Daniel S. Dickinson to Lydia Knapp Dickinson, February 12, 1858

WILLARD'S HOTEL, WASHINGTON,}

February 12, 1858. }

MY DEAR LYDIA—I was delighted last evening to receive your letter, with one from Lydia enclosed, and this morning a beautiful one from dear Mary at Cortland. I reached here Tuesday evening quite well, and was greeted with many a cordial welcome. Finding that it was levee evening, I went to the White House, and on Wednesday evening to Mrs. Floyd's reception. Yesterday all the Cabinet ladies "received," and I submitted to the infliction of going all round.

I dined with Mr. Corcoran, with rather a brilliant party, at six; returned at half past nine, and went to Marshall Hoover's party, and stole away at half past eleven and returned to the hotel.

All our acquaintances inquire for you, Lydia, and Mary, with much interest. I dine with the President to-day at six; Miss Lane, whom I saw at the levee and sat next at Mr. Corcoran's, sends you her kind regards, also to Mary. I have not yet reached my cause, and may not until the middle of the week. I am quite glad Mary did not come now. Washington has improved much in its externals, as you saw last spring; and its parties are far more showy and pretentious than formerly, but the gaiety is so much allied to dissipation that it is absolutely alarming. It is deplored exceedingly by the reflecting and sensible; but there is no arresting it, and no escape. What society has gained in show it has lost in heart, and is fast copying the worst forms of European extravagance. The ladies look worn and jaded; I have conversed with some who view it as I do. I would not have our darling Mary in this maelstrom of dissipation without her mother or some discreet lady friend, for any consideration I could name. I have seen nothing so well calculated to disturb and derange the rational moral sense of the young in my whole life.

I shall not be able to write you often, for I am terribly run down, and you must take the will for the deed. Give much love to all, particularly Charlotte and the little boys.

Very affectionately,

D. S. DICKINSON.

SOURCE: John R. Dickinson, Editor, Speeches, Correspondence, Etc., of the Late Daniel S. Dickinson of New York, Vol. 2, pp. 508-9

Congressman Thomas S. Bocock to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, July 23, 1857

(Private.)

MARTINSBURG, VA., July 23, 1857.

MY DEAR SIR: Though I have ceased to take interest in politics, and hang on loosely to them for a while longer, somewhat as a matter of habit, and somewhat as a matter of necessity, I have promised a friend that I would communicate a few facts to you, and now proceed to redeem my promise.

While spending a few hours in Washington, a day or two ago, and since I have been here, I have ascertained that a good deal of maneuvering is going on in relation to the Senatorial election in Virginia. From what I have heard, I am satisfied that Gov[ernor] Wise is very anxious to be elected to the Senate. His hopes in that direction were a good deal chilled by the result of the Virginia elections last Spring, but within a few weeks past, they have been very much revived. He thinks that if he could place you, in a position of known antagonism to the administration, and stand forward himself as the administration candidate he would easily beat you. Therefore his friends are representing you as fully endorsing all that our good friends of "The South" have said about Walker and Kansas, and are endeavouring to produce the belief that hostility to Walker and his Kansas policy springs out of and indicates a spirit of settled hostility to the administration.

As I came through Washington the city was rife with rumours of your open and avowed hostility to Buchanan and his Cabinet.

Our friend Co[lone]l Orr of So[uth] Carolina who is a warm administration man told me that he heard with great concern that you had made a speech in which you attacked them fiercely. Since I came here, a friend of ours (Mr. John B. Hoge) has told me that the scheme has been worked with effect in this region, and is fraught with danger in the West at least.

I am clearly and openly hostile to Walker and his Kansas policy, but I do not think that either principle or policy requires it to be carried to the extent of opposition to the administration. They are acting badly towards us it is true, but they ought not to be permitted to drive us into opposition, except upon some ground which would be patent to the public. This is my view of the matter but it is probably badly taken. You can judge best of the course proper for you to take. I intended merely to give you facts.

The result of the elections in our region of the State was in this point of view, very favorable. So Edmundson writes me it was in his. I am nearly at the end of my race politically. I want however to see the true men in our State, prospered and advanced, and the intriguers thwarted and I will sing the "nunc dimittes" with full glad heart.

(P. S.) That "mendacious vagabond" who writes to the Herald from Richmond persists in declaring that the Parsons [?] Bill was gotten up by your friends to injure Buchanan's prospects in Virginia for the Presidential nomination.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), pp. 210-1

C. W. C. Dunnington to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, July 25, 1857

WASHINGTON, D. C., July 25, 1857.

DEAR SIR: Having a few moments leisure, I have concluded to address you on the subject of the Senatorial election next winter. Not having the least doubt of your re-election, it has created surprise in my mind to hear some of the friends of Gov. Wise express themselves in the most sanguine terms as to the probability of his succeeding you. Gov. Wise and Mr. Faulkner seem to be on very friendly terms just now. It is said Mr. F[aulkner] is to help Wise to the Senate, while Gov. W[ise] is to use all his influence to secure Mr. F[aulkner]'s nomination for governor, and at the expiration of Mr. F[aulkner]'s gubernatorial term he expects to succeed your colleague in the Senate. It is well to be on your guard against the movements of these aspiring gentlemen.

Walker's course in Kansas has caused the administration much trouble. The cabinet, I have reason to believe are divided on the subject, and that the position of Georgia has rather weakened Mr. Cobb's influence.

Forney is causing much uneasiness. It is whispered that Cobb is concerned in the movement, and that the new paper will support him for the nomination next time. I know that the conductors of the "Union," are very jealous of the movement, and are of the above opinion.

The feud in Indiana between the friends of Gov. Bright and Gov. Wright has not been quieted by the appointment of Gov. W[right]¹ and will brake out again at no early day.

There is no friendly feeling existing between Messrs. Bright and Douglas. Mr. D[ouglas] blames Gov. B[right] for the way in which the Indiana delegation voted at Cincinnati.

There is some talk of De Witt purchasing the interest of R. M. Smith in the Virginia Sentinel. I expect Gov. Smith will not favor the plan. Some of Gov. S[mith]'s constituents are blaming him for recommending a fellow named Wileman Thomas, from his district, for a high position here. Thomas is a notorious scoundrel, bankrupt in politics, morals, and purse. He was a know nothing, attended the Winchester convention, but was denied admittance, because he was self appointed. He procured the recommendation of several respectable gentlemen, and then obtained the endorsement of Gov. Wise to the genuineness of their democracy. I mention this matter for fear he may annoy you with his importunities. I should not be surprised if he received an appointment, as he voted for Mr. Buchanan, which absolves a man from all sins against the democratic party.

The Intelligencer of this morning contains a very handsome notice of your Lexington address, part of which it published. I would send you the paper, but suppose you take it.

_______________

¹ Joseph Albert Wright, governor of Indiana, 1849-1857; a Representative in Congress, 1843-1845; Senator, 1862-1863; Minister to Prussia, 1857-1861, also 1865-1867.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), pp. 213-4

John B. Fry to Daniel S. Dickinson, January 17, 1858

NEW YORK, January 17, 1858.

MY DEAR MR. DICKINSON—Upon taking up this morning's Herald I was deeply pained to learn that by being thrown from your carriage on Friday evening you had received serious injury; and yet I am heartily rejoiced (if the despatch be correct) that your condition is not regarded as dangerous.

Though not always sympathizing with your political views and feelings—as, candidly, I do not in respect to the administration of Mr. Buchanan—I am nevertheless warmly, sincerely, and devotedly your friend; and I beg you to believe that I feel most keenly every occurrence, whether of a personal or political nature, which can possibly affect you injuriously.

I am in the habit of thinking and speaking of you as I thought and spoke of Mr. Clay while he lived. He was "wounded in the house of his friends;" so have you been in the house of yours.

But my only object now is to express sorrow at the untoward event that has happened to you, and an ardent hope that you may be speedily restored to health and happiness. I am, my dear Mr. Dickinson, always

Yours faithfully,

JOHN B. FRY.

SOURCE: John R. Dickinson, Editor, Speeches, Correspondence, Etc., of the Late Daniel S. Dickinson of New York, Vol. 2, p. 506

Lewis E. Harvie to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, March 11, 1857

DYKELAND, AMELIA CO., [VA.], March 11, 1857.

DEAR HUNTER: Supposing that you will be at Washington during this week I address to you there. Pryor is very busy getting his paper under way and I confidently believe will get a large circulation very speedily. It is important that he start right and honestly. You should write to him or to me as to his course and particularly as to the Land question, about which his mind is considerably "exercised." It is Banquo's ghost to him and especially since the vote of some of our friends on distributing or depositing the surplus in the treasury. He desires conference with you on that subject and it seems to me important that his views and committals should be well digested before he breaks ground. I write to bring this about. Tell me what we are to expect from this administration. If coming events cast their shadows before I augur the worst. I am however for waiting for overt acts and against any such judgments founded upon conjecture or distrust, because of injudicious or distasteful appointments. I was almost led into opposition to Pierce by that and I am getting to be wary and cautious as my head is growing gray. Buchanan had no especial reason to confide in us that I know of and therefore we have no ground to complain that he didn't. At all events we can't make other people think so and there is no use in opposing him in anticipation, when in all human probabillity we shall be fully justified in it by his future conduct. He has been leading a loose life too long to become chaste all of a sudden. Tell me about the Cabinet and other appointments. I don't hear of or dread any opposition to you hereabouts. I got my Delegate to commit himself publicly and take some credit to my tact for it. You ought to write to Mallory. I did and found him true but not advised and I think sore over it.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 205

Diary of Edward Bates, May 27, 1859

The N. York Commercial advertiser of May 23d. contains a very complimentary notice of my letter to the Whig Committee,⁶² and extracts the part of it against the rage for foreign acquisition — heading it, Bates versus Fillibusterism [sic]. Such a compliment from such a paper goes for something.

If my letter does no other good, I hope it will embolden some men, both North and South, to speak out boldly against the system of aggression and plunder, whose feelings are right, but have heretofore been too timid to denounce it. The truculent impudence of certain buccaneers in the South seems to have taken the start of public opinion, and silenced the opposition of the timid and the peaceful.

I see by the Nat:[ional] Intelligencer of May 24. that there is established in Baltimore (and the 1st. No. actually issued) a Weekly Periodical called "The American Cavalier" which professes to be — "A Military Journal, devoted to the extension of American Civilization."

The Cavalier declares that it will "place its feet upon [on] the broad platform of the [‘]Monroe doctrine[’] and will maintain that the Government of the U[nited] States is the only legal arbiter of the destiny of American nationalities." (!)

Sir Knight (the Editor of the Cavalier) stimulated by the prospect of universal expansion, talks grandiloquently thus — "This nation is the Empire of the People, and as such we shall advocate its extension until 1 [sic] every foot of land on the continent (wonder if he means to leave out the Islands? — Perhaps, as he is a cavalier, he'll go only where [he] can ride) owns only our flag as the National emblem, and that flag the ["]Stars and stripes["] — Aye, we say, add star to star until our Republican constellation is a very sun of light[,] throwing its genial rays into into [sic] the humblest home of the poor man, in the most distant part of the earth[!] — <what! outside the "Continent!"> Let not the virgin soil of America be polluted by oppression— [ ;] <Can he mean to abolish slavery?> Let it not be the continued seat of war and bloodshed; <No more fighting then I hope> let the great people <and why not the little ones too> rise up as one man and command peace and love to be enthroned as the presiding genii of this new world."⁶³

There is a good deal more of that sort of nonsense —

"And then he pierc'd his bloody-boiling breast, with blameful — bloody blade!"

It is perhaps fortunate that such political charlatans do commonly disclose the dangerous absurdity of their projects, by the stupid folly of their language.

The paper, observe, is to be military — All this spread of 'American Civilization' is to be done by martial law. Buchanan wants to take military possession of Mexico; and Douglas wants a seabound Republic !

The Louisville Journal of May 26 — sent me by some one — contains a long article, written with ability (I guess by Judge Nicholas⁶⁴) with a view to organize a general Opposition Party. He argues that the only way to beat the Democrats effectively is for the Republican party to abandon its separate organization, and unite its elements with the general opposition. He thinks that the Abolitionists proper, will not go with the Republicans, any how, and that the Republicans, altho' very strong, are not more numerous than the other elements of opposition ; and that standing alone, they are, like the Democrats, sectional — But, fused with the other elements, and thus taking the character of the general opposition, the party would become essentially national, and would easily put down the sham Democracy.

I read in the papers that a Company is formally organized down South, to increase the African labor of the Country — i. e. import slaves — and that DeBow⁶⁵ is a head man of it.

This is said to be the result of the deliberations⁶⁶ of the "Southern Commercial Convention"⁶⁷ at its late session in Mississippi — Vicksburg.

Are these men mad, that they organize in open defiance of the law, avowedly to carry on a felonious traf [f]ic, and for an object, tho' not distinctly avowed yet not concealed, — to dissolve the Union, by cutting off the slave states, or at least the cotton states ?

Again — are these men fools ? Do they flatter themselves with the foolish thought that we of the upper Mississippi will ever submit to have the mouth of our River held by a foreign power, whether friend or foe? Do they not know that that is a fighting question, and not fit to be debated? The people of the upper Miss[issip]pi. will make their commerce flow to the Gulf as freely as their waters. If friendly suasion fail, then war: If common warfare will not suffice, they will cut the dikes, at every high flood, and drown out the Delta!⁶⁸

[Marginal Note.] June 4. I see by the papers, that since the adjournment of the Southern convention, there has been a great antislave-trade meeting held at Vicksburg — called to order by Foote⁶⁹ and presided over by Judge Sharkey⁷⁰ — which denounced all that the Convention had done about the slave trade.

_______________

⁶² Supra, 1-9.

⁶³ Mr. Bates has quoted inaccurately. The punctuation and capitalization are changed, and with the exception of "legal " and “Empire of the People" the italics are Mr. Bates's.

⁶⁴ Samuel S. Nicholas: judge of the Kentucky Court of Appeals, 1831-1837; author in 1857 of a series of essays on Constitutional Law.

⁶⁵ James D. B. De Bow: economist; short-time editor of the Southern Quarterly Review published at Charleston, South Carolina; editor of the Commercial Review of the South and Southeast (later De Bow's Review) which he founded in New Orleans in 1846 ; superintendent of the U. S. Census under President Pierce ; and a leader in the Southern Commercial Conventions.

⁶⁶ May 9-13, 1859. On May 10, L. W. Spratt of South Carolina, Isaac N. Davis of Mississippi, and John Humphreys of Mississippi introduced resolutions urging a reopening of the African slave-trade, and Humphreys, G. V. Moody of Mississippi, and J. D. B. De Bow of Louisiana made speeches supporting them. On May 12, the Convention voted 40—19 for repeal of all laws prohibiting the importation of African negroes. A committee on the "legality and expediency" of the slave-trade was appointed to report to a later convention.

⁶⁷ This was one of a series of "commercial conventions" of the 1850's in which Southerners sought to analyze their economic and commercial ills and find remedies that would enable them once more to overtake the North in economic development.

⁶⁸ The Northwest's need of a free outlet through the lower Mississippi to the sea had always played an important role in national history. The South thought that this factor would force the Northwest to follow it in secession. The editor, however, decided (in a detailed study made of Southern Illinois in 1860-1861) that railroad building of the 1850's had made at least that portion of the Northwest which lies east of the Mississippi equally dependent by .1861 upon rail connections with the Northwest, and that this importance of both outlets actually forced a strongly pro-Southern Southern Illinois to defend the Union, since preservation of the Union was the only way to maintain both the river and the rail outlets. Mr. Bates's comment throws interesting light upon this same influence of the Mississippi upon Missouri unionist sentiment.

⁶⁹ Henry S. Foote of Mississippi: Unionist U. S. senator, 1847-1852; governor of Mississippi, 1852-1854 ; opponent of states' rights and secession. He later moved to Memphis. Tennessee. As a member of the lower house of the Confederate Congress, he criticized Davis severely. When Lincoln's peace proposals were rejected, he resigned and was imprisoned by the Confederacy, but finally was allowed to remove to Union territory.

⁷⁰ William L. Sharkey of Mississippi: elective chief justice of the Court of Errors and Appeals, 1832-1850 ; president of the Southern Convention at Nashville in 1850; provisional governor of Mississippi under the Johnsonian restoration of 1865.

SOURCE: Howard K. Beale, Editor, Annual Report of The American Historical Association For The Year 1930, Vol. 4, The Diary Of Edward Bates, pp. 18-20

Diary of George Templeton Strong, Tuesday, May 15, 1860

. . . Universal sympathy for poor Fowler, except from a very few Buchananizing Democrats. Isaiah Rynders has not yet succeeded in arresting him, and probably won’t succeed if he can help it.

SOURCE: Allan Nevins and Milton Halset Thomas, Editors, Diary of George Templeton Strong, Vol. 3, p. 26

Daniel S. Dickinson to Mr. Rogers, December 25, 1856

BINGHAMTON, December 25, 1856.

MY DEAR ROGERS—Myself and family send to you and to Mrs. Rogers the kindly salutations and wishes of the season, under a deep sense of friendly obligations: and we all join the little boys in transmitting their joyous acknowledgments for your kind remembrance and substantial present. Please drop a line, as early as convenient to you, when you will return, so that I may arrange to be at home.

I am glad you are going to Wheatland, for it is as well due to our friends and to our organization as to Mr. Buchanan himself, that he should be fully, frankly, and temperately posted in our affairs. So far as I have a right to be heard in the premises, it is my desire that the explanation be of a general character, and placed entirely on public grounds. I would under no circumstances have my name pressed upon Mr. Buchanan as one of his cabinet advisers. Nor would I consent to sit as one, unless it was given under circumstances where I was sought, rather than seeking the place, and where the public desired my services. For your own private information, I will assure you that I have no expectation of a cabinet appointment. I have no knowledge nor information on the subject, but intuition teaches me, as I wrote you some time since, and the views then expressed have received confirmation by subsequent reflection. I am by no means sure that it will not be better for those of our friends who desire places, if Mr. Buchanan should pass by the State rather than that he should give me a cabinet appointment. In case of my appointment, if he should deny any further appointment to our wing, it would leave me in an awkward and unpleasant position. But if I am not appointed, he may feel an inclination to look more carefully after my friends. I am proud to note, however, that so far as I have been mentioned, it has generally been for Secretary of State, and no one has placed me below Treasury. The leading papers in Maine, Iowa, &c., &c., have been out pretty strong, but there is much intrigue going on by the jobbers for the places, with a view to the Treasury spoils, and also to 1860.

I do not intend to be pharisaical in profession, but I am, as years increase, more anxious to fill my present sphere of usefulness than to enlarge it:—to execute the mission before me, and train up the little boys that Providence has left to look to me for protection, and to cherish and console, so far as domestic care and quiet can accomplish it, one who is dearer to me still, and bound by more tender ties, and is yet as dependent upon me as a child. These, with others, are individual reasons why change is not desirable except for strong inducements.

Sincerely yours,

D. S. DICKINSON.

SOURCE: John R. Dickinson, Editor, Speeches, Correspondence, Etc., of the Late Daniel S. Dickinson of New York, Vol. 2, pp. 499-500

Daniel S. Dickinson to Mr. W. S. Brown, January 24, 1857

BINGHAMTON, January 24, 1857.

MY DEAR SIR—My best acknowledgments are tendered you for numerous favors conveyed with a generous partiality and friendly devotion. I can only assure you of a high, profound, and sincere appreciation.

I have full confidence in Mr. Buchanan's wisdom, and feel sure he will give us a judicious administration; what will be his "personnel," I have no means of knowing. He is urged, from both interested and factious sources, to go by this State, because of our divisions. It may be wise to pass the State or may not be; but no such question as divisions should control him.

We have some factious men, though since the main body went off, less than one would suppose for the encouragement they have received: but so far as our rank and file are concerned, whether upon men or measures, we have less division than has Virginia, New Hampshire, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, or Pennsylvania.

Repeating my thanks for your kind courtesy—I am,

Yours sincerely,

D. S. DICKINSON.

W. S. BROWN, Esq.

SOURCE: John R. Dickinson, Editor, Speeches, Correspondence, Etc., of the Late Daniel S. Dickinson of New York, Vol. 2, p. 500

W. Grandin to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, October 18, 1856

NEW YORK, [N. Y.], October 18, 1856.

MY DEAR SIR: The glorious results of the elections of the 14th Inst in Pennsylvania, Indiana and even Ohio have made the calling and election of B[uchanan] and B[reckinridge] by the people next month "a fixed fact!"

Permit me to offer my hearty congratulations to one who will have contributed in such large measure to such "consummation devoutly to be wished"; not only by a long and brilliant career as a Statesman, but particularly by his masterly and profound exposition of national, democratic truths in this State. I sent you a copy of the Daily News (with which I am now connected) commenting upon this effort at Poughkeepsie.

Such has been the inspiriting effect upon the people of New York that truly I should not be surprised to find them following the example of P[ennsylvani]a and Indiana. The Herald in its leader gives up the contest!

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), pp. 199-200

John Pettit* to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, November 10, 1856

LAFAYETTE, INDIANA, November 10, 1856.

MY DEAR SIR: The smoke of the battle has cleared away and we are victorious. I congratulate you and the country on this glorious result and I sincerely hope that Mr. Buchanan may call you to the head of his Cabinet for I know of no man more worthy or better qualified. I expressed to you similar views before the formation of Mr. Pierce's Cabinet and do not wish to flatter you, but this is my honest desire. If I can serve you, intimate in what way.

We have carried our Legislature and shall elect two senators, Mr. Bright will be one, and I want and ought to be the other and can be if Mr. Bright will co-operate with me. Am I asking too much in asking you to write Mr. B[right] at once, urging him to unite his friends with mine for our mutual election? If so, you will pardon me for this intrusion, but believe me your sincere friend.

_______________

* A Representative in Congress from Indiana, 1843-1849; a Senator, 1853-1855. He was not successful in his efforts for a reelection in 1856.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 200

George Booker to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, November 16, 1856

NEAR HAMPTON, [VA.], 16th November, 1856.

MY DEAR HUNTER: I have been thinking about this Southern Convention which is to meet at Savannah on the 8th [of] next month and it occurs to me and I suggest to you the importance of your going there, which may influence the action of the next administration of great importance to the south.

If we can succeed in Kansas, keep down the Tariff, shake off our Commercial dependence upon the North and add a little more slave territory, we may yet live free men under the Stars and Strip[e]s. Mr. Buchanan, if not committed to the "balance idea" is to the acquisition of more southern territory.

The next few years must be eventful ones in our history, may, probably will, decide the fate of the Union, at all events the destines of our section. Mr. Buchanan and the Northern Democracy are dependent upon the South, an extraordinary course of things here placed them and us in this attitude towards each other. Shall we use our power? or suffer things of such magnitudes to be controlled by our enemies, by accident, or any other causes? I repeat I want you to go to Savannah. Please tell me what you know of Dudley Mann and his line of steamers from the Chesapeake bay to Millford, is he a practical man and is his enterprise likely to be successful?

Who is to be in the Cabinet from V[irgini]a? Kindest regards to Garnett. Tell him I want him to examine and consider our Naturalization laws, as soon as he can. It does seem to me time to check this flood of emigration, the chief element of Northern power and ascendency. Tell him I would not only have him use K[now] N[othing] thunder but the thunder bolts of Heaven to crush the enemies of the South.

Ask him to tell me hereafter at his leisure why it was he ran ahead of Mr. Buchanan in every county at every precinct. Was it his eloquence? Was it Mr. Saunder's position? Was it Buchanan's position? Fillmore's position? What cause? What combination produced that striking result?

Tell him his district is proud of him and wishes him to grow in influence, in importance, in power fast as possible, but when he begins to grow "National” we shall begin to grow cold.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), pp. 200-1

Lewis E. Harvie to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, November 23, 1856

(Confidential.)

[AMELIA CO., VA.], November 23, 1856.

DEAR HUNTER: I was in Richmond yesterday and saw Pryor who has heard from Washington that there is some effort being made there to get him selected as one of the two coeditors of the organ of the new administration at Washington. His circumstances and possibly his ambition would prompt him to desire this place earnestly tho' he says he is making no effort to get it. Dr. Garnett has written to him that he should urge Wise to apply to Buchanan for it on behalf of Pryor. On the other hand Beverly Tucker is struggling for it and says that Wise is committed to him. Thus much for that. I also found that Pryor thought that Wise would urge the offer of Secretary of State to be made to you and thought if so you ought to accept it. Reed [?] had heard Beverly Tucker say that Wise would turn you out of the Senate when the election came on. Now Pryor is a true man and true to you and moreover is under some obligations to some of your friends that he feels and wont disregard, but if he were to be the Editor of such a paper, you being of the Cabinet, would be what of all things he would desire and I am writing to you to warn and guard you in case such an offer be again and any advice he may offer by letter or otherwise. If it be made it will of course be for one of two reasons either because they know you will not accept it and thus get for Wise and his President the credit of having made the offer, or to create a vacancy in the Senate for Wise.

Now it is so clear to me that you ought not to go into the Cabinet and that you ought to remain in the Senate that I can scarcely think there is any occasion for writing. This Administration can't stand, at the end of four years; at all events there must be another and a fiercer struggle than has just taken place and you ought to be in the Senate preparing yourself and the country for it, sustaining the administration in all measures calculated to secure our rights, leading the Southern men and forming and wielding them in a solid and compact mass. You can and will have more power in the Senate than if President. It is expected, it is conceded that you must take the lead and it is not in the power of any party or partizans to arrest your career. So confident do I feel of this, so clear does it seem to me that I should think you mad if not criminal if you were to doubt or hesitate. I write strongly because I feel so. There is no necessity for the sacrifice there is no propriety in it. Your acceptance of this offer if made would be laid to the account of timidity or mere love of place and in either case your power and usefulness would be lost. Don't then entertain any such idea for a moment. If the offer that I just spoke of be made to Pryor, his poverty will make him accept it and the power that he is exerting thro' the Enquirer will be lost to him and that will be a great loss to us, but nevertheless you are invincible in the State and those who assail you will find it to be so. I think he will write to you and it is as well that you have some knowledge of his views beforehand. Of course all of this letter in regard to him is strictly confidential.

Present my warmest congratulations to Garnett and say to him that I am not only rejoiced at his success but proud of it. I don't doubt but that his Excellency [Wise] will write to him to the same effect and possibly that he secured his nomination and election. I wish you would sometimes write to me without my forcing you to do so in answer to my letters and tell me what is in the wind. I should like to see you before you go to Washington but if not I will see you then.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), pp. 202-3

Diary of Edward Bates, April 28, 1859

I have just recd, a late number of the "Constitution" (the Washington Union, with a new name³⁵ and a new Editor³⁶ — the old having sunk into imbecility and odium) in which I find that I and my N. York letter are honored with a long Editorial leader,³⁷ particularly dull and inconclusive.

The Nat:[ional] Intel[ligence]r of Apl. 23d., by way of offset, gives a letter of Gov: Wise³⁸ to a friend³⁹ in Alabama, which it says, is far more sweeping than my letter is, in its denunciations of the Administration.

And truly Mr. Wise's letter is far more general and bitter in its condemnation than any writing that I have seen, since Buchanan's accession — I preserve the paper for future use.

I do not see how to reconcile that letter of Mr. Wise with his recent letter⁴⁰ pledging his support to Mr. Letcher,⁴¹ for Govr. of Va. on condition that he supports the Administration [.]

_______________

³⁵ The Constitution, first issued April 13, 1859; it had previously been called the Union.

³⁶ George W. Bowman.

³⁷ April 19, 1859.

³⁸ Henry A. Wise of Virginia: Democratic congressman, 1833-1844; governor, 1856-1860; opponent of secession until it became inevitable; brigadier-general in the Confederate Army.

³⁹ David Hubbard of Alabama: states' rights Democratic congressman, 1839-1841 and 1849-1851; Confederate congressman, 1861-1863.

⁴⁰ Henry A. Wise to a Democratic elector for one of the Senatorial districts of the State, March 21, 1859, Daily National Intelligencer, April 15, 1859.

⁴¹ John Letcher of Virginia: Democratic congressman, 1851-1859; governor, 1860-1864; a leader in the Washington Peace Convention of 1861; opponent of secession until it came.

SOURCE: Howard K. Beale, Editor, Annual Report of The American Historical Association For The Year 1930, Vol. 4, The Diary Of Edward Bates, pp. 12-13

Congressman Horace Mann to Mr. and Mrs. George Combe, December 5, 1851

WASHINGTON, Dec. 5, 1851.

MY DEAR FRIENDS MR. AND MRS. COMBE, — Politics in this country do not, as they should, mean a science, but a controversy; and in this sense we are all involved in politics. When will the time come that politics can be taken from the domain of passion and propensity? I have no doubt that such a millennium is in the future. Nor will the whole world enter that millennium at the same time. Wise and sage individuals like Mr. George Combe must be the pioneers: then it must be colonized by a larger number, and then entered and dwelt in by all. But I fear the epochs and eras which will mark and measure these successive stages of consummations are to be geological in their distance and duration. Doubtless you have seen a book entitled the "Theory of Human Progression," which, from internal evidence, is Scotch in its origin, and whose object is not only to prophesy, but to prove, the future triumph of peace and justice upon earth. I have read but part of the book. I am reading it to my wife at odd hours, when our chances of leisure come together. I have long believed in the whole doctrine; but it is delightful to see it argued out, not only to take the Q. E. D. on authority, but to feel the truth of the solution. All sciences, even the natural ones, have been the subjects of controversy and of persecution in their beginning: why, then, should not the science of politics? One truth after another will be slowly developed; and by and by truth, and not individual aggrandizement or advantage, will be the only legitimate object of inquiry. Then will its millennium come! - Doubtless you have through the public papers the political movements of the country at large. The old struggle for supremacy between the political parties goes on; but worse means are brought in to insure success than ever before entered into our contests. The North (or free States) comprises almost two-thirds of all our population; the South (or slave States) but about a third. The North is really divided into two great parties, Whigs and Democrats. These are arrayed against each other in hostile attitude; and, being nearly equal, they cancel each other. The South is Whig or Democratic only nominally. It is for slavery exclusively and intensely. Hence we now present the astonishing and revolting spectacle of a free people in the nineteenth century, of almost twofold power, not merely surrendering to a proslavery people one-half the power, but entering into the most vehement competition to join with them in trampling upon all the great principles of freedom. We have five prominent candidates for the next Presidency. All of them are from the North. The South does not put forward as yet a single man; for Mr. Clay can hardly be considered a candidate. Each one of the five candidates begins with abandoning every great principle of constitutional liberty, so far as the black race is concerned; and to this each one has saddled more and more proslavery gratuities and aggrandizements, as the propositions he advanced were made at a later period of time. All Whigs professed to be shocked when Gen. Cass offered in substance to open all our new Territories to slavery. But Mr. Webster's accumulated proslavery bounties, as compared with those of Gen. Cass, were as "Pelion to a wart." Mr. Buchanan offers to run the line of 36° 30′ through to the Pacific Ocean, and to surrender all on the south side of it to slavery. Mr. Dallas, late Vice-President under Mr. Polk, tells the South that the antislavery spirit of the North will never be quiet under the compromise measures and the Fugitive-slave Law; and so proposes to embody this whole series into the Constitution by an amendment, thus putting them beyond the reach of legislative action. And Mr. Douglas, a young senator from Illinois, who aspires to the White House, offers Cuba to the South in addition to all the rest. In the mean time, the South sets forth no candidate for the Executive chair. Some of their leading politicians avow the policy of taking a Northern man, because "a Northern man with Southern principles" can do more for them than any one of their own. All of them are virtually saying to Northern aspirants, "Proceed, gentlemen; give us your best terms: and, when you have submitted your proposals, we will make our election between you." Is it not indescribably painful to contemplate such a picture, — no, such a reality? You must feel it as a man: I feel it as an American, you as a lover of mankind, I as a lover of republican institutions.

You will, of course, understand that such contests cannot be carried on without corresponding contests in the States. In Massachusetts, many collateral issues have mingled with the main question. Mr. Webster's apostasy on the 7th of March, 1850, had not at first a single open defender in our Commonwealth. Some pecuniary arrangements were made by which one or two papers soon devoted themselves to his cause. In a few days after the speech, he visited Boston; and, at a public meeting to receive him, he held out, in unmistakable language, the lure of a tariff, if they would abandon principle. This interested motive appealed to both parties. It was pressed upon them, both in public and in private, during the whole summer, and indeed until the approaching termination of the 31st Congress showed that it was only a delusion and a cheat.

During the summer, another pecuniary element was introduced. The merchants of New York sought a monopoly of Southern trade through a subserviency to Southern interests. The merchants of Philadelphia and Boston forthwith became competitors for the same profits through the same infamous means. In this way, within a twelvemonth, all the Atlantic cities were carried over to the side of Southern policy. I believe I told you of efforts made against myself, and their result, in the last year's election of a representative to Congress from my district. Since that time the process of defection has gone rapidly on, spreading outwards from the city, and contaminating the country. The great body of the Whig merchants and manufacturers in the Northern States now advocate Mr. Webster for the Presidency. This, of course, determines the character of the mercantile papers. A large meeting was held in Boston last week to nominate him for that office. He is expected soon to resign his secretaryship, and to travel South on an electioneering tour. His health is very much impaired; and that glorious physique, which should be in full vigor at the age of eighty, is now nearly broken down. He can do nothing but under the inspiration of brandy; and the tide of excitement also must be taken "at the flood;" for if a little too early, or a little too late, he is sure to fail.

In Massachusetts we have had a fierce contest for State offices. Mr. Winthrop was the Whig candidate for Governor; and his election would have been claimed as a Webster triumph, though not justly so. But he falls short of an election by about eight thousand votes. The Free-soilers and Democrats combined, and have obtained a majority in both the Senate and the House. This secures an anti-Whig Governor, and is a triumph of antislavery sentiment. We have never had a more fiercely contested election. I was "on the stump," as we say, about three weeks, speaking from two to two and a half hours almost every evening. Since the election, I have been delivering lyceum lectures; so that you may well suppose I am pretty much "used up." With this term in Congress, I hope to escape from political broils, and to live a life more in accordance with both natural and acquired tastes. . . .

H. M.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 352-5

Reverdy Johnson to Daniel S. Dickinson, September 27, 1856

BALTIMORE, September 27, 1856.

MY DEAR GOVERNOR—You and I are, I am glad to know, this time together politically, as we ever have been socially. The Republicans are claiming the vote of your State in so boasting a way that I doubt it. Tell me, and as soon as you can, what you and other friends think will be her vote. Fillmorites are sure of this State, as they say, but I am getting to be pretty confident it will be for Buchanan.

Truly, your friend,

REVERDY JOHNSON.

SOURCE: John R. Dickinson, Editor, Speeches, Correspondence, Etc., of the Late Daniel S. Dickinson of New York, Vol. 2, p. 496

An old friend in our sanctum yesterday . . .

. . . one of our most staunch and reliable republicans, speaking of the tenacity with which a portion of the northern democracy adheres to Stephen A. Douglas, said it was a most striking reminder of the poor fox in the fable, who, after having nearly the last drop of his life’s blood sucked from him by a hungry swarm of flies, implored a friendly swallow that proposed to chase them away, not to do any such thing; for, reasoned the forlorn, but still cunning Reynard, this swarm, now partially satiated, may be succeeded by one still more voracious, by which I may be entirely devoured. Buchanan and his hungry swarm of office-holders have depleted the treasury, very nearly or quite to absolute exhaustion; Douglas would finish up the business of the body politic with his more numerous and more craving swarm. What the country needs and desires now, is an entirely different breed of insects, one whose natural and leading instincts are not for blood and spoils.

SOURCE: “An old friend in our sanctum,” Janesville Weekly Gazette, Janesville, Wisconsin, Wednesday, May 16, 1860, p. 2, col. 1.

George W. Thompson* to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, May 24, 1856

[WHEELING, VA.?], May 24th, 1856.

DEAR SIR: I have had a somewhat desultory correspondence with my old friend Linn Boyd.¹ He thinks it likely, he will be put in nomination for the Presidency by Kentucky. I do not think he has much hope beyond this. You are his first choice when his claims are disposed of. I wrote him last week a letter intended to satisfy him, that the danger was in the nomination of Douglass whom he very cordially dislikes for various reasons, and that his true policy was to get the nomination from K[entuck]y and to hold on to it until Buchanan and Pierce were out of the way, which I think will soon be the case and then to give the fruits of the game to you. He has no respect for Mr. Buchanan and a decided hostility to Pierce and Douglass. His choice after you would be Rusk.² But I hope he can control the Kentucky delegation and if he can I think it most likely that at an early stage of the game he will go for you. I deem this important as our own state from the division which exists will be measurably impotent in the Convention and as their is a growing jealously of our influence in the nominating Convention by Ohio and other states. I cannot but think that most of the south must take you in preference. The state-rights party all over the south must prefer you, if there is any reason in mens preferences, before any other man named either north or south and I have been inclined to think that the Pierce movement was for your benefit only. But I intended only in this note to write you in relation to Boyd and to suggest a cautious movement on the part of your confidential friends towards Boyd's K[entuck]y friends in Con[gres]s. The manner of this approach I cannot suggest for I cannot anticipate the actual condition of things which may make it proper or improper. If I hear that Boyd himself is at Cincinnatti I will go down myself if it is possible for me to leave. Russell is for Buchanan first from choice. He is for you on the second. Neeson I understand personally prefers Pierce, but must go for "Buck," but "Buck" and Pierce being pitted and killed by the same operation he will then I think go for you. But we will soon know the result.

_______________

* A Democratic Representative in Congress from Virginia, 1851-1852.

¹ A Representative in Congress from Kentucky, 1835-1837 and 1839-1855; twice elected Speaker of the House, 1851-1855.

²Thomas Jefferson Rusk, a Senator in Congress from Texas, 1845-1857.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 195

Erastus T. Montague to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, June 9, 1856

WASHINGTON, [D. C.], June 9th, 1856.

DEAR HUNTER: I presume you have heard ere this of the action of the Cincinnati Convention and its utter abandonment of most of the great cardinal principles of the Democratic party.

I have never before despaired of the Republic but I confess that since ascertaining the nominee and reading the platform and addendum, I have but little hope for the future. The constitutional party have been basely sold for the contemptible consideration of office, and what is most humiliating our hitherto honored state seems to have taken the lead in the treacherous proceeding. It is true some of our friends resisted. But in my judgment they should never have yielded but rather have withdrawn with a protest. From all I can learn, there was a perfect understanding between the friends of Mr. Buchanan and the Internal Improvement men and Fillibusters that if elected he should favor all their wild and unconstitutional measures. That Virginia should have contributed to such a result is too bad to think about.

I returned on Saturday but deferred writing till today that I might inform you whether the Senate would do any business of importance this week and I learn that nothing will be done for a fortnight except making speeches for home consumption.

Judge Butler has the floor for Thursday next, in reply to Sumners abusive tirade. The Judge is still alone Messrs. Mason and Goode being still absent.

But few of the members of the convention have returned. I have seen but one, Houston of Alabama. He is quite as much dissatisfied with their proceedings as I am.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 196

The News at Philadelphia.

[Special Dispatch to the Charleston Courier.]

PHILADELPHIA, December 27.—The news of the abandonment of Fort Moultrie and the destruction of the public property caused much excitement here. The people think that President BUCHANAN is bound to resist secession. The news had no effect upon Stocks.

SOURCE: “The News at Philadelphia,” The Charleston Daily Courier, Charlston, South Carolina, Friday, December 28, 1860, p. 1