Diary of Gideon Welles: Wednesday, August 17, 1864

 I wrote a letter to the Secretary of State, softly pointing out the proper course of proceeding in this French claim for captured cotton, for I should be sorry to have him let down himself and the Government. But I know not how, having taken charge of this claim, he will receive it. I think, however, he will show his shrewdness and tact and take the hint, if he has not committed himself, as he often does, without being aware of the effect.

Had quite a talk to-day with Mr. Lenthall, Naval Constructor, on the subject of the light-draft monitors and his duties generally. He claims to know but little about them. I told him this would not answer, that I should hold him responsible for what pertained to his bureau; that it was his duty to criticize, and let me know what, in his opinion was wrong; that it was his duty to know, and he must not plead ignorance to me; that on important matters I did not want his views second-handed, but he must come to me direct. From what I could learn in relation to the light-draft vessels, I had come to the conclusion that, while I had trusted to him, he had mere superficial conversations with Mr. Fox, without seeing or advising with me, and I apprehended Fox and Stimers had been going on without consulting others, with confident belief they would give us very superior vessels, until they awoke to the fact that they were not Naval Constructors or the men to do this work, except under the advice and direction of experts. I had supposed until last spring that Lenthall and Ericsson were giving the light ironclads their attention, but I found they were not, and I had not been advised of the fact. My plain talk seemed to astonish, and yet not altogether displease Lenthall. He said he had no doubt Mr. Fox and Mr. Stimers had committed the great mistake I alluded to. They thought after submitting their plans to him, without, however, procuring from him any computations, but an expression, that struck him more favorably than Ericsson that they could show off something for themselves that would give them a name.

Fred Seward called on me with a letter from Raymond to his father inquiring whether anything had been effected at the navy yard and custom-house, stating the elections were approaching, means were wanted, Indiana was just now calling most urgently for pecuniary aid. I told Seward that I knew not what the navy yard had to do with all this, except that there had been an attempt to levy an assessment on all workmen, as I understood, when receiving their monthly pay of the paymaster, by a party committee who stationed themselves near his desk in the yard and attempted the exaction; that I was informed Commodore Paulding forbade the practice, and I certainly had no censure to bestow on him for the interdiction. If men choose to contribute at their homes, or out of the yards, I had no idea that he would object, but if he did and I could know the fact, I would see such interference promptly corrected; but I could not consent to forced party contributions. Seward seemed to consider this view correct and left.

I am sadly oppressed with the aspect of things. Have just read the account of the interview at Richmond between Jaquess and Gilmore on one side and Jeff Davis and Benjamin on the other.¹ What business had these fellows with such a subject? Davis asserts an ultimatum that is inadmissible, and the President in his note, which appears to me not as considerate and well-advised as it should have been, interposes barriers that were unnecessary. Why should we impose conditions, and conditions which would provoke strife from the very nature of things, for they conflict with constitutional reserved rights? If the Rebellion is suppressed in Tennessee or North Carolina, and the States and people desire to resume their original constitutional rights, shall the President prevent them? Yet the letters to Greeley have that bearing, and I think them unfortunate in this respect.

They place the President, moreover, at disadvantage in the coming election. He is committed, it will be claimed, against peace, except on terms that are inadmissible. What necessity was there for this, and, really, what right had the President to assume this unfortunate attitude without consulting his Cabinet, at least, or others? He did, he says, advise with Seward, and Fessenden, who came in accidentally, also gave it his sanction. Now Seward is a trickster more than a statesman. He has wanted to get an advantage over Horace Greeley, and when the President said to Greeley, therefore, that no terms which did not include the abolition of slavery as one of the conditions (would be admissible), a string in Greeley's harp was broken. But how it was to affect the Union and the great ends of peace seems not to have been considered. The Cabinet were not consulted, except the two men as named, one, if not both, uninvited, nor as regarded Jaquess and Gilmore in their expedition. It will be said that the President does not refuse other conditions, and that he only said “to whom it may concern” he would make peace with those conditions, but that he does not refuse different and modified conditions to others. (It was undoubtedly an adroit party movement on the part of the President that rebuked and embarrassed Greeley and defeated a wily intrigue.) But, after all, I should, even with this interpretation, wish the President not to be mixed up with such a set, and not to have this ambiguity, to say the least. Most of the world will receive it as a distinct ultimatum.

_______________ 

¹ An account of the interview of Colonel James F. Jaquess and Mr. James R. Gilmore with the President of the Confederacy and his Secretary of State, written by Mr. Gilmore, appeared in the Atlantic Monthly for September, 1864.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 107-10