Representatives who Voted for the Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, Abolishing Slavery, 38th Congress

RANDALL, William H.  Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, in 1862, elected a Representative to Congress from Kentucky, and was re-elected in 1864. voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.  


WILLIAM H. RANDALL was born in Kentucky. He studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1835. Having held the office of Clerk of the Circuit Court for a number of years, he was, in 1862, elected a Representative to Congress from Kentucky, and was re-elected in 1864. His successor in the Fortieth Congress is George M. Adams.

History of the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States. By William H. Barnes, 1868,



RICE, Alexander H.  1818-1895.  Republican Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Boston, Massachusetts.  Four term Congressman, December 1859-March 1867.  Voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery. 


ALEXANDER H. RICE was born in Newton, Massachusetts, in August, 1818. He graduated at Union College in 1844, and subsequently engaged in the manufacture of paper. In 1853 he was elected a member and President of the City Council of Boston. In 1856 and 1857 he was Mayor of Boston. In 1858 he was elected a Representative from Massachusetts to the Thirty-Sixth Congress, and was re-elected to the Thirty-Seventh, Thirty-Eighth, and Thirty-Ninth Congresses. He was succeeded in the Fortieth Congress by Ginery Twitchell.

History of the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States. By William H. Barnes, 1868.

Rice entered politics in 1853 as a Whig member of the Common Council of Boston. Reelected in 1854, he was made its president. He was one of the organizers of the Republican party in Massachusetts, and he was that party's first mayor of Boston (1856 and 1857), though elected on the "Citizen's" ticket over the "Know Nothing" candidate. During his terms as mayor, improvements in the Back Bay section were inaugurated, the City Hospital was established, 'and the city's public institutions were organized under a single board. He returned to politics as a Republican congressman (1859-67), being assigned to the Committee on Naval Affairs, of which he was chairman in 1866. From 1876 to 1878 he was governor of Massachusetts. During his three terms he was much interested in social legislation, but a plan for the reorganization of the state charities presented during this period by a special commission was rejected by the legislature. The hospitals for the insane at Danvers and Worcester were completed while he was in office. He commuted, on the grounds of youth, the death sentence of Jesse Pomeroy, the notorious murderer. His stand against change in the new local-option law on the grounds that there were no evidences of flagrant evils resulting from it and that it should be tested further before the passage of other legislation brought upon him unjust criticism from many prohibitionists, but his geniality, combined with thoughtfulness, discernment, and, sound judgment, won for him quite general favor.
He was a member of many learned societies and a trustee of many important public institutions, while his broad interests and commanding oratory made him much in demand as a speaker on public occasions. He was twice married: first, August 19, 1845, to Augusta E. McKim of Lowell, who died in 1868, having borne two sons and two daughters; and; second to Angie Erickson Powell of Rochester; New York, He died after a long illness at the Langwood Hotel in Melrose.  Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Volume 8, Pt. 1, pp. 534-535




RICE, John H., Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, in 1860, he was elected a Representative from Maine to the Thirty-Seventh Congress. He was re-elected to the Thirty-Eighth and Thirty-Ninth Congresses. voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.


JOHN H. RICE was born in Mount Vernon, Maine, February 5,1816. Having been successively sheriff, lumberman, and lawyer, he was, in 1852, elected State Attorney of Maine. He held this office until 1860, when he was elected a Representative from Maine to the Thirty-Seventh Congress. He was re-elected to the Thirty-Eighth and Thirty-Ninth Congresses. He was succeeded in the Fortieth Congress by John A. Peters. 

History of the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States. By William H. Barnes, 1868,



ROLLINS, Edward Henry, 1824-1889.  Republican Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from New Hampshire.  He performed important services in the merger of Know-Nothings, Free Soilers, Whigs, and anti-slavery Democrats into a coherent and enthusiastic party. The even balance of party strength and the fact that New Hampshire elections came in the spring made the state a pivotal one in national affairs and the work of Rollins attracted much attention. He was chairman of the Republican state committee from 1856 to 1861, resigning in the latter year because of his election to Congress.
Served in Congress July 1861-March 1867.  U.S. Senator 1877-1883.  Voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.


EDWARD H. ROLLINS was born in Rollingford, New Hampshire, October 3, 1824. Having received an academical education, he taught school for some time, and subsequently engaged in mercantile pursuits. From 1855 to 1857 he was a member of the New Hampshire Legislature, and during two years was Speaker of the House. In 1856 he was Chairman of the State Republican Committee. In 1860 he was elected a Representative from New Hampshire to the Thirty-Seventh Congress, and was re elected to the Thirty-Eighth and Thirty-ninth Congresses., His successor in the Fortieth Congress is Aaron F. Stevens.

History of the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States. By William H. Barnes, 1868,

In 1847 he bought a drug business in Concord, N. H, with which he was associated until 1861. On February 13, 1849, he married Ellen Elizabeth West.

His business prospered, his store became a rendezvous for local politicians and party workers, and the proprietor, an anti-slavery Whig, was soon a rising politician. He was a state committeeman for the Whig party in its moribund years, 1850-53, and passed via the Know-Nothing route into the new Republican organization. He was elected to the lower house of the legislature in 1855 and became speaker a year later. He performed important services in the merger of Know-Nothings, Free Soilers, Whigs, and anti-slavery Democrats into a coherent and enthusiastic party. The even balance of party strength and the fact that New Hampshire elections came in the spring made the state a pivotal one in national affairs and the work of Rollins attracted much attention. He was chairman of the Republican state committee from 1856 to 1861, resigning in the latter year because of his election to Congress.

He served three consecutive terms in the House and proved himself a conscientious committeeman, a stalwart supporter of war measures, and an indefatigable worker for the interests of his state and constituents. After the expiration of his third term he was again elected chairman of the state committee, serving from 1868 to 1872, and exercising a great influence on campaigns and policies when no longer a member. A textbook on party methods and practices could be written from his experiences in keeping New Hampshire in the Republican column. A profound believer in Republican principles, opposed to conciliation with the South, a conservative with scant tolerance for reform in any guise, but personally honest and fearless, he was distinctly a product of the era. He was a skilful manager of caucuses and conventions, an adept distributor of patronage and spoils, but emerged unsmirched from the political scandals of the period.

In 1869, through the influence of Oakes Ames [q.v.], a personal friend, he became assistant treasurer of the Union Pacific Railroad and secretary of its board of directors; two years later he was promoted to the post of treasurer. He had no connection with the Credit Mobilier organization but his relationship to the railroad company caused increasing opposition to his candidacy for the United States Senate, and after his election for the term 1877-83 he deemed it advisable to sever it. In the Senate he followed much the same course he had pursued earlier in the House. His failure to secure a reelection, due to the popularity of the doctrine of rotation which he had clone much to foster and to the increasing restiveness of other leaders under the dominance of the Rollins machine, was a severe disappointment and led to his gradual retirement from active politics.

Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Volume 8, Pt. 2, p. 120.


ROLLINS, James S.


ROLLINS, JAMES SIDNEY, a Representative from Missouri; born in Richmond, Madison County, Kentucky, April 19, 1812; completed preparatory studies; attended Centre College, Danville, Kentucky, and was graduated from the University of Indiana at Bloomington in 1830; studied law; was admitted to the bar in 1834 and commenced practice in Columbia, Missouri; served as major in the Black Hawk War; member of the state house of representatives 1838-1840, 1854, and 1867; delegate to the Whig National Convention in 1844; served in the state senate 1846-1848; unsuccessful candidate for governor in 1848 and 1857; elected as a Constitutional Unionist to the Thirty-seventh Congress and reelected as a Unionist to the Thirty-eighth Congress (March 4, 1861-March 3, 1865); resumed the practice of his profession; delegate to the Philadelphia Union Convention in 1866; president of the board of curators of the University of Missouri from 1869 to 1886, when he resigned; died in Columbia, Boone County, Missouri, January 9, 1888; interment in Columbia Cemetery.  

Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774-Present. 

ROLLINS, JAMES SIDNEY (April 19, 1812-January 9, 1888), congressman, was born at Richmond, Kentucky, the son of Anthony Wayne Rollins, a native of Pennsylvania and prominent physician, and Sallie (Rodes) Rollins. His grandfather, Henry Rollins, was a native of Ireland. James Sidney attended Richmond Academy, spent two years at Washington College; and graduated in 1830 with highest honor s from the Indiana University. Rejoining his family in Columbia, Missouri, he read law for a time in the offices of Abiel Leonard, then served in the Black Hawk War. In 1834 he completed his legal education at Transylvania University. He develop ed a large practice, but the routine and delay of the law irked him, and as early as 1836 he turned to public affairs. By inheritance and by conviction a Whig, he edited the Columbia Patriot and in 1838 was elected to the legislature from a strongly Whig county. As a legislator he achieved marked distinction in the decade 1838-48. His lifelong interests were education and public improvements. He sponsored in 1839 legislation which gave form and substance to the state university, while his effective and eloquent leadership of the cause of hi g her education resulted in public grants and in private donations which secured the location of the institution at Columbia. Through successive sessions he urged upon politically hostile and indifferent colleagues the desirability of internal improvements, of wider educational opportunities, and of social legislation. He was an ardent supporter of Clay, and by 1848 he had become the recognized leader of the Missouri Whigs, the minority party in the state. As candidate for governor in 1848 he secured the largest vote ever cast for a Whig. He echoed no popular slogans and had no effective political organization, but his eloquence and presentation of issues attracted many followers.

After several years of successful practice, Rollins returned in 1854 to the legislature, when the issue of slavery in the territories was a threat to the maintenance and integrity of his party. Although a slave-owner, he believed and maintained that it was the right and duty of Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories He was again a candidate for governor in 1857, receiving the support of former Whigs, Native Americans, and many Benton Democrats (Weekly Jefferson Inquirer, May 2, 1857). His defeat by 230 votes ended a brilliant but futile party leadership of twelve years. As the crisis of 1860 approached, he supported the Bell-Everett ticket and became a candidate for Congress. As a border-state moderate in a slave-owning constituency he was willing fully to recognize the complaints of the South but refused to sanction secession. Both he and John B. Henderson, his opponent, emphatically disavowed any antislavery sentiment, and Rollins won. He was reelected easily in 1862, as a Conservative-Unionist. Primarily concerned with preserving the Union, with or without slavery, he had the confidence of Lincoln and gave the government loyal and courageous support. He opposed confiscation, the Emancipation Proclamation, military government, and had grave doubt of the compensated emancipation plan for loyal slaveowners in Missouri. "I am for the Constitution and the Union as our fathers made them-I want no change" (Congressional Globe, Appendix, 37 Congress, 3 Session, p. 106). By 1865, however, he realized that slavery must be abolished, and he supported the resolution submitting the Thirteenth Amendment. Singularly free from the intolerance and fanaticism of some border state politicians, he opposed the proscriptive and punitive spirit and measures both in Missouri and in the nation.

In 1866 a crisis in the affairs of the University induced Rollins to reenter the legislature where he remained until 1872. The institution was in a dismal plight. The Republican majority was hostile toward it; the resources were almost exhausted, and public opinion generally indifferent. He met the difficult situation with tact and enthusiasm, and, by judicious concessions, was instrumental in securing the enactment of five significant statutes, 1867-72, relating to the University and to the newly created College of Agriculture. By these measures the institution was placed upon a solid and permanent foundation. Opposed to radical Republicanism, he aided in the restoration of the state Democracy in 1867-68, although he was never in complete accord with the Democratic party. His conciliatory policy, wisely dictated in behalf of educational legislation, was unpopular with many. With Carl Schurz and B. Gratz Brown he was a leader in the Liberal Republican movement. His lifelong ambition to be governor was finally frustrated in 1872 when the former Confederate element defeated him in the Democratic state convention. He retired from active politics in that year. Of tall and commanding presence, with resonant voice and facile rhetoric, he captivated his audiences and was easily one of the first citizens of the state for half a century. He died after a lingering illness, survived by his wife, Mary E. Hickman, whom he had married on June 6, 1837, and by seven of their eleven children.

Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Volume 8, Pt. 2, pp. 121-122.



SCHENCK, Robert Cumming, 1809-1890, diplomat, Union general.  Member of the U.S. House of Representatives.  Three-term Whig Representative to Congress, December 1843-March 1851.  Re-elected December 1863, 1864, 1866, 1868.  A strong anti-slavery man, Schenck was one of the first to urge Lincoln's nomination and was an active Republican campaigner in 1860. Voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.


ROBERT CUMMING SCHENCK was born in Franklin, Warren County, Ohio, October 4, 1809. His father, General William C. Schenck, was one of the early settlers in the Miami Valley, and served in the Northwestern Army under General Harrison. He died at the capital of Ohio while a member of the General Assembly.

At fifteen years of age young Schenck entered the Sophomore Class in the Miami University at Oxford, Ohio, where he graduated in 1827. He remained at Oxford as a tutor of Latin and French until he received his Master's degree in 1830. He then commenced the study of law in Lebanon, with the celebrated Thomas Corwin. Having completed his course of legal studies, he removed to Dayton, where he entered upon the practice of law. Here his legal acquirements and ability as an advocate gave him rapid advancement in his profession, and secured him a large and lucrative practice. In 1838 he was first a candidate for public office. He ran on the Whig ticket for the legislature, and failed by a few votes to be elected. He entered with zeal into the presidential canvass of 1840, and obtained a reputation as a popular speaker second to none in Ohio, save that of Corwin. In 1841 he was elected to the legislature of Ohio, and was recognized as a leading spirit among the Whigs in that body. At the extra session of the legislature in the summer of 1842, he defeated the scheme of the Democrats to pass an apportionment bill arranging the districts in such a way as to promote the interests of the Democratic party. Through his influence the Whig members of both branches of the legislature resigned. The remainder, being less than a quorum, were unable to carry out their plan of “Gerrymandering” the State. At the following session an apportionment bill, not so odious as the first, was passed in time for the Congressional election.

Mr. Schenck was re-elected to the legislature by an increased majority. He distinguished himself by laboring to secure economy in the finances, advocating internal improvements, and assisting to effect a revision of the school law. Mr. Schenck rose so rapidly in the estimation of his party, that he was, in 1843, nominated for Congress, and was elected by a large majority, in a district which was usually very close. He served in Congress with great efficiency during four successive terms. He was a member of several important committees, and in the Thirtieth Congress was Chairman of the Committee of Roads and Canals. He was recognized as one of the Whig leaders of the House. He took a prominent part in discussions, and was regarded as a very formidable competitor in debate. In 1850, Mr. Schenck refused a re-nomination for Congress, and was the following year appointed, by President Fillmore, Minister to Brazil. His powers were subsequently extended by a commission to treat with the authorities of Uruguay and Paraguay. He negotiated several important treaties, by one of which the navigation of the River La Plata and its tributaries was made “free to the merchant flags of all nations.” · After Mr. Schenck's return to the United States in 1854, for a number of years he took no active part in politics. In addition to occasional practice at the bar, he was engaged in the management of a line of railroad from Fort Wayne, Indiana, to the Mississippi River. · At the election of a successor to Mr. Chase as United States Senator, Mr. Schenck received the vote of the opposition to the Democracy, but the preponderance of this party secured the election of its candidate, Mr. Pugh. Immediately after the attack on Fort Sumter, Mr. Schenck tendered his services to President Lincoln, who commissioned him a Brigadier-General of Volunteers on the 17th of May, 1861.

On the 17th of June, 1861, General Schenck was ordered to take possession of the Loudon and Hampshire railroad as far as Vienna. Under instructions from General Scott, the road had been reconnoitered the day before, and no enemy discovered. General Schenck was ordered to place a regiment of his brigade in cars, and establish guards at certain points designated along the road. As the train was approaching Vienna, with but two companies on board, it was fired upon by a masked battery. Three cars were disabled, ten men were killed and two wounded. The locomotive being in the rear, the engineer treacherously uncoupled, and returned to Alexandria, leaving the little band in the midst of a largely superior force, supported by artillery and cavalry. The rebels numbered eight hundred men, mainly. South Carolinians, under command of General Gregg. General Schenck with great coolness rallied his men. So much courage was displayed that the rebels withdrew, impressed with the belief that a heavy force must be in reserve. At the battle of Bull Run, July 21, 1861, General Schenck commanded a brigade embracing the First and Second Ohio, the Second New York, and a battery of six-pounders. His position was on the Warrenton Road, near the stone bridge. About four o'clock in the afternoon General Schenck received orders to retreat, and forming his brigade brought off his men in such an orderly manner as to distinguish them from the frightened mob which comprised the fragments of the disintegrated army. But for this orderly movement the day's disaster would have been far greater, for General Beauregard gave it as one reason why pursuit was not made that he was satisfied large re-inforcements held the Warrenton Road. General Schenck was next assigned to the command of a brigade in West Virginia, and was actively engaged in the campaigns on the Kenawha and New Rivers. On the death of General Lander, he was ordered to Cumberland, Maryland, where he found everything in a state of confusion. Here he found scope for the exercise of his administrative abilities, and soon succeeded in restoring order and enforcing discipline.

General Schenck was next ordered to move up the south branch of the Potomac. In obedience to this order, he successively occupied and held Moorfield, Petersburg, Franklin, and other important points. He was then ordered to push on to the relief of General Milroy, who was at McDowell with a force of about four thousand men. When within twenty-two miles of McDowell, a dispatch was received from General Milroy, stating that the enemy was at least fourteen thousand strong, and would undoubtedly attack the next morning. General Schenck pushed onward with about fifteen hundred infantry, one battalion of cavalry, and a battery of artillery. The march was continued all night, and a conjunction of the forces was effected early in the morning. On consultation, General Schenck and General Milroy agreed that they could not hold the place against such a force as the enemy possessed. Instead of awaiting an attack or commencing a retreat, a feint of strength was made, and hard fighting continued until dark. Meanwhile baggage was sent off in wagon trains, and, after the close of the day's demonstration, the entire army was brought off with slight loss, considering the immense odds against it. The commander of the department pronounced the march to the relief of Milroy, the battle, and the subsequent retreat, one of the most brilliant achievements that had thus far marked the campaigns of that region. At the battle of Cross Keys General Schenck occupied the right of the line. The rebels in heavy force attempted to flank his position. They were promptly repulsed, and fell back under a well-directed artillery fire. Until three o'clock in the afternoon, the right continued to press the enemy, and in no instance lost any part of the field they had gained. When the left gave way, General Fremont ordered General Schenck to fall back to the strong position occupied in the morning. General Fremont, when relieved of his command, turned it over to General Schenck, who, in the absence of General Sigel, had command of the First Corps of the Army of Virginia. General Schenck, with his division, took an active part in the second battle of Bull Run. His orders were given with great promptness and judgment, and he displayed much coolness and bravery on the field. On the second day of the battle, in the thickest of the fight, he was severely wounded. A ball struck his right arm, by which his sword was thrown some distance from him. As the position was much exposed, his staff desired to carry him instantly off the field, but he persistently and repeatedly refused to go until his sword should be found. He was conveyed to Washington, and the day following his arrival the President and other distinguished persons visited him and gave him most cordial expressions of sympathy and praise. He was shortly afterwards promoted to the rank of Major-General Secretary Stanton stated in a letter accompanying the commission, that no official act of his was ever performed with greater pleasure than the forwarding of this appointment. General Schenck recovered slowly, and six months elapsed before he was again fit for field duty. Before he had entirely recovered from his wound, on the 11th of December, 1862, he was assigned by the President to the command of the Middle Department, Eighth Army Corps, with headquarters at Baltimore. This was one of the most difficult posts of duty in the entire service, and his fitness for it was inferred from his great reputation and experience in civil affairs. General Schenck's administration fully met public expectation. He displayed great executive ability, firmness, and determination. He arrested and promptly punished many who to “declarations of sympathy with treason” added “acts of complicity.” As the rebels of Maryland attempted to fight the battles of the “ Confederacy” at the ballot-box, it became a part of General Schenck's duty to provide that Union men should be protected at the polls, and that voters should take a suitable oath of allegiance. To effect these objects, General Schenck issued “General Order Fifty-three,” celebrated among the official documents of the war, and especially odious to all secession sympathizers. Winter Davis and other Union leaders of Maryland were accustomed to speak of him as the savior of the State.

On the 5th of December, 1863, General Schenck resigned his commission to take a seat in Congress as a Representative from the Third Ohio District. He was immediately appointed to the responsible position of Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, which he held during the Thirty-eighth and Thirty-ninth Congresses. In this position he had to do with questions of the utmost importance affecting the immense army then engaged in suppressing the rebellion. He projected many important features in the military measures which tended to promote the efficiency and success of the army. He was the firm friend of the volunteer as against the encroachments and assumptions of the regulars. He was a vigorous advocate of the draft, the enemy of deserters, and the champion of private soldiers. On taking his seat by re-election in the Fortieth Congress, General Schenck was appointed to the most important and responsible position in the House—the Chairmanship of the Committee of Ways and Means. His sound views on financial questions and his great industry well fitted him for the important and laborious duties pertaining to this committee. His force of character, his strength of will, his readiness in debate, and his general abilities as a statesman, make him practically as well as technically “Leader of the House."

The Fortieth Congress of the United States: Historical and Biographical. By William H. Barnes, Volume 1, 1869.



SCOFIELD, Glenni W.  born 1817, lawyer, jurist.  Republican Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Pennsylvania.  Congressman December 1863-March 1875.  Voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD was born in Chautauqua County, The New York, March 11, 1817. In early life he had such educational advantages as are usually furnished in the common schools. When about fourteen years of age, he quit school to learn printing, and worked at this trade about three years. At seventeen he went back to his books, and entered upon a course of classical study. In the fall of 1836, he entered Hamilton College, New York, as a Freshman, and graduated from this institution, with fair rank of scholarship, in 1840. The two years immediately following his graduation, he spent in teaching; the first in Fauquier County, Virginia, and the second in McKean County, Pennsylvania. While teaching, he studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1812, and at once entered upon the practice of his profession at Warren, Pennsylvania, where he has ever since resided.

Except when interrupted by several terms of service in the State Legislature and the National Congress, his whole time has been devoted to his profession. In 1819, he was elected to the Legislature of his State, and re-elected in 1850. While a member of this body, he was esteemed one of its most effective debaters, and was chairman of the Judiciary Committee. His speech on the elective judiciary was quite widely circulated at the time, and attracted considerable attention throughout the State. Although during this term of service in the Legislature lie acted with the Democratic party, as he did some years subsequently, he was always an anti-slavery man. During his college life he was a member of an Abolition society formed by a number of young men in the Institution, and never relinquished his early convictions in hostility to slavery. In accordance with these convictions, and while still acting with the Democratic party, he advocated the Wilmot Proviso, opposed the Fugitive Slave Law, and the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, taking the anti-slavery side of all kindred questions.

When the Republican party was formed in 1856, he immediately severed his old party connections, and in a public address united his political fortunes with the new party of freedom and progress. In the fall of that year he was nominated by the Republicans for the State Senate; and in a district before largely Democratic, was elected by a majority of twelve hundred. He occupied this position three years, and ably sustained the reputation which he had gained as a debater in the lower branch of the Legislature. While in the Senate he introduced and advocated bills to exempt the homestead from sale for debt, and to abrogate the laws excluding witnesses from testifying on account of religious belief. Neither of these bills passed; but Mr. Scofield's speeches in their favor, which were reported and printed, prove that they should have passed. His bills were voted down, but his arguments were not answered. He was more successful in his efforts to procure State aid for the construction of the Philadelphia and Erie Railroad. This aid secured the construction of a line of road which has already worked wonders in the development of that large and previously wild and neglected section of the State in which he resided. For a short time in 1861, he was President Judge of the District composed of the Counties of Mercer, Venango, Clarion, and Jefferson, having been appointed by Governor Curtin to fill a vacancy.

In 1862, he was elected to the Thirty-eighth Congress, and reelected to the Thirty-ninth, Fortieth, and Forty-first. During his term of Congressional service, he has uniformly acted with the Radical Republicans. As a debater, Mr. Scofield has been much admired for his analytical, terse, and logical style. Without striving to be amusing, he not unfrequently enlivens his argument by pungent satire and humorous illustrations; but the general character of his efforts is that of clear statement and close reasoning. He seems to aim only at conviction. The following extract from a speech delivered in reply to Mr. Brooks of New York, in January, 1865, in the House of Representatives, is a fair specimen of his style of address and power of discussion :

“It has been often said of late that history repeats itself. Of course, it cannot be literally true; but the gentleman reiterates it, and then proceeds to search for the prototype of the terrible drama now being enacted on this continent, and affects to find it in the Revolution of 1776. Having settled this point to his own satisfaction, he proceeds to assign to the living actors their historic parts. The rebels take the position of the colonial revolutionists; the Government of the United States re-enacts the part of George III. and his Ministers; while for himself and the Opposition debaters of this House, he selects the honorable role of Chatham, Fox, Burke, and other champions of colonial rights in the British Parliament. Let us examine this. It is true that the colonists rebelled against the Government of Great Britain, and the slaveholders rebelled against the Government of the United States ; but here the likeness ends. Between the circumstances that might provoke or justify rebellion in the two cases, there is no resemblance. The Government from which the colonies separated was three thousand miles beyond the seas. They could not even communicate with it in those days in less than two or three months. In that Government they had no representation, and their wants and wishes no authoritative voice. Nor was it the form of government most acceptable to the colonists. They preferred a republic. The rapidly-increasing population and the geographical extent and position of the colonies, demanded nationality. Sooner or later it must come. The tea tax and other trifling grievances only hurried on an event that was sure to occur from the influences of geography and population alone. How is it in these respects with the present rebellion? The Government against which the slaveholders rebelled was not a foreign one; it was as much theirs as ours. They  were fully represented in it. There was scarcely a law-indeed I think there was not a single law upon the statute-book, to which they had not given their assent. It was the Government they helped to make, and it was made as they wanted it. They had ever had their share of control and patronage in it, and more than their share, for they boasted with much truth that cotton was king. Nor is there any geographical reasons in their favor. It is conceded even by the rebels themselves that a division of the territory lying compactly between the Lakes and the Gulf, the Atlantic and the Mississippi, into two nations would be a great misfortune to both. If it were the Pacific States demanding separation, bad as that would be, there would be some sense in it; but for this territory, you cannot even find a dividing line. When you attempt to run one, the rivers and mountains cross your purpose. Both the land and the water oppose division. There is no disunion outside the wicked hearts of these disloyal men. I can see no resemblance, then, between our patriot fathers, who toiled through a seven years' war to establish this beneficent Government, and the traitors who drench the land in blood in an attempt—I trust in God a vain one-to destroy it.

“Again, sir, in what respect do the apologists of the present rebellion in this House resemble the advocates of our great Revolution in the British Parliament? Conceding they are their equals in statesmanship, learning, eloquence, and wit, I submit that they fall fa! below them in the merit of their respective causes. Chatham defended the cause of the colonists as set forth in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' the honorable gentleman from New York pleads for slavery, the auction block, the coffle, the lash. With slavery he cures all national troubles. He begs for harmony among ourselves. How shall we be united ? “Restore slavery,' says he. He is opposed to war. How, then, shall rebels in arms be subdued ? 'Revive the traffic in blood.' He is opposed to taxes. How, then, shall our exhausted Treasury be replenished? 'Raise more children for the market.' Slavery, more slavery, still more slavery, is the only prescription of the Opposition doctors. “

There is another party that figures largely in the history of the revolutionary struggle that the gentleman entirely omitted to name. He gave them no place in his cast of parts. The omission may be attributed to either modesty or forgetfulness. Prior to the Revolution, the members of this party had filled all the places of honor and profit in the colonies; and when the war came, they heartily espoused the cause of the king, though they did not generally join his armies. Their principal business was to magnify disaster, depreciate success, denounce the currency, complain of the taxes, and denounce and dodge arbitrary arrests. To the patriot cause they were ever prophets of evil. Failure was their word. The past was a failure, the future would be. In the beginning of the war this party was in the majority in some of the colonies, and constituted a large minority in all; but as the war progressed, their numbers constantly diminished. Many of the leaders were from time to time sent beyond the “lines," and their estates confiscated. Most of these settled in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, right handy to the place where the gentleman informs us he was born. The members of this party were called Tories; and if this war is but a repetition of the war of the Revolution, as the gentleman intimates, who are their present representatives?

“ Again exclaims the gentleman: 'You cannot subjugate eight million people. I know not which most to condemn in this expression (I speak it of course without personal application), its insinuation of falsehood or its confession of cowardice. The United States does not propose to subjugate any portion of its people, but only to exact obedience to law from all. It is this misrepresentation of the purpose of the Government that still keeps alive the dying flames of the rebellion. I can go further with perfect truth, and say it was this misrepresentation that lighted those flames at the first. The slaveholders were told that it was the purpose of this Administration to destroy their personal and political rights; next, they were  reminded that they were proud, brave, chivalric men, and then tauntingly asked if they were going to submit. They were thus fairly coaxed and goaded into rebellion. Except for this misrepresentation, the Union people would have been in a large majority in all the slave States; and despite it, they are in a majority in more then half of them to-day, if they could be heard. But they are gagged, bound hand and foot, by a despotism so cruel and so mean, so thorough and so efficient, that even the gentleman from New York has no fault to find with it. The country is too much engaged now with the immediate actors in the drama, to look behind the scenes for the author's and prompters of the play. But when these actors have disappeared from the stage, gone down to graves never to be honored, or wandering among strangers never to be loved; in the peaceful future, when inquisition shall be made for the contrivers, instigators, aiders, and abettors of this great crime, the two classes so often coupled in denunciation in this hall, the Abolitionists of the North and the fire-eaters of the South, will be scarcely noticed; but the quiet historian will point his slow, moving finger' at those Northern leaders, who for fifteen years lave deceived the South and betrayed the North. They will stand alone. The large minority that now gathers around them, moved thereto more in hopes to escape the severe hardships of the war, than from any love of them or their position, will have melted away from their support like dissolving ice beneath their feet; and well will it be for their posterity if they can manage then, like Byron's wrecks, to sink into the

“Depths with bubbling groan, Without a grave, unknelled, unconfined, and unknown.'

“Subjugate the South! No, sir. It is the purpose as it is the duty of the Government to liberate the South, to drive out the usurpers, and to restore to the deluded and betrayed masses the blessings of a free Republic."  

The Fortieth Congress of the United States: Historical and Biographical. By William H. Barnes, Volume 1, 1869. 

SCOFIELD, Glenni William, jurist, born in Chautauqua county, New York, 11 March, 1817. After graduation at Hamilton college in 1840, he removed to Pennsylvania, studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1843. He was a member of the Pennsylvania assembly in 1850-'l and of the state senate in 1857-'9, and in 1861 was appointed president judge of the 18th judicial district. He was then elected to congress as a Republican, and served from 7 December, 1863, till 3 March, 1875. He took an active part in the reconstruction measures, and served on important committees, being chairman of that on naval affairs. On 28 March, 1878, he was appointed register of the treasury, and he served until 1881, when he was appointed an associate justice of the U. S. court of claims. Hamilton gave him the degree of LL. D. in 1884.

Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Volume V, pp. 434.



SHANNON, Thomas B.  Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery. Elected as a Republican to the Thirty-eighth Congress (March 4, 1863-March 3, 1865); chairman, Committee on Expenditures in the Department of the Interior (Thirty-eighth Congress).     


SHANNON, THOMAS BOWLES, a Representative from California; born in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, September 21, 1827; attended the public schools; moved to Illinois in 1844 and to California in 1849; engaged in mercantile pursuits; member of the State assembly in 1859, 1860, and 1862; elected as a Republican to the Thirty-eighth Congress (March 4, 1863-March 3, 1865); chairman, Committee on Expenditures in the Department of the Interior (Thirty-eighth Congress); was not a candidate for renomination in 1864; appointed surveyor at the port of San Francisco August 11, 1865, and served four years; again a member of the State assembly in 1871 and 1872, and served as speaker the first year; appointed by President Grant collector of customs at San Francisco, California, and served from July 1, 1872, to August 10, 1880; resumed mercantile pursuits; died in San Francisco, California, February 21, 1897; interment in the Masonic Cemetery. 

Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774-Present.



SLOAN, Ithamar C.  Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.  In 1862 he was elected a Representative from Wisconsin to the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected to the Thirty-Ninth Congress.  


ITHAMAR C. SLOAN was born in Madison County, New York. He adopted the profession of law, and removed to Wisconsin in 1854. In 1858 and 1860 he was elected District Attorney of Rock County. In 1862 he was elected a Representative from Wisconsin to the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and was re-elected to the Thirty-Ninth Congress. He was succeeded in the Fortieth Congress by Benjamin F. Hopkins

History of the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States. By William H. Barnes, 1868, pp. 334, 335.



SMITH, Green Clay, SMITH, Green C., Union officer, member of the U.S. House of Representatives, voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.   Elected in December, 1863, took his seat as a Representative from Kentucky in the Thirty-Eighth Congress. He was re-elected a member of the Thirty-Ninth Congress.


GREEN CLAY SMITH was born in Richmond, Kentucky, July 2,1830. He graduated at Transylvania College in 1849, and in the Law Department of the same institution in 1852. He served in the Mexican War as Second Lieutenant, and at the breaking out of the rebellion was commissioned to command the Fourth Kentucky Cavalry. In 1862 he was appointed a Brigadier General, and subsequently reached the rank of Major General. After participating in numerous battles, he resigned his military commission in December, 1863, to take his seat as a Representative from Kentucky in the Thirty-Eighth Congress. He was re-elected a member of the Thirty-Ninth Congress, but before the expiration of his term he was appointed by the President Governor of the Territory of Montana. 

History of the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States. By William H. Barnes, 1868, p. 439.



SMITHERS, Nathaniel, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, elected as an Unconditional Unionist to the Thirty-eighth Congress to fill the vacancy caused by the death of William Temple and served from December 7, 1863, to March 3, 1865. Voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.


SMITHERS, NATHANIEL BARRATT, a Representative from Delaware; born in Dover, Delaware, October 8, 1818; was graduated from Lafayette College, Pennsylvania, in 1836; studied law; was admitted to the bar and commenced practice in Dover, Delaware, in 1840; secretary of State of Delaware January 20 to November 23, 1863; elected as an Unconditional Unionist to the Thirty-eighth Congress to fill the vacancy caused by the death of William Temple and served from December 7, 1863, to March 3, 1865; unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1864 to the Thirty-ninth Congress; resumed the practice of law in Dover; delegate to the Republican National Convention in 1864; died in Dover, Kent County, Delaware, January 16, 1896; interment in the Old Methodist Cemetery. 

Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774-Present.



SPALDING, Rufus Paine, 1798-1886, Massachusetts, lawyer, jurist.  Republican Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Ohio, 1863-1869.  Opposed the extension of slavery into the new territories.  In 1847, declared: “If the evil of slavery had been restricted, as it should have been, to the thirteen original states, self-interest might have led to the extinction of the practice long before now.”  Spalding joined the anti-slavery Free Soil Party in 1850.  He opposed the Fugitive Slave Act.  He encouraged fellow attorneys in Cleveland to oppose the Act.  He represented Underground Railroad conductor Simon Buswell in his defense, arguing the Fugitive Slave Act was unconstitutional.  He opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.  Spalding was elected to Congress in 1862.  While there, he introduced legislation to repeal the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850.  One of the organizers of the Republican Party.  Voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.


AMONG the older members of the Fortieth Congress, and one who retains the physical and intellectual vigor of a middle age, is Rufus Paine Spalding, of Cleveland, Ohio, who has, for six consecutive years, represented the Eighteenth Congressional District of that State.

He was born on the 3d day of May, 1798, at West Tisbury, on the Island of Martha's Vineyard, in the State of Massachusetts, where his father, Dr. Rufus Spalding, resided and practiced medicine for twenty years. He traces back his ancestry two hundred and twenty-eight years in a direct line to Edward Spalding, who was “made a Freeman " at Braintree, Massachusetts, in 1640. Benjamin Spalding, the son of Edward, migrated to Connecticut about the year 1665, and settled in the town of Plainfield, in the County of Windham. Dr. Rufus Spalding, the father of the subject of this sketch, was the great grandson of Benjamin Spalding, who thus settled in Connecticut.

In the spring of the year 1812, Dr. Spalding returned with his family to Connecticut, and took up his abode in the city of Norwich. After the usual preparatory studies, his son Rufus P. Spalding entered Yale College; and in the autumn of 1817, received from that institution the degree of Bachelor of Arts. Among the members of his class in college were Rt. Reverend Wm. H. De Lancy, Bishop of Western New York; Dr. Nathan R. Smith, of Baltimore; Prof. Lyman Coleman, of Easton, Pennsylvania; Hon. Charles J. McCurdy, at one time Minister to Austria, and now a Judge of the Supreme Court of Connecticut; Hon. Thomas B. Osborne, and Hon. Thomas T. Whittlesey, ex-members of Congress from Connecticut; Sam’l H. Perkins and Joel Jones, Esquires, eminent lawyers of Philadelphia ; J. Prescott Hall, Esq., U. S. District Attorney for New York, and others who also became distinguished for usefulness in life.

Immediately on leaving college, Mr. Spalding commenced the study of the law with Hon. Zephaniah Swift, the learned author of the “Digest,” who was then Chief Justice of Connecticut.

After reading the usual time, and receiving from his instructor the most flattering testimonials of his qualifications, he, like very many of the energetic young men of New England, made his way to the West; and after encountering various fortunes incident to a frontier settlement, he found himself, in December, 1819, at the old “Post of Arkansas," and shortly afterwards at “Little Rock,” in the practice of law, in co-partnership with Samuel Dinsmoor, Esq., since Governor of New Hampshire.

He remained in this new Territory until June, 1821, when he retraced his steps eastward, and was finally induced to throw out his sign as an “ Attorney at Law” in the pleasant village of Warren, the shire town of Trumbull County, Ohio.

In October, 1822, he was married to Lucretia A. Swift, the eldest daughter of the gentleman with whom he had studied his profession. Seven children, three sons and four daughters, were the offspring of this marriage, only three of whom now survive. They are Col. Zeph. S. Spalding, now United States Consul at Honolulu, Bt. Captain George S. Spalding, First Lieutenant 33d U. S. Infantry, and Mrs. Lucretia McIlrath, the wife of Charles McIlrath, Esq., of St. Paul, Minnesota. In January, 1859, Judge Spalding was married to his present wife, the eldest daughter of Dr. Wm. S. Pierson, of Windsor, Conn.

After a residence of more than sixteen years in Warren, Mr. Spalding removed to Ravenna, in the County of Portage. In the fall of 1839, he was chosen by a majority of one vote over his opponent, to represent the people of Portage County in the General Assembly of Ohio. The Legislature, mainly through the active exertions of Mr. Spalding, passed an act at this session, erecting the new County of Summit, of which he soon became an inhabitant by transferring his residence to Akron, the county seat.

In 1841-2, he was again a member of the Legislature, as a representative from the new county. At this time he was chosen Speaker of the House, and became justly popular as an able and successful presiding officer. In conjunction with the late Governor John Brough, then Auditor of State, he took strong ground against the effort, then being made, to repudiate the public debt of Ohio, and, by his personal influence, did much to prevent the disastrous consequences which must always attach to such pernicious legislation.

In the winter of 1848-9, Mr. Spalding was elected, by joint vote of the two Houses of the General Assembly, a Judge of the Supreme Court of Ohio, for the constitutional term of seven years, of which le served, however, but three years, as the new Constitution, then adopted, re-organized the Judiciary, and Judge Spalding declined being a candidate in the popular canvass that followed.

The following extract from a letter written to the author, by Hon. William Lawrence, M. C., who was the Reporter of the decisions of the Supreme Court of Ohio during all the time Judge Spalding was upon the Bench, will serve to show his qualifications for that high trust:

“ The judicial services of Judge Spalding commenced March 7, 1849, and ended February 1, 1852. He brought to the exalted position the force of a vigorous and cultivated intellect, imbued with a profound knowledge of the law, and enriched with classical attainments of no ordinary character, His opinions will be found in volumes 18, 19, and 20 of the Ohio Reports; and it is, at least, no disparagement to others to say, that Judge Spalding has never had a superior on the Bench of the State. His opinions are remarkable specimens of judicial literature, distinguished for the force of their logic, their terse, clear, emphatic style, and a precision of expression unsurpassed even by the learned English judges whose decisions are found in the celebrated Reports of Durnford and East.

“The generous nature and urbane deportment of Judge Spalding was such that lie enjoyed the profound respect and esteem of the Bar, and all with whom he was associated, as the writer of this has abundant means of knowing.”

On retiring from the Bench, Judge Spalding removed to the city of Cleveland, where he at once entered upon a lucrative business in the practice of his profession. As an advocate and counselor he maintained the highest rank in his State.

In politics, the Judge was an active and devoted member of the Democratic party, from the days of Andrew Jackson until the passage of the Fugitive Slave Law in 1850, when he threw all his energy and influence into the ranks of the “Free-Soil” or “ Anti-Slavery” party.

He was a member of the Convention at Pittsburg, in February, 1852; and it was on his motion that John P. Hale was nominated for the Presidency. He was again a member of the Pittsburg Convention of 1856, which originated the Republican party; and he was, the same year, one of the delegates at large from the State of Ohio, to the National Convention in Philadelphia, which nominated John C. Fremont. In May, 1868, he was a delegate to the Convention in Chicago, which nominated General U. S. Grant for President.

In October, 1862, Judge Spalding was chosen to represent the Eighteenth Congressional District, made up of the Counties of Cuyahoga, Lake, and Summit, in the Congress of the United States. He was re-elected in October, 1864, and again in October, 1866, so that he served in the Thirty-eighth, Thirty-ninth, and Fortieth Congresses. In the spring of 1868, he addressed a letter to his constituents, declining to be again a candidate.

In the Thirty-eighth Congress he was a member of the Standing Committee on Naval Affairs, the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions, and served as Chairman on the Select Committee on the Bankrupt Law.

In the Thirty-ninth Congress he was made a member of the Standing Committee on Appropriations, and continued to serve on the Committee on Bankruptcy, of which Mr. Jenckes was then Chairman. Soon after the opening of the first session of this Congress, Mr. Spalding made a speech in which he indicated the measures which he regarded as necessary to be adopted in order to reconstruct the rebel States. The suggestions then made were for the most part afterwards adopted by Congress. The military features of the Reconstruction Acts originated in an amendment offered by Mr. Spalding to Mr. Stevens' first bill.

In the Fortieth Congress he was placed on the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on the Revision of the Laws of the United States, and upon the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress. He took an important part in the investigation and discussion of the financial questions which enlisted the attention of this Congress. In May, 1868, he delivered in the House of Representatives a speech on “ The Political and Financial Condition of the Country,” from which we make an extract from his able argument, showing the unconstitutionality of Legal Tenders :

" It is my purpose to show that this cherished plan of paying off the interest-bearing bonds of the Government with the United States ‘legal-tender 'notes, has no warrant in the Constitution of the United States, in the act of Congress of February 25, 1862, which first authorized their issue; neither is it justified by the plainest principles of political economy, or the soundest precepts of common sense.

“In the first place, I meet the whole question without gloves,' and affirm that there exists no constitutional power in the Congress of the United States to make paper money a ‘legal tender’ in payment of debts. I admit that under the pressure of extreme necessity, and in order to save the life of the nation, Congress did, in the darkest hours of the rebellion, assume the right to impress on a limited amount of Treasury notes the quality of a ‘legal tender.' And I admit that this extreme measure was justified by the extraordinary circumstances under which it was adopted, and that, under like circumstances, I should not hesitate to repeat the experiment; but I can yield nothing further. A measure of national defense under the weighty pressure of war that brings a strain upon the Constitution of the country, is not to be continued, much less extended, as a principle of financial policy in times of peace, without seriously endangering the whole framework of our Government.

“ The wise men who, in 1787, constructed the great charter of our national rights, had experimental knowledge of the pernicious tendencies of an irredeemable paper currency; for in the year 1780, paper money issued to carry on the war of the Revolution had depreciated to such an extent that in the city of Philadelphia it was sold a hundred dollars in paper for one in silver. Hence it will be found that in framing the Constitution, they sought in every possible way to guard against the evils incident to a circulating medium made up of paper promises.?"

After citing the debates in the Convention which formed the Constitution, and the authority of its ablest expounders, Mr. Spalding remarked :

“It was reserved for the Thirty-seventh Congress of the United States to assert and exert a power, so obviously opposed to the wishes of the framers of the Constitution, to the letter and spirit of the instrument itself, and to its practical construction for three-fourths of a century. But it was exerted in the darkest hour of the nation's conflict with treason and rebellion. It was exerted ex necessitate, to save the life of our glorious Republic. * * *

“Mr. Chairman, I now solemnly aver that if I had been a member of the Thirty-seventh Congress, I would have voted under the pressure of circumstances for the passage of the act entitled “ An act to authorize the issue of United States notes, and for the redemption or funding thereof, and for the funding of the floating debt of the United States," approved February 25, 1862. And I affirm just as solemnly, that at no time since the surrender of Lee's army would I have felt justified in repeating that vote.”

Spalding's career in Congress has been that of a wise and patriotic legislator, eminently useful to the country, and highly honorable to himself. His name is associated with all the important legislation relative to the war of the rebellion and its results.

The Fortieth Congress of the United States: Historical and Biographical. By William H. Barnes, Volume 1, 1869.



STEELE, John B.   Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, elected as a Democrat to the Thirty-seventh and Thirty-eighth Congresses (March 4, 1861-March 3, 1865); voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.      


STEELE, JOHN BENEDICT, a Representative from New York; born in Delhi, New York, March 28, 1814; attended Delaware Academy at Delhi and was graduated in law from Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts; was admitted to the bar of Otsego County in 1839 and commenced practice in Cooperstown, New York; district attorney of Otsego County 1841-1847; moved to Kingston in 1847; elected special judge of Ulster County in 1850; elected as a Democrat to the Thirty-seventh and Thirty-eighth Congresses (March 4, 1861-March 3, 1865); was an unsuccessful candidate for renomination in 1864 to the Thirty-ninth Congress; was again a candidate for the nomination in 1866, but died on the eve of the primary; was accidentally killed in Rondout, near Kingston, New York, September 24, 1866; interment in Wiltwyck Cemetery, Kingston, New York. 

Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774-Present.



STEVENS, Thaddeus, 1792-1868, statesman, lawyer, abolitionist leader.  Anti-slavery leader in U.S. House of Representatives.  As member of Whig Party and leader of the radical Republican Party, urged Lincoln to issue Emancipation Proclamation.  Led the fight to pass Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, abolishing slavery and establishing citizenship, due process and equal protections for African Americans. 


THE picturesque mountainous region known as Caledonia County, in the State of Vermont, was the birth-place of Thaddeus Stevens. His father was Joshua Stevens, and his mother's maiden name was Sarah Morrill. “My father,” said Thaddeus Stevens, near the close of his life, “was not a well-to-do man, and the support and education of the family depended on my mother. She worked night and day to educate me. I was feeble and lame in my youth; and as I couldn't work on the farm, she concluded to give me an education. I tried to repay her afterward, but the debt of a child to his mother is one of the debts we can never pay. The greatest gratification of my life resulted from my ability to give my mother a farm of two hundred and fifty acres and a dairy of fourteen cows, and an occasional bright gold piece, which she loved to deposit in the contribution box of the Baptist church which she attended. This always gave her much pleasure and me much satisfaction. My mother was a very extraordinary woman, and I have met very few women like her. Poor woman ! the very thing I did to gratify her most, hastened her death. She was very proud of her dairy and fond of her cows, and one night, going out to look after them, she fell and injured herself so that she died soon after.”

Thaddeus Stevens ever cherished not only an affectionate memory of his mother, but a warm attachment to the place of his nativity. Late in life, he called his immense iron works in Franklin County, Pennsylvania, Caledonia, after the name of his native county.

In seeking an education, he first went as a student to the University of Vermont, at Burlington. Upon the occupation of the town by the British in the war of 1812, the institution was suspended, and young Stevens went to Dartmouth College, where he graduated in 1814. He immediately removed to Pennsylvania, and first made his residence in the borough of York. Here he taught school for a livelihood, and read law carefully and steadily through the intervals of the day and night. The bar of York County then numbered among its members some lawyers of uncommon ability and distinction. They very strangely formed a plan to thwart the designs of the young school-teacher by the passage of a resolution providing that no person should be recognized as a lawyer among them who followed any other vocation while preparing himself for admission to the bar. The young student paid no attention to this resolution, but pursued the even tenor of his way until he mastered his studies, and then quietly repaired to one of the adjoining counties of Maryland, where he passed a creditable examination.' He then returned to York, presented his credentials, and was regularly, though reluctantly, admitted.

In 1816, Mr. Stevens removed to the adjoining County of Adams, and settled in the now historical town of Gettysburg. Here he soon rose to the head of a profession which he ardently loved, and practiced with signal success through a long and laborious career.

Soon obtaining a reputation as one of the most acute lawyers and able reasoners in the State, he was employed in many of the most important cases tried in the courts of the commonwealth. He was especially pleased to be retained in causes where some injustice or oppression was to be opposed, or where the weak were to be protected against the machinations of the strong. In such cases he embarked with characteristic zeal, and no epithet was too forcible or too withering for him to employ in denouncing the evil-doer, and no metaphor was too bold for him to use in depicting the just punishment of wrong-doing. While still a very young man, he heard of a free woman who was held in the jail at Frederick, Maryland, as a slave. He instantly volunteered to become her counsel, and saved her from the decree that wanted only the color of an excuse to condemn her to servitude. Some years afterward, while on the way from Gettysburg to Baltimore, he was appealed to by the same woman to save her husband from being sold South by his owner, who was his own father. Mr. Stevens complied with the wishes of the poor woman by paying the full value of the slave to the unnatural father. As a lawyer, Mr. Stevens was the enemy of the oppressor and the champion of the poor and the down-trodden. Injustice and wrong, when perpetrated by the powerful and great, aroused his indignation and called forth terrible outbursts of denunciation. The same spirit was manifested in later years, when he denounced Chief-Justice Taney by saying that the Dred Scott decision had “damned its author to everlasting infamy, and, he feared, to everlasting flame.”

Fierce as was the denunciation of Mr. Stevens against those whom he regarded as wrong-doers, he never had aught but words of kindness and encouragement for the poor and unoffending. In the practice of his profession at Gettysburg, Mr. Stevens was brought into the closest and most confidential relations with the people. They sought and followed his friendly advice in delicate and important matters, which in no way pertained to the laws or the courts. He was not only the legal adviser, but the personal friend of the entire community. The aged inhabitants of Adams County still remember his unaffected benevolence, and unobtrusive charities. No commanding benevolence, no useful public enterprise, nothing calculated to improve his fellow-men in the region where he lived, was projected or completed without his efficient and generous contribution. Pennsylvania College, in Gettysburg, has a noble hall bearing his name, which stands as a monument of his services in behalf of education.

Mr. Stevens' public political career began in 1833, when he was elected a Representative in the State Legislature. Possessed of the most practical common sense, and the most formidable power of debate, he soon became a leader. He was always foremost in every movement that contemplated the improvement of the people. He began his legislative career by proposing and advocating a law to establish a free-school system in Pennsylvania. So great was the ignorance at that time prevalent in Pennsylvania, that one-fourth of the adult population of the State were unable to write their names. The consequence was, that when Mr. Stevens proposed a system for taxing the people for the education of their children, a storm of obloquy and opposition arose against him. His own constituents of the county of Adams refused to second his educational movements. Again and again they instructed him to change his course. He answered with renewed efforts in the cause, and a more defiant disobedience of their mandates, until at last, overcome by his earnest eloquence and unfailing perseverance, they rallied to his support and enthusiastically re-elected him.

The school law was just going into operation with the sanction of all benevolent men, when a strength of opposition was combined against it which promised to effect its immediate abrogation. The miserly, and ignorant wealthy, used their money and their influence to bring it into disrepute, and procured the election by an overwhelming majority of a Legislature pledged to repeal the law. The members of the Legislature were on the eve of obeying instructions to expunge the school law from the statute book, when Thaddeus Stevens rose in his seat and pronounced a most powerful speech in opposition to the movement for repeal. The effect of that “surpassing effort ” is thus described by one who witnessed the scene:

“ All the barriers of prejudice broke down before it. It reached men's hearts like the voice of inspiration. Those who were almost ready to take the life of Thaddeus Stevens a few weeks before, were instantly converted into his admirers and friends. During its delivery in the hall of the House at Harrisburg, the scene was one of dramatic interest and intensity. Thaddeus Stevens was then forty-three years of age, and in the prime of life; and his classic countenance, noble voice, and cultivated style, added to the fact that he was speaking the holiest truths and for the noblest of all human causes, created such a feeling among his fellow-members that, for once at least, our State legislators rose above all selfish feelings, and responded to the instincts of a higher nature. The motion to repeal the law failed, and a number of votes pledged to sustain it were changed upon the spot, and what seemed to be an inevitable defeat was transformed into a crowning victory for the friends of common schools.”

Immediately after the conclusion of this great effort, Mr. Stevens received a congratulatory message from Governor Wolf, his determined political opponent, but a firm friend of popular education. When Mr. Stevens, soon after, entered the executive chamber, Governor Wolf threw his arms about his neck, and with tearful eye and broken voice, thanked him for the great service he had rendered to humanity. The millions who now inhabit Pennsylvania, or who having been born and educated there have gone forth to people other States, have reason to honor the intrepid statesman, who, anticipating the future, grappled with the prejudices of the time, and achieved a victory for the benefit of all coming generations.

This same zeal in behalf of education for the humblest and poorest was cherished by Mr. Stevens to his latest years. When the ladies of Lancaster called upon him for a subscription to their orphans' school, he declined the request on the ground that they refused admission to colored children. “I never will,” said he, “Heaven helping me, encourage a system which denies education to any one of God Almighty's household.”

The year 1835 was one of intense political excitement in Pennsylvania. Anti-Masonry had just blazed up with a lurid glare, which caused men to take alarm without knowing how or whence it came. Ever on the alert against whatever seemed dangerous to freedom, Mr. Stevens was out-spoken in his denunciation of secret societies. George Wolf, a Mason, was then Governor, and a candidate for re-election ; but Joseph Ritner, the Anti-Mason candidate, was elected. Party rancor was very bitter, and personal animosities sometimes broke out in violence. Mr. Stevens was challenged to fight a duel by Mr. McElwee, a member of the House, but instead of going to the field, he retorted in a bitter speech, full of caustic wit and withering sarcasm. That was a memorable period in the political history of Pennsylvania, when, in the partisan language of the day, “ Joe Ritner was Governor, and Thad. Stevens his oracle, and the keeper of his conscience.” Canals and railroads were then originated, which tended to develop the material resources, as free-schools tended to promote the intellectual resources of Pennsylvania.

In 1836, Mr. Stevens was elected a member of the Convention to amend the Constitution of Pennsylvania, an instrument framed as early as 1776. The Convention was composed of many of the ablest lawyers and most distinguished orators in the State. Of the one hundred and thirty-three members of the Convention, none took a more active part than Mr. Stevens. He labored with great energy and ability to have the word “white," as applied to citizens, stricken from the Constitution. The majority were unable or unwilling to surmount their prejudices and reject the obnoxious word. So great was the disgust of Mr. Stevens with the work of the Convention, that he refused to attach his name to the amended Constitution.

In 1838, the political animosities of Pennsylvania culminated in the “ Buckshot War,” one of the most remarkable episodes in the history of this country. The trouble originated in alleged election frauds in Philadelphia County at the general election of 1838. The friends of Governor Ritner, who had been a candidate for re-election, maintained that he had been defeated by perjury and fraud. An address was issued soon after the election by the Chairman of the State Committee, advising the friends of Governor Ritner, until an investigation had been made, to regard the result as favorable to them. It seemed that Mr. Porter, the governor elect, would not be inaugurated, and that certain Democrats elected to the Legislature from Philadelphia would not be admitted to seats. On the day appointed for the assembling of the Legislature, three hundred men from Philadelphia appeared in Harrisburg with the avowed purpose of overawing the Senate and House, and compelling them to receive certain election returns which the Whigs regarded as fraudulent. At a certain point in the proceedings of the Senate, the mob rushed down from the galleries and took possession of the floor. The Speaker of the Senate, together with Mr. Stevens and some others, escaped through a window from the violence of the mob. While the mob held possession of the Senate-chamber and the town, the House was the scene of equal confusion; the members splitting into several bodies under speakers of their own election, each claiming to be the legitimate Assembly. The Governor was perplexed and alarmed. He issued a proclamation calling out the militia of the State, and applied to the General Government for troops to suppress the outbreak which seemed imminent. The greater part of the militia forces of the State at once responded to the call, but the troops asked from the General Government were refused. At length an understanding was arrived at by which the Whigs yielded, a Democratic organization of the Legislature was effected, and Mr. Porter was inaugurated as Governor.

The Democrats having gained the upper hand, singled out Mr. Stevens as the victim of their vengeance. A committee was appointed “ to inquire whether Thaddeus Stevens, a member elect from the county of Adams, has not forfeited his right to a seat in the House. The offense charged was contempt of the House in calling it an illegal body—the offspring of a mob. Mr. Stevens declined to attend the meetings of the Committee, and wrote a declaration setting forth the illegality of the inquiry. Mr. Stevens was ejected from the Legislature, although thirty-eight Democratic members protested against the action of the majority. Sent back to his constituents, he issued a stirring address to the people of Adams County, and he was triumphantly re-elected. An escort to the State Capitol was offered him by his enthusiastic constituents, but he declined the honor in a letter, in which occur the following remarkable, and almost prophetic, words : “ Victories, even over rebels in civil wars, should be treated with solemn thanksgiving, rather than with songs of mirth.” Another term of service, to which Mr. Stevens was elected in 1841, closed his career in the State Legislature.

In 1842, at fifty years of age, Mr. Stevens found his private business in a state of confusion, as a consequence of his unremitting attention to public and political affairs. He found himself insolvent, with debts of over two hundred thousand dollars, principally through mismanagement by a partner in the Caledonia Iron Works. Resolved to liquidate this immense debt, he looked about for some more remunerative field for professional practice than the Gettysburg bar offered, and he removed to Lancaster. There he devoted himself with great energy and success to his profession, and in a few years fully retrieved his fortune.

In 1848, Mr. Stevens was elected to represent the Lancaster District in the Thirty-first Congress, and was re-elected to the succeeding Congress. He carried to the National Capitol a large legislative experience acquired in another field, and immediately took a prominent position in Congress. The subjects, however, which were acted upon by the Congress of that day were not such as called into conspicuous view the peculiar legislative abilities of Mr. Stevens.

After an interval of six years, when elected to the Thirty-sixth Congress, he entered upon that distinguished public career which has given his name a prominent place in American History. He held the important position of Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means during three successive Congressional terms. In the Thirty-ninth Congress he was Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. In this and in the Fortieth Congress he was Chairman of the Committee on Reconstruction. These positions gave him a very prominent place in Congress and before the country.

The first measure of Mr. Stevens, which attracted great attention, was introduced by him on the 8th of December, 1862, to indemnify the President and other persons for suspending the privilege of the habeas corpus. This act assisted much to promote the successful issue of the war. It placed a power in the hands of the great and good Executive of the nation, which was absolutely essential to the suppression of the rebellion.

It was ever an object dear to the heart of Mr. Stevens to raise up and disenthrall the down-trodden colored population of the South. Foreseeing that this would be accomplished as a result of the war, he became the originator and earnest advocate of many measures designed to effect this end. As early as the first disaster of Bull Run he publicly favored the employment of negroes as soldiers, to aid in putting down the rebellion of their masters. In the summer of 1862, a bill was passed, granting to negroes the privilege of constructing fortifications and performing camp services. This fell far below the mission of the colored race in the war, as conceived in the mind of Mr. Stevens. On the 27th of January, 1863, he offered a bill in the House for the enlistment of the negro as a soldier. The bill passed the House, but was reported upon adversely by the Military Committee of the Senate. That body could only bring themselves to the point of agreeing to the enlistment of the negro as a cook! That which Mr. Stevens was unable to bring about by Congressional enactment, he had the pleasure, ere long, of seeing effected by force of the necessities of war.

With “hope deferred,” Mr. Stevens impatiently awaited that great act of justice and necessity, the President's Proclamation of Emancipation. After this great Executive act was done, Mr. Stevens was not content until its perpetuity was secured by constitutional guarantees. Accordingly, on the 24th of March following, he offered in the House a joint resolution proposing an article in the Constitution abolishing slavery. A joint resolution of similar import' had been previously offered in the Senate by Mr. Trumbull, and agreed to by that body, but it was rejected in the House. After consideration, the resolution of Mr. Stevens was laid over, and the joint resolution of Mr. Trumbull was again taken up on a motion to reconsider, and was finally adopted, January 31, 1865.

The biography of Mr. Stevens, written in detail, would be a complete history of the legislation of the Thirty-ninth and Fortieth Congresses, down to the day of his death. At his instance, the Joint Committee on Reconstruction was created, and he occupied the position of Chairman on the part of the House. He strenuously advocated the Freedmen's Bureau Bill and the Civil Rights Bill. He had the honor of proposing in the House the great measure, now a part of the Constitution, known as the Fourteenth Amendment. As Chairman of the Committee on Reconstruction, Mr. Stevens reported to the House the Military Reconstruction Bill, under which all the States save Tennessee, which had previously been reconstructed, were destined to be restored to their former relation to the Federal Union.

Mr. Stevens had no patience nor forbearance with Andrew Johnson, whom he contemptuously described as “the man at the other end of the Avenue.” Ile regarded him as a bad man, guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors." The annals of Congressional oratory contain nothing more impressive than Mr. Stevens' scathing and withering denunciations of the character and usurpation of the President. Cato was not more earnest and sincere in the utterance of his formula for the safety of Rome-Carthago delenda est—than was Mr. Stevens in his demands that the President should be removed from office. Though in an extreme condition of physical feebleness, Mr. Stevens consented to act as one of the Managers of the Impeachment on the part of the House. He proposed the Eleventh Article, which was regarded as the strongest against the President, and was selected as that upon which the first vote was taken. He pronounced one of the ablest arguments delivered before the “ High Court of Impeachment,” though unable to deliver more than the opening paragraphs in person.

So feeble was he at this time, and for some months before, that he had to be borne to and from his seat in the House, seated in a chair which was carried by two stalwart young men. As they were lifting him in his chair one day, he said : “How shall I get to the House, when you two die?” This playful expression not only illustrates his humor, but his resolute determination to do duty to the last.

For two years Mr. Stevens' health was gradually failing. Month after month he grew weaker and more shadow-like. It seemed, at last, that he was kept alive by force of an indomitable will and an intense desire to see the country safely through the dangers of reconstruction.

On the adjournment of Congress, July 28, Mr. Stevens was too feeble to endure the journey to his home at Lancaster. He rapidly grew worse, until he expired at midnight on the 11th of August. The announcement of his death created profound sensation in all parts of the country. His remains, as they lay in state in the rotunda of the Capitol, were looked upon by thousands, but by none with so much affectionate interest as by multitudes of the colored race, for whose freedom, enfranchisement, and protection he had devoted so much thought and labor. His body was finally conveyed to its last resting place in Lancaster, amid demonstrations of sincere respect such as are manifested only at the obsequies of public benefactors.

At his death Mr. Stevens held but a small proportion of the property which he had accumulated during a long and laborious life. Three times he lost all he had. His latest failure was occasioned by the destruction of his Caledonia Iron Works by the rebels in their raid on Chambersburg. His friends immediately raised $100,000, which they tendered him, but he would accept the gift only on condition that it should be turned over to the poor of Lancaster County. Another incident illustrates his kindness of heart towards the poor and the distressed : A few weeks before his death, while on his way to the Capitol, he met a poor woman in great trouble. She told him that she had just lost seventy-five cents, her little market money, and that she had nothing to buy food for her children. “What a lucky woman you are,” said Mr. Stevens; “I have just found what you have lost!” putting his hand into his pocket and giving her a five-dollar bill.

Mr. Stevens, as he appeared in the House near the end of his life, is thus described by one looking down from the galleries :

“And now the members crowd around a central desk. The confusion of tongues, which amazes a spectator in the galleries, is hushed for a brief space. The crowds in the balconies bend eager ears. A gaunt, weird, tall old man has risen in his seat—the man who is often called the Leader of the House. Deep eyes, hidden under a cliff of brow, the strong nose of a pioneer of thought, shut, thin lips, a face pale with the frost of the grave, long, bony, emphatic limbs—these cover the uneasy ghost which men call Thaddeus Stevens. The great days of his power are past. Perseus has slain his dragon, and now he would unchain the fair Andromeda for whom he fought, binding her brows with the stars. The new version is sadder than the old, for he will not live to see the glory for which he has wrought. He is wonderful even in his decline. Day after day he comes, compelling his poor body, by the might of the strong soul that is in him, to serve him yet longer. He looks so weary of this confusion which we call life, and yet so resolute to command it still. Erratic, domineering, hard, subtle, Stevens is yet so heroic, he wears such a crown of noble years upon him, that one's enthusiasm, and one's reverence, cling to him.”

Thaddeus Stevens was the ablest political and parliamentary leader of his time. Tall in stature, deliberate in utterance and in gesticulation, with a massive head, and features of a classic mould, he seemed an orator of the old Roman type. As a speaker in his later years, he was never declamatory. “Those stilettoes of pitiless wit which made his caustic tongue so dreaded were ever uttered from the softest tones of his voice.” He was seldom eloquent, yet every one gave him breathless attention. He possessed a personal influence and a magnetic power never separated from strong intellect and unbending determination, by which he was fitted to be a leader of men. He was unaffected in his manners, and impressive in conversation. He lived both in Lancaster and Washington in a simplicity of style befitting the leading Republican of his day.

The Fortieth Congress of the United States: Historical and Biographical. By William H. Barnes, Volume 1, 1869.

THADDEUS STEVENS was born in Caledonia County, Vermont, April 4, 1793. He graduated at Dartmouth College in 1814, and in the same year removed to Pennsylvania. While teaching in an academy he studied law, and in 1816 was admitted to the bar in the County of Adams. In 1833 he was elected to the Legislature of Pennsylvania, and served four terms, rendering signal service to the State by originating the school-system of Pennsylvania. He early espoused the cause of anti-slavery, and became an earnest advocate of equal rights. In 1836 he was elected a member of the Convention to revise the State Constitution, and refused to append his name to the amended instrument, because it restricted suffrage on account of color. In 1838 he was appointed a Canal Commissioner. In 1842 he removed to Lancaster, where he now resides. In 1848 he was elected a Representative from Pennsylvania to the Thirty-First Congress. He was re-elected to the Thirty-Second, Thirty-Sixth, Thirty-Seventh, Thirty-Eighth, Thirty-Ninth, and Fortieth Congresses.

History of the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States. By William H. Barnes, 1868, pp. 18, 24, 29, 34, 48, 156, 308, 325, 333, 336, 357, 366, 417, 418, 435, 436, 449, 463, 478, 502, 503, 504, 513, 514, 518, 524, 528, 535, 536, 547, 555, 557, 563, 575.


Sources:
History of the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States. By William H. Barnes, 1868.

The Fortieth Congress of the United States: historical and biographical. By William H. Barnes, Volumes 1-2, 1869.

Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774-Present.