John Tyler to the Editor of the Richmond Daily Whig, published January 16, 1861

Views of Ex-President Tyler on the National Crisis.

To the Editor of the Whig:

I have been often urged to give my views to the public on the present great crisis of American affairs. I have abstained from doing so for reasons entirely satisfactory to myself—one of the most controlling of which was, that I could not regard with becoming composure the dissolution of that Confederacy in the service of which so great a portion of my life had been passed, and which I had been accustomed to contemplate in a spirit of the truest devotion. Nor did I believe that any thing that I could say would produce the slightest effect upon the public mind. My public life had long since terminated, and the shadow which, sooner or later, falls on all men, and shuts them out from sight had settled upon me. To the younger Athlete, who were in charge of the public trusts and enjoyed its confidence, I was well inclined to leave the task of adjusting existing difficulties, in the hope and trust that a Union so full of glories and so copious in blessings, would survive the trials which threaten it. In the meantime the high toned and gallant State of South Carolina, one of the Old Thirteen, has seen cause to withdraw from the Union, and it is said that her example is to be followed unless sectional differences are adjusted by the cotton States first, and sooner or later by all the slaveholding States. In view of this state of things, and seeing also that all efforts at adjustment have so far failed, I no longer withhold the expression of my opinions on the leading topics of the day.

The enquiry which presents itself, in advance of all others, is as to the effects which follow upon the withdrawal of so many states from the Union as those constituting an entire section of the country. In what condition does that withdrawal leave the remaining States and even the government itself? This enquiry is of the greatest interest and should therefore be made with all possible deliberation. It can do no less than resolve itself into the question as to the nature and character of the government itself. If it be a consolidated government, and the States merely its provinces, then those provinces or States or by whatever other name thy may be called, can make no resistance to its authority, however despotic, which would not be considered rebellious and treasonable. The States would occupy the same position, and none other, to the government of the United States, that each county or town occupies to the government of a state. The uprising of a county against the State would be unqualified rebellion and all concerned in it would be guilty of high treason. These are the inevitable results which arise out of a consolidated government. No matter what the magnitude of the evil complained of, no redress is left but out and out rebellion, and each and all engaged in such rebellion have entered into it with halters round their necks, to be used, unless the rebellion prove successful, by the consolidated government at its will and pleasure. It is idle, in this view of the question, to attempt to draw a distinction between a State in rebellion and any portion of the people of that State. The reasoning applies quite as forcibly to the whole community as to a part of it. No organized condition of the community can justify or excuse the revolt, and war may be made on all alike. Nor will it do to attempt a distinction between a Government like ours, where powers are granted and powers reserved, and an absolute despotism.—The same supreme domination would exist in the enforcement of the granted powers, as where nothing had been reserved and all given.—Whatever the obstruction interposed the authority would be given to remove it—if by individuals, they might be put to the sword—if by a State, it might be crushed. Is there no softening down the asperity of these conclusions? I am asked. I see no mode of doing so. Again, I may be asked, does not the constitution provide within itself some mode by which grievances, when too heavy to be borne, may be redressed? The Constitution professes to do so; but what chance is there of the remedies being available against an immovable sectional majority? Even now, an appeal to that mode of redress has been made in vain.—Every expedient has been resorted to, to obtain constitutional amendment in redress of grievances, through the action of Congress; but there stands that sectional majority, immovable or fixed, or only moving to make matters worse by suggestion the mere pretence of amendments which pass away in the moment of utterance.

No, if the Government be consolidated to the extent of the powers, it is supreme, and resistance to its mandates is treason. But, it is asked, cannot the Supreme Court, the sworn interpreter of the Constitution, give redress for violated rights? That august tribunal should ever be entitled to all respect; but in a sectional conflict, such as that which exists, its decisions, however solemnly delivered, carry no force along with them. Who, of the Northern sectional party, acknowledges the binding force of its decision recently pronounced in the Dred Scott case?—The venerable men who compose that Court, are of advanced age—as they drop off the state of actions. Mr. Lincoln will take care to supply their place, with men who would stand ready to reverse their decisions, and mock at them as of no binding authority. No, if the Government be a consolidated one, if its edicts, uttered by a sectional majority, are to be regarded as supreme, then those edicts are the decrees of fate, and submission of States and people is all that is left. From being considered the proudest and noblest structure of human liberty, it degenerates into the vilest instrument of tyranny and oppression. As indispensably necessary to arrive at the above conclusions as to the nature of the government, its advocates contend that it arose out of the popular will, and not from separate State action. It is only necessary to say that that position was entirely over-ruled, as long ago as 1800, by the decided voice of the American people, and only momentarily revived by Gen. Jackson’s proclamation, (a paper which contradicted all the expressed opinions of his previous and subsequent life,) avowedly written by one who still lingered among the ruins and fragments of antiquated ideas. It is contradicted by the name given the Government in baptism. The Federal Government it was called then, and as the Federal Government it is known to the world; and any dictionary will tell us that the name pertains only to a league—to a compact or political partnership among States. The Federal Legislature is known as a Congress, a term only used to indicate an assemblage of sovereigns; and that Federal Legislature is composed, especially in the Senate, of the representatives of the States equal in rights, and equal in power. There, the smallest State has a voice as potential as the largest. When the articles of confederation ceased to exist, they were succeeded by the present confederation—an improvement, as it was thought, upon the old one. But I abstain from going any further into this subject. I find the whole argument already perfected in the preamble to the resolutions recently adopted by thepeople of Botetourt, drawn by as clear a judicial intellect as is to be found either in the State of Virginia or out of it. In that preamble Judge Allen presents a synopsis of the history of the origin of our institutions, so briefly, yet so lucidly, as to have concluded the argument. It challenges an answer from any quarter. I wish it could be printed, and circulated until it was to be found in the hands of every man in the country.

The facts of history cannot be overcome, and those facts all bespeak the Confederative Republic, founded in a compact to which States were parties. No State thought, that in adopting it, it was imposing fetters upon its limbs, which, however galling, could never be broken. Some States, Virginia one of them, more cautions than the rest, accompanied their ratification with a declaration of the right to resume the powers granted for the peace of all and happiness of all, upon their being abused; and the pregnant fact that General Washington, the President of the General Convention, in his valedictory to the people, admonished them to avoid sectional divisions as the bane of the Union, bespeaks on his part a serious apprehension that the Union would fall asunder, not by any treasonable conduct on the part of his contrymen, surely, but the withdrawal of the States, legitimately and properly. Nor is there sufficient force to countervail the inductions drawn by Judge Allen in the Botetourt preamble, from the too great facility which would exist in overthrowing the Government. The right to secede should rather be regarded as a means of giving it perpetuity; as the acknowledged existence of such right would operate to restrain the conduct of majorities and officials. Secession would never be resorted to for the slight and insufficient causes, nor until after a long course of forbearance. Nothing is more difficult that to bring about a revolution or change of government. Take, in illustration, the calamity which is now impending over us. For thirty years some of the evils complained of by the South, have been existing, and have been increasing in magnitude, until they have culminated from abuse of the most rancorous kind, in Congress and out of Congress, in the pulpit and out of the pulpit, in short, everywhere, and in every conceivable shape, into a systematic sectional form and overruling organization. In the meantime, the Southern people have reasoned, expostulated and protested. So did they in the days preceding the revolution, but their expostulations had quite as well not have been uttered. So, in these latter days. In 1836, I remember to have received, through the Governor of the States of Virginia, a series of resolutions, which had been adopted by the Legislature, addressed to the Northern States, complaining of wrongs perpetrated towards her and her sisters of the South, by people of those States. I presented them, in due time, to the Senate; but, although those resolutions emanated from a State that had never inflicted intentional wrong on any co State, and which had laid down an empire as a rich offering on the alter of Union, they were wholly disregarded. So far from arresting the evils complained of, those evils have been continually increasing, until she and her sister States of the South are not only denounced in the most opprobrious terms, but participation in the benefits of the common territories are denied her and them, and the now-to-be-regarded as authoritative declarations is thundered in their ears, that an “irrepressible conflict” exists between the free and the slave States, which can only be quieted by “making all free, or all slave.” Can the bonds of that Union be so easily broken which have stood such assaults for so many years? Oh! no, there is no danger that any State will too promptly assert its rights and liberties, and privileges. The danger is the other way—the failure promptly to vindicate them may lead to their loss forever. In short, which is most to be desired, a government liable to no peaceful change, under the control of an arbitrary and despotic sectional majority, which proposes to accomplish, by an act of Congress, what others accomplish by sword, or one held in check by an efficient popular veto? The lover of justice and liberty can have no difficulty in deciding. Nor is there the least force in the arguments drawn from the case of the secession of a State recently acquired, either by purchase of conquest. If Texas, for example, seeks admission into the union, she does so to enjoy the blessings of its liberty in security, upon an equal footing with the original States. A few years only elapse, and, instead of equality, she finds herself, by a sectional majority, trampled upon, and in place of enjoying the equal privileges which lead her to desire annexation, she is put under ban along with the entire section to which she belongs. If she seceded singly, the Government might possible insist upon an enumeration for outlays and expenditures; but in justice, that would be all that should be done. Let the Southern States be treated as they were for the first half century of the existence of the Union, and, my life upon it, there would be no secession or talk of secession; nay, let the majority section furnish now sufficient guarantees—guarantees rendered more urgently necessary by reason of the out-spoken words of the leaders, and the danger which threatens our institutions will pass away, and a brighter and more propitious sun than we have yet seen will shine above the horizon. To deny such guarantees may serve very well to advance the wickedly ambitions purposes of political libertines, but augur to all others of us naught by the deepest woe. What then are the consequences resulting from the act of secession—first, to the seceding States—secondly, to the remaining States and Government?

1. Most assuredly it would be better that the full adjustment of the responsibilities to which each member of the political partnership is liable, as well as all the rights and interests of each resulting therefrom,  should be adjusted, prior to the act of separation. No State can justly avoid the assumption of its portion of the public debt, or of its fair share of all the responsibilities which have been contracted by the Government during its continuance in the Union; while, on the other hand, its title to its fair share in the public property, in whatever it may consist, would be equally clear. But as this cannot be done in the present state of Public opinion, the State can do no more that express its readiness fairly and honestly to act upon all its obligations. The act of withdrawal re-invests it with all the powers which it conferred on the agent. Government restores to it all the grants of land made by itself for public purposes; in a word, clothes it with all the powers and attributes and rights of sovereignty which can attach to a sovereign and independent power. Its trade and commerce are under its exclusive control, and revenues collected in its ports are subject to its own orders.

How would the remaining members and the Government itself be affected? If the union of States under a political compact may be likened to that of a mercantile partnership, the question would readily enough be answered. The withdrawal of a single member would break up the concern, and call for a settlement of all its affairs. If the remaining members chose to continue the business, it would be as a new firm, although they might still preserve the original name. The dissolution of the old firm would be quite as complete, although its re-establishment would not be so difficult, by the withdrawal of one member, as if dissolved by united consent. If it undertook to contract in the name of the old partnership, its efforts would be of no avail; if it drew a check on any bank, the check would not be honored. In a word, the functions of the association would have entirely—except so far as would be necessary to wind up the concern—ceased to exist. By a parity of reasoning, similar results would transpire in regard to the compact of Union. Sound policy would dictate to the remaining States an immediate re-construction of the Government. This might be done by tacit consent, or by more formal action, and only a moment of time might elapse between the dissolution of the old, and the re-establishment of the new, advancing from the secession of one member to that of all members of an entire section and still advancing to the secession or withdrawal of an additional number, until only one or two remained attached to the old order of things in a legal point of view. The case finds its illustration, not inaptly, in the establishment of the Constitution under which, thus far, we of the States that have not yet seceded, by tacit consent, since the withdrawal of South Carolina agree still to live. In that case this Constitution was adopted by eleven States, while North Carolina and Rhode Island rejected it, and clung to the old articles of confederation which has been declared perpetual, in plain and unmistakable characters upon its face.

No one doubts but that North Carolina and Rhode Island might have continued the perpetual Union established, or more properly proclaimed, by that first compact; and that they had just cause to complain of the co States for having dissolved it without their consent. But we are enquiring into legal rights and responsibilities of seceding and non seceding members. What if North Carolina and Rhode Island had set up a claim to the Government and all its appendages? What if they had gone on with Congress, established the Treasury board, called upon the eleven seceding States to pay up their installments as required under the perpetual articles of Confederation, which were not to be altered but by unanimous consent; and if disobeyed, had issued their orders to the army, and navy to seize upon the forts and attack those towns and cities of the rebellious seceders—what would the anti-secessionists of this day have said of it?—Would the soldiers have manned the forts?—Would the officers of the navy have laid in ashes the cities? If the non secession of two States could not preserve the Government of the first Constitution, what number is necessary to preserve that Constitution which was engrafted on it? Will a majority do so?—and why? Less than a majority would scarcely attempt it; and why not as well as a majority, in point of right? The secession of one State paralyses the finances—what will that of eight do? What of fifteen, with the sure prospect of other changes threatened and in embryo?—What capitalists will make venture of the earnings of a life-time in so rickety a concern? A re-constructed Confederation, based on ample guarantees, would, on the contrary, command public confidence after being one in motion.—The best way is for these who have the power to act like rational men, and to resolve that the Constitution shall be carried out in good faith; that the emissaries from Exeter Hall, and their confreres in the United States shall be silenced and justice be done to all, and equality be measured out to all. No American citizen but should feel indignant at this insolent interference of Englishmen in our affairs.—If the scheme of Southern emancipation is to be concocted, if a new constitution is to be formed for the South it must be drawn upon foreign soil. If a raid takes place in Virginia, under a lunatic leader, an Englishman, in some way or other must have his hand in it. I submit to the people of the North, whether they have so far parted with all their Americanism, as to tolerate such interference with their unoffending brethren? But I return to the train of my reflections.

It is to be regretted that there should exist so great an instability of public opinion, in regard to the origin and character of the government. If, for example, Massachusetts as in the time of non-intercourse and embargo, or at a still later period, when Texas annexation was the leading topic of the day—take umbrage at the proceeding—no state evinces more fiery zeal in favor of the idea of a Federal league.—She hesitates not to take the strongest position in regard to her own sovereignty. In the case of Texas she set the example of action secession—not by proclamation, it is true, issued by a convention of her people; but by legislative resolution, which announced, as a fact accomplished, her withdrawal from the Union. In the event of the consummation of that measure. Now she is so full of indignation at the withdrawal of South Carolina, if the newspapers speak truly, that she is overflowing with passion, and promises to contribute from 7,000 to 100,000 men to punish South Carolina, for having follower her own example. It is high time that Judge Allen’s preamble should be in the hands of the people. Today it is your bull that gores my ox—to-morrow the thing is reversed. Conquer the south! Suppose such as thing accomplished, and the Northern States invested with supreme rule. What great good will they have achieved for themselves? Instead of looking with delight on fields under industrious culture—on a country teaming with abundance—on ships freighted with the rich productions which regulated the exchanges of the world, and pour into the Northern lap almost fabulous wealth—they would gaze only on burning embers and smoking columns—and the wreaths which would encircle their brows would not be the evergreens that patriot heroes wear, but parched and withered leaves which would burn into their brains. All this, too, would have had its origin in a busy-bodiness—an interference with those people’s affairs which, in private or public life, never fails to produce disturbance and ill-will. If Virginia undertook to control and regulate the domestic affairs of Massachusetts, a day would not pass before the thunders, as in the days of yore, would begin to roll and the lightnings to flash from Faneuil Hall. Can Massachusetts expect anything less from Virginia? Let the states adopt the truly wise rule of attending to their own business and letting their neighbors alone—of fulfilling all their political obligations, and of doing equal justice to all their compeers—and future generations will rise up and call them blessed. Did it ever enter into the head of any man who voted for the adoption of the Constitution that one section of the country would assume the task of supervisors over the laws and morals of another? and, its domestic institutions being precisely the same as when the compact of Union was entered into, that a later day the dominant section would make them the pretext for excluding the minority of section from an equal participation in the Territories which might at any time be acquired? Pretty business, truly, that the men of this day shall esteem themselves more moral than their father; that Seward should be set up as a purer and better man than George Washington, and that Mr. Lincoln would be regarded as the only truly immaculate President of the U. States.

It would, indeed, be a retrograde movement if any State should be constrained by force to remain in a Union which it abhorred. In this matter, one might take a lesson from what is passing in the world. Italy, after the enthrallment of ages, is admitted to the ballot box, and her States claim and exercise the privilege of selecting the condition of their own future. And, while this is passing and that, too, with the approbation of all Europe, we are to take a step backward into the dark ages, and carry into practice the exploded doctrine of absolutism in Government. If we cannot live together, let us part in peace. By doing so we shall at least save something of the old feeling. It is true, the South will be under the necessity of adopting a rigid system of passports and police, which may prevent the perfect freedom of intercourse which, except in notorious cases now exists. But that is no more than other countries have to do, and is entirely protective in its character without being hostile. If necessary, a treaty, offensive and defensive, may be received, and much that now exists may be preserved. Pursue a different course, and all may be lost. Strange, indeed that odious discriminations should be drawn between equals in a common concern. Such was my opinion in 1820, in the discussion on the Missouri question, and such will it ever remain. The talented editors of the “National Intelligencer,” gave me an enviable position in certain able articles, written by them in the Summer of Fall of 1859. They speak of me as being the only member of Congress, at that day, who in debate, denied to Congress the right to prohibit slavery in the Territories. I stood there then, and I stand there now, not as in my early life alone in debate—but now in my age, sustained as I believe, by the concurrent opinions of a majority of the people of the United States, and leaning on the decision of the Supreme Court as on a staff which no rage of faction can weaken, no convulsion, however serious, can break. Could the able editors have deciphered the thoughts of my inmost heart, they would have found me opposed to congressional interference in this behalf with the Territories, for other reasons. Even passing over the impolicy of such interference, it was in its best view useless, God’s own law of climate had regulated the matter; and let the children of earthly wisdom act as they may. It will still continue to do it. The man who would talk of cultivating the rice and cotton fields, and sugar plantations of the South with free labor, denies to himself the light of observation and experience. Look to the West India Islands—no part of the Globe makes a louder outcry for labor, or offers higher wages than they do, and yet the tide of immigration from Europe sweeps by them in a vast current, which is arrested in its course only by a more Northern and healthy clime. Asia and Africa have to be resorted to for laborers, while the Caucasian of Europe flees as from a pestilence, the rays of a burning sun, and becomes the cultivator of the cereals, or turns to herdsman amid the snows of the North. There is but one element that can change, and that but to a limited degree, this law of climate, and that is the price of labor. I need not, therefore draw the picture of what would be the condition of the slave States, looking to the regular increase of the black population in forty years, under the edict formally announced by the leaders of the Northern dominant party of “no more slave States!” It cannot be contemplated by any Southern man with absolute composure.

I will not despair of the good sense of my countrymen. The hope will linger with me to the last that there is enough wisdom and patriotism among us to adjust these difficulties, although I frankly confess my doubts and fears. The minority States can do but little more than suggest—the majority States hold in their hands the fate of the Union. I would by no means, have Virginia to linger by the wayside. On the Contrary, I would have her prompt and decisive in her action—she cannot be too prompt or decisive. Before her Convention can meet full developments of one sort or the other will have been made. She should place herself in position—her destiny, for good or for ill, is with the South. She was the flagship of the Revolution; and borrowing an expression from a recent production of one of her most gifted sons, she should have “Springs upon her cables and her broad-side to.”

If I may be permitted to make a suggestion, it would be, that the Legislature, without delay, and without the interference with its call of convention, might inaugurate a meeting of the border States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and Missouri, slave states; and New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Iowa, free States, through two Commissioners from each, to arrange, if possible, a programme of adjustment, to be submitted to the other States as conclusive of the whole matter.

Should they agree, I think their recommendation would be followed by the other States, and incorporated into the Constitution and placed on the footing of an unalterable compact. Surely no States can be more deeply interested in the work of restoring the country to quiet and harmony. If they cannot agree, then it may safely be concluded that the restoration of peace and concord has become impossible. I would have an early day appointed for the meeting of the commissioners; so that Virginia, when she holds her convention, may be in full possession of the result.

Even if a failure to agree should occur, I would still have the Southern States, as a dernier resort, upon assembling in Convention, and after having incorporated in the present Constitution, guarantees going not one iota beyond that strict justice and the security of the South requires, adopt the Constitution of the United States as it now is, and give a broad invitation to the other States to enter our Union with the old flag flying over one and all. When this is done, I would say, in conclusion, to all my countrymen, rally back to the Constitution, thus invigorated and strengthened; and let there, for all time to come, be written on every heart, as a motto—that under all circumstances, and every condition of things, there is but one post of safety, and that is to stand by the Constitution.

JOHN TYLER.

SOURCES: “Views of Ex-President Tyler on the National Crisis,” Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond,  Virginia, Wednesday Morning, January 16, 1861, p. 1. This letter was also published under the title “Letter From Ex-President Tyler,” Richmond Enquirer, Richmond, Virginia, Friday, January 18, 1861, p. 1

Senatorial Canvass in Illinois, August 27, 1858

LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS AT OTTAWA.

[FROM OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.]

CHICAGO, August 27, 1858.

After Mr. Douglas spoke at Peoria on the 8th, he proceeded to Lacon, where, on the next day, he made the discovery that all the Presidents, naming them in order from Washington to Buchanan, had endorsed the principles of the Dred Scott Decision by refusing to grant passports to negroes to travel in foreign countries. After which, he reposed his wearied virtue for one day, to prepare for the extreme of mendacity, which he reached on Saturday at Ottawa. There, most aptly, he illustrated the Latin proverb— “Andas omnia perpeti, ruat per retitum nefas”¹ — and there he strode so deeply into the mire of falsification that extrication is impossible. But more of this further on.

At Lewiston, in Fulton county, on the 17th, Mr. Lincoln held one of his largest meetings and spoke for two hours and a half. At this place he tore from Douglas the mantle of Henry Clay, under which the senator had been strutting and hoping to hide the wickedness of his pretenses. Mr. Lincoln read largely from Clay’s writings and speeches, wherein he contends for the ultimate emancipation of the slave, and said that he would claim no support from the old line Whigs unless he could show that he stood upon the ground occupied by that great statesman. He further said that he believed Mr. Douglas was the only man of prominence before the country who had never declared, to friend or enemy, whether he believed slavery to be right or wrong. His speeches, to be sure, leave the hearer to infer that he did not desire slavery to be introduced into Illinois, but he indicates that no moral consideration would prevail with him against the exercise of slave-ownership, provided there was more money in working a negro that in working a horse. It was in this speech that Mr. Lincoln uttered an eloquent and impressive apostrophe into the Declaration of Independence, which ranks him at once among the foremost orators of the land. I give you a brief extract from the correspondent of the Press and Tribune:

“These communities, the thirteen colonies, by their representatives in old Independence Hall, said to the whole world of men; ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’” This was their majestic interpretation of the economy of the Universe. This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to His creatures.  Applause.  Yes, gentlemen, to all His creatures, to the whole great family of man. In their enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the Devine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on, and degraded, and imbruted by its fellows. They grasped not only the whole race of man then living, but they reached forward and seized upon the farthest posterity. They erected a beacon to guide their children and their children's children, and the countless myriads who should inhabit the earth in other ages. Wise statesmen as they were, they knew the tendency of prosperity to breed tyrants, and so they established these great self-evident truths, that when in the distant future some man, some faction, some interest, should set up the doctrine that none but rich men, or none but white men, were entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, their posterity might look up again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew the battle which their fathers began—so that truth, and justice, and mercy, and all the humane and Christian virtues might not be extinguished from the land; so that no man would hereafter dare to limit and circumscribe the great principles on which the temple of liberty was being built. Loud cheers.

“Now, my countrymen (Mr. Lincoln continued with great earnestness,) if you have been taught doctrines conflicting with the great landmarks of the Declaration of Independence; if you have listened to suggestions which would take away from its grandeur, and mutilate the fair symmetry of its proportions; if you have been inclined to believe that all men are not created equal in those inalienable rights enumerated by our charter of liberty, let me entreat you to come back. Return to the fountain whose waters spring close by the blood of the Revolution. Think nothing of me—take no thought for the political fate of any man whomsoever—but come back to the truths that are in the Declaration of Independence. You may do anything with me you choose, if you will but heed these sacred principles. You may not only defeat me for the Senate, but you may take me and put me to death. While pretending no indifference to earthly honors, I do claim to be actuated in this contest by something higher than an anxiety for office. I charge you to drop every paltry and insignificant thought for any man's success. It is nothing; I am nothing; Judge Douglas is nothing. But do not destroy that immortal emblem of Humanity—the Declaration of American Independence.”

Reports from various localities indicate that the Fillmore Americans and Old Lane Whigs are coming to the support of Mr. Lincoln, to put down the agitator and demagogue, who, on the other hand, is appealing to them for their votes. It is not to be disguised that Mr. Douglas has the [illegible] faith of the masses of the democratic party; whether it be abiding is another question. Once he had the ear of the federal administration; now he has lost it, and it is the object of unceasing opposition from that quarter. Then he could rally his lieges and hold them because he had rewards to bestow; now his promises are beggarly and unproductive. Thrift no longer follows fawning upon him. The Buchanan men do not warm towards him yet, and they are not likely to although it is said a joint and special commission has gone to Washington to plead with the unrelenting Executive.

Saturday, the 21st, was the day of the first discussion between Lincoln and Douglas. It was held at Ottawa, a city of about 9,000 inhabitants, on the line of the Chicago and Rock Island Railroad and the Illinois canal, and the junction of the Fox and Illinois rivers. I arrived late the night before at Ottawa, and was accommodated with a sofa at the hotel. The city was already even full. Saturday was a pleasant, but warm day, and Ottawa was deluged in dust. By wagon, by rail, by canal, the people poured in, till Ottawa was one mass of active life. Men, women and children, old and young, the dwellers on the broad prairies, had turned their backs upon the plough, and had come to listen to these champions of the two parties. Military companies were out; martial music sounded, and salutes of artillery thundered in the air. [Eager] marshals in partisan sashes rode furiously about the streets. Peddlers were crying their wares at the corners, and excited groups of politicians were canvassing and quarrelling everywhere. And still they came, the crowd swelling constantly in its proportions and growing more eager and more hungry, perhaps more thirsty. Though every precaution was taken against this latter evil. About noon the rival processions were formed, and paraded the streets amid the cheers of the people. Mr. Lincoln was met at the depot by an immense crowd, who escorted him to the residence of the mayor, with banners flying and mottoes waving their unfaltering attachment to him and to his cause. The Douglas turnout, though plentifully interspersed with the Hibernian element, was less noisy, and thus matters were arranged for the after-dinner demonstration in the Court House square, where the stand was erected, and where, under the blazing sun unprotected by shade trees, and unprovided with seats, the audience was expected to congregate and listen to the champions.

Two men presenting wider contrasts could hardly be found as the representatives of the two great parties. Everybody knows Douglas, a short, thickset, burly man, with large round head, heavy hair, dark complexion, and fierce bull-dog bark. Strong in his own real power, and skilled by a thousand conflicts in all the strategy of a hand-to-hand or a general fight. Of towering ambition, restless in his determined desire for notoriety, proud, defiant, arrogant, audacious, unscrupulous, “Little Dug” ascended the platform and looked out imprudently and carelessly on the immense throng which surged and struggled before him. A native of Vermont, reared on a soil where no slave ever stood, trained to hard manual labor and schooled in early hardships, he came to Illinois a teacher, and from one post to another had risen to his present eminence. Forgetful of the ancestral hatred of slavery to which he was the heir, he had come to be a holder of slaves and to owe much of his fame to his continued subservience to southern influence.

The other—Lincoln—is a native of Kentucky, and of poor white parentage; and from his cradle has felt the blighting influence of the dark and cruel shadow which rendered labor dishonorable, and kept the poor in poverty, while it advanced the rich in their possessions. Reared in poverty and the humblest aspirations, he left his native state, crossed the line into Illinois, and began his career of honorable toil. At first a laborer, splitting rails for a living—deficient in education, and applying himself even to the rudiments of knowledge—he, too, felt the expanding power of his American manhood, and began to  achieve the greatness to which he has succeeded, With great difficulty struggling through the tedious formularies of legal lore, he was admitted to the bar and rapidly made his way to the front ranks of his profession. Honored by the people with office, he is still the same honest and reliable man. He volunteers in the Black Hawk war, and does the state good service in its sorest need. In every relation of his life, socially and to the state, Mr. Lincoln has been always the pure and honest man. In physique he is the opposite to Douglas. Built on the Kentucky type, he is very tall, slender and angular, awkward even, in gate and attitude. His face is sharp, large-featured and unprepossessing. His eyes are deep set, under heavy brows; his forehead is high and retreating, and his hair is dark and heavy. In repose, I must confess that “Long Abe’s” appearance is not comely. But stir him up, and the fire of his genius plays on every feature. His eye glows and sparkles, every lineament, now so ill-formed, grows brilliant and expressive, and you have before you a man of rare power and of strong magnetic influence. He takes the people every time, and there is no getting away from his sturdy good sense, his unaffected sincerity, and the unceasing play of his good humor, which accompanies his close logic and smoothes the way to conviction. Listening to him on Saturday, calmly and unprejudiced, I was convinced that he has no superior as a stump speaker. He is clear, concise and logical; his language is eloquent and at perfect command. He is altogether a more fluent speaker than Douglas, and in all the arts of debate fully his equal. The Republicans of Illinois have chosen a champion worthy of their heartiest support and fully equipped for the conflict with the great “squatter Sovereign.”

By previous arrangement, Mr. Douglas was to open in a speech of one hour, Mr. Lincoln was to respond in a speech of an hour and a half, and Mr. Douglas was to conclude in another half hour. The square was filled with people, and when the cannon and the music had been quieted, Mr. Douglas commenced. He began by referring to the attitude of the Whig and Democratic parties prior to the spring of 1854, claiming that up to that time they stood on the same platform with regard to the Slavery question. He said that in the session of 1853-4 he introduced the Kansas bill, in accordance with the principles of the compromise of 1850, and endorsed by the Wig and Democratic National Conventions of 1852. In 1854, after the passage of this bill, he said that Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Trumbull entered into a league to deliver up, bound hand and foot to the Abolitionists, the old Whigs and the old Democrats—in consideration whereof, Mr. Lincoln was to have Shield’s place, and Mr. Trumbull was to have his own. (A screw subsequently became loose, and the programme of substitution was changed.) In pursuance of this plan, the parties met at Springfield in 1854, to perfect arrangements. There they, Mr. Lincoln included, passed a certain series of abominable resolutions, one of which he would read, and to which Mr. Lincoln, and his party were [committed]. He then proceeded to discuss Mr. Lincoln’s position in regard to negro equality, to the evident satisfaction of the Hibernian body guard, who were made to believe that Mr. Lincoln was aching to place the African in high places of the land, and to fold him to his arms in a fraternal embrace. Recurring them to his doctrine of popular sovereignty, he lauded it as the great element of our growth and prosperity, and closed with a spread-eagle eulogium upon the democratic party. Mr. Douglas was often interrupted with light applause, but, on the hole, it was not a very enthusiastic demonstration.

Then the tall form of “Long Abe” loomed above the heads on the stage, the signal for a fanatic expression of applause. Mr. Lincoln replied seriatim to Mr. Douglas’s charges, denying the conspiracy with Trumbull entirely, stating that at that time he was opposed to the formation of a new party, and that he had no hand in the preparation of the Springfield resolutions. On the subject of negro equality, he read from a speech of his in 1854, and which he said Mr. Douglas heard, and on that record he was prepared to stand.

Mr. Lincoln closed, and Douglas came forward, evidently under much excitement. He took advantage of his last half hour, and rose to such a pitch of arrogance and audacity as is seldom witnessed. With brazen front and lungs of iron, with a recklessness peculiarly his own, he launched forth a bold and defiant speech, which his retainers applauded to the echo. The charges of his first speech he re-affirmed with an unblushing effrontery, denounced Trumbull and Lincoln in unstinted terms, passed the lie around the circle, shook his long locks, grew red in the face, stentorian in voice, declared that Buchanan was a most excellent man, and scouted at the idea of Mr. Lincoln’s having any reputation for veracity. When he concluded, he was followed to his quarters by part of the crowd. The rest gathered about the stand, cheering Lincoln, and when he descended, he was seized by his enthusiastic friends, and in spite of his struggles, borne in triumph to the hotel, on the shoulders of half a dozen men, at once a novel exhibition of the freedom of western politics and the exuberance of western feeling.

I said, near the commencement of this letter, that Mr. Douglas waded very deeply into the mire of mendacity at Ottawa. The full vindication of this charge, and the proof of his singular madness, is furnished in the Chicago Press and Tribune of this morning, to whose excellent phonographic report of the Ottawa meeting. I have been indebted for the completion of the brief notes which I took at the time. I can do no better than give you the proof, in the words of the journal to which I refer. “At the meeting in Ottawa, on Saturday, the senator read a series of radical resolutions, which he assured his hearers were passed by a Republican State Convention in 1854, at Springfield; that the constituted the platform of the party at that day, and that they represented the views of his distinguished competitor, who, he said, took part in the proceedings of which the resolutions were a share. The resolutions were frauds and forgeries from first to last. No such series was ever presented to, hence never adopted by, any State Republican Convention in Illinois! And in making the assertion Mr. Douglas knee that he basely, maliciously and willfully LIED. He not only lied circumstantially and wickedly; but be spent the first part of his speech in elaborating the lie with which he set out, and the entire latter part, in giving the lie application and effect. The resolutions which he read were adopted by one house meeting at Aurora, in Kane county, with which Mr. Lincoln had nothing to do, which he was not near, which he possibly never heard of except though the public prints.”

There the senator stands, branded and convicted of a deliberate fraud, gibbeted before the public. I confess I was prepared for this exhibition. I knew that Douglas’s life as a politician was one great [illegible] vocation, that he had experienced incessant “changes of heart,” and that his position in [illegible] campaign was only a trap and a lure to another and falser position in the next. But I could hardly expect that he would coolly stand up and read a printed resolution as genuine, where he must have known that he was deliberately submitting a false and fraudulent record. Yet, he it is that goes over the states saying “you lie,” and infamous liar,” to Trumbull and Lincoln. This exposure of the Press and Tribune takes the very heart and core out of Douglas’s Ottawa speech. It to the very bone, and leaves only a hollow and baseless frame behind, “were words, “mouthfuls of spoken wind,” a figure with swollen features, and windmill arms beating the air, with violent but [imbecile] gesticulation. The very audacity of this charge gave Douglas this seeming advantage; that it put Lincoln on the explanatory and defensive, in regard to a series of resolutions which, whether passed at a one horse meeting in Kane county” or at Springfield, he could know nothing about it, as he had no hand in making them, and it is asking too much, to require a politician to have at his tongue’s end all the resolutions of four year old conventions. Lincoln will overhaul Douglas for this cheat, at Freeport, on Friday, when they meet again. The senator’s friends came home in jubilant spirits on Saturday, but they are crest fallen to-day, and doubtful of the implicit faith they have heretofore reposed in him. Douglas is unchanged. Perhaps the wise men of the East, that counseled the Republicans of Illinois to sustain him, are still regretful that their arrangements were not carried out.

After the Ottawa meeting was concluded on Saturday, Hon. Owen Lovejoy addressed the Republicans in the evening. Thrusting aside the assaults in his own party, he dashed headlong at the enemy and carried the war into the democratic party. “from grave to gay, from lively to severe,” he proceeded boldly and eloquently to arraign that party at the popular bar, and to convict it of its errors, crimes and inconsistencies. It was a great speech, and finished up admirably the performances of the day. There was then a torchlight procession. By the moonlight thousands wended their way home, and quiet began to reign in Ottawa.

Senator Trumbull is on the stump in the central and southern part of the state. He speaks at Alton on Wednesday, and at Springfield on Saturday. Douglas speaks at Galena on Wednesday and meets Lincoln at Freeport of Friday.

Douglas is in a quandary in regard to popular sovereignty and Dred Scott. At some places he tells his audiences that the decision is not binding where it conflicts with his specific. His reporter for he carries one about with him—omits this part of the performance from the bills.

Yours, &c.,

BAYOU.

_______________

¹ This was in italicized and hard to make out, but I believe I got it right as when I put in into Google Translate I got the translation as: “You go through everything, rush through the net of evil”

SOURCE,  The New York Eveing Post, New York, New York, Friday August 27, 1858, p. 1

Diary of Gideon Welles: [Saturday, November 26, 1864]

I called on the President Satur: day, the 26th, as I had promised him I would the day before, with my abstract for the message, intending to have a full, free talk with him on the subjects that were under review the day previous. But Mr. Bates was there with his resignation, and evidently anxious to have a private interview with the President.

The question of Chief Justice has excited much remark and caused quite a movement with many. Mr. Chase is expecting it, and he has many strong friends who are urging him. But I have not much idea that the President will appoint him, nor is it advisable he should. I had called on the President on the 23d, and had some conversation, after dispatching a little business, in regard to this appointment of Chief Justice. He said there was a great pressure and a good many talked of, but that he had not prepared his message and did not intend to take up the subject of judge before the session commenced.

“There is," said he, "a tremendous pressure just now for Evarts of New York, who, I suppose, is a good lawyer?” This he put inquiringly. I stated that he stood among the foremost at the New York bar; perhaps no one was more prominent as a lawyer. "But that," I remarked, “is not all. Our Chief Justice must have a judicial mind, be upright, of strict integrity, not too pliant; should be a statesman and a politician.” By politician I did not mean a partisan. [I said] that it appeared to me the occasion should be improved to place at the head of the court a man, not a partisan, but one who was impressed with the principles and doctrines which had brought this Administration into power; that it would conduce to the public welfare and his own comfort to have harmony between himself and the judicial department, and that it was all-important that he should have a judge who would be a correct and faithful expositor of the principles of his administration and policy after his administration shall have closed. I stated that among the candidates who had been named, Mr. Montgomery Blair, it appeared to me, best conformed to these requirements; that the President knew the man, his ability, his truthfulness, honesty, and courage.

The President at different points expressed his concurrence in my views, and spoke kindly and complimentarily of Mr. Blair, but did not in any way commit himself, nor did I expect or suppose he would.

I have since seen and had a full conversation with Blair. We had previously exchanged a few words on the subject. I then stated to him that, while it would gratify me to see him on the bench, I preferred that he should continue in active political life, and that I had especially desired he should go into the War Department. This point was alluded to in our present interview, and he confessed the War Department was more congenial to his feelings, but Seward wanted a tool there, and if he had influence, it would be exerted against him (Blair) for that place. Yet in a conversation which he had with Seward about a week since, Seward had given him (Blair) to understand that he was his (Seward's) candidate for Chief Justice. I told him that he could hardly be sincere in this, for Evarts would not consent to be a candidate nor think of it if Seward was not for him. Blair seemed a little shocked with this view of facts, and remarked that if Seward was not for him he was an infernal hypocrite.

Blair says he is singularly placed at this juncture, for the Marylanders are disposed to put him in the Senate at this time, while this judicial appointment is pending. I told him that personally I should be as much pleased to see him in the Senate as in the Court.

Governor Dennison, Postmaster-General, called at my house this evening to have some conversation on the subject of judge. He says he is and was at the last session committed for his fellow townsman Judge Swayne, who was at the time recommended by all on the bench; that he had called on the President at that time in behalf of Swayne, and the President then remarked that that seemed a settled question in which all were agreed. Governor D. is now a little embarrassed, for he feels particularly friendly to Blair.

As regards Mr. Chase, Governor D., like myself, thinks it impossible that he should receive the appointment, that it is one which the President cannot properly make. Says they could not assimilate, and that, were Chase in that position,—a life tenure,—he would exhibit his resentments against the President, who he thinks has prevented his upward official career. He then told me that he labored to get Chase into the Treasury, and how sadly he had been disappointed over his failure as a financier. One of the strong traits of Chase, he says, is the memory of differences, and that he never forgets or forgives those who have once thwarted him. He may suppress his revenge, but it is abiding.

The resignation of Attorney-General Bates has initiated more intrigues. A host of candidates are thrust forward, or are thrusting themselves forward. Evarts, Holt, Cushing, Whiting, and the Lord knows who, are all candidates. Under the circumstances it appears to me the appointment must go to one of the Border States, and hence I have thought Holt would most probably be the candidate of the President. He is, moreover, of Democratic antecedents; still I have no information on the subject.

Fox tells me that Whiting sought him yesterday and introduced the subject of the Navy Department, and inquired of Fox if he would remain were I to leave. To this F. says he replied he thought not, for we had got along so well together that he did not believe he could be reconciled to another. Whiting told him that would have great influence in the matter; that it was thought Senator Grimes might be offered the appointment if there was a change. All of this means that Whiting wants to be Attorney-General, but New England cannot have more appointments, and the little fellow is intriguing for a remote chance. Could the Secretary of the Navy come from Iowa, the Attorney-General, he thinks, might be selected from New England. The game is very easily read. Little Whiting's intrigues are not equal to his egotism, and yet he is a convenient instrument for others. He writes for Stanton, for Seward, and for the President, and intrigues generally. But he overestimates himself. He will never go into the Cabinet.

R. H. Gillett, formerly Solicitor of the Treasury, now a practicing lawyer, chiefly in the Supreme Court, stopped me a few mornings since to relate his last interview with Judge Taney. They were discussing governmental affairs. The Chief Justice was, he says, communicative and instructive. He said the Navy Department made less noise than some of the others, but no Department of the government was so well managed or better performed its duty.

This was, and is, high praise from a quarter that makes it appreciated. The Chief Justice could, as well as any man, form a correct opinion, and in giving it he must have been disinterested. Twenty-five and thirty years ago we were slightly acquainted, but I do not remember that I have exchanged a word with him since the days of Van Buren, perhaps I did in Polk's administration. The proceedings in the Dred Scott case alienated my feelings entirely. I have never called on him, as I perhaps ought in courtesy to have done, but it was not in me, for I have looked on him and his court as having contributed, unintentionally perhaps, but largely, to the calamities of our afflicted country. They probably did not mean treason but thought their wisdom and official position would give national sanction to a great wrong. Whether Judge T. retained any recollection of me, or our former slight acquaintance, I probably shall never know, but his compliment I highly value.

The case of the Florida has from time to time and in various ways been up. She was taken by Collins in the Wachusett at Bahia and brought to Hampton Roads. Having been captured in neutral waters, a great outcry has gone up from the English press and people, and some of our own have manifested a morbid sentiment with those English who have nothing to do with the subject. The Secretary of State has not known what to say, and, I think, not what to do. In our first or second conversation he expressed a hope that we should not be compelled to give up the Florida, and this he repeated in each of our subsequent interviews. I told him the idea ought not to be seriously thought of for a moment, and said that I knew of no instance where a belligerent armed vessel had been restored. That he owed a respectful apology to Brazil, I not only admitted but asserted. We have disturbed her peace, been guilty of discourtesy, etc., etc. Yet Brazil herself has in the first instance done wrong. She has given refuge and aid to the robbers whom she does not recognize as a government. She has, while holding amicable relations with us, seen these pirates seize and burn our merchant vessels, and permitted these plundering marauders to get supplies and to refit in her ports, and almost make her harbors the base of operations. What Brazil will demand or require I know not. Although she has done wrong to us in giving comfort and assistance to these robbers, I would make amends for her offended sovereignty by any proper acknowledgments. I do not believe she will have the impudence to ask restitution. If she did, it would be under British prompting and I would not give it. The case is not as if the war was between two nations. Yet some of our politicians and editors are treating it as such. Among others the New York Evening Post. I am inclined to think there is something personal towards me in this pertness of the Evening Post. The papers have alluded to differences between Seward and myself. There has been no such controversy or difference as the Post represents on this subject. All our talk has been amicable, he doubtful and hesitating, I decided and firm on certain points which, if he does not assent to, he does not controvert. But the publisher of the Evening Post is held in bail for malfeasance at the instance of the Navy Department. Great efforts have been made to let him off, to which I could not yield, and his case is to come off before the grand jury now in session. Under these circumstances the editors of the Post are very willing to differ with me on a public question, and yet they would never admit that they were actuated by personal considerations or a design to influence and bias the jury. It is, they think, their nice sense of honor, which would have us, as a nation, humble ourselves to Brazil for having taken a pirate by the throat within her jurisdiction, and that same sense of honor would screen a malefactor from exposure and punishment.

Brazil, and other governments who have given shelter, comfort, and aid to the piratical vessels that have plundered our commerce under a pretended flag which neither Brazil nor any other nation recognizes, committed the first great wrong. The government of Brazil is aware that the Rebel pirates have no admiralty court, that they have never sent in a vessel captured for condemnation; therefore Brazil herself, by permitting and acquiescing in the outrages on a friendly nation, is the first aggressor, and she should be held to it. If we have injured Brazil, let us make reparation, full and ample. If she has injured us, let her do her duty also, in this respect. So far as her majesty is disturbed by our taking a sneaking thief, whom she was entertaining, by the throat, — an outlaw with some of his robberies upon him, — let all proper atonement be made.

I suggested to Mr. Seward that proceedings should be commenced against the prisoners captured on the Florida as pirates, but he shrank from it, although it would have relieved him of many difficulties. It would not have been wrong to have gone to extremes with them, but the prosecution would bring out the true points and stop noise.

Governor Morgan detailed his journey with Governor Morrill through the different States, visiting the different governors and our political friends prior to the election, under an appointment, it seems, from the Secretary of War, ostensibly to attend to the draft. It was when political affairs looked darkest. He thinks that he and M. under this appointment and visit did much to dissipate the gloom. The intrigues of the radicals were totally defeated, and, after opposing and abusing the President, all of them finally came in, as I had no doubt they would. Morgan says the malcontents held their final secret meeting at the house of one of the editors of the Evening Post.

Chase was, Morgan says, open and sharp in his opposition to the President, — they heard of him at various places, but, finding he could accomplish nothing, he eventually came in, called on the President, procured the sacrifice of Blair as a pretext for his wounded and bruised feelings and those of his friends. This is Morgan's representation.

There was probably something in this, and also, I think, in the intrigues of Thurlow Weed. Strange antagonisms seem to have been harnessed up together in some partypolitical personal operations. Morgan thinks Chase will be appointed Chief Justice, but I do not yet arrive at that conclusion. The President sometimes does strange things, but this would be a singular mistake, in my opinion, for one who is so shrewd and honest, — an appointment that he would soon regret. In this M. agrees with me, and also that Blair is the man.

The place of Attorney-General has been tendered to Holt, who declines it, preferring his present position. This I think an error; that is, no man should decline a place of such responsibility in times like these when the country is so unanimous in his favor. Whiting, Solicitor of the War Department and patent lawyer, is sorely disappointed.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 181-7