Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, December 19, 1862

Soon after reaching the Department this a.m., I received a note from Nicolay, the President's secretary, requesting me to attend a special Cabinet-meeting at half-past ten. All the members were punctually there except Seward.

The President desired that what he had to communicate should not be the subject of conversation elsewhere, and proceeded to inform us that on Wednesday evening, about six o'clock, Senator Preston King and F. W. Seward came into his room, each bearing a communication. That which Mr. King presented was the resignation of the Secretary of State, and Mr. F. W. Seward handed in his own. Mr. King then informed the President that at a Republican caucus held that day a pointed and positive opposition had shown itself against the Secretary of State, which terminated in a unanimous expression, with one exception, against him and a wish for his removal. The feeling finally shaped itself into resolutions of a general character, and the appointment of a committee of nine to bear them to the President, and to communicate to him the sentiments of the Republican Senators. Mr. King, the former colleague and the personal friend of Mr. Seward, being also from the same State, felt it to be a duty to inform the Secretary at once of what had occurred. On receiving this information, which was wholly a surprise, Mr. Seward immediately wrote, and by Mr. King tendered his resignation. Mr. King suggested it would be well for the committee to wait upon the President at an early moment, and, the Secretary agreeing with him, Mr. King on Wednesday morning notified Judge Collamer, the chairman, who sent word to the President that they would call at the Executive Mansion at any hour after six that evening, and the President sent word he would receive them at seven.

The committee came at the time specified, and the President says the evening was spent in a pretty free and animated conversation. No opposition was manifested towards any other member of the Cabinet than Mr. Seward. Some not very friendly feelings were shown towards one or two others, but no wish that any one should leave but the Secretary of State. Him they charged, if not with infidelity, with indifference, with want of earnestness in the War, with want of sympathy with the country in this great struggle, and with many things objectionable, and especially with a too great ascendency and control of the President and measures of administration. This, he said, was the point and pith of their complaint.

The President says that in reply to the committee he stated how this movement had shocked and grieved him; that the Cabinet he had selected in view of impending difficulties and of all the responsibilities upon himself; that he and the members had gone on harmoniously, whatever had been their previous party feelings and associations; that there had never been serious disagreements, though there had been differences; that in the overwhelming troubles of the country, which had borne heavily upon him, he had been sustained and consoled by the good feeling and the mutual and unselfish confidence and zeal that pervaded the Cabinet.

He expressed a hope that there would be no combined movement on the part of other members of the Cabinet to resist this assault, whatever might be the termination. Said this movement was uncalled for, that there was no such charge, admitting all that was said, as should break up or overthrow a Cabinet, nor was it possible for him to go on with a total abandonment of old friends.

Mr. Bates stated the difference between our system and that of England, where a change of ministry involved a new election, dissolution of Parliament, etc. Three or four of the members of the Cabinet said they had heard of the resignation: Blair the day preceding; Stanton through the President, on whom he had made a business call; Mr. Bates when coming to the meeting.

The President requested that we should, with him, meet the committee. This did not receive the approval of Mr. Chase, who said he had no knowledge whatever of the movement, or the resignation, until since he had entered the room. Mr. Bates knew of no good that would come of an interview. I stated that I could see no harm in it, and if the President wished it, I thought it a duty for us to attend. The proceeding was of an extraordinary character. Mr. Blair thought it would be well for us to be present, and finally all acquiesced. The President named half-past seven this evening.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 194-6

Major-General George G. Meade to Margaretta Sergeant Mead, February 14, 1864 – 7 p.m.

Willard's Hotel, Sunday, February 14, 1864—7 P. M.

I felt very badly at leaving you, but I tried to reconcile myself to what was inevitable and could not be helped. We had a very pleasant journey to this place. Mr. Cram and Colonel Bache joined us at the depot, and at Wilmington I found General Hartsuff and Colonel Sackett on the train and took them into the car. Mr. Felton, the president of the company, was at the cars and was very civil. When we crossed the Susquehanna an elegant cold collation with champagne was set out, of which we all freely partook. On arriving here we took tea, and soon afterwards, about nine o'clock, I went to bed. The next day I spent all the day at the Department and White House. The Secretary was, as he always is, very civil and ready to accede to all my suggestions. He gratified me very much by saying that there was no officer in command who had to so great a degree the implicit confidence of all parties as myself; but he said there were several officers in my army that did not have the confidence of the country, and that I was injuring myself by retaining them. I told him I did not know who they were, but that if he was aware of this fact, I thought it was his duty to retire them, and I should not object; and I suppose the result will be a pretty general sweeping out. While with the Secretary, Mr. Usher, Secretary of the Interior, came in and invited me to his house at seven o'clock. Supposing it to be an evening party, where I could show myself and slip out, I accepted; but on going there I found it to be a regular dinner party. Senators Collamore, Wilson, Wilkeson and Powell, together with Judges Holt and Law, and the ladies of the family, constituted the party. All received and treated me with great distinction and civility, and about 10 P. M. I got home, and, after a talk with Cram, went to bed, a little tired. I had intended to go down to the army this morning, but received last night a note from the Secretary, saying he wanted to see me to-day; so I had to spend some four or five hours at the Department, and the rest of the day have remained quietly in the house with Cram.

Mr. Harding with Mrs. Harding are here, also Cortlandt Parker. I have not seen our friends the Harrises, except the Senator.

SOURCE: George Meade, The Life and Letters of George Gordon Meade, Vol. 2, p. 164-5

Senator Wright on Confiscation

Senator Wright, of Indiana, made the following remarks on the confiscation bill in the Senate, on the 30th ult.:

Mr. WRIGHT – I am strongly in favor of some bill of this character. Some such bill ought to have passed at the last session of Congress, but we seem to have gone on as though we had no war upon our hands. We must be alive to the exigencies of the hour. This monstrous rebellion must be destroyed, and destroyed speedily; and as a means for such an end I have looked earnestly for the passage of some proposition for the confiscation of the property of those engaged in rebellion against the Government. We have forborne until forbearance has become dishonor.

It is time lawlessness and treason should cease whether under the pretended guise of rebellion, or under the more insidious guise of a free speech, which gloats over every obstacle brought forward to prevent a restoration of the Union. It is time rapine and murder were called by their right names and punishes as they deserve. I can have no possible leniency for those men, educated at the expense of the Government, who turn against it in armed rebellion. We must make it understood that we do not educate men for service in Rebel armies. Yet I would deal leniently with the misguided masses, and I would prefer that the President should have some power to grant a general amnesty. I have no patience, Sir, to listen to long discussions about the power of Congress to pass such an act as this. Congress has the power to declare war and to suppress rebellion, and having those, I take it they have the power to provide for the vigorous prosecution of these objects. The greater power certainly includes the lesser. Neither shall I stop to argue the constitutionality of this measure. – But I may say that in times of great peril to free institutions, when disloyal citizens rise in rebellion to spurn the Constitution and defy the laws, there is a supreme and absorbing duty to which all others are subject – the duty of self-preservation, safety to the Government from disruption, and to the Constitution you talk about from annihilation. Every thing opposed to its existence must be made to yield or be swept away with an iron hand, that the nation may live. All minor considerations must be neglected and all inferior interest must perish. I wish to refer a moment to the character of the war in which we are engaged. Without referring to authorities, I will say in my own language that there are two kinds of war. I will designate one as a perfect war, and the other as a mixed or civil war. A perfect war is where one independent nation declares war against another nation, and its laws are well understood and must be as strictly observed as any other laws. A mixed war or rebellion, on the contrary, is in defiance of society, and meets with no encouragement from the laws of nations. In a perfect war, all the subjects and citizens of one country are considered enemies of the other country with which they are at war; they are so recognized and treated by the laws of nations. There is no exception. All those owning allegiance to one nation are foes of the other.

It is, however, entirely different in the case of a civil war. When we declare war against the rebellion of the South, we do not declare war against the States, but our hostilities are directed only against those who have taken up arms against the government, and the end we seek is the suppression of insurrection and the restoration of order. We do not declare that all the citizens of the seceded States shall be considered alien enemies. Therefore we must be careful how we do anything to destroy the existence of the States. War, strictly speaking, is between two independent Powers, and its code of laws are known as the laws of nations, and no single Power can amend them. Our present condition may be called a mixed war, one of the parties standing to the other in the double relation of enemies and citizens. This rebellion is a mere aggregation of all crime committed by individual citizens, which has grown to the dimensions of a war. All the crimes may be dealt with detail – as murder or arson, as the case may be – and are comprehended under the name of treason. The moment we come to recognize it in its aggregate character, we are in great danger of giving it an undue recognition. The conflict of our armies with these felons ought to be viewed as neither more nor less than an attempt to arrest them for their crimes. The Senator from Vermont (Mr. Collamer) seems to recognize the Rebels as a Power, and not as individual felons, and that they must be treated according the rules of war. If he means simply as the civilized and Christian usages, I agree with him; but if he means that foreign nations might call us to account upon international law, I entirely dissent from that opinion. We might just as well attempt to interfere with Austria or the Neapolitian Government in their treatment of criminals, and surely nothing could be worse. I deny that any Government has a right to call in question our treatment of criminals, or to interfere in this contest any way, unless it be in the matter of the blockade which concerns the commerce of other nations, and I ask the question here, Why should our armies restrict their seizures of rebel property to that found in the camps? If it is on the ground that there is want of proof that the property belongs to rebels, then it is right. If it is on the ground that according the rules of national warfare we cannot take it, then it is decidedly wrong. We seem to labor under the delusion that this is a perfect war, and not an attempt to arrest our own citizens for felony, every one of whom is responsible, and might be prosecuted to the extend of the law. This is in face a measure providing for the release of the great body of criminals, and reserving only a few leaders or punishment. We are contending only for the suppression of rebellion, but also for the respect of the great nations of the earth. I am tired, sir, of hearing the leaders of this rebellion called our brethren. They do no deserve any favors at our hands. They have shocked the civilization of all ages by committing barbarities almost unparalleled in history.

Shall we call those our brethren who have brought sorrow and suffering to almost every hearthstone in this country, who have armed savages against us? Will cooling and soft words change the hearts of those assassins who, in the midnight watches, stealthily creep upon our pickets and murder them in cold blood? Do brethren mutilate the bodies of our soldiers, bury them with faces downward, and do things which we might expect only from savages and cannibals? No, sir, they are not our brethren. They are our mortal foes, and we must treat them as such. The manner in which this people has risen to defend this Government has extorted the praise and admiration of even of those who are opposed to the republican government. – When the citizens of the country have done and are doing so well, shall we neglect the high trust they have confided to us? The people look to this Congress to pass some measure for the confiscation of the property of those in rebellion against the Government. I for one am not willing to disappoint them in their just expectation. They do not ask it from any sordid motive, but from motives which subserve the ends of true justice. I regard this as one of a series of acts essential to the putting down of this rebellion. There also should be another provision – that as our armies advance into the regions where treason is rampant, they must be subsisted upon the enemy, and it is incumbent upon us to make that provision. It is a fact not to be disguised, that many men have grown fat and waxed rich upon the supplies they have furnished to our troops. They would like to have the war protracted until the Treasury was at its last gasp. What care these men for the distresses which befall others so long as their coffers are filled? I would not have our soldiers go starving through the rich Rebel regions of the country. Those who have broken the public peace should be made to subsist those who come to restore it. Such a proceeding would have a magnetic effect in restoring peace at the South. It must not be supposed that I object to laws to prevent pillage and plunder by the soldiers. – Those are all right. But the army must be subsisted upon the traitors according to the proper laws and regulations. If it were left to me to provide a plan, I would have the President make a proclamation, offering an amnesty to all who would lay down their arms within sixty days, and those who still persisted in rebellion after that should be made to suffer all the consequences of such untimed treason. I am tired, sir, of all these quibbles about constitutional provision, and all this talk about the Secretary of State having usurped powers and violated the Constitution in his efforts to preserve the Government. I know no limit in these dark hours of my country to the duty of every man to suppress that rebellion. I would have the President and his officers do everything for the preservation of the Government, but I would hold them all to account for a strict discharge of their duty; but now when treason fills the air around us, I am sure we can trust this Administration to say what is compatible or not with the public interest.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, May 10, 1862, p. 2

Another Act of Justice

Mr. Sumner’s bill, to remove all disabilities of color, in persons employed in carrying the mails, was taken up a few days since and passed without debate, yeas 24; nays 11. The Pittsburg Gazette says truly, that never, certainly of late years, ahs a bill opposed to the prejudice of race met with such a reception as this. It was introduced quietly, quietly referred to the Post Office Committee, reported back by Senator Collamer, and passed, as if it were a measure affecting only white people.

– Published in The Davenport Daily Gazette, Davenport, Iowa, Saturday Morning, April 19, 1862, p. 2