Congressman Albert G. Brown’s Speech on the Slavery Question, August 29, 1850

SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AUGUST 29, 1850.

MR. BROWN said he designed to make a few remarks only in reply to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. McClernand], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Brooks], who had just taken his seat. Both these gentlemen had taken a position which had been assumed since the beginning of the session by many gentlemen from the Northern States, and had put forth views which they seemed to regard as likely to obtain the favor of the South. If these gentlemen (said Mr. B.) were right in supposing that we of the South are mere shadows, occupied only in the pursuit of shadows, then they might succeed in the object at which they aim. But if we are real, substantial men, things of life and not shadows, then they will find themselves mistaken in their views. What was it the South had demanded? She had asked to be permitted to go into these newly-acquired territories, and to carry her property with her, as the North does; and he desired to tell his friends from Illinois and from New York, that she would be satisfied with nothing less than this. It was in vain to tell the people of the South that you will not press the proviso excluding slavery, because circumstances are such as to exclude slavery without the operation of this provision, and therefore it is not necessary to adopt it. He would tell gentlemen who use this argument, that the southern people care not about the means by which slavery is to be excluded. They will not inquire whether nature is unpropitious to the existence of slavery there, while they know that the whole course and desire of the North has been with a view to its exclusion from the shores of the Pacific. It was only necessary to look at the history of the last few years to satisfy ourselves that it has been the purpose of the North to produce this exclusion.

The honorable gentleman from Illinois had administered a welldeserved rebuke to the factious spirit of free soil, as manifested in the proposition of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Root]; for that he (Mr. B.) felt as profoundly grateful as any other man. It was a spirit which ought to be rebuked everywhere. It deserved the universal execration of all good men. But it was his duty to say to his honorable friend, that so much of his remarks as were directed against the proviso, on the ground that it was not necessary to our exclusion, failed to excite his (Mr. B.'s) gratitude, as they would fail to elicit the gratitude of the southern people. The gentleman from Illinois would not be informed that he had Mr. B.'s highest respect as a gentleman, and his sincere personal regard—but, as a southern man, he felt bound to say at all times, and on all occasions, to all persons, friends and foes, that he and his section demanded as a right an equal participation in all these territories, and they could not feel grateful to any man who placed his opposition to the proviso on no higher grounds than that they were excluded by other means. If his honorable friend had placed his opposition to the proviso on the grounds that the South had rights, and that those rights ought to be respected, then Mr. B. and the whole South would have felt a thrill of gratitude which none of them would be slow to express. If the proviso was wrong, it ought to be opposed on the high ground of principle, and not on the feeble assumption that it was unnecessary. To oppose it on the ground that it was not necessary, was to say in effect that it would be sustained if it was necessary.

The gentleman from New York had just informed the House that he was elected as a Wilmot proviso man, and now he rises and makes it his boast that he is backing out from the position he then assumed.

Mr. BROOKS (Mr. Brown yielding) said, that although this proviso was made a test, he had told the people who elected him that he would not pledge himself to vote for it; that he was willing to remain at home, but that, if he was elected, he must go as an independent man.

Mr. BROWN resumed. The gentleman from New York had certainly taken high ground. But, if he was not mistaken, that gentleman was the editor of a daily paper in New York (the Express), and in that journal, unless he was again mistaken, the Wilmot proviso had been supported. The gentleman, therefore, had not left much room for doubt as to his real sentiments. There was very little occasion for him now to come forward and to say whether he was for or against the proviso. But he desired to ask that gentleman, whether he was for or against this proviso when its adoption was deemed necessary for the exclusion of slaves from the new territories? If he was then in favor of the proviso, the fact that he is now opposed to it, because he is satisfied that the

South cannot carry her slaves thither on account of the hostility of the climate and soil, and other more potential causes, his position was one not calculated to excite the gratitude of the friends of the South.

Mr. BROOKS (Mr. Brown yielding) said, he had not changed one principle, but he had been converted to the gentleman's doctrine of nonintervention, or non-action. It had always been his opinion that the power of the general government ought never to be exercised, whether in favor of or against slavery. If the South should suffer from her inability to carry her slave property into these territories, the North would suffer still more if she was permitted to do so, because her citizens would not consent to go to these territories if slavery existed there.

Mr. HOLMES. I congratulate the whole country that the gentleman from New York has given up his adhesion to the Wilmot proviso.

Mr. BROWN (resuming). The conversion of the gentleman from New York to the doctrine of non-intervention had come about as much too late as his abandonment of the Wilmot proviso. They were both too late to do any good. If the gentleman had kept his hands off slavery before the last presidential election, then, indeed, the southern people might have had some reason for gratitude. But, instead of doing that, the gentleman adheres to the proviso until it is too late for non-intervention to do any good, and then he forsakes the former and becomes a convert to the latter.

The gentleman from New York appeared to be greatly horrified at what he was pleased to call political associations on this floor—at the strange phenomenon of the two great extremes of the North and the South voting together. He would explain this apparent inconsistency. The South regarded the whole of the territory to latitude 42° and east of the Rio Grande as the property of Texas, and was not disposed to permit any portion of that territory to be surrendered for the purpose of being made free soil. This was the position occupied by the southern extreme. The northern extreme considers the title of the United States to all this territory as clear beyond dispute, and therefore are opposed to purchasing it. This is the reason why the two extremes are acting together on principles apparently antagonistical, for the purpose of defeating this bill. Is it remarkable that he (Mr. B.) and his southern associates, believing conscientiously that the title to the country, in the language of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Marshall], is in Texas, and that the United States has neither title nor color of title, should refuse to give it up? Is it strange that other gentlemen, believing, as they say they do, that the title of the United States is clear and indisputable, should refuse to pay Texas ten millions to withdraw an unfounded claim? Gentlemen may pretend to marvel at this singular political conjunction, but they all know perfectly well the motives which have produced it.

He, however, deemed that it would be found quite as remarkable a political phenomenon that the gentleman from New York, and many of his political friends from the South, should be found cheek-by-jowl with these same detested Free-Soilers on another question. We vote with them from exactly opposite motives, as the gentleman and the whole country very well know. But from what motive does the gentleman and his southern friends vote with them for the admission of California? Is there any opposite motive there? None, sir, none. There is one motive common to them all, and that is, the admission of a free state into the Union. The gentleman expresses special wonder that we are found voting with the Free-Soilers. Can he give any other reason than the one just assigned why he and his southern friends vote with them on another question?

Until the gentleman could assign some satisfactory reason why he and his party, North and South, were found in political fellowship with every Free-Soiler and Abolitionist in the land for the admission of California, it would be modest to suppress his wonder at the accidental association of Free-Soilers and southern gentlemen on the boundary of Texas.

The difference between us (said Mr. B.) is this: we act with them from extremely opposite motives; you from concurrent opinions and sentiments; and we will leave to posterity and the country to decide which stands most justified in the eyes of all honest and impartial men.

But his main object in rising to address the House was to say what were the demands of the South. She asks for an equal participation in the enjoyment of all the common property; and if this be denied, she demands a fair division. Give it to her, give it by non-intervention, by non-action, or by any other means, and she will be satisfied. This is her right, and she demands it. But if, instead of doing this, the North insists on taking away the territory and abridging the rights of the South, she will not submit to the wrong in peace, nor meanly kiss the hand that smites her. He uttered no threat, but it was his duty to say that the South could neither forget nor forgive a wrong like this. She cannot forget that these new territories were purchased in part by her blood and treasure, and she will not forgive the power that snatches them from her. He had never undertaken to say what course the South would feel it her duty to pursue on the consummation of her unjust exclusion from these territories, but he would say, that the act of her exclusion would sink like a poisonous arrow into the hearts of her people, and it would rankle there, and in the hearts of their children, as long as the union of these states continued. The consummation of northern policy may not produce an immediate disunion of these states; but it will produce a disunion of northern and southern hearts; and he left it to others to say whether a political union under such circumstances could be long maintained, or whether it was worth maintaining.

It can excite no feeling of gratitude that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Brooks] says he is now opposed to the Wilmot proviso. He is for the spirit of the proviso. He would be for its letter, if it was necessary for our exclusion. He consents to abandon it simply because it is useless. There was a day when it was potential. Then the gentleman was for it. Now, when he supposes our exclusion almost perfect, and the means at hand for its entire consummation, he magnanimously abandons the proviso. Wonderful liberality! Amazing generosity to the South! If the gentleman is not canonized as the most generous man of his age, surely gratitude will have failed to perform her office.

We of the South well understand the means employed for our exclusion. This proviso, once so much in favor with the gentleman from New York, now so graciously abandoned, performed its office. It was held in terrorem over California: southern property, termed as property always is, was kept out of the country. The column of southern emigration was checked at the onset—whilst every appliance was resorted to to swell the column of northern emigration. Every means was resorted to which political ingenuity could devise and federal power make effective, to hurry on this emigration, and then, with indecent haste, the emigrants, yet without names or habitations in the country, were induced to make a pretended state constitution, and insert in it the Wilmot proviso. The gentleman need not be told how far the federal administration was responsible for these things. He need not be reminded that he and his quondam proviso friends were prominent actors in all these scenes. Need he be told that the proviso was the SHIBBOLETH of their power? It was used so long as it was effective. It was used for our prostration, and now it is thrown aside for no better reason than that it is useless— that it is no longer necessary.

Does not the gentleman from New York know very well that the California constitution is no constitution until adopted by Congress? Does he not know that that constitution contains the proviso? Does he not know that the proviso is powerless in that constitution until sanctioned by Congress? And does he not mean to vote for that constitution, with the full intent and purpose of giving vitality to that proviso? With how much of liberality—with how much of justice to the South, does the honorable gentleman come forward to assure us that he is against the proviso? The gentleman is opposed to ingrafting the proviso on the territorial bills for Utah and New Mexico; and we thank him for his opposition. But what reason does the gentleman give for this opposition? The decrees of God have already excluded us. He has no idea that slavery would ever penetrate the country opposed to the proviso, because it is unnecessary. If it was at all necessary for our exclusion, the honorable gentleman would be for it. He must excuse us if our gratitude fails to become frantic for this singular exhibition of forbearance and liberality.

Mr. Brown was willing to trust the rights of the South on the strict doctrine of non-intervention. If God, in his providence, had in fact decreed against the introduction of slavery into Utah and New Mexico, he and his people bowed in humble submission to that decree. We think the soil and climate are propitious to slave labor; and if they are not, we shall never seek the country with our slaves. All we ask of you is, that you will not interpose the authority of this government for us or against us. We do not fear the Mexican laws, if you will in good faith stand by the doctrine of non-intervention. We will risk the protection of the Federal Constitution, and the banner of the stars and stripes, for ourselves and our property. All we ask of you is, that you will in good faith stand neutral.

He had never announced his purpose of voting against the territorial government for Utah. He meant to vote for it, and he should vote for the territorial government for New Mexico if the boundary was so arranged as to respect the rights of Texas. He was opposed to the admission of California, because her constitution was a fraud—a fraud deliberately perpetrated for the purpose of excluding the South; but he was in favor of giving governments to Utah and New Mexico on the ground of strict non-intervention. He did not want to be cheated in this business, and he therefore proposed this question to the honorable gentleman from New York: Suppose we pass these Utah and New Mexican bills at this session without the Wilmot proviso; and suppose the Southern people commence moving into the territories with their slaves, and it becomes apparent that they are to be slave territories and ultimately slave states; and suppose that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Root], at the opening of the next Congress, offers the Wilmot proviso with a view to check our emigration and to exclude us from the territories with our slaves, will the gentleman, if a member of Congress, then vote for the proviso?

Mr. BROOKS replied in the negative, as far as he was heard.

Mr. BROWN. Then if we take our slave property into the territories, we are assured that we are not to be disturbed in its peaceable and quiet enjoyment by any act of this government.

Mr. BROOKS said, that if he should be here he certainly should not vote to repeal any territorial bill for which he had voted. He only spoke for himself.

Mr. BROWN was gratified to hear this statement; whilst he could not insist on the gentleman answering for the North, he must express his regret that he did not feel authorized to answer at least for his political friends. The gentleman had answered manfully, and, he did not doubt, sincerely; and if the whole North, or a majority even, would answer in the same way, it would go far towards restoring harmony. He asked honorable gentlemen whether they were ready to pipe to the tune set them by the gentleman from New York? If they were, the whole South. would listen. It was a kind of music they liked to hear from the North. There was in it more of the gentle harp, and less of the war-bugle than they had been accustomed to from that quarter.

Mr. BROOKS said, it appeared after all that there was no essential difference between them.

Mr. BROWN. So far as this Congress is concerned, we ask nothing more than that we shall be treated as equals, and that no insulting discrimination should be made in the action of Congress against slave property. If the gentleman agrees to this, there can be no essential difference between us.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to the subject of the Texas boundary. Is there one man in this House, or throughout the nation, who does not know that but for the question of slavery, there would be no such question as that of the Texas boundary? Suppose, sir, that Texas and New Mexico were both as clearly slaveholding countries as North and South Carolina, how long, sir, do you think it would take this Congress to fix a boundary between them? Not one hour—certainly not one day. Of what consequence could it be to the North, whether Texas extended to the 32d or to the 42d degree, or to any intermediate point? Take out the question of slavery, and of what consequence is it where the boundary of Texas may be fixed? Does any man suppose that the money-loving men of the North would vote ten millions of dollars from a common treasury to buy a slip of soil from a slaveholding State, simply to give it to a slaveholding Territory? No, no. We all understand this matter. If the country is left in the possession and ownership of Texas, it must be slave territory, and if it is given up to New Mexico, you mean that it shall become free territory, and you do not intend to leave any stone unturned to accomplish this end. We know this, and we govern ourselves accordingly. Let northern gentlemen speak out on this subject.

The thin covering, that they want to do justice between Texas and New Mexico, furnishes a poor disguise to the real purpose. We all know that slavery restriction is the lever with which you are lifting the title of Texas off this country, and giving it up to New Mexico; and we all know that you are attempting to do this without right, or color of right, to perform such an act.

Mr. MCCLERNAND (Mr. Brown yielding) said, that Texas claimed the Rio Grande for its whole extent to be her western boundary. By the resolutions annexing Texas to the United States, slavery is interdicted north of 36° 30' within her professed limits. The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Boyd) provides that slavery may exist in any portion of the territory west of the boundary of Texas, as proposed by the Senate bill, between 32° and 38° north latitude, east of the Rio Grande. That is, the amendment provides that slavery may exist in any part of said territory, according as the people inhabiting it may determine for themselves when they apply for admission into the Union. So that to the extent of so much of said territory now claimed by Texas, lying between 36° 30′ and 38° north latitude, the South, according to the test of my able and worthy friend from Mississippi, stands upon a better footing under the amendment proposed than she does under the resolutions of Texas annexation.

Mr. BROWN resumed. If we are left in that condition in which we were by the annexation resolutions, we are satisfied. What we ask in regard to Utah, New Mexico, and California, is, that the North will not, by means direct or indirect, disturb us then in the quiet enjoyment of our property. What we ask in regard to Texas is, that you will abide by the resolutions of annexation. We are satisfied with the contract, and we are opposed to making any other. This contract gives us all south of 36° 30' as slave territory, and dedicates all north of that line to free soil. We stand by this. If gentlemen want to buy from Texas her territory north of 36° 30′, let them do it. They had his full consent to give her ten, twelve, or fifteen millions of dollars. He should interpose no objection. But when it came to selling out slaveholding Texas with a view of enabling the North to make New Mexico a non-slaveholding state the more readily, he felt it his duty to interpose by all the means in his power. He never meant to give his vote for any proposition or combination of propositions which looked to the deprivation of Texas of one inch of her rightful soil. He wanted to deal fairly by all parts of the country. He trusted he should be as ready to act fairly by the North as by the South, but he invoked the vengeance of Heaven if ever he gave his vote for any bill or proposition to buy the soil of a slave state to convert it into free soil.

SOURCE: M. W. Cluskey, Editor, Speeches, Messages, and Other Writings of the Hon. Albert G. Brown, A Senator in Congress from the State of Mississippi, p. 208-14

Landon C. Haynes to Jefferson Davis, January 27, 1862

KNOXVILLE, TENN., January 27, 1862.

His Excellency JEFFERSON DAVIS,
        President Confederate States of America:

SIR: The Army of the Cumberland is utterly routed and demoralized. The result is regarded with the profoundest solicitude. Confidence is gone in the ranks and among the people. It must be restored. I am confident it cannot be done under Generals Crittenden and Carroll. There is now no impediment whatever but bad roads and natural obstacles to prevent the enemy from entering East Tennessee and destroying the railroads and putting East Tennessee in a flame of revolution.

Nothing but the appointment to the command of a brave, skillful, and able general, who has the popular confidence, will restore tone and discipline to the army, and confidence to the people. I do not propose to inquire whether the loss of public confidence in Generals Crittenden and Carroll is ill or well founded. It is sufficient that all is lost.

General Humphrey Marshall, General Floyd, General Pillow, General Smith, or General Loring would restore tone to the army and rein-spire the public confidence. I must think, as everybody else does, that there has been a great mistake made. Every movement is important. Can not you, Mr. President, right the wrong by the immediate presence of a new and able man?

Yours, truly,

LANDON C. HAYNES.

SOURCE: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series I, Volume 7 (Serial No. 7), p. 849

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, November 21, 1854

Private.

Cin. Nov. 21, 1854..

My Dear Sir, * * * I confess I feel more uneasiness about the probable influences of the Order on our movement than I did when I saw you last: but I still think that it is best not to say anything against them. Wait until it becomes necessary & it may never become necessary. What is objectionable may come itself. Meantime Antislavery men should be constantly warned of the importance of Keeping the Antislavery idea paramount. There is danger of its being shoved aside. They must see that it is not lost sight of. Now even more than ever is it essential that an earnest antislavery tone should be maintained by our [?] & that the [?] should be sustained.

You are aware that for some days past this city has been the seat of a grand American Council. What they call it I do not know; but I am told delegates are in attendance from every state in the Union including Cal^a. There seem great divisions of opinion.

For example, one very intelligent gentleman from Virginia was anxious to have the ideas which we hold denationalization, &c. adopted as the basis of a National party. Others & most, seem to be of opinion that they must steer clear of northern & southern ultraism as they call our ideas there of the Nullifiers. One man is reported to have said that it is as settled they were to cut loose from Freesoilers & Southern. Another that the organization must not in any way attack slavery; and that the [convention] sitting here is in fact the American Legislature whose decisions Congress must follow. Certain it is that Kenneth Rayner of N. C. & E [illegible] Davis of Ky. are here & both leading spirits. Humphrey Marshall is also here or has been & Daniel Allman, prominent friends as you know of Fillmore. Fillmore is talked of among them for the Presy., & Davis also. Houston also, but not much so far as I learn. He, by the way, was the favorite of the gentlemen I first named.

These are some of the straws I see floating. They indicate that the current (nationally) will not float as we would wish. But it may in the State.

All we have to do, at all events, seems to me to maintain our principles; act with no organization that dishonors them; cooperate frankly with any which does not; & bide our time. * * *

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 265-6

Lieutenant-Colonel Rutherford B. Hayes to Lucy Webb Hayes, June 3, 1862

Flat Top Mountain, June 3, 1862.

Dearest:  — I am made happy by your letter of the 24th and the picture of Webb. Enclosed I send Webb a letter from Lieutenant Kennedy.

I am not surprised that you have been some puzzled to make out our movements and position from the confused accounts you see in the papers. Our log-book would run about this way: Flat Top Mountain, twenty miles south of Raleigh, is the boundary line between America and Dixie — between western Virginia, either loyal or subdued, and western Virginia, rebellious and unconquered. [Here follows an account of the movements and activities of the regiment during May, which is a repetition in brief of previous letters and Diary entries.] Here we are safe as a bug in a rug — the enemy more afraid of us than we are of them — and some of us do fear them quite enough. My opinion was, we ought to have fought Marshall at Princeton, but it is not quite certain.

All our regiments have behaved reasonably well except [the] Thirty-fourth, Piatt's Zouaves, and Paxton's Cavalry. Don't abuse them, but they were pretty shabby. The zouaves were scattered seventy miles, reporting us all cut to pieces, etc., etc. Enough of war.

The misfortune of our situation is, we have not half force enough for our work. If we go forward the enemy can come in behind us and destroy valuable stores, cut off our supplies, and cut through to the Ohio River, — for we are not strong enough to leave a guard behind us.

We look with the greatest interest to the great armies. Banks' big scare will do good. It helps us to about fifty thousand new men.

I nearly forgot to tell you how we were all struck by lightning on Saturday. We had a severe thunder-storm while at supper. We were outside of the tent discussing lightning — the rapidity of sound, etc., etc., Avery and Dr. McCurdy both facing me, Dr. Joe about a rod off, when there came a flash and shock and roar. The sentinel near us staggered but did not fall. Dr. McCurdy and Avery both felt a pricking sensation on the forehead. I felt as if a stone had hit me in the head. Captain Drake's arm was benumbed for a few minutes. My horse was nearly knocked down. Some horses were knocked down. Five trees near by were hit, and perhaps one hundred men more or less shocked, but strange to say “nobody hurt.”

All things still look well for a favorable conclusion to the war. I do not expect to see it ended so speedily as many suppose, but patience will carry us through.

I thought of you before I got up this morning, saying to myself, “Darling Lucy, I love you so much,” and so I do.

Affectionately,

R.

Mrs. Hayes.

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 2, p. 285-6

Diary of Lieutenant-Colonel Rutherford B. Hayes: Saturday, May 24, 1862

Flat Top Mountain. — Cold, rainy, and windy, — an old-fashioned storm. Men bivouacking! Colonel Crook, of [the] Third Brigade, was attacked yesterday morning by General Heth with the same force which drove me out of Giles. Colonel Crook had parts or the whole of three regiments. He defeated Heth and captured four of his cannon. Our loss, ten killed and forty wounded. Enemy routed and one hundred prisoners. What an error that General Cox didn't attack Williams and Marshall at Princeton! Then we should have accomplished something.

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 2, p. 277

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: January 1, 1863

This first day of the year dawned in gloom, but the sun, like the sun of Austerlitz, soon beamed forth in great splendor upon a people radiant with smiles and exalted to the empyrean.

A letter from Gen. H. Marshall informed the government that Gen. Floyd had seized slaves in Kentucky and refused to restore them to their owners, and that if the government did not promptly redress the wrong, the Kentuckians would at once “take the law into their own hands.”

We had a rumor (not yet contradicted) that the enemy, or traitors, had burned the railroad bridge between Bristol and Knoxville, cutting our communication with the West.

Then it was said (and it was true) that Gen. Lee had sent his artillery back some 30 miles this side of the Rappahannock, preparatory to going into winter quarters. But this was no occasion for gloom. Lee always knows what is best to be done.

Next there was a rumor (not yet confirmed, but credited) that Stuart had made another of his wonderful reconnoissances, capturing prisoners and destroying much of the enemy's stores beyond the Rappahannock.

Then came a dispatch from Bragg which put us almost “beside” ourselves with joy, and caused even enemies to pause and shake hands in the street. Yesterday he attacked Rosecrans's army near Murfreesborough, and gained a great victory. He says he drove him from all his positions, except on the extreme left, and after ten hours' fighting, occupied the whole of the field except (those exceptions!) the point named. We had, as trophies, thirty-one guns, two generals, 4000 prisoners, and 200 wagons. This is a Western dispatch, it is true, but it has Bragg's name to it, and he does not willingly exaggerate. Although I, for one, shall await the next dispatches with anxiety, there can be no question about the victory on the last day of the bloody year 1862. Bragg says the loss was heavy on both sides.

I noticed that one of the brass pieces sent down by Lee to go to North Carolina had been struck by a ball just over the muzzle, and left a glancing mark toward the touch-hole. That ball, probably, killed one of our gunners.

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 1, p. 227

Lieutenant-Colonel Rutherford B. Hayes to Lucy Webb Hayes, May 22, 1862

Camp Flat Top Mountain, May 22, 1862.

Dearest: — I have written you one or two letters which I suspect fell into the hands of the enemy, but ere this, I do not doubt, you have received dispatches and word by Thomas which relieves you of all trouble on my account.

We have had a good deal of war this month. More than half the time during two weeks we were in the presence of the enemy. Most of the time they [we] were either pursuing them or they were crowding us. The number killed and wounded, considering the amount of firing, was not large. I suppose the total loss of this army would not exceed two hundred. Our force is not strong enough to do the work before us. We have so many points to garrison and so long a line of communications to protect, that it leaves a very small force to push on with. . . .

Before this reaches you, the great battles of the war will probably be fought. If successful, we shall not meet with much determined opposition hereafter. I was sent to meet a flag of truce sent by General Williams and Humphrey Marshall this morning. The officers talk in a high tone still, but the privates are discouraged, and would be gladly at home on any terms.

Affectionately,

R.

Mrs. Hayes.

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 2, p. 276

Diary of Lieutenant-Colonel Rutherford B. Hayes: Sunday, May 18, 1862

Sunday!! Came again unawares upon me at Princeton. At 1 or 2 A. M. aroused to prepare to move. Moved off quietly; got off, again unmolested, to this point, viz., Bluestone River, Mercer County, Virginia. I hope this is the last of the retreat. We have [the] Thirty-fourth, Twenty-eight, Twelfth, Twenty-third, Thirtieth, Thirty-seventh O. V. I.; Second Virginia Cavalry; and Simmonds' and McMullen's Batteries. The enemy reported to have three thousand or so under General Heth and five thousand or so under General Humphrey Marshall. The numbers are nothing, but at present our communications can't well be kept up. All will soon be remedied under Fremont. Then, forward again! In the fights we have lost in our army, chiefly Thirty-seventh and Thirty-fourth, near one hundred killed, wounded, and prisoners.

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 2, p. 271-2

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: December 9, 1862

W——1, another of Provost Marshal Griswold's policemen, has arrived in Washington. I never doubted he was secretly in the Yankee service here, where many of his fellows still remain, betraying the hand that feeds them. Gen. Winder and the late Secretaries of War must be responsible for all the injury they may inflict upon the country.

Yesterday, the President received a letter from a gentleman well known to him, asserting that if Mississippi and Alabama be overrun by the enemy, a large proportion of the people of those States will certainly submit to the Government of the United States. The President sent this letter to the Secretary of War “for his information.”

A letter from W. P. Harris, Jackson, Mississippi, urges the government to abandon the cities and eastern seaboard, and concentrate all the forces in the West, for the defense of the Mississippi Valley and River, else the latter must be lost, which will be fatal to the cause, etc.

Hon. J. H. Reagan has written a savage letter to the Secretary of War, withdrawing certain papers relating to an application for the discharge from service of his brother-in-law, on account of feeble health. He says he will not await the motions (uncertain) of the circumlocution office, and is unwilling to produce evidence of his statements of the disability of his relative. Mr. Seddon will doubtless make a spirited response to this imputation on his office.

We have a rumor that Morgan has made another brilliant raid into Kentucky, capturing 1800 of the enemy.

The small-pox is spreading in this city to an alarming extent. This is the feast to which Burnside is invited. They are vaccinating the clerks in the departments.

Gen. Floyd writes the government that, as the enemy cannot advance from the West before spring, Echol's and Marshall's forces (10,000) might be used on the seaboard. I wish they were here.

The United States forces in the field, by their own estimates, amount to 800,000. We have not exceeding 250,000; but they are not aware of that.

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 1, p. 208

Lieutenant-Colonel Rutherford B. Hayes to Colonel Eliakim P. Scammon, Monday, May 5, 1862

Camp Number 5, Princeton, May 5, 1862.

Sir: — This whole region is completely conquered. Rapid movement is all that is needed to take possession of the railroad and several good counties without opposition. Militiamen are coming in glad to take the oath and get home "to work crops." A part of Jenifer's force retreated through Tazewell, abandoning Jeffersonville and it is reported burning it. Humphrey Marshall is reported on the railroad and near or at Wytheville. The Forty-fifth retreated on to Giles abandoning the Narrows, leaving the position deserted. These are the reports. Not perfectly reliable, but I am inclined to credit them. At the Rocky Gap many muskets even were burned, the militiamen thinking it safer to return home unarmed. There is a report from Tazewell that a battalion of cavalry is approaching through Logan and McDowell, the other part of the Second Virginia. If so they will meet with no opposition worth naming. It is about certain that the enemy had but one cannon at the Narrows. All I give you is rumor, or the nature of rumor, except the conduct and disposition of the new militia. I hear that from their own lips. An active command can push to the railroad, taking coffee, salt, and sugar, and subsist itself long enough to get the railroad from Newbern a hundred miles west. I speak of the future in the way of suggestion that your thoughts may turn towards planning enterprises before the scare subsides. The rations I speak of because we ought to have a larger supply of some things, counting upon the country for the others. Colonel Little will send in reports perfectly reliable as to the Narrows tomorrow. I hear a report that the enemy — the Forty-fifth — didn't stop at Giles but kept on towards Newbern! I give these reports as showing the drift of feeling in this country, and [as] hints at truth rather than truth itself.

Monday night. — I now have reliable information of the enemy, I think. It differs in many respects from rumors mentioned in the foregoing. The Forty-fifth Regiment during Friday and Saturday straggled back to its camp at the mouth of Wolf Creek, a short distance above the Narrows. About four-fifths of the force got back foot-sore, without hats, coats, knapsacks, and arms in many cases. In the course of Friday and Saturday a considerable part (perhaps half) of the cavalry we drove from here reached the same point (mouth of Wolf Creek) having passed through Rocky Gap and thence taken the Wolf Creek and Tazewell Road easterly. On Saturday evening they were preparing to leave camp; the Forty-fifth to go to Richmond whither they had just been ordered, and the cavalry and the few militia were to go with them as far as Dublin. The militia were uncertain whether they were to remain at Dublin or go west to the Salt Works in Washington and Wythe Counties. They all expected to be gone from Wolf Creek and the Narrows during Sunday. There would be no fighting the Yankees this side of Dublin — possibly at Dublin a fight. The militia of Wythe, Grayson, and Carroll, seven hundred strong, are the force [at] Wytheville. At Abbington, one thousand [of] Floyd's men. In Russell County Humphrey Marshall is still reported with three thousand men badly armed and worse disciplined. The great Salt Works (King's) work four hundred [men], ten furnaces, and turn out seventeen hundred bushels every twenty-four hours. No armed force there. All this from contrabands and substantially correct.

Later. — Seven more contrabands just in. They report that on Sunday the Forty-fifth and other forces, except about thirty guards of baggage, left the vicinity of the Narrows arriving at Giles Court-house Sunday afternoon on their way to Dublin Depot; that from there they expected to go west to Abbington. The contrabands passed the Narrows; only a small guard was there with a few tents and wagons. No cannon were left there. I do not doubt the general truthfulness of the story. It confirms the former. The enclosed letters perhaps contain something that ought to be known to General Fremont; if so you can extract a fact or two to telegraph. They were got from the last mail sent here by the Rebels. The carrier stopped seven miles south of here and the mail [was] picked up there.

I wish to send three companies or so to the Narrows immediately to see if we can catch the guard and baggage left behind. If you approve send me word back immediately and I will start the expedition in the morning.

Latest. — Two more contrabands!! We can surely get the baggage in six hours (eighteen miles) without difficulty. Do send the order.

Respectfully,

R. B. Hayes,

Lieutenant-colonel 23D Regiment O. V. I.,

Commanding Detachment.

[colonel Scammon.]

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 2, p. 251-3

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: November 27, 1862

Some of the late Secretary's friends are hinting that affairs will go amiss now, as if he wonld have prevented any disaster! Who gave up Norfolk? That was a calamitous blunder! Letters from North Carolina are distressing enough. They say, but for the influence of Gov. Vance, the legislature would favor reconstruction!

Gen. Marshall writes lugubriously. He says his men are all barefoot.

Gen. Magruder writes that Pemberton has only 20,000 men, and should have 50,000 more at once — else the Mississippi Valley will be lost, and the cause ruined. He thinks there should be a concentration of troops there immediately, no matter how much other places might suffer; the enemy beaten, and the Mississippi secured at all hazards. If not, Mobile is lost, and perhaps Montgomery, as well as Vicksburg, Holly Springs, etc.

One of our paroled men from Washington writes the President that, on the 6th instant, Burnside had but seventy regiments; and the President seemed to credit it! The idea of Burnside advancing with seventy regiments is absurd. But how many absurd ideas have been entertained by the government, and have influenced it! Nous verrons.

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 1, p. 197

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: November 20, 1862

A letter from Brig. H. Marshall, Abingdon, Ky., in reply to one from the Secretary, says his Kentuckians are not willing to be made Confederate hog-drivers, but they will protect the commissary's men in collecting and removing the hogs. Gen. M. criticises Gen. Bragg's campaign very severely. He says the people of Kentucky looked upon their fleeting presence as a horse-show, or military pageantry, and not as indicating the stern reality of war. Hence they did not rise in arms, and hence their diffidence in following the fortunes of the new Confederacy. Gen. M. asks if it is the purpose of the government to abandon Kentucky, and if so, is he not functus officio, being a Kentucky general, commanding Kentucky troops?

Col. Myers has placed on file in the department a denial of having said to Gen. Wise's quartermaster, “Let them suffer.”

Several ladies, near relatives of Judge Campbell, Assistant Secretary of War, came over yesterday under flag of truce. They lived, I believe, in Alexandria.

Another requisition has been made by the engineer for 5000 negroes to work on the fortifications of Richmond.

No letters were received from Gen. Lee to-day, and he may be (busy in the field. Accounts say the enemy is planting batteries in the heights opposite Fredericksburg.

It has been raining occasionally the last day or two. I hope the ground is soft, and the mud deep; if so, Burnside cannot move on Richmond, and we shall have time to prepare for “contingencies.”

Yesterday salt sold at auction for $1.30 per pound. We are getting into a pretty extreme condition.

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 1, p. 193-4

Senator William H. Seward to Thurlow Weed, April 29, 1859

Washington, April 29, 1859.

Dear Weed, — The southern and western politicians have habits and usages different from ours. They come upon me with a directness which confounds me. I have two or three subjects submitted by them which I propose to you now, because in the hurry of preparing my business for departure for Europe I must save time. You can keep this letter at hand and refer to it at leisure.

Many southern gentlemen express to me a wish that the national convention may be held somewhere on the border. Without expressing any opinion about it as an abstract question, I think our friends ought to know that it was understood at Washington that Humphrey Marshall intends to go over to the Democrats. If Louisville should be suggested as the place, the committee would of course consider Mr. Marshall's position in connection with the subject. It might have a bearing against such a selection.

The Baltimore “———” is in trouble. Mayor Swayne, Judge Lee, Mr. Cole, and others there want to have the paper reorganized and brought into the position of an organ in that State and for the country south of the Potomac, of the Republican party. They had Simon Cameron over there a week or two ago to confer. They think they will need some funds from the North, but I am satisfied that if they only had the benefit of your advice and Cameron's, they would be able to subscribe all the funds they want, and would promptly do so. Cameron and I promised them that we would ask you to meet him there. Cameron knows them all, and he will go at any time.

Speaking of Cameron, I promised him when he left Washington to spend a day or so with him on my way home. He took me to his house, told me all was right. He was for me, and Pennsylvania would be. It might happen that they would cast the first ballot for him, but he was not in, etc. He brought the whole legislature of both parties to see me, feasted them gloriously, and they were in the main so generous as to embarrass me.

I have Stetson's letter to you. Corwin is uneasy and fidgety; but persons who live in Ohio have excuses. They are inheritors of a noble reversion, and they would like to extinguish the present estate without being able or willing to pay its cost. He wrote me a month ago, inclosing a pitiful piece of twaddle from a correspondent of the “Express,” saying that he was against me as everybody else was. He contradicted the allegation, and said that the Cincinnati “Gazette” would contain an authorized denial. . . .

You will find John S. Pendleton, of Virginia, bold enough and well disposed for anything. The man in the District of Columbia is Henry Addison, now Mayor of Georgetown. He is wise, honest, indomitable and unreserved. You may send him safely anywhere.

Yours faithfully,

William H. Seward.

SOURCE: Harriet A. Weed, Editor, Life of Thurlow Weed Including His Autobiography and a Memoir, Volume 2, p. 256-7

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: September 15, 1862

Our flag floats over the Capitol at Frankfort! And Gen. Marshall, lately the exile and fugitive, is encamped with his men on his own farm, near Paris.

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 1, p. 153

Diary of Salmon P. Chase: Thursday, September 25, 1862

At Department as usual. The President sent for me to meet the Secretary of War. Found he had nothing to talk about except the supply of an additional sum to Gov. Gamble, of Missouri, to be used in defending the State against invasion and guerillaism. Agreed to confer with the Secretary of War on the subject. Enquired as to progress of the War. No information, and nothing satisfactory as to what is to be expected. Coming out Stanton told me that McClellan wants bridges built across the Potomac and Shenandoah, as preliminaries to movement; to which Halleck wont consent. Dan helps Zeke doing nothing.¹

Delighted this morning by news of Gen. Wadsworth's nomination for Governor of New York, on the first ballot.

In the afternoon, went with Garfield to see Hooker, who was very free in his expressions about McClellan. He said it was not true that either the army or the officers were specially attached to him; that only two corps, whose commanders were special favorites and whose troops had special indulgences, could be said to care anything about him; that other officers — he himself certainly — thought him not fit to lead a great army; that he is timid and hesitating when decision is necessary; that the battle of Antietam was near being lost by his way of fighting it, whereas, had the attack been simultaneous and vigorous on the enemy's right, center and left, the rout would have been complete; that our force in the battle exceeded the enemy's by 30,000 men, and that the defeat of the enemy should have been final. He said also, that when Pope had drawn off a large part of the rebel force from Richmond and orders came to McClellan to withdraw, he urged him to give, on the contrary, orders for advance; that the orders were actually given and then revoked, much to his chagrin. This recalled to my mind a conversation with Gen. Halleck at that time. I said to him, that it seemed to me our people could now certainly take Richmond by a vigorous push, as Pope had 60,000 of the rebels before him, and at least half of the remaining 60,000 were south of the James, leaving only 30,000 with the fortifications on the north side; to which Gen. Halleck replied, that it was too dangerous an undertaking. I said, “If this cannot be done, why not return to Fredericksburgh, leaving Richmond on the left?” “This,” he said, “would be quite as dangerous — a flank movement, in which our army would be exposed to being cut off and totally lost.” Gen. Hooker said that the movement I suggested could have been executed with safety and success. He said, also, that he was somewhat reconciled to leaving the Peninsula by being told that it was a plan for getting rid of McClellan, and the only one which it was thought safe to adopt. This he thought so essential, that anything necessary to it was to be accepted.

Returning from Gen. Hooker's, as well as going, Gen. Garfield gave me some very interesting portions of his own experience. This fine officer was a laborer on a canal in his younger days. Inspired by a noble ambition, he had availed himself of all means to acquire knowledge — became a Preacher of the Baptist Church — was made the President of a flourishing Literary Institution on the Reserve — was elected to the Ohio Senate, and took a conspicuous part as a Republican leader. On the breaking out of the War he became a Colonel — led his regiment into Eastern Kentucky — fought Humphrey Marshall near Prestonburgh — gained position rapidly — was made at my instance, a Brigadier — fought under Buell at Shiloh — and was now in Washington by direction of the Secretary of War, who proposes to give him the Department of Florida. A large portion of his regiment, he said, was composed of students from his college.

Went to Seward's to dinner, where I met the Marquis of Cavendish, and his brother, Col. Leslie of the British Army; Mr. Stuart and Mr. Kennedy of the British Legation; Genl. Banks, and Mr. Everett. Gen. Banks earnest against more separation of forces until the rebel army is crushed.

Home. Found there Genl. and Mrs. McDowell. Soon after, Capt. and Mrs. Loomis came in. Could not help the Captain who wished to be Quartermaster of Genl. Sigel's Corps.

To bed tired and unwell

________________

¹ A reference to the familiar story of Daniel Webster's boyhood.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 94-6

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: November 23, 1861

J. C. Breckinridge and Humphrey Marshall, of Kentucky, have been here; and both have been made brigadier-generals, and assigned to duty in the West. Although the former retained his seat in the Senate of the United States for many months after the war began, no one doubts that he is now with us, and will do good service.

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 1, p. 95

Brigadier-General Don Carlos Buell’s General Orders No. 4a, January 20, 1862

GENERAL ORDERS No. 4a.

HDQRS. DEPARTMENT OF THE OHIO,

Louisville, Ky., January 20, 1862.

The general commanding takes occasion to thank Colonel Garfield and his troops for their successful campaign against the rebel force under General Marshall on the Big Sandy and their gallant conduct in battle. They have overcome formidable difficulties in the character of the country, the condition of the roads, and the inclemency of the season, and without artillery have, in several engagements, terminating with the battle on Middle Creek on the 10th instant, driven the enemy from his intrenched position and forced him back into the mountains with the loss of a large amount of baggage and stores and many of his men killed or captured. These services have called into action the highest qualities of a soldier – perseverance and courage.

By command of General Buell:

 JAMES B. FRY,

 Assistant Adjutant-Genera, and Chief of Staff.

SOURCES: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series I, Volume 7 (Serial No. 7), p. 24; William Ralston Balch, The Life of James Abram Garfield, p. 181-2

Colonel James A. Garfield to Capt. J. B. Fry, January 11, 1862

HEADQUARTERS EIGHTEENTH BRIGADE,

Prestonburg, Ky., January 11, 1862.

I left Paintsville on Thursday noon with 1,100 men, and drove in the enemy's pickets 2 miles beyond Prestonburg. The men slept on their arms. At 4 o'clock yesterday morning we moved toward the main body of the enemy at the Forks of Middle Creek, under command of Marshall. Skirmishing with his outposts began at 8 o'clock, and at 1 o'clock p.m. we engaged his force of 2,500 men and three cannon posted on the hill. Fought them until dark. Having been re-enforced by 700 men from Paintsville, drove the enemy from all their positions. He carried off the majority of his dead and all his wounded. This morning we found 27 of his dead on the field. His killed cannot be less than 60. We have taken 25 prisoners, 10 horses, and a quantity of stores. The enemy burned most of his stores and fled precipitately.

To-day I have crossed the river, and am now occupying Prestonburg. Our loss 2 killed and 25 wounded.

 J. A. GARFIELD,

 Colonel, Commanding Brigade.

Capt. J. B. FRY,

Assistant Adjutant-General.

SOURCES: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series I, Volume 7 (Serial No. 7), p. 29; Corydon Eustathius Fuller, Reminiscences of James A. Garfield: With Notes Preliminary and Collateral, p. 324

Headquarters Mountain Department, Franklin, Va., Via Baltimore, May 17, 1862.

Unofficial dispatches, but considered reliable, announce that Princeton, capitol of Mercer, where Gen. Cox’s advance was stationed, was attacked and captured yesterday by rebels under Humphrey Marshall.  This morning the place was recaptured and the rebels defeated by Cox.  No particulars.  Scouts report the rebels have been reinforced.

– Published in The Davenport Daily Gazette, Davenport, Iowa, Tuesday Morning, May 20, 1862, p. 2

Signs of Despair among the Rebels

The tone of the Southern press grown more and more desponding.  We observe several recent articles from Southern newspapers which show that hope and confidence are wavering in view of the situation.  It is quite evident that there is a foreboding of the end now apparently near and inevitable.

The Richmond Examiner of the 16th of instance “sees but one chance of success from the net that has been coolly drawn around us, it is to concentrate our energy on one point and cut it through to convert our defensive into an offensive war and transfer the scenes of at least a part of these hostilities to the enemy’s own country.  Situated as we are, it is only possible at one point, and that is Kentucky.”

But since the time when the Examiner discovered one possible point in Kentucky the army of Zollicoffer, which held the key to Tennessee has been utterly routed and dispersed.  The examiner anticipated the movement and declared that if the plan of Buell – that is of flanking Bowling Green on either side – was successful, it must result in a great disaster.  “Its only hope then was in an offensive campaign across the Ohio from the point that Gen. Johnston now defends.”

But when the intelligence which had not then reached Richmond, of the utter rout of Humphrey Marshall’s forces at Prestonburg and of Zollicoffer’s defeat at Somerset, which took place three days afterwards, became fully know that “only hope” must have perished.

The Richmond Whig of the 17th apparently to counteract the discouraging effect of the Examiner of the day previous, said, “Let us turn for a moment to the West, Price, Polk, Marshall and Zollicoffer having whipped the cowardly mercenaries at every point.”  Of course this was intended to cheer up the despondent Southern ear, but how much more disheartening must be the reaction when the truth was known.

The Richmond Dispatch discovers that even in Richmond there are men who are loyal to the Union and the fervor of its denunciation of such indicate clearly the fear that Union sentiments may become contagious as the fortunes of the Confederacy from day to day become more gloomy.

The Trenton (Tennessee) Standard “regrets to say considerable evidence of disloyalty to the Confederate Government has been manifested in West Tennessee,” designating the counties of Carroll, Weakly and McNairy as the localities of formidable Unionism and resistance.  In that part of the State, too, where secession in the start, had unresisted and absolute sway.

The articles we recently published from the Memphis Argus, where filled with the most bitter hostility to Jeff. Davis and his conduct of the war.  There would be no utterances of that sort – no recrimination so intensely wrathful except in the abandonment of all hope of present success under his auspices.

All these things clearly denote the growing suspicion, at least in the minds of sharp intelligent observers of events, that the catastrophe is not very far off.  They perceive how completely they are beleaguered by hostile forces on every hand – that the Port Royal expedition is still in potential activity in the heart of South Carolina, that Burnside’s expedition, whatever the point to which it is directed, will meet no adequate opposing force; that Butler has a position on the Gulf coast where he can assail either Mobile or New Orleans at pleasure; that Lane’s expedition will soon move down through Arkansas and Louisiana irresistible.  In short, turn which way they will, now that the hope of our instant war with England, on which they counted, is dissipated, there is nothing but black, rayless despair. – {St. Louis Democrat.

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