Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 5, 2024

Edwin M. Stanton to James Buchanan, March 16, 1861

WASHINGTON, March 16, 1861.

Every day affords proof of the absence of any settled policy or harmonious concert of action in the administration. Seward, Bates and Cameron form one wing; Chase, Miller, Blair, the opposite wing; Smith is on both sides, and Lincoln sometimes on one and sometimes on the other. There has been agreement in nothing. Lincoln, it is complained in the streets, has undertaken to distribute the whole patronage, small and great, leaving nothing to the chiefs of departments. Growls about Scott's "imbecility" are frequent The Republicans are beginning to think that a monstrous blunder was made in the tariff bill, and that it will cut off the trade of New York, build up New Orleans and the Southern ports, and leave the government no revenue; they see before them the prospect of some being without money and without credit. But with all this it is certain that Anderson will be withdrawn.

SOURCE: Lyon Gardiner Tyler, The Letters and Times of the Tylers, Volume 2, p. 636

Saturday, March 2, 2024

General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, February 1, 1876

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES,
St. Louis, Mo., Feb. 1, 1876.

Dear Brother: . . . Your letter endorsing Hayes is first-rate, and meets general approval. I agree with you that no one should be the President unless he was with us heart and soul in the Civil War; and Hayes fills the bill perfectly.

I should be delighted to have him nominated and elected.

The Democrats, in turning between the Democrats of the North and South, will probably commit a mistake that will reunite the Republicans.

I see the "Herald," in an elaborate and good article on saving money in the War Department estimates, criticizes the sending of officers abroad at public expense, instancing my case. Not one cent of my expenses was paid by the Government. I availed myself of the frigate Wabash to reach Gibraltar, whither she was bound in her course to the Mediterranean. I paid my mess-bill, which amounted to $130 (more than the price of passage over in a Cunarder).

If you happen to see one of those ------ reporters, you could say as much. I will not, because on searching they will find that not a cent was paid for my expenses abroad.

Yours affectionately,
W. T. SHERMAN.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 347-8

Tuesday, February 13, 2024

Senator John Sherman to General William T. Sherman, August 4, 1872

MANSFIELD, OHIO, Aug. 4, 1872.

Dear Brother: . . . Just now all interest is centred upon the Presidential election. As you say, the Republicans are running a Democrat, and the Democrats a Republican. And there is not an essential difference in the platform of principle. The chief interest I feel in the canvass is the preservation of the Republican party, which I think essential to secure the fair enforcement of the results of the war. General Grant has so managed matters as to gain the very bitter and active hostility of many of the leading Republicans, and the personal indifference of most of the residue. He will, however, be fairly supported by the great mass of the Republicans, and I still hope and believe will be elected. The defections among Republicans will be made up by Democrats, who will not vote for Greeley.

The whole canvass is so extraordinary, that no result can be anticipated. You will notice that Sumner, Thurman, Banks, and others are for Greeley, who is probably the most unfit man for President, except Train, that has ever been mentioned. I intend to support Grant fairly and fully, as best for the country and Republican party.

Affectionately yours,
JOHN SHERMAN.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 338-9

General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, August 28, 1874

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES,        
WASHINGTON, D.C., Aug. 28, 1874.

Dear Brother: . . . Don't ever give any person the least encouragement to think I can be used for political ends. I have seen it poison so many otherwise good characters, that I am really more obstinate than ever. I think Grant will be made miserable to the end of his life by his eight years' experience. Let those who are trained to it keep the office, and keep the Army and Navy as free from politics as possible, for emergencies that may arise at any time.

Think of the reputations wrecked in politics since 1865.

Yours affectionately,
W. T. SHERMAN.

[A few days later he continued:]

*          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *

No matter what the temptation, I will never allow my name to be used by any party; but I don't think it would be prudent to allow the old Democrats to get possession of the Government; and hope the Republicans will choose some new man, as like Mr. Lincoln as you can find. Or else let us unite on Blaine, or even Washburne. . . .

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 340

Monday, February 12, 2024

Diary of Gideon Welles: Monday, March 19, 1866

Allen of the Intelligencer called upon me to-day in reference to the Connecticut election. Says it is stated in the papers that I have written letters urging Hawley's election, yet Hawley is making speeches against the President. Told him I had written no letters of the purport indicated, had purposely abstained and intended to. Asked what statements and what papers he referred to, and doubted if Hawley had made speeches in opposition to the Administration. It would not be politic for him to do so. That English is in favor of the President's policy as distinguished from that of Stevens or Congress, is true. The Republicans of Connecticut thought they did a shrewd thing in passing one resolution in favor of the President and another in favor of Congress. This inconsistency, equivocation, or contradiction is now troublesome.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 456-7

Thursday, December 7, 2023

Senator John Sherman to General William T. Sherman, October 17, 1871

MANSFIELD, OHIO, Oct. 17, 1871.

Dear Brother: Your note of the 14th is received. I am glad you are going to Europe, and under such favorable auspices.

You are sure of a hearty reception there, and you will be greatly entertained and instructed by wonders that must be seen as well as read of. . . . It is generally conceded that I shall be elected, though it is not sure. No doubt a majority of Republicans favor me, but combinations are often made, and may be in this election. . .

Affectionately,
JOHN SHERMAN.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 334

Sunday, October 8, 2023

Diary of Gideon Welles: February 8, 1866

Neither of the feeble organizations discussed or professed much regard for any of those fundamental principles which had created and previously influenced parties, or which were then again just looming up above the horizon. The Federalists had been beaten in 1818 and felt that they deserved it, but they had always until then been in the ascendant and wielded the power of the State, and still desired most earnestly to do so. The Republicans of those days were held in subjection and had great deference for the Federal dignitaries. Scarcely one of the leaders possessed independence and strength of character sufficient to firmly resist the well-organized dominant party and form and avow individual opinion. The mass or body of the people were patriotic, but, under ecclesiastical as much as political ruling, had little zeal or devotion for parties or leaders. This was the condition of things when I came upon the stage of action, full of enthusiasm and earnest work, and commenced the labor of bringing together the minds which sympathized and agreed with me. Very few of the prominent men came into the fold, and such as did were most of them disappointed and disaffected men. Some aspiring individuals whispered encouragement, but kept out of sight. By letters, by private correspondence and personal interviews with the people, by ascertaining names of men in different towns and localities, urging and inviting them to come forward, I laid the foundation of what was and is known as the Democratic Party of Connecticut. John M. Niles aided, and as he was the elder man by some years, he was more openly recognized as the leader. But Niles had not perseverance and was often and easily discouraged. Circumstances favored, and though abused, hated, insulted, and at first despised, the organization thus commenced, after many trials and reverses, obtained an ascendancy in the State.

When this became established, the vicious, the corrupt, the time-serving, and the unprincipled flocked to us. The Seymours, the Ingersolls, the Phelpses, etc., became Democrats. The organization was thorough, and the discipline rigid and severe. Trimmers and mere office-hunters became jealous and dissatisfied, made secret and sometimes open war upon me, were whipped and returned. The drill and discipline of twenty years made the organization compact, and when the Democratic Party of the country in 1848 became unfaithful in a measure to their principles, the discipline of party carried many into a false position. I declined to follow the nullifiers, compromisers, and secessionists, but the organization which I had instituted held to party and became perverted. New men who "knew not Joseph" controlled the organization. For a time they retained the ascendancy, but ultimately they broke down, and for ten or twelve years they have been in a minority. Through the War the leaders have been almost all of them hostile to the Administration and malignant against the cause of the Union. Some, like English, have risen above the trammels of party.

The ticket, with the exception of English, has not much strength, and some bad men are on it. I am apprehensive that the Republicans will not be as judicious in their movement, will not nominate a better man for Governor nor give as hearty an indorsement to the President and his policy.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 428-9

Saturday, October 7, 2023

Diary of Welles: Wednesday, February 14, 1866

Have examined the bill for the Freedmen's Bureau, which is a terrific engine and reads more like a decree emanating from despotic power than a legislative enactment by republican representatives. I do not see how the President can sign it. Certainly I shall not advise it. Yet something is necessary for the wretched people who have been emancipated, and who have neither intelligence nor means to provide for themselves. In time and briefly, if let alone, society will adapt itself to circumstances and make circumstances conform to existing necessities, but in the mean time there will be suffering, misery, wretchedness, nor will it be entirely confined to the blacks.

I am apprehensive that the efforts of our Northern philanthropists to govern the Southern States will be productive of evil, that they will generate hatred rather than love between the races. This Freedmen's Bureau scheme is a governmental enormity. There is a despotic tendency in the legislation of this Congress, an evident disposition to promote these notions of freedom by despotic and tyrannical means.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 432-3

Friday, August 18, 2023

Senator John Sherman to Lieutenant-General William T. Sherman, October 14, 1868

[MANSFIELD, OHIO, October 14, 1868.]

The October election is now over, but I do not yet know precise results. I write, supposing that the Republicans have carried Ohio and Pennsylvania and perhaps Indiana. Grant is much stronger than our State or Congress ticket, and will get thousands of floating and Democratic votes. I regard his election as a foregone conclusion. This canvass has been very severe upon me and I shall now take a rest. If you would like to join me, we can go to the Lake1 and have some fine sport hunting and fishing. This relaxation will do us both good.

_______________

1 Lake Erie.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 322-3

Wednesday, June 28, 2023

Lieutenant-General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, March 14, 1868

HEADQUARTERS MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSOURI,        
ST. LOUIS, March 14, 1868.

Dear Brother: I don't know what Grant means by his silence in the midst of the very great indications of his receiving the nomination in May. Doubtless he intends to hold aloof from the expression of any opinion, till the actual nomination is made, when, if he accepts with a strong Radical platform, I shall be surprised. My notion is that he thinks that the Democrats ought not to succeed to power, and that he would be willing to stand a sacrifice rather than see that result. . . . I notice that you Republicans have divided on some of the side questions on impeachment, and am glad you concede to the President the largest limits in his defence that are offered. I don't see what the Republicans can gain by shoving matters to an extent that looks like a foregone conclusion.

No matter what men may think of Mr. Johnson, his office is one that ought to have a pretty wide latitude of opinion. Nevertheless the trial is one that will be closely and sternly criticised by all the civilized world. . . .

Your brother,
W. T. SHERMAN.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 314-5

Saturday, May 13, 2023

Senator John Sherman to Lieutenant-General William T. Sherman, after November 1, 1867

If you can keep free from committals to Johnson, you will surely as you live be called upon to act as President. The danger now is that the mistakes of the Republicans may drift the Democratic party into power. If so, the rebellion is triumphant, and no man active in suppressing it will be trusted or honored. Grant is not injured by his correspondence with Johnson, but no doubt feels annoyed. . . .

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 299

Saturday, March 11, 2023

William T. Sherman to David F. Boyd, April 4, 1861

OFFICE ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY, St. Louis, April 41861.

MY DEAR FRIEND: I promised you all to keep you advised of my whereabouts that we may interchange from time to time the thoughts and feelings of respect and affection which I feel assured still subsists between us. By the caption of this letter you will see me in a rail road office, of which I am the president with a salary of two thousand dollars. I have my entire family in a good house, 226 Locust St., with plenty of room and a hearty welcome for friends who come to me from the four quarters of the globe, and I will believe that you, or Smith, or the Doctor,1 yea Mr. St. Ange, may some summer come up to this great city, the heart of North America, and see me and mine.

I acted with energy, went to Washington, satisfied myself that Lincoln was organizing his administration on pure party principles, concluded it was no place for me who profess to love and venerate my whole country and not a mere fraction — and forthwith to Lancaster, pulled up stakes, to Cincinnati, and embarked all hands, with carpets, chairs, beds, kitchen utensils, even my household servants, and before one month of my vacating my berth in Louisiana, I was living in St. Louis.

I see my way ahead for one year and must trust to the future, and having an abundance of faith in St. Louis with its vast fertile surrounding country, I feel no uneasiness. My two eldest girls are in a Catholic school and this morning I put my boy Willy in a public school, so that with the exception of some trifling articles of furniture I am settled.

My duties here are clearly within my comprehension, and indeed I think I can actually make myself more than useful to the stockholders by giving personal attention, which heretofore has devolved on hirelings. In politics I do not think I change with country. On the negro question I am satisfied there is and was no cause for a severance of the old Union, but will go further and say that I believe the practice of slavery in the South is the mildest and best regulated system of slavery in the world, now or heretofore. But, as there is an incongruity in black and white labor, I do think in the new territories the line of separation should be drawn before rather than after settlement. As to any guarantees I would favor any approved by Rives, Bell, Crittenden and such men whose patriotism cannot be questioned.

On the question of secession however I am ultra. I believe in coercion and cannot comprehend how any government can exist unless it defend its integrity. The mode and manner may be regulated by policy and wisdom, but that any part of a people may carry off a part of the common territory without consent or purchase I cannot understand. Now I know as well as I can know anything uncertain that Louisiana cannot belong to a string of Southern States. She must belong to a system embracing the Valley States. It may be those Valley States may come to Louisiana, but ultimately one way or another, the Valley of the Mississippi must be under one system of government. Else quarrels, troubles, and confusions, worse than war, will be continuous.

My brother John is now senator, and quite a man among the Republicans, but he regards me as erratic in politics. He nor politicians generally can understand the feelings and opinions of one who thinks himself above parties, and looks upon the petty machinery of party as disgusting. There are great numbers here who think like me, and at the election here a few days ago the Black Republicans were beaten, because the country expected of Mr. Lincoln a national and not a party government. Had the Southern States borne patiently for four years, they could have had a radical change in 1864 that might have lasted twenty years. Whereas now, no man is wise enough to even guess at future combinations.

I hope you are all well, that the Seminary continues to prosper, that you have a clever superintendent, and that one day not far distant we may sail under the same flag. My best respects to the Jarreaus and all friends.
_______________

1 Dr. Clarke.—ED.

SOURCE: Walter L. Fleming, General W.T. Sherman as College President, p. 375-7

Friday, September 9, 2022

William T. Sherman to Ellen Ewing Sherman, January 13, 1861

SEMINARY, Jan. 13, 1861.

 . . . I see no change to note here in public sentiment, the fact that Seward has been named as secretary of state to Lincoln enables the leaders to show that their suspicions were right that the Republicans and abolitionists are identical. I am therefore confirmed in my opinion that the cotton states are off and it is an even chance with all the slave states. I take the Missouri Republican and National Intelligencer which seem to oppose secession but they cannot stem the torrent.

The revolution has begun and the national government has shown weakness in all its attempts. Anderson is the only one who has acted. General Scott in sending reinforcements ought not to have trusted the Star of the West, the same in which we went to California some [seven?] years ago. She could not venture to receive a fire. Frigates and strong war steamers should have gone, which could have forced their way past the land batteries. I hope still this will be done. It will be a triumph to South Carolina to beat Uncle Sam.

Still Charleston is nothing to New Orleans and I am satisfied the forts at the mouth1 and the lakes2 will be taken by order of Governor Moore of this state before they can be occupied by the U.S. All these are acts of War has begun. And it is idle to say the South is not in earnest. Louisiana has not yet seceded, yet the delegates favorable to such a course are elected, even in New Orleans where the Union feeling is thought to be strongest. I have no doubt that ultimately I will be turned off as unfaithful, but I must see my way clearer than I yet can before I leave from choice. . .
_______________

1 Of the Mississippi. – ED.

2 Lake Pontchartrain and Lake Borgne. – ED.

SOURCE: Walter L. Fleming, General W.T. Sherman as College President, p. 332-3

Tuesday, January 4, 2022

William T. Sherman to Thomas Ewing Jr., February 17, 1860

BATON ROUGE, Feb. 17, 1860.

DEAR TOM: . . . I am down here at the legislature log rolling for a bill to the interest of our institution. I have no doubt of success. I cannot but laugh in my sleeve at the seeming influence I possess, dining with the governor, hobnobbing with the leading men of Louisiana, whilst John is universally blackguarded as an awful abolitionist. No person has said one word against me, and all have refrained from using his name in vain.

As to your prospects, I see as chief justice you ran ahead of your ticket. I doubt not you can be elected as senator. For the chances it is best, though for a firm solid foundation the judgeship is preferable. Still I think I know enough of you to say your mind is made up and like the fellow engaged to some girl goes round and asks advice leaves room for but one side to the question. I advise you then to go to the senate, be moderate and take the chances.

If they find me advising with you and John, two desperate Blacks, they will suspect me of treason and hang me. No, this is not so, we discuss all public questions here with fairness. Louisiana is not ultra. She has property valued at four hundred millions of dollars which is all based on slave labor. It is no new open question to them; they must be prejudiced in favor of their interests, and I know and often assert that such persons as you and John are not inclined to molest this property. I state your position thus: in Kansas the party known as Democratic did endeavor to impose slavery on Kansas and resorted to extraneous force and fraud. This led to force and violence on the other side, and then, as in all similar contests for colonizing, the North beat, because she has one hundred who can emigrate where the South has one. I understand the moderate Republicans to be opposed to slavery in the abstract, to its extension, but not committed to its molestation where it now exists. I hope the party will not attempt the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law, and that courts and legislatures will not take ultra ground, individuals and newspapers may, but judges and legislatures cannot without committing whole communities.

The relation between master and slave cannot be changed without utter ruin to immense numbers, and it is not sure the negro would be benefitted. If John had not signed that Helper book he could have been elected and would have had a fine chance of showing fairness and manliness at a time of crisis. As it is now he can only growl over expenses and waste; that the Devil himself cannot stop.

Louisiana will not join in any South Carolina measure, but her people and representatives are nervous on the nigger question, and I have to be on my guard all the while as Ohio is looked on as a regular Bogey. Bragg and others here know me to be national, and they back me up too strong, so that I am coaxed and begged not to leave them. I know this sentiment to be sincere and the professors begged me by all the considerations possible to stand by the Institution, as they think that I can make it successful and famous. If too by being here, with such relatives as you and John, I could also do something to allay fears and apprehensions which I believe unfounded I could do patriotic service. Yet the itching for change and adventure makes me strongly inclined to go to London. My life here would settle down into a plain, easy berth.

The Democratic Party will try to keep Kansas out by manoeuvre, but I take it if a fair square vote can be had Kansas must be admitted as she is. I shall be glad to see your name as senator. I dined yesterday with Governor Moore, to-day with the attorney-general, so you see I am in the land of clover as well as molasses.

During our first term many defects in the original act of the Legislature, were demonstrated, and, by the advice of the Board of Supervisors, I went down to Baton Rouge during the session of the legislature to advocate and urge the passage of a new bill, putting the institution on a better footing. Thomas O. Moore was then Governor, Bragg was a member of the Board of Public Works, and Richard Taylor was a senator. I got well acquainted with all of these, and with some of the leading men of the state, and was always treated with the greatest courtesy and kindness.

In conjunction with the proper committee of the legislature, we prepared a new bill, which was passed and approved on the 7th of March, 1860, by which we were to have a beneficiary cadet for each parish, in all fifty-six, and fifteen thousand dollars annually for their maintenance; also twenty thousand dollars for the general use of the college. During that session we got an appropriation of fifteen thousand dollars for building two professors' houses, for the purchase of philosophical and chemical apparatus, and for the beginning of a college library. The Seminary was made a State Arsenal, under the title of State Central Arsenal, and I was allowed five hundred dollars a year as its superintendent.

These matters took me several times to Baton Rouge that winter, and I recall an event of some interest, which must have happened in February. At that time my brother, John Sherman, was a candidate, in the national House of Representatives, for speaker, against Bocock, of Virginia. In the South he was regarded as an "abolitionist,” the most horrible of all monsters; and many people of Louisiana looked at me with suspicion, as the brother of the abolitionist, John Sherman, and doubted the propriety of having me at the head of an important state institution. By this time I was pretty well acquainted with many of their prominent men, was generally esteemed by all in authority, and by the people of Rapides Parish especially, who saw that I was devoted to my particular business, and that I gave no heed to the political excitement of the day. But the members of the state Senate and House did not know me so well, and it was natural that they should be suspicious of a northern man, and the brother of him who was the "abolition" candidate for speaker of the House.

One evening, at a large dinner-party at Governor Moore's at which were present several members of the Louisiana legislature, Taylor, Bragg, and the Attorney-general Hyams, after the ladies had left the table, I noticed at Governor Moore's end quite a lively discussion going on, in which my name was frequently used; at length the governor called to me, saying: "Colonel Sherman, you can readily understand that, with your brother the abolitionist candidate for speaker, some of our people wonder that you should be here at the head of an important state institution. Now, you are at my table, and I assure you of my confidence. Won't you speak your mind freely on this question of slavery, that so agitates the land? You are under my roof, and, whatever you say, you have my protection.

I answered: "Governor Moore, you mistake in calling my brother John Sherman, an abolitionist. We have been separated since childhood - I, in the army, and he pursuing his profession of law in northern Ohio; and it is possible we may differ in general sentiment, but I deny that he is considered at home an abolitionist; and, although he prefers the free institutions under which he lives to those of slavery which prevail here, he would not of himself take from you by law or force any property whatever, even slaves.”

Then said Moore: “Give us your own views of slavery as you see it here and throughout the South.”

I answered in effect that "the people of Louisiana were hardly responsible for slavery, as they had inherited it; that I found two distinct conditions of slavery, domestic and field hands. The domestic slaves, employed by the families, were probably better treated than any slaves on earth; but the condition of the field-hands was different, depending more on the temper and disposition of their masters and overseers than were those employed about the house;" and I went on to say that, were I a citizen of Louisiana, and a member of the legislature, I would deem it wise to bring the legal condition of the slave more near the status of human beings under all Christian and civilized governments. In the first place, I argued that, in sales of slaves made by the state, I would forbid the separation of families, letting the father, mother, and children, be sold together to one person, instead of each to the highest bidder. And, again, I would advise the repeal of the statute which enacted a severe penalty for even the owner to teach his slave to read and write, because that actually qualified property and took away a part of its value; illustrating the assertion by the case of Henry Sampson, who had been the slave of Colonel Chambers, of Rapides Parish, who had gone to California as the servant of an officer of the army, and who was afterward employed by me in the bank at San Francisco. At first he could not write or read, and I could only afford to pay him one hundred dollars a month; but he was taught to read and write by Reilley, our bank-teller, when his services became worth two hundred and fifty dollars a month, which enabled him to buy his own freedom and that of his brother and his family.

What I said was listened to by all with the most profound attention; and when I was through, some one (I think it was Mr. Hyams struck the table with his fist, making the glasses jingle, and said, “By God, he is right!” and at once he took up the debate, which went on, for an hour or more, on both sides with ability and fairness. Of course, I was glad to be thus relieved, because at the time all men in Louisiana were dreadfully excited on questions affecting their slaves, who constituted the bulk of their wealth, and without whom they honestly believed that sugar, cotton, and rice, could not possibly be cultivated. . . .

SOURCE: Walter L. Fleming, General W.T. Sherman as College President, p. 173-9

Thursday, February 11, 2021

Diary of Gideon Welles: Saturday, August 27, 1864

Much party machinery is just at this time in motion. No small portion of it is a prostitution and abuse. The Whig element is venal and corrupt, to a great extent. I speak of the leaders of that party now associated with Republicans. They seem to have very little political principle; they have no belief in public virtue or popular intelligence; they have no self-reliance, no confidence in the strength of a righteous cause, little regard for constitutional restraint and limitations. Their politics and their ideas of government consist of expedients, and cunning management with the intelligent, and coercion and subornation of the less informed.

Mr. Wakeman, the postmaster at New York, with whom I am on very good terms, — for he is affable, insinuating, and pleasant, though not profound nor reliable, - a New York politician, has called upon me several times in relation to the Brooklyn Navy Yard. He is sent by Raymond, by Humphrey, by Campbell and others, and I presume Seward and Weed have also been cognizant of and advising in the matter. Raymond is shy of me. He evidently is convinced that we should not harmonize. Wakeman believes that all is fair and proper in party operations which can secure by any means certain success, and supposes that every one else is the same. Raymond knows that there are men of a different opinion, but considers them slow, incumbrances, stubborn and stupid, who cannot understand and will not be managed by the really ready and sharp fellows like himself who have resources to accomplish almost anything. Wakeman has been prompted and put forward to deal with me. He says we must have the whole power and influence of the government this coming fall, and if each Department will put forth its whole strength and energy in our favor we shall be successful. He had just called on Mr. Stanton at the request of our friends, and all was satisfactorily arranged with him. Had seen Mr. Fessenden and was to have another interview, and things were working well at the Treasury. Now, the Navy Department was quite as important as either, and he, a Connecticut man, had been requested to see me. There were things in the Navy Yard to be corrected, or our friends would not be satisfied, and the election in New York and the country might by remissness be endangered. This must be prevented, and he knew I would use all the means at my disposal to prevent it. He then read from a paper what he wanted should be done. It was a transcript of a document that had been sent me by Seward as coming from Raymond, for the management of the yard, and he complained of some proceedings that had given offense. Mr. Halleck, one of the masters, had gathered two or three hundred workmen together, and was organizing them with a view to raise funds and get them on the right track, but Admiral Paulding had interfered, broken up the meetings, and prohibited them from assembling in the Navy Yard in future.

I told him I approved of Paulding's course; that there ought to be no gathering of workmen in working hours and while under government pay for party schemes; and there must be no such gatherings within the limits of the yard at any time. That I would not do an act myself that I would condemn in an opponent. That such gatherings in the government yard were not right, and what was not right I could not do.

He was a little staggered by my words or manner, or both; insisted we could not succeed without doing these things, that other parties had done them, and we must; but he had full confidence I would do right and should tell them so when he returned.

Neither Wakeman nor those who sent him are aware that the course which he would pursue would and ought to destroy any party. No administration could justify and sustain itself that would misuse power and the public means as they propose. Such action would sooner or later destroy the government. Their measures would not stand the test of investigation, and would be condemned by the public judgment, if healthy. They are not republican but imperial.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 122-4 

Monday, January 4, 2021

Emory Upton to his Sister, December 21, 1860

WEST POINT, December 21, 1860

DEAR SISTER:  We are on general review in mineralogy and geology preparatory to our last January examination, and, possibly, our very last.  These are delightful studies, and the method of instruction here renders us very familiar with minerals.  Each rock has now its story for us. . . . The political horizon is very black.  Today’s papers inform us that South Carolina has seceded.  The veil behind which Webster sought not to penetrate has been “rent in twain,” and secession, with its evils, is now a reality.  Let her go.  She has been a pest, an eye-sore, an abomination ever since she entered the Union.  Were it not that her example may become contagious, few would regret her course; but, in the present excited state of feeling at the South, there is imminent danger that the whole South will drift into the terrible gulf which secession opens before them.  I believe in Union, but South Carolina has taken the initiative, and she is responsible for whatever follows, and posterity will hold her Every friend of freedom will execrate her course. War, I believe, must speedily follow, and by her act. The papers say, “Buchanan has ordered the commandant of Fort Moultrie to surrender if attacked”; if true, what a traitor! Floyd has sent twenty-five thousand stand of arms to different Southern posts within the past year, and for what? Certainly not for the use of soldiers garrisoning them. What, then, is the inference? That they shall be convenient for secession. The Administration must be deeply implicated in this plot to destroy the government. Its conduct can not be explained otherwise. I heartily rejoice that Abraham Lincoln is elected, and that we have such a noble set of Republicans at Washington to meet this critical emergency. As for myself, I am ambitious, and desire fame, but I will stand by the right; for what is the worth of fame when purchased by dishonor? God orders or suffers all things.

SOURCE: Peter Smith Michie, The Life and Letters of Emory Upton, p. 29-30

Thursday, November 12, 2020

Diary of Gideon Welles: Tuesday, July 26, 1864

Fessenden has got out an advertisement for a new loan and an address to the people in its behalf. Am not certain that the latter is judicious. Capitalists will not as a general thing loan or invest for patriotism, but for good returns. The advertisement gives high interest, but accompanied by the appeal will excite doubt, rather than inspire confidence among the money-lenders. I am inclined to think he will get funds, for his plan is sensible and much wiser than anything of his predecessor. The idea with Chase seemed to be to pay low interest in money but high prices in irredeemable paper, a scheme that might have temporary success in getting friends and popularity with speculators but is ruinous to the country. The errors of Chase in this respect Mr. Fessenden seems inclined to correct, but other measures are wanted and I trust we shall have them.

Only Bates, Usher, and myself were at the Cabinet to day. Stanton sent over to inquire if his attendance was necessary.

There are rumors that the retreating Rebels have turned upon our troops in the valley, and that our forces, badly weakened by the withdrawal of the Sixth Army Corps, are retreating towards Harper's Ferry. This is not improbable. They may have been strengthened as our forces were weakened.

Rode out this evening, accompanied by Mrs. Welles, and spent an hour with the President and Mrs. Lincoln at the Soldiers' Home.

The papers contain a letter from Governor Letcher stating that General Hunter gave the order for burning his (L.'s) house. I shall wish to hear from H. before believing that he could give such an order, and yet I confess I am not without apprehensions, for Hunter is not always possessed of so much prudence as one should have who holds so responsible a position. The burning of the Institute at the same place and time was not creditable to the army, and if there is any justification or ameliorating circumstances, they should be made to appear. The crude and indefensible notions of some of our people, however, are not general. Indiscriminate warfare on all in the insurrectionary region is not general, and few would destroy private property wantonly.

The New York papers are engaged in a covert and systematic attack on the Navy Department, — covert so far as the Republican or Administration press is concerned. Greeley of the Tribune is secretly hostile to the President and assails him indirectly in this way; so of the Evening Post, a paper hitherto friendly but whose publisher is under bail for embezzlement and fraud which the Navy Department would not conceal. The Times is a profligate Seward and Weed organ, wholly unreliable and in these matters regardless of truth or principle. It supports the President because it is the present policy of Seward. The principal editor, Raymond, is an unscrupulous soldier of fortune, yet recently appointed Chairman of the Republican National Executive Committee. He and some of his colleagues are not to be trusted, yet these political vagabonds are the managers of the party organization. His paper, as well as others, are in a combination with Norman Wiard and pretenders like him against the monitors. Let the poor devils work at that question. The people will not be duped or misled to any great extent by them.

There are demonstrations for a new raid into Maryland and Pennsylvania. I told the President I trusted there would be some energy and decision in getting behind them, cutting them off, and not permitting them to go back, instead of a scare and getting forces to drive them back with their plunder. He said those were precisely his views and he had just been to see and say as much to Halleck. I inquired how H. responded to the suggestion. The President said he was considering it, and was now wanting to ascertain where they had crossed the Potomac and the direction they had taken.

I apprehend it is not a large force, but a cavalry raid, which will move rapidly and create alarm. Likely they will go into the Cumberland Valley and then west, for they will scarcely take the old route to return. But these are crude speculations of mine. I get nothing from Halleck, and I doubt if he has any plan, purpose, or suggestion. Before he will come to a conclusion the raiders will have passed beyond his reach.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 86-8

Wednesday, August 12, 2020

Abraham Lincoln’s Speech at Leavenworth, Kansas, December 3, 1859

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: You are, as yet, the people of a Territory; but you probably soon will be the people of a State of the Union. Then you will be in possession of new privileges, and new duties will be upon you. You will have to bear a part in all that pertains to the administration of the National Government. That government, from the beginning, has had, has now, and must continue to have a policy in relation to domestic slavery. It cannot, if it would, be without a policy upon that subject. And that policy must, of necessity, take one of two directions. It must deal with the institution as being wrong or as not being wrong.

Mr. Lincoln then stated, somewhat in detail, the early action of the General Government upon the question—in relation to the foreign slave trade, the basis of Federal representation, and the prohibition of slavery in the Federal territories; the Fugitive Slave clause in the Constitution, and insisted that, plainly that early policy, was based on the idea of slavery being wrong; and tolerating it so far, and only so far, as the necessity of its actual presence required.

He then took up the policy of the Kansas-Nebraska act, which he argued was based on opposite ideas—that is, the idea that slavery is not wrong. He said: “You, the people of Kansas, furnish the example of the first application of this new policy. At the end of about five years, after having almost continual struggles, fire and bloodshed, over this very question, and after having framed several State Constitutions, you have, at last, secured a Free State Constitution, under which you will probably be admitted into the Union. You have, at last, at the end of all this difficulty, attained what we, in the old North-western Territory, attained without any difficulty at all. Compare, or rather contrast, the actual working of this new policy with that of the old, and say whether, after all, the old way—the way adopted by Washington and his compeers—was not the better way.”

Mr. Lincoln argued that the new policy had proven false to all its promises—that its promise to the Nation was to speedily end the slavery agitation, which it had not done, but directly the contrary—that its promises to the people of the Territories was to give them greater control of their own affairs than the people of former Territories had had; while, by the actual experiment, they had had less control of their own affairs, and had been more bedeviled by outside interference than the people of any other Territory ever had.

He insisted that it was deceitful in its expressed wish to confer additional privileges upon the people; else it would have conferred upon them the privilege of choosing their own officers. That if there be any just reason why all the privileges of a State should not be conferred on the people of a Territory at once, it only could be the smallness of numbers; and that if while their number was small, they were fit to do some things, and unfit to do others, it could only be because those they were unfit to do, were the larger and more important things—that, in this case, the allowing the people of Kansas to plant their soil with slavery, and not allowing them to choose their own Governor, could only be justified on the idea that the planting a new State with slavery was a very small matter, and the election of Governor a very much greater matter. “Now,” said he, “compare these two matters and decide which is really the greater. You have already had, I think, five Governors, and yet, although their doings, in their respective days, were of some little interest to you, it is doubtful whether you now, even remember the names of half of them. They are gone (all but the last) without leaving a trace upon your soil, or having done a single act which can, in the least degree, help or hurt you, in all the indefinite future before you. This is the size of the Governor question. Now, how is it with the slavery question? If your first settlers had so far decided in favor of slavery, as to have got five thousand slaves planted on your soil, you could, by no moral possibility, have adopted a Free State Constitution. Their owners would be influential voters among you as good men as the rest of you, and, by their greater wealth, and consequent, greater capacity, to assist the more needy, perhaps the most influential among you. You could not wish to destroy, or injuriously interfere with their property. You would not know what to do with the slaves after you had made them free. You would not wish to keep them as underlings; nor yet to elevate them to social and political equality. You could not send them away. The slave States would not let you send them there; and the free States would not let you send them there. All the rest of your property would not pay for sending them to Liberia. In one word, you could not have made a free State, if the first half of your own numbers had got five thousand slaves fixed upon the soil. You could have disposed of, not merely five, but five hundred Governors easier. There they would have stuck, in spite of you, to plague you and your children, and your children's children, indefinitely. Which is the greater, this, or the Governor question? Which could the more safely be intrusted to the first few people who settle a Territory? Is it that which, at most, can be but temporary and brief in its effects? or that which being done by the first few, can scarcely ever be undone by the succeeding many?

He insisted that, little as was Popular Sovereignty at first, the Dred Scott decision, which is indorsed by the author of Popular Sovereignty, has reduced it to still smaller proportions, if it has not entirely crushed it out. That, in fact, all it lacks of being crushed out entirely by that decision, is the lawyer's technical distinction between decision and dictum. That the Court has already said a Territorial government cannot exclude slavery; but because they did not say it in a case where a Territorial government had tried to exclude slavery, the lawyers hold that saying of the Court to be dictum and not decision. “But,” said Mr. Lincoln, “is it not certain that the Court will make a decision of it, the first time a Territorial government tries to exclude slavery?”

Mr. Lincoln argued that the doctrine of Popular Sovereignty, carried out, renews the African Slave Trade. Said he: “Who can show that one people have a better right to carry slaves to where they have never been, than another people have to buy slaves wherever they please, even in Africa?”

He also argued that the advocates of Popular Sovereignty, by their efforts to brutalize the negro in the public mind—denying him any share in the Declaration of Independence, and comparing him to the crocodile—were beyond what avowed pro-slavery men ever do, and really did as much, or more than they, toward making the institution national and perpetual.

He said many of the Popular Sovereignty advocates were “as much opposed to slavery as any one;” but that they could never find any proper time or place to oppose it. In their view, it must not be opposed in politics, because that is agitation; nor in the pulpit, because it is not religion; nor in the Free States, because it is not there; nor in the Slave States, because it is there. These gentlemen, however, are never offended by hearing Slavery supported in any of these places. Still, they are “as much opposed to Slavery as anybody.” One would suppose that it would exactly suit them if the people of the Slave States would themselves adopt emancipation; but when Frank Blair tried this last year, in Missouri, and was beaten, every one of them threw up his hat and shouted “Hurrah for the Democracy!”

Mr. Lincoln argued that those who thought Slavery right ought to unite on a policy which should deal with it as being right; that they should go for a revival of the Slave Trade; for carrying the institution everywhere, into Free States as well as Territories; and for a surrender of fugitive slaves in Canada, or war with Great Britain. Said he, “all shades of Democracy, popular sovereign as well as the rest, are fully agreed that slaves are property, and only property. If Canada now had as many horses as she has slaves belonging to Americans, I should think it just cause of war if she did not surrender them on demand.[”]

“On the other hand, all those who believe slavery is wrong should unite on a policy, dealing with it as a wrong. They should be deluded into no deceitful contrivances, pretending indifference, but really working for that to which they are opposed.” He urged this at considerable length.

He then took up some of the objections to Republicans. They were accused of being sectional. He denied it. What was the proof? “Why, that they have no existence, get no votes in the South. But that depends on the South, and not on us. It is their volition, not ours; and if there be fault in it, it is primarily theirs, and remains so, unless they show that we repeal them by some wrong principle. If they attempt this, they will find us holding no principle, other than those held and acted upon by the men who gave us the government under which we live. They will find that the charge of sectionalism will not stop at us, but will extend to the very men who gave us the liberty we enjoy. But if the mere fact that we get no votes in the slave states makes us sectional, whenever we shall get votes in those states, we shall cease to be sectional; and we are sure to get votes, and a good many of them too, in these states next year.

“You claim that you are conservative; and we are not. We deny it. What is conservatism? Preserving the old against the new. And yet you are conservative in struggling for the new, and we are destructive in trying to maintain the old. Possibly you mean you are conservative in trying to maintain the existing institution of slavery. Very well; we are not trying to destroy it. The peace of society, and the structure of our government both require that we should let it alone, and we insist on letting it alone. If I might advise my Republican friends here, I would say to them, leave your Missouri neighbors alone. Have nothing whatever to do with their slaves. Have nothing whatever to do with the white people, save in a friendly way. Drop past differences, and so conduct yourselves that if you cannot be at peace with them, the fault shall be wholly theirs.

“You say we have made the question more prominent than heretofore. We deny it. It is more prominent; but we did not make it so. Despite of us, you would have a change of policy; we resist the change, and in the struggle, the greater prominence is given to the question. Who is responsible for that, you or we? If you would have the question reduced to its old proportions go back to the old policy. That will effect it.

“But you are for the Union; and you greatly fear the success of the Republicans would destroy the Union. Why? Do the Republicans declare against the Union? Nothing like it. Your own statement of it is, that if the Black Republicans elect a President, you won't stand it. You will break up the Union. That will be your act, not ours. To justify it, you must show that our policy gives you just cause for such desperate action. Can you do that? When you attempt it, you will find that our policy is exactly the policy of the men who made the Union. Nothing more and nothing less. Do you really think you are justified to break up the government rather than have it administered by Washington, and other good and great men who made it, and first administered it? If you do you are very unreasonable; and more reasonable men cannot and will not submit to you. While you elect [the] President, we submit, neither breaking nor attempting to break up the Union. If we shall constitutionally elect a President, it will be our duty to see that you submit. Old John Brown has just been executed for treason against a state. We cannot object, even though he agreed with us in thinking slavery wrong. That cannot excuse violence, bloodshed, and treason. It could avail him nothing that he might think himself right. So, if constitutionally we elect a President, and therefore you undertake to destroy the Union, it will be our duty to deal with you as old John Brown has been dealt with. We shall try to do our duty. We hope and believe that in no section will a majority so act as to render such extreme measures necessary.”

Mr. Lincoln closed by an appeal to all—opponents as well as friends—to think soberly and maturely, and never fail to cast their vote, insisting that it was not a privilege only, but a duty to do so.

SOURCE: Roy P. Bassler, Editor, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 3, p. 497-502 which cites Illinois State Journal, December 12, 1859 as its source.

Saturday, September 7, 2019

Gerrit Smith: Destroy Not Man's Faith In Man!, June 12, 1862

DESTROY NOT MAN'S FAITH IN MAN!
ACCEPT THE RIGHT MAN, WHICHEVER PARTY NOMINATES HIM!

A people are demoralized by being trained to the ready entertainment of charges of corruption against those, whom they select to be their rulers, teachers and exemplars. For, when they can easily suspect such ones of baseness and crime, their faith in man is destroyed. It scarcely need be added that, when they have no longer faith in man, they will be quick to acquiesce in the application of a very low standard of morality to their leaders, and a still lower one to themselves. I say a still lower one, inasmuch as they will, naturally, expect a less degree of moral worth in the masses than in the individual, who is, here and there, selected from the masses on account of his superior wisdom and virtue. How much better it would be to persuade the people that it is their duty to hold sacred the reputation of those, whom they elevate to posts of honor! For how much more like would they, then, be to elevate those only, whose reputation is worthy to be held sacred! Moreover, what could be more elevating to themselves than such carefulness in selecting their guides and representatives!

I have been led to make these remarks by seeing the recent calumnious and contemptuous treatment of the Chief Justice and such Senators as Mr. Fessenden and Mr. Trumbull. The flood-gates of defamation were opened upon Mr. Fessenden and Mr. Trumbull, because they voted for the acquittal of the President. I wish they had voted for his conviction. For, although I had not, previously, taken much interest in the proposition to impeach him, nevertheless, after reading those parts of his last Annual Message in which he traduces the colored citizens of our country, I was quite willing to have him removed from office. Were Victoria to take such an outrageous liberty with the Irish or Scotch or Welsh, she would quickly be relieved of her crown. I do not forget that insulting the negro is an American usage. But not with impunity should the President of the whole American people insult, in his official capacity, any of the races, which make up that people — least of all the race, which is, already, the most deeply wronged of them all. This gross violation of the perfect impartiality, which should ever mark the administration of the President's high Office — this ineffable meanness of assailing the persecuted and weak, whom he might rather have consoled and cheered, should not have been overlooked, but should have been promptly and sternly rebuked. How petty the President's affair with Mr. Stanton, compared with his unrelenting wicked war upon these black millions, to whose magnanimous forgiveness of our measureless wrongs against them, and to whose brave help of our Cause we were so largely indebted for its success!

I said that I wish Mr. Fessenden and Mr. Trumbull had voted for the conviction of the President. Nevertheless, in the light of their life-long uprightness, I have not the least reason to doubt that they voted honestly. Nay, in the light of their eminent wisdom, I am bound to pause and inquire of my candid judgment whether they did not vote wisely as well as honestly.

This clamor against the Chief Justice was not, as is pretended, occasioned by his conduct in the Impeachment Trial. That this conduct was wise and impartial, scarcely one intelligent man can doubt. This clamor proceeded from the purpose of preventing his nomination to the Presidency. It is said that he desires to be President. But a desire for this high Office is not, necessarily, culpable. Instead of being prompted in all instances by selfishness, it may in some instances be born of a high patriotism and a disinterested philanthropy. For one, I should rejoice to see the Chief Justice in the Presidency; — and I say this, after a-many-years intimate acquaintance with him — after much personal observation of the workings of his head and heart. I, however, expect to vote for Grant and Colfax. I like them both; and, in the main, I like the platform on which they stand. Nevertheless, if contrary to my expectations, the Democrats shall have the wisdom to nominate the Chief Justice, and along with him a gentleman of similar views and spirit — a gentleman honest both toward the Nation's creditors and toward the negro — I shall prefer to vote for the Democratic Candidates. And why, in the case of such nomination by the Democrats, should not every Republican be willing, nay glad, to sustain the nomination? If the Democrats, at last sick and ashamed, as I have no doubt tens of thousands of them are, of ministering to the mean spirit of caste — prating for “a white man's government,” and defying the sentiment of the civilized world — shall give up their nonsense and wickedness, and nominate for office such men as Republicans have been eager to honor — how wanting in magnanimity and in devotion to truth, and how enslaved to Party, would Republicans show themselves to be, were they not to welcome this overture, and generously respond to these concessions!

By all means should the Republicans let, ay and help, the Democratic Party succeed at the coming Election, provided only that its candidates be the representatives of a real and righteous, instead of a cutaneous and spurious, Democracy. That success would bring to an end this too-long-continued War between Republicans and Democrats. That success would turn us all into Republicans and all into Democrats. The old and absorbing issues about Slavery and its incidents would, then, have passed away. The “everlasting negro,” having gained his rights, would then have sunk out of sight. Doubtless, new Parties would, ere long, be formed. But they would be formed with reference to new questions or, more generally, to old ones, which, by reason of the engrossing interest in the Slavery Battle, have been compelled to wait very long, and with very great detriment to the public weal, for their due share of the public attention.

And, then too, when the quarrel between the Republican and Democratic Parties had ended, Peace between the North and the South would speedily come. Hitherto, the Republican Party has been so anxious to keep a bad Party out of power, that it has not been in a mood to use or study all the means for producing Peace between the North and South. It should, immediately on the surrender of the South, have inculcated on the North the duty of penitently confessing her share of the responsibility for the War—a share as great as the South's, since the responsibility of the North for Slavery, out of which the War grew, was as great as the South's. Quickly would the South have followed this example of penitent confession. And, then, the two would have rivalled each other in expressions of mutual forgiveness and mutual love. Amongst these expressions would have been the avowal of the North to charge no one with Treason, and to open wide the door for the return of every exile, who had not, by some mean or murderous violation of the laws of war, shut himself out of the pale of humanity. And amongst these expressions would have been the joyful consent of the North to let fifty or a hundred millions go from the National Treasury toward helping her War-impoverished sister rise up out of her desolations. The heart of the South would, now, have been won; and she would have manifested the fact by tendering to the North a carte blanche — feeling no fear that there would be any designed injustice in the terms of “Reconstruction,” which her forgiving and generous foe should write upon it. Yes, there would, then, have been Peace between the North and the South — a true and loving and enduring Peace. Ashamed of their past, they would unitedly and cordially have entered upon the work of making a future for our country as innocent and as happy as that past had been guilty and sorrowful. It is not, now, too late to have, by such means, such a Peace. We should, surely, have it, were there to be, at the coming Election, that oneness between Republicans and Democrats, which good sense and good feeling call for.

Is it said that the money, which in loans or (preferably) gifts to the South, I ask to have used in effecting this Peace would make the Peace cost too much? I answer that it would be returned tenfold. The improvement in our National credit, resulting from such a Peace, would, very soon, enable our Government to borrow at an interest of four per cent. Comparatively small, then, would be our taxes, and, by the way, comparatively small, then, would be the temptation to cheat the Nation's creditors.

Peterboro JUNE 12 1868.
G. S.
Bottom of Form

SOURCES: Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 266-7; Smith, Gerrit. Destroy not man's faith in man! Accept the right man, whichever party nominates him! ... G. S. Peterboro. Peterboro, 1868. Pdf. https://www.loc.gov/item/rbpe.12703100/

Saturday, April 6, 2019

Amos A. Lawrence to Govenor Charles L. Robinson: July 24, 1858

July 24, 1858.

I am under the harrow again in regard to politics, and do not see any way of escape. If put up to run against Mr. Banks, I shall be beaten soundly. If for Congress, I might be successful; but it would be like cutting off my right hand to leave my wife and seven children (one recently), my business and all, to go to Washington. Without any desire to shirk the responsibility which every good citizen ought to be willing to assume, I am distressed beyond measure. If it were not for making myself ridiculous I would join the red-hot Republicans (who have many candidates) and so get rid of the difficulty.

SOURCE: William Lawrence, Life of Amos A. Lawrence: With Extracts from His Diary and Correspondence, p. 143-4