I
assure you, the former also. In saying this I do not repeat
newspaper reports and still less do I depend upon partisan
statements, but upon trustworthy information I received
from disinterested and truth-loving persons. One of the
evils undermining our political fabric lies, therefore, still
behind the returning-boards. The fact is, the reconstruc-
tion measures have landed us in a condition of things full
of new problems, the extent of which we have not been
able to measure.
What is now to be done? If the determination of the
Presidential question is left to a party-struggle in Congress
the President of the Senate will probably assume the
power of counting the votes and declare Hayes elected,
while the Democrats will elect Tilden in the House of
Representatives. Then worse confusion still. You will
have noticed that ex-Senator Henderson and myself have
petitioned Congress to pass the Constitutional amend-
ment referring the matter to the Supreme Court. I will
admit that this would be a mere expedient, justifiable for
the reason that soon our Constitutional system will have
to be overhauled anyhow. But if this is not adopted,
348 The Writings of [1876
and I do not think it will be, it is of supreme importance
that some method be discovered to withdraw the Presiden-
tial question from the theater of party strife in Congress
and to refer it to some tribunal above partisan spirit and
interest. I expect McCreary's resolution to be adopted
and the joint Committee of the Senate and House for which
it provides, may possibly agree upon some arbitrament
which both parties will accept as binding. The Demo-
crats will certainly have nothing to lose in doing so, and if
they agree to it public opinion would scarcely leave the
Republicans any choice. Mr. Lemoyne offered a resolu-
tion in the House which foreshadows something of that
kind. In that way we should at least get an Administra-
tion whose existence would have a fair show of legitimacy.
What I fear most is not a civil war, — for I think neither
party is prepared for that, — but a condition of things
completely upsetting our political morals. The moral
sense even of good honest people is apt to become confused
and blunted when there is such a complication of right
and wrong on each side, that the path of duty is not clear.
TO CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, JR.
ST. Louis, Dec. 21, 1876.
I have just received your letter of the i8th. At first
sight your plan, as to the general idea involved in it,
strikes me favorably. But will it be possible to carry it
out? I write at once without taking time for mature con-
sideration, in order to get at the details of the scheme, and
for this purpose I state the difficulties and doubts which
occurred to me in reading your letter.
i. Can Congress, Constitutionally, "declare" that
there "has been no election"? Vide i2th amendment. — •
1876] Carl Schurz 349
Would it not, if the understanding you propose be arrived
at, be necessary that Congress consume the time between
the 1 4th of February and the 4th of March in counting the
votes pro forma, so as to reach the 4th of March without
declaring an election?
2. Would it not require the convening of the Senate
and the House immediately after the 4th of March, to
have the committees appointed for the "surveillance" of
the election in the " returning-board States"? This
would render indispensable the cooperation of Grant in
the execution of the plan. He might, I suppose, convene
an extra session of Congress, although his term expires
on the 4th of March.
3. Is it your idea that we should consult the two can-
didates about this matter before giving it to the public, or
that, without their knowledge and consent, we should try a
sort of moral coercion on them, and, through them, on
the two parties in Congress?
4. Have you any reason to expect that Tilden would
accept this plan? I may say here, that I do, of course,
not know whether Hayes would, the proposition being
entirely fresh, but it may be possible.
5. While it is true that if one party accepted and the
other rejected the plan, the latter would place itself at
a great disadvantage, — would it not also be true that,
if both rejected it, your father and I would be in the
very unpleasant position of officious, and unsuccessful
intermeddlers?
6. Do you think the idea of a new election would
strike the people favorably? I am very doubtful about
that, — and it is a very important question.
7. Would it be wise to do anything of this kind before
the joint Committee of the two houses of Congress has
demonstrated its inability to devise a practicable plan?
I hope to be advised in a few days whether there is any
350 The Writings of [1876
hope of a satisfactory arrangement at Washington. There
are some men there of our way of thinking who will do
the best they can — or at least try.
Now I want you to understand that I do not submit these
questions in any spirit hostile to your scheme. / shall be very
glad to be convinced of its practicability, and as you have
undoubtedly thought about it a good deal, I want to have
the whole of your idea as soon as possible. Why not com-
municate it to your father at once and have his opinion?
I shall be happy to give whatever aid I can to the execu-
tion of any Constitutional and practicable plan to remove
the decision of the Presidential question from the theater
of party-strife in Congress so as to secure at least a National
Government whose legitimacy cannot be called in question.
TO B. B. GABOON
ST. Louis, Mo., Dec. 23, 1876.
... It seems to me, the most important thing to be
kept in view is, that the Republic should have a Govern-
ment the legitimacy of which cannot be seriously ques-
tioned. When we once have a President going into office
by a method more or less revolutionary, we shall have
more of that sort of thing, and worse in point of character.
I think it therefore of very great consequence, that in so
great a matter Constitutional forms should be guarded as
scrupulously as possible.
If the counting of the votes and the determination of the
results be undertaken on the I4th of February without any
previous authoritative settlement of the question, What
is the meaning of the provision of the Constitution as to
the relative power of the President of the Senate and of the
two houses of Congress? we may witness a furious and
unscrupulous struggle of party interests, which may land
us nobody knows where. It was mainly for this reason
1876] Carl Schurz 351
that Mr. Henderson and myself favored a Constitutional
amendment referring the whole matter to the Supreme
Court. As you are aware, that proposition failed in the
Senate; but there is still some hope that the joint Com-
mittee of the two houses, recently appointed, will agree
upon some mode of submitting the question above men-
tioned to the members of the Supreme Court or some other
impartial authority for an opinion, the two parties agree-
ing to accept that opinion as the law to govern their
action. I should consider that the happiest possible event
under existing circumstances, no matter which candidate
for the Presidency may derive benefit from it. The dan-
gers and evils of the accession of the Democratic party to
power are very clear to my mind. But any action on the
part of the Republicans looking like a coup d'etat, resorted
to for the purpose of retaining power, would inevitably
be the destruction of the party and would thus prepare
the way for Democratic ascendancy under circumstances
a great deal worse. The bad precedents furnished by
the former would be followed by the latter, probably
with much greater recklessness — and where will be the
end? Whatever influence I may possess is used, there-
fore, to induce Members of Congress to remove the ques-
tion of power with regard to the counting of the votes
from the theater of party strife and to have it conclusively
decided by some tribunal standing above party interest
and ambition. That is, as I firmly believe, the best that
can be done under present circumstances.
TO JACOB D. COX
Confidential. ST. Louis, Dec. 28, 1876.
I was on the point of writing to you when I received
your letter, and I should have addressed to you very nearly
352 The Writings of [1876
the same questions which you want me to answer. I
have been corresponding with Hayes until about three
weeks ago. But his letters referred more to the changes
of the situation appearing from day to day than to any-
thing else. They indicate moreover that he believes
himself fairly and rightfully elected. What influences
may at present be potent with him, I do not know. I
have been trying to convince him that his own interest
as well as that of the country demands a settlement of the
Presidential question by some other means than the mere
use of party power through the President of the Senate,
and I urged him to express himself publicly to that effect.
He seemed to agree with me in the abstract, but there our
correspondence dropped, probably because my last letter
did not call for any answer. Whether he does anything to
influence the counsels of the party at Washington, I do
not know; but I am inclined to think he does not. I
suppose the man now nearest to him is Stanley Matthews.
My relations with the latter are not so intimate that I
might apply to him for confidential information. Per-
haps you could do so. Hayes has on several occasions
spoken to me very highly of you as one of his most valued
friends, and I suppose there would be no impropriety in
your approaching him directly. I feel even as if you ought
to do it. He is in a very perplexing and somewhat danger-
ous position. I mean morally dangerous, and dangerous
also as to his standing as a man before the country. He
ought not to be left without the advice of just such a
friend as you are to him.
As to the general situation of things I conclude from
your letter that we feel exactly alike. The doings of the
Louisiana returning-board are, to say the least, suspicious.
That a fair election in Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi etc.,
would have resulted in large Republican majorities, is
indeed possible and even probable. But such an assump-
1876] Carl Schurz 353
tion, however justifiable, is after all no solution of the
question. How will Hayes and his friends and his
party stand before the world if after proceedings of so
questionable a character the President of the Senate, set-
ting aside the constant usage of more than half a century,
takes it upon himself alone to count the votes and to
determine and declare the result of the election? What
will be the upshot of such a precedent in the future history
of the Republic?
You are probably aware that I, with Senator Henderson,
petitioned Congress to submit the matter to the Supreme
Court. I did this because it is clear to my mind that
nothing can now give Hayes an impregnable and univer-
sally respected title to the Presidency but the determina-
tion of the matter by some tribunal standing outside of
party interest. I am therefore writing to my friends in
Congress, and especially to members of the Compromise
Committee of the two houses entreating them to devise
and urge some method, formal or informal, to submit at
least the question of the relative power of the President of
the Senate and of the two houses in counting the electoral
votes either to the members of the Supreme Court or
some other impartial tribunal invented for the occasion.
Not only the honor and existence of the Republican party
are in jeopardy now, but by some unscrupulous use of
power an injury may be inflicted on our republican institu-
tions fraught with mischief beyond all present calculation.
I think some of us, who are of the same way of thinking,
ought to get together as soon as possible to consider
whether we cannot ourselves, or induce Hayes to, do
something to avert such a danger. Unfortunately, I
cannot leave my family just now. But will you not come
this way one of these days? I should be most happy to
speak with you. Do come if you can. Hayes, I fear, just
permits things to drift. Can you not meet him some-
VOL. III. — 23
354 The Writings of [1877
where? I have letters from many of our friends, especially
from New England, full of apprehension.
TO RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
St. Louis, Jan. i, 1877.
Permit me to offer to you and your family my best
wishes for the new year. Let us hope that its close may
be fraught with less care and anxiety than its beginning.
There are some things which we may already con-
gratulate ourselves upon: the law-abiding, peaceable dis-
position of the people; the evident fact that the very
difficulties which now surround us are rapidly convincing
the public mind of the absolute necessity of the total
abolition of the spoils system and a thorough reform of
the civil service, — and finally the prudent and patriotic
attitude of the most prominent Southern leaders with
regard to yourself and your intended Southern policy.
These things are indeed a silver lining to a dark cloud.
I see it stated in the papers that some influential
Southern men have made direct overtures to you. You
have undoubtedly noticed the story told by a New York
Herald correspondent of an attempt made by some friends
of yours to organize the Southern members of the House
of Representatives for independent action. Is there any
truth in it?
There seems to be at last a gleam of hope that the
Senate branch of the Conference Committee may come
to a substantial agreement about the mode of counting
the electoral vote and declaring the result. If this be
accomplished, the House branch of the Committee will
perhaps be obliged to accept the conclusion, and we may
then arrive at a solution of our difficulties standing above
all dispute. To be sure, there are still some knotty
1877] Carl Schurz 355
questions to be disposed of before that point is reached,
but there seems to be good reason for hope. And is not
the end so desirable that every honorable effort in that
direction should receive all possible encouragement?
FROM RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
COLUMBUS, OHIO, Jan. 4, 1877.
I am glad to get your New Year's greeting. It has occurred
to me also that on the two leading topics of the time the
present difficulties may be of great service to us. As to the
South I am confident in my hope that such is the fact. I do
not anticipate any help from the present House. I had heard
suggestions of the sort you allude to. But I look for nothing
of value growing out of Southern conservative tendencies
in this Congress. Whatever the caucus decides to do will
be done, and the influence referred to is too small to control
the large House majority. But after this session closes, if
the right result is declared, I shall confidently hope that a
wise and liberal policy will enable us to divide the whites,
and thus take the first step to obliterate the color line. There
have been no "overtures," but an encouraging disposition is
shown by letters and visitors from all parts of the South.
The Herald talk may have some foundation, but I am sure
nothing will come of it. The present House will be ruled by
Tilden's caucus. I send you a Redfield letter. The coun-
try must come to disregard the Democratic boasts. South
Carolina and Florida were as strongly claimed as Louisiana.
TO RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
ST. Louis, Jan. 12, 1877.
When speaking in my last letter of the independent
action of Southern members of the House, I did not mean
to indicate that I expected anything of the kind, for I
356 The Writings of [1877
did not. I merely desired to know whether there was
anything in the story going through the papers. I am
glad to learn that Southern men who have sought con-
versation or correspondence with you show so good a
disposition.
In your reply you did not allude to- what I had said
about the desirability of an agreement in the Conference
Committee of the two houses of Congress on a mode of
counting the electoral vote. There had been a rumor in
the papers that some friends of yours, assuming more or
less to represent your views, had expressed a hope that
no such agreement would be arrived at, but that the
counting of the votes and the decision of all disputed
points by the President of the Senate would be insisted
upon. This matter appears to me of such importance
in this crisis that I cannot refrain from expressing to you
my anxiety about it, in connection with all the circum-
stances of the case. You will pardon me for being very
frank. I do not want to force myself into your confidence
or to obtrude my counsel. But at the beginning of the
campaign I wrote you in one of my first letters that for
whatever work I might perform in the canvass I should
neither claim nor desire nor expect anything in return
except the privilege of speaking to you on matters of
public concern without reserve. I did so, and in some
cases the advice I volunteered seemed to coincide with
your views, in others it did not. In all cases it was offered
in a sincere and unselfish spirit. In the same manner I
address you now, believing that there are some things
about which many people may hesitate to speak to a man
in your position because they may not be considered
pleasant. If I act otherwise I do so as a true friend.
I send you an article taken from the last number of
Harper's Weekly, undoubtedly written by Mr. Curtis.
I risk nothing in saying that it represents the sentiments
1877] Carl Schurz 357
of thousands upon thousands of Republicans, not habitual
malcontents, but faithful members of the party, and by
no means its least estimable element. I do not accept
all that Mr. Curtis says about the means the State govern-
ment of Louisiana had to employ to prevent intimidation
and violence; in this respect, I think, he goes too far.
But what he says about the doings of the returning-board
and the impression those doings have produced upon
a very large number of conscientious Republicans, is
undoubtedly correct. It is certainly true that there are
grave doubts in the minds of that class of citizens. Those
doubts were not produced by "Democratic brag and
bluster," to which no sensible man would yield; but they
originated in the proceedings of the Louisiana returning-
board itself, and considering the well-known antecedents
of that board and the suspicious circumstances surround-
ing its action on the present case, those doubts are not
unnatural. They are expressed in private more frequently
and pointedly than in public ; but you may safely attribute
such demonstrations as the petitions of the Philadelphia
and New York merchants to Congress, asking for an
agreement upon a fair mode of counting the electoral
vote, to just that troubled state of mind. I know that
to be so from my own personal acquaintance with a large
number of Republicans.
Here and there the theory is set up that all we have
to do is to convince ourselves as to the substantial right
in this case and then use all means at hand to make that
substantial right prevail. Just here some very grave
questions present themselves. The letter of Mr. Redfield
you sent me, I had already read in the Cincinnati Com-
mercial. I consider Mr. Redfield to be a trustworthy
correspondent who believes in what he says, and I myself
believe that he is in the main correct. The probability
that a fair and free election would have turned out a
358 The Writings of [1877
considerable Republican majority in Louisiana is indeed
strong. The same applies to the effect of intimidation
and violence in the five parishes thrown out. I have also
read General Van Alen's speech and consider him a
sincere and truthful man. But all these statements,
while making a very strong case, do not solve the question,
why, if all these things are so certain and clear, the
returning-board did not, in obedience to the law of the
State, admit a Democrat as a member to witness and take
part in these proceedings, but performed the decisive part
of their duties as a strictly partisan body and in secrecy.
Thus, by the action of the board itself, the doubt as to
the merits of the case is increased in the public mind.
It is useless to indulge in any delusion about this matter.
I am aware that most of the party organs speak in a
different tone, but as that feeling of uncertainty in most
cases shrinks from public demonstration, the party press
cannot in that respect be taken now as fairly represent-
ative of the constituency behind them. Under such cir-
cumstances it is more than ever necessary that the
counting of the votes and the final determination of the
result should be above suspicion as to fairness and impar-
tiality. Nobody should be permitted to say that in
determining the result anything extraordinary was done
to take undue advantage of the position of power occupied
by the party in the National Government. This is of
the highest importance, for we now are going to estab-
lish a precedent fraught with good or very dangerous
consequences.
It is maintained by some that the President of the
Senate has, according to the Constitution, the power to
count the votes, to decide doubtful cases and to declare
the result, and that the two houses of Congress are only
witnesses to the act, without any authority to interfere.
Having studied that question, the law as well as the
Carl Schurz 359
precedents, I know what can be said in favor of the above
proposition. It is true that it corresponds with the
earliest practice. But it is also true, that no President
of the Senate ever practically decided a disputed case,
or claimed the power to do so, and that for more than
half a century it has been the uniform usage that, when-
ever a case of doubt arose, the two houses of Congress
took it in hand for settlement. The Wisconsin case can
scarcely be quoted as a precedent to the contrary. That is
the history of the country, and as the Republican party
has not only never questioned that power of the two
houses but practically asserted and exercised it, it has
become the history of the Republican party. If now
after all this, that power is claimed for and by the Presi-
dent of the Senate and exercised to decide all disputed
questions in favor of the candidate of his party and thus
to determine the result, will not such an act appear in
the light of an arbitrary assumption of a doubtful power
in the service of party interest? And what will be the
effect?
It may be said that bad appearance is of no consequence
if the act can be defended with strong argument. Indeed,
I trouble myself little about mere clamor, but I do care
very much not only about the merit but also about the
appearance of such an act in a case like this. I will not
follow Mr. Curtis in predicting the certain downfall of
the party that does such things, although I think he is
right. But there is a far more important consideration.
What kind of a precedent would such a proceeding set
to be taken advantage of by unscrupulous politicians in
the future? It will not be the suspected action of a
strictly partisan returning-board alone; it will not be the
assumption and exercise of questionable power by the
President of the Senate alone, — it will be all these things
together by which a party decided a Presidential election
360 The Writings of [1877
in its favor. Imagine such doings to stand as a precedent
in our history, and then an unscrupulous set of politicians
bound to maintain themselves in power, to find such a
precedent, and then to improve upon it — where will be
the limit of arbitrary proceedings? What will become
of our Presidential elections? What an immense step
will it be in the Mexicanization of the government !
It is for such reasons that I am so anxious to see the
Conference Committee unite both parties upon a mode
of counting the electoral vote and determining the result
which will not appear in the light of a mere partisan
maneuver, but be recognized as fair by all impartial
men and put the legitimacy of the next Administration
above reasonable question. For such reasons I think
that everybody that can wield any influence should use
it to that end. You can certainly not desire to be lifted
into the Presidency by a proceeding of doubtful character,
so doubtful, indeed, as to trouble the minds of a large num-
ber of patriotic men in your own party. An Adminis-
tration whose title can be questioned by fair argument
would be so completely at the mercy of the opposition
and so crippled in its power for good that to carry it on
would be misery to a man of fine sensibilities and a noble
ambition.
It is well that you should know what is going on in
the public mind outside of those circles which are apt
to form themselves around a man likely to wield power.
The question is asked on all sides: What can Governor
Hayes do if made President in such a way? Which of
the reforms he has so bravely defined and so solemnly
promised, will he be able to carry out? I have received
a large number of letters from all parts of the country,
from men who earnestly and actively supported you and
now are troubled by the same anxieties and apprehensions.
As a specimen of the current thought I send you one
1877] Carl Schurz 361
addressed to me by a gentleman you know as a man of
honor and ability. I take the liberty of communicating
it to you without the knowledge of the writer, because
you ought to know what such men think and say. You
will oblige me by returning it. It presents but a mild
picture of the fears and gloomy anticipations at present
prevailing among many of your friends.
Pardon the length and frankness of this letter. Let me
assure you that it comes from a true friend who entertains
for you feelings warmer even than mere esteem and is
animated by the sincerest wishes for your success, pros-
perity and honor. I would rather speak of more agree-
able things, but, as a friend, I deem it my duty to say
to you what thousands of conscientious men think,
although, possibly, they may shrink from making their
thoughts known to you. The gravity of this crisis may
justify the intrusion. Our Constitutional system has re-
ceived many rude shocks of late, and, maybe, we have
arrived at a turning-point now where the progress of
evil may either be arrested or precipitated or at least
accelerated. Any movement in the wrong direction
now would open a Pandora-box of evil for the future.
FROM RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
COLUMBUS, O., Jan. 17, 1877.
Private.
I returned late last night, and find here your letter. I have
no time to reply suitably this morning, but hasten to assure
you that nobody is authorized to represent me on the subject
of the count. I have thought it fitting that I should let
that matter well alone. Of course I have opinions. But I
shall abide the result. No one ought to go to war or even to
law about it. I am free to say to you that I concur with Kent.
But others abler to judge think otherwise, and I recognize
their right as good Republicans so to think. Many good
362 The Writings of [1877
Republicans think that the interests of the party will be
promoted by Tilden's success. I can see many reasons for
this opinion. In the absence of Congressional action the
Vice-President should count and declare. I am favorably
impressed with leaving it to be decided by lot. But I beg
you to believe me sincere when I say that I take no part in
this, and shall quietly await the event. There is a contingency
which I must be prepared for. I must consider, if not write,
an inaugural, and consider, if not appoint, a Cabinet. On
these points I shall be glad to hear from all of my friends.
I had a good talk with General Cox at Toledo, Saturday.
Write often and fully.
TO CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, JR.
ST. Louis, Jan. 21, 1877.
Your last letter was evidently written before the bill
agreed upon in the Conference Committee had become
known. For some time I had had information from
Washington that an agreement was probable, and for
that reason I did not write to you. That agreement
changes the whole situation. Everything turns now on
the fate of the bill reported by the Committee. Although
there seems to be a good deal of opposition, still I think
the prospects of the measure are very favorable. Of
course, if the bill passes, there will be the end of the
contest; this, at least, is the prevailing opinion. In the
meantime it is useless to talk of anything else; nor should
we. The measure is fair in its provisions as well as its
intent. It is a makeshift, to be sure, but a good one.
It takes the decision of the Presidential question away
from the theater of party warfare and refers it to a tribunal
that will not be governed by party selfishness. It prom-
ises a settlement which will, at least, be readily accepted
and acquiesced in by all good citizens, and will have to
be accepted by the bad ones. And the Administration
1877] Carl Schurz 363
issuing from it will start with a fair chance and every
possible incentive to make the dark features of its origin
forgotten by vigorous endeavors in the right direction.
In this respect this settlement may produce consequences
extraordinarily good.
From what I have said you may conclude that I am
in favor of the bill, and so I am. I mean to do all I can
to secure its success, and have done some things in a
quiet way already. If, contrary to general expectation,
the bill should fail, it is difficult to say what then would
follow. Possibly the idea of a new election would gain
more strength than ever before. But until then, it is
useless to consider it. Merely to mention it now would
look like a disturbance of the peace.
However, the next few days will tell the story.
TO RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
ST. Louis, Jan. 21, 1877.
I thank you for your letter of the iyth inst. and gladly
comply with the desire you express, that I should write
often and fully. As to the opinion held by some Repub-
licans "that the interests of the party will be promoted
by Tilden's success," I candidly think that either party
would gain immensely in strength if the other secured the
triumph of its candidate by means which in the opinion
of good citizens would cast doubt upon the legitimacy of
the title of the next President. On the other hand, I am
just as sincerely convinced that an Administration headed
and conducted by you will be able to render immense
service to the country — infinitely more than even Tilden
could — provided your accession to power comes about in
a way that places your title above reasonable dispute,
and then the pledges made in your letter of acceptance
are strictly adhered to and carried into effect.
364 The Writings of [1877
As to the first proviso I must say that I have welcomed
the bill reported by the Conference Committee with
great satisfaction. I think there is no man in the country
who should be more heartily congratulated upon the
passage of that bill, — if it does pass, which I can scarcely
doubt, — than yourself. My reasons are these: If the
board of arbitration established by that bill decides in
your favor, no man will be able to say that you were put
into the Presidency by mere partisan action. The result
of the great contest will not only be submitted to by the
whole people, but all good citizens will unite in defending
it, as brought about by the fair and impartial judgment
of the highest authority in the land, against what clamor
may still be raised against it by extreme partisans. The
latter will then appear as the wanton disturbers of the
public repose. And even if the board should decide
against you, you would be saved from the mortification
and disappointments which would inevitably follow such
a decision in your favor brought about by a proceeding
which would be looked upon, not only by the Democrats,
but by a very large number of Republicans, as an unscru-
pulous stretch of party power for selfish party interest;
and so the counting and declaring of the vote by the
President of the Senate certainly would be regarded.
Your name would not be associated in our history with
one of the most dangerous precedents of party action.
The Conference bill may not be perfect ; it may provide
for a proceeding of an extra-Constitutional character,
although I think its Constitutionality can be successfully
defended on solid ground; but it has the great virtue of
removing a question, the manner of whose decision may
establish a precedent fraught with the most pernicious
consequences for the future of the Republic, from the
theater of apparently selfish and excited partisan strife;
of insuring to the country a Government whose legitimacy
is??] Carl Schurz 365
will stand above serious dispute, and of restoring confi-
dence and repose to the popular mind. It is no wonder,
that, some political circles excepted, the people should
have welcomed it with such preponderance of senti-
ment as a measure of relief. By the agreement of the
Conference Committee on that measure the situation has
been entirely changed. The question is no longer
whether the President of the Senate or the two houses of
Congress shall determine the result, but whether this
measure shall be accepted or rejected. I am convinced
that the party undertaking to defeat this bill and to put
in its place either the power of the President of the Senate
to count and declare the vote, or the principle of the 226.
rule, will sink to the bottom ; and let me confess — for you
want me to speak to you without reserve — I felt a pang
when I saw it stated in the despatches, that telegrams
coming from Ohio to Republican Congressmen advised
opposition, and that Sherman, Garfield and others,
generally assumed to be your particular friends and
spokesmen, were going to try to defeat the bill. What-,
ever their views and wishes may have been before, now
that a measure like this, agreed upon by the foremost men
in the Senate and the House, is before Congress and the
country, with that popular support which springs from
a general demand for a just and impartial decision, your
friends ought to understand that you cannot afford, even
by implication, to appear hostile to this settlement; —
just as, by the way, they ought to have understood,
when at New Orleans, that as your friends it was their
imperative duty to insist with all the influence at their
disposal upon the appointment of a Democratic member
of the returning-board, according to statute of the State,
so as to take away from the proceedings of that board
their exclusive and therefore so suspicious partisan char-
acter. If the Conference bill should fail by Republican
366 The Writings of [1877
opposition, and you be then declared elected by the
President of the Senate, the sentiment of the country
will be so overwhelmingly against you, that, if the House
sets up Tilden as a counter-President, as it then will
certainly do, it will be no mere puppet show. In such a
case I should consider the peace of the country more
seriously in danger than before.
However, I think the measure will not fail. But it
will be a matter of keen regret to me, as well as to a great
many of your friends, to have an impression prevail that
it succeeded against the opposition of men currently
regarded as your nearest friends in Congress. Such a
circumstance might even in a deplorable degree com-
promise the moral advantage which your success through
this measure would otherwise give you to stand on. Your
repugnance to any public declaration of your views and
feelings on such a matter is undoubtedly well grounded
and may be insuperable. But I submit to you, whether
in a case like this it would not be desirable privately to
advise your friends in Congress that if they deem it
their duty to persist in their opposition to the Conference
bill, it is also their duty not to permit the country to
believe that they speak as your representatives and as
such stand in the way of the settlement.
It is mainly to make this suggestion, which is prompted
by the despatches from Washington and the impression
they are apt to produce, that I write to-day. I shall as
soon as possible comply with your invitation to your
friends concerning inaugural and Cabinet matters.
TO RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
ST. Louis, Jan. 25, 1877.
I have just received your letter of the 23d. You say
with regard to the Conference bill: "With me the prin-
1877] Carl Schurz 367
cipal objection is the usurpation of the Presidential power
of appointment which it involves. Congress, as my
'letter' intimates, has done this too much in the past."
You know how decidedly I stand by your letter in that
respect, but I do not see how this bill encroaches upon the
Presidential power. It provides only for the appoint-
ment of the Commission, which, it seems to me, naturally
belongs to Congress, if Congress has any power over the
subject at all, while it is not pretended that the President
has anything to do with the counting of the electoral vote.
If this is so, then this bill would seem to involve no
usurpation of the Presidential power.
If, in response to your kind invitation, I am to give you
my views "fully" on your prospective inaugural, you
will permit me a few preliminary remarks. Owing to
the peculiarity of your situation, if you are declared
elected, your inaugural will be the most important one
since Lincoln's first. The Commission deciding in your
favor, your title will be generally recognized and respected.
Every attempt to dispute it will be frowned down by the
people. But the things which preceded your accession
to power — the close election, the long and doubtful contest
after it, the suspicious Louisiana affair — will for a time
remain in the popular mind like a lingering cloud. They
will also form part of the history of the country. To
clear away that cloud and completely to reconcile the
judgment of history, your Administration must be, as
you certainly desire it to become, not only what would
ordinarily be called a creditable one, it must be a strikingly
good one, leaving a heritage of beneficent and lasting
results behind it. In what direction you mean to make
it such, you have wisely outlined in your letter of accept-
ance. The President who carries out the pledges of that
letter will have one of the most glorious names in the
annals of the United States; he will be revered as the
368 The Writings of [1877
moral regenerator of the Republic. It is the most
magnificent and enviable mission I can think of, and I
may say that I am heartily ambitious for you to see it
gloriously fulfilled. Neither would, after all that has
happened, a failure to redeem those pledges appear like
an ordinary failure; it would be a dishonorable one.
The greatest care must, therefore, be taken from the
beginning to prevent that kind of failure which might
come in spite of the rectitude of your intentions. You
will to that end have excellent opportunities; and to
improve them the first thing needful is a good strong start.
In this respect your inaugural will be the first act of
importance. It will in a great measure determine your
relations to the public opinion of the country, as well as
the character of your surroundings. It would be useless
to disguise the fact that at the beginning you will, in a
certain sense, labor under a disadvantage. The conduct
of the campaign, as well as what came after it, has left
an unfavorable impression on the minds of a large element
which, as I believe, you will naturally desire to have on
your side, and part of which has become somewhat
estranged from you. It is thought by many — not by
me — that in spite of your own intentions, you have
fallen under obligations which will force your Administra-
tion to a great extent into the old obnoxious ruts. You
will, therefore, at first be met by a good deal of apprehen-
sion which, unless promptly removed, may have an
unwholesome effect upon your personal surroundings.
Certain classes of politicians will, of course, at once press
eagerly around you: the party leaders, great and small,
who want to take possession of your influence and make
it subservient to their ends; the multitude who want
offices. But the men who have only the public interest
in view without asking anything for themselves are
generally reticent and dislike to intrude. Some of them
1877] Carl Schurz 369
may come once or twice to offer their advice, but then
they will stay away unless invited and encouraged. I
speak here from an experience gathered in a close personal
observation of the beginning of two Administrations, the
first of Mr. Lincoln, and the first of General Grant.
To attach the latter class to yourself, and by that
attachment to strengthen your Administration, your
inaugural can be used with great effect. You remember
the excellent impression produced at the beginning of the
campaign by the bold and straightforward tone of your
letter of acceptance. And it is also well to remember that,
when the campaign had drifted away from its original
program and repelled a large number of men who at
first intended to support you — and of this I could give
you many striking instances! — a considerable number
of Republican papers and speakers found it necessary,
at the eleventh hour just before the election, to hold up
once more before the people your letter of acceptance,
which during the campaign they seemed to have forgotten,
in order to revive the first impression. It was then too
late, and the tardy attempt appeared like a stage trick.
Had not the first impression held out with a great many,
the election would probably have gone wrong in more
than four Northern States.
I mention this to show where, in my opinion, your real
strength lies, and also your hope of further success.
Your inaugural should, therefore, as I think, contain
as its main part, a bold and strong statement of your
political aims, embodying all you said in your letter of
acceptance, expressed, perhaps, in language somewhat
different, but, if possible, still more direct and specific.
It is true that your letter of acceptance was distasteful
to some Republican politicians, among them prominent
ones, and it might now be thought good policy at first
to soften things so as to avoid antagonisms, and then
VOL. III. — 24
37° The Writings of [1877
gradually to exceed the promise by the performance. I
believe such a policy a very dangerous one and I will
give you my reasons.
If your inaugural is not at least on a level with your
letter of acceptance, if it has any appearance of "backing
down," the immediate consequence is likely to be that
the political elements whose support and inspiration you
need in order to make your Administration what you
want it to be, will feel repelled and discouraged and stand
aloof, while those whose impulses and desires run in the
opposite direction and have already proved so disastrous
to the party, will press around you with an increased
eagerness and vigor of hope. On the other hand, so clear
and strong a proclamation of your purposes as will con-
vince everybody of your inflexible determination to re-
main true to them will at once secure you the confidence
of the best part of the people and evoke so strong a sup-
port of public opinion as to render the displeasure of
politicians comparatively harmless. Moreover, you will
in any event have to choose between controlling the
politicians and being controlled by them. The latter
may be brought about, in spite of yourself, by showing
any dread of their displeasure; the former by convincing
them at the start that you cannot be moved from your
aims. Then your battle is not only half won already
at the beginning, but that part of it which might other-
wise become the most dangerous, will be altogether
avoided. I mean the dragging part.
The difficulty of accomplishing this is, in my opinion,
not as great as it at first might appear. The most for-
midable influences you will have to confront are in the
Senate. That Senate I know pretty well. A Senator
belonging to the Administration party is naturally not
inclined to oppose the President. He may try what
impression he can produce by appearing for a moment to
1877] Carl Schurz 371
do so, but on the whole he will keep on the right side of
the Executive. A President, who has public opinion
at his back, need fear no opposition in that body. I
have always been convinced that had General Grant
adopted a policy such as is contained in your letter of
acceptance and clearly understood it and proved himself
at the start firmly determined to carry it out, he would
have been able to do so. He would have found friends
enough of that policy in the Senate to neutralize the
opposition of those hostile to it. I know that because
I was there. But General Grant had no great political
aims. As General Grant could have done it, so I am sure
you can at once secure in the Senate sufficient support
for the policy of your letter of acceptance, to make it
entirely practicable, provided you do not permit its
opponents for a moment to believe in the possibility of
subjugating you by bluster or persistent pressure. Your
influence will be all the stronger, as the Republican
majority in the Senate will be so small after the 4th of
March, that they cannot afford to trifle with the Executive.
Thus my own experience in the Senate convinces me that
by a determined vigorous start you will rather avoid
long antagonisms than provoke them. Neither will you
thereby injure or endanger the Republican party; on
the contrary, you will lift it up and immensely strengthen
it by calling once more all those moral forces into action
whose cooperation made it so great in its best days.
I have dwelt upon these points so long in order to
express clearly my opinion as to what the tone and spirit
of the inaugural should be with a view to what is to come
after it. I would now suggest the following points:
I. By way of introduction a reference to the events
preceding and the circumstances attending your acces-
sion to power; the excited campaign; the closeness of the
election; the doubts and the long contest following; party
372 The Writings of [1877
passion newly inflamed and apparent danger of disturb-
ance; the happy solution of all difficulties by the verdict
of a tribunal universally recognized as fair and impartial ;
the triumph of law and the return of repose, confidence
and good feeling — a new proof of the inherent virtue
of our republican institutions. The apprehensions thus
happily quieted are well calculated to remind us all of
the inestimable value of peace and good understanding
among the people, and that no effort should be spared
to foster and maintain them. The fact that in the
election the people were nearly equally divided, also
reminds the successful candidate that the President of
the United States must feel himself as the President of the
whole people, mindful of the rights and interests of all,
and not as a mere party chief. Here particular emphasis
should be laid upon your desire to unite all the people in
a common feeling of patriotism and national pride; to
soften party passions, thus to facilitate the consideration
of great questions of public interest upon their own merits,
and thus to promote the common welfare by harmonious
efforts.
This paragraph can, with proper elaboration, as I
think, be made very effective. A phrase like the follow-
ing may, in appropriate connection, be inserted in it:
that you were owing to a political party your elevation
to power, and are mindful of that fact; but that you will
serve that party best by serving the public interest best.
Of course, the phraseology in which these ideas are
to be set forth is of importance.
2. The President in assuming the duties of his office
deems it proper to make to the people a frank statement
of the views he entertains, the motives which animate him,
and the aims he means to pursue. Here a direct refer-
ence to your letter of acceptance would be in order,
designating it as a candid exposition of your principles
1877] Carl Schurz 373
put before the people at the beginning of the campaign,
so that they might know what kind of a man they were
called upon to vote for. The pledges contained in that
paper were given voluntarily and in good faith, and to
redeem them in eqaally good faith the President considers
himself bound by every consideration of public duty, of
statesmanship, of patriotism and of personal honor.
The order in which the different subjects are now taken
up would not seem to be of particular consequence.
Perhaps you might adopt the order of arrangement
appearing in your letter beginning with the economic
question. A short statement of the material condition
of the country would be required ; the business depression,
its causes and effects ; the recent appearance of symptoms
of improvement; not artificial schemes but well directed
productive labor the healing force, together with frugal
economy and good morals in public and private concerns ;
the necessity of returning to a normal condition in a
financial point of view through the resumption of specie
payments, for which the present condition of things is
in an extraordinary degree favorable, — taking on the whole
a hopeful view of things which, as seems to me, is entirely
warranted by circumstances. Of course some strong
words on the necessity of economy in public expenditures
should not be wanting.
Civil service reform would come next: Reference to
the abuses which have gradually grown up after the
abandonment of the original system; necessity of elevat-
ing our political life to a higher moral level. Then a
recapitulation of the propositions contained in your letter
of acceptance, setting forth point after point as clearly
and specifically as possible, in direct and positive language,
so as to leave no chance for doubt or misapprehension
as to the firmness of your purpose. This paragraph
might close with an appeal to your party and to all good
374 The Writings of 11877
citizens to put aside all narrow views of party interest
and to cooperate with you in this great task. This
passage may contain also a reference to the platforms of
both parties in which the necessity of reform is strongly
recognized and certain propositions urged. As both
parties should be assumed to have spoken in good faith,
they must be taken at their word and are in duty and
honor bound to give the President their cooperation.
Next the Southern question. Here again your letter
of acceptance would be the best text. Elaborating the
ideas contained therein, you might allude to the inevitable
confusion and perplexities which could not but follow
a great civil war, and .especially a sweeping revolution
of the whole labor system of a country; the moral obliga-
tion of the National Government to fix the rights of the
emancipated slaves and to protect them in the enjoyment
of those rights; setting forth that the Southern people,
as honorable men, would have done the same thing, had
they been in our situation ; that the abuses and mis-
government in some States, which followed the enfran-
chisement of the late slaves (a class of people without
their fault ignorant and untutored and liable to be misled),
were to a great extent not unnatural; that, notwith-
standing all this, the colored people are entitled to the
sympathy, not only of those who liberated them, but
also of their late masters; that the outrages here and
there committed upon them, and the attempts to govern
them by force, must be condemned by all good citizens;
that the evil of misgovernment, the existence of which
you frankly and fully recognize, must be averted by the
harmonious efforts of all good men; that as these evils
have been aggravated by an unruly and grasping party
spirit, that party spirit should be as much as possible
done away with in dealing with this problem; that,
while in duty bound and fully determined to protect the
1877] Carl Schurz 375
rights of all by the employment of every Constitutional
power at your disposal, you are sincerely anxious to use
every legitimate influence of the Administration in favor
of honest government in the Southern States, and thus
to promote their prosperity and contentment. And as
in this you will not be influenced by partisan feeling, so
you call upon all good citizens in the South to cast aside
the prejudice of race and party and to cooperate with you
in protecting the rights and promoting the interests of
all. I need not say that, in my opinion, this and the
foregoing paragraph will be the most important in the
inaugural as to their effect.
Then, I think, something should be said of your deter-
mination to conduct the Executive branch of the Govern-
ment with the strictest regard for the spirit as well as
the forms of the Constitution.
Then a few sentences referring to our foreign relations
would be in order; to the international complications
threatening the peace of Europe, while we maintain
friendly intercourse with all the nations and powers of
the world ; to our wise traditional policy of non-interference
and honorable neutrality; to our disposition and hope,
if unhappily any question of difference should arise
between the United States and any foreign Governments,
to settle them in the same amicable way in which we
composed our disputes with Great Britain; and your
earnest desire to secure to this Republic the blessings of
peace and good understanding with all peoples and powers.
Finally, you might wind up with a reference to your
one-term declaration, expressing your purpose and hope to
make that one term as fruitful as possible to the American
people.
This I would suggest as a rough outline of the points
without any one of which, as I think, your inaugural
would not be complete. You have probably thought of
376 The Writings of [1877
other things in addition to these, which have not occurred
to me. If my opinions and suggestions are of any value
to you, they might be made more complete and satis-
factory; if you would indicate the particular points on
which you desire them, I shall be gladly at your service.
I intended to add something on the Cabinet question,
but may do that hereafter, if agreeable to you. This
letter has already grown much longer, and perhaps more
tedious, than I meant it to be. It would have been
shorter were it less hastily written.
FROM RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
COLUMBUS, O., Jan. 29, 1877.
I have yours of the 25th and assure you that I am very much
gratified by it. After twice reading I think I can vote aye to
every idea in it. Let me hastily add two or three suggestions.
To bring the South to a better condition I feel like saying that
the Nation will aid the people of that section, first, to the
means of education, and, secondly, to internal improvements
of a National character.
Again may I not properly propose an amendment to the
Constitution making the Presidential term six years, and no
reelection?
Of course I see the great uncertainty about the result of the
contest. But I prefer to be ready as far as may be. If my
paper is not used the loss will not be great. I want also to be
ready to make a Cabinet — remaining to the last free to choose
as may at the time seem advisable. On the whole business I
shall be glad to hear from you.
TO RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
ST. Louis, Jan. 30. 1877.
I respond to your kind invitation to write about Cabinet
appointments with a good deal of diffidence, for, in spite
1877] Carl Schurz 377
of the best intentions, mistakes in recommending men will
happen.
That you do not want in your Cabinet anybody of
tarnished or reasonably suspected integrity, or tainted
with demagoguery, or identified with the abuses to be
corrected, by participation or apology, is a matter of
course. I take it also for granted that you desire to
gather around you the highest character and the best
political ability available. Here permit me to venture
upon a suggestion. It appears to me of first importance
that you should be as well as possible assured of the
motives animating those you select as your Secretaries.
It would, perhaps, neither be possible nor advantageous
to exclude all of those who have been thought of, or who
have thought of themselves, as candidates for the Presi-
dency, for this might exclude very strong and useful men.
But it would be positively dangerous to have a certain
class of them in the Cabinet ; I mean those who are inclined
to treat public questions not on their own merit and with
a single eye to the public interest, but with a view to
what they can make out of the power they wield for their
personal ends. Such men will drift into intrigues against
one another, likely to cause continual discord and un-
easiness in the Cabinet, and in some respects to obstruct
the best endeavors of the Executive. This appears
especially important to a President who wants to effect
a thorough reform of the civil service. You have put your
declination of a second term wisely upon the ground that
a President who means to do that should keep clear of the
temptations of the patronage. Of what use would that
self-abnegation of the President be if he should put the
Departments, or any of them, under the control of men
working for the succession and inclined to use the power
of the Administration, as far as they can influence it, for
their own advantage? While the head of the Govern-
378 The Writings of [1877
ment is shunning temptation, some of the most powerful
men under him would look upon temptations only as
opportunities.
It is probably impossible to construct a Cabinet all the
members of which perfectly agree with the President and
with one another on all political questions. But I think I
am only expressing your own conviction when I say, that
as to the principal aims of your Administration the
Cabinet should be substantially a unit, and consist of
men who not only in a languid way acquiesce in those aims,
but have them sincerely, earnestly at heart. As I said in
my last letter, I am sure that you can and will succeed in
carrying out your reforms and thus in doing an inestimable
service to the Republic, if the work is begun and con-
tinued in the right spirit. But much of that work will
have to be done in and through the Departments, and
at the head of those Departments there must be men who
are not only animated by vague desires in the right direc-
tion, but who have, together with prudence and discre-
tion, the necessary pluck and steadfastness and patience
to stand up to their duty under all circumstances, so that
the President, who cannot always watch and direct them,
may with entire confidence depend on their fidelity and
efficiency. This may be said not only concerning civil
service reform, but also the management of the Southern
question, in which the influence to be exercised through
the Departments may become of very great importance.
An Administration working at cross purposes or with an
uncertain and flagging spirit in its machinery, would be
in danger of failure.
In suggesting the following names I have kept in mind
that the Secretaries have to act in a double capacity:
as practical managers of their respective Departments,
and as members of the highest political council of the
Government.
1877] Carl Schurz 379
1. Secretary of State. You have probably thought of
Mr. Evarts already. As to his capacity and acquirements
nothing need be said. The present condition of Europe
renders it desirable that the Secretary of State should be
conversant with European affairs, and I think Mr. Evarts
understands them as well as is necessary. It may be
objected that he thinks of the Presidency, but, if so, I
sincerely believe he does not belong to that class of aspir-
ants who would intrigue for the promotion of personal
ends, or permit their ambition to affect their sense of duty.
I think him a high-minded man. I am pretty well ac-
quainted with him, although not very intimately. But
such is my impression and it is also that of several men
who know him well, and whose judgment I would trust.
His views and principles on all essential points would, as I
think, accord with your own.
I would also mention Mr. G. W. Curtis, who is a very
pure, patriotic and able man, and would, I believe, fill
that place very creditably.
2. Secretary of the Treasury. My first suggestion
would be Mr. Bristow, especially for the reason that the
Treasury Department with its extensive machinery is one
of the most, if not the most important one with regard to
the reform of the service. I know Bristow to have that
cause earnestly at heart and to be a sincere man. It has
been said by his adversaries that he used his official power
for the furtherance of his interests as a Presidential can-
didate. I believe that charge unjust, unless he did so by
taking care of the public interest with uncommon fidelity
and vigor. He is, as I think, also one of those, whom no
thought of the Presidency would swerve from the path of
duty, and who has the instincts and principles of a gentle-
man. He has made some enemies, but in a way in which
every man in his position, who is faithful to his duty,
will make enemies. Although he is not a trained financier,
380 The Writings of [1877
his management of the Department has been very credit-
able in that respect. His appointment would be generally
hailed as an earnest of the reformatory spirit of the
Administration.
Governor Morgan of New York has been suggested in
the press in connection with the Treasury, but being an
importing merchant he is disqualified by statute. More-
over, it would perhaps be questionable policy to put the
New York customhouse and the internal revenue ma-
chinery in that State under the control of any man deep
in New York politics, be he otherwise ever so honorable.
As a curious fact, which I learned in New York months
ago, I would mention that it was Mr. Evarts's real am-
bition to be Secretary of the Treasury.
3. Secretary of the Interior. I would suggest General
Cox first, if he can be spared from the House of Repre-
sentatives, which, indeed, seems doubtful. Ex-Senator
John B. Henderson of Missouri. He is a very able man,
well versed in business, a sagacious adviser, and, I think,
of correct views on public matters. Ex-Senator Pratt of
Indiana, a man of high character, good ability and
excellent principles. He made a very safe and efficient
Commissioner of Internal Revenue. You have, perhaps,
thought in this connection also of Mr. Washburne, at
present United States Minister in France.
4. Attorney-General. The name first occurring to
me is that of Senator Edmunds; but I candidly do not
think he can be spared from the Senate, of which he is
one of the most valuable members. Courtlandt Parker
of New Jersey. I know him, but not intimately enough
to express an opinion of my own. His reputation is that
of a very able lawyer and a high-minded gentleman. My
impressions with regard to him are very favorable. Chief
Justice Gray of Massachusetts, a man of high standing as a
lawyer and most excellent character and principles. He
Carl Schurz 381
would, I think, be a good selection, but I do not know,
however, whether he would consent to leave the bench. Of
course, Mr. Evarts would, of all these, make the greatest
Attorney-General, and Mr. Henderson, already men-
tioned, a good one.
5. Secretary of War. Gen. Joseph Hawley of Connecti-
cut, whom you probably know. A name that occurs to
me also is that of General Harrison of Indiana; and I
merely mention it as I am not sufficiently acquainted with
him to express an opinion.
6. Secretary of the Navy. In connection with this
office, which, I believe, is generally given to an Eastern
man, I would call your attention to a gentleman whom I
know as one of the best citizens in this country, Mr. Henry
L. Pierce of Boston, a member of the present Congress.
He is a man of sterling virtue, very good capacity, not
brilliant but of excellent common-sense, and of the
soundest principles. I am sure, Massachusetts and all
New England would delight in having him in your Cabinet
and see in his appointment another evidence of the high
tone of your purposes. In a Cabinet some men are needed
who will under all circumstances tell you the truth about
everything, with frankness and sincerity, and I think
Bristow and Pierce belong to that class probably more
than most others. If you should desire to have Governor
Morgan in your Cabinet, I would suggest that the Navy
would probably be a suitable place. But I should con-
sider Pierce a better appointment. He would, however,
in my opinion also do for the Interior.
7. Finally — Postmaster-General. The name of Gover-
nor Jewell suggests itself as probably that of the best busi-
ness manager that Department has had for a long time. He
has not the training of a statesman, but, if there is political
talent enough in the rest of the Cabinet, the Post-Office
might perhaps be given to a business man who has made an
382 The Writings of [1877
excellent reputation as an administrative officer, is a man
of good principles and has the character of a gentleman.
I must also mention Mr. Galusha A. Grow of Pennsyl-
vania, late Speaker of the House. He is a man of very
good qualities, fine ability, considerable political and
business experience and high character. Among the
prominent public men of Pennsylvania he is one of the
ablest and probably the most trustworthy. He would,
I think, make a good Postmaster-General, as well as a
good Secretary of the Interior.
I have suggested these names as they occurred to me,
since you so kindly invited me to write about the matter,
probably overlooking several worthy men whom you have
already thought of. Now, from such a list a very strong
Cabinet might be constructed, and also a fair and per-
sonally unobjectionable but indifferent one. In this re-
spect pardon me for offering another suggestion. Your
Administration will have to deal with very important and
difficult problems, and, in order to carry out your purpose,
it will have to surmount a great variety of obstacles and
to withstand an extraordinary pressure of adverse ten-
dencies and interests. To do that successfully it will need
all the ability, character and energy — in one word, all the
positive elements of strength that may be available; for
there will be a great many things which you can neither
do nor watch yourself, but which you will be obliged to
trust to your Secretaries. A Cabinet of mere good
intentions, but of indifferent intellectual and moral power
might, and, I think, would, in the long run become a
source of very great embarrassment to you, and when you
once have it, it will not be the easiest thing in the world
to get rid of it or to mend it. The history of the country
presents many warning examples in this respect.
There has been a rumor in the papers that you would
perhaps go outside of the party lines in choosing a member
1877] Carl Schurz 383
of the Cabinet from the South. Looked at from certain
points of view, this might be a good stroke of policy, if the
right man can be found.
If you should desire about this or that person specific
information which I can give, it will be gladly at your
disposal, and I need not assure you that you can absolutely
rely on my discretion, the necessity of which in such a
case I appreciate fully.
TO JACOB D. COX
ST. Louis, Jan. 30, 1877.
Confidential.
I thank you most sincerely for your kind letter of the
24th inst. I ought to apologize for having put any ques-
tion to you, an answer to which I might have thought
would be embarrassing. And I may assure you, that my
last letter did not have that meaning.
What you tell me of the general drift of Governor Hayes's
mind, as it appears in conversation, is very satisfactory
and accords with my own observations. But you say
"the risk is that his selections will not be so positive, as
we could desire." There may indeed be reason for an
apprehension of that kind. Now, I have made it a rule
in my correspondence with him to express my views on
everything, public questions as well as individuals, with
the utmost frankness and freedom, no matter whether he
agrees with me or not. I told him at the beginning of the
campaign that he should look upon me as one who would
not claim, nor desire, nor expect anything from him except
the privilege of telling him at all times without reserve
what I thought about matters or men — and that I do.
I have thus been trying to impress upon him the necessity,
if he is declared elected and means to redeem his pledges,
of making a good strong start, first by repeating in his
384 The Writings of [1877
inaugural in the most specific and unequivocal manner all
the propositions and promises of his letter of acceptance,
and then by surrounding himself with the highest character
and the best political ability and energy he can find, not
only men of unexceptionable reputation and good inten-
tions, but men of intelligence, will and force.
If you ask my opinion as to whether you should follow
his invitation to advise him and give him information with
regard to individuals, I would decidedly urge you to do so.
I am sure, the advice of such men as you are, is just the
thing he needs, and, I am glad to say, just the thing he
desires. The more unreservedly you speak to him, the
better. I am convinced that he is sincerely anxious to have
your advice.
TO RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
ST. Louis, Feb. 2, 1877.
I have received your letter of January 29th, and am
sincerely glad to know that my suggestions concerning the
inaugural have had your approval. Now as to the points
you mention. I have thought of the same things and
considered them carefully. The reasons why I did not
introduce them in my suggestions are the following :
i. That the Southern people need good systems of
public instruction is certainly true. One of the reasons
why they do not have them, is, unfortunately, that the
pervailing sentiment there is not vigorously in favor of
them. There is the trouble. Their politicians may here
and there talk well on the subject, but they do not feel it.
If they did, they could have done much more for it. Were
it possible, in some way by legislation to force them to
introduce and maintain an efficient system of common
1877] Carl Schurz 385
schools in their States, we should thereby benefit them
much more than by any material aid we have to offer for
that purpose. But I fail to see how the object can be
reached either way. The matter of public instruction is
subject to the control of the States, and under the Con-
stitution as it is, the National Government cannot in-
terfere. The only material aid we can offer them for
educational purposes would be, as far as I can see, in the
shape of land donations. And if we offer them something
in that way — I doubt whether it could be much — the
question is what they would do with it. However, I am
heartily in favor of all that can be done in this respect with
a reasonable prospect of good effect. It would, in my opin-
ion, certainly be a good thing to mention in your inaugural
the necessity of efficient systems of public instruction in
the Southern States; to call the attention of the South-
ern people to it and to give them some wholesome advice.
But I doubt whether it would be good policy to make
promises, of which we do not know to what extent they
can be performed, and how far their performance would
really promote the object in view. I would hesitate to
advise it.
2. As to internal improvements, it is probable — nay
I consider it certain — that all sorts of schemes will be
hatched in the South and urged upon Congress, some more
or less useful, others gotten up merely for the purpose of
having the National Government spend as much money as
possible in the Southern States, and not a few with bad
jobs in them. This will be a natural tendency, while the
taxes and duties which flow into the National Treasury
come in overwhelming proportions out of Northern
pockets. Against this tendency the economy of the
National finances will be continually on the defensive ; and
while I feel very much as you do and should be glad to see
the revival of Southern prosperity promoted by all proper
VOL. III. — 25
386 The Writings of [1877
and just means, we have also under existing circumstances
every possible reason to take care that our public expendi-
tures be kept within bounds. I should therefore consider
it rather dangerous policy to encourage by general
promises the above mentioned tendency, which will
anyhow be stronger than may prove wholesome for the
balance sheets of the Treasury. Besides, an internal
improvement policy carried on in a broad sense, especially
by giving Government aid to corporations, has always
been an exceedingly dangerous thing for the morals of
Congress. We have had exhibitions of that effect cer-
tainly startling enough to make us very careful. Remem-
ber the Credit-Mobilier, the Elaine letters, etc. It looks
almost as if a railroad could not come within a hundred
miles of a legislative body without corrupting it. It will
be difficult for you, I should think, to say anything in your
inaugural in the sense you indicate, that will not be liable
to be construed as an endorsement of that policy, which in
the past has proved so injurious to our public morals, and
so dangerous to the Treasury, that the Republican party
has seen itself forced to abandon it in deference to public
opinion. Neither would it be well in my opinion if you
appeared as trying to gain the favor of the Southern people
by a bid of such a nature. It would seem to me best, not
to mention the matter at all. It is in no way essential to
your inaugural. If nothing is said about it nothing will
be missed. Whatever you may say on that matter, will
be apt to subject you to a kind of criticism which, as it
impresses me, should be avoided especially at the begin-
ning. Your good-will toward the Southern people can be
set forth strongly in many other ways.
3. An amendment to the Constitution such as you
speak of, has certainly much in its favor. The reason why
I did not make a suggestion concerning it was, that after
the experiences the country has gone through, that part
1877] Carl Schurz 387
of the Constitution which refers to the term and the
election of the President will probably be changed in
several respects, and that the amendment you mention
will then appear in connection with other cognate proposi-
tions. The introduction of the whole subject would, as I
thought, open a field of discussion perhaps too wide for
the limits to which you might desire to confine your
inaugural. I, therefore, submit to your judgment whether
you would not prefer, instead of singling out this one
particular amendment for presentation at this time, to
leave it over for your first annual message and then to
set it forth in all its bearings and proper connections.
On the whole, my impression is that your inaugural will
best satisfy your own taste as well as that of the public,
and also best serve its object, if it is a short, terse and
pointed document, setting forth in simple language your
political motives and aims in a general way, and that the
crowding in of too many subjects and unnecessary de-
tails would encumber and thereby rather weaken than
strengthen it. If it does not go much beyond two ordi-
nary newspaper columns, it will be read by everybody
as it ought to be.
FROM RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
COLUMBUS, O., Feb. 4, 1877.
I have your note of the ist [26]. It impresses me very
strongly. My anxiety to do something to promote the paci-
fication of the South is perhaps in danger of leading me too
far. I do not reflect on the use of the military power in the
least. But there is to be an end of all that, except in emergen-
cies which I do not think of as possible again. We must do
all we can to promote prosperity there. Education, emigra-
tion and immigration, improvements, occur to me. But the
more I think of it, the more I see in what you say. We
must go cautiously — slowly.
388 The Writings of [1877
The result of the great lawsuit will, perhaps, relieve me
from all responsibility. I am, fortunately, not anxious to
assume it. If it comes I want to be ready. You will see from
what I write you, that "the South" is more on my mind than
anything else. Perhaps, we must be content to leave that to
time — taking care not to obstruct time's healing processes by
injudicious meddling. I will think of it. Thanks.
FROM MURAT HALSTEAD
CINCINNATI, Feb. 16, 1877.
Confidential.
I do not know that there is any reason why when I have
anything on my mind about you that I should not write it
to you.
It is my impression that Hayes will rule out in his Cabinet
appointments all candidates for the Presidential nomination.
This of course excludes Bristow along with Morton and Blaine.
I know that Hayes feels that you should be recognized by
the Administration and satisfied, and I want him to appoint
you to the Cabinet. It is my guess that he will have Evarts
and Sherman in the Cabinet for the State and Treasury
Departments, and I want you to get the Interior, and as a
matter of fact I hope to work in my way to that end with
some effect.
I would like to feel that I am not crossing your wishes in
this — and I do not know how to get at it except by writing
to you in this way with the completest understanding that
you are not under the slightest obligation to reply.
Perhaps, however, I am on the wrong track — that in all
sincerity you would prefer not to go into the Cabinet, but
abroad to Austria — though I think not.
At any rate I am resolved to give Hayes a push on the
subject. I thought of the State Department at first — but
the premiership is only nominal and the Interior would give
the best field for work.
Now, I would not venture to write to you like this if I did
Carl Schurz 389
not feel that you know just why I do it — and that I have been
thoroughly candid.
TO RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
ST. Louis, Feb. 17, 1877.
I intended to reply immediately to your kind note of
the 4th inst., but the illness of my mother, who lived
with me and died on Tuesday last, rendered me almost
unable to think of anything else. This was the third time
that the hand of death knocked at my door within the
last twelve months, first calling away my father, then
my wife, and then my mother. These have been staggering
blows from which it was not the easiest thing to rally.
But however dreary and lonesome life may become, its
duties remain as imperative as ever and thus they afford
relief.
The feelings you express in your last letter with regard to
the South I appreciate all the more as I share them fully-
having long and to the best of my ability struggled against
that short-sighted partisan policy which threw away the
first great opportunities to put the Southern question in
the course of satisfactory solution. But I think you will
have a splendid chance to retrieve the mistakes made by
others. What is needed above all is the establishment of
good understanding, confidence and active cooperation
between the intelligence and virtue represented in the
Republican party at the North and the corresponding
elements of Southern society. Only thus can we break
the color line on the white side, secure a just respect for
the rights of the negro, and measurably deliver Southern
society of the control of its lawless tendencies and an
unreasoning party spirit. The importance of some
demonstration of the sincerity of your good-will toward
all classes of the Southern people is evident, and since this
39° The Writings of [1877
cannot, consistently with the public interest, be effected
by the offer of some specific material benefit, would it not
seem worthy of consideration whether the appointment
to a place in your Cabinet of some man of Confederate
antecedents and enjoying the confidence of that class,
would not secure to your Southern policies great facilities?
I see the difficulties of such a step at once, but the more I
think of it, the more I am also impressed with its advan-
tages. As a positive proof of the sincerity of the intentions
you mean to express in your inaugural, it would at once
give you the confidence of the best class of those people.
And if the right man can be found, he would be a living
link between them and your Administration. He might
be able to point out to you, better probably than anybody
else could, the exact things to be done in the South, and
also the persons to be employed for the furtherance of
your policy. To find a man of that class who has the right
kind of standing in the South, who possesses the necessary
capacity, and who may be depended upon as entirely
faithful and sincerely devoted to the other aims you have
in view, appears indeed difficult — perhaps so much so that
you may not be inclined to take so unusual a stroke of
policy into consideration. At any rate, I felt encouraged
by the tone of your last letter to submit my general
impressions about this matter to your judgment.
As I speak to you of everything that goes through my
mind concerning your prospective Administration, there
is another thing I must mention. Some time ago a rumor
was communicated to me by a friend in Chicago, "based
upon pretty good authority," as the letter states, that,
"if Governor Hayes becomes President, Don Cameron is
likely to be retained in the Cabinet as Secretary of War,
in deference to Pennsylvania ; that Bristow is not likely to
be Secretary of the Treasury, in deference to Grant;
that as a compromise between Bristow and his enemies,
1877] Carl Schurz 391
General Harlan of Kentucky is to be offered the Attorney-
Generalship, and that Governor Morgan of New York is
to have the Treasury. One of the reasons assigned for
paying deference to Grant is that if he had supposed at
any time before or since the election that Bristow was a
possibility in the new Administration, he would have
thrown the Presidency over to Tilden. " This rumor came
in the way of private correspondence from Cincinnati to
Chicago and is troubling the minds of some warm friends
of yours at both places. The first part I am not able to
look upon as a serious thing since you are undoubtedly as
well aware as I am that Don Cameron's only political
significance consists in being the son of his father; that
among the political sets in Pennsylvania the Cameron set
is one of the most unsavory, and that an official recog-
nition of it by the selection from all the old Cabinet offi-
cers of just this one to pass into the new arrangement
would at once seriously discredit the character of a reform
Administration.
This recalls to my mind a reminiscence of one of Mr.
Lincoln's great troubles. He had been made to believe
that, owing to some things that had happened in connec-
tion with his Administration, a duty of gratitude obliged
him to give Cabinet appointments to Mr. Caleb Smith of
Indiana and to Mr. Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania. He
did so and after some very mortifying experiences he
found himself obliged to get rid again of Cameron, the
best way he could. He once told me himself in speaking
of this and other similar things, that a President must
sometimes understand the duty to appear ungrateful and
the wisdom of rejecting smart combinations with uncon-
genial elements.
As to Mr. Bristow you will pardon me for saying another
word about him which is inspired not by any personal
feeling, but entirely by considerations of public interest.
392 The Writings of [1877
It might, perhaps, at first sight appear good policy to omit
from your Cabinet all those who were candidates for the
nomination at Cincinnati; so as not to slight one by
preferring another. Under ordinary circumstances there
would be much in favor of this idea. But it so happens in
this case that all the candidates, except one, are in the
Senate and may reasonably be presumed to prefer their
present places to any others that might be offered. Only
one is in private life; and if all the others, as Senators,
remain official persons in the Government, while only this
one is left without official position, might it not be said
that the latter received the slight?
This, however, would, as it seems to me, be either way
a matter of secondary importance, not large enough to
govern so weighty a business. Neither can I imagine that
you would permit General Grant's personal likes or dis-
likes, from which the country has certainly suffered enough,
to stand in the way of the public good, especially as
General Grant will entirely cease to be a political entity
on the 5th of March, and as his views and influence will
no longer be of the least possible moment. But just now
the country witnesses the very singular spectacle of a
general pardon to the whisky thieves and an equally
general removal from office of those who prosecuted them.
Bristow and those who acted under him have literally
been punished for the best service they rendered the
country. I shall certainly not argue that this would
entitle him to a place in your Cabinet. But he has become
in a certain sense the practical exponent of a reform at
present so essentially needed and his appointment would,
therefore, in higher degree than that of any man mentioned
in connection with the Treasury secure to your Adminis-
tration that kind of popular confidence which will be most
useful to you. He possesses also in a great measure the
qualifications demanded by the problems before us, and
1877] Carl Schurz 393
his appointment will furnish you a most faithful and
serviceable instrument for the execution of your good
purposes. This object is, after all, the main thing to be
kept in view, and it cannot, as it seems to me, be reached
by appointing one of Bristow's personal friends to some
other place, for the question is not how Bristow can be
personally satisfied, which is an unimportant matter
compared with the other question, how the success of
your Administration can be best secured and the public
interest best served.
You might, indeed, attain the same end if you could
put a man into the Treasury, who has the cause of honest
government and reform just as sincerely and strongly at
heart, who represents the same principles of official con-
duct, enjoys the same popular confidence and possesses
the same qualifications as Bristow. Then nothing would
be lost. But is it an easy thing to find an adequate
substitute? I take the liberty of guessing that you do not
seriously think of Governor Morgan, who, however honest
and deserving, is now an old man with a remnant of vigor
too small for the arduous duties of the Treasury Depart-
ment, the management of which requires a high degree of
working capacity. I have seen several other names
mentioned in the papers as being "on the slate," and of
course I do not know what your intentions may be. But
with real anxiety I beg you to consider that, as your re-
form program is to be carried out, the most important and
difficult task will fall upon the Treasury and Post-Office
Departments with their immense machinery and responsi-
bilities; that just there you will want to have men whose
hearts are faithfully in that cause ; who truly believe in it ;
upon whom you can absolutely depend that they have the
necessary spirit and perseverance to effect that deliver-
ance of the civil service from Congressional control which
you so justly regard as the essential point of reform; and
394 The Writings of [1877
that no consideration will induce them to dally with men
or practices of doubtful honesty. If, on the other hand,
those Departments are under the management of Secre-
taries who only acquiesce in the reform policy because you
favor it, but, being themselves half-hearted in it, carry it
on only as far as they are watched or as may be necessary
to save appearances, men whose political views and habits
would rather incline them to continue in the old beaten
track, or who have not the necessary power of resistance
against the pressure of politicians, or are naturally dis-
posed to yield and temporize and study the art "how not
to do it, " — if, in other words, the struggle for that reform
is not only to be carried on by the Administration against
the opposition outside, but inside of the Administration
against half-heartedness or doubtful purpose — then em-
barrassments and failures would be likely to ensue which it
is not necessary to describe. If you think it best not to
appoint Bristow but can find a man of the necessary
capacity answering to the first description, nothing will
be lost. But the men I have seen mentioned, let me con-
fess, answer more to the second than to the first. The
Treasury Department has become particularly conspicu-
ous in connection with the question of reform, and any
appointment to that Secretaryship which appears as a
"backing down" from what might be called the Bristow
standard would, as I think, not only produce a bad effect
upon public opinion just at the start when, after all that
has happened, favor of public opinion is of particular
importance to you, but may bring on further perplexities
of a grave nature. I am frank to say that it appears to
me difficult to find a fit substitute for Bristow to fill his
place in public estimation as well as for the work to be
done for the realization of your objects. I have considered
it my duty as your friend to submit these views to you on a
point which impresses me as one of great moment.
i877l Carl Schurz 395
Do not understand me as desiring to say anything to
the prejudice of General Harlan. I know him enough to
like him personally and to esteem him highly. I should
think he would make a creditable Secretary of War or of
the Interior. You probably know better than I do whether
in a professional point of view he would come up to the
standard which with regard to the Attorney-Generalship
should be adhered to. That place has within the last
eight years suffered some degradation, and it would, as I
venture to suggest, be well to fill the position of the first
law officer of the Government once more with the first
order of legal ability, so as to lift it up again to its true
level of dignity and usefulness. His recognized standing
as a jurist should give to the opinions of the Attorney-
General the weight of high authority. This office may
become of particular importance in your Administration,
since, as I learn from good sources, Tilden has become a
sort of monomaniac on the Presidency and seriously
thinks of resorting to quo warranto proceedings after the
verdict of the Electoral Commission has gone against him.
Considering all this, it might appear advisable to have
somebody in the Attorney-General's office coming as near
as possible to Mr. Evarts in standing and ability, and
perhaps Mr. Evarts himself might render there more
useful and important service even than in the State
Department.
The more I consider the circumstances surrounding you
and the task before you, the necessity of getting at once a
strong hold upon the confidence of the best elements of the
people, and the adverse influences you will have to encoun-
ter, the more desirable does it seem to me that your
Cabinet should contain the greatest possible amount of
positive strength of character, reputation, ability and
purpose, in the direction of those aims the attainment of
which will be the real success and merit of your Adminis-
396 The Writings of [1877
tration. The Republican party is to-day in the minority.
It has lost the House of Representatives, and in two years
it may not only fail to regain the House but also lose its
slight majority in the Senate unless much of the ground
now lost be meanwhile recovered. Your Administration,
with both Houses of Congress against it, would be in a
very precarious situation. The Administration party
must therefore recruit its strength somewhere. In what
quarter should that be ? If with the ' ' machine politicians, ' '
the loss would be far greater than the gain, just as it was
before. That tendency was the cause of the decline of the
Republican party. You can gain very largely in the South,
but you will be strong in the South only if you are strong
in the North. Strength in the North will be a condition
of Southern support. But new strength here can and will
most certainly be found, if you boldly appeal, by word and
act, to the noblest and most patriotic aspirations of the
American people; and in this respect your inaugural will
be the last act of promise, the appointment of your Cab-
inet the first act of performance. The good effect of the
former will be seriously damaged if the latter falls short
of it. If both agree you will easily win back those elements
which, by despair of the Republican party and hope of
reform on the other side, were led over to Tilden. Indeed,
you must win them back, or your Administration may be
helplessly at the mercy of the opposition in both houses of
Congress two years hence, which means failure. As things
now stand, it is my sober conviction that nothing would be
more dangerous to your success than a policy of uncertain,
hesitating appearance, and that, on the other hand, the
most courageous and straightforward policy of reform
will be for you the safest. The Republican party in Con-
gress will be obliged to follow you — at any rate, it will not
be able to resist you ; for it cannot afford to give the Demo-
crats a chance to appear as the principal supporters of your
1877] Carl Schurz 397
reform measures and appointments. Thus with all the
difficulties of your position you may be congratulated on
your great opportunities to make your Administration
one of the most beneficent in the history of the Republic.
Probably I have done something entirely superfluous
in writing you all this. At any rate, I feel that, whether
you agree with me or not, I have taken a great liberty in
speaking so freely. But in view of the great results that
may be won or lost, I should have blamed myself for
having left a duty unperformed, had I not done so, even at
the risk of appearing intrusive. I am conscious of no more
ardent wish than that your Administration should reflect
the greatest possible honor upon yourself and do the
greatest possible good to the country, and if this expres-
sion of my views seems impertinent, let me hope that the
sincerity of that desire will be accepted as my excuse.
TO MURAT HALSTEAD
ST. Louis, Feb. 19, 1877.
My dear Halstead : Sincere thanks for your kind letter.
I shall respond to its candor and friendly spirit by giving
you my true inwardness.
I have reasons to believe that Governor Hayes desires
to "satisfy" me, as you say. He can do that in no better
way than by carrying out faithfully and vigorously the
policy indicated in his letter of acceptance. No man has
staked his whole public credit more unreservedly upon the
sincerity of Governor Hayes's promises than I have. If
he redeems them, that will satisfy me completely.
Office for its own sake is of no value to me at all. I can
afford to remain in private life, and in many respects it
would be best for me. I, therefore, do not ask for any-
thing. If Governor Hayes thinks that I can render
essential service in aiding him in carrying out his pledges
398 The Writings of [1877
and calls me into his Cabinet for that purpose, then I
shall consider it my duty to accept and aid him to the best
of my ability. I do not think of taking office under any
other circumstances.
If my preferences were consulted as to any particular
Department I should say that there are two things I have
studied and know something about — international rela-
tions and finances. The State Department has another
special value, as the Secretary of State is ex-qfficio more
than any other Secretary the confidential Minister of the
President and the representative of his policy. But that
place goes very properly to Evarts, whom I have myself
recommended, and I hope he will get it, unless it be
thought advisable to make him Attorney-General, for
which there may be strong reasons.
As to the Treasury, I have even yesterday urged Bristow
in a letter to Hayes in the strongest possible manner. All
the reasons given for not taking him are small compared
with the great good his appointment would accomplish.
It would at once give the new Administration the confi-
dence of the country as nothing else could. Hayes is a
man who listens to candid advice, and I would entreat
you to use all the influence you can still to put Bristow
through. It seems to me of very great importance, and
the point may still be carried. But if adverse considera-
tions should prevail then I think every possible effort
should be made to have at least a man appointed to that
place who believes in reform and will have courage enough
to fight for it. The name you mention in your letter in
connection with that Department almost frightens me.
Can Governor Hayes expect that man to stand by his
reform policy against the pressure of politicians? Would
not the Treasury, practically the most important Depart-
ment of the Government, thereby be surrendered to the
old partisan influences? I fear such an appointment would
is??! Carl Schurz 399
damage the new Administration very seriously in the eyes
of the best part of the people, and, heaven knows, the
Administration will stand greatly in need of the support
of public opinion. I think it would be well for you to go
to Columbus and personally urge the appointment of
Bristow with all possible earnestness, or, if you find that
Bristow cannot be carried, to warn Hayes against the
appointment of any man who would have to change
his nature in order to become a true reformer. If the
Treasury be not given to Bristow, or at least to a man
who enjoys and deserves the same popular confidence
that Bristow has, the effect will be very bad. This is
a point of such immense importance that you should
not mind a trip to Columbus to carry it. I still hope
for Bristow.
The Interior would not be [a] very interesting Depart-
ment to me, as I have never given much attention to the
Indians, patents, pensions and public lands. But it does
offer some opportunities for useful work, and a seat in the
Cabinet council.
On the whole, if Governor Hayes forms a good strong
reform Cabinet without me, I shall be completely and
sincerely satisfied. If he wants me to aid him where I can
be really useful, well and good. I do not ask for anything
and shall in no case be personally disappointed.
TO RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
ST. Louis, Feb. 20, 1877.
The enclosed letter has just been communicated to me.
Its contents explain why I submit it to you. Mr. Coste,
to whom the letter is addressed, is the financial manager
of the Life Association here and a friend of mine. General
Hood is the manager of the Louisiana Department of
400 The Writings of [1877
that Company. He is the same General Hood who
commanded a Confederate army in the last Tennessee
campaign in 1864. I met him twice or three times after
the war; he was a brave soldier, and is now, as I believe,
a well disposed citizen. I do not think he has ever taken
any active part in politics. Whether he is at all a partisan
in sentiment I cannot tell. Beyond the statement con-
tained in his letter and what we see in the newspapers I
have no information about the present condition of things
in Louisiana. The demand for the withdrawal of the
Federal troops seems to indicate a purpose to blow the
Packard government away by a popular rising, as they
did with the Kellogg government in 1874. The latest
Washington despatches state that General Grant does not
intend to take any decisive step with regard to the two
rival governments in Louisiana, but to refer the matter
to Congress. It is difficult to see what Congress may be
able to do within the few remaining days of this session,
especially considering the present excitement of party feel-
ing. It is very probable that General Grant means to
leave that case to your Administration for settlement
and meanwhile to do nothing, unless the Democrats in
Louisiana precipitate a conflict before the 4th of March,
which might complicate matters still more.
It occurs to me that you might, perhaps, through some
confidential friend, admonish the Democratic leaders in
Louisiana to keep the peace, with a view to arrange
matters after your accession to power, possibly somewhat
after the manner of the Wheeler compromise of 1875,
although in this case not through Congressional action,
as Congress will not be in session after the 4th of March,
but through the moral influence of the Administration.
It is very delicate business, however, especially as it
may become of great importance with regard to your
Southern policy. I think I see a way out, but it will be
1877] Carl Schurz 401
open only when you have a good hold on the confidence
of the Southern people.
TO JACOB D. COX
ST. Louis, Feb. 20, 1877.
Confidential.
I should have answered your last very kind letter long
before this, had I not been kept at the bedside of my old
mother who last week died at my house after an illness of
a fortnight. The last twelve months have been full of
mourning to me and mine.
I must confess that I feel somewhat alarmed by certain
indications of probable Cabinet appointments. Read
the enclosed slip. x Would not the appointment of either
of the three men last mentioned be a staggering blow
to the cause of reform? Would Governor Hayes, who
means to adopt a liberal Southern policy, be able to gain
the confidence of those Southern men who are now willing
to join him, with such elements in his Cabinet? There
seems to be real danger in this respect, and I wish to
suggest to you that you make a direct effort, as I have
done, to prevent a false start, which may at once deprive
the new Administration of that popular confidence so
needful to it after all that has happened. Governor
Hayes certainly means well, but I fear the possibility of
'GOSSIP AS TO THE NEW CABINET
There continues to be the usual amount of gossip over the new Cabinet.
The New Yorkers all agree that Mr. Evarts will be Secretary of State,
but beyond that it is evident that there is nothing that can be relied
upon except it be the fact that all the Ohio Republicans announce that
Bristow will not have a place. The Pacific coast influence is talking in
Mr. McCormick, of Arizona, and Senator Sargent, of California. If
Mr. Morrill goes out of the Treasury there is little or no doubt that Senator
Sherman will be tendered the position. Senator Logan is also mentioned
for the War Department.
VOL. Ill — 26
402 The Writings of [1877
fatal mistakes. No effort should be left untried to
prevent them.
FROM MURAT HALSTEAD
CINCINNATI, Feb. 20, 1877.
Confidential.
Of course I am aware that what I write is confidential, but
I wish this to be so in a special sense — that is a particularly
strict sense.
You suggest that I go to Columbus to meet Hayes and talk
Bristow. I saw him here and talked Schurz.
I do not think Hayes proposes to retain any official Cabinet
or to appoint any Presidential candidate. That excludes
Bristow. Also Morton, Conkling and Elaine! It means in
my judgment Harlan of Kentucky as Attorney-General.
Sherman for the Treasury regarded certain. It does not seem
worth while to combat the inevitable.
I will say to you, though I had not thought of doing so, that
I was very urgent with Hayes to appoint you, and ascertained
that he had an opinion that there was no premiership in the
Secretaryship of State, and he thought there was more room
for civil service reform work in the Interior than in the War
Department. I cannot go through the talk I had with Hayes.
It was long and pretty thorough. x
I am uneasy about the result, but hopeful. Now if it is
Hayes, his will not be an ideal Administration.
Is there some danger that if you went into the Cabinet you
would be a disturbing element? How would you get along
with Sherman, if Evarts, Hawley and Harlan were in?
The Governor's remarks in reply to my urgency would be
agreeable reading — but I do not feel at liberty to write them.
'On Feb. 24th Halstead wrote: "I have also — and this is very far
inside — managed to have Joe Medill's opinion of the overwhelming im-
portance of Schurz in the Cabinet, [put] before Hayes. Medill thinks
you should be Secretary of State and has said so magnificently. But
Hayes has a funny idea that there is no work and no chance for reform
in the Secretary of State's Department, unless the whole cussed thing is
abolished."
'8771 Carl Schurz 403
He invited the conference with me and it was three hours long.
The fact is not known among politicians at all. I have not
written of it before to anybody; and I am anxious it should
not get out.
By the way, that which I pressed upon Hayes in behalf of
Bristow was the Davis vacancy on the Supreme Bench.
One thing more I will say. I said to Hayes: "Governor, I
have not concealed from you where my heart is in this matter,
and now I want to say to you, it is for Schurz. " And now I
will not conceal from you that I have misgivings. Blessed
are they who expect nothing, for they shall not be disappointed.
FROM RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, STATE OF OHIO.
COLUMBUS, Feb. 25, 1877.
I am just about to start for Fremont to stay over Sunday.
I write hastily to return the enclosed letters and to say a few
words. I do not, or have not desired to be committed on
Cabinet appointments until the issue was reached. But it is
perhaps proper to say that, if elected, it has for a long time
been my wish to invite you to take a place in the Cabinet. I
think it would be fortunate for the country, and especially so
for myself, if you are one of the members of the Cabinet.
I am not likely to change that opinion. The Interior Depart-
ment is my preference for you. The Post-Office would come
next. For State I hope to have Mr. Evarts, but have not
consulted him. Mr. Sherman will probably take the Treasury.
If nothing occurs to change my plans I expect to go to W[ash-
ington] about Thursday next. All this is on the supposition
that we are successful, and is to be strictly confidential.
TO RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
ST. Louis, Feb. 26, 1877.
Yesterday I received your kind letter of the 24th [25th]
inst. I shall not try to conceal from you that the terms
in which you invite me to become a member of your
404 The Writings of [1877
Cabinet are exceedingly gratifying to my feelings. Even
if the expressions of friendly sentiment in your letter were
not accompanied by an offer of high official honor and of
an opportunity to render some service to the country,
I should most highly prize them as a mark of the confidence
of a man whom I esteem so sincerely and whose personal
friendship I shall ever cherish and be proud of. That
confidence and friendship it will always be my endeavor
to deserve, and thus to show my gratitude by something
better than mere words.1
Of the two Departments you mention, there is one,
the Interior, the business of which I should, with diligent
application, hope satisfactorily to master. As to the
administration of the Post-Office, it requires so much of
capacity for business management in detail and in great
variety, and so high a degree of practical business training
and habit of a peculiar kind which has so far to a great
extent been foreign to my mind, that I should fear to
undertake it, while I certainly recognize the very great
importance of that Department with regard to the eleva-
tion of the civil service to a higher level of character and
efficiency.
I intend to go to New York for a day or two and might
arrange my trip so as to be on the same train with you as
far as Harrisburg, when you go to Washington. In case
such a meeting would please you, would you be kind
enough to let me know by telegraph the time when you
will leave Columbus? Your letter speaks of Thursday,
but something may intervene. I shall have to start the
evening before, and therefore would have to be advised
early enough in order to get ready.
1 The deep sincerity of this voluntary pledge was well demonstrated by
Schurz's literary services to Hayes at all times. To almost the end of
his life Schurz complied with requests for articles about Hayes, if they
offered any considerable opportunity to describe Hayes's qualities.
1877] Carl Schurz 405
This morning I was called upon by a Mr. Bailey from
Michigan, introduced to me by Mr. Ferry, a brother of the
President of the Senate. He told me of a scheme gotten
up by Chandler to have Senator Christiancy appointed to
the Supreme Bench in Davis's place, so as to reopen his,
Chandler's, way back to the Senate. Mr. Bailey repre-
sented that such a thing would cause a great row among
the Republicans in Michigan, and wanted to solicit my
influence with you against it. I told him that it was too
early to promise any influence for or against anything,
and that I thought you would not be in a hurry to dispose
of such matters, that you would undoubtedly give them
all the consideration they deserved, and then decide such
cases upon high principles. He desired very much to talk
to you about it, and as I thought you would probably
desire to know that side of the story in season, I gave him
a note of introduction. I had heard of Mr. Bailey before
as a good man.
Assuring you once more of my gratitude for the friendly
sentiments expressed in your letter, I remain
Sincerely yours.
FROM RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
COLUMBUS, O., Feb. 27, 1877.
I am very glad to get your note of yesterday. Your choice
of Department is also my choice for you.
I should be delighted to have you go with us to Washington]
if we are declared elected before we start. But I do not want
my selection of Cabinet advisers known until that result is
announced. I will despatch you as to train. In case of a
favorable decision Wednesday, we start about noon Thursday.
If no favorable decision is reached Wednesday, we do not start
until in the night of Thursday. My idea is to leave undecided,
or rather uncommitted, some places until I reach W. — •
406 The Writings of [1877
say War, Navy and P. M. -General. I write in the midst of
interruptions — provokingly so.
TO RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
ST. Louis, Mar. i, 1877.
Not hearing from you yesterday I was in doubt whether
you desired to meet me on the train in going to Washington
— it occurred to me that you might have good reasons for
thinking it inexpedient — so I postponed my departure
for New York until to-day. I expect to arrive there
Saturday morning and may stay there two or three days,
although my business will keep me only a few hours.
But if I can be of any use to you at Washington now, or
you desire for any reason that I should be there, I can
without the least inconvenience go at a moment's notice.
A letter or telegram would reach me at no West 34th
Street, care of Dr. Jacobi.
Yesterday I received a letter from a prominent man who
does not wish his name mentioned, in which the following
passage occurs : I should like to write to Governor Hayes
but do not want to appear officious. You are probably in
correspondence with him, and I think you would do him
a service by communicating to him what I am going to
say to you now. I see from the Cincinnati Commercial,
which probably speaks advisedly, that Governor Hayes
is going to exclude from his Cabinet all candidates for the
Presidency. I think this is wise. I was, as you know, a
Bristow man at the Cincinnati Convention, and it would
have pleased me to see Bristow restored to his place in the
Treasury Department. But if Governor Hayes acts on
the principle that none of the Presidential candidates shall
go into his Cabinet, Bristow has to stay out with the rest.
That, I think, is proper. But I understand some of the
1877] Carl Schurz 407
Presidential aspirants are going to try to foist on the
incoming President their next friends, their confidential
agents and tools for Cabinet places, especially for the
Treasury, the Post-Office, the Interior and the Navy,
which have a large patronage, to run those Departments
in their respective interests. In that regard Governor
Hayes should be cautioned by his friends and you ought
to write or talk to him about it. He might just as well
appoint the Presidential candidates themselves as their
wirepullers. All of which is respectfully submitted.
On the whole there appears to be some wisdom in the
above. I suppose you are overrun with the most urgent
recommendations, and some attempts of the kind de-
scribed by my correspondent may have been made. It
will probably be impossible to satisfy all the great party
leaders consistently with your principles and aims. In
that case would it not be the most prudent policy to give
neither of them an advantage, but to fill all the places
according to your own views of the public good? If the
confidential friend of one is appointed, and the friend of
another one is not, the latter will have a grievance. If
the confidential friends of all of them are left out, each
one will at least have the compensating satisfaction to
know that none of the others is preferred. In that way
you may come nearest pleasing them all, and strengthen
your Administration for all good purposes at the same
time.
From your last letter I infer that you have made no
selection yet for the Post-Office. That place, on account
of its large patronage and its consequent importance for
an aspiring politician to have it run in his interests may
be the object of a struggle around you. Would it not, in
that case, be well to think once more of Governor Jewell,
who was probably the best Postmaster-General the
country has had for a generation, and who has already
408 The Writings of [1877
proved his ability and desire to conduct the Department
on the strictest business principles and in the interests of
no person? Or, if you do not see fit to appoint him, could
not a man of the same ability and principles be found?
I see by the papers that you are to take the oath of
office at the White House on Sunday. Is that to preclude
a public ceremony at which your inaugural is to be
delivered? I hope the country will not lose the latter.
P.S. This moment I receive your letter of the 27th.
I guessed right and am glad I did not start yesterday. I
may hope, then, if you desire me in Washington, to have
a despatch in New York.
FROM SAMUEL BOWLES
SPRINGFIELD, MASS., Mar. 6, 1877.
My dear Schurz : I am just tickled clear through that you
have gone to the head at last. I was terribly afraid it would not
be, and have been exhorting in public and private this last
month.
The Louisiana steal is a dreadful one, but if the Republican
party can follow President Jackson's example and get religion,
they may yet cheat the devil ! — Yours very cordially.
FROM FREDERICK BILLINGS
NEW YORK, BREVOORT HOUSE.
Mar. 7, 1877.
I can hardly believe my eyes! The reform-element square
at the front and you in the Cabinet! What a Reformation!
I cannot help congratulating you — and, much more, congratu-
lating the country. Now, for a resolute Forward! — in the
spirit of the inaugural — and in harmony with the Cabinet,
and the better days of the Republic are close at hand.
1877] Carl Schurz 409
FROM BENJAMIN H. BRISTOW
LOUISVILLE, Mar. 8, 1877.
I hope I do not need to assure you that your appointment
is peculiarly gratifying to me.
I beg to tender my hearty salutation to you personally, and
to express the great joy I feel in common with the friends of
good government and genuine reform. Your acceptance of
the high public trust is an event in our political history of much
more than ordinary significance.
Of course you know as well as I that the battle for reform
is not to be won by manifestoes. Politicians who have long
lived by the use of official patronage will not surrender it
without fierce and desperate resistance. But the intelligent
and patriotic people of the country are in sympathy with the
President's declared purpose. There is nothing that wins
the popular heart so quickly as high courage, and the fiercer
the conflict the more will the people rally to the President's
support. It is idle to look out for middle ground. The Ad-
ministration must either conquer the machine politicians or
surrender to them. Your appointment will be accepted as
an earnest of the President's settled purpose to stand firmly
by his promises.
TO CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, JR.
WASHINGTON, Mar. 19, 1877.
I should have answered your kind letter of the loth
long ago, had I not been overwhelmed with work; and
now I can merely thank you for it.
I hope we shall be able to carry out to the fullest extent
the principles of the Fifth Avenue conference. At least
we shall try. I think you may depend upon the Executive
branch of the Government.
Whenever you have any suggestions to make, I shall
be very glad to receive them — at all times. I wish you
410 The Writings of [1877
could come to spend a few days here. All our friends ought
now to be together again.
TO W. M. GROSVENOR
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON, Mar. 29, 1877.
I am not such a dunce as to put out advertising to
the lowest bidder, but I have regulated the advertising
business in my Department on business principles in such
a way that what cost over $40,000 two years ago and over
$25,000 last year, will cost something less than $3000 this
year. I should think this pretty good for a beginner.
Hayes makes haste slowly but surely. You will soon
wake up and see things done. Hayes is a general like old
Thomas; wants to have his wagons together when he
marches, but loses no battles. You need not be anxious.
Now, I do want your suggestions, and I want them
sincerely, and as many of them as possible. Only you
must not find fault with me if I do not answer very
promptly and at length. This Interior Department is no
joke.
FROM BENJAMIN H. BRISTOW
LOUISVILLE, KY., April 14, 1877.
Personal.
I thank you sincerely for your land invitation to communi-
cate freely with you. It has not been, and is not now, my
purpose to vex the ears of members of the Administration with
recitals of the cruel and grievous wrongs that have been done
me ; keenly as they are felt by my family and myself, I do not
feel at liberty to ask others to share our feelings. It is a long,
long story which could not be told within reasonable limits.
The substance and essence of it all is this. I committed the
1877] Carl Schurz 411
political blunder of attempting to introduce and carry on
reformatory measures in an Administration which was under
influences altogether adverse to all reform, and for this cause
incurred the displeasure of the men whose friends were touched,
and the sincere hostility of the Executive head of the Nation
who was made to believe by cunning and unscrupulous men
that I was moved by selfish and unworthy motives. The
result was that the brave and true officers who stood by me
in my humble efforts at reform and honest Administration
were driven from office along with me in disgrace, while every
dishonest official whether convicted in public judgment or
condemned to imprisonment by judicial sentence received
Executive pardon and — with a solitary exception — continued
to bask in the sunshine of Presidential favor. Not only this —
but after I was out of office I was pursued with bitterness and
mendacity, and even the money appropriated by Congress for
the "detection and punishment of frauds on the Government"
was used to persecute me and my friends ; and officers very well
knowfn] to be at least in suspicious intimacy with the thieves
whose crimes I had exposed were promoted to higher positions
and charged with the duty of destroying my character. It
seems incredible that these things should have been done, and
yet I have measured my words carefully and have not stated
them as strongly as I might. In looking back over the past
twelve months the only thing I have to regret is that I did not
yield to my own impulse to enter upon vigorous public defence
of myself. I was persuaded by friends that it was better to
maintain dignified silence under such attacks and let time
bring my vindication. But I am now strongly of opinion
that they were mistaken, and that it is better for one who is
attacked on account of his public acts to make his own de-
fense, regardless of effect on party politics. However, the
opportunity to do so in my case is now in the past and it is
idle to grieve over it.
What now gives me greatest concern is my desire to see
justice done to the brave and true men who lost their official
heads in battling for reform. I have not written to the Presi-
dent or any member of his Cabinet on this subject for the
412 The Writings of [1877
reason that the men to whom I refer are well known in the
Departments and to the country, and nothing that I might
say could make their wrongs more manifest; and besides I
prefer that each case shall be considered on its merits, if
[at] all.
But I did not sit down to write you on this subject and have
said much more than I intended to write any member of the
Administration.
Of course I need not say to you that I have been greatly
gratified by the President's inaugural address and his course
on the Southern question. It was perfectly clear to me ten
years ago that the unsteady and uncertain policy of the then
President would lead to disastrous failure, in the business of
reconstruction. A change of policy was demanded by the
highest considerations of patriotism and the material interest
of both sections ; and I think the President has taken the only
road that was open to him. We cannot afford to perpetuate
the rule of any set of men — good or bad — by continued use of
the bayonet. Personally I have had strong sympathy with
Chamberlain whom I have regarded as able and honest, but
of course it would not do to let one man, however good and
true, stand in the way of sound Constitutional views, or of
"permanent pacification" of the South.
It seems to me that the true question now before the Presi-
dent is not whether Packard or Nicholls received a majority
of votes, but whether he shall continue to use the Army as a
permanent factor in the Administration of the State govern-
ment. My only doubt about the President's course is as to the
policy of sending a commission to Louisiana, or postponing at
all his manifest purpose to withdraw the troops. But I am on
the outside and only judge from external appearances ; there
may be reasons for sending a commission to Louisiana which
are not known to me. It is due to perfect candor to say that I
do not feel so hopeful of success in building up the Republican
party in the South as some of our friends ; nevertheless I hope
the President will move straight forward in the policy already
indicated, first because it is right, and second because it will
have [a] beneficial effect on the whole county [country], and
1877] Carl Schurz 413
third, because it will strengthen the party [in the] North. I
do not fail to perceive the disposition of certain would-be
leaders in the North with a few insignificant and worthless
carpet-baggers from the South to raise the standard of revolt;
but steady and quiet courage in carrying out the Southern
policy will restrain, if it does not entirely suppress, their efforts.
When the thing is done there will be nothing to fight about —
so long as it is open they will mistake every cautious delay for
infirmity of purpose and gather some strength which other-
wise they would not have. Nothing wins the approval of our
people as quickly as genuine pluck in doing promptly what one
believes to be right.
But I fear this first infliction may cause you to regret your
invitation to me to write you freely, and now that I have
written so long a letter, have half a mind to destroy it — but
since it is written perhaps it is just as well to leave the work
of destruction to you.
TO THOMAS WENTWORTH HIGGINSON
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, June 16, 1877.
. . . There is no truth in the stories told about my
dismissing women clerks on account of their sex. I had
to dismiss some of them because there was no work for
them in the line of duty in which they were employed.
That could not be avoided. Efficient women clerks are as
safe in this Department as elsewhere as long as there is
work for them and the appropriations hold out.
FROM SAMUEL BOWLES
SPRINGFIELD, MASS., July 3, 1877.
You may like to read what I say of Father Adams's last.
It looks as if there was to be a sharp cleavage. The politi-
cians on both sides are uniting to break down Hayes. Will he
414 The Writings of [1877
reach out for the people on both sides ; will the people on both
sides reach out to sustain him? That is the point.
I am so vexed with you, and myself too, that Cabot Lodge
is n't your assistant secretary ! I thought of him when you
were looking for one, but thought he would n't accept, and so
did n't speak of it, and now I find he would have been glad to.
Nobody could have been better for you. We need to import
into the Departments, just such men — fellows who have the
working temperament, as he has, who have high patriotic
purposes, and while independent of their salaries, will abun-
dantly earn them. With such a man at your right hand, you
would have simply doubled yourself, while you could have had
the benefit of all the other kind of material in the next places
below.
I hope you keep in good heart and hope. The theory of
civil service reform at Washington is beautiful, but the practice
is often pretty bad. But the comfort is that it seems to me
you have gone so far that you cannot go back — that you must
go through and find still waters beyond.
I am pretty feeble of body, this summer, but tolerably brave
of soul, and am always, Heartily yours.
TO SAMUEL BOWLES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, July 4, 1877.
My dear Bowles: There is your letter of June I3th
still unanswered. . . .
Now, let not my failure to answer your letter at once
deter you from writing to me whenever the spirit moves
you. Let me have all there is in you in the way of
admonition, criticism or even scolding. I have good use
for it. Cordially yours.
July 5th. I have just received your last with slips.
Thanks.
1877] Carl Schurz 415
TO CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, JR.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, July 4, 1877.
I regret as much as you do, that we did not meet at
Boston. I should have been glad indeed to discuss with
you the points mentioned in your letter more exhaustively
than it can be done in the way of hurried correspondence.
On the whole, however, the question which every good
citizen has to decide for himself under existing circum-
stances seems to me very simple. Whatever opinions you
may entertain as to what ought to have been, there can
be no doubt as to what is. The electoral question has been
decided upon a plan agreed upon by both parties and in a
legal way. The decision, whatever you may think of its
merits, is virtually beyond the reach of review. In point
of legal form the Government is as legitimate as any of its
predecessors, just as the rights of an individual are when
they have been affirmed by a decision of the Supreme
Court. This fact is accepted by the people without
distinction of party with very few exceptions.
There is, therefore, only one question remaining. If a
Government of such standing undertakes to accomplish
things which you recognize as good, will it be best to
support and aid it in such endeavors, or to weaken it by
a continued impeachment of its title? Is not the former
course the best, especially when you admit that, if the
measures of the Government succeed, the principal
agencies of mischief will be done away with? Would it
be better to confine yourself to an opposition of which evi-
dently no good can come? — Especially when by carrying
on such an opposition you aid the most dangerous ele-
ments in the body-politic? Even if you were to look at
it as a mere choice of evils, can that choice be doubtful ?
Indeed, we want your aid in the pursuit of our purposes,
as well as the aid of all men who act on the same principles
4i 6 The Writings of [1877
in political life in the way of criticism, suggestion, advice
and impulse — and I hope we shall have it.
TO BENJAMIN H. BRISTOW
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, July 19, 1877.
I regret to say that in any case there will be scarcely
any prospect of my accompanying the President on that
trip. * You know what a Department is and how difficult
it is to bring up arrears of work. Mine is an especially
lively shop. You will remember that I have the In-
dians on my hands — and so I have, while I am here, to
bid good-bye to many of the pleasures of thie world.
Cordially yours.
TO SAMUEL BOWLES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30, 1877.
Thanks for your letter and clippings. Yes, the air is
considerably cleared. Nobody he [here?] "scares" a bit,
and what is more, nobody loses his temper.
You have done splendidly in Massachusetts. You know
I have always had a weakness for that State of yours.
The animus of the N. Y. Tribune against me seems to
puzzle a good many. What the real trouble is, I do not
know. Perhaps there is some U. P. [Union Pacific] in it.
If so, we shall see more of it.
I have not taken my old house, because I could not get
it. Perhaps I would not if I could. But I hope to live
somewhere in the neighborhood.
1 A trip to Louisville, Ky., to open the Industrial Exposition, the subject
mentioned in the omitted paragraph.
1877] Carl Schurz 417
TO BENJAMIN H. BRISTOW
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, Oct. 29, 1877.
I suppose you know from your own experience how a
man in public position, with his hands full of work, will
sometimes put off his correspondence with a friend from
day to day, waiting for an hour of leisure and composure,
which will never come. This is what happened to me
with your last letter. The meeting of Congress inter-
vened, and you know how the visits of Congressmen and
the business they bring with them will cut up one's time.
So I have to throw myself upon your indulgence as a
friend hoping that you have never thought me capable
of anything like wilful neglect.
Soon after I had received your letter I found an oppor-
tunity to read it to the President — and I may say that
I found myself authorized to do that, not only by the
terms of your letter, but also by a conversation which
had taken place between the President and myself a few
days before, and in which the President expressed himself
to me in a manner relieving your letter entirely of the ap-
pearance of a declination of a thing which had not been
thought of. The President, after hearing your letter,
was very emphatic in his appreciation of the noble spirit
which had prompted it, and it gives me all the more satis-
faction to tell you this as some of our common friends
seem to have fallen into the error of crediting the utterly
groundless and absurd story that the President before or
after his inauguration had promised General Grant, di-
rectly or indirectly, not to do anything that would look
like a personal recognition of your merits. I know that
there is absolutely nothing in it, whoever may tell the
story. You remember what I told you at Louisville
about the feeling prevailing in these quarters with re-
gard to yourself. What I told you was true then and it
VOL. III. — 27
418 The Writings of [1878
is true now. If any errors have been committed, I can
only assure you, upon my own positive knowledge, that
they were entirely unintentional. There ought to be no
misunderstanding about these things between you and
the Administration, and I am sure there would be none
if a free and full exchange of sentiments and opinions
could be had. Some of our common friends seem to mis-
interpret this or that step taken by the President, and
those misinterpretations have undoubtedly come to you
just as they have come to me.
It is certainly unnecessary to assure you of the sincerity
of my friendship for you, and as your friend I would ask
you, whenever anything occurs that displeases you, or
anything is left undone that would please you, to give me
your views without the least reserve. I shall consider it
only as a return of my feelings for you.
FROM BENJAMIN H. BRISTOW
LOUISVILLE, KY., Feb. 6, 1878.
I sincerely hope there is no truth whatever in the renewed
story that you are going out. The country can't afford to have
you retire — the cause of civil service and administrative reform
can't give you up just now, and I take leave to add that for
your own sake, you can't afford to quit. I want to assure you,
my dear sir, that the good work you are doing and the quiet,
but effective manner in which you are doing it, is now coming
to be quite generally understood. I came away from Washing-
ton with very different impressions from those with which I
went there, as to at least one Department, and I feel like
begging your pardon for the injustice I did you in my own
mind. I did feel doubtful whether the cause of reform had a
single earnest and courageous friend in Washington. That
doubt no longer exists as to your Department. On this point
I am fully convinced — I wish I could feel the same way about
others.
Carl Schurz 419
But I only sat down to urge you to "stick" — and I feel all
the more free to give this advice since I well remember that I
only repeat what you once said to me.
TO BENJAMIN H. BRISTOW
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, Feb. 8, 1878.
Thanks for your very kind letter. I am trying to do my
duty as I understand it. No trouble about my ' ' sticking. ' '
I shall always be happy to hear from you.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, Mar. 16, 1878.
Your kind letter of February 27th has had to wait very
long for an answer. But you know yourself how it is
with us poor plow-horses, and I can therefore confidently
throw myself upon your indulgence.
I hope you were pleased with the President's veto
message. I do not think any further financial legislation
will succeed during this session of Congress; at any rate,
it seems almost certain that no further step in the direction
of inflation and repudiation can get a two-thirds vote in
both branches. There are many who voted for the silver
bill and now declare emphatically that they will coun-
tenance nothing beyond it. It is very probable that an
overwhelming majority of the Republicans in Congress
can be rallied upon such a program, and that something
like cooperation in financial matters can be established
between them and the Administration. Still, the mischief
done already is so great that I am by no means sanguine
as to the future.
Does it not appear to you that our friend Blaine "put
his foot into it"?
Let me hear from you often.
420
The Writings of
[1878
TO
(UNKNOWN)
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, June 12, 1878.
Dear Sir: I have received your letter submitting to
me the following questions connected with the circular
received by you from the Congressional campaign com-
mittee asking for contributions to the campaign fund;
whether you are obliged to pay such contributions;
whether you are permitted to do so; and whether your
doing so or not doing so will affect your official standing
and prospects in this Department.
1. You receive your salary as an employee of the
Government for certain services rendered in your official
capacity, not as a member of a political party. The salary
so earned belongs to you, and, unless taxed by law, it is
in no sense subject to any assessment for any object
whatever. In return for it, you are expected to perform
your official duties faithfully and efficiently, nothing
more. In this connection I have to call your attention
to the following statutory provision (19 Statute p. 169,
Sec. 6) :
That all executive officers as employees of the United States
not appointed by the President, with the advice and consent
of the Senate, are prohibited from requesting, giving to or
receiving from, any other officer or employee of the Govern-
ment, any money or property or other thing of value for
political purposes; and any such officer or employee, who
shall offend against the provisions of this section, shall be at
once discharged from the service of the United States ; and
he shall also be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on con-
viction thereof shall be fined in a sum not exceeding five
hundred dollars.
2. You are as free as any other citizen to spend your
spare money in any legitimate way you please, and as your
1878] Carl Schurz 421
political principles or your public spirit may suggest,
provided you do not violate the above quoted provision
of law either directly or indirectly.
3. Your contributing or not contributing as above
stated will not affect in any manner whatever your official
standing or prospects in this Department.
FROM JAMES FREEMAN CLARKE
JAMAICA PLAIN, MASS., July i, 1878.
I have not seen Miss Dodge's1 attack on me in the Tribune,
for I thought I could do better with my time than reading the
effusions of this distinguished scold. Indeed, I was rather
gratified in hearing that she had attacked me, as this confirmed
my hope that I was instrumental in defeating her kinsman, Mr.
Elaine, as candidate for the Presidential nomination. Most
persons now see that this would have been a great disgrace as
well as disaster to the Republican party. I am pleased, there-
fore, to learn that Miss Dodge associates me with yourself
and the other gentlemen against whom she bears a grudge on
this account. It is unpleasant, however, to see the Tribune
made the organ of this abuse. That paper, which in the hands
of Horace Greeley, was a bugle to awaken a sleeping land,
ought not to degenerate into a mop, to be used by this
termagant, to twirl dirty water against those who have tried
to introduce the reforms which the present time requires.
The mountain stream which ends in mud,
Must needs be melancholy —
says Lowell.
Mr. Blaine, in one respect at least, resembles Achilles.
Instead of attending to the duty he was sent to perform, he
sulks in his tent. I am not aware, however, that the Greek hero
kept a little female dog to snarl and show her teeth when
Agamemnon and Ulysses (Mr. Hayes and yourself) went by.
1 Gail Hamilton.
422 The Writings of [1878
FROM BENJAMIN H. BRISTOW
BREVOORT HOUSE, NEW YORK, Sept. 24, 1878.
I am glad to learn that you are going to speak at Cincinnati
on the currency question, for I am sure you will neither
"straddle" nor "dodge." I am entirely out of politics and
propose to devote my time and energies exclusively to the
practice of law ; but I can never be indifferent or neutral on a
matter affecting so directly the good faith of the Nation and
the individual and commercial honesty of the people.
The false teachings of a large number of party leaders and
the equivocal and cowardly conduct of others have borne the
fruit which is now being plucked by a set of dangerous dema-
gogues. If the paternity of legal-tender notes is an achieve-
ment to be proud of rather than a necessity to be deplored,
then the present greenback movement is certainly logical so
far as Republicans are concerned. The people sadly need
sound teachings and courageous leadership in this matter.
They have enough virtue and intelligence to follow in right
directions, though perhaps not enough of either to resist
mischievous teachings in which their accustomed leaders of
both parties strive to outvie each other.
But I would not presume to instruct you. I only sat down
to express my gratification at hearing that you are going to
speak and having done so I beg to add that the continued
success of your Administration of the Interior Department has
given me sincere pleasure.
THE CURRENCY QUESTION1
FELLOW-CITIZENS : — This is the second time that I have
been honored by the citizens of Cincinnati with an invita-
1 Speech at Cincinnati, O., Sept. 28, 1878. Sept. 23d, Schurz received
the following telegram from Indianapolis:
"Can't you help redeem Indiana in a square fight against inflation
and repudiation? Two thousand business men join in request which will
be sent you. Can you come here from Cincinnati ?
"E. B. MARTINDALE,
BENJ. HARRISON,
COL. BLAIR."
1878] Carl Schurz 423
tion to speak to them on the financial questions before the
people. I thank you sincerely for the confidence which
that invitation implies, and I respond to it with a deep
sense of responsibility. The remarks I am going to make
to-night will be, in a certain sense, supplementary to those
I made here three years ago. I then sketched the dis-
astrous consequences which a policy of currency inflation
would bring after it to the merchant, the manufacturer,
the business man generally, as well as the farmer and the
laborer for wages, and especially the latter. At that time
the people of Ohio, in their State election, administered a
wise and noble rebuke to the inflation movement then
attempted by the Democratic party of this State. It
was to be hoped that this rebuke would sufficiently
check that movement, to prevent its repetition. That
hope has been disappointed. Indeed, both political par-
ties in their National Conventions of 1 876 pronounced in
favor of an early resumption of specie payments, and thus
seemed to be agreed as to the object to be attained, and
the preparations for resumption have so far proceeded
that it is within immediate reach. But while we are
within a hair's breadth of a final settlement of the vexed
question, the inflation mania has broken out afresh, and
it must be admitted that many well-meaning citizens,
under the pressure of temporary distress, are honestly
seeking for means of relief, and are tending toward con-
clusions which, in the opinion of those who think as I
do, are fallacious, and fraught with great danger to the
National honor as well as the public welfare.
To that class of honest and well-meaning citizens I shall
respectfully address myself, and in doing so I shall, instead
of making an effort at high-flown oratory, speak rather
in the way of a straightforward, homely, common-sense
talk.
From time immemorial, and in all countries, it has been
424 The Writings of [1878
the habit of politicians, when the people were laboring
under business depression and distress, such as has been
afflicting us for the last five years, to charge those manag-
ing the affairs of the Government with the responsibility
for it all. And so they do now. When you ask them to
particularize their charge in our case, they will tell you
that the business collapse of 1873 was brought on by a
contraction of the currency; that the Government with-
drew from the business of the country the means with
which to carry on that business, and that therefore
business broke down.
This charge has been so often and so conclusively
refuted, that it well nigh exhausts one's patience to refer
to it again. But you have heard of men who tell the
same yarn so often that they at last believe it themselves.
So it may be with those who still insist that the crash of
1873 was caused by contraction. Indeed, the inflationists
need that story for their theory. They cannot do without
it, and therefore valiantly stick to it. What are the facts?
I have the official tables before me. There was indeed a
contraction of paper currency from 1865 to 1868, but the
business collapse did not occur in 1868. It came five years
later, and those five years between 1868 and 1873 are
generally regarded as years of uncommon prosperity.
Now, what happened with the currency between 1868
and 1873? In 1868 contraction was stopped. In 1869
the amount of paper currency outstanding was $693,946,-
056.61, in 1870 it was $700,375,899.48, in 1871 it was
$7i7,875.75i-o6, in 1872 it was $738,570,903.52, in 1873
it was $750,062,368.94. This statement includes not
only the greenbacks, the national-bank notes and the
fractional currency, but also the State-bank circulation,
the demand notes, the one- and two-year notes of 1863
and the compound interest notes. Thus, it appears that
during several years preceding the crash of 1873 the
1878] Carl Schurz 425
currency was not only not contracted, but very materially
increased, so that in 1873 it amounted to over fifty-six
million more than in 1869.
The fact, then, stands thus : The currency was contracted
between 1865 and 1868, and several years of prosperity
followed. The currency was expanded from 1869 to 1873,
and the collapse of business occurred. If it were true, as
the inflationists insist, that the increase or decrease of the
currency were at the bottom of our prosperity and de-
pression respectively, we would have to answer that,
according to the clearly ascertained facts of history, it
was contraction that caused prosperity, and expansion
that caused the collapse. I might even add that between
1873 and 1874 the currency was expanded from $750,062,-
368.94 to $781,490,916.17; that is to say, over $31,000,000,
and yet the depression was not only not relieved, but grew
in distressing severity. Our inflation friends may not
relish that kind of reasoning; but what have you to answer?
Those who know me will bear me witness that I have never
hesitated to criticise those in power for things I thought
wrong; but I candidly think to charge those in power with
having brought on the crisis of 1873 by a contraction of
the currency would be just as reasonable as to make them
responsible for the equinoctial storms, or for the depre-
dations of the locusts in the West. If the Government is
to be made responsible for everything, then I solemnly
demand that the abundant crops this year be put to
the credit of the Administration, and the Department of
Agriculture in particular.
Let us examine the causes of the collapse of 1873, and
the subsequent depression, as unprejudiced business men.
We all know that at the same time when the panic occurred
here in the autumn of 1873, a similar crisis broke out in
Europe and swept over all Austria, the German Empire
almost the whole European continent, except France,
426 The Writings of [1878
while a severe business depression was felt in England.
Surely, although this is a great country, our Congress and
Administration, and the Republican party, can not have
been at the bottom of all that ; and yet the effects produced
by the crisis in Europe were in almost every respect the
same as here. Speculations collapsed, values shrank
violently, real estate went down; banks, manufacturing
and trading firms failed in large numbers, extensive
branches of industries stopped, laboring men were thrown
out of employment or compelled to work for lower wages
and grievous distress spread over all those countries as
well as our own, and upon candid examination you will
find that as the effects were similar in the two hemispheres
so were the underlying causes.
In none of those countries was it a currency contraction
that brought about the disaster, just as little as in our
own. There was rather an expansion of it, especially in
Germany. No, the real causes were as I have more than
once had occasion to describe them: great wars resulting
in an immense destruction and waste of wealth; large
industries ministering to the work of destruction, instead
of producing additional wealth; but after that, excessive
enterprise, stimulated by apparent success; the sinking
of large amounts of capital in great undertakings which
could yield no immediate return, such as the building of
railroads where they were not needed, far anticipating
the future; the invention and introduction of new labor-
saving machinery, creating new facilities of production
and inciting excessive manufacturing beyond present
demand; wild speculation, dealing and gambling in all
sorts of imaginary values; an immense number of people
frantically striving to make money quickly, by any means
except solid work ; an infatuated faith in the certain success
of windy schemes; an unnatural straining of the credit
system, by pushing speculation and enterprise far beyond
1878] Carl Schurz 427
the means of those engaged in it, and finally, almost
everybody believing himself richer than he was, and,
therefore, spending more than he could afford; hence
widespread extravagance and improvident habits. And,
if we inquire what the currency had to do with it, we shall
find that in this country our irredeemable paper money, by
its depreciation running prices up to a fictitious point,
stimulated the spirit of recklessness and gambling in
almost all branches of enterprise and business, incited
extravagance and thus strengthened all the bad and
demoralizing influences which are usually active at such
a period.
Such things are apt to go on swimmingly for some time.
But illusions and lies will not last always, especially in
business matters. After a while it will turn out that a
million of men engaged in active warfare have consumed
and destroyed wealth, but not produced any; that a
railroad running from Point Nowhere to Point Nowhere
can not pay dividends until it has passengers and freight
to carry; that the value of real estate does not depend
upon the imagination of its owner, but upon the use that
can be made of it ; tjiat corner lots in paper towns, where
nobody lives and nobody intends to live, will not bear
heavy mortgages; that articles of industry produced
beyond actual demand will become a drug in the market ;
that shares in joint stock companies, however skilfully
ballooned by operators, will at last become worthless if
the enterprise yields no profits ; that men who borrow more
than they can pay must at last break, and that those who
spend more than they can earn will finally become paupers.
This light, the light of sober truth, usually breaks all of a
sudden upon the people. The illusion all at once vanishes,
the bubble bursts and we are set down heavily upon the
hard rock of real fact.
That thing happened to us in 1873. Then we rubbed
428 The Writings of [1878
our eyes and wondered how it all came about. And yet
it was the most natural thing in the world. People who
invest in air castles have no right to expect anything else
than that these investments at last vanish into the air
they were made of. The best thing we can do after such a
collapse is quietly to gather up our five senses and go to
work like men to repair our shattered fortunes. And how
can these shattered fortunes be repaired? First, by
recognizing the errors of our ways and discarding all self-
deceptions and delusions ; by remembering that our wealth
must consist in what we produce and have, and not in
what we dream of; by abstaining, consequently, from all
windy schemes to make ourselves rich by printing the
word dollar upon a piece of paper; by acting upon the
principle that the only honest way to get rid of our debts
is by paying them, and that we can become prosperous
only by producing things that are useful, and by spending
less than we earn. These may look like very old-fashioned
homespun doctrines, but whatever our modern financial
jugglers may try to make you believe, these doctrines are
now just as good as they were a thousand years ago, and
they point the only way out of our difficulties ; there is no
other.
To the honor of the American people be it said, a very
large majority of them have been acting upon these prin-
ciples for the last five years, and they are all the better for
it. It is true, a good deal of wild talk has been indulged
in about all sorts of methods to manufacture money out
of nothing, and to distribute it so as to keep everybody's
pocket full of cash, thereby putting all at ease. But,
although that wild talk has befogged some, and impeded
needful legislation, yet the people, on the whole, have been
steadily at work producing useful things and practicing
economy; and while the results of that activity have not
yet been felt in all the walks of human industry, and all
1878] Carl Schurz 429
classes of society, yet I venture to say that during the
last five years the American people have created more
real, substantial wealth than during the five years of wild
scheming, gambling and speculation which preceded the
crash of 1873. I venture further to say, and I think it is
felt all over the country, that business activity is slowly
but surely quickening again, that the American people
now stand upon the threshold of a new period of pros-
perity and that we shall reap an abundant harvest of it,
unless we throw away our opportunities by mischievous
intermeddling with the natural development of things.
That revival of business and prosperity will indeed not
consist in putting upon their legs again old exploded
speculations, or in restoring to their wealth again business
men who broke down by venturing into operations largely
beyond their means, and spreading their capital all over
creation. To be sure, many of that class who are still
struggling may still have to go down, and no fiat money
can help them. But new men will step into their places.
Such periods mean the survival of the fittest. Neither
must all of the laboring men who have been thrown out
of work by the crisis expect that a revival of business will
in all cases give them prompt employment again in the
same line of work at the same wages. Many of them will
have to change their occupation, and those who use their
opportunities in that respect most resolutely will be all the
better for it. Reviving prosperity will consist in gradu-
ally opening a fruitful field for those branches of produc-
tive industry and corresponding trade which supply actual
wants. As old stocks are exhausted they must be replaced.
The pressure of the times has taught us to produce many
articles, formerly bought abroad, so cheaply and in such
excellent quality as to introduce them successfully and
largely into foreign competition. Our abundant crops
find a ready market and good prices. A multitude of
430 The Writings of [1878
circumstances concur to give to almost every branch of
business a natural and healthy encouragement ; and what-
ever changes in the methods of production may have taken
place, there is no doubt that increased and varied wants
will soon render possible and profitable the employment of
the same, and even a larger number of men than before.
Those will reap the fruit of the revival first and most
abundantly who go about their business with the most
diligent industry and circumspection, striving to rise
slowly and surely, and keeping their expenses prudently
within their earnings. Thus we may hope, as I candidly
believe, to see the American people within a comparatively
short period again engaged in general and fruitful activity,
and in the enjoyment of largely increased wealth; not,
indeed, divided and distributed as before, but so distri-
buted as to supersede the distress of the last five years,
with a high degree of general well-being. This, I think, is
within our reach, provided always, we put and keep the
business of the country on a sound and safe basis, and do
not spoil our chances by indulging in foolish schemes.
To furnish that sound foundation, without which
business can have no healthy development and the pros-
perity of the people will always stand upon a volcano
ready to explode at any time, three things are of the first
necessity: A good National and individual credit, based
upon National and individual honesty; second, a sound
currency, of real and stable value; and third, a safe and
reliable banking system as the depository of business
funds and- the machinery of business exchanges.
In discussing these subjects I shall run against some
popular cries, industriously used by demagogues, and
repeated by unthinking men, which are fraught with
mischief and disaster, as well as disgrace. I shall speak of
them without reserve, for at a moment when from a period
of distress we have at last a chance to emerge upon solid
1878] Carl Schurz 431
ground again, and that chance seems in danger of being
thrown away by acts of dishonesty or foolishness, it is
time to call things by their right names.
First, as to credit: Our National credit rests upon a
faithful discharge of our National obligations, and I shall
show that in a great measure the individual credit and the
interest of most of us rest upon the same thing. It has
become the fashion of many politicians and public agita-
tors to cry out against the bondholders, and thus to excite
a prejudice against the bond, which is an embodiment of
National faith. The bondholders are represented as a set
of "bloated" individuals residing down East or in foreign
countries, who bought their bonds at thirty-five or forty
cents on the dollar and now demand one hundred cents
and high interest in gold. Thus the bondholder is pictured
as a sort of criminal bloodsucker, who, with cold-blooded
cruelty, fattens upon the sufferings of a downtrodden
people. Now, supposing our National bonds were still
in the hands of those who originally bought them, can you
fail to remember that when bonds were sold for forty
cents on the dollar — and the quantity so sold was not large
—the life of the Nation was threatened by a monstrous
rebellion ; that the Republic seemed to be in the agonies of
death ; that it appeared uncertain whether the bond bought
at forty cents on Monday would be worth ten, or one cent
on Saturday; and that the purchaser of the bond risked
his money for the country just as much as the soldier
risked his blood? Did not the American Government
ask him to take that bond at almost any price when the
Republic was in extremities? And now when he has
helped us by taking it and giving us his money at the
risk of losing it all, are we, when everything having gone
well, against the predictions and expectations of many,
are we as a high-minded people to turn round upon him
who aided us in the hour of supreme distress, and tell
432 The Writings of [1878
him, "You are a bloodsucker and a scoundrel"? I have
known individuals who, when you had helped them with
a loan, would feel and act as if they owed you not the
money but a grudge. You would despise such persons
as mean and contemptible fellows. Would it be more
honorable for the great American people to put them-
selves upon the same level by saying, "Let us hate the
bondholders, for they have lent us money"?
But now suppose such a cry be taken up by the Ameri-
can people, and acted upon by a refusal to pay that which
we owe, by direct or indirect repudiation of the whole or
part of the debt contracted in the hour of need, have you
considered what help we may expect in case such an hour
of need and danger should come upon us again?
I must confess, even if the bondholders of to-day still
were the same men who, during the civil war, bought the
bonds at a low price, I should consider the outcry against
them as utterly dishonorable and disgusting, as well as
foolish; as a National disgrace as well as a National
danger — ruinous to our good name as well as to our true
interests.
But who are to-day the "bloated" holders of our
National bonds? It is a notorious fact that only an in-
finitesimal part, if any, of our National bonds are still
in the hands of the original purchasers. The original
purchasers have long ago realized on them, and those who
hold the bonds now have almost all bought them at high
figures, and in a large majority of cases probably at their
par value. And who are these holders? It is estimated
that at one time about one thousand millions of our bonds
were held abroad. It is stated by the Secretary of the
Treasury, who has the best means of ascertaining the
fact, that at present the amount of bonds held in foreign
countries is less than two hundred and fifty millions,
probably not over two hundred. The rest of those for-
1878] Carl Schurz 433
merly held abroad have either been paid off or come over
to this country, so that we find between 85 and 90 per
cent, of our bonded indebtedness held by our own citizens.
And is it true that these bonds are in the hands of a set of
"bloated" individuals down East? Every business man
knows better than that. Nearly $150,000,000 of 4 per
cent, bonds have, within two years, been sold. They are
scattered all over the country, especially the West; and
who owns them? Mostly small people, who consider the
Government funds a better depository for their savings
than the savings banks, and who thus invested in small
amounts, from $50 upward. You honest farmer or labor-
ing man, who put your little surplus into a Government
security, are you aware that you have sunk down to the
level of the bloated bloodsuckers, who fatten upon the
sweat of the people? But more than that. A very large
quantity of 4^, 5 and 6 per cent, bonds are held by
banks, by insurance companies, trust companies, savings
institutions and in trust for widows and orphans. Thus
they form an important part of the securities upon which
these institutions are based. They are among their
most reliable and most available assets. Probably most
of us do not own a United States bond in the world.
But every one of us who holds a policy in a life insur-
ance company, or whose house or furniture is insured
against fire, or who has a deposit in a bank or savings
institution, or who has a national-bank note in his
pocket is as much interested in the value of our Na-
tional bonds and in a certain sense as much a bond-
holder as the owner of a bond himself ; for if the value of
the bonds is attacked and impaired the security of your
investment goes, to that extent, by the board. Now, my
fellow-bondholders, are you aware of the disgrace of your
"bloated" criminality? Do you see now who the great,
dreadful, bloodsucking bondholder is? It is the American
VOL. III. — 28
434 The Writings of [1878
people. You cannot revile the bondholder without re-
viling the American people, and you cannot attack or
impair the value of the bond without not only disgracing
and ruining the good name of the credit of the country
the world over, but without undermining the very foun-
dation of the most important credit institutions in the
country, in which, some way or another, the interests of
all of you are involved. Do that — disturb that credit
system — and you may long wait for that revival of pros-
perity which we so much need, and which is now within
our reach; for you have taken away one of its most
essential conditions.
To pay a debt is not a pleasant thing, but it is a neces-
sary and also a profitable thing. We have shown the world
that we can pay ours, and that we are willing to pay it.
In 1865 the total of our interest-bearing debt was $2,381,-
530,294.96. In 1878 it is $1,794,535,650, a reduction in
thirteen years of nearly $600,000,000, or one-fourth of it.
It has been said that we have paid off our debt more
rapidly than was necessary and prudent. In some re-
spects that is true. But there is no doubt that this excess
of zeal in discharging our National obligations has had a
powerful effect in strengthening our credit, and it is owing
to the strengthening of our credit that the Government
has been able to reduce our annual interest, in a far
greater ratio than it reduced the debt, by funding our 6
per cent, bonds into securities bearing interest only at 5,
4^/2 and 4 per cent. In 1 865 our annual interest charge was
$150,977,697.87. In 1878 our interest charge is $94,554,-
473. Thus we have got rid of about two-fifths of the
annual interest in the same period of thirteen years. In
a still greater ratio the debt and interest have been reduced
in proportion to the population. Thirteen years ago our
debt was $78 25-100 per capita. To-day it is $41 57-100
per capita. Thirteen years ago the interest was $4 29-100
1878] Carl Schurz 435
per capita. It is now $i 97-100 per capita. And if our
credit remains intact the funding process will go on
rapidly, and we shall soon be rid of further tens of millions
of our annual burden. Disturb that credit by any act or
attempt at weakening the confidence of the world at
home and abroad in our ability to pay, or in our honest
purposes, and the funding process will cease, and with it
the beneficent results flowing from it.
Thus you see, in this as in other things, it is not only
most honorable, but it pays best to be honest. The most
expensive thing a nation can do is to attempt to get rid
of its obligations without honestly discharging them. The
next expensive thing is to quibble about them. The ruin
from which it is most difficult to rise is the ruin of credit
caused by repudiation. The next worst thing for a nation
is to render itself suspected of a lurking desire to repudiate.
And thus I do hope wherever you hear that most foolish
and disgusting cry of the demagogue against the bond-
holder, you will, as men of honor and as men of business,
meet it with all the scorn it deserves. The sense of honor
of a nation is the source of its credit, and its credit is one
of its best paying investments.
The second prerequisite of a revival of business and
prosperity I stated to be a sound currency, a currency of
real and stable value. Let me put to any thinking man
in this assembly, be he farmer, or laborer, or tradesman,
or merchant, or banker, or manufacturer, a plain, simple
question, and ask for a candid answer. In what kind of
money will you prefer to receive the wages of your labor
or the profits of your business — in a kind of money whose
value or purchasing power is stable and can be depended
upon to remain virtually the same from day to day, and
from week to week, or in a kind of money whose value
and purchasing power are fluctuating and uncertain, so
that you do not know what it will buy from one end of the
436 The Writings of [1878
week or of the month to the other? Every sensible man
who in the least understands his own interests will answer,
instinctively: "Give us the first — the money of stable
value; the money that will not cheat us, so that we may
know what we have." And that instinct is natural and
right. It would seem especially natural at a moment
when, after a long and painful period of depression, we
see at last a glimmer of daylight again, and begin to hope
that with industry and prudent management we shall
work ourselves up once more to a reasonable degree of
comfort and prosperity.
Why will you prefer the money of stable value? We
hear much talk about the necessity of confidence as one of
the most necessary prerequisites of a revival of business,
and justly so. Now, the most essential element of that
general confidence which is so necessary is confidence in
the money you handle. "When I earn ten dollars," says
the workingman, "as the wages of my labor, I want to
know that I can take that money to the baker, or the
butcher, or the shoemaker, or the clothier, and that it
will buy so much of bread, or meat, or shoes, or clothes,
not only to-day, but a month hence. And when I have
saved some money and put it in a savings bank to be used
at some future time, I want to know that when I take it
out again for use, be it a month or a year, or five years
hence, it will not have materially decreased in value, but
have about the same purchasing power which it now has. "
That is sensible. "When I have sold a lot of goods on
time, one, two or three months," says the merchant,
" I want to know that the money coming in after that time
has not meanwhile depreciated, so as to deprive me of my
profit, or even to involve me in a loss. I must have money
of stable value, for it is the only kind I can base safe
business calculations upon in buying and selling." Sen-
sible again. "When I make a contract, " says the builder,
1878] Carl Schurz 437
"I want to be able to figure out beforehand how much
money will buy the material, the lumber and the bricks
and stone I shall need at a future time, and that the money
I get after the performance of the contract will be worth
as much as the money I contracted for." And so on
through the list.
This, I say, is your natural instinct. This is what you
really need and desire, all of you, except, perhaps, the
gamblers who rely upon tricks that are dark to fleece their
innocent neighbors. Yes, even those of you do desire
this, who, although honest men, have permitted your-
selves to be affected by the fiat money disease or kindred
ailments. You necessarily want a money of stable value
especially in difficult times like these, when careful and
safe business calculations are more than ever required.
If you are sincere with yourselves you will all admit that
you really think so.
Now what is that money of stable value, and how can we
get it? Let me put another question to you. Many of us
remember the time — it was eighteen years ago, before the
war — when gold and silver were current in this country,
and bank notes convertible into gold and silver. The gold
and silver coin of the United States was then the only legal-
tender in the payment of debts. Did you then think, or
can you remember anybody who then thought, that it
would be best for the people of this country to do away
with gold and silver and to substitute for them an irre-
deemable paper money, worth so much to-day and so
much to-morrow? Am I right or not in saying that a
man making such a proposition in times of peace would
have been unanimously voted fit for a place in a lunatic
asylum? The only thing you complained of, and justly so,
was the existence of wildcat bank-paper under a bad bank-
ing system, because it could not be converted into gold
and silver, contrary to the promise on its face. And is it
438 The Writings of [1878
true or not that when, under the pressure of war necessities
an irredeemable paper money was issued, and gold and
silver done away with, all of you thought it a great danger,
fraught with misfortune? Surely you cannot fail to re-
member this. What was it that made you all regret so
much the disappearance of coin money and the substitu-
tion of an irredeemable paper currency for it? Simply the
instinctive feeling that when you had a gold dollar in your
pocket you knew what you had, but when you had an
irredeemable paper dollar you did n't. And that appre-
hension has been justified by subsequent events. You
may tell me that for ten years after the first heavy emis-
sions of the paper legal- tenders in 1863 you prospered.
That is true — at least it looked so. But in 1873 the fearful
day arrived when the balance sheet was struck, and where
were you then? All of a sudden the balloon burst, and we
came to the ground so heavily that our bones are still
aching. And I repeat that this collapse was not brought
about by a contraction of the paper currency. I have
sufficiently shown, by proving with official figures, that
for the five years preceding the crash the currency had
been, not contracted, but steadily expanded until in 1876
there were over fifty-six millions more of it out than in
1869.
You will remember, also, that during that whole period
of so-called prosperity it was as if an evil conscience had
haunted the American people on account of that very
paper money; that for years following the close of the
war every political convention, every meeting of mer-
chants, every respectable board of trade or chamber of
commerce declared and resolved again and again that the
country must rid itself of the curse of an irredeemable and
fluctuating paper currency; that every consideration of
National honor, of good policy and business interest
demanded a speedy return to the specie basis. As late as
1878] Carl Schurz 439
1876 both the great political parties of the country affirmed
most solemnly their devotion to this great object. Even
most of the very men who advocated inflation as a means
of temporary relief loudly protested that the restoration
of specie payments was their ultimate aim. And why all
this? Whence this almost universal concurrence? Simply
because every candid man admitted to himself that this
country would have to rest; that there could be no con-
fidence in our economic movements; that there could
be no firm and safe foundation for National prosperity
until our money system should be based again upon the
rock of precious metals ; that our foreign commerce would
not bear its full fruit until our financial system should be
in harmony again with the money of the world.
That was the instinctive feeling of the American people
for years after the war. Well, then, if such was the case,
why were not more vigorous and consistent measures
taken for the speedy resumption of specie payments,
and why did the steps that were taken meet with so strong
and persistent an opposition? Simply because it is one
of the weaknesses of human nature, when you desire the
accomplishment of a certain end, yet to recoil from the
means necessary for the accomplishment of that end, if
those means threaten to be painful. A person suffering
from toothache may ever so much desire to be rid of the
decayed grinder, yet he will shrink from the dentist's
instrument with which it is to be pulled, and involun-
tarily exclaim, "Wait a little." And then you resort to
chloroform or laughing gas to be unconscious of the pain
when the operation is performed. If in 1865, after the
war was closed, the Government had possessed some power
of sorcery to transform overnight without pain to anybody
our irredeemable paper currency into a money system
based upon the precious metals, is there a single indi-
vidual in the United States who would not have clapped
44° The Writings of [1878
his hands for satisfaction and joy to be thus rid of the
decayed tooth and to feel once more like a well man?
But, unfortunately, there is no laughing gas for the
correction of great economic evils. It is an easy thing
under certain circumstances to introduce an irredeemable
paper currency, but when it has long existed and produced
its effects it is terribly difficult to get rid of. Its introduc-
tion will drive out the precious metals. Its expansion will
diminish its purchasing power, and run up other values to a
fictitious point. A return to the specie basis requires the
acquisition of the precious metals necessary for redemption.
It requires a reduction of the paper money within
that volume which the business of the country will be
able to float in the shape of specie, and paper convertible
into specie. It requires retrenchment and economy in
the conduct of business and all kinds of expenditures.
Such operations cannot be effected without some painful
sensations. They do not involve the destruction of any
real value, but they do involve the destruction of fictions
in business, of the delusive estimate in which men hold
their possessions and prospects. It is another of the
weaknesses of human nature that we dislike to be shaken
up from a dream to sober reality, when that dream was
pleasant. And thus when the practical preparations for
resumption are to be taken in hand, people, although they
may ever so much desire to be cured of the ailment, are
apt suddenly to fear the remedy more than the disease, and
thus, like the man with the decayed tooth, who shrinks
from the dentist's instrument, will cry out, "Hold on!
wait a little."
Now, what is our case? The painful consequences
which were feared from the practical preparations for
resumption came upon us through the crisis of 1873 in the
way of a natural development without there being any
preparations for resumption made. Previous to 1873 no
1878] Carl Schurz 441
purchase of specie had been set on foot with a view to
redemption. From 1869 to 1873 the volume of the
currency was expanded from $693,946,056.61 to $750,062,-
368.98, including demand notes and compound interest
rates. And yet the collapse came. From 1873 to 1874
the currency was further expanded from $750,062,368.98
to $781,490,916.17, and yet the depression continued,
which proves most conclusively the crisis was not caused
by contraction, and that it would neither be prevented
nor removed by expansion. But in this way speculative
business collapsed, the bubble of fictitious values burst
and those values gradually adjusted themselves again to
the specie basis without any interference on the part of
the Government in the way of preparing for resumption.
Meanwhile the banks were and remained full of money,
but that money found little or no employment. It be-
came evident, not that we had not money enough for the
business of the country, but that we had not business
enough for the money in the country. Then a reduction
of the currency set in, also by the operation of a natural
development. Congress, at the instance of the very men
who insisted that the business of the country demanded
more currency, gave greater facilities for the emission
of national-bank notes. But instead of increasing the
volume of the currency as had been predicted would be
eagerly done, a considerable number of banks withdrew
their notes, simply because they could find no profitable
employment for them. Thus a considerable reduction
of the currency was effected by natural process, and the
notorious fact that in spite of that reduction all the banks
remained full of money, without adequate use, was a new
proof that our trouble had not been for want of nourish-
ment, but was a clear case of indigestion.
In the meantime, business men had brought their opera-
tions within prudent limits. Retrenchment and wise
442 The Writings of [1878
economy had become the general rule; a large amount of
indebtedness was liquidated, and unsound enterprises
weeded out in the business world. Thus that part of the
necessary preparation for resumption which is most
painful in its effects had operated itself in the way of a
natural process without the intervention of the Govern-
ment. As is frequently the case, when physicians are at
fault, nature had made an effort to right itself. At last
the Secretary of the Treasury, by virtue of the resumption
act of 1875, proceeded to accomplish with comparative
ease what by the opponents of resumption had been pre-
dicted to be utterly impossible. He acquired for the
Treasury an amount of gold sufficient for the purpose of
commencing redemption, and now, in spite of all our
hesitation and stumbling, the goal is reached.
Our opponents have vociferously asserted from day to
day, and proved as they thought with facts and figures,
that we could not get there. But, gentlemen, we are there.
The Government can resume specie payment to-day, more
than three months before the time fixed by the law, and if
we do not proclaim resumption to-day, it is only because
the law stands in the way. The word has only to be
spoken, and our paper dollar, irredeemable for fifteen
years, is again virtually as good as gold. The laborer's and
the pensioner's dollar is as good as the bondholder's dollar.
The business of the country has again the foundation of a
rational and stable value currency under its feet, and,
with full confidence in the money it handles, it can now
enter upon a new career of enterprise and prosperity.
This we have accomplished, and, as I firmly believe,
we can maintain it, provided, always, we act like a sen-
sible people and abstain from foolish and mischievous
legislation.
But now what do we behold ? At the very moment when
this great consummation, for which the country has been
1878] Carl Schurz 443
sighing for years, appears assured, a portion of the people
are growing wild with preposterous schemes and proposi-
tions to undo it all and to return to chaos again ; a set of
physicians, when the patient is on the point of recovery
and requires only repose and quiet working of natural
forces, prescribing medicine to throw him into fits once
more. It is the most curious spectacle a people ever
presented. It would seem only laughable did it not
threaten serious consequences.
What are those schemes and propositions? Let us
examine them. We find, first, the proposition to replace
the money system based upon the precious metals by the
so-called absolute or fiat money. During the five years of
depression and distress since 1873 many people groped
frantically about for means of relief, not inquiring into
the true causes of their difficulty or not understanding
them. They thought there must be some artificial remedy
to cure it within the reach of human ingenuity. That the
results of the unproductive consumption, the improvident
wasting of wealth, can be cured only by the production of
real wealth in a slow and steady way, did not strike them
as promising in their case. They wanted some quicker
and more ingenious method of getting rich again. Like
the alchemists of the middle ages, they thought there must
be some way to make gold out of dross. The first thing
that struck them as promising was an inflation of our
greenback currency. But when, from 1873 to 1874 the
volume of the greenbacks was expanded from $356,000,000
to $382,000,000, it had not the desired effect. The increase
stayed in the Eastern banks. Then an expansion of the
national-bank currency was thought of, and new facilities
for the emission of bank notes given. But this did not
work. In spite of the new facilities the bank currency
actually reduced itself. It became evident that the
business of the country would not take and circulate any
444 The Writings of [1878
more of that money, for there was no employment for it.
Then some ingenious minds hit upon a bolder plan. You
have probably known persons who, when they are sick,
will think no medicine can help unless it be particularly
strong in color and nasty in taste. They look upon
everything that is natural with distrust. Thus the scheme
of so-called fiat money was brought forward, and many
well meaning innocent people seem to have been talked
into the belief that this at last is the true thing.
What is absolute or fiat money? It is the simplest
contrivance in the world. The Government takes a little
piece of paper and says to it, " Be thou a dollar, " and then
the Government stamp is put upon the paper, and forth-
with it is a dollar, or five, or ten, or a hundred dollars, as
the case may be. Then all other kinds of money — gold,
silver, greenbacks and national-bank notes — are with-
drawn, and the fiat or absolute money put in their places.
It will be the only legal-tender in payment of debts and
Government dues. Now the present greenback bears this
inscription: "The United States will pay the bearer one
dollar" — or five or ten. Will not the fiat dollar bear a
similar promise? Bless you, no. The fiat dollar will not
promise anything, and just that is the beauty of it. Ac-
cording to the fiat money doctors, it was the weakness of
the greenback, that it promised something. The fiat
dollar does not promise anything, for it is in itself the
performance of the promise — it is a dollar. The fiat
money promises nothing beyond itself, for it does away
with all other things. Gold and silver are antiquated
stuff, entirely unsuitable for this progressive age and
country. The fiat money once out, gold and silver will no
more be thought of. We shall be entirely separate and
independent from the rest of the world in all financial
and commercial transactions. Our fiat money will not
be exported, for it will not be taken anywhere else; and
1878] Carl Schurz 445
so, like the poor, it stays all and always with us; and
inasmuch as it costs almost nothing to make fiat money
and we can make any quantity of it to suit ourselves, we
shall get richer and richer, and there will be no end to
our wealth and happiness. That is what the fiat money
doctors promise us.
It will strike you that this is exceedingly simple and
very fine; but you may have some misgivings, and say:
"Well, this bit of paper may call itself a dollar, but it is,
after all, only a bit of paper. Is there nothing of value
behind it?" Whereupon the fiat money man gravely
answers: "This is a great country. It has some forty or
fifty thousand millions of dollars' worth of property in
it. When the Government of this great country puts its
stamp upon a piece of paper and thus makes it money,
then that money is based upon the whole wealth of the
country." That sounds magnificently, and you may
think, well, if this country has forty or fifty thousand
millions' worth of property, and all that property is
mortgaged as security for the value of this fiat money, why
should not this security be good enough for a couple of
thousand millions of fiat money? Now let us see how
it will work. Such promises to pay as greenbacks and
national-bank notes are withdrawn to make room for fiat
money. It will not be necessary to make any provision
for the withdrawal of gold and silver, for the precious
metals, finding no further employment, will take leave of
themselves, and go abroad, where they are wanted. Now
the fiat money is master of the field. It goes into circula-
tion, and for some time it will indeed circulate, for, it
being the only tool of exchange left to you, you will have
to take it and use it ; it will circulate just as wampum-beads
and clamshells and leaden bullets circulated for awhile
as currency in early colonial times. It will also maintain a
certain current value, as long as its volume is kept within
446 The Writings of [1878
the quantity that would circulate in the form of specie
and paper convertible into specie. But you must consider
that the fiat money plan is brought forward by earnest
inflationists, whose principal object is to make money
plenty by issuing enough of it to keep all the boys in
cash — and why should we not? it costs nothing, and we
may just as well have much as little. A thousand millions,
more or less, are no object, as the Government thereby
burdens itself with no promise or obligation, and finally
the wealth of the country, fifty thousand millions' worth
of property, stands behind it, mortgaged as security.
But presently, when we have made fiat money plenty, we
shall find that it depreciates, and will depreciate more and
more the more we issue, just as the greenbacks did, and
worse. " How can it depreciate like the greenbacks? " says
the fiat money doctor, with a smile of superior wisdom.
"The greenback, by the absurd promise of the Govern-
ment to pay coin for it, was kept in constant comparison
with coin, and therefore could depreciate as to coin. But
when, by the introduction of fiat money, gold and silver
are utterly banished and forgotten, and our money system
has become entirely separate and independent from all
other money systems of the world, how can the fiat dollar
depreciate as to coin?" Let us see.
In the first place, as your fiat dollars grow more and
more plenty, their purchasing power will grow less, just
as the purchasing power of the clamshell currency in old
colonial times grew less, the supply of them growing
larger, until finally they bought nothing at all. Thus the
fiat dollars will depreciate as to the articles you want to
buy with them. " But what of that? " asks the fiat money
doctor; "that does not mean depreciation, but it means
that things grow dearer in price. When it takes two fiat
dollars to buy an article which cost but one dollar before,
then the Government can issue double the amount of fiat
1878] Carl Schurz 447
money for the accommodation of the people, for it costs
nothing, and the wealth of the country will be ample
security for a couple of thousand millions more. " And so
it goes on and on, and in this case under the lead of the
fiat money doctors, it will go on quickly until the story-
may be repeated of the wheelbarrowful of money carried
to market and the purchase carried home in your vest
pocket.
But the idea that by banishing the precious metals from
our money system we can cut loose from the money system
of the world, and avoid all comparison of the value of our
paper money with gold, is amusingly absurd. We are a
commercial nation and have large dealings with the world
abroad. Our imports and exports go into the hundreds of
millions. They will go into the thousands. Our exports
especially are increasing beyond all anticipation. All we
sell and all we buy abroad is paid and settled for on the
gold basis. The prices of our principal articles of export,
of our agricultural staples, are virtually determined in the
foreign market. Now, while we are doing this immense
business with the world abroad on the gold basis, must it
not be evident to the dullest understanding that, although
the last gold coin may have been banished from our domes-
tic transactions, the value of the fiat dollar in comparison
with gold will be quoted just as the greenback dollar was,
and that this comparison will be a matter of daily concern
and anxiety to every farmer, West and East, the price of
whose products depends upon the foreign market? Thus,
whatever expedient you may resort to, gold will be and
remain the standard of value as to the fiat dollar. Your
fiat dollar will be brought up before that tribunal to have
judgment pronounced as to its worth, and the idea that
by introducing here a paper-money system of your own
you can withdraw from the rules that govern the com-
merce of the world, and change the real standard of value
448 The Writings of [1878
in your business transactions, will appear as one of the
most absurd and childish conceptions the human brain
has ever been guilty of.
At last, when your fiat dollar, having been made very
plenty to accommodate the people, has run down so low
in its purchasing power, and cut so sorry a figure in the
inevitable comparison with gold, that you begin to grow
uneasy about it, you remember that it is based upon the
wealth of the American people, and that some forty or
fifty thousand millions' worth of property stand as mort-
gage security behind it. Of course, with such security, the
fiat dollar ought to be worth its face in gold, and thus you
may think of foreclosing that mortgage on the wealth of
the country. Maybe you are a laboring man who have
some money in a savings bank, which formerly was worth
enough to buy a little house with, but in its fiat condition,
money being plenty, appears just sufficient to pay for a
jack-knife. You may go to the next best public building
to see whether you can find any of the wealth of the coun-
try there, which is security for your fiat money, to lay your
hands upon. I would not, however, advise you to seize
upon a specific article of property as part of the wealth of
the country, for you would be in danger of being arrested
and put in jail for larceny. The wealth of the country,
although it is security for your fiat money, cannot be
handled in that way. You may think it best to present
your fiat money to the Secretary of the Treasury who must
be presumed to be a sound fiat man, and knows what the
mortgage on the wealth of the country means. You ask
him to give you good dollars for the bits of fiat paper you
present, or so much of the wealth of the country as re-
quired to make that fiat paper worth something. What
will be the answer? " My dear sir, you desire good dollars ;
these are good dollars ; they are the only dollars we have.
The Government has not promised you anything else.
1878] Carl Schurz 449
You want a share of the wealth of this country, upon which
these fiat dollars are based. Why, these fiat dollars are
themselves a part of the wealth of the country. Besides,
you have clothes upon your back; your wife and children
have the same. If you have no house of your own, you
have furniture in your rented dwelling. You have tools
in your workshop. All these things are a part of the
wealth of the country upon which your fiat money is
based. You must levy upon what you have yourself.
Of course I cannot give you what belongs to anybody
else.5'
Now you begin to perceive that the forty or fifty thou-
sand millions' worth of property in the country may be
magnificent security to base fiat money upon, but you
cannot foreclose the mortgage upon a single blade of
grass. That may seem queer to you. But it is the
peculiar beauty of fiat money based upon the whole
wealth of the country.
There is nothing more ridiculous than to hear these fiat
money doctors pretend to have made a great original dis-
covery, and to parade it before us as the most progressive
idea of the age. Why, it is a story a thousand years old.
They had such money in China in the ninth century of this
era. They had it in Persia toward the close of the
thirteenth century. They had it in the American colonies
in the seventeenth century in the shape of bead and clam-
shell currency. They had it in France at the beginning
of the eighteenth century, under the management of the
great progressive Scotch financier, John Law. They had
it in France during the great revolution in the shape of
assignats. They had it in this country again during the
war of independence in the shape of the Continental
money ; always in all essential features virtually the same :
a paper money based in some indefinite way upon an
indefinite something, in some cases with a promise of
VOL. III. — 2p
450 The Writings of [1878
redemption, in some cases without it ; in some cases issued
under the stress of circumstances, in some cases for
financial speculation; and whenever an inflation of paper
money was either a part of the scheme or forced by neces-
sity, the final result always the same ; — depreciation of the
paper money, that depreciation leading to new issues, the
new issues bringing forth more depreciation, and so on;
everybody believing himself rich for a time, until finally
the whole airy fabric broke down in general confusion,
bankruptcy and ruin, when it became apparent that the
grand indefinite something upon which the paper money
was based, the power of the Emperor of China, or the
wealth of the country, practically amounted to nothing
as a mortgage security; and uniformly in the breakdown
the poor people, the laboring classes suffered the greatest
distress. And in every case after the great collapse,
people came painfully to the old conclusion again, that,
after all, the precious metals were the only safe basis of a
money system; and they gathered up the few coins they
could lay their hands on, and upon the ruins of their
foolish hopes and windy fortunes they began a sensible
business once more, in a cautious and prudent way. And
now the same old scheme, exploded again and again, with a
thousand years' history on its back full of ruin and disaster
is dished up to us as a brand new discovery, and as the
great progressive idea of the century. Why, gentlemen
of the fiat money persuasion, the Chinese, a thousand
years ago, were just as wise and progressive as you are
now, and when they had got through with their great
progressive fiat money experience they were a great deal
wiser. It is a matter of wonder, as well as regret, that
at this day there should be so many good people giving,
even for a moment, countenance to a fallacy so hoary
with age and so utterly condemned by the painful and
repeated experience of mankind.
1878] Carl Schurz 451
I think I may take leave of fiat money and turn to our
Democratic friends who are possessed with the "Ohio
idea." If I understand correctly the newest phase of
the "Ohio idea," as put forth by the Democratic conven-
tion of this State and several conventions in other parts
of the country, it is as follows: The resumption act is to
be repealed; all reduction of the paper currency is to cease;
greenbacks are to be a legal-tender for duties on imports;
all restrictions on the unlimited coinage of silver are to
be removed ; the national-bank notes to be withdrawn and
greenbacks issued in their stead ; the sale of bonds for the
purchase of coin for resumption purposes to be stopped;
the volume of the greenback currency is to be determined
by legislation or Constitutional amendment, "so as to
insure the stability of their value as well as volume." I
think I have stated it fairly.
That a man thoroughly wedded to the irredeemable
paper mania should make such a platform his own, I can
understand. But how a man, who thinks the resumption
of specie payments at all desirable, can adopt it, is to me
utterly incomprehensible. For any intelligent mind will
see at a glance that its execution will render resumption
absolutely impossible, and perpetuate the regime of an
irredeemable paper currency for an indefinite period. In
fact if there is any logic in this program, it means the
permanent establishment of irredeemable paper money
with all its disastrous influences.
First, they demand the prompt repeal of the resump-
tion act. I remember some Democrats in the Senate who
voted against the resumption act, not because they did not
desire resumption, but because they did not think the
act clear and effective enough. I myself criticised it on
account of some of its imperfections, but voted for it
because I was determined to support any step in that
direction. I have ever since been glad that I did so vote,
452 The Writings of [1878
for the resumption act, in spite of its imperfections, has
proved far more effective than many supposed it would.
In 1876 the Democratic National Convention demanded
the repeal of the resumption act, not because the Conven-
tion was against resumption, but because, according to
its declaration, it was earnestly for resumption; and
because, as was pretended, the resumption act was an
obstacle to resumption — a thing which I have never been
able to understand. And now your Democratic conven-
tion and many others demand the repeal of the same
resumption act, not because it is an obstacle to resumption,
but because it has brought it on. And indeed, unless they
hurry up that repeal quickly, it will appear like the repeal
of last year's almanac. Now, what .is the meaning of
this demand for the repeal of the resumption act? Here
stands the Government, and says, "For sixteen years we
have promised to redeem these Treasury notes on demand,
dollar for dollar — a dollar in coin for a dollar in paper.
For sixteen years that promise has stood dishonored. Now
I am able and ready to fulfil it. I am able and ready to
make and keep the pensioner's and the laborer's dollar, the
merchant's and the manufacturer's dollar, as good as the
bondholder's dollar. I am able and willing to give to
the business of the country the safe foundation of a sound
currency, uniform and stable in value in harmony with
the money of the world. All I want is to be permitted
to execute the law." Whereupon you, my Democratic
friends, answer: "Whether you be ever so able and ready
to do all this, we say you shall not do it"; and then you
proceed with a number of propositions, each and all of
which are designed to take and keep from the Government
its ability to perform its long dishonored promise, and to
do the beneficent things it stands now ready to do. The
Government says, "I have now some $346,000,000 in
greenbacks to take care of. With the coin I have, I feel
1878] Carl Schurz 453
strong enough to commence and maintain the redemption
of all of that quantity that are likely to be presented for
redemption. There are now $324,500,000 of national-
bank notes in circulation, which are redeemable in green-
backs. This system aids me powerfully in commencing
and maintaining redemption, inasmuch as it relieves me
of direct responsibility for about one-half of our paper
currency, while all of it will maintain the same current
value. Were I directly responsible for the whole mass of
paper money, $670,000,000, my coin resources would not
be sufficient to resume specie payments." Whereupon
you, my Democratic friends, answer: "We demand that
the national-bank currency be withdrawn and greenbacks,
for which the Government is directly responsible, put in
its place. This we demand, whether it renders you unable
to resume specie payments or not." The Government
says, further: "The resumption of specie payments renders
necessary a considerable reserve of coin in the Treasury.
I used to receive gold through the duties on imports
which, however, was mostly needed for the payment of
interest on National bonds. If specie payments are
assured, that source of coin revenue may be dispensed
with; but, to enable me to accumulate a reserve of coin,
it was necessary that I be permitted to purchase coin
with bonds, and I was permitted to do so by law. If, by
the substitution of greenbacks for national-bank currency,
the amount of paper money for which I am responsible
be doubled, it will be all the more necessary to maintain
the payment of duties in coin, and to go on with the sale
of bonds for coin, if we are ever to prepare for resumption."
Whereupon, you, my Democratic friends, promptly
answer: "We demand that duties on imports shall be
paid in greenbacks, and that the sale of bonds for the
accumulation of a coin reserve shall cease. "
Now, need I tell any intelligent being what the conse-
454 The Writings of [1878
quences will be if these Democratic demands be enacted
into laws? Not only to prevent the resumption of specie
payments now, but to render the resumption of specie
payments utterly impossible forever, at least as long as
such laws exist.
It is simply doubling the amount of paper money which
the Government will have to redeem and at the same
time stripping the Government of every means to provide
for that redemption. The source from which the Govern-
ment derived its coin for the payment of interest on the
public debt being stopped, the coin reserve now in the
Treasury will have to be drawn upon for such interest,
and that reserve will soon vanish into nothing. How the
Government is then to get coin even for the payment of
the interest on the public debt, our Democratic friends
fail to tell us. Finding no employment as currency here,
gold will promptly go abroad where it is in demand for
such employment, and we shall be further away from
specie payments than ever before.
I repeat, therefore: that a thoroughbred inflationist
should advocate this program is intelligible; it serves his
purpose. But when a man, who ever again desires to see
specie payments restored in this country, adopts such a
platform, what shall we think of his understanding or his
conscience? The defeat of resumption will not be the
only result. No sooner is such a policy inaugurated than
the premium on gold will again reappear, the value of the
greenback now within a hair's breadth of gold will sink
and gold will again be a subject of speculation and
gambling.
This is inevitable, for everything will be thrown back
into fluctuation and uncertainty. The step back from
specie payments will put even the good faith of the Nation
in question. Confidence will be more shaken than ever.
A black cloud of new doubt will hang over every business
1878] Carl Schurz 455
interest ; for when a policy so insane, as to run away from
specie payments, can be adopted, every imaginable
nonsense will thenceforth appear possible. Then good-
by reviving prosperity — we shall be at sea again, the Lord
only knows how long.
It helps our Democratic friends very little to put forth
the fantastic promise, "that the amount of paper issues
shall be so regulated by legislation, or by organic law, as
to give the people assurance of stability in the volume of
the currency, as well as the consequent stability of the
value." The idea to establish by Constitutional amend-
ment, to be assented to by three-fourths of the States,
that is, by twenty-eight State legislatures, how much
money the country is to have — and when the amount so
fixed is found too large or too small, that it should not be
possible to change it until the assent of twenty-eight State
legislatures shall be again obtained for the change, that
idea is so childishly preposterous that we must wonder
how serious men could ever have entertained it.
The other proposition that Congress, by legislation, is
to be the permanent authority to regulate the volume of
the currency, and consequently the value, is scarcely less
astonishing, coming as it does from Democrats who
pretend to be so faithful to their time-honored principles.
Have you considered, my Democratic friends, what an
awful power you thus propose to perpetuate in the Con-
gress of the United States? You yourselves admit that
the value of your irredeemable paper currency will depend
upon its volume. Congress is to fix that volume, and by
increasing or diminishing it, Congress is therefore to
determine what every dollar in the land shall be worth.
The value of every piece of property, of every article of
merchandise, of every private fortune, of every chance
the contractor has in his contract, of every dollar the
laboring man has in the savings bank or the merchant on
456 The Writings of [1878
deposit, will be at the mercy of the Congress of the United
States. No man can make an investment, no merchant
can sell or buy a lot of goods on time, no manufacturer
can accept an order, no contractor can make a contract
for a railroad or building, without Congress having it in its
power to determine their profit or their loss, by regulating
the volume, and consequently the value, of the currency,
up or down. Can Congress, can any body of legislators,
be depended upon to exercise so tremendous a power with
wisdom? Why, gentlemen, no assembly of human beings,
even if you get together the shrewdest financiers in the
world has ever been found wise enough to determine how
much money the business of a great country needs in its
multifarious fluctuations. But if so awful a power should
fall into the hands of such financiers as made this Ohio
platform — then let us devoutly pray that the Lord
preserve us.
But it is not the only question whether such a power
is likely to be wisely exercised or not. The question is
whether any Government should be intrusted with so
tremendous, so far-reaching, so tyrannical an authority at
all. Oh! my Democratic friends, who pretend to be so
jealous of the power of the General Government, how are
you fallen from the high estate of your ancient principles,
that you should now be willing to give to that Gen-
eral Government the power to dispose of every citizen's
private fortune. Oh! shades of Jefferson and Jackson,
where are you?
I repeat, it is not only a question of Congressional wis-
dom. The very fact that Congress is to dispose of so tre-
mendous an interest by mere legislative act cannot fail to
have a most disquieting and enervating influence upon the
business of the country. Are we not all witnesses to
the fact that for years, during every session of Congress,
the whole business community stood on tiptoe, with fear
1878] Carl Schurz 457
and trepidation, lest some tinkering genius in Congress
should get up and push through some measure interfering
with all their business calculations and arrangements?
Have you not all heard the heartfelt prayer of business
men at the beginning of every session, that Congress might
do its necessary work quickly, and then adjourn? Have
you not time and again heard the general sigh of relief
when Congress at last did really wind up and go home?
And now imagine a Congress with a majority composed
of such financial geniuses as advocate the "Ohio idea,"
every one of whom has his unfailing financial nostrum in
his pocket, and that Congress intrusted with the power
to determine the value of every man's property, and the
chances for profit or loss of every man's enterprise! Will
the business community ever get out of a state of feverish
uncertainty and apprehension? Are fits to be the normal
condition of our economic system? Are we not at last
to have that repose which is so necessary for safe business
calculations, for a quiet rebuilding of our fortunes and a
new period of prosperity? If so, then in the name of
common-sense let us get rid of a system of irredeemable
paper currency, which puts into the hands of Congress
the power to determine how much money we shall have
and what that money is to be worth. Let us at least
reduce the Government again to its proper functions, and
return to that condition of things in which the currency
regulates itself.
No Congress knows how much money the business of
the country needs, but business itself feels and determines
it with certainty. When specie payments prevail, and
there is more coin in circulation than business needs, it
will flow out and go where it finds more profitable employ-
ment. When there is less coin in circulation than business
requires, it will become dear, and flow in from countries
where it has less profitable employment. The same rule
458 The Writings of [1878
applies to a well-regulated system of bank issues based
upon specie. When the quantity of notes out is in excess
of the requirements of business, they will flow back to the
banks for redemption. When the quantity of bank notes
is insufficient for the wants of trade, the banks will find
it profitable to increase their issues, and thus the gap will
be filled. Local and temporary disturbances, occasional
panics or speculative periods, which under no money
system can be entirely prevented, may sometimes inter-
fere with this self-adjusting machinery, but on the whole
the rule holds good. The Government has nothing to
do with it but to see that the coin struck in its mints be
of the prescribed standard value; it prevents and punishes
counterfeiting; it regulates the banking system, so as to
make it safe, and then it lets currency and trade in their
relations take care of themselves, without assuming any
arbitrary control over volume and value. These are the
simple principles of a sound money system under which
business can regain confidence in itself and prosperity
will revive. That is the end which we should accomplish
and which is now within our reach.
The paper-money men have contrived to befog the
public mind with certain superstitious impressions to the
prejudice of the cause I advocate. Let us look some of
them in the face. One is a sort of dark terror with which
the word contraction has been invested. It would almost
seem as if contraction were some diabolical power, bringing
forth all the ills human flesh is heir to. Thus, we are told
that contraction, with all its concomitant evils, was one
of the infernal effects of the resumption act. It is true
that under the resumption act, since 1875, the currency
has been contracted. But it is also true that this con-
traction has not had the least depressing effect upon the
business of the country, and I can easily prove it. If
contraction had cramped business, that is to say, if
1878] Carl Schurz 459
business had wanted more currency than was out, it could
easily have had it. Banking was made free by that
very resumption act. Any five persons procuring the
necessary capital can start a bank under the National sys-
tem and issue bank notes. Had business required more
currency than was out, the issuing of more bank notes
would have become profitable. There is plenty of money
lying idle and waiting for a chance. The chance would
certainly have been taken hold of by enterprising persons
had business really needed more currency. But not only
has the volume of bank notes not been increased, but
it has been voluntarily reduced by the banks. This is
conclusive proof not only that business does not want
any more currency than is out, but that it has even more
than it can profitably employ. The contraction that has
taken place was, therefore, not the result of a forced
operation, but of a natural process.
The reduction of the volume of greenbacks has been
stopped by law; but business is more sensible than Con-
gress and rids itself of the currency it does not need, and
nobody is hurt. It appears, therefore, that this terrible
bugbear is entirely harmless.
Another foolish notion which has been industriously
instilled into the public mind is that greenbacks are a
part of the wealth of the country; that by a regulation of
the volume of the greenbacks the wealth of the country is
correspondingly diminished, and that a reduction of the
greenback circulation must, even under the specie pay-
ment system, necessarily result in a contraction of the
currency. In fact, the greenback has been made by
the inflationists the subject of an idolatry which, upon
close examination, appears exceedingly ludicrous. There
is a sort of awful sanctity and mysterious power ascribed
to it, which no other kind of money ever possessed. We
hear of the bloodstained greenback, the battle-hallowed
460 The Writings of [1878
greenback, the greenback conqueror of the rebellion, the
greenback savior of the Republic, and people talk as if to
withdraw a greenback from circulation after its glorious
achievements would be an act of the basest National
ingratitude. Well, now, assume the greenback had, in the
absence of gold and silver, done good service during the
war, is there anything to grow sentimental about? Did
not our old muzzleloading guns do the same, while
breechloaders were scarce? Did not hardtack feed our
soldiers when soft bread could not be had? Did not mules
have to pull our wagons when the supply of good draft
horses fell short? Why do we not go in ecstasies over
these things and exclaim: "Oh, bloodstained, grand old
muzzleloaders that fought our battles! Oh, battle-
hallowed hardtack that fed our soldiers! and thou, oh
most noble mule that pulled our trains ! how can you, the
conquerors of the rebellion, the saviors of the Republic,
ever be forgotten? How can an impious generation sub-
stitute for you something that suits better?" All this
sentimentality would not prevent us from substituting
breechloaders for muzzleloaders in the Army, from eating
soft bread instead of hardtack and from preferring good
horses to the noble mule. Is there any sound reason why
we should not use something better in preference to the
greenback if we can have it?
What is the bloodstained, sanctified, greenback dollar
after all? It is nothing more nor less than a promise on
the part of the United States to pay bearer one dollar,
made a legal-tender for the purpose of currency; and I
regret to say that at one time the glorious greenback was
worth only thirty-eight cents on the dollar, and that since
it has slowly and painfully crawled up in value, after in-
flicting immense loss on individuals and the country at
large, until now at last it has reached par. And as to the
service rendered by the greenback in the war, a retrospec-
1878] Carl Schurz 461
tive view of the case inclines me strongly to the opinion
that had Congress been courageous and strong enough to
insist upon raising money by taxation instead of resorting
to the expedient of an irredeemable paper money, which
universally inflated all prices, the war would have cost us
from one thousand to fifteen hundred millions less, and
we would all be the better for it, had we never seen the
glorious greenback. For this I have excellent authority.
In a message approving an act to issue $100,000,000 in
greenbacks, January 17, 1863, that genius of common-
sense, Abraham Lincoln, spoke these memorable words,
foreshadowing it all: "While giving this approval, how-
ever, I think it my duty to express my sincere regret that
it has been found necessary to authorize so large an
additional issue of United States notes, when this circu-
lation and that of the suspended banks together have
already become so redundant as to increase prices beyond
real value, thereby augmenting the cost of living to the
injury of labor, and the cost of supplies to the injury of
the whole country. " There is, then, absolutely no reason
for worshipping the greenback with that idolatrous
adulation. We had better take a sober, common-sense
view of it.
Now, suppose after the resumption of specie payment
you present a greenback dollar to the Treasury, and you
get a gold dollar for it, and the greenback is then canceled
and destroyed, will the volume of currency be thereby
contracted? Not at all. The greenback dollar has disap-
peared, but the gold dollar has gone in its place for circu-
lation, and the volume of the currency remains just the
same. Is there any horror about that? Will anybody lose
anything by it? It is simply the substitution in the cir-
culating medium of a gold dollar for a promise to pay.
That is all. Now, suppose this operation be repeated
many million times, and the greenbacks so redeemed by
462 The Writings of [1878
the Treasury be not canceled and destroyed, but be paid
out again and returned to circulation, according to the
present law, what will happen then? Then the volume
of the circulating medium will have been increased by the
amount of coin issued by the process described. Now,
if that increased volume of currency is just sufficient to
satisfy the demands of business, and no more than suffi-
cient, the two kinds of currency out, the metallic and the
paper, will continue to circulate side by side. But if
that increased volume turns out to be in excess of the
real requirements of business, what will then happen?
Then so much of that volume as is not wanted by business
will withdraw from circulation, and it will be the metallic
part, for that can be used in our foreign commerce, where
our paper money cannot be used, and it will be exported.
The paper money, according to the universal law, that an
inferior currency always crowds out the superior one, will
circulate alone. Suppose, then, it appears that the paper
circulation alone is in excess of the real requirements of
the business of the country, what then? Then something
like the amount of that excess will go to the Treasury for
redemption, and the coin paid out in that redemption being
over and above the volume of the circulation required by
the business of the country, will again either be hoarded
or go into our foreign commerce and flow out. If, then, the
greenbacks so redeemed are paid out and put in circulation
again by the Government, so that the whole volume of
paper money out remains in excess of the requirements of
business, that process will repeat itself again and again,
and thus the coin reserves of the Treasury will be gradually
and surely drained, without being added to the circulation
of the country.
Now, our greenback high-priests will exclaim: "Does
not this show that the precious metals are a very
unreliable currency?"
1878] Carl Schurz 463
Not at all, gentlemen. It shows only that, in order to
secure to the people the benefit of the circulation of a good
value currency, it is necessary that the volume of the
paper money out be not permitted to be in excess of the
real requirements of the business of the country, but
should be kept within those requirements. Then the
precious metals will stay in active circulation and their
supply will regulate itself according to the wants of trade.
But you ask: "Will not that again cause a grinding and
oppressive contraction?" I answer, not in the least;
and why not? You all will agree that we do not want
more currency than the requirements of business demand.
For every greenback dollar withdrawn and held back by
the Treasury a coin dollar will unfailingly appear in cir-
culation, if that dollar is demanded for circulation by the
requirements of business. It will either come out of the
Treasury, and stay in circulation, or, in obedience to
the same law which makes water flow down hill, it will come
from some part of the world where it has less profitable
employment, or its place will be supplied by bank emis-
sions always ready to fill a gap. You see how little
reason there is under the specie payment system to fear
contraction as a cause of financial disturbance and de-
pression. And it is very much to be regretted that the
vague apprehensions produced by a diligent parading of
that same bugbear ,has misled so many well-meaning
men into the support of inconsistent and dangerous
measures of legislation. The less the Government has
to do with the volume of the paper currency, the better
that volume will regulate itself, and the less shall we hear,
and the less will the people be afraid of contraction as the
source of all human ills.
Still another vague impression has been produced upon
the popular mind, that the old silver dollar of the fathers
is a sure medicine for all economic ailments, and our
464 The Writings of [1878
Democratic friends are loudly demanding "the removal of
all restrictions to the coinage of silver and the reestab-
lishment of silver as a money metal — the same as gold,
the same as it was before its demonetization." Upon
this point I shall permit myself only a very few remarks.
Every sensible man will be in favor of silver coin as a
part of our monetary system. Silver coin is the money for
the small transactions of the retail trade. It is, therefore,
perfectly correct and judicious to make it a legal-tender
to a limited amount. But it is not the money for the
great transactions of modern commerce. It is not the
metal to serve as a standard measure of value in those
transactions. For this there are two good reasons: One
is the weight and bulkiness of the metal in proportion to
its value; and the other is the fact that in our times its
value is subject to violent fluctuations. To transport a
million of dollars in silver, four railroad freight-cars would
be required. And the fluctuations in the value of silver
have of late amounted to more than 16 per cent, in one
year, about as much as the fluctuations of our irredeem-
able paper currency in some of its worst times. The
transportation of silver money in the settlement of
balances in a country like this, whose internal business
transactions go into the thousands of millions, will, there-
fore, be immensely inconvenient and costly, and the use
of silver as a standard measure of values will be like the
use of a yardstick as a standard measure of length, which
is two feet nine inches to-day and two feet six inches to-
morrow, but has not been and is not likely to be three feet,
as it ought to be, at any time. To use it as a standard of
values together with gold is like the establishment of two
yardsticks, one of which is longer than the other, for
measuring the length of the same articles. To decree by
law that the proportion of value between silver and gold
shall be and remain as sixteen to one, or fifteen and a half
1878] Carl Schurz 465
to one or whatever figures you may adopt, while the
bullion value of silver in the commerce of the world is
constantly fluctuating, would be like making a law that
the water in your river shall never rise above, and never
fall below a certain water mark. It is evident, therefore,
that while silver coin will be largely and conveniently
used in the small transactions of retail trade as a sort of
token money, it will not long be able to maintain itself
anywhere in the civilized world as a standard of value,
and as an unlimited legal-tender in the great transactions
of business. There are still some European countries
in which silver money is a full legal- tender; but they have
prudently limited the coinage of silver, and as was shown
in the recent international conference at Paris, held at the
request of our Government, they carefully abstain from
entering into any international understanding concerning
that subject, which would in any way bind them to the
maintenance of silver as a fixed standard of value.
Congress at its last session restored the full legal-tender
character of the silver dollar, and ordered the coinage of
not less than two and not more than four millions of silver
dollars per month. How will this work? Great predic-
tions have been made of relief and prosperity to follow
immediately upon the passage of this act, and on the other
hand of evil consequences. So far no great effect either
way has been visible. The mints have steadily coined
their millions per month, but although the people of the
United States were represented as fairly burning with
love for the dollar of the fathers, nobody seems now
anxious to hear its jingle in his pocket. The bullion value
of the silver dollar is at present about eighty-seven cents
in gold, with a downward tendency. Now, it is possible
that silver dollars will be at par as long as the quantity
issued remains within that volume which can be used in
small retail transactions. How large that quantity is
VOL. III. — 3O
466 The Writings of [1878
only experience can determine. But it seems inevitable
that, as soon as that quantity is exceeded by the silver
dollars put into circulation, silver dollars will be quoted
at a discount as to gold, or, in other words, gold will bear
a premium as to silver, and we shall have the old uncer-
tainty, and the gambling speculations of the gold-room
in Wall street once more. And what will follow? As
more and more silver money is put into circulation, the
old universal law, that the inferior currency drives out the
superior one, will operate again ; gold will leave the country
and silver coin will remain our only metallic currency. We
shall then have reached the condition in which the Chinese
have been for a considerable time. And our Democratic
friends in Ohio seem [to be in] a particular hurry to reach
that condition, for they loudly demand that the coinage
of silver, which is now limited to $4,000,000 per month,
shall be relieved of all restrictions. But I can not per-
mit myself to doubt that, when with the actual resump-
tion of specie payments, a better order of things and a
revival of prosperity dawns upon us, the American people
will be disposed to approach this question also with a more
dispassionate and clearer judgment.
The third thing which I pointed out as necessary to
lay the foundation for sound business and prosperity
is a well-regulated and safe banking system, as a deposi-
tory of business funds and a machinery for business
exchanges. How supremely important a part of our
economic organism banks have become I need not ex-
plain. Every practical business man, as well as every
student of the subject, knows it. The American people,
even of this generation, have in this respect, gone through
a lively variety of experience, from the wildcat State
banks, which existed before the war, to the National
banking system of to-day.
What qualities must a bank possess so that you may
1878] Carl Schurz 467
call it a good one? If it be a bank of issue, its notes must
be well secured and surrounded with such guarantees
of convertibility that they may pass throughout the land
without discount and without danger of loss to anybody.
Second: Its deposits must be well secured by reserves, so
as to be reasonably safe. Third: Its discount and loan
business must be conducted without extortion, so as to
afford reasonable accommodation to the business com-
munity. When the banks of the country possess these
qualities, they are a blessing to the business community
worth untold millions year after year. When the banks
do not possess these qualities they are the source of
infinite distrust and restlessness; for then business walks
as if on a thin crust of ice, in danger of breaking through
every moment. You all know this. Now compare the
State-bank system as it existed before the war with our
national-bank system as it exists now, and what do you
find? Under the State-bank system we have had partial
and general suspensions and breakdowns of banks in 1809,
1814, 1825, 1834, 1837, I^39, 1841 and 1857, resulting in
aggregate losses of hundreds of millions to billholders and
depositors, and the most disastrous confusion in the
business of the country. Our National banking system
has now been in existence about fifteen years. It has
passed through a financial crisis more distressing perhaps
than any that ever swept over this land; and what has
been the result? Not a single holder of a national-bank
note has lost a single cent, and the whole loss suffered by
depositors in national banks during the whole period of
their existence, including these five terrible years of
collapse and distress, amounted to about $6,000,000, a
loss less than that suffered by depositors in State and
savings banks this year alone. These are facts which
cannot be disputed. The national banks, have, therefore,
successfully stood a trial which no banking system in this
468 The Writings of [1878
country ever stood before. And now we are told that the
National banking system is unpopular, and must be
abolished. I do not hesitate to say, gentlemen, it is not
true that the national banks are unpopular. Whence
comes the cry about their unpopularity? I will tell you.
Some political agitators, to make capital for themselves
and against their opponents, denounce the national banks
as a monopoly oppressive to the people, and then a multi-
tude of other politicians, as usual, bend before the breeze.
That is all.
What is the test of the popularity of a bank or a banking
system? It is the confidence of the business community.
Apply this test. Is there an individual in this broad land
who, from the foundation of the National banking system
to this day, ever hesitated a single moment to take a
national-bank note at its face value, no matter in what
corner of the country the note was issued? You know
there is not. Is it not true that business men deposit
their money, as a general thing, in national banks with a
greater sense of security than they ever felt with regard
to any other banking system? You know that is so. It
is an indisputable fact, therefore, that the National bank-
ing system enjoys the confidence of the business com-
munity in a higher degree than any other ever did. I
assert then, that general confidence being that only true
test, the National banking system is not only not unpopu-
lar, but it is the most popular we ever had, because it is
the safest and best we ever had. And why is it the safest
and best? Because under the National banking act, the
details of which I have no time to go into, the notes issued
by national banks are so well secured by deposits of
United States bonds, that a loss on the part of a holder
of a national -bank note is simply impossible ; and because
under the same National banking act reserves so ample
are required, and a system of Government supervision is
1878] Carl Schurz 469
enforced so strict and searching that the speculating away
of the bank capital, or dishonest tricks in bookkeeping
or in making dividends, or defrauding depositors of their
funds by bank presidents and directors, is next to im-
possible. Hence it is that during fifteen years of their
existence, including five years of a terrible crisis — and I
repeat this fact, for it is important enough to bear re-
peating— not a cent has been lost by a single holder of a
national-bank note, and the loss of depositors in national
banks has been less than the loss of depositors in the State
and savings-banks alone was in a single year.
And now our Democratic agitators demand that this
banking system be abolished. Indeed, if we are to abolish
the safest banking system we ever had at a moment when
confidence, and therefore a safe banking system, is more
than ever needed, the reasons must be very weighty.
What are they?
First, it is said that the national banks enjoy privileges
which are oppressive to the people; that for every $100 in
bonds they deposit in the Treasury they are permitted to
issue $90 in notes ; that they draw interest upon the bonds,
and then lend out their notes and draw interest on them
also, which makes double interest; that thus they fatten
and grow rich at the expense of the people, and that,
therefore, it would be more economical for the people if
the bank notes were withdrawn, greenbacks issued in their
stead and the bonds on which the bank notes have been
issued, be bought up in the market with the greenbacks so
issued, so as to save the interest on the bonds. I think I
state the case fairly.
From this it would appear that the banks must get
immensely rich ; and inasmuch as national banking is now
free it is a wonder that not more of you go into so profitable
a business, and a greater wonder still that about thirty
millions of national-bank circulation has within a few.
470 The Writings of [1878
years been withdrawn by the banks themselves. As
people are not apt to lose a good chance to make money,
there must be some trouble about those immense profits,
which our Democratic friends fail to state. It is always
wholesome to look at official figures. I have here a state-
ment made by the Comptroller of the Currency before a
Congressional committee in February last. It is some-
what dry reading, but we must exercise patience to get
at the truth.
On February I5th the par value of the United States
bonds deposited in the Treasury as security for national
bank notes was $346,243,550; gold being then at 2*4 per
cent, premium, their currency value was $363,372,854.
The amount of circulation issuable thereon was $311,-
619,195; the gold interest on the bonds, $17,290,071; the
currency value of that interest at the time, $18,147,279.
"But," says the Comptroller, "as the banks are required
to pay annually into the Treasury a tax of I per cent, on
their circulation, or $3,116,192, there is left $15,031,087
in currency as the net amount of interest received by them
on the bonds." "Upon receiving circulation," says the
Comptroller, further, "the banks are required, by the act
of June 20, 1874, to place an amount equal to 5 per cent,
thereof, or $15,580,960, with the Treasurer of the United
States as a redemption fund, leaving out of the $311,619,-
195 of circulation issuable upon their bonds, $296,038,235
available for use, which amount, if loaned at 8 per cent.,
will produce an income of $23,683,059, and this income
added to the net interest on their bonds gives $38,714,146
as the whole income from bonds and circulation. " " But, ' '
he says further, "if the capital itself, which was necessary
to purchase the bonds ($363,372,854) were loaned out by
them at 8 per cent., the annual income therefrom would be
$29,069,828, and the difference between this sum and the
whole income from their bonds and circulation, which is
1878] Carl Schurz 471
$9,644,317, or 2 65-100 per cent, on the capital invested,
represents the profits that the banks would receive over
and above what could be obtained from the loan of the
same amount of capital at the rate of interest named,
provided that the whole amount of circulation received
by the banks upon their bonds, less the redemption fund,
could be kept loaned out by them continually throughout
the year.
"In the above calculation no decjuction is made for the
costs of the redemption of the bank circulation, which
lessens by so much the profits on circulation. Those
costs were for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1877, $357,-
066. Another point that should be considered in the above
estimate of their circulation is that the banks held their
bonds at a premium, which appeared among their assets
for a large amount. It was on December 28, 1877, the
date of the last report of their condition, $8,834,639."
The Comptroller states further that if the bonds of the
banks necessary to secure their circulation were converted
into 4 per cent, bonds, which will as much as possible be
done, their profits on circulation will be I 91-100 per cent,
on the capital employed.
Thus it appears that the national banks are by no
means the gold mines they were represented to be, es-
pecially considering that of late they have not been able to
keep their whole circulation loaned out the year through,
and that the losses charged off by all the national banks
during the year ending September I, 1876, were $19,719,-
026.42; during the following year, 1877, $19,933,587.99,
and during the six months ending March I, 1878, no less
than $10,903,145.14, a total in two and a half years of
$5°.555>759-55- Now, it will appear natural to you that
the ratio of earnings of the national banks to capital and
surplus for the year 1877 was only 5 62-100 per cent., and
this year it will not be greater. I am sure many of your
472 The Writings of [1878
business men of Cincinnati make a great deal more money
on their capital than these bloodsucking institutions, and
thus it is explained why you do not rush into national
banking.
Now for the earnings of 5 62-100 per cent, on their
capital and surplus which the national banks make, what
do they give us? They give us the safest banking system
we ever had. Suppose the profits on their circulation were
5 per cent, instead of 2^, and their average earnings, as
to capital and surplus, 12 per cent, instead of 5^, would it
not still be folly to forget that this banking system, by its
safety, is worth many times the interest on their bonds
every year to the business interests of the country? Can
you expect to have a banking system like this without any
profit at all to the men investing their money in it? You
speak of saving to the people the interest on the bonds
deposited by the national banks by the destruction of this
system, and you call it economy; you call it economy to
wipe out this safe system and substitute for it, as would
inevitably be the case, the old State banks again, with their
wildcat and yellow-dog currency, which robbed the people
by the wholesale. You might just as well call it economy
to abolish your paid fire department, and intrust your
property again to the boys who run with the machine,
because the paid fire department costs something. Are
the business men of the country unreasoning children that
they should act thus?
But you may say, why not deprive the national banks
of this currency, thus saving the interest on their bonds,
and then still keep them under the strict Government
supervision which makes them so safe? I will tell you why
not: Because the benefit arising from circulation was the
principal thing which induced those corporations to come
into, or organize under the National system, and to sub-
mit to the rigorous Government supervision, which is by
1878] Carl Schurz 473
no means pleasant to them. Deprive them of that benefit
and most, if not all, of the 2400 national banks now in
existence will withdraw from the National system and
become State banks again. You cannot eat your cake and
keep it too. But there are still other reasons why the
withdrawal of the national-bank currency and the sub-
stitution therefor of greenbacks appear to me highly
detrimental to the public interest. I will not go into a
discussion of the question whether new issues of green-
backs, a Government paper-money, in times of peace,
would be Constitutional or not. I am strongly of the
opinion that they would not be Constitutional. But,
leaving that aside, even if the Constitution did not stand
in the way, the following points are of decisive importance :
First. The substitution of greenbacks for national-
bank notes, as I have already shown, would make the
resumption of specie payments impossible, not only at
present, but for an indefinite time. It would launch us
out again upon the sea of irredeemable paper-money,
without rudder and compass.
Second. Our national-bank currency possesses a
quality very important to the business of the country,
which the Government paper-currency does not possess.
It is the quality of elasticity. Have you not all been
demanding a currency elastic in volume? Well, the bank
currency is. The Government paper is not. The volume
of bank currency, under a well-regulated system, is deter-
mined by the requirements of the business of the country.
When more is needed it will become profitable to issue
more, and it will be issued. When less is needed, the
excess flows back to the banks and withdraws. It is a
self-adjusting process. The volume of Government paper-
currency is fixed by law, and that law is made by politi-
cians. Whatever the changing needs of business may be,
that volume of the Government paper-currency remains
474 The Writings of [1878
fixed, until through the slow and cumbersome machinery
of legislation, the law is changed again by politicians.
And of all human agencies to determine the volume of
currency needed by business, business itself is the most re-
liable and best, and a set of politicians is the unsafest
and worst. The Government is a bad banker, but if well
administered it may be a good bank comptroller, as it
proved in this instance. In a very important respect, then,
national-bank currency, being equally safe as to the value,
is vastly superior to greenbacks, and every thinking business
man knows that it is so.
What other objections are there to the national banks?
That, as Democrats say, the national-bank currency being
based upon United States bonds, the maintenance of that
circulation will tend to perpetuate the National debt.
Well, the debt outstanding is about eighteen hundred
millions. I would respectfully ask our Democratic friends
whether they are in such a hurry to put their hands in their
pockets to pay off those eighteen hundred millions this year
or next? Will it not, even under favorable circumstances,
take at least twenty-five or thirty years to accomplish
that task? But while we have the National debt will it
not be well to put it to the best use we can? When at
last, after twenty-five or thirty years, we have paid it off
until we come down to the last four hundred millions, will
it not then be time enough to discuss whether it may be
best to pay off that little amount too, or to keep it as a
basis for bank circulation? Suppose we adjourn this
debate until that period. Let me suggest that it is useless
to borrow trouble about eggs to be laid a quarter of a
century hence. Indeed, this objection shows the extreme
poverty of argument to which the opponents of the
national-bank question are reduced.
Their last point is that the national banks are a monop-
oly and the embodiment of the money-power. Now, I
1878] Carl Schurz 475
am as firmly opposed to oppressive monopolies as anybody.
But I am equally opposed to, and I feel a hearty contempt
for, that trick of demagoguery which brings the charge
of monopoly or oppressive money-power against every-
thing against which it is thought expedient to excite the
prejudices and hatred of unsophisticated people of small
means. If that sort of demagoguery be extensively and
effectively indulged in, we may, as a nation, have to pay
dearly for it.
Can the national banks be called a monopoly? Monop-
olies are exclusive, and national banking is free to any
person in the land who has money to invest. There is,
then, a monopoly of which everybody can become a party
and beneficiary. There are at present 208 ,000 shareholders
in the national banks in the United States. More than
one-half of them hold shares to the amount of $1000 and
less. They are presumably people of limited means, who
have thus invested their little surplus. And any five of
you, if you can raise the necessary capital, may, under the
laws, organize a national bank. And this system is called
a monopoly. Why, the charge is too absurd for argument.
And where is the oppressive money-power in these banks?
What has it been able to effect? Those banks are the most
rigidly restricted, the most closely watched, the most
keenly supervised and controlled institutions in the
country. Has this money-power ever been strong
enough in Congress to remove a single one of their re-
straints; to secure to them the least additional privilege
or latitude of action, or to relieve them of a single one of
their burdens? You all know that it has not. What a
money-power is this, that can effect nothing for its own
advantage !
And what are the relations of Government to those
banks which our Democratic friends pretend to be so
afraid of? The Government issues to the banks their
476 The Writings of [1878
currency, and then it sees to it that every dollar of that
currency be safe; that the stock be paid in, that the
reserves be maintained according to law, that the books
be regularly and honestly kept, and so on. In one word
the Government sees to it that no tricks be played by
which the billholder or the depositor might be defrauded.
And, when the Government has to make a loan, the banks
sometimes aid it in peddling it out. That is all, and there
is your monopoly, and your grinding money-power.
And now, my fellow-citizens, I ask you in all candor and
soberness, would it not be an act of wicked folly, for
reasons so flimsy, without the least prospect of any real
advantage, wantonly to destroy a banking system which,
as every man in the country knows, is not only the best
we ever had, but better than any other we are likely to
have ; to destroy it at a moment when with it the resump-
tion of specie payments is easy, and without it impossible,
so that it would have to be invented if it were not there ;
destroy it while the industrial energies of the Nation, after
a long, painful period of paralysis and distress, are at last
slowly and timidly venturing forth again, and when,
above all things, confidence is needed to quicken the
circulation of the blood in the social and economic body
— and then just at such a moment to destroy the only great
institution that has successfully passed the crucial test
of a terrible crisis, and, therefore, justly does command
universal confidence; and that institution the banking
system, the most indispensable financial agency in all
business transactions — aye, to start in a revival of business
with the general breaking up of a good, reliable banking
system; to inspire confidence with an earthquake! Why,
gentlemen, the idea is so utterly childish and preposterous,
that every sane man who ever thought of it must blush
with shame at his own folly, when he calmly inquires into
the full meaning and consequences of the proposition.
1878] Carl Schurz 477
Certainly no man of common-sense need be told that
under such circumstances it is the only wise policy to
keep the good things we have, and to let well enough alone.
And now, my friends, I am come to a close. The
American people are at present engaged in a political
struggle to determine the character of the next National
Legislature. The financial question has, for the time being,
well-nigh swallowed up all other issues dividing parties.
I sincerely regret to find the Democrats of Ohio as firmly
wedded to the fallacies we combated in 1875 as they were
then, and their party in other States drifting into the same
dangerous current. I sincerely regret this, I say, for I am
not partisan enough to rejoice at the errors of the opposi-
tion, if they threaten to become destructive to the public
welfare. I desire both parties to be as good and patriotic
as possible, so that the bad tendencies of one may not
encourage the faults of the other, and I am glad, therefore,
to see not a few Democrats manfully stand up for their
old hard-money principles. May their acts be in harmony
with their faith.
I do rejoice to see the Republicans of this State, and,
indeed, almost all over the country, following the example
you set in 1875, grow stronger in their resolution to defend
the cause of honest money, true to their traditions and
instincts of loyalty to the financial honor of the Republic ;
for they can render to the public good no better service.
The situation appears very grave. A diligent agitation
seems to have propagated the paper-money mania like
an epidemic. But this last blazing up may, after all, turn
out to be really like the decisive paroxysm in typhoid
fever, which, although apparently threatening death, is
only the forerunner of convalescence. Indeed, with as
intelligent and high-minded a people as the Americans,
it can scarcely be otherwise. Through whatever extrava-
gancies of imagination and reasoning they may pass,
478
The Writings of
[1878
even most of those at present earnestly opposing the re-
establishment of the specie basis, they will finally land at
the conclusion that, while in the economic movements
of modern society paper-money is necessary, that paper-
money must be convertible into the money of the world,
and that its volume and value must not be the football
of political agitation. The hopeful signs of returning
prosperity cannot fail to weaken the inspiration which wild
schemes of relief receive from long suffered distress. The
laboring man, who now imagines himself engaged in a
death struggle with capital as a hostile power, and is excited
by extravagant theories moving entirely outside of the
boundaries of existing social order, will, as the opportunity
for profitable employment returns begin to feel again that
society is not only not his enemy, but ready to redress his
real grievances, and that in a country like ours there is
the most fruitful field and ample reward for honest indi-
vidual effort. Many of them begin already to perceive
that the fluctuations of an irredeemable paper-money rob
the laboring man first and rob him last, and that an honest
dollar is his best friend. I have no doubt that when this
crisis is successfully passed, the laboring man will be the
first to acknowledge that those who defended honest
money, even against his own errors, were the truest
defenders of his interests.
But at present the duty of the hour calls upon every
patriotic man for an honest effort to put an end to the
senseless and destructive agitation which prevents the
revival of business and the return of prosperity. There is
scarcely a sane man in the country who will not admit
that at some time the restoration of the specie system must
come. The question is, whether it is to come now and
bring with it public repose and a fruitful employment of
the social forces, or whether it is to come after new and
disastrous convulsions. We can never be better prepared
1878] Carl Schurz 479
for it than we are to-day. Our National debt, formerly
held abroad, has returned to our shores; our National
credit is good beyond precedent; our products, exported
in an abundance never seen before, find a profitable
market; current prices are on the gold basis; our Treasury
is well stocked with coin. If not now when can we ever
expect to restore our money system to a solid founda-
tion? Can any sensible man desire to see the country
exposed to longer suffering from the disastrous effects of
uncertainty?
There are in Europe nations groaning under the curse
of irredeemable paper-money. Every one of them is
painfully struggling to deliver itself of the evil. Every
one of them envies us our glorious opportunities. Is it
possible that we, proud of our popular intelligence, should
hesitate to use them?
History shows us examples enough of peoples floun-
dering among wild theories and schemes while under the
influence of an irredeemable money they could not get rid
of. But you will search the annals of the world in vain for
an instance of a nation that was able and fully prepared,
after long agonies, to return to a sound money system,
and then wantonly run away from it. Will the Ameri-
can people be the first to present to the world so crazy
an exhibition? It would expose us to the ridicule and
contempt of mankind.
I read in the public journals of an orator speaking to
citizens of Ohio, and declaring that the resumption act
must be repealed before the 1st of January, and that if it
is not, blood will be shed to prevent its execution. Can
it be that there are men in this State ready to shed blood
in order to escape the dreadful chance of exchanging their
greenback for a gold dollar? If there are indeed persons
who give such counsel, and victims so violently demented,
the delirium must have reached a phase where it is im-
480 The Writings of [1878
possible to draw the line between the sublime and the
ridiculous. But whether there be or not, let the solemn
duty of this hour unite all patriotic men in an earnest and
active endeavor to prove that the American people are
an honest people, scrupulously faithful to their National
obligations, and a wise people, who, although not always
exempt from temporary gusts of excitement and the in-
vasion of erroneous doctrines, yet at last always follow the
dictates of calm judgment and sovereign common-sense.
FROM HUGH McCULLOCH
94 BROADWAY, NEW YORK, Oct. 2, 1878.
You have my hearty thanks, and I have no doubt the hearty
thanks of many thousands for your admirable and exhaustive
speech at Cincinnati. It covers [the] whole ground, leaving
nothing for inflationists to stand upon. It is, by far, the sever-
est blow which has been given to the false gods which so many
of our people are bowing down to. I wish all the members of
the Cabinet were as sound on the financial questions as the
Secretary of the Interior and as fearless as he in discussing it.
FROM HORACE WHITE
NEW YORK, Oct. 8, 1878.
I have read your Cincinnati speech, or as much of it as
I could find in the newspapers, with great satisfaction. It
is the first speech which attacks the citadel of the anti-specie
resumption party. That citadel is the silver bill, and I tell
you that I don't see how the Government is to resume on the
ist of January with that act on the statute book. It is a
warning and an incentive to all holders of greenbacks to hurry
up and get the gold while it lasts, because if they wait they
will get only silver. . . .
18791 Carl Schurz 481
TO EDWARD ATKINSON
WASHINGTON, Nov. 28, 1879.
I have received your letter of the 22nd inst. which in-
forms me that "the Indian question has now taken root
in Boston and will be followed to a conclusion if it costs
a million or more," and also that "in right action my
sympathy and counsel will be highly regarded." This
is most welcome information, for no man can esteem more
highly than I do, after my experience in the conduct of
Indian affairs, the cooperation of enlightened and public-
spirited citizens in the efforts of the Government to solve
so difficult and troublesome a problem. It is also very
important that this cooperation should proceed upon an
intelligent mutual understanding so that those who have
a common end in view may be kept from working at cross
purposes in the choice of a line of action.
As to the ultimate end to be attained there can scarcely
be any difference of opinion between us; it is the absorp-
tion of our Indian population in the great body of citizens
under the laws of the land. You will also agree with me
that this should be brought about in a manner least
dangerous to the Indians themselves as well as to American
society. Since writing your letter you have probably seen
my annual report which must have convinced you that
this is the objective point kept steadily in view by this
Department. The report also sets forth the means by
which the Government endeavors to reach that end as
well as the results so far gained. The line of policy
pursued, as stated in my report, is as follows :
1. To set the Indians to work as agriculturists or
herders, thus to break up their habits of savage life and to
make them self-supporting.
2. To educate their youth of both sexes so as to intro-
duce to the growing generation civilized ideas, wants and
aspirations.
VOL. in. — 31
482 The Writings of [1879
3. To allot parcels of land to the Indians in severalty
and to give them individual title to their farms in fee,
inalienable for a certain period, thus to foster the pride of
individual ownership of property instead of their former
dependence upon the tribe with its territory held in
common.
4. When settlement in severalty with individual title
is accomplished, to dispose, with their consent, of those
lands on their reservation which are not settled and used
by them, the proceeds to form a fund for their benefit.
5. When this is accomplished, to treat the Indians
like other inhabitants of the United States under the laws
of the land.
Here the ultimate end is clearly pointed out as well as
the process by which, in my opinion, it can be safely
reached.
You say in your letter: "The present attempt to treat
men as children must fail, even under your control of
the Department. The natural method seems to be to
establish the rights of the Indians as citizens under the
1 4th amendment, and then let them take their chance. "
I trust, if this expression seems to indicate any difference
of opinion between us as to the course to be followed, that
the difference exists more in words than in purpose. You
will certainly agree with me that we should treat the
Indians as what they really are, and take good care not to
treat them as what they are not. Upon the soundness of
our judgment in this respect our success will depend. I
need scarcely assure you that, if, by some legal enactment
or some judicial decision declaring the Indians citizens in
every respect the equals of all other citizens, the Indian
question could be solved, that is to say, if the Indians,
such as they are at present, could be enabled "to take their
chance" as citizens with other citizens in the contests and
competitions of civilized life, with any fair prospect of
i879l Carl Schurz 483
holding their own, nobody would more eagerly advise that
course than those at present managing Indian affairs.
It would be the greatest possible relief to them as well as
to their successors.
I admit that the five civilized tribes in the Indian
Territory, who for years have had schools, courts of justice,
a form of government resembling our own, and are enjoy-
ing a certain degree of prosperity, might assume the rights
and responsibilities of citizenship without serious danger
to themselves, although a majority of even these Indians,
as I was informed in my conferences with their leading
men, still shrink from those responsibilities. I might say
the same of the small number of Indians in other localities,
who have gone through the intermediate stages above
pointed out until they became more or less able to take
care of themselves. These, however, form scarcely more
than one-fifth of our whole Indian population. But if you
could visit the Sioux, who have just begun the transition,
the Comanches, the Kiowas, the Cheyennes, the Sho-
shonees, the Arrapahoes, the Utes, the Apaches, the
Crows, the Assiniboines, the Gros Ventres, the Flatheads
and numerous other tribes, and then put to yourself
the question whether they, such as they are to-day,
should be turned into the struggles of civilized life,
without education, without at least some knowledge of a
civilized language and of the ways of the world, without
having learned how to work and how to provide for the
future, without property well secured to them as indi-
viduals, simply "to take their chance," I have not the
remotest doubt as to what your answer would be. You
would indeed find many of them advancing with a rapidity
encouraging the hope that the continuance for some time
of a wise and firm guidance in the manner above indicated
will enable them to take care of themselves. But you
would, I am confident, agree with me in the conclusion
484 The Writings of [1879
that to precipitate the large mass of them now into trials
and responsibilities, which at best are just faintly dawning
upon their minds, would be the greatest cruelty that could
be inflicted upon them except, perhaps, extermination
by the bullet. The result of such a measure cannot be
doubtful. Having lost what pride and good qualities they
possessed in their savage state, and not yet having acquired
what civilization offers to fill the vacuum, they would at
once become the helpless victims of the worst elements
of the white population surrounding them. They would
without fail in the shortest space of time be stripped of
their little possessions. They would be condemned, as a
race, to a life of vagabonds, paupers and beggars, of gipsies
and pig stealers, and their women of something worse,
a festering sore in society, carrying corruption wherever
they would go, and a curse to themselves as well as to the
white people among whom they would move. For we
must not forget that the savage, when coming into con-
tact with civilization unguarded and unguided, is but too
apt first to acquire its vices instead of its virtues. Neither
must we forget that a large portion of the white people of
the West are by no means friendly to the Indians — just as
the people of Massachusetts were not friendly to them in
early colonial times — and that these Indians would not
find them the kindest and most patient guides, if they were
to take their chance among them unprepared.
This is no mere speculation. The fate of many Indians
who have already been thrust among their white neigh-
bors "to take their chance" with them without being
sufficiently prepared, furnishes a warning example.
It must be evident, therefore, that the preparatory
measures above pointed out — education, active wrork,
settlement in severalty, fixed homes, property well se-
cured to the individual — must precede their final absorp-
tion in the body of citizens, and that citizenship with its
1879] Carl Schurz 485
responsibilities as well as rights must be the ultimate end
and not the initial point of the solution of the problem.
And it is by promoting this preparatory work, I respect-
fully suggest, that a movement like that inaugurated in
Boston, can make itself most beneficent, and a genuine
blessing to the Indian.
As to the Ponca case, which seems to have given the
immediate impulse to your movement, it is scarcely
necessary to repeat what I have already stated on several
occasions : that this removal was effected in pursuance of a
law passed before the incoming of the present Administra-
tion; that my first official report as well as that of the
present Commissioner of Indian Affairs set forth the
wrong done to the Poncas before that wrong was taken
any notice of by the public, and that since then this De-
partment has done all it could do under the law, by mere
administrative action, to indemnify them for that wrong.
I may add however that, had I then personally seen their
old reservation on the Missouri, and especially their so-
called houses there as I have since, I might have drawn
the picture of their losses less strongly. I may assure you
also that there is absolutely no wish nor interest here ad-
verse to the welfare of the Poncas. It is, as I stated in this
year's report, a matter of grave doubt, whether under
present circumstances a removal back to their old re-
serve would not have, in a practical point of view, rather
an injurious than a beneficial effect upon their future.
Were you acquainted with those circumstances in detail,
you would probably share that doubt.
I cannot advise you concerning the manner in which you
can take their case to the Supreme Court. The question
whether an appeal from the well-known decision of Judge
Dundy on the application for a writ of habeas corpus is to
be prosecuted by the Government or withdrawn, although
the first steps in that direction were taken at the time, is
486 The Writings of [1879
still under advisement. While I am at present inclined
to think that the decision should be permitted to stand as
it is, yet it involves considerations touching the established
Indian policy of the Government so grave, that upon
further examination a different conclusion may be reached.
I shall advise you of this in time, if you so desire.
I will, however, not conceal from you my opinion that,
while the establishment of some general principle with
regard to the rights of the Indians by judicial decision may
be useful in some respects, I consider practical measures
for the improvement of the Indians, fitting them for the
struggles of civilized life and the responsibilities of citi-
zenship, of far greater importance. Without this, ab-
stract rights and privileges, however logical and correct in
principle, will be of no real advantage to them. In fact
you will find on inquiry that but few of them would, under
present circumstances, desire or take the rights of citizen-
ship if offered to them. But as soon as the Indians become
prepared for the exercise of those rights, the latter cannot
and certainly will not be withheld. It appears to me, there-
fore, that all the energies which can be brought to bear
upon the solution of the Indian problem should be con-
centrated upon the civilizing work as the first thing really
needful. As you tell me that the citizens of Boston are
willing to spend money for that cause, I may venture
upon the further suggestion that at present I know of no
way in which such money can be more advantageously
spent than by founding and endowing an educational
institute for Indian children similar to the schools at
Hampton and at Carlisle of which my annual report
gives a brief account. If the citizens of Boston would
establish and by a board or committee manage such an
institution with a farm and workshops attached to it for
agricultural and mechanical instruction, this Department
would see to it that any number of Indian pupils that can
1879] Carl Schurz 487
be accommodated, be furnished from the various tribes.
The withdrawal of Indian children of both sexes from their
home influences and their education in civilized surround-
ings appears to me one of the most important agencies in
the work of Indian civilization, for it assures the future.
This Department is going to the utmost limit of its means
in promoting Indian education, but the number of Indian
children so educated, to return to their people as well
instructed and civilized young men and women, can never
be too large, and here, it seems to me, is the field on which
the benevolence of public-spirited citizens can produce the
greatest results for the elevation of the Indian race. I
would commend this most warmly to your consideration
and advocacy, and I should be most grateful to you if you
could induce the citizens of Boston to take this matter in
hand with their well-known spirit and energy.
I address these remarks to you with the confident hope
that the movement in which you are engaged will also
induce a larger number of intelligent and high-minded
men and women to seek and acquire that information
about Indian affairs which will enable them to form clear
and reliable judgment on the various aspects of the
question. Philanthropy to be effective must, above all
things, stand on a sound knowledge of facts. One of the
greatest disadvantages the government of Indian affairs
has to contend with, is that so large a number of people
undertake to pronounce judgment upon it without ever
taking the trouble to inquire into its objects, the means at
its disposal, its methods and the nature of its business in
detail. I have known intelligent men who would hesitate to
express an opinion on the merits of an improved door-knob
or gas-burner without careful examination, but do not hesi-
tate at all to dispose of the Indian question at a moment's
notice without ever having investigated one single phase
of it. You can also well imagine that expressions of
488 The Writings of [1879
opinion, coming from persons ever so well-meaning, will
be materially weakened in their influence upon those
charged with public responsibility, when they proceed
upon assumptions known to be groundless, when for in-
stance in the discussion of the Ponca case we are told by
prominent speakers in public meetings, that the Poncas
are kept in the Indian Territory by the influence of the
"Indian ring," while I know that this Department has
no authority of law for moving them back and that I
have never been approached by a human soul with regard
to the matter; or that the Poncas were stripped of more
than $200,000 worth of personal property, that is to say
every man, woman and child of the 700 Poncas of about
$300 each, while the ridiculous absurdity of such a state-
ment is clear to every one knowing anything of Indians
and the personal property they are apt to have; or that
the Poncas were driven away from their old reservation
in Dakota by the Indian ring which wanted to get posses-
sion of their lands and whose bidding was done by this
Department, while I know as every well-informed person
knows that the old Ponca reserve, being Indian country
now as it was before, could not be and has not been taken
possession of by any white person. The wrongs suffered
by the Poncas are grievous enough and this Department
is doing everything it can under the law to repair them,
but you will readily understand that such wild statements
as here mentioned are not calculated to inspire great
confidence in the judgment or the regard for the truth of
some of the advocates of their cause.
Such confidence ought to exist if there is to be fruitful
cooperation for a common end. It needs no argument
to show that the philanthropic sentiment of the citizens
of Boston will accomplish more if working in good under-
standing with the Government than without it. I am
very anxious that such good understanding and coopera-
1879] Carl Schurz 489
tion be brought about, and I am sure it can be brought
about more effectually by personal conference than in
any other way. I would therefore suggest to you that you
make an effort to induce the citizens of Boston interested
in this matter to send a committee to Washington for a
frank exchange of opinions and an agreement on common
purposes and corresponding action.
Such a committee might also serve another object. I
conclude from your letter that there is doubt in your mind
as to the fitness of the machinery of the Indian service to
accomplish much good. I am aware that the talk about
rascally Indian agents and the omnipotent Indian ring is
still popular. I do not pretend that the Indian service,
as at present organized, is all that it ought to be. But it
has been and is my earnest endeavor to make and keep it
as honest and efficient as any other branch of the public
service, and I have reason to believe that considerable
progress has been made in that direction. But in this
respect I do not want to be taken on trust. Your com-
mittee, if you send one, will find everything here open
to their inquiry. You are a man of affairs, experienced in
such things. If you, upon examination, find our system of
accountability, after the improvements we have intro-
duced, still defective; if you discover an abuse not yet
corrected, or a faithless officer undetected, or traces of an
"Indian ring" not yet broken, nobody will be more grate-
ful for the information than I. You, yourselves, may then
judge whether the Indian service, as conducted at present,
is a fit instrument for good purposes. I submit to you
these suggestions for such use as you may see fit to make
of them, hoping that they will do some good, and looking
for a response with great interest.
490
The Writings of
[1879
TO E. L. GODKIN
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, Dec. 7, 1879.
Your letter of November 27th has remained unanswered
longer than I desired, owing to the rush of current business
connected with the opening of the session of Congress.
I have gone over the points made by your correspond-
ent as carefully as possible and find his complaints to
be: (i) that pension claims are not disposed of as rapidly
as they should be; (2) that many mistakes are made in
the adjudication of them, and (3) that the hunting after
fraudulent claims causes delay in the disposition of the
just ones, while the number of claims discovered to be
fraudulent is comparatively small.
The first complaint is in so far well founded, as the
Pension Office with its present force is unable to keep
up with the current business, especially since, after the
passage of the arrears act, the number of original applica-
tions has grown to be nearly three times as large as it was
before. I have satisfied myself that the present force is
doing its work as rapidly as possible, and that, if it con-
sisted entirely of experienced lawyers, which is unattain-
able, it could scarcely dispose of a larger number of claims.
An increase of the force has therefore been asked for. As
to the character of the force I have this to say: Original
appointments to "clerkships" have been made, since I
came into office, after competitive examination, and these
examinations have, for a considerable time, been so ar-
ranged that persons conversant with the rules of evidence
have a decided advantage. Moreover I have introduced
the following practice: Every three months the Commis-
sioner of Pensions presents to me the "efficiency record"
of all the employes of his Office. We can ascertain with
almost mathematical certainty the proportion of work
done by each clerk in the Pension Office in point of quantity
1879] Carl Schurz 491
as well as quality, the number of claims disposed of and
the accuracy of the work, as it passes through the hands
of the "reviewers." When the efficiency record is before
me, those who have done the most and the best work
are promoted, and those who have fallen behind are
reduced. This system has proved to be a powerful
stimulus, and the result is that almost every one in the
Pension Office does his utmost. I do not believe there is
an office in any of the Departments where there is so large
a proportion of work done by the employes. With an
increase of force I hope the Office will be able to grapple
with the flood of work which is pouring upon it.
2. As to the mistakes made in the adjudication of
pension claims I think I have better opportunities of
judging than your correspondent, for the reason that
rejected pension claims are carried up to the Department
on appeal whenever there appears to be any chance for
upsetting the decision of the Pension Office. These ap-
pealed cases are carefully examined by competent persons
in the " pension division" of the "Secretary's office" and
then submitted to me, and I find that the number of cases
in which the decision of the pension officials has to be
reversed, is very small, smaller indeed than might be
expected considering the constant pressure under which
the work in the Pension Office has to be done. A larger
number of mistakes is probably made in allowing claims
which should not be allowed, owing to the circumstance
that under the present system pension claims are adjudi-
cated on mere ex-parte testimony. But this your corre-
spondent does not find fault with, as he thinks that it
is better to give pensions to ten persons whose claims
are fraudulent, than to withhold from one whose claim is
just.
3. As to the hunting after fraudulent claims your
correspondent is mistaken. The discoveries of fraud have
492 The Writings of [1879
in most cases been accidental as under the present system
they necessarily must be. The present system does not
give the Pension Office the means to detect fraud unless
it betrays itself, which it sometimes does. And for this
reason the number of detections has been comparatively
small, while the number of fraudulent cases is undoubt-
edly much larger and will no doubt increase after the
passage of the arrears bill which has already proved a
tremendous stimulus. The very fact that now, fourteen
years after the close of the war, an average of 5760 original
invalid claims and 1433 original widows' claims come in
every month, while the average per month for the twelve
months preceding the passage of the arrears act was only
1478 and 519, respectively, would seem to indicate that a
great many persons are now trying their chance of obtain-
ing a pension who never thought of it before and that it is
high time to look for some system facilitating the detec-
tion of fraud. The Pension Office is indeed the distribu-
tor of the charities of the Government, but it is, in my
opinion, an important part of its duty to see to it that
the charitable fund be not robbed by persons who have
no just claim upon it.
The paper of your correspondent makes upon me the
impression that, in some things at least, he strives more
to appear right than to be just. I do not think it quite
just, for instance, that after, by implication, publicly
charging the Commissioner of Pensions with something
like favoritism in the payment of arrears, he should deem
it sufficient to withdraw that charge in private. Neither
would he, in criticising the practice of withholding record
information from the claimant to test the truth of his
evidence, have stated, as a great hardship, that "a man
who has nearly completed his case and then lost the
number of it, should be unable to obtain that number
from the Office," — had he taken the trouble to inform
1879] Carl Schurz 493
himself instead of crediting unfounded complaint; for
the number of a claim is never withheld from the claim-
ant but always furnished him by the Office on demand;
neither is the claimant called upon to prove by parole the
facts which are of record in his case, unless he be informed
that the record itself is unsatisfactory and he must
support it by parole evidence.
However, it is not necessary to go into further detail.
Your correspondent seems to have an idea of the duties
of the Pension Office somewhat different from that enter-
tained by officers who feel themselves responsible for
the protection of the public interest. We cannot act
upon the principle that in the distribution of public
charity it is of no consequence whether the Government
be defrauded or not. If we admitted such a principle,
the Pension Office would soon be a mass of corruption,
especially at a time when such legislation as the arrears
act stimulates the greed of every unscrupulous person that
has ever served in the Army.
I am very far from justifying the language used by
Mr. Bentley in his letter to you, although I understand
the feelings of a public officer who does his best to perform
his duty and then finds himself assailed from a quarter
from which he had expected support.
It is of course useless to pursue this matter further
before the public. I can only assure you that here every
possible effort is made to perform the duties imposed
upon the Department satisfactorily and to render the
service as efficient as may be to that end. I wish you
could look into this matter personally, but I know how
impossible that is.
494 The Writings of [1879
TO GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, Dec. 29, 1879.
I intended to answer your last note some time ago but
the current business of the Department would not let
me do so.
It seems to me that it is time for the opponents of
General Grant's nomination to act. The "boom busi-
ness" has been so much overdone that the public mind is
open for a reaction. I have watched the matter with
great attention and firmly believe now in the possibility of
preventing the mischief. All that is necessary now is that
those who are earnestly opposed to the third term should
openly say so. You strike the nail on the head in saying
that the real danger consists in "the habituation of the
popular mind to personal government." But I think
you are not right in your apprehension that the people
have no clear appreciation of that danger. It is just this
appreciation, together with their remembrance of the
corruptions and abuses of the Grant regime, that makes
the Germans so unanimous in their opposition to the
third term. I see this cropping out everywhere. Without
the German Republican vote several of the Northwestern
States, such as Wisconsin, Illinois and Ohio, cannot be
carried. This is gradually becoming well understood
among politicians. Now let it be known that the In-
dependent Republican element in New York is of the
same mind, — let this become known through a strong
and unmistakable demonstration, and the back of the
Grant movement will be broken.
Why not proceed in Harper's Weekly? And if you
do not think it practicable to speak out bluntly there
editorially — I mean as to the support of Grant in case
of his nomination — would not Harper's Weekly publish
communications stating the whole argument?
i88o] Carl Schurz 495
I repeat, it seems to be time now to go forward. A few
weeks hence the practical preparations for the elections
of delegates to the National Convention will commence,
and now we can inaugurate a healthy movement not only
to prevent Grant's nomination but that of any candidate
whose record is not clean. Determined action now will
be apt to save us a great deal of trouble. What has been
said and done so far may remain without effect unless
followed up with more decided demonstrations. Is the
organization of the "scratchers" in any manner active?
They should not hesitate now to step forward and make
known their minds.
I write to you with entire frankness, knowing that you
fully appreciate the greatness of the issue. I hope you
will communicate with me, of course, in entire confidence.
I find that we are stronger in numbers as well as influence
than we thought some time ago. We can afford to "stand
up and be counted."
TO HENRY CABOT LODGE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, Jan. 3, 1880.
I am afraid I cannot "postpone to a certain day."
The fact is the article I intended to write was to be about
the Grant business and calculated to produce an effect
upon the movements preparatory to the Republican Na-
tional Convention. In order to do that, it would have
to appear now, or at least within two or three weeks.
Even if I could find time, this or next month, to write it,
which is quite impossible, it would not come out in time
to do any good. But I have scarcely ever been more
absorbed by current business than I am now, so that I
can scarcely think of anything else.
Now, as to the Grant business, one thing seems to me
496 The Writings of Ii88o
necessary to kill it with unfailing certainty : it is that those
who do not mean to support him under any circumstances
— and there are legions of them — should make it known,
boldly and loudly, before the election of delegates to the
National Convention takes place. Much is done in that
direction already, but more should be done. Cannot you
and your friends set the "Young Republicans" of Massa-
chusetts going? Now is the time for them to do something
decisive. It does not look at present as if the South would
nominate Grant. If the opposition, which really exists,
shows itself in season and with sufficient strength and
determination, his name will never appear in the conven-
tion. I agree with you perfectly in what you say with
regard to Sherman.
TO MRS. HELEN JACKSON *
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Jan. 17, 1880. *
1 should certainly have answered your letter of the
9th instant more promptly had I not been somewhat over-
burdened with official business during the past week.
I hope you will kindly pardon the involuntary delay.
As I understand the matter, money is being collected
for the purpose of engaging counsel to appear for the
Poncas in the courts of the United States, partly to
represent them in the case of an appeal from Judge
Dundy's habeas corpus decision, and partly to procure a
decision for the recovery of their old reservation on the
Missouri river. I believe that the collection of money for
these purposes is useless. An appeal from Judge Dundy's
habeas corpus decision can proceed only from the Govern-
"'H. H."
2 This and the other letters are printed in the appendix to Mrs. Jackson's
Century of Dishonor.
i88oj Carl Schurz 497
ment, not from the Poncas, for the simple reason that the
decision was in favor of the latter. An appeal was, indeed,
entered by the United States district-attorney at Omaha
immediately after the decision had been announced.
Some time ago his brief was submitted to me. On examin-
ing it, I concluded at once to advise the Attorney-General
of my opinion that it should be dropped, as I could not
approve the principles upon which the argument was
based. The Attorney-General consented to instruct the
district-attorney accordingly, and thus Judge Dundy's
decision stands without further question on the part of
the Government. Had an appeal been prosecuted, and
had Judge Dundy's decision been sustained by the court
above, the general principles involved in it would simply
have been affirmed without any other practical effect than
that already obtained. This matter is therefore ended.
As to the right of the Poncas to their old reservation on
the Missouri, the Supreme Court has repeatedly decided
that an Indian tribe cannot sue the United States or a
State in the Federal Courts. The decisions are clear and
uniform on this point. Among lawyers with whom I
discussed this matter I have not found a single one who
entertained a different view; but I did find among them
serious doubts as to whether a decision, even if the Poncas
could bring suits, would be in their favor, considering
the facts in the case. But, inasmuch as such a suit cannot
be brought at all, this is not the question. It is evidently
idle to collect money and to fee attorneys for the purpose
of doing a thing which cannot be done. Had the disin-
terested friends of the Indians who are engaged in this
work first consulted lawyers on the question of possibility,
they would no doubt have come to the same conclusion.
The study I have given to the Indian question in its
various aspects, past and present, has produced in my
mind the firm conviction that the only certain way to
VOL. III. — 32
498 The Writings of
secure the Indians in their possessions and to prevent
them from becoming forever a race of homeless paupers
and vagabonds, is to transform their tribal title into
individual title, inalienable for a certain period; in other
words, to settle them in severalty and give them by patent
an individual fee-simple in their lands. Then they will
hold their lands by the same title by which white men hold
theirs, and they will, as a matter of course, have the same
standing in the courts, and the same legal protection of
their property. As long as they hold large tracts in the
shape of reservations, only small parts of which they can
make useful to themselves and to others, the whole being
held by the tribe in common, their tenure will always be
insecure. It will grow more and more so as our population
increases, and the quantity of available land diminishes.
We may call this an ugly and deplorable fact, but it is a
fact for all that. Long experience shows that the protests
of good people in the name of justice and humanity have
availed but very little against this tendency, and it is
useless to disguise and unwise to overlook it, if we mean
to do a real service to the Indians.
For this reason I attach much more importance to the
passage of legislation providing for the settlement of the
Indians in severalty and giving them individual title in
fee-simple, the residue of their lands not occupied by them
to be disposed of for their benefit, than to all the efforts,
however well intended, to procure judicial decisions which,
as I have shown, cannot be had. I am glad to say that
the conversations I have had with Senators and Repre-
sentatives in Congress on the policy of settling the In-
dians in severalty have greatly encouraged my hope of
the success of the "severalty bill" during the present
session.
I need not repeat here what I said in a letter to Mr.
Edward Atkinson, which you may possibly have seen
i88o] Carl Schurz 499
some time ago in the Boston papers, about the necessity
of educating Indian children. You undoubtedly under-
stand that as well as I do, and I hope you will concur in
my recommendation that the money collected for taking
the Ponca case into the courts, which is impossible cf
accomplishment, and as much more as can be added, be
devoted to the support and enlargement of our Indian
schools, such as those at Hampton and Carlisle. Thus a
movement which undoubtedly has the hearty sympathy of
many good men and women, but which at present seems
in danger of being wasted on the unattainable, may be
directed into a practical channel, and confer a real and
lasting benefit on the Indian race.
FROM MRS. HELEN JACKSON
NEW YORK, Jan. 22, 1880.
Your letter of the lyth instant is at hand. If I understand
this letter correctly, the position which you take is as follows :
That there is in your opinion, and in the opinion of the lawyers
whom you have consulted on the subject, no way of bringing
before the courts the suits for the prosecution of which money
has been and is being contributed by the friends of the Pon-
cas; that the reason you do not approve of this movement
is that "it is evidently idle to collect money and to fee attor-
neys for the purpose of doing a thing which cannot be done."
This is the sole reason which I understand you to give for
discountenancing the collection of money for these suits.
Am I correct in this? And are we to infer that it is on this
ground and no other that you oppose the collection of money
for this purpose? Are we to understand that you would be in
favor of the Poncas recovering their lands by process of law,
provided it were practicable?
You say, also, that you hope I will "concur" in your "re-
commendation that the money collected for taking the Ponca
500 The Writings of
case into the courts shall be devoted to the support and enlarge-
ment of our Indian schools. " May I ask how it would be, in
your opinion, possible to take money given by thousands of
people for one specific purpose and use it for another different
purpose? You say, "Had the friends of the Indians who are
engaged in this work first consulted lawyers on the question of
possibility, they would, no doubt, have come to the same
conclusion. " Had the friends of the Indians engaged in this
work, and initiated this movement without having consulted
lawyers, it would have been indeed foolish. But this was not
the case. Lawyers of skill and standing were found ready to
undertake the case; and the matter stands therefore to-day
precisely as it stood when I wrote to you on the I7th instant.
All the money which is thought to be needed for carrying the
Ponca case before the courts can be raised in twenty-four
hours in Boston, if you can say that you approve of the suits
being brought. If your only objection to the movement is the
one objection which you have stated, namely, that it would be
futile, can you not say that, if lawyers of standing are ready to
undertake the case, you would be glad to see the attempt made
in the courts, and the question settled? If it is, as you think,
a futile effort, it will be shown to be so. If it is, as the friends
and lawyers of the Poncas think, a practicable thing, a great
wrong will be righted.
You say that "to settle them (the Indians) in severalty, and
give them by patent an individual fee-simple in their lands, "
will enable them to "hold their lands by the same title by
which white men hold theirs," and that "then they will, as a
matter of course, have the same standing in the courts and the
same legal protection of their property. " May I ask you if
any bill has been brought before Congress which is so worded
as to secure these ends ? My only apology for troubling you
again is my deep interest in the Indians, and in the Ponca case
especially.
Carl Schurz 501
TO MISS EMMA ALLISON
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24, 1880.
Private.
I have received your kind letter of the I2th inst. and
beg leave to express to you my sincere thanks for the
encouraging sentiments it conveys to me.
Yesterday I had my last interview with Chief Winne-
mucca and the delegation accompanying him. It gave me
the most heartfelt pleasure to comply with all their re-
quests, and they appeared to be completely satisfied. I
hope they will now become permanently settled, and if
Congress gives me the legislation I have asked for, I
expect to be able to make those of them that will occupy
land in severalty, proprietors of farm lots in fee simple
before I go out of office. I shall do all I can to make such
arrangements on the Malheur reservation as will answer
that object. They appear to be well meaning people and
I shall befriend them as much as I can. I am very glad
I have had them here, and they expressed their thankful-
ness in a very touching manner.
For whatever information you may be kindly disposed
to give me concerning the condition and wants of the
Indians on the Pacific Coast I shall be much obliged to you.
TO MRS. HELEN JACKSON
WASHINGTON, D. C., Jan. 26, 1880.
In reply to your letter of the 226. instant, I beg leave to
say that if an Indian tribe could maintain an action in the
courts of the United States to assert its rights, I should
object to it just as little as I would object to the exercise
of the same privilege on the part of white men. What I
do object to is the collection of money from philanthropic
502 The Writings of [1880
and public-spirited persons, ostensibly for the benefit of
the Indians, but in fact for the benefit of attorneys and
others who are to be paid for again testing a question
which has been tested more than once, and has been
decided by the Supreme Court so clearly and comprehen-
sively that further testing seems utterly futile. You say
that there are lawyers of skill and standing ready to under-
take the case. Of course there are such. You can find
lawyers of skill and standing to undertake for a good fee
any case, however hopeless: that is their business. But
I am by no means of your opinion that, whether it be
futile or not, the experiment should be tried once more,
and for this purpose the collection of money should be
further encouraged. It cannot be said in this case that if
the attempt will not help it will not hurt. There seems to
be now a genuine and active interest in the Indian ques-
tion springing up. Many sincere friends of the Indians
are willing to spend time and money for the promotion of
their welfare. Such a movement can do great good if
wisely guided in the direction of attainable objects; but
if it be so conducted that it can result only in putting
money into the pockets of private individuals, without
any benefit to the Indians, the collapse will be as hurtful
as it seems to be inevitable. It will not only be apt to
end a movement which, if well directed, might have
become very useful, but it will also deter the sincere
friends of the Indians who contributed their means in the
hope of accomplishing something from further efforts of
that kind, so that we may find it very difficult, for a long
time at least, to engage this active sympathy again.
Confidence once abused does not revive very quickly.
This is my view of the case. You ask me "how it would
be possible to take money given by thousands of people
for one specific purpose, and use it for another and differ-
ent purpose, " meaning the support of Indian schools. It
i88o] Carl Schurz 503
would, in my opinion, be far better to lay the matter in
its true aspect frankly before the contributors, and to
ask them for their consent to the change of purpose, than
to throw away the money for a purpose which cannot be
accomplished.
In reply to your inquiry whether any bill has been
brought before Congress providing for the settlement of
the Indians in severalty, and for conferring upon the
individual title in fee-simple to the lands allotted to them,
I am glad to say that several bills of this kind have been
introduced in both the Senate and the House, and are
now before the respective Committees on Indian Affairs
for consideration. If such a bill passes, of which there is
great hope, the Indian, having a fee title by patent to the
piece of land which he individually, not as a member of a
tribe, holds as his own, will stand in the eye of the law
just like any other owner of property in his individual
right, and, as a matter of course, will have the same stand-
ing in court. This will do more in securing the Indian in
the practical enjoyment of his property than anything
else I can think of, and it has long been my endeavor to
bring about just this result. I trust we shall obtain the
desired legislation during the present session of Congress.
TO E. DUNBAR LOCKWOOD
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, April i, 1880.
I notice in the [Philadelphia] Telegraph of March 3Oth
an article about the Ute matter if possible still more
outrageous than the first. It says that my "avowed
object" in making the bargain with the Utes "was to get
from them twelve millions of acres of land for the land
speculators and miners of Colorado," and that I gave
them for that less than forty thousand acres, located
504 The Writings of U88o
nobody knows where. It says further that this agreement
was obtained from the Utes while they "were held as
prisoners and not allowed to consult any one but himself
while in Washington."
This constitutes the charge, and is a misrepresentation
of facts from beginning to end. For months before the
agreement was made the Ute chiefs here were at perfect
liberty to consult any one they pleased, and they were
called upon by a great many persons and had conversa-
tions about their affairs with Congressmen and Senators
and others; in short, with all whom they desired to see.
Secondly, the fact is that ever since the attack upon
Thornburgh and the Meeker massacre, I have single-
handed and alone been standing between the Utes and
destruction, for which I have been ridiculed and reviled
beyond measure. If I had removed my hand from them
a day a war would have been inaugurated and we should
have seen the last of this tribe. I can say without any
exaggeration that I alone saved them, and that in point
of fact they can be saved in the future only by removing
that source of irritation that exists between them and the
white population that is now in very large numbers
crowding around them.
Now, as to the agreement itself, it is untrue that for
twelve millions of acres they get only forty thousand
acres as the Telegraph says. I send you herewith a copy
of the bill containing the agreement, which was drafted
by my direction and from which you will see that in the
aggregate they will have between seven and eight hundred
thousand acres; and not only that, but they will be
settled at the expense of the Government, receiving every-
thing needful to them, and will have an annuity of fifty
thousand dollars, representing a capital of a million and
a quarter in addition to their former annuities.
What the Telegraph says about their remaining insecure
Carl Schurz 505
in the possessions which they are to have is equally untrue,
for you will see that they will hold their lands in fee simple
and receive from the United States individually a United
States patent just like any white man. You will further
see that their land is to be inalienable for twenty-five years
and exempt from taxation and execution ; and further that
the courts are to be open to them, as they are open to any
white citizen. The provision concerning their admission
to citizenship, which I had put in the bill, was stricken out
by the Senate Committee; but we are going to have a
general bill making provision in that respect.
Thus you will see that the strictures of the Telegraph
are utterly unjust and have not the least foundation in
fact.
The Telegraph further says that I have been hotly
contesting the admission of the Indians to the protection
of the courts, and that I have been throwing every obstacle
in the way of the friends of the Indians, who wished the
decision of Judge Dundy confirmed by the Supreme Court.
This is equally untrue, for I recognized the decision of
Judge Dundy myself as good and did not contest it at all.
So it stands in full force unquestioned by this Department.
In the second place, I did not contest the right of the
Indian to go into court, but simply showed that as the
law now stands an Indian tribe has no standing in court
according to the decision of the Supreme Court. This is
a matter of fact which nobody questions. But what I
did do is to have introduced in Congress more than one
legislative provision for the opening of the courts to the
Indians just as they are opened to the whites.
Thus you will see that the article of the Telegraph is
based on untruth from beginning to end, and that what
has been done for the Utes is not only saving them from
utter destruction but giving them ample provision and
protection as far as the law can give it for the future.
506 The Writings of [1880
I have no doubt that Mr. Warburton, whom I believe
to be a just man, will not hesitate to retract the untruthful
and injurious statements which the Telegraph has put
forth.
TO HENRY CABOT LODGE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, May 23, 1880.
Grant's nomination appears now more probable than
it did some time ago, but by no means certain. He has
not a majority of the votes, but his managers will resort
to every possible means to obtain control of the Conven-
tion. The temporary organization will be of the utmost
importance, and the first, perhaps the decisive fight, will
be right there. It can be kept out of the hands of the
Grant managers only by the organized cooperation of all
the elements of opposition. This is vital. Let not the
Massachusetts delegates put any obstacle in the way of
such cooperation on account of their fear of Elaine. If
that cooperation fails, the Grant managers will have their
own way, and everybody can now see what the consequences
will be. I am as firmly convinced as ever that Grant's
defeat will leave the nomination of Elaine impossible.
There seems to me no reason, therefore, why the Edmunds,
Sherman and Elaine delegates should not cooperate on all
preliminary questions, such as temporary and permanent
chairman of the Convention, the unit rule etc., etc. It
would be fatal not to do so. The field must necessarily
unite against Grant on these things, and when Grant is
out of the way its different elements may fight each other ;
in the meantime each delegation holding fast to its can-
didate. The Sherman men, as far as I know them, will
not go over to Elaine. The chances are one hundred to
one that Elaine cannot be nominated. Let me impress
upon you the absolute necessity of harmonious coopera-
Carl Schurz 507
tion of all the opposition elements on all questions except
the nomination itself. What kind of an enemy you have
to deal with has become apparent by the proceedings of
the Illinois convention. Please let me hear from you.
TO THOMAS F. BAYARD
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, June 15, 1880. '
The papers bring the news of the death of your father.
It is needless to use many words to assure you of my heart-
felt sympathy in your bereavement, which I am sure you
will bear as a man of your stamp must. But I wanted to
let you know that I have thought of you on this mournful
occasion as a sincere and warm friend.
TO HENRY CABOT LODGE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, June 22, 1880.
Thanks for your kind letter of the 2Oth. Garfield was
here a few days ago and I had a full talk with him. There
will be a complete refutation of the charges by one of his
friends very soon. I am inclined to think that it will be
addressed to the Nation. At any rate, it will come. I
have known Garfield very well for many years, and I have
full confidence in his integrity. He is, in my opinion,
incapable of a dishonest act, although a shrewd lobby
agent may have succeeded in placing him in an equivocal
position. I think the country will soon be fully satisfied
of the uprightness of his character.
Your work at Chicago was admirably done. There is
only one thing I might find fault with: When Conkling
offered the resolution binding all the delegates to support
508 Writings of Carl Schurz
the nominee, whoever that nominee might be, he ought
to have been put down at once and with the greatest
emphasis. I am sure it might have been done by a single
speech.
But the work of the machine, so ingeniously contrived,
was undone in the neatest and most businesslike manner.
On the whole, the results of the Convention are a great
blessing to the country. They will have a restraining effect
upon the bad elements in both parties. There is much that
we may congratulate ourselves upon.
Now — will you be nominated for Congress? I hope so.
FROM THOMAS F. BAYARD
WILMINGTON, DEL., June 28, 1880.
My dear Schurz: Thank you kindly for your note of
sympathy and friendship. My father passed from life as
peacefully and painlessly as ever is man's lot. Ever since I
saw the signs of his mental decay I have looked upon his death
as a welcome release, but there is a pang in the long parting
that nature inflicts, and I feel it sensibly.
From some cause, the note you wrote on the I5th has just
reached me. I must go down to Washington in a week to
gather up some matters I abandoned in haste to go to my
father's bedside, and then I hope to take your hand. Ever
sincerely yours.
END OF VOLUME III
f
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
E Schurz, Carl
660 Speeches, correspondence
S376 and political papers of
1913 Carl Schurz
v.3
ii:;ii !
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11