Thaddeus Stevens in the Limelight–Public Life in Pennsylvania

By Paul Chouinard

A portrait of a much younger Thaddeus when he was becoming well known in Pennsylvania.
A por­trait of a much younger Thad­deus when he was becom­ing well known in Pennsylvania.

Thad­deus Stevens’ friend­ship with Samuel Mer­rill, who shared his expe­ri­ence of being from Peacham, attend­ing Cale­do­nia Coun­ty Acad­e­my and grad­u­at­ing from Dart­mouth Col­lege, led him to move from Peacham to York, Penn­syl­va­nia, in Feb­ru­ary of 1815. Mer­rill, who was pre­cep­tor at Dr. Perkins’ Acad­e­my in York, rec­om­mend­ed his friend for employ­ment, and Thad­deus spent a year teach­ing while con­tin­u­ing his study of law at the office of David Cos­sett. His salary as a teacher was about $100 for the year.

By the begin­ning of the sum­mer of 1816, Thad­deus felt he was pre­pared to take the bar exam. The mem­bers of the York Coun­ty Bar Asso­ci­a­tion had adopt­ed a rule that no one could be admit­ted to the bar who had not devot­ed at least one year exclu­sive­ly to the study of law. For that rea­son, Thad­deus made a deci­sion to take the exam in Bel Air, Mary­land, the shire town of Hart­ford Coun­ty. Toward the end of August, 1816, Thad­deus made his way to Bel Air to take the exam. The exam­in­ing com­mit­tee con­sist­ed of Chief Jus­tice Hop­per Nichol­son, Theoder­ic Bland, Zebu­lon Hollingsworh and Gen­er­al William H. Winder of the Sixth Judi­cial Dis­trict. They met in the din­ing room of a local inn. The Judge informed Stevens that before ques­tion­ing could com­mence, “there must be two bot­tles of Madeira on the table, and the appli­cant must order it in.” Stevens com­plied, the wine was poured, and the ques­tion­ing began. What law books had he read? He replied that he had read Black­stone, Coke upon Lit­tle­ton, a work on plead­ing, and Gilbert on evi­dence. Three more ques­tions were asked.

When he had fin­ished explain­ing the dif­fer­ence between execu­tor devices and con­tin­gent remain­ders, Judge Black said: “Gen­tle­men, you see the young man is all right. I will give him a cer­tifi­cate.” His col­leagues nod­ded in assent, where­upon the Judge told Stevens that when the cer­tifi­cate was deliv­ered it was cus­tom­ary for the recip­i­ent to order two more bot­tles of Madeira. The wine was served, Stevens was toast­ed and was invit­ed to sit in at a card game known as “fli­ploo.” He had ven­tured to Bel Air with $45 in his pock­et and he depart­ed with $3.50!

A photo of the McClellan house in Gettysburg. Thaddeus' office was the smaller building attached to the right.
A pho­to of the McClel­lan house in Get­tys­burg. Thad­deus’ office was the small­er build­ing attached to the right.

Hav­ing suc­cess­ful­ly passed the exam, he was admit­ted to the bar on Sep­tem­ber 14, 1816. He end­ed his teach­ing at Dr. Perkins Acad­e­my and moved from York to Get­tys­burg, tak­ing lodg­ings at McClel­lan House (now the Get­tys­burg Hotel), and rent­ed a small brick build­ing adjoin­ing the hotel to serve as his law office. Once he hung out his shin­gle, he post­ed an ad in the local paper inform­ing the pub­lic that “Thad­deus Stevens, Attor­ney at Law…will give dili­gent atten­tion to all orders in the line of his pro­fes­sion.” Clients were slow in com­ing. His mea­ger sav­ings were rapid­ly deplet­ed, then sud­den­ly for­tune smiled upon him.

On a small farm a short dis­tance from Get­tys­burg lived James Hunter, a young bach­e­lor who was con­sid­ered sim­ple-mind­ed by those who knew him. He tend­ed his plot of land and occa­sion­al­ly hired out to neigh­bor­ing farm­ers. At the out­set of the sum­mer of 1817, Hunter was ordered arrest­ed for non­pay­ment of a debt. When con­sta­ble Heagy arrived to fetch him, he refused to join him peace­ably. The con­sta­ble, with the assis­tance of his son Hen­ry, forcibly arrest­ed Hunter and locked him up. Short­ly after his release from jail, Hunter was hired to help anoth­er man mow a mead­ow. As he went into the mead­ow with his scythe he rec­og­nized that the oth­er mow­er was Hen­ry Heagy. He had been drink­ing that morn­ing and was known to be quar­rel­some when under the influ­ence of alco­hol. The sight of the young man who had helped drag him off to jail infu­ri­at­ed him. Over­come by his rage, Hunter attacked Heagy with his scythe while he was rest­ing, cut­ting his throat. A week lat­er, he died.

Indig­na­tion in Get­tys­burg and the sur­round­ing coun­try was such that a lynch­ing was feared. Stevens took the case with­out hes­i­ta­tion to rep­re­sent Hunter, who was indict­ed for mur­der. On the day of the tri­al, peo­ple came from miles around to wit­ness the pro­ceed­ings. The court­room was packed and con­sid­er­able spec­u­la­tion regard­ing the plea the young lawyer would make. In such a case an insan­i­ty plea was a rar­i­ty. When Stevens rose to address the jury, it was not long before peo­ple were lis­ten­ing intent­ly. He spoke in a con­ver­sa­tion­al man­ner, point­ing out that Hunter was far from nor­mal, which most peo­ple who knew him acknowl­edged. Although his body was that of a man, his mind was that of a child. Had a child com­mit­ted the crime, would the jury vote to hang him? Stevens ques­tioned that when a man is acknowl­edged to be irra­tional, should ratio­nal men retal­i­ate by killing him? The sen­ti­ment of the com­mu­ni­ty demand­ed that Hunter be hanged, and he was, but months lat­er, as peo­ple dis­cussed the plea Stevens had made, they reached the con­clu­sion that no lawyer in town could have done near­ly as well. Stevens’ career changed rapid­ly; he no longer lacked clients.

Fol­low­ing the Hunter tri­al, he became a high­ly rec­og­nized attor­ney in Get­tys­burg. Nine years after he opened his law office, he was the largest indi­vid­ual own­er of real estate in the coun­ty. Alexan­der K. McClure, a famous pub­li­cist and lawyer, stat­ed of Thad­deus Stevens: “I have known many of our great lawyers who were great advo­cates or great in the skill­ful direc­tion of a case, but he is the only man I can recall who was emi­nent in all the attrib­ut­es of a great lawyer.”

In 1821 Stevens rep­re­sent­ed a slave own­er, John Delaplaine, in the case of But­ler v. Delaplaine at the Court of Com­mon Pleas of Adams Coun­ty. Char­i­ty But­ler had been the prop­er­ty of Nor­man Bruce, who lived just across the state line in Mary­land, a slave state. Bruce had sold Char­i­ty to John Delaplaine, a res­i­dent of Fred­er­ick Coun­ty, Mary­land. She ran away and trav­eled north across the Mason-Dixon Line into Penn­syl­va­nia where she met and mar­ried Hen­ry But­ler, a free African-Amer­i­can. They became the par­ents of two chil­dren, Har­ri­et and Sophia. Delaphaine slipped into Adams coun­ty and kid­napped Char­i­ty and her chil­dren. Hen­ry But­ler hired Get­tys­burg attor­ney James Dob­bin to take legal action to have his fam­i­ly returned to Penn­syl­va­nia. Dob­bin claimed free­dom for Char­i­ty and her chil­dren on the grounds that she had been liv­ing in Penn­syl­va­nia for more than six months, the time stip­u­lat­ed by the Penn­syl­va­nia eman­ci­pa­tion laws of 1780 and 1788.

Stevens argued on behalf of the own­er that the res­i­dence of Char­i­ty and her chil­dren was not con­tin­u­ous as required by the law. He won the judg­ment against the dis­traught moth­er. The But­ler case played an impor­tant role in Stevens’ life. Up to that time, he had not tak­en a stand on slav­ery. Soon after, he denounced slav­ery. At the Fourth of July cel­e­bra­tion in 1823 he offered a toast: “The next President—May he be a free­man, who nev­er riv­et­ed fet­ters on a human slave.” From that point on, he made his ser­vices avail­able to defend fugi­tive slaves of whom there were many in the bor­der region in which Get­tys­burg was located.

As Stevens devel­oped a height­ened aware­ness of slav­ery and its neg­a­tive impli­ca­tions, he came to believe that it was a form of pure evil. Accord­ing to Hans Tre­fousse, author of Thad­deus Stevens: Nine­teenth-Cen­tu­ry Egal­i­tar­i­an; fol­low­ing Stevens’ involve­ment in the But­ler case, his “com­mit­ment to equal rights for African-Americans—an idea that was anath­e­ma even to many abolitionists—would be unwa­ver­ing.” Between 1821 and 1830 he tried ten cas­es before the Penn­syl­va­nia Supreme Court and pre­vailed in all but one. The adver­sar­i­al nature he had acquired as a boy was at times evi­dent in the court­room as it was lat­er in the leg­is­la­ture and in Congress.

 

In addi­tion to his law prac­tice, Thad­deus Stevens pur­sued var­i­ous busi­ness inter­ests, with mixed suc­cess, through­out his life. July 6, 1821 Thad­deus pur­chased a large farm on East Hill in Peacham, VT, from John Emer­son of Nor­wich, VT. He pre­sent­ed the farm as a gift to his moth­er, Sarah, and his broth­er, Alan­son. Through­out his life­time he expressed grat­i­tude to his moth­er for her love and com­mit­ment to him.

iron worksHe entered a part­ner­ship with iron man­u­fac­tur­er James D. Pax­ton in 1826. That ven­ture failed. He then erect­ed the Cale­do­nia Iron Works, a firm he oper­at­ed with mixed suc­cess until his death. As the rail­roads began to com­ple­ment the canal sys­tem in Penn­syl­va­nia in the 1830s, Stevens orga­nized the Wrightsville, York and Get­tys­burg Rail­road Co. in 1835, of which he became pres­i­dent in 1840. Stevens also pur­chased large tracts of land and lent mon­ey. In the ear­ly 1840s he lost most of his invest­ments and moved to Lan­cast­er, where he opened a new law prac­tice and rose to suc­cess once again.

It was the Anti-Mason­ry cause that first attract­ed Stevens to pol­i­tics. Freema­son­ry vio­lat­ed his egal­i­tar­i­an con­cept of equal­i­ty. He per­ceived the Mason­ic fra­ter­ni­ty as aris­to­crat­ic, exclu­sive and secre­tive, seek­ing advan­tage for those who were priv­i­leged to become mem­bers. To many, the Mason­ic fra­ter­ni­ty vio­lat­ed the fun­da­men­tal con­cept of “equal­i­ty” as it had been artic­u­lat­ed by Thomas Jef­fer­son in the Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence; it was seen as a move­ment toward the cre­ation of a soci­ety based on the con­cept of an aris­toc­ra­cy of priv­i­lege. Stevens was not alone in his oppo­si­tion. A pow­er­ful nation­al Anti-Mason­ic move­ment arose dur­ing the ear­ly 19th century.

Stevens ran on an Anti-Mason­ic Par­ty plat­form and was elect­ed to the Penn­syl­va­nia House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives in 1833. He was re-elect­ed to six, one-year terms dur­ing which time he grew increas­ing­ly impor­tant as the leg­is­la­ture debat­ed such issues as the re-char­ter­ing of the Sec­ond U.S. Bank, the financ­ing and con­struc­tion of canals, rail­roads and oth­er pub­lic works and Anti-Mason­ry. Although his inde­pen­dent nature rarely allowed him to iden­ti­fy com­plete­ly with a party’s plat­form, he backed Whig nom­i­nees in the pres­i­den­tial elec­tions from 1840 to 1852.

It is com­mon­ly agreed that Stevens’ most impor­tant con­tri­bu­tion as a state leg­is­la­tor in Penn­syl­va­nia involved pas­sage of a law in 1834 impos­ing tax­es to sup­port a statewide free pub­lic edu­ca­tion sys­tem. Until that time only pri­vate acad­e­mies exist­ed in most of the state. In 1835 irate tax­pay­ers tried to repeal the leg­is­la­tion. Just before the final House vote on April 11, 1835, Stevens deliv­ered a superb ora­tion against the repeal. Education’s “cul­ti­va­tion and dif­fu­sion,” he argued, “is a mat­ter of pub­lic con­cern and a duty which every Gov­ern­ment owes to its people…”

thaddeus and boy
This stat­ue of Thad­deus and a young boy can be found on the Thad­deus Stevens Col­lege of Tech­nol­o­gy cam­pus locat­ed in Lan­cast­er, PA.

Stevens per­suad­ed a major­i­ty of the leg­is­la­tors not to repeal the school law, and Penn­syl­va­nia became the first state out­side of New Eng­land to embrace the con­cept of a pub­lic school sys­tem. As a result of his unyield­ing sup­port for this mea­sure, he became known as the “Father of Pennsylvania’s Pub­lic Edu­ca­tion Sys­tem.” It is rea­son­able to assume that the pri­or­i­ty which his moth­er had placed on edu­ca­tion for her sons and the advan­tages that they gained as a result, lift­ing them out of pover­ty, influ­enced Stevens’ com­mit­ment to the con­cept of a free pub­lic edu­ca­tion sys­tem. Stevens served in the leg­is­la­ture until 1842 when he retired from state pol­i­tics to devote him­self to his busi­ness inter­ests and his law practice.

He moved to Lan­cast­er in August, open­ing an office and set­ting up house­keep­ing at 47–49 Queen Street. He remained a Lan­cast­er res­i­dent for the rest of his life. Stevens nev­er mar­ried, although there has been much spec­u­la­tion over his rela­tion­ship with his mulat­to house­keep­er, Lydia Hamil­ton Smith, who began work­ing for him in 1848 and remained with him until his death twen­ty years lat­er. In 1848 he adopt­ed Alan­son, Jr. and Thad­deus, Jr., the sons of his broth­er Abn­er (known as Mor­rill) who had attend­ed Dart­mouth Med­ical School and become a physi­cian in St. Johns­bury, VT, and died in March of 1847. His broth­er Alan­son, who had been liv­ing and farm­ing with his moth­er Sarah, died in Decem­ber of 1847. His moth­er con­tin­ued liv­ing on the farm Thad­deus had pur­chased for her on East Hill in Peacham until her death on Octo­ber 5, 1854. Thad­deus sold the farm to Robert and Janet Gil­fil­lan of Peacham on April 25 of 1855.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share