Diary of Edward Bates, Saturday, July 30, 1859

Coalter and Woodson came home today, after a visit of several weeks to Dardenne prairie.⁶¹ They came down in Barton's little wagon, bringing Onward⁶² with them, and have promised to take him home in a few days. Caroline⁶³ sent us a number of good things for the table — Bacon, Lard, Meat[.]

Mr. Welling⁶⁴ This evening I recd, a long letter from J. C. Welling (actual editor of the Nat:[ional] Intel [ligence]r.) in answer to mine to him, on the, now, much mooted question of the status of our naturalized citizens, and their liability to compulsory military service, if, for any reason, they return voluntarily to their native country. He had taken ground with Secy. Cass' first letters,⁶⁵ and asserts, — and goes far to prove, by the letters of Sec.y.s Marcy⁶⁶ and Webster⁶⁷ — that the liability continues. I the contrary. But we concur entirely, in contempt for Mr. Cass, on account of his sudden change (with the whole Adm[inistratio]n.) through fear of popular opinion.

Cass. Poor Cass! He clings to office with the tenacity of a drowning man, and under the most humiliating circumstances. His character as a Statesman, as a Publicist, as a constitutional lawyer, dont [sic] weigh a feather in the scale against the honors and emoluments of Office: His personal consistency and self-respect are sacrificed without a scruple, to get or to retain a place, under any President, upon any doctrines, and with any associates in power.

[A clipping from the Missouri Republican of July 30, 1859, quoting from the New York Express the facts that in Georgia all Whigs had received five out of six of the Democratic nominations for Congress.']

Whigs lead the Democrats.

_______________

⁶¹ A prairie in St. Charles County about thirty miles northwest of St. Louis on which the village of Dardenne grew up. Here lived Mr. Bates's eldest son. Barton, and also the Woodsons — his cousins — and many of his oldest friends. He himself, had lived on a farm on the prairie from 1828 until 1842.

⁶² Mr. Bates's eldest grandchild. Barton's son. See supra, "Introduction."

⁶³ Mrs. Barton Bates.

⁶⁴ Supra, June 20, 1859, note 3.

⁶⁵ Supra, June 8, 1859.

⁶⁸ William L. Marcy of New York, Democratic secretary of State under President Pierce, 1853-1857. For Marcy's views on naturalization see Secretary of State Marcy to Mr. Daniel in Italy, Nov. 10, 1855, and Marcy to Mr. Florence, Feb. 17, 1857, in the State Department archives. See also Francis Wharton, A Digest of the International Law of the United States, II, 386.

⁶⁷ No outstanding cases arose under Daniel Webster's secretaryship of State, 1850-1852.

SOURCE: Howard K. Beale, Editor, Annual Report of The American Historical Association For The Year 1930, Vol. 4, The Diary Of Edward Bates, pp. 38-9

Senator John J. Crittenden to Albert T. Burnley, February 16, 1856*

WASHINGTON, 16, 1856.

MY DEAR BURNLEY,—Your several letters, of the 28th ult., and 8th and 11th of the present month, have been duly received, and I am much obliged by the full information they give of the subject to which they relate.

Our intercourse has been such for a long time past as to make you perfectly acquainted with my disposition and feeling in respect to a nomination to the Presidency, and in regard to the Presidency itself. There has been no reserve between us on the subject, and you know what my sentiments in relation to it have been and are.

That the Presidency is an office neither to be sought nor declined, is a sentiment that accords so well not only with my judgment, but with my natural temper and constitution, that I adopt and follow it rather from instinct than from any nobler or more patriotic consideration. It costs us no exertion to follow where our nature leads. I have never, therefore, put forward any pretensions to the Presidency, much less pressed them; nor have I ever endeavored, from any selfish feeling, to put back the claims or pretensions of any man. But, notwithstanding all this, I have a pride of character which does not permit me to humble myself so far as to shrink from or to decline even the Presidency itself, if such an honor and station should unexpectedly be offered me. But I am no candidate, no seeker for the office. I have said no word, taken no step in that direction. Nor will the nomination of another be any disappointment to me. I can willingly witness the nomination of another, and support that nomination, too. And of all the persons who have been named for that high office, I prefer our friend Davis. I would throw no obstacle in his way to a nomination, and would support that nomination with all the little power or influence I may have. I verily believe that Davis would do the same by me. And is not this all that could be required of either of us? I can say further, that if I could, by my word, close up all uncertainties of the future by accepting or making Davis the successor of Pierce, I would do it with an unalloyed feeling of gratification.

I do not think that Davis's friends ought to have sought in the Kentucky Convention for him any expression of preference over me. It is true that I had avowed no pretensions; but, like him, I had been spoken of for the same high office. Seniority, at least, was on my side; while more than willing to see Davis advanced, I might naturally feel some mortification at being passed by unnamed and as forgotten. His friends did not manage the thing well. Do not believe that any unkindness has been created in my mind by this proceeding. If Davis can get the nomination of the national convention I am content. I wish he would find some occasion to visit this part of the country, and especially Pennsylvania and New York. He has been long out of public life, and is not sufficiently known or appreciated there. He, I believe, is less favorably considered there than even I am. This is owing, in some degree, at least, to his being personally and politically less known. I think Davis has some peculiar claims on the American party, and I am sincerely anxious that he should be properly known and appreciated. You well know how to estimate what I say, because you know how little I care for myself in this matter, and how much I care for my friends in all matters. I am as willing as any to serve friends, but no surrendering must be required of me. But I must quit this subject. So far as concerns me, I have nothing to complain of the convention that lately met in Frankfort, or of its proceedings. Your course was such as became you, and you said nothing for me or in relation to me but what I approve. From my not writing to you you may infer, as the truth is, that I wrote to no one, attempted to influence no one, and took no part whatever in respect to the convention. Mr. Davis's friends and mine are to a great extent the same, and I hope they may remain so, and that no paltry jealousy will be allowed to produce any alienations.

I must close this letter. I wish you were coming here instead of going South. Many are the inquiries made about you, and many are they who would be delighted to see you here.

I am going out to dinner and the hour has come. I send you the copies which you request to be returned. I owe many letters to home folk, and I intend to pay them very soon.

Give my kindest regards and love to all.

Your friend,

J. J. CRITTENDEN,

A. T. BURNLEY, Esq.

_______________

* BLOG EDITOR’S NOTE: The original letter is dated “WASHINGTON, 16, 1856,” with the month omitted in the surviving transcription. The month can be identified as February from Crittenden’s reference to Burnley’s “several letters, of the 28th ult., and 8th and 11th of the present month.” The John J. Crittenden Papers at the Library of Congress identify Burnley’s corresponding letters as those of January 28, February 8, and February 11, 1856, making Crittenden’s letter February 16, 1856. See John J. Crittenden Papers, Library of Congress.

SOURCE: Ann Mary Butler Crittenden Coleman, Editor, The Life of John J. Crittenden: With Selections from His Correspondence and Speeches, Vol. 2, pp. 120-1

Congressman Horace Mann to Theodore Parker, August 10, 1852

WASHINGTON, Aug. 10, 1852.

REV. THEO. PARKER.

MY DEAR SIR, — I hope you did not think the two queries which I put to Mrs. Mann imposed any necessity on you to write an answer; though I am so glad to hear from you, that I might be tempted to use means a little irregular for that end.

I sent the question about Gen. Scott's supposititious policy because I think justice to be the highest policy. I know you think so too. It being my belief that Scott is an anti-war man and an anti-annexation man, I think it wrong, or rather it would be very wrong in me, to intimate the contrary. Besides, the tendency of all such statements is to put the two Presidential candidates, Scott and Pierce, upon the same ground; whereas I think their principles, desires, and purposes are very diverse. I know there is little if any difference in the platforms; but there may be all the difference there is between life and death in two pilots, though both profess to steer by the same chart. One may wreck you, while the other may get you safely into port.

A strong effort is made, by men who care more for democracy than for antislavery, to make it out that freedom has more to hope from the success of Pierce than from that of Scott; but this I believe to be a great mistake, and I do not think the argument ingenuous.

As to the amount of the Free-soil vote, it must be remembered, that, in 1848, New York alone gave one hundred and twenty thousand votes for Van Buren. Now, if she gives fifty thousand, I shall be agreeably disappointed.

Our loss of Rantoul is very great. I am also struck with exceeding sadness, because this is the second blow that our cause has received. Taylor's death let in the whole pack of slavery bloodhounds, and they have wantoned in their power ever since. Will not Rantoul's death unleash another pack? I fear so. Nothing but my faith in God saves me from despair; for just now I can hardly "walk by sight."

H. M.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, pp. 373-4

Congressman Horace Mann to Samuel Downer, July 27, 1852

WASHINGTON, July 27, 1852.

MY DEAR DOWNER, — What is said about the Pittsburg Convention? From what I see and hear, I apprehend the current of feeling in Massachusetts sets in favor of nominating Hale, rather than Chase. For any genuine Free-soiler this would be the worst policy. That nomination should be such as to cut into the Democratic party. Notwithstanding all that some of the Free-soil papers say about the equal proslaveryism of Scott and Pierce, it is not at all improbable there is the whole difference between the annexation and the un-annexation of Cuba, between the division and the non-division of California, in these candidates. How, then, can any real lover of liberty fail to give the scales such a turn as shall check slavery, and hold it at bay? Are not our Free-soil friends, in their zeal to help the fortunes of the coalition, misled on this point? You, who have great influence with them, ought to make that influence felt. I wish you were to be at Pittsburg. The nomination there made may bar slavery, or help it on. To-morrow, Sumner means to speak. He needs combativeness, which he has not got. Don't you think I could spare him a little of mine, with advantage to us both? He will make a great speech, be assured of that. He has all the material of all who have hitherto argued the question; and, besides, the greatest speech can always be made on the right side.

I am awfully homesick. The summer is dull: nothing is upon the tapis in which I take any special interest, and my heart is with my family.

With affectionate regards to you and yours,

I am, as ever, your friend,

HORACE MANN.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, pp. 377-8

William Old Jr. to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, August 15, 1857

[PETERSBURG, VA.?], August 15th, 1857.

DEAR SIR: Doctor Harvie sent me two letters from you to Mr. L. E. Harvie, who is absent on a trip to the north, as he will be away from home for some weeks, and I do not know certainly at what point a letter would reach him, I will keep them until his return. As he is in the habit of giving me your letters to read, I have read these supposing that they referred to your reelection, a matter in which you are aware I feel a deep and friendly interest. I believe now, you will encounter a violent but not a formidable opposition as far as success is concerned. The alliance between Wise and Floyd is at present a close one, but as neither wishes to advance the other, and can assail you only, through your friends, I do not think they can seriously effect your election. They certainly cannot, if Wise is your opponent, he can get a certain but small vote. The danger is, in my opinion, that they may unite on Judge Daniel of Lynchburg, he is strong in the section of the state where you would get with his aid an almost unanimous vote, and he can array against us all of the old democrats, who have not abandoned their hate of the States rights portion of the party. The Enquirer has used its influence; and it is still strong, to impress the democracy, with the idea that your peculiar friends are resolved to assail Buchanan. I do not believe it has as yet, excited any feeling against you. I wrote Pryor, as soon as this Kansas controversy, assumed a decided character, urging him, to confine his attacks to Walker and his action, and as far as he could to separate Buchanan from the controversy. But Wise, who is editing the Enquirer (perhaps indirectly) has continued to produce an impression with many, that the "South" was established for the purpose of making opposition to Buchanan. Wise has as yet, suffered personally, in the contest, but I think he has managed to hurt you, and advance Floyd. In this last is our danger. I am on good terms with James Booker, but I know he is a warm friend to Floyd, and he will be very influential in the House of Delegates. I hear from various sources that he is in favor of your election. If he is so, not only as against Wise but as against any other, you will be in little danger. Your opponents, will have no really good leader in the House, and the Senate will be safe, unless the House overrules it.

The Northwest I hear from authority I consider good, is for you against Wise, it will be thoroughly for you against Wise and Floyd. If Mr Letcher can make Daniel stand firm and work and Layne the Senator from Roanoke, is true, we have little to fear from the Valley or the Southwest. Neither of these men can be relied on, but they have influence, and can be controlled by men in their congressional districts. I am so ignorant of the character of the delegation from Garnett's district, that I cannot form any opinion of the amount of Wise's strength in it. I look on Claybrook as most dangerous to you. Disaffection in this district and in the Lynchburg district, form our chief source of dread in Piedmont and Tide [water]. I will write to Barbour, and ask him frankly, what his position will be, he will tell me, I am sure; and if he is really for you against all competitors, he will fight the contest out and more adroitly and efficiently, than any man I know. There are men still in the Legislature over whom he used to exercise much almost entire control, and they are the class of men you have to dread. In reading your letter I see you suggest a plan of contest with these men which I hope may be used most advantageously. With it, we can certainly destroy Wise. Pryor can rally the old democrats, easily enough, for his services against the Know Nothings, and his difficulties as Editor of the Enquirer have given him a hold on the rank and file of the party, which he will not have, except by open opposition to the democratic administration. I think it would be well for the present, for him to show that his assailants are resolved to unite Virginia to the Northern States and sever her connection with the South. It can easily be done by extracts from the Examiner and Enquirer. Their assaults upon "secessionists," "Ultras," "Extremists," "opponents of the Manouvres of 1850" &c and their effort to show that we must be dependent upon the Northern democracy, can be so used as to show their intention to prefer allying the democracy to the party North, to granting anything to the Cotton States. If he would use this well, with the conviction now prevailing that Wise edits the Enquirer, and will keep back until just before the legislature meets, the proof he can bring to show that this is the scheme of Wise, we can utterly destroy him. Those who remember his conduct previous to the nomination of Pierce, know how easy it is to fasten this charge upon him.

But it is not desirable I think to kill off Wise early. When he is found too weak, and from what his weakness proceeds, they will take up another candidate, who is not so obnoxious. He is at present I hear sanguine, confident of your defeat, while he is so, they can not prevent his being your competitor. He has been all along disclaiming any intention to be a candidate, his friends say, lately he may be forced to be one. This and the course of the Enquirer and what I hear of Hughes lead me to believe he is more confident than heretofore. We can always defeat him, and send you to the Senate without disturbing the democratic party, but he and Floyd might put up another, whose defeat would be less certain, and an election over whom might add to the number of your opponents. There is another matter, which causes me some alarm, it is the action of the

Southern States, in the organization of the House of Representatives. Should the democracy of Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, unite and carry off enough Southern members, to defeat the election of the Administration Candidates for Speaker and Clerk, it may seriously effect us here. The threat of such action may frighten Buchanan, and its execution will prostrate him, but it will exasperate the democracy here, and throw off many from your support. This matter, of course, you and others better acquainted with its possible effects upon the democracy and the South, can judge of better than myself. I am for making no move, in the South, in which Virginia cannot be carried for her natural allies, unless it be forced upon us. And a contest which results in the election of a Black Republican however severe a blow to Buchanan, will react upon us not only in V[irgini]a but in States further South. These suggestions are offered with a full sense of my own want of information, as to the necessity, that may operate on representatives from States further South, and as to ultimate effect on the people there, of a conflict with the administration, which I believe by the democracy of V[irgini]a will be deemed preventable and perhaps utterly condemned by the mass of the people here. I have written to you hastily and frankly, and you will I am sure believe that I write impelled solely by desire to advance our common cause, and aid your reelection.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), pp. 217-9

Congressman Horace Mann to Mr. Combe, July 1, 1852

WASHINGTON, July 1, 1852.

MY DEAR MR. COMBE, — . . . My friend Henry Barnard, Esq., who for many years was Secretary of the Board of Education, either in Connecticut or in Rhode Island, is about to visit England and Scotland, partly on account of his health, and partly to see your schools. You have always been partial enough to affix a higher value to my services on the subject of education than I could honestly claim or fairly expect. If you will put double all the credit you have ever given to me, and pass it to Mr. Barnard's account, you will hardly do his extraordinary services more than justice. His mind is full of wisdom, and his life has been full of devotion on this subject.

You will have learned, before receiving this, the event of our party Presidential nomination. What an awful moral has been derived from the fate of those who have been false to freedom! Every one of those Northern men, who, for the last half-dozen years, have devoted themselves to slavery, have been set aside; and those men who suffered and indirectly promoted all the atrocities of the Mexican war, though against all their own professions, did, by that very dereliction from duty, raise up two warriors to come in and pluck away the honors they had forfeited their integrity to obtain. Was it not a just retribution?

There is all the difference between the candidates that there is between a hero and his valet de chambre. Scott, too, is an antislavery man. Pierce will be the merest tool of slavery.

The Democratic Convention was almost in toto a proslavery body, and the ultra proslavery portion of it prevailed in the selection of Pierce. In the Whig Convention, the antislavery element prevailed; so that, though the contest is implicated with other matters, and its real issues are somewhat obscured, yet, if Scott is elected, it will be a great antislavery triumph. It was the first time that the antislavery element ever prevailed in any national convention.

Mrs. Mann and the children have gone home. I live here alone, and, of course, forlorn. I hear from them every day, and they are well. With kindest regards to yourself and Mrs. Combe,

I remain, as ever, yours truly,

HORACE MANN.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 372-3

Senator Charles Sumner to John Bigelow, June 9, 1852

I longed to see you. When you called I was at Eames's, discoursing on Baltimore and its scenes. This nomination¹ makes me lament anew the fatal '49, when the Barnburners and the Hunkers coalesced. Had they kept apart, we should all have been together,—perhaps in a minority, but powerful from our principles and character. For myself, I am left alone. The political fellowships I had hoped to establish are vanishing. Of course I can have nothing to do with Pierce or his platform,—probably nothing with Scott or his. How I wish we had all stuck together! Should Pierce be elected, with a Democratic Senate and House, we should have the iron rule of the slave-power.

_______________

¹ Of Franklin Pierce, as Democratic candidate for President.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, pp. 280-1

Lewis E. Harvie to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, March 11, 1857

DYKELAND, AMELIA CO., [VA.], March 11, 1857.

DEAR HUNTER: Supposing that you will be at Washington during this week I address to you there. Pryor is very busy getting his paper under way and I confidently believe will get a large circulation very speedily. It is important that he start right and honestly. You should write to him or to me as to his course and particularly as to the Land question, about which his mind is considerably "exercised." It is Banquo's ghost to him and especially since the vote of some of our friends on distributing or depositing the surplus in the treasury. He desires conference with you on that subject and it seems to me important that his views and committals should be well digested before he breaks ground. I write to bring this about. Tell me what we are to expect from this administration. If coming events cast their shadows before I augur the worst. I am however for waiting for overt acts and against any such judgments founded upon conjecture or distrust, because of injudicious or distasteful appointments. I was almost led into opposition to Pierce by that and I am getting to be wary and cautious as my head is growing gray. Buchanan had no especial reason to confide in us that I know of and therefore we have no ground to complain that he didn't. At all events we can't make other people think so and there is no use in opposing him in anticipation, when in all human probabillity we shall be fully justified in it by his future conduct. He has been leading a loose life too long to become chaste all of a sudden. Tell me about the Cabinet and other appointments. I don't hear of or dread any opposition to you hereabouts. I got my Delegate to commit himself publicly and take some credit to my tact for it. You ought to write to Mallory. I did and found him true but not advised and I think sore over it.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 205

John Pettit* to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, November 10, 1856

LAFAYETTE, INDIANA, November 10, 1856.

MY DEAR SIR: The smoke of the battle has cleared away and we are victorious. I congratulate you and the country on this glorious result and I sincerely hope that Mr. Buchanan may call you to the head of his Cabinet for I know of no man more worthy or better qualified. I expressed to you similar views before the formation of Mr. Pierce's Cabinet and do not wish to flatter you, but this is my honest desire. If I can serve you, intimate in what way.

We have carried our Legislature and shall elect two senators, Mr. Bright will be one, and I want and ought to be the other and can be if Mr. Bright will co-operate with me. Am I asking too much in asking you to write Mr. B[right] at once, urging him to unite his friends with mine for our mutual election? If so, you will pardon me for this intrusion, but believe me your sincere friend.

_______________

* A Representative in Congress from Indiana, 1843-1849; a Senator, 1853-1855. He was not successful in his efforts for a reelection in 1856.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 200

General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, November 12, 1889

NEW YORK, Νον. 12, 1889.

Dear Brother: . . . I was very glad to receive your full letter of November 9th, to hear that you are safely back at your Washington home, and take the recent election so philosophically. I wanted Foraker to succeed, because he was one of my young soldiers. He cannot be suppressed, and will turn up again. I think you are also wise in your conclusion to retire gracefully at the end of your present term. To be a President for four years is not much of an honor, but to have been senator continuously from 1861 to 1892 - less the four years as Secretary of the Treasury - is an honor. Webster and Clay are better known to the world than Polk and Pierce. As to myself, I continue pretty much as always in universal demand for soldiers' meetings, college commencements, and such like things - always with a promise that I will not be called on to speak, which is always broken worse still, generally exaggerated by reporters. . . .

Affectionately,

W. T. SHERMAN.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, pp. 379-80

Edward Everett to John J. Crittenden, February 26, 1853

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, February 26, 1853

MY DEAR COLLEAGUE, I informed General Pierce that you propose to tender your resignation on the 4th of March, but that if he desires it, you are willing to continue to act till your successor is appointed. He stated in reply that he would be gratified to have you pursue this course.

Having been requested to prepare a form of resignation to be used by all the members of President Fillmore's cabinet, I transmit you the inclosed. If it meets your approbation, please sign and return it to me. I will see that it is placed in General Pierce's hands at the proper time.

I remain with much regard, sincerely yours,

EDWARD EVERETT.

Hon. J. J. CRITTENDEN.

SOURCE: Ann Mary Butler Crittenden Coleman, Editor, The Life of John J. Crittenden: With Selections from His Correspondence and Speeches, Vol. 2, p. 58

Franklin Pierce to John J. Crittenden, March 4, 1853

EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 4, 1853.

SIR,—I have the honor to acknowledge the reception of your letter of this date, tendering to me the resignation of your office as Attorney-General, and expressing your readiness to continue in the discharge of your official duties until a successor shall have been appointed.

I highly appreciate the considerations of courtesy and of public duty which induced this act, and with great satisfaction avail myself of your proffered service.

I am very respectfully, your obedient servant,

FRANKLIN PIERCE.

Hon. J. J. CRITTENDEN,
        Attorney-General.

SOURCE: Ann Mary Butler Crittenden Coleman, Editor, The Life of John J. Crittenden: With Selections from His Correspondence and Speeches, Vol. 2, p. 58

The Yankee Delegates at Charleston.

Col. Forney is particularly down on the New England delegations at Charleston. The following is from his “Occasional” correspondence:

“Of all the delegates to the Charleston Convention, those who may be said to have covered themselves with, especial infamy are the parasites who represented some of the New England States, and particularly those who spoke for the Administration from Massachusetts. I am not one who distrusts the New England character, but it is a fact which candor compels me to state, that, with but few exceptions, the Yankee politicians are the most untrustworthy and dishonest. There are few Franklin Pierces in New England, and the course of the New Hampshire delegation at Charleston is probably the surest index of his own feelings in the great contest now going on. Though General Pierce is by no means the personal friend of Judge Douglas, I had the pleasure of hearing him declare, more than a year ago, that it was in vain to deny that the Democratic party of New England preferred the “Little Giant” to all other men for the Presidency.

What is to be the course of Whitney, Swift, Wright, Cushing, Butler, an others, from Massachusetts, who assisted the fire-eaters of the South in their war upon Douglas, notwithstanding that most of them had, before their departure for Charleston, took occasion to express the kindest feelings for Douglas—Mr. Whitney himself assuring the gallant Senator from Illinois that he would be found battling bravely for him to the bitter end, although he held an official position? A few weeks will answer the question. I forbear any allusion to the recreant delegates from Connecticut, being content to leave them to their constituents. The Southern people cannot have been blind to all these facts. They must have seen that if Judge Douglas is defeated at Baltimore on the 18th of June, it will be by the most open bribery and the most unblushing treachery. They must admit that if the North had been fairly represented, all the efforts of the Secessionists, would have been in vain, and at this time the whole Democratic party would have been rallied in solid column under his victorious banner.

SOURCE: “The Yankee Delegates at Charleston,” The Press and Tribune, Chicago, Illinois, Wednesday, May 16, 1860, p. 2, col. 6

George W. Thompson* to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, May 24, 1856

[WHEELING, VA.?], May 24th, 1856.

DEAR SIR: I have had a somewhat desultory correspondence with my old friend Linn Boyd.¹ He thinks it likely, he will be put in nomination for the Presidency by Kentucky. I do not think he has much hope beyond this. You are his first choice when his claims are disposed of. I wrote him last week a letter intended to satisfy him, that the danger was in the nomination of Douglass whom he very cordially dislikes for various reasons, and that his true policy was to get the nomination from K[entuck]y and to hold on to it until Buchanan and Pierce were out of the way, which I think will soon be the case and then to give the fruits of the game to you. He has no respect for Mr. Buchanan and a decided hostility to Pierce and Douglass. His choice after you would be Rusk.² But I hope he can control the Kentucky delegation and if he can I think it most likely that at an early stage of the game he will go for you. I deem this important as our own state from the division which exists will be measurably impotent in the Convention and as their is a growing jealously of our influence in the nominating Convention by Ohio and other states. I cannot but think that most of the south must take you in preference. The state-rights party all over the south must prefer you, if there is any reason in mens preferences, before any other man named either north or south and I have been inclined to think that the Pierce movement was for your benefit only. But I intended only in this note to write you in relation to Boyd and to suggest a cautious movement on the part of your confidential friends towards Boyd's K[entuck]y friends in Con[gres]s. The manner of this approach I cannot suggest for I cannot anticipate the actual condition of things which may make it proper or improper. If I hear that Boyd himself is at Cincinnatti I will go down myself if it is possible for me to leave. Russell is for Buchanan first from choice. He is for you on the second. Neeson I understand personally prefers Pierce, but must go for "Buck," but "Buck" and Pierce being pitted and killed by the same operation he will then I think go for you. But we will soon know the result.

_______________

* A Democratic Representative in Congress from Virginia, 1851-1852.

¹ A Representative in Congress from Kentucky, 1835-1837 and 1839-1855; twice elected Speaker of the House, 1851-1855.

²Thomas Jefferson Rusk, a Senator in Congress from Texas, 1845-1857.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 195

Francis Mallory to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, May 11, 1856

NORFOLK, [VA.], May 11, 1856.

DEAR HUNTER: I have just returned from a visit to my old (Hampton) county and hope things will end there as we desire. Booker is warm in your favor and out against Buch[ana]n talking publickly of his Tariff vote in '42 and Missouri Compromise opinions. I shall attend the convention there on next Thursday and so told Booker who seemed much pleased at my promise. I shall be an outsider but will try my best. Drop B[ooker] a Line the moment you get this. It will encourage him much. Your letter to him had a fine effect.

He is fond of you but has been much courted by Wise. High minded honorable and brave as he is these little attentions are always agreeable especially to a country gentleman living a secluded life. He still praises W[ise] but thinks him out of the question this time. I want you to ask him to go and say you will leave him to act according to his own judgment content with any action he may take &c. Wednesday the convention for the Norfolk district comes off. But for the Wise men who still look to W[ise] as residuary Legatee of B[uchanan] we should have no difficulty. No one is opposed to you but the idea is afloat that B[uchanan] is the strong candidate and as office here controls every thing they profess preference for him because he is as they think the strong man. Simkins has softened down very much and so has Blow. If either of them go from the lower end I have a strong hope of getting him right. If they get in their men I will work day and night to operate on them and if I can wield a little influence in Washington I may succeed. I have just had a conversation with Simkins the Leader of the Wise party here as to the proceedings in Portsmouth and he asked me to draw up the resolutions (this of course confidential) and state his positions: 1st Compliment Pierce and endorse his admin [istratio]n, 2d support nominee of Cin[cinnat]i Convention, 3d Express no preference, 4th Leave delegates free to act according to circumstances. We shall carry a true man I think from the upper counties and will at least divide the district.

I told Banks to get old Frank Rives (who he says is all right) to work on Boykin of Isle of Wight and Atkinson and he writes me that it has been done. Boykin wants office and is slippery. He is weak in intellect and his attachments by no means stable. He wants to go as a Delegate. I cant advocate him but I know, I think, how and who can manage him. He is more tractable than Blow or Smith. The son I can do nothing with. He wanted the Collectorship here and is sound against Pierce. He will make a hard fight for Delegate but we have quietly operated against him on the ground, that the Elector comes from Portsmouth, Smith's place of residence and that she is not entitled to [a] Delegate and none of the Norfolk City Delegation will support him. Pierce's office holders give us no aid whatever. They are afraid to take position. When I was Navy Ag[en]t I ruled my party in the District and so could Loyall have done, but he is effete, selfish and timid. Sawyer has no power, even with his subordinates. Will the above positions (I mean the resolutions) suit you or would it answer to make an issue for Pierce direct. The result would be doubtful in as much as the floating vote in Conventions generally sides with the moderate party whether they be so in fact or in fraud. Drop me a line the moment you get this and draft me a resolution or two. You need not be afraid of my indiscretion. You fellows in Congress did not know me half as well as I did you. If I talk at random sometimes, so also can I be silent and prudent when there is necessity. If I had position in the Line or on the staff I could win the victory here. If I can do any good I will speak at both Conventions. I care not who gets the nomination for Delegates I mean to commence operations on him and if it be any but Smith (who hates me) I hope to succeed. I am far from giving up the fight for these ten districts for none will be pledged or committed.

Send me the names of your friends in Gloucester that will be in Hampton that I may know who to approach. My Brother Chas. K. Mallory, a lawyer, residing in Hampton is a warm and active friend. It will be hard if him and Booker acting together can not carry things to suit us.

Tell Muscoe our inspection law has so far put a stop to slave stealing in lower Virginia. It works beautifully tho' the Senate did it much damage by its amendments. I have got things quite snug for him in the lower end of his district in view of Bayly's departure.

My son has just returned. Many thanks for your kindness, and please thank Pierce for me.

If you wish me to hear from you before the Conventions meet, write the moment you get this, which is nearly as hard to decipher as your own. The Baltimore Boats leave in the afternoon and arrive here next morning. This you will get Tuesday morning. If the positions in the resolutions suit you, telegraph me in the words "All right," if not "make an issue direct for P[ierce] or H[unter]" as the case may be and sign it. T. M. provided you cant mail your letter by the 1 P. M. [boat] for Baltimore or 1½ P. M. or that which carries the mail through to Norfolk which can be known by enquiring at the City p[ost] office. If the vote of V[irgini]a depends on these two districts I dont think you have much to fear let things take what shape they may just now. It is easier to vanquish men in detail than attacking numbers. I shall act as we Doctors say "pro re natu."

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 189-91

Francis Mallory to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, April 13, 1856

NORFOLK, [VA.], April 13, 1856.

DEAR HUNTER: Since my return home I have been so unwell that I have had no opportunity of mixing extensively among the people though so far as I can learn you have gained much in this district. Buchanan's popularity is based on that of Wise whose friends have sought to make the impression that he (B) is the strongest man now before the people. This causes the timid and time serving to represent themselves as preferring Buch[ana]n. Wise has lost all power in the East save among his Eastern Shore men and such as they can influence. The Eboshin and Fendum have done their work effectually and two or three appointments made in this place within a few weeks past have given great dissatisfaction because they were taken from among the Eastern Shore men in preference to residents. Buck's [Buchanan's] is only a reflection of Wise's popularity and to dissipate it is no difficult matter. The idea that to insure success for the Cincinnatti nominee he must be from the North has been industriously circulated over the South, and this has been the chief weapon of the W. and B.¹ men. Let something be done in the right quarter to cause doubt of its truth and we can carry every Eastern district. Give me a program for operations and I will carry it out. If you wish an open demonstration made I will have it started here or in some county. How are you and Pierce now? Would it be safe to make one for him as the choice of the Northern candidates, if so would [it] whip the office holders into measures? But as to this I will not move till I hear from you. Banks sends me word all is right above-that is in the upper part of the district. Simkins, Wise's friend, is proud of the Demo[cratic] Associations but the selections was not plain because of the jealousy over here about Eastern men. He talks of resigning, if so a Hunter man will fill it. The election was no test but was owing to the personal popularity of Simkins. Tell me what I can do and I am ready to act

I may be in Washington in 10 or 12 days. Pierce promised my son a commission in the army, the first vacancy last spring or summer but I have not troubled him since. He was disposed to confer it then but Davis defeated me. Pierce felt and expressed some compunction for his move against me as Navy agent and wished to make amends in this way. I care nothing for it myself but the boy (now 22 years old) is anxious for it. He was educated at Lexington and would make, so says Col[onel] Smith a fine officer. He seems to have no turn for anything else but he is well behaved, handsome and brave. He had much better marry a rich girl but he seems to prefer fighting Indians at $40 per month, and being a wilfull boy he must have his way. Is there any chance? Some forty vacancies have occurred within a few months. But I started to write you about other matters and did not design to trouble you with my small wants.

[P. S.] How would it do for me as an old Fillmore man to come out in a letter assigning reasons why I could not vote for him and giving reasons also for my preference for others. If this would be politic give me an outline of my platform-who I should war upon-who pray-and how far to go in either case. Is not Millson² against Pierce? I should think so from questions he put to me the other day.

_______________

¹ Wise and Buchanan men.

² John S. Millson, a Representative in Congress from Virginia, 1849-1861.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 186-8

Muscoe R. H. Garnett* to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, February 5, 1856

RICHMOND, [VA.], February 5th, 1856.

MY DEAR UNCLE: The Kanawha River bill passed this morning, waiving the State's lien on the tolls, so as to authorise the Ja[me]s Riv[er] and Kan[awha] Co[mpany] to issue 7 per cent bonds ($320,000) to improve it according to Fisk's plans. I congratulate you on the result. There is a prospect of selling (through Latham to N[ew] Y[ork] parties) one half of the Old Dominion Co[mpany] at the rate of $150 per acre. This would net me about $2,000 for one-half of my interest therein; don't you think this would be a bad bargain for me?

My report is at last made; it kept me so closely at work I had no time to write you but the brief note of last week. Yet I have been attentive to your interests. Directly after closing that note, I had a long interview with Charles Irving; he is thoroughly and warmly with us, and we have (at Harvie's advice) taken him into our confidence. This exchange is very important, for it gives us a voice in the Examiner wing of the party. He has been making strenuous efforts on Hughes and Floyd. I learn that the former seems amenable to reason, and might, perhaps, be changed or rationalized, but for Floyd; but the ex-Governor is blind with resentment. He resents the late Senatorial election and thinks you interfered with Pierce against him. Irving says he said Douglas told him so, but this is confidential. Can it be true? Kenna is trying his hand on him, and though with little hope, does not despair. With Floyd, our affairs would be easy. Kenna is for you, as you know, but he is too much for a combination with Pierce; if I understand him aright, he wants us to indicate our willingness to vote for Pierce first, with a view of securing P[ierce]'s friends to you. Do you think Kenna reliable? Irving has sent an excellent leader to his paper coming out for you. He has gone up to Danville to secure that paper, and Clemens thinks he can get the Wheeling Argus to come out. The Dem[ocratic] Recorder has already closed. Mallory will get Irving's editorial favorably endorsed in Norfolk, and the Valley Democrat and Lexington Star must be made to follow suit. Banks promises to republish and endorse in his paper; but at first he hesitated on the plea that it was impolite to alarm the friends of Pierce by pushing you just now. I cannot but think that, as Meade says, Banks has an axe of his own to grind, and the hope of getting into the Union effects him. I don't think he will be worth anything to you, if he gets there, though I believe he really prefers you.

Harvie, Mallory and a few others have a consultation with me tomorrow night for purposes of organization. Harvie has written for Booker to come up and we are to have a frank talk with Wise. What do you think of asking the Convention on the 28th to endorse you? I fear the attempt may be very dangerous, but Mallory and Harvie are disposed, if we conclude we have the strength to carry. And there are some fair arguments in favor of it, other states are disposed to go for you, but are held back by the reports of division and weakness in Virginia. It is supposed here that our friends in Washington expect an expression of opinion by that Convention. Shall we attempt it, or shall we trust to quiet organization in the Districts, and such demonstrations of public opinion through the press, as we are arranging? This is a difficult question ahead of us. The members of the Legislature are much divided and very many undertermined. We have nobody who can efficiently work on the South well; we think Henry Edmundson could do much, if he would come down and spend a week here and be active. Cant he be persuaded to do so?

I deeply regret the Tucker business, both for its personal effects and for political reasons. Your friends here sustain you, but the Examiner has already opened its batteries and begins with a lie by saying that Forney is elected. Beverly [Tucker] himself has given colour to this charge by the assertion that Forney is still in the Union and that Stidell has pledges from the President that Forney shall be kept in. The affair cannot permanently injure except in that aspect, but if the President has cheated you, it may be very injurious. You owe it to yourself to see that Forney is excluded, and checkmate the fraud, if attempted.

_______________

* A Representative in Congress from Virginia, 1856-1861.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 178-9

William O. Goode to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, February 21, 1856

BOYDTON, VA., February 21, 1856.

DEAR HUNTER: I have just reached home safe and sound—having accomplished the journey with no other discomfort than such as is inseparable from a wearisome travel. At this moment the temperature is mild-but little of snow or ice visible and every thing decidedly vernal. Of course we are backward in farming operations, and the remaining supply of cow food somewhat scant, but we hope to get through without loss.

In Petersburg I saw Meade and Banks, who explained to me the action of the Public meeting there, and assured me that two thirds of the Committee expressed a preference for you, and yet they reported resolutions complimentary of Pierce and Douglas without including you; and which Meade says he has explained in a letter to me now in Washington. I would have preferred they had felt no occasion to explain. But both Meade and Banks thought there was no doubt about the sentiment of Petersburg. I shall endeavor to get back to Rich[mon]d on 28[th], but fear it is doubtful. Much judgment and discretion are required as to the propriety of bringing forward Resolutions of approval or preference. Meade, I think, is inclined to attempt it even if there be risk of failure. I attach greater importance to the selection of Delegates by the District. Conventions, and hope to secure Harvie and Meade or Banks. If necessary I would go from Washington to attend our District Convention to secure that delegation, and if we can accomplish that and do as well in the other districts all will be well so far as Virginia is concerned. I found all well at home. For myself I feel better than I have since the first of December. I find this note has spread over two pages and I should be alarmed if I did not know it to be quite scattering. With affectionate regards to Mason and the Judge, and kind remembrances to the servants.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 179-80

Edward Kennan to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, March 15, 1856

(Confidential.)

WHEELING, [VA.], 15th March, 1856.

MY DEAR SIR: I arrived here on Thursday morning on my way home, but resolved to spend a few days in ascertaining how events were progressing. I have seen nearly all the leading men (except Judge Thompson, who is out of town, and Clemens who has not yet reached home.) there seems now no decided preferences. The impression has prevailed that Buchanan was the strongest man, that is could carry more northern states, than any other, and hence a leaning to him, I have had repeated conversations with Chas and Jno Rupely. The latter the Argus Editor, the former whilst he expresses a personal preference for you he thinks that should the North desire Buchanan they should have him, as a means of securing northern support in the coming contest after that, then you would be his choice. I am satisfied there is no moving him from this view at present, evidences of B[uchana]n weakness at the North or discensions in Pennsylvania would do it effectually. The importance of securing C[harles] R[upely's] cooperation is increased by the probability of his being one of the delegates to the Cincinnatti Convention. The contest will be between him and Koonts a decided Buchanan man with whom I had a long conversation on the subject this afternoon. I have in a quiet way done all I could to aid in Rupely's election. I talked matters over with Jno. Rupely the Editor. I sent you an Argus to day, The Editorial of which gives you the result. I also wrote the President, for Rupely remonstrating against the withdrawal, of some public printing from the Argus to give it to the Winchester V[irgini]a[n] as it is rumoured here it was designed to do. Should it be done, then Buchanan's interest will be greatly strengthened here. Clements whilst popular has no transferrable strength. Thompson is on the bench and takes no part. The Mountain Counties send a delegate it is supposed, Mr. Neeson of Fairmont, an intimate friend of Kidwells but who has been recently appointed by Mr. Wise, a visitor to the University ! ! ! It is almost quite certain he will go, so Kidwell, rather uncertain, he is all right. It is said Kidwell can control the appointment of the delegates of the mountain counties. I think on the whole, things look favourable here but decided changes can be effected by industry, attend to sending documents, here some good ones to Chas. Kidwell and Jno. Rupely, Editor of the Argus also Koonts, Loving, Clark of Circuit Court. Get a list from Kidwell, You have no idea I am satisfied of the good that can be effected in this way. You neglect it. The Editorial in the Argus I sent you, was intended to recall the public mind to the old issues, and at the same time, to prevent the withdrawal of the printing from that paper. I send you a copy of a letter received by Rupely some time since, it explains itself. Should Bright get wind of such a movement I need not tell you what the consequences would be; It was given me for your ear, but to be used confidentially. Take care, the same proposition may not be now in progress of arrangement, between Mr Wise's friends and Schell's to be brought forward at the Eleventh hour. Beware of the New Yorkers' they are dangerous. I shall perhaps stop a day at Columbus, and will communicate anything I may learn of interest. They say here that John Martin, has no considerable influence, although exerting what he has for Wise & Co. Taylor County in my Electoral District is in Kidwells Congressional District, you had better see K[idwell] and ask him to interest himself in inducing a delegation to our Distirct Convention, favourable to me or have me appointed alternate. I think it is Taylor County. He can see by looking at the Counties. Has Edmondstone attended to Nicholas County? Depend upon it if you lose Virginia, it will be the cause of the supineness of your friends.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 180-1

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: February 2, 1865

Bright and beautiful, and pleasantly frosty. Gen. Sherman is advancing as usual in such dubiety as to distract Gen. Hardee, who knows not whether Branchville or Augusta is his objective point. I suppose Sherman will be successful in cutting our communications with the South—and in depreciating Confederate States Treasury notes still more, in spite of Mr. Trenholm's spasmodic efforts to depreciate gold.

Yesterday the Senate passed a bill dropping all commissaries and quartermasters not in the field, and not in the bureaus in Richmond, and appointing agents instead, over 45 years of age. This will make a great fluttering, but the Richmond rascals will probably escape.

Military men here consider Augusta in danger; of course it is! How could it be otherwise?

Information from the United States shows that an effort to obtain "peace" will certainly be made. President Lincoln has appointed ex-Presidents Fillmore and Pierce and Hon. S. P. Chase, commissioners, to treat with ours. The two first are avowed "peace men;" and may God grant that their endeavors may prove successful! Such is the newspaper information.

A kind Providence watches over my family. The disbursing clerk is paying us "half salaries" to-day, as suggested in a note I wrote the Secretary yesterday. And Mr. Price informs me that the flour (Capt. Warner's) so long held at Greensborough has arrived! I shall get my barrel. It cost originally $150; but subsequent expenses may make it cost me, perhaps, $300. The market price is from $800 to $1000. I bought also of Mr. Price one-half bushel of red or "cow-peas" for $30; the market price being $80 per bushel. And Major Maynard says I shall have a load of government wood in a few days!

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 2, p. 406-7