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

Important from Washington.

[Special Dispatch to the Charleston Courier.]

WASHINGTON, December 27, 7 P. M.—Secretary FLOYD says positively that he knows nothing officially of ANDERSON’S movements. He gave no orders to Col. ANDERSON in relation to the evacuation of Fort Moultrie and the burning of the gun carriages. The supposition is that ANDERSON acted on his own responsibility.

LATER.

The President and Secretary of War assert most solemnly that Col. ANDERSON acted not only without orders but against orders. The Cabinet is now in session, and the matter will be fully discussed.

In the Committee of Thirty-three today, the resolutions of Mr. RUST, of Arkansas, were noted down. It is understood that the Southern members of the Committee will issue an Address to the South immediately, in which they will recommend, as a basis for settlement for the CRITTENDEN proposition.

Vice-President BRECKINRIDGE has signed the Address calling a Convention of the Border States to meat at Baltimore in February

WASHINGTON, December 27, 9 P. M.—The news of the changes at Fort Moultrie, created the most intense excitement in Congress, and throughout the city. Mr. DOOLITTLE, (Republican,) alluded incidentally to the occurrence in a speech in the Senate. On the floor of the Senate might be seen knots of Senators gathered here and there, with anxious faces and engaged in the discussion of the all absorbing topic. At the War Department all sorts of inquiries were made. The President’s house was thronged with Senators and members of Congress. The papers issued extras, and the streets were alive with excitement.

The House was also a scene of excitement and confusion. The great important question was, who authorized the change in the command from Moultrie to Sumter. The demand was answered by Southern Senators and others, including YULEE and TRESCOT. The War Department was astounded at the information, and dispatches flew across the wires thick and fast.

Governor FLOYD, as well as the President, knew nothing of the change contemplated, and remained in doubt as to the reason until a dispatch from Col. ANDERSON settled the matter. He stated that he acted in his own defence, believing it impossible to defend Fort Moultrie against an attack. He, therefore, removed the stores, troops, &c., to Fort Sumter which affords better security. The facts in relation to the whole matter seem to relieve the Administration from any countenance or complicity in the change.

Voluminous dispatches have been forwarded to ANDERSON by the War Department, but their nature is kept secret. The Department seems unwilling to contradict or affirm the thousand flying rumors which prevail on the Avenue. Some most extravagant rumors have been published. A dispatch announcing that the firing of cannon had commenced caused great commotion. A private dispatch received from Baltimore states that the streets are thronged with people, and the city wild with excitement.

The President refused audience to a great many persons this evening, and those who have seen him say he exhibits much feeling in regard to matters in South Carolina. The Commissioners were informed by him that they would not be received officially, but that a special message would be sent to Congress on Monday, with reference to their mission. The Commissioners feel deeply the responsibility of their position and are determined not to act hastily or unadvisedly. They are constantly surrounded by Southern Senators and Congressmen, including Messrs. BOYCE and McQUEEN, the former of whom says he will remain her until the question is finally settled.

Mr. BENJAMIN, of Louisiana, will make a speech in the Senate on Monday, when the President’s special message comes up. It is understood that he advocates the right of secession, and justifies the course of South Carolina.

WASHINGTON, December 27, 10 P. M.—The Cabinet has been in session since nightfall on the movements in Charleston, and the special message in regard to the mission of the South Carolina Commissioners. The Cabinet is still in session at this late hour. The Officials are also busy at the War Department, which is an unusual proceeding.

General SCOTT also denies any previous knowledge of ANDERSON’S movements.

WASHINGTON, December 27, 12.15 P. M. [sic]—The Commissioners from South Carolina and several Southern Senators held a long informal conference to-night. It lasted until twelve o’clock, but nothing of any importance was done. No. Interview has yet been had with the President.

SOURCE: “Important from Washington,” The Charleston Daily Courier, Charlston, South Carolina, Friday, December 28, 1860, p. 1

Diary of Lucy Larcom, December 27, 1860

To-night the telegraph reports the evacuation of Fort Moultrie by the Federal troops by order of the Executive, and the burning of the fort. There's something of the "spirit of '76" in the army, surely; South Carolina having declared herself a foe to the Union, how could those soldiers quietly give up one of the old strongholds to the enemy, even at the President's command?

But what will the end be? Is this secessionfarce to end with a tragedy? The South will suffer, by insurrection and famine; there is every prospect of it; the way of transgressors is hard, and we must expect it to be so. God grant that, whatever must be the separate or mutual sufferings of North and South, these convulsions may prove to be the dying struggles of slavery, and the birththroes of liberty.

It is just about a year since "Brown of Ossawatomie" was hung in the South, for unwise interference with slavery. He was not wholly a martyr; there were blood-stains on his hands, though no murder was in his heart. He was a brave man and a Christian, and his blood, unrighteously shed, still cries to heaven from the ground. Who knows but this is the beginning of the answer? But that judicial murder was not the only wrong for which the slaveholding South is now bringing herself before the bar of judgment, before earth and heaven. The secret things of darkness are coming to light, and the question will be decided rightly, I firmly believe. And the South is to be pitied, as all hardened and blinded wrong-doers should be! I believe the North will show herself a noble foe, if foe the South determines to make her.

SOURCE: Daniel Dulany Addison, “Lucy Larcom: Life, Letters, and Diary,” p. 81-2

Francis Mallory to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, May 11, 1856

NORFOLK, [VA.], May 11, 1856.

DEAR HUNTER: I have just returned from a visit to my old (Hampton) county and hope things will end there as we desire. Booker is warm in your favor and out against Buch[ana]n talking publickly of his Tariff vote in '42 and Missouri Compromise opinions. I shall attend the convention there on next Thursday and so told Booker who seemed much pleased at my promise. I shall be an outsider but will try my best. Drop B[ooker] a Line the moment you get this. It will encourage him much. Your letter to him had a fine effect.

He is fond of you but has been much courted by Wise. High minded honorable and brave as he is these little attentions are always agreeable especially to a country gentleman living a secluded life. He still praises W[ise] but thinks him out of the question this time. I want you to ask him to go and say you will leave him to act according to his own judgment content with any action he may take &c. Wednesday the convention for the Norfolk district comes off. But for the Wise men who still look to W[ise] as residuary Legatee of B[uchanan] we should have no difficulty. No one is opposed to you but the idea is afloat that B[uchanan] is the strong candidate and as office here controls every thing they profess preference for him because he is as they think the strong man. Simkins has softened down very much and so has Blow. If either of them go from the lower end I have a strong hope of getting him right. If they get in their men I will work day and night to operate on them and if I can wield a little influence in Washington I may succeed. I have just had a conversation with Simkins the Leader of the Wise party here as to the proceedings in Portsmouth and he asked me to draw up the resolutions (this of course confidential) and state his positions: 1st Compliment Pierce and endorse his admin [istratio]n, 2d support nominee of Cin[cinnat]i Convention, 3d Express no preference, 4th Leave delegates free to act according to circumstances. We shall carry a true man I think from the upper counties and will at least divide the district.

I told Banks to get old Frank Rives (who he says is all right) to work on Boykin of Isle of Wight and Atkinson and he writes me that it has been done. Boykin wants office and is slippery. He is weak in intellect and his attachments by no means stable. He wants to go as a Delegate. I cant advocate him but I know, I think, how and who can manage him. He is more tractable than Blow or Smith. The son I can do nothing with. He wanted the Collectorship here and is sound against Pierce. He will make a hard fight for Delegate but we have quietly operated against him on the ground, that the Elector comes from Portsmouth, Smith's place of residence and that she is not entitled to [a] Delegate and none of the Norfolk City Delegation will support him. Pierce's office holders give us no aid whatever. They are afraid to take position. When I was Navy Ag[en]t I ruled my party in the District and so could Loyall have done, but he is effete, selfish and timid. Sawyer has no power, even with his subordinates. Will the above positions (I mean the resolutions) suit you or would it answer to make an issue for Pierce direct. The result would be doubtful in as much as the floating vote in Conventions generally sides with the moderate party whether they be so in fact or in fraud. Drop me a line the moment you get this and draft me a resolution or two. You need not be afraid of my indiscretion. You fellows in Congress did not know me half as well as I did you. If I talk at random sometimes, so also can I be silent and prudent when there is necessity. If I had position in the Line or on the staff I could win the victory here. If I can do any good I will speak at both Conventions. I care not who gets the nomination for Delegates I mean to commence operations on him and if it be any but Smith (who hates me) I hope to succeed. I am far from giving up the fight for these ten districts for none will be pledged or committed.

Send me the names of your friends in Gloucester that will be in Hampton that I may know who to approach. My Brother Chas. K. Mallory, a lawyer, residing in Hampton is a warm and active friend. It will be hard if him and Booker acting together can not carry things to suit us.

Tell Muscoe our inspection law has so far put a stop to slave stealing in lower Virginia. It works beautifully tho' the Senate did it much damage by its amendments. I have got things quite snug for him in the lower end of his district in view of Bayly's departure.

My son has just returned. Many thanks for your kindness, and please thank Pierce for me.

If you wish me to hear from you before the Conventions meet, write the moment you get this, which is nearly as hard to decipher as your own. The Baltimore Boats leave in the afternoon and arrive here next morning. This you will get Tuesday morning. If the positions in the resolutions suit you, telegraph me in the words "All right," if not "make an issue direct for P[ierce] or H[unter]" as the case may be and sign it. T. M. provided you cant mail your letter by the 1 P. M. [boat] for Baltimore or 1½ P. M. or that which carries the mail through to Norfolk which can be known by enquiring at the City p[ost] office. If the vote of V[irgini]a depends on these two districts I dont think you have much to fear let things take what shape they may just now. It is easier to vanquish men in detail than attacking numbers. I shall act as we Doctors say "pro re natu."

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. 189-91