Diary of Gideon Welles: Saturday, March 3, 1866

The week as usual has been busy. The faction in Congress holds possession of the majority in both houses, yet there are signs of restiveness, of misgiving, on the part of many. Baldwin, from the Worcester District, Massachusetts, who is on the Directory, or Reconstruction, Committee, assures me that Stevens has in a great measure lost his influence in that committee. I have no doubt that Baldwin and others so believe when away from Stevens and perhaps when with him, but without intending it or even being fully aware of the extent to which it is carried, they are subjected, controlled, and directed by him. They may, by appeals, modify, but not to great extent, Stevens's plans. Baldwin intimates that action will be taken in behalf of the Tennessee Members, admitting them to the seats to which they are elected, early next week. The same thing has been repeated to me to-day by others. There is a manifest feeling of the gross wrong committed by their exclusion, not only to the State but to the Federal Union.

They have made the necessity of action in this case felt, and Stevens has had to yield, but he will, I presume, make the proceeding odious and unjust. Baldwin asks, Why not pass a law admitting those States? I told him Tennessee had been admitted seventy years ago. He said he did not strictly mean admission, but a law authorizing them to resume their relations with the Government. I said I could not see the necessity, or even the expediency of such a law, for, the Rebellion being suppressed, Tennessee and each of the States resumed their position as States, and if they sent loyal men here, I thought they should be admitted; if disloyal or unpardoned Rebels, such could be rejected. He was, however, very tenacious on this point, and I doubt not is committed to it. What harm, inquired he, can come from passing such a law, preliminary to receiving the Members. I told him it was, as a general rule, harmful to over-legislate, it is harmful to pass laws without authority, to assume powers or to concede them; that Congress, as a body, had no business with the election of Members, but the Constitution directs each house shall decide for itself in regard to the members of the respective bodies. The two houses could not legally or by any constitutional authority exclude a State or deny it representation. It was, however, unpleasant for the President and Congress to be in antagonism, and if it was mere form which he had in view without objectionable points or ulterior purpose, possibly such a bill might not be vetoed, yet I thought it very questionable, for it would be centralizing and magnifying federal power here and dwarfing the State.

I therefore anticipate that Stevens, finding the Committee and Congress are determined to admit the Tennessee Members to their seats, will set to work to frame an offensive bill such as the President cannot sign, or which, if he does sign, will discredit himself and violate his, and all correct, principles. This, however, I am satisfied he will not do. Then on him is to be thrown the responsibility of excluding the Tennessee Members.

I intimated to the President my conjectures, and he remarked he was prepared for such an alternative whenever it was presented. He had, from some quarter, been previously admonished in regard to the doings of the Committee.

Stevens is determined to have an issue between the Executive and Congress, and, notwithstanding a majority of Congress and of the country deprecate such an issue, and Members to me and others express their dislike of and opposition to Stevens, I incline to the opinion that he will, by the working of his Directory machinery, be successful in raising that issue. Should he, the result will be likely to rend the party, unless the minority are subservient and tamely submissive. The Administration must be supported or opposed. The positive and violent will oppose; the mild and passive will yield. Congress must be with the Administration or against it. Double-dealing cannot continue. I am apprehensive that there is treachery to the President in quarters which he will ultimately keenly feel. Sometimes I think he suspects the mischief, but is unwilling to have a breach just at this time and listens to those who advise temporizing and expediency.

Sherman (Senator), after speaking against the concurrent resolution, finally voted for it in the face of his own delivered opinion, argument, and conviction. This is a specimen of the influence of party discipline at this time in Congress. It is all-powerful.

Governor Dennison tells me this evening that he has written a letter to Patterson of New Hampshire, stating that he has removed no man and intends to remove none on account of differences between Congress and the President, provided they belong to the Union party. I am afraid he has gone farther than is wise in this matter, for if Stevens gets up the issue between the President and Congress, it may be necessary for the President to relieve himself of troublesome and officious electioneers in post-offices. I suspect Dennison has been entrapped by fair words.

If I mistake not, the Union League organization has contributed largely to present difficulties. It is controlled by extreme Radicals and rules many Members of Congress. An irresponsible faction, organized for mischief.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 441-4

Salmon P. Chase to John Denison Baldwin, Esq,* Worcester Mass., August 20, 1860

Columbus, Aug 20^h [1860]

Dear Sir, Yours of the 11th reached me yesterday on my return from Michigan; & I hasten to thank you for the expressions of regard & confidence which it contains.

It would be a vain attempt were I to try to correct all or a very small part of the misrepresentations or misconceptions of my views which find their way into the Press: & I do not think it worth while to make the effort in respect to these to which you call my attention.

Fortunately I have no new opinions to express on any question connected with Nationalized Slavery. In my speech on Mr. Clay's compromise Resolutions in 1850, I distinctly stated my views in respect to legislative prohibition of Slavery in Territories. You will find this speech in the Congressional Globe Appendix, 1849-50, and this particular question discussed on page 478. I reaffirmed the same views in the Nebraska-Kansas Debate; & I have seen no occasion to change them. They are now substantially embodied in the Republican National Platform.

In respect to the organization of Territorial Governments I think Mr. Jefferson's plan of 1784 the better plan. It contemplated the prohibition of Slavery, as did the plan subsequently adopted, but it left more both in Organization & Administration to the people. The great objections to the “Territorial bills” of last winter, to which you refer, were in my judgment that they did not contain so distinct and explicit prohibition of Slavery, & that they did provide for the appointment of Territorial Officers by the Administration; which was equivalent to giving them pro-slavery Governors, Judges &c. To these bills I certainly preferred Mr. Thayer's Land District Bills: & I should have preferred bills framed on the plan of Jefferson, but with larger freedom of Legislation, to either.

I regret very much to hear of the feeling which exists in the Worcester District in regard to Mr. Thayer. I have but a slight personal acquaintance with him, but that acquaintance impressed me with a belief that he is sincere, earnest, & able. He has certainly rendered great service to the cause of Freedom. His plan of Organized Emigration contributed largely to save Kansas from Slavery. And if he now pushes his ideas too far in the direction of absolutely unlimited control by the settlers of a territory over every matter within their own limits whether national in its reach & consequences or not, it should be remembered that nothing is more certain than that the ripening convictions of the people favor — not the substitution of Presidential Intervention for Slavery, in place of Congressional Intervention against Slavery, which is the sole achievement of the Douglas Nebraska Scheme — but the admission of a far larger measure of true Popular Sovereignty, — fully harmonized with the fundamental principles of Human Rights, in the organization of Territorial Governments.

I write this for your own satisfaction, & because your kind letter calls for a frank response; I do not write for publication: because no opinions of individuals at this time are important enough to be thrust before the public. We are engaged in a great struggle upon a great issue fairly joined through our National Convention. God forbid that any personal strifes should endanger the Cause! Let us gain the victory; & I am sure that there will be then no difficulty in so harmonizing views, by honest endeavors to satisfy each others reasonable demands, as to secure that after success without which the preliminary success at the November Polls will be of little value.

_______________

* From letter-book 7, pp. 68-70. John Denison Baldwin 1809-1883; journalist at this time, owner and editor of the Worcester Spy; member of Congress 1863-1869.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 289-90