Herschel V. Johnson* to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, November 8, 1852

(Private.)

ELIZABETH CITY Co., NEAR HAMPTON, [VA.],

November 5th, 1852.

MY DEAR HUNTER: I wrote you in June a short note from Baltimore immediately after the adjournment of the Convention, to which I rec[eive]d an answer in a few days. I write now to acknowl

edge its receipt and to say that I have had several very free conversations with Wise since. He speaks of you in the kindest manner and does you ample justice, meet him with the cordiality of former days and all will be well. I know that he loves you and desires your friendship, nay thinks himself entitled to it. I pray God that nothing may ever occur to separate you.

Franklin Pierce from present indications will receive at least 270 of the electoral vote-the vote of every Southern State. We believe, an awful beating, this indeed. He is indebted to Virginia for his Crown. Well who from our State must go into the Cabinet? You say "I have nothing to ask and shall ask nothing from the incoming administration for myself." Do you intend to say that you would decline any offer? I ask the question because I frequently heard you spoken of and the wish expressed that you would accept the Treasury if offered you, indeed I have been asked if I thought you would accept. I had not thought much upon the subject, and had no wish about it. The only desire I have upon the subject is that you should exercise your own judgment and be where you can be most useful.

The Treasury will be the great leaver to work for reform 'tis very certain, and I hope to see some Southern man of the right stamp at it.. Your present position is a commanding one and one from which you can better be heard by the nation, perhaps too it is nearer to the succession. Well if you shall come next after Pierce I shall not despair of the republic.

The last time I saw Bayly he told me that you would be the next President, that he intended to make you President. "You be d-d you can't get back to Congress yourself, and you talk to me about making Hunter President." "When and how come you so fond of Hunter. You always loved Hunter better than you love me." "If it be true can't you account for it very, very easy. Hunter votes right always-You only occasionally." Booker it is impossible you can doubt my fidelity to the South you must have confidence in me. "Confidence sir is a plant of slow groth as Mr. Pitt said." I like Bayly very much. We have been friends a long time, and Ì have tried very hard to forgive him. I withheld from him my vote the last time he was a candidate. It was painful to me to be obliged to do so. He does not understand his position, does, not know how much ground he has lost. I doubt if he can ever recover. In saying this much do not understand me as doubting his fidelity to you. I do not, no, I believe him sincere. In the event of your taking a seat in the Cabinet Bayly and Wise will both struggle hard for your place in the Senate, the former I am certain cannot succeed the latter may, perhaps will. I know of no really formidable competitor in the East. I am interrupted and must conclude before I had finished all I had to say.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 149-50

Diary of Gideon Welles: Thursday, February 15, 1866

The State Convention yesterday appears to have got along better in Connecticut than I apprehended, yet there is obviously Radical animosity lurking and fermenting there which will be likely to show itself soon. Among the leaders, most of whom have been impregnated with Radical views, there is no love for the President nor any intention to support his policy. In Hartford they detest Dixon and Cleveland, who support the Administration, and they like Hawley, who is much given to the negro, but is really well-intentioned and as fair-minded as one can be who has been a zealous Abolitionist, and is hopeful of political honors.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 433

Senator John J. Crittenden to Orlando Brown, June 7, 1850

FRANKFORT, June 7, 1850.

DEAR ORLANDO,—I returned last Sunday from Indianapolis after a week's absence. Nothing could exceed the kindness and hospitality which attended me throughout the State. The receptions and honors with which they endeavored to distinguish me were almost overwhelming to one so plain as I am and so unaccustomed to such ceremonies and distinctions. I feel that I owe to Indiana and her governor a great debt of gratitude. In that State there is very little political abolition, and, with a strong and patriotic feeling for the Union, there is mingled a particularly fraternal kindness and affection for Kentucky. The prevailing sentiment there is for a compromise and amicable settlement of all the slavery question. The plan suggested in General Taylor's message was spoken of frequently as most acceptable, but I think they would be satisfied with Mr. Clay's bill. In my speech at Indianapolis I spoke of old Zack as the noble old patriot in whom the country might have all confidence, and, without discriminating between the various plans that had been proposed, I expressed my hope and confidence that they would result in some form of amicable adjustment. The occasion required me to avoid, as far as possible, the appearance of partisanship or party politics; but it was due to my heart to give old Zack a good word, and I did it. I felt it a duty, too, to talk right plainly to them about abolition and the mischiefs that its meddlesome and false humanity had brought and was tending to bring upon the country. I went so far as to advise those who, from tenderness of conscience about slavery, could not acquiesce in what our fathers had done, and could not reconcile themselves to the Constitution of the United States and the performance of the duties it enjoined, to quit the country, etc. All this seemed to be well received except, as I learned afterwards, by some half-dozen abolitionists out of a crowd of as many thousand. The convention is in session, and I have scarcely time to steal a moment to write to you.

Well, you have resigned. It makes me glad, and it makes me sorry; glad that you are coming back to us,—sorry, that you are leaving General Taylor. The difficulties that are surrounding him only tend to increase my sympathy and zeal for him, and I retain my confidence that the storm will rage around him in vain, and that his firm and resolute integrity and patriotism will bear him through triumphantly. There is one peril before him that is to be carefully avoided, and that is the peril of having thrown upon his administration the responsibility of defeating the bill of the committee of thirteen or any other measure of compromise. It has appeared to me that the principal questions of the slavery controversy might have been disposed of more quietly and easily on the plan recommended by the President; but the people are anxious for a settlement, and comparatively indifferent as to the exact terms, provided they embrace anything like a compromise; and it seems to me that any concession or sacrifice of opinion as to the mode ought to be made to accomplish the end. It is not necessary to enlarge upon this subject. General Taylor's message is the foundation of all their plans in this, that it avoids the Wilmot proviso; all the rest is the mere finish of the work. My whole heart is bent on the success of General Taylor. I know that he deserves it, and believe he will achieve it. Tell Robert his little girls are gay as birds, and are continually dragging me into the garden to pull strawberries with them. I have taken poor Bob's disappointment quite to heart; but let that go.

Your friend,

J. J. CRITTENDEN.

SOURCE: Ann Mary Butler Crittenden Coleman, Editor, The Life of John J. Crittenden: With Selections from His Correspondence and Speeches, Vol. 1, p. 372-4

Congressman Horace Mann, February 14, 1850

FEB. 14.

You ejaculate a prayer for my protection. I do not feel in any personal danger. I mean to tell them what I think, and in such a way that they shall understand me. But I am principled against doing it offensively.

If Mr. Clay had demanded immunity for slavery in the States and in the District only, he would have demanded nothing more than the South claims as absolute right; and so it would, in their eyes, have wanted the reciprocity of a compromise. Nobody but the abolitionists of the Garrison school pretends to interfere with slavery in the States; and non-interference with slavery in the District, now only fifty square miles, would have seemed to them paltry. I think, regarding the thing as a compromise, Mr. Clay has done pretty well. But I do not concede their right to carry slavery into the Territories at all; and therefore I will never yield to their claim to carry it there, come what will. I should prefer dissolution even, terrible as it would be, to slavery extension.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 289

Charles Sumner to John Jay, May 13, 1850

I am sick at heart when I observe the apostasies to freedom. There is one thing needful in our public men—backbone.¹ In this is comprised that moral firmness, without which they yield to the pressure of interests of party, of fashion, of public opinion. . . . In reading the life of Wilberforce, I was pleased to follow the references to your grandfather, who seems to have seen much of the great abolitionist.

_______________

¹ Governor Briggs was without courage, and took no public position against Webster.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 214

James Buchanan to Charles O'Conor, J. Addison Thomas, Robert J. Dillon, Esqs., and others,

WHEATLAND, near Lancaster, 14th June, 1850.

GENTLEMEN—I have been honored by the receipt of your invitation to the public dinner to be given to the Hon. Mr. Dickinson, of the United States Senate, at Tammany Hall, on Monday next, and regret to say that it will not be in my power to be with you on that interesting occasion.

Will you be kind enough to present for me to the assembled company the following sentiment:

"Hon. Daniel S. Dickinson—The prompt and powerful defender of the Union and the Constitution against the assaults of the abolitionists and free soilers. Well may the Empire State point to him as one of her brightest jewels."

Yours, very respectfully,

JAMES BUCHANAN.

CHARLES O'CONOR, J. ADDISON THOMAS, ROBERT J. DILLON, Esqs., and others, Committee, &c., &c.

SOURCE: John R. Dickinson, Editor, Speeches, Correspondence, Etc., of the Late Daniel S. Dickinson of New York, Vol. 2, p. 437

William O. Goode to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, April 20, 1850

[BOYDTON, VA.], April 20, 1850.

MY DEAR HUNTER: I live five miles from our Post Office. The other day I despatched a letter to Mason and the servant returning brought me your letter. I reply promptly, because I have an interest or an object in doing so. Before I heard from you, in my letter to Mason, I expressed my apprehensions as to the effect of Webster's Speech, and I also gave it as my opinion, that if Eastern Virginia be not fully represented in the Nashville Convention, Foote will have contributed efficiently to such a result. At the opening of the Session I was greatly pleased with his bearing. There was something in his notice of Mr. Calhoun's speech, for which I found myself at a loss to account. I hope it susceptible of explanation consistent with his own honor and the highest interest of the South.

From Webster's speech we gain at least the weight of his authority against the Abolitionists, Free soilers and Agitators at the North. And we have his acknowledgment that the South has suffered great wrong at the hands of the North. We have his authority and influence also on [the] Fugitive Slave question, and on the future admission of Texas States. These appear to me, to be objects, not unworthy of consideration. But they are no equivalent for present, positive legislation. They afford not present nor permanent relief for which we must rely on our own virtue and which can only be secured by unanimity and concert in the South. The Nashville Convention is the present available agency through which to secure concert and unanimity, and my chief object in writing now; as it was in writing to Mason, is to induce you to urge the Virginia Delegation at Washington to stimulate their friends in their several Districts. The time is short, and I fear it is almost too late, but much can be done. So far as I am informed Amelia, Nottoway and Dinwiddie in Mr. Meade's district have taken no action. He might procure it in time, or the District Convention might be postponed long enough to afford time. The same remark may be made in nearly all the Districts. I myself should have taken an active part long ago, but for considerations which I would not hesitate to explain to you in a personal interview. The chief injury to the South, resulting from Webster's speech, is the hesitation it has occasioned. This has given courage to all who wavered in their resolution or who were secretly opposed to the measure. And it is possible that an opposition may rally in the South on the California issue supported by the plausible popular arguments connected with that subject.

I have another motive for this letter. I expect to attend a District Convention 8 May, suppose a thin meeting, and suppose Virginia meagerly represented at Nashville. What will be best? Consult with our most reliable and judicious friends and write me fully and frankly.

I say nothing of the death of our lamented friend. I know not what to say. It were impossible to express what I feel.

(P. S.) I offered a suggestion to Mason which I will repeat to you though I presume it had occurred to both of you. I said to him that in my own opinion, even the compromise 36° 30' was almost disgraceful to us, but public opinion must be consulted and something given up, for peace and tranquility. Suppose 36° 30′ can not be had. Would it do to take or offer Sierra Nevada from 42 as Eastern boundary of California down to near the Southern termination of the range as indicated on Fremont's Map, thence right line to St. Barbara about 34° on Pacific? This would give us a line to the Pacific and may be useful in the future. "The State" of Deseret has asserted this boundary for herself according to a writer for the Enquirer. And that fact may possibly aid to support an argument for such a proposition. The suggested line would give to California, perhaps the most beautiful geographical conformation in the Union. It's present delineation is a hideous deformity. But all is a mere suggestion without opinion.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 110-2

Senator William Bigler to Robert Tyler, December 16, 1859

SENATE CHAMBER, December 16, 1859.

DEAR TYLER: The excitement seems to abate slightly in Congress, but it is on the rise in nearly every Southern State. The most alarming indication is that the mass of the people, heretofore silent and conservative, are taking the lead in repelling and denouncing the insults and outrages offered at the North. Governor Letcher, who arrived here a day or two since, has given Mr. Hunter a most startling account of the movements among the people in his, the conservative part of Virginia. Nothing has made so much bad blood as the endorsement of the Helper Book, and the attempt now making to promote a man who did this to the responsible station of Speaker of the House. The next most offensive thing is the sympathy manifested for old Brown. It is no longer necessary for fire-eaters to take the lead. They will be obliged to stay the popular indignation rather than lead it. But I have no fear of a separation in Congress. Sherman, if elected, will immediately discard the "Helper Book," and the Southern men will settle down, and then we shall begin to take steps on the presidential question, and adopt our policy; at present, no one seems to talk about the presidency. I agree with you that the "Abolitionists should be denounced, and not the South," and I understand the hint right well; but, sir, I tell you that so often as a Southern senator rises in his place, and falsely assails my constituents, attributing to the Democratic portion "deception and corruption," as did Iverson, I shall denounce the assertion and repel it. It is by submission to outrages of this character that we lose our hold on the North and the respect of the South. Every Southern senator, except Iverson, approves of my action in that matter. Then, sir, as to the general subject, I do not feel at liberty to act the partisan entirely. Party must give way to some respect for the sake of the nation. No man living entertains a more profound aversion to Abolition fanaticism than myself. I regard the leaders of the Abolition party as traitors to the Constitution, and shall so denounce them so soon as excitement recedes a little. But enough; when you come on we shall have a long talk about matters and things in general. Yours truly,

WM. BIGLER.

SOURCE: Lyon Gardiner Tyler, The Letters and Times of the Tylers, Volume 2, p. 555-6

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: November 5, 1864

Clear and cold.

Grant has attempted nothing this week, and it is probably too late for any demonstration to affect the election. I infer that the government is convinced President Lincoln will be re-elected, else some desperate effort would have been made in his behalf by his generals. Will he float on a sea of blood another four years? I doubt it. One side or the other must, I think, give up the contest. He can afford to break with the Abolitionists now. We cannot submit without the loss of everything.

It is thought Grant will continue to "swing to the left,” making a winter campaign on the coasts of North and South Carolina mean time leaving Butler's army here, always menacing Richmond.

Gen. Beauregard writes from Gadsden, Ala., October 24th, that his headquarters will be at Tuscumbia, Ala.; will get supplies from Corinth to Tuscambia. Forrest has been ordered to report to Gen. Hood, in Middle Tennessee. The railroad iron between Corinth and Memphis will be taken to supply wants elsewhere. Gen. Dick Taylor is to guard communications, etc., has directed Gen. Cheatham to issue an address to the people of Tennessee, saying his and Gen. Forrest's command have entered the State for its redemption, etc., and calling upon the people to aid in destroying the enemy's communications, while the main army is between Atlanta and Chattanooga, when the purpose is to precipitate the whole army upon it, etc. Gen. B. doubts not he will soon be able to announce good tidings, etc. etc. This letter to Gen. Cooper is “submitted to the Secretary of War,” by whom it is "submitted for the information of the President,” and sent back by him—“Read and returned, 4th Nov. '64.-J. D.”

Gen. B. was to leave that day to join Gen. Hood, in vicinity of Guntersville, on Tennessee River. Sherman's army was between Dalton and Gadsden, 15 miles from Gadsden.

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 2, p. 324-5

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: November 8, 1864

Wet and warm; all quiet below, and much mud there.

Congress assembled yesterday, and the President's message was read. He recommends the employment of 40,000 slaves in the army, not as soldiers, unless in the last extremity; and after the war he proposes their emancipation. This is supposed to be the idea of Mr. Benjamin, for foreign effect. It is denounced by the Examiner. The message also recommends the abolition of all class exemptions, such as editors, etc. The Examiner denounces this as a blow at the freedom of the press.

The message is cheerful and full of hope, showing that the operations of the year, in the field, have resulted in no disadvantage to us.

By the Northern papers we find that a fleet of four or five cruisers is devastating their commerce. They sailed recently from Wilmington, in spite of Gen. Whiting.

No attack was made on Richmond during the last few days. I have no doubt it was deemed unnecessary by the enemy to secure Mr. Lincoln's re-election. To-day, no doubt, the election in the United States will result in a new lease of presidential life for Mr. Lincoln. If this result should really have been his motive in the conduct of the war, perhaps there may soon be some relaxation of its rigors—and possibly peace, for it is obvious that subjugation is not possible. President Lincoln may afford to break with the Abolition party now, and, as has been often done before, kick down the ladder by which he ascended to power. This is merely speculation, however; he may resolve to wield the whole military strength and resources of the United States with more fury than ever.

But there will henceforth be a dangerous party against him in the rear. The defeated Democrats will throw every obstruction in his path—and they may chock his wheels—or even give him employment for the bayonet at home.

Dispatches from Beauregard and Hood, November 4th, at Tuscumbia, say that Sherman is concentrating at Huntsville and Decatur. Part of our army is at Florence. Gen. B. says his advance has been retarded by bad weather and want of supplies, but that he will march into Tennessee immediately. Gen. Forrest is throwing difficulties in the way of Sherman. The armies are equidistant from Nashville, and if Sherman's supplies fail, his condition becomes desperate.

Captain Manico (acting lieutenant-colonel Departmental Regiment) informs me that the enemy will certainly open batteries in a day or two on our troops at Chaffin's Bluff, and will be replied to vigorously, which he thinks will bring on a battle. We shall hear more thunder, as the distance is only seven or eight miles.

It seems to be clearing up, and there may be news before night. When election news arrives per telegraph from the North—if favorable—it is supposed the enemy will celebrate it by shotted salutes, and thus recommence the slaughter.

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 2, p. 326-7

Diary of Gideon Welles: Wednesday, August 30, 1865

At my special request the President made an order restoring General Hawley to duty, who had been mustered out of service. Had some conversation with General Hawley, who was an original and earnest Abolitionist, on political subjects. I perceive that the negro is pretty strong on his brain. Advised him to keep within constitutional limitations and not permit humanitarian impulses to silence reason or break our governmental restraints. Suggested that he should also caution Warner not to commit his paper too strongly and inconsiderately to Radical impulses.

There is an apparent determination among those who are ingrained Abolitionists to compel the government to impose conditions on the Rebel States that are wholly unwarranted. Prominent men are striving to establish a party on the basis of equality of races in the Rebel States, for which the people are not prepared, perhaps they never will be, for these very leaders do not believe in social equality, nor will they practice it. Mr. Sumner, who is an unmarried man, has striven to overcome what seems a natural repugnance. A negro lawyer has been presented by him to practice in the Supreme Court, and extra demonstrations of that kind have been made by him and Chief Justice Chase. Sumner, I think, has become a devotee in this matter; it is his specialty, and, not being a Constitutionalist in politics, he is sincere, I have no doubt, in his schemes. I cannot say quite as much in favor of the Chief Justice. His work is connected more closely with political party aspirations. Sumner is not divested of them. General Hawley is of that school. Wants to do for the negro. His old associates are on that idea. Many of them — most of them would assume, and have the government assume, arbitrary power, regardless of the Constitution, to carry into effect their opinions and wishes. General H. is too intelligent for this, yet it is evident he would strain a point for the negro.

Judge Blair has been making a speech at Clarksville in Maryland which appears to me to be in some respects injudicious just at this time. Yet it is a demonstration deliberately made and for a purpose. He anticipates a new formation of parties and is preparing for it in advance, all of which may be well, provided he does not go too fast and too far. I think his speech is too intensely personal to be effective. This is not the time to make assaults on Seward, perhaps not on Stanton, unless confident not only that he is right but that he will be sustained. He will not be supported by the press of either party. I am not certain that he wishes to be at present; but whether, if he loses the general confidence, he can regain it when he exhibits so much acrimony, is doubtful.

I think better of Blair than most persons will on reading his speech. He is not a malignant or revengeful man; is generous, frank, truthful, honest; scorns a mean thing, detests duplicity, and abhors a liar. He has good political and general intelligence, understands men generally very well, but I think is sometimes imposed upon. In his friendships and hates he occupies no middle ground, and sometimes, I think, judges severely and harshly. I see no reason for the onslaught on Seward at this time.

Holt is also assailed, as if Seward and Stanton were not enough. It is painful to have a man like Holt denounced. He is a stern, stubborn, relentless man, has his faults, but I believe is a patriot and a statesman of ability. I have esteemed him to be the ablest man in Buchanan's cabinet, and beyond any other one the principal mind to sustain the national integrity in that combination during the winter preceding the advent of President Lincoln, and I regretted that he was not preferred to Stanton as the successor of Cameron if one of that cabinet were taken. Why Blair should attack Holt, I do not understand, unless because of his identification with Stanton, which is certainly not to his credit. Blair brings out a singular and unfortunate letter of Holt's to some one in Pittsburg, which had escaped my memory, and which can hardly be excused in these days. But the changes and vicissitudes which have occurred during the last few eventful years have taught me to have forbearance for men's utterances and actions. My own language was sometimes mild and gentle when it should have been strong to resist the coming storm which I vainly hoped might be averted; at other times it was rash and almost violent when mildness and conciliation were necessary. Human foresight is short and insufficient, and indulgence is due to men in positions of responsibility who were compelled to act, and who in view of the calamities that overhung the country strove to extricate the government and country.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 369-71

Diary of Gideon Welles: September 28, 1865

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.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 372-4

William T. Sherman to Ellen Ewing Sherman, January 13, 1861

SEMINARY, Jan. 13, 1861.

 . . . I see no change to note here in public sentiment, the fact that Seward has been named as secretary of state to Lincoln enables the leaders to show that their suspicions were right that the Republicans and abolitionists are identical. I am therefore confirmed in my opinion that the cotton states are off and it is an even chance with all the slave states. I take the Missouri Republican and National Intelligencer which seem to oppose secession but they cannot stem the torrent.

The revolution has begun and the national government has shown weakness in all its attempts. Anderson is the only one who has acted. General Scott in sending reinforcements ought not to have trusted the Star of the West, the same in which we went to California some [seven?] years ago. She could not venture to receive a fire. Frigates and strong war steamers should have gone, which could have forced their way past the land batteries. I hope still this will be done. It will be a triumph to South Carolina to beat Uncle Sam.

Still Charleston is nothing to New Orleans and I am satisfied the forts at the mouth¹ and the lakes² will be taken by order of Governor Moore of this state before they can be occupied by the U.S. All these are acts of War has begun. And it is idle to say the South is not in earnest. Louisiana has not yet seceded, yet the delegates favorable to such a course are elected, even in New Orleans where the Union feeling is thought to be strongest. I have no doubt that ultimately I will be turned off as unfaithful, but I must see my way clearer than I yet can before I leave from choice. . .

_______________

¹ Of the Mississippi. – ED.

² Lake Pontchartrain and Lake Borgne. – ED.

SOURCE: Walter L. Fleming, General W.T. Sherman as College President, p. 332-3

Diary of Congressman Rutherford B. Hayes: November 30, 1865

452 Thirteenth Street, Washington, D. C.

Came here as a member of the House of Representatives for Second District of Ohio this morning. My travelling companions were: Mr. [Benjamin] Eggleston, my colleague of the First District; R. W. Clark of Clermont County (Fifth District), and his wife; [and Samuel] McKee, of Kentucky, his wife and son, Frank, and wife's sister, Miss Frances Brainerd, of Oxford, Ohio. Captain McKee, now of Mount Sterling, represents sixteen of the hard mountain counties of northeastern Kentucky. He doesn't travel on the Sabbath, plays no cards, neither drinks nor uses tobacco, and is an abolitionist! The war has done the work of centuries. Five years ago the same constituency would have voted to crucify him.

Have got my first batch of stationery, and reported myself to the Clerk of the House, Mr. McPherson. This with my bachelor quarters is my first step in Congressional life.

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 3, p. 5

William T. Sherman to Ellen Ewing Sherman, November 29, 1860

ALEXANDRIA, Nov. 29, 1860.

 . . . This is a holiday, thanksgiving and prayer, but holidays and Sundays are my worst days, as then the cadets are idle and mischievous.

Governor Moore has issued his proclamation calling the legislature together for December 10, and the proclamation is couched in ugly language, different from his usual more conservative tone. It is manifest to me now that the leading politicians of the state have conferred together and have agreed to go out of the Union, or at all events to favor the new doctrine of secession. The legislature will determine the call of a convention, and the convention will decide very much according to the other events that may occur in the meantime. This imposes on us a change of purpose, and it will not do for you or any one to come south unless the state of feeling changes. I know the governor and believe him an excellent thermometer of the political atmosphere of Louisiana. I hear that business is dead in New Orleans, all of which is evidence that the abolitionists have succeeded in bringing on the “Inevitable Conflict.”

I am sick of this everlasting subject. The truth has nothing to do with this world. Here they know that all you have to do in Ohio is to steal niggers, and in Ohio though the people are quiescent yet they believe that the South are determined to enlarge the area of niggers. Like Burton in Toodles I say, Damn the niggers. I wish they were anywhere or be kept at their work.

I observe more signs of a loosened discipline here. Boys are careless and last night because the supper did not please them they smashed the crockery and made a riot generally. Pistols were fired, which scared Joe very much — his education has been neglected, but I think he will get used to it. We have dismissed five cadets and others must share their fate. I fear the institution is in danger from causes which arose after I left last summer. The alterations made after I left were

in principle, causing General Graham to resign, and since then he will take no interest in our affairs. Governor Moore is intent on politics, same of Dr. Smith, so we are left to the chances of the caprices of a parcel of wild boys. Still this is a small matter susceptible of remedy, but the secession movement underlies the very safety of everything. . .

SOURCE: Walter L. Fleming, General W.T. Sherman as College President, p. 309-11

The Editor of the Democratic Review Dangerously Stabbed — published June 6, 1856

CINCINNATI, June 5.—Mr. George P. Buell, editor of the Democratic Review, published at Washington, made a speech last night in front of the Burnett House, denouncing the Know Nothings and the Abolitionists. He was interrupted by an individual in the crowd, and the matter finally came to blows. In the melee, Buell was stabbed in the back, the knife penetrating his lung and inflicting a dangerous wound. His condition this morning is critical, as his wound bleeds internally.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Friday Morning, June 6, 1856, p. 3

Sumner’s Speech — published May 27, 1856

The New York papers publish Sumner’s late speech in full. It fills some twenty columns of small type—and, as he had been rehearsing it before a looking-glass for several weeks previous to its delivery, with a negro boy holding a candle to aid him in adjusting the action to the word, it is probable the whole abolition confederacy had the document before it was read to the Senate.

We have perused the effusion from curiosity to see what this bell-weather of fanaticism had to say for his cause. It smacks of the ravage of the maniac—and that would constitute the best apology for its abundant wickedness, but for the fact that method pervades the madness, and the madness is steeped in malignity.

We noticed that Mr. Douglas and some other Senators charged the Massachusetts senator and his abolition confederates with the design to subvert the constitution and dissolve the Union. Such would seem to be the purpose of the speaker, from the general tone of his discourse. We extract the following brief paragraph, that the reader may see what terrible evils impend over the land, if the abolitionists are not permitted to have their way.

“Already the muster has begun. The strife is no longer local, but national. Even now, while I speak, portents hang on all the arches of the horizon, threatening to darken the broad land, which already yawns with muttering of civil war. The fury of the propagandists of Slavery, and the calm determination of their opponents, are now diffused from the distant Territory over wide-spread communities, and the whole country, in all its extent—marshalling hostile divisions, and foreshadowing a strife, which, unless happily averted by the triumph of Freedom, will become war—fratricidal, parricidal war—with an accumulated wickedness beyond the wickedness of any war in human annals; justly provoking the avenging judgment of Providence and the avenging pen of history, and constituting a strife in the language of the ancient writer, more than foreign, more than social, more than civil; but something compounded of all these strifes, and in itself more than war; sed potius commune quoddam ex omnibus, et plus bellum.”

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Tuesday Morning, May 27, 1856, p. 2

William Preston Smith to A. J. Phelps, October 26, 1859

Baltimore, Oct. 26, 1859.

A. J. Phelps,

On Express East: Stop at Harper's Ferry to-night to go to Charlestown Court to-morrow as a witness. Mr. Gaither will meet your train there and bring it in here.

Rumors of an abolitionist rescue are rife. Have you an unusual crowd of men on your train? Keep a good lookout as you come down.

W. P. SMITH.

SOURCE: B. H. Richardson, Annapolis, Maryland, Publisher, Correspondence Relating to the Insurrection at Harper's Ferry, 17th October, 1859, p. 37

William T. Sherman to Thomas Ewing Jr., February 17, 1860

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. . . .

SOURCE: Walter L. Fleming, General W.T. Sherman as College President, p. 173-9

Diary of Gideon Welles: Wednesday, March 29, 1865

The Secretary of State has written me, requesting that J. P. Hale, recently appointed Minister to Spain, should be sent out in a public ship. I have written him in reply that it cannot be done without much inconvenience and expense; that it would be better to send out a purchased steamer with cabin room than to attempt to crowd him and suite on board a man-of-war. The whole scheme is petty foolishness, an attempt on the part of Seward to ingratiate himself with the Abolitionists, whom he privately denounces and ridicules. It is one of those small meannesses which aspiring and not over-scrupulous men sometimes resort to. A shameful prostitution, waste, and wrong.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 268-9