John A. Quitman to John F. H. Claiborne, August 6, 1831

Continued from: John A. Quitman to John F. H. Claiborne, July 31, 1831

Aug. 6th.  Since writing the above I have been in motion about the country, and will now gallop over a few of the many political observations collected during my long journey from Natchez, reserving particulars until my return. A very fierce struggle is going on in Kentucky. In no part of the Union have I seen so much excitement. In Virginia, which I traversed from west to east, there is evidently an important change working in sectional politics. They are growing lukewarm in support of the (Jackson's) administration, and I have no doubt the dissensions in the cabinet, and the developments that have been made, will ferment the leaven now generally diffused. My opinion is that Virginia is in favor of Calhoun, and, if so, Jackson can only be supported upon the principle of being the least of two evils. At Charlottesville I had the pleasure of an hour's interview with our senator, Mr. Poindexter. I found his political opinions so nearly my own, you may conceive I enjoyed a great treat in his conversation. He is more pungent and tart than ever, and his tone is something like a sneer. He is awfully severe on Jackson and his advisers, and no less bitter against some of our folks at home. Ho tells me he has written you at length upon the politics of the day. I found him walking among the people in the court-yard, without assistance and without crutches. He is a man of extraordinary intellectual powers. You knew him from your childhood, and I do not now wonder at your risking your popularity to support him. He has fascinated me. How is it that his private character is so bad? Why do we hear so much said against him in Adams County? His intemperance, his gambling, his libertinism, and his dishonesty. He gives no indications of these defects, and he is here, where he once resided, taken by the hand by the first people and followed by the crowd. By the way, have you ever met with the pamphlet published by Dr. Brown against Poindexter? I met with it in Kentucky. It charges him with base cowardice in several personal difficulties in Mississippi and at the battle of New Orleans. Can so bold a politician be deficient in personal courage? Can a public speaker who so fiercely arraigns so many influential citizens be himself a knave? The testimony in this pamphlet is very strong. The witnesses are Dr. Brown, Colonel Percy, Dr. Hogg, Dr. Stephen Duncan, Elisha Smith, and others whom we well know. I send the pamphlet to you.¹ Mr. P. is quite decided in his opposition to the administration, and thinks our congressional delegation will act with him. Will his opposition to General Jackson affect your relations to him? He is for Calhoun.

Here in New York I can plainly perceive among the Jackson party an alienation of feeling. The Democratic anti-tariff men, the free-trade and state-rights men, who were all under the banner of Jackson, begin to feel uneasy, but, as yet, have not determined on their course. The anti-masons, the no-Sunday-mail party, the manufacturers, the working interest, and the latitudinarians and so-called philanthropists all incline to Clay. The free-trade and state-rights portion of the Jackson party may well open their eyes when leading papers like the New York Courier and Enquirer are evidently shifting over to the tariff side, to prepare the way for Mr. Van Buren. I lately dined with a large party of intelligent men, who all along had supported the administration. Being asked about the impression which the late cabinet explosion had made in Mississippi, I ventured the opinion that a great majority of our politicians were disposed to side with Mr. Calhoun. One of them replied, “We have the same feeling. The President is abandoning the principles which raised him to office.”

For my part, I hope Mr. Calhoun, or some decided anti-tariff man, will become a candidate. We must know the opinion of presidential candidates on this tariff question. An idea has frequently occurred to me of proposing to the Southern Republicans to run an independent or unpledged ticket for electors. How would this do? I wish you would reflect upon it, and give me your advice. In the mean time mention it to no one. If Mr. Van Buren is a decided tariff and internal-improvement man, I have no notion of smoothing his road to the presidency by a compromising course of policy.

Among the masses in the Northern States, every other feeling is now swallowed up by a religious enthusiasm which is pervading the country. Wherever I have traveled in the free states, I have found preachers holding three, four, six, and eight days' meeting, provoking revivals, and begging contributions for the Indians, the negroes, the Sunday-schools, foreign missions, home missions, the Colonization Society, temperance societies, societies for the education of pious young men, distressed sisters, superannuated ministers, reclaimed penitents, church edifices, church debts, religious libraries, etc., etc.: clamorously exacting the last penny from the poor enthusiast, demanding the widow's mite, the orphan's pittance, and denouncing the vengeance of Heaven on those who feel unable to give, or who question the propriety of these contributions, whether wholesale or specific. They are not only extortionate, but absolutely insulting in their demands; and my observations lead me to believe that there is a vast deal of robbery and roguery under this stupendous organization of religious societies. That there is misapplication of funds, and extravagance, and a purse-proud and arrogant priesthood supported by these eleemosynary appeals, there can be no doubt. When in the city of New York, I lodged at the Clinton Hotel. From my window I saw several splendid edifices, which could not be valued at less than $100,000, belonging to the American Tract and other societies! Thus is the industry of remote parts of the Union taxed to build palaces in the Northern cities, and to support herds of lazy cattle. Here are clerks by the hundred, salaried liberally out of contributions wrung from pious and frugal persons in the South; and these officials, like the majority of their theologians and divines, are inimical to our institutions, and use our own money to defame and damage us! Respect for the proposed object of these societies, and the fear of their power, have deterred even the bold from exposing their abuses. But such thraldom must not be submitted to.² I am heartily tired of the North, and, except parting from my relations, shall feel happy when I set my face homeward.

Your elections are now over. I look forward to hear that you and Bingaman are elected representatives, and Gridley sheriff. Write me again at Lexington, Ky. Your description of Plummer's visit to Natchez, and of the intrigues it occasioned, amused me much. I know he has the ready talent and tact to carry him through, if he has prudence. What is the editor of the “Clarion” about, in his severe strictures on Ingham, and Branch, and Berrien, who very properly retired in disgust from Jackson's cabinet?

_______________

¹ All this will be explained in a biography of the Hon. George Poindexter, based on his own correspondence and manuscripts, which I am now writing. — J. F. H. C.

² I find these opinions, uttered near thirty years ago, singularly confirmed by the Rev. Dr. Thornwell, of South Carolina, in a speech delivered by him in the General Assembly of the Old School Presbyterian Church, May, 1860. The subject was the policy of the Church in regard to mission and other boards. The quotation is from the Cincinnati Commercial:

"Dr. Thornwell, of South Carolina, who addressed the Assembly at Nashville, in 1855, on the same subject, most certainly made an able effort to convince the Assembly that the Church has no power to delegate authority committed to her by her Master; that she should do her own work, and not appoint boards or other organizations to do it. He argued, too, that it is a sin and a shame to have boards where the membership is complimentary, and the privilege of consulting in which can be purchased with money. The principle is money. The seed of the serpent may be harmless, but the seed contains the poison. We need unity, simplicity, and completeness of action; and he closed by rejoicing that, when the millennium comes, we will not find it necessary to change our principles. But I can not say, as the brethren have, ‘We have done well enough.’ Look at 800,000,000 of heathen without the Gospel! Look at the resources, the riches of our Church, and dare we say we have done well enough? I believe these boards have stood in the way of free action of the Church.

“He referred, likewise, to Dr. B. M. Smith's history of those boards, as full of startling disclosures."

In the New Orleans Christian Advocate of May 30th, 1860, edited by Rev. C. C. Gillespie, one of the strongest writers in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, I find an able article, prompted by the anniversary meetings of the societies referred to in Quitman's letter. The article, which furnishes thoughts enough for a book, and a very interesting book, thus concludes:

"We confess we are sick of societies. We may be wrong; if so, we hope for pardon and more light. There is a cold, heartless, mechanical utilitarianism about this exclusive associational way of doing good that crushes out all individuality of reason, affection, and progress. Societies grow fat and strong, and individual Christian character remains stationary, or, rather, assumes dwarfish proportions. It is a sort of concentration of all the surplus energy of the artificial, cantish Yankeeism there is in American character. It is true, there must be associated effort. We do not deny that. But it should be harmonious with those individual aptitudes and social relations and sympathies which God has ordained. Such association we find in the Church. God made our individual constitutions, He established our social relations and sympathies, and He ordained the Church. They are all harmonious. It may be said that, condemning High Churchism, we are High Churchmen ourselves. In the sense of giving the Church the place, and the importance, and the allegiance intended by its Divine Founder, and set forth in the Scriptures, we are High Churchmen. We have almost as little sympathy with Low Churchmen, of any school, as for societarians. They both undervalue the Church in theory, or are unfaithful to their own Church ideal. High Churchism, in the sense of giving the Church a character and power not taught in the Scriptures, is the other extreme. Societarianism and Low Churchism lead to indifferentism and infidelity. Devotion to the Church of Christ, as set forth in the Bible, as ‘the purchase of Christ's blood’ — as ‘the body of Christ,’ as ‘the pillar and ground of the truth,’ as the ‘kingdom’ of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail — is simple Christianity, as far as it goes.”

These are striking illustrations of the forecast and sagacity of Quitman. He saw, thirty years ago, what no one else saw at that day, but what is now viewed as a serious social and religious evil.

SOURCE: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 106-11

John A. Quitman to John F. H. Claiborne, July 31, 1831

Rhinebeck, July 31st, 1831.

dear Claiborne, — On my return yesterday from a fortnight's tour through the New England States, I had the pleasure to receive your favor. It was a great treat. You must either know my taste in familiar correspondence, or, from some parity of disposition, you have served up a series of dishes that suit my palate. I have but one objection to your letter, that is, to “burn it.” I will execute your injunction with regret. When you understand my method and care in filing letters received in an off-hand, friendly correspondence, you will be under no apprehension that even an accident will ever expose your sensibility or your criticisms to the curiosity or remarks of others. I have the same delicacy myself. There are flowers that bloom in the shade of personal confidence that the storms of vulgar life would convert into worthless weeds.

You fancy that the short respite I am now enjoying from the vexatious cares of my office will destroy my taste for active pursuits. Not so. In 1826 I determined to devote the vigor and strength of my life to honorable and useful ambition. Sweet as the repose and retirement of philosophy may be — and a charming picture you have drawn of it — I will not shrink from the labor and the struggle which that determination will cost. To raise the standard of independence, and boldly fling it in the face of any party; sink or swim, to stand by the best interests of our country; to bravo the shock of public opinion when required, shall be to me a pleasure. In pursuing such a course, how happy I shall be to find myself side by side with the virtuous, intelligent, and generous young men of our state. A phalanx of bold, independent, and honest men may be, for a long time, in the minority, but even then their influence upon public affairs will be felt and respected, and an intelligent and high-toned people will, sooner or later, appreciate their merits.

SOURCE: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 105-6

John A. Quitman to John F. H. Claiborne, January 8, 1830

Monmouth, Jan. 8th, 1830.

dear Claiborne, — I regret that we did not meet before your departure for Jackson. I had much to confer with you about, and could have done so more satisfactorily than in writing. You ask my opinion npon the constitutional power of the General Assembly to tax and otherwise legislate for the Indians within our limits. I take this view, briefly, of the question. By the laws of nature, no portion of the human race have a right to appropriate to themselves a greater part of the surface of the earth than is necessary, with the aid of agriculture, for their comfortable maintenance. This is the fundamental principle of the right, claimed and exercised by European nations upon the discovery of this continent, to appropriate portions of it to their own use, and a denial of the right would invalidate their and our title. The United States claims federal jurisdiction over the whole territory within its boundaries. The states severally claim municipal jurisdiction over their respective limits, and over all persons within the same, without exception or distinction. By what principle, then, are the Indians exempt from this authority? The Constitution of the United States is silent upon the subject. It only provides that Congress may regulate commerce with the Indian tribes. All other powers are reserved to the states. When not restricted by the federal Constitution, they have absolute powers. Mississippi could only be admitted into the Union upon an equal footing with the other states. The power of Massachusetts and New York to tax their Indians is not questioned. Our state has made no treaty with the Indians, by which she is trammeled in this respect. Where, then, are the restraints upon our sovereign right to tax and legislate for all persons within our limits? Because the United States has treated with the Choctaws for cessions of their soil, are we to consider them independent nations? The federal government may treat with an individual or a company within the limits of a state, but that does not release them from their allegiance to the state, nor from their responsibility to its jurisdiction, nor their obligation to contribute to its support. Good faith and Christian charity require that we should exact nothing more from the Indians than we impose on ourselves. The idea of two municipal authorities in the same territory is absurd and irrational. The truth is, some of our Northern friends appear to have taken our Indians and negroes under their special care, and, if we submit to their assumptions, we shall next find them claiming to regulate all our domestic legislation, and even the guardianship of our wives and children.

The governor has probably laid my militia system before your honorable body. I bestowed much labor upon it. Impress upon the members the necessity of compromising individual opinions a little. We must have an efficient militia. Keep the Supreme Court at Natchez a while longer. I presume you are all absorbed with the elections. I hope you have made Joseph Dunbar speaker. Your declining the written invitation from the Eastern members in his favor, so much your senior and your relative, was right. We regard the election of Robert H. Adams to the U. S. Senate as certain. Are you still resolved to vote for Poindexter? Adams is certainly the choice of this county. I can not be mistaken in this. He is a man of very superior talents, and of many noble qualities. He esteems you highly, and feels mortified that he is not to get your vote. Your friends are anxious about your course, and it would be unkind to conceal from you that, should you vote against a constituent who is so popular and deserving as Adams, for a citizen of another county, who never has been popular here, and whose physical inability is not doubted, there will be a great clamor, and your next election will be bitterly opposed. Construe these remarks as I mean them. They are not intended to dictate to you. Your vote for Poindexter will not change my feelings, though I am warmly for Adams. But, as your friend, it is my duty to apprise you of the state of feeling in Natchez on this subject. In the county you are very strong, and may, probably, sustain yourself, but the city is devoted to Adams, and expects much from him in the Senate.

Let me advise you, likewise, not to appear too often on the floor.

SOURCE: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 102-4

John A. Quitman to John F. H. Claiborne, October 18, 1830

Monmouth, Oct. 18th, 1830.

Dear Claiborne,—I have put off a further reply to your letter of the 25th August with a view to minute the amendments of which our code is susceptible, as they might occur to me from time to time; but I have found myself so engrossed by the preparation of my decrees and opinions for publication, and by other official business, that I am still, in a measure, unprepared, and must answer you now only in part.

It will be certain that an amendment to the Constitution will be necessary in a few years. The acquisition of the Indian territory will make this imperative, and the only question is, whether the present is a more suitable time than the period when the actual necessity shall occur. It seems to me that the absence of political excitement, and the serenity of our horizon, point out the present as the most suitable moment to careen the ship of state. Talent will be called to the performance of this duty without regard to party. We know not how long this quiet atmosphere will continue. Storms may arise in a few years, by which the scum and dregs of society may be agitated to the surface, and disturb and destroy the pure element we now enjoy. Let us do, then, what may be necessary, while we may do it in peace.

The 2d and 3d articles of the compact limiting the number of judges, and the 9th section of the 3d article limiting the number of representatives to 36 until our white population amounts to 80,000, and yet requiring that each county shall have a representative, are incompatible with the acquisition and organization of new and extensive territory. Even setting aside the necessity of the matter, policy requires some amendments to the charter. Our judicial system is exceptionable. The trial of questions in the last resort should be vested in an independent, impartial, and unprejudiced tribunal, composed of judges in number sufficient to avoid as well the frailty or errors of one individual, as the great division of responsibility where there are too many judges. Three is, in my opinion, the golden number. When a set of men are called on to decide upon their own errors, we must expect to find some bias toward former impressions, or a disposition to question the accuracy of one who has detected a flaw.

I likewise am in favor of biennial sessions of the Legislature, and some change made to prevent important questions of legislation from being made subsidiary to the election of a senator or a judge. Our whole bloody criminal code calls for radical revision. I see no cure for it but amputation. The limb should be cut off from the body politic, and a scion of less barbarous growth engrafted thereon. For the many grades of moral turpitude which are considered proper subjects for the denunciation of the laws, many and various grades of punishment are required, and the punishment of all crimes, except, perhaps, those of the deepest dye, should be so inflicted as to leave room for amendment. It were better to punish with death in all cases than to brand the culprit with an indelible stigma and turn him loose upon society. Yet for all the various classes of crime known to our laws, we have but four kinds of punishment — the whipping-post, the pillory, the hot iron, and halter. Imprisonment in the common jail is seldom resorted to. When the courts have the alternative they rarely order imprisonment, owing to its expense to the state. The prisoner must be supported at considerable cost, while his labor, which, under a better system, might be profitably employed, is wholly lost. The penitentiary is the remedy. This would enable us to graduate punishments, and would be followed by more certainty in the conviction of offenders. Many crimes of dangerous character — negro stealing and forgery, for example — which are now capital, go unpunished, in consequence of the disinclination of juries to find a verdict of guilty. In my opinion, the man who shall succeed in introducing the penitentiary system in this state will deserve the highest honor. Were I in search of popularity, I would feel certain of success with such a subject. It is not a mere experiment. Good management will enable the system to more than support itself.

Let me urge upon you, by all means, the necessity of a law to prevent and punish the circulation of incendiary pamphlets, etc., in this state.

SOURCE: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 100-2

George Poindexter to John F. H. Claiborne, December 25, 1829

Ashwood Place, Wilkinson Co., Dec. 25th, 1829.

My Dear Sir, — I had written you, before I received yours of the 22d, on the subject to which it relates. I differ with you entirely as to the effect of a visit to Jackson. It would be degrading to both parties. On my part, it would manifest a mean solicitude for office which, thank God, I do not feel; and, on the part of the electors, it would imply that they might be led from one man to another, with perfect ease, if one would only take the proper pains. Show yourself in person, flatter their vanity, and convince them by actual inspection of your physical powers, and you will find them the most docile creatures on earth. If I had no public character to rest my claims on, if I had rendered no service to the state, if I were entirely unknown as a politician and a jurist, I would eagerly substitute for merit personal attentions, urgent solicitations, and disgusting professions and protestations. The line of conduct which I have marked out for myself is founded on moral virtue, and supports the dignity of the senatorial character. The other course is sycophantic and demoralizing in all its tendencies. You will find that no gentleman who intended to vote for me will decline doing so because I do not choose to approach him with personal importunities. Those who do not mean to vote for me may make my remaining at home a convenient excuse. There can be no mistake about the state of my health. If I am worthy of the high trust of senator in Congress, I certainly may be trusted to tell the truth as to the state of my health. On former occasions I have rejected important offices, because my health would not justify my accepting them. This very office of senator was offered to mo in 1825, but I could not fulfill the duties, and it was declined. But if other evidence is wanted concerning my health, my friends and neighbors, who will be at Jackson, and my physicians will testify to it. If I had the strength of my overseer (a very stout man) I would not make my personal appearance at Jackson until after the vote is taken. I should then take great pleasure in paying my respects to the members. Candidates without merit, who are willing to rely on management, will honor the members with their company and conversation on all occasions, and will be “all things to all men,” that they may gain favor with a few. If, then, my friends think that my presence is a sine qua non, they may drop my name as a candidate. You seem to doubt whether the senator from —— will vote against me. I can assure you I should as soon expect to see a white crow as to obtain the vote of any man in this state of the name of ——. Huston and others are laboring in their vocation. They expect to get a share of Mr. Adams's practice — all pure patriotism and love of country! A Clay man supporting a Jackson man, and the Jackson men of Adams County electing a Clay man to the Legislature. “Heads I win, tails you lose.” The good people of Mississippi have been duped and ridden for many years past, and I suppose they are not yet sufficiently gulled.

Your friend, most truly,

Geo. Poindexter.

Hon. J. F. H. Claiborne, Jackson.

SOURCE: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 98-100

John A. Quitman to John F. H. Claiborne, October 25, 1830

Monmouth, Oct. 25th, 1830.

In answering your last, I will commence at home. Your friendly feelings have associated my name, in a certain contingency, with the senatorial election. A number of partial friends from other counties, and among them some of your fellow-members of the Legislature, have hinted the same thing, and I believe, if my political sentiments upon the great national questions which are now discussed were better understood, I should stand a respectable poll. I have, however, thus far succeeded by adhering to a rule, from which I must not now depart — to establish my reputation in the office conferred upon me before I seek another. The people expect that I will faithfully perform the responsible duties now confided to me, not only the duties of chancellor, but reporting my own decisions, and their expectations shall be fulfilled if in my power. Besides, much of my future reputation will depend upon these official opinions, and I am content to abide by the judgment which shall be pronounced upon them, not for the evidences of superior talent they are to exhibit, but for the marks of industry and a conscientious regard for the rights of suitors which they shall manifest. Under these circumstances, I would not, I assure you, become a candidate, even though my election was certain. I am induced by your frankness thus to give you my notions, the loud thoughts of a constituent and friend, who will ever counsel with and advise you, and never quarrel, although you may differ from him. I note what you say about Mr. Poindexter. I respect the feeling that makes you prefer your father's friend. I marked this as one of your characteristics when you were in my office, and it first attracted me to you. I, too, would prefer Poindexter if he had health and his former vigor. Our friends M'Niel and Merrick both saw him at Louisville, and they assure mo that he is unable to stand or move. What are we to do? We must have an intellectual man. R. J. Walker tells mo ho will not be a candidate. What is to be done but to take Wilkins? You are wrong in thinking that he does not desire the place. I am sure he does. Whether all his doctrines square with your and my views, is proper subject for inquiry.

SOURCE: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 96-7

John F. H. Claiborne to John A. Quitman, October 20, 1830

Soldier's Retreat, Oct. 20th, 1830.

My dear Sir, — Your name is mentioned in connection with the senatorial election. I have mentioned it myself in correspondence with members of the Legislature. Do you desire to be a candidate? If so, it will be expedient and proper to take bold ground on the leading questions of the day. You are not regarded strictly as a party man, but your sentiments are believed to be in harmony with the great body of the people. As chancellor, I admire your course in standing aloof from politics; but if you become a candidate, not pledges, but avowals become necessary. My intention is to vote for George Poindexter. He desires the place, and it is due to his services and great abilities. In your general views I think you harmonize; I know you do as to the relative powers of the state and federal governments, and the dangerous propensity of the latter to usurp power. This is the last opportunity we shall have to recognize the services of Poindexter. He is old and infirm, but his intellect shines as brilliantly as ever, and his name will give strength to our section. I know he has bitter and powerful enemies in this county, and that my support of him will stimulate my opponents and alienate many of my friends; but he was the schoolmate, and, in after life and in troublesome times, the friend of my father. I know, too, that he is a Republican of the school of Jefferson, and I will vote for him to the last, if I sacrifice myself by so doing. I have already heard of menaces, but how little they know me who fancy that threats or opposition ever changed my purpose! From the past, and from the rebellious blood I inherit, they should know me better. You are my second choice. If Poindexter can not be elected, and you authorize your name to be brought forward, I will gladly support you. I do not believe our friend Colonel Wilkins desires the place. I know he can not be elected as interests now stand, and I have so informed him in the presence of Colonel Campbell, and given him names and reasons.

SOURCE: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 95-6