Senator Lewis Cass to Senator Daniel S. Dickinson, May 1, 1850

WASHINGTON, May 1, 1850.

MY DEAR SIR—While Foote is laboring at the administration for the Lady Franklin expedition, I drop you this hasty note. We have this day had the third meeting of our committee, the second since you left us. We stand thus:—We have determined on the admission of California without change or limitation. We have determined on the establishment of territorial government without the Wilmot proviso. On the extinction of the Texas title, beginning just north of the Passo, and running thence in a course north of east to the southwestern corner of the old Indian tract, fixed by the Spanish treaty. We leave the question of price till we all meet again. King will bring in a bill for the suppression of the slave-trade in this district. We shall arrange the fugitive-slave bill to give general satisfaction, North and South.

Absentees: yourself, Berrian, Webster, and Mason. All the others present.

There is reason to fear that Mason and some four or five of the extreme Southern members will oppose, to the last, the admission of California. Should that be so, the result is doubtful. But if they go for it, all will be safe. This is about all I can tell you. I trust you will be here soon. We want you. I presume our report will be ready on Monday. I hope you have found your family all well. 

Ever your friend,

LEW. CASS.

Gov. DICKINSON.

SOURCE: John R. Dickinson, Editor, Speeches, Correspondence, Etc., of the Late Daniel S. Dickinson of New York, Vol. 2, p. 430-1

William O. Goode* to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, March 29, 1850

BOYDTON, [VA.], March 29, 1850.

DEAR HUNTER: I write to impose a little labour upon you, or rather I should say, trouble, but not more, than under a change of circumstances, I would cheerfully encounter for you. You know, I file and preserve in the form of a Book, Speeches, which well discuss, great political topics before Congress. I have procured a pamphlet copy of your very fine speech on the Austrian question. I thank you for delivering that speech. I wish you would send me, pamphlet copies of the speeches of Mr. Berrien and Mr. Webster, on the Slavery Question. And I should like to have a copy of Sewards Speech, if you think you can send it, without violating the Law against the circulation of incendiary publications; and even if you dread to encounter such a penalty, I promise not to inform against you, as I really want the speech, to enable me to contemplate the whole extent of this fearful subject.

If I were in Washington at this time, I would do what I never have done. I would call on Daniel Webster to pay him my respects. I know very well, he would regard it as a matter of the utmost insignificance even if he thought of it at all, but I would do so for my own gratification. I feel for him now, a higher respect than I ever did before, and more than I thought I could cherish for the greatest, the ablest, the most dangerous advocate, of the broadest construction of our Federative Compact—the Con[stitution] of U[nited] S[tates]—a Compact, which he calls Government, Government, invested with the highest attributes of Sovereignty, and for which, he challenges my highest allegiance. But it appears to me that this Slavery Speech, has established a claim to my gratitude. It could only have originated in a patriotic heart. It could only have been expressed by a generous mind. If we except, every thing which refers to California, and the allusion to the appropriation of Federal Money, to the deportation of Free Blacks (which he designed as a liberal concession) I should be happy to have carried out, the eloquent suggestions, of his eloquent discourse.

I sincerely hope, there may be speedily evinced at the North, a determined purpose of adopting and acting out these suggestions. Such a manifestation would be hailed with general joy at the South. So far as I have been able to observe and to form a conjecture of public sentiment, there is an obvious reluctance to take the initiative, but yet a firm, determined fixed purpose, to defend and maintain our social rights, and our political equality. It would be a fatal error on the part of the North, to mistake prudence and caution, for doubt and timidity. They may rely upon it, the subject has been painfully considered, and the decision unalterably made. If the North shall fail to exhibit a spirit of Moderation and pacification, before the Nashville Convention shall be holden, no human sagacity can foresee the consequences. That body will consist of men, for the most part anxious to preserve the Union, but firmly resolved to save the South. The safety of the South is the leading, the prevailing object, and the predominant idea. In the examination of their perils, and the consideration of their wrongs, the most temperate debate will glow with animation, and moderation itself, will kindle into rage. Who shall control their conclusions, or give law to their acts? Whatever their action may be, unless marked by tameness, it will be sustained by the Southern mind. In the beginning, there may be some diversity, but it will soon come to pass, that, contending Parties will vie with each other, and contest the supremacy of acrimony against the North. We will turn from the contemplation of this melancholy condition of things. With a heart all Southern, and a mind, painfully impressed, by the cruel wrong already suffered, and the flagilous outrage held in reserve; with a resolution immutably fixed, I yet pray the Genius of Webster may prevail, to save the Union, and give peace and harmony to the Land.

I must rely on your generosity to protect me against the charge of presumption, in venturing to allude to such a topic.

Present me affectionately to Mason. I thank him for the many public documents which he has sent me. Tell him, I claim as a matter of right, a copy of every speech, made by you or himself, in the Senate, and which shall reach the pamphlet edition.

I pray you to offer to Mr. Calhoun, assurances of my highest respect and kindest regard. I devoured his late Speech and thank him for the copy he sent me. I called a few days since on an old friend, a cankered Hunker, who, in dispite of the kindest relations between us, has perversely persecuted me through life, as a Nullifier Disunionist and Worshiper of John C. Calhoun. He met me with the exclamation "I acknowledge Mr. Calhoun is the greatest man now living. He has made it all as plain as day, why did we not see it before?"

This cankered Hunker is prepared to rush to any extreme. What is the madness of the North. I beg your pardon, Hunter. I know you rarely read more than one paragraph in a letter. You note that a bore if it contain three lines. You will read the last of this as it mentions our illustrious friend.

[P. S.] Can you spare time to write me, what you all wish us all to do. Snow 5 Inches on 28 March.

_______________

* A State rights Democrat and a Representative from Virginia in Congress, 1841-1843, 1853-1859.

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. 108-10

Robert Toombs to James Thomas, April 16, 1848

Washington, D. C. Apr. 16, 1848.

Dear Thomas, I received your letter of the 9th inst. today and I am very glad to hear you are improving. You did not state to what point in Kentucky you expected to direct your steps. I have an extensive acquaintance with the public men of Kentucky and could give or furnish you letters to almost any point, and if you know where you will probably remain longest and will write me I will procure such letters as would no doubt greatly increase the comfort and pleasure of your trip. I could send them to any point you might designate, if you are about leaving. Mr. Crittenden, my particular friend and messmate, will leave here for Kentucky about the first of June on a gubernatorial canvass in Kentucky. I will commend you to him especially, and I hope you may fall in with him somewhere in the state, if not at Frankfort, his residence. I will send by this mail or the next some letters for Louisville where I suppose you will most likely land in Kentucky. I hope you will find it convenient to call by Washington. There is much to see here to interest an intelligent stranger; men, if not things.

Clay has behaved very badly this winter. His ambition is as fierce as at any time of his life, and he is determined to rule or ruin the party. He has only power enough to ruin it. Rule it he never can again. In February while at Washington he ascertained that the Kentucky convention would nominate Taylor. He procured letters to [McMillen ?] that he would decline when he went home, and the Taylor men from Kentucky under this assurance wrote home to their friends not to push him off the track by nominating Taylor. Mr. Clay never intended to comply, but without now having the boldness to deny it he meanly hints at having changed his determination. Bah! He now can deceive nobody here. The truth is he has sold himself body and soul to the Northern Anti-slavery Whigs, and as little as they now think it, his friends in Georgia will find themselves embarrassed before the campaign is half over. I find myself a good deal denounced in my district for avowing my determination not to vote for him. It gives me not the least concern. I shall never be traitor enough to the true interests of my constituents to gratify them in this respect. I would rather offend than betray them. Mr. Botts of the House and Mr. Berrien of the Senate and Mr. Buckner of Kentucky are the only three men from the slave states who prefer Mr. Clay for our candidate, and there are not ten Southern representatives who would not support Genl. Taylor against him if he were nominated. The real truth is Clay was put up and pushed by Corwin and McLean, Greeley & Co. to break down Taylor in the South. Having made that use of him they will toss him overboard at the convention without decent burial. It is more than probable that a third candidate may be brought forward, and Scott stands a good chance to be the man. For my part I am a Taylor man without a second choice.

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. 103-4

Congressman Alexander H. Stephens to Governor George W. Crawford,* February 3, 1846

Washington, D. C., Feb. 3,1846.

Dear Crawford, Yours in relation to the Galphin claim came to hand last night and I will examine the case you cite. I turned over the papers relating to the claim to Judge Berrien some weeks ago who I think likewise turned them over to Mr. McDuffie who is to bring the subject before the Senate. This I think the better course. They have more time in the Senate, and being a smaller body are more disposed to attend to the real merits of the case. If a favourable report can be got through that body it will stand a much better chance in our House. And should it come there I would do all that labour, research and investigation can do to effect its passage. I have bestowed a good deal of attention to the subject and am clearly of opinion that it is founded in right and justice and ought to be passed. Our time however for some weeks, as you see from the papers, has been taken up almost exclusively with the Oregon debate, and when we will bring that to a close I am wholly unable to conjecture. Every one in the House I believe (myself alone excepted) is desirous of making a speech upon the subject. Even those who have spoken are anxious many of them to make another. But I suppose the debate will be ended in the House when it is taken up in the Senate, which will take place next week. It is a subject I feel no disposition to speak upon in its present shape and condition, and I partake very little of that excitement in relation to it which seems to prevail amongst others. I am for our rights as far as they are clear, and in maintaining them thus far I should not suffer myself to be influenced by any considerations growing out of a fear or apprehension of war. Nor do I conceive that the questions of peace or war are at all involved in terminating the joint occupancy under the convention of 1818. It seems to me that such a measure would only bring about a settlement of our boundary, which ought to be done, as our people are new going there in large companies for the purpose of colonizing. Whether this will lead to a rupture with England or not I cannot pretend to say. It ought not, and will not if properly managed. But one thing is certain, our government will have to recede from the position of Mr. Polk that our "title to the whole of the territory is clear and unquestionable ", or war will be inevitable unless I greatly mistake the temper of the British Government. The war however will not be the result of the giving the notice but subsequent legislation taking possession of the whole of the country. And this I am not prepared to do, and will not do, for I do not think our rights clear to that extent. And I moreover think that the whole subject is proper for negotiation and settlement upon terms of mutual compromise. And if I may go a step further I think this will be the result of the whole matter. If the notice is given, negotiations (if the President does his duty) will be opened, he will recede from his position, and the controversy will ultimately be ended in some sort of amicable adjustment. I can not bring myself to the belief that war will result. But enough of this. I am doing what I can to facilitate the settlement of the amount of our state at the Treasury Department, but my progress is slow. I sent you some papers upon this subject a few days ago.

P. S. — My health is good, much better than it has been for several years.

_______________

* Governor of Georgia, 1843-1847, Secretary of War in Taylor's Cabinet, 1849-1850. He was for many years attorney for the Galphin claimants.

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. 71-2

William B. Wofford* To Howell Cobb, December 14, 1845

MillEDGEvillE [ga.], 14th Decbr., 1845.

Dear Sir, I recd. yours of the 5th inst. by due course of mail. The President's views as expressed in his Message on all subjects is well received by his friends, and in fact it has sealed the lips of his political inimies.

The bill organising a Supream Court has passed and Judge Warner has bin nominated by our friends as the democratic candidate and the Whigs are pledged to elect him.

Much good feeling exists at this place with our friends and marke what I now tel you two years hence the Democratic Party in Georgia will stand erect. I am busy ingaged in preparing materiels for the campain of 1847. I compel the Feds² to vote on all important questions and there dishonest political course is pointed out to them all most every day in the Senate and I am certain it would gratify you to witness how they hang there heads and bear it without oping there mouths.

Fountain G. Moss is the gentleman that I wish appointed post master at Hollingsworth P. Off. in my neighbourhood the petition sent last year states the reson which makes it desirable to have Mr. Moss appointed in place of Mr. Wynn please have the business attended without fail.

I enclose you two dollars Send me the Washington Union and the balance I will pay you on site. I mean the weekley paper.

N. B. — Give my compliments to Colquitt and the balance of the delegation from Georgia excep Berrien and his people.

_______________

¹ A prominent Democratic politician of northeastern Georgia, at this time a member of the Georgia legislature.

² I. e. Whigs.

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. 69

Robert Toombs to Alexander H. Stephens, February 16, 1845

Washington [ga.,] Feb. 16th, 1845.

[dear S]tephens,¹ I received your letter of 9th and hardly know [what to] write you about my prospects of getting to Taliaferro. [ I tell m]yself every five or six days that I am getting well [but the] slightest exercise or labour brings back the pains [in] my shoulders, arms and legs. I hope to get there but I fear I shall not be able, tho' I should dislike to be able and not have you there. Therefore unless very inconvenient I wish you would come. My physician thinks that I am clear of rheumatism and that my present pains are the result of spinal irritation which he says frequently succeeds as severe attacks as mine. I doubt he is right about it. I am generally free from pain when at rest but the slightest motion even writing a letter is accompanied with pain. I am thus particular that you may judge somewhat for yourself.

I have not answered the Times because I am wholly unequal to the labour. Except my letters to you I have not written as much as a sheet of paper since I was taken sick, until day before yesterday I wrote about half that amount to Berrien. As soon as I am able I shall give him a touch. The Whigs generally, indeed universally except Jenkins, as far as I have seen or heard from them, are satisfied with the course of yourself and Clinch on the Texas question. My means of knowing their opinions are of course limited. I have heard of no single man who objects to the terms of annexation embraced in the resolutions. A good man[y differ] with you as to the mode, but you are a sufficient judge] of the popular mind that the mode [exerts] no influence upon the people generally. Man[y who dif]fer with you as to the mode think that y[our own] course will have a good effect upon the state [of opinion] here by killing it off as a party question. It [may] have that effect, but I am not without my misgiving[s.] If Berrien could have voted with you I think such would likely have been the case, but his voting the other way, connected with the fact that the measure will be lost by the votes of slaveholding Senators will I think prevent that result. From that state of facts I fear it will still be a party question in the South. In that event the divisions of the Whig party even on the mode of annexation must needs be an element of weakness and not of strength. The terms of annexation are certainly very favourable to the South, better than I ever supposed could pass either branch of Congress; and I deeply regret that the form in which they come up prevents their passage through the Senate. I see nothing but evil to our party and the country that can come out of this question in future. You ought to send copies of your speech to all of our editors for immediate publication. It will put you right before the country. Your speech is a good one, tho' I have rarely found myself differing with [you on] so many points. I concur with you in but one of [your re]asons for desiring annexation and that is that [it will] give power to the slave states. I firmly believe [that in] every other respect it will be an unmixed evil to us [        ] and not without natural disadvantages as well as [advanta]ges. Tho' I can not bring myself to concur with [you] on the constitutional question, I shall not commit myself publicly on that point without further time and a more full investigation. It strikes me that a satisfactory answer to your argument drawn from the admission of N. Carolina and R. Island is to be found in the Constitution itself. Altho' the government was to go into operation on the ratification of nine states the other states could by the very terms of the Constitution come in at any time afterwards. I hope and trust the question will take such a direction in the Senate as not to bring our friends even in apparent collision. Archer's report² gave me the backache to read it. Its style is really ridiculous. It is either a long ways behind or before the age. He “writes bombast and calls it a style.” Write me as soon as you get this whether you will come to T. Court. Come if you can and let us talk over these matters. For I can not write. We must commence the spring campaign early and vigorously.

_______________

¹ Corner of the original letter mouse-eaten.

² William S. Archer, of Virginia, chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, had presented a report, Feb. 4, 1845, contending that Texas could be annexed only by treaty, and not by act of Congress.

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. 63-5

Junius Hillyer* to Howell Cobb, February 15, 1846

Athens, [ga.,] Feb. 15th, 1846.

Dear Howell, I have just returned from Clark court and in the morning I must start to Walton, but I cannot longer defer writing to you. You must accept as my excuse for not having written often that I have constantly visited Chase's¹ office and had the pleasure of seeing your letters to him, so that through that channel I have been in constant communication with you and from Chase, Mitchell and others you have I thought been so far in communication with me as to make it not very important for me to address you directly.

It is true our editors do not speak with as much zeal on Texas as I think they ought but I do believe that our people are looking with a deep interest on the issue of the question in the Senate; what will be the fate of the bill I do not know but I do believe that if annexation is defeated the wrath of the people of Georgia will be visited on the Whigs after such a sort that they will feel the effects of it during the lives of the present generation. We take for granted since the report of the committee that our Senator Mr. Berrien will oppose it. That his doing so will be against the wishes of a very large majority it seems to me he must know. It is for him however to reconcile it to his conscience to vote directly contrary to the known will of his constituents. Do your best. Let not the measure be lost. . . .

_______________

* A Democratic leader resident at Athens, Ga., Cobb's home. He was judge of the superior court of Georgia (western circuit), 1841-1845; Congressman from Georgia, 1851-1855; Solicitor of the United States Treasury, 1857-1861.

¹ Albon Chase, editor of the “Southern Banner,” at Athens, Ga.

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. 63

J. W. Burney to Congressman Howell Cobb, January 31, 1845

Monticello [ga.,] 31st Jany., 1845.

Dear Sir: Many of our citizens had assembled at the Post office this morning to hear the Texas news. When we saw the measure had passed the H. of R., and that Messrs. Stephens and Clinch had voted with the rest of our delegation there was a general exclamation of “well done good and faithful servant”. Our Whig friends joined in the expression of their joy. I beg you to tender to Mr. Stephens (to whom I am not known) my sincere thanks for this vote. The question is vital to us. His superior love of country to party entitles him to great credit. Can it be that Judge Berrien¹ will not pursue a like course? Now is the time for him to show himself to be above party influence. Do all, all work to carry this great question through the Senate. We are satisfied here with the Resolutions as they passed the House, tho we would have preferred the Missouri Compromise being stricken out. But concessions must be made, and the people of Georgia will agree to any thing reasonable on the subject to get the country.

I have troubled you too much already, but felt as if it was my duty to say this much.

We shall now look with great anxiety to the other end of the Capitol for favorable action.

_______________

¹ John McPherson Berrien, Senator from Georgia, 1825-1829, Attorney General in Jackson's Cabinet, 1820-1831; Senator again (as a Whig), 1841-1852.

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. 62