Tuesday, February 19, 2019

3rd Indiana Independent Battery Light Artillery

Organized at Connersville, Ind., and mustered in at Indianapolis, Ind., August 24, 1861. Moved to St. Louis, Mo., September. Attached to Fremont's Army of the West and Dept. of the Missouri to February, 1862. Jefferson City, Mo., Dept. of Missouri, to March, 1862. Central District of Missouri, Dept. of Missouri, to February, 1863. District of Southwest Missouri, Dept. of Missouri, to June, 1863. District of Rolla, Mo.; Department of Missouri, to July, 1863. District of St. Louis, Mo., Department of Missouri, to January, 1864. Artillery, 3rd Division, 16th Army Corps, Army of the Tennessee, to December, 1864. 2nd Brigade, 2nd Division, Detachment Army of the Tennessee, Dept. of the Cumberland, to February, 1865. Artillery, 1st Division, 16th Army Corps (New), Military Division West Mississippi, to August, 1865.

SERVICE.--Fremont's advance on Springfield, Mo., September 23-November 2, 1861. Duty at Tipton and LaMine, Mo., till February, 1862. Duty at Jefferson City, Mo., till November, 1862. Expedition in Moniteau County and Skirmish March 25-28. Campaign against Porter's and Poindexter's guerrillas July 20-September 10. Actions at Moore's Mills July 28; Kirkesville August 6; near Stockton August 9; Lone Jack August 16. Duty at Springfield, Rolla and St. Louis, Mo., November, 1862, to. December, 1863. Reenlisted November 30, 1863. Moved to Columbus, Ky. Smith's Campaign in Western Tennessee against Forest December 20-26. Moved to Vicksburg, Miss., January 23, 1864. Meridian Campaign February 3-March 2. Red River Campaign March 10-May 22. Fort DeRussy March 14. Occupation of Alexandria April 16. Battle of Pleasant Hill April 9. About Cloutiersville April 22-24. Cotile Landing April 25. Red River May 3-7. Retreat to Morganza May 13-20. Mansura May 16. Yellow Bayou May 18. Moved to Vicksburg May 19-24, thence to Memphis, Tenn., May 25-June 10. Old River Lake or Lake Chicot June 6. Smith's Expedition to Tupelo, Miss., July 5-21. Harrisburg, near Tupelo, July 14-15. Old Town (or Tishamingo Creek) July 15. Smith's Expedition to Oxford, Miss., August 1-30. Moved to Jefferson Barracks, Mo., September 8-19. Expedition to Do Soto September 20-October 1. March through Missouri in pursuit of Price October 2-November 19. Moved to Nashville, Tenn., November 25-December 1. Battle of Nashville December 15-16. Pursuit of Hood to the Tennessee River December 17-28. Moved to Eastport, Miss., and duty there till February, 1865. Expedition from Eastport to Iuka January 9, 1865. Moved to New Orleans, La., February 7-22. Campaign against Mobile and its defences March 17-April 12. Siege of Spanish Fort and Fort Blakely March 26-April 8. Fort Blakely April 9. Capture of Mobile April 12. March to Montgomery April 13-25. Duty at Montgomery and Selma till July 30. Ordered home July 30, and mustered out at Indianapolis, Ind., August 21, 1865.

Battery lost during service 1 Officer and 10 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and 18 Enlisted men by disease. Total 29.

SOURCE: Frederick H. Dyer, A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion, Part 3, p. 1112

Lucy Chase, May 11, 1863

Portsmouth, Va., May 11th, 1863.

For a week we heard, without anxiety, the booming of the guns at Suffolk, and we begged to be allowed to remain on the Island (Craney Island), but the Doctor was decided, and General Viele and other officers urged the necessity of his sending us North. To that we demurred; but in spite of our unwillingness, we were kept for a week in durance vile at the Hygeia Hotel. We then returned to our work, though the authorities considered it unsafe so to do; and knowing we should soon be taken from the Island, we worked, for a week, ten or twelve hours a day; our pupils striving cheerfully all the while to keep pace with us. In that week, many to whom on Monday we gave their first writing lessons, learned to write me letters. Writing from memory, excited them amazingly, and writing “Newport News,” “Hampton,” and their other homes of refuge, was a delight to them. I don't tell you about my sister, but her work tells here all the while. We want primers — one thousand of them. Out of date books can be spared, I doubt not, from many Northern book stores. You desire us to make our wants known to you. Can you help us in this instance, and that speedily?

Dr. Brown has six hundred and forty-five negroes upon the farms which he directly superintends – from one to five hundred upon each farm. He still has forty farms. Of fourteen a third of the produce is confiscated, and of those he has no oversight. He himself is cultivating two thousand four hundred acres, with grain, vegetables, cotton and tobacco.

SOURCE: New-England Educational Commission for Freedmen, Extracts from Letters of Teachers and Superintendents of the New-England Educational Commission for Freedmen, Fourth Series, January 1, 1864, p. 11-2

Laura M. Towne: May 8, 1862

St. Helena's, May 8, 1862.

It is so very late and I have been writing business letters till my eyes are dim, but I must say just a word to you. I am so comforted by your letters. Not that I need special comfort, for I never was in better health and spirits, but it is so good to get a word from you.

I think it is a shame that I cannot get a minute's time to write to my own family, but the work here must be done. We want ten more women in this one house. Fortunately I have got the servants drilled and so the house is not much on my mind. You ought to have seen me to-day keeping store for the negroes. The whole $2000 of goods were consigned to me, and you may imagine me unpacking clothing for some time. The molasses, etc., I leave to Mr. P., but he advised me to keep the clothing and I see the advantage of it.

I like the work and change and bustle, and I am gloriously well. I am rejoicing to-day in the first batch of letters for nearly a month. But it was as you said, I had to carry my much longed for letters in my pocket for hours before I could get a chance to read them. People — people all the time at me; servants, young superintendents to lunch, or to be seen on business, sick negroes. I do lots of doctoring, with great success.

There are no dangers about here. No island was taken at all. Do not believe all you hear.

SOURCE: Rupert Sargent Holland, Editor, Letters and Diary of Laura M. Towne: Written from the Sea Islands of South Carolina 1862-1864, p. 38-9

Governor John A. Andrew to Simon Cameron, April 25, 1861

April 25.

. . . I desire . . . to say that we can send to you four thousand more troops from Massachusetts within a very short time after the receipt of a requisition for them.

Do you wish us to send men as we may be able to get them ready, without awaiting requisitions? And can we send by sea up the Potomac? Cannot the river be kept open and safe to Washington? What shall we do, or what do you wish us to do, about provisioning our men? Is Fort Monroe supplied with provisions?

Will you authorize the enlistment here and mustering into the U. S. service of Irish, Germans and other tough men, to be drilled and prepared here for service? We have men of such description, eager to be employed, sufficient to make three regiments.

Finally, will you direct some general instructions and suggestions to be sent to me as to anything — no matter what or how much — which you may wish from Massachusetts, and procure General Scott also to do so, and we will try to meet, so far as may be, every wish of the Government up to the very limit of our resources and our power.

Will you put the 6000 rifles, now at the U. S. Arsenal at Watertown at our disposal for our men, and send immediately orders for that purpose?

SOURCE: Henry Greenleaf Pearson, The Life of John A. Andrew: Governor of Massachusetts, 1861-1865, Volume 1, p. 205-6

John L. Motley to Anna Lothrop Motley, June 16, 1863

Vienna, June 16, 1863.

My Dearest Mother: Now that Mary is gone, you will not hear regularly through her once a week that we are all well and going on as usual. If her arrangements were carried out, she must now be six days out from Boston, and will be due in Liverpool in six days more, so that next week we shall be anxiously looking for the telegram announcing the steamer's arrival.

We have awful weather. A dry, cold, pitiless, howling whirlwind has been sweeping over Vienna for the last four or five days. To say that our June is a severe March would be to slander that blustering month unjustly. I never knew such hideous weather. If it would rain, I shouldn't mind, but it rarely rains here. The Vienna climate has much resemblance to that of Boston, particularly in the matter of wind. The winter is not half as severe, but, en revanche, I never knew such glacial weather in mid-June at home. Five such days as we have passed through, with the prospects of five more, are more savage than six months of the worst east wind that ever swept up Boston Bay.

You see I am weak-minded enough to find nothing to talk about but the weather. We have just had the pleasure of having Mrs. Parkman and her children and Edward Twisleton here for a few days. They were with us to dinner or in the evening nearly every day, and it was a great satisfaction, so rarely do we have any old friends in this out-of-the-way place. She, you know, is a woman of remarkable intelligence and character, and her children are uncommonly well educated and well mannered. Poor Twisleton we had not seen since his wife's death, whom we saw much in England and liked exceedingly. He is saddened much, but not changed; it was very agreeable to talk with him about American matters, for he is as good an American as I am, and thoroughly understands the subject, besides being a man of talent and great attainments. They are gone now. He is on his way to England. She will join Mrs. Cleveland in Schwalbach, so that if Mary and Lily keep to their present plan of going to that place to meet Mary and bring her back, while Susie and I keep house at home, they will meet again in a few weeks. The Clevelands are expected in Schwalbach July 18.

Ever your most affectionate son,
J. L. M.

SOURCE: George William Curtis, editor, The Correspondence of John Lothrop Motley in Two Volumes, Library Edition, Volume 2, p. 335-6

Colonel Edward F. Jones to Brigadier-General Benjamin F. Butler, April 26, 1861

WASHINGTON, April 26th, 1861
Gen. B. F. BUTLER, ANNAPOLIS, MD.

MY DEAR GENERAL: I have an opportunity to send to you and embrace it. We are in very good condition, and my boys are pretty well satisfied. My family, as you are aware, is large, and the responsibilities very great, and I have been living in hopes you would soon be with us to take off some of the responsibilities from my shoulders. It has always been my good fortune to be the recipient of unbounded praise in my military career, and believe me it has not lessened in quantity for the last fortnight. Col. Monroe and his regiment arrived last night, also Col. Lawrence and portions of his command yesterday and today. I think that the 8th are in rather a disorganized state, and appear to be very much dissatisfied with their Colonel, and there were many threats that they would not be mustered in under his command. I had the captains together to try and encourage them to do all that was required of them, and not disgrace the Old Bay State by backing down. They promised to do all that I asked of them, and I hope that matters will now go right. However, I think your presence here would be very acceptable to the Mass. troops. I have some 20 letters for you awaiting your orders. I took the liberty of opening a telegram for you, and find that “You are ordered to transfer Company A of Salem, Captain Devereaux, to the Fifth Regiment, said transfer to be made before the Regt. is mustered into the service of the U.S.”

I am very much fatigued to-night as well as every night.

In haste.
E. F. JonES, Col. 6th Mass.

SOURCE: Jessie Ames Marshall, Editor, Private and Official Correspondence of Gen. Benjamin F. Butler During the Period of the Civil War, Volume 1: April 1860 – June 1862, p. 50

Diary of William Howard Russell: July 10, 1861

To-day was spent in a lengthy excursion along the front of the camp in Virginia, round by the chain bridge which crosses the Potomac, about four miles from Washington.

The Government have been coerced, as they say, by the safety of the Republic, to destroy the liberty of the press, which is guaranteed by the Constitution, and this is not the first instance in which the Constitution of the United States will be made nominis umbra. The telegraph, according to General Scott's order, confirmed by the Minister of War, Simon Cameron, is to convey no dispatches respecting military movements not permitted by the General; and to-day the newspaper correspondents have agreed to yield obedience to the order, reserving to themselves a certain freedom of detail in writing their despatches, and relying on the Government to publish the official accounts of all battles very speedily. They will break this agreement if they can, and the Government will not observe their part of the bargain. The freedom of the press, as I take it, does not include the right to publish news hostile to the cause of the country in which it is published; neither can it involve any obligation on the part of Government to publish despatches which may be injurious to the party they represent. There is a wide distinction between the publication of news which is known to the enemy as soon as to the friends of the transmitters, and the utmost freedom of expression concerning the acts of the Government or the conduct of past events; but it will be difficult to establish any rule to limit or extend the boundaries to which discussion can go without mischief, and in effect the only solution of the difficulty in a free country seems to be to grant the press free license, in consideration of the enormous aid it affords in warning the people of their danger, in animating them with the news of their successes, and in sustaining the Government in their efforts to conduct the war.

The most important event to-day is the passage of the Loan Bill, which authorizes Mr. Chase to borrow, in the next year, a sum of £50,000,000, on coupons, with interest at seven per cent., and irredeemable for twenty years — the interest being guaranteed on a pledge of the Customs duties. I just got into the House in time to hear Mr. Vallandigham, who is an ultra Democrat, and very nearly a Secessionist, conclude a well-delivered argumentative address. He is a tall, slight man, of a bilious temperament, with light flashing eyes, dark hair and complexion, and considerable oratorical power. “Deem me ef I wouldn't just ride that Vallaridiggaim on a real,” quoth a citizen to his friend, as the speaker sat down, amid a few feeble expressions of assent. Mr. Chase has also obtained the consent of the Lower House to his bill for closing the Southern ports by the decree of the President, but I hear some more substantial measures are in contemplation for that purpose. Whilst the House is finding the money the Government are preparing to spend it, and they have obtained the approval of the Senate to the enrolment of half a million of men, and the expenditure of one hundred millions of dollars to carry on the war.

I called on Mr. Cameron, the Secretary of War. The small brick house of two stories, with long passages, in which the American Mars prepares his bolts, was, no doubt, large enough for the 20,000 men who constituted the armed force on land of the great Republic, but it is not sufficient to contain a tithe of the contractors who haunt its precincts, fill all the .lobbies, and crowd into every room. With some risk to coattails, I squeezed through iron-masters, gun-makers, clothiers, shoemakers, inventors, bakers, and all that genus which fattens on the desolation caused by an army in the field, and was introduced to Mr. Cameron's room, where he was seated at a desk surrounded by people, who were also grouped round two gentlemen as clerks in the same small room. “I tell you, General Cameron, that the way in which, the loyal men of Missouri have been treated is a disgrace to this Government,” shouted out a big, black, burly man — “I tell you so, sir.” “Well, General,” responded Mr. Cameron, quietly, “so you have several times. Will you, once for all, condescend to particulars?” “Yes, sir; you and the Government have disregarded our appeals. You have left us to fight our own battles. You have not sent us a cent ———” “There, General, I interrupt you. You say we have sent you no money,” said Mr. Cameron, very quietly. “Mr. Jones will be good enough to ask Mr. Smith to step in here.” Before Mr. Smith came in, however, the General, possibly thinking some member of the press was present, rolled his eyes in a Nicotian frenzy, and perorated: “The people of the State of Missouri, sir, will power-out every drop of the blood which only flows to warm patriotic hearts in defence of the great Union, which offers freedom to the enslaved of mankind, and a home to persecuted progress, and a few-ture to civil-zation. We demand, General Cameron, in the neame of the great Western State ——— Here Mr. Smith came in, and Mr. Cameron said, “I want you to tell me what disbursements, if any, have been sent by this department to the State of Missouri.” Mr. Smith was quick at figures, and up in his accounts, for he drew out a little memorandum book, and replied (of course, I can't tell the exact sum), “General, there has been sent, as by vouchers, to Missouri, since the beginning of the levies, six hundred and seventy thousand dollars and twenty-three cents.” “The General looked crestfallen, but he was equal to the occasion, “These sums may have been sent, sir, but they have not been received. I declare in the face of ———“Mr. Smith will show you the vouchers, General, and you can then take any steps needful against the parties who have misappropriated them.”

“That is only a small specimen of what we have to go through with our people,” said the Minister, as the General went off with a lofty toss of his head, and then gave me a pleasant sketch of the nature of the applications and interviews which take up the time and clog the movements of an American statesman. “These State organizations give us a great deal of trouble.” I could fully understand that they did so. The immediate business that I had with Mr. Cameron — he is rarely called General now that he is Minister of War ——— was to ask him to give me authority to draw rations at cost price, in case the army took the field before I could make arrangements, and he seemed very well disposed to accede; “but I must think about it, for I shall have all our papers down upon me if I grant you any facility which they do not get themselves.” After I left the War Department, I took a walk to Mr. Seward's, who was out. In passing by President's Square, I saw a respectably-dressed man up in one of the trees, cutting off pieces of the bark, which his friends beneath caught up eagerly. I could not help stopping to ask what was the object of the proceeding. “Why, sir, this is the tree Dan Sickles shot Mr. ——— under. I think it's quite a remarkable spot.”

SOURCE: William Howard Russell, My Diary North and South, Vol. 1, p. 399-401

Monday, February 18, 2019

The Bible Must Settle The Question

You say, “on the subject of slavery, we are willing to be guided by the Bible, the unerring word of truth. Where it condemns we condemn, where it approves we approve; we are not unwilling for the whole world to know our views on the subject of slavery.” We were heartily glad to hear this, because we can, and do, without qualification, reciprocate your declaration, and feel that on one main point to be attained in the settlement of this great controversy between the churches of the slave and of the free States, we are already perfectly agreed. The word of God, rightly understood, must settle the matter—

There must also be established laws of interpretation of which we shall mutually approve; which, if duly regarded, must bring us to the same result. Here then we are happy to meet you, and in union with you, would gladly bow down in humble, fervent prayer, to the author of the Bible, for the effectual teaching of his Spirit that we may be guided in the way of truth, of righteousness and peace. You believe that the Bible justifies such slaveholding as is commonly practised in this country. We as firmly believe that it does not, but is entirely opposed to it. You have ingenuously assigned the reasons of your belief, referring us to the particular portions of scripture on which it is founded. We have carefully examined every one of those passages, and aimed to weigh impartially all your arguments founded on them, and yet dissent entirely from the main conclusions to which you have come. With becoming deference we would inform you wherein we think your reasoning incorrect, and why we believe the Bible, instead of justifying, particularly condemns the practice in question. And from the evidences we have already had of your magnanimity and fairness, we cannot but hope, that you will not only give us a candid hearing, but see cause to come to the same conclusions with ourselves.
_______________

Continued from: Reverend Silas McKeen to Thomas C. Stuart, August 20, 1839

SOURCE: Cyrus P. Grosvenor, Slavery vs. The Bible: A Correspondence Between the General Conference of Maine, and the Presbytery of Tombecbee, Mississippi, p. 31-3

Nathaniel Peabody Rogers: Constitutionality of Slavery, September 8, 1838

The second “unprovided-for difficulty” of the Keene Sentinel, in the way of the anti-slavery movement is, that “slaves are property.” We deny that they are property, or that they can be made so. We will not argue this, for it is self-evident. A man cannot be a subject of human ownership; neither can he be the owner of humanity. There is a clear and eternal incompetancy on both sides, — on the one to own man, and on the other to be owned by man. A man cannot alienate his right to liberty and to himself, — still less can it be taken from him. He cannot part with his duty to be free — his obligation to liberty, any more than his right. He is under obligation to God and humanity and his own immortality, to retain his manhood and to exercise it. He cannot become the property of another, any more than he can part with his human nature. It would be utterly repugnant to all the purposes of his creation. He is bound to perform a part, which is totally incompatible with his being owned by any body but himself; which requires that he keep himself free. He can't be property, any more than he can be a horse, or a literal ass. We commend our brethren of the Sentinel to the eighth Psalm, as a divine authority touching the nature and destination of man. He can't be property — he can't be appropriated. His mighty nature cannot be coped by the grasp of ownership. Can the Messrs. Sentinel be appropriated? We put it sternly to them, in behalf of their, and our own, and the slave's common nature, — for we feel that it is all outraged by their terrible allegation. Can the editors of the Sentinel become property? the goods and chattels, rights and hereditaments of an owner? If they can't, no man can. If any man can, they can. Can the Hon. Mr. Prentiss, with all his interesting qualities and relations, by any diabolical jugglery, be converted into a slave, so as to belong to one of his fallen, depraved fellow-men? Can he suppose the idea? Is he susceptible of this transmutation? He is, if any body is. Can he be transferred, by virtue of a few cries and raps of a glib-tongued auctioneer? Could a pedler sell him, from his tin cart? Could he knock him off, bag and baggage, to the boldest bidder? Let us try it. No disrespect to our esteemed senior. — We test his allegation, that a man is property. If one man can be, any man can — himself, or his stately townsman, Major-General Wilson, who would most oddly become the auction platform. If a man can be property, he can be sold. If any man can be, every man can — Mr. Prentiss, Gen. Wilson, Rev. Mr. Barstow — every man. Let us try to vendue the Sentinel. Advertise him, if you please, in the Keene paper. On the day, produce him — bring him on — let his personal symmetries be examined and descanted on — his sacred person handled by the sacrilegious man-jockey, — let him be ordered to shift positions, and assume attitudes, and display to the callous multitude his form and proportions — his points, as the horse-jockey would say. How would all this comport with the high sense of personal honor, wont to be entertained by the Sentinel? How would he not encounter a thousand deaths rather than submit to it? How his proud spirit, instinct with manhood, would burst and soar away from the scene! Who bids? an able-bodied, capable, fine, healthy, submissive, contented Boy, about fifty — sound wind and limb — sold positively for no fault — a field hand — come of real stock, — faithful, can trust him with gold untold — will nobody start him? — shall we have a bid? — will nobody bid for the boy? Now we demand of our respected brother, whose honor is as sacred in our regard as in his own, what he thinks of the chattelism of a slave, — for we indignantly lay it down as an immovable principle that the Hon. John Prentiss is as legitimate a subject of property and of sale, as any the lowest of his race.

We dispose of the position that “slaves are property,” by utterly and indignantly denying the possibility of it. We will rescue our brethren of the Sentinel from the imputation of this murderous idea, by erasing the semicolon after “property,” and making but one sentence of the second “difficulty,” turning it into an opinion that “slaves are property by the constitution and the laws;” throwing the infamy on to the old framers of the constitution, and all of us who have lived under it, with power to amend or nullify it. It would sink the whole of us. Constitution and laws! Is the Sentinel of opinion that a constitution could be framed by men, or by existences in the shape of men, that, instead of protecting human liberty and rights, should annihilate them? A constitution to enslave men! What would you say of a British constitution, that enslaved a British subject? Would you not scout the idea of it — of the British possibility of it? and can it be done here, and was it done here by revolutionary sages, who could not brook the restraints of British liberty? A constitution, that should provide for the enslavement of a man, would be a legal abortion. The bare engrossing of it would nullify it. It would perish by spontaneous annulment and nullification. It could not survive its ordination — nor could its infamous framers. We deny that an enslaved man is property by the constitution, and we might deny that any man can be enslaved under our constitution, and consequently, that he could be chattelized, if a slave were admitted to be property. Things may be appropriated — persons may not. They are self-evidently not susceptible of appropriation or ownership. By the constitution every body is spoken of as a person — no mention is made of human things. If a slave is alluded to, in that instrument, as a possible existence in point of fact, it is under the name of person. “Three fifths of all other Persons” — “migration or importation of persons— “no person held to service.” These are the only instances in it where allusion is made to slaves, — and it no more, in those allusions, sanctions enslaving, than it does “piracies and felonies on the high seas,” which it also expressly recognizes, as they say of slavery. So it says “person,” where it solemnly asserts that “no person can be deprived of liberty or property, but by due process of law.” This clause prohibits the slightest approaches to enslaving, or holding in slavery, which is continued enslaving. No person's property can be taken from him; not his life even; infinitely less his Liberty, without due legal process. It is idle to say, that the framers of the constitution, or. those who adopted it and acted under it, did not mean to save the colored man from slavery, by this clause. In law they are to be held to mean so, because they said so. The intent of the framers is now to be gathered from what they said in the instrument itself — not their colloquies at the time or before or after — but what they put down in imperishable black and white. It is what they inscribed on the parchment for all time, that they legally intended, and there we are to go to get at their intent. If the words are obscure and ambiguous, we may gather their intent by aid of concomitant circumstances, &c. But there is no ambiguity here. The clearest words and best understood and most trimly defined of any we have, here set forth the essential doctrine, (without which a community of thieves and pirates could scarcely be kept together,) that life, liberty and property are sacred. Enslave man and leave him these three, and you may do it, maugre this clause of the constitution. However, you must leave him, by virtue of other clauses, a few other incidentals, such as compulsory process for calling in all witnesses for him, of whatever color; the inviolate right to be secure in person, house, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures; right of trial by jury in all cases over twenty dollars' value; the free exercise of religion, of speech, of the press, of peaceable assembly and of petition; the civil rights of republican government, which is guarantied to him in every state in this Union; the privileges and immunities of citizens in every state; in short, you must allow him a string of franchises, enumerated accidentally in that part of the old compact, called the preamble, viz., justice, domestic tranquillity, common defence, general welfare, and, finally, the blessings of liberty to himself and to his posterity; — moreover you may add, in repetition, — for in securing these breath-of-life sort of rights, people run a little into superfluity of words — you may add the unsuspendible privilege of habeas corpus — the old writ of liberty; — and perfect exemption from all attainder, or enslaving a man's children on his account. We will mention one more — that is the uninfringible right to keep and bear arms. All these and many other rights and immunities, "too numerous to be mentioned,” are secured to him by adamantine provisions in the constitution, and if you can chattelize him under them, so that Austin Woolfolk can trade in him, at your capital, or Wade Hampton or the American Board, can buy him and use him up in their service, or Doctor Ezra Styles Ely speculate in his soul and body, then your doctrine, Messrs. Sentinel, is sound, that he is recognized as property by the constitution.

We claim some exceptions, however, in case we cannot overthrow slavery in the slave states, by force of the national constitution. We cannot allow you to enslave any body in old Virginia. Look at her law paramount in our caption, declaring the Birth-Right, Inalienable Liberty Of All Men. In Maryland the right is constitutionally set forth a little stronger. You must not enslave a man in Maryland, — and we can't allow you to lay a finger on his liberties in the district of Columbia, because the constitutions of Virginia and Maryland are still paramount law there, by congressional adoption, at the acceptance of the cessions. And if he runs away from the district or a territory, or either of those two states, we can't allow you to arrest him and send him back.

We ask our legal friends, who think lightly of this “fanaticism,” to look into this constitutional and legal matter of slaveholding. We would like especially, that some of the neighbors of the Sentinel would give some exposition, during the coming convention, of the lawfulness of enslaving people in this country. We ask the Keene lawyers how this is. We want “the opinion of the court.”

For ourselves we venture the opinion, in light of what glimmerings of law scintillate about our vision, that holding a man in slavery is a violation of the law of this land, and of every part of it, not excepting our gory-fingered sister Arkansas, or our carnage-dripping sister Alabama, the haunt of christian enterprise from New England and the worn-out slave states in the north. A constitution that can avail to protect republican liberty to a single member of this community, inviolably secures it to every man, and condemns and prohibits slavery. It cannot otherwise be. Slavery is a mere matter of fact — in the face of the constitution — in the face of each state constitution — in the face of every court of justice which soundly administers the law of any state — in face of every thing, but a tyrant public sentiment, and a diabolical American practice.

The enslaved of the country are as much entitled to their liberty as any of us, by the law as it is. They have a right to throw off all violation of it by force, if they cannot otherwise. Nay, it is their duty to do so, if they can, — for it is not injury merely, that they are submitting to — not wrongs. They are rendered incapable of suffering injury — incompetent to endure wrong. The accursed system, that preys upon them, makes things of them — exterminates their very natures. This they may not submit to. They ought to prevent it, at every expense. They ought to resist it, as the Christian should the devil, for it wars upon the nature of man, and devours his immortality. If they could heave off the system by an instantaneous and universal effort, they ought to do it Individually we wish they could do it, and that they would do it. We may be wrong in this opinion — but we entertain it. If our white brethren at the South were slaves, we should wish them instantaneous deliverance by insurrection, if this would bring it to them. We wish our colored brethren the same. We do not value the bodily lives of the present white generation there a straw, compared to the horrible thraldom, in which they hold the colored people, and we value their lives as highly as we do the colored people's. But insurrection can't effect it. It must be done by the abolitionists. They must annihilate the system by force of their principles, and as fast as possible. And they must increase their speed. Men will have to groan and pant in absolute brutality, with their high and eternal natures bound down and strangled amid the folds of this enslaving devil, until we throw it off. To the work then, and Heaven abandon the tardy! If you wish to save your white brethren and yourselves, we commend you to this work, in sharp earnest We tell you, once for all, there is no time to be Inst!

There is no end to the theme — there must be to this article. We deny the truth and existence of the Sentinel's two difficulties, and if, in fact, they both existed, our movement “provides for them.” The people collectively have the power to declare slavery a crime in the slave states. Congress has the power to do what amounts to the same thing — by direct action. They can declare it criminal in the capital, and how long would it be esteemed innocent elsewhere? They can punish enslaving in the district, and the man-traffic between the states as piracy. Lex talionis would enslave the perpetrators — but that would be devilish, and ought not to be inflicted. But if hanging is lawful in any case, it is in this.

If the people collectively and Congress have no legal power over the slavery of the slave states, abolitionists have the power, ample and adequate, and they will “provide for the difficulty.”

The constitution and the laws do not recognize the slaves as property. We call for the proof. The Sentinel avers it. Let them point us to the spot where. And could they do this, the abolitionists have the power (consult rule of three for the time it will take) to change and redeem both the constitution and the laws, and transmute this property back again to humanity.

SOURCE: Collection from the Miscellaneous Writings of Nathaniel Peabody Rogers, Second Edition, p. 15-21 which states it was published in the Herald of Freedom of September 8, 1838.

Saturday, February 16, 2019

George Thompson’s Reply to Professor Daniel D. Whedon, February 18, 1835

23 BRIGHToN STREET, FEB. 18, 1835.
To the Editor of Zion's Herald:

SIR — I have just read in your paper of to-day a letter signed D. D. Whedon, and headed “Foreign Interference.” I am ignorant of the profession or station of the writer. If he be a Christian man, and continue one a few years longer, he will, I believe, deeply lament the publication of the sentiments which that letter contains. Under what extraordinary circumstances of excitement it was written I cannot say. I hope it was not a cool closet composition; for with the belief that it had been written deliberately, I should be compelled to draw conclusions very unfavorable to the character of the writer's heart.

He declares it right to denounce the measures of the Papists in this country as “infamous and impertinent foreign interference;” and then asks, in reference to myself, “but with what severer epithet [severer than infamous and impertinent!] shall we characterize the man who comes to lecture the citizens of these United States upon the most delicate and most vital of all the PoliTICAL questions which agitate this distracted nation?” In other words, who comes to “open his mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.” Your correspondent proceeds — “Did that gentleman come, commissioned from some foreign clubs, to collect meetings and nominate an American President, it might be borne with comparative patience; but to come to apply the principles of the gospel to a system which reduces to the most brutal subjection one-sixth portion of our home-born population of these United States; — which puts out the eyes of the soul, defaces the image of the Maker, and leaves the wretched victim to grope sightless and hopeless to the judgment of an equal God; — which tears the infant from its mother's bosom, and brands it as a beast for the shambles; — which converts into solemn mockery the charter of man’s rights, and all the forms of justice; — which renders null and void the holy bond of matrimony;—which denies the Book of Life to two millions, who without it are destitute of that knowledge which begets a hope beyond the grave; — which punishes with DEATH the second offence of teaching an immortal being the way to heaven: to apply the principles of eternal righteousness to such a system is a work which requires “better credentials than a diploma from any foreign Society, of whatever character or of whichever sex.” Your correspondent is “right,” and I am thankful that such credentials are at hand. Whenever your correspondent is disposed, I will, in his presence, spread these credentials before any impartial American audience he can collect, and allow him all the space he wishes to question their sufficiency, or invalidate their authority.

There is every evidence that your correspondent deems himself a staunch patriot, — so staunch that he dare not trust himself to comment upon the extensive patronage which the Anti-Slavery Association of this country have extended towards me, lest he should be “betrayed into language half as strong as the “perpetration of such an act deserves.”

From the 57th page of the life of Richard Watson, I make the following extract. It is the language of that distinguished ornament of the Methodist body, and will perhaps show that the work in which I am engaged is as patriotic as writing unkind and violent articles against the friends of the enslaved :—

“To what, then, ought patriotism to be directed? It has secured our civil rights; it has organized our armies; it has rendered our navy invincible; it has extended our commerce, and enlarged our dominions: but there is yet one object to be accomplished, without which well appointed armies, an invincible navy, extended commerce and enlarged dominion, will add little to our dignity, our happiness, or our real strength; — I mean, the correction of our MoRALs. Immorality and irreligion as certainly dry up the resources of a nation, and hasten its downfall, as a worm at the root of the finest plant will cause it to fade, to wither, and to die. Wickedness arms God against us; and if he ‘speak concerning a nation, to pluck it up and to destroy,’ no counsels, however wise, no plans, however judicious, no exertions however vigorous, can avert the sentence — “Righteousness exalteth a nation ; and every endeavor to promote it is PATRIOTIC.”

Adopting Mr. Watson's views of “patriotism,” I plead for the liberation from hateful and unjust bonds of 2,250,000 human, immortal, blood-ransomed beings. Am I worse than infamous and impertinent for this?

I plead that the hindrances to moral and religious improvement may be removed, and the colored population, instead of “perishing for lack of knowledge,” enjoy the blessings of education, grow up in “the nurture and admonition of the Lord,” and in his fear discharge all the duties of civil, social, and domestic life. Am I worse than infamous and impertinent for doing this?

I plead that the BIBLE may be given to millions of accountable beings who are prohibited from looking into its pages. Am I worse than infamous and impertinent for doing this?

I plead for the abolition of temptations and opportunities to licentiousness, profligacy, and impurity, and the presentation of motives to chastity, honor and fidelity. Am I worse than infamous and impertinent for doing this?

I plead for the recognition, protection, sanctification and security of the marriage tie. Am I worse than infamous and impertinent for doing this?

I plead for the abolition of a practice that robs the fathers and mothers of this land of two hundred new born infants a day, and introduces that number of hapless innocents into all the pollution and degradation of hopeless thraldom. Am I worse than infamous and impertinent for doing this?

But enough. Let the Christian world judge between me and my accuser. I fear not the verdict.

I desire to register my unfeigned gratitude to God for the success which he has uniformly granted to the fearless publication of the truth upon the subject of Slavery. Our cause is advancing rapidly. Its advocates may smile upon all opposition. Any attempt to prevent the spread of abolition sentiments, or crush the spirit which is now going through the land, is as vain, (to say nothing of its wickedness,) as to attempt to hurl the Rocky Mountains from their foundations, or roll back the waters of the Mississippi. We may adopt the language of the dying Wesley — “The best of all is, God is with us.”

To D. D. Whedon I would kindly say — Take the letter you have published to your closet, your knees, and your God. Pray earnestly for wisdom, truth, and charity. Contemplate the state of things in the Southern States of the country you profess to love. Let the slave stand before you in the awful attributes of a deathless and accountable being. Reflect upon your own responsibility to plead his cause and promote his present and eternal good, — and then say, whether you have done well to seek to bring down upon the head of a stranger, and the slave's advocate, a relentless storm of popular indignation ?

I will offer no reply to your remarks on my country. They are wholly unworthy the Christian — the patriot – and the man.

In respect to the “fulness of hospitality” which you say you would “pour upon me” if I were an inactive and indifferent observer of the wrongs of the slave, — I beg to say that I am quite content to relinquish the enjoyment, and see it reserved for the “Christian brother” who can “forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain.”

Pardon, Mr. Editor, these protracted remarks. I doubt not you will follow the dictates of justice whether you insert or reject what I have written. It is not likely I shall soon trouble you again. Heaven bless your country, and send a speedy and peaceful triumph to the cause of the oppressed! “The Lord reigneth, let the earth rejoice!”

— “All is in his hand whose praise I seek,
Whose frown can disappoint the proudest work,
Whose approbation prosper even mine.”

Very respectfully yours,
GEO. THOMPSON.

SOURCE: Isaac Knapp, Publisher, Letters and Addresses by G. Thompson [on American Negro Slavery] During His Mission in the United States, From Oct. 1st, 1834, to Nov. 27, 1835, p. 41-4

Gerrit Smith, undated

I am free to admit that a few men connected with the army and navy have amiable and beautiful traits of character; that a few of them are the subjects of strong religious emotion. Such were Colonel Gardiner, Captain Vicars, and General Havelock. But that even Havelock, “whose praise is in all the churches,” was a Christian, I am compelled to doubt. I will not doubt that he deeply loved and devoutly worshipped his own ideal of Jesus Christ, that his orthodoxy was valiant for the “doctrine,” that he was full of zeal for his Baptist church, and that he abounded in prayers for all men. But in that enlightened and better day when the true religion shall be seen to be, not a sentiment to weep and joy over, nor a doctrine to quarrel for, but a principle to be governed by in all our relations, and a life to be lived out everywhere and always, not the fervors which are kindled by fancies of God, but that acknowledgment of him which is made practical, and is proved by justice to man; then the Havelock type of piety, which is so bewitching in an age of war religion, will be reckoned of little worth. Havelock was an unjust man, as is every one who identifies himself with war, and holds himself to do the devilism it bids. This unreserved submission to human authority is of itself sufficient to prove that the warrior cannot be a just man, and that war and Christianity are incompatible with each other. Havelock was among the foremost murderers of the Affghans, the poor Affghans, against whom the British waged a war as surpassingly cruel as it was utterly causeless. His own pen describes its revolting horrors.

Havelock was self-deceived. His religion was a superstition; for it was the current misrepresentation of Christianity. When he says that in a certain battle he “felt that the Lord Jesus Christ was at his (my) side,” he was misled by a fancy scarcely less wild and wicked than slave-holding piety; and instead of sharing his delusion, we are deeply to pity and as deeply to loathe it. That Havelock was more an ambitious soldier than a follower of Christ, is told out of his own heart when he says in a letter: “One of the prayers, oft repeated throughout my life since my school days, has been answered, and I have lived to command in a successful action.”

SOURCE: Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 254-5

Amos A. Lawrence to Governor Henry A. Wise, October 26, 1859

Boston, October 26, 1859.

Dear Sir, — From the telegraphic report of the trial of Captain Brown it appears to be uncertain whether he will have a trial in the usual form. Permit one who loves the whole country as much as yourself to urge on you the necessity of securing this. Brown is a Puritan whose mind has become disordered by hardship and illness. He has the qualities which endear him to our people, and his sudden execution would send a thrill of horror through the whole North. From his blood would spring an army of martyrs, all eager to die in the cause of human liberty. I am sure that I express the desire of all conservative men here, when I beg you to insist on a fair trial.

Respectfully and truly,
Your obedient servant,
A. A. L.

SOURCE: William Lawrence, Life of Amos A. Lawrence: With Extracts from His Diary and Correspondence, p. 134-5

Thomas Wentworth Higginson to Louisa Storrow Higginson, June 26, 1856

Worcester, June 26,1856

I have a momentary lull, having yesterday sent off my second party to Kansas. . . . The first had forty-seven and our Committee will send no more, leaving it for the State Committee, which was appointed yesterday, chiefly on my urging. . . .

At Chicago they show an energy which disgraces us; have arrangements and men already and need only money. The night I came from Brattleboro', Friday, we had letters from Chicago, and our Finance Committee voted them fifteen hundred dollars and voted to add three thousand dollars more, unless I could raise this second party by Wednesday, which I did. Saturday, the day after, I was sent to Boston, with the same letters, to urge the Boston Committee to send money to Chicago. With great difficulty I got five minutes each from Pat Jackson and several other merchants, and at two they came together for ten minutes and voted to send two thousand dollars, Ingersoll Bowditch being happily absent, who had just told me he should come and oppose it entirely. I saw the telegraphic despatch written and came back.

That very night we got a telegraphic despatch from Chicago, imploring us to send that precise sum, for the relief of a large party of emigrants, detained at Iowa City for want of means. The two despatches crossed on the way.

This two thousand dollars, with our remittance, and our two parties of emigrants (which would not have gone till by this time if I had not gone to work on it the first night I came) are absolutely All that has yet been done by New England for Kansas, in this time of imminent need. This I say to show you how ill-prepared we are for such emergencies. The busy give no time and the leisurely no energy, and there is no organization. I should except the Committee here, which has done admirably, and that in Concord, Massachusetts, and Dr. Howe, Sam Cabot, Charles Higginson, and a few others in Boston.

There is talk now of sending Dr. Howe to Kansas with a large sum of money, and this will be the best thing possible, but it should have been done a fortnight ago.

SOURCE: Mary Potter Thacher Higginson, Editor, Letters and Journals of Thomas Wentworth Higginson, 1846-1906, p. 137-9

George L. Stearns to Governor John A. Andrew, May 8, 1863


Mansion House, Buffalo, May 8, 1863

I have worked every day, Sunday included, for more than two months, and from fourteen to sixteen hours a day. I have filled the West with my agents. I have compelled the railroads to accept lower terms of transportation than the Government rates. I have filled a letter-book of five hundred pages, most of it closely written.

[Endorsement:]

This letter is respy. referred to Surgeon Genl. Dole with the request that he would confer with Surgeon Stone and Lt. Col. Hallowell. It is surprising, and not fair nor fit, that a man trying, as Mr. Stearns is, to serve the country at a risk should suffer thus by such disagreement of opinion.

John A. Andrew.

SOURCE: Preston Stearns, The Life and Public Services of George Luther Stearns, p. 292-3

Samuel Gridley Howe to Senator Charles Sumner, May 19, 1852

Boston, May 19, 1852.

Dearest Sumner: — I wrote you a very hasty note from my office to-day.

Kossuth left us yesterday. At his request I accompanied him to Worcester, and Julia went also, to talk to Madame Kossuth. I know not why, but K—— has given me more of his confidence than any other person here. To the Committee that was formed at his request, he said he should like to have one person appointed to whom he could reveal in confidence so much of his plans and prospects as would show there was reason for hope and for immediate action; and he so plainly indicated me that they insisted upon my being their agent of conversation with him. I have had several interviews with him; he has been here twice, and was to have privately spent the two last days here, but the pressure of business prevented. I am quite overwhelmed by the degree of confidence he has placed in me, and feel keenly the mortification of being unable to do more than guard what he confides to me, and work in a public way for his cause.

Surely he is an inspired man! and he is as gifted in moral qualities as in intellectual powers. I can well understand the enthusiasm that would lead his followers fearlessly to the death at his command. He is the only man to whom my intellect bows quite down. He has done a great work here. The amount of material aid is about $16,000, but that which may be forthcoming in case of need is incalculable. Say what Hunkerdom may, he really made a deep impression on our people, and though there was not much noisy applause, there was deep enthusiasm among our best people. As for the soi disant aristocracy of Boston, though it is of little consequence what they do or say, the truth is that while pretending to ignore him, they felt, and others do too, that he ignored them. They would have opened their salons to him — but they knew he would not enter them. Winthrop is the only man among them who openly upheld him. The Pulskys were everywhere — the Governor [Kossuth] went nowhere! Upon the people of the Commonwealth he left the impression — the conviction — of his being an honest, earnest, eloquent and highly gifted man.

Julia was much with the ladies. I saw them not much. Madame Kossuth, as you know, is an invalid, and nervous; she is not a gifted woman. She brought with her to America some money, and has received some from home since; this she carried about with her, being anxious to invest it, but not daring to trust any one with it; meantime the good Governor kept borrowing from her for Hungary, so she mustered courage and almost with tears put a bag of five hundred eagles ($5,000) in my hands, the day before yesterday, and told me to invest it for her. To-day I got fifty shares of Worcester Railroad for her. She saw and liked good Mrs. Hillard much, but upon Hillard's being proposed to receive the money, she declined, and told Julia she could not trust a Hunker!

We have formed a Committee for Hungarian affairs; S. C. Phillips, Banks, Carter, Wilson, Kellogg, Alley, etc., and shall see what we can do.

I was at Ellen Dwight's1 wedding this forenoon, a very brilliant party, as the world goes. The bride was really most beautiful, with all that wild fire of her eyes subdued into an earnest seriousness. Twisleton looked anxious and not well. He is nineteen years her senior. I have not seen Felton, nor noticed his letter; it is very long, and has an array of complaints (if I may so call them) against you. I put off the answer as an undesirable thing. I must be true to you and to the right, and by so doing I shall give him offence, mortal I fear; yet I hope not, for with all his faults he is a man to be esteemed.

Julia dined with the Agassiz the other day, and said Felton was even more jovial than in the olden time. Mann is here, not looking well.

Ever faithfully yours,
S. G. Howe.
_______________

1 She married Edward Twisleton of London, younger brother of Lord Say-and-Sele.

SOURCE: Laura E. Richards, Editor, Letters and Journals of Samuel Gridley Howe, Volume 2, p. 374-6

Friday, February 15, 2019

William T. Sherman to George Mason Graham, January 9, 1860

Seminary, Monday, Jan. 9, i860.

According to your request, I prepared yesterday and will mail today for Governor Wickcliffe: 1. A copy of our morning report of yesterday giving numbers of officers, cadets, and servants. 2. Distribution of rooms, showing easy accommodations for one hundred forty-three cadets, and in case of necessity fifty more. 3. Copy of our register of cadets, giving names, etc., of thirty-one cadets (now thirty-two). . . 4. Copy of the proceedings of the Academic Board, showing the basis of instruction, text books, etc. Still subject to change, before being finally referred to the Board of Supervisors for approval.

And lastly I wrote him a letter, giving him such details and suggestions as occurred to me at the time.  Of all these I retain copies, and would send them to you only they are voluminous, and are always here of record, and will be examined by you on your next visit. Our mess arrangements, drill and recitations work as smoothly as I would expect. . .

Dr. Smith1 sent me word to send him about the close of this month at Baton Rouge full details for his use. I think I had better do so, carefully and minutely.
_______________

1 State senator and member of the Board of Supervisors. — Ed.

SOURCE: Walter L. Fleming, General W.T. Sherman as College President, p. 106-7

Thursday, February 14, 2019

John Brown to James Foreman, December 1, 1859

Charlestown Prison, Jefferson County, Va.,
Dec. 1, 1859.              
To Mr. James Foreman.1

My Dear Friend, — I have only time to say I got your kind letter of the 26th of November this evening. Am very grateful for all the good feelings expressed by yourself and wife. May God abundantly bless and save yon all! I am very cheerful, in hopes of entering on a better state of existence in a few hours, through infinite grace in Christ Jesus my Lord. Remember “the poor that cry,” and “them that are in bonds as bound with them.”

Your friend as ever,
John Brown.
_______________

1 A former apprentice when Brown was a tanner in Pennsylvania.

SOURCES: Franklin B. Sanborn, The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 615

Elijah F. Pennypacker to William Still, November 29, 1855

SCHUYLKILL, 11th Mo., 29th, 1855.

WILLIAM STILL: DEAR FRIEND: — Those boys will be along by the last Norristown train to-morrow evening. I think the train leaves Norristown at 6 o'clock, but of this inform thyself. The boys will be sent to a friend at Norristown, with instructions to assist them in getting seats in the last train that leaves Norristown to-morrow evening. They are two of the eleven who left some time since, and took with them some of their master’s horses; I have told them to remain in the cars at Green street until somebody meets them.

E. F. PENNYPACRER.

SOURCE: William Still, The Underground Railroad: A Record of Facts, Authentic Narratives, Letters &c., p. 339

George S. Denison to Salmon P. Chase, December 23, 1862

(Private)
New Orleans, December 23rd, 1862.

Dear Sir: Since the date of my last letter no important changes have occurred. The policy of Gen. Banks is not yet made public. Gen. Butler leaves to-morrow, and probably, immediately after his departure, Gen. Banks will issue new orders and proclamations. At his request I matured and submitted to him a plan for inducing the shipment of produce from the country to this City, and for furnishing abundant supplies to those living within our lines — in such a manner however, that each individual can protect his own interests, and there will be full security against improper disposition of whatever is received by him. The General approved the plan and will adopt it. By it producers and consumers will be protected from the arts of speculators and interference of officials. I will inform you of the details whenever the order appears adopting the plan, which will be very soon.

I do not know your opinions and wishes concerning Gen. Butler, but it is certain that his removal gives great satisfaction to all classes including officers, soldiers and citizens. The hostility to him is almost entirely on account of commercial affairs. About this, I have written to you frequently. It does seem to me that many and serious wrongs have been permitted in this Department.

Gen. Banks desires that trade should be restricted as little as possible — provided nothing goes beyond our lines, and he will effect it, I think. The military commission1 — a corrupt concern — has ceased its operations — not to recommence them, I hope.

Gen. Banks tells me he intends to organize more negro regiments. Those now in the service are just as efficient for fighting or any other purpose — as any white regiments.

The colored population fear the President will revoke his proclamation. Threats of insurrection are frequent — in case the proclamation should not be made effective on the 1st. January.

After the River is opened, the whole country west of the Mississippi can be conquered in ninety days. Why not do it and make it free soil at once. Slavery is there dead forever, and the Mississippi River will be a convenient western boundary to the institution for the few years that it will continue to exist in the remaining Slave States.
_______________

1 This commission was appointed November 9, 1862, General Orders, No. 91, to administer upon sequestered property in the La Fourche district of Louisiana. Cf. letter of January 8, 1863.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. ChaseAnnual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 341-2

John M. Forbes & William H. Aspinwall to Gideon Welles, April 18, 1863

London, April 18,1863.

SIR, — . . . By availing of the consuls' service we avoid drawing upon ourselves the observation which would perhaps defeat our object, and we also avail of the arrangements and experiments which both these gentlemen have made. Mr. Dudley, having a vice-consul, will be able to leave his post, in case of need, upon this business; and we have assured him that you will not only make any explanations regarding such absence which may hereafter be required by the Secretary of State, but will also fully appreciate his zeal. . . .

To offer to buy the ironclads without success, would only be to stimulate the builders to greater activity, and even to building new ones in the expectation of finding a market for them from one party or the other. . . . We call your attention to the inclosed article by Professor Goldwin Smith. . . . We understand that Professor Smith is a high authority, and we presume he is writing entirely of “his own motion,” and in the interests of his own country. Could we find a sound legal writer to lay open to the people of England the consequences to their own commerce hereafter, and also, though a more delicate point, the danger to it now, through a war with us, and to do it entirely from an English point of view, we think the value of the ironclads, the Southerner, and other dangerous vessels, would decline rapidly. We shall carefully consider this and other points before acting. . . .

Respectfully yours,
W. H. Aspinwall,
J. M. Forbes.

SOURCE: Sarah Forbes Hughes, Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes, Volume 2, p. 40-1