The

The disaster of Fredericksburg caused a cabinet crisis, as it is described by the contemporary authorities, with deference to English political phraseology. But the procedure when a calamity of state seems to call for radical action shows the difference between the English and the American constitutions. Lincoln was the head of the administration, the commander-in-chief of the armies, and if any one other than Burnside was responsible for the defeat on the Rappahannock, it was he. So declared the Democrats without reserve. Republicans too, in private conversation and confidential letters, expressed the same conviction, although in public they were cautious and reticent. Suppose English conditions to have obtained and Lincoln to have been prime minister. Congress would probably have voted a want of confidence in him and his ministry; his resignation or an appeal to the country would have followed. But as Lincoln said September 22 and might still have said: "I do not know that, all things considered, any other person has more" of the confidence of the people than I have; "and however this may be, there is no way

let them fight the battles."- Gen. Sherman to his brother, Feb., 1863, Sherman Letters, p. 189. He had written, Jan. 17, "I hope the politicians will not interfere with Halleck. You [the politicians] have driven off McClellan, and is Burnside any better? Buell is displaced. Is Rosecrans any faster? His victory at Murfreesboro [Stone's River] is dearly bought."Ibid., p. 182.

My authorities for this account are the Union and Confederate correspondence, O. R., vol. xxi.; reports of Halleck, Burnside, Sumner, Hooker, Franklin, Couch, Hancock, Butterfield, Humphreys, Reynolds, Meade, Lee, Longstreet, Jackson, ibid.; testimony of Halleck, Burnside, Sumner, Hooker, Meigs, Franklin, Meade, Reynolds, Parke, Newton, Cochrane, C. W., part i.; Ropes's Civil War, part ii.; Nicolay and Hay, vol. vi.; Palfrey, Antietam and Fredericksburg; Allan, Army of Nor. Va.; Walker, Second Army Corps, Life of Hancock; Long, Life of Lee; Mrs. Jackson, Life of Jackson; Dabney, Life of Jackson; Taylor, Four Years with Gen. Lee; articles of Longstreet, Couch, W. F. Smith, McLaws, Century War Book, vol. iii.; Longstreet, From Manassas to Appomattox; Franklin, Reply to Committee on Conduct of the War; Moore, Reb. Rec., vol. x.; Swinton, Army of the Potomac; Letter of London Times correspondent from Lee's Headquarters, Dec. 12, 13, 1862; N. Y. Tribune, Dec. 16, 17, World, 17, 18, Times, 17, Herald, 17, 18; Chicago Tribune, Dec. 17, 18; Boston Eve. Transcript, Dec. 17, 18, Advertiser, Dec. 18, 1862.

I am

in which I can have any other man put where I am. here. I must do the best I can, and bear the responsibility of taking the course which I feel I ought to take." In view of this constitutional limitation a caucus of Republican senators, assuming to speak for a majority of their party and of the nation, reverted unconsciously to earlier English precedents, and gave as a formal opinion that the failure of a vigorous and successful prosecution of the war was due to the fact that the President was badly advised by his cabinet ministers. Most of these senators thought that the clog to the administration was Seward, and at their first meeting they passed, although not by a unanimous vote, a resolution declaring that the welfare of the country required his withdrawal from the cabinet. Later, in order to obtain practical unanimity, this resolution was reconsidered and a substitute adopted which asked such changes to be made among the President's constitutional advisers as would secure "in the present crisis of public affairs" better results in the war waged "to suppress a causeless and atrocious rebellion." The radical senators, a prey to long-continued irritation at Seward's conservatism of the last two years and especially embittered at a confidential letter of his to Adams, recently published, saw in the resolution nothing more than a demand for his dismissal, while the conservatives probably hoped that a reconstruction of the cabinet might result also in the retirement of one or both of the representative radical members, Chase and Stanton. From his friend Senator Preston King of New York, Seward heard of the action of the senatorial caucus and immediately sent his resignation to the President.

December 19 2 a committee of nine senators appointed by the

1 "It seems as if the extreme advocates of African slavery and its most vehement opponents were acting in concert together to precipitate a servile war- - the former by making the most desperate attempts to overthrow the federal Union, the latter by demanding an edict of universal emancipation as a lawful and necessary, if not, as they say, the only legitimate, way of saving the Union." Letter of July 5, Message and Dip. Corr.,

p. 124.

2 I follow the date given by Nicolay and Hay. The Washington corre

caucus waited upon Lincoln, presented their formal conclusions, and urged that a change be made in the department of State. The pith of the interview was given in the report he made of it the same day to his cabinet. "While they seemed to believe in my honesty," he said, "they also appeared to think that when I had in me any good purpose or intention Seward contrived to suck it out of me unperceived." At this conference with his cabinet advisers, he asked them to meet him. again in the evening, and having made a similar appointment with the committee of senators, the two parties came together with equal surprise. Seward of course was not of the company, and one of the senators was absent.2 A frank interchange of views took place. Feeling that the fate of the nation was perhaps at stake, the senators were open in their criticism of the cabinet and forcible in their attack upon Seward. The cabinet ministers made an energetic defence. The President acted as moderator, but, knowing that the maxim, the king can do no wrong, had no place in American politics, he understood that the prosecutors were indirectly finding fault with himself. The conference was stormy and lasted long. Finally Lincoln said: "Do you, gentlemen, still think Seward ought to be excused?" Sumner, Trumbull, Grimes, and Pomeroy said "Yes." Collamer, Fessenden, and Howard would not vote, and Harris [of New York] said "No." 3

The most important result of the meeting was that it induced Secretary Chase to resign his portfolio the next day.4 In conversation, in private correspondence, in the confidences to his diary, he had dealt censure unrestrained to the President's conduct of the war. At this conference he was therefore between two fires. To be consistent with his

spondent of the N. Y. Tribune wrote that this interview took place the evening of the 18th, but the difference is not material.

1 Nicolay and Hay, vol. vi. p. 265; see, also, Joseph Medill to Colfax, Life of Colfax, Hollister, p. 200.

2 Wade.

8 Nicolay and Hay, vol. vi. p. 266.

4 Dec. 20.

hostile animadversions, which were undoubtedly well known to the senators, he should join in the attack; duty and honor in the execution of his office commanded him to take part in the defence. His position was embarrassing and untenable. The reflection of a night pointed to resignation as the only way out of the difficulty, and in the morning he placed the letter imparting his decision in the President's hands. Lincoln was pleased that his political shrewdness had effected, as a consequence of the resignation of the conservative chief, that of the head of the radicals. Believing, as he afterwards expressed it, "If I had yielded to that storm and dismissed Seward, the thing would all have slumped over one way, and we should have been left with a scanty handful of supporters," he saw that the resignation of Chase enabled him to win the game, and said to Senator Harris, "Now I can ride; I have got a pumpkin in each end of my bag." He immediately sent this word, "Secretary of the Treasury, please do not go out of town," and later in the day sent two identical letters: "Hon. William H. Seward and Hon. Salmon P. Chase: Gentlemen: You have . . . tendered me your resignations. . . . I am apprised of the circumstances which may render the course personally desirable to each of you; but, after most anxious consideration, my deliberate judgment is, that the public interest does not admit of it. I therefore have to request that you will resume the duties of your departments respectively." The next day Seward cheerfully resumed his office, and two days later Chase reluctantly returned to his post. The cabinet crisis was over. Its members remained the same.3

1 Nicolay and Hay, vol. vi. p. 271; Life of Seward, vol. iii. p. 148.

2 Dec. 20, Warden's Chase, p. 508; Nicolay and Hay, vol. vi. p. 268. 3 Smith, Secretary of the Interior, resigned about this time, but his resignation was in no way a result of the action of the senators.

My authorities for this account are Nicolay and Hay, vol. vi. chap. xii.; Warden's Chase; Schuckers's Chase; Life of Seward, vol. iii.; Lothrop's Seward; Pierce's Sumner, vol. iv.; Wash. corr. N. Y. Tribune, Dec. 20, 21, 23, Jan. 9, 1863, editorials of Dec. 22, 23; N. Y. Eve. Post, Dec. 22; Wash. corr. N. Y. Times, Dec. 20, editorials of Dec. 22, 23; N. Y. World, Dec.

Lincoln had displayed rare political sagacity in insisting on retaining in the service of the State the men who could best serve it notwithstanding the rude jostling of the cabinet and the opinion of Congress that the essential concord in judgment and action did not prevail among its members.1 His judgment that "the public interest does not admit" of the retirement of the secretaries of State and of the Treasury is confirmed by a study of the writings of the time in the light of succeeding events. In the misfortune and dejection which had fallen upon the country no voice could be slighted that would be raised for the continued prosecution of the war; and since Seward and Chase represented the diverse opinions of two large classes of men who were at least in concord on the one all-important policy, it was desirable that they should remain in the cabinet. The loss of either or both of them would have been a subtraction from the popular support of the administration that could in no other way be made good.

There were, too, other reasons why the President did not wish to part with his secretaries of State and of the Treasury. Since April, 1861, Seward had rendered a loyal support; he had sunk his ambition for the presidency; he had come to appreciate the ability of Lincoln and to acknowledge in him the head of the government in reality as in name. He had been an efficient minister. Even allowing for all the circumstances, that slavery in the Confederacy was a stumbling-block in the way of its recognition by England and France, and that the influence of Lincoln, Sumner, and Adams in foreign relations was of great weight, much credit is still due the Secretary of State, that affairs were so managed that there was no interference from Europe in our struggle.

Chase, on the other hand, was supreme in his own department, and wrote the part of the President's message of December 1, 1862, which related to the finances.2 Lincoln

22, 23, 27, Herald, Dec. 21, 22; Boston Courier, Dec. 22, 23; Chicago Tribune, Dec. 21, 25.

1 Letter of Chase of Dec. 20, Warden, p. 510. 2 Warden, p. 507.