BATON ROUGE, Feb. 17, 1860.
DEAR TOM: . . . I am down here at the legislature log rolling for a bill to the interest of our institution. I have no doubt of success. I cannot but laugh in my sleeve at the seeming influence I possess, dining with the governor, hobnobbing with the leading men of Louisiana, whilst John is universally blackguarded as an awful abolitionist. No person has said one word against me, and all have refrained from using his name in vain.
As to your prospects, I see as chief justice you ran ahead of your ticket. I doubt not you can be elected as senator. For the chances it is best, though for a firm solid foundation the judgeship is preferable. Still I think I know enough of you to say your mind is made up and like the fellow engaged to some girl goes round and asks advice leaves room for but one side to the question. I advise you then to go to the senate, be moderate and take the chances.
If they find me advising with you and John, two desperate Blacks, they will suspect me of treason and hang me. No, this is not so, we discuss all public questions here with fairness. Louisiana is not ultra. She has property valued at four hundred millions of dollars which is all based on slave labor. It is no new open question to them; they must be prejudiced in favor of their interests, and I know and often assert that such persons as you and John are not inclined to molest this property. I state your position thus: in Kansas the party known as Democratic did endeavor to impose slavery on Kansas and resorted to extraneous force and fraud. This led to force and violence on the other side, and then, as in all similar contests for colonizing, the North beat, because she has one hundred who can emigrate where the South has one. I understand the moderate Republicans to be opposed to slavery in the abstract, to its extension, but not committed to its molestation where it now exists. I hope the party will not attempt the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law, and that courts and legislatures will not take ultra ground, individuals and newspapers may, but judges and legislatures cannot without committing whole communities.
The relation between master and slave cannot be changed without utter ruin to immense numbers, and it is not sure the negro would be benefitted. If John had not signed that Helper book he could have been elected and would have had a fine chance of showing fairness and manliness at a time of crisis. As it is now he can only growl over expenses and waste; that the Devil himself cannot stop.
Louisiana will not join in any South Carolina measure, but her people and representatives are nervous on the nigger question, and I have to be on my guard all the while as Ohio is looked on as a regular Bogey. Bragg and others here know me to be national, and they back me up too strong, so that I am coaxed and begged not to leave them. I know this sentiment to be sincere and the professors begged me by all the considerations possible to stand by the Institution, as they think that I can make it successful and famous. If too by being here, with such relatives as you and John, I could also do something to allay fears and apprehensions which I believe unfounded I could do patriotic service. Yet the itching for change and adventure makes me strongly inclined to go to London. My life here would settle down into a plain, easy berth.
The Democratic Party will try to keep Kansas out by manoeuvre, but I take it if a fair square vote can be had Kansas must be admitted as she is. I shall be glad to see your name as senator. I dined yesterday with Governor Moore, to-day with the attorney-general, so you see I am in the land of clover as well as molasses.
During our first term many defects in the original act of the Legislature, were demonstrated, and, by the advice of the Board of Supervisors, I went down to Baton Rouge during the session of the legislature to advocate and urge the passage of a new bill, putting the institution on a better footing. Thomas O. Moore was then Governor, Bragg was a member of the Board of Public Works, and Richard Taylor was a senator. I got well acquainted with all of these, and with some of the leading men of the state, and was always treated with the greatest courtesy and kindness.
In conjunction with the proper committee of the legislature, we prepared a new bill, which was passed and approved on the 7th of March, 1860, by which we were to have a beneficiary cadet for each parish, in all fifty-six, and fifteen thousand dollars annually for their maintenance; also twenty thousand dollars for the general use of the college. During that session we got an appropriation of fifteen thousand dollars for building two professors' houses, for the purchase of philosophical and chemical apparatus, and for the beginning of a college library. The Seminary was made a State Arsenal, under the title of State Central Arsenal, and I was allowed five hundred dollars a year as its superintendent.
These matters took me several times to Baton Rouge that winter, and I recall an event of some interest, which must have happened in February. At that time my brother, John Sherman, was a candidate, in the national House of Representatives, for speaker, against Bocock, of Virginia. In the South he was regarded as an "abolitionist,” the most horrible of all monsters; and many people of Louisiana looked at me with suspicion, as the brother of the abolitionist, John Sherman, and doubted the propriety of having me at the head of an important state institution. By this time I was pretty well acquainted with many of their prominent men, was generally esteemed by all in authority, and by the people of Rapides Parish especially, who saw that I was devoted to my particular business, and that I gave no heed to the political excitement of the day. But the members of the state Senate and House did not know me so well, and it was natural that they should be suspicious of a northern man, and the brother of him who was the "abolition" candidate for speaker of the House.
One evening, at a large dinner-party at Governor Moore's at which were present several members of the Louisiana legislature, Taylor, Bragg, and the Attorney-general Hyams, after the ladies had left the table, I noticed at Governor Moore's end quite a lively discussion going on, in which my name was frequently used; at length the governor called to me, saying: "Colonel Sherman, you can readily understand that, with your brother the abolitionist candidate for speaker, some of our people wonder that you should be here at the head of an important state institution. Now, you are at my table, and I assure you of my confidence. Won't you speak your mind freely on this question of slavery, that so agitates the land? You are under my roof, and, whatever you say, you have my protection.
I answered: "Governor Moore, you mistake in calling my brother John Sherman, an abolitionist. We have been separated since childhood - I, in the army, and he pursuing his profession of law in northern Ohio; and it is possible we may differ in general sentiment, but I deny that he is considered at home an abolitionist; and, although he prefers the free institutions under which he lives to those of slavery which prevail here, he would not of himself take from you by law or force any property whatever, even slaves.”
Then said Moore: “Give us your own views of slavery as you see it here and throughout the South.”
I answered in effect that "the people of Louisiana were hardly responsible for slavery, as they had inherited it; that I found two distinct conditions of slavery, domestic and field hands. The domestic slaves, employed by the families, were probably better treated than any slaves on earth; but the condition of the field-hands was different, depending more on the temper and disposition of their masters and overseers than were those employed about the house;" and I went on to say that, were I a citizen of Louisiana, and a member of the legislature, I would deem it wise to bring the legal condition of the slave more near the status of human beings under all Christian and civilized governments. In the first place, I argued that, in sales of slaves made by the state, I would forbid the separation of families, letting the father, mother, and children, be sold together to one person, instead of each to the highest bidder. And, again, I would advise the repeal of the statute which enacted a severe penalty for even the owner to teach his slave to read and write, because that actually qualified property and took away a part of its value; illustrating the assertion by the case of Henry Sampson, who had been the slave of Colonel Chambers, of Rapides Parish, who had gone to California as the servant of an officer of the army, and who was afterward employed by me in the bank at San Francisco. At first he could not write or read, and I could only afford to pay him one hundred dollars a month; but he was taught to read and write by Reilley, our bank-teller, when his services became worth two hundred and fifty dollars a month, which enabled him to buy his own freedom and that of his brother and his family.
What I said was listened to by all with the most profound attention; and when I was through, some one (I think it was Mr. Hyams struck the table with his fist, making the glasses jingle, and said, “By God, he is right!” and at once he took up the debate, which went on, for an hour or more, on both sides with ability and fairness. Of course, I was glad to be thus relieved, because at the time all men in Louisiana were dreadfully excited on questions affecting their slaves, who constituted the bulk of their wealth, and without whom they honestly believed that sugar, cotton, and rice, could not possibly be cultivated. . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment