Congressman Albert G. Brown’s Speech on the Delegate from New Mexico, July 19, 1850

SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JULY 19, 1850, ON THE ADMISSION OF THE DELEGATE FROM NEW MEXICO IN ADVANCE OF HER TERRITORIAL ORGANIZATION.

MR. BROWN said he had taken no part in the debates on the question of admitting the delegate from New Mexico, nor did he intend to participate in this discussion at any great length.

The honorable gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gentry] had announced the principle which had governed his vote in favor of Mr. Smith, as a delegate from New Mexico, and had informed us that he should govern himself by the same principle in voting for Mr. Babbit, the delegate from Deseret. To the correctness of the honorable gentleman's theory, Mr. B. made no sort of objection, and if the theory was applicable to the matter in hand, he should be found voting with the gentleman from Tennessee.

The honorable gentleman says, it is a part of the early theory of our government, that, whenever you govern a people, you should grant them representation. No one could mistake the meaning of the gentleman. He meant to assimilate this case to that of our colonial forefathers, and to assume that, as they complained with justice of the British Crown for governing them without giving them representation, the people in New Mexico and Deseret may justly make the same complaint of us. The colonies were governed. The Crown sent them governors, secretaries, judges and tax-gatherers. It required the acts of their local legislatures to be sent home for approval. It governed them with most despotic sway; but do we govern New Mexico and Deseret? How, sir, in what manner have we governed these territories? We have steadily refused them all governments. The ægis of our protection has not been extended over them. We have sent them neither governors, secretaries, judges nor tax-gatherers. We have taken no cognisance of them, or of their condition. This state of things ought not so long to have existed. It was the solemn duty of Congress to have taken these people under its care to have extended over them the shield of the Constitution—to have given them laws and government. It was a reproach to Congress that all this had been neglected or refused. He (Mr. B.) took his due share of this general reproach. It had been the misfortune of himself and of others, that they could not agree on a form of government proper to be granted. It had been the misfortune of the people who were now seeking this informal admission on the floor of Congress, that these differences of opinion existed. But were we on that account to set all precedent at defiance, disregard the law, and trample the principles of the Constitution under foot? He could not agree to this. He stood ready now, as he had stood from the beginning, to vote a proper republican form of government to these territories-to fix for them proper metes and bounds; and this being done, he should vote for the admission of delegates from each.

Mr. B. said he disclaimed all sectional feelings in the votes he was giving. He had taken ground against the admission of Mr. Smith when he avowed himself a zealous pro-slavery advocate. He based his opposition then, as now, on the ground that the laws of the United States and the Constitution had not been extended over the territory; that no territorial government had been established; that nothing had been done which gave to New Mexico any legal right to have her delegate on the floor of Congress. When Mr. Smith changed his position, and to propitiate certain influences, he turned Free-Soiler, and published a vulgar tirade against the South, he (Mr. B.) had not changed his position. He voted against him, as he had originally intended to do. He should now vote against Mr. Babbit, albeit he was understood to be at least not unfriendly to the South.

He could not consent to admit every one to a seat on this floor who comes here and demands admission. If the people on Tiger Island should send us a delegate, he would vote against him. If John Ross or Peter Pitchlyn ask admission from the Choctaws and Cherokees, he would vote against them. If the hunters and trappers on the Rocky Mountains should send their delegate here, he would vote against him.

In all this proceeding he should govern himself by no sectional feeling, but by the sternest principles. Whenever delegates came here, as they had come in the earlier and better days of the republic, from Ohio and Mississippi, from Alabama and Indiana, from Arkansas and Michigan, and, indeed, from all the territories, he should vote to admit them, and ask no questions as to whether they or their constituents were for or against slavery.

He would not pursue this subject. He had risen simply to reply to a remark of his friend from Tennessee. He feared that the popular idea that government and representation should go hand in hand, when propagated by a gentleman so distinguished as the honorable member from Tennessee, and coupled with the question in hand, might mislead the public mind. He had, therefore, felt bound to point out the clear distinction between the case before us, and the one assumed by the gentleman to exist.

He concluded by repeating that, whenever delegates presented themselves from territories formed by the United States, and elected according to law, he should vote for their admission. Beyond this he would not go.

SOURCE: M. W. Cluskey, Editor, Speeches, Messages, and Other Writings of the Hon. Albert G. Brown, A Senator in Congress from the State of Mississippi, p. 192-4

Congressman Horace Mann, August 5, 1850

AUG. 5, 1850.

We are rejoiced at the defeat of the Omnibus Bill. It strengthens the chances of the Territories for freedom. All delay in admitting California, that comes from slavery, will intensify their hatred of it. However the questions may be decided in Congress, the chances are increasing, that the Territories, by their own action, will exclude it. This, too, is the best mode in which the work can be done; for there are many at the South who would all but rebel, if not actually do so, should Congress prohibit slavery, who would still allow it if the Territories themselves prohibit it. Several of the Southern States have actually resolved that they would resist if Congress should pass the proviso; but none have dared to utter a threat if the inhabitants of the Territories legislate it into existence.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 311

Congressman Horace Mann, August 7, 1850

AUG. 7, 1850.

The President's message, yesterday, on the subject of the Texan boundary, gives general satisfaction. The extreme Southern men, who are for the doctrine of States Rights, or nullification, or secession, of course denounce it. But the Constitution men from all parts of the country will, I think, uphold it. . . . Mr. Webster's letter to Gov. Bell is deprecatory in its tone, — a letter coaxing or fearful or timid. The prospect now is that there will be a settlement of the most exciting and alarming topics before Congress, and that the country will have peace out of the commotion in which it is now involved. It may postpone the close of the session for a few days, or even weeks; but this we must bear for the general good.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 311-2

Congressman Horace Mann to Samuel Downer, August 9, 1850

WASHINGTON, Aug. 9, 1850.

S. DOWNER, Esq.

MY DEAR SIR,—Perhaps you will think my prophesying is not from above, because I said the Compromise Bill would pass on the very day that it didn't. But I was deceived, in common with almost everybody else. At the time I wrote you, I had not seen the "Morning Intelligencer" or "Union" of that day, but observed afterwards that both of them anticipated its passage almost certainly. It was a most extraordinary combination of circumstances that defeated it, wholly unexpected by either friend or foe.

You have written me a most excellent letter—your last—full of wisdom and truth. I suppose the issue is made up in Boston, and that Websterism is to be triumphant. Of course, “outer darkness must be the fate of all who do not bow down before the image that he sets up. You speak of my defying it and assailing it. I feel just as you speak; but is not the time now.

New events will develop themselves before the adjournment of Congress; and we shall not know where to plant ourselves until we see the results of present movements. If we were to take any ground today, the chance is that some new event would change the whole aspect of affairs, and render the application of the wisest counsels ineffectual. When the session is over, we shall see what is before us, and what is behind.

I shall not be surprised even if California is not admitted this session, or, if admitted, then admitted on such terms as would make us all prefer that it should remain where it is. . . .

Yours ever and truly,

H. MANN.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 312-3

Senator Daniel Webster to Senator Daniel S. Dickinson, December 28, 1850

SATURDAY MORNING, December 28.

MY DEAR SIR—The House passed, last night, a very important resolution, providing for the filling up the gap in the published debates. This would be a most useful thing. For some years I have been studying the history of the earlier period of this government, and we can have no complete political history till the hiatus is filled. I pray you give the subject one of your beneficent smiles.

Yours always truly,

DANIEL WEBSTER.

SOURCE: John R. Dickinson, Editor, Speeches, Correspondence, Etc., of the Late Daniel S. Dickinson of New York, Vol. 2, p. 456-7

Senator Robert M. T. Hunter to Richard Rowzee, August 9, 1852

WASHINGTON, [D. C.], August 9th, 1852.

MY DEAR SIR: I regret to learn from your letter that there are democrats in our county who hestitate in relation to voting for Pierce and King upon the suspicion that the former entertains "abolition principles." You ask my opinion in relation to this charge. I have no hestitation in saying that I have never given this charge the least credence. Gen[era]l Pierce's course upon this subject whilst he was in Congress was such as to have made it highly improbable that he could have uttered any such statement. The charge too has been denied by persons who heard the speech at New Boston, first by Messrs. B. F. Ager and James M. Campbell. The certain respectibility and credibility of these gentlemen have been vouched by Mr. Norris, a Senator from New Hampshire, and Messrs. Hibbard and Peaslee members of the Ho[use] of Rep[resentative]s from the same state. These are gentlemen of the very highest standing, men whose word no one can doubt who knows them. The statement of Messrs. Ager and Campbell has been sustained by more than one hundred persons who were present when the speech was delivered and who have published a document to that effect. But in addition to all this an editorial of the Union for which I presume Genl. Armstrong is responsible states that he has seen a letter from Genl. Pierce himself denouncing the charge as being "grossly false."

It seems to me that this evidence ought to satisfy any unprejudiced mind. I may add that I was a member of the Ho[use] of Rep[resentative]s whilst Gen[era]l Pierce was in the Senate and had some opportunities to observe his course. The result of these observations was a conviction that he was one of the most reliable politicians upon this subject of slavery of all whom I knew in the non-slaveholding states.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 146-7

Daniel Webster to Francis Haven, July 23, 1850

Washington, July 25, 1850—Friday, twelve o'clock.

MY DEAR SIR,—I thank you for all the good wishes and kind expressions in your letter, and hope my transfer to this position may be in some measure useful to the country.

If we could only get the measure now pending in the Senate passed into a law, we should have a glorious prospect before us indeed. But you see how decided is the hostility of the Massachusetts members. With their consent, it would become a law in a week. If it fail, we must try something else.

An eminent Northern Senator came to me last night to know what he could do to insure the passage of this bill. He was ready to do any thing but to vote for it. Half a dozen others are in exactly the same condition. They became committed to a favorite measure of the late President before his death. All that holds them to it now, is the notion of consistency. I was not without hopes last night that the bill would pass the Senate.

Yours truly,

DANIEL WEBSTER.

SOURCE: Fletcher Webster, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster, Vol. 2, p. 379-80

Daniel Webster to Professor Stuart, August 10, 1850

Washington, August 10, 1850.

MY DEAR SIR,—So many things have occupied my attention of late, that I have neglected those I love most, and am most indebted to. I have no other apology for suffering your letter to remain so long unanswered.

The cabinet is not yet full, but will be if Mr. McClelland accepts the Department of the Interior. They are all sound men, of fair and upright character, sober minds, and national views. The President himself is a man of sagacity, entire fairness, and a good deal of vigor.

There is yet to be a warm contest in the House of Representatives, extremes coöperating as usual. The southern gentlemen, in number about forty, had a meeting last night. They resolved to resist, and try to amend the bill for the settlement of the Texan boundary, but not to make any factious opposition, by calling ayes and noes, &c. It is probable the bill will pass the House, as it went from the Senate.

It is hoped the California bill will get through the Senate on Monday.

All Southern men of intelligence and fairness, admire your pamphlet, and they intend, in a quiet way, to give it extensive circulation. The most learned and respectable clergymen this way, all say the scriptural argument is unanswerable. Badger, who is learned and discerning in such things, particularly admires it. I shall join very cordially in an attempt to spread its influence and usefulness. No matter who, or how many attack you. If they will only quote you fairly, you have nothing to fear. But some periodicals, calling themselves religious, have an abominable habit of misrepresenting an adversary's statements and arguments.

I am rather ashamed of my change of position.¹ I fear I've come from home; but here I am, and shall do as well as I can. I have great occasion to be thankful for excellent health. Yours, with affectionate regard,

D. WEBSTER.

_______________

¹ Leaving the Senate for the [State] Department.

SOURCE: Fletcher Webster, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster, Vol. 2, p. 383-4

Daniel Webster to Peter. Harvey, Tuesday, September 10, 1850

Tuesday, two o'clock. September 10, 1850.

MY DEAR SIR,—You have heard how all things have gone, so far. I confess I feel relieved. Since the 7th of March, there has not been an hour in which I have not felt a "crushing" weight of anxiety and responsibility. I have gone to sleep at night, and waked in the morning with the same feeling of eating care. And I have set down to no breakfast or dinner to which I have brought an unconcerned and easy mind. It is over. My part is acted, and I am satisfied. The rest I leave to stronger bodies and fresher minds. My annual cold is now heavy upon me, weakening my body, and depressing my spirits. It has yet a fortnight to run; and perhaps will sink me lower than it did, when strong excitement enabled me to withstand it. I have lost a good deal of flesh, and you will think me thin and haggard. I have had little sleep, not four hours a night, on an average for the whole six months. Now I mean to grow stupid and lazy, and, if I can get rid of my catarrh, to eat and drink like an Alderman.

It is a day of rejoicing here, such as I never witnessed. The face of every thing seems changed. You would suppose nobody had ever thought of disunion. All say, they always meant to stand by the Union to the last.

Boston, ever true and glorious Boston, has helped us immensely. Mr. Eliot's triumphant election awakened entirely new hopes. Up to that period, they had no hopes of the North. I never knew an election, by its mere character of an election, on certain principles, produce half so much effect. He is quite a lion here. He is decided, straightforward, without any shadow of turning. It ran through the whole city, on Friday after the main vote had been taken, that Mr. Eliot said, "Now we have trodden Satan under our feet." I mention this, only to show with how much eagerness every thing is listened to, that a sound northern man says against abolitionism and all the other "isms."

Pray remember me to Mr. T. B. Curtis, Mr. Mills, Mr. Haven, and other friends. There is a host of them I shall never cease to love. Boston forever.

My eyes allow me to write only about one hour a day.

I hope to see the State House and the Common, and the Steeple on the old South, two days after Congress adjourns. Among others, remember me kindly to Fearing.

Yours truly,

D. WEBSTER.

P. S. I look to hear from you to-morrow morning.

SOURCE: Fletcher Webster, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster, Vol. 2, p. 385-6

Daniel Webster to Peter Harvey, September 16, 1850

Washington, Monday, September 16, 1850.

MY DEAR SIR,—Your two very gratifying letters were received this morning. It is my purpose to remain here till Congress adjourns, and then, so soon as the cars shall be a little cleared of the crowd, to go North. I shall be content that the people of Boston dispose of me just as they see fit. They have been accustomed to do that, and as they have always treated me much better than I deserved, I shall not now oppose any of their wishes.

You will all know when I shall be coming along. Of course, Mr. Eliot must be invited to any proceedings intended to be complimentary to me. He has acted a noble part, and deserves all commendation.

The weather is so cool, I write a few lines with my own hand this morning, but must not tax my eyes too far.

Yours always, truly,

DAN'L WEBSTER.

P. S. Thursday morning.—This should have been sent three days ago, but it got mislaid. No great news here to-day. Congress is working along, and I hope will get through by the 30th.

SOURCE: Fletcher Webster, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster, Vol. 2, p. 389

General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, July 8, 1871

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES,        

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 8, 1871.

Dear Brother:

*          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *

I saw General Grant when he was here some days ago, and we talked about . . . and my published declination of a nomination by either party. I told him plainly that the South would go against him en masse, though he counts on South Carolina, Louisiana, and Arkansas; but I repeated my conviction, that all that was vital at the South was against him, and that negroes were generally quiescent and could not be relied on as voters when local questions become mixed up with political matters. I think, however, he will be renominated and re-elected, unless by personally doing small things, to alienate his party adherence of the North. . . .

My office has been by law stript of all the influence and prestige it possessed under Grant, and even in matters of discipline and army control I am neglected, overlooked, or snubbed. I have called General Grant's attention to the fact several times, but got no satisfactory redress.

The old regulations of 1853, made by Jeff Davis in hostility to General Scott, are now strictly construed and enforced; and in these regulations the War Department is everything, and the name of General, Lieutenant-General, or Commander-in-Chief even, does not appear in the book. Consequently, orders go to parts of the army supposed to be under my command, of which I know nothing till I read them in the newspapers; and when I call the attention of the Secretary to it, he simply refers to some paragraph of the Army Regulations. Some five years ago there was a law to revise these Regulations, and to make them conform to the new order of things, and to utilize the experiences of the war. A Board was appointed here in Washington, composed of Sherman, Sheridan, and Auger, that did so revise them, and they were submitted to Congress with the approval of General Grant; but no action was taken. But now a new Board is ordered to prepare another set, and this Board is composed of a set of officers hardly qualified to revise the judgment of the former Board. I propose patiently to await the action of this Board, though now that war is remote, there is little chance of Congress giving the army a thought at all; and if these new regulations were framed, as I suppose, to cripple the power of the General, and to foster the heads of staff departments, I will simply notify the President that I cannot undertake to command an army with all its staff independent of the Commander-in-Chief, and ask him. to allow me quietly to remove to St. Louis, to do such special matters as may be committed to me by the President, and leave the Army to be governed and commanded as now, by the Secretary of War, in person. This cannot occur for twelve months. . . .

I have said nothing of this to anybody, and will not do anything hasty or rash; but I do think that because some newspapers berate Grant about his military surroundings, he feels disposed to go to the other extreme. . . .

Affectionately,

W. T. SHERMAN.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 331-2

Senator John Sherman to General William T. Sherman, January 26, 1872

COMMITTEE OF FINANCE,        

U. S. SENATE, WASHINGTON, Jan. 26, 1872.

Dear Brother: . . . Congress is going on with its usual round of debate and delay. I am quite busy with taxes and tariff, and spend most of the time in committee. My re-election has got to be an old story. As the session approached, the opposition to me in my own party died away, and I received the unanimous vote. Still there were five or six Republicans who were disposed to enter into the new party movement, among them Howard and certain Cincinnati members. They disavowed any hostility to me, but were inclined to support Cox as an Anti-Grant or new departure candidate. Perhaps if the whole body of the Democrats had gone into this movement it might have resulted in my defeat; but this was found impracticable, and so I was elected by seven majority over all. I think General Grant has found out that my strength in Ohio was equal to his own. I was in Columbus for one week, but was not put to either unusual trouble or expense, and now hold the office as independent in promise as any member of the Senate. . . .  You are to have a grand trip. Your movements are observed and commented upon here kindly. By all means take it easy and don't hurry. . .

Your affectionate brother,

JOHN SHERMAN.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 335

Diary of Gideon Welles: Saturday, March 3, 1866

The week as usual has been busy. The faction in Congress holds possession of the majority in both houses, yet there are signs of restiveness, of misgiving, on the part of many. Baldwin, from the Worcester District, Massachusetts, who is on the Directory, or Reconstruction, Committee, assures me that Stevens has in a great measure lost his influence in that committee. I have no doubt that Baldwin and others so believe when away from Stevens and perhaps when with him, but without intending it or even being fully aware of the extent to which it is carried, they are subjected, controlled, and directed by him. They may, by appeals, modify, but not to great extent, Stevens's plans. Baldwin intimates that action will be taken in behalf of the Tennessee Members, admitting them to the seats to which they are elected, early next week. The same thing has been repeated to me to-day by others. There is a manifest feeling of the gross wrong committed by their exclusion, not only to the State but to the Federal Union.

They have made the necessity of action in this case felt, and Stevens has had to yield, but he will, I presume, make the proceeding odious and unjust. Baldwin asks, Why not pass a law admitting those States? I told him Tennessee had been admitted seventy years ago. He said he did not strictly mean admission, but a law authorizing them to resume their relations with the Government. I said I could not see the necessity, or even the expediency of such a law, for, the Rebellion being suppressed, Tennessee and each of the States resumed their position as States, and if they sent loyal men here, I thought they should be admitted; if disloyal or unpardoned Rebels, such could be rejected. He was, however, very tenacious on this point, and I doubt not is committed to it. What harm, inquired he, can come from passing such a law, preliminary to receiving the Members. I told him it was, as a general rule, harmful to over-legislate, it is harmful to pass laws without authority, to assume powers or to concede them; that Congress, as a body, had no business with the election of Members, but the Constitution directs each house shall decide for itself in regard to the members of the respective bodies. The two houses could not legally or by any constitutional authority exclude a State or deny it representation. It was, however, unpleasant for the President and Congress to be in antagonism, and if it was mere form which he had in view without objectionable points or ulterior purpose, possibly such a bill might not be vetoed, yet I thought it very questionable, for it would be centralizing and magnifying federal power here and dwarfing the State.

I therefore anticipate that Stevens, finding the Committee and Congress are determined to admit the Tennessee Members to their seats, will set to work to frame an offensive bill such as the President cannot sign, or which, if he does sign, will discredit himself and violate his, and all correct, principles. This, however, I am satisfied he will not do. Then on him is to be thrown the responsibility of excluding the Tennessee Members.

I intimated to the President my conjectures, and he remarked he was prepared for such an alternative whenever it was presented. He had, from some quarter, been previously admonished in regard to the doings of the Committee.

Stevens is determined to have an issue between the Executive and Congress, and, notwithstanding a majority of Congress and of the country deprecate such an issue, and Members to me and others express their dislike of and opposition to Stevens, I incline to the opinion that he will, by the working of his Directory machinery, be successful in raising that issue. Should he, the result will be likely to rend the party, unless the minority are subservient and tamely submissive. The Administration must be supported or opposed. The positive and violent will oppose; the mild and passive will yield. Congress must be with the Administration or against it. Double-dealing cannot continue. I am apprehensive that there is treachery to the President in quarters which he will ultimately keenly feel. Sometimes I think he suspects the mischief, but is unwilling to have a breach just at this time and listens to those who advise temporizing and expediency.

Sherman (Senator), after speaking against the concurrent resolution, finally voted for it in the face of his own delivered opinion, argument, and conviction. This is a specimen of the influence of party discipline at this time in Congress. It is all-powerful.

Governor Dennison tells me this evening that he has written a letter to Patterson of New Hampshire, stating that he has removed no man and intends to remove none on account of differences between Congress and the President, provided they belong to the Union party. I am afraid he has gone farther than is wise in this matter, for if Stevens gets up the issue between the President and Congress, it may be necessary for the President to relieve himself of troublesome and officious electioneers in post-offices. I suspect Dennison has been entrapped by fair words.

If I mistake not, the Union League organization has contributed largely to present difficulties. It is controlled by extreme Radicals and rules many Members of Congress. An irresponsible faction, organized for mischief.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 441-4

Diary of Gideon Welles: Tuesday, March 6, 1866

The Secretary of the Treasury is embarrassed by the test oath. He finds it difficult to procure good officers for collectors and assessors in the Rebel States and still more difficult to get good subordinates. When he attempts to reason with Members of Congress, they insist that their object is to exclude the very men required and say they want Northern men sent into those States to collect taxes. As if such a proceeding would not excite enmities and the foreign tax-gatherer be slain!

I advised McCulloch to address a strong and emphatic letter to the President, stating the difficulties, which letter the President could communicate to Congress. A direct issue would then be made, and the country could see and appreciate the difficulties of the Administration. Dennison took the same view, and stated some of his difficulties, and I suggested that he should also present them to the President. Seward was not prepared to act. Harlan was apprehensive that a confession of the fact that it was not possible to procure men of integrity who could take the test oath, would operate injudiciously just at this time. There is, he thinks, a growing feeling for conciliation in Congress, and such a confession would check this feeling. The suggestion was adroitly if not ingenuously put. Stanton half-responded to Harlan; doubted the expediency of a letter from McCulloch; said it was unnecessary; that he paid officers who could not take the oath; thought the Secretary of the Treasury might also; but concluded by saying he had not examined the question. Finally the subject was postponed to Friday. Stanton said it had presented itself to him in a new form during the discussion, and he required a little time for examination and reflection before submitting his views.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 445

Diary of Gideon Welles: Wednesday, March 7, 1866

I have addressed a letter concerning League Island, communicating the report of Mr. Fox, the Assistant Secretary, who visited Philadelphia with the Naval Committee. The improvidence and neglect of Congress on this subject shows how unreliable all legislation is for the public interest in high party times. By an intrigue Brandegee of New London was placed on the Naval Committee. Colfax purchased his support by that appointment, and the displacement of English, an act of dissimulation and discourtesy to me personally as well as a sacrifice of the public interest. Brandegee wants the navy yard at New London because he lives there and it is his home, not for the public interest and the national welfare, and for that narrow, selfish, low object the Navy and the country are sacrificed.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 445-6

Diary of Gideon Welles: Thursday, March 8, 1866

Myers of Philadelphia had a long conversation with me in regard to the "admission" of Tennessee. I told him, as I have others, that Tennessee had been admitted more than seventy years ago. Well, he said, he did not mean admission, but to permit her to send Representatives. I told him he did mean admission and nothing else, and that permission to send Representatives was quite as offensive as his first position. The Constitution secured her that right when the State was admitted and made part of the Union, and Congress could neither deprive nor grant her the privilege of representation. Much more of like tendency passed between us—pleasantly. He expects to make a speech on the subject.

Governor Dennison called this evening to see whether he, McCulloch, and myself had not best consult with the President in regard to the welfare of the Republican Party and endeavor to bring about a reconciliation with the factious majority in Congress. I told him I could see no benefit that would result from such an effort; that the President's policy was well defined; that when Congress assembled, the Members well understood that policy, and that they, the Radicals, had promptly organized to oppose and defeat it; that this hostility or antagonism had gone forward for three months, Congress doing nothing, accomplishing nothing towards a restoration of the Union, but on the contrary had devoted its time and energies to prevent it. What, I asked him, could the President do under these circumstances? He cannot abandon his honest, rightful convictions, and to approach or attempt to approach these Radical leaders in their present state of mind would be misconstrued and retard rather than promote the work. The Republican Party had evidently about accomplished its mission. Slavery was abolished and the Rebellion suppressed. Perhaps it would result beneficially to take a new departure. He appeared to acquiesce in my suggestions.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 446-7

Congressman Horace Mann, June 18, 1850

JUNE 18, 1850.

Yesterday Mr. Webster made his last and special declaration. A motion was pending, that it should be no objection to the admission of any State hereafter to be formed out of the territory ceded by Mexico, that is, California, Utah, or New Mexico,—that its constitution should recognize or provide for or establish slavery. The present Congress, it is admitted on all hands, has no power to act on that subject; but the movement was designed to give some moral power to the claims of slavery hereafter, should such claims be made. Mr. Webster took a retrospect of his whole course since the 7th of March speech, his Newburyport letter, &c., and declared that he had seen, heard, and reflected nothing which had not confirmed him in the soundness of his opinion; and so, in the most solemn manner, he declared his purpose to go for the bill. I think it will pass the Senate beyond all question. I fear it will also pass the House. It is said that Mr. Clay put in the provision about buying out the claims of Texas at some eight or ten or twelve millions of dollars, for the very purpose of securing a sufficient number of votes to carry it.

The Texan debt consists of bonds or scrip, which, at the time the Compromise Bill was brought in, was not worth more than four or five cents on the dollar: but the same stock is said to be now worth fifty per cent; and, should the bill pass, the stock will be worth a premium. Now, where so many persons are interested, will they not influence members? May not members themselves be influenced by becoming owners of this stock? It affords at least a chance for unrighteous proceedings; and, should the bill pass, there are members who will not escape imputation and suspicion.

A rumor has reached us from New Mexico, that the people are taking steps there to call a convention for the formation of a State Constitution. Should this prove authentic, as most people here think it will, and should they put a proviso against slavery in their constitution, would it not look like a godsend, like a special providence, notwithstanding all we say about that class of events?

Oh, may it turn out to be so!

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 303-4

Lieutenant-General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, December 28, 1868

HEADQUARTERS MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSOURI,        

ST. LOUIS, Dec. 28, 1868.

Dear Brother:

*          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *

Of course I don't profess to understand either your bill or Mr. Morton's. I should like to see a consolidated 5 per cent bond gradually substituted to replace the present bonds, to the extent of 2000 millions, requiring 100 millions annually for interest, and a greenback for the balance of debt, say five hundred millions, and all other paper money withdrawn and prohibited. I think Grant won't commit himself to more than the general idea that the debt is sacred, and leave Congress to devise the ways and means. He will of course try all means of practical economy. I agree with him perfectly that no more money subsidies on land grants should be made now or until the debt is in good shape. . .

Affectionately,

W. T. SHERMAN.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 326

Lieutenant-General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, January 6, 1869

HEADQUARTERS MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSOURI,        

ST. LOUIS, MO., Jan. 6, 1869.

Dear Brother:

*          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *

I doubt if you can do much this session in the way of financial legislation, and I hope Congress, on reorganizing after March 4, will follow the old custom of not doing anything till winter. I doubt if as much good will result from debates, as from observing the working of the present system of finance and reconstruction. Next winter you will have the advantage of the experience meanwhile, and Grant will be there, fairly installed, and better prepared to execute what is found to be best. If ever a country was too much governed, ours is. Congress ought to set the example of short sessions.

Yours affectionately,

W. T. SHERMAN.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 326-7

Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, February 2, 1866

I think the President, though calm and reticent, exhibits indications of not being fully satisfied in some respects with the conduct and course of some in whom he has confided; yet he carefully abstains from remarks respecting persons. There can be no doubt that Stanton has given certain of the leading Radicals to understand that his views correspond with theirs, but I do not know that the President is fully aware of that fact. Seward, while he says nothing very decisively, leaves no doubt that he coincides in the general policy of the President. Harlan made a singular speech to the Iowa Radicals a week ago, but has written an explanatory letter which is no explanation. I have no doubt that Dennison is sincerely with the President and means to sustain his measures, yet he makes visible, without intending it, his apprehension that by this policy the Democrats may get a controlling influence. In this he is not singular, for many of the leading Radicals, especially those of Whig antecedents, have similar apprehensions and are afraid to trust the people. Having power, they do not scruple at means to retain it.

The truth is the Radical leaders in Congress openly and secretly have labored to defeat the President, and their hostility has engendered a distrust in their own minds, and caused fairer men, like Dennison, to have fears that the President might identify himself with the Democrats. This subject gives me no uneasiness whatever. I shall not be surprised if the extreme men become alienated, but their abandonment of the President will, under the working of our system of intelligent free thought and action, make room for the more reasonable and calculating of the opposition, if met with intelligent candor and determination. He will naturally feel kindly disposed towards those who sustain him and his measures, and will not be likely to give his confidence to those who oppose both.¹

_______________

¹ The President was at this time greatly embarrassed by the advice and suggestions of Mr. Seward, who, though personally friendly to the President and the Administration, was himself so much of a party man, and so much under the influence of extreme partisans, as to be governed rather by party than by country. It was the aim and object of his New York friends to keep alive party distinctions created by Secession and the War, and to throw the power of the Administration into the Republican, or, in other words, Radical, hands. New York is a great State and has local controversies of its own, independent of the Federal Government, but the centralists could not secure and hold the ascendancy there except by the aid of the Federal Government. The New York politicians had, therefore, a double part to play, and Mr. Seward was their agent to effect their purpose. Whilst Thad Stevens and the extreme Radicals were making war on the Executive, it was important for the New Yorkers, and indeed for men of similar views in other States not to break immediately with the President, but to use the power and patronage of the Executive to promote their own ends. He had been elected by them, and Mr. Seward urged that he should not neglect them, even if they disagreed with him, for he insisted that the Democrats, although their views were with him on present questions, were opposed to him and his Administration. Party before country was inculcated by both Radicals and Democrats. The President had in the past as in the present placed country above party, and was consequently not a favorite with either.

Almost all the members of the Cabinet were strict party men and were subjected to severe discipline in those days. Without an exception they approved the principles and assented to the opinions and purposes of the President, but it was soon given out that they must conform to the theory and doctrines of Thad Stevens if they designed to preserve their Republican Party identity. Congress was the supreme department of the Government and must be recognized as the supreme power. Members of Congress must be permitted to exercise executive duties. The legislative department must control the action of the Government, prescribe its policy, its measures, and dictate appointments to the executive, or subordinate, department. Most of the members of the Cabinet acquiesced or submitted to the usurpation. No appointments or nominations to office made by the Executive, who was bound to see the laws executed, were confirmed by the Senate, except the nominees were first recommended or indorsed by Radical Members of Congress. Some of the Cabinet under these circumstances surrendered and made terms.

Mr. Seward advised that there should be compromise and concession. The President, unwilling to break with those who elected him, yielded and failed to make a stand and appeal to his countrymen for support. As a consequence, the unscrupulous Radicals wielded the government in all its departments.—G. W.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 424-6