Senator Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, March 24, 1850

Washington, March 24, 1850.

My Dear Sumner: I thank you for your letter. It is not my purpose to go at all fully into the various questions presented by Mr. Clay's resolution now before the Senate. I limit myself to three propositions, mainly; 1. That the original policy of the Government was that of slavery restriction. 2. That under the Constitution Congress cannot establish or maintain slavery in territories. 3. That the original policy of the Government has been subverted and the Constitution violated for the extension of slavery, and the establishment of the political supremacy of the Slave Power. Having discussed these points I shall have no time to go into a full examination of the proposition in detail now before the Senate.

How I wish that someone occupied my place more able to satisfy the expectations of the Friends of Freedom, and the obligation of the Crisis! Never in my life did I so painfully feel my incompetency as now. May God help me.

I thank you for your suggestion, and promised documents. They have not yet come to hand.

Very faithfully yours,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 205-6

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, March 16, 1850

Mar. 16, 1850.

*          *          *          *          *          *          *

As to affairs here, there is little of interest which you will not learn from the papers. Of our Ohio Democrats I regard only four as heartily opposed to the extension of slavery. These are Carter, Wood, Cable & Morris. All the rest except Miller & perhaps Hoagland may be relied on to vote for the proviso when brought forward. But I am not sanguine that it can be passed. The ground taken by the Administration and the hope on the part of the Old Line Democracy of securing the support of the slaveholders in the next Presidential struggle, and the peculiar circumstances which tie up Col Benton & prevent him from taking ground in favor of the proviso & induce to represent it as unnecessary — all these things are against the friends of freedom. Still this Congress will not go by without something gained for humanity and progress — the slave trade will be abolished in the District & two cents postage probably established. It will then remain for the Free Democracy by its steadfastness, courage, & perseverance to bring up the nation to the standard of our principles, by declaring and acting upon, a fixed resolution to support no candidate who will not take decided ground against all slavery which the national jurisdiction reaches and against all national political alliances which involve the support of slavery. Our cause is onward. The fluctuations which ordinary politicians see are occasioned by the ebb and flow of the accidental floating mass which comes and goes without principle. But the current, which knows no ebb flows on steadily swelling in volume & accumulating power, freighted with the hopes of millions.

I send you Seward's speech & Hamlin's. Walker of Wisconsin also has made a good speech which I will send you by & by. Hale is to speak Tuesday. I have been endeavoring to get the floor lately, but have not succeeded as yet. I am only beginning feel at home.

P. S. Was any thing done about getting a suitable Editor for the Columbus paper. Do see to it that we have a real democratic platform.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 204-5

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

Salmon P. Chase to W. G. Kephart,* Winchester, Adams County, Ohio, May 8, 1849

June 19, [1849.]

My Dear Sir — On my return from Frankfort, Kentucky, day before yesterday, I found your note of the 7th inst. on my table. I shall not think it worth while to respond to the editorials of the Bee; but when a true & devoted friend to the sacred cause of Freedom asks my attention to any particular matter of accusation against me, I cannot hesitate about giving him all the satisfaction in my power. You write as if you feared some bad results to the cause of Free Democracy from the imputation of the Bee, implied rather than stated, that I changed or modified my opinions in regard to the Mexican war, for the sake of securing my election to the Senate. Neither this nor any other imputation alarms me. I have neither time nor inclination for replies to the attacks made on me by the partizans of Tay lorism. I prefer to let the acts of my life speak for me. If these witnesses are not believed, neither will any statement that I can make obtain credence. I do not therefore as a general rule take any notice of Newspaper aspersions. To you, however, a friend, I say distinctly that I neither retracted nor modified any old opinion, or adopted or expressed any new one, for the sake of securing my election. I abandon opinions when convinced that they are wrong and adopt opinions when satisfied that they are right, not otherwise. As to my opinions on the Mexican war I do not believe that a dozen members of the Legislature knew what they were. Certainly I was not interrogated at all in respect to them, nor can I recollect that I conversed with any member on that subject, until after my return from Washington, though it is by no means impossible that I may have done so. I have however expressed on various occasions my views on the subject in conversation both with friends and opponents, and these conversations may have been reported to members, though I have no knowledge of the fact. Of course there is not the slightest ground for the idea that I “stooped” to any insincerity or disguise for the sake of being Senator. I can say, I believe with truth, that the office has very little charm for me, except so far as it adds to my ability to promote the welfare of my country and advance the interests of the cause of Freedom.

I never took any active part in the controversy between the Whigs & Democrats in regard to the Mexican war. I was engaged in a different contest & on different questions. To me the question of slavery seemed paramount in importance to the question of the war: and I never thought it desirable to divide those who agreed in opposition to slavery, by raising disputes among them on the subject of the war. In fact this seemed to me the general policy of the Liberty men; and consequently we find no expression of opinion either in the Resolutions of the National Convention of 1847, or of any Convention in our own State on this matter. The Liberty men, generally, condemned the war, but some in one degree & some in another; and very few, to that degree, that they could not unite cordially with the Free Soil Democracy of New York, who generally sanctioned the war, in the support of the same national candidates; one of whom it is remarkable enough, sustained while the others opposed the Government in the prosecution of it. Holding the view which was thus acted on by the Liberty men generally I seldom referred to the war at all in any public addresses and, when I did, thought it best to abstain from any line of remark calculated to introduce division among ourselves. I had, however, my individual views on the subject, which I freely expressed, whenever the occasion seemed proper for it, in private talk. These views I have not held or expressed dogmatically, or with any absolute certainty that they were right exclusively, and that everybody who dissented from them was wrong. They were in substance the same as those expressed by Wilberforce in relation to the war of England against France in 1803 — a war in my judgment, the commencement of which was quite as indefensible as that of our war against Mexico “I strongly opposed this war” he remarked “differing from those with whom 1 commonly agreed, at a great cost of private feeling; but when once it had begun, I did not persist — in declaiming against its impolicy & mischiefs, because I knew that by so doing I should only injure my country.”

I was not in any position to make my views of any consequence; and in this respect my circumstances were very unlike those of Wilberforce, who was a prominent and influential member of Parliament. As a private citizen, however, though I did not approve the commencement of the war but on the contrary always regarded the pretension of Texas to the boundary of the Rio Grande as groundless, and the order of the President, that the troops should advance to that river as therefore unwarranted, I did not on the other hand, after the war was actually begun & had received the sanction of the Congress, think it my duty to oppose its vigorous prosecution, on the contrary it seemed to me, reasoning on actual facts & not on facts as I could have wished them to be, that this course was the only practicable road to a sure & permanent peace. In this I may have been wrong, and when convinced that I was, I shall fully admit it. I rejoice certainly that I was in no public position, which would constrain me, holding these views and unconvinced by argument against them to differ in action from those who felt themselves constrained by honest convictions of imperative duty uninfluenced by the spirit of opposition to the existing administration, to oppose all measures for the prosecution as well as the commencement of the war. Nor do I expect that any future circumstances will arise, the war being now terminated, in which I shall be compelled to differ from them. I might go farther in this subject, but I have said enough to shew you my exact position. In one thing we shall probably all agree that the result of the war has signally disappointed the anticipation of those who supported it as some doubtless did with a view to the extension of slavery. The acquisition of New Mexico & California, free from slavery, by their own laws, and the bold demand of the slaveholders that they shall be surrendered to its blight, has aroused a spirit of inquiry upon the whole subject of that terrible curse and the relations of the National Government to it, which can hardly fail to precipitate the downfall of the slave power & hasten the era of emancipation. Let me assure you, my dear sir, that I shall always receive the “reproofs of instruction” with respectful consideration. I am far from believing that I have attained correct views of every subject. I dare not say that I am exempt from even more than the ordinary bias of human nature in forming my judgments. But I can say that I desire to be right & pray that I may be kept from all error, & especially all error harmful to our beloved country or to the cause of Human Freedom & progress — Join me in these prayers & when you believe me wrong tell me so. If after all, in any particular, my course shall not meet your approbation, before you go beyond a simple condemnation of that particular action or line of action and think of withdrawing your confidence from me or inducing others to do so, consider whether you are warranted in so doing by the whole tenor of my life and the general character & scope of all my conduct. Having thus considered act as your sense of duty prompts you. I ask no more.

P. S. I shall be pleased to hear from you in answer to this.

_______________

* From letter-book 6, p. 91 (continued on 107).

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 174-7

Anthony Burns

BURNS, Anthony, fugitive slave, b. in Virginia about 1830; d. in St. Catharines, Canada, 27 July, 1862. He effected his escape from slavery in Virginia, and was at work in Boston in the winter of 1853-'4. On 23 May, 1854, the U. S. house of representatives passed the Kansas-Nebraska bill repealing the Missouri compromise, and permitting the extension of negro slavery, which had been restricted since 1820. The news caused great indignation throughout the free states, especially in Boston, where the anti-slavery party had its headquarters. Just at this crisis Burns was arrested by U. S. Marshal Watson Freeman, under the provisions of the fugitive-slave act, on a warrant sworn out by Charles F. Suttle. He was confined in the Boston court-house under a strong guard, and on 25 May was taken before U. S. Commissioner Loring for examination. Through the efforts of Wendell Phillips and Theodore Parker, an adjournment was secured to 27 May, and in the mean time a mass-meeting was called at Faneuil hall, and the U. S. marshal summoned a large posse of extra deputies, who were armed and stationed in and about the court-house to guard against an expected attempt at the rescue of Burns. The meeting at Faneuil hall was addressed by the most prominent men of Boston, and could hardly be restrained from adjourning in a body to storm the court-house. While this assembly was in session, a premature attempt to rescue Burns was made under the leadership of Thomas W. Higginson. A door of the courthouse was battered in, one of the deputies was killed in the fight, and Col. Higginson and others of the assailants were wounded. A call for re-enforcements was sent to Faneuil hall, but in the confusion it never reached the chairman. On the next day the examination was held before Commissioner Loring, Richard H. Dana and Charles M. Ellis appearing for the prisoner. The evidence showed that Burns was amenable under the law, and his surrender to his master was ordered. When the decision was made known, many houses were draped in black, and the state of popular feeling was such that the government directed that the prisoner be sent to Virginia on board the revenue cutter “Morris.” He was escorted to the wharf by a strong guard, through streets packed with excited crowds. At the wharf the tumult seemed about to culminate in riot, when the Rev. Daniel Foster (who was killed in action early in the civil war) exclaimed, “Let us pray!” and silence fell upon the multitude, who stood with uncovered heads, while Burns was hurried on board the cutter. A more impressively dramatic ending, or one more characteristic of an excited but law-abiding and God-fearing New England community, could hardly be conceived for this famous case. Burns afterward studied at Oberlin college, and eventually became a Baptist minister, and settled in Canada, where, during the closing years of his life, he presided over a congregation of his own color. See “Anthony Burns, A History,” by C. E. Stevens (Boston, 1854).

SOURCE: James Grant Wilson & John Fiske, Editors, Appleton's Cyclopædia of American Biography, Volume 1, p. 460

Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, February 19, 1848

Cincinnati, February 19, l848.

My Dear Sir: It always gives me a great deal of pleasure to hear from you; but I was more than gratified by your last letter. I thought I saw in it an augury of approaching union, among the true and earnest lovers of freedom of all parties — a union which every patriot and philanthropist cannot but earnestly desire. For myself, I care not under what banner the rally may be, so that the banner bear blazing on its folds the inscription of Freedom; nor shall I think it of much moment by whom it may be borne, so he be, at all events, a true hearted champion of the Right. How strange it is that such an union has not already been formed — was not long since formed! How it is possible that such facts as those stated by Mr. Palfrey in his Speech — and he gave only a few by way of sample — not at all treating the monstrous bulk — can have been known to Northern men and non-slaveholders, and yet stirred up no fever of indignation, I cannot understand. Unless indeed I adopt the humorous solution of your downeast poet, Hosea Biglow, who says in one of his inimitable lyrics:—

We begin to think its nater,

To take sarse and not be riled,

Who'd expect to see a ’tater,

All on eend at bein’ biled?

Your overtrue description of the fate of honest antislavery men in the Whig Party, devoted to private assault and assassination — suspected, slandered, and traduced applies just as strongly to the antislavery democrats. I believe it was Euripides who said — as Milton translates him:—

There can be slain

No sacrifice, to the Gods more acceptable

Than an unjust and wicked king.

The converse of this is certainly true. There can be no more acceptable sacrifice to unjust power — the unscrupulous slave power — than the immolation of an earnest & defiant¹ friend of Freedom and the Right. And I have heard democrats complain [of efforts¹] made to ruin them in public esteem, and cut them off from all hopes of political advancement, with an emphasis not less strong than your own. But what remedy for such grievances, except by independent action? How can we expect that the people will sustain us, or that demagogues and serviles will fail to combine against us, defaming our characters, impairing our influence, depriving us opposition, and, what is greatly worse, thwarting our best purposes, unless we give them to understand that we can get along without them, if they choose to get along without us — that our principles are as dear to us as the loaves and fishes of office are dear to them? Once let it be understood by politicians, that no candidate for office can receive the suffrages of antislavery men, who does not, in some reasonable sense, represent antislavery principles, and parties will not dare to fly in the face of antislavery sentiment as they do at present. What a figure the Radical Democracy of New York will cut, if after resolving and resolving upon the absolute necessity of adherence to the Proviso under all circumstances, they should, after all, go into the Baltimore Convention next May and acquiesce in the nomination of Cass or Buchanan or any such man? What a figure will Antislavery Whigs cut in acquiescing in the nomination of Taylor, or Clay, or any other slaveholder, who gives no clear and unequivocal evidence, that he cherishes any antislavery sentiments?

I have thought much of the best means of concentrating antislavery effort. I confess I have not yet seen any clear line of action. The most eligible I have thought is to assemble in National Convention, in June next, say at Pittsburgh, for the purpose of taking into consideration the state of the country, and adopting such practical measures as may be then judged most expedient. My own judgment inclines to the opinion — strongly inclines to it — that should the Whigs nominate a candidate for the Presidency who will take decided ground against the extension of slavery into territories hereafter acquired, such a Convention should give such a candidate its support. The same measure should be applied to the Democratic nomination. Should both parties nominate men, not to be depended on for such opposition to slavery extension, then such a Convention should nominate a candidate of its own.

I have no expectation whatever that General Taylor will take any decided ground upon any question. He will certainly take no ground — unless he changes all his habits of thought, all his sentiments, and all his prejudices—against the extension of slavery. General Taylor is very strong in the South. I was at St. Louis and at Louisville a few weeks since, and had an opportunity of learning something of the feeling of the western southwestern slave States in relation to him. He will sweep them if a candidate like a tornado. But I am not able to see any convincing indications of his strength in the North and Northwest. I see rather signs which satisfy me that if he receives the nomination of the Whigs, it must be because the Whigs of the North and Northwest sacrifice their interests, their honors and their duties, to the ambition of party success. As to Mr. Clay, he might properly receive the support of antislavery men if he would come out unequivocally against the extension of slavery, and in favor of a Convention and some reasonable plan of emancipation in Kentucky. I have no faith, however, that he will do this, though I do not deem it quite impossible.

You say “if Judge M'Lean could be induced to take any practical ground against the extension of slavery he would be a popular candidate”. You may recollect something of a letter from Columbus last fall which appeared in the Era. That letter contained a statement of Judge M'Lean's position as understood by the writer, and it was this, that the Wilmot Proviso, as to all territories in which slavery does not exist at the time of acquisition, is in the Constitution already. A resolution of Congress may declare the principle and legislation by Congress may enforce its application; but neither resolution nor legislation is needed to establish the principle. It is in the Constitution. The paragraph of this letter containing this statement was shown to Judge M'Lean and approved by him. I had a conversation with Corwin² and I regretted to find that he did not sympathize with or concur in these views. So far as I could discover he had no definite, considered principle or opinions on the subject. He thought it best to avoid the question, by opposing territorial acquisition, but if it must come, then secure freedom by legislation.

Under all circumstances I cannot but think Judge M'Lean to be all together the most reliable man, on the slavery question, now prominent in either party. It is true he does not fully agree with those who are generally known as antislavery men. But on the question of extension of slavery he is with us, not only on the question of its impolicy and its criminality, but also because he believed such extension would be a clear infraction of the Constitution. Add to this the constant and familiar association with antislavery folks in his family and among his friends, and his known aversion to slavery itself — an aversion so strong that when he quitted Washington, although in debt, and comparatively poor, he emancipated his slaves, when sale would have produced the means of discharging all his obligations. I regret very much the decision of Judge M'Lean in the Vanzandt case and believe he fell into great error; still on the pressing issue — the extension of slavery, he is wholly with us, and in general sentiment on slavery questions, nearer to us than any other statesman of either of the two old parties. He is not against the Proviso — on the contrary he is in favor of it. He thinks it however is inexpedient to weaken the strength of the Constitutional position against slavery, by introducing a specific measure of legislation against it, under present circumstances, when its defeat in the legislature or its veto by the Executive is certain, and such defeat, in the general opinion, would take away every obstacle from the introduction of slavery into new territories.

I understand from Mr. Vaughan, that the Boston Whig has given a different statement of Judge M'Lean's position, from the one I have just set before you. You may depend, however, on the fact that mine is correct; and I leave you to judge whether I am wrong in thinking that the nomination of M'Lean by the Whig Convention would be the most substantial triumph of antislavery which has been achieved this century.

I thank you for your offer to circulate a few copies of the Vanzandt argument in Westminster Hall. I send you a dozen for that purpose. I read your address on Fame and Glory with very great pleasure.

Forgive this long letter, and believe me,

Faithfully your friend,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

_______________

¹ Conjectural. Torn in MS.

² First part of name torn out of MS. From the final syllable, win, Corwin is conjectured.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 128

William Barton Rogers to Henry Darwin Rogers, September 24, 1860

Boston, September 24, 1860.

. . . We expect to remove to Boston for the winter in about three weeks. . . . My last visit to Boston was for the purpose of reading to a committee a pretty full outline of an Institute of Technology, to comprise a Society of Arts, an Industrial Museum, and a School of Industrial Science. My plan is very large, but is much liked, and I shall probably submit it, by request, to a meeting of leading persons in the course of a week or two, after which it will be printed in pamphlet form. The educational feature of the plan is what ought most to recommend it, and will, I think, be well appreciated. It provides for regular systematic teaching in Drawing and Design, Mathematics, general and applied Physics, Practical Chemistry, Geology and Mining, and would require at least five fully equipped professorships, besides laboratories, even at the beginning. It contemplates two classes of pupils, — those who go through a regular and continuous course of practical studies, and those who attend the lectures on Practical Science and Art. But I will not dilate on the plan now.

I wish, some day that you are enough at leisure, you would write Mr. Savage a few lines about your own doings, or any matter of local antiquarian interest that may turn up. I know he would be greatly pleased to hear from you. I have never known him more cheerful and happy, or more gentle and benevolent, than now. He seems to rejoice as much as we when a letter comes by steamer from you and Eliza.

You may tell friends in Scotland that the slavery extension doctrine will be effectually wiped out by this election. Mr. Andrew, whom you know, will be the next Governor, — an honest, fearless, clearheaded and humane man. Lincoln, by all reliable accounts, is a like character, with probably more decided intellectual power.

Some people are just now greatly exercised, as the Methodists say, with the expected visit of the Prince. Of course the long ears will show themselves on such occasions. But I trust the reception in Boston will be marked by self-respect, as well as courtesy to the symbolic guest. There has been much folly committed in Canada, and I fear there will be vastly more in New York.

Ticknor and Fields have just reprinted Tyndall's volume on the Glaciers. I shall take it to the country, and may be tempted to write a critique.

Ferguson, of the National Observatory, has lately discovered another asteroid.

SOURCE: Emma Savage Rogers & William T. Sedgwick, Life and Letters of William Barton Rogers, Volume 2, p. 41-2

Samuel Kneeland Jr. to William Barton Rogers, January 30, 1861

Boston, September 24, 1860.

. . . We expect to remove to Boston for the winter in about three weeks. . . . My last visit to Boston was for the purpose of reading to a committee a pretty full outline of an Institute of Technology, to comprise a Society of Arts, an Industrial Museum, and a School of Industrial Science. My plan is very large, but is much liked, and I shall probably submit it, by request, to a meeting of leading persons in the course of a week or two, after which it will be printed in pamphlet form. The educational feature of the plan is what ought most to recommend it, and will, I think, be well appreciated. It provides for regular systematic teaching in Drawing and Design, Mathematics, general and applied Physics, Practical Chemistry, Geology and Mining, and would require at least five fully equipped professorships, besides laboratories, even at the beginning. It contemplates two classes of pupils, — those who go through a regular and continuous course of practical studies, and those who attend the lectures on Practical Science and Art. But I will not dilate on the plan now.

I wish, some day that you are enough at leisure, you would write Mr. Savage a few lines about your own doings, or any matter of local antiquarian interest that may turn up. I know he would be greatly pleased to hear from you. I have never known him more cheerful and happy, or more gentle and benevolent, than now. He seems to rejoice as much as we when a letter comes by steamer from you and Eliza.

You may tell friends in Scotland that the slavery extension doctrine will be effectually wiped out by this election. Mr. Andrew, whom you know, will be the next Governor, — an honest, fearless, clearheaded and humane man. Lincoln, by all reliable accounts, is a like character, with probably more decided intellectual power.

Some people are just now greatly exercised, as the Methodists say, with the expected visit of the Prince. Of course the long ears will show themselves on such occasions. But I trust the reception in Boston will be marked by self-respect, as well as courtesy to the symbolic guest. There has been much folly committed in Canada, and I fear there will be vastly more in New York.

Ticknor and Fields have just reprinted Tyndall's volume on the Glaciers. I shall take it to the country, and may be tempted to write a critique.

Ferguson, of the National Observatory, has lately discovered another asteroid.

SOURCE: Emma Savage Rogers & William T. Sedgwick, Life and Letters of William Barton Rogers, Volume 2, p. 41-2

William Cullen Bryant to Abraham Lincoln, January 4, 1861

New York January 4th 1861.

My dear Sir,

I wrote to you yesterday concerning the rumored intention to give Mr. Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania a place in the Cabinet which you are to form. I had then scarcely spoken to any body on the subject, but since that time I have heard the matter much discussed and I assure you that the general feeling is one of consternation.

Mr. Cameron has the reputation of being concerned in some of the worst intrigues of the democratic party a few years back. His name suggests to every honest Republican in this State no other than disgusting associations, and they will expect nothing from him when in office but repetition of such transactions. At present those who favor his appointment, in this State, are the men who last winter seduced our legislature into that shamefully corrupt course by which it was disgraced. If he is to form one of the Cabinet, the Treasury Department, which rumor assigns him, is the very last of the public interests which ought to be committed to his charge.

In the late election, the Republican party, throughout the Union, struggled not only to overthrow the party that sought the extension of slavery, but also to secure a pure and virtuous administration of the government. The first of these objects we have fully attained, but if such men as Mr. Cameron are to compose the Cabinet, however pure and upright the Chief Magistrate may himself be, and it is our pride and rejoicing that in the present instance we know him to be so, – we shall not have succeeded in the second.

There is no scarcity of able and upright men who would preside over the Treasury department with honor. I believe Mr. Gideon Welles of Hartford has been spoken of. There is no more truly honest man, and he is equally wise and enlightened. We have a man here in New York whom I should rejoice to see at the head of that department, Mr Opdyke, the late Republican candidate for Mayor of this city a man who had made finance the subject of long and profound study, and whom no possible temptation could move from his integrity. If a man from Pennsylvania is wanted, that State has such whose probity has never been questioned – so that there will be no need to take up with a man hackneyed in those practices which make politics a sordid game played for the promotion of personal interests.

I must again ask you to pardon this freedom for the sake of its motive. It has cost me some effort to break through my usual reserve on such matters, but I feel a greater interest in the success and honor of your administration than in that of any which have preceded it

I am dear sir, truly yours,

W C Bryant

Hon. A. Lincoln

[An extract from this letter, though misdated as February 5, 1861, may be found in Parke Godwin’s, A Biography of William Cullen Bryant, Volume 1, p. 152-3 included below:]

New York, February 5th, 1861

I wrote to you yesterday! in regard to the rumored intention of giving Mr. Simon Cameron, of Pennsylvania, a place in the Cabinet. I had not then spoken much with others of our party, but I have since heard the matter discussed, and the general feeling is one of consternation. Mr. Cameron has the reputation of being concerned in some of the worst intrigues of the Democratic party. His name suggests to every honest Republican in the State no other associations than these. At present, those who favor his appointment in this State are the men who last winter so shamefully corrupted our Legislature. If he is to have a place in the Cabinet at all, the Treasury department is the last of our public interests that ought to be committed to his hands.

In the last election, the Republican party did not strive simply for the control, but one of the great objects was to secure a pure and virtuous administration of the Government. In the first respect we have succeeded; but, if such men as Cameron are to form the Cabinet, we shall not have succeeded in the second. There are able men who would fill the place of Secretary of the Treasury whose integrity is tried and acknowledged. I believe Mr. Gideon Welles, of Hartford, has been spoken of. There is no more truly upright man, and few men in public life are so intelligent. If we look to New York, we have Mr. Opdyke, the late Republican candidate for Mayor of this city, a man also who has made finance a long study, and whom no temptation could cause to swerve in the least respect from the path of right. [Illegible.] . . .

SOURCES: Abraham Lincoln Papers in the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.; Parke Godwin, A Biography of William Cullen Bryant, Volume 1, p. 152-3

Lord John Russell to Edward Everett, July 12, 1861

PEMBROKE LODGE, July 12, 1861.

MY DEAR MR. EVERETT, – I have hitherto delayed answering your letter of the 28th of May, in hopes that a better feeling, and I must say a juster feeling towards us might spring up in the United States. I am not sure that this is the case, but I am told there has been a lull. In the interval before a fresh storm arises, I will write a few lines as to our position. I shall say little as to yours; I respect the unanimous feeling of the North, and still more the resolution not to permit the extension of slavery which led to the election of President Lincoln. But with regard to our own course, I must say something more. There were according to your account 8 millions of freemen in the Slave States. Of these millions upwards of five have been for sometime in open revolt against the President and Congress of the United States. It is not our practice to treat five millions of freemen as pirates, and to hang their sailors if they stop our merchantmen. But unless we meant to treat them as pirates and to hang them we could not deny them belligerent rights. This is what you and we did in the case of the South American Colonies of Spain. Your own President and Courts of Law decided this question in the case of Venezuela. Your press has studiously confused the case by calling the allowance of belligerent rights by the name of recognition. But you must well know the difference. It seems to me however that you have expected us to discourage the South. How this was to be done, except by waging war against them I am at a loss to imagine. I must confess likewise that I can see no good likely to arise from the present contest. If on the 4th of March you had allowed the Confederate States to go out from among you, you could have prevented the extension of Slavery and confined it to the slaveholding States. But if I understand your Constitution aright you cannot do more in case of successful war, if you have to adhere to its provisions and to keep faith with those states and parts of states where slavery still exists which have not quitted the Union.

I regret the Morrill Tariff and hope it will be repealed. But the exclusion of our manufactures from your markets was surely an odd way of conciliating our good will.

I thank you for your condolence on the death of my brother. It is a grievous loss to me, after half a century of brotherly affection. I remain,

Yours faithfully,

J. RUSSELL.

SOURCE: Massachusetts Historical Society, Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Volume 45: October 1911 – June 1912, November 1911 Meeting, p. 77-8

John Lothrop Motley to Mary Benjamin Motley, Monday, July 28, 1861

Nahant, July 28, 1861.

My Dearest Mary: I have not written to Forster, because I have taken it for granted that he sees my letters to you, and I could only write the same facts and the same conclusions to other correspondents. Nevertheless, I wish very much to write a line to him and to Milnes, and especially to Lord de Grey, and shall certainly do so within a very short time. I was delighted to hear of young Ridley's triumphs, and sincerely sympathize in the joy of Lord and Lady Wensleydale, to whom pray give my kindest remembrance and congratulations. I am very much obliged to Lord John Russell for his kindness in sending me a copy of his note to Mr. Everett. I have thought very often of writing myself to Lord John, and have abstained because I knew that his time was so thoroughly occupied as to leave him little leisure for unofficial correspondence, and because I knew also that his despatches from Washington and his conversations with Mr. Adams must place him entirely in possession of all the facts of this great argument, and I have not the vanity to suppose that any commentary which I could make would alter the conclusion of a mind so powerful and experienced as his.

“If on the 4th of March,” he says to Mr. Everett, “you had allowed the Confederate States to go out from among you, you could have prevented the extension of slavery and confined it to the slave-holding States.” But, unfortunately, had this permission been given, there would have been no “you” left. The existence of this government consists in its unity. Once admit the principle of secession, and it has ceased to be; there is no authority then left either to prevent the extension of slavery, or to protect the life or property of a single individual on our share of the continent. Permit the destruction of the great law which has been supreme ever since we were a nation, and any other law may be violated at will. We have no government but this one, since we were dependent and then insurgent colonies. Take away that, and you take away our all. This is not merely the most logical of theories, but the most unquestionable of facts. This great struggle is one between law and anarchy. The slaveholders mutiny against all government on this continent, because it has been irrevocably decided no further to extend slavery. Peaceful acquiescence in the withdrawal of the seven cotton States would have been followed by the secession of the remaining eight slave States, and probably by the border free States. Pennsylvania would have set up for itself. There would probably have been an attempt at a Western Confederacy, and the city of New York had already announced its intention of organizing itself into a free town, and was studying the constitutions of Frankfort and Hamburg.

In short, we had our choice to submit at once to dismemberment and national extinction at the command of the slavery oligarchy which has governed us for forty years, or to fight for our life. The war forced upon us by the slaveholders has at last been accepted, and it is amazing to me that its inevitable character and the absolute justice of our cause do not carry conviction to every unprejudiced mind. Those, of course, who believe with the Confederates that slavery is a blessing, and the most fitting corner-stone of a political edifice, will sympathize with their cause. But those who believe it to be a curse should, I think, sympathize with us, who, while circumscribing its limits and dethroning it as a political power, are endeavoring to maintain the empire of the American Constitution and the English common law over this great continent. This movement in which we now engage, and which Jefferson Davis thinks so ridiculous, is to me one of the most noble spectacles which I remember in history. Twenty millions of people have turned out as a great posse comitatus to enforce the laws over a mob of two or three millions, — not more, — led on by two or three dozen accomplished, daring, and reckless desperados. This is the way history will record this transaction, be the issue what it may; and if we had been so base as to consent to our national death without striking a blow, our epitaph would have been more inglorious than I hope it may prove to be.

Don't be too much cast down about Bull Run. In a military point of view it is of no very great significance. We have lost, perhaps, at the utmost, 1000 men, 2000 muskets, and a dozen cannon or so. There was a panic, it is true, and we feel ashamed, awfully mortified; but our men had fought four or five hours without flinching, against concealed batteries, at the cannon's mouth, under a blazing July Virginia sun, taking battery after battery, till they were exhausted with thirst, and their tongues were hanging out of their mouths. It was physically impossible for these advanced troops to fight longer, and the reserves were never brought up. So far I only say what is undisputed. The blame for the transaction cannot be fairly assigned till we get official accounts. As for the affair itself, the defeat was a foregone conclusion. If you read again the earlier part of my last letter, you will see that I anticipated, as did we all, that the grand attack on Manassas was to be made with McClellan's column, Patterson's and McDowell's combined. This would have given about 125,000 men. Instead of this, McDowell's advance with some 50,000 men, not onethird part of which were engaged, while the rebels had 100,000 within immediate reach of the scene of action. You will also see by the revelations made in Congress and in the New York “Times” that this has been purely a politician's battle. It is in a political point of view, not a military, that the recent disaster is most deplorable. The rebellion has of course gained credit by this repulse of our troops.

As for the Civil War, nothing could have averted it. It is the result of the forty years' aggression of the slavery power. Lincoln's election was a vote by a majority of every free State that slavery should go no further, and then the South dissolved the Union. Suppose we had acknowledged the Confederacy, there would have been war all the same. Whether we are called two confederacies or one, the question of slavery in the Territories has got to be settled by war, and so has the possession of the Mississippi and the Gulf of Mexico. Even on the impossible theory that the United States continued to exist as a government after submitting without a struggle to dismemberment, still it would be obliged to fight for the rights of its four or five million of tonnage to navigate American waters.

In brief, the period has arrived for us, as it has often arrived for other commonwealths in history, when we must fight for national existence, or agree to be extinguished peaceably. I am not very desponding, although the present is gloomy. Perhaps the day will come ere long when we shall all of us, not absolutely incapacitated by age or sickness, be obliged to shoulder our rifles as privates in the ranks. At present there seems no lack of men. The reverse of last Sunday has excited the enthusiasm afresh, and the government receives new regiments faster than it can provide for them. As I am not fit to be an officer, being utterly without military talent or training, and as it is now decided that such responsible offices shall not be conferred except upon those who can bear an examination by competent military authorities, I am obliged to regret my want of early education in the only pursuit which is now useful. As to going abroad and immersing myself again in the sixteenth century, it is simply an impossibility. I can think of nothing but American affairs, and should be almost ashamed if it were otherwise.

A grim winter is before us. Gather your rosebuds while you may, is my advice to you, and engage your passages not before October. But having said this, I give you carte blanche, and let me know your decision when made. The war is to be a long one. We have no idea of giving in, and no doubt of ultimate triumph. Our disaster is nothing; our disgrace is great, and it must be long before it can be retrieved, because General Scott will now be free to pursue the deliberate plan which he had marked out when he was compelled by outside pressure to precipitate his raw levies against an overwhelming superiority of rebels in a fortified position.

A few days ago I went over to Quincy by appointment to dine with old Mr. Quincy. The dinner was very pleasant. Edmund was there, and very agreeable, with Professor Gould, and Mr. Waterston, and the ladies. The old gentleman, now in his ninetieth year, is straight as an arrow, with thirty-two beautiful teeth, every one his own, and was as genial and cordial as possible. He talked most agreeably on all the topics of the day, and after dinner discussed the political question in all its bearings with much acumen and with plenty of interesting historical reminiscences. He was much pleased with the messages I delivered to him from Lord Lyndhurst, and desired in return that I should transmit his most cordial and respectful regards. Please add mine to his, as well as to Lady Lyndhurst. when you have the privilege of seeing them. I was very sorry not to be able to accept young Mr. Adams's offered hospitality, but I had made arrangements to return to Nahant that night. Pray give my best regards to Mr. and Mrs. Adams. Last Saturday I went to Cambridge and visited Longfellow. He was in bed, with both hands tied up; but his burns are recovering, and his face will not be scarred, and he will not lose the use of either hand. He was serene and resigned, but dreaded going down-stairs into the desolate house. His children were going in and out of the room. He spoke of his wife, and narrated the whole tragedy very gently, and without any paroxysms of grief, although it was obvious that he felt himself a changed man. Holmes came in. We talked of general matters, and Longfellow was interested to listen to and speak of the news of the day and of the all-absorbing topic of the war.

The weather has been almost cloudless for the seven weeks that I have been at home — one blaze of sunshine. But the drought is getting to be alarming. It has hardly rained a drop since the first week in June. Fortunately, the charm seems now broken, and to-day there have been some refreshing showers, with a prospect of more. I dined on Saturday with Holmes. He is as charming, witty, and sympathetic as ever. I wish I could send you something better than this, but unless I should go to Washington again I don't see what I can write now that is worth reading. To-morrow I dine here with Wharton, who is unchanged, and desires his remembrances to you; and next day I dine with Lowell at Cambridge, where I hope to find Hawthorne, Holmes, and others. . . .

P. S.  Tell Tom Brown, with my kindest regards, that every one is reading him here with delight, and the dedication is especially grateful to our feelings. The Boston edition (I wish he had the copyright) has an uncommonly good likeness of him.

As for Wadsworth, I heard from several sources of his energy and pluck. Wharton has been in my room since I began this note. He had a letter from his sister, in which she says John Vennes, a servant (an Englishman) of theirs, who enlisted in the Sixty-ninth New York, had written to say that his master was the bravest of the brave, and that he was very proud of him as he saw him without his hat, and revolver in hand, riding about and encouraging the troops at the last moment to make a stand. I had a letter from Colonel Gordon the other day. He is at Harper's Ferry, and not at all discouraged by the results of the battle, in which of course he had no part. He says: “Our late check, it seems to me, is almost a victory. From seven to four did our brave troops face that deadly fire of artillery and infantry delivered from breastworks and hidden embrasures. Over and over again did they roll back the greatly outnumbering columns of the enemy, until at last, when a foolish panic seized them, they left the enemy in such a condition that he could not pursue them more than a mile and a half; so that one entire battery, which they might have had for the taking, was left all night on the field and finally returned to us again. Many such victories would depopulate the South, and from the victors there is no sound of joy. In Charleston, Virginia, at Harper's Ferry, and at Martinsburg they mourn the loss of many of their sons. Fewer in numbers, we were more than their match, and will meet them again.'”

In estimating the importance of this affair as to its bearings on the future, it should, I think, be never forgotten that the panic, whatever was its mysterious cause, was not the result of any overpowering onset of the enemy. It did not begin with the troops engaged.

Here we are not discouraged. The three months' men are nearly all of them going back again. Congress has voted 500,000 men and 5,000,000 of dollars; has put on an income tax of three per cent., besides raising twenty or thirty millions extra on tea, coffee, sugar, and other hitherto untaxed articles; and government securities are now as high in the market as they were before the late battle. . . .

J. L. M.

SOURCE: George William Curtis, editor, The Correspondence of John Lothrop Motley in Two Volumes, Library Edition, Volume 2, p. 191-8

John Lothrop Motley to Mary Benjamin Motley, July 1, 1861

Boston, July 1, 1861.

My Dearest Mary: This is only a note, because I would not let the steamer from New York of day after to-morrow go without a greeting from me. There is absolutely nothing new in the political world since I wrote last. By the way, by the midweek steamer I sent rather a lengthy epistle to the Duke of Argyll, which I hope that he will pardon in two respects — first, its unconscionable length, and, secondly, for talking very plainly about the state of public feeling here. I felt that I could not pay a higher compliment to his intellect and his candor than to make a kind of general statement, without mincing matters.

I told Lord Lyons in Washington that I had appointed myself a peace commissioner between the two countries, and meant to discharge my duties to the fullest extent, and in that vein I had spoken to the President, to Seward, Chase, Blair, and Bates, and to every other personage, private or public, with whom I came in contact . Of course I only said this in jest, — for I have no idea of exaggerating my humble individuality, — but he was kind enough to say that he thought I might do much good.

I think, however, that the day for talk is gone by — England had made up its mind that we had gone to pieces. When she learns, what we are thoroughly convinced of here, that the United States government is invincible, and that this insurrection is to be quelled, as it will be within a year, she will cease to talk of Northern and Southern States, and will find out that the great Republic is still existing one and indivisible. Our case has always been understated. We have a good cause, and no intention of “subjugation,” which, like the ridiculous words “secession” and “coercion,” has been devised to affect the minds of the vulgar. The United States government is at home on its own soil in every State from Maine to California, and is about asserting the rights of property and dominion.

General Scott says that the general impatience is the greatest obstacle in his way; but he is a cool hand and a tried one, and he will give a good account of himself, never fear. The rebels never dreamed of the intense feeling of nationality which pervaded the free States. They thought to have a united South and a divided North; they find exactly the reverse. Slavery will be never extended, and the United States government will survive this crisis and be stronger than ever. Pray give my kindest regards to Lord Lyndhurst and her Ladyship; say that I mean to have the pleasure of writing to him very soon. Mrs. Greene is very well; I have a kind note from Miss Sarah Greene, asking me to dine to-morrow, and I shall do so if I can get up from Nahant. I go there now; my mother is already better for the sea air. I have received all your letters up to the 12th of June. They are most delightful to me, and I have read them all again and again. The family of course have seen them, and I lent them to the Lodges and Mr. Cabot. They go to Newport to-day — what an awful disappointment to me! The first summer that they have not been at Nahant for so many years is the one I am passing there.

While I am writing, Copley Greene and James Amory have been here; Amory showed me a note from Lord Lyndhurst. I have also seen Miss Greene, and agreed to dine with her mother next week instead of this. Saturday we had a delightful club dinner: Agassiz, who was as delightful as ever, and full of the kindest expressions of appreciation and affection for Lily, and Holmes, who is absolutely unchanged, which is the very highest praise that could be given; Lowell, Pierce, Tom Appleton, Dana, Longfellow, Whipple. There were three absent, Felton, Emerson, and Hawthorne, and it says something for a club in which three such vacancies don't make a desolation.

Nahant. I am finishing this note to-night at N–––'s, as I must send it by to-morrow's early boat. My mother is looking better than usual. I have been on the Agassizes' piazza just now. He was not there, but will come to-morrow. Mrs. Agassiz and Mrs. Felton both looked very natural and nice and gentle, and had a thousand kind things to say of you and Lily. Most affectionately yours,

J. L. M.

SOURCE: George William Curtis, editor, The Correspondence of John Lothrop Motley in Two Volumes, Library Edition, Volume 2, p. 161-4

Diary of Mary Boykin Chesnut: August 8, 1861

To-day I saw a sword captured at Manassas. The man who brought the sword, in the early part of the fray, was taken prisoner by the Yankees. They stripped him, possessed themselves of his sleeve-buttons, and were in the act of depriving him of his boots when the rout began and the play was reversed; proceedings then took the opposite tack.

From a small rill in the mountain has flowed the mighty stream which has made at last Louis Wigfall the worst enemy the President has in the Congress, a fact which complicates our affairs no little. Mr. Davis's hands ought to be strengthened; he ought to be upheld. A divided house must fall, we all say.

Mrs. Sam Jones, who is called Becky by her friends and cronies, male and female, said that Mrs. Pickens had confided to the aforesaid Jones (nee Taylor, and so of the President Taylor family and cousin of Mr. Davis's first wife), that Mrs. Wigfall “described Mrs. Davis to Mrs. Pickens as a coarse Western woman.” Now the fair Lucy Holcombe and Mrs. Wigfall had a quarrel of their own out in Texas, and, though reconciled, there was bitterness underneath. At first, Mrs. Joe Johnston called Mrs. Davis “a Western belle,”¹ but when the quarrel between General Johnston and the President broke out, Mrs. Johnston took back the “belle” and substituted “woman” in the narrative derived from Mrs. Jones.

Commodore Barron² came with glad tidings. We had taken three prizes at sea, and brought them in safely, one laden with molasses. General Toombs told us the President complimented Mr. Chesnut when he described the battle scene to his Cabinet, etc. General Toombs is certain Colonel Chesnut will be made one of the new batch of brigadiers. Next came Mr. Clayton, who calmly informed us Jeff Davis would not get the vote of this Congress for President, so we might count him out.

Mr. Meynardie first told us how pious a Christian soldier was Kershaw, how he prayed, got up, dusted his knees and led his men on to victory with a dash and courage equal to any Old Testament mighty man of war.

Governor Manning's account of Prince Jerome Napoleon: “He is stout and he is not handsome. Neither is he young, and as he reviewed our troops he was terribly overheated.” He heard him say “en avant,” of that he could testify of his own knowledge, and he was told he had been heard to say with unction “Allons” more than once. The sight of the battle-field had made the Prince seasick, and he received gratefully a draft of fiery whisky.

Arrago seemed deeply interested in Confederate statistics, and praised our doughty deeds to the skies. It was but soldier fare our guests received, though we did our best. It was hard sleeping and worse eating in camp. Beauregard is half Frenchman and speaks French like a native. So one awkward mess was done away with, and it was a comfort to see Beauregard speak without the agony of finding words in the foreign language and forming them, with damp brow, into sentences. A different fate befell others who spoke “a little French.”

General and Mrs. Cooper came to see us. She is Mrs. Smith Lee's sister. They were talking of old George Mason — in Virginia a name to conjure with. George Mason violently opposed the extension of slavery. He was a thorough aristocrat, and gave as his reason for refusing the blessing of slaves to the new States, Southwest and Northwest, that vulgar new people were unworthy of so sacred a right as that of holding slaves. It was not an institution intended for such people as they were. Mrs. Lee said: “After all, what good does it do my sons that they are Light Horse Harry Lee's grandsons and George Mason's? I do not see that it helps them at all.”

A friend in Washington writes me that we might have walked into Washington any day for a week after Manassas, such were the consternation and confusion there. But the god Pan was still blowing his horn in the woods. Now she says Northern troops are literally pouring in from all quarters. The horses cover acres of ground. And she thinks we have lost our chance forever.

A man named Grey (the same gentleman whom Secretary of War Walker so astonished by greeting him with, “Well, sir, and what is your business?”) described the battle of the 21st as one succession of blunders, redeemed by the indomitable courage of the two-thirds who did not run away on our side. Doctor Mason said a fugitive on the other side informed him that “a million of men with the devil at their back could not have whipped the rebels at Bull Run.” That's nice.

There must be opposition in a free country. But it is very uncomfortable. “United we stand, divided we fall.” Mrs. Davis showed us in The New York Tribune an extract from an Augusta (Georgia) paper saying, “Cobb is our man. Davis is at heart a reconstructionist.” We may be flies on the wheel, we know our insignificance; but Mrs. Preston and myself have entered into an agreement; our oath is recorded on high. We mean to stand by our President and to stop all fault-finding with the powers that be, if we can and where we can, be the fault-finders generals or Cabinet Ministers.

_______________

¹ Mrs. Davis was born in Natchez, Mississippi, and educated in Philadelphia. She was married to Mr. Davis in 1845. In recent years her home has been in New York City, where she still resides (Dec. 1904).

² Samuel Barron was a native of Virginia, who had risen to be a captain in the United States Navy. At the time of Secession he received a commission as Commodore in the Confederate Navy.

SOURCE: Mary Boykin Chesnut, Edited by Isabella D. Martin and Myrta Lockett Avary, A Diary From Dixie, p. 101-4

Diary of Mary Boykin Chesnut: February 19, 1861

MONTGOMERY, Ala., – The brand-new Confederacy is making or remodeling its Constitution. Everybody wants Mr. Davis to be General-in-Chief or President. Keitt and Boyce and a party preferred Howell Cobb¹ for President. And the fire-eaters per se wanted Barnwell Rhett.

My brother Stephen brought the officers of the “Montgomery Blues” to dinner. “Very soiled Blues,” they said, apologizing for their rough condition. Poor fellows! they had been a month before Fort Pickens and not allowed to attack it. They said Colonel Chase built it, and so were sure it was impregnable. Colonel Lomax telegraphed to Governor Moore² if he might try to take it, “Chase or no Chase,” and got for his answer, “No.” “And now,'” say the Blues, “we have worked like niggers, and when the fun and fighting begin, they send us home and put regulars there.” They have an immense amount of powder. The wheel of the car in which it was carried took fire. There was an escape for you! We are packing a hamper of eatables for them.

I am despondent once more. If I thought them in earnest because at first they put their best in front, what now? We have to meet tremendous odds by pluck, activity, zeal, dash, endurance of the toughest, military instinct. We have had to choose born leaders of men who could attract love and secure trust. Everywhere political intrigue is as rife as in Washington.Cecil's saying of Sir Walter Raleigh that he could “toil terribly” was an electric touch. Above all, let the men who are to save South Carolina be young and vigorous. While I was reflecting on what kind of men we ought to choose, I fell on Clarendon, and it was easy to construct my man out of his portraits. What has been may be again, so the men need not be purely ideal types.

Mr. Toombs³ told us a story of General Scott and himself. He said he was dining in Washington with Scott, who seasoned every dish and every glass of wine with the eternal refrain, “Save the Union; the Union must be preserved.” Toombs remarked that he knew why the Union was so dear to the General, and illustrated his point by a steamboat anecdote, an explosion, of course. While the passengers were struggling in the water a woman ran up and down the bank crying, “Oh, save the red-headed man!” The red-headed man was saved, and his preserver, after landing him noticed with surprise how little interest in him the woman who had made such moving appeals seemed to feel. He asked her, “Why did you make that pathetic outcry?” She answered, “Oh, he owes me ten thousand dollars.” “Now, General,” said Toombs, “the Union owes you seventeen thousand dollars a year!” I can imagine the scorn on old Scott's face.

______________

¹A native of Georgia, Howell Cobb had long served in Congress, and in 1849 was elected Speaker. In 1851 he was elected Governor of Georgia, and in 1857 became Secretary of the Treasury in Buchanan's Administration. In 1861 he was a delegate from Georgia to the Provisional Congress which adopted the Constitution of the Confederacy, and presided over each of its four sessions.

² Andrew Bary Moore, elected Governor of Alabama in 1859. In 1861, before Alabama seceded, he directed the seizure of United States forts and arsenals and was active afterward in the equipment of State troops.

³ Robert Toombs, a native of Georgia, who early acquired fame as a lawyer, served in the Creek War under General Scott, became known in 1842 as a “State Rights_Whig,” being elected to Congress, where he was active in the Compromise measures of 1850. He served in the United States Senate from 1853 to 1861, where he was a pronounced advocate of the sovereignty of States, the extension of slavery, and secession. He was a member of the Confederate Congress at its first session and, by a single vote, failed of election as President of the Confederacy. After the war, he was conspicuous for his hostility to the Union.

SOURCE: Mary Boykin Chesnut, Edited by Isabella D. Martin and Myrta Lockett Avary, A Diary From Dixie, p. 6-8

John Lothrop Motley to Mary Benjamin Motley, June 18, 1861

June 18th, Tuesday morning, 7 A.M. — I continue my letter for a moment before breakfast. We are going across the Potomac at nine—Tom and I and the two Lees. I dined with Seward entirely enfamille, no one being present but his son and son's wife. . . .

We had, among the first acts of the new anti-slavery administration, agreed to do, what we have been so freely reproached for not doing, when our Government was controlled by an administration of which Jefferson Davis was a member, and we are met on the threshold lby the declaration that his invitation to pirates of all nations is sufficient to convert them into good, honest belligerents.¹

Had the English declaration been delayed a few weeks or even days, I do not think it would ever have, been made, and I cannot help thinking that it was a most unfortunate mistake. Nevertheless I am much less anxious about the relations between our two countries than I was. Nobody really wishes a rupture on either side, and I think that the natural love of justice and fair play which characterises England will cause regret at the mistake which has been committed. Moreover, there can hardly be much doubt, despite the misrepresentations of an influential portion of the English press and of some public men, that the English nation will understand the true position of the American Government in this great crisis.

We have circumscribed slavery, and prevented for ever its extension by one square inch on this continent, and at the same time we mean to preserve our great republic one and indivisible. It is impossible that so simple and noble a position as this should fail to awaken the earnest sympathy of nine-tenths of the English nation. To the question whether the task is beyond our strength, I can only repeat that General Scott — than whom a better strategist or a more lofty-minded and honourable man does not exist — believes that he can do it in a year; and so far as I can make out his design, it is by accumulating so much force and by making such imposing demonstrations everywhere, as to convince the rebels that their schemes — already proved to have been false in all their calculations founded on co-operations in the Free States — have become ridiculous. Thus without any very great effusion of blood perhaps, the rebellion may be starved out and broken to pieces. Mr. Seward says that the great cause of the revolt is the utter misapprehension in the Slave States of the Northern character. It has hitherto been impossible to make the sections thoroughly acquainted with each other. Now they will be brought together by the electric shock of war. And they will learn to know each other thus, which is better than not knowing each other at all — and so on. I give you a brief idea of his schemes and hopes.

He read me a long despatch which he is sending to-day to the French and English Governments. He did this of course confidentially, and because, as he was pleased to say, I had been fighting our battles so manfully in England, for he, like every one else, praised warmly my Times' letter. I suppose ultimately this despatch will be published; but I have only room now to say that I think it unobjectionable in every way — dignified, reasonable, and not menacing, although very decided. I said little in reply, and soon afterwards we went to the White House, in order to fall upon Abraham's bosom. I found the President better- and younger-looking than his pictures. He is very dark and swarthy, and gives me the idea of a very honest, confiding, unsophisticated man, whose sincerity of purpose cannot be doubted. I will say more of him in my next, for I am obliged to close suddenly. By the way, let me correct one statement in another part of my letter. Both the President and Seward tell me that, in Scott's opinion, an attack by the rebels on the lines before Washington is not impossible. It would be a desperate and hopeless venture. Maryland has just gone for the Union by a very large majority, electing all members of Congress. Good-bye. God bless you and my darlings!

Ever your affectionate

J. L. M.

_______________

¹ Early in the administration of Mr. Lincoln, the Government of the United States proposed to accede to the four articles in regard to maritime warfare adopted at the Congress of Paris in 1856. The British Government, however, wished to state that by the proposed convention for such accession Great Britain did not mean to undertake any engagement bearing upon the Civil War in America. The President decided that such a declaration was inadmissible, as the United States could accede to the Articles only upon a perfectly equal footing with all the other parties. The American Government was aggrieved by the obstruction offered by Great Britain to its accession to the four articles, especially as Great Britain was at the time secretly proposing to the Confederate Government to accept but three of them. The exequatur of the British Consul at Charleston, who had been the intermediary of the negotiations of his Government with the Confederate authorities, was revoked by the President.

SOURCE: George William Curtis, editor, The Correspondence of John Lothrop Motley in Two Volumes, Volume 1, p. 380-2