What do Ohio Republicans desire as to impeachment? Answer fully.
SOURCE: Charles Richard
Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume
3, p. 52
Conviction.
R. B. HAYES.
SOURCE: Charles Richard
Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume
3, p. 52
* * * * * * * * * *
Yesterday it rained
very hard, whereby the telegraph was interrupted so that our despatches are
mutilated. Yet they contain enough to show that impeachment was not made final
by the vote of Saturday. I notice that some feeling is exhibited against Henderson.
I believe, of course, that he has been actuated by the best and most honorable
motives. He certainly carefully heard every word of testimony, and all the
arguments, and if these led him to the conclusion that the case was not [made]
out, he was bound to vote accordingly. If party discipline is to ride down a
man's sense of honor and right,
Republican
government cannot and should not last many years.
* * * * * * * * * *
In our Indian
matters I think we are making as much progress as could be expected. The great
bulk of the Sioux have agreed to move to the Missouri where they will be too
far away from the railroad to be provoked to do it damage, and where the
appropriations for their benefit can be more economically and faithfully
applied. Some small bands will always be warlike and mischievous, but the game
of war will be simplified by their separation. The same as to the Cheyennes,
etc., below the Arkansas. The commission for present peace had to concede a
right to hunt buffaloes as long as they last, and this may lead to collisions,
but it will not be long before all the buffaloes are extinct near and between
the railroads, after which the Indians will have no reason to approach either
railroad. . .
WASHINGTON, D. C.,
January 30, 1867.
DEAR UNCLE:—The
Randall Bill stands no chance at all. Hooper's Bill not much.
No change, is the
present feeling in finance. Nothing will be done on impeachment, or
Reconstruction at this session.
SOURCE: Charles
Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard
Hayes, Volume 3, p. 39
Dear Brother: I received your letters and telegrams, and did not answer because events were moving so rapidly that I could say nothing but might be upset before you got the letter.
Now you can congratulate yourself upon being clear of the worst complications we have ever had. Impeachment seems to be a foregone conclusion so far as the House of Representatives is concerned, based upon the alleged forcible expulsion of Stanton. No one disputes the right of the President to raise a question of law upon his right to remove Stanton, but the forcible removal of a man in office, claiming to be in lawfully, is like the forcible ejectment of a tenant when his right of possession is in dispute. It is a trespass, an assault, a riot, or a crime, according to the result of the force. It is strange the President can contemplate such a thing, when Stanton is already stripped of power, and the courts are open to the President to try his right of removal. The President is acting very badly with respect to you. He creates the impression that you acted disingenuously with him. He has published your short private note before you went to Annapolis, and yet refuses to publish your formal one subsequently sent him, because it was "private." The truth is, he is a slave to his passions and resentments. No man can confide in him, and you ought to feel happy at your extrication from all near connection with him. . . . Grant is anxious to have your letters published, since the note referred to was published. I will see Grant and the President this evening, and if the latter freely consents, I will do it informally; but if he doubts or hesitates, I will not without your expressed directions. In these times of loose confidence, it is better to submit for a time to a wrong construction, than to betray confidential communications. Grant will, unquestionably, be nominated. Chase acquiesces, and I see no reason to doubt his election. . . .1
1 The trouble which President Johnson had been having with Mr. Stanton ended in the appointment of General Lorenzo Thomas as Secretary of War ad interim. This resulted in the articles of impeachment and trial of the President before the Senate. The final vote showed less than two-thirds for conviction, and so the President was acquitted. Mr. Stanton resigned, and General Schofield was made Secretary of War.
* * * * * * * * * *
I am in possession of all the news up to date, the passage of the impeachment, resolution, etc., but I yet don't know if the nomination of T. Ewing, Senior, was a real thing or meant to compromise a difficulty.
The publication of my short note of January 18th, is nothing to me. I have the original draft which I sent through Grant's hands, with his endorsement back to At the time this note must have been given to the reporter, the President had an elaborate letter from me, in which I discussed the whole case, and advised against the very course he has pursued, but I don't want that letter or any other to be drawn out to complicate a case already bad enough.
You may always safely represent me by saying that I will not make up a final opinion till called on to act, and I want nothing to do with these controversies until the time comes for the actual fight, which I hope to God may be avoided. If the Democratic party intend to fight on this impeachment, which I believe they do not, you may count 200,000 men against you in the South. The negroes are no match for them. On this question, the whites there will be more united than on the old issue of Union and Secession. I do not think the President should be suspended during trial, and if possible, the Republican party should not vote on all side questions as a unit. They should act as judges, and not as partisans. The vote in the House, being a strictly party vote, looks bad, for it augurs a prejudiced jury. Those who adhere closest to the law in this crisis are the best patriots. Whilst the floating politicians here share the excitement at Washington, the people generally manifest little interest in the game going on at Washington. . . .
SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 312-3
Dear Brother: Your letter of the 25th is received. I need not say to you that the new events transpiring here are narrowly watched by me. So far as I am concerned, I mean to give Johnson a fair and impartial trial, and to decide nothing until required to do so, and after full argument. I regard him as a foolish and stubborn man, doing even right things in a wrong way, and in a position where the evil that he does is immensely increased by his manner of doing it. He clearly designed to have first Grant, and then you, involved in Lorenzo Thomas' position, and in this he is actuated by his recent revolt against Stanton. How easy it would have been, if he
had followed your advice, to have made Stanton anxious to resign, or what is worse, to have made his position ridiculous. By his infernal folly we are drifting into turbulent waters. The only way is to keep cool and act conscientiously. I congratulate you on your lucky extrication. I do not anticipate civil war, for our proceeding is unquestionably lawful, and if the judgment is against the President, his term is just as clearly out as if the 4th of March, 1869, was come. The result, if he is convicted, would cast the undivided responsibility of reconstruction upon the Republican party, and would unquestionably secure the full admission of all the States by July next, and avoid the dangerous questions that may otherwise arise out of the Southern vote in the Presidential election. It is now clear that Grant will be a candidate, and his election seems quite as clear. The action of North Carolina removed the last doubt of his nomination.
Dear Brother: I don't know what Grant means by his silence in the midst of the very great indications of his receiving the nomination in May. Doubtless he intends to hold aloof from the expression of any opinion, till the actual nomination is made, when, if he accepts with a strong Radical platform, I shall be surprised. My notion is that he thinks that the Democrats ought not to succeed to power, and that he would be willing to stand a sacrifice rather than see that result. . . . I notice that you Republicans have divided on some of the side questions on impeachment, and am glad you concede to the President the largest limits in his defence that are offered. I don't see what the Republicans can gain by shoving matters to an extent that looks like a foregone conclusion.
No matter what men may think of Mr. Johnson, his office is one that ought to have a pretty wide latitude of opinion. Nevertheless the trial is one that will be closely and sternly criticised by all the civilized world. . . .
SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 314-5
You notice the impeachment proceedings have commenced. As a matter of course, I have nothing to say about them. It is strange that they have so little effect on prices and business. The struggle has been so long that the effect has been discounted. . .
The President was very anxious to send you to Louisiana, and only gave it up by reason of your Indian command. He might think that your visit to Europe now was not consistent with the reason given for your remaining at St. Louis. Still, on this point you could readily ask his opinion, and if that agrees with Grant's, you need feel no delicacy in going. No more favorable opportunity or time to visit Europe will likely occur. . . .
SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 315
I hardly know what to think of the impeachment. Was in hopes Mr. Johnson would be allowed to live out his term, and doubt if any good will result by a change for the few months still remaining of his term. A new Cabinet, and the changes foreshadowed by Wade's friends, though natural enough, would have insufficient time to do any good. I have a private letter from Grant as late as March 18, but he says not a word of his political intentions. So far as I know, he would yet be glad of a change that would enable him to remain as now. . . .
I need not say I
don't want to come. There can be no satisfaction to me in being drawn into the
vortex of confusion in which public affairs seem to be. I cannot do or say
anything that will influence either the President or Congress. If the President
be impeached and the South reduced to Territories, the country will, of course,
relapse to a state of war or quasi war, and what good it is to do passes my
comprehension. Our debt is already as much as the country can stand, and we shall,
with Indians and local troubles, have full employment for all the regular army.
I suppose the Southern States will then require a standing army of an hundred
thousand men, and it would be prudent to provide them before the emergency is
created.
SOURCE: Rachel
Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between
General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 287-8
I gave the President
a full relation of my interview with Sumner. He was much interested and
maintains well his position. I think they will not shake him. Sumner sent me
through the mail a newspaper containing a memorial for the impeachment of the
President. He marked and underscored certain passages which he said wrote on
the margin were answers to some of my questions put to him in our conversation.
The attack upon the President is coarse and unworthy of a thought.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 3,
1866.
Dear Brother: . . .
I was heartily glad you got out of the War Department. The mission to Mexico is
a very honorable one, and with your views on "annexation" is a very
safe one for the country. We all hope that the French will go out, and that you
will keep the United States out. We want as little to do with Mexico
politically as possible, and as much trade with her as is profitable. She is terribly
in need of a strong government, and if her mixed population would elect you or
some other firm military ruler as emperor or king, it would be lucky for her,
but a bad business for the elected one. I have never seen the elements of a
stable government in Mexico, but she has physical resources that might, under a
firm ruler, make her the second power in America. Self-government is out of the
question. The worst enemies of Mexico are her own mixed, ignorant population.
If Maximilian could have held on, he would have secured them physical
prosperity; but sooner or later the pride of our people aroused against
European intervention would have got us into a quarrel with him. It is
therefore best that he leave. What you can do for or with Mexico we will see.
Your military reputation and aptitude with all classes may help to bring order
out of chaos. . . .
Your reception at
Havana must have been grateful, and the whole Mexican trip will no doubt close
agreeably for you a year of trials and ovations. If they don't make you emperor
down there, we will welcome you back as the "republicanizer" of the
worst anarchy on the globe. If you establish Juarez, come away by all means in
hot haste before the next pronunciamiento.
As for domestic
matters, Congress meets to-morrow, very much irritated at the President. As for
Butler or impeachment, you need not fear we shall follow the one, or attempt
the other. Johnson ought to acquiesce in the public judgment, agree to the
amendment, and we shall have peace. The personal feeling grows out of the
wholesale removal of good Union men from office. Campbell is as responsible for
this as any man in Ohio; while I was under a cloud for being friendly to
Johnson and absent from the State, they turned out all my special friends and
put in Copperheads.
