Furman University: Thaddeus Stevens Papers On-line

Transcribed by Natalie E. Byars and reverse-order proofed by Jeremy Snyder, Furman University, from the Thaddeus Stevens Papers.

A Concerned Citizen's Letter to Rep. Thaddeus Stevens

Introduction:

The Court of Claims was founded on February 24, 1855 for suits filed by any citizen whose property had been taken for public use¹. First, Stevens' orientation toward the Confederacy must be placed in context: Thaddeus Stevens witnessed his Caledonia iron works violently raided by Confederate troops who removed all supplies from the stores, and proceeded to burn most of the settlement². Stevens staunchly supported the Northern cause for fighting the evils of a rebellious, misguided Southern society, and he conceded no sympathy to Confederate property losses incurred during the Civil War. A dichotomy of opinions surfaced within Congress since Grant v. United States in 1863 set a precedent for Civil War claims. This case involved Union troops destroying an army contractor's military supplies in an attempt to prevent the Confederacy from making use of such supplies-Justice Wilmot, drafter of the Wilmot Proviso, determined that the $41,530 property value shall be justly awarded¹. Southern war claims supposedly would disrupt national credit and allow the rebels to remain unpunished for their disloyalty. Earlier, on March 3, 1863, an act was passed that required all claimants to show their loyalty to the United States, and if this loyalty could be proved, any citizen could file suit for property compensation¹. Stevens obviously did not rally support for this perceived despicable act for fear that rebels would somehow benefit. The following letter epitomizes the close relationship that many citizens shared with their Congressmen: Shock pleads with Stevens to assist him with monetary reimbursement. Throughout the 1860s and 1870s Stevens will continue to loyally defend abolitionists and Unionists whose homesteads were ravaged by the violence of the Confederates and the Union, for if loyalty could be proven to the Union's cause, Stevens decisively supported their war claims. This letter evidenced the dominance within Congress in the 1860s to restrict legislation that might be construed as potentially beneficial to disloyal rebels¹. Suspicion rested within every soul, and sometimes this emotion was furthered by complete indifference to the losses inflected during the Civil War with Giddings exemplifying this apathetic reaction.

Columbia Feb. 3 1868

Hon. Thaddeus Stevens

Dr Sir,

I have been intending a visit to Washington with a hope that something might be done by a good natured and compassionate Congress in relief of the poor Columbia Bank for the burning of their bridge, through military necessity under orders from the "best government in the world," expressly to save every other body's property; but I am somewhat disheartened, for Col. Myers our President tells me that the newspapers have announced, that at the instance of Mr Washburne (Sponsor and wet nurse of Genl Grant) a bill has passed the House declaring against every war claim for an indefinite time, and I therefore lay myself at your feet and beg that you will have pity upon us and help in some other form than a direct Act of Congress. Last summer you and Mr North thought for a time that the Court of Claims had jurisdiction and could act upon our case, but upon a further consideration you decided otherwise. Now could there not be an Act passed giving to that Court jurisdiction over all claims . . . .

[Page Two] : They are exceedingly liberal with other people's property when sacrificed by the government and outraged when the sufferer should be so abased as to ask indemnity for what has been taken from him for the general good. Old Joshua Giddings^*2 was so shocked at the passage of a bill giving a poor old clergyman $9500 for property (all he had in the world) destroyed by the government that he (Joshua) in agony wrote a long letter to Mr Washburne lamenting the depravity of the old man and then piously gave up the ghost concluding no doubt that that was the last and best thing he could do under the circumstances. I hope Mr Washburne or Mr Delano will not follow his example.

very respectfully

Saml Shock

^*2Ohio Congressman Joshua Giddings relentlessly attacked slaveholders with bitterness and an uncompromising attitude years before the issue of war claims presented itself. Growing up without money and working very hard, he harshly viewed slaveholders with not only contempt, but condemnation. He fervently stood against many Southerners and their sympathizers by fighting to allow the slavery issue to enter Congressional discussions instead of being immediately tabled and ignored. Giddings' unwavering views on slavery and seeming indifference to the tremendous war losses resulted from a moral earnestness which disallowed the serious consideration of Confederate claims of property loss(i.e. liberty)and most Unionist claims.

Sources Consulted:

¹Klingberg, Frank. The Southern Claims Commission. Octagon Books: New York, 1978.

²and^2*Malone, Dumas, Ed. Dictionary of American Biography. Charles Scribner's Sons: New York, 1931 and 1935.

(benson/HST41/Purple/stevens2.htm)