Jonathan Worth to proably Joseph John Jackson [fragment]*, after December 3, 1860

The late election of Clingman² to the U. S. Senate awakens painful reflections in every lover of Union, whose patriotism raises him above the influences of party. He has been long known as a sympathizer with the Disunionists of S. C.—originally a Henry Clay Whig–reviling Democracy more than his leader, of late years he got his eye on his present position, abandoning all his early principles and became a Democrat of the straightest order. At the opening of this Congress, upon the reading of President Buchanan's message, he was the first to condemn it on account of its pacific tone. He has long been known as favoring Disunion.

In the election for members of the present Legislature, it has often been asserted in debate here and in no instance denied, so far as I have heard, that every member, while a Candidate, professed devotion to the Union and declared the election of Lincoln, which we all expected would happen, would not justify breaking up the Union. Since then no one pretends that any new cause of offense to the South has occurred. It is well known that nearly all the unpretending Democratic members were at heart what they had professed to be before their constituents— Union men. But their leaders had doubtless joined the Southern league. Avery,³ Hall,⁴ Erwin,⁵ Street,⁶ Person,⁷ Hoke,⁸ Bachelor,⁹ Bridgers,¹⁰ in the first caucus, assumed the lead and demanded the decapitation of Holden, because he was known to be for Union. The rank and file were astounded. When required to abandon their old and approved leader, one who was known to have been the very heart of Democracy for long years past, the most talented and hitherto the most influential of their party, plain, honest members, gaped in wonder; and very many of them had the moral courage, at first, to oppose their leaders. Many honest Democrats, largely interested in slave property, could not at first understand why a native North Carolinian, himself a slave owner, lately deemed worthy to be Governor and United States Senator and a Union man, was to be superseded by a man lately from England, naturalized last April, without interest in slaves, an avowed Disunionist, a man without social position in Raleigh, where he was best known. The most prositable office in the gift of the General Assembly was the public printing. This first important move of the leaders was carried by a bare majority in Caucus; but being carried the rank and file, true to discipline, came in the next day and voted unanimously for John Spelman for public printer. The leaders next demanded that they should vote for Clingman. Many of the more worthy members

_______________

* This fragment of a letter in Worth's writing was probably to J. J. Jackson.

² Thomas L. Clingman, b. 1812. Whig member of Commons 1835 and 1841. Member of Congress 1843-45, 1847-58. United States Senator 1858-61. In 1850 he became a Democrat. He was a Consederate Brigadier General during the war. In 1875 he was a member of the State Convention.

³ W. W. Avery of Burke.

⁴ Eli W. Hall of New Hanover.

⁵ Marcus Erwin of Buncombe

⁶ Nathaniel H. Street of Craven.

⁷ Saml. J. Person of New Hanover.

⁸ John F. Hoke of Lincoln.

⁹ Jos. B. Batchelor of Warren.

¹⁰ Robt. R. Bridgers of Edgecombe

SOURCE: J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton, Editor, The Correspondence of Jonathan Worth, Volume 1, p. 125-6

Jonathan Worth to Joseph John Jackson, November 29, 1860

RALEIGH, Nov. 29, '60.

You will have seen that all the important elections are over excepting that of Senator. The papers announce that Clingman has received the caucus nomination. I am confident that this is a mistake. On the contrary the understanding here is that the Caucus laid on the table the motion to nominate a Senator. I presume Union Democrats are unwilling to vote for him. I hear that some of them prefer Bedford Brown. I am not in the secrets of those that can control the election, but should not be surprised if Brown should be the man. The Disunion influence here is less potent than it was at the opening of the session. I hope no action will be taken as to our Federal relation before the Christmas holidays and that we shall then adjourn until the inauguration of Lincoln. If he should pledge himself to execute the Fugitive Slave Law, and do it, I care nothing about the question as to Squatter Sovereignty. If he adopt the Southern doctrine that a State may disregard an act of Congress at pleasure and such State should not be coerced—If S. C., for instance, seize the U. S. magazine and refuse to pay duties or seize the public arms in the National Capital Arsenal and he refuse to coerce the obedience—it follows that he ought not to enforce the execution of the Fugitive Slave Law in the nullifying free States——and in that case there is virtually no Union to dissolve; upon this idea we have no government, and it will be expedient to establish one.

SOURCE: J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton, Editor, The Correspondence of Jonathan Worth, Volume 1, p. 124

Diary of to Amos A. Lawrence: November 29, 1860

Thanksgiving. Received notice to meet a town committee on Bradley's Hill, about buying it. Then went to church. Afterwards to see Henry Upham, who is unwell. The children went to James Amory's in the evening. The reminiscences grow too numerous to make such days cheerful ones, except as we should be cheerful in approaching the end of our journey.

God bless my dear ones, and give them all grace to serve Thee all their days. Grant that we may all meet, when this life is over, in heaven.

God bless my distracted country. Turn the hearts of the people toward each other again. Save us from disunion, and save us from shedding fraternal blood.

SOURCE: William Lawrence, Life of Amos A. Lawrence: With Extracts from His Diary and Correspondence, p. 156-7

Nathaniel Peabody Rogers: Color-phobia, November 10, 1838

COLOR-PHOBIA.

Our people have got it. They have got it in the blue, collapse stage. Many of them have got it so bad, they can't get well. They will die of it. It will be a mercy, if the nation does not. What a dignified, philosophic malady! Dread of complexion. They don't know they have got it — or think, rather, they took it the natural way. But they were inoculated. It was injected into their veins and incided into their systems, by old Doctor Slavery, the great doctor that the famous Dr. Wayland studied with. There is a kind of varioloid type, called colonization. They generally go together, or all that have one are more apt to catch the other. Inoculate for one, (no matter which,) and they will have both, before they get over it. The remedy and the preventive, if taken early, is a kine-pock sort of matter, by the name of anti-slavery. It is a safe preventive and a certain cure. None that have it, genuine, ever catch slavery or colonization or the color-phobia. You can't inoculate either into them. It somehow changes and redeems the constitution, so that it is unsusceptible of them. An abolitionist can sleep safely all night in a close room, where there has been a colonization meeting the day before. He might sleep with It. R. Gurley and old Dr. Proudfit, three in a bed, and not catch it. The remedy was discovered by Dr. William Lloyd Jenner-Garrison.

This color-phobia is making terrible havoc among our communities. Anti-slavery drives it out, and after a while cures it. But it is a base, low, vulgar ailment. It is meaner, in fact, than the itch. It is worse to get rid of than the “seven years' itch.” It is fouler than Old Testament leprosy. It seems to set the dragon into a man, and make him treat poor, dark-skinned folks like a tiger. It goes hardest with dark-complect white people. They have it longer and harder than light-skinned people. It makes them sing out “Nigger—nigger,” sometimes in their sleep. Sometimes they make a noise like this, “Darkey—darkey— darkey.” Sometimes, “Wully—wully—wully.” They will turn up their noses, when they see colored people, especially if they are of a pretty rank, savory habit of person, themselves. They are generally apt to turn up their noses, as though there was some “bad smell” in the neighborhood, when they have it bad, and are naturally pretty odoriferous. It is a tasty disorder — a beautiful ailment; very genteel, and apt to go in “first families.” We should like to have Hogarth take a sketch of a community that had it — of ours, for instance, when the St. Vitus’ fit was on. We have read somewhere of a painter, who made so droll a picture, that he died a-laughing at the sight of it. Hogarth might not laugh at this picture. It would be a sight to cry at, rather than laugh, especially if he could see the poor objects of our frenzy, when the fit is on — which indeed is all the time, for it is an unintermittent. Our attitude would be most ridiculous and ludicrous, if it were not too mortifying and humiliating and cruel. Our Hogarth would be apt to die of something else than laughter, at sight of his sketch.

The courtly malady is the secret of all our anti-abolition, and all our mobocracy. It shuts up all the consecrated meetinghouses — and all the temples of justice, the court-houses, against the friends of negro liberty. It is all alive with fidgets about desecrating the Sabbath with anti-slavery lectures. It thinks anti-slavery pew-owners can't go into them, or use their pulpit, when it is empty, without leave of the minister whom they employ to preach in it. It will forcibly shut people out of their own houses and off their own land, — not with the respectful violence of enemies and trespassers, but the contemptuous unceremoniousness of the plantation overseer — mingled moreover with the slavish irascibility of the poor negro, when he holds down his fellow-slave for a flogging. It sneers at human rights through the free press. It handed John B. Mahin over to the alligators of Kentucky. It shot Elijah P. Lovejoy at Alton. It dragged away the free school, at Canaan. It set Pennsylvania Hall a-fire.

It broke Miss Crandall's school windows, and threw filth into her well. It stormed the female prayer meeting in Boston, with a “property and standing” forlorn hope. It passed the popish resolution at Littleton, in Grafton county. It shut up the meeting-house at Meredith Bridge, against minister and all, — and the homely court-house there, and howled like bedlam around the little, remote district school-house, and broke the windows at night. It excludes consideration and prayer in regard to the forlorn and christian-made heathenism of the American colored man, from county conferences and clerical associations. It broods over the mousings of the New York Observer, and gives keenness to the edge and point of its New Hampshire name-sake. It votes anti-slavery lectures out of the New Hampshire state house, and gives it public hearing on petitions, in a seven by nine committee room. It answers the most insulting mandate of southern governors, calling for violations of the state constitution and bill of rights, by legislative report and resolves that the paramount rights of slavery are safe enough in New Hampshire, without these violations. It sneers and scowls at woman's speaking in company, unless to simper, when she is flattered by a fool of the masculine or neuter gender. It won't sign an anti-slavery petition, for fear it will put back emancipation half a century. It votes in favor of communing with slaveholders, and throwing the pulpit wide open to men-stealers, to keep peace in the churches, and prevent disunion. It will stifle and strangle sympathy for the slave and " remembrance of those in bonds," to prevent disturbance of religious revivals. It will sell the American slave to buy Bibles, or hire negro-hating and negro-buying missionaries for foreign heathen of all quarters but christian-wasted Africa. It prefers American lecturers on slavery, to having that foreign emissary, George Thompson, come over here, to interfere with American rights and prejudices. It abhors "church action" and "meddling with politics." In short, it abhors slavery in the abstract — wishes it might be done away, but denies the right of any body or any thing to devise its overthrow, but slavery itself and slaveholders. It prays for the poor slave, that he might be elevated, while it stands both feet on his breast to keep him down. It prays God might open a way in his own time for the deliverance of the slave, while it stands, with arms akimbo, right across the way he has already opened. Time would fail us to tell of its extent and depth in this free country, or the deeds it has done. Anti-slavery must cure it, or it must die out like the incurable drunkards.

SOURCE: Collection from the Miscellaneous Writings of Nathaniel Peabody Rogers, Second Edition, p. 44-7 which states it was published in the Herald of Freedom of November 10, 1838.

“Public Meeting” Handbill, before July 10, 1832

Public Meeting.

The citizens of Adams County, adverse to the election of judges by the people, and opposed to Nullification, are requested to meet at the court-house, in the city of Natchez, on Thursday next, the 10th instant, at 11 o'clock.

The necessity for calling this meeting is deeply regretted; not the more so, that it has occurred at a period so close upon the election, than as affecting the political standing of a gentleman who has been placed before the people of Adams, by the spontaneous act of a large portion of its citizens, as a candidate for one of their highest gifts. It is believed by a large body of those of Judge Quitman's friends who sustained his nomination, and who intended by their votes to have contributed to his election, that he is a Nullifier in principle! That his opinions, frequently of late expressed upon the subject of nullification, are the same as Mr. Calhoun's and Mr. Hayne's; the ono its author, the other its first public propagator. Judge Quitman's friends in this county believe that nullification is unsound in theory, and contrary to the Constitution; that its tendency is anarchy, and that the effect of its practical application to any given case is disunion! They look to the indications in South Carolina, and despair of its permanency, while she asserts her right and intention to nullify a law of the United States. They look to the threats of her governor that, before the year is out, her citizens will be in arms; to the declarations of a portion of her delegation in Congress, who wish to go home and prepare for war. They are also well aware of the disposition of the leaders of the party to form a great Southern league to crusade against the Union. Under these circumstances, and at such a crisis, a large portion of Judge Quitman's friends can not sustain him, without sustaining nullification, and putting at issue in this state the question of union or disunion.

It is therefore thought proper that this meeting be called, with the view of endeavoring to produce such reconciliation as will prevent any serious division in the ranks of those opposed to the election of judges by the people, or, if that is found to be impracticable, to bring out another candidate in place of Judge Quitman. It is expected and desired that Judge Quitman will attend; and, if his opinions have been misrepresented, that his friends may be undeceived and again united.

many Citizens.

SOURCE: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 112-3

William T. Sherman to John Sherman, January & February, 1860

[January and February, 1860].

Dear Brother: I received your letter explaining how you happened to sign for that Helper book. Of course it was an unfortunate accident, which will be a good reason for your refusing hereafter your signature to unfinished books. After Clark's resolution, you were right, of course, to remain silent. I hope you will still succeed, as then you will have ample opportunity to show a fair independence.

The rampant southern feeling is not so strong in Louisiana as in Mississippi and Carolina. Still, holding many slaves, they naturally feel the intense anxiety all must whose property and existence depend on the safety of their property and labor. I do hope that Congress may organize and that all things may move along smoothly. It would be the height of folly to drive the South to desperation, and I hope, after the fact is admitted that the North has the majority and right to control national matters and interests, that they will so use their power as to reassure the South that there is no intention to disturb the actual existence of slavery.

. . . The excitement attending the speakership has died away here, and Louisiana will not make any disunion moves. Indeed, she is very prosperous, and the Mississippi is a strong link, which she cannot sever. Besides, the price of negroes is higher than ever before, indicating a secure feeling. . .

I have seen all your debates thus far, and no southern or other gentleman will question their fairness and dignity, and I believe, unless you are unduly provoked, they will ever continue so. I see you are suffering some of the penalties of greatness, having an awful likeness paraded in Harper's, to decorate the walls of country inns. I have seen that of Harper, and as the name is below, I recognize it. Some here say they see a likeness to me, but I don't.

. . . I don't like the looks of the times. This political turmoil, the sending commissions from state to state, the organization of military schools and establishments, and universal belief in the South that disunion is not only possible but certain, are bad signs. If our country falls into anarchy, it will be Mexico, only worse. I was in hopes the crisis would have been deferred till the states of the northwest became so populous as to hold both extremes in check. Disunion would be Civil War, and you politicians would lose all charm. Military men would then step on the tapis, and you would have to retire. Though you think such a thing absurd, yet it is not so, and there would be vast numbers who would think the change for the better.

I have been well sustained here, and the legislature proposes further to endow us well and place us in the strongest possible financial position. If they do, and this danger of disunion blow over, I shall stay here; but in case of a breach, I would go north. . .

SOURCE: Walter L. Fleming, General W.T. Sherman as College President, p. 118-20

Morbid Sensibilities.

We admit the truth of your first remark, that “the subject involved is delicate, and daily becomes more so from the morbid sensibilities which are excited, pro and con.” By morbid sensibilities, in both the friends and the opposers of slavery, we suppose you mean a diseased state of those qualities which render them quick of perception and sensation; or at least, an unhappy constitutional bias to such irriration and excitement as one in a sane state of mind would not in the same circumstances, either exhibit or feel. The high excitement of this morbid sensitiveness which has within a few years so extensively existed, we, no less than you, sincerely deplore. Nor can we object to the opinion you have expressed, that it has not made better men, citizens, or christians; that it has done no good in any quarter of the country, but much hurt. It has probably in some instances been overruled for good, but its own natural tendency is to discord, confusion, and every evil work. Some of its effects we have seen, and of far more we have heard. It has induced some of our countrymen to load, not only slaveholders, but all who did not come out in organized opposition to them, with harsh and opprobious epithets; to publish inflammatory articles, to the prejudice of others, without any sufficient evidence of their truth, and which in some instances have turned out to be false; to defend themselves by deadly weapons, sometimes at the expense of the assailant’s life; and to resort in various ways to the use of rash and unwise measures for the abolition of slavery; it has moved others to break up seminaries of learning, because young persons of color were allowed to be benefited by them, to disperse, with savage brutality, assemblies of respectable people consisting of ladies as well as gentlemen, who had peaceably assembled to hear the subject of slavery candidly discussed; to mar, pollute, and destroy public edifices, because they had been, or were likely to be, used for this purpose; to ransack violently the mails in quest of anti-slavery publications; to demolish printing presses, and cruelly persecute their conductors; to shoot down, in one instance, an editor of a paper, who went forth from among ourselves; to offer large rewards, and that publicly, for the murder of distinguished abolitionists; and to bring not a few of our leading men in Congress into collision with each other, so violent and reckless, that some of them have not only treated abusively, but have trodden down the constitutional rights of the people, and threatened a dissolution of the Union.

This morbid sensibility is truly a fearful element in any individual or community. It has already caused a vast amount of evil, and threatens destruction to all our most valuable institutions. The unholy and desolating fires which it has so widely enkindled “ought,” as you remark “to have been long since extinguished by the waters of patriotism and christian affection.” But the extinguishing element seems to be scarce, and the engines for throwing it are out of order; and the fire-men few, badly organized, and too jealous of each other to act in concert; and thus the devouring element is left, fearfully sweeping along. All this we deeply deplore.

But from the excitement of sensibilities, not morbid, of enlightened conscience, and generous sympathy, a christian benevolence, leading men to consider the woes and wants of their fellow creatures, of whatever complexion or condition they may be, we have seen no such evils arising. Of this kind of excitement there has been and still is altogether too little; and powerful stimulants are urgently demanded to rouse public feeling, in regard to this subject to any thing like healthy action. The dormant energies of mental soundness, must be called into exercise, or a cure of morbid sensibilities will never be effected.

_______________

Continued from: Reverend Silas McKeen to Thomas C. Stuart, August 20, 1839

SOURCE: Cyrus P. Grosvenor, Slavery vs. The Bible: A Correspondence Between the General Conference of Maine, and the Presbytery of Tombecbee, Mississippi, p. 25-9

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

William T. Sherman to Thomas Ewing Jr., December 23, 1859

Seminary near Alexandria, December 23, 1859.

Dear Tom: I received last night a Leavenworth paper addressed in your handwriting and I wish you would repeat them. I get the New Orleans papers regularly, but they never say Kansas; indeed I know not if they are admitted south, Kansas being synonimous with abolitionism.

You can readily imagine the delicate position I now hold at the head of a seminary to open January 1 next, for the instruction and training of young men to science and arms, at the same time that John Sherman's name is bandied about as the representative of all that is held here murderous and detestable. Thus far all have had the delicacy to refrain in my presence with but one casual exception, but I would not be surprised if at any time I should be officially catechised on the subject. This I would not stand of course.

I would not if I could abolish or modify slavery. I don't know that I would materially change the actual political relation of master and slave. Negroes in the great numbers that exist here must of necessity be slaves. Theoretical notions of humanity and religion cannot shake the commercial fact that their labor is of great value and cannot be dispensed with. Still of course I wish it never had existed, for it does make mischief. No power on earth can restrain opinions elsewhere, and these opinions expressed beget a vindictive feeling. The mere dread of revolt, sedition or external interference makes men ordinarily calm almost mad. I, of course, do not debate the question and, moderate as my views are, I feel that I am suspected, and if I do not actually join in the praises of slavery I may be denounced as an abolitionist.

I think it would be wise if northern people would confine their attention to the wants and necessities of their own towns and property, leaving the South to manage slavery and receive its reward or doom, let what may come.

I am fully conscious that respectable men here not only talk but think of the combinations to be made in case of a rupture. It may be that they design these military colleges as a part of some ulterior design, but in my case I do not think such to be the case. Indeed it was with great difficulty the Board of Supervisors were prevailed on by an old West Pointer to give the Seminary the military feature, and then it was only assented to because it was represented that southern gentlemen would submit rather to the showy discipline of arms than to the less ostentatious government of a faculty. Yet, I say that it may result that men are preparing for the wreck of the U.S. government and are thinking and preparing for new combinations.

I am willing to aid Louisiana in defending herself against her enemies so long as she remains a state in the general confederacy; but should she or any other state act disunion, I am out. Disunion and Civil War are synonimous terms. The Mississippi, source and mouth, must be controlled by one government, the southeast are cut off by the Alleghany Mountains, but Louisiana occupies the mouth of a river whose heads go far north, and does not admit of a “cut off.” Therefore a peaceable disunion which men here think possible is absurd. It would be war eternal until one or the other were conquered “subject.” In that event of course I would stand by Ohio. I always laughed when I heard disunion talked of, but I now begin to fear it may be attempted.

I have been to New Orleans, purchased all the furniture needed, and now await the coming of January 2 to begin school. We expect from sixty to seventy-five scholars at first. I will not teach, but supervise the discipline, instruction, supplies, etc.

How are your plans, political and financial, progressing? If Congress should organize I suppose we will have the same war over the admission of Kansas.

SOURCES: Walter L. Fleming, General W.T. Sherman as College President, p. 88-90

William T. Sherman to John Sherman, Sunday, December 12, 1859

New Orleans, Sunday, Dec. 12.

Dear Brother: . . . I have watched the despatches, which are up to Dec. 10, and hoped your election would occur without the usual excitement, and believe such would have been the case had it not been for your signing for that Helper's book. Of it I know nothing, but extracts made copiously in southern papers show it to be not only abolition but assailing. Now I hoped you would be theoretical and not practical, for practical abolition is disunion, Civil War, and anarchy universal on this continent, and I do not believe you want that. . . I do hope the discussion in Congress will not be protracted, and that your election, if possible, will occur soon. Write me how you came to sign for that book. Now that you are in, I hope you will conduct yourself manfully. Bear with taunts as far as possible, biding your time to retaliate. An opportunity always occurs.

SOURCES: Walter L. Fleming, General W.T. Sherman as College President, p. 77-8

Thomas Wentworth Higginson to Louisa Storrow Higginson, 1857

Dearest Mother:

I thought, when waiting for admission to President Quincy's study, that there was really nobody living, except the veteran Humboldt, before whom I should feel so much awe, as in the presence of this ancient Doge. But when finally admitted, the impression of old college times was so strong that I felt an immediate expectation of an English oration or a little good advice. The latter came in the form of his views on Disunion, which he had evidently thought over pretty thoroughly, and stated with the utmost heartiness and even vehemence. He spoke just as he used to do, with occasional pauses for a word, though not often; and with singular vigor and emphasis.

He expressed no sort of fear of Disunion; he was “perfectly willing to look over into this dark chasm which yawns in the midst of the Republic”; and as for fear of saying what he thought, “old age had made him courageous” (an unusual effect of old age, I thought). . . . He thinks that the Union may be dissolved; but that this is more likely to occur from the mere size and weight of our future nation, than from the hostilities arising from slavery, though, he says, this last “would no doubt be by far the most glorious cause of a separation.” He said some very weighty things about the general position and character of the nation, the necessity of discussing first principles, and the wrong done by any distrust of agitation. “Our fathers built our nest upon the waves, and we must not shudder at its rocking motion”; and then he quoted Fisher Ames, that our nation was not a “ship of state,” but a raft; safer, indeed, but one's feet were always in the water.

. . . He described his position very quietly, without egotism; said he felt no sensation of old age, except sometimes in walking; could work in his study from 9 A.M. to 9 P.M. without fatigue. “I am a miracle to myself,” he said. Then he told me of the memoir of J. Q. Adams on which he is now engaged and which will be out in a few weeks. “Then,” said he, with a sort of roguish pause, “I am going to school” I smiled interrogatively, and his face lit up with a perfectly boyish smile of triumph. “Yes,” said he, “to school — all existence is a school, and I hope to keep on learning here, till I pass to a higher one.” I said, to draw him out, that after this I supposed he had no new literary plans. “Ah, I won't say that!” he quickly answered with the same gleeful smile, and afterwards quietly said that he had “one or two “ projects of that kind, which would require a great deal of preliminary preparation and on that he was about to enter! Thus tranquilly does this man of eighty-six plan his life from month to month.

SOURCE: Mary Potter Thacher Higginson, Editor, Letters and Journals of Thomas Wentworth Higginson, 1846-1906, p. 88-90

Samuel Gridley Howe to Horace Mann, Friday, June 18, 1854

South Boston, June 18th, 1854.

My Dear Mann: — I have sometimes been happy enough to get a glimpse of you through your letters to Downer — for you had in them, once in a while, a kind word for me. Yesterday, however, there was a hard one, — though I know not unkindly meant;—you said “out of sight out of mind;” et tu!! You have never been out of my mind — never out of my heart. I have not written simply because I had little or nothing to say, except that I love you, and that you know well enough.

We have gone through a terrible ordeal lately: a week of intense, painful, dreadful excitement. I saw the whole, from the broken door, the pointed pistols and the flashing cutlasses,¹ to the last sad funeral procession. During the latter I wept for sorrow, shame and indignation. Then, let me tell you (and I know enough of mobs to know it truly) — had it not been for the citizen soldiery and the armed citizen police, the people would have rushed upon the United States troops, disarmed and routed them and have rescued poor Burns. With a constable's pole in advance, — with a scrap of law as big as this sheet, — the people would, at any time, and against all obstacles, have done so. The fear of the law, — the fetish of law, disarmed and emasculated us.

The most interesting thing I saw in the crowd was a comely coloured girl of eighteen, who stood with clenched teeth and fists, and with tears streaming down her cheeks, — the very picture of indignant despair. I could not help saying, “do not cry, poor girl — he won't be hurt.” “Hurt!” said she, “I cry for shame that he will not kill himself! — oh! why is he not man enough to kill himself!” There was the intuition, the blind intuition of genius! — had he, then and there, struck a knife into his own heart, he would have killed outright the fugitive slave law in New England and the North.

As it is, poor Burns has been the cause of a great revolution: you have no idea of the change of feeling here. Think of Sam'l A. Eliot, the hard, plucky and “sort of honest”² Eliot, coming out for repeal of Nebraska or disunion!

Things are working well. God will get the upper hand of the Devil, even in Boston, soon. As for Loring — old Ned Loring,³ whom you loved, and whom for a while you boosted up on your shoulders into a moral atmosphere, he has sunk down, and will die in the darkness of despotic surroundings. I wrote to him, and talked with him before the decision; I have had a letter from him since, but it is a hard and heartless one. I have liked him much; and am loth to lose the last of my associates in that circle; but I must. If he is white, I am blacker than hell; if he is right, I am terribly wrong.

I think you should write to him. I have set going the enclosed address to him. Would it were better! but it is honest, and has cost me a pang and a tear. Goodbye, my pleasant old friend; if you are going up, I go down; and vice versa.

As for myself, dear Mann, I am very much as I was. In health no better, nor worse. In spirits at zero. In hopes for myself, nothing beyond happiness reflected through that of my dear children. They are, thank God, always well and jolly. They never know an ache or a pain; are industrious, affectionate, obedient, truthful, and very bright.

Let me hear from you, do! Shall I never see you? ah — I do not like to think of turning my face to the wall, and going away from earth without again grasping your hand. I'll try not to do so.

With kind regards to Madame, ever, dear Mann, yours,

S. G. Howe.

_______________

¹ The attack on the Court House to rescue Anthony Burns.

² In reading these letters, allowance must be made for the intense feeling of the time. I cannot verify this quotation, but Mr. Eliot's honesty admitted of no qualification.

³ Judge E. G. Loring, who decreed the return of Burns to slavery. The feeling against him became so strong that he was obliged to leave Boston and take up his residence in Washington.

SOURCE: Laura E. Richards, Editor, Letters and Journals of Samuel Gridley Howe, Volume 2, p. 269-71

Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, December 25, 1863

Edgar returned from college; arrived at midnight. Greetings full, hearty, and cordial this morning. For a week preparations for the festival have been going on. Though a joyful anniversary, the day in these later years always brings sad memories. The glad faces and loving childish voices that cheered our household with “Merry Christmas” in years gone by are silent on earth forever.

Sumner tells me that France is still wrong-headed, or, more properly speaking, the Emperor is. Mercier is going home on leave, and goes with a bad spirit. S. and M. had a long interview a few days since, when S. drew M. out. Mercier said the Emperor was kindly disposed and at the proper time would tender kind offices to close hostilities, but that a division of the Union is inevitable. Sumner said he snapped his fingers at him and told him he knew not our case.

Sumner also tells me of a communication made to him by Bayard Taylor, who last summer had an interview with the elder Saxe-Coburg. The latter told Taylor that Louis Napoleon was our enemy, — that the Emperor said to him (Saxe-Coburg), “There will be war between England and America” — slapping his hands — “and I can then do as I please.”

There is no doubt that both France and England have expected certain disunion and have thought there might be war between us and one or more of the European powers. But England has latterly held back, and is becoming more disinclined to get in difficulty with us. A war would be depressing to us, but it would be, perhaps, as injurious to England. Palmerston and Louis Napoleon are the two bad men in this matter. The latter is quite belligerent in his feelings, but fears to be insolent towards us unless England is also engaged.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 494-5

Cheering News From Alabama, Mississippi, And Georgia

The editor of the Carolinian has conversed with a gentleman who brings cheering news from the Executives of the above States.  Gov. PETTUS, of Mississippi, on the receipt of the news of LINCOLN’S election, will immediately convene the Legislature.  The Disunion vote will be overwhelming.  The Governor of Georgia will call for a large appropriation to arm the State.  Gov. MOORE, of Alabama, will immediately issue writes of election for a new Legislature.  In Louisiana it is thought that the Disunion movement will prevail, and Florida is said to consider herself in advance of South Carolina.  We have no fears of Southern co-operation.  The cotton States at least must be united.

— Published in The Abbeville Press, Abbeville, South Carolina, Friday Morning, November 9, 1860, p. 2

Senator bentonSalmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, December 17, 1849

Washington, Dec^r. 17, 1849.

My Dear Hamlin, I have just comedown from the Capitol. In the Senate we had a brief Executive Session — nothing done. Today we were to have elected Committees but the Old Line Caucus had not arranged matters to suit them, & the elections were put off till tomorrow. You know that in the Senate the Majority party selects in Caucus the majorities of such committees as they think fit so to organize & minorities on the others, & the minority party in caucus selects the balance. The committees thus selected have been hitherto adopted by common consent. What will be done tomorrow I cannot say. There was trouble yesterday between the friends of Benton & Calhoun in Caucus. I have not been invited to the Democratic Caucus. I do not think I should attend, as matters now stand, if I was: but it is not impossible that both Hale and I shall go in before the session closes. To a democratic Senator who spoke to me on the subject I answered that I thought that having been elected exclusively by Democratic & free democratic votes I ought to be invited; but whether I wd. attend or not I was not prepared to say. There was a discussion or conversation about inviting me; but of what character I dont know.

In the House they have been balloting, or rather voting for Speaker. Since the menaces of the Southern men the other day and their insolent proscription of every man, as unfit to receive their votes, except slavery extensionists the northern democrats have got their backs up and so many of them now refuse to vote for any extensionist that it seems impossible to elect any man whom the slaveholding democrats' will support, except by a coalition between these last, aided by the doughfaced democrats & the slaveholding Whigs. Rumors of such a coalition have been rife for a day or two; but the candidate of the extensionists, Lynn Boyd, has not yet received votes enough to enable those Southern Whigs who are willing to go for him, to effect his election. I am glad to be able to say that the Ohio delegation is firm on the side of the Free States, with two exceptions Miller & Hoagland. Until today I hoped that Col. Hoagland would abide with the body of the Ohio democrats; but he gave way today & voted for Boyd. This is the more to be regretted as Boyd was, as I hear, one of the foremost in clapping & applauding Toombs's insolent disunion speech the other day; and after he had closed his harrangue went to him & clapped him on the back in the most fraternizing manner.

Who, then, can be speaker? you will ask. To which I can only reply, I really cannot say. At present it seems as if the contest must be determined final by the Extensionists against the Anti Extensionists without reference to old party lines. An attempt was made today at a bargain between the Hunker Whigs & Hunker Democrats. A Kentucky member offered a resolution that Withrop should be Speaker; Forney, Clerk; & somebody, I can not say who, Sargeant at arms. The democrats voted almost unanimously to lay this resolution on the table — the Whigs, in great numbers, voted against this disposition of it. This looks well for those Hunkers who affect such a holy horror of bargains.

With these facts before you, you can form, better than I can, an idea of the probable shape of things in the future. To me it seems as if the process of reorganization was going on pretty rapidly in the northern democracy. I am much mistaken, if any candidate who will not take the ground assumed in my letter to Breslin, can obtain the support of the Democracy of the North or of the Country.

We are all looking with much interest to Ohio. Mr. Carter has received several letters urging him to be a candidate for Governor: but he will not consent except as a matter of necessity. He is a true man here, and so, above most, is Amos E. Wood. Judge Myers would be a very acceptable candidate to the Free Democracy:—  so, also, I should think would be Dimmock. My own regard for Dimmock is very strong. Judge Wood would encounter, I learn, some opposition from the friends of Tod, and his decisions in some slavery cases would be brought up against him especially with Beaver for an opponent. Still, in many respects, he wd. be a very strong man. After all it is chiefly important that the resolutions of the Convention should be of the right stamp & that the candidate should place himself unreservedly upon them.

As to the Free Democratic State Convention, — I think it desirable on many accounts that one should be held; and that it be known soon that one is to be held. I do not think it expedient to call it expressly to nominate, but rather to consider the expediency of nomination & promote, generally the cause of Free Democracy.

I have written to Pugh urging the adoption by the House, if the Senate is not organized, of resolutions sustaining their members in Congress. I think much good would be done by resolutions to this effect.

Resolved, That the determination evinced by many slave state members of Congress, claiming to be Whigs & Democrats, to support for the office of Speaker no known & decided opponent of Slavery Extension, and indeed no man who will not, in the exercise of his official powers, constitute the Committees of the House of Representatives so as to promote actively or by inaction the extension of slavery, is an affront & indignity to the whole people of the Free States, nearly unanimous in opposition to such extension.

Resolved, That we cordially approve of the conduct of those representatives from Ohio who have, since the manifestation of this determination on the part of members for the Slave States, steadily refused to vote for any Slavery Extensionists; and pledge to them, on behalf of the State of Ohio, an earnest support & adequate maintenance.

I give these resolutions merely as specimens. They are not so strong as I would introduce. Perhaps, indeed, it will be thought best to introduce a resolution appropriating a specific sum to be applied to the support of the members here in case the continued failure to organize the House shall leave them without other resources.

The bare introduction of such resolutions into our Legislature would have the happiest effect. Can't you help this thing forward? I dont want these sample resolutions used in any way except as mere specimens & suggestions.

So far as developments have yet been made the Administration has no settled policy. In the present state of the country I confess I do not much fear Cuban annexation.

Write me often.

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 189-92

Diary of Gideon Welles: Saturday, July 18, 1863

Have a letter from Governor Andrew, who in a matter misrepresented me; claims to have been led into error by the “Gloucester men,” and is willing to drop the subject.¹ I shall not object, for the Governor is patriotic and zealous as well as somewhat fussy and fanatical.

General Marston and others, a delegation from New Hampshire with a letter from the Governor, wanted additional defenses for Portsmouth. Letters from numerous places on the New England coast are received to the same effect. Each of them wants a monitor, or cruiser, or both. Few of them seem to be aware that the shore defenses are claimed by and belong to the War, rather than the Navy, Department, nor do they seem to be aware of any necessity for municipal and popular effort for their own protection.

Two delegations are here from Connecticut in relation to military organizations for home work and to preserve the peace. I went to the War Department in their behalf, and one was successful, perhaps both.

There is some talk, and with a few, a conviction, that we are to have a speedy termination of the war. Blair is confident the Rebellion is about closed. I am not so sanguine. As long as there is ability to resist, we may expect it from Davis and the more desperate leaders, and when they quit, as they will if not captured, the seeds of discontent and controversy which they have sown will remain, and the social and political system of the insurrectionary States is so deranged that small bodies may be expected to carry on for a time, perhaps for years, a bushwhacking warfare. It will likely be a long period before peace and contentment will be fully restored. Davis, who strove to be, and is, the successor of Calhoun, without his ability, but with worse intentions, is ambitious and has deliberately plunged into this war as the leader, and, to win power and fame, has jeopardized all else. The noisy, gasconading politicians of the South who figured in Congress for years and had influence have, in their new Confederacy, sunk into insignificance. The Senators and Representatives who formerly loomed up in Congressional debate in Washington, and saw their harangues spread before the country by a thousand presses, have all been dwarfed, wilted, and shriveled. The “Confederate Government,” having the element of despotism, compels its Congress to sit with closed doors. Davis is the great “I am.”

In the late military operations of the Rebels he has differed with Lee, and failed to heartily sustain that officer. It was Lee's plan to uncover Washington by inducing Hooker to follow him into Pennsylvania. Hooker fell into the trap and withdrew everything from here, which is surprising, for Halleck's only study has been to take care of himself and not fall into Rebel hands. But he felt himself safe if Hooker and the army were between him and Lee.

From the interrupted dispatches and other sources, it is ascertained that Lee's plan was the concentration of a force of 40,000 men at Culpeper to rush upon Washington when our army and the whole Potomac force was far away in the Valley of the Cumberland. But Davis, whose home is in Mississippi and whose interest is there, did not choose to bring Beauregard East. The consequence has been the frustration of Lee's plans, which have perished without fruition. He might have been disappointed, had he been fairly seconded. Davis has undoubtedly committed a mistake. It hastens the end. Strange that such a man as Davis, though possessing ability, should mislead and delude millions, some of whom have greater intellectual capacity than himself. They were, however, and had been, in a course of sectional and pernicious training under Calhoun and his associates, who for thirty years devoted their time and talents to the inculcation first of hate, and then of sectional division, or a reconstruction of the federal government on a different basis. Nullification was an outgrowth. When Calhoun closed his earthly career several men of far less ability sought to wear his mantle. I have always entertained doubts whether Calhoun intended a dismemberment of the Union. He aimed to procure special privileges for the South, — something that should secure perpetuity to the social and industrial system of that section, which he believed, not without reason, was endangered by the increasing intelligence and advancing spirit of the age. Many of the lesser lights — shallow political writers and small speech-makers — talked flippantly of disunion, which they supposed would enrich the South and impoverish the North. “Cotton is king,” they said and believed, and with it they would dictate terms not only to the country but the world. The arrogance begotten of this folly led to the great Rebellion.

Davis is really a despot, exercising arbitrary power, and the people of the South are abject subjects, demoralized, subdued, but frenzied and enraged, with little individual independence left, — an impoverished community, hurrying to swift destruction. “King Cotton” furnishes them no relief. Men are not permitted in that region of chivalry to express their views if they tend to national unity. Hatred of the Union, of the government, and of the country is the basis of the Confederate despotism. Hate, sectional hate, is really the fundamental teaching of Calhoun and his disciples. How is it to be overcome and when can it be eradicated? It has been the growth of a generation, and abuse of the doctrine of States' rights, — a doctrine sound and wholesome in our federal system when rightly exercised. But when South Carolina in 1832 assumed the sovereign right of nullifying the laws of the government of which she was a member, — defeating by State action the federal authority and setting it at defiance, — claiming to be a part of the Union but independent of it while yet a part, her position becomes absolutely contradictory and untenable. Compelled to abandon the power and absolute right of a State to overthrow the government which she helped to create, or destroy federal jurisdiction, the nullifiers, still discontented, uneasy, and ambitious, resorted to another expedient, that of withdrawing from the Union, and, by combining with other States, establishing power to resist the government and country. Sectionalism or a combination of States was substituted for the old nullification doctrine of States' rights. If they could not remain in the Union and nullify its laws, they could secede and disregard laws and government. Can it be extinguished in a day? I fear not. It will require time.

It is sad and humiliating to see men of talents, capacity, and of reputed energy and independence, cower and shrink and humble themselves before the imperious master who dominates over the Confederacy. Political association and the tyranny of opinion and of party first led them astray, and despotism holds them in the wrong as with a vise. The whole political, social, and industrial fabric of the South is crumbling to ruins. They see and feel the evil, but dare not attempt to resist it. There is little love or respect for Davis among such intelligent Southern men as I have seen.

Had Meade done his duty, we should have witnessed a speedy change throughout the South. It is a misfortune that the command of the army had not been in stronger hands and with a man of broader views, and that he had not a more competent superior than Halleck. The late infirm action will cause a postponement of the end. Lee has been allowed to retreat — to retire — unmolested, with his army and guns, and the immense plunder which the Rebels have pillaged. The generals have succeeded in prolonging the war. Othello's occupation is not yet gone.

_______________

1 This refers to the statement, in a letter of July 1, from Governor Andrew to Secretary Welles, that the Navy Department had sent no vessels to the defense of the Massachusetts coast till after the Confederate cruiser Tacony “had rioted along the Vineyard Sound for four days.” The Secretary, under date of July 11, showed the incorrectness of this allegation, and Governor Andrew, in his letter of the 16th, withdrew it and explained that it was made “upon the authority of municipal officers and citizens of Gloucester.”

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 375-9

William Barton Rogers to Henry Darwin Rogers, October 30, 1860

Boston, October 30, 1860.

I have already seen your article in “Blackwood.”  . . . It strikes me, however, as an entirely fair and rational view of the question, as presented by you. The fact of the present association of human relics with the fossils in a bed of gravel is no proof of synchronous deposit. Nor have we a right, even granting the synchronism, to exclude positively the very great geological antiquity of man, since we have no certain knowledge of the time of extinction of these accompanying fossil forms.

It will be important to weigh the evidence, such as this is, gathered from neighbouring and remote regions, on the question of the degree of antiquity to be assigned to these extinct fossils, wholly independent of any association with traces of man. Next, it will be necessary to accumulate all the facts bearing on the question of the physical relations and those under which the two have been brought together, whether by a tranquil process or by turbulent intermingling of different sediments. This, it seems to me, would demand an examination of the whole region, topographically, connected with the Somme valley. As our knowledge in all these particulars now stands, I think a suspension of judgment is the truly philosophical course. You have shown this, I think, most clearly and impressively, and I am sure that all the readers of the article will be struck with its cogency and ability.

I send you in a box some copies of my Report on an Institute of Technology, which you may distribute as you think best. I am, however, mailing a copy to you by to-morrow's steamer. The pamphlet will not be distributed for some time. After the elections are over, and the public ready for other thoughts, we shall try to interest parties here and in the other larger towns, so as to effect a preliminary organization. Then this Institute will join the Natural History Society, Horticultural Society, etc., in a renewed application to the Legislature for a grant of land on the Back Bay. I think you will find the plan of the Institute to include all the features which we used to talk of, and to be at least broad enough for any practical result.

. . . We have no doubt of the election of Lincoln and Hamlin. But there will, of course, be a Democratic Senate, and a very large opposition in the House. The threats of disunion are already less loud. Robert is well, and about to make an analysis of the water-gas, as it is called, which is now used in lighting the new hotel at the corner of Ninth and Chestnut streets. He likes Dr. Pepper, the successor of Wood, very much, and writes in good spirits.

SOURCE: Emma Savage Rogers & William T. Sedgwick, Life and Letters of William Barton Rogers, Volume 2, p. 43-5

Charles A. Dana to James S. Pike, May 29, 1850

New York, May 29, 1850.

Greatest And Best Of Pikes: I have long desired and designed to write you a letter, and no doubt you have long expected it; but with me the idea is easy, the execution difficult. In fact, I intend to petition the extra session of our legislature, now about to be held, for an elongation of the days and a second pair of hands in order to come a little nearer what I want to do.

First and foremost, a thousand thanks for your articles, especially that which I headed “Wanted a Candidate,” and that on “Prospects of Disunion.” They were great and good, and stirred up the animals, which you as well as I recognize as one of the great ends of life. The fact is that between you and me we have bothered the Silver Greys most infernally, and probably shall do so again.

I suppose you are swearing at the non-appearance of your response on the banking business; but I have had it in type ever since it got here, with some most sound, conservative, and elegant remarks from the able pen of one of the first writers in the country attached, and that every night on leaving the office I have regularly ordered that that article shall go in on the editorial page, but that hitherto it has been constantly and persistently and pertinaciously crowded out by other things. However, I live in hope of printing it to-morrow. The article on Webster was postponed in consequence of the Buffalo speech, but it will hit 'em hard in a day or two. That on the Halifax Railroad I shortened in order to get it in right off, and besides, it is rather late in the day for such a radical sheet as the Trib. to say by way of programme that it is going to keep in the golden mean betwixt red and white. The thing is good to do perhaps, but I don't exactly like to say it along with the Rochester knocking, and the No-Petticoat Movement. And so you'll forgive the liberty I took with your Mss. . . . There's no other man I know of whom I should like so well to come in as an associate in the toils, glories, and profits of this newspaper, which I reckon to be at the beginning of its career. I hope we can fetch it about. You will understand that I don't say this by way of compliment. What I am after is the interest of the paper.

Yours ever truly,

C. A. Dana.

SOURCE: James Shepherd Pike, First Blows of the Civil War: The Ten Years of Preliminary Conflict in the United States from 1850 to 1860, p. 83

Alexander Stephens to J. Henly Smith, July 10, 1860

Crawfordville [ga.] , July 10th, 1860.

Dear Smith, Your letter of the 6th inst. was received last night. The paper came by the same mail. The point in your historical narrative I referred to was in part corrected by yourself. The word have instead of protect covered the idea. Besides this, one other. My opposition to the Clayton Compromise was not entirely or solely because it did not protect but because it perpetuated the existing status of the country at the time of acquisition, which was antislavery. I wished that status changed either by Congress or that authority might be given to the territorial legislatures to change it. That bill tied the hands of both Congress and the territorial legislatures forever. This however does not amount to much so far as your letter is concerned. I now mention it that you may know the whole facts of the case. You would do well to read that speech, the one I made on the Clayton Compromise, if you write on that subject. What is to become of the country in case of Lincoln's election I do not know. For one I can only give you my own opinion. As at present advised I should not be for disunion on the grounds of his election. It may be that his election will be attended with events that will change my present opinion, but his bare election would not be sufficient cause in my judgment to warrant a disruption — particularly as his election will be the result if it occurs at all of the folly and madness of our own people. If they do these things in the green tree what will they not do in the dry? If without cause they destroy the present Govt., the best in the world, what hopes would I have that they would not bring untold hardships upon the people in their efforts to give us one of their modelling. All I can therefore say in response to your question is that I would not advocate disunion on that ground. Let events shape their own course. “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” In point of merit as a man I have no doubt Lincoln is just as good, safe and sound a man as Mr. Buchanan, and would administer the Government so far as he is individually concerned just as safely for the South and as honestly and faithfully in every particular. I know the man well. He is not a bad man. He will make as good a President as Fillmore did and better too in my opinion. He has a great deal more practical common sense. Still his party may do mischief. If so it will be a great misfortune, but a misfortune that our own people brought upon us. This is my judgment — this is the way I look upon it at present. I have not lime now to go more into detail, but I will say this, that I consider slavery much more secure in the Union than out of it if our people were but wise. And if they are not this fact adds no additional grounds to hope for more security out of the Union under the head of those who now control our destinies, than in it. We have nothing to fear from anything so much as unnecessary changes and revolutions in government. The institution is based on conservatism. Everything that weakens this has a tendency to weaken the institution. But I will stop.

P. S. — I see some of our papers are disputing about my position. I shall vote for Douglas; but I do not intend to take any active part in the canvass. I am out of politicks and intend to stay out. This it seems hard to make the people understand.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips,Editor, The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 486-7

William H. Seward to Charles Francis Adams, April 10, 1861

Department Of State,

Washington, April 10, 1861.

Sir: Although Great Britain and the United States possess adjacent dominions of large extent, and although they divide, not very unequally, a considerable portion of the commerce of the world, yet there are at present only two questions in debate between them. One of these concerns the line of boundary running through Puget's Sound, and involves the title to the island of San Juan. The other relates to a proposition for extinguishing the interest of the Hudson's Bay and Puget's Sound agricultural companies in the Territory of Washington. The discussion of these questions has hitherto been carried on here, and there is no necessity for removing it to London. It is expected to proceed amicably and result in satisfactory conclusions. It would seem, therefore, on first thought, that you would find nothing more to do in England than to observe and report current events, and to cultivate friendly sentiments there towards the United States. Nevertheless, the peculiar condition of our country in the present juncture renders these duties a task of considerable delicacy.

You will readily understand me as alluding to the attempts which are being made by a misguided portion of our fellow citizens to detach some of the States and to combine them in a now organization under the name of the Confederate States of America. The agitators in this bad enterprise, justly estimating the influence of the European powers upon even American affairs, do not mistake in supposing that it would derive signal advantage from a recognition by any of those powers, and especially Great Britain. Your task, therefore, apparently so simple and easy, involves the responsibility of preventing the commission of an act by the government of that country which would be fraught with disaster, perhaps ruin, to our own.

It is by no means easy to give you instructions. They must be based on a survey of the condition of the country, and include a statement of the policy of the government. The insurrectionary movement, though rapid in its progress, is slow in revealing its permanent character. Only outlines of a policy can be drawn which must largely depend on uncertain events.

The presidential election took place on the 6th of November last. The canvass had been conducted in all the southern or slave States in such a manner as to prevent a perfectly candid hearing there of the issue involved, and so all the parties existing there were surprised and disappointed in the marked result. That disappointment was quickly seized for desperate purposes by a class of persons until that time powerless, who had long cherished a design to dismember the Union and build up a new confederacy around the Gulf of Mexico. Ambitious leaders hurried the people forward, in a factious course, observing conventional forms but violating altogether the deliberative spirit of their constitutions. When the new federal administration came in on the 4th of March last, it found itself confronted by an insurrectionary combination of seven States, practicing an insidious strategy to seduce eight other States into its councils.

One needs to be as conversant with our federative system as perhaps only American publicists can be to understand how effectually, in the first instance, such a revolutionary movement must demoralize the general government. We are not only a nation, but we are States also. All public officers, as well as all citizens, owe not only allegiance to the Union but allegiance also to the States in which they reside. In the more discontented States the local magistrates and other officers cast off at once their federal allegiance, and conventions were held which assumed to absolve their citizens from the same obligation. Even federal judges, marshals, clerks, and revenue officers resigned their trusts. Intimidation deterred loyal persons from accepting the offices thus rendered vacant. So the most important faculties of the federal government in those States abruptly ceased. The resigning federal agents, if the expression may be used, attorned to the revolutionary authorities and delivered up to them public funds and other property and possessions of large value. The federal government had, through a long series of years, been engaged in building strong fortifications, a navy yard, arsenals, mints, treasuries, and other public edifices, not in any case for use against those States, but chiefly for their protection and convenience. These had been unsuspectingly left either altogether or imperfectly garrisoned or guarded, and they fell, with little resistance, into the hands of the revolutionary party. A general officer of the army gave up to them a large quantity of military stores and other property, disbanded the troops under his command, and sent them out of the territory of the disaffected States.

It may be stated, perhaps without giving just offence, that the most, popular motive in these discontents was an apprehension of designs on the part of the incoming federal administration hostile to the institution of domestic slavery in the States where it is tolerated by the local constitutions and laws. That institution and the class which especially cherishes it are not confined to the States which have revolted, but they exist in the eight other so-called slave States; and these, for that reason, sympathize profoundly with the revolutionary movement. Sympathies and apprehensions of this kind have, for an indefinite period, entered into the bases of political parties throughout the whole country, and thus considerable masses of persons, whose ultimate loyalty could not be doubted, were found, even in the free States, either justifying, excusing, or palliating the movement towards disunion in the seceding States. The party which was dominant in the federal government during the period of the last administration embraced, practically, and held in unreserved communion, all disunionists and sympathizers. It held the executive administration. The Secretaries of the Treasury, War, and the Interior were disunionists. The same party held a large majority of the Senate, and nearly equally divided the House of Representatives. Disaffection lurked, if it did not openly avow itself, in every department and in every bureau, in every regiment and in every ship-of-war; in the post office and in the custom-house, and in every legation and consulate from London to Calcutta. Of four thousand four hundred and seventy officers in the public service, civil and military, two thousand one hundred and fifty-four were representatives of States where the revolutionary movement was openly advocated and urged, even if not actually organized. Our system being so completely federative and representative, no provision had ever been made, perhaps none ever could have been made, to anticipate this strange and unprecedented disturbance. The people were shocked by successive and astounding developments of what the statute book distinctly pronounced to be sedition and treason, but the magistracy was demoralized and the laws were powerless. By degrees, however, a better sentiment revealed itself. The executive administration hesitatingly, in part, reformed itself. The capital was garrisoned; the new President came in unresisted, and soon constituted a new and purely loyal administration. They found the disunionists perseveringly engaged in raising armies and laying sieges around national fortifications situate within the territory of the disaffected States. The federal marine seemed to have been scattered everywhere except where its presence was necessary, and such of the military forces as were not in the remote States and Territories were held back from activity by vague and mysterious armistices which bad been informally contracted by the late President, or under his authority, with a view to postpone conflict until impracticable concessions to disunion should be made by Congress, or at least until the waning term of his administration should reach its appointed end. Commissioners who had been sent by the new confederacy were already at the capital demanding recognition of its sovereignty and a partition of the national property and domain. The treasury, depleted by robbery and peculation, was exhausted, and the public credit was prostrate.

It would be very unjust to the American people to suppose that this singular and unhappy condition of things indicated any extreme favor or toleration of the purpose of a permanent dissolution of the Union. On the contrary, disunion at the very first took on a specious form, and it afterwards made its way by ingenious and seductive devices. It inculcated that the Union is a purely voluntary connexion, founded on the revocable assent of the several States; that secession, in the case of great popular discontent, would induce consultation and reconciliation, and so that revolution, instead of being war, is peace, and disunion, instead of being dissolution, is union. Though the ordinances of secession in the seceding States were carried through impetuously, without deliberation, and even by questionable majorities, yet it was plausibly urged that the citizens who had remained loyal to the Union might wisely acquiesce, so as ultimately to moderate and control the movement, and in any event that if war should ensue, it would become a war of sections, and not a social war, of all others, and especially in those States, the form of war most seriously to be deprecated. It being assumed that peaceful separation is in harmony with the Constitution, it was urged as a consequence that coercion would, therefore, be unlawful and tyrannical; and this principle was even pushed so far as to make the defensive retaining by the federal government of its position within the limits of the seceding States, or where it might seem to overawe or intimidate them, an act of such forbidden coercion. Thus it happened that for a long time, and in very extensive districts even, fidelity to the Union manifested itself by demanding a surrender of its powers and possessions, and compromises with or immunity towards those who were engaged in overthrowing it by armed force. Disunion under these circumstances rapidly matured. On the other hand, the country was bewildered. For the moment even loyal citizens fell naturally into the error of inquiring how the fearful state of things had come about, and who was responsible for it, thus inviting a continuance of the controversy out of which it had arisen, rather than rallying to the duty of arresting it. Disunion, sustained only by passion, made haste to attain its end. Union, on the contrary, required time, because it could only appeal to reason, and reason could not be heard until excitement should in some degree subside. Military spirit is an element always ready for revolution. It has a fuller development in the disaffected than in the loyal States. Thousands of men have already banded themselves as soldiers in the cause of disunion, while the defenders of the Union, before resorting to arms, everywhere wait to make sure that it cannot be otherwise preserved. Even this cautious and pacific, yet patriotic disposition has been misunderstood and perverted by faction to encourage disunion.

I believe that I have thus presented the disunion movement dispassionately and without misrepresenting its proportions or its character.

You will hardly be asked by responsible statesmen abroad why has not the new administration already suppressed the revolution. Thirty-five days are a short period in which to repress, chiefly by moral means, a movement which is so active while disclosing itself throughout an empire.

You will not be expected to promulgate this history, or to communicate it to the British government, but you are entitled to the President's views, which I have thus set forth in order to enable you to understand the policy which he proposes to pursue, and to conform your own action to it.

The President neither looks for nor apprehends any actual and permanent dismemberment of the American Union, especially by a line of latitude. The improvement of our many channels of intercourse, and the perfection of our scheme of internal exchanges, and the incorporation of both of them into a great system of foreign commerce, concurring with the gradual abatement of the force of the only existing cause of alienation, have carried us already beyond the danger of disunion in that form. The so-called Confederate States, therefore, in the opinion of the President, are attempting what will prove a physical impossibility. Necessarily they build the structure of their new government upon the same principle by which they seek to destroy the Union, namely, the right of each individual member of the confederacy to withdraw from it at pleasure and in peace. A government thus constituted could neither attain the consolidation necessary for stability, nor guaranty any engagements it might make with creditors or other nations. The movement, therefore, in the opinion of the President, tends directly to anarchy in the seceding States, as similar movements in similar circumstances have already resulted in Spanish America, and especially in Mexico. He believes, nevertheless, that the citizens of those States, as well as the citizens of the other States, are too intelligent, considerate, and wise to follow the leaders to that disastrous end. For these reasons he would not be disposed to reject a cardinal dogma of theirs, namely, that the federal government could not reduce the seceding States to obedience by conquest, even although he were disposed to question that proposition. But, in fact, the President willingly accepts it as true. Only an imperial or despotic government could subjugate thoroughly disaffected and insurrectionary members of the State. This federal republican system of ours is of all forms of government the very one which is most unfitted for such a labor. Happily, however, this is only an imaginary defect. The system has within itself adequate, peaceful, conservative, and recuperative forces. Firmness on the part of the government in maintaining and preserving the public institutions and property, and in executing the laws where authority can be exercised without waging war, combined with such measures of justice, moderation, and forbearance as will disarm reasoning opposition, will be sufficient to secure the public safety until returning reflection, concurring with the fearful experience of social evils, the inevitable fruits of faction, shall bring the recusant members cheerfully back into the family, which, after all, must prove their best and happiest, as it undeniably is their most natural home. The Constitution of the United States provides for that return by authorizing Congress, on application to be made by a certain majority of the States, to assemble a national convention, in which the organic law can, if it be needful, be revised so as to remove all real obstacles to a reunion, so suitable to the habits of the people, and so eminently conducive to the common safety and welfare.

Keeping that remedy steadily in view, the President, on the one hand, will not suffer the federal authority to fall into abeyance, nor will he, on the other, aggravate existing evils by attempts at coercion which must assume the form of direct war against any of the revolutionary States. If, while he is pursuing this course, commended as it is by prudence as well as patriotism, the scourge of civil war for the first time in our history must fall upon our country during the term of his administration, that calamity will then have come through the agency, not of the government, but of those who shall have chosen to be its armed, open, and irreconcilable enemies; and he will not suffer himself to doubt that when the value of the imperilled Union shall be brought in that fearful manner home to the business and the bosoms of the American people, they will, with an unanimity that shall vindicate their wisdom and their virtue, rise up and save it.

It does not, however, at all surprise the President that the confidence in the stability of the Union, which has been heretofore so universally entertained, has been violently shocked both at home and abroad. Surprise and fear invariably go together. The period of four months which intervened between the election which designated the head of the new administration and its advent, as has already been shown, assumed the character of an interregnum, in which not only were the powers of the government paralyzed, but even its resources seemed to disappear and be forgotten.

Nevertheless, all the world know what are the resources of the United States, and that they are practically unencumbered as well as inexhaustible. It would be easy, if it would not seem invidious, to show that whatever may be the full development of the disunion movement, those resources will not be seriously diminished, and that the revenues and credit of the Union, unsurpassed in any other country, are adequate to every emergency that can occur in our own. Nor will the political commotions which await us sensibly disturb the confidence of the people in the stability of the government. It has been necessary for us to learn, perhaps the instruction has not come too soon, that vicissitudes are incident to our system and our country, as they are to all others. The panic which that instruction naturally produced is nearly past. What has hitherto been most needful for the reinvigoration of authority is already occurring. The aiders, abettors, and sympathizers with disunion, partly by their own choice and partly through the exercise of the public will, are falling out from the civil departments of the government as well as from the army and the navy. The national legislature will no longer be a distracted council. Our representatives in foreign courts and ports will henceforth speak only the language of loyalty to their country, and of confidence in its institutions and its destiny.

It is much to be deplored that our representatives are to meet abroad agents of disunion, seeking foreign aid to effect what, unaided, is already seen to be desperate. You need not be informed that their success in Great Britain would probably render their success easy elsewhere. The President does not doubt that you fully appreciate the responsibility of your mission. An honored ancestor of yours was the first to represent your whole country, after its independence was established, at the same court to which you now are accredited. The President feels assured that it will happen through no want of loyalty or of diligence on your part if you are to be the last to discharge that trust. You will have this great advantage, that from the hour when that country, so dear to us all, first challenged the notice of nations, until now, it has continually grown in their sympathy and reverence.

Before considering the arguments you are to use, it is important to [indicate] those which you are not to employ in executing that mission:

First. The President has noticed, as the whole American people have, with much emotion, the expressions of good will and friendship toward the United States, and of concern for their present embarrassments, which have been made on apt occasions by her Majesty and her ministers. You will make due acknowledgment for these manifestations, but at the same time you will not rely on any mere sympathies or national kindness. You will make no admissions of weakness in our Constitution, or of apprehension on the part of the government. You will rather prove, as you easily can, by comparing the history of our country with that of other states, that its Constitution and government are really the strongest and surest which have ever been erected for the safety of any people. You will in no case listen to any suggestions of compromise by this government, under foreign auspices, with its discontented citizens. If, as the President does not at all apprehend, you shall unhappily find her Majesty's government tolerating the application of the so-called seceding States, or wavering about it, you will not leave them to suppose for a moment that they can grant that application and remain the friends of the United States. You may even assure them promptly in that case that if they determine to recognize, they may at the same time prepare to enter into alliance with the enemies of this republic. You alone will represent your country at London, and you will represent the whole of it there. When you are asked to divide that duty with others, diplomatic relations between the government of Great Britain and this government will be suspended, and will remain so until it shall be seen which of the two is most strongly entrenched in the confidence of their respective nations and of mankind.

You will not be allowed, however, even if you were disposed, as the President is sure you will not be, to rest your opposition to the application of the Confederate States on the ground of any favor this administration, or the party which chiefly called it into existence, proposes to show to Great Britain, or claims that Great Britain ought to show to them. You will not consent to draw into debate before the British government any opposing moral principles which may be supposed to lie at the foundation of the controversy between those States and the federal Union

You will indulge in no expressions of harshness or disrespect, or even impatience, concerning the seceding States, their agents, or their people. But you will, on the contrary, all the while remember that those States are now, as they always heretofore have been, and, notwithstanding their temporary self-delusion, they must always continue to be, equal and honored members of this federal Union, and that their citizens throughout all political misunderstandings and alienations still are and always must be our kindred and countrymen. In short, all your arguments must belong to one of three classes, namely: First. Arguments drawn from the principles of public law and natural justice, which regulate the intercourse of equal States. Secondly. Arguments which concern equally the honor, welfare, and happiness of the discontented States, and the honor, welfare, and happiness of the whole Union. Thirdly. Arguments which are equally conservative of the rights and interests, and even sentiments of the United States, and just in their bearing upon the rights, interests, and sentiments of Great Britain and all other nations.

We freely admit that a nation may, and even ought, to recognize a new State which has absolutely and beyond question effected its independence, and permanently established its sovereignty; and that a recognition in such a case affords no just cause of offence to the government of the country from which the new State has so detached itself. On the other hand, we insist that a nation that recognizes a revolutionary State, with a view to aid its effecting its sovereignty and independence, commits a great wrong against the nation whose integrity is thus invaded, and makes itself responsible for a just and ample redress.

I will not stop to inquire whether it may not sometimes happen that an imperial government or even a federative one may not so oppress or aggrieve its subjects in a province or in a State as to justify intervention on the plea of humanity. Her Majesty's government, however, will not make a pretence that the present is such a case. The United States have existed under their present form of government seventy and more years, and during all that time not one human life has been taken in forfeiture for resistance to their authority. It must be the verdict of history that no government so just, so equal, and so humane, has ever elsewhere existed. Even the present disunion movement is confessedly without any better cause than an apprehension of dangers which, from the very nature of the government, are impossible; and speculations of aggressions, which those who know the physical and social arrangements of this continent must see at once are fallacious and chimerical.

The disunionists will, I am sure, take no such ground. They will appeal, not to the justice, or to the magnanimity, but to the cupidity and caprice of Great Britain.

It cannot need many words to show that even in that form their appeal ought to be promptly dismissed. I am aware that the revenue law lately passed by Congress is vehemently denounced in Great Britain. It might be enough to say on that subject that as the United States and Great Britain are equals in dignity, and not unequal in astuteness in the science and practice of political economy, the former have good right to regard only their own convenience, and consult their own judgment in framing their revenue laws. But there are some points in this connexion which you may make without compromising the self-respect of this government.

In the circumstances of the present case, it is clear that a recognition of the so-called Confederate nations must be deemed equivalent to a deliberate resolution by her Majesty's government that this American Union, which has so long constituted a sovereign nation, shall be now permanently dissolved, and cease to exist forever. The excuse for this resolution, fraught, if effectual, with fearful and enduring consequences, is a change in its revenue laws — a change which, because of its very nature, as well as by reason of the ever-changing course of public sentiment, must necessarily be temporary and ephemeral. British censors tell us that the new tariff is unwise for ourselves. If so, it will speedily be repealed. They say it is illiberal and injurious to Great Britain. It cannot be so upon her principles without being also injurious to ourselves, and in that case it will be promptly repealed. Besides, there certainly are other and more friendly remedies for foreign legislation that is injurious without premeditated purpose of injury, which a magnanimous government will try before it deliberately seeks the destruction of the offended nation.

The application of the so-called Confederate States, in the aspect now under consideration, assumes that they are offering, or will offer, more liberal commercial facilities than the United States can or will be disposed to concede. Would it not be wise for Great Britain to wait until those liberal facilities shall be definitely fixed and offered by the Confederate States, and then to wait further and see whether the United States may not accord facilities not less desirable?

The union of these States seventy years ago established perfectly free trade between the several States, and this, in effect, is free trade throughout the largest inhabitable part of North America. During all, that time, with occasional and very brief intervals, not affecting the result, we have been constantly increasing in commercial liberality towards foreign nations. We have made that advance necessarily, because, with increasing liberality, we have at the same time, owing to controlling causes, continually augmented our revenues and increased our own productions. The sagacity of the British government cannot allow it to doubt that our natural course hereafter in this respect must continue to be the same as heretofore.

The same sagacity may be trusted to decide, first, whether the so-called Confederate States, on the emergency of a military revolution, and having no other sources of revenue than duties on imports and exports levied within the few ports they can command without a naval force, are likely to be able to persevere in practicing the commercial liberality they proffer as an equivalent for recognition. Manifestly, moreover, the negotiation which they propose to open with Great Britain implies that peace is to be preserved while the new commerce goes on. The sagacity of her Majesty's government may be trusted to consider whether that new government is likely to be inaugurated without war, and whether the commerce of Great Britain with this country would be likely to be improved by flagrant war between the southern and northern States.

Again, even a very limited examination of commercial statistics will be sufficient to show that while the staples of the disaffected States do, indeed, as they claim, constitute a very important portion of the exports of the United States to European countries, a very large portion of the products and fabrics of other regions consumed in those States are derived, and must continue to be derived, not from Europe, but from the northern States, while the chief consumption of European productions and fabrics imported into the United States takes place in these same States. Great Britain may, if her government think best, by modifying her navigation laws, try to change these great features of American commerce; but it will require something more than acts of the British Parliament and of the proposed revolutionary Congress to modify a commerce that takes its composite character from all the various soils and climates of a continent, as well as from the diversified institutions, customs and dispositions of the many communities which inhabit it.

Once more: All the speculations which assume that the revenue law recently passed by Congress will diminish the consumption of foreign fabrics and productions in the United States are entirely erroneous. The American people are active, industrious, inventive, and energetic, but they are not penurious or sordid. They are engaged with wonderful effect in developing the mineral, forest, agricultural and pastoral resources of a vast and, practically, new continent. Their wealth, individual as well as public, increases every day in a general sense, irrespective of the revenue laws of the United States, and every day also the habit of liberal — not to say profuse — expenditure grows upon them. There are changes in the nature and character of imported productions which they consume, but practically no decline in the quantity and value of imports.

It remains to bring out distinctly a consideration to which I have already adverted. Great Britain has within the last forty-five years changed character and purpose. She has become a power for production, rather than a power for destruction. She is committed, as it seems to us, to a policy of industry, not of ambition; a policy of peace, not of war. One has only to compare her present domestic condition with that of any former period to see that this new career on which she has entered is as wise as it is humane and beneficent. Her success in this career requires peace throughout the civilized world, and nowhere so much as on this continent. Recognition by her of the so-called Confederate States would be intervention and war in this country. Permanent dismemberment of the American Union in consequence of that intervention would be perpetual war — civil war. The new confederacy which in that case Great Britain would have aided into existence must, like any other new state, seek to expand itself northward, westward, and southward. What part of this continent or of the adjacent islands would be expected to remain in peace?

The President would regard it as inconsistent with his habitually high consideration for the government and people of Great Britain to allow me to dwell longer on the merely commercial aspects of the question under discussion. Indeed he will not for a moment believe that, upon consideration of merely financial gain, that government could be induced to lend its aid to a revolution designed to overthrow the institutions of this country, and involving ultimately the destruction of the liberties of the American people.

To recognize the independence of a new state, and so favor, possibly determine, its admission into the family of nations, is the highest possible exercise of sovereign power, because it affects in any case the welfare of two nations, and often the peace of the world. In the European system this power is now seldom attempted to be exercised without invoking a consultation or congress of nations. That system has not been extended to this continent. But there is even a greater necessity for prudence in such cases in regard to American States than in regard to the nations of Europe. A revolutionary change of dynasty or even a disorganization and recombination of one or many States, therefore, do not long or deeply affect the general interests of society, because the ways of trade and habits of society remain the same. But a radical change effected in the political combinations existing on the continent, followed, as it probably would be, by moral convulsions of incalculable magnitude, would threaten the stability of society throughout the world.

Humanity has indeed little to hope for if it shall, in this age of high improvement, be decided without a trial that the principle of international law which regards nations as moral persons, bound so to act as to do to each other the least injury and the most good, is merely an abstraction too refined to be reduced into practice by the enlightened nations of Western Europe. Seen in the light of this principle, the several nations of the earth constitute one great federal republic. When one of them casts its suffrages for the admission of a new member into that republic, it ought to act under a profound sense of moral obligation, and be governed by considerations as pure, disinterested, and elevated as the general interest of society and the advancement of human nature.

The British empire itself is an aggregation of divers communities which cover a large portion of the earth and embrace one-fifth of its entire population. Some, at least, of these communities are held to their places in that system by bonds as fragile as the obligations of our own federal Union. The strain will some time come which is to try the strength of these bonds, though it will be of a different kind from that which is trying the cords of our confederation. Would it be wise for her Majesty's government, on this occasion, to set a dangerous precedent, or provoke retaliation? If Scotland and Ireland are at last reduced to quiet contentment, has Great Britain no dependency, island, or province left exposed along the whole circle of her empire, from Gibraltar through the West Indies and Canada till it begins again on the southern extremity of Africa?

The President will not dwell on the pleasing recollection that Great Britain, not yet a year ago, manifested by marked attention to the United States her desire for a cordial reunion which, all ancient prejudices and passions being buried, should be a pledge of mutual interest and sympathy forever thereafter. The United States are not indifferent to the circumstances of common descent, language, customs, sentiments, and religion, which recommend a closer sympathy between themselves and Great Britain than either might expect in its intercourse with any other nation. The United States are one of many nations which have sprung from Great Britain herself. Other such nations are rising up in various parts of the globe. It has been thought by many who have studied the philosophy of modern history profoundly, that the success of the nations thus deriving their descent from Great Britain might, through many ages, reflect back upon that kingdom the proper glories of its own great career. The government and people of Great Britain may mistake their commercial interests, but they cannot become either unnatural or indifferent to the impulses of an undying ambition to be distinguished as the leaders of the nations in the ways of civilization and humanity.

I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

SOURCE: Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1861, Message of the President of the United States and Accompanying Documents, from the Department of State, p. 71-80