Louisiana Politics.

We have the authority of the New Orleans Delta for saying that the Douglas movement lately attempted in that city, for its influence upon the State and the South was a sorry fizzle. At the close of the dreary ceremonies, three rousing cheers were given for John Slidell and the seceding delegations, when the meeting adjourned.

SOURCE: “Louisiana Politics,” The Press and Tribune, Chicago, Illinois, Monday, May 14, 1860, p. 2, col. 2

Diary of Henry Greville: Wednesday, November 27, 1861

Wrest. I came here on Monday. The party is composed of Dowager Lady Spencer and Lady Sarah, Lord and Lady Proby, Dufferin, A. Egerton, E. Lascelles, H. Calcraft, and Arthur Scott.

This morning I was startled by a paragraph in the 'Globe' stating that intelligence had reached London last night that an American frigate, the 'San Giacinto,' had stopped the Royal Mail steamer 'Trent' bearing the British flag. That the 'Trent' had been boarded by armed men, who forcibly seized Messrs. Mason and Slidell, envoys from the Confederate States to France and England. The captain of the 'Trent' was unable to offer any resistance, and these gentlemen were carried off under protest. This is a very serious affair, and is sure to rouse the British Lion. A Cabinet was at once summoned.

SOURCE: Alice Countess of Stratford, Leaves from the Diary of Henry Greville: 1857-1861, p. 410-1

Diary of Henry Greville: Saturday, November 30, 1861

London. I came back yesterday, and this morning heard that the Cabinet had decided, on the advice of the law officers, that the act of the American officer is entirely illegal, and a demand is to be at once sent for the immediate release of Messrs. Mason and Slidell, and for an apology for the outrage. Every one I meet deems it very improbable that the Americans will agree to this demand, and that war will be declared before long. The case is well put in a 'Times' article.

Dined at Flahault's. Granville, Pahlen, Bagots, &c. It is hoped some tidings of the effect produced at Washington by the seizure of the Confederate envoys may be brought by the 'Persia,' which is due to morrow.

There was a meeting the other day at which the Duke of Cambridge presided, and which was very numerously attended, to consider of a fitting tribute to the memory of Sidney Herbert. Granville told me he had never seen a more sympathetic audience, or had heard better speaking. It was resolved that a statue should be erected and subscriptions be raised for the endowment of exhibitions or gold medals in connection with the Army Medical School at Chatham, and to be given at the end of each course in instruction to the candidates for commissions who show the greatest proficiency in the art of preserving the health of troops both at home and in the field.

SOURCE: Alice Countess of Stratford, Leaves from the Diary of Henry Greville: 1857-1861, p. 411-2

Diary of Henry Greville: Monday, December 2, 1861

London. The 'Persia' arrived at Queenstown yesterday, having left New York on the 20th. The American newspapers are full of quotations of precedents, to prove that the seizure of Messrs. Mason and Slidell is no breach of international law, and urge that promotion and testimonials should be conferred on Commodore Wilkes for his 'spirited conduct.' Messrs. Mason and Slidell had been conveyed to Fort Warren. No one here seems to think the American Government, even if so disposed, will be permitted by the mob which governs the country to make the required apology to us.

There was a council on Saturday, when a proclamation was issued forbidding the export of saltpetre. It appears to have been the design of the United States Government to lay up a store of that commodity sufficient for a long war, and in a week or two the whole stock to be found here (we have almost a monopoly of it) would have been shipped off. In the present state of affairs it is a wise precaution to defeat this scheme.

SOURCE: Alice Countess of Stratford, Leaves from the Diary of Henry Greville: 1857-1861, p. 412

Diary of Henry Greville: Thursday, December 5, 1861

Hatchford. It was asserted some days ago, and it was generally believed, that old General Scott, who has lately come to France from America, had stated that the seizure of Mason and Slidell had been determined on by the Cabinet at Washington. The General has written a letter to the United States Consul at Havre (I believe), denying that he had ever said anything of the kind, and expressing his own opinion (without, however, pretending to know what may be that of the U. S. Government), that this affair ought not to lead to war between the two countries, but affirming at the same time that 'no impartial man could say that rebels carrying despatches were not contraband of war.' This letter is so far important that it seems to prove that there was no foregone conclusion on the part of the Washington Cabinet.

SOURCE: Alice Countess of Stratford, Leaves from the Diary of Henry Greville: 1857-1861, p. 412-3

General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, December 4, 1884

ST. LOUIS, Mo., Dec. 4, 1884.

Dear Brother: . . . We have several posts of the Grand Army here, one of which, Frank Blair Post No 1, invited me to assist in the dedication of their new hall. I could not well decline, and attended. The hall was well filled, but it is against the customs and rules for reporters to be present. I saw none, but there must have been two at least who reported what little I had to say differently. Still my speech was most imperfect and condensed, emphasizing what I said of Jeff Davis, and induced somewhat by the regular speaker of the evening, who preceded me.

I congratulated them upon having secured so good a hall in so good a neighborhood; said that I was glad to see the interest manifested; that it was well for old soldiers thus to meet to interchange the memories of the war, and to impress its lessons on the rising generation; that I noticed a tendency to gloss over the old names and facts; that it was not a war among the States," a war of "secession," but a "conspiracy" up to the firing on Sumter, and a "Rebellion" afterwards; that, whilst in Louisiana long before Mr. Lincoln was inaugurated, I saw evidences of the "conspiracy," among them the letter written in January by Slidell and Benjamin, then United States Senators under the oath, written on paper dated "United States Senate," etc., addressed to T. O. Moore, Governor of Louisiana, to seize the United States Arsenal at Baton Rouge; that afterwards, during the progress of the war, I had seen letters of Mr. Davis—a chest full at Jackson, Miss., sent to Washington—proving such "conspiracy," and subsequently I had seen a letter of Mr. Davis showing that he was not sincere in his doctrine of secession, for when some of the States of the Confederacy, in 1865, talked of "separate State action," another name for "secession," he, as President of the Confederacy, would resist it, even if he had to turn Lee's army against it. I did see such a letter, or its copy, in a captured letter-book at Raleigh, just about as the war was closing.

Mr. Davis, in a card addressed to the "Republican¹" of this city, published by it and generally copied, pronounced this false, calls on me to produce the identical letter, or to stand convicted of being a slanderer. Of course I cannot for an instant allow Mr. Davis to call on me for any specific document, or to enter up judgment on the statement of a newspaper. Still, I believe the truth of my statement can be established. I will not answer Mr. Davis direct, nor will I publish anything over my signature, but I will collect evidence to make good my statement. The particular letter shown me at Raleigh may be in the public archives at Washington, as I am sure that the box or chest was sent from Jackson, Miss.; but I apprehend that the papers gathered at Fayetteville, Raleigh, and Chapel Hill University were of those taken in hand by my two adjutants, Generals Sawyer and Rochester, brought to St. Louis, assorted and arranged as part of the records of the "Division of the Missouri," and sent to Chicago at the time General Sheridan relieved me. These records were consumed in the great fire of Chicago, 1871, but of the existence of such a letter I have not a particle of doubt. Of course I cannot recall the words, but the general purport was such as to recall to my mind the old fable of the Farmer and the Ox: "It makes all the difference in the world whether your bull gores my ox or mine yours."

I have made some inquiries of Col. R. N. Scott, in charge of the Rebellion Records, Union and Confederate, and if the correspondence between Mr. Davis and the State Governors is among these records, Mr. Davis will have his letter. I am not the custodian of the records of the war, which fill many buildings in Washington. As to Davis' opinions at that date, January and February, 1865, I can, I think, obtain secondary proof, being promised an original letter from Thad. Stevens² to Herschel V. Johnson, captured and still retained by a sergeant in the Union Army.

As to the "conspiracy," the proof is overwhelming. As to Davis' opinions in the winter of 1864-65, I am equally satisfied, but may not be able to prove by his own handwriting. . . .

Affectionately yours,

W. T. SHERMAN.

_______________

¹ Newspaper.

² See following letter.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 362-5

Diary of Private Theodore Reichardt, Monday, October 28, 1861

Commenced to build a stable for horses, three hundred feet long. Captain Bess, our chief of artillery. Our battery remained at Muddy Branch up to the twenty-seventh of November. Little is to be said of this period. Drill as usual. Received the news of the taking of Beaufort, South Carolina, and the capture of Slidell and Mason. Captain Reynolds visited the battery for the last time, having been promoted to Lieutenant Colonel of the Rhode Island artillery, and transferred to another department.

SOURCE: Theodore Reichardt, Diary of Battery A, First Regiment Rhode Island Light Artillery, p. 26

Diary of George Mifflin Dallas, February 17, 1861

Mr. Reuter sends me a telegram from Queenstown of the American news. 1. The conference invited by Virginia met on the 4th, and re-assembled with closed doors on the 5th at Washington. 2. Slidell and Benjamin have withdrawn. 3. A truce between Lieutenant Slemmer and State forces at Pensacola Navy-Yard, followed by surrender to latter. 4. North Carolina resolves unanimously to go with the other slave States if adjustment fail. 5. United States revenue cutter Lewis Cass treacherously surrendered to Alabama. 6. Fifty thousand people starving in Kansas. 7. Secession of Texas definitive. 8. The President has refused to surrender Fort Sumter on Colonel Hayne's demand; an attack expected. 9. Attempt on Fort Pickens abandoned. No blood yet spilt.

SOURCE: George Mifflin Dallas, Diary of George Mifflin Dallas, While United States Minister to Russia 1837 to 1839, and to England 1856 to 1861, Volume 3, p. 436

Braxton Bragg to William T. Sherman, October 25, 1860

AT HOME, near Thibodeaux, La., October 25, 1860.

MY DEAR SHERMAN: It is long since we last communed, but both of us have been travelers, and that seldom conduces to correspondence. . . When in Virginia I had a long letter from my old friend Graham, dated just after the examination, giving me most agreeable information of the general success of our bantling (the Seminary), and especially of my young protégé, Perkins. Intermingled with this was the unpleasant controversy in the Board of Supervisors, and a result injurious, I fear, to the permanent prosperity of the Academy. Yet we must not despair or cease our exertions in the right direction. Our popularity is growing daily with the influential people of the country, and I believe with perseverance we shall conquer all opposition. Indeed, I don't know but it is better for us to have it. We should never labor to accomplish our object with half the zeal or determination but for this very ignorant prejudice. But let me beg of you not to compromise your position by actively espousing either cause. Graham is able to fight the battle on our side, and your opinion will have more weight and influence when drawn out, as it must be, than if you were an active party in the controversy.

I hope our anticipations may be realized in having a full attendance at the opening of your session next week. I gave a letter this morning to a young man. . . I hope you may work him into some corner left open by non-attendance. I am told he has been a headstrong, willful, and lazy boy, hard to keep at any school. But his father has great hopes in the military enthusiasm, your system of regularity and accountability and in Fred's influence. Fred [Perkins] has just called to bid me goodby. From being a thin, sickly, sallow boy, he is grown ruddy, erect, and manly in appearance. And by this great physical change and his admirable deportment since his return home, he has done much in this community to call favorable attention to the Academy. It is a source of no little pleasure to me, and your heart would be delighted to see the just pride of his good old white-headed mother as she admires her baby. He is her youngest, and born after his father's death. I trust he may still continue to deserve the commendation of his superiors.

When north I had no opportunity of seeing anything about that old battery. But I do not see that anything can be done except in the way you propose – a donation by the general government, and I see no reason why this may not succeed. Governor Moore told me it should have his cordial support. I could easily get the approval of the Senate, I suppose, through Mr. Slidell and my brother. What say you to a memorial from the Board of Supervisors headed by the governor? It would be indelicate for me to move in the matter, and may be egotistical for me to do even the suggesting. But I should feel a pride in your success and believe it would benefit the Academy. For a precedent you have only to see the donations to Missouri of guns captured by Doniphan in the affair of Sacramento. Guns do not cease to be national trophies because they may be entrusted to the keeping of a state, and a proviso might be added requiring their return whenever the state should cease to use them as proposed. Make a point, too, of their being "worn out” and no longer of any intrinsic value. But my sheet is full and egotistical garrulity must cease. . . .

SOURCE: Walter L. Fleming, General W.T. Sherman as College President, p. 299-301

Investigation Of The Sumner Assault — published May 28, 1856

We find the following in the Baltimore Papers. With regard the Sumner’s statement, we may remark that it disagrees, in important particulars, with authentic accounts heretofore published.

WASHINGTON, May 26.—The House committee of investigation waited on Mr. Sumner to-day in discharge of their duty regarding the resent assault. He was in bed but have is testimony and was also cross-examined. He was unable to set up during the visit of the committee, but did so a short time today. He is still very week and his physicians counsel him not to move out of the House for a week.

The following is Mr. Sumner’s statement on oath.—“I attended the Senate as usual on Thursday the 22nd of May. After some formal business a message was received from the House of Representatives, announcing the death of a member of that body from Missouri. This was followed by a brief tribute to the deceased from Mr. Geyer, of Missouri, when, according to usage and out of respect to the deceased, the Senate adjourned. Instead of leaving the Chamber with the rest on the adjournment, I continued in my seat, occupied with my pen. While thus intent, in order to be in season for the mail, which was soon to close, I was approached by several persons, who desired to consult with me, but I answered them promptly and briefly, excusing myself, for the reason that I was much engaged.

When the last of these persons left me, I drew my arm chair close to my desk, and with my legs under the desk, continued writing. My attention at this time was so entirely drawn from all other objects, that, though there must have been many persons in the Senate, I saw no body. While thus intent, with my head bent over my writing, I was addressed by a person who approached the front of my desk, so entirely unobserved that I was not aware of his presence, until I heard my name pronounced. As I looked up, with my pen in my hand, I saw a tall man, whose countenance was not familiar, standing directly over me, and at the same moment I caught these words:—“I have read your speech twice over carefully.—It is a libel on South Carolina and Mr. Butler who is a relative of mine.”

While these words were still passing from his lips, he commenced a succession of blows with a heavy cane on my head, by the first of which I was stunned so as to lose sight. I no longer saw my assailant nor any other person or object in the room. What I did afterwards was done almost unconsciously, acting under the instincts of self-defence, with my head already bent down, I rose from my seat, wrenching up my desk which was screwed to the floor, and then pressed forward while my assailant continued his blows.—I had no other consciousness, until I found myself ten feet forward in front of my desk, lying on the floor of the Senate, with my bleeding head supported on the knee of a gentleman, whom I soon recognized by voice and manner as Mr. Morgan of New York. Other persons there were about me offering friendly assistance, but I did not recognize any of them. Others there were at a distance, looking on and offering no assistance of whom I recognized only Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, Mr. Toombs of Georgia, and, I thought, also my assailant standing between them.

I was helped from the floor and conducted into the lobby of the Senate, where I was placed upon a sofa. Of those who helped me there I have no recollections. As I entered the lobby I recognized Mr. Slidell, of Louisiana, who retreated; but I recognized no one else until I felt a friendly grasp of the hand, which seemed to come from Mr. Campbell, of Ohio, I have a vague impression that Mr. Bright, President of the Senate, spoke to me while I was on the floor of the Senate or in the lobby. I make this statement in answer to the interrogatories of the committee and offer it as presenting completely all my recollections of the assault and of the attending circumstances, whether immediately before after. I desire to add that besides the words which I have given as uttered by my assailant, I have an indistinct recollection of the words “old man,” but these are so enveloped in the mists which ensued from the first blow, that I am not sure whether they were uttered or not.

On the cross examination Mr. Sumner said that he was entirely without arms of any kind, and that he had no notice or warning of any kind direct or indirect, of this assault.

In answer to another question, Mr. Sumner replied:—That what he had said of Mr. Butler was strictly responsive to Mr. Butler’s speeches.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Wednesday Morning, May 28, 1856, p. 2

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: November 23, 1863

Nothing of moment from the armies, although great events are anticipated, soon.

On Saturday, Gen. Winder's or Major Griswold's head of the passport office, Lieut. Kirk, was arrested on the charge of selling passports at $100 per man to a Mr. Wolf and a Mr. Head, who transported passengers to the Potomac. W. and H. were in prison, and made the charge or confession. This passport business has been, our bane ever since Gen. Winder got control of it under Mr. Benjamin. Lieut. K. is from Louisiana, but originally from New York.

Mr. Benjamin sent over to-day extracts from dispatches from Mr. Slidell and a Mr. Hotze, agent, showing how the government is swindled in Europe by the purchasing agents of the bureaus here. One, named Chiles, in the purchase of $650,000, Mr. Slidell says, was to realize $300,000 profit! And Mr. Hotze (who is he?) says the character and credit of the government are ruined abroad by its own agents! Mr. Secretary Seddon will soon see into this matter.

Capt. Warner says the Federal prisoners here have had no meat for three days, Commissary-General Northrop having none, probably, to issue. One hundred tons rations, however, came up for them yesterday on the flag boat.

Exchange on London sells at $1 for $18.50, and gold brings about the same. Our paper money, I fear, has sunk beyond redemption. We have lost five steamers lately; and it is likely the port of Wilmington (our last one) will be hermetically sealed. Then we shall soon be destitute of ammunition, unless we retake the mineral country from the enemy.

Mr. Memminger has sent a press to the trans-Mississippi country, to issue paper money there.

Mr. Slidell writes that all our shipments to and from Matamoras ought to be under the French flag. There may be something in this.

The President was expected back to-day; and perhaps came in the evening. He is about to write his message to Congress, which assembles early in December, and perhaps he desired to consult Gen. Lee.

Everywhere the people are clamorous against the sweeping impressments of crops, horses, etc. And at the same time we have accounts of corn, and hay, and potatoes rotting at various depots 1 Such is the management of the bureaus.

The clerks are in great excitement, having learned that a proposition will be brought forward to put all men under forty-five years of age in the army. It will be hard to carry it; for the heads of departments generally have nephews, cousins, and pets in office, young and rich, who care not so much for the salaries (though they get the best) as for exemption from service in the field. And the editors will oppose it, as they are mostly of conscript age. And the youthful members of Congress could not escape odium if they exempted themselves, unless disabled by wounds.

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 2, p. 102-3

Gerrit Smith: The News From England, January 3, 1862

Alas! that this news should find us still embarrassed, and still diddling with the negro question!  Alas! That we should still have one war upon our hands, while we are threatened with another?  Had we, as we should have done, disposed of this question at the beginning of the war, then would its beginning have also been its ending.  If slavery was not, as it certainly was, the sole cause of the war, it nevertheless, was that vulnerable spot in the foe at which we should have struck without a moment’s delay.  Instead of repelling the negroes, bond and free, by insults and cruel treatment we could have brought them all to our side by simply inviting them to it.  As it is, the war has grown into a very formidable one; and the threatened one whereas, had we not acted insanely on the negro question, we could have dreaded neither.  More than this, had we, as it was so easy to do, struck instant death into the first war, we should have escaped the threat of this second one.

For what is it that the English press threatens us with war? It is for compelling the English ship to give up the rebel commissioners, so it says. This is the ostensible reason. But would not England — she who is so famous for clinging to an almost entirely unqualified and unlimited right of search — have done the same thing in like circumstances? If she would not, then she would not have been herself. Had a part of her home counties revolted and sent a couple of their rebels to America for help, would she not have caught them if she could? And in whatever circumstances they might have been found? If she says she would not, there is not on all the earth one “Jew Apella” so credulous as to believe her. If she confesses she would, then is she self-convicted, not only of trampling in her boundless dishonesty on the great and never-to-be-violated principle of doing as we would be done by, but of insulting us by claiming that we ought to be tame and base enough to forbear to do that which her self-respect and high spirit would prompt her to do.

But perhaps England would not have done as we did.  Her naval captains have taken thousands of seamen from our ships — these captains constituting themselves the sole accusers, witnesses and judges in the cases. It was chiefly for such outrages that we declared war against her in 1812. The instance of the San Jacinto and Trent is not like these. In this instance there was no question, because no doubt, of personal identity. But I repeat, perhaps England would not have done as we did.  In a case so aggravated, she would, perhaps, may, probably, have taken ship and all.  By the way, it may be that we did act illegally in not seizing the ship as well as the rebels, and subjecting her to a formal trial; but if in this we fell into a mistake, could England be so mean as to make war upon us for it? — for a mistake which was prompted by a kind and generous regard for the comfort and interests of Englishmen? Surely, if England is not noble enough to refuse to punish for any mere mistake, She is, nevertheless, not monstrous enough to punish for the mistake, which grew solely out of the desire to serve her.

But wherein have we harmed England in this matter?  We have insulted her, is the answer. We have not, however, intended to insult her: and an unintended insult is really no insult.  If, in my eagerness to overtake the man who has deeply injured me, I run rudely through my neighbor’s house he will not only not accuse me of insulting him, but he will pardon so much to my very excusable eagerness as to leave but little ground of any kind of complaint against me.  Surely, if England were but to ask her own heart how she would feel toward men in her own bosom, who, without the slightest provocation, were busy in breaking up her nation, and in plundering and slaughtering her people, she would be more disposed to shed tears of pity for us that to make war upon us.

It is not possible that England will make war on us for what we did to the Trent, and for doing which she has herself furnished us innumerable precedents.  It is not possible that she will so ignore, nay, so deny and dishonor her own history. I will not believe that England, whom I have ever loved and honored almost as if she were my own country, and who, whatever prejudiced and passionate American writers have written to the contrary, has hitherto, during our great and sore trial done nothing through her government, nor through the great body of her people, to justify the attempt by a portion (happily a very small and very unworthy portion) of our press to stir up our national feeling against her — I say I will not believe that this loved and honored England will make war upon us for a deed in which we intended her no wrong; in which, so far as her own example is authority, there is no wrong; and in which, in the light of reason, and, as it will prove in the judgment of mankind, there is no wrong. She could not make such a causeless war upon us without deeply and broadly blotting her own character and he character of modern civilization. But, after, all, what better is our modern civilization than a mere blot and blotch if the nation which is preeminently its exponent, can be guilty, and without the least real cause of provocation, and upon pretests as frivolous as they are false, of seeing to destroy a sister nation? — a sister nation, too, whose present embarrassments and distresses appeal so strongly to every good heart? Moreover, how little will it argue for the cause of human rights, and popular institutions, if the nation, which claims to be the chief champion of that cause, can wage so wicked a war upon a nation claiming no humbler relation to that precious cause?

What, then, do I hold that England should do in this case?

1st. Reprimand or more severely punish the captain of the Trent for his very gross and very guilty violation of our rights in furnishing exceedingly important facilities to our enemy. This our government should have promptly insisted on, and not have suffered England to get the start of us with her absurd counter claim.  This is a case in which not we, but England, should have been made defendant.  It is her Captain who is the real offender.  Ours is, at the most, but a nominal one.  In the conduct of her Captain were in spirit and purpose, as well as the doing, of wrong.  The conduct of ours, on the contrary, was prompted by the spirit and purpose of doing right; and if, in any respect, it was erroneous, it was simply in regard to the forms of doing right.  Moreover, the guilt of her Captain can be diminished by nothing that was seemingly or really guilty in ours. The criminality of taking the rebels into the Trent was none the less, because of any mistakes which attended the getting of them out.  Nevertheless, England takes no action against him.  Her policy is to have her guilty Captain lost sight of in her bluster about our innocent one.  To screen the thief, she cries, “Stop thief!”  Her policy is to prevent us from getting the true issue before the public mind, by occupying it with her false one.

How preposterous is the claim of England to her right to make war, because we took our rebellious subjects from her ship!  The taking of them into her ship is the only thing in the case which can possibly furnish cause of war. That, unless amply apologized for, does, in the light of international law, furnish abundant cause of war.

Did every hypocrisy and impudence go farther than in England’s putting America on trial! Was there ever a more emphatic “putting the saddle on the wrong horse”? I overtake the thief who has stolen my watch, and jerk it from his pocket.  He turns to the people, not to confess his theft, but to protest against my rudeness, and to have me, instead of himself, regarded as the criminal!

An old fable tells us that a council of animals, with the lion at their head, put an ass on trial for having “broused the bigness of his tongue.” The lion (England) was constrained to confess that he had himself eaten sheep, and shepherds too.  Nevertheless, it was the offence of the ass (America) that caused the council to shudder with horror. “What! Eat another’s grass? O shame!” and so the virtuous rascals condemned him to die, and rejoiced anew in their conscious innocence.

Moreover, England, instead of turning to her own conscience with the true case, has the brazen effrontery to appeal to our conscience with her trumped-up case.  Which of the parties in this instance needs conscience-quickening, in no less certain than in the instance of the footpad and the traveler, when he had robbed of his bags of gold.  The poor traveler meekly asked for a few coins to defray his expenses homeward. “Take them from one of the bags,” said the footpad, with an air of chivalrous magnanimity; but on seeing the traveler take half a dozen instead of two or three, he exclaimed, “Why, man, have you no conscience?”  England, through her subject and servant, entered into a conspiracy against America.  America, through her subject and servant, forbore to punish the wickedness, and simply stopped it.  And yet England bids us to our conscience!

Why Should England protect her captain?  Her Queen, in her last May’s Proclamation, warned him that, for doing what he has done, he should, “in no wise obtain any protection.” He had full knowledge of the official character of the rebles, and at least inferential knowledge of their bearing dispatches with them.  But, besides that the whole spirit of it is against what he has done, her Proclamation specifies “officers” and “dispatches” in the list of what her subjects are prohibited to carry “for the use or service of either of the contending parties.

England did not protect the Captain of her mail-steamer, Teviot, who, during our war with Mexico was guilty of carrying the Mexican General Paredez.  He was suspended.  Why does she spare the Captain of the Trent?  Is it because she has more sympathy with the Southern Confederacy than she had with Mexico? — and is, therefore, more tender toward him who serves the former, than she was toward him who served the latter?  But it will, perhaps be said, that we have not demanded satisfaction in this case as we did in that.  England, nevertheless, knows that we are entitled to it; and that she is bound to satisfy us for the wrongs she did us, before she complains of the way we took to save ourselves from the deep injury with which that great and guilty wrong threatened us.  In this connexion, I add that if, upon her own principles and precedents, the Captain of the Trent deserves punishment for what he did, she is stopped from magnifying into a grave offence our undoing what we did.

2. The next thing that England should do is to give instructions, or rather repeat those in the Queen's Proclamation, that no more rebel commissioners be received into her vessels.

3. And then she should inform us whether, in the case of a vessel that shall hereafter offend in this wise, she would have us take the vessel itself, or take but the commissioners. It is true that whatever her preference, we would probably insist on taking the vessel in every case: — for it is not probable that we shall again expose ourselves in such a case to the charge of taking too little. It is, however, also true, that, should she prefer our taking the vessel, we will certainly never take less.

But such instructions and information, although they would provide for future cases, would leave the present case unprovided for; and England might still say that she could not acquiesce in our having, in this case, taken the Commissioners instead of the vessel.  What then?  She ought to be content with the expression of our regret that we did not take the mode of her choice, and the more so as that mode could not have been followed by any different result in respect to our getting possession of the Commissioners.  But this might not satisfy her: — and what then?  She should generously wait until that unnatural and horrid war is off our hands; and if the parties could not then agree, they should submit the case to an Umpire.  If, however, she should call for an Umpire now, then, although the civilized world would think badly of her for it, and our own nation be very slow to forgive her for it, I would nevertheless, in my abhorrence of all war, have our government consent to an Umpire now. Nay, in the spirit of this abhorrence, and for the sake of peace, I would go much farther.  If no other concession we could make would satisfy England, I would have our Government propose to surrender the rebels, Mason and Slidell, in case the English Government would say, distinctly and solemnly, that it would not itself disturb neutral vessels having on board rebels who had gone out from England in quest of foreign aid to overturn the English Government.  An ineffably base Government would it prove itself to be should it refuse to say this, and yet declare war on the ground of our capture of the rebels who were on their way for foreign help to overturn our government.

I spoke of my abhorrence of all war.  Our lifelong opponents of war find themselves unexpectedly in sympathy with mighty armies.  They have to confess that they never anticipated a rebellion so fast; still less did they ever anticipate that England would be guilty of coming to the help of such a satanic rebellion.

I have said that England will not go to war with us in the case of the Trent. Nevertheless I am not without fear that her government will be driven to declare war against us. The Government of no other nation (and this is honorable to England) is more influenced by the people.  By such an affair as the capture of Mason and Slidell, the patriotism of the least-informed and superficial and excitable part of her people is easily and extensively wrought upon. With this part of her people the inviolability of the British flag is more than all earth besides.  But it is not by that capture, nor by those classes to whom it appeals with such peculiar power that the Government will be moved. If an irresistible pressure comes upon the government, it will come from those portions of the people who long for the cotton and free trade of the South, and who have allowed themselves to get angry with the North by foolishly misconstruing our high tariff (which is simply a war measure) into a hostile commercial measure. The capture of Mason and Slidell will be only the pretext, not the provocation; only the occasion, not the cause of war.

If England wishes to go to war with us for any wrongs we have done her, she shall not have the chance—for we will promptly repair the wrongs, at whatever sacrifices of property or pride. But if, as I still honor and love her too much to believe, she wishes to go to war with us at any rate, and chooses this our time of trouble as her time to make us an easy prey, then will she be gratified.  It will be but fair, however, to advertise her that she must not take our fighting in the war with the rebels as a sample of what will be our fighting in the war with herself.  The former is fooling.  The latter will be fighting.  On all subjects connected with slavery, and therefore in a war about slavery, we Americans are fools.  We cannot help it.  We have worshipped the idol so long and so devoutly, that when in its all-influential presence, we cannot be men. The powers of our moral nature are, however, not destroyed; they are but perverted.  And such an outrage as the English press threatens us with will restore their legitimate use.  Our manhood is not dead; it but sleeps.  And as it was when the Philistines fell upon the bound Samson, that the Spirit of the Lord came to his help, so, when the English shall fall upon the worse-bound Americans, this sleeping manhood will awake.  And it will awake to assert itself, not merely against the English, but against the rebels also.  And It will do this mightily, because it will, and the same time, be asserting itself against its own life-long degradations, and the hateful cause of them.  Let us but know that England, to whom we have done no wrong, has resolved to come to the help of the Pro-Slavery Rebellion, and our deep indignations against her, combining with our deeper indignation against ourselves, will arm us with the spirit of the power to snap the “cords,” and “green withs,” and “new ropes,” with which slavery has bound us to dash to dust the foul idol whose worship has so demented and debased us.  Yes, let us hear this month that England has declared war against us, and this month will witness our Proclamation of Liberty to every slave in the land.  No thanks will be due her for the happy effect upon us of her Declaration of war.  No thanks will be due her that the Declaration will have the effect to save us — to save us by making us anti-slavery.  No more half-way measures, and no more nonsense on the Subject of slavery, shall we then propose.  There will be no more talk then of freeing one sort of slaves, and continuing the other in slavery; but we shall then invite every negro in the land, bond and free, to identify himself, “arm and soul,” with our cause.  And then there will be no more talk of swapping off taxes for negroes, and no more talk of colonizing and apprenticing them.  Then we shall be eager to lift up the negroes into the enjoyment of all the rights of manhood, that so we may have in them men to stand by our side, and help us make short work with the present war, and with that with which we are threatened.

Owing to the bewitching and debauching influence of slavery upon our whole nation, there are, even in the Free States, divisions among us in regard to the present war.  But should England so causelessly, cruelly and meanly force a war upon us, there will be no divisions among us in regard to that war: — nor, indeed, will there then be in regard to the other. And so deep and abiding will be our sense of her boundless injustice, that there will never be any boundless injustice, that there will never be any among us to welcome propositions of peace with England, until her war with us shall have reached the result of our subjugation, or of her expulsion from every part of the Continent of North America.  Moreover, we shall rejoice to hear of the crushing of her power every where — for we shall feel that the nation which can be guilty of such a war is fit to govern no where — in the Eastern no more than in the Western hemisphere.

SOURCES: “News from England by Geritt Smith,” The Liberator, Boston, Massachusetts, Friday, January 3, 1862, p. 4; An abstract of thes article appears in Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 262-3

John M. Forbes, writing from London, after June 9, 1863

Among my London acquaintances was Mr. Edward Ellis, a member of Parliament himself, and, I think, with one or two sons also in that body. He was a friend and adherent of Palmerston, and, having a pecuniary interest in land on this side, was supposed to be very well posted about American affairs. It was just at the time the controversy was going on about the letter-bag of a steamer; it had been seized with the vessel, carrying a cargo of munitions of war, nominally to Mexico, but undoubtedly intended for the Texan rebels. The bag must have contained proof of this, but, being under the seals of the British post-office, was claimed by the British minister as sacred, and the dispute was going on as to what should be done with it; the condemnation of the vessel and cargo, amounting to a very large sum, depending a great deal upon the result. I was dining at Mr. Ellis's, and while we were standing before the fire, waiting for dinner to be announced, two or three of the younger members of Parliament came in and announced the “good news” that the letter-bags had been given up without being opened, which removed the danger of a rupture in the friendly relations between the United States and Great Britain. This was all very polite, Mr. Adams being present, and, as usual, silent. I could not help, however, saying a word to this effect: “I am very glad you like the news; but I hope you will remember one thing, that you are making a precedent which, in the long future, we intend to follow. You are now ready to introduce all possible privileges for neutrals in the carrying trade, but in the long run Great Britain is at war ten years while we are likely to be one; and whatever precedent you set now, we shall hold you to.”

*~*~*~*

Among the notable men that I met was an Hon. Mr. Berkeley, a queer little old man, who was known in Parliament as “single speech Berkeley,” and who every year brought up some radical proposition which was good-naturedly received and passed over, out of regard for his aristocratic connections and influence. I sat next him at a dinner given me by Captain Blakely, the gunmaker, and, with the usual reserve which I had to maintain in that hostile atmosphere, I said very little except upon general subjects; but as we were putting on our coats before going off, little Mr. Berkeley shook hands with me very warmly and said, “I hope you understand that I am entirely with you in your fight to put down the slaveholders.”

*~*~*~*

General Forbes was a very good-looking, middle-aged man at that time, and was very polite to me, taking me down to Aldershot to see a review of the British volunteers. We lunched with the mess, and then went to the field, where there was a great display of troops, and where I saw many celebrities of the Crimean war and the Indian mutiny. The review wound up with a sham fight, in the midst of which I had to start by cab to catch the train back to London to keep an engagement in the evening. The cabman at first refused to cross the field of battle, but under bribe or threat I managed to get him down to run the gauntlet of the advancing line, going between them and their objective point with the horse on the jump and the whole line apparently firing at us. It had all the effect of a real battle, — except the lead.

*~*~*~*

One project which we thought of at this time might have turned into great results if the Mexicans had had any minister or recognized agent in London. They were at open war with France, and it occurred to us that, if they would do towards France exactly what the rebel cruisers were doing against us, we should bring the European powers to a realizing sense of their misdeeds towards us. We discussed the question, and thought of lending to Mexico a few thousand dollars out of our resources to enable them to fit out cruisers in English ports to go into the Channel and destroy French ships, and to return to British ports to coal and recruit and get ready for other depredations; in fact repeating what was being done in British neutral ports against the United States. If some morning a Mexican cruiser had put into Plymouth after destroying a lot of French ships, the replies of the British Foreign Secretary to a powerful, warlike nation like France would have been very different from what they were saying to us, hampered as we were with our internal war; and, if they had treated France as they did us, war would have been the consequence in about twenty-four hours. But there was no Mexican minister or agent, and we could do nothing.

*~*~*~*

We were surprised at the house by being decorated in most wonderful crape round our hats, a heavy silk scarfs reaching almost to our feet, which were put over us by one of the servants, as we were to play the part of chief mourners. After the religious ceremonies at the house, we were ushered into carriages decorated in the same wonderful manner, and slowly drove through the streets, guarded by a lot of mutes in deep black, carrying halberds or poles behind the hearse. It looked as if they were guarding us to prevent our escape, as they walked along beside the carriage. After a dreary ride we came to the suburban cemetery and then left the carriages and surveyed the scene. The hearse was the principal object, being drawn by black horses and having tall, black plumes on each side. As we were waiting for it to come up, Mr. B., who was sincerely attached to his wife, but had a sense of humor, could not forbear a sort of apology, saying that he had tried to have it as private and inconspicuous as possible, but it was impossible to get away from the conventionality and pomp of a London funeral: he wished that the hearse could be transported to America and put at the head of the Union army; he was sure the rebels would be routed at once by its appearance! After a short service at the grave, Mr. Baring and I jumped into his cab, throwing off our insignia of mourning, which must have formed a valuable perquisite, — there being silk enough to make a cassock of, — and were soon driving rapidly to London.

*~*~*~*

During our stay in London we went to hear Mr. Cobden's great speech in the Commons. The House of Commons is a very different affair from our House of Representatives; indeed, it looks, at first sight, much more like one of our large committee rooms at the Capitol, or perhaps like the senate chamber there. Only a few strangers are admitted to what is called the speaker's gallery, and then only by special ticket from the speaker. When Cobden's speech was expected, considerable influence had to be used to get admittance. We learned that the speaker had in this case, when applied to, expressed fears that the two factions of Union and rebel (unrecognized) emissaries might be placed too near each other, and so we found much diplomacy had been expended in arranging seats to keep ourselves and Messrs. Mason and Slidell separated. The occasion was certainly a very memorable one, for Cobden's speech rang through Europe and America, and materially influenced the action of the English government. His manner was cold and somewhat hesitating, but he spoke with great force and sense, not mincing his phrases, against the backslidings of his countrymen; and his speech was all the more effective from his taking the stand for us, not (as Bright usually did) from an American point of view, but because he saw England's honor and interest imperiled by the short-sighted policy of Palmerston and Russell.

I think it was on the same night that Roebuck made a most malignant attack upon what he called the barbarism of the Federals in their cruel and atrocious proclamation of emancipation, “stimulating the subordinate race to make war against their superiors, and putting a premium on murder, rape, and robbery.” Monckton Milnes, the poet, whom I have since welcomed here as Lord Houghton, made a very pithy and spirited rejoinder to this diatribe, and quite won my heart.

*~*~*~*

We had come, also, prepared to do something in the way of enlightening the British public as to the real strength of the North, and the certainty of our ultimate success, but Mr. Adams thought it doubtful whether such a course would be wise; for if successful in our argument it might show the governing class in Europe that their only chance for breaking up the Union was in active interference; so that he thought it safer for them to be kept neutral by the belief that we were sure to break up.

*~*~*~*

I was requested to lead in to dinner his daughter-in-law, the wife of Mr. Nassau John Senior, who was very pleasant; but, knowing nothing about her, I refrained from talking upon any interesting subject, until she happened to say that her brother had just returned from France, and that she hoped I would see him. I then had to ask who her brother was, and found it was Tom Hughes. “Why,” said I, “he is the one man I wanted to see; I thought he was ill, and that I should go home without seeing him.” I was going to start in a few days for Liverpool, and she very warmly insisted that I should see her brother, and accordingly asked him for an appointment. When I called at his office in Old Square, Lincoln's Inn, I found my good friend Tom Hughes, genial and pleasant as he is to-day. I need hardly say that the remainder of my evening with Mrs. Senior at the dinner party was very much more delightful than at the beginning, as it was like finding a warm friend in the midst of an enemy's camp.

SOURCE: Sarah Forbes Hughes, Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes, Volume 2, p. 31-8

Diary of Edward Bates: November 27, 1861

And now (Nov 27) Count Gurouski⁶⁵ tells me  that Prentice⁶⁶ has come out, in bitter denunciation of Cameron — in  shape of a Washington correspondent of the Louisville Journal. The Count assumes, very reasonably, that Prentis is the author.

[Marginal Note.] Since then, I learn that Prentice disclaims the authorship of the letter, and says that Cameron was misunderstood.

Note, in this connexion — The other day, Mr. Blair joked Cameron  with a newspaper quotation (real or suppositious [sic] ) to the effect that he (C.[ameron]) had fairly elbowed Fremont⁶⁷ out of his place, and himself quietly taken his seat in [the] stern-sheets of the Abolition boat!

Nov 27. No news yet from Pensecola [sic], beyond the first rumor that our forces were bombarding the rebel forts.⁶⁸

From Mo. — a telegram from Gov Gamble⁶⁹ confirms the report [that] Genl. Price⁷⁰ has turned and is moving north towards the centre of the State. This movement is, I think not prompted by Price himself, as a separate enterprise agst. Mo., but is part of the genl. plan of the enemy. As long ago as last March, I told the Cabinet that the real struggle must be in the valley of the Mississippi.⁷¹ And now, that it is apparent that the rebel army of the Potomac can do nothing but hold the Capitol [sic] in siege, and that the enemy cannot defend the seaboard, it is the obvious policy of the enemy to [strengthen] the defence of the Mississippi, and to that end, they must fortify the river, and for that purpose they must have time to remove men and artillery, and therefore it is wise in him to keep us fully occupied in Mo. and Kentucky.

That is clearly the policy of the enemy. And as clearly it is our policy to assume the aggressive, and, at almost any hazard, to cut his communications, and prevent as far as possible, the removal of heavy guns from the East to the west — from Va. and the coast to the Missi[ssippi].

Today I spent chiefly in business preliminary to the coming session of the S.[upreme] C.[ourt] called at the clerk's office, ex[amine]d. the docket, the C[our]t. room, my own closet, and recd, many kind suggestions from Mr. Carroll,⁷² the clerk, about the details of business. Called on C.[hief] J.[ustice] Taney,⁷³ and had a conversation much more pleasant than I expected. Called also on Judge Wayne⁷⁴ and had an agreeable talk. I infer from the remarks of both the judges that, probably, but little business will be done, and that not in as strict order as is usual.

At night, Count Gurouski called to see me, and talked, as usual, very freely — quite as bitter and censorious as ever. Just now, he seems to have a special spite against the diplomatic corps — all of them except Baron Gerolt of Prussia, and Mr. Tassara of Spain — He says all of them except Gerolt, were in a furious flutter about the capture of Slidell and Mason⁷⁵ — declaring that it was an outrage and that England would be roused to the war-point, &c. that Gerolt quietly said — pish! the thing is right in itself, and if it were not, England wd. no[t] go to war for it —

The Count gave me a short biographical [sketch] of most of the ministers — e g

1. L[or]d. Lyons,⁷⁶ son of the Admiral who won the peerage. Of a respectable but humble family — L[or]d. L.[yons] he says, has an uncle who is a farmer near Chicago.

2. Mr. Mercier⁷⁷ (of France) only plainly respectable. Born in Baltimore, where his father was French consul[.]

3. Mr. Tassara⁷⁸ of Spain — really a great man — a wonderful genius — of respectable but not noble origin — at first a news-paper writer — then a distinguished member of the Cortes, and secretary thereof (the 2d. office in its gift)[.]

4. Mr. Stoekel⁷⁹ (of Russia) nobody in Russian society, though personally worthy. As a minister, admitted of course to court, but not recd, at all in the aristocratic society of Petersburg. His wife is American — A Yankee — a very clever lady[.]

5. Count Piper,⁸⁰ of Sweden, the only genuine aristocrat, of ancient and high descent. He is the lineal descendant of the famous Count Piper, Minister of State of king Charles XII⁸¹ — a man of no great talents, but of high and honorable principles[.]

6. Baron Gerolt⁸² of Prussia. A very amiable and learned gentleman. Of noble connexion, but not himself noble, until the last few years, when he was made a baron, by the influence of Humboldt,⁸³ who was his friend and patron.

Gerolt was well-learned in mineralogy and mining, and (upon Humboldt's recommendation) served some years in Mexico, as director of silver mines for an English company. He is skilled in various sciences, and is the only foreign diplomat who maintains close relations with American savan[t]s.

7. Chivalier [sic] Bertenatti,⁸⁴ of Italy. Of no high connexions. Educated for the priesthood, but not ordained. For sometime a journalist. A man of fair talents, but not at all distinguished by the gifts of nature or fortune, except that he is minister of the rising state of Italy.

[Marginal] Note. In this same conversation the Count said that it was well enough to give Capt Wilkes⁸⁵ the credit of originality and boldness in seising Mason and Slidell, but, in fact, the Secy, of State sent orders to the consul at Havanna [sic] , to notify Wilkes and tell him what to do.⁸⁶

­_______________

⁶⁵ Adam, Count Gurowski, Polish revolutionist and author who had lived in the United States since 1849; translator in the State Department.

⁶⁶ Supra, Nov. 20, 1861, note 60.

⁶⁷ Frémont had tried to free slaves and confiscate Confederate property by a military order revoked by Lincoln. Supra, Oct. 22, 1S61, note 24.

⁶⁸ On November 22 Fort Pickens and the men-of-war Niagara and Richmond began a two days’ bombardment of Fort McRee and other Confederate fortifications. On January 1, 1862, there was another artillery exchange. But it was not until May 9, 1862, that the Confederates burned and evacuated the forts and the Navy Yard at Pensacola.

⁶⁹ Supra, July 23, 1859, note 39.

⁷⁰ Sterling Price: Democratic congressman, 1845—1846 ; brigadier-general of volunteers in the Mexican War; governor of Missouri, 1853-1857 ; major-general of Missouri Confederate militia under Confederate Governor Jackson (supra, Jan. 9, 1860, note 15). He had been driven out of St. Louis by General Lyon, but later defeated and killed Lyon in one engagement, and captured 3,000 Missourians in another, before he was forced to flee. And his raids, or threats of them, continued to harass Missouri.

⁷¹ Supra, March 16, April 15, Aug. 27, 1861; also May 27, 1859.

⁷² William T. Carroll, a grand-nephew of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, was clerk of the Supreme Court from 1827 to 1862.

⁷³ Roger B. Taney: eminent Maryland lawyer; attorney-general of Maryland, 1827-1831; attorney-general of the U. S., 1831-1833 ; secretary of the Treasury, 1833-1834 ; chief justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, 1835-1864. He wrote the decision in the famous Dred Scott case of 1857 and tried in vain to restrain the arbitrary governmental infringements of personal liberty during the Civil War.

⁷⁴ James M. Wayne: judge of the Superior Court of Georgia, 1824-1829; Democratic congressman, 1829-1835; now justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, 1835-1867.

⁷⁵ Supra, Nov. 16, 1861.

⁷⁶ Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary from Great Britain, 1858-1865. Supra, Sept. 26, 1860, note 24.

⁷⁷ Henri Mercier, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, 1860-1863.

⁷⁸ Gabriel Garcia y Tassara, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, 1857-1867.

⁷⁹ Edward de Stoeckl, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, 1854-1868. He it was who negotiated the sale of Alaska.

⁸⁰ Edward, Count Piper, Minister Resident of Sweden, 1861-1864, and Charge d’Affaires of Denmark, 1863.

⁸¹ Sweden's soldier-king who ruled from 1697 to 1718.

⁸² Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, 1843[?]-1871.

⁸³ Alexander, Baron von Humboldt, wealthy German naturalist, traveler, diplomat, author, who was a close friend of the King of Prussia.

⁸⁴ The Chevalier Joseph Bertinatti, Minister Resident, 1S61-1S67.

⁸⁵ Supra, Nov. 16, 1861, note 46.

⁸⁶ The State Department has no record of such an instruction from Seward. On the contrary, Seward wrote confidentially to Charles F. Adams in Great Britain on November 27: “The act was done by Commander Wilkes without instructions, and even without the knowledge of the Government." John B. Moore, A Digest of International Law, VII, 768.

SOURCE: Howard K. Beale, Editor, The Diary of Edward Bates 1859-1866, p. 203-6

Edwin M. Stanton to Samuel L. M. Barlow [Extract], January 7, 1862

From the day you left here until the present time there has been no improvement in public affairs, save General McClellan's accession to chief command, but his illness has in a great measure prevented the good consequences which might have resulted from that event. His health is now improving.

Your anticipation that he would be assailed by certain parties, I think, is well founded. No direct assault upon him has yet been made, but there have been several indirect lunges, the object whereof cannot be mistaken. Fremont is now here and divers rumors abound as to the designs of his partisans; whether any of them be true or not, time only will show.

The surrender of Mason and Slidell was a political necessity, but I doubt whether it will avoid war. My private advices from England represent a nearly unanimous and almost frantic hostility of the English people to our Government, which the power of the ministry cannot restrain, if it desired so to do. The French feeling is no better. The fact is that there seems to be an outbreak of hostility against our republican form of government, combined with a bitter contempt for the administration, which induces foreign powers to seize the chance of the hour to destroy us. On our part there appears no consciousness of the dangers, or ability to avoid them. Seward says, “all’s well,” and that is enough for the Republicans.

SOURCE: Frank Abial Flower, Edwin McMasters Stanton: the autocrat of rebellion, emancipation, and Reconstruction, p. 123-4

Joseph Holt & Isaac Toucey to James Glynn et al, January 29, 1861

WASHINGTON, January 29, 1861.

To JAMES GLYNN, commanding the Macedonian; Capt. W. S. WALKER, commanding the Brooklyn, and other naval officers in command; and Lieut. ADAM J. SLEMMER, First Regiment Artillery, U. S. Army, commanding Fort Pickens, Pensacola, Fla.:

In consequence of the assurances received from Mr. Mallory in a telegram of yesterday to Messrs. Slidell, Hunter, and Bigler, with a request it should be laid before the President, that Fort Pickens would not be assaulted, and an offer of such an assurance to the same effect from Colonel Chase, for the purpose of avoiding a hostile collision, upon receiving satisfactory assurances from Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase that Fort Pickens will not be attacked, you are instructed not to land the company on board the Brooklyn unless said fort shall be attacked or preparations shall be made for its attack. The provisions necessary for the supply of the fort you will land. The Brooklyn and other vessels of war on the station will remain, and you will exercise the utmost vigilance and be prepared at a moment's warning to land the company at Fort Pickens, and you and they will instantly repel an attack on the fort. The President yesterday sent a special message to Congress commending the Virginia resolutions of compromise. The commissioners of different States are to meet here on Monday, the 4th February, and it is important that during their session a collision of arms should be avoided, unless an attack should be made or there should be preparation for such an attack. In either event the Brooklyn and the other vessels will act promptly.

Your right, and that of the other officers in command at Pensacola, freely to communicate with the Government by special messenger, and its right in the same manner to communicate with yourself and them, will remain intact as the basis on which the present instruction is given.

 J. HOLT,

Secretary of War.

ISAAC TOUCEY,

Secretary of the Navy.

SOURCES: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series I, Volume 1 (Serial No. 1), p. 355-6; Samuel Wylie Crawford, The Genesis of the Civil War: The Story of Sumter, 1860-1861, p. 401-2

Diary of Gideon Welles: Tuesday, May 12, 1863

We have information that Stonewall Jackson, one of the best generals in the Rebel, and, in some respects, perhaps in either, service, is dead. One cannot but lament the death of such a man, in such a cause too. He was fanatically earnest, and a Christian but bigoted soldier.

A Mr. Prentiss has presented a long document to the President for the relief of certain parties who owned the John Gilpin, a vessel loaded with cotton, and captured and condemned as good prize. There has been a good deal of outside engineering in this case. Chase thought if the parties were loyal it was a hard case. I said all such losses were hard, and asked whether it was hardest for the wealthy, loyal owners, who undertook to run the blockade with their cotton, or the brave and loyal sailors who made the capture and were by law entitled to the avails, to be deprived. I requested him to say which of these parties should be the losers. He did not answer. I added this was another of those cases that belonged to the courts exclusively, with which the Executive ought not to interfere. All finally acquiesced in this view.

This case has once before been pressed upon the President. Senator Foot of Vermont appeared with Mr. Prentiss, and the President then sent for me to ascertain its merits. I believe I fully satisfied him at that time, but his sympathies have again been appealed to by one side.

Mr. Seward came to my house last evening and read a confidential dispatch from Earl Russell to Lord Lyons, relative to threatened difficulties with England and the unpleasant condition of affairs between the two countries. He asked if anything could be done with Wilkes, whom he has hitherto favored, but against whom the Englishmen, without any sufficient cause, are highly incensed. I told him he might be transferred to the Pacific, which is as honorable but a less active command; that he had favored Wilkes, who was not one of the most comfortable officers for the Navy Department. I was free to say, however, I had seen nothing in his conduct thus far, in his present command, towards the English deserving of censure, and that the irritation and prejudice against him were unworthy, yet under the peculiar condition of things, it would perhaps be well to make this concession. I read to him an extract from a confidential letter of J. M. Forbes, now in England, a most earnest and sincere Union man, urging that W. should be withdrawn, and quoting the private remarks of Mr. Cobden to that effect. I had read the same extract to the President last Friday evening, Mr. Sumner being present. He (Sumner) remarked it was singular, but that he had called on the President to read to him a letter which he had just received from the Duke of Argyle, in which he advised that very change. This letter Sumner has since read to me. It is replete with good sense and good feeling.

I have to-day taken preliminary steps to transfer Wilkes and to give Bell command in the West Indies. It will not surprise me if this, besides angering Wilkes, gives public discontent. His strange course in taking Slidell and Mason from the Trent was popular, and is remembered with gratitude by the people, who are not aware his work was but half done, and that, by not bringing in the Trent as prize, he put himself and the country in the wrong. Seward at first approved the course of Wilkes in capturing Slidell and Mason, and added to my embarrassment in so disposing of the question as not to create discontent by rebuking Wilkes for what the country approved. But when, under British menace, Seward changed his position, he took my position, and the country gave him great credit for what was really my act and the undoubted law of the case. My letter congratulating Wilkes on the capture of the Rebel enemies was particularly guarded and warned him and naval officers against a similar offense. The letter was acceptable to all parties, — the Administration, the country, and even Wilkes was contented.

It is best under the circumstances that Wilkes should be withdrawn from the West Indies, where he was sent by Seward's special request, unless, as he says, we are ready for a war with England. I sometimes think that is not the worst alternative, she behaves so badly.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 297-9

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: January 23, 1863

The Northern papers are filled with what purports to be the intercepted correspondence of Mr. Benjamin with Messrs. Mason and Slidell. Lord John Russell is berated. The Emperor of France is charged with a design to seize Mexico as a colony, and to recognize Texas separately, making that State in effect a dependency, from which cotton may be procured as an offset to British India. He says the French Consuls in Texas are endeavoring to detach Texas from the Confederacy. If this be a genuine correspondence, it will injure the South; if it be false (if the allegations be false), it will still injure us. I have no doubt of its genuineness; and that Mr. Sanders, once the correspondent of the New York Tribune, was the bearer. If Texas leaves us, so may Louisiana — and the gigantic Houmas speculation may turn out well at last.

Mr. Curry has brought forward a copyright bill; Mr. Foster, of Alabama, has introduced a bill to abolish the passport system — leaving the matter to railroad conductors.

A dispatch from Gen. Bragg assures us that our cavalry are still capturing and destroying large amounts of Rosecrans's stores on the Cumberland River.

Col. Wall has been elected Senator from New Jersey. They say he is still pale and ill from his imprisonment, for opinion sake. I hope he will speak as boldly in the Senate as out of it.

I met Gen. Davis to-day (the President's nephew), just from Goldsborough, where his brigade is stationed. He is in fine plumage — and I hope he will prove a game-cock.

Major-Gen. French, in command at Petersburg, is a Northern man. Our native generals are brigadiers. It is amazing that all the superior officers in command near the capital should be Northern men. Can this be the influence of Gen. Cooper? It may prove disastrous!

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 1, p. 244-5

Diary of William Howard Russell: May 28, 1861

On dropping in at the Consulate to-day, I found the skippers of several English vessels who are anxious to clear out, lest they be detained by the Federal cruisers. The United States steam frigates Brooklyn and Niagara have been for some days past blockading Pass á l’outre. One citizen made a remarkable proposition to Mr. Mure. He came in to borrow an ensign of the Royal Yacht Squadron for the purpose, he said, of hoisting it on board his yacht, and running down to have a look at the Yankee ships. Mr. Mure had no flag to lend; whereupon he asked for a description by which he could get one made. On being applied to, I asked “whether the gentleman was a member of the Squadron?” “Oh, no,” said he, “but my yacht was built in England, and I wrote over some time ago to say I would join the squadron.” I ventured to tell him that it by no means followed he was a member, and that if he went out with the flag and could not show by his papers he had a right to carry it, the yacht would be seized. However, he was quite satisfied that he had an English yacht, and a right to hoist an English flag, and went off to an outfitter's to order a facsimile of the squadron ensign, and subsequently cruised among the blockading vessels.

We hear Mr. Ewell was attacked by an Union mob in Tennessee, his luggage was broken open and plundered, and he narrowly escaped personal injury. Per contra, “charges of abolitionism,” continue to multiply here, and are almost as numerous as the coroner's inquests, not to speak of the difficulties which sometimes attain the magnitude of murder.

I dined with a large party at the Lake, who had invited me as their guest, among whom were Mr. Slidell, Governor Hebert, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Norton, Mr. Fellows, and others. I observed in New York that every man had his own solution of the cause of the present difficulty, and contradicted plumply his neighbor the moment he attempted to propound his own theory. Here I found every one agreed as to the righteousness of the quarrel, but all differed as to the best mode of action for the South to pursue. Nor was there any approach to unanimity as the evening waxed older. Incidentally we had wild tales of Southern life, some good songs curiously intermingled with political discussions, and what the Northerners call hyphileutin talk.

When I was in the Consulate to-day, a tall and well-dressed, but not very prepossessing-looking man, entered to speak to Mr. Mure on business, and was introduced to me at his own request. His name was mentioned incidentally to-night, and I heard a passage in his life not of an agreeable character, to say the least of it. A good many years ago there was a ball at New Orleans, at which this gentleman was present; he paid particular attention to a lady, who, however, preferred the society of one of the company, and in the course of the evening an altercation occurred respecting an engagement to dance, in which violent language was exchanged, and a push or blow given by the favored partner to his rival, who left the room, and, as it is stated, proceeded to a cutler's shop, where he procured a powerful dagger-knife. Armed with this, he returned, and sent in a message to the gentleman with whom he had quarrelled. Suspecting nothing, the latter came into the antechamber, the assassin rushed upon him, stabbed him to the heart, and left him weltering in his blood. Another version of the story was, that he waited for his victim till he came into the cloak-room, and struck him as he was in the act of putting on his overcoat. After a long delay, the criminal was tried. The defence put forward on his behalf was that he had seized a knife in the heat of the moment when the quarrel took place, and had slain his adversary in a moment of passion; but evidence, as I understand, went strongly to prove that a considerable interval elapsed between the time of the dispute and the commission of the murder. The prisoner had the assistance of able and ingenious counsel; he was acquitted. His acquittal was mainly due to the judicious disposition of a large sum of money; each juror; when he retired to dinner previous to consulting over the verdict, was enabled to find the sum of 1000 dollars under his plate; nor was it clear that the judge and sheriff had not participated in the bounty; in fact, I heard a dispute as to the exact amount which it is supposed the murderer had to pay. He now occupies, under the Confederate Government, the post at New Orleans which he lately held as representative of the Government of the United States.

After dinner I went in company of some of my hosts to the Boston Club, which has, I need not say, no connection with the city of that name. More fires, the tocsin sounding, and so to bed.

SOURCE: William Howard Russell, My Diary North and South, p. 240-2