Thaddeus Stevens to John Gyger, 21 September 1866. Transcribed by Sally Ryan Burgess and reverse-order proofed by Keith Carson, Furman University, from the Thaddeus Stevens Papers. Introduction:
The Debate between Radical Republican reconstructionists and President Andrew Johnson reached an explosive apex in the fall of 1866. In a letter to his constituent John Gyger, Thaddeus Stevens implied that the President's personal affection for the Southern states and Johnson's lenient reconstruction policies stated in his 1866 reconstruction plan, impaired the economic security of the nation. Furthermore, Stevens argued that the President obstructed the authority of Congress by pronouncing all legal tender issued by Congress in 1866 null and void. President Johnson issued his pronouncement on the grounds that the Radicals were members of an illegitimate Congress which failed to recognize the Southern states as members.[1] Johnson contended that all ten of the former Confederate states were members of Congress because they had never truly left the Union and because they accepted the stipulations mandated in Johnson's reconstruction plan of May 29, 1865.[2] Johnson further asserted that the right of reconstruction belonged to the President under the Constitution which granted Presidents' the right of pardon, the right to executive power, and the right to ensure a republican form of government in all states.[3] In direct opposition, Stevens and other radicals, such as Charles Sumner, argued that the right to reconstruct the South belonged to Congress, the institution that represented the will ofthe people.[4] Additionally, Congress possessed the right to make treaties, to lay and raise taxes, the right to provide for the common defense, and the right to balance executive power.[5]
The following letter is both an example of the fierceness of debate between Congress and President Johnson during the crucial year of 1866, and an example of the quality of debate between the two institutions. Steven's letter also allows the reader to grasp the interest and concerns possessed by the general public concerning reconstruction matters (especially financial affairs), the contempt Stevens held for Johnson, and the desire of Congress to maintain economic stability in the nation during the post-Civil War era.[6]
John Gyger,esq.: DEAR SIR: In answer to your inquiry, "What effect the success of the President's views will have on the national securi- ties," I am of opinion that its effect would be very injurious.
The President contends that the body of men acting as Congress has no constitutional powers, and can do no valid acts in the absence of the excluded States. The Con- gresses that authorized the war debt and laid the internal duties to pay it were composed of precisely the same number of representa- tives, from the same States as the present. If it should be decided that those Congresses had no constitutional existence, the five- twenties, ten-forties, seven thirties, and the legal-tender greenbacks will have been issued without authority, and will be worthless.
Whether they would ever be redeemed would depend on what the President would consider a constitutional Congress, after the admission of the rebel representatives, when the condition of the debts of both belligerents would be considered.
Yours Truly, THADDEUS STEVENS
(benson/HST41/green/stevens2.htm)