Jefferson Davis to John A. Quitman,* December 11, 1844

S. B. Ambassador        

11th Dec. 1844

Dear Sir,

Herewith I send you the paper on currency of which I spoke to you when I last had the pleasure to see you—valuable only as one of the branches of the besiegers against which we should be prepared to countermine.¹—

Please offer my respectful regards to your family and believe me very sincerely yrs. &c

Jeffn. Davis

Gen. J. A. Quitman
        Natches
    Endorsed: Jef Davis Decr 1845

_______________

* Quitman, John Anthony (1799-1858), an American soldier and political leader, was born in Rhinebeck, N. Y., September 1, 1799; graduated from Hartwick seminary in 1816; was instructor in Mount Airy college, Penn., 1818-1819; studied law in Chillicothe, Ohio, and in 1821 was practicing law at Natches, Miss. He was a member of the Mississippi House of Representatives 1826-1827; Chancellor of the State 1828-1834; State Senator 1834-1836, serving as president of the Senate and acting governor 1835-1836; served with distinction as brigadier general and as major general in the Mexican war; was Governor of Mississippi 1850-1851; and a member of the national House of Representatives from March 4, 1855, until his death in Natchez, Miss., July 17, 1858. While governor he engaged in negotiations with General Lopez relative to a filibustering expedition to capture Cuba. He was indicted, resigned office, and was tried. The jury disagreed. He was arrested on a similar charge in 1854 but was not tried. Consult J. F. H. Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, 2 vols., 792 pp., New York, 1860.

¹ During the presidential campaign of 1844 Jefferson Davis was one of the candidates for elector on the Democratic ticket.

SOURCE: Dunbar Rowland, Editor, Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist: His Letters, Papers and Speeches, Volume 1, p. 12-13

John A. Quitman to His Brother, July 23, 1832

Monmouth, July 23d, 1832.

By the last mail I received the truly afflicting intelligence of the death of our poor old father. Your last letter had prepared me, and I expected to hear of it by every mail. We should not grieve. He had long since been deprived of every enjoyment which a participation in the affairs of this world can give. Death to him must have been a relief from the burden of existence. His very useful career had long since terminated. When we have performed the part which Providence has assigned us, and when the faculty of enjoying even the few pleasures of old age has ceased, it can not be considered a misfortune to die. I have felt a melancholy gratification in learning from Dr. Wackerhagen's letter that the last hours of our venerable father were free from pain. There will be many in another world to bear witness to the good he has done in this. The time of each of us is to come, but while we are here let us act well our part.

SOURCES: John F. H. Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 131-2

John A. Quitman to James K. Cook, August 28, 1832

Monmouth, August 28th, 1832.

On my return from the eastern section of the state, I read in your paper of the 10th inst. an editorial suggestion of the names of several citizens as electors for President and Vice-president of the United States, who are known to be in favor of a renewal of the charter of the Bank of the United States, with a request that the individuals named should signify to you their acceptance or rejection of the proposed nomination. My name having been suggested, I conceive it a duty to state that, although I have long considered the Bank of the United States a valuable institution, well calculated to promote the general good by its tendency to lessen the price of exchange, and to produce and preserve a uniform and sound paper currency throughout the Union, and would be pleased to see its charter renewed for a limited period, with such modifications as would prevent an abuse of its powers, yet, without wishing to underrate its consequence, I do not consider the question of rechartering it the only or most important one which is likely to be involved in the election of the first and second officers of the government.

In the present important crisis there are, in my opinion, several great questions of constitutional construction and national policy, much more vitally interesting to the people of the United States, and particularly to the citizens of the South, than any which can arise out of the bank question. I can not, therefore, consistently with these views, agree to become a candidate for elector for President and Vice-president, solely with reference to their opinion on the renewal of the charter of the Bank of the United States.

SOURCES: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 131

John A. Quitman to James Fenwick Brent, March 22, 1845

New Orleans, March 22d, 1845.

dear Sir,—I have received your letter of the 19th instant, requesting my views upon the operation in the State of Mississippi of the system adopted there of electing judges by the direct votes of the people, and asking my attention particularly to the objections urged against the system, that such elections would generally, if not always, turn upon party or political questions.

Having no objections to the public avowal of either my former opinions or present views upon this interesting subject, I will cheerfully comply with your request.

At the time of the adoption of this system in Mississippi, in 1832, I opposed it as a new and hazardous experiment; not that I doubted the capacity or intelligence of the people, but that I feared that the judiciary would be too much influenced by sudden popular excitement. As a member of the convention that revised the Constitution I used my best influence against it, or, rather, to confine the experiment to the selection of the judges of the inferior courts by a direct vote of the people. The experience and observation of twelve years have, however, convinced me and many others who were opposed to the experiment, that our fears were not well founded; and, so far, our system has not been attended with any of the serious evils which were apprehended. I have looked upon its operation in our state for twelve years with peculiar interest, and, from my former opposition to the measure, without any bias; and candor compels me to say that I now regard it as the best mode of selecting judicial officers.

SOURCES: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 127-8

James Fenwick Brent to John A. Quitman, March 19, 1845

New Orleans, March 19th, 1845.

Dear Sir, — As the question of an elective judiciary will shortly engage the attention of the Louisiana Convention, now in session in this city, and as it is important that correct information should be obtained relative to the operation of that system in Mississippi, the only state in the Union where the experiment has been fairly tried, I trust that you will pardon the liberty I take in requesting that you will furnish your views, in writing, upon that subject, based upon your experience and observation as a practicing attorney in the courts of that state. The chief objection urged against the system here is, that if the election of judges be intrusted to the people their choice will be generally, if not universally, determined by mere party and political considerations; and I beg leave to call your attention particularly to this point, as connected with the working of that system in Mississippi.

SOURCES: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 127

John A. Quitman: To the Electors of Adams County, a few days after July 20, 1832

To the Electors of Adams County.

fellow-citizens, — It is known to you generally that I have been nominated, by a public meeting of citizens of this county, one of the candidates to represent you in the convention. I believed that a long residence among you, together with the public stations I have held, had made my character and political principles so well known to most of you, as to render a public communication of this kind unnecessary! I was anxious that the people should be left to the quiet exercise of their own good sense and judgment in the selection of members of the convention, and had determined to confine my agency to verbal discussions and arguments.

Some recent occurrences, the example of most of the candidates, and misrepresentations of my opinions, have induced me to change my course, and to appear, at this late period, before the public in a circular, for the imperfection of which I must ask all the indulgence to which great haste and limited time may entitle me.

A most important crisis is near at hand. We are about to remodel our organic law. The people of this state are called upon to appoint representatives to alter, revise, and amend their frame of government. This work will require the wisest and most experienced heads, for upon it will depend mainly, not only the character of our state, both political and moral, but the happiness and prosperity of our citizens.

The slightest defect in this work will create discontent, and may produce incalculable misery. Upon its provisions must rest our most sacred rights, the free enjoyment of our lives, our personal security and private property. It is not, therefore, surprising that the objects of the proposed convention should be matters of the deepest interest to every citizen.

The organization of the judiciary, and the mode of appointing judges, are prominent subjects of inquiry. There are those among us who are disposed to try a new experiment in this department. Believing as I do, that this experiment would be dangerous in the extreme, would tend to corruption, and strike a fatal blow at the independence of the judiciary, I will stop and examine it briefly.

Every argument that I have seen or heard, in favor of the election of judges by the people, has been commenced with old and stale maxims, such as, “The people are the source of all political power;” “We should not delegate any power which we can conveniently exercise ourselves.” Maxims which nobody now denies, which are so generally acknowledged that the repetition of them can only be intended to create the impression that others dispute them. A disposition is, also, evinced by some aspiring men to flatter and tickle our ears with praises of our virtue and intelligence. We are represented as the most perfect people on earth — all of us saints and philosophers! Do you suppose our flatterers believe what they assert? If they did, fellow-citizens, they would not dare to utter such fulsome adulations in our ears. When a man flatters us we should take it for granted he has an indifferent opinion of our sense and judgment. We are treated like spoiled children, who must be bribed by sweetmeats to love the giver. I have too good an opinion of those among whom my lot is cast to court your favor by flattery and praise. I will address myself to you as men — full grown — sensible men, who will act from judgment and principle, and will approbate candor though it may appear in a rough dress.

We all agree that we have the right and are capable of electing our judges if we think fit. The question is solely one of policy, whether it will be to our interest that we should choose them by popular suffrage; if not, it would be madness to exercise the right. We have a right to burn down our houses, but surely, before we do so, we will reckon the advantage to be derived from such an act. If we direct any of our public servants to appoint judges, we exercise as much power as if we chose them ourselves. Be not deceived, then, with the idea that a right which you possess is in danger. Allow your reason and your judgment, with the aid of your experience, coolly and calmly to investigate the subject. If you then find that popular elections would not be so likely to place upon the bench upright, talented, and independent judges, do not permit the false idea of a contest for rights to prejudice your interests. A constitution is intended not merely to establish a frame of government, but also principally to define and limit the powers of the several departments, and to protect the private citizen in his reserved rights. It is thus intended for the benefit of the minority, to protect them against the action of the majority; to protect the weak against the strong, the poor and infirm against the rich and powerful. The judicial department is to apply these restraints. Is it not therefore improper, in the very threshold, to place this department strictly and immediately under the influence and control of those who are to be restrained? If the judicial department is to be completely under the influence and control of the mere majority, that majority might as well govern without any restrictions, and a limitation of powers would be absurd. Let it not be said that the majority will never do wrong. I admit that in times of quiet, when men's minds are left to the influence of sober reflection, it is not probable that the many will unjustly oppress the few. I grant farther, that, when this does occur, they will eventually correct their errors. But the history of nations, of our sister states, of our own infant state, shows that, in times of violent excitement, the many have abused their powers, and attempted to oppress and tyrannize over the minority. I refer you to the excitements in Kentucky, which produced the occupying claimant-laws and the relief projects. Look to the intense feeling produced in Georgia by the Yazoo claims, to the agitation which pervaded Alabama on the subject of usurious interest. Majorities were, in all these cases, ready to break down all constitutional restrictions, and invade the sacred rights of their fellow-citizens. A firm, intelligent, and independent judiciary was found to check the mad career of grasping interest and ambition. Suppose, in these cases, that the judicial departments had been placed directly under the influence and control of the interested majority, constitutional restrictions would have been but ropes of sand, and the judges would have lent their aid to trample under foot the lives, liberties, and property of the weak and defenseless. But not so. A well-organized judiciary has always been found the friend of the poor and the ark of safety to the oppressed. We should, then, as we regard our liberties as citizens, sustain and support an independent judiciary. By independent, I do not mean irresponsible. No. I would make them most rigidly amenable to some impartial tribunal for a proper and virtuous discharge of their important duties. I know, too, that the constitutional expression of the will of the majority is, and must be, the rule of action. Constitutional restrictions are not intended to defeat that will, but to restrain it until it can be ascertained to be the result of solemn and mature reflection. Every man of observation must have perceived that all our public officers, however appointed, feel their dependence upon public sentiment. Most men, from a principle of timidity, are actuated more by that feeling than by their own judgment. I am, therefore, inclined to think that there is no necessity for increasing this sense of dependence. A greater portion of it would not make our public servants more honest, but might have a tendency to render them, like the courtiers of a despot, more subservient and sycophantic.

My time admonishes me to pass rapidly over the many strong arguments against popular elections. I will briefly touch upon some, and leave the good sense and experience of my readers to supply what is wanting. We all admit that no human tribunal and no mode of appointment can be perfect. If we could call down from heaven superior intelligences to apply the laws, and to decide controversies between man and man, we might expect perfection. We are compelled to place upon the bench human nature with all its infirmities. It is all-important, then, that we should remove it, as far as practicable, from all influences that can operate upon the weakness to which all men are liable. Partiality is not neces sarily the result of a corrupt heart. It may arise from weakness or timidity. Its possessor may be ignorant of its existence. Impartiality rarely exists where the feelings are excited. Can we, then, expect this quality in a man who has just come from a hot electioneering canvass, in which he has succeeded, after a hard-fought battle, who sees before him, on the one side, friends who have risked every thing for his promotion, and, on the other hand, opponents who have waged a war against his public and private character, propagated calumnies against his reputation, and now sullenly mutter threats of revenge? These friends and opponents have controversies before this judge involving their fortunes or their characters. I leave the answer to every man's breast, whether strict impartiality can be expected from a judge under such circumstances. But, suppose the judge should rise superior to frail human nature and should even decide impartially, will the suitors be satisfied? If the decision be in favor of his friend, will no voice be raised to impugn his motives? I fear that the whispers of suspicion would drive every honest man, jealous of his reputation, from a station of such difficulty and danger.

The advocates of popular elections of judges have reversed the rules of logic, and attempted to place the burden of proof upon us. Firmly convinced of the truth of our cause, we have made no opposition to this course, though unfair in principle. They propose a new experiment. Let them prove its advantages. Have they shown that one benefit would result from it? Have they shown that objections to the present mode may not be remedied without resorting to untried theories?

I appeal to the candor of every man to justify me, when I say that their addresses have been more directed to the feelings and prejudices than to the judgment. We are accused of holding doctrines absurd in the extreme. You have been told that we, who are opposed to popular elections of judges, assert that the people are not to be “trusted” with the election of their judges; that “guardians should be appointed over them; that they are incapable of forming a correct opinion of the qualifications of a judge;' that the community in which we live 'is weak or dishonest enough to vote for a partial judge;” I need scarcely say that such nonsense has never dropped from my lips, nor have I ever heard such arguments from a sensible man. Is it, then, fair — is it candid for our opponents to attempt to prejudice the public mind by such misrepresentations of our opinions? The weakness of a position is always displayed when its friends attempt to warp the judgment by appeals to the passions. We have no objections to fair arguments. Though we honestly believe that our principles are best calculated to promote the happiness and prosperity of the people, we may be wrong, and our opponents may be right. We are disposed to submit to the discrimination and good sense of our fellow-citizens, without exciting their prejudices or their partialities.

An argument has been used in favor of popular elections, which, I am free to confess, appears plausible, but will not bear the test of close scrutiny. It is this, that as public sentiment will be likely to fix upon the individual best qualified for the station, popular elections will afford the best indications of that public sentiment. I am perfectly aware that some of the arguments which I may make use of may be said to be equally applicable to elections for political stations. This would only show that there is perfection in no system. The action of a judge is private, and not general; his duties are essentially and radically different from those of political officers who act upon the community as a mass. Upon this distinction arc, in fact, founded the principal reasons for appointing them differently from most other officers. I may, therefore, be permitted to apply an argument to this case which might not be justified in the case of other public servants. Besides, the reasoning of our opponents is calculated to mislead, unless we apply the practical test of experience. Admitting that, where there was a unanimity, or even a majority of votes in the selection of a judge, it would be the strongest evidence of public sentiment and of his fitness for the station, I say, without the fear of contradiction, that, in nine cases out of ten, the opinion of the people of the qualifications of a candidate for judge can not be obtained by any mode of popular election which is practicable. If a majority of the whole number of votes be required, we would be for check of the Senate. The governor will seek to comply with the wishes of the people. It is his interest so to do. He is responsible to them for the propriety of the appointment, whereas the voter is responsible to no human power. I have never known an executive appointment of a judge in this state which was not acceptable to the people over whom he was to act. An obnoxious appointment will never be made. The powerful principle of self-interest, and the elevated station of the executive forbid such an idea.

Now, fellow-citizens, one word more upon this subject. We are a new state; most of our citizens are recent immigrants. We have many men of talents, but few who, from their capacity, age, and experience, stand preeminent and distinguished. Let us not be the first, upon slight grounds, to try a rash experiment. There is no state in the Union, no country upon earth, in which the judges are elected by votes of the people. The southern sun, that warms the blood and quickens the pulse, while it produces the most generous emotions of the heart, has the same tendency to excite the fancy and to stimulate the passions, and renders us less fit to make an experiment of this new-fangled political theory. Prudence dictates that we should leave it to be tried by others first. If it should succeed well, we will follow the example. The moment I am persuaded that it is for the good of the country, for the protection and happiness of the private and humble citizen, I too will become one of its warmest advocates and supporters. An anxious desire to preserve the judicial department in its purity, to protect the equal rights of all, has brought my mind to the conclusion that the appointment of judges by the governor, by and with the consent of the Senate, for a limited period of time, is the best and most democratic mode. This is not an experiment; it has been practiced upon and approved by some of the oldest of our sister states, and has given birth to the most distinguished judges. The tenure of office should be such as to avoid too great a sense of dependence on the part of the judge, and at the same time to protect the public from the possible effects of weakness, imbecility, and decay of mind. When nominating a judge for the Supreme Court, the governor represents the whole state. When acting for a district, he is the representative of that district alone. Biennial elections of that officer will insure the most rigid responsibility on his part. To secure the integrity of the judge, having full confidence in the trial by jury, I am quite willing that for corruption in office he should also be liable to presentment, trial, and conviction, before the regular courts of the country.

A misrepresentation of my sentiments upon some subjects appears to require from me a formal contradiction. It has been said, ignorantly or designedly I know not, that I am opposed to universal suffrage, that I favor a representation of property, and that I had declared, in a speech at Washington, that mechanics had no concern with politics. The last is so absurd as scarcely to deserve serious notice. Many of those who heard my remarks at Washington were of that respectable class of citizens, and I know will do me the justice to give this ridiculous report a flat contradiction. I have ever considered entire indifference to the political concerns of the country blamable in any man, whatever his situation and circumstances might be.

The right of universal suffrage is inseparably connected with our republican institutions. Restrictions of this right must eventually end in discontent and revolution. I consider it the sheet-anchor of a free government, and would be the last man to surrender it. Its abandonment would be a virtual recognition of the principle that we can not govern ourselves. Positive political power should be distributed as equally as possible throughout the state. An attempt on our part to obtain an undue advantage, by taking more than we ought to possess, would certainly be visited upon us at some future period. Principles and policy both demand that we should be content with our just proportion. Men should be represented, and not property or territory. I am, therefore, in favor of that basis which will secure equal rights and equal representation throughout the state. While, however, we admit the right of equal representation, it is no less important that we should protect ourselves against partial and unequal taxation. Because we live within twenty miles of the Mississippi River, we should not be required to pay more taxes in proportion to the clear value of our property than our fellow-citizens in other sections of the state. One district of country or one set of men should not be compelled to bear a greater portion of the public burdens than another quite as wealthy. It is, therefore, all important that the rights of the minority should be protected, and that some constitutional provisions should be adopted to prevent partial and unjust taxation. This, in my opinion, may be readily effected by placing some restrictions on the taxing power, or by requiring that all revenue bills should be based upon the ad valorem principle of taxing every citizen according to the value of his property. The tax upon sales of merchandise is, in my opinion, partial and unjust, and the exercise of such a power should be restrained.

The leading principle of my political creed is, that a state should not control its citizens in their opinions, their conduct, their labor, their property, any farther than is necessary to preserve the social tie, to punish offenses against society, and to sustain the powers of government.

I am opposed to all property qualifications whatever for members of either house of the General Assembly. Experience has shown that they are entirely useless.

A recent attempt has been made to affect my public standing by the charge of entertaining obnoxious political principles. I have met these charges publicly, and in the spirit of candor. The result is known to the public. I desire of those who would judge me but a candid investigation. Believing that I have as much confidence in the virtue and intelligence of my fellow-citizens as those who flatter them more, I will cheerfully submit to their verdict.

John A. Quitman.

SOURCES: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 116-26

Public Meeting, published July 20, 1832

A meeting of a portion of the citizens of Adams County was held at the court-house in Natchez on the 19th hist., pursuant to public notice in a hand-bill signed "Many Citizens,” calling a meeting of citizens adverse to the election of judges by the people and opposed to nullification, for the purpose of bringing out, if reconciliation should be found impracticable, another candidate for the convention in the place of Chancellor Quitman.

Fountain Winston, Esq., was called to the chair, and R. M. Gaines appointed secretary.

Judge Quitman explained his reason for appearing at the meeting, after having declined to do so in his handbill of the 17th inst., by stating that he had been since requested to attend by many of his known friends. He then addressed the meeting at considerable length on the subject of the respective rights of the general and state governments, after which Dr. Duncan, in a spirit of conciliation, submitted a resolution which, being modified on the motion of John T. McMurran, Esq., was unanimously adopted by the meeting in the following form, to wit:

Resolved, As the sense of this meeting, that we are opposed to the doctrine of nullification, and believe that its propagation would endanger our dearest and best interests; that John A. Quitman having at this meeting made a distinct exposition of his views upon the subject of the relation which the state and federal governments bear to each other, said views do not amount to nullification, according to the usual acceptation of the term, and that said John A. Quitman ought to be supported for the convention on the ticket as originally selected at a general meeting of the citizens of this county, in this place, in May last.

Fountain Winston, Chairman.

R. M. Gaines, Secretary.

SOURCES: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 114; “Public Meeting,” The Natchez Weekly Courier, Natchez Mississippi, Friday, July 20, 1832, p. 2

John A. Quitman to the Citizens of Adams County, Mississippi, July 17, 1832

To the Citizens of Adams County.

I have just learned that there has been industriously circulated a notice, anonymously signed “Many Citizens,” calling a public meeting of the citizens of Adams County adverse to the election of judges by the people, and opposed to nullification, for the purpose “of bringing out, if reconciliation should be found impracticable, another candidate in my place, and desiring me to attend.” Such a desire coming from friends I would cheerfully comply with, but I can not recognize the authors of such a course as “friends” nor can I permit myself to be made the football of political opponents. I have protested, and do again solemnly protest, against making my private political or religious opinions the test of my qualification for the convention. The former have been brought before the public without my consent or agency. They are now branded by terms odious and unmeaning to the public ear, and party excitement is brought to bear upon me. To the calm and deliberate expression of the public will I will most cheerfully submit. I can not, in justice to my friends, accept the invitation of those whom I must consider political opponents, and the time is too short to give this notice full circulation before the contemplated meeting. I therefore respectfully request that those of my fellow-citizens who feel interested in this matter will assemble at the court-house in Natchez on Friday next, at 11 o'clock, when I will candidly express my views of the relation which the states and general government bear to each other, and endeavor to show that the doctrines which I entertain were not “invented by Mr. Calhoun and first propagated by Mr. Hayne,” but were propagated by Mr. Jefferson in 1798, and have ever since been the true test of Republican and ultra Federal doctrines, and continue to be the grand landmarks of distinction between the advocates of a constitutional government and the arbitrary despotism of an oligarchy.

John A. Quitman.

Monmouth, July 17th, 1832.

SOURCE: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 113-4

“Public Meeting” Handbill, before July 10, 1832

Public Meeting.

The citizens of Adams County, adverse to the election of judges by the people, and opposed to Nullification, are requested to meet at the court-house, in the city of Natchez, on Thursday next, the 10th instant, at 11 o'clock.

The necessity for calling this meeting is deeply regretted; not the more so, that it has occurred at a period so close upon the election, than as affecting the political standing of a gentleman who has been placed before the people of Adams, by the spontaneous act of a large portion of its citizens, as a candidate for one of their highest gifts. It is believed by a large body of those of Judge Quitman's friends who sustained his nomination, and who intended by their votes to have contributed to his election, that he is a Nullifier in principle! That his opinions, frequently of late expressed upon the subject of nullification, are the same as Mr. Calhoun's and Mr. Hayne's; the ono its author, the other its first public propagator. Judge Quitman's friends in this county believe that nullification is unsound in theory, and contrary to the Constitution; that its tendency is anarchy, and that the effect of its practical application to any given case is disunion! They look to the indications in South Carolina, and despair of its permanency, while she asserts her right and intention to nullify a law of the United States. They look to the threats of her governor that, before the year is out, her citizens will be in arms; to the declarations of a portion of her delegation in Congress, who wish to go home and prepare for war. They are also well aware of the disposition of the leaders of the party to form a great Southern league to crusade against the Union. Under these circumstances, and at such a crisis, a large portion of Judge Quitman's friends can not sustain him, without sustaining nullification, and putting at issue in this state the question of union or disunion.

It is therefore thought proper that this meeting be called, with the view of endeavoring to produce such reconciliation as will prevent any serious division in the ranks of those opposed to the election of judges by the people, or, if that is found to be impracticable, to bring out another candidate in place of Judge Quitman. It is expected and desired that Judge Quitman will attend; and, if his opinions have been misrepresented, that his friends may be undeceived and again united.

many Citizens.

SOURCE: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 112-3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rhinebeck, July 31st, 1831.

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

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

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

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

Monmouth, Jan. 8th, 1830.

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

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

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

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

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

Monmouth, Oct. 18th, 1830.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monmouth, Oct. 25th, 1830.

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

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

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

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

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

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

John A. Quitman to Colonel Platt Brush, August 23, 1823

Soldier's Retreat, near Natchez, Aug. 23d, 1823.

Since my last letter, my dear Col. Brush, I have been a refugee from Natchez, where the yellow fever is raging. Our bar is quartered at various country-seats — not boarding; a Mississippi planter would be insulted by such a proposal; but we are enjoying the hospitalities that are offered to us on all sides. The awful pestilence in the city brings out, in strong relief, the peculiar virtues of this people. The mansions of the planters are thrown open to all comers and goers free of charge. Whole families have free quarters during the epidemic, and country wagons are sent daily to the verge of the smitten city with fowls, vegetables, etc., for gratuitous distribution to the poor. I am now writing from one of those old mansions, and I can give you no better notion of life at the South than by describing the routine of a day. The owner is the widow of a Virginia gentleman of distinction, a brave officer, who died in the public service during the last war with Great Britain.¹ She herself is a native of this vicinity, of English parents settled here in Spanish times. She is an intimate friend of my first friend, Mrs. Griffith, and I have been in the habit of visiting her house ever since I came South. The whole aim of this excellent lady seems to be to make others happy. I do not believe she ever thinks of herself. She is growing old, but her parlor is constantly thronged with the young and gay, attracted by her cheerful and never-failing kindness. There are two large families from the city staying here, and every day some ten or a dozen transient guests. Mint-juleps in the morning are sent to our rooms, and then follows a delightful breakfast in the open veranda. We hunt, ride, fish, pay morning visits, play chess, read or lounge until dinner, which is served at two P.M. in great variety, and most delicately cooked in what is here called the Creole style — very rich, and many made or mixed dishes. In two hours afterward every body — white and black — has disappeared. The whole household is asleep—the siesta of the Italians. Tho ladies retire to their apartments, and the gentlemen on sofas, settees, benches, hammocks, and often, gipsy fashion, on the grass under the spreading oaks. Here, too, in fine weather, the tea-table is always set before sunset, and then, until bedtime, we stroll, sing, play whist, or coquet. It is an indolent, yet charming life, and one quits thinking and takes to dreaming.

This excellent lady is not rich, merely independent; but by thrifty housewifery, and a good dairy and garden, she contrives to dispense the most liberal hospitality. Her slaves appear to be, in a manner, free, yet are obedient and polite, and the farm is well worked. With all her gayety of disposition and fondness for the young, she is truly pious, and in her own apartment every night she has family prayer with her slaves, one or more of them being often called on to sing and pray. When a minister visits the house, which happens very frequently, prayers night and morning are always said, and on these occasions the whole household and the guests assemble in the parlor: chairs are provided for the servants. They are married by a clergyman of their own color, and a sumptuous supper is always prepared. On public holidays they have dinners equal to an Ohio barbecue, and Christmas, for a week or ten days, is a protracted festival for the blacks. They are a happy, careless, unreflecting, good-natured race, who, left to themselves, would degenerate into drones or brutes, but, subjected to wholesome restraint and stimulus, become the best and most contented of laborers. They are strongly attached to “old massa” and “old missus,” but their devotion to “young massa” and “young missus” amounts to enthusiasm. They have great family pride, and are the most arrant coxcombs and aristocrats in the world. At a wedding I witnessed here last Saturday evening, where some 150 negroes were assembled, many being invited guests, I heard a number of them addressed as governors, generals, judges, and doctors (the titles of their masters), and a spruce, tight-set darkey, who waits on me in town, was called “Major Quitman.” The “colored ladies” are invariably Miss Joneses, Miss Smiths, or some such title. They are exceedingly pompous and ceremonious, gloved and highly perfumed. The “gentlemen” sport canes, ruffles, and jewelry, wear boots and spurs, affect crape on their hats, and carry huge cigars. The belles wear gaudy colors, “tote” their fans with the air of Spanish senoritas, and never stir out, though black as the ace of spades, without their parasols. In short, these “niggers,” as you call them, are the happiest people I have ever seen, and some of them, in form, features, and movement, are real sultanas. So far from being fed on “salted cotton-seed,” as we used to believe in Ohio, they are oily, sleek, bountifully fed, well clothed, well taken care of, and one hears them at all times whistling and singing cheerily at their work.² They have an extraordinary facility for sleeping. A negro is a great night-walker. He will, after laboring all day in the burning sun, walk ten miles to a frolic, or to see his “Dinah,” and be at home and at his work by daylight next morning. This would knock up a white man or an Indian. But a negro will sleep during the day — sleep at his work, sleep on the carriage-box, sleep standing up; and I have often seen them sitting bareheaded in the sun on a high rail-fence, sleeping as securely as though lying in bed. They never lose their equipoise, and will carry their cotton-baskets or their water-vessels, filled to the brim, poised on their heads, walking carelessly and at a rapid rate, without spilling a drop. The very weight of such burdens would crush a white man's brains into apoplexy. Compared with the ague-smitten and suffering settlers that you and I have seen in Ohio, or the sickly and starved operators we read of in factories and in mines, these Southern slaves are indeed to be envied. They are treated with great humanity and kindness. I have only heard of one or two exceptions. And the only drawback to their happiness is that their owners, sometimes, from extravagance or other bad management, die insolvent, and then they must be sold to the highest bidder, must leave the old homestead and the old family, and pass into the hands of strangers. I have witnessed one of these scenes, and but one, though they occur often, and I never saw such profound grief as the poor creatures manifested. I am opposed, as you know, to all relief laws, but, I confess, I never hear of the sale of old family servants without wishing that there was some provision by which some of them, at least, might be retained as inalienable. It is a grave question for those interested in slavery to determine whether some protection of this nature is not a necessary adjunct of slavery itself.

_______________

¹ The late Gen. F. L. Claiborne.

² Contrast this with life at the North, as recorded by his brother Henry in a letter dated Rhinebeck, Feb. 3d, 1823: “We have not had snow enough for sleighing, so every body has to stay at home. In the morning I feed the cows, take care of the horses, and cut wood until dinner-time. In the evening I take care of the cattle, and go to bed. I would willingly exchange my residence here for one where I might do for myself, were my earnings ever so small, and lay by a little for a rainy day. It is a hard place to get along in — cold winters and hot summers; snow, or slush, or dust, or drought. Work, work, work, and money always scarce. I wish I had been brought up a tailor, or shoemaker, as you say they have none at Natchez.”

SOURCE: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 83-6

Thomas R. R. Cobb to Howell Cobb, May 31st, 1848

Athens [ga.], May 31st, 1848.

Dear Brother, I return you the order which I negligently omitted to endorse.

We have the nominations. I am “reconciled,” not very much “delighted.” I am not a great admirer of Cass, although I think it a generous act on the part of Northern Democrats to nominate both anti-Wilmot Proviso men. I think a more judicious ticket could have been selected. Michigan and Kentucky are too close together to have both candidates. I don't see what strength Butler carried to Cass that any Southern man would not have carried, and more especially Quitman. And on the score of military glory, Scott or Taylor if nominated will overshadow that of either. King of Alabama would have been a much more judicious nomination, although I would vote for no man sooner than Gen. Butler. These are my first impressions. Every county in the district will be represented in the approaching Convention. You will be unanimously nominated, from all I can learn. There will be some difference of opinion as to the Elector. Most of the delegates are for Genl. Wofford if he wants it. McMillan, I think, is rather working to get it, and has friends in Elbert, Madison and Jackson. Hillyer is talked of also, and I would not be surprised if Griffin is looking at it . . .

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 106-7