In choosing information to relay to future generations, historians must be prudent in discerning the importance of that which is chosen. The Thaddeus Stevens Papers hold key insights into political and social reforms of the 1860s, but it is the historian's job to search, interpret, discard, and synthesize important themes for the use of future generations. The March 16th letter from Magnus C. Randall exemplifies the importance of the protection of the presidency as a powerful institution. Alexander Campbell's remarks relate the urgency of settling the monetary crisis in order to retain a true republican government. Mr. Shock's letter to Congressman Thaddeus Stevens accurately portrays the need for a war claims establishment to deal with the complex and often controversial claims dually made during the 1860s and 1870s. Next, Thaddeus Stevens' response to a media correspondent succinctly exudes the serious nature of the suffrage issue that becomes such a volatile issue that the undercurrents of the black suffrage issue ultimately leaves the Republican party factionalized with irreconcilable differences. In all of these instances, each author's opinion of republicanism is adamantly defended; looking to the past is the only way to see which opinions triumphed.
The letter written by Magnus C. Randall to Thaddeus Stevens on March 6, 1868 sustains much importance. Although Mr. Randall's association to Mr. Stevens is not known, it is known that he is writing the letter from Leithby Edinburgh, Scotland. In this letter Randall directly attacks the President of the United States, Andrew Johnson. In his attack, Randall's political views become quite clear. It was during this time period that many radical groups came to the forefront of American politics. The "Copperheads" as they were known, were on the extreme fringe of the Democratic Party, and its beliefs and ideologies1. Randall could be classified as radical or a Copperhead because of what he believed in. 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 Act2, 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, and gave the position to U.S. Grant without the consent of Congress. This action caused the House to vote for impeachment.
Randall further states that Johnson is just as guilty as former European rulers like Charles in England and Louis the XVI in France3. King Charles and King Louis are among some of the most disliked rulers in Europe's history. They can be compared to Johnson in that both consistently went behind the back of their Parliaments without consent. Both of these men were removed from their thrones, and were eventually beheaded. Interestingly enough, Randall states that Johnson also deserves the same punishment, but asks Stevens to show "mercy" on Johnson, and force him to live out his life and die 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. The Presidency may have been reduced to a position similar to that of England's Prime Minister, with Congress having the ability to dispose of the President whenever they deemed it necessary. However, Johnson was not impeached, and therefore allowed for the process of Reconstruction to continue without interference. His acquittal restored hope to the South, but offered little comfort to Stevens. Stevens could sense the new tension that was created when Johnson was not impeached. Apparently, Stevens saw a grim future for the Republic4. By Johnson's unwillingness to maintain a tight grip on Federal Reconstruction in the South, free blacks were forced to deal with a new wave of racism and heartache.
This letter also 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 seemingly 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 XVI, as well as the institution of the Presidency. Had it also not been for the failed attempt at the impeachment of Johnson, the Presidency may have been lost forever, and the United States may have been reduced to a nation under a parliamentary rule of sorts. This letter is quite an astonishing piece of historical evidence. It highlights several vital issues that occurred in 1868, and reminds us that even something as simple as a letter can shed light on our past.
The letter from Alexander Campbell, Rep. Ill., to Thaddeus Stevens illustrates many common struggles of Congress during the post-Civil War era. While this selection expressly supports Stevens's charge for a national currency5, an undercurrent for the perpetuation of his form of republicanism is evident. Campbell's language strongly suggests that their(the Republican Party, namely the Radical Republicans) ideals are correct and therefore must be triumphant. Some background information on the currency situation and Campbell's ideology might help the reader interpret his words more clearly.
One thousand six hundred state banks existed at the beginning of the Civil War in 1861. 6 No central bank was established; therefore, currency, or bank notes, varied from place to place as well as their value. With no stable national currency, the leaders of the government were faced with a dilemma when a large debt from the war began to accrue. How was the government going to pay of the debt in hard currency--gold or silver? Thaddeus Stevens, a champion of Legal Tender Act of 1862, concluded that necessity required the printing of $150 million of legal tender or greenbacks7. Paper money opponents argued that cheap money would lead to price inflation, but as the debt grew larger, some measure was obligatory. It should be noted that while Stevens and Campbell favored a national currency, they did not approve of federal subsidized private banks. Since private individuals on Wall Street such as Jay Cooke made money hand-over-fist from the government funding of so called national banks, the ideals of republicanism were receiving their death sentence. This point is clear from Campbell's letter.
Campbell's strong belief in currency reform stemmed from his involvement in the labor reform movement. Recognizing that all civilized nations had some sort of division of labor, Campbell pushed for harmony and equality of employer and employee8. Since differing opinions about the value of currency existed, the future of the American economy came under close scrutiny. Campbell's belief in the infallibility of the Constitution and the express right therein for Congress to set and regulate the value of money was his solution the economic distress of the United States. Power to determine the amount of money necessary to transact the business of the country laid in the hands of the sovereign people, and government officials who looked to European examples only worsened the economic problems of the nation9. By promoting property, labor, and contractual relationships between worker and employer, Campbell demanded justice and equality of all men.
Mr. Shock's letter to Congressman Thaddeus Stevens illustrates the close relationship that constituents during these tumultuous times shared with their elected representatives. Radical Republicans such as Stevens upheld the notion that rebel states would remain unpunished for their treasonous Civil War aggression if their representatives easily gained re-admission into Congress before necessary civil rights and war claims legislation passed. Shock's plead for financial assistance regarding war damages exemplified a commonality of the 1860s and 1870s as Unionists and Confederates laid claim to damages incurred during the war. This letter exudes the high level of emotion that was ever-present among Congressmen and citizens--a system of reimbursement necessarily gained attention causing courts to be established exclusively ruling on such matters. Also, Stevens' publicly expressed contempt for the South and its despicable slavery establishment culminated to bring the importance of local party concerns to the national, Congressional arena. Part of the letter's appeal that stands out above the rest deals with the political manipulation that occurs as Shock knowingly asks for aid in fighting an injustice that ensued because of the Confederacy's supposed transgressions against the Union; slavery and a fratricidal war. Mr. Shock had to know that Thaddeus Stevens passionately abhorred every aspect of the Confederate cause.
Next, Stevens' response to a media correspondent highlights the importance that media and Congressional interaction played during this period of chaotic Civil War and later, Reconstruction. Stevens graciously accepted the opportunity to express his deeply-held belief in civil and political equality. This communication represents the augmenting importance of the controversial suffrage question that results in disuniting the Republican party. The underlying issue of connecting political and economic issues progressively creates an irreconcilable factionalism within the Republican party10. His steadfast support of the Civil Rights Act and the Freedmen's Bureau, and its revision, in 1866 epitomizes the serious dedication to the freedmen's' political and legal equalities that many Northern and Southern Republicans initially supported. Also, this document contains hints of the intense anger that are still felt toward the Confederate states in February of 1868 because of the savage injustices against slaves for decades, that many fear will return if not increase once Southern Democrats and their sympathizers enter the power political sphere once again. This particular letter expresses better than any other the vehement opposition to the disloyalists who not only destroyed the democratic Union with death and war, but also plan to re-instate many racially oppressive laws against the freedmen which will inevitably tarnish the purity of the American republic of Washington and Jefferson.
After closely examining the assigned six month period of the Thaddeus Stevens Papers, historians must intelligently discern between letters of fleeting importance versus the perpetual importance of addressed issues within a communication. Letters were excluded on the basis of short-lived significance as opposed to the long term issues with serious political as well as economic ramifications. Each studied letter includes notable events and opinions that shaped the era of Reconstruction as historians know it today. Without careful differentiation between all of the letters to chose from with primary basis on perpetual notability, an inaccurate historical legacy would leave generations unclear of the Reconstruction's paramount issues that followed the Civil War. Upon choosing the four documents, central themes of economic, political, and civil choices such as legal tender, as well as the determination of how powerful the Presidency will remain, culminate with the issues of Civil War claims and black suffrage to produce an amazing period of rebuilding and refashioning of America's definitive republican tradition.
1 George B. Tindal and David E. Shi, America: A Narrative History, 4th ed.( New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1997), 516.
2 Richard B. Morris, Encyclopedia Of American History.(New York: Harper & Brothers, 1953), 249.
3 Mark Kishlansky, Patrick Geary, Patrica O'Brien. Civilization in the West, 2nd ed.(New York: Harper Collins, 1995), 498,623.
4 Hans L. Trefousse. Andrew Johnson: A Biography.(New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1989), 333-34.
5 Allen Johnson and Dumas Malone, ed. Dictionary of American Biography (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1931), vol 17, 623.
6 Paul A. Samuelson and Herman E. Krooss, ed. Documentary History of Banking and Currency in the United States, vol. 2. (New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1969), 1261--1266.
7 Samuelson, Documentary History of Banking and Currency in America, vol. 2, 1292--1302
8 David Montgomery, Beyond Equality: Labor and the Radical Republicans 1862--1872. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1967), 426--33.
9 David Montgomery, Beyond Equality: Labor and the Radical Republicans 1862--1872, 426--33.
10 William L. Barney, The Passage of the Republic, (Lexington, Kentucky: D.C. Heath and Co., 1987), 240.
(benson/HST41/Purple/stevens5.htm)