U. S. Senate Speeches and Remarks of Carl Schurz/Personal Explanation 2

by Carl Schurz

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. SCHURZ. Mr. President, I rise to make a personal statement.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Missouri asks the consent of the Senate to make a personal statement. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. The Senator will proceed.

Mr. SCHURZ. Mr. President, this is the first opportunity I have had to take notice of a series of statements concerning myself, made some time during the Christmas vacation, in the New York Times newspaper, and reprinted in many other journals of the United States, upon which I desire to make a few remarks. Before doing so, I ask the Secretary to read the article which I now send to him.

The Chief Clerk read as follows from the New York Times of December 28, 1871:

“Senator Schurz. — We have already called attention to one curious feature in the opposition now arrayed against the Administration. It is that while the leaders of the opposition demand the greatest license for themselves and exercise the right of aspersing character to any extent, they howl with rage when their own conduct is passed under review. They must be sacred from criticism. The moment you speak of them they turn round with an aggrieved sir and say, 'Are we to be abused because we condemn the Administration?' They are always acting the parts of injured innocents. They stick themselves on a pedestal, and claim the privilege of flinging mud at anybody who happens to offend them; but you must not even cast a disrespectful glance at them in return. Senator Schurz, for instance, has not hesitated to invent the most outrageous calumnies against President Grant. He has accused him, by mean insinuation, of keeping up the general order system of New York for his own profit. He has insulted the people by intimating that the President is shamefully corrupt. What right has a man who deals in slanders of this kink to claim immunity from criticism? Who is he that he should be protected from those comments which his reckless career naturally provokes?

“We believe that Senator Schurz has no claim whatever to public confidence or public respect. Let us go briefly over the chief incidents of his life, and see if he will stand the test which he invites. He came to America an involuntary emigrant from his native Germany in 1852. He was naturalized as a citizen in 1857, at the age of twenty-seven. Two years later he was a candidate before the Republican convention of Wisconsin for Governor, but failed of a nomination, and was tendered the nomination of Lieutenant Governor. This offer, highly complimentary to one so young in years and citizenship, he spurned contemptuously, and refused to support the ticket nominated by the convention. In the presidential campaign of 1860, having already acquired some reputation as a stump orator, he entered into a contract with the national Republican committee to canvass the country wherever he might be sent, at a stipulated price, perhaps $250 per week and his expenses. Under that contract he was assigned to duty in some of the western States. When he reached his field of labor, however, he struck for higher wages, and refused to make any speeches unless he was paid an additional sum for each speech by the local committees. Further sums were paid him by such committees, varying from fifty to one hundred dollars for each speech. In this manner he realized a very handsome sum from his labors in the canvass.

“But he did not deem himself fully paid, for on Mr. Lincoln's inauguration he came at once to Washington and demanded additional compensation in the position of minister to some foreign court. By his persistent efforts he succeeded in procuring the appointment of minister to Spain, where he remained but little more than a year. He constantly represented to Mr. Lincoln that he had supreme control of the German vote of the country, and any refusal to comply with his demands would be promptly resented by that class of voters.

“In 1862 Mr. Schurz resigned the Spanish mission and returned to Washington, where he again applied to Mr. Lincoln, this time for a major general's commission in the army. This Mr. Lincoln declined, because of the number of men then in service who had earned promotion in the field. He then gave Mr. Lincoln to understand, in the most emphatic manner, that if he were not given at least a brigadier general's commission, with a major general's command, then he would at once 'withdraw his two hundred thousand Germans, and oppose the Administration.'

“Mr. Lincoln, harassed as he was at that time with the cares of his office and the nation's great troubles, gave way to Schurz's persistent pressure and threats, gave him a brigadier's commission, and he was sent to the Shenandoah valley about the close of General Frémont's campaign against Jackson, in June, 1862. Whatever may have been the tenor of the instructions relative to General Schurz's command, it is nevertheless true that the corps was at once organized, veteran officers were displaced, and he was immediately placed in command of a division. He continued in the army, participating in the battles of Bull Run, Chancellorsville, and Gettysburg, without manifesting any striking evidences of military genius. Of this, however, we do not now propose to speak, for it is already a part of our military history. At the close of the war, instead of being at once mustered out, as other officers of far superior ability and more efficient service were, he again made use of his alleged influence with the German element to continue in commission for a considerable time after there was any use for him.

“In 1866 Schurz went to Detroit as the editor of the Post, where, however, he by no means favorably distinguished himself. His next move was to Missouri, which, he imagined, offered a most promising field for his versatile talent. There he assumed the leadership of the extreme Radicals, himself a Radical of the most proscriptive type. Mr. Henderson, a true Republican, and a man of many sterling qualities, was representing Missouri in the Senate, and Schurz at once determined to succeed him. To accomplish this, it was necessary to defame Mr. Henderson before the people of Missouri, and destroy their confidence in him. For this task General Schurz was peculiarly fitted, and he succeeded thoroughly in the enterprise. Henderson was denounced as too liberal toward the rebel citizens, which at that time was enough to condemn him before his constituents. Henderson withdrew from the canvass, and the contest was between General Schurz and Mr. Loan, and each strove to 'out-radical' the other, in which strive Schurz won, and was elected as the representative of the fiercest Radicalism of the State.

“Secure in his seat, he at once began to court the more liberal element in the State, and succeeded so far as to bring about the election of General Blair to the Senate, and to effect a thorough demoralization of the party in the State.

“In 1868 General Schurz was a delegate to the Chicago convention, and went there with revolutionary intent. He was considerably mollified by being chosen as temporary chairman of the convention, the duties of which he managed to discharge in an apparently satisfactory manner, by the aid of two prompters well versed in parliamentary rules and the usages of conventions.

“General Schurz has much to say about the reform of the civil service, the character of the President's appointments, nepotism, &c. Let us see what his own conduct has been toward further corrupting that service.

“In the early days of the President's term Mr. Schurz was one of the most persistent bores in Washington for appointments in the civil service. Nor was he at all careful as to the character and qualification of the men whom he pressed for appointment. In one notable case he advocated the cause of a citizen of Missouri, who had neither social nor political standing, for a foreign mission. He made frequent visits to the Executive Mansion, and through much importunity he was finally successful. The name was sent to the Senate, where Schurz had a free field to button-hole his colleagues in favor of the confirmation of his friend. In the course of the struggle pending the confirmation all the disgraceful instrumentality of Schurz in favor of the appointment and confirmation was fully revealed by the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations — his offensive and long-continued boring of the President for the appointment, his labors with individual Senators, and the utter unfitness of the man for the place.

“Seldom or ever before was so persistent an effort made by a Senator to foist upon the country a man totally unfit to discharge the duties of a great position. General Schurz might ornament one of his eloquent lectures on civil service reform in a most entertaining manner by giving a detailed history of the case we have referred to, and by telling his audience the consideration which prompted him to press an unfit appointment so strongly in opposition to the will of his people, and to the neglect of the more deserving friends in his State, to whom he was directly indebted for his election. One instance, to illustrate his practice with regard to the appointment of relatives to office, and we will have done with the subject for the present. General Schurz pressed upon the President the appointment of his brother-in-law, Mr. Jussen, as collector of the Chicago district, the most remunerative office in the revenue service; and he was appointed, and enjoyed the emoluments of the office for about two years. He was appointed simply because General Schurz asked it, and Schurz asked it simply because Jussen was his brother-in-law.

“We have said enough to convince any one of General Schurz's fitness to appear in the field as a champion of civil service reform. In politics he belongs to the extreme revolutionary type of some European societies. He now seeks to destroy an Administration which he has sought in vain to corrupt.”

Mr. SCHURZ. Mr. President, I desire to make a few remarks upon this article, in the first place because the paper which published it is reputed to be the special metropolitan organ of the national Administration, and in the second place because this attempt forms part of a systematic warfare which has been carried on for some time on some members of this body, the paper having recently announced that it is going to continue its attacks. I shall go over these charges one by one and exhibit them in their true light.

First, it is asserted that in 1859 I was nominated for Lieutenant Governor in Wisconsin, spurned the nomination contemptuously, and refused to support the ticket nominated by the convention. That I declined the nomination is true, although certainly without contempt; but the other charge is a falsehood. I not only did not refuse to support the ticket nominated by the Republican convention, but, after having rendered some aid in a campaign in Minnesota which elevated my friend from that State [Mr. Ramsey] to the Governorship in 1859, I returned to Wisconsin and spent three weeks in canvassing the State for the then nominee for Governor, the late Postmaster General, Governor Randall, having several joint debates with the Democratic candidate for the Governorship.

And I wish to say, in connection with this that another slander, scattered abroad by the New York Times and several other papers, that I had actively used my influence against the election of Mr. Washburn, the Republican candidate for Governor in Wisconsin last fall, and in promotion of the interests of his opponent, Mr. Doolittle, is equally false in every sense.

The second charge is that in the national campaign of 1860 I refused to make any speeches unless I was paid $250 a week, and then an additional sum by the local committees varying from fifty to a hundred dollars for each speech. This is a falsehood again. I commenced canvassing the United States in that campaign on the 1st of July, having already made several speeches previously, and continued till the day of election, the 6th of November, with the exception of about ten days, when I was utterly broken down by fatigue and had to take some rest. I spoke in the States of Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, traveled a great many thousands of miles, and made, if I remember correctly, between one hundred and sixty and one hundred and seventy speeches; and when I had returned home from those labors I found that all the compensation I had received from committees fell quite perceptibly short of my actual expenses, railroad fare and those incidental outlays connected with traveling of that nature.

Moreover, having given myself entirely up to the labors of the campaign, completely neglecting my private affairs, I found myself surrounded by disagreeable embarrassments, which resulted finally in painful sacrifices, and if I had received only one fifth part of what the Times charges me with, I should have overcome those embarrassments easily. I do not hesitate to say, however — and I refer to this because mention has been made of this subject in debate in the Senate — that, as a prudent man, I ought to have done something like that which the Times charged upon me, although, of course, in a more moderate degree; for I believe that gentlemen may be expected to go out at their own expense, and make a speech now and then in promotion of a political cause; but when they are called upon to go from campaign into campaign year after year, for several months at a time, utterly neglecting their private affairs, giving themselves wholly up to the work, unless they are entirely independent in fortune, they cannot afford to do so without re-imbursement and compensation. I will say further, that in a few subsequent campaigns, when lists of appointments covering weeks and months were sent to me, I did to some extent protect myself in that respect, in a moderate way, however, while in other campaigns I neglected, even after my previous experiences, to look after my private interests.

Moved by curiosity, after having read the Times's article, I undertook to figure up how much time I had spent in public speaking for the republican cause since 1856, and I found it to be from seventy to seventy-two weeks, or about a year and five months; and adding up also all that I received from the committees during that whole time, I find that it amounts in the aggregate to less than a popular lecturer will earn in three weeks.

I mention this subject merely, although it is a very humiliating one, because it shows the meanness of the warfare which is carried on against certain members of this body. It is humiliating, I say, to make such a statement; but it is still more humiliating that a paper, the organ of an administration which stands at the head of a party that has been built up in its power gradually and laboriously by just such labors as those in which I, with many others, was engaged, should make such explanations necessary.

The third charge is, that when I returned from the Spanish mission I asked from Mr. Lincoln a major general's commission in the Army and threatened him if he would not give it. This is a falsehood again. I did not ask of him a major general's commission when I resigned the Spanish mission, but he offered me a brigadier's commission. The assertion which I find in this article, in quotation marks, that I threatened I would at once “withdraw my two hundred thousand Germans and oppose the Administration,” is so supremely ridiculous, it is so childish an absurdity, that I do not think it requires any serious comment.

The next charge is, that, going to Missouri, I assumed at once the leadership of the extreme Radicals, myself a Radical of the most proscriptive type. This is a falsehood again, for it is well known that in the national convention of 1868 I had the honor to introduce the resolution in favor of a general amnesty.

The next charge is, that I took it upon myself to defame Mr. Henderson before the people of Missouri, and to destroy their confidence in him so that I might be elected to the Senate. This is a falsehood again, and it is well known that Mr. Henderson's defeat at that time was owing to his attitude in the impeachment trial, as the public mind then stood.

The next charge is, that in 1868 I was a delegate to the Chicago convention “and went there with revolutionary intent.” What that means I do not know exactly; but one thing I do know: that for my action in that convention I was highly praised by the New York Times.

The next charge is, that in the early days of the President's term I was “one of the most persistent bores in Washington for appointments in the civil service.” If that were true, then the President must have had a particular liking for being bored, for I remember very well a time during the early days of the Administration when I met him outside of the White House and he asked me very kindly why I did not come to visit him more frequently.

It is further stated that in one notable case I advocated the cause of a citizen of Missouri for a prominent position who was entirely incompetent and unfit to discharge the duties of a great position. I suppose this refers to the case of General Pile, who, having been a member of Congress, was first presented for the post office at St. Louis, then for the pension agency at St. Louis, by the delegation from Missouri, then nominated for the mission to Venezuela, and then nominated for the mission to Brazil, when the Senate declined to confirm his appointment. I did, to a certain extent, support Mr. Pile for some of these nominations. I did it with the delegation from the State of Missouri with the exception of one or two members; I think only one. Being a young Senator, I had indulged somewhat in the idea that it was to some extent proper to take care of constituents. When the Times says that this is one of the cases which in my “eloquent lectures on civil service reform” I might mention, and give a detailed history of them, I beg to say that is just the thing which I am doing, for whenever I do speak on civil service reform I give as one illustration of the absurdities of the system, and of the curious consequences to which it may lead, the case of this gentleman, who was presented for a post office, for a pension agency, for a minister resident's place, for a minister plenipotentiary's position, then landed in the Governorship of a Territory, and then was taken out of that to be put into the minister resident's place for which he was originally nominated. And I always mention my personal connection with the case. But, considering that recently General Pile was appointed by the President for the position of minister resident in Venezuela, this time certainly without any suggestion or solicitation on my part, I beg leave to say that if that gentleman be entirely unfit for public employment, as the Times asserts, it is the President who ought to bear that reproach, and not I; and I might suggest to the Administration that they be a little more careful in the selection of their organs, and instruct them to abstain from indiscreet statement.

The last charge is this:

“General Schurz pressed upon the President the appointment of his brother-in-law, Mr. Jussen, of Chicago, as collector of the Chicago district.”

This is a falsehood again. I never pressed that appointment upon the President or anybody else. As my friend from Illinois who sits by my side [Mr. Trumbull] will distinctly recollect, Mr. Jussen was originally recommended, without my knowing anything about it, by a delegation coming from Chicago, and by the then Representative of his district, Mr. Judd. These gentlemen came to me with the request to go to the President and press his appointment. I positively refused. But, after urgent solicitation on their part, I at last consented to indorse their paper, with an additional remark to this effect, that the large German Republican element of Chicago was entitled to consideration; that I had frequently been called upon to aid the Republicans there, and could testify to that fact. This was my whole connection with the case. And later, when a rumor spread through the newspapers that Colonel Jussen was to be removed, the President expressed himself to a friend in conversation to the effect that he had never known that there existed any connection between Mr. Jussen and myself. But I asseverate that I never spoke to the President about this appointment in a single instance, nor to the Secretary, or the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and absolutely refrained from pressing it in any sense, just because Mr. Jussen, a very able gentleman, was a brother-in-law of mine.

I had almost forgotten one of the charges, where I am again accused of having made use of my alleged influence with the German element to benefit myself by continuing in commission for a considerable time after the war. A friend had the curiosity to investigate that case, and I have now an official report from the War Department before me. The surrender of the rebel general J. E. Johnston took place on the 26th of April, 1865. I was then in General Sherman's army in North Carolina. As soon as that surrender had taken place I at once applied for leave of absence to go to Washington for the purpose of offering my resignation; I did so, and this official report certifies that the first two resignations of major generals after General Johnston's surrender were those of Major General Franz Sigel, accepted May 4, 1865, and of Major General Carl Schurz, May 6, 1865; from which it appears that after the virtual close of the war of all the major generals in the Army General Sigel and myself were the very first to resign their commissions instead of using their alleged influence with the German element to continue in the pay of the Government.

So much, sir, for these charges. You will admit that this is perhaps one of the most remarkable cases of cumulative, intrepid, and shameless lying that has disgraced American journalism for some time.

Now, sir, why are these slanders heaped upon me? The Times itself states the reason. Because I, as the Times alleges, have “not hesitated to invent the most outrageous calumnies against President Grant, having accused him by mean insinuation of keeping up the general-order system of New York for his own profit.” I pronounce this another falsehood. What do they call “slandering” the President? Let us see what I did say, and whether it can be construed as a slander. I did state that the general-order business in New York was a great abuse and a system of plunder. I was borne out in that statement by the official report of the Retrenchment Committee. Was that a slander on the President? I did state that the merchants of New York had protested against it as an outrageous abuse, which is a matter of record also. Was that a slander against the President? I did state that the Secretary of the Treasury sent a commission to New York to investigate the matter, and that that commission reported against it, which is a matter of record again. Was that a slander against the President? I did state that the Retrenchment Committee investigated the matter and found it to be a great abuse, and reported in favor of its abolition, which is a matter of record again. Is that a slander upon the President? I did state further that the Secretary of the Treasury had written to the collector of New York two letters pronouncing against the abuse, and urging that it be done away with. This is a matter of record again. Is that a slander upon the President? Then I drew a conclusion, and I ask whether there is any member of this body who will say that it was not most natural, nay, a most imperative conclusion, that if, in spite of the remonstrance of the merchants of New York, in spite of the reports of investigating committees, in spite of the letters and pronounced opinions of the Secretary of the Treasury, that abuse was still kept up, as it actually was kept up, then there must be a power stronger than a decent respect for public opinion, and stronger than the Secretary of the Treasury himself, to sustain it; for if that power was not stronger than a decent respect for public opinion, the abuse would have succumbed to the remonstrances of the mercantile community of New York; and if that power had not been stronger than the Secretary of the Treasury, the abuse would have succumbed to the adverse opinion of that official. I asked the question, who and where is that stronger power? I asked the question; I did not answer it; and I respectfully submit that the gentlemen who indulge in the pitiable business of villifying the Senator from Illinois and myself for asking it have not by their slanders furnished an answer to it that will be satisfactory to the country. I believe that when nothing else can be brought up against those who denounce the abuses of the Government than personal vilification the country will understand the reason.

Thus, sir, I have shown you the character of the statements contained in the Times; and, as to the character of those who have invented and propagated them, the Senate and an intelligent people may form their opinion for themselves. I will simply add that after this I shall not again consider it necessary to take any notice of such slanders. The Times and its coadjutors will have a free field, but if attacks should come as thick as locusts they will not frighten me away from that course which I conscientiously believe to be the course of honor, truth, right, and duty.