PERSONAL RECOLLECTIONS OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON

Towards the close of 1867 I found a note one morning on my breakfast table from Senator E. D. Morgan, dated from the senate chamber, Washington, informing me that the President had that day sent in my name to the Senate as minister to a foreign mission--then about to be establishedand that the nomination would be unanimously confirmed.

As I had neither applied for nor expected the appointment, and had no personal acquaintance with nor had ever seen President Johnson, I was much surprised at the information; none the less so, as the President was at the time exceedingly unpopular with the party whose principles I espoused. Indeed, so strained were the relations between the Executive and the two houses of Congress that rumors of impeachment were already in the air, and hitherto for some time every nomination sent by the President for confirmation by the Senate had been rejected by that body. Through family considerations it was by no means convenient for me, at the moment, to go abroad for a series of years, but I thought it proper to visit Washington for the purpose of expressing to the President, in person, my sense of the honor conferred, reserving my decision in the matter until my arrival. Circumstances however delayed this visit, during which interval the political relations between the President and Congress had become intensified. All efforts to bring about a reconciliation of interests had signally failed. The burning question was, Should the states lately in rebellion be restored at once to all their political privileges, or restrained by coercive measures until they formally and irrevocably accepted the situation, making oath to their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union? Johnson claimed that "the status quo ante was alone constitutional, and was for universal suffrage, and that the Union could be best preserved by the re-establishment of the conquered states on the basis of the equal political rights of all the states." He believed the radicals of the North to be blinded by malignant and partisan hatred, which would stifle every throb of loyalty in the Southern breast, and postpone for an indefinite period all attempts at permanent reorganization in the states so lately in active rebellion. The majority of Northern statesmen believed that Johnson was, at least, seeking political popularity with the southerners at the expense of the avowed principles upon which the war for the Union had been carried on, and which alone could maintain its integrity; that the

spirit of disloyalty and insubordination was still rife among the ex-secessionists, and that nothing but a firm hand and determined opposition to their attempts at rehabilitation—until guarantees were afforded of unquestioned loyalty would restore the union of the states to anything but an empty

name.

Finally, the resolution of the House of Representatives of February 24, 1868, to impeach Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, for "high crimes and misdemeanors" brought matters to a crisis. He was charged by his enemies with "being faithless to the people and the administration, and exciting sedition against the liberties of the people and the results of the war."

I confess that I did not relish the prospect of a personal interview with President Johnson; for, apart from political bias, I had imbibed a prejudice against him, and believed that however free he might be from dishonest motives, he was being manipulated by the most disloyal element of the "non-reconstructed" South. This opinion was confirmed by the appearance of the group of men who were awaiting interviews with the President in the ante-room when I entered, and who were certainly not composed of the chivalry and culture of the higher class of Southern gentlemen. Indeed, some among the latter had assured me that they felt no sympathy whatever with a certain body of political intriguers, whose efforts to increase the animosity between the Executive and the two houses served only to defer that peaceful reorganization of the Southern states which, now that the war was over, all sensible men there heartily desired."

66

Had not the usher, who had taken in my card, indorsed by the Secretary of State, informed me that the President would see me the moment the person then with him departed, I should have postponed the interview. Whoever "the person" might be, I concluded that the conference was one of importance, as I was kept waiting a considerable time. When at last I entered the President's room, I met a man coming out with head bowed and in tears.

I had expected to find Johnson very ordinary in personal appearance, in spite of his great natural abilities; nor did I forget his heroic stand and his unflinching courage, when even his life was in peril while defending the Union in the very hotbed of secession. He was standing by his table. at the upper end of the room, dressed neatly in a suit of entire black, and, in spite of his rather plebeian features, impressed me by his dignified and gentlemanly bearing.

He at once apologized for having kept me waiting, and explained that the individual who had just left had detained him in conversation longer

than he had expected. I remarked that the person referred to, as he passed me in going out, appeared to be suffering from strong emotion. After a moment's hesitation, the President explained that the interview had been a painful one on both sides. The man was an ex-Confederate officer, who having before the war served in the Federal army, now desired to be reinstated. Confessing his political error, he had come as a suppliant to the President to request a favorable recommendation to the Secretary of War. There were exceptional circumstances in this man's case which forbade any act of clemency on the part of the Executive, but the President had given him a moral lecture, and so feelingly appealed to his sense of honor, that the man had broken down with emotion.

Almost at the commencement of our conversation I stated clearly to the President my Republican sentiments, in order that, if he had acted in my case from any misapprehensions on that head, he might be enlightened.

"But," said he, with a smile, "I do not see why you should not be a very good man, if you are a Republican." Then, with a grave countenance, he added: "As to party politics, they should I think at a time like this be merged into united support of Constitutional principles, which I am sorry to say are being well nigh forgotten in party rancor."

After this remark the President entered into conversation with reference to the special object of my visit, which requires no further mention. here, excepting that his manner and words were in the highest degree courteous and complimentary, and left no shadow of doubt on my mind that he desired to separate party views from the higher consideration of public duty. His allusion, at the commencement of the interview, to the unhappy differences existing between himself and Congress tempted me, before taking leave, to offer with his permission a few observations on the subject. He encouraged me to proceed by leaning forward in the attitude of attention, and he heard me very patiently to the end. He gave me credit, he said, for disinterestedness, when I remarked that having satisfied his official conscience by the clear and forcible enunciation of his political views on the points at issue, would it not be conducive to the best interests of the country to stay the discord now tending to grave results by no longer opposing a policy which met with the approval of the chosen representatives of the people at large?

Rising from his chair, and asking me-as I had risen with him-to resume my seat, the President rested one hand upon the table, and in a slow, modulated tone of voice and with impressive earnestness, as if addressing an audience from the rostrum, declared that he "stood upon the Constitution." That, throwing aside all sectional prejudices, he had

the interests of the whole country at heart, and fearing neither the threats of impeachment nor the mistaken views of popular opinion, he should maintain what he believed to be Constitutionally right, without fear or favor.

I left him with the conviction that, however impolitic or misguided might be his course, a more honest-hearted man did not exist; nor could I believe that the indomitable courage and persistency in behalf of principle which had characterized his conduct before the war, and had made the country ring with the name of " Andy Johnson," had become debased by truckling to the sycophancy of disloyal Southern politicians.

Meeting, on my way back from the White House, a "reconstructed" friend from the South, I referred to the President's political views, as expressed to me. "A man of higher integrity of purpose than Andrew Johnson," he remarked, " never sat in the Presidential chair. The mistake is that he is several years in advance of the times. We at the South are not yet repentant; but Johnson don't see it. That's what's the matter."

Charles H. Tuckerman.

EAST TENNESSEE ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO

Mr. John Allison, in an address delivered at the seventeenth annual meeting of the Tennessee Press Association on Roan Mountain, July 14-16, 1887, claimed that the Watauga pioneers had established the first free government in America; the first church; the first institution of learning; the first newspaper west of the Alleghanies.

All men are interested in the development of society and therefore in the records of history. It is a duty due to the present and the future to correct inaccuracies. The above statement was made by one convinced of the truths he uttered and proud of the honored page that his noble ancestors have written in the annals of human achievement. The labors and deeds of these people are now finding a herald, and the simple story is more captivating than fancy has ever given to romance. plumes plucked from others to wing their flight to fame.

They need no

We will consider the claims in the order in which they have been placed in the address. First comes the claim that the government of the Watauga settlement in 1772 was the first free government in America. The same claim was made by the writer several years ago in a sketch of General James Robertson. More careful examination has shown that the opinion was unfounded.

"East Tennessee began to be permanently settled in the winter of 1768-9. Ten families of settlers came from the neighborhood of the place where Raleigh now stands in North Carolina and settled on the Watauga. This was the first settlement in east Tennessee." [Haywood, p. 39.1 Daniel Boone, who had been at the place as early as 1760, returned in 1769 or 1770. General James Robertson came in 1770. After the battle of Alamance many of the disaffected left the English rule for the freedom of the Western wilds and joined the Watauga settlement in 1771-2. The community had now grown beyond the dimensions of the hunter's camp and was composed of persons who sought permanent homes and the development of the new and fertile region. They were without any form of government. They well knew that no people could prosper without the restraints of law. To remedy this state of their affairs, they met. and formed a regular system of government suited to their circumstances. The settlers believed at this time that they were residing within the boundaries claimed by Virginia. They adopted the laws of that colony,