Senator Charles Levi Woodbury to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, April 1, 1856

BOSTON, [MASS.], April 1st, 1856.

DEAR SIR: I send you a copy of the French Tariff whose promulgation has reached here in the last mail. In the pendency of the proposed revision of our own, the new position of France, possesses much [of] importance. Our constitutional and treaty limitations necessarily make the task of revising a tariff, full of perplexity and requiring mature analysis.

With all the aid the Treasury Department have furnished to the experience of Genl. [Charles Tillinghast] James,¹ there are some features in his otherwise able bill, which are based on principles that cannot be justified in the free trade school of Statesmanship. There is a living faith in popular opinion eventually rendering to a patriot and a statesman the acknowledgment of his merit and forecast. You are beginning to experience this in the North. It has happened to me several times within a few weeks, conversing with leading merchants and manufacturers of this section, to hear from their lips those acknowledgments with regard to yourself that none of our party could ever have expected.

The policy you have advocated is now successful and the manufacturers here, express their unqualified confidence that you can arrange a revision of the tariff which would be absolutely satisfactory to the South and agreeable to the North. From the known accordance of my views with your policy, it could not have been intended I should withhold these expressions from your knowledge.

In my judgment the time has come when the tariff may be set on a permanent footing of low duties and equitable adjustments. To reaffirm at this juncture the cardinal principles of the advalorem and foreign valuations, to establish the free trade policy on the admitted basis of its general welfare and to reduce the unnecessary and enormous revenue now derived from customs, would carry important consequences in the political world which none can better estimate than yourself. I should not write thus frankly, did I not presume you were occupied with the proposed revision. The confidence all these great interests repose in you make this a happy moment for your effecting permanent good, and with your permission, it would give me great satisfaction to aid in bringing the interests here to that communication, which would possess you of their views, and show that they approved this question in a spirit of concession heretofore unknown to them. Allow me to renew the expressions of my sincere esteem.

_______________

¹ A Democratic Senator in Congress from Rhode Island, 1851-1857. He was elected as a protective tariff Democrat.

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. 185-6

Speech of Jefferson Davis, January 3, 1844

Speech of Jefferson Davis before the State Democratic Convention held in Jackson Mississippi January 3, 1844, for the purpose of sending delegates to the National Convention of the party and for the selection of presidential electors.*

(From The Mississippian, January 12, 1844.)

Mr. Davis remarked in substance—Though instructed by the delegation from Warren to cast the vote of our county, in this convention, for Mr. Van Buren, as the presidential candidate, I hope I will be excused for availing myself of the nomination of Mr. Calhoun, to express some of my opinions, as an individual, in relation to the comparative claims these gentlemen have upon us. I would here premise, that I wish nothing which I may say to be referred to a willingness to depreciate the high, just, and often-acknowledged claims of Mr. Van Buren; a democrat who long and severely tried, has never been found wanting—a democrat, than whom there is none I have more implicit confidence—none to whom I would more freely confide in times of difficulty, of danger, and of personal temptation, the safe keeping of the constitution; and in proof of the correctness of this opinion, I will refer to but a single instance: When the "independent treasury" was opposed by a prejudice so fixed and wide-spread among our people, that it was apparent if one had risen from the dead to bear testimony to its merits, he would not have been believed, still did Mr. Van Buren give it his open, decided and unwavering support. Surely it will not now be contended by those who attribute to him so much political shrewdness as to attach to him the name of magician, that he was ignorant of the danger to which an adherence to this measure exposed his political fortune. Upon us, however, it forces itself as conclusive evidence, that he valued truth and the good of his country above power and place, and the conscientious discharge of his duty above personal advancement.

Mr. President, it is not my purpose to attempt an eulogy of Mr. Calhoun. I should be inadequate to the task, and should deem the labor superfluous in the hand of the most able—a long public life of virtue and intelligence, of active and patriotic devotion to the best interest of his country, having shed around his name a halo which it is not in the power of language to brighten. Neither, sir, is it my intention to review the political principles of that great statesman; for in comparing him with Mr. Van Buren, I find no exception to that proud and generally just boast of the democracy, that the principles of our party are the same throughout the Union. The points of my preference for Mr. Calhoun will be merely indicated to you; because, resting as they do upon basis so well understood by you, any elucidation of them is uncalled for. First, I will mention "free trade," by which is meant, as I understand it, the most liberal principles of commerce, and from which we may anticipate as a consequence, the freest exchange of the products of different soils and climates, the largest amount of comforts for a given amount of labor. Again, as incident to the freest national intercourse, we may expect the extension of amicable relations, until our canvas-winged doves shall bear us across every sea, olive branches from every land. In addressing Mississippians, who rely upon a foreign market for the disposal of their products, an argument in support of unrestricted commerce is surely unnecessary, and I will close the consideration of this point by saying I consider Mr. Calhoun its exponent.

The annexation of the republic of Texas to our Union, is another point of vital importance to the south, and demanding, by every consideration, prompt action. Daily are we becoming relatively weaker, and with equal step is the advance of that fanatical spirit which has for years been battering in breach the defences with which the federal constitution surrounds our institutions.

Would Mr. Calhoun have less zeal than one less intimately connected with the south, or would he support this measure with less ability? I would answer not less but more. The ardent, able and honest support which he gives to all measures having his entire approbation, enables him more successfully than any one I have ever known, to combat prejudice and error; and I would add that among the many I have known who had enjoyed his intercourse, I recollect not one who had not imbibed some of his opinions.

Again, I believe that Mr. Calhoun could reduce the various divisions of the executive department at Washington to such order, and introduce a system of such prompt accountability, by the various agents, that defalcation could seldom reach that point which would result in loss to the government. That he possesses this ability, I conceive to be demonstrated by his administration of the war department; considered, I believe, of the various departments, that which is most difficult and complex in its disbursements. He found it in great confusion—he reduced it to an organization so perfect, that it has received but slight modifications down to the present time, and has been that department which has afforded but few examples of unfaithful depositories of the public money.

With the experience he acquired then, and the knowledge he has acquired since, may we not expect all that I claim for him on this point?

I will, Mr. President, tax the patience of the convention with but one point more, and that is one nearly affecting us: it is the defence of the southern Atlantic and gulf coasts. We have been treated ungenerously and unjustly, in that the majority has, through a long course of years, refused to us, the minority, that protection which it was the duty of the federal government to give us. Having made such appropriations for the benefit of other portions of the Union, inability has not been the cause of this failure in duty towards us—a failure which is aggravated by the recollection that throughout the whole period of our federal existence, we have contributed, as consumers, to the revenue, in a higher ratio than that of our representation in the halls of legislation, (by the number of our unrepresented slave population,) and therefore our claim to a share of those appropriations to which we are all entitled, is something stronger than our representative rate. Sir, if we institute a comparison as to the importance, in a national point of view, between the objects for which we require appropriations and those for which we have been neglected, still do we find nothing to justify the treatment we have received. Whilst the northern harbors and cities have been surveyed, and as far as the ability of the treasury would allow, fortified—whilst navy yards have been erected along the northern coast—whilst surveys have been made of the sinuosities of our northern lakes, sometimes where it required the perspective eye of the engineer to see a harbor, and millions expended year after year, for these joint purposes, there stand the cape and keys of Florida unprotected, though by them flows the whole commerce of the south and west, and though they overlook the straits through which, in peace or war, is the only maritime communication between the different portions of our Union, and around which sweeps a wide curve of circumvallation, extending from the Oronoko to the banks of the Bahama, from various points of which, within signal distance, from the batteries of Great Britain.

Looking further westward, which brings us nearer home here upon our own coast lie, wholly unprotected, the islands upon which the British fleet found a safe anchorage and harbor; where British troops debarked for the attack on New Orleans, an event which, though it brought glory to the American arms, and made this day an American festival, does not the less enforce itself as a warning on our government, and should have proved sufficient reason to all who loved their country more than sectional interest, to have guarded against the recurrence of such contingency.

Mr. President, the South has a delicate and daily increasing interest in the navy. She needs her own sons in the navy to represent that interest; she therefore needs in her own waters navy yards, and squadrons at home, on her own waters, to develope the nautical feeling of our youth. A survey made of the Tortugas, by the recommendation of that great man who directed the glorious event to which I but just now alluded as connected with the day on which we are assembled, exhibits a harbor admirably adapted to the purposes of a navy yard. At Pensacola, we have another favorable point, so recognized by our government in building a dock and giving it the name of "navy yard;" and they both have this great advantage over any northern harbor, they are convenient to "live oak," our most important ship timber.

Sir, I will not detain the Convention farther than to urge upon their consideration the necessity we have for a Southern President to advance these measures. The South has borne long; let her be true to herself, that justice may be done.

Jefferson Davis, of Warren, offered the following resolution, which was unanimously adopted.

Resolved, That our delegates to the national convention, in the event of any contingency which shall defeat the purpose for which they are appointed, viz., the nominations of Martin Van Buren for president, and James K. Polk for vice president, that they shall consider as our second choice, John C. Calhoun for president, and Levi Woodbury for vice-president.

_______________

* This speech brought Mr. Davis into statewide notice and marked the beginning of his political career. As a delegate from Warren county he favored John C. Calhoun for the presidency.

SOURCE: Dunbar Rowland, Editor, Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist: His Letters, Papers and Speeches, Volume 1, p. 6-9

Speech of Lord John Russell, Saturday, October 12, 1861

Gentlemen, it is with feelings of the deepest gratitude that I rise to acknowledge the toast which has now been drunk. It has been my fate to have taken part in many political measures, and during a tolerably long political life, I take this approbation of a set of men so enlightened as a testimony that I have not dishonored my principles; that I have done nothing to impair the honour, and so injure the interests of my county. (Loud cheers.) Gentlemen, If I have been successful in any of the measures that have been proposed, it has been that I have proposed, in more fortunate times, measures which had the approbation of great men, who have gone before me. I have endeavoured to follow in the footsteps of Lord Grey, Lord Holland, Sir Samuel Romilly, and Lord Durham. (Loud cheers.) My noble friend near me has justly and correctly alluded to that which happened in 1830. Lord Grey at that time being in the councils of his sovereign, resolved to introduce a measure founded on those principles of reform of which he had through life been the advocate;  and let me say that there can be no more gratifying—no more noble aspect in the history of the public life of a statesman, than to see Lord Grey, who, in adverse times, had been content to give his opinion, and had then allowed rivals of far less well-founded principles than himself—to carry on the government of the country and enjoy power without envy on his part. It was a great spectacle to see this man, when the opinions of the people came round to him, resume, without passion and without resentment, those plans for the benefit of his country of which he had always been the distinguished advocate. (Applause.) Lord Grey, as my Noble Friend has said, called to his assistance his Noble Brother, Lord Durham. (Loud cheers.) It was my happiness to be associated in that work with Lord Durham. We labored together to the same end in perfect harmony and agreement as to measures that we though necessary for the reform of the representations. (Cheers) With us was joined a person whose absence I deeply deplore to-day, who would have been here to-day if his health had allowed him, and whose talents have been the greatest service to this country. I mean Sir J. Graham. (Cheers.) With these two was associated Lord Dungannon, who was specially acquainted with many parts of our representative system. We framed the plan of reform—(cheers)—and that reform, as you all know, was not only carried, but has now been nearly thirty years in operation. (Cheers.) That it has operated beneficially I cannot doubt—(cheers)—and that it has led the way to many other great measures which never could have been carried in an unreformed Parliament. (Cheers.) And, Gentlemen, let me say, when I embarked in public life I embarked with the view of carrying great measures into effect and having great public objects before me. It appears to me that public life is only honourable when it is directed to such measures—(applause)—and that the pedlar who sells his pins and pincushions  for sixpence has a better, because an honester, trade, than the man who devotes his talents to public life, only for the sake of seeking his own emolument. (Applause.) Gentlemen, many of the measures which I have noticed have been successful. We need not now refer to them all; but there is one point which, perhaps, I may refer to, because it respects a principle which I think runs through many of our measures of late times, and shows an improvement in the general principles of government. What I mean is this—that in favour of religious liberty; first, the Protestant Dissenters, then the Roman Catholics, and lastly and recently the Jews,—and all our measures with regard to free-trade have been measures not introducing new plans, not formed upon skillfully devised schemes, but have been merely unloosing the fetters which statutes and laws had placed on the dear liberty of the subject. It is the business of the government to maintain internal peace, to settle the civil relations which should prevail among the community, to defend the independence of the country abroad; but governments had sought to do more than this—they had sought to lay down rules of faith, to which they have asked men, under pain and penalty of punishment, to adhere, quite ignorant that they, the government, were utterly unable to frame rules of faith which should better the conscience. (Applause.) To take the other instance to which I am alluding, namely, that of free trade, what struggles we have had now going on for nearly forty years, in order to enable men to do that which is perfectly innocent in itself, namely, to exchange the products of their industry against the products of the industry of others, which were objects of use, of comfort, or of enjoyment. (Applause.) I remember the beginning of these contests, when certainly the principles of free trade were not understood as they now are, a petition being presented to the House of Commons, setting forth that your petitioners made gloves, which were inferior to the gloves of France, and therefore they prayed, what do you suppose, not that people might be allowed to wear the gloves of France, which were cheaper and better, but the gloves of France might be utterly excluded, in order that they might furnish bad and dear gloves. (Laughter and cheers.) Why, gentleman, this is the whole history of protection and free trade. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) Parliaments and legislatures have presumed they should direct the industry of their fellow subjects into the channels that should be profitable to the country at large, not seeing that if you leave men their freedom they would find out themselves what were the occupations which would be most profitable, and what were the goods which they could produce to the best advantage. It is, therefore, not only that we have passed some very excellent measures, but that we have enlarged and enlightened the whole machinery of government. We say there are certain things in which government ought not to interfere, upon which the man himself—the subject—is the best judge, and to him must be left the choice of his occupation. (Cheers.) Above all, I am happy to say we have it not in this country; but in many countries people consider that it is a part of the duty of a government to fetter and bind the talents and abilities of men, and that upon no subject of politics, upon no subject of morals, upon no subject of literature even should men use the talents with which God had endowed them, without the control and permission of the officers of Government. (Cheers.) Such, gentlemen, then, have been the general principles upon which these measures to which general principles upon these measures to which I allude have been passed. They have been sound principles; and, as I have said, I trust they will be applied in future times in any other cases of a similar kind. (Cheers.) Now, Gentlemen, I will state in a few words what has been my course since I have been entrusted with the seals of the foreign department. That course has been to respect the independence of foreign nations, and to endeavour to induce others to do the same. (Hear, hear, and applause.) There is one of those countries with which we have had much to do, and of which we have heard much of late years. I mean Italy. We have all seen with pleasure—I see that a very distinguished man (Mr. Henley) says there is no one in the country who has not seen with pleasure the Italians casting off their old chains, and exercising the powers of government for themselves, in that way gaining there distinction distinction which in old times belonged to them only. We all rejoice to see them assert that independence, and we shall all rejoice if they establish a free government, and thus effect the happiness, the self-respect, and the elevation of one of the finest countries and one of the most talented nations of the globe. (Great applause.) But, gentlemen, of late a difficulty has arisen, to which great attention has been given. Italians say, and they say with great apparent justice, that the independence of Italy cannot be fully consummated unless Rome, the capital, is in their hands. (Loud cheers.) I may say that the people of Naples will be willing to found in that city an Italian government, as that is a part of Italy associated with ancient institutions; but as Italy has not Rome, they cannot regard it as a kingdom. Well, on the other hand, the Roman Catholics of Europe say that they require that the independence of the Pope should be respected, and many say that it cannot be respected without territorial government. That it is a discussion which has been going on for some time; and I observed in what I was reading this morning—an essay by one of the most learned ecclesiastics of Italy, that the opinion is now gaining ground that whether the temporal power ought to become the right of the King of Italy or not, the spiritual power will be more felt, it will be more respected, and will be exercised more fairly, if it is separated from the temporal. In the conclusion of the discourse to which I have alluded, the author says that is what is wished by the people of Italy, and that is what is wished by the people of Italy, and that is in the world. (Applause.) This, as I have said, is not a question upon which we can take the initiative; but this I will say, that I think that what that learned ecclesiastic has proposed, and which is in accordance which the opinions given has proposed, and which is in accordance which the opinions given by that great man now so much regretted—Count Cavour, will furnish a solution to the Italian difficulty, and that it will be a great means of securing the independence and happiness of Italy. Gentlemen, let us look for a moment at another part of the world—at another country which, for my part, I have always observed with the greatest interest—the United States of America. It appears to me that it would be a great misfortune to the world if that experiment in free government which, though not carried on in exactly the same principles as our own—principles which had been devised with great wisdom—it would be a very great misfortune if anything were to happen to divide that state. (Cheers.) I am very sorry to say that those events have happened, and we now see two parties contending together—not upon the question of slavery, though that I believe is the original cause of the conflict—not contending with the respect to free trade and protection, but contending as so may States of the old world have contended—the one side for empire and the other for power. Far be it from us to set ourselves up as judges in this matter, but I cannot help asking myself, as affairs progress in the contest, to what good end can it lead? Supposing the contest ended by the re-union of its different part, that the South should agree to enter again with all the rights of the constitution, should we not again have that fatal subject of slavery brought in along with them—(Cheers)—that subject of slavery which caused, no doubt, the disruption, we all agree must, sooner or later, cease from the face of the earth? (Cheers.) Well, then, gentlemen, as you will see, if this quarrel could be made up, should we not have those who differed with Mr. Lincoln at the last election carried; and that the quarrel would recommence, and perhaps a long civil war follow? On the other hand, supposing the United States completely to conquer and subdue the Southern States—supposing that should be the result of a long military conflict—supposing that should be the result of some years of civil war, should we not have the material property of that country in a great degree destroyed? Should we see that respect for liberty which as so long distinguished our North American brethren? (Cheers.) Should we not see those Southern men yielding to a force, and would not the north be necessitated to keep  in subjection those who had been conquered, and would not that very materially interfere with the freedom of the nation? (Cheers.) If that should be the unhappy result to which we at present look forward, if by means such as this the reunion of the States should be brought about, is it not the duty of those men who have embraced the precepts of Christianity, to see whether this conflict cannot be avoided? Gentlemen, I have made these observations to you upon matters, as I have said, deeply affecting us all, but not upon matters upon which the Government of this country has any immediate power or interest. Had they been cases of that kind, it would not have been consistent with my duty as Foreign Secretary to have spoken to you in detail upon the subject. In these cases, it is the duty of the head of the Government of this country to watch closely as to what happens with respect the independence of all foreign nations, but not to let go any part of that caution and vigilance which becomes ministers of England at this time, not to impair any part of the influence of this country, because that influence may be used in the cause of freedom and of humanity—(Hear, Hear, and cheers)—not to lower in any respect the power of this country, because that power may be absolutely necessary to preserve the freedom of Europe, to vindicate the independence of nations, and to guard our own dignity and freedom. (Cheers.) Much has been said on the continent of Europe in disparagement of my Noble Friend who is now at the head of the Government, but on examining those strictures, I have never been able to make out more than this, that he was believed to be too susceptible with regard to the interests of this country. (Cheers.) I shall be at little pains to vindicate him from such an attack. (Hear, hear.) On the contrary, I own that my Noble Friend constantly devotes his attention to keep clear and unsullied the honour of England—(Applause)—to keep uninjured and unimpaired the interests to help him in that great task. (Cheers.) It is my privilege to help him in that great task. (Cheers.) I do not feel that to be entrusted with such a task by the people of so great and so free a country as this, is something that makes public life worth having—(cheers)—that lightens its labour—that lightens its anxiety—(cheers)—and, I may add, that while that task is thus rendered honourable, while it is one which a man may be proud to undertake, it is no small addition to feel that he has acted upon the whole for the benefit of his country; and that whatever errors and mistakes he may have made at times, he will meet from such an assembly as the present the king and indulgent acceptance of his efforts, and that, at all events, they will give him credit for the firm intention to do for “old England” all that he could.

SOURCE: “The Banquet,” Sheffield and Rotherham Independent, Sheffield, Yorkshire, England, Tuesday, October 15, 1861, p. 5

Gerrit Smith: The News From England, January 3, 1862

Alas! that this news should find us still embarrassed, and still diddling with the negro question!  Alas! That we should still have one war upon our hands, while we are threatened with another?  Had we, as we should have done, disposed of this question at the beginning of the war, then would its beginning have also been its ending.  If slavery was not, as it certainly was, the sole cause of the war, it nevertheless, was that vulnerable spot in the foe at which we should have struck without a moment’s delay.  Instead of repelling the negroes, bond and free, by insults and cruel treatment we could have brought them all to our side by simply inviting them to it.  As it is, the war has grown into a very formidable one; and the threatened one whereas, had we not acted insanely on the negro question, we could have dreaded neither.  More than this, had we, as it was so easy to do, struck instant death into the first war, we should have escaped the threat of this second one.

For what is it that the English press threatens us with war? It is for compelling the English ship to give up the rebel commissioners, so it says. This is the ostensible reason. But would not England — she who is so famous for clinging to an almost entirely unqualified and unlimited right of search — have done the same thing in like circumstances? If she would not, then she would not have been herself. Had a part of her home counties revolted and sent a couple of their rebels to America for help, would she not have caught them if she could? And in whatever circumstances they might have been found? If she says she would not, there is not on all the earth one “Jew Apella” so credulous as to believe her. If she confesses she would, then is she self-convicted, not only of trampling in her boundless dishonesty on the great and never-to-be-violated principle of doing as we would be done by, but of insulting us by claiming that we ought to be tame and base enough to forbear to do that which her self-respect and high spirit would prompt her to do.

But perhaps England would not have done as we did.  Her naval captains have taken thousands of seamen from our ships — these captains constituting themselves the sole accusers, witnesses and judges in the cases. It was chiefly for such outrages that we declared war against her in 1812. The instance of the San Jacinto and Trent is not like these. In this instance there was no question, because no doubt, of personal identity. But I repeat, perhaps England would not have done as we did.  In a case so aggravated, she would, perhaps, may, probably, have taken ship and all.  By the way, it may be that we did act illegally in not seizing the ship as well as the rebels, and subjecting her to a formal trial; but if in this we fell into a mistake, could England be so mean as to make war upon us for it? — for a mistake which was prompted by a kind and generous regard for the comfort and interests of Englishmen? Surely, if England is not noble enough to refuse to punish for any mere mistake, She is, nevertheless, not monstrous enough to punish for the mistake, which grew solely out of the desire to serve her.

But wherein have we harmed England in this matter?  We have insulted her, is the answer. We have not, however, intended to insult her: and an unintended insult is really no insult.  If, in my eagerness to overtake the man who has deeply injured me, I run rudely through my neighbor’s house he will not only not accuse me of insulting him, but he will pardon so much to my very excusable eagerness as to leave but little ground of any kind of complaint against me.  Surely, if England were but to ask her own heart how she would feel toward men in her own bosom, who, without the slightest provocation, were busy in breaking up her nation, and in plundering and slaughtering her people, she would be more disposed to shed tears of pity for us that to make war upon us.

It is not possible that England will make war on us for what we did to the Trent, and for doing which she has herself furnished us innumerable precedents.  It is not possible that she will so ignore, nay, so deny and dishonor her own history. I will not believe that England, whom I have ever loved and honored almost as if she were my own country, and who, whatever prejudiced and passionate American writers have written to the contrary, has hitherto, during our great and sore trial done nothing through her government, nor through the great body of her people, to justify the attempt by a portion (happily a very small and very unworthy portion) of our press to stir up our national feeling against her — I say I will not believe that this loved and honored England will make war upon us for a deed in which we intended her no wrong; in which, so far as her own example is authority, there is no wrong; and in which, in the light of reason, and, as it will prove in the judgment of mankind, there is no wrong. She could not make such a causeless war upon us without deeply and broadly blotting her own character and he character of modern civilization. But, after, all, what better is our modern civilization than a mere blot and blotch if the nation which is preeminently its exponent, can be guilty, and without the least real cause of provocation, and upon pretests as frivolous as they are false, of seeing to destroy a sister nation? — a sister nation, too, whose present embarrassments and distresses appeal so strongly to every good heart? Moreover, how little will it argue for the cause of human rights, and popular institutions, if the nation, which claims to be the chief champion of that cause, can wage so wicked a war upon a nation claiming no humbler relation to that precious cause?

What, then, do I hold that England should do in this case?

1st. Reprimand or more severely punish the captain of the Trent for his very gross and very guilty violation of our rights in furnishing exceedingly important facilities to our enemy. This our government should have promptly insisted on, and not have suffered England to get the start of us with her absurd counter claim.  This is a case in which not we, but England, should have been made defendant.  It is her Captain who is the real offender.  Ours is, at the most, but a nominal one.  In the conduct of her Captain were in spirit and purpose, as well as the doing, of wrong.  The conduct of ours, on the contrary, was prompted by the spirit and purpose of doing right; and if, in any respect, it was erroneous, it was simply in regard to the forms of doing right.  Moreover, the guilt of her Captain can be diminished by nothing that was seemingly or really guilty in ours. The criminality of taking the rebels into the Trent was none the less, because of any mistakes which attended the getting of them out.  Nevertheless, England takes no action against him.  Her policy is to have her guilty Captain lost sight of in her bluster about our innocent one.  To screen the thief, she cries, “Stop thief!”  Her policy is to prevent us from getting the true issue before the public mind, by occupying it with her false one.

How preposterous is the claim of England to her right to make war, because we took our rebellious subjects from her ship!  The taking of them into her ship is the only thing in the case which can possibly furnish cause of war. That, unless amply apologized for, does, in the light of international law, furnish abundant cause of war.

Did every hypocrisy and impudence go farther than in England’s putting America on trial! Was there ever a more emphatic “putting the saddle on the wrong horse”? I overtake the thief who has stolen my watch, and jerk it from his pocket.  He turns to the people, not to confess his theft, but to protest against my rudeness, and to have me, instead of himself, regarded as the criminal!

An old fable tells us that a council of animals, with the lion at their head, put an ass on trial for having “broused the bigness of his tongue.” The lion (England) was constrained to confess that he had himself eaten sheep, and shepherds too.  Nevertheless, it was the offence of the ass (America) that caused the council to shudder with horror. “What! Eat another’s grass? O shame!” and so the virtuous rascals condemned him to die, and rejoiced anew in their conscious innocence.

Moreover, England, instead of turning to her own conscience with the true case, has the brazen effrontery to appeal to our conscience with her trumped-up case.  Which of the parties in this instance needs conscience-quickening, in no less certain than in the instance of the footpad and the traveler, when he had robbed of his bags of gold.  The poor traveler meekly asked for a few coins to defray his expenses homeward. “Take them from one of the bags,” said the footpad, with an air of chivalrous magnanimity; but on seeing the traveler take half a dozen instead of two or three, he exclaimed, “Why, man, have you no conscience?”  England, through her subject and servant, entered into a conspiracy against America.  America, through her subject and servant, forbore to punish the wickedness, and simply stopped it.  And yet England bids us to our conscience!

Why Should England protect her captain?  Her Queen, in her last May’s Proclamation, warned him that, for doing what he has done, he should, “in no wise obtain any protection.” He had full knowledge of the official character of the rebles, and at least inferential knowledge of their bearing dispatches with them.  But, besides that the whole spirit of it is against what he has done, her Proclamation specifies “officers” and “dispatches” in the list of what her subjects are prohibited to carry “for the use or service of either of the contending parties.

England did not protect the Captain of her mail-steamer, Teviot, who, during our war with Mexico was guilty of carrying the Mexican General Paredez.  He was suspended.  Why does she spare the Captain of the Trent?  Is it because she has more sympathy with the Southern Confederacy than she had with Mexico? — and is, therefore, more tender toward him who serves the former, than she was toward him who served the latter?  But it will, perhaps be said, that we have not demanded satisfaction in this case as we did in that.  England, nevertheless, knows that we are entitled to it; and that she is bound to satisfy us for the wrongs she did us, before she complains of the way we took to save ourselves from the deep injury with which that great and guilty wrong threatened us.  In this connexion, I add that if, upon her own principles and precedents, the Captain of the Trent deserves punishment for what he did, she is stopped from magnifying into a grave offence our undoing what we did.

2. The next thing that England should do is to give instructions, or rather repeat those in the Queen's Proclamation, that no more rebel commissioners be received into her vessels.

3. And then she should inform us whether, in the case of a vessel that shall hereafter offend in this wise, she would have us take the vessel itself, or take but the commissioners. It is true that whatever her preference, we would probably insist on taking the vessel in every case: — for it is not probable that we shall again expose ourselves in such a case to the charge of taking too little. It is, however, also true, that, should she prefer our taking the vessel, we will certainly never take less.

But such instructions and information, although they would provide for future cases, would leave the present case unprovided for; and England might still say that she could not acquiesce in our having, in this case, taken the Commissioners instead of the vessel.  What then?  She ought to be content with the expression of our regret that we did not take the mode of her choice, and the more so as that mode could not have been followed by any different result in respect to our getting possession of the Commissioners.  But this might not satisfy her: — and what then?  She should generously wait until that unnatural and horrid war is off our hands; and if the parties could not then agree, they should submit the case to an Umpire.  If, however, she should call for an Umpire now, then, although the civilized world would think badly of her for it, and our own nation be very slow to forgive her for it, I would nevertheless, in my abhorrence of all war, have our government consent to an Umpire now. Nay, in the spirit of this abhorrence, and for the sake of peace, I would go much farther.  If no other concession we could make would satisfy England, I would have our Government propose to surrender the rebels, Mason and Slidell, in case the English Government would say, distinctly and solemnly, that it would not itself disturb neutral vessels having on board rebels who had gone out from England in quest of foreign aid to overturn the English Government.  An ineffably base Government would it prove itself to be should it refuse to say this, and yet declare war on the ground of our capture of the rebels who were on their way for foreign help to overturn our government.

I spoke of my abhorrence of all war.  Our lifelong opponents of war find themselves unexpectedly in sympathy with mighty armies.  They have to confess that they never anticipated a rebellion so fast; still less did they ever anticipate that England would be guilty of coming to the help of such a satanic rebellion.

I have said that England will not go to war with us in the case of the Trent. Nevertheless I am not without fear that her government will be driven to declare war against us. The Government of no other nation (and this is honorable to England) is more influenced by the people.  By such an affair as the capture of Mason and Slidell, the patriotism of the least-informed and superficial and excitable part of her people is easily and extensively wrought upon. With this part of her people the inviolability of the British flag is more than all earth besides.  But it is not by that capture, nor by those classes to whom it appeals with such peculiar power that the Government will be moved. If an irresistible pressure comes upon the government, it will come from those portions of the people who long for the cotton and free trade of the South, and who have allowed themselves to get angry with the North by foolishly misconstruing our high tariff (which is simply a war measure) into a hostile commercial measure. The capture of Mason and Slidell will be only the pretext, not the provocation; only the occasion, not the cause of war.

If England wishes to go to war with us for any wrongs we have done her, she shall not have the chance—for we will promptly repair the wrongs, at whatever sacrifices of property or pride. But if, as I still honor and love her too much to believe, she wishes to go to war with us at any rate, and chooses this our time of trouble as her time to make us an easy prey, then will she be gratified.  It will be but fair, however, to advertise her that she must not take our fighting in the war with the rebels as a sample of what will be our fighting in the war with herself.  The former is fooling.  The latter will be fighting.  On all subjects connected with slavery, and therefore in a war about slavery, we Americans are fools.  We cannot help it.  We have worshipped the idol so long and so devoutly, that when in its all-influential presence, we cannot be men. The powers of our moral nature are, however, not destroyed; they are but perverted.  And such an outrage as the English press threatens us with will restore their legitimate use.  Our manhood is not dead; it but sleeps.  And as it was when the Philistines fell upon the bound Samson, that the Spirit of the Lord came to his help, so, when the English shall fall upon the worse-bound Americans, this sleeping manhood will awake.  And it will awake to assert itself, not merely against the English, but against the rebels also.  And It will do this mightily, because it will, and the same time, be asserting itself against its own life-long degradations, and the hateful cause of them.  Let us but know that England, to whom we have done no wrong, has resolved to come to the help of the Pro-Slavery Rebellion, and our deep indignations against her, combining with our deeper indignation against ourselves, will arm us with the spirit of the power to snap the “cords,” and “green withs,” and “new ropes,” with which slavery has bound us to dash to dust the foul idol whose worship has so demented and debased us.  Yes, let us hear this month that England has declared war against us, and this month will witness our Proclamation of Liberty to every slave in the land.  No thanks will be due her for the happy effect upon us of her Declaration of war.  No thanks will be due her that the Declaration will have the effect to save us — to save us by making us anti-slavery.  No more half-way measures, and no more nonsense on the Subject of slavery, shall we then propose.  There will be no more talk then of freeing one sort of slaves, and continuing the other in slavery; but we shall then invite every negro in the land, bond and free, to identify himself, “arm and soul,” with our cause.  And then there will be no more talk of swapping off taxes for negroes, and no more talk of colonizing and apprenticing them.  Then we shall be eager to lift up the negroes into the enjoyment of all the rights of manhood, that so we may have in them men to stand by our side, and help us make short work with the present war, and with that with which we are threatened.

Owing to the bewitching and debauching influence of slavery upon our whole nation, there are, even in the Free States, divisions among us in regard to the present war.  But should England so causelessly, cruelly and meanly force a war upon us, there will be no divisions among us in regard to that war: — nor, indeed, will there then be in regard to the other. And so deep and abiding will be our sense of her boundless injustice, that there will never be any boundless injustice, that there will never be any among us to welcome propositions of peace with England, until her war with us shall have reached the result of our subjugation, or of her expulsion from every part of the Continent of North America.  Moreover, we shall rejoice to hear of the crushing of her power every where — for we shall feel that the nation which can be guilty of such a war is fit to govern no where — in the Eastern no more than in the Western hemisphere.

SOURCES: “News from England by Geritt Smith,” The Liberator, Boston, Massachusetts, Friday, January 3, 1862, p. 4; An abstract of thes article appears in Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 262-3

John A. Quitman to John F. H. Claiborne, August 6, 1831

Continued from: John A. Quitman to John F. H. Claiborne, July 31, 1831

Aug. 6th.  Since writing the above I have been in motion about the country, and will now gallop over a few of the many political observations collected during my long journey from Natchez, reserving particulars until my return. A very fierce struggle is going on in Kentucky. In no part of the Union have I seen so much excitement. In Virginia, which I traversed from west to east, there is evidently an important change working in sectional politics. They are growing lukewarm in support of the (Jackson's) administration, and I have no doubt the dissensions in the cabinet, and the developments that have been made, will ferment the leaven now generally diffused. My opinion is that Virginia is in favor of Calhoun, and, if so, Jackson can only be supported upon the principle of being the least of two evils. At Charlottesville I had the pleasure of an hour's interview with our senator, Mr. Poindexter. I found his political opinions so nearly my own, you may conceive I enjoyed a great treat in his conversation. He is more pungent and tart than ever, and his tone is something like a sneer. He is awfully severe on Jackson and his advisers, and no less bitter against some of our folks at home. Ho tells me he has written you at length upon the politics of the day. I found him walking among the people in the court-yard, without assistance and without crutches. He is a man of extraordinary intellectual powers. You knew him from your childhood, and I do not now wonder at your risking your popularity to support him. He has fascinated me. How is it that his private character is so bad? Why do we hear so much said against him in Adams County? His intemperance, his gambling, his libertinism, and his dishonesty. He gives no indications of these defects, and he is here, where he once resided, taken by the hand by the first people and followed by the crowd. By the way, have you ever met with the pamphlet published by Dr. Brown against Poindexter? I met with it in Kentucky. It charges him with base cowardice in several personal difficulties in Mississippi and at the battle of New Orleans. Can so bold a politician be deficient in personal courage? Can a public speaker who so fiercely arraigns so many influential citizens be himself a knave? The testimony in this pamphlet is very strong. The witnesses are Dr. Brown, Colonel Percy, Dr. Hogg, Dr. Stephen Duncan, Elisha Smith, and others whom we well know. I send the pamphlet to you.¹ Mr. P. is quite decided in his opposition to the administration, and thinks our congressional delegation will act with him. Will his opposition to General Jackson affect your relations to him? He is for Calhoun.

Here in New York I can plainly perceive among the Jackson party an alienation of feeling. The Democratic anti-tariff men, the free-trade and state-rights men, who were all under the banner of Jackson, begin to feel uneasy, but, as yet, have not determined on their course. The anti-masons, the no-Sunday-mail party, the manufacturers, the working interest, and the latitudinarians and so-called philanthropists all incline to Clay. The free-trade and state-rights portion of the Jackson party may well open their eyes when leading papers like the New York Courier and Enquirer are evidently shifting over to the tariff side, to prepare the way for Mr. Van Buren. I lately dined with a large party of intelligent men, who all along had supported the administration. Being asked about the impression which the late cabinet explosion had made in Mississippi, I ventured the opinion that a great majority of our politicians were disposed to side with Mr. Calhoun. One of them replied, “We have the same feeling. The President is abandoning the principles which raised him to office.”

For my part, I hope Mr. Calhoun, or some decided anti-tariff man, will become a candidate. We must know the opinion of presidential candidates on this tariff question. An idea has frequently occurred to me of proposing to the Southern Republicans to run an independent or unpledged ticket for electors. How would this do? I wish you would reflect upon it, and give me your advice. In the mean time mention it to no one. If Mr. Van Buren is a decided tariff and internal-improvement man, I have no notion of smoothing his road to the presidency by a compromising course of policy.

Among the masses in the Northern States, every other feeling is now swallowed up by a religious enthusiasm which is pervading the country. Wherever I have traveled in the free states, I have found preachers holding three, four, six, and eight days' meeting, provoking revivals, and begging contributions for the Indians, the negroes, the Sunday-schools, foreign missions, home missions, the Colonization Society, temperance societies, societies for the education of pious young men, distressed sisters, superannuated ministers, reclaimed penitents, church edifices, church debts, religious libraries, etc., etc.: clamorously exacting the last penny from the poor enthusiast, demanding the widow's mite, the orphan's pittance, and denouncing the vengeance of Heaven on those who feel unable to give, or who question the propriety of these contributions, whether wholesale or specific. They are not only extortionate, but absolutely insulting in their demands; and my observations lead me to believe that there is a vast deal of robbery and roguery under this stupendous organization of religious societies. That there is misapplication of funds, and extravagance, and a purse-proud and arrogant priesthood supported by these eleemosynary appeals, there can be no doubt. When in the city of New York, I lodged at the Clinton Hotel. From my window I saw several splendid edifices, which could not be valued at less than $100,000, belonging to the American Tract and other societies! Thus is the industry of remote parts of the Union taxed to build palaces in the Northern cities, and to support herds of lazy cattle. Here are clerks by the hundred, salaried liberally out of contributions wrung from pious and frugal persons in the South; and these officials, like the majority of their theologians and divines, are inimical to our institutions, and use our own money to defame and damage us! Respect for the proposed object of these societies, and the fear of their power, have deterred even the bold from exposing their abuses. But such thraldom must not be submitted to.² I am heartily tired of the North, and, except parting from my relations, shall feel happy when I set my face homeward.

Your elections are now over. I look forward to hear that you and Bingaman are elected representatives, and Gridley sheriff. Write me again at Lexington, Ky. Your description of Plummer's visit to Natchez, and of the intrigues it occasioned, amused me much. I know he has the ready talent and tact to carry him through, if he has prudence. What is the editor of the “Clarion” about, in his severe strictures on Ingham, and Branch, and Berrien, who very properly retired in disgust from Jackson's cabinet?

_______________

¹ All this will be explained in a biography of the Hon. George Poindexter, based on his own correspondence and manuscripts, which I am now writing. — J. F. H. C.

² I find these opinions, uttered near thirty years ago, singularly confirmed by the Rev. Dr. Thornwell, of South Carolina, in a speech delivered by him in the General Assembly of the Old School Presbyterian Church, May, 1860. The subject was the policy of the Church in regard to mission and other boards. The quotation is from the Cincinnati Commercial:

"Dr. Thornwell, of South Carolina, who addressed the Assembly at Nashville, in 1855, on the same subject, most certainly made an able effort to convince the Assembly that the Church has no power to delegate authority committed to her by her Master; that she should do her own work, and not appoint boards or other organizations to do it. He argued, too, that it is a sin and a shame to have boards where the membership is complimentary, and the privilege of consulting in which can be purchased with money. The principle is money. The seed of the serpent may be harmless, but the seed contains the poison. We need unity, simplicity, and completeness of action; and he closed by rejoicing that, when the millennium comes, we will not find it necessary to change our principles. But I can not say, as the brethren have, ‘We have done well enough.’ Look at 800,000,000 of heathen without the Gospel! Look at the resources, the riches of our Church, and dare we say we have done well enough? I believe these boards have stood in the way of free action of the Church.

“He referred, likewise, to Dr. B. M. Smith's history of those boards, as full of startling disclosures."

In the New Orleans Christian Advocate of May 30th, 1860, edited by Rev. C. C. Gillespie, one of the strongest writers in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, I find an able article, prompted by the anniversary meetings of the societies referred to in Quitman's letter. The article, which furnishes thoughts enough for a book, and a very interesting book, thus concludes:

"We confess we are sick of societies. We may be wrong; if so, we hope for pardon and more light. There is a cold, heartless, mechanical utilitarianism about this exclusive associational way of doing good that crushes out all individuality of reason, affection, and progress. Societies grow fat and strong, and individual Christian character remains stationary, or, rather, assumes dwarfish proportions. It is a sort of concentration of all the surplus energy of the artificial, cantish Yankeeism there is in American character. It is true, there must be associated effort. We do not deny that. But it should be harmonious with those individual aptitudes and social relations and sympathies which God has ordained. Such association we find in the Church. God made our individual constitutions, He established our social relations and sympathies, and He ordained the Church. They are all harmonious. It may be said that, condemning High Churchism, we are High Churchmen ourselves. In the sense of giving the Church the place, and the importance, and the allegiance intended by its Divine Founder, and set forth in the Scriptures, we are High Churchmen. We have almost as little sympathy with Low Churchmen, of any school, as for societarians. They both undervalue the Church in theory, or are unfaithful to their own Church ideal. High Churchism, in the sense of giving the Church a character and power not taught in the Scriptures, is the other extreme. Societarianism and Low Churchism lead to indifferentism and infidelity. Devotion to the Church of Christ, as set forth in the Bible, as ‘the purchase of Christ's blood’ — as ‘the body of Christ,’ as ‘the pillar and ground of the truth,’ as the ‘kingdom’ of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail — is simple Christianity, as far as it goes.”

These are striking illustrations of the forecast and sagacity of Quitman. He saw, thirty years ago, what no one else saw at that day, but what is now viewed as a serious social and religious evil.

SOURCE: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 106-11

Thomas W. Thomas to Howell Cobb, June 5, 1848

Elberton, Ga., June 5th, 1848.

Dear Sir: The last mail brought us the news of Gen. Cass's nomination, and with it came a whig paper charging him with having voted for the Wilmot Proviso. My recollection of the facts is this, the Proviso was attached to the three million bill in the House and sent to the Senate where on motion to amend it was struck out, Gen. Cass voting for the striking out. In this shape it was sent back to the House and passed without the Proviso. If my memory serves me, this was the only time the question ever came up in the Senate and Gen. Cass recorded his vote in favor of the South. Please send me the Senate journal showing all his votes on the question. I am under so many obligations to you for favors of this kind that I dislike to trouble you, and wish you to attend to my request only in case it be convenient. The Democrats here are highly gratified with the nominations and are prepared to give them a united support. Cass in my humble judgment is a perfect embodiment of progressive democracy as opposed to what the Whigs call conservatism, which in plain English means putting the people in ward, to save them from their pretended ignorance and folly; and the question is not only between free-trade and protection, but also whether we shall govern ourselves or have guardians. Cass went for 54.40, is now for the acquisition of Mexican territory, free trade, the independent treasury, and hates the British; and therefore must be worthy of democratic suffrage.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 107

Gerrit Smith to the voters of the Counties of Oswego and Madison, New York, November 5, 1852

To the voters of the Counties of Oswego and Madison.—You nominated me for a seat in Congress, notwithstanding I besought you not to do so. In vain was my resistance to your persevering and unrelenting purpose.

I had reached old age. I had never held office. Nothing was more foreign to my expectations, and nothing was more foreign to my wishes, than the holding of office. My multiplied and extensive affairs gave me full employment. My habits, all formed in private life, all shrank from public life. My plans of usefulness and happiness could be carried out only in the seclusion in which my years had been spent.

My nomination, as I supposed it would, has resulted in my election, — and that too, by a very large majority. And now, I wish that I could resign the office which your partiality has accorded to me. But I must not — I cannot. To resign it would be a most ungrateful and offensive requital of the rare generosity, which broke through your strong attachments of party, and bestowed your votes on one the peculiarities of whose political creed leave him without a party. Very rare, indeed, is the generosity, which was not to be repelled by a political creed, among the peculiarities of which are:

1. That it acknowledges no law and knows no law for slavery; that not only is slavery not in the federal constitution, but that, by no possibility could it be brought either into the federal or into a State constitution.

2. That the right to the soil is as natural, absolute and equal as the right to the light and air.

3. That political rights are not conventional but natural, — inhering in all persons, the black as well as the white, the female as well as the male.

4. That the doctrine of free trade is the necessary outgrowth of the doctrine of the human brotherhood; and that to impose restrictions on commerce is to build up unnatural and sinful barriers across that brotherhood.

5. That national wars are as brutal, barbarous and unnecessary as are the violence and bloodshed to which misguided and frenzied individuals are prompted; and that our country should, by her own Heaven-trusting and beautiful example, hasten the day when the nations of the earth “shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”

6. That the province of government is but to protect — to protect persons and property; and that the building of railroads and canals and the care of schools and churches fall entirely outside of its limits, and exclusively within the range of “the voluntary principle.” Narrow however as are those limits, every duty within them is to be promptly, faithfully, fully performed: — as well, for instance, the duty on the part of the federal government to put an end to the dram-shop manufacture of paupers and madmen in the city of Washington, as the duty on the part of the State government to put an end to it in the State.

7. That as far as practicable, every officer, from the highest to the lowest, including especially the President and Postmaster, should be elected directly by the people.

I need not extend any further the enumerations of the features of my peculiar political creed; and I need not enlarge upon the reason which I gave why I must not and cannot resign the office which you have conferred upon me. I will only add that I accept it; that my whole heart is moved to gratitude by your bestowment of it; and that, God helping me, I will so discharge its duties as neither to dishonor myself nor you.

Gerrit Smith.

Peterboro, November 5, 1852.

SOURCES: Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 215-6

Governor Salmon P. Chase to Hon. Timothy R. Stanley,* McArthur, Ohio, October 25, 1859

Columbus, Oct 25, [1859.]

My Dear Sir: We were delighted to hear of your election to the Senate, and I was particularly gratified by your letter confirming the good news, and assuring me or your personal good will. Believe me that I value the esteem of such men as yourself far more highly than any office; and only regret, when I compare my knowledge of myself with that esteem, that I cannot feel it is better deserved.

Surely there should be no disagreement between Republicans as to the Tariff. Whatever may be any man's theoretical views of Free Trade, we are all agreed that there is no prospect of the adoption of the policy of unrestricted commercial intercourse by civilized nations during the lifetime of any of us; and no one, I believe, professes the adoption of that policy by the United States without concurrence of other nations. Certainly I do not. I am a practical man, and wish to take practical views of this Tariff question as every other, avoiding ultraism in every direction. I know that we have always had a Tariff. I know that we have never had a horizontal Tariff, unless the Compromise Act of 1833 may be called such. I know that for a long time to come, and perhaps as long as our Union shall endure, we shall have a Tariff. Now, these things being so, I am clearly of opinion that Tariff laws, like all other laws, should be so framed as to do as much good and as little harm as possible; and I am, therefore, in favor of such discriminations as will best secure and promote the interests of labor — of our own labor — and the general wellbeing of our own people. No man, in my judgment, deserves the name of an American Statesman who would not so shape American Legislation and Administration as to protect American Industry and guard impartially all American Rights and Interests.

P. S. This letter is not for publication, for I am not ambitious of the reputation of a letter-writer. But it contains nothing which I do not say to everybody who talks to me about the subject to which it relates.

_______________

* From letter-book 7, p. 55-6

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 281-2

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: February 24, 1863

Gen. Longstreet is now in command of Gen. Smith's late department, besides his own corps. Richmond is safe.

Our papers contain a most astonishing speech purporting to have been delivered by Mr. Conway, in the United States Congress. Mr. C. is from Kansas, that hot-bed of Abolitionism. He is an avowed Abolitionist; and yet he advocates an immediate suspension of hostilities, or at least that the Federal armies and fleets be ordered to act on the defensive; that the independence of the Confederate States be recognized, upon the basis of a similar tariff; free-trade between the North and South; free navigation of the Mississippi, and co-operation in the maintenance of the Monroe doctrine. I like the indications apparent in this speech. Let us have a suspension of hostilities, and then we can have leisure to think of the rest. No doubt the peace party is growing rapidly in the United States; and it may be possible that the Republicans mean to beat the Democrats in the race, by going beyond them on the Southern question. The Democrats are for peace and Union; the Republicans may resolve to advocate not only peace, but secession.

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 1, p. 263-4

Israel Washburn Jr. to James S. Pike, June 24, 1850

Washington, June 24, 1850.

Dear Pike: I could not obtain for you any good account of the reciprocity treaty in its details, and therefore sent you nothing in reference to it.

I see that the Maine Hunkers have nominated Albion K. Parris for Governor. They passed no resolutions in the convention approving Nebraska or the Administration. This shows the feeling of Maine upon the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

Suppose you inquire in the Tribune, ’an you've a mind to, whether Governor Parris is for or against the repeal, for or against acquiescence, and whether, when in Washington, a few weeks ago, he spoke of the measure approvingly, and took credit to himself for discouraging a meeting of the citizens of Portland to protest against it.

Don't you think that the North ought to acquiesce in the Mississippi Compromise repeal? Why should she keep up a perpetual row on this slave question? Why should not Northern Whigs go for acquiescence, a free-trade tariff, and Millard Fillmore?

The address lately issued troubles our weak-backs greatly. They don't like to stand it, and don't dare disavow it. The address came not a moment too soon. Some of our Whigs were hoping to be allowed to slide quietly and silently into acquiescence. Let them wriggle.

In haste, yours ever truly,

I. Washburn, Jr.

J. S. Pike, Esq.

SOURCE: James Shepherd Pike, First Blows of the Civil War: The Ten Years of Preliminary Conflict in the United States from 1850 to 1860, p. 85

Gerrit Smith to the Voters of the Counties of Oswego and Madison, New York, November 5, 1852

To the Voters of the Counties of Oswego and Madison:

YoU nominated me for a seat in Congress, notwithstanding I besought you not to do so. In vain was my resistance to your persevering and unrelenting purpose.

I had reached old age. I had never held office. Nothing was more foreign to my expectations, and nothing was more foreign to my wishes, than the holding of office. My multiplied and extensive affairs gave me full employment. My habits, all formed in private life, all shrank from public life. My plans of usefulness and happiness could be carried out only in the seclusion, in which my years had been spent.

My nomination, as I supposed it would, has resulted in my election — and, that too, by a very large majority. And, now, I wish, that I could resign the office, which your partiality has accorded to me. But, I must not — I cannot. To resign it would be a most ungrateful and offensive requital of the rare generosity, which broke through your strong attachments to party, and bestowed your votes on one, the peculiarities of whose political creed leave him without a party. Very rare, indeed, is the generosity, which was not to be repelled by a political creed, among the peculiarities of which are:

1st. That it acknowledges no law, and knows no law, for slavery:—that, not only, is slavery not in the Federal Constitution, but that, by no possibility, could it be brought either into the Federal, or into a State, Constitution.

2d. That the right to the soil is as natural, absolute, and equal, as the right to the light and the air.

3d. That political rights are not conventional, but natural — inhering in all persons, the black as well as the white, the female as well as the male.

4th. That the doctrine of Free Trade is the necessary outgrowth of the doctrine of the human brotherhood: and that to impose restrictions on commerce is to build up unnatural and sinful barriers across that brotherhood.

5th. That national wars are as brutal, barbarous, and unnecessary, as are the violence and bloodshed, to which misguided and frenzied individuals are prompted: and that our country should, by her own Heaven-trusting and beautiful example, hasten the day, when the nations of the earth “shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”

6th. That the province of Government is but to protect — to protect persons and property; and that the building of railroads and canals and the care of schools and churches fall entirely outside of its limits, and exclusively within the range of “the voluntary principle.” Narrow, however, as are these limits, every duty within them is to be promptly, faithfully, fully performed: — as well, for instance, the duty on the part of the Federal Government to put an end to the dramshop manufacture of paupers and madmen in the City of Washington, as the duty on the part of the State Government to put an end to it in the State.

7th. That, as far as practicable, every officer, from the highest to the lowest, including especially the President and Postmaster, should be elected directly by the people.

I need not extend any further the enumeration of the features of my peculiar political creed: — and I need not enlarge upon the reason, which I gave, why I must not, and can not, resign the office, which you have conferred upon me. I will only add, that I accept it; that my whole heart is moved to gratitude by your bestowment of it; and that, God helping me, I will so discharge its duties, as neither to dishonor myself, nor' you.

GERRIT SMITH.

PETERBORO, November 5th, 1852.

SOURCE: Gerrit Smith, Speeches of Gerrit Smith in Congress, p. 9-11

William Cullen Bryant to Abraham Lincoln, January 22, 1861

New York January 22, 1861.

My dear Sir.

At the risk of being deemed somewhat troublesome, yet with the greatest respect and deference, I take the liberty of addressing you once more on the subject of your cabinet appointments.

I believe you do not differ with me in regard to the importance of giving Mr. Chase a place in the Cabinet, as one whose wisdom, rigid integrity and force of character would make him a most safe counsellor and efficient coadjutor of the Chief Magistrate, not to speak of the need of his presence as a counter poise to another member, who, to commanding talents, joins a flexible and in[d]ulgent temper, and unsafe associations. The appointment of Mr. Chase would give a feeling of security and confidence to the public mind which the rascalities of Mr. Buchanan's cabinet have made exceedingly sensitive and jealous, and would, it seems to me, settle the point in advance that the new administration will be both honored and beloved. For some time to come the federal government must depend largely upon its credit for its resources, and how potent is the effect of placing an honest and economical man at the head of the Treasury Department, is shown by an example now before our eyes. General Dix, with all his mistakes, is a man of unquestioned integrity, and his appointment as Secretary of the Treasury has already greatly raised the credit of the government brought so low by the misconduct of Cobb.

Now, according to what I learn from Mr. Opdyke, who has just returned from Ohio, it is nearly certain that Mr. Chase would not take a place in the Cabinet, unless it were offered him early. He is not inclined to do it at all, preferring a seat in the Senate, but this preference he would forego; yet there are, I am told, some personal reasons, as well as others connected with the choice of his successor in the Senate, that will, if the offer be delayed, induce him to remain where he is. I am not a judge of the force of these reasons; it is enough that they exist.

The only motive for delay is the hope of pacifying Mr. Cameron and his friends. It is thought here, by some who know him to be very tenacious of his purposes, that there is no probablility of doing this effectually, whether the offer to Mr. Chase be postponed or not. If, however, it be possible to satisfy him, it is to be considered, whether it will not be as easily done after Mr. Chase shall have been fixed upon as now, and whether the hope of obtaining better terms may not lead Mr Cameron to affect to spurn any reconciliation, as long as the appointment which he expected is kept open. One thing, however, is perfectly clear, that by failing to secure the services of Mr. Chase in the Treasury Department, both the country and the Republican party will lose infinitely more than the incoming administration can possibly suffer from the enmity of Mr. Cameron and his adherents.

I leave this subject here, that I may say a single word on another. From Mr Opdyke, I learn, that in a letter written to you some weeks since, on the subject of “protection,” I did not make myself fully understood. It seemed to me that I had clearly expressed my meaning when I said, that those who thought with me were “willing that this should be an open question.” I wished merely to express a hope that the administration would not throw its entire influence on the side of protection. The Republican party not being agreed among themselves on this point, the cabinet policy as it seemed to me, should be so moderated, not to disaffect the friends of free trade.

I am, dear Sir,

truly yours

W. C. Bryant.

Hon. A. Lincoln.

_______________

[An earlier draft of this letter can be found in Parke Godwin’s, A Biography of William Cullen Bryant, Volume 1, p. 150-2 included below:]

New York, January 21, 1861: At some risk of being deemed troublesome, yet with the greatest respect and deference, I take the liberty of addressing you once more on the subject of the Cabinet appointments. I believe you do not differ with me in regard to the importance of giving Mr. Chase a place in the Cabinet, as one whose wisdom, rigid integrity, and force of character would make him a most safe counsellor and efficient co-operator, not to speak of the need of his presence there as a counterpoise to the one who joins to commanding talents a flexible and indulgent temper of mind and unsafe associations.

The appointment of Mr. Chase would give a feeling of security and confidence to the public mind which the rascalities of Mr. Buchanan's Cabinet have made exceedingly sensitive and jealous, and would, it seems to me, settle the point in advance that the new administration will be both honored and beloved. The Government will be compelled, for the next four years, to depend somewhat for resources upon its credit, and how important it is to have an honest and economical man at the head of the Treasury Department is shown by an example now before our eyes. The appointment of General Dix as Secretary of the Treasury, who, with all his mistakes, is a man of incorruptible honesty, had already greatly raised the credit of the Government, brought so low by the misconduct of Cobb.

Setting out with this position, I proceed to remark that, from what I learn through Mr. Opdyke, who has just seen Mr. Chase, it is not certain that Mr. Chase would take a place in the Cabinet unless it were offered to him early. He is not inclined to do it at all, preferring a seat in the Senate; and there are, I am told, some personal reasons, and others, connected with the choice of his successor in the Senate, that will, if the offer were delayed, induce him to remain where he is. I am not a judge of the force of these reasons, but am only certain that they exist. The only occasion for delaying is the hope of satisfying Mr. Cameron and his friends. It is thought by some who know him to be very tenacious of his purposes, that there is no probability of doing this effectually, whether the appointment of Mr. Chase be delayed or not. If, however, it be possible to satisfy him, it is to be considered whether it will not be as easy to do it after the offer be made to Mr. Chase as now, and whether the hope of obtaining better terms for him will not induce Mr. Cameron to affect to spurn any reconciliation as long as the appointment which he expects is kept open. One thing, however, is perfectly clear — that, by losing the chance of securing the services of Mr. Chase in the Treasury department, both the country and the Republican party will lose infinitely more than the administration could possibly suffer from the enmity of Mr. Cameron and his adherents.

I leave this subject here, that I may say a single word upon another. I learn from Mr. Opdyke that, in a letter written to you some time since on the subject of “protection,” I did not make myself fully understood. I thought I had clearly expressed my meaning when I said that those who thought with me were “willing that this should be an open question.” I wished merely to express a hope that the administration would not throw its entire influence on the side of protection. The Republican party, not being agreed among themselves in regard to this matter, the [cabinet] policy, it seems to me, should be extremely moderate, and not calculated to disaffect either side.

SOURCES: Abraham Lincoln Papers in the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.; Parke Godwin, A Biography of William Cullen Bryant, Volume 1, p. 150-2