Diary of Gideon Welles: Saturday, January 13, 1866

I had this P.M. quite an animated talk with Senator Sumner. He called on me in relation to Semmes. Wished him to be tried on various important points which would bring out the legal status, not only of the Rebels, but their cause. He thinks that many of the important points which we have from time to time discussed, and on which we have generally agreed, might be passed upon by a commission. I am not, however, inclined to make the trial so broad.

Passing from this, we got on to the question of Reconstruction. I was anxious to get an inside view of the movements and purposes of the Radicals, and in order to do this, it would not do to put questions direct to Sumner, for then he would put himself on his guard, and be close-mouthed. I therefore entered into a discussion, and soon got him much interested, not to call it excited. We went over the ground of the status of the States, — their political condition. He, condemning unqualifiedly the policy of the President, said, while he would not denounce it as the greatest crime ever committed by a responsible ruler, he did proclaim and declare it the greatest mistake which history has ever recorded. The President, he said, was the greatest enemy of the South that she had ever had, worse than Jeff Davis; and the evil which he had inflicted upon the country was incalculable. All was to be done over again, and done right. Congress, he says, is becoming more firm and united every day. Only three of the Republican Senators —Doolittle, Dixon, and Cowan — had given way, and he understood about a like proportion in the House. Asked if I had read Howe's¹ speech, which Foot and Fessenden indorsed. Understood Fessenden was as decided as Foot, but, not being on speaking terms, had not himself heard Fessenden. All Congress was becoming of one mind, and while they would commence no war upon the President, he must change his course, abandon his policy. The President had violated the Constitution in appointing provisional governors, in putting Rebels in office who could not take the test oath, in reëstablishing rebellion, odious, flagrant rebellion. Said he had three pages from one general in Arkansas, thanking him for his speech, denouncing the President's "whitewashing" message.

I told him the Executive had rights and duties as well as Congress, and that they must not be overlooked or omitted. That the Rebel States had an existence and would be recognized and sustained although their functions were for a time suspended by violence. That under military necessity, martial law existing and the President being commander-in-chief, provisional governors had been temporarily appointed, but the necessity which impelled their appointment was passing away, the States were resuming their position in the Union, and I did not see how, without abandoning our system of constitutional government, they were to be disorganized, or unorganized, and deprived of their local civil government and the voice of the people suppressed. That he spoke of them as a "conquered people," subject to terms which it was our duty to impose. Were his assumption true, and they a foreign conquered people, instead of our own countrymen, still they had their rights, were amenable to our laws and entitled to their protection; modern civilization would not permit of their enslavement. That were we to conquer Canada and bring it within our jurisdiction, the people would retain their laws and usages when they were not inconsistent with our own, until at least we should make a change. That I thought our countrymen were entitled to as much consideration as the laws of nations and the practice of our own government had and did recognize as belonging to a conquered people who were aliens. That this was the policy of the President. He had enjoined upon them, it was true, the necessity of making their constitutions and laws conform to the existing condition of affairs and the changes which war had brought about. They had done so, and were each exercising all the functions of a State. Had their governors, legislatures, judges, local municipal authorities, etc. We were collecting taxes of them, appointing collectors, assessors, marshals, postmasters, etc.

I saw I had touched on some views that impressed him, and our interview and discussion became exceedingly animated.

"The President, in his atrocious wrong," said Sumner, "is sustained by three of his Cabinet. Seward is as thick-and-thin a supporter of the whole monstrous error as you or McCulloch."

I asked him if he supposed the Cabinet was not a unit on the President's policy. He said he knew it was not. Three of the members concurred with him (Sumner) fully, entirely.

I expressed doubts. "Why," said he, "one of them has advised and urged me to prepare and bring in a bill which should control the action of the President and wipe out his policy. It has got to be done. Half of the Cabinet, as well as an overwhelming majority of the two houses of Congress, are for it, and the President must change his whole course." If he did not do it, Congress would.

_______________

¹ Timothy Otis Howe, Senator from Wisconsin.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 414-7

Diary of Gideon Welles: Monday, January 15, 1866

Was much disturbed by what Sumner said in regard to a member of the Cabinet who had urged him to bring in a bill adverse to the President's policy. Sumner is truthful and therefore his statement is reliable. Although he is credulous, I cannot think he was deceived, nor is he practicing deception. I started out last evening, thinking I would see the President on this subject, but stopped and talked over the matter with Governor Dennison, who proposed to go with me some evening this week.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 417

Charles Sumner to Lord Morpeth, January 8, 1850

The slavery question has become paramount here at last. The slave States threaten to dissolve the Union if slavery is prohibited by Congress in the new Territories or abolished in the District of Columbia. I trust that Congress will do its duty, regardless of threats. What the result may be it is impossible to determine. The Canadian question promises to help antislavery. The annexation of that colony to the United States would 'redress the balance' which has been turned in favor of slavery by the annexation of Texas. I do not observe, however, any disposition at present to interfere in the question between that colony and the imperial government. I am anxious that it should be left to the parties without any intervention. I shall enclose this in a note to a friend now in London,—Mr. Burlingame.¹ Though young in years, he has won a brilliant reputation as a public speaker.

_______________

¹ Anson Burlingame.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 211-2

Charles Sumner to George Sumner, January 8, 1850

You will see by the papers the doings at Washington. The contest on the Speakership is showing its good influence already.¹ The slave-power has received its first serious check, and all parties see that the slavery question is soon to be paramount to all others. General Cass's motion in the Senate² will probably be defeated; it would certainly be a dangerous precedent. Nevertheless, I am so sincerely displeased by the conduct of Austria, I should be willing to see our country depart from its general course of international usage in order to testify its condemnation of what has occurred. But, alas! while we have slavery our voice is powerless. Every word for freedom exposes the horrid inconsistency of our position. The slavery discussion will follow that of the Austrian mission. In the Senate I predict great weight for my friend, the new senator from Ohio, Mr. Chase. He is a man of decided ability, and I think will trouble Calhoun on the slavery question more than any others. He is in earnest, is a learned and well-trained lawyer, and is a grave, emphatic, and powerful speaker."³

_______________

¹ Howell Cobb of Georgia and Winthrop being the Democratic and Whig candidates. Ante, p. 148.

² Looking to a suspension of diplomatic relations with Austria, on account of her treatment of Hungary.

³ Mr. Chase spoke against Clay's Compromise, March 26 and 27, 1850, making the most thorough and spirited speech on that side.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 212

Charles Sumner to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, January 24, 1850

[January 24, 1850.]

DEAR HENRY,

Whittier is here on a short visit. I go to-night with Miss Bremer to hear Wendell Phillips, and to-morrow evening dine out, or I should insist upon taking him [Whittier] to you. He is staying at the Quincy Hotel, in Brattle Street.

I regret the sentiments of John Van Buren about mobs, but rejoice that he is right on slavery. I do not know that I should differ very much from him in saying that we have more to fear from the corruption of wealth than from mobs. Edmund Dwight once gave, within my knowledge, two thousand dollars to influence a single election. Other men whom we know very well are reputed to have given much larger sums. It is in this way, in part, that the natural antislavery sentiment of Massachusetts has been kept down; it is money, money, money, that keeps Palfrey from being elected. Knowing these things, it was natural that John Van Buren should say that we had more to fear from wealth than from mobs. He is a politician,—not a philanthropist or moralist, but a politician, like Clay, Winthrop, Abbott Lawrence; and he has this advantage, that he has dedicated his rare powers to the cause of human freedom. In this I would welcome any person from any quarter.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 212

Charles Sumner to George Sumner, February 18, 1850

You will read the proceedings at Washington. The bluster of the South is, I think, subsiding, though as usual the North is frightened, and promises to give way. I hope to God they will stand firm. There is a small body at Washington who will not yield, the Free Soilers. Hale sustains hinself with great address and ability, but Chase is a person of a higher order of capacity. As to Webster, Emerson calls him a dead elephant !

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 212

Charles Sumner to William Jay, February 19, 1850

I have just read your admirable letter on Clay's resolutions [of compromise].¹ You have done a good work. . . . There is a great advantage which our cause now possesses in the full reports of antislavery speeches in Congress, which are made by the Washington papers. At last we can reach the country, and the slaveholders themselves. The Senate chamber is a mighty pulpit from which the truth can be preached. I think that Mr. Hale and Mr. Chase should in the course of the session present a complete review of slavery, using freely all the materials afforded by the various writings on the subject. In this way, through the “Globe,” “Union,” and “Intelligencer,” a knowledge of our cause may be widely diffused. But we need more men there; we cannot expect everything from two only. We are about to be betrayed by our political leaders. Cannot the people be aroused to earnest, generous action for freedom? I remember with pleasure my visit to your country home, and hope not to be forgotten by your kind family, to whom I offer my best regards.

_______________

² New York "Evening Post," Feb. 20, 1850

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 212

Charles Sumner to William Jay, March 18, 1850

In this moment of discomfiture I turn to you. I am sick at heart as I think of the treason of our public men. Freedom is forgotten in the miserable competition of party and in the schemes of an ignorant ambition. Webster has placed himself in the dark list of apostates. He reminds me very much of Strafford, or of the archangel ruined. In other moods, I might call him Judas Iscariot, or Benedict Arnold. John Quincy Adams, as he lay in his bed in Boston after he was struck with that paralysis which closed his days at Washington, expressed to me a longing to make one more speech in Congress in order to give his final opinions on slavery, and particularly (I now give his own words) “to expose the great fallacy of Mr. Daniel Webster, who is perpetually talking about the Constitution, while he is indifferent to freedom and those great interests which the Constitution was established to preserve.” Alas! that speech was never made. But the work ought to be done. Blow seems to follow blow. There was Clay's barbarous effort, then Winthrop's malignant attack,¹ and now comes Webster's elaborate treason. What shall we do? But I have unbounded faith in God and in the future. I know we shall succeed. But what shall we do?

_______________

¹ Speech in the House, Feb. 21, 1850.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 213

Charles Sumner to George Sumner, March 18, 1850

You have doubtless read Webster's speech. To me it seems a heartless apostasy; its whole tone is low and bad, while its main points are untenable and unsound. I have been glad to observe the moral indignation which has been aroused against it. The merchants of Boston subscribe to it, it is their wont to do such things; but Governor Briggs expressed himself against it in conversation with me, as warmly as I do, and said that the people of Massachusetts would not sanction it. David Henshaw says it is the cunningest and best bid for the Presidency that Webster has ever made. I should not be astonished if he were Secretary of State within a short time. No man can tell how this contest is to terminate. It is clear that there is to be a good deal of speaking before any important votes. I anticipate much from my friend Chase in the Senate. He is an able lawyer, and of admirable abilities otherwise.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 213

Charles Sumner to William Jay, March 23, 1850

I thank you very much for writing that letter on Mr. Webster's speech. It will be read extensively, and will do great good. You expose his inconsistency and turpitude in a manner that must sink into the souls of all who read what you have written. It must sink into the soul of the great apostate. Horace Mann writes that all the Northern Whigs out of the three great cities are against the speech, and will speak against it.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 213

Charles Sumner to William Jay, April 9, 1850

Your letter to the “Advertiser” appeared in that paper last Saturday, the 6th.¹ The paper is sometimes known as “the respectable,” affecting as it does the respectability of Boston.

I am glad to perceive that there is a real hearty difference among the Whigs here with regard to Mr. Webster. The Governor and a large number of prominent gentlemen some of them in Boston, but more in the country—are earnest against his speech, and in private express their opinions.² That long list of names attached to the letter to Mr. Webster shows some remarkable absences, particularly noticeable by all familiar with Massachusetts politics. Our Supreme Court gave judgment yesterday the colored school case against my argument made last November. I lament this very much. Is everything going against us?

_______________

¹ In reply to the Boston "Advertiser's" criticisms on Jay's previous paper on Webster.

² 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. 213-4

Charles Sumner to George Sumner, April 15, 1850

It is evident that there will be a new Cabinet soon. I have for several weeks thought that Webster would be Secretary of State, but I have some reason now to doubt whether Taylor would take him. He wishes to get out of the Senate, and I think desires to be Secretary. He can hardly dare confront the people of Massachusetts at the next election, as he must do if he is a candidate for re-election. The disaffection towards him among leading Whigs of the North, particularly of Massachusetts, is very strong. To me his present position seems deplorable. With all his majestic powers, he is a traitor to a holy cause. Franklin Dexter says strongly that he has deliberately committed a crime.

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

Diary of Gideon Welles: Thursday, December 28, 1865

Senator Morgan tells me that Sumner grows more radical and violent in his views and conduct on the subject of reëstablishing the Union, declares he will oppose the policy of the Administration, and acts, Morgan says, as if demented. It has been generally supposed that Wilson would occupy a different position from Sumner, but Morgan says they will go together. Morgan himself occupies a rather equivocal position. That is, he will not, I am satisfied, go to the extreme length of Sumner. Yet he does not frankly avow himself with the President, nor does he explicitly define his opinions, if he has opinions which are fixed. He was one of the sixteen in the Republican caucus who opposed Stevens's joint resolution, while fourteen supported. As there must, I think, be a break in the Administration party, Morgan will be likely to adhere, in the main, to the Administration, and yet that will be apt to throw him into unison with the Democrats, which he will not willingly assent to, for he has personal aspirations, and shapes his course with as much calculation as he ever entered upon a speculation in sugar.

He says Grimes told him that Harlan was expecting to be President. Not unlikely, and Grimes himself has probably similar expectations. So has Morgan, and so have a number of Senators and Representatives as well as other members of the Cabinet. Both Seward and Stanton are touched with the Presidential fever, or rather have the disease strong in their system.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 405

Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, December 29, 1865

Dennison and Speed were not at the Cabinet council to-day. Not much was done. Stanton has got back, and in some allusions to Sumner appeared to think him as absurd and heretical as any of us. Of course, some one is cheated. Seward is preparing to take a cruise, and will leave to-morrow for the West Indies in the steamer De Soto. There has been much mystery in this premeditated excursion. I am amused and yet half-disgusted with Seward's nonsense. He applied to me some weeks since for a public naval vessel to proceed to Havana, and perhaps beyond. Without inquiries, I take it for granted he goes on public business, or he would not ask for a public vessel, for I told him that we had not one ready, but would have one if necessary. When it was settled he should have a vessel, he talked of a family excursion. Wanted relaxation, wanted Fred should go, said he wanted to get away from the receptions, etc., of the New Year. There is not a man in Washington who is more fond of these parades. Another time he whispers to me that Congress will try to raise the devil, and their fiercest guns will be directed to us. He prefers to be out of the way and let them spend their wrath. Once or twice he has said to me that his intention is to visit Mexico. To-day he took me aside and made some inquiries about St. Thomas, which during the war I had said might be a desirable acquisition as a coaling station and central point in the West Indies. His action and talk indicate anticipated trouble and perhaps complications, the development or dénouement of which he cares not to be here to witness. From his conversation to-day, it would seem he expects no embarrassment from France. Without any distinct and explicit committal on the "Reconstruction" question, he means, in Cabinet, to be understood as with the President, and Sumner so understands. His man Raymond went off at first with Stevens and the Radicals, but after having been harnessed in that team, he has jumped out of the traces. Interest, patronage, Seward's influence have caused this facing about and may compel him to act with the Administration; but he is unreliable. I have so told the President, yet I am glad to have him move in the right direction.

I submitted Semmes's case again in Cabinet. Told the President he was here, and had some conversation, general in its character, as to what should be done with him, without any other indication than approval, but no suggestion.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 405-7

Diary of Gideon Welles: Saturday, December 30, 1865

The closing-up of the year, an eventful one. A review of it from my standpoint would be interesting in many respects, and, should God grant me length of days and mental and physical strength, I shall be glad to present my views when my official days have terminated. Senator Dixon called this morning, and we had a long and frank talk. I approved of his course in the Senate, and his reply to Sumner. He is evidently prepared for a breach in the party, and I think desires it. While I do not desire it, I do not deprecate it if the counsels of Sumner, Stevens, and the extreme Radicals are insisted upon and the only alternative. His principal inquiry was as to the course our friends in Connecticut would pursue in case of a breach of the party. I told him I thought they would be disposed to stand by the Administration, yet at the first go-off the Radical element might have the ascendancy in the State convention, which would assemble in about a month. But before that time the lines would probably be drawn. The organization or party machinery will control most of the party, irrespective of the merits of the questions in issue.

I gave Colston, Semmes's son-in-law, a pass to visit him to-day, and take the papers and the report of Winslow to him. Had a conversation with Dr. Lieber, who was at my house yesterday, respecting Semmes's offenses. The Doctor has no question on that point, and thinks Lee and the whole of his army liable for treason, notwithstanding Grant's terms. Advised Solicitor Bolles to call on Dr. L. Bolles thinks the trial of Semmes should be by a military or naval commission instead of by court martial.

The President sends a singular paper for a new trial of Captain Meade, who has already been tried and is under sentence of court martial. I know not how he can be again tried for the same offense, unless he himself petitions for it.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 407

Lieutenant-General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, September 12, 1867

HEADQUARTERS, OMAHA, NEB., Sept. 12, 1867.

Dear Brother:

*          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *

As to politics, I hardly know if I should approach Grant, as I can hardly judge of the influences that have operated on him since we were together last November. In accepting the acting office of Secretary of War, I doubt not he realized the delicacy of his position, and was willing to risk the chances. It is not for the interest of the United States that in a temporary political office he should sink his character as a military officer. In the former he should be in harmony with the executive, but in the latter he should be simply a high sheriff to execute the process of the court. My belief is that Congress cannot qualify the President's right to command the army and navy. He is the Constitutional Commander-in-Chief. But Congress can make rules and laws for the government of the army and thereby control the President as such Commander-in-Chief. In trying to array the President and General Grant in antagonism, Congress did wrong, and reaction is sure to result. It damages all parties, because few people take the trouble to study out the right, yet time moves along so rapidly and the election of a new President will soon settle these and all kindred questions. Your course has been fair, and you cannot wish to alter or amend it. Our country ought not to be ruled by the extreme views of Sumner or Stevens any more than by the extreme views of Calhoun, Yancey, etc., that have produced our Civil War. There is some just middle course, and events will flow into it whether any one man or set of men is wise enough to foresee it and lay down its maxims. I think Chase is the ablest man of his school, and I would personally prefer him to Wade, Colfax, or any of the men whose names I notice in this connection. Whether the precedent of a Chief Justice being a political aspirant may not be bad, I don't know. This is the Mexican rule, and has resulted in anarchy.

I don't think Grant, Sheridan, Thomas, or any real military man wants to be President. All see that, however pure or exalted their past reputations may have been, it don't shield them from the lies and aspersions of a besotted press. . . . Grant writes me in the most unreserved confidence, and never has said a word that looks like wanting the office of President. His whole nature is to smooth over troubles, and he waits with the most seeming indifference, under false and unjust assertions, till the right time, when the truth peeps out, so as to defy contradiction. . . .

Affectionately,

W. T. SHERMAN.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 294-5

Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, December 8, 1865

Sumner called on me with young Bright. We had quite a talk on the policy of the Government, and his own views. Sumner's vanity and egotism are great. He assumes that the Administration is wholly wrong, and that he is beyond peradventure right; that Congress has plenary powers, the Executive none, on reestablishing the Union. He denounced the policy of the President on the question of organizing the Rebel States as the greatest and most criminal error ever committed by any government. Dwelt on what constitutes a republican government; says he has read everything on the subject from Plato to the last French pamphlet. Tells me that a general officer from Georgia had informed him within a week that the negroes of that State were better qualified to establish and maintain a republican government than the whites. He says that Seward, McCulloch, and myself are the men who have involved the President in this transcendent error, I, a New England man, New England's representative in the Cabinet, have misrepresented New England sentiment. McCulloch was imbued with the pernicious folly of Indiana, but Seward and myself were foully, fatally culpable in giving our countenance and support to the President in his policy.

I insisted it was correct, that the country aside from heated politics approved it, and asked if he supposed there was any opposition to that policy in the Cabinet. He said he knew Stanton was opposed to it, and when I said I was not aware of it, he seemed surprised. He asked if I had read his Worcester speech. I told him I had but did not indorse it. He replied, "Stanton does." "Stanton," said he, "came to Boston at that time; the speech was thrown into the cars, and he had read it before I met him. Stanton complimented the speech. I said it was pretty radical or had pretty strong views. Stanton said it was none too strong, that he approved of every sentiment, every opinion and word of it."

I told Sumner I did not understand Stanton as occupying that position, and I apprehended the President did not so understand him. I told him that I well recollected that on one occasion last spring, when I was in the War Department, he and Dawes and Gooch came in there. He said, "Yes, and Colfax was there." "I recollect he was. Stanton took out his project for organizing a government in North Carolina. I had heard it read on the last day of Mr. Lincoln's life, and had made a suggestion respecting it, and the project had been modified. Some discussion took place at the War Department on the question of negro suffrage. Stanton said he wanted to avoid that topic. You [Sumner] wanted to meet it. When that discussion opened I left, for I knew I could not agree with you."

Sumner said he well recollected that meeting; that he and Colfax had proposed modifications of the plan and put it in an acceptable shape, but that we had upset it. One other member of the Cabinet had written him a few days before he left home expressing sympathy with him, and one other had spoken equally cordially to him since he arrived here. "You may have had a letter from Speed," I remarked. "No," said he, "but Speed has had a conversation with me."

I think Harlan must be the man, yet my impressions were that Harlan held a different position. Perhaps Iowa has influenced him. Our conversation, though earnest, was not in anger or with any acrimony. He is confident that he shall carry Stevens's resolution through the Senate, and be able to defeat the President in his policy.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 393-5

Diary of Gideon Welles: Monday, December 11, 1865

I gave the President a full relation of my interview with Sumner. He was much interested and maintains well his position. I think they will not shake him. Sumner sent me through the mail a newspaper containing a memorial for the impeachment of the President. He marked and underscored certain passages which he said wrote on the margin were answers to some of my questions put to him in our conversation. The attack upon the President is coarse and unworthy of a thought.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 395

Diary of Gideon Welles: Tuesday, December 12, 1865

Not a very long session of the Cabinet. Some conversation in regard to the Rebel leaders led me to inquire whether it might not be best to parole Mallory, who has written me personally. He offers to make disclosures and assist in reëstablishing Union feeling. Stanton objected; says Judge Holt advises his trial, etc.

Senator Nye called and had a long talk with me, chiefly in regard to the Rebels. Is pretty strongly touched with the Sumner notions, but seems disposed to recant and consider suggestions. To him and others I have stated my objections to the Stevens resolution. Most of the Members have said their principal object was to have the two houses in perfect accord and of one mind. I have declared this an indirect attempt to defeat or evade the Constitution, which intended separate action. Hence the two branches. This proposed committee, I maintain, is revolutionary and calculated to promote, if not designed to create, alienation and sectional parties. Nye says the resolution will be disemboweled and of little moment, but Nye himself is unreliable.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 395-6

Diary of Gideon Welles: Saturday, December 16, 1865

Senator Sumner called again this evening. He is almost beside himself on the policy of the Administration, which he denounces with great bitterness. The President had no business to move, he says, without the consent and direction of Congress. I asked him if the Southern States were to have no postmasters, no revenue officers, no marshals, etc. I said to him: "There are two lines of policy before us. One is harsh, cold, distant, defiant; the other kind, conciliatory, and inviting. Which," said I, "will soonest make us a united people?" He hesitated and gave me no direct answer, but said the President's course was putting everything back. This I told him was a general assertion; that conciliation, not persecution, was our policy, and therein we totally disagreed with him.

It was not right to accuse him, he said, of a persecuting spirit. He had advised clemency, had taken ground against the execution of Jefferson Davis, and asked if I was opposed to his being hung. I told him that I was not prepared to say that I was, and while he was so charitable towards Davis, he was very different toward all others South, though a large portion of the people were opposed to secession. I stated to him the views of General Grant, who had found the people disposed to acquiesce and become good citizens, that he found those who had been most earnest and active in the Rebellion were the most frank and thorough in their conversion. Governor McGrath admitted his error, was satisfied slavery was a curse, had no wish for its restoration; but Governor Aiken, who has been passively loyal during the whole years of the war, was wanting some apprentice system, introduction of coolies, or some process for legal organized labor. While McGrath had made great advances, Aiken had made none. Sumner wanted to know what Grant's opinion was worth as compared with Chase's. I valued it highly, for it seemed to me practical common sense from a man of no political knowledge or aspiration, while Chase theorized and had great political ambition.

Sumner closed up with a violent denunciation of the provisional governors, especially Perry and Parsons, and said that a majority of Congress was determined to overturn the President's policy.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 397-8