Diary of Gideon Welles: Monday, July 10, 1865

A rainy day. We were to have had an excursion to the Pawnee, the flag-ship of Admiral Dahlgren, but the weather has prevented.

I read to the President two letters from Senator Sumner of the 4th and 5th of July, on the subject of negro suffrage in the Rebel States. Sumner is for imposing this upon those States regardless of all constitutional limitations and restriction. It is evident he is organizing and drilling for that purpose, and intends to make war upon the Administration policy and the Administration itself. The President is not unaware of the scheming that is on foot, but I know not if he comprehends to its full extent this movement, which is intended to control him and his Administration.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 330

Diary of Gideon Welles: Tuesday, May 9, 1865

A proclamation of amnesty proposed by Speed was considered and, with some changes, agreed to.

The condition of North Carolina was taken up, and a general plan of organization intended for all the Rebel States was submitted and debated. No great difference of opinion was expressed except on the matter of suffrage. Stanton, Dennison, and Speed were for negro suffrage; McCulloch, Usher, and myself were opposed. It was agreed, on request of Stanton, we would not discuss the question, but each express his opinion without preliminary debate. After our opinions had been given, I stated I was for adhering to the rule prescribed in President Lincoln's proclamation, which had been fully considered and matured, and besides, in all these matters, I am for no further subversion of the laws, institutions, and usages of the States respectively, nor for Federal intermeddling in local matters, than is absolutely necessary, in order to rid them of the radical error which has caused our national trouble. All laws, not inconsistent with those of the conquerors, remain until changed to the conquered, is an old rule.

This question of negro suffrage is beset with difficulties growing out of the conflict through which we have passed and the current of sympathy for the colored race. The demagogues will make use of it, regardless of what is best for the country, and without regard for the organic law, the rights of the State, or the troubles of our government. There is a fanaticism on the subject with some, who persuade themselves that the cause of liberty and the Union is with the negro and not the white man. White men, and especially Southern white men, are tyrants. Senator Sumner is riding this one idea at top speed. There are others, less sincere than Sumner, who are pressing the question for party purposes. On the other hand, there may be unjust prejudices against permitting colored persons to enjoy the elective franchise, under any circumstances; but this is not, and should not be, a Federal question. No one can claim that the blacks, in the Slave States especially, can exercise the elective franchise intelligently. In most of the Free States they are not permitted to vote. Is it politic, and wise, or right even, when trying to restore peace and reconcile differences, to make so radical a change, — provided we have the authority, which I deny, — to elevate the ignorant negro, who has been enslaved mentally as well as physically, to the discharge of the highest duties of citizenship, especially when our Free States will not permit the few free negroes to vote?

The Federal government has no right and has not attempted to dictate on the matter of suffrage to any State, and I apprehend it will not conduce to harmony to arrogate and exercise arbitrary power over the States which have been in rebellion. It was never intended by the founders of the Union that the Federal government should prescribe suffrage to the States. We shall get rid of slavery by constitutional means. But conferring on the black civil rights is another matter. I know not the authority. The President in the exercise of the pardoning power may limit or make conditions, and, while granting life and liberty to traitors, deny them the right of holding office or of voting. While, however, he can exclude traitors, can he legitimately confer on the blacks of North Carolina the right to vote? I do not yet see how this can be done by him or by Congress.

This whole question of suffrage is much abused. The negro can take upon himself the duty about as intelligently and as well for the public interest as a considerable portion of the foreign element which comes amongst us. Each will be the tool of demagogues. If the negro is to vote and exercise the duties of a citizen, let him be educated to it. The measure should not, even if the government were empowered to act, be precipitated when he is stolidly ignorant and wholly unprepared. It is proposed to do it against what have been and still are the constitutions, laws, usages, and practices of the States which we wish to restore to fellowship.

Stanton has changed his position, has been converted, is now for negro suffrage. These were not his views a short time since. But aspiring politicians will, as the current now sets, generally take that road.

The trial of the assassins is not so promptly carried into effect as Stanton declared it should be. He said it was his intention the criminals should be tried and executed before President Lincoln was buried. But the President was buried last Thursday, the 4th, and the trial has not, I believe, commenced.

I regret they are not tried by the civil court, and so expressed myself, as did McCulloch; but Stanton, who says the proof is clear and positive, was emphatic, and Speed advised a military commission, though at first, I thought, otherwise inclined. It is now rumored the trial is to be secret, which is another objectionable feature, and will be likely to meet condemnation after the event and excitement have passed off.

The rash, impulsive, and arbitrary measures of Stanton are exceedingly repugnant to my notions, and I am pained to witness the acquiescence they receive. He carries others with him, sometimes against their convictions as expressed to me.

The President and Cabinet called on Mr. Seward at his house after the close of the council. He came down to meet us in his parlor. I was glad to see him so well and animated, yet a few weeks have done the work of years, apparently, with his system. Perhaps, when his wounds have healed, and the fractured jaw is restored, he may recover in some degree his former looks, but I apprehend not. His head was covered with a close-fitting cap, and the appliances to his jaw entered his mouth and prevented him from articulating clearly. Still he was disposed to talk, and we to listen. Once or twice, allusions to the night of the great calamity affected him more deeply than I have ever seen him.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 301-4

Diary of Gideon Welles: Wednesday, May 10, 1865

Senator Sumner called on me. We had a long conversation on matters pertaining to the affairs of Fort Sumter. He has been selected to deliver an oration on Mr. Lincoln's death to the citizens of Boston, and desired to post himself in some respects. I told him the influence of the Blairs, and especially of the elder, had done much to strengthen Mr. Lincoln in that matter, while Seward and General Scott had opposed.

Sumner assures me Chase has gone into Rebeldom to promote negro suffrage. I have no doubt that Chase has that and other schemes for Presidential preferment in hand in this voyage. S. says that President Johnson is aware of his (Chase's) object in behalf of the negroes, and favors the idea of their voting. On this point I am skeptical. He would not oppose any such movement, were any State to make it. I so expressed myself to Sumner, and he assented but intended to say the negroes were the people.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 304

Diary of Gideon Welles: Sunday, April 16, 1865

The President and Cabinet met by agreement at 10 A.M. at the Treasury. The President was half an hour behind time. Stanton was more than an hour late. He brought with him papers, and had many suggestions relative to the measure before the Cabinet at our last meeting with President Lincoln. The general policy of the treatment of the Rebels and the Rebel States was discussed. President Johnson is not disposed to treat treason lightly, and the chief Rebels he would punish with exemplary severity.

Stanton has divided his original plan and made the reestablishing of State government applicable to North Carolina, leaving Virginia, which has a loyal government and governor, to arrange that matter of election to which I had excepted, but elaborating it for North Carolina and the other States.

Being at the War Department Sunday evening, I was detained conversing with Stanton. Finally Senator Sumner came in. He was soon followed by Gooch and Dawes of Massachusetts and some two or three others. One or more general officers also came in. Stanton took from his table, in answer to an inquiry from Sumner, his document which had been submitted to the Cabinet and which was still a Cabinet measure.

It was evident the gentlemen were there by appointment, and I considered myself an intruder or out of place. If so, Stanton did not know how to get rid of me, and it seemed awkward for me to leave. The others doubtless supposed I was there by arrangement; perhaps I was, but I felt embarrassed and was very glad, after he had read to them his first programme for Virginia, and had got about half through with the other, when Sumner demanded to know what provision was made for the colored man to vote. A line was brought me at this time by the messenger, which gave me an opportunity to leave.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 290-1

Major-General William T. Sherman to Salmon P. Chase, January 11, 1865

HEADQUARTERS, MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI,                

In the Field, Savannah Jan 11 1865

Hon S. P. Chase.

Washington D. C.

My Dear Sir,

I feel very much flattered by the notice you take of me, and none the less because you overhaul me on the negro question.  I meant no unkindness to the negro in the mere words of my hasty dispatch announcing my arrival on the Coast.  The only real failures in a military sense, I have sustained in my military administration to have been the expeditions of Wm. Sooy Smith and Sturgis, both resulting from their encumbering their columns with refugees. (negroes)  If you understand the nature of a military column in an enemys country, with its long train of wagons you will see at once that a crowd of negroes, men women and children, old & young, are a dangerous impediment.

On approaching Savannah I had at least 20000 negroes, clogging my roads, and eating up our substance.  Instead of finding abundance here I found nothing and had to depend on my wagons till I opened a way for vessels and even to this day my men have been on short rations and my horses are failing.  The same number of white refugees would have been a military weakness. Now you know that military success is what the nation wants, and it is risked by the crowds of helpless negroes that flock after our armies.  Me negro constituents of Georgia would resent the idea of my being inimical to them, they regard me as a second Moses or Aaron.  I treat them as free, and have as much trouble to protect them against the avaricious recruiting agents of the New England States as against their former masters.  You can hardly realize this, but it is true.  I have conducted to freedom & asylum hundreds of thousands and have aided them to obtain employment and homes.  Every negro who is fit for a soldier and is willing I invariably allow to join a negro Regiment, but I do oppose and rightfully too, the forcing of negroes as soldiers.  You cannot know the arts and devices to which base white men resort to secure negro soldiers, not to aid us to fight, but to get bounties for their own pockets, and to diminish their quotas at home.  Mr Secretary Stanton is now here and will bear testimony to the truth of what I say.  Our Quarter master and Commissary can give employment to every negro (able bodied) whom we obtain, and he protests against my parting with them for other purposes, as it forces him to use my veteran white troops to unload vessels, and do work for which he prefers the negro.  If the President prefers to minister to the one idea of negro equality, rather than military success; which as a major [involves] the minor, he should remove me, for I am so constituted that I cannot honestly sacrifice the security and success of my army to any minor cause.

Of course I have nothing to do with the status of the negro after the war.  That is for the law making power, but if my opinion were consulted I would say that the negro should be a free man, but not put on an equality with the whites.  My knowledge of them is practical, and the effect of equality is illustrated in the character of the mixed race in Mexico and South America.  Indeed it appears to me that the right of suffrage in our Country should be rather abridged than enlarged.

But these are matters subordinate to the issues of this war, which can alone be determined by war, and it depends on good armies, of the best possible material and best disciplined, and these points engross my entire thoughts.

With sincere respect & esteem

W. T. Sherman                 

Maj. Genl.

SOURCE: John Niven, Editor, The Salmon P. Chase Papers, Volume 5: Correspondence, 1865-1873, p 6-7

Gerrit Smith’s Speech on the Fort Pillow and Plymouth Massacres: Peterboro, Massachusetts, April 26, 1864.

The whole civilized world will be startled and horrified by this slaughter of probably not less than five or six hundred persons. The excuse in the case of a part of the slaughtered is, that they were traitorous citizens of the Confederacy: in the case of another part, that they were whites fighting by the side of blacks: in the case of the remainder, including women and even children, that they were blacks. That these were blacks, was cause enough why, though numbering three or four hundred, they should be murdered — murdered in utter contempt of all the sacred rights of prisoners of war. It is of the crime against these, I would now speak.

Who are to be held amenable for this crime? The rebels. Yes, but not the rebels only. The authorship of this crime, so matchless in its worst features, is very comprehensive. The responsibility for it is wider than our nation. England shares in the authorship and responsibility, because it was she who planted slavery in America, and because it is slavery out of which this crime has come. Our own nation, however, is the far guiltier one. The guilt of this crime is upon all her people who have contributed to that public sentiment, which releases white men from respecting the rights of black men. Our highest Court says that this satanic sentiment prevailed in the early existence of our nation. Certain it is, that it has prevailed in all the later periods of that existence. Who are they who have contributed to generate it? All who have held that blacks are unfit to sit by the side of whites in the church, the school, the car and at the table. All who have been in favor of making his complexion shut out a black man from the ballot-box. All who have been for making a man's title to any of the rights of manhood turn on the color of the skin in which his Maker has chosen to wrap him. All, in short, who have hated or despised the black man.

Even President Lincoln, whom God now blesses and will yet more bless for the much he has done for his black brethren, is not entirely innnocent of the Fort Pillow and Plymouth massacres. Had his plan of “Reconstruction” recognized the right of the black men to vote, it would thereby have contributed to lift them up above outrage, instead of contributing, as it now does, to invite outrage upon them. By the way, it is a pity that he undertook “Reconstruction.” It was entirely beyond his civil capacity to do so: and it was entirely beyond his military capacity to have a part in setting up any other than a military or provisional government. Moreover, this is the only kind of government which it is proper to set up in the midst of war. The leisure and advantages of peace are necessary in the great and difficult work of establishing a permanent government. In this connection let me advert for a moment to the doctrine, “Once a State always a State” — a doctrine so frequently wielded against “Reconstruction” on any terms. Where is the authority for this doctrine? In the Constitution, it is said. But nowhere does the Constitution say that a State may plunge into war, secure at all hazards from some of the penalties of war. But amongst the penalties of war is whatever change the conqueror may choose to impose upon the conquered territory. I admit that it is very desirable to have all the revolting States reestablished — reinstated. But that there is any law by which this becomes inevitable is absurd. Nowhere does the Constitution say that a State is to be exempt from the operation of the law of war. Nowhere does it undertake to override the law of war. How clear is it, then, that by this paramount law these revolted States will, when conquered, lie at the will of the conqueror! And how clear is it, that it will then turn not at all upon the Constitution, but upon this will of the conqueror, backed by this paramount law of war, whether the old statehood of these States shall be revived, or whether they shall be remanded to a territorial condition, and put upon their good behavior!

There is another instance in which the President has contributed to that cruel public sentiment, which leaves the black race unprotected. I refer to his so strangely long delay in promising protection to the black soldier, and to the even longer and not yet ended delay in affording it. The President is a humane as well as an honest man; and the only explanation I can find for his delay to protect the black soldier and to put an end, so far as in him lies, to the various, innumerable, incessant outrages upon the freedmen is in the continuance of his childish and cowardly desire to conciliate his native Kentucky and the Democratic party.

I argued that even President Lincoln is responsible in some degree for that public sentiment, which invites outrage upon the black man and leaves him a prey to the wicked. Those Members of Congress, who are opposing the reasonable measure of letting the black man vote in the Territories, are also guilty of favoring that public sentiment which broke out in the crime at Fort Pillow and Plymouth. Similarly guilty are those members who would make the pay of a black soldier less than that of a white one. And so are those members who consent to leave a fugitive slave statute in existence. In a word, all should tax their consciences with the sin of this public sentiment and with the resulting crime at Fort Pillow and Plymouth, whose influence, by either word or deed, has been to keep up in this heathen land the caste-spirit—that preeminent characteristic of heathenism. I call this a heathen land. To the Christ-Religion — that simple religion of equal rights and of doing as you would be done by — there can be no greater insult than to call a nation in which, as in this, the most cruel and murderous caste-spirit prevails, a Christian nation.

Both on the right hand and on the left, I hear that our nation is to be saved. But my fears that it will not, often become very strong. That the Rebellion is to be crushed, I deeply believe. Often in the course of Providence a wicked people, which is itself to be afterward destroyed, is previously to be used in destroying another and generally more wicked people. There are striking illustrations of this in the Bible. The duty of abolitionists and anti-abolitionists, Democrats and Republicans, to work unitedly, incessantly, and unconditionally for the overthrow of the Rebellion I have not only never doubted, but ever urged. I hold it to be unpatriotic and even traitorous for the Abolitionists to make any conditions in behalf of their specialty, and to propose, as some of them do, to go against the Rebellion only so far as going against it will be going against slavery. So too are those Democrats unpatriotic and even traitorous who can favor the War, only under the stipulation that it be so conducted as to harm neither the Democratic party nor the Constitution. To put down the Rebellion is an object immeasurably higher than to save a party or to save the Constitution, or even to save the country. No man is right-minded, who would not have it put down, even though it be at the expense of the last man and the last dollar.

If anything makes me doubt that the Rebellion will be crushed it is the omission of Congress to abolish slavery, now when it is so clearly seen that the abolition of slavery is an indispensable means to the abolition of the Rebellion. The proposed Amendment to the Constitution I take no interest in. One reason why I do not, is, that it is not a proposition to abolish slavery now. Another is, that war is not the time to be tinkering at constitutions. I see it denied that Congress has the power, even as a war measure, to abolish slavery. Amazing delusion! There is in every nation an absolute power for carrying on war. The nation that disclaims it may as well give up being a nation. In our own, this power is vested in Congress. Congress is to declare war: and Congress is “to make all laws necessary and proper (itself of course the sole judge of the necessity and propriety) for carrying into execution” the declaration. Is it the institution of apprenticeship, which it finds to be in the way of the successful prosecution of the war — then is it to sweep it out of the way. Is it the abomination of slavery? — then is it to strike at that.

There is, however, one thing more which sometimes, though not often, raises a doubt in me whether the Rebellion will be crushed. It is the premature agitation of the Presidential question. When the Rebellion broke out, I assumed that it would be put down in a few months — for I assumed that this greatest crime against nationality and humanity would arouse and unite the whole North. How greatly was I mistaken Very soon the Democratic party was seen to prefer itself to the country. The Republican party stood by the country. But at the present time there is no little danger that the country may be sacrificed in a strife between the members of the Republican party. For, taking advantage of this strife, the Democratic party may succeed in getting the reins of Government into the hands of one of its pro-slavery peacemakers. But I may be asked — will not the rebels be conquered and the country saved before the next Election? I still hope so — and until the last few months I believed so. But is there not some reason to fear that the North will be wrought up to a greater interest in this year's Presidential than in this year's military campaign In other words, is there not some reason to fear that, for the coming six months, politics instead of patriotism will be in the ascendant?

I still say, as through the past winter I have frequently said, written, and printed — that the Presidential question should not have been talked of, no, nor so much as thought of, until midsummer. The first of September is quite early enough to make the nomination; and in the mean time, undistracted by this so distracting subject, we should be working as one man for the one object of ending the Rebellion — and of ending it before reaching the perils of a presidential election. And such working would best educate us to make the best choice of a candidate. Moreover, it is the condition the country will be in three or four months hence, rather than the condition it is now in, that should be allowed to indicate the choice. Great and rapidly successive are the changes in the circumstances of a country in time of war. To nominate a President in time of peace, six months earlier than is necessary, all would admit to be great folly. But greater folly would it be to nominate him in time of war even a single month earlier than is necessary. The Baltimore Convention is understood to be a movement for renominating President Lincoln, and the Cleveland Convention one for nominating General Fremont. Would that both Conventions were dropped Would indeed that the whole subject were dropped until July or August! — and would too that it were dropped with the understanding, that it should then be taken up, not by the politicians, but by the people!

The people would present a loyal and an able candidate: and whether it were Lincoln or Fremont, Chase or Butler, Dickinson or Dix, the country would be safe.

I recall at this moment the large and respectable meeting for consultation held in Albany last January. What a pity that the meeting took fright at the temperate and timely resolutions reported to it! What a pity that the meeting saw in them danger to the country, or perhaps, more properly speaking, to a party! One of these resolutions and its advocates urged the importance of postponing until the latest possible day the whole subject of a Presidential nomination: and, had it been adopted and published, it would not unlikely have exerted sufficient influence to bring about such postponement. Time has proved the wisdom of the other resolutions also. I wish I could, without seeming egotism, say that slavery, and slavery alone, having brought this war upon us, they, who have given but little thought to slavery, should be too modest to toss aside indignantly and sneeringly the suggestions of those who have made it their life-long study. Were these resolutions now published, almost every man who opposed them, would wonder that he had so little foresight as to oppose them.

And there is still another thing which should perhaps be allowed to suggest a doubt whether the rebellion will be crushed. It is, that we are so reluctant to pay the cost of crushing it. Our brave soldiers and sailors give their lives to this end. But we who stay at home shrink from the money tax which is, and which should be far more largely put upon us. Our nation is imperiled by the incessant outflow of a big stream of gold. Wise and patriotic as he is, our Secretary of the Treasury will nevertheless labor in vain to diminish this stream unless importations shall be taxed far more heavily. Deeply disgraceful are these importations when it is by all that is precious in the very life of our nation that they are forbidden. Surely it is no time now to be indulging in foreign luxuries: and as to necessaries, our own country can furnish them all. Luxuries, whether foreign or domestic, should all come now with great cost to the consumer. And only a small return for protecting their estates from the rebels would it be for the rich to pay over to Government one fourth, and the very rich one half of their incomes. Let me add in this connection that the State Banks should be so patriotic, as to rejoice in the national advantage of an exclusively National currency.

I expressed my belief that the rebellion will be crushed — but my doubt whether the nation will be saved. A guilty nation, like a guilty individual, can be saved through repentance only. But where are the proofs that this nation has so much as begun to repent of the great sin, which has brought the great calamity upon her? She has, it is true, dome much to prove that she regards slavery as a political and economical evil, and a source of great peril to the nation: but she has done exceedingly little toward proving that she has a penitent sense of her sin in fastening the yoke of slavery on ten to twenty millions of this and former generations. It is only here and there — at wide intervals both of time and space — that has been heard the penitent exclamation, “We are verily guilty concerning our brother;” — only at these wide intervals that has been seen any relaxation of the national hatred and scorn for the black man. “Abolitionist,” which, when the nation shall be saved, will be the most popular name in it, is still the most odious and contemptible name in it. That the fugitive slave statute is still suffered to exist, is ample proof that this nation has still a devil's heart toward the black man. How sad that even now, when because of the sin of slaveholding, God is making blood flow like water in this land, there should be found members of Congress, who claim this infernal statute to be one of the rights of slaveholding! As if slaveholding had rights! As if any thing else than punishment were due to it! — punishment adequate to its unmingled, unutterable, and blasphemous wrongs!

I shall, however, be told that slavery will soon be abolished by an Amendment of the Constitution. And what will such an Amendment say? Why, nothing more than that slavery ought not to be — must not be — when it shall no longer be constitutional. What, however, the American people need to say, is, that be it constitutional or unconstitutional, slavery shall not be. So they are always prepared to say regarding murder. But slavery is worse than murder. Every right-minded man had far rather his child were murdered than enslaved. Why, then, do they not affirm that, in no event, will they tolerate slavery any more than murder? The one answer is — because it is the black man, and the black man only, on whom slavery falls. Were white Americans to be enslaved in a Barbary State, or anywhere else, our nation would respect no pleadings of statutes or even of constitutions for their enslavement. In defiance of whatever pleas or whatever restraints, she would release them if she could. The most stupendous hypocrisy of which America has been guilty, is first professing that there is law for slavery — law for that which all law proclaims an outlaw — law for that in which there is not one element of law, but every element of which is an outrage upon law; and second, in professing it, not because she has a particle of belief in it — but simply because blacks instead of whites are the victims of her slavery. America declared that John Brown was “rightly hung.” How hypocritical was the declaration, may be inferred from the fact that had they been white instead of black slaves whom he flung away his life to rescue, she would have honored him as perhaps man has never been honored. And she would have made his honors none the less, but heaped them up all the more, if, in prosecuting his heroic and merciful work, he had tossed aside statutes and broken through sacred constitutions. Oh! if this nation shall ever be truly saved, it will no longer regard John Brown as worthy of the fate of a felon; but it will build the whitest monuments to his memory, and cherish it as the memory. of the sublimest and most Christ-like man the nation has ever produced! Some of the judgments of John Brown — especially such as led him to Harper's Ferry — were unsound and visionary. Nevertheless, even when committing his mistakes, he stood, by force of the disinterestedness and greatness of his soul, above all his countrymen.

Would Congress contribute most effectively to put down the rebellion, and to save the nation by the great salvations of penitence and justice — the only real salvations? Would it do this? — then let it pass, solemnly and unanimously, a resolution that there never was and never can be, either inside or outside of statutes or constitutions, law for slavery; and then another resolution that whoever shall attempt to put the yoke of slavery on however humble a neck, black or white, deserves to be put to death.

A word further in regard to the proposed Amendment. Were the impudent and monstrous claim of its being law set up for murder, no one would propose an amendment of the Constitution forbidding murder. The only step in that case would be to make the penalty for the crime more sure and if possible more severe. Such an amendment would be strenuously objected to, in that it would stain the Constitution with the implication that murder had been constitutional. And now, if we shall have a Constitutional Amendment, which, in terms, forbids slavery, (it is already forbidden by the spirit, principles, and even provisions of the Constitution,) shall we not be virtually admitting to the world and to posterity that this nation had been guilty of tolerating, if not indeed of positively authorizing, in its Constitution the highest crime of earth o God save us from an admission, which shall serve both to stamp us with infamy and to perpetuate the infamy!

PETERBoro, April 26, 1864.

SOURCES: Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 260; Gerrit Smith, Speeches and Letters of Gerrit Smith (from January 1863, to January 1864), on the Rebellion,  Volume 2, p. 7-13

George S. Denison to Salmon P. Chase, November 29, 1862

(Private)

New Orleans, November 29th, 1862.

Dear Sir: — I thank you for your kind letter of the 14th inst. Whenever it is deemed expedient to put another in the place now occupied by me, I should like to be made Surveyor, as you suggest.

Naturally it will be a little painful to occupy the second place in this Custom House where I have so long been first — which I cannot help regarding as, in some sort, created by myself in the midst of great difficulties and in the face of many obstacles — now that the great labor is done and the road is becoming smooth and easy. But that is of little moment and the President and yourself are the only proper judges of what is desirable and expedient.

I cannot recompense your constant kindness to me, except by endeavoring to deserve its continuance.

Now that it seems definitely settled that an old resident of New Orleans is to be made Collector, I can, with propriety, speak to you without reserve upon this, as I always have on all other subjects. In the organization and management of the Custom House, such satisfaction has been given here, that, I have no doubt, I could have secured the appointment of Collector for myself, had I employed the usual arts of office-seekers. Such a course would have been unworthy of myself and a betrayal of the confidence you placed in me — and therefore when prominent Union men offered to use their influence in my favor, their offers were declined.

Mr. Bullitt is an old resident of this City, and is well known here as an honest and kind gentleman — thoroughly loyal — and possessing pleasant social qualities. I have, however, frequently heard Union men express two objections to his appointment, of which the first was that he possessed hardly ordinary business capacity.

The second objection is as follows. Soon after the capture of the City, a few noble men undertook to arouse and organize the Union sentiment. Among these were Mr. Flanders, Judge Heistand, Judge Howell, Mr. Fernandez and others. It was not then a pleasant thing to be a Union man, nor a leader in such an undertaking. Their families were slighted and themselves isolated. They persevered — called meetings, made speeches — organized Union associations — Union home guards, etc. These men have borne the heat and burden of the day and have redeemed this City. The result of their efforts was apparent the other night at the great Union meeting at St. Charles Theater,¹ when the thousands of members of the numerous associations were cheering Abraham Lincoln and Gen. Butler. All this time Mr. Bullitt, instead of being here to help, was in Washington looking after the loaves and fishes — and found them. For thus, Mr. Bullitt's appointment is not popular. Mr. Bouligny has also been much blamed for pursuing the same course.

In the Union movement in this City I am sorry to say that Mr. Randell Hunt and Mr. Roselius have stood aloof — especially the former. On the other hand Mr. Durant, Mr. Flanders and Mr. Rozier have done all that men could do. Mr. Durant and Mr. Rosier [Rozier] are both natives of this State, and are regarded as two of the best lawyers in Louisiana. If Senators are appointed by Gov. Shepley, Mr. Durant will probably be one, and perhaps Mr. Rozier the other.

The election of Representatives to Congress occurs on the third December. Two will be elected — one from each of the two Congressional Districts in our possession. The 1st. Dist. includes the lower half of the City and the country on this side of the River down to the Gulf. The 2nd. Dist. includes the upper half of the City and the country above and the Lafourche. In this 2nd. Dist. the candidates are Mr. Durell, Dr. Cottman and Judge Morgan. I believe they are all good men, but I can form no opinion as to the probable results of the election.

In the lower (1st. Con. Dist.) the candidates are Mr. Bouligny and Mr. Flanders. Mr. Bouligny will have the whole Creole vote and but little more. This creole population is valuable only for their votes. They are half disloyal, but took the oath to avoid confiscation. They feel but little attachment to the Government, somewhat more to the Southern Confederacy — but most of all, to Napoleon III. Unfortunately this population is large in Bouligny's District.

Mr. Flanders is the candidate of the Union Association. He did not want to run but it was urged upon him. Politically Mr. F. is an Abolitionist, but not of the blood-thirsty kind. I hope for his election. The whole real Union sentiment is in his favor. If he goes to Washington, he will let a little daylight into the darkened minds of Pro-slavery Democrats.

As an evidence of the progress of ideas I mention a remarkable resolution passed unanimously by the Union Association recently, in the lower part of the City — which was to the effect — that all loyal men, of proper age, who had taken the oath of allegiance — should be allowed to vote at this coming election. This meant negroes. Members of the Association said that a black man, who was carrying a musket for the Gov't. deserved to vote — much more than secessionists who had sworn allegiance to save their property. It seems to me, that this is too much in advance of the times. The virtuous Seymour and Van Buren have a good deal to say about Radicals. What would they say of the Union men of the South? I will inform you of the result of the election, as soon as possible after it is decided.

The expedition to the salt works (spoken of in my last) failed. The Gunboats could not get up the Bayou, and the troops could not pass through the swamps. They will have to be taken from New Iberia.

The affairs of the Dep't. of the Gulf, are managed with entire honesty, so far as I can perceive. At any rate no trade of any kind with the enemy is permitted. The pressure for permission to renew the trade, has been very great. One man offerred me $50,000 cash, for permission to take salt across the Lake. A sack of salt was worth here $1.25 — across the Lake, $60. to $100. A thousand sacks would be worth $60,000, with which cotton could be bought for 10 cts. per pound and brought here and sold for 60 cts. So that one cargo would be a great fortune. Another man wanted to bring here several thousand bales cotton, but must take back stores. He would give me one fourth of all the cotton brought hither, and there were many other cases — but they make these offers with such skill that it is impossible to get any legal hold on them. I don't know how many offers would have been made, if I had been suspected to be of easy virtue. People here think if a man has a chance to make money, however dishonorably — that he will avail himself of it, of course. I again express the hope that no trade of any kind, with the enemy, will be authorized from Washington.

_______________

¹ On November 14 Military Governor Shepley issued a call for the election of members of Congress on December 3. This Union meeting was held on the 15th of November.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 333-6

Diary of Julia Ward Howe: Wednesday, June 21, 1865

Attended the meeting at Faneuil Hall, for the consideration of reconstruction of the Southern States. Dana made a statement to the effect that voting was a civic, not a natural, right, and built up the propriety of negro suffrage on the basis first of military right, then of duty to the negro, this being the only mode of enabling him to protect himself against his late master. His treatment was intended to be exhaustive, and was able, though cold and conceited. Beecher tumbled up on the platform immediately after, not having heard him, knocked the whole question to pieces with his great democratic power, his humor, his passion, and his magnetism. It was Nature after Art, and his nature is much greater than Dana's art.

SOURCE: Laura E. Richards & Maud Howe Elliott, Julia Ward Howe, 1819-1910, Large-Paper Edition, Volume 1, p. 226

Abraham Lincoln’s Last Speech, April 11, 1865

FELLOW-CITIZENS:— We meet this evening not in sorrow, but in gladness of heart. The evacuation of Petersburg and Richmond, and the surrender of the principal insurgent army, give hope of a righteous and speedy peace, whose joyous expression cannot be restrained. In the midst of this, however, He from whom all blessings flow must not be forgotten.

A call for a national thanksgiving is being prepared, and will be duly promulgated. Nor must those whose harder part gives us the cause of rejoicing be overlooked. Their honors must not be parcelled out with others. I myself was near the front, and had the pleasure of transmitting much of the good news to you. But no part of the honor for plan or execution is mine. To General Grant, his skilful officers, and brave men, all belongs. The gallant navy stood ready, but was not in reach to take active part. By these recent successes, the reinauguration of the national authority — reconstruction — which has had a large share of thought from the first, is pressed much more closely upon our attention. It is fraught with great difficulty. Unlike a case of war between independent nations, there is no authorized organ for us to treat with —no one man has authority to give up the rebellion for any other man. We simply must begin with and mould from disorganized and discordant elements. Nor is it a small additional embarrassment that we, the loyal people, differ among ourselves as to the mode, manner, and measure of reconstruction. As a general rule, I abstain from reading the reports of attacks upon myself, wishing not to be provoked by that to which I cannot properly offer an answer. In spite of this precaution, however, it comes to my knowledge that I am much censured for some supposed agency in setting up and seeking to sustain the new State Government of Louisiana. In this I have done just so much and no more than the public knows. In the Annual Message of December, 1863, and the accompanying proclamation, I presented a plan of reconstruction, as the phrase goes, which I promised, if adopted by any State, would be acceptable to and sustained by the Executive Government of the nation. I distinctly stated that this was not the only plan which might possibly be acceptable, and I also distinctly protested that the Executive claimed no right to say when or whether members should be admitted to seats in Congress from such States. This plan was in advance submitted to the then Cabinet, and approved by every member of it. One of them suggested that I should then and in that connection apply the Emancipation Proclamation to the theretofore excepted parts of Virginia and Louisiana: that I should drop the suggestion about apprenticeship for freed people, and that I should omit the protest against my own power in regard to the admission of members of Congress. But even he approved every part and parcel of the plan which has since been employed or touched by the action of Louisiana. The new Constitution of Louisiana, declaring emancipation for the whole State, practically applies the proclamation to the part previously excepted. It does not adopt apprenticeship for freed people, and is silent, as it could not well be otherwise, about the admission of members to Congress. So that, as it applied to Louisiana, every member of the Cabinet fully approved the plan. The message went to Congress, and I received many commendations of the plan, written and verbal, and not a single objection to it from any professed emancipationist came to my knowledge until after the news reached Washington that the people of Louisiana had begun to move in accordance with it. From about July, 1862, I had corresponded with different persons supposed to be interested in seeking a reconstruction of a State Government for Louisiana. When the message of 1863, with the plan before mentioned, reached New Orleans, General Banks wrote me that he was confident that the people, with his military co-operation, would reconstruct substantially on that plan. I wrote to him and some of them to try it. They tried it, and the result is known. Such has been my only agency in getting up the Louisiana Government. As to sustaining it, my promise is out, as before stated. But as bad promises are better broken than kept, I shall treat this as a bad promise and break it, whenever I shall be convinced that keeping it is adverse to the public interest; but I have not yet been so convinced. I have been shown a letter on this subject, supposed to be an able one, in which the writer expresses regret that my mind has not seemed to be definitely fixed upon the question whether the seceded States, so called, are in the Union or out of it. It would perhaps add astonishment to his regret were he to learn that since I have found professed Union men endeavoring to answer that question, I have purposely forborne any public expression upon it. As appears to me, that question has not been nor yet is a practically material one, and that any discussion of it, while it thus remains practically immaterial, could have no effect other than the mischievous one of dividing our friends. As yet, whatever it may become, that question is bad as the basis of a controversy, and good for nothing at all — a merely pernicious abstraction. We 'all agree that the seceded States, so called, are out of their proper practical relation with the Union, and that the sole object of the Government, civil and military, in regard to those States, is to again get them into their proper practical relation. I believe that it is not only possible, but in fact easier, to do this without deciding or even considering whether those States have ever been out of the Union, than with it. Finding themselves safely at home, it would be utterly immaterial whether they had been abroad. Let us all join in doing the acts necessary to restore the proper practical relations between these States and the Union, and each forever after innocently indulge his own opinion whether, in doing the acts, he brought the States from without into the Union, or only gave them proper assistance, they never having been out of it. The amount of constituency, so to speak, on which the Louisiana Government rests, would be more satisfactory to all if it contained fifty thousand, or thirty thousand, or even twenty thousand, instead of twelve thousand, as it does. It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. Still, the question is not whether the Louisiana Government, as it stands, is quite all that is desirable. The question is, will it be wiser to take it as it is and help to improve it, or to reject and disperse it? Can Louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustaining or by discarding her new State Government? Some twelve thousand voters in the heretofore Slave State of Louisiana have sworn allegiance to the Union, assumed to be the rightful political power of the State, held elections, organized a State Government, adopted a Free State Constitution, giving the benefit of public schools equally to black and white, and empowering the Legislature to confer the elective franchise upon the colored man. This Legislature has already voted to ratify the Constitutional Amendment recently passed by Congress, abolishing slavery throughout the nation. These twelve thousand persons are thus fully committed to the Union and to perpetuate freedom in the State—committed to the very things, and nearly all things, the nation wants — and they ask the nation’s recognition and its assistance to make good this committal. Now, if we reject and spurn them, we do our utmost to disorganize and disperse them. We, in fact, any to the white man: You are worthless or worse; we will neither help you nor be helped by you. To the blacks we say: This cup of liberty which these, your old masters, held to your lips, we will dash from you, and leave you to the chances of gathering the spilled and scattered contents in some vague and undefined when, where, and how. If this course, discouraging and paralyzing both white and black, has any tendency to bring Louisiana into proper practical relations with the Union, I have so far been unable to perceive it. If, on the contrary, we recognize and sustain the new Government of Louisiana, the converse of all this is made true. We encourage the hearts and nerve the arms of twelve thousand to adhere to their work, and argue for it, and proselyte for it, and fight for it, and feed it, and grow it, and ripen it to a complete success. The colored man, too, in seeing all united for him, is inspired with vigilance, and energy, and daring to the same end. Grant that he desires the elective franchise, will he not attain it sooner by saving the already advanced steps towards it, than by running backward over them? Concede that the new Government of Louisiana is only to what it should be as the egg is to the fowl, we shall sooner have the fowl by hatching the egg than by smashing it. [Laughter.] Again, if we reject Louisiana, we also reject one vote in favor of the proposed amendment to the National Constitution. To meet this proposition, it has been argued that no more than three-fourths of those States which have not attempted secession are necessary to validly ratify the amendment. I do not commit myself against this, further than to say that such a ratification would be questionable, and sure to be persistently questioned, while a ratification by three-fourths of all the States would be unquestioned and unquestionable. I repeat the question, Can Louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustaining or by discarding her new State Government? What has been said of Louisiana will apply to other States. And yet so great peculiarities pertain to each ate, and such important and sudden changes occur in the same State, and withal so new and unprecedented is the whole case, that no exclusive and inflexible plan can safely be prescribed as to details and collaterals. Such exclusive and inflexible plan would surely become a new entanglement. Important principles may and must be inflexible. In the present situation, as the phrase goes, it may be my duty to make some new announcement to the people of the South. I am considering, and shall not fail to set, when satisfied that action will be proper.

SOURCE: Henry J. Raymond, The Life and Public Services of Abraham Lincoln, p. 684-7

Charles Sumner to Francis Lieber, May 2, 1865

I read to President Johnson Colonel Baker’s letter,¹ with your introduction. He said at once that he accepted every word of it; that colored persons are to have the right of suffrage; that no State can be precipitated into the Union; that rebel States must go through a term of probation. All this he had said to me before. Ten days ago the chief-justice and myself visited him in the evening to speak of these things. I was charmed by his sympathy, which was entirely different from his predecessor's. The chief-justice is authorized to say wherever he is what the President desires, and to do everything he can to promote organization without distinction of color. The President desires that the movement should appear to proceed from the people. This is in conformity with his general ideas; but he thinks it will disarm party at home. I told him that while I doubted if the work could be effectively done without federal authority, I regarded the modus operandi as an inferior question; and that I should be content, provided equality before the law was secured for all without distinction of color. I said during this winter that the rebel States could not come back, except on the footing of the Declaration of Independence and the complete recognition of human rights. I feel more than ever confident that all this will be fulfilled. And then what a regenerated land! I had looked for a. bitter contest on this question; but with the President on our side, it will be carried by simple avoirdupois.”

_______________

¹ Of North Carolina, late a Confederate officer.

SOURCE: Edward Lillie Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Volume 4, p. 243

Salmon P. Chase to Edwin M. Stanton, May 5, 1865

Beaufort, N.C.  May 5, 1865

My dear Sir,

How would it do to issue an order forbidding the calling of the freedmen, “contrabands”, and the places where they are brought together in camps, “corrals.”  Words are things, & terms implying degradation help to degrade.  Such an order, expressed as you know how, would correct a great evil & help those who need help.

Here and at New Berne I have seen a number of the returned rebels – among them a Senator of the late rebel legislature & a Colonel in the rebel army paroled.  Evidently they would all like that restoration best which would give them most power & place; but they will, just as clearly, accommodate themselves to any mode of reorganization the National Government my think best – even including the restoration to the blacks of the right of suffrage which slavery took from them about thirty years ago.

Sincerely yours

S P CHASE

Hon E. M. Stanton

It is clear to me that the National Government must take or suggest the initiative.

SOURCE: John Niven, Editor, The Salmon P. Chase Papers: Volume 5, Correspondence, 1865-1873, p. 40

Diary of John Hay: November 18, 1864

. . . When the President came in, he called Blair and Banks into his office, meeting them in the hall.

They immediately began to talk about Ashley’s Bill in regard to States in insurrection. The President had been reading it carefully, and said that he liked it with the exception of one or two things which he thought rather calculated to conceal a feature which might be objectionable to some. The first was that under the provisions of that bill, negroes would be made jurors and voters under the temporary governments. “Yes,” said Banks; “that is to be stricken out, and the qualification ‘white male citizens of the United States’ is to be restored. What you refer to would be a fatal objection to the bill. It would simply throw the Government into the hands of the blacks, as the white people under that arrangement would refuse to vote.”

“The second,” said the President, “is the declaration that all persons heretofore held in slavery are declared free. This is explained by some to be, not a prohibition of slavery by Congress, but a mere assurance of freedom to persons actually there in accordance with the Proclamation of Emancipation. In that point of view it is not objectionable, though I think it would have been preferable to so express it.”

The President and General Banks spoke very favorably with three qualifications of Ashley’s Bill. Banks is especially anxious that the Bill may pass and receive the approval of the President. He regards it as merely concurring in the President's own action in the important case of Louisiana, and recommending an observance of the same policy in other cases. He does not regard it, nor does the President, as laying down any cast-iron policy in the matter. Louisiana being admitted and this Bill passed, the President is not estopped by it from recognizing and urging Congress to recognize, another state of the South, coming with constitution and conditions entirely dissimilar. Banks thinks that the object of Congress in passing the Bill at all, is merely to assert their conviction that they have a right to pass such a law, in concurrence with the executive action. They want a hand in the reconstruction. It is unquestionably the prerogative of Congress to decide as to qualifications of its own members:— that branch of the subject is exclusively their own. It does not seem wise, therefore, to make a fight upon a question purely immaterial; that is, whether this bill is a necessary one or not, and thereby lose the positive gain of this endorsement of the President's policy in the admission of Louisiana, and the assistance of that State in carrying the Constitutional Amendment prohibiting slavery.

Blair talked more than both Lincoln and Banks, and somewhat vehemently attacked the radicals in the House and Senate, who are at work upon this measure, accusing them of interested motives and hostility to Lincoln. The President said:— “It is much better not to be led from the region of reason into that of hot blood, by imputing to public men motives which they do not avow.”

SOURCES: Clara B. Hay, Letters of John Hay and Extracts from Diary, Volume 1, p. 250-2; Michael Burlingame & John R. Turner Ettlinger, Editors, Inside Lincoln’s White House: The Complete Civil War Diary of John Hay, p. 252-4.

Charles Eliot Norton to Meta Gaskell, October 2, 1865

Ashfield, October 2, 1865.

My Dear Meta, — . . . After a long silence occasioned by the war I have lately had one or two notes from Ruskin, — the last came in the same mail with your letter, and was in very striking contrast to it. He writes very sadly, and his letters bring sadness to me especially as indications of his failure to understand and sympathize with the ideal side of America. “The war,” he says, “has put a gulph between all Americans and me so that I do not care to hear what they think or tell them what I think on any matter.” It is in vain to try to bring him to comprehend that in spite of all that is wrong and base in our present conditions, in spite of all the evil passions which war has worked, in spite of all the selfishness and conceited over-confidence generated by our marvellous material prosperity, — there is in our national life a counterbalance of devotion to principle, of readiness to sacrifice whatever is required for the maintenance of liberty and human rights, and a real advance toward the fulfilment of the best hopes of man for men. He fancies that our happiness is a delusion, our efforts vanity, and our confidence folly. I believe that we have really made an advance in civilization, that the principles on which our political and social order rest are in harmony with the moral laws of the universe, that we have set up an ideal which may never be perfectly attained, but which is of such a nature that the mere effort to attain it makes progress in virtue and in genuine happiness certain. The character and principles of Mr. Lincoln were essentially typical of the character and principles of the people. The proposition that all men are created equal, — equal that is in certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, — equal as moral and responsible beings, — has sunk deep into the very hearts of this people, and is moulding them in accordance with the conclusions that proceed from it. It is the inspiration and the explanation of our progress and our content. To embody it continually more and more completely in our institutions of government and of society is the conscious or unconscious desire and effort of all good men among us. It is as Mr. Lincoln admirably said, — “A standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly laboured for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colours everywhere.” The war has given us a right, such as we had not before, to trust in the fidelity of the people to the principles of justice, liberty and fair play. And it is because of this just confidence that one need not be disheartened when, as now, there are signs of moral slackness and decline. After the exertions and excitements of the last four years one need not be surprised at a reaction of feeling; and if the high standard of effort is somewhat lowered. The millennium will not come in our time; and peace will not bring rest to those who fight for “the cause” and not for victory.

It seems probable from Mr. Johnson's course that we shall lose some of the best results which might have sprung from the war. Under his scheme of reorganization of the Union it now looks as if the Southern States would come back into the Union with no provision for the securing of any political rights or privileges to the Negro, and no provision for his good-treatment by the former slave-holding and slave-despising class. I fear lest the very freedom which the freedmen have gained, be so limited by state laws and local enactments, that they may be kept in a condition very little superior to slavery. It would take too long to explain and set forth all the grounds for this fear. But on the other hand I have hope that the great social and moral changes that have taken place in the Southern States, the establishment of free speech and a free press in them, the extraordinary demand for labour, the education which the blacks have received in the army and in schools, and above all the future action of political parties in the Northern States, — may all tend gradually but irresistibly to gain for the Negro the full rights of independent and equal citizenship. The discussions and the actions of the few next years on this subject will be of the highest interest and importance.

For the past three or four months the point which has been most discussed in connection with “reconstruction” is that of suffrage for the Negro. The reasons for giving the right of suffrage to the freedmen are as strong as they are numerous, are reasons based upon policy as well as upon principle. I think Negro suffrage could have been easily secured at the end of the war by wise and foreseeing statesmanship. I think it would have been secured had Mr. Lincoln lived; and that it would have been found the most powerful instrument for elevating and educating the blacks, for making them helpful and advancing citizens of the republic, and for introducing a better civilization, and a truer social order than has hitherto existed at the South. But the hour favourable for this has passed, and Negro sufrage will have to be won by a long and hard struggle.

President Johnson has been a slave-holder; he is a theoretical democrat so far as white men are concerned, but his democracy does not extend to the black. He hates, or perhaps I should say hated, slavery because it developed an aristocratic class, not because it was intrinsically wrong. I doubt if he has any strong moral aversion to it, — but he has an immoral distrust of (I will not call it aversion to) the Negro. He holds that he is inferior to the white man, that the white man is to govern, the black to be governed. His influence, is at present, practically thrown against Negro suffrage.  . . . I must bring my political letter to a close before the subject is half exhausted. I will send you the “Nation,” a weekly paper in the establishment of which I have been greatly interested and which will keep you informed of our affairs. You may, I think, rely on the fairness of its statements and the soundness of its opinions. . . .

SOURCE: Sara Norton and  M. A. DeWolfe Howe, Letters of Charles Eliot Norton, Volume 1, p. 284-8

Senator James W. Grimes to E. H. Stiles, September 14, 1865

Burlington, September 14, 1865.

I am astonished to learn, as I do by your letter of the 12th inst., that any one has asserted or believed for one moment that I do not fully, freely, and as enthusiastically as I am capable of doing it, support the entire Republican ticket in the pending canvass. You say the report is that I am indifferent to the result “on account of the uncalled-for and unwise action of the Union convention on the suffrage question.” I certainly did regard that action as uncalled for and impolitic, and had I been a member of the convention I would have opposed the introduction into the platform of any new issue upon any subject, however just I might believe the principle to be. I would have opposed it because I believe that there has been no time during the last four years when it was more necessary that the Union party of the nation should present an unbroken front and stand as a unit, than at the present moment, and I would have done nothing, consented to nothing, that would have a tendency to repel a single voter from a support of the Union party, which is the support of the Union itself. I believe every vote withdrawn at this time from the support of the Union ticket withdraws just that much moral support from the Administration, and that that support is just as necessary to the Government in the present crisis as it was necessary to support our armies when in the field.

The very fact that in my view the convention erred by introducing a local issue into the canvass when the minds of the people are very properly engrossed by the transcendently great national issues pressing upon them, so far from begetting “indifference,” would give me much greater anxiety as to the result of the election, and would call forth a corresponding exertion, did not I know that the people of Iowa thoroughly understand the questions before them, and cannot be diverted from their support of the Government by any side-issue like this of negro suffrage in this State.

There is not an intelligent man in the State who does not fully comprehend all the subjects legitimately embraced in this canvass.

The Union party seek simply to fulfill in good faith their obligations assumed during the war, and to secure to the country as the fruits of four years' struggle permanent unity, peace, and prosperity.

We all know that the Democratic party desire and intend to coalesce with the returned rebels from the South. By that means, if they can succeed in distracting the supporters of the Government and secure a few Northern States, they hope to obtain control of the Government, and then will follow the assumption of the rebel debt, the restoration of slavery under a less odious name, and the return of the leaders of the rebellion to power. It was to this end that the farce was enacted a few weeks ago at Des Moines of nominating a Soldiers' ticket By The Democratic Party.

But of this folly it is hardly worth while to speak. I have neither seen nor heard of a man who is likely to be deceived by it. It is only calculated to make the actors in it ridiculous, and its only final result will be to add one disappointed man to the Democratic party.

No, my dear sir, there never was a time in the history of the Government when it was more incumbent upon every good citizen to support the Union ticket, whatever may be his intentions on the subject of universal suffrage, than now; and if I believed that there was the slightest doubt about the result, though I am admonished by my physician that I can no longer safely speak out-of-doors, as I should generally be compelled to do, I would at once enter personally into the canvass, and use what strength I have to urge upon the people the importance of the contest. But there is no need of it. The people will not be deceived or misled on this subject. The jugglery at Des Moines, when Colonel Benton received the nomination of the men who, during the last four years, have thrown every possible impediment in the way of the Union cause, was too transparent to deceive any one.

SOURCE: William Salter, The Life of James W. Grimes, p. 280-2

Salmon P. Chase* to John Greenleaf Whittier, November 23, 1860

Columbus, Nov. 23, 1860.

My Dear Friend:

I missed no gloves, but presume those left at friend Sparhawk's were mine. I am gratified that you made them useful to the cause and to yourself.

We have indeed great reason to rejoice; for the power of the Slave Interest is certainly broken. What use will be made of the victory, does not so clearly appear. Some indications lead me to apprehend that the wisest and best use will not be made. Great efforts will doubtless be put forth to degrade Republicanism to the Compromise level of 1850.

There are also some serious dangers on the disunion side. I have always regarded the Slavery question as the crucial test of our institutions; and it has been my hope and prayer that a peaceful settlement of this question on the basis, first, of denationalization, and then final enfranchisement through voluntary State action, would establish beyond all dispute the superiority of free institutions, and the capacity of a free Christian people to deal with every evil and peril lying in the path of its progress.

To this end, all needless irritation should be carefully avoided, and much forbearance exercised. The citizens of the Free States have now to suffer injuries, when travelling or temporarily sojourning in Slave States, which, under ordinary circumstances and upon common principles, would, as between independent sovereignties, justify extreme measures. If extreme measures are not resorted to, it is because the people of the Free States love the Union and prefer to forbear. And this is right.

On the other hand, however, the Slave States have, regarding matters from their standpoint, some just causes of complaint. The slaveholders undoubtedly think that they have a right to take their slaves, as property, into the territories and be protected in holding them by Federal power, and nearly all jurists and statesmen, North and South, are agreed that the Fugitive Servant Clause of the Constitution entitles them to have their fugitive slaves delivered up on claim. The Republicans insist, however, that the first demand is not well founded in the Constitution, while some propose what they call a reasonable Fugitive Act in satisfaction of the second, and others, still, refuse to have anything to do with the returning of fugitives, Constitution or no Constitution.

Now two facts seem clear to me; first, that the Constitution was intended to create, and fairly construed, does create an obligation, so far as human compacts can, to surrender fugitives from service; and secondly, that in the progress of civilization and Christian humanity it has become impossible that this obligation shall be fulfilled. With my sentiments and convictions, I could no more participate in the seizure and surrender to slavery of a human being, than I could in cannibalism. Still there stands the compact: and there in the Slave States are fellow citizens, who verily believe otherwise than I do, and who insist on its fulfilment and complain of bad faith in its nonfulfilment: and in a matter of compact I am not at liberty to substitute my convictions for theirs.

What then to do? Just here it seems to me that the principle of compensation may be admitted. We may say, true there is the compact — true, we of the Free States cannot execute it — but we will prove to you that we will act in good faith by redeeming ourselves through compensation from an obligation which our consciences do not permit us to fulfil. Mr. Rhett of S. C. once very manfully denounced the Fugitive Act as unconstitutional, but still insisted on the Constitutional obligation which he summed up in these words "Surrender or Pay." Now, if we say we cannot surrender, but we will pay, shall we not command the highest respect for our principles, and do a great deal towards securing the final peaceful and glorious result which we all so much desire?

There would be some difficulties of detail, if the principle were adopted; but none insuperable.

There is still another plan of adjustment which might be adopted, though I fear that, in the Slave States, and perhaps in the Free States, it would meet with greater objection. It would consist in amendments of the Constitution by which the Slave States would give up the Fugitive Slave Clause altogether, and the Free States would agree to a representation in Congress of the whole population, abrogating the three fifths rule. One advantage of this would be that the Constitution would be freed from all discriminations between persons, and would contain nothing which could, by any implication, be tortured into a recognition of Slavery. Will you think over these matters carefully and give me your ideas upon them?

I have written in much haste, but I think you will understand me. What I have written is too crudely expressed for any but friendly eyes; and I hope that you will let nobody see this letter, except if you think fit, our friend Sparhawk and your sister.

Affectionately and faithfully yours,

S. P. Chase.

John G. Whittibr

_______________

* Of Chase Whittier wrote in 1873 (Prose Works, ii, 278): "The grave has just closed over all that was mortal of Salmon P. Chase, the kingliest of men, a statesman second to no other in our history, too great and pure for the Presidency, yet leaving behind him a record which any incumbent of that station might envy."

The letter is marked “Private and Confidential,” but the occasion for such ceased long ago. It illustrates the difficult situation that had to be faced after the election of Lincoln.

SOURCE: John Albree, Editor, Whittier Correspondence from the Oak Knoll Collections, 1830-1892, p. 134-9

Major General William T. Sherman to Ellen Ewing Sherman, May 10, 1865

CAMP OPPOSITE RICHMOND, May 10, 1865.

I wrote you on arrival from Savannah at Old Point. I got here yesterday and found my Army all in. Have seen Charley,¹ who is very well. We march tomorrow for Alexandria, whither I have sent my office papers. We will march slowly and leisurely and should reach Alexandria in ten or twelve days. I may have chance to write you meantime. I want you to go and attend your Fair, and say little of me, save that I regard my presence with my Army so important that I will not leave it till it is discharged or sent on new duties. I shall surely spend the summer with you, preferably at Lancaster, but will come to Chicago or wherever you may be when I can leave with propriety. This Army has stood by me in public and private dangers, and I must maintain my hold on it till it ceases to exist. All the officers and men have been to see me in camp to-day and they received with shouts my public denial of a review for Halleck.²  He had ordered Slocum's wing to pass him in review to-day. I forbade it. Tomorrow I march through Richmond with colors flying and drums beating as a matter of right and not by Halleck's favor, and no notice will be taken of him personally or officially. I dare him to oppose my march. He will think twice before he again undertakes to stand between me and my subordinates. Unless Grant interposes from his yielding and good nature I shall get some equally good opportunity to insult Stanton. . . .

Stanton wants to kill me because I do not favor the scheme of declaring the negroes of the South, now free, to be loyal voters, whereby politicians may manufacture just so much more pliable electioneering material. The Negroes don't want to vote. They want to work and enjoy property, and they are no friends of the Negro who seek to complicate him with new prejudices. As to the people of the South they are subjugated, but of course do not love us any more than the Irish or Scotch love the English, but that is no reason why we should assume all the expenses of their state governments. Our power is now so firmly established that we need not fear again their internal disturbances. I have papers and statistics which I will show your father in time. I showed some to Charley to-day and he perfectly agreed with me; so do all my officers. . . .

We cannot kill disarmed men. All this clamor after Jeff Davis, Thompson and others is all bosh. Any young man with a musket is now a more dangerous object than Jeff Davis. He is old, infirm, a fugitive hunted by his own people, and none so poor as do him reverence. It will be well in June before I can expect to leave my army. Don't attempt to come to Alexandria for I will be in a common tent, and overwhelmed with papers and business. Ord, Merritt, Crook, and all the big men of Halleck's army have been to see me, and share with me the disgust occasioned by their base betrayal of my confidence. . . .

__________

¹ General Charles Ewing.

² See Memoirs, II, 374. Sherman's refusal to accept Halleck's hospitality in Richmond is recorded on the same page

SOURCES: M. A. DeWolfe Howe, Editor, Home Letters of General Sherman, p. 352-4.  A full copy of this letter can be found in the William T Sherman Family papers (SHR), University of Notre Dame Archives (UNDA), Notre Dame, IN 46556, Folder CSHR 2/24

Major General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, August 9, 1862

LANCASTER, OHIO, Aug. 9, 1865.

Dear Brother:

After I get fixed in St. Louis, I will cast about for some chance to be independent of our Government, for I feel there is a desire to be rid of me. Stanton, in Grant's absence, has ordered one of my chief staff-officers away from me, Beckwith, without as much as “by your leave.” Now this was never done save by Jeff Davis when he was Secretary of War, for orders to the army officers always should go by command of the commander-in-chief, but Stanton orders about as though it was his lawful prerogative. I would resist publicly, but don't want to bring on another controversy. Of course, if my staff-officers are taken away without my being consulted, they will feel little dependence on me, and my influence will subside. But that is a small matter compared with turning the army into a machine auxiliary to politics. If the War Department is to give orders direct to the army below us and not through us, you can see that we are dissolved from all control, responsibility, or interest. The true way is for the War Department to indicate to us what the Administration wants done, and then hold us responsible for the means used. But if the Secretary handles the army behind us, how can we take an interest? My own opinion is the Administration will either break itself down or drive us out. Grant is so anxious for harmony that he will not interfere until it is too late, when he will find somebody else commands instead of him.

I think the agitation of the suffrage question now before the people has got far enough advanced to show how they (the negroes) can make a living, and will give trouble, but we hope still that even that question will be allowed to rest until the forms and shapes of the States South are adjusted. . . . I fear you will all have a burden to carry in the form of Military Governments South, which are awkward and expensive. My command¹ only embraces Arkansas, and there things seem quiet, though I know but little of the actual state of affairs. In no other point of my command do these questions arise.

Yours affectionately,

W. T. SHERMAN.

__________

¹ General Orders No. 118 of June 27, 1865, divided the whole country into nineteen departments and five military divisions, the second of which was the military division of the “Mississippi,” afterwards changed to “Missouri.” This division embraced the Departments of the Ohio, Missouri, and Arkansas, and was to be commanded by General Sherman, with headquarters at St. Louis.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 253-4