Speech Of Congressman Albert G. Brown in the Unites States House of Representatives on the Southern Movement and Mississippi Politics, March 14, 1852

It is not my purpose, Mr. Chairman, to address the House at all in reference to the bill now before it. I propose, in the opening of my remarks, to take a brief retrospect of the rise, progress, and fall, of the southern movement. It is very well known, sir, not only to the members of Congress, but to the whole country, that the continued action of the northern people, and of the Northern States, upon the subject of the domestic relations existing in the South, between the master and the slave, had at one time wrought up the southern mind to a very high degree of exasperation. Apprehensions were freely expressed, and doubtless generally entertained, that some great disaster was likely to befall the country, growing out of this excitement. In this state of public feeling, during the Thirtieth Congress, a gentleman, then a representative from one of the districts in the state of New York [Mr. Gott], introduced a resolution, preceded by what the southern members believed to be a most insulting preamble. This preamble, insulting though it certainly was, did not propose any legislative action. The resolution directed a very simple, but a very important inquiry to be made. It directed the committee for the District of Columbia, to inquire into the expediency of abolishing the slave trade in this District. The passage of this resolution gave offence to the whole southern delegation, and they commenced, at once, manifesting their hostility to this movement in a manner not to be misunderstood.

A distinguished gentleman in the other branch of the legislature, from my own state, and now its governor, came, as the older members of Congress know very well, into this House and solicited members of Congress to sign their names to a call for a meeting of southern senators and representatives. In obedience to this call, a meeting assembled in the Senate Chamber, over which a venerable senator from the state of Kentucky [Governor Metcalfe] was called to preside. Here, sir, I date the rise of the southern movement. From this point it commenced its progress. But for this movement, I undertake to say, the southern Democracy was not responsible. That meeting was a joint assemblage of the southern Whigs and of the southern Democrats. There were Whigs who absented themselves; and there were Democrats who absented themselves; but the southern delegation in Congress generally, and without reference to party, was responsible for the meeting and for its proceedings. That meeting put forth an address to the southern people, written, as it is said, and I have no doubt correctly, by the late venerable and distinguished senator from South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun]. It was such a paper as was intended to produce, as it certainly did produce, a most profound sensation upon the southern mind. Upon my return to Mississippi, I found a very high degree of excitement an excitement not confined to the Democrats, but pervading all parties, Whigs as well as Democrats. A proposition had already been made, and was then being actively urged, for a convention of our state—a popular convention to take into consideration the relations then subsisting between the North and the South, growing out of the institution of domestic slavery. A number of gentlemen, of both political parties, published a call to the people, inviting them to assemble in convention. This call was the first advance step of the southern movement, and for it, both Whigs and Democrats in my state were alike responsible. In obedience to it, the people, without reference to party, assembled in primary meetings and appointed delegates to a state convention, and, in every instance, the delegates to that convention were appointed of equal numbers, Whigs and Democrats. The convention assembled in the month of October, 1849.

This, sir, was the second step in the progress of the southern movement. Up to this period neither party could claim the exclusive credit, and up to this time it was all credit—there was no debit. That convention put forth another address to the people of Mississippi, and from that address I propose just in this connection to read a very short extract. For this address, bear you in mind, both the Whig and the Democratic parties of Mississippi were responsible, so far as they could be made responsible by their delegates in convention. It bore the honored signatures of leading Democrats and leading Whigs. It was a document which bore the signature of a very distinguished member of the UNION party, now high in the confidence of the administration, and its representative as chief consul on the Island of Cuba—Judge Sharkey. After disclosing to the people what had been done and what was proposed for the future, Judge, now Consul, Sharkey and his associates said:—

“Besides and beyond a popular convention of the Southern States with the view and the hope of arresting the cause of aggression, and if not practicable, then to concentrate the South in will, understanding, and action, the convention of Mississippi suggested, as the possible ultimate resort, the call by the legislature of the assailed states, or still some more solemn conventions—such as should be regularly elected by the people of those states to deliberate, speak, and act with all the sovereign power of the people. Should, in the result, such conventions be called and meet, they may lead to a like regularly—constituted convention of all the assailed states, to provide in the last resort for their separate welfare by the formation of a compact and an union that will afford protection to their liberties and their rights.”

Now, that is the language for which I say all parties in Mississippi were responsible. It is the emanation of a convention composed equally of Whigs and of Democrats, or as they are now called of State-Rights men and Union men. The very head and front of the Union party in Mississippi, was the president of the convention, which put forth that address—the very head and front of the Union party in Mississippi attached his name to that sentiment and published it to the people of Mississippi—“to provide in the last resort for their separate welfare.” How could this be done else than by a separation from the Northern States? How could it could be done else than by secession or revolution—by breaking up the government? True, it was to be done in the last resort; and pray, have we ever spoken of secession except as the last resort—the final alternative? But now I find this language brought into the House of Representatives by my honorable colleague [Mr. Wilcox], and held up here with an attempt to hold the party to which I belong responsible for it. History, sir, must be known to him, at least the history of our own state, and if he has read that history, he knows that the Honorable William L. Sharkey, the appointee of Millard Fillmore as consul to the city of Havana, was among those who put forth this address—put his signature to this language, and endorsed it to the people of Mississippi. To this point the southern movement progressed. This Mississippi convention advised the convention of the Southern States. Virginia responded to that call, so did Georgia and Alabama, and Louisiana, and Arkansas, and Texas. Ay, even Tennessee came in, slowly and reluctantly, it is true, but still she comes

Mr. POLK. To save the republic.

Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir, Tennessee went into the Nashville Convention to save the republic, and so did Mississippi.

Mr. SCURRY. If the gentleman will permit me to interrupt him.

Mr. BROWN. Very briefly.

Mr. SCURRY. The gentleman who attended from Texas did so against the large majority of the district which he represented. A majority of that district voted directly and flatly against the convention.

Mr. BROWN. Well, I am not going to inquire how delegates came to be there. I speak of history as it is. Texas was represented in the convention, whether by her authority I do not know, and what is more, at this time I do not care. It is not material. The Nashville Convention, in obedience to this call, and in pursuance of these proceedings, assembled. This was another step in the progress of the southern movement. Up to this time, if there was any strenuous objection to it anywhere, I, at least, was not aware of it. Here and there an exception may have been found—here and there a newspaper editor might be found to oppose it; but the great mass of the southern politicians—as far as I could judge of the southern people—Whigs and Democrats were for it. They were for it without distinction as to party. The convention assembled. It elected Honorable William L. Sharkey, of my own state—the head and front of Mississippi UNIONISM—to preside over its deliberations. He did preside. That convention put forth an address to the people, followed by a series of resolutions, asserting certain propositions upon which the southern people ought to insist. Still, sir, there was no formidable objection either to the convention, or to what it said or did. The progress of the movement still seemed to be onward. Soon afterwards the compromise measures began to attract attention in the country and in Congress. A feeling of trepidation seemed to steal over senators and representatives. Here and there an old advocate of the Nashville Convention—one who had looked to it as the source from which a panacea was to come for all wounds and bruises and putrifying sores, gradually fell off. I might call names, if I did not wish to avoid involving myself in a discussion with too many gentlemen at the same time. With the falling off of these early and sturdy advocates, commenced the decline of the southern movement and with the passage of the compromise, I mark the first distinct evidence of its decay.

In November, 1850, after the compromise measures had passed, a Union convention, the first ever held to my knowledge in the United States—certainly the first ever held in my own state—was assembled at the city of Jackson, the seat of government of Mississippi. It was not a Southern-Rights convention; it was not a State-Rights convention; it was not a Whig convention; it was not a Democratic convention; it was a UNION convention, so it was called, and so it assembled. It was in advance of any other political organization in the state of Mississippi, or any other state, growing, so far as I know, out of the compromise. It rose as if from the ashes of the southern movement in Mississippi. It was made up of the consistent few who opposed, and of the greater number who seceded from the southern movement. With the assemblage of this convention in Mississippi, I date the downfall of the southern movement in that state; a fall which was rapidly succeeded by its downfall elsewhere. Virginia determined to acquiesce in the measures of the compromise; Georgia acquiesced; Alabama and the other states in the South followed suit, or were silent. To the Union convention of Mississippi belongs the credit, if credit it be, of striking the first fatal blow at the southern movement. From this moment it rapidly declined. The movement I regard as dead. It died at the hands of its early friends—its fathers. It is now very dead; and if I were called upon to write its epitaph, I would inscribe upon the stone that marked its burial place, Requiescat in pace. I will not make merry over the tomb of an old friend. I loved this movement. I believed it was, in its day, full of patriotism, full of devotion to the best interests of the country, and eminently calculated to preserve the Union, because it was eminently calculated to preserve the rights of the states within the Union. But it has passed away. A witty friend, in speaking of its buoyant rise, its rapid progress, and its early decay, described it as being like Billy Pringle's pig:

"When it lived, it lived in clover,

And when it died, it died all over."

[Laughter.]

When those who had been chiefly instrumental in getting up this movement abandoned it, could we be made longer responsible for it? They brought it into being, and by their hands it fell; and now they turn upon us, denounce it as a monster, and charge its sole paternity on us. We assume our due share of the responsibility, and they shall take theirs.

The Southern movement was, I repeat, the joint work of both parties acting together. This is history. If there was any rivalry, it was as to which party was entitled to the most credit. There was in this movement a fusion of parties. But upon all the old issues each party maintained its separate organization. And when the Southern movement was abandoned, each was free to resume its original position.

The Whigs did not return to their position. They halted by the wayside, and, by the aid of a few Democrats, formed the Union party. It was a party not demanded by the exigencies of the hour; but called into existence to subserve the views of particular men. This brings me to consider the present organization of parties in my state.

My colleague [Mr. Wilcox] the other day, in what I considered rather bad taste—although I certainly shall not undertake to lecture him upon matters of taste—spoke of a bare minority—of almost a majority of the people of our state, as attempting to SNEAK BACK into the Democratic ranks. That was the language employed. In speaking of the State-Rights men of 1832, after their separation from General Jackson, he said:

“They stood aloof from the party, in armed neutrality, in the only state where they had a majority; and in states where they were in the minority, generally acted with the Whig party in opposition to the Democrats. They did not, after their defeat, attempt to sneak back into the Democratic party under the style of old-line Democrats, as the secessionists of the present day are attempting to do.”

Now I shall undertake to demonstrate that the State-Rights party of Mississippi were never out of the ranks of the Democratic party, and that by no act of theirs have they ever put themselves beyond the pale of that party; and therefore there was no occasion for them to march back, even with banners flying, and much less for them to "sneak back," in the language of my colleague. Who were they that put themselves first out of the pale of the Democratic party? It was my colleague and his associates. In November, 1850, they assembled together in what they certainly did not call a Democratic convention. They assembled in a Union convention, and passed what they were pleased to term Union resolutions. They formed a Union organization, independent of the Democratic party, and equally independent of the Whig party. They did more than that. They chose, as the especial organ of that party—the particular mouth—piece of that political organization, the leading Whig organ at the seat of government. I ask if it is not so? It is true they took down the name of the paper. It was called the "Southron." That title no longer suited their purpose, and they called it the "Flag of the Union." But they left the old Whig editor to conduct it. True it is that they associated with him a so—called Union Democrat. And it is equally true that the old-line Whig and the newline Democrat yet conduct that journal. From this point, the unhappy controversy which has continued in Mississippi, took its progress. The Democratic party became divided. But there can be no difficulty in deciding who kept up the old organization. The newspaper press of the state gives always a pretty clear indication as to how parties stand. If there is one single, solitary Whig paper in the state of Mississippi that has not kept the Union flag flying at its masthead from the opening of the contest down to this hour, I ask my colleague to say which one it is. If there was a Democratic paper in the state of one year's standing that did not take the State-Rights side, with but a single exception, the Columbus Democrat, and keep it, I do not know where it is to be found. Who seems from these facts to have been getting out of the Democratic party—my colleague, who is sustained by the Whig press, or I, who have been and am yet sustained by the Democratic press?

More than this. The Union party called a convention in April, 1851. It was to be, by the terms of the call, a Union convention—mark you, it was not a Democratic convention, it was not a Whig convention, but it was a Union convention. What did it do? Did it nominate Democrats for office? It made four nominations, and two of them were Democrats by name, and two of them were open and avowed Whigs. It did not assemble as a Democratic convention. It did not sit as a Democratic convention. It did not make Democratic nominations. It nominated two Whigs and two Democrats, and my colleague voted the ticket thus nominated. Who was it, let me ask, that, following after strange gods, thus put himself outside the Democratic party; and who is he that, in coming back, will have occasion to sneak into the ranks?

The State-Rights party, or the Democratic State-Rights party, as it is termed in our state, assembled in convention in June. What did they do? They made their nominations, and they selected their nominees from the old-line Democracy. General John A. Quitman was made our standard-bearer. I was surprised the other day to hear my colleague going back to 1824 and 1828, to find the evidence of Quitman's want of fidelity to true Democratic principles. Something has been said about a statute of limitation. Whether the late distinguished nominee of the Democracy of Mississippi requires a statute of limitation, I certainly do not know. If he voted for John Quincy Adams in 1824 and 1828, and has since seen the error of his way, where is the Democrat who will not forgive him? Where is the Mississippi Democrat who has not forgiven him? But we have his own word for saying, that he did not vote for John Quincy Adams in 1824. He did not vote for him in 1828. He was always a State-Rights man of the strictest sect; and upon the issuing of General Jackson's proclamation against South Carolina, he, like hundreds and thousands of others who had been always faithful to the standard of the old hero, abandoned him; and they returned to him in their own good time. But if it be so grave an offence in the Democrats of Mississippi to have nominated a gentleman who voted (allowing the charge of my friend to be true) for John Quincy Adams in 1824, and again in 1828, what shall my friend say of Governor Foote? He claims to be a better Democrat than anybody else; and yet he held the only office that he ever did hold at the hands of the people in Mississippi, until he was elected governor, from the Whigs of the county of Hinds, and that so late as 1838-'9. Yes; my friend forgot that, in 1838, Governor Foote run as a Whig, was elected as a Whig, and served as a Whig in our legislature. So upon the score of consistency, I think, allowing my friend's statements to be true, we stand quite as well as he does. And I submit to my colleague whether it is not a little too late for him, or for his friend, the governor of the I was going to say Union party, but he is governor of the state by the constitution—to complain of Governor Quitman's want of Democracy. Did not both you and Governor Foote vote for Quitman for governor in 1849? Did not Governor Foote put forth, or aid in putting forth, a pamphlet, in this city, urging the claims of this same John A. Quitman for the Vice-Presidency? Yes, sir, so late as 1848 he recommended him as a man worthy of trust, to the whole Democracy of the Union. Yet my friend lays charges against his political orthodoxy, dated as far back as 1824 and 1828—twenty years beyond the time when he received the endorsement of Governor Foote and nearly one-third of the whole Democracy of the Union; twenty-one years beyond the time when he received the endorsement of Mississippi for governor, and my friend's vote for the same office. If the endorsement of the National Democracy in 1848—if the endorsement of the Mississippi Democracy in 1849—if the endorsement of Governor Foote, and of my colleague also, may be relied on, I think Quitman can pass muster. He is sound.

Our nominees were all Democrats. We run them as Democrats—as State-Rights Democrats—against the Union ticket, composed of two Whigs and two Democrats. We were beaten. And what has happened since the election? Who is it that has gone out of the Democratic party? The legislature assembled the new governor was inaugurated. What was almost his first act? It was to appoint an adjutant-general. It was an important appointment—the most important in his gift. Did he appoint a Union Democrat? No, not he. Did he appoint a Secession Democrat, as my friend calls them? No, not at all; but he appointed a Whig. That was his first important appointment as governor, and he dismissed a Democrat to make it. What did his "faithful Union legislature" do? It did not send him back to the Senate, that is clear. I will tell you what it did. There was an old and venerable Democrat superintending the penitentiary. It was a mere ministerial office, filled by a man who had confessedly discharged his duties with ability and integrity, and to the entire satisfaction of everybody. He was turned out by the Union legislature, and a Whig put in his place. A gentleman who had discharged for a series of years the duties of clerk of the same establishment, with fidelity, and to the entire satisfaction of every one, was also dismissed, and a Whig put in his place. A Whig sergeant-at-arms was elected. Places were given to other Whigs over the heads of Democrats. The patronage of the state, so far as the governor and legislature could control it, has been given to the Whigs; and so far as the executive advertising has been concerned, it has, with scarcely an exception, been given to the Whig press. I ask if this looks like Democracy? Two vacancies existed in the United States Senate. How were they filled? With Democrats, did you say—old, long-tried, and consistent Democrats? Were they sent here to represent the Union men of Mississippi? No, sir. One Democrat and one Whig were returned. If these things show that my colleague, and his associates in Mississippi, have been faithful to the Democratic party, why, then, I must confess I have grown strangely wild in my opinions of political fidelity. What think our friends from other states ? "Can things like these o'ercome them like a summer cloud, and not excite their wonder?" Is it consistent with Democratic usage to organize under the style of the Union party? Is it compatible with party fidelity to nominate and elect bitter enemies of the party? Is it a part of the tactics of the Democratic party to dismiss Democrats and put Whigs in their places? Ought the patronage of a Democratic government to be given exclusively to the Whig press? And, finally, ought a Democratic legislature to elect a Whig United States senator? These are questions raised by my friend, and his party. I ask the National Democracy to answer them.

My colleague calls us constantly through his speech, the secessionists and disunionists of Mississippi. This is a kind of political slang used in a party canvass with effect, but it is entirely out of place here. A member of Congress ought to use terms that apply to a given state of facts—that have some relation to justice. My friend says what he, perhaps, said so often in the heat of the canvass, that he almost got to think it was true that we went into the contest with secession and disunion inscribed upon our banners. Why, no such thing is true. My friend must have seen that inscription through a distempered imagination—through some extraordinary perversion of his mental vision. There was no such inscription on our banner. The Democratic party of Mississippi asserted the abstract right of a state to secede from this Union. They entertain that opinion now; and at all proper times and upon all proper occasions, they will maintain it. We believe, in the language of the Kentucky resolutions, "that where there is no common arbiter, each party to a compact is to judge of the infractions of the compact, and of the mode and measure of redress."

The state, we say, "is to be the judge of infractions of the compact, and of the mode and measure of redress." If, in the language of the Kentucky resolutions, the state believed that the compact has been violated, she, and she alone, has the right to judge, so far as she herself is concerned, of that infraction, and the mode and measure of its redress. I desire to ask my colleague if he does not endorse the Kentucky resolutions, and whether the whole Union party of Mississippi does not endorse them? If he will say to us, by authority of his party, that they repudiate these resolutions, I will guaranty that they sink so low, as a political party, that, though you sounded for them with a hundred fathom lead line, a voice would still come booming up from this mighty deep, proclaiming, "no bottom here."

I desire to submit this proposition to my colleague. He says, that because we assert the right of secession, therefore we are secessionists. Non constat. He asserts the right of revolution. Let me ask my friend, Do you consider yourself as a revolutionist? If I am to be denounced as a secessionist because I assert the right to secede, may I not turn upon my assailant and say to him, You are not a revolutionist, because you assert the right of revolution?

But, sir, this new Union organization—this party which claims first to be the Whig party par excellence, and then to be the Democratic party par excellence—to what sort of sentiments does it hold? Ask my friend here [Mr. Wilcox], in the presence of our colleague of the Senate [Mr. Brooke], who has lately arrived in this city, "Gentlemen, what are your opinions on the subject of the currency?" My friend would doubtless say something about hard-money, and gold and silver; but our colleague in the Senate would tell us that he believes in paper money, and banks. Suppose the two gentlemen should be asked what they thought on the subject of protection? My friend here would commence lecturing you about free-trade; but his colleague in the Senate would begin to tell us how much protection we want. And it would be thus in regard to distribution, internal improvements by the federal government, the Sub-treasury, and upon all other party questions. If you ask them what they are for, they tell you they are for the Union. But as to what political measures they propose to carry out, they do not at all agree, even among themselves.

Why, sir, if I may be allowed, in this high council-place, to indulge in an anecdote, I think I can tell one illustrative of the position of this Union party, and especially the Union party of my own state. There was an old gentleman who kept what was called the "Union Hotel." A traveller rode up and inquired whether he could have breakfast. The landlord said, "What will you have?" "Well," said he, "I'll take broiled chicken and coffee. "I don't keep them." "Let me have beefsteak and boiled eggs, then." "I don't keep them." "Well," said the traveller, "never mind; give me something to eat." "I don't keep anything to eat." "Then," said the traveller, getting a little out of patience, "feed my horse; give him some oats." "I don't keep oats." "Then give him a little hay.' "I don't keep hay." "Well, give him something to eat." "I don't keep anything for horses to eat." [Laughter.] "Then what the devil do you keep?" "I keep the Union Hotel." [Renewed laughter.] So with this Union party. They are for the Union, and they are for nothing else. They are for that to which nobody is opposed. They are constantly trying to save the Union, and are making a great outcry about it, when, in fact, nobody has sought or is seeking to destroy it. They keep the Union Hotel, but they don't keep anything else.

Now, sir, to come a step further in the progress of Mississippi politics. As soon as the election in our state resulted adversely to my friends and to myself, we, as a matter of course, abandoned the issue upon which it had been conducted. We gave up a contest in which we had been beaten. But we did not change our opinions as to the soundness of the principle. It was a contest for the maintenance of a particular state principle, or state policy. We were overthrown by a majority of the people of our own state, and consequently we gave up the issue. Immediately afterwards, by the usual authority and in the usual way, there was a notice inserted in the leading Democratic papers of the state, calling upon the Democratic party, without reference to new state issues, and without reference to past disputes, to assemble in convention for the purpose of appointing delegates to attend the Baltimore National Democratic Convention. This was in November, 1851. Almost immediately afterwards, the Union party called a Union convention, which assembled on the first Monday in January last. It was represented by about thirty-six delegates, from twelve or fourteen counties. On the 8th of the same month, the Democratic Convention proper, assembled, represented by some two hundred or more delegates, from fifty-five counties. Our convention was called as a Democratic convention. It assembled as a Democratic convention. It deliberated as a Democratic convention. It appointed delegates to the Baltimore Convention as a Democratic convention. It appointed Democratic electors. It represented emphatically the Democracy of Mississippi. Having been beaten on the issues of state policy, I repeat, we gave them up. We so publicly announced; and when we met in convention on the 8th of January, it was as Democrats on the old issues.

How was it with the Union Convention? Was that a Democratic convention? Was there any such pretence? No, sir; it assembled as a Union convention—a Union meeting to appoint delegates to attend a Democratic National Convention. Why, what an idea! What right had such a meeting to appoint delegates to a Democratic National Convention? If the Union party, calling themselves Democrats, may appoint delegates to the National Democratic Convention, why may not the Free Democracy of Ohio, typified in the person of the gentleman across the way [Mr. Giddings], do the same thing? They claim to be Democrats and have organized the Free Democracy; and why may not they send their representation to the Democratic convention? Suppose the Free-Soil Democrats get up an organization, why may not they send delegates too? and why may not every other faction and political organization have its representatives there? No, sir; if there is to be a Union party, let there be a Union Convention. If certain gentlemen have become so etherealized that the Democratic organization does not suit them, let them stay out of the Democratic Convention. When they put on the proper badge—when they take down the Union flag, and run up the old Democratic banner, I am for hailing them as brothers for forgetting the past, and looking only to the future. They need not sneak back. We will open the door, and let them in. "To err, is human; to forgive, divine."

Mr. CHASTAIN (interrupting). I wish to ask the gentleman from Mississippi if the platform of the Nashville Convention did not repudiate the idea of having anything to do with either of the national conventions—the Whig or the Democratic?

Mr. BROWN. For that convention, the Whig party and the Democratic party, as I said before, were alike responsible. The Union party, composed, as it is, of Whigs and Democrats, must take their part of the responsibility for it. Was not Judge Sharkey, a Whig and your President's appointee to Havana, responsible? Was he not president of the convention, and is he not a Union leader? Did not Governor Foote have a hand in it? Did not Mr. Clemens take his share of responsibility? Did not almost all the prominent, leading Union Democrats of the South have a part in that convention? I want to know if these gentlemen may slip out and leave us to hold the sack? The State-Rights Democrats of Mississippi, as such, never endorsed the recommendation to which the gentleman alludes; and, therefore, we no more than others are responsible for it. If the Union Whigs and Union Democrats will stand by the recommendation, they may fairly expect us to do so too; but it is a very pretty business for us to make a joint promise, and then allow them to break it, and require us to hold on to it. No, sir. "A contract broken on one side, is a contract broken on all sides."

Mr. MOORE of Louisiana (interrupting). The gentleman from Mississippi mentioned the state of Louisiana in connection with the Nashville Convention. I wish merely to state this fact, that a law was introduced into the legislature of Louisiana authorizing the people to send delegates to that convention, but it failed. I do not believe a single man went from the state of Louisiana to that convention who was authorized by the people to go there.

Mr. BROWN. I cannot stop for these interruptions, as I find that my time is fast running out. Now, what did the Democratic party of Mississippi mean when they assembled in convention and appointed delegates to the Baltimore National Convention? They meant, sir, to go into that convention in good faith, and to act in good faith. We do not believe the Democratic party is going to come up to our standard of State-Rights, but we know they will come nearer up to it than the Whig party; and we therefore intend to go into the Democratic Convention, with an honest purpose to support its nominees. We trust you to make us fair and just nominations; and if you do, we intend to support them. If I am asked who the State-Rights Democrats of Mississippi would sustain for the presidency, I will answer, they will sustain any good, honest, long-tried, and faithful member of the Democratic party, who has never practised a fraud upon them.

I can tell you this, that in going into that convention, the Democracy of Mississippi will not ask from it an endorsement of their peculiar notions—if, indeed, they be peculiar—on the subject of State-Rights.

Mr. CHASTAIN (interrupting). Let me ask the gentleman if he would vote for Mr. Cass?

Mr. BROWN. If I were to answer that question, I might be asked by other gentlemen whether I would vote for this man or that man. I do not choose to engage in any controversy about men.

Sir, I was saying that we shall not ask at the hands of the Baltimore Convention an endorsement of our peculiar views on the subject of State-Rights—if, indeed, these views be peculiar. We shall ask in the name of the State-Rights party no place upon the national ticket—neither at its head nor at its tail. And when we have aided you on to victory, as we expect to do, we shall ask no part of the spoils, for we are not of the spoil-loving school.

What we ask is this: that when we have planted a great principle, which we intend to nourish, and, as far as we have the power, protect, you shall not put the heel of the National Democracy upon it to crush it. We ask that you shall not insult us in your convention, either by offering us as the nominee a man who has denounced us as traitors to our country, or by passing any resolutions which shall thus denounce us in words or by implication. Leave us free from taunt and insult; give us a fair Democratic nomination, and we will march up to it like men, and we will be, where we have always been in our Democratic struggles, not in the rear, but in the advance column. We will bear you on to victory; and when victory has been achieved, you may take the spoils and divide them among yourselves. We want no office. Will the Union party give this pledge? Of course they will not, for they are committed against your nominees in advance, unless certain demands of theirs shall be complied with—and among them is the ostracism of the State-Rights men. They propose to read out the great body of the Southern Democrats, and then I suppose make up the deficiency with Whigs. When the National Democracy relies on Whig votes to elect its President, it had better "hang its harp upon the willow."

The State-Rights Democrats will never be found sneaking into any party. We ask nothing of our national brethren. If we support the nominees, as we expect to do, it will be done, not for pay, but as a labor of love—love for old party associations; love of principles, which we hope are not yet quite extinct, and which, we are slow to believe, will be extinguished at Baltimore. If we fail to support the nominees, it will be because they are such as ought not to have been made.

We make no professions of love for the Union. Let our acts speak. We have stood by the Constitution and by the rights of the states, as defined by our fathers. If this be enmity to the Union, then have we been its enemies. We have not made constant proclamation of our devotion to the Union, because we have seen no attempt to destroy it, and have therefore seen no necessity for defending it. The danger is not that the states will secede from the Union, but rather that the Union will absorb the reserved rights of the states, and consolidate them as one state. Against this danger we have raised our warning voice. It has not been heeded; and if disaster befall us from this quarter, we at least are not to blame.

Laudation of the Union is a cheap commodity. It is found on the tongue of every demagogue in the country. I by no means say that all who laud the Union are demagogues; but I do say that there is not a demagogue in the Union who does not laud it. It is the bone and sinew, the soul and body of all their speeches. With them, empty shouts for the Union, the glorious Union, are a passport to favor; and beyond the point of carrying a popular election, they have no ideas of patriotism, and care not a fig for the ultimate triumph of our federative system.

Mr. Chairman, there are many other things to which I should have been very glad to make allusion, but I am admonished that my time is so nearly out, that I can have no opportunity to take up another point. I shall be happy, however, in the few moments that remain of my time, to answer any questions that gentlemen may desire to submit. I supposed, from the disposition manifested by gentlemen a few moments ago to interrogate me, that I should necessarily be compelled to answer some questions, or seem to shrink from the responsibility of doing so. I therefore hurried on to the conclusion of what I deemed it absolutely necessary to say, for the purpose of answering those questions. I am now ready.

After a moment's pause, Mr. B. continued: Gentlemen seem not disposed to press their inquiries, and my time being almost out, I resume my seat.

SOURCE: M. W. Cluskey, Editor, Speeches, Messages, and Other Writings of the Hon. Albert G. Brown, A Senator in Congress from the State of Mississippi, pp. 261-72

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: February 6, 1865

Bright and frosty. As I supposed, the peace commissioners have returned from their fruitless errand. President Lincoln and Mr. Seward, it appears, had nothing to propose, and would listen to nothing but unconditional submission. The Congress of the United States has just passed, by a two-thirds vote, an amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery.

Now the South will soon be fired up again, perhaps with a new impulse and WAR will rage with greater fury than ever. Mr. Stephens will go into Georgia, and reanimate his people. Gen. Wise spoke at length for independence at the Capitol on Saturday night amidst applauding listeners, and Governor Smith speaks to-night.

Gen. Breckinridge is here and will take his seat to-morrow. Every effort will be made to popularize the cause again.

Hon. Mr. Foote is at Washington, in prison.

Gen. Wise's brigade has sent up resolutions consenting to gradual emancipation—but never to reunion with the North.

There is a more cheerful aspect on the countenances of the people in the streets. All hope of peace with independence is extinct and valor alone is relied upon now for our salvation. Every one thinks the Confederacy will at once gather up its military strength and strike such blows as will astonish the world. There will be desperate conflicts!

Vice-President Stephens is in his seat to-day, and seems determined.

Mr. Hunter is rolling about industriously.

Gen. Lee writes that desertions are caused by the bad management of the Commissary Department, and that there are supplies enough in the country, if the proper means were used to procure them.

Gen. Taylor sends a telegram from Meridian, Miss., stating that he had ordered Stewart's corps to Augusta, Ga., as Sherman's movement rendered a victory necessary at once. The dispatch was to the President, and seems to be in response to one from him. So we may expect a battle immediately near Augusta, Ga. Beauregard should have some 20,000 men, besides Hardee's 15,000—which ought to be enough for victory; and then good-by to Sherman!

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 2, p. 410-1

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: January 25, 1865

Clear, and very cold. We lost gun-boat Drewry yesterday in an unsuccessful attempt to destroy the enemy's pontoon bridge down the river. Fort Harrison was not taken as reported, nor is it likely to be.

The rumor of an armistice remains, nevertheless, and Mr. Blair dined with the President on Sunday, and has had frequent interviews with him. This is published in the papers, and will cause the President to be severely censured.

Congress failed to expel Mr. Foote yesterday (he is off again), not having a two-thirds vote, but censured him by a decided majority. What will it end in?

No successors yet announced to Seddon and Campbell—Secretary and Assistant Secretary of War. Perhaps they can be persuaded to remain.

After all, it appears that our fleet did not return, but remains down the river; and as the enemy's gun-boats have been mostly sent to North Carolina, Gen. Lee may give Grant some trouble. If he destroys the bridges, the Federal troops on this side the river will be cut off from their main army.

It is said the President has signed the bill creating a commander-in-chief.

Rev. W. Spottswood Fontaine writes from Greensborough, N. C., that ——— reports that Senator Hunter is in favor of Virginia negotiating a separate peace with the United States, as the other States will probably abandon her to her fate, etc.

I saw Mr. Lyons to-day, who told me Mr. Hunter dined with him yesterday, and that Gen. Lee took tea with him last evening, and seemed in good spirits, hope, etc. Mr. Lyons thinks Gen. Lee was always a thorough emancipationist. He owns no slaves. He (Mr. Lyons) thinks that using the negroes in the war will be equivalent to universal emancipation, that not a slave will remain after the President's idea (which he don't seem to condemn) is expanded and reduced to practice. He favors sending out a commissioner to Europe for aid, on the basis of emancipation, etc., as a dernier ressort. He thinks our cause has received most injury from Congress, of which he is no longer a member.

If it be really so, and if it were generally known, that Gen. Lee is, and always has been opposed to slavery, how soon would his great popularity vanish like the mist of the morning! Can it be possible that he has influenced the President's mind on this subject? Did he influence the mind of his father-in-law, G. W. Park Custis, to emancipate his hundreds of slaves? Gen. Lee would have been heir to all, as his wife was an only child. There's some mistake about it.

The Secretary of State (still there!) informs the Secretary of War (still here!) that the gold he wrote about to the President on the 18th inst. for Gen. Hardee and for Mr. Conrad, is ready and subject to his order.

Four steamers have run into Charleston with a large amount of commissary stores. This is providential.

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 2, p. 397-8

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: January 31, 1865

Bright and frosty.

The "peace commissioners" remained Sunday night at Petersburg, and proceeded on their way yesterday morning. As they passed our lines, our troops cheered them very heartily, and when they reached the enemy's lines, they were cheered more vociferously than ever. Is not this an evidence of a mutual desire for peace?

Yesterday, Mr. De Jarnette, of Virginia, introduced in Congress a resolution intimating a disposition on the part of our government to unite with the United States in vindication of the "Monroe doctrine," i.e. expulsion of monarchies established on this continent by European powers. This aims at France, and to aid our commissioners in their endeavors to divert the blows of the United States from us to France. The resolution was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

If there be complication with France, the United States may accept our overtures of alliance, and our people and government will acquiesce, but it would soon grow an unpopular treaty. At this moment we are hard pressed, pushed to the wall, and prepared to catch at anything affording relief. We pant for a "breathing spell." Sherman is advancing, but the conquest of territory and liberation of slaves, while they injure us, only embarrass the enemy, and add to their burdens. Now is the time for the United States to avert another year of slaughter and expense.

Mr. Foote has been denouncing Mr. Secretary Seddon for selling his wheat at $40 per bushel.

It is rumored that a column of the enemy's cavalry is on a raid somewhere, I suppose sent out from Grant's army. This does not look like peace and independence. An extract from the New York Tribune states that peace must come soon, because it has reliable information of the exhaustion of our resources. This means that we must submit unconditionally, which may be a fatal mistake.

The raiders are said to be on the Brooke Turnpike and Westhaven Road, northeast of the city, and menacing us in a weak place. Perhaps they are from the Valley. The militia regiments are ordered out, and the locals will follow of course, as when Dahlgren came.

Hon. Mr. Haynes of the Senate gives information of a raid organizing in East Tennessee on Salisbury, N. C., to liberate the prisoners, cut the Piedmont Road, etc.

Half-past two P. M. Nothing definite of the reported raid near the city. False, perhaps.

No papers from the President to-day; he is disabled again by neuralgia, in his hand, they say.

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 2, p. 404-5

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: January 13, 1865

Clear and pleasant—but little frost. Beef (what little there is in market) sells to-day at $6 per pound; meal, $80 per bushel; white beans, $5 per quart, or $160 per bushel. And yet Congress is fiddling over stupid abstractions!

The government will awake speedily, however; and after Congress hurries through its business (when roused), the adjournment of that body will speedily ensue. But will the President dismiss his cabinet in time to save Richmond, Virginia, and the cause? That is the question. He can easily manage Congress, by a few letters from Gen. Lee. But will the potency of his cabinet feed Lee's army?

A great panic still prevails in the city, arising from rumors of contemplated evacuation. If it should be evacuated, the greater portion of the inhabitants will remain, besides many of the employees of government and others liable to military service, unless they be forced away. But how can they be fed? The government cannot feed, sufficiently, the men already in the field.

Everybody is conjecturing what Mr. Blair has proposed; but no one expects relief from his mission, if indeed he be clothed with diplomatic powers-which I doubt.

The President, I believe, is calm, relying upon the loyalty of his cabinet. But he is aware of the crisis; and I think his great reliance is on Gen. Lee, and herein he agrees with the people. What will be the issue of the present exigency, God only knows!

I believe there is a project on foot to borrow flour, etc. from citizens for Gen. Lee's army. Many officers and men from the army are in the city to-day, confirming the reports of suffering for food in the field.

There is a rumor that Goldsborough has been taken.

Mr. Secretary Seddon is appointing men in the various districts of the city to hunt up speculators and flour; appointing such men as W. H. McFarland and others, who aspire to office by the suffrages of the people. They will not offend the speculators and hoarders by taking much flour from them. No-domiciliary visits with bayonets alone will suffice.

Of thirty Federal deserters sent to work on the fortifications of Lynchburg, all but four ran away.

It is understood that the President announced to Congress today the arrest of the Hon. H. S. Foote, member of that body, near Fredericksburg, while attempting to pass into the enemy's lines. This, then, may have been Capt. Norton's secret mission; and I believe the government had traps set for him at other places of egress. Meantime the enemy came in at Savannah. This is considered the President's foible—a triumph over a political or personal enemy will occupy his attention and afford more delight than an ordinary victory over the common enemy. Most men will say Mr. Foote should have been permitted to go—if he desired it.

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 2, p. 384-5

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: January 17, 1865

Cloudy, and spitting snow.

Mr. Foote's release from custody has been ordered by Congress. The news of the fall of Wilmington, and the cessation of importations at that port, falls upon the ears of the community with stunning effect.

Again we have a rumor of the retirement of Mr. Seddon.

There are more rumors of revolution, and even of displacement of the President by Congress, and investiture of Gen. Lee. It is said the President has done something, recently, which Congress will not tolerate. Idle talk!

Mr. Foote, when arrested, was accompanied by his wife, who had a passport to Tennessee. He said to the Provost Marshal, Doggett, Fredericksburg, that he intended to accompany his family, passing through Washington, and to endeavor to negotiate a peace. He deposited a resignation of his seat in Congress with a friend, which he withdrew upon being arrested. He was arrested and detained "until further orders," by command of the Secretary of War.

Lieut.-Gen. Hood has been relieved, and ordered to report here. The rumor gains belief that Gen. Breckinridge has been offered the portfolio of the War Department by the President. This may be the act alluded to which Congress will not agree to, perhaps, on the ground that Gen. B. remained in the United States Senate long after secession. The general is understood to be staying at G. A. Myers's house, which adds strength to the rumor, for Myers has a keen scent for the sources of power and patronage.

The Surgeon-General states that, during the years 1862 and 1863, there were 1,600,000 cases of disease in hospitals and in the field, with only 74,000 deaths. There have been 23,000 discharges from the armies since the war began.

The Provost Marshal at Fredericksburg telegraphs that his scouts report the enemy have arrested Mrs. Foote, and threaten to rescue Mr. Foote. The Secretary and the President concur in ordering his discharge. The President says that will not be permission for him to pass our lines. He will come here, I suppose.

Mentioning to R. Tyler the fact that many of the clerks, etc. of the War Department favored revolution and the overthrow of the President, he replied that it was a known fact, and that some of them would be hung soon. He feared Mr. Hunter was a submissionist.

The Northern papers say Mr. G. B. Lamar has applied to take the oath of allegiance, to save his and other property.

The Examiner to-day has another article calling for a convention to abolish the Constitution and remove President Davis.

Mr. Seward, United States Secretary of State, escorted Mrs. Foote to her hotel, upon her arrival in Washington.

The following official telegram was received at the War Department last night:

HEADQUARTERS, January 15th, 1865.

HON. J. A. SEDDON.

Gen. Early reports that Gen. Rosser, at the head of three hundred men, surprised and captured the garrison at Beverly, Randolph County, on the 11th instant, killing and wounding a considerable number and taking five hundred and eighty prisoners. His loss slight.

 

R. E. LEE.

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 2, p. 389-90

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: January 19, 1865

Clear and frosty. Among the rumors, it would appear that the Senate in secret session has passed a resolution making Lee generalissimo.

It is again said Mr. Seddon will resign, and be followed by Messrs. Benjamin and Mallory, etc.

The following dispatch was received by the President yesterday:

“TUPELO, MISS., January 17th, 1865.—Roddy's brigade (cav.) is useless as at present located by the War Department. I desire authority to dispose of it to the best advantage, according to circumstances.—G. T. BEAUREGARD, General."

The President sends it to the Secretary of War with this indorsement: "On each occasion, when this officer has been sent with his command to distant service, serious calamity to Alabama has followed. It is desirable to know what disposition Gen. Beauregard proposes to make of this force.—J. D.”

We have nothing further from Wilmington. Bad enough. Sherman is said to be marching on Charleston. Bad enough, too!

Our papers have glowing accounts of the good treatment the citizens of Savannah received from the enemy.

Mr. Foote has arrived in the city—and it is said he will take his seat in Congress to-day.

Gen. Whiting and Col. Lamb were taken at Fort Fisher both wounded, it is said—and 1000 of the garrison.

Mr. Peck paid back to the clerks to-day the unexpended balance of their contributions for supplies, etc. The money is not worth half its value some months ago. But Mr. P. secured ten barrels of flour for himself and as many more for the Assistant Secretary, Mr. Kean, etc. etc.

One o'clock P.M. The day has grown dark and cold, indicating snow, and a dismal gloom rests upon the faces of the increasing party of croakers. We have famine, owing to the incapacity of the government, and the rapacity of speculators. Wood, however, is coming in, but it is only for military officers, etc. No one can live on wood. Gold is $70 for $1, and meal about $100 per bushel.

The House of Representatives (in secret session) has passed the Senate joint resolution creating the office of commander-in-chief (for Gen. Lee), and recommending that Gen. Johnston be reinstated, etc. It passed by a vote of 62 to 14.

What will result from this? Is it not a condemnation of the President and the administration that displaced Gen J., etc.? Who will resign? Nous verrons!

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 2, p. 391-2

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: January 20, 1865

Clear and cold. No news—that is bad news. Nothing has transpired officially of the events and details near Wilmington, but there is a rumor, exaggerated perhaps, of the fall of Wilmington itself. No doubt Sherman is marching on Charleston, and if there be no battle soon, it is feared he will take the city without one.

Mr. Foote made a speech in Congress yesterday—a savage one, I am told. Going home yesterday at 3 o'clock, I met Mr. Foote, and told him what I had heard. He said he could have wished me to hear every word of it. I asked if it would not be printed. He held up a roll of manuscript, saying he had written it in full, and that it would certainly be published. The papers say in their brief reports, that he disavowed all ideas of reconstruction. After he left the House, one of the Missouri members offered a resolution for his expulsion, on the ground that he had, unlawfully, attempted to pass into the enemy's lines, for the purpose of negotiating a peace, etc. It was referred to the Committee on Elections.

After this a resolution was introduced, that a joint committee be appointed to prepare an address, etc., solemnly declaring that the war shall be waged until independence be achieved, etc. Such addresses have been repeatedly made, and at last seem to have a demoralizing effect. People remember how many test votes were taken in the Virginia Convention, showing that the State never would secede—and at length the Convention passed an ordinance of secession! Nothing can save this government long but military successes, and these depend upon having the slave and other property owners in the field. This can never be done without a renovation of the machinery used to fill up the ranks.

The President is calm. Some think him subdued. A few days or weeks will determine.

Gen. Howell Cobb writes his views, etc. Utterly opposed to arming the slaves—better emancipate them at once, conceding to the "demands of England and France," and then enlist them. But he thinks a return to the system of volunteering would answer to fill the ranks with white men; also suggests that the President concede something to popular sentiment—restore Gen. J. E. Johnston, etc. He says gloom and despair are fast settling on the people.

J. P. McLean, Greensborough, N. C., in response to the request of Mr. Secretary Seddon, gives information of the existence of many Union men in that section, and suggests sudden death to ——— etc. The Secretary is diligent in getting such information; but lately it seems he never applies the remedy.

Mr. Secretary Seddon thinks Mr. Peck's explanation of his purchasing satisfactory; the Assistant Secretary, Chief of Bureau of War, and Mr. Seddon's private clerk got an abundance of flour, etc.

Major Harman, Staunton, says provisions cannot be had in that section to feed Early's army, unless one-fourth of all produce be bought at market prices, and the people go on half rations. The slaves everywhere are on full rations.

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 2, p. 392-3

Herschel V. Johnson* to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, November 8, 1852

(Private.)

ELIZABETH CITY Co., NEAR HAMPTON, [VA.],

November 5th, 1852.

MY DEAR HUNTER: I wrote you in June a short note from Baltimore immediately after the adjournment of the Convention, to which I rec[eive]d an answer in a few days. I write now to acknowl

edge its receipt and to say that I have had several very free conversations with Wise since. He speaks of you in the kindest manner and does you ample justice, meet him with the cordiality of former days and all will be well. I know that he loves you and desires your friendship, nay thinks himself entitled to it. I pray God that nothing may ever occur to separate you.

Franklin Pierce from present indications will receive at least 270 of the electoral vote-the vote of every Southern State. We believe, an awful beating, this indeed. He is indebted to Virginia for his Crown. Well who from our State must go into the Cabinet? You say "I have nothing to ask and shall ask nothing from the incoming administration for myself." Do you intend to say that you would decline any offer? I ask the question because I frequently heard you spoken of and the wish expressed that you would accept the Treasury if offered you, indeed I have been asked if I thought you would accept. I had not thought much upon the subject, and had no wish about it. The only desire I have upon the subject is that you should exercise your own judgment and be where you can be most useful.

The Treasury will be the great leaver to work for reform 'tis very certain, and I hope to see some Southern man of the right stamp at it.. Your present position is a commanding one and one from which you can better be heard by the nation, perhaps too it is nearer to the succession. Well if you shall come next after Pierce I shall not despair of the republic.

The last time I saw Bayly he told me that you would be the next President, that he intended to make you President. "You be d-d you can't get back to Congress yourself, and you talk to me about making Hunter President." "When and how come you so fond of Hunter. You always loved Hunter better than you love me." "If it be true can't you account for it very, very easy. Hunter votes right always-You only occasionally." Booker it is impossible you can doubt my fidelity to the South you must have confidence in me. "Confidence sir is a plant of slow groth as Mr. Pitt said." I like Bayly very much. We have been friends a long time, and Ì have tried very hard to forgive him. I withheld from him my vote the last time he was a candidate. It was painful to me to be obliged to do so. He does not understand his position, does, not know how much ground he has lost. I doubt if he can ever recover. In saying this much do not understand me as doubting his fidelity to you. I do not, no, I believe him sincere. In the event of your taking a seat in the Cabinet Bayly and Wise will both struggle hard for your place in the Senate, the former I am certain cannot succeed the latter may, perhaps will. I know of no really formidable competitor in the East. I am interrupted and must conclude before I had finished all I had to say.

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. 149-50

Congressman Horace Mann to Samuel Downer, June 13, 1850

WASHINGTON, June 13, 1850.

S. DOWNER, Esq.

MY DEAR SIR, You must excuse me for not answering all your kind letters. I should be glad to do so, if it were possible, especially if it would be the means of getting more; for they are most acceptable to me.

I learn that Mr. Webster has written home, that, if the North will give way on the subject of slavery, THEY CAN HAVE A TARIFF IN SIX WEEKS; and I suppose the address now to be circulated is for signatures, calling upon the Massachusetts delegation to make “concession;” that is, to surrender the Territories to slavery: then we may have "beneficent legislation," by which he means a tariff.

I am also told that the Hon. ———, a factory superintendent at Lowell, on a salary of four or five thousand dollars a year, was on here two or three weeks ago to see if some arrangement could not be made to barter human bodies and souls at the South for the sake of certain percentages on imported cottons at the North; and that Mr. Foote of Mississippi, and Mangum of North Carolina, offered to become sureties for the arrangement: how many others, I do not know. I have no doubt of all this, not a particle; though I communicate it to you to give you the means of further inquiry, and of action after inquiry is made. . . .

The Whigs, with very few exceptions, appear to stand well in the House; and I trust we shall be able to give a good account of ourselves. How I wish the Whigs now had all the Free-soilers in their ranks ! In great haste, yours ever and truly,

HORACE MANN.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 304

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: December 19, 1864

The darkest and most dismal day that ever dawned upon the earth, except one. There was no light when the usual hour came round, and later the sun refused to shine. There was fog, and afterward rain.

Northern papers say Hood has been utterly routed, losing all his guns!

A letter from Mr. ——— to ——— dated Richmond, December 17th, 1864, says:

"I have the honor to report my success as most remarkable and satisfactory. I have ascertained the whole Yankee mail line, from the gun-boats to your city, with all the agents save one. You will be surprised when informed, from the lowest to the highest class. The agent in your city, and most likely in your department, has yet to be discovered. This is as certain as what we have learned (his arrest, I mean), for the party in whose hands the mail is put coming from your city is known to us; and we have only to learn who gives him the mail, which can be done upon arrest, if not sooner, to know everything. What shall be done with the parties (spies, of course) when we are ready to act? If you ever intimate that trials are tedious, etc., the enemy seize citizens from some neighborhood as hostages, when their emissaries are disturbed. I will dispatch, if it be authorized, and that will end the matter. The lady I spoke to you of is the fountain-head. What to do with females troubles me, for I dislike to be identified with their arrest.

 

"I request that a good boat, with three torpedoes, and a man who understands working them, be sent to Milford to report to me at Edge Hill. Let the man be mum on all questions. I would meet him at Milford, if I knew the day (distance is twenty-five miles), with a wagon, to take him, torpedoes, and boat to the point required. I must be sure of the day.

 

"Have the following advertisement published in Monday's papers:

 

“‘YANKEES ESCAPED! $1000 REWARD!—A Yankee officer and three privates escaped from prison on Thursday night, with important matter upon their persons. The above reward will be givenfor their detection.'

 

'Let me hear from you through Cawood's Line, upon receipt of this. Respectfully, etc. ———”

 

We have the spectacle now of three full generals-Johnston, Beauregard, and Bragg without armies to command; and the armies in the field apparently melting away under the lead of subordinate, if not incompetent leaders. So much for the administration of the Adjutant-General's office.

Governor Smith is still exempting deputy sheriffs, constables, etc.—all able-bodied.

It is rumored on the street that we intend evacuating Savannah. How did that get out—if, indeed, such is the determination? There are traitors in high places—or near them.

It is also rumored that the Danville Railroad has been cut. I don't believe it—yet.

There is deep vexation in the city—a general apprehension that our affairs are rapidly approaching a crisis such as has not been experienced before. There is also much denunciation of the President for the removal of Gen. Johnston from the command of the Army of Tennessee.

Hon. Mr. Foote declared, Saturday, that he would resign his seat if the bill to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, now pending, became a law. There is much consternation—but it is of a sullen character, without excitement.

The United States Congress has ordered that notice be given Great Britain of an intention on the part of the Federal Government to increase the naval force on the lakes; also a proposition has been introduced to terminate the Reciprocity Treaty. Gen. Dix orders his military subordinates to pursue any rebel raiders even into Canada and bring them over. So, light may come from that quarter. A war with England would be our peace.

At 2 P.M. it was rumored that Charleston is taken and Beauregard a prisoner. Also that Gen. Jos. E. Johnston (in the city) says Richmond will be evacuated in ten days. I do not learn what gold sells at to-day! I suspect some coup d'état is meditated.

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 2, p. 357-9

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: December 20, 1864

A brighter morning, cool and clear. The President was at work yesterday. He and the Secretary and Gen. Cooper put their heads together to make up a regiment for Col. Miller in Mississippi, and designate the two field officers to be under him—from two battalions and two unattached companies.

If the Northern (purporting to be official) accounts be true, Gen. Hood has sustained an irretrievable disaster, which may involve the loss of Tennessee, Georgia, etc.

Hon. Mr. Foote declared last night his purpose to leave the city in a few days, never to resume his seat in Congress, if martial law should be allowed. He said he had information that when Charleston fell, South Carolina would conclude a treaty of peace (submission?) with the United States; and that North Carolina was prepared to follow the example! I have observed that these two States do not often incline to go together.

The great disaster would be the loss of Richmond and retreat of Lee's army southward. This would probably be followed by the downfall of slavery in Virginia.

The Secretary of War has sent an agent to the Governor of North Carolina, to ask for special aid in supplying Lee's army with meat—which is deficient here or else it cannot be maintained in the field in Virginia! Very bad, and perhaps worse coming. There is a rumor that Gen. Breckinridge has beaten Gen. Burbridge in Tennessee or Western Virginia.

Gen. R. E. Lee is in town, looking robust, though weather worn. He complains that the department is depleting his army by details, often for private and speculative purposes, to the benefit of private individuals—speculators.

I drew my (State) salt to-day, 70 pounds, for 7 in family-20 cents per pound. It retails at a $1 per pound!

Mr. Secretary has sent (per Lieut.-Col. Bayne) some gold to Wilmington, to buy (in Nassau) loaf sugar for his family, to be brought in government steamers.

My son Thomas could get no beef ration to-day—too scarce.

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 2, p. 359-60

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: December 22, 1864

Clear and cold. We have nothing from below. From Wilmington, we learn there is much commotion to resist the armada launched against that port. Gen. Lee is sending troops via the Danville Road in that direction.

The wire has been cut between this and Gordonsville, by the scouts of the raiders launched in that direction. We breakfast, dine, and sup on horrors now, and digest them all quite sullenly.

I am invited to a turkey dinner to-day (at Mr. Waterhouse's), and have some hesitation in accepting it at a time like this. Ought I to go? He is a skilled artisan and has made money, and no doubt the turkey is destined to be eaten by somebody.

At an auction this morning, a Jew bid off an old set of tablespoons, weighing twelve ounces and much worn, at $575. He will next buy his way out of the Confederacy. Mr. Benjamin and Judge Campbell have much to answer for in allowing such men to deplete the South of its specie, plate, etc. There were some commissaries and quartermasters present, who are supposed to have stolen much from the government, and desire to exchange the currency they have ruined for imperishable wealth. They, too, will run away the first opportunity.

The sun shines brightly this beautiful cold day; but all is dark in Congress. The Tennessee members say Hood's army is destroyed, that he will not get 1000 men out of the State, for the Tennesseeans, Kentuckians, etc. refuse to retire farther south, but straggle and scatter to their homes, where they will remain.

I am told we have but a thin curtain of pickets on the north side of the James River, between us and 15,000 negro troops.

The President is at work at his residence, not having yet come down to his office; and I learn it is difficult to get his attention to any business just now but appointments; had to get him to sign a bill passed by Congress to pay the civil officers of the government. No doubt he is anxious and very unhappy.

Hon. Mr. Foote's wife has just got a passport to return home to Nashville, Tennessee!

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 2, p. 361-2

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: December 3, 1864

Very warm-clouds and sunshine, like April. Roger A. Pryor, who resigned his brigadiership, and has been acting as a scout (private), fell into the hands of the enemy the other day while exchanging newspapers with their pickets. They have him at Washington, and the United States newspapers say he makes revelations of a sad state of affairs in Georgia, etc. This is doubtless erroneous.

A "peace resolution" has been introduced in the North Carolina Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Foote yesterday introduced a resolution in Congress, calling for a convention of the States—or appointment of commissioners from the States. Voted down by a large majority.

Gen. Rosser (two brigades) made a descent, a few days ago, on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, capturing some nine guns altogether, including four siege, which he spiked. The others he brought off, with 800 prisoners. He destroyed 200 wagons and a large amount of quartermaster and ordnance stores.

Per contra. Grant has pounced upon one of our depots at Stony Creek, Weldon Railroad, getting some 80 prisoners, and destroying a few stores. It is said he still holds the position-of some importance.

Gen. Ewell still thinks the aspect here is "threatening."

Brig. Gen. Chilton, Inspector-General, has ordered investigations of the fortunes of bonded officers, who have become rich during the war.

A strong effort has been made to have Gen. Ripley removed from Charleston. He is a Northern man, and said to be dissipated. Senator Orr opposes the change; the Secretary recommends his retention, and the President indorses: "I prefer that Gen. Ripley should remain.—J. D."

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 2, p. 346

Senator Lewis Cass to Senator Daniel S. Dickinson, May 1, 1850

WASHINGTON, May 1, 1850.

MY DEAR SIR—While Foote is laboring at the administration for the Lady Franklin expedition, I drop you this hasty note. We have this day had the third meeting of our committee, the second since you left us. We stand thus:—We have determined on the admission of California without change or limitation. We have determined on the establishment of territorial government without the Wilmot proviso. On the extinction of the Texas title, beginning just north of the Passo, and running thence in a course north of east to the southwestern corner of the old Indian tract, fixed by the Spanish treaty. We leave the question of price till we all meet again. King will bring in a bill for the suppression of the slave-trade in this district. We shall arrange the fugitive-slave bill to give general satisfaction, North and South.

Absentees: yourself, Berrian, Webster, and Mason. All the others present.

There is reason to fear that Mason and some four or five of the extreme Southern members will oppose, to the last, the admission of California. Should that be so, the result is doubtful. But if they go for it, all will be safe. This is about all I can tell you. I trust you will be here soon. We want you. I presume our report will be ready on Monday. I hope you have found your family all well. 

Ever your friend,

LEW. CASS.

Gov. DICKINSON.

SOURCE: John R. Dickinson, Editor, Speeches, Correspondence, Etc., of the Late Daniel S. Dickinson of New York, Vol. 2, p. 430-1

Senator Henry S. Foote to Messrs. Geo. Douglas, Schuyler Livingston, and others, constituting a Committee of Gentlemen, June 15, 1850

SENATE CHAMBER, June 15, 1850.

GENTLEMEN—Gladly would I have joined you on next Monday, at the social board, and united most cordially in doing special honor to that able, accomplished, incorruptible, and Roman-like statesman to whom you have tendered a public dinner at Tammany Hall, in recognition of his eminent public services and his extraordinary personal merits. But I find it impossible to be with you on that occasion, urgent official duties detaining me here.

I have known the worthy gentleman to whom you are about to do special honor most intimately for more than three years past. I have seen him tried as I have never seen any other public man tried. I have beheld him amid scenes well calculated to test his moral courage, his disinterestedness, his regard for principle, and his love of country. And never have I seen him so demean himself as not to command the respect of his adversaries, and to endear himself still more strongly to his friends and admirers. Honest, truthful, firm, sagacious, watchful, accomplished, courteous, magnanimous, he is such a man as would have adorned the pages of history in any age or country. Well does he deserve all the honors which he has earned, and all that a grateful country may hereafter bestow. His faithful and unyielding devotion to sound constitutional principles throughout the present anti-slavery agitation have commended him "to the permanent gratitude and respect of the nation," and I agree with you most heartily, that "at this time, when the efforts of every patriot are concentrated to the peaceable adjustment of all sectional controversies, we should not be unmindful of the solicitude which public men must feel for such evidences of popular approval as will tend to sustain them in their struggles against fanatical and factious agitators."

Permit me, if you please, to offer you the following sentiment:

"The union of all good men, of all parties, and of all sections, against faction and factionists."

I have the honor to be, &c., &c.,

H. S. FOOTE.

Messrs. GEO. DOUGLAS, SCHUYLER LIVINGSTON, and others, constituting a Committee of Gentlemen.

SOURCE: John R. Dickinson, Editor, Speeches, Correspondence, Etc., of the Late Daniel S. Dickinson of New York, Vol. 2, p. 439-40