Diary of William Howard Russell: March 23, 1861

It is announced positively that the authorities in Pensacola and Charleston have refused to allow any further supplies to be sent to Fort Pickens, the United States fleet in the Gulf, and to Fort Sumter. Everywhere the Southern leaders are forcing on a solution with decision and energy, whilst the Government appears to be helplessly drifting with the current of events, having neither bow nor stern, neither keel nor deck, neither rudder, compass, sails, or steam. Mr. Seward has declined to receive or hold any intercourse with the three gentlemen called Southern Commissioners, who repaired to Washington accredited by the Government and Congress of the Seceding States now sitting at Montgomery, so that there is no channel of mediation or means of adjustment left open. I hear, indeed, that Government is secretly preparing what force it can to strengthen the garrison at Pickens, and to reinforce Sumter at any hazard; but that its want of men, ships, and money compels it to temporize, lest the Southern authorities should forestall their designs by a vigorous attack on the enfeebled forts.

There is, in reality, very little done by New York to support or encourage the Government in any decided policy, and the journals are more engaged now in abusing each other, and in small party aggressive warfare, than in the performance of the duties of a patriotic press, whose mission at such a time is beyond all question the resignation of little differences for the sake of the whole country, and an entire devotion to its safety, honor, and integrity. But the New York people must have their intellectual drams every morning, and it matters little what the course of Government may be, so long as the aristocratic democrat can be amused by ridicule of the Great Rail Splitter, or a vivid portraiture of Mr. Horace Greeley's old coat, hat, breeches, and umbrella. The coarsest personalities are read with gusto, and attacks of a kind which would not have been admitted into the “Age” or “Satirist” in their worst days, form the staple leading articles of one or two of the most largely circulated journals in the city. “Slang” in its worst Americanized form is freely used in sensation headings and leaders, and a class of advertisements which are not allowed to appear in respectable English papers, have possession of columns of the principal newspapers, few, indeed, excluding them. It is strange, too, to see in journals which profess to represent the civilization and intelligence of the most enlightened and highly educated people on the face of the earth, advertisements of sorcerers, wizards, and fortunetellers by the score — “wonderful clairvoyants,” “the seventh child of a seventh child,” “mesmeristic necromancers,” and the like, who can tell your thoughts as soon as you enter the room, can secure the affections you prize, give lucky numbers in lotteries, and make everybody's fortunes but their own. Then there are the most impudent quack programmes — very doubtful “personals” addressed to “the young lady with black hair and blue eyes, who got out of the omnibus at the corner of 7th Street” — appeals by “a lady about to be confined” to “any respectable person who is desirous of adopting a child:” all rather curious reading for a stranger, or for a family.

It is not to be expected, of course, that New York is a very pure city, for more than London or Paris it is the sewer of nations. It is a city of luxury also — French and Italian cooks and milliners, German and Italian musicians, high prices, extravagant tastes and dressing, money readily made, a life in, hotels, bar-rooms, heavy gambling, sporting, and prize-fighting flourish here, and combine to lower the standard of the bourgeoisie at all events. Where wealth is the sole aristocracy, there is great danger of mistaking excess and profusion for elegance and good taste. To-day as I was going down Broadway, some dozen or more of the most over-dressed men I ever saw were pointed out to me as “sports;” that is, men who lived by gambling-houses and betting on races; and the class is so numerous that it has its own influence, particularly at elections, when the power of a hard-hitting prize-fighter with a following makes itself unmistakably felt. Young America essays to look like martial France in mufti, but the hat and the coat suited to the Colonel of Carabiniers en retraite do not at all become the thin, tall, rather long-faced gentlemen one sees lounging about Broadway. It is true, indeed, the type, though not French, is not English. The characteristics of the American are straight hair, keen, bright, penetrating eyes, and want of color in the cheeks.

SOURCE: William Howard Russell, My Diary North and South, p. 26-8

George William Curtis to Charles Eliot Norton, July 19, 1863

New York, July 19th, '63.

On Tuesday evening, upon an intimation from a man who had heard the plot arranged in the city to come down and visit me that night, and find Horace Greeley and Wendell Phillips, “who were concealed in my house,” I took the babies out of bed and departed to an unsuspected neighbor's. On Wednesday a dozen persons informed me and Mr. Shaw that our houses were to be burned; and as there was no police or military force upon the island, and my only defensive weapon was a large family umbrella, I carried Anna and the two babies to James Sturgis's in Roxbury. Frank was with Mrs. Shaw at Susie Minturn's up the river. Today I am going with him to Roxbury, but shall return immediately, so that I cannot see you. We have now organized ourselves in the neighborhood for mutual defense, and I do not fear any serious trouble.

The good cause gains greatly by all this trouble. The government is strong enough to hold New York, if necessary, as it holds New Orleans, Baltimore, and St. Louis. There must be a great deal more excitement, and if Seymour can bring the State, under a form of law, against the national government, he will do it. It will be done by a state decision of the unconstitutionality of the conscription act. But as a riot it has been suppressed, as an insurrection it has failed. No Northern conspiracy for the rebellion can ever have so fair a chance again as it had in this city last week, without soldiers, with a governor friendly to the mob, and with only a splendid police which did its duty as well as Grant's army.

SOURCE: Edward Cary, George William Curtis, p. 165-6

Diary of William Howard Russell: March 22, 1861

A snow-storm worthy of Moscow or Riga flew through New York all day, depositing more food for the mud. I paid a visit to Mr. Horace Greeley, and had a long conversation with him. He expressed great pleasure at the intelligence that I was going to visit the Southern States. “Be sure you examine the slave-pens. They will be afraid to refuse you, and you can tell the truth.” As the capital and the South form the chief attractions at present, I am preparing to escape from “the divine calm” and snows of New York. I was recommended to visit many places before I left New York, principally hospitals and prisons. Sing-Sing, the state penitentiary, is “claimed,” as the Americans say, to be the first “institution” of its kind in the world. Time presses, however, and Sing-Sing is a long way off. I am told a system of torture prevails there for hardened or obdurate offenders — torture by dropping cold water on them, torture by thumb-screws, and the like — rather opposed to the views of prison philanthropists in modern days.

SOURCE: William Howard Russell, My Diary North and South, p. 26

George William Curtis to Charles Eliot Norton, February 6, 1863

February 6, 1863.

Why should Dr. Holmes trouble himself about the base of McClellan's brain? McClellan has nothing to do with all this McClellanization of the public mind. The reaction requires a small Democrat with great military prestige for its presidential candidate. The new programme, you know, is a new conservative party of Republicans and Democrats, and all mankind except Abolitionists. It will work, I think, for as a party we have broken down. I blame nobody. It was inevitable. The “Tribune,” through the well-meaning mistakes of Greeley, has been forced to take (in the public mind, which is the point) the position of W. Phillips, — the Union if possible, emancipation anyhow. As a practical political position that is not tenable. If, by any hocus-pocus, the war order of emancipation should be withdrawn, we should be lost forever, beyond McClellan's power, assisted by John Van Buren, the “Boston Courier” and “Post” and the “New York Herald,” to save us. There's nothing for us but to go forward and save all we can.

SOURCE: Edward Cary, George William Curtis, p. 161

Major-General George G. Meade to Margaretta Sergeant Mead, July 26, 1864

Headquarters Army oF The Potomac, July 26, 1864.

I consider the peace movement in Canada, and the share Horace Greeley had in it, as most significant. The New York Times of the 23d has a most important article on the President's “To whom it may concern” proclamation, in which it is argued that Mr. Lincoln was right to make the integrity of the Union a sine qua non, but not to make the abandonment of slavery; that this last is a question for discussion and mutual arrangement, and should not be interposed as a bar to peace negotiations.

It is a pity Mr. Lincoln employed the term “abandonment of slavery,” as it implies its immediate abolition or extinction, to which the South will never agree; at least, not until our military successes have been greater than they have hitherto been, or than they now seem likely to be. Whereas had he said the final adjustment of the slavery question, leaving the door open to gradual emancipation, I really believe the South would listen and agree to terms. But when a man like Horace Greeley declares a peace is not so distant or improbable as he had thought, and when a Republican paper, like the Times, asserts the people are yearning for peace, and will not permit the slavery question to interpose towards its negotiations, I think we may conclude we see the beginning of the end. God grant it may be so, and that it will not be long before this terrible war is brought to a close.

The camp is full of rumors of intrigues and reports of all kinds, but I keep myself free from them all, ask no questions, mind my own business, and stand prepared to obey orders and do my duty.

SOURCE: George Meade, The Life and Letters of George Gordon Meade, Vol. 2, p. 215-6

George William Curtis to Charles Eliot Norton, July 29, 1861

July 29, 1861.

My Dear Charles, — I have your notes and the good news of Longfellow. A week ago Tom Appleton wrote me about himself and L–––. It was a very manly, touching letter. How glad I am that L––– is not crushed by the heavy blow!

No, nor am I nor the country by our blow. It is very bitter, but we had made a false start, and we should have suffered more dreadfully in the end had we succeeded now.

The "Tribune," as you see, has changed. There was a terrible time there. Its course was quite exclusively controlled by my friend, Charles Dana. The stockholders and Greeley himself at last rebelled and Dana was overthrown. It may lead to his leaving the “Tribune;” but for his sake I hope not.

As for blame and causes (for the defeat at Bull Run), they are in our condition and character. We have undertaken to make war without in the least knowing how. It is as if I should be put to run a locomotive. I am a decent citizen, and (let us suppose) a respectable man, but if the train were destroyed, who would be responsible? We have made a false start and we have discovered it. It remains only to start afresh.

The only difficulty now will be just that of which Mr. Cox’s resolutions are an evidence, the disposition to ask, “Will it pay?” And the duty is to destroy that difficulty by showing that peace is impossible without an emphatic conquest upon one side or the other. If we could suppose peace made as we stand now, we could not reduce our army by a single soldier. The sword must decide this radical quarrel. Why not within as well as without the Union? Then, if we win, we save all. If we lose, we lose no more.

SOURCE: Edward Cary, George William Curtis, p. 148-9

Major-General George G. Meade to Margaretta Sergeant Mead, April 2, 1864

Headquarters Army Of The Potomac, April 2, 1864.

I left Washington this morning, bidding dear Pennie¹ good-bye at the hotel, which he was to leave half an hour after me. He has had a pretty pleasant time, and his visit has been a source of great happiness to me.

I enclose you a letter I addressed the Department,² with an autograph reply from the President.³ I feel quite sure the President meant to be very kind and complimentary in paying me the distinguished honor of writing a reply in his own hand, and under this conviction I am bound to be satisfied. You will perceive, however, that the main point of my request is avoided, namely, my desire that the letter of Historicus should be submitted, with my letter, to General Sickles, and if he acknowledged or endorsed it, then I wished a court of inquiry, not otherwise. However, Mr. Stanton told me the true reason, which was that it was concluded submitting the letter to Sickles was only playing into his hands; that a court of inquiry, if called at my request, although it might exonerate me, yet it would not necessarily criminate him; and that, on the whole, it was deemed best not to take any action. Butterfield, I hear, was very bitter in his testimony, and made wonderful revelations. I went before the committee yesterday and replied only to his assertion that I instructed him to draw up an order to retreat. This I emphatically denied; also denied any knowledge of his having drawn up such an order; presented documentary evidence to show that, if I had any such idea, that my orders and despatches were contradictory, and referred to numerous officers who ought to have and would have known if I entertained any idea of the kind.⁴

I find I have three warm friends on the committee — Odell of New York, Gooch of Massachusetts, and Harding of Oregon. It is believed Wade, of Ohio, is favorably inclined. If either he or one of the others should prove so, it would make a majority in my favor. Old Zach Chandler is my bitterest foe and will show me no quarter. While going up to Washington I had a long and satisfactory talk with Grant, who has expressed himself and acted towards me in the most friendly manner. Among other things he said he heard Horace Greeley had been in Washington, demanding my removal, and that Thomas be brought here. Grant said, if he saw Greeley he should tell him that when he wanted the advice of a political editor in selecting generals, he would call on him. The President, Secretary, indeed every one I met, were civil and affable to me.

_______________

¹ Spencer Meade, son of General Meade.

² For letter mentioned, see Appendix M.

³ For letter mentioned, see Appendix N.

⁴ This attack on General Meade was continued until long after the war, and even after his death, when, in defence of General Meade, Colonel Meade published in 1883 a pamphlet entitled, "Did General Meade Deaire to Retreat at the Battle of Gettysburg?" For pamphlet, see Appendix Y.

SOURCE: George Meade, The Life and Letters of George Gordon Meade, Vol. 2, p. 186-7

Charles Russell Lowell to George Putnam, May 24, 1860

Burlington, May 24, '60.

How does the Chicago platform and nomination please the Puritans, — it shows pluck, and that, in an American, generally argues strength. Deliberately I prefer Lincoln to Seward, especially since the latter's Capital and Labor speech, that shivered a little in the wind's eye. Lincoln is emphatic on the irrepressible conflict, without if or but. Had Greeley's pet, Bates, been successful, this State, at least, would have gone for Douglas. Since Douglas's last rally in the Senate, he stands in a Samson Antagonistic attitude, which is attractive to the Northwest.

SOURCE: Edward Waldo Emerson, Life and Letters of Charles Russell Lowell, p. 187-8

Major-General George G. Meade to Margaretta Sergeant Mead, December 20, 1863

Headquarters Army Of The Potomac, December 20, 1863.

As to the Christmas box you ask about, it is hardly necessary to send it, as the Frenchman who messes me provides me liberally with everything, and these boxes are very expensive. I expect you will have your hands full with the children at Christmas, and I think you had better throw into this fund the amount you would expend on me for a box and mufti.

I have had several visitors recently. One was the Chevalier Danesi, a young Sardinian officer, who has come to this country with a view of serving in our army. The other was an English gentleman, from Liverpool, an original Union man, who desired to see our army in the field. Danesi brought me a letter from McClellan, and the Englishman one from Mr. Seward, Secretary of State. They both spent a day very pleasantly, and I endeavored to be civil to them.

I suppose you have seen Greeley's apology about the New Jersey letter. After he found it was written to a loyal Republican, he changed his tune about the character of its contents. I wonder what these people want if they are not satisfied with my services and my practical devotion to their cause?

You ask me about Grant. It is difficult for me to reply. I knew him as a young man in the Mexican war, at which time he was considered a clever young officer, but nothing extraordinary. He was compelled to resign some years before the present war, owing to his irregular habits. I think his great characteristic is indomitable energy and great tenacity of purpose. He certainly has been very successful, and that is nowadays the measure of reputation. The enemy, however, have never had in any of their Western armies either the generals or the troops they have had in Virginia, nor has the country been so favorable for them there as here. Grant has undoubtedly shown very superior abilities, and is I think justly entitled to all the honors they propose to bestow upon him.

SOURCE: George Meade, The Life and Letters of George Gordon Meade, Vol. 2, p. 162-3

Diary of Gideon Welles: Saturday, September 3, 1864

New York City is shouting for McClellan, and there is a forced effort elsewhere to get a favorable response to the almost traitorous proceeding at Chicago. As usual, some timid Union men are alarmed, and there are some, like Raymond, Chairman of the National Committee, who have no fixed and reliable principles to inspire confidence, who falter, and another set, like Greeley, who have an uneasy, lingering hope that they can yet have an opportunity to make a new candidate. But this will soon be over. The Chicago platform is unpatriotic, almost treasonable to the Union. The issue is made up. It is whether a war shall be made against Lincoln to get peace with Jeff Davis. Those who met at Chicago prefer hostility to Lincoln rather than to Davis. Such is extreme partisanism.

We have to-day word that Atlanta is in our possession, but we have yet no particulars. It has been a hard, long struggle, continued through weary months. This intelligence will not be gratifying to the zealous partisans who have just committed the mistake of sending out a peace platform, and declared the war a failure. It is a melancholy and sorrowful reflection that there are among us so many who so give way to party as not to rejoice in the success of the Union arms. They feel a conscious guilt, and affect not to be dejected, but discomfort is in their countenances, deportment, and tone. While the true Unionists are cheerful and joyous, greeting all whom they meet over the recent news, the Rebel sympathizers shun company and are dolorous. This is the demon of party, — the days of its worst form, — a terrible spirit, which in its excess leads men to rejoice in the calamities of their country and to mourn its triumphs. Strange, and wayward, and unaccountable are men. While the facts are as I have stated, I cannot think these men are destitute of love of country; but they permit party prejudices and party antagonisms to absorb their better natures. The leaders want power. All men crave it. Few, comparatively, expect to attain high position, but each hopes to be benefited within a certain circle which limits, perhaps, his present ambition. There is fatuity in nominating a general and warrior in time of war on a peace platform.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 – December 31, 1866, p. 135-6

Brigadier General George G. Meade to Margaretta Sergeant Meade, May 14, 1862

CAMP OPPOSITE FREDERICKSBURG, May 14, 1862.

Last Sunday the enemy, who have some force in our front on the other side of the river, advanced to our picket line, I suppose to see what we were doing. They were well received by a portion of General Patrick's brigade, stationed on the other side, and driven back, with the loss of one officer and twelve men. One of the generals in front of us is named Field, whom perhaps you may remember as being stationed at West Point. He was a large man and distinguished for sporting an immense shirt collar, a la Byron. He was married to quite a pretty little woman, whose sister, Miss Mason, was staying with them. This Miss Mason afterwards married Lieutenant Collins, of the Topogs. (your relative). Their mother, Mrs. Mason, is now at Fredericksburg, but her daughters are with their husbands, Field, a general in our front, and Collins, an Engineer, who has gone to Brazil. General Ricketts has joined, having been assigned to one of the brigades of the new division we are to have. He has a staff of Philadelphians — one of Julia Fisher's sons, John Williams, young Richards (son of Benj. W.) and I believe others. Colonel Lyles's¹ regiment is in his brigade, and I believe he has other Pennsylvania troops.

I hear the reaction in favor of McClellan since he has had some men killed is very great, and that even Greeley² has begun to praise him. Poor Mac, if he is in this strait, he is in a pretty bad way! Greeley's enmity he might stand, but his friendship will kill him. I am afraid Richmond will be taken before we get there.

I have not seen the death of Huger³ positively announced in the papers; all I have seen was that he was badly wounded. But he does not seem to have been made prisoner.

__________

¹ Peter Lyles, colonel 90th Regt., Pa. Vols.

² Horace Greeley, editor New York Tribune.

³ Thomas B. Huger, brother-in-law of General Meade, in the Confederate army.

SOURCE: George Meade, The Life and Letters of George Gordon Meade, Vol. 1, p. 266

Brigadier General Ulysses S. Grant to Jesse Root Grant, November 27, 1861

Cairo, Illinois,

November 27th, 1861.

Dear Father:

Your letter enclosed with a shawl to Julia is just received.

In regard to your stricture about my not writing I think that you have no cause of complaint. My time is all taken up with public duties.

Your statement of prices at which you proposed furnishing harness was forwarded to Maj. Allen as soon as received and I directed Lagow, who received the letter enclosing it, to inform you of the fact. He did so at once.

I cannot take an active part in securing contracts. If I were not in the army I should do so, but situated as I am it is necessary both to my efficiency for the public good and my own reputation that I should keep clear of Government contracts.

I do not write you about plans, or the necessity of what has been done or what is doing because I am opposed to publicity in these matters. Then too you are very much disposed to criticise unfavorably from information received through the public press, a portion of which I am sorry to see can look at nothing favorably that does not look to a war upon slavery. My inclination is to whip the rebellion into submission, preserving all constitutional rights. If it cannot be whipped in any other way than through a war against slavery, let it come to that legitimately. If it is necessary that slavery should fall that the Republic may continue its existence, let slavery go. But that portion of the press that advocates the beginning of such a war now, are as great enemies to their country as if they were open and avowed secessionists.¹

There is a desire upon the part of people who stay securely at home to read in the morning papers, at their breakfast, startling reports of battles fought. They cannot understand why troops are kept inactive for weeks or even months. They do not understand that men have to be disciplined, arms made, transportation and provisions provided. I am very tired of the course pursued by a portion of the Union press.

Julia left last Saturday for St. Louis where she will probably spend a couple of weeks and return here should I still remain. It costs nothing for her to go there, and it may be the last opportunity she will have of visiting her father. From here she will go to Covington, and spend a week or two before going back to Galena.

It was my bay horse (cost me $140) that was shot. I also lost the little pony, my fine saddle and bridle, and the common one. What I lost cost about $250. My saddle cloth which was about half the cost of the whole, I left at home.

I try to write home about once in two weeks and think I keep it up pretty well. I wrote to you directly after the battle of Belmont, and Lagow and Julia have each written since.

Give my love to all at home. I am very glad to get letters from home and will write as often as I can. I am somewhat troubled lest I lose my command here, though I believe my administration has given general satisfaction not only to those over me but to all concerned. This is the most important command within the department however, and will probably be given to the senior officer next to General Halleck himself.

There are not so many brigadier generals in the army as there are brigades, and as to divisions they are nearly all commanded by brigadiers.

Yours,

ULYSSES.

__________

¹ Grant's conviction that the essential purpose of the war was not the abolition of slavery as an end in itself, but the preservation of the Union at all costs was identical with that of Lincoln. This letter can properly be compared with the well-known letter written by Lincoln to Greeley on the third [sic] of August, 1862, in which Lincoln says: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or to destroy slavery." Lincoln understood that the task accepted by him as President as the leader in the contest for national existence made the maintenance of the Union his chief, if not for the time being his only responsibility. He had, however, placed himself on record in many utterances to the effect that if the republic were to be preserved, slavery must be, in the first place, restricted, and finally destroyed. It is probable that in this matter Grant did not go so far as Lincoln. In any case, in common with the President, he devoted himself simply to the duty immediately before him.

SOURCE: Jesse Grant Cramer, Editor, Letters of Ulysses S. Grant to His Father and His Youngest Sister, 1857-78, p. 68-71

Review: Abraham Lincoln and Horace Greeley

Abraham Lincoln and Horace Greeley

by Gregory A. Borchard

In August 1862 there was an amazing exchange of letters between Horace Greeley, the editor of the New York Tribune, and Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.  These letters were not exchanged through the mail, but rather in the pages of the country’s newspapers.  In an open letter to Lincoln, published under the heading “The Prayer of Twenty Millions,” Greeley demanded that Lincoln ungrudgingly execute the Confiscation Act, thereby giving freedom to the slaves of the Rebels.  A few days later Lincoln famously replied, “ If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

Greeley is too often pushed aside in many books written about Lincoln, but the relationship between Abraham Lincoln and Horace Greeley is a long and complicated one.  Abraham Lincoln and Horace Greeley, by Gregory A. Borchard, a volume in Southern Illinois University Press’ Concise Lincoln Library, uncovers the tangled history of these two men.

Lincoln and Greeley were more alike than they were different.  Mr. Borchard’s linear narrative traces the parallel lives of these two men; both grew up in poverty, were self-made men, and were ultimately successful in their chosen fields of politics and journalism.  Both men favored the limitation and eventual abolition of slavery. 

Though geographically separated, Greeley & Lincoln’s lives frequently intersected.  Both were members of the Whig party who served together in the House of Representatives during the 30th Congress of the United Sates, and both eventually became Republicans.  Greeley, who broke ranks with his former political allies, Thurlow Weed and William H. Seward, was a delegate to the 1860 Republican National Convention and supported Lincoln over Seward for the party’s nomination.

Mr. Borchard also traces the divergence of the lives of Lincoln and Greeley once Lincoln became the President.  Often antagonistic, Greeley used the power of his pen to try to goad Lincoln into action, while Lincoln steadfastly led the nation through four years of civil war.

Abraham Lincoln and Horace Greeley is a well researched book written in an easily read style, and covers the relationship between these two men in a depth not found in other works about Lincoln.

Mr. Borchard, an associate professor of mass communication and journalism in the Hank Greenspun School of Journalism and Media Studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, is the coauthor of Journalism in the Civil War Era and has published journal articles focusing on the nineteenth-century press.

ISBN 978-0809330454, Southern Illinois University Press, © 2011, Hardcover, 168 pages, End Notes, Selected Bibliography & Index. $19.95

A Letter From The Secretary Of War

To the Editor of the N. Y. Tribune.

SIR:  I cannot suffer undue merit to be ascribed to my official action. The glory of our recent victories belongs to the gallant officers and soldiers that fought the battles. No share of it belongs to me.

Much has recently been said of military combinations and organizing victory. I hear such phrases with apprehension. They commenced in infidel France with the Italian campaign, and resulted in Waterloo. Who can organize victory? Who can combine the elements of success on the battlefield? We owe our recent victories to the Spirit of the Lord that moved our soldiers to rush into battle, and filled the hearts of our enemies with terror and dismay. The inspiration that conquered in battle was in the hearts of the soldiers and from on high; and wherever there is the same inspiration there will be the same results. Patriotic spirit, with resolute courage in officers and men, is a military combination that never failed.

We may well rejoice at the recent victories, for they teach us that battles are to be won now and by us in the same and only manner that they were won by any people, or in any age, since the days of Joshua, by boldly pursuing and striking the foe. What, under the blessings of Providence, I conceive to be the true organization of victory and military combination to end this war, was declared in a few words by General Grant's message to General Buckner – “I propose to move immediately on your works!"

Yours, truly,

EDWIN M. STANTON.

– Published in the New York Daily Tribune, New York, New York, Thursday, February 20, 1862, p. 4

Republican Landmarks

The attempt now making to revive the Republican party on an extra-constitutional platform which contemplates the erasure of a large number of stars from the National flag, makes this a fitting time for considering how far such an attempt is justified by the antecedents of the Republican party or the principles on which it was brought into power.  We will not measure the new creed by the standard of the Convention which nominated Mr. Lincoln, at Chicago.  The Chicago platform was a compromise, in which “advanced” Republicans, like Mr. Greeley, were willing to soften their more radical views in order to conciliate conservative voters.  A truer exposition of the aims of the Republican party is found in the speeches of the recognized leaders who furnished it with ideas, gave impulse and vitality to its movements, and infused into it the courage by which after ten years’ effort, it won its great national triumph.

Among these leaders Mr. Seward held the foremost rank, both in fact and in estimation of the party.  There was no Republican statesman with half his brains and accomplishments that had hodld of his political intrepidity.  During the long struggle of the party for existence and power, Seward boldly led where but few had the courage to follow.  Nobody can have forgotten the storm of obloquy that was raised by his famous “higher law” speech in the Senate.  The offensive doctrines of that speech were almost the sole stock in trade of the opponents of the Republican party, until they were again startled and shocked by the celebrated “irrepressible conflict” speech, delivered on the stump at Rochester in the autumn of 1858.  We may safely take these memorable speeches, which have made such a great figure in the political history of the last decade, as the most advanced landmarks of the most daring and aggressive Republicanism.

If it has been deemed expedient, during the progress of this war to sink even the Chicago platform out of sight, what shall be said of an attempt to revive the Republican party on principles beside which the “higher law” speech and the “irrepressible conflict” speech “pale their ineffectual fires?”

These were both emancipation speeches; but they were both fundamentally wrong, or else emancipation is possible without any such extra-constitutional resorts as Mr. Sumner and his coadjutors now propose.  Both of those noted speeches, though accepted with applause by radical anti-slavery men, were fundamentally wrong, or else emancipation is not even desirable by the sudden, violent, destructive methods which a few men are now found to advocate. – In the “higher law” speech, Mr. Seward in language of which time is already vindicating the wisdom, and will more fully vindicate it with the progress of events, said:

“It seems to me that all our difficulties, embarrassments, and dangers, arise, not out of perversions of the question of slavery, as some suppose, but from the want of moral courage to meet THIS QUESTION OF EMANCIPATION as we ought.  Consequently, we hear on one side demands – absurd, indeed, but yet unceasing – for an immediate and unconditional abolition of slavery; as if any power except the people of the Slave States could abolish it, and as if they could be moved to abolish it  BY MERELY SOUNDING THE TRUMPET LOUDLY, AND PROCLAMIMING EMANCIPATION, WHILE THE INSTITUTION IS INTERWOVEN WITH ALL THEIR SOCIAL AND POLITICAL INTERESTS, CONSTITUTIONS, AND CUSTOMS.”

On the other hand Mr. Seward declared that he equally disapproved of the views of our statesmen who say that slavery has always existed, and only GOD can indicate the way to remove it:

“Here, then,” he said, “is my point of separation from both these parties.  I feel assured that slavery will give way, and must give way TO SALUTARY INSTRUCTIONS OF ECONOMY AND TO THE RIPENING INFLUENCES OF HUMANITY; THAT EMANCIPATION IS INEVITABLE AND THAT IT IS NEAR; that it may be hastened or hindered; and that whether it shall be peaceful or violent depends upon the question whether it be hastened or hindered; that all measures which fortify slavery or extend it, tend to the consummation of violence; all that check its extension or abate its strength tend to its peaceful extirpation.  But I will adopt none but lawful, constitutional, and peaceful measures to accomplish even that end; and none such can I or will I forgo.  Nor do I know any important or responsible political body that proposes to do more than this.  No free state claims to extend its legislation into a slave state.  None claims that Congress shall USURP power to abolish slavery in the slave states.  None claims that any violent, unconstitutional, or unlawful measure shall be embraced.  And, on the other hand, if we offer no scheme or plan for the adoption of the slave states, with the assent and co-operation of Congress, it is only because the slave states are unwilling, as yet, to receive such suggestions, or even to entertain the question of emancipation in any form.”

Mr. Seward’s repudiation of all sudden, violent, or unconstitutional means for effecting emancipation is again asserted in the closing paragraph of this very able and celebrated speech:

“While we leave slavery to the care of the states where it exists, let us inflexibly direct the policy of the government to circumscribe its limits and favor ITS ULTIMATE EXTINGUISHMENT.  Let those who have this misfortune entailed upon them, instead of contriving how to maintain an equilibrium that never had existence, consider carefully how at some time – it may be ten, or twenty, or even fifty years hence – by some means, by all means of their own and WITH OUR AID, WITHOUT SUDDEN CHANGE OR VIOLENT ACTION they may bring about the emancipation of labor, and its restoration to its just dignity and power in the state.”

More than eight years elapsed after the delivery of this speech before Mr. Seward mad his well-abused exposition of the “irrepressible conflict.”  His mind, meanwhile, had undergone no change, except to acquire increased confidence in the universal triumph of freedom throughout our national borders.  A single quotation will sufficiently illustrate his views of the methods by which this triumph will be achieved:

“It remains to say on this point only one word to guard against misapprehension.  If these states are to again become universally slaveholding, I do not pretend to say with what violations of the Constitution that end shall be accomplished.  On the other hand, while I do confidently believe and hope that my country will yet become a land of universal freedom, I DO NOT EXPECT THAT IT WILL BE MADE SO OTHERWISE THAN THROUGH THE ACTION OF THE SEVERAL STATES, CO-OPERATING WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND ALL ACTING IN STRICT CONFORMITY WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE CONSTITUTIONS.”

We submit that we have clearly established to position which we undertook to maintain, namely, that the new scheme for breaking down the state governments of the South for the purpose of bringing slavery within the control of Congress is not Republicanism.  Whatever may be its merits or its disadvantages, it flies in the teeth, not only of the Chicago platform, but of the most advanced views which have ever been accepted by the most radical wing of the Republican party. – {New York World.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, March 8, 1862, p. 1

The Social and Moral Condition of Washington

A Washington correspondent of the New York World answers the questions, “Have the Northern army and Northern supremacy benefited or injured Washington?  Have they brought to the Southern border the best or the worst of humanites?” as follows:

Something of the best certainly.  I have before written of the intellectual and social innovations storming Washington under convoy of a Republican dynasty and patriot army of occupation.  Of the misty departure, the gradual lessening and withdrawal from a thousand rented houses, of dresses gorgeous with gold and scarlet emblazonings, diamonds glistening on full imperious bosoms, wreaths, rioting, rampageous bluster, and other efflorescence of the Southern “Master-race.”  Of the substitution, in their stead, of modest and graceful fashions, neutral tints, figures, whose close bodiced whiteness must be guessed at from the stainless faces and golden hair above them the quiet tone of a higher breeding, the courtesies and charities and ease of the most civilized modern life.

Now are the metal revolutions less noteworthy.  “The old order changeth, yielding place to new,” and by favor of the latter our poets, scholars, and thinkers are having their time of political rule and remuneration.  It seems odd to find within the Ionic porches of the Government money factory such a gathering of bookmen, old and young, as I can name; to see the veteran Pierpont, and “Peter Schlemil,” and O’Connor – the talented Boston essayist and tale writer – and Piatt, who with Howells (now consul at Venice,) published the most promising volume of poems yet given us from the West – and Chilton, and Dr. Elder, et alii sim – all hopefully engaged in signing, cutting, or recording government notes and bonds, preparing tax schedules or in some other way laboring from 9 till 4 daily, Sundays excepted, in the joint behalf of Mercury and the republic.  Stepping across the yard, and entering the library of the State Department, one is assisted in his examination of parchment treaties and Puffendorff by J. C. Derby, so long in the front rank of New York publishers, now Mr. Seward’s librarian, and as ever, though not a soldier, bearded like the pard.  Already, on Pennsylvania Avenue, Fred. Cozzens’ store, to which Sparrow-grass has transported his catawbas and cabanas and genial self, is the lounging place of many of the afore-named gentry.  At the White house, of a morning, you will perhaps meet N. P. Willis in the reception room; but in Mr. Nicolay’s up-stair sanctum are sure to find John Hay, whose Atlantic papers are written with such purity of style and feeling, at his desk as under secretary to the President.  Then, among women writers, there is Mr. Prentice’s favorite contributor, nee Sallie M. Bryan, now wife of the aforesaid Piatt; and Mrs. Donn Piatt, otherwise “Bell Smith Abroad;” Mrs. Devereux Umstead and Mrs. Kirkland; and as of their male compeers, plenty of others whom I do not just now remember.  And of artists, there are Leutze, hard at work upon his twenty thousand dollar picture; Miss Lander, the sculptor, sister to Gen. Fred., who captured so many Colonels last Friday; and the Vermont sculptor, Larkin Meade, whose “Green Mountain boy” is now exhibiting at Philip & Solomon’s.  And the hall of the Smithsonian has yielded surprised echoes this winter to ringing utterances of the representative Northerns – Emerson, Taylor, Curtis, Holland, and Greeley.  Everywhere, intermingled with the varying phases of success, misfortune, valor and contrivance evolved by the present life struggle, the Northern mind and heart have exercised pervading influence at the Capital.

But this has nothing to do with the demoralization of Washington, and sounds curiously, I suppose, as a prelude to statements under such a caption.  The caption itself is paradoxical. – Washington life has so long been a synonym for dissipation, extravagance, finesse and fraud, that to talk of demoralizing it is presenting a converse to the proverb about gilding refined gold and painting the lily – it is to speak of corrupting an aged egg or making thick the water of the Ohio river.  Yet the truth is as I write it.  Even Washington has been lowered from its average standard of morals by a year of military occupation.  And it is high time that some attempt at reform should be made by those in power – from the Provost Marshal to the Municipal Police.

Bear in mind that the present condition of the city is in no wise chargeable to the influences mentioned above.  It has come in spite of them; as not so bad as it would be without them.  It is perhaps to a certain extent inseperable from an Army in Waiting.  Perhaps there is not so much vice here as has rioted in Vienna, Paris, Lisbon, Berlin or Brussels during the historic periods of their military occupation.  But these are larger cities.  Here, where 6,000 buildings and eight times as many resident people constitute the town, the amount of vice and crime brought with and bred among an army of one hundred and fifty thousand men is frightfully concentrated and apparent.  Licentiousness, debauchery, and gambling have raged like the typhoid and contagious fevers of the camps. – Worse, the latter flourish inversely with good weather, and the former seem to increase continuously, maintain a rising average through rain, hail, sleet, and sunshine.  I think the atmosphere is less tainted with the odor of fraudulent contracting, peculation and bribery than it was in A. D. 1861; but the pestilent fogs of vice are gathering in such noisome thickness as to indicate it well for the spiritual safety of our officers that active operations are close at hand.  With the motion of actual warfare comes a cleansing moral process, none but stagnant waters are spread with scum and slime.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, March 1, 1862, p. 3

Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. HORACE GREELEY:

Dear Sir:  I have just read yours of the 19th addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever.  I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free. Yours,

A. LINCOLN

SOURCE:  Roy P. Basler, Editor, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 5, p. 388-9;  See also: The Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress, Series 2. General Correspondence 1858-1864, Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley, Friday, August 22, 1862 which is incorrectly identified as a clipping from the Aug. 23, 1862 issue of the New York Tribune.  Greeley did not print Lincoln’s response until it appeared under the heading, “President Lincoln’s Letter,” in the New York Daily Tribune, Monday, August 25, 1862, p. 4.  The clipping in the Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress, titled "A Letter From The President," is actually from The National Intelligencer, Washington, D. C., Saturday, August 23, 1862, p. 3.

The Prayer Of Twenty Millions

To ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States:

        DEAR SIR: I do not intrude to tell you--for you must know already--that a great proportion of those who triumphed in your election, and of all who desire the unqualified suppression of the Rebellion now desolating our country, are sorely disappointed and deeply pained by the policy you seem to be pursuing with regard to the slaves of the Rebels. I write only to set succinctly and unmistakably before you what we require, what we think we have a right to expect, and of what we complain.

        I. We require of you, as the first servant of the Republic, charged especially and preeminently with this duty, that you EXECUTE THE LAWS. Most emphatically do we demand that such laws as have been recently enacted, which therefore may fairly be presumed to embody the present will and to be dictated by the present needs of the Republic, and which, after due consideration have received your personal sanction, shall by you be carried into full effect, and that you publicly and decisively instruct your subordinates that such laws exist, that they are binding on all functionaries and citizens, and that they are to be obeyed to the letter.

        II. We think you are strangely and disastrously remiss in the discharge of your official and imperative duty with regard to the emancipating provisions of the new Confiscation Act. Those provisions were designed to fight Slavery with Liberty. They prescribe that men loyal to the Union, and willing to shed their blood in her behalf, shall no longer be held, with the Nation's consent, in bondage to persistent, malignant traitors, who for twenty years have been plotting and for sixteen months have been fighting to divide and destroy our country. Why these traitors should be treated with tenderness by you, to the prejudice of the dearest rights of loyal men, We cannot conceive.

        III. We think you are unduly influenced by the counsels, the representations, the menaces, of certain fossil politicians hailing from the Border Slave States. Knowing well that the heartily, unconditionally loyal portion of the White citizens of those States do not expect nor desire that Slavery shall be upheld to the prejudice of the Union – (for the truth of which we appeal not only to every Republican residing in those States, but to such eminent loyalists as H. Winter Davis, Parson Brownlow, the Union Central Committee of Baltimore, and to The Nashville Union) – we ask you to consider that Slavery is everywhere the inciting cause and sustaining base of treason: the most slaveholding sections of Maryland and Delaware being this day, though under the Union flag, in full sympathy with the Rebellion, while the Free-Labor portions of Tennessee and of Texas, though writhing under the bloody heel of Treason, are unconquerably loyal to the Union. So emphatically is this the case, that a most intelligent Union banker of Baltimore recently avowed his confident belief that a majority of the present Legislature of Maryland, though elected as and still professing to be Unionists, are at heart desirous of the triumph of the Jeff. Davis conspiracy; and when asked how they could be won back to loyalty, replied "only by the complete Abolition of Slavery." It seems to us the most obvious truth, that whatever strengthens or fortifies Slavery in the Border States strengthens also Treason, and drives home the wedge intended to divide the Union. Had you from the first refused to recognize in those States, as here, any other than unconditional loyalty – that which stands for the Union, whatever may become of Slavery – those States would have been, and would be, far more helpful and less troublesome to the defenders of the Union than they have been, or now are.

        IV. We think timid counsels in such a crisis calculated to prove perilous, and probably disastrous. It is the duty of a Government so wantonly, wickedly assailed by Rebellion as ours has been to oppose force to force in a defiant, dauntless spirit. It cannot afford to temporize with traitors nor with semi-traitors. It must not bribe them to behave themselves, nor make them fair promises in the hope of disarming their causeless hostility. Representing a brave and high-spirited people, it can afford to forfeit anything else better than its own self-respect, or their admiring confidence. For our Government even to seek, after war has been made on it, to dispel the affected apprehensions of armed traitors that their cherished privileges may be assailed by it, is to invite insult and encourage hopes of its own downfall. The rush to arms of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, is the true answer at once to the Rebel raids of John Morgan and the traitorous sophistries of Beriah Magoffin.

        V. We complain that the Union cause has suffered, and is now suffering immensely, from mistaken deference to Rebel Slavery. Had you, Sir, in your Inaugural Address, unmistakably given notice that, in case the Rebellion already commenced were persisted in, and your efforts to preserve the Union and enforce the laws should be resisted by armed force, you would recognize no loyal person as rightfully held in Slavery by a traitor, we believe the Rebellion would therein have received a staggering if not fatal blow. At that moment, according to the returns of the most recent elections, the Unionists were a large majority of the voters of the Slave States. But they were composed in good part of the aged, the feeble, the wealthy, the timid – the young, the reckless, the aspiring, the adventurous, had already been largely lured by the gamblers and negro-traders, the politicians by trade and the conspirators by instinct, into the toils of Treason. Had you then proclaimed that Rebellion would strike the shackles from the slaves of every traitor, the wealthy and the cautious would have been supplied with a powerful inducement to remain loyal. As it was, every coward in the South soon became a traitor from fear; for Loyalty was perilous, while Treason seemed comparatively safe. Hence the boasted unanimity of the South – a unanimity based on Rebel terrorism and the fact that immunity and safety were found on that side, danger and probable death on ours. The Rebels from the first have been eager to confiscate, imprison, scourge and kill: we have fought wolves with the devices of sheep. The result is just what might have been expected. Tens of thousands are fighting in the Rebel ranks to-day whose, original bias and natural leanings would have led them into ours.

        VI. We complain that the Confiscation Act which you approved is habitually disregarded by your Generals, and that no word of rebuke for them from you has yet reached the public ear. Fremont's Proclamation and Hunter's Order favoring Emancipation were promptly annulled by you; while Halleck's No. 3, forbidding fugitives from Slavery to Rebels to come within his lines – an order as unmilitary as inhuman, and which received the hearty approbation of every traitor in America – with scores of like tendency, have never provoked even your own remonstrance. We complain that the officers of your Armies have habitually repelled rather than invited approach of slaves who would have gladly taken the risks of escaping from their Rebel masters to our camps, bringing intelligence often of inestimable value to the Union cause. We complain that those who have thus escaped to us, avowing a willingness to do for us whatever might be required, have been brutally and madly repulsed, and often surrendered to be scourged, maimed and tortured by the ruffian traitors, who pretend to own them. We complain that a large proportion of our regular Army Officers, with many of the Volunteers, evince far more solicitude to uphold Slavery than to put down the Rebellion. And finally, we complain that you, Mr. President, elected as a Republican, knowing well what an abomination Slavery is, and how emphatically it is the core and essence of this atrocious Rebellion, seem never to interfere with these atrocities, and never give a direction to your Military subordinates, which does not appear to have been conceived in the interest of Slavery rather than of Freedom.

        VII. Let me call your attention to the recent tragedy in New Orleans, whereof the facts are obtained entirely through Pro-Slavery channels. A considerable body of resolute, able-bodied men, held in Slavery by two Rebel sugar-planters in defiance of the Confiscation Act which you have approved, left plantations thirty miles distant and made their way to the great mart of the South-West, which they knew to be the indisputed possession of the Union forces. They made their way safely and quietly through thirty miles of Rebel territory, expecting to find freedom under the protection of our flag. Whether they had or had not heard of the passage of the Confiscation Act, they reasoned logically that we could not kill them for deserting the service of their lifelong oppressors, who had through treason become our implacable enemies. They came to us for liberty and protection, for which they were willing to render their best service: they met with hostility, captivity, and murder. The barking of the base curs of Slavery in this quarter deceives no one – not even themselves. They say, indeed, that the negroes had no right to appear in New Orleans armed (with their implements of daily labor in the cane-field); but no one doubts that they would gladly have laid these down if assured that they should be free. They were set upon and maimed, captured and killed, because they sought the benefit of that act of Congress which they may not specifically have heard of, but which was none the less the law of the land which they had a clear right to the benefit of – which it was somebody's duty to publish far and wide, in order that so many as possible should be impelled to desist from serving Rebels and the Rebellion and come over to the side of the Union. They sought their liberty in strict accordance with the law of the land – they were butchered or re-enslaved for so doing by the help of Union soldiers enlisted to fight against slaveholding Treason. It was somebody's fault that they were so murdered – if others shall hereafter stuffer in like manner, in default of explicit and public directions to your generals that they are to recognize and obey the Confiscation Act, the world will lay the blame on you. Whether you will choose to hear it through future History and at the bar of God, I will not judge. I can only hope.

        VIII. On the face of this wide earth, Mr. President, there is not one disinterested, determined, intelligent champion of the Union cause who does not feel that all attempts to put down the Rebellion and at the same time uphold its inciting cause are preposterous and futile – that the Rebellion, if crushed out tomorrow, would be renewed within a year if Slavery were left in full vigor – that Army officers who remain to this day devoted to Slavery can at best be but half-way loyal to the Union – and that every hour of deference to Slavery is an hour of added and deepened peril to the Union, I appeal to the testimony of your Ambassadors in Europe. It is freely at your service, not at mine. Ask them to tell you candidly whether the seeming subserviency of your policy to the slaveholding, slavery-upholding interest, is not the perplexity, the despair of statesmen of all parties, and be admonished by the general answer.

        IX. I close as I began with the statement that what an immense majority of the Loyal Millions of your countrymen require of you is a frank, declared, unqualified, ungrudging execution of the laws of the land, more especially of the Confiscation Act. That Act gives freedom to the slaves of Rebels coming within our lines, or whom those lines may at any time inclose – we ask you to render it due obedience by publicly requiring all your subordinates to recognize and obey it. The rebels are everywhere using the late anti-negro riots in the North, as they have long used your officers' treatment of negroes in the South, to convince the slaves that they have nothing to hope from a Union success – that we mean in that case to sell them into a bitter bondage to defray the cost of war. Let them impress this as a truth on the great mass of their ignorant and credulous bondsmen, and the Union will never be restored – never. We cannot conquer Ten Millions of People united in solid phalanx against us, powerfully aided by the Northern sympathizers and European allies. We must have scouts, guides, spies, cooks, teamsters, diggers and choppers from the Blacks of the South, whether we allow them to fight for us or not, or we shall be baffled and repelled. As one of the millions who would gladly have avoided this struggle at any sacrifice but that Principle and Honor, but who now feel that the triumph of the Union is dispensable not only to the existence of our country to the well being of mankind, I entreat you to render a hearty and unequivocal obedience to the law of the land.

Yours,

HORACE GREELEY

New York, August 19, 1862

– Published in New York Daily Tribune, New York City, New York, Wednesday, August 20, 1862, p. 4

By Telegraph

(Reported expressly for the Gazette.)

Opinion of the Attorney General in regard to Pensions.

Rumored Promotion of General Rosencrans [sic].

Skirmish between the Rebels and Gen. Sickles’ Division.

__________

From Washington

WASHINGTON, April 4.

Attorney Gen. Bates has given his opinion that the acts of January and August, 1813, granting pensions for wounds or disabilities are applicable only to the forces thereby created, and will not cover the cases of those called into service by the acts of the 22d of July last; nor are their widows and entitled to pensions under the act of fourth of July, 1836.

Grave doubts may be suggested whether the existing laws make provision for pensions to widows of those now in service who may die from disease or be killed in battle; and upon the whole question the Attorney General inclines to the opinion that there is no adequate provision of law by which such widows are entitled to pensions.  In addition to the bounty conferred by the act of July last, the militia, under the president’s proclamation of the 15^th of April 1861, which was in accordance with the law of 2d August, 1813, are, in cases of wounds and disabilities, entitled to pensions under its provisions.

Previous to adjournment to-day, Senator Trumbull gave notice he should call up the confiscation bill and press it daily until disposed of.

An official war bulletin from the War Department, creates two military departments – first, that portion Virginia and Maryland lying between the mountain department and Blue Ridge, to be called the Department of the Shenandoah, to be commanded by Gen. Banks.

Second, that portion of Virginia east of Blue Ridge and West of the Potomac, and the Fredericksburg & Richmond Railroad, including the District of Columbia and the country between the Patuxent, to be called the Department of the Rappahannock; to be under command of Gen. McDowell.

Special to the Tribune.

Wm. H. Russell, of the London Times, has engaged passage to England in the next Cunard steamer.

Times’ Special.

The committee on the conduct of the war have examined several witnesses bearing upon the charge of atrocities by the rebels upon our wounded soldiers at the battle of Bull Run, and the evidence so far is a disgraceful record against the chivalrous Southerners.

The House committee on printing introduced a resolution to-day providing for the printing of 100,000 extra copies of the final report of the committee on war claims at St. Louis.

It is asserted in official circles that Brig. Gen. Rosencrans [sic] is to be promoted to a Major Generalshiip.

The Times’ correspondent telegraphs to-night from Budd’s ferry as follows:

HOOKER’S DIVISION, April 3.

A corps of picked men belonging to the Excelsior brigade, left Liverpool point under the command of Gen. Sickles, early on Tuesday morning, for Stafford Court House, on a reconnaissance.  The troops landed at the Shipping Point batteries, and marched from thence past Dumfries through Aquia to Stafford.

There was a skirmish between a body of 500 rebel cavalry and the advanced corps of Sickles’ command, six miles this side of Stafford, and firing on both sides was continued until we reached that place.  The rebels in their retreat set fire to the town and all the stores.  Our forces promptly stopped the conflagration.  A number of prisoners, horses, stores, &c., fell into our hands from Brook’s station.  A force of 1,200 rebel infantry, and a battery of six field pieces were moving up to support their cavalry, after remaining three hours in Stafford camp.

Gen. Sickles with a part of his corps arrived back at Shipping Point this morning.  The rest came by Brest’s Ferry, opposite Liverpool.

Our casualties were 2 wounded and a few missing.

The corps marched 48 miles in 17 hours, over the worst mountain roads.

There are a few troops at Fredericksburg.  They are falling back to Richmond.  The citizens state that the Confederate Government intend abandoning Virginia.

WASHINGTON, April 4.

The grand jury of the District of Columbia has found two bills of indictment against Horace Greeley for an attack made on the Marshal of the District in the New York Tribune.

A military hospital has been ordered to be established at New Albany, Ind., and Jefferson Barracks, near St. Louis; have been converted into a military hospital.

The Secretary of War has communicated to Congress his opinion that the present organization of the medical bureau is inadequate to the service.  He has authorized Surgeon General of New York, under direction of the Governor, to organize a corps of volunteer surgeons to render medical aid when requested.  A similar organization has been made under the Governor of Pennsylvania, and valuable service has been rendered.

– Published in The Davenport Daily Gazette, Davenport, Iowa, Monday Morning, April 7, 1862, p. 2

Abolition of Slavery in Virginia

By an overwhelming vote of nearly TEN TO ONE the people of Western Virginia have voted to rid their State of slavery. This is a stubborn fact which will prove exceedingly distasteful and damaging to the partisans who are trying, as self-appointed executors, to administer upon the effects of the late Democratic party. – Henry Ward Beecher, Horace Greeley and the people of New England, are not the only Abolitionists. [Fanaticism] has broken out in a fearful shape even in the old Dominion. What a dreadful thing? The Mother of States and of Presidents, whose first families have subsisted – grown rich and respectable in the Christian business of breeding slaves – this proud and aristocratic Commonwealth at once tumbles down from its high pedestal to the level of a free State. There can be no more respectability in Western Virginia at any rate – no more cultivation and refinement – no more chivalry – no orthodox religion – no statesmanship. For these are inseparable from slavery. The degradation of free labor is upon that proud Commonwealth. Why not do our [blatant] Vallandigham pro-slavery secession demagogues cry “ABOLITIONIST?” Why don’t they howl over this violation of the Constitution? Of course the Union, as it was, can never be restored, unless slavery is restored to the National Capitol and Western Virginia – of course not – and it will not be worth a rush (to these demagogues) unless it is restored just as it was.

We rejoice greatly over this vote against Slavery in Virginia. It is given by a people who never heard an Abolition lecture. It is a verdict, on its merits, against slavery – overwhelming and decisive. Revolutions never go backwards.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, May 3, 1862, p. 1