Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy (57 page)

After the committee first questioned:
The
New York Times
of January 22, 1893, reported that in 1868 the ride from Jersey City to Washington took eight hours and fifty-two minutes, an average speed of 25 miles per hour.

In one of the most convincing passages: Impeachment Money
, pp. 41–44.

Stymied by this “mass of corruption”:
Archives,
Managers’ Journal
, pp. 81, 91–94 (June 8–11, 1868);
Cong. Globe
, 40th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 2937–47 June 8, 1868).
Impeachment Money
, pp. 42, 44;
Fort Wayne Daily Gazette
, June 13, 1868;
Daily Cleveland Herald
, June 17, 1868. Woolley was told that his release was purchased by a deal between Butler and the president on the appointment of a new head of the revenue service. Woolley to Johnson, June 11, 1868, in
Johnson Papers
14:101–2. Johnson, however, never made the rumored appointment, preferring Perry Fuller for the position. The correspondent for the
New York Tribune
eviscerated Woolley’s claim that the $20,000 had been intended to support lobbying efforts on tax legislation. That would mean, the
Tribune
writer pointed out, that the money was to be used in a
different
corrupt effort, one to influence legislation that had died two weeks before May 17, the date on which Van Valkenburg supposedly took custody of the money from the inebriated Woolley and Shook.
New York Tribune
, June 10, 1868.

John Bingham and the governor:
W. G. Brownlow to Butler, June 29, 1868, in Butler Papers;
Cincinnati Gazette
, June 22, 1868;
Impeachment Money
, pp. 28–29. Butler claimed that Fowler demanded the impeachment of President Johnson as early as 1866.
Cincinnati Gazette
, June 22, 1868; Erving E. Beauregard, “The Chief Prosecutor of Andrew Johnson,”
Midwest Quarterly
31:419 (1990), citing James R. Therry, “The Life of General Robert Cumming Schenck,” Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University (1968);
Cincinnati Gazette
, June 12, 1868.

The Indian trader’s purpose:
Legate Testimony of May 22, 1868, before Impeachment Investigation Committee, p. 3, in Butler Papers, Box 175;
Impeachment Money
, pp. 8–9.

Because Butler never found out:
Ward to Barlow, June 19, 1868, in Barlow Papers, Box 68; Letter of Samuel Ward,
New York World
, May 26, 1868;
The Nation
, May 28, 1868, p. 422.

Whatever Butler missed:
Ward to Butler, June 14, 1868, in Butler Papers, Box 45; Ward letter, undated, in Papers of Samuel Ward, New York Public Library, Box 1.

He meticulously traced: Impeachment Money
, p. 45.

Yet Butler took no action:
Archives,
Managers’ Journal
, p. 86 (June 2, 1868), p. 93 (June 10, 1868), p. 101 (June 19, 1868), p. 106 (June 25, 1868), p. 108 (June 27, 1868); A. W. Adams to Butler, June 19, 1869, in Butler Papers, Box 45;
Impeachment Money
, p. 24. Possibly the least explained recollection of the trial came from President Johnson’s bodyguard, who claimed he carried “many messages” between the president and Butler during the later stages of the trial. What could the president and his chief prosecutor have been communicating to each other? Did the president’s lawyers know about the communications? No one has provided a well-founded explanation. Gerry, p. 870.

Postal agent Legate:
Moore Diary/Large Diary, p. 82 (January 8, 1870).

In the final committee report: Impeachment Money
, p. 33.

In a letter to his father:
Thomas Ewing, Jr. to Thomas Ewing, Sr., June 3, 1868, in Papers of Thomas Ewing Family, Box 74.

Ross’s denunciation: Cong. Globe
, 40th Cong., 2d sess., app., pp. 4463–65 July 26, 1868); 4507–8, 4509–17 (July 27, 1868).

As Henderson himself:
David A. Logan, “Historical Uses of a Special Prosecutor: The Administrations of Presidents Grant, Coolidge, and Truman,” Congressional Research Service (November 23, 1973), p. 11. The most dramatic response to the committee investigation and report came from Thurlow Weed, who suffered on June 26 what was described as “partial sunstroke.” Weed left for Europe on the steamship
Cimbria
four days after the report issued. Thurlow Weed Barnes,
Life of Thurlow Weed
, Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. (1884), p. 460;
New York Times
, July 8, 1868.

Though a firm Republican:
Mark Wahlgren Summers,
The Press Gang
, University of North Carolina Press (1994), p. 85; Ritchie,
Press Gallery
, pp. 74, 113; Richardson, p. 27.

Boynton was disgusted:
In the 1860s, Congress did not have regular procedures for preserving the records of its committees. The committee’s journal of its activities survives in the National Archives, along with the transcripts of testimony of a few minor witnesses. Butler retained copies of some correspondence in his personal records, along with a couple of additional transcripts. Fragments of other testimony, and references to many telegrams and other correspondence, appear in the two reports prepared by the committee. Some witnesses claimed that the excerpts of testimony in the reports omitted important information.

Having expected to prove: Cincinnati Gazette
, December 20, 1868; Boynton to Whitelaw Reid, October 23, 1869, Whitelaw Reid Papers. The biographer James Parton wrote in
Atlantic Monthly
in August 1869 that Johnson’s acquittal was “wholly the lobby’s doing.” He claimed that senators’ votes were purchased for $25,000 or $50,000 per vote, or by the intentional loss of large sums in card games. He concurred with Boynton that much of the money raised for bribery purposes was siphoned off by middlemen, and that patronage appointments and “commodities of another description” purchased some votes. He also claimed that Butler and the impeachers could have purchased a conviction for $110,000. Because Parton offered no particulars to support his statements, they are difficult to evaluate. James Parton, “The ‘Strikers’ of the Washington Lobby,”
Atlantic Monthly
, August 1869, pp. 229–30.

Wendell added: Cincinnati Gazette
, December 25, 1868;
New York Herald
, January 8, 1870.

Without directly asking:
Wendell to Johnson, March 3, 1868, in
Johnson Papers
15:500–501.

Sixty thousand dollars:
Moore Diary/Large Diary, p. 83 (January 6, 1870).

House Speaker Colfax:
Summers,
The Era of Good Stealings
, pp. 231–37.

Seward, who had accepted:
After the trial, Clemenceau described Seward as “Mr. Johnson’s mentor,” adding that “[t]he influence, or at least the maneuvers, of the Secretary of State played a considerable part in the President’s acquittal.” Clemenceau, p. 189 (May 29, 1868).

The president’s men: Cincinnati Gazette
, December 20, 1869.

“As matters stand now”: New York Tribune
, May 24, 1868.

“I have been saved by so many men”:
Moore Diary/Large Diary, p. 39 (May 18, 1868).

Three days later:
Ross to Johnson, June 23, 1868, in
Johnson Papers
14:258.

When the Senate Finance Committee: Cincinnati Gazette
, June 25, 1868;
Chicago Tribune
, June 25, 1868;
Boston Daily Advertiser
, June 25, 1868;
Chicago Tribune
, June 28, 1868. The
Newport (RI) Journal
asked on June 27, 1868, whether there was a connection between Fuller’s appointment and the vote of Edmund Ross on impeachment.

“The man who can give”:
Fuller to Johnson, August 23, 1868, in
Johnson Papers
14:530 and n. 2;
Chicago Tribune
, September 1, 1868.

Fuller’s overhaul: Washington Daily National Intelligencer
, September 30, 1868; McCulloch to Johnson, October 20, 1868, in
Johnson Papers
15:159.

The criminal charges: New York Herald
, September 22, 1869;
Chicago Tribune
, May 1, 1869;
New York Times
, September 16, 1869;
Lowell Daily Citizen & News
, February 7, 1868;
Chicago Tribune
, December 10, 1870; Abel, p. 85 n. 177;
New York Times
, January 29, 1875.

The appointment was “vital”: Chicago Tribune
, September 1, 1868; Ross to Johnson, June 6, 1868, in
Johnson Papers
14:177–78.

The Kansas senator:
Ross to Johnson, June 13, July 1, 10, 1868, in
Johnson Papers
14:215–16, 295, 346; Charles A. Jellison, “The Ross Impeachment Vote: A Need for Reappraisal,”
Southwestern Social Science Quarterly
41:151, 154 (1960); Gerry, p. 872.

Van Winkle of West Virginia:
Bayless, p. 88; Brockway, p. 15; Van Winkle to Johnson, June 19, 1868, and Fowler to Johnson, July 18, 1868, Johnson Papers, Reel 33; Grimes to Johnson, January 28, 1869, Johnson Papers, Reel 36. The president also granted an appointment desired by Fessenden of Maine. Smythe to Johnson, June 22, 1868, in
Johnson Papers
14:251.

Cornelius Wendell, the corruption consultant: New York Times
, October 22, 1868.

The Senate promptly confirmed: Cincinnati Gazette
, May 26, June 1, 1868;
Washington Daily National Intelligencer
, June 26, 1868;
Janesville (WI) Gazette
, June 29, 1868; Ann S. Stephens to Johnson, June 2, 1868, in
Johnson Papers
14:157.

It was, Welles noted tersely:
Welles Diary, vol. 3, p. 391 (May 25, 1868);
New York Tribune
, July 4, 1868. About the nomination of Perry Fuller as commissioner of internal revenue, Welles harrumphed that it was “an improper selection.”

One historian estimated: Chicago Tribune
, September 3, 1868; Albert S. Bolles,
The Financial History of the United States, from 1861 to 1885
, 2d ed., New York: D. Appleton & Co. (1894), p. 495.

Despite Johnson’s dogged efforts: New York Tribune
, February 13, 1868;
Boston Daily Advertiser
, January 30, 1868;
North American Review
(April 1869), p. 625. Noting the Fuller, Smythe, and Foote appointments, the
Janesville (WI) Gazette
observed dryly on June 28, 1868, “The president is going through the list. He has not yet reached Woolley.”

25. THE CARAVAN MOVES ON

Mrs. Johnson came downstairs:
Gerry, p. 873.

Noble Hurdle: New York Times
, January 2, 1869;
Bangor Daily Whig and Courier
, January 2, 1869; Ellis, pp. 242–43.

Did this fraternal feeling:
Butler spent the rest of New Year’s Day calling at the homes of Johnson’s Cabinet secretaries, most of whom could not stand the sight of him. Plainly, the Massachusetts congressman had embarked on a major fence-mending effort. Welles Diary, vol. 3, p. 497 (January 2, 1869).

With a laugh:
Moore Diary/Large Diary, pp. 41–42 (May 27, 29, and 30, 1868); E. P. Townsend, pp. 135–36.

Congress enacted both bills: Chicago Tribune
, June 22, 1868. Johnson vetoed other legislation as well. “Veto of Restrictions on Electoral Votes,” July 20, 1868, in
Johnson Papers
14:388; “Veto of Freedmen’s Bureau Bill,” July 25, 1868, in ibid., 14:429.

Using terror tactics:
Report of Senate Select Committee on “The Causes of the Removal of the Negroes from the Southern States to the Northern States,” S. Rep. No. 693, 46th Cong., 2d sess., Part I, p. xviii (1880); Trefousse,
Andrew Johnson
, pp. 340–41, 349–50; Johnson to Grant, March 14, 1868, in
Johnson Papers
13:650. The Senate Select Committee report in 1880 included a remarkable study compiled by a freed slave and former Union soldier from Louisiana, Henry Adams, who was shocked by the antiblack violence when he returned to the South in 1868. Adams recruited a group of some 500 freedmen who attempted to document atrocities committed by whites and to report on conditions for the freed people throughout the South. Their goal was to identify areas where black people might live in safety. Adams’s listing of the victims of white slaughter includes gruesome entries like: “Alex. Nelson (colored) tongue cut out, skinned and beat, and then killed by Old Dority and other white men, on John Orley’s place, in 1868.” Most are more prosaic: “Frank Jeffrew (colored), killed by white men on Seward Angrel’s place, 1868.” Senate Select Comm. Report, Part II, p. 196.