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

ANTHONY, Henry Bowen, 1815-1884, Republican, statesman, newspaper editor, Governor of Rhode Island, U.S. Senator 1859-1884, voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.


HENRY B. ANTHONY was born of Quaker ancestry, at Coventry, Rhode Island, April 1, 1815. He graduated at Brown University in 1833. He became editor of the " Providence Journal " in 1838. He was chosen Governor of Rhode Island in 1849, and served two terms. In 1859 he was elected a Senator in Congress from Rhode Island, and was subsequently re-elected for a second term, which ends in 1871.  

History of the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States. By William H. Barnes, 1868, pp. 36, 37, 487, 488, 497.

ANTHONY, HENRY BOWEN (April 1, 1815-September 2, 1884), journalist, politician, a descendant of John Anthony of Hampstead, England, who came to Boston in 1634 and removed to Rhode Island about 1640, was born at Coventry, Rhode Island. His father was William Anthony and his mother was Eliza Kinnicutt Greene. Both his father and his maternal grandfather, James Greene of Warwick, were Quakers. His father was a cotton manufacturer and the part of the town in which they lived was called Anthony. There the boy attended village school and the Friends' meeting-house. Most of his life was spent, however, in Providence, where he fitted for college at a private school and entered Brown University in 1829. He made a good, though not brilliant, record in college and graduated with his class in 1833, carrying with him a very definite leaning toward letters. Although he went into business, to which he gave five years, partly in Providence and partly in Savannah, Georgia, literature remained his major interest. In 1837 he married Sarah Aborn, daughter of Christopher Rhodes. A year later, when he was twenty-three years old, he was invited by a kinsman who owned the Providence Journal to take the editorship during an interim of a few weeks. He exhibited such a surprising gift and aptitude for the editorial duty that what began as a mere stop-gap became permanent. So skilfully did he guide the fortunes of the paper and so general was the respect and influence it attained under his direction that he was soon seen to be indispensable. Thus it came about that he was in charge of the paper-the most influential journal in the state-in 1842 during the Dorr Rebellion, one of the crises in the modern history of the old commonwealth. During that time of turbulence and disorder, the newspaper office became the center and rallying-point of the conservative interests of the state and its editor rose to a position of exceptional authority. To Anthony the paper owed not only its political power but very largely also its excellent literary style. Examples of his skill in verse are the mock heroic poems, "The Dorriad" and "The Chepachet Campaign," satirizing Dorr and his partizans, which appeared in the Journal in 1843 (republished in The Dorr War, by Arthur M. Mowry, 1901). Throughout his life and even up to within a week or two of his death he continued to exercise a guiding influence over the Journal, writing paragraphs and articles which were marked by urbanity, charm, and a shrewd knowledge of men and affairs.

Naturally enough then, when in 1849 a conservative candidate was sought for the governorship, Anthony was named and elected governor of the state, was reelected in 1850 and was urged to run again in 1851, but declined. His administration as governor fulfilled the expectations of his friends and gave him a reputation both for talent and sagacity in the conduct of public affairs. It was, therefore, a matter of course that when he was nominated in 1858 for the Senate he was elected with little opposition. The atmosphere of the Senate was particularly congenial to Anthony's tastes and abilities. His personal charm and dignity, his knowledge of affairs, his acquaintance with public men, his natural ease and kindliness of manner, all fitted him to fill his part in the upper chamber with distinction and success. There he was chosen president pro tempore on many occasions, in 1869, 1870, 1871, and for the last time in 1884, when he declined to serve on the score of ill health. It was no wonder that he was returned by his loyal state time after time until he had become the "Father of the Senate"; he was still a member when he died, full of honors and greatly admired both by his associates and his constituents.

Anthony was one of the type of senators whose services lie rather in the exercise of judgment and practical wisdom than in any definite contribution either to law or practise. He was a member, however, of important committees: Claims, Naval Affairs, Mines and Mining, Post Office and Post Roads, and finally that of Public Printing, on which he served for more than twenty-two years and there labored to reduce the extravagance and waste, to restrict public printing to the legitimate demands of the various government departments, and to make the Congressional Record a faithful transcript of congressional proceedings. In these endeavors he was only partly successful; they were such desirable ends, however, that they have been pursued, and some of them attained, by others. Similarly as a member of the Committee on Naval Affairs, a post which he filled from 1863 to 1884, he exerted always a sound and moderating influence. He was conservative by constitution: he voted for the impeachment of Johnson, was a steadfast supporter of a protective tariff, and was no less firm in support of a sound currency. He brought to the Senate the character and attainments of a gentleman, a profound and sympathetic knowledge of the state he represented, and an urbanity and courtesy which made him a valued associate in the upper chamber.  
Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Volume 1, Pt. 1, pp. 316-317:



BROWN, Benjamin Gratz, 1826-1885, lawyer, soldier.  Anti-slavery activist in Missouri legislature from 1852-1859.  Opposed pro-slavery party.  Commanded a regiment and later a brigade of Missouri State Militia.  U.S. Senator 1863-1867, voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.


B. GRATZ BROWN is grandson of John Brown, who was United States Senator from Kentucky in 1805. He was born in Lexington, Kentucky, May 28, 1826. Having graduated at Yale College and studied law, he settled at St. Louis, Missouri, where he edited the "Missouri Democrat," from 1854 to 1859, and was a member of the State Legislature. He raised a regiment at the breaking out of the war, which he commanded during its term of service. He was among the foremost champions of freedom in Missouri, and was elected a Senator in Congress from that State for the term commencing in 1863 and ending in 1867. He was succeeded by Charles D. Drake.

History of the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States. By William H. Barnes, 1868, pp. 285, 477, 493.

Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Volume II, Pt. 1, p. 105:

BROWN, BENJAMIN GRATZ (May 28, 1826-December 13, 1885), senator, governor of Missouri, was born at Lexington, Kentucky, the son of Mason and Judith (Bledsoe) Brown. His father, Mason Brown, was a jurist of some note who served as judge of a Kentucky circuit court and, from 1856 to 1859, as secretary of state. His grandfather, John Brown, was the first United States senator from Kentucky. The Browns were related to the Prestons, Breckenridges, Blairs, Bentons, and other well-known Kentucky families.

Brown entered Transylvania University but withdrew in 1845 and entered Yale University, where he was graduated in 1847. He then studied law in Louisville, was admitted to the Kentucky bar, and, in 1849, moved to St. Louis. The same year he took the stump in support of Thomas H. Benton's attack upon the "Jackson Resolutions" adopted by the Missouri legislature that year. He again came actively to the support of Benton in the Atchison-Benton senatorial contest of 1852-53. Appreciating the importance of the large German vote in St. Louis, he early cultivated its support; and, largely as a result, he was elected, and reelected, to the lower branch of the state legislature between 1852 and 1859. For upward of two decades the St. Louis Germans constituted the principal element in his political following. In the Missouri legislature of 1857, Brown took an especially prominent part. A joint resolution was introduced declaring emancipation of the slaves to be impracticable, and that any movement in that direction was "inexpedient, impolitic, unwise, and unjust." In reply to this, Brown, at some personal risk, it is said, made an able and forceful anti-slavery speech in which he advocated and prophesied the abolition of slavery in Missouri on economic grounds-more out of regard to the interest of poor white laborers than as an act of humanity to the slaves. This incident has been regarded by some as the beginning of the Free-Soil movement in Missouri (Speech of Hon. B. Gratz Brown of St. Louis on the Subject of Gradual Emancipation in Missouri, February 12, 1857, Pamphlet, 1857). Brown's speech apparently made him the Free-Soil Democratic candidate for governor the same year. He failed of election by the narrow margin of about 500 votes.

Between 1854 and 1859, most of Brown's energies were absorbed in newspaper editorial work for the Missouri Democrat-a paper of strong Free-Soil, and, later, Republican, principles. In its columns, Brown persistently assailed the institution of slavery in Missouri and advocated emancipation. In 1856 he fought a duel with Thomas C. Reynolds over differences growing out of editorials relating to the Know Nothing movement in St. Louis. Brown was shot near the knee, and limped during the rest of his life.

In the formation of the Republican party in Missouri in 1860 Brown took an active part and was a delegate-at-large to the Chicago convention which nominated Lincoln. At the opening of the Civil War, he became colonel of the 4th Regiment of Missouri (three months) Volunteers, and energetically cooperated with General Lyon and Frank P. Blair, Jr.. in circumventing the Missouri secessionists.

In the state election of 1862 the abolition of slavery was the outstanding issue, especially in the eastern part of the state. Brown led the radicals, who insisted upon immediate emancipation, in opposition to the gradual emancipationists led by his cousin, Frank P. Blair, Jr. Although the policy of the latter was indorsed two years later by the state convention which adopted an ordinance for the gradual extinction of slavery, Brown's faction won a majority of the seats in both branches of the next legislature, and nominated him for the United States Senate. After a prolonged contest, Brown was elected on the thirty-second ballot (1863) for the unexpired term of W. P. Johnson, who had been expelled as a secessionist. He took the oath of office December 14, 1863, and served until March 4, 1867. In 1864, he was one of the signers of the call for the Cleveland convention of radicals who opposed the renomination of Lincoln and nominated Fremont and Cochrane.

While in the Senate, Brown served upon the committees on military affairs, Indian affairs, Pacific railroad, printing, public buildings and grounds, and also as chairman of the committee on contingent expenses. Although frequently taking part in Senate debates, he made only one extended speech. This was in support of an amendment to a bill to promote enlistments in the army, confirming and making of full effect as law the President's emancipation proclamation, and adding a section declaring the immediate abolition of slavery in all states and territories of the United States, as a war measure (March 8, 1864. Congressional Globe, 38 Congress, I Session pt. II, pp. 984-90). His next longest speech was in opposition to the proposed reading and writing tests for voting in the District of Columbia and in advocacy of woman suffrage for the District. "I stand," he declared, "for universal suffrage, and as a matter of fundamental principle do not recognize the right of society to limit it on any ground of race, color, or sex ... I recognize the right of franchise as being intrinsically a natural right . . . " (December 12, 1866. Congressional Globe, 39 Congress, 2 Session, pt. I, p. 76). He also spoke, or introduced resolutions, in favor of the eight-hour d ay for government employees, approving retaliation for rebel mistreatment of Northern prisoners of war, advocating government construction, ownership, and operation of telegraph lines, and urging the establishment of the merit system in the civil service. His speeches are noteworthy for their obvious sincerity and absence of buncombe, their dignified simplicity of diction, and unusual directness and incisiveness.

Before the end of his senatorial career, Brown became prominently identified with the so-called Liberal movement in Missouri for the repeal of the drastic test-oaths prescribed in the Missouri constitution of 1865 and aimed at sympathizers with the Confederate cause. Later, this Liberal movement, which came to embody a reaction against the radical Republican reconstruction policy and in favor of amnesty for former rebels and reconciliation between the sections, culminated in the nomination of Brown for governor, in 1870, and his triumphant election by a majority of more than 40,000. At the same election, constitutional amendments were approved repealing the obnoxious test-oaths.

In his messages as governor (1871-73), Brown recommended constitutional amendments reorganizing the courts, including the grand jury system, and the better regulation of railroads through the creation of a board of railroad commissioners. The bankruptcy of a number of railroads whose bonds had been guaranteed by the state embarrassed his administration, and resulted in a loss to the state of approximately $25,000,000.

The success of the Liberal movement in Missouri encouraged liberals and reformers in other states and led directly to the launching of the Liberal Republican party in 1872 in opposition to the renomination of President Grant and in favor of tariff and civil service reform and abandonment of radical Republican reconstruction policies. Brown's prominence naturally led to serious consideration of his availability as the presidential candidate of this independent movement; and at the Cincinnati convention of the Liberal Republicans, in May 1872, he stood fourth on the first ballot for the presidential nomination, receiving ninety-five votes. Suspecting that his delegates were being enticed away by the friends of Charles Francis Adams, Brown unexpectedly appeared in Cincinnati, obtained permission to address the convention, and in his speech astonished the delegates by warmly urging the nomination of Horace Greeley. On the sixth ballot Greeley was nominated, and, later, Brown himself received the vice-presidential nomination. Afterward, Carl Schurz and others charged that the ticket was the result of a deliberate bargain between the friends of Greeley and Brown (F. Bancroft, Speeches, Correspondence, and Political Papers of Carl Schurz, 1907-08, II, 362-63). Brown's nomination, however, seems to have been of little or no help to the Liberal Republican campaign, although he participated actively in the canvass. In August he attended a class banquet at Yale, became intoxicated, and made a speech in bad taste, criticizing things eastern (E. D. Ross, The Liberal Republican Movement, 1919, p. 156). Following this campaign, Brown gave up active participation in politics and devoted himself to the practise of law, making a specialty of railway cases. By 1876 he had virtually gone over to the Democratic party. He attended that party's national convention, where "loud calls for Gratz Brown brought that gentleman to the rostrum, accompanied by a round of applause" (Official Report of the Proceedings, p. 91). In his brief response, he expressed sympathy with Democratic demands for reform and the belief that former Liberals would warmly support those demands. Brown's death in 1885 was the direct result of overwork, following close upon a serious illness, in completing a report as referee in an important railroad case pending in the federal court at St. Louis. In person, Brown is described as of medium height, of very slender figure, and "immediately noticeable for his wealth of red hair and beard."  

Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Volume II, Pt. 1, p. 105.



CHANDLER, Zachariah, 1813-1879, statesman.  Mayor of Detroit, 1851-1852.  U.S. Senator 1857-1975, 1879.  Secretary of the Interior, 1875-1877. Active in Underground Railroad in Detroit area.  Helped organize the Republican Party in 1854.  Introduced Confiscation Bill in Senate, July 1861.  Was a leading Radical Republican Senator.  Chandler was a vigorous opponent of slavery.  He opposed the Dred Scott U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the Fugitive Slave Law.  In 1858, opposed the admission of Kansas as a slave state under the Lecompton Constitution.  Voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.   


ZACHARIAH CHANDLER is a native of Bedford, N. H., and was born Dec. 10, 1813. He received an academical Her education in addition to the usual school training given to New England boys.

As is common with such boys, he worked upon the farm until sixteen or seventeen years old. In the course of his youth he taught school two or three winters; and in 1833, when twenty-two years of age, he emigrated to Michigan, and engaged in mercantile business in Detroit. The country was then new, and Detroit was a town of but about 4,000 inhabitants.

Mr. Chandler is one of those fortunate men of the West who have grown up with the country. He commenced, at first, a small retail dry-goods store, but was soon enabled by a prosperous trade to enlarge his business to a wholesale trade, and extended, in course of time, his operations to all parts of the surrounding country, so that there were few of all the retail dealers in Northern and Western Michigan, Northern Ohio and Indiana, and in Western Canada, who were not numbered among his customers.

Mr. Chandler was a Whig in politics, but seems never to have sought for political honor, choosing, rather, to set the example of accepting office as an incident of the success of his party, than to strive for it as a primary object. His first official position was that of Mayor of Detroit, to which office he was elected in 1851. Here he served acceptably, and the following year was nominated for Governor of the State. His strong anti-slavery convictions, however, were brought into the canvass, and he preferred to be what he deemed right, than to be Governor. In denouncing the institution of slavery as the great curse of the nation, he lost the election. The progress of anti-slavery sentiment in Michigan was such that in 1856 he was elected to the Senate of the United States for six years, and took his seat on the 4th of March of that year.

During the important period of his first term in the United States Senate, Mr. Chandler was identified with all the leading measures of Congress for a general system of internal improvements—for preventing a further increase of slave territory, and for the overthrow of the powerful domination of the slave power, which had usurped the control of the nation. He was one of the few Northern men in the Senate at that time who foresaw the tendency of events, and that the country was drifting onward to a terrible war.

Mr. Chandler opposed all the so-called compromise measures of the South, as the virtual surrender of the liberties of the people. In all the Senatorial contests of that period, he stands on record as the unflinching defender of liberty, and the fearless advocate of the doctrines of the Declaration of Independence. These great doctrines he maintained by speech and vote in the Senate and before the people ; and if an appeal to arms should be necessary, he welcomed the arbitration of war.

“ The country," writes one of Mr. Chandler's admirers, “ does not now appreciate how much it owes to his Roman firmness. The people have become too much accustomed to regard him as one of the great fortresses of their liberties, which no artillery could breach, and whose parapet no storming column could ever reach, that they have never given themselves a thought as to the disastrous consequences which might have followed on many occasions had he spoken or voted otherwise than he did. When did he ever pander to position or complain of being overslaughed by his party? Yet no man ever did braver work for a party, and got less consideration than he.”

As the war came on, and seemed for a time to be prosecuted with indifferent success, particularly in the East, Mr. Chandler, with a multitude of other good men, chafed under what he considered the dilatory and unskillful management of army operations. He was prompt to discern and denounce the want of generalship in McClellan. His speech on this subject, made in the Senate, July 7, 1862—soon after the defeat of the army of the Potomac—was bold and incisive. “The country,” he exclaimed," is in peril; and from whom-by whom? And who is responsible? As I have said, there are two men to-day who are responsible for the present position of the army of the Potomac. The one is the President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, whom I believe to be a patriot—whom I believe to be honest, and honestly earnest to crush out and put down this rebellion; the other is George B. McClellan, General of the Army of the Potomac, of whom I will not express a belief. * * Either denounce Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, whom I believe to be a pure and honest man, or George B. McClellan, who has defeated your army. He took it to Fortress Monroe, used it guarding rebel property, sacrificed the half of it in the swamps and marshes before Yorktown and the Chickahominy, and finally brought up the right wing with only thirty thousand men, and held it there till it whipped the overwhelming forces of the enemy, repulsed them three times, and then it was ordered to retreat, and after that, the enemy fought like demons, as you and I knew they would, a retreating, defeated army. Tell me where were the left and center of our army? Tell me, where were the forces in front of our left and center? Sir, twenty thousand men from the left and the center to reinforce Porter on the morning after his savage and awful fight, would have sent the enemy in disgrace and disaster into Richmond.”

Mr. Chandler, as we have seen, had no patience with any half-heartedness, or dilatory efforts in the prosecution of the war against the rebellion. He was for striking decided and heavy blows in order to crush the power of the enemy, and it was under the influence of such sentiments that he, in his place in the Senate, proposed a special “ Committee on the Conduct of the War.” This Committee was at once ordered. Mr. Chandler declined the chairmanship of the Committee, but was one of its most energetic members; and his zealous and faithful efforts, in connection with his associates, soon resulted in the removal of McClellan from his command. Equally active was he throughout the war in promoting its efficacy, looking after the interests of the soldiers, and encouraging all measures tending to a successful issue of the great struggle; a struggle he knew it would prove to be, in the very commencement of the revolt; and he then, in a letter addressed to the Governor of Michigan, intimated that blood must flow if the Government was to be preserved. Several years afterwards, when taunted in the Senate by a Democratic Senator in reference to this letter on “blood-letting,” Mr. Chandler responded as follows: “It is not the first time that I have been arraigned on that indictment of blood-letting.' I was first arraigned for it upon this floor by the traitor John C. Breckenridge; and after I gave him his answer, he went out into the rebel ranks and fought against our flag. I was arraigned by another Senator from Kentucky, and by other traitors on this floor. I expect to be arraigned again. I wrote the letter, and I stand by the letter, and what was in it. What was the position of the country when that letter was written? The Democratic party, as an organization, had arrayed itself against this Government; a Democratic traitor in the Presidential chair, and a Democratic traitor in every department of this Government; Democratic traitors preaching treason upon this floor, and preaching treason in the hall of the other House; Democratic traitors in your army and navy; Democratic traitors controlling every branch of this Government; your flag was fired upon, and there was no response; the Democratic party had ordained that this Government should be overthrown; and I, a Senator from the State of Michigan, wrote to the Governor of that State,' unless you are prepared to shed blood for the preservation of this great Government, the Government is overthrown. That is all there was to that letter. That I said, and that I say again; and I tell that Senator, if he is prepared to go down in history with the Democratic traitors who then co-operated with him, I am prepared to go down on that blood-letting 'letter, and I stand by the record as then made.”  

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

He was one of the promoters and most influential members of the Republican Congressional Committee, serving as its chairman in the campaigns of 1868 and 1876. From the beginning of his senatorial career he used his Federal patronage to strengthen his political power, and by methods openly partisan and despotic if not actually corrupt obtained control of the Republican machine in Michigan, and was for years the undisputed boss of his party in the state. The Democratic landslide of 1874, however, broke his power, and he was defeated for reelection to the Senate. In October 1875, he became secretary of the interior, retaining the office until the close of Grant's second administration. His reorganization of the department was attended by wholesale dismissals for alleged dishonesty or incompetence. He was again elected to the Senate in February 1879, to fill a vacancy caused by the resignation of Isaac P. Christiancy [q.v.].

Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Volume II, Pt. 1, p. 618



CLARK, Daniel,  1809-1891, lawyer, jurist, organizer and founder of the Republican Party, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire, ardent supporter of the Union.  Voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.  


CLARK, DANIEL, a Senator from New Hampshire; born in Stratham, N.H., October 24, 1809; attended the common schools, Hampton Academy, and Union College, Schenectady, New York; graduated from Dartmouth College, Hanover, N.H., in 1834; studied law; admitted to the bar in 1837 and commenced practice in Epping, N.H.; moved to Manchester in 1839; member, State house of representatives 1842-1843, 1846, 1854-1855; elected as a Republican to the United States Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the death of James Bell; reelected in 1861, and served from June 27, 1857, to July 27, 1866, when he resigned; served as President pro tempore of the Senate during the Thirty-eighth Congress; chairman, Committee on Claims (Thirty-seventh through Thirty-ninth Congresses); United States district judge from 1866 until his death; president of the New Hampshire constitutional convention in 1876; died in Manchester, N.H., on January 2, 1891; interment in Valley Cemetery.  

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

Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Volume 2, Pt. 2, p. 125:

CLARK, DANIEL (October 24, 1809-January 2, 1891), politician, jurist, was the son of Benjamin and Elizabeth (Wiggin) Clark. He was born at Stratham, New Hampshire, and educated in the district school, Hampton Academy, and Dartmouth College, graduating from the latter in 1834. His father was a farmer and blacksmith and because of limited means, Daniel, like many other young men of that period, was obliged to pay for his own education by teaching school during the winter months. After graduation he studied law, was admitted to the bar, began practise at Epping, and in 1839 moved to Manchester. This town was about to enjoy a prolonged period of industrial development, and he soon acquired a considerable practise. For the rest of his life he was active in Manchester affairs, holding several local offices and trusteeships and between 1842 and 1855 serving five times as representative in the legislature, being in charge of the bill for the incorporation of the city in 1846. He was also active in various business enterprises and was for some years a director of the Amoskeag Corporation. Politically, he was a Whig, and when that party disintegrated he was one of the active organizers of the Republican party. In 1857 he was chosen to serve out the unexpired term of Senator James Bell and, being reelected for a full term, was for nine years one of the prominent figures in Washington affairs. He was an accomplished speaker and debater, ranked by S. S. Cox, a veteran member of the lower house, with Sumner, Fessenden, Seward, Trumbull, and other notables in "a galaxy of ability" (Union-Disunion-Reunion: Three Decades of Federal Legislation, 1885). Early in his senatorial career, in the course of the Kansas debate, he declared, "We have had enough of bowing down, and the people in my region have got sick of it" (Congressional Globe, 35 Congress, 1 Session, App., p. 107). These words are the key to his subsequent course. He was an uncompromising foe of slavery and secession and his attitude in 1861 was criticized by many who believed that reconciliation was still possible. He was prominent throughout the war period and his service on the committees on finance, claims, and judiciary was especially important in view of their war-time responsibilities. In 1866 he failed to receive renomination, apparently largely because of New Hampshire's adherence to the doctrine of rotation in office. On July 27, 1866, President Johnson appointed him United States judge for the district of New Hampshire, although Gideon Welles remarked "On every Constitutional point that has been raised, Clark has opposed the President . . . and has been as mischievously hostile as any man in the Senate" (Diary, 19n, II, 565). Clark resigned from the Senate and spent the remainder of his life on the bench, declining at the age of seventy, because of excellent health, to take advantage of the provisions of the retirement act. He had an excellent standing as a jurist and frequently was called to sit in other courts on the New England circuit. His political activity was, of course, largely at an end but he served as president of the constitutional convention of 1876. He was married twice: on June 9, 1840, to Hannah W. Robbins, daughter of Maxcy Robbins of Stratham, who died in 1844; and on May 13, 1846, to Anne W., daughter of Henry Salter of Portsmouth.  

Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Volume 2, Pt. 2, p. 125.



COLLAMER, Jacob, 1791-1865, lawyer, jurist.  U.S. Senator from Vermont.  U.S. Senator, 1854-1865.  Supported the Free Soil-Party and the non-extension of slavery into the new territories. Voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery    


COLLAMER, JACOB, a Representative and a Senator from Vermont; born in Troy, New York, January 8, 1791; moved with his father to Burlington, Vt.; attended the common schools, and graduated from the University of Vermont at Burlington in 1810; served in the War of 1812; studied law; admitted to the bar in 1813 and practiced in Woodstock, Vt., from 1813 to 1833; member, State house of representatives 1821, 1822, 1827, 1828; State's attorney for Windsor County 1822-1824; judge of the superior court 1833-1842; elected as a Whig to the Twenty-eighth, Twenty-ninth, and Thirtieth Congresses (March 4, 1843-March 3, 1849); chairman, Committee on Manufactures (Twenty-eighth Congress), Committee on Public Lands (Thirtieth Congress); appointed Postmaster General by President Zachary Taylor 1849-1850; again judge of the superior court of Vermont 1850-1854; elected in 1855 as a Republican to the United States Senate; reelected in 1861 and served from March 4, 1855, until his death in Woodstock, Windsor County, Vt., November 9, 1865; chairman, Committee on Engrossed Bills (Thirty-fourth Congress), Committee on Post Office and Post Roads (Thirty-seventh through Thirty-ninth Congresses), Committee on Library (Thirty-eighth and Thirty-ninth Congresses); interment in River Street Cemetery. 

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

COLLAMER, JACOB (January 8, 1791-November 9, 1865), judge, United States senator, postmaster-general, was born in Troy, New York, third of the eight children of Samuel Collamer, member of an early Massachusetts family, and Elizabeth Van Ornum, of colonial Dutch descent. The family moved to Burlington, Vermont, when Jacob was about four. Here he prepared for college under members of the faculty, and graduated from the University of Vermont in 1810. At once he began the study of law at St. Albans, Vermont, under Mr. Langworthy and later under Benjamin Swift, afterward senator. His studies were interrupted by his being drafted into the detailed militia service in 1812. He served as lieutenant of artillery and as aide to General French, with whom he went to Plattsburg, arriving in the evening after the battle was over. Admitted to the bar in 1813 he practised at Randolph Center until he removed to Royalton in 1816. He married Mary N. Stone of St. Albans, daughter of Abijah Stone, on July 15, 1817. He served four terms in the legislature as representative of Royalton, and was one of the assistant judges of the supreme court of Vermont from 1833 until 1842 when he declined reelection. As delegate to the Vermont constitutional convention (1836) he actively supported the movement to substitute a state Senate for the old Governor's Council. "That amendment has been largely attributed to the ability and zeal with which he urged it" (Barrett, post). This year he moved to Woodstock, Vermont, his home for the rest of his life. His national career began in 1842 when, after a close and hotly contested election, he was chosen member of the House of Representatives for the 2nd Congressional District. Reelected in 1844 and 1846, he declined a fourth election. As representative he made speeches on the annexation of Texas, the Mexican War, and the tariff, his address on "Wools and Woolens" attracting most attention. Recommended for a cabinet position by a legislative caucus, he became postmaster-general in the cabinet of President Taylor (1849). His service was short, for upon the death of President Taylor in July 1850 he resigned with the rest of the cabinet.

A few months after his return home, the Vermont legislature elected him, under the recently remodeled judicial system, circuit judge for the 2nd judicial circuit. In 1854, a candidate of the young Republican party as an anti-slavery Whig, he was elected senator. As a Republican he belonged to the conservative wing. In the Thirty-fourth Congress he served on the Committee on Territories under the chairmanship of Senator Douglas, and on March 12, 1856 made a vigorous minority report on the disorders in Kansas, defending the character of the free state leaders. He was one of three New England senators to vote against the tariff bill of 1857. In 1860 Vermont presented his name to the Republican convention for the presidential nomination, but after the first ballot, on which he received ten votes, his name was withdrawn. In the same year he was reelected to the Senate "with almost unprecedented unanimity." He and Fessenden refused to vote against the Crittenden compromise of the winter of 1861, though they did not vote for it. He drafted the bill, enacted July 13, 1861, which, according to Senator Sumner gave to the war for the suppression of the rebellion its first congressional sanction and invested the President with new powers" (Address of Senator Charles Sumner, December 14, 1865). On the problems of Reconstruction he held that Congress should control. While not an orator, and rarely speaking in the Senate, he was always listened to with attention, the logic of his arguments commanding respect. From June 1855 to October 1862 he was president the last-of the Vermont Medical College at Woodstock, in which he had lectured on medical law. He died at his home in Woodstock after a brief illness. Judge James Barrett, long his law partner, said of Collamer, "His mind was made up of a clear and ready perception, acuteness of discrimination, a facile faculty of analysis, an aptness and ease in rigid and simple logic, excellent commonsense, and withal a most tenacious memory of facts."

Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Volume 2, Pt. 2, p. 300;



CONNESS, John,  born 1822.  Union Republican U.S. Senator from California.  U.S. Senator 1863-1869.  Voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.


JOHN CONNESS is a native of Ireland, and was born in 1822. At thirteen years of age he came to this country, whither he had been preceded by some enterprising brothers. By their kindness he was favored with the advantages of academical education. Soon after arriving at manhood, he departed for California among the earliest emigrants to that country. There he devoted himself with success to mining and mercantile pursuits.

Turning his attention to politics, he was, in 1852, elected to the State Legislature, in which he held a seat during four successive terms. In 1859, he was a candidate for Lieutenant-Governor ; and in 1861, he was the Union Democratic candidate for Governor. In 1863, he was elected a Senator in Congress from California for the term ending in 1869. He has served in the Senate on the Committees on Finance and the Pacific Railroad, Chairman of the Committee on Mines and Mining, and as a member also of the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads.

Mr. Conness ranks among the efficient and active members of the Senate. The record clearly shows him to be vigilant and awake to all the great questions naturally passing in review before the Senate. His speeches are generally brief and to the point, giving evidence of excellent sense, and a fearless aim to accomplish what appears to him to be his duty as a legislator, regardless of favor or reproach. As illustrative of all this, we may select almost at random various passages from his speeches on different occasions.

Pending the question of dropping from the roll of the army unemployed general officers, Mr. Conness, January 6, 1865, submitted the following remarks, which must impress the reader as both curious and interesting :

“Early in the conduct of this war, nominations for high ranks were easily obtained. The result was, that inefficient men-men unable and unfit to conduct our armies to victory and success—obtained the highest rank in the army; and the consequences were losses in every direction to the national cause. Why, sir, at a certain period, during the last session of Congress, we desired a new Department Commander for the Pacific Department, and, anxious to send an officer there of good ability, of high military skill, that that country might be organized and prepared for an emergency likely to arise-possible, at least, to arise—I had several conferences with the Secretary of War; I had an examination, with that officer, of the long list of unemployed major-generals and brigadier-generals then under the pay of the Government, and without public employment; and if I were at liberty here to repeat the comment that followed the name of each in those various conferences, it would demonstrate the necessity of action somewhere to rid the country of the unnecessary and profitless burden that those gentlemen in high rank, holding high commissions under the Government, imposed upon it. It was five months before an officer deemed competent to send to that department could be selected, by the exercise of the greatest wisdom, from the long list of the then unemployed generals in the United States army.”

In the Fortieth Congress Mr. Conness has distinguished himself by the earnestness and ability with which he advocated measures designed to protect American citizens abroad. He successfully urged the passage of an “ Eight-Hour Law.” When this bill was pending in the Senate, he made a speech in which occurs the following passage:

“When I saw the column of Burnside, thirty thousand or forty thousand strong, marching through this city to the sanguinary fields between the Wilderness and Richmond and Cold Harbor, inclusive, and stood where I could see the eye of every man in the column, I saw scarcely any but those who had the marks of toil and stalwart labor, black and white; and if I never before that time reverenced the men who labor, I should do it beginning at that period of my life; but it was not necessary for me to begin then.

“Now, Mr. President, there is considerable agitation in this country upon this question of whether a day's labor shall be constituted of eight or ten hours, and I have no doubt there are those who think if this bill be passed, and the example be set by the Government, the eight-hour rule will follow in other industries conducted in the country. Well, sir, I hope it will. A personal experience enables me to say that I could, myself, perform more labor in eight hours than in ten, taking any given week for the average; and then it gave more hours for study. Many and many a morning, at two o'clock, when I labored ten and eleven hours a day in my youth, found me yet endeavoring to enable myself to take my rank among my fellows in society; and I desire, by my vote and voice, if that can influence any one, to give an equal opportunity to the youths of the land connected with labor and toil. Let no man forget, because his task is made easy in this world, the thousands, the tens of thousands, and the hundreds of thousands who labor and toil for an ill-requited compensation, for a small compensation scarcely sufficient to furnish bread, much less to enable them to educate their children and bring them up fit to be citizens of this Republic. Make their path as easy as you can, by limiting their hours of labor. Give them time to think.”

As a specimen of effective “stump oratory," we quote the following extract from a speech delivered by Mr. Conness in Cooper Institute, New York, September 30, 1868, before an immense audience composed largely of Irish-Americans: “I come before you to-night, fellow-citizens, as one of yourselves, as one of a class of Americans denominated Irish-Americans. [Applause.] I will not say, I know I could not say, that there can be any title higher than that of an American citizen. [Applause.] And while some of us may be denominated, and may be better known as Irish-Americans, it should be our boast peculiarly that we are Americans, and Americans alone-[Applause]—not forgetting our origin, not forgetting the trials of the land we came from, and the race from which we sprang, for that but sharpens the mental appetite for liberty, as we find it established here,—[Cheers]—but as American citizens simply, owning a part in the great cause of the Republic established by the fathers, and maintained by their sons, to go down, I trust, to all posterity for ever. [Applause.] We have a high title in having a part in that cause, and in being known as American citizens. [Cheers.] The American people, in a short time, are to determine who shall be the Executive, to give to the Republic a guardian of its interests; a safeguard, so far as an Executive can be such, to the principles upon which the Republic is founded, and we are to replace the man now filling that station by an accident—[Laughter and cheers]—with not only the greatest military leader of the world, but, greater than his military leadership, one of the simplest and the most virtuous citizens of America—a man who advanced, as he need not have done—and yet 'twas well done—that he is not to have a policy against at once the intelligence and the virtue of the American people—[Applause]—but whose policy, if he is elected President, will be to give reality and effect to that intelligence and virtue. [Cheers.] What is to be tried, and what is being tried, in the contest that is now going on for the Presidential office is, whether, after the nation, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, and thousands of millions of treasure, maintained intact the national integrity—whether that integrity shall be continuously maintained, and, in addition, whether the great principles of liberty, law and humanity, vindicated and re-established by our grand successes against rebellion, shall also be maintained, and also whether, in addition still, the measures that the American people have found it necessary to enact to maintain the condition of things shall be carried out."

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



COWAN, Edgar,  1815-1885, lawyer.  U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania 1861-1867.  Voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.   


EDGAR COWAN was born in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, September 19, 1815. He graduated at Franklin College, Ohio, in 1839. Having been at different times clerk, boat-builder, schoolmaster, and student of medicine, he studied law and practiced the profession until 1861, when he was elected United States Senator from Pennsylvania for the term ending 1867. He was succeeded by Simon Cameron.

History of the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States. By William H. Barnes, 1868, pp. 96, 100, 133, 135, 195, 216, 273, 429, 460, 487, 489, 496, 535, 6564.

COWAN, Edgar, senator, born in Sewickley, Westmoreland county, Pennsylvania, 19 September, 1815; died in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, 29 August, 1885. He was early thrown on his own resources, becoming by turns clerk, boat-builder, school-teacher, and medical student, but finally entered Franklin college, Ohio, where he was graduated in 1839. He then studied law in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, and was admitted to the bar in 1842. In 1861 he was elected to the U. S. senate by the people's party, and served till 1867, distinguishing himself as a ready and fearless debater. He was chairman of the committees on patents, finance, and agriculture, and a member of that on the judiciary. He was a delegate to the Union convention at Philadelphia in 1866, and in January, 1867, was appointed minister to Austria, but was not confirmed by the senate. At the close of his term he resumed the practice of law in Greensburg. Senator Cowan was a man of large proportions and great physical strength, being six feet four inches in height. He published various speeches and addresses in pamphlet form.

Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Volume I. pp. 756.             



DIXON, James, 1814-1873, lawyer.  Republican U.S. Congressman and U.S. Senator representing Connecticut.  Voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.   


JAMES DIXON was born at Enfield, Connecticut, August 5, 1814. He pursued his preparatory studies at the High School of Ellington, and at sixteen years of age entered Williams College, where he graduated in 1834. After leaving college he studied law in the office of his father, William Dixon, Esq.; and after being admitted to the bar, commenced the practice of his profession in his native town, which for two years he represented in the State Legislature. Subsequently he removed to Hartford. In October, 1840, he was married to Miss Elizabeth L. Cogswell, daughter of Reverend Dr. Cogswell, Professor in the Theological Institute of East Windsor, and soon after went upon a European tour, which occupied him until the following summer.

Mr. Dixon devoted much attention to literature. He contributed poems of much merit to the "New England Magazine," and the "Connecticut Courant." Mr. Everest, in his "Poets of Connecticut," says, "Mr. Dixon's articles display truly poetical powers, and his sonnets in particular are characterized by a chasteness of thought and style which entitle them to a high place amongst the poems of their order." He was re-elected to the lower branch of the Connecticut Legislature in 1844, and was a member of the State Senate in 1849 and 1854. He served as a Representative in Congress from Connecticut, from 1845 to 1849.

He was elected a United States Senator from Connecticut, and entered upon the duties of this office in 1857, and was subsequently re-elected for the term which ended March 4th, 1869. He was elected as a Republican, but joined President Johnson in his defection from that party. In the spring of 1869, he was a candidate of the Democratic party for Representative in Congress, and was defeated. The Fortieth Congress of the United States: historical and biographical. By William H. Barnes, Volume 2, 1869. 

Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Volume 3, Pt. 1, pp. 328-329:

DIXON, JAMES (August 5, 1814-March 27, 1873), congressman, was born in Enfield, Connecticut, the son of William and Mary (Field) Dixon. He prepared for college in the neighboring town of Ellington, and entered Williams at the age of sixteen, graduating with the class of 1834. Soon afterward he began the study of law under his father, and on being admitted to the bar, began practise in his home town, Enfield. In 1839 he moved to Hartford, and was taken into partnership with W. W. Ellsworth. On October 1 of the following year Dixon married Elizabeth, daughter of the Reverend Jonathan Cogswell, professor of ecclesiastical history in the Theological Institute at East Windsor, Connecticut. His political career began in 1837, when at the age of twenty-three he was sent to the state legislature as a representative from Enfield. He was reelected the following year. After 1839 he became a leader of the Whig party in Hartford. In 1844 he served another term as state legislator. A year later he was sent to Congress, serving until 1849. In Congress he was a conservative Whig. His speeches in the House followed accepted lines of Whig policy. In 1846 he spoke against the reduction of import duties. The point at issue was, he declared, whether this country should employ its own labor to supply its wants, or give occupation to foreign workmen. The laboring classes, he asserted, desired a protective tariff (Congressional Globe, 29 Congress, I Session, App., pp. 1061 ff.). He spoke several times on the important question of the Mexican War. In 1847 he energetically supported the Wilmot Proviso (Ibid., 29 Congress, 2 Session, App., pp. 332 ff.). Later he upheld the Whig point of view that the war had been unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the president (Ibid., 30 Congress, 1 Session, pp. 227 ff.). Returning to Hartford from Congress, he resumed law practise, and was also for some years president of the Hartford Life Insurance Company. In 1854 he served a term as senator in the state legislature. Two years later he was elected to the United States Senate, where he remained until 1869, throughout the trying period of the Civil War, and the early years of Reconstruction. In the Senate, in 1859, he made a strong speech against the proposed acquisition of Cuba, on the ground that the matter was a Democratic party scheme for the purpose of furthering slavery interests (Ibid., 35 Congress, 2 Session, pp. 1335 ff.). Dixon was, of course, a loyal supporter of the Union cause during the Civil War. After the assassination of Lincoln, he became an ardent supporter of President Johnson, partly because of a desire for lenient treatment of the Southern states, and thus incurred the enmity of the radical Republicans. Having, therefore, no chance of receiving the Republican nomination for a third senatorial term, he stood for election in 1868 as a Democrat, but was defeated. In 1869, declining appointment as minister to Russia, he retired to private life, residing in Hartford, and being in rather feeble health until his death in 1873. Mrs. Dixon had died two years previously.

Outside of his political life, Dixon was something of a literary man, with a taste for poetry. He wrote several sonnets, which were published in the New England Magazine, and the Connecticut Courant. The poems are rather sweet and musical, although very amateurish. In public affairs, his attitude was thoroughly conservative. His political career was guided by ideals of abstract philosophy rather than by considerations of a purely practical, or temporary character. He was survived in 1873 by four children.



DOOLITTLE, James Rood, 1815-1897, lawyer, jurist, statesman.  Democratic and Republican U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, 1857-1869.  “At the New York state convention of 1847 he wrote the "corner-stone resolution" in which ‘the democracy of New York ... declare ... their uncompromising hostility to the extension of slavery into territory now free, or which may be hereafter acquired by any action of the government of the United States.’ This became the essential plank in the Free-Soil platform of 1848 and, in modified phraseology, in the Republican platform of 1856.” As a senator he voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.


THE ancestry of the subject of this sketch is part English, part Irish, and part Scotch. The paternal line was entirely English, and in early times it was connected with the Puritans in England. On the mother's side the ancestors were Presbyterians from the north of Ireland. His parents were born in New England, but early in life they removed to the village of Hampton, Washington County, in the State of New York, where James R. Doolittle was born, January 3, 1815. Four years after his birth his parents removed to Wethersfield Springs, in Wyoming County. At that time this part of the country was a wilderness. But the father, a man of great energy and prudence, was not long in acquiring property and influence in the community which grew up around him. Although without the advantage of a college education, he was always an earnest advocate of schools. He possessed a well balanced mind, firm religious principles and liberal views, and was the first to establish an Episcopal church at Wethersfield.

At the age of fifteen, young Doolittle entered college at Geneva, New York, and four years later graduated with the honors of his class. At school he was especially proficient in Mathematics and Greek. Even at that time he had developed unusual oratorical talent in the debating societies connected with the institution.

After leaving college, he read law with Isaac Hill of Rochester. During the three years of legal study then required before admission to the bar, he sometimes taught Mathematics, Greek, and Elocution. In 1836, he was admitted to practice law in the State of New York, and soon after was married to Miss Mary L. Cutting, of Warsaw. He established himself in Rochester, where he remained for two years.

The illness of a brother, which afterwards terminated in death, induced him to return to Wyoming County. There continuing in the practice of his profession, he was elected District-Attorney in 1845, in a county largely opposed to him in politics. He performed the duties of the office with ability, and to the satisfaction of his constituents.

In the year 1851, at the age of thirty-six, he removed with his family to Wisconsin, and took up his residence at Racine, which has since that time been his home. In a new State, surrounded by young and active men, he soon distinguished himself. He was employed by the Governor of Wisconsin to take charge of several cases for the State; on the ground, as the Governor said, that Mr. Doolittle was a man of ability, and could not be bought. He was successful in obtaining decisions in favor of the State. In 1853, he was chosen Judge of the First Judicial District of Wisconsin, but resigned in 1856, to resume the practice of the law.

At this time the country was agitated by the troubles in Kansas. The Democratic party, then in control of the Government, lent itself to the establishing of slavery in that Territory. When this course had been decided upon, he left the Democratic party, and assisted in the organization of the Republican party. The State of Wisconsin voted for Fremont, but Mr. Buchanan was elected President.

In 1857, the Legislature of Wisconsin elected Mr. Doolittle to the Senate of the United States, and in 1863 he was re-elected to the same position. In 1860, he sustained Mr. Lincoln ; and in 1864 aided his re-election to the Presidency.


For many years he was chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate, and gave direction to the Indian policy of the Government. Always opposed to harsh measures, he sought to avert conflicts and to establish peaceful relations between the races on the frontier. In 1865, Congress appointed a joint committee to visit the Indian country, and ascertain the necessities of the situation. Mr. Doolittle was chosen chairman, and in this capacity, with Senator Foster and Hon. Lewis Ross of the House, as one portion of the Commission, visited the Indians of New Mexico, Colorado, and the Plains. One result of this enterprise was the prevention of a war with the numerous nation of Camanches, by restraining one of our ambitious brigadier-generals from marching his troops across the Arkansas with the purpose of inaugurating hostilities. This one thing saved the Government at least thirty millions of dollars. An incident occurred at Denver in Colorado, which illustrates the character of the subject of this sketch. He was invited to address the people on Indian Affairs, for his views had much to do in determining the policy of the Government in that regard. It was only a few months after the Sand Creek massacre, where peaceable Cheyenne Indians of both sexes, old and young, had been slaughtered by wholesale at the instigation of Colonel Chivington. The meeting was held in the theater which only a short time before had been decorated with the scalps of more than a hundred Cheyennes, as trophies of the slaughter.

Mr. Doolittle commenced his speech, but had not proceeded far before announcing the opinion that the Indians should be treated with kindness and fairness, and allowed to pass away from the face of the earth in peace, and not exterminated by the whites. This opinion was no sooner stated than the whole audience raised a howl of rage, rose to their feet, some of them brandishing pistols, and tried to hiss the speaker from the stage. But they had mistaken the man. He folded his arms and gazed with cool defiance at the infuriated mass. They fired no shots, but in silence and awe soon resumed their seats, struck dumb by the courage and self-possession of the man. The speaker continued his remarks without further interruption, and did not spare the feelings or the prejudices of his audience. No man, unless possessed of physical and moral courage, could have braved such a storm of passion.

In dealing with the negro question, which for more than a quarter of a century has engrossed the attention of statesmen, and agitated and disturbed the country, he has maintained the theories of Jefferson, in which he was schooled in youth. He has always opposed slavery and its extension, and favored a gradual separation of the races by colonization or any other peaceful means. During a public as life of twenty-five years, he has never swerved from those fundamental ideas. Always a Democrat, when his party did not attempt or connive at the extension of slavery, yet when any such attempt was made, he was always among the first to break from his party. In 1848, he was a Free-Soil Democrat. In 1856, when an attempt was made to force slavery into the Territory of Kansas, he abandoned the Democratic party in the pride of its power, and became a Republican. Before the Rebellion broke out, he often urged the Southern leaders to adopt a system of gradually colonizing the negroes of the South in Central America, and thus remove the only cause which was disturbing the peace of the country. But his admonitions were unheeded, as well by the extreme Republicans as by the men of the South. The same plan which Henry Clay had advocated, without material success, was again rejected, and the almost inevitable sequence, in the excited condition of the public mind, was civil war. The attempt to avert the impending conflict met with but little favor. And yet it is doubtful whether any other course could long have postponed the collision which followed.

During the war, Mr. Doolittle was a zealous supporter of the Union cause, and labored in the Senate, and before the people, to accomplish its triumph. After the overthrow of the Rebellion, he favored a policy of magnanimity towards the South, and sought to lessen the bitterness existing between the two sections, and allay the angry passions which the war had aroused. His voice has been heard pleading in eloquent tones for mercy to the vanquished, and pointing out the evils, present and future, of continuing the animosities of civil strife. Although much censured for this course, deserted by many of his best friends, and charged with ignoble motives, he has held his course without faltering, feeling that it was his duty, and trusting in the returning reason of his fellow-countrymen, at a future day, for his vindication. The advocates of leniency and magnanimity always are commended when the wild storm of passion has abated, and the clear light of reason breaks through the vanishing clouds.

As a member of the High Court of Impeachment, Mr. Doolittle voted to acquit the President. During the consultation of the Senate, before the rendition of the verdict, he delivered an oral“ opinion” on the case, of which the following is the closing paragraph:

“Sir, much may be forgiven, much must be forgiven in times of high party excitement, for the judicial blindness which it begets. But when this temporary and frenzied excitement shall have passed away, as pass it will, and when men shall carefully review this case and all the evidence given on this trial, their surprise will be, not that a few Republican Senators can rise above party prejudice and refuse to be driven from their clear convictions by party furor, but their utter astonishment will be, that any respectable Senator should ever for one moment have entertained the thought of convicting the President of the United States of a high crime or a misdemeanor upon the charges and evidence produced upon this trial.”

As a public man, Mr. Doolittle is a statesman rather than a partisan. He has never felt himself bound to support party measures when he regarded them as prejudicial to the interests of the nation. Thoroughly a man of principle, in his daily life he conforms strictly to his convictions of duty. At times he seems to hesitate, but it is only for a moment. When convinced that a certain course is right, he assumes it without fear of consequences, and urges it with untiring zeal and unvarying consistency.

In a recent speech, delivered in the Senate, Mr. Howe, of Wisconsin, bore honorable testimony to Mr. Doolittle's integrity of character. “My colleague,” said he, “has been a citizen of the State of Wisconsin since sometime about 1850 or 1851. He was for many years a leading lawyer in that State, very widely known to the profession, enjoying a very large practice. He was four or five years a Judge of the Circuit Court in that State, before he came to the Senate. I knew him for almost the whole time very well, personally and by reputation, and I have great personal satisfaction in saying here, and I think it is due to the State that I should say it, that in all that time I never heard the slightest imputation cast upon him, either for the conduct of business in the Courts over which he presided, or for the relations existing between him and his clients-never a whisper which could excite in the mind of any one a suspicion of his venality or corruption.”

As an orator, Mr. Doolittle has a high reputation, which is well deserved. His speeches possess much argumentative force, graceful imagery, and frequent eloquence. His manner is earnest and dignified, his utterance is deliberate and distinct, without apparent effort.

Public men are praised more for their eloquence, wit, intellectual strength, and engaging manners, than for purity of character. But in forming a correct estimate of the character of a public man, private virtues, no less than public, should be taken into consideration. In this respect, the subject of this sketch will bear close scrutiny. In early manhood, he embraced the teachings of Christianity, and has lived a consistent, religious life. He is free from intemperance, and all its kindred vices.

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



FESSENDEN, William Pitt, 1806-1869, lawyer, statesman, U.S. Congressman, U.S. Senator, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.  Elected to Congress in 1840 as a member of the Whig Party opposing slavery.  Moved to repeal rule that excluded anti-slavery petitions before Congress.  Strong leader in Congress opposing slavery.  Elected to the Senate in 1854.  He opposed the Kansas-Nebraska bill as well as the Dred Scott Supreme Court Case.  Co-founder of the Republican Party.  Prominent leader of the anti-slavery faction of the Republican Party in the U.S. Senate.  As U.S. Senator, voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery. Father was abolitionist Samuel Fessenden. 


WILLIAM PITT FESSENDEN, a son of the Hon. Samuel Fessenden, was born in Boscawen, N. H., October 16, 1806. Before he reached his twelfth year, he was fitted for college under the tutorship of a law student in his father's office, and at the age of seventeen was graduated at Bowdoin College, in the class of 1823. He immediately commenced the study of law, and in 1827, at the age of twenty-one, was admitted to the Portland bar. He immediately opened an office in Bridgeton, Me., and in 1829 removed to Portland.

In 1831, at twenty-five years of age, Mr. Fessenden was elected to the State legislature, of which he was the youngest member. He rose at once to distinction, both as a debater and a legislator. His insight into the details of political economy, for which, in later years, he became so distinguished, were thus early evinced in an important debate on the United States Bank, in which the youthful orator displayed remarkable spirit and ability.

From 1832 to 1839, Mr. Fessenden devoted himself exclusively to his profession, in which he very soon rose to the first rank, both as a counselor and an advocate. In 1838, he was solicited to become a candidate for Congress, but declined. In 1839, he was again chosen to the State legislature, a representative from the city of Portland. Although the House was largely Democratic, and Mr. Fessenden was a Whig always distinguished for an uncompromising assertion of his principles, nevertheless he was placed on the Judiciary Committee, and was made Chairman of the House Committee for revising the Statutes of the State.

Mr. Fessenden, in 1840, was nominated by acclamation as the Whig candidate for Congress, and was elected by a vote running considerably beyond the party limit. In Congress he participated in the current debates, and made speeches on the Loan Bill, Army Appropriation Bill, and against the repeal of the Bankrupt Law. In 1843, he was nominated for re-election, but declined, from a choice to remain in the practice of his profession ; and, meantime, he received in the legislature of that year, the votes of the Whig party for a vacant seat in the United States Senate. In 1845, he was again elected to the State legislature, and was also chosen in the following year, but declined.

From 1845 to 1852, Mr. Fessenden was in private life, devoting himself to his profession with a constantly increasing practice and reputation. During this period he was associated with Daniel Webster in an important case before the Supreme Court at Washington, involving a legal question never before discussed in that court. The question was as to “how far the fraudulent acts of an auctioneer in selling property should affect the owner of the property sold—he being no party to the fraud ?” In this case, Mr. Fessenden had to contend against the weight and influence of Judge Story's opinion and decision, which were against his client in the court below. But he was successful, and Judge Story's decision was reversed. His argument on that occasion was remarkable for its logical force and legal acuteness, and was said to have won the highest admiration from the most fastidious judges.

Once, during this period (1850) of Mr. Fessenden's career, he was elected to Congress, but his seat was given to his competitor through an error in the returns. Yet he declined to contest the case before Congress, from an unwillingness to serve in that body. This unwillingness he had decisively expressed in advance to the Conventions of the Whig and Free-Soil parties, which, against his wishes, had insisted upon nominating him.

Mr. Fessenden was a member of the National Convention which nominated General Harrison for the Presidency in 1840; and of the National Convention which nominated General Taylor in 1848; and also of that which nominated General Scott in 1852. He was a member of the Maine legislature in 1853, the Senate of which gave him a majority vote for the position of Senator in Congress. But the House, being Democratic, failed by four votes to concur, and no election was effected at that session. The same House, however, though opposed to him in politics, associated him with the Hon. Reuel Williams in negotiating the purchase of the large body of wild lands of Massachusetts, lying in Maine, which was successfully accomplished.

In the following year, we find Mr. Fessenden in the State legislature, both branches of which were Democratic. But the Kansas-Nebraska question operating as a disturbing element, he was now elected United States Senator by both branches—a union being formed of the Whigs and Free-Soil Democrats. This event may be said to have been the preliminary step toward establishing the Republican party in Maine—the necessity of which, after the action of the Southern Whigs on the Nebraska Bill, Mr. Fessenden earnestly maintained. He was strongly opposed to this bill; and shortly after taking his seat in the Senate, and on the night when it was passed, he delivered one of the most electric and effective speeches that had been made against it. This great effort established his reputation in the Senate as one of its ablest members. Among other important speeches of Mr. Fessenden subsequently made in the Senate, is his speech on our relations with England; also that on Kansas Affairs, and on the President's Message in 1856 ; on the Iowa Senatorial election in 1857, and on the Lecompton Constitution in 1858. In the general debates and business of the Senate, he has from the beginning taken a prominent part.

In 1859, by a unanimous vote of bis party in the legislature, and without the formality of a previous nomination, Mr. Fessenden was re-elected to the United States Senate for the term of six years.

Toward the close of this term of service in the Senate, he was appointed, by President Lincoln, Secretary of the Treasury, in place of Salmon P. Chase, who had been elevated to the Supreme Bench. In the Thirty-seventh Congress, he was Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, a position which he held until appointed to the Cabinet in 1864. In his capacity as Chairman of this important committee, Mr. Fessenden’s labors were of a very arduous character. In the Thirty-seventh and Thirty-eighth Congresses there were all the vast appropriations of the Government to provide for, besides the labor of originating and putting in operation a financial system which would enable the Government to meet the demands of a civil war, waged on a scale of colossal proportions. In the accomplishment of all this, Mr. Fessenden bore a very prominent and conspicuous part. As Chairman of the Committee on Reconstruction, very much labor and care devolved upon him. He was authorized to write the Report of this Committee, which, in respect to ability, may be considered one of the capital achievements of his life.

As a laborer in the important work belonging to a legislator and statesman, probably few, if any, excel Mr. Fessenden. For clear, incisive common sense, the rarest and most excellent quality of a Senator, he is eminently distinguished. “There is no man in Congress," says one, “whose judgment is more true, whose discretion is more absolute, or whose conviction is more sincere.” In great sagacity, catholic comprehension, and in that just estimate of what is practicable, he is probably unsurpassed.

Mr. Fessenden is equally eminent as a debater. He thinks closely, clearly, and accurately. He speaks readily-being prepared to discuss on the instant almost any subject that may be presented. His speeches are entirely extemporaneous, and are so accurately pronounced that they can be put in type without the change of a sentence or a word. And then there is scarcely a subject presented on which he does not have something to say—his remarks being brief and to the point. In opposition he is almost always reasonable, although, at times, the stern integrity of his character may render him somewhat impatient, particularly when in debate he is confronting mere rhetoric and sentimentality in place of argument and sound sense but he neither traduces nor defies his opponents; and his advocacy of measures is all the more effective that while firm, prudent, and pointed, he is, at the same time, usually genial and always respectful.

Mr. Fessenden's course and bearing in the progress of the reconstruction measures were invariably dignified and commendable. No one was more fully aware than he that the difficulties of the situation were to be surmounted, not by vituperation and crimination, nor by petty jealousies or lofty moral indignation; but rather by tranquil firmness and honest argument. Differing from the President, he forbore, however, to question his sincerity; and while convinced that certain conditions of reorganization were indispensable, he refrained from either exasperating the late rebel population, on the one hand, or flattering them, on the other.

Mr. Fessenden, as is well known, was one of those of the Republican party who, at the conclusion of President Johnson's Impeachment trial, voted for his acquittal.

In the “opinion” which he prepared on this occasion, he said : “ It would be contrary to every principle of justice, to the clearest dictates of right, to try and condemn any, man, however guilty he may be thought, for an offense not charged, of which no notice has been given to him, and against which he has had no opportunity to defend himself.”

After proceeding at great length and with much learning to give reasons why he regarded the President not guilty on the several articles, he added: “In the case of an elective Chief Magistrate of a great and powerful people, living under a written Constitution, there is much more at stake in such a proceeding than the fate of the individual. The office of President is one of the great co-ordinate branches of the Government, having its defined powers, privileges, and duties; as essential to the very framework of the Government as any other, and to be touched with as careful a hand. Anything which conduces to weaken its hold upon the respect of the people, to break down the barriers which surround it, to make it the mere sport of temporary majorities, tends to the great injury of our Government, and inflicts a wound upon constitutional liberty. It is evident, then, as it seems to me, that the offense for which a Chief Magistrate is removed from office, and the power intrusted to him by the people transferred to other hands, and especially where the hands which receive it are to be the same which take it from him, should be of such a character as to commend itself at once to the minds of all right-thinking men as, beyond all question, an adequate cause. It should be free from the taint of party, leave no reasonable ground of suspicion upon the motives of those who inflict the penalty, and address itself to the country and the civilized world as a measure justly called for by the gravity of the crime and the necessity for its punishment. Anything less than this, especially where the offense is one not defined by any law, would, in my judgment, not be justified by a calm and considerate public opinion as a cause for removal of a President of the United States. And its inevitable tendency would be to shake the faith of the friends of constitutional liberty in the permanency of our free institutions and the capacity of man for self-government.”

Mr. Fessenden's vote to acquit the President subjected him to considerable censure from a majority of the Republican press of the country. Subsequently, on declining an invitation to a public dinner tendered to him by some distinguished citizens of Boston, he took occasion to explain and defend his action in the case. Whatever may have been the surprise and regret of many of Mr. Fessenden's friends at his decision in this momentous trial, no one can reasonably call in question the integrity and purity of the motives by which in this, as in his other public acts, he seems to have been actuated.

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



FOOT, Solomon (November 19, 1802-March 28, 1866), lawyer, politician.  U.S. Congressman, U.S. Senator.  Opposed war with Mexico.  Opposed slavery and its extension into new territories.  Founding member of the Republican Party.  Voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery. 


SOLOMON FOOT was born in Cornwall, Vermont, November 19, 1802, and graduated at Middlebury College in 1826. Having occupied some years in teaching, he studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1831. He was for many years a member of the State Legislature of Vermont, and State Attorney. From 1843 to 1847 he was a Representative in Congress. In 1851 he was elected a Senator in Congress from Vermont, was re-elected in 1857, and again in 1863. For several years he held the office of President pro tem. of the Senate. He died in Washington, March 28, 1866.

History of the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States. By William H. Barnes, 1868, pp. 253, 269.

FOOT, SOLOMON (November 19, 1802-March 28, 1866), lawyer, politician, son of Solomon and Betsey (Crossett) Foot, was born at Cornwall, Vt. His father, a physician, died while he was still a child, but in spite of many difficulties and privations he secured an education, graduating at Middlebury College in 1826. For five years following graduation he engaged in teaching, most of the time as principal of Castleton Seminary, interrupted by one year (1827-28) as tutor at the University of Vermont. He studied law in the meantime, was admitted to the bar in 1831, and established himself in practise at Rutland. Though an able lawyer his early and long continued activity in public affairs prevented his attaining real prominence at the bar. In 1833 he was elected to the legislature as representative of Rutland. He was reelected in 1835, 1837, 1838, and 1847, and in each of the last three terms served as speaker. In the latter capacity, declared Senator Poland, "he first displayed that almost wonderful aptitude and capacity as the presiding officer of a deliberative assembly, which afterward made him so celebrated throughout the nation" (Congressional Globe, 39 Congress, 1 Session, p. 1908). He was a member of the constitutional convention of 1836 and prosecuting attorney of Rutland County from 1836 to 1842.

He was an active Whig and as such was elected to Congress in 1842, serving two terms until 1847 when he declined a renomination and returned to his legal practise. His service in the House was without special interest or distinction but he was strongly opposed to the Mexican policy of the administration and denounced the war which resulted. In 1850 he was elected to the United States Senate and served until his death sixteen years later, being at that time the senior member in point of continuous service. His opposition to the extension of slavery led him to join the new Republican organization when the Whig party finally disintegrated. During his first term in the Senate he also served for a year (1854-55) as president of the Brunswick & Florida Railroad Company, visiting England in connection with the sale of its securities and the purchase of material.

Foot was not distinguished as an orator and most of his remarks are brief and pointed interjections in the course of debate. His speech of March 20, 1858, on the proposed admission of Kansas under the Lecompton Constitution (Congressional Globe, 35 Congress, 1 Session, App., pp. 153-58) shows, however, that he was capable of sustained argument and close reasoning, had he wished to devote himself to long set addresses. It was as a presiding officer that he appears to have made the deepest impression on his contemporaries. He was president pro tempore throughout most of the Thirty-sixth Congress and all of the Thirty-seventh, besides being often called on to preside when the regular incumbents were not available. "He was perhaps more frequently called to the ... chair than any other Senator," said J. B. Grinnell of Iowa, who also declares that his services had left a permanent impress on the parliamentary decorum and methods of the Senate (Congressional Globe, 39 Congress, 1 Session, p. 1924). In parliamentary law Charles Sumner testified, "he excelled and was master of us all." Fessenden, Reverdy Johnson, and others paid similar tribute to his fine presence, fairness, courage, and dignity in the chair as well as to the personal qualities which made him one of the most popular members of the upper chamber. When his death was announced, the splenetic Gideon Welles, never given to flattery of his associates, and usually suspicious of senators in particular, wrote in his diary (Diary of Gideon Welles, 19n, II, 466) that he had been a firm friend of the Navy Department, was "pater senatus and much loved and respected." His most notable committee service was rendered as chairman of the committee on public buildings and grounds, in which capacity he was able, in spite of the stringency of the Civil War, to push forward the completion of the Capitol. Judged by occasional remarks in the course of debate on appropriation bills, he appears to have had certain ideals as to the future development of the government property in Washington not altogether common at that time. He was twice married: July 9, 1839, to Emily Fay; and April 2, 1844, to Mary Ann (Hodges) Dana. He died in Washington, D. C.  

Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Volume 3, Pt. 2, pp. 498-499



FOSTER, Lafayette Sabine, 1806-1880, statesman, Connecticut State Representative, Mayor of Norwich, Connecticut, U.S. Senator 1854-1867, Republican Party, opposed to slavery.  Voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.


LAFAYETTE S. FOSTER, a lineal descendant of Miles Standish, was born in Franklin, Connecticut, November 22, 1806. In 1828 he graduated at Brown University, which honored him with the degree of LL.D. in 1850. He was admitted to the bar in 1831. He was six times a member of the Connecticut Legislature, and two years Mayor of the city of Norwich. In 1855 he was elected a United States Senator for Connecticut, and was re-elected in 1862. He was chosen President pro tem of the Senate at the extra session in 1865, and by the elevation of Andrew Johnson to the Presidency became Acting Vice-President of the United States. His service of twelve years in the Senate closed March 4, 1867, when he was succeeded by Orris S. Ferry.

History of the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States. By William H. Barnes, 1868, pp. 23, 137,187, 288, 306, 497, 576.

FOSTER, LAFAYETTE SABINE (November 22, 1806-September 19, 1880), Connecticut editor, judge, United States senator, was the eldest son of Daniel and Welthea Ladd Foster. His father, a descendant of Miles Standish, had been a captain in the Revolutionary War. Lafayette was born in Franklin, near Norwich, Connecticut. The family had slender means, and when he reached college age he was obliged to support himself. He attended Brown University, graduating with high honors in 1828. The following year he taught in an academy in Queen Annes County, Maryland, and then began the study of law in the office of Calvin Goddard of Norwich, who had been an active Federalist politician, and member of the Hartford Convention of 1814. In 1831 he was admitted to the New London County bar. Two years later he opened a law office in Hampton, in Windham County, but in 1835 returned to Norwich, which became his home thereafter. In 1835 he became editor of the Norwich Republican, a Whig journal (Caulkins, Norwich, pp. 582-83). On October 2, 1837, he married Joanna, daughter of James Lanman of Norwich, judge and United States senator. After her death in 1859, he married, October 4, 1860, Martha Lyman of Northampton, Massachusetts. Two daughters and a son were born of the first marriage, but all of them died in childhood.

There were no children from the second marriage. Foster became interested in politics early in his career. He first represented Norwich in the General Assembly in 1839. He was reelected in 1840, from 1846 to 1849 served three years in succession, and later served two single terms, in 1854 and 1870. Four times he was speaker of the House of Representatives. In the state elections of 1850 and 1851 Foster was the unsuccessful Whig candidate for governor. During 1851 and 1852 he was mayor of Norwich. In 1854 he was chosen United States senator, subsequently holding that position twelve years, from 1855 to 1867. While in the Senate he spoke frequently but his chief distinction was his election as president pro tempore of the Senate. In 1866 he failed to receive the Republican caucus nomination for a third senatorial term, presumably because his opinions were too conservative. In 1870 he became a judge of the Connecticut superior court, and served until 1876. He supported Horace Greeley for president in 1872. Later he was nominated for national representative by a combination of Democrats and liberal Republicans, but was not elected. In 1878 he served on a commission studying a simplification of legal procedure in Connecticut, and during 1878-79 he was a member of a commission to settle a boundary dispute with the state of New York. In appearance, Foster, was slight and unimpressive, his expression being grave and serious. He possessed, nevertheless, both humor and caustic wit, with which he frequently enlivened the otherwise dull sessions of legislative assemblies wherein he spent so much of his life. 

Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Volume 3, Pt. 2, p. 553



GRIMES, James Wilson, 1816-1872, statesman, lawyer, governor of Iowa.  U.S. Senator, voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.  Governor of Iowa, 1854-1858.  Supported by Whigs and Free Soil Democrats.  Elected as Republican Senator in 1859.  Re-elected 1865. He upheld the inviolability of the Missouri Compromise; and in his inaugural address on December 9, 1854, made it plain that he would do everything in his power to combat the further spread of slavery.


JAMES W. GRIMES was born in Deering, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, October 10, 1816. He pursued his preparatory studies at Hampton Academy, and graduated at Dartmouth College in 1836. In hopes of finding a wider and more congenial field of operations he removed to the West, and settled in Iowa, where he practiced his profession as a lawyer. In 1838 he was elected to the first general Assembly of the territory of Iowa, and held a seat in that body, by re-election, for several years. He held the office of governor of the State of Iowa from 1854 to 1858. He was elected a United States Senator from that State in 1859, and in 1865 was re-elected for the term ending March 3, 1871. He served as chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, and chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs, a position of much responsibility during the war. He was a member of the Committees on Public Lands, Public Buildings, Appropriations, and the Special Joint Committee on the Rebellious States. In 1865 he received from Iowa College the degree of LL. D. In the Impeachment trial he incurred severe censure from many of his political friends by voting for the acquittal of the President. In his opinion of the case, he said, "I cannot suffer my judgment of the law governing this case to be influenced by political considerations, I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an unacceptable President. Whatever may be my opinion of the incumbent, I cannot consent to trifle with the high office he holds. I can do nothing which by implication may be construed into an approval of impeachments as a part of future political machinery." On account of the failure of his health, Mr. Grimes resigned his seat in the Senate in the fall of 1868, and resided several months in Europe with beneficial results.  

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

GRIMES, JAMES WILSON (October 20, 1816- February 7, 1872), lawyer, legislator, governor of Iowa, and United States senator, was born at Deering, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, the youngest of eight children. His parents, John and Elizabeth (Wilson) Grimes, were intelligent, independent farmers of Scotch-Irish stock. He entered Dartmouth College in August 1832, at the age of sixteen, but left at the close of the first term of  his junior year, in February 1835. In 1845 he was awarded the degree of A.B. as of the class of 1836. After leaving college, he read law in the office of James Walker at Peterborough, New Hampshire, but shortly set forth to seek his fortune in the West. On May 15, 1836, he became a resident of Burlington, Iowa. Here he entered the profession of the law at the age of nineteen and soon became active in public life. In September of that year he acted as secretary of the commission which made two important treaties witl1 the Sac and Fox Indians. The following year he was appointed city solicitor. Elected in 1838 to the first Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Iowa, he served as chairman of the committee on judiciary. He served again in 1843 as a member of the sixth Legislative Assembly, and in 1852 as a member of the fourth General Assembly of the state, where he was a leader in the promotion of railroads. At this time he was listed as a farmer, being interested in stock-breeding and agriculture. He was a charter member of the Southern Iowa Horticultural Society, and for a time served as editor on the staff of the Iowa Farmer and Horticulturist. On November 9, 1846, he had married Elizabeth Sarah Nealley. In the practise of law he was associated with Henry W. Starr.

Grimes was a man of commanding presence. "Careless of appearance, and somewhat rough and ungainly in early life, he grew with years in suavity, and grace, and dignity of bearing." Always, "he abhorred pretension and indirection" (Salter, post, p. 390). He had been reared a Whig and later adhered to that party both from preference and from conviction. Nominated for the office of governor by the Whigs, he was elected on August 3, 1854, after an energetic and fatiguing campaign. He stood for the revision of the state constitution and the establishment of banks and advocated better schools, internal improvements, and the enactment of homestead laws which would give to foreign-born settlers the same rights as were granted to native-born. He upheld the inviolability of the Missouri Compromise; and in his inaugural address on December 9, 1854, made it plain that he would do everything in his power to combat the further spread of slavery. Placing "business above politics, and the state above his party," Grimes, with a sense of institutional values, helped to remake Iowa. While he was in office the constitution of the state was revised and the capital removed from Iowa City to Des Moines; the State University was located permanently at Iowa City; schools free to all children were placed on a public-tax basis; a prohibitory liquor law was enacted; a State Historical Society was established; and institutions were created for the care of the insane, the deaf and dumb, and the blind. By the year 1856 he regarded the old parties and old issues as dead; and in that year spoke with force and deep conviction in behalf of the new Republican party, declaring that the great issue before the country was the extension or non-extension of slavery into the territories. It has been said that he, more than any one else, "made Iowa Republican, and allied it with the loyal States" (Salte, post, p. II6).

On March 4, 1859, he first took his seat in the United States Senate. He was appointed to the committee on pensions and private land claims; and on January 24, 1861, became a member of the committee on naval affairs, of which he was chairman from December 8, 1864, until the end of his senatorial career. He was instrumental in keeping the Naval Academy at Annapolis, and was one of the first to recognize the necessity of an adequate fleet and the advantages of iron-clad ships. He was also chairman of the committee on the District of Columbia; and in the latter part of his senatorial career served on the committees on patents and the Patent Office, public buildings and grounds, and appropriations. He was associated with a group of men who during the Civil War created a detective service to sift out disloyal persons in the public service and elsewhere.

During the impeachment trial of President Johnson in 1868, Grimes displayed an integrity which cost him his political power and probably hastened his death. Though he considered many of the President's acts as highly deplorable, he did not believe that they constituted "high crimes and misdemeanors" and he seriously doubted the wisdom of a policy of impeachment. The strain of the trial brought on a stroke of paralysis, and when the time came for voting on the impeachment he had to be carried into the Senate chamber. He voted "Not guilty," while James Harlan [1820-1899, q.v.], the other senator from Iowa, voted "Guilty." One ballot the other way would have given a two-thirds majority, and the President would have been retired from office. A storm of political abuse broke upon Grimes; even the town of Burlington viewed his conduct with disfavor.

He returned to Congress when it reassembled in December 1868, but his spirit and strength were gone. In April 1869 he was ordered to Europe for a rest. There he suffered another stroke, and on August 11, sent to the governor of Iowa his resignation as senator, to take effect December 6. When he returned to America in September 1871, he found public sentiment once more in his favor. He died a few months later at his home in Burlington. Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Volume 4, Pt. 1, p. 630.



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.