This
document is a letter written from Magnus C. Randall to Thaddeus Stevens
on March 6, 1868. Although Mr. Randall’s association to Mr. Stevens
is not known, it is known that he is writing the letter from Leithby Edinburgh,
Scotland. The letter begins with Randall informing Stevens of the
renewed support of the British People for the Republican Party and their
efforts during the war. Randall continues with an attack on the President
of the United States, Andrew Johnson. In his attack, Randall’s political
views become quite clear. He could be classified as an extreme radical
in his beliefs. He describes Johnson as an "Emissary of Satan," and
urges Stevens not to delay in the impeachment of Johnson. It was
during the time this letter was written that Andrew Johnson was standing
trial for deliberately violating the Tenure of Office Act,1
and was being brought up on charges of impeachment. It had only been
one day prior to the writing of this letter that Johnson’s trial in the
Senate had begun. Johnson had, according to Congress, blatantly violated
this act when he fired Secretary of War Stanton.
Randall
goes further to state that Johnson is just as guilty as former European
rulers like Charles in England and Louis the sixteenth in France.2
Both of these men met their fate and were beheaded. However, Randall
states that Johnson also deserves the same punishment, but asks Stevens
to show "mercy" on him, and force him to live out his life and die a dishonorably,
rather than die at the hands of the "outraged Republic." Randall
also proposes that the Presidency be done away with in a sense, and made
into a position with "no real power." This is rather significant
considering the prominent opinions in the United States during this time.
Many historians argue that had Andrew Johnson been impeached, and had he
not been acquitted, the position of the Presidency may have been lost forever.
It may have become a position similar to that of England’s Prime Minister,
with Congress having the ability to dispose of the President whenever they
saw fit. However, Johnson was not impeached, and therefor allowed
for the process of Reconstruction to continue without interference.
This
letter displays how other people around the world viewed Andrew Johnson’s
actions, and suggests that American politics had become quite visible in
the world by 1868. It is quite clear that Magnus C. Randall was in
favor of impeaching Johnson, but one must question the root of his contempt
for men like Johnson, King Charles, and Louis the sixteenth, as well as
the institution of the Presidency.
Honored Sir! - -
Since the happy conclusion of your great war the British People who formerly sympathised in too great numbers with the South have to a large extent gone round, but still the general feeling in the Press is with the Democrats and Copperheads rather than with the Republicans to whom the honour of the Victory is due. From the first Xmas an enthusiastic advocate of the North & of your glorious & ?? President Lincoln - - I rejoiced in the Southern defeat & in the use made of that defeat until the advent to power of that Emissary of Satan the infamous traitor Andrew Johnson. - - I have all along been through the game he was playing. - - & a year since in a public Assembly. - - I offered up to the almighty this prayer: - - In America may the advantages resulting from this dreadful but necessary war, not be lost or curtailed by the acts of a traitor!" (Assembly Room, Leith, Decr. 1866)
Holding these claims, I always (almost alone here) approved of the Course you too sometime since in trying to impeach Johnson. - - I regretted the result at the time. - - but I am exceedingly glad to find you have again renewed the project of Impeachment before the Senate & this time with good prospect of success. - - I hope indeed you will have succeeded before this can reach you. - - but if not, persevere My Dear Sir. - - You & your heroic hand and & rid America of this Incubus! Remember the glorious memories of England & France! How in the first Country, Charles was brought to the Block & in the Second Louis the 16th & none of these rulers - - were half so guilty as Andrew Johnson. - - They had what they Considered foolishly, no doubt, as a divine right to the throne. They ascended it by right of descent. - - but they never took oaths like Johnson's to be broken. - - He also deserves to be brought to the scoffold. - - but in mercy spare him. - - Let him die a dishonoured death but not by the hands of the outraged Republic. - -
After the deposition of Johnson I need not suggest to you Sir, & the House of which you are so great an Ornament, what Course ought to be taken. As it appears to me you might dispense with a President altogether. - - Why should not a Committee of both houses sit in permanent session, at Washington with members delegated to act in rotation in the place of the President & to Correspond with the Foreign Powers. - - I think this a feasible scheme. - - but in any case the President must have no real power but be the servant & representative of Congress & if you are really to retain the Presidency you could not do better than elect my illustrious Countryman Ulysses Grant. - - He would certainly be the right man in the right place. - - Also it occurs to me you might nullify some of the late Democratic [returns?] by making the House of Representatives the judge of its own Constitution & rejecting some of the notoriously Copperhead nominees. - -
It might be also worth your while to look into some of the recent appointments of Johnson & Seward to the Embassies & Consulships. In many cases they seem to select their own Creatures blasé Democrats, or occasionally boys. - - Should not this be in the hands of Congress too? - -
I conclude honoured Sir! - - by praying that Heaven
may keep you & the Republican party in its protection. - - that it
may bring you & the Republic safely out of this severe trial.
& that a glorious future may be before your magnificent Country! -
-
ALS
TS2715
Footnotes:
1. Morris, p.249. The Tenure of Office Act prohibited the President from removing any official appointed by the Senate without direct Senatorial Approval. President Johnson attempted to test this act when he dismissed Secretary of War Stanton, and replaced him with General Grant. Grant later returned the position to Stanton. This Act was later repealed during Grover Cleveland's administration, thereby strengthening the position of the President.
2. Kishlansky, Geary, and O'Brien, p. 498,
623. Both Charles and Louis were found guilty of treasonous acts
by their respective governments at the end of their reigns. As a
result, both men were tried and removed from office, as was nearly the
case for Johnson.
2.
Kishlansky, Mark, Patrick Geary, Patrica O'Brien. Civilization
in the West. 2nd ed.
New York: Harper Collins, 1995
3.
Lomask, Milton. Andrew Johnson: President On Trial.
New York: Octagon Books, 1973
4.
Malone, Dumas. Dictionary of American Biography.
Charles Scribner's Sons: New York, 1935.
5.
Morris, Richard B. Encyclopedia Of American History.
New York: Harper & Brothers, 1953
6.
Tindall, George Brown, David Emory Shi. America: A Narrative History.
4th ed.
New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1997
7.
Trefousse, Hans L. Andrew Johnson, A Biography.
New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1989
(benson/HST41/Purple/stevens1.htm)