Furman University: Thaddeus Stevens Papers On-line

Transcribed by Nicole Pascoe and reverse-order proofed by Todd M. Shirley, Furman University, from the Thaddeus Stevens Papers.

Introduction:

The following selection contains two letters, both of which were penned by Thaddeus Stevens and intended for President Andrew Johnson.  The letters, written on May 16, and July 6, 1865, deal with the logistical aspects of Reconstruction, particularly the question of how to handle the re-introduction of secessionist states to the Union.  Stevens, a radical member of the Republican Party, felt that because the states had left the Union and formed a new government (with all the attributes of a nation), they ceased to exist as legal states.  He considered states that had been invaded and controlled by the Union army to be "conquered provinces," subject to the will of the conquerors.  Stevens, although under the same party affiliation as President Johnson, felt that Johnson was handling Reconstruction in the wrong manner.  Stevens, in accordance with much of Congress, felt that Reconstruction should be dealt with through the legislative process rather than by the executive branch.  He believed that Reconstruction should "revolutionize Southern institutions, habits and manners."  The fundamental basis of their institutions, according to Stevens, "must be broken up and relaid, or all our blood and treasure have been spent in vain."¹  President Johnson, however, was more forgiving towards Southern secessionists, granting pardons to many (at the objection of many of his fellow party members).  This came as a shock to many Republicans, who were under the impression that Johnson was a follower of the "Lincoln tradition," fighting against the domination of the Southern planter class and a champion of equality.  In each correspondence, Stevens implores Johnson to discontinue his actions regarding Reconstruction until Congress can act, adding that the president was coming dangerously close to usurping his executive power.  These two letters are indicative of the growing factionalism within the Republican party during Reconstruction, specifically the policy differences between Congress and the President.
 
 
 
¹McPherson, James M.  Battle Cry of Freedom:  The Civil War Era.  New York:  Ballantine Books, 1988.

His Excellency Andrew Johnson,
 

Sir
    I hope I may be excused for putting briefly on paper what I intended to say to you only.  Reconstruction is a very delicate question.  The last Congress (I expect the present) looked upon it as a question for the Legislative power exclusively.  While I think we shall agree with you almost unanimously as to the main objects you have in view I fear we may differ as to the manner of collecting them.  How the executive can remoddle the States in the union is past my comprehension.  I see how he can govern them through military governmors untill they are reorganized.  The forcing [of] governor Peerpoit¹, done by a thousand votes on the million inhabitants of Virginia as their governor and call it a republican form of government may provoke a smile, but can hardly satisfy the judgt. of a thinking people.  Had you made him a military govr. it were easily understood.
 

My only object now is to suggest the propriety of suspending further "reconstruction" untill the meeting of Congress.  Better call an extra Session, than to allow many to think that the executive was approaching usurpation. We shall have enough to combat in military trials in the midst of civil courts.  Do not I pray you burden us further.

His Excellency Andrew Johnson,
 

Sir
    I am sure you will pardon me for speaking to you with a candor to which  men in high places are seldom accustomed. Among all the leading Union men of the North with whom I have had intercourse I do not find one who approves of your policy.  They believe that "restoration" as announced by you will destroy our party (which is of but little consequence) and will greatly injure the country.  Can you not hold your hand and wait the action of Congress and in the mean time govern them by military rulers? Profuse pardoning also will greatly embarrass Congress if they should wish to make the enemy pay the expenses of the war or a part of it.

Works Consulted:

McPherson, James M.  Battle Cry of Freedom:  The Civil War Era.  New York:  Ballantine Books, 1988.
 

Footnotes:

¹Mass meetings of Unionists all over the northwest portion of Virginia converged into a convention at Wheeling on June 11, 1861.  The main issue confronting the convention was immediate versus delayed steps toward separate statehood for western Virginia.  The stumbling block to immediate action was Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires the consent of the legislature to form a new state from the territory of an existing one.  The Confederate legislature of Virginia would not consent to a separate state, so the Wheeling convention formed its own "restored government" of Virginia.  Branding the Confederate legislature in Richmond illegal, the convention declared all state offices vacant and on June 20, appointed new state officials, headed by Francis Peirpoint as governor.  Lincoln recognized the Peirpoint administration as the de jure government of Virginia.  He was also recognized as governor in Johnson's order reestablishing federal authority in the state.

(benson/HST41/red/stevens4.htm)