Diary of Gideon Welles: Saturday, February 17, 1866

Governor Morgan called this morning on matters of business. Had some talk on current matters. He says Tennessee Representatives will be admitted before the close of next week; that he so told Wilson and Sumner yesterday, whereat Sumner seemed greatly disturbed. From some givings-out by Morgan, intimations from Truman Smith, and what the President himself has heard, I think there is a scheme to try and induce him to surrender his principles in order to secure seats to the Tennessee delegation. But they will not influence him to do wrong in order to secure right.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 434

Congressman Horace Mann to Samuel Downer, March 1850

MARCH, 1850.

To S. DOWNER.

MY DEAR FRIEND,—Mr. Webster astonished almost all Northern men here. We are recovering from the shock; but it was a severe one. It was as unexpected as it was astounding. It may seem egotistic in me; but I wish I had not spoken till after he did. I should have liked to ask him how he knows that God has Wilmot provisoed New Mexico. Has he had any new revelation since the North-west Territory needed provisoing, since Wisconsin needed it, since Oregon needed it? Indiana came near being a slave State, proviso and all; and would have been so, if Congress had not rejected her petition, John Randolph, of Virginia, making the report. Has God Wilmot-provisoed the whole belt of country from the eastern side of Delaware to the western side of Missouri, any more than he has New Mexico? and, if so, why has not his proviso taken effect? Is there not a vast region of those States that lies far north of the greater part of New Mexico? Has Mr. Webster any geological eyes by which he has discovered that there are no mines in New Mexico which could be profitably worked by slaves? If predial slavery cannot exist there, cannot menial? Does not slavery depend more on conscience than on climate? If individuals do not desire to carry slavery into New Mexico for personal profit, may not communities and States desire it for political aggrandizement?

As to fugitive slaves, I need say nothing. While Massachusetts citizens are imprisoned in Southern ports, I think fugitive slaves will be gentlemen at large in Massachusetts.

But the offer to give eighty millions received and a hundred and eighty millions expected to be received from the public lands to transport free negroes to Africa, and thereby to give increased value to slaves and increased security to slave property, is atrocious.

Now, would to God that you Free-soilers were not a separate organization! With what power such men as S. C. Phillips, G. Palfrey, William Jackson, and Sumner, could act upon the Whigs, if they were not alienated from them! For Heaven's sake, heal this breach, instead of widening it, and bring the whole force of the North to bear in favor of freedom!

With best love for your wife and your babes and yourself, I am very truly and sincerely yours,

H. MANN.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 297-8

Charles Sumner to John Bigelow, October 4, 1850

Our Free Soil convention was very spirited. The resolutions are pungent, and cover our original ground. On this we shall stand to the end. I rejoice in the rent in New York Whiggery. If the Barnburners and Sewardites were together, there would be a party which would give a new tone to public affairs.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 218

Charles Sumner to Congressman Charles Allen, October 15, 1850

Nothing is clearer to me than this. Our friends should if possible secure the balance of power in the Legislature, so as to influence the choice of senator. Some are sanguine that we can choose one of our men. I doubt this; but by a prudent course, and without any bargain, we can obtain the control of the Senate. We can then at least dictate to the Whigs whom they shall send. But this cannot be done except by thinning the Whig ranks. I fear that the course in Middlesex¹ will jeopard Palfrey's position and our whole movement. I wash my hands of it.

_______________

¹ Opposition to union between Democrats and Free Soilers for the election of members of the Legislature, led by Samuel Hoar, R. H. Dana, Jr., and Anson Burlingame. It proved ineffective against the strong current in favor of union.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 218-9

Charles Sumner to Congressman Horace Mann, October 30, 1850

The enemy has done his work, by skill, determination, will, backbone.¹ It is as I have feared. On your account and for your personal comfort, I regret this; but in this act I see the madness which precedes a fall. The Whigs will certainly be overthrown in the State. There is an earnest desire now that you should at once take the field. You can speak ten or twelve times before the election, and everywhere will rouse the people. In what you say be careful not to disturb the Democrats. They are desirous of an excuse for supporting you. Speak directly to the slavery question, and vindicate its importance, and the constitutionality of our opposition. The Free Soil committee here wish to see you, in order to arrange a series of meetings without delay.

_______________

¹ Mann's loss of a renomination to Congress in the Whig convention of his district.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 219

Charles Sumner to Mr. Wilson, September 9, 1850

NEWPORT, R. I., September 9, 1850.

My Dear Sir—I regret that it will not be in my power to attend the meeting of our friends at the Adams House.

I am unwilling to intrude my opinion with regard to the points in question; but I cannot forbear urging two things of essential importance, first, our principles; and second, harmony among ourselves.

Nobody would propose an abandonment of our principles; but there may be a difference of opinion as to the most effective way of maintaining them. For myself I should incline against any departure from our customary course which did not enlist the sympathies of all who have thus far acted together in our movement.

I see no objection, in point of principle, to unions in towns, and also in counties, such as took place last autumn. Dr. Palfrey has vindicated these in a manner difficult to be answered, in his 'Letter to a Friend,' recently printed.

If such unions should take place, it is possible that the general politics of the State might be changed.

But it seems to me a step of questionable propriety for our State committee, or any number of Free Soilers, to enter into an arrangement or understanding with the Democrats as to the disposition of offices.

As at present advised, I should be unwilling to be a party to any such bargain. All that we could properly do would be to make the unions in the towns and counties if practicable, and upon the whole deemed best, and to leave the future to the discretion of the men who should be chosen, without any bargain of any kind.

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

SOURCES: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 222-3; “Notes and Incidents.—Two Recent Letters from Mr. Sumner—A Touching Testimonial, Etc.,” The Boston Globe, Boston, Massachusetts, Tuesday, March 17, 1874, p. 5

Diary of Gideon Welles: January 30, 1866

I had another long talk with Senator Sumner, who called on me on Saturday. It was of much the same purport as heretofore. He is pleased with a speech of Secretary Harlan, made the preceding evening, which I had not then read, and said it came up to the full measure of his requirements. "Then," said I, "he probably is that member of the Cabinet who has been urging you to bring in a bill to counteract the President's policy." "No," said Sumner, "it was not Harlan but another member. There are," continued he, "four members of the Cabinet who are with us and against the President." "Then," replied I, "you must include Seward." This he promptly disclaimed. I told him he must not count Dennison. He was taken aback. "If you know from D.'s own mouth,—have it from himself, I will not dispute the point," said Sumner. I told him I knew D.'s views, that last spring he had, at the first suggestion, expressed himself for negro suffrage, but that he had on reflection and examination come fully into the President's views. He replied that he had known

D.'s original position and had supposed it remained unchanged. Sumner told me he should make a very thorough speech this week on the great question—the treatment of the States and people of the South—but should avoid any attack on the President; would not be personal. Tells me that Governor Hamilton of Texas has written him imploring him to persevere.

I am afraid the President has not always been fortunate in his selection of men. Either Hamilton is a hypocrite or there is a bad condition of things in Texas. The entire South seem to be stupid and vindictive, know not their friends, and are pursuing just the course which their opponents, the Radicals, desire. I fear a terrible ordeal awaits them in the future. Misfortune and adversity have not impressed them.

Have had much canvassing and discussion of Semmes's case with Solicitor Bolles, Mr. Eames, Fox, and others, and to-day took the papers to the Cabinet. When I mentioned the purport of the documents, which were somewhat voluminous, the President proposed that he and I should examine them together before submitting them to the Cabinet and thus save time. After going over the papers with him, he expressed a desire to leave the whole subject in my hands to dispose of as I saw proper. I remarked that the questions involved were so important that I preferred the course taken should be strictly administrative, and I wished to have the best authority, and careful and deliberate consideration and conclusion. The offenses charged being violation of the laws of war, I thought our action should be intelligent and certain. The President said he had confidence in my judgment and discretion, inquired why a purely naval court martial could not dispose of the subject. He exhibited a strong disinclination to commit the case to the military, and was more pointed and direct on that subject than I have before witnessed. He requested me to take the papers and consult such persons as I pleased and report in due time.

We had some general conversation on the tone and temper of Congress and the country. The President is satisfied that his policy is correct, and is, I think, very firm in his convictions and intentions to maintain it. The Radicals who are active and violent are just as determined to resent it.

I took occasion to repeat what I have several times urged, the public enunciation of his purpose, and at the proper time, and as early as convenient or as there was an opportunity, to show by some distinct and emphatic act his intention to maintain and carry into effect his administrative policy. That while a conflict or division was not sought but avoided, there should be no uncertainty, yet a demonstration which should leave no doubt as to his determination. On this we concurred.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 419-21

Charles Sumner to John Jay, May 13, 1850

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

_______________

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

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

Charles Sumner to Lord Morpeth, May 21, 1850

The same steamer that takes this note will carry our friend Prescott to see and enjoy English life. In long gossips together, recently, we have talked much of you, on whose friendship he counts. Our politics are full of vile. The question of opposing the extension of slavery into territories now free should have united all the North, and I would say the South, too. But one politician after another has given way to slaveholding urgency, until at last Daniel Webster gave way. His intellect is mighty, but “unstable as water, thou shalt not excel.” His excuse for waiving a prohibition of slavery in the new territories is that by a law of “physical geography,” of “the formation of the earth,” slavery cannot go there, thus arguing blindly from physical premises to moral conclusions. In his recent course he shows the same obliquity, amounting to incapacity for moral distinctions, which led him to tell me, two or three years ago, that on deliberately reviewing his correspondence with Lord Ashburton, among all those documents he was best satisfied with the Creole letter.¹ I wanted to tell him, “That letter, dying, you will wish to blot.”

_______________

¹ Ante, vol. ii. pp. 193, 194, 205.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 214-5

Charles Sumner to John Bigelow, of the New York Evening Post, May 22, 1850

Only a week ago, in overhauling old pamphlets, a part of my patrimony, I found the actual memorial to Congress¹ reported by the committee of which Mr. Webster was chairman, and I determined to send it to you, on reading your article this morning. I have also examined the files of Boston papers at the Athenæum, and enclose a memorandum from them which may be interesting. The memorial is reputed to be the work of Mr. Webster. The close is marked by his clear and cogent statement. Why it was not preserved in the collection of his “Opera,” which was first published ten or fifteen years later, I know not. Perhaps he had already seen that he might be obliged, in the pursuit of his ambition, to tread some steps backward, and did not wish to have a document like this, accessible to all, in perpetual memory of his early professions. If you follow him up on this point, read in this connection the latter part of his Plymouth address, the earliest of his orations in the published volume. At this time he seemed to have high purposes. I wonder that the noble passage about the Ordinance, in his first speech in the Hayne controversy, has not been used against his present tergiversation. There is another document which might be used effectively against him, the address of the Massachusetts Anti-Texas State convention in January, 1845, the first half of which was actually composed by Mr. Webster, partly written and partly dictated. In this he takes the strongest ground against the constitutionality of the resolutions of annexation. Then followed his speech, Dec. 22, 1845, in the Senate, against the admission of Texas with a slaveholding constitution. If the faith of the country was pledged, as he now says it was, by these resolutions when they were accepted by Texas, he was obliged, according to his present argument about the four States, to vote for her admission with or without slavery; but his vote stands nay. But it would be a long work to expose his shiftless course,— “everything by starts, and nothing long.” Mr. Leavitt, of the “Independent,” talks of taking him in hand, and exposing the double-dealings of his life. I wish he might do it through the “Post.” When you have done with the pamphlet, please return it. Of the committee who reported it were George Blake, now dead, who was a leading Republican; Josiah Quincy, Federalist, late President of Harvard College; James T. Austin, Republican, late Attorney-General of Massachusetts; and John Gallison, a lawyer, who died soon after, but of whom there are most grateful traditions in the profession, admired particularly the article on Webster, written shortly after the speech. It must have been done by Mr. Dix.² Aut Erasmus aut Diabolus. I cannot forbear expressing the sincere delight with which I read your paper. Its politics have such a temper from literature that they fascinate as well as convince.

_______________

¹ of the citizens of Boston in 1819 in favor of the prohibition of slavery in territories and new States. Sumner's letter was the basis of a leader by Mr. Bigelow in the New York "Evening Post," May 23, 1850.

² John A. Dix. Sumner was probably at fault in this conjecture.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 215-6

Charles Sumner to William Jay, June 1, 1850

I am glad of your new appeal. Like everything from you, it is careful, logical, clear, and with a practical bearing on the times. I am inclined to believe with you that under the Constitution the duty of surrendering fugitive slaves is imposed upon the States; but there is great difficulty in assuming this point in the face of a solemn decision of the Supreme Court. If that decision were out of the way, I think it could be easily vindicated the States. Mr. Chase in his masterly speech has touched this point strongly.

You have doubtless read Webster's recent wicked letter.¹ There is a diabolism in it beyond even that of his speech. He seeks to assimilate the cases of fugitives from justice and fugitive slaves under the Constitution; and because the former cannot claim the trial by jury where they are seized, “argal” slaves cannot ! But the Constitution, by its peculiar language, settles this point. Look at the express words of the two clauses. Here ex vi termini the question whether service or labor be due must be determined, as a condition precedent, before the person can be delivered up. Of course, this must be determined in the State where he is found, and not in that to which he may be transported.

The feeling against Webster among many of his old Whig partisans continues to hold out. At present it seems as if there must be another split in the Whig party here. The systematic efforts now making to suppress all discussion of this great question, the increasing malevolence towards the friends of freedom, and the treachery and apostasy of men, small as well as great, are in themselves most disheartening. Still, I know the cause is right, and as sure as God is God must prevail.

_______________

¹ To Citizens of Newburyport, May 15, 1850.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 216

Charles Sumner to George Sumner, June 25, 1850

The recent outrageous expedition against Cuba¹ has dishonored us before the world. My own impression is that it [Clay's Compromise] will pass through the Senate; and this is founded on two things: first, Clay is earnest and determined that it shall pass; he is using all his talents as leader; and, secondly, the ultra-Southern opposition, I think, will at last give way and support it, at least enough to pass the measure. If Webster had willed it, he might have defeated it.

_______________

¹ The second attempt of Lopez.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 216

Charles Sumner to Richard Cobden, July 9, 1850

The slaveholders are bent on securing the new territories for slavery, and they see in prospective an immense slave nation embracing the Gulf of Mexico and all its islands, and stretching from Maryland to Panama. For this they are now struggling, determined while in the Union to govern and direct its energies; or if obliged to quit, to build up a new nation slaveholding throughout. They are fighting with desperation, and have been aided by traitors at the North. Webster's apostasy is the most barefaced. Not only the cause of true antislavery is connected with the overthrow of the slave propaganda, but also that of peace. As soon as it is distinctly established that there shall be no more slave territory, there will be little danger of war. My own earnest aim is to see slavery abolished everywhere within the sphere of the national government,—which is in the District of Columbia, on the high seas, and in the domestic slave-trade; and beyond this, to have this government for freedom, so far as it can exert an influence, and not for slavery. When this is accomplished, then slavery will be taken out of the vortex of national politics; and the influences of education and improved civilization, and of Christianity, will be left free to act against it in the States where it exists.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 216-7

Charles Sumner to John Bigelow, September 2, 1850

You inquire about Eliot.¹ He is an honest and obstinate man, but essentially Hunker in grain. In other days and places he would have been an inquisitor. He dislikes a Democrat, and also a Free Soiler, as the gates of hell; still he is not without individual sympathies for the slave. I doubt if he can be a tool; besides, personally, he has little confidence in Webster. The attack here is just now most bitter upon Horace Mann. The substance of his “Notes” they cannot answer; but they have diverted attention from them by charging him with personalities, and then by criticism of his classical criticism of Webster. Now, in this matter two things are to be said: first, Webster was the first offender in personalities; and, secondly Webster is clearly wrong in the classical matter.

_______________

¹ Samuel A. Eliot, elected to Congress as successor to Winthrop.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 217

Charles Sumner to Horace Mann, September 3, 1850

You do not reflect that there are many here who have been through similar experiences.¹ My position has always been humble compared with yours; but I remember the time when two or three of the metropolitan papers never missed an opportunity to fling at me, and when the “Advertiser” and “Atlas” had elaborate articles often impugning even my character for veracity. One paper had at least six or seven articles, short and long, against me. At that moment I was surrounded by a large circle of persons calling themselves friends; not one of them stirred in my behalf. The “Atlas” and “Advertiser” were owned in part by persons among my friends. Several became personally hostile, and down to this day have not renewed their friendship. But I have lived through it; you will live through your trial also. You are not the first who has suffered in this cause; though your case happens to be now most prominent, as your character and position are most prominent.

_______________

¹ Mann was feeling keenly the personal attacks upon him made by the Compromise Whigs on account of his protests against Webster's recent course.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 217

Charles Sumner to William Jay, September 5, 1850

I take advantage of the leisure of this retreat [Newport, R. I.] to acknowledge the kindness of your note of sympathy.¹ I should have done it earlier. Be assured that it was most acceptable as a present consolation and as a token of your friendship. There would be a hardness of heart which I will not charge upon our opponents if they were otherwise than touched by a domestic bereavement befalling us But they forbear to testify the sympathy which at other times would have been profusely offered. There are not a few now who avert their faces from me. You were right, therefore, in supposing that your words would come with a welcome increased by the coldness of others. I owe you thanks also for your letter in reply to Moses Stuart. It was a complete refutation of the reverend defender of Mr. Webster's new faith.

All the dogs of the pack are now let loose upon Mr. Mann. His thorough exposure of Mr. Webster has maddened the “retainers,” and they are diverting attention from the substance of his criticisms by comments on the manner, and some of our weak brethren have been carried away by this cry. If he has erred in tone, he caught the infection from Webster himself, who dealt at him some bitter personalities. You saw doubtless that I was a candidate at our last election. With infinite reluctance I consented; for I dislike to see my name connected with any office, even as a candidate; but I hoped to serve our cause by taking that position in the forlorn hope. A leading and popular Whig said to me on the morning of the election: “I must go and vote against you, though I will say I should rather at this moment see you in Congress than any person in Boston; but I stick to my party.” There is the secret, party, party, party! Would that this could be broken down!

_______________

¹ On Horace Sumner's death. Ante, vol. i. pp. 33. 34.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 217-8

Charles Sumner to George Sumner, October 22, 1850

The antislavery agitation which it was hoped to hush by the recent laws is breaking out afresh. It will not be hushed. Mr. Webster is strong in Boston, but not in Massachusetts. Out of the city he is weak. It is difficult to say now how the elections this autumn will go. I think that everywhere the antislavery sentiment will get real strength. The odious Fugitive Slave law furnishes an occasion for agitation. It has shocked the people of New England. . . . I have had a pleasant day or two with Prescott at Pepperell, and he has told me of his English pleasures.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 218

Diary of Gideon Welles: Tuesday, January 2, 1866

Neither Seward nor Stanton was at Cabinet council. Seward is on his way to the West Indies, Gulf, etc. He wishes to be absent until the issues are fully made up and the way is clear for him what course to take. There may be other objects, but this is the chief. The talk about his health is ridiculous. He is as well as he has been at any time for five years. Stanton had no occasion to be present. Some discussion as to whether the State of Louisiana is entitled to cotton bought by the Rebel organization or government. Dennison and myself had a free talk with the President after the others left. Although usually reticent, he at times speaks out, and he expressed himself emphatically to-day. The manner in which things had been got up by the Radicals before the session he commented upon. "This little fellow [Colfax] shoved in here to make a speech in advance of the message, and to give out that the principle enunciated in his speech was the true policy of the country," were matters alluded to with sharpness, as were the whole preconcerted measures of the Radicals. "I do not hear that the colored people called or were invited to visit Sumner or Wilson," said the President, "but they came here and were civilly treated."

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 409-10

Diary of Gideon Welles: Thursday, January 4, 1866

The messages of the Governors and other indications favor the conciliatory policy of the Administration rather than the persecuting spirit of Stevens and other extreme Radicals. These latter are hesitating and apparently moderating their tone. They commenced with too strong a purchase. Sumner, I am told, is extremely violent, and I hear of some others. They are generally men that will not yield a hobby or theory, and I therefore doubt if they can be toned down and made reasonable.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 410-1

Diary of Gideon Welles: January 8, 1866

The Members of Congress since their return appear more disposed to avoid open war with the President, but yet are under the discipline of party, which is cunningly kept up with almost despotic power. I am confident that many of those who are claimed as Republicans, and who are such, are voting against their convictions, but they have not the courage and independence to shake off the tyranny of party and maintain what they know to be right. The President and the Radical leaders are not yet in direct conflict, but I see not how it is to be avoided. When the encounter takes place there will be those who have voted with the Radicals, who will then probably go with the President, or wish to do so. This the leaders understand, and it is their policy to get as many committed as possible, and to get them repeatedly committed by test votes. Williams of Pittsburg, a revolutionary and whiskey-drinking leader, introduced a resolution to-day that the military should not be withdrawn, but retained until Congress, not the President, should order their discharge. This usurpation of the Executive prerogative by Congress is purposely offensive, known to be such, yet almost every Republican voted for it in the House. The Representatives who doubted and were opposed dare not vote against it. While thus infringing on the rights of the Executive, the Radical leaders studiously claim that they are supporting the President, and actually have most of his appointees with them. Were the President to assert his power and to exercise it, many of those who now follow Sumner and Stevens would hesitate, for the home officials are necessary to their own party standing. The President will sooner or later have to meet this question squarely, and have a square and probably a fierce fight with these men. Seward expects but deprecates it, and has fled to escape responsibility.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 412-3