,._- v " H.149“; .I. 1" I ‘ :.'.‘4.". l “-4-. -.~A;» , ‘4. 1': . . v ." ‘rw ._ .l " - 4.. . v N‘ I‘f‘" . .4 _ V 'v‘ . ‘v-o' - 1 "rr - .fl '1‘. ‘ ~ y: "Y‘ Q "“‘.—~ -V- ‘21» .A . .._ 17‘71-3,‘ ' v . ~-.‘ d.“ A ‘ n '.’N - 1“ u. ‘ \ x. _ 21., "H d“, u ‘v- _ L"‘ ‘5 >'_..V‘O-‘ ‘ ‘ - \ , ~ ' '“~y V‘ r - “r .. I... "n l4 ¢‘ _‘_ ‘- .-.' ‘ ~‘ r s “ -".‘. .fi 1. \g ’1." V ,.t “~ x .‘ \4 . '4‘_._ . , x.” ~~ iv- i‘ y.“ N ‘ K: N"« .. ,- «~EVN c,‘ "A r ‘H ‘- .4 \'~ N “N :7»!- .. ~::fl\,‘ 'l ‘ ‘. ‘N f‘ P. V‘ \r‘ q. r, ‘ v‘ia‘rdw *. .- H" K-‘ « ~\ ~ :‘_ “‘ N 9. ‘~ AF“; ‘ ‘r I ‘ “fl“ _ 'r‘ “ Na“. ~m‘: ‘4 "n- \ N »‘_‘ I a A."-‘ -‘n . ‘3: a: I: ‘v -‘ic; \. ABSTRACT THE PUBLIC SPEAKING OF ZACHARIAH CHANDLER by John H. Thurber This study examines the speaking of Zachariah Chandler of Michigan from 1851 to l879. During this time he participated in local, state, and national politics, and served as a Senator from Michigan. Chapter One sets forth the introduction to the study, the rationale for the study, the methodology and the organization. Chap- ter Two chronicles the history of the period during which he lived and the economic, political, and intellectual factors affecting the period, as well as the part which Zachariah Chandler played in shap- ing events during the middle years of the nineteenth century. Chap- ter Three deals with the issues upon which he spoke and the positions he held with regard to them. Chapter Four analyzes his use of sup- porting materials in his speeches as it is evidenced by ethical, psychological, and logical proof. Chapter Five treats Chandler's organization, and his arrangement of ideas within his speeches; Chapter Six presents an analysis of his use of language. Chapter Six also discusses Chandler's preparation and delivery. Chapter Seven presents a summary of the study and a final evaluation of all the aspects of Chandler's public speaking. Chandler‘s continual use of the public platform in every state and national political contest held during his years of public service, and his frequent speeches on the floor of the United States Senate give evidence that he held oral discourse to be an important ‘ _ -.<‘ :r r 1,3" J“- H. 6 av...— _ .. -. vgfly‘ ~»-y- 351*“? n y .. » ».vusA-‘vv—- 0- a . \‘ d -1- “‘..;.:“~'“..- " . x s .s -\ ~5..-» 4 n C . . ‘. r- ‘1. f-v.1 d . . a, . V.».\...I.J’ 5...; u‘ D ' .udakaA x .. . ._ ‘ ‘ . ' ' 3.. ' 1:, Q. “‘ ." ""v \A.. . n “ u . .‘ ‘ r‘ - n . _ I‘ A~ '1 - , ... as, “-U k. _ . . . . ‘ r53". .2» . ~ q .. " “v- 4.“ “I .'> I ‘ _ '5?‘ : h; V- a :— "‘" U~---.: -... n :I “ r‘; ' “IR” . ‘- ~ -‘ V"A¢4 Pwv . ‘ -. “-:g "a IT; . ‘ a " «u,» ’ -4 H . C en. ' - w“- _ “'a- D “"‘,‘ “" Wu- “.‘ ‘ a "‘ ' v— s _ _ “~““;_ ll ~ . . :‘V-K. . .-. ~01 .‘f‘ a; "V 0 E; - y . 2’1 "a i. _ . ‘ M~afi ‘r_‘ A .. - 5..» u .. ‘ ‘;"‘s_ . 5.".- L‘ r“ 1... .‘EN ,”_ _ " \mLJ-Vh \v :K V. F-.‘~ V- n ‘s‘! . 44‘ -v’..._ ‘ ‘ ‘“ R. 2: A -'! v a“ ‘~""_." _ i~. ‘\ F ‘ ‘-L‘r" A T“ .‘ v... ‘ a ‘ ..‘»47r‘ —... L. V . H‘ V ‘V‘ \‘r‘i . John H. Thurber tool in a democratic society. Chandler was a speaker whose public pronouncements were violently partisan and Radical in the extreme. His speeches reveal an intensity of nature, a positiveness of con- viction, and a profound sincerity. Based on a complete rhetorical analysis of thirty-five of Chandler's speeches chosen from the total span of his career in pub- lic service and including examples of his occasional speaking, as well as his Senate and campaign speaking, it may be concluded that Chandler did use supporting material in his addresses, the greatest emphasis being placed upon psychological and logical proof. He drew evidence from the usual sources and reasoned inductively from ex- ample, cause, analogy and/or sign; as well as deductively. His favorite tool of reasoning was the colorful analogy, which he used with telling effect, especially in refutation. Chandler seemed to use "rhetorical order" effectively, pre- ferring to state his thesis near the beginning of his Senate speaking and near the end of his campaign and occasional addresses. In the Senate he chose to meet his opponents in direct combat, caring little for audience adaptation in the sense of conciliation. When speaking on the campaign trail, Chandler placed his thesis near the end of the speech, not for the purpose of adapting to the audience in order to conciliate them, but for the purpose of adaptation in the sense of building to a climax. He preferred either the topical or chronolog- ical ordering of ideas in the body of the speech, or a combination of these orders. Chandler’s language style was simple and straight forward without embellishment or flourish. He used words that were concrete, ‘F‘Q.’ ~ I ' b yd...-..: - . ‘-. 1«_ ‘ 5.5!"...- u. ,_»: ff.“ “-~ I ._._ U W.'\*1;'wv v .v. . a, v John H. Thurber forceful, and easy to understand, and his favorite stylistic devices appeared to be the question, dialogue, and satire. Contemporary comments on his delivery suggest that it was neither studied nor graceful. His voice was strong and projected ‘well. His gestures were not particularly smooth or practiced. Evi- dence concerning his preparation indicates that he generally spoke extemporaneously. Zachariah Chandler was a powerful and impressive oral advo- cate, and he seemed to be particularly effective on the campaign trail. THE PUBLIC SPEAKING OF ZACHARIAH CHANDLER By John H. Thurber A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Speech i965 Cepyright by JOHN HENRY THURBER 1965 .— .' .2 0;. A.--» “V ~.‘,. (‘~~:.‘- A '- CV A~. \ ‘1 “ “"'~-I~ --.. ‘ Q .“-v;~_~.,. _?:". ‘1‘“- .u:--v-»,‘ \nsUC. '1 ‘.l ”“fi‘:‘fi_"‘k -g. . ,- ‘ . u- ‘~-‘uu§ .fl' ~~ * ' 0 -w-‘ x ‘V a ‘ r W «- ‘Y‘V- . Ilcq _ ‘ N ‘.‘ z.‘ “:‘r‘ ‘n. “.5", .. ‘ E "“"-"-- 9‘4 “~~¢- ‘ w-.,_‘“ -1, .. .gv‘ . q '»y-\ w. ' s. V.‘ & \ I;' 'n._ N» r _ _‘ ~. ‘ ‘ AL“ ~ -~.. p .. “. ‘1 ~ Q; :1. ox ‘w ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his appreciation to all those who assisted him in the preparation of this study. He is especially indebted to Dr. David C. Ralph who served as the major professor and supervised the research. His insight and suggestions were most help- ful. Gratitude is also expressed to Dr. Kenneth C. Hance whose crit- icisms and comments greatly aided the author. Heartfelt thanks is also extended to the other members of the guidance committee--Dr. Frederick Alexander and Dr. Gilman M. Ost- rander. The author also wishes to recognize James M. Babcock, Chief of the Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library, and Henry J. Dubester, Chief of the General Reference and Bibliography Division of the Library of Congress, for their invaluable aid to the author in his research. The author is also indebted to his wife, Nadine, whose under- standing and infinite patience made this study possible. .. Ibo. Chapter I. II. III. IV. VII. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study A Rationale for the Study Methodology Organization of the Study THE SPEAKER: HIS LIFE AND TIMES . . . . . . . . . . THE SPEAKER AND THE ISSUES . . The Negro The War for Union Financing the War Great Britain and Foreign Affairs Reconstruction Rebel War Claims Civil Service The Republican Party THE SPEAKER: USE OF SUPPORTING MATERIALS. . . . . Ethical Proof Psychological Proof Logical Proof THE SPEAKER: ORGANIZATION AND ARRANGEMENT OF IDEAS. Rhetorical Order Arrangement Chandler's Rhetorical Order Chandler's.Arrangement THE SPEAKER: LANGUAGE STYLE AND DELIVERY. Language Style Delivery SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX . LISTING OF SPEECHES USED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS . . . . Page \OO\-P'UO 10 101+ 107 110 111+ 120 123 13h 136 136 112 lus 156 167 187 187 190 192 201 206 207 226 232 211; 252 313 ~ H M.._ 's.. 0“ . " HQ. $h' _ ‘4 .— .-“ yu‘d‘ k. 5,7- sr; \~.,_ - v. ‘ H .._ «s. s... \.b y“-‘.' ., . ‘ ‘ “I'flw‘fi' w ‘vuvv V in hu‘ ; J. I 1.4: 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION On February 28, 1873, a bill was passed by the Senate of the United States making appropriations for the payment of back pen- sions. To this bill was attached an amendment extending pensions to those who had served in the war with Mexico. Some in the Senate felt that the bill had been adopted without full consideration, and on the evening of March 2, 1873, a motion was made and carried for a reconsideration. During the subsequent discussion of the bill, an amendment was offered excluding from the pension all those who had served in the Confederate army or who had held any office under the Confederacy. After this amendment was defeated by a coalition of Democrats and Southern Republicans, another amendment was proposed which would have excluded Jefferson Davis from any benefits under the bill. .A somewhat strange debate followed. For some hours the Senate chamber rang with eulogies upon Jefferson Davis. The "Rad- ical" Republicans in the Chamber were shocked to hear praises heaped upon the former President of the Confederacy in the halls of the United States Senate. Those Republicans who spoke for the amendment did not put into words the thoughts they held; no one called Jeffer- son Davis a traitor to his country. After the debate had lasted for some time, Mr. W. E. Chand- v -v‘ V. A‘-. MJ‘ rug 9" 3": 1 -Q a...» »J Vt... U ‘ _ - a . ~ . -F g 5% nu‘ - ~~~ sv'q \A‘ -c- may w w. uni... I.) 58“. V.‘ _ . ~‘L7‘;n ~..'.' ..~ .9..-“ h- :1 r- I ‘ v-q . 1.. ‘ PF ’HA A -__ 3D “vs-N " H J'»' " 04* ‘09-- "a "T‘ .f. ‘._ . -. _ Lv r ‘ ,' .“‘_ . 1~- ‘v . than: rt, _ “‘0 4 4 «-.- . ~Yo-x . .._"~. 3. . . 1 "fiw ". “\-r.. I v... '7“ .-.;»- -. v“ “a I. ~‘*~ \. 'v ‘. r: L '1‘ 'fi‘, 9 ~ “‘ 'h" ’ A r in. . '.. ‘ .4 ,- y. ~ 0 . s g. d? 1“. ‘-u. IN *A. "w‘ “‘0 I r... . *s‘: ‘w-J b.‘ V‘\~~ . \._-3"" +‘ ‘~A k”:- . sm‘, "Tr. t.._‘ . 7‘ . \, \o a... ‘- r . -r“ < 2a ‘4; a Kit»: w... F‘- “LIL-‘0'. .“ 2 ler of New Hampshire, who had been watching the proceedings from the news gallery, sent word to one of the Senators on the floor urging him to call Jefferson Davis by his "right" name--traitor. This the Senator did in a speech delivered about 3:30 a.m. on the morning of iMonday, March 3, 1873. Few people Were in the galleries at the time, and those Senators who had chosen to remain at their desks had lapsed into a listless state. 'When the Senator to whom W. E. Chand- ler had addressed his note began to speak, however, the spectators listened with renewed interest. Senators came in from the lobbies and cloakrooms and the speaker's closing words, ". . . a double-dyed traitor to his government," fell in ringing tones upon an intent audience. The presiding officer could not check the applause which erupted from the galleries. Those present eagerly awaited a reply from the Democratic side of the Senate, but none was forthcoming. When the vote was taken, the amendment excluding Jefferson Davis from the benefits of the bill was passed. Then the bill, as amended, was passed. Al- though no answer was made to the speaker immediately following his speech, subsequent Southern and Democratic denunciation of him was abundant. The Northern Republican newspapers, on the other hand, printed the short speech in its entirety and heaped much praise upon it. Perhaps never before had so short a speech in the Senate caused so much controversy in the country. The Senator who delivered that ringing philipic was Zacha- riah Chandler from the State of Michigan, the subject of this study. In 1873, Chandler had served in the Senate for some sixteen years, and as a member of the Senate and as one of the leaders of the Re- F I I | x.» ~ :3 y.— ‘1‘ -,~ 5-. w- ‘. A A 3"" UV 0". . 5-day . - P u‘-‘-.. ‘4‘. Y ""7- o- 3 31". k '3 . “l . 2 YF‘ m. s n C .1 2 ‘I‘ n y ) .. DJ E a O. »... C .5. I F 5k : ‘ :1‘ Q. 2 at v; w“ 3 ‘ o 2 «J J ‘ . ‘ \- A: .... .3: a . .hy .. a 3 ‘ 2‘ z. .. A .1 a c . ‘ .J 01. x .: m . . ~ : ‘ .. s 2. 7‘ y a « ..* »\ 1. C s a . >. c. x . . du‘b“¥ wr( 3 publican party, he wielded considerable influence. Prior to the Civil War, Chandler had opposed with vehemence all efforts of South- ern leaders to influence the question of the extension of slavery; and during the Civil War he had been very active in the Northern National Government. Chandler's resolution on December 2, 1861, led to the creation of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War in the Lincoln administration, and he was one of three Senators chosen to serve on this most influential committee. As a leading "Radical" Republican, Chandler was also one of the inner circle of the Radical advisors to President Lincoln, and was prominent in the internal affairs of the Government. Zachariah Chandler served during his career in the Senate as Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, and, in the administration of President Grant, he held the post of Secretary of the Interior. As a leader in Michigan of the Republican party and as the controller of patronage in the State, he wielded his influence to keep Michigan consistently Republican in the popular elections held during his lifetime. In 1876, Chandler was selected Chairman of the National Republican Committee and was influential in the election of Ruther- ford B. Hayes to the Presidency. According to some political writers of the time, the prospects of Chandler’s being nominated as the Re— publican candidate for President in 1879 were good. His death in Chicago in October of 1879, prevented the possible fulfillment of this prophecy. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study shall be to examine and evaluate h the public speaking of Zachariah Chandler. It shall be concerned with the situations in which he spoke and the audiences to whom he spoke, as well as an internal analysis of the speeches themselves. The concern of this study shall be with Zachariah Chandler as a speaker--who he was, when he lived, his influence, the issues he discussed, the speech occasions and the audiences, and an internal analysis of what Chandler said and how he said it. This study shall consider Zachariah Chandler as a product of his time; and as a poli- tician in state, regional, and national affairs as reflected in his actions and his public utterances. A Rationale for the Study It must be admitted that, today, Chandler is not a well known figure in history. Though he was one of the founders, however re- luctantly, of the Republican party; though he spoke in most of the Eastern and Mid4Western states during the national campaigns of the period during which he lived; and though he was known throughout the country as one of the leaders of the Radical wing of the Republican party, he is today one of the figures who has faded into the limbo of the past. The fact that he is little remembered today, however, legit- imately gives rise to the question: "Why study the speaking of Zach- ariah Chandler?" There seems to be merit in studying little known figures from history as one method of gaining a better understanding of the period. The study of the speaking of one of these figures can be defended on the basis that it adds to the storehouse of informa- tion on the part played by the public platform in shaping the events _. .. .. a» ._ ., . An ,« _-, .ru 5. 3 n u r. A .. t l 3 . l r; C 7; v. 1.“ .. I. v». . ,. .4.“ «u Cu r». o «v p. v. .. AC .1: L. r“ o 3 v}. .3 ‘1 w-.. a; x c a. I. .Q «C a. 1. r1. 1. » . st. .. . r.. E C. .3 a“ . 2 D“ p on :1 n. J“ has a n. w. . . .au w“ ... e w . e . a u t. . u a , e ~ , 2.. .z. w 3. .«A m “I. “.3. M.“ . .F~ a: J.‘ r“ .T .2 .nu n. . v.. . v ... .. .. I. u. . . ”n 3 T. .3 . . “ u... C . Lu . . . A .I an o a. v H. g T r u u o . Y c L; ska out ‘ \A; . a. 5. .._ N w r“ ;.. .r. L. : .. . «a nu . . . —‘ «nu on». . ‘- 5 of history. In addition, certainly there were influential men and competent oral advocates whom history has not graced with the title of "great men." This is brought out by Earl W. Wiley in an article in The Quarterly Journal of Speech1 in which he suggests that the "new direction" in rhetorical research often leads to unhonored and unnamed people of the hinterland. This article, it is true, deals only with state and regional individuals, but the same concept can be broadened to include national figures, such as Zachariah Chand- 1er--men who did wield influence and who did make their mark on their time. Because Chandler is not a well known figure in history, it might be expected that little has been published concerning the man. Such is the case. In 1880, the Detroit Post and Tribune published a book titled Zachariah Chandler: An Outline Sketch of His Life and Public Service. Since this book was published by the newspaper which Chandler helped found, it contains little information of a critical nature. It is really more of a memorial to Chandler. In 1917, Wilmer C. Harris wrote a very brief study called The Public Life of Zachariah Chandler,l851-l875. This work was written for the Michigan Historical Commission and is the published version of his doctoral research at the University of Chicago. These publica- tions are historical and biographical in nature and do not consti- tute attempts to deal specifically with the speaking of Chandler. Research has been done in the past eight years on Zachariah Chandler by a doctoral candidate in history from the University of lEarl W. Wiley, "State History and Rhetorical Research," The Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXXVI, No. A (December 1950), 51A. ,.. ~_~ . ~7~erg '7 '» (I.;»-y.a- -“ . . ‘.’ ":1F‘“C"- . a- .— -..-&‘\.A-. ‘ v .. ::-.- w‘ r '- ~--.': a-l a z .\ r "rc h,"‘“;. \o .— Ia~ U--'- - 14; “A 7-. a* 3 - -~.._ . 7‘ fi‘wv-‘r,‘ “ 25cc '-4u. 5" w am» _ ~v‘; vaflh;y\ -‘ -- u . ‘15::- :Y\—~ g ‘ "~ ~Lf‘gflr - *~~-JC’; 7v rn- ‘ u '1 '- I (l) f l 6 Wisconsin (never completed), a graduate student at the University of Michigan, a private researcher, a professor at New York Univer- sity, and a professor from the University of Chicago. This informa- tion was offered by the Curator of Manuscripts at the Burton Histori- cal Collection of the Detroit Public Library and the identity of the several researchers is unknown. However, an examination of the var- ious compilations of graduate writing proposed or in progress in the field of speech reveals, to the best of this writer's knowledge, no thesis or dissertation on the public speaking of Zachariah Chandler. Because Chandler spoke many times on many issues throughout a long career and because no rhetorical critic has attempted to examine these Speeches, this study will be concerned with the entirety of Chandler's career and will attempt to draw together a lifetime of speaking. Since no research has been done on this area of his life, it is left to another researcher to narrow the subject to a specific series of speeches on a given issue; or an "in depth" study of one particular speaking situation. It seems a reasonable first task to place Chandler's speaking in perspective and to bring this subject under the light of rhetorical research in order to provide a broad view of his life and his speaking. Methodology This study is based on the premises that speechmaking is a useful art and that the critic should realize that speaking takes place with an audience for the purpose of having an effect upon those listeners who hear the speech as well as upon subsequent audiences who may have occasion to read the text of the speech or a report of II I I . _ ., a. .. CC .v.. .u . .|.. I. .n. 21.4 .r.. __‘A .r.. Va C... WI“ rkA I a“ . _ C a a . n u. u a . .: are C J...“ o . '1 .7. ‘1‘ rm nkv V“ fly v a PO 3 1. .. D. run an d .r.. ‘ i .. .. .. «Q .1 I. no . my “* «my v A I N, y r3 .r . PA I a ..J .w .. . A o C e . n. 3 C p“ r.“ .. ._ .. u. D. :. L. «J :‘ :« d; T. a a a a: .C . u w. :. a; 1; .n . w. ... r. .. C .... nJ .. . ..-. «a a e. “A 7‘ r.“ . . .L .T .1. ... 0 vs. ... . . u: n. 5.. L. L. h as Q. .. .. .n. c. .4 v: I. .n. .I L u“ .4 .7. rd A. v . . q . v“ .2 .1. r. LI. 4.. . r3 .P. :5 rm.‘ «.9 Ac 2» v. .Jv ‘n a c. l\ PR» .vl\ l s .‘H \ ...r.. > a. u u .2 .1 x .. x S — 7 it. Thus, this writer has investigated the history of the times as a part of the rhetorical biography of the speaker; the climate of opinion of the times; Chandler's position on the issues of the day; the nature of the audiences to whom he spoke; and the speaker's reputation, objectives, preparation, and effect. In addition, the rhetorical critic must discover and use norms to determine the quality of workmanship demonstrated by the speaker. In the description, analysis, interpretation, and evalua- tion of Chandler's speaking, norms based on the classical core of rhetorical theory (Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian) and certain twentieth century restatements of these theories provided the struc- ture for internal analysis and evaluation. A complete discussion of the methodology employed in the analysis and evaluation of Chandler's use of the constituents of rhetoric is presented at the beginning of the chapter or the section of the chapter in which each is specifically examined. A general statement of methodology, however, seems in order. As a result of an investigation into various sources (Con; gressional Globe, Congressional Record, newspapers and personal papers) one hundred and thirty occasions on which Chandler spoke were discovered. It is believed that there were many more occasions, but information concerning the speeches he gave on his campaign tours was frequently not available. Of these one hundred and thirty occasions, seventy-five of the speech texts or reports of the speeches were located. All sev- enty-five speeches or reports of speeches were utilized in writing Chandler's rhetorical biography and in examining the issues on which 8 he spoke, but thirty-five speeches were chosen for rhetorical analysis. Three considerations determined the choice of the thirty- five speeches. The first of these considerations was the complete- ness of the text. Further, the speeches were chosen so that they covered the total span of Chandler's public service. Finally, an attempt was made to choose a representative sample from each of the three situations in which his speeches were given: (1) Senate; (2) campaign; and (3) occasional. This was not possible because of the small number of occasional speeches available, but a reasonable distribution between the first two categories listed above was accom- plished. Since only five occasional speeches were available for study, they were all included. These thirty-five speeches were then carefully analyzed for organization and arrangement of ideas; supporting materials (proof); and language style. Comments on Chandler's speaking were examined for the analysis of delivery. For each of the thirty-five speeches a complete substance outline was constructed with a careful noting of organization and arrangement, including internal summaries and tran- sitions. Then a "technical plot" was constructed for each of the constituents of rhetoric mentioned above, except delivery. Examples of both the substance outline and the technical plots appear in the appendix to this study. Conclusions presented in this study are the result of this analysis and the proof presented in support of these conclusions represents typical examples of the material used to arrive at the conclusions. 9 Organization of the Study The study is organized topically. Chapter Two deals with a political and rhetorical biography of Zachariah Chandler; Chapter Three is concerned with an examination of the issues on which he spoke and his position with regard to them; Chapter Four discusses Chandler's use of supporting material (proof) in his speaking; Chap- ter Five examines his organization and arrangement of ideas in his speeches; Chapter Six deals with his language style, and delivery. A specific examination of the audiences to whom Chandler spoke and the situations in which he spoke is presented, not as a separate chapter, but as an integral part of the other aspects of the man and the speaker mentioned above. Chapter Seven contains the summary and conclusions. CHAPTER II THE SPEAKER: HIS LIFE AND TIMES Before examining Zachariah Chandler as a speaker, it seems in order to first make inquiry concerning Zachariah Chandler as a man. We shall first paint a general picture of the times during which he lived and was active politically; then move on to examination of the part he played during this period of history. Zachariah Chandler lived in a new era of American history. Following the War of 1812, the United States had begun the "Age of Expansion." Territorially, we had moved westward. The manufacturing system, though slow to begin, grew by leaps and bounds. Facilities for the manufacture of such significant arti- cles as paper, leather goods, woodenware, and iron goods multiplied. The lead among the sections of the country in this shift toward man- ufacturing was promptly taken by New England. Perhaps the greatest single trend in the early years of the nineteenth century was the shift toward nationalism. Patriotism be- came almost a national obsession. While still dependent on Europe in some ways, Americans saw little reason to esteem the ways of the Old World, where economic opportunity was limited. With nationalism and manufacturing came internal improve- ments. In 1820, there was not a single railroad operating in the country; by 1850 the East and the West, at least to the Great Lakes, 10 ulll .L :a H ‘ o» .9. x. «L .1“ C 3. ram .Hw .F. v .. .v VI. o! I“ .u w . at LL ‘1 w... L. pn/ r; m. .... ~.. ..~.. a. . .._ .q . . . . Ina - "i ~r~<:v-- "\w p}- -~\-'V“ J- “I II were connected by a large and expanding network of steel rails. By 1825, the Erie Canal had been completed, and the development of tel- ography had "changed every aspect of communication.“L In a nation growing with such rapidity, nationalism not unex- pectedly gave way to sectionalism in the fight for progress. With the rise of the cotton growing industry, brought on by Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in 1793, slavery began to expand just when it had seemed destined to die a natural death. While some his- torians question the causal relationship between slavery and the growing sectionalism,2 the problem of human bondage was destined to loom larger in the mind of the nation. Slavery became a moral issue on which to base growing antagonism between the North and the South. It had played but a small part in national politics until Representa- tive James Tallmadge of New York successfully proposed an amendment to the Missouri Enabling Bill, restricting slavery as a limitation pursuant to a territory becoming a state. Though declared unconsti- tutional, this act served as one of the first wedges in the ever- widening breach between the North and the South, the culmination of which was the Civil war.3 Aly and Tanquary state succinctly other reasons for the grow- ing split between the sections following 1820. lWilliamNorwood Brigance (ed.), A.History and Criticism of .American Public Address (New York and.London: McGraw Hill Book Co., Inc., 19E3), p. 92. 2See Charles A. Beard and Mary A. Beard, The Rise of American Civilization (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1933); and Alexander H. Stephens, A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States (Philadelphia: 1868). 3John D. Hicks, The Federal Union (New York: Houghton Mif- flin Co., 1937), p. 35h. _ -‘RV‘ re . -."»“-" -—. q... 7 ,' . --.‘._ v—I. _-< -o- x ---.L—. ’- o 1av<.‘"' -‘/-_.~--.\a wit: "' u...-.. -<- - ~«x‘v'- ‘ F- v“ L-o ‘ O .lv. -p‘— g“ _--~.a 9 .._,..,..-,~- . 4 Lu- -4 .- - - . ‘ _q....f. . g».4~-.g ‘0 ~,.‘,—. q «5-.-. ‘. .‘v n rm‘.‘ -_ - -.. 3-... , . we ‘ '1 ‘ .. r“ a 0-4 3‘ “ IMV '~,J~ Av.~_ ‘ . :~~~“n n~u ‘ - "-.-L y y b. ‘. run. L..‘J~—d .fi'fiva ‘ " Vs. A_' ‘ ‘- up ‘I;r-:,.. ‘- . »- —< 5" — .“““\’" 1»— H *-. "N-“F‘w: ‘~V.‘ “R ‘ . 4 -u ‘ "V-& .-D' T: ‘ f“..1 u. ~‘- “ " 4*. V I “ .l :vl . ~~":~"" ‘. . ~ ‘v.‘ ‘1: ‘ '- V ' a ._-‘ .‘V‘ JL‘ ‘. a ‘V‘l-e -... .- 5“ - " u l“"‘,’\-_ § ‘ ‘d n .V 3-,: l .1 ‘A ‘ ‘<\ D p. *“v Virx‘ iv L,‘ ‘ J .N “ h"- ..‘ 5.1 ‘3. A»: v ‘- H “’ :3 T. '4‘; gh. - c: ’ 12 Despite the phenomenal physical and political changes in the nation, however, the sectional divisions had not been ameliorated. The.complaints that Southern men had uttered in 1820 were in 1850 still unremedied. The significant feature of the time was the continued expansion of sectionalism. . . . The tendency of Euro- pean immigrants to prefer the "free" states, and the consequent growth in wealth as well as in population of the free territories in the North and'West; the establishment of new lines of trans- portation prevailing from East to West, rather than from North to South; the divisions between the developing urban economy of the North and.West and the continued rural economy of the South--a11 tended to make possible if not actufilly to perpetuate the spirit of controversy between the regions. Thus, to blame slavery, per se, for the breach between the North and the South would be to fail to realize other factors which 6 made the conflict seem "irrepressible."5 The Beards, refer to a speech by Jefferson Davis in which he stated that the real purpose of those opposing slavery in the territories was to gain political as- cendancy in the government in order to fasten upon the country an economic policy that meant the exploitation of the South for the ben- efit of Northern Capitalism. Later, Davis reiterated this view in a speech to the third session of the Provisional Congress in Richmond on July 20, 1861. As President of the Confederacy, Davis said that the purpose of the North was to completely subjugate the South econ- omically, politically, and militarily.7 While the problem may have been basically political and econ- omic, as Davis suggested, and the slavery problem secondary, feelings gBrigance (ed.), p. 92-93. 5A speech of William H. Seward at Rochester, New York, Octo- ber 25, 1858, in which he coined the phrase "irrepressible conflict." From George E. Baker (ed.) The Works of William H. Seward, IV (New York: 1853-5h) p.292. 6Charles A. Beard and Mary A. Beard, p. 5. 7Bruce Catton, The Coming Fury (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1961), p. A30. I . . ‘ o... . l. I I I . . .l .. . .. i T . c .. .1a .W .~ ., a ._ a y . . a _ . . v . l . . * . .. ‘fi‘ r~ \ .P n . __ l s. - . , _ .. . . i . .J 3 r a ‘ . .‘k . ~ :_ r. :1 v“ .x .3 a a” .v A. M. «L .w .. v. : m. .. ... lb. 9 .4 F... Cu 0 0| 3 o; 0.. «.9 u. . .7. o. ‘ \Ilv ‘ Fa ‘ x* A .hrg v n p .‘L I. u. ‘ T y 3 T E .2 I .L a: a .. 3 Z a .v: . .L 11 . a . . . a .5 S a. 3 .L . .3 3 . l a. .. ... T. . .1. 2... I... . J P. a .. . a .. . a .A c .. . L g 2. n.“ 5 3 a “Q 3‘ .r. 5.: .. M... .b» r. .2 a. 3 ”a w m S .. . A. L. a r... 3 n. .3“ o .3 a . no .r“ w. J; ;. re a. z. a: w... .. a o T» :w« HY‘ .1 Z .t 5 3 a“ Z L. I .; u. .C E ..,.... rs,“ a. . u. r. \.. ._‘ . w 1. a . .. g u. .. . .mv . . .. b t. 2. a _. .. .y .. ..n . L. .. m Wu.“ 2. .5... . H x. J a”. ...~ ‘ 4r...» .0.» a... .. ”.3 T. m. pf. Ev .. ..~ 2w L. .r.. Ts «J .... we r.» 1‘ e n I a. .5 :. .Z a. .t. “A .. L. h. .. Sq y... . a .0. .7. h. 3-. - .. 13 could be raised and men could take a more firm stand when the issue was moral, rather than "bluntly political or crassly economic." . and when finally the sections chose war to resolve their 'irrepressible conflict,‘ both were glad to make it a great and holy crusade, for the good against evil, for right against wrong. By 1856, the country had reached a point when the slavery issue was fast approaching a dreadful crisis. In the view of North- ern members of Congress, the advocates of slavery had walked off with concession after concession gained by Southern Senators, who, at this point in history, controlled the national legislative halls. The Northern legislators had noted the war with Mexico, designed, in their opinion, to gain new areas for the expansion of slavery. They had been forced to accept the Fugitive Slave Law, the admission of Texas as a slave state, and the Missouri Compromise. They had viewed with alarm what they deemed a violation of the Missouri Compromise by the Kansas-Nebraska Bill of l85h, which opened the vast region known as Kansas and Nebraska, and the territories of Washington, Oregon, and Minnesota to slavery. Chandler voiced the views of Northern political leaders when Kansas applied for admission as a state in 1857. He called the Lecompton Constitution an aggression of slave power which would lead to the subversion of the Constitution and the Union. To him, it was a death blow at State sovereignty and popular rights.9 At this point, the Southern power seemed almost invincible. However, the election of 1860 brought into office the first President of the new Republican Party and a man opposed to slavery SRichard Heffner, A.Documentary History of the United States (New York: The New American Library, 1958), p. 106. 9Speech of Senator Chandler in the Senate, March 12, 1858. I 1| Tr ~ ‘ . .. . Q . . ... . . C. .. ”V. a.» V. I». .r.. v. firw v. < . x c .w.» .. .1 .. .8 .... .L 1 a a -. . A; , . "W ._ . my ..L .L. v. I... L Fa . :4 «J : LL TI. «9 .. . .1 0 .r4 .. r.“ w . s. :2. 3 Tu A.. . . r1. . . a c Tu C q. . . a n C . . A 3 ..g o. .. .. . 3 . S a,» 3 E 2 . C . 3: .v. E 2. fl 1. r“ x: .3 s ; .n.« O. a; v . O . .».k c r“ w; . Ly“ L.“ a: ~* .7 1. P! z. : .C a. S L. . «.Hv . . .rh 2. ~ . 2» C» 2,4 . . u.»» 1.‘ ‘fil . . a w. .1 “a a. "I ran . . L. 2.. xx . . ?< a. "in .r“ 5. "L A}. .u 5y .. L» v: v a. «I. r5 “a n.- .F. as p... :U :u w. 2. Sn Cc .. 2s a .3 .h.» "I all .3: (a . ‘1'!- “ )111'81 I, . .. , 5) J » ti w. \fs W. e>t Va A .. ~M‘ Cu :; 1.. . . my a . ..W V: r. s a U T- W!\ .h g ‘ \ ~ I'd “WK Rd N; s. x L» w x n ‘1 \ 3 «c .n‘ :‘ ‘1 \ la .0 o X; at. . . tr . » r . . . s. o a. . 1h extension.10 "For the first time the South had been defeated, the charm of invincibility was broken, the prestige of success was gone."11 Between the election of the new President, Abraham Lincoln, and his inauguration, seven states seceded from the Union--1ed by South Carolina, which severed itself on December 20, 1860. President Buchanan, while he believed secession to be unconstitutional, did not take decisive action on the issue. He attempted only to contain the movement to the deep South and not allow it to spread to the border states. It was his hope that the new Republican President would be able to cope with this unique problem.l2 Lincoln attempted to placate all factions. In his inaugural speech of March h, 1861, he stated to the country that secession was unlawful. He promised to execute the laws of the nation in all the states and to "hold, occupy, and possess the property and places be- longing to the government." This declaration appeared firm enough to satisfy the "war hawks" of his own party, of which Chandler was one, but the new President softened the effect with his final conciliatory words. Lincoln said: "You.[§he South] can have no conflict without yourself being the aggressor."13 This promise of Lincoln's did not prevent Congress from pas- lOLord Charnwood, Abraham Lincoln (New York: Pocket Books, Inc., 1957), p. 133. 11Kenneth M. Stampp, The Causes of the Civil War (Englewood New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc., 19597, p. 11. 12Joseph B. Mitchell, Decisive Battles of the Civil War (New York: G. B. Putnam, 1955), p. 17. 13Lord Charnwood, p. 22%. 9., ..-,,.1,. a». 3 figs- 3 ~ a L-"‘ '7‘ fr.) v o,~ .... u... (I) s A. ~:'s “\ 3‘.O V~L \. U: ..\\. ‘ \ ‘ 5‘ 5‘ 'i ‘- r: v... “A“. -|_- \‘ .h- ‘ <~k~ V .l 15 sing the Army Act, which authorized the enlistment of 100,000 men for a year's service. The die was cast. On April 12, 1861, at #:30 in the morning, the Confederate forces attacked Fort Sumpter and the War had begun. For four years the conflict over the Union and Slavery raged, until the latter part of May, 1865, when General Kirby Smith surrendered the trans-Mississippi forces of the Confed— eracy to Federal troops. We shall examine specific issues of the war and Chandler's part in them later in this study. Suffice it to say at this point that the North was victorious, the Union had been preserved, slavery had been abolished, and the period of Reconstruction began. The end of the war revealed a great gulf between the former antagonists. For one thing, many of the Anti-bellum commonalities between the sections were destroyed by the war. The religious groups which had once formed a bond between the people of the sections were split by the hostilities. The political parties, once national in nature, were now to a great extent sectional. The Democratic party, split asunder in 1860, was not yet united.lu The Republican party had been sectional from the beginning. Commercially, too, there was a split. Commerce had been a unifying force before the war--now trade between the sections had collapsed. The close of hostilities also brought an immediate necessity for the answers to certain questions which had been on the minds of Washington politicians for a number of years. Among the more impor- tant of these were: (1) What was the status of the states recently luFrank Zornow, Lincoln and the Party Divided (Norman: Uni- versity of Oklahoma Press, 195E), pp. 119-122. 8. art" &,---:--“"“ - p. 1"“; ,... w- pawa‘ “3‘ ' ,.--3 '..J-«-“"' ‘ 5* Q. r“ I AaflJ /.r. “.J .. L 16 in rebellion? (2) What was the status of members of the Confederate government and the Confederate military? (3) Where did the power to conduct Reconstruction lie-swith the President or with Congress? (A) By what means were the freedmen to be assured of their rights? The Constitution gave no clear answers to these questions. In 1863, however, Abraham Lincoln had laid down what seemed to him to be practical conditions of restoration. In his proclamation, he of- fered amnesty to those who would take an oath of loyalty for the fu- ture, accept the acts of Congress, and subscribe to the Emancipation Proclamation. Whenever as many as ten percent of the voting popula- tion of 1860 of any of the seceded states took this oath and estab- lished a state government, Lincoln agreed to recognize such a govern- ment as legal. At the same time, the President stated that it was the right of Congress to decide whether Representatives and Senators from such states would be allowed to take their seats.15 The Radicals in Congress, however, including Chandler, were unwilling to agree with the President's plan because it was too len- ient for them, and they further asserted that it was the right of Congress and not of the President to determine the conditions and processes of Reconstruction. Hence, they passed the wade-Davis Bill, stating that only when a majority of the white male citizens of the states lately in rebellion took the oath of loyalty to the Constitu- tion should there be restoration to the Union. This bill also ex- cluded many more individuals from a voice in the Southern state governments than did the President's proclamation. All those who 15Nelson P. Mead, The Development of the United States Since 1865 (New York: Harcourt Brace and Co., 1930), p. 3. p ~ ‘ . I!) l7 bore arms, encouraged hostility, or voluntarily yielded support to the Confederate cause were to be excluded. In July of 186A, Lincoln vetoed the bill by allowing the Congressional session to end without signing it. He indicated that he was not willing to deny the states which had already established governments in accordance with his pro- clamation. However, he indicated that he was willing to accept any states which might adopt the Congressional plan.l6 Unfortunately for the country and particularly for the South, Lincoln was killed on April 15, 1865, by a bullet from the gun of the actor John Wilkes Booth. Some historians imply that the whole his- tory of Reconstruction might have been different had Lincoln lived. Others feel that, while Lincoln would have had to reckon with a Radi- cal Congress, he at least would have avoided the bitter controversy which his successor, Andrew Johnson, precipitated, and consequently the South might have escaped the misgovernment that the Radical Con- gressional program of Reconstruction inaugurated.l7 These specula- tions are irrelevant, however, because Lincoln did not live, and it was left to Andrew Johnson, a man of a far different nature than Lin- coln, to grasp the reins of government left untended by the death of the "Great Emancipator." While these political and Constitutional arguments were rag- ing in Washington, what of the two sections recently in conflict? From the South's point of view, the very principles which they had fought to protect had been endangered by secession and destroyed by l6Samuel Morison and Henry Commager, Growth of the American IRepublic, II (New York: Oxford University Press, 1950), pp. 32-33. l7Mead, p. 10 ,7 -. $4 ‘ "” C.. v C- o ‘5‘ - I‘- A my! ' ”A! " C —J- ..4 u- .su..~ . . " -vv vv. - ‘ 7‘ "r“ fir LI ‘3 ' . “‘ “..-.... .. I. Q . ' urgpgwa w“ fO-Iax 5“»- “1“‘v - “ r "n fi‘fllmv‘ ‘ :T:._.-u. you».-. ‘5" v-u . ”Q -v'.~.:\ g--." s4 . . . ‘ '7;: -‘ w A _ -u-..J. .181 “y ““(N {' ‘ VA ra.‘\:: “Arie. “‘A N'J‘v .- J: “y- - s F' a , — ._ 3,”, F u... .1“ “1 gr 1 ““.\ .‘F_.- I A.” ~f *i‘ f. t~ - ,fi__ ‘§.\.‘-‘ V _ - ‘ ”0“ ‘ ~43 _‘: . :h f‘ : ‘ ‘ 1 i..“ -A '., . r. - \_A."v-,~ J «-L; '-L’ T.- .L ¥ r o ‘ H ‘“‘c, l nub. ”n. v‘ ‘ ‘~.:; '“.,'_ \— ‘~: - I :_ - ‘ 5. “~23 1..-,‘ 1“: T!“ §d ~- PM.“ KQ‘VQ h A ’5 k“ 0’ 4- _ ‘ > \ Uglka ‘ .. ,‘1' \rv'\ 1‘ ““x.‘ . ‘ £3 Md. “,A,'\ \4‘ 3 I“-.. ‘, > “J... 18 war. Their plantation system was utterly devestated. Slavery was no longer in existence. They had lost any political bargaining power which they may have had prior to 1861. They were, in fact, placed under military governments of occupation by Congress. The section seemed completely demoralized by defeat. The North, on the other hand, was in the driver's seat fol- lowing the war. Population and wealth had increased. The per capita wealth had doubled in ten years. Higher tariffs brought higher in- dustrial profits. Michigan, Chandler's home state, had increased her gross product and wealth four times over during the war. Thus, the end of the war did not bring a re-United States. The North and the South were perhaps even more different after the war than before. In addition, the North and the South had learned to hate, and it was not easy to forget the "war psychosis."18 In 1876, Federal troops were still "occupying" certain Southern areas. Part of the "bargain" of the Hayes-Tilden election controversy in the Presidential election of that year was that Hayes would remove the trOOps.19 It was not until 1898 that final amnesty became a fact.20 This, in very brief form, was the period of American history during which Zachariah Chandler lived and during part of which he wielded his political power. It saw the beginning of the rapid growth of the United States as distinct from European influences, the 18Paul S. Buck, The Road to Reunion (Boston: Little Brown & Co., 1938), pp. hH-72. 19For a definitive study of this Presidential election cri- sis, see C. Van Woodward, Reunion and Reaction (Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956). 2OJohn Hope Franklin, From Slavery to Freedom (New York: .A. Knopf: 1948), p. 328. ' ‘ I 2 a. .l 4 I. .1 t4» V¢VI". ~| . ‘q .-_ r . V f4 . hrv‘-A 5-....A,‘ . - H “A icob n I ‘A I_'- .— '.:7‘ ‘— - L.-. -v, ‘_d* u “‘3 A _ "Vo~ - ' . , a. ..l ~~ «w n -11- . ~ ‘A -“" |F\ly« «- “---1 -V.‘ ,_ ~ P- " -‘ " "Z" 5‘ e ,‘1 o.‘~ ‘Oou.‘ ‘h' v- u.,.‘ - r ‘_‘ .. h “““~A l “‘1 . V“ «v.33. 7r~ “ " —-l I' qu-‘ .‘__ - ‘T‘ ”F“~n,' _ '/ s-G __ , --‘. V A i": A: f‘ a»- 1 ‘_‘Y ‘ ‘ v- y‘ ~.. r “"\. fit-3": \- “A. H‘~*‘§4' -_‘ ‘a‘. -. l V‘ ~ I ‘_‘ ‘ 7‘ ,_ fl.-. ‘«‘ . “4‘s. ~ ~‘y s.“ " V‘, ‘ _ ‘ ~ ‘ ‘ K 5 n“ ‘ - a v—.‘ ‘\ , R ‘.\" 9‘ 0 .- r"fln:~ ‘:\‘_ ”a... ‘ r“ . v‘ \ h'_. ‘ ‘ " ‘ 1., - “I _ ‘ “ Ny- ~ ‘\ '.,.\ -‘ _“ \— 19 growth of industry and agriculture, the split of the nation during the Civil War, and the period of Reconstruction. With a general over-view of the period in mind, let us now turn to the life and political career of Zachariah Chandler as he played his roll in shap- ing the destinies of his party, his state, and his country. Zachariah Chandler was born in Bedford, New Hampshire, Decem- ber 10, 1813.21 The family into which he was born were descendants of one William Chandler, who came from England during the Puritan immigration about 1637 and settled in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The Chandler's of Bedford, New Hampshire were the posterity of Zacha- riah Chandler, Zachariah's Great-Great-Great Grandfather. Zachariah's father, Samual, was born on May 28, 177h, and in 1795 married Margaret Orr, daughter of Colonel John Orr, first offi- cer of General Stark during the Revolutionary War. They had seven children, one of whom is the subject of this study--Zachariah Chand- ler. In the family Bible, preserved for some years by Zachariah's sister, Mrs. Samual Lee, we find his birth recorded as Zacharias Chandler. He generally used only his first initial, but eventually adopted the name of his Grandfather, Zachariah, who died in Bedford, April 20, 1830, at the age of 79. From boyhood through manhood, Zachariah demonstrated inde- pendence, tenacity, pluckiness, quick temper, and self-reliance. His biographers attribute these character traits to his New England back- 21Early History of Michigan with Biographies of State Offi- <:ers, Members of Congress, Judges, and Legislators ILansing, Michi- Efiin: Thorp and Godfrey, State Printers and Binders, 1888), p. 16h. 3“". !. 1 q -o~,.-n¢-‘ t—I— . R. .".L.ns0 . U 911::V‘ : 7"; é.--¢¢i“ 5055— u n‘w‘ \gww ‘ Mr. - vat-u -. aoLoA‘ . A 0.. P"! .‘-r ‘, O n ,. , .13 » ~~v~¢¢.. t-» . C ., ‘r;~% 5m,” ,’ "‘~-- -Au-..’ .' g ' n L," "‘1‘; 'v ..-. k g; I: n-h. _ .1 “#4 \ i' 1 '"“"‘"‘~* 0‘ v .3. T\!“‘.~. U“ .. U‘» ”:0 l Dru“ . ":-‘-- n ._ - "\. ...'. ,~ “‘~. 1““ —' H . - ““- ‘- T ‘- I \ r ‘ La: .: ’\ "fi ‘Ps \" - " afi$ \‘ K ‘u‘: ‘ " .1.- ‘3 H r ‘4‘4_ fin ~:*-'F.. 9: - u‘g ’8 ‘P‘ _ V‘ - \as a -“ .. ‘3 ‘ \\.'\s. 3"“ - , .1 ‘ \Jyty-V : ‘\ f‘ A ,... fl fi\:. \\ §~ ”- \ s ‘y— ‘ 1‘ ‘AN ‘ '5 V ’ ‘ A u C ~ -.2 20 ground.22 Following Zachariah Chandler's death in 1879, his boyhood friend, the Reverand S. G. Abbott, of Stanford, Connecticut, wrote concerning their associations some fifty years before. Tinged with emotionalism, the letter describes "the old brick schoolhouse" where their rudimentary education was gained, the store of Zachariah‘s fa- ther, the "broad fields and forests" where "we use to roam and hunt," the tavern of Zachariah's Uncle, and the rough, overgrown, good- natured boy who "went by the name of Zach."23 Chandler attended a common school to the age of fifteen and then studied for a time at Pembrook and Derry Acadamies in New Hamp- shire. During the winter of his sixteenth year, he taught school, but was less than successful at this pursuit. He did, however, have discipline. The boys in the country school in the Piscategoug school district were an unruly lot, prone to frequent serious breaches of discipline. It was only by physical force that the young Chandler established his supremacy. What he managed to teach or in what de- gree he accomplished his educational goals remains a point of conjec- ture. Later in his life, Chandler spoke with interest of this brief contact with the teaching profession, but laid no claims to succeaaeu Early in life, Zachariah established himself as a man more capable of giving orders than of taking them. .As a member of the 10- cal militia company in Bedford, he proved himself incapable of "per- fect obedience." The young commander of the company was no match for 22Life of Zachariah Chandler (Detroit: The Detroit Post and Tribune, 1880), p. 38. 23Life of Zachariah Chandler, p. no. 2”Life of Zachariah Chandler, p. to. ..| .L .2; . . r“ 7; C .Y.. i. D. u. o . .. AU _; n.“ ;_ :~ T.“ :4 . ,. ”I. a qu y-«v a.- 'wkb :, -g" 1 I up ~09 ~. ~v 1*”? a- '\ "ya. 3 r- - m-r‘ . --.4.. r a. a. x... .Q at .5 «J 3‘ .n. a. a» .r“ I‘\ ud.‘ 2 k). fiw \ Z... r: . § v“ . . a w .n. a E x. 3. a4 : . § § . a a: my :u m4 AN» ‘5‘ ac :. 3 a: .. -‘ . r a. r a c ”Q ‘u« .. “ AV ‘4! k; .r. “ .‘ a: .2 ha. 21 the strength of character or the physical power of Zachariah, and it was not long before this recruit was arrested for insubordination and held to await court martial. Fortunately for Chandler, the court martial failed to convene at the appointed time and he was released. In the year 1833, Chandler worked in the store of Kendrick and Foster of Nashua, New Hampshire, and in September of that year moved west to Detroit. The move was prompted in part by his father's desire that Zachariah "make something of himself." He offered Zacha- riah a choice between a gift of one thousand dollars with which to start a business, or a college education. The choice was not too difficult for Zachariah to make. He had tried the academic world and found either it, or him, wanting. On the other hand, he had tried farming and business with some suc- cess. Perhaps an even greater motivation for him to avoid higher education was the fact that his brothers had tried it to the ruin of their health. Samual Jr. took four years at Dartmouth and Union Colleges and lost his health through close confinement. He came to Detroit a semi-invalid and died there in 1835. John Orr Chandler, another brother, graduated from Dartmouth and spent a year in Andover Theological Seminary. As a result of his labors at these institu- tions, his health failed and he too came to Detroit to make his home with Zachariah. When he continued to fail, he was taken for his health to Cuba, where he died in 1839. Whatever the reasons may have been, Zachariah chose the one thousand dollars and started west to make his fortune, arriving in 21833, at the age of twenty, in Detroit. His brother-in-law, Franklin Moore, was already settled in n “7.7-yx-- - i:-— 7 . a d-\nv-\, . . ‘ ‘ q ‘ :CP'f‘ «1“ (‘1' bun-A 4.11-161- . I‘ ~ ‘ ~ ‘ a . a ‘39,..“5 ‘ _-. -«L g, - 5' t n - r .L V'- ‘A u ‘-'—-.L ‘ ‘~ _ ' ‘ ~ . x "1‘“ h‘ a -..)-\, ~$~"\4, 0A. -‘ . .. ”D :1 ‘v‘. -.-\. ‘. - -.".‘_- ‘ . .4' ‘ » (5 . -J..A._-.;-,‘ UZ‘ 0“ J. V“ -. - ‘7‘“n u. _.\‘_ h N-Ku . r '\.1... ‘ ‘. v- -' --‘. a _ g '1‘ u a--... . aria .' .\ A.“ an, - ‘ § V V‘. V‘ s -.‘ ‘C' 1‘ ¢ “\1 7 “A s . d . “‘ \‘n 0* f v-‘ “ r. , ~ ‘ k“"“ H ~ , ‘h ~v‘ ,0. V. “ Ls‘s . ‘ g \.‘ A . "\‘Ivl F :x‘ ~ ~ “2- a ‘K ‘ s l ‘l a. - x . : '\ §_\ 9 - ~ ‘ V ~: : ‘ .3— ‘ \‘ a C“ ... a. \ ‘5‘\\‘ U" ‘ F‘ \ 3 w. \ 22 Detroit, and it was at his suggestion that Zachariah chose this city in which to live. Chandler invested his father's gift of one thou- sand dollars with the capital of Moore and the two gentlemen opened a general store on Jefferson Avenue. This location had been the site of a hotel named The Biddle House, and it was not long before their store building was purchased by parties who were building a new ho- tel. The firm of Moore and Chandler then moved to their permanent location on Jefferson Avenue north of Woodward Avenue.25 The business partners agreed amicably in everything but bus- iness. Franklin Moore was lax in his methods, sometimes inclined to rash ventures and reckless buying. By contrast, Zachariah was very strict and conservative, and kept a weather eye on his little capital of one thousand dollars lest he lose it. Always a close figurer and a hard loser, Zachariah soon decided that in order to avoid danger- ous risks through his partner, he must make a move into the business world on his own. Thus it was that after two years, he bought out Moore's interest. Moore returned to the grocery business, while Chandler concentrated on dry goods. The date was August 16, 1836.26 On August 17, 1836, Chandler found himself the sole pro- prietor of a business and in debt to his brother-in-law. With little money to operate, he had to be both proprietor and clerk. He was up at daylight, sweeping the floor, dusting the counters, putting his stock in order, and building a wood fire in the big box stove. He :ahowed and sold goods all day and lighted candles to set in the win- 25Life of Zachariah Chandler, pp. h2—h3. 26G. B. Gatlin Manuscripts, Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library. .u. 3" g“-.. ~A“- . 3“. iv v 4-. ) (I! I (n .04. J' .4131, 5 P‘: 56-5 (p) "a " —. a.“ v-y «'_, Q . fl 2) 23 dows and along the counters after sunset to show goods to the evening traders. When nine o‘clock came, he locked the door, made a crude bunk on the back counter, and slept soundly until the roosters sounded his reveille. This spartan existence even included making a lunch of crackers and cheese during the noon hour and showing his goods to his customers while chewing vigorously. His biographers tell us that he lived during this time on $300 a year, avoided society, and allowed only the Presbyterian Church to divide his attention with business.27 Chandler developed into a good salesman, particularly with people from the country. "In his younger days he was a tall, big- boned, awkward young man with sandy hair and wide blue eyes. He was frank, outspoken and so commanded confidence. His big hands and feet, and his awkward gait which had been acquired on plowed ground among the New Hampshire hills made farmer folks feel at once that he was one of them.28 "He had . . . a popularity with his rural customers that foreshadowed the strong hold of his later life on the affection- ate confidence of the yeomanry of the State."29 His reputation as a shrewd and honest businessman held him in good stead in the financial crash of 1838, during which many wild- cat banks and infant businesses in the state of Michigan went under. During the financial trouble, a note of Chandler's for $5,000 came due to a New York firm, and he could not pay it. His lawyer, Jamesll cloy, a Bedford friend who had settled in Detroit, saw no reason to 27Life of Zachariah Chandler, p. #5. 28Gatlin Manuscripts. 29Life of Zachariah Chandler, p. HS. LII?! . . . . t a; v ._ u . a . . . n ‘ c. ‘ . .. ‘.._ e. . a: c u I L. .ru 3. m: 5-. n. v T» ‘r‘. .r“ :u a... a. . ~\I V rflu ‘L . g a rd ‘C :l a e. 91‘ .n 7a ”a a. r. T .- 3 . 3 w. .t C L“ .2 .J J . t w G a» w: A... we». . .. a a u n. C: “a 3 .1... n; S. 1: .«¢ v . «v . . Q .|¢ .,r;- ‘1 .n.. vk L. n. ‘ 2 .«a a r .» u - m. 3» u. . o. . L. 01* . In ...J .I. :- 4; n. :— ma 7. «a v: ‘A f‘ “a ‘b i") K‘ P\ Y...“ r a: o‘l‘ C a ‘ ‘I m . a a: : . E T at ~xh : a . «.v W. ‘-. CC Nd \.\.\ a... c \ Z.\ G a; 2; 3C h.‘ ..\ .51 ..: Q. . ‘ 2A declare bankruptcy as Chandler suggested. He advised Zachariah to write to the firm and request extension of the note. This Chandler did, it was granted, and he was on the road to mercantile success.3O Zachariah was naturally a quick-tempered man, and his finan- cial troubles of 1837-38 did not provide oil for troubled waters. He became very irritable. One day, Enos Jones, a Detroit business- man, got into some sort of a dispute with Chandler in the store, whereupon Chandler rushed him out to the sidewalk and gave him a sound thrashing. Perhaps this was not typical behavior of a store owner, but it was not atypical of Zachariah Chandler during this period of his life.31 As time passed, Chandler's trade grew and he was compelled to hire clerks. He proved a very exacting employer and several of his earlier Clerks either left or were discharged after a few weeks of trial. He no longer slept and lunched in the store, but began taking his meals at the new Michigan Exchange Hotel at the corner of Shelby Streets and Jefferson Avenue in Detroit. For a time he and his wife lived there. In l8h3, his was the first business in Michigan to amass sales exceeding $50,000 in one year. Moving to wholesale goods, and branching into real estate and other business pursuits, Chandler soon amassed a sizeable personal fortune and his enterprises became the leading ones in Michigan.32 Still, every year he drove through the 3OLetter of James F. Joy to Chandler, January 18, 1839; James F. Joy Papers (1810-1896), Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library. 31Gatlin Manuscripts. 32Early History of Michigan . . . , p. 16A. - u :o- -r:‘r‘-‘ \ P4 . -.~ -yliancu . .,,.- .‘9 r- - ~‘Ox V‘ DO-V .. :‘v‘v~. 71,“. ' u ‘ ~..au>~. L-“ .1. . ‘ 4 2'7 ‘f‘Y‘fi:‘ A I‘d-S _v..._ 5 .‘K‘.: va- Pr ova.‘ A ,4 «k v J L); o v- 25 state, visiting its pioneer merchants at their homes and in their stores. He thus kept himself thoroughly informed of Michigan and its leading citizens, a knowledge which was to form such an important part of his influence in public life.33 We have thus far a picture of a man who was coarse and strong; practical and prudent in business; and of remarkable energy and force of character. It was exactly these traits that were to be a cause of strength to his political friends and a constant source of criticism from his political enemies. During the decade of the 1840's his business was on a sound footing and he became decidedly more active in the affairs of his city and his state. He took part in the various organizations of the young men of Detroit, and first became known as a speaker in the de- bating society of the city, attracting special attention with a pub- lic lecture on the "Elements of Success." At this time, the Whigs and Democrats were the contending political parties, and Michigan was controlled by the Democratic party under the leadership of General Lewis Cass. Chandler, as be- came his New England origin, sided with the Whigs. His first decid- edly political speech was made in 18h8, in Detroit, on a soapbox at a street corner, in favor of the election of General Zachary Taylor to the Presidency. He began the speech by suggesting to the few assem- bled listeners that he supported General Taylor because he was known 33Life of Zachariah Chandler, p. #7. C s Cu I II . 1 | 5 a lo .4 .. . a P‘ \h.‘ . A u _. . n v I v. . u T b A v a . C v i D a .l . To . Cu . a. 1 a...» C 3 :.1 a: 8 3 C S r .. 3 a . .,.~ ”fl. 6. m . .H. a. . 0 .a 3 . .J .C . J y. a: . . A1,. L.“ .L .C a . (L I. u v. "r! .0. ... u 3. r* r; r: a. . : . r: «iv v!“ 4.. r “I. a.» a... a». 26 as "Old Zach," and "Zach" was a name he honored.3“ Following the election of General Taylor to the Presidency, Chandler took an increasing interest in politics. By 1851, his busi- ness was of such a nature that he felt he could take an active part in local political affairs. He was persuaded in that year to run for mayor of Detroit on the Whig ticket. His foe was an old political warhorse and Democrat, General John R. Williams, who had been mayor of the city four times between 182h and 1850, and who was conserva- tive enough to obtain the support of a number of the opposition party.35 So sure were the Democrats of success that they had great fun ridiculing the Whig nominations. On Friday, February 21, 1851, fol- lowing the Wednesday Whig nominating convention, the Democratic Detroit Free Press listed the Whig "victims," leading off with the name of the party‘s candidate for mayor, Zachariah Chandler.36 To the Democrats, the Whigs had a weak ticket--inferior in all respects to their own candidates. They accused the Whigs of spending a great deal of money to divide the Democrats, and the Detroit Free Press im- plied dishonesty when it suggested that the Whigs could "not buy their way into honorable positions in our City government."37 The Whigs had this retort: "It is an old and good saying 3“Speech by Senator Ferry of Michigan in the Senate, Jan- uary 28, 1880, on the death of Senator Chandler, Memorial Addresses on the Life and Character of Zachariah Chandler (Washington: Govern- ment Printing Office, 1880), p. 10. 35Gatlin Manuscripts. 36Detroit Free Press, February 21, 1851. 37Detroit Free Press, February 25, 1851. . . ‘ ‘rr- "2': '“rr 1 “.3. ..- .... - " 3 f- ‘rgv - 7.3 5. y‘JJ-a _. . .— 9” 7“. y. fir. ; -4u hd\*-a ""I 1 .pu . 'J" ..r -3 ,e a»: . “‘- o. my}--- — . ’ a ‘ 4‘ ”WYT" ‘. . :1 u. .- u~;-¢d.‘~L 55-! ““r >— ‘7‘ J'L -'v __.3- r‘ a, - ,. .‘u p. n :. pA'n‘Iv‘fi’: - ‘ a ‘1 ‘:u. a‘" \ I ..\A w. . ‘i- 7-- “" :« “-“‘~ 2‘” ‘4- 0 \‘-~. A ‘ A‘.‘r .‘ n “V ‘»fi- ~“\._‘ ~ .—\ «L. . eff- . “ \Q‘n‘ ~ ” c. Q... .r-a - “‘9 n": a ‘-J." \V . H— F”- d N ~~ (3° : ‘ vg ‘de ‘: ‘ Na 3» ‘~‘ -.»- ‘\‘H‘ \‘ ‘ N —‘ N . ‘ .1 ‘11 ‘\ A a: ”“3 . ‘1‘ I: r‘ — ““.,, Lv‘ ‘g'l - ‘ y *‘ \‘ \ A ~— ~ 0 s _“ ~ ‘1. 4-.‘u-_ ““A b‘ 27 that he who is diligent and faithful and honest in his own affairs [gs Chandler was, in the Whig opiniqn7‘will be diligent and faith- ful and honest in the affairs of others."38 According to Chandler's political biographer, the campaign was an uphill battle. Detroit, as well as Michigan, was a Democratic stronghold in 1851.39 There were, however, a few things in his favor. It was an off-year election in 1851, and the Democrats felt no particular ne- cessity for party loyalty. This election would not even be consid- ered a "show of strength," as would the 1852 canvass. At any rate, Chandler rallied his young friends and staged a whirlwind campaign. On Wednesday, March 5, the votes were in and counted, and Chandler had carried all eight of the wards in Detroit, running far ahead of his party, which elected only four of the eight city Council officers.uo His one year term of office was relatively uneventful. Chandler's performance was attacked by the Democrats and praised by the Whigs. However, two instances concerning his tenure in office are of interest. There were only two Whig papers in Detroit, the Advertiser and the Tribune; and one Democratic paper, the Detroit Free Press. One of the political spoils was the printing contract for the city, and in the early weeks of Chandler's term it had not yet been awarded. 38Detroit Daily Advertiser, March 1, 1851. 39Wilmer Harris, The Public Life of Zachariah Chandler (Mich- igan Historical Commission, 1917), p. 8. 1+0Detroit Free Press, March 5, 1851. .1. x u N, ..r. -r: v, “gt-4 wotv V‘- ‘ c 'frv-ag‘ ‘ o v‘ fidufsu - . a, . ‘ 'o 5...- n r.: ~V ¢ you :4... , “-""“"I V" ' L64...,_‘ no L, .: Y‘o . V:- II‘A'. -.«.,u fi-_“ 15": Mr" F VJ._._ \AL/ .— 5 \A ' I C’n ~ Q‘s“ -1 ‘ -‘. d.‘ ”A ¢-\_v‘ .0- 1 H - “k fl ‘V;.‘ “a. , rs: - ‘ ' o s V x .1. r." - i"?— .‘v “ _ .. ..‘ , "Ix 7“ .‘ ‘ Q. 7 u ,. u can 0.. . 3 I, "‘ ‘ . ‘V-‘ofl_:1_ ‘ I U ‘— Oi- \ ~-::=1o~ .., '4 fin? . “u ~ a ~ \f‘ —Q a h ‘9 r“ ‘ “‘ Q. .- 'x-‘b~ L‘ \‘R ‘ A “~ \‘-,\ 1 “wt-.5? ' ‘ “k.“ ‘A‘ v‘ 1 .H'-‘ \:i‘trtb V" - H - Fly-“r3, ‘ ‘ ,' 4‘. v3; - :s 5 ”as K 6 “~ rd . Q \ 28 With the Council tied politically, the vote of the Mayor would have decided the issue in favor of one of the Whig papers. The Advertiser 1+1 wanted it badly, according to the Free Press so Chandler, perhaps to avoid personal criticism, called an emergency meeting of the City Council on a day when three of the four Democratic members were in Dearborn, Michigan, for a political rally. Chandler called the meet- ing ostensibly to decide what to do about a break in the city water line. Without a quorum present, the printing contract happened to "come up" and was awarded to the Advertiser over the long, continued, and ineffectual objections of the lone Democrat present};2 At this point, both the Free Press and the Tribune screamed fraud, but to no avail. The deed was done and Chandler had estab- lished himself as a strong "party man."l'L3 The other point of interest of Chandler's term as Mayor was the visit to Detroit of Dr. Gottfried Kinkel, a German scientist who had fought in the German Revolution of 18M8. According to Harris, freedom was a word to conjure with on the frontier and there were many people in Detroit and Michigan who had followed the German Rev- olution with great interest and enthusiasm. It is on the occasion of Dr. Kinkel's visit that we have the first report of Chandler‘s speak- ing as an elected public official. Harris quotes Mayor Chandler from his speech of welcome, though this writer could find no record of the speech. From the sections of the speech quoted by Harris, however, we get a picture of Chandler‘s attitude toward freedom and liberty. ulDetroit Free Press, February 20, 1857. 1+2Detroit Free Press, February 20, 1857. 1+3Harris, p. 10. ~7n" - . 1.3 ’7‘ ._.__..A 0 “3 » riwye1nm... . . .t z rx. .K g 5...”... ....--I ‘ .ncblnllllilnv‘ir 4! .q » n .v 29 The flame of liberty may be smothered for a moment but it will break out with ten-fold fury at no distant day. The people have learned their rights, and knowing, dare to maintain them. . . . The decree will have gone forth and will be irrev- ocable. Kings, Dukes and Emperors ‘By the Will of God' must give place to Presidents, Senators, and Governors 'By the Will of the People.‘ Then will those time-honored fabrics of Despo- tism fall, like tottering walls before the hurricane. When this struggle shall come, and come it must soon, America will not be an idle spectator of the conflict. . . . Gentlemen, our country has a glorious destiny to fulfill. At present she is a beacon to the oppressed of every clime. To us they turn as the Star of Hope. . . . With us they find hope. What has been done can be done again. Impossible is a word almost stricken from our vocab- ulary. Obstacles do not dfificourage us. Difficulties but add fresh Vigor to our effort. Chandler's successful bid for the office of Mayor of Detroit and his wide acquaintance throughout the state led the Whig state convention to nominate him as a candidate for governor of Michigan on July 1, 1852.1”5 Though not mentioned by anyone save his opponenun his wealth must certainly have played a part in his nomination--not, as the Free Press would have had its readers believe, so he could bribe his way into office, but because it took a great deal of money to canvas the territory and a man with lesser means would have had difficulty carrying on an effective campaign. His opponent on the Democratic side was Robert McClelland, the incumbent governor. The campaign in Michigan in 1852, however, was fought on national party lines. It was a contest between the national parties headed by Scott and Pierce, rather than state partus headed by Chandler andecClelland. Perhaps because there were virtually no major national issues separating the Whigs from the Democrats in 1852, and perhaps because uuHarris, p. 13. h5Detroit Daily Advertiser, July 3, 1852. I . .. . . .1 . . . _ o_ . T .l H. . . . .1 .. . Au 3 . 3 ...a Po. . c. T .2 a. :1 :— n u n . h... .r 3... a D . .. . C.» Lt“ \ . . u . a V . r44 . g L ~ .9L V5» 7““ W ~ lug Cc r . "I Cu 2. a: 2.. v :3 rd m . AC vi. 2.. . 3.. . n! w...» A a. 3. . .s . .C 1.. wk 2} a. ... .2 . a . . ..!. .5. . . a: at . e .r» a. r~ ..,. r~ \ru . _ alu .1. r5 "b “u a Cu ¢.\ 30 it was felt that in order to get a governor elected, the state must be carried for the national candidates, the campaign in Michigan in 1852 was a contest of personalities. The Republican papers assailed General Pierce and Governor McClelland in every conceivable way, while the Democratic press found no charge too base to be brought against General Scott and Zachariah Chandler. To the Democrats, Chandler was a small "beer" politician whose greatness would never show itself outside of his wallet. He M6 They wondered how uttered base falsehoods in every speech he made. any Republican paper would dare utter the insinuation that Pierce was a drunkard while supporting a drinker like Chandler for the governor- ship.“7 0n the issue of drinking, even the State Temperance Committee got into the act. They asked each candidate this question: "Are you in favor of the Maine Liquor Law and will you use your influence to secure the passage of a law by the legislature of this state at its next session . . . 2" (The Maine Liquor Law was prohibitory legisla- tion). McClelland answered in the affirmative, while Chandler made #8 this seemingly evasive reply. To Hon. J. J. Leonard, Secretary Dear Sir: Absence from the city has prevented an earlier answer to your communication. . . . One of the cardinal principles of the Whig party is opposition to the executive interference with the Legis— uéAdrian'Watchtower, September 27, 1852. 1+7Detroit Free Press, October 9, 1852. h8Detroit Free Press, October 13, 1852. . . ‘ a. - Vb - u- ‘v fly fir; «a UL.» 9wq 7“' JM* VA' fir)“, b“ A ‘ “9-” u: I ‘1 I'V'ITW‘V- ' u», “i:. ;n . . :y‘r‘iy‘. - d‘fi-Uus..t ‘8 w Viv. 31 lative power. Should the Legislature pass the Maine Liquor Law, or one similar, I would cheerfully give it my official sanction and support. Very Respectfully Yours, Z. Chandler Whatever Chandler may have represented in the eyes of his political opponents, he was an indefatigable campaigner for the Whig national and state ticket. He generally spoke in behalf of General Scott and the national ticket, but did inject state issues into the campaign. Chandler claimed that the administration in Lansing was corrupt in virtually every respect, but particularly in letting the printing contracts for the state.“9 He defended himself against the charges that he was a drunkard, that he only wanted the governor's office for the graft it offered,50 that because of his wealth he was not a "common" man, and that he had declared in a letter to an ac- quaintance in Nashua, New Hampshire, that he had money enough to carry Michigan for the‘Whigs.Sl He pronounced all these charges "false as Hell."52 Chandler spoke in some twenty-eight towns in lower Michigan in his bid for the governorship. Whenever and wherever he spoke he was ridiculed by the Democrats, while the Whigs were strangely silent in his defense. To the Democrats, he scattered like an old blunder- buss in his speeches. "If the Whigs will only let him run, he will 1L9Detroit Daily Advertiser, September 22, 1852. 50Detroit Free Press, October 5, 1852. 51Harris, p. 16. 52Speech in Goldwater on Thursday, September 23, 1852, as reported in the Detroit Free Press, September 28, 1852. w .. . a; . . . ,rx 1 -. C . . a T... .5» Tfi 3.. “. .~.. v. AV .am aw u.rn I. . rLé -. . “\U a c w“ a a n... rm .r. I . o o. “v Ab .—I~ fl» rp Q n. . a.» I. : . . .. :— Aw.d \ . .u .: a“... e h . t :4 rw w. 2 u... .C i... L. i o . s s “w Avv .r.n .r. .3 Z» .. Ta ..G . . ~ . l 1 "‘5‘ .. -u.‘ n ~ '- . J "‘ a... \- .. Lw . § w. 5.. L t ml r . L. 8 LL .1 . x c» V T; x 3,. hi. on at .9! 32 hang himself, politically, high."53 His delivery, to them, was mon- strous. In their opinion his infamous proportions, his repetition of stale jokes and staler falsehoods made even the Whigs blush, his coCk- ing of first one eye and then the other and his hammering the desk al- most to pieces shocked his listeners. To the Democrats he spoke like a jackknife being opened and closed.Sh So pronounced was the opposition of General Cass, leader of the Michigan Democrats and Senator from the state, that Chandler laughingly said to friends by way of comment on it: "I am afraid that it will take General Cass's Senatorial seat to balance the ac- count between us."55 The national tide, however, was overwhelmingly against the Whigs, and Chandler lost the state election. He did lead his ticket, however, and received more votes than had ever been given to any Whig candidate for Governor. 0n the national level, the defeat of the Whig ticket was a blow from which the party was not to recover. This was also the last important political action of the Whig party in Michigan. Before another election, most of its members would have gathered around the flag of the infant Republican party. By l85h, the agitation over slavery was at a fever pitch, occasioned by the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill in the United States Congress. In Michigan, the passage of this bill occasioned mass meetings of protest throughout the state. Chandler signed one such call for a meeting held in Detroit on February 18, 1854, and was 53Detroit Free Press, September 22, 1852. 51*Detroit Free Press, September 25, 1852. 55Life of Zachariah Chandler, p. 87. r: . .I ... TL . . a.» . a .l.‘ r L . . l . "r. a «.5 r A W1|¢ .v“ o .5 fr. ‘ s ‘ a. n L. : a . no 3 no u: "2* at; r“ s a. 1a! a. a «u. «D C.) a: a O T; 3» ~ . A“ L.“ ”G - — .1. . . . g 1.. . t. a: o . . . “ ~H. C» v.“ “d 2. W.~ «, v r.“ to a a a n}.- .r.» I» . n. rQ .n 99 . » git-94.1. Wk 0:. O a . A v i a a .. J. .11. a . I.» .n . .ufl WAN. 33 one of the major speakers on the program. The Whigs were strongly opposed to the extension of slavery, but some of the more radical elements of the party had formed them- selves into the Free Soil party and had run a candidate for governor in 1852. In addition, those elements of the Democratic party which could not swallow the Kansas-Nebraska Act had formed themselves into a Free Democratic party. Add the existing Democratic party and one has a total of four major political organizations active in the state of Michigan in 185M. The need for unity among those elements opposed to slavery and its extension became obvious to political observers. Early in l85h, Joseph Warren, then editor of the Detroit Tribune, began to write strong editorials favoring the disbanding of the Whig, Free Soiler, and Free Democratic parties. He proposed that a single new political party be formed. Mr. Chandler did not see the wisdom of this prOposal and fought to maintain the integrity of the party of his forefathers. Though he attended the Jackson Convention, which met on July 6, 185h, for the purpose of organizing the new party and nominating a state ticket, Chandler did not sign the call and was for a time dissatisfied with the ticket nominated at this convention. Chandler was in rather a unique position prior to and follow- ing the convention. By nature a radical, he favored a stronger stand (n1 slavery. .As a radical, he could take no part in the Conservative thig state convention to be held following the Jackson Convention in arl effort to maintain the Whig party. Hence, he attended the July 6tdl meeting and took part in its proceedings. 'While waiting for a :regxort from the platform and nominating committees, Chandler spoke $5, or; Q: ‘. ha a . .,.. .; v: a .. R... .th 11-..; . boy A v V.- 3:1 ta 3 3‘5 If f“ . "r-, U.‘q‘ rA\ l» Nil 9 - . u fig.“ V 1 h \ “0;: ‘C .‘Aaj "Gl 7’3. '& I“ r . ‘Acl :3“- '~‘:n \J") / t. f 6‘ \..’I \n kn It." 3A to the assembled multitude on state issues. In his speech, he sup- ported Kingsley S. Bingham for nomination as the new party's candi- date for governor. The Democrats suggested that a deal had been made to the effect that, if Chandler would step aside for Bingham, and if the new party should gain the ascendency in the state, he would be given the Senate seat in 1857.56 Concerning the naming of the new party, both Joseph Warren and Jacob M. Howard, the chief forces behind the Jackson Convention, agree. Horace Greeley in correspondence with Joseph Warren during the Spring of 185A, suggested that the new party be christened the "Republican Party." It was this suggestion that Jacob Howard carried into committee at Jackson and it was at his urging that the new party was named "Republican."57 The Democratic press screamed that this new abolitionist, "black," "nigger-loving" political party was doomed to failure. It ‘Jas, in the opinion of the Detroit Free Press, a "bastard issue of iLLlicit intercourse . . . a fruit of unnatural amalgamation."58 The ‘EBEtroit Advertiser, a die-hard Whig journal, also condemned the new INDlitical organization, but not in such colorful language.59 Chandler, once he was satisfied that the new political party 11841 a good chance of success, and noting the wholescale shift of the I“3-Clical wing of the Whig party to this new political organization, eniuered into its activities with such zeal that he was called the ‘ 56Detroit Free Press, July 9, l85u. 57The Detroit Post, July 7, 1869. 58Detroit Free Press, July 13, l85h. 59Detroit Daily Advertiser, July 12 and August 21, l85u. e - Y7... ..- .7. . - . t-a V y‘ala: p-w J... v V 933;;33 :E’ " O N’T~ r n . ‘V¢d-Jl -..§. . A }_1 . R . 7 an :3.-a. ' -’ 4.. 1 . "" ‘P‘ V‘._‘, v. ,~ "'5. “h." 41-x. ‘ A .. L1 . a . a . s (I) ’_1 ‘Nu. ‘ 'fi 15 .. 3‘ MN? yvd‘.‘ ‘s A “J U - ..J. I". ‘4 fl. .L" .. ~. 4 ‘~ ; :“:(,-= 4» y A s ~.; '1 . v . . ~ 35 "traveling agent" in Michigan for the Republicans.60 The platform of the new party was adopted unanimously at the Jackson meeting and contained resolutions which appear to have been in advance of the rest of the nation. Among the resolutions were the following: (1) That the institution of slavery . . . is a great moral, social, and political evil; that it was so regarded by the fathers of the Republic. (2) That slavery is a violation of the rights of man as man. (3) That the ordinance of 1787 . . . shows it to have been the purpose of our fathers not to promote but to prevent the spread of slavery . . . and we oppose all attempts . . . to extend slavery. (h) That the United States Congress has full and complete power to legislate concerning the government of the territories. (5) we hold the Kansas-Nebraska Act up to public execration. (6) To the non-slaveholding men of the territories we say: 'fiBe of good cheer, persevere in the right, remember the Republican nuotto: 'The North will defend you.”61 The result of the election of 185% in Michigan was the com- IXLete triumph of the "fusion" ticket. The Republican candidate for Gfrvernor, Bingham, received h3,652 votes; Barry, his Democratic oppo- nent, received 38,095. With the victory of 185M firmly in hand in Michigan, Chandler l-‘c‘i-boredwithout ceasing to give the new party strength and vigor. On SEifptember 12, 1855, Chandler addressed an immense mass meeting in 60Detroit Free Press, July 13, 185M. 61Life of Zachariah Chandler, pp. 109-111. . a”. "’5" «y. 7...; o UV :- -- 5A-- . ‘-,—/ W3vwn:¢— 5..” due. J-'5 L1 \"<"'" 52‘» we .a y - v. ‘ 7-“; ‘-| LA-AKA. '- S‘2vb-3‘ '1 _‘ .s “-‘k;3.. v- u .‘A N“ r 'W §v r -. - ~ . . 7‘ u.\_,*:“. 1". ‘ ‘- vc- . .. a“ - Mp, ‘ “33,91" Y 4, ‘ ‘J-L. I“ ~¢ A: . .~ § ”R ‘_ 2. [I‘- c‘ ‘ “ Na. 92?- . wk ‘1' \‘ , ‘;' l'l -_§\ .\ >“Rn‘ .1..‘c‘n.:m T . - L4. I I (I) l v 36 Kalamazoo, and in the name of the Republican party denounced the border-ruffian crimes in Kansas in the strongest terms. On May 30, 1856, he was one of the major speakers at a large meeting held in Detroit to protest the assault of Preston Brooks upon Charles Sumner. Chandler said on this occasion: Had I been on the floor of the Senate when that assault occurregé so help me God, that ruffian’s blood would have flowed. At the first national convention of the Republican party, held at Pittsburg on February 22, 1856, Chandler headed the Michigan delegation and was a member for Michigan on the first Republican National Committee. The Convention nominated John C. Fremont and William L. Dayton for President and Vice-President respectively, though Chandler and four others of the Michigan delegation voted for .Abraham.Lincoln for the Vice-Presidential candidacy.63 In the ensuing campaign, Chandler was among the most active (of'the Michigan Republican leaders, speaking in many towns in Michi- gfian, including a political rally at Kalamazoo on August 27th with Aflaraham Lincoln. ‘While the Democratic Presidential candidate, Buch- aJlan, carried the national canvass, Michigan gave her votes to the :Rfipublican candidate, Fremont, by a margin of 19,526 votes. In addi- tixln, the Republicans elected twentyenine of the thirty-one Senators arui sixty-three of the eighty Representatives to the Michigan Legis- lature .6)+ ‘ 62Life of Zachariah Chandler, p. 120. 63Charles‘W. Johnson, The First Three Republican National conVentions, 1856,»186Q,_and l86h1Minneapolis: Harrison and Smith, 1 93), p.30. 61*Life of Zachariah Chandler, p. 123. _ \p... n a: "n p . _ . a a- A. / ’ a '\ 7-..:a . N' .. .. . V. -v‘-‘- v ‘ v-- _-..C“,‘ I '. a " ‘3‘ . l q “‘w *r - ‘ ""‘-‘ \-.'~. Viv-3 “ Jq‘.¢*“ l‘.‘ “1‘; 0“ TC. “ 6‘ J..J—A - 2 ,- . .~. , - _,,_ s..,,, -,.v_‘ ‘ v: JHLJF‘fi ‘ ~ , .- \I"--~ ‘bfi‘v hi“. '1‘.“~- .. G._‘_“__‘. ‘~‘ ~ r- “J.“ \Q‘Pp‘n‘ .. ~V“1K'v . ‘v . "fl . fl -. . c.‘ . fr. . .q, .H ‘- ‘ b“"§— k"‘,»~‘ §‘;‘-‘ "v- .— . ‘ A... “‘9 4. - '- d‘ t »_.v cg,‘ -. ’A -..~ 3-.‘ . y A" M — " -V‘.‘.~ ,. K To “ 7-K ‘ .._Q‘v-V: ‘ : N‘ u ‘ - «- ,. a - YPA‘A 'v\~f: _~. I‘ ’ “" f '7: .v . x J“ ~-r ‘1 ""~ v ‘~~c‘fi '- ut ’y. ~ r‘ . q.“ . l,’ P" "~.. g 37 When this predominately Republican legislature met in January of 1857, one of its first tasks was to choose a man to fill the seat of Lewis Cass, a Democrat, who had resigned from the Senate to enter President Buchanan's cabinet.65 The leading candidates for the posi- tion were Isaac Christiancy, Austin Blair, Moses Wisner, Jacob M. Howard, Kinsley S. Bingham, and Zachariah Chandler. Chandler was from the first a leading candidate. As a seeker of the position, Chandler used every means at his disposal to win, and every move he made at Lansing in January of 1857 was to win the victory. This was something new. According to the "rules of the game" the man should not seek the office, but rather, the office should seek the man. His Opponents used his energetic campaigning as a fact against him, while they assumed the most dignified outward indifference. This aspect of the Senatorial in-fighting was commented upon by the Detroit Free IZE§§E,'which went on to say of the other candidates: "They bring ‘their triple batter to bear upon Chandler; he must be silenced before army of them have a chance. .As yet, he is enough for them all. Hflne outside influence in favor of Chandler is fully six to one for any other candidate--if not for all combined."66 If there was any doubt concerning who would get the Senate incnnination, it was dispelled in Lansing on January 8, 1857. On the final of five caucus ballots, Chandler garnered eighty of the eighty-eight Vtrtes. The total vote in the legislature gave Chandler a total of 650. Clever Bald, Michigan in Four Centuries (New York: Ha"I'Per and Brothers, 1954), p. 259. 66Detroit Free Press, January 8, 1857. F'" -.. HF -‘-—. V. «II— -.H _ i' «Q :Q “J. .w a. :u. a . ...4 ya a; T; a h. .r i. c. L . r. .14. . a .n. h. :9 .c‘ b: v. 3‘ vi rig ..v 1.. . :g Uni. U. .. .4 a c .2 If; .3 ck ...: 2 Ad 0 . a: «Q or. u w% : .\ AK. A: y .. 2 .3 w . v... Q... C m. .3 Co .nu no . t. to L t .5; an; at p u xpd uh Cy a: 0. 2. a: a: a: .n . L. r .. . a: .r‘ ~r. 55.. .n. 2 t ...I .. . a; K... v, ~. » 38 eighty-nine votes out of a total of one hundred and six and he be- came Michigan's first Republican Senator.67 The Democrats claimed that Michigan had sent to the Senate the weakest man who ever took a seat in that body from any state. However, Were he only weak--did he know but just enough to keep his mouth shut--the humiliation might escape observation in Washington. The difference is that the man is not aware that he is a loafer, and an ass, and, comparatively speaking, an idiot. He has a settled conviction that if he were not born great, he has only lacked the opportunity to acquire greatness. We are sure that when he gets to the Senate he will be contin- ually opening his mouth instead of keeping it . . . shut; and . as often as he does Open it . . . Michigan will hgge occasion to be the object of broad and sarcastic leers. It is well to keep in mind that these attacks represented the views of a party once in the majority, now in the minority. Michigan ‘was definitely a Republican state in 1857, and barbed attacks such as the one quoted above did not go unnoticed or unanswered. The Mar- sihall, Michigan, Statesman, typical of most out-state Republican pa- Lxers, sprang to Chandler‘s defense. After condemning the Democratic Ixress for their abusive tactics, the Statesman defended Chandler the Ruin, but found itself hard put to defend his use of the platform. But we have no fears of Chandler, we believe him to be a true man, and that the interests of Michigan will not suffer in his hands. .A national Republican, he will not forget that he represents Michigan in the national councils, and being so intimately acquainted with her condition and wants, he will originate such measures as will rebound to her benefit and prosperity. He will prove no doughface, no apologist for slavery extensionists, no cringing sycophant to southern braggadocios, and no doer of southern will. If his speeches prove not to be replete with eloquence, elegant diction, 67Detroit Daily Advertiser, January 11, 1857. 68Detroit Free Press, January 13, 1857. 39 rounded periods, logical arguments, and cogent reasoniggs, his acts and votes will be eloquent on the right side. Chandler's political biographer suggests a variety of reasons for his successful bid for the Senatorship. Author Harris suggests that his reputation as a merchant, his lack of education, and his wealth all played a part in his election.70 All these things are most certainly true, but it is perhaps also significant to realize why he was sent to the Senate, as well as to consider how. He was chosen by a legislature elected by a people not highly educated, a people of the frontier who loved freedom for themselves and who would not have it denied to others. They adhered to the principles laid down in the first Republican platform in l85h. They were not looking for a compromiser--they had had done with Southern control in the national councils. In this writer's opinion, the people of Michigan did not really desire a statesman either, for if we examine the Re- ;publican platform of 185%, we see little chance for reconciliation. that they did want, and what they did get, was a man not unlike them- sselves in habits or education, a man strong and rough-hewn, a self- nuade man who did not seem to be by nature a compromiser. His charge ffirom.the voters was to take the offensive in the protection of the irrterests of the Old Northwest, especially Michigan; and to resist e\nery effort of the South to extend or perpetuate their institution Of‘ slavery or to press their political advantage in the national CCngress. In Zachariah Chandler they had just the man for the job theEywanted done. .As it turned out, events were such in the ensuing ‘ 69Marshall (Michigan) Statesman, January 21, 1857. 70Harris, pp. h2-h3. U .. ' a 1 ~ ‘0 ., .3 J. .... _ . A7- ‘3’ .\ 0“ r‘» h , vL. t..- I‘d“; a: R .. ‘ ’9' “at. . ...L.\ “"d“‘ . :7. n m. ‘--. 5“! J. y“ a , ‘ . :“1 r“ ‘,_ " ‘Nu ..Q‘ '1'“ §~‘ Y‘H ‘-~‘ C.\.7‘r-‘- ‘4) : U...‘.“ 0 C pvt-'1‘ . v ~~¥ l h. ____. s.‘ t "1’ ‘ I \‘. ‘ -L 5‘», -‘~ FT- .L:-Y" ‘ k“~: :11” ..\ a.“ . ELA‘TQ . ' \ “\ ‘ _,V .‘Q"‘ ." ._‘ K ..,,‘!,I "33“ e " yykc‘ ta .A‘A . \y ‘4 ’ I". '|\ 15‘ #0 quarter of a century, that he remained in his Senate seat represent- ing Michigan. Certainly, in the years following 1857, Chandler's skillful use of political patronage and money helped him to develop a strong political organization, and this cannot be discounted. How- ever, it is also true that he was saying and doing what the people of the Old Northwest wanted said and done during these crucial times. From the beginning, Chandler was true to this trust. As the Free Press predicted, it was not long before his voice was heard on the floor of the Senate. In December of 1857, he attended his first Republican caucus, where it was decided to protest the composi- tion of the Senate committees. The Democrats were in the majority and had virtually ignored the Republican minority. On December 16, 1857, Senator Chandler rose to protest, closing with these words: . you She DemocratE have the power today; you can elect your committees as you see fit; you can give us [Ehe RepublicahE] one representative on a committee of five, or one on a committee of seven, or none on any of the committees, if you think proper. Exercise that power in your own dis- cretion; but, gentlemen, beware! for the day is not far distant when the measure you mete to us today shall be meted to you again. His major concerns in the Senate from 1857-1860 were the iliternal improvements needed by Michigan and the resisting of South- eIHi attempts to gain favorable legislation. The first bill Chandler Iplwesented was to improve the St. Clair Flats by deepening the channel atHJve them. It was defeated twice in the first session, again in the IJEDCt session, and four times in the first Congressional session of 31359L At the second session of the thirty-fifth Congress, in 1859, Chfiflfldler's protests of two years before bore fruit and he was placed \— 71U.S., Congressional Globe, 35th Cong., 1st 8883-; 1857: XXVII, Part 1, no. ‘rC' Q "Q a“-.. L. \,A, .‘_“r- \— L7...3‘.E . 4}. ~:;\~ —-. ,-- -"“'-- A»; A““V‘ ‘«‘¥’. ‘n- . ‘::,.‘ ““r‘tr. yd-4q-:d-l ‘\'v—& T . " \ .a..... ‘1‘; g 4 -4. 5—. a T‘fiw‘us " vv'-* 1."/_ ~.'~ .J I -‘.vv‘;. 14“ ¢v x' ' -~‘ ; \ fly. " _. ._ \..JN.’ a. . ‘r- fi‘ ‘ '— ~ ~vs. ‘ & U‘~:‘k_~r - ‘ "|.- Lv--§ 3y. P‘ 5‘s y-;‘-‘ u-~ '5. 5 ‘ i ‘ 5. D. has.» - 'm ‘5... \ p \ .- \‘ s 5: a. ‘ . “\ ‘ \ ‘ V 9‘ A ‘va—Pa ‘V‘ q x. ~~son ‘\ .‘ .a V... \“‘.“ ‘8“ 2'75..- ‘-‘ A J § ‘. s g“ x t‘. ‘ ‘._ .EN .“ a \ ,, -~ . I“ "on s ‘... u. \-. — v - ‘ s \‘ ‘6 \ a w. ._. -\ \ \ . ~ / \ ._ \ Al on the Committee on Commerce, where he remained, first as a member, then as chairman, for the remainder of his continuous career in the Senate. During these years, Chandler debated such proposals as the Pacific Railroad Bill, the Homestead Act, and Buchanan's scheme to acquire Cuba by negotiation. It was during the debate on this latter resolution that Chandler again made his voice heard for the Republi- cans. In his opinion this scheme of Buchanan's was purely a means to get a corruption fund for bribery to put the Democrats in office in 1860. To him, it was mere election scheme, as was the Dred Scott De- cision, and he would have no part in either. He blamed corruption of the Supreme Court for the Dred Scott Decision and said he would not support a Constitution altered by such a court.72 As a prominent member of a group of Northern "fire-eaters," {Senator Chandler was cordially hated and often insulted by the Demo- cxrats. The Republican Congressmen had not forgotten the attack on Cflnarles Sumner a few years earlier and the leaders of the Radicals fkelt it necessary to protect themselves. Thus it was that Senators (Canneron, Wade, and Chandler made a pact in 1859 to defend each other ZFINJm.any attack of any sort made by Southerners, and, in addition, to dfixfend any insult of any Southern leader on any Northern Congressman}3 In'the words of the compact they were "to carry the quarrel into the <3Oi§fin.7" In line with this pact, it was reported that Chandler ‘ 72U.S., Congressional Globe, 35th Cong., 2d 8888-; 1859: XXVIII, Part 2, 1078. 73Detroit Post and Tribune, November 3, 1879. 7"A. G. Riddle, Life of Benjamin F. wade (Cleveland: 1886), P- 216. .i V. .2 a: Tc 2 3 w. T: .2 r. .ru 3. .t . . “a a,“ a. :. Cu 7"“ t , r‘a ‘5‘ | a . ’ N gov «r , . r. Drum.” - {\v ‘p (H‘Ni . U» 'I‘ 1+2 interposed himself between a Southern Senator and Mr. Seward. The Southerner backed down saying "Oh, damn Chandler, he'll fight."75 Perhaps because of these incidents and his constant scolding of the Democrats, he was labeled by Democratic Senator Fitch of Indiana as "that Xantippe in pants."76 The 1859 session of Congress opened under the excitement of John Brown's unsuccessful attempt to capture the Federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry. In a speech on a resolution to appoint a committee to investigate the John Brown raid, Chandler ridiculed the whole affair, but wanted it to stand as a warning to traitors--both North and South. . . If seventeen, or fifty, or one hundred men were to attack a town of the size of Harper's Ferry anywhere through- out the region with which I am acquainted, they would simply be put in jail in thirty minutes, and then they would be tried for their crimes, and if guilty, they would be punished, and there would be no row made about it. If seventeen men were to attack the city of Detroit in any capacity, and the Mayor should appoint as a guard more than seventeen constables to take care of them, the City Auditor would decline to audit the account; he would not pay it. .At present I shall merely say that I am in favor of this committee, for reasons different from those which have been stated. I am in favor of it because the first execution for treason that has ever occurred in these United States has just taken place . . . and I want it to go upon the records of the Senate, in the most solemn manner, and to be held up as a warning to traitors, come they from North, South, East, or West-—dare to raise your impious hands against this Government, against our Constitution and our laws, and you hang. . . Threats have been made year after year, for the last thirty years, that in certain events the Union will be dissolved. Sir, it is no small matter to dissolve the Union. It means a bloody revolution, or it means a halter. It means a successful over- 75Detroit Post and Tribune, November 3, 1879. 76U.S., Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 1st Sess., 1860, XXDC, Part 3, 2&03. 5*-<- - - rv‘ .. «u; - . ‘- 9 3‘in fir. “ M.“ V’; ‘ n 1.1% F; ‘-- . . ,1 ~ ..... N It‘d— "‘ if. ‘Vvvt "L «a .. .s a ,M ugn‘.“,‘~‘: S - . a s - , --V‘-‘21 + 3 ‘ “"“ ~‘ v . ‘ -3“, ’W‘“ n -u ,‘ "Hes“ . fl U‘ ‘ h“ o. .. l a 12‘- ~- “no. ‘ «V‘ ‘ A‘ - L‘, ‘f‘.‘ 5 '~ V ‘9 “VJ -.~‘ s? F. ‘V § .“- OK‘hx “v 2 ‘ \INI V . . .v- ‘I w “sac: - \‘ ,. o _ .‘ ‘5- \‘4 p_q\ .J 1»- s:. \i v‘ 5‘ v“, Vi- v“« ‘f‘ 1+3 turning of this Government, or it means the fate of John Brown and I want that to go solemnly on the records of this Senate. 7 1860 was an election year, and when Abraham Lincoln was cho- sen as the standard bearer for the Republican party at its convention in Chicago, politicians from the frontier states set themselves for a hard campaign. Opposing Lincoln was a Democratic party split asun- der. The Northern wing nominated Stephen A. Douglas; the Southern wing nominated Breckinridge of Kentucky; while the so-called Consti- tutional Union Convention in Baltimore nominated John Bell of Ten- 8 nessee.7 Expecting a hard campaign, Congress adjourned on June 28th of 1860 so that its members might engage actively in the contest. Chandler again proved an untiring campaigner. He spoke for the na- tional ticket of Lincoln and Hamlin primarily in three states--New York, which he felt was the key to Republican success,79 Illinois, and Michigan. Ben Wade of Ohio and Cassius Clay of Kentucky were brought to Michigan to help in the campaign,and Chandler bent every effort to have Lincoln and Trumbull visit Detroit on the occasion of the Michigan State Fair. He wrote to Lincoln: "Michigan is one of d...80 the certain states, hence no political motive can be assigne Lincoln, however, refused on the grounds that he had best not be 77Detroit Daily.Advertiser, December 28, 1859. 78Catton, pp. 36-67. 79Letter to Lyman Trumbull, August 28, 1860; Papers of Lyman Trumbull, Vol. 23, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 80Letter of Chandler to Lincoln, August 28, 1860; Robert Todd Lincoln Collection of the Papers of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 16, Library of COngress, Washington, D.C. o I' , I V.-A rm 1 1“!“ ‘A -‘~ 1 5y 4...; ~oV- W F . r '4 -0. A- | h my- V‘rs. a“: \ A ~. uh showing himself around the country during the campaign.81 The enthusiasm with which Chandler engaged in the campaign can best be demonstrated by describing the spirit with which he entered the Illinois canvas. Following his campaign tour of New York in August and his speaking in Michigan in September, he moved to Illinois during the last two weeks of October to help Lyman Trum- bull maintain his Senate seat. He wrote to Trumbull: I can talk twice a day indoors or once to a large crowd out- doors with an occasional evening meeting under cover. As to night traveling fatigue of it, it is not of the slightest conse- quence. Make your appointments where they can be met and they shall be. I will rest after the election.8 I usually speak twice . . . once in and once out of doors. 2 Chandler's condition after three months of fierce campaign- ing was commented on by the Springfield (Illinois) Journal following a "monster Republican meeting" in that city. Its reporter found Senator Chandler extremely hoarse and suffering from exhaustion.83 If victory is any guage, then Chandler's efforts were not in vain, for the election of 1860 was a triumph for the Republicans of the Northwest. Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa turned in Republican majorities. Lincoln, while he did not re- ceive a majority of the popular votes cast in the rest of the nation, did receive a plurality of the votes over his three opponents and was duly elected President. 81Ray P. Bosler, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. IV (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1953), pp. 102-103. 82Letter of Chandler to Trumbull, October 5, 1860; Papers of Lyman Trumbull, Vol. 23, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 83Springfield Journal as quoted in the Detroit Daily Tribune, October 13, 1860. o ‘2 .‘Y\ .1 1'» a}; J - I'll. . . . . y r . .J «‘V \M» G...— v ...—l« "in". u t t a. m. .: A, v .. . w . pic. . 549 ~O‘4‘ 7‘1"-” :1 1+5 Congress met again in December of 1860 and the Republicans of the Northwest let it be known that they were done with compro- 8h mise. Henry Waldron, Representative of the Second District,wrote from'Washington on January t, 1861: I do not think that you need be apprehensive about compro— mises. . . . The sentimenésof our delegation is that We have nothing to apologize for. ‘While the Radicals may have been unwilling to compromise, Lincoln and Seward were searching for ways to placate the South and bring the seceeded states back into the Union. If unable to pre- vent armed conflict, they at least wanted to delay it. Hence, Seward supported the peace conference which met in Virginia in the spring of 1861.86 Chandler felt that no Republican should attend the confer- ence, but Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois all sent delegates. Michigan did not participate, but after the confer- ence had been in session for some time, Senator Chandler and his colleague, Senator Bingham, were urged by the representatives of Massachusetts and New York to send delegates so that the "forces of freedom" might be strengthened on the floor.87 Following these pleas for help, both Michigan Senators telegraphed Governor Austin Blair to send men to the convention. Chandler's telegram was to haunt him the rest of his political careen 8"Kenneth Stampp, And the War Came (Baton Rouge: The Louis- iana State University Press, 1950), p. 237. 85Detroit Free Press, January 25, 1861. 86For an excellent account of the secession crisis, see David.M. Potter, Lincoln and His Party in the Secession Crisis (New Haven, Yale University Press, 19H2). 87Life of Zachariah Chandler, p. 189. ‘ sis \l .3 a . n. a; a a; w : ~\~ L. Ms L\ a». .ru .»\‘ 11 ~\-‘ v\. :| IL. .A- . 'L I. . r L .Q m w ‘I AH‘ w . 6D "I C. :1. . a a \ .FQ ul . t r . 4 '1 m .. a. A6 After urging Governor Blair to send "stiff-backed men or none," he added this postscript: Some of the manufacturing States think a fight would be awful. Without a little blood-égtting, this Union will not, in my Oplnlon, be worth a rush. When arraigned for this telegram on the floor of the Senate by Senator Powell of Kentucky, Chandler professed ignorance of the matter, but said that he adopted the sentiments so stated. He called in his defense a letter written to Colonel Smith by Thomas Jefferson on November 13, 1787, wherein Jefferson stated: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time wéth the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. 9 He later attempted to soften the sentiments he had stated in the spring of 1861 by suggesting that what he really meant was that if an armed conflict came, the loyal people of the North should be prepared to shed a little blood. This, however, is not the message he sent to Governor Blair and the spectre of this telegram was to plague him until his death. Prior to Lincoln's inauguration, Chandler castigated the Southern leaders as traitors and would have Southern Senators expel- led from the Senate. In a speech on February 19, 1861, he charged that members of the cabinet were disloyal and that President Buchanan was an "imbecile" for his conciliatory behavior toward Southern traitors.9O 88Life of Zachariah Chandler, p. 190. 89U.S., Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 2d Sess., 1861, XXX, Part 2, 1370. 9OU.S., Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 2d Sess., 1861, XXX, Part 2, 1018. I‘v‘i“ \p-A < 54 \ Jud--vutu .— 2;“"‘..':. ‘71. 5b. \ . g. _ .‘ wv' , Vvul :9 "in: ""2 {1 - “" V “(.1 ‘ I CJ" " - "I‘V’i “-49 out... I a-..‘w.v~c-: v- ‘ “'-—~ a-..: b -__ \ a- ‘v “A- ~ 3'1 A 9. “~L ‘V' ‘._.. 1:; _ $ I 'L-.g1"; ~‘ .‘>‘ ‘- ‘» ’I‘A A. .4 ‘.. .b: I W... ‘ ‘ ‘. a 'M 1: 0 ”I, N‘ “‘7 ., ~J r_ “‘77 . rfi‘s“. . “ “ .1“ a *,1 ‘. FA sir»; “ “" fiz‘n ‘A‘ ”A ~~L§ ‘~-. "7“. a“, 4. C“ \_ \‘s: “'5 “Q :~_ >_ V‘ B F'- g _. ‘3 : ‘ ‘51 r \f: I N \iNA‘3— V... \\ l+7 Thus Chandler, along with the other Radical Republicans, was anxious for war when it became evident that it was impossible to pre- serve the Union in any other way. As we have suggested earlier, Lin- coln was attempting to avoid a conflict if at all possible. For this he was despised by the Radicals in general, but chiefly by Wade of Ohio, Sumner of Massachusetts, and Chandler of Michigan. However, by attempting to aid Fort Sumpter in early 1861, Lincoln did, in fact, commit an act of war, and when it became clear that the President would now be forced to follow a policy of armed conflict, he received the full support of the Republican "War Hawks."91 They had previ- ously warned Lincoln that reinforcements should be sent to Sumpter and offered the opinion that delay would bring disaster.92 As the Rebellion advanced through the spring of 1861 with little important military action taken by the North, Senator Chandler was furious. With other Radicals, he urged President Lincoln to or- der a military advance, and applied much pressure on General Scott, who commanded the army, for action. When Lincoln issued a call for 75,000 men for three months duty in the army, Chandler felt this was in error. He believed that the war was doomed to be a long one and felt that 500,000 would have been more appropriate. On the 4th of July, 1861, the Thirty-Seventh Congress met in extra session, and adjourned on the 6th of August, after having en- acted laws to increase the army and navy and to provide the means and 91Harry T. Williams, Lincoln and the Radicals (University of Wisconsin Press, l9h1), p. 23. 92Stampp, p. 269. wy‘r \‘r‘: ’4“...~4- - .1 . Qrf 1"” .u..- — .M~. t. -. . rd . . L. a. do a. 3 .. .1 .1: . Y. CM vi; . . .9 \ DH 1. . r“ .r« w V. a“ 3 . c a . j .r u a; u. — ~xv u. a, . r a n4 CO v . . . 03 ”I U» r... h- a... a a. 1+3 authority necessary for the vigorous prosecution of the war. During this session, Chandler introduced a bill on July 15th calling for the confiscation of the property "of all Governors, members of Legis- latures, Judges, and all military officers above the rank of lieu- tenant who shall take up arms against the United States or aid and abet treason."93 It was referred to the Committee on Judiciary, which reported back a bill of narrower scope. This narrower version was passed, but within a year Congress adopted a bill which was, in principle, like the one proposed by Chandler. To Chandler, the Rebellion was above politics--it was a question of preserving the Union and the Constitution. On July 18th, he said on the floor of the Senate: The Senator from Indiana says there are three parties in the country. I deny it, sir. There are but two parties, patriots and traitors--none others in this body nor in the country. I care not what proposition may be brought up to save the Union, to preserve its integrity, patriots will vote for it; and I care not what proposition you may bring up to dissolve the Union, to break up this government, traitorsuwill vote for that. And those are the only two parties.. .9 The Radical pressure for a vigorous prosecution of the war culminated on July 21, 1861, in the first battle of Bull Run, a dis- astrous defeat for the North. Even after this defeat, however, the Radicals were undaunted.95 In September of 1861, Chandler boasted that his friend McClellan would soon bag the Confederates, but by mid-October, he began to lose faith in the young General commanding the Army of the Potomac, who, it seemed, could train men well, but 93Detroit Tribune, July 17, 1861. 9"Life of Zachariah Chandler, p. 210. 95Life of Zachariah Chandler, p. 211. a r . H» m L“ \n‘. m -’~J-w f5- 1.. . 1 «Q r: ‘.‘ 1‘.» V ‘ ,. I. S . 1 1.‘ Wk 1 ‘ Q.- C.» an.‘ .5. . . . hr. ~ ‘ I... ~ ‘ T. m“ . a a .4 m e z . 2. so a... I ‘ a... F: C n. H... I n... 1+9 could not or would not fight. McClellan managed to turn the wrath of the Radicals against his commander, General Scott, and in the fall of 1861, Scott was relieved. Now General McClellan assumed a dual re- sponsibility as Commander of the Army and Commander of the Army of the Potomac. Finally, there was a battle. On October 21, 1861, a portion of General Stone's division commanded by Colonel E. D. Baker was se- verely defeated at the battle of Ball's Bluff.96 Colonel Baker, a former Radical Senator from Oregon, was killed in this encounter. For this defeat the Radicals blamed General Stone and had grave sus- picians about General McClellan.97 Out of the Ball’s Bluff disaster and the Radical anger con- cerning it, developed one of the most formidable challenges to Lin- coln's war policy. Wade, Sumner, and Chandler felt that in some way McClellan had been responsible for the whole affair, and they deter- mined to examine the history of the battle in the hope of getting at McClellan through Stone.98 Hence, during a discussion of military disasters on the floor of the Senate, Chandler offered the following resolution on December 5, 1861: Resolved: That a committee of three be appointed to inquire into the disasters of Bull Run and Edwards Ferry with power to send for persons and papers. Senator Grimes of Iowa and Senator Lane of Kansas offered 96Mitchell, p. #2. 97Williams, pp. h6-h7. 98Williams, p. #2. 99U.S., Congressional Globe, 37th Cong., 2d Sess., 1861, )CXXII, Part 3, l7. , 'A”:r “”51“ ' ,“nrhs-v r q. r‘ -Q-v va‘ \-.- x I V ~§‘ ~d~~ h-‘\'“ r. T a. L; t . a 2“ . r 2 7 IV a; .. . «run ~c N V H‘ In ‘5 U a. .4 ¥uk C I 4.4 DC : a v. .3 .. E 5o amendments to the motion which would have carried the investigation of the committee far beyond the limits set in the original resolu- tion, but Senator Chandler did not wish that any but the two battles mentioned in the original motion be considered. "The scenes of these disasters are right here in our presence; the evidence is at hand; and it will be a very easy matter to investigate those two cases. . The blame should be put to rest where it belongs."100 The amendments were defeated, but Senator Grimes offered a substitute motion to set up a joint committee to inquire into all the disasters that had attended the public arms. This was opposed by Chandler on the grounds that he favored a separate committee for each theatre Of war, but in the end the amended motion of Grimes was passed by a vote of 33-3, and the famous Joint Committee on Conduct of the War was born. Chandler was chosen a member of the Committee and took an active part in its hearings, but because he was not a lawyer, he de- clined the chairmanship when it was offered to him and took little part in the gathering of the evidence or in the strictly legal work of the Committee.101 The Northern defeat at Ball's Bluff on October 2lst, in no way dampened Chandler's desire for aggressive military action. Writ- ing to his friend and lawyer, James F. Joy, on October 27, 1861, he said: lOOMaterial concerning the motions and the final passage of Senator Grimes' bill is taken from the U.S., Congressional Globe, 37th Cong., 2d Sess., 1861, XXXII, Part 1, 17—32. lOlHarris, p. 59. m. A r at J I y ya d‘ . a. .71 ,‘. prw‘ '\ VM--‘- 1. w ~ .. ..: m p y . a a; 1. _ T n.. .. ‘ a; Pa 2.. C 2.. E .r. .1 «U . r a e a ._ l w . -1 t m. a. 2 ...u a a «v are 3 Lu «J Ya |< ‘ Y‘ A.» an .1 » “ ‘ ..u 1. ‘3 .5... ...< \. .hv L a .n.‘ 2‘ Q. .n.\ C .L ... 3.x \~.‘.\ ‘flg 51 The hell is to pay. There is no plan for fight here and no possibility of one. . . . Wade, Trumbull, and myself were with— McClelland and Lincoln until twelve last night. They are frightened. With 170,000 well in hand, they talk about going into winter quarters without a battle. We can win a victory in twenty-four hours. . . . McClelland is timid and weak. If we do not win a victory or fighthnow the game is up and the government we recognize is ruined.lUZi On November 16, 1861, he again put his thoughts on paper. To Chandler, everyone but the Radicals were wrong about war policy. Writing to Henry Lord, Counsul of the United States at Manchester, England, he explained the terrible strain he was under. The fact is, we have had an awful load to carry. Lincoln means well, but has no force of character. He is surrounded by old fogy Army officers, more than one-half of whom are downright traitors and one-half of the other sympathize with the South. The next year, 1862, was an election year in Michigan and the Democrats chose to make Zachariah Chandler the major issue of the campaign. He was denounced by them for his every action as Senator, but especially his "blood-letting" letter and his duties as a member of the Committee on Conduct of the War. He was even blamed for Northern defeats. Realistically, however, the Democrats could not hope to carry jMichigan against the Republicans and they knew it. Hence, they tried two specific tactics to defeat Chandler. One was to suggest that they and the Republicans unite to form a front against the Rebellion, but the Official Republican organization refused this overture. Some 102Letter of Chandler to James F. Joy, October 27, 1861; .Ianes F. Joy Papers, Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library. 103Letter of Chandler to Robert M. Zug, November 16, 1861; Ihjbert M. Zug Papers, Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library. nfiv" -qu L'véuy. ‘ .5 D""‘ r ( —\- 0‘-..~v v— ——. i a - 4. "c C '- sax. V l ‘ .. _ _ '1'“: "’J'j“v‘ “" ‘~v h‘e\x. - ‘11:”?‘er 1 '-~_; Pu" my. Mac; r“ ‘. - #_v_‘-‘ .. ‘ CQ‘N es. ‘ ~"-‘-L ‘L a: ~ L “-12?" wv ‘5-.'l‘- h " r a b ? v_. ““‘2 .1 .‘. ‘P.A L..' “2‘2. ‘ ~ Ix“ YU- :15 “»~; r- - sin .4. gx‘l C I fi“v\_ ‘\ '~ '- ‘k—Q \fi *‘ N. \ ~ NfJ 2».— “ ‘a r‘ \\ 1~5 H. 's \ 52 Conservative Republicans, however, did join with the Democrats to form a "fusion" party which ran candidates in the election. The Free 'Press blamed Chandler for the Official Republican refusal, saying that he blocked the move because it would mean his defeat for the U. S. Senate.lO" The other tactic of the Democratic organization was to praise the Republican party in general, but to heap much abuse on Chandler personally. They charged, truly enough, that Chandler had the Re- publican organization of Michigan in his "breeches pocket," and they said it would be impossible for any Republican to vote his party's ticket without endorsing their "blood-letting" Senator. It was all a plot, they said. No man would be elected on the Republican ticket to the state legislature who was not secretly pledged to vote for Chand- ler’s return to the Senate.105 To the Republicans of Michigan there was another issue in the e1ection--the preservation of the country from its armed rebel ene- mies and its more dangerous foes, their Northern (Democratic Copper- head) sympathizers. Regarding the personal abuse heaped upon Senator Chandler, the Detroit Advertiser and Tribune had this to say: No Senator or public man, of Michigan, at least, was ever subjected to such premeditated, systematic, constant, base, and willful misrepresentation and calumny, as has characterized the assaults of the Free Press and its semi-secession followers, upon the public and private character of Senator Chandler. These assaults have evinced a malicious mendacity, a personal vindictiveness and hate never found except among the naturally 10"Detroit Free Press, September 8, 1862. 105Detroit Free Press, September 5, 1862. .r a.— \. ~vm- b'»' a q- ~;7\r~' d. A~¢ "M-vy-F -_..~ yang- N a \~s s a .. . 53 low and base. . . . Mr. Chandler and_his acts, the performance of his dugy, fully, fearlessly,[§ill/ . . . be his own vindi- cation.lO — The vote gave the election again to the Republicans, though by a somewhat diminished majority, and when the Michigan Legislature met in Lansing in January of 1863, its first task was to elect a U.S. Senator. Chandler's control of the Republican party in Michigan was soon in evidence. His lobby was immense, "including nearly every federal officeholder in the State. . . ."107 In the first informal ballot of the Republican caucus, Mr. Chandler was the unanimous choice. It was made official and the contest moved to the floor of the Legislature.108 James F. Joy, who had broken with Chandler over the Senator's extreme Radicalism, was the candidate of the "fusion" party. He was not present at the capitol and did not want the nomination, but he had written a pamphlet entitled "Address to the Legislature" in which he condemned Senator Chandler. This pamphlet was placed on the desks of the Legislators just prior to the voting in an attempt to influ- ence them against Chandler. This tactic, however, was unsuccessful, as the Radicals moved swiftly to get their man elected. The vote was taken on January 8th, the second day of the session, and Chandler re- ceived sixty of the ninety-five votes of the House and eighteen of the thirty-two votes of the Senate before his election was made offi- cial in joint session.109 106Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, November 5, 1862. 107Detroit Free Press, January 10, 1863. 108Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, January 9, 1863. 109Detroit Free Press, January 10, 1863. Ad—xvoA‘ . "I ‘ s “‘ FFI‘Y—V I ‘A l J. dag... . .A Lv -_i . .r‘.v -"‘flo-' ~""' “‘7‘. \r' - «My, 'Tn~ “at; ’1 \ . ‘ 1 q 7" a s. I \ "n . u- - P i X'\IY ’. .s. V J“, 1 3‘. a 'L ‘L i. \{g- r Kr fl. ., ‘ ‘ .q., JLLLC fir: ‘ --;‘ 1'. . I 7““ II-~‘,‘{;-v‘ ’N ‘§.‘ v 0 ’? Vi~ .:~",. ”.4“ ‘7“ ' if" “ ‘4‘.) l I ‘ .H I} {Na a...“ 3 P 5t With the election successfully concluded, Senator Chandler returned once more to Congress to renew his efforts for a vigorous prosecution of the war. NO measure was too extreme if it meant the over-throw of Southern traitors. To Chandler, the rebels had no rights. In a debate over a bill introduced by him for the collection of abandoned property in insurrectionary districts, he said: A rebel has sacrificed all his rights. He has not right to life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness. Every- thing you give him, even 1ife itself, is a boon he has for- feited.ll Chandler was also constantly concerned lest Lincoln show any deviation from the Radical line. Once the war had started, "peace- ful" was not in Chandler's vocabulary, nor was "conciliation" a part Of his thinking. He was shocked and angered when Lincoln refused to sign the Wade-Davis Bill, warning him that his failure to go along with Congress would cost him three million votes in the 186A election. In Chandler's thinking, it was not so much that Lincoln himself was wrong, but that Lincoln was being influenced by his advisors, espec- ially Seward and Blair, who were not as strong—willed as Chandler would have liked them to be. As early as December 22, 1862, he had written Governor of Michigan, Austin Blair: . Old Abe promises to stand firm and I believe he will. We shall get rid of his evil genius Governor Seward ere long, if not now. He can't withstand the pressure long and without him Old Abe is naturally right.1 In November of 1863, Chandler read in a newspaper that llOU.S., Congressional Globe, 37th Cong., 3d Sess., 1863, XXXIII, Part 2, 1338. 111Letter of Chandler to Austin Blair, December 22, 1862; Austin Blair Papers, Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library. “3""; ‘ ~— t‘d'. . . _ . _ I; ‘l ‘4.“ .\ ‘U :1. A. NJ d .. C ‘IV 9. .lo "11-" , 1-1 k u '1‘. a“ ,‘G _ _'.J‘.4 tr‘ .' er cfimn, “-5 55 Mr. Thurlow Weed and Governor Morgan of New York had been in consul- tation with the President urging conciliation in Lincoln's State of the Union Message to be delivered to Congress in December. He imme- diately wrote to the President: How are these men to be of service to you in any way? They are a millstone about your neck. You drop them and they are politically ended forever. For God's sake don't exhume their remains in your message. They will smell worse than Lazarus did after he had been buried seven days.1 Lincoln's answer to Chandler's warning and advice was a model of tact, considering the tone of the Senator's letter. I hope to 'stand firm' enough to not go backward, and yet not go forward fast enough to wreck the country's chances. 13 As previously suggested, Chandler opposed slavery with all his strength. Early in the war he had urged that escaping slaves be treated as contraband of war. Following the battle of Bull Run he had wanted to use Negroes as soldiers. He supported the act of 1862 prohibiting the use of troops to return escaped slaves to their mas- ters, and the act of April 16 of that same year abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia. He privately opposed Lincoln's plan for dealing with slavery as outlined in the President's Annual Message of December 1862. In this message, Lincoln suggested that a Constitu- tional Amendment should be submitted to the people providing compen- sation in U.S. bonds to any state abolishing slavery before the year 1900; that slaves which gained freedom through the war should be per- 112Letter of Chandler to Abraham Lincoln, November 15, 1863; Iiobert Todd Lincoln Collection of the Papers of A. Lincoln (1809- 11365), Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 113Bosler, VII, p. 29, Letter dated November 20, 1863. .J .: ”I ._r . Y; .s . .. wcl r r\ . . . . L we .3 . .. E J. “t. I... 7: r ..c 1.1. 3 : .3 E E . a .. c a . a. ”b I . . \ .r . I . J! . . w” .A.“ .¢ A,” NIL. 2v a» .Pb ‘ ‘ A.U V“ sari.\ «xv *L— ‘g ‘w VIA sh N” .H.‘ :1 “a“ no ad .7. .t J‘ 7.. a. .7“ ‘1 Ma r“ 3 . . E a. a r Cu Nu a: >4 .3 2M . . «J :1 a... Mr. d.“ M.» Mr... .. a 2 .. an . . a E h . .r... 1: «J y... I . .Q a. L .n C .1 E . . h um i 56 manently free; and that Congress should have authority to spend money on colonization for Negroes.llu When President Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclama- tion in 1863, Chandler rejoiced and always believed that this procla- mation and the enlistment of freedmen in the army were two of the most powerful blows at the Rebellion.115 He said in the Senate on June 28, l86u: I consider a loyal negro better than a secession traitor, either in the North or the South. I prefer him anywhere and everywhere that you please to put him. .A secession traitor is beneath a loyal negro. I would let a loyal negro vote; I would let him testify; I would let him fight; I would let him do anyl6 other good thing, and I would exclude a seceSSlonlst traitor. Thus it can be seen that Chandler's position in the Senate during the war years was radical in the extreme. His constant har- ranging on the floor of the Senate and his activities in relation to Lincoln's administration were such as to bring down upon his head the wrath of the Democrats and some of the less radical members of his own party. The Democrats who opposed him, he branded as "Copper- heads," and his hatred of them even exceeded his hatred of the South- ern traitors. On May 25, 186h, he was dining with some friends at the National Hotel in Washington. The subject of Northern Copper- heads came up and Chandler denounced them all, especially those in the western states. At a table behind Chandler's party sat Senator Voorhees of Indiana. He approached Chandler in an excited manner and demanded to know whether Chandler referred to him. Chandler re- 111+Lord Charnwood, pp. 387-390. 115Life of Zachariah Chandler, p. 25M. 116Life of Zachariah Chandler, p. 256. . |1 . . ~ fl .. a In. .. v“ ._ .w. .1. m\ LL Cg .. c CO Tu rd w. .. 2,. a L. . r“ rd .C A.» “.4 t: r; AU b... E S 11 O . : . i O 3 ; . L a a. A. V ...J d .3 .nl. .. . vi. a. .Q L m. . u.» S C. v . N v a» rl~ $1» «Q rd ._ .. 3 .. . T a. r. T a. .7. 2... 3 l 2.; a an“ .3 :1. .C 3 .L . a; a .1 . 1.5 . a «I LL I a .. O +L "N .2 u . x. 7. a \ e .- l 1‘ C . Nu. y o. 3 AU r... fin ‘|\ V» 57 plied "Who are you, sir, I don't know you." Voorhees answered "I am Voorhees," and attacked the Michigan Senator. A fight ensued during which a pitcher was broken, and chairs overturned, but the combatants were separated with no great damage to either. Dr. Clark, who had been dining with Chandler, said that the Michigan Senator had never mentioned Voorhees.117 The Detroit Free Press, which had been criticizing Chandler for years because, in its opinion, he had been willing to shed every- one else‘s blood in this Rebellion but his own, had great fun with this occurence. Chandler has actually been in a fight. . . . He was, no doubt, intoxicated, and in that state commenced abusing Mr. Voor- hees of Indiana. . . . A Wolverine Senator, whipped by a hoosier! That's the worst of it all. Had 3e been cuffed by anyone else, we should not have felt so bad.ll In addition to his battles in and out of Congress, Chandler was soon to face a challenge of a different order. l86h was an elec- tion year, and the elections of the spring were heartening to the Radicals because the Republican reverses of 1862 were not repeated. In fact, Republicans were elected in solid majorities.119 The big event of 186%, of course, was the Presidential e1ec- tion and Lincoln, though he had vascillated in 1863, had, in the spring of 186A, definitely decided to be a candidate for the Republi- can nomination. There were, however, many in the Republican party ‘who opposed the nomination of Lincoln. Among these malcontents were 117New York Times, May 26, 1864. 118Detroit Free Press, May 28, 186%. 119For an excellent account of the Presidential election of 2186M, see William Frank Zornow, Lincoln and the Party Divided (Nor- Iman: University of Oklahoma Press, lgéh). Q n . :7rna r d-‘o~U-.. I «r «H'- r'l 2 . " a. VA‘\.. .. ‘fi’l‘ww - I / Cod...» L . 'V‘AN“ I. [,1 (7" C/1 ('4' 2 I p) L 5 1.4. 58 numbered Horace Greeley, Chase, Wendell Phillips, Wade, Davis, and others. Each, perhaps, had different reasons for his opposition to Lincoln, but to many Radicals, Lincoln had just not been active enough in a vigorous prosecution of the war. ‘Wade and Davis, for example, were particularly angered because of Lincoln's Reconstruc- tion Proclamation and his failure to sign their bill for Congres- sional Reconstruction. Chandler, perhaps because of his control of federal patronage and because he knew that the vast majority of the people of Michigan favored Lincoln, refused to join in the threaten- ing split of the Republican party. The split became official when the dissident Republicans met in Cleveland in June of l86h and nominated General Fremont for Presi- dent and General Cochrane for Vice-President. The Union National Convention (Republican) met in Baltimore on June 7, 1864, and nomi- nated Lincoln for President and Johnson for Vice-President. The nomination of JOhnson, a former Democrat, for Vice-President may have been an attempt on the part of the Republicans to give recognition to the loyal border states. The Democrats, in Chicago on August 29H; nominated General McClellan and George H. Pendleton. The Republican party, split as it was, seemed in jeopardy, and Chandler undertook to square things. First, he visited Wade at his home in Ohio and persuaded him to support Lincoln because the {preservation of the Union depended upon a united Republican party. 'Wade agreed, but felt that Lincoln should compromise with the Radicals 'by eliminating Blair from his cabinet. Chandler then visited Lincoln in.Washington and received Lincoln's assurance that Blair would be ITflnOVEd. Only one last thing remained to be done, and that was to r~v:"c‘ 5"-»Xul - o.- Tlflvr'v“ W1 uv—.~‘\v¢. . - - thaiwmr H¢-‘My.. , ”.6" .r‘.h~!— *5; 43y; ““M‘W‘rfi -. 5‘ UL 19.; v gain .-- l . k \ g?“ 1r ‘1. it; .u‘ rkn~x “‘M‘:‘ c ~§ v':‘ n.“ ‘, H§ . \ . ‘ «‘ \ '-\ us. ‘4 c . pd ‘\.‘ v- '. \ I P n ”k J ‘ \“ —-~ \. u 59 persuade General Fremont to withdraw from the race. This he at- tempted to do in interviews with General Fremont in New York. There are a number of interpretations concerning Chandler's influence in the matter of Fremont. His biographers give him full credit for Fremont’s ultimate withdrawal.120 Harris121 believes that Chandler's influence was "potent in healing the breach in the Repub- lican ranks." Zornow122 suggests that, while Chandler‘s interview may have hastened General Fremont‘s decision to withdraw, it was probably Fremont’s realization that his position was hopeless which hastened the move. He had planned to gain the Democratic nomination but had failed. Military victories in September seemed to place him in opposition to Lincoln and cost him support. There was nothing left for him to do but withdraw and he did so on September 22. "The slurring comments which he made against Lincoln's administration in his letter of withdrawal seem to indicate that no 'deal' had been made with Chandler."123 However, a letter from Fremont to Chandler dated May 28, 1878, is of interest in this regard. In this letter requesting Chandler‘s help in gaining a territorial commission, Fre- mont makes the statement that he withdrew from the 186% campaign on Chandler's advice and because of Chandler's promise of a government position for him.12h 12OLife of Zachariah Chandler, pp. 27%-275. 121Harris, p. 81. 122Zornow, p. 1%6. 123Zornow, p. 1%7. 121fLetter of John C. Fremont to Chandler, May 23, 1878; IhitherfordIB. Hayes Papers, Rutherford B. Hayes Library, Fremont, Ohio. . I . a a; r . “1.. LL. - T. E . l n . . . . . . r1. .. a “T n; a c . .1 . 4 e c 4.4 L c 1' i... . a .L .A .. a; u... S E n o . . ., 2 . "My .M. . Sh E... . ‘1 ~ . y ‘ ~i ‘- . .. u "‘3 .rlm r. a Cu wlw Q . l ”a v... u. . . W “W an”: ad. H1“ H k» i. . . . ..v . ,_ 1 . . J . _ a. a o E ..2 r . Ir} a. . 3. a E To L. s. i w. u; at. .c... 3.. mm. 3.. . . 5.. E a . e a T C s a 60 Whatever the reason, Fremont had withdrawn and with the Re- publicans once again united against the Democrats, Chandler hit the campaign trail in earnest. He spoke in mass meetings throughout Michigan in the month of October. During Chandler's labors of media— tion in September, Austin Blair had written him that he should spend less time outside Michigan. While Blair felt that Republican victory seemed likely, he wrote Chandler that Chandler's presence in Michi- gan would make it certain.125 Perhaps he was correct. The voters gave the Lincoln electors a majority of only 16,917 votes out of some 150,000 votes cast.126 In the next session of the Senate, Chandler continued to evi- dence that singleness of purpose concerning the war to which we have alluded in this study. On January 16, 1865, he introduced a joint resolution for non-intercourse with Great Britain until the bill for naval vessels destroyed by British pirates in the employ of the rebels should be paid.127 It was laid on the table, but he gave notice that he would talk to this subject again. Chandler was vehe- ment on the subject of Great Britain and her actions during the Civil War and we shall talk at greater length on this aspect of his public life in the next chapter, "The Speaker and the Issues." On the subject of retaliation upon rebel prisoners for cruelties suffered by Union soldiers in Southern prisons, Chandler ‘was equally radical. His colleague, J. M. Howard, introduced a bill 125Letter of Austin Blair to Chandler, September 5, 186%; .Zachariah Chandler Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 126Life of Zachariah Chandler, p. 278. 127Detroit Free Press, January 16, 1865. g. .. r ...;.\ Ky _ ~ v.¢~ 1 c-;- .. t}:— -,... -. 1---...) {F.fi‘, ~‘Q‘fi‘ qr . L... . c a F .. C. «ML an” LL 3?; It A; A: A c a ‘ nu . . A \f . ‘K O a $ 9 x n» .‘Faw .: 3 a 0 no 61 on this subject and Chandler supported it. He said: I shall vote for this measure of retaliation, and for any measure of retaliation that promises to be effective. . . I will carry it to any extent that is necessary to preserve the lives of thosg helpless in the hands of these accursed, hellish rebels.12 The question of Chandler's drinking, to which we have alluded earlier, arose again in 1865. For many years his Democratic oppo- nents in Michigan had claimed that Chandler was a man so under the influence of alcohol so much of the time that he could not be trusted. It was also alleged that Chandler controlled the Michigan Republicans, not only with large sums of money, but with an ample supply of whis- key. The Free Press took every opportunity to make fun of Chandler because of his lack of abstinence, and it may be that the pressure of these charges forced Chandler to vow not to drink during this session of Congress. He wrote to his wife: My health is fine. I am not sure that total abstinence is the answer to my health problem, but I promise not to drink at least for this session of Congress. Thus, no man can accuse me of being excited by drink at this session.129 Whether this vow was kept, we have no way of knowing for cer- tain, but the rumors and gossip concerning his use of liquor did not cease. A number of years later, in 187%, a reporter for the Detroit Free Press wrote of Chandler having to be helped from a Finance Com- mittee meeting by Senator Sherman of Ohio because he could not make it under his own power. It seems that Chandler was vitally inter- ested in getting a particular bill out of committee and insisted 128U.S., Congressional Globe, 38th Cong., 2d Sess., 1865: XXXV, Part 1, %96._ 129Letter of Chandler to his wife, February 9, 1865; Zkachariah Chandler Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. s 9;“ [4- “ ‘ he ‘ 5-.» “"- P 1! i ' y‘p‘ \rfi- -ufi‘; ‘D‘r‘3“‘ V.-1-.> 7‘" Ap‘ - “wt-«1* “'— Jbv’ E {L A. . .V?‘ n r went}; at .‘0‘ 13“.“ ~' fi" 7 M .._. r 3“. 62 upon presenting it out of order. The Senator from New York ob- jected and Chandler was reported to have turned on him and asked "Who the hell are you? You had better dry up." It was at this point that Sherman was reported to have helped Chandler from the room.130 This must have been the last straw, for Chandler sued the Free Press for libel as a result of this story. In addition, he had the reporter, Buell, barred from the halls of the Senate, and had the Washington police arrest Buell in the middle of the night. He also brought suit against Buell for $100,000. It must be kept in mind that it was never a question of drinking or not drinking, for even Chandler's friends could not deny that he drank; it was a question of the degree of intoxication and of whether or not the incident related by Buell was or was not accurate. Republican friends of Chandler and the Radical press leaped to his defense, calling the whole story "an outrageous fabrication."l3l The final disposition of the suit is in doubt. Following the excitement of the spring of 187%, nothing more is mentioned in the press concerning it. Nevertheless, this concern for Chandler’s consumption of alcohol and his condition as a result of it, did not cease. It had plagued him, and was to plague him throughout his career. To return to 1865, following the assasination of President Lincoln, Chandler, with other members of the Committee on Conduct of the War, called on President Johnson to discuss the matters concern- ing the government. Of course, of immediate concern was the question (of what to do with the leaders of the conquered Rebellion and with the 130Detroit Free Press, February 21, 187%. l3lnetroit Post, March 3, l87”- ‘g , ‘. _ W F>\"V\ 7. k. C ;.q ‘ -‘4‘ l x . 7'" 7‘" 4.5% LI“: .‘P f." -u~-~ - Mv 5. 1;- a L. 4:. n . r... Wu ‘4 .r. a UV 2.. L c .L ‘ M ‘ r. . 2.. an an . r a PG n o a . Q ‘ c .. .3. a :: .7. E m . .n . a. A... «L ‘1‘ 63 states recently in secession. The Radicals felt that an example should be made of a few of the more guilty of the Southern traitors, and urged such a course upon President Johnson.132 At first, the Radicals found him in full accord with their plans, but Johnson was soon to disappoint them and return to a policy similar to that which Lincoln was pursuing prior to his death. This led to a split between Johnson and the Radicals and culminated in the impeachment of the President in 1868. We shall examine this struggle, and Chandler's speaking concerning it, thoroughly in the next chapter. The Congressional election campaign of 1866, which was really a contest between Congress and the President, was hotly contested. Earlier in 1866, Chandler, with Detroit Postmaster Howard and others, had established a new newspaper in Detroit, The Detroit Post. The Detroit Advertiser had merged with the Detroit Tribune to form the Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, and had become less Radical than Chandler would have liked. Thus it was necessary for a new news- paper to support the Republican Congress. There were many other factors in the campaign of 1866 to worry Senator Chandler besides the lack of a "true" Republican paper in Detroit. By September, three political parties had emerged. The con- servative Republicans had formed the National Union party and en- dorsed President Johnson's policy. This party was joined or sup- ported by a great many Democrats. 'While the factions within the National Union party disagreed on many issues--mainly finance, taxa- tion, and the tariff-—they could agree on Reconstruction, and Recon- struction was the issue in the campaign. In Michigan, the Democratic 132Life of Zachariah Chandler, p. 280. p ”‘7... ..- L. AU...— .1 \ c-p . ,_. th‘v 31’. I figrgvv‘n C. 9....-.a‘K; 6% State Central Committee endorsed the ticket of the National Unionists in Michigan and both forces now presented a solid front against the Republicans.133 In addition, nationally at least, the Democratic and Republican parties still were active. Chandler campaigned vigorously for the Republicans, speaking on the stump both in Michigan and other Western states. He advocated repudiation of President Johnson's policies and spoke in favor of the Congressional plan of Reconstruction and supported the Fourteenth Amendment.131+ His position in the campaign may be seen from this excerpt from a speech at Port Huron, Michigan, on October 2%, 1866. Congress is worthy of your continued support--and the support of every loyal man. There is really but one side of the issue before the public. The Detroit Post fulfilled the expectations of its founders by supporting the Republicans throughout the campaign. This support prompted J. L. Chipman, Democratic candidate for the House of Repre- sentatives from the lat district of Michigan, to comment: The very names [of the stockholders of the Post is a pleasant satire upon the party of "all the religion and all the decency." The brothels, gaming saloons, and tippling houses of the land will raise their heads in astonishment to find their hgroes at the front of the party of all moral- ity. . . .13 Despite such barbed attacks as the one above, the Michigan voters who had supported Chandler and the Radicals since before the war were not to be denied. The result of the election was that a 133Detroit Free Press, September 6, 1866. 13”Life of Zachariah Chandler, p. 29h. 135Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, October 26, 1866. 136Detroit Free Press, November %, 1866. 3. ‘r"'_' .1,‘ . “5‘ 0 " . -.. . ific‘ \ l ‘u‘t‘~ n..- ”4-1.“..rc \.\4v5¢ 5- .-4 ‘ ‘7 “‘* .Ig- "_' ‘ .p- A ‘-‘-~...; \— U “‘2"“"".: ‘ ~q‘..- ‘ . ..‘ R‘- \ 1 V! "‘-.'. - c. x.-; w.._' Q..\ h“ L_k ‘ ~ 5.: v‘ u *‘l\ 3.1V! .. fi‘rfia M-‘_ N “ ’ r‘. “K 65 heavy majority sanctioned the position of Chandler and the Republi- cans in the battle between Congress and President Johnson. Harris describes Chandler's relation to the issues facing the country upon his return to Congress following the elections of 1866. Chandler, because of his fierce readiness to fight to preserve the Union, had refused all compromise and had called forth the energy of the North to crush the South. He seemed temperamentally incapable of taking an attitude of conciliation which the situation seems to have required. "In Reconstruction as in the Rebellion, Mr. Chandler was still representative of the spirit of the Northwest." The crippled veterans in the streets, the vacant places in the family circles, cried aloud for vengeance. That ruthless spirit which felled the forests of Michigan and conquered the wilderness demanded that the last root and branch of the re- bellion be blotted out and found in Mr. Chandler an able cham- pion of its desires.137 Hence, Chandler supported the harshest of measures of Reconstruction, supported all Radical measures to censure and obstruct President Johnson, and voted for conviction following President Johnson's im- peachment and trial. During the summer of 1867, Chandler, with Senators Wade, Yates, and others, made an extended trip to the West to hunt buffalo. The cities which this excursion visited honored the gentlemen with dinners and entertainment, and Chandler spoke often concerning the issues before the country. To have Chandler as a spokesman for Mich- igan abroad on the plains was too much for the Free Press to bear in silence. It wrote: This gentleman has a positive talent for making himself an object of derision wherever he goes in and out of Congress. 137Harris, pp. 95-96. ‘— v~ L “ fl ~AULV‘A ‘N "Y ‘xxr . c _. ‘v’ 4. VK \ ». . -- \“ -V.__g_.. a ‘fi‘nx ._'. -~«-’: .. -A" ‘A'lfl v ‘VV-l ‘ 7 ., - "V . ca..- 1“ mg“; C . "a\_ “J; 7'“ r - L - e. . I”‘"‘ ~" " W ‘ .v \. .. 35“'- '\h~Qy-\ ‘- . a- . y ‘0. ‘ ‘*P:.' . “ a ‘N 66 Thus during the recent Senatorial excursion out West his speeches have supplied all the press with an inexhaustable supply of ridicule. He actually surpassed himself in the nonsense to which his lips have given utterance. Indians, and Swiss; France and England; the Alabama Claims, the annexation of Canada, abuse of governments and men, bombast, maudlin sentimentality, silly defiance and foolish casconading have been fearfully and wonder- fully mixed in his spread-eagle oratory. In the Congressional sessions of 1867 and 1868, Chandler con- tinued his fight to "reconstruct" the South along lines laid down by Congress, and he bent every effort to have Republicans elected to political offices in the recently defeated section. In a speech be- fore the Republican Congressional caucus in Washington in December of 1867, he said that he felt a great deal had been accomplished in the South on behalf of the Republicans, but that more money was needed if their political aspirations were to be achieved. "The Republican party must walk up to the Captain‘s office and settle very liberally between now and the election of 1868 or the South will go to the devil and the Copperheads."139 When the excitement between Congress and President Johnson was at its height, Chandler urged that Congress remain in session continuously so as not to leave the government in the hands of such a man as the President. To Chandler, President Johnson could not be trusted. He was convinced that it was Johnson's aim to desert the party which had honored him with the Vice-Presidency, and with this opinion, Chandler became one of the President's most bitter political enemies},+0 138Detroit Free Press, June 20, 1867. 139Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, December 7, 1867. l"OLife of Zachariah Chandler, p. 285. 67 1868 was a Presidential election year, as well as a state election year in Michigan. It has been suggested that the best way to examine national elections during this period is to follow care- fully the state campaigns. The national level of politics during this era had little of the power held by the two major political par- ties. Most of the influence and power lay at the state, county, and even local level. It was up to the state political campaigners to carry their states for the national ticket. Hence, while some men- tion was made of the national candidates in state canvasses and the voters urged to support national candidates, there was little of the "riding to victory behind the national ticket." On the state level, it was party against party with no holds barred.l"l This is not to suggest that national candidates for President and Vice-President did not carry weight in the state elections. In Michigan, "Tanner Clubs" were organized throughout the state and much was made of the national record of the Republican party and of Grant's war record. Chandler was even more than usually active in the campaign of 1868, both as an organizer and speaker. It may be assumed that his intense interest in this election was directly related to the fact that in January of 1869, the legislature chosen at the November,1868, election would be electing a Senator for the seat now held by Zacha- riah Chandler. He desired to succeed himself and so bent every ef- fort to elect those men to the Michigan legislature who would sup- port his re-election. He delivered nearly forty addresses in Michigan, which gave to l"lLecture by Professor Harry T. Brown, Department of History, Dmichigan State University, January, 1960. 1 fl“. .A- -« 0 f. $y\~_‘ .x.« Y vex/U. 4h" A." 0C w . . a to on ‘ fla‘ v1 2.. a: l .. . r u r.“ .Tt a: . . re a s C. ..r a“ 5% . r. «L. : \ nu» wlw a: h k 3 K x , c a ...,- be \ rd .1 . r .. 1M n a y .. La... .8 RU 68 the Grant-Colfax ticket a majority of 3l,%92, almost double the 1866 Republican majority.l"2 His speeches in September and October were a re—play of previous campaign addresses with variations. At Hills- dale, Michigan, he charged that the Civil War was a Democratic War and that the debt incurred as a result of it was a Democratic debt. The clamor of the Democrats, he said, for repudiation of the debt and their sympathy for the rebels was doing the national credit great harm. By contrast, the record of the Republican party was unim- peachable, and Grant's demonstration of character, interest in the country, integrity and earnestness of purpose eminently fitted him for the position of President of the United States.l"3 At a Republican rally at Centerville, Michigan, on October 1, 1868, he repeated the same theme. He defined the Democrats as Copper heads and rebels, and called them by these names. He did not include the War Democrats, such as John.A. Logan and Stephen Douglas, but he did condemn the Democratic party.l"br Some of the speeches Chandler delivered during this campaign might shock the more sensitive audiences of today. At Mt. Clemens he suggested that any lady in the audience (and there were a number) who had a Copperhead for a husband should let him sleep alone.l"5 This behavior was soundly condemned by the Democratic press of the state, but it did not seem to bother the people. Though Chandler was discussed as a vile person generally by 11hQLii‘e of Zachariah Chandler, p. 298. l"3Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, September 3, 1868. 1""Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, October 2, 1868. l"5Detroit Free Press, September 10, 1868. , - v~ «4‘ Q '~ - v.4 rf‘ h (D ( I) E: F); (I) a. r--~ 1-- .9 ”g. ‘. P: 5““. k‘fil‘ ‘r' X. ‘2? *9»... 2‘:- ~~ A 69 his opponents, he was not a specific issue in the November election. However, his control of the party in Michigan resulted in the elec- tion to the legislature of a majority of Chandler men. As 1869 and the Senatorial election approached, Chandler became more and more of an issue. His re-election was opposed by the conservative Republican Detroit Advertiser and Tribune and the Democratic Detroit Free Press, and supported by the Radical organ, The Detroit Post. Reports of political deals ran rampant across the pages of the Democratic press. One of the rumors was that Chandler had agreed to support Baldwin for the governorship and to "see to his election" provided Baldwin supported Chandler for the Senate post in 1869.lLL6 Thus when those opposed to Senator Chandler's re-election looked to the Governor for support, there was none forthcoming. Another deal was said to have been made with Thomas W. Ferry of Grand Haven, who, along with former Governor Austin Blair, was a formidable opponent to Chandler. Both Blair and Ferry were from out-state and, as much criticism had been made of the fact that Detroit had virtually con- trolled the election of United States Senators, they formed a danger- ous opposition and must be broken up. When Blair refused to accept Chandler's offer of support in 1871, when Jacob M. Howard's term would expire, providing Blair would withdraw from the 1869 contest, the same overture was made to Ferry, who accepted. The agreement was kept secret, even from Blair. Thus when Blair sought support from l"6Detroit Free Press, November 22, 1868. l"7Harriet M. Dilla, The Politics of Michigan, from Studies in History and Economics and Public Law, Vol. %7—(New York: Columbia Ilniversity: Longman, Green & Co. 19127, p. 100. 70 Ferry's legislators, as previously agreed to by Ferry, there was none to be found.l"8 As the election approached, the Opposition heaped even more than the usual abuse upon Zachariah Chandler. He was "not sober"-- "not decent," and nothing could be lost by throwing a "common drunk- ard" overboard.l"'9 Chandler was, in the opposition's opinion, in no sense a statesman, and his personal habits were abominable. He was the "shame of Michigan" and the state would do well to choose a man from among the thousands of higher caliber to represent her in the United States Senate.150 In the campaign of 1868, Chandler had in- sulted the ladies in the audience to whom he had spoken, he had squandered money for selfish political gratification, and, because of a long-standing antipathy between Chandler and Grant, Chandler would have no influence with the executive branch of the govern- ment.151 This last charge is rather unique, and dates from a re- ported disagreement which took place between Chandler and Grant many years earlier when Grant was stationed for a short time in Detroit. However, Chandler had been an enthusiastic supporter of Grant and his tactics in the Civil War. In addition, Chandler had held a large re- ception in the General's honor on his visit to Detroit in 1865.152 The Republicans, on the other hand, were hard pressed to de- l"8Harris, p. 108. l"’9Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, December 8, 1868. 150Detroit Free Press, December 17, 1868. 151Detroit Free Press, November 22, 1868. 152Silas Farmer, The History of Detroit and Michigan (Silas ZFarmer Co., Detroit, 188%), p. 112. -vnfi . -y.-~- -.A \t:. . CD 0" f'. fif‘w' 5:7 mg tihr4 H,“ v .72)..“ ~ "by I Q If) Irf (.7 m :1 ,- c; I p ) 71 fend their candidate--especially against the charge of drunkenness. The Detroit Post suggested that the main slander against Chandler was intemperance. However, . . . he is entirely temperate--all reports to the contrary are false. We do not hesitate to say that Senator Chandler is as temperate in his habits, as he has been for many months, as any gentleman anywhere named as a possible candidate against him. . . . Perhaps during the war, he drank. . . . But now he is temperate. The newspapers supported him then, knowing all the facts, why do they not support him now when he is above re- proach?15 Even his colleagues on the floor of the Senate were called forward in his defense. Senator Harlan of Iowa, writing to W. M. Mc- Connell of Pontiac on December 18, 1868, said: . . . I have served with Mr. Chandler in the Senate for nearly twelve years, sitting by his side, at an adjoining desk, during the greater part of that period, and it seems to me but a simple act of justice, due from one friend to another, that I Should say that at no time could the charge of drunkenness have been truthfully applied to him; and that, during the latter part of his Senatorial service, he has abstaineg entirely from the use of intoxicating drinks as a beverage.15 Concerning his lack of statesmanship, the Republicans coun- tered with the claim that General Cass talked a great deal and did very little. But: . . . not so with Senator Chandler. He has made few long speeches. What he has said has been plain, pointed, practi- cal. To the Republicans, Chandler‘s twelve years of service in the Senate had been a test of faithfulness to Republican principles, to the l53Detroit Post, December 9, 1868. 15"Detroit Post, December 2%, 1868; New York Times, December 26, 1868. 155Grand Traverse Herald, as quoted in the New York TimeS, November 1%, 1868. n ”a- k. A;.~ « a», rymm‘ bV-V ‘- . )1: ,h: . sl¢yeo¢~ 3'"- IL!" III (I! ~-.-: * —--I ‘n ..’ \q 72 causes of loyalty and the Union. Chandler had also displayed extreme personal courage.156 From Edwin M. Stanton came a letter to the Republicans of Michigan urging them to re-elect Chandler because: (1) During the war and in the lifetime of Mr. Lincoln, no one enjoyed Mr. Lincoln's con- fidence to a greater degree than Mr. Chandler; (2) No one could have bestowed greater attention to whatever related to the military ser- vice and the success of our arms; (3) The most confidential relations exist between the War Department and Mr. Chandler as a member of the Committee on Conduct of theWar.157 ‘Whether this praise by associa- tion and praise of past activities had any effect in the election we have no way of knowing, but it is interesting to note that these reasons should be urged for Mr. Chandler's election in 1868. Letters were quoted by the score in the Detroit Post concern- ing Chandler's assistance to Union soldiers during the war, especially the local sons of Michigan. One such letter from a Republican in Hudson, Michigan, tells of Chandler helping the father of a wounded son to get through the lines when all else had failed.158 It should be mentioned that, throughout the excitement pre- ceding the meeting of the Michigan Legislature in January of 1869, it was never a question of electing a Democrat to succeed Chandler in the Senate. The Democrats had given up any hope of electing one of their own, and they were honest about it. The conservative Republi- 156Saginaw Republican as reported in the Detroit Post, iNovember 23, 1868. 157Letter of Edwin Stanton to hr. Brooks, December 22, 1868; SZachariah Chandler Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 158Detroit Post, December 8, 1868. p. t...» . . y 0 r .. Ly Cy . . A: . . . B .P . . 3.. . 7L CH .illII v. . 4. 2» WM 2..“ Y“ n. :‘ 1;. Ac Th . vv .1 o . _ a .... c o r: . . . c 6 14 L J ‘ SC m «J 5 .8. ,T . . . m. a. E .3 a. . x . .: M o“ T . .1 rm .3 L A». . A o .3 .1 y . E vJ M: an... , "a t . . o. a .v .. . t ,. t I C D a E... . S. V .l by.“ ~. 73 cans who opposed Chandler did so on the grounds we have discussed, but the Free Press said this was pure hypocrisy. It suggested that those Republicans who opposed the election of Chandler did so with an eye to Federal, State, County and City offices so long controlled by him. The "ins" had the power, according to the Free Press, but there were many more prominent Republicans on the outside who wanted to con- trol the "spoils."159 At Lansing, in January of 1869, Chandler again called into play his enormous patronage system. The lobby for him was immense and it soon won over most of the approximately twenty-four Opposition votes.160 The Republicans met in caucus on January 6. On the first informal ballot Chandler received 78 out of the 96 votes. ‘Without another informal ballot, his nomination by the Republicans for Sena- tor was made unanimous.161 Since the Republicans had a majority in the Legislature, Chandler was assured of a third term of six years in the United States Senate.162 He defeated Sanford Green, the Demo- cratic candidate, 2%-% in the Senate and 70-26 in the House.163 The Free Press was neither surprised nor disappointed. In December, it had reasoned this way: There was no chance of electing a Democrat to the Senate; the Democrats must accept a Radical; all .Radicals are bad; but Chandler is less harmful than many and will do :more good for Detroit than an outstate person would do. To the Free 159Detroit Free Press, November 22, 1868. 160Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, January 8, 1869. 161Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, January 7, 1869. 162Harris, p. 110. 163Dilla, pp. 263—6u. r‘ -3- - ‘W ‘4'... w" .1... ““ .‘ “‘1; 35"!” u.¢vh' a; fun-1w- ”£--.st‘ 4.1. y‘— .‘y,-‘ .4“ fl nV$ Dr .. .. . a c E .7. c. .1 C 3 .3 H .1... r. r. E . \ at. .. .. . E E :1 a 2.... Li. Lu .5 .3. .2 n. ..-. a» c... 1...; L. .4 “V a: A: .71 .r . .n . .n. a. .. . Ln“ r. . 2w L4 .1 a .. x .2 .2 L... 4* «k :L .W .n. . . ‘1‘ h h ... 2.0 ha W v 7h Press, Chandler could not help himself without helping Detroit, so he should be elected.l6u It was not long after the election that Chandler set about to punish his political enemies and reward those who had helped in his return to the Senate. Many of those who opposed him were removed from Federal and State offices and replaced by those who had worked for his election. The test of fidelity to the Republican party in Michigan seemed to be loyalty to Zachariah Chandler. He dominated the whole Michigan delegation in Congress, and every appointment and removal was one directed or authorized by him.165 While this action did not increase the number of his political friends, it did increase the vehemence of his political enemies. This was to be significant in his attempt to return to the Senate in 1875. Some months following his election, Senator Chandler, along with his wife and daughter,left for an extended tour of Europe. We have no way of knowing the exact conditions under which he left or the exact activities of the family in Europe, but if we are to be- lieve the reports published by opposition papers of the day, it must have been little less than a three-ring circus. According to the Cincinnati Commercial, the Chandler family was attended by four Negro servants, dressed in the most outlandish fashion. The male servants were said to have been resplendent in gold embroidery, with the Chandler coat-of-arms on the coat-tails. The female attendants, it seemed, were dressed in gowns made of the American flag, gathered at 16”Detroit Free Press, December 6, 1868. 165Harris, p. ll2. 3.3. :1 9.8L ... >4 " (‘N uh rf‘" xi. fig.“ “ y. ;‘O‘fis ‘ -' ‘ . ,’ w n 'H .‘NK ”my r~.‘fl '0 “‘V‘A ”‘1- 3 ;; 4* aht- ~- \ ' ~l‘ " v ‘4‘ ~“ . ' 7“ a‘ .«3 “¥ .. :1" N A V .3..I“. ‘ ‘ .‘ . J N A» \.1 Q» 75 the waist with wide belts, the buckles of which contained the coat- 166 of-arms. In addition to poking fun at the dress of the entourage, the Detroit Free Press could not forbear comment on Chandler's motivation for his trip or what it expected would be his behavior. . . Chandler means to make a sensation in the aristocratic circles, and if a lavish expenditure of money will do it, he will succeed, and who knows but that the late knight of the scissors and yardstick may return with patents to full titles of nobility, such as Lord Blowhard, Earl of Littlebrains, Baron Bull Run, or some such. . . . It is certain that Chandler and his famély fancy themselves the choicest of Washington Aristo- cracy.l 7 Upon his return to the United States in the fall of 1869, Chandler again entered the Senate and, as might be expected, his be- havior during this session was consistent with his past behavior. Though he had supported the issuance of "greenbacks" in 1861 to sup- port the Union cause, it was only with the understanding that specie payments would be resumed as soon as possible. He thus opposed the maintenance of "greenbacks" and urged the return to specie payments. Actually, he opposed inflation in any form. In Congress on Janu- ary 31, 1870, Chandler offered an amendment to a financial bill which would call in $100,000,000 in greenbacks and substitute specie. Neither had his hatred for Great Britain abated, for in 1870, he offered a resolution calling for negotiation with the people of 168 Winnepeg on the subject of its annexation to the United States. 166Cincinnati Commercial as quoted in the Free Press, June 6, 1869. 167Detroit Free Press, May 23, 1869. 168U.S., Congressional Globe, ulst Cong., 2d Sess., 1870, )CLII, Part 3, 2808. “Pvt, w, .. 3A. .. . "ff'xr V‘Uoni rrr»_.. -'-nn fl"*,/\~ V , -‘ .. «I» II . . . 1 A c e .. . s . c . M _ - 3 . y . f. E .3 . A a; A» T‘\ .Q «C a: r ‘ ~ 0 2c . a : . n o no ac 4L \ , s ‘ a: . ~ m.» “L. n“ m . me .N .. 2» na T. .1- a . . v a. . i- a . . A a . r! . r . V . kl“ .\ n ,t . . A Did W W C V Wl~ p. .~ nub. m :er 0“ .\ \(«LN I‘m 76 This may have been an attempt on his part to "twist the Lion‘s tail" over the settlement of the Alabama Claims, which were still pending and which were not to be disposed of until 1872. During this ses- sion, Chandler also heartily supported President Grant's plan to annex Santo Domingo and in December of 1870, clashed with Sumner, who Opposed the measure. Chandler was active in his opposition to Sumner whose position as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee enabled him to block the Santo Domingo scheme. Chandler was also influential in securing the removal of Sumner from the Foreign Relations Commit- tee so that the bill might be presented on the floor of the Sensmsl69 Always concerned with America's commerce, "Zach" was not a little upset about the drop in foreign trade that resulted from the Civil War. In 1870, he proposed a bill for "Improving America‘s Com- merce" which would have given subsidies to American boat manufactur- ers to increase the size of the merchant marine.170 'When this bill met defeat, he later proposed a measure to allow_Americans to pur- chase foreign ships. .According to the Republican press, the Demo- crats talked this bill to death by continuing debate concerning it until the hour of final adjournment. The Detroit Post said editor- ially, "It was a Democratic rebellion that killed our carrying trade; it was a Democratic obstinacy and partison folly that prevented legfi+ lation for its revival."171 It was also during this session that Chandler was appointed to a committee to investigate conditions in the South. Opposition 169Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, December 12, 1870- 170Detroit Free Press, June, 1870. 171Detroit Post, September 13, 1870- 77 press suggested that this committee was sheer folly because a number of reports had already been made concerning these conditions by a number of able men, including President Grant.172 However, perhaps as a result of this investigation, Senator Chandler spoke out against the Ku Klux Klan and urged extreme measures against this organiza- tion. While it is impossible to determine Chandler's motives on this question, it seems probable that these recommendations may have been politically motivated. The purpose of the Ku Klux Klan in the South was to keep the Negro from participation in the political and social affairs of the Southern states, and it was from the freedmen that the Radicals hoped to maintain control of this region lately in rebellion. Hence, we might expect that the Radicals would be anxious to maintain for the Negroes the rights extended to them and to resist having thaxz rights denied by extra-legal means. In the latter months of 1870, and in the early months of 1871, Chandler's thoughts turned to state politics. While Chandler was not a candidate himself, the question of who would be his col- league was arising as a serious question. Strong opposition to the re-election of Senator Jacob M. Howard, his present colleague, had developed early in 1869. The fact that Detroit had for some years controlled the selection of a United States Senator was high on the list of objections to Howard, who hailed from Detroit, as did Chand- ler. There was a declared need for a change in the office, and Howard was additionally charged with supporting the land-grant Apolicy. This seemed a strange charge from members of a party which had supported the land-grant program from 1865-69. It was also 172Detroit Free PreSS, January 2M) 1870' 78 plainly stated that Jacob Howard was much less useful in attending to the affairs of Michigan than was Chandler.173 Austin Blair, another candidate for the office, was an active Radical in the House of Representatives, but his chances were injured by the "Fish Letter," written by him to George W} Fish of Flint, col- lector of internal revenue for the sixth district. In this letter Blair attacked all the other candidates--Jacob M. Howard, Thomas W. Ferry, and William.A. Howard--as being dishonest and corrupt. As a result, Blair found himself politically and personally hated by those in political power.l71L The Democrats, while opposing all Republican candidates for the Senatorship, assailed the Republican ring in the state, and par- ticularly Senator Chandler, for their influence in the campaign for the nomination. The Free Press suggested that Chandler was influ- ential in the move of William A. Howard to Grand Rapids so that he might run as a representative of Western Michigan. The object of this action, according to the Democratic organ, was to kill the chances of Jacob M. Howard in Detroit and to quiet the locality argument when Chandler came up for re—election in 1871+.175 The peOple of Western Michigan, however, opposed'William Howard, and sup- ported Thomas W. Ferry, a member of Congress, and a resident of that area of the state. Thus a split was developing in the Republican organization. Chandler, who seemed, in spite of the Democratic accusations, to l73Diiia, p. 12M. 171"Harris, p. 119. 175Detroit Free Press, January 6, 1870. . . r .. _ C. A r H r. .a. S :5 e0 . . . . . _.. .. .LC . a L.» ta PM... “U .a ‘ 1.. Q» m \k. . . ”w r. a. a. .5 .1 3. Z r E a. at S ".i 3.. A: a. a +1. .., l .. y a: L. flu at L g .. ‘ r1 ha. a an... rd .r a -. .. .r “ Hr.“ .n rm .r; at. 0 1|. 2.. 2.. . 7.. v . .n4 .2 I 3 2 y a. . . L Ti VT» .. t a .n ”I .r; .. c 2.. a: .33. L t . t 0.; NJ 5 .. . K 79 favor Jacob Howard, was now willing, in the face of serious rift in the party, to throw all of them over in favor of a fifth candidate. It was observed by the Republican organs that if the argument among the Republicans over their own personal preferences did not cease, the Republicans had elected their last Senator.176 As Jacob Howard saw his chances of re-election dimming, he threw his support to Thomas Ferry, who was looming as a strong candi- date because of his support of a high tariff, particularly on lumber, which was a prime industry in the northern part of the state.177 It took five ballots in the Republican caucus in Lansing on January 18, to decide the issue. Ferry emerged the winner, and subsequently was elected by the Michigan Legislature to his first term as Senator. If the latter months of 1870, and the early months of 1871, seemed a crisis in Michigan politics, 1872, a Presidential election year, provided even greater problems. On both a state and national level, the contest was between the Radical Republicans on the one hand and the Liberal Republicans and Democrats operating in unison on the other. The beginnings of this "Fusion" opposition to the regular Republican organization be- gan in Missouri in 1870, when a coalition of Liberal Republicans and Democrats carried the state election.178 Spreading quickly to other states, the movement held its first convention in February of 1872, to make nominations for the Presidency. Both candidates chosen, 176Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, December 29, 1870. 177Dilla, p. 127. 178Edward Stanwood, A History of Presidential Elections (Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1888), p. 278. .1 ,- q-w' .y...‘ .. r a H. y“ t V ||_q|lA‘ -.. .a -.. .p v. ...n a... La .3 .. .... a: s a a... sad r. N 2» Au 3 «c a“ .a . a “N :a a. "N 05 r“ . :4 2 . . , a s Zn \ Q .9; a.“ A ... ‘i «v G; r» fly 80 Judge David Davis of Illinois and Joel Parker of New Jersey, declined the nominations, but support for the movement from Horace Greeley, Editor of the New York Tribune, gave impetus to this new venture in American politics, and a second convention was held in Cincinnati that same year. The result of this convention was a national ticket composed of Horace Greeley and.B. Gratz Brown of Missouri. The Demo- crats, seeking united opposition against President Grant and the Radical Republicans, also nominated these two candidates at their convention in Baltimore on July 9, 1872.179 The Liberal movement in Michigan was led by Austin Blair, who had abandoned his former party allegiance.180 There was talk of a deal with the Democrats in which Blair was promised the Democratic nomination for governor, and the Senatorial succession to Chandler, but Dilla181 expresses doubt that this was the case. At any rate, Blair was the candidate for governor on the Liberal-Democratic ticket and worked diligently to bring about the defeat of the regular Repub- lican party. The Democratic press in Michigan assailed the Republicans, declaring that a vote for the Liberal movement was a vote against both the corruption of Grant and the exclusive and_oppressive tyranny of Chandler.182 To the Democrats of Michigan, the Republican party had failed to meet the new issues of reform, and they felt it was 179Material on the Liberal Republican Movement taken from Earle D. Ross, The Liberal Republican Movement (New York: Henry Holt Pub. Co., 1919). 180Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, July 3, 1872. 181Dilla, p. 133. 182Detroit Free Press, July 20, 1872. 81 time the Republicans realized that the Civil War was over, that the "bloody-shirt" should cease to be waved, and that amnesty be granted to all rebels. To Chandler, publicly at least, this Liberal movement was a mere gnat to be slapped down conclusively in the fall elections. In Maine on a campaign to re-elect his son-in-law, Eugene Hale, to the House, he said that he could find little strength for the Liberals in Michigan.183 He, of course, denounced the cry that reform was needed. At Orange, New Jersey, he said: What are they howling for reform for? We have it now. There is hardly a man who is setting up his cry for reform who is not a coigflpt scoundrel or a thief. What is Lyman Trumbull? . . . In Michigan, he condemned Blair as a traitor to his party and a man dishonest in office. He further compared the records of the Republi- can and Democratic parties, waved the "blood-shirt," praised Grant and his record, and ridiculed Greeley. He was attacked in Michigan by the opposition as one who con- trolled the President and whose desire to see Grant re-elected was predicated on a selfish desire for greater offices for himself. It was rumored strongly by the opposition that Chandler "had an ambition which a United State's Senatorship would not satiate." What he wanted, according to the Democratic press, was a cabinet position under Grant's new administration. The Free Press said further: But would Chandler‘s ambition be satisfied with even this high office. Perish the thought. It would be made by the as- tute Chandler a stepping stone to an even higher place. When 183Detroit Free Press, August 16, 1872. 181+New York Times, August 25, 1872. F‘ I- Y” a.. . 9- an bo‘vaa O in . -.-‘ =3: :77 -; (I) (I) I) .’\ a ‘v f" .“I’ V V» ; y . «.l ‘r . t“: ‘6‘.“ x ‘ . Q\N:o \‘ x. L. “ e .\b 7",“ '. V; 'u . . ~."S~r ‘*‘l:, w Q ‘1- ‘. 77: 1 82 Grant shall become satisfied with the Presidential bauble, Chandler will certainly insist upon stepping into his shoes.185 Whatever his motives, Senator Chandler's expectations con- cerning the election were fully realized both in Michigan and the na- tion. In Michigan, Grant’s majority was over fifty thousand votes. If there was a split in the Republican party in 1872, in the state of Michigan, there was an even more serious split in the elec- tion of 187%, an election crucial to Chandler because the Michigan Legislature would have as its first order of business in January of 1875, the election of a man to fill the seat in the Senate now held by Zachariah Chandler. Of course, Chandler hoped that he would be re-elected and expended every effort toward that end. As a result of the trouble in 1872, the Republican party was on the defensive in 1871+, and its platform, adOpted in August of 1871+, was essentially a defense of its past policy and the policy of the national administration. The biggest issue within the party was the one concerning finance. 0n the question of soft versus hard money, not only were the Republicans in Michigan split, but the delegation in Congress was also at variance. Chandler, for example, was in favor of immediate resumption of specie payments; while his colleague in the Senate, Thomas Ferry, was an advocate of soft money and main- tained that the Panic of 1873 was the result of an insufficient sup- ply of available currency. This put the Republican party in a strange position in Michigan. .As Dilla states it: It could not declare one policy and denounce the other while its own members in Congress defended both with almost equal vigor. With this threatened schism before it, the party in 185Detroit Free Press, October 12, 1872. 83 Michigan was compelled to come before the people with the appearance of a united policy, andBéhe reason for the noncom- mital plank 18 thus very obv1ous. In addition to this schism, there was also division along other lines. Charges of corruption were hurled at the national ad- ministration. The Salary Grab Act, the Credit Mobilier scandal, the Press Gag Law, and many other instances of alleged Radical evildoing were presented as evidence of this corruption. There was also some dissatisfaction with the status of lately reconstructed Southern states and conditions in the South as a result of Congressional Rad- ical Reconstruction. Finally, there was an obvious schism in the Re- publican party on the grounds of personal attitudes toward Chandler. Chandler was concerned about his election very early in 1878. .As the Detroit Evening News put it: There will be an election for senator next winter, and the wires are already being pulled for the primary elections to send the right kind of men to Lansing. Now, at this stage of the proceedings, the honorable senator is naturally desirous that the people of Michigan should hear nothing but good of him, so that they will rally to the support of the right man next fall. The federal officers throughout the state have re- ceived their instructions to tell everybody that Mr. Chandler has never drunk a drop of anything stronger than coffee in all his life; that he has recently joined the Good Templars; and is in active sympathy with the praying women of Ohio and Indiana.l87 In the spring of 187A, Chandler left the Congressional ses- Sixon in Washington to return to Michigan to tend to his political aiffairs. He found new independence among the leaders of the party arui.a new element in the party itself; a new young element which held nC> allegiance to the "old guard." As the Free Press put it: 186Dilla, p. 165. 187Detroit Evening News, March 16, 187A- , Ta 2» 2.. ~L» «L. r s. n . 1 ¢ “1‘1.- .. ‘ .fl . L. h... L» In v .FQ 2.» PG VIL. ‘ “ vn .w.‘ .01“ 1-. A» v #L 1‘ d l v ». -vls \‘1 A..\ 3... . L . 3 :8 a; s. t 2H 8h . . . The prospect, at best, is for a chaotic condition of things, and out of this chaos it will be much more difficult for one man to organize success than if there were only a square issue between the two old parties. It looks quite probable that the Senatorship will not be settled as heretofore, in caucus, but that candidates will be forced to caucus in open session.. . . Chandler will need the aidlgg all his particular friends and per- haps a good deal of money. In the fall campaign, Chandler worked diligently to return a large majority of Chandler men to the Michigan Legislature. At the opening rally of the campaign at Flint, in September, he sounded the theme of the campaign. The text of this campaign address was "By their fruits, ye shall know them,"189 and he defended the "fruits" of 16 years of Republican rule. The result of the fall election showed a reduction in the Re- publican strength in Michigan from 61.81. per cent to 50.16 per cent in the gubernatorial vote. The tide of opposition also appeared in the election of sixty-one Democrats to the Michigan Legislature, reducing 'the Republican majority in that body to ten.190 Thus, Chandler's assurances of his re-election were, to say the least, doubtful. When it was noted that Chandler was not a sure thing, various IRepublican papers in the state came out against his re-election. The Efietroit Advertiser and Tribune was the first to voice such a view, arui throughout the month of November, l87h, this paper and the Detroit Ikast.waged a journalistic battle. The Detroit Post had a number of fbent page stories supporting the thesis that Chandler was "dedicated 188Detroit Free Press, May 16, 1871+. 189Detroit Post, September 2%, 187M. 190Dilla, p. 17A. . A p. ,. 5. 1 . . my” \r“ O H 4»- \l O A b « a?» J 1. .. «L rr~ ‘. . \f— .v . r L . . ‘ u :1 .. L M. 1H” W“ .C .P.~ m; ht. n.» MK» 3» :4 *4 4\ V. N .4& y 4 .. tL. aw .4 \C . "xiv rip «.4 s 4 s an \n 5. CL ”ML U4 . L4 3 1* nu . b k *1“ 1 l n x - 9‘. Q \ .fiu. o a» D. a . 4 .Q Q a.» . .. u a: Y. : 4 .1 :4 ‘ . 4 l: r O R C. E o WW 2 1.... .A .u ad. #14 . 4 M4 : 4 W. O u. Cu n. 4 :\4 “k. 3 “b. v . s L. .4 . OL ‘0 u. . - 2h 33 v . s. . mu E eq .2. .5 3% at .2 Q 3 Q a h a S a ”mm a“ a 1mm a). n L .u »6 n. a ¥ . n 85 to Michigan and should be returned to Congress,"l9l while the Detroit Advertiser and Tribune suggested in equally numerous articles that ". . . the system of politics of which heZEhandler is the embodiment has become grossly obnoxious to great numbers of sincere and thought- ful Republicans. . . ."192 By the middle of December of 187A, the battle of the various newspapers had subsided and all awaited the meeting of the Michigan Legislature in Lansing, in January of 1875. The Republican Sena- torial caucus was planned for Wednesday, January 6, in order to bind as many Republicans as possible, but it was postponed until a stronger force could be mustered. Senator Chandler arrived that evening and took personal charge of his campaign. Not since the beginning of the Republican party in Michigan had such a situation existed. With only a ten per cent majority in the Legislature, the Republicans could stand but little opposition from within its own ranks, and more than a little opposition was present. There were a number of Republican members of the Legislature who opposed Chandler and who refused to sign the call for the caucus to be held on Thursday evening, Janu- ary 7. 0f the seventy-one Republicans in the Legislature, only fifty-nine signed the call and only fifty-seven of the fifty-nine responded. At the caucus, Chandler received fifty-two of the fifty- seven votes, and a motion was made that his nomination be made unani- mous. When the standing vote was taken, Representative Bailey did not rise, and thus the nomination, though announced as unanimous, 191Detroit Post, November 21, 187”- 192Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, November 9, 1874. 86 was not.193 Nonetheless, Chandler was sent for and delivered a short speech of thanks to the caucus. He said in part: It is needless for me to state that it is with feelings of the most profound gratitude that I appear before this conven- tion to learn that after 18 years of continued labor, years when your country has been rocked from turret to foundation stone, years when the very life of the Union was imperiled, to learn that my action . . . has been endorsed so unanimously by this convention. . . . How well I have succeeded I leave it foi you and this convention to decide. My heart is full. . . .19 Tuesday, January 19, was the day set for the election, and great crowds thronged the capitol and filled the aisles of the cham- ber. For three days the balloting continued with no candidate hav- ing a decisive advantage, though Chandler led throughout. 0n the third day, the Democrats and the anti-Chandler Republicans held se- cret meetings to see if a compromise candidate could be selected.195 Isaac P. Christiancy was the man chosen over Chandler, to everyone‘s great surprise.196 The defeat was a bitter pill to swallow. Perhaps it was all the more bitter because the regular Republican organization had sup- ported Senator Chandler. His overthrow was accomplished through 10- cal influences and was not a state-wide expression of lack of faith in the Senator. HOWever, a man as aggressive and partisan as Chand- ler was could not exist for long without making a number of political enemies, for there were many who objected strenuously to his absolute and arbitrary control of the Republican party in Michigan and to his 193Detroit Free Press, January 8, 1875- 19LLDetroit Post, January 8: 1875- 195NeW York Times, January 22, 1875- 196Detroit Post, January 20, 1875; Dilla, p. 178; and Harris, p. 128. \‘,§ v6 ‘ -w:.“j ._. .A ' V -a ._4 4.. '11 hrs 4 k 87 use of the patronage attendant thereto. Greatly disappointed, Chandler took the first train to Washington to round out eighteen years of continuous service in the Senate. He soon dashed on the rocks the hopes of the Democrats that this defeat would end his political activities. From Washington, on February 17, 1875, he wrote the following letter to C. T. Gorham: The Senatorial contest is over and the Democrats with a hand- ful of quasi Republicans have won the victory. They hope by this maneuvre to so demoralize the Republican party in the State, that it can be carried for the Democracy in 1876, but I shall do what I can to cause their victory to be a barren one, to turn their rejoicings into lamentations, to see that their bright hopes, like Dead Sea fruit, turn to ashes on their lips. . . . With a fair prospect of at least twenty years more vigorous health I shall be able to make the working of their political plans an interesting puzzle to all parties of in- terest. In a letter written in March in reply to an invitation from the great majority of the Republican legislators of Michigan to ad- dress them on political topics, he said: . . . I enlisted in the Republican ranks . . . for the whole war. . . . It will be my pride to prove . . . that I can be use- ful as a private soldier. In all future contests you may order me into the ranks with full confidence that I will respond gith all my time . . . and with such ability as I can command.19 Following his defeat, there was much rumor and speculation as to what political job Zachariah Chandler would be given now that he was no longer Senator. In early spring, the rumor had it that he would be appointed Postmaster General; then that he would be offered the Russian mission.199 The Washington Chronicle suggested in an l97Harris, p. 132. 198Life of Zachariah Chandler, p- 339- 199Detroit Free Press, February 20, 1875; and March 20, 1875. rmw luv}. .4...» U-.. .L we‘v- ~ 4‘.-. r. ’1 .4... .nU .. v a; {A . . .T\ s .. f... 5 T .1 r. a. E a A s A. w. .1. E 3 a a . a L... .., . . . .3 3 E a 3 A. ”h . . t v .11 . c C. a C n a: D. 34 T: 411111.11 ll1 1 i- tutti... \l it'lllll.§ I . . . 1 . _ ‘ . . 88 article in June that "Zach" had said he would only be satisfied with Christiancy's place in the Senate.200 An opportunity for Chandler's further service to the govern- ment and the Republican party arose in the late summer of 1875. C0- lumbus Delano, Secretary of Interior under President Grant, found himself involved in a scandal involving the management of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. A special Congressional investigating committee was ordered to look into the matter, and it was published that Secre- tary Delano was personally connected with frauds involving the dis- tribution of beef to the Indians. Nothing was proved concerning De- lano's personal involvement, but it seemed generally accepted that the Interior Department harbored much fraud and corruption. The pressure finally forced his resignation on October 1,1875.201 President Grant then tendered the position to Chandler, who at first was reluctant to accept the assignment and at first denied that the appointment had been offered to him.202 It was certainly not an easy task to fulfill. Even the Republicans admitted to the fact that the variety of heterogenious bureaus operating in the De- partment seemed to invite the depredations of the corruptionists.203 However, after much urging by his friends, Chandler accepted the position on October 20, 1875, and entered at once on his duties. 200Washington Chronicle as quoted in the Detroit Free Press, June h, 1875. 201The information on the scandals in the Interior Department was taken from various issues of Detroit Free Press, Detroit Tribune, and the Detroit Post during summer of 1875. 202New York Times, October 19, 1875. 203Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, October 20, 1875. 89 He lost no time in dealing with what he believed to be cor- rupt influences. "Zach" made virtually a clean sweep of the Depart- ment, especially the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the scene of the re- cent exposures, and the Patent Office. Some of his actions most certainly were predicated on political grounds, such as the appoint- ment of C. T. Gorham of Michigan as Assistant Secretary, but Chand- "204 The Democrats ler's desire, as he put it, was to "begin anew. immediately picked up the political significance of his appointments and charged that Chandler was removing all those not considered staunchly "Radical" and replacing them with "tried and true and faithful Republican henchmen."205 Except for the initial flurry of excitement attendant on the dismissal of employees and the introduction of certain new business methods into the Department, Chandler's tenure was generally effi- cient and honest. He could have gone one step farther in his re- vamping of the Department and instituted the much talked of reforms, especially civil service, but Chandler was having none of these. He had been staunchly against civil service. As a politician he firmly believed Jackson's edict--"To the victors belong the spoils." Chandler's successor, Karl Schurz, however, was a man of far different nature. Following the election of Rutherford B. Hayes to the Presidency, Karl Schurz was offered a choice between heading the Post Office Department and the Department of the Interior. He chose the Interior Department because there was more opportunity for reform, 201+Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, November 29, 1875. 205Detroit Free Press, March 31, 1876. . CL filv Lu .1 U. w . a: a: e l 2 . r1“ C» .13 .1 u 1, ..G C u n f‘ " " , ~~' Y- “yeti; l§.'.ll. .. .25 Li: finch; -c ‘1-"- i 1‘ dc \-. .4 "‘ Js.‘ \ 1 l ‘ “1‘" a v , 90 especially civil service.206 On taking office from Zachariah Chand- ler, Schurz complimented him on the fact that the Interior Department had never been as efficient or businesslike.207 The nomination, campaign, and final election of Rutherford.B. Hayes to the Presidency provides us another glimpse into the activi- ties of Zachariah Chandler. While still Secretary of the Interior and Chairman of the Congressional Republican Committee, Chandler was chosen Chairman of the National Republican Committee and, as such, directed the Hayes campaign for President. This situation was unique because Zachariah Chandler was a Radical Republican through and through, and a man concerned with the spoils of office. He saw little reason for "reform" and fought it at every step. Hayes, on the other hand, was a "reform" candidate. His acceptance of the nomination and his campaign was based on these pre- mises. He promised (l) to institute reforms at the first opportunity; and (2) to serve only one term so that none of his actions could be construed as an attempt to maintain himself in office. Another consideration made Chandler and Hayes strange bed- fellows. Chandler had a faint hope of being nominated as the Repub- lican candidate for President in 1876, and was working behind the scenes to accomplish this, though there was little chance that as staunch a Radical as Chandler would gain the nomination. Even his private secretary confessed the futility of it as early as April of 206Letter of Karl Schurz to Rutherford B. Hayes, February 26, 1877; The Rutherford B. Hayes Papers, Rutherford B. Hayes Library, Fremont, Ohio. 207Life of Zachariah Chandler, p. 355- F‘“ I. ‘IA Ifi \ r: .1. i . T ad .a ‘ 22 2 .. til-51!; r\ {1‘ ..~ .c n. at 5% an . n a. ‘Ik \ a 1‘ e 01v Cu 3 91 1876.208 However, it was by no means a secret that he desired the nomination. One of Chandler's clerks in the Interior Department had written to Governor Hayes in June to "look out for Chandler at the convention in Cincinnati."209 Hayes was warned before the start of the campaign to insist on naming his own chairman of the National Executive Committee and to be sure of his man. A number of letters warned him against Chand- ler as one who was plotting to manage the campaign in the interests of Tilden. Chandler, who had supported James G. Blaine during the convention, offered to resign as chairman of the National Republican Committee to make way for a man more acceptable to Hayes, but Hayes' manager requested him to remain. The deal, it was rumored, involved an official position for Chandler in the Hayes Administration, but it never materialized. As earlier mentioned, it was frankly re- gretted by many that he was chosen as national chairman, for it was not seen how he could be expected to work directly against a system of politics of which he himself had made special use. There were those, however, who felt that Zach Chandler was the only man to manage an aggressive campaign which would lead to "an old fashioned Republican victory,"210 but he was hampered from the start by disloyalty within the National Committee. Gov. R. C. McCor- mick of Arizona was secretary of the Committee, and his opposition to 208Letter of R. R. Hayes, son of Rutherford B. Hayes, from Lansing, Michigan, to Gov. Hayes,.April 2, 1876; Rutherford B. Hayes Papers, Rutherford B. Hayes Library, Fremont, Ohio. 209Letter to Gov. Hayes, June 18, 1876; Rutherford B. Hayes Papers, Rutherford B. Hayes Library, Fremont, Ohio. 210Detroit Post, June 15, 1876. .‘ n w bud“ 1. Id .1» nU a. U— --.. 18.‘u 92 Chandler and his methods was voiced to Hayes without ceasing through- out the campaign. He wrote to Hayes on August 29, 1876, not to ac- cept "official" communiques from the National Headquarters in New York as his (McCormick's) opinions.211 McCormick charged that Chand- ler was not in New York enough to manage a campaign, that he was un- able to raise enough money, and that he didn't seem to care enough to do his best. Finally, on September 3, McCormick wrote a confidential letter to Hayes suggesting that Hayes write to Chandler and tell him: (1) to stay in New York where the main work was being done. (2) to be more careful in raising money and develOp a careful and close supervision to accomplish our financial goals. (3) to quit delegating responsibilities to the various state committees. (A) to realize that Tilden cannot be beaten by ordinary meas- ures--we need an extra-ordinary system of vigilance. Publicly at least, Chandler was confident of victory. In an interview in New York, he told the reporter: . . . The Democrats might manage to carry nearly all the Southern States, if they would do one or two things-—first if they could kill off all the colored voters before the day of elections arrives, or, next, if they could so intimidate them to vote the Democratic ticket or to deter them from going to the polls, when the day does arrive. Chandler's confidence in victory for the Republicans received a severe jolt in the October state elections. The slim margin of victory in Ohio and the loss of Indiana was a blow to the Republican 211Letter of Gov. R. c. McCormick to Hayes, August 29, 1876; Rutherford B. Hayes Papers, Rutherford B. Hayes Library, Fremont, Ohio. 212Letter of McCormick to Hayes, September 3, l876; Ruther- ford B. Hayes Papers, Rutherford B. Hayes Library, Fremont, Ohio. 213New York Herald,.August 29, 1876. orgaf .. d ‘ .~ L. .n u at; ‘1\ r; ‘ a _ fi “1.! . :L 21. a AN r“ C» 0.» n1» il‘ a 1 .1.. 2.. .1. r6 L... a» «C L. ‘1. a . SM 2 . «1.. r3 «nu . 2 an . . L .n a . r .N AJ a 2.. ii "W «1. "fl n1v :L a» hut Tu r n .3 .n m .. .. 9.3.94.4.gw‘ 93 organization. Chandler saw the writing on the wall. Writing to Governor Hayes in October, he predicted a sharp contest from then on if victory was to be obtained.21u As further insurance, Chandler worked diligently to get Republican Congressmen elected so that in case the election should be thrown into the House, the Republicans would control it. On the morning after the Presidential election in November, Chandler sent the following telegram over the wires of the Associated Press: "Rutherford B. Hayes has received one hundred and eighty-five electoral votes and is elected."215 As history shows us, this was premature. The Republicans lost New York, New Jersey, and Indiana, the three key states; and South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana had not yet reported. As it turned out, the election was not decided until the spring of 1876, with much accusations of fraud and double- dealing on both sides. Grant sent troops to the South, a Congres- sional committee was formed to count the electoral votes, and an in- vestigating committee was formed to delve into the accusations of fraud. Chandler's bank account was seized and he was called as a witness before the investigating committee. Much question was raised over telegrams to Chandler from the Southern states for money to in- sure a "fair" count, and Zach‘s telegrams in answer to these re- quests.216 Finally, Hayes was named the victor by one electoral vote, 211*Letter of Chandler to Gov. Hayes, October 13, 1876; Ruther- ford B. Hayes Papers, Rutherford B. Hayes Library, Fremont, Ohio. 2l5Harris, p. 133. 216Detroit Free Press, January 21, 1877. “z -\ V? ‘K Q». .l 1. . as ..\ «1‘ 2. .rd A“ h.. A. 9 Ca M :1. ‘ A w .fi ‘ hq flak :1. ski». . x 3 . .1 a“ . r; L Ta M. .C F. a... 1.. :1. .J ...; nu Cu .1. a a... 3 . u 3,. .. 1 U... 1. r5. Cw 1.... 11 . . 1‘ 1 .i..;-..u...I-..l, 45‘ L; . .J 11111. .11. 9h but the Democrats did not lose gracefully. So worried was Chandler over what might happen to Hayes before his inauguration, that he wrote to the newly-elected President on February 20, 1877: Come to Washington secretly. Those, who, like myself were here in 1861, note a great similarity in the indication of feel- ing on the part of the worst element of the Democracy. Hayes did not take this advice, but arrived in the public view to be inaugurated President of the united States. Many believed that Hayes' inauguration was due in large measure to the ability of Zachariah Chandler to manipulate the returning boards in the Southern States. Once elected, however, President Hayes chose his cabinet from the reform elements of the party and Chandler found himself once again outside the official political arena. "Zach" remained in Washington for a few months and then re- turned to Michigan to take care of his business and agricultural pur- suits. On the political scene, 1877 saw the withdrawal of Federal troops from Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana and a policy of Federal non-intervention in the South. Many politicians of the Rad- ical wing of the Republican party, including Zachariah Chandler, op- posed these moves strongly and soon became known as the "Stalwarts." The opposition of these men was based on the accurate belief that the withdrawal of Federal troops would mean the return to power in the South of those white Democrats who had played an active part in the Rebellion. So vehement was Chandler's opposition that he caused no mention of the national administration to be made in the Michigan 217Letter of Chandler to Hayes, February 20, 1877; Ruther- :ford B. Hayes Papers, Rutherford B. Hayes Library, Fremont, Ohio. n. « ~ A r “ MAJ. . 5 AL. . Q» ~| + _ no . Pu 'vas‘ ., V .... A —J it. DSF‘ ‘M‘ 2.. Li. a DC .Tx «Li M. 95 State Republican Platform of 1878.218 It was at the State Convention of Michigan Republicans in 1878, in the Opera House at Detroit, that Zachariah Chandler was cho- sen chairman of the State Central Committee. He had planned a Euro- pean trip for the summer of 1878, and certainly no one would have blamed him had he refused the honor. Should the Republicans have gone down to defeat in the state elections of 1878, it would have virtually ruined any future political plans he may have had. How- ever, his comment was: "If Michigan Republicanism goes down, I will go down with it."219 He cancelled all his previous plans and went to work. His ringing speech of acceptance is ample evidence that his position had changed not one whit since before the war. He said in part: Why are there so many here today? The reason is obvious, there is danger in the country. The rebels have captured Wash- ington, gained possession of one branch of the National Legis- lature by fraud, murder, assassination, and torture, and they are liable soon to gain possession of the other. The Democrats have determined through revolution to overturn the Constitution and the Government. . . . The Republican party was the original greenback party, and no other class of men has any right to that name. The Republican party demands that one dollar in greenbacks shall be equal to one dollar in gold or silver, and redeemable in the latter.220 The battle in Michigan in 1878 saw four political parties in the ring--the Republicans, the Democrats, the Greenbacks, and the Prohibitionists. It was a bitterly fought campaign, and the Republi- cans, under the leadership of the "Stalwarts" under Zachariah Chand- 218Detroit Post, June 16, 1878. 219Life of Zachariah Chandler, p. 375. 220Detroit Post, June 1’4, 1878;Detroit Free Press, June 11+, 1878. .2 .5 W. «C . a: L, L . .71. s .2. .11 a. . L. :1. .C a U 3 . v .. v at: . N “a: .n . N 1. «iv in“ ... . 96 ler, drew up their plans along the lines of the rather time—worn issues of Reconstruction and paper money. Again, as before, Chandler became the target of the Democrats, who claimed that he didn't need a majority of the votes if he could gain control of the canvassing boards. The obvious implication was that he had personally engi- neered the fraudulent election of President Hayes.221 The Republican victory this year was even greater than their victory two years before. They elected their entire state ticket, plus all nine Congressmen and ninety members of the state legislature of one hundred and thirty-two.222 This victory, plus the fact that the Republicans carried every Northern state in 1878, were causes for rejoicing. Said the Detroit Post and Tribune: The Republican party has reason to be proud of its great leaders. The best campaign work the country has ever witnessed has been done this year by'Blaine in Maine; Conkling in New York; and Chandler in Michigan, while others of less note as great political organizers have performed splendid service in other states. It seemed as if Zachariah Chandler again had the Republican organization of Michigan "in his breeches pocket" and it was un- doubtedly a disappointment to him that Christiancy's Senate seat did not come up until 1881. As the Washington Evening Star opined: "If the Senate of Michigan could elect a Senator, it would be Zachariah by acclamation."22u Then rumors began to spread that Chandler was anxious to re- 221Detroit Free Press, June 15, 1878. 222Dilla, p. 228. 223Detroit Post and Tribune, November 7, 1878. 221*Washington Evening Star, November 12, 1878, as reported in ‘the Detroit Free Press, November 1A, 1878. FL .Q 3 97 turn to the Senate and that efforts were being made on his behalf to have Christiancy step aside for this move. First it was reported that Christiancy would be offered a seat on the Supreme Court and, when this did not materialize, that he would be offered his choice of foreign posts as a reward for his resignation.225 Christiancy pleaded that his health was the reason why he might leave the Senate, but Harriet Dilla offers the explanation that an unfortunate matri- monial experience while in Washington rendered Mr. Christiancy's do- mestic life so unhappy, and his social relations so uncongenial, that he resigned from the Senate to accept a foreign post.226 At any rate, he did resign in early February to take the post of Minister to Peru, and the field was left open for the return of Zachariah Chandler to the Senate. Chandler's opponent for the nomination was ex-Governor Baglefi but it was generally conceded that he had little chance. At the Re- publican caucus held on the evening of February 1%, 1879, Chandler received sixty votes on the first ballot to Bagley's nineteen. It was then made unanimous,227 and at the election in the legislature on February 18, Chandler received the votes of every Republican pres- ent, defeating his Democratic opponent, Barnes, by a margin of sixty- six votes.228 In the Senate in the spring and summer of 1879, Chandler went 225Detroit Free Press, December 19, 1878; Detroit Post and Tribune, January 7, 1879; Detroit Free Press, January 31, 1879. 226Dilla, p. 229. 227Detroit Free Press, February 15, 1879- 228Detroit Post and Tribune, February 19, 1870. II.\III b. x: u.» GL 3.. :wflhsa‘ 1-. 98 about his business without attracting too much attention, with two notable exceptions, one of which was his tirade against Jefferson Davis in connection with the Veteran's Pension Bill discussed in Chapter One. Following this speech against Davis, the galleries ex- ploded into spontaneous applause, and it was some moments before or- der was restored. The Republican press praised the speech and the Democrats heartily denounced it. So pleased was Chandler with his remarks on this occasion that he had 300,000 copies of the speech printed and distributed as a campaign document in the election of 1879. Chandler's other major address on the Senate floor was his carefully prepared address arraigning the Democratic party for its action during the latter part of the Forty-Fifth Congress and the special session of the Forty-Sixth Congress, called on March 18, 1879. Near the close of the special session "Zach" delivered a speech in which he indicted the Democrats on eleven counts covering the period from before the Civil War to that session. He closed with this forecast of the campaign of 1879. They have made these issues, not we; and by them they must stand or fall. This is the platform they have constructed not only for 1879 but for 1880. They cannot change it for we will hold them to it. They have made their bed, and we will see to it that they shall lie thereon.22 Both of these speeches gained widespread attention for Zacha- riah Chandler. .As a leading figure of the Republican party, he had supplied the ammunition for the coming campaign, and the talk of Chandler for President in 1880 took on a more serious note than it had taken in 1876. As early as April, the Chicago Advance, a reli- 229Detroit Post and Tribune, July 1, 1879. dink—v- ———~ . vvx—l ANS-In 3:1 Usq1av‘ -~.‘ 1 ‘7' 1Q A v DJ” A“ “ “11‘. x. .5- s, 1C; * “" LO r: 99 gious paper, had brought his name forward, writing: He has in times past been addicted to drink, but like Grant, he has been able by his tremendous will-power to break the shackles of this evil habit. He has sometimes been as profane as Andrew Jackson, but he will not swear falsely nor perjure his soul in violating his official oath, and may we hope that his power of self-control may yet be brought to re- strain his foolish habit of profanity. Senator Chandler is possessed of a competence in property, and no breath of sus- picion has ever accused him of pecuniary corruption. Most of the Republicans of the South think there is no hope for them except in Grant, and when Confederate hands are almost in reach of the Treasury, it is seriously proposed to obtain politi- cally what was lost in war, thousands . . . in the North are turning again to Grant. . . . But if by reason of the third- term objections, . . . it is deemed best to select some other standard-bearer, who could so well meet the demands of the situation as honest Zach Chandler of Michigan.230 In June, the New York Times wrote that Chandler was being pushed forward by his friends and that it would not be long before he would "appear on the track."231 In an interview published in the Washington Star on July 111, 1879, William E. Chandler offered the opinion that, should the contest at the convention be a close and bitter fight, it was quite possible that Zachariah Chandler would be the nominee. William E. Chandler suggested that he had found among the people a decided sentiment in favor of Zachariah Chandler. Chandler himself, while he may have had aspirations in the direction of the Presidency, had definitely taken himself out of the race earlier that month. He had said ". . . I do not decline. The idea of my being a candidate is so ridiculous that it would be absurd of me to decline."232 230Chicago Advance as quoted in the New York Times, April 25, 1879. 231New York Times, June 13: 1879' 232Cincinnati Commercial, July 6, 1879, as quoted in the New York Times, July 8, 1879. r .M up 1""“ OVA“ “bun ».A I C -s. .‘N 81.0 a Q u ,7 r1 I . . c. a. r .3 .. a L. 2» CL fiL «\y A. “a «C e ‘Rh «\U 1T1. fixN O a . C . 1 . . 1 LIN Qua. ‘ L it «have . “N 100 The campaign of 1879 fOIIOWed closely upon the midsummer adjournment of Congress, and invitations to address the people during the campaign came to Senator Chandler from a score of States. His first address was delivered before the Republican State Convention of Wisconsin at Madison, on July 23. In August, he spoke six times in Maine. In September he spoke seven times in Ohio, four times in Mas- sachusetts, and eight times in New York. In October he returned to Wisconsin for a number of addresses, then traveled to Illinois, plan- ning to return to Michigan for the round-up. This had not been an easy campaign for a man sixty-five years old. He became ill in Ohio during September, but continued his cam- paign in that state. In October, he stopped off in Detroit on his way to Wisconsin for a medical check-up, and his doctor ordered him to cease the campaign and take an immediate rest, but Chandler's answer was "I'll rest after the campaign."233 In Chicago, on October 31, 1879, Senator Chandler complained to Senator Logan of Illinois, who was his escort, of slight pains in his chest. He went to his room in the Grand Pacific Hotel to rest late in the afternoon, arising in time to eat a light supper before his speech in McCormick Hall that evening.23u Though he was ill, his speech of that evening failed to give evidence of it. The audience was afire with enthusiasm and applauded following almost every sen- tence, and under the stimulus of the occasion, Chandler rose to more than his usual fervor. It was the same Chandler, the Radical, the waver of the "bloody shirt" who spoke that night, and his message was 233Detroit Post and Tribune, November 3, 1879. 231+Detroit Free Press, November 2, 1879. «.1 ‘ s r w “a .l “,7.-.”— 3 7‘ Aw 3--.. Y. r. Au .3 a r. & AU . 1 w a Q .L ”11‘ .ou“ «C :l 1.. .rt 0 a _ .. a . F a. .\ E .1: .p .. 1:. 1‘. x t N .a «A ‘ 3. Q fix \V“‘ \a lOl essentially the same as it had been in years past. One especially ringing sentence brought the assembled multitude to its feet as one man, cheering and shouting. The mission of the Republican party will not end until you and I, Mr. Chairman, can start from the Canada border, travel to the Gulf of Mexico, make Black Republican speeches wherever we please, vote the Black Republican ticket wherever we gain a residence, and do it with exactly the same safety that a rebel can travel throughout the North, stop wherever he has a mind to, and run for judge in any city he chooses.2 Following the close of his speech, Mr. Chandler returned to his hotel to chat with friends until midnight. At about midnight, Representative Edwin Willits of Michigan made a short call to con- gratulate him on the speech. .After that no man saw Senator Chandler alive. He was discovered by hotel employees the following morning slumped over the bed. Medical aid was summoned, but it was too late. Zachariah Chandler was dead. Expressions of grief flowed in from throughout the land, and thousands lined the streets of Chicago as he was taken to the train for his last journey to Detroit. Resolutions of regret were publimrfi. in the towns of Michigan, and his remains lay in state in the Detroit City Hall as thousands passed his bier. Hundreds of prominent men in politics from every corner of the United States came to Detroit for the funeral. President Hayes ordered all public buildings to fly their flags at half mast on the day of the funeral.236 On the day of the funeral, November 5, 1879, a great snow storm buffeted Detroit. Funeral services were held at Chandler's 235Life of Zachariah Chandler, p. 390- 236Executive Order, November 1, 1879; Rutherford B. Hayes Papers, Rutherford.B. Hayes Library, Fremont, Ohio. raw": Lev-“L, . r-l‘l ”“1 a3+ U“ _ . \ A-v ~,' u..vfl*J w n‘ \Q L. . 1 v. w c I: file .1 c .r. 3: Y1 2.4 r... 2. . 71 n 1v .. . a . _ .T). r1 .. 5 sq 2% n3 .1» DNA a . AI. . 7.. an; Cd 2% w 1‘ NA. .r V a .C .11 Rm“ ”1: .3 n... “.1. RI.» .mJ M1... v1 1.. . E .6. » .. a: s1: 3: .2 1h. .«Q at. a; S w u. a v: r r . n. . Q. .. . f; are » x .z. -u .Hc sunu .. . Ana v u a o. a a t . an. «a. u 1 m1. r.. ... n .1. h. .r.. L. :1. .1: a. . . J. )1... .p.. «o . . 1U 5. .. ..1 a 9. Ga rd. ”1... Vi n6 0 5 . «I. a t . . u d 102 home, from whence a funeral parade composed of militia units, frater- nal organizations, and carriages of prominent people wended its way slowly to the cemetery. There were seventy-nine units in all in- volved in the funeral procession. Again, thousands lined the streets to pay their last respects, the violent weather deterring them not one bit. Finally, late in the afternoon, his body was lowered to its final resting place. In life, Zachariah Chandler had been a powerful public fig- ure, a political leader during a trying period in American history, a Radical in the extreme, a man not given to compromise, a man whose energy and drive toward a narrowly partisan goal amazed his friends and engendered the hatred of those of opposing political philoso- phies. Chandler was a man who perhaps was an asset during the middle years of the 19th century, but he was also a man whose nature pre- vented him from forgetting those struggles when a more broad-minded approach to national problems was needed. By his extraordinary force of character and political sagacity he exercised a wide personal in- fluence during his lifetime, but he was definitely a man of his par- ticular era. Perhaps because of his lack of vision, we must withhold the stamp of true, lasting greatness. Perhaps the best appraisal of the contribution of his life is stated in the Detroit Free Press of November 2, 1879. Mr. Chandler's Republicanism has always been of the most aggressive and radical. He never spoke in words of uncertainty. He was a man of great earnestness; even his political opponents gave him credit for sincerity. As a speaker he was a "plain, blunt, honest man," making no pretense to polish or the art of rhetoric. He had profound convictions, and never lacked the ability to explain his faith or to expound forcibly and im- pressively the principles of his political creed. He was a strong man, rather than a scholarly one—~a man of great common sense rather than a great education--a practical, rather than 103 a brilliant statesman. Among Senators he was the peer of the ablest in the power to grasp a proposition and to appreciate an emergency. 237Detroit Free Press, November 2, 1879. CHAPTER III THE SPEAKER AND THE ISSUES In the preceding chapter, the life, times, and political ca- reer of Zachariah Chandler were examined in order that our subject might be placed in historical perspective as a first step in our quest for an understanding of the man as a speaker. A speaker does not work in a vacuum. He addresses real people on real issues. Zachariah Chandler was a prolific speech-maker. His status in state and national politics afforded him many opportunities to speak publicly on the issues of the day, and he seldom failed to take advantage of these opportunities. Because he did speak often, it is unfortunate for the student of his speaking that no manuscripts of his speeches are available for study. Much of his speaking appears to have grown out of the immedi- ate occasion, and few records of these instances are extant. Texts of his speeches are recorded, however, in the Congressional Globe and the Congressional Record, and some texts appear in the newspapers of the day. The accuracy of these texts is dependent upon the accuracy of the stenographer who took them down, and it is also true that "Zach" may have had the opportunity to modify his remarks in the Senate before their printing. On certain occasions, however, there is reason to believe that a manuscript was used for delivery and that a text was made 1011 TESL the 54%- ‘f‘ I‘ll ft. \ a r‘. . . l . all «14 ..1. r . .n. u 11 my .11.. ..Q :1‘ .1. .. . r1.. ._ A E a c :1. a I. .... r1. .2 F. 1. t a: .5 ad .h,.. 3 hi 3 . M1. an» *1... . o. I W rd w w . . t L L ad a. nu 2a C C... .3. my 51. .-.1,1.I1I..,.1,$uua.1§‘ 105 available for publication. While a text of this nature affords the researcher a more accurate picture of the content and the style of the speech than he would have if none existed, he has no way of de- termining with certainty whether or not the speaker adhered to the manuscript during delivery. These texts do provide, however, a means of making a decision regarding the probable accuracy of the steno— graphic reports. Thus if we assume a certain accuracy of those texts which were written out in advance, we can make certain limited judg— ments concerning the accuracy of the stenographic reports. On the basis of such a comparison, it is the opinion of this writer that we have reasonably accurate texts of his Senate speaking; at least accurate enough to draw certain conclusions regarding them. We do find a certain consistency of language and structure, a recur- rence of favorite phrases,quotations,statistics,sentences, and a cer- tain consistency in organization and arrangement of ideas. Ibis farm therefore, that the material available affords the researcher enough accuracy to permit an analysis of Chandler's speaking in the Senate. These same consistencies in structure and composition are evident when Chandler's campaign speeches are examined. In a number of cases the reports of two eye witnesses are available. Not only are their reports and quotations generally in agreement, but the content of these Speeches appears to be consistent with his Senate speaking when national issues are discussed. Though we have very few examples of his occasional or cere- monial speaking, those we do have seem to be consistent in organiza- tion, materials, and style with his Senate and his campaign speaking. In an attempt to establish reasonable textual accuracy, his c Q~ A'r ~ ~-J-4L. .ckLor . :ld . _ . n. W . .Pd a .21.. r: T: r r c. A: O Q» .. it». til. ififig‘ a« Q n \- 106 speeches were divided into three distinct types--legislative, "stump" or campaign, and occasional. These are definitions which have to do with the settings in which the speeches were given, but they afford very little information concerning the subjects or the purposes of the speeches. Classically,l deliberative speeches had to do with discus- sions of political questions and questions of state; judicial or fo- rensic speeches were concerned with prosecution and defense; and pan- egyric or epideitic speeches dealt generally with subjects of praise or blame. It is not possible, however, to delineate Chandler's speaking on these bases, for all of these purposes are found in vir- tually all of the seventy-five speeches available for study. Seldom did any given speech deal with one specific issue, and Chandler fre- quently used a situation as a point of departure from which to dis— cuss a number of items. In the speeches in which one subject was discussed, we frequently find discussion of policy, prosecution and defense, and praise or blame. Rather than divide Chandler's speeches into any traditional categories, therefore, it seems advisable to examine his speaking as a total activity covering all the years of his political life, and to ask certain questions about each of his speeches which seem crucial to description and analysis. The first question which might well be asked in an attempt to (iraw together a lifetime of speaking is "What were the issues on VVhich he spoke and what was his position with regard to each?" The ¥ lClassically means, in this context, the writings in rhetoric (:Oming to us from the Greek and Roman cultures of antiquity, espe- cially Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian. ‘ F‘ 3 x. .l 6 HQ L-b 37h ‘ ‘f and a PC 5.. 1T.» «. N. C» b D .ri. a: 03 TC .‘I. and "W ._ a a: .u a .nU O .1 ml ' d .4. 5 m a 107 answer to this question is the purpose of this chapter. The Negro The first major issue which commanded Chandler's attention and which continued to command his attention throughout his life was the Negro--the slave and the freedman--and the institution of slavery as it affected American society. To Zachariah Chandler, the institution of slavery was a blight on the American dream of liberty and equality for all. No one speech delivered by Chandler dealt with slavery exclusively, but it was discussed as an issue in a number of his speeches. He opposed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 with all his heart and gave aid and sympathy to those who would help escaped slaves avoid capture. Detroit was one of the chief points on the "under- ground railroad," and Chandler was a frequent contributor to its ex- penses.2 It is not difficult to trace the origins of Chandler's anti- slavery convictions. He came from a New England environment where freedom and self-determination were valued highly and closely guarded. His family was first Federalist, and later Whig and Chandler brought 'With him to Detroit Whig anti-slavery convictions. In addition to his opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law, he (Ipposed the Compromises of l850, the Kansas—Nebraska Act of 1854, and tflne bill of Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois offered in the Senate Cu: March 17, 1856, to "authorize the people of the territory of 2Life of Zachariah Chandler (Detroit: Detroit Post and Tri- 1311n8,1880), p. 75. m a ma. u h b. e .. a 4 8 Cd . LL « t . . V. . .r . r C; ru "1. a a S r. 4 e In. 0 a a,“ h“ .Pu a v. o e no .3; n: .T; :l e .rn rpx a «L AC - 1.— n.“ HUI a a Q» a .9 CU b n E O a a o. E S S T. n . a h.“ in. a .. a My. ¥. rd .7. C Q» 0 LL. S N a f HR .3 a» nu! -Td 108 Kansas to form a constitution and state government preparatory to their admission into the Union when they have the requisite popula- tion."3 Chandler bent every effort to prevent Kansas from becoming a slave state, even to the point of helping to organize and endow a "Kansas subscription fund" which helped free settlers move to that area and settle the land so that Kansas might enter the Union as a h free state. He was a member of the Senate when the LeCompton Constitution was presented in 1858, and he lost no time in articulating publicly his stand on slavery and its extension. Chandler called the proposed constitution an "aggression of slave power which will lead to the sub- version of the Constitution and the Union," and he forecast what was to be his credo with these words: The race of Union—whinners, the old women of the North who have been in the habit of crying 'The Union is in danger,‘ have passed off the stage. . . . They were willing to compromise any principle; anything to save the Union. Sir, the men of the present day will compromise nothing. They are Union-loving men; they love all portions of the Union and they will com- promise anything but principle to save the Union. . . . No more compromises will ever be submitted to save the Union. . . . Sir, we [The Republicans] are the national party of the Government and in opposition to us is a purely sectional party that knows no issue but one, and that is the slavery issue. Chandler denied that the Constitution recognized slavery and suggested that if the Supreme Court felt otherwise, then the Court 3Jeremiah Chaplin and J. D. Chaplin, The Life of Charles ESumner (Boston: D. Lothrop, l87h), p. 265. LLDetroit Free Press, July 3, 1856. SSpeech delivered in the Senate, March 12, 1858. shoula ‘- a r‘r. 58¢» ‘n: uhoy L ._J 109 6 should be re-organized. When the Civil War commenced, Chandler urged that if slaves were considered property in the South, they should be freed when captured by the Northern army.7 He early urged the ideas contained in the Emancipation Proclamation8 and was one of the first proponents of the use of Negroes as troops in the Northern army. This latter proposal was clean-cut to Chandler. He reasoned that the Government had the right to call up citizens and confiscate property as part of the war effort and that the Negroes in the South were one or the other. Therefore, concluded Chandler, they should be used by the North to bring about the end of the Rebellion.9 Speaking in l871, "Zach" traced the seven missions of the Re publican party, two of which were (I) to save the vast territories from the curse of slavery; and (2) to liberate the slaves.10 He be- lieved that the Republican party was born to destroy the slavocracy, free the slaves, and insure freedom for all.ll In the last speech of his life, delivered the night he died, Chandler was still proclaiming his belief in the freedom and dignity of all men, regardless of race, creed, or color. The Republican party was created with one idea, and that 6Speech delivered in the Senate, February 17, 1859. 7Speech delivered in Jackson, Michigan, October l0, 1862. 8Speech delivered in Detroit, Michigan, November 1, 1860. 9Speech delivered in Detroit, Michigan, October 17, 1863. lOU.S., Congressional Globe, ulst Cong., 3d Sess., 1871, :XLIII, Part 1, 58b. llSpeech delivered in Madison, Wisconsin, July 23, 1879. 110 was to preserve our vast territories from the blighting curse of slavery. The War for the Union The question of slavery helped to create a crisis which re- sulted in the Civil War. As Chandler himself had stated, he was not one to compromise when the issue was one of principle, and one of the principles he upheld vehemently was the solidarity of the Union and the pre—eminence of the Constitution. To Chandler, division of the United States was unthinkable from a legal, moral, or political point of view; and anyone, white or black, who threatened the sovereignty of the government in any way was a traitor who had given up all his rights. In Chandler's opinion, there were only two types of people in this country once the war threatened, patriots and traitors. The traitors were those who either actively participated in the seces- sionist movement or who gave aid and comfort to that cause; the pa- triots were those who supported the Constitution and the Federal Government.13 He felt that the Civil War did not begin in l86l, but in 1832, when President Jackson threatened the use of Federal force to quell the seeds of rebellion in South Carolina.lu From that time on, according to Zachariah, the South had attempted, and succeeded, in imposing its will on the Congress and the government. 12Speech delivered in Chicago, Illinois, October 31, 1879. 13Speech delivered to a Union League meeting in Detroit, April 16, 1861 . 11+Speech delivered following a cruise off New York, July A, 1861 . .Q We .. . rd .. .. a: . L 2» . P_ L... . s at :.\C‘ y~~ . a-.. -4“ had pr: , .‘dl’l .LE . .r.. V. L.» trazzli‘. h’ 111 Chandler believed that President Buchanan was a fraudl5 who had been elected because he had led the voters of the North to be- lieve that he favored a free Kansas; a traitor because, just prior to secession, he had allowed traitors in his cabinet to rob the country of its power to wage war.16 "Zach" charged that President Buchanan had proved false to his charge to "keep the fertile lands of this country reserved for the homes of free men."17 When it came to a question of war, Chandler desired that it be fought with absolute victory as its aim. "If it is to be war, then let us have open war and not border skirmishes."18 There would be no concession, no compromise, even strife, even to blood was better than yielding to the demands of traitorous insolence.l9 The Civil War seemed almost a great and holy crusade to Chandler. He said on April 26, 1861, in a speech in Detroit, Michi- gan: "Michigan was not allowed to share in the dangers of the Revo- lutionary War, now we enter a grander contest."20 He supported every means to put down the Rebellion, and denied that he was in any way responsible for the conflict. I am responsible for this War as much as the watchman is for the fire. . . . If using every means to put down the Rebellion l5Speech delivered in the Senate, March 12, 1858. 16Speech delivered in the Senate, March 2, 1861. 17Speech delivered in Detroit, Michigan, during the campaign of 1860. 18Speech delivered in the Senate, March 2, 1861. 19Ibid. 2OSpeech delivered to a Union League meeting in Detroit, .April 26, 1861. ll2 is radical, then I am radical.21 Chandler accused the Democrats of being the party responsible for the War and claimed that the Republican party was "purer than the Dis- ciples of Christ . . . for they had one traitor among them."22 Early in the Rebellion a bill came before the Senate to in- crease the cadets at West Point because of the emergency. Chandler opposed this move because he felt that the Civil war would be over before these cadets would be ready for battle. More importantly, however, he opposed it because " . . . but for this institution the Rebellion would never have broken out. . . ." To Chandler, "West Point has produced more traitors in the last fifty years than any school since Judas. . "23 In military affairs, Chandler opposed conservatism wherever he found it, and he was critical of the conservative tendency of the administration of Abraham Lincoln in a number of speeches. In l863, he summed up his feelings in an address to a Union Meeting in Spring- field, Illinois. For eighteen months we had a conservative policy. The Rebels were our dear brothers! and we had to protect their Niggers! . What was the result of these eighteen months? ‘We found our- selves not so well off as we were at the beginning. Our armies had been driven across the Rappahannock. That’s where we stood. Now, it took Mr. Lincoln a long time to inaugurate a real war policy. . . . Then Mr. Lincoln, after the battle of Antietam said our Armies should have all that was necessary for their subsistence from the Rebels, and as soon as we began to hurt them, they began to feel it and give way! That proclamation of the President did ten-fold more than ten armies could have done to cripple the power and destroy the hope and extinguish 21Speech delivered in Jackson, Michigan, October 10, 1862. 22Speech delivered in Fentonville, Michigan, October 22, 1862. 23Speech delivered in the Senate, December 23, 1861. Egan.- u- ‘ a... . me. No. Aid 3 r . i y. \ IV 1‘» ‘r‘. -.. .h‘n.‘ AU- L an d. a... ‘I.4 #L rd ll3 the courage of the Rebels.24 In this same speech he vented his wrath against the Northern Copperheads, whom he felt were a definite threat to the success of the Northern armies. He said: These Rebel traitors of the North will go down in history with worse infamies on their heads than Benedict Arnold. There will be no cave or pile of rocks deep enough to cover them from the damnation of this people. They have upon their heads all the blood that has been shed. To extend to them the right hand of fellowship is something I can never do and never shall do.25 "Zach" also had no patience with what he believed to be mili- tary incompetence. Eager to get as close to the fighting as he could and eager to view a Northern victory, he went with other Congressmen to observe the troops under General McDowall in the first military action of the Civil War--The First Battle of Bull Run. When the Northern troops began a disorganized retreat, Senator Chandler leaped from his carriage and attempted to rally the panic-stricken fugitives. Whatever credit there was in stopping the rout is due wholly to Senators Chandler and.Wade, and Representatives Blake, Riddle, and Morris. These gentlemen, armed with Mayhard Rifles and navy revolvers, sprang from their carriages . . . and, presenting their weapons, in loud voices, commanded the fugitives to halt and turn back.2 This defeat and the Northern disaster at Ball's Bluff dis- cussed at some length in the last chapter led to the famous "smelling committee" or the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the war. This committee, of which Chandler was a member, led, indirectly, to one of "Zach's" most important military declarations. 2uSpeech delivered in Springfield, Illinois, September 8, 1863 0 25Ibid. 26Washington Intelligencer, July 22, 1862. l an“ .A5— . :- .«- 4. h... n ‘1. I a ‘7. ‘u ~ I . ..... .\ oar?!» “E‘ a \ "h V“ 114 When General McClellan urged caution in committing the Army of the Potomac to large-scale action, Chandler was furious. Follow— ing the ill-fated Peninsula Campaign, he rose in the Senate on July 16, 1862, to deliver a serious indictment of the handling of military affairs, and made General McClellan the target of his most serious criticism. A few days before the speech he had written to his wife: I shall open up on the traitorous cuss McClellan this week in my usual mild and conservative way. I can hold my tongue no longer, and I will not try.2 Chandler spoke twice in the Senate in the first days of July of 1862, seriously questioning McClellan and asking the War Depart- ment to prepare a report of the Peninsula Campaign. If the modest Stanton would not comply, spoke Chandler, then he would give the country the damning facts.28 However, these were mere preludes to the more sensational attack which used hitherto secret evidence gathered by the Committee on the Conduct of the war. Chandler‘s Speech has been termed by some historians as the Radical Manifesto--McClellan, the author of the nation's disasters, must go.29 Financing the Civil War In addition to the issues concerning the Civil War and the 27Letter dated July 1, 1862, Zachariah Chandler Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. 28U.S., Congressional Globe, 2d Sess., 37th Cong., 1862, XXII, Part A, 3149-3150, and 3219—3221. 29Harry T. Williams, Lincoln and the Radicals (Madison: 'University of Wisconsin Press, l9hl), pp. 152-153. . . ~—. :Hn antlannh-i‘ C . 1.1 a . a S. 3 «U n3. .3. z, ,2 a: at. WP‘U Gk t o.‘ * aria,“ HQ .5 ‘ L Ma'- “AU ;. VQC ,_ d 115 military affairs attendant thereto, another serious question that faced the government was how to finance the conflict. Prior to the Civil War, the public treasury had been seriously depleted and the government was having difficulty negotiating loans. To compound the difficulty, the currency of the land was exclusively composed of notes of state banks organized under diverse systems, and much of this currency circulated at a discount. Thus to negotiate large government loans might well have harmed seriously the financial con- ditions of various parts of the country. These circumstances forced the government, when faced with organized revolt, to search for ways to finance the steps necessary to put it down. Many means were used to finance the Civil War, of which the most important, perhaps, was the sale of government bonds. Secretary Chase said the War could be financed by borrowing, but when he went into the market to sell the bonds, they could not be negotiated. Finally, the government turned to the Jay Cooke Associates, dele— gating to them the full responsibility for selling its bonds. The bonds which this organization attempted to sell Were "5 - 26's"-- bonds that would come to maturity in twenty years, could not be cashed before five years, and carried six per cent interest. Though bankers and men of wealth were the chief subscribers, an appeal was made to all the citizens. These government bonds were a good investment. If the Union fell, nothing would be worth anything; the people were actually in- vesting to protect themselves and their other investments. With Jay Cooke agents covering the entire North, the bonds did sell, for from ,9 L Vi :1,» 1nd in». _. .l a}... rd. :1. ,1. 0.1 s 116 1861 to 1865, this source provided $2,62l,OO0,000 to pay for the Civil War.30 In 1861, when the subject of issuing these government bonds came up in the Senate, Chandler supported the measure. The proposal was introduced in February, before Lincoln took office, and Chandler lost no time in placing the blame for the financial crisis where he believed it to belong. In a speech to the Senate on February 19, 1861, he criticized the Secretary of the Treasury for trying to ped- dle bonds which the Secretary himself had said were useless. Chand- ler suggested that the people had lost confidence in Buchanan's ad- ministration and that "The credit of this Government has fallen because you have traitors in the Cabinet and an imbecile in the Pres- idential Chair."31 It was clear that the moneyed men of the financial centers of the country were not disposed at this time to buy the bonds, and Chandler was angered. If the bankers of the great cities refuse to lend us money, I will go to the people of the rural districts and appeal to their patriotism, to their love of country, to the love of their flag, and I will get all the money you want, Sir. . . New York City may close and lock her vaults! I care not a rush if she does. It is well known that since God rained fire and brimstone upon Sodom, cities have been the great marts of corruption. They are so now. They have always been so. Cities have always been ready to buy immunity, and never ready to fight for it. Cities have always been ready to buy peace--never ready to furnish men to fight for their rights. Sir, if all the cities of this continent containing a popula- tion of a hundred thousand inhabitants and upwards were swept 30Lecture by Professor Frederick Williams in History M36, Michigan State University, July, 1959. 31U.S., Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 2d Sess., 1861, XXX, Part 2, 1018. w““ ”24 Ain‘- V‘- UV»- ‘ . i .- fc Ck «IV V § \ ‘ a. e n; “G “J. rd 3 a x a a. : a nd .fd Mb .0 d «H «flu To 3: T. . a a * Du as .. a : \ ad a a a; flu n a: Li“ «J L. mg a» r .. .r... 31 3 . a AL V. v. . v- :4 at. .r.. .3. . . bl .011 “V. v.45! inns: 117 from the face of the earth, our country would be quite as strong as it is today. In addition to bonds, another means used by the government to finance the War was the issuance of non-redeemable currency. These notes were not redeemable on demand, but to secure their free circu- lation they were made "legal tender." The question of issuing irre- deemable currency was first brought forth in the Senate in December of 1861, and a bill, which set the amount of issue at $150,000,000, was passed on February 25, 1862. Subsequent bills increased this amount, until by the end of the War there Were some $h32,000,000 worth of "greenbacks" in circulation.33 Chandler reluctantly supported the first bill as a temporary policy because, as a businessman, "Zach" was well aware of the value of a stable currency. To him, national credit was just like individ- ual credit--it was based on the ability to pay. However, the with- drawal of the Southern States from the Union in 1861, had created a vacuum in some of the Western money centers, and Chandler supported this first bill because he felt that this $150,000,000 would fill the void and not disturb the financial balance in the rest of the nation. He was, in principle, against irredeemable currency and when a bill to double the amount came up in the Senate in less than six months, he strenuously opposed it. He correctly predicted that the premium on gold would rise, that coin would be driven out of circulation, and ‘that the value of the currency would fall.31+ He voted against all 321bid. 33Lecture by Professor Frederick Williams, History #36, Edichigan State University, July, 1959. 3uDetroit Post, June 23, 1862. . 5‘- 7‘4' 7 \A un-¥ b w ‘ 8313 {It I a _ 1.1.. .....ct.§‘ All... . -Jul . “~12 ‘- .Vlfi. . ‘VI 7“; a.“ ‘x. 883: «Q 38.01 118 subsequent measures to increase the amount of irredeemable currency and supported all measures designed to provide for early redemption of these "greenbacks" following the War. Few of these measures for early redemption were given serious consideration, but Chandler felt that it was an obligation of the government to "call in" the "green- backs." As late as January 20, 1874, he said: I believe in, and I have advocated from the first, the earliest possible return to payment in coin. I believe there is no other standard of value that will stand the test, and I believe that the time has arrived, or very nearly arrived, for coming to it. . . . I believe that if we were to resolve today that we would resume the payment of our greenbacks in coin on the lst day of January, 1875, and authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to borrow $100,000,000 in coin to be used in the redemption, sell no more gold until the lst day of January, 1875, and on that day you would have $200,000,000 of coin . . . for the redemption of your greenbacks. Chandler suggested, in addition to this, that the national banks be allowed to redeem their issues in "lawful" money. It was not lack of money that had caused the depression of 1873-7h, in Chandler's opinion, but lack of solid money. Michigan had exper— ienced a financial depression in 1837, because she had issued more money and allowed "wildcat" banks to open, when the real problem was lack of sound currency. He was determined that the national govern- ment not suffer the same calamity.36 When the issuance of "greenbacks" became a major issue in the late 1870's, Chandler fought the idea with all his rhetorical power. Zachariah viewed the Greenback party as a serious danger to the fi- nancial stability of the country. He suggested in a Speech to the Idichigan State Republican Convention on June 1h, 1878, that the Demo- 35Speech delivered in the Senate, January 20, 187M. 36Speech delivered in the Senate, February 18, 187M. 119 crats and the Greenbacks could not be trusted. The Republican party had been the original Greenback party, said Chandler, but then only as an emergency measure and only with the understanding that specie payments would be resumed as soon as possible. "The Republican party means that the greenback dollar shall be made equal to one dollar in gold or silver, and we are the Greenback party par excellence."37 In the final speech of his career in Chicago, "Zach" evi- denced the same resistence to irredeemable currency, but this time it was the "Ohio Idea" that earned the wrath of his attack. This was a plan to pay off the outstanding government bonds with "greenbacks," and it was seriously proposed at the final session of Congress in the spring of 1879. Now, if this paper which they propose to issue in paying off the bonds of your government was properly and truthfully de- scribed, it would read thus: 'The government of the United States for value received'--for it was for value received; no greenback was ever issued except for value received-~‘for value received, the government 8f the United States promises to pay nothing to nobody, never.8 We have seen thus far a man in public life who took a stand on major issues and refused to waver from his position. Chandler's position on slavery, secession, the Constitution, the Civil War, and finance remained the same throughout his career. In addition to sup- porting the Sale of government bonds to support the war effort, and opposing the issuance of irredeemable currency, he favored a strong and broad system of taxation to support the Civil War, the establish- nent of a complete national banking system, high tariffs to support infant industry, and a broad system of excise taxes which provided 37Detroit Post and Tribune, June 15, 1878. 38Life of Zachariah Chandler, Appendix v, p. 26. .Liu Uni ,- Cna‘j ‘ 2011111 120 the bulk of the revenue late in the war. Great Britain and Foreign Affairs Chandler had no love for Great Britain and was quick to take offense at any action of that nation which could be construed by him as against America's best interests. When, in November of 1861, Captain Wilkes seized the Rebel emmissaries, Mason and Slidell, on _. _ 1 the British steamer Trent, Senator Chandler applauded heartily. He fought against their surrender to Great Britain, and felt that L. Seward's apology was humiliating to the United States. Chandler did not even fear war with Great Britain at this time for he felt the nation Could rise to the crisis. He was greatly angered by Great Britain’s prompt recognition of the South's belligerent rights and was incensed by her actions in the Laird Company affair. The Laird Company was a British firm building raiders for the Confederate gov- ernment. We must not discount the effect of these British-built raiders on American commerce. The action of these raiders set the United States back as a world commercial power. Insurance rates went up so high on vessels with American registries that American mer— chantmen transferred ownership of their commercial ships to foreign countries. The Alabama was one such raider and our claims against Great Britain for Shipping destroyed during the Civil War were pressed as the "Alabama Claims." Chandler fought for these claims, even proposing the annexation of Canada to Square the debt. It is not difficult to imagine the reasons for Chandler's hatred of Great Britain. She had been an hereditary enemy of the Cal a J QC 121 United States, though relations with her had been good prior to the Civil War. Chandler's family were active participants in the Revo- lutionary War and the War of 1812, and Chandler carried with him a New Hampshireman's native distrust of England. In the Senate, in 186%, Chandler offered two resolutions aimed at Great Britain. Both were offered on December 1h, 186A. One advocated the raising of an army to protect our Northern border against Canadian raiders and the other instructed the "Secretary of State . . . to make out a list of each and cargo destroyed thus far, with a fair and separate valuation thereof, and interest thereon at the rate of six per cent . . . and that he be directed to demand from the British Government, payment in full for all ships and cargoes de- stroyed as aforesaid."39 When, in 1866, it was reported that British pirates were still operating in the North Sea, and when it became clear that the United States was going to have difficulty collecting the "Alabama Claims," "Zach" offered a resolution in the Senate proposing that the United States declare non-intercourse between this country and Great Britain, and that we withdraw our Minister from the Court of St. James until all British liabilities against our government were paid.”0 In that same month he offered a resolution instructing the Secretary of the Treasury to issue American registers to British built vessels owned by American citizens.“1 In 1867, Chandler presented a bill in the Senate that would 39Detroit Post, March 30, 1867. uoDetroit Advertiser and Tribune, January 17, 1866. ulDetroit Advertiser and Tribune, January 23, 1866. wit \. I . L . .1... vol-é.‘ 2.0 $Iv ‘ . o- u 4 D“ -.~ 122 permit American Ship builders to sell ships of war to foreign bel- ligerents with whom we held a position of neutrality. It seems evi- dent that the purpose of this bill was to make Britain suffer under the same conditions which she had imposed upon this country during the Civil War. When Great Britain and Abyssinia commenced hostilities in 1867, Chandler was quick to "twist the Lion's tail." "Zach" had been so vehement against Great Britain that few in the Senate took him seriously, but he nonetheless offered the following resolution: That we do not declare our determination to maintain a strict and impartial neutrality in the contest between said contending parties, granting to the flag of each belligerent the same rights, privileges and immunities both upon land and‘water. Laughter filled the Senate chamber when Senator Chandler ex- tended his remarks as follows: This is exactly the same resolution issued on the 14th of May, 1861, by Britain with simply the change of the name of the United States to that of Great Britain and the Confederate States to Abyssinia. . . . It is just and right that we should observe the same courtesy toward Great Britain that she did toward us. 3 In 1869, "Zach" proposed to give Great Britain thirty days to settle the Alabama Claims or we would, on the thirty-first day, take Canada in payment. The Buffalo (New York) Courier sarcastically forecast that Chandler would probably propose on the thirty-first day that we also take Cuba from Spain and Mexico from the Mexicans l*2U.s., Congressional Globe, hOth Cong., 2d Sess., 1867, XXXIX, Part 1, 810. l+3Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, November 30, 1867. at. ‘1‘ L 3,. n . a a. t. .l are at . a. v ‘ I«.!. Q ~ u 7:» .«WW It: “undid-I . .d ‘ .. » Av a . a . I I\ n\\ .a s Q. .n a 123 an to complete the sweep. Though Britain was his favorite target, Chandler had definite Opinions on our total foreign policy. He offered resolutions against France for her part in helping the Confederacy and for her "invasion" of Mexico and his speeches in the Senate and on the stump seemed dis- tinctly "jingoistic." His language was not diplomatic, but blus- tering and even threatening. He was prone to deal frankly, boldly, and bluntly with foreign countries. Reconstruction With the end of the Civil War came the beginning of Recon- struction. Chandler had evidenced in 1861 a fierce readiness to fight, had refused compromise, and had been eager to call forth the energy of the North to crush the Southern "traitors." Following the end of the conflict, Chandler was not willing to forgive and forget for he felt that the Southerner, by his traitorous actions, had given up all his rights as a citizen and that anything given to him was a gift he had not earned and did not deserve. This singleness of purpose of Chandler and the other Radicals to impose harsh measures against the South can be illustrated by ex- amining their relations with Andrew Johnson. The political and Con- stitutional reorganization of the Southern state governments and the restoration of their former relations to the Federal Union became serious questions immediately following the Civil War. The Northern majority in Congress was determined to exclude the leaders of the ##Buffalo Courier as quoted in the Detroit Free Press, .April 22, 1869. .lhl .5 .1]; .U.. f \ H7. o n... .3 in; III. : a i‘ _ 1 U1 11c 12h South from all political rights and to subjugate the section to the rule of loyalist whites and, later, to that of the emancipated Ne- groes. When this plan became evident, good will on the part of the South disappeared and it entered on a life and death struggle for its social system. One can see why this struggle began. The leaders of the South during the Civil War were those men with leadership, training, and ability. With the intention of the Northern Radical politicians to exclude the former leaders of the South from political activity was included the corollary that men of intelligence and prOperty would be excluded. The disenfranchisement of the former Southern leaders also meant that the less able whites would be in control. Further, if the Negro gained the franchise, it meant the subordina- tion of former political leaders of the section to control of a different race--just released from slavery--ignorant, without pro- perty, and untrained for leadership. Following Lincoln‘s assassination, the Radicals believed they had in the new President, Andrew Johnson, a man in sympathy with tnar cause, and a man whom they could control. Johnson's often-stated dislike of the Southern aristocracy and his opposition to Lincoln's Reconstruction policy gave the Radicals cause for rejoicing. Con- stant pressure and solicitious attendance on the new Chief Executive by Sumner and Fremont, Davis and Chase, Butler and'Wade, and Chandler and Stevens, all Radicals of the inner council, gave them assurance, however unwarranted, that Johnson would chart a course which embodied their fondest hopes. Chandler had early supported Johnson as Military Governor of 125 Tennessee, declaring in a speech during the campaign of 186%, that Andrew Johnson was a prime example of a Southern Union man.1+5 Andrew Johnson had served with Chandler on the Committee on the Conduct of the War and was considered to be in sympathy with the aims of the Radical Republicans. Thus Chandler was committed to Johnson prior to his inaugu- ration and, as we have seen, it was not in character for Chandler to change his position. However, a new note was sounded in President Johnson's public pronouncements which Should have given the Radical element cause for alarm. Johnson indicated leniency, conciliation, and amnesty to the common people of the South, whom he believed were deceived into the Rebellion. "In regard to my future course," John— son declared to an Illinois delegation, "I will now make no pledges, no promises. I was Sprung from the people and every pulsation of the popular heart finds an immediate answer in my own."1+6 One of the President's first acts was his Proclamation of Amnesty, issued on May 29, 1865, which virtually paralleled Lincoln's Reconstruction measures, with the exception that it excluded, in ad- dition to Lincoln‘s list, "All persons who have voluntarily partici- pated in said rebellion and all those whose estimated value of tax- able property is over twenty thousand dollars."1*7 Under this plan, the remaining states of the South, except Texas, had formed constitutions and elected governors, and all their l*5Speech delivered in Detroit, October 17, 186M. u6Robert Winston, Andrew Johnson, Plebian and Patriot (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1928), p. 270. uYGeorge Milton, The Age of Hate (New York: Coward-McCann, Inc., 1930), p. 188. = 126 legislatures, except Mississippi's, had ratified the 13th Amendment. Gradually, however,the Southern states began to turn to their former leaders, and the Radical Republicans became alarmed at the rapidity of the process of restoration under these principles. Moreover, trouble began to brew between the whites and the blacks of the South, precipitated in part by the presence of Negro militias in the various states and the thwarted expectations of the Negroes regarding land and rights following their emancipation. Some Southern states I adopted "Black Codes" and "Peonage Laws,‘ which gave the Radicals even more cause for alarm because these laws excluded Negroes from property ownership, various rights, and the franchise. The Radicals were afraid that the Southern states would have added representation in Congress because of the freed slaves, but that the Negro, though free, could not vote. This meant that the Republicans would lose power. Hence, Congress refused to admit the Representatives of the states which had fulfilled their obligations according to the procla- mation of the President and established a Joint Committee on Recon- struction to take the whole subject under advisement. Congress passed a number of laws dealing with Reconstruction, and the Committee on Reconstruction proposed the Fourteenth Amend- ment, incorporating most of the previously-passed Civil Rights Bill. It immediately passed the necessary two-thirds of Congress and was submitted to the states for ratification. This amendment was sub- mitted to all the states, which reveals a glaring inconsistency, since some of the states to whom the amendment was submitted were 127 not states by an act of Congress.”8 While these various matters were under consideration, Presi- dent Johnson, in an intemperate public address, stigmatized the leaders of Congress by name as laboring to destroy the principles of the government and also intimated that the assassination of the Pres- ident was intended. Thus the issue was clearly drawn: Should the President or the Congress steer the course of Reconstruction? It was taken to the people in the Congressional elections of 1866, and the result was a resounding victory for the opponents of the President. Chandler, in a rare reversal of position, became one of the most active in opposi- tion to Johnson. Speaking as a Northern delegate to the Southern Union Conven- tion in Philadelphia in September of 1866, Chandler said: There can be no doubt about the doctrine of total depravity. Look at Andrew Johnson and William H. Seward. . . . Whatever obstacle stands in the way of the nation's prosperity will soon be removed by the people. Who is_Andrew JOhnson? Simply the executive officer of the ship. He has no more right to send in a suggestion to Congress than any of you. If President Johnson does not execute the laws he is a traitor and we will impeach him. I see in large cities men of immense wealth supporting his policy. It is the rebel policy to get control of the Government, and he is merely the tool of the rebels.u9 During his campaign Swing through Michigan in 1866, "Zach" uttered the same sentiments more strongly. In a speech at Fenton— ville, Chandler said that the President's appointment of Provisional Governors for the South was without law; that Johnson had sold rail- road rolling stock to the South on credit without sanction of law; 48Ne1son P. Mead, The Development of the United States Since 1865. (New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1930), p. 18. u9Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, September 5, 1866. 128 and that he had disregarded Congress and could be punished for his crimes.5O In Port Huron on October 23, 1866, Chandler said that "Jeff Davis, J. W. Booth, and the Devil" were alone responsible for putting Andrew Johnson in the Presidential chair.5l When Congress met again in its Thirty-Ninth Session, it adopted a Reconstruction Bill dividing the Southern states into five military districts. It also included most of the features of the Fourteenth Amendment. President Johnson vetoed the bill, but it was passed over his veto.52 Then Congress further tied the President's hands with the passage of the Tenure-of-Office Bill, which deprived the Chief Executive of the power to remove officials without Congres- sional consent, and forbade him his Constitutional position as Com- mander-in-Chief of the armed forces. All orders from the President, under the terms of this act, had to come from General Grant. The Tenure-of-Office Act of March, 1869, undertaking to tie the President‘s hands and to make his subordinate officers in- dependent of him was vicious legislation. Not only was it un- constitutional and so declared by the courts, but not at all necessary. . . . It grew out of a family quarrel in the heat and excitement of the day and was intended to insult and em- barass the President.5 Though the Supreme Court in the case of ex parte Milligan and others had declared that the Reconstruction Acts of Congress were unconstitutional, Congress would stand for no interference from this body. 50Detroit Free Press, October 18, 1866. 51Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, October 26, 1866. 52Mead, p. 20. 53Winston, pp. 383-38h. I u ulnlll.ltul|l’..inl.E‘ 3.»; .4 .P. bl .. . i-.. . . . Mr 129 A bill was actually passed by the House requiring a two- thirds majority of the Court to declare an act unconstitutional, but the bill failed to pass. . . . However, a law limiting the appellate jurisdiction of the court was enacted by Congress. Warned by this belligerent attitude of Congress, the Supreme Court attempted to avoid becoming involved in the bitter con- troversy.5 In February of 1867, Chandler offered a resolution instruct- ing the Judiciary Committee of the Senate to inquire whether Andrew Johnson had any authority to appoint provisional governors for States recently engaged in rebellion and he said in support of his resolu- tion: . If the President had no authority of law under the Constitution to appoint provisional governors for the States . then the actions of the governors fail . . . If Andrew Johnson, in violation of the Constitution, and without authority under the laws of war, has assumed and exercised power that did not belong to him, but which belonged to Congress, then I do not hesitate to say, and say with deliberation, for this one act, and for it alone, Andrew JOhnson should be impeached.55 Following a recitation of the other charges against the President, Chandler concluded: Let him obey the laws or disobey them at his peril. There is a dread, he said, that we, in executing our constitutional powers will bring some dreadful calamity on this nation. This nation has come victorious out of the most terrible rebellion the world has ever seen. Removal of the man who has violated the Constitution of the United States would produce about the same excitement in the country that the removal of a custom house officer in a city would produce--and more, this people have declared, and that decree has been registered on high, that this nation shall stand, and no man, or set of men, and no combination of men, whether headed by Jeff Davis or by Andrew Johnson, or any other living man, can overthrow it. It will stand any and every assault that can be made upon it.5 During 1867, no less than six attempts were made in the House 5uMead, p. 21. 55Detroit Free Press, February 12, 1867. 56Ibid. 130 of Representatives to impeach President Johnson, each failing for want of a two-thirds majority.57 During the summer of 1867, Chandler fought against adjournment when Johnson declared that he would not be bound by the Reconstruction Acts passed by Congress. "Zach" attacked the notion of adjournment in opposition to the more conservative mem- bers of the Senate. The people, so far as I know them, certainly the peOple of the state which I have the honor in part to represent, have no confidence whatever in Andrew Johnson. They believe as the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner) said yesterday, that he [Johnsgfi7 occupies the position today with regard to the rebellion which Jefferson Davis did three years ago. They have no faith whatever in Andrew Johnson. But Sir, there is a sort of semi-Conservative influence springing up that seems to have faith in Andrew Johnson. This Republican conservatism is a sort of hybrid, and, like all hybrids, it has no power of reproduction; the race dies out with the first generation.58 Chandler concluded with the following: And now, sir, the people demand of us that we shall either fasten this man Andrew Johnson so that he can do no more harm to this nation, or that we shall stay here and tie his hands by our presence.59 Following the failure of the impeachment vote in the House in December of 1867, President Johnson took renewed courage. He had earlier attempted to remove Stanton as Secretary of War, but the Senate had refused to sustain him. On February 21, 1868, the Presi- dent brought the issue to a head by informing the Senate that he had designated General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant-General of the Army, to act as Secretary of War, ad interim. This violated the Tenure-of- Office Act, and caused the Senate to immediately pass a resolution 57Winston, pp. h16-h17. 58The Detroit Post, July 25, 1867. 59Ibid. 131 stating that the President had no right to perform this action. ‘When the House heard of the Senate's action, the Radicals lost no time in moving to accomplish what they had failed to accomplish in 1867. Representative Covode of Pennsylvania offered a resolution to im- peach the President and it was referred to the Committee on Recon- struction, of which Johnson‘s arch-foe, Thaddeus Stevens, was chair- man. The next day, February 22, 1868, Representative Stevens re— ported the Committee in favor of the resolution and the debate began. "All Washington was on tip-toe. The country at large was greatly excited."6O The debate on the resolution was an occurrence of great in- terest in Washington. Claude Bowers describes the scene on the sec- ond day of the debate. Morning found the streets pulsating with excited people, with wild rumors of Civil War throbbing in the air. Hundreds breakfasted early to hurry to the Capitol, and the earliest street cars were packed. The day was gloomy, snow whirling through the bare boughs of the trees. Down the avenue one mass of humanity slushed through the soft melting snow. Men and women, who appeared as at an opera in their finery and gayety. It was a drama. 1 Throughout the period leading to this moment, Zachariah Chandler had hardly acted as an impartial observer of events, for his speeches in the Senate and on the stump had stigmatized President Johnson as little more than a traitor to his country, and it was the Senate resolution against Johnson that had provided the opportunity for the House to move impeachment. The scales seemed tipped against 6OWinston, p. A22. 6lClaude Bowers, The Tragic Era (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1929): pp° 175‘l76- 1&fhlllf. \q. 132 the President,for if he were impeached by the House, a hostile Sen— ate would try him. During the House debate on impeachment, the President's position was clearly stated by George W. WOodward, Democrat of Penn- sylvania, and formerly Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court of his state. His argument was that all the states were not represented in the House or the Senate and that there was "no competency in the for- mer chamber to impeach, nor in the latter to try him."62 Following the debate, the vote was taken. One hundred and twenty-six Representatives voted for impeachment; forty-two voted against. It was strictly a party vote. Not a Democrat had voted aya not a Republican nay. The Radicals had impeached the President of the United States.63 The scene then moved to the Senate chambers for the trial. The House provided the prosecution; Henry Stansberry, former Attorney-General,was chief counsel for the defense. The Senate provided the jury, though it could not be considered a disinter- ested body. Chandler became restive under the length of the trial and advised the managers of the prosecution to push the case as rapidly as possible, urging that the public interest required an end to the suspense. Chandler felt then, and said afterward, that the delay was used to effect combinations with and to apply pressure to individual Senators which would induce them to favor acquittal. That this was done "Zach" never doubted, and he repeatedly 62Marion Miller, Great Debates in American History, Vol. 9 (New York: Current Literature Publishing Company, 1913), p. 89. 63Milton, p. 513. 133 denounced in strongest terms, both in public and in private, the action of the seven Republicans (Senators Fessenden, Trumbull, Grimes, Henderson, Fowler, Rose, and VanWinkle) who voted "not guilty."6u President Johnson was acquitted, the necessary two-thirds majority failing by one vote, and Chandler felt that the result was a blow to the Democratic process. One who knew Chandler well said: "He believed that the Republican government was at stake and impeach- ment a necessity. Never was there a time when he came so near de- spairing of the republic as at that event."65 Chandler continued to support Congressional Reconstruction and, as a member of various Senate committees concerned with condi- tions in the South, he continued to support measures which would con- tinue Radical political control of the section. As a result of the investigations of the Ku Klux Klan Committee, of which he was a mem- ber, "Zach" argued that there were still disloyal whites in the South and that the freedmen needed Federal protection. Chandler did not deny that there were "carpetbaggers" in the South and he did not deny that some of these men were in the Congress of the United States, but he defended them. In a speech at Albion, Michigan, he said: Under the system adopted by Congress, you all know what has happened. Eight out of the eleven states have been restored on the basis of loyalty. The rebels object that the Representatives admitted are carpet-baggers. But I say they are loyal. Most of them were knapsackers before they were carpet-baggers, and by their service in the army earned the right to a home in the South. They shall stay in the South, and be protected in their rights there as long as they choose, in spite of the Democrats and the rebels. 61+Milton, p. 610. 65Life of Zachariah Chandler, p. 297. 66Detroit Post, September 25, 1868. O..“T~ -"'l:'7 - . .1 it...) I‘ll-U .‘ . .o. g .Y‘ hi 131+ Rebel War Claims When, following the Civil War, the Southern states, corpora- tions, and individuals began to petition the government for redress from losses incurred in the Rebellion, Chandler was vehement in his opposition. In his opinion, the North was obligated to pay for the debt of the Union in putting down the Rebellion, but it was in no way obligated to assume any of the Southern debt, no matter how small. Chandler reasoned that the South had gambled all its resources when it chose secession, and that, as an enemy, it was entitled to nothing. Thus, on March 2, 1865, upon a bill before the Senate to pay one Josiah O. Armes for the destruction of property within the rebel lines, Chandler said: . . I should look upon the passage of this bill as a national calamity, and one which we cannot afford at this time to bring on our heads. It will do more to shake the faith of our own citizens and of the moneyed centers of the world in the credit of your securities than any other act you could perform.6 In his address before the Michigan Republican caucus which renominated him for the Senate in January of 1869, he offered com- ments on this same subject: The moment this government begins to allow claims for damages accruing to individuals during the war in the South, it is placed in a position of great peril. . . . The laws of war do not require nor justify the allowance of this class of claim, even to loyal men. If they are loyal, then they have served their government and that is coggensation enough. If they are disloyal, they have no claim. The subjects of Southern political and social "outrages" and Southern war claims occupied much space in a majority of his speeches 67U.S., Congressional Globe, 38th Cong., 2d Sess., 1865, XXXV, Part 2, 1275. 68Detroit Post, January h, 1869. 135 following the Civil War, both on the floor of the Senate and on the stump. Chandler's hatred of the rebels did not abate, for he con- tinued to "wave the bloody Shirt" until the day he died. Speaking during the campaign of 187A, in Flint, Michigan, he declared: In that year [1865] the rebels surrendered at Appomatox, thereby declaring that the war was a success, and only asked that their lives might be spared. That is, a few surrendered and the rest stole their guns and ran away, and originated the "Knights of the Golden Circle," which was nothing more nor less than a rebel military organization. In 1866 they found that the name was becoming odious throughout the land, and they changed the name of the organization to "Sons of Liberty," familiarly known as "Ku Klux." Of their brutal and revolting outrages, there is perhaps no man in the country better qualified to speak understandingly than myself, for during the four years of the war, as a member of the joint committee of the Senate and the House upon the conduct of the war, and subsequently as a member of that joint committee on rebel outrages, at the time when the "Sons of Liberty" commenced operations and became ramp- ant rebels again, I was brought into close contact with all organizations . . . that were guilty of the commission of these fiendish and shocking cruelities. Their history scores in the hugh volumes of testimony taken by the various committees.69 Chandler suggested in a speech to the Republicans of Queens in New York as late as 1879, that "nothing now stands between the rebel war claims and the Treasury except the Presidential veto, and I thank God for the veto."70 This remark was most certainly an attempt to malign the Democrats, who controlled the Senate and the House, and who seemed willing to allow some of these claims. Thus far in our examination of the issues upon which Chandler spoke and his position on them, we have seen him as a Radical in the extreme and a man whose inclination for vituperation was great. Bitterly partisan, he urged the Radical Republican position on the issues before the country with all his might. ‘When it came to a 69Detroit Post, September 25, 1874. 7 70New York Times, October A, 1879. 136 question of supporting President Johnson or remaining consistent in his convictions on the war, the rebels, and Reconstruction, he chose to oppose the President. The positions "Zach" took seem predictable the more we learn of him. On Slavery, secession, the Constitution, the Civil War, the Johnson impeachment, and Southern war claims, he never wavered. Civil Service Chandler also fought against Civil Service reforms until the end of his life. Again, it is not difficult to reason why he opposed these needed reforms. Chandler was a practical politician and the control which he had in the State of Michigan was largely based on patronage. Civil Service would have interferred with the "Spoils system" and Chandler would have lost some of his political power. Reform, therefore, was not part of his thinking. He liked the old ways of doing things. At Orange City, New Jersey, in the late summer of 1872, he said: What are they crying for reform for? We have it now. There is hardly a man who setting his cry for reform who is not a corrupt scoundrel and a thief. . . .ll The Republican Party There is one theme which permeates all of "Zach's" speeches, almost without exception, and that is his defense of the Republican party and the platforms and principles upon which it stood during his lifetime. The Republican party was always right, in Chandler's opin- ion, and any attack against it by the Democrats was considered by him 71New York Times, August 25, 1872. 137 as a personal affront. His charges against the Democrats continued throughout his career. It was a Democratic war, the Democratic leaders were traitors, Democratic office holders were dishonest thieves and murderers. To give the Federal government up to the management of the Democrats following the Civil War was unthinkable to him because, in his opinion, they could not be trusted. In his first speech on the floor of the Senate, "Zach" ar- raigned the Democrats for the fact that they had ignored Republican Senators in the composition of committees,72 and he later attacked the Democrats and the Buchanan administration as "authors and abet- tors of Rebellion."73 In 1863, he stigmatized the Democrats on the floor of the Senate as disloyal, saying: . . . Take all the men in the Rebel army, and among them there were no Republicans, . . . they were all Democrats. . . The great danger of the country is notufrom the South but from the Democratic traitors in the North.7 Typical of his campaign speeches in the years following the Civil War is one he delivered in Albion, Michigan, during the cam- paign of 1868, part of which was as follows: But we have the same old enemy that we have so often met be- fore. ‘When the old'Whig party, of which many of us were members, died, we gave it a decent burial, shedding a few tears, and it ceased to trouble anyone. The Democratic party has been dead nearly as long . . . and it is not decently buried yet, but con- tinues to be an offense in the nostrils of all civilized people. We must bury it, this fall, under such majorities, that the Archangel's trumpet, even, cannot arouse it. ‘When the Democratic party in the South rebelled, it passed the sentence that either the Government should perish, or the Democratic party must die. The Government did not perish, and it is now time that the party was buried. . . . 72Speech delivered in the Senate, December 16, 1857. 73Detroit Tribune, March 20, 1861. 7"Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, February 17, 1863. 138 The party told us that if we elected Lincoln, its adherents in the South would rebel, and its adherents in the North would help the rebellion. We did elect Lincoln, and the party, true to its pledge, did rebel. Not a Single Republican engaged in the rebellion. It was a Democratic measure throughout. It was a Democratic rebellion.75 Chandler's opinion of the Democrats had not changed at all when he rose to deliver what was to be his last Congressional speech in the spring of 1879. The Democrats were in the majority in the Senate at this time and he was quick to point out that this majority was gained, not by honeysvotes, but by "fraud and violence, by shot- ." The Democratic party was " . . . the guns and tissue ballots enemy of the nation." "Zach" set the tone for the coming Congres- sional elections by arraigning the Democrats on eleven articles, the more important of which were raising state over national sovereignty; damaging the business interests of the country by forcing silver coin into Circulation of less value than it represented; removing loyal employees of the Senate and appointing rebels; instituting secret and illegitimate tribunals, the edicts of which were the supreme power of Congress; holding up to public admiration that arch-rebel, Jefferson Davis; and attempting to repeal legislation having to do with Reconstruction and the Negro.76 Equally as forceful as his attacks on the Democrats were his Speeches in defense of the Republican party. Speaking in the Senate in 1858, Chandler made it clear that the Republican party was, in his Opinion, a national party and that, as such, it would sustain the 75Detroit Post, September 25, 1868. 76Speech delivered in the Senate, June 30, 1879. . r... Su 0 .1 x c. 139 Constitution. In the conclusion to his speech against the LeCompton Constitution, he remarked: 103 more compromises will ever be submitted to save the Union. If it is worth saving, it will be saved; but if you sap and undermine its foundations, if you place it in such a Situation that it must topple, what can you expect but the legitimate re— sults of your own action? The only way that we Shall ever save the nation and render it as permanent as the everlasting hills, will be by restoring it to the original foundation upon which the fathers placed it. Those are the ’mud-sills‘ that cannot be undermined; and there, Sir, this great national Republican party proposes to place it. Sir, we are the national party of the Government Following the Civil War, Chandler frequently called forth the history of the Republican party as proof that it should remain in pOWer. Typical of his Senate Speaking on this issue is his answer to Senator Casserly of California who accused the Republican party of having maligned the Democrats, and who talked of the waning strength of the Republicans. After suggesting that the English language was incapable of the kind of language necessary to malign the Democratic party, Chandler went on to say: The Republican party is not an ancient party, I will admit. It had its birth some Sixteen years ago; it took possession of the national Government only ten years ago; its life has been brief, and now our Democratic friends say its mission is ended; it is among things that were. Sir, it is due to that old and corrupt organization known as the Democratic party, that a little comparison should be made between the two. Mr. President, what was the mission of the Republican party, and is it ended? . . The first part of that mission, the first encounter that the Republican party ever had upon this floor with the Democratic party, was to save the vast territories of these United States from the curse of slavery . . . And what was the second? It was to meet and to crush a Democratic rebellion. It will be said, I suppose, on the other side, that this was not a Democratic rebellion, but that it was a rebellion of the Southern wing of the Democratic party. I deny it in toto. It was a Democratic rebellion in all its rotundity. 77Speech delivered in the Senate, March 12, 1858. 1AO But, Mr. President, there is another item in this account. There were four million slaves held in bondage in these United States under Democratic party. It was part of the mission of the Republican party to liberate those four million Slaves and we did it. I will allude to another point, and that was the building of the great Pacific Railroad connecting the Atlantic and the Pacific ocean. That was also a part of the mission of the Re- publican party. Another part of the work of the Republican party was the Homestead Law, saying to all the peoples of the earth, "Come in and possess this goodly land." . . Again, Sir, another part of the mission of the Republican party was to establish a national banking law. Sir, it was the duty, it was part of the mission of this great Republican party, to see to it that the national honor and the national faith were maintained; and we have done it. ‘We have paid off the national debt . . . at such a rate that it makes the Democrats dizzy. Then, again, the work of reconstruction was committed to our hands. . . . We passed the thirteenth and the fourteenth amend- ments. We passed divers and sundry reconstruction laws by a two- thirds vote over the veto of Andrew Johnson; and in every Single instance where We passed such a law, we pgssed it without a solitary vote from the Democratic party. Chandler‘s Speeches in defense of the Republican party Show only Slight changes regardless of the period of his life in which it was given. Usually the changes consisted of additional issues on which to defend his party and malign the Democrats. In 1879, "Zach" was still proclaiming that the record of the Republican party was flawless, and that the Democrats were responsible for all the ills of the nation. In the last speech of his life, he accused the Democrats of having gained their majority in both houses of Congress by fraud, and further charged that the Democrats were just as rebellious then as they were in 1860.79 This particular speech reiterated his 78Speech delivered in the Senate, January 18, 1871. 79Speech delivered in Chicago, Illinois, October 31, 1879. 1A1 position on many of the issues of the period 1860-1879, and little change is found. Chandler was a speaker whose public pronouncements were vio- lently partisan and Radical in the extreme. His speeches reveal an intensity of nature, a positiveness of conviction, and a profound sincerity. "The determination to be loyal, both to his convictions and to his country, inspired him to a bold, brave utterance and in- vested him with a courage and confidence that were almost conta- gious."80 80From a memorial address delivered by The Rev. Arthur T. Pierson in the Fort Street Presbyterian Church, Detroit, Michigan, Thursday, November 27, 1879. CHAPTER IV THE SPEAKER: USE OF SUPPORTING MATERIALS The public pronouncements of Zachariah Chandler on the many issues which faced the nation during the middle years of the nine- teenth century have shown him to be a man with deep convictions and the willingness to express them. Therefore, it is fitting that a chapter of this Work be devoted to an examination of the substance of his Speeches for his use of "supporting materials." To discuss "supporting materials" as they are used in Speech- making is to discuss the use of "proof." AS an aspect of rhetorical "invention," which may be defined as the finding and analysis of materials, proof falls into three categories: (1) Ethica1--those proofs which are drawn from the Speaker; (2) Psychological--those proofs which serve to create in the audience a favorable state of mind for the reception of the speaker's ideas; and (3) Logical-- those proofs which result from evidence and reasoning.1 In order to adequately evaluate the proficiency of Zachariah Chandler as a speaker, these constituents of rhetoric must be considered. This chapter, and the following two chapters dealing with lLane Cooper (transl. and ed.), The Rhetoric of Aristotle (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1932):7pp. 8-9. —(Psycho- logical appeal is, of course, broader in scope than Aristotle's concept of "emotional proof." Psychological appeal is intended in this study to include both "emotional proof" and those constituents of "happiness" and "good" as discussed by Aristotle in the realm of deliberative speaking.) 1A2 1A3 Chandler's organization and arrangement of ideas and style, represent generalizations based on a detailed analysis of thirty-five of his Speeches. The problems faced in determining reasonable textual au- thenticity were dealt with in Chapter Three. All of the Speeches were discovered either in the Congressional Globe or the Congressional Record, or in newspapers. The one exception is the final speech of his life delivered in Chicago, Illinois, October 31, 1879. The full text of this speech appears in the appendix to his life story, Life of Zachariah Chandler, published by the Detroit Post and Tribune in 1880 . In certain newspaper reports of Chandler's speaking, portions of the Speeches were either deleted, or a precis was offered of what he said in various parts of his addresses. .An attempt was made to avoid those reported texts which deleted materials, but this was not always possible. Thus one factor which determined the choice of the thirty-five speeches was the completeness of the text. Another consideration entered into the choice of speeches for detailed analysis which made it impossible in each case to choose a fully complete text. Since this is an examination of the total Span of Chandler's career as a Speaker, rather than a study of his speeches on a given issue or covering a limited period of time, an attempt was made to choose Speeches for detailed analysis from the total span of his public service, rather than to concentrate the choice of speeches from only one or two periods of his life. While his Senate speeches were reported in full, the problem of complete- ness of text arose when examples of his campaign and occasional speeches were sought. Newspapers frequently did not offer complete 1% texts, but it was possible to choose representative Speeches from his campaign and occasional speaking wherein the major deletion was part or all of the conclusion. As was noted in Chapter Three, Chandler's speaking divides itself into three general classifications relating to the situations in which they were given: (1) Senate; (2) campaign; and (3) occa- sional. All of the Speeches available were given in one of thesesnt- uations and an attempt was made to provide a representative sampling from his Senate and Campaign speeches. Since the texts of only five of Chandler's occasional speeches were available, they were all in- cluded. Hence, three considerations played a part in the choice of speeches for detailed analysis so that the number might not become unmanageable: (l) The completeness of the text; (2) The period of Chandler's life in which it was delivered; and (3) The classification according to Situation: Senate, campaign, or occasional. These thirty-five speeches were analyzed in the following manner. (1) A substance outline was made of each speech with a care- ful noting of the major divisions, the placement of the thesis, the arrangement of ideas in the body of the Speech, the use of in- ternal summaries and transitions, and the emphasis given the ideas by place and space. In each analysis the writer was concerned with the analysis of ideas, materials, introductions and conclusions, sources, and arrangement. (2) Based on accepted rhetorical princi- ples, a "technical plot" was made of each speech for each of the constituents of "invention" mentioned above, and style. Concern was for the quality of the use made of the components of organization and arrangement; ethical, psychological, and logical proof; and 1A5 style; as well as for the quantity.2 With a degree of knowledge of the climate of opinion existing during this period of history (Chapter Two) and a knowledge of the audiences to whom Chandler spoke, the writer was always aware of audience "adaptation" as a factor in communication and an attempt was made to evaluate Chandler's use of the principles of rhetoric to adapt to his hearers. Ethical Proof Ethical proof is referred to frequently as "personal proof" or "source credibility," and it is used in this chapter to mean those materials which a speaker may use in the speech to structure the opinions others develop of him by demonstrating (l) Competence, (2) Character; and/or (3) Good will. It is also true that the opinions which the audience may have of the speaker may be derived from sources other than those materials included in the speech. The "ethos" of Zachariah Chandler has been discussed in other parts of this study, and it has been discussed largely apart from any specific Speech situation. That is to say, the speaker may have credibility which is known or assumed from fac- tors quite apart from any specific speech. It was generally known, for example, that Chandler was not well educated, that he was a suc- cessful businessman, that he was a Radical Republican, that he was a Senator, and that he was from Michigan. It was also well known that he virtually controlled the Michigan Republican party and that he was 2Examples of the substance outline and the "technical plots" appear in the Appendix. 1A6 a power in the national Republican organization. These things about Zachariah Chandler, and others which have been mentioned, acted as ethical proof, positively or negatively, depending upon the point of view of the hearer and did so quite apart from the substance of any particular speech. It seems probable that as he became a well known speaker and as the texts of his speeches were made available in the newspapers, information on his positions on crucial issues and his attitudes toward the Democrats, England, the South, etc., became pub- lic knowledge. Hence, as "Zach" faced each specific audience, a certain "ethos" was already established from his reputation. On the other hand, the Speaker may use certain specific ethical appeals within the speech to enhance his competence, charac- ter, or good will. Certain appeals may be included by him to give the audience direct evidence of one or more of these attributes. In attempting to discover and evaluate Chandler‘s use of ethical proof, the introductions, bodies, and conclusions of each of his Senate, campaign, and occasional speeches chosen for detailed analysis were studied. AS one of the three major divisions of "proof," the ethical proof established by the speaker as part of the substances of his Speech plays an important role in accomplishing the acceptance of his ideas. Thonssen and Baird3 suggest that ". . . the force of the speaker's personality or character is instrumental in facilitating the acceptance of belief." In other words, the credibility of the 3Lester Thonssen and A. Craig Baird, Speech Criticism (New York: The Ronald Press, 19A8), p. 383. 11:7 speaker presenting the ideas can operate as supporting material for his statements." In searching for evidences of ethical proof used by Chandler as part of his Speech content, it can only be suggested that certain materials seemed to be of such a nature as to have operated for the purpose of enhancing Chandler's competence, character, or good will. Conclusions must be based on what "Zach" said in his speeches, rather than upon what he said or wrote that he did or intended to do, for there is no evidence from his life (Chapter Two) that he had any specific rhetorical training, except a rumor in 1857, that he was being helped by a college student.5 Chandler left no diaries and few personal papers, none of which refers Specifically to his decisions made concerning the content or construction of his speeches. An analysis of Chandler's use of ethical proof reveals that he apparently utilized more materials which had ethical overtones in the introductions to his campaign and occasional speeches than he did in the introductions to those Speeches which he delivered in the Sen- ate. In his Senate speeches, where the introductions were usually very Short, "Zach" occasionally made mention of the fact that he spews from a sense of duty,6 or pictured himself as a man of peace, as he did on January 15, 1866, in the introduction to his speech in favor LLC. I. Hovland, I. L. Janis, and H. H. Kelly, Communication and Persuasion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 19537} 5Detroit Free Press, February 3, 1857. 6Speech delivered in the Senate, June 18, 1862. 1A8 of his resolution against Great Britain.7 On certain other occasions in the Senate, Chandler characterized himself as a man who adhered to truth,8 to God,9 and to the Constitution.10 In his first "prepared" Senate Speech, he characterized himself in the introduction as one having humility of character and respect for the more experienced members of the Senate. Mr. President, it was not my intention originally to partici- pate in the debate on the LeCompton Constitution. I had in- tended to leave the subject to older and abler and more experi- enced colleagues. A wider use of ethical proof is found in the introductions to his campaign and occasional addresses than is found in the introduc- tions to his Senate Speeches. Frequent references are found to the fact that he upheld the forces of freedom and high principle,12 that he upheld the Union,13 or that he was a God-fearing man who trusted in the Lord.14 In Detroit on November l, 187%, he suggested that he was a servant of the peOple: "It is right and just that the people should call upon their political rulers to give an account of their 7Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, January 16, 1866. 8Speech delivered in the Senate, January 18, 1871, in defense of the Republican party. 9Speech delivered in the Senate, March 3, 1879, against a resolution to include Jefferson Davis in a veteran's pension bill. loSpeech delivered in the Senate, February 12, 1867, against President Johnson. llSpeech delivered in the Senate, March 12, 1858. 12Speech delivered in Marshall, Michigan, December 13, 1856. 13Speech delivered in Springfield, Illinois, during the cam- paign of 1863. 1"Speech delivered in Battle Creek, Michigan, October 2A, 1868. 1A9 stewardship, and it is right that such an account Should be given."15 At Ionia, Michigan, as part of the presentation of a banner to the 2lst Michigan Regiment, "Zach" brought the love of the flag to bear in an appeal which may have served as psychological proof as well as ethical proof. It affords me great pleasure to take part in the ceremonies of presenting this beautiful flag . . . as an emblem of our national greatness. This symbol 8f our country has been seen and honored by all nations . . .1 On occasion, Chandler used the introductions to his campaign speeches to attempt to establish his competency to discuss politics. At Albion, Michigan, on September 23, 1868, he told the audience that his assurance of a Grant victory came from prominent political per- sonages with whom he had conversed. I left washington on Monday evening and have been traveling ever Since, and pretty good time I have made, too. On the way from Washington and in that city I met leading men from nearly all the States, and they all tell the same encouraging story. Representatives from Pennsylvania say that that State is sure for Grant, and Governor of Indiana told me the same with refer- ence to that State. Addressing the Michigan State Legislature following his election to the Senate in 1879, "Zach" indicated humility and pride in the introduction. For the high honor which you have this night conferred upon me, in making me your choice to represent you in the Senate of the United States, you have my most profound thanks and grati- tude. Words fail to express the emotions in my heart. And yet, gentlemen, I do not attribute this token of your regard to any- thing personal in myself, but rather to the principles that I have had the honor to advocate. . . . I am not here, gentlemen of the convention and Mr. Chairman, to apologize for or to explain 15Detroit Daily Post, November 2, 187A. l6Speech delivered in Ionia, Michigan, September 6, 1862. 17Detroit Post, September 25, 1868. 150 anything that I have ever said or ever done in a public capacity. My record is made, and there it stands open to the world, and this I say--this I have a right to say--that never, during the whole of my political career in the Senate of the United States, have I uttered a sentiment or cast a vote that I would alter, explain, or change in any regard.18 Perhaps the most direct attempt to establish his personal authority in the introduction of the Speech is seen in Chandler's address to the farmers of Branch County, Michigan, on October 3, 1877, on the occasion of the opening of the county fair. The subject upon which I have been invited to address you is one upon which I have Spent much time and trouble. . . . I myself have lived on a farm for twenty years-~the period cover- ing my early youth and manhood, and it is a very notable feature that all prominent men of our country have been in a degree agriculturalists. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Webster, and Clay all took pleasure and interest in agriculture, and thus did much to promote its interests. I, myself, in my old days could swing a scythe or cradle as well as any man . . . in Branch County. I was born on a farm and I own the old New England homestead upon which I was born and besides which I possess an extensive farm near Lansing.i9 Apart from Chandler‘s use of this form of supporting material in the introductions to his campaign Speeches, some of his ethical proof was occasionally provided by the person who introduced him. In Albion, Michigan, September 2A, 1868, the chairman characterized "Zach" as ". . . the man always true to the Constitution and the Union."20 In Lansing, on October 27, 1879, the chairman of the Republican meeting described Senator Chandler as one who Whether in the minority or majority, has always had the will and determination to oppose and often to baffle the iniquitous Schemes of the Democracy. The people know the Sena- l8Detroit Post, February 13, 1879. 19Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, October A, 1877. 20Detroit Post, September 25, 1868. 151 tor as Senator Chandler, but the people of Michigan know him as 'Old Zach.‘2l In Detroit on November 1, 187A, the chairman, Governor Baldwin of Michigan, despaired of being able to enhance Chandler's character, competence, or good will. Said he: "Any formal introduction of a man so well known is unnecessary."22 Thus far, an examination of thirty-five representative speeches from the career of Zachariah Chandler has revealed less use of ethical proof in the introductions to his Senate Speeches than in the introductions to his campaign and occasional speeches. This same pattern appears evident when "Zach's" use of ethical proof in the body of the speech is examined. A limited use of ethical appeal in the bodies of Chandler‘s Senate Speeches might be expected, for in the Senate, where he Spoke repeatedly for a period of eighteen years, he was intimately known to his colleagues. His personal proof was already established and per- haps little would have been gained by further efforts on his part to establish or to change a credibility which already existed. A few instances from his Senate Speeches of materials which may have Operated as ethical proof are available. "Zach" does make mention of the fact that he was Sworn to uphold the Constitution. In his Speech in the Senate against the acquisition of Cuba he said: "I have Sworn to support the Constitution of the United States, and I have sworn to support it as our fathers made it, . . ."23 Chandler 2lLanSing State Republican, October 27, 1870. 22Detroit Daily Post, November 2, 187A. 23Speeches delivered in the Senate on February 17, 1859. 152 also made reference to himself as a man of common sense, and he occa- sionally made reference to the Deity. There are also frequent refer- ences to the Bible and while these may have operated to some extent as ethical or emotional proofs, they seem to have been utilized by Chandler more as logical support. The Bible would appear to be a source of material known to a man lacking in any "higher" education. "Zach" was not conversant with the world's literature and thought as was, for example, a Charles Sumner, who was highly educated, both in the United States and abroad. In his speeches on financial questions, Chandler alluded to the fact that he was a businessman and thus should know about stocks, bonds, and monetary issues. On February 18, 187%, he said: Mr. President, I have had a good deal of experience in the course of my life in panics and in crashes. .As a businessman, I went through the panic and crash of 1837, of 18A7, and of 1857; and although not actively engaged in business, I have watched with great interest the crash and panic of 1873.2" The most direct and extensive evidence in the Senate of "Zach's" use of ethical proof in an effort to establish his authority on a subject in the body of the speech is found in his remarks on a bill presented to the Senate in 1859, to appropriate $30,000,000 to "facilitate the acquisition of Cuba by negotiation."25 As noted in Chapters Two and Three, Chandler accused the Democrats of wanting this money to use as a corruption fund in the election of 1860. "Zach" had not been in the Senate long at this time, but he had been to Cuba, and in this speech he made the Senate aware of his personal 21LU.S., Congressional Record, A3d Cong., lst Sess., 1874, II, Part 2, 158A. 25U.S., Congressional Globe, 35th Cong., 2d Sess., 1859: XXVIII, Part 2, 1078. 153 knowledge with these words. Now, let us admit for the sake of argument that this pro- position is brought forward in good faith and will be success- fully terminated, what does the State of Michigan, what does the State of Ohio, what does any of the Northwestern States gain by the purchase of the Island of Cuba? I know something of Cuba, something of its soils, something of its climate, something of its people, their manners and customs, something of their re- ligion, something of their crimes. I spent a winter in the in- terior of the Island of Cuba . . . and can therefore Speak from personal knowledge. While there are only a few examples of material which may have operated as ethical proof in the Senate Speeches chosen for study, Chandler brought indirect personal proof to bear frequently. This was true in all of the thirty-five speeches chosen for detailed analysis. A great deal of the "logical" proof that Chandler used came from his own knowledge and experience and he was, in effect, asking the audience to believe him because he was in a position to know. In his campaign and occasional speaking, the body of the speech contains more use of direct ethical appeal than his Senate speeches, but Chandler's use of this mode of proof appears still somewhat restricted. In many of his campaign and occasional Speeches, he described himself as a Union-loving man, and one who trusted and loved Almighty God. Implied, also, in a great number of his campaign speeches is the argument that he was a man who had the competence to speak about politics, the government, the Civil War, and Reconstruction. In a Speech in Battle Creek, Michigan, he offered the following: When the Rebellion began, every office of trust . . . was held by the Democrats. I was in Washington then, and seven I '1‘? 15A hundred clerks . . . marched en masse into the ranks of the enemy.2 Chandler also took great pains in a number of his campaign "expert" Republican. Speeches to remind his listeners that he was an The history of the Republican party is one in which I have participated in and in giving an account of my stewardship I wish to avow my full share of the responsibility for the actions of the party with which I am identified.2 Later, following the election of Hayes, he offered the following on the same subject in a Speech in Lansing, Michigan. Fellow citizens, a great deal has been said about fraud. I suppose you have heard the term fraud, fraud! I had the honor of having a little something to do with the election of 1876. . As I have said, I ran that campaign to a certain extent. I was chairman of the committee. . . . There was fraud, but on the other side.28 An excerpt from his Speech in Lansing, Michigan, on Octo- ber 31, 187A, Shows his use of ethical proof as he professed his hatred of political corruption and dishonesty. An ex-member of Congress recently declared in a public speech that when he was a member of Congress he knew that the depart- ments were 'honeycombed‘ with corruption. All I have to say to that Congressman is this: 'If you knew a Single, solitary in- stance of corruption and did not bring it to the attention of the chief of the bureau, then you are yourself a scoundrel . . .M Sixteen years ago I was going to make a political Speech and a friend brought me a pamphlet attacking a Republican official. My friend wanted me to say something about it. I said I did not know anything about it and he said ‘You must say something.’ With this pamphlet in my hand I went to the platform. I called attention to its charges against the Republican official and I said: 'I do not know whether these charges are true or false. I never did defend anything wrong and the right needs no de— fense. If these charges are true, we will prosecute him and send him to State Prison.'2 26Detroit Post, August 26, 1868. 27Speech delivered in Detroit, October 31, 187A. 28Speech delivered in Lansing, Michigan, February 13, 1879. 29Speech delivered in Lansing, Michigan, October 31, 187A. 155 When the conclusions to Chandler‘s speeches are examined, very little material is found which seems to have served the purpose of establishing or enhancing his credibility. This might be expected, since by the end of the speech any ethos he may have wished to de- velop had already been established. "Zach" did suggest in the con- clusion to a speech to the Senate on March 18, 1861,30 that he had "spoken to vindicate the truth . . .," and in July of 1862, in the final remarks of his Speech against General McClellan, he offered the following. Sir, I have deemed it my duty to present this statement of facts to the Senate and the country. I know that I am to be denounced for so doing and I will tell you who will denounce me, and no one else, and they are the traitors and the fools.3l Though on occasion the conclusions to his campaign and occa— sional speeches were deleted or paraphrased in the texts available, no materials which seem to have been intended as ethical proof is found in the conclusions to those speeches for which the entire text is presented. Zachariah Chandler's uses of ethical proof in his speeches appear not to have been many. While some of the appeals he did use seemed designed to foster his character and/or good will, most of the ethical appeals were designed, it seems, to enhance his compe- tency to speak on the subject at hand. "Zach" did not claim educa- tion nor intellect as reasons for his competence. He seemed to have based his claim to personal competence on his experience in public service. 3QDetroit Daily Tribune, April 6, 1861. 31U.S., Congressional Globe, 37th Cong., 2d Sess., 1862, XXII, Part A, 3392. 156 That Chandler did not often bring ethical appeals to bear in his speaking is not unexpected, for he was well known to his audi- ences. In the Senate he was intimately known to his colleagues and on the campaign trail he did not face hostile audiences, or ones for which his credibility was not already established. However, in all of his Speeches there was the over-riding implication that he should be believed because he was a man in a position to know of politics and government. In the Senate he was one of the spokesmen for his party and on the stump or on special occasions he faced the audiences with the prior reputation of being an "expert" Republican. Psychological Proof We turn now to a consideration of Chandler's use of those materials of speechmaking which serve to create in the audience a favorable psychological state for the reception of the speaker's ideas. The question to be answered is "What did Chandler do in the realm of psychological appeals to dispose the audience favorably toward his ideas and purposes?" In this section, judgments must again be made on the bases of the audiences to whom Chandler spoke and from the material available in the speeches themselves. Little information is available on the nature or extent of Chandler's audi- ence analysis priOr to delivering any given speech, and there is vir- tually no information regarding his delivery in any Specific speech. That we have a scarcity of information regarding Chandler's delivery is unfortunate, for delivery can be an important factor in emotional and other psychological proofs. Prosaic facts can take on emotional overtones if delivered in a certain way, for how the 157 Speaker feels about his material is in varying degrees mirrored in his delivery and produces an empathic response in his audience. Like ethical proof, psychological proof may operate with other proofs, and it is often very difficult to determine the effects of certain materials. Descriptions sometimes produce emotional re— sponses; ethical appeals, as has been illustrated, frequently have psychological overtones; and on some occasions, those materials used for logical support, because of the context, may operate as psycho- logical and/or ethical proof as well. It seems reasonable to con- clude, then, that any aspect of invention may serve more than one purpose. It is also difficult to confine psychological proof merely to the content of the speech itself. Circumstances outside a specific speech may have psychological implications. The celebrations which frequently accompanied the political rallies at which Chandler spoke served to put the audience in a favorable disposition. Further, much of Chandler's speaking was done in times of crisis and the issues upon which he spoke and the temper of the audiences to whom he Spoke provided a psychological setting. First it was the question of the extension of slavery. AS was shown in Chapter Two, this question had a highly emotional impact on the country. Following this came the question of the Civil War-—"a great and holy crusade." This seemed not to be a time of compromise or deliberation; every issue seemed to become a crisis quickly, and men lined up on one side or the other. Chandler spoke almost entirely in the North, and seldom did he face a hostile audience in his campaign or occasional speeches. The people to whom he Spoke believed in Chandler's positions on crit- 158 ical issues. In the Senate, the members of the body may have, at times, been hostile, but the galleries seldom were, nor were "Zach's" constituents, to whom he also spoke on Senate occasions, even though they were not physically present. Thus, the nature of the times, the issues, and the audiences can provide settings in which psychological appeals can operate, and they can do so quite apart from the sub- stance of any specific speech. Virtually all of Chandler's speeches during his lifetime concerned political issues, and it seems warranted to suggest that politics at this time was what has been termed by at least one ob- server a "national amusement."32 To the audiences to whom Chandler Spoke in his campaign and occasional addresses, mere mention of Lincoln, or of a general who happened to be in favor, or of Northern or Republican activity to save the nation brought forth cheers of approval. Criticism of a "conservative" war and support of a force- ful engagement of the enemy elicited the same response.33 On a num- ber of occasions, the President of the Senate was forced to delay proceedings in order to restore quiet after an eruption from the gal- leries. Following the Civil war "waving the bloody shirt" could arouse the passions, and "Old Zach" frequently used this technique. I remained here, [in Washington, D. CQ7 Sir, during the whole of that terrible rebellion. I saw our brave soldiers by thou- sands and hundreds of thousands, aye, I might say millions, pass through to the theatre of war, and I saw their shattered ranks 32Charles Dickens, American Notes, Vol. 27: The Works of Charles Dickens (New York: Fenelon Collier Publishers, 1875), p. 288. 33Often bracketed notations of audience responses were made in the text of a Speech; or the reporter commented on audience reaction. I... J . vlh, 2:5 V'OU’UE‘ v . “ .‘a’hm . . 159 return; I saw steamboat after steamboat and railroad train after railroad train arrive with maimed and wounded. I saw my friend from Rhode Island [Mr. Burnsidé] when he commanded the Army of the Potomac and I saw piles of legs and arms that made humanity Shudder. I saw the widow and orphan in their homes and heard the weeping and wailing of those who had lost their dearest and best.34 Apart from the issues and occasions which provided a psycho- logical setting, Chandler's use of the "bloody shirt" appeal is one evidence of what appears to be a conscious effort on the part of the Speaker to use a direct psychological appeal as part of the substance of the speech. This type of proof can be interpreted in many ways; it is sometimes referred to as pathetic proof, motive appeal, appeal to fundamental interests, and emotional proof. In this study it is defined as all ". . . those materials and devices [Which seemed to have served the purpose of putting] . . . the audience in a frame of mind suitable for the reception of the speaker's ideas."35 Thus for this study, psychological proof may be said to be an appeal to one or more of the four basic human drives: (1) biological; (2) ego; (3) social; (A) habit;36 and within these broad categories this form of persuasion may involve such specific appeals as those to safety, hunger, sex, freedom, power, property, health, status, self-respect, integrity, loyalty, fair play, national honor, national pride, jus- tice, patriotism, God, acquisition and saving; or the arousal of such sentiments (emotions) as fear, anger, love, pity, indignation, and humor. The place of this type of proof in persuasion is aptly stated 3"Speech delivered in the Senate, March 3, 1879. 35Thonssen and Baird, p. 358. 36A. Craig Baird and Franklin KnOWer, General Speech (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1957), p. 278. 160 by Thonssen and Baird. There can be no doubt that allegiance to ‘large principles of truth and reason! is the desideratum of oratory, be it polit- ical, forensic, or ceremonial speaking. But all men are not completely prepared, intellectually and emotionally, to receive the truth in its boldest and least adorned quise; it must often be articulated or identified with feelings that will conduce to the good of the people themselves, or their party, or of their country. An analysis of thirty-five representative speeches from Chandler‘s career reveals that he did use psychological appeals, and that he used them in great abundance. He seemed to have been aware of the temper of his audiences and seemed to have known which psycho- logical appeal would have effect. Patriotism and love of country were psychological arguments which appeared frequently in his speeches. In the introduction to his Marshall, Michigan, campaign speech in 1856,38 he offered: It is meet and proper that the champions of freedom Should rejoice over the triumph of their own cause. . . . Our triumph is the legitimate fruit of the principles of liberty which carried our fathers through the Revolutionary struggle--which found utterance in the Declaration of Independence. Chandler seemed to be sensitive to the mood of the audience at Ionia, Michigan, on September 6, 1862, when they dedicated a banner and presented it to the 2lst Michigan Regiment as the Regiment prepared to leave for the front. In this speech, "Zach" brought the appeal to patriotism and love of country to bear with telling effect. The audience was moved to overt response—-to which he was quick to adapt-~when he said: Soldiers, that flag represents the best government the 37Thonssen and Baird, p. 381 38Marsha11 (Michigan) Statesman, December 24, 1856. 161 “world ever saw; and it represents you, soldiers, you. ,£:heersj;7 The man who does not stand up in support of his country does not deserve the name of man. The man who does not sympathize with his country is a traitor at heart to that flag which floats above me. [fCries of 'right—rightjj7 Soldiers, the hopes of the people are centered in you; every lover of freedom will pray for your success. Will you disappoint them? Cries of 'No! No!’7 But, say some, 'You can't conquer six millions of people!‘ [firvoice--‘God can{:7 Yes, God can. I think He is with his people in their affliction. Loud applause and cheering followed the conclusion to this address-—a conclusion loaded with psychological appeal. We beseech you to look at the examples of patriotism and devotion to the flag, given by those who have gone before, and gaze upon that bright star of hope that shines in the horizon. Soldiers, the time has gone by to talk; emulate the examples of the men of Michigan in the old regiments that have won a name to live in history for all time to come, and the whole nation will honor you. In all of the thirty-five speeches analyzed, appeals to patriotism and love of country were evident, as were appeals to na- tional pride and honor. Appealing to national pride and honor in the conclusion to his speech to a "Great Union Meeting" in Spring- field, Illinois, "Zach" said: They [The South? are played out and this rebellion is virtu- ally ended. On the first day of January, 186M, . . . you will see a great, happy, and united country. My father is now living, and if I live to be as old as he is, I expect to see this nation number over one hundred million of inhabitants, and be the hap- piest and‘weafithiest nation the world has ever known. ,[Tremen- dous cheersL] In a speech to the Senate in support of his resolution to per- mit American Shipbuilders to sell Ships to belligerents, he suggested 39Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, September 7, 1862. "ODetroit Advertiser and Tribune, September 9, 1863. 162 that our national pride and honor had been damaged. Part of the resolution, which was also an attack against Great Britain, read: And whereas many private and unarmed American ships have been burned and destroyed by these pirates from British ports, thus causing great loss and damage to the citizens of the United States . . . 1 Later, when commenting on the fact that Britain had refused to negotiate the Alabama claims while the Committee on Foreign Rela- tions did nothing, "Zach" offered: Sir, did we hear from the Committee on Foreign Relations when that insult was offered to our government after our flag had been insulted and almost driven from the oceans? Still later in this same Speech, in order to Show that we owed Britain nothing, he sought to arouse the sentiment of hatred for Great Britain and outrage over atrocities committed against this nation. Mr. President, we owe Great Britain no very large amount of good will in my judgment. In my youth, I was educated to hate Great Britain. During the Revolutionary'War she sent her Indian allies all along the Merrimac River, where I was born, to scalp men, women, and children, and she paid $20 a scalp for babies. While appeals to national pride and honor, patriotism, and love of country were utilized in virtually every speech analyzed, whether in the Senate or on the stump, "Zach" did bring other psycho- logical appeals to bear to make his point palatable. Appeals to fear, self-esteem, social responsibility, honesty, personal pride, humor, fair play, respect for law, and justice appear frequently. In his speech against the LeCompton Constitution on the floor of the Senate, Chandler offered: Men were hunted down [EL—n Kansag by sheriffs and by posses from other States, by border-ruffianism everywhere, under the "lSpeech delivered in the Senate, March 25, 1867. 163 color of law. Sir, the State of Michigan has over one thousand of her people in Kansas today. Three of her citizens, and many other good men, have been murdered in cold blood. Two of them, Barber and Brown, I know were as good men as can be found on the face of the earth. The other--Gay-4was Mr. Pierce's land agent for the Territory. He was a Nebraska pro-slavery‘Demo- crat. He was met one day with his son, on the road, and asked whether he was for free-State or pro-slavery. He had become a little free-Statish in his views, and not dreaming of danger, he said, 'I am a free—State man,’ and he was shot down; and his son, in attempting to defend His father, received a bullet in his hip and is now a cripple. 2 In the conclusion to his argument against the Dred Scott Decision in 1859, Chandler combined a number of the appeals mentioned above when he suggested what the law really meant, what the future would bring if it were enforced, and what values were being violated. But, Sir, monstrous as is this proposition, monstrous as is the article which I have read, if the Dred Scott Decision be law it is all true; and it is a mere question of time when every State of this Union will become a slave State. If the honorable Senator from Louisiana, or any other man, should see fit to take a thousand negroes into the State of Michigan after that de- cision shall have become the law, I defy any power short of a revolution in this government to prevent him, or to take them from him. But, sir, it is not law; it is not common sense. .. .4 In defense of the Republican party on the Senate floor in 1871, "Zach" again combined a number of the appeals mentioned above. After having pointed out the achievements of the Republican party, he brought pride, social responsibility, and self-esteem of the Republi- cans to bear. And now, Mr. President, they Ehe Democrats? ask us to do what? To forgive the past; to let by-gones be by-gones; let us forget the past and rub it out.‘ Sir, we have no dispo- sition to forget the past. We have a record of which we are proud. ‘We have a record that has gone into history. There we propose to let it stand. ‘We never propose to blot out that "2U.S., Congressional Globe, 35th Cong., 1st Sess., 1858, XXVII, Part 2, 1090. "3U.S., Congressional Globe, 35th Cong., 2d Sess., 1859, XXVIII, Part 2, 10781 16h record. There are no thousand years in the world's history in which so much has been accomplished for human liberty and human progress as has been accomplished by this great Republican party in the short Space of ten years. . . . It is the proudest record Ever made by any political party that ever existed on earch." On a tour of the West during the summer of 1867, to hunt buffalo, "Zach" appealed to both humor and pride in a speech at a banquet in St. Louis honoring the Congressional excursion party. Now, Mr. President, I can start from Detroit and reach St. Louis in 2% hours, and now instead of passing through a small village containing 2,000 or 3,000 people, I pass through a city of 150 000 or 200,000 or 300,000 inhabitants--I don't know which. Laughtgg7’ The last time I inquired I forget how many there were. I arrive here in St. Louis and find that it is not generally known how many hundred thousand there are. I inquired what the population was, yesterday, and they told me it was 250,000 or 300,000. I asked again today, and they said the increase was so rapid that they couldn't tell, but they thought it was about 500,000."(5 Desire for economic Security and its corollary, fear of econ- omic loss, were psychological appeals utilized frequently by Chandler in his speeches concerning finance in the Senate, and in those parts of his campaign speeches which were concerned with this subject. The following analogy was used during the campaign of 1868, in an attempt to Show the injustice of paying interest-bearing bonds in irredeemable government notes. Supposing I had a horse worth $200 which my friend Baldwin Gov. Baldwin of Michigan wished to buy. Suppose that Mr. Bald- win had no money, but negotiating for the purchase of my horse, should say: 'I want to buy your horse but have no money. I will, however, give you my note for $200 with interest at 10 per cent payable a year from that date at the Second National Bank for the animal.’. . . I . . . accept the offer, take his note as proposed and turn the horse over to him. So far well and LL"U.S., Congressional Globe, 41st Cong., 3d Sess., 1871, XLIII, Part 1, 993. "SDetroit Post, June 21, 1867. .1. 1 -11. Am...“ 1 165 good. But, after a few days, my friend Baldwin, although finding the horse a good one and worth the money he is to pay for him, gets to thinking of the interest he will have to pay and resolves that he will get rid of it in some way. So he comes to me and says: ‘Chandler, you hold my note for $200, payable one year from date with ten per cent interest. Now I don't like that business and propose to pay the note now and save part of it. True, I have no money. I told you that before. But I will give you other notes, without interest, payable nowhere, no time, for the one you now hold.’ This is just what the Demo- crats propose tougo when they talk about ‘paying' U.S. Bonds with greenbacks. In 1872, he said in an appeal to economic security: We [Ehe Republicafié] issued it [Ehe Greenbagk] under a solemn pledge that it Should be made, as soon as we were able, equal to gold or silver coin. . . . We intend, gentlemen of the Convention, to carry out that pledge, so solemnly made. applause We intend to use greenbacks, and we intend that every Single greenback afloat in this land Shall be equal to one dollar, either in gold or Silver.)1L7 The first issue of his last campaign Speech, in Chicago, also concerned the question of "irredeemable currency." If this paper were truly described it would read 'The Govern- ment of the United States for value received promises to pay nothing to nobody, never.‘ In his Senate speech on the "acquisition of Cuba" issue, "Zach" brought the fear of national economic weakness to bear. Mr. President, this is a most extraordinary proposition to be presented to the Congress of the United States at this time. With a Treasury bankrupt and a government borrowing money to pay its daily expenses, and no efficient remedy proposed for this state of things; with your great national works in the Northwest going to decay, and no money to repair them; without harbors of refuge for your commerce and no money to erect them; with a national debt of $70,000,000 . . . the Senate is startled by "6Speech delivered in Adrian, Michigan, September 29, 1868. "7Speech delivered in Detroit to the Republican State Con- vention, June 13, 1878. "BLife of Zachariah Chandler (Detroit: Detroit Post and Tribune, 1880), Appendix A. 166 a proposition to borrow $30,000,000. .“9 On February 18, 187A, when the question before the Senate was the issuance of national bank notes, Chandler offered an amendment that for every note issued, one dollar in legal-tender notes (green- backs) be retired. He utilized the appeal to fear of economic loss, perhaps more for the benefit of the people who might read the speech and for the galleries, than for the immediate Senate audience. Now, Mr. President, it seems to have gone abroad that the losses from the failure of banks and from the discount and losses . . . fall upon the wealthy. Nothing is further from the truth. The losses to which I have referred . . . fell upon the laboring man, the farmer, and the mechanic. They fell upon the man who could least afford to submit to the loss. So it is now.5O In each of the thirty-five Speeches analyzed were found numerous instances of materials which seem to have been included for the purpose of arousing in the audience a psychological state con- ducive to the acceptance of the Speaker's ideas. A number of the issues on which Zachariah Chandler spoke were issues with highly emotional overtones, but a great deal of direct psychological appeal was utilized by him. The appeals to national pride and honor, patri— otism, and love of country appear to have been used most frequently, but appeals to justice, hatred, economic security, social responsi- bility, and honor were also used. Chandler seemed to be aware of the temper of his audiences and used psychological appeals to create in the audience a state of mind favorable to the reception of his ideas. Since, as has been noted, the audiences to whom Chandler spoke were "9Speech delivered in the Senate, February 17, 1859. SOU.S., Congressional Record, h3d Cong., lst Sess., 187A, II, Part 2, 158A. 167 generally in agreement with him, it is suggested that in most in- stances psychological appeal was used to bring the audience to a high peak of feeling in order to strengthen their position on the issues. In the Senate, where the immediate audience was sometimes in disagreement with him, "Zach" seemed to be directing his psycholog- ical appeals to the galleries and to his constituents, rather than to the immediate audience. Logical Proof One of the means of persuasion in speechmaking is accom- plished when the Speaker leads the audience to accept his ideas by the use of evidence and reasoning. "Persuasion is effected by argu- ments, when We demonstrate the truth, real or apparent, by such means as inhere in particular cases."51 As Thonssen and Baird suggest: "Oratory to be great must deal with ideas which make a difference in the affairs of men and states. Consequently, a seriousness of design characterizes the overwhelming majority of speeches. . . ."52 It is suggested, then, that one requirement placed on the public speaker should be that his arguments demonstrate effective use of evidence, and sound reasoning. Aristotle called this aspect of speech content "Logos"--logical proof. While "ethical proof" has to do with the audience's opinion of the Speaker as a credible source, and "psychological proof" is used to appeal to the feelings and drives of the audience, "logical proof" may be said to be directed to the intellect. 5lCooper, p. 9. 52Thonssen and Baird, p. 332. 168 Reasoning may be said to consist of inferences from premises to a conclusion. An inference may be defined as the mental process by which relationships between premises are discerned. A premise may be defined as any proposition, either stated or assumed, which is used as a basis for inference.53 Evidence is that body of fact or opinion which serves to lend credence to the premises stated by the speaker. "Every premise must be so evidenced or else stand as an ume supported assertion."ELL Logical proof is drawn from facts and opin- ions, and the conclusions are developed through reasoning from examples, causes, analogies, and/or signs. Based on these definitions, a detailed analysis of thirty- five of Zachariah Chandler’s Speeches was made to determine their logical cogency. Evidence, as has been suggested, constitutes the basis of reasoning and it would thus be expected that if the speaker wishes to influence belief through the logic of his argument, he would use evidence to lend credence to his propositions. Chandler seemed to have been aware of the importance of evidence and reasoning in speechmaking and he used an abundance of evidence to support his assertions, but at times the nature of his use of evidence is open to question. What appear to be unsubstantiated assertions appear throughout Chandler's speaking and on some occasions, when Chandler referred to evidence for the purpose of substantiating an assertion, the audience was asked to trust Chandler's assertion that the evi- 53James O‘Neill and James McBurney, The Working Principles of Argument (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1932), p. 95. 5"Ibid. 169 dence was available. Phrases such as "It is proven beyond doubt;"55 "I hold in my hand a list;" "I have evidence to prove what I as- sert;"56 "We have every reason to believe . . .;"57 "I have been un- able to find . . .;" and "I stand ready to prove that ."58 appear on occasion throughout his Speaking. On June 1A, 1878, "Zach" was not to be swayed by any evidence or opinion contrary to his own. I do not care what any single man, or what a dozen men may say. They [Ehe Democrati] have determined through revolution to overthrow the Constitution and Mexicanize the Government.59 However, in spite of the fact that Chandler used the unsub- stantiated assertion on occasion and that he at times used non- specific references to the sources of his material, the analysis reveals much use of explanation, personal experience, personal opin- ion, examples, numerical data, testimony and authority, and compari- son and contrast in his Speaking. Chandler used the example frequently, and his use of this technique was sometimes a quick reference and sometimes an extended development. He also frequently relied upon audience familiarity with the material and assumed audience acceptance. This seems not an unwarranted assumption on his part, since he spoke primarily to partisan audiences. Further, Chandler was able to draw upon his own observations and experiences for examples. 55Speech delivered in the Senate, March 12, 1858. 56Speech delivered in the Senate, February 18, 187A. 57Speech delivered in Battle Creek, Michigan, August 2A,l868. 58Speech delivered in Monroe City, Michigan, August 12, 1872. 59Address to the Michigan State Republican Convention in Detroit, June 1A, 1878. 170 At Mead's Hall in Lansing, Michigan, on October 25, 1870, "Zach" recited instances of the accomplishments of the Republican party, as he did in virtually every campaign speech. The Republican party met and crushed it [the Rebellion7; freed 4,000,000 slaves; built the Pacific railroad; . secured California and Oregon to the Union; improved our rivers and harbors; framed . . . banking laws and [8] system of national currency . . . ggd all the rebel states have been restored to the Union . The South, in Chandler's opinion, had been preparing for war before the Civil War actually began, and in numerous speeches on numerous occasions, he offered quick references to the actions of Jefferson Davis; Howell Cobb, Secretary of the Treasury; and others to Show that the Democratic Administration of President Buchanan had designed to leave the Federal Government bankrupt and without arms when the South finally did leave the Union. From these instances Chandler reasoned inductively that the Southern traitors in the government had caused the North to be unable to effectively prosecute the war when it first began. Chandler also felt that the rebellion itself had actually begun some thirty years before 1861, and he frequently used the ex- ample of the nullification controversy of 1832, when South Carolina attempted to nullify certain Federal tariffs, to give evidence of this.61 During the discussion of the bill before the Senate to buy Cuba, Chandler, for the purpose of illustrating that the people of Cuba were not seekers after freedom as the Democrats claimed, used 6OLansing State Republican, October 27, 1870. 61Speeches delivered July A, 1863, in New York; September 9, 1863, in Springfield, Illinois; and others. 171 the example of a man by the name of Crittenden who went to Cuba to lead the people to freedom, but who met his death when he failed to get support from the Cuban people. "Where, then, were the patriots who were ‘thirsting for freedom?!" asked Chandler.62 A great many of the examples used by Chandler were based on his own personal experience. He used the example of Michigan's ex- perience with wildcat banks and paper money during the period 1837- 1857, to Show the effect of "soft" money and uncontrolled banks,63 and he also brought his experiences as national Republican chairman to bear, as well as his experiences as a member of various Senate investigating committees. In talking of these rebel outrages I talk of what I know, and of what I have seen. During four years of the continuous war I served on the Committee on Conduct of the'War, and we were ordered to investigate rebel outrages committed on our men while prisoners in the hands of the enemy. In 1867—68 the Knights of the Golden Circle, otherwise known as the Ku Klux, commenced to commit their horrible outrages, and when it came to the ears of Congress a committee of investigation was ap- pointed, and I served for two years upon that committee. 'We took testimony in North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, and so on in most of the Southern States; and if I were to repeat one instance in a hundred of the cruelty which came under my observation, it would cause the blood to curdle in your veins. I will mention one or two at this present time for the reason that the Democratic platform desires to turn all our colored men and Northern soldiers6in the South over to the mercies of the White Leaguers. . . . In addition to the example, another favorite form of support of Chandler's was the quotation, and not infrequently was it used in refutation for the purpose of "turning the tables" on an opponent. 62Speech delivered in the Senate, February 17, 1859. 63U.S., Congressional Record, A3d Cong., 2d Sess., 187A, XIII, Part 2, 158A. 6"Detroit Daily Post, November 2, 187A. 172 In his Speech against the LeCompton Constitution, "Zach" used quotations from letters and Speeches of Democratic leaders, includ- ing President Buchanan, to Show inductively that they had actually taken a position against such factors as led to the adoption of the document in question.65 In this same speech he brought testimony for- ward from Southern courts to Show that the common law did not recog- nize Slaves as property. Chandler also used quotations from the Democratic Washington Unign_newspaper to Show that the Democrats did, indeed, recognize Slaves as property,and from various newspapers in an attempt to in- ductively establish the value of "good money" and "secure bonds" to the "moneyed centers."66 Perhaps the most extended use of quotations from newspapers was employed by Chandler in the campaign of 1872 for the purpose of establishing that Horace Greeley was inconsistent and that the Demo- cratic claim that Greeley had been a life-long "adherent to truth" was ridiculous.67 In these speeches Chandler quoted editorials from the New York Tribune to Show that Greeley had been for and against practically everything, and particularly to establish by induction that Greeley had been anti-Democratic. Chandler was not inclined to draw from literature or books of history for his material; most of his sources of evidence were either contemporary or came as a result of his knowledge of events 65Speech delivered in the Senate, March 12, 1858. 66Speech delivered in the Senate, February 17, 1859. 67Campaign speeches of August 1, 1872; August 25, 1872; and September 15, 1872. 173 and of government in his lifetime. He was not well read nor well educated and, as a result, "Zach" used his practical experience in business, finance, and agriculture, and his active participation in the give and take of state and national politics, as his resources. The major exception to his use of only contemporary or recent sources was the Bible, which Chandler used frequently for the purpose of ex- plaining, clarifying, or proving a point. He related the story of Lazarus on frequent occasions in attempting to illustrate a variety of points. To illustrate his point that there were less dishonest men among contemporary societies than ever before, Chandler referred to Christ and the ratio of one traitor to twelve and then asserted that the ratio was much less in his time. In refutation of the allegation that the doctrine of "irrepressible conflict" should have been attri- buted to Senator Seward of New York, "Zach" said in a loose transla- tion of the Bible, which probably served psychological purposes as well as logical: Why, Sir, did the Senator from Illinois never read the Bible? If he had read it, he would have found that that doctrine was old when Mr. Seward was born . . . he would have found that the doctrine was antiquated when Solomon sang his songs. If he will go back to the history of an ancient ruler by the name of Pharoah and read the history of Moses, he will find that Mbses came to the Pharoah and said: 'Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, let my people go;' but Pharoah said, 'Moses, you are an abolitionist. Moses, the laws of Egypt are higher than any law you can bring me. ho is the Lord that I should obey his voice to let Israel go?:6 Thus the quotation was a means used frequently by Chandler in his efforts to establish the truth of his assertions, and this form of supporting material was frequently used in refutation for the pur- 68Speech delivered in the Senate, March 18, 1861. 17h pose of Showing inconsistency in the opposition’s position, policy, or argument. The Bible was used frequently as a source of quota- tions, but on occasion, as was demonstrated, something was sometimes lost in the translation. Another form of support used to a wide extent by Chandler was numerical data. He seemed fond of using facts, figures, and his own computations of statistics to reason inductively, and the majority of his speeches analyzed contain examples of this type of evidence. His sources of data were confined primarily to newspaper reports and government documents, though on some occasions the source of his material is not given by Chandler. Some of the numerical data Chandler used was the resultcflfis own calculations. He wanted to Show in a speech to the Senate in 1859, that Michigan would carry a heavy burden if Cuba were purchased. The State of Michigan, under the present representation, according to the census of 1850, having four members, will pay $508,A7h.56. But the population of Michigan has more than doubled Since 1850 and She is now entitled, according to her population, to eight Representatives; and will in 1860 have them, so that her present proportion would be, according to proper apportionment, $1,016,9A9.l2, the interest upon which, at Six percent per annum, would be $61,016.9h. . . . I say you propose to mortgage my State of Michigan for $1,016,9A9 and to compel her people to pay an annual tax of $61,016. 9 On March 18, 1861, "Zach" used the number of voters who sup- ported each Of the four presidential candidates in the election of 1860, in his attempt to prove by induction that the vast majority of the voters voted for candidates who supported the Constitution and 69Speech delivered in the Senate, February 17, 1859. 175 against Breckenridge, whom Chandler asserted ran on a dis-Union platform.7O He also brought financial statistics to bear in opposition to the increase in the amount of irredeemable currency,Tl and sta- tistics on our naval power to Show that we had the vessels of war in 186A to force Britain to pay reparations to this country for shipping losses incurred from British-built ships during the Civil War.72 Perhaps the most extended use of numerical data by Chandler is found in his Speech in 1874, to the Senate, opposing the increase in the amount of national bank notes issued. "Zach" proposed an amendment "That the Secretary of the Treasury Shall retire and de— stroy one dollar in legal tender notes for each and every additional issuance of bank notes . . ." and insisted on this amendment before he could vote for the bill. It was Chandler‘s belief that over- speculation without "hard money" and the use of irredeemable cur- rency were the causes of the nation's financial ills, and he used a rather wearying set of statistics from the New York Evening Post‘s financial page for various dates to reason inductively that in the midst of the depression of 1873, good money and good securities were stronger than before the depression set in. He then proceeded to use the same source of numerical data to Show that when "greenbacks" were issued by the government, the purchasing power of the money went down and the price of gold and 7QDetroit Tribune, April 6, 1861. 71Detroit Tribune, June 27, 1862. 72Detroit Post, March 30, 1867. 176 gilt—edged securities went up.73 By the use of these instances, Chandler inferred that bad money pushed good money out of circulattxn During the Grant administration, "Zach" used numerical data for the purpose of showing that the government had decreased expendi- tures, increased revenue, and fulfilled the Republican pledge to pay the national debt as swiftly as possible.7" Throughout his career, Chandler used financial statistics on the value of government securities and on the condition of the treas- ury under the Buchanan administration just prior to the Civil War to try to demonstrate inductively that the Democrats had destroyed this country's worth. While the accuracy of the numerical data presented by Chand- ler was not questioned by his fellow Senators, he was rightfully called to account on occasion in the Senate for failing to consider alternative causes and effects when he used statistics for the pur- pose of establishing causal relationships. In an 187% financial speech to the Senate, he attempted to infer that the fluctuations in the price of gold were attributable to the amount of "greenbacks" in circulation. He was called to account for not considering the effects of Federal victories and/or defeats in the field during the Civil War which led to confidence, or lack of it, in the government, which in turn led to a fluctuation in the price of gold.75 73Speech delivered in the Senate, February 18, 187A. 7"Speeches delivered in Grand Rapids, Michigan, October 22, 1870; in Lansing, Michigan, October 17, 1870; and others. 75U.S., Congressional Record, 43d Cong., lst Sess., 187A, II, Part 2, 1587. 177 In addition to the use of examples, quotations, and numerical data, Chandler also used explanation as a form of support, but it was rarely Simple explanation devoid of value judgment. He frequently used explanation for the purpose of demonstrating why the Republican party was founded, and he also used this technique in attempting to demonstrate the progress made by the Republican party during its tenure in the executive branch of the government,76 but these expla- nations were not without emotional overtones. "Zach's" use of emothx1 in explanation is evident in his speech of October 31, 1874, to a Republican party rally in Detroit. Carpet-baggers? Who are carpet-baggers? I am not a carpet- bagger, because I came here before the State did. But over four- fifths of all of the people Within the sound of my voice are carpet-baggers in the common acceptance of the term. Most of the carpet-baggers in those Southern States are men who went down after the Rebellion to settle and improve their condition. They went there as any man has a right to do under the personal liberty clause of the Constitution.77 Chandler used both general and specific material in his explanations and developed his issues in considerable depth on most occasions. "Zach" also seemed to delight in using comparison and con- trast as supporting material, particularly when the issue was Demo- crats versus Republicans. He contrasted the records of the two major parties on frequent occasions for the purpose of establishing induc- tively that the Republicans should be elected to office and the 76Speeches delivered in Marshall, Michigan, December 23, 1856; in Springfield, Illinois, September 9, 1863; in Detroit, October 31, 1874, and others; and Speeches delivered in the Senate, January 18, 1871, May 10, 1879, and others; and his occasional speech of July 4, 1863, in New York, and others. 77Detroit Daily Post, November 2, 1874. 178 Democrats kept out or cast out.78 Later in his career, "Zach" compared the Democrats in the 1870's with the Democrats before, during, and immediately after the Civil War in an effort to Show no change in their philosophy or policy. The conclusion drawn inductively from these comparisons was that the Democratic party had not changed. What the Democrats failed to do with arms, inferred Chandler, they were now attempting to do by governmental processes and terror and intimidation in the Southern states.79 Zachariah Chandler did use varying kinds of evidence to sup- port his ideas, and he seemed aware of the necessity of such use, but some of his references to sources were vague and sometimes there were none given at all. At other times what appear to be unsubstantiated assertions are found. "Zach" also failed to take cognizance of or attempt to accommodate evidence contrary to what he was attempting to establish. He used these materials to reason inductively from ex- ample, analogy, sign, and/or cause. Instances of his reasoning from example and from cause have already been discussed; but Chandler reasoned from analogy and Sign as well. He loved a good story and was thought to be a man worth sitting up with at night to hear "Old Zach" spin a yarn. He reasoned predominately from the figurative analogy, rather than the literal analogy, and this method of reasoning was usually 78Speeches delivered July 21, 1867; September 23, 1868, January 8, 1871; August 1, 1872; November 2, 1874; January 8, 1871; February 13, 1879; and others. 79Speeches delivered in Lansing, October 27, 1870; in Detroit, October 31, 1874; in Chicago, October 31, 1879, and others. l 179 used in refutation for the purpose of reducing the arguments of the opposition to absurdity. He seemed able to see immediately the practical weaknesses in opposing arguments, and, while he frequently used other methods of refutation, he seemed to relish using the figurative analogy to make the audience laugh at the enemy. At Springfield, Illinois, he had an answer for the Democrats who said that our resources were exhausted and that the North should sue for an honorable peace. When this war commenced, we could borrow only about $3,000,000, and that at a rate equivalent to about 14 per cent. We have Spent $1,200,000 and today our securities are above par. We owe every dollar to ourselves. Our condition excites the wonder of the governments of Europe. They don't know how to account for it. They feel very much like the man who offered to bet a hundred dollars that his horse could outrun any horse that could be brought on. A man who heard the banter offered to run an ox against him for a hundred dollars. The man replied 'I will run my horse against any horse you can bring on, but I don't know what your d--d old ox can do.‘ And so the other gov- ernments of the world after this will not know what we can do. Let the Northern traitors proclaim that our resources are ex- hausted. We have hardly touched our resources yet. We have not yet found ougoourselves how vast, how inexhaustible, our re- sources are. At Grand Rapids, Michigan, Chandler answered the Democratic claim that the Republican mission was ended by the use of another analogy. The claim of the Democracy that our 'mission is ended! can be illustrated by telling a little story. A church had sub- mitted to the ministrations of old Father Smith for many years. Under his preaching, the congregation thinned out, the prayer- meetings were poorly attended, the debt of the church grew too heavy to be borne. The prospect was a speedy demolition of the church. A meeting was called and it was resolved that Smith Should be dismissed and the young and talented Jones was employed in his place. Under his ministrations the church prospered, its members increased, its debt was paid, its prayer- meetings were well attended, and there was no church more 80Speech delivered in Springfield, Illinois, September 9, 1863. 180 prosperous. But after ten years of success the deacons call a meeting and resolve that Jones! 'mission is ended.‘ They admit he has done well, no one could do better, but a 'change is needed.’ 'Well,’ says Jones, 'who will you get in my place?! ’Well,’ they reply, ’we have concluded to forget the past and recall old Father Smith.’ So the Democrats who attempted to destroy the government and have been prevented by the Republi- cans, say to us: 'Your work is done-~it is time we were in power.‘ 1 When Chandler did use the literal analogy, it was generally hypothetical. He used the hypothetical analogy in an attempt to Show inductively that the "greenbacks" would be harmful to the lender and the common man,82 that the Democratic claims during the election cam- paign of 1872 regarding great support for Greeley were unfounded,83 and that Greeley was sure a "long ways from headquarters" as the Democratic candidate. Whether or not this particular form of reasoning served the purpose of logically establishing his arguments when considered as part of the text, for the partisan political audiences the technique seemed to do the job. Favorable audience response accompanied each telling. Reasoning from Sign was usually implied, rather than ex- plicitly stated. Fraud, corruption, and revolutionary tendencies were directly attributable to Southern Democrats and their Northern sympathizers. To Chandler, the issues of the day did not seem to require continued Objective analysis. Everything Republican was good everything Democratic was bad. BlSpeech delivered in Lansing, Michigan, October 17, 1870, and others. 82Speech delivered in Lansing, Michigan, October 22, 1870. 83Speech delivered in Adrian, Michigan, September 30, 1868. a... ’3. .. 181 While most of the reasoning observed in Chandler's Speeches was structured inductively, he did reason occasionally from a gen- eralization to a Specific conclusion based on it. This type of reasoning pattern is called deduction. "Another way of defining de- ductive reasoning: it is the process of proceeding from one propo- sition to a second prOposition; then to a third proposition (the conclusion) that is the necessary result of the first pair."8" In the realm of public speaking, the speaker may assume or imply one, or on occasion two, of the necessary three steps in the deductive pattern. In developing a Constitutional argument concerning Slavery, "Zach" made these deductive approaches. (1) If the framers of the Constitution desired slavery to be a permanent institution, they would have used the word ’slave' in the document. (This generalization is not proved, it is merely asserted) (2) Nowhere in the Constitution can the word ’slave' be found. (Assumed) (3) Therefore, the framers of the Constitution never in- tended to make slavery a permanent institution. (1) If Slaves are property under the Constitution, then they are property everywhere. (Asserted) (2) Slaves are not recognized as property under the Con- stitution. (Implied) (3% Therefore, Slaves are not recognized as property any- where. 5 In arguing that John Brown was not an abolitionist, or abolitionist inspired, "Zach" used the following deductive structure. (1) If John Brown were an abolitionist, he would be non- resistant. (Asserted) 8"Kenneth Hance, David.Ralph and Milton Wiksell, Principles of Speaking (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1962), pp. 65-67. 85Speech delivered in the Senate, March 12, 1858. 182 (2) He was not non-resistant. (Asserted) (3) Therefore, he was not an abolitionist. 86 In a speech against Andrew Johnson in 1867, Chandler offered: (1) If Johnson had no authority, of appointing provisional governors then the acts of these governors fail. (Asserted) (2) He,£§0hnson7 had no authority. (3) Therefore, the acts fail. and later in the same speech, he said: (1) If Johnson had no authority, then he should be impeached. (Asserted) (2) He had no authority (Asserted) (3) Therefore, he Should be impeached. 87 In a campaign speech in Albion, Michigan, during the campaign of 1868, "Zach" again used the deductive reasoning structure in con- demning Andrew Johnson. (1) A bad President would help the Rebels. (Implied) (2) Johnson helped the Rebels. éReasoned from example) (3) Johnson is a bad President.8 During the campaign of 1878, the Democrats said that the mission of the Republican party had been accomplished and that it ought not to be elected to office. In answer, Chandler said: (1) Political parties die when they abandon their principles. (2) The Republican party has not abandgned its principles. (3) The Republican party will not die. 9 While the arguments noted above are deductive in form, the reliability of the content as well as the validity of the structure is at times open to question. In reasoning, the statements within the deductive structure may need to be given credence by the use of 86Speech delivered in the Senate, December 7, 1859. 87Speech delivered in the Senate, February 12, 1867. 88Speech delivered September 23, 1868. 89Speech delivered in Detroit, June 13, 1878. 183 evidence to establish their truth value. If the speaker merely asserts a proposition without offering proof, the conclusion may not be acceptable. As has been demonstrated, Chandler frequently as- serted one or more of the propositions. However, it is also true that the effectiveness of arguments may come from audience acceptance as well as sound logic. It may have been true that Chandler's audiences accepted his assertions without question either because Chandler said them (ethical proof) or because the assertions were generally accepted by partisan audi- ences. The Senate may not have accepted his assertions without evi- dence, but Mr. Chandler was Speaking to the galleries and his con- stituents as well as to the immediate audience. Thus the deductive arguments examined above may have been acceptable to Chandler's audiences in spite of the fact that some of his propositions were either asserted or assumed rather than sup- ported with evidence. However, certain questions concerning the validity of the logical structure of some of the arguments may also be raised. When an argument is valid, the premises imply the con- clusion. This is not necessarily the case in some of the arguments examined above. In order to arrive at the conclusion that Johnson was a bad President and still follow the rules of the syllogism, the argument could have been stated: (1) Presidents who help the rebels are bad; (2) President Johnson helped the rebels; therefore, (3) President Johnson is bad. Chandler's argument that the Repub- lican party would not die because it had not abandoned its principles also could have been changed to read: (1) If political parties aban- don their principles, they die; (2) The Republican party has not ‘ .LL 1 ._c a. 1 1 III“-.. .v s .. J. . s .' 184 abandoned its principles; therefore, (3) The Republican party will not die. As has been noted, much of Chandler's Speaking was refutative in nature and thus logical proof was used frequently to attempt to destroy the arguments of the opposition. Chandler seemed adept at discerning points of clash and at meeting them head-on. While "Zach" used various methods of refutation, he Showed a marked preference for attempting to reduce the arguments of the opponents to absurdity, turning the tables on the opponents, admitting the opponent's point and utilizing it for his own arguments, and refuting by Showing a greater weight of evidence on his Side. In December of 1859, "Zach" attempted to reduce to absurdity the Democratic argument that John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry was instigated by the Republicans. A resolution of Senator Mason of Virginia to investigate the John Brown affair was before the Sen- ate.90 Senator Fessenden of Maine alluded in his speech on the resolution to an earlier Speech delivered by Governor Wise of Vir- ginia to the Virginia State Legislature, in which the Governor had implied that the Republicans were responsible for the whole affair. Chandler could not endure this allegation in Silence. After a very Short introduction to the effect that he did not wish to make an extended speech at that time, Chandler proceeded to support the resolution because it would be a warning to all traitors that they would be hanged if they raised their hands against their government. Chandler demanded to know where John Brown was 9OU.S., Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., lSt 5855-: 1859: XXIX, Part 1, 26: 185 educated; he was sure it was not in the North or by Republicans. Next he took the argument of the Democrats that the Republicans were responsible and tried to reduce it to absurdity. The facts in this case as they appear to be, are these: The fugitive Slaves at Chatham, in Canada, got together some time, I do not know when, and organized a provisional govern- ment for the United States. There are, I understand, about Sixty-thousand Slaves in the Province of Canada. They got together in Chatham, in Canada, and there resolved to organize a provisional government for these United States. They did so; and they sent as their agents--this I gather from newspaper accounts--to put their government in motion, John Brown and Sixteen other white men and five negroes, without any hope of Support from any source. Now, gentlemen ask, where did all these funds come from? All that was needed would probably amount to twenty cents on each head of your own fugitive slaves in Canada; and yet the great Republican party of the North, representing one million three hundred thousand voters, is to be charged with complicity in this miserable fugitive slave government established at Chatham some time--God knows when-- and I do not know or care. Sir, it is too ridiculous. I can- not treat it with any sort of serious consideration. . . . no man of the North even thinks of charging it upon the Republican party. The Democratic . . . press . . . is known not to repre- sent the sentiment there. It is a hired, pampered press. . Sir, it is a villainous press, hired to do dirty work, and it does it faithfully. This same technique of refutation was used by Chandler against the Democrats in the election campaign of 1872, as he at- tempted to prevent the election of Horace Greeley. The issue in this campaign, with transition, was: "Having built a stolen platform, who gig] did they select to stand on it?" "Zach" then suggested that he had searched for the reported ground-Swell of support for Greeley, but had been unable to find it. He then said: "Greeley stands 99,000 chances of being struck by lightning to one of being elected President." Following these assertions, Chandler used an array of editorial quotations from Greeley's New York Tribune showing GreeleyS villification and abuse of the Democratic party. .After each instance, Chandler attempted to turn the tables on the Democrats by quoting a Il'l' 186 phrase from the Democratic Detroit Free Press that ". . . no esti- mate of Greeley would be complete that does not mention his life- long devotion to truth."91 According to Chandler, the origin of the Rebellion was not because slavery was not sufficiently protected, as the Democrats claimed, but because the Southerners hated the republican form of government. This he attempted to prove by quotations from Southern leaders and from events in Washington prior to the outbreak of the conflict. Chandler admitted the charge that he was a Radical: "If it means a vigorous prosecution of the War, I am ten times more Rad- ical than I have ever been charged with." He admitted his "blood- letting letter," but brought quotations from Thomas Jefferson to bear to Show that it was a worthy sentiment. Whatever the method of refutation chosen by Chandler, the theme emerged in unmistakable relief--the Republicans were right and guiltless; the Democrats and any other political party were wrong and corrupt. Seemingly highly Skilled in the use of psychological proof for the purpose of stimulating the audience to a high peak on the response sought, rather than for the purpose of changing opinions; aware of the importance of the ethos of the Speaker as an aspect of "proof," Chandler seemed not as adept in the use of evidence and reasoning, though he did employ them as an important aspect of his speaking. 91Detroit Post, October 3, 1872. CHAPTER V ORGANIZATION AND ARRANGEMENT 0F IDEAS In Chapter Four Chandler's uses of the rhetorical elements of invention were examined. The purpose of this chapter is to ex- amine the "Rhetorical Order" of Chandler‘s Speeches and his arrange- ment of ideas within the body of the Speech. Aristotle and Cicero called these aspects of rhetoric "dispositio," which deals with the order of the major parts of the Speech, and the place, proportion, and order of ideas within the speech. A necessary relationship can immediately be seen between the concept of "dispositio" and the concept of "invention." Closely allied with the choice of ideas and means of proof (invention) is the decision made concerning the disposition of these ideas and proofs into a meaningful message. Rhetorical Order Historically, there has been general agreement that the oral discourse Should be composed of certain major parts. The number of these major divisions has varied, but, in general, four distinct parts emerge: (1) Introduction; (2) Thesis; (3) Body; and (4) Con- clusion. Aristotle listed four: Proem, Statement, Argument, and 187 .‘Ibirt fit I" 1 9i; rllJivwn'Ndf «24‘ 5 I . . . N. 188 Epilogue.l Cicero listed seven parts, but three, Narration, Proof, and Refutation, referred to functions performed in the body of the speech; and two, Summation and Appeal, referred to purposes served by the Conclusion.2 Quintilian, too, though he offered five parts, may be said to have agreed with the four major divisions. Modern theorists have continued this four-part division to the oral discourse. Some moderns suggest two essentials to the Speech--the statement and the development, but also give emphasis to the introduction and conclusion.3 Others suggest three essentials-- the introduction, the body, and the conclusion, but give emphasis to the statement (thesis)."L To this writer, the term "rhetorical order" refers to the four major divisions of the Speech discussed above, and it seems ob- vious that three of the four parts must appear in a certain order. By definition, the introduction precedes the body of the speech, and the conclusion follows the body. However, the Speaker, because of the nature of his subject, or, more likely, because of the climate of Opinion of the audience to whom he speaks, may vary the placement of the thesis. For the Speech where the Speaker's intent is to inform or entertain, the thesis frequently appears near the beginning of the speech. ‘Where the purpose is to stimulate or convince, the Speaker 1Cooper, Lane (trans. and ed.), The Rhetoric of Aristotle (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1932), p. 220. 2Cicero, De Oratore, Book I, trans. E. W. Sutton (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939), p. 99. 3See Bryant, Donald, and Wallace, Fundamentals of Public Speaking, 3rd Edition (New York: .Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inca,l950). "See Hance, Kenneth, Ralph, and Wiksell, Principles of Speak- ing (Belmont, California; Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1962). l9 1 EN .IL.vyi.|ll\Ab' (A.-.OH_P‘- 3‘ 189 may or may not place the thesis near the beginning of his discourse. However, where the audience is hostile to the speaker's point of view, the speaker, if he wishes to adapt to his hearers, may not place his thesis near the beginning, but will withhold it until he has prepared the audience by argument, evidence, and appeal to be re- ceptive to it.5 Given that the speaker has chosen to place his thesis near the beginning of the speech, usually at the end of the introduction, he has another decision which can be made. He may choose to "parti- N _ tion" his thesis. That is, the Speaker may choose to forecast what his points in support of or in amplification of his thesis will be before he develops them. This would normally follow the statement of the thesis. On the other hand, the speaker may choose to let his points "unfold” as he comes to them, and will thus move directly to his first issue or point without forecasting what his issues will be. The purposes of the introduction to a speech are to gain attention and goodewill, and to orient the audience to the subject. Brigance6 suggests that a speaker may get the attention and good-will of the audience in a number of ways: (1) By establishing common ground with the audience; (2) By paying the audience a sincere com- pliment; (3) By reference to matters of special interest to the listeners; (4) By reference to the occasion; (5) By utilizing pleas- antry or humor; (6) By reference to the significance of the subject; 5Brigance, William Norwood, Speech Composition (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1953), pp. 85-88. 6Brigance, William Norwood, Speech: Its Techniques and Disciplines in a Free Society (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 196l):7pp. 234-239. 190 or (7) By a narrative or illustration that leads to the subject. With respect to the other function served by the introduc- tion, orientation, the speaker must make sure that the audience has sufficient knowledge or background information to enable it to follow his development of the subject. There may be terms to be defined, explanations to be made, issues to be made clear. The conclusion of the speech is, of course, the end of the discourse, and it may be used to summarize or to motivate or both. Cicero, as noted earlier, listed summation and appeal as the func- tions of the conclusion of the speech--the summary of what has been covered and an appeal to the audience to follow the speaker's sug- gestions as to the most desirable course of action. Some conclusions do neither of these things, but serve merely to round out and dismiss the thought, or to state or restate the thesis. Arrangement While the factor of "rhetorical order" and the arrangement of ideas in the body of the Speech are related, the arrangement of ideas in the body of the speech may be discussed separately. In a well organized Speech, the thesis or central idea is supported by main heads or topics in the body of the Speech. The speaker may choose to develop his thesis historically, by issues or topics, by first pre- senting the problem and then offering a solution, by cause to effect order, or by other orders which seem to fit the audience and the thesis. The historical method divides the material according to time units. It may be a story or a series of stories arranged chronolog— ically and this chronology may be from past to present to future; 191 or other derivatives of this pattern. When the body of the speech is arranged according to issues or topics, the material may be divided according to the issues involved in the controversy, according to the parties involved, according to the fields of inquiry, according to the parts or divisions of the subject, or according to "reasons" for the acceptance of the thesis. The place and Space given to individual issues or arguments within the body of the speech are also important considerations. Does the speaker place his most important issue first, in the middle, :2 or last in the body of the speech? From an audience standpoint, is the body of the speech arranged in a climactic or anti-climactic manner? Allied with this consideration is the answer to the ques- tion: To which arguments or issues in the speech does the Speaker give importance by the degree of space or length devoted to them as compared to the other issues or arguments? Certainly, the idea of place and space of the arguments is inextricably connected to audi- ence adaptation, as are all decisions the speaker makes regarding a Single oral communication Situation. "A speech is to be judged by its effect upon some one;"7 and, as Thonssen and Baird suggest: Essential as it is for the critic to know the graft of rhe- torical disposition, and to be able to appreciate the plan which the speaker chooses, it is even more important that he determine the degree and success of the speakgr's accommodation to the variabllltles of audlence behaVIor. While it is true that decisions concerning the place and space of arguments may be decisions made by the Speaker prior to 7COOper, p. 8Thonssen, Lester and Baird, A. Craig, Speech Criticism (New York: The Ronald Press, 1948), p. 402. 192 actual delivery and thus might be considered part of the inventive process in a large sense, they are decisions that affect organization and arrangement and thus may be considered as part of "dispositio." For this chapter, a complete substance outline was made of each of the thirty-five speeches chosen for detailed analysis, with a careful noting of the major divisions, the placement of the thesis, the arrangement of ideas within the body of the speech, and emphasis given the ideas by Space and place. As a first step in the treatment of organization and arrangement, let us consider "rhetorical order." Chandler‘s Rhetorical Order As a result of the detailed analysis, certain statements can be made concerning Chandler's use of the four major divisions of the Speech. An urge to get to the heart of the matter at hand seemed to ' Speaking. All of his introductions were very characterize "Zach's' Short, all of them less than a minute in length when read aloud at an average rate, regardless of the length of the speech. In twenty- eight of the thirty-five speeches analyzed, the introduction was utilized to refer to the occasion, to comment on the significance of the subject or for personal explanation. On only a few occasions was the introduction used to conciliate the audience. Chandler also Showed a definite preference on the placement of the thesis in the speech, but this preference seemed to be a func- tion of the occasion and the audience. When speaking to the Senate, Chandler nearly always placed the thesis very near the beginning of the speech; when speaking on the stump or on ceremonial occasions, he frequently put the thesis near the end of the speech--often the 193 statement of the thesis was the conclusion. Reasons might be offered for this. While the Senate audience always contained a number of members in opposition to Chandler, he was not a man of compromise, but of direct action. His mandate from the voters of Michigan was to hold the line against the South, slav— ery, and the Democrats, and it is doubtful that the Senate was ever in doubt as to where "Zach" stood on any given issue. The theme of his campaigns and his stated position on the floor of the Senate was that the Democrats could not be trusted either to keep their word or to uphold the Constitution, and he went into the Senate to meet them in direct combat; not to convert, but to destroy them. It is also true that, in the Senate, a speaker is addressing not only the imme- diate audience, but also his constituency. These reasons may account for Chandler’s seeming lack of adaptation to his immediate audience in the Senate regarding the placement of the thesis. Theoretically, when the thesis appears at or near the end of the speech, it is usually put there for one of two reasons, both illustrating audience adaptation. On the one hand, the speaker may withhold his statement of the thesis because he must first lay the groundwork for audience acceptance. That is, he must affect the audience with argument and appeal until it is disposed to give the thesis a hearing. On the other hand, the speaker may use this tech- nique to reach a climax at the end of the speech to an audience who knows full well what the speaker's position is and agrees with him. We may ascribe the second reason to Chandler in his campaign and occasional speaking. The audiences at the Republican rallies to whom he spoke throughout his career certainly knew of his positions 19M on the issues. Chandler was not a man given to silence or the subtle approach and when he was asked to speak, he came with the reputation of a man dedicated to the ideals and principles espoused by the Radi- cal wing of the Republican party. The Republican audiences did not come to have their views changed, they came to be inspired. We may assume, then, that Chandler placed his thesis at or near the end of the majority of his campaign and occasional speeches for the purpose of climax. In most of the thirty-five speeches analyzed, Chandler's con- clusions were so short as to be almost abrupt. Only once in the speeches where the full conclusion was presented as part of the text did he use the conclusion to summarize. In his Senate speaking, the conclusion was used generally to round out the thought or to restate his thesis. In his campaign and occasional speaking, the conclusion was used usually either to motivate or to state the thesis or both. Chandler's first "prepared” address on the floor of the Sen- ate on March 12, 1858, demonstrates his use of rhetorical order in Congress. Senator James Green of Missouri, a Democrat, had intro- duced a measure to permit Kansas to enter the Union by having Con- gress approve the LeCompton Constitution.9 Senator Chandler rose to speak in opposition to this Democratic measure to a Senate under the control of the Democrats. Chandler took only a few seconds of introduction to say that he felt compelled to protest this measure because of the dangerous consequences. His thesis appeared almost immediately and was clear 9U.s., Congressional Globe, 3uth Cong., 3d Sess., 1857, XXVI, Part 2, 1086. 195 and unmistakable: "I cannot permit this bill to pass without enter- ing my protest against it." He then proceeded to forecast what his issues would be with these words: I shall oppose this bill for the following reasons: (1) The whole matter was conceived and executed in fraud; (2) This Con- stitution does not emanate from the people of Kansas; (3) It is one of a series of aggressions of slave power, which, if con- tinued, will end in the subversion of the Constitution; (A) It strikes a death blow at state sovereignty and popular rights. The conclusion is short, and is far different in tone than the rest of the speech. It is used neither to summarize nor to appeal, but merely to bring his remarks to a close. But, Sir, I have already occupied too much time. I have hurriedly past over topics which I would have desired more time to discuss. They teem with interest and enthusiasm. Nevertheless, with thanks to the Senate for the courteous attention with which it has heard me, I yield the floor. Except for the partitioning, his speech to the Senate on February 17, 1859, shows the same characteristics; as do his Senate speeches of December 7, 1859; February 6, l860; March 18, l86l; June 18, 1862; February ll, l867; and January 18, 1871. These speeches were unfolding in nature; Chandler moved directly to his first issue from his thesis. On January l8, 1871, Senator Casserly of California had maligned the Republican party and Chandler rose to reply. The introduction was short, and its point was that the "naked truth" was the worst malignment the Democratic party could get. The thesis followed immediately and made clear the purpose of the speech: "Sir, it is due to this young and vigorous party, as well as it is due to that old and corrupt organization known as the Democratic party, that a little comparison should be made between the two." The conclusion was so short as to be almost abrupt and served to dismiss the subject. 196 Mr. President, if this record of the two parties does not please my Democratic friends, I have only to say to them that they made it deliberately, and they have got to stand by it.10 Chandler's last Senate speech which was a carefully prepared indictment of the Democratic party, gives further evidence of these characteristics.ll On June 30, 1879, "Zach" faced a Democratic ma- jority in the Senate to arraign that party for their actions during that session of Congress. Before the Senate was a motion by the hi Democrats to withhold appropriations covering Federal supervision of + national elections. This gave Chandler an opportunity to speak, but he did not restrict himself to this issue. There were no concili- ating features to this speech and not a whit of compromise. This was a fighting speech, not designed to convince the majority, but to con- demn them. The introduction was short, some fifteen seconds in length, and referred in most uncomplimentary terms to the behavior of the Democrats. We have been here three months and a half in this Capital and not without certain results. We have shown the people of this nation what the Democratic party means. By fraud and violence you hold your present majority and you have shown what you intend to do with this majority. His thesis immediately followed this short introduction and made his purpose very clear. I am justified in arraigning itZCEhe Democratic party] before the loyal people of the United States on the political issues which it has presented as the enemy of the nation and as the author and abettor of rebellion. lOU.S., Congressional Record, MSth Cong., 3d Sess., 1879, VIII, Part 3, 2233—223h. llU.S., Congressional Record, Moth Cong., lst Sess., l879, IX, Part 2, 243%. 197 The conclusion was short, as was his habit, and again served to round out and dismiss the thought. I accept these issues. . . . It is for the citizens to decide who is right and who is wrong. . . . They have made these is- sues. . . . They have made their bed and we will see to it that they lie thereon. Thus, in the Senate, Chandler‘s thesis usually appeared near the beginning of the speech, following directly after a short intro- duction. The conclusions were usually short and served to end the speech, rather than to summarize or motivate. The same four major divisions appear in his campaign speak- ing, but the thesis frequently was placed near the end of the speech, often in the conclusion. Chandler's speech at Orange City, New Jersey, during the cam- paign of 1872 is illustrative.12 The introduction, somewhat longer than those of his Senate speeches, served to orient the audience to the parties involved in the struggle and to offer an apology for his voice, which had been giving him trouble during this speaking tour. His thesis appeared as the final statement of the speech: "Now I can tell you that Greeley has no show1C§o suppor£7 in Michigan and he has no chance in any of the states." The above example was taken from a later period of his polit- ical career, but one could look at any period and find examples of this same "rhetorical order." In one of his first political speeches, delivered on December 2M, 1856, in Marshall, Michigan,13 we find an introduction, again somewhat longer than those of his Senate speechea 12New York Times, August 26, 1872. l3Marshaii (Michigan) Statesman, December 25, 1856. «mil... . . Olilllltli$og I.. ,. 198 complimenting the audience on the Republican victory in Michigan that year. 1856 was a Presidential election year, and Chandler was quick to point out in the body of the speech that the party was actually stronger for having been defeated. The thesis appeared at the end of the body of the speech: "We will give neither peace nor truce until the final contest is past and the final victory is won." The conclusion was very short and utilized a quotation to motivate the audience to greater efforts on behalf of the Republican party: "In the words of Cromwell 'Put your trust in God and keep your powder dry.'" At Lansing, Michigan, on October 27, 1870,l" Chandler spoke to a Republican party meeting on the issues of the day. This speech, too, follows the pattern of his campaign speaking as far as "rhetori- cal order" is concerned. The introduction was short, serving merely to state that he had not come to Lansing to apologize for the Repub- lican party. He was there, instead, to boast of its acts and to stand by them. The thesis and the conclusion were one and the same: "Vote the straight Republican ticket." We see in both his Senate and his campaign speaking a clear emergence of the basic four-part division of the speech--the intro- duction, the thesis, the body, and the conclusion. In his Senate speeches, the thesis typically appeared between the introduction and the body of the speech, and the speeches moved from this general statement to particulars in its support. The introductions to his Senate speeches were short, as were the conclusions. In his campaign speaking, the four-part division is still clearly identifiable, but l"Lansing State Republican, October 27, 1870. 199 in these speeches, the thesis generally appeared near the end, while the introductions and conclusions remained short. It is difficult to draw too many conclusions regarding "rhe- torical order" in Chandler's occasional speaking, since only five speeches of this type were available for study. All five, however, dealt with essentially political subjects and were, without excep- tion, in the few speeches of this type available for study, speeches of advocacy. In fact, it may be said that Chandler gave no other type of speech. The speech of advocacy might be expected on the floor of the Senate, where he generally spoke for or against a pro- position; or on the campaign trail, where he advocated the election of Republican candidates; but it seems also true of his occasional speeches. Chandler faced what was, perhaps, his most partisan audience when he delivered an occasional speech on July A, 1863. Surveyor Andrews of New York City and a group of other prominent Republicans honored Senator Chandler with an excursion off the Eastern coast on the revenue cutter Wynants.15 Following the excursion, which in- cluded Sandy Hook, Fort Richmond, and Fort Layfayette, the group returned to shore and partook of "both a liquid and substantial spread." Surveyor Andrews proposed a toast to the Senator from Michigan, following which Chandler rose, faced the eighteen influ- ential Republicans there assembled, and made his response. As was true in his campaign speaking, the thesis appeared at the end of the speech. The introduction served to thank the group for the toast and to allude to the fact that the speaker had had the 15Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, July 7, 1863. 200 "privilege and pleasure to partake in some measure of the duties and obligations and responsibilities of the government." The thesis and the conclusion were again one and the same: "I have never felt more hopeful than now. I see the sun rising and the black flag of rebel- lion fading--never more to rise." His occasional address at St. Louis during his summer excur- sion to the West in 1867 to hunt buffalo, and his speech following a Li serenade at his home in Detroit, follow the same pattern. The intro- ‘F'fimfl' duction to his St. Louis speech was of somewhat longer duration than any of his other introductions. Chandler reminisced about his early trip to St. Louis and utilized humor to discuss the rapid growth of the city. The thesis appeared at the end of the body of the speech: "This North American continent belongs to us and ours it must be." The conclusion was relatively short and served to thank all those concerned with the excursion for their hospitality. . I have occupied your time too long. I simply wish to thank you and the citizens of St. Louis and the railroad com- panies whose guests we have been, for the courtesy and kindness and the abundant hospitality that has been extended to us, and again to assure you that there is no cause for rivalry between any of the cities of the Northwest, but that you all gave room to grow and expand and become Londons if you please.1 It may be concluded that in terms of over-all rhetorical order, Chandler was relatively consistent. In every speech the four- fold division is evident. His political and occasional speeches were generally organized with the thesis near the end. It has been sug- gested that the reason for this was that he wished to build suspense and to reach a climax, rather than to conciliate and adapt to a hos- tile audience. When he faced a hostile Senate audience, he used the l6Detroit Post, June 21, 1867. 201 direct, from thesis to particulars approach, and seemed unconcerned with "audience adaptation" in the sense of conciliation. Chandler's Arrangement With respect to the arrangement of ideas in the body of the speech, ”Zach's" Senate speaking may be characterized generally as moving from the initial statement of the thesis to particular reasons or topics. In his campaign and occasional speaking, the particulars are typically presented first, followed by a statement of the thesis. In both of these logical arrangements used by Chandler, the reasons or topics in the body of the speech are frequently arranged in his- torical perspective. In twenty-three of the speeches analyzed, Chandler used the historical development or a combination of this method with some other. He frequently divided the body of the speech into issues or topics and arranged the tOpics in chronological order. On other occasions, "Zach" arranged the ideas in the body of the speech into topics, and covered each topic in an historical manner. He seemed to prefer one of these combinations of the logical, topiaflv and historical arrangements. Chandler‘s speech to the Senate on March 28, 1867, utilized the historical development in the body of the speech. Before the Senate on that day was a bill urged by the shipbuilders of the nation to allow American shipbuilders to sell vessels to belligerents friendly to the United States. An opportunity was provided Chandler to speak against Great Britain when the subject of the Alabama Claims was brought up on the floor. The speech was developed historically from past to present, and the thesis, in an exception to his habit 202 in the Senate, appeared last. In this historical development, each instance from 1862 in which the Alabama Claims had "haunted" the Senate was covered briefly. Chandler suggested toward the end of the speech that he had always urged the payment of these claims, but in the conclusion he said: I hope the Senate will pass this bill and pass it promptly. Pass this bill and I guarantee you that Great Britain will come begging to pay the Alabama Claims. . . . We can wait. . There is no discount on it. . . . Sir when we make the next demand . . . I want to make it at the cannon's mouth, with a 15 inch shell in the mouth of the cannon.1 In his speech at Albion, Michigan, during the campaign of 1868, Chandler used a topical arrangement, but arranged his topics historically.18 His thesis, which appeared at the beginning of the speech, in an exception to the rule, was that the Republicans faced the same old political enemy with the same old arguments in 1868 as they had in 1860. His development contained these topics, ordered from past to present: (1) The Whig party died and we buried it--the Democratic party died at almost the same time and is not yet buried; (2) The Democrats told us that if Lincoln were elected, they would rebel; (3) The debt accrued during the War was a Democratic debt-- every dollar of it; (A) After the War, Johnson deserted the Republi- can party and Congress had to take over; (5) Recently, the Democrats proposed we tax government bonds; (6) In this election we need to compare the two party platforms and the candidates. Chandler's final campaign speech, delivered in Chicago, 17Detroit Post, March 30, 1867. l8Detroit Post, September 25, 1868. The same order is found in speeches delivered February 13, 1879; July 23, 1879; October 19, 1879; December 23, 1856; July A, 1863; August 2M, 1868. litigail. .. , , 3%. a a I. VII‘IV h 203 Illinois, on October 31, 1879,19 follows a topical-historical arrangement combined with refutation, which was a strong element in many of his speeches. Within each topic in the body of this speech, Chandler used the historical development. In the introduction, which was short, Chandler said that he addressed the Republican gathering as citizens in a broad sense, and not in the narrow "state's rights" sense that was being used in Con— gress. "A great crime has been committed, my fellow citizens, and the criminal is not yet punished--that is to say that he is not pun- ished according to his just deserts Lsié7." The body of the speech took up the crucialissueszha'the cam- paign and developed each issue historically. The issues were concerned with: (1) The greenback notion; (2) The proposal to abolish national banks to save interest; (3) Free coinage of silver; (A) Payment of rebel War claims; (5) The continued Democratic attempt to split the naticn. In each of these issues Chandler developed the Democratic stand and at- tempted to refuterfln exceptzfinrhrsfinal issue, which was essentially constructive, rather than refutative: "The Republican party is the only party . . . which has not one . . . unfulfilled pledge left." As stated earlier in the chapter, it is important to note the place and space given to issues in the body of the speech. Many of Chandler's campaign and Senate speeches were historically oriented and thus there was little chance to vary the placement of issues in the body of the speech. Much can be gained, however, by varying the amount of space devoted to given points. This Chandler did. Through- out his political 1ife, two issues stand out as most important in his l9Detroit Post and Tribune, op. cit., Appendix 1. 201+ campaign and Senate speaking: (l) The glorious history of the Repub- lican party showed its worth to the country; and (2) The black his- tory of the Democratic party was filled with perfidy. Other issues also were given emphasis by Chandler. Following the war, waving the bloody shirt was a major technique of Radical orators and Chandler used it to great advantage. From 1868 to 1879, currency was an issue, and "Zach" spent much time in his speeches P“ during this period defending the Republican stand on "irredeemable , i currency" and attacking the Democratic stand. In the campaign of Q“. 1872, the topic which occupied the most space in Chandler's speeches was Greeley. In Chicago, in October of 1879, the issue of irredeemable currency was still before the country, as were the problems of what to do about the national banks and the free coinage of silver. How- ever, the issue which Zachariah Chandler deemed most serious was the question of whether or not the United States was a nation. In this issue, Chandler traced the history of what to him was Democratic perfidy and attempted to show that the Democratic party had not given up its relentless design to overthrow the government. This issue took by far the most space in the speech and since this speech was organized climactically, as were most of his campaign speeches, it appeared toward the end of the speech. The final point in the body of this speech was that the Republican party was the only party that ever existed which had not one, single, solitary, unfulfilled pledge left. As has been suggested a number of times in this chapter, Chandler was consistent in his organization and arrangement of ideas. 205 It has been suggested that (l) the four parts of rhetorical order stood out clearly in his speeches; (2) Chandler, when speaking to a hostile Senate audience, used the direct approach, generally placing his thesis at the beginning and moving to issues in its support; (3) the reason for this approach to a hostile Senate is to be found in the climate of opinion of the North and Chandler's mandate when elected; (A) when speaking to partisan groups, Chandler's approach was frequently to place the thesis near the end of the speech, not for the purpose of adapting to the audience in order to conciliate them, but for the purpose of adaptation in the sense of building to a climax; (5) Chandler showed a preference for the historical arrange- ment of ideas in the body of the speech in combination with the tOp- ical method; (6) Chandler clearly identified the issue in a given speech which he felt to be the most important by giving it emphasis by the amount of time devoted to its development. It is not possible to attribute his use of rhetorical order and his arrangement of ideas in the body of the speech to formal rhe- torical training,for it was suggested in Chapter IV that Chandler had very little formal training in the art of speechmaking. "Zach" did have much training, however, in the marketplace of the give and take of political oratory, and he thus may have learned some of the tech- niques from listening and talking to others who may have had trainbt; By whatever means Chandler may have acquired the ability, it is pos- sible to identify the use of certain rhetorical techniques by analyz- ing his speeches. Caring little for conciliating the audience, Chand- ler seemed in his organization and arrangement to strike to the heart, not only of the subject, but of the opposition. CHAPTER VI THE SPEAKER: LANGUAGE STYLE AND DELIVERY The first section of this chapter will examine Zachariah Chandler's use of language; the second will deal with his preparation and delivery. These aspects of rhetoric are dealt with in a single chapter because (1) Language style and delivery are closely related;1 and (2) Not enough information concerning Chandler's preparation and delivery is available to make possible an examination in depth. What is available, therefore, has been included as the second division of this chapter. It has been suggested that style, in a broad sense "is the peculiar manner in which a man expresses himself." More to the point, however, it may be said that "the vehicle of style is lan- guage; and language is a system called words."2 Lacking the modern methods of both audio and visual tran- scription, the rhetorical critic is faced with serious problems in the examination of the language style and delivery of orators from history. Determining what the speaker actually said on the platform and/or the manner in which he said it requires (1) A transcription lLane Cooper (trans. and ed.), The Rhetoric of Aristotle (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1932), p. 183. 2Kenneth Hance, David Ralph and Milton Wiksell, Principles of Speaking (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1962), p. 181. 206 207 of the address; or, for language usage, (2) A manuscript of the speech with means for reasonable assurance that the speaker did not vary from it in delivery. The first of these requirements is, of course, impossible when dealing with a speaker from the Civil War period. The second is frequently impossible to determine either be- cause the speaker did not testify to the fact that he did not deviate from the manuscript, or because no one was present with the manuscript to make notations of deviations from the script. In this study, ad— ditional problems are faced because Chandler made no statements con- cerning his concept of language style and very few comments concerning his preparation and delivery. While these problems hamper a complete analysis of all of the elements of language style and delivery, one factor has been of aid. Twenty-two comments on Chandler's language style and delivery are available from speeches given by Senators and Representatives on the occasion of Chandler's death,3 and from individuals who knew and heard him and who spoke on the occasion of the presentation of a statue of Senator Chandler to the United States Government in 1911+.1+ Language Style Language style is considered in this work as equal in impor- tance to the other constituents of rhetoric thus far discussed. Cer- tainly ideas must be effectively articulated if the speaker's purpose is to be achieved with an audience, and style, as has been suggested, 3Memorial Addresses on the Life and Character of Zachariah Chandler (Washington, D.C.: The Government Printing Office, 18807. "Statue of Zachariah Chandler (Washington, D.C.: The Govern- ment Printing Office, l9lflj: 208 has to do with the language which the speaker uses as it is evidenced in his choice of words, phrases, sentences, and thought groups. The question of what constitutes effective use of language has been a question which has defied strict definition.5 For the study of Chandler’s language style a survey of rhetorical literature was made and from this survey a list of specific stylistic devices which contribute to effective oral discourse was prepared.6 The thirty-five speeches chosen for detailed analysis were then studied to determine which stylistic devices appeared in Chandler's speaking and with what frequency. From this analysis eight devices of style were found to appear to be characteristic of Chandler's speaking and two elements of style were found to be significant by their almost complete absence. These ten were (1) Simplicity (clarity, specific- ity, and the use of Anglo-Saxon wordsk (2) Instant intelligibility (understood immediately upon being heard); (3) Forcefulness (energy and drive); (A) Directness (use of personal pronouns); (5) Direct Quotation (dialogue); (6) Interrogation (use of the question); (7) Transitions and internal summaries; (8) Satire; (9) Descriptive adjectives (included because of lack of their use); (10) Foreign words or phrases (included because of lack of their use). The status of the speech texts makes suspect an analysis of Chandler's speaking for his use of sentences and thought groups. Changes in sentence structure and thought groups might well have been made by the person who transcribed the speech. In addition, delivery also affects the aspects of style, for 5Hance, et al., p. 187. 6See Appendix. 209 how the speaker uses pauses, inflections, emphasis, etc., may alter the structure of the composition. Further, while we do find instances of the use of parallel structure, repetition, alliteration, the series technique, tropes, figures, and periodic sentences, either these do not appear with enough regularity to be deemed characteristic of Chandler's style or, as with sentences, there is reason to suspect inaccuracy. "Zach” seemed to have preferred a style that was simple, con- crete, direct, and forceful; and comments on his use of these aspects of style abound in the speeches of his colleagues in Congress on the occasion of his death. Senator Ferry of Michigan, an intimate friend of Chandler's said: "His sentences were catapults. He went right to the core of every matter. . . ."7 Mr. Newberry of Michigan made what was, perhaps, the most specific and illuminating comment on Chand- ler‘s use of language. One element of his [Chandlerflé7 power was in his use of clear Anglo-Saxon words, meaning exactly what he said and saying exactly what he meant, and doing it so clearly that each hearer knew he was but crystallizing into thought and expression the exact floating idea in his own mind in the words that ought to be used. He had a masterly way of using plain words for plain people, with plain meaning. He used no tricks of rhetoric, no flowers of speech, no studied expression 8 An analysis of Chandler's speeches reveals these aspects of the use of language to be consistent characteristics of his style. In the Senate or on the stump, the power, simplicity, and concrete- ness of Zach's language are immediately apparent. There seems to be a "rush to words," and an attempt to make the issue at hand abruptly 7Memorial Addresses . . . , p. 26. 8Memorial Addresses . . . , p. 7h. 210 clear. Seeming not to care for conciliating his hearers, Chandler used plain language to drive his point home. His language seemed "instantly intelligible" and instantly meaningful. These aspects of his language style are apparent in his speech to the Senate on March 12, 1858, when he developed a Constitu- tional argument against slavery as part of his attack upon the pro- posed LeCompton Constitution. Part of the summary of this issue illustrates the simplicity and clarity of expression which "Zach" seemed to favor. This was a finality upon the slavery question. It settled that question forever. No further agitation ever could take place upon the subject of slavery, it was supposed, under that compromise. The settlement was this: slavery was a creature of municipal law; it was left to the States in which it then existed to continue it or abolish it whenever they might see fit; and in all the Territories of the United States it was forever prohibited. This was the finality of a finality. There never could be any further agitation of the question of slavery in the Union. As part of his defense of his "bloodletting letter" to Governor Blair of Michigan in 1861, "Zach" developed the argument that, contrary to what the Southerners were saying, the candidates in the election of 1860 who supported the Union and the Constitution garnered by far the majority of the vote. Chandler's directness, clarity, and concreteness of language are again evident. There was, for the candidate on this platform, a Union vote of 1,365,976 men pledged to support the Union, 'the Union as it was, the Union as it is, the Union as it shall be.‘ They are Union men, per se, to a man. Then there was another candi- date, Mr. Bell of Tennessee, who likewise came out as a Union candidate par excellence. Ignoring all party platforms, his party endorsed the Constitution and the Union in the following language. 'Resolved, That it is both the part of patriotism and of 9U.S., Congressional Globe, 35th Cong., lst Sess., 1858, XXVII, Part 2, 1086. 211 duty to recognize no political principle other than the Consti— tution of the country, the Union of the States, and the enforce- ment of the laws.‘ There is no 'if' there; no 'if you do this' and 'if you do that.‘ They are for the Constitution, the Union, and the enforce- ment of the laws; but they are for them anyhow, at all times. There stood John Bell and 590,161 men with him.lo Chandler was at his best, it seems, when dealing with Great Britain in his speeches. His use of simple, direct, and forceful language is again illustrated when he spoke in favor of his resolu— tion to demand payment for shipping losses during the Civil War. This speech was delivered in 1866, and concerned losses caused by British seamen and British ships. That resolution I offered as a peace measure. I desired that Great Britain should have an opportunity to repudiate the action of her piratical subjects, and do justice to this nation. I hoped that she would do it; but at any rate, I desired that she should fix the future status of neutrals for herself and all other nations when acting as neutrals. The Canadian Provincial Government took the hint and paid for the piratical depredations committed by Canadian subjects, . . . but Great Britain has de- clined to pay such bills. She has decided that henceforth the rule of war shall be the torch--that the torch is to be the evidence of her neutrality. She having decided that point, I am content. If she desires that in all future times, whenever she shall be at war, American citizens shall send forth fast-sailing steamers with the torch to illuminate the ocean from the north to the south pole with British commerce, so be it. She has settled the point; I accept her settlement; so be it.11 Against Southern traitors, Chandler was vehement. There could have been no mistaking his meaning in the conclusion of his speech on the floor of the Senate against Jefferson Davis. It had been proposed by the Democrats that Jefferson Davis be included in a bill to provide pensions to Mexican War veterans, of whom Davis was one. To hear Davis eulogized in the Senate was more than Chandler lODetroit Tribune, April 6, 1861. llDetroit Advertiser and Tribune, January 16, 1866. 212 could bear in silence. Applause erupted in the galleries following this conclusion. Mr. President, I little thought at that time,ZEhring the Civil War? that I should live to hear in the Senate of the United States eulogies upon Jefferson Davis, living--a living rebel eulogized on the floor of the Senate of the United States! Sir, I am amazed to hear it; and I can tell the gentlemen of the other side that they little know the spirit of the North when they come here at this day and with bravado on their lips utter eulogies upon a man whom every man, woman, and child in the North believes to have been a double-dyed traitor to his Government. Neither could there have been any misunderstanding of the;pu% pose of his last Senate speech, delivered June 30, 1879. Mr. President, we are approaching the end of this extra session, and its record will soon become history. The acts of the Democratic party, as manifested in this Congress, justify me in arraigning it before the loyal people of the United States on the political issues which it has presented, as the enemy of the nation and as the author and abettor of rebellion.l3 The forcefulness, concreteness, and simplicity of Chandler's language are also found when his political speeches are examined. Attempting to prove the point that the Civil War was a Democratic war, Chandler said in 1868: I was in Washington then, and seven hundred of the clerks in the departments drilled night and day, and when the rebellion broke out, they marched en masse into the ranks of the enemy. Not a Republican ever joined the rebels. Call the roll from Jefferson Davis down to the last man, and not a Republican will answer to his name. Point me to the Republican that ever raised his arm against this government and I will point you to an angel in hell. Such a thing never occurred. It was a Democratic war. .1 In 1872, "Zach" could not understand how Greeley could be a Democrat, and he was not a little amused when Greeley ran for Presi- l2Speech delivered in the Senate, March 1, 1879. l3U.S., Congressional Record, h6th Cong., lst Sess., 1879: IX, Part 2, 2A3u. 11+Speech delivered.t1Battle Creek, Michigan, August 2A, 1868. 213 dent on the Democratic ticket. Chandler’s language may have been a little too blunt, too vivid, too direct for twentieth-century tastes, but it was met with cheers of approval in 1872. .At Monroe City, Michigan, he offered: I didn't come here to abuse Democrats, and shall not say a harsh word against them. I neVer abuse my friends, and, as I expect about half of the Democratic party to support our ticket, I don't know exactly where a hard word might hit. I won't utter a harsh syllable against you, Democrats, but I must tell you in a friendly way, we are going to put a head on you, and it has got to be a black Republican head. You can take your choice--vote for Grant and get a sound head, or vote for Greeley and get a sore head; but a head you must have. There are people who take a Constitutional pride in sores. They will nurse a sore head until they can't get along without one. No living creature, un- less it is a dog, loves sores per se, and I don't think the Demo- crats love them per se. The dogs that licked Lazarus cared nothing for the man apart from his ulcers, but I trust Democrats regard sore-heads differently.l Throughout his speaking, Chandler's use of a plain, concrete, and forceful style of language may be observed. Chandler was a rugged man with clear convictions and seemed to articulate his con- victions with the same clarity with which he held them. Perhaps we can agree with Representative Keifer of Ohio, that when Zachariah Chandler spoke, he was "talking lightning";l6 or with Representative Brewer of Michigan, when he offered: . HiséfihandlerLS7 language was plain, and his ideas were clear and always forcibly expressed. There never could be any misapprehension as to which side of a business or political ques- tion he was on. . . . He was unwilling to compromise his utter- ances, and never shrank from characterizing offenses in their true light.17 In addition to his use of a plain, concrete, and forceful 15Detroit Daily Post, September 23, 1872. l6Memorial Addresses . . . , p. 125. l7Memorial Addresses . . . , pp. 99-100. 21A language, Chandler's speaking contained much use of the personal pro- noun, direct quotation, and interrogation. The analysis of the style of Chandler's speaking reveals much use of the first attribute, the personal pronoun. An examination of one hundred lines of text chosen at random from an early Senate speech and one delivered somewhat later reveals twenty-eight uses of "I" in the former speech and twenty-six in the latter. At the very end of his career in the Sen- ate, this habit seemed to diminish. In a speech delivered on May 9, 1879, one hundred lines of text reveal only two uses of the pronoun "I." At the end of his Senate career, the personal pronoun "you" and "we" were used more frequently than the pronoun "I." While "Zach's" early campaign speeches made more use of the inclusive pronouns "we" and "us," his later campaign speeches, while still containing these inclusive pronouns, contained much more fre- quent usage of "I" and the third person "you." In a speech delivered h;18 and in his in 1856, "I" appears only once in the entire speec last campaign speech, one hundred lines of text reveal eighteen uses of "I." Chandler's speeches also contained extensive use of the di- rect quotation (dialogue). In all but a few of the thirty-five speeches analyzed, this technique was used often to clarify or re- inforce a point. Sometimes it was used as part of a story, sometimes directly. To illustrate the dangers of being a "free-state" man in Kansas, "Zach" said: . He Mr. Gay was a Nebraska pro-slavery Democrat. He was met one day, with his son, on the road, and asked whether he was for free-state or pro-slavery. He had become a little free- 18Speech delivered in Marshall, Michigan, December 23, 1856. 215 statish in his views, and not dreaming of danger, he said, 'I am a free-state man,‘ and he was shot down . 9 To illustrate the British position regarding the attacks on American vessels by British seamen during and following the Civil War, "Zach" utilized dialogue as part of a story. These pirates, acknowledged by herself‘ZBritaifi7 to be pirates, were turned loose without even a reprimand. These British were called upon the deck of the Shenandoah and asked this question: 'Michael O'Flanigan, are you a British subject?' 'No, by jabers, I am a Dutchman.‘ . . . 'McDonald, are you a British subject?’ ‘Nau, I am a Spaniard.‘ And so every one of these men were turned loose without even a reprimand. Chandler was indignant when the United States failed to press her demands for payment of the Alabama Claims. This time the dia- logue was tinged with satire, and was not entirely imaginary, as was the example cited above. But, Sir, in the course of time and in his own time, the present Secretary of State did make a demand upon Great Britain, in a humble way, for compensation for the depredations committed by these British pirates. . . . He came not with 500 ships of war and 15-inch Columbiads aimed at the heart of the British empire, but he came with his hat in his hand, and said 'If you please, will you pardon me for asking you to pay these little bills?‘ Well, Sir, Great Britain did not please; but here is the response--'Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 18th ultimo. There are many statements in your letter which I should be prepared to controvert if it were not that Her Majesty's government considers that no advantage can result from prolonging the controversy, etc.‘ In a campaign speech at Albion, Michigan, in 1868, Chandler made use of direct quotation in an attempt to Show that the Democrats had ruined the Government just prior to the Civil War in order that the Government might not be prepared to wage war. In this speech, 19U.S., Congressional Globe, 35th Cong., lst Sess., 1858, XXVII, Part 1, 1090. 20Speech delivered in the Senate, January 15, 1866. 21Detroit Post, March 30, 1867. 216 "Zach" gave five instances of Southern "perfidy," utilizing dialogue in each. This subject and this technique appear frequently in his campaign speaking. Howell Cobb, the Democratic Secretary of the Treasury, went into the market and bought up the bonds at 122. Then, as there was not money enough in the treasury for current expenses, he went to New York with these bonds in his hands to borrow money. He said to the brokers: 'This Government is nearly overthrown. These bonds are not worth a damn; what will you give for them?‘ Naturally, he could not borrow much money on them. In l87h, Chandler was still concerned about the "rebels." He implied in a speech in Detroit that a new rebellion was a distinct possibility, and he used dialogue to illustrate the way the war shouhi be handled if it should come again. When General Emery, the other day, telegraphed General Grant, saying: 'I have but 600 men under my command; there are more than 6,000 rebels opposed to me; what do you advise me to do?‘ General Grant instantly telegraphed to him: 'Put down the re- bellion; report afterwards.‘ It did not need a dictionary to explain that language. They knew exactly what it meant. It meant 'I will use the army and navy, the volunteer forces, all the power of the Government to put down the rebellion.‘ Those rebels understood just what it meant, and they made haste to surrender.23 In 1879, Zachariah was still "waving the bloody shirt" in his campaign speeches, and he used the following dialogue to show that the Government had the whole-hearted support of the loyal people of the land. And then, the government, in its extremity, appealed to the nation whether or not the war should cease, and the national life cease, or whether the people of this great land would come to the rescue of the nation and its flag. They said: 'We have no money. Will you trust us for the necessary supplies to carry on this war? Will you give us provisions to feed your soldiers in the field and take our obligations that we will pay as soon as we are able to pay?’ And with one voice, from one end of the 22Detroit Post, September 25, 1868. 23Detroit Post, November 2, 187M. 217 land to the other, came up the response: 'Take all we have, give us your obligations, and we will trust you. Carry on the war, and save the nation!‘ And we did carry on the war to a success- ful issue, and we did save the nation. A As a final illustration of his extensive use of dialogue as a technique of "direct address," let us examine one of his last cam- paign speeches delivered in July of 1879 at Madison, Wisconsin, on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the birth of the Re- publican party in that State. Chandler, in attempting to show that the Republican party was paying the debt of the Civil War, used this bit of imaginary dialogue. After the war was over certain Democrats of the copperhead school of persuasion advocated the repudiation of our national debt, or, in other words, to pay it in greenbacks, and all the nations of the earth said: 'These people will fight. There is no doubt about it. They have shown it in the Mexican war. They have Shown it in the war for the preservation of their govern- ment; but they will never pay their debts.‘ The Republican party, and thank God! every loyal Democrat stood up and said: 'We will show you that we value our national honor even higher than we do our national life,’ and we have gone on ever since the close of the rebellion paying off our debt.2 In addition to the use of personal pronouns and direct quo- tation, Chandler also utilized the question frequently. Only rarely did "Zach" use the "rhetorical question"--a question designed to pro- duce an effect and imply an answer. His standard technique was to ask a direct question and then proceed to answer it. In this way he would call the attention of the audience to the issue and then pro- ceed to develop it. In an early Senate speech, he wished to make the point that the government desired to raise $30,000,000 to purchase Cuba when 2"Detroit Post and Tribune, February 14, 1879. 25Detroit Post and Tribune, July 25, 1879. 218 the government was bankrupt and when Cuba could not, in fact, be purchased. To Chandler, the whole thing was a Democratic plot. And for what, Sir? To pay just claims against this Govern- ment, which have been long deferred? No, sir; you have no money for any such purpose as that. Is it to repair your national works on the northwestern lakes, to repair your harbors, to re- build your light-houses? No, sir; you have no money for that. Is it to build a railroad to the Pacific, connecting the eastern and western lepes of this continent by bands of iron, and open- ing up the vast interior of the continent to settlement? No, sir, you say that is unconstitutional. What, then do you pro— pose to do with this $30,000,000? Is it to purchase the Island of Cuba? No, sir; for you are already advised in advance that Spain will not sell the island . . .2 Sometimes the question was used as a transition so as to give the speech forward movement. After developing the point that the Government was virtually bankrupt at the start of the Civil War, Chandler said: The banks and bankers of our great moneyed cities came to the relief of the Government and took $50,000,000 and then another $50,000,000 and then another $50,000,000 until they said, 'We are full and can give you no more money.‘ What did we do then? The banks had done nobly; they were full; they had taken all that they could carry of government securities and more than they ought to be asked to carry. ‘What was our action then? We appealed to the people . 7 Sometimes the question was directed at one particular member of the audience. In a speech to the Senate in 1867 against the British consolidation of its Canadian provinces, Chandler used this technique. Since that time/£186fl/ France has taken the hint that this continent is not large enough for an empire, and has quietly withdrawn her troops. Sir, this North American continent has not land enough for an empire or even a vice—royalty. The United States of America needs all the land on this continent of North America, and the time will come, and at no distant day, when she will own it all. But, Sir, these British Provinces 26Speech delivered in the Senate, February 17, 1859. 27Speech delivered in the Senate on June 28, 1862. 219 have gone on year after year consolidating and preparing for a vice-royalty. I ask the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Re- lations if any protest against a vice—royalty, or the establish- ment of a kingdom of our Northern frontier has ever gone out from the Committee on Foreign Relations? If it has, I have never heard of any such protest.2 Toward the end of the 1860's and into the 1870's the Demo- cratic party attempted to campaign for election on the statement that the mission of the Republican party was ended and that it was time for a change. Chandler used this claim of the Democrats in the form of a question to lead into a discussion of the "glorious" his- tory of the Republican party. This particular question was used fre- quently both in his campaign speeches and in his Senate speeches whenever the issue was the record of the Republican party. Mr. President, what was the mission of the Republican party, and is it ended? That is the question that I desire for a few moments to discuss. ‘What was the mission of this great Republi- can party that has ruled the nation for ten years? Its mission was multifarious. I will attempt very briefly, and as nearly as I can in regular order, to review some points in the mission of that party. 9 In the campaign situation, the question sometimes followed a quick recitation of the works of the Republican party. The Republican party met and crushed it; [ihe rebellioi7' freed h,OO0,000 slaves; built the Pacific railroad, and by that purpose secured California and Oregon to the Union; improved our rivers and harbors; framed the best banking laws and system of national currency that ever existed in this or any other nation. All the rebel States have been reconstructed and re- stored to the Union on the basis of equality and justice. We did it. Is our mission ended?30 Sometimes, though rarely, the question was rhetorical in nature. In the thirty-five speeches analyzed, only three uses of the 28Speech delivered in the Senate on March 25, 1867. 29Speech delivered in the Senate, January 18, 1871. 3OLansing State Republican, October 27, 1870. 220 rhetorical question were found. After reciting the history of the Republican party in a speech in Detroit in 187H, Chandler said that the Republican party stood without one unfulfilled pledge left. He then asked rhetorically: "What other political party could ever say the same?"31 During the campaign of 1872, after he had recited Greeley's past opinions of the Democrats, "Zach" asked rhetorically: Now, fellow-citizens, I might go on, as I said before, by the hour reading these extracts from the writings of Horace Greeley, but I will desist as I desire to allude to certain other things and it is getting late, and I must not weary your attention. But I say to my Democratic friends, can you vote and will you vote for the man who for the last thirty years not only has traduced you politically, but traduced your most loved and honored men as no honorable man would traduce another honorable man? Thus, while the rhetorical question does appear rarely in Chandler's speaking, he seemed to prefer the direct question. There are two aspects of style that are conspicuous by their almost complete absence. Chandler seldom used the descriptive adjec- tive, preferring instead to use the colorful noun. "Rebel," "trai- tor," "scoundrel," and other highly descriptive nouns appear in his speaking, but the descriptive adjective was used only occasionally. Also, aside from the foreign words or phrases in common usage--par excellence, in toto, per se, en masse, etc.--Chand1er used only one in the thirty-five speeches analyzed. "Mene mene tekel upharisan" was used on a few occasions when he referred to the Democrats in the Senate. This is from the Book of Samuel and, loosely translated, means "You have been weighed in the balance and found‘wanting." While Chandler did not favor the descriptive adjective or the 31Speech delivered in Detroit, October 31, 1872. 32Detroit Post, August 2, 1872. 221 use of foreign words, he did seem to favor the use of the humorous anecdote. Not infrequently the humor used by "Zach" was satire. If satire can be defined as that type of humor which pokes derisive fun at something or someone one dislikes, then Chandler used it frequently. As a member of the minority party in the Senate dur- ing a part of his career, "Zach" was frequently on the attack, and thus satire provided an excellent means of goading his opponents. His use of satire was evident in the excerpt from his 1867 speech in the Senate on the Alabama Claims quoted earlier in this chapter when discussing Chandler's dialogue technique. In a Speech following John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry in 1859, Chandler used satire to illustrate the Democratic tendency to build this incident up into something it was not. Senators ask us why we have no sympathy for Virginia in this instance. . . . I know not what is the population at Springfield, [filinoijsy but I will guarantee you that if seventeen or twenty- two of the generals, not captains (they say these men were cap- tains) of the State of Virginia and North Carolina were to attack Springfield, if there was not a man within five thousand miles of there, the women would bind them in thirty minutes, and would not ask sympathy, and the matter would not be deemed of suffi- cient importance to ask for a committee of investigation on the part of the corporation. Why, sir,-Governor Wise compared the people of Harper‘s Ferry to sheep, as the public press states. It is libel, it is not true, for I never saw a flock of fifty or a hundred sheep in my life that had not a belligerent ram among them. . . . If seventeen men were to attack the city of Detroit in any capacity, and the mayor should appoint as a guard more than seventeen constables to take care of them, the city auditor would decline to audit the account; he would not pay it.33 In a speech in answer to Senator Casserly of California, who had maligned the Republican party in a speech on the floor of the Senate, Chandler opened with satire. 33Speech delivered in the Senate, December 7, 1859. 222 Mr. President, I hardly expected a discussion of this kind to be provoked from the other side of the House. The Senator from California accuses the Republican party with having maligned the Democratic party, and in a spirit almost of commiseration talks of the waning strength of the Republican party. Sir, when the Republican party desires his sympathy they will make application; but so far from maligning the Democratic party, I desire to say that the English language is incompetent to perform that task. The very worst malignment that can possibly be uttered against the Democratic party is to tell the plain naked truth.3 In 1879, after having "waved the bloody shirt" for some time and having discussed the measures taken by the Republican party to safeguard the nation, Chandler spoke directly to the majority party in the Senate. Now you inform us that you are going to repeal all the Re- publican measures. What is the job you have undertaken? You are going to undo all that the Republican party has done. Where do you begin? Do you begin at Appomattox, or before? It is very important to know where you commence, and then to know where you propose to stop. You have undertaken a very large job, for a party of your size and with the people who are to sit as judges upon your acts.3 The use of satire in his campaign speeches follows much the same pattern, but at times the subject of his barbed attacks varied. Against Great Britain he said: We ar§_not in a situation just now to go into war with Great Britainzfil8637 nor are we in the right situation or the right mood to bow humbly to any power. If Great Britain is not willing to wait, let her step in now. She never has put fifty thousand of her own soldiers into thg field, and they would not form a picket guard for our army.3 Commenting on the Democratic national convention of 1868 in a speech to a mass meeting at Albion, Michigan, he aimed his satire at a familiar target. 3hSpeech delivered in the Senate, January 18, 1871 35Speech delivered in the Senate, May 9, 1879. 36Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, September 9, 1863. 223 But let us look for a moment at the Democratic convention, platform and candidates. There was rather a mixture in that convention. There were more rebel soldiers than Union in it, more rebel than Union Congressmen. . . . There were leading rebels from every Southern State and from all these States there was only one loyal man, and he was black. It is a wonder that he ever got into such company. To make the point that rumors of support for Greeley for President in the campaign of 1872 were highly exaggerated, if not completely untrue, Chandler offered the following story, filled with gflf a satire. 1 But I may be mistaken in expecting to find it anywhere or in :a, supposing that there is anything of it at all. It is said two Irishmen were greatly astonished the first time they came near a frog pond--they don't have frogs in Ireland, you know--and they hunted a long time for the 'nloothy basts' that were doing all the whistling. Finally, one of them thought he had hit upon the real explanation and exclaimed, 'Ah be japers, Pat, it's nothing at all at all but a great noise.‘ They Ehe Democraty have blowed and bragged out of all proportion to their numbers or importance, bug I notice they don't brag quite so loud as they did at first.3 Thus satire was a weapon which Chandler wielded frequently, and, if we are to judge from the frequent notations of audience response, effectively, particularly on the campaign trail. Chandler also seemed to be aware of the value of internal summaries and transitions in providing coherence to his speeches. In the Senate, he frequently took great care to summarize a given point before moving on to the next issue in the speech. Typical of the length and type of internal summary and transition is an excerpt from a speech in the Senate in reply to Senator Casserly of Cali- fornia. 37Detroit Post, September 25, 1868. 38Speech delivered at Monroe City, Michigan, during the campaign of 1872. 22A That sir, was the condition of the country when the rebel- lion broke out. Your arsenals were stripped of their arms; your Treasury was stripped of its means; your credit was utterly de- stroyed in the last eight years of Democratic rule before Mr. Lincoln came in as President of the United States. I will not allude to the dreadful atrocities that were per- petrated during the continuance of that war, nor will I review the war. . . . Suffice it to say that one part of the mission of this great Republican party was to put down that Democratic re- bellion. And it did it, and did it well. Sir, we did it. It was our work. I will allude to another point, and that was the building of the great Pacific railroad connecting the Atlantic and the Pa- cific ocean. That was also a part of the mission of the Republi- can party. If the speech dealt with a particularly complex subject, Chandler frequently would restate the point he had been trying to prove, as he did in a Senate speech on currency. . . The purchasing value of your $6H9,100,000 was more than fifty millions less than of the $A00,000,000 you have out now, for it is four hundred millions including your fractional cur- rency. I am trying to convince the members of this body that in- flation is not an increase of money. The people of the State of Michigan have become convinced of this by sad experience, . . . and I want to convince the members of this body that inflation is the greatest curfie they can inflict upon the nation or upon their constituents. 0 0n the campaign trail, "Zach's" speeches may be characterized generally as lacking in internal summaries. His technique was to end a point with finality, and then move to the next point, using a short transition to provide the link. As to its national record since its origin, 16 years ago, the Republican party can boast of having freed the country from the tyrannical clutches of the Democratic party and of slavery . of having restored the national credit of the country, of having paid out many millions of dollars of a national debt 39Speech delivered in the Senate, January 18, 1871 "OSpeech delivered in the Senate, February 18, 187A. 225 incurred through Democratic treason, and reduced the taxation of the people through economy and honesty. But what of the two parties in Michigan? Both hav records here. When Michigan was admitted into the Union 1 We have examined thus far some of the elements of language which Chandler utilized in his speaking. It has been suggested that he favored the use of simple, forceful, and direct language; ques- tions; dialogue; and satire in his speaking. Chandler did use the personal pronoun "I" in his speaking, but its use varied, depending upon the type of speech and the period of his life in which it was given. He did not utilize foreign words or phrases or descriptive adjectives, preferring instead descriptive noun. Throughout the analysis of Chandler's speaking for the elements of language style, this writer could not help noting a di- rectness, vividness, and vigor in his speeches. One of his contem- poraries also commented on this. The Reverend Arthur Pierson, in his memorial address on the occasion of Chandler's death, said: They [the audienc_e7 understood what he Ehandlp} said and knew what he meant. He threw himself into their modes of thought and habits of speech; he culled his illustrations mainly from common life. If he sacrificed anything, it was rhetorical ele- gance, never force; his one aim was to compel conviction. The simplicity of his diction was a prime element and secret of his power. He did not speak as one who had to say something, but as one who had something to say, and whose whole aim was to say it well; with clearness, plainness, force, and effect. If he could not have both weight and lustre, he would have weight. . . His speeches were packed with vigorous Saxon. He thought more of short sword, with its sharp edge and keen point and close thrust, than of the scholar's labored latinity, to ruggedness, in the sense in which we apply that word to the naked naturalness of a lafidscape, whose features have not been too much modified by art. 2 ’ "lSpeech delivered in Grand Rapids, Michigan, October 22,1870. "ZLife of Zachariah Chandler (Detroit: Detroit Post and Tribune, Publishers, 1880), Second Appendix. 226 Preparation and Delivery This writer faced problems in assessing Zachariah Chandler's preparation and delivery similar to those faced when attempting to comment on Chandler's language style. There is extant only one com- ment from Chandler concerning his speech preparation, and this appeams as part of an apology for the length of one of his Senate speeches. 1 None of his speaking notes is extant so that a comparison might be made between the speaking notes and the text of the speech,and no a reporter commented extensively on his delivery. Fortunately, how- ever, we do have brief comments from a number of individuals who heard him speak,and from reporters at the scene,and his biographers give us a hint of his preparation and method of delivery for a few of his speeches. It seemed wise, therefore, to include the material which is available so that as complete a picture as possible might be given of Zachariah Chandler as an orator. The brief discussion to follow will concern itself with the five concepts of delivery suggested by Thonssen and Baird:"3 (l) The orator’s methods of preparing his speeches; (2) His method of deliv- ery; (3) The physical factors conducing to his effectiveness as a speaker; (A) His bodily action in delivery; and (5) His use of the voice as an instrument of persuasion. Concerning the first two of these concepts--methods of prepa- ration and method of delivery, there is very little information available. His biographers mention on occasion that he "carefully prepared" his Senate speeches, and, in at least one instance, that he "3Lester Thonssen and A. Craig Baird, Speech Criticism (New York: The Ronald Press, 1948), p. A35. 227 read the speech from manuscriptmL From the one comment we have from Chandler himself, it seems that one of his goals of preparation was to boil the material down to simple, easy to understand language, and brief statement. This is substantiated by the Reverend Pierson's re- marks quoted above. Chandler said in one of his Senate speeches on finance: If I had had more time I could have reduced what I have to say into a smaller space, but I have only had a day or two to con- sider it, and it is a work of labor to go over these figures. I have worked at them ever since I left here yesterday afternoon, and I hoped to bring my remarks within ten minutfis, but I cannot do it. It simply requires more time to do that. 5 We see here a concern for preparation, done over a period of time, during which time Chandler selected the salient features of the subject and attempted to boil them down to a short speech, which he wrote out on some occasions. We do know that Chandler read some of his Senate speeches from manuscript, but it appears doubtful from the evidence available that he read many of his public utterances. The Reverend Pierson, quoted earlier, commented: "HileEHandler:;7 addresses even on crit- ical occasions were unwritten . . ."u6 He was frequently inter- rupted, both on the stump and in the Senate. Usually he answered his interrupter and then moved smoothly into his prepared material, or he used the interruption as a springboard and made it part of his speech. In addition, lack of a written manuscript, except on a few occasions, is indicated by the fact that he frequently would bring to LL"Speech delivered in the Senate, March 12, 1858. "5Speech delivered in the Senate, February 18, 187h. "6Detroit Post and Tribune, November 29, 1879. 228 the attention of his audience clippings from newspapers or pieces of paper upon which he had written material which he then used in the speech. Also, the issues on which he spoke, particularly the Civil War and the Democrats, changed but little in his speeches. It should be stressed that this evidence does not suggest that Chandler did not prepare, for we have reason to believe that he did. It does suggest, however, that his speeches for the most part were "extemporaneous.""7 With regard to the third concept listed above, the physical factors conducive to Chandler's effectiveness as a speaker, we do know that he was a large man, tall and, later in life, tending to a full, round figure. Senator Anthony of Rhode Island, quoted earlier, made this comment. His exuberant vitality, his overflowing spirit, his command- ing air and presence, all forbid our forgetting him. I almost look to see his manly and vigorous figure--fit tenement of his manly heart and his vigorous intellect--rise from hi 8accustomed seat, towering above his peers in this chamber Wilmer Harris comments: He was a powerful man physically, as tall as Mr. Lincoln and in his later years considerably heavier. He possessed tremendous nervous energy and when he spoke to a political audience he used every ounce of it. . . . We demand rather more refinement in our political speeches today, but fifty years ago Zachariah ChandlEr was one of the most effective stump speakers in the Northwest. 9 If one can make any assumptions from the pictures available of Zach- ariah Chandler, or from his statue in Washington, D. C., it is easy to give credence to the statements quoted above. 1+7Prepared, perhaps outlined, but neither written out com- pletely nor memorized. "BMemorial Addresses . . . , p. 28. 1+9Wilmer Harris The Public Life of Zachariah Chandler ) (Lansing: Michigan Historical Commission, 1917), pp.—82-83. 229 Concerning the fourth concept listed above—-bodily action in delivery, we have seen what his opponents thought of his speaking. On page twenty-one of Chapter II, the Democratic opinion of his de- livery is made clear. "In their opinion his infamous proportions, his repetition of stale jokes and staler falsehoods made even the Whigs blush, his cocking of first one eye and then the other and his hammering the desk almost to pieces shocked his listeners. To the Democrats he spoke like a jackknife being opened and closed." Mr. Newberry of Michigan, a friend of "Zach' " said in 1880: "He [Ehandlgg7 used no . . . studied expression, no graceful gesture . his speech rough-hewed but strong, his gestures ungainly but powerful."50 The only means available in assessing his use of his voice as an instrument of persuasion—-the fifth concept noted at the begin- ning of this section of this chapter--is from the comments of his contemporaries. Senator Anthony of Rhode Island, quoted twice earlier, said "I almost listen for that voice whose stentorian tones these walls have so often sent back to our ears." We get an even more descriptive statement from Senator Logan of Illinois, speaking of Chandler's final speech of his life in Chicago in 1879. He [Ehandlgi7 stood forth before that grand audience like a giant and with full—volumed voice spoke like a Webster or 8 Douglas.51 The volume and carrying power of his voice was attested to by Chandler himself. It was his claim that he could make fifteen acres 5°Memorial Addresses . . . , p. 7h. 51Memorial Addresses . . . , p. #7. 1.1.1.41 van! a all]!!! .mi‘ .. .LL .2? . 1:1. . 230 of people hear.52 At Battle Creek, Michigan, on August 2A, 1868, "Zach" spoke to some twenty thousand persons. Thus, he must have possessed, at the very least, a strong voice. It has been necessary in this very brief discussion of Chand- ler's delivery to violate the edict of Thonssen and Baird that we should ". . . be interested in more than a simple survey of the way a speaker uses gestures and voice; as critics, we wish to get a faithful portrait of the orator."53 Because of a lack of material available on Zachariah Chandler's delivery, a rather cursory examina- tion was necessitated. We do, however, get an impression not only of the broad attributes of Chandler's language style discussed in the first sec— tion of this chapter, but also of the power and commanding presence and, perhaps, lack of polish which he may have evidenced visually. Of his vocal delivery, we know very little, but his voice must have been powerful and energetic. It is, perhaps, fitting to bring to bear two comments on his language style and delivery as a summation of this chapter. Repre- sentative James Garfield of Ohio, the final speaker in tribute to the late Senator Chandler in 1880, said: As a political force Mr. Chandler may be classed among the Cyclopean figures of history. The Norsemen would enroll him as one of the heroes in the halls of Valhalla. They would asso- ciate him with Thor and his thunder hammer. The Romans would associate him with Vulcan and the forges of the Cyclops who made the earth tremble under the weight of his strokes. What man have we known, who, without specially [gié7 cultivating the graces of oratory, was able to condense into ten minutes a more enduring speech than the one which he delivered at the extra 52Speech delivered in Adrian, Michigan, September 29, 1868. 53Thonssen and Baird, p. A35. 231 session of 1879. Under the pressure of his intense mind an hour of ordinary speech was condensed into a sentence. He was not an orator in the ordinary sense of fine writing and graceful de- livery; but in the clearness of his conceptions and the courage and force with which he uttered them he was a most remarkable speaker.51+ In the bookyLife of Zachariah Chandler,his biographers comment on his speaking style as follows: In his speeches he aimed at nervous strength and effective- ness. For oratorical finish he cared nothing, but simple lan- guage, terse sentences, some plain word whose meaning was an argument in itself--these he sought for unceasingly. He apolo- gized for the length of one of his brief speeches because he had not had time to make it shorter. Not rarely he would put into a sentence of ten saxon [Eipj7words the pOWer of a philippic, and this rough missle would crush where mere rhetoric would have only irritated. Mr. Chandler never failed as a speaker to com- mand the popular attention, and his force and simplicity of his diction were greatly aided by the sincerity which illuminated them. The vigor and truth of conviction, which made him so ardent a champion of the party of his political faith, marked his speeches, and made his appeals potent with his hearers. . But more honorable to his memory is the fact that concerning the man himself can be justly quoted Carlyle's eloquent tribute to Burns. 'He is an honest man. . . . In his successes and his failures, in his greatness and his littleness, he is ever clear, simple, and truthful, and glitters with no lustre but his own. . . .‘55 5uMemorial Addresses . . . , pp. l39-lh0. 55Life of Zachariah Chandler, p. 370. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In Chapter One the purpose of this dissertation was set forth as a study of the public speaking of Zachariah Chandler. In order to accomplish this goal, it has been necessary to examine all the ele- ments of rhetoric and of history which entered into a lifetime of speaking—-the issues, the climate of opinion of the times, the audi- ences and their relationship to the speaker and to the issues, the speaker's reputation, the speaker's use of "proofs," the speaker's adaptation to the audiences, his methods of argument, language style, and preparation and delivery. 1 Zachariah Chandler lived during a period of rapid social, H political, and economic change. The middle years of the nineteenth century saw the rise of the slavery issue, the split of the nation during the Civil War, the rapid industrial development in the North, the birth of the Republican party, the collapse of slavery as an in- stitution, and the period of Reconstruction. Zachariah Chandler came to Michigan from New Hampshire in 1833, when Michigan was still a Territory. With little formal educa— tion, but with a practical and prudent business ability, he pursued success in the dry-goods business. That he achieved his goal is evidenced by the fact that his was the first business in Michigan to gross $50,000 in a single year. With success came time to devote 232 233 to the affairs of his state and his country. From his first political speech delivered in 18A8 in support of the candidacy of Zachary Taylor for President of the United States, Zachariah Chandler played his role in the politics of the State of Michigan and of the nation. He served first as Mayor of Detroit, then as candidate of the Whig party for governor in 1852, then as one of the founders of the Republican party in Michigan in 1854. In 1854, the infant Republican party swept to victory in Michigan, and in 1857, "Zach" was chosen by the Michigan Legislature as the State's first Republican Senator. From these beginnings, Chandler became one of the leading Republicans of his day. He served on various influential Senate and Congressional committees, including the Committee on Commerce, of which he was Chairman; and the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, a committee established as a result of a resolution submitted by Chandler. During the Civil War, Chandler was one of the leaders in the Senate of those who advocated a forceful pursuit of the con- flict. Following the War, he fought with all his might to preserve both the social and the political fruits of victory. As a Republican, Chandler was a delegate from Michigan to the first national convention of that party in 1856 in Pittsburg, and he participated in several conventions thereafter. By skillful use of his organizational talents, and aided by the patronage attendant to his position as Senator, "Zach" controlled the Republican party in Michigan for most of his political career. He was elected chairman of the national Republican committee for the Presidential campaign 234 of 1876 and was instrumental in the election of Rutherford B. Hayes to the Presidency. "Zach's" service to his party and his country did not end with his defeat for the Senate in 187A. Scandal in the Department of the Interior forced the resignation of Secretary Delano, and Zacha- riah Chandler was chosen by President Grant to head the Department. When Isaac Christiancy, who had defeated "Zach" for the Senate, re- signed in the spring of 1879, Chandler was the overwhelming choice of the Michigan Legislature to return to his former position as Senator. In the affairs of his state and of the nation, Chandler was violently and narrowly partisan. Once he and the other leaders of the Republican party had formulated the policy of the party, Chandler advocated it with all his rhetorical power. As a product of New England and the Old Northwest, "Zach" be- lieved in freedom for himself and would not have it denied to others. He thus opposed human bondage and grew to hate those who either advo- cated or tolerated Slavery. ‘When the South threatened secession, Chandler gave no quarter. To "Zach? there were only two classes of men prior to and during the Civil War--patriots and traitors. In his opinion, the traitors had given up all their rights as citizens, and his opinion did not change with the end of the conflict. He was one of the most active in support of Congressional, rather than Presidential, Reconstruction. Personally incapable of compromise, Chandler used every means at his disposal to destroy his political enemies. He was frequently tactless and at times violent. He felt that the Democrats were re- sponsible for the Civil War, and that the party could not be trusted 235 either to keep its word or to uphold the Constitution. He scoffed at the State's rights arguments of Douglas and others. There was never a doubt in his mind that the Constitution and the Federal Government were supreme. In the last speech of his life, delivered on the evening of October 31, 1879, in Chicago, Illinois, he reiterated to a Republican meeting his claim that the Democratic party was the party of Rebellion,and that it had never ceased to strive for the destruction of the government. What the Democratic party had failed to accomplish with arms, spoke Chandler, they were, in 1879, at- tempting to accomplish With fraud and corruption--with "shotgun votes and tissue ballots." In and out of the Senate, Chandler fought for protective tariffs, redeemable currency, internal improvements, the Homestead Law, the pacific railroad, the election of Abraham Lincoln, the na- tional banking system, the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, and harsh measures of Reconstruction following the Civil War. He was violently opposed to the Dred Scott decision, the admission of Kansas under the LeCompton Constitution, civil service, and any scheme of the Govern- ment to "flood the country" with irredeemable currency or coin. In foreign affairs, Chandler was distinctly jingoistic. Throughout his political career he opposed any action of any foreign country that could in any way be construed as against this country's best interests. Great Britain was his favorite target, though he also opposed Spain and France for their actions in this hemisphere. To Chandler, the Western Hemisphere had no room for colonies or prin- cipalities. In St. Louis, he said: "There isn't land enough on the 236 continent of North America to hold an empire. . . . We want the whole of it." Personally, Chandler was coarse and strong, a fighter and a man not given to compromise or conciliation. He was a Radical in the extreme; a politician whose energy and drive toward immediate and narrowly partisan goals amazed his political friends and engendered the hatred of his political opponents. By extraordinary force of character and practical political sagacity, he exercised a wide in- fluence during his lifetime. Chandler recognized the importance of oral discourse and used it as an important tool in his society. He was an indefatigable cam- paigner in all of the political battles during his career in politics and was in demand as an orator in both Michigan and the nation. The Detroit papers published at the start of each state campaign the rallies to be held and the speakers to be present. It was rare in- deed when the name of Zachariah Chandler did not figure prominently. When his name did not appear, it was usually because it was a na- tional election year. Michigan was usually sure for the Republicans, and "Zach's" oratorical prowess was needed elsewhere. Lyman Trumbull wrote from Illinois in October of 1860: "I am satisfied that a few speeches from you would do us good and then your very presence would inspire our people with some of your energye—the very thing we need."1 "Zach" spoke to Republican gatherings in virtually every state east of the Missouri and north of the Mason-Dixon line. Chandler used the platform to espouse the causes of the Re- 1Letter of Lyman Trumbull to Chandler, Zachariah Chandler Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. 237 publican party and to arouse the members of that party to greater efforts in its behalf. Generally, national issues were his main con- cern in his political addresses, and he spoke out clearly and plainly for what he thought was the "right." However narrowly partisan he may have been, he was never accused by his opponents of insincerity. He was accused by them, however, of being wrong, of lacking modera- tion and good taste, and of disdaining any hint of compromise. In the Senate, Chandler spoke out against the opposition and seemed to delight in battle. He lashed out at what he considered Democratic perfidy and wrong governmental action. That he sometimes faced a hostile audience in the Senate bothered him not one bit. There was little audience adaptation in his Senate speaking and little concern on his part for what his opponents in the Senate might be thinking. On most Senate occasions, he did not want to change the opinions of his opponents,but to destroy them in the eyes of the electorate. On the stump, he faced friendly audiences made up of the leaders of the party rank-and-file. He seemed to have an affinity for the common people of the nation, particularly of the West and the people returned this feeling. They could appreciate a man coarse and rough-hewn; a self—made man whom Chandler was. Following his speech in the Senate in 1862 attacking McClellan's leadership of the Army of the Potomac, a man in Milwaukee wrote: "I know of no Senator but yourself and Wade that would have been thus bold."2 Another citizen from Boston wrote: "The people have a right to know 2Letter dated September 10, 1862; Zachariah Chandler Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. 238 them [the truthé7 and I honor you for facing the music so bravely and submitting to the abuse that was to be expected would follow such an act. You have done the country a service to be proud of. . . ."3 Chandler had an affinity for the common man because he was one. His language was their language, his beliefs theirs. He was advocating what they wanted advocated and he was a man who could in- spire them. They, in turn, admired a man who could stand up against all obstacles and fight for the cause. "Zach" lacked a formal rhetorical education and if he devel- 0ped a theory of rhetoric, he did not record it for posterity. Thus, it has not been possible to compare his training or his theory with his practice, but it has been possible to examine and analyze his practice of the art of speechmaking. While we have no evidence that Chandler had any formal rhe- torical training, he did bring the aspects of rhetoric to bear in his speechmaking. He used ethical, psychological, and logical proof in his speeches to establish the truth of his assertions. Ethical proof was used by Chandler primarily to establish his competency to speak on given issues. He Claimed neither education nor intellect as rea- sons for his competence. Rather, his claim to competence was based by him on his long years in public service and his intimate knowledge of the political and governmental arenas. Chandler lived and spoke during a time of national crisis, and psychological appeals are spread throughout his speaking. Pa- triotism, love of country, national honor, justice, law, hatred and 3Letter dated July 23, 1862; Zachariah Chandler Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. 239 other psychological appeals were brought to bear by Chandler with telling effect. "Zach" seemed to be aware of the temper of his audi— ences and seemed to know what psychological appeals to use to stir them to action. Since he faced friendly audiences in his campaign and occasional speaking, his psychological appeals seemed designed to bring the audience to a high peak of feeling in order to strength- en their already existing beliefs. In the Senate, where he sometimes faced hostile audiences, he seemed to design most of his psycholog- ical appeals, not for them, but for the galleries present and for his constituents who might read the speech. As a practical politician, he must have realized the futility of attempting to convert any of the Democrats or liberal Republicans to the "Radical" view. Chandler also seemed to realize the value of evidence and reasoning in speechmaking, but his use of the constituents of "log- ical proof" is, at times, open to question. What appear to be un- substantiated assertions appear throughout his speaking, and he frequently used non-specific references to his sources of material. He seldom examined all aspects of an issue, preferring instead to consider only that evidence which supported his assertion. Using this evidence, he developed his arguments in considerable depth on most occasions. He reasoned inductively from example, cause, analogy or sign most of the time, though the deductive pattern of reasoning was evi- dent on occasion. When Chandler used the deductive structure, the content of his statements, as well as the validity of the structure may sometimes be questioned. Perhaps, however, for the audiences to whom he spoke on the 2M0 campaign trail, his use of evidence and reasoning was sufficient. It seems not unwarranted to suggest that the audiences in the political gatherings may have accepted his assertions, for they were as parti- san as he was. In the Senate, while he occasionally took greater pains to make his speeches logically defensible, Chandler still held to the narrow view and seldom considered alternative causes, effects, reasons, or policies. The fact that his use of the logical aspects of oral dis- course can be questioned by the rhetorical critic does not neces- sarily mean that he was not an effective orator. The evidence seems to indicate that he was. The success of logical proof may come from audience acceptance as well as internal consistency. For the audi- ences to whom Chandler spoke on the campaign trail, his use of evi- dence and reasoning may have been sufficient. He came like a bolt of lightning to inspire them and not to convince them. Chandler had an intensity of nature, a positiveness of conviction, and a profound sincerity which appealed to his audiences. Although criticism may be made of his use of evidence and reasoning, it should not be concluded that Chandler was a demagogue, attempting to sway the masses of people for purely selfish reasons. There is nothing in this work which suggests this. He had honest convictions which he upheld throughout his career, and a directness and simplicity which appealed to the rank-and-file Republicans. Chandler demonstrated, however, what appears to be a lack of flexibility. He was saying the same things with the same narrowness of purpose in 1879 that he had said in 1861. Perhaps a more states- manlike approach was needed as the times changed. Perhaps there were 2A1 needed in public life more men who had forgiveness in their hearts for their "separated brethern" and a spirit of compromise in order that the nation‘s wounds might be healed. Chandler was not willing to adopt an attitude of conciliation. Nevertheless, in spite of his narrowness of approach to the problems of the day, he continued to be elected to office, and con— tinued to be given offices of trust in the Michigan Republican organ- ization and in that party‘s national councils. It was this narrowness of purpose, perhaps, and his lack of flexibility which hampered his effectiveness in the Senate during his later years. Just as Chandler had been elected as one of a group who replaced the "compromisers" in the 1850's, so the temper of Con- gress had changed in the 1870's. Chandler could not seem to adjust to the changing times, for he viewed all proposals in the same way in 1870 that he had in 1860. He could not seem to shake the "war psychosis." In terms of rhetorical order, Chandler preferred to place the thesis of his speech at the beginning of his addresses to the Senate, and then to proceed to particulars in its support. On the campaign trail, the thesis was frequently placed last, seemingly for the purpose of climax. In all his speeches, the point he was at- tempting to make was unmistakably clear. "Zach" preferred the his- torical or topical arrangement of ideas in the body of the speech or a combination of them. On occasion the speech was purely an histor- ical narrative of events; on other occasions it was topical, with the topics arranged chronologically; and on still other occasions, the 2A2 topics were arranged climactically, and each topic was developed historically. Chandler's language style was concrete, simple, and Anglo- Saxon. "Never claiming the glittering refinements or eloquence of schools, nor trying to escape oblivion by rhetoric, yet his aid as a speaker was widely sought."" What "Zach" lacked in polish and re- finement, he made up for in vigor and enthusiasm. John Hay, Private Secretary to President Lincoln, made this observation: With many men, you know, violence of speech is a weakness, but with Chandler it was an element of strength, because, how- ever vehement he was, everybody saw it was not the roaring of a demagogue, but the sincere utterance of an honest and original nature. We know little of Chandler's preparation or delivery, but we have some evidence that he preferred the brief statement to the ex— tended speech and that his delivery was not particularly graceful or studied. He was a large man, slightly awkward, with a voice that could "make fifteen acres of people hear."6 "Chandler was not an orator in the ordinary sense of fine writing and graceful delivery; but in the clearness of his conceptions and the courage and force with which he uttered them, he was a most remarkable speaker."7 Daniel Webster said that, when aroused, Chandler put forth his opin- ions and convictions "like the out-breaking of a fountain from the "Memorial Addresses on the Life and Character of Zachariah Chandler, January 28, 1880. (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1880), p. 5%. 5New York Times, November 3, 1879. 6Speech delivered at Adrian, Michigan, September 29, 1868. 7Memorial Addresses . . . , p. 1AA. 2A3 ' earth or the bursting forth of volcanic fires with spontaneous, original native force."8 u A practical politician, rather than a statesman; a man con- cerned with the immediate, practical aspects of an issue, rather than the long-range view; a man little educated; a speaker who believed strongly and unwaveringly in the views he advocated; Chandler lived and spoke and had wide influence in the affairs of the nation and the State of Michigan during the middle years of the nineteenth century. "He was born for the age in which he lived, and passed away when the real work of his life had been accomplished."9 8Statue of Zachariah Chandler (Washington, D. C.: Govarnment Printing Office, l9lh), p. 78. Speech by Hon. William J. MacDonald. 9Statue of Zachariah Chandler, p. 28. Letter from former Justice H. B. Brown of the United States Supreme Court. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Baird, A. Craig, and Knower, Franklin. General Speech. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1957. Baker, George E. (ed.). The Works of William H. Seward. New York: > Houghton-Mifflin Company, 188H. E Bald, F. Clever. Michigan in Four Centuries. New York: Harper and Brothers, 195H: Barnard, Earle D. Rutherford B. Hayes and His America. Indianapolun Bobbs-Merrill Publishers, 195h. Beard, Charles A., and.Beard, Mary A. The Rise of American Civili- zation. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1933. Blaine, James. Twenty Years of Congress. Norwich, Conn., 188h-1886. Bosler, Ray P. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. New Bruns- wick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1953. Bowers, Claude. The Tragic Era. New York: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1929. Brigance, William Norwood (ed.). A History and Criticism of American Public Address. New York and.London: McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 19A3. Brigance, William Norwood. Speech Composition. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, Inc., 1953. Brigance, William Norwood. Speech: Its Techniques and Disciplines in a Free Society. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1961. Brown, Elizabeth R. A Union List of Newspapers Published in Michi- gan. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan: Department of Library Science, 195A. 2AA 215 Bryant, Donald, and'Wallace, Karl. Fundamentals of Public Speaking. 3d Edition. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1950. Buck, Paul S. The Road to Reunion. Boston: Little Brown and Co., 1938. Campbell, J. L. Outlines of the Political History of Michigan. Detroit: Schober and Company, 1876. Catton, Bruce. The Coming Fury. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co. Inc., 1961. Chaplin, Geremiah, and Chaplin, J. S. The Life of Charles Sumner. Boston: D. Lothrop, 187A. Charnwood, Lord. Abraham Lincoln. New York: Pocket Books, Inc., 1957. Clemens, Samuel. The Writings of Mark Twain. New York: Hillcrest, 1922. Cook, Webster. Michigan, Its History and Government. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1905. COOper, Lane. (translator and ed.). The Rhetoric of Aristotle. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1932. Dilla, Harriet M. The Politics of Michigan. Vol. 47 of Studies in History and Economics and Public Law. New York: Columbia University: Longman, Green & Co., 1912. Encyclopedia Britannica. Vol. 5. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952. Farmer, Silas. The History of Detroit and Michigan. Detroit: Silas Farmer Co., 188%. Fish, Carol Russell. The American Civil War. New York: Longman's, Green, & Co., 1937. Franklin, John Hope. From Slavery to Freedom. New York: A. Knopf, 19MB. Gilman, Wilbur; Aly, Bower; and Reid, Loren. The Fundamentals of Speaking. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1951. Hance, Kenneth; Ralph, David; and Wiksell, Milton. Principles of Speaking. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1962. Harris, Wilmer. The Public Life of Zachariah Chandler. Lansing: Michigan Historical Commission, 1917. .. .. a Hamlin!!!“ ILL! 2A6 Heffner, Richard. A Documentary History of the United States. New York: The New American Library, 1958. Hicks, John. The Federal Union. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1937- Hovland, C. I., Janis, and Kelly. Communication and Persuasion. ' New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953. Johnson, Charles W. The First Three Republican National Conventions, 1856, 1860, and 186A. Minneapolis: Harrison and Smith, 1893. Johnson, Charles W. The National Republican Conventions of 1868, 1872, 1876,1880. Minneapolis: Chicago Evening Journal Printers, 1903. Life of Zachariah Chandler. Detroit: Detroit Post and Tribune Publishers, 1880. McPherson, Edward. The Political History of the United States of America During the Great Rebellion. Washington, D. C.: Philip and Solomon, 1865. Macy, Jesse. Anti-Slavery Crusade: A Chronicle of the Gathering Storm. Vol. 28 of Chronicles of America. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1919. Mead, Nelson P. The Development of the United States Since 1865. New York: Harcourt Brace and Co., 1930. . Memorial Addresses on the Life and Character of Zachariah Chandler,_January 28, 1880. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1880. Michigan Historical Commission. Early History of Michigan with Biographies of State Officers, Members of Congress, Judges, and Legislators. Lansing, Michigan: Thorp and Godfrey, State Printers and.Binders, 1888. Miller, Marion. Great Debates in American History. Vol. 9. New York: Current Literature Publishing Co., 1913. Milton, George. The Age of Hate. New York: Coward-McCann, Inc., 1930. Mitchell, Joseph B. Decisive Battles of the Civil War. Englewood, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1959. Moore, Frank. Rebellion Record. 12 Volumes. New York: G. P. Put- nam, 186l-186h; Van Nostrand, 186h-1868. Morison, Samuel, and Commager, Henry. Growth of the American Re- public. New York: Oxford University Press, 1950. 2A7 O'Neill, James, and McBurney, James. The Working Principles of Argument. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1932. Potter, David M. Lincoln and His Party in the Secession Crisis. New Haven: Yale University Press, 19H2. Rhodes, James F. History of the United States From the Compromise of 1850 to the Final Restoration of Home Rule at the South in 1877. Vols. 5 & 6 of 7 Vols. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1896-1919. Riddle, Albert. Life of Benjamin F. Wade. Cleveland, 1886. Ross, Earle D. The Liberal Republican Movement. New York: Henry Holt Publishers, 1919. Sandburg, Carl. Abraham Lincoln--The War Years. New York: Harcourt Brace and Co., 1939. Stampp, Kenneth M. The Causes of the Civil War. Englewood, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1959. And the War Came. Baton Rouge: The Louisiana State University Press, 1950. Statue of Zachariah Chandler. Washington, D. C.: Govern- ment Printing Office, 191A. Stanwood, Edward. A History of Presidential Elections. Boston and New York: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1888. Stephens, Alexander H. A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States. Philadelphia, 1868. Streeter, Floyd B. Political Parties in Michigan 1837-1860. Lansing: Michigan Historical Commission, 1918. Sutton, E. W. (trans.) Cicero. DeOratore. Book I. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939. Thonssen, Lester and.Baird, A. Craig. Speech Criticism. New York: The Ronald Press, 19A8. Williams, Harry T. Lincoln and the Radicals. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 19H1. Winston, Robert. Andrew Johnson, Plebian and Patriot. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1928. Woodward, C. Van. Reunion and Reaction. Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956. Zornow, William Frank. Lincoln and the Party Divided. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 195D. 2A8 Newspapers Adrian Watchtower. September 27, 1852. Adrian Evening Exposition. June 21, 1861. Ann Arbor Courier. October 15, 1862. Detroit Advertiser and Tribune. January 1A, 1860, to September 30, 1877. Detroit Daily Advertiser. April 18, 18AO, to February 27, 1858. Detroit Daily Post. March 27, 1866, to December 31, 1876. Detroit Evening News. August 23, 1873, to November 7, 1879. Detroit Free Press. January 1, 1851, to November 11, 1879. Detroit Post and Tribune. October 15, 1877, to January 1, 1880. Detroit Tribune. January 1, 1851, to January 13, 1860. Kalamazoo Telegraph. August 26, 1856. Marshall Statesman. December 2A, 1856; January 21, 1857. New York Times. May 26, l86h; May 27, 186%; November 1A, 1868; July 17, 1872; August 25, 1872; January 22, 1875; October 19, 1875; October 20, 1875; January 8, 1876; January 25, 1876; January 28, 1876; March 3, 1876; JUne 11, 1876; April 25, 1879; June 13, 1879; July 8, 1879; August 2, 1879; Novem- ber l, 1879; November 2, 1879; November 3, 1879. Pontiac Gazette. September 11, 1852; October 16, 186A; October 8, 1868. Washington Intelligencer. July 22, 1862. Periodicals Wiley, Earl W. "State History and Rhetorical Research." The Quarterly Journal of Speech. Vol. 36, No. A, December, 1950. Personal Papers Blair, Austin, Papers, Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library. 2A9 . Baldwin, M. W., Papers, Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public ' Library. Bragg, thn Sherman, Papers, Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library. Cass, Lewis, Papers, Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library. Chamberlain, Henry, Papers, Michigan State University Archives, Mich— igan State University Museum, East Lansing, Michigan. Chandler, Zachariah, Papers, Library of Congress. Chandler, Zachariah, Papers, Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library. Corwin, Thomas, Papers, Library of Congress. Evarts, William, Papers, Library of Congress. Gatlin, George B., Manuscripts, Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library. Grant, U. 8., Papers, Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery, Stanford University; Chicago Historical Society, Chicago, Illinois; Illinois State Historical Library, Springfield, Illinois; Princeton university Library, Princeton, New Jersey. Grimes, L. W., Papers, Library of Congress. Harlan, Charles, Papers, Library of Congress. Harrison, Benjamin, Papers, Library of Congress. : Hayes, Rutherford B., Papers, Rutherford B. Hayes Library, Fremont, . Ohio . 1 HOWard, Jacob M., Papers, Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library. Johnson, Andrew, Papers, Library of Congress. Joy, James F., Papers, Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public 1 Library. 7 Lincoln, Robert Todd, Collection of the Papers of Abraham Lincoln, Library of Congress. McClelland, Robert, Papers, Burton Historical Collection, Detroit , Public Library. 250 May, Dwight, Papers, Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library. Miller, S. D., Papers, Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library. Nicolay, John G., Papers, Library of Congress. Parkhurst, John G., Papers, Michigan State University Archives, Mich- igan State University Museum, East Lansing, Michigan. Stanton, Edwin M., Papers, Library of Congress. Sumner, Charles, Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston, Mass. Houghton Library of Harvard. Swift, George W., Papers, Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Pub- lic Library. Trowbridge, C. C., Papers, Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library. Trumbull, Lyman, Papers, Library of Congress. Wade, Benjamin F., Papers, Library of Congress. Waldron, Henry, Family Papers, Michigan State University Archives, Michigan State University Museum, East Lansing, Michigan. Washburn, E. B., Papers, Library of Congress. Zug, Robert M., Papers, Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library. Public Documents U.S. Congressional Globe. Vols. XXVII-XLVI. U.S. Congressional Record. Vols. I-III and VIII-IX. Lectures Brown, Professor Harry. History Department, Michigan State Univer- sity. Fall Term, 1959. William, Professor Frederick. History Department, Michigan State University. July 1959. ' v: r 1'". "12‘~ -'n5'.' wud- _3' each Shrahnr: "71- a! “w Speaker: . "\ "A :‘ a 12.,- :’r‘ xv; W " mi “HUILYBiQ. ., “AT "151”. ' "TL! 110.?- than Til!!!” '~ 9! 1“. a. {”11 a This Appendix contains a sample of the analysis made of each of the thirty-five speeches used as a basis for Chapter Four--The Speaker: Use of Supporting Materials; Chapter Five--The Speaker: Organization and Arrangement of Ideas; and Chapter Six--The Speaker: Language Style and Delivery. The procedure illustrated here was used for each of the thirty-five speeches chosen for detailed analysis. SUBSTANCE OUTLINE OF ZACHARIAH CHANDLER'S SPEECH IN CHICAGO--OCTOBER 31, 1879 (STENOGRAPHIC REPORT) Introduction I. In the Senate of the United States . . . you will hear citizen- ship described as confined to states, and it is denied that than is such a thing as national citizenship. II. I Shall address you tonight . . . in a broad sense as citizens of the United States of America. III. A great crime has been committed my fellow citizens and the criminal is yet unpunished--that is to say, he is not punished according to his just deserts. [Eié7 (A directional statement) I shall devote myself tonight chiefly to the history of a crime, and shall endeavor to hold up the criminal to your execration. Transition First, it is proper for me to allude to certain matters of national importance which are living issues. Body I. Twelve years ago an idea was started in the neighboring State of Ohio, called the "Ohio Idea," which spread and bore fruit in 252 253 different states. This idea was to pay something with nothing. A. . . . the greenback idea, an unlimited issue of irredeem- able currency, and a party was inaugurated in different states called the Greenback Party. 1. It took root in Michigan . . . had a vigorous growth, put forth limbs, blossomed liberally, bore no fruit, and died. a. Therefore, I shall pay no attention to the Greenback Party. b. It is not a living issue. B. But the Ohio idea is still a living issue, and even dur- ing the last session of Congress a demand was made . . . to repeal the Resumption Act that had been in existence for years. 1. The resumption of specie payment was virtually ac- complished when, in 1871+-1875 that Resumption Act became law, for at that time we made that act so strong that there was no power on earth that could defeat the resumption of specie payments after it had once been inaugurated . . . 2. We carefully guarded that law. C. But this Ohio idea . . . was to pay off your bonds with greenbacks. Up to the final adjournment of the last regular session of Congress, the attempt was made to issue irredeemable paper and force it upon the creditors of the nation. 1. If this paper were truly described it would read-- The Government of the United States for value re- ceived . . . promises to pay nothing to nobody nevan D. You have heard here in Chicago the denunciation of the holders of your government bonds. 1. "Bloated bondholders" they were called. Who were they? [Paraphrased7 a. Every single man who has a dollar in the savings bank . . . for there is not a savings bank . . . whose funds are not invested in the bonds of your government. b. Every public organization has invested in gov- ernment bonds. [[Paraphrasgd7 c. You may go to the books of the Treasury . . . and you will find ninety-nine men who own $100 or less of the bonds . . . directly or indiiect- ly where you will find one man who owns $10,000 or more. E. You would not find a man, woman, or child in America who would touch the kind of paper I have described. 1. You [Enose upholding the Ohio idgaj say you would stop the interest on your bonded debt . . 2. You say pay off your foreign bonds. 3. Foreign interests would demand coin of the world and would wage war as President Jackson threatened to do against France, to get it. ‘ZEhraphraseHY 25A Transition "Well, they say, perhaps you are right about this bond business. It is open to question and we will abandon that . . ." II. ". . . but the national banks--down with the national banks. Abolish national banks and save interest." A. Why down with the national banks? 1. . . . Michigan had a very large state bank circula— tion at one time and we called that "money" in those days wild-cat money, and it was very wild. 2. We had two objects in view in getting up that national banking act. a. We wanted to furnish an absolutely safe circu- lating medium . . . b. We wanted to furnish a market for our bonds which had become somewhat of a drug. 3. We might just as well have put in state bonds as security for those bank notes . . . but we didn't know how many of those rebel states would repudiate their bonds, and, therefore, we didn’t put in any. ha ZNQH7 You don't know and you don't care whether the bank whose note you have in your pocket failed yes— terday, last week, or last year. You will find that your bank notes are redeemed . . . precisely the same as though it had never failed. B. flog? you say "Call in your bonds; abolish the national bank notes." 1. You don't gain one cent, but you lose $16,500,000 of taxes paid this year and last year and every year upon the stocks of the national banks to national, state, and municipal governments. 2. You distress your whole community by compelling your banks to call in $850,000,000 now loaned and now being used in commerce, manufacturing, and all the industries of the nation. Wansiflom‘; III. [But7 they say, "There is one thing that we know we are right on, and that is the free coinage of free silver." A. "Every man who holds 85 cents worth of certificate shall go to the Treasury or the mints of the United States and take a certificate of deposit of 100 cents, which shall pass as money." B. That was the Warner Bill. 1. This the Democratic Party was committed to. 2. The only one who is benefited from a substitution are the bullion owners and the bullion speculators. IV. [Euflthere is another question which is of vital interest to every man, woman, and child in America, and that is the ques- tion of the enormous rebel claims against your government. A. I hold in my hand a list of the claims now before the two houses of Congress, and being pressed . . . for every conceivable thing that war could produce. 255 1. And the only thing today——the Senate and the House both being under the control of those Southern rebels--the only protection, the only barrier be- tween the Treasury of the United States and those rebel claims is a presidential veto and thank God for the veto! 2. To Show you that I am not over-stating this idea of Southern claims, I will read you a petition which is now being circulated throughout the South: "We the people of the United States, most respectfully petition your honorable bodies to enact a law by which all citizens of every section of the United States may be paid for all their property destroyed by the governments and armies on both sides, during the late war between the States, in bonds, bearing 3 per cent interest per annum, maturing with the ~ next one hundred years . . ." (This means that you R”C"("C"’CJL shall do for the South precisely what you have done for your own soldiers.) "And we also petition that all soldiers, or their legal representatives of both armies and every sec- tion, be paid in bonds or public lands for their lost time, limbs, and lives while engaged in the late unfortunate civil conflict." 3. They are in sober, serious thought. A. These rebel states are solid--solid for repudiating your debt, solid for the payment of these claims. 77ana/f/on V} [But we have a matter under consideration tonight of vastly more importance that all the financial questions that can be pre- sented to you and that iég7. Is this or is this not a nation! A. We had for generations supposed that this was a nation! B. Our fathers met in convention to frame a Constitution, and . . . finally a spirit of compromise prevailed and the Constitution was adopted . . . and submitted to the people of these United States . . . and they adopted the Constitution . . . and for many long years . . . believed that we had a government. 1. The Whiskey Rebellion broke out in Pennsylvania and was put down by the strong arm of the Government, and we still believed we had a government. 2. Armed men trod the soil of South Carolina and threatened that unless the tariff was modified to suit their views they would overthrow the government. a. They were under the leadership of John C. Cal- houn, in carrying out his doctrine. b. Old General Jackson . . . said: "Let South Carolina commit the first act of treason against this government and, by the eternal, I will hang John C. Calhoun!" . . . and the first act of treason was not committed. C. We remained under that impression until I first took my seat in the Senate on the Ath day of March, 1857. 256 . Treason was again threatened on the floor. . They said then "Do this or that or we will destroy your government. Fail to do this or that, and we will destroy your government. . Careful preparations were made to carry out these treasons. a. Jefferson Davis stepped out of the Cabinet of Franklin Pierce . . . into the Senate of the United States, and became chairman of the Com- mittee on MHlitary.Affairs. (1) There was an innocent looking clause in the general appropriation bill which read that the Secretary of War might sell such arms as he deemed it for the interest of the government to dispose of. (2) Under that apparently innocent clause . your arsenals were opened. (more)Wv“"“W' b. The credit of the government whose 6 per cent bonds in 1857 sold for 122 cents on the dollar were so utterly prostrated and debased that in February, 1861 . . . bonds were sold for 88 cents on the dollar with no buyers for the whole amount. Internal Summary Careful preparations were made for the overthrow of your government, and when Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office as President . you had no army, no navy, no money, no credit, no arms, no ammunithxn nothing to protect.the national life. flaw/flan _ D. (With all this) the Republican party undertook to save your government. (Paraphrased) l. 2. We carried the war to a successful issue. They made no claims against the government because they had none. a. We gave them their lives. b. They had forfeited all their property and we gave it back to them. 0. . . . we killed for them the fatted calf. . The seceding states were bound by the laws of war and by the laws of nations to pay for every dollar of the debt contracted for their subjugation, but we forgave them that debt and today you are being taxed heavily to pay the interest on the debt they should have paid. In my humble judgment, the greatest mistake we made . was in not hanging enough of these rebels to make treason forever odious. . Somebody committed a crime. a. Either those men who rose in rebellion commit- ted the greatest crime known to human law, or .lvurulll‘nl 88% “HV ’—| t.‘ . , IIIIIT 257 our own brave soldiers who went out to fight to save this government were murderers. Transition And now, after twenty years--after an absence of four years from the Senate--I go back and take my seat, and what do I find? E. The self-same pretensions are rung in my ears from day to day. l. . . . Today I go back and find these paroled rebels, who have never been relieved from their parole of honor to obey the laws, saying: "Do this! Obey our will, or we will starve your government to death! . . . F. The rebels--for they are just as rebellious now as they were twenty years ago . . . these rebels today have thirty-six members on the floor of the House of Repre- sentatives, without one single constituent, and in viola- tion of law those thirty-six members represent A,OO0,000 people, lately slaves, who are as absolutely disfran- Chised as if they lived in another sphere. l. . . . through shot-guns and whips and tissue ballots. 2. and these thirty-six members thus elected constitute three times the whole of their Democratic majority of the House. G. Twelve members of the Senate . . . occupy their seats by fraud and violence. . . . They dare to dictate terms to the loyal men of these United States. H. We offered them a law forbidding any man to come within two miles of a polling place with arms of any descriptiom and they promptly voted it down for they wanted their Ku Klux there. 1. What they want is not free elections, but free frauds at elections. 2. Through this caucus dictation [_o—f the Congreg these eight millions of Southern rebels as abso- lutely control the legislature of this nation as they controlled their slaves when Slavery existed. a. A rebel soldier counts more than two of the votes of the brave soldiers of Illinois; for they vote for the negro as well as for them- selves, and their vote weighs just double the weight of that of the brave soldier of Illinokn b. It is an outrage upon freedom . . . Internal Summary anleransition Now, my fellow citizens, I have undertaken to Show you the condition in which this country was placed when the Republican party assumed the reins of power. There was no nation poor enough to do you rev- 258 erence. . . . Today after eighteen years of Republican rule, there is no nation on earth strong enough not to do you reverence. We saved the national life and we saved the national honor, yet, not- withstanding this, there are those who say that the mission of the Republican party is ended and that it ought to die. VI. The Republican party is the only party that ever existed, so far as I have been able to ascertain . . . which has not one single, solitary, unfulfilled pledge left. A. We not only saved your vast territory from the blighting curse of slavery, but we wiped the accursed thing from the continent of North America. B. We pledged ourselves to save your national life, and we saved your national life. C. We pledged ourselves to give you a homestead law, and we gave you a homestead law. D. We pledged ourselves to save your national honor and we saved your national honor. E. We pledged ourselves to improve your rivers and your har- bors and we improved your rivers and harbors . . . F. Notwithstanding all this, you say: "Your mission is ended and you ought to die." Internal Summary . the Republican party has done all this. We took your govern- ment when it was despised among the nations; and we have raised it to this high point of honor; and yet you tell us we ought to die. Now, I tell you, Mr. Chairman, the mission of the Republican party is not ended. Conclusion I. You are going to hold an election next Tuesday which is of im- portance far beyond the borders of Chicago. A. The eyes of the whole nation are upon you. B. By your verdict next Tuesday you are to send forth greet- ing to the people of the United States, saying that either you are in favor of honest men, honest money, patriotism, and a National government, or that you are in favor of soft money, repudiation, and rebel rule. II. Now, I want every single man in this vast audience to consider himself a committee of one to work from now until the polls close on Tuesday next. III. Your manufactories are making too much money for you to afford to turn this great government over to the hands of repudiating rebels. A. You cannot do it. B. Shut up your stores. C. Shut up your manufactories. 259 D. Go to work for your country and spend two days, and on the night of election, Mr. Chairman, send me a dispatch, if you please, that Chicago has gone overwhelmingly Re- publican. (Statement of thesis--response desired) Organization: Particulars to generalization, generally. Speech given direction by a statement at beginning, but the direct statement of thesis appears at the end. Chand- ler forecasts what his speech will do in general, pro- ceeds to do it, and then makes his point at the end. Arrangement: Topical--each topic developed chronologically. Space and place of topics: Topics arranged climactically. Also, in one sense, historically--from present to past to present to future. Fifth issue the longest. Sixth issue intended as strongest. h TECHNICAL PLOT--LOGICAL PROOF ZACHARIAH CHANDLER'S SPEECH IN CHICAGO OCTOBER 31, 1879 (STENOGRAPHIC REPORT) FACTORS AND TERMS USED: I. Evidence II. Reasoning 1. Facts A. Induction 2. Definition 1. Analogy 3. Testimony (Authority) 2. Causation A. Explanation 3. Reasoning from 5. Illustration (Example) specific instances 6. Specific Instances A. Sign (Short Examples) B. Deduction 7. Comparison and Contrast l. Categorical 8. Narration syllogism 9. Quotation 2. Hypothetical syllogism 3. Disjunctive syllogism Introduction I. Unsubstantiated assertion--explanatory. II. Explanation. III. Assertion--conclusion unsubstantiated here, but obviously accepted by the Radical Republicans. Directional Statement Explanatory--thesis implied here. This statement gives direction to the speech. Over-theme of the speech is obviously to redeem and up- hold the Republican party's record, and to persuade the Chicago votens to vote Republican. 260 261 Body I. Explanatory--Exposition A. Explanation by illustration. Expansion of I. 1. Specific instance--Evidence to substantiate A. a. Conclusion--dismissal of issue. b. Deductive conclusion. B. Unsubstantiated assertion. Audience is asked to accept this on the basis of the authority of the speaker. l. Explanatory--unsubstantiated conclusion. 2. Unsubstantiated assertion. C. Explanation by definition. 1. Further definition of C. Expansion of C. D. Digression--Only indirectly related to I. Explanation by illustration. 1. Explanation by definition. a. Amplification by illustration. b. Amplification by illustration. c. Unsubstantiated assertion. E. Inductive generalization without substantiation. Audi- ence is asked to accept this on the basis of speaker's authority. 1. Assertion. 2. Assertion. 3. Causal reasoning--From cause E l and E 2 to effect 3. Specific instance, historical example used as proof of hypothesis. (Entirety of Issue I is refutative) II. Assertion--Unsubstantiated. Audience asked to accept on speaker's authority. A. Explanation. 1. Specific instance. 2. Explanation. Deductive conclusion. a. Explanation. From conclusion by infer- b. Explanation. ence to conclusion. 3. Proof by explanation. A. Deductive conclusion reached from 2. B. Restatement of II. Repetition. 1. Proof of B and II by evidence (fact). Causal rea- soning. Effect of B and II. 2. Causal reasoning. Effect to cause. Proof by facts of B and II. III. Assertion--(refutative) A. Explanation. B. Explanation. 1. Assertion. 2. Assertion. IV. Generalization--inductive--assertion. (Instances not given) A. Proof of IV by fact--actually a sign relationship—-never reads list, hence the audience is asked to assume that he has the list. (He waved it in front of them) 262 l. Inductive conclusion. Generalization from specific instances not stated but assumed. 2. Proof by fact--evidence. Little relation to A, ex- cept as means by which 1 would be accomplished. 3. Assertion. (Inductive conclusion from 2) A. Assertion. (Inductive conclusion from 2) V. Conclusion. (Inductive generalization with specific instances not stated. A. Assertion--exp1anation. B. Proof by illustration. 1. Proof of B by specific instance—-historical example. 2. Proof of B by historical example-~illustration. a. Explanation. Assertion. Narration b. Development of 2 by specific instance, and conclusion. C. Assertion (Inductive generalization) Specific instances given above--an imperfect induction. 1. Assertion. 2. Assertion--exp1anation. 3. Assertion (Inductive generalization) a. Proof of 3 by illustration. (1) Development of illustration (8). (2) Inductive conclusion. b. Causal reasoning--cause (2) to effect. D. Causal reasoning--and assertion. l. Assertion. 2. Assertion--conclusion from implied causal reasoning. a. Explanation. Assertion. b. Development of 2 by specific instance. c. Conclusion. 3. Assertion. A. Induction from implied conclusion. 5. Assertion. a. Major premise of a disjunctive syllogism. Minor premise and conclusion implied. E. Assertion--comparison. On authority of speaker. l. Assertion--comparison. On authority of speaker. F. Conclusion--implied induction. Causal reasoning--effect to cause. 1. Proof by non-specific illustration. Really an assertion--knowledge on part of the audience assnnai. 2. Explanatory-—support by facts-~based on authority of speaker. G. Conclusion (Inductive but instances not stated) Also causal--effect E l 2 to cause G. H. Assertion. Causal--effect to cause (Implied) 1. Assertion 2. Inductive conclusion. a. Causal reasoning--cause 2 to effect. VI. Inductive conclusion. A. Specific instance. B. Specific instance. C. Specific instance. 263 D. Specific instance. E. Specific instance. F. Parenthetical. Conclusion I. Inductive conclusion--knowledge assumed. A. Assertion. B. Assertion. II. Conclusion. III. Assertion. A. Assertion. . _ B. DevelOpment and expansion of III. Audience appeal-- rd? C. Development and expansion of III. Motivation-—In- D Development and expansion of III. struction step. TECHNICAL PLOT--ETHICAL PROOF ZACHARIAH CHANDLER'S SPEECH IN CHICAGO OCTOBER 31, 1879 (STENOGRAPHIC REPORT) EXPLANATION: This speech contains very little direct use of ethical proof. There is, however, much indirect use of ethical proof. Sen- ator Chandler came to Chicago as an "expert" Republican. His compe- tence, Character, and good will were assumed. Thus, many of the assertions noted in the Technical Plot of Logical Proof are really statements that were believed because of the reputation of the speaker and because of the mood of the audience. In the speech text, therefore, little use is found of direct ethical proof specifically designed to enhance the character, competence, or good will of the speaker. Most of the ethical proof in this specific communication situation came from factors apart from the speech text. Introduction I. Good will. II. Good will. III. Thesis Body I. 26h II. III. IV. 265 a. b. B. Assertion--accept on the authority of the speaker. l. 2. C. D. l. a. b. c. E. Assertion-~accept on the authority of the speaker. 1. 2. 3. A. 1. Competency 2. a. b. 3. A. B. l. 2. A. An extension of A in the text--competence and character: "I am in favor of an honest dollar anywhere you can find it and I stand by the honest dollar." B. 1. 2. A. l. Character--reference to the Deity. 2. 3. A. A. B. 1. 2. a. b. C. Competence--authority--"We remained under that impression until I first took my seat in the Senate on the Ath day of March, 1857. 1. 2. II. III. E. 51C) >1:HEHUOtdtb w > 3. a (l) (2) b. l. 2. 3. Good will. 1+. 5. Transition: Competence. l. Competence. l. 2. l\)l—‘ (TED 266 Competence. Conclusion TECHNICAL PLOT OF EMOTIONAL PROOF AND STYLE ZACHARIAH CHANDLER'S SPEECH IN CHICAGO OCTOBER 31, 1879 EXPLANATION: The specific emotional appeals and the specific stylis- tic devices for which the thirty-five speeches were analyzed appear below. Emotional Proof Language Style Safety ‘ Concrete words Hunger Simple words Sex Active verbs Freedom Descriptive Adjectives Power and Adverbs Prestige Personal Pronouns Property Direct Address Self-respect Nuance words Integrity Foreign terms Loyalty Rhetorical question Fair Play Direct question National Honor Parallel structure Justice Repetition Patriotism Alliteration God Procedural Statements Acquisition and saving Dialogue Fear Periodic Sentences Anger Tropes ; Love Figures ; Pity Cloches, slogans, and . Indignation proverbs H Humor Humor-—satire ' 267 4 fr 7’! //L?IH fr 0 States, and it is denied that there is such a thing as 268 From Text V/ Psychological Proof JZ; Style Mr. Chairman and Fellow-Citizens: It has become the i K 1 t) the Senate of the United States and in the halls of Con- Q N P gress ygu will hear citizenship described as confined to national citizenship. I to-night address ygu, my fellow- citizens of Chicago, in a broad sense as fellow-citizens of the United States of America. (Applause) A great wrung, crime has been committed, my fellow-citizens-ja prime 1 .. EL 57» against this nation,_a crime against republican institu- a; fit I. tutions throughout the world;_a.grime against civil libertx and the criminal is yet unpunished--that is to say, he is not punished according to his deserts. (Applause) And lishall to-night devote myself chiefly to the history of a crime, and shall endeavor to hold up the criminal to your execration. (Renewed applause) But, first, it is proper for me to allude to certain in custom of late to restrict the lines of citizenship. In Q? I 210 M0” ‘F 3011C; “1481/47/39“ :35va "DJ/it"s P W}? / .‘)-‘¢ 269 matters of national importance, which are at this pres- ent moment living issues. Twelve years ago an idea was started in the neighboring State of Ohio, called the ”Ohio Idea: " Whisk} spread and, Pare, fruit, in Oslii‘isree‘l f/;Lvr States. That idea was to pay something with nothing. (Laughter) From this Ohio idea sprang up a brood of ’ f It [ 1 other ideas. For example, the greenback idea, an un- limited issue of irredeemable currency, and a party was inaugurated in different States called the greenback PartY- It Tools, root in Michigan ,laslslxesrnhaa 8- visor- " Bus Birth, ,P‘EF,§9F’°2 limbs; PAPHBPFsaliberally. bore ng_fruit,iandvdied1» (Laughter and Cheers) Therefore, I shall pay no attention to the greenback party. It is not a living issue. (Laughter) But the Ohio idea is still a living issue, and even during the last session of Congress a demand was made to repeal the Resumption act that had been in existence for years. The resump— tion of specie payment was virtually accomplished when 270 in 187A-5, that Resumption act became a law, for at that time we made that act so strong that there was no power on earth that could defeat the resumption of specie pay- ments after it had once been inaugurated. (Applause) 1 _WE authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to use any bonds ever issued by the government, and in any amount 1 that was necessary, to carry forward to success specie payments, as soon as the time arrived for the resumpfibn. We carefully guarded that law. True,gg§ are under an ob- l ligation to the man who executed the law, but the re- sumption of specie payments was as much a fixed fact when that law was signed as it is to—day, and all the powers on earth combined could not break that resumption 44 //5:/ /y/ _ A71 Wold - Kf/Jnoag 0.; Mama; CT/LW when it had once been inaugurated. But this Ohio idea, as_; said, was to pay off ygug bonds with greenbacks. Well, my fellow citizens, 39 have paid off $160,000,000 of M bonds in greenbacks within the last sixty or ninety days, and what more do 271 you want? Ah! But the Ohio idea was something differ- ent from that. It was, as I_said before, to pay some— thing with nothing, and up to the final adjournment of the last regular session of Congress the attempt was still made to issue irredeemable paper and force it upon the creditors of the nation. Now, if this paper which they propose to issue in paying off the bonds of ygu; government was properly and truthfully described, it \.. would read thus: "The government of the United States 13 '.for value received"--for it was for value received; no 3| .1 . q - greenback was ever issued except for value received--"forf3 2;: 'value received; the government of the United States prom-4: . o H ‘\ lses to pay nothing to nobody, neven (Applause and ‘1 _ _._. . .—-- k: ’11',_,"[_",'j/l>‘1cl,'" /.I.-»/ /’m laughter) That was the paper with which it was proposed by these men, entertaining then, and now entertaining the "Ohio idea," to redeem the bonds of your government. Now, you have heard, I presume, here in Chicago, the denunciation of the holders of your government bonds. 272 The "bloated bondholder” was a term of reproach, both on K'L 151,: the floor of Congress and in the streets of Chicago and all over these United States. But who were the bloated bondholders? Why, my friends, every single man who has IV! ,‘i u... *\ 71 a dollar in the savings bank is a bloated bondholder, C\ (C-,-"'6 ’8’ 720') {Q for there is not a savings bank in the land, which ought k\ ,r‘ '4, f i -’r{ (_,~_' - L»: J l y to be entrusted with a dollar, whose funds are not in- 1? vested in the bonds of your government. (Applause) : There is not a widow or orphan who has a fund to support R1 )Lf in“! f 3411. V) i . a\ the widow in her widowhood and the orphan in its orphan- : liq \% age, in a trust company, who is not a bloated bondholder;g\ / 6/ ( /' " '/“1' L.” §| for there is not a trust company in the land that ought 1; /'/'~ ’7v't’.;: g \x‘ to be trusted which has not a large proportion of its g g. funds in the bonds of your government, Every man who §‘ )‘r-T /‘///(,,, x I \ .. has his life insured, or his house insured, or his barn,.§ or his lumber, or who has any insurance, is a_bloatedq \ \ \. bondholder; for there is not an insurance company, life, ”WWII/”‘8‘ lt/t ///"c'L. fire, marine, or of any other class of insurance, that 273 ought to be trusted, which has not its funds invested inI . - . 7“ L ) .\ J .I ~I a \ i I A". I" / .-" (.1; I I” ."q . I I V I bonds of your government. You may go to the books of 1, .r' l!" y E, the Treasury to-morrow and inquire and you will find . I \‘ '\ ninety-nine men who own $100 and less of the bonds of E\ "\. \ - {(‘c ygur government, directly or indirectly, where ypu will L\ . ._\ 1‘. ' lkx’\ find one man who owns $10,000 or more. And these men, ‘4? entertaining the Ohio idea, would ruin the ninety-nine . \‘V poor men for the possible chance of injuring the one- \ 0 L? L: .,x I\ ”3 '5? hundreth rich man. And yet you may destroy the bonds off} ,4. ,I'. .' A] _. I y the rich man and you do him no harm, for he has but a j I a. small amount of his vast wealth in the bonds of your 4h II If government, while the poor man, owning $100 or under as as I his little all, is utterly ruined. (Applause) You would not find a man, woman, or child in America ‘ who would touch the kind of paper I have described, if I proffered to them. You say you would stop the interest ’ I on your bonded debt. Very Well! The holder of your_ bonds would say: "You do not propose to pay any inter- " ‘-. 8‘ f 4; “ill: i ’ )k' ' I" ./,l I’ ‘. ‘1’ ‘_J 'l ’_.‘..' I; V 27A est. I hold a bond for value received, with a given §1amount of interest payable on a given day. Now I will 51hold your bonds until you men entertaining the Ohio idea I "N?are buried in your political graves, and then I will ap-1§~ ‘i. t» 1peal to an honest people, to an honest government to pay ~ I \\1\ \. .-.\ \ ‘ . i . . \ 5 \Lan honest debt." (Applause) "But," say these men, "payft \ off your foreign bonds." I see men before me who remem- 1 her the days of General Jackson, and they likewise re- 13: 1%? member that in the time of General Jackson the government": 5:9 i ‘K .N‘ of France owed to the citizens of the United States i ks, $5,000,000, which France did not refuse to pay, but neg-1g. 0.x lected to pay. It ran along from decade to decade, un- .g ‘ \ 1 3 . yfpaid. General Jackson sent for the French minister and. k .; said: "Unless that $5,000,000 due to the citizens of ,f 5» Al‘the United States is paid, I will declare war against 1 :1France." (Applause) General Jackson was remonstrated 5 i with. It would disturb the commercial relations, not 1 ‘.only of this country, but the world. Said he, "Unless 7 \, I ‘l .u t 275 . France pays that $5,000,000, by the Eternal, I will de- clare war against France." (Applause) Every man, womanij R, and child, and the King of France knew that he would do In I I r\ in. ‘ it, and the $5,000,000 was paid to the United States. 15 It is not $5,000,000 that your government owes to the citizens of the world, it is more than fifty times five million, and it is scattered in every nation with which we have commercial relations, or where money is found to invest in your bonds. You say you will stop the interest on those bonds. How long do ygu think it would be before a British fleet would come sailing to ygur coast, followed by a French fleet, and a German fleet, and a Russian, and an Austrian, and a Spanish and an Italian fleet, and the British Admiral would step ashore and say: "I have $50,000,000 of the bonds of this government belonging to the citizens of Great Britain, which I am ordered to col- lect!" The answer is: "Your account is correct, sir. The government of the United States owes just $50,000,000 276 ito the Citizens of Great Britain, and here is your money, 1 1 i n :sir. (Mr. Chandler, suiting the action to the word, held out a sheet of paper with $50,000,000 written upon it, and the audience burst out into loud and long-continued laughter) The British Admiral looks at it and says: "What's that?" l "Ia-I ‘% "Why, money. Don't you see? Why, it is a first mortgage A 1 1 h 11. v'w——— on all the property of all the citizens of all the United States." (Laughter) "Don't you see the stamp of the government?" (Laughter) Says the Admiral: "Where is it payable?" fl "Nowhere." (Laughter and Applause) -( "To whom is it payable?" if ‘”~"Nobody." (Laughter) "When is it made payable?" "Never." (ReneWed laughter and cheers) . 97—“ 1.1 ,11 ."A A, l ’1 "Why," says the Admiral, "I don't know any such money. 13 ‘ I My orders are to collect this $50,000,000 in the coin of \1; 1 1 the world, and unless it is so paid my orders are to 277 blockade every port of these United States, and here are all the navies of the earth to assist me, and to burn down every city that my guns will reach." Honesty is the best policy with nations as well as with individuals. (Cheers) "Well," they say, "perhaps you are right about this bond business. It is an open question, and we will abandon that, but the national banks--down with the national banks! (Laughter and ap- plause) Abolish national banks and save interest." What do you want to abolish the national banks for? That is a living issue to-day--a present proposition of the Demo- cratic party that I_propose to hold up to your abhorrence before I get through to-night. What do you want to "down_ .)'\ with the national banks" for? ‘I_was in the Senate of the United States when that national banking law was passed. I_was a member of that body and voted upon every proposi- tion made in it. .I had had a little experience in state banks myself. (Laughter and applause) Michigan had a 278 very large state bank circulation at one time, (loud applause) and we called that "money" in those days wild-cat money (laughter) and it was very wild. (Renewed I."/ laughter and applause) Chicago also had a little exper- . ience in those days as well as Michigan. In those days a 1 ’I 1 C 1 ‘1 it was necessary for any man liable to receive a five- dollar note to carry a counterfeit detector with him for ‘ three purposes. First, to ascertain whether there ever was such a bank in existence. (Laughter and applause) Second, to ascertain whether the bill was counterfeit, and, third, to ascertain whether the bank had failed (laughter) and as a rule it had failed. (Laughter and .applause) Now, ye had two objects in view in getting up that national banking law. First, we wanted to furnish an absolutely safe circulating medium, so that no loss could ensue to the bill-holder. Second, we wanted to furnish a market for our bonds which had become somewhat of a drug. We might just as well have put in state bonds 279 as security for those bank notes. It would have been 1 :just as legal, just as right, but we didn't know which 7 . | fione or how many of those rebel States would repudiate . .their bonds, and therefore we didn't put in any. (Laugh- ter and applause) We might just as well have put in rail- road bonds, but we didn't know how many railroads would ._—-—. default in their interest. We might just as well have put in real estate, but we didn't know whether the neighbors of the banker would appraise the real estate at its ac- tual cash-selling value. (Applause and laughter) And therefore we put in the bonds of your government at 90 cents on the dollar; so that to-day for every single 90 cents of national bank notes afloat there is 100 cents—-5 (worth 102 cents)--of the bonds of yqur government de- posited with the Treasurer of the United States for the redemption of the 90 cents. (Applause) And you don't know and you don't care whether the bank is located in Oregon, in Texas, in South Carolina, Mississippi, New 280 York or Illinois, because you know there is 102% cents to-day of the bonds of your government deposited with 1" the Treasurer of the United States for the redemption of 1 every 90 cents of national bank notes ygu hold. You don't“ I know and you don't care whether the bank whose note you ,a/ r j A! a have in your pocket failed yesterday, last week, or last 1: year, or whether it ever failed. And ygu never find that I y out, for if trouble comes the bonds are sold and ygur bank notes are redeemed the day after, or the week after, or the year after ypur bank has failed, precisely the same as though it had never failed. (Applause) Now you say, "Call in your bonds; abolish the na- 1‘ I. ’1 I',-‘ '"'I', ‘1 ’tional bank notes." Very Well! You pass a law to-morrow repealing the Charters of all your national banks. Call in the national bank notes! Every national bank in I \fAmerica takes the exact amount of circulation which it A has, either in Silver or gold or greenbacks to the Treas- ury, leaves it there to redeem its notes, takes the bonds g II. 1‘ 'u1u1nll1l.a..l\.!| q . . l. KIT—at \.-/‘ 7 " f / k’ l ./ your banks to call in $850,000,000 now loaned and now 281 and distributes them among the stockholders of that bank, and the day after you have called in every national bank note that you have out, and you pay the self-same amount of interest on your bonds that you paid the day before, not one farthing more nor less. You don't gain one cent, 1 but you lost $16,500,000 of taxes paid this year and last 1 I 1 ' . \ r .,fi ‘ 1 year and every year upon the stock of the national banks j? I 1‘ 1 to national, state, and municipal governments. (Applause)i" You gain nothing, and you lose $16,500,000. You distress the whole community of these United States by compelling being used in commerce, manufactures and all the indus- tries of the nation. You distress the people by forcing a recall of that amount. No, my friends, in my judgment you had better devote yourselves to something you under- ' I I stand, and let the national banks alone. (Applause and laughter) But they Say, "There is one thing that we know we_are ’13 -’ 1'»: I'C 282 right on, and that is the free coinage of silver." Every man who holds 85 cents worth of silver shall go to the Treasury or the mints of the United States, and take a certificate of deposit for 100 cents, which shall pass as money. This was the Warner bill. This the Democratic party as a party was committed to, and is committed to, and on the very last day of the extra session by a major- ity vote of one, and only one, in the Senate of the United States we substantially laid that bill upon the table, every Republican voting aye, and every Democrat, except four or five, voting no. (Applause) Now, to-day, the laboring man can take gold or silver or paper, as he chooses, for his day‘s labor. I am in favor of the dual "\ ‘ . standard. I am in favor of a silver dollar with 100 cents1i 1—\ .' ,1 1v' I in it. I am in favor of an honest dollar anywhere you can?« I"\ I find it, (cheers) and I stand by an honest dollar. To-dayI 1 la the laboring man can take gold or silver or paper, and 1! I I 8 I: they are all of equal value, because they are all inter- 283 Changeable into each other. The paper dollar costs noth- ing; a silver dollar costs the government 85 cents--a fraction more now; it has been a fraction less. But all three are of equal value. Now the very moment you com- mence issuing those certificates of deposit freely to every man having bullion you banish gold from your circu- lating medium and make it an article of traffic and noth- ing else; and you have but a single standard, and that is a depreciated standard. Now there is paid out in these United States every day for labor alone $A,OO0,000. By compelling the substitution of the silver dollar alone, you swindle the laboring man out of $600,000 a day. The laboring man who receives a dollar gets but 85 cents. The man who receives $10 a week gets $8.50 and no more. The farmer who sells a horse, or the man who sells a load of lumber, or a load of wheat or anything else amounting to $100, receives but $85, and no more. You have but one single standard, and that silver standard, which, having 28A banished gold, is worth precisely the metal that is in it. Who is benefited by this substitution? Why, my friends, not a living mortal is benefited, except the bullion:owner and_the bullion-speculator. I do not charge , I these men with being bribed to pass that law, because I ”— have no proof of it; but I do say that the bullion-owners 1 and the bullion-speculators can afford to pay $10,000,0001 {:5 .f) 7 r— . ; ‘>. .— '\ in bullion for the privilege of swindling the laboring 1 .( I _J ,2 4. men of the country out of 15 per cent of all their earn- )/ (71 81'! ings. (Applause) They say, "That may all be true; we 1~Q i - r wk" ’\'.’i/(,-“/ don't know how it is; we have not been bribed"--and I never knew a man that would own up that he was bribed in I my life. (Laughter) I don't say that they are, but I do ‘ say that they are engaged in a mighty mean business. hf ,’ / 'r 1 I ’.‘.1'."( (Laughter and applause) But there is another question which is of vital in- terest to every man, woman and child in America, and that is this question of the enormous rebel claims against 285 your government. ‘1 hold in my hand a list of the claims now before the two houses of Congress, and being pressed-- cotton claims, claims for the destruction of property, for quartermaster's stores, for every conceivable thing that war could produce. .I have a list of claims right here (holding up several sheets of paper containing names and amounts) aggregating many hundreds of millions. And the only thing to-day--the Senate and the House both being under the control of those Southern rebels--the only pro- tection, the only barrier between the Treasury of the United States and those rebel claims is a presidential veto, (cheers) and thank God for the veto! (Long con- ‘tinued applause) But these claims are not all. There : are claims innumerable which they dare not yet present. Ygu may go through every State in the South, and some- 'where, hidden away, ygu will find a claim for every slave that ever was liberated. In the files of the Senate and I the House you will find demands for untold millions of 11"-. 111II-llrl.\.\ ‘..'u~ . . In. D ..Ihu.L 286 dollars to improve streams that do not exist--where you will have to pump the water to get up a stream at all. (Laughter and applause) Demands for untold millions to build the levees of the Mississippi river! We have al- i 1 \ ready given the Southern people 32,000,000 acres of landifl g.’\ 'o which would be reclaimed by those levees, and now they I; IVL‘ prOpose to bankrupt your Treasury by telling ygu, people’g I! of the North, to build the levees to make the land which? 1 1 you gave them valuable. To show you that I am not over-stating this idea of Southern claims, I will read you a petition which is now being circulated throughout the South. "We, the people of the United States, most respect- fully petition your honorable bodies to enact a law by which all citizens of every section of the United States may be paid for all their property destroyed by the gov- ernments and armies on both sides, during the late war between the States, in bonds, bearing 3 per cent interest 287 per annum, maturing within the next one hundred years." Every soldier_who served in the Northern army has 1 been paid. Everyudollar1§_worth of property furnished 1 I l __.’.l / II-‘L’ I }. to the Northern army has been paid for. Every widow or I -,-‘ \L; ”I-’(L\("‘ ’ orphan of a wounded soldier entitled to a pension has :been pensioned so that there is no claim from the North; 1 but this means that you shall do for the South precisely (what you have done for your own soldiers. E But I have not yet reached the milk in this Cocoa- :‘nut. (Laughter) "And we also petition that all soldiers, or their legal representatives, of both armies and every section, I .‘be paid in bonds or public lands for their lost time, ;‘(laughter) limbs, and lives while engaged in the late 1unfortunate civil conflict." (Laughter and applause) That all soldiers be paid for their lost time while L fighting to overthrow your government! That they shall //,|.'(;(( ),"z"/.I'":/C be paid for their lost limbs and their lost lives while ..‘think they are more anxious to pay the debt contracted 288 fighting to overthrow your government! Ah, my fellow-citizens, they are in sober, serious, downright earnest. They have captured both houses of Congress, and the only obstacle to the payment of these infamous claims is the presidential veto, and there is not a man before me who has not a personal, direct in- terest in seeing to it that the rebels do not capture the balance of Washington. (Applause) These rebel States are solid--solid for repudiating your debt, solid for paying these rebel claims; they have repudiated their 4"( t individual debts through the bankrupt law; they have re- L pudiated their State debts by scaling, and then refusing to pay the interest on what has been scaled; they have repudiated their municipal debts by repealing the char- . ters of their cities, towns, and villages. And do you I .1 .— for their subjugation than they are to pay their own honest debts? _I_tell you, No. They mean repudiation, 289 and do not mean that your debt shall be of any more value V than their own. When you trust them you are making a mis- take, and I do not believe you ever will do it again. '2I(Laughter and applause, and voices "We won't99 But we have a matter under consideration to-night of vastly more importance than all the financial questions 1 that can be Presented to ygu, and that is, Is this 3%.;fwu [[81 it not a Nation? We had supposed for generations that this was a Nation. Our fathers met in convention to frame a constitution, and they found some difficulty in agreeing upon the details of that constitution, and for a time it was a matter of extreme doubt whether any agreement could be reached. ,Acrimonious debate took place in that convention, but finally a spirit of com- 7 --.-——~‘ J’"’ly A—v — \ , ' . .. .‘ promise prevailed, and the constitution was adopted by the convention and submitted to the people of these Unitedii States. Not to the States, but to the people of the United States, and the people of the United States 290 adopted the constitution that was framed by the fathers, and for many long years the whole people of the United States believed that we had a Government. The whisky Eff! rebellion broke out in Pennsylvania, and was put down by:. the strong arm of the Government, and'gg still believed that wp had a Government. fWe continued in that belief until the days of General Jackson, when South Carolina raised the flag of rebellion against the Government. Armed men trod the soil of South Carolina and threatened —} << that unless the tariff was modified to suit their views E~ Qt they would overthrow the Government. This was under the P f . .. _, - ,/ ‘n— ll/ / leadership of John C. Calhoun, in carrying out his d0c- trine. Old General Jackson took his pipe out of his ;3 mouth when he was told that Calhoun was in rebellion . against the Government, and said: "Let South Carolina :9 " commit the first act of treason against this Government,;u ~ I ~Iand, by the Eternal, I will hang John C. Calhoun!" and \ . every man, woman, and child in America, including Calhoun, 291 knew that he would do it, and the first act of treason was not committed against the Government, for even the State of South Carolina, under the leadership of John C. Calhoun, had bowed to its power. .We remained under that impression until I first took my seat in the Senate on the Ath day of March, 1857. \\ Then, again, treason was threatened on the floor of the \wSenate and on the floor of the House. They said then: Ci"Do this or we will destroy your Government. Fail to do . I 1 ‘/r ’~‘ . -“Ithat, and we will destroy your Government." One of them 3 I iin talking to brave old Ben. Wade one day repeated this /; // . -~. 1}” ./ 1 gthreat, and the old man straightened himself up and said: / 7/ (2 ‘I 1"Don't delay it on my account." (Laughter) Careful prep- arations were made to carry out these treasons. Jeffer- son Davis stepped out of the Cabinet of Franklin Pierce, I as Secretary of War, into the Senate of the United States,§> If 1 ~ I and became chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs. 3 I! ' There was an innocent-looking clause in the general I. 292 appropriation bill which read that the Secretary of War might sell such arms as he deemed it for the interest of the government to dispose of. Under that apparently in- ? nocent clause, your arsenals were opened; your arms and J implements of war went together with your ammunition; your accoutrements followed your arms; your navy was ::scattered wherever the winds blew and sufficient water ‘was found to float your ships, where they could not be I 1 I 1 1 V 3"\ used to defend your government. The credit of the govern-if I. 1 ment, whose 6 per cent bonds in 1857 sold for 122 cents I‘\ 17‘ on the dollar, was so utterly prostrated and debased that in February, l861--four years afterward--bonds pay- able, principal and interest in gold, bearing 6 per cent, were sold for 88 cents on the dollar, with no buyers for L , I a fie, .\‘ 1. I . "\ ll‘\\ the whole amount. Careful preparations were made for the ” overthrow of your government, and when Abraham Lincoln (cheers) took the oath of office as President of the United States, (cheers) you had no army, no navy, no 293 money, no credit, no arms, no ammunition, nothing to pro-, . I . I tect the national life. Yet with all these discourage‘ i I 1 ments staring us in the face, the Republican party 1 undertook to save your government. (Applause) We I I raised your credit, created navies, raised armies, fought; battles, carried on the war to a successful issue, and 1 l I I ifinally, when the rebellion surrendered at Appomattox, I.; y I . they surrendered to a Government. (Applause) They ad- 1 mitted that they had submitted their heresy to the arbit-i rament of arms and had been defeated, and they surrendered to the government of the United States of America. (Ap- plause) They made no claims against this government, for they had none. In the very ordinance of secession which they had signed they had pledged oheir lives, their for: tunes, and their sacred honor to the overthrow of this government, and when they failed to do it, they lost all they had pledged. (Cries of "Good.") They made no claims against the government because they had none. \ those rights, and'we restored them. We took them to our1fi _were without the rights of citizenship, having forfeited 29A They asked, and asked as a boon from the government of the United States, that their miserable lives might be 'spared to them. (Applause) We gave them their lives. They had forfeited all their property—ewe gave it back ‘ to them. _we found them naked and we clothed them: They a I I 1 I I \ '\ {x K \ v 1 r x I k' I I I v. 1 1 1 'X. . x ,‘ 1 .\‘ bosoms as brethren, believing that they had repented of If I w. w p their sins. We killed for them the fatted calf, and in-I. vited them to the feast, and they gravely informed us 1 ‘ that they had always owned that animal, and were not ' thankful for the invitation. (Great laughter and cheers) By the laws of war, and by the laws of nations, they were :bound to pay every dollar of the expense incurred in put- ting down that rebellion. Germany compelled France to pay $1,000,000,000 in gold coin for a brief campaign. EThe seceding States were bound by the laws of war and by the laws of nations to pay every dollar of the debt con- \ fl 295 tracted for their subjugation, but we forgave them that debt, and, to-day you are being taxed heavily to pay the interest on the debt that they ought to have paid. (Applause) Such magnanimity as was exhibited by this nation to these rebels has never been witnessed on earth, (applause) and, in my humble judgment, will never be wit- nessed again. (Cheers) Mistakes we undoubtedly made, errors we committed, and I will take my full share of responsibility for the errors, for I was there, and voted upon every proposition; but in my humble judgment, the greatest mistake we made, and the gravest error we com- mitted was in not hanging enough of these rebels to make treason forever odious. (Prolonged cheers) Somebody com-, mitted a crime. Either those men who rose in rebellion committed the greatest crime known to human law, or our own brave soldiers, who went out to fight to save this government, were murderers. Is there a man on the face of the earth who dares to get up and say that our brave - \ \ , f" 7 ‘7. '_l If / ‘ < I Hi"; *7 {I hagcra/wrgj 296 soldiers, who bared their breasts to the bullets of the ,' / .’ I 7’ 5" l/ L, 'L ( K. , L “ ‘\ j/k Eff /\ /‘- I ("L _rebels, were anything but patriots? (Cheers) ‘\\.. ,,'./,f "/ 1 And now, after twenty years--after an absence of four ‘I years from the Senate-5I_go back and take_my seat, and 1 I47what do I find? The self-same pretensions are rung in _my ears from day to day. _I might close_my eyes and leave my ears open to the discussions that are going on daily Winkle sleep of twenty years. (Applause) Twenty years /' -‘; . r u r,‘ L .. new ago they said: "Do this or we will shoot your government _ f". ( ‘- ‘r _/ (LI) (.K > I" . 03*. to death! Fail to do that or we will shoot your govern- .ment to death!’ To-day I go back and find these paroled rebels, who have never been relieved from their parole of honor to obey the laws, saying: "Do this! obey our will, or we will starve your government to death!" Now, if_I_ - 7 ’ '5/ it I,( ,’ ./.-’ f/ c/‘/ am to die, I would rather be shot dead with musketry than be starved to death. (Laughter and applause) These rebels--for they are just as rebellious now as ’\ 1‘ TI’ 1. " L7 .3. x4 g , :7; w 1 L. 1. 9.x?) "('74 \. e/ ‘X/J -/ I (1 L14 f/JQI, 297 they were twenty years ago--there is not a particle of difference--these rebels to-day have thirty-six members on the floor of the House of Representatives, without _\ one single constituent, and in violation of law those 1: a thirty-six members represent A,OO0,000 people, lately 3\ f slaves, who are as absolutely disfranchised as if they 11 I lived in another sphere, through shot-guns, and whips, ‘fl ,'/) x , i‘_ r and tissue ballots; for the law expressly says, wherever a race or class is disfranchised they shall not be repre- . /' -;~-/., A; sented upon the floor of the House. (Applause) And _;" these thirty-six members thus elected constitute three \< 1 times the whole of their majority upon the floor of the Q7 ‘6 House. Now, my fellow-citizens, this is not only a viola-2‘ t- tion of law, but it is an outrage upon all the loyal men >5 .3) / [1/ . (‘T of these United States. (Applause) ‘It ought not to be. i. z, /i I" (J. '/ /L1 -.—-_.—_—._. \J It must not be. (Applause) _And it shall not be. (Tre- I I\ I "\ 1,53")? /' (J ‘1 19¢ l ('L- "4— / 1(,(‘ 7L A8 Georgia over his head (laughter) and say: "That will pro- fl: ,/~‘.r._ W‘tect me." (Renewed laughter and applause) My fellow- .: C"~ K" (\1-\ y ‘. s ; citizens, you _may take the biggest ship that sails the ‘I S 4‘ / LN : ocean, put on board of her the flags of all the States \§? _.\ '* sail her around the world, and you would not get a salue ‘ of one pop-gun from any fort on earth. (Loud and con- ;i 307 that were lately in rebellion against this government, raise to her peak the stars and bars of the rebellion, ‘/'. I 1' I start her with all her bunting floating to the breeze, it I ' 9 . :7(:,/.3) tinued laughter and applause) Take the smallest ship \ \ that sails the ocean, mark her "U.S.A."--United States of-va / x u \, America-~raise to her peak the Stars and Stripes, and r. l‘l ' - r». l -. , x ’ I \‘ sail her around the world, and there is not a fort or a lg; ship-of—war of any nation on God's footstool that would ;2\ not receive her with a national salute. (Cheers) And l\ yet the Republican party has done all this. _We_took your government when it was despised among the nations, and we have raised it to this high point of honor; and yet_you tell us we ought to die. (Laughter and applause) Suppose there was a manufacturing concern here that failed about the year 1857, and the citizens of Chicago thought it very important that it be reorganized and 308 resume business. You would buy the property for fifty cents on the dollar and reorganize it under your general laws, elect officers, and look about for a competent man to manage it. Finally you find what you believe to be the very man for that business and put him in possession. He finds that the machinery is not up to the progress of the age, and goes and buys new. He brings order out of /’,//l. i-b) confusion, he manages the business so that the stock of the concern rises to par; dividends are paid semi-annually and they grow larger and larger. The stock_rises to two ,ALLx.L, hundred, and none for sale. After eighteen years of successful management the manager comes in with his /}"('//6); account-current and his check for the half-yearly divi- dend, and lays it before the president and the directors. //'< /'/C- )a The president has had a little conversation with his directors, and says: _ "This statement is very satisfactory, but we have V .,J "! 8 concluded that after the first day of July next we shall \rv’"| ' I ,./// . , 309 not require your services any longer." "Why," says the manager, "what have I done?" "Nothing that is not praiseworthy. we will give you a certificate that we think you have managed this estab- lishment with great ability and great success. We will certify that we think you have no equal in the city of h Chicago or the State of Illinois. Everything you have done is praiseworthy, and we give you full credit for it; \\but eighteen years ago one of our employes (sic) was caught stealing and sent to the penitentiary. He has now served his time out, and we propose to put him in your place." (Prolonged laughter and cheers) fWouldn't you, ‘\ say that the president and all of the directors should be ’(J‘H "C/A/t'ILI/L (‘IL(3//(.A‘ _put into a lunatic asylum on suspicion at once2_ (Laughter and applause) Now, I tell you, Mr. Chairman, the mission of the Re- (:, - T publican party is not ended. (Cheers) _I tell you, further-‘ - 2 3 more, that it has just begun. (Cheers) I tell you, fur- ! - . i r- \ a / /.’ .I 1 I, /;’ ._" ./' ’. I j{ .L (‘ / 4' 310 thermore, that it will never end until you and I can ‘start from the Canada border, travel to the Gulf of Mex- I ,\ 1y ,/ LI") ico, make black Republican speeches wherever we please, (applause) vote the black Republican ticket wherever we ,5, Ir, q gain a residence, (cheers) and do it with exactly the same safety that a rebel can travel throughout the North, ,/.4' ."z, L/ stop wherever he has a mind to, and run for judge in any La,».” city he chooses. (This hit at the Democratic candidate for judge of the Cook County Superior Court, who was a rebel soldier during the war, set the audience wild, and they cheered and swung their hats and handkerchiefs frantically.) I hope after you have elected him judge he won‘t bring you in a bill for loss of time. (Laughter) _You are going to hold an election next Tuesday which _ ~F- next Tuesday you are to send forth greeting to the people: I l l . IV‘ C“ L} f‘ f I ! 9 Q3 \k is of importance far beyond the borders of Chicago. The [5‘ F; eyes of the whole nation are upon you. By your_verdict I: F\ \ ! you to afford to turn this great government over to the hands of repudiating rebels. You cannot do it. Shut up 1‘ ——\ v your stores. Shut up your manufactories. Go to work for §~ . \I !§’ your country, and spend two days, and on the night of ii :1- . \1‘. election, Mr. Chairman, send me a dispatch, if you please,$\ - -§” at“ that Chicago has gone overwhelmingly Republican. (Loud \R_ cheers) SPEECHES USED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS SPEECH DATE PLACE SOURCE Concerning first December 23, Marshall, Marshall national Republican 1856 Michigan Statesman, contest Dec. EH, 1856. Concerning Civil Fall of 1863 Springfield, From Chicago War, Copperheads, Illinois Tribune as Lincoln Adm. quoted in the Detroit.Adver- tiser and Tribune, Sept. 9, 1863. Concerning Congress and Andrew Johnson— Campaign of 1868 August 24, 1868 Battle Creek, Michigan Detroit PCst, August 26, 1868. Grant's war record 1 Democratic traitors, greenbacks, 14th Amendment, compar- ison of party plat- forms September 2%, 1868 Albion, Michigan Detroit Post, Sept. 25, 1868. Against Democrats, greenbacks. Also, taxation & Congress versus Johnson September 29, 1868 Adrian, Michigan Detroit Post, Sept. 30, 1868. Defense of record October 19, Grand Rapids, Detroit Adver- of Rep. party, 1870 Michigan tiser and Tri- national debt, bune, Oct. 22, finance, -isms 1870. Defense of Rep. October 26, Lansing, Lansing State party, state issues 1870 Michigan Republican, 313 Oct. 27, 1870. 31A SPEECH DATE PLACE SOURCE Defense of Rep. August 1, Detroit, Detroit Post, party, review of 1872 Michigan Aug. 2, 1872. Greeley's record National issues, August 13, Monroe City, Detroit Daily Greeley, defense of 1872 Michigan Post, August 15, Rep. party 1872. Grant versus August 23, Orange City, New York Times, Greeley 1872 New Jersey August 25, 1872. Defense of Rep. October 31, Detroit, Detroit Daily party, slavery, 187A Michigan Post, Nov. 2, internal improve- 187E. ments, corruption, So. outrages, etc. Danger to nation June 13, Detroit, Detroit Post from rebels, defense 1878 Michigan and Tribune, against charge of June 14, 1878. fraud, greenbacks, repudiation of So. debts, etc. To Rep. caucus February 13, Lansing, Detroit Post which nominated 1879 Michigan and Tribune, him for Senator Feb. 13, 1879. Hist. of Rep. party, July 23, Madison, Detroit Post "bloody shirt," 1879 Wisconsin and Tribune, greenbacks, etc. July 25, 1879. History of Dem. October 31, Chicago, Life of Zach- "crime," "bloody 1879 Illinois ariah Chandler, shirt," etc. (Detroit: De- troit Post and Tribune: 1880) LeCompton March 12, Senate Congressional Constitution 1858 Globe Cuban Acquisition February 17, Senate Congressional 1859 Globe 315 SPEECH DATE PLACE SOURCE John Brown's December 7, Senate Congressional Raid on Harper’s 1859 Globe Ferry Corruption in Post February 13, Senate Congressional Office Dept. 1860 Globe Defense of "blood- March 18, Senate Detroit Tribune, letting" letter, 1861 April 6, 1861. "irrepressible conflict? election of 1861 New issue of June 18, Senate Detroit Tribune, treas. notes 1862 June 27, 1862. Against McClellan July 16, Senate Congressional 1862 Globe Against Great January 15, Senate Detroit Adver- Britain 1866 tiser and Tri- bune, Jan. 25, I866. Against Andrew February 3, Senate Detroit_Free Johnson & Pres. 1867 Press, Feb. 12, Reconstruction 1867; Detroit Post, Mar. 30, 1867. Alabama Claims March 25, Senate Detroit Post, 1867 Mar. 30, 1867. Comparison of January 18, Senate Congressional records of Rep. & 1871 Globe Dem. Reply to Sen. Casserly Money & Finance February 18, Senate Congressional 187M Record 316 SPEECH DATE PLACE SOURCE Against Jefferson March 3, Senate Congressional Davis 1879 Record Condemnation of May 9, Senate Detroit Post Dem. in Congress 1879 and Tribune, May 10, 1879. Arraignment of June 30, Senate Congressional Democratic party 1879 Record Presentation of September 6, Ionia, Detroit Adver- banner to Mich. 1862 Michigan tiser and Tri- Regiment, Fight for bune, Sept. 7, glory of Michigan, 1882. flag, country. On the Civil War July A, New York Detroit Adver— and hopes of 1863 tiser and Tri- victory bune, July E, 1853. Banquet for Cong. June, St. Louis Detroit Post, excursion party. 1867 June 21, 1867. "No room for an empire in North America" Farming and advice October 3, Branch County Goldwater on how to be 1877 Fair at Cold- Republican as successful water, Michi- gan quoted Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, Oct. h, 1877. History of his farm north of Lansing, and new methods he used October 18, 1877 Chandler farm, Lansing, Mich- igan Detroit Post and Tribune, Oct. 19, 1877. 17845 000