Carl Schurz (1829–1906) was one of many Prussian exiles who arrived in the United States following the failed revolutions of 1848. After reforms failed to materialize in Europe, Schurz became one of the German “48ers” who came to America to escape political persecution for his role in the unsuccessful uprisings. Schurz went on to contribute to his new homeland as a political reformer, a Union Army officer in the Civil War, a US Senator, presidential cabinet member, and commentator. He shaped a unique legacy throughout the Gilded Age as a determined classical liberal who advocated civil service reform, sound currency, low tariffs, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Many key episodes in Schurz’s life offer meaningful lessons for Americans today, but perhaps none more distinctive than his 1897 dispute with a sitting US Senator.
Schurz was a firm believer in political independence, the principle of placing one’s convictions above partisan loyalties. Consequently, in the years following the Civil War, he had no qualms about supporting Republican, Democratic, or third-party candidates whenever he believed they best upheld his ideals. In 1897, Schurz published a series of open letters in response to criticism from Republican Senator Jacob H. Gallinger. These letters provide an interesting window into late-19th-century America, offering considerable wisdom for Americans today amid our own partisan struggles.
The Gallinger Dispute: A Clash of Principle and Party
By the time of William McKinley’s ascension to the presidency in 1897, Carl Schurz was no longer actively involved in the political arena. His last official role within the federal government was as Secretary of the Interior under the Hayes administration. Yet he remained a prominent political commentator and advocate for nonpartisan politics as president of the National Civil Service Reform League, an organization dedicated to upholding the practice of making federal appointments on merit rather than through party connections. It was hardly a surprise, then, that when Senator Gallinger (Republican of New Hampshire) accused Schurz and other political independents of treachery in an open letter, Schurz leapt to respond.
Gallinger objected to the civil service law of 1883, which established the practice of candidates qualifying for jobs via examination. Gallinger depicted the law as being “modeled after India, China, and Great Britain,” and generally working poorly. In addition, Gallinger accused civil service reformers of being “worshipers of Grover Cleveland.” Cleveland, a Democrat, had championed the reform, earning the respect of the independents like Schurz. Gallinger referred to these reformers as political “traitors” and “renegades” because they couldn’t be easily labeled as solid Republicans or Democrats.
Ironically it was the Republican Party itself that had championed the Civil Service Reform being enacted in the first place. Even President McKinley, a Republican, remained committed to upholding these standards. Gallinger had no patience for independently minded men like Schurz—those who changed political allegiances not out of opportunism, but out of devotion to principle.
A Declaration of Independents
Schurz described himself as driven by commitment to principles, rather than attachment to any political party. To Gallinger he wrote:
My way of looking at things will probably never have your approval; but I may, perhaps, succeed in making it intelligible to you. I believe that a party organization is not an end in itself, but merely a means for the attainment of public ends. I, therefore, do not worship a political party as a divinity entitled to my devotion under all circumstances, but regard it simply as an organization of citizens standing together for public objects on which they agree. I believe, and have always believed, that whenever such agreement on essential points ceases, and whenever a citizen becomes conscientiously convinced that he will serve the public welfare best by making, either temporarily or permanently, a change of party relations, it is not only his moral right but his duty to make it.
Party Spirit vs. Public Welfare
Schurz wrote three letters to Gallinger, expressing similar sentiments in each, but perhaps no example better encapsulated his point of view than his second letter, published October 1, 1897. There he reiterated the significance of “one theme,” wherein he “claimed the right, and hold myself in duty bound, to oppose, without regard to mere party interest, any candidate whose victory would, in my honest opinion, have been injurious to the public welfare.” He believed that while political parties have their uses in advancing favorable candidates and ideas, they can also be downright dangerous when feelings of partisanship overtake sincere principles and public duty.
Schurz reinforced his political independence by referencing George Washington’s Farewell Address, where he warned that “it is high time the American people should remember and most earnestly take to heart the solemn warning against an excessive party spirit as a very serious danger to our free institutions.” According to Schurz and other independently minded Americans, the best way forward was to keep alive the wisdom of the Founders, especially in maintaining the principle “that the duty of the citizen to the public weal is absolutely paramount to any duty he may owe to a party organization.”
Schurz held no illusions about convincing Gallinger, but he made sure to point out: “I merely wish to show by this example how completely in a partisan mind like yours fidelity to party organization has taken the place of fidelity to political principles and public ends.” As for his own record, Schurz made no issue of the fact that he had “supported now one party and then another,” because “as I honestly believed, fidelity to my principles and aims demanded it.” Simply put, Schurz recalled, “I have always been an anti-slavery man; for a sound currency; for civil service reform; against high tariff protection; for honest and economical government; and for a foreign policy pacific and conservative.”
Why Schurz Still Matters
The lesson to be taken from Carl Schurz’s exchange with Senator Gallinger is that the conflict between principles and partisanship is just as contentious in our time as in the 19th century. Schurz had experienced firsthand the worst effects of excessive partisanship: first with the unrest in his native Germany, then in the violence of the American Civil War, and later in the political tribalism and corruption of the Gilded Age. Because of all these uneasy experiences, Schurz stood firm as a champion of independent and principled efforts to reform the country he loved. For Americans today who champion liberty and favor meaningful change, there is encouragement in Schurz’s advice to place “fidelity to political principles and public ends” above partisan or identitarian disputes.
Additional Reading
Mugwumps: Public Moralists of the Gilded Age by Burton W. Folsom and David M. Tucker
Equal Rights, which contains an excerpt of a speech delivered by Carl Schurz
