Seminary near Alexandria, December 23, 1859.
Dear Tom: I
received last night a Leavenworth paper addressed in your handwriting and I
wish you would repeat them. I get the New Orleans papers regularly, but they
never say Kansas; indeed I know not if they are admitted south, Kansas being
synonimous with abolitionism.
You can readily imagine the delicate position I now hold at
the head of a seminary to open January 1 next, for the instruction and training
of young men to science and arms, at the same time that John Sherman's name is
bandied about as the representative of all that is held here murderous and
detestable. Thus far all have had the delicacy to refrain in my presence with
but one casual exception, but I would not be surprised if at any time I should
be officially catechised on the subject. This I would not stand of course.
I would not if I could abolish or modify slavery. I don't
know that I would materially change the actual political relation of master and
slave. Negroes in the great numbers that exist here must of necessity be
slaves. Theoretical notions of humanity and religion cannot shake the
commercial fact that their labor is of great value and cannot be dispensed
with. Still of course I wish it never had existed, for it does make mischief.
No power on earth can restrain opinions elsewhere, and these opinions expressed
beget a vindictive feeling. The mere dread of revolt, sedition or external
interference makes men ordinarily calm almost mad. I, of course, do not debate
the question and, moderate as my views are, I feel that I am suspected, and if
I do not actually join in the praises of slavery I may be denounced as an
abolitionist.
I think it would be wise if northern people would confine
their attention to the wants and necessities of their own towns and property,
leaving the South to manage slavery and receive its reward or doom, let what
may come.
I am fully conscious that respectable men here not only talk
but think of the combinations to be made in case of a rupture. It may be that
they design these military colleges as a part of some ulterior design, but in
my case I do not think such to be the case. Indeed it was with great difficulty
the Board of Supervisors were prevailed on by an old West Pointer to give the
Seminary the military feature, and then it was only assented to because it was
represented that southern gentlemen would submit rather to the showy discipline
of arms than to the less ostentatious government of a faculty. Yet, I say that
it may result that men are preparing for the wreck of the U.S. government and
are thinking and preparing for new combinations.
I am willing to aid Louisiana in defending herself against
her enemies so long as she remains a state in the general confederacy; but
should she or any other state act disunion, I am out. Disunion and Civil War
are synonimous terms. The Mississippi, source and mouth, must be controlled by
one government, the southeast are cut off by the Alleghany Mountains, but
Louisiana occupies the mouth of a river whose heads go far north, and does not
admit of a “cut off.” Therefore a peaceable disunion which men here think
possible is absurd. It would be war eternal until one or the other were
conquered “subject.” In that event of course I would stand by Ohio. I always
laughed when I heard disunion talked of, but I now begin to fear it may be
attempted.
I have been to New Orleans, purchased all the furniture
needed, and now await the coming of January 2 to begin school. We expect from
sixty to seventy-five scholars at first. I will not teach, but supervise the
discipline, instruction, supplies, etc.
How are your plans, political and financial, progressing? If
Congress should organize I suppose we will have the same war over the admission
of Kansas.
SOURCES: Walter L. Fleming, General W.T.
Sherman as College President, p. 88-90
No comments:
Post a Comment