Thaddeus Stevens in the Limelight–Congressional Career

By Paul Chouinard

Elect­ed as a Whig to Con­gress in 1848, Stevens served the tra­di­tion­al two terms. While in Con­gress he deliv­ered sev­er­al major speech­es against the Com­pro­mise of 1850, protest­ing the Fugi­tive Slave Law and the exten­sion of slav­ery into the ter­ri­to­ries. Dur­ing his first term Stevens gave an emo­tion­al­ly charged speech, “The Slave Ques­tion,” in which he chal­lenged his col­leagues: “You and I, and the six­teen mil­lions are free, while we fas­ten iron chains, and riv­et man­a­cles on four mil­lions of our fel­low men; tear their wives and chil­dren from them; sep­a­rate them; sell them and doom them to per­pet­u­al, eter­nal bondage. Are we not then despots – despots such as his­to­ry will brand and God abhors?”

Upon the pas­sage of the Fugi­tive Salve Law of 1850, Stevens defend­ed run­away slaves. In the cel­e­brat­ed 1851 Chris­tiana tri­al, Stevens served as one of two defense lawyers for thir­ty-eight blacks accused of mur­der­ing a slave­hold­er. All defen­dants were acquitted.

By 1852 Stevens resumed his law prac­tice full time. As the Whig Par­ty dis­in­te­grat­ed, he became involved with the new anti-immi­grant par­ty, known as the Amer­i­can Par­ty, whose mem­bers were ridiculed as the Know-Noth­ings. By 1855 Stevens had joined oth­er ex-Whigs and anti­slav­ery Democ­rats in form­ing the Repub­li­can Par­ty in Penn­syl­va­nia, and he served as a del­e­gate to its first nation­al con­ven­tion in Philadelphia.

Thad­deus Stevens ran again for Con­gress in 1858. It is con­jec­tured that his return to pol­i­tics was based on a sense of duty to lead the strug­gle to elim­i­nate slav­ery, although it may have been to gain a pub­lic forum in which to denounce Demo­c­ra­t­ic Pres­i­dent James Buchanan, also of Lan­cast­er. Sad­ly, his old­est broth­er, Joshua, died April of that year, leav­ing him as the last remain­ing mem­ber of his fam­i­ly of origin.

Stevens was elect­ed in Novem­ber of 1858, by a con­sid­er­able mar­gin, to rep­re­sent Lan­cast­er and the Ninth Con­gres­sion­al Dis­trict. Thought he aspired to a cab­i­net posi­tion, he nev­er received an appoint­ment; he was to remain in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives, becom­ing its acknowl­edged leader dur­ing the Civ­il War and Recon­struc­tion peri­od until his death in 1868.

A pow­er strug­gle emerged between Stevens and Pres­i­dent Abra­ham Lin­coln, as well as oth­er mem­bers of Con­gress, over issues relat­ed to slav­ery, the Civ­il War and Recon­struc­tion. This strug­gle was large­ly based on their respec­tive philoso­phies and approach to pol­i­tics. Lincoln’s views on these issues changed over time and were large­ly based on polit­i­cal and mil­i­tary con­sid­er­a­tions. He employed a delib­er­a­tive approach based on compromise.

Unlike Lin­coln, once Thad­deus had formed a clear posi­tion on issues relat­ed to slav­ery, the Civ­il War and recon­struc­tion, he was unre­lent­ing in his deter­mi­na­tion that imme­di­ate action should be tak­en. Although he was not an active par­tic­i­pant in orga­nized reli­gion, his mother’s strong com­mit­ment to her Bap­tist beliefs may have influ­enced his con­cept of moral­i­ty as it relat­ed to slav­ery. His approach was large­ly influ­enced by his egal­i­tar­i­an beliefs and his con­cept of social jus­tice and that “all men are cre­at­ed equal” as stat­ed in the Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence. Nev­er a patient man, his frus­tra­tion with Lin­coln and the leg­isla­tive process may have been fur­ther influ­enced by the fact that by the out­set of the Civ­il War all of the mem­bers of his fam­i­ly of ori­gin had died. His health issues undoubt­ed­ly remind­ed him of his own mor­tal­i­ty and of the fact that he did not have a lot of time left to accom­plish his goals.

Stevens opposed all efforts to con­cil­i­ate the South to save the Union dur­ing the win­ter of 1860–1861. Once the south­ern states had seced­ed, he argued that the Con­fed­er­a­cy con­sti­tut­ed a sep­a­rate nation. As the Civ­il War dragged on, he con­sis­tent­ly pushed for eman­ci­pa­tion of the slaves and argued for their inclu­sion in Union forces and equal pay for black troops.

In 1861, Stevens assumed the posi­tion of chair­man of the House Ways and Means Com­mit­tee, which gave him con­trol over con­gres­sion­al expen­di­tures. He sup­port­ed Sec­re­tary of the Trea­sury Salmon P. Chase’s plan to finance the war through “green­backs,” cur­ren­cy not backed by gold reserves. Fol­low­ing the Civ­il War, the pow­er­ful com­mit­tee was split into the two that exist today – the Ways and Means Com­mit­tee and the Appro­pri­a­tions Committee.

As chair­man of the Ways and Means Com­mit­tee, it was his adept­ness in steer­ing leg­is­la­tion through these com­mit­tees that earned Stevens his rep­u­ta­tion among Con­gres­sion­al his­to­ri­ans as a skill­ful strate­gist. Biog­ra­ph­er, Hans L. Tre­fousse char­ac­ter­ized him as: “The great Com­mon­er, sav­ior of free pub­lic edu­ca­tion in Penn­syl­va­nia, nation­al Repub­li­can leader in the strug­gles against slav­ery in the Unit­ed States and intre­pid main­stay of the attempt to secure racial jus­tice for the Freed­men dur­ing Recon­struc­tion, the only mem­ber of the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives ever to have been known as the ‘dic­ta­tor’ of Congress.”

Stevens’ harsh con­dem­na­tion of the Con­fed­er­a­cy led the Con­fed­er­ates to make it a point to destroy his busi­ness, the Cale­do­nia Iron Works, as part of the Get­tys­burg Cam­paign of June – July 1863. Most of the iron works was burned to the ground by Major Gen­er­al Jubal Ear­ly of the Army of North­ern Vir­ginia, who claimed that this action was in retal­i­a­tion for Stevens’ sup­port of the use of a “scorched earth” pol­i­cy by Union forces. Stevens suf­fered anoth­er fam­i­ly loss when his nephew Alan­son was killed at the bat­tle of Chicka­mau­ga on Sep­tem­ber 20, 1863.

On Jan­u­ary 1, 1863, Lin­coln deliv­ered the Eman­ci­pa­tion Procla­ma­tion as an exec­u­tive order, free­ing the slaves in the rebelling states. In March of 1864, Stevens intro­duced a con­sti­tu­tion­al amend­ment to free the slaves and to make slav­ery ille­gal. He shep­herd­ed it through Con­gress toward its pas­sage as the Thir­teenth Amend­ment in Jan­u­ary, 1865. The pas­sage was con­sid­ered essen­tial as the Civ­il War was com­ing to an end, and it was nec­es­sary to pre­vent the south­ern states from chal­leng­ing the legal­i­ty of the Eman­ci­pa­tion Procla­ma­tion once they re-entered the Union.

Fol­low­ing Gen­er­al Robert E. Lee’s sur­ren­der of the Con­fed­er­a­cy, at Appo­mat­tox Court House, on April 9, 1865, Stevens intro­duced a res­o­lu­tion to form the Joint (House/Senate) Com­mit­tee on Recon­struc­tion in Decem­ber, 1865. He became a key leader of the fif­teen mem­ber com­mit­tee to con­sid­er the best way to recon­struct the for­mer Con­fed­er­ate states. He draft­ed a con­sti­tu­tion­al amend­ment giv­ing cit­i­zen­ship and due process rights to the freed slaves. When key sen­a­tors object­ed to cer­tain parts of the mea­sure, he revised it. Stevens told mem­bers of the House that, “when I came to con­sult the com­mit­tee of fif­teen and found that the States would not adopt it, I sur­ren­dered it.” Despite his impa­tience, he was will­ing to compromise.

Dur­ing the win­ter of 1867, Stevens repeat­ed­ly forced the House to focus on the suf­fer­ing Union­ists, referred to by south­ern­ers as “Carpetbaggers,“and blacks in the South who lived in a con­di­tion he called “anar­chy.” Once again Stevens was forced to amend and rewrite bills in order to win Con­gres­sion­al sup­port for the Recon­struc­tion Acts of 1867, estab­lish­ing mil­i­tary gov­er­nance and uni­ver­sal male suf­frage in the seced­ed states. He was moti­vat­ed by his fear of con­gres­sion­al inac­tion, which would allow “anar­chy” to con­tin­ue in the South.

He advised the House in 1866, “Mutu­al con­ces­sion, there­fore is our only resort, or mutu­al hos­til­i­ties.” Only one Recon­struc­tion pro­gram Stevens intro­duced failed to gain any approval at all, which was the con­fis­ca­tion of south­ern prop­er­ty and its redis­tri­b­u­tion to the freedmen.

Fol­low­ing Lincoln’s assas­si­na­tion, in April of 1865, and Andrew Johnson’s ascen­den­cy to the pres­i­den­cy, Stevens rec­og­nized John­son as his ene­my in the Recon­struc­tion process. The two broke pub­licly when John­son vetoed the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill in Feb­ru­ary 1866. Stevens was not alone in his oppo­si­tion to John­son, which result­ed in a bit­ter pow­er strug­gle between Con­gress and the Pres­i­dent, lead­ing to a House vote in Feb­ru­ary 1868 to impeach him. Although his health had failed dra­mat­i­cal­ly by the spring of 1868, Stevens pos­sessed enough influ­ence to be named one of the impeach­ment man­agers. When the Sen­ate vot­ed to acquit John­son in May, Stevens was bit­ter­ly disappointed.

Up until three weeks before his death, Thad­deus Stevens was speak­ing out in the House on such mat­ters as financ­ing the pur­chase of Alas­ka and inter­est rates on bonds. But rheuma­tism and the rig­ors of a stress­ful life had weak­ened him. He died on August 11, 1868, just fol­low­ing the rat­i­fi­ca­tion of the Four­teenth Amend­ment to the Con­sti­tu­tion guar­an­tee­ing cit­i­zen­ship, due process rights and equal pro­tec­tion under the law. Stevens had seen its pas­sage as essen­tial for pro­tect­ing the rights of the freed­men and empow­er­ing them. Although he did not live to wit­ness the pas­sage of the Fif­teenth Amend­ment to the Con­sti­tu­tion, he laid the ground­work for it pri­or to his death. He was insis­tent that it was essen­tial to insure the rights of the freed­men to vote. It was passed on Feb­ru­ary 3, 1870 and is con­sid­ered one of the Recon­struc­tion amend­ments, along with the Thir­teenth and Fourteenth.

Stevens’ cof­fin laid in state inside the Capi­tol Rotun­da, flanked by a black hon­or guard, the Bul­ter Zouaves from the Dis­trict of Colum­bia. Twen­ty thou­sand peo­ple, about one-half of whom were African Amer­i­can, attend­ed his funer­al in Lan­cast­er, Penn­syl­va­nia. He chose to be buried in the Shrein­er-Con­cord Ceme­tery, because it was the only ceme­tery in Lan­cast­er that would accept peo­ple with­out regard to race.

Stevens wrote the inscrip­tion on his head­stone that reads: “I repose in this qui­et and seclud­ed spot, not from any nat­ur­al pref­er­ence for soli­tude, but find­ing oth­er ceme­ter­ies lim­it­ed as to race, by char­ter rules, I have cho­sen this that I might illus­trate in my death the prin­ci­ples which I advo­cat­ed through a long life, equal­i­ty of man before his Creator.”

There is clear­ly no doubt regard­ing Thad­deus Stevens’ devo­tion to his fam­i­ly, to those in need, in his com­mit­ment to his beliefs and to civ­il rights. He was among the prin­ci­ple lead­ers of the nine­teenth cen­tu­ry Civ­il Rights move­ment. In Amer­i­ca, that stalled fol­low­ing his death. The Civ­il Rights move­ment strug­gled to make progress dur­ing the nine­teenth cen­tu­ry until in the 20th cen­tu­ry the Supreme Court hand­ed down the case of Brown v. the Board of Edu­ca­tion of Tope­ka, KA in 1954, over­turn­ing the con­cept of seg­re­ga­tion. His com­mit­ment to blacks and to the advance­ment of their civ­il rights is unquestioned.

His inter­per­son­al rela­tions may have been adver­sar­i­al at times and his com­ments acidic, but Stevens qual­i­fies as “the Old Com­mon­er.” In notes found among his papers he wrote: “Learn to rely through life upon your own unaid­ed efforts. Trust not the pro­fes­sions of friend­ship which will every­where greet you so long as you do not need them, but whose hol­low syco­phancies will be appar­ent in your first hour of adver­si­ty.” Through­out his life Stevens demon­strat­ed the courage to remain com­mit­ted to his val­ues and his life­long ded­i­ca­tion to equal rights for all peo­ple, regard­less of the response he received from his harsh­est critics.

Sources:

Abby Hemen­way Gazetteer

Child’s Essex and Cale­do­nia Coun­ty Gazetteer 1764–1887

His­toric Homes of Peacham byPeacham His­tor­i­cal Association

I Speak for Thad­deus Stevens Elsie Singmaster

Peacham: The Sto­ry of A Ver­mont Hill Town by Ernest L. Bogart

Thad­deus Stevens by Ralph Korngold

Thad­deus Stevens by Hans L. Trefousse

Thad­deus Stevens In Get­tys­burg: The Mak­ing Of An Abo­li­tion­ist by Bradley R. Hoch

Thad­deus Stevens : Scourge of the South by Fawn M. Brodie

The Ver­mont Of Today by Arthur F. Stone

Vil­lage in the Hills (A His­to­ry Of Danville, VT) by Susan­nah Clifford

Mor­rill Fam­i­ly Gene­ol­o­gy Mor­rill Online (www.morrillonline.com)

Fam­i­ly Search­ing (Gene­ol­o­gy)

His­to­ry of Stanstead, Quebec

Jour­nal of the Gen­er­al Assem­bly of the State of Vermont

His­to­ry of Ver­mont Zadock Thompson

Smith­son­ian Mag­a­zine, Novem­ber 2012 “Mr. Lin­coln Goes To Hollywood”

Smith­son­ian Mag­a­zine, Feb­ru­ary 2004 “Dig­ging Into A His­toric Rivalry

Penn­syl­va­nia Her­itage, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, PA His­tor­i­cal and Muse­um Com­mis­sion, Spring 1992 “Equal­i­ty Before His Creator”