Diary of George Mifflin Dallas, December 3, 1860

The news brought by the steamer from America is exciting. The political storm rages fiercely in the South, taking a reckless direction for secession, and produces a financial panic which cannot pass away without effecting a widespread ruin. The successful Republican party at the Presidential election are striving to appease and propitiate, but having, during the canvass, taken the “irrepressible conflict” ground, and having had the aid of the Garrisonian Radicals, who denounce the Constitution as a "League with hell," it seems natural that the South should regard their defeat as involving a destruction of their property and rights. If I could perceive among the leading men in the agitation of the South any staid, judicious statesmen, I should think the Union lost. I see only such uniformly violent, effervescing, and unsuccessful ranters as Yancey, Rhett, Keitt, Toombs, and I conclude that the local movements will yet be settled by the ballast near the keelson of the ship.

SOURCE: George Mifflin Dallas, Diary of George Mifflin Dallas, While United States Minister to Russia 1837 to 1839, and to England 1856 to 1861, Volume 3, p. 420-1

Wilson, of Massachusetts — published June 9, 1856

The Northern papers have been teeming with reports respecting the movements and intentions of this warlike individual. One while, it was said, that he could not leave his room for fear of being butchered in the streets of Washington, then again, that he had paraded the avenue, surrounded by armed friends and put Brooks and Keitt and defiance, and all South Carolina at their backs; then, that he had been graciously permitted by Keitt to walk abroad; then the Rev. Mr. Parker told us that Wilson had paraded before Keitt’s lodgings and was not hurt; then we had a letter from Wilson himself, to the effect that he had walked pretty much all over Washington, for the two days after he declined fighting Brooks, sometimes alone, and sometimes attended by friends. The last version of the matter, we find, as reported below, in the N. Y. Courier:

WILSON AND BROOKS.

To the Editors of the Courier & Enquirer:

I perceive in the N. Y. Commercial Advertiser, of last evening the following telegraphic despatch from Boston:

BOSTON, June 3.—Senator Wilson denies unequivocally the statement telegraphed from Washington to a N. York paper, that Colonel Lane had called on him from Mr. Brooks, with an assurance that he (Brooks) intended to make an assault on him. Mr. Wilson says, “I have sought no controversy and shall seek none, but I shall go where duty requires, uninfluenced by threats of any kind.”

I am enabled to endorse the statement made by Mr. Wilson. The facts are, that Mr. Buffington, the colleague and friend of Senator Wilson, when he bore the refusal of Wilson to fight Brooks, expressed a desire to know whether it was the intention of Brooks to assault Wilson in the street. After some little hesitation, Gen. Lane promised that there should be no attempt to whip Wilson for a week; and subsequently he assured him that Mr. Brooks desired him to say that he did not intend to make any attack whatever upon Mr. Wilson at any time for what was past; and Mr. Buffington so reported before he left the city. The limitations of a week, within which no attack was to be made upon Wilson, was a piece of fun on the part of Gen. Lane and got up a laugh at Buffington’s expense, for making so strange a request.

It was indeed a strange application, and by its extraordinary character, no doubt prevented a street fight, in which, probably, both the principals would have lost their lives.

H. T.

WASHINGTON, June 4, 1856.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Monday Morning, June 9, 1856, p. 2

The Sumner Assault—Mr. Brooks’ Letter — published June 4, 1856

WASHINGTON, June 2.—The following is Mr. Brooks’ letter to the President of the Senate, referred to in the Senate proceedings of yesterday.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, June 2, 1856

 

Sir:—I have seen in the public journals of this morning the report of the Senate Committee to whom was referred a resolution of the Senate Directing an inquiry into an assault made by me on the 22d inst., on a senator from Massachusetts. It is with unfeigned regret, I find in their report that what I had intended only as a redress for personal wrong, has been construed into, or must necessarily be held as a breach of the privilege of the Senate. Whilst making a full and explicit disclaimer of any such design or purpose, I ask leave to say that, for the occasion, considering myself only as a gentleman in society and under no official restraint as a member of the House of Representatives, I did not advert to or consider there was any alternative restraint imposed upon me by reason that the offence came from a member of the Senate. I had read attentively and carefully a speech delivered on the 19th and 20th ult. by a Senator of Massachusetts, and found therein language which I regard as unjustly reflecting not only on the history and character of South Carolina but also upon a friend and relative. To such language I thought I had a just right to take exception, under the circumstances,—the Senator from South Carolina, who was effected by these remarks being absent from the Senate and the city. I had reason to believe that the personal responsibility for wrongs in personal deportment which would have saved me the painful necessity of the collision which I sought; and in my judgement, therefore, I had no alternative but to act as I did.

 

That the assault was made in the Senate Chamber was caused only by the fact that, after a careful search elsewhere, on the previous as well as the same day, the offender could not be found outside of the walls of the Senate Chamber, and the Senate had just adjourned for more than an hour previous to the assault.

 

I submit the forgoing statement from high respect for the Senate of the United States, and ask that it may be received as a full disclaimer of any design or purpose to infract its privileges, or offend its dignity.

 

I cheerfully add, should the facts as reported by the Committee of the Senate be nevertheless necessarily considered as a breach of privilege, as a conclusion of law, my earnest desire to atone for it, so far as may be by this unhesitating and unqualified apology, and that you will oblige me by communicating this to the Senate as its presiding officer.

 

I have the honor to remain, sir, with great respect, your servant,

P. S. BROOKS.

Hon. Jesse D. Bright, Pres’t of the Senate.

 

The Majority report of the select committee of the House, to inquire into the assault, concludes as follows:

That this House is of opinion that it not only has the power to punish Preston S. Brooks for a breach of privilege, but for an act of disorderly behavior.

 

And whereas it further appears that Henry A. Edmundson and Lawrence M. Keitt, some time previous to the said assault, were informed that it was the purpose of the said Brooks to commit violence on the person of said Sumner, for words passed by him in debate as a Senator, in the Senate, and took no measure to discourage or prevent the same, but on the contrary, anticipating the commission of the violence, were present on one or more occasions to witness the same as friends of the assailant, therefore

 

Resolved, That Preston S. Brooks be and he is forthwith expelled from this House as representative from the State of South Carolina.

 

Resolved, That this House hereby declares its disapprobation of said act of Henry A. Edmunson and Lawrence M. Keitt in relation to said assault.

Mr. Cobb, of Georgia, presented a minority report; both reports were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. The minority report argues that no breach of privilege, under the Constitution, had been committed, and that the House has no power to go beyond the Constitution, in deciding that a breach of privilege had been committed.

The Majority report is signed by Messrs. Campbell of Ohio, Pennington and Spinner.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Wednesday Morning, June 4, 1856, p. 2

Messrs. Brooks And Sumner — published May 26, 1856

With regard to the assault upon Mr. Sumner, by Col Brooks, a statement was made in the Senate on Friday, by Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, which represent that Mr. S. was taken at very great disadvantage by his assailant. The following however, is said to be the authentic account of the affair.

Mr. Brooks waited at the Porter’s Lodge about an hour yesterday, and as long this morning, hoping to meet Mr. Sumner, with a view to attack him. Failing in this, he entered the Senate chamber to-day, just as that body adjourned, and seeing several ladies present, seated himself on the opposite side of Mr. Sumner. Soon all disappeared but one. He then request a friend to get her out, when he immediately approached Mr. Sumner, and said, in a quiet tone of voice:—

Mr. Sumner, I have read your speech with great care, and with as much impartiality as I am capable of and I feel it my duty to say to you that you have published a libel on my State, and uttered a slander upon a relative, who is aged and absent, and I am come to punish you.

At the concluding words Mr. Sumner attempted to spring to his feet, showing fight, but whilst in the act was struck by Col. Brooks a backhanded blow across the head with a gutta percha cane, near an inch thick, but hollow, and he continued striking him right and left until the stick was broken into fragments and, Mr. Sumner was prostrated and bleeding on the floor. No one took hold of Col. Brooks during the time, so quick was the operation; but immediately afterwards Mr. Crittenden caught him around the body and arms, when Col. B. said, “I did not wish to hurt him much, but only to whip him.”

No one knew of the anticipated attack but the Hon. H. A. Edmunson, of Virginia, who happened not to be present when the attack commenced. It was reported on the streets for several days previous that Mr. Sumner would be armed when he delivered his speech, and that if occasion required it he should use his weapons. He was not armed when attacked by Colonel Brooks to-day.

We append a sketch of the proceedings in the House of Representatives, on Friday, touching the affair:

Mr. Campbell, of Ohio, rising to a question of privilege, offered the following:

Whereas on the 23rd of May the Hon. Preston S. Brooks and Hon. Lawrence M. Keitt, members of the House from South Carolina, and other members, either as principals or accessories, perpetrated a violent assault on the person of Hon. Charles Sumner, Senator of the United States from Massachusetts, while remaining in his seat in the Senate Chamber, and while in the performance of the duties appertaining to his official station.  Therefore,

Resolved, That a select committee of five members be appointed by the Speaker to investigate the subject and report on the facts with such resolution in reference thereto as in their judgment may be proper and necessary for the vindication of the character of this House, and that said committee have power to send for persons and papers, and employ a clerk and sit during the session of the House.

A debate ensued upon a point of order.

Mr. Smith of Virginia, suggested to Mr. Campbell the propriety of striking out the preamble. It assumed as fact that which could only be ascertained as such on examination. Mr. Campbell was willing to modify the preamble, which he did to read: “Whereas it is represented, etc.” It was, he said, due to the House and all parties that facts should be presented in some authentic form, and could only be done fully and fairly through the committee.

Mr. Clingman said he was satisfied with the statement in the preamble that it was a gross falsehood, but he did not mean that Mr. Campbell had intentionally made an untrue declaration. The gentleman mistook him.

The Speaker decided the proposition in order. He said, substantially that it was represented or charged that a member of the House had assaulted a Senator while in discharge of his official duties. The Senate could not interfere with a member of the House, but it belonged to the House, if one of its members had violated the privilege of the Senate, to make an investigation, it being the prober tribunal for that purpose. The Senate being a co-ordinate branch of Congress, and covered by some constitutional privilege, it was the duty of The Chair to receive Mr. Campbell’s proposition as a question of privilege.

Mr. Clingman appealed from the decision of the Chair.

Mr. Craige was satisfied Mr. Keitt was not concerned in the matter in any way stated.

Mr. Campbell replied that if it should be passed, certainly no wrong would be done.

Mr. Keitt said he thought the dignity of the House required the investigation. His personal relations with the parties [had] always been those of friendship.

Mr. Paine inquired: is this resolution the result of precedent of action outside this hall or of [causas]?

Mr. Campbell replied that not one word had he heard passed by a member of any party as to such a course. He was influenced alone by the dictates of his own judgment and sense of public duty. As to who perpetrated the outrage; he only knew from what he had heard, although he saw Mr. Sumner lying in the ante-room adjoining the Senate Chamber with gashes on his head to the bone, and blood flowing over him.

Mr. Clingman repeated that he would leave the offender, Mr. Brooks, to answer to the law.

Mr. Letcher said that several years ago Postmaster General Hubbard was attacked by George Briggs, a member of the House, yet neither he [Mr. Letcher] nor Mr. Campbell thought it proper to bring the subject to the attention of the House.

The Speaker made a personal explanation. He had not been a party to any deliberation or consultation on this matter; and had no knowledge of the proposition until it was made from the clerk’s desk.

Mr. Brooks explained. I take the entire responsibility on myself, and state on my honor as a gentleman, no human being besides myself know when or where the transaction was intended to be made.

Mr. McQueen informed Mr. Campbell that a process had been instituted against his colleague, Mr. Brooks, who was amenable to the laws of the country. Mr. Campbell said he had no purpose to put any party in a false position, but he merely wished to ascertain the facts, there being so many rumors prevalent.

Mr. Haven appealed to Mr Campbell to omit the name of Mr. Keitt from the preamble.

Mr. Campbell assented.

Several gentlemen wanted him to strike of the words “other members,” but he refused, saying he had reasons for retaining them.

Mr. Keitt remarked that as his name had been withdrawn, he would say that he did not know the time nor the place where the act would be committed, and when it was committed he was behind the chair of the President of the Senate, with gentlemen from his own State, and he didn’t see the beginning of it. Therefore he had not the slightest preconsert with his colleague.

Under the operation of the previous question, Mr. C.’s proposition was adopted—yeas 93; nays 68.

The Speaker appointed Mr. Campbell, of Ohio, Allison, Cobb, of Georgia, Greenwood and Spinner, the committee. Mr. Allison was excused at his own request.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Monday Morning, May 26, 1856, p. 2

Statement of Messrs. Miles And Keitt, of what Transpired Between the President and the South Carolina Delegation, between January 1 & 14, 1861

In compliance with the request of the Convention, we beg leave to make the following statement:

On Saturday, the 8th of December, several of the South Carolina delegation, including ourselves, waited upon the President. At this time, there was a growing belief that reinforcements were on the eve of being sent to the forts in Charleston harbor. It was known that the subject was frequently and earnestly discussed in the Cabinet. It was rumored that General Cass and Mr. Holt were urgent that reinforcements should be sent. Upon our being announced, the President, who was then in Cabinet Council, came out to us in the ante-room. We at once entered into a conversation upon the topic, which was so closely occupying his thoughts as well as ours. The President seemed much disturbed and moved. He told us that he had had a painful interview with the wife of Major Anderson, who had come on from New York to see him. She had manifested great anxiety and distress at the situation of her husband, whom she seemed to consider in momentary danger of an attack from an excited and lawless mob. The President professed to feel a deep responsibility resting upon him to protect the lives of Major Anderson and his command. We told him that the news that reinforcements were on their way to Charleston, would be the surest means of provoking what Mrs. Anderson apprehended, and what he so much deprecated. We said, further, that we did not believe that Major Anderson was in any danger of such an attack; that the general sentiment of the State was against any such proceeding. That, prior to the action of the State Convention, then only ten days off, we felt satisfied that there would be no attempt to molest the forts in any way. That, after the Convention met, — while we could not possibly undertake to say what that body would see fit to do, — we yet hoped and believed that nothing would be done until we had first endeavored, by duly accredited Commissioners, to negotiate for a peaceful settlement of all matters, including the delivery of the forts, between South Carolina and the Federal Government. At the same time, we again reiterated our solemn belief that any change in the then existing condition of things in Charleston harbor, would, in the excited state of feeling at home, inevitably precipitate a collision. The impression made upon us was, that the President was wavering, and had not decided what course he would pursue. He said he was glad to have had this conversation with us, but would prefer that we should give him a written memorandum of the substance of what we had said. This we did on Monday, the 10th. It was in these words:

Commissioners of the State of South Carolina to James Buchanan, December 9, 1860

The President did not like the word “provided,” because it looked as if we were binding him while avowing that we had no authority to commit the Convention. We told him that we did not so understand it. We were expressing our convictions and belief, predicated upon the maintenance of a certain condition of things, which maintenance was absolutely, and entirely in his power. If he maintained such condition, then we believed that collision would be avoided until the attempt at a peaceable negotiation had failed. If he did not, then we solemnly assured him that we believed collision must inevitably, and at once, be precipitated. He seemed satisfied, and said it was not his intention to send reinforcements, or make any change. We explained to him what we meant by the words '”relative military status,” as applied to the forts; mentioned the difference between Major Anderson's occupying his then position at Fort Moultrie, and throwing himself into Fort Sumter. We stated that the latter step would be equivalent to reinforcing the garrison, and would just as certainly as the sending of fresh troops, lead to the result which we both desired to avoid. When we rose to go, the President said in substance, “After all, this is a matter of honor among gentlemen. I do not know that any paper or writing is necessary. We understand each other.” One of the delegation, just before leaving the room, remarked, “Mr. President, you have determined to let things remain as they are, and not to send reinforcements; but, suppose that you were hereafter to change jour policy for any reason, what then? That would put us, who are willing to use our personal influence to prevent any attack upon the forts before Commissioners are sent on to Washington, in rather an embarrassing position.” “Then,” said the President, “I would first return you this paper.” We do not pretend to give the exact words on either side, but we are sure we give the sense of both.

The above is a full and exact account of what passed between the President and the delegation. The President, in his letter to our Commissioners, tries to give the impression that our “understanding” or “agreement” was not a “pledge.” We confess, we are not sufficiently versed in the wiles of diplomacy to feel the force of this “distinction without a difference.” Nor can we understand how, in “a matter of honor among gentlemen,” in which “no paper or writing is necessary,” the very party who was willing to put it on that high footing can honorably descend to mere verbal criticism, to purge himself of what all gentlemen and men of honour must consider a breach of faith. The very fact that we (the representatives from South Carolina) were not authorized to commit or “pledge” the State, were not treating with the President as accredited ministers with full powers, but as gentlemen assuming, to a certain extent, the delicate task of' undertaking to foreshadow the course and policy of the State, should have made the President the more ready to strengthen our hands to bring about and carry out that course and policy which he professed to have as much at heart as we had. While we were not authorized to say that the Convention would not order the occupation of the forts immediately after secession, and prior to the sending on of Commissioners, the President, as Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, could most positively say, that so long as South Carolina abstained from attacking and seizing the forts, he would not send reinforcements to them, or allow their relative military status to be changed. We were acting in the capacity of gentlemen holding certain prominent positions, and anxious to exert such influence as we might possess, to effect a peaceful solution of pending political difficulties, and prevent, if possible, the horrors of war. The President was acting in a double capacity; not only as a gentleman, whose influence in carrying out his share of the understanding, or agreement, was potential, but as the head of the army, and, therefore, having the absolute control of the whole matter of reinforcing or transferring the garrison at Charleston. But we have dwelt long enough upon this point. Suffice it to say, that considering the President as bound in honor, if not by treaty stipulation, not to make any change in the forts, or to send reinforcements to them, unless they were attacked, we of the delegation who were elected to the Convention, felt equally bound in honor to do everything on our part to prevent any premature collision. This Convention can bear us witness as to whether or not we endeavored honorably to carry out our share of the agreement.

The published debates at the very commencement of the session, contain the evidence of our good faith. We trusted the President. We believed his wishes concurred with his policy, and that both were directed to avoiding any inauguration of hostilities. We were confirmed in our confidence, and reassured in our belief by a significant event which took place subsequent to our interview. He allowed his premier Cabinet officer, an old and tried friend to resign, rather than yield to his solicitations for the reinforcement of the garrison at Charleston. We urged this as a convincing proof of his firmness and sincerity. But how have we been deceived! The news of Major Anderson's coup produced a sudden and unexpected change in the President's policy. While declaring that his withdrawal from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter was “without orders, and contrary to orders,” he yet refused, for twelve hours, to take any action in the matter. For twelve hours, therefore, without any excuse, he refused to redeem his plighted word. No subsequent acts on the part of our State — no after reasons — can wipe away the stain which he suffered to rest upon his “honor as a gentleman,” while those hours, big with portentous events, rolled slowly by. His Secretary of War, impatient of a delay, every moment of which he felt touched his own honor, resigned. He did so solely on the ground that the faith of the government — solemly pledged — was broken, if it failed promptly to undo what had been done contrary to its wishes — against its settled policy — and in violation of its distinct agreement. The President accepted his resignation without comment. He did not attempt to disabuse the mind of his Secretary as to what was the true position of the Government. What a spectacle does the President's vacillating and disingenuous course present! He allows one Secretary to resign rather than abandon a policy which he has agreed upon. Scarcely have a few short weeks elapsed, and he accepts the resignation of another, rather than adhere to that very policy. He makes an agreement with gentlemen which, while he admits that they have faithfully kept it on their part, he himself evades and repudiates. And this he does rather than redress a wrong — correct an error — what he himself considers an error — committed by a subordinate, without his orders, and contrary to his wishes! It was at least due to Mr. Floyd, who, as one of his Cabinet, had officially and personally stood by his administration from its very commencement — through good report, and through evil report — to have explained to him that he was, in the President's opinion, laboring under a misapprehension. At least, to have said to him, “you are mistaken about this matter — do not leave me on a false issue.” But no; he coldly, ungraciously, yet promptly, receives the resignation without a syllable of remonstrance, and thus tacitly, but unequivocally, accepts without shame the issue presented. He does not deny that the faith of his government is pledged, but he deliberately refuses to redeem it.

WM. PORCHER MILES.

LAURENCE M. KEITT.

SOURCE: The Correspondence Between the Commissioners of the State of So. Ca. to the Government at Washington and the President of the United States, p. 21-6, Published in The Richmond Daily Dispatch, Richmond, Virginia, January 14, 1861, p. 1

Commissioners of the State of South Carolina to James Buchanan, December 9, 1860

To His Excellency James Buchanan,

President of the United States:

In compliance with our statement to you yesterday, we now express to you our strong convictions that neither the constituted authorities, nor any body of the people of the State of South Carolina, will either attack or molest the United States Forts, in the harbor of Charleston, previously to the action of the Convention, and we hope and believe, not until an offer has been made, through an accredited representative, to negotiate for an amicable arrangement of all matters between the State and the Federal Government, provided that no reinforcements shall be sent into those forts, and their relative military status shall remain as at present.

Jno. Mcqueen,

Wm. Porcher Miles,

M. L. BonHam,

W. W. BOYCE,

LAWRENCE M. KEITT.

Washington, 9th Dec, 1860.

SOURCE: The Correspondence Between the Commissioners of the State of So. Ca. to the Government at Washington and the President of the United States, p. 7

Diary of William Howard Russell: May 8, 1861

I tried to write, as I have taken my place in the steamer to Mobile to-morrow, and I was obliged to do my best in a room full of people, constantly disturbed by visitors. Early this morning, as usual, my faithful Wigfall comes in and sits by my bedside, and passing his hands through his locks, pours out his ideas with wonderful lucidity and odd affectation of logic all his own. “We are a peculiar people, sir! You don't understand us, and you can't understand us, because we are known to you only by Northern writers and Northern papers, who know nothing of us themselves, or misrepresent what they do know. We are an agricultural people; we are a primitive but a civilized people. We have no cities — we don't want them. We have no literature — we don't need any yet. We have no press — we are glad of it. We do not require a press, because we go out and discuss all public questions from the stump with our people. We have no commercial marine — no navy — we don't want them. We are better without them. Your ships carry our produce, and you can protect your own vessels. We want no manufactures: we desire no trading, no mechanical or manufacturing classes. As long as we have our rice, our sugar, our tobacco, and our cotton, we can command wealth to purchase all we want from those nations with which we are in amity, and to lay up money besides. But with the Yankees we will never trade — never. Not one pound of cotton shall ever go from the South to their accursed cities; not one ounce of their steel or their manufactures shall ever cross our border.” And so on. What the Senator who is preparing a bill for drafting the people into the army fears is, that the North will begin active operations before the South is ready for resistance, “Give us till November to drill our men, and we shall be irresistible.” He deprecates any offensive movement, and is opposed to an attack on Washington, which many journals here advocate.

Mr. Walker sent me over a letter recommending me to all officers of the Confederate States, and I received an invitation from the President to dine with him to-morrow, which I was much chagrined to be obliged to refuse. In fact, it is most important to complete my Southern tour speedily, as all mail communication will soon be suspended from the South, and the blockade effectually cuts off any communication by sea. Rails torn up, bridges broken, telegraphs down — trains searched — the war is begun. The North is pouring its hosts to the battle, and it has met the paeans of the conquering Charlestonians with a universal yell of indignation and an oath of vengeance.

I expressed a belief in a letter, written a few days after my arrival (March 27th), that the South would never go back into the Union. The North think that they can coerce the South, and I am not prepared to say they are right or wrong; but I am convinced that the South can only be forced back by such a conquest as that which laid Poland prostrate at the feet of Russia. It may be that such a conquest can be made by the North, but success must destroy the Union as it has been constituted in times past. A strong Government must be the logical consequence of victory, and the triumph of the South will be attended by a similar result, for which, indeed, many Southerners are very well disposed. To the people of the Confederate States there would be no terror in such an issue, for it appears to me they are pining for a strong Government exceedingly. The North must accept it, whether they like it or not.

Neither party — if such a term can be applied to the rest of the United States, and to those States which disclaim the authority of the Federal Government — was prepared for the aggressive or resisting power of the other. Already the Confederate States perceive that they cannot carry all before them with a rush, while the North have learned that they must put forth all their strength to make good a tithe of their lately uttered threats. But the Montgomery Government are anxious to gain time, and to prepare a regular army. The North, distracted by apprehensions of vast disturbance in their complicated relations, are clamoring for instant action and speedy consummation. The counsels of moderate men, as they were called, have been utterly overruled.

The whole foundation on which South Carolina rests is cotton and a certain amount of rice; or rather she bases her whole fabric on the necessity which exists in Europe for those products of her soil, believing and asserting, as she does, that England and France cannot and will not do without them. Cotton, without a market, is so much flocculent matter encumbering the ground. Rice, without demand for it, is unsalable grain in store and on the field. Cotton at ten cents a pound is boundless prosperity, empire, and superiority, and rice or grain need no longer be regarded.

In the matter of slave-labor, South Carolina argues pretty much in the following manner: England and France (she says) require our products. In order to meet their wants, we must cultivate our soil. There is only one way of doing so. The white man cannot live on our land at certain seasons of the year; he cannot work in the manner required by the crops. He must, therefore, employ a race suited to the labor, and that is a race which will only work when it is obliged to do so. That race was imported from Africa, under the sanction of the law, by our ancestors, when we were a British colony, and it has been fostered by us, so that its increase here has been as great as that of the most flourishing people in the world. In other places, where its labor was not productive or imperatively essential, that race has been made free, sometimes with disastrous consequences to itself and to industry. But we will not make it free. We cannot do so. We hold that slavery is essential to our existence as producers of what Europe requires; nay more, we maintain it is in the abstract right in principle; and some of us go so far as to maintain that the only proper form of society, according to the law of God and the exigencies of man, is that which has slavery as its basis. As to the slave, he is happier far in his state of servitude, more civilized and religious, than he is or could be if free or in his native Africa. For this system we will fight to the end.

In the evening I paid farewell visits, and spent an hour with Mr. Toombs, who is unquestionably one of the most original, quaint, and earnest of the Southern leaders, and whose eloquence and power as a debater are greatly esteemed by his countrymen. He is something of an Anglo-maniac, and an Anglo-phobist — a combination not unusual in America — that is, he is proud of being connected with and descended from respectable English families, and admires our mixed constitution, whilst he is an enemy to what is called English policy, and is a strong pro-slavery champion. Wigfall and he are very uneasy about the scant supply of gunpowder in the Southern States, and the difficulty of obtaining it.

In the evening had a little reunion in the bedroom as before. — Mr. Wigfall, Mr. Keitt, an eminent Southern politician, Col. Pickett, Mr. Browne, Mr. Benjamin, Mr. George Sanders, and others. The last-named gentleman was dismissed or recalled from his post at Liverpool, because he fraternized with Mazzini and other Red Republicans à ce qu’ on dit. Here he is a slavery man, and a friend of an oligarchy. Your “Rights of Man” man is often most inconsistent with himself, and is generally found associated with the men of force and violence.

SOURCE: William Howard Russell, My Diary North and South, p. 179-82

Diary of Mary Boykin Chesnut: July 19, 1861

Beauregard telegraphed yesterday (they say, to General Johnston), “Come down and help us, or we shall be crushed by numbers.” The President telegraphed General Johnston to move down to Beauregard's aid. At Bull Run, Bonham's Brigade, Ewell's, and Longstreet's encountered the foe and repulsed him. Six hundred prisoners have been sent here.

I arose, as the Scriptures say, and washed my face and anointed my head and went down-stairs. At the foot of them stood General Cooper, radiant, one finger nervously arranging his shirt collar, or adjusting his neck to it after his fashion. He called out: “Your South Carolina man, Bonham, has done a capital thing at Bull Run — driven back the enemy, if not defeated him; with killed and prisoners,” etc., etc. Clingman came to tell the particulars, and Colonel Smith (one of the trio with Garnett, McClellan, who were sent to Europe to inspect and report on military matters). Poor Garnett is killed. There was cowardice or treachery on the part of natives up there, or some of Governor Letcher's appointments to military posts. I hear all these things said. I do not understand, but it was a fatal business.

Mrs. McLane says she finds we do not believe a word of any news unless it comes in this guise: “A great battle fought. Not one Confederate killed. Enemy’s loss in killed, wounded, and prisoners taken by us, immense.” I was in hopes there would be no battle until Mr. Chesnut was forced to give up his amateur aideship to come and attend to his regular duties in the Congress.

Keitt has come in. He says Bonham's battle was a skirmish of outposts. Joe Davis, Jr., said: “Would Heaven only send us a Napoleon!” Not one bit of use. If Heaven did, Walker would not give him a commission. Mrs. Davis and Mrs. Joe Johnston, “her dear Lydia,” were in fine spirits. The effect upon nous autres was evident; we rallied visibly. South Carolina troops pass every day. They go by with a gay step. Tom Taylor and John Rhett bowed to us from their horses as we leaned out of the windows.

Such shaking of handkerchiefs. We are forever at the windows. It was not such a mere skirmish. We took three rifled cannon and six hundred stands of arms. Mr. Davis has gone to Manassas. He did not let Wigfall know he was going. That ends the delusion of Wigfall's aideship. No mistake to-day. I was too ill to move out of my bed. So they all sat in my room.

SOURCE: Mary Boykin Chesnut, Edited by Isabella D. Martin and Myrta Lockett Avary, A Diary From Dixie, p. 85-6

Diary of Mary Boykin Chesnut: June 27, 1861

RICHMOND, Va., —Mr. Meynardie was perfect in the part of traveling companion. He had his pleasures, too. The most pious and eloquent of parsons is human, and he enjoyed the converse of the “eminent persons” who turned up on every hand and gave their views freely on all matters of state.

Mr. Lawrence Keitt joined us en route. With him came his wife and baby. We don't think alike, but Mr. Keitt is always original and entertaining. Already he pronounces Jeff Davis a failure and his Cabinet a farce. “Prophetic,” I suggested, as he gave his opinion before the administration had fairly got under way. He was fierce in his fault-finding as to Mr. Chesnut's vote for Jeff Davis. He says Mr. Chesnut over-persuaded the Judge, and those two turned the tide, at least with the South Carolina delegation. We wrangled, as we always do. He says Howell Cobb's common sense might have saved us.

Two quiet, unobtrusive Yankee school-teachers were on the train. I had spoken to them, and they had told me all about themselves. So I wrote on a scrap of paper, “Do not abuse our home and house so before these Yankee strangers, going North. Those girls are schoolmistresses returning from whence they came.”

Soldiers everywhere. They seem to be in the air, and certainly to fill all space. Keitt quoted a funny Georgia man who says we try our soldiers to see if they are hot enough before we enlist them. If, when water is thrown on them they do not sizz, they won't do; their patriotism is too cool.

To show they were wide awake and sympathizing enthusiastically, every woman from every window of every house we passed waved a handkerchief, if she had one. This fluttering of white flags from every side never ceased from Camden to Richmond. Another new symptom — parties of girls came to every station simply to look at the troops passing. They always stood (the girls, I mean) in solid phalanx, and as the sun was generally in their eyes, they made faces. Mary Hammy never tired of laughing at this peculiarity of her sister patriots.

At the depot in Richmond, Mr. Mallory, with Wigfall and Garnett, met us. We had no cause to complain of the warmth of our reception. They had a carriage for us, and our rooms were taken at the Spotswood. But then the people who were in the rooms engaged for us had not departed at the time they said they were going. They lingered among the delights of Richmond, and we knew of no law to make them keep their words and go. Mrs. Preston had gone for a few days to Manassas. So we took her room. Mrs. Davis is as kind as ever. She met us in one of the corridors accidentally, and asked us to join her party and to take our meals at her table. Mr. Preston came, and we moved into a room so small there was only space for a bed, wash-stand, and glass over it. My things were hung up out of the way on nails behind the door.

As soon as my husband heard we had arrived, he came, too. After dinner he sat smoking, the solitary chair of the apartment tilted against the door as he smoked, and my poor dresses were fumigated. I remonstrated feebly. “War times,” said he; “nobody is fussy now. When I go back to Manassas to-morrow you will be awfully sorry you snubbed me about those trumpery things up there.” So he smoked the pipe of peace, for I knew that his remarks were painfully true. As soon as he was once more under the enemy's guns, I would repent in sackcloth and ashes.

Captain Ingraham came with Colonel Lamar.¹  The latter said he could only stay five minutes; he was obliged to go back at once to his camp. That was a little before eight. However, at twelve he was still talking to us on that sofa. We taunted him with his fine words to the the F. F. V. crowd before the Spotswood: “Virginia has no grievance. She raises her strong arm to catch the blow aimed at her weaker sisters.” He liked it well, however, that we knew his speech by heart.

This Spotswood is a miniature world. The war topic is not so much avoided, as that everybody has some personal dignity to take care of and everybody else is indifferent to it. I mean the “personal dignity of” autrui. In this wild confusion everything likely and unlikely is told you, and then everything is as flatly contradicted. At any rate, it is safest not to talk of the war.

Trescott was telling us how they laughed at little South Carolina in Washington. People said it was almost as large as Long Island, which is hardly more than a tail-feather of New York. Always there is a child who sulks and won't play; that was our role. And we were posing as San Marino and all model-spirited, though small, republics, pose.

He tells us that Lincoln is a humorist. Lincoln sees the fun of things; he thinks if they had left us in a corner or out in the cold a while pouting, with our fingers in our mouth, by hook or by crook he could have got us back, but Anderson spoiled all.

In Mrs. Davis's drawing-room last night, the President took a seat by me on the sofa where I sat. He talked for nearly an hour. He laughed at our faith in our own powers. We are like the British. We think every Southerner equal to three Yankees at least. We will have to be equivalent to a dozen now. After his experience of the fighting qualities of Southerners in Mexico, he believes that we will do all that can be done by pluck and muscle, endurance, and dogged courage, dash, and red-hot patriotism. And yet his tone was not sanguine. There was a sad refrain running through it all. For one thing, either way, he thinks it will be a long war. That floored me at once. It has been too long for me already. Then he said, before the end came we would have many a bitter experience. He said only fools doubted the courage of the Yankees, or their willingness to fight when they saw fit. And now that we have stung their pride, we have roused them till they will fight like devils.

Mrs. Bradley Johnson is here, a regular heroine. She outgeneraled the Governor of North Carolina in some way and has got arms and clothes and ammunition for her husband's regiment.² There was some joke. The regimental breeches were all wrong, but a tailor righted that — hind part before, or something odd.

Captain Hartstein came to-day with Mrs. Bartow. Colonel Bartow is Colonel of a Georgia regiment now in Virginia. He was the Mayor of Savannah who helped to wake the patriotic echoes the livelong night under my sleepless head into the small hours in Charleston in November last. His wife is a charming person, witty and wise, daughter of Judge Berrien. She had on a white muslin apron with pink bows on the pockets. It gave her a gay and girlish air, and yet she must be as old as I am.

Mr. Lamar, who does not love slavery more than Sumner does, nor than I do, laughs at the compliment New England pays us. We want to separate from them; to be rid of the Yankees forever at any price. And they hate us so, and would clasp us, or grapple us, as Polonius has it, to their bosoms “with hooks of steel.” We are an unwilling bride. I think incompatibility of temper began when it was made plain to us that we got all the opprobrium of slavery and they all the money there was in it with their tariff.

Mr. Lamar says, the young men are light-hearted because there is a fight on hand, but those few who look ahead, the clear heads, they see all the risk, the loss of land, limb, and life, home, wife, and children. As in “the brave days of old,” they take to it for their country's sake. They are ready and willing, come what may. But not so light-hearted as the jeunesse dorée.

_______________

¹ Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar, a native of Georgia and of Huguenot descent, who got his classical names from his father: his father got them from an uncle who claimed the privilege of bestowing upon his nephew the full name of his favorite hero. When the war began, Mr. Lamar had lived for some years in Mississippi, where he had become successful as a lawyer and had been elected to Congress. He entered the Confederate Army as the Colonel of a Mississippi regiment. He served in Congress after the war and was elected to the United States Senate in 1877. In 1885 he became Secretary of the Interior, and in 1888, a justice of the United States Supreme Court.

² Bradley Tyler Johnson, a native of Maryland, and graduate of Princeton, who had studied law at Harvard. At the beginning of the war he organized a company at his own expense in defense of the South. He was the author of a Life of General Joseph E. Johnston.

SOURCE: Mary Boykin Chesnut, Edited by Isabella D. Martin and Myrta Lockett Avary, A Diary From Dixie, p. 68-72

John McQueen et al to James Buchanan, December 9, 1860

To His Excellency James Buchanan,

President of the United States.

In compliance with our statement to you yesterday, we now express to you our strong convictions that neither the constituted authority nor any body of the people of the State of South Carolina will either attack or molest the United States forts in the harbor of Charleston previous to the act of the Convention, and, we hope and believe, not until an offer has been made through an accredited representative to negotiate for an amicable arrangement of all matters between the State and the Federal Government; provided that no reinforcement shall be sent into those forts, and their relative military status shall remain as at present.

(Signed.)

john Mcqueen.

William Porcher Miles.

M. L. Bonham.

W. W. Boyce.

Lawrence M. Keitt.

Washington, 9th December, 1860.

SOURCE: Samuel Wylie Crawford, The Genesis of the Civil War: The Story of Sumter, 1860-1861, p. 38-9

Geo. Francis Train, Esq., Defendes the “Yankees.”

From the London American, Feb. 20.

On Monday evening last, Mr. Train was again challenged by the secessionists, on the question, “What chance has the South to obtain its Independence?”

Mr. TRAIN – Certainly I comply with your call, but more to state the facts than make a speech.  The secession speaker sneers at the Yankees – ridicules their industry, and ignores their wonderful energy.  It is time, Mr. Chairman, to stop this sneering at the North – this Sam Slicking the word Yankees.  Halliburton an Englishman, wrote for an English audience – in an English colony – and the English mind being open to accept any thing that would satirize Americans, takes Sam Slick for a text book, when we never use the language at all which he ascribes to us.  [oh!]  Americans never use the word Britisher, and you should know that when you sneer at the Yankee, you sneer at your own people.

The pilgrims were Englishmen.  When they landed on the Western shore, the Indians ran down to meet them crying, “Yengeese!  Yengeese!” which is the Indian word for English; and as Englishmen torture language to most uncouth shapes, calling my lord – my lud – Derby – Darby, and persist in calling Cowper – Cooper ! – [Laughter.] – so the Indian word Yengeese in time became Yengees – Yenkee – Yankee.  [Hear, hear.]  Yankee meaning Englishman – so remember in future when you sneer at the word Yankee, you sneer at yourself and your own countrymen.  [Applause.]  The New Englander is proud of the name.  You compliment me sir, by the allusion, for it is the Yankee who has raised the Flag of the Union on every mountain in Christendom and raised its hallowed folds over every billow in all the oceans.  [Cheers.]  The secessionist in the winter carries on his trade on Yankee capital, and in the summer is obliged to go to Yankee watering places for his vacation; spending pennies in his meagre plantation fare where nobody is looking on, but throwing away pounds in Yankee land in the bar-rooms, the gambling-houses and places of evil repute, whenever he can dazzle the unsuspecting with his bank notes. [Loud laughter.]

The game of Bragg is not always a game of cards.  Is there any game about here, asked the Young Englishman with a bag and gun when landing on the banks of the Mississippi?  Yes, plenty, lisped the negro.  What?  Oh, principally Poker!  [Laughter.]  That is not a Yankee game, or Yankee story.  [Laughter.]  The South depends upon the Yankee for food and raiment – for its medicines – its necessities and its luxuries.  The Yankee supplies the secessionist with Bibles, though seldom called for, and printing paper and ice and coffins. – [Laughter.]  The secession mother sends to Yankee land for a Yankee schoolmistress to teach her children.  And the Secession father sends his sons to Yankee West Points, Yankee naval schools, and Yankee colleges.  Many of to-day’s traitors were taught truth, honor, morality and religion at our Yankee Harvard University, only to return and lie and swear and steal and breed treason. [Hear.]  Remember again, sir, when you sneer, that Yankee means Englishman – or may be translated – as the true type of such a Christian gentleman.  [Cheers.]

How can the honorable speaker quote Latin when he knows that none of us understand it.  [Laughter.]  Said the classic Sir James Granham to the honest old sailor, Sir Charles Napier, after a warm argument regarding Cronstadt – “In medio tussissimus ibis.”  Sir Charles, under great excitement, responded, “You are another.”  [Laughter.]  “Another what?”  “Just what you called me.”  [Laughter.]  But even Latin won’t do to make out a case for Secession.  He says, as a rule, the attacked party always deserves the most sympathy – intimating, in the face of what is not true, that the North attacked the South, when we all know that Beauregard fired the first shot at Anderson.  [That’s so.]  On that principle he would have been with the Russians in the Crimean war, against his own countrymen – [Hear and applause] – or, with better analogy, when discovering a scamp maltreating a woman, or committing burglary, he would side with the desperate thief rather than the policeman whose duty it was to arrest him.  [Hear.]

He speaks again of Carolinian chivalry!  I am tired of that now.  Who ever heard of it until Brooks brutally crept behind the back of Senator Sumner with a bludgeon in hand, with the intention of assassinating him in the Senate Chamber, while his confederate Keitt stood by with a loaded revolver to see fair play?  [Shame.]  The chivalry are no longer in Congress, and the world can no longer witness there a repetition of such disgraceful secession blackguardism! – Southern chivalry!  Look at our armies within six miles of the chivalric Charleston!  Thank God, I am a Puritan and no Cavalier – I am a Roundhead and no Pretender – I belong to the Cromwellian army, and pride myself on being a Yankee!  [Cheers.]  The secessionist accuses the North of frauds, and says that from the first to the last President there has been nothing but robbery and corruption.  Now, as I have before proved that the South for seventy years controlled the Government and was the Treasurer of the nation, I am not surprised at his statement.  [Loud cheers.]

The Right Hon. Secessionist who immediately preceded me disputed my statement that the South robbed the North of fifty millions sterling private debts, and fifty millions sterling private property, and said that when the Secessionist Commissioners went to Washington they offered to pay the Administration all debts., &c.  Shades of repudiation, protect me!  They pay!  Why, gentlemen, an anecdote will best show how ridiculous is that statement. – The first Secessionist, you know was Satan! – [Laughter and cheers.]  He seceded from a purer world – and with inimitable cheek he took our Savior upon a high mount, and offered all the kingdoms round about if he would join his secession party, when every state he had was mortgaged, and the poor devil had not a shilling in the world.  [Loud cheers and renewed laughter.]  He should have given Mr. Seward credit for generosity in permitting the scamps to return at all.  [Oh!]  You may comment, but had O’Brien, and Mitchell, and Meagher presented themselves to Lord John Russell at Downing street in 1848, on a similar errand, how quickly they would have been incarcerated in the Tower.  [Yes, and loud applause.]  The gentleman wants a monarchy, during the next few weeks he shall have all the military advantages of such a Government.  [Hear.]

The game is up, and the hunters are starting with the bugle.  Long before Mr. Cowper gets his drive through Hyde Park, or Sir Robert Peel fights The O’Donoghue, our manikin traitors will be no more.  The Secessionist made one statement about Southern courage which I must rectify.  This is the same old brag that one Southerner is equal to three or four Yankees – he said that he himself was good any time for two.  [Hear.]  Now, Mr. Chairman, if I have a weak point that is strong, that is the point – [laughter] – and if you will suspend the rules and send out for a pair of gloves, I will soon prove to you by facts – while he uses words – that there is one Northerner, at least who will make as short work of him physically as he has done intellectually.  [Loud and continued cheers and laughter.]

The challenged party became the challenger, but Mr. Train’s proposition, however, was not accepted; and during the excitement created by the novel offer, the question was adjourned until Wednesday.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, March 22, 1862, p. 1