I have been absent
during most of the month of September in my native State and among the scenes
of my childhood and youth. Change is there. Of the companions who fifty years
ago it was my pleasure to love, and who I truly believe loved me, few, only few,
remain, while of those who were in middle life or more advanced age, men who
encouraged and stood by me, who voluntarily elected me to the Legislature when
I was but twenty-four, scarcely one remains. Their children and grandchildren
to some extent occupy their places, but a different class of persons have come
into the old town and much altered its character.
Little of importance
has transpired during the month. The rebellious States are reorganizing their
governments and institutions, — submitting to results they could not arrest or
avert. In the Free States, political conventions have been held and movements
made to revivify old parties, and, on the part of the extremists, or Radicals,
an exhibition of intense hate towards the Rebels which bodes mischief has
manifested itself.
In New York an
extraordinary step, a coup d'état, was taken by the Democratic organization,
which indorsed President Johnson and nominated Union men to some of the most
important places on the ticket. A counter move was made by the Union party,
which nominated an entire new ticket, and passed resolutions not remarkable in
any respect.
The Massachusetts
Republican convention did not like to take ground antagonistic to the
Administration, although the leaders, particularly Sumner and his friends,
cannot suppress their hostile feelings. Their resolutions, adopted at
Worcester, are very labored, and abound more in words than distinct ideas,
reminding one of the old woman who wished to scream but dared not.
In Connecticut the
question of amending the State Constitution so as to erase the word
"white" is pending. Some feeling among the old Abolitionists and
leading politicians was exhibited, and they may, and probably will, work up
some feeling in its favor; but generally the people are indifferent or opposed
to it. But for the national questions before the country, the amendment would
be defeated; the probabilities appeared to me in its favor. I avoided
interfering in the question or expressing an opinion on the subject, but the
partisans are determined to draw me out. It is asserted in the Times that I am
opposed to negro suffrage. Two of the editors deny this and have so written me.
I replied in a hasty note that no one was authorized to say I had expressed
opposition to it. Since then I have had a telegram from the editor of the
Press, Warner, asking if I am in favor of negro suffrage. Disliking to be
catechized in this way and not disposed to give a categorical answer, I replied
that I was in favor of intelligence, not of color for qualification for
suffrage. The truth is I have little or no feeling on the subject, and as we require
that the electors shall read, and have few negroes in Connecticut, I acquiesce
in, rather than advocate, the amendment. I would not enslave the negro, but his
enfranchisement is another question, and until he is better informed, it is not
desirable that he should vote. The great zeal of Sumner and the Abolitionists
in behalf of the negro voting has no responsive sympathy with me. It is a
species of fanaticism, zeal without discretion. Whenever the time arrives that
he should vote, the negro will probably be permitted. I am no advocate for
social equality, nor do I labor for political or civil equality with the negro.
I do not want him at my table, nor do I care to have him in the jury-box, or in
the legislative hall, or on the bench. The negro does not vote in Connecticut,
nor is he taxed. There are but a few hundreds of them. Of these perhaps not
half can read and consequently cannot vote, while, if the restriction is
removed, all will be taxed.
Judge Blair came to
see me the day after I came back. He is preparing a reply to Judge Holt. During
my absence the papers have published a statement made by Mr. Fox in relation to
the Sumter expedition, which was sent to the Senate as an appendix to my reply
to a call of the Senate, but that body declined to receive F.'s statement. It
comes in now, aptly, with Blair's speech, and will doubtless be considered a
part of the scheme. General Meigs hastened too fast to reply in order to assure
Mr. Seward.
There are serious
mistakes or blunders in Meigs's letter, which, however, will doubtless be
corrected. Blair wished to get the armistice signed by Holt, Toucey, and
Mallory, and asked if I remembered it. I told him I did, and that we had it on
our files. But on sending for the volume I find it is only a copy. Yet my
convictions were as positive as Blair's that the original was in the Navy
Department. I thought I remembered the paper distinctly, its color and general
appearance, but the copy does not correspond with my recollection, yet I cannot
doubt it is the paper which I saw. From this difference I am admonished of the
uncertainty and fallibility of human testimony.
No comments:
Post a Comment