Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, March 16, 1866

A quiet Cabinet-meeting with nothing of interest discussed. Dennison read his communication on the test oath. It is less vigorous and pertinent than McCulloch's, but will do as a backer. McCulloch showed me a letter from Henry Ward Beecher to Defrees in which it is said that the postmaster at Brooklyn (Lincoln) informed him (Beecher) that Senator Pomeroy had authorized and requested him (L.) to inform B. that he (P.) called at the White House a week since, and found the President, his son, and son-in-law all drunk and unfit for business, that the President kept a mistress at the White House, etc. I advised that these slanders should be told the President in order that he might be aware of the character of the scandals circulated.

By appointment McCulloch, Dennison, and myself agreed to meet the President this evening at seven. At that hour McCulloch and I came together near Dennison's door and went in. Soon after Speed and his wife were announced. D. went in to them with an understanding that he would join us at the White House. But he failed to do so.

Mr. English of Connecticut was with the President when we went in, but left almost immediately. The President expressed himself pleased with English, and dissatisfied with something which Hawley had said, some answers to inquiries, as I understood. McCulloch remarked that it would not do for us to disconnect ourselves from the War Party, even if some had got astray, for every loyal household had its representative in the army, and the feeling was strong in their favor.

The letter on the test oath McC. read to us. I suggested a single alteration which I mentioned before, calling the Southerners "our rebellious countrymen" instead of a "hostile people." The President approved the suggestion, and McCulloch came into it. Some other alterations, chiefly verbal, suggested themselves, but, witnessing the sensitiveness of McC., I did not mention them.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 453-4  

M. N., an Ohio Woman, to John Brown, November 16, 1859

Decatur, Brown County, Ohio, Nov. 16.

Dear Sir: Can you give me a minute of your time? Like Mrs. Child, who can scarcely take comfort in any thing on your account, for a time I could not well attend to my work, but only wanted to sit down, lean my head upon my hand, and remain thus in the palsy that had come upon me. My mental and moral nature seemed paralyzed with the thoughts that the self-evident impossibility that man could own man seemed to be true; and when one arose to rescue his brother, following only the instincts of right, and the teachings of the golden rule, that there should be power upon earth lawfully to put him to death. In listless moments tears have welled up and offered themselves, but no sooner is nature conscious of them than they come no farther. The subject is too great. Tears can express nothing of what the soul feels under some contemplations. Believing myself in conscience bound to give heed to the views of others (as H. W. Beecher) about the best mode of enfranchising the slave, and wondering if the slave could have sunk so low in his degradation that he would not have been willing to accept your boon, had it proved to be in your power to give it to him, — such considerations diverted my thoughts and relieved somewhat the oppression of my mind. I suppose thousands upon tens of thousands feel the same kindness and admiration that is felt for you here. I wish they would write and say so to you, instead of telling all to each other. But, perhaps, they do not think of that; or they may be afraid. Our minister prays for you in our pulpit; and I have sometimes felt that it might do you good to hear such prayers as he puts up for you, and those who suffer with you. I have been watching for it, and am so glad the channel has been opened through which "the sympathies of others can most successfully reach you," (though my own contribution must at present be small,) for it is such a comfort to do any thing for you; and personally you seem to need so little of any thing that we can do. I suppose martyrs that are called forth by the sins of a lost world have that greatness of soul, of benevolence, that needs not so much the sympathies and consolations called forth by affliction. Although they may shed nature's tears of love and affection with friends most dear, yet it seems to me the souls of those friends themselves must retire again to a depth or an elevation beyond the region of tears. You perhaps do not know what a comfort it is to your thousands of friends, and will be, especially as the time of death draws near, and when it is past, that you have left this statement: "I am quite cheerful under all my afflicting circumstances and prospects, having, as I humbly trust, the peace of God which passeth understanding." And now, noble old man,—noble from our point of view, though in God's sight but a pardoned and unprofitable servant, — that our Father awaits you is the hope of one who, I humbly trust, is your friend in Christ.

M. N.

SOURCE: James Redpath, Editor, Echoes of Harper’s Ferry, p. 415-6

Frederick Douglass to Theodore Tilton, October 15, 1864

Rochester, Oct. 15, 1864.

My Dear Mr. Tilton:

I am obliged by your favor containing a copy of your recent speech in Latimer hall. I had read that speech in the Tribune several days ago, and in my heart thanked you for daring thus to break the spell of enchantment which slavery, though wounded, dying and despised, is still able to bind the tongues of our republican orators. It was a timely word wisely and well spoken, the best and most luminous spark struck from the flint and steel of this canvass. To all appearance we have been more ashamed of the negro during than those of '56 and '60. The President's "To whom it may concern," frightened his party and his party in return frightened the President. I found him in this alarmed condition when I called upon him six weeks ago — and it is well to note the time. The country was struck with one of those bewilderments which dethrone reason for the moment. Every body was thinking and dreaming of peace — and the impression had gone abroad that the President's antislavery policy was about the only thing which prevented a peaceful settlement with the Rebels. McClellan was nominated and at that time his prospects were bright as Mr. Lincoln's were gloomy. You must therefore, judge the President's words in the light of the circumstances in which he spoke. Atlanta had not fallen; Sheridan had not swept the Shenandoah —and men were ready for peace almost at any price. The President was pressed on every hand to modify his letter “To whom it may concern,” — how to meet this pressure he did me the honor to ask my opinion. He showed me a letter written with a view to meet the peace clamour raised against him. The first point made in it was the important fact that no man or set of men authorized to speak for the Confederate Government had ever submitted a proposition for peace to him. Hence the charge that he had in some way stood in the way of peace fell to the ground. He had always stood ready to listen to any such propositions. The next point referred to was the charge that he had in his Niagara letter committed himself and the country to an abolition war rather than a war for the union, so that even if the latter could be attained by negotiation, the war would go on for Abolition. The President did not propose to take back what he had said in his Niagara letter but wished to relieve the fears of hit peace friends by making it appear that the thing which they feared could not happen and was wholly beyond his power. Even if I would, I could not carry on the war for the abolition of slavery. The country would not sustain such a war and I could do nothing without the support of Congress. I could not make the abolition of slavery an absolute prior condition to the re-establishment of the union. All that the President said on this point was to make manifest his want of power to do the thing which his enemies and pretended friends professed to be afraid he would do. Now the question he put to me was "Shall I send forth this letter?" To which I answered "Certainly not." It would be given a broader meaning than you intend to convey — it would be taken as a complete surrender of your antislavery policy — and do yon serious damage. In answer to your Copperhead accusers your friends can make this argument of your want of power — but you cannot wisely say a word on that point. I have looked and feared that Mr. Lincoln would say something of the sort, but he has been perfectly silent on that point and I think will remain so. But the thing which alarmed me most was this: The President said he wanted some plan devised by which we could get more of the slaves within our lines. He thought that now was their time— and that such only of them as succeeded in getting within our lines would be free after the war is over. This shows that the President only has faith in his proclamations of freedom during the war and that he believes their operation will cease with the war. We were long together and there was much said—but this is enough.

I gave my address, To the People of the U. S., to the Committee appointed to publish the Minutes of the Convention. It is too lengthy for a newspaper article though of course I should be very glad to see it noticed in the Independent. You may not be aware that I do not see the Independent now-a-days. It was discontinued several months ago. If you were not like myself taxed on every hand both by your own disposition to give and the disposition of others to ask I should ask you to send me the Independent for one year on your own account.

We had Anna Dickinson here on Thursday night. Her speech made a profound impression. Nothing from Phillips, Beecher or yourself could have been more eloquent, and in her masterly handling of statistics she reminded one of Horace Mann in his palmiest days. I never listened to her with more wonder. One thing however I think you can say to her, if you ever get the chance, for it ought to be said and she will hear it and bear it from you, as well or better than from most other persons, and that is Stop that waiting. She walked incessantly — back and forth — from one side the broad platform to the other. It is a new trick and one which I neither think useful or ornamental but really a defect and disfigurement. She would allow me to tell her so, I think, because she knows how sincerely I appreciate both her wonderful talents and her equally wonderful devotion to the cause of my enslaved race.

I am not doing much in this Presidential Canvass for the reason that Republican committees do not wish to expose themselves to the charge of being the "Niggar" party. The negro is the deformed child which is put out of the room when company comes. I hope to speak some after the election, though not much before, and I am inclined to think I shall be able to speak all the more usefully because I have had so little to say during the present canvass. I now look upon the election of Mr. Lincoln as settled. When there was any shadow of a hope that a man of more decided antislavery convictions and policy could be elected, I was not for Mr. Lincoln, but as soon as the Chicago convention my mind was made up and it is made up still. All dates changed with the Domination of McClellan.

I hope that in listening to Mr. Stanton's version of my visit to the President you kept in mind something of Mr. Stanton's own state of mind concerning public affairs. I found him in a very gloomy state of mind, much less hopeful than myself, and yet more cheerful than I expected to find him. I judge from your note that he must have imparted somewhat of the hue of his own mind to my statements. He thinks far less of the President's honesty than I do, and far less of his antislavery than I do I have not yet come to think that honesty and politics are incompatible.

SOURCE: Buffalo Public Library, Descriptive Catalogue of the Gluck Collection of Manuscripts and Autographs in the Buffalo Public Library, p. 35-7

Horace Greeley, Henry Ward Beecher et al to Gerrit Smith, June 1865

June, 1865.

Gerrit Smith, Esq., New York:

Dear Sir, — The events which, with increasing emphasis are inscribing our national history, attract and impress the public mind. We think that information is needed and counsel required. We know that the interest which you have felt in the conflict which is passed, continues to the stages of its pacification and close.

Understanding your willingness to communicate with your fellow citizens on national topics, we would be pleased could you address a public meeting in this city, at the Cooper Institute, on the evening of next Thursday, the 8th instant, on the present attitude of the country.

Horace Greeley,

C. Godfrey Gunther,

E. H. Chapin,

Henry Ward Beecher,

Rich'd O'gorman,

David Dudley Field,

Sam'l L. M. Barlow,

Henry W. Bellows,

Hiram Ketchum.

SOURCES: Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 293

Gerrit Smith to Henry Ward Beecher, May 20, 1863

Peterboro, May 20th, 1863.

Rev. Henry Ward Beecher:

My Dear Sir: I have read in the Independent your column on the late “Stonewall” Jackson. I honor him for his earnestness, sincerity, and devoutness. I grant that he was a deeply religious man. But I can not agree with you that his religion was of the Christ-type. How can it be in the light of your own admission, that he was “the champion of slavery” — the champion of that system which denies all right to husband, wife, child; all right to resist the ravisher or murderer; and which works and whips and markets men as beasts? How can it be in the light of your admission, that “he was fighting against the natural rights of man”? Nevertheless you declare him to be “a rare and eminent Christian.” I readily admit that even these enormous crimes against justice and humanity are compatible with high religiousness. But I can not admit that he who is guilty of them is grounded in the Christ-religion and is “eminent” in its graces. For the Christ-religion is simply a religion of justice. It does as it would be done by. It is for, and not “against the natural rights of man.” For it is simply the religion of nature.

I do not wonder that the Churches regard Jackson's as the Christ-religion. For the bundle of dogmas, Trinity, Atonement, Resurrection of the Body, Miracles, etc., which they make up and hold to be essential to salvation, he deeply believed in. I say not whether these dogmas are true or false — originating in fancies or in facts. I but say that they are no part of the Christ-religion. Natural justice toward God and man — so earnest and entire as to fill the heart and life with its presence and power — this, and this alone, is the essence and the all of that religion. Think not that I look for such justice where the Divine Spirit is not at work to produce it. In order to attain to it, depraved man — man who has run away from his nature — must be “born again.”

Jackson had the theology of a Church. But he certainly had not a large share of the religion of Christ. Christ was opposed to all the theologies; for he saw that they all stand in the way of the one true religion — the religion of reason and nature. A theological, or common Church religion, is a traditional religion, authenticated by miracles and other outward testimonies. At the best, it is but a history, and full of all the characteristic uncertainty of history. Moreover, if parts of the history, or of its accepted interpretation, shall prove false, then, as is held, the deceived disciple is lost. Such is the untrustworthy plank on which men are urged to embark their all. But Christ's religion is no historic nor external thing. It cometh not from the past, and it “cometh not with observation.” It “is within” us. It is written by the finger of God in the moral consciousness; and every one, who will listen to God's voice in his soul, will know this religion, or, in other words, will know what is right. "And why," says Jesus, “even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?” Instead of sending his hearers to Moses, he sends them to themselves. Instead of bidding them go to priests to get religion interpreted, he tells them to interpret it for themselves. Instead of making religious truths a mystery, which only the wise and learned can unravel, he thanks his Father for having “revealed them unto babes.” Instead of teaching a religion as fluctuating and uncertain as human testimony is fluctuating and uncertain, he teaches a religion founded and fashioned in human nature, and therefore as unchangeable as human nature — a religion the same in all climes and ages, because human nature is the same in all climes and ages. Instead of teaching a cabalistic and conventional religion, whose rules are hard and impossible to be understood, he teaches the natural and reasonable religion which has but one rule, and this rule so obvious and simple that all know it, and need nothing but honesty to apply it. All know how they would be done by, and hence all know what to do to others.

I am amazed that you make so much account of Jackson's theological bundle, and of his being “an active member of the Presbyterian Church, of which he was a ruling Elder.” These, in your esteem, suffice to carry him straight to heaven. I had supposed that your strong common-sense and large intelligence had long ago lifted you up out of the superstitious faith that any such things can carry any man to heaven. I had taken it for granted that you believed that it is his character, however induced — whether by himself or by Christ, or otherwise — that alone qualifies a man for heaven; so obvious is it, in the light of reason, that every man must go to his own place, and that what shall be his place must be determined, not by his theology, but by his character. But I was mistaken. For in the same breath in which you send Jackson to heaven, you argue out for him a thoroughly base and abominable character; even, to use your strong and eloquent words, a “comprehensive and fundamental degradation of heart and mind and soul.”

So, since it can not be in virtue of his character, it must be in virtue of his theology and ecclesiasticism, that you send Jackson to heaven. Or am I again mistaken? Perhaps you believe that the death of the body works moral changes; and that, though Jackson died with a bad character, he woke up with a good one.

But, notwithstanding I believe that our character in this life is that with which we begin the next, I have hope for “Stonewall” Jackson. And this hope for two reasons. First, I do not believe his character to be as bad as you make it. In many an instance, slaveholding does not deprave and debase the whole soul. Unconsciousness of its criminality, and a kindly exercise of its despotic power, are among the things which leave room for the growth of self-respect and other high virtues. Second, the Christ-religion will be more clearly seen, and more justly judged, in the next life; and mistaken and guilty, though still largely noble souls, like the “Stonewall” Jacksons, will hasten to exchange their miserable theologies for it. Nay, I trust that our Church-misled hero already begins to see more beauty and preciousness in the simple doctrine of doing as we would be done by, than in all the dogmas and prayers and rites of his corrupt and corrupting Church.

But I must stop. I meant to write only a few lines. How long, oh! how long, my great-souled brother, must we still wait for the open enlistment of your large powers against the theologies! I confess that you preach the religion of Jesus, and that you preach it with rare force and beauty. But, alas! how is this preaching counteracted by your preaching the theologies also! The cause of truth can not afford to have Henry Ward Beecher continue to mix up traditional trash, or even traditional sweetness or sublimities, with that religion. She needs him to be wholly, and not but partly, on her side.

With great regard, your friend,

Gerrit Smith.

SOURCES: Gerrit Smith, Gerrit Smith on Sectarianism, p. 19-22; Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 255-6

Diary of Julia Ward Howe: Wednesday, June 21, 1865

Attended the meeting at Faneuil Hall, for the consideration of reconstruction of the Southern States. Dana made a statement to the effect that voting was a civic, not a natural, right, and built up the propriety of negro suffrage on the basis first of military right, then of duty to the negro, this being the only mode of enabling him to protect himself against his late master. His treatment was intended to be exhaustive, and was able, though cold and conceited. Beecher tumbled up on the platform immediately after, not having heard him, knocked the whole question to pieces with his great democratic power, his humor, his passion, and his magnetism. It was Nature after Art, and his nature is much greater than Dana's art.

SOURCE: Laura E. Richards & Maud Howe Elliott, Julia Ward Howe, 1819-1910, Large-Paper Edition, Volume 1, p. 226

Thomas Wentworth Higginson, 1854

I stayed at Mr. Parker's nominally, he being at the West, and luxuriated in his splendid library, the finest in Boston, I suppose; beyond comparison. Perhaps you do not know that he appropriates to this his receipts from lecturing, and that he is building it up for a permanent thing, to be placed after his death in some public institution; for the benefit of scholars yet unborn. Miss Stevenson told me many instances of his kind actions, young people supported at school, and such sort of things. Just now he is hand in glove with Dr. Beecher, and they are trying to get an organization to find places in families for girls who are in danger of crime, which some persons think better than a Reform School for girls. I recommended E. E. Hale as the best person for their agent, and they have taken it up quite eagerly.

SOURCE: Mary Potter Thacher Higginson, Editor, Letters and Journals of Thomas Wentworth Higginson, 1846-1906, p. 53-4

Thomas Wentworth Higginson, December 31, 1852

Worcester, December 31,1852

Last night Theodore Parker lectured here, and we tea'd with him; he is, you know, the most eloquent talker living; nobody compares to him in that; some are more original, perhaps, in talking; but he knows everything, and pours it out in the most simple and delightful way. His lecture was wonderful as a specimen of popularizing information and thought; in this he has no equal in this country; he is far before H. W. Beecher as a stump orator. It is a treat to see how people listen to him.

SOURCE: Mary Potter Thacher Higginson, Editor, Letters and Journals of Thomas Wentworth Higginson, 1846-1906, p. 53

Thomas Wentworth Higginson, November 1852

Brooklyn, N.Y., November, 1852

. . . We reached Norwich at nine and took the steamer; and here, better still, appeared Henry Ward Beecher. I sat by him and read “Bleak House” in the cabin, and at last, when he moved to go to bed, I introduced or recalled myself to him. “Oh, yes,” said he heartily, “bless your soul, I remember you”; and so we talked until twelve o'clock: chiefly about Wasson and churches generally. He defended pews (to be rented, not owned) and said some very sensible things in their defence, of which I had never thought before. He was very cordial — wished me to know Reverend Mr. Storrs of Brooklyn, his associate in the “Independent,” and said I must come to tea with him on Monday and Mr. S. should come also. . . .

[Charles] Dana was at his office, much changed from his former brown and robust self, pale, thin, and bearded; but seemed very content, though rather tired; said he could endure much more labor in that way than any other. He had a good deal of his old dogmatism. . . . Mr. Ripley was there, fat and uninteresting.

George Curtis pleased me far better. He seemed very cordial and not at all foppish. His voice and manner are extremely like Mr. Bowen (Reverend C. J.). . . . The likeness kept recurring to me as I sat in his pretty study, full of books and engravings. . . . He has written two perfectly charming essays on Emerson and Hawthorne for the lovely illustrated “Homes of American Authors”; a most racy and charming picture of Concord and its peculiar life. I read these at the bookstore afterward with great delight.

. . . I learned one good fact; that the arms of the Wentworths are three cats' heads, which explains my tendencies [fondness for milk].

This evening I have been to H. W. Beecher's church. It is wonderful — an immense church and every seat crowded — far beyond Theodore Parker's. Double rows of chairs in the aisles and such attention. He preached almost entirely extempore and it was like his lectures; no eloquence of thought, or little, but much eloquence of feeling; intense, simple earnestness; no grace, no condensation; no moderation or taste in delivery; and very little to remember. I do not think I should go to hear him often, or it would be more for the magnetism of the congregation than anything else. I think him far less impressive intellectually than Mr. Parker, with whom one naturally compares him.

SOURCE: Mary Potter Thacher Higginson, Editor, Letters and Journals of Thomas Wentworth Higginson, 1846-1906, p. 45-6

Salmon P. Chase to Messrs Milton and C. E. Sutliff,* Warren, Trumbull County, Ohio, April 30, 1849

Cin. Apl. 30, 1849.

Gent. Your note by your nephew Saml. was recd. this morning. As I know nobody in California, the best I could do for him was to give him a letter of general introduction, which I did in such terms as I thought would do him most service.

The Whig Papers keep up their attacks on me and my friends, and I keep on never minding. I am satisfied that what was done last winter in the way of martial cooperation between Freesoilers and Democrats was right, and will be attended by the happiest consequences to the great cause, to which eight of the last years of my life have been devoted. I care little therefore for the railing of the Taylorites, or even of the Beaver & Chaffee Freesoilers, so called. The worst that I wish to these last, or even indeed to the first, is that their eyes may be opened, and their hearts purged of the old leaven of Whigism, that they may sec the truth of Free Democracy & love it.

I have sometimes thought of writing an exposition of my position and action, but have been withheld by considerations akin to those which influenced Dr. Beecher under similar circumstances. You know the story, perhaps; but lest you may not have heard it I will tell it to you. On one occasion the Doctor was going home to Walnut Hills and saw a suspicious looking animal by the roadside. The Dr. is a little abstracted, and, the sight of the animal stirring up his combative propensities, he, at once, launched at it a quarto volume which he was carrying under his arm. The skunk returned the salutation with compound interest, and the Doctor was glad to beat a hasty retreat. Soap and water did their best for him and his garments, but some time elapsed before either he or they were tolerable again. Years, afterwards, the Doctor was asked why he did not reply to some scurrilous pamphlet put forth against him. “I have learned better,” was his pithy reply: “I once issued a whole quarto against a skunk and got the worst of it.”

Give my best regards to our friends in Warren, particularly, Judge King & Hoffman & Hutchins & believe me

_______________

* Original lent by Mr. Homer E. Stewart, of Warren, Ohio. These brothers, Milton and C. E. Sutliff, were among the founders of the American Anti-Slavery Society,

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 170-1

Diary of Sergeant Major Luman Harris Tenney: June 13, 1863

Another hot sultry day. Flies swarm about the commissary by thousands — a continual fight to keep them off. Got some lemons for Henry and some candy. Independent and Congregationalist came. Good sermon by Beecher. Both Thede and I are bothered with diarrhoea.

SOURCE: Frances Andrews Tenney, War Diary Of Luman Harris Tenney, p. 73-4

Reverend Samuel H. Cox to the New York Evangelist, August 8, 1846

London, August 8th, 1846

*          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *

Last night we had a grand popular meeting — where do you think? In the Theatre, Covent Garden. The stage was well prepared as a regular platform, the pit was filled to its utmost capacity, the front boxes — three tiers of them — were well occupied, and the two galleries were literally crammed.

*          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *

There were many speakers. Among the first in order, was our venerable friend, now in his seventy-first year, the Rev. Dr. Beecher. He was hailed as pater atque princeps in the army of temperance — and be well sustained his character. There he stood in green old age, fat and flourishing, bringing forth fruit as a tree of righteousness, planted by the rivers of waters; and if wine instead of water had been his beverage, he Would probably now have been in his grave. Other speakers followed from different parts of the world. They all advocated the same cause, showed a glorious unity of thought and feeling; and the effect was constantly raised — the moral scene was superb and glorious — when Frederick Douglass, the coloured abolition agitator and ultraist, came to the platform, and so spake a la mode, as to ruin the influence, almost, of all that preceded! He logged in anti-slavery, or abolition, no doubt prompted to it by some of the politic ones, who can use him to do what they would not themselves adventure to do in person. He is supposed to have been well paid for the abomination.

What a perversion, an abuse, an iniquity against the law of reciprocal righteousness, to call thousands together, and get them, some certain ones, to seem conspicuous and devoted for one sole and grand object, and then, all at once, with obliquity, open an avalanche on them for some imputed evil or monstrosity, for which, whatever he the wound or the injury inflicted, they were

both too fatigued and hurried with surprise, and too straitened for time to be properly prepared. I say it is a trick of meanness ! It is abominable!

On this occasion, Mr. Douglass allowed himself to denounce America and all its temperance societies together, as a grinding community of the enemies of his people; said evil, with no alloy of good, concerning the whole of us: was perfectly indiscriminate in his severities; talked of the American delegates, and to them, as if he had been our schoolmaster, and we his docile and devoted pupils; and launched his revengeful missiles at our country, without one palliative, and as if not a Christian or a true Anti-Slavery man lived in the whole of the United States. The fact is, the man has been petted, and flattered, and used, and paid by certain abolitionists not unknown to us, of the ne plus ultra stamp, till he forgets himself; and though he may gratify his own impulses, and those of old Adam in others, yet sure I am that all this is just the way to ruin his own influence, to defeat his own object, and to do mischief, not good, to the very cause he professes to love. With the single exception of one cold-hearted parricide, whose character I abhor, and whom I will not name, and who has, I fear, no feeling of true patriotism or piety within him, all the delegates from our country were together wounded and indignant. No wonder at it! I write freely. It was not done in a corner. It was inspired, I believe, from beneath, and not from above. It was adapted to re-kindle on both sides of the Atlantic the flames of national exasperation and war. And this is the game which Mr. Frederick Douglass and his silly patrons are playing in England, and in Scotland, and wherever they can find “some mischief still, for idle hands to do.” I came here his sympathizing friend — I am such no more, as I more know him.

My own opinion is increasingly that this abominable spirit must be exercised out of England and America, before any substantial good can be effected for the cause of the slave. It is adapted only to make bad worse, and to inflame the passions of indignant millions to an incurable resentment. None but an ignoramus or a madman could think that this way was that of the inspired apostles of the Son of God. It may gratify the feelings of a self-deceived and malignant few, but it will do no good in any direction — least of all to the, poor slave ! It is short-sighted, impulsive, partisan, reckless, and tending only to sanguinary ends. None of this, with men of sense and principle.

We all wanted to reply, but it was too late; the whole theatre seemed taken with the spirit of the Ephesian uproar; they were furious and boisterous in the extreme, and Mr. Kirk could hardly obtain a moment though many were desirous in his behalf, to say in few words, as he did, very calm and properly, that the cause of temperance was not at all responsible for slavery, and had no connection with it. There were some “sly” agencies behind the scenes — we know!

To the remnant of the meetings for business, some of us repaired this morning, and demanded an opportunity to reply, which, after great clamor, was accorded to us. The Rev. Mr. Marsh and myself, and the Rev. Dr. Schmucker, spoke in succession, and with some good effect, as was generally supposed. Many of them, and those the most intelligent, felt nobly, and spoke nobly on our side. And, apart from what these miserable malignants choose to say of us, on their own responsibility hereafter, and the witnesses are many, I am happy to say that the spirit of the whole nation is kind and benevolent in a very exemplary degree. They all rejoice in I re-established peace with us, and feel kind and pacific all. I have had much opportunity to observe and know, from Portsmouth to Edinburgh, and to do them justice they are our friends at heart.

*          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *

Yours, in hope and love,

SAMUEL H. cox.

SOURCE: American Anti-Slavery Society, Correspondence between the Rev. Samuel H. Cox, D. D., of Brooklyn, L. I. and Frederick Douglass, a Fugitive Slave, p. 5-7

Diary of Sarah Morgan: April 19, 1865

No. 211 Camp St.

“All things are taken from us, and become portions and parcels of the dreadful pasts.” . . .

Thursday the 13th came the dreadful tidings of the surrender of Lee and his army on the 9th. Everybody cried, but I would not, satisfied that God will still save us, even though all should apparently be lost. Followed at intervals of two or three hours by the announcement of the capture of Richmond, Selma, Mobile, and Johnston's army, even the stanchest Southerners were hopeless. Every one proclaimed Peace, and the only matter under consideration was whether Jeff Davis, all politicians, every man above the rank of Captain in the army and above that of Lieutenant in the navy, should be hanged immediately, or some graciously pardoned. Henry Ward Beecher humanely pleaded mercy for us, supported by a small minority. Davis and all leading men must be executed; the blood of the others would serve to irrigate the country. Under this lively prospect, Peace, blessed Peace! was the cry. I whispered, “Never! Let a great earthquake swallow us up first! Let us leave our land and emigrate to any desert spot of the earth, rather than return to the Union, even as it Was!”

Six days this has lasted. Blessed with the silently obstinate disposition, I would not dispute, but felt my heart swell, repeating, “God is our refuge and our strength, a very present help in time of trouble,” and could not for an instant believe this could end in an overthrow.

This morning, when I went down to breakfast at seven, Brother read the announcement of the assassination of Lincoln and Secretary Seward.

“Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” This is murder! God have mercy on those who did it!

Charlotte Corday killed Marat in his bath, and is held up in history as one of Liberty's martyrs, and one of the heroines of her country. To me, it is all murder. Let historians extol blood-shedding; it is woman's place to abhor it. And because I know that they would have apotheosized any man who had crucified Jeff Davis, I abhor this, and call it foul murder, unworthy of our cause — and God grant it was only the temporary insanity of a desperate man that committed this crime! Let not his blood be visited on our nation, Lord!

Across the way, a large building, undoubtedly inhabited by officers, is being draped in black. Immense streamers of black and white hang from the balcony. Downtown, I understand, all shops are closed, and all wrapped in mourning. And I hardly dare pray God to bless us, with the crape hanging over the way. It would have been banners, if our President had been killed, though!

SOURCE: Sarah Morgan Dawson, A Confederate Girl's Diary, p. 435-7

Charles Eliot Norton to George William Curtis, December 10, 1863

Shady Hill, Thursday, 10 December, 1863.

. . . Last night we went to hear Beecher. He spoke admirably, and it was a great pleasure to hear him. It was not great oratory, but it was a fine, large, broad, sensible, human, sympathetic performance. To-morrow we have a dinner of our Dozen Club for him.

Once more we may rejoice that Abraham Lincoln is President. How wise and how admirably timed is his Proclamation.¹ As a state paper its naiveté is wonderful. Lincoln will introduce a new style into state papers; he will make them sincere, and his honesty will compel even politicians to like virtue. I conceive his character to be on the whole the great net gain from the war. . . .

_______________

¹ This proclamation, transmitted to Congress with Lincoln's Third Annual Message, Dec. 8, 1863, provided both for the renewal of allegiance by persons in rebellion and the restoration of state governments under the Union.

SOURCE: Sara Norton and  M. A. DeWolfe Howe, Letters of Charles Eliot Norton, Volume 1, p. 266

Diary of Salmon P. Chase: Sunday, July 27, 1862

A telegram from Genl. Morgan this morning apprised me of his resignation, and of his wish that I would secure its prompt acceptance. I went, therefore, to the War Department, wishing to oblige him, and also to secure Garfield's appointment in his place. Mr. Stanton was not in, but saw Watson.

Talked with Watson about the state of things. He mentioned two conversations with McClellan in November of last year, in both of which Watson expressed the opinion that the rebels were in earnest — that peace, through any arrangement with them, was not to be hoped for — and that it would be necessary to prosecute the war, even to the point of subjugation, if we meant to maintain the territorial integrity of the country. McClellan differed. He thought we ought to avoid harshness and violence — that we should conduct the war so as to avoid offence as far as possible; — and said that if he thought as Watson did, he should feel obliged to lay down his arms.

It was during the same month that he told me of his plan for a rapid advance on Richmond, and gave me the assurance that he would take it by the middle of February; which induced me to assure the capitalists in New York that they could rely on his activity, vigor and success.

From the War Department I went to the President's, to whom I spoke of the resignation of Morgan and of substituting Garfield which seemed to please him. Spoke also of the financial importance of getting rid of McClellan; and expressed the hope that Halleck would approve his project of sending Mitchell to the Mississippi. On these points he said nothing. I then spoke of Jones, the Sculptor, and of the fitness of giving him some Consulate in Italy, which he liked the idea of. He read me a statement (very good) which he was preparing in reply to a letter from; in

New-Orleans, forwarded by Bullitt.

After some other talk and reminding him of the importance of a talk between me and Halleck about finances as affected by the war (by the way, he told me he desired Halleck to come and see me last Monday, but he did not come) I returned home. Was too late for church. Read various books — among others, Whitfield's life. What a worker!

Spent evening with Katie and Nettie, and read H. W. Beecher's last sermon in the Independent.

Not a caller all day. — O si sic omnes dies!

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 50-1

Major-General George G. Meade to Margaretta Sergeant Mead, October 25, 1864

Headquarters Army Of The Potomac, October 25, 1864.

When I last wrote I told you of the fiendish and malicious attack on me in the New York Independent, Henry Ward Beecher's paper. I enclose you the article. I also send you a correspondence I have had with General Grant upon the subject, to whom I appealed for something that would set at rest these idle and malicious reports, based on the presumption I had failed to support him and that he was anxious to get rid of me. His reply, you will perceive, which was made by telegraph, while it expresses sympathy for the injustice acknowledged to be done me, proposes to furnish me with copies of the despatches he has written in which my name has been mentioned.

The number and character of these despatches I am ignorant of; nor do I know whether I would be authorized to publish General Grant's official despatches; but I shall await their receipt before taking any further action. This matter has worried me more than such attacks usually do, because I see no chance for the truth being made public, as it should be. However, I will not make any further comments, but leave these papers to speak for themselves. I wish you to preserve them with the other papers relating to my services

SOURCE: George Meade, The Life and Letters of George Gordon Meade, Vol. 2, p. 236-7

Major-General George G. Meade to Margaretta Sergeant Mead, October 23, 1864

Headquarters Army Of The Potomac, October 23, 1864.

I have seen to-day for the first time a most virulent attack on me in Henry Ward Beecher's paper, the Independent.¹ The piece has been in camp, I find, for several days, and many officers have been talking about it, but purposely refrained from letting me see it. I heard of it accidentally this afternoon at Grant's headquarters, where I was on business. I cannot imagine who is the instigator of this violent assault. The idea that I hang on Grant, like the Old Man of the Sea, and am retained in command in spite of that officer's desire to be rid of me solely on the ground of “fancied political necessity,” is most amusing. I had not seen the article when I was with Grant, or I should have called his attention to it. After all, it is probably not worth while to notice it.

__________

1 For article mentioned, see Appendix Q.

SOURCE: George Meade, The Life and Letters of George Gordon Meade, Vol. 2, p. 235-6

Diary of Josephine Shaw Lowell: September 29, 1861

Mother and Howard went to hear Mr. Beecher, and talking of Fremont, etc., etc., he told her she must have trust in God. “But I do,” she answered. “What good does it do you?” he asked. “You trust in God and worry all the time. It's just as if I should pay my passage through to Albany in the cars and then walk up all the way.”

SOURCE: William Rhinelander Stewart, The Philanthropic Work of Josephine Shaw Lowell, p. 20

Diary of Josephine Shaw Lowell: September 26, 1861

Today was the National Fast and Mother and I went over to Brooklyn to hear Mr. Beecher, but behold! when we reached the Church we found it shut and the sexton said that Mr. Beecher would not preach today, as he had said all he had to say on the state of the country, and didn't know what to preach about. His daughter Hattie was married last evening.

After the disappointment, “ma chere mere” and I betook ourselves to Mr. Chapin's¹ where we heard a splendid sermon. One thing he said particularly pleased me. Speaking of the Nation, he said: “God Almighty doesn't thresh chaff; it's wheat he takes the trouble with.” It was so true and exactly what I had thought myself that the Lord would not give us so much suffering if it were not to purify us in the end.

_______________

¹ Rev. Edwin Hubbell Chapin, 1814-1880, minister of Universalist Church, Fifth Avenue.

SOURCE: William Rhinelander Stewart, The Philanthropic Work of Josephine Shaw Lowell, p. 20

Rutherford B. Hayes to Sardis Birchard, April 20, 1861

CINCINNATI, April 20, [1861].

DEAR UNCLE:— . . . I have joined a volunteer home company to learn drill. It is chiefly composed of the Literary Club. Includes Stephenson, Meline, John Groesbeck, Judge James, McLaughlin, Beard, and most of my cronies. We wish to learn how to “eyes right and left,” if nothing more.

A great state of things for Christian people, and then to have old gentlemen say, as you do, “I am glad we have got to fighting at last” Judge Swan and Mr. Andrews and the whole Methodist clergy all say the same. Shocking! One thing: Don't spend much on your house or furniture henceforth. Save, save, is the motto now. People who furnish for the war will make money, but others will have a time of it.

Mother thinks it is a judgment on us for our sins. Henry Ward Beecher, who is now here, says it is divine work, that the Almighty is visibly in it.

Sincerely,

R. B. HAYES.

S. BIRCHARD.

 SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 2, p. 10