Gerrit Smith’s Speach at a War Meeting in Peterboro, Massachusets, April 27, 1861

The end of American slavery is at hand. That it is to end in blood does not surprise me. For fifteen years I have been constantly predicting that it would be. . . . The first gun fired at Fort Sumter announced the fact that the last fugitive slave had been returned. . . . And what if, when Congress shall come together in this extra session, the slave States shall all have ceased from their treason, and shall all ask that they may be suffered to go from us. Shall Congress let them go? Certainly. But only on the condition that those States shall first abolish slavery. Congress has clearly no constitutional right to let them go on any conditions. But I believe that the people would approve of the proceedings, and would be ready to confirm it in the most formal and sufficient manner. A few weeks ago I would have consented to let the slave States go without requiring the abolition of slavery, . . . But now, since the southern tiger has smeared himself with our blood, we will not, if we get him in our power, let him go until we have drawn his teeth and his claws. . . .

A word in respect to the armed men who go south. They should go more in sorrow than in anger. The sad necessity should be their only excuse for going. They must still love the south. We must all still love her. Conquer her, and most completely too, we must, both for her sake and our own. But does it not ill become us to talk of punishing her? Slavery, which has infatuated her, is the crime of the north as well as of the south. As her chiefs shall one after another, fall into our hands, let us be restrained from dealing revengefully, and moved to deal tenderly with them, by our remembrance of the large share which the north has had in blinding them. The conspiracy of northern merchants and manufacturers, northern publishers, priests and politicians, against the slaveholders, carried on under the guise of friendship, has been mighty to benumb their conscience, and darken their understanding in regard to slavery.

SOURCES: Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 257-8

Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, April 22, 1864

Neither Seward nor Chase nor Stanton was at the Cabinet-meeting to-day. For some time Chase has been disinclined to be present and evidently for a purpose. When sometimes with him, he takes occasion to allude to the Administration as departmental, — as not having council, not acting in concert. There is much truth in it, and his example and conduct contribute to it. Seward is more responsible than any one, however, although he is generally present. Stanton does not care usually to come, for the President is much of his time at the War Department, and what is said or done is communicated by the President, who is fond of telling as well as of hearing what is new. Three or four times daily the President goes to the War Department and into the telegraph office to look over communications.

Congress is laboring on the tax bill. The Members fear to do their duty because taxation is unpopular. An old infirmity. Chase has not pressed for it heretofore for the same reason.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 16

Alexander H. Stephens to the Editor of the Federal Union,* August 30, 1848

Clinton, Ga. 30th, Aug., 1848.

Mr. Editor: In passing through this place, I have just seen your paper of yesterday's date which contains some enquiries addressed to me, to which I cannot hesitate to give a prompt reply “in such reasonable length and respectful terms” as to secure, I trust, a place in your columns.

And that I may be distinctly understood, I will give the entire communication and my answer to each enquiry in order:

To The Hon. A. H. Stephens:

It is known to you, that your motion to lay upon the table the “Compromise bill”¹ of the Senate, during the late session of Congress, has produced considerable excitement in this district. You have been nominated as the Whig candidate for re-election. If you should have opposition, it is scarcely to be doubted that this bill will be the main issue involved in the canvass. It is therefore eminently desirable that your sentiments should be clearly understood as to what are the rights of the South and how far they are affected by the bill. A careful perusal of your speech has left our mind in doubt as to your opinion upon several essential points. We therefore venture respectfully to propound to you a few interrogatories, to which we ask a reply.

I. Do you believe that Congress has the right under the Constitution, to prohibit slavery in the territories belonging to the United States?

To your first enquiry I answer, that I do not believe that Congress has the right, either in honor, justice or good faith, to prohibit slavery in the territories belonging to the United States and thus to appropriate the public Domain entirely to the benefit of the people of the non-slaveholding states — and hence I have uniformly voted against the Oregon bill which contained a section excluding slavery, notwithstanding most if not all my Democratic colleagues have repeatedly voted for a bill organizing a Government there with such exclusion — and notwithstanding Mr. Polk has lately signed a bill which contained such an exclusion.

So far as New Mexico and California are concerned, and towards which your enquiries are doubtless mainly directed, there is no express provision in the Constitution which applies either directly or indirectly to them. They are to be considered as acquired by conquest, and there is no article or clause in the Constitution that relates in the remotest degree to the government of conquests. I do not believe that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that such a contingency would ever happen — and hence the silence of the Constitution upon that subject. But as the Supreme Court of the United States have repeatedly held the doctrine that the power to make conquest does belong to the General Government, though not expressly granted, it is not my purpose to say anything upon that point now. The only point in your enquiry relates to the government of the conquest, and to that point I answer explicitly that I consider the conquest, according to the best authorities upon the laws of nations, as belonging to the people of the United States — to all the citizens of the United States, the South as well as the North. When the treaty is fully complied with these provinces will constitute a public domain acquired by the common valor, blood and treasure of all. And in the government of them the rights and interests of the South should be looked to, guarded and protected as well as the North by all proper and necessary laws. Until they are admitted into the United States the government of them must devolve upon Congress or such territorial legislatures as may be created and authorized by Congress. And any legislation by Congress or by the territorial legislatures which would exclude slavery would be in direct violation of the rights of the Southern people to an equal participation in them and in open derogation of that equality between the states of the South and North which should never [be] surrendered by the South. And I hold also that any legislation by Congress or by the territorial legislatures which does not secure and protect the rights of the South as fully and as completely in the enjoyment of their property in slaves as it does the rights of the people of the North in the enjoyment of their property in these territories is manifestly unjust, in violation of the rights of the South, and a surrender of that equality between the different members of this confederacy which shall never be made by my sanction.

Your second enquiry is in the following words:

II. From your replies to Mr. Stanton of Tennessee, on pages 10 and 11 of your speech, we clearly infer that it is your opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not guarantee to the slaveholder the right to remove with his property into any territory of the United States and to be protected in the undisturbed use and enjoyment of his slaves as property. Do we properly construe your meaning?

And in reply you will allow me to say that you seem greatly to misapprehend my answer to Mr. Stanton. The purport of my answer to him was (I have not the speech before me) that the Constitution did secure and guarantee the rights of the master to his slave in every state and territory of the Union where slavery was not prohibited by law. But that it did not establish it in any territory or State where it was so prohibited. And the same I reaffirm. It is too plain a question to admit of argument. It is one of those truths which under our system of government may be considered as a political axiom. Everybody knows that the Constitution secures and guarantees property in slaves in Georgia and in all the slave States, but that it does not secure the use and enjoyment of such property in New York or any of the States where slavery is prohibited.

Your third question is in the following words:

III. If the right spoken of in the 2d question does exist under the Constitution in reference to territory generally, does it exist in relation to New Mexico and California?

And in answer to it I say that I hold that the Constitution does secure and guarantee the rights of the master to property in his slave in all the territories belong to the United States where slavery is not prohibited. With regard to the territories, the same principle holds which is applicable to the states. I do not maintain the position that slavery cannot be maintained without positive law. But I say that according to all the decisions of all the courts I have ever seen in all civilized nations, it cannot be maintained and protected where it is prohibited by express law. In all the states of this Union where it is not prohibited, the Constitution secures and protects it; but in those states where it is prohibited it does not protect it further than to provide for the recapture of runaway slaves — and the same principle I have no doubt from the decisions of the Supreme Court would by that tribunal be held to be applicable to the territories. By the Missouri Compromise slavery was prohibited from all that portion of the Louisiana cession out of Missouri, North of 36:30 degrees of North latitude. Slavery by that Compromise was in effect abolished in all that territory. For by the laws in force in the territory at the time of the acquisition slavery was recognised and had existence. There is a large territory now unoccupied which is embraced in the provisions of that Compromise and from which by that Compromise slavery is prohibited. And can any man believe that if a slaveholder should carry his slave into that territory where slavery is prohibited, that the Supreme Court of the United States would recognise his right and protect him in holding his slave there?

It is not my purpose now to speak of the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise — I am speaking of it as a practical question under the decisions of the Supreme Court; and according to principles settled by that Court, does any man believe that the rights of the master would be protected by that Court in that territory, or any other territory of the United States, where slavery is prohibited, until the prohibition is removed by competent authority, any more than in a State where slavery is prohibited? In New Mexico and California slavery was abolished and prohibited by express law at the time of the conquest. And according to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, which no man can gainsay or deny; (I mean the fact of the decisions; I do not now speak of their correctness), all the laws which were of force at the time of the conquest will continue in force until altered by competent authority, except such as were inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States or the stipulations of the treaty. Is the prohibition of slavery by the local law of any state or place inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States? If it is, those laws of New Mexico and California will become abrogated and necessarily cease to operate upon the final fulfilment of the treaty stipulations. But if the prohibition of slavery by the local law of any state or place is not inconsistent with the Constitution according to the decisions of the Supreme Court, they will of course remain of force until altered by competent authority. My own opinion is, that neither the existence of slavery or non-existence of it by the local law of any place is inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution. The Constitution extends over states where slavery exists as well as where it is prohibited. Slavery depends upon the law of the place, which may be either written or unwritten. And where it exists the Constitution protects it, but it does not establish it where it is prohibited.

I have heard some argue that the laws in New Mexico and California prohibiting slavery there were similar to the laws concerning the establishment of religion. I consider the cases totally different. for this plain reason: An established religion is inconsistent with an express provision of the Constitution.

But the non-existence or prohibition of slavery by the local law of any State or place is not inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution. It is in vain for any man to attempt to deceive himself or others upon this point. And it is worse than in vain to attempt to make the Southern people believe that any right was secured to them by the late proposed Compromise bill which without any legal protection referred the matter to the Supreme Court. The only right it pretended to secure was the right of a law suit — and that existed without the Compromise just as amply and as fully as it did under it. And under the circumstances if any man can suppose that the Court, at the end of the suit, would decide in favor of the rights of the Southern people, he cannot doubt but that the same decision would be made even if the Wilmot Proviso were passed.

But to proceed to your fourth question, which is as follows:

IV. We infer from the tenor of your speech that you do not believe the right exists in relation to New Mexico and California, because of the decrees of 1829 and 1837 abolishing slavery throughout the Republic of Mexico. If so, what right of the South is surrendered by the Compromise bill, and how is it surrendered?

To this I answer that your inference is entirely wrong. I do believe that we of the South have a right to an equal participation in this acquisition, notwithstanding the decrees and acts of Mexico abolishing and prohibiting slavery in New Mexico and California — and a right that I never intend to abandon or surrender by my vote. It is the right which belongs to us as a portion of the conquerors of the country. It is public property, belonging as I have said before to all the citizens of the country — to the people of the South as well as the North. It is common property, and the principles applicable to it are well expressed by Vattel, as follows:

All the members of a corporation have an equal right to the use of the common property. But respecting the manner of enjoying it, the body of the corporation may make such regulations as they think proper, provided that those regulations be not inconsistent with that equality of right which ought to be preserved in a communion of property. Thus a corporation may determine the use of a common forest or a common pasture, either allotting it to all the members, according to their wants, or allotting each an equal share, but they have no right to exclude any one of the members, or to make a distinction to his disadvantage, by assigning him a less share than that of the others. (Vattel's L[aw of] Nations], 113.)

These are the principles I hold: Congress has no right to exclude the South from an equal share, and it is the duty of Congress to see that the rights of the South are as amply protected as the rights of the North. And it was this right of legal protection for the property of the South that was surrendered in that bill. If Congress has the power to declare exactly how far the interests of the North shall be protected, if they have the power to extend the Missouri Compromise line, they certainly have the power to say in clear and distinct words that up to that line on the South the rights of the South shall be protected — and not after prohibiting us from going North of that line leave us to contest with the Courts our rights on the South of it. This is what the Compromise bill did. It excluded us from the whole of Oregon, and left us to the Courts to decide whether we should be allowed to carry and hold our property in New Mexico and California. For such a Compromise I shall never vote.

Your fifth question is as follows:

V. If by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, we have not the right to carry our slaves into these territories, we ask, upon what principle do you claim it, in behalf of your constituents? Do you claim it, upon the broad principle of justice arising from the fact that It is the fruit of common blood and common treasure? If so, do you expect Congress, constituted as it now is, or is hereafter likely to be, will ever recognise this principle of justice, and by positive legislation authorise the extension of slavery into those territories?

And in answer I say, that I do claim it “upon the broad principle of justice arising from the fact that it is the fruit of common blood and common treasure.” And I do expect that Congress constituted as it is will recognise this principle of justice when the South presents an unbroken front, as it ought to do, against paying one dollar for the territories unless this justice is awarded to them; and you will here permit me to bring to your mind a reminiscence not inapplicable on the present occasion. When the annexation of Texas was at first started by Mr. Tyler, by a treaty which left this question of vital importance to the South unsettled, I opposed it. I was then bitterly assailed by the paper which you now conduct for opposition to this great Southern measure upon all occasions when I addressed the people of Georgia. In 1844, I declared that I was in favor of the annexation of Texas upon proper principles — but I was utterly opposed to the Tyler treaty for several reasons, the main one of which was that the slave question was left open in it, the rights of the South were not secured by it, and that I should never vote for any plan of annexation that did not settle this question in the compact of union and secure these rights in terms clearly and distinctly defined. This position I maintained in your own city, and if you will turn to the files of the Federal Union and examine an editorial of the first week in July, 1844, I think you will see that this position of mine was alluded to and it was denounced as amounting to a total opposition to the whole measure and it was said (I quote from memory) that I was insisting upon what never could be obtained. But I had taken my position firmly, not to be deterred by any fears or alarms or denunciations. And from that position and its success a profitable lesson may now be learnt. I made a speech in Congress when a plan for annexation similar to the Tyler treaty was offered, in which I maintained the same position and stated the only grounds upon which I should vote for annexation. They were the same grounds which I had advocated throughout 1844. Seven Southern Whigs stood by me — we held the balance of power in the House. And when all other plans offered (and there were a number) failed (neither of which secured the rights of the South), then Mr. Brown (after conference with me and others) offered his with the Missouri Compromise in it; and that passed by my vote and the other seven Whigs, and it could not have passed in the Committee of the Whole House without our votes, as the proceedings of the House will show. The firm and inflexible course I and seven other Southern Whigs took upon that question secured the rights of the South and obtained the establishment of the Missouri Compromise, which it was said by the Federal Union could never be obtained. And if a similar course shall be taken and maintained by all parties at the South, the same Compromise or one as good can be obtained again. I have taken the same stand now and I intend to maintain it in defiance of all assaults and denunciations that may be made against me from any and every quarter.

The sixth and last of your enquiries, is as follows:

VI. If you should be of opinion that we have the constitutional right to carry our slaves into these territories, would you sooner risk the recognition and vindication of that right before Congress where there is a decided majority in both branches against us, or before the Supreme Court where it is well known that a majority of the Bench are from slaveholding States?

We are aware, that you deprecate in very strong terms any reference to the complexion of the Supreme Court upon this subject. Tour deprecation may be the result of a sentiment which we by no means condemn. Yet we do not agree with you in its application in this instance. The South are in a minority, we fear a doomed minority, on this subject, and we are therefore disposed to vindicate our rights by all honorable means. We certainly should not refuse to accept justice because the tribunal to whom we apply are supposed to be favorable to our cause. With all deference to your views on this point, we must be indulged in the belief that your indignation savors more of transcendentalism than of sound, practical statesmanship.

To this I answer that I consider the reference of this subject to the Supreme Court as a total abandonment of the question by the South. According to repeated decisions of that court upon the principles involved in it, I cannot see how any man can look upon it in any other light. But I will here say, that I am opposed to referring any political question to that court. And as a Representative in Congress, as long as I shall have the honor of remaining there, I shall never avoid responsibility by turning any question over to the Supreme Court or any other body. I shall, as I have heretofore done, maintain the equal and just rights of my constituents upon all questions; and I shall demand that they be clearly and distinctly recognised by Congress, that they may be amply protected by all others before whom they may come for action; and when these rights are left to the courts to determine, by my sanction they shall be so clearly set forth and defined that the courts shall be bound to protect them, in their decisions. And I say to you and the people of the 7th. Congressional District, that I shall never return as your and their Representative and tell them I have secured their rights by getting an act passed which will enable them to carry their slaves to California and New Mexico to encounter a law suit whenever they get there, which will cost more than their slaves are worth. If I can never get a better compromise for them than such an one as that, I shall never agree to any at all. They have that right independently of any thing I can do for them, and that is a right which no act of Congress can deprive them of.

_______________

* From the Federal Union, Milledgerllle, Ga., Sept. 12, 1848.

¹ The Clayton compromise hill.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 117-24

Nathaniel Peabody Rogers: Constitutionality of Slavery, September 8, 1838

The second “unprovided-for difficulty” of the Keene Sentinel, in the way of the anti-slavery movement is, that “slaves are property.” We deny that they are property, or that they can be made so. We will not argue this, for it is self-evident. A man cannot be a subject of human ownership; neither can he be the owner of humanity. There is a clear and eternal incompetancy on both sides, — on the one to own man, and on the other to be owned by man. A man cannot alienate his right to liberty and to himself, — still less can it be taken from him. He cannot part with his duty to be free — his obligation to liberty, any more than his right. He is under obligation to God and humanity and his own immortality, to retain his manhood and to exercise it. He cannot become the property of another, any more than he can part with his human nature. It would be utterly repugnant to all the purposes of his creation. He is bound to perform a part, which is totally incompatible with his being owned by any body but himself; which requires that he keep himself free. He can't be property, any more than he can be a horse, or a literal ass. We commend our brethren of the Sentinel to the eighth Psalm, as a divine authority touching the nature and destination of man. He can't be property — he can't be appropriated. His mighty nature cannot be coped by the grasp of ownership. Can the Messrs. Sentinel be appropriated? We put it sternly to them, in behalf of their, and our own, and the slave's common nature, — for we feel that it is all outraged by their terrible allegation. Can the editors of the Sentinel become property? the goods and chattels, rights and hereditaments of an owner? If they can't, no man can. If any man can, they can. Can the Hon. Mr. Prentiss, with all his interesting qualities and relations, by any diabolical jugglery, be converted into a slave, so as to belong to one of his fallen, depraved fellow-men? Can he suppose the idea? Is he susceptible of this transmutation? He is, if any body is. Can he be transferred, by virtue of a few cries and raps of a glib-tongued auctioneer? Could a pedler sell him, from his tin cart? Could he knock him off, bag and baggage, to the boldest bidder? Let us try it. No disrespect to our esteemed senior. — We test his allegation, that a man is property. If one man can be, any man can — himself, or his stately townsman, Major-General Wilson, who would most oddly become the auction platform. If a man can be property, he can be sold. If any man can be, every man can — Mr. Prentiss, Gen. Wilson, Rev. Mr. Barstow — every man. Let us try to vendue the Sentinel. Advertise him, if you please, in the Keene paper. On the day, produce him — bring him on — let his personal symmetries be examined and descanted on — his sacred person handled by the sacrilegious man-jockey, — let him be ordered to shift positions, and assume attitudes, and display to the callous multitude his form and proportions — his points, as the horse-jockey would say. How would all this comport with the high sense of personal honor, wont to be entertained by the Sentinel? How would he not encounter a thousand deaths rather than submit to it? How his proud spirit, instinct with manhood, would burst and soar away from the scene! Who bids? an able-bodied, capable, fine, healthy, submissive, contented Boy, about fifty — sound wind and limb — sold positively for no fault — a field hand — come of real stock, — faithful, can trust him with gold untold — will nobody start him? — shall we have a bid? — will nobody bid for the boy? Now we demand of our respected brother, whose honor is as sacred in our regard as in his own, what he thinks of the chattelism of a slave, — for we indignantly lay it down as an immovable principle that the Hon. John Prentiss is as legitimate a subject of property and of sale, as any the lowest of his race.

We dispose of the position that “slaves are property,” by utterly and indignantly denying the possibility of it. We will rescue our brethren of the Sentinel from the imputation of this murderous idea, by erasing the semicolon after “property,” and making but one sentence of the second “difficulty,” turning it into an opinion that “slaves are property by the constitution and the laws;” throwing the infamy on to the old framers of the constitution, and all of us who have lived under it, with power to amend or nullify it. It would sink the whole of us. Constitution and laws! Is the Sentinel of opinion that a constitution could be framed by men, or by existences in the shape of men, that, instead of protecting human liberty and rights, should annihilate them? A constitution to enslave men! What would you say of a British constitution, that enslaved a British subject? Would you not scout the idea of it — of the British possibility of it? and can it be done here, and was it done here by revolutionary sages, who could not brook the restraints of British liberty? A constitution, that should provide for the enslavement of a man, would be a legal abortion. The bare engrossing of it would nullify it. It would perish by spontaneous annulment and nullification. It could not survive its ordination — nor could its infamous framers. We deny that an enslaved man is property by the constitution, and we might deny that any man can be enslaved under our constitution, and consequently, that he could be chattelized, if a slave were admitted to be property. Things may be appropriated — persons may not. They are self-evidently not susceptible of appropriation or ownership. By the constitution every body is spoken of as a person — no mention is made of human things. If a slave is alluded to, in that instrument, as a possible existence in point of fact, it is under the name of “person.” “Three fifths of all other Persons” — “migration or importation of persons” — “no person held to service.” These are the only instances in it where allusion is made to slaves, — and it no more, in those allusions, sanctions enslaving, than it does “piracies and felonies on the high seas,” which it also expressly recognizes, as they say of slavery. So it says “person,” where it solemnly asserts that “no person can be deprived of liberty or property, but by due process of law.” This clause prohibits the slightest approaches to enslaving, or holding in slavery, which is continued enslaving. No person's property can be taken from him; not his life even; infinitely less his Liberty, without due legal process. It is idle to say, that the framers of the constitution, or. those who adopted it and acted under it, did not mean to save the colored man from slavery, by this clause. In law they are to be held to mean so, because they said so. The intent of the framers is now to be gathered from what they said in the instrument itself — not their colloquies at the time or before or after — but what they put down in imperishable black and white. It is what they inscribed on the parchment for all time, that they legally intended, and there we are to go to get at their intent. If the words are obscure and ambiguous, we may gather their intent by aid of concomitant circumstances, &c. But there is no ambiguity here. The clearest words and best understood and most trimly defined of any we have, here set forth the essential doctrine, (without which a community of thieves and pirates could scarcely be kept together,) that life, liberty and property are sacred. Enslave man and leave him these three, and you may do it, maugre this clause of the constitution. However, you must leave him, by virtue of other clauses, a few other incidentals, such as compulsory process for calling in all witnesses for him, of whatever color; the inviolate right to be secure in person, house, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures; right of trial by jury in all cases over twenty dollars' value; the free exercise of religion, of speech, of the press, of peaceable assembly and of petition; the civil rights of republican government, which is guarantied to him in every state in this Union; the privileges and immunities of citizens in every state; in short, you must allow him a string of franchises, enumerated accidentally in that part of the old compact, called the preamble, viz., justice, domestic tranquillity, common defence, general welfare, and, finally, the blessings of liberty to himself and to his posterity; — moreover you may add, in repetition, — for in securing these breath-of-life sort of rights, people run a little into superfluity of words — you may add the unsuspendible privilege of habeas corpus — the old writ of liberty; — and perfect exemption from all attainder, or enslaving a man's children on his account. We will mention one more — that is the uninfringible right to keep and bear arms. All these and many other rights and immunities, "too numerous to be mentioned,” are secured to him by adamantine provisions in the constitution, and if you can chattelize him under them, so that Austin Woolfolk can trade in him, at your capital, or Wade Hampton or the American Board, can buy him and use him up in their service, or Doctor Ezra Styles Ely speculate in his soul and body, then your doctrine, Messrs. Sentinel, is sound, that he is recognized as property by the constitution.

We claim some exceptions, however, in case we cannot overthrow slavery in the slave states, by force of the national constitution. We cannot allow you to enslave any body in old Virginia. Look at her law paramount in our caption, declaring the Birth-Right, Inalienable Liberty Of All Men. In Maryland the right is constitutionally set forth a little stronger. You must not enslave a man in Maryland, — and we can't allow you to lay a finger on his liberties in the district of Columbia, because the constitutions of Virginia and Maryland are still paramount law there, by congressional adoption, at the acceptance of the cessions. And if he runs away from the district or a territory, or either of those two states, we can't allow you to arrest him and send him back.

We ask our legal friends, who think lightly of this “fanaticism,” to look into this constitutional and legal matter of slaveholding. We would like especially, that some of the neighbors of the Sentinel would give some exposition, during the coming convention, of the lawfulness of enslaving people in this country. We ask the Keene lawyers how this is. We want “the opinion of the court.”

For ourselves we venture the opinion, in light of what glimmerings of law scintillate about our vision, that holding a man in slavery is a violation of the law of this land, and of every part of it, not excepting our gory-fingered sister Arkansas, or our carnage-dripping sister Alabama, the haunt of christian enterprise from New England and the worn-out slave states in the north. A constitution that can avail to protect republican liberty to a single member of this community, inviolably secures it to every man, and condemns and prohibits slavery. It cannot otherwise be. Slavery is a mere matter of fact — in the face of the constitution — in the face of each state constitution — in the face of every court of justice which soundly administers the law of any state — in face of every thing, but a tyrant public sentiment, and a diabolical American practice.

The enslaved of the country are as much entitled to their liberty as any of us, by the law as it is. They have a right to throw off all violation of it by force, if they cannot otherwise. Nay, it is their duty to do so, if they can, — for it is not injury merely, that they are submitting to — not wrongs. They are rendered incapable of suffering injury — incompetent to endure wrong. The accursed system, that preys upon them, makes things of them — exterminates their very natures. This they may not submit to. They ought to prevent it, at every expense. They ought to resist it, as the Christian should the devil, for it wars upon the nature of man, and devours his immortality. If they could heave off the system by an instantaneous and universal effort, they ought to do it Individually we wish they could do it, and that they would do it. We may be wrong in this opinion — but we entertain it. If our white brethren at the South were slaves, we should wish them instantaneous deliverance by insurrection, if this would bring it to them. We wish our colored brethren the same. We do not value the bodily lives of the present white generation there a straw, compared to the horrible thraldom, in which they hold the colored people, and we value their lives as highly as we do the colored people's. But insurrection can't effect it. It must be done by the abolitionists. They must annihilate the system by force of their principles, and as fast as possible. And they must increase their speed. Men will have to groan and pant in absolute brutality, with their high and eternal natures bound down and strangled amid the folds of this enslaving devil, until we throw it off. To the work then, and Heaven abandon the tardy! If you wish to save your white brethren and yourselves, we commend you to this work, in sharp earnest We tell you, once for all, there is no time to be Inst!

There is no end to the theme — there must be to this article. We deny the truth and existence of the Sentinel's two difficulties, and if, in fact, they both existed, our movement “provides for them.” The people collectively have the power to declare slavery a crime in the slave states. Congress has the power to do what amounts to the same thing — by direct action. They can declare it criminal in the capital, and how long would it be esteemed innocent elsewhere? They can punish enslaving in the district, and the man-traffic between the states as piracy. Lex talionis would enslave the perpetrators — but that would be devilish, and ought not to be inflicted. But if hanging is lawful in any case, it is in this.

If the people collectively and Congress have no legal power over the slavery of the slave states, abolitionists have the power, ample and adequate, and they will “provide for the difficulty.”

The constitution and the laws do not recognize the slaves as property. We call for the proof. The Sentinel avers it. Let them point us to the spot where. And could they do this, the abolitionists have the power (consult rule of three for the time it will take) to change and redeem both the constitution and the laws, and transmute this property back again to humanity.

SOURCE: Collection from the Miscellaneous Writings of Nathaniel Peabody Rogers, Second Edition, p. 15-21 which states it was published in the Herald of Freedom of September 8, 1838.

Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, April 15, 1864

Chase and Blair were neither of them at the Cabinet-meeting to-day, nor was Stanton. Seward takes upon himself the French tobacco question. He wishes me to procure some one to investigate and report on the facts of the case of the Sir William Peel. I told him I thought Charles Eames as good a counsellor on prize matters as any lawyer whom I knew, and if referred to me I should give the case to Eames.

The gold panic has subsided, or rather abated. Chase is in New York. It is curious to see the speculator's conjectures and remarks on the expedients and subterfuges that are resorted to. Gold is truth. Its paper substitute is a fiction, sustained by public confidence in part because there is a belief that it will ultimately bring gold, but it has no intrinsic value and the great increase in quantity is undermining confidence.

The House passed a resolution of censure on Long for his weak and reprehensible speech. It is a pity the subject was taken up at all. No good has come of it, but I hope no harm. Lurking treason may feel a little strengthened by the failure to expel.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 12

An Abolitionist to William Lloyd Garrison, December 6, 1834

South READING, Dec. 6, 1834.

MR. GARRIsoN — The numerous panegyrical notices of Mr. THoMPsoN, which had for the last two months appeared in the columns of the Liberator, had put curiosity upon tiptoe in our little village to hear this disinterested, generous and eloquent MAN of TRUTH, and ADvoCATE of LIBERTY. He favored us with his presence yesterday, and last evening lectured for the space of two hours in the Baptist meeting-house, with zealous fluency and triumphant argumentation. The audience was a large one, and highly respectable, notwithstanding the purposely slight and obscure notice of the meeting which was given by our congregational minister, who is still on the side of gradualism and expatriation. A considerable number of individuals, animated by various motives, came from the surrounding towns,—even as far as Salem,—among whom were the Rev. Mr. Grosvernor and Richard P. Waters, Esq. . The meeting was opened with singing by the choir, and prayer by the Rev. Mr. Pickett of Reading; after which, Rev. Mr. Grosvenor made a few pertinent remarks, introducing Mr. Thompson to us, in which he reminded us that American liberty was won and established partly by the valor of a foreigner – Lafayette; and that the spiritual redemption of the world was effected through the instrumentality of another foreigner — the Lord Jesus Christ.

Of Mr. Thompson's lecture I shall not attempt to give you even the outlines. The topics were so various, the arguments so profound, the illustrations so rich and appropriate, the transitions from the pathetic to the severe, and from the beautiful to the sublime, were so incessant yet natural, that my pen might as well attempt to give the sound of the mountain torrent, or mark the course of the lightning, as to state them in their order, with justice either to the subject or the orator.

Mr. Thompson in his exordium, at once secured the earnest attention of his hearers by remarking, with measured and solemn enunciation, that the question which he was about to discuss was one of immense magnitude and transcendant importance, in comparison with which, all others that are now agitating the minds of the American people, appertaining to the politics or the prosperity of the nation, dwindled into insignificance; and he trusted that he might be able to go into its discussion with that candor and faithfulness which it merited, and that his auditors would listen with unbiassed, unprejudiced, and christian minds. If he should misapprehend, or misinterpret, or misstate, in any particular whatever; if he should swerve but a hair's breadth from the line of eternal rectitude, or fail in sustaining every assertion and every proposition that he might make; he called upon every one present, who should detect him in error, to rise and expose his sophistry or his ignorance. But if he should speak understandingly — truly — with a zeal according to knowledge; if he should show that slavery in the abstract and in the concrete was wrong, and that it was emphatically a national transgression—then it became each of those before him to say with repenting Saul — “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?”

With regard to this finding something to do, which many think is so difficult a matter, Mr. Thompson asked — Do you know of any abolitionists, who are at a loss what to do for the emancipation of the slaves? Do they not say, that there are so many appropriate and important modes of action, that they are often puzzled which of them to select? Do they not exclaim — O, that our zeal, our talents, our means, our influence, were increased a hundred fold! O, that we could be here — there — every where, rebuking, encouraging, convincing and reforming a perverse and cruel people!

But, — but, — “We are as much opposed to slavery as we can be.” This hypocritical and impudent profession was most severely dealt with by Mr. Thompson, in a strain of burning satire. He interrogated those who made it, whether they remembered the slave in their prayers — in their intercourse with relations and friends? whether they contributed aught of their substance to the furtherance of the anti-slavery cause, or circulated any petitions for the abolition of slavery in those portions of territory which are under the jurisdiction of the national legislature? To which interrogation the reply uniformly was — “O, no! we have done none of these ; but then-we are as much opposed to slavery as we can be.”

The speaker then made a death grapple with those who run to the Bible to find a precedent and a plea for southern slavery, and tore them limb from limb. He nobly vindicated that precious volume, and its great Author, from the impious aspersions which had been cast upon them by the apologists of slavery, who contended that they gave full warrant for the murderous system. All those of his audience who were jealous for the honor and glory of God, and the holy repute of the scriptures, must have rejoiced in the masterly exhibition of truth which was made on this interesting occasion.

We were gratified to see you in the assembly, Mr. Garrison: and we could not but rejoice anew at the glorious fruits of your mission to England, as seen in the speedy and utter overthrow of the agent of the American Colonization Society in that country — in the increasing sympathy of British christians for the slaves in our land — in the efficient aid which they are giving to us in various channels — and particularly, and above all, in securing to us, even “without money and without price, the invaluable services of GEORGE THOMPSON and CHARLES STUART — philanthropists whose hearts burn with patriotic as well as christian love for our great but guilty republic — whose only desire is, to make us “that happy people whose God is the Lord” — and who duly appreciate and admire all that is truly excellent in our character as a people.

At the close of the lecture, Mr. Thompson again requested persons present, if there were any such, who had any difficulties yet remaining on their minds, or who were not entirely satisfied with his arguments, or who thought he had erred either as to matter of fact or of inference, to express their views or propound any questions without reserve. After a short pause, Rev. Mr. Grosvenor rose and said, that, as for himself, he had no objections to make to any thing that had been advanced by the speaker. He then alluded to the fact that, for his advocacy of the cause of the oppressed, he (Mr. Grosvenor) had lost his church and congregation in Salem; but expressed a holy resolve that come what might, he would at all times and in all places be a mouth-piece for the suffering and the dumb. His remarks, though few, were made with much feeling and firmness; after which, he pronounced a benediction upon the assembly.

As yet, I have heard but a single individual who was not pleased with Mr. Thompson's lecture, although there may be others — for

“Men convinced against their will,

Are of the same opinion still.”

He is a gradualist — a colonizationist — and, I believe, a member of an orthodox church; and he says that Mr. T. ought to have had another brickbat thrown at his head alluding to the affair at Lowell. What an amiable temper what a benevolently disposed man! what a meek and forgiving Christian!

We hope Mr. T. will visit us again shortly — but our brethren in Reading think it is their turn next.

Yours truly,

AN ABOLITIONIST.

SOURCE: Isaac Knapp, Publisher, Letters and Addresses by G. Thompson [on American Negro Slavery] During His Mission in the United States, From Oct. 1st, 1834, to Nov. 27, 1835, p. 34-7

Journal of Amos A. Lawrence, November 25, 1859

Looked over the report of the committee of Congress which went to Kansas in 1856 to investigate the troubles there. I did this in order to ascertain whether John Brown committed murder at Pottawatomie Creek in May, 1856. The affidavits show that a party which he commanded did take five men from their houses at night on the 24th of May, 1856, and murdered them at once. These were pro-slavery men, and they were killed when there was danger that the Missourians would get possession of the government of Kansas.

SOURCE: William Lawrence, Life of Amos A. Lawrence: With Extracts from His Diary and Correspondence, p. 133

William T. Sherman to George Mason Graham, January 6, 1860

Seminary, Friday, Jan. 6, 1860.

Dear General: Things move along so so — only twenty four cadets. Captain Walters brought his boy of fourteen years and eight months and I will receive him. Vallas is so zealous that he keeps his class nearly four hours in the section room. I may have to interfere, but for the present will leave him full scope to develop his “Method.” To-morrow, Saturday I will have a drill and afterward daily.

We had some conversation about John Sherman. You have seen enough of the world to understand politicians and the motives which influence and govern them; last night I received a letter from him, which explains his signing that Helper book.¹ He is punished well and deservedly for a thoughtless and careless act and will hereafter look at papers before he signs them. I also send you a letter he wrote me before he left home to go to Washington. Whatever rank he may hold among politicians I [know] he would do no aggressive act in life. I do think southern politicians are almost as much to blame as mere theoretical abolitionists. The constant threat of disunion, and their enlarging the term abolitionist has done them more real harm than the mere prayers, preachings, and foolish speeches of distant preachers. It is useless for men to try and make a party on any basis. The professional politician will slip in and take advantage of it if successful and drop it if unsuccessful.

The true position for every gentleman north and south is to frown down even a mention of disunion. Resist any and all assaults calmly, quietly like brave men, and not by threats. The laws of the states and Congress must be obeyed; if wrong or oppressive they will be repealed. Better to bear, etc. I don't pretend to endorse republicanism, John Sherman or anybody else but I send these letters to show that he is no abolitionist. As he is my brother, is honest, of excellent habits, and has done his duty as a son, brother, neighbor, etc., and as I believe, he will fill any post creditably I wish him success.

_______________

1 The Impending Crisis of the South: How to Meet It, published in 1857.

SOURCE: Walter L. Fleming, General W.T. Sherman as College President, p. 102-4

Diary of Gideon Welles: Monday, April 11, 1864

John C. Rives, it is stated, died yesterday. He was a marked character, guileless, shrewd, simple-hearted, and sagacious, without pretension and without fear, generous and sincere, with a warm heart but no exterior graces. I first met him in the winter of 1829 in the office of Duff Green, where he was bookkeeper. In the winter of 1831, I think, we met at Georgetown at the house of Colonel Corcoran. F. P. Blair, whom I met on the same evening for the first time, had been out with Rives to try their rifles. They had first met a few days previous. Rives was then a clerk in the Fourth Auditor's office, — Amos Kendall. The latter passed the evening with us. Years later Rives and myself became well acquainted. He was first bookkeeper and then partner of Blair and made the fortunes of both.

In the House of Representatives a sharp and unpleasant discussion has been carried on, on a resolution introduced by the Speaker, Colfax, to expel Long, a Representative from Ohio, for some discreditable partisan remarks, made in a speech last Friday. There being an evening session, I went to the Capitol for the first time this session. Heard Orth, Kernan, Winter Davis, and one or two others. The latter was declamatory, eloquent, but the debate did not please me, nor the subject. Long I despise for his declarations, but Colfax is not judicious in his movement. Long went beyond the line of his party, and Colfax cannot make them responsible for Long's folly.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 8-9

Diary of William Howard Russell: July 6, 1861

I breakfasted with Mr. Bigelow this morning, to meet General McDowell, who commands the army of the Potomac, now so soon to move. He came in without an aide-de-camp, and on foot, from his quarters in the city. He is a man about forty years of age, square and powerfully built, but with rather a stout and clumsy figure and limbs, a good head covered with close-cut thick dark hair, small light-blue eyes, short nose, large cheeks and jaw, relieved by an iron-gray tuft somewhat of the French type, and affecting in dress the style of our gallant allies. His manner is frank, simple, and agreeable, and he did not hesitate to speak with great openness of the difficulties he had to contend with, and the imperfection of all the arrangements of the army.

As an officer of the regular army he has a thorough contempt for what he calls “political generals” — the men who use their influence with President and Congress to obtain military rank, which in time of war places them before the public in the front of events, and gives them an appearance of leading in the greatest of all political movements. Nor is General McDowell enamored of volunteers, for he served in Mexico, and has from what he saw there formed rather an unfavorable opinion of their capabilities in the field. He is inclined, however, to hold the Southern troops in too little respect; and he told me that the volunteers from the Slave States, who entered the field full of exultation and boastings, did not make good their words, and that they suffered especially from sickness and disease, in consequence of their disorderly habits and dissipation. His regard for old associations was evinced in many questions he asked me about Beauregard, with whom he had been a student at West Point, where the Confederate commander was noted for his studious and reserved habits, and his excellence in feats of strength and athletic exercises.

As proof of the low standard established in his army, he mentioned that some officers of considerable rank were more than suspected of selling rations, and of illicit connections with sutlers for purposes of pecuniary advantage. The General walked back with me as far as my lodgings, and I observed that not one of the many soldiers he passed in the streets saluted him, though his rank was indicated by his velvet collar and cuffs, and a gold star on the shoulder strap.

Having written some letters, I walked out with Captain Johnson and one of the attachés of the British Legation, to the lawn at the back of the White House, and listened to the excellent band of the United States Marines, playing on a kind of dais under the large flag recently hoisted by the President himself, in the garden. The occasion was marked by rather an ominous event. As the President pulled the halyards and the flag floated aloft, a branch of a tree caught the bunting and tore it, so that a number of the stars and stripes were detached and hung dangling beneath the rest of the flag, half detached from the staff.

I dined at Captain Johnson's lodgings next door to mine. Beneath us was a wine and spirit store, and crowds of officers and men flocked indiscriminately to make their purchases, with a good deal of tumult, which increased as the night came on. Later still, there was a great disturbance in the city. A body of New York Zouaves wrecked some houses of bad repute, in one of which a private of the regiment was murdered early this morning. The cavalry patrols were called out and charged the rioters, who were dispersed with difficulty after resistance in which men on both sides were wounded. There is no police, no provost guard. Soldiers wander about the streets, and beg in the fashion of the mendicant in “Gil Bias” for money to get whiskey. My colored gentleman has been led away by the Saturnalia and has taken to gambling in the camps, which are surrounded by hordes of rascally followers and sutlers' servants, and I find myself on the eve of a campaign, without servant, horse, equipment, or means of transport.

SOURCE: William Howard Russell, My Diary North and South, Vol. 1, p. 389-90

Nathaniel Peabody Rogers: The Discussion, July 14, 1838

The discussion goes on. It pervades, it possesses, it “agitates” the land. It must be stopped, or slavery dies, and the colored man has his liberty and his rights, and Colonization is superseded. Can it not be stopped? Cannot the doctors, the editors, the “property and standing,” the legislatures, congress, the mob, Mr. Gurley, somebody or other, some power or other, the governors, his honor the Chief Justice Lynch; cannot any body, or every body united, put down this discussion? Alas for the “peculiar institution!” it cannot be done. The club of Hercules could not strike it down; it is as impalpable to the brute blow as the stately ghost of “buried Denmark” was to the “partisan” of Marcellus. It cannot be stopped or checked. It is unrestrainable as the viewless winds, or the steeds of Apollo. You hear it every where. The atmosphere is rife with it. “Abolition,” “immediate,” “compensation,” “amalgamation,” “inferior,” “equal;” “inalienable,” “rights,” “the Bible,” “of one blood,” “West Indies,” “mobs,” “arson,” “petition,” “gag-law,” “John Quincy Adams,” “Garrison.” These are the words, and as familiar as household phrase. The air resounds to the universal agitation. Truth and conviction every where result, — the Genius of Emancipation moves triumphantly among the half-awakened people. And Slavery, aghast at the general outcry and the fatal discoveries constantly making of its diabolical enormities, gathers up its all for retreat or desperate death, as the case shall demand. The discussion can't be smothered — can't be checked — can't be abated — can't be endured by pro-slavery. The fiat has gone forth. It is registered in heaven. The colored man's humanity is ascertained and proved, and henceforth he is destined to liberty and honor. God is gathering his instrumentalities to purify this Ration. War, Slavery and Drunkenness are to be purged away from it. The drunkard, that wont reform, will be removed from the earth's surface, and his corporeal shame hidden in her friendly recesses, — his spiritual “shame,” alas, to be “everlasting” — with that unutterable “contempt” which must attend final impenitence, as saith God. Those persisting in the brute practice of what is styled military, which is nothing more or less than human tigerism — rational brutality — hatred dressed up in regimentals — malignity cockaded, — and “all uncharitableness” plumed and knapsacked, — homicide under pay, and murder per order, all who persist in this beastly and bloody mania, and refuse to join the standard of universal non-resistance peace-^will perish by the sword, or by some untimely touch of the Almighty, — for Christ hath said, “All they who take the sword shall perish with the sword;” and the period of accomplishment of his work on this little globe is at hand. Let the warrior of the land take warning. “A prudent man foreseeth,” &c. And slaveholders, pilferers of humanity! those light-fingered ones, who “take without liberty” the very glory and essence of a man, — who put out that light which dazzles the eye of the sun, and would burn on, but for this extinction, when the moon hath undergone her final waning, — those traffickers in immortality, who sell a Man “for a pair of shoes;” those hope-extinguishers, heart-crushers, home-quenchers, family-dissolvers, tie-sunderers; — oh, for a vocabulary — new, copious and original, of awful significancy and expression — that should avail us to shadow forth faintly to the apprehensions of mankind, the unutterable character of this new “ill,” that hath befallen inheriting “flesh;” an “ill” that “flesh” by nature was not “heir to;” — oh, those man, woman and child-thieves, — those unnatural, ultra and extra cannibals, who devour their own flesh; whose carniverous monstrosity is not limited to the blood and flesh of the stranger, — whose voracity invades the forbidden degrees, and eats its near relations within the matrimonial prohibitions, — son-eaters and daughter-consumers — who grow children to sell, and put into their coffers, to buy bread withal, the price of their own-begotten offspring; thus eating “themselves a third time,” as Pope says, “in their race” — “the cubless tigress in her jungle raging” is humanity and sympathy, compared to them: she “rages” when the hunter hath borne off her bruised young, and given her savage bosom the pang of maternal bereavement. She would waste her mighty nature to a shadow, and her strong frame to a skeleton, ere she would appease her hunger by profaning the flesh of her own cubs! Slaveholders! American slaveholders, republican slaveholders, liberty slaveholders, Christianity slaveholders, church-member slaveholders, minister slaveholders, doctor of divinity slaveholders, church slaveholders, missionary slaveholders, “Board of Commissioner” slaveholders, monthly concert slaveholders, Bible Society slaveholders, and Bible Withholders! What will the coming millennium say to you, or do with you? What disposition will it make of you and your system, should it burst upon you when it is in the full tide of experiment! the land smoking with it! Will not the glorious morn and opening dawn of Christ's kingdom prove flaming fire to devour you from the face of the earth? The millennial day pouring in its living light upon scenes, whose enormity shrouds the natural sun, what will become of the actors in these scenes? O for the warning voice that once affrighted Nineveh, and clad her nation in sackcloth, from the king on the throne to the beggar on the dunghill; that laid a people in ashes! But it may not be. Another fate, we fear, attends this last of republics. Warning is esteemed as mockery, and admonition as frenzy.

Shall we hold our peace amid scenes like these? Shall we argue and persuade, be courteous, convince, induce, and all that? No — we shall attempt no such thing, for the simple reason that such things are entirely uncalled for, useless, foolish, inadequate.

Argue with slavery, or argue about it; argue about a sinking ship, or a drowning man, or a burning dwelling! Convince a sleeping family, when the staircase and roof are falling in, and the atmosphere is loaded to suffocation with smoke! “Address the understanding,” and “soothe the prejudices,” when you see a man walking down the roof in his sleep, on a three-story house! Bandy compliments and arguments with the somnambulist, on “Table Rock,” when all the waters of lake Superior are thundering in the great Horse Shoe, and deafening the very war of the elements! Would you not shout to him with a clap of thunder through a speaking trumpet — if you could command it — if possible to reach his senses in his appalling extremity? Did Jonah argufy with the city of Nineveh, — “Yet forty days,” cried the vagabond prophet, “and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” That was his salutation. And did the “property and standing” turn up their noses at him, and set the mob on to him? Did the clergy discountenance him, and call him extravagant, misguided, a divider of churches, a disturber of parishes? What would have become of that city, if they had done this? Did they “approve his principles,” but dislike his “measures” and his “spirit?”

Slavery must be cried down, denounced down, ridiculed down, and pro-slavery with it, or rather before it. Slavery will go when pro-slavery starts. The sheep will follow, when the bell-wether leads. Down then with the bloody system! out of the land with it, and out of the world with it — into the Red sea with it! Men shan't be enslaved in this country any longer. Women and children shan't be flogged here any longer. If you undertake to hinder us, the worst is your own. The press is ours. Demolish it, if you please, — muzzle it, you shall never. Shoot down the Lovejoys you can; and if your skirts are not red enough with his blood, dye them deeper with other murders. You can do it with entire impunity. You can get the dead indicted and tried along with you, and the jury will find you all not guilty together; and “public sentiment” will back you up, and say you had ample provocation. To be sure, you will not escape the vengeance of Heaven; but who cares for that, in a free and christian country? You will come to an untimely end; — but that, you know, is nothing to a “judicious,” “well-regulated,” “christian spirit!” But this is all fanaticism. Wait and see.

SOURCE: Collection from the Miscellaneous Writings of Nathaniel Peabody Rogers, Second Edition, p. 5-9 which states it was published in the Herald of Freedom of July 14, 1838.

Gerrit Smith, August 16, 1858

I have often thought that the industrious efforts to persuade the people that I have been untrue to freedom in Kansas, present the most remarkable instances of the success of a lie against the truth. Having done what I could for her in Congress, I came home to do much more for her. My use of men and money to keep slavery out of that territory has been limited only by my ability.

The true history of Kansas is yet to be written. The impression that she has been preserved from the grasp of slavery by the skill of party leaders and by speeches in Congress, is as false as it is common. She has been preserved from it by her own brave spirits and strong arms. To no man living is so much praise due for beating back the tide of border ruffianism and slavery as to my old and dear friend John Brown of Osowatomie. Though he has had at no time under his command more than one hundred and fifty fighting men, yet by his unsurpassed skill and courage he has accomplished wonders for the cause of freedom. Small as have been the armed forces, which have saved Kansas, their maintenance has nevertheless taxed some persons heavily. My eye at this moment is on one merchant in Boston, who has contributed several thousand dollars to this object. What, compared with him, has gaseous oratory, in or out of Congress, done for Kansas?

No man out of Kansas has done so much as Eli Thayer to save her; and no man in Kansas as John Brown — Old John Brown, the fighter. Kansas owes her salvation to no party — to no speeches and no votes either in Congress or elsewhere. She owes it to her ample preparations to repel by physical force the aggressions of slavery. She believed slavery to be a pirate — the superlative pirate; and she prepared herself to deal with it in just that common sense way that every persistent pirate is to be dealt with.

SOURCE: Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 233-4

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 Gideon Welles: Saturday, April 9, 1864

Senator Wilson to-day and Mr. Rice yesterday called in relation to the investigations which Olcott is prosecuting in Boston. They both were moved to call by Smith brothers, who are beginning to feel uneasy. Their attacks on others, if not their wrong acts, have provoked inquiries concerning themselves. I remarked to each of the gentlemen that the Smiths had nothing to apprehend if they had done no wrong.

Finished draft of letter in reply to three resolutions — one of the Senate and two of the House — inquiring concerning the ironclads, Du Pont's attack last April, etc. The documents to be sent are voluminous. Du Pont instigated the inquiry, and will be very likely to regret it, not having seen my report and accompanying papers. He evidently thought I would not publish the detailed reports, which he had secured and prepared for a purpose, but I had communicated them with my report. Spaulding, one of the Naval Committee, allowed himself to be used in the intrigue, and, to his discredit, called for the documents which I had sent in with report and which had been printed before his resolution was offered, though he avers I had not presented them. Few of the Members of Congress do their work thoroughly, or give matters examination, and hence, like Spaulding, are often victimized. But Du Pont and his friend Winter Davis, like all intriguers, overrode themselves in some of their movements. For two years Du Pont was the petted man of the Department. He has abilities and had courted and brought into his clique many of the best officers of the Navy. These always were lauding him. Those who were not of his circle were silent, and I had to form my opinions and conclusions from what I saw and heard. Fox was very devoted to him and could never do too much for him. To no man has he ever evinced more partiality. As a general thing, I have thought Fox, considering his associations and prejudices formed in the service, has been fair and just towards the officers, but DuPont asked for nothing that Fox was not willing and urgent to have me grant, yet eventually D. turned upon 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. 7-8

Diary of William Howard Russell: July 5, 1861

As the young gentleman of color, to whom I had given egregious ransom as well as an advance of wages, did not appear this morning, I was, after an abortive attempt to boil water for coffee and to get a piece of toast, compelled to go in next door, and avail myself of the hospitality of Captain Cecil Johnson, who was installed in the drawing-room of Madame Jost. In the forenoon, Mr. John Bigelow, whose acquaintance I made, much to my gratification in time gone by, on the margin of the Lake of Thun, found me out, and proffered his services; which, as the whilom editor of the “Evening Post” and as a leading Republican, he was in a position to render valuable and most effective; but he could not make a Bucephalus to order, and I have been running through the stables of Washington in vain, hoping to find something up to my weight — such flankless, screwy, shoulderless, catlike creatures were never seen — four of them would scarcely furnish ribs and legs enough to carry a man, but the owners thought that each of them was fit for Baron Rothschild; and then there was saddlery and equipments of all sorts to be got, which the influx of officers and the badness and dearness of the material put quite beyond one's reach. Mr. Bigelow was of opinion that the army would move at once; “But,” said I, “where is the transport — where the cavalry and guns?” “Oh,” replied he, “I suppose we have got everything that is required. I know nothing of these things, but I am told cavalry are no use in the wooded country towards Richmond.” I have not yet been able to go through the camps, but I doubt very much whether the material or commissariat of the grand army of the North is at all adequate to a campaign.

The presumption and ignorance of the New York journals would be ridiculous were they not so mischievous. They describe “this horde of battalion companies — unofficered, clad in all kinds of different uniform, diversely equipped, perfectly ignorant of the principles of military obedience and concerted action,” — for so I hear it described by United States officers themselves — as being "the greatest army the world ever saw; perfect in officers and discipline; unsurpassed in devotion and courage; furnished with every requisite; and destined on its first march to sweep into Richmond, and to obliterate from the Potomac to New Orleans every trace of rebellion.”

The Congress met to-day to hear the President's Message read. Somehow or other there is not such anxiety and eagerness to hear what Mr. Lincoln has to say as one could expect on such a momentous occasion. It would seem as if the forthcoming appeal to arms had overshadowed every other sentiment in the minds of the people. They are waiting for deeds, and care not for words. The confidence of the New York papers, and of the citizens, soldiers, and public speakers, contrast with the dubious and gloomy views of the military men; but of this Message itself there are some incidents independent of the occasion to render it curious, if not interesting. The President has, it is said, written much of it in his own fashion, which has been revised and altered by his Ministers; but he has written it again and repeated himself, and after many struggles a good deal of pure Lincolnism goes down to Congress.

At a little after half-past eleven I went down to the Capitol. Pennsylvania Avenue was thronged as before, but on approaching Capitol Hill, the crowd rather thinned away, as though they shunned, or had no curiosity to hear, the President's Message. One would have thought that, where every one who could get in was at liberty to attend the galleries in both Houses, there would have been an immense pressure from the inhabitants and strangers in the city, as well as from the citizen soldiers, of which such multitudes were in the street; but when I looked up from the floor of the Senate, I was astonished to see that the galleries were not more than three parts filled. There is always a ruinous look about an unfinished building when it is occupied and devoted to business. The Capitol is situated on a hill, one face of which is scraped by the road, and has the appearance of being formed of heaps of rubbish. Towards Pennsylvania Avenue the long frontage abuts on a lawn shaded by trees, through which walks and avenues lead to the many entrances under the porticoes and colonnades; the face which corresponds on the other side looks out on heaps of brick and mortar, cut stone, and a waste of marble blocks lying half buried in the earth and cumbering the ground, which, in the magnificent ideas of the founders and planners of the city, was to be occupied by stately streets. The cleverness of certain speculators in land prevented the execution of the original idea, which was to radiate all the main avenues of the city from the Capitol as a centre, the intermediate streets being formed by circles drawn at regularly increasing intervals from the Capitol, and intersected by the radii. The speculators purchased up the land on the side between the Navy Yard and the site of the Capitol; the result — the land is unoccupied, except by paltry houses, and the capitalists are ruined.

The Capitol would be best described by a series of photographs. Like the Great Republic itself, it is unfinished. It resembles it in another respect: it looks best at a distance; and, again, it is incongruous in its parts. The passages are so dark that artificial light is often required to enable one to find his way. The offices and bureaux of the committees are better than the chambers of the Senate and the House of Representatives. All the encaustics and the white marble and stone staircases suffer from tobacco juice, though there is a liberal display of spittoons at every corner. The official messengers, doorkeepers, and porters wear no distinctive badge or dress. No policemen are on duty, as in our Houses of Parliament; no soldiery, gendarmerie, or sergens-de-ville in the precincts; the crowd wanders about the passages as it pleases, and shows the utmost propriety, never going where it ought not to intrude. There is a special gallery set apart for women; the reporters are commodiously placed in an ample gallery, above the Speaker's chair; the diplomatic circle have their gallery facing the reporters, and they are placed so low down in the somewhat depressed chamber, that every word can be heard from speakers in the remotest parts of the house very distinctly.

The seats of the members are disposed in a manner somewhat like those in the French Chambers. Instead of being in parallel rows to the walls, and at right angles to the Chairman's seat, the separate chairs and desks of the senators are arranged in semicircular rows. The space between the walls and the outer semicircle is called the floor of the house, and it is a high compliment to a stranger to introduce him within this privileged place. There are leather-cushioned seats and lounges put for the accommodation of those who may be introduced by senators, or to whom, as distinguished members of congress in former days, the permission is given to take their seats. Senators Sumner and Wilson introduced me to a chair, and made me acquainted with a number of senators before the business of the day began.

Mr. Sumner, as the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, is supposed to be viewed with some jealousy by Mr. Seward, on account of the disposition attributed to him to interfere in diplomatic questions; but if he does so, we shall have no reason to complain, as the Senator is most desirous of keeping the peace between the two countries, and of mollifying any little acerbities and irritations which may at present exist between them. Senator Wilson is a man who has risen from what would be considered in any country but a republic the lowest ranks of the people. He apprenticed himself to a poor shoemaker when he was twenty-two years of age, and when he was twenty-four years old he began to go to school, and devoted all his earnings to the improvement of education. He got on by degrees, till he set up as a master shoemaker and manufacturer, became a “major-general” of State militia; finally was made Senator of the United States, and is now “Chairman of the Committee of the Senate on Military Affairs.” He is a bluff man, of about fifty years of age, with a peculiar eye and complexion, and seems honest and vigorous. But is he not going ultra crepidam in such a post? At present he is much perplexed by the drunkenness which prevails among the troops, or rather by the desire of the men for spirits, as he has a New England mania on that point. One of the most remarkable-looking men in the House is Mr. Sumner. Mr. Breckinridge and he would probably be the first persons to excite the curiosity of a stranger, so far as to induce him to ask for their names. Save in height — and both are a good deal over six feet — there is no resemblance between the champion of States' Rights and the orator of the Black Republicans. The massive head, the great chin and jaw, and the penetrating eyes of Mr. Breckinridge convey the idea of a man of immense determination, courage, and sagacity. Mr. Sumner's features are indicative of a philosophical and poetical turn of thought, and one might easily conceive that he would be a great advocate, but an indifferent leader of a party.

It was a hot day; but there was no excuse for the slop-coats and light-colored clothing and felt wide-awakes worn by so many senators in such a place. They gave the meeting the aspect of a gathering of bakers or millers; nor did the constant use of the spittoons beside their desks, their reading of newspapers and writing letters during the dispatch of business, or the hurrying to and fro of the pages of the House between the seats, do anything but derogate from the dignity of the assemblage, and, according to European notions, violate the respect due to a Senate Chamber. The pages alluded to are smart boys, from twelve to fifteen years of age, who stand below the President's table, and are employed to go on errands and carry official messages by the members. They wear no particular uniform, and are dressed-as the taste or means of their parents dictate.

The House of Representatives exaggerates all the peculiarities I have observed in the Senate, but the debates are not regarded with so much interest as those of the Upper House; indeed, they are of far less importance. Strong-minded statesmen and officers — Presidents or Ministers — do not care much for the House of Representatives, so long as they are sure of the Senate; and, for the matter of that, a President like Jackson does not care much for Senate and House together. There are privileges attached to a seat in either branch of the Legislature, independent of the great fact that they receive mileage and are paid for their services, which may add some incentive to ambition. Thus the members can order whole tons of stationery for their use, not only when they are in session, but during the recess. Their frank covers parcels by mail, and it is said that Senators without a conscience have sent sewing-machines to their wives and pianos to their daughters as little parcels by post; I had almost forgotten that much the same abuses were in vogue in England some century ago.

The galleries were by no means full, and in that reserved for the diplomatic body the most notable person was M. Mercier, the Minister of France, who, fixing his intelligent and eager face between both hands, watched with keen scrutiny the attitude and conduct of the Senate. None of the members of the English Legation were present. After the lapse of an hour, Mr. Hay, the President's Secretary, made his appearance on the floor, and sent in the Message to the Clerk of the Senate, Mr. Forney, who proceeded to read it to the House. It was listened to in silence, scarcely broken except when some senator murmured “Good, that is so;” but in fact the general purport of it was already known to the supporters of the Ministry, and not a sound came from the galleries. Soon after Mr. Forney had finished, the galleries were cleared, and I returned up Pennsylvania Avenue, in which the crowds of soldiers around bar-rooms, oyster-shops, and restaurants, the groups of men in officers' uniform, and the clattering of disorderly mounted cavaliers in the dust, increased my apprehension that discipline was very little regarded, and that the army over the Potomac had not a very strong hand to keep it within bounds.

As I was walking over with Capt. Johnson to dine with Lord Lyons, I met General Scott leaving his office and walking with great difficulty between two aides-de-camp. He was dressed in a blue frock with gold lace shoulder straps, fastened round the waist by a yellow sash, and with large yellow lapels turned back over the chest in the old style, and moved with great difficulty along the pavement. “You see I am trying to hobble along, but it is hard for me to overcome my many infirmities. I regret I could not have the pleasure of granting you an interview to-day, but I shall cause it to be intimated to you when I may have the pleasure of seeing you; meantime I shall provide you with a pass and the necessary introductions to afford you all facilities with the army.”

After dinner I made a round of visits, and heard the diplomatists speaking of the Message; few, if any of them, in its favor. With the exception perhaps of Baron Gerolt, the Prussian Minister, there is not one member of the Legations who justifies the attempt of the Northern States to assert the supremacy of the Federal Government by the force of arms. Lord Lyons, indeed, in maintaining a judicious reticence, whenever he does speak gives utterance to sentiments becoming the representative of Great Britain at the court of a friendly Power, and the Minister of a people who have been protagonists to slavery for many a long year.

SOURCE: William Howard Russell, My Diary North and South, Vol. 1, p. 383-8