Hiram Parks
Bell: The Forty-third Congress and
Party Leaders
The
following is Chapter 16 from Hiram Parks Bell’s Men and Things,
published 1907.
“The Forty-third Congress met in
December, 1873. The Representatives
from Georgia were Morgan Rawls, Richard H. Whitely, Phillip Cook, Henry R.
Harris, James H. Blount, James Freeman, Pierce M.B. Young, Ambrose R. Wright,
and Hiram P. Bell. General Wright died
before Congress assembled; and Alexander H. Stephens was chosen to fill the
vacancy. Morgan Rawls was unseated,
upon a contest by Andrew Sloan, who took Rawls’ seat. Three of these
representatives were Republicans---Whitely, Freeman, and Sloan. The delegation took the modified oath. The Forty-third Congress was overwhelmingly
Republican. James G. Blaine was
reelected speaker and Edward McPherson, clerk.
The Congress was spotted with half a dozen or more free negroes---three
of whom were from the State of Calhoun, Preston, Lowndes, and McDuffy. Three of the late Confederate States, South
Carolina, Louisiana, and Arkansas, were still struggling in the anarchical
throes of the aftermath of reconstruction.
The vital national questions before this Congress were: the silver question, the Force Bill, the
Civil Rights Bill, repeal of the Salary Grab Act of the Forty-second Congress,
etc. Much time was devoted to contested
seats, occupied by Democrats, by defeated Republicans, who generally won upon
party grounds. It was during this
Congress that Kala Kawa, King of the Hawaiian Islands, visited Washington. He was accorded an official public reception
by the House of Representatives. He was
a dark, copper-colored negro, appearing to be about 45 years old; six feet in
height, squarely built with an avoirdupois of about 200. He wore a black Prince Albert coat, standing
collar, and plug hat. He took his stand
in front of the Speaker of the House.
Mr. Blaine received him in a formal, handsome speech of official
palaver, to which the King’s premier, Mr. Allen, a Massachusetts Yankee,
responded with the same material, less handsomely. During this memorable State occasion, I happened to occupy a seat
next to Hon. A. Herr Smith, a small, dry, hard, Pennsylvania Republican, and
the successor of Thaddeus Stevens. Mr.
Smith seemed to be enraptured and said to me in a whisper, ‘Oh, my! What a
magnificent king!’ I replied jocularly,
‘Yes, that negro would have brought $1,500.00 on the block in ante-bellum
times.’ It so offended him that he did
not wish to speak to me afterwards.
President Grant gave to the King a State reception at the White House,
and I had the honor of an introduction to the King by the Hon. Hamilton Fish,
Secretary of State, as the King stood by the side of the hero of Appomattox and
the President of the Untied States. How
much all this may have had to do with afterward obtaining the King’s domain, I
will not undertake to say. It was
during colored radical regnancy that the racial leaders caused the South
Carolina negro, Elliott, to reply to the great Constitutional argument of
Alexander H. Stephens against the Civil Rights Bill. The bill was passed. The
scene in the House of Representatives attending this legislative folly was a
memorable and historic one. The bill
was the offspring of malignant hate, intended to harass and humiliate the white
people of the South. It was
unconstitutional, subversive of social order, and mere brutum fulmen, when
enacted into law. It emanated from the
brain and heart of Benjamin F. Butler of Massachusetts. On the day of its passage, the lobby and
galleries were crowded and packed to their utmost capacity with excited,
anxious spectators, who came to witness---by a combination of Northern radicals,
Southern renegades, and free negroes, through the forms of law---the
degradation of a section and a brave people that had given Washington, Henry,
Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Clay, and Calhoun to national glory and
history. As I surveyed from my seat,
that crowd, Macaulay’s magnificent description of the audience at the trial of
Warren Hastings pressed with vivid force upon my thought and memory. There was this difference only. In the American audience, there was not, as
in the English, the stars, the garters, and heraldic insignia or hereditary
nobility. Butler made the closing
speech. His personnel was not
prepossessing. He was rather below
medium height, obese, heavy, full with flabby cheeks, shaggy eyebrows, and
cock-eyed. He was a man of decided
ability and will power; in partisan politics, a free lance, but always for
Butler. In his speech his voice was
harsh and his manner and attitudes ungraceful.
His points in debate were sharp and vigorous. When under the influence of high passion in speech, he blew and
spouted like a harpooned whale. Senator
Voorhees thought Thaddeus Stevens resembled Danton. Butler was the Marat in this attempted social revolution, to
place the African on an equality with the Caucasian. During his speech he made a statement involving racial chastity,
concerning the people of Richmond, Virginia, whereupon the tall, handsome,
young Republican representative of the Richmond district arose, advanced a few
steps down the center aisle, and fiercely and bitterly denounced the statement
as a falsehood. The vote was taken, the
bill passed, the infamy went on record---an Apple of Sodom presented to the
negroes, which turned to ashes on their lips.
The character, endowments, and motives of the men in official life who
led the thought and made the laws for the government of the people, have always
been the subject of interesting inquiry and considerations; and peculiarly in
troublous and revolutionary times.
“The writer is fully aware of the
unconscious coloring which prejudice, arising from party affiliations, or
opposing views, is likely to give in the estimate of those with whom we
disagree. But he begs to assure the
reader that in his estimate and criticism of the great public men with whom he
deals, his sole desire is to present the truth, as it appears to him. Others, of course, may differ widely from
him in opinion. But uniformity of
opinion upon such a subject is not attainable.
“James G. Blaine was the
unchallenged leader of the Republican party in the House of Representatives
during the Forty-third Congress. He
possessed many fine elements of successful leadership. A commanding figure, great personal
magnetism, a good judge of men, an active, sprightly mind, a ready debater and
a thorough parliamentarian, he found but little difficulty in controlling its
policy, principles, and legislation.
And yet it seemed to me that he was lacking in the qualities of broad,
comprehensive statesmanship. His public
life impressed me as a play for the presidency. He was aided by able lieutenants---Dawes, Kelly, and
Garfield. These were men of great
ability and large experience in public life.
They were respectively at the head of the most important committees of
the House. They were, while ardent
partisans, fair debaters and patriotic legislators. They differed from Blaine in this: they were leaders in legislation and the practical duties
connected with it. They were masters of
its forms and procedures. They were all
good speakers, none of them approximating the highest order of oratory.
“Of the four, Blaine was the most
pleasing speaker. Committee service in
the House has a tendency to specialize the thoughts and efforts of
members. Blaine’s specialty was to keep
his party properly in line and ready for offense or defense. Kelly’s specialties were: Currency, Manufacturers, and Tariff. The thoughts of both Dawes and Garfield took
in a wider range of legislation.
Garfield was the most erudite of these famous men. He was not a successful party leader. He was more of the scholar, philosopher, and
statesman. Blaine was the Knight whose
plume the rank and file of the Republicans followed as their Oriflamme. The four great leaders of the Democratic
minority of the House were Samuel J. Randall, James B. Beck, Samuel S. Cox, and
L.Q.C. Lamar. They each differed from
the others in qualifications, and each excelled the others in the different
departments of parliamentary leadership. Randall was cool, quiet, of plain,
simple speech, always self-poised, knew exactly the precise status of the
business, watchful as Argus, nothing escaped his notice and no advantage over
the adversary was allowed by him to pass unimproved. He led the 60 successive hours, day and night, of filibustering
against the Civil Rights Bill. His
mastery of the mystic mazes of the rules of the House and the skill with which
he unwound the knotty tangles of parliamentary puzzles showed a genius of the
highest order. The value of such a
leader of the minority against a united majority, not troubled with scruples of
conscience, is invaluable.
“James B. Beck was a rugged, robust
Scotchman. He represented the Ashland
district, made famous by their representation of Henry Clay and John C.
Breckenridge. When he first entered the
House, he was placed on the Committee on Reconstruction, as he said to me, for
‘the reason that the Republicans supposed he had no sense’ and could give them
no trouble.
“But that appointment sowed dragons’
teeth, the harvest of which the Republican party continued to reap as long as
Beck lived. He was honest, bold,
courageous, and irrepressible. As a
speaker, he was not eloquent nor charming; his style was plain---all ornament
was discarded. He was always equipped
for debate. He was a gallant knight, in
full armor, standing for the right and against the wrong. No vicious legislation escaped his exposure
and denunciation; no wise measure ever lacked an advocate, and the people
always found him a fearless champion, and their enemies a dreaded antagonist. Barricaded in a fortress of facts and
entrenched in authorities, he vanquished his assailants---in combination or
detail---as they chose to attack him.
In the opinion of the writer, he was the strongest debater and the
wisest practical legislator in public life during the period of his long
service in Congress. He was precisely
the man the exigencies of the times demanded in the halls of legislation.
“Samuel Sullivan Cox, Representative
in Congress from Ohio for four terms and from New York for ten and elected for
the eleventh, in many respects stands alone in the legislative history of the
United States. Personally, he was,
perhaps, the best beloved, and at his death, the most universally lamented of
any man of his time. He was great from
boyhood. Hereditary revolutionary blood
flowed through his veins. Upon his
graduation at Brown University, he carried off the prizes in history, in poetic
criticism, and in political economy. He
was a marvelous man. He had travelled
in Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America.
He had drawn learning and inspiration from the temples and tombs of
Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem; had stood in the shadow of the pyramids and
studied the riddle of the Sphynx and the dynastic history of the Pharaohs;
mused among the ruins of Memphis; and breathed the fragrance of the roses at
Damascus. He was an unabridged
encyclopedia of learning; he seemed to me to know everything---science, art,
literature, history, and political economy---in all their various
departments---were as familiar as household words---and this knowledge included
accuracy in the exact sciences.
“The authorship of a most brilliant
description of a sunset, after a storm, caused him to be dubbed with the
sobriquet ‘Sunset’ Cox. This was a
misnomer---it should have been ‘Sunshine’ Cox.
Sunset has no appropriateness to him, except in the eclipse of the
grave. Sunshine is the proper symbol of
his illustrious life and character.
“In high social qualities he was
without a peer. It was truly said of
him that ‘he had friends everywhere; enemies nowhere.’ Malignity and hate had no place in his warm,
generous heart. He was a living
embodiment of the doctrine of the universal brotherhood of man. Armed with great learning and endowed with
the highest social attributes, he stood on the floor of the American House of
Representatives for 28 years---the fearless, unyielding tribune of the common
people, of a common country.
“The Hon. Amos Cummings, in his
funeral eulogy, says: ‘To the nation he
was born here; it was here that his generous, genial, manly spirit had full
play; here he displayed the patriotic fervor, the exquisite eloquence, the
iridescent imagery, the peerless diction, the penetrating logic, the sparkling
humor, and the delightful disposition that endeared him to the nation.’
Mr. Cox spoke often and never
without the closest and most respectful
attention of all parties. His rising
came to be regarded as the signal of a coming argument of power, adorned with
gems of literature, sparkling wit, classical illustrations, and spiced---as
occasion might require----with bitter sarcasm, withering irony, and burning
invective. The House was never disappointed
in expectation. He had the capacity,
greater than any orator of ancient or modern times, of combining all these in
harmonious proportions in a speech. And
yet his spirit was so genial, and style so persuasive, that he never offended
an antagonist. His resources of
learning were so great, his knowledge of facts so accurate, his style so
chaste, his wit and humor so bright and exuberant, and his patriotism so pure,
that he never failed to conciliate the love and admiration of his
auditors. For three decades his
meteoric genius and learning made both hemispheres radiant with brightness and
beauty, which still scintillated in the mellow glow of his books and his
speeches.
“He entered Congress at the early
age of 32 and continued a member for 28 years---through the stormiest period of
his country’s history. In nine days
after his entrance, he delivered the first speech made in the new hall of the
House of Representatives. He witnessed
the fight on the floor between Keith and Grow, when the belligerents of the
opposing sectional parties met in the melee with Washburn, of Illinois, and
Potter, of Wisconsin, leading one, and Barksdale and Lamar, of Mississippi, the
other. Through all these years of
strife and storm he stood, with a wealth of intellectual resources, unequalled;
with passions under absolute control, in an armor of integrity more
invulnerable than the shield of Achilles, the Ivanhoe of the American House of
Representatives.
“Lucius Q.C. Lamar was, by one year,
the junior of Cox in age. They entered
Congress at the same time---Lamar continuing a member for two terms---until the
secession of Mississippi. He was a
native Georgian and graduated at Emory college under the presidency of that
illustrious humorist, jurist, and divine, Augustus B. Longstreet, whose
charming daughter became his wife. Mr.
Lamar removed to the State of Mississippi, was elected adjunct professor of
mathematics and assistant of the celebrated Dr. A.T. Bledsoe, in the university
of his adopted State. In 1866 he was elected
professor of political economy and social science in the University of
Mississippi, and in 1867 was transferred to the professorship of law. He was a member of the Forty-third and
Forty-fourth Congresses and elected to the United States Senate. He was less vigorous in debate than Beck,
and less ready and versatile than Cox, but was a close student and an intense
thinker. His range of thought was not
so wide as that explored by Cox and many others, but it was exhaustive in its
search for truth upon the subjects which it embraced. His style was severely chaste and clear---pruned of all
surplusage, and in thought, odorous with the oil of the lamp. His professorship of mathematics, political
economy, social science, and law, together with his association with that
metaphysician, Dr. Bledsoe, had doubtless been controlling factors in his
mental operations and processes. If he
did not, in debate, beat down an adversary into jelly with the battle-ax of
Richard---like Beck; or hack and slash him to pieces with the scimiter of
‘Saladin’---like Cox, he pierced his most vital part with no ‘Spear of
Ithuriel,’ and left him the bleeding victim of defeat, as more than Roscoe
Conklin ascertained. Lamar was less
skilled in parliamentary tactics than Randall---less efficient in general
practical legislation than Beck or Cox; but, cool, clear, cautious---the
recognized representative and exponent of the chivalry of his section---he was
dominant in the policies and councils of his party and commanded the universal respect
of the opposite party. He was full of
resources in emergencies. When John
Young Brown deliberately arose in his place in the House and uttered his
terrific ‘burking’ denunciation of Butler (that fell as suddenly and as
startlingly as the shroud of Saladin, appeared at the banquet) it brought the
Republican members to their feet, in a tempest of excitement; motion followed
motion, and pandemonium reigned. Beck
asked Lamar to take charge of the situation.
Lamar arose and, with a dignity of manner, in a tone of voice and with
an expression of face that exhibited regret, sorrow, sympathy, and apology in
combination, in a few suave, deprecating words, allayed the storm. The sequel was a mild reprimand of Brown by
the Speaker.
“There were many true and able
Democrats in the Forty-third Congress, less prominent in leadership than
Randall, Beck, Cox, and Lamar. Among
these was Alexander H. Stephens, whose famous history had, even then, been made
up and placed on record, and who, like Chatham, came in his feebleness and on
his crutches to protest against the constitutionality of the supplemental Civil
Rights Bill.
“The iron-clad Republican party of
the North, speckled with a scattering remnant of white renegades and free
negroes from the South, had an overwhelming majority with the conqueror of
Appomattox President; and every subordinate office in the government, occupied
by the creatures of bitter partisanship.
This party sought, in the Forty-third Congress, to accomplish two
things: to entrench itself in power by
the passage of the Force Bill and to insult and humiliate the white people of
the South by the passage of the Supplemental Civil Rights Bill. It failed in both objects. The Force Bill was defeated and the Civil
Rights Bill was paralyzed by the blows it received in the Senate and
House. It not only proved ‘a barren
sceptre in their grip,’ but it secured a Democratic majority in the House in
the Forty-fourth Congress. The American
people, in the language of Roosevelt, are for a ‘square deal.’ They were unwilling that that majority
should say who should vote or when and how voting should be done. Nor were they willing to regulate their
social life and relations by the standards or tastes of Benjamin F. Butler,
around whose name negro troops, the blood of Mumford, and insults to women
gathered in mingled memory.
“There were able men on both sides
in the Senate. Among the Republicans
appear Oliver P. Morton, John Sherman, George F. Edmunds, Matthew Carpenter,
Henry M. Teller, Reuben E. Fenton, Roscoe Conkling, George S. Boutwell, William
B. Allison, and John J. Ingalls and many other men of decided ability. Charles Sumner died during the Forty-third
Congress. The Democratic party
presented in this Senate: Allen G.
Thurman, Thomas F. Bayard, Eli Saulsbury, Joseph E. McDonald, John W.
Stevenson, Matthew W. Ransom, William Pinckney Whyte, Thomas Randolph, Henry G.
Davis, Thomas M. Norwood, John B. Gordon, and Frances M. Cockerell. Two of the Republicans, Reuben E. Fenton and
Henry M. Teller, were liberals of a very high order of ability and
statesmanship. The debates in the
Senate upon the vital party issues were elaborate and exhaustive. Thomas M. Norwood delivered a speech in the
Senate against the Civil Rights Bill which attracted much attention, created
great amusement, and enlightened the judgment of the people throughout the
country. About one-half of the speech,
which was a long one, was devoted to the ridicule of the measure, in severe
irony, ludicrous illustrations, and blistering invectives; all presented, in an
elegant, scholarly style. This greatly
amused the American people. The
remaining half of the speech was devoted to a masterly argument against its
constitutionality, which Associate Judge Field of the Supreme Court pronounced
to be the ablest constitutional argument made upon the subject. It will be remembered that in the House the
party managers put forward a South Carolina negro to reply to Alexander H.
Stephens’ argument against the constitutionality of the bill; so in the Senate
they put up to reply to Norwood an ignorant, slack-twisted, white
reconstruction renegade, who posed as Republican Senator from Texas, whose name
was Flannagan. He had been thrust into
the Senate by the military influence that had put the negroes Revels and Bruce
into the Senate from the State of Davis, Prentiss, Sharkey, and Lamar.
“No minority ever served a country
in legislative halls with more fidelity and profit than the democratic phalanx
in the Forty-third Congress served the people of these United States. Their gratitude found expression in
returning to the House of Representatives of the Forty-fourth Congress a
majority of Democratic members and the election of Samuel J. Tilden to the
Presidency. As soon as Tilden’s
election was ascertained and unguardedly conceded by Mr. Hays, the Republican
playwrights proceeded to put a new play on the political boards. This consisted in sending ‘visiting
statesmen’ to the States of Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina
(overwhelmingly Democratic States), charged with the duty of working up and
manufacturing charges of fraud in the election and suborning witnesses to
sustain the charge by perjury. This was
successfully accomplished. In vain did
the Democratic House appoint committees ‘on the recent election in South
Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana,’ and in vain did these committees or the
Democratic majority ascertain and report the truth. The ‘visiting statesmen’ had fixed things and completed their
job. The election in these three States
was so muddled in charges and counter-charges of fraud as to furnish a pretext
for investigation. As the time
approached for counting the electoral vote and declaring the result, President
Grant was very quietly ordering troops from stations and garrisons to the
vicinity of the Capitol. It was
discovered that a partisan commission, with a republican majority of one on the
commission, was the proper authority to do the thing; that the constitution
declares the Congress shall do---count the vote and declare the result. And by a sort of unconstitutional
legislative legerdemain the commission was created. The commission was composed as follows:
“Associate Justices of the Supreme
Court: Nathan Clifford, William Strong,
Samuel F. Miller, Stephen J. Field, Joseph P. Bradley.
“United States Senators: George F. Edmunds, Oliver P. Morton,
Frederick T. Frelinghuysen, Allen G. Thurman, Thomas F. Bayard.
“United States Representatives: Henry B. Payne, Eppa Hunton, Josiah G.
Abbott, James A. Garfield, George F. Hoar.
“This commission of able men was
created by party jugglery and packed with a Republican majority of one, to
perpetuate and consummate under the forms of law the most stupendous fraud of
history. It put out of the office of
President of the United States the candidate legally chosen by the people, and
into it, the candidate rejected by them at the ballot box. The determination of that packed tribunal was as well known before the
investigation began as it was after the decision was pronounced. The Democratic members stood for the
truth. The Republican members committed
the fraud. The evidence taken by the
Potter Investigation Committee of the Forty-fifth Congress furnishes the proof
of this statement. This transaction is
remitted to future history for its impartial adjudication.
“The Forty-fourth Congress seems to
have been fruitful in transferring legislative functions to commissions. The silver question was referred to a
commission consisting of John P. Hones, George S. Boutwell, Louis V. Bogy, Richard
P. Bland, Randall L. Gibson, George Willard, William S. Groesbeck, and Frances
P. Bowen.
“The election in 1876 resulted in returning to the House of Representatives a decided Democratic majority. And the changes in the Senate had made the parties about equal in strength in that body. But the counting in by the commission of the defeated candidate gave the President to the Republican party, and, therefore, neither party had control of the policy of the government.”