Franklin Repository: April 04, 1866Go To Page : 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
Another Veto! Civil Rights Denied to Loyal Men in Rebel States!
(Column 6)Summary: A copy of President Johnson's veto of the Civil Rights Bill.
Full Text of Article:
To the Senate of the United States:
I regret that the bill which has passed both Houses of Congress, entitled "An Act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication," contains provisions which I cannot approve consistently with my sense of duty to the whole people, and my obligations to the Constitution of the United States.
I am, therefore, constrained to return it to the Senate, the House in which it originated, with my objections to its becoming a law. By the first section of the bill all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States. This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gipsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks, people of color, negroes, mulattoes and persons of African blood.
Every individual of these races, born in the United States is by the bill made a citizen of the United States. It does not propose to declare or confer any other right of citizenship than "Federal citizenship." It does not purport to give these classes of persons any status as citizens of States, except that which may result from their status as citizens of the United States. The power to confer the right of State citizenship is just as exclusively with the several States as the power to confer the right of Federal citizenship is with Congress. The right of Federal citizenship thus to be conferred on the several excepted races before mentioned, is now for the first time proposed to be given by law. If, as is claimed by many, all persons who are native born are by virtue of the Constitution citizens of the United States, the passage of the pending bill cannot be necessary to make them such.
If, on the other hand, such persons are not citizens, as may be assumed from the proposed legislation to make them such, the grave question presents itself whether, when eleven of the thirty-six States are unrepresented in Congress at this time, it is sound policy to make our entire colored population, and all other excepted classes citizens of the United States. Four millions of them have just emerged from slavery into freedom. Can it be reasonably supposed that they possess the requisite qualifications to entitle them to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States? Have the people of the several States expressed such a conviction? It may also be asked whether it is necessary that they should be declared citizens in order that they may be secured in the enjoyment of the civil rights proposed to be conferred by the bill? Those rights are, by Federal as well as State laws, secured to all domiciled aliens and foreigners, even before the completion of the process of naturalization, and it may be safely assumed that the same enactments are sufficient to give like protection and benefits to those for whom this bill provides special legislation.
Besides, the policy of the Government, from its origin to the present time, seems to have been that persons who are strangers to and unfamiliar with our institutions and our laws, should pass through a certain probation, at the end of which, before attaining the coveted privilege, they must give evidence of their fitness to receive and to exercise the rights of citizens, as contemplated by the Constitution of the United States.
The bill, in effect, proposes a discrimination against a large number of intelligent, worthy and patriotic foreigners, and in favor of the negro, to whom, after long years of bondage, the avenue of freedom and intelligence have just now been suddenly opened. He must, of necessity, from his previous unfortunate condition of servitude, be less informed as to the nature and character of our institutions, than he who, coming from abroad, has, to some extent, at least, familiarized himself with the principles of a Government to which he voluntarily intrusts life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Yet it is now proposed, by a single legislative enactment, to confer the rights of citizens upon all persons of African decent born within the extended limits of the United States, while persons of foreign birth, who make our land their home, must undergo a probation of five years, and can only then become citizens upon proof that they are of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.
The first section of the bill also contains an enumeration of the rights to be enjoyed by these classes so made citizens in every State and Territory of the United States. These rights are to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties and give evidence; to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real estate and personal property, and to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is now enjoyed by white citizens. So, too, they are made subject to the same punishment, pains and penalties in common with white citizens, and to none others. Thus a perfect equality of the white and colored race is attempted to be fixed by Federal law in every State of the Union over the vast field of State jurisdiction covered by these enumerated rights. In no one of these can any State exercise any power of discrimination between the different races. In the exercise of State policy over matters exclusively affecting the people of each State, it has frequently been thought expedient to discriminate between the two races.
By the statute of some of the States, Northern as well as Southern, it is enacted, for instance, that no white person shall intermarry with a negro or mulatto. Chancellor Kent says, speaking of blacks, "that marriages between them and the whites are forbidden in some of the States where slavery does not exist, and they are prohibited in all the slave-holding States; and when not absolutely contrary to law, they are revolting, and regarded as an offense against public decorum." I do not say that this bill repeals State laws on the subject of marriage between the two races, for as the whites are forbidden to intermarry with the blacks, the blacks can only make such contracts as the whites themselves are allowed to make, and therefore cannot, under this bill, enter into the marriage contracts with the whites.
I cite this discrimination, however, as an instance of the State policy as to discrimination, and to inquire whether, if Congress can abrogate all State laws of discrimination between the two races in the matter of real estate, of suits, and of contracts generally, Congress may not also repeal the State laws as to the contract of marriage between the races? Hitherto every subject embraced in the enumeration of rights contained in this bill has been considered as exclusively belonging to the States; they all relate to the internal policy and economy of the respective States. They are matters which, in each State, concern the domestic condition of its people, varying in each according to its own peculiar circumstances and the safety and well-being of its own citizens.
I do not mean to say that upon all these subjects there are not Federal restraints. As for instance, in the State power of legislation over contracts, there is a Federal limitation that no State shall pass a law impairing the obligations of contracts; and as to crimes that no State shall pass an expost facto law; to money that no State shall make anything but gold and silver a legal tender. But where can we find a Federal prohibition against the power of any State to discriminate as to most of them, between aliens and citizens, between artificial persons, called corporations, and national persons, in the right to hold real estate.
If it be granted that Congress can repeal all State laws discriminating between whites and blacks in the subjects covered by this bill, why, it may be asked, may not Congress repeal, in the same way, all those laws discriminating between the two races on the subject of suffrage and office. If Congress can declare, by law, who shall hold lands, who shall testify, who shall have capacity to make a contract in a State, then Congress can by law also declare who, without regard to race or color, shall have the right to sit as a juror or as a judge, to hold any office, and finally to vote, in every State and Territory of the United States. As respects the Territories, they come within the power of Congress, for as to them the law-making power is the Federal power; but as to the States, no similar provision exists, vesting in Congress the power to make rules and regulations for them.
The object of the second section of the bill is to afford discriminative protection to colored persons in the full enjoyment of all the rights secured to them. By the preceding section it declares that "any person who, under color of the law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State or territory to the deprivation of any right secured or protected by this act, or to different punishment, pains or penalties, on account of such person having at any time been held in a condition of slavery, or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, or by reason of his color or race than is prescribed for the punishment of white persons, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be punished by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both in the discretion of the court."
This section seems to be designed to apply to some existing or future law of a State or Territory, which may conflict with the provisions of the bill now under consideration. It provides for counteracting such forbidden legislation by imposing a fine and imprisonment upon the legislators who may pass such conflicting laws, or upon the officers or agents who shall put or attempt to put them into execution. It means an official offense, not a common crime committed against law upon the person or property of the black man. Such an act may deprive the black man of his property, but not of the right to hold property. It means a deprivation of this right itself, either by the State judiciary or the State Legislature. It is, therefore, assumed that, under this section, members of State Legislatures who should vote for laws conflicting with the provisions of this bill, that judges of the State courts who should render judgements in antagonism with its terms, and that marshals and sheriffs who should, as ministerial officers, execute processes sanctioned by State laws and issued by State judges in execution of their judgements, could be brought before other tribunals, and there subjected to fine and imprisonment for the performance of the duties which such State laws might impose.
The legislation thus imposed invades the judicial power of the State. It says to every State court or judge, "If you decide that this act is unconstitutional; if you refuse, under the prohibition of a State, to allow a negro to testify; if you hold that, over such a subject matter, the State law is paramount, and under color of a State law refuse the exercise of the right to the negro, your error of judgement, however conscientious, shall subject you to fine and imprisonment." I do not apprehend that the conflicting legislation, which the bill seems to contemplate, is likely to occur as to render if necessary at this time to adopt a measure of such doubtful constitutionality.
In the next place this provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary, as adequate judicial remedies could be adopted to secure the desired end without involving the immunities of Legislatures always important to be preserved in the interest of public liberty, without assailing the independence of the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights, and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order. The remedy proposed by this section seems to be in this respect not only anomalous, but unconstitutional, for the Constitution guaranties nothing with certainty if it does not insure to the several States the right of making and executing laws in regard to all matters arising in their jurisdiction, subject only to the restriction that in cases of conflict with the Constitution and constitutional laws of the United States, the latter should be held to be the supreme law of the land.
The third section gives the District Courts of the United States exclusive "cognizances of all crimes and offences committed against the provisions of this act," and concurrent jurisdiction with the Circuit Courts of the United States of all civil and criminal cases affecting persons who are denied or cannot enforce in the Courts or judicial tribunals of the State or locality wherever they may be, any of the rights secured to them by the first section; and the construction which I have given to the second section is strengthened by this third section, for it makes clear what kind of denial or deprivation of the rights secured to them by the first section was in contemplation. It is a denial or deprivation of such rights "in the courts or judicial tribunals of the State." It stands therefore, clear of doubt that the offense and penalties provided in the second section are intended for the State judge who, in the clear exercise of his functions as a judge, not acting ministerially but judicially, shall decide contrary to this Federal law.
In other words, when a State judge, acting upon a question involving a conflict between a State law and a Federal law, and bound according to his own judgement and responsibility, to give an impartial decision between the two, comes to the conclusion that the State law is valid and the Federal law is invalid, he must not follow the dictates of his own judgement, at the peril of fine and imprisonment. The legislative department of the Government of the United States thus takes from the judicial department of the States the sacred and exclusive duty of judicial decision, and converts the State Judge into a mere ministerial officer, bound to decide according to the will of Congress.
It is clear that in the States which deny to persons whose rights are secured by the first section of the bill any one of these rights, all criminal and civil cases affecting them, will, by the provision of the third section come under the exclusive cognizance of the Federal tribunals. It follows that if in any State which denies to a colored person any one of all those rights, that person should commit a crime against the laws of the State, murder, arson, rape, or any other crime, all protection or punishment through the courts of the State are taken away, and he can only be tried and punished in the Federal courts. How is the criminal to be tried if the offense is provided for and punished by Federal law, that law and not the State law is to govern.
It is only when the offense does not happen to be within the purview of Federal law that the Federal Courts are to try and punish him. Under any other law, then resort is to be had to the common law as modified and changed by State legislation, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States. So that over this vast domain of criminal jurisprudence, provided by each State for the protection of its own citizens, and for the punishment of all persons who violate its criminal laws, Federal law, wherever it can be made to apply, displaces State law.
The question here naturally arises, from what source Congress derives the power to transfer to Federal tribunals certain classes of cases embraced in this section? The Constitution expressly declares that the judicial power of the United States shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made or which shall be made under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State; between citizens of different States; between citizens of the same State claiming land under grants of different States; and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens, or subjects.
Here the judicial power of the United States is expressly set forth and defined, and the act of September 24th, 1789, establishing the judicial courts of the United States, in conferring upon the Federal courts jurisdiction over cases originating in State tribunals, is careful to confine them to the classes enumerated in the above-recited clause of the Constitution. This section of the bill undoubtedly comprehends cases and authorizes the exercise of powers that are not, by the Constitution, within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. To transfer them to those courts would be an exercise of authority well calculated to excite distrust and alarm on the part of all the States, for the bill applies alike to all of them, as well to those that have not been engaged in rebellion. It may be assumed that this authority is incident to the power granted to Congress by the Constitution, as recently amended, to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the article declaring that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
It cannot, however, be justly claimed that, with a view to the enforcement of this article of the Constitution, there is at present any necessity for the exercise of all the powers which this bill confers. Slavery has been abolished, and at present nowhere exists within the jurisdiction of the United States, nor has there been, nor is it likely there will be, any attempt to renew it by the people or the States. If, however, any such attempt shall be made, it will become the duty of the General Government to exercise any and all incidental powers necessary and proper to maintain inviolate the great law of freedom.
The fourth section of the bill provides that officers and agents of the Freedmen's Bureau shall be empowered to make arrests, and also that other officers may be specially commissioned for that purpose by the President of the United States. It also authorizes circuit courts of the United States and the superior courts of the Territories, to appoint, without limitation, commissioners, who are to be charged with the performance of quasi-judicial duties.
The fifth section empowers the commissioners, so to be selected by the Courts, to appoint in writing under their hands, one or more suitable persons, from time to time, to execute warrants and other prosecutions desired by the bill. These numerous official agents are made to constitute a sort of police in addition to the military, and are authorized to summons a posse commitatus, and even to call to their aid such portions of the land and naval forces of the United States, or of the militia, as may be necessary to the performance of the duty with which they are charged. This extraordinary power is to be conferred upon agents irresponsible to the Government, and to the people to whose number the discretion of the commissioners is the only limit, and in whose hands such authority might be made a terrible engine of wrong, oppression and fraud.
The general statutes regulating the land and naval forces of the United States, the militia, and the execution of the laws, are believed to be adequate for every emergency which can occur in time of peace. If it should prove otherwise Congress can at any time amend those laws in such a manner as, while subserving the public welfare, not to jeopardize the rights, interests and liberties of the people.
The seventh section provides that a fee of ten dollars be paid to each commissioner in every case brought before him, and a fee of five dollars to his deputy or deputies for each person he or they may arrest and take before any such commissioner, with such other fees as may be deemed reasonable by such commissioner in general for performing such other duties as may be required in the premises. All these fees are to be paid out of the Treasury of the United States, whether there is conviction or not; but in case of a conviction they are to be recoverable from the defendant. It seems to me that under the influence of such temptation bad men might convert any law, however beneficent, into an instrument of persecution and fraud.
By the eighth section of the bill, the United States Courts, which sit only in one place for white citizens, must migrate, the marshal and district attorney, and necessarily the clerk, although he is not mentioned, to any part of the district, upon the order of the President, and there hold a court, for the purpose of the more speedy arrest and trial of persons charged with a violation of this act; and there the judge and the officers of the Court must remain, on the order of the President, for the time designated. The ninth section authorizes the President, or any such person as he may empower for that purpose to employ such part of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia, as shall be necessary to prevent the violation and enforce the due execution of this act. This language seems to imply an important military force, that is to be always at hand, and whose only business is to be the enforcement of this measure over the vast region where it is intended to operate.
I do not propose to consider the policy of this bill. To me the details of the bill are fraught with evil. The white race and the black race of the South have hitherto lived together under the relation of master and slave--capital owning labor. Now, suddenly, that relation is changed; and as to ownership, capital and labor are divorced. They stand now each master of itself, in this new relation one being necessary to the other.
There will be a new adjustment, which both are deeply interested in making harmonious. Each has equal power in settling the forms, and if left to the laws that regulate capital and labor, it is confidently believed that they will satisfactorily work out the problem. Capital, it is true, has more intelligence, but labor is never so ignorant as not to know its own value, and not to see that capital must pay that value.
This bill frustrates that adjustment; it intervenes between capital and labor, and attempts to settle the questions of political economy through the agency of numerous officials, whose interest it will be to ferment discord between the two races, so far as the breach widens their employment will continue, and when it is closed, their occupation will terminate in all our history, in all our experience, as a people living under Federal and State law. No such system as that contemplated by the details of this bill has ever before been proposed or adopted to establish for the security of the colored race safeguards which go infinitely, beyond any that the General Government has ever provided for the white race. In fact, the distinction of race and color is by the bill made to operate in favor of the colored and against the white race.
They interfere with the municipal legislation of the States, with the relations existing exclusively between a State and its citizens, or between inhabitants of the same State, an absorption and assumption of power by the General Government which, if acquiesced in, must sap or destroy our federated system of limited powers, and break down the barriers which preserve the rights of the States. It is another step or rather stride towards centralization, and the concentration of all legislative powers in the National Government. The tendency of the bill must be to resuscitate the spirit of rebellion and to arrest the progress of those influences which are more closely drawing around the States the bonds of union and peace.
My lamented predecessor, in his proclamation of the 1st of January, 1863, ordered and declared that all persons held as slaves within certain States and parts of States, therein designated, were and thenceforward should be free; and further, that the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, would recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons. This guaranty has been rendered especially obligatory and sacred by the amendment of the Constitution abolishing slavery throughout the United States. I therefore fully recognize the obligation to protect and defend that class of our people whenever and wherever it shall become necessary, and to the full extent compatible with the Constitution of the United States.
Entertaining these sentiments, it only remains for me to say that I will cheerfully co-operate with Congress in any measure that may be necessary for the promotion of the civil rights of the freedmen, as well as those of all classes of persons throughout the United States by judicial process, under equal and impartial laws, in conformity with the provisions of the Federal Constitution. I now return the bill to the Senate, and regret that in considering the bills and joint resolutions, forty-five in number, which have been thus far submitted for my approval, I am compelled to withhold my assent from a second measure that has reached the sanction of both Houses of Congress.
WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 27.
Another Blow At Freedom
(Column 1)Summary: The editors criticize the President for his decision to veto the Civil Rights Bill, despite the fact that the legislation passed both the Senate and House of Representatives by decisive margins. Despite Johnson's claims otherwise, they declare, the bill does not propose to confer any "extraordinary rights" to blacks, rather it simply calls on the government to protect their "natural rights" as citizens.
Full Text of Article:The Retiring Senators
On the 2d of February last the U. S. Senate passed a bill to protect the civil rights of all classes of people in the several States, by the decisive vote of 33 to 12--5 not voting, who would have added 3 to the minority and 2 to the majority. A full Senate would thus have given 35 votes for the bill and 15 against it. On the 13th of March the bill was passed finally in the House by the decisive vote of 111 to 38--34 not voting, 26 of whom are Union and 8 Democratic. The House had made some material amendments to the bill, and when it returned to the Senate on the 15th of March, it was passed finally without a call of the yeas and nays. In the Senate the Union Senators voted solid for the bill, excepting Van Winkle, of W. Va., and Nesmith, of Oregon. It will thus be seen that even the most of the Union Senators who sustained the President in his veto of the Freedmen's bill, voted for the passage of the Civil Rights bill.
Giving, as we do, the message in full in our columns to-day, it is needless to discuss the veto touching either its fundamental doctrine or its details. Its foundation stone is given in a single sentence, wherein he says that "the grave question presents itself whether, where eleven of the thirty-six States are unrepresented in Congress at this time, it is sound policy to make our entire colored population and all other excepted classes, citizens of the United States,"--an awkward attempt to revamp the monstrous doctrine of Taney, that negroes have no rights which a white man is bound to respect. The objections in detail may be summed up in another single sentence from the message, in which he says that "this bill, in effect, proposes a discrimination against large numbers of intelligent, worthy, and patriotic foreigners, and in favor of the negro, to whom, after long years of bondage, the avenues of freedom and intelligence have just now been suddenly opened"--a declaration that might have come with some fitness from a Five Points' ward orator, addressing the "intelligent, worthy and patriotic foreigners" who inaugurated the negro riots of 1863. It is just barely possible, judging from this feature of the veto, that President Johnson has learned some time within the past four years, that the negro was treated as a citizen when troops were wanted to protect him from rebel vengeance within the fortifications of Nashville, and that the "intelligent, worthy and patriotic foreigners," were not then treated as citizens and took no part in the struggle for the life of the Republic unless it was done voluntarily; but if so, it has certainly escaped his memory. The negro owed allegiance to our government, and was called upon to mingle his blood with the white to defend a common nationality, while the foreigner was regarded as owing allegiance to another government until he established his citizenship in accordance with the laws of the country.
Bear in mind that the Civil Rights bill just vetoed did not propose to confer any conventional or extraordinary rights upon the negro. It provided for protecting him in natural rights of the citizen only--in life, liberty and property. It gives him in the rebel States just the same rights he now enjoys in Pennsylvania, and much less than he now enjoys in many of the Northern States. It guaranteed to him only the power "to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties to suits, give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property, and to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens." This is the sum and substance of the offense of the Civil Rights bill, and for this it is pronounced by a President of the United States, in the style and with the animus of the lowest type of the petty demagogue, an "attempt" to consummate "a perfect equality of the white and black races in every State in the Union." This perfect equality consists in allowing the negro to own and sell such property as his industry may acquire; to make and enforce contracts for the compensation of his own labor; to be a witness in courts composed of white judges and jurors and thus give his humble aid in the administration of justice, and to protect his person and his household from violence or wrong. Beyond this, under the bill in question, he would be in the rebel States, as he is in Pennsylvania, a mere hewer of wood and drawer of water; taxed without representation and his life pledged for the defence of the government in whose direction he is denied the right of the ballot.
But there is an omission in the veto message that is as deceptive to the uninformed mind, as the groveling appeal against negro equality is intended to be with the cultivated prejudices of large classes, who seem to consider themselves so poorly endowed that the negro may outstrip them in the race of progress and ambition. The Civil Rights bill was not intended any more for the protection of four millions of emancipated slaves than for the million or more of whites in the rebel States who are obnoxious to the charge of devotion to the unity of the Republic. In every State lately in rebellion there are thousands of whites who maintained their loyalty even in the darkest days which shadowed our flag, and they are now as effectually ostracized in most of the insurgent States, as the despised freedmen. Many of them, indeed most of them, are and always were, poor and had not been brutalized into treason by exercising the lordly master's prerogatives over his slaves; and their fidelity to the Union is now deemed a crowning crime by the State authorities which have been brought into being by the President. We beg to remind Andrew Johnson that there are many such in Tennessee; that but few shared his good fortune to command armies to protect themselves while maintaining their loyalty with their lives in constant peril; that they had not strong fortification and body-guards and army corps to keep them from dangling to the trees for the amusement of "erring brethren," as had Andrew Johnson when he exercised the duties of Military Governor and administered the laws just as far as the Union armies held possession of the territory of the State. The present Governor of the State, who varied his experience in Tennessee between rebel prisons, repeated rebel attempts upon his life to receive the price upon his head, and occasional peace and protection with the Military Governor in Nashville, has but a few weeks ago declared that the rebels are rapidly regaining their supremacy in the State under the policy of the President; and that in many sections, all the local officers being defiant rebels, no Union man is safe in either person or property. The same fiends who would have hung Andrew Johnson two years ago, and who now have him bewildered with their fatal friendship, turn with renewed malignity against the humble Union men of Tennessee who are without the protection of the law, because they feel warranted in so doing by the treachery of the man who reached the Chief Magistracy of the nation, by the votes of loyal men sorely tried and sadly bereaved by treason.
The message has but one lesson, or rather a repetition of many less positive lessons of the past. President Johnson has resolved to make all perfidy of history pale before his own, and to espouse the cause of copperheads and rebels to the uttermost. Treason with him has ceased to be a crime, and must be henceforth rewarded with honor and power rather than be punished and made infamous; and he seems determined to pursue his madness until the nation shall drink the bitter cup of humiliation and woe to the very dregs. But we do not despair of the Republic. The patriotic People who have saved it in its past perils will not falter in their holy duty now. Alike in behalf of the hopeful living and the martyred dead, they will maintain Justice and Freedom in every struggle, and doom to ignominy and shame the traitors who have so causelessly made every household mourn.
(Column 3)Summary: At the close of the current legislative session, eleven state senators will retire, leaving the body composed of fourteen Republicans and eight Democrats. Consequently, the upcoming election will be a crucial battle in the struggle to control the state government.[No Title]
(Column 5)Summary: The Repository's correspondent predicts that the President will use his relationship with Senator Cowan to defeat Union men in Pennsylvania's upcoming election. Like Johnson, the correspondent claims, Cowan is a hypocrite who professes "to be in and of the Union party," but does so only in order to "deceive, distract and weaken" the state's "loyal men."
Full Text of Article:[No Title]
OUR Harrisburg correspondent foreshadows the probable plan to be adopted by President Johnson to defeat the Union men in Pennsylvania next fall. The chief instrument in this grateful work will be the Hon. Edgar Cowan, who was elected by the Union men to the United States Senate. He is to dispense the patronage of the President so as to compass the demoralization of the Union ranks if possible. Like Johnson he is to practice the hypocrisy of professing to be in and of the Union party, in order the more effectually to deceive, distract and weaken the loyal men. Appeals will be made to the ambition and cupidity of Union men on every hand, and political honors and emoluments will be proffered with a lavish hand to such as may prove weak enough to do like Post Master Cleaveland, of Connecticut--wear the Union uniform and vote the copperhead ticket. It is not yet certain just what the President and his debauched Senator will present as their plan of operations. If it will promise the more certainly to elect Mr. Clymer Governor, a convention of office-holders and quasi Unionists with copperhead variations will be held and Mr. Cowan will be nominated for Governor; and similar nominations will be made in debateable Congressional districts where a sufficient number of Union camp followers can be gathered together to go through the motions of forming tickets. This plan was well thought of some weeks ago; but since then the Clymer leaders, who really own and manage the Cowan and Johnson side-show, fear that the concern is so wanting in attractions that nobody would patronize it, and they will in the end be compelled to do as they have done in Connecticut--go over body and breeches to the copperheads and vote their ticket.
We don't object to Mr. Cowan supporting and voting the copperhead ticket. It is most natural that he should do so. He is the creature of the President, the President is the creature of the copperheads and rebels, and Cowan but works the thing out to a logical result; but we shall object to any such desecration of the Union name and flag to shelter the deliberate treachery they contemplate against the Union party. They have but one aim--to demoralize, to divide, to betray, to destroy it. Let the Union men be fore-warned and they will be fore-armed. Their only safety is in their unfaltering integrity; in the most faithful devotion to principle. If they shall be true to their vital principles, the People will be true to themselves and to their country, and copperheads and treacherous Unionists will share the common fate of all enemies of Freedom and Justice in the loyal States.
(Column 5)Summary: Almost a year ago, notes the article, President Johnson issued a proclamation calling for the arrest of Jeff Davis and a coterie of high-ranking rebel officials for their part in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Although Davis, as well as several other men implicated in the crime, has been caught and arrested and the $100,000 reward dispensed, he has yet to face trial for his role.[No Title]
(Column 6)Summary: In response to a piece that appeared in the Bedford Gazette that chastised Col. McClure for urging the delegates at the Union State Convention to repudiate their association with President Johnson, the editors assert that such pronouncements could hardly be construed as detrimental to the party's chances of success in the upcoming state election since anyone in Pennsylvania who supports the President would vote for Clymer anyway.County Superintendent
(Column 7)Summary: The author of the letter puts forth J. Y. Atherton's name as a possible candidate for County Superintendent.
(Names in announcement: J. Y. Atherton)Trailer: A Friend of EducationLatest News!
(Column 8)Summary: News from the telegraph indicates that the Union party has emerged victorious in the election in Connecticut, in spite of the President's efforts to aid to the state's Democrats.
Local Items--Sketch of the 21st Pennsylvania Cavalry
(Column 1)Summary: Drawn from the diary of J. D. Hartman, the son of Rev. D. Hartman, the piece chronicles the history of the regiment from its founding to its disbandment.
(Names in announcement: Rev. D. Hartman, J. D. Hartman)Full Text of Article:Local Items--New Jury Bill
SKETCH OF THE 21st PENNSYLVANIA CAVALRY--We have received a pamphlet written by Mr. J. D. Hartman, son of the Rev. D. Hartman, now of Salona, Clinton county, containing a "Resume of the Travels and Doings of the 21st Penna. Cavalry while in the U. S. Service," from which we make up the following sketch of its history. It is our design to give as complete a history of every regiment or company from Franklin county as we can gather, and for that purpose have at present on our table the diary of an officer of the 77th Regiment, giving the incidents of one of the many campaigns of that veteran regiment, and "we expect to receive from the same officer the materials for a complete history of that organization. We hope to be assisted in preserving the record of Franklin county in the war by many of the officers and soldiers who went out to battle for the Union.
The 21st Penna. Cavalry, after having served as six months volunteers, was re-organized at this place, on the 21st day of February, 1864, and lay encamped about four miles from town, near Back Creek, on the Bedford Pike, until the 16th of May, 1864, when it was ordered to the front. Taking up the line of march to Washington, the regiment encamped the first night at Gettysburg, Pa., the second night at Frederick, Md., and at the end of the third day had reached their destination. After marching through Georgetown and Washington, with colors flying and band playing, they took up their quarters at camp Stoneman. The next morning the regiment was ordered to embark at Giesboro Point, Md., for Belle Plain landing, Va., but the order was afterwards countermanded and they were marched back again to Camp Stoneman. Many were the surmises as to the reason of the order being countermanded, but it became apparent in a few days, and is explained by a stanza from a ballad of the 21st, written by an officer of the regiment:
"We left the town of Chambersburg our journey to pursue,
A regiment of cavalry of soldiers brave and true,
And as we marched to Washington our hearts were light and gay,
But there we were dismounted on the 21st of May."
On the 22d, the regiment marched, as "flat-foot cavalry," from Camp Stoneman to Camp Chase, on Arlington Heights, were they received their infantry equipments and the thanks of the War Department for submitting so quietly to the change. If the truth must be told, however, growl after growl, and curse after curse, were uttered in consequence, though the men were consoled with the idea that the change was only temporary--sixty or ninety days--and that they were to be used only as guards for wagon trains, forts, &c. Mr. Hartman says they did guard forts as infantry, but they were required to take them first. On the morning of the 23d the regiment was marched to Alexandria, about seven miles distant, and over very muddy roads, where it was embarked on board three steamers and conveyed down the Potomac and up the Rappahannock to Port Royal, with the exception of Co. D, Capt. Hollinger, which was on detached service at Pottsville, Pa. From Port Royal the regiment was marched to join the army of the Potomac, encamping the first night on the banks of a small creek near Newtown, Va., on the second night at the Mattapony river, and on the third at the Pamunky, joining the army next day at Old Church, near Cold Harbor.
The regiment was attached to the 2nd Brigade, 1st Division, 5th Corps, and the next day, being the 3rd of June, participated in the famous and bloody battle of Cold Harbor. Almost the very first shells thrown into the regiment by the enemy killed Lieut. Richard Waters, of Co. E, and the 21st suffered severely in this engagement, losing 57 men killed and wounded in a single charge. It was in this battle Col. Wm. H. Boyd, commanding the regiment, was so severely wounded in the neck, while sitting on a log coolly surveying the rebel lines through his field glass. Many other officers were wounded.
After fighting all day under a galling flank fire, and without anything to eat, or drink, the men were relieved about 7 P. M., and taken to the rear, where they drew rations and rested for the night, expecting to go again in the morning. The next morning, however, on being taken down to the place it was found the rebels had left, evacuating the ground they had held so stubbornly the day before. From this place the regiment was marched to Gaines' Mill, which they reached at sunrise after marching the whole night, and after two days were moved to the Chickahomeny river, from which again they moved on the 12th of June, with the grand army, to Petersburg, Va., the front of which was reached after a long and tiresome march of four days. The 21st participated in the battle in front of Petersburg of the 18th of June, behaving gallantly, and losing many men killed and wounded. Among the latter was Major Gillis, wounded in the knee, Lt. Col. Mossen and several other officers. On the afternoon of the 23d the regiment again participated in a heavy battle on the Jerusalem plank road, losing only three men and one officer wounded, and none killed. A day or two after this last battle occurred an epoch in the history of the 21st, two days rations of soft bread and onions being dealt out to the men, the former a luxury which they had not tasted since leaving Chambersburg.
After the battle of the 21st of June the men worked on the forts and other fortifications for some weeks, but on the evening of the 29th of July were ordered to hold themselves in readiness for a fight. On the next day, the 30th of July, 1864, a day ever memorable in the history of Chambersburg for our great calamity, and equally famous, as our readers will remember, as the day when a mined rebel fort was blown into the air, and a great battle ensued disastrous to the Union arms by the mistakes of one of our generals, which was participated in by the 21st. On the 18th of August one division of the 5th Corps struck the Weldon Railroad at the Yellow House, the 21st cavalry alone tearing up and destroying three miles of the road, while the other portions of the division repelled the foe. Gen. Beauregard swore he would re-take the road, or drive his men to hell in the attempt, and on the 22d attacked our forces, a brigade of rebels charging this regiment, with poor success. In this engagement, which lasted from 1 P. M. until dark, the 21st lost 27 men wounded and two or three killed, no officers. After this battle the men were again put to work building forts, breastworks and batteries, and for a while did nothing but dig, chop and shovel.
At this time, and for a long time before, the 21st was commanded by Major O. B. Knowles, of the 3d Battalion. About the 1st of September it was transferred to the 3d Brigade of the Division. This brigade was made up of the 21st Cavalry and the 187th P.V., and was commanded by Major Knowles. A few days later the 187th were ordered to Pennsylvania and this regiment alone constituted the 3d Brigade.
On the 30th of September the 3d Brigade, including the 187th, participated in the battle of Poplar Grove Church, driving the rebel line and capturing some prisoners and six guns, with a loss in the 21st of only eleven men. After being relieved, the regiment was again ordered to the "front" on the evening of the same day, and were taken into a large field and there ordered to lie down. Soon afterward the rebels came in sight and fired a volley, which had but little effect. Seeing they could not drive our men from their position in that way they soon withdrew, and the 21st was relieved and marched back to the place where they had rested the night before.
It was now rumored about camp that the men were to be mounted. The same ballad quoted above says:
"Now we've been dismounted about six months or more,
And always did our duty on old Virginia's shore,
But soon we'll have our horses, for we have seen the worst,
And be no more flat-foot cavalry, but the mounted 21st."
And on the 16th of October the regiment received their horses and cavalry equipments and went to the front again "the mounted 21st." They were attached to the 3rd Brigade, Colonel Charles Smith, 1st Maine Cavalry commanding, of the 2d Division of Cavalry, Gen. Gregg. On the 27th the regiment participated in the Battle of Hatcher's Run, at first with some success, driving the rebels and taking some 80 prisoners and 15 wagons loaded with old pork and corn meal, but were afterwards compelled to fall back, losing a great many men in killed, wounded and prisoners.
After this the regiment went into winter quarters. About the 1st of March following it was transferred to the 2nd Brigade, Gen. Gregg commanding, and about the middle of the month was joined by Co. D from Pottsville. When Gen. Sheridan took charge of the cavalry of the Army of the Potomac, three companies of the 21st--D, K, and C--were detailed as escort. The 21st was in the grand and last campaign of the army, under Gen. Sheridan, until after Lee's surrender, when it was sent to Danville, N. C., and soon afterward to Lynchburg, Va., and the adjoining Court Houses to do guard duty. On the 8th of July an order came to muster the regiment out of the service, which was done on the 10th. The next day it started home, arriving at City Point on the 13th and at Baltimore and Harrisburg on the 18th of July, 1865.
We subjoin a list of the field officers, taken from the Adjutant Generals Report for 1865:
Colonel--William H. Boyd, Feb. 21, 1864--honorably discharged Nov. 4, 1864; Oliver B. Knowles, Nov. 5, 1864.
Lieut.--Col. Richard F. Moson, Feb. 21, 1864.
Major--Charles F. Gillis, Feb. 21, 1864; Oliver B. Knowles, Feb. 21, 1864--to Colonel; Robert Bell, Feb. 21, 1864; Richard Ryckman, Oct. 6, 1864; Charles F. Gillis, Oct. 5, 1864.
Adjutant--Henry C. Pearson, Feb. 21, 1864--to 1st Lieut. Co. H; Samuel Henry, June 4, 1864; Henry B. Kendig, May 17, 1865.
Quartermaster--Geo. M. Flemming, Feb. 21, 1864.
Commissary--Benj. J. Levy, Feb. 21, 1864--honorably discharged April 4, 1864; William H. Pfoutz, April 5, 1865.
Surgeon--W. Howard King, July 27, 1863.
Asst. Surgeon--E. C. Kitchen, July 14, 1863--to Surgeon 155th Pa.; Samuel M. Murphey, Aug. 20, 1863, Died Nov. 16, 1864; Luther L. Rewalt, Jan. 27, 1865; Fred'k S. Kohler, Feb. 21, 1865.
Chaplain--Josiah L. Kephart, Aug. 22, 1863.
(Column 2)Summary: It is reported that Col. Stumbaugh has extended the provisions contained in the new jury law to Franklin county. The provisions call for two Jury Commissioners to be selected to serve three year terms. The officers are each responsible for selecting jurors: The system is designed to avoid charges of jury packing.Local Items--Supplemental Bounty Law
(Names in announcement: Col. Stumbaugh)
(Column 2)Summary: A copy of the law as it was recently passed by the legislature.
Editorial Comment: "The following supplemental Bounty law for several townships of Franklin counties has been passed by both branches of the legislature and is now a law:"
Full Text of Article:Local Items--Three Stables Burned
SUPPLEMENTAL BOUNTY LAW.--The following supplemental Bounty law for several townships of Franklin counties has been passed by both branches of the legislature and is now a law;
WHEREAS. The Boards of School Directors or bounty Committees in certain townships in the County of Franklin, borrowed money to pay bounties to volunteers to fill the quotas of said townships, under the call of the President of the United States for volunteers and issued bonds therefor; therefore
SECTION 1. Be it enacted, &c., That the bounties paid by the school directors or bounty committees of Green, Antrim, Guilford, Southampton and Peters Townships, in the County of Franklin, and the bonds issued therefor in the years 1864 and 1865, to fill the quotas of said townships, be and the same are hereby legalized, and the said bonds are made valid debts against such townships, and the boards of School Directors, or bounty committees, of such townships are hereby authorized to levy and collect a tax to pay said bonds, or other indebtedness for bounty purposes, contracted by authorized Committees of citizens, including subscriptions made by individuals to pay bounty in excess of the amount authorized by law: Provided that said tax shall not be collected from officers and soldiers who may now be in the volunteer service of the United States, or who may have been in said service and have been honorably discharged therefrom, nor of widows and minor children and widowed mothers of officers and soldiers who died by reason of wounds or disease contracted while in such service.
SECTION 2--The court of quarter sessions of the peace of Franklin County be and it is authorized and required, upon the petition of ten or more taxpayers of any township in said county, to appoint one or more auditors to examine and audit the bounty accounts of such townships and make report thereof to said court, which when approved by said court shall be final and conclusive. The auditors fees and costs of such proceedings to be paid out of the bounty funds of such townships.
(Column 3)Summary: Three stables located in the southeastern section of the town were destroyed in a fire last Friday. The stables belonged to Abraham Metz, P. S. Deehert, and Mrs. Miller. The cause of the blaze is unknown, though, it is suspected that blame lays with "some boys who were lurking about the alley." The Friendship and Hope Fire companies were called in to quench the fire and managed to save the surrounding buildings.Local Items--Re-interred
(Names in announcement: Abraham Metz, P. S. Deehert, Mrs. Miller)
(Column 3)Summary: The remains of George Misavey, another member of Co. K 126th Regt. Pa. Vols. who was killed at the Battle of Chancellorsville, were interred in the cemetery of the German Reformed Church in Greencastle.Married
(Names in announcement: George Misavey)
(Column 4)Summary: On March 29th, John Burkholder and Mary Catharine Neff were married by Rev. P. S. Davis.Married
(Names in announcement: John Burkholder, Mary Catharine Neff, Rev. P. S. Davis)
(Column 4)Summary: On March 29th, John D. Beatie and Susan E. West were married by Rev. P. S. Davis.Married
(Names in announcement: John D. Beatie, Susan E. West, Rev. P. S. Davis)
(Column 4)Summary: On March 17th, James H. Aughinbaugh and Mollie E. Roof were married by Rev. F. Dyson.Died
(Names in announcement: James H. Aughinbaugh, Mollie E. Roof, Rev. F. Dyson)
(Column 4)Summary: On March 24th, Mary Shetler, "relict" of William Shetler, Sr., died at the residence of her son-in-law, Jacob Haynes, near Spring Run.Died
(Names in announcement: Mary Shetler, William ShetlerSr., Jacob Haynes)
(Column 4)Summary: On March 12th, Sarah C., daughter of Jeremiah and Isabella Miller, died. She was 2 years old.
(Names in announcement: Sarah C. Miller, Jeremiah Miller, Isabella Miller)
Description of Page: This page contains advertisements.