Page images
PDF
EPUB

upon the President of the United States, speaking of and concerning the Congress of the United States, said Andrew Johnson, [on August 18, 1866]. . ., did, in a loud voice, declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say:

...

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

"We have witnessed in one department of the government every endeavor to prevent the restoration of peace, harmony, and union. We have seen hanging upon the verge of the government, as it were, a body called, or which assumes to be, the Congress of the United States, while in fact it is a Congress of only a part of the States. We have seen this Congress pretend to be for the Union, when its every step and act tended to perpetuate disunion and make a disruption of the States inevitable. *** We have seen Congress gradually encroach, step by step, upon constitutional rights, and violate, day after day and month after month, fundamental principles of the government. We have seen a Congress that seemed to forget that there was a limit to the sphere and scope of legislation. We have seen a Congress in a minority assume to exercise power which, allowed to be consummated, would result in despotism or monarchy itself."

...

[on SPECIFICATION SECOND. In this, that at Cleveland, September 3, 1866] . . ., before a public assemblage of citizens speaking of and conand others, said Andrew Johnson, cerning the Congress of the United States, did, in a loud voice, declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say: "I will tell you what I did do. I called upon your Congress that is trying to break up the government."

*

*

*

"In conclusion, beside that, Congress had taken much pains to poison their constituents against him. But what had Congress done? Have they done anything to restore the union of these States? No; on the contrary, they had done everything to prevent it; and because he stood now where he did when the rebellion commenced, he had been denounced as a traitor. Who had run greater risks or made greater sacrifices than himself? But Congress, factious and domineering, had undertaken to poison the minds of the American people."

. . [on

SPECIFICATION THIRD. In this, that at St. Louis, September 8, 1866]. . ., before a public assemblage of citizens and others, said Andrew Johnson, . . . speaking of and concerning the Congress of the United States, did, in a loud voice, declare, in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say:

"Go on. Perhaps if you had a word or two on the subject of New Orleans you might understand more about it than you do. And if you will go back - if you will go back and ascertain the cause of the riot at New Orleans perhaps you will not be so, prompt in calling out 'New Orleans.' If you will take up the riot at New Orleans and trace it back to its source or its immediate cause, you will find out who was responsible for the blood that was shed there. If you will take up the riot at New Orleans and trace it back to the radical Congress, you will find that the riot at New Orleans was substantially planned. If you will take up the proceedings in their caucuses you will understand that they there knew that a convention was to be called which was extinct by its power having expired; that it was said that the intention was that a new government was to be organized, and on the organization of that government the intention was to enfranchise one portion of the population, called the colored population, who had just been emancipated, and at the same time disfranchise white men. When you design to talk about New Orleans you ought to understand what you are talking about. When you read the speeches that were made, and take up the facts on the Friday and Saturday before that convention sat, you will there find that speeches were made incendiary in their character, exciting that portion of the population, the black population, to arm themselves and prepare for the shedding of blood. You will also find that that convention did assemble in violation of law, and the intention of that convention was to supersede the reorganized authorities in the State government of Louisiana, which had been recognized by the government of the United States; and every man engaged in that rebellion in that convention, with the intention of superseding and upturning the civil government which had been recognized by the government of the United States, I say that he was a traitor to the Constitution of the United States, and hence you

find that another rebellion was commenced, having its origin in the radical Congress.

*

*

*

*

"So much for the New Orleans riot. And there was the cause and the origin of the blood that was shed; and every drop of blood that was shed is upon their skirts and they are responsible for it. I could test this thing a little closer, but will not do it here to-night. But when you talk about the causes and consequences that resulted from proceedings of that kind, perhaps, as I have been introduced here, and you have provoked questions of this kind, though it does not provoke me, I will tell you a few wholesome things that have been done by this radical Congress in connection with New Orleans and the extension of the elective franchise.

"I know that I have been traduced and abused. I know it has come in advance of me here as elsewhere that I have attempted to exercise an arbitrary power in resisting laws that were intended to be forced upon the government; that I had exercised that power; that I had abandoned the party that elected me, and that I was a traitor, because I exercised the veto power in attempting and did arrest for a time a bill that was called a 'Freedman's Bureau' bill; yes, that I was a traitor. And I have been traduced, I have been slandered, I have been maligned, I have been called Judas Iscariot, and all that. Now, my countrymen here to-night, it is very easy to indulge in epithets; it is easy to call a man Judas, and cry out traitor; but when he is called upon to give arguments and facts he is very often found wanting. Judas Iscariot - Judas. There was a Judas, and he was one of the twelve apostles. Oh yes, the twelve apostles had a Christ. The twelve apostles had a Christ, and he never could have had a Judas unless he had had twelve apostles. If I have played the Judas, who has been my Christ that I have played the Judas with? Was it Thad. Stevens? Was it Wendell Phillips? Was it Charles Sumner? These are the men that stop and compare themselves with the Saviour; and everybody that differs with them in opinion, and to try to stay and arrest their diabolical and nefarious policy, is to be denounced as a Judas."

*

"Well, let me say to you, if you will stand by me in this action, if you will stand by me in trying to give the people a fair chance soldiers and citizens to participate in these offices, God being willing, I will kick them out. I will kick them out just as fast as

I can.

"Let me say to you, in concluding, that what I have said I intended to say. I was not provoked into this, and I care not for their menaces, the taunts, and the jeers. I care not for threats. I do not intend to be bullied by my enemies nor overawed by my friends. But God willing, with your help, I will veto their measures whenever any of them come to me."

Which said utterances, declarations, threats, and harangues, highly censurable in any, are peculiarly indecent and unbecoming in the Chief Magistrate of the United States, by means whereof said Andrew Johnson has brought the high office of the President of the United States into contempt, ridicule, and disgrace, to the great scandal of all good citizens . .

[Agreed to, 88 to 44, 57 not voting.]

[ocr errors]

ARTICLE XI. That said Andrew Johnson, unmindful of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office, and in dis, regard of the Constitution and laws of the United States, did on the 18th day of August, 1866, at the city of Washington, by public speech, declare and affirm, in substance, that the thirtyninth Congress of the United States was not a Congress of the United States authorized by the Constitution to exercise legislative power under the same; but, on the contrary, was a Congress of only part of the States, thereby denying and intending to deny that the legislation of said Congress was valid or obligatory upon him, the said Andrew Johnson, except in so far as he saw fit to approve the same, and also thereby denying and intending to deny the power of the said thirty-ninth Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States; and in pursuance of said declaration, the said Andrew Johnson, . . . afterward, to wit, on the 21st day of February, 1868, at the city of Washington, did unlawfully and in disregard of the requirements of the Constitution, that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, attempt to prevent the execution of ... [the Tenure of Office Act]. . ., by unlawfully devising and contriving, and attempting to devise and contrive, means by which he should

[ocr errors]

1

prevent Edwin M. Stanton from forthwith resuming the functions of the office of Secretary for the Department of War, notwithstanding the refusal of the Senate to concur in the suspension theretofore made by said Andrew Johnson of said Edwin M. Stanton from said office of Secretary for the Department of War, and also by further unlawfully devising and contriving and attempting to devise and contrive means then and there to prevent the execution of . . . [the Army Appropriation Act of March 2, 1867] . . .,and also to prevent the execution of . [the Reconstruction Act

of March 2, 1867] . . .

...

[Agreed to, 109 to 32, 48 not voting.]

No. 156. Fourth Reconstruction Act

March 11, 1868

A BILL "to facilitate the restoration of the late rebel States" was introduced in the House December 5, 1867, by Ashley of Ohio, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On the 18th the bill was withdrawn in favor of a bill of similar purport, substantially identical with the act as passed, brought forward by Thaddeus Stevens. The latter bill passed the House the same day by a vote of 104 to 37, 47 not voting. The bill was not at once considered in the Senate. The rejection, February 4, 1868, of the proposed constitution of Alabama, however, when "the registered voters refrained from voting upon the question of ratification in sufficient numbers to reduce the vote to several thousand less than half the registration," hastened action. A substitute for the House bill was reported February 17, and on the 26th was agreed to, the vote being 28 to 6. The House, by a vote of 96 to 32, 61 not voting, concurred. March 11 the bill became law by the ten days rule.

REFERENCES. - Text in U.S. Statutes at Large, XV., 41. For the proceedings see the House and Senate Journals, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., and the Cong. Globe. The text of Ashley's bill is in the Globe, December 18, House proceedings. On elections in the Southern States see House Exec. Doc. 291, 40th Cong., 1st Sess.; annual report of the Secretary of War, 1868.

An Act to amend the Act

Be it enacted

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

That hereafter any election authorized by the act [of March 23, 1867] . . ., shall be decided by a majority of the votes actually cast; and at the election in which the question

« PreviousContinue »