At my special
request the President made an order restoring General Hawley to duty, who had
been mustered out of service. Had some conversation with General Hawley, who
was an original and earnest Abolitionist, on political subjects. I perceive
that the negro is pretty strong on his brain. Advised him to keep within
constitutional limitations and not permit humanitarian impulses to silence
reason or break our governmental restraints. Suggested that he should also
caution Warner not to commit his paper too strongly and inconsiderately to
Radical impulses.
There is an apparent
determination among those who are ingrained Abolitionists to compel the
government to impose conditions on the Rebel States that are wholly
unwarranted. Prominent men are striving to establish a party on the basis of
equality of races in the Rebel States, for which the people are not prepared,
perhaps they never will be, for these very leaders do not believe in social
equality, nor will they practice it. Mr. Sumner, who is an unmarried man, has
striven to overcome what seems a natural repugnance. A negro lawyer has been
presented by him to practice in the Supreme Court, and extra demonstrations of
that kind have been made by him and Chief Justice Chase. Sumner, I think, has
become a devotee in this matter; it is his specialty, and, not being a
Constitutionalist in politics, he is sincere, I have no doubt, in his schemes.
I cannot say quite as much in favor of the Chief Justice. His work is connected
more closely with political party aspirations. Sumner is not divested of them.
General Hawley is of that school. Wants to do for the negro. His old associates
are on that idea. Many of them — most of them would assume, and have the
government assume, arbitrary power, regardless of the Constitution, to carry
into effect their opinions and wishes. General H. is too intelligent for this,
yet it is evident he would strain a point for the negro.
Judge Blair has been
making a speech at Clarksville in Maryland which appears to me to be in some
respects injudicious just at this time. Yet it is a demonstration deliberately
made and for a purpose. He anticipates a new formation of parties and is
preparing for it in advance, all of which may be well, provided he does not go
too fast and too far. I think his speech is too intensely personal to be
effective. This is not the time to make assaults on Seward, perhaps not on
Stanton, unless confident not only that he is right but that he will be
sustained. He will not be supported by the press of either party. I am not
certain that he wishes to be at present; but whether, if he loses the general
confidence, he can regain it when he exhibits so much acrimony, is doubtful.
I think better of
Blair than most persons will on reading his speech. He is not a malignant or
revengeful man; is generous, frank, truthful, honest; scorns a mean thing,
detests duplicity, and abhors a liar. He has good political and general
intelligence, understands men generally very well, but I think is sometimes
imposed upon. In his friendships and hates he occupies no middle ground, and
sometimes, I think, judges severely and harshly. I see no reason for the
onslaught on Seward at this time.
Holt is also
assailed, as if Seward and Stanton were not enough. It is painful to have a man
like Holt denounced. He is a stern, stubborn, relentless man, has his faults,
but I believe is a patriot and a statesman of ability. I have esteemed him to
be the ablest man in Buchanan's cabinet, and beyond any other one the principal
mind to sustain the national integrity in that combination during the winter
preceding the advent of President Lincoln, and I regretted that he was not
preferred to Stanton as the successor of Cameron if one of that cabinet were
taken. Why Blair should attack Holt, I do not understand, unless because of his
identification with Stanton, which is certainly not to his credit. Blair brings
out a singular and unfortunate letter of Holt's to some one in Pittsburg, which
had escaped my memory, and which can hardly be excused in these days. But the
changes and vicissitudes which have occurred during the last few eventful years
have taught me to have forbearance for men's utterances and actions. My own
language was sometimes mild and gentle when it should have been strong to
resist the coming storm which I vainly hoped might be averted; at other times
it was rash and almost violent when mildness and conciliation were necessary.
Human foresight is short and insufficient, and indulgence is due to men in
positions of responsibility who were compelled to act, and who in view of the
calamities that overhung the country strove to extricate the government and
country.
