Charles Eliot Norton to George William Curtis, March 9, 1863

Shady Hill, 9 March, 1863.

. . . The Democrats seem to me to have come to a consciousness of their danger. They are now setting themselves right and securing power in the future. If we can fairly kill slavery during the next two years, make it really and truly powerless as a political institution, then I have no objection to the Democrats coming back to their old and familiar places of power. The Republican party has not proved itself able in administration; it is better on the whole for the progress of the country and for the improvement of public opinion that the party founded on the essential principles of right and justice should be in the opposition. Moreover there are questions to be settled after the war is over which can be better settled by the unprincipled party in power, than by one bound by its timidities, and unaccustomed to impose restraints. We shall probably require some “conservatism” at the close of the war, and the Democratic party in power is likely to be conservative in some matters on which the Republicans would be weak and divided. I do not think that there is much chance of the formation of a real Union party. The Democrats will keep their organization, will exclude their too open peace members, and will reject all union with the honest men of our side. The odium of the war, of taxes, of disregard of personal liberty, of a violated constitution will be thrown on the Republicans, or the Unionists if that be their name, and the glory of securing victory and peace, and of reestablishing the Union, will be claimed by the Democrats. With which I shall not grumble. The Millennium is not at hand, but there is a good time coming, — and the country, with a thousand evils remaining, will be the better for the war, and Democrats like you and me may rejoice at the triumph of popular government and the essential soundness of the people.

Is this inveterate optimism? Are we at the beginning, on the contrary, of the epoch of the Lower Republic? . . .

SOURCE: Sara Norton and  M. A. DeWolfe Howe, Letters of Charles Eliot Norton, Volume 1, p. 261-3

Charles Eliot Norton to George William Curtis, February 26, 1863

Shady Hill, 26 February, 1863.

. . . It was pleasant to hear from you of your visit to Philadelphia, and to hear from John,¹ on the same day, his glowing account of it. What a loyal place Philadelphia has become! We should be as loyal here if we had a few more out-and-out secessionists. Our Union Club — we have dropped the offensive word “League” — promises well: two hundred members already, and Mr. Everett and his followers pledged to principles which suit you and me. We are proposing to take the Abbott Lawrence house on Park Street, and to be strong by position as well as by numbers. But nothing will do for the country, — neither Clubs nor pamphlets nor lectures, nor Conscription Bills (three cheers for the despotism necessary to secure freedom), nor Banking Bills, nor Tom Thumb, nor Institutes, — nothing will do us much good but victories. If we take Charleston and Vicksburg we conquer and trample out the Copperheads, — but if not?

I confess to the most longing hope, the most anxious desire to know of our success. I try to be ready for news of failure, indeed I shall be ready for such news if it comes, and we must all only draw a few quick breaths and form a sterner resolve, and fight a harder fight.

Where is the best statement, in a clear and quiet way, of the political necessity of the preservation of the Union, its vital necessity to our national existence? Seward has done harm by keeping up the notion of the old Union, — but who has seen clearest the nature of the new Union for which we are fighting? . . .

_______________

¹ Their common friend, John W. Field of Philadelphia, with whom Norton had travelled in Sicily.

SOURCE: Sara Norton and  M. A. DeWolfe Howe, Letters of Charles Eliot Norton, Volume 1, p. 260-1

Colonel Charles Russell Lowell to Josephine Shaw, July 24, 1863

Centreville, July 24, 1863.

I must protest against your theory and Mr. Smalley's,¹ though I know the danger of opposing a newspaper: historically, I am sure it is not probable the war will end yet, by victories or otherwise; speculatively, I believe it is not desirable it should end yet; our opinions as to what the war was for are not distinct enough, our convictions of what it has done, are not settled enough — i. e. I do not see that we are ripe for peace, I do not read that nations are wont to ripen so quickly, — I do not feel in myself that either people is prepared to stop here and give up, — ergo, I look for a long war still. But I cannot assent to your Jewish doctrine that it is not desirable this chosen people should have peace yet, or victories yet, and therefore, it will not have them: that seems to me to be arrogating too much for ourselves. I agree with George² that when a nation, or a man, has to learn a thing, it is clutched by the throat and held down till it does learn it: but I object that not all nations, and not all men, do have to learn things. It is only the favoured nations and the favoured individuals that are selected for education, — most fall untaught. Why may not we? Why may not we fall by victory? May it not be the South that is being taught? May it not be some future nation, for whose profit our incapacity to learn is to be made conspicuous? No, I object entirely to your theory. Many nations fail, that one may become great; ours will fail, unless we gird up our loins and do honest and humble day's work, without trying to do the thing by the job or to get a great nation made by any patent process. It is not safe to say that we shall not have victories till we are ready for them; we shall have victories, and whether or no we are ready for them depends upon ourselves: if we are not ready, we shall fail, — voila tout. If you ask, What if we do fail? I have nothing to say; I'm an optimist (if the word can be used with that meaning) as well as yourself. I shouldn't cry over a nation or two, more or less, gone under. I find I haven't half stated my case, so if you answer, you must expect a great deal more cogent reply. Am I not an arrogant reasoner?

_______________

¹ George Washington Smalley, a graduate of Yale, and lawyer by profession, was the war-correspondent of the New York Tribune. He was for a time on General Fremont's Staff. He was correspondent for the same journal in the Austro-Prussian war, and then in London established the European edition of the Tribune. Still later, he was connected with the London Times.

² George William Curtis, good citizen, patriot, writer, and orator, had married Miss Shaw's older sister.

SOURCE: Edward Waldo Emerson, Life and Letters of Charles Russell Lowell, p. 280-1, 429-30

Charles Eliot Norton to George William Curtis, February 1, 1863

Shady Hill, 1 February, 1863.

Here is our prospectus. If at any time you want to secure a still wider circulation for any one of your articles than their appearance in "Harper" affords, please send me from one hundred to five hundred slips, which can be cheaply enough struck off if done before the form for the paper is broken up.

McClellan is still here, and has been causing people to break the Sabbath to-day. Agassiz is a devoted admirer of his, and said yesterday that “he was a great but not a towering man.” Dr. Holmes studying him physiologically talks of “broad base of brain,” “threshing floor of ideas,” no invention or original force of intellect, but compact, strong, executive nature, “with a neck such as not one man in ten thousand possesses,” “muscular as a prize-fighter,” etc., etc....

SOURCE: Sara Norton and  M. A. DeWolfe Howe, Letters of Charles Eliot Norton, Volume 1, p. 260

Charles Eliot Norton to George William Curtis, January 30, 1863

Shady Hill, 30 January, 1863.

One busy day has succeeded another since you were here till I am at last reduced to a condition in which I am fit for no work, and so set about writing a note and sending my love to you.

The Hero of one hundred ungained Victories, — the conqueror in his own bulletins, is at present in Boston, and but a few people remain calm. Some are excited with enthusiastic admiration of their own imagination of McClellan; some busy with wire-pulling; some active to prevent others, “without distinction” of party, gaining any advantage out of relations with the disgraced Captain and candidate for the next Presidency; and some very much disquieted by all this folly. So you see those who keep quiet and innocent minds are in a despicable minority. . . .

We are making arrangements here to secure the circulation of good telling articles from foreign and our own newspapers, to influence and direct public opinion. We propose to secure from one hundred thousand to five hundred thousand readers for two articles per week, and perhaps more. I shall be the “editor,” so to say, with John Forbes and Sam Ward¹ as advisers. Please bear this in mind and send to me, marked, articles which you think should be thus circulated. I shall have frequent occasion to borrow from “Harper,” — or rather from you in “Harper.” . . .

_______________

¹ Samuel [Gray] Ward, later an active correspondent of Norton's.

SOURCE: Sara Norton and  M. A. DeWolfe Howe, Letters of Charles Eliot Norton, Volume 1, p. 259-60

George William Curtis to Charles Eliot Norton, April 26, 1865

North Shore, April 26, 1865.

My Dear Charles, — Yours of the 24th reaches me this evening. I cannot at once decide upon the proposition which you make, — for I should wish to ask several questions.

I doubt if $50,000 is capital enough to start such a paper as you contemplate, and I am far from sure that it is really needed. It seems to me always best to use existing machinery if possible, and I fear that the influence which would control the new paper would constantly tend to make it outrun the popular sympathy upon whose support it must rely, so far as to defeat its purpose, by limiting its circulation to those who need no conversion. Do not the “Atlantic,” the “North American,” the “Evening Post,” and “Harper's Weekly” — to go no further — address the various parts of the audience that are counted upon for a new paper, and are there not great advantages in having the questions presented in these different forms? The change in public sentiment upon the true democratic idea is so wide and deep, that an organ for special reform in the matter does not seem to be required. It — the reform — has now become the actual point of the political movement of the country; and the same reasoning which justifies the abandonment of the abolition societies and organs pleads against your project.

If I lay more stress upon the special object of the paper than its projectors intend, then it becomes merely a liberal Weekly of the most advanced kind, and I can see no particular reason for its success.

As for myself, I am perfectly free to say what I think upon all public questions in “Harper's Weekly” without the least trouble or responsibility for the details of the paper, and with no necessity of even being at the office. The audience is immense. The regular circulation is about one hundred thousand, and on remarkable occasions, as now, more than two hundred thousand. This circulation is among that class which needs exactly the enlightenment you propose, and access is secured to it by the character of the paper as an illustrated sheet. I should want some very persuasive inducement to relinquish the hold I already have upon this audience, for I could not hope to regain it in a paper of a different kind. Of course, “Harper's Weekly” is not altogether such a paper as I should prefer for my own taste; but it does seem to me as if I could do with it the very work you propose, and upon a much greater scale than in the form you suggest; nor is the pecuniary advantage of your offer such as to shake this conviction.

Now from what I say you will see how I feel. The offer you make is so handsome and honorable that I do not decline it, unless you must have an immediate answer. If the affair can still remain open, will you tell me if the capital is secured — if the paper is to be started anyhow, — if there is any person selected for the business editor — whether it is to be a joint-stock association — and what the size, etc., of the paper is intended to be.

If you have the time to inform me upon these and such points, I will not delay long in giving you a final answer.

Always your affectionate,

G. W. Curtis.

SOURCE: Edward Cary, George William Curtis, p. 189-92

Charles Eliot Norton to George William Curtis, November 12, 1862

Shady Hill, 12 November, 1862.

. . . Were it not for one or two ifs, I should feel much better about the state of affairs than I have for some time. The worst of the ifs is the one concerning Lincoln. I am very much afraid that a domestic cat will not answer when one wants a Bengal tiger. It is encouraging that Congress meets so soon again; the President will be helped by it.

Another if must go before Burnside's name. He may be able to command one hundred thousand men in the field, but is he? He, like our other generals, is on trial. How we shall rejoice if he succeeds.

You are certainly right in your view of the elections. The Administration will not be hurt by the reaction if the war goes on prosperously. If we have a vigorous, brilliant and really successful winter campaign there will be not much opposition left next spring; but if otherwise — if we have successes that lead to nothing, and victories that are next door to defeats, if the influence of Washington air follows and paralyzes our armies, then I think it will be hard times for us and all honest republicans, who hope for the country and believe in its institutions and its people. . . .

SOURCE: Sara Norton and  M. A. DeWolfe Howe, Letters of Charles Eliot Norton, Volume 1, p. 258-9

George William Curtis to Charles Eliot Norton, April 4, 1865

Home, 4th April, 1865.

My Dear Charles, — I thought of you all the day yesterday as the news of the crowning mercy came rolling in. The merchants and brokers in Wall Street came out of their dens and sang Old Hundred and John Brown. From the high windows at the Harpers' where I sat the sky was brilliant and festal with innumerable flags. Fletcher Harper came to me, and said, “How glad I am we did not beat at Bull Run, for then Slavery would not have been abolished, and we should have been worse off than before.” My dear boy, who is equal to these things? We hear that the Major Mills who has fallen is your young cousin. Ah me! what heart-breaks salute our triumphs. You will be very sober in your joy.

SOURCE: Edward Cary, George William Curtis, p. 187-8

Charles Eliot Norton to George William Curtis, September 30, 1862

Shady Hill, 30 September, 1862.

Your note was most welcome. It was delightful to exchange congratulations on the Declaration, not of Independence, but of Liberty. The 22d September will be one of our memorable days forever. As you say nothing could be better than the answer made by the New York Convention to the Proclamation. Wadsworth's speech was excellent; it had the true tone, and was not only earnest but effective. The field is well laid out, — and there can be no doubt as to who will win.

Now when does your Congressional Nominating Convention meet? And what are your prospects? I will "stump" for you, or write for you, or do anything to promote your success which you want done. It will be service for the nation, not for you.¹

I did not thank you in my last note for the delightful notice of Clough and his poems in the last Harper. It said everything I could have wished, and will give real pleasure, I am sure, to Mrs. Clough, to whom I have sent it. There has been no notice so appreciative, so tender or so just. . . .

_______________

¹ Curtis did not receive the nomination.

SOURCE: Sara Norton and  M. A. DeWolfe Howe, Letters of Charles Eliot Norton, Volume 1, p. 257-8

George William Curtis to Charles Eliot Norton, November 9, 1864

Harper's Weekly, New York, 9th November, 1864.

My Dear Charles, — Let us thank God and the people for this crowning mercy. I did not know how my mind and heart were strained until I felt myself sinking in the great waters of this triumph. We knew it ought to be; we knew that, bad as we have been, we did not deserve to be put out like a mean candle in its own refuse; but it is never day until the dawn. I do not yet know whether Seymour is elected. I hope not, for while he is in power this grand State is a base for rebel operations; and he is put in power, if at all, by those who would make any honorable government impossible. My heart sank as I stood among drunkards and the worst men, yesterday morning, to vote; but it sank deeper when I saw Aaron L., and others like him, voting to give those drunkards the power of the government. I have prepared a very small sermon upon Political Infidelity, for what infidels such men are to themselves and to mankind!

I am defeated, of course, and by a very heavy majority. In my own county my vote would have been largest of all the Union candidates if my name could have been sent to the soldiers, as the governor's was. As it is, he is some twenty before me. But Fernando Wood and James Brooks are defeated — God be praised! I have never been deceived about myself, but I am forever glad that my name was associated with this most memorable day.

Yours most affectionately,

G. W. C.

SOURCE: Edward Cary, George William Curtis, p. 184-5

Charles Eliot Norton to George William Curtis, September 23, 1862

Shady Hill, 23 September, 1862.^l

My Dearest George: — God be praised! I can hardly see to write, — for when I think of this great act of Freedom, and all it implies, my heart and my eyes overflow with the deepest, most serious gladness.

I rejoice with you. Let us rejoice together, and with all the lovers of liberty, and with all the enslaved and oppressed everywhere.

I think to-day that this world is glorified by the spirit of Christ. How beautiful it is to be able to read the sacred words under this new bight.

“He hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.”

The war is paid for.

Dearest George, I was very glad to see that your brother was safe, and to hear of his gallantry in the late actions.²

Love and congratulations from us all to all of you.

Ever yours

C. E. N.

¹ The day after Lincoln read the Emancipation Proclamation to his Cabinet.

² At Antietam, where Lieutenant J. B. Curtis's regiment was cut to pieces and driven back, he seized the colours, and shouted, “I go back no further! What is left of the Fourth Rhode Island, form here!” For the rest of the day he fought as a private in an adjoining command. See Cary's Curtis. p. 161 n.

SOURCE: Sara Norton and  M. A. DeWolfe Howe, Letters of Charles Eliot Norton, Volume 1, p. 256-7

George William Curtis to Charles Eliot Norton, Monday, September 5, 1864

East Greenwich, Monday, 5th September, 1864.

My Dear Charles, — Burnside is staying with me here at the house of my cousin, Mr. Goddard. Yesterday we sat upon the rocks, and he told me the whole story of the mine and of the Army of the Potomac. It is intensely interesting and perfectly clear. He is the noblest, most magnanimous man I ever saw, and I shall tell you the tale with immense satisfaction some day. On Saturday morning, when the news of Sherman's success came, he was the most unaffectedly delighted man I ever saw. His exultation wound up by his seizing his wife and kissing her.

SOURCE: Edward Cary, George William Curtis, p. 182

George William Curtis to Charles Eliot Norton, August 28, 1864

North Shore, 28th August, '64.

Frank wrote me, or printed rather, in large and remarkable capitals, a letter the other day. I enlivened the tranquil circle here by calling it a Capital letter, — a little work of mine which I dedicate to Jane. Probably you are not aware that I am myself the latest little work of Madison University. Blushes forbid me to write that that discriminating institution has done for the least of your friends what Harvard did for that other celebrated scholar, Andrew Jackson. Yesterday I received a letter with a very large green seal, addressed “G. W. C, LL. D.!” Oh my prophetic soul! I have long called Frank and Zib Doctor.

I say not a word about the war, but did people ever deserve success at the polls less than the Union party? Two years ago I was the only Lincoln man I knew hereabouts, and I have come round to the same position. Yet he will be elected, or we are dreary humbugs.

Good-by, dear boy. I am more cheerful than ever, for within two months we shall see the whole force of treason North and South, and if we sink 't is to see what we shall see! I shall not be able to write on Peace — luckily for you. It will be a good text for J. R. L. Give him my love, if he is with you, and to all the dear ones.

Your friend the doctor sends his benediction.

SOURCE: Edward Cary, George William Curtis, p. 181-2

Charles Eliot Norton to George William Curtis, Thursday Evening, July 31, 1862

Shady Hill

Thursday evening, 31 July, 1862.

. . . The weather is very beautiful; — such a sunshiny, showery, green, shady, summer as it is! But we have no days finer than the 17th. That was fine every way. Your Oration¹ lasts in the minds of men. Its praises come to me from all sides. Last Saturday at the Club there was a general expression of hearty admiration of it which would have pleased you to hear. Every one who had heard it said it was one of the most effective pieces of oratory that had been heard here by this generation, and that its sentiment and doctrine were as noble as your eloquence. Even the “conservatives” give in to its power. “Detestable opinions, Sir, but overwhelming eloquence.”

Here we have given up McClellan as a general, and have renewed our original faith in Stanton. It seems to me certain that the President and the Secretary of War have not interfered with McClellan's plans, but have done everything to forward them. I fear the President is not yet quite conscious of the spirit of the people, and aware of the needs of the time. I have no doubt of his good intention, but I doubt if his soul is open to the heats of enthusiasm for a great principle, or his will quick and resolute enough for a great emergency. I do not believe in any palliations at present. Will Lincoln be master of the opportunities, or will they escape him? Is he great enough for the time?

Do you think the army² on the James River is safe? If it is forced to surrender, I think the people generally would be excited to make the cause good rather than depressed by the calamity. It looks to me as if Emancipation might come very soon in Kentucky. But what a pity that the President should not have issued a more distinct and telling Proclamation! I think this a great misfortune. However, it is not a mere piece of commonplace faith that everything is best, when I say I believe that the issue of the war will be as we desire. What a lot of capital I’s I have put into this note! . . .

_______________

¹ The Phi Beta Kappa Oration at Harvard.

² The Army of the Potomac, under McClellan, after the disastrous Seven Days' Battles.

SOURCE: Sara Norton and  M. A. DeWolfe Howe, Letters of Charles Eliot Norton, Volume 1, p. 254-5

George William Curtis to Charles Eliot Norton, July 12, 1864

And how is Ashfield? I should have written you there before if I had supposed there was a post-office at such a height. Do you have to eat oil more than three times a day to keep warm in this weather? We don't. But then we live upon an island in the temperate zone. Or are you warmed by the news of the isolation of Washington? There is something comical about it which I cannot escape, with all the annoyance. The great Dutch Pennsylvania annually sprawling on its back, and bellowing to mankind to come and help it out of the scrape, is perfectly ludicrous. I hope that this year all the States will learn that, while they have no efficient and organized militia, they will be constantly harassed by raids to the end of the war. We have all kinds of rumors here at every moment, from which you are free. But the sense of absurdity and humiliation is very universal. These things weaken the hold of the administration upon the people; and the only serious peril that I foresee is the setting in of a reaction which may culminate in November and defeat Lincoln, as it did Wadsworth in this State. I wish we had a loyal governor, and that New York city was virtuous.

Have you thought what a vindication this war is of Alexander Hamilton? I wish somebody would write his life as it ought to be written, for surely he was one of the greatest of our great men, as Jefferson was the least of the truly great; or am I wrong? Hamilton was generous and sincere. Was Jefferson either? In Franklin's life how the value of temperament shows itself! It was as fortunate for him and for us as his genius.

SOURCE: Edward Cary, George William Curtis, p. 180-1

Charles Eliot Norton to George William Curtis, March 19, 1862

Shady Hill, 19 March, 1862.

. . . I am not as critical as Iago, but I do not like McClellan's address to his troops. It is too French in style and idiom. He “loves his men like a father”? “A magnificent army”? “God smiles upon us.” How does he know? And “victory attends us”? This last phrase is plainly a mistranslation from the French “La Victoire nous attend,” — which means, what our General ought to have said, Victory awaits us.

But I am more than content with our progress. Wendell Phillips in Washington! The new article of War! The slaves running away in Virginia! Fremont re-instated in command! Freedom cannot take any backward steps — and it looks as if she would soon begin to move forward with faster and more confident steps than heretofore.

What a fine fight that was in Hampton Roads! Honour to the men of the Cumberland. I heard a most interesting and deeply moving account of the incidents of the fight and the sinking from Dr. Martin, the surgeon of the ship.

And how splendidly the Monitor was managed! . . .

SOURCE: Sara Norton and  M. A. DeWolfe Howe, Letters of Charles Eliot Norton, Volume 1, p. 253-4

John Hay to George William Curtis, June 20, 1864

Executive Mansion,

Washington, June 20, 1864

George William Curtis Esq.

New York, N. Y.

Your letter to the President is not yet received.  Please cause a copy to be made.

John Hay

Major & A. A. G.

No. 1, N.Y

16 Chg Exmans,

Recd. 9.45 am

Sent 11 25 AM

By 3

SOURCE: The Papers of Abraham Lincoln, accessed February 16, 2015.

Governor William Dennison to Abraham Lincoln, June 9, 1864

Mr. President: — The National Union Convention, which closed its sittings at Baltimore yesterday, appointed a committee, consisting of one from each State, with myself as chairman, to inform you of your unanimous nomination by that convention for election to the office of President of the United States. That committee, I have the honor of now informing you, is present. On its behalf I have also the honor of presenting you with a copy of the resolutions or platform adopted by that convention, as expressive of its sense and of the sense of the loyal people of the country which it represents, of the principles and policy that should characterize the administration of the Government in the present condition of the country. I need not say to you, sir, that the convention, in thus unanimously nominating you fur re-election, but gave utterance to the almost universal voice of the loyal people of the country. To doubt of your triumphant election would be little short of abandoning the hope of a final suppression of the rebellion and the restoration of the government over the insurgent States. Neither the convention nor those represented by that body entertained any doubt as to the final result, under your administration, sustained by the loyal people, and by our noble army and gallant navy. Neither did the convention, nor do this committee, doubt the speedy suppression of this most wicked and unprovoked rebellion.

[A copy of the resolutions, which had been adopted, was here handed to the President.]

I would add, Mr. President, that it would be the pleasure of the committee to communicate to you within a few days, through one of its most accomplished members, Mr. Curtis, of New York, by letter, more at length the circumstances under which you have been placed in nomination for the Presidency.

SOURCE: Henry J. Raymond, Lincoln, His Life and Times, Vol. 2, p. 559

George William Curtis to Charles Eliot Norton, June 16, 1864

My Dear Charles, — I hope you like our Baltimore work. The unanimity and enthusiasm were most imposing. I voted against the admission of Tennessee, because I did not want the convention to meddle with the question; and, since she only wanted to come in to help do what we were sure to do without her, I thought that, as the cause was exactly the same for both of us, she should give us forbearance while we gave her sympathy. But it was impossible to resist the torrent, and they all came in. There is no harm done. I cannot but think Sumner wrong. If all New York rebels, I am still a citizen of the United States. That is the simple, obvious, necessary ground.

The committee of one from each State appointed me to write the official letter to the President, and refused to instruct me. I sent it yesterday, having read it to Mr. Bryant and to Raymond. They were both entirely pleased with everything in it.

SOURCE: Edward Cary, George William Curtis, p. 178-9

Charles Eliot Norton to George William Curtis, March 8, 1862

Shady Hill, 8 March, I862.

As I sit down to thank you for the note that came to me this morning, Jane is reading it aloud to Longfellow, and interrupts me to ask explanations. All you say is very interesting. But can I quite agree with you in confidence in Mr. Lincoln's instincts? His message on Emancipation¹ is a most important step; but could anything be more feebly put, or more inefficiently written? His style is worse than ever; and though a bad style is not always a mark of bad thought, — it is at least a proof that thought is not as clear as it ought to be.

How time brings about its revenges! I think the most striking incident of the war is the march of our men into Charlestown singing the John Brown psalm, "His soul is marching on."

As for Lincoln's suggestions, I am sure that good will come of them. They will at least serve to divide opinion in the Border States. But I see many practical objections to his plan; and I doubt if any State meets his propositions with corresponding action.

The “Tribune” is politic in its burst of ardour. Let us make out the message to be more than it is, — and bring the President up to our view of it. . . .

_______________

¹ The special message urging "gradual abolishment of slavery" was sent to Congress March 6.

SOURCE: Sara Norton and  M. A. DeWolfe Howe, Letters of Charles Eliot Norton, Volume 1, p. 252-3