A Biography of Elihu Benjamin Washburne Congressman, Secretary of State, Envoy Extraordinary: Volume Six: Remaining Years in France as American Minister

By Mark Washburne

In 1869, President Grant nominated his old friend Elihu Washburne as secretary of state and then as minister to France. Washburne presented his credentials to Napoleon III and was present in 1870 for the Franco-German War. Following the war with the Germans, the people of Paris rose up in revolt and proclaimed a leftist commune. The poor response of the French government to feed the people of Paris after the peace treaty contributed to the political turmoil. This sixth volume explores the life of the American minister to France, Elihu Washburne, during the years following the Franco-German War and Paris Commune as the French government and people tried to rebuild their country following those dramatic events.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Oct 14, 2016
• ISBN: 9781524542832

Mark Washburne

Mark Washburne is an associate professor of history and political science at the County College of Morris in New Jersey. The author is a distant cousin of Minister Elihu Washburne and resides in Mendham, New Jersey, with his wife, Diane, and their cat, Buddy. This seventh and final volume explores the life of the civil war congressman, secretary of state, and the American minister to France, Elihu Washburne—from his retirement from public office to his death in 1887. During this final chapter in his life, Elihu Washburne was a presidential candidate for the Republican nomination in 1880, receiving over forty delegate votes in a losing cause to General James Garfield who later became president. At that same Republican convention, Washburne came in second place in the balloting for vice president. In the contest for the number two spot, Elihu Washburne lost to Chester Arthur, who replaced Garfield as the president after that chief executive was assassinated in 1881.

Book preview

CHAPTER 1

FAMILY BUSINESS

In June 1871, Elihu Benjamin Washburne was recovering from the strenuous duties he had undertaken as the American Minister to France. During the last eleven months, Washburne had experienced war, the fall of an empire, the birth of a republic, siege, foreign occupation, and civil war. Earlier, in May 1869, Washburne presented his letters of credence to Napoleon III and was present the next year for the Franco-German War. During that war, Minister Washburne distinguished himself as one of the only foreign diplomats to remain in Paris during the German siege of that city and later the Paris Commune. At the start of that war, Washburne took under his protection some 30,000 German residents in Paris who were citizens from the North German Confederation, Saxony, Darmstadt, and Hesse Grand Duchy after the German Ambassadors were expelled from France. He was practically the German Minister in France for eleven months, and was in constant official correspondence with the Prince de Bismarck.¹

While living through the war and siege were bad enough, the troubles for Minister Washburne in Paris continued after the German pull out from that city in early March of 1871. Shortly after the armistice, the regular French government fled from the Paris mob to Versailles. The new government in Paris was known as the Commune. The reign of the Commune of Paris, pursuing its career of murder, pillage, blasphemy, and terror, went out finally in blood and flame, wrote the American Minister. The incredible enormities of that reign, the massacre of the Archbishop, and the commission of many other outrageous murders of persons who refused to join in this fiendish work; the horrible and well-organized plans of incendiarism, designed to destroy the entire city, which resulted in the destruction of so many great monuments of Paris — these are crimes which must excite eternal execration.²

image002.jpg

Elihu Washburne

(Picture originally posted in Recollections of a Minister to France.)

As Elihu Washburne resumed his Ministerial duties in Paris following the war and Paris Commune, back in the United States, Washburne’s extended family were busy discussing politics and running for office. On July 15, 1871, former Governor Israel Washburn Jr. noted in the family journal: I just inquired of father if he was at (the) town meeting would he vote in favor of women’s voting & he answered with great emphasis NO! Fanny [daughter of Cadwallader Colden Washburn] has evidently been laboring with him on this point.³

Women’s rights were also being discussed in Elihu Washburne’s hometown of Galena. Earlier, on March 2, 1869, Susan B. Anthony (1820-1906) and Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902) spoke at the Grand Woman Suffrage Convention held at Davis Hall on Bench Street. The two reformers spoke mainly on women suffrage but also touched on a variety of other subjects including the injustice of paying women half as much as men. The Galena Gazette preferred Stanton’s style to that of her younger counterpart. The Gazette described Stanton’s lecture as the finest intellectual effort of either session, calling her an earnest able woman. The newspaper further added that Stanton aims to convince rather than to drive. Anthony returned to Galena on March 30, 1871, and, once again, spoke at Davis Hall. The subject of her lecture this time was called, Women Already Voters By Virtue of the 14th and 15th amendments.⁴ The Galena Gazette reported:

We confess that when Miss Anthony was in this city two or three years ago, she did not impress us favorably. We thought as did many others, that if she possessed a little more of Mrs. Stanton sweetness of temper, and like her, would endeavor to lead people, rather than to drive them, she would accomplish more for the cause which has long been so near to her heart. Last evening, however, Miss Anthony more than redeemed herself. Her subject was presented forcibly, in language fitly chosen, and without any appearance of bitterness… . While we cannot agree with her, we cannot but admire her perseverance.⁵

image004.jpg

Cadwallader Washburn

(Compliments of Washburn-Norlands Collection)

It is not clear whether Anthony and Stanton had influenced Elihu Washburne’s niece, Fanny Washburn, who was nineteen when she had the discussion with her grandfather on women suffrage. Politics, however, was part of her family heritage. In fact, that fall, Fanny’s father, Cadwallader Washburn, was busy running for Governor of Wisconsin. In the spring of 1871, noted General James Atwood, a historian and friend of the Washburns, as his last term in Congress had expired, a large number of friends urged Mr. [Cadwallader] Washburn to become a candidate for Governor, and, notwithstanding his desire to give his entire attention to his vast enterprises, he yielded to the wishes of the people and accepted the proffered nomination, and became the candidate for the Chief Executive office of the State.⁶

On August 30, the Republican State convention meeting in Madison nominated Cadwallader Washburn to be their candidate for Governor.⁷ His [Cadwallader Washburn’s] nomination by the Republican party in 1871 represented a pay-off for loyal service to the party since its inception in Wisconsin, noted historian Karel Bicha in his work, C. C. Washburn and the Upper Mississippi Valley. He had never been close to the party establishment, and service as governor was in essence the last way-station on the road to political oblivion. A term or two as governor meant that the party was no longer in his debt and the books were clear.⁸

In the Wisconsin governor’s race in 1871, Cadwallader Washburn ran against recently turned Democrat James R. Doolittle. Doolittle was a New York-born lawyer who practiced in Racine, (who) had come to the defense of Andrew Johnson in the hour of his travail and also served as co-sponsor of the 1866 National Union Movement designed to secure the election of a pro-Johnson congress in that year.⁹ In 1871, former Senator Doolittle rejoined the Democratic party and accepted that party’s gubernatorial nomination. Washburn looked forward to the challenge: To Washburn, the former Radical Republican, the opportunity to contest the governor’s office with a man who had voted for Andrew Johnson’s acquittal undoubtedly whetted his appetite for political combat.¹⁰ A leading newspaper in the state also echoed this theme: The Milwaukee Sentinel, Wisconsin’s leading Republican paper, unequivocally endorsed Washburn’s gubernatorial aspirations, calling him ‘an honest, able and sincere man’ and especially commending him for loyal support of the Union war effort and ‘the cause of our country when Andrew Johnson turned traitor and Doolittle followed.’¹¹ On September 1, 1871, after his nomination, Washburn wrote Elihu concerning the race: I went through all right and I expect a lively canvass with Doolittle for my opponent.¹²

During this time not only was Cadwallader Washburn busy running for the highest office in the state, he was also heavily involved in expanding his flour business. After the Civil War, Cadwallader C. Washburn returned to Wisconsin and proceeded to build the Washburn B. Mill at St. Anthony Falls, the largest flour mill west of Buffalo, New York, noted historian Thomas W. Balcom. Dubbed as ‘Washburn’s Folly,’ costing $100,000 and producing 840 barrels of flour per day, people said Minnesota couldn’t possibly use all the flour produced by such a large mill. Because Washburn perceived wheat rather than timber to be the greatest factor in development of the Northwest, he ignored public sentiment and viewed the entire nation and perhaps the world as his market. At this time, flour milling was most successful in the states to the south, where the white, soft winter wheat was grown and milled. The spring wheat, grown in Minnesota and other northern states, was considered inferior because of its hard, flinty character. When ground, it produced darkened flour, and its value was 20 percent less than winter wheat. Washburn conducted extensive research in the spring wheat milling process in both the U.S. and Europe and in 1871 he introduced the ‘middlings purifier process.’ This process involved separating the wheat kernels from the middlings, and then regrinding the middlings into flour. The resultant product had high nutritive qualities with less starch and more gluten than winter wheat, giving spring wheat a superior status for bread making.¹³

Some key people in his organization aided Cadwallader Washburn’s business success. The decade between 1870 and 1880 saw a revolution in the milling industry, with Washburn’s people and Washburn’s investors at the head of every development, wrote Cadwallader Washburn’s great-great-grandson Kerck Kelsey in his 2008 book Remarkable Americans: The Washburn Family. First there was George H. Christian, recommended by William to manage the ‘B’ mill, a six-story building housing twelve pairs of millstones, completed on the canal in 1866. Because of its unprecedented cost of $100,000 and its capacity to produce quantities of flour far in excess of visible demand, it was quickly dubbed ‘Washburn’s Folly.’ Within a decade, however, it could prove immensely profitable. Christian brought in Edmund LaCroix, who developed a ‘purifier’ machine that separated the husk of the wheat berry from the rest of the ground material. This ‘new process,’ development produced a uniformly high-quality ‘patent flour’ out of the spring wheat that had previously been hard to sell. Demand for the product began to grow. A man named George Smith developed a traveling brush that eliminated clogging in the flour purifiers and greatly increased production.¹⁴

image006.jpg

Congressman George Eustis, Jr.

(Picture originally posted in Recollections of a Minister to France.)

Meanwhile, Elihu Washburne had no doubt that his brother would be the next Governor of Wisconsin. I suppose you see the news from the United States, asked Washburne to former Louisiana Congressman George Eustis, Jr. in a letter dated October 5, 1871. My brother, General Washburn of Wisconsin, who served with you in the House, is nominated for Governor of that State, and he will be elected. Both Governor Seward and General Spinner have desired me to you that they left their cards for you. I see that Mr. Corcoran is not coming out this fall. All your friends here inquire after you. I hope that you will be able to write me that you are getting well and will soon be back in Paris.¹⁵

Elihu Washburne had friendly relations with Congressman Eustis, who had served in the House of Representatives with him. I have heretofore spoken of the very friendly relations existing between the Honorable George Eustis, Jr., of Louisiana, and myself, noted Washburne in his book Recollections of a Minister to France. In the fall of 1871, I began to hear bad accounts of his health. In September he went over to London on the suggestion of Junius S. Morgan, the great American banker, to consult a distinguished physician of that city; and on October 5th I wrote him from Paris to London, stating that I had heard flying reports of his health, and some of them were unfavorable, and that I was really anxious to have definite information in that regard. In my letter I spoke of our friendly relations from the time that we were in Congress together and members of the same Committee (the Committee of Commerce in the House of Representatives), and that I fully recollected the obligation that I was under to him at the time of the Franco-Prussian War for his advice and assistance in my legation, and stating that I earnestly hoped for his speedy restoration to health, not only for his own sake and family’s but for the sake of his many friends, who were attached to him by ‘hooks of steel.’¹⁶

While his brother Cadwallader ran for Governor of Wisconsin, Elihu Washburne, who was still in Paris, became concerned with the events in his home state of Illinois. On Sunday night, October 8, 1871, about 9 p.m., the Chicago blaze began in a barn behind Patrick and Katherine O’Leary’s cottage on Chicago’s West Side. Mrs. O’Leary’s cow knocked over a lantern and started the disastrous fire that would last until the morning of Tuesday, October 10. Before the fire finally died out, some 300 Chicagoans were dead, 100,000 homeless, 18,000 buildings were reduced to ashes, and a $200 million property loss occurred. After hearing of the news from Illinois, Minister Elihu Benjamin Washburne was busy in Paris raising money to help the victims of the Great Fire in Chicago.

CHAPTER 2

RAISING MONEY FOR THE GREAT CHICAGO FIRE

In October 1871, Minister Elihu Washburne was busy in Paris raising money to help the victims of the Great Fire in Chicago. On Sunday night, October 8, 1871, about 9 p.m., the Chicago blaze began in a barn behind Patrick and Katherine O’Leary’s cottage at 137 DeKoven Street on Chicago’s West Side. Mrs. O’Leary’s cow knocked over a lantern and started the disastrous fire. From there, the fire jumped to the Chicago River’s south branch and by 1:30 a.m. the business district was in flames. The fire then raced northward across the main river. On the morning of Tuesday, October 10, the fire finally died out but not before 300 Chicagoans were dead, 100,000 homeless, 18,000 buildings were reduced to ashes, and a $200 million property loss occurred.

Elihu Washburne raised $30,000 for the Chicago Fire victims. It was about the middle of October that we obtained in Paris the full details of the terrible fire in Chicago, and that frightful catastrophe was the subject of conversation among the people of the city in all circles, said Washburne. I at once called a meeting of the Americans in Paris, at the Washington Club, to take action in the matter. The meeting was largely attended, and in a very short time the sum of thirty thousand dollars was subscribed. The largest individual subscription at the meeting, two thousand dollars, was made by Samuel D. Warren, a wealthy and distinguished citizen of Boston. The largest subscription made by any Parisian was that of Baron Erlanger, the son-in-law of John Slidell of Louisiana, who was well known as having been connected with the ‘Erlanger loan’ to the rebel government. His subscription was for ten thousand francs — two thousand dollars. Madame Erlanger was one of the most beautiful and attractive women in Paris. I was disappointed at the subscription of the Rothschilds, which was for only five thousand francs.¹⁷

During that same month of October, French President Adolphe Thiers appointed a new minister to the Interior Department. On the 11th of October M. Thiers appointed M. Casimir-Perier Minister of the Interior in place of M. [Felix Edmond Hyacinthe] Lambrecht [1819-1871], deceased, wrote Washburne. M. Perier was the son of the celebrated Minister under Louis Philippe, and had occupied important diplomatic posts, and was at this time one of the members of the National Assembly from the Department of the Aube. He was somewhat distinguished as an economist and as a publicist, and had written a great deal on politics and finance. He was possessed of immense wealth, but very democratic tastes and feelings; though he represented the Department of the Aube, he had one of the most magnificent hotels in Paris on the Avenue of the Champs Elysees, where he lived.¹⁸ In 1894, Casimir-Perier’s son, Jean Casimir-Perier (1847-1907), succeeded Sadi Carnot as president of the French republic. The son, however, was attacked by the increasingly important left-wing parties and resigned early in 1895.

Besides his cordial relationships with many French and German officials, Washburne was also friendly with Russian diplomats stationed or visiting Paris. Among the people who were living temporarily in Paris in the fall of 1871 was Baron Stoeckel, the former Russian Minister to the United States, said the American Minister. He was a most intelligent gentleman, and enjoyed very much talking about matters in our country. He had married an American lady, who, I think, was from Springfield, Massachusetts. She was a most agreeable and charming woman and when in Washington was very popular and of great help to the baron in the discharge of his official duties. I had met many Russians since I had been abroad who had occupied both official and unofficial positions, and invariably found them most intelligent and accomplished gentleman, and almost invariably very friendly to our country. That was particularly the case with Count Stackelberg, who was the Russian Ambassador to Paris when I went there, as also Prince Orloff, his successor; I do not mean to include Catacazy, whom I only met once in Paris, and who had a tussle with Mr. Fish, when he was the accredited Russian Minister to the United States.¹⁹

Later in October, the Brazilian government sent a new envoy to Paris who also served as an arbitrator in the Alabama dispute. The Alabama was a ship built in England during the American Civil War for the Confederate navy. Many Americans believed that the British government had violated the law of neutrality and demanded that England pay for the damages that this vessel (and others) caused to the North. In 1871, Secretary of State Fish succeeded in forging a new agreement with Great Britain, called the Treaty of England, which provided for international arbitration of the claims and contained an apology by the British for the escape of the Alabama from England.²⁰

Minister Washburne contacted the new Brazilian diplomat about the Alabama dispute. It was on October 27th that the telegraphic despatch reached Paris that the Emperor of Brazil had appointed Baron d’Itajuba, Envoy Extraordinary to the French Republic, to be one of the arbitrators to settle the Alabama claims, wrote Elihu Washburne. I had known the baron quite well, and our personal relations had been friendly and he had always evinced a cordial spirit toward our country. As soon as the baron returned to Paris (he was absent at the time that I got the news of his appointment) I made a formal call upon him to express what I knew would be the feeling of our government; I said to him that it was with great pleasure that I had heard of his nomination as one of the arbitrators of the Alabama claims, and that I was delighted that his sovereign had shown him such a distinguished mark of confidence. The baron expressed himself as being highly honored by his nomination.²¹

Meanwhile, back in the United States, Cadwallader Washburn and James Doolittle had a lively canvass for their race for governor of Wisconsin. His [Cadwallader Washburn’s] opponent in the contest was Hon. James P. Doolittle, one of the most effective orators in the West, and a man of fine ability and extensive acquirements, said Washburn historian General David Atwood in his July 25, 1882 address to the Wisconsin State Historical Society. Arrangements were made for a thorough canvass of the State, and the two candidates spoke from the same platform in the principal cities, to immense audiences of interested people of all parties. While Mr. Doolittle may have possessed more of the graces of the finished orator than did Mr. Washburn, the latter was able to present the largest array of facts in support of the position he assumed, in a straight-forward manner, and in strong and plain language for which he was proverbial. The debates were conducted with signal ability and decorum on both sides, and the result of the canvass was the triumphant election of Mr. Washburn.²²

Not all historians agree with General Atwood’s statement that, the debates were conducted with signal ability and decorum on both sides. Karel Bicha, in his book C. C. Washburn and the Upper Mississippi Valley, described the debates as more partisan and devoid of the real State issues between the two candidates for Wisconsin’s highest office. Doolittle and Washburn agreed to a plan of Washburn’s contrivance to hold ‘discussions’ in six Wisconsin cities, elaborate joint appearances of four hour duration, wrote Bicha. "At issue between the two men were not contemporary problems of the state of Wisconsin but the question, as the Milwaukee Sentinel phrased it, ‘shall we lose the results of the war?’²³ Washburn waved the bloody shirt, Doolittle cringed, and his Democratic supporters could offer him no more assistance than to raise the question of Washburn’s wealth and how he acquired it. To this superfluous issue Washburn replied that he had grown wealthy by buying and holding wild land until it acquired value and by unspecified enterprise in the lumber business.²⁴ In effect, like John D. Rockefeller was later to do, Washburn said that God gave him his money. Though it was clear that virtually any Republican would have carried Wisconsin in 1871, Washburn’s eventual margin of 10,000 in the November election was by no means a mandate."²⁵ On November 8, 1871, the New York Times noted Cadwallader Washburn’s victory as Governor of the Badger State:

WISCONSIN

Washburn Elected Governor by Decided Majorities - Large Republican Gains Throughout the State.

Special Dispatch to the New-York Times.

Milwaukee, Nov. 7. - The vote polled in the state today has been the highest known for years. Washburn has undoubtedly been elected, also an increased majority secured for the Republicans in the Legislature. Pettit, the Republican nominee for Lieutenant-Governor, who has been opposed strongly by the Temperance men and Methodists of the State, has run far ahead of his ticket, against Rice, Democrat. In the city of Milwaukee Doolittle has only a majority of 1,252, while the Fond du Lac City and town gives Washburn a majority of 147. Oshkosh returns indicate a Republican majority in the city of 132. Doolittle gets 118 majority in Madison, while Kenosha gives Washburn 34 majority, and its townsman, Pettit, a majority of 249. Manitoac gives Washburn 131 majority, but Doolittle carries Two Rivers by a majority of 1543. Brandon, Ripon, and Oakfield, in Fond du Lac County, increases Washburn’s majority by 404. Three villages in Rock County, including Janesville, give Washburn a majority of 498. The following are Washburn’s majorities in some other cities and towns heard from: Baraboo, 159; Amro, 276; Monroe, 124; West Eau Claire, 126; Menomouee, 245; Whitewater, 237; Berlin, 292. Portage and Prairie Du Chien give decreased Democratic majorities. Lacrosse County, rolls up a majority of 500 for Washburn, and Waupun, and two adjoining towns give 262 majority for Washburn. In close districts, Graham, of Janesville, Coleman of fond du Lac, and Phillips, of Eau Claire, all Republicans, have been elected by good majorities. Himer, of fond du Lac, and Thorpe, of Chippewa Valley, will go to the Senate. For the Republicans this winter the counties are all right, and although reports come in slowly, we are assured the Republican gains are large among the farmers. Advices just received from the Republican Central Committee at Madison affirm the good news, and tell us we may calculate safely on 10,000 majority for Washburn for Governor, and a good working majority in both branches of the Legislature.²⁶

Cadwallader Washburn was not the only family member elected as Governor of a state in November 1871. Republican William Barrett Washburn (1820-1887), Elihu’s fifth cousin, was chosen Massachusetts’s Governor in that same election defeating John Quincy Adams. Previously, William Washburn served four terms in the House from March 4, 1863 to December 5, 1871. As Governor of Massachusetts, William followed in the footsteps of another cousin, Emory Washburn, (a second cousin-once removed to William and a fifth cousin-once removed to Elihu), who held that post in 1854-55. William Washburn was reelected Governor in 1872 and 1873 and served in that position from January 4, 1872 until April 29, 1874. In 1874, William resigned as Governor to fill a vacancy in the United States Senate caused by the death of Charles Sumner. Washburn served in the Senate from April 17, 1874 to March 3, 1875, but was not a candidate for reelection. Washburn also helped start Smith College, and Washburn House on the campus was his gift.²⁷

While family members were being elected to run State Governments back home, Elihu Washburne was honored in Paris for his work during the siege of that city. The Americans residing in Paris have presented to his Excellency, Hon. Mr. Washburne, an elegant service in silver, as token of their gratitude for his kindness to them during the siege of Paris, and also as a recognition of his distinguished public services, noted an article in the November 19, 1871 edition of the New York Times. This testimonial consists of a compete dinner and tea service of the most tasteful workmanship. On the evening of Thursday, Nov. 2, the donors and their families were invited by Mr. and Mrs. Washburne to their residence in the Avenue de l’Imperatrice, to examine at leisure this very handsome gift. Galignam says that it was a most pleasant reunion of the American colony in Paris, and one that will long be remembered by all present.²⁸ There was no formal presentation at the gathering but the following, previous correspondence was placed upon the table as a substitute:

Paris, Sept. 30, 1871.

His Excellency E. B. Washburne,

Minister of the United States to France.

Dear Sir -

The undersigned Americans, resident in Paris, desirous of expressing to you their high appreciation of your signal devotion to public duty during the siege of 1870-71, as well as your constant watchfulness in protecting the interests of your countrymen here during a period of great trial and danger, beg you to accept the accompanying service of plate with their warmest expressions of gratitude and esteem.

We are, dear Sir, respectfully yours,

[signatures]²⁹

On October 27, 1871, Minister Washburne sent a warm reply to the American residences of Paris for their gift. While I am honored by this valued token of your kindness and generosity, I fear that you but give me too much credit for what I have been able to accomplish as the representative of our country amid the extraordinary events traversed by France since the month of July, 1870, wrote Washburne. I can claim to have done no more than my duty. Conscientiously endeavoring to perform every service incumbent upon me and to protect all the interests confided to my charge, those of other nationalities as well as my own, if I succeeded in my efforts, much was due to the uniform kindness and consideration of the French Government, to the zeal and energy of my secretary, Col. Hoffman, and the other gentlemen connected with the Legation, to the fact that I was strengthened and encouraged by the thought of your sympathy and kindness, and the warm words of approbation that came to me from our own Government and our own people. The days of the siege of Paris will henceforth live in my recollection, not only from scenes of war and suffering and blood that belong to that great historic period, but they will be identified with the priceless testimonial which you bring to me, and which will be cherished and guarded by myself and family with the most grateful emotions.³⁰

image008.jpg

Jules Ferry

(Picture originally posted in Recollections of a Minister to France.)

During this time, the French debated whether to appoint Jules Ferry the next Minister to the United States. Minister Washburne supported the appointment but President Adolphe Thiers decided against the nomination in light of public criticism of Ferry. In the fall of 1871 France had no minister in the United States, and there was much talk as to who would be appointed, said Washburne. It was said and believed by almost everybody in Paris that Jules Ferry would receive the nomination. When the war broke out, and at the time of the Revolution of 1870, Jules Ferry was a member of the Legislative Assembly from the Department of the Seine. It was thus that he became a member of the government of National Defen[s]e. When Etienne Arago resigned as Mayor of Paris, during the siege, M. Ferry was appointed to succeed him in virtue of his being delegate to the Prefecture of the Seine. Ferry was a man of ability and of real courage, and discharged the duties of every position he held most successfully. He was appointed to the Ministry by M. Grevy, and occupied the position of President of the Council, which was practically the head of the government. It was said that M. Thiers had promised him the position of Minister to the United States, and that the appointment would soon be made out. I have no doubt that such was the fact, for I had met him at a diner party and he talked freely on the subject. The report having spread that he was to go as minister to the United States, so great a howl was made against the appointment that M. Thiers hesitated to sign the nomination. M. Ferry was not only an able man, as I have said, but he was a thorough republican, and, had he come to the United States, I have no doubt he would have been one of the strongest and most popular ministers that the French government had had at Washington for many years.³¹

As mentioned before, back in the United States, Elihu Washburne’s younger brother Cadwallader was elected Governor of Wisconsin. On January 1, 1872, Cadwallader Washburn was sworn into office as Governor. During this same time, his older brother Elihu was busy with diplomatic events back in Paris. In fact, on the same New Year’s Day of Cadwallader’s inauguration, American Minister Elihu Benjamin Washburne attended a party for the Diplomatic Corps hosted by French President Adolphe Thiers in Versailles.

CHAPTER 3

WISCONSIN’S NEW GOVERNOR

In November 1871, Elihu Washburne’s younger brother Cadwallader was elected Governor of Wisconsin. In 1871, almost as a reward for his years of service, [Cadwallader Washburn] was nominated and elected governor of Wisconsin, noted his great-great-grandson, Kerck Kelsey, in his book Remarkable Americans: The Washburn Family, published in 2008. Interestingly, he beat James R. Doolittle, a skilled public speaker, not with rhetoric, but with the logic and irrefutable facts that he brought to their debates. With this election, Cad became the second Washburn brother to be governor of a state [following oldest brother Israel who was governor of Maine]. Washburn served a single two-year term in the governor’s chair in Wisconsin. His physical office was a good bit grander than his brother’s [Israel] had been in Augusta [Maine], because during his term a fine new state capitol building was completed. Like Israel’s governorship in Maine, Cad’s term featured many instances of stubborn honesty — albeit politically incorrect. Although he himself was building railroads to feed his mills in Minnesota, he pushed for government regulation of the railroads. He opposed a bill to help Milwaukee tycoon Alexander Mitchell build a bridge for Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railroad across the Mississippi River at La Crosse. This enraged Mitchell but gained favor with the Grangers, a reform group among farmers who depended on reasonable freight rates to get products to market. Plain-spoken Washburn then alienated his beer-loving German constituents in Milwaukee by favoring restrictions on the sale of liquor in the state, and he weakened his support among farmers by confessing before the State Agricultural Society that, although raised on a farm, he had little painful memories of it. His opponents renamed themselves the Reform party, nominated the head of the Grangers as their candidate, and then using Mitchell’s money, upset Washburn in his bid to be reelected governor in 1873. His honesty and his fair play administration won him respect but not political capital, especially in the eastern part of the state.³²

Meanwhile, back in Europe in late 1871, the Austrian Minister to France, Prince Richard Metternich, resigned his post, some thought, under pressure because of his former friendly ties to the Empire under Napoleon III. There was quite a little excitement in the Diplomatic Corps in December, 1871, on account of the withdrawal from Paris of Prince Metternich, the Austrian Ambassador, recalled Elihu Washburne. The event also excited a good deal of interest in political and social circles. Prince Metternich had been, for thirteen years, the Austrian representative in France, and the relations of himself and the Princess to the Court of the Empire were very intimate, and it was supposed that they were all much interested in the fallen dynasty. That, indeed, was said to be the real cause of the withdrawal of the prince, and it was further said that M. Thiers had great fears that the salons of the ambassador would become a point of reunion for the Bonapartists, and he had intimated a wish to the Austrian government that the prince might be recalled; whether that was really so or not I never took the trouble to inquire; at any rate, he resigned.³³

In the same month that Prince Metternich resigned, France and Germany resumed diplomatic relations. In December, 1871, diplomatic relations were resumed between France and Germany, noted Minister Elihu Washburne. The Viscount de Gontaut-Biron, member of the National Assembly, was appointed, on December 4th, Ambassador of France near the Emperor of Germany. France having taken the initiative, the German government named Count von Arnim as its ambassador to France.³⁴

On New Year’s Day 1872, American Minister Elihu Washburne attended a party for the Diplomatic Corps hosted by French President Adolphe Thiers in Versailles. On the 1st day of January, 1872, M. Thiers, as President, did not receive the Diplomatic Corps in Paris, as it was understood he would, but gave notice that he would give the usual New Year’s audience to the body at Versailles, said the American Minister. It was a dismal and dirty ride through the mud out to the old city, and the reception was rather a cheap affair. None of the diplomatists were in uniform, though many of them wore their decorations. They were simply in dinner dress. The members of the corps met in the ante-room before twelve o’clock, and at precisely noon the doors were opened into the reception-room, and all rushed in, pell-mell, without arranging themselves with regard to rank or seniority. M. Thiers soon made his appearance in the room, but no formal speeches were made. The President simply shook hands with the various members of the body, and in five minutes the performance was over and all the members of the corps left the room pell-mell as they had entered it. This reception was at the Prefecture of the Department of the Seine and Oise, which was the official residence of the Prefect of the Department and a beautiful little palace.³⁵

Also on January 1, 1872, Elihu Washburne’s younger brother, Cadwallader, was sworn into office as Governor of Wisconsin. Cadwallader would remain Governor of the Badger state until January 5, 1874.³⁶ He [Cadwallader Washburn] was inaugurated as Governor of Wisconsin on the first Monday in January, 1872, and his administration of the affairs of State was one of marked success, said General David Atwood. His great executive ability, his wonderful energy of character, his strong practical sense, and his long and successful business experience, gave him immense power to do good work, and the State was materially benefited in many respects, through his superior management of the Executive department. In the autumn of 1873, Mr. Washburn was re-nominated by his party for the same office; but owing to a combination of circumstances over which he had no control,— the various factions of monopoly and anti-monopoly, of temperance and anti-temperance, and several other distracting elements were arrayed against him,— his opponent, William R. Taylor, was elected, to the surprise of the people generally. In this defeat of Governor Washburn the people were the great losers. To him it was a relief, and gave him an opportunity to look after his private affairs that very much needed his personal attention. Nor did his defeat detract, in the least degree, from the high reputation he had attained as an official. He will long be remembered by the people of the State as a model Governor.³⁷

As governor, Cadwallader Washburn was not a policy activist. Governors in Gilded Age America were rarely activitist figure, and state governments were skeletal operations, wrote Bicha. To Washburn the need to confront and to curb the arrogant use of power by railroad corporations became his first priority.³⁸

In his inauguration address as Governor, Cadwallader Washburn addressed the issue of railroad monopolies. On the 1st day of January, 1871, there were in operation within the limits of the State 1,238 miles of railway, and on the 1st day of January, 1872, 1,588 miles, representing a cost either actual or fictitious, of nearly $100,000,000, noted the new Governor of Wisconsin. This vast concentration of capital in one interest alone affects every other interest in the State, and there is no branch of industry within the State that is not dependent upon the railway facilities, and which unfriendly action on the part of railway managers may not at any time crush out. The railway interests of the state have grown to their present proportions without any general system and with little responsibility to the people of the State, and the opinion among railway managers seems generally to prevail, that their will is supreme law. This is an error, which ought to be corrected. After the explosion of the farm mortgage system, which brought hundreds of farmers to bankruptcy and ruin, the next device was to induce the towns, counties and cities to loan their credit in aid of various railroads. Towns that were the most promising of any in the State, in an evil hour were persuaded to loan their credit far beyond their fair ability, to aid in the construction of railways, in the expectation that the benefits would add so largely to their business and prosperity, that they could easily pay debt created for that object. In most every instance disappointment has been the result, and, instead of the great advantages predicted, they find themselves buried beneath almost hopeless debt, and their prosperity greatly impaired or destroyed.³⁹

Cadwallader Washburn’s position on railroads was unusual for a person of his political party. Among Republicans he was uncommonly anti-railroad in sentiment, and he demanded the creation of a Board of Railroad Commissioners, ‘with power to inquire into all complaints and abuses, and to exercise a general supervision over the operation of several railroads within the state,’ continued Bicha. Washburn’s governorship, of course, intersected with the flash-point of ‘granger’ activity in Midwest state legislatures as the agrarian legislators sought to bring railroads to heel. Washburn agreed that railroads were public highways that the public had an inherent right to the full benefits, which railroads conferred, upon the areas adjacent to their right-of-ways, and that railroad corporations operated with no sense of their public responsibilities. The existing state of affairs required correction. But he would not advocate public ownership of railroads… Railroad regulation in Wisconsin… did not materialize until the administration of Washburn’s Granger-endorsed successor, William R. Taylor.⁴⁰

Cadwallader Washburn also played an active role as governor in the criminal justice system. He opposed the death penalty but not for humanitarian concerns: Analysis and reflection had convinced him that the absence of this ultimate punishment substantially increased the disposition of juries to convict in homicide trials, and that greater certitude of conviction and incarceration in fact lessened the incidence of homicide.⁴¹ Governor Washburn also used his pardon power liberally during his governorship. In the years 1872 and 1873 Governor Washburn received 107 applications for executive pardons from prisoners in Wisconsin prisons, jails, and juvenile detention facilities, noted Bicha. Petitioners included prisoners convicted of murder, rape, and assault as well as lesser wrongdoers whose crimes were petty larceny or drunkenness. He denied only four petitions and granted the remainder, although not always in response to the petitioner’s first efforts. Washburn’s predecessor denied three times as many pardon applications.⁴² Restoration of a prisoner’s civil rights was a major concern to the governor, and he devoted an inordinate amount of time to the study of the circumstances of conviction and confinement of virtually every applicant for pardon… . The governor not only subjected each application for a pardon to systematic review, but he ordinarily read the trial transcripts in each case as well. He corresponded with petitioners, and in the cases of juvenile inmates, he also wrote to family members. In effect he brought a genuinely personal touch to the process and exhibited a demeanor quite in contrast to that displayed to business associates or his small circle of intimates. And he was especially lenient with those inmates seeking pardons after conviction on charges of rape. It is a matter of widespread belief that one of the cultural characteristics of Victorian America was an exaggerated reticence, even squeamishness, in confronting human sexuality in any of its personal or social dimensions. Those convinced of the reality of this aspect of ‘Victorianism’ would encounter a graphic set of rebuttals by reading the trial transcripts of Wisconsin rape cases in the 1860s and 1870s. Rape, of course, is a peculiar crime in that the normal absence of credible witnesses to support the allegations severely modifies normal evidentiary standards. And Washburn seemed to be convinced that most of the convicted rapists with whom he dealt had been treated unfairly by the legal system.⁴³

In a time of rampant corruption in government, Governor Washburn was considered by some to be an honest administrator. In the Congress of the United States, at a time when Credit Mobilier frauds and Congressional stock jobbing had seduced and corrupted its members to such an extent that even so-called Christian statesmen received bribes, and well nigh committed perjury to conceal them, he [Cadwallader Washburn] stood almost alone in their exposure and denunciation, said the Honorable Harlow S. Orton (1817-1895), former Mayor of Madison, Wisconsin (1877-1878) and Justice of the State Supreme Court of Wisconsin (1878-1895). For one term, and for one term only, he was allowed to fill executive office, and for the next he was most unaccountably defeated. It is no disparagement to our other Governors to say, that he made the ablest and best Governor Wisconsin ever had, and filled the full measure of that high office which ought never to be sought by any one incapable of performing all of its duties, and he was not out-ranked by any Governor in the Union… . His great wealth was the product of his own private business, and was not obtained or enhanced by the questionable contributions of Government patronage, land grants, corporate monopolies, or stock speculations. The same great qualities he exercised in his own business, he carried with him into his official life, and which made him such an efficient worker on the public service.⁴⁴

Not everyone had high praise for Cadwallader Washburn’s job as Wisconsin governor. According to Cadwallader’s biographer, Clare Marquette, in his Ph.D. dissertation The Business Activities of C.C. Washburn, Washburn’s performance was less than impressive as governor. He [Cadwallader Washburn] served as governor of Wisconsin from 1872 to 1874, being defeated by a Granger-Democrat coalition led by William Taylor, noted Marquette. Here again his political service was not outstanding. He proposed a board of railroad commissioners as a protection to the corporations and the people, but never put it through. In 1873, he vetoed a bill allowing the Milwaukee and St. Paul (Railroads) to build a bridge at La Crosse on the pretext that the Federal Government controlled the waterways, and the passage of the bill by the state government was, in effect, nullifying an act of Congress. The senate and not the assembly sustained the veto. Since he ran lumber rafts on the river, that maneuver might be considered a personal reason, for lumbermen frequently complained of river obstruction. It might be reasoned, also, that the railroad board similarly supports the thesis of using the state for economic ends as he desired low rates for flour across Wisconsin. All of these are highly hypothetical, for although opponents disapproved (of) his politics, they seldom doubted his honesty.⁴⁵

Meanwhile, in January 1872, Minister Washburne traveled to southeastern France for vacation. Minister Washburne left Lyons on the morning of January 12 and arrived in Nice around midnight. In Nice, Minister Elihu Benjamin Washburne saw many American friends including American General William Tecumseh Sherman.

CHAPTER 4

TRIP TO NICE

In January 1872, Minister Elihu Washburne traveled to southeastern France for vacation. Before leaving on his trip, the Duke d’Aumale honored the American Minister with a formal dinner. After the New Year’s ceremonies were over I proposed to make a little trip to Nice, and get away from the disagreeable weather of Paris, and to meet many friends who were there, said Washburne. The night before I left the Duke d’Aumale gave me a dinner of twenty-six covers — members of the Assembly, a general and an admiral, Count Daru, ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs, and some others were present. He was very cordial, and expressed himself in the most friendly terms toward the United States. He spoke of his father’s (Louis Philippe) visit to the United States when a young man, and of the time he had spent with Washington at Mount Vernon, and he said he well recollected his father telling him when a child this anecdote: Washington was a very early riser, and always dressed himself most carefully, wearing knee-breeches and the like, and the first thing he did was to look into the negro cabins to see that everything was in good condition. Louis Philippe said to Washington, on one occasion, ‘Why! you get up early in the morning.’ Washington answered. ‘Yes, young man, because I sleep well, and I sleep well because I have written a line with which I reproach myself.’ ‘Lucky man!’ said the duke, ‘how many men are there who can say as much?’⁴⁶

Minister Washburne left Lyons on the morning of January 12 and arrived in Nice around midnight. In Nice, Washburne wrote several letters to Adele, who did not accompany him on the trip. On the morning of January 13, Washburne wrote to Adele about his journey to the Mediterranean city:

Nice

Saturday morning

Jany 13, 1872.

My Dear Chere:

John Oakhurst summed up his situation in two words: Snowed-in. I sum up mine this morning in one word: []installed. And it is at the Grand Hotel, Nice, for yesterday morning at Lyons, Mr. Fetridge by a mistake brought my ticket and checked my baggage directly through to this place, instead of Cannes. And so I came right on and we arrived about midnight and put up at this hostelry — a great big hotel, but it don[’]t look clean. I have, however, a nice little room, a good bed and as I write at ten o’clock this morning, the sun shines in brightly and it is warm enough without my fire. I have not seen anybody yet, but learn there are a good many Americans in the house and among others, Mr. & Mrs. Grow, Clem Barclay and others. We overtook David and Miss Edes at Marseilles, having been left over at Lyons. They stop at this house. I have not yet been out, but it is so bright and shiny. The weather Thursday was very very bad — About noon, later than that, towards night we [were] stuck [in] snow, the hills [were] all covered and when we arrived at Lyons at 10 1/2 it was sleeting. We found a comfortable hotel, near the depot, had good beds and a nice breakfast yesterday morning before starting. Weather still same, skies cold and leaden, but before noon they began to break away and at two p.m. it would have done your soul good to have seen an old fashioned… country snow and a clear blue sky. And on we came, and on night came and the stars were bright and my heart was light for the depression of spirit caused by those long, grey, wretched sunless months, was lifted. The journey was a pleasant one, yet it is a long one. Mr. Fetridge is an excellent traveling companion. Miss Clarke was pleasant and agreeable and remarkably intelligent, a real Boston girl and, of course, well posted. So here we are in Nice, and with me there is only one regret that you are not along to enjoy all with me, for all the time my heart gives back to you and the dear ones