Showing posts with label Whig Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Whig Party. Show all posts

Saturday, March 9, 2024

Daniel Webster to Richard M. Blatchford, Sunday, November 3, 1850—6 p.m.

Elms Farm, Sunday evening,
November 3, 1850, six o'clock.

MY DEAR SIR,—I expect to take my leave of Franklin tomorrow morning, and the last thing I propose to do, is to write to you. I have now been here a fortnight, having arrived on Monday, the 21st of October. It is the longest visit which I have paid to my native place for many years, and it has been quite agreeable. It is hard to say when I shall look on these hills and vales again, for so many successive days.

Your visit is a marked part of the occasion, and I like to repeat the expression of the pleasure it has afforded me. I sometimes wonder that you should take any interest in those scenes or these things; but that you do is so much the better and the happier for me. You left me on Friday, the 1st of this month. I did not leave home on that day, as I had a good deal of company. Yesterday I was quite alone till afternoon, when I went to Boscawen, to see and take leave of my relatives. To-day the weather has been damp, threatening rain, and I have been out no further than to the barn. The clouds seem now dispersing themselves, and I look for a good day tomorrow. I duly received your note of Friday from Boston. The Union meeting was a stirring and spirited occasion, but what may be the end, I do not know. I expressed to you, you know, three weeks ago, my fears of a decisive split in the Whig party, and I now strongly fear that result. Nevertheless, my dear Sir, I go to Washington to stay for a longer or a shorter time, but determined to do my duty while I do stay. Of personal consequences, I grow every day more and more careless.

To-morrow is Amin Bey's dinner. Then I go to Marshfield for a day, and then South. I have been quite well since you left, though I must confess all the time melancholy, at leaving a place which is dear to my recollection, and which I cannot expect to see often. But away with low spirits. Dum vivimus, vivamus.

P. S. The stars are all out, but it is too warm for them to be very bright. The night is so perfectly still that one may hear the trickling of the little brooks. Or else it is the fall in the Winnipiseogee, away up near “Tin Corner.”

I have got 'em.1

Yours,
D. W.
_______________

1 During Mr. Blatchford's visit at Franklin, to which this letter alludes, Mr. Webster expressed much anxiety to find a pair of steel spectacles which his father had worn the last ten years of his life; he feared they were lost, but said he should devote a day to hunting for them; he found them, and told Mr. Blatchford of it by the words "I have got 'em."

SOURCE: Fletcher Webster, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster, Vol. 2, p. 399-400

Friday, January 26, 2024

John M. Clayton to John J. Crittenden, October 8, 1851

BUENA VISTA, DELAWARE, October 8, 1851.

MY DEAR CRITTENDEN,—Square yourself, for I have a favor to ask of you for one of my friends. Don't knit your brows, nor utter one of those significant snorts which you are accustomed to give when reading anything unpleasant, especially an application for an office. I must have what I am about to ask for, and if you grant it I will give you a receipt in full, and do you be thankful that I let you off so easily; for the appointment I want is no great affair, and it will do more to make the administration popular in this section of the country than any other appointment they could make.

I want you to obtain a promise from President Fillmore to appoint Charles I. Dupont, Jr., a purser in the navy of the United States, on the happening of the first vacancy.

Now, if I had you with me, just seated in the arm-chair opposite my table, I would talk to you in my own peculiar and sensible way; and I would give you such reasons as would start you right off to obtain the promise of this appointment. Deprived, as I am, of the influence of my colloquial eloquence, which was always deservedly great upon you, I shall present my wishes in less vivid colors and with much more feeble power by the aid of my pen.

I have often boasted to you of the Dupont family of Delaware; I have told you how proud I was of their friendship, and therefore I need not repeat to you the story of their merits. Eleuthere Irene Dupont and Victor Dupont, sons of one of the most virtuous and distinguished noblemen of France, both narrowly escaped the malice of Robespierre and the deadly hostility of the Jacobins during the French Revolution, and emigrated to this country and settled on the banks of the Brandywine, where, by their industry and talents, they converted what was but a rocky desert into one of the most beautiful and enchanting portions of our country. No men were more beloved and honored in their day, and it has always been with me a source of high gratification, amidst the struggles of this life, to reflect that I enjoyed their friendship and kind regard. Each of these left a family, whose sons are all highly esteemed and beloved in Delaware for their own virtues. Victor left two sons, Charles I. Dupont, the celebrated manufacturer of the Brandywine, known to you as your friend, and Captain S. F. Dupont, one of the most distinguished officers of our navy. Young Dupont, the applicant, is the son of Charles. He is a young man of the finest qualities of heart and head, well educated, moral, temperate, and industrious, of business habits, and possessing the same character, integrity, and honor which mark every member of the family, without an exception.

Now, my dear Crittenden, these Duponts have spent a fortune for the Whig party, and have never received a favor from it, for they never desired any, they have been the chief prop and support of our party ever since its origin; they did more to build it up, originally, than any other family in the State, and but for their powerful influence we should have sent two Locofoco senators to Congress for the last twenty years.

Charles has now set his heart upon the appointment of his son as a purser, and he is sustained in this application not only by the just influence of his relatives and personal friends, but by all the Whigs of the State and the friends of the administration, who feel that they owe more and have paid less to these Duponts than to any other family.

I think I am boring you with some things as well known to you as to me; let me, therefore, cut my letter short by begging you, as soon as you have read this letter, to go down and see the President, and tell him he would do more to gratify his friends by this little appointment than he could by a full mission abroad. Take a glass of Bourbon whisky before you start; call on Graham, and get him to go along with you, and do not leave the President until you get a promise that young Dupont shall have the first vacancy. This little appointment will do more to enable us to redeem the State at the next election than anything else the President could do for us.

I am, dear Crittenden, faithfully yours,
JOHN M. CLAYTON.

SOURCE: Ann Mary Butler Crittenden Coleman, Editor, The Life of John J. Crittenden: With Selections from His Correspondence and Speeches, Vol. 2, p. 10-11

Saturday, January 20, 2024

John W. Duncan to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, October 23, 1852

MILLEDGEVILLE, GEORGIA, October 23rd, 1852.

MY DEAR SIR: I have just had the pleasure of reading, your speech, delivered some time ago in Richmond, and I assure you, I have rarely seen a clearer and more conclusive exemplification of true democratic principles and policy, than is contained in it. If it is published in pamphlet form, I wish you would be good enough to send me one or two copies. I am very glad, that you took the opportunity of giving your opinion upon two subjects, that seem now to form a prominent portion of the democratic creed, but which, you boldly and ably repudiate as most dangerous to our best interests. I mean Johnsons measure for giving away the public lands known as the Homestead Bill and the new doctrine of "Intervention." Either of these principles would destroy the best party on earth, and are certainly antagonistic to the recognized views of the "Virginia School." By the way was John Randolph a pupil of that school or an excrescence upon it. In what light is he held by its true disciples?

I suppose you begin to think by this time, that the politics of Georgia are perfectly inexplicable. The truth of the matter is we have a few leaders here, who are determined to sacrifice everything, even Pierce's election, to their own personal feelings. I told you when I saw you in July last in Washington, that I did not doubt, we should roll up a handsome majority for Pierce in Georgia. I then believed, that the elements of the democratic party, which had for a time been separated would harmoniously unite, but I am grievously disappointed. After the Baltimore Convention Gov [ernor] Cobb's friends held a separate meeting, and nominated a new Electoral Ticket, and thus put the democracy at defiance. The Whigs refused to sustain Cobb and went off into two wings, that of Scott and Webster and he soon began to see the anomalous position which he occupied, and he withdrew the ticket of Electors, composed one half of Whigs and the other of democrats. But he had carried his friends so far he found it would be more difficult to bring them back. So he began to beg and entreat but alas! the door was shut in his face and there he now stands at this eleventh hour a miserable suppliant at the threshold of the Party with none even to pity or reverence him.

His friends in the highlands of the State have again put out another ticket for Pierce and King, the effect of which will be to distract the Party and prevent the popular vote from being cast for our Candidates. We therefore expect that the Legislature must be specially called to unite the knot which the politicians have made. So much for York and Lancaster.

I see that Botts, the notorious nocturnal companion of Tyler, has been pledging your State to Scott. Don't you think he ought to be indicted? I look upon this as a slander upon the good old dominion that never once was known to "flush" in her devotion to democracy. I look upon Pierce's election as an absolute certainty, and then I have no doubt we shall have the government conducted on sound democratic and economical principles. What do you think about it?

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 147-9

Thursday, October 12, 2023

Senator Henry Clay to Daniel Ullman, March 6, 1852

WASHINGTON, March 6, 1852.

MY DEAR SIR,—I received your favor transmitting an engrossed copy of the address which you did me the honor to make to me on the occasion of presenting the medal which my New York friends had offered me. I thank you for this corrected copy of the address which is very beautifully engrossed.

The medal has been in the possession of the goldsmiths of this place, who desired the custody of it to gratify public curiosity. You wish it returned that a more accurate impression may be made by striking another. I examined it to see if I could discern the defect in the letters to which you refer, and I confess I could not. If to strike it again will occasion any trouble or expense to my friends, I think it might well be avoided, but if you persist in your desire to have it done, I will have it sent to you by Adams' Express next week.

You rightly understood me in expressing a preference for Mr. Fillmore as the Whig candidate for the Presidency. This I did before I left home, and have frequently here in private intercourse, since my arrival at Washington. I care not how generally the fact may be known, but I should not deem it right to publish any formal avowal of that preference under my own signature in the newspapers. Such a course would subject me to the imputation of supposing that my opinions possessed more weight with the public than I apprehend they do. The foundation of my preference is, that Mr. Fillmore has administered the Executive Government with signal success and ability. He has been tried and found true, faithful, honest, and conscientious. I wish to say nothing in derogation from his eminent competitors, they have both rendered great services to their country; the one in the field, the other in the Cabinet. They might possibly administer the Government as well as Mr. Fillmore has done. But then neither of them has been tried; he has been tried in the elevated position he now holds, and I think that prudence and wisdom had better restrain us from making any change without a necessity for it, the existence of which I do not perceive.

SOURCE: Calvin Colton, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Henry Clay, p. 628

Sunday, October 8, 2023

Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, February 2, 1866

I think the President, though calm and reticent, exhibits indications of not being fully satisfied in some respects with the conduct and course of some in whom he has confided; yet he carefully abstains from remarks respecting persons. There can be no doubt that Stanton has given certain of the leading Radicals to understand that his views correspond with theirs, but I do not know that the President is fully aware of that fact. Seward, while he says nothing very decisively, leaves no doubt that he coincides in the general policy of the President. Harlan made a singular speech to the Iowa Radicals a week ago, but has written an explanatory letter which is no explanation. I have no doubt that Dennison is sincerely with the President and means to sustain his measures, yet he makes visible, without intending it, his apprehension that by this policy the Democrats may get a controlling influence. In this he is not singular, for many of the leading Radicals, especially those of Whig antecedents, have similar apprehensions and are afraid to trust the people. Having power, they do not scruple at means to retain it.

The truth is the Radical leaders in Congress openly and secretly have labored to defeat the President, and their hostility has engendered a distrust in their own minds, and caused fairer men, like Dennison, to have fears that the President might identify himself with the Democrats. This subject gives me no uneasiness whatever. I shall not be surprised if the extreme men become alienated, but their abandonment of the President will, under the working of our system of intelligent free thought and action, make room for the more reasonable and calculating of the opposition, if met with intelligent candor and determination. He will naturally feel kindly disposed towards those who sustain him and his measures, and will not be likely to give his confidence to those who oppose both.1
_______________

1 The President was at this time greatly embarrassed by the advice and suggestions of Mr. Seward, who, though personally friendly to the President and the Administration, was himself so much of a party man, and so much under the influence of extreme partisans, as to be governed rather by party than by country. It was the aim and object of his New York friends to keep alive party distinctions created by Secession and the War, and to throw the power of the Administration into the Republican, or, in other words, Radical, hands. New York is a great State and has local controversies of its own, independent of the Federal Government, but the centralists could not secure and hold the ascendancy there except by the aid of the Federal Government. The New York politicians had, therefore, a double part to play, and Mr. Seward was their agent to effect their purpose. Whilst Thad Stevens and the extreme Radicals were making war on the Executive, it was important for the New Yorkers, and indeed for men of similar views in other States not to break immediately with the President, but to use the power and patronage of the Executive to promote their own ends. He had been elected by them, and Mr. Seward urged that he should not neglect them, even if they disagreed with him, for he insisted that the Democrats, although their views were with him on present questions, were opposed to him and his Administration. Party before country was inculcated by both Radicals and Democrats. The President had in the past as in the present placed country above party, and was consequently not a favorite with either.

Almost all the members of the Cabinet were strict party men and were subjected to severe discipline in those days. Without an exception they approved the principles and assented to the opinions and purposes of the President, but it was soon given out that they must conform to the theory and doctrines of Thad Stevens if they designed to preserve their Republican Party identity. Congress was the supreme department of the Government and must be recognized as the supreme power. Members of Congress must be permitted to exercise executive duties. The legislative department must control the action of the Government, prescribe its policy, its measures, and dictate appointments to the executive, or subordinate, department. Most of the members of the Cabinet acquiesced or submitted to the usurpation. No appointments or nominations to office made by the Executive, who was bound to see the laws executed, were confirmed by the Senate, except the nominees were first recommended or indorsed by Radical Members of Congress. Some of the Cabinet under these circumstances surrendered and made terms.

Mr. Seward advised that there should be compromise and concession. The President, unwilling to break with those who elected him, yielded and failed to make a stand and appeal to his countrymen for support. As a consequence, the unscrupulous Radicals wielded the government in all its departments.—G. W.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 424-6

Thursday, September 21, 2023

Congressman Horace Mann to Samuel Downer, March 1850

MARCH, 1850.
To S. DOWNER.

MY DEAR FRIEND,—Mr. Webster astonished almost all Northern men here. We are recovering from the shock; but it was a severe one. It was as unexpected as it was astounding. It may seem egotistic in me; but I wish I had not spoken till after he did. I should have liked to ask him how he knows that God has Wilmot provisoed New Mexico. Has he had any new revelation since the North-west Territory needed provisoing, since Wisconsin needed it, since Oregon needed it? Indiana came near being a slave State, proviso and all; and would have been so, if Congress had not rejected her petition, John Randolph, of Virginia, making the report. Has God Wilmot-provisoed the whole belt of country from the eastern side of Delaware to the western side of Missouri, any more than he has New Mexico? and, if so, why has not his proviso taken effect? Is there not a vast region of those States that lies far north of the greater part of New Mexico? Has Mr. Webster any geological eyes by which he has discovered that there are no mines in New Mexico which could be profitably worked by slaves? If predial slavery cannot exist there, cannot menial? Does not slavery depend more on conscience than on climate? If individuals do not desire to carry slavery into New Mexico for personal profit, may not communities and States desire it for political aggrandizement?

As to fugitive slaves, I need say nothing. While Massachusetts citizens are imprisoned in Southern ports, I think fugitive slaves will be gentlemen at large in Massachusetts.

But the offer to give eighty millions received and a hundred and eighty millions expected to be received from the public lands to transport free negroes to Africa, and thereby to give increased value to slaves and increased security to slave property, is atrocious.

Now, would to God that you Free-soilers were not a separate organization! With what power such men as S. C. Phillips, G. Palfrey, William Jackson, and Sumner, could act upon the Whigs, if they were not alienated from them! For Heaven's sake, heal this breach, instead of widening it, and bring the whole force of the North to bear in favor of freedom!

With best love for your wife and your babes and yourself, I am very truly and sincerely yours,

H. MANN.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 297-8

Sunday, September 17, 2023

Charles Sumner to John Bigelow, October 4, 1850

Our Free Soil convention was very spirited. The resolutions are pungent, and cover our original ground. On this we shall stand to the end. I rejoice in the rent in New York Whiggery. If the Barnburners and Sewardites were together, there would be a party which would give a new tone to public affairs.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 218

Charles Sumner to Congressman Horace Mann, October 30, 1850

The enemy has done his work, by skill, determination, will, backbone.1 It is as I have feared. On your account and for your personal comfort, I regret this; but in this act I see the madness which precedes a fall. The Whigs will certainly be overthrown in the State. There is an earnest desire now that you should at once take the field. You can speak ten or twelve times before the election, and everywhere will rouse the people. In what you say be careful not to disturb the Democrats. They are desirous of an excuse for supporting you. Speak directly to the slavery question, and vindicate its importance, and the constitutionality of our opposition. The Free Soil committee here wish to see you, in order to arrange a series of meetings without delay.
_______________

1 Mann's loss of a renomination to Congress in the Whig convention of his district.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 219

John Davis to Senator Daniel S. Dickinson, July 25, 1850

NORWICH, July 25, 1850.

MY DEAR SIR—I have just risen from the perusal of the pamphlet you sent me, giving me an account of the public dinner at Old Tammany; and you may be assured I have had a feast. "I breathe deeper and freer." That occasion opens up the dawn of better days, and in a great measure removes the forebodings of our national dissolution. I rose from the perusal with the exclamation, "The confederacy is safe." When the Empire City speaks in such tones and with such unanimity, she will be heard and her influence will be felt. And in relation to yourself, you will allow me to say, the compliment was as well deserved as it was splendid, and I cannot let the opportunity pass without congratulating you upon the occasion. In particular, sir, I wish to manifest my hearty assent to the sentiments of your speech on that occasion as to the only true ground upon which our national identity can be maintained. I have ever been anxious that our Southern brethren should be made sensible of their error at the last election, but think the reproof already administered is abundantly sufficient, and am as ready to shoulder the musket for the rights of the South as for the rights of the North; or, in other words, to maintain the constitution. Your compliment to Mr. Clay was just.

What will be the policy of the new Executive? And how can the Whig party avoid the fruits of their doings? It seems to me the question of boundary between Texas and New Mexico may be more quietly settled by commissioners than by any acts of Congress.

With sentiments of high regard, believe me

Yours truly,
JOHN DAVIS.
Hon. D. S. DICKINSON.

SOURCE: John R. Dickinson, Editor, Speeches, Correspondence, Etc., of the Late Daniel S. Dickinson of New York, Vol. 2, p. 446

Saturday, September 16, 2023

Senator Robert M. T. Hunter to George N. Sanders,* June 20, 1851

(Private.)
LLOYDS, ESSEX Co. [Va.], June 20, 1851.

MY DEAR SIR: I found your second favors here upon my return and I avail myself of the first mail to reply to them. I am under many obligations to you for your kindness and for the skill and address with which you have managed matters. The affair of the Herald I think will do neither good nor harm. The moment you mentioned Westcotts name I understood the whole matter. You ask me what is the cause of his dislike to me? I know of no cause and was not aware that he had any dislike to me. In truth I do not believe that he either likes or dislikes me or cares one cent about me. He has a natural propensity for mischief and delights in making a sensation. He could indulge these propensities better by the course which he pursued than by following your suggestions. This I suspect is the key to his conduct unless there is somebody in New York whom he wished to annoy. Mr. Jefferson said of Burr that he was like "crooked gun" and no one could ever tell where he would shoot. The same may be said of W[estcott]. The best way is to let him alone. He will be satisfied with what he has done unless somebody pursued it further.

I am glad that you are satisfied with my letter. I was afraid you might think I did not attach sufficient importance to your wishes which was far from being the case. But after weighing the matter well it seemed to me most prudent to decline. But enough of this subject. What does Donelson mean by his constant praises of Webster? Is he bolstering him up to give him strength enough to divide the whig party or is there an alternative in which he contemplates the possibility of supporting him. Scarcely the latter I should think. But there must be some object. Pray let me hear from you when you have leisure. Have the North Western papers said any thing of my letter? Where is Douglass and what is he about?

P. S. I will write you a letter in relation to Cushing. He would make a capital selection.

_______________

* This letter is in the Library of Congress.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 128

Monday, September 11, 2023

Senator Henry Clay to Adam Beatty, April 28, 1851

ASHLAND, April 28, 1851.

MY DEAR SIR,—I received your favor transmitting two letters, one addressed to yourself and the other in reply to it, and I thank you for the opportunity afforded me of perusing them.

If the course of ——— affords cause of regret, I am grateful for the firmness and fidelity with which you remained attached to me in 1848, as upon all former occasions.

The nomination made of General Taylor, in Philadelphia, has now no other than an historical interest. It has long ceased to affect me. I fear, indeed, that it has had a pernicious influence upon the Whig cause, but of that we shall hereafter be able better to judge. I concur entirely in the views presented in your reply to ———. Had I been nominated I am perfectly confident that I should have obtained every electoral vote which he received, and, besides them, the vote of Ohio certainly, and that of Indiana probably. My majority in Pennsylvania would have been greater than that which was given to him. But the thing is passed, and no one has more quietly submitted to the event than I have.

I was very sorry that circumstances were such as not to admit of my calling to see you on my return home; but I hope we may yet live to meet each other. I returned by the route of Cuba and New Orleans, and was highly gratified with my visit to that delightful island.

SOURCE: Calvin Colton, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Henry Clay, p. 615-6

Senator Henry Clay to Daniel Ullman, June 14, 1851

ASHLAND, June 14, 1851.

MY DEAR SIR,—I duly received your favor of the 29th ultimo, stating that some of my friends in New York have it under discussion, to make a movement to bring forward my name for the Presidency; and inquiring, in entire confidence, what my own views and wishes are, upon the subject. I have delayed transmitting an answer to your letter, from a desire to give to its important contents the fullest and most deliberate consideration. That I have now done, and I will communicate the result to you.

You will recollect that the last time but one that I was in the city of New York, I had the pleasure of dining with you and a number of other friends at the house of our friend M————; that we then had a frank, full, and confidential conversation on the connection of my name with the next Presidency; and that I then declared that I did not wish ever again to be brought forward as a candidate. From that declaration, I have never since deviated in thought, word, or deed. I have said or done nothing inconsistent with it; nothing which implied any desire on my part to have my name presented as a Presidential candidate. On a review and reconsideration of the whole matter, I adhere to that declaration.

Considering my age, the delicate state of my health, the frequency and the unsuccessful presentation of my name on former occasions, I feel an unconquerable repugnance to such a use of it again. I can not, therefore, consent to it. I have been sometimes tempted publicly to announce that, under no circumstances, would I yield my consent to be brought forward as a candidate. But I have been restrained from taking that step by two considerations. The first was, that I did not see any such general allusion to me, as a suitable person for the office, as to make it proper that I should break silence and speak out; and the second was that I have always thought that no citizen has a right to ostracise himself, and to refuse public service under all possible contingencies.

I might here stop, but I will add some observations on the general subject of the next election. I think it quite clear that a Democrat will be elected, unless that result shall be prevented by divisions in the Democratic party. On these divisions the Whigs might advantageously count, if it were not for those which exist in their own party. It is, perhaps, safest to conclude that the divisions existing in the two parties will counterbalance each other.

Party ties have no doubt been greatly weakened generally, and, in particular localities, have been almost entirely destroyed. But it would be unwise to suppose that, when the two parties shall have brought out their respective candidates, each will not rally around its own standard. There may be exceptions; but those, on the one side, will probably be counterpoised by those on the other. I believe that no one in the Whig party could obtain a greater amount of support from the Democratic party than I could; but in this I may be deceived by the illusions of egotism. At all events it would be unsafe and unwise for a candidate of one party to calculate upon any suffrages of the other. While I do not think that the hopes of success on the part of the Whigs at the next Presidential election are very flattering or encouraging, I would not discourage their putting forth their most energetic exertions. There are always the chances of the war. The other party may commit great blunders, as they did recently in your State, in the course of their Senators, who opposed the enlargement of the Erie Canal; and as they are disposed to do in respect to the lake, river, and harbor improvements.

No candidate, I hope and believe, can be elected who is not in favor of the Union, and in favor of the Compromise of the last Congress (including the Fugitive Slave bill), as necessary means to sustain it. Of the candidates spoken of on the Democratic side, I confess that I should prefer General Cass. He is, I think, more to be relied on than any of his competitors. During the trials of the long session of the last Congress, he bore himself firmly, consistently, and patriotically. He has quite as much ability, quite as much firmness, and, I think, much more honesty and sincerity than Mr. Buchanan.

If I were to offer any advice to my friends, it would be not to commit themselves prematurely to either of the two Whig candidates who have been prominently put forward. Strong objections, although of a very different kind, exist against them both. They had better wait. It will be time enough next winter to decide; and I am inclined to believe that both of those gentlemen will find, in the sequel, that they have taken, or their friends have put them in, the field, too early.

Besides pre-existing questions, a new one will probably arise at the next session of Congress, involving the right of any one of the States of the Union, upon its own separate will and pleasure, to secede from the residue, and become a distinct and independent power. The decision of that momentous question can not but exert some influence, more or less, upon the next Presidential election. For my own part, I utterly deny the existence of any such right, and I think an attempt to exercise it ought to be resisted to the last extremity; for it is, in part, a question of union or no union.

You inquire if I will visit Newport this summer, with the view of ascertaining whether it might not be convenient there, or at some other Eastern place, to present me a gold medal which I understand my good friends are preparing for me. I have been absent from home fifteen out of the last nineteen months, and I feel great reluctance to leaving it, during the present summer. If I were to go to the Eastward, I should have to return early in the autumn, and soon after to go back to Washington, unless I resign my seat in the Senate of the United States. Under these circumstances, my present inclination is to remain at home and to attend to my private affairs, which need my care,

Should my friends persevere in their purpose of presenting me the proposed medal, some suitable time and place can be hereafter designated for that purpose. Surely no man was ever blessed with more ardent and devoted friends than I am, and, among them, none are more or perhaps so enthusiastic as those in the city of New York. God bless them. I wish it was in my power to testify my gratitude to them in full accordance with the fervent impulses of my heart.

SOURCE: Calvin Colton, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Henry Clay, p. 617-20

Sunday, August 6, 2023

Congressman Robert Toombs to Senator John J. Crittenden, April 25, 1850

WASHINGTON, April 25, 1850.

DEAR CRITTENDEN,—I have been thinking for several months that I would write to you, but as I did not wish to annoy you with disagreeable intelligence, I deferred it, hoping that events would open up a better prospect for the future. That expectation has not yet been realized. "It were a tale too long" to detail all the blunders of the cabinet, which have brought the Whig party to the brink of ruin; but of the special question upon which their policy has nearly estranged the whole Whig party of the South it is proper to give you some brief hints, that you may understand our position. During the last summer, the government, with the consent of the whole cabinet, except Crawford, threw the entire patronage of the North into the hands of Seward and his party. This was done under some foolish idea of Preston's, that they would get rid of a Northern competition for 1852, as Seward stood for 1856. The effect of this was to enable Seward to take the entire control of the New York organization, and force the whole Northern Whig party into the extreme anti-slavery position of Seward, which, of course, sacked the South. I knew the effect of this policy would certainly destroy the Whig party, and perhaps endanger the Union. When I came to Washington, I found the whole Whig party expecting to pass the proviso, and that Taylor would not veto it, that thereby the Whig party of the North were to be built up at the expense of the Northern Democracy, who, from political and party considerations, had stood quasi opposed to the proviso. I saw General Taylor, and talked fully with him, and while he stated he had given and would give no pledges either way about the proviso, he gave me clearly to understand that if it was passed he would sign it. My course became instantly fixed. I would not hesitate to oppose the proviso, even to the extent of a dissolution of the Union. I could not for a moment regard any party considerations on the treatment of the question. I therefore determined to put the test to the Whig party and abandon its organization upon its refusal. Both events happened to defeat this policy; it was of the first importance to prevent the organization of the House going into the hands of the Northern Whig party. I should have gone to any extent to effect that object, they foolishly did it themselves. Without fatiguing you with details, my whole subsequent course has been governed by this line of policy. I have determined to settle the question honorably to my own section of country, if possible, at any and every hazard, totally indifferent to what might be its effect upon General Taylor or his administration. In the course of events, the policy of the cabinet has vacillated to and fro, but has finally settled upon the ground of admitting California, and non-action as to the rest of the territories. Seward and his party have struck hands with them on this policy, but Stanly is the only Southern Whig who will stand by them. I think it likely the course of events may throw the whole of the Southern Whigs into opposition,-such a result will not deter us from our course. We are willing to admit California and pass territorial governments on the principle of McClernand's bill; we will never take less. The government, in furtherance of their stupid and treacherous bargain with the North, are endeavoring to defeat it; with their aid we could carry it, as more than twenty-five Northern Democrats are pledged to it. They may embarrass us, possibly may defeat us, but our defeat will be their ruin. The cabinet have intense hostility to Mr. Clay, and I think it likely we, and the country, will be greatly benefited by the feud, inasmuch as it makes Clay the more anxious to conform to the interests of his own section and of the Southern Whigs, and this the rather because the government has the whip hand of him (through Seward) with the Northern Whigs. The Senate's committee will, I think, agree upon propositions which will pass; this can only be defeated by the want of common sense and common prudence on the part of Mason, Butler, and others of that "ilk" in both houses of Congress, and the efforts of the administration. But as to the latter it is but candid to say that they have little power, either for good or evil. For some reason, wholly unaccountable to me, the Northern members of the cabinet are universally odious, even to the Northern Whigs. Clayton is a dead body tied to the concern. Johnson is honorable and clever, but without wisdom. Preston is speculative, and, what is worse, has no sentiment in common with the section which he represents. Crawford alone is true and faithful to the honor and interest of our section, and the late scene about the Galphin claim is an effort of men in the service of government to drive him out. He is the last link that binds a majority of the Southern Whigs to the government, and I have no doubt but they will soon make it inconsistent with his own honor to remain there. I have thus given you a brief outline of men and parties in the government. I have said nothing of General Taylor; my opinion is that he is an honest, well-meaning man, but that he is in very bad hands, and his inexperience in public affairs, and want of knowledge of men, is daily practiced upon, and renders him peculiarly liable to imposition. I think there has been a studied effort to alienate him from his original friends, and that it has been eminently successful; time will show that he and not they will suffer most by that alienation. Morehead is now making a good speech at my back, and has perhaps, to some extent, destroyed the continuity of my narrative. Let me hear from you.

I am truly your friend,
R. TOOMBS.

SOURCE: Ann Mary Butler Crittenden Coleman, Editor, The Life of John J. Crittenden: With Selections from His Correspondence and Speeches, Vol. 1, p. 364-6

Sunday, July 23, 2023

Charles Sumner to William Jay, June 1, 1850

I am glad of your new appeal. Like everything from you, it is careful, logical, clear, and with a practical bearing on the times. I am inclined to believe with you that under the Constitution the duty of surrendering fugitive slaves is imposed upon the States; but there is great difficulty in assuming this point in the face of a solemn decision of the Supreme Court. If that decision were out of the way, I think it could be easily vindicated the States. Mr. Chase in his masterly speech has touched this point strongly.

You have doubtless read Webster's recent wicked letter.1 There is a diabolism in it beyond even that of his speech. He seeks to assimilate the cases of fugitives from justice and fugitive slaves under the Constitution; and because the former cannot claim the trial by jury where they are seized, “argal” slaves cannot ! But the Constitution, by its peculiar language, settles this point. Look at the express words of the two clauses. Here ex vi termini the question whether service or labor be due must be determined, as a condition precedent, before the person can be delivered up. Of course, this must be determined in the State where he is found, and not in that to which he may be transported.

The feeling against Webster among many of his old Whig partisans continues to hold out. At present it seems as if there must be another split in the Whig party here. The systematic efforts now making to suppress all discussion of this great question, the increasing malevolence towards the friends of freedom, and the treachery and apostasy of men, small as well as great, are in themselves most disheartening. Still, I know the cause is right, and as sure as God is God must prevail.
_______________

1 To Citizens of Newburyport, May 15, 1850.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 216

Thursday, May 18, 2023

Jefferson Davis to Senator William Allen, March 25, 1844

Hurricane Mi., 25th March 1844
Hon. Sen. Allen of Ohio,

Dr. Sir,

“The sick man knows the Physician's step,” but I assure you that if breaking a long silence to ask a favor of you should expose me to the suspicion of remembering you only because of my trouble, the fact is nevertheless quite otherwise. I am one of the Presidential "electors" for the State of Mississippi and though I do not doubt the democratic character of our people I fear false statements and false issues in the approaching canvass and expect the Whigs to make great exertions.

I wish you to aid me with any statements which can be made available against the charge of defalcation and extravagance under Mr. Van Buren's administration, against the present Tariff as productive of revenue, against the U. S. Bank, against the charge of improper removals of officers and if there be such statement the removals in the first year of Harrison & Tyler's administration. Further I should be glad to have the evidence of Mr. Clay's refusal to divide the resolution of censure upon President Jackson for the removal of the deposits and the rule of the senate in relation to the division of questions, Secretary Taney's report on the removal of the deposits from the U. S. Bank, Secretary Poinset's annual report recommending reorganization of the militia and answer to call of the house on the same subject. Was not President V. Buren one of the first to point out the unconstitutionality of the military districts as projected in that answer? I had but cannot now find a speech of yours showing that the U. S. Bank loaned at a time which indicated the purpose, more money to members of Congress than the amount of their pay. Can you send me a copy of that speech?

I have mingled but little in politics and as you perceive by this letter have an arsenal poorly supplied for a campaign. Labor is expected of me and I am willing to render it. I believe much depends on this presidential election, and that every man who loves the union and the constitution as it is should be active.

You will understand what I want or should want better than myself, so far as you can conveniently send such you will greatly oblige me, and any suggestions you may find leisure to make to me will be highly appreciated.

Vy. Respectfully and truly yours
JEFFN. DAVIS
Wm. Allen
        Washington
                D. C.

        P. S.
                Address to Warrenton,
                        Warren County,
                                Missi.

SOURCE: Dunbar Rowland, Editor, Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist: His Letters, Papers and Speeches, Volume 1, p. 9-10

Wednesday, January 29, 2020

John Forsyth Jr.* to Howell Cobb, November 10, 1848

Columbus, Geo., Nov. 10th, 1848.

Dear Sir: The disastrous defeat which the Democracy has just suffered makes it necessary for me to attempt to carry out a wish I have long cherished. It is to pursue my editorial profession in a field of wider influence and greater profit than can be attained in this nook of country. My preference is for Washington, the focus of political intelligence and influence, and my desire is to be connected with the organ of the Democracy in that city.

It has occurred to me that the egress of Mr. Hein from the Union office, or perhaps the declining years of the father of the press, Mr. Ritchie himself, might afford the opening I desire. Personally unacquainted with Mr. Ritchie and knowing that your relations with him are near if not intimate and confidential, I have taken the liberty of addressing you this letter to enquire, first if you can now give me the information I desire; or second if you cannot, to request you if you think proper, to make the necessary enquiries for me and pave the way for a correspondence with Washington on the subject.

Two years ago in Mexico my friend Col. H. R. Jackson and myself indulged ourselves in some dreamy plans and speculations of some joint and future arrangement of this sort. If your reply should lead me to hope that my hopes can be compassed I propose to invite him to embark with me in the undertaking.

A flood of terrible political news has been pouring in upon [us] with lightning speed since the great battle day. We are beaten at all points and have truly “lost all but our honor.” My presages for the future looking to the country (not to party) are gloomy enough. I foresee that the South has to submit to the degradation by exclusion from a joint domain, or push resistance to the verge if not over the verge of revolution of the Government.

The Whigs in our streets are even now preparing excuses for Gen. Taylor, in the event that he “holds his hand” when “the Proviso” is presented to him. The party will uphold him in it.

But enough of politics. We have both “supped full” of it, this week and you are ready to exclaim, Parce, puer, jam satis!
_______________

* A Democratic newspaper editor at Columbus, Ga.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 136

Sunday, November 3, 2019

Howell Cobb to A Committee of Citizens in Charleston, S. C.,* November 4, 1848

Athens [ga.], November [4?], 1848.

Gentlemen: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your circular, accompanied by the proceedings of the “Democratic Taylor Party” of Charleston on the first instant.

Flattered with this evidence of your confidence I cannot hesitate to express to you the feelings which the reception of your communication under the circumstances by which we are now surrounded has excited.

My attention having been called in your circular to the proceedings of your meeting, I have been induced to give it a somewhat critical examination. Whilst I find in that paper much to admire and approve, I must express my unfeigned regret that the able pen which claims its authorship has failed to trace the history of the interesting question which it discusses in many aspects in which it is our interest as well as our duty to consider it.

No truth is more plainly written in the political history of our country than the one which teaches us of the continued inroads which northern fanaticism has unceasingly attempted upon our peculiar institutions. Forgetful of the active and profitable part which their fathers took in the measures which led to the permanent establishment of domestic slavery in the South, a portion of the northern people have waged a relentless warfare upon our rights, interests and feelings. It has been conducted with an energy that never tires and marked with an enthusiasm that fanaticism alone can enkindle. However insignificant its first beginnings may have been, I agree with you in the opinion you have expressed that it has now reached a point which challenges our attention and demands our most serious consideration. That we may read in the history of the last few months the fact that there exists on the part of a large portion of the northern people a settled purpose to deny to us our constitutional right to an equal participation in the Mexican territory so recently purchased with our joint blood and treasure, no one will pretend to call in question. This determination so recently sealed with the most solemn testimonial known to our constitution and laws puts at rest all doubt and cavilling upon this point. The extent to which it may cause itself to be felt in the legislative department of the government only remains to be seen.

In now setting upon the proper policy to be pursued by the South for the further maintenance of her just and constitutional rights we must institute a more scrutinizing inquiry into the political associations by which we are surrounded than seems to have occupied the attention of those who prepared the preamble and resolutions adopted at your meeting. I do not flatter myself that I shall be enabled to furnish you with any new facts upon a subject which has so properly claimed your serious attention, but I cannot refrain from a brief reference to some which you have omitted in this connection and which according to my apprehensions deserve to be most deliberately considered.

The course which the two political parties of the North have pursued towards the South is widely different, and it becomes us as well in reference to the duty we owe to ourselves as to others to mark that difference. It may save us from a false step in an important and delicate duty, and in any contingency can be productive of no harm. I will not stop now to trace the history of the abolition question in the halls of Congress as connected with the reception of abolition petitions, nor can it be necessary to remind you, Gentlemen, that during that eventful struggle the records of Congress will be searched in vain for the vote of a single Northern Whig given in favor of the exclusion of these petitions; and yet they were excluded for years by the almost united votes of Southern representatives with the aid of Northern democratic votes. Would it not therefore be unjust to adopt the language so often used by Southern men that all the north of both parties are equally untrue and unsound upon the slavery question?

But we approach a practical test and one which bears upon the point of our investigation. The North threatens to exclude us from the newly acquired territories of New Mexico and California by the enforcement of the Wilmot proviso. How stand the parties at the North upon this issue? Whilst a sufficient number of the Northern democrats both in the Senate and the House of Representatives have been found who in addition to the united Southern vote would defeat this measure so justly odious to us and thereby save the South from this gross aggression upon her rights, not a single Northern Whig in either branch of Congress has yet been produced who was willing to cast his vote in opposition to this measure of wrong and injustice. Does this fact speak no language of interest to the South? Was there nothing in it to command your consideration or awaken your sense of gratitude towards one portion of our Northern brethren whilst you complain with so much justice and propriety of the daring outrage sought to be done us by the other? Are friends and foes to be treated alike with indifference and scorn? Do we regard with the same feelings and emotions the men who have invoked all the powers of the General Government for our oppression and those who have with us declared that our peculiar institutions, whether in the states or territories, cannot be reached by any legislative act of the United States government?

For myself I have been disposed to regard with feelings of a vastly different character these two classes of Northern men. Taught by my experience and observation to look to the northern democracy whenever I sought for the friends of the South upon this important question beyond our own limits, I have watched their movements with an anxious interest and have as yet seen no cause to regret the confidence which I have been disposed to place in their professions of regard for our constitutional rights. When they consented and indeed urged the nomination of a distinguished citizen for the Presidency who had openly avowed his opposition to the Wilmot proviso I had indulged the hope that . . .
_______________

* From an incomplete draft in the handwriting of Howell Cobb among the Erwin papers.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 133-5

Friday, August 2, 2019

James F. Cooper to Howell Cobb, October 20, 1848

Dahlonega [ga.], Octo./20/48.

My Dear Sir: The great Whig barbecue has come and gone, and some Democrats are left yet to tell the tale. I will not venture to estimate the numbers. Without much trouble however I could give the names of all the visitors. The Whigs are no doubt much mortified. After circulating Hand Bills far and wide, riding, drumming, coaxing, etc., they succeeded in getting together a crowd altogether smaller than wd. assemble at 24 [hours] notice that Colquitt wd. speak. The orators were Berrien, Hull, and our old semper parati Peeples, and Underwood. Gen. Clinch was the chairman and, it is said, really made a speech! Our County of Lumpkin, I believe, is entitled to the honor of drawing out the maiden speech from this veteran of Whiggery.

The Whigs accuse us of keeping back the "cracked-heel" Democracy from their meeting. The "sore-eyed" fellows were not there, it is true, but some staunch Democrats from each of our sixteen election districts were present and we improved the opportunity of supplying each district with tickets. We have succeeded in furnishing every point in Lumpkin and Union with a full supply of Cass and Butler tickets, and we have the assurance that every Democratic voter will be seen by our committee men between now and the 7th November, and that all will be at the polls. This Whig powwow has not only facilitated our organization and equipment, but it will also operate to awaken the suspicions of our forces. and they will be out to a man.

The 5th and 6th Districts will give a majority of 6,000 votes — can the Whigs ever ride with that “load of poles”?

Never have I seen our Democracy more united and determined. Every hour since the October election has added new vigor and energy to our ranks. I could not have believed that one month could work such a change. The days of '44 are upon us here again, without perhaps as much excitement but with more organization and sterner determination to do our whole duty.

The vote of Georgia for Cass and Butler is as sure as any future event unless some untoward events happen to the Democracy of Middle and Lower Georgia, for I assure you that the estimate of 6,000 majority is based upon probable and reliable data. . . .

Gilmer will be the banner county. In October she voted only 700 votes and gave 420 majority. She can easily vote 12 or 1,300 and her majority will be proportional.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 130-1

Friday, March 22, 2019

Ausburn Birdsall* To Howell Cobb, September 8, 1848


Binghamton, N. Y., Sept. 8th, 1848.

Dear Sir: I sent you by yesterday's mail, a copy of the Albany Evening Journal, the leading whig paper in this State, in which you will find a full endorsement of the platform laid down at Buffalo as the old Whig platform. I send you herewith to-day a printed circular recently issued by the Whig State Central Committee, which is now being circulated throughout the State. I can vouch for its genuineness. The Whigs and Barnburners seem to vie with each other in the present crusade against the South. The Democratic party which supports Cass and Butler are the only advocates of a strict adherence to the Constitution and its compromises to be found in the North. Can it be possible that in such a contest the South will fail to stand by the Constitution, its own interests, and by its Northern friends? I will not permit myself to doubt that it will be found equal to the emergency. The idea is strange to us indeed, that Southern votes are to be given to aid sectional disorganizers and disunionists. It cannot — it ought not to be so. He that does not protect as well as provide for his own household is truly worse than an infidel.
_______________

* Member of Congress from New York, 1847-1849.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 125

Tuesday, January 15, 2019

Thomas W. Thomas to Howell Cobb, July 7, 1848

Elberton, Ga., July 7th, 1848.

Dear Sir:  I wrote you by the last mail in relation to the inquiries contained in yours of the 20th June and promised to write again when I could procure better information. I saw here last Tuesday, Col. John D. Watkins from the neighborhood of Petersburg and had a conversation with him about the prospects of democracy in that quarter. He informs me it is true Speed has declared for Taylor and has been that way inclined for a year past. I learn also it is extremely doubtful that Speed voted for Polk, and the general impression is he voted with the Whigs in that contest. Watkins says he (Speed) can't influence a single other vote, and all the democrats there besides, are unanimous and enthusiastic for Cass. A little to my surprise I learned that Dr. Danelly and he both are, and have been all the time, out and out Cass men. At our celebration here on the 4th a Mr. Vinson Hubbard, heretofore considered a Democrat, offered a toast the substance of which was that Gen. Taylor might be elected and fill the office as Washington did.  This looks a little dangerous and I think it probable he will support Taylor, though we shall not cease until after the election in our efforts to reclaim him. He is a poor man and is living on land free of rent, belonging to a strong Whig, and this possibly explains the heresy. The toast he gave however hints at the only quarter whence we may expect danger in the present campaign. The fool-idea constantly harped upon by the Whig press, of having a second Washington in the chair of state, has turned some weak heads. It had begun to tell upon the public mind before the democratic press noticed the operation, and now we should work vigourously and direct our attack to this point. Our Editors are much to blame in this matter. They seemed to have a sort of reverence for Taylor, which was very ill-timed, and refused to lay hands upon him, even after he was nominated by the Whig convention of Georgia. What is once acquiesced in by a party, though but for a short time, is hard afterwards to be contested, and we are now reaping the fruits of having indulged in the weakness of admiring military prowess. As far as my humble efforts could go, I at an early day charged Taylor with being a Wilmot Proviso man. Notwithstanding he was already the candidate of the Whig party in Georgia, the Democratic press differed with me and took the trouble to write and publish articles to show that I was wrong, thereby defending a Whig candidate. In the Constitutionalist of July 21st, 1847 you will find the charge made by me, fully sustained by documents, and in the same paper a reply by the editor defending Taylor. I am glad to see they are getting back in the right track, and the only difficulty is they may not have time to undo all the mischief they have wrought. I throw out these views to you because you may do something to help these Democratic Taylor champions out of the fog. From a close observation of the prejudices and opinions of the people around me I am satisfied they are well grounded. Could not you send Vinson Hubbard (at Elberton) some document showing Taylor had at last succumbed and taken purely a party position, also one of the same sort to Jesse Dobbs?

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 114-5